10.18537/est.v012.n024.

a06
Artículo 6

Algorithm Aided Design Framework for BIM: Daylight In

Early Phases of Design

Marco de diseño asistido por algoritmos para BIM: luz

natural en las primeras fases del diseño

Can Koçak1 0000-0001-9986-1764

Sema Alaçam2 0000-0002-5979-3282

1
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey, [email protected]
2
Istanbul Technical University, Turkey, [email protected]

ABSTRACT:
This study proposes an algorithm-aided design (AAD) framework for
using daylight in the early phases of architectural design. Within the
scope of the proposed AAD, a performance-based design approach has
been adopted that can suggest design solutions by optimising with the
Genetic Algorithm (GA) that evaluates the results obtained from daylight
calculation. The AAD framework was developed using the visual
programming application (Dynamo), which interoperates with BIM
Software Autodesk Revit. A case study is simulated to show how the
algorithm is used to generate, evaluate and evolve a massing study,
demonstrating the potential use and implementation of the framework.
The investigations focus on the development of the use of daylight in
architecture using the advantages of computational design tools.
Keywords: Algorithm Aided Design; Performance Based Design; BIM;
Early Phase of Design; Genetic Algorithms.
RESUMEN:
Este estudio propone un marco de diseño asistido por algoritmos (AAD)
para utilizar la luz del día en las primeras fases del diseño arquitectónico.
Dentro del alcance del AAD propuesto, se ha adoptado un enfoque de
diseño basado en el rendimiento que puede sugerir soluciones de diseño
mediante la optimización con el algoritmo genético (GA) que evalúa los
resultados obtenidos a partir del cálculo de la luz diurna. El marco AAD
se desarrolló utilizando la aplicación de programación visual (Dynamo),
que interopera con el software BIM Autodesk Revit. Para demostrar el
uso potencial y la implementación del marco, se simula un estudio de
caso para mostrar cómo se usa el algoritmo para generar, evaluar y
desarrollar un estudio de masa. Las investigaciones se centran en el
desarrollo del uso de la luz natural en la arquitectura utilizando las
ventajas de las herramientas de diseño computacional.
Palabras clave: diseño asistido por algoritmos; diseño basado en el
rendimiento; BIM; fase inicial de diseño; algoritmos genéticos.
Submitted: 06/09/2022
Accepted: 20/04/2023
Published: 19/07/2023

1. Introduction
Decisions taken in the earlier phases of the architectural design process are
considered as crucial due to their impact on the entire process (Mengana &
Mousiadis, 2016). As the design process progresses from the early to the
advanced stages, it becomes less flexible and slower (Paulson, 1976). Fast
and flexible decision-making approaches are commonly used in the early
phases to generate ideas. In conventional architectural design, more abstract
forms of representation, such as lines, function bubbles, and mass studies
are preferred for idea generation due to their simplicity and flexibility
(Arpacıoğlu & Ersoy, 2013). Correspondingly, performance-based
approaches that can provide rapid simulation and model-based analysis are
considered for the architects in addition to their qualitative design decisions
for idea generation in the early design phases. Using performance-based
design approaches that require expertise in the advanced design phase can
cause both cost increase and time loss. Therefore, architects use a variety of
performance-based design approaches to add quantitative value to
qualitative design approaches. In the scope of this study, daylight is used as
a performance based-design criterion.
The use of daylight as a performance criterion in architectural design
processes is not new. To expand the use of daylight in conventional
architecture, the performance-based design simulates purposeful conditions
and it may take advantage of design generation with quantitative data.
Moreover, daylight is more effective in the early phases of the design than
in the late phases, increasing its impact on the building morphology and the
structural mass on design decisions such as the shape of the building, the
settlement on the ground, etc. (He et al., 2021). In performance-based
design, when daylight is not used in the early phases of design, it usually
remains at the level of shell and facade arrangements instead of mass
shaping.

This study has two main questions; Can daylight analysis be integrated into
mass forming during the early phases of the architectural design process
through the cyclic feedback of evolutionary algorithms in a BIM
environment? And, can optimal results be obtained from a daylight-oriented
mass forming study in the early design phase using the NSGA-II method of
Genetic Algorithms or manual selection by the designer? Seeking potential
answers to these questions led to the need for a method allowing the
integrable usage of various methods, enabling future work to be extended
according to the user’s preferred design requirements. One of the reasons for
this research was to contribute to filling the gap caused by the lack of
analysis-based studies in the early phases of design compared to the later
phases of design due to the nature of BIM. In this sense, this study can be
considered a decision support approach that does not require expertise in the
early design phases.
A workflow was created in Dynamo (Autodesk Revit) with an Algorithm-
Aided Design framework to demonstrate how to provide alternative mass
design solution proposals to the designer in the early phases of the design.
Firstly, a parametric template was created to establish of the interior spaces
required for daylight simulation. After that, a simulation was carried out in
these interiors with predetermined daylight conditions. However, this study
focuses on being useful for non-expert users who want to compare daylight
sufficiency for each room rather than more precise daylight efficiency
requiring an expert perspective. The initial results were analysed and
evaluated by the Genetic Algorithm Approach to reveal optimum evolved
results. With consideration of all these factors, the study aims to
demonstrate the implementation of a single hypothetical scenario, among
various potential setups, in the early phases of design using a highly flexible
integration approach in the BIM environment - which comprises the most
commonly used tools in the field.
2. Background
The contribution of Building Information Modelling (BIM) to architectural
design is not limited to the currently widely used Object Oriented Design
(OOD) logic or the simulation of the static state of the building (Humppi,
2015; Ermolenko, 2020). To expand the potential of BIM in architectural
design, Algorithm-Aided Design (AAD) approach offers a framework for
emerging new design solutions with more advantageous methods than
conventional OOD techniques in BIM.
Algorithmic design is not simply the use of computers to design
architecture and objects. Algorithms allow designers to overcome the
limitations of traditional CAD software and 3D modelers, reaching a
level of complexity and control which is beyond the human manual
ability (Tedeschi, 2014).
Algorithmic design is not using the power of computers to design; it
involves manipulating data collected prior to the design phase (Tedeschi &
Lombardi, 2018). AAD is most efficient when it is used to discover what
has not yet been found with the collected data, and to augment the human
brain’s capacity, especially in mathematical and logical relations. Therefore,
in this study, the AAD framework in this study refers to the creation and/or
evaluation of design proposals with the aid of algorithms, rather than relying
solely on human cognition. Thus, the main contribution of this study is to
develop an AAD framework to implement in BIM environment in the early
phase of the design to fill the gap caused by the lack of studies with the most
common software in architectural practices for the dissemination between
non-experts. In order for the AAD framework to create and evaluate design
proposals, a tool setup was used to obtain quantitative data with the
Performance Based Design (PBD) approach. The quantitative data needed to
evaluate design proposals were obtained from daylight simulations and used
for the optimisation of the following design proposals. Genetic Algorithms,
among evolutionary algorithms, were used as an iterative design approach to
optimise the subsequent design proposals (Figure 1). Unlike existing studies
(Humppi, 2015; Ermolenko, 2020), this study focuses on the use of daylight
as a criterion for PBD.
Figure 1: Approach and method scheme

Source: Authors (2019)

Additionally, several comparable studies in this field were analysed in light

of the established criteria. Five main criteria, within the scope of the study,
(Evaluation Criteria (A), Design Phases (B), Structural Sophistication (C),
Simulation Repetition (D), Decision Maker (E)) and sub-criteria (Daylight
(Illumination) (A1), Thermal Comfort (A2), Energy Consumption (A3),
Concept Phase (Early Phase) (B1), Design Development Phase (B2),
Construction Phase (Late Phase) (B3), Massing Study (Undetailed Building
Components) (C1), Detailed Building Components (C2), Singular
(Nonautomatized) (D1), Iterative (Automatized) (D2), By Designer (E1), By
Algorithm (E2)) were selected.

Table 1: Categorisation of Criteria

Source: Authors (2019)

Table 2: Distribution of Criteria by Sources

Source: Authors (2019)

The studies selected from the literature were chosen for their similarity to
the present study to more accurately identify the differences between this
study and the broader context of related research. Table 1 and Table 2 show
that most of the studies are illuminance-based and conducted in the early
stages of design, utilising iterative and automated processes. Among the
commonly used software, Rhino-Grasshopper and, to a lesser extent, Revit-
Dynamo, are preferred as they do not require expertise. In addition to these
categories, the algorithm assisted sequencing made with the Revit-Dynamo
tool can be integrated for a specific purpose by non-experts. It is evaluated
using the logic of genetic algorithms, and the optimum result is then
presented to the designer. Thus, the points where the study differs and
resembles its counterparts were analysed. The most apparent difference
between this study and other studies is the daylight optimisation
implementation in the BIM environment, specifically using Optimo and
Honeybee together.

3. Methods
The proposed framework is based on optimising interior space daylight
illumination sufficiency with variations of massing study alternatives in the
early phase of the design. Numerical data obtained by measuring interior
illumination values (lux) are utilised to provide mass optimisation. The
measurements are taken using orthogonal grid-based receivers, which can
assess daylight levels within the interiors of mass settlements formed by
enclosing walls and windows. To achieve this, the designer first subdivided
the project area and then studied the placement of masses on a grid-based
grid (Figure 2). In the case study, the building in the model is considered a
single-story settlement due to the constraints of the chosen daylight
simulation tool (Honeybee). The mass study, the initial basis of the studied
model geometry, is considered a template that the architect can use as a
base. This template is designed in a rectangular prism shape due to the
working principle of geometric objects, namely Honey Bee and Ladybug.
Due to their working principles, these packages require a single-story
orthogonal closed area to be used in later stages. For this reason, the types of
forms produced are limited to orthogonal rectangular shapes. In future
studies, this could be improved to allow for approaches involving multi-
story settlements and different shapes of masses.
Figure 2: Form generation process

Source: Authors (2019)

The study has limitations, as several architectural design parameters have

been disregarded. This is because the study’s primary objective is to
generate design ideas by testing the layout of template mass models created
during the early stages of architectural design. The test was carried out on a
hypothetical model. For example, other parameters affecting the daylight
adequacy of the interior such as the number of stories, the settlement of the
surrounding buildings, the quest for non-orthogonal shapes, the ratio of the
fenestration, structural components, and materials are ignored. The model
can include these parameters model to develop a more comprehensive
model. In addition, due to the extended simulation time caused by including
numerous parameters in the model, this study, aiming to promote wider
adoption, focused solely on single-objective optimisation as a simplified
hypothetical example.
Besides, many decisions are limited due to the tools chosen for the study.
For example, Honeybee, one of the selected tools, needs an orthogonal,
closed area to measure daylight. Furthermore, Honeybee does not work
efficiently with all daylight measurement methods to provide optimisation
with Optimo. Some daylight methods take too long to evaluate for
optimisation in Optimo as it outputs the annual value average or a
percentage of daylight as a value. At the outset, these options were
deliberately excluded from the study to ensure practicality and adhere to the
principle of promoting widespread adoption, which is one of the study’s
objectives.
The proposed method evaluates the composition of masses generated
randomly using the logic of Genetic Algorithms and daylight calculation.
The aim is to generate an optimal mass solution proposal for designers
during the early stages of the design process. According to the designer’s
preferred solution, this mass composition can be evaluated with a manual
(option 1) or a genetic algorithm-assisted approach (option 2). Thus, the
tool’s operation is automated and user-defined periodically, following the
framework and within the constraints of the interface throughout the
process. The operation of the whole process can be seen in the Algorithm
flowchart of the model (Figure 3) in the context of automation, user-defined
sections, and the interoperation of the selected tools (software) with each
other.
Mass compositions were obtained with template masses positioned at the
subdivisions’ midpoints. Initially, these template masses were created to
match the size of the partitions formed by randomly selected numbers
within the project area. The process of area subdivision and mass placement
in the middle of the partitions was repeated for a specified number of
iterations (50 iterations in this case), allowing the numbers to converge to
the optimum result with each subsequent generation. The framework
scheme of the whole study is shown below (Table 3).
Figure 3: Algorithm flowchart of the model

Source: Authors (2019)

Table 3: Framework Scheme

Source: Authors (2019)

In architectural praxis, Sculpting/Digital Sculpting modelling which

corresponds to Object-Oriented Design Modelling (Revit, Archicad, etc.) or
Geometrical Design Modelling (Non-Object Oriented) (3DMax, Sketchup,
etc.) in architectural design modelling, is preferred due to its practicality.
Consequently, the potential of Visual Programming, which is preferred in a
limited capacity within architectural practice, is not fully utilised in the
discipline of architecture. For this reason, the objective is to enhance the
research potential and contribute to architectural practice by attempting to
utilise Autodesk Revit Software, which architects commonly use. A model
of the framework is created in Dynamo, an open-source visual programming
application that can interact with Autodesk Revit Software, to enhance its
parametric capabilities and incorporate the AAD framework.
The process starts within Revit screen, which provides a grid-based
(orthogonal grid) workplace for mass settlement workspace, constructed
within a building area and its environment. In the next step, the EnergyPlus
weather (EPW) file is selected based on the location information of the
study area, which, in this case, is Istanbul. The climatic data, including the
region’s annual or instantaneous daylight intake effects, are then transferred
to the Dynamo interface and interact with the Revit screen. In the final step,
the Honeybee package within Dynamo simulates interior illumination by
utilising a grid-based surface area. The results are then evaluated using
Optimo, one of the commonly used Genetic Algorithm packages within
Dynamo.
All approaches offer various options. The form generation part can be based
on randomness, or the user can choose to fix certain parts of the masses.
Honeybee and Ladybug provide several daylight calculation methods
(Daylight Coefficient, Daylight Factor, etc.) that can be chosen according to
preference. In the evolutionary algorithms section, the fitness function is
determined based on the structure of Genetic Algorithms and can be
specified according to user preference or design priority. In this study, the
fitness function is defined as the ratio of the number of rooms within the
specified lux value range (300 lux to 1000 lux) that meet the arithmetic
mean of measured values, to the total number of rooms. However, this
fitness function description can be revised to align with specific design
requirements. One of the original contributions of this study is its ability to
facilitate this flexible integration. The relationship between the methods,
tools, and applications of all approaches used in this study are presented in
the following diagram (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Design Approach, Method, Tool and Implementation Scheme

Source: Authors (2019)

A site plan was created within the Revit main modelling screen interface to
determine the surrounding buildings and the project area. In the Dynamo
application, a floor was explicitly generated for surface identification
(Figure 5). This area was considered a project (construction) area.
Therefore, the boundary of the floor area is used to define the boundaries of
the mass settlement which will be explained in the next phase. Surrounding
buildings were included in the model to obstruct daylight from reaching the
masses within the project area. However, it was observed that Honeybee and
Ladybug tools did not consider these buildings during daylight evaluation.
The reason is that Honeybee utilises Revit Room objects, which can only
define model components (such as walls, windows, floors, and ceilings)
within the enclosed space. As a result, the surrounding buildings cannot be
considered for daylight calculations since they fall outside the boundaries of
the Revit Room, which is limited to the interior space.
Figure 5: Surrounding Buildings and Project (Construction) Area

Source: Authors (2019)

The Conceptual Mass Family (CMF) provided by Revit was chosen for
mass placement. CMF is one of the five study available file formats in
Revit. This family (CMF) was designed with the desired parameters,
specifically as a rectangular prism that can be used to represent walls, floors,
and windows. The template is designed with three fundamental parameters
(length, width, height) to define the dimensions of this template base in 3D
(Figure 6).
Figure 6: Working principle of Revit’s Conceptual Mass Family (CMF)
Source: Authors (2019)

To define the surface area, a floor element is created and divided

“LunchBox Quad Grid by Face” node in UV axes. This division helps the
sizes and location points of the CMF elements. To constrain the
parametrical values of U and V, the resulting parts (the construction system
was considered to be a reinforced concrete structure) are limited within the
maximum and minimum clearance distances of the structural supports
(maximum=8 meter, minimum=3 meter) (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Division of the floor surface and assignment of the points

Source: Authors (2019)

Following the division process, the centres of the Conceptual Mass

Families, which serve as bases, were determined by assigning one point to
the middle of the rectangles obtained. These points were randomly selected
using the “Random List As Element” node. Once the random selection was
completed, the Conceptual Mass Families were placed, resulting in a
potential mass settlement (Figure 8). At this stage, two of the three different
parametric properties of the placed masses (length and width) were
determined by connecting them to the lengths and widths of the fractions.
The remaining feature (height) was manually determined based on user
preference.
Figure 8: Conceptual Mass Family placement on the random points
Source: Authors (2019)

After the Conceptual Mass Family (CMF) settlements are used as the
structural template, the walls, windows and floors are covered on the CMF
(Figure 9). Walls, windows and floors used as building elements are
required to establish the Revit Rooms, which are in turn required by the
Honeybee plugin in Dynamo to work (Figure 10).
Figure 9: Covering with walls, windows and ceiling on the Conceptual
Mass Family
Source: Authors (2019)

Figure 10: Covering with walls, windows and ceiling on the Conceptual
Mass Family - Dynamo algorithm definition

Source: Authors (2019)

To define Revit Rooms, windows, walls, floors, and ceilings are necessary.
Using the Honeybee plugin, these rooms serve as the boundaries for
calculating daylight value (lux). The rooms have been identified as the
boundaries of the calculation area. In the initial stage of Honeybee, it starts
by collecting rooms and spaces. It creates a list of elements within the room
that are enclosed walls and windows, considering solid (walls) and void
(windows) (Figure 9).
The proposed framework employs Honeybee, Ladybug and Radiance
plugins in Dynamo for sufficiency of the illumination in interior spaces for
the simulation of daylight to calculate the effects of daylight in the
illumination in interior spaces. Various types of daylight models, such as
daylight factor (Mardaljevic, 2000), climate-based modelling (Mardaljevic,
2006), and daylight coefficient, are employed to calculate the effects of
daylight on interior space illumination. The Honeybee’s package for
Dynamo enables the evaluation of interior space daylight sufficiency within
interior spaces, which is crucial for generating alternative initial mass
studies. The proposed framework uses point in time grid-based (PITGB)
method, which simulates the daylight at the selected time and location
(Figure 11). The working principle of PITGB is based on the calculation of
daylight illuminance over a predetermined place and time. Point-in-time
simulations fall under the Sunlight analyses category and are a fundamental
companion to the Daylight Factor. While the Daylight Factor tests only
cloudy conditions (overcast) PITGB allows for the utilisation of different
climatic characteristics, such as the quantity and angle of daylight. Also,
since Daylight Autonomy expresses a percentage, PITGB provides a direct
numerical value for sunlight, making it more useful for evaluations in
evolutionary algorithms. Although it may not be the ideal measurement
method for massing the building layout, it was selected for a hypothetical
case study to explore potential future development. For more comprehensive
daylight analysis, specialised studies and expertise should be employed
(TUDelft: Honeybee Tutorial 2: Daylight Analysis with Radiance, 2023). In
this case study, Istanbul and December 21 (winter solstice, when the sun is
at its lowest altitude) were selected as the assumed darkest day of the year to
examine the minimum light sufficiency, taking into account tool constraints.
The origin of the evaluation range in this study is based on Useful Daylight
Illuminance (UDI). UDI values represent the annual occurrence of
illuminations on the working plane within the range of 100 lux to 2000 lux.
The desired illuminance is typically taken as a minimum of 500 lux for
office work, while daylight illuminations exceeding 2000 lux can lead to
visual disturbances (Nabil & Mardaljevic, 2006). In this study, since the
masses under consideration serve as housing functions, the minimum
illumination value is determined as 300 lux, and the maximum illumination
value is 1000 lux.
Figure 11: Honeybee Point in Time Grid Based algorithmic workflow
Source: Authors (2019)
“Optimo”, the Genetic Algorithm tool in Revit Dynamo, was selected to
choose among the design proposals produced by evaluating the daylight
calculation data. “Optimo is a multi-objective optimisation tool that is part
of BIM-based Performance Optimisation (BPOpt) and is and is specifically
designed for use inDynamo” (Optimo website, 2019). It is an open-source
software based on visual programming and Multi-Objective Optimisation
(MOO) (Deb et al., 2000). Optimo is developed to interact parametrically
with Autodesk Revit for BIM-based optimisation (Asl et al., 2015). Optimo
has an evolutionary algorithm approach. It uses Nondominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) for Multi-objective Optimisation (MOO)
(Deb et al., 2000). This approach helps designers optimise multiple
conflicting objectives and provides a set of optimal solutions (Figure 16).
Although this case study focuses on single-objective optimisation, Optimo
was chosen for its capability of multi-objective optimisation, which could be
beneficial for future projects if desired.
Figure 12: Optimo algorithm definition 1

Source: Authors (2019)

Working in Optimo begins by first specifying the inputs of the

“NSGA_II_Initial Solution List” node. The Population Size determines the
total number of the population used. The “NumObjectives” node determines
the number of tasks considered together. The Lower and Upper Limits
determine the range of the random numbers selected in the population.
These operations are standard procedures for Optimo in each study. On the
contrary, the fitness function part is specially designed for each task. In this
study, the “All System” node encompasses the algorithm responsible for
generating the masses and their placements. All other operations are
consolidated into a custom node to be executed within the “Function Apply”
node. This node facilitates the generation of initial population results by
processing each produced population member using the settings specified in
the “Function Apply” node (Figure 12).
Figure 13: Optimo algorithm definition 2

Source: Authors (2019)

The “Function Apply” node results are then passed to the “NSGA-II
AssignFitnessFuncResults” node to obtain the first output values. These
output values are iteratively processed in the “LoopWhile”node, based on
the specified number in the “Loop Completion Check” node (Figure 13).
Simultaneously, in the “NSGA II Function” node the user defines the upper
and lower limits at the beginning; and the user-defined fitness function node
(All System node) is executed as the Loop Body, following the logic of
NSGA II. The resulting data from the Loop Body is added to the
“LoopWhile” node to complete the optimisation process (Figure 16).
Throughout the entire setup, the data of each generation is exported to a
CSV format (Excel file) using the “DataExportCSV” node. Concurrently,
the output data obtained is used as input for the algorithm. Optimo’s
standard algorithm offers limited options that can be adjusted through user
interfaces (Figure 13), making it ideal for non-expert designers. This section
of Optimo requires the determination of numerical options, such as
population number, number of objectives, and lower and upper limits,
following standard genetic algorithm schemes (Figure 14).
Figure 14: User interface scheme of Optimo algorithm

Source: Authors (2019)

However, perhaps the most crucial option is the

“FitnessFunctionCustomNode”. This option allows the designer to
determine the criteria by which the results obtained from the processed
population members will be included in the success scale. In this study, the
success criterion is based on the average lux value of daylight in the room,
which should fall within acceptable illumination limits for most room
functions according to UDI (min 300lux - max 1000lux) (Konis, 2013)
(Brembilla et al., 2017). This criterion, referred to as the Fitness Function
ratio, is defined as the ratio of the number of rooms with an average indoor
lighting value that meets the sufficient enlightenment criteria to the total
number of rooms generated in each generation (Figure 15).
A “successful room” in this context means that the average lux value
measured in the room fall within the determined acceptable enlightenment
limits (minimum 300 lux - maximum 1000 lux) (Brembilla et al., 2017).
Figure 15: The definition of the fitness function for this study

Source: Authors (2019)

Thus, the evaluation part of the constructed algorithm with the genetic
algorithm was completed (Figure 16).
Figure 16: Algorithm definition of the optimisation process in Optimo
Source: Authors (2019)
4. Results
After completing all the algorithm sequencing, the algorithm was run for 50
iterations. The results for each iteration were exported in CSV format (Excel
format), and a visualisation of the design proposal containing the values
expected to be “optimal” at the end of the process was generated (Figure
16). For the visualisation, the “Hourly Values” node provides values
corresponding to each cell’s daylight radiance (lux). These values are
conveyed to the basic Dynamo Node - “Generate Colours” node, which
assigns colours based on the values and legend parameters. The
visualisation depicts the colours based on a spectrum ranging from red to
blue, where the blue cells represent relatively low lux values, and the
colours gradually transition towards red as lux values increase (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Visualisation of daylight calculation of the Revit Rooms
Source: Authors (2019)

The proposed framework does not focus on the distribution of daylight in

the room but rather measures success based on whether the average values
of each cell in the room fall within the specified range (min 300 lux - max
1000 lux) (Brembilla et al., 2017). After the algorithm was run for 50
iterations, only the design proposal with the highest fitness function ratio
(FFR) was obtained with visual output in accordance with Optimo’s
working principles. Simultaneously, the numerical data from the remaining
49 design proposals and the one that achieved the highest fitness function
ratio (Figure 18).
Figure 18: Data collection of the experiments

Source: Authors (2019)

At this stage, the graph depicting the results obtained from running the
system for 50 iterations was transferred to the table (Figure 19). The system
generated a visual representation of the design proposal with the highest
FFR.
Figure 19: Graph of the Fitness Function Ratio results of the 50 iterations

Source: Authors (2019)

The proposed framework of the algorithm focuses on generating a new input

value that narrows the randomness interval for the generation of the next
generation based on the FFR rate received after each generation of design
proposals. This approach aims to achieve higher FFR results in subsequent
generations. However, due to the nature of NSGA-II, a new generation was
produced that would have mutations by resetting the randomness after a few
generations. This ensures that the FFR does not remain confined to a partial
peak range as seen in the 5th generation of the graph. The design proposal
with the highest FFR, seen at the top of the graph, is exported as output.
After running the algorithm, the results from the experiments are as follows
(Figure 20). Each experiment outputs the design proposal with the highest
FFR among its 50 generations as the final product. It can be seen that the
results obtained from the algorithm may include different sized masses
coming together in various combinations.
Figure 20: Comparison of the design proposals in all experiments
Source: Authors (2019)

5. Discussion and conclusions

This study presents a proposed algorithm-aided design framework for using
daylight in the early phases of architectural design. The aim of the study is
not only to concentrate on the case study but also to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the proposed approaches. Although the BIM environment
contributes to architectural design with developing technology, integration
with the Algorithm-Aided Design framework has certain limitations. The
primary motivation behind this study is the separate advancements of these
two approaches (BIM and AAD) in their respective fields of work and the
need to overcome integration difficulties resulting from their differing
working principles. The key challenges in integrating these two approaches
lie in their fundamental differences.BIM’s Object-Oriented Design approach
requires a definition or a set of rules based on the structural relationships of
elements in the model. BIM controls objects with parameter data. However,
AAD primarily focuses on geometric modelling without incorporating
semantic data. When algorithms are employed to generate geometry, the
commonly used AAD approach revolves around modelling geometry
without additional information beyond its geometric properties. In this
study, the term Algorithm-Aided Design does not mean the algorithmic
coding inside the tool but the design by algorithms created/composed by the
designer. It has been observed that these two approaches can work together
in harmony in working frameworks made within properly constructed
working frameworks. Additionally, the study has provided evidence
supporting the initial research questions: Can daylight analysis be integrated
into the early stages of architectural design through iterative feedback from
evolutionary algorithms within a BIM environment? Can optimal results be
achieved in a daylight-focused mass formation study using the NSGA-II
method of Genetic Algorithms or manual selection by the designer?
With regard to studies on the implementation of Genetic Algorithms from
Evolutionary Algorithms which evaluate Performance-Based Design, the
generation of design proposals has been achieved. The chosen Algorithm-
Aided Design tool for evolutionary algorithms is Dynamo, and Optimo is
Dynamo’s widely utilised optimisation package. The fitness function has
been successfully tested in various examples providing proof of concept.
This study distinguishes itself from others in the field by utilising widely
used software that does not require extensive expertise, thus offering more
opportunities for practical implementation in architecture. The aim of the
study is to demonstrate the implementation of a hypothetical scenario within
the BIM environment’s early design phase, incorporating the most widely
used tools in the field.
The contribution of this study, which differs from other studies in its field is
that it is carried out with the most widely used software that does not require
expertise, and it provides more opportunities for its use in architectural
practice than others. The study aims to show the implementation of only one
hypothetical scenario among the scenarios open to different setups, with a
very flexible integration, for the early phase of design in the BIM
environment which consists of the most widely used tools in the field.
For future studies, the Algorithm-Aided Design framework offers the
potential to explore different setups and configurations, allowing for diverse
studies. In addition to various mass formation approaches, daylight-related
investigations, such as window widths, glass transmittance, fenestration,
level of glare, etc., can also be evaluated in different ways within the
framework.
6. References
Ağırbaş, A. (2018). Performance-based design optimization for minimal
surface based form. Architectural Science Review, 61(6), 384-399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1523130

Arpacıoğlu, Ü., & Ersoy, H. (2013). Daylight and energy oriented

architecture design support model. Gazi University Journal of
Science, 26(2), 331-346.

Asl, M. R., Stoupine, A., Zarrinmehr, S., & Yan, W. (2015). Optimo: A
BIM-based multi-objective optimization tool utilizing visual programming
for high performance building design. B. Martens, G. Wurzer, T. Grasl,
WE., Lorenz & R. Schaffranek (Eds.), Real Time - Proceedings of the 33rd
eCAADe Conference, (pp. 673-682). Vienna University of Technology.
https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2015.1.673

Brembilla, E., Hopfe, C. J., & Mardaljevic, J. (2017). Influence of input

reflectance values on climate-based daylight metrics using sensitivity
analysis. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 11(3), 333-349.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2017.1364786
Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A., & Meyarivan, T. (2000). A fast elitist non-
dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization:
NSGA-II. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature PPSN VI: 6th
International Conference Paris, France, September 18–20, 2000
Proceedings 6 (pp. 849-858). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_83
Dino, I. G., & Üçoluk, G. (2017). Multiobjective design optimization of
building space layout, energy, and daylighting performance. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 31(5), 04017025.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000669
Ermolenko, E. (2020). Algorithm-aided Information Design: Hybrid Design
approach on the edge of Associative Methodologies in AEC [Master
dissertation, Universidade do Minho].

Han, Y., Shen, L. & Sun, C. (2021). Developing a parametric morphable

annual daylight prediction model with improved generalization capability
for the early stages of office building design, Building and Environment,
200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107932

He, Q., Li, Z., Gao, W., Chen, H., Wu, X., Cheng, X. & Lin, B. (2021).
Predictive models for daylight performance of general floorplans based on
CNN and GAN: A proof-of-concept study. Building and Environment, 206,
p.108346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108346

Humppi, H. (2015). Algorithm-Aided Building Information Modeling-

Connecting Algorithm-Aided Design and Object-Oriented Design [Master’s
Thesis, Tampere University of Technology/School of Architecture]

Konis, K. (2013). Evaluating daylighting effectiveness and occupant visual

comfort in a side-lit open-plan office building in San Francisco,
California. Building and Environment, 59, 662-677.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.09.017

Konis, K., Gamas, A., Kensek, K., & Hall, W. (2016). Passive Performance
and Building Form: An Optimization Framework for Early-Stage Design
Support, Solar Energy, 125, 161-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.12.020

Mardaljevic, J. (2000). Simulation of Annual Daylighting Profiles for

Internal Illuminance. Lighting Research & Technology, 32(3), 111–118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09603271000320030

Mardaljevic, J. (2006). Examples of Climate-Based Daylight Modelling.

CIBSE National Conference 2006: Engineering the Future 21-22 March
2006. Pap. 67, (pp. 1-11). Oval Cricket Ground.

Mengana, S., & Mousiadis, T. (2016). Parametric BIM: Energy

Performance Analysis Using Dynamo for Revit [Master’s Thesis,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology].

Nabil, A., & Mardaljevic, J. (2006). Useful daylight illuminances: A

replacement for daylight factors. Energy and Buildings, 38(7), 905–913.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.013

Optimo website (2019, May 12). https://github.com/mrahmaniasl/Optimo

Paulson, B.C. (1976) Designing to reduce construction costs. Journal of the

Construction Division, 102(4), 587-592.

Queiroz, N., Westphal, F. S., & Pereira, F. O. R. (2020). A performance-

based design validation study on EnergyPlus for daylighting analysis,
Building and Environment, 183, 107088.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107088

Tedeschi, A., & Lombardi, D. (2018). The Algorithms-Aided Design

(AAD). M. Hemmerling & L. Cocchiarella (Eds). Informed Architecture,
/pp. 33-38). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53135-9_4
Tedeschi, A. (2014). AAD algorithms-aided design. Parametric strategies
using grasshopper. Le Penseur Publisher.

TUDelft: Honeybee Tutorial 2: Daylight Analysis with Radiance.(2023,

March 1).
http://wiki.bk.tudelft.nl/toi-pedia/Honeybee_Tutorial_2:_Daylight_Analysis
_with_Radiance#Step_4B:_Point-in-time_simulation

Welle, B., Rogers, Z., & Fischer, M. (2012). BIM-Centric Daylight Profiler
for Simulation (BDP4SIM): A methodology for automated product model
decomposition and recomposition for climate-based daylighting
simulation. Building and Environment, 58, 114-134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.021

Yang, D., Di Stefano, D., Turrin, M., Sariyildiz, S., & Sun, Y. (2020).
Dynamic and interactive re-formulation of multi-objective optimization
problems for conceptual architectural design exploration. Automation in
Construction, 118, 103251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103251

Yılmaz, Y., & Oral, G. K. (2019). An approach for cost and energy efficient
retrofitting of a lower secondary school building. Journal of the Faculty of
Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 34(1), 393-407.
10.17341/gazimmfd.416503