The impact of a kinetic façade on the lighting performance and energy efficiency of a public building: the case of Dubai frame

Figures & data

Table 1. Kinetic façade active materials and identification of their function (Marysse 2015).

Function	Components
Heat storage	Phase change materials	Thermotropics	Light reactive materials
De-humidification	Humidity reactive materials	Silica gel
Natural ventilation	Carbon dioxide reactive materials
Daylight	Chromics (thermo/photo/electro)	Thermotropics	Vegitation	Liquid crystals/Suspended particles
Overheating control	Chromics (thermo/electro)	Tropics (thermo/photo)	Vegitation	Phase change materials
Vision	Electrochromics	Thermotropics	Vegitation	Liquid crystals
Wind and water	Breathable fabrics		Vegitation
Acoustics	Piezoelectrics

Table 2. Literature review summary and findings.

No.	Literature section	Authors	Title	Findings	Citation
1	a	Alotaibi	The Role of Kinetic Envelopes to Improve Energy Performance in Buildings	Kinetic façade would achieve a reduction of 30% for heating and cooling compared to a building with no shading system.	Alotaibi (2015)
2	a, f	Bacha and Bourbia	Effect of kinetic façades on energy efficiency in office buildings – hot dry climates	The façade consumes 25% of the building’s total energy demand. Designing a kinetic façade to achieve thermal comfort and the required daylight levels can both be integrated, whether it is controlled by the users or a computer or even based on a natural reaction.	BenBacha and Bourbia (2016)
3	a, c	Elzeyadi	The impacts of dynamic façade shading typologies on building energy performance and occupant’s multi-comfort	Shading would achieve 13.75% of energy savings in all climate zones. Shading systems were classified based on the shape of the kinetic system to six typologies: automated blinds, egg crates, optical panels, thermal change planes, stretched fabrics and automated movable screens.	Elzeyadi (2017)
4	a, d	Johnsen and Winther	Dynamic facades, the smart way of meeting the energy requirements	An office building in Denmark managed to achieve a reduction in energy consumption from 50 to 25 kwh/m^2. The study highlighted the external factors that affect kinetic shading: solar radiation, visual and thermal comfort, outdoor factors. The greatest external factors that affect the design of the building were 82% for solar radiation and 76% temperature.	Johnsen and Winther (2015)
5	a, e, f, g, h	Sharaidin and Salim	Design Considerations for Adopting Kinetic Facades in Building Practice	43% of energy savings can be achieved from kinetic shading whereas the reduction in indoor air temperature would range from 4.0 to 4.8 C°. Designing kinetic façades should start with design sketches and be followed by digital simulation that validates and defines the performance and the required measures of the proposed façade in real conditions. After that, a physical model prototype would be required for on-site experiments. The study adopted a working mechanism related to performance of an environmental simulation by using parametric design modelling in relation to daylight levels that included dynamic façade evaluation. The key elements for a kinetic façade’s successful implementation strategy are a good understanding of adaptive systems, reliability, movement mechanism simulation, durability and the proper evaluation of designing kinetic façades.	Sharaidin and Salim (2006)
6	a, f,	Purnama and Sutanto	Dynamic facade module prototype development for solar radiation prevention in high-rise building	Cooling loads of a south facing office in Athens would be reduced by 9.8% compared to a static façade. The study consisted of shadow simulation of static shading through simulation software, then a kinetic façade was developed based on the percentage of the shadowed area as a thermal design strategy.	Purnam and Sutanto (2018)
7	a	Wagdy et al.	The balance between daylighting and thermal performance-based on exploiting the kaleidocycle typology in hot arid climate of Aswan, Egypt	Hybrid double façades contribute to 23% energy savings.	Wagdy et al. (2015)
8	a	Ahmed et al.	The thermal performance of residential building integrated with adaptive kinetic shading system	Kinetic aluminium window frames would result in 18% to 20% of energy savings compared to a building with no shading system.	Ahmed et al. (2016)
9	a	Hansanuwat	Kinetic Facades As Environmental Control Systems: Using Kinetic Facades To Increase Energy Efficiency and Building Performance in Office Buildings	Different configurations of kinetic louvres contributed to 28% to 30% energy reduction for heating and 28% to 33% for cooling.	Hansanuwat (2010)
10	a, i	Marysse	Structural Adaptive Façades	Kinetic strategies would achieve a reduction from 10% to 15% for HVAC systems with a reduction in operational cost for HVAC and artificial lighting from 10 to 40%. Kinetic materials can be divided into two categories: active and smart materials. Both categories are usually repeatable and reversible and able to exchange energy with no access to external power.	Marysse (2015)
11	b	Romano et al.		There are several factors that affect the performance of shading systems: material, natural ventilation, sun control, daylighting, thermal insulation, moisture control, structural efficiency, mobile screens, technological solutions, automation systems and energy generation.
12	d, f	Nady	Dynamic Facades: Environmental Control Systems for Sustainable Design	The study listed building orientation, position and materials, shading devices, windows type and location and roof shapes as the main parameters and design elements affecting kinetic shading. Designing buildings to have energy conscious façades should be incorporated with strength and stability, control of heat, be durable, offer control of air and vapour, fire resistance and be cost effective. The Arab Institute in Paris is a notable example of daylight control where circular shutters operate as camera lenses in response to daylight.	Nady (2017)
13	c	Fox and Kem	Interactive Architecture	Michael Fox classified kinetic structures into three typologies: deployable kinetic structure, embedded kinetic structure and dynamic kinetic structure	Fox and Kemp (2009)
14	c, f	Asefi and Shoaee	Proposing a novel kinetic skin for building facades using scissor-like-element structures	Mazier Asefi classified two types of kinetic structure: transformable tensile structure and transformable bending and compression structures, and the motion of kinetic architecture into swivel, flap, pneumatic, rotate, slide, expand, fold and gather. Adaptive decorative structures such as a pantographic, which looks like scissors, can be adopted as a kinetic system for their aesthetic values.	Asefi and Shoaee (2018)
15	c	Zuk and Clark	Kinetic Architecture	William Zuk divided kinetic architecture in eight classes and called them ‘Kinetiscism’. Four of them are self-erecting structures, static structures, kinetic components and reversible architecture.	Zuk and Clark (1970)
16	c	Nashaat et al.	Kinetic Architecture: Concepts, History and Applications	Kinetic architecture applications were classified into three categories: kinetic structure systems, kinetic interiors and kinetic façades. Kinetic façade behaviour was classified into four main categories: translation, rotation, scaling and motion.	Nashaat et al. (2018)
17	d	Aelenei, Aelenei and Vieira	Adaptive Façade: Concept, Applications, Research Questions	A summary of adaptive systems’ key elements were identified as follows: the purpose, the responsive function, operation, a combination of materials and systems, response time and spatial. The greatest external factors that affect the design of buildings were 82% for solar radiation and 76% temperature.	Aelenei, Aelenei, and Vieira (2016)
18	d, e, f, g, i	Sharaidin	Kinetic Facades: Towards design for Environmental Performance	The study mentioned that design decisions relating to kinetic façades are associated with kinetic mechanisms and components to ensure the effectiveness of the façade operation. The early design decisions should take into consideration the design system, energy performance, movement mechanism, construction methodology, materials and the consultant’s experience. Multi-design strategies were adopted by researchers to achieve the required building performance. Evaluating physical prototypes gives significant understanding of kinetic systems to ensure the effectiveness of kinetic façades. Efficient kinetic systems can be implemented by using flexible materials, maintaining materials’ robustness, reducing the use of heavy materials and maintaining kinetic structures.	Sharaidin (2014)
19	F	Elghazi et al.	Daylighting Driven Design: Optimizing Kaleidocycle Facade for Hot Arid Climate	Kinetic façades can be linked by daylight simulation tools where plugins can be connected to perform daylight analysis and can be connected to the rotation, size and opening of kinetic geometrics. Adjusting kinetic materials is concerned with a material’s light transmittance properties whereby smart elements are able to adjust their optical properties to modulate daylight levels and solar energy. Origami patterns were explored through paper folding techniques based on shape, sequence and the relationship of geometric rules and folding morphology for kinetic façade development.	Elghazi et al. (2014)
20	f	P. Jekot	Selected study of architectural envelopes controlling sun radiation – the integration of nature into design	Sun radiation should be adapted through development of devices to result in efficient designs by use of protecting and filtering layers, sun breakers, louvres and any other kinetic shading.	Jekot (2008)
21	f	Kronenburg, Lim and Chii	Transportable environments 2	Designing for easier maintenance and using materials with a good life span should be considered in order not to outdate the aesthetic life span of the building.	Kronenburg, Lim, and YunnChii (2003)
22	h	Loonen et al.	Review of current status, requirements and opportunities for building performance simulation of adaptive facades†	A proper implementation can be applied through virtual rapid prototyping to assess materials, oriented systems, identifying alternatives and exploring control strategies and HVAC systems.	Loonen et al. (2017)
23	i	Perino and Serra	Switching from static to adaptable and dynamic building envelopes: A paradigm shift for the energy efficiency in buildings	The objective of recognising kinetic materials is important to characterise the behaviour of a kinetic façade and to build multi-functional adaptive modules. The most-used kinetic materials are gas filled panels, PCM, high-insulated materials, non-conventional glazing, coating with membrane and with special behaviour such as photocatalytic coating.	Perino and Serra (2015)

Literature section: (a) The impact of kinetic façades on building performance, (b) Factors affecting shading systems’ performance, (c) Kinetic shading typologies, (d) Key factors to help in designing kinetic façades, (e) Design stages, (f) Design strategies, (g) Evaluation strategies, (h) Implementation strategies, (i) Kinetic façade materials.

Figure 1. Dubai frame location map (Authors).

Figure 2. Research approach methodological framework (Authors).

Figure 3. Dubai Frame field measurements locations.

Figure 4. Total electricity validation and discrepancy percentage.

Table 3. Base case construction materials.

		Total thickness (mm)		Total U-value (W/m^2 K)		Construction layers (outside to inside)	Thickness (mm)		Thermal conductivity (W/m.K)
External walls		420		0.49		Copper	5		200
						Cavity	45		–
						Expanded polystyrene	50		0.035
						Reinforced Concrete	300		2.3
						Plaster (light weight)	20		0.16
Roof		450		0.30		Copper	5		200
						Cavity	45		–
						Expanded polystyrene	100		0.035
						Membrane	0.1		1
						Reinforced Concrete	300		2.3
	Total Thickness (mm)		Total U-value (W/m2 K)	Construction layers (outside to inside)	Thickness (mm)	Thermal conductivity (W/m.K)	Transmittance	Outside Reflectance	Inside Reflectance
External windows	42		1.6	Outer pane	6	1.06	0.409	0.289	0.414
				Cavity	12	–
				Inner pane	6	1.06	0.783	0.072	0.072
				Cavity	12	–
				Inner Pane	6	1.06	0.783	0.072	0.072

Figure 5. Total daylight validation measures.

Figure 6. Total electricity as a result of adjusting the facade WWR.

Table 4. Mezzanine Floor and Viewing Bridge luminance and radiance contour images.

Table 5. Viewing Bridge luminance and radiance contour images at 12:00 PM.

Table 6. Dubai frame elevations and the proposed façade.

Table 7. Proposed kinetic movement/south and north façade.

Table 8. Proposed kinetic movement/east and west façade (Authors).

Figure 7. Adjustments to glazing area through IES VE to identify the reduction in total electricity.

Figure 8. The complete script of the parametric model in Grasshopper.

Figure 9. Void area parametric model script.

Figure 10. Circular shading to star configuration movement mechanism.

Table 9. An example for the sun exposure analysis of the south façade to be used for WWR selection.

Table 10. Dubai Frame Viewing Bridge and Mezzanine exhibition stands.

Table 11. Optimal WWR as a result of the aesthetic performance-based design strategy (Authors).

Kinetic scenario/Simulation	Optimal WWR
	South façade	North façade	East façade	West façade
SIM01	16%	12%	6%	8%
SIM02	26%	17%	8%	12%
SIM03	12%	22%	10%	6%
SIM04	26%	12%	6%	8%
SIM05	29%	17%	8%	10%
SIM06	12%	12%	10%	6%
SIM07	12%	26%	6%	12%
SIM08	17%	17%	10%	10%
SIM09	12%	12%	12%	6%

Figure 11. Shading with a shape of circles and polygons based on its own centroid.

Figure 12. Total electricity and cooling loads for SIM 1–9.

Figure 13. The average electricity savings of the optimal design from 8:30 AM to 17:30 PM.

Table 12. A summary of the annual electricity and cooling loads for the base case, abstract and the optimal design.

Month	Base case		Abstract		Optimal design
	Room cooling (MW)	Total electricity (MW)	Room cooling (MW)	Total electricity (MW)	Room cooling (MW)	Total electricity (MW)
Jan	430.5	240.9	392.9	222.1	351.8	201.5
Feb	418.0	232.1	377.8	212.0	336.3	191.3
Mar	475.6	263.4	432.4	241.8	396.7	224.0
Apr	506.0	277.8	458.3	253.9	420.0	234.8
May	572.8	312.0	515.6	283.4	470.9	261.1
Jun	579.2	314.4	521.5	285.6	475.6	262.6
Jul	618.5	334.9	554.5	302.9	506.1	278.7
Aug	624.4	337.8	559.0	305.1	511.4	281.3
Sep	584.8	317.2	523.1	286.3	480.0	264.8
Oct	564.0	307.6	504.7	278.0	461.6	256.4
Nov	494.9	272.3	445.6	247.6	407.9	228.8
Dec	453.4	252.3	412.6	231.9	370.5	210.8
Total	6322.13	3462.73	5698.02	3150.65	5188.83	2896.07

Figure 14. Base case and optimal design illuminance levels of SIM 1–9/Mezzanine floor and Viewing Bridge.

Table A1. SIM 1 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A2. SIM 1 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A3. SIM 2 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A4. SIM 2 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A5. SIM 3 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A6. SIM 3 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A7. SIM 4 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A8. SIM 4 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A9. SIM 5 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A10. SIM 5 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A11. SIM 6 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A12. SIM 6 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A13. SIM 7 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A14. SIM 7 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A15. SIM 8 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A16. SIM 8- Base Case vs. Optimal Design Illuminance and Radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Table A17. SIM 9 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Viewing Bridge.

Table A18. SIM 9 – base case vs. optimal design illuminance and radiance contour plans/Mezzanine Floor.

Marysse, C. 2015. Structural Adaptive Façades”.

 Google Scholar

Alotaibi, F. 2015. “The Role of Kinetic Envelopes to Improve Energy Performance in Buildings.” Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology 04 (03): 6–11. https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9717.1000149.

 Google Scholar

BenBacha, C., and F. Bourbia. 2016. “Effect of Kinetic Facades on Energy Efficiency in Office Buildings -hot dry Climates,” in 11th Conference on Advanced Building Skins.

 Google Scholar

Elzeyadi, I. 2017. “The Impacts of Dynamic Façade Shading Typologies on Building Energy Performance and Occupant’s Multi-Comfort.” Architectural Science Review 60 (4): 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2017.1337558.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Johnsen, K., and F. v. Winther. 2015. “Dynamic Facades, the Smart way of Meeting the Energy Requirements.” Energy Procedia 78: 1568–1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.210.

 Google Scholar

Sharaidin, K., and F. Salim. 2006. “Design Considerations for Adopting Kinetic Facades in Building Practice.” eCAADe 2 (30): 619–628.

 Google Scholar

Purnam, M., and D. Sutanto. 2018. “Dynamic Facade Module Prototype Development for Solar Radiation Prevention in High Rise Building.” IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 126), https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/126/1/012023.

 Google Scholar

Wagdy, A., Y. Elghazi, S. Abdalwahab, and A. Hassan. 2015. “The Balance Between Daylighting and Thermal Performance Based on Exploiting the Kaleidocycle Typology in hot Arid Climate of Aswan, Egypt,” In AEI 2015: Birth and Life of the Integrated Building - Proceedings of the AEI Conference 2015, March, 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479070.028.

 Google Scholar

Ahmed, M. M. S., A. K. Abdel-Rahman, M. Bady, and E. K. Mahrous. 2016. “The Thermal Performance of Residential Building Integrated with Adaptive Kinetic Shading System.” International Energy Journal 16 (3): 97–106.

 Google Scholar

Hansanuwat, R. 2010. Kinetic Facades as Environmental Control Systems: Using Kinetic Facades to Increase Energy Efficiency and Building Performance in Office Buildings”.

 Google Scholar

Nady, R. 2017. “Dynamic Facades: Environmental Control Systems for Sustainable Design.” Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development 3 (1): 118–127. https://doi.org/10.21622/resd.2017.03.1.118.

 Google Scholar

Fox, M., and M. Kemp. 2009. Interactive Architecture. 1st Ed. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

 Google Scholar

Asefi, M., and S. Shoaee. 2018. “Proposing a Novel Kinetic Skin for Building Facades Using Scissor-Like-Element Structures.” Archnet-IJAR 12 (3): 273–287. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i3.1607.

 Google Scholar

Zuk, W., and R. Clark. 1970. Kinetic Architecture. 1st ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

 Google Scholar

Nashaat, B., A. Elmokadem, M. Ekram, and A. Waseef. 2018. “Kinetic Architecture: Concepts, History and Applications.” International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) 7 (4): 750–758. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20181560.

 Google Scholar

Aelenei, D., L. Aelenei, and C. P. Vieira. 2016. “Adaptive Façade: Concept, Applications, Research Questions.” Energy Procedia 91: 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.06.218.

 Google Scholar

Sharaidin, K. 2014. Kinetic Facades: Towards design for Environmental Performance”.

 Google Scholar

Elghazi, Y., A. Wagdy, S. Mohamed, and A. Hassan. 2014. “Daylighting Driven Design : Optimizing Kaleidocycle Facade for Hot Arid Climate,” Fifth German-Austrian IBPSA Conference RWTH Aachen University DAYLIGHTING, September 2018, 314–321.

 Google Scholar

Jekot, B. 2008. “Selected Study of Architectural Envelopes Controlling sun Radiation - the Integration of Nature Into Design.” South African Journal of Art History 23 (3): 56–65.

 Google Scholar

Kronenburg, R., J. Lim, and W. YunnChii. 2003. Transportable Environments 2. London: Spon Press.

 Google Scholar

Loonen, R. C. G. M., F. Favoino, J. L. M. Hensen, and M. Overend. 2017. “Review of Current Status, Requirements and Opportunities for Building Performance Simulation of Adaptive Facades.” Journal of Building Performance Simulation 10 (2): 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2016.1152303.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Perino, M., and V. Serra. 2015. “Switching from Static to Adaptable and Dynamic Building Envelopes: A Paradigm Shift for the Energy Efficiency in Buildings.” Journal of Facade Design and Engineering 3 (2): 143–163. https://doi.org/10.3233/fde-150039.

 Google Scholar