Randomized trial investigates daylight performance in ramp buildings using multi-configuration façades, suggesting improved visual comfort.
This study investigates the integration of a multi-configuration parametric shading system in buildings with continuous ramp designs to enhance daylight performance and visual comfort. Focusing on the Harbourside Art Museum in Bristol, UK, the research explores how discrete-configuration parametric façade configurations can be optimized to balance daylight access and glare control in complex spatial environments. A parametric simulation workflow was developed using Rhino, Grasshopper, Ladybug, and Honeybee, supported by Radiance and Daysim engines for Climate-Based Daylight Modelling (CBDM). Three performance metrics—Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI), Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE), and Daylight Glare Probability (DGP)—were employed to evaluate baseline and optimized models. Optimization was performed using Galapagos (single-objective genetic algorithm, population size = 50 individuals, 100 generations, convergence tolerance = 0.001; the fitness function maximized UDI while penalizing ASE excess above 75 h/year and GFI below 0.75, using a weighted single-objective score: Fitness = UDI − 0.3 × (ASE/250) + 0.3 × GFI) and Colibri 2.0 combined with Design Explorer for exhaustive multi-objective combinatorial analysis. Results from the base model showed high daylight availability but excessive glare, particularly along the ramp. Through systematic optimization, the study identified façade and contextual configurations that achieved a UDI of 0.77, an ASE of 74, and a glare-free index of 0.81. The findings demonstrate that orientation-specific multi-configuration shading, when integrated with contextual design parameters, significantly improves the daylighting performance of architecturally complex spaces. This research offers a replicable methodology for designers aiming to integrate responsive daylighting strategies in public and exhibition buildings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alymani et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: