designoptimumresponsivefaÇadebasedonvisualpapers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2018_037.pdf ·...

DESIGN OPTIMUM RESPONSIVE FAÇADE BASED ON VISUALCOMFORT AND ENERGY PERFORMANCE

MAHDI VALITABAR1, MAHDI MOGHIMI2,MOHAMMADJAVAD MAHDAVINEJAD3 andPEIMAN PILECHIHA41Master of Architecture, Zanjan University, [email protected] of Architecture, Zanjan University, [email protected] of Architecture, Tarbiat modares university, [email protected] candidate in Architecture, Tarbiat modares university, [email protected]

Abstract. Responsive Facades duo to continuously changes in climateconditions have an important role in reducing energy usage of buildingswhile providing higher level of visual comfort. This paper is acomparative study of responsive facades in a virtual format. Honeybeeand Ladybug software were used for modeling and evaluating visualcomfort as well as calculation of the energy consumption in a 3D model.It’s a plug-in for grasshopper. This article’s problem includes towvisual comfort criteria, DGP and illuminance. Various types of verticaland horizontal responsive facades were compared with a new form toachieve the optimal responsive façade. The results of research implythat with a few changes in secondary skin the new concept could slashenergy use like common responsive facadeswhile providing higher levelof visual comfort. The important distinguishing point is the new conceptfrom the same sample of responsive facades that is designed to pay moreattention to the occupants’ view connection with outside.

Keywords. Responsive Facades; Architectural Design optimization;Visual comfort; Energy consumption.

1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND1.1. TERMINOLOGY

According to research of lee a list of terms was generated about responsiveArchitecture: Adaptable, Adaptive, Animated, Collapsible, Convertible,Deployable, Flexible, Kinetic, Responsive, And Transformable (Lee, 2012).Kinetic architecture is defined generally as building and or building componentswith variable mobility, location, and or geometry. (Fox, 2001) “Climate-responsive” means that the building’s Façade and system can respond to differentclimatic conditions. (Lehmann, 2011)

T. Fukuda, W. Huang, P. Janssen, K. Crolla, S. Alhadidi (eds.), Learning, Adapting and Prototyping,Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided ArchitecturalDesign Research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2018, Volume 2, 93-102. © 2018 and published by the Associationfor Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) in Hong Kong.

94 M. VALITABAR ET AL.

1.2. INTRODUCTION

1.2.1. Responsive FacadesAs a transition between inside and outside- between the house and the urbanspace- the building skin plays an especially important role. (Schittich, 2001) Froman architectural perspective, the building envelope, or façade, is in essence thepublic face of a building, and has therefore a large impact on the perception ofthe building.(Nagy et al., 2016) Some of Façade’s design conflicting parameterare views versus privacy, daylight versus glare, fresh air versus draught risk, etc.(Adriaenssens et al., 2014). One of the important factors in buildings energyperformance is ‘building envelop’. (Annex, 2010)Building without window isable to save energy, but it is not recommended due to the benefits of naturallight on visual comfort and the biological effect of natural light on humans.(Hee et al., 2015) Based on (Sadeghi et al., 2016), view and connection to theoutside, privacy and perception of daylight as important factor for health have beenreported as non- physical motivations for human interactions with shading andelectric lighting. [(Mahdavi et al., 2008), (Foster & Oreszczyn, 2001), (Inkarojrit,2005), (Haldi & Robinson, 2010), (Zhang & Barrett, 2012), (Veitch et al., 1993),(Veitch & Gifford, 1996) ] Loonen et al in their research distinguished fourdomains (thermal, optical, air- flow, electrical) for physical interactions betweenfaçade and outside environment. (Loonen et al., 2013)In practice this meansthat, to reach the prescribed levels of efficiency and functionality, the façadeneed to change or adopt. Therefore, the adoption of adaptive facades providesopportunities for significant reductions in building energy use and co2 emissions,while preserving the thermal and visual comfort of occupants. (Aelenei et al.,2016). For shading design, the first task is determined when solar radiationshould be excluded. This task is driven either by human health considerations,in outdoor structures, or energy consumption rationale in building skin systems.(Adriaenssens et al., 2014)Exterior shading devices reduce the solar heat gainsand control daylight transmission, thereby significantly influencing the buildingperformance in terms of energy efficiency and indoor visual comfort. (Vera et al.,2016) In the 1980, the concept of the intelligent building has emerged, one yearlater Richard Rogers and partner, Mike Davies considered the idea of polyvalentwall, that in his article titled“ A wall for all seasons” (Eren & Erturan, 2013)The challenge here is to design an envelope with dynamic behavior that reactsto the outside stimuli and selects entering energy flows according to the localclimatic context (external temperature, solar radiation, wind speed and direction,etc), to seasonal changes, to outside changing conditions and inside comfortrequirements. (Dewidar et al) Dynamic facades with high performance glazingand shading systems have the potential to balance daylighting needs, comfort andenergy use, when integration with lighting and thermal system controls. (Xiong &Tzempelikos, 2016) Visual comfort is very important in an environment where theemployees work continuously, as it can affect the employee’s productivity level.(Fasi & Budaiwi, 2015)


95

1.2.2. Visual ComfortThe issue of visual comfort in Façade design is an important point that designersshould be consider in design stage. Some parameters can be recognized forevaluation of visual comfort from literature review: Glare index & daylight. Eacharticle evaluates some index of Glare and daylight. For more information thereader refer to references. [(Vera et al., 2016), (Yun et al., 2014)] Table1 showsthe parameters for evaluate each glare index and daylight.

Table 1. Parameters for evaluate Glare and daylight.

This article uses daylight glare probability (DGP) index for evaluate Glare andmean illuminance index for daylight. The DGP index was first time proposed byWienold and Christoffersen in their article that published in 2006. (Wienold &Christoffersen, 2006) Table2 shows the DGP value ranges, perceptible rate wasselected as desirable range in this paper.

Table 2. DGP value ranges (Jakubiec & Reinhart, 2010).

The most important issue that We can understand from research backgroundis that in many researches and professional projects, the occupant view to outsidedidn’t consider.

2. Originality and contribution2.1. OVERVIEW

This article uses Ladybug and Honeybee for evaluating visual comfort and energyconsumption. Ladybug and Honeybee is a plug in for Grasshopper; it can simulateboth of visual comfort and energy consumption. Mahdavinejad & Setayesh Nazarused ladybug& honeybee for optimizing the angle of the curved façade of an officebuilding to maximize the useful daylight illuminance and minimize the energyconsumption of the building in Tehran Iran. (Mohammadjavad Mahdavinejad &Nazar, 2017)

Between angle, distance from façade & louver sizes: the louvers angle playsan important role in daylight and energy usage of the space more than other


parameters.(M Mahdavinejad & Mohammadi, 2016) Al Thobaiti in his Masterthesis used keith E.Holbert method that he published in his paper in 2007(Holbert& Srinivasan, 2011), for calculation the angles between louvers and buildingfacade in each hour. (Al Thobaiti, 2014) we chose a method that we found frombuilt responsive facades.

2.2. DESIGN MODEL

Vertical shading devices combined with smaller window area and low-transmissivity glass have lower potential for glare situation than designs with largewindow area, high- transmissivity glass, horizontal shading devices or no shadingdevices. (Gagne & Andersen, 2012) Tehran is location for paper case studies.This article analysis the impact of each vertical and horizontal shading devices onenergy consumption and visual comfort. The models designed in grasshopper.Themodel is an office roomwith 4.0 m × 5.0 m dimension and 2.8 m height. The roomhas a window on south façade. Its dimension is 2.52 m × 3.60 m. Figure 1 showsthe solar angles & materials.

Figure 1. a) Materials b) Solar angles (Archdaily, 2013).

Five responsive façade with vertical and horizontal louvers comparedwith each other. One of the vertical and horizontal responsive facades hasmultiple_ louvers that they present for first time in this article. Figure 2&3 showthe details of each shading. Shading_V1 includes one part that it can be rotatearound its axis. Its axis locates in the end of louver near the façade. Shading_V2includes two parts. The rotating axis is located between 2 parts. Shading_V3includes 3parts with different dimension. 2parts have the same dimension and theanother part is bigger than others. There is a gap between 3parts. Shading_H1includes one part and it can rotate around its axis. When the shading locates in the90 degree position its perpendicular to the façade. Shading_H2 like V3 includes3parts and there is a gap between their parts. It can rotate around its axis that islocated between 3 parts.


97

Figure 2. Details of vertical shadings.

Figure 3. Details of Horizontal shadings.

Looking directly at a window in a standing position is the worst case forglare sensation. In this article, we choose this position, the worst case. (Park,Augenbroe, & Messadi, 2003) The new responsive façade that present in thisarticle has different form in compare to typical responsive façade. It has a multipleshades form. Every shade divide to three parts, the middle part is the biggest thathas a distance from two other parts. So the new responsive façade has the potentialto gain enough daylight in any position. Since there is a gap between shades theoccupant view connection to the outdoors is provide during the day. Figure6 showsthe room condition and camera position. Based on literature review the belowrange was selected for desirable range of illuminance: (Park et al., 2003)

500Lx < Eavg < 3340Lx (1)

• * These forms of responsive Facades for first time present in this article andthey have never seen in any articles or built responsive facades.

Figure 4. Office space model with louvers: (a) Plan view. (b) Front view. (c) Side view. (d)Isometric view .


Figure5 shows how the new responsive facades improve the occupant externalview as well as provide visual and thermal comfort that we expected of theResponsive facades.

Figure 5. Details of kinetic façades.

• This figure shows the main difference between new concept with typicalresponsive facades. The new responsive façade provide better view to theoutside.

2.3. METHODOLOGY

Each kinetic façade has an ensemble of 11 louvers in front of south façade, theytotally cover the window. The louvers have a 0.20 m distance from the façade.In this paper the type of materials and louvers features is not very important.The louvers improve the energy performance and visual comfort by block directsunrays. The 11 louvers were set in front of the south façade and rotate to placein front of the sun radiation in response the sun position. This research usedLadybug_SunPath to evaluate both of visual comfort and energy consumptionparameters. For visual comfort, Daylight Glare Probability (DGP) and meanilluminance are used. The research is conducted for Tehran. The model designedin grasshopper with dynamic shades. This paper analysis the impacts of eachfaçade on energy consumption and visual comfort, in 21s day of four month(March- June- September- December), the values of DGP, Mean illuminance andenergy consumption are calculated for every hours between 10 am to 4 pm.

2.4. RESULTS

Figure6 shows the glare simulation at 14:00 on June 21st. The DGP value withoutresponsive façade is 46%, so it’s in Intolerable range. This paper consider theperceptible range as a desirable objective, for this aim the paper is looking fordesigning an optimal responsive façade. The DGP value for shading_V1 at 14:00on June 21st is in Disturbing range, so it’s out of the desirable range of article.Shading_V3 is a new prototype for responsive facades that is present for first timein this paper. It has succeeded to push the DGP value in perceptible range. Figure9shows the shading_V1 DGP value in summer day is out of the desirable range ofarticle.


99

Figure 6. The results of DGP simulation from ladybug & honeybee for 21 Jun at 4 pm. a)without responsive façade b) shading_V1 c) shading_V3 d) shading_H1.

Figure7 shows the results of cooling energy consumption calculation. All ofthe shadings in compare to condition without responsive facades reduce energyuse about 10%.

Figure 7. Cooling Energy consumption.

Figure-8a is about Mean illuminance on March 21st. From the figure it can berecognize responsive facades reduce the natural light entering the building. Thedesirable range for illuminance based on literature review is 500 lx < Eavg < 3340lx. The illuminance greater than 3340 lx cause glare and less than 500 lx cause theneed for artificial light. Figure-8a shows the responsive facades with horizontallouvers make illuminance less than 500 lx at 16:00 on March 21st, so we need toartificial light. Figure-8b shows the Mean illuminance on June 21st. According tothe figure all of the shadings provide desirable range of illuminance. Figure-8cshows the Mean illuminance on September 21st. The facades with horizontaldynamic louvers also can’t provide desirable range of illuminance on autumn day,so the Mean illuminance values of horizontal responsive facades are out of thedesirable range of paper. Figure-8d show the Mean illuminance on December21st. All of the facades in terms of illuminance are out of the desirable range at4 pm, but due to this fact the horizontal responsive façades in during day can’tprovide appropriate illuminance, they are out of the desirable range. Figure-8eshows DGP value on spring day. Although the behavior of facades at differenthours are various and it’s difficult to compare with each other, but all of themare in perceptible range. Figure-8f shows the DGP values on summer day. Thefacades can’t push the DGP values in desirable range on summer day. ShadingsV1 and V2 are in Disturbing range at 14:00, so they are out of the desirable range.Figure-8g & 8h show the DGP values on autumn & winter day. All of the facades


DGP values are in desirable range.

Figure 8. The graphs of illuminance & DGP for each day.

Table3 is an overview of all responsive facades conditions.

Table 3. The conclusion of results.


101

Based on table3 information all facades except shading_V3 in some seasonsare out of the desirable range for glare and illuminance. Actually shading_V3 isthe optimum responsive façade.

2.5. CONCLUSIONS

This paper is a comparative study of responsive facades to introduce the optimumfaçade based on energy consumption and visual comfort. The research offered anovel design responsive façade. It can reduce energy usage in the buildings likecommon responsive facades and also it can improve occupants‘ visual comfort.Based on the simulation results it can be recognized with a few changes insecondary skin, the new concept could offer better occupants’ visual connectionwith outdoor. It’s necessary to use optimization software to achieve the bestoptimum façade with right details. Future researches need to achieve the bestoptimum responsive façade.

References“Archdaily” : (2013) Germany. Available from <http://www.archdaily.com/326747/q1-thysse

nkrupp-quarter-essen-jswd-architekten-chaix-morel-et-associes> (accessed Retrieved 4/10,2017).

Adriaenssens, S., Rhode-Barbarigos, L., Kilian, A., Baverel, O., Charpentier, V., Horner, M.and Buzatu, D.: (2014), Dialectic form finding of passive and adaptive shading enclosures,Energies, 7(8), 5201-5220.

Aelenei, D., Aelenei, L. and Vieira, C. P.: (2016), Adaptive Façade: concept, applications,research questions, Energy Procedia, 91, 269-275.

Annex, I. E.: (2010), Annex 53 total energy use in buildings: analysis & evaluation methods.Dewidar, K., Mahmoud, A. H., Magdy, N. and el din Ahmed, S.: (2010), The role of intelligent

façades in energy conservation, International Conference on Sustainability and the Future:Future Intermediate Sustainable Cities (FISC 2010),, At Cairo, Egypt.

Eren, Ö and Erturan, B.: (2013), Sustainable buildings with their sustainable facades,International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 5(6), 725.

Fasi, M. A. and Budaiwi, I. M.: (2015), Energy performance of windows in office buildingsconsidering daylight integration and visual comfort in hot climates, Energy and Buildings,108, 307-316.

Foster, M. and Oreszczyn, T.: (2001), Occupant control of passive systems: the use of Venetianblinds, Building and Environment, 36(2), 149-155.

Fox, M. A.: (2001), Ephemeralization, Oz, 23(1), 8.Gagne, J. and Andersen, M.: (2012), A generative facade design method based on daylighting

performance goals, Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 5(3), 141-154.Haldi, F. and Robinson, D.: (2010), Adaptive actions on shading devices in response to local

visual stimuli, Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 3(2), 135-153.Hee, W., Alghoul, M., Bakhtyar, B., Elayeb, O., Shameri, M., Alrubaih, M. and Sopian,

K.: (2015), The role of window glazing on daylighting and energy saving in buildings,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 323-343.

Holbert, K. E. and Srinivasan, D.: (2011), Solar Energy Calculations Handbook Of RenewableEnergy Technology, (pp. 189-204).

Inkarojrit, V.: (2005), Balancing comfort: occupants, UC Berkeley: Center for the BuiltEnvironment.

Jakubiec, A. and Reinhart, C.: (2010), The Use of Glare Metrics in the Design of DaylitSpaces: Recommendations for Practice, Paper presented at the 9th International RadianceWorkshop.


Lee, J. D.: (2012), Adaptable, kinetic, responsive, and transformable architecture: analternative approach to sustainable design, Master’s Thesis, The University of Texas atAustin.

Lehmann, S.t.e.f.f.e.n.: (2011), ENERGY-EFFICIENT BUILDING DESIGN: TOWARDSCLIMATE-RESPONSIVE ARCHITECTURE, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems(EOLSS), University of South Australia, Adelaide.

Loonen, R., Trčka, M., Cóstola, D. and Hensen, J.: (2013), Climate adaptive building shells:State-of-the-art and future challenges, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25,483-493.

Mahdavi, A., Mohammadi, A., Kabir, E. and Lambeva, L.: (2008), Occupants’ operationof lighting and shading systems in office buildings, Journal of Building PerformanceSimulation, 1(1), 57-65.

Mahdavinejad, M. and Mohammadi, S.: (2016), PARAMETRIC OPTIMIZATION OFDAYLIGHT AND THERMAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH LOUVERS IN HOT ANDDRY CLIMATE OF TEHRAN, Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 8(3),1221-1236.

Mahdavinejad, M. and Nazar, N. S.: (2017), Daylightophil High-Performance Architecture:Multi-Objective Optimization of Energy Efficiency and Daylight Availability in BSkClimate, Energy Procedia, Spain, 115, 92-101.

Nagy, Z., Svetozarevic, B., Jayathissa, P., Begle, M., Hofer, J., Lydon, G., Willmann, A.n.j.a.and Schlueter, A.m.o.: (2016), The Adaptive Solar Facade: From concept to prototypes,Frontiers of Architectural Research, 5(2), 143-156.

Park, C.-S., Augenbroe, G. and Messadi, T.: (2003), Daylighting optimization in smart facadesystems, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eighth International IBPSA Conference,Eindhoven, Netherlands.

Sadeghi, S. A., Karava, P., Konstantzos, I. and Tzempelikos, A.: (2016), Occupant interactionswith shading and lighting systems using different control interfaces: A pilot field study,Building and Environment, 97, 177-195.

Schittich, C.: (2001), Building skins: concepts, layers, materials, Edition Detail.Al Thobaiti, M. M.: (2014), Intelligent and Adaptive Façade System: The Impact of Intelligent

and Adaptive Façade on The Performance and Energy Efficiency of Buildings., Master’sThesis, University of Miami.

Vagilo, j., Patterson, m. and Hooper, s.: (2010), Emerging Applications and Trendsof Double-Skin Facades, Paper presented at the International Conference on BuildingEnvelope Systems and Technologies (ICBEST), Vancouver.

Veitch, J. A. and Gifford, R.: (1996), Assessing beliefs about lighting effects on health,performance, mood, and social behavior, Environment and Behavior, 28(4), 446-470.

Veitch, J. A., Hine, D. W. and Gifford, R.: (1993), End Users ‘Knowledge, Beliefs, andPreferences for Lighting, Journal of Interior Design, 19(2), 15-26.

Vera, S., Uribe, D., Bustamante, W. and Molina, G.: (2016), Optimization of a fixed exteriorcomplex fenestration system considering visual comfort and energy performance criteria,Building and Environment.

Wienold, J. and Christoffersen, J.: (2006), Evaluation methods and development of a new glareprediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras, Energy andBuildings, 38(7), 743- 757.

Xiong, J. and Tzempelikos, A.: (2016), Model-based shading and lighting controls consideringvisual comfort and energy use, Solar Energy, 134, 416-428.

Yun, G., Yoon, K. C. and Kim, K. S.: (2014), The influence of shading control strategies on thevisual comfort and energy demand of office buildings, Energy and Buildings, 84, 70-85.

Zhang, Y. and Barrett, P.: (2012), Factors influencing occupants’ blind-control behaviour in anaturally ventilated office building, Building and Environment, 54, 137-147.

designoptimumresponsivefaÇadebasedonvisualpapers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/caadria2018_037.pdf ·...

Documents