A Review on the Recent Façade Evaluation Approaches and Criteria
Subject Areas : ArchitectureAmirhossein Zekri 1 , Ahmad Ekhlassi 2 , Abbas Tarkashvand 3
1 -
2 - هیئت علمی دانشگاه علم و صنعت
3 - استادیار، دانشکده معماری و هنر، دانشگاه گیلان
Keywords: Facade, Evaluation, Trends, Approaches, Criteria, Performance,
Abstract :
Novel viewpoints see the façade as a multi-functional component that should simultaneously meet functional and aesthetic requirements. These requirements need to be evaluated using a state-of-the-art approach. Although façade performance assessments are seen in the literature, studies that investigate the aesthetics and performance of façades rarely can be found together. Reviewing the approaches, methodologies, and criteria utilized to assess façades can draw a vision of the background for those who intend to develop a method for façade evaluation based on a novel perspective. This study aims to investigate recent research to discover approaches to façades. An exploratory case study methodology was applied to implement this aim, while the data collection method was library-based. Content analysis was employed via logical reasoning to determine the approaches, methods, and criteria of façade evaluations. Also, open and axial coding was used to organize the criteria extracted. The found approaches were "sustainability," "buildability," "life cycle assessment," "competing objectives," "performance," and "general," while the most frequent ones were "performance" and "sustainability" after "general." Previous façade-focused research methodologies were concentrated on five methodologies: multicriteria 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, the façade as a multi-functional element needs to be assessed with state-of-the-art methods that consider all the required functions of a façade, including aesthetics. In contrast, Conventional methods cannot 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 Façade 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). Multicriteria 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 Façades (1st edition). Wiley.
Burden, E. (2012). Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture (3rd edition). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Chen, L., & Pan, W. (2016). BIM-aided Variable Fuzzy Multicriteria 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). Multicriteria 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.
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 multicriteria 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. (2000). 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 edition). Routledge (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 Multicriteria 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. (2021). 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. https://doi.org/10.7764/tesisUC/ING/16586
Martabid, J. E., & 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.
Moghtadernejad, S. (2013). Design, inspection, maintenance, life cycle performance, and integrity of building façades [Master Thesis]. McGill University.
Moghtadernejad, S., Chouinard, L. E., & Mirza, M. S. (2018). Multicriteria decision-making methods for preliminary design of sustainable façades. 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 multicriteria 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). Multicriteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria. Building and Environment, 121, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.05.016
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. (2014). 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. (2016). Quality Function Deployment for Buildable and Sustainable Construction (1st ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-849-6
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.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (2022). Columbia University Press. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/façade
Harris, C. M. (2006). Dictionary of Architecture & Construction (4th ed.). Mc-Graw-Hill.
Turkay, I. (2017). Framework for Integrating Aesthetics and Technology in Detailing Façade 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. (2003). Technical Synthesis Report International Energy Agency (IEA) Annex 32: Integral Building Envelope Performance Assessment. https://www.iea-ebc.org/Data/publications/EBC_Annex_32_tsr.pdf
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
A review on the approaches and methods applied to façade studies along with the employed criteria (between 1996 to 2022)
First author: Amirhossein Zekri1, Ph.D. candidate, a_zekri@arch.iust.ac.ir
Second Author: Ahmad Ekhlassi1, Ph.D., Associate Professor, ekhlassi@iust.ac.ir
Third and corresponding author*: Abbas Tarkashvand1, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, tarkashvand@iust.ac.ir*
1School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, University St., Hengam St., Resalat Sq., Tehran 1311416846, Iran.
Table of Contents
3.1.2. Sustainability and buildability
3.1.3. Building life cycle assessment
Although there are numerous studies consider façade performance assessment, rarely can be found the studies that have tried to review the approaches, methods, objectives, and the criteria these fields of façade-related researches follow. The purpose of this study is to review the approaches and methods applied for façade study in the literature review as well as the criteria employed to carry out the research. To implement this aim, the methodology was systematically following library-based method. Firstly, the found related research were organized based on the approach they follow in façade assessment. The found approach were sustainability, buildability, building life cycle assessment, competing objectives, performance, and general. The most frequent approach was sustainability. At the second stage, exploring the methods by which previous façade-focused research have been done led to five general methodologies, including, multi-criteria decision-making, simulation, optimization, library-based, and hybrid methods. The most popular research method based on the examined studies was multi-criteria decision-making. At last, used criteria extracted from the resources through an exploration via open and axial coding method. The results demonstrated that “Costs”, “Thermal performance”, “Environmental impacts”, and “Durability” are respectively the trend criteria with the highest frequency of presentation. Besides, “Environmental impacts”, “Costs”, “Thermal performance”, and “Structural performance” were the ones which have received considerable attention in the 5 most recent years. Notable that three of four criteria of these two analyses were similar which shows a convergence in the recent and general trend of frequency analysis.
Keywords: Façade, Approaches on façade, Methodologies on façade, Façade evaluation criteria, Façade assessment
1. Introduction
Even though there are numerous studies on façade in the literature, hardly are there studies which review the approaches and trends on façade. The same has been taken place for methodologies that can be applied on facades. While each and every paper tries to make use of a single approach or method to obtain its objectives, none efforts are put on organizing of the methods and approaches that are used of in the façade field. This is while in the related fields such as multi-criteria decision making or multi-criteria decision making on façade, previous studies strive to cover this gap. The aim of this study is to address the need of reviewing the approaches and methods used in the façade field before. The results not only provide a vision for those wish to research in this area, but it also identifies the areas that need to be worked on and developed more. In this regard, this paper reviews the selected research on façade from three primary viewpoints: first, approaches that are made use to study the façade, second, the methodologies that are being used when it comes to façade, and third that criteria considered for façade decision making efforts. At the beginning, the façade definition needs to be clear as the basis of the research. The building envelope is the primary interface between the exterior environment and the interior environment of a building (Bertagna et al., 2021; Schittich et al., 2006). The facade is the exterior building envelope layer that faces the public space (Boswell, 2013).The exterior face or wall of a building is façade based on Columbia Encyclopedia. This term implies ordered placement of openings and other features and thus, seems inapplicable to a wall without design. Any freestanding structure may have four or more facades, designated by their orientation (e.g., north facade) (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2022). In other words, the main exterior face of a building, particularly one of its main sides, almost always containing an entrance and characterized by an elaboration of stylistic detail (Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture, 2012). In another definition, the front of a building or a face of a building, given special architectural treatment (Mc Graw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 2003). Besides, the Mc Graw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture and Construction knows façade as the exterior face of a building which is the architectural front, sometimes distinguished from the other faces by elaboration of architectural or ornamental details (The Mc Graw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture and Construction, 2003). The Oxford dictionary describes façade as principal front of a building, that faces on to a street or open space (Oxford Dictionary, 2018). The building façade is the outer surface of the building that gives the building its unique visual expression (Turkay, 2017). Façade is the front of a building (Britannica, 2023; Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2023). According to descriptions above, the external surface of the different sides of a single building that faces the open space or urban space and is also visible from open space or urban space which make use of architectural and specific ornamental details to be distinguished from other buildings is called façade in this article. The function of a facade is to selectively transmit, filter, and/or block certain phenomena, including heat and mass transfer, acoustic transmission, and light transmission (Jin & Overend, 2014).
2. Methodology
The terms “Decision-making,” “Approach,” “Facade,” and “Criteria” were searched with the "or" operator through Scopus database. The papers were refined twice, and an exploration was made through the citations of the final ones to find related resources directing research associated to façade. The references of the citations were also referred to complete the library of the present study. (Martabid & Mourgues, 2015) and (Singhaputtangkul et al., 2014, 2016) are among the respective citations for these studies that focused on Chile and Singapore. This method yielded a series of studies that analyzed facades either directly or as a case study for their models. As this research is following the approaches and methods used to direct façade-related studies, an exploratory study along with content analysis were carried out to find out both. Along with this, the criteria that each research followed was among the results of exploration which have been described in section 3.3. Through content analysis, the efforts were put on categorizing the approaches, methods, and criteria each research has been used to obtain the objectives, so that the studies with the same approach or same methods were categorized in the same groups. Last, 5 groups of approaches, 5 clusters of methods, and 28 criteria were recognized as the findings. The detailed results are discussed in the following.
3. Findings
Findings of reviewing the literature are categorized into three primary categories. These categories respectively are, first, approaches revolved around which studies assessed facades, second, methods by which the researches have been done, and third the criteria based on which the papers consider façade-related objectives.
3.1. Approach
The found research can be organized based on whether their research objectives pursue a specific or general approach. Those with a specific approach followed popular trends as sustainability or life cycle assessment. A considerable share of those with specific approach has regarded sustainability as a concern. A specific approach in this kind of studies led to categorization in the criteria, in contrast to those with a general approach. For instance, sustainability resulted in three main categories of criteria, including, environmental, social, and economic dimensions. On the other hand, those with general approach only discussed research objectives that could not be organized under a single and consistent dimension or approach. As an example, Passe and Nelson (2013) took aesthetics, cost, thermal performance, durability, buildability as criteria for evaluation of façade details when they did not consider an approach that can cover the criteria they opt for (Passe & Nelson, 2013).
In the following, studies that exclusively evaluated facade with a specific approach are discussed. Afterward, studies with general approach regarding evaluation of facade are fully introduced. The approach is the overall point of view of the papers to assess a façade. For instance, some explored sustainability throughout achieving the objectives they set in their research, while some seek high performance. In the following, those with general approach are introduced. In general approach papers simply follow the leads and objectives they set specifically in the research in order to investigate and organize the variables, and they do not have specific approach when studying variables and criteria. There were three times as many studies with a general approach as those with a specific approach. Studies with general approach lacked organization of criteria and categorization, resulting in projects that merely evaluated the disparate objectives.
There are six primary approaches that found in the literature, which are:
i. sustainability
ii. buildability
iii. building life cycle assessment
iv. competing objectives
v. performance
vi. general
3.1.1. Sustainability
Recent research indicates that sustainability is a widespread trend. In this regard, facades do not stand apart. There are three main categories of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. However, some individuals may occasionally see performance as a component of achieving sustainability. In this review, for instance, Ahmadian et al. (2017) examine the sustainability assessment of curtain wall supply decisions in terms of cost, time, quality, and social and environmental factors in Australia (Ahmadian et al., 2017). In another research endeavor, Moussavi Nadoushani (2017) added "performance" to the aforementioned three categories (Moussavi Nadoushani et al., 2017). The criteria evaluated in these two sources are listed exhaustively in the section that follows. Table 1 details the characteristics of these two studies.
Table 1. Researches with sustainability approach
Authors | Categories | Categorization | Date | Country of research | Title | Purpose | Approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moussavi Nadoushani, Z., et al. (2017) | 1.Economic aspects 2.Social aspects 3.Environmental aspects | Yes | 2017 | Australia (Sydney) | Multi-criteria selection of façade systems based on sustainability criteria | Sustainability | Sustainability |
Ahmadian, A., Rashidi, T. H., Akbarnezhad, A., & Waller, T. (2017). | 1.Cost 2.Time 3.Quality 4.Social and environmental sustainability
| Yes | 2017 | Australia | BIM-enabled sustainability assessment of material supply decisions (Case study: Curtain wall) |
3.1.2. Sustainability and buildability
After sustainability, one of the priorities of architectural design is buildability. These two trends are the subject and foremost objective of a study conducted in Singapore, in which technicians from various professional backgrounds in the construction industry are asked about the most important evaluation criteria for a facade. This review organized the criteria into the four sections listed below. The first three sections are the subcategories of sustainability.
a) Economic aspect
b) Social aspect
c) Environmental aspect
d) Buildability
Table 2 reviews this study.
Table 2. Research with sustainability and buildability approach
Authors | Categories | Categorization | Date | Country of research | Title | Purpose | Approach |
Singhaputtangkul et al. (2014) | 1.Economic aspects 2.Social aspects 3.Environmental aspects 4. Buildability | Yes | 2014 | Singapore | Criteria for Architects and Engineers to Achieve Sustainability and Buildability in Building Envelope Designs | Sustainability & Buildability | Sustainability & Buildability |
3.1.3. Building life cycle assessment
Some recent research focuses on building life cycles when deciding on building facades. They strive to consider all main phases of a façade, including construction, operation, and demolition. To exemplify, Shin and Cho (2015) developed a model to quantify and calculate the criteria and indicators for this approach to analysis. They apply the resulting model to a facade of a real building in South Korea in order to evaluate the constructed facade and pick one of the proposed alternatives. The features of this investigation are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Research with building life cycle approach
Authors | Categories | Categorization | Date | Country of research | Title | Purpose | Approach |
(Shin & Cho, 2015) | 1.Construction 2.Operation 3.Disposal
| Yes | 2015 | South Korea | BIM Application to Select Appropriate Design Alternative with Consideration of LCA and LCC | Building's life cycle assessment | Sustainability |
3.1.4. Competing objectives
This group pursues a multi-objective strategy in which researchers seek various objectives that may even be conflicting. Table 4 illustrates a study as an example of this cluster which conducted in Sweden to improve energy efficiency and indoor air quality. Using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and quantitative indicators representing each criterion, different types of exterior walls and windows were selected. The criteria are listed in the section that follows.
Table 4. Research with a multi-objective approach
Authors | Categories | Categorization | Date | Country of research | Title | Purpose | Approach |
Jalilzadehazhari, E., Vadiee, A., & Johansson, P. (2019). | - | No | 2019 | Sweden | Achieving a Trade-off Construction Solution Using BIM, an Optimization Algorithm, and a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method | 1.Energy consumption reduction 2. Improving indoor air quality | Multi-objective |
3.1.5. Performance
This category can be seemed the most complete and sophisticated, as it attempts to take a holistic approach when evaluating the facade. Hendriks and Hens (2000) introduced an initial set of facade evaluation criteria in their study. This study created its list of criteria based on the facade's performance. This approach was also validated in annex 32 of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which reviewed integral building envelope performance assessment and provided various facade performance dimensions. Annex 32 highlighted that the selection of a facade requires a systematic approach, checking all relevant elements, one that considers both the quality of the building and the quality of the facade. This is known as the facade's performance from this annex vantage point. The performance of a facade comprises all aesthetic and physical properties that are integrated into the building's overall function. Table 5 illustrates building envelope performance aspects presented by Hendriks & Hens (2000) and Warren (2003) (annex 32 of IEA report) (Hendriks & Hens, 2000; Warren, 2003).
Table 5. Building envelope performance aspects (Hendriks & Hens, 2000; Warren, 2003)
Topic | Aspects of Performance |
|---|---|
Heat and mass | 1. Air tightness 2. Thermal insulation 3. Transient response 4. Moisture response 5. Thermal bridging
|
Acoustics | 6. Whole envelope insulation against external noise 7. Lateral sound transmission 8. Sound absorption
|
Light | 9. Light transmittance for the transparent elements 10. Fenestration to whole wall elevation area ratio
|
Fire | 11. Fire resistance 12. Reaction to fire of internal finishes and components 13. Flame spread along the envelope
|
Service life | 14. Physical attack 15. Chemical attack 16. Biological attack
|
Costs | 17. Net present value and optimization investments, operational cost, maintenance costs
|
Sustainability | 18. Sustainability profile
|
Chen and Clements-Croome (2007) also investigated facade evaluation. 37 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were proposed as an all-encompassing method for evaluating facade performance. Some are quantitative (such as energy and cost), while others are qualitative (e.g., well-being and aesthetics). These KPIs are introduced in Table 6 (Z. Chen & Clements-Croome, 2007). Table 7 compiles these research that take performance into account. These studies are among the most prominent ones that can be fond in the literature of this field.
Table 6. Key performance indicators (KPIs) (Z. Chen & Clements-Croome, 2007)
Clusters of KPIs | KPIs to evaluate building façade systems
|
|---|---|
Adaptability | 1. Maintenance flexibility 2. Refurbishment flexibility 3. Environmental impacts 4. Social impacts
|
Affordability | 5. Design cost 6. Construction cost 7. Maintenance cost 8. Refurbishment cost 9. Demolition cost 10. Recycling cost
|
Durability | 11. Lifespan 12. Fire protection pattern 13. Fire endurance 14. Material density 15. Structural reliability 16. Decay resistance 17. Quality
|
Energy | 18. Embodied energy 19. Energy performance 20. Renewable energy 21. Building orientation
|
Intelligence | 22. Control strategy 23. System integration 24. Emergency response 25. Automation
|
Well-being | 26. Aesthetics 27. Daylight absorbability 28. Indoor daylight comfort 29. Outdoor daylight comfort 30. Indoor sound reverberation 31. Outdoor sound reverberation 32. Indoor sound absorption 33. Outdoor sound absorption 34. Indoor temperature 35. Indoor relative humidity 36. Indoor ventilation 37. Toxicity hazards
|
Since performance has various sides and functions, studies that stay focused on performance could cover remarkable aspects of requirements of a façade compared to other approaches.
Table 7. Research considered performance
Authors | Categories | Categorization | Date | Country of research | Title | Purpose | Approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hendriks & Hens (2000) | 1.Heat and mass 2.Acoustics 3.Light 4.Fire 5.Service life 6.Costs 7.Sustainability | Yes | 2000 | - | Building envelopes in a holistic perspective | - | Performance |
Warren (2003), Annex 32 of International Energy Agency (IEA) | 1.Heat and mass 2.Acoustics 3.Light 4.Fire 5.Service life 6.Costs 7.Sustainability | Yes | 2003 | - | Integral Building Envelope performance assessment | - | |
Chen & Clements-Croome (2007) | 1.Adaptability 2.Affordability 3.Durability 4.Energy 5.Intelligence 6.Well-being
| Yes | 2007 | - | An ANP approach to the assessment of Buildings Façade Systems | - |
3.1.6. General approach
Several studies have emphasized the evaluation of facades based on a few criteria, such as cost and aesthetics (Granadeiro et al., 2013; Singhaputtangkul et al., 2014, 2016). These studies aimed to optimize the façade or opt for the optimized option, even though insufficient requirements and narrow consideration of criteria may have led to results that may cause a variety of adverse effects at all stages of the project's life cycle (Martabid, 2015). This is primarily due to the fact that researchers have only explored a few aspects of a facade as a complex component that must respond to conflicting objectives. In this section, papers with general approach are analyzed. These research studies facade without any organization of criteria or specific approach. Table 8 provides a listing of these studies. They defined the evaluation criteria incoherently and only based on the objectives they pursue throughout the research. Consequently, no one considers a comprehensive approach and a list of all required criteria. This group of research have allocated 65 percent share among the above category which is also the most. The key research of this group is generally reviewed in the following.
Al-Hammad and Hassanain (1996) presented an assessment method and selection technique for building envelope systems based on the preferences of Saudi Arabian practitioners. As criteria for their evaluation, they considered structural stability, strength, rain and water exclusion, durability, fire safety, initial cost, flexibility, maintainability, thermal properties, acoustic properties, construction time, availability, compatibility, security, and aesthetics (Al-Hammad & Hassanain, 1996).
Zavadskas et al. (2005) demonstrated that the efficiency of the envelope of multi-story residential buildings correlates to construction cost, used materials and construction methods, aesthetics, building service (usage), thermal insulation characteristics, and envelope durability (Zavadskas et al., 2005).
Martinez (2005) emphasized that important factors, such as envelope materials and building orientation, must be considered when deciding on the facade and building envelope, as they significantly impact building performance. Martinez (2005) also criticized design and construction decisions made without the end user's involvement. She added that these decisions are based solely on the initial investment cost and subsequent profit margins, with no regard for the future energy consumption costs essential to meet thermal comfort requirements. As a result, energy consumption costs increase dramatically during the operational period, primarily because the building envelope and facade are not adapted to the local climate, resulting in poor energy-thermal performance (Martinez, 2005).
Kaklauskas et al. (2006) prioritized architectural appearance, energy consumption of heating, cooling, and other appliances, environmental impacts, indoor air quality, and costs when evaluating and selecting facade windows. In addition, they established a set of decision pre-qualification criteria for measuring the minimum requirements of facade windows, which included mechanical strength and stiffness, reliability, thermal transmittance, emission ability of low emissivity glass coating, weighed sound reduction index, air permeability, water-tightness, warranty period, durability, light transmittance, work duration, the number of windows with two opening positions (horizontal and vertical)(in percent of the total area of windows), and the number of windows with closing infiltration air vent or the third opening position (in percent of the total area of windows) (Kaklauskas et al., 2006).
Wang et al. (2006) chose the envelope alternatives based on life cycle costs and environmental impacts. According to them, since the shape of the building determines the size and orientation of its facade, it can impact its performance in various ways, including energy efficiency, cost, and aesthetics (Wang et al., 2006).
Ginevicius et al. (2008) assessed envelope insulation alternatives by considering materials, labor expenditures, costs, thermal transmittance, weight, warranty period, service life, and installation duration (Ginevičius et al., 2008).
Zavadskas et al. (2008) researched selecting a house envelope and facade utilizing value-adding attributes. Among these were durability (frost resistance), thermal transmittance, estimated costs, weight, and labor expenses. Further, the selection process may consider the following criteria: mechanical resistance and stability, safety in case of fire, hygiene, health, and environment, safety in use, protection against noise, heat retention, quality of components, work execution level, and maintenance levels. This study also states that the building exteriors of residential and commercial buildings have to fulfill the following demands: the ability to function as bearing or self-bearing walls, possession of high thermal insulation properties, sound insulation, overall hygrothermal performance, frost resistance, air tightness, vapor permeability, sufficient lightness in weight, ecological cleanliness, satisfactory fireproofing, and durability. Besides, the authors note that building envelope and facade are multi-layer structures comprised of sections of different heterogeneous materials with other physical-mechanical properties, including expansion and shrinkage coefficients, compressive and tensile strengths, adhesion properties, behavior under different types of wind load, behavior under ultraviolet radiation exposure, strain values in adjacent walls with significant temperature, variation due to different sun exposure and color of the final facade coating, aging properties during exploitation, and air and vapor permeability values (Zavadskas et al., 2008).
Moreover, recent researchers have worked on facade evaluation without employing a specific methodology or categorizing criteria. Chua & Cho (2010) concluded that energy efficiency and cost savings are the primary concerns when selecting facade systems (Chua & Chou, 2010). . Tan et al. (2010) developed a prototype system for automating building envelope design code compliance examination. Based on simulation results and building codes, this paper presented a new integrated approach to automated code compliance checking for building envelope design (Tan et al., 2010). From the viewpoint of Granadeiro et al. (2013), the productivity of a building is fundamentally dependent on the facade material, facade shape, and window area. These three decisions are made at an early stage in the project's progression (Granadeiro et al., 2013). Passe and Nelson (2013) emphasized the thermal behavior of building envelopes, whereas residential cooling and heating energy consumption accounts for fifty percent of the total (Passe & Nelson, 2013). Iwaro et al. (2014) determined that facade assessment and facade design should take into account sustainable performance criteria (Iwaro et al., 2014). Horvat and Fazio (2020) developed a building envelope performance assessment tool (BEPAT) that evaluates building envelope performance from the following primary aspects: air tightness, moisture management performance, thermal performance, energy performance, structural performance of the building envelope, acoustic performance, and fire resistance of the building envelope (Horvat & Fazio, 2020). Table 8 displays the studies discussed in the preceding section.
Table 8. Façade assessment with a general approach
Authors | Categories | Categorization | Date | Country of research | Title | Purpose | Approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Al-Hammad, A., & Hassanain, M. A. (1996) | - | No | 1996 | Saudi Arabia | Value Engineering in the Assessment of Exterior Building Wall Systems | - | Without approach |
(Zavadskas et al., 2005) | - | No | 2005 | Lithuania | Estimation of external walls decisions of multistorey residential buildings applying methods of multicriteria analysis | - | |
(Martinez, 2005) | - | No | 2005 | Argentina | Thermal-energetic behavior of the exterior housing envelope in San Miguel de Tucumán in relation to climatic suitability | - | |
(Kaklauskas et al., 2006) | - | No | 2006 | Lithuania | Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: A Lithuanian case.
(Case study: Selection of windows)
| - | |
(Wang et al., 2006) | - | No | 2006 | Canada (Montreal) | Floor shape optimization for green building design
(Along with translucent components of the façade) | - | |
(Zavadskas et al., 2008) | - | No | 2008 | Lithuania | Selection of the effective dwelling house walls by applying attributes values determined at intervals | - | |
(Ginevičius et al., 2008) | - | No | 2008 | Lithuania | Evaluating the alternative solutions of wall insulation by multicriteria methods | - | |
Chua, K. J., & Chou, S. K. (2010) | - | No | 2010 | Singapore | Evaluating the performance of shading devices and glazing types to promote energy efficiency of residential buildings
(Shading and windows assessment)
| - | |
(Tan et al., 2010) | - | No | 2010 | Canada (Montreal) | Automated Code Compliance Checking for Building Envelope Design | - | |
(Granadeiro et al., 2013) | - | No | 2013 | Portugal (Lisbon) | Envelope-related energy demand: A design indicator of energy performance for residential buildings in early design stages | - | |
Passe, U., & Nelson, R. (2013) | - | No | 2013 | - | Constructing Energy Efficiency: Rethinking and Redesigning the Architectural Detail | - | |
(Martabid & Mourgues, 2015) | - | No | 2015 | Chile | Criteria used for selecting envelope wall systems in Chilean residential projects | - | |
Chen, L., & Pan, W. (2016) | 1.Economic aspects 2.Technical aspects 3.Environmental aspects | Yes | 2016 | Hong kong | BIM-aided Variable Fuzzy Multi-criteria Decision Making of Low-carbon Building Measures Selection (Windows) | - | |
(Karan & Asadi, 2019) | - | No | 2019 | - | Intelligent designer : A computational approach to automating design of windows in buildings | - | |
(Horvat & Fazio, 2020) | - | No | 2020 | - | BEPAT – Building envelope performance assessment tool: Validation | - |
The restricted viewpoint that governs these projects lacks an overarching strategy and organization. The main reason for which may be specificity and narrowing the subject down to a single objective which finally leads to ignoring the other criteria that are definitely influential on the results. This elimination of influential criteria overshadows the holistic evaluation of facades up to now, which is identified as a gap in the literature review.
3.2. methods
This study also takes the methods by which facades are evaluated into consideration. These techniques typically fall into five major categories: Multi-criteria decision-making, Simulation, Optimization, Library-based, and Hybrid method. In multi-criteria decision-making method, which is used combined with field or survey methods, library research is typically conducted to review the literature and identify and initially collect a set of facade assessment criteria. Afterward, surveys are launched to confirm, localize, and complete the list. The criteria weighting methods are then put into effect. The final step is the scientific selection process. For instance, Z. Chen and Clements-Croome (2007) evaluated building facade systems employing the analytic network process (ANP) method (Z. Chen & Clements-Croome, 2007). Simulation, typically, models the façade and evaluates its performance. Hence, this method is predominantly used to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness criteria provided above. By simulating the facade utilizing different software, studies explore the impact of various variables on thermal performance, acoustic performance, visual performance, fire resistance, durability, light-weightiness, etc. Optimization is one of the more recent types of research. The objective is to optimize a facade object for a particular purpose. Typically, algorithms and machine learning are used to perform these optimizations. To illustrate, a machine learning algorithm attempted to optimize the position, size, and number of windows on a building's façade (Karan et al., 2021). This method is used to evaluate facade components in order to determine the optimal one. The library-based research reviews or analyzes a particular scope or topic of a facade or facade evaluation. To exemplify, Passe & Nelson (2013) performed a comparative analysis of energy-efficient envelope construction methods and details strategies of the U.S. DOE (Department of Energy Solar Decathlon) (2009) (Passe & Nelson, 2013). Hybrid method usually takes place when a researcher employs two or more of the abovementioned methods. Jalilzadehazari et al. (2019), for instance, utilized an optimization algorithm, simulation via BIM, and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) techniques to accomplish a construction solution that balances visual comfort, thermal comfort, energy demands, life cycle costs, and indoor environment quality (Jalilzadehazhari et al., 2019). Through these five methods, mathematical relationships and functions are inevitable. Shin & Cho (2015) developed a life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) framework based on Excel spreadsheets and mathematical functions that allows for both to be implemented in the project concurrently. The framework could rapidly and accurately determine which skin system had favorable LCA and LCCA performance characteristics. Shin & Cho (2015) incorporated simulation into this framework (Shin & Cho, 2015). Table 9 details the methodologies employed in these studies.
Table 9: Research methods for façade assessment in the literature review
No. | Methods | No. of references (out of 26) | References that used this method |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Multi-criteria decision making | 14 | (Ahmadian et al., 2017; Al-Hammad & Hassanain, 1996; Z. Chen & Clements-Croome, 2007; Ginevičius et al., 2008; Hendriks & Hens, 2000; Horvat & Fazio, 2020; Kaklauskas et al., 2006; Martabid & Mourgues, 2015; Moussavi Nadoushani et al., 2017; Singhaputtangkul et al., 2014, 2016; Warren, 2003; Zavadskas et al., 2005, 2008) |
2 | Simulation | 6 | (Chua & Chou, 2010; Granadeiro et al., 2013; Martinez, 2005; Shin & Cho, 2015; Tan et al., 2007, 2010) |
3 | Optimization | 3 | (Karan et al., 2021b; Karan & Asadi, 2019; Wang et al., 2006) |
4 | Library-based | 1 | (Passe & Nelson, 2013) |
5 | Hybrid | 2 | (L. Chen & Pan, 2016; Jalilzadehazhari et al., 2019) |
As is evident, Combination of multi-criteria decision-making is the most prevalent trend among facade researchers, followed by the simulation approach. As façade functions differently in buildings and the decisions regarding different facade functions have to be made in the early design phase, the multi-criteria decision-making methods and simulation are so helpful in determining these functions. Implementation of survey methods is also widespread primarily because through which the researchers can learn the opinions of technicians from various disciplines (i.e., architects, civil engineers, mechanical and electrical engineers, clients, etc.) knowing that a façade is a multi-disciplinary object.
As mentioned previously, the facade is required to tackle multiple objectives, highlighting the significance of employing multi-criteria decision-making methods. This is the primary reason why this method has been utilized in almost 55 percent of studies that directly evaluated facades based on Table 9.
3.3. Criteria
An exploratory study was carried out to extract the criteria of façade evaluation via open and axial coding method, Table 10 shows the results of which. In addition to displaying the number of criteria in each study, Table 10 also depicts the frequency with which each criterion is mentioned in all research on facades. The total number of criteria evaluated in each study during the 26 years between 1996 and 2022, as shown in the table, varies and is unrelated to its recency. Al-Hammad & Hassanain (1996) conducted research based on 15 criteria in 1996, whereas Passe & Nelson (2013) identified 5 criteria in 2013 and Singhaputtangkul et al. (2016) investigated 13 criteria in 2016. Additionally, it does not imply that, as time passes, researchers endeavor to specialize in a particular field. For example, Shin & Cho (2015) evaluated two criteria, whereas Ahmadian et al. (2017) evaluated 12. Cost and thermal performance are the primary concerns of researchers during this time frame, with 19 and 17 studies addressing these issues, respectively. Environmental impacts and durability have been the focus of 15 and 14 studies, respectively, placing them behind cost and thermal performance. Environmental impacts have been the subject of eight studies since 2015, while cost and thermal performance have been the subject of seven and six studies, respectively. This demonstrates that environmental impacts are becoming a trend in research, whereas researchers have consistently concentrated on cost and thermal performance throughout the past 26 years. As of 2017, twelve studies have examined aesthetics as a criterion for evaluating facades, which ranks fifth after durability. Durability has been the subject of 14 studies between 1996 and 2017. Although codes and regulations existed prior to the time frame of this study and constrained facades in countless ways, only three studies mention them. This reveals that researchers are unwilling to evaluate and investigate the regulations and codes. This could potentially come about because researchers are unable to modify the codes or do not have the authority to improve the regulations to higher-level standards, so they view the code as a restriction variable only. In these studies, the intelligence of the facade is brought up just once, which is a relatively new concern in the field of research. User's involvement, which is classified as a social impact criterion, is the least-mentioned criterion, along with intelligence and availability of materials and facade systems, which are grouped as facade efficiency and effectiveness.
Moreover, it can be concluded that compatibility with the neighborhood context is neglected, primarily for being researched only twice during these years. The client's preferences and expectations are the most recent criterion of facade evaluation that has drawn attention twice from 2019 to the present. Refurbishment flexibility and complexity of construction, which are at the top of the least-mentioned criteria list, were also examined twice. Future attention must be paid to the aforementioned areas due to their importance and function within the buildings. Despite the significance of orientation, it has been referred to just three times in this period, possibly because this criterion is determined during the earliest phases of building design. In practice, when the concept of a building forms, its orientation is fixed, which may be the leading cause of why orientation has no bearing on the facade in these studies.
As is readily apparent, researchers have objectives regardless of having a holistic strategy. They independently pursue a set of criteria based on the purpose of their research without taking into account an extensive set of criteria that could cover all the necessary requirements and aspects of a facade.
Table 10: Criteria identified in each research of literature review
No. | Final Criteria
Research | Suitability to location & Climate | Compatibility to the neighborhood context | Environmental impacts | Aesthetics | Clients' expectations and preferences | Users' involvement in façade design | Health, safety, and security of occupants and society | Costs | Time | Thermal performance | Weather protection performance | Acoustic performance | Visual performance | Moisture resistance | Indoor air quality | Orientation | Fire resistance | Structural performance | Durability | Maintainability | Buildability | Refurbishment flexibility | Availability of materials and façade systems | Intelligence | Complexity of construction | Quality of material and construction | Windows' area | Compliance with codes, regulations, and technical conditions | Total (out of 28) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | (Al-Hammad & Hassanain, 1996) | ü | ü |
| ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü |
| ü |
| ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü |
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
2 | (Hendriks & Hens, 2000) | ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
| ü | ü |
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
3 | (Warren, 2003) | ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
| ü | ü |
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
4 | (Zavadskas et al., 2005) |
|
|
| ü |
|
|
| ü | ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
| ü |
|
| 7 |
5 | (Martinez, 2005) | ü |
| ü |
|
| ü |
| ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
|
| ü |
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
| ü |
|
| 9 |
6 | (Kaklauskas et al., 2006) |
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
| ü | ü | ü |
| ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
|
| ü | ü |
| 13 |
7 | (Wang et al., 2006) |
|
| ü |
|
|
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
8 | (Z. Chen & Clements-Croome, 2007) |
|
| ü | ü |
|
| ü | ü |
| ü | ü | ü | ü |
| ü | ü | ü | ü | ü | ü |
| ü |
| ü |
| ü |
|
| 17 |
9 | (Zavadskas et al., 2008) |
|
| ü | ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü | ü | ü |
| ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
| ü |
|
| 14 |
10 | (Ginevičius et al., 2008) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü | ü | ü |
|
|
| ü |
|
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
|
| ü |
|
| 7 |
11 | (Chua & Chou, 2010) |
|
|
| ü |
|
|
| ü |
| ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü | 9 |
12 | (Tan et al., 2007, 2010) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü | 1 |
13 | (Granadeiro et al., 2013) |
|
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü | ü |
| 4 |
14 | (Passe & Nelson, 2013) |
|
|
| ü |
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
15 | (Martabid & Mourgues, 2015) |
|
| ü | ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü | ü | ü |
| ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
|
| ü |
|
|
| 14 |
16 | (Shin & Cho, 2015) |
|
| ü |
|
|
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
17 | (Singhaputtangkul et al., 2014, 2016) |
|
| ü | ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
| ü | ü | ü |
|
|
| ü |
|
|
| 13 |
18 | (L. Chen & Pan, 2016) |
|
| ü |
|
|
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
19 | (Moussavi Nadoushani et al., 2017) | ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
| ü |
|
|
|
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
20 | (Ahmadian et al., 2017) |
|
| ü | ü |
|
| ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
|
|
| ü |
| ü | ü | ü | ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
21 | (Karan & Asadi, 2019) |
|
|
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ü | 2 |
22 | (Jalilzadehazhari et al., 2019) |
|
| ü |
|
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
23 | (Horvat & Fazio, 2020) |
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
| ü |
| ü |
| ü |
|
| ü | ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
24 | (Karan et al., 2021b) |
|
|
|
| ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
| Total | 5 | 2 | 15 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 19 | 8 | 17 | 5 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 3 |
|
4. Conclusion
A need to review the methodologies, trends, and criteria the façade researches pursue is evident, whereas, preferences has been given to the other sections of this field based on the reviewed literature. Clarifying the approaches of façade studies not only shows the significance of popular areas to researchers for the continuation of their career, but it also helps them out to clearly recognize the areas that are also of great importance but have not received enough attention. To take the first step in this path, the present study strived to review a specific period of the literature to identify three areas as mentioned in respect in the body, approaches, methodologies, and criteria. To begin with the first, the literature can be divided into six clusters, each of which pursued a specific approach except for the last that followed a general approach in which studies considered various and dispersed criteria and objectives placed. The specific approaches are sustainability, buildability, building life cycle assessment, competing objectives, and performance, while among which, sustainability is the concern of a remarkable number of studies. Moussavi Nadoushani et al. (2017) and Ahmadian et al. (2017) are the found instances. More, several methodologies can be applied to various dimensions and functions of façade, multi-criteria decision-making, field, simulation, optimization, library-based, and hybrid methods are found for examples. Multi-criteria decision-making is the most frequent with being employed in almost half of the found research, which is not unexpected mainly because the façade functions are numerous while these functions are not necessarily in line.
28 criteria were extracted from the references via an exploratory study using open and axial coding method. These criteria are “Suitability to location & Climate”, “Compatibility to the neighborhood context”, “Environmental impacts”, “Aesthetics”, “Clients' expectations and preferences”, “Users' involvement in façade design”, “Health, safety, and security of occupants and society”, “Cost”, “Time”, “Thermal performance’, “Weather protection performance”, “Acoustic performance”, “Visual performance”, “Moisture resistance”, “Indoor air quality”, “Orientation”, “Fire resistance”, “Structural performance”, “Durability”, “Maintainability”, “Buildability”, “Refurbishment flexibility”, “Availability of materials and façade systems”, “Intelligence”, “Complexity of construction”, “Quality of material and construction”, “Windows’ area”, “Compliance with codes, regulations, and technical conditions”.
The top 4 frequently used criteria are “Costs”, “Thermal performance”, “Environmental impacts”, and “Durability”, whereas, the most recent ones are “Environmental impacts”, “Costs”, “Thermal performance”, and “Structural performance”. This result demonstrates the importance of environmental, economic, and performance-related aspects of façade not only in the whole period of the study but also throughout the latter years. Meanwhile, “Intelligence” of facade, “Availability of materials and façade systems”, and “User’s involvement in façade design” are at the bottom of the popular list.
Overall, this research is able to broaden the horizon of those intend to carry out research in façade by introducing the approaches and points that are employed in the three decades of academic efforts. The scopes and procedures that have not been applied to façade, but can offer new paths to the future research are completely clear by consideration of the present study’s results. The dispersed nature of the consideration of the criteria throughout façade studies suggest a requirement for a comprehensive study that manage to gather all the criteria together with organization, as well as the researches in which façade is systematically seen and examined where all of the required functions of it can be met.
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)
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
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 Mc Graw-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
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
Hendriks, L., & Hens, H. (2000). 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. (2021). 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.
Mc Graw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms. (2003). The Mc Graw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2023). Merriam-Webster, Inc. .
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
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. (2014). 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. (2016). 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 Mc Graw-Hill Dictionary of Architecture and Construction. (2003). The Mc Graw-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. (2003). 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
