Evaluating the Performance of Slab Building Morphotypes in the Contemporary Urban Fabric: A Parametric-Morphometric Approach

Moeini, Seyedmahmood; Rostami, Fatemeh; Saeidipour, Saeid

doi:10.22034/ijumes.2026.737393

Evaluating the Performance of Slab Building Morphotypes in the Contemporary Urban Fabric: A Parametric-Morphometric Approach

Document Type : Case Study

Authors

Seyedmahmood Moeini ¹

Fatemeh Rostami ²

Saeid Saeidipour ³

¹ Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Tehran, Iran

² Department of Architecture, CT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

³ Department of Architecture, School of Architecture, Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine

10.22034/ijumes.2026.737393

Abstract

The slab a free-standing linear building bar repeated in parallel rows is among the most pervasive building morphotypes of the contemporary city, yet its environmental performance varies enormously with the geometric parameters that govern its configuration. The central problem addressed in this study is that slab morphotypes are routinely deployed in contemporary urban fabrics on the basis of land-economic and constructional convenience rather than any systematic evaluation of their urban-sustainability performance, with the result that environmentally inferior configurations are reproduced at scale. The objective of this research is therefore to evaluate, comparatively and quantitatively, how the performance of slab morphotypes on a set of urban-sustainability indicators varies with their defining geometric parameters, and to identify the configurations that optimize that performance. Adopting an analytical–applied design within a post-positivist paradigm, a parametric family of one hundred and forty-four slab configurations was generated by systematically varying building height, bar spacing, bar depth, and orientation, and each configuration was evaluated on six sustainability indicators solar access, daylight, ventilation, open-space provision, permeability, and density efficiency computed through established morphometric relationships and combined into a weighted sustainability score. Findings indicate that bar spacing is by far the strongest determinant of sustainability performance (r = +0.93), that building height is moderately detrimental (r = −0.28), and that wide-spaced low- to mid-rise east–west-oriented slabs substantially outperform compact high-rise configurations, the highest-scoring morphotype reaching 0.72 against 0.22 for the worst. The study concludes that the sustainability performance of slab morphotypes is governed primarily by the spacing and height that determine solar access and open space, and that contemporary design guidance should constrain these parameters rather than density alone.

Graphical Abstract

Evaluating the Performance of Slab Building Morphotypes in the Contemporary Urban Fabric: A Parametric-Morphometric Approach

Highlights

· A parametric–morphometric analysis evaluates 144 slab-building configurations on six sustainability indicators.

· Bar spacing is the strongest determinant of sustainability performance (r = +0.93).

· Building height is moderately detrimental to performance (r = −0.28).

· Sustainability score varies more than threefold (0.22–0.72) with geometry alone.

· Regulating slab spacing and height, not density (FSI) alone, best steers sustainable urban form.

Keywords

Parametric analysis

slab morphotype

solar access

Space matrix

street-canyon aspect ratio

urban morphology

· Berghauser Pont, M., & Haupt, P. (2010). Spacematrix: Space, density and urban form. NAi Publishers.

· Berghauser Pont, M., & Marcus, L. (2014). Innovations in measuring density: From area and location density to accessible and perceived density. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 26(2), 11–30.

· Boyko, C. T., & Cooper, R. (2011). Clarifying and re-conceptualising density. Progress in Planning, 76(1), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.07.001

· Chatzipoulka, C., Compagnon, R., & Nikolopoulou, M. (2016). Urban geometry and solar availability on façades and ground of real urban forms: Using London as a case study. Solar Energy, 138, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.09.005

· Chokhachian, A., Perini, K., Giulini, S., & Auer, T. (2020). Urban performance and density: Generative study of urban form impact on outdoor comfort. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101952

· Javanroodi, K., Mahdavinejad, M., & Nik, V. M. (2018). Impacts of urban morphology on reducing cooling load and increasing ventilation potential in hot-arid climate. Applied Energy, 231, 714–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.116

· Ko, Y. (2013). Urban form and residential energy use: A review of design principles and research findings. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(4), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412213491499

· Krüger, E. L., Minella, F. O., & Rasia, F. (2011). Impact of urban geometry on outdoor thermal comfort and air quality from field measurements in Curitiba, Brazil. Building and Environment, 46(3), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.09.006

· Leng, H., Chen, X., & Ma, Y. (2020). Urban morphology and building heating energy consumption: Evidence from Harbin, a severe cold region city. Energy and Buildings, 224, 110143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110143

· Li, C., Song, Y., & Kaza, N. (2018). Urban form and household electricity consumption: A multilevel study. Energy and Buildings, 158, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.007

· Liu, B., Liu, Y., Cho, S., & Chow, D. H. C. (2024). Urban morphology indicators and solar radiation acquisition: 2011–2022 review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 199, 114548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114548

· Martins, T. A. L., Adolphe, L., & Bastos, L. E. G. (2014). From solar constraints to urban design opportunities: Optimization of built form typologies in a Brazilian tropical city. Energy and Buildings, 76, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.056

· Mohajeri, N., Gudmundsson, A., Kunckler, T., Upadhyay, G., Assouline, D., Kämpf, J. H., & Scartezzini, J.-L. (2019). A solar-based sustainable urban design: The effects of city-scale street-canyon geometry on solar access in Geneva, Switzerland. Applied Energy, 240, 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.014

· Mohajeri, N., Upadhyay, G., Gudmundsson, A., Assouline, D., Kämpf, J., & Scartezzini, J.-L. (2016). Effects of urban compactness on solar energy potential. Renewable Energy, 93, 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.053

· Natanian, J., Aleksandrowicz, O., & Auer, T. (2019). A parametric approach to optimizing urban form, energy balance and environmental quality: The case of Mediterranean districts. Applied Energy, 254, 113637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113637

· Quan, S. J., & Li, C. (2021). Urban form and building energy use: A systematic review of measures, mechanisms, and methodologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 139, 110662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110662

· Ratti, C., Baker, N., & Steemers, K. (2005). Energy consumption and urban texture. Energy and Buildings, 37(7), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.10.010

· Rode, P., Keim, C., Robazza, G., Viejo, P., & Schofield, J. (2014). Cities and energy: Urban morphology and residential heat-energy demand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(1), 138–162. https://doi.org/10.1068/b39065

· Salvati, A., Coch Roura, H., & Cecere, C. (2017). Assessing the urban heat island and its energy impact on residential buildings in Mediterranean climate: Barcelona case study. Energy and Buildings, 146, 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.025

· Sanaieian, H., Tenpierik, M., van den Linden, K., Mehdizadeh Seraj, F., & Mofidi Shemrani, S. M. (2014). Review of the impact of urban block form on thermal performance, solar access and ventilation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.007

· Steadman, P., Evans, S., & Batty, M. (2009). Wall area, volume and plan depth in the building stock. Building Research & Information, 37(5–6), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210903152531

· Strømann-Andersen, J., & Sattrup, P. A. (2011). The urban canyon and building energy use: Urban density versus daylight and passive solar gains. Energy and Buildings, 43(8), 2011–2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.04.007

· Taleghani, M., Tenpierik, M., van den Dobbelsteen, A., & Sailor, D. J. (2014). Heat in courtyards: A validated and calibrated parametric study of heat mitigation strategies for urban courtyards in the Netherlands. Solar Energy, 103, 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.01.033

· Yang, X., Li, Y., & Luo, Z. (2017). Effects of building design elements on residential thermal environment. Sustainability, 10(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010057

· Zhang, J., Xu, L., Shabunko, V., Tay, S. E. R., Sun, H., Lau, S. S. Y., & Reindl, T. (2019). Impact of urban block typology on building solar potential and energy use efficiency in tropical high-density city. Applied Energy, 240, 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.033

· Zhu, R., Wong, M. S., You, L., Santi, P., Nichol, J., Ho, H. C., Lu, L., & Ratti, C. (2020). The effect of urban morphology on the solar capacity of three-dimensional cities. Renewable Energy, 153, 1111–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.050