Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enb

Regenerative architecture in Practice: A multifaceted exploration of

cladding systems to meet LEED standards
Zinat Javanmard *, Consuelo Nava
ABITAlab, Department of Architecture and Territory, Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Via dell’Università 25, 89125, Reggio Calabria, Italy

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

Keywords: Given the significant impact of the construction sector on climate change, it is crucial to develop strategies and
Passive Design integrate diverse knowledge to enable architects to make informed decisions in the early stages of design.
Positive buildings Transitioning to positive buildings requires a multidisciplinary approach, integrating various scientific disci-
Cladding Systems
plines in architectural design. This research evaluates cladding systems as passive design strategies to reduce
Life cycle assessment of buildings
Daylight Utilization
environmental impacts and achieve LEED certification during the operational phase of buildings. Focusing on a
large office building in Boston, the study assesses three types of cladding—aluminum, polycarbonate, and a
hybrid system—examining their roles in energy consumption, Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE<10 %), and
Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA>50 %). The research offers a comprehensive analysis using advanced para-
metric tools like Rhino Grasshopper for modeling, Honeybee and Ladybug for climatic analysis, OpenLCA for
environmental impact assessments, Wallacei for optimization, and Design Explorer for model selection. Initial
findings indicate that aluminum cladding is thermally favorable but does not meet LEED sDA standards. Poly-
carbonate cladding meets sDA levels but fails ASE criteria. To address these deficiencies, a hybrid system was
optimized using the NSGA-2 algorithm and Wallacei selection methods, meeting both sDA and ASE criteria and
demonstrating enhanced sustainability. This system, comprising approximately 93.18 % aluminum and 6.82 %
polycarbonate, optimizes daylight autonomy and minimizes thermal gains and losses, with strategic skylight
distribution—13.58 % east, 7.72 % south, and 10.96 % west. The strategic use of advanced parametric and
optimization software in this research empowers evidence-based decision-making in sustainable architecture,
emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to achieve optimal outcomes.

1. Introduction [9,10]. They act as the first line of defense against environmental ele-
ments, directly influencing a building’s thermal performance and energy
Climate change necessitates a balanced approach that combines consumption [11,12]. Sustainable cladding materials with lower carbon
mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation footprints can significantly reduce the environmental impact of con-
(adjusting to the effects of climate change) strategies, with sustainable struction [13]. Innovative solutions like cladding systems incorporating
development acting as a unifying framework. [1,2,3]. While mitigation recycled materials further lessen the demand for virgin resources [14].
has historically been prioritized, adaptation is gaining recognition as a Comprehensive studies have emphasized the significance of facade
critical policy imperative [4]. Both strategies can work synergistically to cladding systems in achieving sustainable building performance, espe-
create transformative solutions that address climate change while also cially in climates with high energy demands for heating and cooling
uncovering opportunities [5]. The construction sector, a significant [15,16]. Optimizing cladding materials and designs can lead to
contributor to environmental damage, heavily relies on non-renewable improved energy efficiency, enhanced indoor environmental quality,
resources, which not only harm the environment but also contribute and reduced greenhouse gas emissions [17,18]. This approach not only
to indoor air pollution [6]. Adopting sustainable materials and con- addresses the direct impact of construction materials on climate change
struction methods is crucial to reducing this sector’s environmental but also contributes to broader sustainable urban development goals
footprint and combating climate change [7,8]. [19].
Cladding systems and materials play a vital role in this endeavor This research critically assesses the environmental implications of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Javanmard), [email protected] (C. Nava).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114810
Received 28 July 2024; Received in revised form 31 August 2024; Accepted 12 September 2024
Available online 19 September 2024
0378-7788/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

cladding systems within architectural frameworks, focusing on the environmental restoration. The Carbon Amortization Performance
complex decision-making involved in material selection and its impact (CAP) method proposed by Renger et al enables buildings to achieve this
on ecological sustainability. The analysis explores how the choice of by potentially reversing their carbon impact and providing multiple
cladding materials affects energy consumption during the operational ecosystem services [32,33]. A holistic design strategy is essential to
phase of a building, thereby influencing its overall environmental realize the vision of positive buildings that actively benefit the envi-
footprint. Furthermore, the study examines the relationship between ronment. This strategy should engage all sectors of society in a concerted
cladding material selection and their contribution to sustainability and effort to reduce the environmental impact of buildings, to achieve a
conservation goals. To identify the most eco-compatible cladding system carbon–neutral footprint [34,35].
for a building’s operational phase, the analysis compares three options: Shadi Attia’s framework provides architects with a structured
aluminum, polycarbonate, and a hybrid system combining both mate- methodology for incorporating regenerative design principles into the
rials. The researcher incorporates critical performance indicators such as early stages of a project. This framework translates abstract sustain-
Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) and Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) ability concepts into concrete architectural strategies, facilitating the
into the evaluation. These metrics are essential for assessing the po- creation of buildings that actively benefit the environment
tential of buildings to positively impact both the built and natural en- [20,36,37,38].
vironments, thereby advancing the pursuit of ’positive By embedding these principles and systems at the commencement of
buildings’—structures that not only mitigate environmental harm but the design phase, architects can champion regenerative and innovative
also promote sustainability. Optimizations for the hybrid system were practices, ultimately steering the built environment toward greater
conducted using the Wallacei tool to ensure a balanced consideration of sustainability [39,40,41]. Selecting appropriate materials is one of the
operational energy, ASE, and sDA, as neglecting any one aspect could most critical—and challenging—decisions in the construction process,
compromise the system’s ability to meet LEED standards. given their environmental impacts across their lifecycles [42,43]. Ma-
terials can be categorized into groups, such as intelligent materials,
1.1. Regenerative design strategy and positive buildings biological, reusable, and recyclable. Regardless of the category, the use
of regenerative materials must not compromise quality [44].
The evolution of architecture post-industrial revolution is charac-
terized by a bifurcation into two main paradigms: Efficiency and 1.2. Importance of claddings systems in sustainable design
Regenerative. The Efficiency Paradigm, encompassing approaches like
Bioclimatic, Environmental, and Green Architecture, has focused pri- Cladding systems are integral to sustainable building design, acting
marily on minimizing the negative environmental impacts of construc- as a protective barrier while significantly influencing energy efficiency
tion. However, the burgeoning awareness of climate change has and environmental performance [45]. Sustainable cladding enhances
propelled a transition towards a Regenerative Paradigm, which aims to thermal insulation and airtightness, crucial factors in minimizing energy
restore and enhance ecosystems [20]. The Regenerative Paradigm rep- consumption and greenhouse gas emissions [46]. Additionally, the uti-
resents a holistic shift in architectural design towards actively restoring lization of sustainable materials in cladding, such as recycled materials,
and revitalizing ecosystems, surpassing mere sustainability goals. This further diminishes the environmental impact of construction by
approach prioritizes the creation of built environments that positively reducing waste [47]. Numerous studies underscore the importance of
impact ecological health and foster long-term resilience by harmonizing sustainable materials and construction techniques in mitigating the
human activities with natural processes. Regenerative design, a central environmental impact of building activities. For example, Zahir et al. (n.
focus within sustainable design, emphasizes the co-evolutionary rela- d.) outline the potential of Phase Change Materials (PCMs) in cladding
tionship between socio-cultural and ecological systems in the built systems for reducing cooling loads in hot climates [48]. Najmi (2024)
environment. It underscores the need for a mutually beneficial rela- and Patel (2021) highlight the promise of innovative materials and
tionship between humans and nature, aiming to develop sustainable and techniques like bio-based insulation, carbon-storing concrete, and
regenerative solutions [21,22,23]. recycled design products in curbing energy consumption and pollution
These recent paradigms have advanced from a focus on ultra- [4950]. Kumar (2020) emphasizes the need for sustainable, eco-friendly
efficiency to an effectiveness paradigm, paving the way for the materials to minimize the construction industry’s environmental
concept of positive buildings [24,25]. The positive buildings are the degradation [51].
result of a regenerative framework. This framework shifts the focus from However, challenges remain, as Abouhelal (2023) notes the absence
merely minimizing harm to creating structures that actively heal the of a standardized method for selecting sustainable building materials,
environment and enhance occupants’ well-being. By implementing suggesting the need for a more systematic approach [52]. Dernie (2015)
regenerative principles, buildings can become agents of positive change, explores the impact of various cladding technologies on heat gains and
fostering a more sustainable and thriving future. These buildings are the greenhouse emissions [53], while Nazrun (2023) highlights the poten-
result of a multidisciplinary design process that integrates architects’ tial of biopolymers as sustainable cladding materials due to their
knowledge of construction, material engineering, and energy efficiency biodegradability and low embodied energy [54].
[26,27,28]. The shift towards this new approach is visualized in a Beyond environmental considerations, the influence of cladding
transition scenario spanning up to 2085, depicting the evolution from systems on Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) and Spatial Daylight Au-
sustainability to regenerative design. Positive buildings go beyond ultra- tonomy (sDA) is pivotal in achieving LEED certification and broader
efficient architectures by not only meeting their energy needs but also sustainability goals [55]. These metrics, essential for optimizing build-
producing excess energy, thus aiding in environmental improvement. ing light dynamics, have been the subject of extensive research. Vas-
Key challenges in achieving this include developing integrated, data- concellos (2017) and Katia (2021) advocate for a more comprehensive
driven methodologies for optimal energy performance and surplus approach to daylighting performance evaluation, with Vasconcellos
generation and creating accurate prediction algorithms for investment explicitly calling for a review and refinement of the ASE metric and
and cost analysis. The need for scalable, transferable solutions across simulation requirements [56,57]. Ahmed (2021) and Gad (2023)
multiple buildings is also emphasized. Addressing these challenges can emphasize the effectiveness of dynamic shading systems and smart
enhance AI-based building energy management systems, with big data, Mashrabiya screens in optimizing daylight performance, demonstrating
machine learning, and other data-driven approaches playing a crucial significant improvements in sDA and ASE [58,59]. In conclusion, as the
role in reducing emissions and energy demands [29,30,31]. Positive construction industry strives to meet increasingly stringent sustainabil-
Impact Buildings (PIBs) go beyond carbon neutrality by actively ity standards like LEED or BREEAM, the strategic selection and imple-
generating clean energy and sequestering carbon, thus contributing to mentation of cladding materials becomes paramount. This approach not

2
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

only ensures compliance with environmental regulations but also con- with climatic features defined according to ASHRAE 2019 standards.
tributes to occupant well-being through improved indoor air quality and The analysis was performed in three steps: First, an aluminum
natural light utilization, aligning architectural practices with a broader cladding system was modeled, and a product with an Environmental
sustainability agenda. Product Declaration (EPD) was selected to ensure that environmental
impacts from other life cycle stages were considered. The climatic and
2. Methodology environmental impacts were assessed, focusing on energy usage, ASE,
and sDA. Second, a polycarbonate cladding system was modeled and
To investigate the effect of cladding systems to develop design analyzed using the same process as the aluminum system. Environ-
strategies for cladding systems that promote positive buildings by mental impact analysis was conducted using OpenLCA and the ecoin-
employing regenerative design principles., this research employed a vent database to compare the stages in terms of environmental impacts.
multi-faceted approach, modeling three different cladding systems: Third, a hybrid cladding system was modeled, integrating aluminum
aluminum, polycarbonate, and hybrid cladding systems. The primary and polycarbonate materials. Optimization was performed using the
objective was to compare the environmental impacts of these cladding Wallacei component with the NSGA-2 algorithm. This step incorporated
systems during the operational phase (B1) based on energy usage, parametric design techniques to refine the spatial structure and aperture
Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE), and Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA). proportions. The results of the hybrid system were compared to those of
Given that cladding systems influence all three parameters, a multi- the aluminum and polycarbonate systems. The summary of the meth-
target approach was necessary to obtain realistic results and compare odology is illustrated in Fig. 1.
the outputs effectively.
The selection of aluminum and polycarbonate was based on their 2.1. Modeling (Aluminum cladding system and polycarbonate cladding
widespread use in modern construction and their contrasting proper- System)
ties—aluminum being a durable, thermally conductive material, and
polycarbonate offering lightweight, high-impact resistance with better The modeling of the cladding system was conducted in three steps. In
thermal insulation. The hybrid system was chosen to explore the po- the first step, an aluminum cladding system was modeled and analyzed.
tential benefits of combining these materials to achieve a balance of In the second step, a polycarbonate cladding system was modeled.
energy efficiency and environmental performance. This research was Finally, in the third step, a hybrid system combining both aluminum and
guided by the hypothesis that the hybrid cladding system would polycarbonate was modeled. All modeling and analyses were performed
demonstrate superior performance in meeting LEED standards. using Rhino and Grasshopper software.
A critical aspect of this research involved selecting appropriate
software tools, a challenge given the vast array of available options. 2.1.1. Aluminum cladding system
Rhino Grasshopper is essential for its parametric modeling capabilities, In alignment with the increasing demand for Environmental Product
ideally suited for constructing complex geometries, and is com- Declarations (EPDs) in Massachusetts due to federal and state sustain-
plemented by Honeybee and Ladybug, which offer advanced energy and ability initiatives, the case study in Boston prioritizes materials with EPD
climatic simulations by ASHRAE standards. OpenLCA provides certifications. This approach supports broader environmental goals and
comprehensive life cycle assessments through its extensive ecoinvent enhances project credibility. The researcher selected a manufacturing
database, essential for evaluating environmental impacts consistent company with EPD-certified materials for modeling, adhering to ISO
with LEED criteria. Wallacei excels in multi-objective optimization, 14025 and EN 15804 + A2 standards. The company’s EPD, conducted
utilizing the NSGA-2 algorithm to explore design solutions that effec- by the Institution for Building and the Environment (IBU e.V.), ensures
tively balance diverse sustainability objectives. The NSGA-II (Non- compliance with major European building certification programs like
dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II) is an evolutionary algorithm BRE, ECO, and FDES, reinforcing the commitment to sustainability
tailored for solving complex multi-objective optimization challenges by (Fig. 2).
mimicking natural selection processes. It adeptly manages multiple The architectural modeling of the aluminum cladding system
conflicting objectives by categorizing potential solutions into different meticulously incorporated features to reflect comprehensive compliance
fronts, and assessing dominance and diversity. This categorization uses with EPD principles. Notably, the company’s products primarily utilize
metrics such as crowding distance to ensure diversity among solutions. recycled aluminum, with a recycled content of 75 % to 95 %, offering
Specifically, in optimizing cladding systems, NSGA-II probes the trade- significant economic and environmental benefits due to the reduced
offs between critical performance metrics such as energy efficiency, energy consumption in the recycling process compared to primary
Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA), and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE), aluminum production. This selection ensures a thorough assessment of
offering a diverse array of Pareto optimal solutions. This capability is environmental impacts at various stages, making this aluminum clad-
particularly beneficial for architectural design, as it facilitates informed ding system an ideal material for the prototype.
decision-making by providing various viable design alternatives that The system’s design parameters were rigorously defined, including a
effectively balance these specific criteria. Consequently, NSGA-II en- calculated thermal transmittance (U-value) of 0.19 W/m2K, which sig-
hances both the efficiency and effectiveness of the design process, nifies the system’s superior insulation properties and its potential to
aligning directly with the core goals of improving energy efficiency and significantly reduce energy consumption in buildings. Table 1 shows the
environmental performance in building designs. material features.
Notably, Wallacei’s capability to manage and autonomously analyze As illustrated in Table 1, the variables under consideration include
hundreds of thousands of model iterations significantly enhances its the thickness of layers, thermal conductivity, and density.
ability to pinpoint models that meet the specified research objectives
rapidly, thus markedly accelerating the attainment of optimal solutions. 2.1.2. Modeling polycarbonate
Furthermore, Design Explorer augments this process by facilitating The primary material selected for this analysis is multiwall poly-
efficient visualization and selection of optimized design outcomes, carbonate systems, chosen for their potential to enhance the U-value and
enabling users to identify the most suitable solutions within specific thereby improve the energy efficiency of buildings. These polycarbonate
response ranges based on multiple objectives. sheets are meticulously engineered with stratified layers and vertical
To meet the study’s aims, a dome geometry with a spatial structure ribs that form air cavities, significantly enhancing thermal insulation.
was designed using Rhino and Grasshopper. The dome had a surface This structural configuration is crucial for regulating internal tempera-
area of 1519 square meters and was designated for a large office in tures, retaining heat during cooler periods, and dissipating it in warmer
Boston. Climatic analysis was conducted using Honeybee and Ladybug, intervals. Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the properties of

3
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Fig. 1. Methodology.

Fig. 2. Example of Aluminum Cladding System.

4
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Table 1 insights into the thermal efficiency of the cladding systems and facili-
Materials features of Aluminum cladding system prototype. tating a comprehensive analysis of their environmental footprint.
Material Thickness Thermal Density Detailed output data for the Aluminum cladding system is presented in
conductivity Supplementary Table S1, while Table S2 in the supplementary file
Kalzip profile sheet 0.8 mm to 120 w/m.k t0 2700 kg/ provides a summary of the analysis outcomes for the polycarbonate
(Aluminum alloy EN AW- 1.2 mm 200 w/m.k m3 model.
3004,3005, 3105, 6025)
XPS, polystyrene Insulation 0.1 m to 0.2 0.034 W/(mK) 20–––50
(/EN 12667/ and /EN 13164/ m kg/m3 2.3. Life cycle assessment
Annex C)
Vapor control layer 0.01 m − −
Trapezoidal deck 0.8 mm to 120 w/m.k t0 2700 kg/ The OpenLCA dataset “Market for Electricity, Low Voltage | Elec-
1.2 mm 200 w/m.k m3 tricity, Low Voltage | Cutoff, U” is utilized to model the environmental
impact of 1 kWh of low-voltage electricity in the NPCC region (including
Boston) for 2014. This dataset, based on 2016 generation technology
Table 2 contributions, details the production and transmission processes
Physical features of polycarbonate. involved. The analysis encompasses input into the low-voltage trans-
mission network and delivery via overhead and underground lines.
Light U-Value Nominal Sheet
Transmission (W/m2K) Weight Using the TRACI 2.1 methodology with Ecoinvent data, the environ-
(kg/m2) mental impact assessment, with a functional unit of 1 kW-hour, covers
25mm Clear (PC25-C) 62% 1.4 3.1
the generation, transmission, and distribution phases. Table 3 presents
Bronze (PC25-B) 11% the resulting environmental impact data for producing and delivering 1
Opal (PC25-O) 28% kWh of low-voltage electricity in Boston.
Bronze/Opal 8%
(PC25-B/O)
2.3.1. Assessment of environmental impacts resulting from Annual energy
Solar guard 7% 1.6 3.4
(PC25-SG) consumption in the B1 stage (Aluminum cladding System)
32mm Clear (PC32-C) 64% 1.25 3.6 The annual environmental impact attributable to energy consump-
Bronze (PC32-B) 7% tion for cooling, heating, and lighting systems is quantified by multi-
Opal (PC32-O) 33% plying the total annual energy consumption, measured in kilowatt-hours
Bronze/Opal 7%
(PC32-B/O)
(kWh) and kilowatt-hours per square meter (kWh/m2), by the envi-
Solar guard 4% 1.25 3.4 ronmental impact coefficient associated with the generation, trans-
(PC32-SG) mission, and distribution of one kilowatt-hour of electricity in Boston.
35 Clear (PC35-C) 63% 1.2 3.9 Table S3 in supplementary presents the results.
mm Bronze (PC35-B) 7%
The environmental impacts of a 1 m2 standing seam roofing cladding
Opal (PC35-O) 33%
Bronze/Opal 7% system made of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)-coated aluminum were
(PC35-B/O) extracted from EPD. This system includes a 1 mm standing seam
Solarguard 4% 1.2 3.4 aluminum sheet, 200 mm rock wool insulation, 1.75 E-180 clips made of
(PC35-SG) plastic-coated steel, a vapor barrier SKBitumen, and 3.5 fasteners made
of stainless steel, including packaging. The analysis of the A, C, and D
polycarbonate materials. stages, using the global warming potential (GWP) as an example, iden-
To ensure the fidelity of polycarbonate characteristic modeling, an tifies the responsible sources along the lifecycle. Data for these stages
exhaustive review was conducted across several EPD databases (IBU, were extracted from the Environmental Product Declaration as per ISO
The International EPD® System, Sustainable Minds Transparency Cat- 14025 and EN 15804 + A2 (Kalzip GmbH, https://epd-online.com).
alog, ecomedes, Building Green). The architectural modeling was con- To compare the role of the B1 stage in contributing to global
ducted using Rhino, incorporating the Grasshopper plugin to facilitate warming, acidification, and fossil fuel depletion, the environmental
complex, parametric designs. impact attributable to a sphere with an area of 1519.5929 m2 was
assessed. This assessment was conducted by multiplying the impact per
2.2. Climatic analysis of energy consumption for cladding systems unit area by the total surface area of the sphere and extrapolating the
results over a 50-year period, aligning with the lifespan defined in
The climatic feature characterization followed the standards set by Environmental Product Declarations (EPD). Table 4 and Fig. 3 delineate
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning the contributions of each lifecycle stage to global warming, acidifica-
Engineers (ASHRAE 2019), ensuring accurate integration of environ- tion, and fossil fuel depletion, providing a nuanced understanding of
mental parameters into the analytical model. Advanced environmental their environmental implications.
simulations were enabled using the Honeybee and Ladybug plugins,
crucial for detailed climatic analyses. The analysis encompassed three Table 3
stages, evaluating the aluminum cladding system, the polycarbonate The environmental impact associated with producing & delivering 1 kWh of low-
cladding system, and a hybrid system that combines both materials. voltage electricity in Boston.
The variables analyzed for the aluminum cladding systems included Impact category Reference unit Result
the thicknesses of the Trapezoidal Sheeting Aluminum, Extruded Poly- Acidification kg SO2 eq 0.000411533
styrene, and Corrugated Sheet Aluminum. Critical variables such as Carcinogenic CTUh 1.7759E-09
thickness, light transmission, and U-value were meticulously examined Ecotoxicity CTUe 0.200677104
Eutrophication kg N eq 0.000133957
regarding polycarbonate materials.
Fossil fuel depletion MJ surplus 0.497635447
The analysis yielded outcomes such as cooling, heating, thermal Global warming kg CO2 eq 0.233240495
load, Daylight Autonomy (DA), Continuous Daylight Autonomy (cDA), Noncarcinogenics CTUh 7.85226E-09
Useful Daylight Illuminance (UDI), and Spatial Daylight Autonomy Ozone depletion kg CFC-11 eq 2.91448E-08
(sDA). These quantifications are crucial for evaluating the environ- Respiratory effects kg PM2.5 eq 4.94753E-05
Smog kg O3 eq 0.005114277
mental impact of the prototype during its operational phase, offering

5
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Table 4
Environmental Impact caused by 1519.593 m2 of Aluminum cladding system.
Parameter Unit A1-A3 A5 B1 C1 C2 C3 C4 D

GWP-total kg CO2 eq 3.72E+04 5.73E+02 1.15E+06 1.67E+00 1.36E+02 4.97E+03 1.87E+02 − 8.13E+03
ODP kg CFC11 eq 5.76E-04 5.82E-11 1.44E-01 1.66E-11 1.33E-11 1.27E-09 4.36E-10 7.22E-08
AP mol H+ eq 2.07E+02 9.12E-02 2.03E+03 2.46E-03 4.80E-01 1.84E+00 1.32E+00 − 3.74E+01

Fig. 3. Comparison of environmental impact of different stages.

An analysis of environmental impacts at the B1 stage reveals that formation (an increase of 56.00 kg O3 eq). The most pronounced dif-
aluminum cladding significantly contributes to global warming and ference is observed in the category of smog formation, which un-
acidification. This stage, characterized by energy consumption for derscores the notable dependency of environmental impact on the
heating, cooling, and lighting, is crucial in determining the ecological physical characteristics of the cladding materials. This comparative
footprint of a building. Over a 50-year lifespan, the B1 stage exhibits a percentage difference elucidates the nuanced, yet discernible environ-
Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 1,150,000 kg CO2 equivalent, mental implications associated with the selection of polycarbonate
which is 96.77 % higher than the A1-A3 stages, underscoring the sub- cladding materials based on their thickness, transmittance, and U-value.
stantial role of operational energy. For a building with 1519.5929 m2 of
aluminum cladding, these findings highlight the critical importance of 2.4. Comparison polycarbonate and aluminum cladding system
energy-efficient design and material selection in mitigating environ-
mental impacts during the operational phase. The analysis reveals that the polycarbonate cladding system results
in significantly higher energy consumption during the operational phase
2.3.2. Calculation of the environmental impacts caused by the annual compared to the aluminum system. Specifically, polycarbonate con-
energy consumption in the B1 stage (Polycarbonate cladding system) sumes 93.3 % more energy for cooling and 80.7 % more for heating than
To quantify the annual environmental impact of polycarbonate, the its aluminum counterpart. In contrast, the only aspect where aluminum
researcher multiplied the outcomes derived from openLCA, which cladding demonstrates superior energy efficiency is in lighting, where it
include the environmental impact of 1 kWh of low-voltage electricity in uses 66.19 % less energy than polycarbonate. Overall, the aluminum
Boston, encompassing the generation, transmission, and distribution cladding system exhibits considerably lower energy consumption—79.9
phases, by the output data from Ladybug and Honeybee. Table S4 in the % less during the usage period—indicating markedly better perfor-
supplementary file presents a comprehensive synthesis of these envi- mance (Fig. 4).
ronmental impact results. This differential in energy usage substantially influences the envi-
Upon evaluating the environmental impact of different poly- ronmental impact of the building, underscoring aluminum’s advantage
carbonate cladding systems, a meticulous assessment reveals that the in terms of sustainability. The following sections will detail the specific
system with a marginally thicker profile of 0.035, a lower transmittance environmental impacts associated with these findings (Table 5).
of 0.63, and a lower U-value of 1.2 manifests slightly less environmental The results indicate that the aluminum cladding system generally
impact across a spectrum of categories when compared to the system causes 79.9 % less environmental impact compared to the polycarbonate
with a 0.025 thickness, a higher transmittance of 0.67, and a higher U- system. To enhance the performance of each system, the analysis
value of 1.6. The comparative analysis indicates that the latter config- assessed the contributions of heating, cooling, and lighting to the overall
uration results in an increase of 3.27 % in acidification (an additional environmental impact. This evaluation aimed to identify which
4.51 kg SO2 eq), carcinogenic potential (an increase of 0.000019 %), component is responsible for the highest energy consumption and,
ecotoxicity (a rise of 2197.39 CTUe), and eutrophication (an increment consequently, the most significant environmental impacts. The findings
of 1.47 kg N eq). Furthermore, it accounts for a 3.27 % augmentation in show that in the output data (thermal load and environmental impacts),
fossil fuel depletion (by 5449.06 MJ surplus), global warming potential lighting accounts for 2 %, cooling for 26 %, and heating for 72 % of the
(an increase of 2553.96 kg CO2 eq), non-carcinogenic effects (a impacts in the polycarbonate system. In comparison, for the aluminum
0.000086 CTUh increase), ozone depletion (a 0.000319 kg CFC-11 eq cladding system, lighting constitutes 3 %, cooling 27 %, and heating 70
rise), respiratory effects (an additional 0.54 kg PM2.5 eq), and smog % of the environmental impacts during the operational period. These

6
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Fig. 4. Comparison of Polycarbonate and Aluminum cladding system.

Table 5
Comparison environmental impacts of Aluminum with polycarbonate cladding system ((Tl: Thermal Load (kWh/m2), AP: Acidification (kg SO2 eq), CA: Carcinogenic
(CTUh), ET: Ecotoxicity(CTUe), EP: Eutrophication (kg N eq), FFD: Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ surplus), GWP: Global Warming (kg CO2) NC: Non-Carcinogenic (CTUh),
ODP: Ozone Depletion (kg CFC-11 eq), RE: Respiratory Effects (kg PM2.5 eq), SM: Smog (kg O3 eq)).
AP CA ET EP FFD GWP NC ODP RE SM

Aluminum 27.742 0.000 13527.716 9.030 33545.784 15722.826 0.001 0.002 3.335 344.755
polycarbonate 141.700 0.001 69097.850 46.125 171347.597 80310.192 0.003 0.010 17.036 1760.966

results suggest that in both systems, developing strategies to reduce (sDA) were established at greater than 50 %, and for Annual Sunlight
energy consumption from heating in large office buildings is crucial for Exposure (ASE) at less than 10 %, to meet LEED standards. According to
improving sustainability (Fig. 5). the analysis presented in the diagram, the polycarbonate cladding sys-
This research’s primary aim was to investigate cladding systems as tem achieved an sDA of 74.3 %, indicating satisfactory performance in
passive solutions. Therefore, in addition to examining thermal loads and terms of daylight autonomy. However, it failed to meet the ASE criteria.
environmental impacts, the study also evaluated Spatial Daylight Au- Conversely, the Aluminum cladding system met the ASE requirement by
tonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) to determine their maintaining exposure below the threshold but failed to achieve the
compliance with LEED standards. These metrics are crucial as they required sDA percentage. These results indicate that, although the
enable the regulation of skylights, extending beyond mere thermal load aluminum cladding systems exhibit favorable thermal performance,
management. neither cladding system is suitable for the case study as both fail to
Considering these factors—thermal load, the proportion of openings, comply with the LEED standards fully. Consequently, a hybrid cladding
sDA, and ASE—both aluminum and polycarbonate systems, as depicted system combining these materials was subsequently modeled to explore
in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, were found to be non-compliant with LEED certi- the potential for meeting both sDA and ASE criteria.
fication requirements. This non-compliance is primarily attributed to
deficiencies in effective daylight utilization, highlighting the necessity 2.5. Modeling hybrid cladding system and optimization
for improved lighting strategies within these systems. Consequently, the
next research phase involves modeling a hybrid cladding system aimed The third modeling phase focused on developing a hybrid model by
at enhancing performance across these parameters, with the potential to combining aluminum and polycarbonate materials for optimization.
achieve better LEED certification outcomes. While previous analyses demonstrated the aluminum system’s superior
In the initial settings, the criteria for Spatial Daylight Autonomy energy efficiency compared to polycarbonate, it lacked daylight

Fig. 5. Comparison the impact of lighting, heating, and cooling energy usage.

7
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Fig. 6. Single polycarbonate cladding systems.

Fig. 7. Single aluminum cladding system.

utilization, a crucial element in sustainable building design. To address interaction with light, thereby enhancing environmental performance
this limitation, the integration of aluminum and polycarbonate was and visual comfort. Table 7 provides detailed information on the
explored, hypothesizing that a composite system could enhance overall maximum and minimum areas of each cell, categorized by direction.
performance. The optimization strategy in this phase involved dividing The optimization process was guided by three key objectives: mini-
the model into four geographic zones to examine aperture configura- mizing energy consumption, achieving a spatial Daylight Autonomy
tions aligned with solar movement patterns, adhering to LEED certifi- (sDA) exceeding 50, and limiting Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) to
cation criteria. Table 6 provides detailed surface area measurements for under 10. These objectives were strategically chosen to ensure the
each zone and the total spherical surface area. resulting design minimizes energy use, maximizes daylight utilization,
Parametric cells were strategically employed in the spatial design to and complies with LEED certification standards for environmental per-
achieve refined control over light absorption. This approach facilitated formance. To achieve these goals, each dome facade was treated as a
precise manipulation of structural attributes, enabling seamless inte- separate zone, allowing precise control over the percentage of openings.
gration and customization of openings based on specific lighting re- A novel method was devised to control the opening pattern, which also
quirements. Furthermore, the parametric design facilitated efficient serves as a shading mechanism. This method involves measuring the
installation and dynamic adjustments to optimize the structure’s distance of each generated cell’s center on the dome from the assumed
sun position. The proximity of a window to the sun’s position dictates its
Table 6
Surface area measurements for each geographic direction.
Table 7
Geographic North East Sout West
Max and Min Area of each cell.
direction (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2)
North East Sout West
Area 492.067396 267.728699 492.067396 267.728699
All surface Area 1519.59219 (m2) 2
Min Area (m ) 4.441 5.354 4.441 5.354
Base area 758.855686 Max Area (m2) 11.268 11.268 11.268 11.268

8
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

size: closer windows have smaller dimensions or opening percentages,

while those farther away have larger ones. This approach ensures a
dynamic response to the sun’s position relative to the dome’s center,
with cell dimensions remapped and scaled according to predetermined
minimum and maximum values. Fig. 8 visually illustrates this innova-
tive method.
Material Features: The material features for the aluminum cladding
system were based on the optimal energy-efficient model identified in
the previous phase, thus fixing the specifications for the aluminum
system. However, in the composite model, the characteristics of poly-
carbonate including thickness, U-value, and conductivity, reflecting a
broader spectrum of variables were treated as variables due to their
significant impact on optimizing ASE and sDA. Therefore, these vari-
ables were considered to achieve an optimal configuration. When ma-
terial specifications are not explicitly defined, the software defaults to
utilizing data from the ASHRAE 90.1–2019 standard.
Model Function and lighting guidelines: For daylighting consid-
erations, a grid model function was established, with grid dimensions set
at 1.5 m by 1.5 m. The height of the grids is 75 cm, with a sensor
positioned centrally within this height (Fig. 9).
Artificial lighting is integrated with natural lighting through an
intelligent system. Each zone’s illumination must reach 400 lx (ASHRAE
standard) using natural light, with artificial lighting supplementing as
needed. To manage the variable polycarbonate opening percentages and
their responsiveness to environmental factors, a specific date and time
from the equinox period (March 21st) were selected as a reference point. Fig. 9. Grid model.
This allows for adjusting the range of polycarbonate openings in
response to this external factor. The decision to fix the date, time, and sun’s position to optimize each cell’s area and identify options that meet
month was driven by the complexity of simulation scenarios, which ASE and sDA standards for LEED compliance.
would have required numerous models and optimizations for each Cooling and Heating system features: The cooling and heating
variation, deviating from the study’s primary focus. The initial shape system features are outlined as follows: Set point cooling = 28 ◦ C, set-
was divided into cells, with varying distances from their centers to the point heating = 20 ◦ C, System type = Ideal Air Loads. The setpoint
sun. This variation enables adjusting the opening size relative to the denotes the temperature threshold at which the system is programmed

Fig. 8. The central point distance per cell to the sun location.

9
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

to deactivate. shown in Tables 8 and 9, showcasing the characteristics of Model 5.

Wallacei settings: The optimization process utilized Wallacei X Table 10 provides insights into the optimized configuration of sky-
(version 2.7), a Grasshopper component designed for multi-objective lights in different geographic orientations for Model 5, using percentage
evolutionary algorithms. To achieve a balance between exploration values to indicate the proportion of openings. The data explicitly ad-
and convergence, a generation size of 75 and a generation count of 100 dresses how the optimized model utilizes openings to conform to sus-
were chosen, resulting in a population size of 7,500. This allowed the tainability standards and optimize energy efficiency.
NSGA-II algorithm to iteratively refine the vast number of models The optimized models indicate a complete absence of openings (0 %)
(1,104,150,528) generated from the initial parameter space. Wallacei’s on the northern facade, likely to minimize heat loss and mitigate glare
integrated analytics, including Unsupervised Machine Learning, Parallel from low-angle sunlight. In contrast, the East and West facades allow for
Coordinate Analysis, and Pareto Front Analysis, were then employed to adaptable window sizes, with model 5 featuring openings ranging from
systematically explore the complex solution space and identify the 30 % to 40 % of each cell area, optimizing morning and evening light
optimal designs based on the defined objectives (Fig. 10). exposure while controlling heat gain. The South-facing facade, ideal for
solar heating, demonstrates a variable range of 20 % to 35 % in window
3. Results openings, balancing solar gain in winter with heat prevention in sum-
mer. Model 5 achieves an sDA of 51.42 % and an ASE of 8.64, indicating
Among these data sets, Wallacei identified 30 models as the most efficient daylight utilization and controlled sun exposure. Table 11 de-
optimized. The output data encompasses maximum and minimum ap- tails the varying polycarbonate skylight surface areas in each cell and
ertures in four distinct geographical directions: north, west, east, and direction, demonstrating an adaptive approach to optimize daylight
south. Additionally, the data include thermal load, expressed in kilo- control and interior lighting quality.
watts per square meter per year (kW/m2/year), spatial daylight auton- The comprehensive analysis of the optimized models reveals intri-
omy (sDA), and annual sunlight exposure (ASE). Table S5 in cate dynamics between cladding materials and building performance
supplementary lists these models, showcasing the highest level of opti- metrics. Particularly noteworthy is the proportion of skylights per
mization achieved by Wallacei. geographical direction, which significantly influenced spatial daylight
Following the Wallacei analysis, data was transferred to Design Ex- autonomy (sDA) and annual sunlight exposure (ASE). The strategic
plorer, as Fig. 11 illustrates. Design Explorer is a web-based platform placement of skylights, especially in the east and west directions, was
enabling visualization and exploration of complex datasets. This tool, designed to maximize natural light while minimizing heat gain,
valuable in architectural contexts, facilitated multi-variable analysis and contributing to the favorable ASE and sDA outcomes observed in Model
identification of potentially optimal design solutions. While Design Ex- 5. Unexpectedly, the ASE values for some configurations did not align
plorer does not perform linear optimization, it enables efficient navi- with anticipated performance benchmarks, despite theoretical modeling
gation of extensive data for comparative analysis and informed decision- predictions. This divergence may be attributed to the complex interplay
making. The initial optimization objectives were to minimize thermal between the building’s orientation, the specific properties of the clad-
loads (under 100 kW/m2/year), maximize sDA (above 50 %), and ding materials, and their interaction with the variable climatic condi-
minimize ASE (below 10 %). Through iterative adjustments and visu- tions throughout the year. Such findings suggest that while theoretical
alization within Design Explorer, the final results were achieved, as models provide a valuable framework for initial evaluations, real-world

Fig. 10. wallacei settings.

10
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Fig. 11. design explorer choice.

Table 11
Table 8 Skylight Area in model 5 in each cell.
Optimized model.
Geographical direction (TP5) North East Sout West
Data Group Model Type Thermal Load sDA ASE
Min Area (m2) 0 0.84 0.2 0.49
Wallacei data 5 93.67 51.42 8.64 Max Area (m2) 0 1.65 1.23 1,71

model, divided into four sections, utilized cells for precise light ab-
Table 9
The optimized model features. sorption control. The effectiveness of this genetic algorithm optimiza-
tion was evaluated using standard deviation and mean value trendlines
Model type Light Transmission U-value Thickness
for thermal load, sDA, and ASE, providing a quantitative assessment of
(w/m2k) (mm)
the optimization’s performance.
5 64 % 1.25 32
Standard Deviation Trendline: Fig. 12 illustrates the optimization
process of a hybrid cladding system, tracking the progression of thermal
implementations could yield different outcomes due to environmental load, spatial daylight autonomy (sDA), and annual sun exposure (ASE)
and material behavior nuances. Furthermore, the analysis uncovered across multiple generations. The use of standard deviation as a metric
that the integration technique of aluminum and polycarbonate signifi- reveals the distribution and variability of these performance indicators
cantly impacted the overall energy efficiency and environmental per- within each generation. The optimization results demonstrate a clear
formance. This integration not only enhanced the thermal insulation trend towards improved performance. The thermal load graph initially
properties but also adjusted the light transmittance rates optimally, exhibits high variability, which progressively narrows, indicating a
balancing energy savings and indoor environmental quality. The hybrid convergence towards solutions that minimize energy consumption. In
model’s performance underscores the critical role of material composi- contrast, the sDA graph demonstrates rapid convergence, with tightly
tion and detailed architectural planning in achieving and surpassing clustered points in later generations, suggesting that maximizing
LEED certification standards. daylight autonomy is achieved more readily. The ASE graph shows a
Table 12 provides an environmental impact analysis of the optimized moderate convergence, reflecting the algorithm’s ability to balance the
model during the B1 stage based on the consequences of energy usage. competing objectives of reducing sun exposure while maintaining
This analysis highlights how strategic material selection, particularly in overall fitness levels. Overall, the analysis of these graphs confirms the
the hybrid model, significantly influences the overall environmental efficacy of the optimization algorithm in achieving a stable and balanced
footprint. By integrating different materials with specific energy and design solution for the hybrid cladding system. This is evident in the
thermal properties, the optimized cladding systems not only improve the convergence towards optimal values for thermal efficiency, daylight
building’s energy efficiency but also reduce harmful emissions and autonomy, and sun exposure, all of which are essential considerations in
resource depletion. This evaluation underscores the profound impact sustainable building design.
that thoughtful material selection and architectural design can have on Standard Deviation Trendline: Fig. 13 illustrates the optimization
sustainability, demonstrating that careful consideration of these factors process of a hybrid cladding system across 75 generations, each
can substantially mitigate the environmental impact of construction comprising 100 genetic iterations. The charts reveal the convergence
projects. and variability of solutions for thermal load, spatial daylight autonomy
(sDA), and annual sun exposure (ASE). The thermal load and ASE
4. Interpretation and discussion trendlines exhibit a gradual decrease in standard deviation, signifying a
progressive convergence towards optimal solutions. This suggests that
The study optimized a hybrid cladding system using NSGA-2 and the optimization algorithm effectively identifies and refines designs with
Wallacei to control thermal load and manage daylighting, adhering to minimal energy consumption and controlled sun exposure. Conversely,
LEED standards. Optimization involved varying material proportions the sDA trendline demonstrates a rapid decline in the early generations,
and sun distance, with data collected at specific times. The parametric indicating a swift convergence towards optimal daylight autonomy. This
implies that the algorithm quickly identifies and maintains solutions

Table 10
Percentage of Optimized Skylight Configurations by Geographic Orientation for the Model 5.
Model type Min N Max N Min Max E Min Max S Min W Max W TL (kWh/m2) sDA ASE
E S

5 0.35 0.35 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.4 93.67267 51.42181 8.64

11
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Table 12
Environmental Impact Analysis,(Tl: Thermal Load (kWh/m2), AP: Acidification (kg SO2 eq), CA: Carcinogenic(CTUh), ET: Ecotoxicity(CTUe), EP: Eutrophication (kg N
eq), FFD: Fossil Fuel Depletion (MJ surplus), GWP: Global Warming (kg CO2) NC: Non-Carcinogenic (CTUh), ODP: Ozone Depletion (kg CFC-11 eq), RE: Respiratory
Effects (kg PM2.5 eq), SM: Smog (kg O3 eq)).
MT TL AP CA ET EP FFD GWP NC ODP RE SM

5 93.67 0.04 1.6635E-07 18.80 0.01 46.61 21.85 7.355E-07 2.73007E-06 0.00 0.48

Fig. 12. Standard Deviation Graph.

12
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Fig. 13. Standard Deviation Trendline.

that maximize daylight utilization. Collectively, these trends highlight effectiveness of the optimization strategies employed (Fig. 14).
the optimization algorithm’s success in systematically refining the The trendline analyses for Thermal Load, Spatial Daylight Autonomy
design, leading to a balanced and sustainable architectural outcome that (sDA), and Annual Sun Exposure (ASE) demonstrate a strong initial
effectively manages thermal load, daylight autonomy, and sun exposure. optimization phase followed by stabilization. The Thermal Load trend
Mean Values Trendline: The Mean Values Trendline charts for shows a significant initial decline, indicating rapid identification of
Thermal Load, Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA), and Annual Sun efficient configurations, with steady improvements leading to mini-
Exposure (ASE) across 75 generations offer a visual representation of mized energy consumption. The sDA chart depicts a sharp initial
how the average values of these metrics evolve during the optimization decrease, stabilizing quickly, suggesting early and sustained optimiza-
process. These charts provide a clear narrative on the progression and tion of daylight utilization. The ASE chart reveals a marked early decline

13
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

and gradual stabilization, indicating effective early strategies to mini- individual aluminum and polycarbonate systems. The results are pre-
mize sun exposure. sented in Table 13 and Fig. 16.
Overall, these trends confirm the successful optimization of the The analysis indicates that the aluminum cladding system demon-
hybrid cladding system, achieving reduced thermal load and ASE while strates more favorable overall energy usage compared to the optimized
enhancing sDA. The robust optimization process and early convergence Model heating, cooling, and lighting. Model 5consumes approximately
to optimal solutions highlight the efficiency of the genetic algorithm 83 % more energy for cooling and 17.8 % more for heating than the
used. Analysis validates the effectiveness of the optimization and pro- aluminum system. However, it excels in lighting efficiency, using 126.8
vides a blueprint for future efforts to enhance building performance % less energy than its counterpart. Generally, in terms of total energy
through similar methodologies. usage, aluminum shows a 14.42 % better performance in energy effi-
ciency relative to Model 5. This directly impacts the environmental
4.1. Comparison all cladding system (Polycarbonate, Aluminum, Hybrid) footprint.
The detailed comparative analysis of aluminum, polycarbonate, and
Fig. 15 demonstrates that the optimized models successfully meet hybrid cladding systems not only demonstrates their varying impacts on
LEED standards. energy efficiency and daylight autonomy but also provides actionable
Ultimately, all cladding systems were compared in terms of total load insights for effectively integrating these systems into building designs.
(kWh), spatial daylight autonomy (sDA), and annual sunlight exposure The use of materials certified by Environmental Product Declarations
(ASE) to elucidate the differences between the optimized model and the (EPDs), such as those modeled for aluminum and polycarbonate,

Fig. 14. Mean Values Trendline.

14
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Fig. 15. Model 5 analysis.

Table 13
Comparison three different cladding system.
Cladding systems Cooling (kWh) Heating (kWh) Lighting (kWh) Total (kWh) sDA % ASE
%

Aluminum 2319.196 46904.57 18186.60 67410.36 0 0

polycarbonate 86561.658 242631.44 6150.06 335343.16 74.30 55.40
Hybrid Model 5 13704.528 57379.51 8006.35 79090.39 51.70 8.60

Fig. 16. Comparison of different cladding systems.

underscores a commitment to sustainable building practices and aids in environmental quality and energy consumption throughout the year,
meeting LEED certification standards. The integration of hybrid clad- demonstrating how cutting-edge technologies can transform traditional
ding systems, featuring a combination of materials like aluminum and building operations.
polycarbonate, represents a significant advancement in sustainable ar- Incorporating these findings into early design decisions can signifi-
chitecture. The research findings suggest that varying the proportions of cantly influence a building’s sustainability profile. Architects and de-
these materials can significantly influence the building’s energy profile signers are provided with empirical evidence supporting the use of
and its ability to meet sustainability benchmarks. hybrid cladding systems to achieve optimal energy and environmental
This study demonstrates how such systems not only meet stringent performance. This aligns with a broader movement towards sustainable
LEED standards but also significantly enhance thermal and optical urban development, where building designs are not only compliant with
performance of buildings, leading to a considerable reduction in overall current standards but are also forward-thinking in their environmental
energy consumption. The adoption of hybrid systems allows for a finely impact mitigation strategies.
tuned balance between energy efficiency and daylight utilization,
making them highly adaptable to various architectural needs and 5. Conclusion
environmental conditions. Moreover, this research employed an intel-
ligent system within the parametric modeling framework to dynamically The results indicate that across all cladding systems, energy con-
control daylight exposure. This implementation of smart window tech- sumption for heating significantly exceeds that for cooling and lighting.
nologies illustrates a proactive approach to environmental management, This disparity suggests that developing strategies to enhance the thermal
allowing for the precise adjustment of daylight penetration based on efficiency of cladding materials could lead to substantial reductions in
real-time environmental conditions. Such capabilities optimize indoor overall energy use. Enhancing insulation properties and optimizing

15
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Table 14 The study identified optimal configurations that effectively balance

Area percentage of skylights by geographical direction. energy efficiency, daylight utilization, and solar exposure, substantially
Model Type North(m2) East(m2) Sout (m2) West (m2) contributing to developing sustainable “positive buildings.” Incorpo-
rating metrics like Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sun
Moddel5 0 13.59 % 7.72 % 10.96 %
Exposure (ASE), the research offers deep insights into designing clad-
ding systems that conform to LEED standards and foster environmen-
tally conscious architectural practices. Integrating Efficiency and
Table 15 Sustainability in Architecture“ emphasizes using combined materials to
Area of Skylights by Geographic Direction in a Dome with 1519 Square Meters.
enhance building performance. By leveraging the unique properties of
North (m2) East (m2) Sout (m2) West (m2) both aluminum and polycarbonate, it is possible to control energy
Model 5 0 36.37 37.98 29.33 consumption and meet LEED certification standards effectively. These
findings emphasize the critical role of continual optimization and
innovation in cladding system design to realize sustainable and high-
thermal mass could be potential avenues for reducing heating demands performance building environments.
and improving the environmental sustainability of building designs.
Although Model 5 meets LEED standards, its increased energy demands
CRediT authorship contribution statement
for cooling and heating underscore the critical need for solutions to
reduce energy consumption, particularly in the cooling system. This
Zinat Javanmard: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Valida-
emphasizes the importance of a balanced optimization strategy in
tion, Supervision, Software, Resources, Project administration, Meth-
cladding systems to enhance overall energy performance without
odology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data
disproportionately escalating specific energy requirements.
curation, Conceptualization. Consuelo Nava: Writing – review & edit-
The findings indicate that achieving LEED standards in Spatial
ing, Methodology, Conceptualization.
Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE) for a
dome, designated for large office functions in Boston and covering a
surface area of 1,519 square meters, requires specific configurations of Declaration of competing interest
lighting openings.
The optimized model comprises 93.18 % aluminum and 6.83 % The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
polycarbonate. To effectively manage energy usage during the opera- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
tional period, the architectural design excludes lighting openings on the the work reported in this paper.
north side, aligning with energy efficiency strategies. In contrast, the
eastern openings are sized at 36.37 square meters in the optimized Data availability
Model, the southern skylights consistently measure 37.98 square meters,
and the western openings are 29.33 square meters. These dimensions are Data will be made available on request.
strategically designed to optimize both natural lighting and energy ef-
ficiency, adhering to the stringent LEED certification standards. Acknowledgments
Table 14 presents the percentage of lighting openings allocated to
each direction for a base model with a surface area of 1,519 square This article presents some results from the PhD thesis of Zinat Jav-
meters. These percentages are designed to be scalable, allowing the anmard, entitled “Architectural Principles of Spatial Structures to
application of results to both larger and smaller models while main- Address Positive Buildings,” conducted at the ABITA lab, Mediterranea
taining compliance with LEED standards for Spatial Daylight Autonomy University, Italy. The author extends sincere gratitude to Prof. Consuelo
(sDA) and Annual Sunlight Exposure (ASE). This parametric approach Nava, Prof. Adolfo Santini, and Prof. Matthew Eckelman for their
ensures that the strategic distribution of lighting openings can be invaluable support and guidance throughout this research. Their
effectively adjusted according to different building sizes, thereby opti- expertise and insights were instrumental in the completion of this work.
mizing natural lighting and energy efficiency across diverse architec-
tural scales. Consequently, the model’s adaptability underscores its Appendix A. Supplementary material
utility in varied design contexts, promoting sustainable architectural
practices that meet stringent environmental and energy usage criteria. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
Table 15 displays the area of the skylights in each optimized model to org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114810.
meet LEED standards for Spatial Daylight Autonomy (sDA) and Annual
Sunlight Exposure (ASE) and managing energy usage effectively. References
This research, anchored in regenerative design principles, aimed to
minimize environmental impacts and enhance the synergy between [1] Richard J. T. Klein and JB Smith, “CLIMATE CHANGE, ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AND
DEVELOPMENT,” 2003. Accessed: Jun. 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: 10.1142/
built structures and their environments. The primary objective was to
9781860945816_0014.
evaluate the sustainability potential of diverse cladding materials during [2] S. Vijayavenkataraman, S. Iniyan, and R. Goic, “A review of climate change,
their operational phases, focusing on passive architectural strategies to mitigation and adaptation,” Jan. 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.009.
[3] S. Harry, M. Morad, Sustainable development and climate change: Beyond
enhance building performance. A hybrid system combining aluminum
mitigation and adaptation, Local Econ. 28 (4) (Jun. 2013) 358–368, https://doi.
and polycarbonate cladding was hypothesized to outperform traditional org/10.1177/0269094213476663.
single-material systems. The findings affirmed these hypotheses, [4] R. Attfield, “The Ethics of the Environment,” London, 2017. Accessed: Jun. 25,
showing that the hybrid cladding system not only meets but also sur- 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315239897.
[5] W.J. Ripple, et al., Six steps to integrate climate mitigation with adaptation for
passes LEED standards, supporting its use in designing positive build- social justice, Environ. Sci. Policy 128 (Feb. 2022) 41–44, https://doi.org/
ings. However, despite achieving LEED certification, the hybrid system’s 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.11.007.
thermal load performance still requires enhancements to fully satisfy the [6] A. A. A. Shohan et al., “Developments on energy-efficient buildings using phase
change materials: a sustainable building solution,” Feb. 01, 2024, Springer Science
research objectives, particularly in comparison to single-material and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. doi: 10.1007/s10098-023-02626-9.
aluminum systems. Extensive simulations and analyses underscored [7] C. Nava, “Regenerative design and hybrid buildings to address climate change”,
the hybrid system’s advantages, highlighting the need for continuous Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems Springer Science and Business Media
Deutschland GmbH (2022) 1889–1901, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-
improvements to reach peak performance. 06825-6_182.

16
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

[8] Z. Javanmard, C. Nava, “Investigating the effect of form and material of spatial [32] B.C. Renger, J.L. Birkeland, D.J. Midmore, Net-positive building carbon
structures on energy consumption in hot and dry climates case study: kerman city”, sequestration, Build. Res. Inf. 43 (1) (Jan. 2015) 11–24, https://doi.org/10.1080/
Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems Springer Science and Business Media 09613218.2015.961001.
Deutschland GmbH (2022) 1631–1642, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031- [33] G. Churkina et al., “Buildings as a global carbon sink,” Apr. 01, 2020, Nature
06825-6_157. Research. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4.
[9] L. Van Gulck, M. Steeman, The environmental impact of circular building design: A [34] G. M. S. Kumar and S. Cao, “State-of-the-art review of positive energy building and
simplified approach to evaluate remountable building elements in life cycle community systems,” Aug. 02, 2021, MDPI AG. doi: 10.3390/en14165046.
assessment, Build Environ 254 (Apr. 2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [35] R. Lavikka, H. Ur, R. Francesco, R. Abdul, and S. Kazi, “Green Energy and
buildenv.2024.111418. Technology Positive Energy Buildings Concepts, Challenges and Opportunities.”
[10] I. Meireles, M. Martín-Gamboa, V. Sousa, A. Kalthoum, J. Dufour, Comparative [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8059.
environmental life cycle assessment of partition walls: Innovative prefabricated [36] S. Attia, “Design Principles of Regenerative Design,” 2018, pp. 19–32. doi:
systems vs conventional construction, Clean. Environm. Syst. 12 (Mar. 2024), 10.1007/978-3-319-66718-8_4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100179. [37] S. Attia, Towards regenerative and positive impact architecture: A comparison of
[11] C. Zhang, M. Hu, B. Laclau, T. Garnesson, X. Yang, A. Tukker, Energy-carbon- two net zero energy buildings, Sustain. Cities Soc. 26 (Oct. 2016) 393–406, https://
investment payback analysis of prefabricated envelope-cladding system for doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.017.
building energy renovation: Cases in Spain, the Netherlands, and Sweden, Renew. [38] S. Attia, A case study for a zero impact building in Belgium: Mondo solar-2002, Int.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 145 (Jul. 2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 2 (2) (2011) 137–142, https://doi.org/
rser.2021.111077. 10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.2.137.
[12] M.T. Naqash, Analyzing glass configurations for energy efficiency in building [39] F. Ascione, R.F. De Masi, M. Mastellone, G.P. Vanoli, Building rating systems: A
envelopes: a comparative study, J. Appl. Sci. Eng. (taiwan) 28 (2) (2025) 319–333, novel review about capabilities, current limits and open issues, Sustain. Cities Soc.
https://doi.org/10.6180/jase.202502_28(2).0011. 76 (Jan. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103498.
[13] Z. Queen Sikhakhane Nwokediegwu, V. Ikenna Ilojianya, K. Ifeanyi Ibekwe, A. [40] N. Lazar, K. Chithra, “Green building rating systems from the prospect of
Adefemi, E. Augustine Etukudoh, and A. Akpan Umoh, “ADVANCED MATERIALS sustainability dimensions through the building lifecycle”, Green Energy Environm.
FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION: A REVIEW OF INNOVATIONS AND Sustain. 29 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16682-5/Published.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS,” Eng. Sci. Technol. J., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 201–218, [41] T. Mattinzioli, M. Sol-Sánchez, B. Moreno, J. Alegre, G. Martínez, Sustainable
2024, doi: 10.51594/estj/v5i1.744. building rating systems: A critical review for achieving a common consensus, Crit.
[14] D. Kvočka et al., “Life cycle assessment of prefabricated geopolymeric façade Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (5) (2021) 512–534, https://doi.org/10.1080/
cladding panels made from large fractions of recycled construction and demolition 10643389.2020.1732781.
waste,” Materials, vol. 13, no. 18, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.3390/MA13183931. [42] I. Amarasinghe, Y. Hong, R.A. Stewart, Development of a material circularity
[15] M.W. Akram, M. Hasannuzaman, E. Cuce, P.M. Cuce, Global technological evaluation framework for building construction projects, J. Clean Prod. 436 (Jan.
advancement and challenges of glazed window, facade system and vertical 2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140562.
greenery-based energy savings in buildings: A comprehensive review, Energy Built [43] J. Albuja-Sánchez, A. Damián-Chalán, leveraging life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for
Environm. 4 (2) (Apr. 2023) 206–226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. optimized decision making in adobe construction materials, Appl. Sci.
enbenv.2021.11.003. (switzerland) 14 (5) (Mar. 2024), https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051760.
[16] A.K. Athienitis, G. Barone, A. Buonomano, A. Palombo, Assessing active and [44] S. J. Buckton et al., “The Regenerative Lens: A conceptual framework for
passive effects of façade building integrated photovoltaics/thermal systems: regenerative social-ecological systems,” Jul. 21, 2023, Cell Press. doi: 10.1016/j.
Dynamic modelling and simulation, Appl. Energy 209 (Jan. 2018) 355–382, oneear.2023.06.006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.039. [45] S. Abu Dabous, T. Ibrahim, S. Shareef, E. Mushtaha, I. Alsyouf, Sustainable façade
[17] M. Casini, “Smart Buildings: Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology to improve cladding selection for buildings in hot climates based on thermal performance and
Energy-Efficiency and Environmental Performance,” Woodhead Publishing Series in energy consumption, Results Eng. 16 (Dec. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Civil and Structure Engineering, vol. 69, May 2016. rineng.2022.100643.
[18] H. Radhi, On the optimal selection of wall cladding system to reduce direct and [46] D. Fernando, S. Navaratnam, P. Rajeev, and J. Sanjayan, “Study of Technological
indirect CO2 emissions, Energy 35 (3) (2010) 1412–1424, https://doi.org/ Advancement and Challenges of Façade System for Sustainable Building: Current
10.1016/j.energy.2009.11.026. Design Practice,” Oct. 01, 2023, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
[19] J.G. Carter, G. Cavan, A. Connelly, S. Guy, J. Handley, A. Kazmierczak, Climate (MDPI). doi: 10.3390/su151914319.
change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation, Prog Plann 95 (Jan. [47] P. Sadrolodabaee, et al., Experimental characterization of comfort performance
2015) 1–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.08.001. parameters and multi-criteria sustainability assessment of recycled textile-
[20] Attia Shady, “Regenerative and Positive Impact Architecture Learning from Case reinforced cement facade cladding, J. Clean Prod. 356 (Jul. 2022), https://doi.org/
Studies,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/series/8903. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131900.
[21] M. Foissac, C. Jouault, R. Dumesny, and G. Foissac, “Du design bio-inspiré au [48] M. Hasan Zahir, et al., Challenges of the application of PCMs to achieve zero energy
design systémique : la régénération à l’épreuve des pratiques de design,” Sciences buildings, J. Energy Storage (2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107156.
du Design, vol. n◦ 16, no. 2, pp. 86–101, May 2023, doi: 10.3917/sdd.016.0086. [49] A. Najmi, Innovative materials and techniques for sustainable building structures,
[22] R.J. Cole, A. Oliver, J. Robinson, Regenerative design, socio-ecological systems and Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Managem. 08 (04) (Apr. 2024) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.55041/
co-evolution, Build. Res. Inf. 41 (2) (Apr. 2013) 237–247, https://doi.org/ IJSREM30133.
10.1080/09613218.2013.747130. [50] P. Patel, A. Patel, “Use of sustainable green materials in construction of green
[23] D. Bergquist, C. A.Hempel, and J. Lööf Green, “Bridging the gap between theory buildings for sustainable development”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and
and design: A proposal for regenerative campus development at the Swedish Environmental Science IOP Publishing Ltd (Jun. 2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/
university of agricultural sciences,” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher 1755-1315/785/1/012009.
Education, Jun. 2019. [51] S. Kumar, V. Puri, M.L. Aggarwal, “Review of sustainable building materials for
[24] F. S. Hafez et al., “Energy Efficiency in Sustainable Buildings: A Systematic Review construction industry”, Int. J. Tech. Res. Sci. 3 (Sep. 2020) 1–8, https://doi.org/
with Taxonomy, Challenges, Motivations, Methodological Aspects, 10.30780/specialissue-icaccg2020/023.
Recommendations, and Pathways for Future Research,” Jan. 01, 2023, Elsevier Ltd. [52] D. Abouhelal, W. Kamel, H. Bassioni, Informatic analysis and review of literature
doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2022.101013. on the optimum selection of sustainable materials used in construction projects,
[25] N. K. Muthumanickam, N. Brown, J. P. Duarte, and T. W. Simpson, Int. J. Sustain. Construct. Eng. Technol. 14 (1) (2023) 97–109, https://doi.org/
“Multidisciplinary design optimization in Architecture, Engineering, and 10.30880/ijscet.2023.14.01.011.
Construction: a detailed review and call for collaboration,” Nov. 01, 2023, Springer [53] D. Dernie, J. Gaspari, Building envelope over-cladding: Impact on energy balance
Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. doi: 10.1007/s00158-023-03673-y. and microclimate, Buildings 5 (2) (2015) 715–735, https://doi.org/10.3390/
[26] M.S. Al-Homoud, Envelope thermal design optimization of buildings with buildings5020715.
intermittent occupancy, J. Build Phys. 33 (1) (Jul. 2009) 65–82, https://doi.org/ [54] T. Nazrun, M. K. Hassan, M. D. Hossain, B. Ahmed, M. R. Hasnat, and S. Saha,
10.1177/1744259109102799. “Application of Biopolymers as Sustainable Cladding Materials: A Review,” Jan.
[27] D. Allaire, K. Willcox, A mathematical and computational framework for 01, 2024, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). doi: 10.3390/
multifidelity design and analysis with computer models, Int. J. Uncertain Quantif 4 su16010027.
(1) (2014) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1615/Int.J. [55] P.V.H. Son, V.T.B. Huyen, Optimizing daylight in west-facing facades for LEED
UncertaintyQuantification.2013004121. V4.1 compliance using metaheuristic approach, Sci. Rep. 13 (1) (Dec. 2023),
[28] Z. Javanmard and S. Cascone, “Process Management of Spatial Structures to https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49025-0.
Address Positive Buildings with the Goals of Sustainable Development,” 2023, pp. [56] S. Francisco Permalink and D. de Vasconcellos, “Evaluation of Annual Sunlight
217–228. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-33148-0_18. Exposure (ASE) as a Proxy to Glare: A Field Study in a NZEB and LEED Certified
[29] S. Ji, B. Lee, M.Y. Yi, Building life-span prediction for life cycle assessment and life Office in Publication Date,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://escholarship.org/
cycle cost using machine learning: A big data approach, Build Environ. 205 (Nov. uc/item/3js1z0b8.
2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108267. [57] R. Katia, N. Elsayed, and T. Rakha, “Evaluating Daylighting Performance Metrics in
[30] S. V.-M. M. G. H.-K. M. R. S. N. Mousavi, “Data-driven prediction and optimization LEED v4 for Commercial Office Buildings: What Criteria is Missing to Enhance the
toward net-zero and positive-energy buildings: A systematic review,” 2023. Occupant Visual Performance and Comfort?,” in Building Simulation Conference
[31] M. Norouzi, S. Colclough, L. Jiménez, J. Gavaldà, D. Boer, Low-energy buildings in
combination with grid decarbonization, life cycle assessment of passive house
buildings in Northern Ireland, Energy Build 261 (Apr. 2022), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111936.

17
Z. Javanmard and C. Nava Energy & Buildings 323 (2024) 114810

Proceedings, International Building Performance Simulation Association, 2022, pp. HBRC J. 17 (1) (2021) 177–200, https://doi.org/10.1080/
3140–3147. doi: 10.26868/25222708.2021.30567. 16874048.2021.1920138.
[58] E.B. Ahmed, Utilizing dynamic shading system to achieve daylight performance [59] A.M. Gad, H.A. Dewer, M.W. Madkour, “The role of smart mashrabiya to provide
according to LEED standards vol 4: case study, university classrooms in Egypt, daylighting in office buildings”, Mansoura Eng. J. 48 (2) (Jan. 2023) https://doi.
org/10.58491/2735-4202.3093.

18