Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Advantages of surrogate models for architectural design optimization

  • Thomas Wortmann (a1), Alberto Costa (a2), Giacomo Nannicini (a2) and Thomas Schroepfer (a1)

Abstract

Climate change, resource depletion, and worldwide urbanization feed the demand for more energy and resource-efficient buildings. Increasingly, architectural designers and consultants analyze building designs with easy-to-use simulation tools. To identify design alternatives with good performance, designers often turn to optimization methods. Randomized, metaheuristic methods such as genetic algorithms are popular in the architectural design field. However, are metaheuristics the best approach for architectural design problems that often are complex and ill defined? Metaheuristics may find solutions for well-defined problems, but they do not contribute to a better understanding of a complex design problem. This paper proposes surrogate-based optimization as a method that promotes understanding of the design problem. The surrogate method interpolates a mathematical model from data that relate design parameters to performance criteria. Designers can interact with this model to explore the approximate impact of changing design variables. We apply the radial basis function method, a specific type of surrogate model, to two architectural daylight optimization problems. These case studies, along with results from computational experiments, serve to discuss several advantages of surrogate models. First, surrogate models not only propose good solutions but also allow designers to address issues outside of the formulation of the optimization problem. Instead of accepting a solution presented by the optimization process, designers can improve their understanding of the design problem by interacting with the model. Second, a related advantage is that designers can quickly construct surrogate models from existing simulation results and other knowledge they might possess about the design problem. Designers can thus explore the impact of different evaluation criteria by constructing several models from the same set of data. They also can create models from approximate data and later refine them with more precise simulations. Third, surrogate-based methods typically find global optima orders of magnitude faster than genetic algorithms, especially when the evaluation of design variants requires time-intensive simulations.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Reprint requests to: Thomas Wortmann, Architecture and Sustainable Design, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 8 Somapah Road, Singapore487372. E-mail: thomas_wortmann@mymail.sutd.edu.sg

References

Hide All
Björkman, M., & Hölmstrom, K. (2000). Global optimization of costly nonconvex functions using radial basis functions. Optimization and Engineering 1(4), 373397.
Cassioli, A., & Schoen, F. (2013). Global optimization of expensive black box problems with a known lower bound. Journal of Global Optimization 57(1), 177190.
Conn, A., Scheinberg, K., & Vicente, L. (2009). Introduction to Derivative-Free Optimization. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Costa, A., & Nannicini, G. (2014). RBFOpt: An Open-Source Library for Black-Box Optimization With Costly Function Evaluations, Optimization Online No. 4538. Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Costa, A., Nannicini, G., Schroepfer, S., & Wortmann, T. (2015). Black-box optimization of lighting simulation in architectural design. In Complex Systems Design & Management Asia (Cardin, M.-A., Krob, D., Pao, C.L., Yang, H.T., & Wood, K., Eds.), pp. 2739. New York: Springer.
Csendes, T., Pál, L., Sendín, J.O.H., & Banga, J.R. (2008). The GLOBAL optimization method revisited. Optimization Letters 2(4), 445454.
De Landa, M. (2002). Deleuze and the use of the genetic algorithm in architecture. In Designing for a Digital World (Leach, N. Ed.), pp. 117118. London: Wiley.
Felkner, J., Chatzi, E., & Kotnik, T. (2013). Interactive particle swarm optimization for the architectural design of truss structures. Proc. 2013 IEEE Symp. Computational Intelligence for Engineering Solutions (CIES). New York: IEEE.
Flager, F., & Haymaker, J. (2009). A Comparison of Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis and Optimization Processes in the Building Construction and Aerospace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gänshirt, C. (2007). Tools for Ideas: Introduction to Architectural Design. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Gutmann, H.-M. (2001). A radial basis function method for global optimization. Journal of Global Optimization 19(3), 201227.
Hassan, R., Cohanim, B., De Weck, O., & Venter, G. (2005). A comparison of particle swarm optimization and the genetic algorithm. Proc. 1st AIAA Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Specialist Conf. Reston, VA: AIAA.
Hemker, T. (2008). Derivative free surrogate optimization for mixed-integer nonlinear black box problems in engineering. PhD Thesis. TU Darmstadt.
Hensel, M. (2013). Performance-Oriented Architecture: Rethinking Architectural Design and the Built Environment, 1st ed.Chichester: Wiley.
Holland, J.H. (1992). Genetic algorithms. Scientific American 267(1), 6672.
Holmström, K., Quttineh, N.-H., & Edvall, M.M. (2008). An adaptive radial basis algorithm (ARBF) for expensive black-box mixed-integer constrained global optimization. Optimization and Engineering 9(4), 311339.
Jakubiec, J.A., & Reinhart, C.F. (2011). DIVA 2.0: integrating daylight and thermal simulations using Rhinoceros 3D, Daysim and EnergyPlus. Proc. Building Simulation 2011. Ottawa: IBPSA.
Johan, R., & Wojciechowski, A. (2007). A method for simulation based optimization using radial basis functions. Master's Thesis. Göteborg University, Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Mathematics.
Jones, D.R., Schonlau, M., & Welch, W.J. (1998). Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. Journal of Global Optimization 13(4), 455492.
Kicinger, R., Arciszewski, T., & Jong, K.D. (2005). Evolutionary computation and structural design: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Computers & Structures 83(23–24), 19431978.
Kolarevic, B. (2005). Computing the performative. In Performative Architecture Beyond Instrumentality (Kolarevic, B., & Malkawi, A., Eds.), pp. 193202. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Kolarevic, B., & Malkawi, A. (2005). Performative Architecture. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Kolda, T., Lewis, R., & Torczon, V. (2003). Optimization by direct search: new perspectives on some classical and modern methods. SIAM Review 45(3), 385482.
Koziel, S., Ciaurri, D.E., & Leifsson, L. (2011). Surrogate-based methods. In Computational Optimization, Methods and Algorithms (Koziel, S., & Yang, X.-S., Eds.), pp. 3359. Heidelberg: Springer.
Lawson, B. (2004). What Designers Know. Oxford: Routledge.
Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural.
Lin, S.-H.E., & Gerber, D.J. (2014). Designing-in performance: a framework for evolutionary energy performance feedback in early stage design. Automation in Construction 38, 5973.
Luebkeman, C., & Shea, K. (2005). CDO: computational design + optimization in building practice. Arup Journal 3, 1721.
Malkawi, A. (2005). Performance simulation. In Performative Architecture Beyond Instrumentality (Kolarevic, B., & Malkawi, A., Eds.), pp. 8595. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Mardaljevic, J., Andersen, M., Roy, N., & Christoffersen, J. (2012). Daylighting, Artificial Lighting and Non-Visual Effects Study for a Residential Building, Velux Technical Report. Loughborough: Loughborough University, School of Civil and Building Engineering.
Miles, J. (2010). Genetic algorithms for design. In Advances of Soft Computing in Engineering (Waszczyszyn, Z. Ed.), pp. 156. Vienna: Springer.
Mullur, A.A., & Messac, A. (2005). Extended radial basis functions: more flexible and effective metamodeling. AIAA Journal 43(6), 13061315.
Oxman, R. (2008). Performance-based design: current practices and research issues. International Journal of Architectural Computing 6(1), 117.
Regis, R.G., & Shoemaker, C.A. (2007). A stochastic radial basis function method for the global optimization of expensive functions. INFORMS Journal on Computing 19(4), 497509.
Rios, L.M., & Sahinidis, N.V. (2013). Derivative-free optimization: a review of algorithms and comparison of software implementations. Journal of Global Optimization 56(3), 12471293.
Rittel, H.W., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2), 155169.
Rutten, D. (2013). Galapagos: on the logic and limitations of generic solvers. Architectural Design 83(2), 132135.
Shea, K., Aish, R., & Gourtovaia, M. (2005). Towards integrated performance-driven generative design tools. Automation in Construction 14(2), 253264.
Shi, X., & Yang, W. (2013). Performance-driven architectural design and optimization technique from a perspective of architects. Automation in Construction 32, 125135.
Simpson, T.W., Poplinski, J.D., Koch, P.N., & Allen, J.K. (2001). Metamodels for computer-based engineering design: survey and recommendations. Engineering With Computers 17(2), 129150.
Smola, A.J., & Schölkopf, B. (2004). A tutorial on support vector regression. Statistics and Computing 14(3), 1991222.
Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997). Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization 11(4), 341359.
Turner, C.J., Crawford, R.H., & Campbell, M.I. (2007). Global optimization of NURBs-based metamodels. Engineering Optimization 39(3), 245269.
Wang, G., & Shan, S. (2006). Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. Journal of Mechanical Design 129(4), 370380.
Woodbury, R.F. (2010). Elements of Parametric Design. New York: Routledge.
Woodbury, R.F., & Burrow, A.L. (2006). Whither design space? Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 20(2), 6382.
Yang, X.-S. (2010). Engineering Optimization: An Introduction With Metaheuristic Applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Advantages of surrogate models for architectural design optimization

  • Thomas Wortmann (a1), Alberto Costa (a2), Giacomo Nannicini (a2) and Thomas Schroepfer (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.