Weber, R E (2024) Spatial computing for building performance and design. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
Abstract
Accommodating urban population growth while reducing emissions from the built environment poses an unprecedented challenge to the architectural discipline. To enable more sustainable construction, the dissertation proposes a new computational design framework to investigate how building performance from an environmental and user perspective relates to spatial design. The dissertation surveys existing computational methodologies for design automation and identifies new opportunities and value propositions for architectural computing in design guidance, feedback, and optimization. Exploring methods that can be used to generate and optimize structural systems of buildings and interior layouts, a specific focus lies in the design of residential buildings. By applying generative design methods to building analytics, new ways for estimating the embodied carbon of a building and the environmental impact of system-level design choices can be explored.First, the research demonstrates how generative geometric algorithms can be coupled with structural simulations to accurately predict the structural material quantity and, through that, the embodied carbon of a building in early stages of design. Second, a new method for representing, analyzing, and generating spatial layouts – the hypergraph – is proposed, that captures the characteristics of any given floor plan. Unveiling new architectural opportunities through automatic geometry creation, the hypergraph shows potential to improve the quality of residential spaces in terms of environmental performance and access to daylight. Enabling new design tools for architects, it offers creative applications and new collaborative workflows for incorporating new spatial metrics in the design process. Allowing for new quantitative insights in building performance, the research demonstrates that spatial efficiency can outperform envelope upgrades in terms of carbon emission savings.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Mueller, C and Reinhart, C |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | automation; building performance; built environment; computing; environmental impact; environmental performance; estimating; feedback; optimization; population; residential; sustainable construction |
| Index terms: | building performance, survey, user perspective, embodied carbon, design framework, design process, sustainable construction, workflow, estimating, generative design, population, methodology, environmental impact, computing, savings, environmental performance, residential building, efficiency, geometry, carbon emission, dissertation, automation, architect, structural simulation, built environment |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, profession, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, design methods, computing systems, infrastructure and transport systems, management, design practice, performance management, economic analysis, construction type, research dissemination and communication, user focus, digital engineering, environmental impact, climate science, demography, quality assurance, sustainability assessment, research methods, automation and robotics, design process, sustainable construction |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here