The SHELL Protocol: How It Works
Environmental Performance Designed In. Not Added On.
The SHELL Protocol is a four-step process. Each step has a defined input, a defined output, and a clear boundary of what's included, structured to bring environmental performance into the design process from the earliest stage.
Approach
Environmental Analysis That Enters a Project After the Concept Is Locked Cannot Change the Design.
It can only document it. The result is a sustainability report that justifies decisions already made, not data that informed them. The SHELL Protocol is applied at the brief stage, when form decisions are still open and environmental analysis can still change what gets built.
Timing changes everything
A facade orientation decision made in week one costs nothing to change. The same decision made in week twelve, after the concept is locked, costs a full design revision. The SHELL Protocol is applied before that decision is made.
A Deliverable Ready to Use
Every step produces a specific, usable output: geometry files, comparative performance data, and optimisation results in formats compatible with standard design software.
A Consistent, Repeatable Structure
Each step follows the same structure: defined inputs, a defined output, and a clear boundary of what is and isn't included, so results build on each other cleanly at every handoff.
The Four Steps
From Project Brief to Environmental Performance Documentation
Each step builds on the previous one, moving from initial brief analysis through to full documentation and integration.
Brief Analysis & Team Alignment
The brief, site data, and performance targets are analysed to identify where computational design adds the most value at the earliest stage of the process.
Starting inputs:
- Project brief (one page minimum)
- Site location and coordinates
- Environmental performance targets (sustainability rating, energy target, project criterion)
- Preliminary design sketches or concept if available (not required)
Outputs produced:
- Computational analysis brief: where simulation adds the most value, at which stage, and why
- Recommended analysis types (solar radiation / daylight / thermal / LCA, based on brief priorities)
- Recommended timeline and sequence for Steps 2 and 3 if relevant
Most coordination overhead in computational design work comes from unclear scope and misaligned expectations. This step addresses that before any simulation work begins.
Environmental Simulation
The parametric model is built and building physics analysis run in close coordination with the design team: solar radiation, daylight factor, and thermal performance tested across hundreds of design iterations.
Starting inputs:
- Preliminary design geometry (Rhino, Revit export, or sketch geometry)
- Facade material preferences or specification
- Site orientation confirmed
- Step 1 computational analysis brief (if Step 1 was completed)
Outputs produced:
- Parametric Grasshopper model
- Solar radiation analysis: annual and seasonal maps
- Daylight factor analysis, sustainability target compliance assessed where applicable
- Thermal performance: heating and cooling load estimates across design iterations
- Simulation results delivered in visual format, diagrams ready to present within the design process
Tools: Grasshopper, Ladybug, Honeybee
Optimisation & Design Refinement
Multi-objective evolutionary algorithms generate and evaluate solutions, producing optimal design options with clear performance data to inform decisions at the design development stage.
Starting inputs:
- Design team feedback on Step 2 outputs
- Confirmed performance priorities (if competing criteria need ranking)
Outputs produced:
- Multi-objective optimisation results (Galapagos / Wallacei)
- Ranked design options with comparative performance data: solar control score, daylight factor, thermal load, embodied carbon
- Recommended optimal design direction with supporting evidence
- Output structured for design decisions, not as a compliance document
Tools: Galapagos, Wallacei (multi-objective evolutionary algorithms)
Documentation & Integration
Geometry files aligned with the optimal solution and environmental performance reports are produced, showing the enhancements achieved, coordinated with structural and MEP teams.
Starting inputs:
- Confirmed optimal design direction from Step 3
- BIM model contact / structural and MEP team leads for coordination
Outputs produced:
- Geometry files for the optimal solution, compatible with standard BIM workflows
- Environmental performance report: specific enhancements over baseline design, usable for project submission or sustainability documentation
- Coordination notes for structural and MEP teams
This step ensures outputs integrate into the existing design and documentation workflow, rather than remaining a standalone analysis.