geis : multi-indicators framework for building analysis in early design stage

Multi-indicators framework for building analysis in early design stage : an effective sustainable design

Abstract. It has often been seen building in which options chosen from the very beginning influence many aspects of the technical and sustainable results at the end. But when you start working on a project you can't predict much, and when you can predict you can't optimize much. So this paper aims to submit a framework that can evaluate a building in early design stage. This framework uses indicators that from a simple volume made in Sketchup, shows only graphical trends in order to decide which path your design should follow. This open source framework is called Geis. First I'll try to explain what and when is the early design stage, what tools exist and what kind of method we can use to optimize our design. We will see that there is still a lack of tools in the usual process, but using sustainable indicators can ease the way you choose options. It doesn't prevent us to conduct an accurate study of the building in the following design phase, but help easily at the very beginning. Then, this paper will explain in details what were the choices and directions that were followed during all the work that built Geis's core. It will show that, from the use of an open source plug-in in Sketchup to the graphical interface, everything in this framework has been made to facilitate working process and decision process and future improvements.Keywords : sustainable, indicator, prediction, process, early design stage,

framework

1 Introduction

“Parmi les problèmes récurrents qui freinent l'utilisation des outils [NDLA : d'aide à la décision environnementale] par les professionnels, citons : la difficulté […] de les appliquer aux premiers stades du projet (esquisse)” [Peuportier 2008]

It can be translated by:“Among the recurring problems that hinder the use of [Author note : environ-

mental decision support] tools by the professionals, mention : the difficulty [...] to apply them in the early stages of project (schematic design)”

“[…] avec mise en place, dès les esquisses, des versions simplifiées de ces outils de manière à ce que les concepteurs puissent, sur la base de calculs de

1

quelques heures (et non quelques jours), valider ou corriger des projets au stade de la conception, avant qu'il ne soit trop tard.“ [Jourda 2007]

It can be translated by:“with introduction, from early design stage, simplified versions of these tools

so that designers can, based on calculations of a few hours (not days), validate or correct projects at the design stage, before it's too late.”

Without overgeneralization, those two quotes and experiences in architecture practice show that it's hard to find tools to assess environmental behaviour of pro-jects soon enough in the design stage. The state of art will also confirm this fact. Thus, the aim of this paper is to try to give an answers that would satisfy the neces-sary conditions that will be explained. First, this paper will explain what is an ar-chitectural sketch to better understand why there is a lack. Unfortunately, this sec-tion will focus on the French practice, but it's a major point to study because the whole approach presented here arose from these initial conditions and the remain-ing follows naturally. Then, an inventory of already existing solutions will be made and it will help describe the type of tools to be designed to achieve the goal and to justify the use of SketchUp as the underlying software. It will be discussed also an explanation about indicators and why it's the right way to work at early design stage. The latter will then explain how the tool was created and how it works and what will be the future development.

2 Early Design Stage

The genesis of this project comes from a long experience in the field of schematic design and problems related, so it is important to explain the way in which build-ings are created in France.

2.1 Definition

Architectural design competition are highly developed in France (for all reasons see “Les Concours De Maitrise D'oeuvre Dans L'union Européenne” [Biau 1998]) and in fact there are very few projects that escape this kind of working process, be-cause private owner tend to copy similar rules. To know the true legal definition see “Décret n° 93-1268 du 29 novembre 1993 relatif aux missions de maîtrise d'œuvre publique en France”, but more than this theoretical definition, the work-ing process in French practice will be explained. We can note that architectural design competition are “esquisse” in French that we can't translate in “sketch” as it has a legal definition which is more like a schematic design stage.

In a very limited time, often two months, a schematic design begins with a pro-gram, a site, urban limitations and all intended purposes. Once these are under-stood and digested, architects can start thinking about the project, in terms of basic principle and surface and volume. After two months, they must give most of the façades of the project all of the floor plans at the 1/20e scale. Once the competition is won, those drawings have legal value for further studies. Changes made to the

2

Multi-criteria analysis of sustainable indicators in early design stage

project are therefore relatively limited, mostly technical and detail drawings. Dur-ing the first two months, very little time is given to technical studies. We can also note that if a schematic design is always paid, engineering company don't receive anything at this stage except in special cases of highly technical or very large pro-jects. From then on, it is obvious that the famous architect-engineer feedback is mostly in the range of spoken words and very rarely a precise study. Through this brief description of most work of architects, one immediately sees the crux of the problem since it would be interesting to have a simplified technical study at an early stage, knowing that it has an impact on the entire chain of the final draft.

“However, design decisions related to building program, form and fabric are made early in the design process and potentially have much more impact than those made towards the end of the design. Thus, building simulation should be used much earlier in the design process, and its use must be extended to include uncertainty” [Hensen 2012].

In addition, even if nowadays it's all about computer, schematic design is still influenced by manual approach which removes even more weight and time given to computer studies.

2.2 Explanation

Another element that has all its importance is knowing that a project is rarely de-signed by those who imagine the project. The one who manage the project ˗ he is the director of the practice in small agency, the project leader in a typical big agency ˗ always delegate drawings to less experienced employees so often younger. It's very well documented by Tric O. [Tric 1999]. Those employees use techniques they know to study the leader proposals for which only the result counts. This should not be forgotten that computers are tools among others, for ex-ample if someone must study shadows impact, he can use the technique as it may deem the quickest and easiest (computer, scale model or other). The role of drafts-men is not to be neglected.

Figure 1: Franck Gerhy handmade sketch – it's the first step that lead to the final project.

Tric, O. explained that in the National Library of France contest, Dominique

3

Perrault approach varies continuously, but internal organisation is roughly sketched, without deeply investigating the use and comfort or structure [Tric 1999]. In fact, early stages always go through volumetric studies, such scale mod-els or software studies that can check the assumptions such as those of shading, orientation, but without accurate verification other than intuition. Estevez wrote that the use of drawings goes beyond the work of a mere passive transcription of a given reality because the drawing, in architecture, is primarily a design analysis, conceptualization and finally projection [Estevez 2001]. When an architect draws, he uses an empirical approach to determine the best solutions to problems that are to solve (location, orientation), sometimes he uses his intuition and nomogram which allows him to quickly solve common problems without spending time on specific issues. But through his intuition or tests there are two pitfalls to this habit. First it is difficult to choose between multiple similar proposals as empirical ap-proach is still rather vague. When an architect thought about orientation, he does not think in terms of degrees, but instead in four directions, which leaves many possibilities that can't be evaluated. Furthermore increase of technical constraints make it difficult to assess final result beforehand without going through quite com-plex calculations, or at least complex enough to waste time.

Then, as claimed by many architects, a good architect always draws fair as, when he draws a structure, a good architect succeeds to assess the size of it, engin-eers should only confirm it. Only this drawing, even if it is verified, is it optimised? Is it within the reach of all architects to be as good as they should be? Therefore limits of an empirical approach raise up especially since it is quite pos-sible to be deceived by his intuition, either forgetting constraints, for example, one thinks first of the light, but forget the sound, or in case where intuition is simply wrong. One can for example think that putting triple glazing on all façades en-hance the consumption of the building, but it can rise to be false.

So the concept of a simple tool to adjust ideas and compare solutions is just the logical step to reach.

3 Tools

3.1 Current Situation

An inventory has already been made by Attia [Attiaa et al. 2009] but there are a few points that need to be explained.

First of all software for experts like Energy+ are not at all suitable for this is-sue. They need precise work and lots of knowledge and are used mainly by engin-eer. Among “architect friendly” software there are those likes Heed that requires a lot of information and time to run. Those are also to be avoided because the needed information are not necessarily known and in early design stage and time is run-ning out. So since a few years, there are some tools such as Ecotect and Archiwiz-ard that finally begin to rise and allow a real job in an architecture practice. The downside is that these tools are not provided as software plugin and need to go

4


through three stages :• Learn how to use the calculation software• Transfer from the current software to the calculation software and in-

versely.• Understand the results to use them as feedback for the project.

There is a complete list of tools available at this adress : http://apps1.eere.en-ergy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/

Figure 2 : Ecotect Light Study – Everyone should be able to easily see if it's good or bad

Attia has not listed a particular set of tools like Lightsolve that seek to avoid any previous inconvenience, but they are too little known and most often limited to a particular point as the light for Lightsolve. The use of Autodesk's cloud is finally the last idea that came up. On one hand it's really well integrated in the working process because, as the file is saved in the cloud, calculations are also made in the cloud and you get your results easily. On the other hand you don't handle at all anything about what is produced and calculated.

Looking further into modelling a new concept appear : Conceptual Modelling. The aim is to keep the model as simple as possible to meet the objectives of the simulation study (see Stewart Robinson for more information) but all this paper is about the complete opposite as the goal is to make work easier for architect so the software must adapt to the model and moreover the software must adapt, to fully integrate the working process in an architectural practice.

3.2 The Goal to Reach

You can not ask an often small architectural practice (an average of two employees in France according to “Observatoire de la profession d'architecte 2008” conduc-ted by the Association of Architects) to buy and know how to use many software often complex and heavy. It is imperative to think that the software will be used according to several criteria :

• Simplicity :To avoid when moving from one software to another to change completely his

way of working and enable to learn this tool quickly. An agency can not afford to

5

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/

spend too much time to train a young. Someone must already know the basics to be able to integrate. [Mourshed et al. 2003]. Attiaa also enhance that architects want “great ease of use of GUI” [Attiaa et al. 2009]

For example Den Hartog recognize that his method “requires some effort from the side of the designers and will take some time getting used to. The handling of the Meta analysis interfaces will also require some knowledge” [Den Hartog 2004]. So even if his idea is great, it's application is too hard to be relevant.

• Distribution :The tool must be known and used by numerous people so that there is support.

This is the main issue of Lightsolve.• Cost :

As low as possible. It can not be asked an architectural practice to buy lots of licenses for a whole bunch of tools that will not necessarily be much used. While it is clear that an architectural practice can buy basic software (Autocad, Archicad and other) others are carefully considered and will have difficulty to integrate small practices.

• Multi-use / reuse / integration into the workflowOne software, One function, is a backward-looking vision of the computer.

Nowadays people tend to prefer software that is used multiple times over a soft-ware that is used only occasionally. One can for example see the trend of Revit that is a modelling software and a rendering software and a spreadsheet software and now a sustainable software. For a tool to be used it must be integrated in the creative process, it is the very basis of a sketch. This integration is less required when on later stages.

Finally, Gallas sum up quite well the actual situation : It's now time for a new generation of assistance [Gallas et al. 2011]

3.3 Sketchup

Sketchup is a quite new program, known mainly since its version 4 in 2004 and more after its acquisition by Google in 2006. The acquisition by Google demon-strates a real willingness to advance this program in the middle of a very healthy environment and very competitive with many developers. The creation in March 2008 of a 3D API for browsers suggests a great new form of dialogue via any JavaScript interfaces possible. The special feature of this software is the perfect in-tegration of an inference engine that makes it simple to use. Thus, it is not a true architect software as it's beforehand a large public software, it has been adopted by architects. Its simplicity does not take away its potential it's actually quite the op-posite. Added to its lightweight unlike software like Revit is a perfect companion software. One good point of Sketchup is that it has a free version and the commer-cial version is not expensive at all. Ultimately the survey made by Attia shows that Sketchup is used by 50% of architects [Attiaa et al. 2009]. To conclude, Sketchup is cross platform (so there is more antagonism MAC vs. PC), and it may be noted that the creation of plugin is very simple through the use of Ruby and there is a

6


great community support and many plugins available. Sketchup thus meets all the points discussed previously, it seems logical to adopt such a perfectly adequate tool.

Figure 3 : Sketchup – Although simple, it's a fast modeller to work with. The light is for example well managed

It must be noted that Sketchup was bought one month ago by Trimble, but a free version remain. It is now difficult to judge this event without taking sides, but as the overall policy of this software is unchanged Sketchup should not lose its ap-peal.

4 Key Performance Indicator

4.1 Definition

As seen in many studies, indicators are particularly interesting in architectural problems related to environment [Malmquist et al. 2007]. They help simplify the way of addressing complex studies that would be necessary to do.

“An indicator is a tool for evaluation and decision support (steering, adjust-ments and rétro-correction) thanks to which one will be able to measure a situation or trend, in a relatively objective way, at a given time, or in time and / or in space. An indicator is meant to be a kind of summary of complex information making it possible for different actors (scientists and others) to interact with each other. An indicator (qualitative or quantitative) describe a condition, pressure and / or re-sponse that can not be apprehended directly. An indicator may be aggregated with others. There must be a causal relationship between the measured fact (indicated) and the indicator. The usefulness of an indicator depends primarily on its ability to reflect reality, but also on its ease of acquisition and understanding.” [wikipedia.fr]

This definition fits perfectly indicators and uses exactly what Malmqvist wrote [Malmqvist et al. 2006] :

Validity, reliability, accuracy, costs for data acquisition and calculations, intel-ligibility by stakeholders.

What's really more interesting is that almost everybody can create it's own in-

7

dicator. [Athanema 2008]It exist a study named PACIBA which means Integrated Building Design Sup-

port Software, whose goal is the establishment of an indicator manager in Pleiade Comfie for sustainable study which shows the interest of this paper. This study ad-dresses the topic of indicators following the ADEQUA report [Cherqui 2005] which allow to list numbers of indicators and especially to classify them in build-ing stages. This ranking was made according to data needed, and known in each stage, following the relevance of their use.

Figure 4 : One indicator in Paciba method – The indicator is shown directly on the 3D Model

4.2 Usability

First, Peuportier observed that most indicators are suitable from the early design stage on the three projects studied, supporting the possibility of their integration in the early design work to help architects to decide on the bias of his project [Peuportier et al. 2007]. This validates the idea that architects should be encour-aged to use and understand those indicators to improve the whole production chain of a project. Especially that “comparison between various proposals can be carried out, and the impact of a specific modification easily highlighted” [Miguet et al. 2007]

Then, Peuportier notice that for most indicators, schematic stage provides ap-proximate values that it is necessary to adjust in later stage, but they vary little des-pite changes. Design development stage is really close to schematic design stage for many indicators so indicators can really be used early.

Also, one indicator alone does not allow an objective analysis in the same way that sustainable development is a holistic approach. One must group them in order to lighten the overall understanding of interactions. The goal is not to optimise a particular indicator, but to link various dimensions of the project. Indicators should form a comprehensive system of analysis that provides an overview of the qualities of buildings. Labben tried such an approach, but has not really conclude [Labben 2007].

It must be really clear that one should not separate an indicator of its explana-tion and of the knowledge surrounding.

8


5 GEIS

“by providing tools directly to architectural practitioners at the appropriate mo-ment (time and place) in the design process truly intelligent design will flourish.” [Bergeron et al. 2010]

GEIS stands for Graphical Environmental Interface in Sketchup. This part will explain more technically how this plugin has been thought and written. Geis is at its 0.5 version with 38 files, 2 external libraries and about 2800 lines of code, not so far from a beta version. All the core is working and it will be released soon as a public version.

Figure 5 : GEIS dialogue window – The main and only dialogue that shows indicators

5.1 Indicators

The basic concept of Geis is an indicator manager. Those indicators are like plu-gins in the plugin. To add an indicator, one simply create a ruby file in the indic-ator directory and create within a class with the name of the indicator. It will load and create everything all alone. Everything is automated to the maximum and edit-able at will (like name etc...).

Indicator must necessarily be assign in a section to be grouped with the same type of indicators. One must also specify for each indicator an interval in which it exists and in what way we understand it (if a low value is better or worse). This helps to give a scale of 0 to 10 to indicator in order to have more understandable values to anyone.

Moreover, an indicator can be turned on or off according to circumstances. You can have multiple indicator, but watch changing only the one that is interest-ing. There is an average performed on all indicators that gives a global indicator. This average is weighted at will according to the need. One can for example prefer the global indicator to be at 80% on a precise indicator and at 20% on another one in order to better assess what we want. Last but not least, Geis being open source, anyone can add, change indicators.

Figure 6 : Global indicator weight – It's here a 50/50 distribution between both indicators

9

Here is a minimal indicator :class My_indicator < Indicator #My_indicator is the name of the indicator

def initialize #the 3 required valuessetInterval(my_worst_value, my_best_value)setGlobalValues("my_type")

enddef self.calc #what this indicator will show

c = my_calculationreturn c

endend

To allow all calculations, an inherited class from Sketchup Face is created. It allows you to add informations on each face to make total amounts and so on. In short, it is a class that manages all aspects related to calculations. Its name is Geis-Face and at present it can test :

• Elevation• Direction• Inside/outside• Horizontal/vertical

Figure 7 : Compactness Class – Still working on it, but it shows how simple calculations are.

5.2 Representation

“Simulation has proved much more effective in predicting the relative performance of design alternatives, than in predicting absolute performance” [Hensen 2012]

Graphics are ideal when users need to analyse and compare data sets. [Ot-jacques 2004]

What is important in the representation of indicator is to display a trend. An ar-chitect prefers to know that an action causes a better or worse result rather than having numbers. Numbers can also be simplified to make them understandable for everyone. For example if they don't have any unity and if they are always on a fixed scale of 0 to 10. We can then compare improvements in a more concrete way. For example, if we modify a project and the compactness change, firstly pref-erence is given to know that it has improved, secondly that it has grown from 5 to 6 out of 10 (10 being the best and limits being 0.3 to 5 on a linear scale) and only then, some will like to know the true result, that it rose from 2.4 to 1.9 (no units in

10


the case of compactness). It is the purpose of setInterval(my-worst-value, my-best-value, [“progression-type”]) which allows to adapt the results on a scale of 0 to 10. The progression type is : "log" or "ln" for logarithmic, "exp" for exponential, "lin" (by default) for linear distribution. If the growth is negative, the best must be put in second argument. Ben Shneiderman summarise the functionalities of a good visu-alization of information : “Overview first, zoom and filter, then details on demand” [Otjacques 2004]

We must therefore show the trend in the first place (by a colour and an arrow) and a scale (by a bar chart) and if only we chose it, the real numbers (leaving the mouse on the bar). This display is managed by the directory and is displayed via a web page (WebDialog in Sketchup).

Figure 8 : Indicators Display in GEIS – The project as a lower compacité which is bad and a better orientation sud which is rather good

Among the real limitation, there is one, that has already been considered in other paper, to view results directly on 3D objects. This point is not an absolute limit, since architects are likely to prefer a clear model and it would be impossible to show many indicators in such a way, but it is good to keep in mind that this is not possible in the current state of Sketchup.

5.3 History

Another important element is to keep the project indicators evolution to eventually appreciate its improvement or return to an earlier version. Major changes would thus be seen on a timeline. Peuportier quickly overviewed this idea [Peuportier et al. 2007]. “Which design changes are likely to better achieve the designer’s goals” [Andersen 2008]

GEIS history uses Flot, a pure Javascript plotting library for jQuery. It pro-duces graphical plots and shows simple evolution of indicators. It's now a basic function that simply save information each time you save the file, but it just need a little bit more work to perform very well.

Figure 9 : GEIS History – It shows that the project is getting better and better

11

5.4 Help

The last part is the simplest, the most obvious, but often the most forgotten. It con-sists in providing assistance to explain the use of indicators. It is very easily ac-complished using a web page. Thus, a link is automatically added if the page ex-ists. It should help explain how to understand the indicator and help the architect understand what it does and how to improve his design.

“inform the architect on the assumptions that are behind” [Attiaa et al. 2009]

Figure 10 : GEIS Help – It shows that clicking on the question mark show a basic help page

6 Conclusion and Future work

This paper shows that there is a lack of a tool in early design stage and suggest a way to solve it in a real solution. This new tool definitely follows the trends of en-vironmental software, but it has been created in a way such as every direction it took were validated through the professional and scientist point of view. Even the free license has been thought as a way to allow itself to be easily distributed and improved. This tool can really fill the gap discovered and indicators can play their true role thanks to studies like Paciba. We must keep in mind the limitations of these tools especially it's actually a simplified help to make choice at the very be-ginning. It will never replace a full study.

It now remains work to do, but it's on stable and valid foundations. The very purpose of GEIS is to add a maximum of indicators. We can use the bibliographic list with such as Ochoa 2012 on illuminance or size of windows Hwang 2007 and Envload, every indicators of the Paciba Method, different method of compactness. Presentation of those indicators, once there will be many, will surely have to be clearer and simpler as well as history.

Figure 11 : Paciba's indicator classification – There are many indicators usable

12


A beta version will come out as soon as at least three indicators run smoothly and history to. Then, it will be time to spread this plugin to create a community working on it and there might be an architectural practice that would like to add a group of its own indicators.

Figure 12 : GEIS file hierarchy – It has been made to be simple and easy to understand.

AcknowledgementsMany thanks to....

General ReferencesBENDEDDOUCH, A. 1998. Villes et entreprises (ed.). Processus (Le) d'élaboration

d'un projet d'architecture : l'agrandissement du Musée des beaux-arts de Mon-tréal. L'Harmattan. 327 pages

BERGERON-MIRSKY, W., LIM, J., GULLIFORD, J., AND PATEL, A. 2010. Architec-tural Acoustics for Practitioners. in : Advances in Architectural Geometry. Springer Verlag. p. 129-136

BIAU, V. 1998. Les Concours De Maitrise D'oeuvre Dans L'union Europeenne, Ministere De La Culture Et De La Communication Direction De L'architecture Et Du Patrimoine

DEN HARTOG, J. 2004. Designing Indoor ClimateHENSEN, J. 2012. Evaluation through computational building performance simula-

tion. in : Enhancing Building Performance. Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford. p. 223-233

JOURDA, H. 2007. Rapport sur la prise en compte du développement durable dans la construction, Ministre de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durable

LIÉBARD, A., AND DE HERDE, A. 2005. Traité d'architecture et d'urbanisme bioclimatiques. éditions du Moniteur. 778 pages

13

MIQCP 2000. Guides/ Moniteur (ed.). Organiser une consultation de maîtrise d'oeuvre / MIQCP. Le Moniteur. 207 pages

PEUPORTIER, B. 2008. Collections sciences de la terre et de l'environnement (ed.). éco-conception des bâtiments et des quartiers. Mines Paritech les presses. 336 pages

PROST, R. 1992. Conception architecturale : une investigation méthodologique. L'Harmattan. 190 pages

TRIC, O. 1999. Villes et entreprises (ed.). Conception et projet en architecture : articulation des composantes enveloppe, structure, usage et coût dans la con-ception et au sein du système d'acteurs. L'Harmattan. 320 pages

Indicator ReferencesATHANEMA, K. 2008. Indicateurs pour l’analyse de la contribution d’un projet

urbain à l’îlot de chaleur. master thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Archi-tecture de Nantes

CHERQUI, F. 2005.Méthodologie d'Evaluation d'un Projet d'Amenagement Dur-able d'un Quartier : Méthode Adequa

HWANG, R., AND TSAI, F. 2007. Development Of Approach To Optimization Of Building Envelope Design In Aspect Of Thermal Comfort And Energy Use. in : Internationale Building Performance Simulation Association 2007, Beijing

LABBEN, K. 2007. Eco-conception en architecure : Proposition d'indicateurs basés sur une modélisation 3D. master thesis, École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Nancy, CRAI

LEROY, A. 2006. PassivHaus (Habitat Passif). master thesis, Faculté des sciences de La Rochelle, Pôle Génie Civil

MALMQVIST, T., AND GLAUMANN, M. 2006. Selecting problem-related environ-mental indicators for housing management. in : Building Research & Informa-tion. p. 321-333

MALMQVIST, T., AND GLAUMANN, M. 2007. Selecting aspects and indicators in environmental assessment methods for buildings. in : Portugual 2007, Sustain-able construction materials and practices, Lisbonne, 12-14 septembre 2007. p. 326-333

MIGUET, F., AND GROLEAU, D. 2007. Urban bioclimatic indicators for urban planers with the software tool SOLENE. in : Portugual 2007, Sustainable con-struction materials and practices, Lisbonne, 12-14 septembre 2007. p. 348-355

MUSY, M. 2008.Micro-Climat et Formes Urbaines : Indicateurs. Cours de Master STEU. CERMA, Nantes.

OCHOA, C., ARIES, M., VAN LOENEN, E., AND HENSEN, J. 2012. Considerations on design optimization criteria for windows providing low energy consumption and high visual comfort. Applied Energy

PEUPORTIER, B., GUIVARCH, A., AND FILLIRD, B. 2007. Progiciel d'aide à la con-ception intégrée des bâtiments (PACIBA), Centre Energetique et Procedes, Paris

ROBINSON, D. 2006. Some trends and research needs in energy and comfort pre-diction. in : Proc. Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings, Windsor, UK

14


Software ReferencesANDERSEN, M., KLEINDIENST, S., YI, L., LEE, J., BODART, M., AND CUTLER, B.

2008. An intuitive daylighting performance analysis and optimization ap-proach. in : Building Research & Information

ATTIAA, S., BELTRANC, L., DE HERDE, A., AND HENSEN, J. 2009. “Architect Friendly”: A Comparison Of Ten Different Building Performance Simulation Tools. Building Simulation p. 204 - 2011

ATTIAA, S., HENSENB, J., BELTRANC, L., AND DE HERDE, A. 2012. Selection Cri-teria for Building Performance Simulation Tools: Contrasting Architects and Engineers Needs. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, vol. 5, nr. 3, pp. 155-169.. vol. 5, p. 155-169

BUKOWSKI, R. 2005. The use of predictive tools and software in a building regu-latory environment

VAN DIJK, E., AND LUSCUERE, P. 2002. An architect friendly interface for a dy-namic building simulation program. Sustainable Building 2002 conference

ESTEVEZ, D. 2001. Dessin d'architecture et infographie. CNRS EditionsLECLERCQ, P. 2005. Le concept d'esquisse augmentée. Journée Scan, Rôle de l'es-

quisse architecturale dans le monde numérique, 1-2 décembre 2005. MILNE, M., ROCHE, P., AND GOMEZ, C. 2010. Designing High Performance Sus-

tainable Homes. HEED Workshops for California. UCLA Department of Ar-chitecture and California State Polytechnic University Pomona

MOURSHED, M., KELLIHER, D., AND KEANE, M. 2003. Integrating Building En-ergy Simulation in the design process, Informatics Research Unit for Sustain-able Engineering

ROBINSON, D., CAMPBELL, N., GAISER, W., KABEL, K., LE-MOUEL, A., MOREL, N., PAGE, J., STANKOVIC, S., AND STONE, A. 2007. SUNtool - A new model-ling paradigm for simulating and optimising urban sustainability. Solar En-ergy. vol. 81, n°9. p. 1196-1211

DE SOUZA, C., AND KNIGHT, I. 2007. Thermal Performance Simulation From An Architectural Design Viewpoint. in : Cardiff Wales UK Welsh School of Archi-tecture, Cardiff University, (ed.).Internationale Building Performance Simula-tion Association 2007, Beijing

VINCKE, P. 1989. Ellipses (ed.). L'aide Multicritère à la Décision. Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles

Representation ReferencesDARSES, F., MAYEUR, A., ELSEN, C., AND LECLERCQ, P. 2008. Is there anything

to expect from 3D views in sketching support tools?. in : DCC'08, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition

GALLAS, M., BUR, D., AND HALIN, G. 2010. Lumière naturelle et énergie en phase amont de conception. Vers une méthode dʼaide à la conception à partir des in-tentions du concepteur. 4ème Séminaire de Conception Architecturale Numérique, 9-10 décembre 2010, Marseille, France. SCAN.

15

GALLAS, M., BUR, D., AND HALIN, G. 2011. Daylight and energy in the early phase of architectural design process. The 16th International Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, April 27-30, 2011, Newcastle, Australia.

LECLERCQ, P., MARTIN, G., DESHAYES, C., AND GUENA, F. 2004. Vers une inter-face multimodale pour une assistance à la conception architecturale. in : IHM 2004: Proceedings of the 16th conference on Association Francophone d'Inter-action Homme-Machine. New York, NY, USA : ACM. p. 109-116

OTJACQUES, B. 2004. Représentation graphique des interactions se produisant au cours d’un projet collaboratif dans le domaine de l’architecture. master thesis, Université Henri Poincarré, Nancy Centre de Recherche en Architecture et In-génierie, Nancy

16

geis : multi-indicators framework for building analysis in early design stage

Documents