Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Sustainable façade cladding selection for buildings in hot climates based on

thermal performance and energy consumption
Saleh Abu Dabous a, *, Tariq Ibrahim b, Sundus Shareef c, Emad Mushtaha d, Imad Alsyouf e
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sustainable Engineering Asset Management Research Group, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
b
Asia Prime General Contracting Co. LLC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
c
Faculty of Engineering and IT, The British University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
d
Department of Architectural Engineering, Sustainable Engineering Asset Management Research Group, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
e
Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Sustainable Engineering Asset Management Research Group, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United
Arab Emirates

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Façade cladding system is essential contributor to the sustainable performance of buildings. Holistic investigation
Façade cladding system of building facade cladding performance with respect to the regional microclimate is paramount and can
Cladding selection criteria contribute to an under investigated research area. The research aims at analyzing the different building facade
TOPSIS
cladding systems and developing sustainable design guidelines for selecting efficient facade cladding system in
IES-VE
hot climates. To achieve this goal, the multi-criteria method of order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
Cooling load
Fire resistance is utilized to evaluate experts’ preference of façade cladding according to essential selection criteria, and an
Aluminum composite panel integrated environmental solutions-virtual environment simulation technique is applied to analyze thermal
Stone cladding performance of the different cladding systems. The findings indicate that stone system is the most preferable
cladding material with the highest relative closeness compared to the aluminum composite panel and plaster
systems. The recommended façade system is the stone cladding which can reduce the cooling load by 4% and
1.5% compared to the aluminum panel and plaster systems, respectively. Simultaneously, it is found that
polyurethane board material reduces the cooling load by 3.8% compared to sandstone with expanded poly­
styrene. Fire risk ranked at the top of the selection sub-criterion. The simulation demonstrates that fire risk
related to the aluminum panel system can be alleviated by using high ignition point insulation materials such as
mineral fiberglass and glass wool. Therefore, gravel gray stone cladding system with a cavity and mineral
fiberglass is recommended in hot climates for its superior thermal performance and fire resistance.

1. Introduction are among the largest building’ component and plays a major role in
heat transmission between indoor and outdoor environments. In fact, it
Due to persistent expansion of construction developments and the contributes to a large thermal transmittance of about 20%–30% of total
associated major challenge of maintaining a sustainable environment, energy consumption (Nadoushani, 2017). Therefore, the new frontiers
there is a continuous demand for more efficient use of durable con­ of building regulations are focused on reducing the building energy
struction materials with a less negative environmental impact. It is well demand for heating and cooling based on improving the thermal insu­
known that buildings account for approximately 40% of total global lation of the building envelope mainly related to the façade materials
energy consumption [1]. This large and growing amount of energy [3–5]. However, other specifications for façade cladding materials are
consumption and dependence on fossil foil to fulfill the growing demand important to be taken into consideration during the selection process.
has a massive negative environmental impact and is one of the major For instance, modern façade design, producing a unique appearance for
causes for global heat and climate change. One of the passive design the building is one of the design and marketing requirements (Paech,
strategies that can be adopted to reduce the cooling and heating demand 2016). Hence, the selection of façade cladding material is an important
is the thorough selection of building’s envelope materials [2]. multi-criteria decision as it affects the final shape of the building, project
In this context, the exterior walls of a building, known as the façade, cost, construction duration, and sustainability of the building.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Abu Dabous).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100643
Received 4 August 2022; Received in revised form 4 September 2022; Accepted 13 September 2022
Available online 16 September 2022
2590-1230/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Generally, the façade system selection method depends on many factors façade cladding that meets the area’s context. The following subsection
and criteria such as building use, location, budget, and climate condi­ presents detailed discussion of existing literature on decision criteria for
tions of the area. With all variables available in selecting façade mate­ building façade selection.
rials, decision-making for façade cladding material became a hard task
for designers as well as master developers. The selection of construction 2.1. Review of the literature on building façade material and system
materials based on one criterion is not sufficient, using a multi-criteria selection
tool will provide the capability of including all influence able factors
that should be considered in facade selecting (Tovarović et al., 2017). The importance of sustainability and the efficient thermal perfor­
Hence, the requirement for applying an integrated approach that assists mance of the façade and different materials used for cladding system
in reducing the gap between the variables in the selection process is a construction has been presented in many studies [8–10]. Carmon Alonso
mandatory need. (2016) studied the effect of the façade on energy saving in residential
The aim of this study is to develop sustainable design guidelines and buildings; three types of façade cladding materials were experimented
recommendations for selecting the most efficient facade cladding system with. The façade system types covered; a non-insulated cavity wall,
(FCS) in hot climates taking into consideration façade thermal perfor­ tile-based ventilated façade, and extern thermal insulation systems. The
mance. This would be reach design recommendations for a façade results concluded that the non-insulated cavity walls consume more
cladding system and materials that meet the market and developer energy than the other two types. Salar, Maryam, and Zhino (2017)
preference on the one hand and an energy-saving target in hot climate studied the factors that affected heat exchange in buildings through
areas on the other hand. The study objectives are as follows: facade cladding materials and gave percentages for the factors
depending on the façade materials. The purpose of the study was to
• Identifying the criteria influencing the selection of the facade clad­ evaluate the available façade cladding alternatives for a better thermal
ding systems. performance selection. Gagliano and Aneli [11], claimed that ventilated
• Identifying the facade materials used in hot climate areas and building envelopes reduce energy use in buildings. The researchers
ranking the stakeholders’ preferences using. conducted a comprehensive comparison between an opaque ventilated
• Evaluating the efficiency of the preferred and commonly used façade façade and a conventional unventilated façade. The results show that the
materials with respect to building thermal performance and energy opaque ventilated façade provides an energy-saving ranging from 20%
consumption, specifically cooling load in hot climates. to 55% on the summer day for the East/West direction facing façade.
Alqaed [2] conducted a study on the climate conditions of Saudi Arabia
The study took the UAE as a case study for hot climate areas, and the and stated that the use of a double skin facade compared to the simple
literature review was conducted to investigate the main and sub-criteria façade within Jeddah city climate conditions reduces energy re­
in selecting FCS. Furthermore, order of preference by similarity to ideal quirements by 11.5% in the relatively cold months, and by 5.6% in the
solution (TOPSIS), one of the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) summer months. The main and sub-criteria that impact the selection of
techniques, is used to know and rank the market and developer prefer­ FCS are summarized in Table 1. The specific study adopting the criteria
ences. Furthermore, Integrated Environmental Solutions - Virtual is pointed out.
Environment (IES-VE) software is used to evaluate the facade systems in
relation to energy performance. 2.2. Critical discussion of the literature on building façade material and
system selection
2. Literature review
Building envelope and façade insulation materials are crucial factors
Taking the decisions to achieve different targets during the design in building energy saving [12–15]. [16] stated that the use of prepared
process is a crucial step, especially when a lot of variables is needed to be mortar, and microencapsulated composite for the insulation plastering
taken into consideration during the process. The multi-criteria decision- resulted in a significant thermal performance improvement when
making methods provide the tools to make the process easier and more applied to various mortar parts in buildings. Kumar et al. [17] presented
efficient [6,7]. Mark and Patrick (2018) published an analysis of a compressive analysis of building façade and insulation materials and
multi-criteria decision-making methods and discussed the advantages, their properties, the study includes glass wool, rock wool, expanded
disadvantages, and listed the applications of the common multi-criteria polystyrene, foamed glass, and phenolic foam. The analysis covered
decision-making techniques that can be applied in the construction different aspects such as energy performance, environment, indoor
materials selection in industry. Maria and Gonzalo (2017) applied the comfort, and economics [18]. investigated the impact of façade mate­
concept of multi-criteria decision-making techniques to select between rials on indoor thermal performance in residential buildings in tropical
two alternative construction materials and applied the multi-attribute climates. The researchers conducted a parametric study to evaluate the
utility method to select between precast concrete and cast-in-situ impacts of various façade designs on indoor air temperatures and
based on quantitative environmental impact analysis. They discussed cooling loads. In that study, five different facade glass types were used,
three sets of main criteria and sub-sets of criteria, and the results showed and ventilation scenarios using windows opened and closed models
that precast elements are more environmentally friendly than the cast during day and night time were simulated. The researchers resulted that
in-situ. The multi-criteria decision-making technique was applied in a the more insulated windows could have adverse effects on indoor
study conducted by Ana and Francisco (2012) in a construction project thermal comfort and cooling loads.
for contractor selection. The aim was to reach the proper selection be­ Cladding system cost is another assessment criterion presented in
tween five contractors using the Analysis Hierarchy Process (AHP) different studies [19–22]. The literature illustrated different types of
multi-criteria decision-making model. The researchers set the main costs for the façade cladding system including material cost, installation
criteria, including technical capacity, experience, management ability, cost, and maintenance cost. In the same context, life cycle assessment,
past performance, past relationships, reputation, financial stability, and maintenance, durability, quality assurance, and quality control have
occupational health and safety. Zahraa and Ali (2017) conducted a study also a significant impact on decision making when selecting a façade
to select a façade system based on sustainability criteria using the cladding system [23–25]. Iqbal et al. [26] studies performance of
multi-criteria selection method. The researchers compared different different insulation materials installed in a residential building in
cladding systems such as single/double brickwork, aluminum panels, Pakistan and stated that Polyethylene was the most economical insu­
and ceramic cladding. Using AHP multi-decision-making tool and the lation material amongst the other investigated materials. According to
Delphi technique, the researchers were able to choose the sustainable ISO 15686, execution characteristics, inner and extern environmental

2
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Main and sub-criteria for selecting FCS. Publication Title Investigated Method of Study Outcomes and
Publication Title Investigated Method of Study Outcomes and Criteria Investigation/ Results
Criteria Investigation/ Results Selection
Selection
Facade
Analysis of the Sustainability/ CFD Analysis/ OVF guarantees an Integrated
energy Design/Energy ANSYS Fluent energy-saving Photovoltaic
performance of saving ranging from 20% to Systems [10]
an Opaque 55% Criteria for Life cycle Multi-criteria The maintenance
Ventilated selection of assessment/ analysis strategy can be
Façade OVF cladding Maintenance changed if the weight
under winter systems based of the durability and
and summer on their performance criteria
weather maintainability is, at least, 1%, and
conditions [9] [8] the constructive
Effect of annual Sustainability/ Design Builder Using a simple DSF solution can be
solar radiation Design/ Software and double-skin one changed if the weight
on simple Materials/ with PCM reduces is, at least, 17%
façade, double- Energy saving the required heating Coating Life cycle Experimental Based on
skin DSF facade energy by 18% and properties, assessment/ Procedures comprehensive
and double-skin 40% energy Cost/Energy assessment, the Ni-
facade filled consumption, saving based alloy coating
with phase and cost analysis shows the best
change of the induction performance
materials for cladding process
saving energy [39]
[3] Protection from Durability/ Data analysis Weld cladding can
Enhancing Sustainability/ Mathematical The integrated wall corrosion and Maintenance Experimental produce better
building energy Materials/ model could provide 15%– wear by adhesion between
performance by Energy saving 72% reduction in different weld the substrate and
effectively using annual heat gain and cladding clads to enhance
phase change 7%–38% reduction techniques [24] mechanical and
material and in annual heat loss tribological
dynamic characteristics
insulation in Effects of heating Durability/ Experimental Selecting a suitable
walls [12] time on the Maintenance Method heating time, it could
Energy and carbon Sustainability/ Mathematical A new index, Energy microstructure control the melting
analysis of Energy saving/ Model PCE2s Carbon Cost (ECC), is and properties depth of the
double skin Design proposed to help of an induction substrate, reduce the
façades DSF in define the best DSF cladding coating dilution rate and
the hot and dry design scenario [38] retain the hardness
climate [41] and corrosion
Comparative Sustainability/ Case study Design optimization resistance of the
analysis of Materials/Cost analysis should include four coating
building criteria 1) Energy, 2) The combined Sustainability/ Experimental An increase of 8% in
insulation Environment, 3) effect of heat Materials/ Method the total cooling load
material Economic, and 4) and moisture Energy saving calculated at 28 ◦ C
properties and Comfort transfer and 30% moisture
performance dependent was measured
[14] thermal relative to the base
Thermal bridging Sustainability/ Thermal The overall effect at conductivity of case evaluated at
problems on Design analysis DSF can surpass 25% polystyrene 24 ◦ C and 0%
advanced package of total envelope heat insulation moisture
cladding COMSOL flow material: Impact
systems and on building
smart building energy
facades [32] performance
Impact of façade Designs/Energy Design Builder The more insulated [13]
design on indoor saving Software windows and walls Life cycle Life cycle Case study data Suggestions for
air temperatures could have adverse assessment of assessment/ Analysis optimizing the life
and cooling effects on indoor ceramic façade Sustainability/ cycle process of
loads in thermal comfort and material and its Materials ceramic façade
residential cooling loads comparative panels for better
buildings in the analysis with environmental
tropical climate three other performance and
[33] common façade some
Development of an Life cycle ReCiPe The analysis results materials recommendations for
integrated tool assessment/ Technique indicated that the better selection of
based on life Cost Energy Perovskite façade façade materials
cycle saving was the most Integrated Design Grasshopper/ A full potential
assessment, sustainable options parametric Rhino Software hexagonal adaptive
Levelized for building design of system was
energy, and life adaptive facades presented to achieve
cycle cost for user’s visual the maximum visual
analysis to comfort [30] comfort level based
choose on the users’
sustainable preferences
(continued on next page)

3
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Table 1 (continued ) steel–concrete–steel sandwich panels. The researchers found that the
Publication Title Investigated Method of Study Outcomes and rear steel plate was found to consume more energy than the front plate,
Criteria Investigation/ Results which provides better protection against projectile impact loadings. Han
Selection et al. [6] defined the life cycle assessment as a framework for estimating
Architectural Design/ Data analysis An overall the environmental impacts on the façade cladding system and stated that
quality of the Appearance Survey acceptance of the PF climate change is one of the major influencing factors on cladding ma­
productive concept and reveal a terials. An example of a life cycle assessment for plastered walls cladding
façades need for synergetic
was conducted by Silva et al. (2014), the assessment covered four types
integrating collaboration
photovoltaic between architects/ of mortared walls: lime cement mortar, cement mortar, mortar with
and vertical designers and other crushed marble, and single layer mortar. The results show that lime
farming systems: building cement mortar has the least age and durability while the crushed marble
Survey among professionals recorded the maximum durability performance. Improving sustainabil­
experts in
Singapore [31]
ity of steel by conducting the life cycle assessment addressed by Roy
Effect of facade Sustainability/ Envi-met The outcomes point et al. [29]. The researchers found that preprinted steel coils manufac­
reflectance on Design Software out that there is a tured globally had less than 70% emissions when compared to the
outdoor correlation between emissions of locally manufactured preprinted steel coils. Furthermore,
microclimate: the building façade
different types of façade cladding were involved in the research study to
An Italian case reflectance and the
study [7] temperature trend estimate service life covers; stoned, painted, and ceramic façade
but this has a very (Madureira et al., 2017; [30]. Mawardi et al. [31] investigated the
limited influence on thermal conductivity and sound absorption of binderless panels made of
outdoor oil palm wood for facade and resulted that panels with large particles
microclimate
Optothermal Sustainability/ Experimental After three years
had the least thermal conductivity of 0.050 W/mK, and the highest
properties of Design Method observation, the sound absorption coefficient of 0.33.
façade coatings. surface temperature Façade’s architectural design, appearance, and impact on the sur­
Effects of increases up to 30 ◦ C rounding environment have also an influential impact on the façade
environmental in coatings and up to
system selection [32–35]. [36] conducted a survey study to evaluate the
exposure over 16.5 ◦ C in paints
solar reflective acceptance of integrating photovoltaic systems and vertical farming in
index [1] building facades. The study covers architects, designers, residents,
Effects and Sustainability/ Experimental The simulation study contractors, and other building professionals. Tabadkani et al. [37]
properties of Design Method showed that TiO2/ conducted a study to investigate the performance of the facade with
double-layer In2O3/conic Al2O3
respect to the user’s visual comfort using integrated parametric design.
anti-reflective have lower
coating in 2O3/ reflection, higher The researchers concluded that the hexagonal adaptive system obtained
Conic Al 2O3 absorption and the highest visual comfort level based on the users ‘preferences. Pastore
and three-layer higher efficiency and Andersen [38] studied the influence of façade design on building
anti-reflective
occupants’ indoor experience and argued that the outcomes are useful
coatings of
TiO2/in 2O3/ inputs to the façade and design industry, and the research brings new
Conic Al 2O3 on insights and understanding of comfort and user satisfaction. Façade
silicon substrate glass material design, type, and color influence on the internal envi­
[23] ronment in the hot arid zone have been addressed by Sayed and Fikry
Impact of glass Design/ Case study Selecting the
[39]. The researchers highlighted the importance of glass design to ex­
facades on Materials analysis/E- appropriate type of
internal QUEST glass or color as well press the architectural and cultural identity of the region. Further to the
environment of software as effective shading importance of effective shading systems in responding to the solar ra­
buildings in hot systems which diation in hot areas. Openings, doors, and widows have also an impact
arid zone [27]. respond to the solar
on facade appearance, design, and performance. Alonso et al. [40]
radiation of the
region
studied the acoustic retrofit strategies of windows in the facades of
The non- Fire resistance/ Data analysis residential buildings to reduce exposure to environmental noise. The
combustibility Combustibility Experimental results show that upgrading interventions focused on windows can be
of aluminum – sufficient to propose suitable constructive systems in compliance with
ICC [17]
requirements established worldwide when external noise amounts to 60
Experimental Fire resistance/ Data analysis Two layer gypsum
study of the fire Combustibility Experimental boards of 12.5 mm in dB measured 2 m from the façade, and upgrading strategies focused on
resistance of thickness reinforced windows can be sufficient to comply with regulations. While Do and
walls and floors with glass fiber were Chan [41] investigated the day lighting performance of a facade
constructed with proven satisfactory
combining daylight-redirecting window film and an automated roller
steel studs and to provide 1-h fire
steel joists [15] resistance with load-
shade. The researchers stated that an increase of glass transmittance in
bearing wall and the façade’s top section increases day lighting, while decreasing glass
floor transmittance in the middle section provides more outdoor views and
developed a guide for designing a multi-sectional facade system.
Further to the presented facades cladding system criteria, fire resis­
characteristics, use conditions, and level of maintenance are the factors
tance of the façade cladding system and materials combustibility are
that affect durability and maintenance as well [27]. Mansur et al. (2006)
among the safety regulations and authorities’ requirements worldwide
studied the maintenance and the impact of the defect on the material on
and are among the designers’ and developers’ constraints when select­
the decision-making, and they listed the main reasons behind the bond
ing FCS. Generally, buildings material can be classified into seven cat­
failure. Bulking and detachment of ceramic tiles were classified into
egories with respect to fire resistance: A1, A2, B, C, D, E, and F. A1
problems in the ceramic tiles themselves, improper workmanship, poor
classification is at the top of fire resistance, while F is the height flam­
design, and other issues in mortar. Feng et al. [28] conducted a nu­
mable material. The A material is non-combustible material including
merical and analytical investigations on projectile perforation on
concrete, stone, and bricks. The European system classifies modern

4
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

concrete and masonry as A1 and considers them ‘non-combustible’; to the positive ideal solution, and farthest to the negative ideal solution
these materials do not require any additional testing or fire proofing. (Qin et al., 2008). The literature presented a number of multi-criteria
Design professionals and developers consider fire risk seriously and decision-making methods, however, Analysis Hierarchy Process AHP,
choose non-combustible materials, such as concrete and masonry, for SMART, and TOPSIS are of the most methods used in construction in­
the building envelope as a first measure for achieving safer buildings. dustry studies. The comparison between the three methods showed that
Recently, the Aluminum Composite panels (ACP) are some of the most the AHP as a multi-criteria decision-making technique can handle fewer
used materials for construction and façade cladding. Aluminum is a number criteria compared to TOPSIS. The level of consistency and
flexible material that can suit the needs of different designs. subjectivity drops down when the number of criteria increases in AHP
However, aluminum has an undeserved reputation for being an because the method of weighing criteria in AHP can confuse the user due
inherently combustible material. It is just like many comparable metals, to rank reversal. Moreover, SMART oversimplifies problems that may
is not combustible, additionally, no other scientific test has provided give less accurate results, which also requires accurate judgment from
evidence of aluminum’s general combustibility in solid form [42]. Fa­ the decision-maker. Furthermore, the formula for distributing weights
cade’s performance with respect to fire resistance has been addressed in become complex when the number of criterion increases [46,47].
many studies [43–45]. In China, a numerical study on nine different Hence, the TOPSIS was selected as a multi-criteria decision-making
types of glass facades was conducted to know the fire resistance response technique for conducting this study for the following reasons [48–50]:
of each type. The study highlighted the importance of fire resistance
selection criteria and monitored cracks’ initiation time and growth to • It is easy to implement, has a straightforward technique, and a simple
know their thermal resistance using the three-dimensional finite computation process that can be easily programmed into a spread­
element. Another study by Lalu et al. (2017) was conducted to deter­ sheet after indicating the main and sub-criterion in façade system
mine the response of three different cladding systems to fire, the three selection.
systems included plastered, insulated walls using the polystyrene ther­ • Flexibility and the opportunity of comparing an unlimited number of
mal insulation with different fire stopper thicknesses. The burning test façade system alternatives.
for the 20 cm fire stopper showed polystyrene material was burning. The • Gives the rationale represented by experts’ and designers’ choices of
polystyrene with 30 cm fire stopper was not damaged, it only shows the common systems.
surface cracks, while the polystyrene with 50 cm fire stopper had no • Popular and it has been used in different engineering and construc­
damage, but the plaster color turned to black. Previous studies tion areas such as; design, materials selection, engineering and
concentrated on exploring the main and sub-criteria in FCS selection, manufacturing systems, and environmental management.
other studies investigated the thermal performance and energy saving of • The number of steps remains the same regardless of the number of
different façade cladding materials. Previous literature has not façade system alternatives available in the market.
addressed the impact of the experts’ preferences and selections on
facade thermal performance. This study aims to fill this gap and in­ Further to the qualitative TOPSIS multi-critical decision-making
vestigates the effect of the most preferable and commonly used FCS on method, this research uses quantitative research using simulation soft­
sustainable performance of buildings in hot areas. This can be achieved ware to evaluate the energy performance of the investigated façade
by the combination of two different methods for study, the multi-criteria cladding systems. The literature presented sustainability and thermal
decision-making method, and the thermal performance investigation performance as important criteria in selecting facade systems in order to
method. The identification of the main and sub-criteria of FCS selection face the global climate challenges and meet the energy-saving targets.
illustrated in Table 2. The simulation software provides the tool that can help in assessing and
evaluating the impact of each system on indoor thermal performance.
3. Methodology This analysis will support the decision-making process by selecting the
system with optimized and efficient thermal performance. Fig. 1 illus­
This research aims to provide design recommendations for facade trates the research methodology followed in this study. Based on the
materials selection based on designers’ and master developers’ prefer­ data collected from the literature, main and sub-criteria are specified
ences and the desired energy performance of the façade system. Due to and alternatives are set based on façade cladding practices in the case
the number of variables presented in the literature involved in the se­ study area. In the next step, expert judgment is implemented into the
lection of the façade cladding system, this research adopted a multi- model and a pairwise model is developed to give weight to each crite­
criteria decision tool to investigate and rank the expert’s and industry rion. Then, the available alternatives are evaluated using the TOPSIS
stockholders’ preferences. The decision support system is of the tech­ technique to know the façade cladding system preference from the
niques that have been followed to help individuals or organizations for aspect of developers, designers, and the market. TOPSIS allows expert
better decision making (Keen, 1980). Carnegie Institute of Technology judgment to rank each attribute and both criterion weights from pro­
was the first to evolve decision support in their theoretical studies (Keen, fessional perspectives. In the next step, the simulation software as a
1978). The TOPSIS, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to quantitative tool is used to study the thermal performance of the pref­
Ideal Solution, is generally used to identify an alternative that is closest erences in order to recommend the best selection of façade cladding
system that meets the context of the case study area and can be gener­
alized to the areas with the same climates conditions.
Table 2
Identification of main and sub-criteria of FCS selection. 3.1. The Technique for Order of Preference by similarity to ideal solution
Main Criterion Sub Criterion Symbol (TOPSIS) formulas
Design (D) Aesthetic AE
Material Properties MP The TOPSIS consists of a number of formulas; each one is imple­
Sustainability (S) Insulation Material IM mented for a specific role during the process of conducting the TOPSIS as
Energy Saving ES follows:
CO2 Emission CE
Life Cycle Cost (L) Material Cost MC
Installation Cost IC • Calculating the normalized matrix. The normalized value rij is esti­
Maintenance Cost MA mated as follows:
Performance (P) Durability DU
Fire Resistance FR

5
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Fig. 1. The research methodology flowchart.

/
∑
m √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
rij = xij xij2 i = 1, 2, ...., m and j = 1, 2, ..., n (1) ∗
√ m (
√∑
)2
(4)
∗
i− 1 S =√ v − v , j = 1, 2, ..., m
i j
j=1

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ m ( )2
− √∑
• Calculating the weighted normalized matrix. The weighted normal­ (5)
−
S =√ v− v , j = 1, 2, ..., m
i j
ized decision value vij is estimated as follows: j=1

vij = rij × wj i = 1, 2 m and j = 1, 2, n (2)

• Calculating the relative closeness to the identified ideal solution. The
∑
n i
relative closeness of alternative Awith respect to A is estimated as
j
w=1
∗
follows:
j=1

j −
Where w is weight of the j criterion and, S∗
th RC = ∗ i − , i = 1, 2, ..., m (6)
i
S +S
• Determining ideal (A) and the negative ideal (A) solution.
i i
∗ −
{( ⃒ ) ( ⃒ )} { ⃒ }
A=
⃒ b ⃒ c
maxv⃒⃒j ∈ C , minv⃒⃒j ∈ C
∗ ⃒
= v ⃒⃒j = 1, 2, ..., m (3a) • Ranking the order of preference and selecting the one option with
∗ i i j RCi* closest to 1.
{( ⃒ ) ( ⃒ )} { ⃒ }
⃒ b ⃒ c ⃒
(3b)
−
A= minv⃒⃒j ∈ C , maxv⃒⃒j ∈ C = v ⃒j = 1, 2, ..., m
⃒
− i i j 3.1.1. Observation and data collection
Through the observation of selecting façade systems in five com­
• Calculating the measures of separation using the m-dimensional panies and specialist feedback, it has been found that most of the com­
Euclidean distance. The measures of each alternative from both the parisons between façade claddings are concerned about single criteria
positive ideal solution and the negative one, respectively, are esti­ and few are considering it as a multiple criteria problem. Most of the
mated as follows: developers consider specific criteria such as; design, durability, or cost.
In this study, the application of the multi-criteria decision-making tool
allows to choose between different types of façade claddings using

6
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

multiple criteria, the model allows decision-makers to make decisions Table 4

during earlier stages of the design. The model covers the main and sub- The main alternatives specifications.
criteria extracted from the literature, including design and aesthetic Thickness Material Cost Productivity Service
evaluation, cost evaluation, sustainability, and performance measures. Cladding mm weight per m2 (m2/hr./gang) life
Alternatives are set and evaluated using a multi-criteria decision-making Alternative (kg/m2) (AED) (Years)
technique, then ranked using the industry stockholders’ experience. ACP 20 33 389 10 25
Stone/ 50 78 640 6 45
3.1.2. Alternatives, criteria, and sub-criteria indication Marble
Plaster 10 37.2 78 3 10
Alternatives are selected based on the available types of façade painted
cladding systems in the study area and the global market. A survey was wall
conducted in 5 different construction organizations as interviews with
different positions from each organization covered: designers, man­
agers, contractors, and marketing experts. The purpose of the survey was 3.2. Software simulation and alternatives energy performance prediction
to know the most popular types of façade cladding systems in the study
area in the UAE to be chosen as alternatives (Table 3). The different In the second phase of this study, the IES-VE simulation software is
types of façade systems mentioned by the responders can be classified utilized to evaluate thermal performance for the selected alternatives for
under three alternatives presented in Table 4. the facade cladding system. The facade systems were selected according
to the literature review and the results of the TOPSIS method. The IES-
3.1.3. TOPSIS pairwise technique and creation weight VE software is generally adopted to simulate and predict the building’s
The pairwise analysis is implemented to get the weight of each cri­ indoor thermal performance by modeling a wide range of building
terion which is one of the inputs for the TOPSIS technique. A survey was construction materials, including façade and insulation materials [51,
conducted on 17 respondents to result in the pairwise matrix analysis 52]. The outcome of the simulation process provides a better under­
presented in Table 3. The table shows an example of the one-respondent standing of the selection of cladding systems on energy consumption for
survey distributed among the 17 participants to get criterion weight cooling purposes. The IES-VE simulation approach provides flexibility in
(Table 5). developing the construction file that identifies different materials used
Each participant or respondent was asked to select his/her prefer­ in FCS and defining the thermal properties and specifications of these
ence between every two criteria. In the presented example, the materials [53]. The three major alternatives of façade cladding systems
respondent was asked whether he preferred the Aesthetic value on the were simulated to find out the thermal performance of each system.
U-value or the insulation performance, and the preference was the Generally, each system’s performance is varied according to the
Aesthetic value. In terms of Aesthetic value and cost, the answer was composition of the system and the materials’ properties. Hence,
equally preferred. The repetition of criterion selection as used to get the different compositions for each system were simulated according to the
weight of each criterion that was used in the TOPSIS analysis. To turn expert and stakeholders’ recommendations. However, the compositions
the repetition into a percentage, the following calculations were con­ were selected according to the availability in the international and case
ducted according to equation (7): study area market. Table 6 illustrates the facade cladding systems ma­
terials’ properties. The three alternatives and the simulated scenarios for
X = A + B + C + D + E + F + G = 100% (7) each alternative are presented in Table 7.

1. Subtitue the values into “X” to find the total points “ = 6 + 2+1 + 3.2.1. Study area climate conditions and IES-VE initial and boundary
6+1 + 3+6 = 100%“, i.e., 25 points = 100% conditions
2. Number of points represents number of repetitions and the least The study area, the UAE and the Arabia Gulf reign, represents the hot
number of repetitions is 1 desert climate; however, it has higher humidity averages than other
3. Percentage of A = total points of A/25 × 100% = (6/25) x (100) = desert climate zones. The summer season records a high average air
24% temperature that may exceed 45 ◦ C in August, the hottest month of the
4. Weight of each criterion: year (National Center of Meteorology in UAE - Dubai International
Airport, 2022 [54]). It is recognized that the cooling load impacts energy
The same calculations were repeated for all the respondents. Table 5c consumption. Therefore, the hottest month of the year was selected for
shows the averageweight of each criterion. meteorological conditions to simulate the process. The boundary con­
ditions for the simulation process are provided in Table 8. The sun cast
application in the software offers the opportunity to simulate impact of
solar radiant according to the study location. Furthermore, the Apache
Table 3 application allows running a simulation process for cooling load using
Types of facade cladding systems in five construction companies in the United standard specification and thermal conditions based on ASHRAE re­
Arab Emirates. quirements. The study building is located in Sharjah, UAE, 16 km away
Type of façade cladding system No. of Percentage from Dubai International Airport, hence, the weather file and metro­
projects (%) logical data used for the simulation process is the Dubai Airport Weather
1. Plaster painted walls 8 25.81 Station data. The building’s total floor area is 450 m2, and the total
2. Aluminum Composite Panels (ACP) 4 12.90 built-up area is 2250 m2 (Fig. 2). The initial and boundary condition for
3. Stone/marble cladding 0 0
the simulation process is presented in Table 8.
4. Plaster painted walls and aluminum 3 9.68
composite panels
5. Plaster painted walls and stone/marble 6 19.35 4. Analysis of results
cladding
6. Aluminum Composite Panels (ACP) with 6 19.35 4.1. Alternatives selection and sub-criteria analysis
stone/marble cladding
7. Aluminum Composite Panels (ACP), plaster 1 3.23
painted and stone/marble In this section, the alternatives, and the sub-criteria in selecting FCS
8 Other composite cladding systems 3 9.68 are discussed. Starting with material weight criteria for the three
Total number of projects 31 100% different alternatives which affect the design, as we can see in Table 2

7
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Table 5a
Example of pairwise technique survey for one participant.
Aesthetic Material Properties Insulation Material Material Cost per m2 Fire Resistance Maintenance Durability
Decision Matrix (AE) (MP) (IM) (MC) (FR) (MA) (DU)

A B C D E F G

Aesthetic (AE) A X A A A-D A A A-G

Material Properties B X X B D B F G
(MP)
Insulation Material C X X X D C F G
(IM)
Material Cost per m2 D X X X X D D D-G
(MC)
Fire Resistance (FR) E X X X X X F G
Maintenance (MA) F X X X X X X G
Durability (DU) G X X X X X X X
Criterion A B C D E F G
Repetition 6 2 1 6 1 3 6

was required to start with the analysis. A number of 17 experts was

Table 5b
approached to judge the alternatives using the scale presented by Kar­
Calculations for weighing criterions.
ahalios (2017) (Table 9). The experts are with extensive experience in
Criterion A B C D E F G the area under investigation with an appropriate academic and indus­
Points 6 2 1 6 1 3 6 trial background (Karahalios, 2017). The average of the experts’ judg­
Weight 24% 8% 4% 24% 4% 12% 24% ment on the criteria is presented in Table 10. Tables 11–15 show the
results of implementing the TOPSIS formulas.

Table 5c 4.1.2. The relative closeness alternative and criterion weight

Final/Average criterion weights. The relative closeness values represent the closeness of the alterna­
Criterion A B C D E F G tive to the positive ideal alternative, and the closer the value to 1, the
better it will be. Accordingly, Stone/Marble cladding recorded the best
Weight (%) 16 5 14 17 20 8 19
alternative with Relative Closeness (RC) of 0.67, while the least pref­
erence was recorded by the painted plaster walls with an RC of 0.36. The
stone/marble has the heaviest weight, while aluminum composite panel pairwise technique evaluated project criteria by giving weight for each
cladding has the lightest. Insulation or the U-value as an indication of criterion. According to the experts’ point of view, the most important
thermal insulation represents the criterion of heat transmission. In this criterion was fire resistance as it got a percentage of 21% followed by the
criterion, Stone/marble cladding showed the best results of heat trans­ durability of the material with 19% and the thermal insulation has 17%
fer. The third criterion is material cost, it includes material cost, fixing, according to the participant preference (Fig. 3). The aesthetic value of
and maintenance cost. The results of alternatives comparison (Table 2) the façade system has16%, while the cost of the façade cladding system
show that there is a big difference between the three alternatives, while has14%. The least percentage was for both labor performance and ma­
the painted plaster walls showed the least cost. In terms of fire resis­ terial weight with 8% and 5% respectively. Considering main criteria
tance, the results showed that stone/marble cladding lasts longer under which are sustainability, cost, performance, and design. Performance
fire while ACP showed the worst performance with respect to fire and sustainability got the highest weight compared to the other main
resistance. Moreover, since labor productivity represents how fast the criteria.
work can be done and aluminum composite panel cladding had the
highest productivity rate. Finally, in terms of material durability, it is 4.2. Thermal performance of the simulated alternatives
represented through material serviced life. From the collected data and
experts’ choices, stone/marble cladding has the longest service life One of the study objectives is to evaluate the thermal performance of
while painted plaster walls had the shortest service life (Table 2). the FCS alternatives. It is evident that the thermal load impacts energy
consumption in hot climates. The identified alternatives are simulated to
4.1.1. TOPSIS analysis evaluate the cooling load of each one of them utilizing the IES-VE
In order to proceed with the TOPSIS technique experts’ judgment, it software. The different scenarios of systems composite were selected

Table 6
Facade cladding systems materials’ properties.
Symbol Thickness Conductivity W/ Density (kg/ Heat Capacity (J/ U-value (W/ Combastibility Ignition Point
Material (mm) (m⋅K) m3) (kg⋅K)) m2⋅K) (◦ C)

ALUMINIUM ALU 3.00 160.0000 2800.0 896.00 5.8817 Non-combustible

EXPANDED EXP 100.00 0.0350 25.0 1400.00 0.3303 100
POLYSTYRENE
CAST CONCRETE CC 200.00 1.4000 2100 840.00 3.1963 Non-combustible
(MEDIUM)
MINERAL FIBRE GLASS MFS 100.00 0.0350 30.0 1000.00 0.3303 400
GLASSWOOL GW 100.00 0.040 200.0 670.00 0.3555 250
POLYURETHANE BOARD PUB 100.00 0.0250 30.0 1400 0.2398 150
STONE CHIPPINGS STC 50 0.9600 1800 1000 4.5028 Non-combustible
GRANITE (RED) GRR 50 2.900 2650.0 900 5.3707 Non-combustible
GRAVEL (GRAY) GRG 50 0.3600 1840.0 840.00 3.2740 Non-combustible
MARBLE (WHITE) MW 50 2.7700 2600.0 802.00 5.3177 Non-combustible

8
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Table 7 (Fig. 4). The six simulated compositions of ACP with different insulation
The three simulated alternatives and the scenarios’ composition details for each materials were investigated to find out the thermal performance of each
alternative. composite. The results show that the ACP EPS with Expanded Poly­
Case External Wall Composit (Outside to Wall U- styrene insulation material has a very close performance to the ACP MFS
Cladding System Symbol Inside) Value of a Mineral Fiberglass. However, the ACP with PHF insulation material
Aluminum ACP EPS Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Expanded 0.3155 has a slightly higher cooling load compared to the other panel compo­
Composite Polystyrene (EPS)100 mm, sitions (Fig. 5). The minimum cooling load was attained for ACP with
Panel (ACP) Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Cast PUB insulation material as it recorded an average cooling load of 26.14
Concrete wall 200 mm
kW/h in August the month of the highest air temperature averages in the
ACP PUB Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, 0.2318
Polyurethane Board 100 m, year in the case study area (Fig. 5). This performance was followed by
Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Cast the ACP MFS with a cooling load of 27.21 kW/h and a slight increase of
Concrete wall 200 mm 4% (Fig. 6). The ACP CAVITY composite attained the highest cooling
ACP MFS Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Mineral 0.3155 load compared to all compositions (Fig. 6). The increase in this system
Fiber 100 mm, Aluminum Sheet 3
mm, Cast Concrete wall 200 mm
compared to the best performance system ACP PUB and ACP MFS is 46%
ACP CAV Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Cavity 100 2.0288 and 44% respectively.
mm, Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Cast Furthermore, using the Glass wool as an insulation layer recorded the
Concrete wall 200 mm second-highest cooling load following the ACP CAV with a decrease of
ACP GW Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Cavity 100 0.3555
42% compared to the ACP CAV System. The stone systems composition
mm, Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Cast
Concrete wall 200 mm shows different thermal performance and cooling load averages. How­
ACP PHF Aluminum Sheet 3 mm, Phenolic 0.3561 ever, similar to the ACP the use of the ESP and MFS as an insulation
Foam 100 mm, Aluminum Sheet 3 material shows a very close performance of the recorded cooling load.
mm, Cast Concrete wall 200 mm The best performance for stone systems recorded by the stone with PUB
Stone/Marble ST CAV Sandstone 50 mm, Cavity 100 mm, 1.9224
insulation material ST PUB. Furthermore, the Limestone and marble
Cast Concrete wall 200 mm
ST EPS Sandstone 50 mm, Expanded 0.3128 LIME and MARBLE cladding recorded very close cooling load values due
Polystyrene (EPS)100 mm, Cast to their properties as the same ESP insulation material was used for both
Concrete wall 200 mm systems (Fig. 6). The Stone cavity ST CAV. has the highest cooling load
MARB White Marbel 50 mm Expanded 0.3137
of 46.5Kw/h with an increase of more than 41% compared to all sce­
EPS Polystyrene (EPS)100 mm, Cast
Concrete wall 200 mm narios stone cladding systems. However, the daily average cooling load
ST MFS Sandstone 50 mm, Mineral Fiber 0.3128 in the stone system shows less variation between different scenarios
100 mm, Cast Concrete wall 200 (Fig. 7).
mm The Plaster painted FCS thermal performance and the simulation of
LIME ESP Limestone 50 mm, Expanded 0.3122
the four scenarios show that the plaster with a cavity has the highest
ST PUB Polystyrene (EPS)100 mm, Cast 0.2304
Concrete wall 200 mm cooling load with an average of 47.19 kW/h, while the least cooling load
Sandstone 50 mm, Polyurethane recorded by the plaster system with EPS insulation material 26 kW/h.
Board 100 m, Cast Concrete wall The reduction in this system was 42% compared to the cladding plaster
200 mm
cavity system (Fig. 8). However, increasing the system insulation effi­
PLAS Plaster Dense 10 mm, Cavity 100 1.9499
CAV mm, Cast Concrete wall 200 mm
ciency by using a cavity layer resulted in more reduction in cooling load.
PLAS EPS Plaster Dence 10 mm, Expanded 0.3135 The use of the cavity with ESP and PUB insulation material reduced the
Polystyrene (EPS)100 mm, cooling load by 0.8% and 4.3% respectively compared with the plaster
Concrete wall 200 mm wall with ESP insulation material (Fig. 9).
Plaster Wall PLAS Plaster Dence 10 mm, Polyurethane 0.2216
CAV PUB Board 100 m, Cavity 100 mm,
Concrete wall 200 mm 5. Discussion of results
PLAS Plaster Dence 10 mm, Expanded 0.2967
CAV EPS Polystyrene (EPS)100 mm, Cavity The selection of the façade cladding system is one of the important
100 mm, Concrete wall 200 mm
design decisions. Façade materials have a significant impact on façade
general performance. This research aimed to provide a design recom­
mendation for a façade cladding system based on the developer and
Table 8 stakeholders’ preferences and the thermal performance of the cladding
Location and boundary conditions for running the IES-VE simulation process. systems. The results of implementing the multi-criteria decision-making
Location Longitude 55◦ 33’; Latitude 25ᵒ 25′ model TOPSIS show that the stone system is the Relative Closeness (RC)
Station Dubai International Airport Station to the ideal solution as it comes at the top of the other two alternatives
Methodology for Loads ASHRAE Loads ACP and Plaster wall form the participants’ aspect. This selection was
Daily and weekly profiles Continuous followed by the ACP system and, and painted plaster wall with an RC of
System cooling target 23 ͦ C 0.43 and 0.36 respectively. In the second phase of the study, each of the
The internal gain -florescent type consumption 10 w/m2
Occupancy 87 people
FCS alternatives was investigated using the thermal performance
Natural ventilation maximum flow 1 ach assessment IES-VE software. Different scenarios of cladding systems
Maximum temperature (dry bulb) 45 ◦ C were investigated by adopting the systems with the insulation materials
Minimum temperature 35.5 ◦ C available in the global and local markets. The impact of the cooling load
performance of each system was extracted as a result of the simulation
process. Cooling load of the three alternatives with respect to the top
depending on the use and availability of these systems in the global
criterion’s preference. Comparing the three alternatives with respect to
industry. The system’s evaluation was discussed according to the criteria
the top sub-criteria preference in FCS selection obtained by conducting
mentioned by the participants. The simulation of different FCS scenarios
the TOPSIS method is discussed in this section. The best preference se­
shows interesting results. The average daily cooling load of August, the
lection is the stone system as this system attained the lowest cooling load
hottest month in the case study area, shows that the cooling load starts
with an overall 0.4% and 0.2% reduction compared to the ACP and the
with an increase from sunrise time to reaching the maximum at 15:30
plaster system, respectively.

9
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Fig. 2. The case study building for FCS alternatives and the simulation of solar radiation in August.

by 2.4% as illustrated in the previous section, but it provides a higher

Table 9
fire resistance with ignition 250 ◦ C compared to the ESP with ignition
Scale for alternative assessment.
point at 100 ◦ C. In terms of the cavity system, this system can provide
Ranking scale Rank the required safety and resistance to fire but the increase in cooling load
Very Poor 1 compared to the other insulation options make it less preferable to be
Poor 3 used. On the other hand, when comparing the best performance of the
Fair 5 three alternatives with respect to cooling load efficiency, it has been
Good 7
Very Good 9
found that using the MFS for insulation with the stone cladding system
provides the most efficient performance with respect to cooling load as
this system decreases the cooling load by 0.5% when compared it to the
However, the thermal performance results show that the insulation ACP system with the same insulation material (Fig. 11). The cavity
material used in each system is a crucial factor in cooling load reduction. system and the use of air as an insulation layer can also provide a high
In addition to the efficient performance, the stone system meets the fire safety with respect to the fir resistance, the priority sub-criteria, and this
resistance and durability as they are at the top of the criterion in system is utilized to record the highest load for cooling to identify the
selecting the FCS. The ACP comes in second place after the stone system least efficient insulation material for all systems (Fig. 12). The stone
on the experts’ preference list. The main concern of the use of this ma­ cavity system reduced the cooling load by 4% and 1.5% compared to
terial from the designer’s aspect was the system performance against fire
resistance. Fire resistance was at the top of the sub-criteria in selecting Table 12
FCS from the experts’s point of view with a percentage of 20%. The use The weighted normalized decision matrix.
of some insulation material types such as the Expanded Polystyrene EPS
Weighted matrix C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
which has a low ignition point and easily ignition increases the fire risk
A1 0.10 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.10
compared to the other type of insulation materials. On the other hand,
A2 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.16 0.04 0.16
the ESP insulation material provides a high heat transient resistance. A3 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.06
Mineral Fiberglass MFS is a good alternative for ACP systems that can
provide the same thermal performance for FCS with respect to the
cooling load. At the same time, the MFS reduces the fire risk as the
Table 13
combustibility of this material is lower than the EPS insulation material
The ideal positive and negative solutions.
(Fig. 10). The MFS ignition point is 400 ◦ C compared to the ESP of an
A+ 0.10 0.04 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.06 0.16
ignition point at 100 ◦ C.
The use of GW is another option, it slightly increases the cooling load A- 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.06

Table 10
Experts’ judgment on criteria.
Façade Cladding Type Aesthetic (C1) Weight (C2) Insulation (C3) Cost (C4) Fire Resistance (C5) Productivity (C6) Service life (C7)

ACP (A1) 8 8 5 6 3 8 5
Stone/Marble (A2) 8 3 8 3 8 5 8
Plaster Walls (A3) 6 6 1 8 5 5 3

Table 11
The normalized decision matrix.
Xij 12.806248 10.440307 9.486833 10.440307 9.899495 10.677078 9.899495

Rij C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
A1 0.624695 0.766261 0.527046 0.574696 0.303046 0.749269 0.505076
A2 0.624695 0.287348 0.843274 0.287348 0.808122 0.468293 0.808122
A3 0.468521 0.574696 0.105409 0.766261 0.505076 0.468293 0.303046

10
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Table 14
The separation measures to the positive and negative ideal solutions.
S+ C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 S+

A1 0.00000 0.00000 0.00205 0.00104 0.00986 0.00000 0.00345 0.12804

A2 0.00000 0.00056 0.00000 0.00647 0.00000 0.00056 0.00000 0.08712
A3 0.00066 0.00009 0.01118 0.00000 0.00355 0.00056 0.00958 0.16007
S- C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 S-
A1 0.00066 0.00056 0.00365 0.00233 0.00000 0.00056 0.00153 0.09640
A2 0.00066 0.00000 0.01118 0.00000 0.00986 0.00000 0.00958 0.17686
A3 0.00000 0.00020 0.00000 0.00647 0.00158 0.00000 0.00000 0.09082

that meet most of the participants’ preference from one hand, and
Table 15
provide the efficient thermal performance from the other hand (Fig. 14).
The results of Relative Closeness to the ideal
This type of system provides cooling load reduction of 3.8%, 3.6%, and
solution.
3.5% in Stone, ACP, and Plaster systems respectively compared to the
RC
use of low compatibility material MFS (Fig. 15).
ALTERNATIVE

ACP 0.43
5.1. Best performing stone cladding system
STONE/MARBLE 0.67
PLASTER WALLS 0.36
It has been shown in the previous section that the stone system is the
most preferred for FCS according to the designer and stockholder pref­
erence and the efficient thermal performance. However, there is a wide
number of stone types that can be used for façade cladding, each of
which has different. The specifications of these types are illustrated in
the table. However, the thermal performance of the cooling load is
varied between these stone types. Using the same system composite and
insulation material t it has the simulation results show that the sand­
stone recorded the highest cooling load. The most efficient performance
recorded by the gravel clay casting façade this system followed by the
stone chipping facade. The reduction in cooling load recorded by this
system is 2% and 1% respectively. However, the Marble (White) and
Granite (Red) show the almost same performance (Fig. 16).

6. Conclusion and recommendations

Fig. 3. Criterion weight for the seven investigated sub-criteria. Façade selection of buildings is a critical design decision and lack of
studies considering façade selection in hot climates is evident. In this
study, multi-criteria decision making through the TOPSIS method and
ACP and Plaster systems with cavity layers, respectively (Fig. 13).
the IES-VE software for indoor thermal performance simulation were
Furthermore, the combination between the cavity layer and the
used to evaluate the most preferable and efficient FCS in the hot climate
effective insulation material such as the Polyurethane board PUB can
areas. The system that meets the experts/designers’ preferences and has
provide the most efficient thermal performance. This was recorded by
an efficient thermal performance can be recommended as a result of the
the plaster system performance with the adoption of the cavity and EPS
two methods implemented in this study. The resulted system would be a
or PUB as a reduction of plaster PUB was achieved in these two systems
combination of the top preferred alternative that has been selected by
compared to the original plaster system with ESP or PUB only and
the experts/designers, and the best façade system performance with
without the cavity layer. However, the pained plaster system comes at
respect to cooling load contribution to the total energy consumption in
the end of the participants’ preference, generally, because of the low
the hot areas. The investigation, interviews, and TOPSIS model imple­
durability compared to the other two alternatives; the stone and ACP
mentation show that the stone cladding system is the most preferable
systems. Therefore, adopting the cavity layer along with the most effi­
FCS with RC equal 0.67 compared to 0.43 and 0.36 for ACP and plaster
cient insulation material recorded PUB stone system can provide the FCS
systems respectively. However, the third experts’ choice, the plaster

Fig. 4. The hourly cooling load of the six ACP simulation scenarios in August.

11
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Fig. 5. The average cooling load of the six ACP simulation scenarios in August.

Fig. 6. The hourly cooling load of the six Stone simulation scenarios in August.

Fig. 7. The average cooling load of the six ST/MARBLE simulation scenarios in August.

cladding system showing a better thermal performance when using the the ACP performance and selection, these concerns can be avoided by
same insulation material followed by the ACP system. using low-compatible insulation material. The thermal performance
Furthermore, the results of the investigated criteria in selecting FCS simulation results show that there is an opportunity to use insulation
show that the fire resistance is at the top of the sub-criteria in selecting material of a high ignition point such as the MFS while keeping the same
the facade cladding system from the experts’ point of view, showing thermal and cooling consumption performance of the FCS. The simula­
some concerns about the ACP performance against fire risk and hazards. tion results show that replacing the high combustible material ESP with
However, the stone system meets the top criterion of fire resistance in MFS of high ignition point (at 400 ◦ C) provides the same thermal per­
selecting FCS, moreover, this system produced the best thermal perfor­ formance and cooling consumption, with a reduction in fire risk.
mance and reduced the cooling loads by 4% and 1.5% compared to the Furthermore, the results shows that the use of PUB insulation material
ACP and plaster systems, respectively. According to the experts, the ACP provides more reduction in cooling load for all systems. This type of
recorded some issues related to the fire risk as it was at the top of the sub- material provides more safety with respect to the fire risk as it has a
criteria in selecting the FCS. Generally, it has been found that the higher ignition point than the ESP material. Other than that, in order to
insulation material is the crucial factor in this manner. In order enhance enhance the cladding system efficiency with respect to cooling

12
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Fig. 8. The hourly cooling load of the Plaster simulation scenarios in August.

Fig. 9. The average cooling load of the six ST/MARB simulation scenarios in August.

Fig. 10. The hourly cooling load of the MFS insulation material.

Fig. 11. The average cooling load of the MFS simulation scenarios in August.

13
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Fig. 12. The hourly cooling load of the Cavity system in August.

Fig. 13. The average cooling load of the Cavity simulation scenarios in August.

Fig. 14. The average cooling load of the MFS simulation scenarios in August.

consumption, the cavity layer in addition to the use of PUB material are Credit author statement
recommended for the ACP system as well as the other two alternatives,
stone and plaster systems. In spite of the lower ignition point of PUB Conceptualization, S.A.D., T.I., S.S., E.M. and I.A.; Methodology, S.A.
insulation material compared to the MFS, it can provide a better thermal D., T.I., and S.S.; Software, S.S.; Formal analysis, S.A.D., T.I., and S.S.;
performance than the MFS. The reduction in the stone cavity PUB Investigation, S.A.D., T.I., S.S., E.M. and I.A.; Resources, S.A.D., E.M.
compared to the stone cavity MFS is 3.8% while it is 3.5% and 3.6% in and I.A.; Data curation, T.I., S.S., and S.A.D; Writing - original draft
the ACP and plaster systems of the same composites. However, due to Preparation, S.A.D., S.S., and T.I.; Writing - review and editing, All au­
the top criterion of fire resistance in facade selection, the stone cladding thors have read, reviewed, edited the manuscript. S.A.D: Saleh Abu
specifically gravel gray stone cladding system with a cavity and MFS Dabous, T.I.: Tariq Ibrahim S.S.: Sundus Shareef E.M.: Emad Mushtaha I.
insulation layer is the most recommended cladding system in hot cli­ A.: Imad Alsyouf.
mates areas. This cladding system has the most sustainable performance
by providing good heat insulation and energy saving, in addition to the
highest durability and fire resistance.

14
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

Fig. 15. The average cooling load of the three alternatives using Cavity and MFS insulation material in August.

Fig. 16. Comparison between different stone cladding system.

Declaration of competing interest [6] B. Han, R. Wang, L. Yao, H. Liu, Z. Wang, Life cycle assessment of ceramic façade
material and its comparative analysis with three other common façade materials,
J. Clean. Prod. 99 (2015) 86–93.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [7] A. Van Stijn, L. Eberhardt, B. Wouterszoon Jansen, A. Meijer, Environmental design
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence guidelines for circular building components based on LCA and MFA: lessons from
the work reported in this paper. the circular kitchen and renovation façade, J. Clean. Prod. 357 (2022), 131375.
[8] T. Theodosiou, K. Tsikaloudaki, S. Tsoka, P. Chastas, Thermal bridging problems
on advanced cladding systems and smart building facades, J. Clean. Prod. 214
Acknowledgment (2019) 62–69.
[9] S. Liu, Y. Kwok, K. Lau, P. Chan, E. Ng, Investigating the energy saving potential of
applying shading panels on opaque façades: a case study for residential buildings in
The authors would like to thank the Office of Vice Chancellor for Hong Kong, Energy Build. 193 (2019) 78–91.
Research and Graduate Studies and Research Institute for Science and [10] C. Zhang, M. Hu, B. Laclau, T. Garnesson, X. Yang, A. Tukker, Energy-carbon-
Engineering at University of Sharjah for providing the financial support investment payback analysis of prefabricated envelope-cladding system for
building energy renovation: cases in Spain, The Netherlands, and Sweden, Renew.
needed to conduct the research. Sustain. Energy Rev. 145 (2021), 111077.
[11] A. Gagliano, S. Aneli, Analysis of the energy performance of an Opaque Ventilated
References Façade under winter and summer weather conditions, Sol. Energy 205 (2020)
531–544.
[12] K. Lee, M. Medina, X. Sun, X. Jin, Thermal performance of phase change materials
[1] H. Radmard, H. Ghadamian, F. Esmailie, B. Ahmadi, M. Adl, Examining a
(PCM)-enhanced cellulose insulation in passive solar residential building walls, Sol.
numerical model validity for performance evaluation of a prototype solar oriented
Energy 163 (2018) 113–121.
Double skin Façade: estimating the technical potential for energy saving, Sol.
[13] Z. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost, Energy and carbon analysis of double skin façades
Energy 211 (2020) 799–809.
in the hot and dry climate, J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2018) 85–96.
[2] S. Alqaed, Effect of annual solar radiation on simple façade, double-skin facade and
[14] R. Kishore, M. Bianchi, C. Booten, J. Vidal, R. Jackson, Enhancing building energy
double-skin facade filled with phase change materials for saving energy, Sustain.
performance by effectively using phase change material and dynamic insulation in
Energy Technol. Assessments 51 (2022) 101928.
walls, Appl. Energy 283 (2021) 116306.
[3] LEED/Green Building Rating System. https://www.usgbc.org/leed.
[15] A. Prafitasiwi, M. Rohman, C. Ongkowijoyo, The occupant’s awareness to achieve
[4] M. Khalid, A. Al Rashid, Z. Arif, W. Ahmed, H. Arshad, A. Zaidi, Natural fiber
energy efficiency in campus building, Res. Eng. 14 (2022), 100397.
reinforced composites: sustainable materials for emerging applications, Res. Eng.
[16] S. Wi, S. Yang, B. Yeol Yun, S. Kim, Exterior insulation finishing system using
11 (2021) 100263.
cementitious plaster/microencapsulated phase change material for improving the
[5] H. Wu, H. Liang, K. Roy, E. Harrison, Z. Fang, K. De Silva, N. Collins, J. Lim,
building thermal storage performance, Construct. Build. Mater. 299 (2021),
Analyzing the climate change potential of residential steel buildings in New
123932.
Zealand and their alignment in meeting the 2050 paris agreement targets,
[17] D. Kumar, M. Alam, P. Zou, J. Sanjayan, R. Memon, Comparative analysis of
Buildings 12 (3) (2022) 290.
building insulation material properties and performance, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 131 (2020) 110038.

15
S. Abu Dabous et al. Results in Engineering 16 (2022) 100643

[18] S. Tong, J. Wen, N. Wong, E. Tan, Impact of façade design on indoor air [37] A. Tabadkani, M. Valinejad Shoubi, F. Soflaei, S. Banihashemi, Integrated
temperatures and cooling loads in residential buildings in the tropical climate, parametric design of adaptive facades for user’s visual comfort, Autom. ConStruct.
Energy Build. 243 (2021), 110972. 106 (2019), 102857.
[19] J. Yu, H. Yu, Coating properties, energy consumption, and cost analysis of the [38] L. Pastore, M. Andersen, The influence of façade and space design on building
induction cladding process, Results Phys. 17 (2020), 103043. occupants’ indoor experience, J. Build. Eng. 46 (2022), 103663.
[20] M. Paya-Marin, K. Roy, J. Chen, R. Masood, R. Lawson, B. Gupta, J. Lim, Large- [39] M. Sayed, M. Fikry, Impact of glass facades on internal environment of buildings in
scale experiment of a novel non-domestic building using BPSC systems for energy hot arid zone, Alex. Eng. J. 58 (3) (2019) 1063–1075.
saving, Renew. Energy 152 (2020) 799–811. [40] A. Alonso, R. Suárez, J. Patricio, R. Escandón, J. Sendra, Acoustic retrofit strategies
[21] C. Ferreira, I. Dias, A. Silva, J. de Brito, I. Flores-Colen, Criteria for selection of of windows in facades of residential buildings: requirements and recommendations
cladding systems based on their maintainability, J. Build. Eng. 39 (2021) 102260. to reduce exposure to environmental noise, J. Build. Eng. 41 (2021) 102773.
[22] E. Hadi, A. Heidari, Development of an integrated tool based on life cycle [41] C. Do, Y. Chan, Daylighting Performance Analysis of a Facade Combining Daylight-
assessment, Levelized energy, and life cycle cost analysis to choose sustainable Redirecting Window Film and Automated Roller Shade, vol. 191, Building and
Facade Integrated Photovoltaic Systems, J. Clean. Prod. 293 (2021) 126117. Environment, 2021, p. 107596.
[23] K. Tyagi, S. Kundu, Selection and classification of common factors affecting the [42] Cowie Lemmon, Weritz, ICC. 2022. The Non-combustibility of Aluminum - ICC
maintainability on the basis of common criteria, Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 26 (3) (2017) [Online] Available at: <https://www.iccsafe.org/building-safety-journal/bsj-te
402. chnical/the-non-combustibility-of-aluminum, 2022, 23 March 2022.
[24] R. Ranjan, A. Kumar Das, Protection from corrosion and wear by different weld [43] I. Kwon, N. Jee, Experimental study of the fire resistance of walls and floors
cladding techniques: a review, Mater. Today: Proc. 57 (2022) 1687–1693. constructed with steel studs and steel joists, Fire Mater. 38 (1) (2012) 77–91.
[25] Y. Li, J. Liu, Z. Hu, N. Tan, G. Zhang, Q. Li, Microstructure and properties of laser [44] Y. Dias, P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, Fire performance of steel and plasterboard
cladding turning machining scrap, Opt Laser. Technol. 147 (2022) 107614. sheathed non-load bearing LSF walls, Fire Saf. J. 103 (2019) 1–18.
[26] A. Iqbal, S. Mubin, E. Gavrishyk, R. Masood, K. Roy, M. Moradibistouni, [45] J. Pancheti, M. Mahendran, E. Steau, Fire resistance of external LSF walls with
A comparative performance analysis of different insulation materials installed in a corrugated steel cladding, J. Constr. Steel Res. 188 (2022), 107008.
residential building of a cold region in Pakistan, J. Composit. Sci. 6 (6) (2022) 165. [46] T. Atanasova-Pacemska, M. Lapevski, R. Timovski, Analytical Hierarchical Process
[27] J. Yu, B. Song, Effects of heating time on the microstructure and properties of an (AHP) Method Application in the Process of Selection and Evaluation, 2014.
induction cladding coating, Results Phys. 11 (2018) 212–218. [47] S. Yousefzadeh, K. Yaghmaeian, A. Mahvi, S. Nasseri, N. Alavi, R. Nabizadeh,
[28] J. Feng, W. Li, C. Ding, D. Gao, Z. Shi, J. Liang, Numerical and analytical Comparative analysis of hydrometallurgical methods for the recovery of Cu from
investigations on projectile perforation on steel–concrete–steel sandwich panels, circuit boards: optimization using response surface and selection of the best
Res. Eng. 8 (2020) 100164. technique by two-step fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method, J. Clean. Prod. 249 (2020),
[29] K. Roy, A. Dani, H. Ichhpuni, Z. Fang, J. Lim, Improving sustainability of steel 119401.
roofs: life cycle assessment of a case study roof, Appl. Sci. 12 (12) (2022) 5943. [48] M.K. Rathod, H.V. Kanzaria, A methodological concept for phase change material
[30] R. Suryanita, H. Maizir, R. Zulapriansyah, Y. Subagiono, M. Arshad, The effect of selection based on multiple criteria decision analysis with and without fuzzy
silica fume admixture on the compressive strength of the cellular lightweight environment, Mater. Des. 32 (6) (2011) 3578–3585.
concrete, Res. Eng. 14 (2022) 100445. [49] A.Z. Sarraf, A. Mohaghar, H. Bazargani, Developing TOPSIS method using
[31] I. Mawardi, S. Aprilia, M. Faisal, Ikramullah, S. Rizal, An investigation of thermal statistical normalization for selecting knowledge management strategies, J. Ind.
conductivity and sound absorption from binderless panels made of oil palm wood Eng. Manag. 6 (4) (2013) 860–875.
as bio-insulation materials, Res. Eng. 13 (2022), 100319. [50] D. Bhadra, N. Dhar, M. Abdus Salam, Sensitivity analysis of the integrated AHP-
[32] A. Rahmanian, A. Rahmani, Effects and properties of double-layer anti-reflective TOPSIS and CRITIC-TOPSIS method for selection of the natural fiber, Mater. Today
coating In2O3/Conic Al2O3 and three-layer anti-reflective coatings of TiO2/ Proc. 56 (2022) 2618–2629.
In2O3/Conic Al2O3 on silicon substrate, Optik 155 (2018) 163–170. [51] A. Al-janabi, M. Kavgic, A. Mohammadzadeh, A. Azzouz, Comparison of Energy
[33] N. Alchapar, E. Correa, Optothermal properties of façade coatings. Effects of Plus and IES to model a complex university building using three scenarios: free-
environmental exposure over solar reflective index, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020) floating, ideal air load system, and detailed, J. Build. Eng. 22 (2019) 262–280.
101536. [52] S. Shareef, The impact of urban morphology and building’s height diversity on
[34] K. Fabbri, J. Gaspari, S. Bartoletti, E. Antonini, Effect of Facade Reflectance on energy consumption at urban scale, Case stud. Dubai 194 (2021) 107675. Building
Outdoor Microclimate: an Italian Case Study, vol. 54, Sustainable Cities and and Environment.
Society, 2020, p. 101984. [53] S. Shareef, H. Altan, Urban block configuration and the impact on energy
[35] J. Onyszkiewicz, K. Sadowski, Proposals for the revitalization of prefabricated consumption: a case study of sinuous morphology, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
building facades in terms of the principles of sustainable development and social 163 (2022), 112507.
participation, J. Build. Eng. 46 (2022), 103713. [54] National Center of Meteorology in UAE - Dubai International Airport. htt
[36] A. Tablada, V. Kosorić, H. Huang, S. Lau, V. Shabunko, Architectural quality of the ps://www.avmet.ae/omdbfc.aspx, 2022.
productive façades integrating photovoltaic and vertical farming systems: survey
among experts in Singapore, Front. Architect. Res. 9 (2) (2020) 301–318.

16