See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/266421560

Environment Control Systems for Sustainable Design: A Methodology for

Testing, Simulating and Comparing Kinetic Facade Systems

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

61 7,760

2 authors, including:

Karen Kensek
University of Southern California
74 PUBLICATIONS 1,825 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karen Kensek on 08 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

Environment Control Systems for Sustainable Design: A

Methodology for Testing, Simulating and Comparing Kinetic Facade
Systems

Karen Kensek* and Ryan Hansanuwat

School of Architecture, University of Southern California, US
*E-mail: kensek@[Link]

Abstract

The primary purpose of the building envelope is to protect the inhabitants from the outside
environment. Although usually static systems, facades are designed to respond to many
scenarios and perform functions that can be contradictory to each other: daylighting versus
energy efficiency, ventilation versus views and energy generation. By actuating the facades
and making them dynamic, they can better adapt to the conditions, provide for improved
comfort of the occupants, and achieve a more sustainable design by reducing the
compromises needed for that balance. Facades can now sense the environment and make
their own modifications in order to achieve prescribed goals. Kinetic solutions can be
analyzed for their environmental benefits, compared to each other, and recommendations
proposed. This project demonstrates the development of a kinetic façade system based on
research, simulations, and a built prototype that improves upon current practice and provides
an efficient façade for traditional curtain-walled office buildings.

Keywords: Kinetic façade, Building envelope, Shading device, Performance-based design

1. Introduction
There has been a trend in office building design to use more glass in the façade; this often
necessitates methods of mitigating undesired consequences. These glass facades are desirable
to designers because they offer the inhabitants views to the outside, access to natural light,
and can be visually appealing. Many solutions to mitigating the negative aspects offer
solutions to single problems and are not variable enough to control more than one issue at a
time. Compared to a building with a static shading, daylighting, ventilating or energy
generating systems or none of these at all, the use of a kinetic façade system will diminish the
need for external energy expenditures by decreasing unwanted solar heat gain or loss,
increasing use of natural lighting, and generating on-site energy, while also increasing the use
of natural ventilation. Through the variability of the system, the façade will adapt itself to the
best situation for the given environmental condition and thus increase its potential impact.
Kinetic façade systems can help to mitigate environmental problems, decrease the need for
mechanical systems such as HVAC systems and artificial lighting, add to the occupants’
comfort, and potentially could be used to generate electricity. These kinetic systems are not
intended to replace mechanical systems, but they could decrease the energy demands of the
building significantly. It will be shown that a kinetic system can improve solar thermal load,
daylighting, ventilation, and energy generation for typical all-glass facades in office
buildings, is buildable, and can perform in a simple, efficient manner. Although a working
prototype was built and tested, this paper will focus more on the research methodology.

27
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

2. Environmental Mediators
The introduction of dynamic facades introduces a new way to control the environment.
Hoberman states, “[…] adaptive systems combine the best of existing strategies: low energy
use and control over building environments. For instance, a building’s energy requirements
can be considerably lowered if its design can adapt to diurnal fluctuations in temperature. An
adaptive system that is modulated to control the volume and direction of heat flow in
response to external and internal conditions can enhance comfort and energy performance”
[1]. Historically, the use of dynamic kinetic facades as an environmental mediator has been in
the control of four major variables: solar thermal control, daylighting control, ventilation
control, and energy generation.
Solar thermal can be controlled by various devices in a kinetic façade, ranging from
automated louvers to adjustable overhangs. The intent of these systems is to either allow or
deny solar radiation into the space by adjusting a device on either the interior or exterior of
the building. Givoni claims, “Operable shading devices can admit all of the solar radiation
when this is desirable, as it is in winter. Therefore, they are inherently more effective than the
fixed shading. Operable external shading devices can reduce solar heat gain through windows
and other glazed areas down to about 10 to 15% of the radiation impinging on the wall” [2].
Daylighting control is another aspect in which kinetic facades could be a major benefit.
Systems similar to those used for solar thermal control, such as blinds and shade systems, can
also be used for daylighting. These systems have the advantage of not having a reduced effect
when placed on the interior. Louver systems are also very adept at controlling the amount of
daylighting, which can range from zero to complete light intrusion depending on the angle of
the louvers. Overhang systems are also highly effective systems for daylighting control, but
do have limitations depending on the site conditions and hourly, daily, and annual conditions.
There are also much more complex and technical systems that are intended to control
daylight, such as iris systems and electrochromic windows. Other more exotic systems exist
that could also be used; for example, solar control through the use of layers of mechanical
“fritting” devices [3] or the use of cellular automata that could control the average shading
opacity of a window [4].
Ventilation control by kinetic facades offers great potential in the area of naturally
ventilated buildings. Many buildings that use kinetic systems for ventilation control do so
with variable louver systems or double-skinned envelopes utilizing the stack effect. The use
of these two systems is then categorized by a direct or indirect ventilation effect. In the direct
ventilation scenario, the louvers or opening devices allow for the direct airflow into the space
and to directly affect the user. It is often necessary to open opposing sides of the envelope to
induce a cross draft, and this is often not possible in highly partitioned or large buildings.
Givoni showed that the subdivision of the internal spaces has a definite and adverse effect on
the flows of air through a building [5]. The difficulty in using this kind of system is that it
relies heavily upon wind velocity and direction, and wind is a highly variable effect and is not
predictable.
Another important aspect that kinetic façade systems can incorporate is that of energy
generation. Recently, systems such as building integrated photovoltaic systems (BIPV) have
grown in use, and the technology is increasing to a very plausible level. Building envelopes
have typically been classified as a filter, connector, barrier, and switch [6], but recently there
has been another function added to the list, that of an energy creation system [7]. Kinetic
systems can increase the efficiency of these building integrated systems by allowing for
adjustment to the photovoltaic panels in order to track the solar movement.

28
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

3. Computer Simulations
In order to study the effectiveness of the kinetic systems, numerous computer simulations
were analyzed and compared to quantize benefits for four different building elements
(overhang, folding, horizontal louver, and vertical louver), for each various environmental
aspect: solar thermal, daylighting, ventilation, and energy generation.

3.1 Test Case Selection Criteria

A typical office layout was selected, consisting of a 15'-0” x 20'-0” interior space with
windows on one side [8]. A desk was placed 5’ in from the window and set at a standard work
height of 2'-6”. Windows were placed at 3'-0” sill height, were 5'-0” high, and ran the entire
width of the facade. For ventilation studies, it was assumed that the lower half of the windows
were operable. Glass panes were double-pane construction with a 1/8” air gap between panes
and a 60% visible light transmisivity for the glass.
Of the many potential choices for a kinetic facade, four external systems were selected for
this study, as they are the most common and simplest: overhang, folding, horizontal louver,
and vertical louver. The overhang system is a horizontal external plane, hinged at the window
head, allowing it to rotate from vertical (0 degrees) to horizontal (90 degrees). The folding
system is a series of two external planes that are hinged in the middle, allowing the bottom
rail to slide along the vertical axis of the window, causing the two planes to fold. The louver
systems are a series of either horizontal or vertical planes that create an array over the
window surface.

3.2 Test Case Location Selection

The building location was chosen based on providing a range in the weather data and a
location with a density of office buildings. Climate Consultant 4 and Weather Tool were used
to narrow down the choices. The test case location chosen was Dallas, Texas. This area
features fairly equal heating and cooling periods, temperatures ranging from 35 F to over 95
F, and as shown on the psychrometric chart, 23.6% of the hours can be kept within the
comfort range by sun shading and 13.4% through natural ventilation.

3.3 Solar Thermal Simulations

The Department of Energy's eQuest software was used iteratively to test for solar thermal
benefits. Five different models were built to represent the various kinetic facade systems
being tested and the control test. The simulations were run with the same settings for each
system: a two-story office building with 50% by area windows on both floors, default DX
coils for cooling, default furnace for heating. Only the external shading components changed.

29
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

Figure 1: Climate Consultant 4 Temperature Data and Psychrometric Chart

for Dallas, Texas

Figure 2: Kinetic façade systems, overhang, folding, horizontal louver, and

vertical louver

The purpose of the first run of the control test (no external shading system) was to be able
to later compare the different shading systems to a traditional office construction; this set the
baseline case. The second test run was for a 5’ overhang, with simulations for four angular
settings of 0 (vertical), 30, 60, and 90 degrees (horizontal). The third test run was for the
folding system, a 2’-6” device hinged in the middle, meant to mimic a system that slides
along tracks and folds upon itself, for each of the same angular settings as the overhang. The
fourth test was on the 6” horizontal louver system, similar to external blinds, for each angle.
The last test was on the 2’ vertical louver system, for each angular setting. This system is
similar to the horizontal louver system as they are at a fixed distance from the glazing with an
individual rotation, but these louvers are oriented vertically to the building and can thus
directly track the sun in its daily path.

Figure 3: eQuest model of overhang system showing 5’-0” overhangs on

all four directions at 90 degrees (horizontal)(left) and model of vertical
louver system at 90 degrees (azimuth)(right)

30
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

After the simulations were run for the control and each kinetic type, a report was generated
to show the electricity consumption (cooling) and gas consumption (heating) of the building
on an hourly basis. This data was input into a spreadsheet that showed the cooling electric
consumption in kWh and heating gas consumption in kBtu. The five systems were then
compared to each other to find which system performed better for each hour. A combined
system for each kinetic type was created by finding the best performance angle for the given
hour, showing the results of a kinetic system through an iterative process. This combined
kinetic system was then compared to the control system without shading and the best
performer of the fixed angle systems.

Figure 4: Sample eQuest annual report for the electricity and gas
consumption of the building

3.4 Daylighting Simulations

Simulations for daylighting performance were studied for the same four systems plus a
control, for four different angular settings each, using Autodesk's 3ds Max Design software.
A model was built following the same criteria as the solar thermal test, with a light meter
placed on the work surface at 2’-6” and standing height 6’-0”. The sky condition for these
runs was a CIE Clear Sky; this is important for Dallas, Texas, as using the overcast sky

31
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

method would give inaccurate results. Iterative runs were performed for each system at each
angular setting with the 0 degree setting omitted; it will always show zero daylighting. Each
run was performed for four times of the year (March 21, June 21, September 21, and
December 2) and at three times of the day (9:00 am, noon and 3:00 pm) in order to take into
account the sun’s highest and lowest points and the furthest north and south settings. The data
output from the program was for 18 points on each light meter, giving the total amount of
luminance and illuminance on the surface in lux.

Figure 5: Autodesk 3dsMax Design model for daylighting analysis with

light meters placed at work plane height (30”) and standing height (72”)
and model with weather data information and date/time settings

Table 1: Sample spreadsheet of lux levels for light meter

Louver - 30 degrees
ID Date Total Min Max
1 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 53.7 200 500
2 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 254 200 500
3 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 10.7 200 500
4 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 7.3 200 500
5 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
6 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
7 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 80.8 200 500
8 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
9 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
10 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
11 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
12 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 69.9 200 500
13 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
14 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
15 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 96.9 200 500
16 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 125 200 500
17 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
18 [Link] Monday March 21 1994 0 200 500
Points in Range: 1

Once input into the spreadsheet, the daylight levels were compared to recommended light
levels for a category D office setting of 200-500 lux [9]. Each point was calculated for their

32
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

degree of variance from the recommended values and totaled for each setting. The number of
points were counted that were in the recommended range for that given date and time setting
and then totaled to find the number of points on the light meter surface that fall within the
recommended range. This was then shown as a percentage of the total area that falls within
the recommended range for the three selected times of day for the four months of the year. A
combined system was again taken as the angle setting that produced the largest amount of
points within the recommended range for the given time and combined to simulate the kinetic
movement. This combined system was then compared to the control and best fixed system
again.

3.5 Ventilation Simulations

The intent of studying kinetic facades for ventilation is to measure their ability to introduce
natural air movement into a space. Computational fluid dynamic simulations were created to
qualitatively compare the various systems by studying the airflow rate in meters per second.
Air flow rate was chosen over volumetric air flow in cubic feet per minute because the
cooling effect of motion past the body is only accountable through a velocity measure and
cannot be accounted for by a traditional volumetric airflow rate. According to Olgyay, wind
flow can possibly lower the temperature comfort sensation from 2-7 degrees Fahrenheit if the
wind speeds range from 0.25 m/s to above 1.52 m/s. Wind speeds ranging from 0.25 to 0.51
m/s can result in a drop in 2-3 degrees Fahrenheit and produce a pleasant sensation. A
generally pleasant wind speed at 0.51 to 1.02 m/s can produce a 4-5 degree Fahrenheit drop,
but also causes constant awareness of air movement. Wind speeds upwards of 1.02 to 1.52
m/s cause a 5-7 degree Fahrenheit drop, but is generally considered “drafty.” Any wind
speeds above 1.52 m/s can be unpleasant and are generally not comfortable [10].
These considerations were taken into account in the computer simulation, and an analysis
method was determined. In order to test the wind velocity conditions for each kinetic system
for the location, an Ecotect model was produced that mimicked the typical office setup with
the bottom half of the window set to be operable, which for the purposes of the test was set to
a void. Climate Consultant 4 was referenced to find the appropriate wind direction and
velocity for the site -- 175 degrees (south) in the summer and 230 degrees (south-west) in the
winter, with an average wind speed of 5 meters per second. This data was input into the
control data that was exported from Ecotect to the software WinAir4.
A section cut of the space was created and an image generated showing wind flows
through the space. The method for converting the image to qualitative data was modified
from the method developed by Pushkin Passey and uses Adobe Illustrator and Ecotect [11].
The process involves copying the side view data from Ecotect as a metafile and calculating
areas with a built-in Illustrator filter. Once in Illustrator the image was un-grouped, and the
analysis grid beyond the boundary deleted, with the legend being retained. The individual
values were selected and Illustrator set to select any paths with a similar fill color, which
would select the entire area within that given range. Once the paths selected, a path area
command was initialized, giving the area in square inches of the value. This number was
compared to the overall square inches for the entire built area, which would give a percentage
of the area that falls within that range. Each system was compared in this manner for the
varying angles and both summer and winter.

33
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

Figure 6: CFD setting for export from Ecotect to WinAir4 (left) and Ecotect
data visualization in perspective view showing section cut of analysis g rid
(right)

Figure 7: Image metadata exported from Ecotect and viewed in Adobe

Illustrator (left) and image of only interior space for analysis and
selection/report of area(right)

3.6 Energy Generation Simulation

Energy generation was calculated using software from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory called Solar Advisor Model, which uses a TRANSYS engine for calculation.
Unlike the other simulations, a 3d model was not created, but was instead information was
input from the known placement and data for the kinetic systems. The important pieces of
data are the location, square footage of the solar panels, altitude and azimuth of the panel, and
specific solar panel type. The control setting is considered to be a typical building integrated
photovoltaic (BIPV) setup in place of the windows in a vertical (0 degrees) setting. The south
façade was used for the test.
The amount of energy generated by each setting were exported as a .csv file to a
spreadsheet, where the total amount of expected energy generation in kWh was sorted,
finding the settings which performed best, and combined to create a kinetic system which
adjusted to produce higher levels of energy generation.

34
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

Table 2: Sample spreadsheet of percentage of areas in wind velocity range

Figure 8: Solar Advisor Model settings with sample graph showing

monthly energy generation

35
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

Table 3: Sample spreadsheet of energy generation results

4. Results and Analysis

Once the results were compiled for the various kinetic systems with each environmental
variable, an analysis was performed to compare the systems amongst themselves in order to
find the top performers for their respective benefits. This hierarchy is important to determine
because it is possible that a setting that might be beneficial for one environmental factor may
be detrimental to another. It is thus important to analyze the systems for their individual
benefits and then as part of a combined system.

4.1 Solar Thermal Analysis

Overall, all four systems showed consistent improvement over a non-shaded system,
showing an energy reduction ranging from 28% to 30% for heating and from 28% to 33% for
cooling. The reduction in energy is due to the fact that the kinetic system is able to block out
more unwanted sun and allow beneficial sunlight for more hours than the fixed system.
Across the board, the resulting reductions were very close between the four systems as
they are able to block or allow similar amounts of direct solar gain into the building and close
off the façade completely at night. During the summer hours, when it is desirable to reduce
the amount of direct solar heat gain through the façade, all four facades did well. During the
winter hours, when it is desirable to allow the sun to enter, the same holds true. The highest
setting for the horizontal systems, perpendicular to the façade, is high enough to allow for full
penetration of the sun at all hours of the day, while the vertical system can track the sun and
can also allow for minute changes to compensate for the movement of the sun.
Although all four systems performed remarkably well against the non-shaded system, it
was the overhang and horizontal louver system that performed better, with a decrease at 33%
for cooling and 30% for heating. They were able to cover more square footage in shade at
certain times due to their method of rotation, whereas the folding system is only functional as
a perpendicular horizontal shade for half of the window height. The improvement in
performance over the vertical system is created because the kinetic system was placed on all
four sides to anticipate the desire for aesthetic continuity throughout the building. When
placed on the north side of the building, the vertical system is unable to allow enough light in

36
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

as compared to the other three systems. The results, however, are so close to each other, that
this effect is minimal, leading to the conclusion that it does not seem to matter which system
is used as long as the façade is kinetic; any one of the systems will result in a roughly 30%
increase over a non-shaded system.

Table 4: Comparison of hourly needs between different fixed and kinetic

shading systems versus control, on a south facing façade.

Figure 9: Standard eQuest report showing monthly and annual energy

figures

4.2 Daylighting Analysis

All four systems show marked improvement over a non-shaded system and a fixed angle
system. Non-shaded systems consistently allowed too much sun in and produced an over-lit
environment at all times throughout the year. This does not mean that the room is unbearable,
but simply that the lighting level is not within the recommended range. The fixed system had
the opposite problem in that it did not allow enough light to enter the room at times, and
much of the time the light was not allowed to penetrate the depth of the space.

Figure 10 Figure 11

37
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

Figure 12 Figure 13

Figure 10: Daylighting rendering of overhang system at 90 degrees,

December 21st at 12:00pm
Figure 11: Daylighting rendering of folding system at 90 degrees,
December 21st at 12:00pm
Figure 12: Daylighting rendering of horizontal louver system at 90 degrees,
December 21st at 12:00pm
Figure 13: Daylighting rendering of vertical louver system at 90 degrees,
December 21st at 12:00pm

The results show that the vertical louver system, at 55%, performed much better in
allowing for the largest amount of recommended lighting into the room. While the other
systems allowed for a high number of points within the recommended range, it is the vertical
louver system’s ability to track the movement of the sun that was critical to its success in
allowing for a more finite control of daylight entering the space. The overhang system
performed almost as well with 54% of the points within range during the four times of the
year; the overhang allows for a larger amount of window to be influenced by the sun, as
opposed to the horizontal folding and louver systems in which the shade system itself can
become a hindrance on the light entering the space.

4.3 Ventilation Analysis

Simulations demonstrated that kinetic systems performed only slightly better than a
standard open window and a fixed system. There is some improvement in the systems that
show a similar trend to the open window, with the majority of the air flow through the space
being from 0.0 to 0.2 m/s, while some systems were able to produce a higher flow at 1.0 m/s
in some areas. Of the four systems tested, the vertical system again performed best; the test
accounts for the wind coming in off the site based on an ordinal N-E-S-W direction, which
the vertical system was able to track. The horizontal systems would only be able to be tested
for wind coming from the same height, but at different ordinal directions.
An air velocity of 0.25 to 1.02 m/s will produce a cooling sensation when it passes over the
skin, and the kinetic systems are able to produce this, but they are not much more efficient at
this than a standard operable window. It is important to note that due to the location of the
operable portion of the window, all of the increased velocity ranges were maintained within
the sensible range for the occupant, between three and four feet above the finish floor. The
higher velocity winds were all maintained at or near 3-4 feet above the finished floor, which

38
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

would be perceptible by the occupant. The cooling sensation from the increased wind velocity
will be felt by the occupant and not simply flowing past the occupant at higher levels.
The standard operable window is able to produce wind speeds from 0.3 to 0.5 m/s for
20.9% of the space in the summer and 19.5% of the space in the winter. The vertical louver
system was able to produce airflows up to 1.1 m/s in some spaces, although this was not true
for all times and settings. The greatest increase over this standard window is the folding
system, but with only a 9% increase in summer and 15% increase in winter. In the higher
velocity ranges that offer greater potential for comfort sensation temperature reduction (0.6 to
0.8 m/s), the vertical system performed the best, but offered only 12.9% increase in the
summer and 6% in the winter. Overall, the kinetic systems produce a slight increase in
velocity over a standard open window, but not enough to consider it a major factor.

Figure 14: Air velocity of control (open window), summer

Figure 15: Air velocity of control (open window), winter
Figure 16: Air velocity of vertical louver kinetic system, summer
Figure 17: Air velocity of vertical louver kinetic system, winter

Figure 18: Summer airflow rates of 90 degree setting for each system

39
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

Table 5: Sample table showing comparison of fixed versus overhang (30 degrees)

4.4 Energy generation analysis

The energy generation results show that three of the four kinetic systems show
improvement over a standard vertical integrated photovoltaic, with one, the folding system,
showing lower energy generation numbers. As discussed previously, the folding system only
contained half of the square footage. However it is interesting to note that even though it is
smaller than the standard BIPV system, it was still able to produce energy levels that were
only slightly lower. The overhang and horizontal louver systems have the same square
footage and track in the same direction and thus produce the similar numbers.
What has been found in this study is that the overhang, horizontal louver, and vertical
louver kinetic systems produced higher amounts of energy than that fixed control, while the
folding system actually produced less. The kinetic systems of each type produced more
energy than any of their fixed settings, but with the overhang, folding, and horizontal louver,
the 30 degree and 60 degree settings were very close to the kinetic system. The kinetic
vertical louver system, however, resulted in a nearly 70% increase over the next closest fixed
vertical louver system and a 43% increase over the next best fixed system of any type.

Figure 19: Comparison of kinetic systems versus control for energy

generation for four months

40
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

Overhang - Fixed vs Kinetic Folding Fixed vs. Kinetic

140 140

120 120

101.62
95.15
100 91.54 100

76.83
80 80
67.13
59.6
56.57
54.02
60 60
46.12
38.85
40 40

20 20

0 0
Overhang - 0 Overhang - 30 Overhang - 60 Overhang - 90 Overhang - Kinetic Folding - 0 Folding - 30 Folding - 60 Folding - 90 Folding - Kinetic

Horizontal Louver - Fixed vs. Kinetic Vertical Louver - Fixed vs. Kinetic

137.87
140
140

120
120

101.62
95.15 100
100 91.54

80.95 81.31
76.83 80 75.94
73.72
80
67.13 67.13
63.11
59.65
60
60

40
40

20
20

0
0 Vertical - 90e Vertical - 60e Vertical - 30e Vertical - 0 Vertical - 30w Vertical - 60w Vertical - 90w Vertical -
Horizontal - 0 Horizontal - 30 Horizontal - 60 Horizontal - 90 Horizontal - Kinetic Combined

Figure 20: Comparison of fixed overhang system versus kinetic overhang

system
Figure 21: Comparison of fixed folding system versus kinetic folding
system
Figure 22: Comparison of fixed horizontal system versus kinetic horizontal
system
Figure 23: Comparison of fixed vertical system versus kinetic vertical
system

4.5 Hierarchy

Based on these four results, it becomes apparent that two of the environmental factors
show a large increase over the standard and fixed (solar thermal and daylighting), one factor
shows improvement for some systems but not others (energy generation), while one shows
only slight improvement (ventilation). It is thus decided that the a hierarchy for the
advantages of kinetic systems can be described by placing solar thermal and daylighting as
the most important component, energy generation being slightly less, and ventilation not
much of a factor for this location.

5.0 Prototype
5.1 Assumptions for Design

The second phase of this research was to take the results and use the data to inform a
design that would produce the most benefit for the four environmental factors of solar
thermal, daylighting, ventilation, and energy generation. A working full-scale prototype was
created to test the working ability and maintenance of the design. The design itself is based
upon the analysis of the virtual components and takes into account the hierarchy of needs of

41
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

solar thermal, daylighting, energy generation and ventilation, in order of most to least
important.
The prototype has a larger scale overhang system that controls the solar thermal aspects of
the façade. The overhang system was chosen because three of the four systems were nearly
identical in their performance, but the overhang system is the simplest in terms of function
and maintenance. The overhang system will be controlled based on a pre-determined manner
that will allow it to shade when it is necessary and allow sun in when beneficial. Built within
the overhang system is a series of vertical louvers that will allow an added level of control
over the system. The vertical louvers performed the best of the four systems in terms of
allowing for natural daylighting within recommended levels and are also controllable by the
inhabitants. It is assumed that the control of the daylight settings will occur during normal
working hours and after that the overhang settings will be the only factor.
In order to achieve the highest level of energy generation without interference from the
other systems, a vertical louver system will be placed in that spandrel space of the façade and
act independently of the other systems. For ventilation, since it has been shown that a kinetic
system offers very little improvement over a standard operable window in air velocity
throughout the space, this prototype will not include this feature. This also allows for fewer
concerns over durability and maintenance in the kinetic system. With energy generation
considered a separate system only solar thermal and daylighting features were incorporated
into the prototype.

Figure 24: Early designs of kinetic facade with smart materials (left) and
with multiple hinge point folding system (right)

Figure 25: Final proposed design with overhang, vertical lo uvers and
photovoltaic system(left) and rendering with 30 degree overhang and
closed vertical louvers(right)

42
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

5.2 Prototype Testing

With the proposed design in mind, computer simulations were conducted using the
previously described method in order to verify whether the design would provide the
expected results. It was intended that the proposed design with either meet or exceed the four
previous iterative settings for the best-case kinetic design. It should result in at least a 30%
decrease in energy consumption for both cooling and heating needs, allow for at least 50% of
the work surface to be within the recommended range for daylighting for the four times of the
year, produce about 1.0 m/s of airflow, and generate about 130 kWh of energy. As mentioned
previously, ventilation and energy generation were not included in the final prototype.

5.3 Building the Prototype

Once the design of the kinetic system has been verified, it was important to test the design
for constructability and maintenance. The intention of this prototyping was to not only see if
the design would be physically possible, but to also determine methods of improving the
design. Four major issues were considered: the connection of the overhang system to the
aluminum structural frame, the rotation of the vertical louver system, twistable panels, and the
ease or complexity of actually constructing the prototype. The construction of the prototype
led to a few changes and modifications, and in the end produced a better design. The final
prototype incorporates the intentions of the proposed design of an overhang system hinged
one foot down to produce a simple mechanism for controlling solar properties and acting as a
light shelf and a twisting vertical louver system that offered greater control in daylighting for
the user.

Figure 26: Prototype Under Construction

5. Conclusions
It should be noted that the analyses were only done through computer simulation.
Continuation of this project should include validation of the results through testing of a built
prototype. The current prototype also needs additional development. Although many
practical issues were discovered during its construction, it is not ready for serious testing, and
it is expected that many more problems and opportunities would be discovered during the
process of truly creating a physical model for potential manufacturing purposes. See [12] for
more details on the creation of this prototype. In addition, the research method presented is
not the only path to achieve savings in energy while providing for day lighting and natural
ventilation. It is a case study on how analysis tools were used to decide the relative
importance of day lighting, ventilation, energy generation, and energy savings for the design

43
Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

of a specific kinetic façade system. One objective of this study was to show that some trade-
offs can be quantified. Choices were made in the research to balance conflicting goals, and it
is apparent that in real building situations, other selections would be made in response to
other aesthetic and performance based criteria.
This study shows that properly designed kinetic facades can decrease energy use in a
building, can produce ample amounts of recommended natural daylighting, induce preferable
ventilation air velocities, and create more energy, as compared to a typical non-shaded
situation. The kinetic facades studied were able to produce a roughly 30% decrease in energy
consumption for both heating and cooling situations over the non-shaded system. These
systems are able to shade the office space from the sun, insulate the office from heat loss
when needed, and can do this at variable levels throughout the day, month, and year.
Kinetic systems have been shown to keep 38-55% of the work surface in the recommended
light levels, not only reducing the need for artificial lighting, but also keeping the space in a
comfortable setting for the tasks required of that space, ranging from 200 to 500 lux. For
daylighting purposes, it was shown that the lighting levels in the space can be vastly
improved. The kinetic systems were able to produce more surfaces in the recommended range
over the best fixed system by 13% for the overhang, 5% for the folding, 5% for the horizontal
louver, and 18% for the vertical louver.
For ventilation alone, the kinetic facades offered very little improvement over a traditional
static window. In all cases the best fixed setting was to open the façade up as much as
possible, thus allowing the air to flow freely into the space with as little obstruction possible.
Natural ventilation has been shown to be a plausible addition to a kinetic façade, but does not
have as great an increase over the control as the other environmental factors.
The incorporation of photovoltaic panels in the design of these kinetic facades can also
take advantage of their already mobile nature; by allowing the panels to track the sun, the
efficiency of these systems is increased, with the highest increase being the vertical louver
system, nearly doubling the energy output over a static BIPV. Energy generation produced
dramatic increases over the best fixed systems by producing more energy by an average of
10% for four specific days of the year. This increase can be expanded upon when carried out
throughout the year.
The true study of these kinetic facades was not only in their ability to control any one of
these aspects, but their ability to control all of these aspects at the same time. Many critics
claim that the high cost of construction and maintenance for these kinetic systems cannot
justify their use, and for any one of these settings it might be accurate, but if the façade is
controlling all four of these aspects, the costs can be made up quickly by allowing for more
efficient facades, better daylighting levels, increased natural ventilation, and the increased
production of energy through the façade. The kinetic façade can control these environmental
variables, all while providing a dynamic and interesting aesthetic to the building. Façades do
not need to be static; computer simulation can provide some direction for the exercise of
architectural creativity; and kinetic facades can be both beautiful and control the environment
more effectively.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Professors Marc Schiler and Douglas Noble for their guidance
throughout the thesis process.

44
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment, CSABE
Vol. 1, Novermber, 2011

References
[1] Hoberman, Chuck and Schwitter, Adaptive Structures: Building for Performance and Sustainability, Design
Intelligence, 2008.
[2] Givoni, Baruch; Passive and Low Energy Cooling of Buildings, John Wiley, New York. p. 29, 1994.
[3] Drozdowski, Ziggy and Gupta, Shawn, “Adaptive fritting as case exploration for adaptivity in architecture,”
ACADIA 09: reform(): Building a Better Tomorrow [editors Sterk, Loveridge, Pancost]. pp. 105 – 109, ,
2009.
[4] Zawidzhi, Machi, Implementation of cellular automata for dynamic shading of building façade, acadia>08:
Silicon+Skin > Biological Processes and Computation [editors Kudless, Andrew; Oxman, Neri], pp. 246 –
255, 2008.
[5] Givoni, Baruch, Man climate and architecture, Elsevier, Amsterdam, copyright 1969.
[6] Norberg-Schulz, Christian, Intentions in Architecture, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965.
[7] Stein, Benjamin, Reynolds, John S, Grondzik, Walter T. and Kwok, Alison G, Mechanical and Electrical
Equipment for Buildings, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2006, pp. 172-176.
[8] Ramsey, Charles, Architectural Graphic Standards, John Wiley, New York. p. 876, 2000.
[9] Schiler, Marc, Simplified Design of Building Lighting, John Wiley, New York. p. 82, 1992.
[10] Olgyay, Victor, Design with Climate: Bioclimactic Approach to Architectural Regionalism, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1963.
[11] Passey, Pushkin, [Link] - A blog on sustainable architecture for students of sustainability, 2009.
[12] Hansanuwat, Ryan, “Design and Prototype of a Kinetic Façade System to improve building efficiency and
user comfort,” BESS 2010: High Performance Building Enclosures - Practical Sustainability Symposium
[editors Abdelghani, Lin, Tucker], pp. 174-185, 2010.

45
 Journal of Creative Sustainable Architecture & Built Environment
Vol. 1, November, 2011

46

View publication stats