Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Evaluating the effectiveness, reliability and efficiency of a multi-objective sequential optimization approach for building performance design

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two-stage sequential optimization matches exhaustive search for building performance design, using 91.2% fewer evaluations.

desk verdict Worth refereeing: the 100% result is a solid empirical finding on this case study, but the efficiency mechanism rests on an unstated stage-wise Pareto-preservation assumption that limits generalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14742 v1 pith:ZZHDVYTM submitted 2024-12-13 cs.NE math.OC

Riccardo Talami , Jonathan Wright , Bianca Howard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NEmath.OC
keywords sequentialoptimizationbuildingperformancesimulationmulti-objectiveParetooptimalityfullfactorialsearchNSGA-IIdesigncomputationalefficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a deterministic, tuning-free sequential optimizer can replace exhaustive search for multi-objective building performance design without sacrificing any Pareto-optimal solutions. The proposed two-stage 'field-grouped' process first optimizes building geometry and fabric together while HVAC and controls are held at baseline values, then optimizes the HVAC and control variables with the architecture Pareto set carried forward, and then repeats the whole sequence starting from each optimal solution found in the first pass. On an office-building case study spanning 874 to 4,147,200 design options, this procedure found exactly the same Pareto-optimal solutions as a full factorial search across all problem scales and formulation variants, using 100,700 function evaluations instead of 1,036,800 (a 91.2% reduction). With the same evaluation budget, NSGA-II found only 73.5% of the global optima. If the result transfers to other buildings, it gives practitioners a low-cost route to an exact optimal design set rather than an approximate evolutionary one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a sequence of Pareto-filtered exhaustive searches. At stage $z$, variables belonging to later stages are fixed to baseline values (Equation 1); the current stage's grouped variables are enumerated over all combinations; and only the non-dominated set $P_z$ from that exhaustive search is passed to the next stage (Equations 2 and 3). Grouping variables by field yields two stages—building geometry plus fabric, then HVAC system plus controls—and the iterative run restarts the entire sequence from each Pareto-optimal solution found in the initial run, which is what lets the search escape fronts caused by the initial baseline-fixing and expand the set of optima found. The exhaustive within-stage search provides the guarantees of full-factorial exploration, while the grouping and iteration provide the breadth needed to respect cross-field dependencies.

What would settle it

Construct a building model where one envelope option is dominated under the baseline HVAC system but, paired with a different HVAC system, gives the best joint objective; if the field-grouped sequential search then misses that global Pareto point, the baseline-fixing assumption fails. A practical version of this test is to run the same two-stage search on a naturally ventilated or mixed-mode building, where envelope and controls interact strongly, and compare its output to an exhaustive search of all combinations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that grouping the eleven design variables into two fields—architecture (building geometry and fabric) and engineering (HVAC system and controls)—and optimizing them sequentially, with an exhaustive full-factorial search inside each stage and an iterative restart from the stage-one Pareto set, recovers the global Pareto frontier of the joint problem. The authors verify this by simulating all combinations of an open-plan office in Nottingham and comparing 24 configurations of their algorithm against the full-factorial benchmark. The field-grouped iterative configuration achieved 100% effectiveness across the very small, small, medium, large, and four large-scale problem variants, matching every global optimum; in the large problem it found all 28 global optima with 100,700 evaluations versus the benchmark's 1,036,800. The paper interprets the result as showing that carrying only non-dominated solutions from stage to stage preserves the interactions that matter, while the baseline-fixed setting accounts for interdependencies with the variables optimized later. It also stresses that the deterministic full-factorial steps make repeated runs identical, in contrast to the stochastic NSGA-II, which reached 73.5% effectiveness on the same budget.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a design discarded because it is dominated at stage 1—when HVAC and controls are fixed at baseline values—could not become globally optimal once the HVAC and control variables are allowed to vary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, building designers can obtain the same global Pareto set as exhaustive search with roughly one-tenth of the simulation budget.
  • The deterministic, tuning-free nature of the sequential search means repeated runs give identical results, removing the run-to-run variability of population-based metaheuristics.
  • For this problem class, the field grouping—two stages rather than one variable per stage—is the configuration that preserves reliability, so the choice of grouping is a methodological decision, not a convenience.
  • The efficiency advantage grows with problem size, since computational load relative to the full factorial search fell from about 30% at the very small scale to 9% at the large scale.
  • With the same function-evaluation budget, the sequential search finds a larger fraction of global optima than NSGA-II on this case study.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The baseline-fixing assumption is likely to be violated when cross-field interactions are strong, such as in naturally ventilated or mixed-mode buildings where envelope and controls jointly drive comfort; applying the method to such a case is a natural test.
  • The success of the field-grouped search suggests a practical workflow in which architects optimize the envelope early against a fixed system, then engineers optimize the system given the envelope; this lowers barriers to optimization-based design but inherits the same assumption.
  • The sequential Pareto set could serve as a cheap deterministic warm start or surrogate target for other optimization algorithms, since it approximates the true frontier without requiring parameter tuning.
  • The 91.2% figure counts function evaluations, not wall-clock time; if simulation time per evaluation varies with the design, a runtime comparison under identical parallel resources would be a useful extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sequential, stage-wise multi-objective optimization method for building performance design, in which each stage performs a full factorial (exhaustive) search over a subset of design variables while later-stage variables are held at baseline values, and only Pareto-optimal solutions from a stage are passed forward. The method is evaluated on an office-building case study with 11 design variables spanning geometry, fabric, HVAC system, and controls, at four problem scales (874 to 1,036,800 options) and four variations of large-scale boundary conditions. Twenty-four configurations are tested, varying starting bounds, grouping strategy, and initial versus iterative runs. The headline result is that the field-grouped, iterative two-stage configuration identifies the same Pareto-optimal solutions as the full factorial search in all tested scales and variants, with 100,700 function evaluations versus 1,036,800, a 91.2% reduction, and outperforms NSGA-II at equal evaluation budgets. The paper also provides pseudocode, a detailed simulation workflow, and supplementary sensitivity analysis of design variables.

Significance. If the reported result holds, the paper makes a useful contribution to simulation-based building optimization: a deterministic, tuning-free sequential procedure that matches exhaustive search on a nontrivial problem class would be practically attractive. The strengths of the study are that the effectiveness claim is benchmarked against an independent full-factorial ground truth, the sequential method itself has no fitted parameters, the simulation pipeline is described in enough detail to be reproduced, and Table 5 reports internally consistent counts across scales and starting points. The comparison with NSGA-II is informative, though the NSGA-II configuration is less rigorously justified. The main limitation is that the 100% reliability claim rests on an unproven structural property of the optimization landscape: stage-one dominance under baseline HVAC/control values must imply that no discarded architecture can become globally optimal once those later-stage variables vary.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The central reliability claim depends on a stage-wise Pareto preservation property that is nowhere stated, proved, or separately verified. Equations (1)-(3) fix future-stage variables at baseline during earlier stages and restrict each stage to the previous stage's Pareto set. Consequently, an architectural solution that is dominated under the baseline HVAC/control configuration is discarded in Stage 1 and can never be revisited, even if it would be globally optimal when paired with a non-baseline HVAC/control combination. The paper's assertion, immediately after Figure 1, that 'the fixed baseline setup ensures that interdependencies among variables are always inherently considered' is not established by Eqs. (1)-(3). For the reported 100% effectiveness to hold empirically, every full-factorial global optimum at every tested scale and variant must have its architecture vector survive the Stage 1 filter under baseline HVAC/controls. The authors should either provide conditions under which this preservation holds or report an explicit check: for each full-factorial global optimum, verify that its architecture prefix is non-dominated in Stage 1. Without such a check, the mechanism that creates the computational saving is also the unexamined assumption on which the reliability claim rests.
  2. [Section 4.1.1, Eq. (4), and Table 5] The effectiveness metric in Eq. (4) is a count ratio, not a set-equality measure. Table 5 reports only the number of global optima found, so a configuration that finds 28 of 28 optima but a different set of 28 solutions would receive 100% effectiveness. The text in Sections 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.3, and 6 nevertheless claims that the field-grouped iterative search 'identified the same Pareto optimal solutions as the full factorial search.' The supporting evidence in Figures 7 and B.3 is qualitative. To substantiate the 'same solutions' claim, the authors should report an explicit set-overlap metric, such as the fraction of full-factorial Pareto solutions that are exactly matched in the variable space, or provide the complete list of matched solution indices. This is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusions repeatedly assert set identity, not just count equality.
  3. [Section 4.2 and Section 5.4] The efficiency comparison with NSGA-II is weakened by the tuning and selection protocol. Section 4.2 states that NSGA-II was run 20 times and only the four runs with the highest performance were used for comparison. This best-of-20 selection gives NSGA-II an advantage rather than a disadvantage, but it also means the comparison is not a standard single-run or fixed-budget assessment, and the hand-chosen population size, crossover probability, and mutation probability (Table 2) are not tested for sensitivity. The central 100%-versus-full-factorial claim does not depend on the NSGA-II comparison, but the paper's broader conclusion that the sequential approach is more efficient than NSGA-II should be phrased more cautiously, or supplemented with a sensitivity analysis over NSGA-II operator settings and a clear statement of how the best-of-20 selection affects the reported 73.5% figure.
  4. [Section 6 and Section 7] The generalization claims exceed the evidence. Section 6 states that the approach 'can be applied to diverse building types, climate conditions, and performance objectives,' and Section 7 repeats this as a conclusion. The empirical support is a single open-plan office in Nottingham with two objectives, 11 design variables, and four boundary-condition variants. The authors should either explicitly limit the conclusions to the tested problem class or provide a constructive argument, beyond the unproven baseline-preservation assertion, for why the stage-wise dominance filter is expected to preserve global optima under different objective definitions and coupling structures between stages.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The text contains a typo: 'This represents a shit from conventional multi-objective optimization' should read 'shift.'
  2. [Section 4.5] The placeholder 'Figure x' appears in the sentence describing jEPlus; this should be replaced with the actual figure number.
  3. [Section 5.2.2] The final sentence of the first paragraph refers to 'the very large problem formulation,' but the tables and earlier text label the largest scale as 'large.' Please align the terminology.
  4. [Section 5.3] The sentence beginning 'The iterative run increased the deviation in effectiveness across variations of problem formulations of the ungrouped and element grouped search increased to 12.3% and 20.5%, respectively' contains a duplicated verb; rewording would clarify the reported deviations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 100% effectiveness claim is benchmarked against an independent full factorial ground truth, and the unproven stage-wise Pareto preservation property is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim that the field-grouped sequential search reproduces the full factorial Pareto set is established by direct comparison against an independent exhaustive enumeration (Section 4.1, Equation 4), not derived from the method's own assumptions. The sequential algorithm in Section 3 (Equations 1-3) contains no fitted parameters; effectiveness, computational load (Equation 5), and performance difference (Equation 6) are all computed from the simulation dataset rather than being imposed by definition. The only self-citations ([7], [8], [40], [41]) appear in literature background and sensitivity-analysis tool citations, and none supplies a load-bearing premise for the 100% effectiveness result. The unproven stage-wise Pareto preservation property, which requires every full-factorial global optimum's architecture to survive the Stage 1 baseline-HVAC filter, is a substantive correctness and generalizability risk, but it is an empirical assumption that the paper tests across scales and variants; failure of the claim would be observable, so the claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. A score of 1 reflects minor non-load-bearing self-citations rather than any circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method introduces no invented physical entities and no fitted parameters. The only hand-chosen numbers are the NSGA-II tuning knobs and the selection of best runs, which affect the comparison headline but not the sequential method's own effectiveness. The dominant hidden assumption is the stage-wise Pareto preservation premise.

free parameters (4)
  • NSGA-II population size = 30
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.2, Table 2; affects only the NSGA-II comparison, not the central full-factorial effectiveness claim.
  • NSGA-II crossover probability = 0.5
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.2, Table 2 (uniform crossover).
  • NSGA-II mutation probability = 0.1
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.2, Table 2 (bitflip).
  • Number of NSGA-II runs selected = 4 of 20 (best)
    Section 4.2 states the four runs with highest performance were used; this post-hoc selection favors NSGA-II and shapes the reported comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pareto optimality at each stage, with future-stage variables fixed at baseline, is sufficient to recover the global Pareto set of the full problem.
    Invoked in Section 3, Equations (1)-(3); the method discards stage-1 solutions dominated under baseline HVAC/controls, which is only valid if no discarded solution can become globally optimal later. Verified empirically but not proven.
  • domain assumption EnergyPlus with six timesteps per hour and the NCM schedules gives adequate accuracy for the two objectives.
    Section 4.5 describes the simulation setup; the study treats these outputs as ground truth for all comparisons.
  • domain assumption Fanger PMV with +/-0.5 thresholds is the correct comfort metric.
    Section 4.3.1 defines discomfort hours via PMV outside +/-0.5, citing ASHRAE 55-2017.
  • domain assumption The 11 design variables and their option values span a representative building design space.
    Section 4.3.2 selects variables from ASHRAE, REHVA, Neufert, and UK regulations; the study's conclusions are scoped to this space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating the effectiveness, reliability and efficiency of a multi-objective sequential optimization approach for building performance design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZHDVYTM

@misc{pith2026250114742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating the effectiveness, reliability and efficiency of a multi-objective sequential optimization approach for building performance design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZHDVYTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14742}
}
read the original abstract

The complexity of performance-based building design stems from the evaluation of numerous candidate design options, driven by the plethora of variables, objectives, and constraints inherent in multi-disciplinary projects. This necessitates optimization approaches to support the identification of well performing designs while reducing the computational time of performance evaluation. In response, this paper proposes and evaluates a sequential approach for multi-objective design optimization of building geometry, fabric, HVAC system and controls for building performance. This approach involves sequential optimizations with optimal solutions from previous stages passed to the next. The performance of the sequential approach is benchmarked against a full factorial search, assessing its effectiveness in finding global optima, solution quality, reliability to scale and variations of problem formulations, and computational efficiency compared to the NSGA-II algorithm. 24 configurations of the sequential approach are tested on a multi-scale case study, simulating 874 to 4,147,200 design options for an office building, aiming to minimize energy demand while maintaining thermal comfort. A two-stage sequential process-(building geometry + fabric) and (HVAC system + controls) identified the same Pareto-optimal solutions as the full factorial search across all four scales and variations of problem formulations, demonstrating 100% effectiveness and reliability. This approach required 100,700 function evaluations, representing a 91.2% reduction in computational effort compared to the full factorial search. In contrast, NSGA-II achieved only 73.5% of the global optima with the same number of function evaluations. This research indicates that a sequential optimization approach is a highly efficient and robust alternative to the standard NSGA-II algorithm.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the sequential design optimization approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evaluation framework developed to assess the performance of the sequential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Building shapes and their positioning with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tools and software employed for the generation of the solutions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Riley, D

    Mollaoglu-Korkmaz, S., Swarup, L. and Riley, D. (2013). Delivering Sustainable, High- Performance Buildings: Influence of Project Delivery Methods on Integration and Project Outcomes. Journal of Management in Engineering. 29. 71-78. Preprint submitted to Energy and Buildings, 10/12/2024

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    SET grouping_category (z stages)

    work page

  3. [3]

    SET solutions_set = [] # Initial Run

    work page

  4. [6]

    GENERATE solutions_set USING initial_combinations

    work page

  5. [7]

    Conclusion This study addresses key gaps in existing literature by proposing a novel sequential optimization approach that harnesses the synergies and interdependencies between building design elements, while reducing both the complexity of the algorithmic process and the computational effort required for performance evaluation. A benchmarking framework i...

    work page 2024

  6. [8]

    GENERATE next_solutions_set COMBINING solutions_set WITH Pareto-optimal solutions FROM previous stages

    work page

  7. [10]

    Hasan, K

    Hamdy, M., A. Hasan, K. Siren. (2013). A multi-stage optimization method for cost-optimal and nearly-zero energy building solutions in line with the EPBD-recast 2010, Energy and Buildings, 56, 189–203. 3

    work page 2013

  8. [14]

    Ekici B, Cubukcuoglu C, Turrin M, Sariyildiz S. (2019). Performative computational architecture using swarm and evolutionary optimisation: A review, Building and Environment, 147, 356-371

    work page 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [15]

    RETURN final_solutions_set AS Pareto-optimal solutions # Iterative Run

  2. [16]

    SET Pareto-optimal solutions FROM final_solutions_set

  3. [17]

    WHILE NOT termination_criteria_met DO

  4. [18]

    FOR each solution x IN Pareto-optimal solutions DO

  5. [19]

    INITIALIZE solutions_set FOR solution x

  6. [20]

    FOR each z stage IN grouping_category DO

  7. [21]

    IF solutions_set IS EMPTY THEN

  8. [22]

    GENERATE solutions_set USING initial_combinations Preprint submitted to Energy and Buildings, 10/12/2024

    2024

  9. [23]

    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2017 Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy

    ASHRAE, “ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2017 Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy.” 2017

    2017

  10. [24]

    GENERA TE next_solutions_set COMBINING solutions_set WITH Pareto-optimal solutions FROM previous stages

  11. [25]

    SET solutions_set = next_solutions_set

  12. [26]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    Neufert, E., Neufert, P., and Kister, J, Architect’s data. John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

  13. [27]

    EV ALUATE objective f(x) FOR each solution x IN solutions_set

  14. [28]

    EXTRACT Pareto-optimal solutions BASED ON f(x)

  15. [29]

    SET solutions_set = Pareto-optimal solutions

  16. [30]

    global" optima refers to the solutions identified by the full factorial search . The term “search

    Methodology The methodological workflow to evaluate the performance of the sequential design optimization approach consist of the development of 1) a framework encompassing various evaluation criteria (Section 4. 1), 2) a case study highlighting a number of building design var...

    2024

  17. [31]

    SWITCH TO next_Pareto_optimal_solution

  18. [32]

    Section 5.1 describes the effectiveness and computational efficiency of the sequential optimal considering the large scale problem formulation

    Results The following sections report the outcomes of the sequential search. Section 5.1 describes the effectiveness and computational efficiency of the sequential optimal considering the large scale problem formulation. Section 5.2 describes the effect of problem size on the ...

    2024

  19. [33]

    CHECK termination_criteria: IF all solutions have been evaluated THEN TERMINATE

  20. [34]

    Discussion The evaluation of the sequential optimization approach presented in this study represents a significant advancement in addressing the key challenges of performance-based building design. The approach 1) offers a reliable holistic optimization of building desig n ele...

    2024

  21. [35]

    RETURN final_solutions_set AS Pareto-optimal solutions

  22. [36]

    Touloupaki, Eleftheria & Theodosiou, Theodoros. (2017). Performance simulation integrated in parametric 3D modeling as a method for early-stage design optimization - A review. Energies. 10

    2017

  23. [37]

    Mourshed, MM, Kelliher, D, Kean, M. (2003). Integrating building energy simulation in the design process. IBPSA News. 13(1), 21-26

    2003

  24. [38]

    Flager F, Welle B, Bansal P, Soremekun G, Haymaker J. (2009). Multidisciplinary process integration and design optimization of a classroom building, Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 14, 595-612

    2009

  25. [39]

    Machairas, V., Tsangrassoulis, A., Axarli, K. (2014). Algorithms for optimization of building design: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 101-112

    2014

  26. [40]

    and Hensen, J.L

    Attia, S., Gratia, E., De Herde, A. and Hensen, J.L. (2012). Simulation‐based decision support tool for early stages of zero‐energy building design. Energy and Buildings, 49

    2012

  27. [41]

    Talami, R., Wright, J., and Howard, B. (2020). A comparison between sequential and simultaneous whole-building design optimization for building performance. Proceedings from Building Simulation and Optimization, Loughborough, UK, September 21- 22

    2020

  28. [42]

    and Howard, B

    Talami, R., Wright, J. and Howard, B. (2021). Multi-criteria robustness assessment of a sequential whole-building design optimization. Proceedings of the 17th IBPSA International conference, Bruges 1-3 September. https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708.2021.30818

    2021

  29. [43]

    Verbeeck, G., H. Hens. (2007). Life cycle optimization of extremely low energy dwellings, Journal of Building Physics, 31 (2), 143–177

    2007

  30. [44]

    & Vanoli, G.P

    Ascione, F., Bianco, N., Mauro, G. & Vanoli, G.P. (2019). A new comprehensive framework for the multi objective optimization of building energy design: Harlequin. Applied Energy, 241, 331-361

    2019

  31. [45]

    Evins, R. (2015). Multi-level optimization of building design, energy system sizing and operation, Energy ,90, 1775–1789

    2015

  32. [46]

    Evins, R. (2013). A review of computational optimisation methods applied to sustainable building design. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22, 230-245

    2013

  33. [47]

    Alajmi A, Wright J. (2014). Selecting the most efficient genetic algorithm sets in solving unconstrained building optimization problem. International Journal of Sustained Built Environment, 3(1), 18-26. Preprint submitted to Energy and Buildings, 10/12/2024

    2014

  34. [48]

    Hamdy M, Nguyen A, Hensen J. (2016). A performance comparison of multi-objective optimization algorithms for solving nearly-zero-energy building design problems, Energy and Buildings, 121, 5771

    2016

  35. [49]

    Wright, J., Nikolaidou, E., and Hopfe, C.J. (2016). Exhaustive search: does it have a role in explorative design? Building Simulation and Optimization, Newcastle, UK, September 12-14

    2016

  36. [50]

    BRE, NCM Databases for iSBEM, 2015

    2015

  37. [51]

    T., Reiter S., Rigo P

    A Nguyen A. T., Reiter S., Rigo P. (2014). A review on simulation-based optimization methods applied to building performance analysis. Applied Energy, 113, 1043-1058

    2014

  38. [52]

    Computational optimisation for zero energy buildings design: Interviews results with twenty-eight international experts,

    Attia, S., Hamdy, M., O’Brien, W., and Carlucci, S., “Computational optimisation for zero energy buildings design: Interviews results with twenty-eight international experts,” presented at the BS2013, 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association...

    2013

  39. [53]

    L., & Maagaard, S

    Østergård, T., Jensen, R. L., & Maagaard, S. (2017). Early Building Design: Informed decision‐ making by exploring multidimensional design space using sensitivity analysis. Energy and Buildings, 142, 8‐22

    2017

  40. [54]

    Analysis and applications in environmental engineering

    Fanger P.O., Thermal comfort. Analysis and applications in environmental engineering. Copenhagen: Danish Technical Press, 1970

    1970

  41. [55]

    McGraw-Hill Education, 2009

    Haines, R.W., Myers, M, HVAC systems design handbook, 5th edition. McGraw-Hill Education, 2009

    2009

  42. [56]

    W., & Petras, D., Low temperature heating and high temperature cooling: REHVA GUIDEBOOK No 7, 2007

    Babiak, J., Olesen, B. W., & Petras, D., Low temperature heating and high temperature cooling: REHVA GUIDEBOOK No 7, 2007

    2007

  43. [57]

    UK Government, Approved Document L2A: Conservation of fuel and power in new buildings other than dwellings, The Building Regulations 2010, 2013

    2010

  44. [58]

    International Passive House Association, Active for more comfort: Passive House, 2018

    2018

  45. [59]

    CIBSE, Guide A: Environmental Design, 2006

    2006

  46. [60]

    ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals

    ASHRAE, “ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals.” 2017

    2017

  47. [61]

    Ladybug: A parametric environmental plugin for grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-conscious design,

    Sadeghipour Roudsari, Mostapha & Pak, M., “Ladybug: A parametric environmental plugin for grasshopper to help designers create an environmentally-conscious design,” presented at the 13th Conference of the International Building Performance Simulation Association, 2013, pp. 3128–3135

    2013

  48. [62]

    Lawrie, C.O

    Crawley, D.B., L.K. Lawrie, C.O. Pedersen, R.J. Liesen, D.E. Fisher, R.K. Strand, R.D. Taylor, R.C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, Y.J. Huang, A.E. Erdem. (1999). ENERGYPLUS, A New- Generation Building Energy Simulation Program. Proceedings of Building Simulation '99, Volume 1: 81-88....

    1999

  49. [63]

    OPENSTUDIO: AN OPEN SOURCE INTEGRATED ANALYSIS PLATFORM

    R. Guglielmetti, D. Macumber, and N. Long, “OPENSTUDIO: AN OPEN SOURCE INTEGRATED ANALYSIS PLATFORM”

  50. [64]

    Thornton Tomasetti, TT Toolbox plug-in for Grasshopper3D. (2017). Core Studio. Accessed: Dec. 06, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.food4rhino.com/tt-toolbox

    2017

  51. [65]

    PARALLEL: ENERGYPLUS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS TOOL

    Y. Zhang, “PARALLEL: ENERGYPLUS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS TOOL”

  52. [66]

    EERE, EnergyPlus energy simulation software. (2009). Accessed: Jun. 15, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.apps1.eere. energy.gov/buildings/energyplus

    2009

  53. [67]

    Campolongo, J

    F. Campolongo, J. Cariboni, A. Saltelli, An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models, Environmental Modelling and Software 22 (2007) 1509–1518

    2007

  54. [68]

    Enhancing the Morris Me thod,

    Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Saltelli, A., and Schoutens, W. (2004), “Enhancing the Morris Me thod,” in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Sensitivity Analysis of Model O utput, Santa Fe, New Mexico, pp. 369–379

    2004

  55. [69]

    Application of global sensitivity analysis of model output to build ing thermal simulations

    Mara TA, Tarantola S (2008). Application of global sensitivity analysis of model output to build ing thermal simulations. Building Simulation, 1: 290‐302

    2008

  56. [70]

    Talami, R., & Jakubiec, J. A. (2019). Sensitivity of design parameters on energy, system and comfort performances for radiant cooled office buildings in the tropics. Proceedings of the 16th IBPSA International conference, Rome 2 -4 September. https://doi.org/10.26868/25222708....

    2019

  57. [71]

    Talami, R., & Jakubiec, J. A. (2020). Early-design sensitivity of radiant cooled office buildings in the tropics for building performance Energy Build., 223, 110177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110177

    2020

  58. [72]

    Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist Multi objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans of Evolutionary Computing, 6, 182–197

    2002

  59. [73]

    and Wright, J

    Brownlee, A.E.I. and Wright, J. (2015). Constrained, mixed -integer and multi -objective optimisation of building designs by NSGA -II with fitness approximation. Applied Soft Computing, 33, 114–126

    2015

  60. [74]

    Back, T. (1996). Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice. Oxford, 519, University Press, New York, ISBN 0195099710. Preprint submitted to Energy and Buildings, 10/12/2024 Appendix A Table A.1. Fixed input parameter values in EnergyPlus for office spaces. Object Paramete...

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.