84463

UNITIZED DOUBLE SKIN FAADE ASSEMBLIES:
ACHIEVING THE NEEDS OF FUTURE ENVELOPE SYSTEMS THROUGH

CONSTRUCTION AND PERFORMANCE ADVANCES
by
Morgan Wiener
A Thesis Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF BUILDING SCIENCE
August 2012
Copyright 2012
Morgan Wiener
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I must thank my amazing life partner and soon to be wife for the
support and infinite kindness that she has displayed by helping me through this process.
Her support and encouraging words kept me going on nights and weekends when I
wanted to close up this document quite this learning experience.
This paper could not be possible without the support of the USC School of Architecture
and their great faculty. I would like to thank the chair of this paper Dr. Anders Carlson
for always being the steady hand that kept me going through this process and would lead
me back to the paper at hand. He provided a steadying force that kept my paper on a
straight course through what seemed like an ocean in turmoil. In Professor Doug Noble
I found a force of man who would push me over each stage of this paper with insight that
cut to the root of my intended research. In doing so he provide a much needed push that
kept me going yet reminded me that research is not but a task for a year but rather a task
that takes many a lifetime and a gift that can only be attained through perseverance.
Professor Marc Schiler was my luminary at the end of what seemed like a dark tunnel of
work which I could not perceive.
The ability to create this paper in such a difficult schedule would not have been
achievable without the support and flexibility of Gensler. They saw an opportunity to
invest in the future of my career and the benefit that I can bring to the company with
further education. What I have learned in this paper and in other classes has paid
dividends in the daily working culture.
ii
For professional support in this paper I would like to thank two amazing individuals
from the Enclos Los Angeles office. Dan Green who is head of the Southwest region
operations and his over three decades of facades experience was paramount in the
costing process of this paper. He has specialized in all faade types during that time but
his keen liking to unitized faade assemblies was critical for understanding the potential
pitfalls in this paper. The other member of Enclos who supported this process was Jeff
Vaglio who provided numerous references of articles he has published along with
guiding my initial research towards the papers that had strong merit in the field. When I
was stuck he was always able to help me get free again and moving on this path.
I would like to thank Jamee Lynn Cana for her support in reviewing many of the major
grammatical flaws that this paper developed and helping me attempt to streamline the
language when possible. Additionally I would like to thank Iris Finger who taught me to
read and write when all professionals said that children with such severe dyslexia would
likely have trouble reading street signs for the entirety of their life.
Finally I must thank my family and close friends for they have understood every dinner,
social event and time that I had to politely turn down their invitation. Their support has
been amazing during this time.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................ii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1 Statement of Intent.............................................................................................. 1
1.1.
Hypothesis ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2.
Building Environmental Concerns .......................................................................... 3
1.3.
Research Points......................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1. UDSF Research Points (Items below are expanded in Chapter 3) ........................ 4
1.4.
Testing Procedure ..................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1. Building Modeling Geometry Defined..................................................................... 5

1.4.2. Computer Modeling .................................................................................................. 6
1.4.3. Building Site .............................................................................................................. 6
1.4.4. Testing Procedure ..................................................................................................... 6
1.4.5. Output Comparison .................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2 Background Data ................................................................................................. 9

2.1.
System Abbreviation ................................................................................................. 9
2.2.
AGF ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1. AGF System Diagram ............................................................................................... 9

2.2.2. System Described .................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3. Performance of the AGF ......................................................................................... 15
2.3.
Double Skin Facades............................................................................................... 21
2.3.1. DSF System Diagram .............................................................................................. 21

2.3.2. System Described .................................................................................................... 21
2.3.3. DSF System Performance.......................................................................................32
2.4.
Unitized Faade Systems ........................................................................................ 37
iv
2.4.1. Unitized System Diagram ....................................................................................... 37

2.4.2. Unitized Faade System Described........................................................................ 37
2.4.3. UFS Cost Advantages............................................................................................. 40
Chapter 3 Research............................................................................................................. 41
3.1.
Research Assumptions Described.......................................................................... 41
3.1.1. Building Geometry .................................................................................................. 41

3.1.2. Floor Plate Size........................................................................................................42
3.1.3. Envelope Modeling Types ......................................................................................42
3.1.4. UDF Constraints to Geometry ...............................................................................43
3.1.5. Modeling of Geometry. ...........................................................................................44
3.1.6. Energy Modeling Program Collaboration .............................................................44
3.1.7. Building Model Further Defined in IES ................................................................ 45
3.2.
Modeling Process ....................................................................................................46
3.2.1. Revit Modeling ........................................................................................................46

3.2.2. IES-VE Importation and Development ................................................................. 47
3.2.3. IES-VE Material Selection..................................................................................... 48
3.2.4. IES-VE Computational Sensitivity ........................................................................49
3.2.5. IES-VE Building Systems .......................................................................................50
3.2.6. IES-VE Computational Runs ................................................................................. 51
3.3.
Constraints omitted from process ......................................................................... 53
3.3.1. Site orientation specificity ...................................................................................... 53

3.3.2. Building Rotation .................................................................................................... 54
3.3.3. Site coverage............................................................................................................ 54
3.3.4. Alternative shading ................................................................................................. 55
Chapter 4 Research Data Review....................................................................................... 56
4.1.
Data From Process .................................................................................................. 56
4.1.1. Energy Data ............................................................................................................. 57

4.1.2. CFD Data ................................................................................................................. 57
4.2.
IES-VE Energy Data .............................................................................................. 60
4.2.1. Energy Data Charts for Reference ......................................................................... 61

4.2.2. Energy Data Figures for Reference ........................................................................66
4.2.3. Intro to Energy Analysis ......................................................................................... 72
4.2.4. Los Angeles.............................................................................................................. 73
4.2.5. Houston ................................................................................................................... 75
4.2.6. Chicago .................................................................................................................... 77
4.3.
IES-VE Microflo CFD data ..................................................................................... 79
Chapter 5 Inferences from Data ........................................................................................ 81
5.1.
Review of a DSF vs AGF ......................................................................................... 81
5.1.1. Los Angeles............................................................................................................. 82

5.1.2. Houston .................................................................................................................. 83
5.1.3. Chicago ................................................................................................................... 83
5.2.
DSF vs AGF comparative charts and figure ......................................................... 84
Chapter 6 UDSF Design Thought Process ........................................................................ 87

6.1.
UDSF Erecting and Structure ................................................................................ 87
6.1.1. Panel Assembly One ........................................................................................... 89

6.1.2. Panel Assembly Two............................................................................................ 91
6.1.3. Panel Assembly Three .........................................................................................92
6.1.4. Panel Assembly Four ...........................................................................................93
6.2.
UDSF Glazing Panes ...............................................................................................94
vi
6.2.1. UDSF Repair and Maintenance ............................................................................. 95

6.2.2. Repair and Replacement of Panes ......................................................................... 95
6.2.3. Maintenance of the Internal Shading Devices ...................................................... 95
6.2.4. Maintenance of the Cavity Ventilation System ..................................................... 97
6.2.5. Repair to Damage of Structural Frame ................................................................ 98
6.3.
UDSF Professional feedback ................................................................................. 98
6.3.1. Constraints to design typically ...............................................................................99

6.3.2. Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly one .........................................100
6.3.3. Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly two ......................................... 101
6.3.4. Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly three ....................................... 102
6.3.5. Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly four......................................... 103
6.3.6. UDSF specific costing ........................................................................................... 104
Chapter 7 Inference from Process ...................................................................................108

7.1.
Payback of systems ...............................................................................................108
7.2.
Viability of a UDSF as an alternative .................................................................... 111
Chapter 8 -Future Work ...................................................................................................... 112

8.1.
Fine detailing of UDSF assembly ......................................................................... 112
8.2.
UDSF shading option analysis ............................................................................. 112
8.3.
Specific engineering to systems based on design criteria .................................. 112
8.4.
Mechanical system alternatives ........................................................................... 113
8.5.
Alternative UDSF assemblies and possible performance gains ........................ 113
8.6.
Viability of UDSF in the future ............................................................................ 113
Bibliography: .........................................................................................................................115
Appendix - Data ................................................................................................................... 116
vii
List of Tables
Table 2.2.3: Prescriptive faade building codes .16
Table 4.2.1: Energy Data - All Glass Faade .61
Table 4.3. 1: Double Skin Faade 12: Without Shading61
Table 4.3. 2: Double Skin Faade 12: With Shading..61
Table 4.3. 3 : Double Skin Faade 12: Optimized Shading..62
Table 4.3.4: Double Skin Faade 30: Without Shading...62
Table 4.3. 6: Double Skin Faade 30: Optimized Shading..63
Table 4.3. 7: Double Skin Faade 36:Without Shading.63
Table 4.3. 9: Double Skin Faade 36: Optimized Shading..64
Table 4.3 .10: Double Skin Faade 72: Without Shading.64
Table 4.3 .11: Double Skin Faade 72: With Shading.64
Table 4.3. 12: Double Skin Faade 72: Optimized Shading65
Table 5.2.1: DSF vs. AGF comparative charts.84
Table 5.2.2: DSF 12. 85
iv
Table 5.2.3: DSF 30......85

Table 5.2.4: DSF 36...85
Table 5.2.5: DSF 72...86
Table6.3.6.1-Cost for Differing Faade Types.105
Table7.1.1-Cost for Differing Faade Types.109
Table A1- Chicago 12without shading -Building Energy Systems..116
Table A2- Chicago 12with shading- Building Systems Energy....116
Table A3 - Chicago 30 without shading-Building Systems Energy...117
Table A4- Chicago 30 with shading -Building Systems Energy...117
Table A5- Appendix -Chicago 36 without shading -Building Systems Energy...118
Table A6 - Chicago 36 with shading - Building Systems Energy....118
Table A7- Chicago 72 without shading - Building Systems Energy...119
Table A8 -Chicago 36 with shading - Building Systems Energy.....119
Table A9 Houston 12 without shading - Building Systems Energy....120
Table A10 Houston 12 with shading - Building Systems Energy..120
Table A11Houston 30 without shading - Building Systems Energy...121
Table A12Houston 30 with shading - Building Systems Energy..121
Table A13Houston 36 without shading - Building Systems Energy122
Table A14Houston 36 with shading - Building Systems Energy.....122

Table A15Houston 72 without shading - Building Systems Energy...122
Table A16Houston 72 with shading - Building Systems Energy...123
Table A17Los Angeles 12 without shading - Building Systems Energy..123
Table A18Los Angeles 12 with shading - Building Systems Energy.124
Table A19Los Angeles 30 without shading - Building Systems Energy.125
Table A20Los Angeles 30 with shading - Building Systems Energy125
Table A22Los Angeles 36 with shading - Building Systems Energy...126
Table A24Los Angeles 72 with shading - Building Systems Energy.127
vi
List of Figures
Figure 2.2.1 Curtainwall - AGF Type One.........9
Figure 2.3.1 DSF System Diagram.....21
Figure 2.3.1 Double Skin Faade Ventilation Options (Vaglio, 2011)...25
Figure 2.4.1 Unitized Wall Typical Condition..37
Figure 4.1.31 Pressure North & South Cavities...58
Figure 4.1.32 Pressure East & West Cavities...58
Figure 4.1.33 Temperature North & South Cavities...59
Figure 4.1.34 Temperature East & West Cavities.59
Figure 4.2.2.1- Daily Energy Data Cooling-DSF Los Angeles (1000kBtu/h scale).66
Figure 4.2.2.2- Daily Energy Data Cooling- AGF Los Angeles (2000kBtu/h scale)..66
Figure 4.2.2.3- Daily Energy Data Heating-DSF Los Angeles (500kBtu/h scale).67
Figure 4.2.2.4- Daily Energy Data Heating-AGF Los Angeles (650kBtu/h scale).67
Figure 4.2.2.5- Daily Energy Data Cooling-DSF Houston (1100kBtu/h scale)...68
Figure 4.2.2.6- Daily Energy Data Cooling-AGF Houston (2000kBtu/h scale)..68
Figure 4.2.2.7- Daily Energy Data Heating-DSF Houston (900kBtu/h scale)...69
Figure 4.2.2.8- Daily Energy Data Heating-AGF Houston (1200kBtu/h scale).69
vii
Figure 4.2.2.9- Daily Energy Data Cooling-DSF Chicago (1000kBtu/h scale)......70

Figure 4.2.2.10- Daily Energy Data Cooling-AGF Chicago (2000kBtu/h scale).70
Figure 4.2.2.11- Daily Energy Data Heating-DSF Chicago (1400kBtu/h scale)....71
Figure 4.2.2.12- Daily Energy Data Heating-AGF Chicago (1800kBtu/h scale)...71
Figure 5.2.1 Double skin faade vs. Single Glass Faade Varying cavity depths..86
Figure 6.1.1Panel Assembly One..89
Figure 6.1.2Panel Assembly Two.....91
Figure 6.1.3Panel Assembly Three..92
Figure 6.1.4Panel Assembly Four ...93
Figure 6.3.6.1-Cost per SF (from Table 6.3.6.1)..106
Figure 7.1.1-Annual Energy Cost (from Table 7.1.1)110
viii
Abstract
The traditional glazed building faade assemblies lack effectiveness in meeting the
rapidly evolving and more restrictive building energy code. The requirements to adhere
to envelope performance standards are becoming increasingly difficult with an all glass
faade that employs a double pane glazing assembly.
This led to the pursuit of less conventional double-skin faade assemblies in situations
that require high-performance envelopes. Double-skin faade (DSF) systems allow
higher energy performance standard to be met. These systems also allow a greater degree
of system controllability. However, the systems proved to be prohibitive due to the
considerable increase in the use of materials, cost, and time needed to assemble. One
solution is to use a unitized assembly instead of using a stick-built curtain wall.
This thesis will examine the proposed design of a unitized double-skin faade (UDSF)
assembly and how it can resolve many of the current construction and performance
issues that can limit DSF assemblies from entering the market as a comparable cost
alternative faade to stick built curtain wall assemblies.
The unitized faade assemblies are a practical building assembly that allows off-site
manufacturing with benefits. The faade components permit rapid on-site erection and a
reduction of the material through and effective use of materials during fabrication of the
assemblies. The idea of the aforementioned UDSF, reviews the potential for a substantial
leap forward to the double-skin faade assemblies provided by a unitized multistory
assembly in order to reduce the cost and the time required in these systems while
achieving a reduction of materials and labor used to produce these systems.
viii
Chapter 1 Statement of Intent

1.1. Hypothesis
Unitized double-skin faade assemblies can meet current and more restrictive envelope
energy performance requirements in a more efficient and economical manner than the
site built double-skin assemblies. This will allow them to enter to the construction
marker as a viable alternative for insulated glazing curtain wall assemblies when
comparing the life cycle and the construction costs of each system.
Building facades are one of the key components in the energy consumption of the built
environment. Presently, the design and the construction industry are employed in using
inefficient systems even though there are existing better performing systems. Insulated
glazed curtain wall facades, or all glass facades, are quite prevalent in the built
environment regardless of being one of the worst performing envelope systems.
Underperforming all glass facades (AGF)are not replaced by better alternative systems.
The alternative systems like double skin facades (DSFs) are not readily utilized in the
construction industry even though they outperform similar systems. Limitations in
fabrication may be one of the reasons why these systems are not yet available in the
construction industry. AGFs which exist in the construction industry are readily available
and cheaper than DSF to fabricate. The issues associated with the system's ability to
enter the market can be addressed through the combination of innovations in other
variants of the curtain wall industry known as unitized curtain wall systems. These are
faade assemblies that can be built on site rapidly, they are highly manufactured systems
with the implementation of the technology advances associated to that product. These
would allow hybrid Unitized Double Skin Faade (UDSF) to enter the market and
become a viable alternative to traditional AGF assemblies.
These systems theoretically would offset their initial upfront cost when viewed over an
amortized cycle of building operation due to the energy saving and inherent performance
increase. This cycle can demonstrate the potential for long term benefit of energy savings
for a greater initial upfront built cost, with an understanding of the different payback
cycles associated by regional energy costs. This can offset the cost over the life cycle of
the building and create a positive cost benefit analysis to the builder, owner or tenant of
these future spaces.
The UDSF is a product that complicates the process needed to understand the
computation of the overall envelope energy performance because there are factors in the
testing process that are unique to the products of the DSF typology. The UDSF should be
energy modeled in a 3D program so that it can permit cross compatible platform
importation into a CFD program. This modeling was done with Revit and IES VE with
Microflow. This is further noted in Chapter 2.
DSF assemblies are unique in terms of energy performance due to the fact that these
assemblies use the natural thermal effects of buoyancy to create a thermal buffer for the
conditioned environment. This unique energy modeling requirement with specific
recognition of airflow patterns is not computed by many other energy modeling program
types. The implementation of the UDSF is limited to fabricating and erecting of panel
sizes that govern a DSF assembly at least as a minimum. In this thesis it is assumed that
a new system will not surpass the fabrication limitations that are currently seen in the
field and will conform to those. Current fabricated glazing panel assembly sizes will be
the limiting factor for these proposed assemblies as they have the greatest constraint for
the system components. This is expanded further in chapter 6.
By understanding current limitations of DSF, the UDSF in this thesis fall within those
limits and be based not to exceed a two story building panel as the maximum size. The
purpose of this thesis is to compare the key factors involved in the viability of a UDSF as
a product for the building market.
1.2. Building Environmental Concerns

The importance of this thesis is to explore many key energy concerns related to the built
environment. Data from the Department of Energy (DOE) showed that there are 4.8
million commercial buildings and 350,000 industrial facilities that totaled over 5 million
buildings in the United States(DOE, 2003). The annual energy cost in order to operate
the commercial buildings is $107.98 billion and $94.4 billion for industrial facilities. The
annual energy consumption used by commercial and industrial buildings totaled $202.3
billion, which are understood to have an inefficacy and unnecessary use of energy near
30% due to overall building inefficiencies. (DOE, 2003). The combined percentage of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from commercial and industrial buildings is 45% of the
total national output (DOE, 2003). These numbers are alarming due to the
environmental impacts incurred. Small improvements toward this scale can create huge
cost savings. The DOE through the US Environmental Protection Agency established the
Energy Star program to help reduce the energy consumption of buildings and
equipment. The goal of the Energy Star program is to reduce the energy consumption of
the built environment by 10%, which will lead to cost savings of over $20 billion in
annual energy cost (DOE, 2003). In order to understand the environmental impact of
this huge energy consumption, 30 million vehicles would have to be removed from the
road permanently to offset this amount of waste (DOE, 2003).
This thesis will review the energy output data in BTU of savings that a DSF can achieve
in different environments compared to a AGF. It is important to understand the U.S.
built energy performance using the BTU information as a bench mark in understanding
the overall building performance. The overall consumption of a building is more
important than just understanding the performance of a single item which makes up the
whole of the energy consumption. These smaller items are important to understand but
it is about finding a balance in the total energy consumption that will mitigate the overall
energy consumption of a building.
The aforementioned annual energy consumption of the current U.S. built environment
amounted to 99.89 quadrillion BTU (DOE, 2003). The reduction of energy consumption
by the built environment is of great importance to the global energy consumption.
1.3. Research Points

Below are the key areas that this thesis will attempt to answer. The subsequent
development of the proposed system is also included in the outline given below.
1.3.1.
UDSF Research Points (Items below are expanded in
Chapter 3)
UDSF envelope energy performance
Cavity depth specific to diverse climates based on energy consumption.
Constructability review of design assembly based on pros and cons to

fabrication, erection and maintenance.
Climate zone for implementation of the case-study assembly
Cost of construction
Return of investment on the construction costs
An in-depth review of these factors pertaining to the benefits of the UDSF new product
may or may not solve many issues. This thesis will specifically look at the
aforementioned factors by using a methodological process laid out below.
1.4. Testing Procedure

The outline below shows the guidelines in testing designs in a UDSF system. This will be
expanded and will be further explained in Chapter 3.
1.4.1.
Building Modeling Geometry Defined
The building will be composed of a 150-0 square building with an offset core.
The building floor plate will be 22,500 sf with equal sides and no exterior shading
beyond the assemblies.
There will be an offset building core of 60 from the building perimeter.
Due to the efficiency of unitized lifts that has two stories, the building will have a
total of four stories with the understanding that the two lifts are interconnected.
1.4.2.
Computer Modeling
Model in Autodesk Revit for export energy modeling software.
Import geometry and design into IES-Microflow CFD.
Reconcile building assemblies in IES so that the same type material assemblies
are being used in all computation runs.
1.4.3.
Building Site
These faade assemblies will be established in three distinct climate zones in

North America. This is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3.
These models will apply the selected faade assemblies to all building faces on the
cardinal points/axis.
The cavity depth will be energy modeled for four different depths (12, 30, 36
and 72) to know what depth of the DSF could be an appropriate solution for
each of these climates.
1.4.4.
Testing Procedure
Energy models were developed for each of the faade types aforementioned.
Faade assemblies will be established in three distinct climate zones in North

America. This is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3.
These models will apply the selected faade assemblies to all building faces on the
cardinal points/axis. This will allow the exploration of the thermal loading on
each face rather than the non-orthogonal building relationship.
The internal shading devices will be implemented in all DSF options and
will be compared for energy performance against a non-shaded option to

determine when they are most useful from an energy standpoint.
The energy simulations will be run again but with that additional of the internal
shading device over the baseline AGF and the benefit to the performance of the
DSF.
1.4.5.
Output Comparison
Output energy data for all systems will be reviewed in each of the aforementioned
scenarios based on kBtuh/sf per year as the building will need to be assessed as a
whole product and not a single stand-alone faade that will understand the entire
benefit.
Consistent energy data from the aforementioned software programs will be

reviewed for continuity across the output data and the output data from one
software will be also used at each site.
The cavity depth of the DSF will be selected for each climate based on the best
overall performance as varying depths will perform better in different climates.
Faade cost will be determined for these systems using ROM costing for the AGF
and the UDSF faade types. ROM costing refers to rough order of magnitude as
finite costs associated with any building projects which cannot be determined.
The cost benefit will be reviewed to determine the system viable implementation
as an alternative to the AGF and the payback of the system.
The data will be compared to determine the final possible implementation into
the product market as an alternative to the AGF assembly. This will prove that in
specific areas, the UDSF will provide an offsetting cost-benefit for building
owners to install projects and can be a viable alternative to the AGF assemblies.
Chapter 2 Background Data

2.1. System Abbreviation
AGF All glass faade
DSF Double skin faade
UFS Unitized faade system
UDSF Unitized double skin faade (see Chapter 3)
2.2. AGF
2.2.1.
AGF System Diagram
Figure 2.2.1 Curtainwall - AGF Type One
2.2.2.
System Described
The AGF will be used in this thesis to describe the number of exterior building envelope
systems that are characterized by a continuous glass faade with a structural backing
system. These are characterized by glazing panels held and secured by structural
framing members requiring a high level of finish precision. These can be assembled in a
variety of configurations and sizes to achieve the design aesthetic, but are often seen in
contemporary applications like a structural mullion system that captures the glazing with
the use of pressure plate. The pressure plate compresses the glazing pane edges at
regular intervals of 18 with extruded plate material in order to provide enough surface
pressure on the glazing. This stabilizes it from movement when set in the structural
frame. The driving design factor for these systems is the high level of transparency that
each system achieves in order to allow a greater degree of visual connectivity between the
interior spaces and the outside environment. AGFs are characterized by long-span
structural framing members that carry the loads of the glazing panels required for
support and the loads imposed by the glazing panels themselves. These long-span
members are assembled in such a way that it allows minimal movement in the system
and relies more on the exterior structural members to act in tension to resist lateral and
gravity forces. These systems have advanced greatly from the first applications of these
systems which were quite primitive as they were using simple aluminum or steel frames
to hold the glazing panes. These systems have evolved to more complex extruded metal
assemblies that allow the issue of thermal bridging across the structural framing to be
minimalized. The original systems were not energy efficient due to the support and the
tension members acting as thermal bridges in the system. This concept of a thermal
bridge is the characteristic of having no break or separation between an exterior finish
10
material and the internal environment which allow for conduction through the
continuous material to occur. This may occur in the mullion system or with glazing that
is not thermally broken. The concept of thermally broken glazing will be expanded later
on in the thesis.
This system is different from the Structurally backed glazing facade (SBGA) due to the
spanning and support members. The SBGA is different in the sense that it would have a
separate structural system often fixed to the main structural frame of the building with a
glazing capture assembly attached to a secondary frame. This long span structural
system is often made from a variety of structural system; cable net structures or rods and
it is implemented to solve facades that may span up to 8 stories in height uninterrupted.
The SGBA can also have a greater movement capacity compared to a less advanced AGF
assembly. This is due to the much larger spans that the system must be capable of
achieving to the increasing scale of the uninterrupted faade. The SBGAs are often
highly customized and project specific, they will not be used as a basis of comparison
because they are not applicable to the building typology that we will be discussing in this
thesis or intended for repetitive installations. But it is important to discuss their
importance in the glazing faade spectrum of products, and they are highly detailed in
the work of Patterson(Patterson, 2008).
AGFs occur in a large range of climates, glazing types, transparencies, spans, and cost
points. AGF as a whole will be the basis of the design for the comparison of this thesis as
they are pervasive on the built environment. For the basis of this document, a basis of
design to understand the system will be given in the research and testing methodology
chapter (Chapter 3).
11
Prior to the SBGA , AGF assemblies began to come into implementation in the design
profession from many factors that moved away from traditional faades. A brief history
of these systems is outlined below.
Many designers began to embrace AGF assemblies with the introduction of the first
example being the Crystal Palace in 1851 by Joseph Paxton. This building was used for
more than 14,000 exhibitors around the world who gathered in the Palace's 990,000
square feet (92,000 m2) of exhibition space to display examples of the latest technology
developed in the Industrial Revolution ( Luebkeman & Peting, 1995).
When the International Style came to influence in the 1920s, a few of the most
noteworthy buildings of that architectural movement embraced these types of
assemblies. A few of these buildings were the Seagram Building in Chicago by Mies van
der Rohe and the Glass Palace in Netherlands by Frits Peutz. Some of the better
examples of buildings during that movement were expanded upon below for their key
faade design features.
Glazing assemblies at the advent of glass pane production were limited by the
comparably rudimentary fabrication equipment in comparison to what is currently used
in the glazing fabrication. Early fabrication was limited by location as they required
large amounts of readily available fuel to fire the furnaces that melt the raw materials for
glazing fabrication. With the development of alternative fuel sources such as coal and
petroleum products, these factories were relocated to areas that are closer to the
transportation corridors that bring the goods to market. Early glazing panes were
additionally limited by the ability to create continuity in the glazing pane itself. Air
bubbles would develop in glazing panes that can compromise panes of glazing by
12
creating voids in the product. This weakens the structural integrity of the entire pane.
This is a limiting factor to pane size until fabrication techniques allowed a great level of
continuity in the molten product. Current glazing pane construction is limited by
factors associated with the limitation of the factory equipment that is used to produce
the raw panes of glazing. Some of these limiting factors include the size limitations of
the annealing equipment or the float bath portion of the fabrication depending on
specific manufacturers. These are greatly reduced when using glazing panes that
employ high performance internal films to increase the thermal performance of the
panes. These films are referred to as low-e coatings and come in two common variants
known as pyrolytic and magnetron sputtering. The magnetron sputtering process limits
the product to dimensions no greater than 7-4x 12-4. While the pyrolytic coating
limits the product to dimensions no great than 7-4 x 16-4. (Wikipedia Low Emissivity
2012)
The early glazing fabrication production requirements limited designers from creating
AGF buildings for many years. When manufacturing of large scale glazing was able to
accommodate these new design ideas, the urban landscape began to see a shift in the
appearance and the size of glazed assemblies.
The insulated glass unit (IGU) faade, which fall into the family of systems, is commonly
referred to as the SGF. This is a complete building faade system that compromised a
series of components. These components are typically glazing panes, structural backing
system (often of aluminum in current assemblies), structural attachments, gaskets, and
sealant. The IGU faade assembly became a common faade application with the advent
of stricter energy code requirements under the 1994 UBC; at later points in the
development of this faade system, a higher level of energy performance was required
13
due to many factors. With the rising costs of energy, changes in the building code and
concerns about how the built environment affects the climate of the global advancements
in those AGF assemblies were sought. The implementation of insulated glazing units in
the AGF assembly was the next phase of development in achieving the higher level of
energy performance( Pittsburgh Paint and Glass Industries, 2011). These new assemblies
were able to achieve the requirements that were developed in revising the energy
requirements in the building code and allowed building owners to lower the cost of their
energy needs in order to run a building. With a u-value=0.25 on the higher performing
assemblies on the market, the thermal resistance has increased greatly from the lower
end AGF which have a low u-value that are around a u-value=0.9 depending on the exact
product ( Pittsburgh Paint and Glass Industries, 2011).
These systems have continued to progress into many alternative glazing faade products
including point-supported glazed faades known as SGFs and channel glazing walls.
SGFs are defined in Structural Glass Facades: A Unique Building Technology (Patterson,
2008). In this thesis, the differences between the factors that affect the building envelope
performance and the much wider breadth of faade that will be focused in this document
is clearly defined. The in-depth review of the historical progression of glazing and the
progression of glazed faades are the process and materials that go into the creation of
the component materials of the different assemblies defined in depth, but the AGF that
will be referred in this thesis is defined as in the aforementioned description.
14
2.2.3.
Performance of the AGF
The thermal performance of a material or a system is referred to as the R-value of the

material; this relates to the thermal resistance of the material. It is the measurement of
the heat flux through a given material as measured from either side.
The performance of the exterior envelope assemblies are the basis of the resistance value
to the thermal transmission through the materials of the assembly. The U-value is the
computation of the overall heat transmission coefficient based on the inverse of that
material's R-value. Exterior envelopes are calculated using U-values rather than R-values
when considering the computational resistance in energy performance. This coefficient is
called the U-value and has a range of 01, with 0 being the best and 1 being equivalent to
an open window. Materials are typically tested at a temperature gradient of 24 C at 50%
humidity with no wind.
Around most of the world, R-values are given in SI units, typically square-meter kelvins
per watt or mK/W (or equivalently to mC/W). In the United States customary units,
R-values are given in units of ftFh/Btu. (Wikipedia R-Value, 2012)
There are suggested R-values for wall assemblies given by the U.S. DOE based on the
specific climate factors of a region along with energy costs. Additionally, the stateadopted building codes vary in the exact performance that they require but outline the
minimum overall building envelope performance criteria that is needed to be achieved.
The below table address the prescriptive codes that address exterior faade assemblies.
15
Air Inltration
Water static
Water dynamic
Structural uniform wind load
Thermal Cycling
Thermal Transmittance U factor
Condensation Resistance (CRF, I, CR)
Overall Solar Heat Gain Coefcient (SHGC & VT)

Sound Transmission Class (STC, OITC)
Seismic
ASTM E 283
ASHRAE 90.1
ASTM E 331
AAMA 501.1
AAMA 520
ASTM E 330
TAS 202
AAMA 501.5
AAMA 1503
AAMA 507
NFRC 100
ASHRAE 90.1
AAMA 1503
CSA 440
NFRC 500
NFRC 200
AAMA 507
ASTM E 90
ASTM E 1425
AAMA 501.4
Table 2.2.3: Prescriptive faade building codes
These are prescriptive minimum required code values to achieve a code-compliant

building, but they are not considered the best building practice. This code minimum is
based on the type of building that is being proposed, such as an office building or a
residence. Since the code from state to state greatly varies, it is not directly encouraged
to adopt higher performance standards because it is not the best benchmark to compare.
States are rather encouraged to achieve the minimum American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards for building
envelope performance. ASHAE is currently publishing four standard manuals dealing
with building systems.
16
ASHRAE 90.1 is the standard that we will be looking as the baseline for envelope
performance. ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings. This standard is selected due to the fact that it is used as the
reference in most building codes in North America. It is the baseline standard for the
comparison that refers to the LEED 2009 standards in building the envelope
performance portion. In the current LEED standard, we see a benchmark of the building
versus the proposed building energy performance. The issue with this standard is that it
counts the building total energy performance as a whole rather than having a greater
degree of specificity placed on the different building systems that add up to the entire
building performance. The issue with this is that the building does work as the sum of its
parts, but when attempting to achieve a high-performance building, it creates a few very
high performing building systems that can carry the performance load needed to achieve
the LEED performance levels, which are inferior in counting all the pieces toward
performance separately. This allows for the LEED rating system in this case to be
circumvented by smart designers who require a higher performance design benchmark
from their mechanical and electrical systems so that they can achieve a faade that meets
their design aesthetic and not always the performance benchmarks of that system.
The performance of the AGF is strongly tied to the overall performance of the glazing
unit that makes up a majority of the wall surface. Due to the average U-value of the
faade assembly being driven by the material with the greatest surface area based on the
percentage of the overall envelope. The U-value of the AGF glazing prior to the advent of
the IGU was U=0.95, which has a very poor thermal performance when compared with a
single family home with insulated walls, which may have U=0.15 (excluding the glazed
surface). The fact that buildings of such large scale having underperforming skin to a
17
single family residence is a problem in the built environment. The relative net U-factor
for performance of the faade is about U=0.25, once again dependent upon the specific
glazing assembly. This is still a drastically underperforming wall assembly compared to a
simple insulated wall assembly.
With high performance exterior non-glazed wall assemblies that achieve U=0.05 (R=19)
on some of the higher performing exterior wall assemblies, they are created to meet the
current energy code. The IGU wall is underperforming high performance exterior skin
with smaller window penetrations that allows lesser amount of glazed wall space. This
thesis is focusing on the all glazed faade assemblies so alternative facades types which
may be more solid are not going to be reviewed in this paper as it would be a divergent
path from the intent of the paper.
There are many additional factors that play into the performance of a faade aside from
site-specific factors. Some of these factors are under the control of the building designer,
and some are in the control of the occupants of the space. The building mechanical,
lighting, and miscellaneous equipment systems play a key part in the performance of the
exterior skin.
A good comparison would be a data center and a k-12 school. A data center produces
high levels of heat from the servers and lighting in the space. It is a building that is in
constant use at all hours as the equipment is intended to run continuously. This building
generates a large amount of heat from the interior environment and depends upon the
program-specific cooling needs that it will virtually require no day lighting of the space.
This building is often highly insulated non-glazed faade assemblies as there is no
programmatic need, but it will require a high level of temperature control to allow the
18
equipment to work properly and will have extremely uniform internal heat gains. This
type of building benefits from a high-performing faade to help maintain the
programmatic needs of the building working properly. The building is able to adapt
across the day to the thermal gains and losses from the exterior while switching between
season thermal load extremes.
Conversely, in a K-12 school classroom, there is a smaller window during the day of
internal heat gains as the building occupants are using the facility for about eight hours a
day. The gains of the internal environment are great and typically from occupant
heating, while the equipment loads are less and often much smaller computers if they are
provided in the space. The loads in these spaces are sudden and not always constant over
the used period as the rooms may be in use continuously during the day or sporadically.
The building systems will have to deal with instantaneous loads and adjust the thermal
performance of the room to meet the needs of the occupants. Also, the inhabited spaces
will be typically provided with a window or other forms of day lighting and view to the
outside. This will additionally become a factor to the building systems to achieve this day
lighting need and the peak heating loads from the occupants using a space. This taxes the
importance of the exterior envelope due to the fact that there will be large possible
fluctuations from the internal loads of the space as it varies throughout the day. This
coupled with a lack of continuity of the faade makes a very different type of performing
skin than that of the data center aforementioned example due to the day lighting needs.
The AGF has advantages in a manner that it allows high quantities of viewing area along
the exterior envelope. This virtually allows full glazing and views along the entire
building faade except where structure and other building components interrupt these
views. Also, a possibility, dependent upon the glazing type that is used for the faade,
19
allows significant amounts of light transmission into the space. Often with high levels of
transmission in older glazing products, a high level of solar heat gain can occur. Often
with older glazing products, we would see a tint on the glazing, as noted in a few of the
case-study buildings below, which was intended to help with the reduction of glare and
solar heat gain in the interior environment from these glazed faade.
The AGF is often assembled using extruded aluminum members that can either be
thermally broken or not thermally broken. The more expensive systems are typically
thermally broken, which allow for the systems not to conduct thermal energy across the
support members and create a thermal bridge in the system. These thermally broken
members are different from the non-thermally broken members as they will typically
have compressible thermal padding material between the inner and outer structural
support systems, which prevent conduction through the support members. This prevents
the thermal bridge from occurring, which is typically the weakest thermal point on a
system as it has the same flaws that are seen in a single-pane glazing assembly. The
performance difference between thermally and non-thermally broken systems is the
dependence upon the project location, the size, and the percentage of exposed material,
and the internal versus external thermal conditions.
These buildings have had advancements in the technology of constructing the AGF that
will be outlined below in the section on Unitized Glass Facades.
20
2.3. Double Skin Facades

2.3.1.
DSF System Diagram
Figure 2.3.1 DSF System Diagram
2.3.2.
System Described
DSF assemblies are alternative assemblies that have many unique variations. They are
referred to as multiple-skin faade (MSF) or active envelopes for the character defining
feature of how they are assembled.
21
MSFs (also known as active envelopes, second-skin faades, twin faades, etc.) consist
of two panes with a cavity through which air flows in between. The driving force for the
airflow is natural or mechanical ventilation (Saelens, 2003).
This cavity may function under three distinct ventilation types, i.e., naturally ventilated,
mechanically ventilated, and a hybrid system. The naturally ventilated option uses the
thermal heat gain through the exterior glazing to create a thermal chimney to ventilate
the air space between the two faades. The mechanically ventilated option uses internal
thermally conditioned air to supply the thermal cavity while ventilating this cavity from
the top of the cavity wall, while the hybrid system uses a combination of the
mechanically ventilated option and the natural option on different distinct
environmental conditions to be gained performance out of the DSF (Vaglio, 2011).
All of the schemes above share the key factor to the performance of the DSF as a
enhancement to the building is the naturally occurring chimneys affect that the cavity of
all DSFs used to achieve performance increases. The chimney effect occurs as a factor of
buoyancy of air, in the case of a DSF and the simple concept behind the air movement.
As a gas, the air, in this case, heats up and will naturally expand and become less dense,
this, in turn, will make it rise through the colder air of higher density. This concept of
buoyancy is often applied to how an object floats on water and can be easily understood
with an example that is familiar. When we see a glacier floating on the ocean, it may
seem that a large hard object should sink into the depths of the water, but as water
freezes, it expands as the molecules slow down until they are virtually still. Now, in the
case of a gas instead of the case of a liquid, as gas becomes colder, it will eventually begin
to settle to the bottom as it compressed into a more dense gas. This can also be
understood that a gas that is highly compressed will be cold as is with liquid nitrogen,
22
which is stored in high compression to maintain the low levels of temperature. On the
opposite end of this spectrum is the air that occurs in a DSF that has no forced
compression of the gas. Since the gas is left in an unaltered state of compression and, for
argument sake, is only one type of gas, it will experience natural buoyancy effects, which
will cause strata of gas to form in the cavity initially leading to the aforementioned
chimney effect. This effect is seen in a multitude of research papers about the buoyancy
effect and how it moves at greater rising velocity as the temperature of the air rises. The
chimney effect as it occurs in a smaller cavity of space, as the DSF, helps in eliminating
the effect of the strata of air forming, which will disrupt the naturally occurring chimney
effect of rising air. Buoyancy is the key thermal force that helps a DSF to achieve the
thermal buffer, which attempts to create the implementation of this system.
This cavity will also tamper the conduction from the exterior envelope to the interiorconditioned environment by separating the interior-conditioning envelope from
convection. As the exterior environment is experiencing dissimilar temperatures and
airflow patterns begin to move in various ways, the lack of building surface that is
exposed to the environments convection will prevent this energy from heating the
interior envelope, thus preventing the conduction from the exterior envelope to the
interior-conditioned environment. With buildings as the simplest example, the forces of
conduction and convection can be understood from a built condition most have
experienced with single-paned glazing assemblies. On a cold day or night, if you are
sitting close to a glazing wall and you can sense the cold exterior environment from the
conduction of heat being lost from the interior environment to the colder exterior
environment, the interior envelope is not subject to the exposure of all the conduction
23
loss with the DSF as there is a secondary conditioned environment that tampers this
thermal event.
This type of ventilated cavity makes claims to greater energy efficiency when the building
management system (BSM) is operated in a specific manner. It can be understood that
the addition of another air cavity between layers of faade material will lead to the winter
performance of this type of faade in a similar way to how an IGU has improve over a
single pane of glazing.
DSFs help in the transmission loss from the interior-conditioned environment on cold
days as the solar radiation will heat the air in the DSF cavity, which creates the
aforementioned chimney effect, while on hot days, it can be used as a shading mode with
an internal shading device to reduce the thermal gains on the interior envelope to create
a thermal buffer. While this buffer is occurring, the cavity will use the chimney effect to
draw air up and out of the space in a cooling effect. The DSF will also behave as a
thermal buffer and a layer to protect the internal skin from absorbing direct heat by
conduction from the light rays. The sun, which may appear to be a large object covered
with fire or flames to the layperson, does not actually send heat across space, but in fact,
what heats the environment is the long wave light rays from the sun that carry infrared
light waves, which produce radiation in any medium (gas, water, solid, or plasma) that
they pass through.
In the case of a DSF, the low-wavelength light has passed through the atmosphere and
heats the layers of thermal gases around our planet, at the same time passing toward a
surface that will either absorb or reflect the light ray. As it passes through the air inside
the DSF, it heats the gas and eventually hits the solid faade of the building; this will
24
either be absorbed or reflected. As the heat is transferred into the air in the DSF, it will
heat up and behave as a chimney effect describes.
This cavity may function under three distinct ventilation types, i.e., naturally ventilated,
mechanically ventilated, and hybrid system.
There is further illustration of variations in the DSF systems than the aforementioned
ventilation options, as shown in figure 2.3.2. The variations of the DSF are based on the
inlet location of air, and the exhaust point occurs on the faade, along with the three
ventilation schemes previously noted.
Figure 2.3.2- Double Skin Faade Ventilation Options (Vaglio, 2011).
25
Naturally ventilated options, which use directly drawn air from the base of the DSF
assemblies, can draw air up in the cavity alone and use the previously described chimney
affect simply as a thermal break between the interior and exterior environments. The
other variations of this allow the internal environment to draw this rising air into the
building to supply fresh air into the spaces or allow the DSF to draw air out of the
building as a form of ventilation. These assemblies draw on and need the chimney effects
to operate at proper levels in the DSF cavity to achieve the thermal performance gains.
When the chimney effect is not operating within a performance range that is conducive,
the DSF can be overly cold or hot, which does not allow the chimney effect to work. In
the case of the two variants of the aforementioned naturally ventilated DSF that
exchange air with the DSF cavity, it can be seen that there may be a compromise of the
interior built environment as air will either not be rising rapidly enough to draw air out
of the building or supply fresh air into the building.
Additionally, a naturally ventilated DSF has the issue of not being able to continuously
control the inlet air temperature without a sophisticated building management system
(BMS) to provide the best thermal performance of the cavity. Without an advanced BMS
control in the inlet air quantity, temperature, and general air velocity, short circuiting
of the system can occur, which will prevent the system from performing properly. There
could theoretically be a still air cavity that does not experience the chimney effect as it
will not get hotter in the cavity, or oppositely, the air could become superheated in the
space from a high quantity of warm air and could not be able to rise at a rapid enough
rate, which could overheat the DSF, which, in turn, could cause the interior environment
envelope to deal with an even greater thermal radiation load from the exterior
conditions.
26
These aforementioned issues can be mitigated with the use of BMS that controls in the
inlet and outlet quantities of air dependent upon the DSF thermal characteristics at
different points in the cavity. This system may sound like an extreme item that is not
widely used on buildings, but most new or retrofit commercial buildings are provided
with a BMS to control the mechanical ventilation system of the building. This system is a
variant of those products that are already present on the market.
Mechanically ventilated systems use the internal mechanical system air, either waste air
or single purposed ducted supply, to ventilate the DSF cavity and control this thermal
buffer. The cavity is positively pressurized by the mechanical system to create a chimney
effect as the DSF cavity will begin to absorb the solar systems that will often draw a
portion of the waste air that could be discharged to the environment through the
mechanical system air exchange rate required for buildings in order to condition the DSF
cavity space. In these instances, a portion of the interior environment air, which, in
America, is typically conditioned between 70 F and 74 F, can condition the DSF cavity
and positively pressurize the cavity. This conditioning of the cavity environment is an
effective way of guaranteeing that the DSF envelope will consistently perform at a range
of best performance.
The fact is that these systems are dependent upon site-specific conditions to achieve the
energy performance in naturally ventilated system or using the mechanical ventilation
system to create the performance gains of the DSF. The issue of one of these systems not
functioning properly can be a shortcoming of DSFs, but that is the purpose of the third
system known as a hybrid system. The hybrid DSF is a combination system that employs
the option of the active envelope system being ventilated either in the natural or
mechanical option depending upon the exterior building temperature and the thermal
27
gains into the envelope. These systems are able to operate from a performance
standpoint as either a natural or mechanically ventilated DSF, which allows a wider
range of performance options. This wider range is described as the ability to use natural
ventilation when the exterior environment allows it while using the mechanically
ventilated option when the exterior environment would not allow for the best DSF
performance. Hybrid systems, just like the naturally and mechanically ventilated
options, require that the building employ a BMS in order to control the ventilation
settings and dictate based on the current performance of the envelope and weather
conditions the mode that the system will operate.
There are four configurations that the DSFs are grouped based on the scale of the overall
assembly; these are multistory, shaft faade, corridor, and single-window configurations
( Vaglio, 2011).
The single-window configuration is a single-window assembly that is set into another
exterior envelope wall to support and complete the weather enclosure. The DSF is at a
smaller scale of the cavity depths and is smaller in terms of the overall DSF assembly
size. These often come in a series of nominal sizes as they are an alternative to package
window units as a better performing unit. The window depth is often deeper than that of
a packaged window, but there is the stated performance benefit. The single-window
configuration is not a multistory or continuous wall solution but is rather, for instance,
where there is a single window in a backup wall.
The corridor DSF configuration is on the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of cavity
depth from the single-window assembly. It is usually the deepest of the cavity depths as
it is used for building corridor, as well as a ventilation option. These cavities will often
28
vary in depth but may be between 1.52 m in depth and will typically only be one level in
height. This will be a one-level configuration that is a continuous weather and ventilation
wall solution.
This solution, since it will be governed by the thermal forces, is affecting the DSF cavity.
It is being used as a multipurpose corridor by the occupants of the building who have
other issues. The corridor configuration can cause additional problems by having to
make the inner corridor wall be the secondary weather wall and will have leakage to the
conditioned space at each of the door openings. This solution can also have a cavity that
is beyond a well-performing depth for the proper buoyancy of the DSF to perform well.
The shaft faade solution is a continuous single-story DSF with a smaller depth cavity
than that of the corridor DSF previously described, which can vary in depth from to
1.5 m. This solution does not interconnect the vertical cavity of the DSF between floors
but looks to ventilate at each level of the faade.
This system behaves well like the entire DSF thermal buffer in cold conditions but can
have a failure in performance in hot climates as the exhaust air point can negatively
affect the inlet air temperature of the DSF on the level above it.
This system can have the shortcoming for not allowing the faade to build up enough
buoyancy in the cavity to drive the hot air up the DSF and create the high air movement
required for the performance.
This is easy to understand that, if the inlet air temperature of the DSF on the floor above
is very high, it will draw hot air into the cavity and flush out the cavity with superheated
air. This will conduct heat through the inner wall, actually causes a negative thermal
29
break for the inner building enclosure, and negatively affects the performance of the
building faade. This thermal effect of a superheated cavity can be a problem that must
be understood with all DSFs but is most easily understood with the shaft faade DSF.
(Vaglio, 2011).
The multistory DSF configuration creates a continuous vertical ventilation shaft with the
DSF and will often be of a depth similar to the shaft faade previously described. This
system is more common in implementation in the built environment and does not
always have horizontal connectivity between cavities.
These systems, since they typically have an inlet at the base and exhaust at the top, can
supply air occurring from mechanical at specific intervals. It can have a performance loss
if the cavity becomes too great in height.
These systems have to be carefully designed for the depth and the total height as there
can be a buildup of hot air at the base that will increase the rise of a vast amount of hot
air and begin to superheat the upper cavity levels of the DSF. This configuration is very
effective when understanding the proper cavity depth and height of the assembly, which
is dependent upon the site and the height of the building to clad. These items must be
studied on a case-by-case basis, and generalizations outside of the aforementioned
general cavity depths can be stated without project-specific review.
With all DSF assemblies, there are concerns with regards to fire performance and if the
assembly will increase the fire danger in a building for smoke and fire spread. This
concern comes from the fact that a DSF creates a chimney effect on the exterior of the
building and can draw smoke and flames through the cavity and increase the chances of
spread in the building. As with an exterior window, wall-system faade components are
30
not specifically rated assembly in the term that Underwriters Laboratory reviews rated
assemblies. The Underwriters Laboratories are an independent ratings agency that
conducts physical tests on products and building assemblies for different performance
criteria such as fire, acoustic, and weather tightness, to name a few. They are the basis of
the current USA building code when classifying what assembly meets the rating
requirements as outlined in the building code. This concern is well reviewed and detailed
in the work of W.K. Chow, i.e., effect of cavity depth on smoke spread in double-skin
faades. The paper reviewed four distinct depths of DSF assemblies and the manner they
conduct smoke and fire through the cavity over a two-story high assembly. The four
depths that they review are -, 1-, 1.5-, and 2-m assembly depths. These systems were
tested with a fire that was sourced from the lower floor of the testing system, which
originates from the interior space where occupants would be located.
In the tests, it was found that, when the interior glazing pane broke a 1-m depth, the
most concern was the smoke and fire that it created through the cavity. It compromised
the interior glazing pane on the floor above. In the smaller depth cavity of .5 m, it is seen
to effectively conduct smoke like a chimney out of the space, but it did not draw the
flames into the cavity as the 1-m assembly experienced. The 1.5- and 2-m assemblies
behaved similarly in a manner that they both showed a disbursement of smoke into the
cavity. It did not show a distinct propensity to create flame spread in between floors.
The internal glazing panes in the tested systems experienced varying levels of cracking
and spidering across the interior surface prior to the failure and the eventual leakage of
smoke. The spread of smoke and flame is the concern of the DSF as the systems doubleskin cavity created a seemingly rapid way to conduct a fire up the building. A failure of
the interior light does not always coincide with the failure of the exterior pane, which
31
depends upon the building classification that could seem like a failure in the rating of
exterior rated walls.
2.3.3.
DSF System Performance
The cavity of a DSF is claimed to help building performance in a number of different

ways depending upon many specific factors including (but not limited to) site,
orientation, material selection, mode of operation, depth of ventilation cavity, height of
cavity, and shading. These assemblies must be considered in their overall energy benefit
on the entire building performance and not solely on the performance of a small portion
of the building envelope, as noted best by Energy Performance Assessment of MultipleSkin Facades ( Saelens et al, 2003). In that paper, Saelens outlined the need to assess the
performance of the DSF assembly and the beneficial performance aspect that it creates
for the entire building envelope.
It can be understood clearly when reviewing how the mechanically ventilated DSF uses
waste air to condition the DSF cavity space as this would normally be wasted to the
exterior environment. However, instead of wasting this energy, it can be reutilized to
condition the interstitial cavity, which aids in creating the second thermal break between
the exterior unconditioned environment and the interior conditioned environment.
Different assemblies of the DSF will have performance that is unique to each of their
locations. This is greatly dependent upon the factors previously noted in the DSF
assembly characteristics, but it is specific to the environment where the envelope is
located. This aspect of the DSF can make it difficult to generalize a DSF assembly for a
multitude of project sites, but that is also an aspect of having to tailor any building
assembly to sites specific location.
32
The cavity depth of a DSF has many different factors and performance aspects that will
affect the size of the cavity. Most DSFs are found to have an internal shading device
located in this cavity as it has a number of benefits. It allows a greater degree of control
on the performance of that thermally broken cavity as it allows the shading and day
lighting levels to be controlled for the interior built environment when the
environmental factors necessitate shading or allow for day lighting.
One of the key components of DSF performance is the study of the depth of the cavity to
the height of the overall faade. This is critical in understanding the performance of the
system and is well outlined in multiple papers. A concise explanation is noted below.
In existing buildings, the range tends to be between 200 mm and 1400 mm as measured
face to face between the inner and outer skins. There are three predominate styles: The
compact style is usually from about 200 mm to 500 mm, the latter allowing enough
space in order to allow the maintenance occupation of the cavity primarily to
accommodate the cleaning of the surfaces within the cavity. The wide style is typically
about 2 m wide, which allows for the space to be used in a fire egress corridor. There are
also architectural and day lighting implications. The third style is the expanded style that
includes atrium spaces and buildings-within-buildings. Properties and applications of
double-skin faades (Aarons, 2000).
The DSF airflow movement is the metric that can be reviewed to understand the
performance of the DSF and how it performs. Without air movement in this cavity, it will
not achieve the increased performance that the assembly strives to achieve. The issue is
how to understand this airflow in a naturally ventilated DSF and what is the meter to
understand this movement. A work made by Andersen (Andersen, 1995) described the
33
difference of the air density at the inlet from the outlet of the DSF that can make the
airflow movement be understood. This ties into the discussion on the thermal buoyancy
as air becomes less dense as it gets warmer. Understanding the differential density will
give greater insight into the actual performance and air movement rates of the DSF. This
is important because there are items that are difficult to understand when looking at the
DSF in the theoretical environment. It can affect the performance of the final product
but cannot be directly modeled. These key items are closely studied in the work of
Saelens (Saelens, 2001) and are noted below.
The solar radiation on the faced surface does not represent the net heat supply of the
cavity. The absorbed solar radiation in the cavity rather than the impinging solar
radiation should be used. Both are not equal as a part of the solar radiation is
transmitted through the system and another part is reflected out. In general, the heat
balance of the entire envelope system, including the transmission losses, should be
solved to determine the net heat supply.
It is difficult to estimate the incoming solar radiation in the transparent system, because
it depends on the angle of solar incidence and on the ratio between diffuse and direct
solar radiations.
The incoming solar radiation shows a change in phase with the airflow rate, while the
temperature difference and the airflow rate are in phase. As an example, Figure 3 gives a
detailed image of the measurements between 23/08/2000 and 28/08/2000. It reveals
that the solar radiation is approximately 1 h ahead of the airflow rate and the
temperature difference. This can be explained by the thermal capacity effects in the inlet
34
and outlet areas. Consequently, it is better to use the temperature difference as the
determining quantity to describe thermal buoyancy.
The temperature difference can be measured continuously. The solar radiation is only
present during the daytime and is therefore not suited to analyze the thermal buoyancy
throughout the course of the measurement.
Mechanically ventilated DSFs are much easier to understand the airflow rates in than
that previously described as it is directly related to the flow rates of the air in the system
at a few control locations. There are two easily understood and studied ways, which are
using a series of anemometers or comparing the pressure difference across the inlets and
the outlets. Both ways of reviewing the airflow rates of a mechanically ventilated DSF can
be seen as a cross comparison of the inlet, outlet, and interim points in the cavity to
understand the movement of the air.
The use of anemometers is the practice of having the data comparisons of the inlet
velocity with that of the outlet velocity. The anemometers are devices that record the
velocity of the air as it passes over the recording device, which is located at the inlet and
exhaust points. This is often not directionally specific but allows the data to be gathered
so that an understanding of the airflow activity and movement can be compared. With
the anemometer grid, it will not record the flow at specific points in the cavity, and
natural air movement is not continuous and will vary. This is why, across the entire cross
section of the cavity, the airflow cannot be properly understood with these devices.
The issue with looking at the pressure differences at the inlet versus exhaust points is
that it does not properly inform the performance of the entire faade in a naturally
35
ventilated DSF. The creation of check points or constriction in airflow in either of the
systems does not accurately represent the entire flow and behavior of the DSF cavity.
With the invention of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) analysis programs, we can
now apply the characteristics of air movement to the DSF cavity and model the
performance of the assembly. This allows the understanding of the airflow movement
across the entire DSF and how thermal changes can affect the performance of the cavity
in a Figureic model. These modeling programs have created an avenue with which the
numerical and algorithms for which air and water move can be rapidly and accurately
studied for a specific case. Additional factors can be applied in the model that allow for
the full depth of the physical study to be applied in the computer computational
environment. There is a variety of programs offered, which will be discussed further in
Chapter 3 and will also be employed in the research. However, in comparison with the
more traditional physical model standards of airflow measurement of a DSF, the CFD
modeling programs allows the entire airflow movement to be understood.
36
2.4. Unitized Faade Systems

2.4.1.
Unitized System Diagram
Figure 2.4.1 Unitized Wall Typical Condition
2.4.2.
Unitized Faade System Described
Unitized Faade Systems (UFSs) refer to the building faade assembly methodology that
allows the prefabrication of building enclosure panel system; panels are erected into
place and fastened to the buildings structure. There are many benefits to (UFS)
assemblies such as rapid on-site erecting and assembly, precision of panel assembly,
cost, and construction sequencing. UFSs are exterior faade systems that are most
commonly assembled with the structural frame of extruded aluminum and support steel
members. They are self-supporting and structurally stable about themselves in panel
37
form prior to being attached to adjacent panels. The UFS needs to be structurally selfstable as they are most susceptible to damage and failure while they are being hoisted
into place. This is due to the fact that they are under the most movement forces that the
panels will encounter in the life of the product while being erected. When the panels are
set into place and fastened to the building superstructure, the panels will work together
as a faade system and gain rigidity that will create a weather tight enclosure. The panels
are set on embedded floor supports, which are tied back to the super structure of the
building. In this context, the super structure of a building is referring to the main
structural building frame, which consists of beams, columns, floor assemblies, lateral
bracing members, and foundations. These assemblies vary depending on the region of
the country, building type, and design intent. These are designed to meet the structural
needs of the faade assembly and are not part of this research study as they will need to
be responsive to the faade design needs.
UFSs are erected in panels that require the additional setting and leveling devices in the
frames that are not typically found in AGF assemblies. These are typically not high-cost
items but are necessary to achieve a level- and weather-tight envelope. In the frame,
these items have many different names, but there are accommodations in the frame and
smaller components similar to shims of different shapes and forms. They are needed to
allow proper leveling, centering of the systems, and fastening of panels. These
components are critical at large-scale projects as there are many stories of panels and
having proper alignment can cause serious flaws over tall buildings. This issue is
important as previously noted and at the micro installation scale as it will not allow a
proper connection of panels, and when they do not work in conjunction, there can be
system failure in the envelope performance. The setting of the glazing panes typically
38
come from the exterior of the frame and have sealant at the perimeters of the panes.
There are many variants to this typical pane setting, but for this thesis, we will be
discussing the most common assembly for the reason that it is the most universally
fabricated system.
The integration of building components and systems is present in the UFS with different
scales and frequencies. Some of the typical systems are listed, i.e., external day lighting
shelves/screens, internal shading systems, and heat recovery. These would be part of the
future research as to their importance to the DSF assembly of this thesis.
UFSs have the advantage of being able to assemble the panels in a fabrication facility,
which can monitor and confirm design intent and leveling of products prior to site
erecting. The ability on a multistory building of fabricating offsite and on the ground is a
large advantage as attempting to assemble multiple stories in the systems described in
the AGF section of Chapter 2 in the air and setting these systems properly are a large
challenge, along with the fact that setting panels in virtually any weather condition
allows the continuous construction progress.
UFS units experience similar thermal performance to that of the AGF with the same
glazing assemblies installed. The profiles of mullions when they are both having similar
mullion sizes and assembly will additionally have the same performance like the AGF
assemblies. This does not typically differ greatly than the AGFs except for the
construction methodology.
39
2.4.3.
UFS Cost Advantages
The UFS has cost advantages that are realized from all the benefits previously noted in
regards to the ease of construction and fabrication. With these benefits, the systems
require less expensive labor at fabrication facilities and can be assembled faster than in
the field, which is cost saving. There can be on-site cost variables dependent upon the
type of construction and the scale of the building that is being developed. Since there is a
need for a crane to hoist finished panels, the building that is lower in rise may not
employ a crane on site continuously, which can be a cost-prohibitive or sequencerestrictive issue.
Yet, at the same time, it can be properly sequenced and may be offset by the higher costs
of local labor, which may be quite expensive. Additionally, in highly urban environments,
there are site concerns from where to set up staging area for stick built assemblies and
store readily available required fabrication materials. This can be understood on many
high-rise sites with little to no open space on the site but a large amount of building skin
surface.
40
Chapter 3 Research
3.1. Research Assumptions Described
The following chapter will discuss the research points being outlined in Chapter 1 in
order to help define the rationale for each decision made in testing. The research process
and findings outlined later will be based on the assumptions given.
3.1.1.
Building Geometry
The building will be composed of a 150-0 square building with an offset core.
Often building types 1-3, as defined by the International Building Code (IBC), are
composed of steel and concrete for their main structural frame superstructure. These
buildings typically have a design module dimensions that typically vary from 27 to 36 at
their most common. With this range established, they are most often on a 30-0
structural bay. This then lends the building form to be on a module of 30-0 with a
varying overall size, but for this discussion, 150-0 can be seen as the testing size for the
purposes as it will not be too small yet not overly large to be unrealistic. The building will
be tested as a square as this allows for equal sizes in the equal understanding of thermal
performance of each face. The building height will be based on a two story panel size to
create a building with an even number of floors, for this process it will be a 6 story
building. The floor to floor of the modeled building will be 15-0 between floors. This
height is a tall floor to floor height but in this paper it is a review of the larger scale
assembly options as they have greater limiting issues.
41
3.1.2.
Floor Plate Size
Building floor plate will be 22,500sf with equal sides and no exterior shading beyond the
assemblies. The shading is outboard of the building assemblies which cannot be
considered in this testing as they cannot be accounted for on each site.
See description for 3.1.1 above which the form as described generated the size of the floor
plate.
3.1.3.
Envelope Modeling Types
Exterior building closure will be modeled as the AGF and the DSF with multiple cavity
depths as noted before.
For the basis of this thesis we will compare an AGF with that of the DSF in order to
understand the performance benefits that are being achieved with the DSF system. The
glazing assemblies will be developed with insulated glazing unit assemblies and
compared with an assembly that would meet the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline standard as this
is the energy code minimum which is often used in building codes and referenced in the
LEED standards. The exact assemblies characteristics are outlined in the testing portion
of this paper. The DSF assemblies will all include operable windows at the exterior wall
near the bottom and at the top of the cavity in line with the interior wall. This
configuration is considered an outside air curtain assembly.
There is a variant on the DSF assembly for testing due to the limitations for the modeling
program. There will be a second round of separate computational runs performed on
each DSF model to accommodate the internal shading of the cavity. This shading device
42
is modeled as a meshed product rather than full black out shade as it is still important to
have visual light transmittance into the occupiable spaces. The shading coefficient of
this material will be .65. This will reduce a large portion of the solar radiation and visual
light transmittance. With comparable results for the DSF energy modeling between
shaded and un-shaded options the two output data results will be combined into a single
result of the best performing. This is done in order to allow us to understand what the
optimum performance would be when using the building system controls and shading
strategies. This is the data that will be ultimately be compared to that of the AGF for
performance gains.
3.1.4.
UDF Constraints to Geometry
Due to the efficiency of the unitized lift being two stories the building will be need to be
in heights that are multiples of 2. For the purpose of this paper a total of 6 stories were
chosen to implement the AGF and the DSF computational model testing.
A single lift of 2 stories would not be great enough to understand the energy performance
of the envelope while a high rise would be beyond typical implementation that a DSF is
commonly built. It is more typical to see building of medium rise in the built
environment rather than high rise buildings which lead to the choosing of a six story
building. The proportional height to floor plate dimensions, as defined in Section 3.1.1,
are an acceptable building size for the built environment.
43
3.1.5.
Modeling of Geometry.
The efficiency of Revit enables interoperability and exportability of file format to

compatible files that are run by energy software platforms is a key reason that it is used
in this process. Revit has the ability to transmit information that is built in the model
into other programs. These points are the reason for using Revit at the modeling
platform for this paper. Additionally, Revit possesses the ability to quickly and easily
adapt the cavity depth with the use of adaptive components that will help in studying the
multiple cavity depths.
Since Revit is efficient at also being able to export to energy platforms or file formats that
are compatible for the proper importation of geometry this will be the modeling software
for the paper. Additionally, Revit possess the ability to quickly and easily adapt the
cavity depth with the use of adaptive components that will aid when studying multiple
cavity depths.
3.1.6.
Energy Modeling Program Collaboration
Import geometry and design into IES-Microflow CFD for computational runs which is
noted in Chapter 2 under the description of DSF assemblies is essential for the DSF to be
energy modeled using a CFD capable software program (Gratia & Herde, 2006).
Non-CFD energy modeling programs are not capable of modeling the buoyancy factors
associated with the movement of air in a DSF cavity and thus only model the surfaces for
their performance. This is not sufficient in understanding the performance benefit to the
DSF, and thus, we must select a capable CFD modeling program for proper testing. IES
44
has marketed the ability to properly export Revit files so that they can be transferred to
their platform with great results.
The paper will be able to have a comparable data for similar climates and building
assemblies. This will allow the creation of a baseline of each faade and the
determination that the systems are modeling the added performance.
The thesis is then able to have comparable data for similar climates and building
assemblies. This leads to the baseline of each faade and the determination that the
systems are modeling the added performance.
3.1.7.
Building Model Further Defined in IES
Reconcile building assemblies in a system in order to achieve comparable assemblies. As

part of the proper energy modeling software practices, it is necessary to be able to
confirm that the geometry and the materiality of the model are the same when
attempting to achieve the greatest level of accuracy.
This is critical as different material assemblies and factors will greatly affect the final
output data of the programs. The review of the glazing assemblies in this case will be
critical in understanding the performance of the facade. Additionally, there is the need to
define the operability of the faade inlet points and allow for enough air exchange into
the cavity.
45
3.2. Modeling Process

3.2.1.
Revit Modeling
The modeling of the model geometry occurred rapidly as the design was not overly
complicated in form since IES allows further manipulation once the importation of the
project has been completed.
The exterior geometry was modeled to the geometry as stated in Section 3.1. The walls
and the roofs of the DSF and the AGF were modeled at 1 thick since the assembly
material would later be defined in the IES. This is critical not to define the materiality in
Revit as it does not translate the part of the IES exportation process and may later cause
a conflict with the IES information.
Cavity sizes were modeled at varying depths of 12, 30, 36 and 72.
The 12 cavity is intended for finding out the performance of what may be considered as
a minimal cavity depth to achieve the positive airflow that needs to be obtained in a DSF
assembly. The modeling of the 30 cavity is to create what is often viewed as the smallest
serviceable cavity depth based on building maintenance service cavities. This is based on
the idea that most people cannot get into and walk around to service a cavity depth less
than 30 based on the size of many people. The 36 depth is used for the purpose of a
minor contrast to the 30 cavity as another accessible cavity with an alternative depth for
understanding would be any advantages in minor cavity depth changes. This larger
depth is a more standard cavity depth of the DSF assemblies with internal access as
reviewed prior to the development of this thesis. The final depth of 72 is to determine if
46
the alternative configuration of a cavity with what was defined as the corridor option to
the assembly had any energy modeling simulation advantages.
These options were all modeled with the internal conditioned volume maintaining the
same size so that the Kbtu/sf could be understood with greater clarity. If the internal
enclosed volume was not the same then we may see much higher or lower total
consumed energy numbers and would not be able to have equal comparable items for
this research. This will create an increase only in the cavity area of the building which
does create a larger surface area of the building but it is the only option in being able to
maintain the internal enclosed and conditioned space as the same.
3.2.2.
IES-VE Importation and Development
IES-VE has the energy modeling capacity as stated to properly model a DSF with the air
movement impacts that a DSF can provide. Provided with four cavity depth files for
geometry, these files were each imported and amended per the outlined process below.
The AGF environment was only in the internal conditioned environment previously
mentioned above wrapped in an all glass wall with the glazing assembly. This was
wrapped with an IGU as noted later on in the material development portion of the
testing process. The cavity configuration that was to be tested was an outside air current
configuration of the DSF assembly. The DSF walls were amended and rebuilt to know if
there were errors from importation to be a closed environment so that the simulation
would function properly. The modeling of the operable openings on each face was
continuous as to simulate no loss of air input to the DSF. The operable inlet and exhaust
point of the DSF are provided at the face of the wall 1-0 above the adjacent finish floor.
47
They are continuous along all the exterior wall faces at the bottom and top of each wall.
The exhaust point is located on the rear of the DSF assembly as this is one of the
standard configurations that had been stated in Chapter 2. Each opening is 2-0 high
and was determined from a preliminary test of the 30 cavity to be effective. These
openings were set as operable with a 90% flow of air considering that there may be some
form of screen or frame impeding this in an actual built model. This reduction seemed
appropriate as a slightly conservative assumption of the operable opening.
The cavity had open communication between adjacent walls so there is no need to fake
an operable panel at that location for airflow around the building sides. This allows a
better circulation of air and eliminates corners where stagnant air can build up.
3.2.3.
IES-VE Material Selection
The exterior wall assembly was set as a single pane of glazing with the internal glazing
pane which separates the interior environment from the DSF cavity and the IGU
assembly. These assemblies performances will be defined below. It was critical that the
assemblies would be maintained and equal in any and all configurations of the DSF and
the AGF that are comparable. The AGF uses the same IGU assembly as the DSF to create
a continuity of the materials when comparing the internal environments conditioned
space of the opposing systems to determine the benefit of the DSF for this testing. The
roof was selected as a 6 concrete slab over a metal deck with exterior R-30 insulation.
The slab was a 6 slab on grade with under slab insulation of R-8.
The IGU assembly was adjusted to match the metric of Solarban-60 Low E glazing from
PPG. This glazing assembly blocks 62% of the total solar band of energy which has
48
become a benchmark in recent years for many buildings that are using high performance
glazing assemblies. In my professional experience over the last decade we have often
used this as a benchmark to meet the energy codes that the projects are required to meet
with the more stringent codes. This assembly also allows a considerable light
transmission which is expected from an AGF of the internal environment, reaching a
55% threshold depending on the color of the glazing. This aspect of the glazing assembly
is not important in this test as the glazing assembly is blocking the convection energy, as
previously stated regarding the total solar band of energy. This assembly is considered to
achieve a U-value of .29 and a solar-heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of .32.
The exterior pane assembly of the DSF is modeled as being uncoated tinted glazing with
the performance metrics of 69% visual light transmittance, a U-value of .47, and an
SHGC of .49, which is a very low performing product. This is intended, as previously
stated, that the cavity wants to heat up in the winter and is still providing protection or
reductions in solar gains via conduction and convection per the exterior pane of glazing.
The U-value cannot be simply added to understand this and behave in conjunction with
the assemblies. This needs to have computational runs in order to understand these
assemblies performance on the building energy total consumption.
3.2.4.
IES-VE Computational Sensitivity
A key concern with any energy modeling program is relative sensitivity to revisions
factors that are established in building systems, materiality, climate recognition,
orientation and geometry.
49
During the process to better understand the sensitivity that IES-VE will experience
during computational runs there was a review of different glazing and exterior wall
assemblies for the base case geometry that were run. This information was not part of
the core area of research that the paper was investigating but still important in
understanding the responsiveness of the software tool. Glazed envelope surface area and
site orientation were adjusted and computational energy runs responded in energy
modeling program. There were test iterations of the model run with varying glazing
types from single pane uncoated to triple pane low-e coated products. The site
orientation with regards to the cardinal axes were seen to impact the software results
greatly.
The other noted items such as building systems and geometry did show a more global
impact on the software outputs but they are less critical as all the models for this paper
are being viewed from the same siting, solar orientation and use of building systems.
The climate region sensitivity was tested for local climates to each of the cities; ChicagoMilwaukee, Los Angeles-Burbank and Houston-San Antonio. There were differences for
overall energy consumption but not a major variation to the point that would cause
questions about the softwares ability to be accurate.
3.2.5.
IES-VE Building Systems
The mechanical system for this building is not specifically relevant since we will be
reviewing the estimated saving in total energy and will not be too much concerned with
the baseline cost and efficiency that will be achieved in a specific mechanical system.
This is critical as a variety of systems can be implemented in different climates to achieve
50
greater efficiency. This would be a separate undertaking that is not critical to the scope
of this thesis.
The baseline system for reference is a split system with heating provided by natural gas
coupled with a heat pump. It achieves seasonal efficiency of .8900 which doesnt deviate
greatly from what would be anticipated by a modern mechanical system in commercial
buildings. The cooling portion to this system is through electricity without the benefit of
a mixed mode exchange. This is important to understand, because it is a feature seen on
a portion of projects to lower the cooling energy costs yet it may not be needed in many
climates without very hot summers. Since we are using one mechanical system as a
constant this feature was not appropriate to add to computational runs across the board.
For the sake of this document and its envelope-based concerns the elimination of the hot
water system has been implemented. This is important since boiler loads would be
independent from what the exterior envelope losses and gains will likely to affect. The
boilers will provide heated water on the inside of the conditioned environment since the
building will only be controlled by a mechanical system in which the boilers will not
come into play on this thesis.
3.2.6.
IES-VE Computational Runs
The multiple computation runs were performed in a multiphase testing method due to
the fact that the IES requires four different subcategories of modeling, airflow/window
operable functionality, CFD modeling, and energy modeling. This process was
cumbersome but was very smooth once the process began and repetition was
established.
51
The first step was to confirm the geometry and modeling additional information
including window on the faade if they did not import properly or, if in the later steps
were not recognized as operable openings. This process was used on my first few
iterations of the model but later on I proceeded to the modeling of the geometry and
walls in Revit and then adding windows in IES-VE.
Once the initial geometry modeling was completed and confirmed, the mechanical
system between the different models were confirmed so that all the constants between
models were correct. This was followed by making all the assemblies compliant with
what was previously noted about the materiality of the model. With the completion of
this we can move ahead to setting the openings and flows for the system in MacroFlo,
where all the windows are assigned their effective openness and confirmed that the
model recognizes them as being operable openings. This step will often have issues due
to the fact that when assigning the window operability type the system would not always
make the adjustment. This step would often need to be done on multiple occasions to
complete the revision to the opening type due to software complications. Upon the
completion of this task the ability to run an energy simulation and exportation of the
boundary data file could be done through the IES-VE Vista data review tab.
The output energy data from the IES-VE Vista tab is exported and then recreated in an
Excel spreadsheet for being able to create charts and Figures. This is used for the
purpose of compiling into this document as the data output is only in PDF format from
IES-VE with superfluous information on the output data sheet.
With the initial energy data computed and exported the final step to the computational
runs is the CFD modeling of the air cavity. This is done in the final tab of IES-VE which
52
is the MicroFlo tab. The first step is to import the boundary data file as this is the way
IES-VE controls the opening and flows that were computed earlier as part of the energy
modeling and airflow. This information is needed in order to properly run MicroFlo and
attain output data that is accurate. After linking this file the next step is to establish the
computation grid spacing. The grid spacing for the CFD runs is established in this
document as a 1-0 x 1-0 grid along at slice through the 3-D modeled environment.
This was chosen as an appropriate spacing for understanding the flow of air in the
varying cavity widths that were modeled. This will allow for a broken up grid of
information to be computed and displayed in the Microflo visual output. This spacing is
the same standards found in the work of Hens, H., Roels, S., &Saelens (Hens, H., Roels,
S., &Saelens D, 2003). This is the final analysis of the computational energy modeling
aspect of this thesis as the output data will be reviewed in following chapters. The above
noted process is a recommended course of action to modeling in IES-VE a DSF. Many
iterations and failed computational runs were created to create what is seemingly a
linear modeling process as described. This may seem simplified but with the use of IESVE training this process is easier to understand and perform the work described.
3.3. Constraints omitted from process

3.3.1.
Site orientation specificity
Site orientation and the ability to site a building of this exact geometry and form are not
addressed at a site specific level. The ways in which the city blocks are developed in each
climate zone have specificity to the grid layout of the respective city. Since there are
variations in each city layout that is not a purely orthogonal grid with continuity of angle
between cities, this document cannot create a common specific orientation for the
53
building siting. This development will need to be addressed if this knowledge is applied
to a specific site, to reconfirm that the tested information is viable when a specific site is
determined to be reviewed in further study.
3.3.2.
Building Rotation
The building orientation for this study is true to the cardinal coordinates and does not
apply any rotation of a building face. This allowed for an isolated understanding by
building face of how the cavities are performing for the CFD computational data. This is
not true for all sites or building designs so this will need to be reviewed for alternative
variations that are not on the cardinal axis.
3.3.3.
Site coverage
The development of the envelope doesnt take into account the ability for a site to
accommodate the additional building perimeter size. In developed areas there are
constraints to property lines and associated setbacks. This document does not address
the issue of setback conformance or that fact that when the DSF as modeled will project
out to create a larger enclosed building. This is an issue as it is viable to compare a
building of the same total exterior skin and isnt associated floor area with that of the
DSF assemblies at varying cavity depths. The reason this was omitted was to compare
the energy savings that could be achieved for a building of equal internal conditioned
environment.
The viability of developing this building with either increased site coverage for the DSF
variants doesnt seem achievable as this would not be in conformance with typical zone
54
practices. This also doesnt seem viable as the decrease in additional floor area in order
to achieve high energy performance may be an option the project owner will want to
explore. The additional floor area may be reason enough to reduce the energy saving if
they can have more building area for use.
These issues are difficult to gauge in a paper without additional constraints from specific
example entities. These external entities being the client or city zoning are unable to be
determined with specificity they will be omitted and the aforementioned generalized site
area will be used.
3.3.4.
Alternative shading
The shading options reviewed on this thesis are not explored for every option due to the
fact that this paper is reviewing the effects of the DSF cavity on the envelope
performance and not the effects of optional shading device solutions. The use of exterior
shading devices are discounted in this thesis as they could be applied to the AGF or the
DSF solution. This is a further defining of the envelope, and its associated performance,
that is not being researched in this paper. The DSF has an internal shading device at the
exterior window wall as this is a typical part of the DSF assembly to help control the
possibility of the cavity overheating. As the addition of an internal shading device at the
face of the conditioned wall is also optional for either strategy, it is not counted for the
same reasoning that the exterior shading devices are not counted.
55
Chapter 4 Research Data Review

4.1. Data From Process
In this chapter, the output energy data that are extracted from IES-VE in the
computational runs that were described in the preceding chapters will be outlined.
This details the output data units and analyzes the data that were generated. The output
data will be reviewed in this chapter for deviations in the computational runs and the
different model types. This also provides a comparison across different modeling runs.
The tabular information that we will be discussing in this chapter can be found in
Appendix A of this thesis. They are also included below for the purpose of comparison at
the beginning of Section 4.2.1 IESVE Energy Data. This will provide in-depth
information for the output-energy-data computational runs that were being performed
in the testing portion of this thesis.
The informational charts that will be discussing in this chapter can be found in Appendix
A of this document. They have also been included below for comparison at the beginning
of the Section 4.2.1 IES-VE Energy Data. They provide an in-depth detail as to the
output-energy-data computational runs that were performed in the testing portion of
this document.
Below is the review of the annual energy data that were compiled for the project and not
just the daily or monthly energy data. This is better in understanding the total building
energy consumption difference between the multiple systems rather than the single daily
56
loads. It is important to understand what season a peak day may occur, but we must take
note that this will not occur on the same day each year.
All analysis of the data will not be done in this chapter because this is only a review of the
data that were computed and the variation in information.
4.1.1.
Energy Data
The IES-VE energy data can be read from the export data provided by IES-VE Vista
spreadsheet reports. For the purpose of this thesis, we will review it in a monthly data
output, which is imbedded in the IES-VE Vista output data and was input into an Excel
file format for easy understanding of the data.
4.1.2.
CFD Data
The CFD data are shown as the strata of pressure in colors ranging from blue to red in
the diagrams found in Appendix A. They vary by the specific section being modeled and
the time of the year they were modeled for the CFD runs to determine the spectrum that
is computed.
The blue end of the spectrum indicates a that the air is dense and is falling, whereas on
the other end of the spectrum, the red end refers to the air expanding and rising. These
diagrams are informative in such a way that it will show how the air movement is
behaving along the spectrum described above.These diagrams will let us see a Figureical
interpretation of the buoyancy of the cavity. This type of data would be extremely
difficult to view and to interpret by using a chart or or table. These can be best
understood using the diagrams below.(See diagram 4.1.31 to 4.1.34).
57
Figure 4.1.31 - Pressure North & South Cavities (South/Left, North/Right)
Figure 4.1.32 Pressure East & West Cavities (West/Left, East/Right)
58
Figure 4.1.33 Temperature North & South Cavities (South/Left, North/Right)
Figure 4.1.34-Temperature East & West Cavities (West/Left, East/Right)
59
4.2. IES-VE Energy Data

For the purpose of this thesis, it is important to review the annual energy data that are
compiled for the project and not just the daily or monthly energy data. This is better in
understanding the total building energy consumption difference between the multiple
systems.
As previously stated, the mechanical system will stay constant to all the variations of this
test to understand the changes in the total energy consumption in the analysis.
We see in the table found in Appendix A that we have an annual energy consumption of
building including the heating, cooling, and miscellaneous loads. As previously stated,
the boiler loads are not included in these computations as they are independent of the
building conditioning system but would be factors into the total building consumption if
we were trying to understand the complete energy usage of the building.
60
4.2.1.
Energy Data Charts for Reference
All Glass Faade

Without Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-AGF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
154.66 123.01 104.30 71.79 48.73 33.12

7.47 11.29 12.62 38.49 86.20 136.14
68.99 74.92 89.25 95.76 106.69 102.01 124.75 130.25 114.68 104.65 84.57 75.91
68.12 65.94 75.21 76.07 81.32 78.26 87.64 89.56 82.70 80.60 72.16 70.54
291.77 263.87 268.76 243.62 236.74 213.39 219.86 231.10 210.00 223.74 242.93 282.59
827.82
1172.43
928.12
2928.37
36.79
52.11
41.25
130.15
212.463
45.591
59.932
317.99
860.48
1402.58
1008.67
3271.72
38.24
62.34
44.83
145.41
373.186 667.044
20.224 1.334
49.635 44.442
443.05 712.82
3277.73
779.41
803.71
4860.85
145.68
34.64
35.72
216.04
HOUSTON-AGF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
203.717
52.957
62.51
319.18
193.969
53.301
58.375
305.65
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
691.989
3.432
45.176
740.60
555.79
10.358
43.345
609.49
93.312
86.252
74.163
253.73
29.083 6.404
0.00
0.00 0.224 1.001 32.317
107.599 142.469 174.99 192.766 183.983 152.021 126.1
80.216 93.839 103.803 111.443 108.369 95.764 88.11
216.90 242.71 278.79 304.21 292.58 248.79 246.53
87.986
84.547
72.148
244.68
CHICAGO-AGF
441.553 219.804 93.775 18.27 3.974 7.188 49.929 155.231
30.478 55.592 55.592 135.42 160.754 146.127 101.814 58.285
54.642 62.01 76.579 89.954 100.239 95.119 78.191 64.375
526.67 337.41 225.95 243.64 264.97 248.43 229.93 277.89
Table 4.2.1- Energy Data - All Glass Faade

Double Skin Faade 12"
Without Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
107.70 86.30 69.90 45.80 28.00 15.00

1.60
2.50
2.70 16.60 52.50 90.50
19.50 21.50 26.60 30.40 36.20 35.20 48.80 52.40 45.70 38.10 28.20 23.70
50.80 47.20 53.30 53.20 56.60 54.90 61.10 62.30 58.60 57.30 52.40 52.30
178.00 155.00 149.80 129.40 120.80 105.10 111.50 117.20 107.00 112.00 133.10 166.50
519.10
406.30
660.00
1585.40
23.06
18.05
29.33
70.44
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
161.40 154.90 66.10 16.30

2.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 15.50 58.90 165.40
14.70 15.40 30.20 45.50 70.30 93.30 107.10 100.90 78.80 55.30 31.40 11.70
49.10 45.10 54.50 58.50 68.60 75.20 81.50 79.30 70.10 63.30 53.60 48.10
225.20 215.40 150.80 120.30 141.60 168.50 188.60 180.20 148.90 134.10 143.90 225.20
641.20
654.60
746.90
2042.70
28.50
29.10
33.20
90.80
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
578.50 479.70 372.20 178.40 68.80

9.50
1.10
2.60 29.60 112.10 299.90 553.20
0.00
0.10
2.10 13.10 31.50 62.60 78.20 69.90 41.70 15.60
2.90
0.00
44.00 39.80 44.70 47.10 55.00 64.40 71.30 68.50 57.20 49.40 43.60 44.00
622.50 519.60 419.00 238.60 155.30 136.50 150.60 141.00 128.50 177.10 346.40 597.20
2685.60
317.70
629.00
3632.30
119.36
14.12
27.96
161.43
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3. 1 Double Skin Faade 12: Without Shading

With Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
125.60 104.40 85.80 58.20

3.30
3.40
4.80
6.20
45.10 40.90 45.70 44.70
174.00 148.70 136.30 109.10
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
187.80 185.30 81.00

2.80
5.10 10.60
45.00 41.50 47.70
235.60 231.90 139.30
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
35.90
8.90
47.10
91.90
21.00
9.40
45.80
76.20
2.70
18.50
50.50
71.70
4.20
22.00
51.70
77.90
4.30
18.70
49.10
72.10
21.40 63.00 105.50

12.20
7.30
5.70
48.30 45.10 46.00
81.90 115.40 157.20
632.00
120.40
560.00
1312.40
28.09
5.35
24.89
58.33
19.90
3.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10 18.50 68.40 193.30
21.90 42.30 63.00 76.70 71.10 50.80 28.60 11.80
2.40
50.20 58.80 64.60 70.80 68.90 60.30 54.00 46.70 44.80
92.00 104.60 127.60 147.50 140.00 111.20 101.10 126.90 240.50
757.80
387.10
653.30
1798.20
33.68
17.20
29.04
79.92
636.90 549.60 446.40 218.30 87.50 12.60

1.60
3.20 35.60 131.50 343.80 600.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.90 12.20 34.80 46.60 40.80 18.30
2.40
0.10
0.00
44.00 39.70 44.00 43.20 48.20 54.70 60.30 58.30 49.00 44.80 42.60 44.00
680.90 589.30 490.40 263.40 147.90 102.10 108.50 102.30 102.90 178.70 386.50 644.60
3067.60
157.10
572.80
3797.50
136.34
6.98
25.46
168.78
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3. 2- Double Skin Faade 12: With Shading
61

Optimized Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
107.70 86.30 69.90

3.30
3.40
4.80
45.10 40.90 45.70
156.10 130.60 120.40
45.80
6.20
44.70
96.70
28.00
8.90
47.10
84.00
15.00
9.40
45.80
70.20
1.60
18.50
50.50
70.60
2.50
22.00
51.70
76.20
2.70
18.70
49.10
70.50
16.60 52.50 90.50

12.20
7.30
5.70
48.30 45.10 46.00
77.10 104.90 142.20
519.10
120.40
560.00
1199.50
23.07
5.35
24.89
53.31
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
161.40 154.90 66.10

2.80
5.10 10.60
45.00 41.50 47.70
209.20 201.50 124.40
16.30
2.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.90 42.30 63.00 76.70 71.10 50.80
50.20 58.80 64.60 70.80 68.90 60.30
88.40 103.80 127.60 147.50 140.00 111.10
15.50 58.90 165.40

28.60 11.80
2.40
54.00 46.70 44.80
98.10 117.40 212.60
641.20
387.10
653.30
1681.60
28.50
17.20
29.04
74.74
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
578.50 479.70 372.20 178.40 68.80

0.00
0.00
0.00
1.90 12.20
44.00 39.70 44.00 43.20 48.20
622.50 519.40 416.20 223.50 129.20
29.60 112.10 299.90 553.20

18.30
2.40
0.10
0.00
49.00 44.80 42.60 44.00
96.90 159.30 342.60 597.20
2685.60
157.10
572.80
3415.50
119.36
6.98
25.46
151.80
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
9.50
1.10
2.60
34.80 46.60 40.80
54.70 60.30 58.30
99.00 108.00 101.70
Table 4.3. 3 - Double Skin Faade 12: Optimized Shading

Without Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
110.00
18.80
50.50
179.30
88.30
20.70
47.00
156.00
71.60
25.70
53.00
150.30
47.10
29.40
52.80
129.30
28.90
35.10
56.20
120.20
15.60
34.10
54.50
104.20
1.70
47.70
60.70
110.10
2.60
51.30
61.90
115.80
2.80
44.80
58.20
105.80
17.00
37.20
57.00
111.20
53.80
27.40
52.20
133.40
92.50
23.00
52.00
167.50
531.90
395.20
656.00
1583.10
23.64
17.56
29.16
70.36
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
164.50
14.30
49.00
227.80
158.50
15.00
45.00
218.50
67.60
29.60
54.30
151.50
16.80
44.80
58.20
119.80
2.80
69.80
68.40
141.00
0.00
92.90
75.10
168.00
0.00
106.90
81.40
188.30
0.00
100.70
79.20
179.90
0.00
78.40
70.00
148.40
16.00
54.50
63.10
133.60
60.30
30.80
53.30
144.40
168.90
11.30
47.90
228.10
655.40
649.00
744.90
2049.30
29.13
28.84
33.11
91.08
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
586.30
0.00
44.00
630.30
487.20
0.10
39.70
527.00
378.40
1.90
44.60
424.90
181.90
12.60
47.00
241.50
70.50
30.90
54.80
156.20
9.80
61.90
64.20
135.90
1.20
77.50
71.10
149.80
2.60
69.30
68.20
140.10
30.30
41.10
56.90
128.30
114.40
15.00
49.20
178.60
305.10
2.70
43.50
351.30
561.20
0.00
44.00
605.20
2728.90
313.00
627.20
3669.10
121.28
13.91
27.88
163.07
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3. 4-Double Skin Faade 30:Without Shading

With Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
154.70
69.00
68.10
291.80
123.00
74.90
65.90
263.80
104.30
89.20
75.20
268.70
71.80
95.80
76.10
243.70
48.70
106.70
81.30
236.70
33.10
102.00
78.30
213.40
7.50
124.70
87.60
219.80
11.30
130.30
89.60
231.20
12.60
114.70
82.70
210.00
38.50
104.60
80.60
223.70
96.20
84.60
72.20
253.00
136.10
75.90
70.50
282.50
837.80
1172.40
928.10
2938.30
37.24
52.11
41.25
130.59
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
203.70
53.00
62.50
319.20
194.00
53.30
58.40
305.70
93.30
86.30
74.20
253.80
29.10
107.60
80.20
216.90
6.40
142.50
93.80
242.70
0.00
175.00
103.80
278.80
0.00
192.80
111.40
304.20
0.20
184.00
108.40
292.60
1.00
152.00
95.80
248.80
32.30
126.10
88.10
246.50
88.00
84.50
72.10
244.60
212.50
45.60
59.90
318.00
860.50
1402.70
1008.60
3271.80
38.24
62.34
44.83
145.41
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
692.00
3.40
45.20
740.60
555.80
10.40
43.30
609.50
441.60
30.50
54.60
526.70
219.80
55.60
62.00
337.40
93.80
93.20
76.60
263.60
18.30
135.40
90.00
243.70
4.00
160.80
100.20
265.00
7.20
146.10
95.10
248.40
49.90
101.80
78.20
229.90
155.20
58.30
64.40
277.90
373.20
20.20
49.60
443.00
667.00
1.30
44.40
712.70
3277.80
817.00
803.60
4898.40
145.68
36.31
35.72
217.71
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3. 5 - Double Skin Faade 30: With Shading
62

Optimized Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
110.00
18.80
50.50
179.30
88.30
20.70
47.00
156.00
71.60
25.70
53.00
150.30
47.10
29.40
52.80
129.30
28.90
35.10
56.20
120.20
15.60
34.10
54.50
104.20
1.70
47.70
60.70
110.10
2.60
51.30
61.90
115.80
2.80
44.80
58.20
105.80
17.00
37.20
57.00
111.20
53.80
27.40
52.20
133.40
92.50
23.00
52.00
167.50
531.90
395.20
656.00
1583.10
23.64
17.56
29.16
70.36
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
164.50
14.30
49.00
227.80
158.50
15.00
45.00
218.50
67.60
29.60
54.30
151.50
16.80
44.80
58.20
119.80
2.80
69.80
68.40
141.00
0.00
92.90
75.10
168.00
0.00
106.90
81.40
188.30
0.00
100.70
79.20
179.90
0.00
78.40
70.00
148.40
16.00
54.50
63.10
133.60
60.30
30.80
53.30
144.40
168.90
11.30
47.90
228.10
655.40
649.00
744.90
2049.30
29.13
28.84
33.11
91.08
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
586.30
0.00
44.00
630.30
487.20
0.10
39.70
527.00
378.40
1.90
44.60
424.90
181.90
12.60
47.00
241.50
70.50
30.90
54.80
156.20
9.80
61.90
64.20
135.90
1.20
77.50
71.10
149.80
2.60
69.30
68.20
140.10
30.30
41.10
56.90
128.30
114.40
15.00
49.20
178.60
305.10
2.70
43.50
351.30
561.20
0.00
44.00
605.20
2728.90
313.00
627.20
3669.10
121.28
13.91
27.88
163.07
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3. 6- Double Skin Faade 30: Optimized Shading

Without Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
109.70
18.30
50.40
178.40
88.10
20.10
46.80
155.00
71.50
25.00
52.70
149.20
46.90
28.60
52.60
128.10
28.80
34.20
55.90
118.90
15.50
33.30
54.20
103.00
1.60
46.80
60.40
108.80
2.60
50.40
61.60
114.60
2.70
44.00
58.00
104.70
16.90
36.40
56.70
110.00
53.60
26.80
51.90
132.30
92.10
22.60
51.90
166.60
530.00
386.50
653.50
1570.00
23.56
17.18
29.04
69.78
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
164.50
13.80
48.80
227.10
158.60
14.60
44.80
218.00
67.60
28.90
54.10
150.60
16.70
44.10
58.00
118.80
2.80
69.10
68.10
140.00
0.00
92.20
74.80
167.00
0.00
106.10
81.10
187.20
0.00
99.90
78.90
178.80
0.00
77.70
69.70
147.40
15.80
53.80
62.80
132.40
60.10
30.20
53.10
143.40
168.80
10.90
47.80
227.50
654.80
641.30
742.20
2038.30
29.10
28.50
32.99
90.59
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
587.30
0.00
44.00
631.3
488.40
0.00
39.70
528.1
379.50
1.70
44.60
425.8
182.40
12.10
46.80
241.3
70.40
30.20
54.50
155.1
9.80
61.10
63.90
134.8
1.20
76.70
70.80
148.7
2.60
68.50
68.00
139.1
30.20
40.40
56.70
127.3
114.20
14.50
49.00
177.7
305.60
2.60
43.50
351.7
561.90
0.00
44.00
605.9
2733.60
307.80
625.50
3666.90
121.49
13.68
27.80
162.97
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3. 7 - Double Skin Faade 36:Without Shading

With Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
129.20
2.80
44.90
176.90
108.80
2.70
40.70
152.20
89.00
3.80
45.30
138.10
60.60
4.90
44.30
109.80
37.20
7.00
46.40
90.60
21.90
7.40
45.10
74.40
2.90
16.00
49.60
68.50
4.40
19.50
50.80
74.70
4.40
16.60
48.40
69.40
21.90
10.30
47.60
79.80
64.60
6.00
44.60
115.20
108.20
4.80
45.70
158.70
653.10
101.80
553.40
1308.30
29.03
4.52
24.60
58.15
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
192.30
2.30
44.80
239.40
190.40
4.40
41.30
236.10
83.40
9.40
47.30
140.10
20.50
20.20
49.60
90.30
3.60
40.30
58.10
102.00
0.00
60.90
63.90
124.80
0.00
74.90
70.20
145.10
0.00
69.20
68.20
137.40
0.10
48.90
59.70
108.70
18.90
26.60
53.30
98.80
70.10
10.60
46.20
126.90
198.30
2.10
44.70
245.10
777.60
369.80
647.30
1794.70
34.56
16.44
28.77
79.76
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
645.80
0.00
44.00
689.80
559.10
0.00
39.70
598.80
456.10
0.00
44.00
500.10
224.60
1.50
43.10
269.20
90.90
11.20
47.90
150.00
13.00
32.90
54.10
100.00
1.70
44.40
59.50
105.60
3.30
38.70
57.50
99.50
36.50
16.70
48.40
101.60
135.20
1.90
44.60
181.70
350.70
0.00
42.60
393.30
609.10
0.00
44.00
653.10
3126.00
147.30
569.40
3842.70
138.93
6.55
25.31
170.79
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3. 8 - Double Skin Faade 36: With Shading
63

Optimized Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
109.70
2.80
44.90
157.40
88.10
2.70
40.70
131.50
71.50
3.80
45.30
120.60
46.90
4.90
44.30
96.10
28.80
7.00
46.40
82.20
15.50
7.40
45.10
68.00
1.60
16.00
49.60
67.20
2.60
19.50
50.80
72.90
2.70
16.60
48.40
67.70
16.90
10.30
47.60
74.80
53.60
6.00
44.60
104.20
92.10
4.80
45.70
142.60
530.00
101.80
553.40
1185.20
23.56
4.52
24.60
52.68
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
164.50
2.30
44.80
211.60
158.60
4.40
41.30
204.30
67.60
9.40
47.30
124.30
16.70
20.20
49.60
86.50
2.80
40.30
58.10
101.20
0.00
60.90
63.90
124.80
0.00
74.90
70.20
145.10
0.00
69.20
68.20
137.40
0.00
48.90
59.70
108.60
15.80
26.60
53.30
95.70
60.10
10.60
46.20
116.90
168.80
2.10
44.70
215.60
654.80
369.80
647.30
1671.90
29.10
16.44
28.77
74.31
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
587.30
0.00
44.00
631.30
488.40
0.00
39.70
528.10
379.50
0.00
44.00
423.50
182.40
1.50
43.10
227.00
70.40
11.20
47.90
129.50
9.80
32.90
54.10
96.80
1.20
44.40
59.50
105.10
2.60
38.70
57.50
98.80
30.20
16.70
48.40
95.30
114.20
1.90
44.60
160.70
305.60
0.00
42.60
348.20
561.90
0.00
44.00
605.90
2733.60
147.30
2880.90
5761.80
121.49
6.55
128.04
256.08
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF

Without Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
111.40
17.20
50.00
178.60
89.70
18.90
46.30
154.90
72.80
23.50
52.20
148.50
47.90
27.00
52.00
126.90
29.40
32.50
55.40
117.30
15.80
31.80
53.70
101.30
1.70
45.20
59.80
106.70
2.60
48.80
61.00
112.40
2.80
42.60
57.50
102.90
17.10
35.00
56.20
108.30
54.40
25.60
51.50
131.50
93.50
21.50
51.50
166.50
539.10
369.60
647.10
1555.80
23.96
16.43
28.76
69.15
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
167.40
13.00
48.50
228.90
161.80
14.00
44.60
220.40
68.90
27.80
53.70
150.40
17.00
42.90
57.60
117.50
2.80
67.90
67.70
138.40
0.00
91.20
74.50
165.70
0.00
105.40
80.90
186.30
0.00
99.10
78.70
177.80
0.00
76.70
69.40
146.10
16.00
52.60
62.40
131.00
61.00
29.20
52.80
143.00
171.80
10.30
47.60
229.70
666.70
630.00
738.30
2035.00
29.63
28.00
32.81
90.44
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
596.50
0.00
44.00
640.50
497.60
0.00
39.70
537.30
386.90
1.40
44.50
432.80
186.10
11.30
46.50
243.90
71.80
28.90
54.10
154.80
10.00
59.90
63.50
133.40
1.20
75.40
70.40
147.00
2.70
67.30
67.50
137.50
30.80
39.20
56.30
126.30
116.10
13.50
48.70
178.30
311.20
2.40
43.40
357.00
570.60
0.00
44.00
614.60
2780.90
299.30
622.50
3702.70
123.60
13.30
27.67
164.56
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3 .10 - Double Skin Faade 72: Without Shading

With Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
132.30
2.40
44.80
179.50
111.30
2.30
40.50
154.10
91.70
3.20
45.10
140.00
62.70
4.10
44.00
110.80
38.30
5.60
45.90
89.80
22.60
6.00
44.60
73.20
3.00
14.30
49.00
66.30
4.60
17.70
50.20
72.50
4.50
15.10
47.80
67.40
22.40
8.80
47.10
78.30
66.10
5.00
44.30
71.10
110.50
4.20
45.40
160.10
670.00
88.70
548.70
1307.40
29.78
3.94
24.39
58.11
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
196.40
1.90
44.60
242.90
194.70
4.00
41.10
239.80
85.50
8.50
46.90
140.90
21.10
19.00
49.20
89.30
3.70
38.90
57.60
100.20
0.00
59.60
63.40
123.00
0.00
73.70
69.80
143.50
0.00
68.00
67.80
135.80
0.10
47.60
59.20
106.90
19.10
25.20
52.80
97.10
71.60
9.60
45.90
127.10
202.70
1.80
44.60
249.10
794.90
357.80
642.9
1795.60
35.33
15.90
28.57
79.80
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
654.80
0.00
44.00
698.80
568.50
0.00
39.70
608.20
465.50
0.00
44.00
509.50
230.30
1.30
43.00
274.60
93.90
10.60
47.70
152.20
13.40
31.50
53.60
98.50
1.70
42.80
59.00
103.50
3.40
37.30
57.00
97.70
37.30
15.50
48.00
100.80
138.40
1.50
44.50
184.40
357.30
0.00
42.60
399.90
617.60
0.00
44.00
661.60
3182.1
140.50
567.10
3889.7
141.43
6.24
25.20
172.88
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
Table 4.3 .11 -Double Skin Faade 72: With Shading
64

Optimized Shading
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Total
KBTU/SF
LOS ANGELES-DSF
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
111.40
2.40
44.80
158.60
89.70
2.30
40.50
132.50
72.80
3.20
45.10
121.10
47.90
4.10
44.00
96.00
29.40
5.60
45.90
80.90
15.80
6.00
44.60
66.40
1.70
14.30
49.00
65.00
2.60
17.70
50.20
70.50
2.80
15.10
47.80
65.70
17.10
8.80
47.10
73.00
54.40
5.00
44.30
103.70
93.50
4.20
45.40
143.10
539.10
88.70
548.70
1176.50
23.96
3.94
24.39
52.29
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
167.40
1.90
44.60
213.90
161.80
4.00
41.10
206.90
68.90
8.50
46.90
124.30
17.00
19.00
49.20
85.20
2.80
38.90
57.60
99.30
0.00
59.60
63.40
123.00
0.00
73.70
69.80
143.50
0.00
68.00
67.80
135.80
0.00
47.60
59.20
106.80
16.00
25.20
52.80
94.00
61.00
9.60
45.90
116.50
171.80
1.80
44.60
218.20
666.70
357.80
642.9
1667.40
29.63
15.90
28.57
74.11
HEATING
COOLING
MISC
TOTAL
596.50
0.00
44.00
640.50
497.60
0.00
39.70
537.30
386.90
0.00
44.00
430.90
186.10
1.30
43.00
230.40
71.80
10.60
47.70
130.10
10.00
31.50
53.60
95.10
1.20
42.80
59.00
103.00
2.70
37.30
57.00
97.00
30.80
15.50
48.00
94.30
116.10
1.50
44.50
162.10
311.20
0.00
42.60
353.80
570.60
0.00
44.00
614.60
2780.90
140.50
567.10
3488.50
123.60
6.24
25.20
155.04
HOUSTON-DSF
CHICAGO-DSF
65
4.2.2.
Energy Data Figures for Reference
Figure 4.2.2.1- Daily Energy Data Cooling-DSF Los Angeles (1000kBtu/h scale)
Figure 4.2.2.2- Daily Energy Data Cooling- AGF Los Angeles (2000kBtu/h scale)
66
Figure 4.2.2.3- Daily Energy Data Heating-DSF Los Angeles (500kBtu/h scale)
Figure 4.2.2.4- Daily Energy Data Heating-AGF Los Angeles (650kBtu/h scale)
67
Figure 4.2.2.5- Daily Energy Data Cooling-DSF Houston (1100kBtu/h scale)
Figure 4.2.2.6- Daily Energy Data Cooling-AGF Houston (2000kBtu/h scale)
68
Figure 4.2.2.7- Daily Energy Data Heating-DSF Houston (900kBtu/h scale)
Figure 4.2.2.8- Daily Energy Data Heating-AGF Houston (1200kBtu/h scale)
69
Figure 4.2.2.9- Daily Energy Data Cooling-DSF Chicago (1000kBtu/h scale)
Figure 4.2.2.10- Daily Energy Data Cooling-AGF Chicago (2000kBtu/h scale)
70
Figure 4.2.2.11- Daily Energy Data Heating-DSF Chicago (1400kBtu/h scale)
Figure 4.2.2.12- Daily Energy Data Heating-AGF Chicago (1800kBtu/h scale)
71
4.2.3.
Intro to Energy Analysis
As previously stated, the mechanical system will stay constant in all variations of this test
to understand the changes in the total energy consumption in the analysis.
The charts above are the compiled information from all the IES-VE data runs. This is
easier than reviewing each data run output and having to flip between these items for
review.
They represent the AGF base case as the first chart with the varying cavity depths noted
at the top for each of the DSF assemblies in the remaining figures. For each of the DSF
cavity depths, there are three different faade configurations, i.e., without shading, with
shading, and optimized shading.
The figure that is noted as without shading is the computational energy model run for
the DSF assembly without the implementation of an internal shading device behind the
first glazing wall.
The figure that is noted as with shading is the computational energy model run for the
DSF assembly with the implementation of an internal shading device behind the first
glazing wall.
The third variant is the optimized shading strategy, which is the monthly total of the best
output from the two proceeding shading computational runs. This optimized shading
figure is a rational interpretation of the monthly computational data that can be an
automated shading strategy that could minimally achieve. The reason why this is noted
as minimal is that these computations are with the shading either closed or open but not
intelligently controlled by an automation system in the computational energy runs.
72
4.2.4.
Los Angeles
Los Angeles is the most temperate climate that the modeling has computed. The
summers are not as extreme as Houston due to the low humidity levels and the natural
ocean breeze.
Winters, on the other hand, are not as extreme as the Chicago climate. The data being
shown below will be more temperate than those environments that will be discussed
later.
The data for the Los Angeles climate can be seen in each of the charts above. It is on the
top section of each of the above figures. They are labeled accordingly, along with a
notation of the heating, cooling, and miscellaneous system energy loads on month and
annual totals. The sum of the annual loads is noted as well on the charts.
The AGF assembly during the colder months of the year shows a moderate heating
requirement that decreases as the warmer months approach to a level that is extremely
minimal. The peak month is seen in January, where the total heating consumption is 154
kbtu. This is moderate in comparison with other more extreme climates, but it is the
peak of heating requirements for the Los Angeles environment. A moderate amount of
heating is required in some of the transitional month when cold mornings and evenings
can be anticipated. This is seen in April, May, and October where the outlying numbers
are roughly a third to a half of the peak loads. During the peak cooling months, the
heating loads diminish to virtually nothing.
The cooling loads are the highest during the peak of the summer months, which occur
around August. The August peak load reacts to a maximum cooling consumption of 130
73
kbtu. This is the peak of the season, but it is only 20% higher than the months of May
through October. The cooling is also noticeable during the winter months as being still
nearly half the peak month of August during the peak heating month. This is due to a few
factors including the thermal gains to the internal environment from the sun and the
internal gains from the building environment. There may be additional factors, but these
are the main factors for this climate as there are high thermal gains on the building in all
seasons that drive up the internal gains.
The miscellaneous mechanical loads are seen to be quite steady across the peak season in
August, which correspond to the peak cooling loads.
The DSF assemblies behave quite similarly in this climate without any major variations
in system performances between different cavity depths. The assembly with the highest
performing energy savings is the 72 cavity. This data review will focus on the said
assembly for the data numbers used. This is due to the reason that there is only minor
variation between the cavity depth and the performance of the faade. The peak heating
and cooling months correspond to the peak months noted in the AGF analysis. The peak
heating month occurs in January with a maximum heating consumption of 111 kbtu. The
peak cooling month occurs in August with a maximum cooling consumption of 17 kbtu.
The outlying months additionally see a reduction in their heating and cooling loads,
which follow the seasonal trend, as previously shown on the AGF data, but with a greater
reduction. The heating load becomes almost nonexistent in the peak of the summer
months. The cooling load follows this same trend as being near nonexistent during the
winter months. The miscellaneous loads are reduced as well in a similar manner as the
heating and cooling loads having an annual peak occurring in August.
74
4.2.5.
Houston
Houston is the climate with the most extreme summer period and less temperate winter
season. The summer peaks have higher daily average than Los Angeles and Chicago,
along with high humidity factor.
The data for the Houston climate can be seen in each of the charts above as the middle
section of each of the above figures. They are accordingly labeled along with a notation of
heating, cooling and miscellaneous system energy loads on month and annual totals. The
sum of the annual loads is noted as well on the given charts.
The AGF assembly during the colder months of the year shows a moderate heating
requirement that decreases as the warmer months approach to a level that is extremely
minimal. The peak month is seen in December, where the total heating consumption is
213 kbtu. This is moderate in comparison with what we will be reviewing for the Chicago
climate, but it is still a third higher than that seen in Los Angeles. A moderate amount of
heating is required in some of the transitional month when cold mornings and evenings
can be anticipated. This can be seen in March and November when the outlying numbers
are roughly a half of the peak loads. During the peak cooling months, the heating loads
diminish to nothing in June and July and virtually nothing in August.
The cooling loads are the highest during the peak of the summer months, which occur in
July. The July peak load reaches a maximum cooling consumption of 193 kbtu. This is
the peak of the season, but it is only 10% higher than the months of June and August.
The cooling is also noticeable during the winter months as being roughly a quarter of the
peak month of July during the peak heating month. This is due to many factors that are
also seen in the Los Angeles environment. The peak of summer is seen to occur in July
75
rather than August just like the case in Los Angeles. The overall cooling energy
consumption on the year is only 230 kbtu, as compared with the total seen in the Los
Angeles environment. This occurs with the peak of the summer energy consumption of
47% higher than the Los Angeles environment.
The miscellaneous mechanical loads are seen to be quite steady across the season with a
peak in August, which, unlike Los Angeles, does not correspond to the peak cooling
month.
in system performance between the different cavity depths. The assembly with the
highest performing energy savings is the 72 cavity. This is the case for the overall energy
performance, while the 12 cavity outperformed the 30 cavity. The performance
differences between the different DSF assemblies are marginally different with the
variations in the heating, cooling, and miscellaneous loads that vary by 2%4%
depending on the different data and cavity depths. These variables are within a
reasonable testing variable and cannot be explained for any reason. This data review will
focus on the 72 assembly for the data numbers used as this had the overall lowest total
annual energy consumption. The peak heating and cooling months correspond to the
peak months noted in the AGF analysis. The heating peak month occurs in December
with a maximum heating consumption of 172 kbtu. The cooling peak month occurs in
July with a maximum cooling consumption of 73 kbtu.
The outlying months additionally see a reduction in their heating and cooling loads,
which follow the seasonal trending, as previously shown with the AGF data, but with a
greater reduction in month energy consumption. The heating load becomes almost
76
nonexistent in the peak of the summer months. The cooling load follows this same trend
as being near nonexistent during the winter months.
4.2.6.
Chicago
Chicago is the climate with the most extreme winter period and temperate summer in
comparison with the Houston example. The long and very cold winter months can
increase the heating requirements in buildings to very high energy totals, which we will
see in the data reviewed below.
The data for the Chicago climate can be seen in each of the charts above as the bottom
section of each of the above figures. They are accordingly labeled, along with a notation
of heating, cooling and miscellaneous system energy loads on month and annual totals.
The sum of the annual loads is noted as well on the charts.
The AGF assembly during the colder months of the year shows a high heating
requirement that decreases as the summer months approach to a level that is minimal.
The peak month is seen in January, where the total heating consumption is 692 kbtu.
This is by far the highest heating requirement for any of the other environments
reviewed. This is over three times the requirement as seen in the peak Houston month
and four times the peak seen in Los Angeles. A high amount of heating is required in the
months of October through April, with each month exceeding the highest monthly total
seen in Los Angeles. During the peak cooling months, the heating loads diminish to
minimal amounts in June through August.
The cooling loads are the highest during the peak summer month, which occur in July.
The July peak load reaches a maximum cooling consumption of 161 kbtu. This is the
77
peak of the season but is only 15% higher than the months of June and August. The
cooling is also at the minimum during the winter months as the environment is so cold
as described before. This environment is seen as a drastic divergence from the Los
Angeles and Houston environments. The peak of summer is seen to occur in July, which
was the same as Houston. The overall cooling energy consumption on the year is only
780 kbtu over the total year, which equates to almost half of the Houston cooling. This
occurs with the peak of the summer energy consumption at 23% higher than the Los
Angeles environment and nearly the same less than the Houston peak cooling.
The miscellaneous mechanical loads are seen to be quite steady across the season with a
peak in July, which, like Los Angeles, correspond to the peak cooling month.
in the system performance between the different cavity depths. The assembly with the
highest performing energy savings is the 12 cavity, which is different from the previous
two environments. This is the case for overall energy performance, while the 36 cavity
outperformed the 30 cavity barely. The performance differences between the different
DSF assemblies are marginally different with variations in the heating, cooling, and
miscellaneous loads that vary by 2%4% depending on the different data and cavity
depths. This variation in accuracy is anticipated due to software attempting to adjust for
different modeling changes.. This data review will focus on the 12 assembly for the data
numbers used as this had the overall lowest total annual energy consumption. The peak
heating and cooling months correspond to the peak months noted in the AGF analysis.
The peak heating month occurs in January with a maximum heating consumption of 553
kbtu. The cooling peak month occurs in July with a maximum cooling consumption of 46
kbtu.
78
It can be seen when reviewing the shaded and unshaded scenarios that the DSF cavity
without shading outperforms the shaded envelope by roughly 10% at the coldest month
of the year. Opposite that, during the month with the highest cooling load, we see that
the shading assembly outperforms the unshaded scenario by roughly 40%, which
confirms the aforementioned need for operable shading devices in the cavity.
4.3. IES-VE Microflo CFD data

The Microflo CFD data were the most critical as aforementioned in hot and humid
climates as this is where other DSF assemblies have been found to fail due to issues with
the overheating of the cavity. There could be a few reasons for this, but the key item for
our review is that we see the buoyancy of air in the cavity as modeled. In the case of the
Houston model, we can see the distinct strata of air rising in the cavities on the south
faade from cool air to hot air by the top of the cavity. This displays the buoyancy of air
that the DSF cavity requires to achieve the benefits of the added performance that this
thesis shows. These layers of air at different temperatures can also be seen on the east
and west faades as they are following similar patterns of performance but with a low
maximum heat experienced in the DSF. This is seen in both Houston days that were
computed, i.e., January 15 and August 15, with varying extremes due to the external
conditions.
There are small pockets of cool air at the bottom which is an outcome of the hot air rising
rapidly and the cold air lowering. As the cavity is sealed except for the entry point, it is
likely that any air that is cooling and a lower temperature than the inlet temperature will
drop below the inlet point until it heats up in the cavity and rise. The conditions on the
east and west faades of the DSF do Figureically appear almost identical due to the fact
79
that this is the total daily thermal gains and losses to show the cavity performance and
cannot be computed at a specific hour or time in the day. This aspect of testing can be
limited in understanding a finite performance aspect of the faade based on a specific
time period of the day. At the same time, we can see the surface mapping of the velocity
and the temperatures across the inside face of the cavity, and there is Figureical
differences across the opposing faces. This reaffirms the fact that the modeling program
has unique solutions to the CFD model, while a slice through the model that is mapping
the temperature of the air in the cavity may not be the easiest way to understand the
performance of the cavity.
The key item with the CFD modeling that is proven by the section airflow figures is the
fact that we are seeing a positive movement of air with no stagnation in the cavity that
would produce failure of the envelope performance. Review figures 4.1.31 -4.1.34 again
for the positive flow of air that is shown in the cavity.
80
Chapter 5 Inferences from Data

5.1. Review of a DSF vs AGF
The data that is compared in detail in Chapter 4 provides conclusive evidence that the
performance gains of a DSF vs. AGF are substantial and can be understand. These gains
in overall performance in the computationally modeled environment show that the
validity of these systems and future applications are very applicable and need further
review. The system performance gains validate the need for buildings to incorporate
these more advanced DSF assemblies for buildings with more stringent energy
performance needs that also need continuous floor-to-ceiling glazing. These buildings
would end up having enormous energy gains depending upon the siting and the specific
face orientations of the faade.
The viability of the DSF is proven as valuable in this thesis, while this document will still
attempt to prove what the key items for understanding the design and fabrication factors
of a UDSF are. The possibility of a commercially viable DSF that could compete with the
construction and fabrication precision of unitized faades while being able to outperform
the competition would be a viable alternative to the construction industry. This
alternative, as will be outlined and provided with a preliminary system in the following
chapters, could provide a viable alternative.
81
5.1.1.
Los Angeles
We will begin the review with the output energy data as seen in the Los Angeles
environment. This will be considered the baseline due to the fact that it is the most
neutral of climate zones that are being reviewed in this thesis. The winter and summer
extremes are not to the extremes of the other two climates that will be tested as well.
The total annual energy consumption of the AGF per square foot for Los Angeles is
21.69kBtuh/SF. This total quantity per SF of the built environment can be understood as
our baseline for the project in Los Angeles. Review figure5.2.1 and tables 5.2.1-5.2.5 for
further information on energy data.
By comparison, the DSF in varying cavity depths has an annual range of 11.5211.74kBtuh/SF. We see that there is an annual energy consumption difference of roughly
46%-47% which we consider to be on the high end of what may be a computational
energy output for the installation of a DSF. There is noticed a leveling of the extreme
temperature days in the cooling and heating total energy charts when comparing the
AGF with any of the DSFs.
The key reduction of energy consumption for the Los Angeles environment is in the
cooling requirements. There are also large reductions seen in the heating and
miscellaneous loads which would be expected with the overall reduction.
82
5.1.2.
Houston
The next climate that will be tested is that of Houston, which has a high humidity
component. It has a warmer summer that lasts for a longer period of time than the
summer seen in the Los Angeles aforementioned example. It has a stronger winter
season as well as seen when comparing the output data and the higher energy
consumption during these climate periods.
The AGF has an annual energy consumption of 24.24 kBtuh/SF, whereas the DSF has a
range of 15.07-15.13 kBtuh/SF which is a 37%-38% decrease in total energy consumption
for the case study. In figure5.2.1 and tables 5.2.1-5.2.5 it isrepresented a similar leveling
of temperate day conditions, as previously noted in the Los Angeles case study in terms
of the reduction of the outlying days.
The key component seen in energy savings for Houston is in the overall cooling loads.
This would makes sense as the main component of energy consumption for Houston is
the cooling requirements as modeled in the AGF and the DSF computational runs. This
is consistent with the information about the climate in general.
5.1.3.
Chicago
Chicago has extremely cold long winters and warm summers with humidity that are
short. This is in stark contrast to the mild winters that the other climates experience but
is critical in understanding the performance of the faade in other climates. . Review
figure5.2.1 and tables 5.2.1-5.2.5 for further information on energy data.
83
The AGF has an annual energy consumption of 36.28 kBtuh/SF, whereas the DSF has a
range of 26.91-27.43 kBtuh/SF which is a 24%-26% decrease in total energy
consumption for the case study. We once again see the reduction of the outlying or
temperate days while we can see the spike in heating that is expected. This thermally
broken cavity allows for an additional buffer from the harsh winters and reduces
conduction from the interior environment as expected.
5.2. DSF vs AGF comparative charts and figure

Below are the charts previously noted for energy consumption of the variable cavity
depths in the DSF and AGF in the three climate zones.
Table 5.2.1 AGF Energy Performance
84
Table 5.2.2 DSF 12
Table 5.2.3 DSF 30
Table 5.2.4 - DSF 36
85
Table 5.2.5 - DSF 72
Figure 5.2.1 Double skin faade vs. Single Glass Faade Varying cavity depths
86
Chapter 6 UDSF Design Thought Process

In this chapter, we will begin to define the design related concerns and limitations that
are taken into account when reviewing the limitations and constraints to a viable UDSF
assembly. This is important to understand the constraints that will be essential to
determine where the limitations and main governing items occur on a theoretical UDSF
assembly.
6.1. UDSF Erecting and Structure

When considering an assembly, we will need to figure that the overall panel sizes are
able to be erected with all the benefits described in Chapter 2. For the purpose of this
thesis, we will use a two-story high panel as the baseline for the panel erecting system.
This is chosen since this is a proven and often implemented system, which will allow us
to achieve the benefits of the unitized system that is a reasonable panel size. For this
thesis, we will work with a panel size not in excess of 30-0 tall as a building with a
floor-to-floor value of 15-0 is a reasonable distance for contemporary commercial and
private buildings.
The greater issue with a panel of this size and how it directly relates to a UDSF is how to
achieve the setting and the leveling of both faades while also achieving the weather and
the thermal enclosure that both skins will need to achieve. The major ways that the
erecting of a multi-skin system can be envisioned are outlined in the remaining part of
this passage in no particular order. For the descriptive purpose of the system below, it
will be described that the exterior glazing wall is the outer glazing assembly of the UDSF,
while the inner glazing wall is the glazing assembly at the occupied side of the enclosure.
87
All systems will be hung off the verticals structure as the vast majority of unitized
systems are set in this manner. Thus, the continuity of this system is critical to achieve
the structural performance of the system. With all assemblies that are greater than a 30
cavity, the space in the cavity is deemed accessible for servicing as long as the UDSF
structure does not inhibit passage through the cavity. In a condition where the cavity is
less than 30, it would require the interior or exterior wall assembly at each vertical
dividing member to be operable for the cleaning and the maintenance of the system.
As with other unitized assemblies, the structural continuity of the system is along the
vertical members rather than the horizontal members. This allows for a more effective
use of the structural members than using the horizontal members, which does not allow
for the exterior forces to pass along the exterior enclosure. The sizing of the mullions and
the structural members are variable about the final spans in the horizontal and vertical
directions. These items can vary from other factors including the structural rigidity of the
main building frame, the attachment method to the main structure, the weight of the
glazing panes, and the final cavity depth. There are also concerns for wind loading on the
structure, and the systems will vary about the site location, the building orientation, and
the force that the wind can achieve in the area. Another site concern is the seismic zone
that is associated with a specific location in any site location. Finite engineering of the
final system will need to be done in the event that a system is implemented into a realworld fabricated solution. For this thesis, the size of the main structural system will be
set at a reasonable system size of a 4x 10 mullion with a variable size allowable in a
finalized design that will be part of a future work item associated with this thesis.
88
6.1.1.
Panel Assembly One
Figure 6.1.1 Panel Assembly One
UDSF panel assembly one would be to have one composite panel with the exterior and
interior glazing assemblies already fixed in place. This would benefit in the basic logic
view of the UDSF as it would seem very straightforward to lift and set each of these
panels. This would be a single erecting lift with the exterior and interior glazing walls set
together and fixed at once. In the virtual world, this lift seems like the most
straightforward assembly and would be the route taken. There are however many issues
with this type of lift and assembly.
89
If the two systems are set and fixed already, it would still be almost impossible to have
enough adjustability to control the variations in an exceptionally precise system across
the entire face of a building. There are many factors that must be taken into account,
which go into proper setting and balancing of any type of glazing faade. There are
inconsistencies due to tolerances in any manufactured assembly, be it concrete/steel
structure or curtain wall assemblies. Balancing to a high level of precision and allowable
tolerances can be achieved on one fixed assembly across the horizontal and vertical joints
with reasonably sized joints. There is the ability to achieve proper alignments and
precision in the work. However, this is likely not achievable across a fixed DSF without
prohibitively large joints or a very elaborate leveling and balancing system that is
incorporated into the system. This system would be susceptible to the proper leveling of
the exterior panels but may have unachievable tolerances on the interior wall or the
opposite issue. The finalized assembly when the two panels are to be set as one assembly
does not appear achievable. If it is able to be achieved, it would be likely the most
effective and adopted assembly.
90
6.1.2.
Panel Assembly Two
Figure 6.1.2 - Panel Assembly Two
UDSF panel assembly two would be to have an interior wall that is erected with
outriggers off the interior wall to pick up the exterior-wall panel assembly. This would
allow for the interior wall to be lifted and set into place and properly sealed. This allows
for proper balancing and sealing of the interior-wall thermal envelope, and then, the
exterior panel would be set at a later period. The exterior panel assembly set outboard of
this at a later point in the construction process could allow for sequencing benefits in the
construction process. This would still allow for a double height panel lift for both faade
walls; thus, it would benefit from the unitized panel wall lifts and benefits. This system
appears, from the initial review, to be achievable and able to meet a method for erecting
and plausible assembly.
91
6.1.3.
Panel Assembly Three
Figure 6.1.3 - Panel Assembly Three
UDSF panel assembly method three is an all-interior set unitized assembly where we see
a main interior-wall structural panel set from the floor level and then the exterior panels
would be smaller in size and set in manageable segments from the USDF accessible
cavity. This system has the benefit of not needing a crane to set but will require a high
amount of labor hours since it is all erected and set into place by laborers. The
advantage to this assembly practice is that it is all small in scale and may be useful in an
area where limited access to modern large-scale construction equipment can be brought
to the site. This could be for a number of reasons, site location from roads, and
accessibility of level site area for a crane or a developing country where labor hours are
cheaper than expensive equipment. This system is a good theoretical item but not for the
92
purpose of this thesis where we will assume that the projects are done in developed
countries with proper site access; this will not be considered a viable option.
6.1.4.
Panel Assembly Four
Figure 6.1.4 - Panel Assemble Four
UDSF panel assembly method four is a hybrid exterior and interior erecting assembly. In
this assembly, the exterior pane would be set and leveled from the building structure.
The depth of the cavity would be created, but the interior wall would not be set yet. After
proper leveling and sealing of the system, the interior wall would be set from the inside
from the floor levels rather than lifting panels from the exterior into place. This method
is a combination of two unitized setting and erecting systems. This combination may be
difficult and cost prohibitive due the labor hours of setting multiple panels into place and
would be slower than option two noted above. The advantage of this erecting assembly is
93
that the exterior weather wall could be set and sealed rapidly for a DSF while waiting for
the interior wall to be set into place. This method would be effective in a climate with
harsh and long summers or winters that would impact the construction process. This is
also an achievable system when considering a corridor UDSF configuration. This system
can be designed in a multitude of assemblies and with a corridor assembly, along with
not having both systems interconnected or linked together. This system has too many
variable options for erectable assemblies.
6.2. UDSF Glazing Panes

Glazing panes will need to be fabricated within the constraints of size, as outlined in
chapter 2 above. The exterior-wall pane will be a laminated double pane as this is
required to meet wind and fall protection performances of a faade. The exterior wall can
be either insulated or not insulated depending upon the climate conditions and the
overall performance of the assembly that we are trying to achieve. This is a variable that
any system can accommodate for building performance. For the purpose of this thesis,
the single laminated exterior pane will be used as the basis of design. This allows larger
outer panes of glass as the laminated pane is able to achieve greater spans than a single
piece of glazing. For the purpose of this thesis, a laminated assemble totaling to 3/4 will
be used as an exact size for the outer pane, which will vary by local wind and seismic
needs.
The inner glazing assembly is an IGU assembly that has a total dimensional width of 1.
The assembly would be two panes of glazing with a 1/2 air gap, which matches the
IGU assembly used in the modeling portion of this project in chapters 35.
94
For the purpose of this thesis, the location of films and reflective coatings will not be
included as this portion of the paper is not focusing on these coatings but the feasibility
and the way to achieve a UDSF.
6.2.1.
UDSF Repair and Maintenance
In this section, the concerns associated with the repair and the maintenance of the UDSF
assemblies will be outlined.
6.2.2.
Repair and Replacement of Panes
In the options noted above, the issue with replacement panes is a concern that must be
noted when reviewing possible panel assembly options. The concern with panel
replacement has many factors to consider.
There is the concern of dissembling adjacent panels or portions of a wall to replace a
glazing pane. If a two-story panel cannot have the panel glazing repair infield without
disassembling a panel, it will most likely eliminate the product from being viable. This
would require an extremely high labor activity in terms of repairing. This will be further
eliminated from being used in the construction market.
6.2.3.
Maintenance of the Internal Shading Devices
The internal shading device will have maintenance concerns depending upon the chosen
design; these design options are outlined in chapter 6.1. There are limitations of different
assemblies based on the access to the cavity space to determine how each of these
assemblies can be repaired or can be replaced. All of the shading device types will need
95
to be repaired, cleaned, and replaced during the lifetime of the building. It is not an
option to a cost standpoint to only gain access to the cavity by removing a glazing pane.
This would be cost prohibitive and would have regular removal of the glazing panes. In
addition, setting the glazing pane again could compromise the thermal envelope, and the
thermal leaking of the envelope can occur. One of the many issues that could occur is the
resetting of the glazing panes, and the sealant may not be able to reach the same level of
precision and sealing of the thermal envelope. This option is not a reasonable solution to
achieve the repair and the maintenance of the internal shading device.
The easiest solution is the case when the cavity is great enough to allow a person to
access and walk through the cavity for repair. In the case, when the cavity is so minimal,
a person cannot walk around the cavity to repair the shading device; repair will need to
be done by access points for each shading device. This would require a removable or
operable window assembly at each point that needs maintenance. This solution would be
very expensive to have a high amount of operable panels rather than fixed panels or
cause the issue with removable panels as described above. The final option would occur
at the UDSF with cavities that are large enough to enable a corridor space an access to
the shading device. When the corridor approach to a UDSF is chosen, another concern
must be considered, such as the fact that the corridor may be used for general pedestrian
circulation through the building. When pedestrians are allowed to circulate adjacent to
operable building system devices, there is a concern that damage may occur to the device
from people. This may occur by accident or by malicious intent; either issue is a concern
that must be understood when determining a UDSF shading strategy to be implemented.
96
6.2.4.
Maintenance of the Cavity Ventilation System
The concerns that were outlined above for the maintenance associated with the internal
shading device are applicable to many of the cavity ventilation systems. With any
operable window configurations described in chapter 2, any of the DSF assembly types
needs association for an access to these operable mechanisms. An item as simple as a
hinge mechanism to more complicated motorized control will need intermediate repair
or replacement. The concerns associated with access are similar to the constraints from
the internal-shading-device discussion above that will again pertain to the operable
equipment for ventilation.
In the case that the UDSF cavity ventilation is supplemented with the use of a
mechanical system to create a hybrid UDSF ventilation strategy, the concerns for access
to the mechanical louvers that can supply air to the cavity are important. Mechanical
louvers will need intermittent maintenance and repair, which will require access to the
UDSF cavity. Mechanical louvers supply and exhaust points for the DSF, as described in
Chapter 2, which typically occur at the ceiling cavity and just above the floor surface.
These areas do not conflict with a slab or the perimeter framing beam as they occur
above the finish floor or in the ceiling cavity space. They are factors that will have to be
understood when working through a design of the UDSF.
With all of these scenarios, similarly for internal shading solutions, the common thread
is the need for access to the cavity for the maintenance of the systems that will be
actuated in the cavity. This concern for access and maintenance will require the
equipment to be accessible to the cavity or the option of a 30x30 access panel as a
minimal size.
97
6.2.5.
Repair to Damage of Structural Frame
The structural framing members in the event of an extreme seismic event or other
natural events will need to be repaired without the entire faade being dismantled. This
will require the system panels to be removed in sections and to be replaced with
replacement panels. The alternative would be that the panel could be removed, the
framing structural framing members could readily be replaced, and the same glazing
could be set back into place in the faade.
6.3. UDSF Professional feedback

This section of the paper will review feedback from Dan Green of Enclos which is one of
the largest custom curtainwall and unitized faade fabrication companies in America.
Mr. Green is an unitized faade specialist who has been working in the field for over 30
years with his main practice in large scale unitized faade fabrication and installation. He
recently completed a very unique and custom unitized curtainwall assembly at the LA
Live tower which is owned by AEG. This is a 54 story tower that is a combination of
residences and hotel above a mixed use retail center in downtown Los Angeles. He
provided a review of the constructability of each of the four faade assemblies along with
a rough costing associated. His review is paramount to the feasibility of each type to
better understand if any of the options are viable from a fabrication and costing
standpoint. The rest of the below chapter is a recap of the feedback from this meeting
with the key benefits and issues to each faade type discussed.
As part of the confirmation of the accuracy of the information from Mr. Green a
secondary call was placed to Kawneer which is an Alcoa company. Kawneer is as well a
98
large manufacturer of unitized curtainwall assemblies in North America. The technical

staff architectural representative said that costs for unitized systems can vary greatly by
complexity, customization, glazing pane sizes, mullion sizes and all the additional
construction constraints. The rough number they provided for costing was $65-100/SF
installed in most typical sites in US. They said that there are outlying systems to this
case but from a general preliminary costing aspect this is what they budget. I was
informed that they would not be able to provide the professional feedback on this paper
as the staff that would support this type of effort for an industry professional is not
located in the southern California territory. This rough costing number is a wide range
and falls outside the range that was later given by Mr. Green from Enclos.
6.3.1.
Constraints to design typically
The design are anticipated to conform to industry maximum fabrication sizes, so the
specific sizes and assemblies are considered non-specific for this exercise as it was stated
they would eventually need to conform if a system was to be chosen for fabrication.
Current fabrication limits as discussed are driven by a few key limiting factors. The ones
of greatest concern are the maximum limit that low-e coatings can be applied to a glazing
surface along with the autoclave limitation that would be needed on larger laminated
sizes that the proposed system panel sizes would need. The limitations on the autoclave
in this case are the eventual limiting factor which limits the panel size to be 65 x 184
(5-5x15-4). The Low-E coated panes are described before for the limitations on the
panels but those are less limiting than the autoclave process. The glazing assembly
conforms to the autoclave maximum sizes even though the design assembly for energy
modeling is not laminated. Laminated glazing does not specifically increase the
99
performance of the glazing under normal circumstances so this is discounted in this

process. The laminating process is extremely specific for each individual site based on
seismic and wind performance needs. The design shows panels that have an
intermediate mullion to reduce the size of these panels so these limiting sizes are not a
concern to the process but this needs to be understood in the design process. The
mullions for the assembly can be extruded in sizes up to 40-0 in length which is far
greater than the proposed assembly.
6.3.2.
Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly one
This assembly was determined to be the second most logical assembly from a fabrication,
assembly and installation standpoint. The assembly will be cost and shipping prohibitive
if it is shipped to the site as 1 panel. There are damage concerns during the shipping
process associated with this panel arrangement along with the need for a significant
increase in number of trucks as the panels will be much deeper and reduce the number
off panels that can be set on the truck. Rather the way this would be fabricated and
shipped as two separate panels with the outriggers or hangers being separate from both
panels. The panels would be fastened together once on site and lifted into position. This
process would not greatly increase onsite fabrication as the components would be easily
fastened together and set. There are concerns about the stiffness of the frame and the
chance of the assembly deforming during the erecting process which would likely require
stiffened outriggers that could be achieved in a number of ways. It will likely be
addressed differently by different fabricators based on their preferred method of
fabrication. The greatest concern is the fact that it would be virtually impossible to
constantly seal the exterior faade between panels without large joints. Rather they
100
would provide larger joints at the exterior faade panel assembly with the use of bulb
gaskets. These are larger flexible gaskets at the face which would allow expansion and
greater tolerance between panels on the outside of the cavity. This method would also
need a crane on site that would accommodate the larger loading for these panel sizes.
This would not be a concern for the case study scale but if this was used at a larger scale
there would be cost concerns associated with this fabrication.
6.3.3.
Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly two
This assembly was determined to be the least logical assembly from a fabrication,
assembly and installation standpoint. The general opinion is this would never be
fabricated in this manner and would have significant issues during installation. The
main issues are the fact you would need two separate lifts and it would be almost
impossible to access the setting of the outriggers once the first inner panel is erected into
place. The cavity would be extremely difficult to maintain during the erecting process
and in order to get labor to properly set this wall it would have sequencing issues. Once
the inner wall the installation this installation becomes a one side lift and assembly
which is the worst case scenario. The outer wall could be leveled and set without the
need for larger bulb gaskets. This assembly would have multiple options for how to
structure the assembly which is the one positive. The inner glazing wall could be used for
stiffness of the entire assembly or there could be bracing back to the main building
structural frame separately from the inner wall if there were detailing alternatives. This
was once again an item that was noted as a fabricators preferred method of installation.
101
The one benefit to this system is that it will likely have a consistent thermal break to the
interior environment.
6.3.4.
Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly three
This assembly was determined to be the third most logical assembly from a fabrication,
assembly and installation standpoint. This is assembly was viewed as option for an
extremely remote site, such as one that you may have small roads with an inability to
have a crane for erecting. This system is similar in assembly to that of an older system
used in the past referred to as a stick-unit assembly. This terminology is in reference to a
stick built structural wall with a unit based glazing panel. There are non-fabrication and
erecting concerns with this system but the larger concerns are for field labor costs which
would be are extremely high as there are many small components that field labor would
be required to assemble. This assembly would only be viable on a site as previously
noted or in an environment where you would ship boxes of material for site fabrication
and erecting by a very low cost field labor force. This was viewed as an option for a third
world environment with limited local fabrication options. This is a viable option if
fabricated at high precision in a developed country and shipped to a site that would have
the low cost labor to erect this system. This assembly has the benefit of being able
assembled and erected without the use of a large scale crane but could be done with
small scale lifts. The structural frame would likely be built in field from prefabricated
frame elements but would not need a heavy crane in order to erect. This system is cost
prohibitive due to the high number of fabricated panels.
102
6.3.5.
Constructability and costing of UDSF assembly four
This assembly was determined to be the most logical assembly from a fabrication,
assembly and installation standpoint. The advantage to this system is the exterior wall
could be fabricated and shipped to the site in a compact shipping format and then have
the outrigger bracket fastened to the frame on site. This would be more similar to a
standard unitized panel assembly with added complication of setting the frame on
outriggers that are few feet off of the structural slab. The concern is aligning the frame
outriggers and the slab connections once the frame is lifted into place. It could be more
desirable depending on a specific fabricator to erect these two items separately. The
huge benefit to this assembly is the ability to do most of the work of structural
attachment and system leveling from the slab. The outer envelope would likely need to
employ the use of the before described bulb gaskets but that would depend on the final
detailing and project location. This system was also viewed as possibly having the
outriggers set separately from the outer frame as a sequencing choice. This would allow
the structural frame to be set in large expanses at one point and have the exterior panels
set after to free up the sequencing a bit more. The other great advantage to this system is
the inner wall would be easily erected once the outer skin and structural frame are
erected, leveled, set and sealed. The inner wall can be set like many unitized assemblies
in that it could be set by smaller lifts on the floor levels which would allow for sequencing
to be less of a concern and the labor and equipment costs would be reduced from this
method.
103
6.3.6.
UDSF specific costing
The review of costing was very difficult to determine due to the fact that specific job
costs, site location and final detail all plays into the cost of the project. In this case it was
discussed that the most logical way to cost these assemblies was a cost per square foot
based on the outermost skin. The reasoning to the outermost skin being the driving
factor is that at the corners the faade will be larger than at the inner wall assembly and
the inner walls will still have the same surface area. The complexity off these corners will
drive the cost up and account for various miscellaneous metal fabrication and custom
corner units.
The with the issues stated above controlling specificity to the assembly costs, along with
specific contractual items for each job, there could only be a range associated with each
assembly. Since the range needed to be defined further to understand the overall costs of
each of these models the median for each range was taken and used for the costing of the
assemblies. As these numbers only covered the rough costs of the assemblies and not the
added fabrication and complexity issues of the defined systems there is a grossing
upcharge associated with the added labor, material and erecting as discussed above. The
grossing factor adjusts the median costing per square foot multiplied by the surface area
of the largest envelope. This information is compiled in the below chart.
104
COST FOR DIFFERING FAADE TYPES

Costing Specific per
system
Costing Range
Faade Type
Area of
faade
Cost Per Gross

Cost Per
SF
complexity SFRange
upcharge
Median
Gross
Cost per
Complexity SF
-Median
adjusted
Total cost
(nearest
$10,000)
Stick Build
A faade
54000
$80-95
0%
$87.50
0.00%
$87.50
$4,730,000
Unitized
B faade
54000
$70-90
0%
$80.00
0.00%
$80.00
$4,320,000
C UDSF Type 1
56160
$130160
8-22%
$145.00
15.00%
$166.75
$9,370,000
D UDSF Type 2
56160
$130160
15-30%
$145.00
22.50%
$177.63
$9,980,000
E UDSF Type 3
56160
$130160
30-40%
$145.00
35.00%
$195.75
$11,000,000
F UDSF Type 4
56160
$130160
8-20%
$145.00
14.00%
$165.30
$9,290,000
54000SF is for the single skin surface area
56160SF is the surface area of the outerskin with the cost per SF associated for a
double skin per the gross costing numbers provided.
Table6.3.6-Cost for Differing Faade Types
105
Figure 6.3.6.1-Cost per SF (from Table 6.3.6.1)
In this table it is seen that UDSF assembly; in order one, four, two then three, have the
least to the greatest costing impacts. In all four schemes there is at a minimum of a
doubling of cost which is expected as the surface area of the faade is more than double
that of the single skin options. When reviewing the chart we can see a minor overall
surface area increase for the UDSF systems which is due to the exterior envelope
increase in these design options. But the cost per SF of the materials to assemble to
UDSF is an increase of $60-$70 per square foot, median change of $65 per square foot
over the unitized faade. It can be seen that there is less off difference between the
median cost of a AGF which is $50-$65 per square foot, with a median of $57.50 more
for the UDSF. That is just for the material costs without complexity of the system. When
that is coupled with the gross complexity charge associated with each systems unique
design information we can see how the combination of the area increase and added
materials can cause a doubling of overall facade costs for the project. The costs for the
systems are rounded up to the nearest $10,000 as this is rough costing numbers we are
reviewing for the project. To fully understand these cost implications we must also
106
review the baseline study with associated energy savings to determine the payback cycle
for these systems which is reviewed in chapter 7.
107
Chapter 7 Inference from Process

This chapter will review the costing and associated performance gains to see if the UDSF
is a viability system.
7.1. Payback of systems

In the table below it is shown the payback period based on the construction cost
differences that were reviewed in Chapter 6. The delta cost for each of the system is the
difference between the AGF and the UDSF option four, which was the UDSF with the
lowest construction cost of the four. The breakdown of the energy costs associated with
each metropolitan area and their associated impact on the payback cycle of the systems
is noted as the baseline. It is seen that the energy cost for Los Angeles are the highest at
nearly $0.14 per kWh while Chicago has the lost cost at$0.08 per kWh. The mechanical
systems that were modeled and computed based the overall system off of electricity as
the fuel source we see only a cumulative number for electricity and not a further
breakdown of alternative fuel choices as this can have many regional variations in cost.
108
COST FOR TYPE B VS TYPE F IN VARYING CLIMATES (Table6.3.6.1)

AGF
Faade
Location
DSF
Delta Cost
Energy
Energy
Annual Cost Energy
Annual Cost Delta in
Cost
Consumption (Rounded to Consumption (Rounded to AGF/DSF
Elec/kWh in kWh (2) $100)
in kWh (3)
$100)
energy cost
(1)
Payback
Delta in
AGF/DSF
cost
Years to
for
payback
(4)
$
Los Angeles 0.14
858256
$
119,898
460141
$
64,300
$55,600
$4,560,000 82.1
Houston
$
0.09
958887
$
90,519
597392
$
56,400
$34,200
$4,560,000 133.4
Chicago
$
0.08
1424635
$
115,680
1074707
$
87,300
$28,400
$4,560,000 160.6
Energy data costs are per the U.S. Energy Information Administration 2010 data
Conversion of 3.412 kBtu = 1 kWh used
36" DSF cavity used for basis of DSF assembly
Payback period does not take into account increases in energy prices as this cannot be accurately predicted
Table7.1.1-Cost for Differing Faade Types
109
Figure 7.1.1-Annual Energy Cost (from Table 7.1.1)

When comparing the differences in energy costs and associated payback cycles of the
systems we see that the current energy costs weigh heavily into the payback cycle of these
systems. The UDSF assembly in Los Angles consumes roughly 60% of the energy of the
Chicago system but the difference in the energy costs makes the payback cycle based on
current energy costs to be nearly half of Chicago. In the case of the Houston faade we
see that Los Angeles uses roughly 90% of the energy as the Houston USDF but would pay
back the cost of the system upgrade in 60% of the time. This is critical in understand
that in all these cases with a payback cycle that appears to be quite lengthy it is shown
that the cost of energy is more closely associated with these systems than the
construction costs associated with the additional materials and complexity. It is not
possible to predict energy costs clearly in the future due to advances in technology for
generating and transmitting energy and possible world events which may change the raw
materials on a global sense.
110
7.2. Viability of a UDSF as an alternative

The information outlined in Chapter 6 and the previous section in Chapter 7 supports
that that the cost viability in current figures does not support a UDSF in any of these
climates. The payback cycle of over 80 years does not support a realistic payback period
for the initial investment of capital. This payback cycle is not realistic for a company to
invest the additional cost in a capital project such as building improvements.
There would be other conceivable alternative scenarios where it could be seen that the
payback cycle of the UDSF would become a viable alternative these alternative situations
are outlined in portions of the future work outlined in Chapter 8.
111
Chapter 8 -Future Work

8.1. Fine detailing of UDSF assembly
Fine detailing of the variable UDSF assemblies will be needed to understand viability of
actual fabrication. This detailing and structural performance of the faade will be
needed to understand the costing aspect to these UDSF assemblies.
8.2. UDSF shading option analysis

Review of the benefits of additional shading options other than internal shades on the
facades systems in computational testing runs. Since none of the systems accounted for
the shading benefits on the exterior of the building skin it is a further study that would
be helpful to review.
As part of the IES-VE system testing there was a minor review of a shading strategy to
see the responsiveness of the software to external shading devices. This was not tested
fully or counted as part of this paper.
8.3. Specific engineering to systems based on design criteria

The design criteria in Chapters 2-4 that defined the criteria that faade assemblies will
need to achieve will need to be reviewed further with these proposed systems prior to the
system becoming a realistic option. There can be issues with regards to many of these
prescriptive codes and how they will affect detailing and structural member sizing in
each system.
112
8.4. Mechanical system alternatives

The option of having the UDSF function for naturally ventilation the buildings and the
cavity was not reviewed in the paper. This additional function for the building may have
further energy reductions on the overall costs energy consumption used in a UDSF
system. This paper didnt review the possibility of creating a hybrid system for
performance of the faade system. There could be a variety of systems configurations
that could achieve potential energy consumption gains that are specific to each climate,
site and orientation.
8.5. Alternative UDSF assemblies and possible performance

gains
There could be a further review of alternative DSF configurations as outlined in chapter
2 and if these alternative configurations are able to achieve a more efficient faade than
the base case that was used in this paper.
8.6. Viability of UDSF in the future

There are a few ways that we could see these systems become economically viable in the
future.
In the case that where energy costs for building operation were to rise by significant
amounts it could be understood that there would be a reduced payback period. This
would take into account that the manufacturing costs did not spike higher at similar or
greater levels.
113
In the case where addition energy cost saving such as incentives from municipalities or
the national government would be in place for a building that was able to reduce its
energy consumption by a range that fell into the performance gains found in this paper.
If a property developer saw that the added cost of the faade allowed for marketability
that the all glass faade could not provide when going after a customer base. This could
be seen with companies that strive to be environmentally conscious yet still want the
faade appearance of an AGF.
If there were a project in which the owner/tenant wanted a building that was almost
solely a non-mechanically conditioned space, in that this building would need to
fundamentally temper the internal environment throughout much of the year with little
to no supplemental mechanical system to support the conditioning of the space. As was
seen in the computational runs for Los Angeles and Houston the DSF computational
tests showed a leveling of energy performance for much of the transitional seasons. This
would provide an option to an owner who was looking for a passive solution to creating
an appropriate interior environment.
The final case that comes to mind is the one where an owner is looking to make the
statement about a reduction in annual CO2 emissions due to a decrease in energy
consumption. There would be a higher CO2 emission at the initial fabrication stage of
the project but there would be a realized reduction in CO2 emissions due to a reduction
in the energy needed to power the building over the long term cycle of building
operation. This is hard to define to a finite level as understanding all the emissions
factors that go into the fabrication of a faade are virtually impossible. At the same time
understanding all the emissions offset from generating energy is equally as difficult.
114
Bibliography:
Bettenhausen, D.W., DeGanyar, T., & Vaglio, J.C. (n.d.). Doubleskin faade cavity
dynamics. Advanced Technology Studio, Enclos Corp, Los Angeles, CA 90051,
USA.
Blocken, B., Hens, H., Roels, S., & Saelens, D. (2005). Optimization of the energy
performance of multipleskin facades. Ninth International IBPSA Conference.
Montreal, Canada
Carmeliet, J., Hens, H., & Saelens, D. (2003). Energy performance assessment of
multiple skinfacades. HVAC&R Research, 9(2),167185.
Comparisons for one inch insulating glass units with PPG glass. (2011).Ideas Scapes.
Retrieved from www.ppgieadscapes.com
Gratia, E., & De Herde, A. (2006). The most efficient position of shading devices in a
doubleskin faade. Energy and Buildings, 364373.
Hens, H., & Saelens, D. (2001). Experimental evaluation of airflow in naturally
ventilated active envelopes. Journal of Thermal Environment and
Building,101127.
Hens, H., Roels, S., &Saelens D. (2003). On the influence of the inlet temperature in
multipleskin faade modeling. Eight International IBPSA Conference.
Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Kaneer, (2011). Clearwall Curtain wall. Retrieved from
http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/catalog/pdf/Curtain_wall/C
learwall--F.pdf
Low Emissivity (2012), in Wikepedia. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_emissivity
Patterson, M. (2008). Structural glass facades: a unique building technology (Masters
thesis). (UMI No. 1454120).
PPG monolithic glass comparisons. (2011).Idea Scapes.
www.ppgieadscapes.com
Retrieved from
R-Value (2012), in Wikepedia. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_value#U-value
Vaglio, J. (2011). Structural response of multistory doubleskin facades. Glass
Performance Days 2011, pp330356.
U.S. EIA, (2011). Electrical Power Annual 2010. U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/
115
Appendix-Data
Table A1- Chicago 12without shading -Building Energy Systems
Table A2- Chicago 12with shading- Building Systems Energy
116
Table A3 - Chicago 30 without shading-Building Systems Energy
Table A4- Chicago 30 with shading -Building Systems Energy
117
Table A5- Appendix -Chicago 36 without shading -Building Systems Energy
Table A6 - Chicago 36 with shading - Building Systems Energy
118
Table A7- Chicago 72 without shading - Building Systems Energy
Table A8 -Chicago 36 with shading - Building Systems Energy
119
Table A9 Houston 12 without shading - Building Systems Energy
Table A10 Houston 12 with shading - Building Systems Energy
120
Table A11Houston 30 without shading - Building Systems Energy
Table A12Houston 30 with shading - Building Systems Energy
121
122
123
Table A17Los Angeles 12 without shading - Building Systems Energy
Table A18Los Angeles 12 with shading - Building Systems Energy
124
125
126
127

84463

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

84463

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITIZED DOUBLE SKIN FAADE ASSEMBLIES:

ACHIEVING THE NEEDS OF FUTURE ENVELOPE SYSTEMS THROUGH

A Thesis Presented to the

Building Environmental Concerns .......................................................................... 3

Testing Procedure ..................................................................................................... 5

1.4.1. Building Modeling Geometry Defined..................................................................... 5

Chapter 2 Background Data ................................................................................................. 9

System Abbreviation ................................................................................................. 9

2.2.1. AGF System Diagram ............................................................................................... 9

Double Skin Facades............................................................................................... 21

2.3.1. DSF System Diagram .............................................................................................. 21

Unitized Faade Systems ........................................................................................ 37

2.4.1. Unitized System Diagram ....................................................................................... 37

Research Assumptions Described.......................................................................... 41

3.1.1. Building Geometry .................................................................................................. 41

Modeling Process ....................................................................................................46

3.2.1. Revit Modeling ........................................................................................................46

Constraints omitted from process ......................................................................... 53

3.3.1. Site orientation specificity ...................................................................................... 53

Chapter 4 Research Data Review....................................................................................... 56

Data From Process .................................................................................................. 56

4.1.1. Energy Data ............................................................................................................. 57

IES-VE Energy Data .............................................................................................. 60

4.2.1. Energy Data Charts for Reference ......................................................................... 61

IES-VE Microflo CFD data ..................................................................................... 79

Chapter 5 Inferences from Data ........................................................................................ 81

Review of a DSF vs AGF ......................................................................................... 81

5.1.1. Los Angeles............................................................................................................. 82

DSF vs AGF comparative charts and figure ......................................................... 84

Chapter 6 UDSF Design Thought Process ........................................................................ 87

UDSF Erecting and Structure ................................................................................ 87

6.1.1. Panel Assembly One ........................................................................................... 89

UDSF Glazing Panes ...............................................................................................94

6.2.1. UDSF Repair and Maintenance ............................................................................. 95

UDSF Professional feedback ................................................................................. 98

6.3.1. Constraints to design typically ...............................................................................99

Chapter 7 Inference from Process ...................................................................................108

Payback of systems ...............................................................................................108

Viability of a UDSF as an alternative .................................................................... 111

Chapter 8 -Future Work ...................................................................................................... 112

Fine detailing of UDSF assembly ......................................................................... 112

UDSF shading option analysis ............................................................................. 112

Specific engineering to systems based on design criteria .................................. 112

Mechanical system alternatives ........................................................................... 113

Alternative UDSF assemblies and possible performance gains ........................ 113

Viability of UDSF in the future ............................................................................ 113

Appendix - Data ................................................................................................................... 116

Table 5.2.3: DSF 30......85

Table A14Houston 36 with shading - Building Systems Energy.....122

Figure 4.2.2.9- Daily Energy Data Cooling-DSF Chicago (1000kBtu/h scale)......70

Chapter 1 Statement of Intent

1.2. Building Environmental Concerns

1.3. Research Points

UDSF Research Points (Items below are expanded in

UDSF envelope energy performance

Cavity depth specific to diverse climates based on energy consumption.

Constructability review of design assembly based on pros and cons to

Climate zone for implementation of the case-study assembly

Return of investment on the construction costs

1.4. Testing Procedure

Building Modeling Geometry Defined

There will be an offset building core of 60 from the building perimeter.

Model in Autodesk Revit for export energy modeling software.

Import geometry and design into IES-Microflow CFD.