Sustainability 09 00623

sustainability
Article
Early-Stage Design Considerations for the
Energy-Efficiency of High-Rise Office Buildings
Babak Raji *, Martin J. Tenpierik and Andy van den Dobbelsteen
Department of Architectural Engineering + Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment,
Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5043, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands; M.J.Tenpierik@tudelft.nl (M.J.T.);
a.a.j.f.vandendobbelsteen@tudelft.nl (A.v.d.D.)
* Correspondence: b.raji@tudelft.nl; Tel.: +1-778-681-1615
Academic Editor: Avi Friedman

Received: 10 March 2017; Accepted: 12 April 2017; Published: 17 April 2017
Abstract: Decisions made at early stages of the design are of the utmost importance for the
energy-efficiency of buildings. Wrong decisions and design failures related to a building’s general
layout, shape, façade transparency or orientation can increase the operational energy tremendously.
These failures can be avoided in advance through simple changes in the design. Using extensive
parametric energy simulations by DesignBuilder, this paper investigates the impact of geometric
factors for the energy-efficiency of high-rise office buildings in three climates contexts: Amsterdam
(Temperate), Sydney (Sub-tropical) and Singapore (Tropical). The investigation is carried out on
12 plan shapes, 7 plan depths, 4 building orientations and discrete values for window-to-wall ratio.
Among selected options, each sub-section determines the most efficient solution for different design
measures and climates. The optimal design solution is the one that minimises, on an annual basis,
the sum of the energy use for heating, cooling, electric lighting and fans. The results indicate that the
general building design is an important issue to consider for high-rise buildings: they can influence
the energy use up to 32%. For most of the geometric factors, the greatest difference between the
optimal and the worst solution occurs in the sub-tropical climate, while the tropical climate is the
one that shows the smallest difference. In case of the plan depth, special attention should be paid
in the case of a temperate climate, as the total energy use can increase more than in other climates.
Regarding energy performance, the following building geometry factors have the highest to lowest
influence: building orientation, plan shape, plan depth, and window-to-wall ratio.
Keywords: energy-efficiency; geometric factors; early-stage design; high-rise office building; plan
shape; orientation; window-to-wall ratio; compactness; energy modelling
1. Introduction
In the early phases of the design process, the design of a building may be influenced by
several factors such as site limitations, client demands (e.g., maximum space efficiency for return of
investment), functional and aesthetic quality, costs, building codes, urban regulations, and last but
not least the desire of the designer/client to reduce the environmental impact resulting from energy
consumption and CO2 emissions.
During the early design phases, the decisions made by the designer can have a significant
influence on the building’s energy performance [1]. The general building layout is of great importance
for minimising the energy loads and for enabling passive design strategies. There is a growing
awareness to use building performance simulation tools during the design process [2]. According to a
survey conducted by Athienitis and Attia [3], about 60% of energy models are created for the early
stage design. Building shape and orientation together with the general design of the envelope are the
main areas of focus for energy modelling during the early design phase.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 623; doi:10.3390/su9040623 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 623 2 of 28
2. Overview of Previous Studies

The impact of building shape on energy performance has been investigated widely since the
development of building performance simulation tools. Several studies have shown that a correlation
exists between a building’s compactness and its energy consumption [4–8]. Compactness of a building
is defined as the ratio of the area of the external envelope (A) to the volume (V). Findings showed that
compact shapes can result in lower energy consumption, especially in hot and cold climates [9].
A number of studies researched the application of the relative compactness (RC) coefficient for
creating predictive equations [4–6]. Relative compactness shows the deviation of the compactness
of a building from the most compact shape. An example is the study done by Pessenlehner and
Mahdavi [4]. They examined the reliability of the relative compactness indicator for the evaluation
and prediction of annual heating loads and the total number of overheating hours by running several
thermal simulations on hypothetical buildings with residential use in Vienna. A total number of
720 combinations were generated from 12 shapes, 4 orientations, 3 glazing ratios (10%, 25% and
40%) and 5 alternatives for the distribution of glazing across the external walls. 18 modular cells
(3.5 × 3.5 × 3.5 m) were integrated in different ways to create various building forms at a given volume.
Using the cube as a reference shape, the relative compactness of the different hypothetical buildings
was in a range between 0.98 and 0.62. They found that the respective correlation between heating load
and relative compactness (RC) is reasonably high (R2 = 0.88). Furthermore, they explored the accuracy
of the proposed regression equation to predict the heating load of five distinct shapes with the same
RC value (0.86). The simulated results deviated from the predicted values in a range between −15%
and +10%, which indicates the reliability of RC for assessing heating loads in buildings. However, the
predictions showed a large deviation (−80% to +130%) in case of overheating predictions.
Depecker, Menezo, Virgone and Lepers [5] investigated the relationship between shape (shape
coefficient) and the energy consumption for heating of buildings in a cold, and a mild climate at the
northern hemisphere. For the evaluation of the building’s thermal behaviour a calculation method
based on weighting factors was applied. In their study, 16 cubic elements (5.4 × 5.4 × 5.4 m) were
aggregated under two main categories of single- and multi-blocks to create 14 building morphologies.
For all buildings, the largest façade was facing along north-south and the proportional percentage of
glazed area to external walls was the same in all cases (south: 58%, east and west: 17% and north: 8%).
The correlation between the energy consumption for heating and the shape coefficient was investigated
for the studied shapes. The results showed that a good linear correlation (R2 = 0.91) existed in the
cold climate and that the shape coefficient turned out to be a good indicator to assess the energy
use for heating. In contrast, a weak correlation was found in case of the mild climate. Due to long
periods of sunshine, the incident solar energy flux through glazing is high; hence, heat losses from the
building skin have a smaller impact on the energy balance. As a result, the correlation between the
shape coefficient and energy consumption was weak. Furthermore, the results showed that building
shapes with higher total area of glazing (mostly non-monolithic forms) had less deviation from the
regression line.
Ourghi, Al-Anzi and Krarti [6] developed a calculation method that can predict the annual total
energy use of different building forms using the energy results obtained from a reference shape with
a square floor plan. For all building configurations, the total building volume of conditioned space
remained constant. Using the DOE-2 simulation tool, they came up with a correlation equation that
can predict accurately the relative annual total building energy use as a function of three parameters,
including relative compactness, glazing area and the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) of the glazing.
Furthermore, they found the impact of the insulation level of the building envelope to be insignificant.
However, this equation is only applicable for cities with cooling-dominated climates and the result is
only valid for buildings that have the same floor area and the volume of the reference building.
AlAnzi, Seo and Krarti [7] conducted an investigation on several plan shapes with different
geometric dimensions, window-to-wall ratios (WWRs) and orientations for the hot and arid climate of
Kuwait. They found that the annual total building energy use for all building shapes decreases as the
relative compactness increases. A change of the glazing area from 50% to 0% (no glazing) resulted in
the same trend; an increase of RC leads to a reduction of energy use. Additionally, they found that
orientation has an impact on building energy use, its effect however being almost independent of
the building’s shape, especially for lower values of the window-to-wall ratio. It should be noted that
their approach for the selection of building shapes can be subject of debate since a large number of the
analysed plan configurations were not appropriate for the architectural design of office buildings (e.g.,
2 m plan depth or no glazing for all directions).
Few studies took real case buildings to identify the impact of building shapes on energy
consumption. A comparative case-study was conducted by Choi, Cho and Kim [8] on tall residential
complexes in Korea in order to find the relation between building shape and energy consumption. They
compared two plan forms: a Y-shaped and an I-shaped floor plan. For the purpose of comparison, the
total electricity and gas consumption of households and common areas were calculated as a fraction of
the total floor area in each case. They found that a linear I-shaped floor plan performed better in terms
of total electricity consumption but consumed 10% more gas than the Y-shaped building. Furthermore,
they mentioned that the architectural arrangement of units can influence the energy consumption.
The Y-shaped building has three units around a central core while the two units of the I-shape building
have just one shared wall and therefore a larger ratio of external wall surface area to their volume.
In this study the insulation performance and the geographical location of both buildings were selected
in a way to be almost identical. However, the influence of other design parameters such as WWR or
building orientation was not discussed adequately where it may impact energy consumption.
Multiple studies have explored the optimal building shape by using numerical calculations [10]
or evolutionary algorithms such as the genetic algorithm (GA) [10–13]. There are some arguments for
and against the application of multi-objective optimisation methods in comparison with conventional
trial-and-error methods. New methods of optimisation by using GA allow the user to explore
site-specific complex building geometries without being restricted to a simple form [14]. On the
contrary, the simulations require a long time to run, the utilised method is complex and requires
specialised expertise and is therefore not easy to be used by designers [15]. Due to these constraints,
designers are still relying on conventional trial-and-error methods for decision making at early-stage
design despite the improvements that have been made in integrating optimisation methods into
simulation tools.
From the overview of previous studies, it can be highlighted that compactness is not the only
building layout measure influencing energy consumption, although it might be the most influential
parameter in climates that have a high demand for heating or cooling. Compactness does not reflect
the three-dimensional massing of a building’s shape (e.g., self-shading), the transparency of the
building enclosure (e.g., amount and distribution of windows), and the orientation of a building;
hence, corresponding gains and losses are not being accounted for, even if they might have impact
on energy consumption. In addition, most studies are on low-rises or a combination of building
heights (dependent on the shape to be compared). As a result, this study aims to investigate the impact
of building geometry of high-rise office buildings (40-storey) on the total energy use (and different
energy end-uses), by investigating different combinations of plan shapes, plan aspect ratios, windows
(percentage and distribution) and building orientations.
3. Methodology
The overall methodological scheme of this research is summarised in Figure 1. The main objective
of this study is to investigate the impact of geometry factors on energy-efficiency of high-rise office
buildings in three climates. The geometry factors that have been investigated in this research are
plan shape, plan depth, building orientation, window-to-wall ratio and window orientation. While
comparing the climate and population density maps, it shows that the most densely populated cities
around the world are mainly located in temperate, sub-tropical and tropical climates. These are the

places where the majority of tall buildings are being constructed. As a result, this study aimed to
answer the following questions in the context of the three climates:
What is the most energy-efficient building shape for high-rise office buildings?
What is the most energy-efficient building shape for high-rise office buildings?
Which aspect ratio of the floor plan performs best when considering the total energy use for
Which aspect ratio of the floor plan performs best when considering the total energy use for
heating, cooling, lighting and fans?
heating, cooling, lighting and fans?
To what extent can floor plan orientation influence the energy performance?
To what extent can floor plan orientation influence the energy performance?
What is the optimal range of glazed area for the different facades of high-rise office buildings?
What is the optimal range of glazed area for the different facades of high-rise office buildings?
Figure 1.
Figure Methodological scheme
1. Methodological scheme of
of research.
research.
Building Model
3.1. Building
To investigate the effect of geometry factors, DesignBuilder version 4.7 (DesignBuilder Software
Ltd., London,UK)
Ltd, London, UK)waswas used.
used. DesignBuilder
DesignBuilderisis aa powerful
powerful interface
interface thatthat incorporates
incorporates the EnergyPlus
simulation engine (version 8.3) to calculate building energy performance data. Building performance
indicators that were used to express the simulation results are the annual total energy consumption
indicators
and the breakdown of the total energy consumption consumption into into heating,
heating, cooling,
cooling, electric
electric lighting
lighting andand fans.
fans.
2
The energy
energy figures
figurespresented
presentedininthisthispaper
paperare are‘site
‘siteenergy’
energy’ ininkWh/m
kWh/m2ofofnet netfloor
floorarea.
area. Site energy
Site energy is
the amount of heat and/or electricity consumed by a building as shown on
is the amount of heat and/or electricity consumed by a building as shown on a utility bill. Since eacha utility bill. Since each floor
level has
floor levelone
hassingle
one thermal zone, the
single thermal net floor
zone, the netareafloor
is equal
areatoisthe areato
equal of the
the climatically
area of the conditioned
climatically
space. The number
conditioned space. of Thetime steps per
number hoursteps
of time was set perathour
6 for was
the heatset atbalance
6 for model
the heat calculation in this
balance model
study. Increasing the number of time steps improves accuracy but
calculation in this study. Increasing the number of time steps improves accuracy but increasesincreases the time it takes to runthea
simulation.
time it takesAtotimerunstep value of 6 A
a simulation. is the
timesuggested
step value value
of 6by is EnergyPlus
the suggested forvalue
simulations with HVAC
by EnergyPlus for
system (andwith
simulations 4 forHVAC
non-HVAC systemsimulations).
(and 4 for non-HVAC simulations).
The high-rise
high-risebuilding
buildingmodels
models have
havea total
a totalfloor areaarea
floor of 60,000 m2 that
of 60,000 m2isthat
distributed over 40over
is distributed storeys
40
with identical
storeys floor plans.
with identical floorDifferent buildingbuilding
plans. Different shapes and floorand
shapes plan aspect
floor planratios
aspectareratios
created areby using
created
an using
open an plan office layout 2 . Building
by open plan officewith
layout a given
with a floor
givenarea floorofarea
1500 of m
1500 m2. Building models
modelsare are
simplified
simplifiedby
defining
by defining oneonezone (activity)
zone forfor
(activity) thetheentire
entirefloor
floor area.
area.Each
Eachfacade
facadehas hasaaWWRWWRof of 50%
50% that
that is to all
façade elevations.
elevations.The Theproposed
proposed building
buildingmodels
models havehavea variable-air-volume
a variable-air-volume (VAV) (VAV)
dual-duct system
dual-duct
to provide comfort. Since each storey has the same height and floor
system to provide comfort. Since each storey has the same height and floor area, all models have area, all models have an equal
an
volume.
equal However,
volume. the external
However, surface
the external area differs
surface among
area differs the models;
among the models;hencehence
the extent of losses
the extent and
of losses
gains
and through
gains throughthe the
envelope
envelopeof the building.
of the building. The The inputs
inputsofofthe thesimulation
simulationfor forthe
the properties
properties of the
building and the operation details are described in Table Table 1.1.
Table 1. Simulation inputs for building’s properties and operation details.
Building Properties
External wall insulation U-Value: 0.35 W/m2-K
Roof insulation U-Value: 0.35 W/m2-K
Glazing type A 1 Dbl LoE (e2 = 0.1) Clr 6mm/13mm
U-Value Arg
SHGC 1.50 W/m2-K
Light transmission 0.57
Table 1. Simulation inputs for building’s properties and operation details.
Building Properties
External wall insulation U-Value: 0.35 W/m2 -K
Roof insulation U-Value: 0.35 W/m2 -K
Glazing type A 1 Dbl LoE (e2 = 0.1) Clr 6 mm/13 mm
U-Value Arg
SHGC 1.50 W/m2 -K
0.57
Light transmission
0.74
Glazing type B 2 Dbl LoE Spec Sel Clr 6 mm/13 mm
U-Value Arg
SHGC 1.34 W/m2 -K
0.42
Light transmission
0.68
Window-to-wall ratio 50%
Shading Blinds (inside) with high-reflectivity slats
Shading control type Glare
Maximum allowable glare index 22
Building Operation Details
HVAC system type Dual duct VAV
Heating Gas-fired condensing boiler
Heating set point temperature 20 ◦ C
Cooling DOE-2 centrifugal/5.50COP
Cooling set point temperature 24 ◦ C
Fan Power 2 W/l-s
Fan total efficiency 70%
Fresh air supply rate 10 L/s-person
Infiltration 0.5 ac/h
Lighting target illuminance 400 lux
Type of lighting Fluorescent
General lighting power density 3.4 W/m2 -100 lux
Office equipment gain 11.77 W/m2
Occupancy density 0.11 people/m2
Occupancy schedule Weekdays: 7:00–19:00; weekends: closed
1 Glazing type A is selected for temperate climates; 2 Glazing type B is selected for sub-tropical and tropical climates.
3.2. Sensitivity Test

Before the actual detailed simulations took place, first a sensitivity analysis on certain parameters
was done. For the purpose of simplification, almost all the building’s properties and operation details
were kept constant for all building models in the three climates, except for two envelope measures.
For high-rises, the envelope has a higher impact on gains and losses due to higher exposure to solar
radiation and wind; hence it is important to find the appropriate type of glazing and shading system
that suits each climate type best (functionally, economically and energy wise). For temperate climates,
the thermal transmission through a glass pane should be reduced by choosing a low U value glazing
type. On the other hand, passive heat gains and daylight penetration are highly desired for reducing
the heating and electric lighting loads (high SHGC and Light Transmission value). For hot climates,
the glazing type should be able to limit solar heat gains into the interior (low SHGC), while not
obstructing the transmission of light.
In order to have a better understanding of the relative variables, a sensitivity analysis (SA) was set
up. SA is a way of testing a variable in order to find out its effect on the building performance. With
regards to uncertain input parameters, different alternatives of glazing types and shading systems
were simulated and the variation was observed. A rectangle shape was selected for the purpose of
this sensitivity test. The reference building model has a plan aspect ratio of 3:1 and the long sides of
the building are facing south and north. The results of the SA are presented in Table 2. This analysis
showed that the demand for heating, cooling and lighting is highly responsive to changes in the
glazing type and shading system.
In a temperate climate, using triple-glazed glass has relatively the same effect on the total building
energy consumption as double-glazed glass. However, triple-glazed glass is more expensive and
therefore might not be the ideal choice for climates with low to average heating requirements. As a
result, a double-glazed low-emission clear glass was selected for temperate climates. Furthermore, it
was found that spectrally-selective glazing is most favourable for climates that need high light levels
and have a long cooling season like tropical and sub-tropical climates.
External shading (e.g., outdoor blinds) performed better in terms of energy saving and solar
control in all climates. A south façade (northern hemisphere) needs overhangs or fixed (stable)
blinds, whereas east or west facades require more dynamic shading. However, the vulnerability of
external shading to high wind speeds at high levels in tall buildings is an important barrier to their
implementation. Indoor shading devices are not prone to damage due to wind. However, shading that
covers the entire window surface reduces the view out and increases the need for artificial lighting
and cooling (due to greenhouse effect). Hence, all simulations were carried out by using indoor blinds
to control only glare.
Table 2. Sensitivity analysis of building envelope parameters.
Building Parameter Climate Values Max. Variation (kW h/m2 )

Temperate A *,max , D min 4.1
Glazing type Sub-tropical A max , B *,min , D 12.6
Tropical A, B *,min , C max , D 21.8
Temperate E min , F max , G * 11.3
Shading system Sub-tropical E, F max , G *, H min 6.7
Tropical E, F max , G *, H min 18.1
Glazing Description U-Value SHGC 1 TSOL 2 TVIS 3
Type A. Dbl LoE (e2 = 0.1) Clr 6 mm/13 mm Arg 1.50 0.57 0.47 0.74
Type B. Dbl LoE Spec Sel Clr 6 mm/13 mm Arg 1.34 0.42 0.34 0.68
Type C. Dbl Ref-A-H Clr 6 mm/13 mm Arg 2.26 0.22 0.13 0.18
Type D. Trp LoE (e2 = e5 = 0.1) Clr 3 mm/13 mm Arg 0.79 0.47 0.36 0.66
Shading Description Control Type
Type E. Blinds outside Solar: (120 W/m2 )
Type F. Blinds inside Solar: (120 W/m2 )
Type G. Blinds inside Glare: (glare index: 22)
Type H. Integrated shading system:
Solar: (120 W/m2 )
overhang 0.5 m + blinds outside
* The selected glazing type or shading system; min The design alternative that resulted in minimum energy
use; max The design alternative that resulted in maximum energy use; 1 SHGC = solar heat gain coefficient;
2 TSOL = direct solar transmission; 3 TVIS = light transmission
3.3. Location and Climate Type

For each climate type a representative city was selected and the climate data for one year
(2002) was obtained for energy simulations from the website of the US Department of Energy [16].
The representative cities are Amsterdam for the temperate climate, Sydney for the sub-tropical climate,
and Singapore for the tropical climate. A comparison of climatic features including heating degree
days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD), along with mean monthly air temperature and solar
radiation values can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 2 respectively. According to Table 3, the number of
HDDs for Amsterdam is 2759, which is five times greater than for Sydney. The number of CDDs for
Singapore is around 3657 which is considerably higher than for Sydney and Amsterdam.
Singapore, the solar radiation is intense, but to a great extent diffuse due to haze and clouds. The
temperature is high throughout the year and remains relatively constant. At midday, the annual
average values of the sun altitude is at 75° above the horizon, which is at a higher angle in comparison
with Sydney (56°) and Amsterdam (38°).
Table 3. Celsius-based
Table 3. Celsius-based heating
heating and
and cooling
cooling degree
degree days
days for
for aa base
base temperature
temperature of
of 18
18 °C
◦ C for
for the
the year
year
2002 [16].
2002 [16].
City Climate Type HDD CDD
City 1 Climate Type HDD CDD
Amsterdam Temperate 2759 149
1 Temperate 2759
Amsterdam
Sydney 2 Sub-tropical 594 896149
2 Sub-tropical
Sydney 3
Singapore 3
Tropical 0 594 3657896
Singapore Tropical 0 3657
1
1
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, The Netherlands (4.77E, 52.30N); 2
2 Sydney Airport, Australia (151.17E,
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, The Netherlands (4.77E, 52.30N); Sydney Airport, Australia (151.17E, 33.95S);
33.95S); 3 Singapore Changi Airport, Singapore (103.98E, 1.37N).
3 Singapore Changi Airport, Singapore (103.98E, 1.37N).
Figure 2.
2. Mean
Meanmonthly
monthlyvalues
valuesofofdry-bulb
dry-bulbtemperature and
temperature solar
and radiation
solar in: in:
radiation (a) Amsterdam; (b)
(a) Amsterdam;
Sydney; andand
(b) Sydney; (c) Singapore for for
(c) Singapore the the
yearyear
2002 [16].[16].
2002
Amsterdam is located on the northern hemisphere in a temperate climate with cool summers
and mild winters. The average monthly temperatures vary by 13.4 ◦ C. The ratio of direct to diffuse
radiation is equal in most part of the year. From the total number of daylight hours, 35% is sunny and
65% is cloudy or with haze and low sun intensity. The sun altitude peaks at 61.3◦ above the horizon
at solar noon around the 21 June, while at the winter solstice (around 21 December) it reaches its
highest angle at 14.5◦ . Sydney is located on the southern hemisphere and has a humid sub-tropical
climate. The mean monthly average temperatures have a low of 12.5 ◦ C in July and a high of 24.3 ◦ C
in January. For Sydney, the ratio of direct to diffuse radiation is the highest among the three cities, and
the majority of that radiation is direct. At lower latitudes close to the Equator, such as in Singapore,
the solar radiation is intense, but to a great extent diffuse due to haze and clouds. The temperature is
high throughout the year and remains relatively constant. At midday, the annual average values of the
Sustainability
sun altitude2017,
is at9,75 ◦ above the horizon, which is at a higher angle in comparison with Sydney (56
623 8 of◦28
)
and Amsterdam (38 ). ◦
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
Space heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting account for the largest amount of energy
consumption
Space heating, in buildings.
cooling,However,
ventilation theandproportional energy use
lighting account for inthecommercial
largest amountbuildings differs
of energy
from other building
consumption in buildings.usages. In anthe
However, office building,energy
proportional occupancy
use iniscommercial
during the day anddiffers
buildings lighting
fromis
paramount
other building therefor.
usages. In recent
In an years,
office the application
building, occupancy isofduringnew typesthe day of and
equipment
lighting in commercial
is paramount
buildingsInhas
therefor. contributed
recent years, thesignificantly
application to of
thenew
increase
typesofof electricity
equipment consumption.
in commercial Besides, the type
buildings hasof
air conditioning
contributed system
significantly andincrease
to the its efficiency, a building’s
of electricity consumption.operation
Besides, details,
the typeand its conditioning
of air construction
properties
system and have a big impact
its efficiency, on energy
a building’s use patterns.
operation details, and its construction properties have a big
impact The
on results
energy obtained from the simulations have shown that the energy use for cooling could
use patterns.
exceed
The that
results forobtained
heatingfromfor the
high-rise officehave
simulations buildings
shown thatlocated in temperate
the energy climates
use for cooling such
could as in
exceed
Amsterdam (see Figure 3). The heat accumulation from internal gains are
that for heating for high-rise office buildings located in temperate climates such as in Amsterdam (see an important component
of the 3).
Figure heat balance
The of an air-tightfrom
heat accumulation office building.
internal The
gains areinternal heat gains
an important resultingoffrom
component the presence
the heat balance
ofofan
occupants, officebuilding.
air-tight office equipment Theand electric
internal lighting
heat gains reduces
resultingthefromdemand for heating
the presence in winteroffice
of occupants, while
increasingand
equipment the electric
demand for cooling
lighting reduces inthe
summer.
demand Inforthis parametric
heating in winterstudy,
while a increasing
single activity (generic
the demand
office
for area)inwas
cooling used for
summer. In the
thisentire floor space.
parametric study, Allocating 100%(generic
a single activity of usableoffice
area area)
to perform
was usedoffice
forwork
the
contributed to the increased use of electricity by electric lighting and
entire floor space. Allocating 100% of usable area to perform office work contributed to the increased equipment and therefore
resulted
use in a higher
of electricity amountlighting
by electric of internalandheat gains than
equipment andexpected.
therefore Furthermore,
resulted in a the results
higher showed
amount of
that fansheat
internal account
gainsfor roughly
than 15–20Furthermore,
expected. per cent of thethe total energy
results use in athat
showed 40-storey office building
fans account for roughlywith
a VAV
15–20 perdual-duct
cent of the system.
total energy use in a 40-storey office building with a VAV dual-duct system.
Figure3.3.Breakdown
Figure Breakdownofofthethetotal
totalenergy
energyuse
useininaasimulated
simulated40-storey
40-storeyoffice
officebuilding
buildingwith
withrectangular
rectangular
floor
floorplan
plan(3:1)
(3:1)ininAmsterdam,
Amsterdam,Sydney,
Sydney,and
andSingapore.
Singapore.
Inthe
In thefollowing
followingsections
sectionsthe
theeffects
effectsofofgeometry
geometryfactors
factorson
onthe
thebuilding’s
building’senergy
energyperformance
performance
will be discussed. Building performance indicators that were used to express the simulation
will be discussed. Building performance indicators that were used to express the simulation results results
are
are the annual total energy consumption and the breakdown of total energy into different
the annual total energy consumption and the breakdown of total energy into different end-uses. In end-uses.
In this
this study,
study, the total
the total energy
energy consumption
consumption onlyonly includes
includes heating,
heating, cooling,
cooling, electric
electric lighting
lighting and and
fans fans
for
for these can be affected by the design of the
these can be affected by the design of the building. building.
4.1. Plan Shape and Building Energy Performance

Common shapes of floor plans for the design of high-rise office buildings were modelled in
DesignBuilder and their energy performance was investigated to find the most energy-efficient form
in the three climates. The study focused on 12 floor plan geometries including the circle, octagon,
ellipse, square, triangle, rectangle, courtyard (or atrium), H shape, U shape, Z shape, + shape and Y
shape, as can be seen in Table 4. In this table, some useful information regarding the compactness
coefficient, window distribution and plan depth of the selected geometries are summarised. All
4.1. Plan Shape and Building Energy Performance

Common shapes of floor plans for the design of high-rise office buildings were modelled in
DesignBuilder and their energy performance was investigated to find the most energy-efficient form in
the three climates. The study focused on 12 floor plan geometries including the circle, octagon, ellipse,
square, triangle, rectangle, courtyard (or atrium), H shape, U shape, Z shape, + shape and Y shape, as
can be seen in Table 4. In this table, some useful information regarding the compactness coefficient,
window distribution and plan depth of the selected geometries are summarised. All building models
have the same climatically conditioned floor area, but the ratio of surface area to volume differs from
one shape to another. A building with a circular plan (shape 1) has the minimum ratio of surface
area to volume; hence shape 1 is the most compact form. Since the volume of all plan shapes is equal,
the relative compactness of the other 11 geometries can be calculated by dividing the external surface
area of each building shape (Abui ) by the external surface area of the circle shape (Acir ).
In order to investigate the effect of plan shape on electric lighting loads, a plan depth indicator
was defined. Current practice suggests for ideal daylighting access in office buildings to limit the plan
depth to no more than 6–8 m from a window [17]. In this study the minimum range (6 m) was taken
to calculate the plan depth indicator. This indicator shows the percentage of office spaces that can be
accommodated within 6 m from the external façade. The quantity of electric lighting reduces when the
percentage of peripheral offices along the external façade becomes higher.
Furthermore, the share of each façade from the total glazing area was calculated by using the
following equation:
(Opening area on each façade/Total opening area) × 100
All the openings that are at an angle between 315–45◦ were assumed to have a north-facing
orientation. Accordingly, the share of openings on the other three main directions was calculated
as follows: 45–135◦ as east-facing windows, 135–225◦ as south-facing windows, and 225–315◦ as
west-facing windows. In the case of shape 5, no window is oriented at an angle between 315–45◦ ;
hence, share of the north façade from the total opening area is 0%. While, each of the other three
facades would have a one-third share of the total glazed area.
Sustainability
Sustainability 2017,
2017, 9,9,623
623 10 of 2810 of 28
In order to investigate the effect of plan shape on electric lighting loads, a plan depth indicator
was defined. Current practiceTable 4. Plan shapes
suggests isometric
for ideal views, window
daylighting distribution,
access in relative to
office buildings compactness
limit the and plan depth indicator.
Table 4. Plan shapes isometric views, window distribution, relative compactness and plan depth indicator.
plan depth to no more than 6–8 m from a window [17]. In this study the minimum range (6 m) was
Plan Shape Shape 1 Shape 2 Shape 3 Shape 4 Shape 5 Shape 6
taken
Plan to calculate the plan depth
Shape Shapeindicator.
1 This indicator
Shape 2shows the percentage
Shape 3of office spaces that 4
Shape Shape 5 Shape 6
can be accommodated within 6 m from the external façade. The quantity of electric lighting reduces
when the percentage of peripheral offices along the external façade becomes higher.
Furthermore, the share of each façade from the total glazing area was calculated by using the
following equation:
Share of each façade from(Opening area on each façade/Total opening area) × 100
Share of each
the totalAll
glazing area façade
(%) from the
totalthe openings
glazing area (%) that are at an angle between 315–45° were assumed to have a north-facing
orientation. Accordingly, the share of openings on the other three main directions was calculated as
follows:
Floor 45–135° as east-facing
plate dimensions 43.7windows,
m2 135–225°42.6 m
as south-facing majorand
windows, axis: 60
225–315° 38.7 m
as west- 51.1 m altitude
67.1 × 22.4
42.6 m major axis: 60 38.7 m 67.1 × 22.4
facingFloor plate dimensions
windows. In the case of shape43.7 5, 2
m no window between
isbetweenfacades
oriented minor
at an angle
facades
axis: 32
between
minor axis: 32 315–45°;
between
hence,
between
facades51.1 m altitude
facades
Length × width
Length × width
Relative compactness 100% 103% 107%
share of the north façade from the total opening area is 0%. While, each of the other three facades
Relative compactness 100% 103% 107% 113% 113% 128% 128% 130% 130%
Plan Plan
depthhave depth
indicatorindicator 47% 48% 52% 52% 58% 62%
would a one-third share47% of the total glazed area.48% 52% 52% 58% 62%
Plan ShapePlan Shape ShapeShape
7 7 Shape
Shape 88 Shape
Shape9 9 Shape 10
Shape 10 Shape 11Shape 11 Shape 12 Shape 12
Before the actual detailed simulations took place, first a sensitivity analysis on certain
parameters was done. For the purpose of simplification, almost all the building’s properties and
operation details were kept constant for all building models in the three climates, except for two
envelope measures. For high-rises, the envelope has a higher impact on gains and losses due to higher
Share of each façade from exposure to solar radiation and wind; hence it is important to find the appropriate type of glazing
Share of each
the total glazing area façade
(%) from the
total glazing area (%)
and shading system that suits each climate type best (functionally, economically and energy wise).
For temperate climates, the thermal transmission through a glass pane should be reduced by choosing
46.6 × 42.0 overalla low60.6 × 60.6glazing
U value overalltype. 54.4On the× 40.4 overall
other 76.1 ×heat
hand, passive 45.1gains
overall
and daylight penetration are highly
46.6 × 42.0 overall 60.6 × 60.6 overall 54.4 × 40.4 overall 76.1 × 45.1 overall 33.7 m wing lenght
14.0 m length × width desired lengthfor ×reducing
width the heating length ×and width
electric length loads
lighting × width
(high
33.7 SHGC
m wing and Light Transmission
lenght
Floor plate dimensions 14.0 m length × width length × width length × width length × width 14.0 m
Floor plate dimensions from void 14.014.0
mm 14.0 14.0 m
from void value).14.0 mmhot climates,14.0
For the14.0 m type should
mglazing 14.0 m be14.0 mto limit
able solar heat gains into the interior (low
between facades between facades between facades between facades between facades
between facades
between facades SHGC), between
whilefacades
not obstructing between facades
the transmission ofbetween
light. facades
Relative compactness 157% 175% 175% 176%each climate type
For 176%a representative 178%
city was selected and the climate data for
Relative compactness
Plan depth indicator 157% 86% 175%87% 175%
In
87% order to have a better
87% 176%understanding 87%of 176%
the relative variables,
87% a 178%
sensitivity analysis (SA) was
Plan depth indicator 86% 87% 87% was obtained for energy simulations
87%a variable in order 87% from the website
87% of the US Department of E
set up. SA is a way of testing to find out its effect on the building performance.
representative cities are Amsterdam for the temperate climate, Sydney for the sub-t
With regards to uncertain input parameters, different alternatives of glazing types and shading
and Singapore for the tropical climate. A comparison of climatic features including
The optimal balance of plan depth and building external surface area systems were simulated
for energy efficiency and
of a the variation was observed. A rectangle shape was selected for the
days (HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD), along with mean monthly air temper
40-storey office building was investigated by modelling seven aspect ratios purpose of an of equiangular
this sensitivity four- test. The reference building model has a plan aspect ratio of 3:1 and the
radiation values can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 2 respectively. According to Tabl
sided shape with 1500 m of office area per floor (Table 8). The aspect ratio is a measure
2 long sides of the building are
of thefor facing south and north. The results of the SA are presented in Table 2.
of HDDs Amsterdam is 2759, which is five times greater than for Sydney. The nu
building’s This analysis showed that
(x:y). demand
the for heating, cooling and lighting is highly responsive to
Sustainability footprint
2017, 9, 623;that describes the proportional relationship between
doi:10.3390/su9040623 its length and its width for Singapore
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability is around 3657 which is considerably higher than for Sydney and Ams
For an equal floor The rectangle is the the
area, changing second most
aspect efficient
ratio shapeinafter
will result thechanges
different ellipse.
externalin the
Accordingglazing
surface to type
area the and and shading
results, the system.
Amsterdam is located on the northern hemisphere in a temperate climate with
lowest cooling demand is around 32.3 kWh/m 2 and 32.8 kWh/m
plan depth. An aspect ratio of 1:1 represents a square plan shape which has the lowest envelope In 2 afor
temperate
the climate,
ellipse areawinters.triple-glazed
and using
rectangle glass has relatively the same effect on the total
and mild The average monthly temperatures vary by 13.4 °C. The ratio of d
respectively (see Table 6). As can be seen, reducing the west-facing building energy is
exposure consumption as double-glazed glass. However, triple-glazed glass is more expensive
of great importance
4.1.1. Temperate Climate

4.1.1. Temperate Climate
It is important to know the position of the sun in order to understand how the sun affects heat
gains orItheat
is important
losses in to know theFor
buildings. position
higheroflatitudes,
the sun in theorder to understand
sun path across thehow sky the
makessunmore
affects heat
seasonal
gains or heat losses in buildings. For higher latitudes, the sun path
variations. In summer, the sun path begins from north-east in the morning to a peak that is just below across the sky makes more
seasonal variations. In summer, the sun path begins from north-east in the morning to a peak that is
directly overhead in the noon, and then sets to the north-west in the evening. In winter, the sun rises
just below directly overhead in the noon, and then sets to the north-west in the evening. In winter,
south-east, paths a low arc across the sky, and sets south-west. Extending the long axis of a building
the sun rises south-east, paths a low arc across the sky, and sets south-west. Extending the long axis
along east-west has three advantages: it allows more daylight to enter a space, it limits overheating
of a building along east-west has three advantages: it allows more daylight to enter a space, it limits
by west-facing exposures during summer afternoons, and it maximises south-facing exposure for
overheating by west-facing exposures during summer afternoons, and it maximises south-facing
capturing
exposuresolar thermal energy
for capturing on winter
solar thermal energydays. on Moreover,
winter days. the high summer
Moreover, the highsunsummer
during sun mid-day
duringcan
be mid-day
easily blocked
can be by overhangs
easily blocked or by blinds
overhangswithout blocking
or blinds without diffuse daylight
blocking anddaylight
diffuse view. and view.
The percentile difference in Table 5 indicates a deviation
The percentile difference in Table 5 indicates a deviation in the total energy use in the total energy usebetween
between thethe
most
mostand and least
leastefficient
efficientforms.
forms.AAlarge large percentile
percentile difference
difference by byabout
about12.8%12.8%between
betweenthe the most
most andand
least efficient
least efficient forms
forms (shape
(shape3 3andand12 12respectively)
respectively) points points to to aa dominant
dominanteffect effectofofplan
planshape
shape onon energy
energy
consumption
consumption in temperate
in temperate climates.
climates. As As
shown shown in Figure
in Figure4, to 4,some extentextent
to some there is a correlation
there between
is a correlation
thebetween
annual total energy
the annual useenergy
total and the relative
use and the compactness in temperate
relative compactness climates.climates.
in temperate Generally, the larger
Generally,
thethe
envelope
larger the surface area,surface
envelope the higherarea,thetheamount
higher of theheat
amountgainsofand heat losses
gainsthrough
and losses the through
buildingthe skin.
Asbuilding
a result, skin.
compact As a shapes
result, compact
are moreshapesdesirableare more desirable
for energy for energy
saving. On thesaving. On thethe
other hand, other hand,
percentage
of the percentage
office areas that of office
can be areas that can be accommodated
accommodated along the building along theperimeter
building perimeter
increasesincreases
when havingwhen a
having
narrow a narrow
plan building, plansobuilding,
that lessso that less
electric electric
lighting lighting isDepending
is needed. needed. Depending
on the climateon theconditions,
climate
conditions, savings achieved by electrical loads and cooling loads
savings achieved by electrical loads and cooling loads (reduced internal gains due to less lighting)(reduced internal gains due to less
may
compensate or outperform the increased fabric losses due to an elongated form (compare shapeform
lighting) may compensate or outperform the increased fabric losses due to an elongated 1 with
(compare
shape shape 1 for
3). However, withbuildings
shape 3). withHowever, for buildings
LED lighting (insteadwithofLED lighting (instead
fluorescent of fluorescent
or incandescent) or
the effect
incandescent) the effect of reduced internal gains due to less lighting become negligible.
of reduced internal gains due to less lighting become negligible.
The circle (shape 1) is the most compact form among the others; however, it is not the most
The circle (shape 1) is the most compact form among the others; however, it is not the most energy
energy efficient form in temperate climates. The results showed that a high-rise building model with
efficient form in temperate climates. The results showed that a high-rise 2building model with an oval
an oval form (shape 3) has the lowest total energy use (about 81.6 kWh/m ). The external surface area
form (shape 3) has the lowest total energy use (about 81.6 kWh/m2 ). The external surface area of the
of the ellipse is about 7% larger than that of the circle and this will increase the amount of heat loss
ellipse is about 7% larger than that of the circle and this will increase the amount of heat loss through
through the building envelope in winter. However, the heating demand of the ellipse building is
theslightly
building envelope
lower than ofinthewinter.
circleHowever,
(0.2 kWh/m the2). heating
This slightlydemand betterof performance
the ellipse building is slightly
of the ellipse lower
in terms
than of the circle (0.2 kWh/m 2 ). This slightly better performance of the ellipse in terms of heating
of heating demand is due to a higher percentage of south-facing windows for an ellipse shape plan
demand
(35%) in is comparison
due to a higher with apercentage
circle shapeofplan south-facing
(25%). According windows for an and
to Straube ellipse shape
Burnett plan
[18], the(35%)
south in
comparison
façade canwith a circle
receive shape
twice the plan
heat (25%).
gain ofAccording
east and west to Straube
façadesand in Burnett
winter at [18], the south
a latitude of façade
45°.
canConsidering
receive twice the heat gain of east and west façades in winter at a latitude of 45 ◦ . Considering the
the electric lighting demand, the circle has the maximum plan depth and a large part of
electric lighting
the floor area demand,
may needthe circlelighting
electric has the during
maximum most plan depth
of the dayand time.a large part ofconsumption
The energy the floor areafor may
need electric
electric lighting
lighting during
is 17.2 and most of the 2day
17.9 kWh/m for time. The energy
the ellipse and theconsumption for electric lighting is 17.2
circle respectively.
and 17.9 kWh/m2 for the ellipse and the circle respectively.
Figure
Figure 4. 4.Building
Buildingtotal
total energy
energy use
use of
of 12
12 plan
plan shapes
shapes (window-to-wall
(window-to-wallratio
ratio(WWR)
(WWR)= =
50%) in in
50%)
association
association with
with theircompactness
their compactnessininAmsterdam
Amsterdam (4.77E,
(4.77E, 52.30N).
52.30N).
Sustainability 2017, 9, 623; doi:10.3390/su9040623 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 5. Breakdown of annual energy consumption per conditioned area for 12 plan shapes
(WWR = 50%) in Amsterdam (4.77E, 52.30N).
Breakdown of Annual Total Energy Demand Annual Total Energy Demand
Plan Shape Heating/ Cooling/ Lighting/ Fan/ Total/

Percentile
Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned
Difference (%)
Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 )
Shape 1 15.1 22.5 17.9 27.3 82.8 1.4%
Shape 2 15.2 22.6 17.1 27.4 82.3 0.9%
Shape 3 ® 14.9 22.5 17.2 27.0 81.6 -
Shape 4 15.2 23.5 17.5 28.7 84.9 4.0%
Shape 5 15.6 24.3 16.4 29.7 86.1 5.4%
Shape 6 15.5 24.2 15.8 29.4 84.9 4.0%
Shape 7 18.5 24.1 14.6 30.5 87.6 7.3%
Shape 8 19.2 24.4 15.6 31.2 90.4 10.7%
Shape 9 19.7 24.6 13.9 31.4 89.6 9.7%
Shape 10 19.5 24.3 14.6 31.0 89.4 9.5%
Shape 11 18.5 25.8 14.0 32.6 90.8 11.2%
Shape 12 18.9 26.0 14.4 32.9 92.1 12.8%
® Reference (the most efficient design option).
According to the simulations, a high-rise building model with a square shape (1:1) and a rectangle
shape (3:1) both resulted in the same total amount of energy consumption in the temperate climate.
The rectangle shape used more energy for heating, cooling and fans than its deep plan equivalent
(square shape) due to additional transmitted heat through the façade. On the other hand, the rectangle
form has higher percentage of peripheral offices along the external façade and therefore a better access
to daylighting. The energy savings by electric lighting compensate for the extra HVAC energy demand.
So, these two forms might be used interchangeably by designers when there are design restrictions to
choose one of them.
The triangle (shape 5) and Y shape (shape 12) forms both showed considerable increased cooling
demand compared to the other forms. East- and west-facing windows are a major factor in overheating
of buildings in temperate climate. These plan shapes, that maximise east- and west-facing exposures,
should therefore be avoided.
Almost 90% of office spaces can be placed within 6 m from the building enclosure when having
an enclosed courtyard form (shape 7). It has less external surface area compared to linear forms.
As a result, it performs better than linear shapes but is less efficient than other forms with higher
compactness. It is worth to mention that the central atrium’s height-to-width ratio is very limited in
this case (11:1), so that it could not contribute efficiently to the reduction of energy demand for electric
lighting. This indicated that atrium geometry has a crucial importance for the penetration of daylight
to adjacent rooms.
Floor plan shapes that resulted in minimum lighting demand are the + shape (shape 9) and Z
shape (shape 11). Shape 9 received the lowest amount of solar gains among the linear shapes during
winter due to self-shading by extended wings. For that reason, it has the highest amount of heating
energy use (about 19.7 kWh/m2 ). This plan geometry may perform better in tropical climates in which
solar gain protection is critical for achieving energy-efficient buildings.
4.1.2. Sub-Tropical Climate

On the southern hemisphere, the geometry of a building should be reversed compared to on
the northern hemisphere. Among the 12 studied building shapes, a 180◦ rotation of plan would
have no impact on the building’s energy performance except for asymmetrical shapes. Therefore, the
orientation of only three shapes, namely shapes 5, 10 and 12, are reversed (180◦ rotation) for optimal
energy results. In summer, building surfaces that receive the most sun are the roof and the east- and
west-facing walls. In winter, the sun paths a lower arc across the sky, and the north-facing wall receives
the most solar radiation while the south wall of a building receives limited solar radiation in summer
(and in winter), only in the morning and evening.
receives the most solar radiation while the south wall of a building receives limited solar radiation in
summer (and in winter), only in the morning and evening.
In Sydney, the solar radiation is intense and to a great extent direct. The number of cooling
degreeIn days
Sydney,are almost
the solartwice as much
radiation is as the number
intense and toofaheating degreedirect.
great extent days. High internal gains
The number from
of cooling
windows,
degree daysoccupants,
are almost lighting, computers
twice as much as the and office
number appliances
of heating degreelimit theHigh
days. building’s
internaldemand
gains from for
heating drastically. As a result, the efficiency of plan shapes is mostly determined
windows, occupants, lighting, computers and office appliances limit the building’s demand for heating by the energy
demand forAs
drastically. cooling, fans
a result, theand electricof
efficiency lighting.
plan shapes is mostly determined by the energy demand for
For fans
cooling, the sub-tropical climate of Sydney, the results show that the ellipse (shape 3) has the lowest
and electric lighting.
total For
energy use (72.0 kWh/m
the sub-tropical climate
2), while the highest energy use was found for the Y shape (shape 12)
of Sydney, the results show that the ellipse (shape 3) has the lowest
(83.3 energy
total kWh/muse 2 or 15.7% higher2than shape 3) (see Figure 5). According to the results, the amount of
(72.0 kWh/m ), while the highest energy use was found for the Y shape (shape 12)
energy
(83.3 used for
kWh/m 2 orspace
15.7% cooling
higherand than fans is slightly
shape 3) (see lower
Figurein5).compact
Accordingforms. Theresults,
to the energythe
useamount
for fansof is
calculated based on the supply air flow rate, pressure drop and fan efficiency.
energy used for space cooling and fans is slightly lower in compact forms. The energy use for fans is The supply fan only
runs whenbased
calculated either oncooling
the supplyor heating
air flow needs to be supplied
rate, pressure drop andtofan the zone. For
efficiency. elongated
The supply fanshapes,
only runsthe
increased length of ducts increases the energy use for fans due to higher pressure
when either cooling or heating needs to be supplied to the zone. For elongated shapes, the increased drops (compare
shape 1ofand
length ductsshape 6). Contrary
increases the energyto this,
use aforvery
fansdeep
due plan like the
to higher circle drops
pressure shape(compare
would demand
shape 1more and
electrical
shape lighting; tohence
6). Contrary this, amore cooling
very deep planislike
needed to compensate
the circle shape wouldthe excessive
demand more internal
electricalgains by
lighting;
lighting and more energy is required for the distribution of cold air by fans.
hence more cooling is needed to compensate the excessive internal gains by lighting and more energy
is required for the distribution of cold air by fans.
Building total
5. Building
Figure 5. total energy
energy use
use of
of 12 plan shapes (WWR = 50%) in association with their
their
compactness
compactness in
in Sydney
Sydney (151.17E,
(151.17E, 33.95S).
33.95S).
The rectangle
The rectangle is is the
the second
second mostmost efficient
efficient shape
shape afterafter the
the ellipse.
ellipse. According
According to to the
the results,
results, the
the
lowest cooling
lowest cooling demand
demand isis around
around 32.3 32.3kWh/m
kWh/m2 and2
and 32.832.8 kWh/m
kWh/m 2 for
2
for the
the ellipse and rectangle
ellipse and rectangle
respectively (see Table 6). As can be seen, reducing the west-facing exposure
respectively (see Table 6). As can be seen, reducing the west-facing exposure is of great importance to is of great importance
to limit
limit overheating
overheating during
during thethe
hothot afternoon
afternoon hours
hours in summer.
in summer. TheThe compactness
compactness of of
thethe circle
circle (shape
(shape 1)
1) and the octagon (shape 2) are almost equal and therefore the energy use
and the octagon (shape 2) are almost equal and therefore the energy use for cooling and fans are almost for cooling and fans are
almost
the same theassame
well.asNonetheless,
well. Nonetheless, the 8-sided
the 8-sided polygon polygon resulted
resulted in 0.8in 0.8 kWh/m
kWh/m
2 lower energy use
2 lower energy use for
for electric lighting, which is closer to that of the rectangle
electric lighting, which is closer to that of the rectangle and the ellipse. and the ellipse.
The Z
The Z shape
shape (shape
(shape11) 11)hashasthethebest energy
best energy performance
performance amongamongthe linear
the linearshapes and even
shapes and
outperformed the courtyard and the triangle (that both have higher
even outperformed the courtyard and the triangle (that both have higher relative compactness). relative compactness). The
extended
The extendedtop-side wing
top-side of the
wing Z shape
of the Z shape design
designhelps
helps totominimise
minimiseafternoon
afternoonsolar
solargains
gains byby providing
providing
self-shading for a part of the north- and west-facing walls. The H shape (shape
self-shading for a part of the north- and west-facing walls. The H shape (shape 8) also benefits from 8) also benefits from
self-shading by
self-shading by means
means of of external
external wings,
wings, however
however the the distribution
distribution of of windows
windows beingbeing not
not as
as effective
effective
for daylighting as the U shape
for daylighting as the U shape (shape 10).(shape 10).
After the
After the circle,
circle, the
the triangle
triangle hashas the
the second
second largest
largest energy
energy use
use for
for electric
electric lighting.
lighting. TheThe two
two sides
sides
of the
of the inverted
inverted triangle
triangle shape
shape areare facing
facing toward
toward morning
morning and and evening
evening solar
solar radiation
radiation during
during summer.
summer.
Low sun angles in the morning and evening are a source of glare
Low sun angles in the morning and evening are a source of glare when daylighting is provided when daylighting is provided
through
through
east- andeast- and west-facing
west-facing windows. windows. For all building
For all building models,models, high reflective
high reflective blinds are blinds are adjusted
adjusted inside
the building to provide visual comfort for office occupants. Shading is on if the total daylight glare
index exceeds the maximum glare index specified in the daylighting input for an office zone. The high
amount of electric lighting demand for the triangle shape is probably caused by longer shading hours,
so that less daylight can enter the space.
Table 6. Breakdown of annual energy consumption per conditioned area for 12 plan shapes
(WWR= 50%) in Sydney (151.17E, 33.95S).
Plan Shape Heating/ Cooling/ Lighting/ Fan/ Total/

Percentile
Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned
Difference (%)
Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 ) Area (kW h/m2 )
Shape 1 0.4 33.5 13.6 27.6 75.2 4.5%
Shape 2 0.4 33.6 12.8 27.7 74.6 3.7%
Shape 3 ® 0.3 32.3 12.7 26.5 72.0 -
Shape 4 0.4 34.2 12.6 28.4 75.7 5.1%
Shape 5 0.4 35.8 13.5 30.1 79.8 10.9%
Shape 6 0.3 32.8 11.7 28.0 72.8 1.2%
Shape 7 0.5 36.0 11.8 30.1 78.4 9.0%
Shape 8 0.5 36.3 11.3 30.5 78.5 9.1%
Shape 9 0.6 36.9 11.4 31.1 80.0 11.1%
Shape 10 0.5 37.1 10.7 31.3 79.6 10.5%
Shape 11 0.4 35.9 10.6 30.2 77.0 7.0%
Shape 12 0.4 39.1 10.3 33.5 83.3 15.7%
4.1.3. Tropical Climate

At latitudes closer to the equator, such as Singapore, the solar radiation is intense and to a great
extent diffuse due to clouds. The sun rises almost directly in the east, peaks out nearly overhead, and
sets in the west. This path does not change much throughout the year and the average air temperature
is almost constant. On the one hand, a major design objective is reducing the heat transfer through the
external surfaces exposed to outside high temperatures. For this purpose, a compact shape has less
surface-to-volume ratio and can save more energy. On the other hand, the shape and orientation of the
building should minimise the solar heat gains to lighten the cooling load. East- and west-facing walls
and windows are a major factor in overheating. Therefore, the best orientation of the building for sun
protection is along the east-west axis. The design objectives above are often contradictory.
In Singapore, cooling is paramount. Three shapes including the octagon, the ellipse and the
circle require a lower amount of cooling energy and perform better than the others. The breakdown
of annual energy consumption results for these three shapes indicates the superior function of the
octagon shape for saving electric lighting which makes the octagon to have a better performance than
the ellipse (+0.4%) and the circle (+0.5%) (see Figure 6 and Table 7).
The east and west-facing facades of the rectangle (shape 6) have the smallest portion of glazing
area (glazing is only 12% on each side). Enclosing 1500 m2 of floor area by a rectangle shape will
increase the building’s external surface area to 130% of the most compact form (shape 1). The results
show an increase of total energy use by 3% compared to the most efficient form (shape 2).
The Y shape (shape 12) has the lowest energy performance. In tropical climates, cooling is the
main end-use of energy; it considerably increases as the solar gains increase. In general, the risk of
overheating is higher for buildings that have larger east- and west-facing walls. Having a wind turbine
shape, about one third of the façade is irradiated half a day: during the morning the east façade is
irradiated, and during the afternoon the west façade. As a result, shadings are required during a
longer period to control the excessive glare, so that less daylight can enter the space. Moreover, the Y
shape has the highest ratio of volume-to-external-surface area among all plan shapes (178%). Due to
the aforementioned reasons, a high-rise building with a Y shape plan has the lowest performance of
the investigated shapes, showing up to 11% increase in total energy use.
(178%). Due to the aforementioned reasons, a high-rise building with a Y shape plan has the lowest
performance of the investigated shapes, showing up to 11% increase in total energy use.
Figure Buildingtotal
Figure 6.6. Building totalenergy
energyuseuseof of
12 12 plan
plan shapes
shapes (WWR
(WWR = 50%)
= 50%) in association
in association with their
with their
compactness in Singapore
compactness Singapore(103.98E,
(103.98E,1.37N).
1.37N).
Table 7.
Table 7. Breakdown
Breakdown of annual energy
of annual consumption
energy per conditioned
consumption area for 12 plan
per conditioned areashapes
for 12(WWR
plan =shapes
50%) in Singapore (103.98E, 1.37N).
(WWR = 50%) in Singapore (103.98E, 1.37N).
Heating/ Breakdown
Cooling/of AnnualLighting/
Total Energy DemandFan/ Annual Total Energy Demand
Total/
Plan
Plan Shape Conditioned
Heating/ Conditioned
Cooling/ Conditioned
Lighting/ ConditionedFan/ Conditioned
Total/ Percentile
Shape Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned
Percentile
Conditioned Difference (%)
Area 2
Area 2
Area 2
Area 2
Area 2 Difference (%)
Area (kW2 h/m ) Area (kW h/m ) Area (kW h/m ) Area (kW h/m ) Area (kW h/m )
(kW h/m ) (kW h/m )2
(kW h/m ) 2
(kW h/m )2
(kW h/m )2
Shape
Shape 1 1® 0.0 0.0 75.4 75.4 11.7 11.7 28.4 28.4 115.5 115.5 0.5% 0.5%
Shape ®2 0.0 75.5 10.8 28.6 114.9 -
Shape 2
Shape 3 0.0 0.0 75.5 75.5 10.8 11.3 28.6 28.4 114.9 115.3 - 0.4%
Shape 34
Shape 0.0 0.0 75.5 76.7 11.3 11.3 28.4 29.5 115.3 117.6 0.4% 2.4%
Shape
Shape 45 0.0 0.0 76.7 79.0 11.3 10.4 29.5 31.6 117.6 121.0 2.4% 5.4%
Shape 6 0.0 77.8 10.2 30.3 118.3 3.0%
Shape 5 0.0 79.0 10.4 31.6 121.0 5.4%
Shape 7 0.0 79.0 10.6 31.4 121.0 5.4%
Shape 68
Shape 0.0 0.0 77.8 80.1 10.2 9.7 30.3 32.3 118.3 122.1 3.0% 6.3%
Shape
Shape 79 0.0 0.0 79.0 79.6 10.6 8.7 31.4 31.9 121.0 120.2 5.4% 4.7%
Shape
Shape 8 10 0.0 0.0 80.1 81.0 9.7 9.2 32.3 33.2 122.1 123.3 6.3% 7.4%
Shape 11 0.0 80.5 8.7 32.2 121.4 5.7%
Shape 9 12
Shape 0.0 0.0 79.6 82.9 8.7 9.8 31.9 34.8 120.2 127.4 4.7%11.0%
Shape 10 0.0 81.0
® Reference (the9.2 33.2 123.3 7.4%
most efficient design option).
Shape 11 0.0 80.5 8.7 32.2 121.4 5.7%
Shape 12 0.0 82.9 9.8 34.8 127.4 11.0%
4.1.4. Suitability of Plan Shape for Architectural
® Reference Designdesign option).
(the most efficient
InSuitability
4.1.4. this study,ofenergy efficiency
Plan Shape was the main
for Architectural indicator for investigating the optimal plan shape.
Design
Other factors that might play a role for selecting the plan shape are space efficiency, natural ventilation,
In this study, energy efficiency was the main indicator for investigating the optimal plan shape.
material use, structure, and aesthetic qualities [19]. Obviously, for two plan shapes that have almost
Other factors that might play a role for selecting the plan shape are space efficiency, natural
the same energy performance, the priority would be with the one that can provide multiple benefits
ventilation, material use, structure, and aesthetic qualities [19]. Obviously, for two plan shapes that
rather than mere energy efficiency. Therefore, it is worth to briefly discuss the suitability of plan shapes
have almost the same energy performance, the priority would be with the one that can provide
from different
multiple perspectives
benefits rather than formere
architectural design ofTherefore,
energy efficiency. tall buildings.
it is worth to briefly discuss the
In terms of space efficiency, the floor slab shape is of great
suitability of plan shapes from different perspectives for architectural importance. It influences
design of tall buildings. the interior
space In planning
terms of space efficiency, the floor slab shape is of great importance. It influencesofthe
and structural system. Generally, the planning and furnishing right angled or
interior
asymmetrical
space planning and structural system. Generally, the planning and furnishing of right angled orshapes.
shapes are easier than floor slabs with sharp corners, and curved or irregular
Furthermore,
asymmetricalthe planare
shapes shape can
easier affect
than floorthe choice
slabs withfor the corners,
sharp internaland
circulation
curved orpattern; hence
irregular the space
shapes.
Furthermore,
efficiency. the of
In case plan
H shape
shape,can affect or
+ shape theYchoice
shapefor the internal
more circulation
floor area is taken uppattern; hence thedue
by corridors space
to longer
efficiency. In case of H shape, + shape or Y shape more floor area is taken up by
circulation routes in comparison with compact forms with a central service core. This may reduce corridors due to the
percentage of usable space.
The application of natural ventilation has a major impact on selecting the plan shape. Narrow
plan depth and aerodynamic building form (e.g., circle or ellipse) can assist in natural ventilation.
The aerodynamic form encourages the flow of wind around the external envelope and into the building
from a wide range of directions [17]. This also reduces turbulence around the building and improves
pedestrian comfort at street level. The narrow plan depth facilitates the flow of air across the space
longer circulation routes in comparison with compact forms with a central service core. This may
reduce the percentage of usable space.
The application of natural ventilation has a major impact on selecting the plan shape. Narrow
plan depth2017,
Sustainability and9,aerodynamic
623 building form (e.g., circle or ellipse) can assist in natural ventilation. 16 of 28
The aerodynamic form encourages the flow of wind around the external envelope and into the
building from a wide range of directions [17]. This also reduces turbulence around the building and
and enhances
improves the effectiveness
pedestrian of natural
comfort at street level. ventilation.
The narrow plan In contrast, for buildings
depth facilitates the flow with
of aira deep
acrossplan
cross-ventilation can hardly occur, so that buildings require vertical shafts such
the space and enhances the effectiveness of natural ventilation. In contrast, for buildings with a deep as an atrium or solar
chimney to facilitate natural
plan cross-ventilation ventilation.
can hardly occur, soThethatapplication of large
buildings require elements
vertical shaftslike thatascan
such minimise
an atrium or the
efficient use of to
solar chimney floor spacenatural
facilitate [17]. ventilation. The application of large elements like that can minimise
Lookinguse
the efficient from the structural
of floor space [17].perspective and material use, asymmetrical compact forms, with
Looking from
the structural the structural
and functional coreperspective
in the centre,andarematerial use, asymmetrical
more resistant to lateral compact
loads (e.g.,forms,
due with
to wind
ortheearthquakes)
structural andand functional
requirecore
lessinmaterial
the centre,forare
themore resistant
bracing to lateral
structure [20].loads
On (e.g., due tohand,
the other wind the
or earthquakes)
surface and require
of curvilinear shapesless material
(circle for the bracing
or ellipse) structure
represents [20]. On
a smaller the other
physical hand,
barrier the surface
against wind as
of curvilinear shapes (circle or ellipse) represents a smaller physical barrier
compared to flat surfaces (square or rectangle), so that wind loads significantly reduce. Shape against wind as compared
(size and
to flat surfaces
configuration (square
of the floor or rectangle),
plan) is the mostso that wind cost
important loadsdriver
significantly reduce. Shape
for the construction (sizebuildings.
of tall and
Itconfiguration
can contribute of the
upfloor plan)
to 50% of is the net
total mostcost
important
due to cost driver for impact
its profound the construction
on the cost of tall buildings. and
of structure
It can contribute up to 50% of total net cost due to its profound impact on the cost of structure and
façade [21]. The two key ratios that represent the relationship between shape and cost are: wall-to-floor
façade [21]. The two key ratios that represent the relationship between shape and cost are: wall-to-
ratio and net-to-gross floor area ratio. The latter determining the efficient use of floor space. While
floor ratio and net-to-gross floor area ratio. The latter determining the efficient use of floor space.
the former represents the amount of wall area that is required to enclose a certain area of floor space.
While the former represents the amount of wall area that is required to enclose a certain area of floor
From a cost perspective, the lower wall-to-floor ratio is better, so that a compact shape is the most
space. From a cost perspective, the lower wall-to-floor ratio is better, so that a compact shape is the
economical choice [21].
most economical choice [21].
Elongated
Elongated floor plates that
floor plates thathave
havean anincreased
increasedperimeter
perimeter area
area (or(ordeepdeepplan plan shapes
shapes thatthat
havehavea a
central atrium) are favouring shapes for daylight access and views out in workplaces
central atrium) are favouring shapes for daylight access and views out in workplaces [17]. However, [17]. However,
the
theelongated
elongated sides should not
sides should notbebeoriented
orientedtoward
towardeasteast
oror west;
west; sincesince there
there is aisrisk
a risk of overheating
of overheating
and glare discomfort. Curvilinear shapes can provide a panoramic view
and glare discomfort. Curvilinear shapes can provide a panoramic view to outside and improve to outside and improvethe the
aesthetic
aestheticqualities
qualities of design.
design. Curvilinear
Curvilinearshapes
shapesmight
might also
also contribute
contribute in building’s
in building’s energy
energy efficiency
efficiency
and
andprovide
provide more
more sustainable solutions[22].
sustainable solutions [22].
4.2.
4.2.Plan
Plan Depth
Depth and Building Energy
and Building EnergyPerformance
Performance
The
The optimal balanceof
optimal balance ofplan
plandepth
depthandand building
building external
external surface
surface areaarea for energy
for energy efficiency
efficiency of a of
a40-storey
40-storeyoffice
office building
building waswas investigated
investigated by modelling
by modelling seven seven aspectofratios
aspect ratios of an equiangular
an equiangular four-
sided shape
four-sided withwith
shape 15001500 2 of office
m2 ofmoffice area area
per floor (Table
per floor 8). The
(Table aspect
8). The ratioratio
aspect is a is
measure
a measureof the
of the
building’s footprint
building’s footprint that describes the proportional relationship between its length and its
describes the proportional relationship between its length and its width (x:y). width (x:y).
Foran
For anequal
equalfloor
floorarea,
area,changing
changingthe theaspect
aspectratio
ratiowill
willresult
resultinindifferent
differentexternal
externalsurface
surfacearea
areaand
andplan
plan depth.
depth. An aspect
An aspect ratioratio
of 1:1ofrepresents
1:1 represents a square
a square planplan shape
shape which
which has
has thethelowest
lowestenvelope
envelopearea
area and
andlargest
the the largest plan depth
plan depth (38.7
(38.7 m) m) among
among the rectangular
the rectangular shapes.shapes.
OtherOther
aspectaspect
ratiosratios
have have
been been
made by
made by extending the length of the floor plans along the east-west axis. So, the
extending the length of the floor plans along the east-west axis. So, the long sides of the building long sides of the will
building
face in thewill face in of
direction thenorth
direction
and of north and south.
south.
Table 8.
Table 8. Plan aspect
aspect ratios
ratiosand
andthe
theresults
resultsofofbuilding
buildingenergy performance
energy in three
performance climates.
in three climates.
Plan Aspect
Plan Aspect 1:1
1:1 2:1
2:1 3:1
3:1 4:1
4:1 5:1
5:1 8:1
8:1 10:1
10:1
Ratio
Ratio
Building shape
Building shape
Share of each
façade
Share offrom
each
façade from the
the total
total glazing
glazing area
area (%)
(%)plate
Floor
dimensions 38.7 × 38.7 m 54.8 × 27.4 m 67.1 × 22.4 m 77.5 × 19.4 m 86.6 × 17.3 m 109.5 × 13.7 m 122.5 × 12.2 m
length × width
Relative
100% 120% 130% 140% 150% 180% 197%
compactness
Plan depth
52% 56% 62% 68% 74% 89% 98%
indicator
The building performance simulation results of the seven plan aspect ratios are provided in
Figure 7 and Appendix A. In temperate climates, the most compact form (1:1) requires the lowest
Plan depth
52% 56% 62% 68% 74% 89% 98%
indicator
The building performance simulation results of the seven plan aspect ratios are provided in
Figure 7 and
Sustainability Appendix
2017, 9, 623 A. In temperate climates, the most compact form (1:1) requires the lowest 17 of 28
amount of heating and cooling energy. On the other hand, the deeper the plan, the harder it will be
to naturally light the interior space, so that the electric lighting demand would be higher. Therefore,
amount
the of heating
2:1 shape and better
is slightly cooling energy.
than the 1:1Onshape
the other hand,
in the the deeper
temperate the A
climate. plan,
largethe harder itinwill
deviation be
total
to naturally light the interior space, so that the electric lighting demand would
energy use by about 12.8% can be observed between the most efficient (2:1) and least efficient (10:1) be higher. Therefore,
the 2:1
plan in shape is slightlyclimate.
the temperate better than
Having the 1:1 shape
a plan in the
aspect temperate
ratio of 1:1 orclimate.
3:1 canAresult
large deviation
in a minorin0.8%total
energy use by about 12.8% can be observed
increase of the total energy use from the most efficient one. between the most efficient (2:1) and least efficient (10:1)
planIninsub-tropical
the temperate climate.
climates, theHaving
impact of a plan
plan aspect
depth on ratio of energy
total 1:1 or 3:1usecan result
is less in a minor
significant both0.8%
in
increasevalue
relative of the(6%)totaland
energy use fromvalue
in absolute the most
(4.4 efficient
kWh/m2one. ). A plan aspect ratio between 2:1 and 5:1 is
In the
ideal in sub-tropical
sub-tropical climates,
climatetheof impact
Sydney.ofAlthough
plan depth on totalthe
reducing energy useshell
external is less
is significant both in
critical for energy
relativeinvalue (6%) climates,
and in absolute value 2
saving tropical reducing the(4.4 kWh/m
plan depth ).canA plan aspectthe
improve ratio between
access 2:1 and 5:1
to daylight andis
ideal in the sub-tropical climate of Sydney. Although reducing the external
compensate for the extra cooling energy demand due to solar gains. Consequently, the same as in the shell is critical for energy
saving in tropical
temperate climate,climates, reducing
a plan ratio of 2:1the planmost
is the depth can improve
efficient aspectthe access
ratio to tropical
in the daylightclimate,
and compensate
while a
for the plan
square extra shape
cooling(1:1)
energy demand
could be thedue to solar
next gains. for
alternative Consequently, the same as
good energy-based in theintemperate
design tropical
climate, a plan ratio of 2:1 is the most efficient aspect ratio in the tropical climate, while a square plan
climates.
shape (1:1) could be the next alternative for good energy-based design in tropical climates.
Building
Figure7.7.Building
Figure total
total energy
energy useuse of seven
of seven planplan aspect
aspect ratios
ratios (WWR (WWR = 50%)
= 50%) in association
in association to
to their
their compactness.
compactness.
4.3.Plan
4.3. PlanOrientation
Orientationand
andBuilding
BuildingEnergy
EnergyPerformance
Performance
Inorder
In orderto to investigate
investigatethe theeffect
effect of
of plan
plan orientation
orientation on on energy
energy consumption,
consumption,four fouraspect
aspectratios
ratios
(1:1,3:1,
(1:1, 3:1,5:1
5:1and
and 10:1)
10:1) from
from the
the previous
previous section
section were
were modelled
modelled in in four
four orientations;
orientations; 0°, ◦
0 , 45°,◦ 90◦ and
45 ,90° and
◦
135 .AAzero-degree
135°. zero-degreeorientation
orientationmeans
means that
that thethe long
long sides
sides of of
thethe building
building willwill face
face in the
in the direction
direction of
of north
north andand south.
south. Other
Other orientations
orientations were were
made made by rotating
by rotating the the buildings
buildings clockwise
clockwise with with respect
respect to
the north.
to the As As
north. a result, a total
a result, number
a total number ofof1414models
modelswere weresimulated
simulatedand andtheir
theirenergy
energy performance
performance
analysed.
analysed. A zero-degree
zero-degreeorientation
orientation always
always resulted
resulted in lowest
in the the lowest
energyenergy consumption,
consumption, while
while rotating
rotating
the building ◦
the building 90° increased
90 increased the energytheuse
energy
of theuse of the to
building building to a large
a large extent extent
(Figure 8). (Figure 8). In that
In that orientation
(0◦ ) the building
orientation (0°) the building
can can make
make optimal use optimal use ofon
of solar gains solar gains
south on south
facades facades
in colder in colder
climates climates
in winter and
in winter and
optimally keep optimally
out solar keep out solar
radiation radiation
in the in the early
early morning morning or
or afternoon inafternoon in warm
warm climates climates
or in colder
or in colder
climates climates in summer.
in summer.
The largest impact of orientation was observed for the sub-tropical climates (up to 32%) when the
building is oriented at 90◦ and for the minimum plan depth (10:1). The effect of changing orientation is
smaller for the temperate and tropical climates when the worst orientation is adopted compared to the
optimal results; showing +15% and +8% increase respectively. Compact forms (deep plan buildings)
are less sensitive to changes in orientation. In all climates, a building oriented 45◦ consumed less
energy for electric lighting than one oriented 0◦ when the building has a deep plan (1:1). However,
the increased overall energy demand caused by extra heating and cooling loads beat the energy saving
in electric lighting. Our results are in good agreement with the findings in Florides, et al. [23]. They
found that the thermal loads of a square-shaped building reached its minimum value when facades
are directly oriented toward the four cardinal directions. Our findings also determined that a 0◦
plan buildings) are less sensitive to changes in orientation. In all climates, a building oriented 45°
consumed less energy for electric lighting than one oriented 0° when the building has a deep plan
(1:1). However, the increased overall energy demand caused by extra heating and cooling loads beat
the energy saving in electric lighting. Our results are in good agreement with the findings in Florides,
Sustainability 2017, 9, 623
et al. [23]. They found that the thermal loads of a square-shaped building reached its minimum18value of 28
when facades are directly oriented toward the four cardinal directions. Our findings also determined
that a 0°from
rotation rotation fromisthe
the north the north
optimalis orientation
the optimal fororientation foringaining
gaining heat heat in (temperate)
cooler climates cooler climates
and
(temperate) and for controlling solar radiation in warmer climates (sub-tropical and
for controlling solar radiation in warmer climates (sub-tropical and tropical); this is in line withtropical); thisthe
is
in line with
findings the findings
of earlier studiesof[24–26].
earlier studies [24–26].
Figure Theenergy
8. The
Figure 8. energyimpact
impactofof building
building orientation
orientation on on
fourfour
planplan aspect
aspect ratios
ratios (WWR (WWR = 50%)
= 50%) in
in three
three climates.
climates.
4.4. Window-to-Wall Ratio

4.4. Window-to-Wall Ratio and
and Building
Building Energy
Energy Performance
Performance
Simulations
Simulations were were performed
performed on on aa 40-storey
40-storey office
office building
building toto investigate
investigate the the optimal
optimal size
size of
of the
the
windows
windows in in temperate,
temperate, sub-tropical
sub-tropical andand tropical
tropical climates.
climates. Since
Since plan
plan depth
depth isis aa major
major determinant
determinant in in
finding the optimal solution, two plan scenarios were selected: a deep plan
finding the optimal solution, two plan scenarios were selected: a deep plan (1:1) and a narrow plan (1:1) and a narrow plan
(5:1).
(5:1). Discrete
Discretewindow-to-wall
window-to-wallratio ratiovariations
variationswerewere studied, starting
studied, with
starting a minimum
with a minimum value of 0%
value ofand
0%
increase with 10% increments to a maximum of 100%. For the deep plan
and increase with 10% increments to a maximum of 100%. For the deep plan scenario, the windows scenario, the windows were
distributed
were distributedevenlyevenly
among all directions.
among For the
all directions. For narrow plan scenario,
the narrow the north-
plan scenario, and south-facing
the north- and south-
walls
facing(long
wallssides
(longofsides
the building) are theare
of the building) focus
theof the investigation,
focus while the
of the investigation, while east-
theand west-facing
east- and west-
walls have no glazing.
facing walls have no glazing.
Results
Results forfor the
the optimal
optimal window-to-wall
window-to-wall ratios ratios areare shown
shown in in Appendix
Appendix B. B. The
The energy
energy efficiency
efficiency
indicator
indicator isis the
the annual
annual total
total energy
energy useuse for
for heating,
heating, cooling,
cooling, electric
electric lighting
lighting and
and fans.
fans. Although
Although therethere
is an optimal WWR for each climate, the recommended values can be classified
is an optimal WWR for each climate, the recommended values can be classified in four categories in four categories based
on their
based ondegree of efficiency
their degree as shown
of efficiency as in Figurein9.Figure
shown The most ideal
9. The WWR
most canWWR
ideal be found in afound
can be relatively
in a
narrow range
relatively in which
narrow rangethe intotal
which energy use deviates
the total energy use by less than 1%
deviates by from the optimal
less than 1% from results.
the optimal
The energy consumption trend shows that in a temperate climate a window-to-wall ratio
results.
betweenThe 20%
energy andconsumption
30% would result trend in the highest
shows that inenergy-efficiency
a temperate climate for both the narrow andratio
a window-to-wall the
deep plan due to lower heat transfer through the façade during winter and
between 20% and 30% would result in the highest energy-efficiency for both the narrow and the deep summer. Through using
aplan
similar
due approach—the integrated
to lower heat transfer thermal
through theand daylighting
façade simulations
during winter in the temperate
and summer. Through oceanic
using a
climates—earlier studies obtained the optimal WWR at slightly different ranges. Kheiri [27] found
the optimal value in the range of 20–32% for a building that was featured by a low-performance
façade (U values for windows and walls were 2.4 W/m2 K and 2.6 W/m2 K respectively) and had no
shading system. However, Goia et al. [28] found the optimal value in the range of 35–45% through the
integration of external solar shading devices with a high-performance façade (U values for windows
and walls were 0.7 W/m2 K and 0.15 W/m2 K respectively). Therefore, it can be inferred that the optimal
WWR value depends on the envelope properties employed in the simulations and can influence the
results to some extent. The higher thermal resistance of the envelope, the lower impact of WWR on
total energy use; hence, building can take advantage of larger windows for energy saving. Furthermore,
façade (U values for windows and walls were 2.4 W/m2K and 2.6 W/m2K respectively) and had no
shading system. However, Goia et al. [28] found the optimal value in the range of 35–45% through
the integration of external solar shading devices with a high-performance façade (U values for
windows and walls were 0.7 W/m2K and 0.15 W/m2K respectively). Therefore, it can be inferred that
the optimal WWR value depends on the envelope properties employed in the simulations and can
influence the results to some extent. The higher thermal resistance of the envelope, the lower impact
of WWR on total energy use; hence, building can take advantage of larger windows for energy saving.
our findings show
Furthermore, our that for WWR
findings showvalues smaller
that for WWRthan 20%,smaller
values the energythanuse20%,forthe
electric
energylighting incredibly
use for electric
increases. In a temperate
lighting incredibly climate,
increases. In a the upper limit
temperate of the
climate, therecommended
upper limit ofWWR is 60%; higherWWR
the recommended values is
60%; higher
result in up tovalues result in
10% increase in up
totaltoenergy
10% increase
consumption in total dueenergy consumption
to additional due to heat
transmission additional
losses
transmission
through heat losses through the façade.
the façade.
In aa sub-tropical
In sub-tropical climate,
climate, thethe optimal
optimal WWRWWR value is 35–45% 35–45% for aa deep deep plan
plan andand 30–40%
30–40% forfor aa
narrow plan
narrow plan building.
building. WWR variationsvariations that
that contain
contain average
average performance
performance (1–5% (1–5% deviation)
deviation) cover
cover aa
relatively big
relatively big range.
range. For example,
example, in case of the narrow plan scenario, window-to-wall window-to-wall ratios ratios between
between
25–30% and
25–30% and40–70%
40–70% have
have average
average performance,
performance, but inbut in a temperate
a temperate climateclimate thislimits
this range range to limits
between to
betweenand
10–20% 10–20%
30–40%. andSince
30–40%. Since the
the heating heating
energy energy
required is required is notfor
not significant significant
buildingsfor in buildings
sub-tropical in
sub-tropical
climates, climates,
a larger window a larger
areawindow
can resultarea
in acan resultdemand
smaller in a smaller demand
for electric for electric
lighting; hence lighting;
a betterhence
total
a betterperformance.
energy total energy performance.
However, values However,
highervaluesthan 80% higher
andthan
90%80% andrecommended,
are not 90% are not recommended,
respectively
respectively
for a deep plan foranda deep planplan
narrow and building
narrow planbecausebuilding
thesebecause
have tothese have heat
high solar to high solar heat gains.
gains.
In aa tropical
In tropical climate,
climate, thethe optimal
optimal window-to-wall
window-to-wall ratio ratio is
is higher
higher thanthan that
that in
in aa temperate
temperate climate
climate
but lower than in a sub-tropical climate.
but climate. ItItisisininaarange
rangeofof30–40%
30–40%for foraadeepdeepplan
planandand25–35%
25–35%for fora
anarrow
narrowplan planbuilding.
building.According
AccordingtotoFigure
Figure3,3,in inthe
the tropical
tropical climate,
climate, the the share of electric
electric lighting
lighting
loads from
loads from thethe total
total end-use
end-use of of energy
energy isis lower
lower than than inin the sub-tropical
sub-tropical climate.
climate. As a result, the energy
savings for
savings forelectric
electriclighting
lighting(due (duetotohigher
higherWWRWWRvalues) values)inin the
the tropical
tropical climate
climate cannot
cannot be be
as as much
much as
as in
in sub-tropical
the the sub-tropical climate. climate. In addition,
In addition, the difference
the difference between the between
indoor and the outdoor
indoor air and outdoor air
temperature in
temperature
the in the tropical
tropical climate is not asclimate
high asisinnot
theastemperate
high as inclimate.
the temperate
So in the climate.
tropicalSo climate,
in the tropical climate,
buildings can
buildings
have a wider canrange
have of a wider
WWR range valuesof WWR values
compared to thatcompared
in temperate to that in temperate
regions; especiallyregions;
when the especially
proper
whenofthe
type proper
glazing type
(low Uof glazing
value and(low
solarUheat
valuegainand solar heatand
coefficient) gainthe coefficient) and the shading
shading systems systems
are employed in
are facades
the employed forin the gain
solar facades for solar gain control.
control.
Figure 9.9. Recommended

Figure Recommendedwindow-to-wall
window-to-wallratios
ratios
forfor energy
energy efficiency
efficiency of aof a 40-storey
40-storey officeoffice building
building with
awith
deepa plan
deep (1:1)
planand
(1:1)aand a narrow
narrow planin
plan (5:1) (5:1) in temperate,
temperate, sub-tropical,
sub-tropical, and tropical
and tropical climates.
climates.
4.5. Window
4.5. Window Orientation
Orientation and
and Building
Building Energy
Energy Performance
Performance
In the
In the previous
previous sub-section,
sub-section, optimal
optimal WWR
WWR values
values of
of the
the façade,
façade, were
were determined
determined for
for two
two plan
plan
scenarios regardless of the window orientation. In this part of the paper, the effect
scenarios regardless of the window orientation. In this part of the paper, the effect of window of window
orientation on
orientation on the
the total
total energy
energy demand
demand of
of the
the building
building will
will be
be investigated.
investigated. Discrete
Discrete window-to-wall
window-to-wall
ratio variations were tested, ranging from 10% to 90%, in incremental steps of 10%.
ratio variations were tested, ranging from 10% to 90%, in incremental steps of 10%. One One side
side of
of the
the
plan was the subject of change on every iteration while the WWR for the other three sides was kept at
the optimal value that was previously determined. The inputs of the simulation for the optimal WWR
are 20% for the temperate climate, 40% for the sub-tropical climate, and 30% for the tropical climate.
The investigation was carried out on the four main orientations of the deep plan scenario and the
two north- and south-facing facades of the narrow plan scenario. For the purpose of readiness, few
graphs containing simulation results for the effect of window orientation on total energy use and energy
end-uses (heating and cooling) are not shown in the text, but they can be found in Appendixs C–E.
Sensitivity of different window orientations to a change in the WWR value was analysed in regards to
climate.
The investigation was carried out on the four main orientations of the deep plan scenario and
the two north- and south-facing facades of the narrow plan scenario. For the purpose of readiness,
few graphs containing simulation results for the effect of window orientation on total energy use and
Sustainability 2017, 9, 623
energy end-uses (heating and cooling) are not shown in the text, but they can be found in Appendixes 20 of 28
C, D and E. Sensitivity of different window orientations to a change in the WWR value was analysed
in regards
total energytouse total energy use
variations andvariations
the resultsand
are the resultsinare
provided provided
Table in Table 9.
9. Accordingly, Accordingly,
the recommended the
recommended values of WWR for different orientations and climates are summarised
values of WWR for different orientations and climates are summarised in Figure 10. The efficiency in Figure 10.
The efficiency
indicator indicator
for defining thefor defining the recommended
recommended values
values is the total of allisenergy
the total of all energy
end-uses. end-uses.
As can be seen Asin
can be seen in Table 9, the acceptable window-to-wall ratio can range from 10% to
Table 9, the acceptable window-to-wall ratio can range from 10% to 90% depending on the effectiveness 90% depending on
thedifferent
of effectiveness
window of orientations
different window orientations
for energy forWWR
saving. For energy saving. For
increments WWR
of less thanincrements of less
10%, the average
than 10%,
energy the average
performance from energy performance
two consecutive WWRfromvaluestwo
wasconsecutive WWR valuesvalues
obtained. Recommended was represent
obtained.
a range of WWR in which the deviation of total energy use is smaller than 1% from the optimalsmaller
Recommended values represent a range of WWR in which the deviation of total energy use is value
than 1% from
in each orientation.the optimal value in each orientation.
Table9.9.Recommended
Table RecommendedWWR WWRvalue
valuefor
fordifferent
differentorientations
orientationsand
andclimates
climatesin
inwhich
whichthe
thedeviation
deviationof
of
total energy
total energyuse
useisissmaller
smallerthan
than1%
1%from
fromthe
theoptimal
optimalvalue
valueinineach
eachorientation.
orientation.
Climate Type/ Temperate

Temperate
Sub-Tropical
Sub-Tropical
Tropical
Tropical
Climate Type/Plan Aspect
Plan Aspect
Ratio
Ratio 1:1 5:1 1:1 5:1 1:1 5:1
1:1 5:1 1:1 5:1 1:1 5:1
North 10–90 10–70 10–15 15–40 10–50 10–35
North 10–90 10–70 10–15 15–40 10–50 10–35
Recommended
Recommended East
East 35–60 NoNo
35–60 glazing
glazing 10–20
10–20 Noglazing
No glazing 10–20 NoNo
10–20 glazing
glazing
WWR
WWR value
value(%)
(%) South
South 65–75
65–75 25–35
25–35 10–70
10–70 10–40
10–40 10–80
10–80 10–55
10–55
West
West 10–15
10–15 NoNo
glazing
glazing 10–20
10–20 No
Noglazing
glazing 10–20
10–20 NoNo
glazing
glazing
Figure 10. Sensitivity of different window orientations to a change in the WWR value (ranging from
Figure
10% 10. Sensitivity
to 90%) in terms ofofmaximum
different window orientations
variations to a change
in total energy use of ain40-storey
the WWR value
office (ranging
building from
with a
10% to 90%) in terms of maximum variations in total energy use of a 40-storey
deep plan (a) and a narrow plan (b) in temperate, sub-tropical, and tropical climates. office building with a
deep plan (a) and a narrow plan (b) in temperate, sub-tropical, and tropical climates.
In temperate climates, the north-facing façade was found to be the least sensitive orientation,
In temperate climates, the north-facing façade was found to be the least sensitive orientation,
with no significant variation in energy use when relatively high insulation values were included in
with no significant variation in energy use when relatively high insulation values were included in
2 K) and opaque surfaces (U value: 0.35 W/m2 K),
the simulations for windows (U value: 1.50 W/m
the simulations for windows (U value: 1.50 W/m K) and opaque surfaces (U value: 0.35 W/m2K), and
2
and indoor blinds were adjusted only for glare control. In case of a deep plan, the ideal WWR for
indoor blinds were adjusted only for glare control. In case of a deep plan, the ideal WWR for north-
north-orientated windows can be found in a considerably wide range (10–90%) in which the deviation
orientated windows can be found in a considerably wide range (10–90%) in which the deviation of
of total energy use is less than 1% from the optimal results. For the south-facing façade, the best
total energy use is less than 1% from the optimal results. For the south-facing façade, the best energy
energy performance is achieved with large windows when WWR is in a range of 65–75%. The optimal
performance is achieved with large windows when WWR is in a range of 65–75%. The optimal WWR
WWR for the west-facing façade is the lowest value of the investigated WWR range. According to
for the west-facing façade is the lowest value of the investigated WWR range. According to Figures
Figures A3a and A4a, the heating and cooling energy demand both increased significantly when the
A3(a) and A4(a), the heating and cooling energy demand both increased significantly when the WWR
WWR percentage changed from 10% to 20%. The east-facing façade does not increase the cooling
percentage changed from 10% to 20%. The east-facing façade does not increase the cooling energy
energy demand as much as the west-facing façade and does not contribute to capturing solar thermal
energy on winter days as much as the south-facing exposure; therefore, the optimal range of WWR
is 35–60%. In case of a narrow floor plan, lower values of the optimal WWR are achieved for the
north- and south-facing facades due to a higher impact of the cooling energy use in the total energy
balance. A wrong selection of WWR in the south-facing façade of a narrow floor plan can cause a
greater increase of the cooling energy use (up to 68%) than of a deep plan building (13%).
In sub-tropical climates and for the deep plan scenario, the north-facing façade is the most
sensitive orientation to a change in the WWR value, showing up to 11% deviation in total energy
use. In order to achieve the highest energy performance (<1% deviation) it is important to reduce the
size of east- and west-facing windows (10–20%) to protect the building against overheating, while for
the south-facing exposure the total energy use is barley influenced by the WWR value. In case of a
narrow plan building, the north- and south-facing facades present relatively similar trends and the
recommended WWR ranges for those exposures are very close too (around 10–40%).
For all orientations in tropical climates, the cooling energy use is the driving force for selecting
the recommended WWR range. The highest increases in cooling energy use are observed when a
high WWR value is adopted for the west and east orientation, respectively. Therefore, the east- and
west-facing walls should particularly avoid high WWR values. In the tropics and during mid-day,
the building surface that receives the most sun is the roof since the sun paths a high arc across the sky.
In case of a deep plan building, a wrong selection of WWR in north- and south-facing facades can
cause a lower increase in the total energy use (+2.1% and +1.1%, respectively). For a building with a
plan aspect ratio of 5:1, the recommended WWR values are found in a relatively narrow range; 10–35%
for north-facing façade and 10–55% for south-facing façade.
4.6. Research Limitations and Recommendations

There are several points that need to be further discussed for the proper use of findings and for
the future development of this research. First of all, single-zone open-plan layout offices were defined
for the entire floor space in all building models. Using one activity template has both advantages and
disadvantages. On the positive side, it reduces the model’s complexity, hence speeds up the simulation.
In contrast, design potentials that some geometries might have in comparison to others, and their
consequent effect on energy consumption cannot be reflected (e.g., usability of space). Furthermore,
an increase of usable space can increase the internal gains due to occupancy, computers and lighting,
which might have impact on the heating and cooling demands.
The optimal design solution depends on the exact set of variables for the properties of the building
and the operation details. A sensitivity analysis was performed to obtain the glazing types and shading
strategies for each of the climates used in this study. It was found that external shading performed
better in terms of energy saving; however, the vulnerability of external shadings to high wind speeds
at high levels in tall buildings is an important barrier for the application of them. Moreover, indoor
shading devices are not prone to damage due to wind. They, however, reduce the view out and
increase the need of artificial lighting and cooling. Hence, all simulations were carried out by using
indoor blinds to control only glare. This means that cooling demands were probably less favourable
than in reality.
Amsterdam, Sydney and Singapore were the representative cities for the investigation of the
impact of geometric factors on energy use in the three main climate categories where the majority
of tall buildings are being constructed. In general, for each latitude, the course of the sun and local
microclimate conditions might influence a building’s performance to some extent, so it is important
to use the specific site location data as input for the simulations when the aim is finding the optimal
results. The main objective of this study was to propose early-stage design considerations for the
energy-efficiency of high-rise office buildings in three specific climates, so that these can be used to
increase the awareness of designers regarding the consequences on energy consumption of decisions
in the early phases of the design process.
Small to significant deviations may exist between the simulated and actual energy consumption
for buildings. According to Wang et al. [29] these deviations can be attributed to uncertainties related to
the accuracy of the underlying models, input parameters, actual weather data and building operation
details. There are some uncertainties related to the accuracy of simulation tool to consider thermal
performance of curved shapes, and the optimal choice of number of timesteps per hour for heat balance
model calculation. Furthermore, high-rise buildings are exposed to variable micro-climate conditions
that changes gradually with the increase in building height. In tall buildings, the top levels are exposed
to higher wind speeds and slightly lower air temperature as compared to the levels that are within the
urban canopy. Additionally, at the higher altitude, the stack effect and wind pressures increase so that
the air leakage through the building envelope and the consequent heat losses and gains might vary
along the height. When using the weather data from a certain height, the impact of changing outdoor
conditions and infiltration rates along the height could not be taken into account.
Finally, the investigation highlights that focusing on just one entry of the total energy balance
is not correct and may lead to wrong conclusions. Therefore, determination of the optimal building
geometry factor requires the analysis of heating, cooling, electric lighting and fans altogether, since
these can be affected by the design of the building.
5. Conclusions
The study presented in this paper investigated the effect of basic geometry factors on energy
efficiency of high-rise office buildings in temperate, sub-tropical and tropical climates. Four geometric
factors were the subject of investigation, which included plan shape, plan aspect ratio, building
orientation and windows (percentage and distribution). A large number of energy simulations
were performed using EnergyPlus as part of DesignBuilder. The results of the total annual energy
consumption were used to define the optimal building geometry for each climate. This study shows
the following:
1. The effect of plan shape on building energy consumption is the highest in the sub-tropical climate
(15.7%), and is lowest in the temperate climate (12.8%) and tropical climate (11.0%). The ellipse
was found to be the ideal plan shape in all climates. It is the most efficient form in temperate
and sub-tropical climates and the second efficient form in tropical climates after the octagon.
Furthermore, the Y shape is the least efficient form in all climates.
2. The effect of plan depth on total energy consumption is more dominant in the temperate climate
(12.8%) than in the tropical (8.8%) and sub-tropical climate (6.0%). The optimal range of plan
aspect ratio are 1:1 to 3:1 in Amsterdam, 3:1 to 4:1 in Sydney, and 1:1 to 3:1 in Singapore.
3. In all climates, a rotation 0◦ from the north was found to be the ideal orientation for energy
efficiency. In addition, a 90◦ rotation from the north is the least efficient orientation in all climates
and for all plan aspect ratios (1:1 to 10:1) with an equiangular four-sided plan shape.
4. Assuming that windows are equally distributed across building orientations, for a deep plan
design, the optimal range of the window-to-wall ratio is 20–30% in the temperate climate, 35–45%
in the sub-tropical climate, and 30–40% in the tropical climate. For a narrow plan design (with
no glazing for the east- and west-facing walls), the optimal range is 5% lower, except for the
temperate climate, which has the same values as for the deep plan design.
5. The investigation also highlights the most sensitive orientations that potentially increase the total
energy use (relative value) to a large extent for a wrong selection of WWR in different climates;
those include the west-facing exposure in temperate climates (+4.5%), the north-facing exposure
in sub-tropical climates (+11.3%), and the two facades facing east and west in tropical climates (up
to 3.3%). Furthermore, the recommended WWR values are pointed out for different orientations
and climates (see Table 9).
The impact of geometric factors on energy-efficiency of high-rise office buildings in the three
climates is summarised in Table 10. The recommended design options are classified according to
their degree of energy performance under three categories: remarkable energy saving, average energy
saving, and low energy saving. If the deviation of total energy use is greater than 10% from the
optimal solution, the design alternative will be considered as not recommended. The results could be
of assistance to make energy-wise decisions in the early phases of the design process.

optimal solution, the design alternative will be considered as not recommended. The results could be
of assistance to make energy-wise decisions in the early phases of the design process.
Table 10. Early stage design considerations for energy efficiency of high-rise office buildings.
Table 10. Early stage design considerations for energy efficiency of high-rise office buildings.
Temperate Sub-Tropical Tropical

Plan shape A B C D A B C D A B C D
Ellipse + + Ellipse + + Octagon + +
<1% Octagon + + Ellipse + +
Circle + +
Circle + + Rectangle + Square + +
1–5% Square + + Octagon + + Rectangle +
Rectangle + Circle + + + shape +
Triangle Square + + Triangle
Atrium + Z shape + Courtyard +
5–10% U shape + Courtyard + Z shape +
+ shape + H shape + H shape +
U shape +
H shape + U shape + Y shape +
Z shape + Triangle
>10%
Y shape + + shape +
Y shape +
MD (%) 12.8 15.7 11.0
Plan aspect ratio
<1% 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 3:1, 4:1 1:1, 2:1, 3:1
1–5% 4:1, 5:1 1:1, 2:1, 5:1, 8:1 4:1, 5:1
5–10% 8:1 10:1 8:1, 10:1
>10% 10:1 --- ---
MD (%) 12.4 6.0 8.8
Plan orientation
1:1 3:1 5:1 10:1 1:1 3:1 5:1 10:1 1:1 3:1 5:1 10:1
0° 0°
<1% 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0°
45° 45°
45°
135° 135°
1–5% 45° 135° 45° --- --- --- --- 135° 45°
45° 45°
90°
45° 45° 135°
5–10% --- 90° 135° --- --- --- --- --- ---
90° 135° 90°
45° 45°
45°
>10% --- --- --- --- 90°
135° 135° --- --- --- ---
90°
90° 90°
MD (%) 1.2 5.6 8.4 15.1 2.1 12.3 20.4 32.0 0.7 2.8 4.7 7.9
WWR (%): deep plan (1:1)
N E S W N E S W N E S W
<1% 10–90 35–60 65–75 10–15 10–15 10–20 10–70 10–20 10–50 10–20 10–80 10–20
10–35 10–65
1–5% --- 15–90 15–50 20–90 70–90 20–90 50–90 20–90 80–90 20–90
60–90 75–90
5–10% --- --- --- --- 50–80 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
>10% --- --- --- --- 80–90 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MD (%) 0.5 2.8 1.8 4.5 11.3 2.9 1.1 3.1 2.9 3.3 1.1 3.0
WWR (%): narrow plan (5:1)
N E S W N E S W N E S W
<1% 10–70 --- 25–35 --- 15–40 --- 10–40 --- 10–35 --- 10–55 ---
10–25 10–15
1–5% 70–90 --- --- --- 40–90 --- 35–70 --- 55–90 ---
35–55 40–75
5–10% --- --- 55–85 --- 75–90 --- --- --- 70–90Sustainability
--- --- 9, 623
2017, ---
stainability 2017,Sustainability >10%
9, 623 2017, 9,2017,
Sustainability 623 9, 623 --- --- 85–90 --- --- --- --- --- ---24 of 28--- 24 of---28 ---
24 of 28
MD (%) 3.0 --- 10.3 --- 6.8 --- 5.2 --- 8.6 --- 3.2 ---
Energy efficiency of design options:
<
Energy efficiency
Energy of design
efficiency
Energy options:
of
efficiency
Energy design <1% options:
of options:
of design
efficiency design (remarkable
options: <1%
<1%energy
<1% (remarkable saving);
energy
(remarkable
(remarkable 1–5%
saving);
energy
energy (average
saving);
saving); 1–5% energy
1–5%(average
(average
1–5% energy
(average
energy energy 5–10%
saving);
saving); 5–10% (low energy saving);
saving); saving);
5–10% (low energy
(low
5–10%
saving); energy
(low
5–10% saving);
saving);
energy >10%saving);
>10%
saving);
(low energy (not
(not recommended).
recommended).
>10% A: space
A: High
(not recommended).
>10% (not Highefficiency;
space
recommended).A: Highefficiency;
A:B:High
space B: efficiency;
Aerodynamic form;
efficiency;
space C: Narrow
B:
AerodynamicB: planform; C: Narrow plan (N
Aerodynamic form; (NV &
C: Narrowdaylight access); D: Less material use for external envelope; MD: Maximum deviation; N: North orientation;
Aerodynamic
Aerodynamic C:plan
form; form; C:(NV
Narrow & daylight
plan
Narrow (NV
plan & access);
(NVdaylight D:access);
& daylightLessaccess);
material
D: LessD: use
Lessformaterial
material external
use foruseexternal
forenvelope;
external MD: Maximum deviation; N: N
E: East orientation; S: South orientation; W: West orientation.
envelope; envelope;
MD: Maximum
envelope; deviation;
MD: Maximum
MD: MaximumN: North
deviation; orientation;
N: North
deviation; N: North E: East
orientation;orientation;
E: East
orientation; S: South
E:orientation;
East orientation;
S: South
orientation; orientation;
S: South orientation;
W: West orientation.
W: West orientation.
W: West
W: orientation.
West orientation.
Appendix A
ppendixAppendix
A Appendix
A A
Table A1. Breakdown of annual energy co
Table A1. Breakdown
TableTable of
A1.annual
A1. Breakdown energy
Breakdown ofconsumption
of annual energy
annual perconsumption
conditioned
consumption
energy areaconditioned
for seven
per conditioned
per areaplan
for aspect
seven
area ratios
plan
for seven aspect ratios
plan aspect
(WWR= ratios
50%) in: (a) Amsterdam, (b) Sydn
(WWR= 50%) in:(WWR=
(WWR= (a)50%)
Amsterdam,
in:
50%)(a)in: (b)Amsterdam,
Sydney,
Amsterdam,
(a) (b)and (c) Sydney,
Sydney,
(b) Singapore.
and (c)
andSingapore.
(c) Singapore.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive
comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper. They would also like to thank the
Editors for their support during the review process.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed extensively to the work presented in this paper. Babak Raji
carried out simulations, collected data and prepared drafts. Martin J. Tenpierik and Andy van den Dobbelsteen
supervised data analysis and edited the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and implications and
commented on the manuscript at all stages.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Breakdown of annual energy consumption per conditioned area for seven plan aspect ratios
(WWR= 50%) in: (a) Amsterdam, (b) Sydney, and (c) Singapore.
(a) Amsterdam
Plan Aspect Heating/ Cooling/ Lighting/ Fan/ Total/
Percentile
Ratio Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned
Difference
Area Area Area Area Area
(%)
(kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 ) (kW h/m2 )
1:1 15.2 23.5 17.5 28.7 84.9 0.8%
2:1 ® 15.3 23.6 16.7 28.6 84.2 -
3:1 15.5 24.2 15.8 29.4 84.9 0.8%
4:1 15.6 24.9 15.0 30.4 85.9 2.1%
5:1 15.9 25.8 14.4 31.4 87.5 3.9%
8:1 16.7 27.8 13.0 34.3 91.8 9.0%
10:1 17.2 29.0 12.4 36.0 94.7 12.4%
(b) Sydney
Percentile
Ratio conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned
Difference
(%)
1:1 0.4 34.2 12.6 28.4 75.7 4.0%
2:1 0.3 33.3 12.3 27.6 73.5 1.0%
3:1 ® 0.3 32.8 11.7 28.0 72.8 -
4:1 0.2 33.5 11.3 28.0 73.0 0.3%
5:1 0.2 34.0 10.9 28.5 73.6 1.1%
8:1 0.2 35.3 10.2 30.0 75.7 4.0%
10:1 0.2 36.1 10.0 30.9 77.2 6.0%
(c) Singapore
Percentile
Ratio Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned Conditioned
Difference
(%)
1:1 0.0 76.5 11.3 29.5 117.6 0.3%
2:1 ® 0.0 76.7 10.8 29.7 117.2 -
3:1 0.0 77.8 10.2 30.3 118.3 0.9%
4:1 0.0 78.7 9.5 31.2 119.4 1.9%
5:1 0.0 79.7 9.0 32.1 120.8 3.0%
8:1 0.0 82.6 8.1 34.3 125.0 6.6%
10:1 0.0 84.2 7.7 35.7 127.5 8.8%
SustainabilityB2017, 9, 623
Appendix 25 of 28
Appendix B
Appendix B
Figure
Figure A1.
FigureA1. Theoptimal
A1. The
The optimalpercentage
optimal percentage
percentage ofofof window-to-wall
window-to-wall ratio
window-to-wall ratio fortwo
for for
ratio two twoplan
plan plantypes
types types (1:15:1)
(1:1 and
(1:1 and
and 5:1)inin
in5:1)
Temperate, Sub-tropical,
Temperate,Sub-tropical,
Temperate, andTropical
Sub-tropical, and
and Tropicalclimates.
Tropical climates.
climates.
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Figure A2. Cont.

Sustainability
Sustainability2017,
2017,9,9,623
623 2626ofof2828
Figure A2. The optimal percentage of window-to-wall ratio in different orientations for two plan
Figure
Figure
types A2.
(deep The narrow)
A2. The
and optimal percentage
optimal percentage ofofwindow-to-wall
window-to-wall
in three climates. ratio in different
ratio orientations
in different for two
orientations for plan types
two plan
(deep and narrow) in three climates.
types (deep and narrow) in three climates.
Appendix D
AppendixDD
Appendix
Figure A3. Relationship between energy use for heating and window-to-wall ratio in different
Figure A3.
Figure
orientations Relationship
A3. Relationship
for between
two planbetween energy
energy
scenarios usefor
(deepuse
and for heating
heating
narrow) and
inand window-to-wall
window-to-wall
temperate, ratioand
ratio
sub-tropical, inin different
different
tropical
orientations for two plan scenarios (deep and narrow) in temperate, sub-tropical, and climates.
orientations
climates. for two plan scenarios (deep and narrow) in temperate, sub-tropical, and tropical tropical
climates.
AppendixEE
Appendix
Appendix E
Figure A4. Cont.

Figure A4.
Figure Relationshipbetween
A4. Relationship betweenenergy
energyuse
usefor
forcooling
coolingand
and window-to-wall
window-to-wallratioratio inin different
different
orientations for two plan scenarios (deep and narrow) in temperate, sub-tropical, and climates.
orientations for two plan scenarios (deep and narrow) in temperate, sub-tropical, and tropical tropical
climates.
Acknowledgments:
References The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive
comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper. They would also like to thank the
1. Bragança, L.; Vieira, S.M.; Andrade, J.B. Early stage design decisions: The way to achieve sustainable
Editors for their support during the review process.
buildings at lower costs. Sci. World J. 2014. Available online: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/
Author Contributions: All
2014/365364/abs/ authorsoncontributed
(accessed 22 December extensively
2016.). to the work presented in this paper. Babak Raji
carried
2. out simulations, collected data and prepared
Attia, S.; De Herde, A. Design decision tools for zero drafts. Martin
energy J. Tenpierik
buildings. and Andy van
In Proceedings den
of the Dobbelsteen
27th Conference
supervised data analysis and edited the manuscript. All authors discussed the results
on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 13–15 July 2011; pp. 77–82.and implications and
commented on the manuscript at all stages.
3. Athienitis, A.; Attia, S. Strategic design, optimization, and modelling issues of net-zero energy solar buildings.
Conflicts of Interest: of
In Proceedings Thetheauthors
Eurosun declare
2010, no conflict
Graz, of interest.
Austria, 28 September–1 October 2010.
4. Pessenlehner, W.; Mahdavi, A. Building morphology, transparence, and energy performance. In Proceedings
Reference
of the Eighth International IBPSA Conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 1025–1032.
5. Depecker, P.; Menezo, C.; Virgone, J.; Lepers, S. Design of buildings shape and energetic consumption.
1. Bragança, L.; Vieira, S.M.; Andrade, J.B. Early stage design decisions: The way to achieve sustainable
Build. Environ. 2001, 36, 627–635. [CrossRef]
buildings at lower costs. Sci. World J. 2014. Available online:
6. Ourghi, R.; Al-Anzi, A.; Krarti, M. A simplified analysis method to predict the impact of shape on annual
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/365364/abs/ (accessed on 22 December 2016.)
energy use for office buildings. Energy Convers. Manag. 2007, 48, 300–305. [CrossRef]
2. Attia, S.; De Herde, A. Design decision tools for zero energy buildings. In Proceedings of the 27th
7. AlAnzi, A.; Seo, D.; Krarti, M. Impact of building shape on thermal performance of office buildings in kuwait.
Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 13–15 July 2011; pp. 77–
Energy Convers. Manag. 2009, 50, 822–828. [CrossRef]
82.
8. Choi, I.Y.; Cho, S.H.; Kim, J.T. Energy consumption characteristics of high-rise apartment buildings according
3. Athienitis, A.; Attia, S. Strategic design, optimization, and modelling issues of net-zero energy solar
to building shape and mixed-use development. Energy Build. 2012, 46, 123–131. [CrossRef]
buildings. In Proceedings of the Eurosun 2010, Graz, Austria, 28 September–1 October 2010.
9. Susorova, I.; Tabibzadeh, M.; Rahman, A.; Clack, H.L.; Elnimeiri, M. The effect of geometry factors on
4. Pessenlehner, W.; Mahdavi, A. Building morphology, transparence, and energy performance. In
fenestration energy performance and energy savings in office buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 57, 6–13.
Proceedings of the Eighth International IBPSA Conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 1025–
[CrossRef]
1032.
10. Kämpf, J.H.; Robinson, D. Optimisation of building form for solar energy utilisation using constrained
5. Depecker, P.; Menezo, C.; Virgone, J.; Lepers, S. Design of buildings shape and energetic consumption.
evolutionary algorithms. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 807–814. [CrossRef]
Build. Environ. 2001, 36, 627–635.
11. Yi, Y.K.; Malkawi, A.M. Site-specific optimal energy form generation based on hierarchical geometry relation.
6. Ourghi, R.; Al-Anzi, A.; Krarti, M. A simplified analysis method to predict the impact of shape on annual
Autom. Constr. 2012, 26, 77–91. [CrossRef]
energy use for office buildings. Energy Convers. Manag. 2007, 48, 300–305.
12. Wang, W.; Rivard, H.; Zmeureanu, R. An object-oriented framework for simulation-based green building
7. AlAnzi, A.; Seo, D.; Krarti, M. Impact of building shape on thermal performance of office buildings in
design optimization with genetic algorithms. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2005, 19, 5–23. [CrossRef]
kuwait. Energy Convers. Manag. 2009, 50, 822–828.
13. Magnier, L.; Haghighat, F. Multiobjective optimization of building design using trnsys simulations, genetic
8. Choi, I.Y.; Cho, S.H.; Kim, J.T. Energy consumption characteristics of high-rise apartment buildings
algorithm, and artificial neural network. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 739–746. [CrossRef]
according to building shape and mixed-use development. Energy Build. 2012, 46, 123–131.
9. Susorova, I.; Tabibzadeh, M.; Rahman, A.; Clack, H.L.; Elnimeiri, M. The effect of geometry factors on
fenestration energy performance and energy savings in office buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 57, 6–13.
14. Yi, Y.K.; Malkawi, A.M. Optimizing building form for energy performance based on hierarchical geometry
relation. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 825–833. [CrossRef]
15. Malkawi, A.M. Developments in environmental performance simulation. Autom. Constr. 2004, 13, 437–445.
[CrossRef]
16. US Department of Energy. Weather Data. Available online: https://energyplus.net/weather (accessed on
20 September 2016).
17. Wood, A.; Salib, R. Natural Ventilation in High-Rise Office Buildings, Ctbuh Technical Guides; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2013.
18. Straube, J.F.; Burnett, E.F.P. Building Science for Building Enclosures; Building Science Press: Westford, MA,
USA, 2005.
19. Raji, B.; Tenpierik, M.J.; van den Dobbelsteen, A. A comparative study: Design strategies for energy-efficiency
of high-rise office buildings. J. Green Build. 2016, 11, 134–158. [CrossRef]
20. Van den Dobbelsteen, A.; Thijssen, S.; Colaleo, V.; Metz, T. Ecology of the building geometry-environmental
performance of different building shapes. In Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2007;
CIB/CSIR. Cape Town, South Africa, 14–17 May 2007; pp. 178–188.
21. Watts, S. Tall building economics. In The Tall Buildings Reference Book; Parker, D., Wood, A., Eds.; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 49–70.
22. Wilkinson, C. Aesthetics, symbolism and status in the twenty-first century. In The Tall Buildings Reference
Book; Parker, D., Wood, A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 33–40.
23. Florides, G.A.; Tassou, S.A.; Kalogirou, S.A.; Wrobel, L.C. Measures used to lower building energy
consumption and their cost effectiveness. Appl. Energy 2002, 73, 299–328. [CrossRef]
24. Pacheco, R.; Ordóñez, J.; Martínez, G. Energy efficient design of building: A review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3559–3573. [CrossRef]
25. Mingfang, T. Solar control for buildings. Build. Environ. 2002, 37, 659–664. [CrossRef]
26. Abanda, F.H.; Byers, L. An investigation of the impact of building orientation on energy consumption
in a domestic building using emerging bim (building information modelling). Energy 2016, 97, 517–527.
[CrossRef]
27. Kheiri, F. The relation of orientation and dimensional specifications of window with building energy
consumption in four different climates of koppen classification. Researcher 2013, 5, 107–115.
28. Goia, F.; Haase, M.; Perino, M. Optimizing the configuration of a façade module for office buildings by
means of integrated thermal and lighting simulations in a total energy perspective. Appl. Energy 2013, 108,
515–527. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, L.; Mathew, P.; Pang, X. Uncertainties in energy consumption introduced by building operations and
weather for a medium-size office building. Energy Build. 2012, 53, 152–158. [CrossRef]
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 09 00623

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

Sustainability 09 00623

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Academic Editor: Avi Friedman

Sustainability 2017, 9, 623; doi:10.3390/su9040623 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Overview of Previous Studies

Sustainability 2017, 9, 623 4 of 28

Table 1. Simulation inputs for building’s properties and operation details.

Table 1. Simulation inputs for building’s properties and operation details.

3.2. Sensitivity Test

Table 2. Sensitivity analysis of building envelope parameters.

Building Parameter Climate Values Max. Variation (kW h/m2 )

3.3. Location and Climate Type

4.1. Plan Shape and Building Energy Performance

4.1. Plan Shape and Building Energy Performance

(Opening area on each façade/Total opening area) × 100

Sustainability 2017, 9, 623 11 of 28

4.1.1. Temperate Climate

Sustainability 2017, 9, 623; doi:10.3390/su9040623 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Breakdown of Annual Total Energy Demand Annual Total Energy Demand

Plan Shape Heating/ Cooling/ Lighting/ Fan/ Total/

4.1.2. Sub-Tropical Climate

Breakdown of Annual Total Energy Demand Annual Total Energy Demand

Plan Shape Heating/ Cooling/ Lighting/ Fan/ Total/

4.1.3. Tropical Climate

4.4. Window-to-Wall Ratio

Figure 9.9. Recommended

Climate Type/ Temperate

4.6. Research Limitations and Recommendations

Sustainability 2017, 9, 623 23 of 28

Temperate Sub-Tropical Tropical

Figure A2. Cont.

Figure A4. Cont.

You might also like