A review on the recent façade evaluation approaches and criteria
Amirhossein Zekri
1
(School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.)
Ahmad Ekhlassi
2
(School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.)
Abbas Tarkashvand
3
(School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.)
کلید واژه: Façade, Evaluation, Trends, Approaches, Criteria, Performance,
چکیده مقاله :
Novel viewpoints see facade as a multi-functional component that should meet functional and aesthetics requirements simultaneously. These requirements need a state-of-the-art approach to be evaluated. Although façade performance assessments are seen in the literature, rarely can be found the studies that investigate aesthetics and performance of façade together. Reviewing the approaches, methodologies, and criteria utilized to assess facades can draw a vision of the background for those intend to develop a method for façade evaluation based on novel perspective. The purpose of this study is to investigate recent research to find out the approaches towards façade. To implement this aim, an exploratory case study methodology was applied, while the data collection method was library-based. Content analysis was employed via logical reasoning to find out the approaches, methods and criteria of façade evaluations. Also, open and axial coding were used to organize the criteria extracted. The found approaches were “sustainability,” “buildability,” “life cycle assessment,” “competing objectives,” “performance,” and “general,” while the most frequent one was “performance” and “sustainability” after “general.” Previous façade-focused research methodologies were concentrated on five methodologies: multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), simulation, optimization, library-based, and hybrid. The most popular method was MCDM. Extraction of criteria demonstrated that “Costs,” “Thermal performance,” “Environmental impacts,” and “Durability” are respectively the trend ones with the highest frequency of presentation. To conclude, façade as a multi-functional element needs to be assessed with state-of-the-art methods that consider all the required functions of façade, including aesthetics, whereas, Conventional methods are not able to provide such a service.
چکیده انگلیسی :
Novel viewpoints see facade as a multi-functional component that should meet functional and aesthetics requirements simultaneously. These requirements need a state-of-the-art approach to be evaluated. Although façade performance assessments are seen in the literature, rarely can be found the studies that investigate aesthetics and performance of façade together. Reviewing the approaches, methodologies, and criteria utilized to assess facades can draw a vision of the background for those intend to develop a method for façade evaluation based on novel perspective. The purpose of this study is to investigate recent research to find out the approaches towards façade. To implement this aim, an exploratory case study methodology was applied, while the data collection method was library-based. Content analysis was employed via logical reasoning to find out the approaches, methods and criteria of façade evaluations. Also, open and axial coding were used to organize the criteria extracted. The found approaches were “sustainability,” “buildability,” “life cycle assessment,” “competing objectives,” “performance,” and “general,” while the most frequent one was “performance” and “sustainability” after “general.” Previous façade-focused research methodologies were concentrated on five methodologies: multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), simulation, optimization, library-based, and hybrid. The most popular method was MCDM. Extraction of criteria demonstrated that “Costs,” “Thermal performance,” “Environmental impacts,” and “Durability” are respectively the trend ones with the highest frequency of presentation. To conclude, façade as a multi-functional element needs to be assessed with state-of-the-art methods that consider all the required functions of façade, including aesthetics, whereas, Conventional methods are not able to provide such a service.
Ahmadian, A., Rashidi, T. H., Akbarnezhad, A., & Waller, T. (2017). BIM-enabled sustainability assessment of material supply decisions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(4), 668–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2015-0193
Al-Hammad, A., & Hassanain, M. A. (1996). Value Engineering in the Assessment of Exterior Building Wall Systems. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 2(3), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1076-0431(1996)2:3(115)
Al-Hammad, A. M., Hassanain, M. A., & Juaim, M. N. (2014). Evaluation and selection of curtain wall systems for medium-high rise building construction. Structural Survey, 32(4), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-10-2013-0035
Bertagna, F., D Acunto, P., & Ohlbrock, P. O. (2021). Holistic Design Explorations of Building Envelopes Supported by Machine Learning. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering, 9(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.7480/jfde.2021.1.5423
Bianchi, S., Andriotis, C., Klein, T., & Overend, M. (2024). Multi-criteria design methods in façade engineering: State-of-the-art and future trends. In Building and Environment (Vol. 250). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111184
Boswell, K. (2013). Exterior Building Enclosures: Design Process and Composition for Innovative Facades (1st edition). Wiley.
Britannica. (2023). Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
Burden, E. (2012). Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture (3rd edition). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Chen, L., & Pan, W. (2016). BIM-aided Variable Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making of Low-carbon Building Measures Selection. Sustainable Cities and Society, 27, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.04.008
Chen, Z., & Clements-Croome, D. J. (2007). An ANP Approach to the Assessment of Buildings Façade Systems. In Z. Chen (Ed.), Multicriteria Decision-Making for the Sustainable Built Environment , Proceedings of the 2006 Whiteknights Workshop on MCDM (pp. 17–30). The University of Reading.
Chua, K. J., & Chou, S. K. (2010). Evaluating the performance of shading devices and glazing types to promote energy efficiency of residential buildings. Building Simulation, 3(3), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-010-0007-2
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Fourth edition). Sage Publication Inc.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (6th edition). SAGE Publication, Inc.
Elkhayat, Y. O., Ibrahim, M. G., Tokimatsu, K., & Ali, A. A. M. M. (2020). Multi-criteria selection of high-performance glazing systems: A case study of an office building in New Cairo, Egypt. Journal of Building Engineering, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101466
Gilani, G., Blanco, A., & Fuente, A. D. La. (2017). A New Sustainability Assessment Approach Based on Stakeholder’s Satisfaction for Building Façades. Energy Procedia, 115, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.05.006
Ginevičius, R., Podvezko, V., & Raslanas, S. (2008). Evaluating the alternative solutions of wall insulation by multicriteria methods. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 14(4), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.20
Granadeiro, V., Correia, J. R., Leal, V. M. S., & Duarte, J. P. (2013). Envelope-related energy demand: A design indicator of energy performance for residential buildings in early design stages. Energy and Buildings, 61, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.018
Habibi, S., Pons Valladares, O., & Peña, D. (2020). New sustainability assessment model for Intelligent Façade Layers when applied to refurbish school buildings skins. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100839
Hamida, H., & Alshibani, A. (2020). A multi-criteria decision-making model for selecting curtain wall systems in office buildings. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 19(4), 904–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2020-0154
Hendriks, L., & Hens, H. (2000a). Building Envelopes in a Holistic Perspective. KUL Departement burgerlijke bouwkunde Laboratorium bouwfysica.
Hendriks, L., & Hens, H. (2000b). Building Envelopes in a Holistic Perspective. KUL Departement burgerlijke bouwkunde Laboratorium bouwfysica.
Horvat, M., & Fazio, P. (2020). BEPAT – Building envelope performance assessment tool: Validation. In Research in Building Physics and Building Engineering (1st editio). Routlege (Taylor & Francis group).
Iwaro, J., Mwasha, A., Williams, R. G., & Zico, R. (2014). An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.096
Jalilzadehazhari, E., Vadiee, A., & Johansson, P. (2019). Achieving a Trade-off Construction Solution Using BIM, an Optimization Algorithm, and a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method. Buildings, 9(81), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9040081
Jin, Q., & Overend, M. (2014). A prototype whole-life value optimization tool for façade design. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 7(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2013.812145
Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Raslanas, S., Ginevicius, R., Komka, A., & Malinauskas, P. (2006). Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: A Lithuanian case. Energy and Buildings, 38(5), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.08.005
Karan, E., & Asadi, S. (2019). Intelligent designer : A computational approach to automating design of windows in buildings. Automation in Construction, 102(May 2018), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.019
Karan, E., Asgari, S., & Rashidi, A. (2021a). A Markov Decision Process Workflow for Automating Interior Design. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(9), 3199–3212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-1272-6
Karan, E., Asgari, S., & Rashidi, A. (2021b). A Markov Decision Process Workflow for Automating Interior Design. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(9), 3199–3212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-1272-6
Martabid, J. esteban. (2015). Selection of envelope-wall systems for residential projects. PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DE CHILE.
Martabid, J. esteban;, & Mourgues, C. (2015). Criteria used for selecting envelope wall systems in Chilean residential projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862 .0001025
Martinez, C. (2005). COMPORTAMIENTO TERMICO-ENERGETICO DE ENVOLVENTE DE VIVIENDA EN S. M. DE TUCUMAN EN RELACION A LA ADECUACION CLIMATICA. Avances En Energías Renovables y Medio Ambiente, 9(5), 1–6.
McFarquhar, D. (2012). The role of the building façade—Curtain walls. Building Enclosure Science & Technology (BEST3) Conference.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms. (2003). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc .
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2023). Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Moghtadernejad, S. (2013). Design, inspection, maintenance, life cycle performance and integrity of building facades [Master Thesis]. McGill University.
Moghtadernejad, S., Chouinard, L. E., & Mirza, M. S. (2018). Multi-criteria decision-making methods for preliminary design of sustainable facades. Journal of Building Engineering, 19, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.006
Moghtadernejad, S., Chouinard, L. E., & Mirza, M. S. (2020). Design strategies using multi-criteria decision-making tools to enhance the performance of building façades. Journal of Building Engineering, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101274
Moghtadernejad, S., Mirza, M. S., & Chouinard, L. E. (2019). Façade Design Stages: Issues and Considerations. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000335
Moussavi Nadoushani, Z. S., Akbarnezhad, A., Ferre Jornet, J., & Xiao, J. (2017). Multi-criteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria. Building and Environment, 121, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016
Oxford Dictionary. (2018). Oxford University Press.
Passe, U., & Nelson, R. (2013). Constructing Energy Efficiency: Rethinking and Redesigning the Architectural Detail. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 19(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000108
Priya, A. (2021). Case Study Methodology of Qualitative Research: Key Attributes and Navigating the Conundrums in Its Application. Sociological Bulletin, 70(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318
Schittich, C., Lang, W., & Krippner, R. (2006). Building skins. In C. Schittich (Ed.), Fabric Architecture (Vol. 18, Issue 3). Birkhäuser – Publishers for Architecture and DETAIL – Review of Architecture. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-7729-8_1
Shin, Y., & Cho, K. (2015). BIM Application to Select Appropriate Design Alternative with Consideration of LCA and LCCA. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 1–14. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/281640
Singhaputtangkul, N., Low, S. P., Teo, A. L., & Hwang, B.-G. (2013). Knowledge-based Decision Support System Quality Function Deployment (KBDSS-QFD) tool for assessment of building envelopes. Automation in Construction, 35, 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.05.017
Singhaputtangkul, N., Low, S. P., Teo, A. L., & Hwang, B.-G. (2014a). Criteria for Architects and Engineers to Achieve Sustainability and Buildability in Building Envelope Designs. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(2), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000198
Singhaputtangkul, N., Low, S. P., Teo, A. L., & Hwang, B.-G. (2014b). Criteria for Architects and Engineers to Achieve Sustainability and Buildability in Building Envelope Designs. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(2), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000198
Singhaputtangkul, N., Low, S. P., & Teo, E. A. L. (2016a). Quality Function Deployment for Buildable and Sustainable Construction (1st ed.). Springer.
Singhaputtangkul, N., Low, S. P., & Teo, E. A. L. (2016b). Quality Function Deployment for Buildable and Sustainable Construction (1st ed.). Springer.
Tan, X., Hammad, A., & Fazio, P. (2007). Automated code compliance checking of building envelope performance. In L. Soibelman & B. Akinci (Eds.), International Workshop on Computing in Civil Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). https://doi.org/10.1061/40937(261)32
Tan, X., Hammad, A., & Fazio, P. (2010). Automated Code Compliance Checking for Building Envelope Design. JOURNAL OF COMPUTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING, 24(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2010)24:2(203)
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (2022). Columbia University Press.
The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture and Construction. (2003). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Turkay, I. (2017). Framework for Integrating Aesthetics and Technology in Detailing Facade Cladding: A Proposal. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives for Future Building Envelopes. Istanbul Technical University.
Wang, W., Rivard, H., & Zmeureanu, R. (2006). Floor shape optimization for green building design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 20(4), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2006.07.001
Warren, P. (2003a). Technical Synthesis Report International Energy Agency (IEA) Annex 32: Integral Building Envelope Performance Assessment.
Warren, P. (2003b). Technical Synthesis Report International Energy Agency (IEA) Annex 32: Integral Building Envelope Performance Assessment.
Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2008). Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 14(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.3
Zavadskas, E. K., Ustinovičius, L., Turskis, Z., Ambrasas, G., & Kutut, V. (2005). Estimation of external walls decisions of multistorey residential buildings applying methods of multicriteria analysis. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 11(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.3846/13928619.2005.9637683
