A Methodology of Interactive Motion Facades Design through Parametric Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article tackles the interactive façade design problem with refined design process based on parametric strategy. Regardless of many grammatical errors, the major flaw of this article is that technology applied in this article is basically Grasshopper scripts with several plugins that lack of abstraction in theory and discussion on these approaches. It is perfectly fine to use current available technology or tools for prototyping or simulation and evaluation. However, a journal article might further initiate an argument or knowledge analysis which might be still valid while these “current” technology disappears after generation.

 

Secondly, the parametric design discussed in 2 is only a set of tools not the parametic design itself. Author might want to consider “Elements of parametric design” by Rob Woodbury and other literatures to enhance the concept behind the parametric design and to further defining the parametric strategies in this article.

 

Thirdly, since the focus is on interactive façade design process, the argument in line 61 needs more evidences to sustain. While there is not much search results from “interactive façade”, there are more relevant results from “interactive skin” or “dynamic skin”. Authors might consider the process model provided by these articles to further arguments.

 

Finally, the references also need to be checked for validation namely the reference of “philosophy of parametric design…”. Additionally, each tool should be cited according to their author not the platform. Such as grasshopper is created by David Rutten

, not McNeel. Even based on grasshopper, Ladybug is another platform that requires another reference as well. There are many other key references from both parametric design and virtual reality in addition to the interactive façade design,

 

There are many grammatical errors such as

line 29 “…installations, As …” line 40 “…generate…” line 54 “… that implements…”

and many others errors should be corrected.

 

The energy simulation tools in Figure 1 should be JePlus EA, not JePlus AE.

 

 

Author Response

Point 1: This article tackles the interactive façade design problem with refined design process based on parametric strategy. Regardless of many grammatical errors, the major flaw of this article is that technology applied in this article is basically Grasshopper scripts with several plugins that lack abstraction in theory and discussion on these approaches. It is perfectly fine to use current available technology or tools for prototyping or simulation and evaluation. However, a journal article might further initiate an argument or knowledge analysis which might be still valid while these “current” technology disappears after generation.


Response 1: I agree that there are grammatical errors in this research and they have been extensively addressed. I also agree that that the initial research was centralized on the technology which was grasshopper scripts. Revisions to this research have been made to reflect that the parametric core principles that the tools like grasshopper and dynamo are developed on. The research further emphasizes that the technology the process of parametric algorithm modeling utilizes mathematical variables suitable design as stated in the citation of Law, A.; Kelton, D. Simulation Modeling and Analysis 2000. That states 3D modeling processes are based on mathematical methods to generate data that affect the user's decision accurately. Revisions have also been made to reflect the reasoning on which the platforms selected in this research are selected and the effect they have on design.

Point 2: The parametric design discussed in 2 is only a set of tools not the parametric design itself. Author might want to consider “Elements of parametric design” by Rob Woodbury and other literature to enhance the concept behind the parametric design and to further defining the parametric strategies in this article.

Response 2: In chapter 2, the revised research has been modified to reflect the changes such as the comparison between parametric and conventional modeling processes and the principles that make the parametric process automated, convenient and improve iteration. Also, the types of parametric design in architecture are introduced and selected types explored in the scope of this research.

Point 3: The focus is on interactive façade design process, the argument in line 61 needs more evidence to sustain. While there is not much search results from “interactive façade”, there are more relevant results from “interactive skin” or “dynamic skin”. Authors might consider the process model provided by these articles to further arguments. Response 3: I agree that the argument in line 61 that states “the challenge in interactive façade is shifting the design process of modeling a unit of the pattern to producing the whole system” has been further enhanced by the citation of Design considerations for adopting kinetic facades in building practice. Processes in interactive skins, dynamic skins and kinetic facades have been considered in the comparison of the existing process and proposed process.

Point 4: the references also need to be checked for validation namely the reference of the “philosophy of parametric design…”. Additionally, each tool should be cited according to their author not the platform. Such as grasshopper is created by David Rutten
, not McNeel. Even based on grasshopper, Ladybug is another platform that requires another reference as well. There are many other key references from both parametric design and virtual reality in addition to the interactive façade design,

Response 4: All references have been modified and validated and platform citation have been modified to cite the authors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article discusses the currently growing subject matter of  computational design approaches to motion facades. As such the article is sound. There are some key references missing (i.e. Schumacher, Schaeffer, Vogt: Move-Architecture in Motion, etc.). The conclusion is somewhat abbreviated and could use some more critical elaboration and more clear listing of further research questions in particular in relation to methods and tools. The English language requires some attention. There are often articles missing. Sentences are sometimes incomplete or structured wrongly and punctuation is an issue. As such minor revisions should be made. I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Point 1: The article discusses the currently growing subject matter of computational design approaches to motion facades. As such the article is sound. There are some key references missing (i.e. Schumacher, Schaeffer, Vogt: Move-Architecture in Motion, etc.).

Response 1: I agree that key references are missing and revisions made reflect such citations of Move-Architecture in Motion as well as articles such as Kinetic Architecture: Concepts, History and Applications and Interactive Movement in Kinetic Architecture. Furthermore, types of motion and examples in relation to function have been presented respectively to enhance the motion in interactive facades and due to the role rotation plays an interactive façade design, we explore rotation parametrically in connection with virtual reality.

Point 2: The conclusion is somewhat abbreviated and could use some more critical elaboration and more clear listing of further research questions in particular in relation to methods and tools.

Response 2: The conclusion has been modified to present the design principles and results of the methodology in significance to how the proposed system improves automation, iteration and convenience.

Point 3: The English language requires some attention. There are often articles missing. Sentences are sometimes incomplete or structured wrongly and punctuation is an issue. As such minor revisions should be made. I recommend the article for publication.

Response 3: The grammatical errors in this research have been extensively addressed

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors describe interoperability of different software packages to aid the design of kinetic facade systems. They link parametric modelling (rhino / grasshopper) with simulation (grasshopper / ladybug / DIVA). The simulation results are then used to set up the geometry in an immersive VR environment.

There is merit in the approach of combining parametric modelling strategies and simulation with an VR environment for enhanced architectural evaluation.

However, it would make for a stronger paper to highlight the benefits of the VR environment in comparison to the parametric models better ( the presented Screenshots look simular to results that could be also achieved within rhino - no texturing or advanced lighting shown).

I recommend to output fig. 9,10,11 from grasshopper without backround for better representation. File < Export High res image.

The autors might want to include the book ´MOVE - Architecture in Motion
Architecture in Motion - Dynamic Components and Elements´in their references.

 

 

 

Author Response

Point 1: it would make for a stronger paper to highlight the benefits of the VR environment in comparison to the parametric models better (the presented Screenshots look similar to results that could be also achieved within rhino - no texturing or advanced lighting shown).

Response 1: This research has been modified to reflected the benefits of virtual reality in comparison to parametric modelling as seen in the revised added output images 17 and 19 that reflect the virtual model at different times of the day as well as an immersive view with textures and virtual lighting.

Point 2: I recommend to output fig. 9,10,11 from grasshopper without background for better representation. File < Export High res image.

Response 2: The suggested images have been exported in high resolution without backgrounds.

Point 2: The authors might want to include the book ´MOVE - Architecture in Motion Architecture in Motion - Dynamic Components and Elements ‘in their references.

Response 2: I agree that key references are missing and revisions made reflect such citations of Move-Architecture in Motion as well as articles such as Kinetic Architecture: Concepts, History and Applications and Interactive Movement in Kinetic Architecture.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

contents have been improved but still contains various mistakes and difficult to read. The following are some flaws, authors might want to consider to modify before resubmission.

line 50.  one paragraph contains only one sentence line 51. "propagation"... line 57. Also, "constraints"... Please reveal what ACE stands for in this paper. line 84. that "sets up".. line 107. "flexibility"... if one paragraph contains only one or two sentences, author might want to consider to rephrase or add to other paragraph in order to sustain the argument better line 117. once again use "key" without any comparison line 123 and line 127. both use key repeatedly but with different meaning line 127. this paragraph contains only one sentence The references such as 8. and 5 are incorrect. please check all references extensively and add sufficient information to indicate the ability to provide academic quality of references. line 144. "particle effects, physical collision"... and many other small grammatical and language errors.

Additionally, all scripts should have a diagram or algorithmic description of mechanism in addition to the grasshopper scripts which is a computing implementation for the algorithms described. 

For example, line 209 to 212 is the description of algorithm of Figure 8 Louver rotation. However, Louver rotation is not invented by this research, but an implementation using grasshopper script is. This should be described and elaborated clearly. A low resolution image of script will not help readers to further develop their research in any way.

From line 224, authors describe another plugin ladybugs as a connection from weather information, but fails to identify what is the major contribution of authors in this combination.

Author Response

Thank you Reviewer for the constructive review. Based on your recommendations we have extensively made the following changes and identified more areas of this research that needed special attention.

 

Point 1: spelling errors such “as  "propagation"... line 57. Also, "constraints"... Please reveal what ACE stands for in this paper. line 84. that "sets up".. line 107. "flexibility"... “

 

Response 1: Minor spelling errors have been corrected especially capitalization and punctuation.  

 

Point 2: paragraphs that are difficult to read “if one paragraph contains only one or two sentences, author might want to consider to rephrase or add to other paragraph in order to sustain the argument better line 117.”

Response 2: All paragraphs have been reconstructed to have at least three sentences that are connected by the same subject. Examples are the entire 1 chapter has been rewritten as well as changes made to line 54-61, line 97-111, line 112-125, line 127-146, line 176-199, line 211-234, line 268-296 and line 359-382.

 

Point 3: both use key repeatedly but with different meaning line 127.

Response 3: The sentence with the use of the word key in line 127 has been rephrased as follows: the reason why virtual reality is used to visualize the interactive facade in this research stems from the capabilities of immersion, navigation, customization, and scale as well as an unavailable animation system in other conventional tools to comprehend interactive motion in facades. “

 

Point 4: The references such as 8. and 5 are incorrect. please check all references extensively and add sufficient information to indicate the ability to provide academic quality of references.

Response 4: Citation of reference 5 have changed as follows

Hernandez, C.   Thinking parametric design:  Introducing parametric Gaudi.Design Studies 2006, 27, 309–324

And

Zwikael, O.; Shtub, A.; Chih, Y.Y. Simulation-Based Training for Project Management Education: Mind the Gap, As One Size Does Not Fit All. Journal of Management in Engineering 2015, 31, 04014035.

 

Point 5: "particle effects, physical collision"... and many other small grammatical and language errors.

Response 5: The phrase “particle effects” is a technical term used in the Unreal engine editor software this can be found at the documentation page of unreal engine (docs.unrealengine.com) also, physical collision has been changed to collision based on the documentation of the game engine.

 

Point 6: Additionally, all scripts should have a diagram or algorithmic description of the mechanism in addition to the grasshopper scripts which is a computing implementation for the algorithms described. For example, line 209 to 212 is the description of the algorithm of Figure 8 Louver rotation. However, the Louver rotation is not invented by this research, but an implementation using Grasshopper script is. This should be described and elaborated clearly. A low-resolution image of the script will not help readers to further develop their research in any way.

Response 6:  The elaboration of the façade has included the context for the louver rotation in relation to the research by stating:

“Parametric design in this research is implemented on the building and the façade in relation to the environment. As the building is a prototype for analysis, the design variables are controlled through the mathematical sliders that change the properties of the model geometry such as height, width, and the number of floors automatically by altering the value of the corresponding design element.”

Also, the generated building Facade is selected and vertical louvers are modeled as part of the closed-looped algorithm. We design vertical louvers that rotate in angles responding to movements of the sun. Conventional methods will require mathematical equations to correspond the rotation to sun position. The modeling process generates not only the rotation but also configurations such as louver count, louvers depth ratio and spaces between louvers.

We agree that the Louver rotation is not invented by this research that is why the focus of the research remains on the implementation of an interactive façade in a proposed system not the development of the façade itself.

 

Point 7: From line 224, authors describe another plugin ladybugs as a connection from weather information, but fails to identify what is the major contribution of authors in this combination.

 

Response 7: The research further explains that Ladybug can perform many simulation tasks. Ladybug combines geometry, weather files to provide a location and sun path scripts based on real-world data and location that can be controlled by sliders to adjust the sun path to any desired time, day and month. Also, diagrams have been included to show the Lady workflow and functions instead of algorithms.

 

Additional point 8: The previous chapter 4.1 titled comfort analysis was vague in terms or purpose and lacking in acronyms that further explain the results.

 

Response 8: The chapter title has been changed from comfort analysis to thermal comfort analysis to enhance the scope of the chapter.

Secondly, we reference information related to thermal comfort to enhance the purpose and argument for a need for the analysis. Furthermore, the acronym PMV that was explained in previous versions has been elaborated to enhance understanding.

 

Additional point 9: The purpose of the use of virtual reality in this paper was understated.

 

Response 9: Previously the verification of the parametric design through virtual reality did not highlight the benefits of virtual reality in terms of lighting, rendering, and textures. The chapter enhances the use of virtual reality in this research

 

Additional point 10: Chapter 5.2 contained information in relation to the certification of building performance that was not detailed and precise.

 

Response 10: The information in chapter 5.2 has been cited based on related literature accurately and the reason for certification through LEED has been elaborated

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

For reference, authors might want to add Elements of parametric design to the section 2.1. reference 6. SU should be Su.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you, Reviewer, for an in-depth consideration and review of this research paper.

Your input has been highly valuable and improved the quality of this research. Based on your recommendations we have extensively made the following changes and identified more areas of this research that needed special attention as well as a spell-check.

 

Point 1: For reference, authors might want to add Elements of parametric design to the section 2.1. reference 6. “

 

Response 1: I agree that elements of parametric design by Robert Woodbury is pivotal to support the parametric design strategies stated in this research and has been added in line 74 and 84 with additional references.  

 

Point 1: reference 6. SU should be Su.

 

Response 1: The reference 6 has been changed to Eltaweel, A.; Su, Y. Parametric design and daylighting: A literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017, 73, 1086–1103.