It’s been a while since I updated the blog with any results of the past mapping/optimization class- mainly because I’ve put a lot of them into the EPFL/NYC IBPSA chapter presentation and didn’t yet get around to separate them out. The mapping/optimization case study I’m posting here now wasn’t included in said presentation- that’s why it’s next in line.
Ground floor base vs. adapted design state Mr.Comfy mapping, ‘ROBUST’ studio design, summer 2013. Design: Alan Patrick, Ismael Cárdenas. Simulations, Mapping: Alan Patrick, winter 2013/’14.
Alan Patrick’s & Ismael Cárdenas’ original design was created in a fully simulation-integrated design studio held in summer 2013 at the TU Berlin. The task was to design a mixed-use office & exhibition building in downtown Berlin, Germany, that sits on a heavily overshadowed, south-facing urban site. Heating energy use reduction is the primary driver in Berlin’s climate (and this particular typology), along with maximization of daylight utilization.
Mr.Comfy mapping of the resultant structure was performed in a followup class, to spatially identify further optimization potentials and visually check for errors in the large whole-building EnergyPlus model (in this case generated with DesignBuilder). Alan especially focused on changing aspects of the ground floor geometry (adding an unconditioned buffer space, increasing glazing U-values etc.) and testing two different variants of skylight geometry on the top floor.
Akin to the previous case study, a match was found between the designer’s assumed mental picture of building behaviour and performance states discovered through mapping; some surprises, however, remained, e.g. the impact of skylight geometry on residual cooling loads. Overall, dynamic visualization appeared to have a positive impact on performance cognition and optimization, squeezing a reduction of projected energy use out of a design that had previously been created with the help of design-centric optimization measures.