Thermal Performance of Closed Cavity Facades

Performance Assessment of Closed Cavity Facade in California Climate

Overview

Authors

Photo of Andrea Zani

Andrea Zani

Project Engineer

Eckersley O’Callaghan

andrea@eocengineers.com

Photo of Carmelo Guido Galante

Carmelo Guido Galante

Senior Project Engineer

Eckersley O’Callaghan

carmelo@eocengineers.com

Photo of Lisa Rammig

Lisa Rammig

Senior Associate

Eckersley O’Callaghan

lisa@eocengineers.com


Keywords


Abstract

Closed cavity facades (CCF), a configuration of Double Skin Facade (DSF), consists of a double-glazed unit on the inner layer and single glazing on the outer one forming a sealed non-ventilated cavity with automated blinds in between. A CCF compared to a traditional ventilated DSF prevents accumulation and settlement of dust and particles in the cavity, increasing the service life of components inside the cavity. Additionally, the cavity will be constantly supplied with dry clean air to prevent the formation of condensation. A CCF, given the enhanced thermal performance and dynamic behavior, can contribute to balance the demand for energy saving, thermal, and visual comfort. However, existing CCFs have been designed and installed mainly in cold climates, such as northern Europe; therefore, different conditions and challenges must be considered when designing a CCF in hot climates like California. High temperatures, high peaks of solar radiation coupled with low cloud coverage during the day can lead to critical overheating of the cavity that can influence the overall thermal performance of the system and affect the service life of components.

The paper aims to present the thermal performance of CCF for three different California climates (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento), in terms of energy consumption, winter/summer thermal comfort and system durability. Using Energy Plus and detailed transient thermal simulations, several glass build-up configurations were investigated, shading materials to minimize energy demand and maximize occupant thermal comfort over the year inside office buildings. The results show that CCF has a positive impact on energy consumptions, winter thermal performance, and comfort with a decrement of 20-25% of thermal transmittance compared to a traditional unitized system (thermally improved frame and insulated glass). In addition, results prove that glass coating and shading solar reflectance play a crucial role in limiting overheating and maintain temperatures below the critical threshold of 90-100 C and interior surface temperature under 35 C.

Introduction

Sustainable building design is rapidly moving towards a more holistic design approach, where an integrated design between the facade and mechanical systems is fundamental to meet the always more stringent

Members Only

Background

DSFs consist of three distinct layers – an interior glazed wall system, a ventilated air cavity with solar shading, and an exterior glazed wall system. The ventilated air cavity works

Members Only

Method

Different modeling and simulation tools were used in the research to evaluate heat transfer, temperature distribution, interior thermal comfort, and the energy-saving potentials for CCFs with different glazing and Venetian

Members Only

Case Study

The study is focused on comparing the performance of a CCF system with a standard aluminum unitized DGU system considering a typical office building internal boundary conditions and schedule of

Members Only

Data

Energy consumptions

Results of the energy analysis performed in EnergyPlus are displayed in Figure 5; the graphs show the improvement achieved from an energy point of view when using a CCF

Members Only

Conclusion and future work

The paper investigates the thermal performance of a novel facade system named Closed Cavity Facade (CCF) in California climates. The combination of annual energy simulations and detailed transient analyses show

Members Only

Acknowledgements

We thank everyone that provided helpful comments and insights during the development of this document. A special thanks to Eckersley O’Callaghan for research funding and Alessandro Baldini from Eckersley O’Callaghan R&D team for the review.

Rights and Permissions

Aksamija, A. 2016. “Thermal and Energy Performance in Different Climate Types,” World Congress Facade Tectonics: 1–18.

Aksamija, A 2018. “Thermal Energy and Daylight Analysis of Different Types of Double Skin Facades in Various Climates.” Journal of Facade Design and Engineering 6: 1–39.

Alejandra Menchaca-Brandan, M, Vera Baranova, Lynn Petermann, Stephanie Koltun, and Christopher Mackey. 2017. “Glazing and Winter Comfort Part 1: An Accessible Web Tool for Early Design Decision-Making,” IBPSA: 2326–33.

Faggal, Ahmed Atef. 2017. “Double Skin Facade Effect on Thermal Comfort and Energy Consumption in Double Skin Facade Effect on Thermal Comfort and Energy Consumption in Office Buildings.” Master Thesis.

Gelesz, Adrienn, and András Reith. 2015. “Climate-Based Performance Evaluation of Double Skin Facades by Building Energy Modelling in Central Europe.” Energy Procedia 78: 555–60.

Hien, Wong Nyuk, Wang Liping, Aida Noplie Chandra, Anupama Rana Pandey, and Wei Xiaolin. 2005. “Effects of Double Glazed Facade on Energy Consumption, Thermal Comfort and Condensation for a Typical Office Building in Singapore.” Energy and Buildings 37 (6): 563–72.

Huizenga, C., S. Abbaszadeh, L. Zagreus, and E. Arens. 2006. “Air Quality and Thermal Comfort in Office Buildings : Results of a Large Indoor Environmental Quality Survey.” Proceedings of Healthy BuildingsIII: 393–97.

Ignjatović, Marko G., Bratislav D. Blagojević, Branislav V. Stojanović, and Mladen M. Stojiljković. 2013. “Influence of Glazing Types and Ventilation Principles in Double Skin Facades on Delivered Heating and Cooling Energy during Heating Season in an Office Building.” Thermal Science 16 (SUPPL.2): 461–69.

Jelle, Bjørn Petter, Andrew Hynd, Arild Gustavsen, Dariush Arasteh, Howdy Goudey, and Robert Hart. 2012. “Fenestration of Today and Tomorrow: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Research Opportunities.” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 96 (1): 1–28.

Johnson, Nathan. 2014. “CCF at 200 George Street, Sydney.” www.Architectureanddesign.Com.Au. 2014. https://www.architectureanddesign.com.au/news/closed-cavity-facade-and-fully-led-lit-200-george.

Laverge, J, S Schouwenaars, M Steeman, and A Janssens. 2010. “Moisture in a Closed Cavity Double Skin Facade.” In REHVA World Congress, 10th, Proceedings.

Mackey, Christopher et al. 2017. “Glazing and Winter Comfort Part 2 : An Advanced Tool for Complex Spatial and Temporal Conditions.” In , 2317–25.

Mainini, Andrea Giovanni, Andrea Zani, Giuseppe De Michele, Alberto Speroni, Tiziana Poli, Michele Zinzi, and Andrea Gasparella. 2019. “Daylighting Performance of Three-Dimensional Textiles.” Energy and Buildings 190: 202–15.

Pomponi, Francesco, Poorang A.E. Piroozfar, Ryan Southall, Philip Ashton, and Eric R.P. Farr. 2016. “Energy Performance of Double-Skin Facades in Temperate Climates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54: 1525–36.

Romano, Rosa, Laura Aelenei, Daniel Aelenei, and Enrico Sergio Mazzucchelli. 2018. “What Is an Adaptive Facade? Analysis of Recent Terms and Definitions from an International Perspective.” Journal of Facade Design and Engineering; Vol 6 No 3 (2018): Special Issue FAÇADE 2018

Vaglio, Jeff, Mic Patterson, and Stacey Hooper. 2010. “Emerging Applications and Trends of Double-Skin Facades.” Enclos Journal, 5. http://enclos.com/assets/docs/Insight01-Chapter03-Emerging_Applications_and_Trends_of_Double-Skin_Facades.pdf.