See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/364936719

Energy Performance Analysis of Kinetic Façades by Climate Zones

Chapter · October 2022

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-09695-2_7

CITATION READS

1 461

1 author:

Chengde Wu
Iowa State University
21 PUBLICATIONS 86 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Chengde Wu on 21 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Energy Savings of Kinetic Façades by Climate
Zone: A Computational Approach

Chengde Wu

Iowa State University

[email protected]

Abstract: Kinetic façades have been often used as a solution to reduce building en-
ergy consumption. Many researchers have been actively studying on energy reduc-
tion aspect of kinetic façades, but the energy performance of kinetic façades in a
spectrum of climate conditions has not been systematically studied. This research
investigated the energy saving aspect of kinetic façades in different climate condi-
tions. Two types of kinetic façades, folding and sliding, were compared to optimized
fixed-shading façades and a no-shading façade. The simulation results showed that
the kinetic façades, compared to the no-shading façade, reduced 32% - 56% of en-
ergy consumption in ASHRAE zone 1 to 3, with the folding façade slightly outper-
forming the sliding façade. In zone 4, the sliding façade outperformed the folding
façade. As an exception, the amount of energy reduction in marine zones was neg-
ligible. In zone 5 to 8, the kinetic façades did not show a meaningful energy reduc-
tion. Compared to the optimized static façades, the kinetic façades generally showed
noticeable energy reduction in hot and warm climate conditions. These simulation
results are expected to provide basic rules of thumb to designers when considering
kinetic façades as a means of energy reduction strategy.

Keywords: Adaptive Façade, Kinetic Façade, Energy Simulation, Climate Zones,

Responsive Architecture.

1. Introduction

Our society has been heavily dependent on fossil fuels, the primary cause for
increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (EPA 2017). As a chain reaction,
increased greenhouse gas emissions led to global warming and followed by glacier
meltdown, sea level rise, and many other negative environmental impacts (Pörtner
2

2022). Minimizing energy consumption is one of the most effective ways to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate global warming. Given the fact that the
building sector is responsible for roughly 36% of the global energy use and 40% of
energy-related greenhouse gas emissions (IEA 2018), it is not surprising that re-
searchers and designers have been constantly seeking more energy efficient build-
ing solutions. Adaptive façades have been implemented as a solution to reduce
building energy consumption. Common adaptive façades can be categorized into
different typologies, such as kinetic façades, electrochromic façades (Granqvist et
al. 2018), biological façades (Arup, 2013), etc. Kinetic façades regulate the amount
of solar radiation (visible light and infrared) entering buildings through windows by
adjusting the shape and/or position of the kinetic shading components. During hot
summer days, kinetic façades automatically shut down or partially shut down to
reduce the incoming solar radiation and to lower building cooling load. During the
cold winter days, kinetic façades open up to maximize passive solar heat gain to
reduce building heating load. Kinetic façades also operate throughout the day based
on the sensors that measure the real-time outdoor weather conditions. Typically,
kinetic façades operate at a set interval instead of in continuous motion to increase
the longevity of the actuators. For example, Al Bahr towers in Abu Dhabi adjust the
façade position every 15 minutes (Attia 2018). In case of extreme weather events,
the operation schedule will be overridden. Under this operation schedule, the actu-
ators are expected to last 15 years. The kinetic mechanism on the Arab World Insti-
tute building in Paris is set to perform a maximum of 18 movements per day (IMA
2022).
There are numerous studies focused on the energy performance of kinetic fa-
çades in hot climates. Bacha and Bourbia (2016) simulated the energy savings of
the kinetic façade of a building in the city of Biskra, Algeria, and concluded that the
kinetic façade saves 43% cooling energy. Al Bahr towers in Abu Dhabi can save
50% of cooling energy through the kinetic façades (Alotaibi 2015). Many other
studies showed the benefits of kinetic façades in terms of energy performance (Ko-
larevic and Parlac 2015). These studies have demonstrated the energy saving bene-
fits of kinetic façades in hot climates.
Intuitively, kinetic façades can reduce cooling energy load in hot climates while
the benefits diminish in cold climates and even potentially hurt energy performance
in a very cold climate. There are currently many buildings with kinetic façades in
operation all around the world. Some of the examples are Al Bahar Towers in Abu
Dhabi, Arab World Institute in Paris, Kiefer Technic Showroom in Austria, The
Gardens by the Bay in Singapore, and many others. We expect that the kinetic fa-
çade in a hot climate such as in Abu Dhabi reduces more cooling load compared to
the kinetic façade in a cooler climate such as in Paris. On a spectrum of climate
conditions, from very hot to very cold, the energy saving benefits of kinetic façades
may have a breakeven line, a climate condition where the benefits of kinetic façades
are completely offset by the negative factors of kinetic façades, including the initial
cost, more frequent maintenance, and higher embodied carbon footprint. In other
words, in any climate that is colder than the breakeven climate, the embodied carbon
 3

footprint and the cost of kinetic façades outweigh their benefits in energy saving.
This breakeven climate condition is unknown, so one of the goals of this research
is to provide insight into where to draw the breakeven line.
The energy savings of the kinetic façades in the studies mentioned above are
compared to the no-shading condition as the benchmark. Well-designed static shad-
ing façades can block a fair amount of solar radiation during hot summer days while
admitting passive solar heat during cold winter days. Static façades have no moving
parts (thus far fewer parts) compared to kinetic façades. Therefore, static façades
have a lower initial cost, less maintenance, and less embodied carbon. To objec-
tively assess the energy savings of kinetic façades, it is important also compare ki-
netic façades with static ones.
Architects and designers often rely on rules of thumb when making initial design
decisions, especially in the schematic design stage. However, there are no rules of
thumb for how much energy kinetic façades can save given a specific project loca-
tion. It is also unknown if a kinetic façade can outperform a static façade well
enough to offset the higher costs and the embodied carbon. Although energy simu-
lations can provide answers, it takes time and resources for architects to build digital
models and simulate, assuming someone in the team that has the skills and
knowledge in parametric modeling and energy simulation. The primary goal of this
research is to set a baseline for architects to understand the impact of kinetic façades
so to help them make data-driven design decisions on whether a kinetic façade
would be appropriate for their projects in terms of energy saving.

1.1 Research questions

There are three primary research questions:

Q1: How do kinetic façades perform in different climate conditions? Answering
this question could provide insight into where the breakeven line is for implement-
ing kinetic façades.
Q2: How much energy do kinetic façades save compared to optimized fixed-
shading facades and a no-shading façade?
Q3: How much does the geometry of a kinetic façade affect energy saving effi-
ciency?

1.2 Research scope

The geographical scope of this research is limited to the United States. Ideally,
studying different climate conditions across the globe would result in more repre-
sentative and generalizable results. However, as a pilot study, this research will
4

focus on the cities in the US. Future studies will include cities located globally with
a more granular distribution.
Façade orientation in this study is limited to the south façade in the northern
hemisphere because the south façade typically receives the most solar radiation. The
energy saving aspect of kinetic façades can be greatly affected by their orientation.
Therefore, evaluating the energy performance of kinetic façades at different orien-
tations could provide a more holistic understanding.
Only two different types of kinetic façades, folding and sliding, are used to rep-
resent different kinetic façade typologies. A folding façade can create a partial shad-
ing device when fully open while a sliding façade can fully reveal the windows to
solar exposure.

2. Research method

To answer these research questions, energy simulation was used as the primary
research method. A generic shoebox model was used to better control the energy
simulation results. Parametric modeling was utilized to facilitate the generation and
the simulation of the façade operations. To understand how kinetic façades perform
under different climate conditions, 16 US cities were selected, one for each
ASHARE zone as shown in table 2.1. The energy performance of the shoebox
model with optimized fixed-shading façades and a no-shading facade was also sim-
ulated using the same climate data of the 16 cities, and the results were compared
to the results of the kinetic façades.

Table 2.1: ASHRAE climate zones and the US cities selected for each zone.
Zone City Climate Type
1A Miami, FL Very hot, humid
2A Houston, TX Hot, humid
2B Phoenix, AZ Hot, dry
3A Atlanta, GA Warm, humid
3B Las Vegas, NV Warm, dry
3B-coast Los Angeles, CA Warm, marine
3C San Francisco, CA Warm, marine
4A Baltimore, MD Mild, humid
4B Albuquerque, NM Mild, dry
4C Seattle, WA Mild, Marine
5A Chicago, IL Cold, humid
 5

5B Boulder, CO Cold, dry

6A Minneapolis, MN Cold, humid
6B Helena, MT Cold, dry
7 Duluth, MN Very cold
8 Fairbank, AK Sub-artic

The geographic locations of the 16 cities are shown in red dots on the ASHRAE
climate zone map (figure 2.1). The cities show a rather wide spread from east to
west and south to north across the US.

Figure 2.1: The 16 selected cities on the ASHRAE climate zone map.

3. Energy modeling and simulation

3.1 Energy modeling

For running energy simulations, a 6m x 10m x 4m (width x depth x height) shoe-

box energy model was defined as shown in figure 3.1. The front side of the model
was set to face the south orientation with a 90% window to wall ratio. The rest of
the five surfaces of the shoebox were set to be adiabatic. This is a simplification for
simulating a section of a building to better control simulation results.
6

Figure 3.1: Shoebox for energy simulations.

Climate Studio V1.5 was used as the simulation software. Climate Studio uses
EnergyPlus as the simulation engine. Simulation parameters were set up as shown
in table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Simulation parameters in Climate Studio.

Program Office
People density 0.07 p/m2
Metabolic rate 1.2
Equipment power density 7 W/m2
Lighting power density 10 W/m2
Heating setpoint 20 C
Cooling setpoint 26 C
Wall U-value 0.2 W/m2K
Window U-value 2.69 W/m2K
(Double-pane clear glass)
Window SHGC 0.703
Window visible transmittance 0.774
Infiltration 0.5 ACH

3.2 Kinetic façade modeling

There are various ways to categorize kinetic façades typologies (Tabadkani

2021). In this research, for the purpose of energy simulation, kinetic façades are
categorized into two different typologies: one that creates a new form of shading
geometry, such as overhangs or fins, when fully open, and the other type that fully
reveals the windows when fully open. The kinetic façade of the Kiefer Technic
Showroom in Austria, for example, forms overhangs when fully open and thus par-
tially shade the building (figure 3.2). On the other hand, some kinetic façades, slid-
ing louvers as an example, do not shade the windows when fully open.
 7

Figure 3.2: Different modes of kinetic façade operations of the Kiefer Technic
Showroom in Austria.

In this research, the two types of façades, a folding façade and a sliding façade,
were modeled in Rhino/Grasshopper to represent the two different kinetic façade
typologies. In reality, the opening motion of kinetic façades is continuous. For the
purpose of simulation, the range of motion is divided into 21 discrete steps from
fully closed to fully open. Each step represents different opening ratio, i.e., 0%, 5%,
10%, …, 95%, and 100% open. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show every other opening step
of the two types of façades respectively.

Figure 3.3: Every other step of the folding façade from fully closed to fully open.

Figure 3.4: Every other step of the sliding façade from fully closed to fully open.

The two types of façades, folding and sliding, were parametrically modeled with
different numbers of kinetic panels to investigate the relationship between the num-
ber of panels and the energy performance of the façades. Each of the two façades
was modeled with the variation of 1, 2, …, and 10 panels. Figures 3.5 and 3.6 show
the variations with a different number of panels.
8

Figure 3.5: Folding façade with different numbers of foldable panels.

Figure 3.6: Sliding façade with different numbers of slidable panels.

3.3 Kinetic façade simulation

The term “energy consumption” for the simulation results in this study refers to
the sum of the energy used for cooling and heating. This is to focus on the fact that
kinetic façades mostly affect cooling and heating energy load, assuming that the
energy used for equipment, lighting, and hot water is consistent. The energy used
for actuating the kinetic façades is disregarded given that it is often negligible com-
pared to the building cooling load.
The motion of the kinetic façades is divided into 21 discrete steps from fully
closed to fully open. This results in 21 different opening ratios. The cooling and
heating energy consumption of the kinetic façades was simulated for each of the
opening ratios on each hour of the year. The opening ratio with the least energy
consumption on each hour was selected. The sum of the least energy consumption
of each hour was then used as the yearly energy consumption of the kinetic façade
under the optimal operation schedule. Table 3.2 demonstrates how the data is pro-
cessed. Each cell with a checkmark denotes the opening ratio with the least energy
consumption for the hour of the year. The “Sum” column then adds all numbers in
the checked cells. The grand total cell at the bottom right corner shows the annual
energy consumption with the kinetic façade.
 9

Table 3.2: Kinetic façade energy consumption data processing.

Hour 1 2 3 4 … 8760 Sum
Step
1 √ √
2 √
3
… √ √
21 √
Sum Annual
Cons.

The opening ratio of each hour can be represented as an operation schedule. Fig-
ure 3.7 shows the operation schedule of the folding kinetic façade in Phoenix. The
X-axis shows the 365 days of a year. Y-axis shows 24 hours of a day. There are a
total of 8760 pixels in the graph with each pixel representing the opening ratio of
the kinetic façade on each hour of the year. A white pixel denotes that the façade is
fully open, and a red pixel denotes that it is fully closed. Any color between red and
white means that it is partially open with the shade of the pixel proportional to the
opening ratio.

Figure 3.7: Opening schedule of the folding façade in Phoenix.

The total number of permutations for each type of kinetic façade is: 21 steps x
10 variations x 16 cities = 3,360 simulation runs. Since there are two types of kinetic
façades, folding and sliding, a total number of 3,360 x 2 = 6,720 simulation runs
were conducted in this research.

3.4 Optimized static façade

The simulation results of the kinetic façade were processed with a different
method to calculate the energy consumption with an optimized static façade. In ta-
ble 3.2, assuming that each cell is filled with the energy consumption value of each
opening ratio on each hour of the year, the “Sum” column simply sums up 8760
cells in each row. The row with the least “Sum” denotes the energy consumption of
10

the optimized static façade at that specific opening ratio. The energy consumption
of the shoebox model without any shading device was used as the baseline for the
comparison with the kinetic facades.

4. Simulation results

4.1 Folding façade performance

Figure 4.1 shows the energy consumption (heating and cooling) of the shoebox
model across 16 cities under three types of shading conditions, i.e., folding façade,
optimized fixed façade, and the no-shading model. The cities are arranged in hot to
cold order from left to right in the graph. In general, the folding façade and the fixed
shading façade reduce energy consumption in the hot climates (from Miami to At-
lanta) and slightly increase energy use in cold climates (from Seattle to Fairbanks).
This is due to the fact that the façades block passive solar heat gain in winter.

Figure 4.1: Energy consumption comparison between the folding façade, fixed-
shading façade, and no-shading façade.

Table4.1 shows the amount and the percentage of energy savings of the folding
façade compared to the fixed-shading façade and the no-shading model. Compared
to the no-shading model, the folding façade reduces energy consumption by 32% to
56% in hot climates (Miami, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Atlanta). Although
the kinetic façade saves 91% in LA and -55% in San Francisco, the amount of en-
ergy saving (in KWh) is not as substantial as the percentage suggests. The percent-
ages are skewed due to their minimal cooling and heating loads in warm climates.
Compared to the optimized fixed-shading façade, the folding façade reduced 15%
to 25% of the energy use in hot climates, with Miami being an exception (1% re-
duction). The speculation for the reason why the folding façade had very limited
energy reduction compared to the fixed-shading facade is the low latitude. More
simulation results for low-latitude cities are needed to confirm this speculation in
the future. The folding façade always performed better than the fixed façade, but it
 11

does not make a meaningful difference in cold climates because both kinetic and
fixed façades are underperforming compared to the no-shading model.

Table 4.1: Energy savings of folding kinetic façade

Compared to no-shading Compared to fixed-shading
Energy
Savings Amount Percentage Amount Percentage
(KWh/year) (KWh/year)
Miami 6443 56% 55 1%
Houston 3117 39% 846 15%
Phoenix 2860 39% 829 16%
Las Vegas 2434 35% 802 15%
Atlanta 1272 32% 924 25%
LA 919 91% 150 61%
San Francisco -321 -55% 29 3%
Albuquerque 510 17% 428 15%
Baltimore 728 14% 735 14%
Seattle -128 -3% 99 2%
Boulder -235 -7% 216 6%
Chicago 133 2% 373 6%
Helena -264 -5% 142 2%
Minneapolis 127 2% 313 4%
Duluth -738 -9% 92 1%
Fairbanks -194 -1% 144 1%

Figure 4.2 shows the relation between the energy reduction of the folding façade
and the cooling/heating loads of the no-shading model. As seen in the graph, there
is a strong positive correlation, a coefficient of 0.97, between the amount of energy
saving of the folding façade (red line) and the cooling load. There is a weak negative
correlation, a coefficient of -0.48, between the energy saving of the folding façade
and heating load. The percentage of saving (green line) generally shows similar re-
sults while the data points for LA and San Francisco being the outliers.
12

Figure 4.2: Energy reduction of the folding façade compared to the energy con-
sumption of the no-shading model.

Figure 4.3 shows the relation between the energy reduction of the folding façade
and the cooling/heating loads of the fixed-shading façade. It shows a weak positive
correlation (a coefficient of 0.5) with the cooling load and a weak negative correla-
tion (a coefficient of -0.37) with the heating load.

Figure 4.3: Energy reduction of the folding kinetic façade compared to the en-
ergy consumption of the fixed-shading façade.

Given that the folding façades showed the best performance in hot climates con-
ditions, four of the hottest cities were selected to conduct a cross comparison be-
tween the folding façades with different numbers of foldable panels (as shown in
figure 3.5). Figure 4.4 shows that there is no meaningful trend between the different
numbers of foldable panels when compared to the no-shading model.

Figure 4.4: Energy consumption of the folding façade with different numbers of
panels.

4.2 Sliding façade performance

Figure 4.5 shows the energy consumption (heating and cooling) of the shoebox
model across 16 cities under three types of shading conditions, i.e., sliding kinetic
façade, optimized fixed façade, and the no-shading façade. Contrary to the folding
façade, the sliding façade outperformed the fixed shading façade and the no-shading
 13

model regardless of the climate condition. In general, the amount of energy savings
of the sliding façade reduces as the climate gets colder.

Figure 4.5: Energy consumption comparison between the sliding façade, fixed-
shading façade, and the no-shading façade.

Table 4.2 shows the amount and the percentage of energy savings of the sliding
façade compared to the fixed-shading façade and the no-shading model. Compared
to the no-shading model, the sliding façade reduces energy consumption in all cities,
with 20% or more savings from Miami to Baltimore, on the spectrum of hot to cold
climates. The sliding façade saves a substantial percentage of energy, 93% in LA
and 29% in San Francisco, but the amount of energy saving (in KWh) is not as
impactful as the percentage suggests. The percentages are skewed due to their lim-
ited cooling and heating loads in warm climates. Compared to the fixed-shading
façade, the sliding façade reduced 15% to 25% of the energy in hot climates, with
Miami being an exception (only 4% reduction).

Table 4.2: Energy savings of sliding kinetic façade

Compared to no-shading Compared to fixed shading
Energy
Savings Amount Percentage Amount Percentage
(KWh/year) (KWh/year)
Miami 5148 44% 301 4%
Houston 2529 32% 972 15%
Phoenix 2508 35% 960 17%
Las Vegas 2211 32% 1077 18%
Atlanta 1448 36% 1261 33%
LA 942 93% 226 75%
San Francisco 167 29% 167 29%
Albuquerque 1071 36% 1059 36%
Baltimore 1316 25% 1315 25%
Seattle 355 9% 355 9%
Boulder 665 20% 665 20%
Chicago 908 15% 908 15%
Helena 630 11% 630 11%
14

Minneapolis 927 12% 927 12%

Duluth 264 3% 264 3%
Fairbanks 133 1% 133 1%

Figure 4.6 shows the relationship between the energy reduction of the sliding
façade and the cooling/heating loads of the no-shading model. As seen in the graph,
there is a strong positive correlation, a coefficient of 0.97, between the amount of
energy saving of the sliding façade (red line) and the cooling load. There is a weak
negative correlation, a coefficient of -0.49, between the energy saving of the folding
façade and heating load. The percentage of saving (green line) generally shows sim-
ilar results while the data point for LA being an outlier.

Figure 4.6: Energy reduction of the sliding façade compared to the energy con-
sumption of the no-shading model.

Figure 4.7 shows the relationship between the energy reduction of the sliding
façade and the cooling/heating loads of the fixed-shading façade. It shows a weak
positive correlation (a coefficient of 0.28) with the cooling load and a weak negative
correlation (a coefficient of -0.36) with the heating load.

Figure 4.7: Energy reduction of the sliding façade compared to the energy con-
sumption of the fixed-shading façade.

The top four cities with the hottest climates were used to conduct a cross com-
parison between the sliding façades with different numbers of slidable panels (as
shown in figure 3.6). Figure 4.8 shows that the façades with different numbers of
slidable panels performed virtually the same.
 15

Figure 4.8: Energy consumption of the sliding façade with different numbers of
panels.

4.3 Performance comparison between folding and sliding façades

Figure 4.9 shows the energy consumption (cooling and heating) of the folding
façade and the sliding façade. The folding façade performs better in the top four
hottest cities, i.e., Miami, Houston, Phoenix, and Las Vegas, while the sliding fa-
çade performed better in the rest of the cities. Considering that neither the folding
nor the sliding façade provided substantial energy savings in cold climates, the prac-
tical advantage of the sliding façade is in Albuquerque and Baltimore, saving 36%
and 25% respectively. Comparatively, the folding façade saves only about 15% in
the two cities.

Figure 4.9: Energy consumption of the folding façade and the sliding façade.

5. Discussion

This study showed that kinetic façades can reduce cooling energy substantially
if applied properly in appropriate climates. Although energy consumption is a very
important aspect in architectural design, there are other important aspects of kinetic
façades that need to be considered.
16

Kinetic façades have more components and thus require more resources, mainte-
nance, and embodied carbon. In addition, kinetic façades do consume energy to op-
erate. Although the amount used for operation is typically negligible compared to
the reduction in cooling loads, for a more equitable comparison, the operational
energy use and the embodied energy need to be considered to fully evaluate the
environmental impacts of kinetic façades.
Kinetic façades also have a great impact on daylighting aspect of the built envi-
ronment (Mahmoud and Elghazi 2016). A good daylighting environment can in-
crease human performance (Heschong 2002) and improve human physical health
(Aries 2015). Therefore the comprehensive benefits of kinetic façades require a ho-
listic assessment, including daylighting.
Another important factor of kinetic façades is view-out. Figure 3.7 shows the
opening schedule of the folding façade in Phoenix. The schedule shows that the
façade is mostly closed during work hours for more than half of the year if it is set
to the optimal energy performance. This means that in many commercial buildings,
occupants have to sacrifice view-out for energy reduction. To alleviate the problem
of blocking view-out, many methods have been used as a compromise, such as using
perforated panels instead of solid panels or adjusting the panel position to gain par-
tial view out in exchange for minor performance loss.
Besides environmental impacts, kinetic façades can provide a unique character
and identity to a building. This could be an undeniable motivation for architects and
stakeholders of a building to pursue the unique esthetics of kinetic façades.
This study used two types of kinetic façades, folding and sliding, to represent
two of the typologies, one that forms a shading device when fully open, and the
other can fully reveal the glazing. Although the performance of different sliding
façades does not show a significant difference, the performance of folding façades
differs depending on the way that the façades fold or move. To fully evaluate the
impact of folding façades, more folding mechanisms need to be studied.

6. Conclusion

This research investigated the energy saving aspect of kinetic façades in different
climate conditions. Two types of kinetic façades, folding and sliding, were used for
comparison against optimized fixed-façades and a no-shading façade. The compar-
ison studies were conducted using computer simulations.
The simulation results showed that the kinetic façades, compared to the no-shad-
ing model, reduced 32% - 56% energy use in ASHRAE zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3,
with the folding façade slightly outperforming the sliding façade. In zone 4, the
sliding façade outperformed the folding façade. The exception is that the amount of
energy reduced by the kinetic façades in marine zones (San Francisco and Seattle)
were not as noticeable. In zone 5 to zone 8, the kinetic façades did not show a
 17

meaningful energy reduction and even showed an increase in energy consumption

in some cases of the folding façade simulations.
This study also provided an insight into how much energy kinetic façades can
save compared to optimized fixed-shading facades. While showing noticeable en-
ergy reduction compared to the optimized fixed-shading façades in general, the
folding and sliding façades in Miami showed only 1% and 4% energy reduction
respectively. This result suggests that applying kinetic façades to reduce energy
consumption in a climate similar to Miami might not be the best solution. Consid-
ering the operational energy use, embodied carbon, and more frequent maintenance
of kinetic façades, an optimized fixed-shading façade might be a better solution for
reducing environmental impacts.
The performance difference between the kinetic façades with different numbers
of panels was investigated. The simulation results showed that there was no clear
pattern in energy consumption between the variations of kinetic façades. Knowing
that the number of panels does not make a meaningful difference in energy perfor-
mance can provide designers freedom to decide the number of panels based on other
factors such as structural stability, cost, maintenance, etc.
A comparison between the folding façade and the sliding façade showed that the
folding façade perform better in hot and warm climates while the sliding façade
performs better in mild climate. Neither of the two types of kinetic façades provided
a meaningful energy reduction in cold climates.
The simulation results of this research are expected to provide basic rules of
thumb to designers when considering kinetic façades as a means of energy reduction
strategy. By checking the ASHRAE zone of the project site, a designer can get a
sense of whether a kinetic façade would be a potential solution.
In this research there are only 16 cities were selected, one for each ASHRAE
climate zone. To better generalize the results, more cities with a wider geographical
distribution need to be investigated in the future. In addition, to validate the specu-
lation for the reason that kinetic façades showed negligible energy reduction in Mi-
ami is due to its low latitude, more simulations with low-latitude cities need to be
conducted.
Lastly, it is important to recognize that energy consumption is not the only factor
that determines whether a kinetic façade is suitable for a project or not. There are
many other factors, such as daylighting, view, etc., that need to be considered with
a holistic approach.

References
Arup, 2013.Solar Leaf. Retrieved from https://www.arup.com/projects/solar-leaf
Attia, S., 2018. Evaluation of adaptive façades: The case study of Al Bahr Tow-
ers in the UAE. QScience Connect, 2017(2, Special Issue on Shaping Qatar’s Sus-
tainable Built Environment-Part I), p.6.
 18

Bacha, C.B. and Bourbia, F., 2016, October. Effect of kinetic façades on energy
efficiency in office buildings-hot dry climates. In 11th Conference on advanced
building skins (Vol. 1, pp. 458-468).
Granqvist, C.G., Arvizu, M.A., Pehlivan, İ.B., Qu, H.Y., Wen, R.T. and Niklas-
son, G.A., 2018. Electrochromic materials and devices for energy efficiency and
human comfort in buildings: A critical review. Electrochimica Acta, 259, pp.1170-
1182.
Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Adams, H., Adler, C., Aldunce, P., Ali, E., Begum,
R.A., Betts, R., Kerr, R.B., Biesbroek, R. and Birkmann, J., 2022. Climate change
2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.
EPA, 2017. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved from http://learning-
cleanairasia.org/lms/library/ga3/99-Overview-of-Greenhouse-Gases.pdf
IEA, 2018. Global Status Report. Retrieved from https://www.world-
gbc.org/sites/default/files/2018%20GlobalABC%20Global%20Status%20Re-
port.pdf
Alotaibi, F., 2015. The role of kinetic envelopes to improve energy performance
in buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology, 4(3), pp.149-153.
IMA, 2022. Retrieved from https://www.imarabe.org/en/architecture
Tabadkani, A., Roetzel, A., Li, H.X. and Tsangrassoulis, A., 2021. Design ap-
proaches and typologies of adaptive façades: A review. Automation in Construc-
tion, 121, p.103450.
Mahmoud, A.H.A. and Elghazi, Y., 2016. Parametric-based designs for kinetic
facades to optimize daylight performance: Comparing rotation and translation ki-
netic motion for hexagonal facade patterns. Solar Energy, 126, pp.111-127.
Kolarevic, B. and Parlac, V., 2015. Adaptive, Responsive Building Skins, in
Building dynamics: exploring architecture of change. Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, London and New York, 2015, Chapter 6, pp. 75
Heschong, L., 2002. Daylighting and human performance. ASHRAE journal,
44(6), pp.65-67.
Aries, M.B., Aarts, M.P. and van Hoof, J., 2015. Daylight and health: A review
of the evidence and consequences for the built environment. Lighting Research &
Technology, 47(1), pp.6-27.

View publication stats