Alexandria Engineering Journal (2018) 57, 3595–3608

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The parametric based optimization framework

daylighting and energy performance in residential
buildings in hot arid zone
Ahmed Toutou a,b,*, Mohamed Fikry a, Waleed Mohamed a

a
Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
b
Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

Received 21 September 2017; revised 2 March 2018; accepted 14 April 2018

Available online 6 December 2018

KEYWORDS Abstract This research aims at investigating the potentials of parametric design optimization pro-
Building optimization; cess over the residential building to achieve more sustainable design as well as the computational
Parametric design; design methodology in the design process to activate the role of the computer in the design process
Genetic algorithms; not just as a drafting or visualization tool. It also investigates the essentiality of computational
Building performance simu- design and the state of art computer tools like Grasshopper, Octopus, Energy plus, Open studio,
lation; Radiance and Daysim in achieving an optimized parametric design. A residential building consists
Daylighting; of five stories is studied to find the best parameters which lead to the optimum performance in day-
Energy modelling lighting and energy performance. Building parameters such as WWR, construction material, glass
material, shading device configurations are optimized through closed-loop framework which con-
sists of three main portions; Parametric modelling which depends on Grasshopper software, build-
ing performance simulation is performed via Ladybug and Honeybee plugins which depend on
Radiance and Daysim in daylighting simulation while uses EnergyPlus in energy simulation, and
genetic algorithm which is performed via Octopus plugin. The generations of solutions formed in
Octopus are studied one by one to clarify by how much there is development in optimization pro-
cess and when the optimization is ended. Also, the optimum solution is illustrated in addition to the
best daylighting and energy performance ones.
Ó 2018 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction the residential building sector is constantly growing. The resi-

dential sector consumed in 2008 more than 40,271 GWh from
In Egypt, the residential building sector is the largest energy the total national generated electricity. Between 2010 and
consumer by end use as shown in Fig. 1-1. The demand in 2015, electricity consumption for residential purposes has been
growing exceeding 7.8% as shown in. This is an important
* Corresponding author. indicator of the importance of residential building energy in
E-mail address: arch.ahmed.toto@gmail.com (A. Toutou). Egypt [1].
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria The considerable growth in household loads in comparison
University. with industry and other purposes was due to the expansion of
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.04.006
1110-0168 Ó 2018 Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
3596
Fig. 1–1 Energy consumption sectors in Egypt [1].
residential compounds and new communities in addition to the
widespread use of domestic appliances especially the air condi-
tioners in the summer [1].
In Egypt, the extreme sensitivity to changes in temperature
(Gleick, 1991) caused an increase in electricity consumption to
put up with necessary cooling loads. This is evident in the fact
that the number of air conditioners used in Egypt has risen
from 700,000 in 2006 to 3 million in 2010 (MOEE, 2010).
Air conditioners consume around 12% of the maximum pro-
ductive capacity of power stations. Resulting in a total con-
sumption of 22% of Egypt’s overall energy production in the
building sector (see Fig. 1-1). These energy needs could be min-
imized by an intelligent choice of envelope materials [2]. The
proposed approach is developed by using the daylight and
thermal simulation in Ladybug and Honeybee as the main dri-
ven tool for the design development, and it will show the ben-
efits of using the parametric tools in the architecture design
process in order to achieve a specific daylight and thermal
quality, then it explains the logic behind combining a validated
analysis tool together with a parametric modelling tool in
order to develop a closed-loop process between design and
simulation which optimizes the architecture design based on
the daylight and thermal requirements.
2. Literature review
Optimization is the procedure of finding the minimum or max-
imum value of a function by choosing a number of variables
subject to a number of constraints [3]. Many sciences, i.e. engi-
neering, mathematics, economics, environmental science, com-
puter science, etc relate to building design optimization [4].
The parametric simulation method is the way of developing
building performance. In this method, all variables inputs are
kept unchanged except one variable to see its influence on
design objectives [4]. The using of parametric modeling cou-
pled with optimization techniques has been noticed as a poten-
tial solution to give a smart searching approach for effective
feedback [5]. To get an optimal solution to a problem (or a
solution near the optimum) with less time and labor, the com-
puter building model is often ‘‘solved” by iterative approaches,
which perform infinite sequences, of progressively better
approximations to a ‘‘solution”, i.e. a point in the search-
space that satisfies an optimality condition. These approaches
are commonly automated by computer programming. Such
approaches are usually known as ‘numerical optimization’ or
A. Toutou et al.
‘simulation-based optimization’ [4]. Revelation and compar-
ison are the two main merits of the exploration of design trade-
offs. Firstly, Tradeoffs clarifies issues you don’t take into your
consideration and in turn, future ways of exploration could be
proposed by making new parts of the design solution space
attainable to further examination. Secondly, the computer
plays an essential role in realizing that the design satisfies speci-
fic criteria which are better than others [6]. The possibility to
perform transformations that result in different configurations
of the same geometric components is also one of the principal
advantages of a parametric model. This amplifies the effort of
building a representation by providing an interpretation of a
model as a typically infinite set of instances, each determined
by a particular selection of values for the model’s independent
variables [6]. Parametric analysis is not a novel concept but
automation and software availability has facilitated it to pur-
sue [7]. Parametric modeling is gradually adjusted to design
practice by means of tools like Grasshopper, Dynamo, and
Generative Components. The capability of adding many
plug-ins to parametric modeling could be a practical approach
to ease holistic simulation support. Examples of plug-ins for
the possibly most broadly used tool, Grasshopper, include:
(a) Honey- bee which links to Radiance, Daysim, Energy Plus,
and Open studio; (b) Mr. Comfy which facilitate interactive
visualizations of thermal simulations [8].
The combinations of independent parameters that generate
well-performing instances within the solution space of the
parametric model could be searched by the evolutionary prin-
ciples of genetic algorithms [6]. The complex natures of build-
ing simulation outputs, the scale of the problems, the expensive
computational cost, multi-objective design problems, and the
uncertainty of many factors during the optimization, including
design variables, environmental variables, model and con-
straint uncertainty, etc are the essential problems in solving
BOPs by simulation-based methods [4] The increasing compu-
tational power available to process problems that were infeasi-
ble previously increased the popularity of optimisation for
sustainable building design, and of multi-objective optimisa-
tion in particular [9]. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are a
common meta-heuristic optimization algorithm [9] and
stochastic search methods in which the natural biological evo-
lution and/or the social behavior of species is simulated. These
algorithms have been developed to find the near-optimum
solutions to large-scale optimization problems, which cannot
be solved with traditional mathematical techniques [10]. The
applications of evolutionary multi-objective algorithms have
The parametric based optimization framework daylighting and energy performance
been used more commonly in the engineering and scientific
trends. However the architecture field is not one that has com-
monly been inherent to these techniques, there are diverse
automated ways of optimization including genetic algorithms
and evolutionary algorithms that contribute a search space
for discovering architecture design alternatives that meet cer-
tain criteria. These can be used for complicated design prob-
lems that architects find that require many iterations,
produce a myriad of variations and tradeoffs and provide
graphical methods of evaluation [7]. Genetic evolution ideas
have been inserted into the artificial world as bases for forming
computational models such as genetic algorithms and genetic
programming these evolutionary models use adaptive methods
based loosely on the processes of biological organisms. They
have fundamentally been applied to solve optimization and
search problems, showing some outstanding capabilities of
search and merits over many traditional search methods [11].
The building performance optimization could be achieved
through integrating BPS with parametric modeling such as
[12] in which the researcher aims at maintaining the daylight-
ing performance in school class in Cairo desert by using shad-
ing louvers. WWR, louvers count, rotation, angle, depth and
material reflectivity. The used daylighting metrics were
(sDA300/50%) and (ASE1000/250h). Grasshopper was used
in parametric modeling while Dive plug-in which uses Radi-
ance software in daylighting simulation. There were 1600 alter-
natives which were arranged and scheduled in tables, charts,
and graphs to find the relationship between different parame-
ters and their influence on daylighting performance, in addi-
tion, to reach to the optimum shading design. Another way
is through integrating BPS and parametric modeling with
GAs like [13] in which the researcher used ParaGen tool which
combines parametric, BPS and GAs together with a database.
The design of large roof structure was optimized to enhance its
environmental performance. As well, in [7] the research inves-
tigates the capabilities of passive performance optimization
framework (PPOF) which used the combination of parametric
modeling, PBS and GAs in a closed loop cycle using Grasshop-
per canvas as a platform. The researcher depends on building
geometry, WWR, shading devices, orientation and location as
independent parameters to achieve the optimum performance
of daylighting and energy using (USDI 100-2000) and EUI
as indicators. Grasshopper is responsible for parametric mod-
eling while Ladybug and Honeybee are for BPS in addition to
using Octopus plugin works as a GAs operator in an optimiza-
tion framework.
PARAMETRIC BUILDING PERFORMANCE
MODELLING SIMULATION
•RHINO •LADYBUG
•GRASSHOPPER • HONEYBEE (EnergyPlus-Radiance)
Fig. 3–1 Parametric based optimization workflow in Grasshopper (By Researcher).
3597
3. Methodology
The optimization framework used in this paper is a self-
automated process as a model, simulation, the Optimization
evaluation would be performed automatically on one canvas.
This parametric framework is held mainly in Grasshopper
plug-in canvas. Many software and simulation engines have
a role in this process as Grasshopper will be responsible for
parametric modeling while Ladybug and Honeybee will be
an umbrella for building performance simulation and visual-
ization process in which Energy-Plus and Open studio are in
charge of energy simulation while Radiance and Daysim are
responsible for daylighting analysis. After parametric model-
ing and simulation, genetic algorithm will be ready to optimize
solutions via Octopus plug-in which has the ability to perform
multi-objective optimization.
The main problem that researcher aims at solving it is the
contradictive relationship between daylighting and energy per-
formance (see Fig 3-1). There are many parameters seen in
Table 3-1 which effect on building performance. The combina-
tions of parameters such as (WWR, glazing material, wall con-
struction material and shading devices) lead building to
different performance in daylighting and energy. There are
many indicators from which the performance could be evalu-
ated. For daylighting spatial daylighting autonomy ‘‘SDA”
will be used, while Energy Use Intensity ‘‘EUI” will be used
as energy indicator. Spatial daylighting illumination
‘‘SDA300/50%” is a daylighting metric which represents the
percentage of floor area having 300 lx of illumination for at
least 50% of the occupied hours from (8 am–6 pm) throughout
the year [12]. EUI metric represents the energy consumed dur-
ing the year per unit area [7].
The framework begins with creating case study zones (3
bedrooms and 1 reception room) with all parameters. Then,
the energy and daylighting simulation settings will be set. In
turn, Octopus obliges BPS tools to perform many simulations
with different combinations while optimizing the two indica-
tors. The Pareto front appears in Octopus canvas and the opti-
mum solutions will be calculated from the objective function.
In this Section, the setup of the whole parametric based opti-
mization workflow is discussed step by step. The workflow is
divided into six sequential phases: site location, climate and
weather data, geometry creation, which include creating
masses, installing windows, adding shading devices and setting
materials, energy simulation, daylighting simulation, and opti-
mization (see Fig. 3-1).
MULTI OBJECTIVES
OPTIMIZATION
•OCTOPUS
•GALAPAGOS
3598 A. Toutou et al.

Table 3-1 Building parameters adjusted during the optimization process.

Parameters Attributes No. of values
WWR (10–50% with an increment of 10%) 5
Glass material 4
Wall construction Variety compositions of thickness and materials 6
Shading width (75–150% with an increment of 25%) of the window height 4
Shading count (2–10 with an increment of 2) 5
Shading rotation (75°–‘‘
75°” with an increment of 15°) 11

3.1. Site despite the average summer temperature is nearly 27 °C with

The apartment block is a part of an urban planning project for
109.26 feddans seen in Fig. 3-2 in a new city called ‘‘6th of
October” which based in the south west of Cairo, 32 km from
Cairo downtown and 17 km from Pyramids district. This pro-
ject which belongs to General Authority for Construction and
Housing Cooperatives was designed by Alfekrah consulting
engineering supervised by professor Hythem Mohamed Abde-
latief in 2016.
3.2. Climate and weather data
Geographically, Egypt is a part of the mid-latitude global
desert zone and its climate is considered extremely hot and
dry according to Köppen Classification (Group B) [14]. The
only exception is the north region adjacent to the Mediter-
ranean Sea, which is considered as hot and humid climate
due to the effects of the sea [15]. The weather patterns in 6th
of October city are characterized by being desert which is
extremely hot and dry [16]. In desert climates, there is a uni-
form daylight distribution and excessive heat gain as spaces
are exposed to direct solar radiation. The clear sky conditions
that can be found in the desert climate can effectively con-
tribute to the utilization of daylighting However, this may
cause visual discomfort or excessive heat gain; this is especially
the case in a city like Cairo, which is characterized by having a
sunny clear sky throughout the year [12]. As shown in Fig. 3-4,
minimum 19 °C and maximum 34 °C without any rainfall,
the average winter temperature is 13 °C with minimum
6.5 °C and maximum 19 °C [16].
3.2.1. Weather data file
The used weather data file in this research is downloaded from
the US Department of Energy website. Unfortunately, there is
no weather data file associated with 6th of October specifically
instead there is Helwan file is available and is going to be used
which is 41 km far.
Data extracted from Figs. 3-3 and 3-4 shows that the aver-
age summer temperature in Helwan city is 27.6 with a relative
humidity of 52.3 while the average winter temperature in is 15
with a relative humidity of 56.7. The previous readings seemed
to be very near from data capture from October city.
Fig. 3-5 shows that the most common wind direction is north
which has 16.5% frequency and a maximum speed of 9.24 m/s.
As well, WNW, NNE and NE directions have nearly the same
frequency with 12% and a maximum speed of 9.24 m/s.
3.3. Geometry
The case study block is a 5-story building every story consists
of 4 apartments. As seen in Fig. 3-6, each apartment is an 84
m2 area and contains 3 sleeping rooms, living room, kitchen,
corridor and 2 bathrooms. Due to simulation time and build-
ing symmetry, the single apartment was chosen to perform the

Fig. 3–2 Case study location (Alfekrah Consulting Engineering).

The parametric based optimization framework daylighting and energy performance 3599

Fig. 3–3 Sun path diagram (By Researcher).

Fig. 3–4 Dry bulb temperature of Helwan city (By Researcher).

3.3.1. Massing

1. First, Zones of case study apartment were created via

Rhino as shown in Fig. 3-7, then these zones were
exported to Grasshopper. Zones were separately
exported as sleeping, reception, baths, kitchen, and
corridor.
2. All of these zones were sent to (Honeybee _ Intersect Mass)
component as seen in Fig. 3-8 which splits their surfaces to
ensure that there are matching surfaces between each of the
Adjacent surfaces. This is necessary to ensure that the con-
ductive heat flow calculation occurs correctly across the
surfaces in an energy simulation.
3. Every zone category produced from the previous compo-
nent was sent to (Honeybee _ Masses2Zones) component
to turn them into Honeybee zones with all properties
needed to run them through an energy simulation. As seen
Fig. 3–5 Wind rose of Helwan City (By Researcher). in Fig. 3-8 within this process zone program was defined as
mid-rise apartment from (Honeybee _ Bldg Programs) and
illustrated framework. Reception and sleeping rooms are the (Honeybee _ List Zone Programs) components. As well as,
main targets of this study as they are located directly on the Zones status to be conditioned or not was set to true. Also,
envelope. Zones names were set.
3600 A. Toutou et al.

Fig. 3–6 Study apartment plan (Alfekrah Consulting Engineering).

2. In this stage, Zones were ready for glazing creation from

(Honeybee _ Glazing Based Ratio) component which could
generate windows based on the window to wall ratio as
shown in Fig. 3-10. Two parameters ‘‘WWREast and
WWRWest ” were set as slider from 0.1 to 0.9 with 0.1 incre-
ment. You should note that HB zones were divided into
two categories before sent to this component:
A. Optimized category: This consists of (3 bedrooms and
reception). This category was set to be on focus in the
optimization framework.
B. Neutral category which consists of (2 baths, kitchen, and
corridor). WWR was set as default to 0.3 and was not
subject to optimization framework.

3.3.3. Exterior shading devices

Fig. 3–7 Apartment zones poly surfaces created in Rhino (By Horizontal shading devices were created in the south elevation
Researcher). to restrict direct sunlight penetration into zones. Three param-
eters were set (Honeybee _ Energy Plus Window Shade Gener-
3.3.2. Windows ator) component:

A. Shading depth: set to be (0.05–0.3 m) with 0.05

1. (Honeybee _ Solve Adjacencies) was the next step to certify increment.
that all adjacent surfaces needed to be one surface to repre- B. Shading count: set to be (2–10) with 2 increments.
sent an interior wall as shown in Fig. 3-8.

Fig. 3–8 Convert case study Breps to zone (By Researcher).

The parametric based optimization framework daylighting and energy performance
C. Shading angle: set to be (
75° to 75°) with 15°
increment.
Distance to glass was a constraint which set to be 0.05 m.
Output shading Breps were sent to (Honeybee_ EP Context
Surface) component which was in turn processed in Honeybee
context in the final simulation stage.
3.3.4. Surrounding context
To form surround context seen in Fig. 3-9 in simulation pro-
cess the remaining geometry of block building was created.
In addition, the buildings surround case study building was
created. All of those Breps were exported to Grasshopper. In
turn, These Breps were added to (Honeybee_ EP Context Sur-
face) component.
3.3.5. Materials
All zones in both categories were sent to (Honeybee _ Set EP
Zone Construction). Within this component in Fig. 3-10, con-
struction materials were set to walls, floors, and windows:
A. For window materials, five materials were defined (single
clear, double clear with argon gab, double clear with an
air gap, double low-E with an air gap and double low-E
with vacuum gap). All of these materials were created in
‘‘Window 7.5 ” software which is which created and
developed by Barkley Lab. Then IDF files were exported
to GH to define materials through (Honeybee _ Import
Window IDF Report).
Fig. 3–9 Case study surrounding context (By Researcher).
Fig. 3–10 Set energy plus materials (By Researcher).
3601
B. Wall construction was defined to be the 4th parameter.
Six constructions were defined (single red brick wall,
double red brick wall, Bulk cement wall, hollow cement
wall, single brick with insulation, double brick with insu-
lation). These materials were defined as the most com-
mon construction materials in residential buildings in
Egypt by Shady Atteia.
C. Roof construction was set as a constraint for all
conditions.
3.4. Energy simulation
1. After that, Zones were sent to (Honeybee _ Set Energy Plus
Zone Thresholds) component in which cooling and heating
setpoint was assigned as 24 and 21 respectively. The mid-
rise apartment does not have cooling or heating set back.
Cooling set point is effectively the indoor temperature
above which the cooling system is turned on, while the heat-
ing setpoint is effectively the indoor temperature below
which the heating system is turned on.
2. The next step is (Honeybee _ Set Energy Plus Zone Load)
component. In which equipment load per area, lighting
density per area and number of people per area were set
to (14 w/m2, 8 w/m2, and 0.04 ppl/m2) respectively, other
inputs are the default.
3. All zones were assigned to (Honeybee _ Assign HVAC Sys-
tem) component in which HVAC system was assigned to
PTAC ‘‘Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner” as seen in
3602
Fig. 3-11. This System is familiar to be used for residential
purpose. As well as, Heating, cooling and air details were
set to default.
4. After all, the final station in energy simulation was reached.
Through (Honeybee _ Export to Open Studio) component
in Fig. 3-11, HB zones were exported into Open Studio and
run through Energy Plus. Otherwise, there were other
inputs needed to be assigned to this component:
A. HB Context which outputs of step 6 and 11 were sent
to it.
B. Weather data file which contains all weather data
about specific location. Helwan EPW file was set as it
is the nearest location from 6th of October city which
had weather data file.
C. Analysis Period, which was assigned through (Lady
bug _ Analysis Period) component from January to
December.
D. Simulation outputs, which was assigned through
(Honeybee _ Generate EP Output) component. This
component has controlled the type of calculation which
was performed and if these calculations were hourly,
yearly or monthly as in that case.
E. Filename, which is very helpful to find a specific simu-
lation reports and results from hundreds of
simulations.
F. Working Directories, is the path of Energy Simulation
files.
G. Write OSM and run Simulation which is responsible
for running energy simulation.
Fig. 3–11 Set energy plus settings and run simulation (By Researcher).
Fig. 3–12 Assign radiance materials and set daylighting simulation settings (By Researcher).
A. Toutou et al.
5. Hence, Energy simulation process has been ended and the
next stage was the optimization process. Before thinking
about optimization EUI was calculated by summing all
output loads generated from (Honeybee _Read EP Result).
This cooling, heating, electric lighting, and fan electric
loads were calculated monthly then summed to generate
EUI.
3.5. Daylighting simulation
Energy simulation model was exploited to setup daylighting
simulation process.
1. Output zones from glazing component in step 5 in energy
simulation setup were sent to (Honeybee_ Set Radiance
Material) component in Fig. 3-12 in which the materials
were set as follow:
A. For walls, floors, and ceilings, off-white plaster wall,
grey floor tiles and white paint room ceiling respectively
were placed as Constrain materials.
B. For window material, Radiance glass materials were
designed to match EP materials which were placed in
Energy simulation process.
2. Analysis Recipe was prepared to be processed in daylight-
ing simulation via (Honeybee_ Annual Daylight Simula-
tion) component in which points, vectors, and meshes of
test surfaces were added from (Honeybee_ Generate Test
The parametric based optimization framework daylighting and energy performance
Points) component. The test surfaces were 0.076 m above
finishing ground and 0.75 m * 0.75 m grid size. As recom-
mended in LEED V4. In addition, weather data file of Hel-
wan was processed in recipe component.
3. (Honeybee_ Run Daylight Simulation) is the main compo-
nent to generate a daylighting analysis. Output zones from
step 1 and Context buildings and Shading Breps which were
output from step 6 and 11 in Energy simulation setup were
added to HB Objects. As well, analysis recipe, working
directories and the number of CPU were set to this
component.
4. Analysis results were converted to SDA values via (Honey-
bee_ Read Annual Analysis Results) component.
3.6. Optimization
In the process of optimizing for daylighting and energy con-
sumption, there are many conflicting parameters which are
interactive with each other and Octopus is trying to find the
logical balance in between. The whole optimization Process
was performed via Octopus plug-in. As shown in Fig. 3-13,
there were 4 inputs to be processed in Galapagos component
to run optimization:
A. Phenotype: it represents the geometry of zones used in
the optimization process.
B. Objectives: EUI and SDI values were processed in this
input.
C. Parameters\Genomes: 7 sliders were set to this
component:
1. WWRsouth slider: (0.1–0.9) 0.1 increment.
2. WWRsouth slider: (0.1–0.9) 0.1 increment.
3. Window material slider: (0–4) with 1 increment which
represents the chosen five window materials.
4. Wall construction slider: (0–5) with 1 increment which
represents the six chosen wall construction materials.
5. Shading Depth slider: (0–5) with 1 increment which rep-
resents (0.05–0.3 m) with 0.05 increment.
6. Shading width slider: (0–4) with 1 increment which rep-
resents (2–10) with 2 increments.
Fig. 3–13 Octopus plugin inputs.
3603
7. Shading Angle slider: (0–10) with 1 increment which rep-
resents (
75° to 75°) with 15° increment.
Octopus plug-in was running for 72 h on a laptop with
(Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6500U CPU @ 2.50 GHz (4 CPUs),
2.5 GHz) processor and 16 GB Ram. During this period
many daylighting and energy simulations were running. About
300 daylighting simulations and the same range for energy sim-
ulation were run to form 6 generations which represent Pareto
front in Fig. 3-14. The two axes Pareto front represent EUI on
the X-axis and SDI on Y axis. The fittest solution should be
located near the Pareto optimal front curve which seen in
Fig. 3-14 as the two axes, a cross point represents the theoret-
ical optimum solution of this front. Due to the contradictive
relationship between Daylighting and energy performance,
there are many solutions which have high performance in
one objective but don’t have any an effective result in the sec-
ond objective and so on.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Objective function
The following fitness function was used before by [7] to accu-
rately find the optimum solution in Pareto front while EUI and
SUDI were the objectives of this study:
y ¼ ðsUDIi
sUDImin ÞC1 þ
1ðEUIi
EUImin ÞC2 ð4-1Þ
where:
i = result of iteration,
min = minimum value of optimization set and
max = maximum value of optimization set
100 100
C1 ¼ ; C2 ¼
sUDImax
sUDImin EUImax
EUImin
The values of fitness function were calculated for some solu-
tions of the Pareto front which represent varied cases of the
performance of daylighting and energy. These values were
arranged by descending in Table 4-1 which explains also the
objectives and parameters of these solutions.
3604 A. Toutou et al.

4.2. Base case analysis

The current state of design is simulated and analyzed then it

was found that: The low value of fitness function comes from
the frustrated results of daylighting simulation seen in Fig. 4-2
while more than half of the simulation area cannot achieve 50
in SDA results. In addition, the rest half cannot perform very
well. Building parameters seen in Fig. 4-1 are the main reason
for this frustrating results in SDA values as there are no any
fenestrations located in the eastern elevation while the south-
ern elevation has small WWR.
As well, there are not any shading devices in the south-
ern elevation. The only parameter side with SDA calcula-
tions is glass material which permits the majority of
direct and reflected sun rays to penetrate building spaces.
In contrast, energy simulation achieved reasonable results
by 171.91 kW/m2. Because of small WWR in southern ele-
vation and zero WWR in the western elevation in addition
to the low R-value of a glass material, the fitness function
of base case achieved a very low value which needs to be
optimized.
Fig. 3–14 Pareto front.

Table 4-1 Fitness function values of varied solutions of Pareto front.

Y SDI EUI WWR WWR Glass material Wall Construction Sh. Width Sh. Count Sh. Angle
East East
85.5 84.1 166.0 0.2 0.7 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.1
45
85.2 84.1 166.1 0.2 0.7 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.1 4
45
85.0 84.0 166.1 0.2 0.7 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.05 2
45
84.9 83.8 165.9 0.2 0.7 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.15 2
45
83.0 84.7 168.3 0.3 0.8 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.1 4
15
82.9 82.3 164.6 0.2 0.6 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.05 4 0
82.6 84.4 168.2 0.3 0.8 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.15 4
15
82.5 82.0 164.3 0.2 0.6 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.2 4
15
81.7 84.7 169.1 0.3 0.8 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.1 2 30
80.5 81.2 164.2 0.2 0.6 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.2 4
15
77.2 84.2 171.1 0.5 0.7 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with air 0.05 4 30
76.00 79.4 164.1 0.2 0.6 Double low-E (vacuum) Double red brick with Isolation 0.2 4 0
73.2 84.1 173.3 0.3 0.7 Double low-E (vacuum) 0.2 m red brick wall 0.1 2
45
71.6 84.0 174.1 0.4 0.7 Double low-E (vacuum) 0.1 m red brick wall 0.1 2 30

Fig. 4–1 Base case model and parameters.

The parametric based optimization framework daylighting and energy performance 3605

4.3. Pareto front
While generations of genomes were produced, every generation
contained genomes which are fitter than included in the previous
ones (see Figs. 4-3 and 4-4). As seen in Fig. 4-1 fitness function
for the base case was
42.78. In turn, a great improvement was
reached during generation 1 and 2 while there were solutions
whose fitness reached up to 83.11. After generation 3 and 4 were
produced, the density of genomes in Pareto optimal front region
and on Pareto optimal front curve became higher.
As well, there is an improvement in the optimum solution
by 2.8%. There is not any improvement in the optimum solu-
tion after generation 5 and 6 however, there is still improve-
ment in the density of Pareto optimal front region and
Pareto optimal front curve. Due to time limitation and there
is no improvement appeared in the optimum solution during
generations, Octopus optimization process was stopped at gen-
eration 6.
As seen in Table 4-1, the top ten solutions have similar
characteristics which qualified them to have higher fitness
function. However the WWR of southern elevation varies
between (0.6, 0.7 and 0.8), WWR of eastern elevation varies
between 0.2 and 0.3. In turn, the wall construction material
is two layers of 0.1 thickness red brick separated by

Fig. 4–2 Daylighting energy simulation results of base case model.

Fig. 4–3 Genomes generations produced in octopus.

Fig. 4–4 The optimum solution model and parameters.

3606 A. Toutou et al.

Egyptian glass wool isolation material with 0.05 thickness. In
addition, double low-E glass separated by a vacuum is the
material for glass construction. For shading devices, how-
ever, most of the louvers count differ between 2 and 4, their
depth doesn’t have a definite pattern as it varied from 0.05 m
to 0.2 m. Louvers rotation angle is one of these two values

45° and
15° except for one solution which has a zero
rotation angle.
4.4. The absolute optimum solution
The optimum solution in Pareto front characterized by the bal-
ance in the performance of daylighting and energy consump-
tion. So, it achieved the best value of fitness function by
85.45. This genome was produced during the fifth generation
and remains the absolute optimum genome in Pareto front
during the sixth generation also. As seen in Fig. 4-5 energy

Fig. 4–5 Daylighting energy simulation results of the optimum solution.

Fig. 4–6 a comparison between energy and daylighting genomes.

The parametric based optimization framework daylighting and energy performance
use intensity achieved 166.01 kWh/m2 with 3.42% improve-
ment in energy conservation from the base case and lower than
the most optimum value for EUI by 2.69%.
The distribution of EUI all over the case study spaces is
analyzed in Fig. 4-5. The daylighting simulation in Fig. 4-5
showed that SDA achieved a value of 84.11 which exceeds
the of SDA value for the base case. The higher numbers of
EUI and SDA for this genome supported it to achieve the
highest fitness function value. The balanced parameters
assisted this genome to perform better, as there is a large
WWR (0.7) in the southern facade but with installed shading
devices while the eastern facade has a small value of WWR
(0.2) to protect it from heating penetration. As well the wall
construction and glass material had high R-value which helped
in resisting heat transition into building spaces.
4.5. The optimum daylighting and energy performance genome
The optimum solution in daylighting performance was pro-
duced during the second generation and there are not any
other genomes in the following generations exceeded its value
of SDA (86.74). Daylighting simulation seen in Fig. 4-6
showed a high quality daylighting distribution through case
study spaces despite the low performance of the deeper area
in the reception space because of its depth as well as there is
no ability to open any fenestrations in except for the southern
facade. The large WWR in the southern facade in addition to
the single clear glass material assisted the daylighting to per-
form higher the than base case by a 117% and by 3.13% more
than the absolute optimum genome in Pareto front. In con-
trast, the energy use intensity achieved a very low number
(201.37) because of the same previous reasons especially the
second one. Because of EUI low value, the fitness function
value for this genome was very low (33.17). While investigating
a comparison between the parameters of the absolute optimum
genome and this one, the observer can find major similarities
between them except for glass material despite the major dif-
ference in energy conservation performance while this genome
has higher EUI value than the absolute optimum one by
(21.3%). For this reason, the glass material has a major effect
on the energy performance of the building.
For the optimum energy performance solution in which
energy use intensity performance (EUI) was produced during
the fifth generation and the genomes of the sixth generation
could not exceed its value (161.54) kWh/m2. This great EUI
value nominated this genome to be the best energy conserva-
tion solution superior to the absolute optimum genome in Par-
eto front by 2.69% and by 6.42 to the base case. Fig. 4-6
showed the monthly distribution of energy consumption from
the different categories such as heating loads, cooling loads,
electric lighting loads, equipment loads and fan electric loads.
There is a remarkable depression in cooling and heating loads.
The parameters of this genome qualified it to preserve energy
as the WWR of the southern and southern and eastern facades
was very small 0.2 and 0.3 respectively. As well glass material
and wall construction have high R-value which resisted heat
transition efficiently. In contrast, the daylighting performance
has a low value of SDA by (70.94) which is less than the opti-
mum daylighting performance genome by 18.22%. This led the
fitness function to achieve a low value (57.65) and lower than
the absolute optimum genome by 48.22%.
3607
5. Conclusion
This paper focused on representing the details of parametric-
based optimization using genetic algorithms in Grasshopper
canvas. A residential case study in the sixth of October city
was introduced to develop its daylighting and energy perfor-
mance. The used metrics for daylighting and energy perfor-
mance were (SDA300/50%) and EUI respectively. There
were many parameters to find the optimum design such as
WWR, a glass material, construction material and shading
devices. Nearly 300 solutions were produced in 6 generations.
Each generation is considered as more optimized from the pre-
vious ones. All of these solutions have formed the Pareto front
which contained the optimum Pareto curve that optimum solu-
tion locates on it. All of the solutions which are laying on this
curve were analyzed to find the optimum solution. While illus-
trating the optimum solution, it’s found that the objective a
value of 85.45 was scored as there is a balance between day-
lighting and energy performance. SDA value was 84.11with
nearly 110% development from the base case design and
EUI was 166.01 kWh/m2 with about 3.5% reduction. The
two best solutions in daylighting performance and energy con-
servation were also investigated. The daylighting solution
achieved 57.7 in the objective function compared with energy
solution which scored 33.2. The best daylighting solution
achieved a high value of SDA equal to 86.74 while the best
energy solution consumed 161.54 as EUI.
References
[1] Ministry of Electricity & Energy, Egyptian Electricity Holding
Company Annual Report 2014/2015, Cairo, 2015. <http://
www.moee.gov.eg/english_new/EEHC_Rep/2014-2015en.pdf>.
[2] Shady Attia, Omar Wanas, The database of Egyptian building
envelopes (DEBE): a database for building energy simulations
Architecture et Climat. In: Fifth Natl. Conf. IBPSA-USA,
Madison, 2012, pp. 96–103.
[3] V. Machairas, A. Tsangrassoulis, K. Axarli, Algorithms for
optimization of building design: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 31 (2014) 101–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.036.
[4] A.-T. Nguyen, S. Reiter, P. Rigo, A review on simulation-based
optimization methods applied to building performance analysis,
Appl. Energy. 113 (2014) 1043–1058, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2013.08.061.
[5] S.H.E. Lin, D.J. Gerber, Designing-in performance: a
framework for evolutionary energy performance feedback in
early stage design, Autom. Constr. 38 (2014) 59–73, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.007.
[6] M. Turrin, P. Von Buelow, R. Stouffs, Design explorations of
performance driven geometry in architectural design using
parametric modeling and genetic algorithms, Adv. Eng. Inform.
25 (2011) 656–675, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.07.009.
[7] K. Konis, A. Gamas, K. Kensek, Passive performance and
building form: an optimization framework for early-stage design
support, Sol. Energy. 125 (2016) 161–179, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2015.12.020.
[8] T. Østergård, R.L. Jensen, S.E. Maagaard, Building simulations
supporting decision making in early design – a review, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 61 (2016) 187–201, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.045.
[9] R. Evins, A review of computational optimisation methods
applied to sustainable building design, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 22 (2013) 230–245, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.
02.004.
3608
[10] E. Elbeltagi, T. Hegazy, D. Grierson, Comparison among five
evolutionary-based optimization algorithms, Adv. Eng. Inform.
19 (2005) 43–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2005.01.004.
[11] J.H. Jo, J.S. Gero, Space layout planning using an evolutionary
approach, Artif. Intell. Eng. 12 (1998) 149–162, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0954-1810(97)00037-X.
[12] A. Wagdy, F. Fathy, A parametric approach for achieving
optimum daylighting performance through solar screens in
desert climates, J. Build. Eng. 3 (2015) 155–170, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2015.07.007.
[13] M. Turrin, P. Von Buelow, A. Kilian, R. Stouffs, Performative
skins for passive climatic comfort: a parametric design process,
A. Toutou et al.
Autom. Constr. 22 (2012) 36–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2011.08.001.
[14] M. Peel, B.C.L. Finlayson, T.A. McMahon, Updated world
map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification, Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. (2007) 439–473.
[15] S. Attia, A tool for design decision making: Zero energy
residential buildings in hot humid climates, Presses univ de
Louvain (2012).
[16] Climate-Data.org, climate: Sixth of October City, (2012)
<https://ar.climate-data.org/location/3677> (accessed
November 18, 2017).