Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 www.elsevier.

com/locate/enbuild

An approach for the evaluation of energy and cost efciency of glass fac ades
zkanb Ikbal Cetinera,*, Ertan O
a

Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Taskisla, 80191 Taksim/Istanbul, Turkey b Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey

Received 22 May 2004; received in revised form 18 September 2004; accepted 3 October 2004

Abstract Glass fac ades, particularly in high-rise buildings, increase in energy consumption for heating, cooling and ventilation. This causes too high running cost of mechanical systems. Double skin glass fac ade is a system that decreases these disadvantages, by providing natural ventilation, preventing solar heat gain, controlling daylight, etc. This paper aims to investigate the appropriateness of double skin glass fac ades in moderate climate, such as Istanbul, in terms of the energy and cost efciency when compared to single skin glass fac ades. For this purpose, an approach is proposed to determine the efcient alternatives. It comprises to generate standard fac ade alternatives by considering the objectives, constraints and performance criteria, and to evaluate their energy and cost efciency for both single and double skin glass fac ades. In conclusion, the most energy efcient double skin glass fac ade is about 22.84% more efcient than the most energy efcient single skin glass fac ade is. Additionally, the most cost efcient single skin glass fac ade is about 24.68% more efcient than the most cost efcient double skin glass fac ade is. # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy efciency; Cost efciency; Double skin glass fac ade; Computer simulation; Life cycle cost analysis

1. Introduction In high-rise buildings, glass fac ades are often preferred due to the short application time, low maintenance, being rain screen as well as being lightweight, aesthetic and durable. They cannot be set up with openings as the windows for ventilation due to wind effect. Therefore, the system increases the loads of cooling and ventilation systems. This brings about too high cost in use and an increase in energy consumed for running mechanical systems. To decrease all these disadvantages, intelligent fac ade systems have been developed. These are considered as a multiple functional element to reconcile the conicting needs such as heating, cooling, ventilating and lighting. Double skin glass fac ade is one of these systems. Double skin glass fac ades are composed of two glass skins and a large cavity in between. The intermediate cavity functions basically as a thermal buffer zone that reduces heat
* Corresponding author. 0378-7788/$ see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.10.007

losses and provides passive heat gains from solar energy, where the system has facility to open outside for ventilation. Additionally, the casements in the inner skin can be opened to the cavity in high-rise building that is exposed to severe winds. These facilities ensure a natural form of ventilation and night-time cooling of the building and thus reduces energy consumption needed for running air conditioning system [1]. The further advantages of the double skin glass fac ades are the applicability of effective solar shading in the cavity and the easy ventilation of warm cavity air by stack effect, which causes the air to rise and convective heat to lose. Thus, the passive ventilation and convection reduces the temperature of the air in the cavity. This results in decreasing the surface temperatures of the skins, lowering rate of heat transfer between two surfaces of the inner skin. The meaning of this is that the space close to the inner skin can be better utilized as a result of increased thermal comfort conditions [2]. The winds acting on a high-rise building do not permit external shading devices to x on the surface. However, an

674

zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

adequately ventilated sun-shading system in the intermediate cavity can have almost the same effect as an external installation, and it will be much more efcient than interior shading devices in rooms [3]. In addition, the investment made for the fac ade is also expected to be economical from the viewpoint of the building owner. In central Europe, these fac ades are about twice the cost of conventional curtain walls. In the U.S.A., they are likely to be four to ve times more expensive. The extra costs are racked up by the expense of engineering these systems, the amount of special glass required, and an unfamiliarity with these systems among the trades, which leads to higher installation costs [4]. Here is to investigate the appropriateness of double skin glass fac ades in moderate climates, such as Istanbul, in terms of the energy and cost efciency. For this purpose, an approach for determining the efcient alternatives is proposed.

are ambient temperature, humidity, mean radiant temperature and air movement, which contribute to provide internal climatic comfort. The economic factors affecting the cost efciency of the fac ade are admitted as initial and maintenance costs that are composed of energy, cleaning and repairing costs. 2.1.2. User requirements User requirements are the conditions that users need to perform their activities depending on the factors affecting the fac ade in terms of the efciency aimed. 2.1.3. Objectives/constraints Objectives are determined in relation to naturalarticial environmental factors, economic factors and user requirements to evaluate the energy and cost efciency of the glass fac ade. Achieving these is possible by realizing the subobjectives. Constraints are restriction conditions that directly impact on the energy and cost efciency of the glass fac ade. These conditions are determined by utilizing from rules, regulations, specications and standards. 2.1.4. Performance requirements/properties/criteria Determination of performance requirements is important in order to describe properties and criteria expected from the glass fac ade. Properties, which can be accepted as a criterion, are the features that glass fac ade must have in terms of intended efciency. These differ according to the performance expected from the fac ade. For instance, in the last studies done on glass fac ade, properties of the fac ade have been improved to consume less energy as a result of gradually decreasing natural energy sources and increasing environmental pollution. Performance criteria are determined to evaluate whether alternatives are appropriate for objectives. For this reason, criteria that are used to evaluate the intended efciency have to be arranged in accordance with properties expected from alternatives. 2.1.5. Alternatives All possible alternatives should be generated in the frame of selection elements determined with respect to user requirements and environmental factors in order to select the most efcient alternative. The followed way to generate alternatives is as follows. 2.1.5.1. Fac ade components. All components forming a double skin glass fac ade are rst determined. 2.1.5.2. Sub-variables. The sub-variables can be considered as the component properties directly affecting energy and cost efciency. The possible cases for these properties are decided in the frame of selecting elements including objectives, constraints and performance criteria. For example, the position of single or double glazing unit affects the energy efciency.

2. Proposed approach The aim of the study is to generate standard fac ade alternatives in the context of performance approach and evaluate their energy and cost efciency. It includes the formulation of the problem, building of a model helping the evaluation of the alternatives, the comparison of the alternatives and an application (Fig. 1). Every stage includes selection elements aiding the decision. According to this approach, all selection elements constitute a system and they are arranged as input, process and output. For the energy load and cost analyses of fac ade alternatives, computer simulation techniques and life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) are used. 2.1. Formulation of the problem As a rst stage of the approach objectives/constraints, performance criteria and alternative solutions are determined and formulated. To provide efciency, the elements are determined according to environmental factors and user requirements as being done in the studies based upon performance concept. The steps followed in this process are as follows. 2.1.1. Environmental factors The environmental factors that affect energy and cost efciency of fac ade are considered as naturalarticial environmental factors and economic factors. Naturalarticial environmental factors are external and internal factors. External factors are external climatic variables, which are composed of temperature, humidity, solar radiation and wind, and articial environmental variables, which are related to orientation of building, form of building, building intervals, position of building and thermaloptical properties of building skin. Internal factors

 zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

675

Fig. 1. The proposed approach.

2.1.5.3. Generating fac ade alternatives. As a result of the combination between the fac ade components and the subvariables, many alternatives can be generated. To prevent the complexity that will be able to become during evaluations, a code system is developed for these alternatives. This system formed considering the component properties is seen in

Table 1. The cases selected for every sub-variable determine the number of the columns included in the code of an alternative. Considering all possible cases, a great number of alternatives can be generated. The important point is, here, to select appropriate cases in terms of aimed efciency, considering performance criteria.

676 Table 1 Coding fac ade alternatives

zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

2.2. Building the model In the process of modelling, the evaluation of the energy and cost efciency of alternatives with an objective approach is planned. This is mainly possible as a result of the energy load and life cycle cost analyses of alternatives. In both analyses the efciencies of glass fac ade alternatives are investigated in conjunction with the sub-variables as dimension, form, position, texture, color, material and joints. Evaluating the effects of the sub-variables on energy consumption and total cost, it is possible to determine the appropriate alternatives in terms of the intended efciencies. For instance, comparing the alternatives formed with single or double glass the best conguration can be determined in terms of energy and cost efciencies. 2.2.1. Energy load analyses of alternatives Energy load analysis aims to determine the effects of heating and cooling energy consumption on the fac ade alternatives generated in conjunction with the objectives, constraints and performance criteria. It is completed in three stages as follows. 2.2.1.1. Determining thermal and optic properties. Thermal and optic properties of fac ade alternatives change depending on external effects and the properties of glass fac ade components. Since external effects can be controlled selecting appropriate materials for components or taking some measures during fac ade design, the computation values belonging to these effects have to be known. On the other hand, to what extent the properties of the fac ade components affect the thermal and optic properties of the alternatives should be investigated with sensitive analyses. The thermal and optic properties affecting the energy and cost efciency of the fac ade are: - heat transmission; - solar energy transmission;

- air-tightness; - heat storage capacity. The values related to these properties have to be determined in conjunction with dimension, position, joint, color and material of fac ade components. 2.2.1.2. Determining heat gain and losses. To determine the heat gain and losses of the alternatives, in addition to the thermal and optic properties of the glass fac ade, the effects of both the variables related to building and environment (geometric properties, building function, building position, the distance to the neighbor buildings, surface exposure, etc.) and the properties related to mechanical system (system type, energy type, operation hours, etc.) should also be considered. Considering all these, the heat gain and losses of the alternatives can be assembled into four groups: gain gain gain gain and and and and losses losses losses losses resulting from heat transmission; from solar radiation; resulting from air inltration; resulting from mass effect.

2.2.1.3. Determining total energy loads. To evaluate energy loads of alternatives, the annual sum of their heat gain and losses are determined as follows: EH EHT EHS EHA EHM EC ECT ECS ECA ECM (1) (2)

EA EH EC (3) where EA is the annual energy load; EH, EC the annual heating and cooling loads; EHT, ECT the heating and cooling loads resulting from heat transmission; EHS, ECS the heating and cooling loads resulting from solar radiation; EHA, ECA the heating and cooling loads resulting from air inltration;

 zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

677

EHM, ECM the heating and cooling loads resulting from mass effect. In the following, the energy consumption of the alternatives are then calculated in connection with their annual energy loads and the efciency of heating and cooling systems: EH EHC (4) h EC ECC (5) c EAC EHC ECC (6) where EAC is the annual energy consumption; EHC, ECC the annual heating and cooling energy consumption; h, c the efciencies of heating and cooling systems (%). 2.2.2. Life cycle cost analyses of alternatives The amount of energy needed for the heat gain/losses through a double skin fac ade affects the heating and cooling costs. To determine total life cycle cost of alternatives, using extra component and different materials for reducing energy gain and losses or the money needed for cleaning, repairing, etc. are also taken into consideration. The economic analyses of alternatives is done as follows. 2.2.2.1. Determining initial costs. The initial costs of the alternatives are calculated according to the square meter analyses of the fac ade components and their workmanship, vehicle and material costs per square meter. This calculation can be viewed below: t X CI Am M m (7)
m 1

[5]. In this paper, supposing that energy costs do not change in the life cycle period, present value of total life cycle energy costs is calculated as follows: PVF 1 1 r n where n is the life cycle period (number of years); r the discount rate (%): t X 1 CPLH CH (10) 1 r n n 1 CPLC CC
t X

1 1 r n n 1

(11)

(12) CPLE CPLH CPLC where CPLH is the present value of life cycle heating cost; CPLC the present value of life cycle cooling cost; CPLE the present value of total life cycle energy cost. Cleaning/repairing costs in life cycle period: These costs should be determined according to the data arranged for the existing glass fac ades and converted to present values as the stages followed for calculating energy costs. The conversion calculations are seen below: CPLA CA
t X

1 1 r n n 1

(13)

where CA is the annual cleaning cost; CPLA the present value of life cycle cleaning cost: CPLR CR
t X

1 1 r n n 1

(14)

where CR is the annual repairing cost; CPLR the present value of life cycle repairing cost: (15) CPLM CPLE CPLA CPLR where CPLM is the present value of life cycle maintenance cost. 2.2.2.3. Determining total life cycle costs. To calculate total life cycle costs of alternatives, considering both initial costs and present values of life cycle maintenance costs, the following formula is used: TLCC CI CPLM (16) where TLCC is the total life cycle cost; CI the initial cost; CPLM the present value of life cycle maintenance cost. 2.3. Evaluation of alternatives The alternatives generated considering objectives, constraints and performance criteria are evaluated in conjunction with sub-variables. In other words, the effects of the sub-variables on energy or cost efciency of the alternatives are investigated. For the evaluation, the results achieved from the energy and cost analyses of the alternatives are rst converted to the efciency values and then these alternatives

where CI is the initial cost; m the number of components; Am the areas of components; Mm the total of workmanship, vehicle and material costs of every component per square meter. 2.2.2.2. Determining maintenance costs. Maintenance costs include both energy costs and cleaning/repairing expenses made for fac ade components at certain periods. Energy costs in the life cycle period: Energy costs are energy consumption costs resulting from heat gain and losses. These costs are calculated as follows: CH EHC CUH (8) (9) CC ECC CUC where CH is the annual heating energy cost; CC the annual cooling energy cost; CUH the heating energy unit cost; CUC the cooling energy unit cost. The annual energy consumption costs are the costs that are regularly paid every year in the assumed life period of the fac ade, so these costs which will be paid in the future must be converted to present values. For this conversion, the energy costs are multiplied by present value factor (PVF) which takes into account discount rate and life cycle period

678

zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

are grouped according to the disparities of sub-variables. In the conversion, assuming that the alternatives with the highest energy consumption and life cycle cost do not have any benet, their efciencies are considered as zero. And then how efcient other alternatives are when compared with the zero efcient alternatives are calculated. The results can be illustrated with graphics or tables to evaluate the effect of every sub-variable on energy and cost efciency. 2.4. The comparison of the alternatives In the comparisons, the success provided by the alternative, being minimum energy consumption and total life cycle cost is taken into consideration. The alternatives having the highest percentage in terms of energy consumption and total life cycle cost are accepted as the most efcient ones. Consequently, the following can be determined:  the most useful alternative whose energy consumption is minimum in terms of country sources;  the most protable alternative whose life cycle cost is minimum in terms of building owners. 3. Application The proposed approach is applied on an ofce building assumed to be in Istanbul. The cases that the building is enclosed on all fac ades by either single or double skin are considered. The energy and cost efciency of the alternative solutions is evaluated depending on the different congurations and material types of the fac ade components. The data related to the ofce building selected for this application are as follows: Building sizes Ceiling height Total fac ade area Type of heating energy Ventilation rate 36 m 36 m 3.30 m 13896 m2 Natural gas 20 L/s m2 Number of oors Total oor area Exterior shading Type of cooling energy Inltration rate 30 38880 m2 No Electric

- Articial environmental variables is admitted as follows:

The position of the building The orientation of the building The height from sea Building intervals ztepe Istanbul, Go Latitude: 418N; longitude: 288E 39.00 m It is assumed that surrounding buildings are far

- The ambient temperature is assumed to be minimum 20 8C and maximum 26 8C to achieve comfort conditions [6]. - The initial costs are achieved from the interviews with the rms constructing curtain wall in Turkey. - Maintenance costs, which are considered as the energy costs, are calculated depending on the energy loads of the fac ade alternatives. 3.1.2. User requirements User requirements in terms of the energy and cost efciency are to provide the interior environmental comfort and reduce the total life cycle cost of the fac ade. 3.1.3. Objectives/constraints The objective is to determine the most efcient alternatives in terms of energy consumption and total life cycle cost. In our country, the heat transmission coefcient (U value, W/m2 K) that external skin must have in terms of energy conservation is labeled in TS 825 depending on the climatic zones [7]. However, there are not any standards related to the solar heat gain coefcient (SHGC value). 3.1.4. Performance criteria The performance requirements expected from an energy and cost efcient fac ade can be determined as energy conservation, air tightness, natural ventilation, economy and interior comfort. A fac ade to meet these requirements should have high heat transmission resistance, control sunlight, provide natural ventilation, prevent air inltration, has a low life cycle cost and ensure comfort conditions. For this reason, the skin should perform the following criteria. 3.1.4.1. The criteria related to energy efciency. - According to TS 825 U values for external wall and double glazed windows should be 0.60 and 2.80 W/m2 K, respectively [7]. - Glass fac ade should have a low SHGC to prevent solar gain. - It is assumed that ventilation is provided for all fac ades effectively. - There is a certain amount of air inltration towards inside on all fac ades. - Total energy consumption resulting from heat gain and losses of the fac ade is the main criterion in evaluating energy efciency. The alternative with the lowest energy consumption is the most efcient one in terms of energy usage.

0.4 ach

3.1. Formulation of the problem 3.1.1. Environmental factors - The data related to the external climatic variables are taken from the Meteorology Station of Goztepe in Istanbul.

 zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O Table 2 The data related to the glasses Thickness (mm) Solar energy Direct transmittance Reectance to outdoor Reectance to indoor Daylight Visual transmittance Reectance to outdoor Reectance to indoor Emissivity Emissivity to outdoor Emissivity to indoor 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Clear glass 0.770 0.070 0.070 0.880 0.080 0.080 0.840 0.840 Reective glass 0.208 0.152 0.328 0.300 0.121 0.265 0.840 0.550

679

Low-E glass 0.574 0.218 0.144 0.825 0.041 0.055 0.100 0.840

3.1.4.2. The criteria related to economic efciency. - The initial costs affecting the total life cycle cost are considered in the evaluation of the cost efciency. - Maintenance cost which is the main criterion in terms of cost efciency is admitted as the annual energy costs determined with respect to energy consumption. Cleaning and repairing costs are not considered in calculating the maintenance costs because there are no available accurate data related to these costs in our country. - The service life of the glass fac ade is supposed 30 years. 3.1.5. Alternatives In line with the proposed approach, the skin alternatives is determined as follows. 3.1.5.1. Fac ade components. For this application, the following are approved for the components:

- The glass types used in the application are clear, reective and low-E glasses. The data related to these glasses are given in the Table 2. - In the single skin glass fac ade, double glazing unit is used. - In the double skin fac ade, the width of the interval cavity and the position of the Venetian blind are decided in the result of sensitive analyses done with WIS program, which is used for computing the thermal and optic properties of the window system [8]. The analyses made for the different fac ade congurations indicate that the width of internal cavity results in the slightly variation of the U values whereas it does not affect the SHGC values. In addition, using the Venetian blind affects both the U and SHGC values. The best result is achieved when the Venetian blind is positioned near the external skin. The results for an example of glazing conguration can be seen in the Table 3. The similar results are also achieved with

Table 3 The effects of the width of the cavity and the position of solar control device on the U and SHGC values Cavity width (mm) 300 600 900 1200 1500 Congurations Heat transmission coefcient, U value (W/m2 K) 1.91 1.92 1.93 1.93 1.93 Solar heat gain coefcient, SHGC 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

300 600 900 1200 1500

1.85 1.85 1.86 1.86 1.86

0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

300 600 900 1200 1500

1.85 1.85 1.86 1.86 1.86

0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

680 Table 4 The skin congurations Glass fac ade congurations Single skin I Double skin II III

zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

glazing types are selected to generate the alternatives. The cases with and without solar control device are considered as well. The other properties pertaining to the components are assumed to be the same for all alternatives.
IV V

: single glass; : double glass; : solar control device.

the other analyses done for different congurations. Based on all these analyses, in the application, the width of the cavity is assumed 900 mm, and the Venetian blind is positioned near external skin in the cavity. Solar control device is a white Venetian blind with a thickness of 0.2 mm. The slats forming the blind are 16 mm wide, and the distance between the slats is 12 mm. The angle of the slats is 45 8C. The bearing frame is a metal frame with 16 mm; thermal break whose heat transmission coefcient is 3 W/m2 K. The spacer is assumed to be aluminum. The solar energy transmission and the emissivity to both inside and outside of the Venetian blind are 0.227 and 0.729, respectively. In the double glazing unit formed with low-E glass, the metal oxide coating is applied to the external surface of internal skin (the third surface).

3.1.5.3. Generation of fac ade alternatives. The fac ade alternatives are rst grouped depending on the different positions of the single or double-glazing and using the solar control device (Table 4). And then all possible alternatives are formed as a result of the combination of these alternatives with the types of three glasses. They are named based on the code system developed in Table 1. How an alternative is coded depending on the sub-variables (the different positions of the single or double-glazing and using the solar control device) and the possible cases selected for this application is seen in Table 5. The letter and the numbers indicate the position of the glass/ glazing types and whether or not using a solar control device. For example, the DS31Y is an alternative with ve columns and denes a double skin fac ade with double low-E glass on external skin, single clear glass on internal skin and a solar control device in its cavity. 3.2. Determination of the energy loads and the total life cycle costs 3.2.1. The energy load analyses of the alternatives In line with the proposed model, the analysis is carried out in three stages as seen below. In these analyses, since the energy efciency of the fac ade is investigated, energy consumption resulting from both internal heat sources (people, lighting, power and appliances) is not taken into consideration. 3.2.1.1. The thermal and optic properties. The numerical values related to the thermal and optic properties of the alternatives are calculated with the WIS program. For this

3.1.5.2. Sub-variables. The component properties affecting the total energy consumption and life cycle cost are considered as position, form, dimension, material, texture, color and joint types of the components. Of these properties, the material properties and different positions of the glass/
Table 5 Coding an alternative

 zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

681

aim, the data related to the weather variables for Istanbul (dry bulb temperatures, dew point temperatures, horizontal solar radiation, wind speed), the position, dimension and material properties of the fac ade components (external skin, cavity, solar control device and internal skin) are dened within the program. U and SHGC values achieved in the result of the simulation are seen in Table 6, including the groups that are arranged depending on the positions of the single or double-glazing. 3.2.1.2. The heat gain and losses. The heat gain and losses resulting from heat transmission, solar radiation, air inltration and mass effect of the alternatives are computed with ENER-WIN simulation program, which has been used for the analysis of energy load [9]. 3.2.1.3. The total energy loads. The total energy loads which are the sum of the heating and cooling loads (according to the Eqs. (1)(3)) and the annual energy consumption values calculated depending on the efciency of the energy system (according to the Eqs. (4)(6)) are seen in Table 6. The annual energy consumption values resulting from the fac ade are the values per square meter of total oor area. 3.2.2. The total life cycle cost analyses of the alternatives 3.2.2.1. The initial costs. The unit costs per square meter for all the components are rst determined, averaging the values taken from three rms constructing curtain wall. And then the initial costs are calculated according to Eq. (7). The results can be viewed in Table 6. 3.2.2.2. The life cycle energy costs. The life cycle energy costs calculated according to the Eqs. (8)(12) are included in Table 6. The data needed for the calculations are selected as follows: Annual energy loads Fuel type The unit costs of natural gas The unit cost of electric Life period Discount rate The efciency of the cooling system The efciency of the heating system The results determined by the simulation Natural gas and electric 32478.43 kWh/TL (for Istanbul in 2003) 120.755 kWh/TL (for Istanbul in 2003) 30 years 15% 100%

3.3. The evaluation of the alternatives The fac ade alternatives are evaluated in terms of energy consumption and total life cycle costs by considering the glass/glazing types, position of glasses and solar control devices. 3.3.1. The energy consumption of the alternatives The fac ade alternatives are selected and grouped according to the glass/glazing types, positions and solar control devices. Thereafter, the most efcient alternative in every group is compared with each other. The results are given in Figs. 24 in conjunction with both energy and cost efciency. In Fig. 2, there are the single and double glazing alternatives for three glass types. It shows the effect of glass/ glazing types on the energy and cost efciency of the alternatives. In Fig. 3, the best alternatives for every position of glazing are compared with each other to determine the effect of the position of glass/glazing types on the energy consumption of the alternatives. The effect of using solar control device for the most efcient alternatives in every group is illustrated in Fig. 4. The alternatives are evaluated in relation to the sub-variables below: 3.3.1.1. The effect of the glass/glazing types. In both single and double skin congurations, the best results for U and SHGC values are achieved in the solutions with low-E glasses (Table 6). The alternatives with the low-E glass are more energy efcient than the other alternatives for both single and double skin. The double skin alternative formed with the low-E glass on both skins is the most efcient one in terms of energy consumption. In the double skin congurations, using the double-glazing on both skins is an efcient solution for all glasses (Fig. 2). 3.3.1.2. The effect of the position of glass/glazing types. The congurations formed with double-glazing on both skins are the most efcient alternatives in terms of energy efciency. In the congurations formed with both single and double-glazing, using double-glazing on external skin is more efcient than using it on internal skin (Fig. 3). 3.3.1.3. The effect of using solar control device. Using Venetian blind causes to decrease the total energy load for both single and double skin alternatives. This is due to the reduction in the U and SHGC values of the alternatives (Fig. 4). 3.3.2. The total life cycle costs of the alternatives In this step the effects of the sub-variables on the total life cycle costs are evaluated as well as in the assessment of the energy consumption of the alternatives. 3.3.2.1. The effect of glass/glazing types. The alternatives with the low-E glass are more cost efcient than the

70% (according to BRE Digest 355)

3.2.2.3. The total life cycle costs of the alternatives. The total life cycle costs are the sum of the initial costs and the life cycle energy costs of the alternatives (See Table 6).

682

zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

Table 6 WIS, ENER-WIN and LCCA results for all alternatives No. I Code D1N D1Y D2N D2Y D3N D3Y SS11N SS11Y SS12N SS12Y SS21N SS21Y SS22N SS22Y SD11N SD11Y SD12N SD12Y SD13N SD13Y SD21N SD21Y SD22N SD22Y SD23N SD23Y DS11N DS11Y DS12N DS12Y DS21N DS21Y DS22N DS22Y DS31N DS31Y DS32N DS32Y DD11N DD11Y DD12N DD12Y DD13N DD13Y DD21N DD21Y DD22N DD22Y DD23N DD23Y DD31N DD31Y DD32N DD32Y DD33N DD33Y U (W/m2 K) 2.95 2.70 2.64 2.53 2.34 2.21 2.90 2.55 2.60 2.37 2.53 2.70 2.64 2.40 2.21 2.06 2.06 1.97 1.93 1.86 2.09 2.34 1.94 1.93 1.79 1.79 2.20 2.09 2.08 1.99 2.04 1.97 1.96 1.88 1.82 2.02 1.70 1.93 1.86 1.79 1.77 1.72 1.70 1.66 1.77 1.72 1.70 1.65 1.61 1.57 1.62 1.76 1.57 1.70 1.50 1.61 SHGC 0.55 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.44 0.19 0.55 0.11 0.16 0.09 0.11 0.24 0.31 0.12 0.47 0.13 0.23 0.12 0.39 0.14 0.17 0.44 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.47 0.27 0.33 0.23 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.38 0.25 0.30 0.22 0.42 0.22 0.26 0.18 0.35 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.34 0.21 0.25 0.18 0.30 0.17 ATEL (million kWh) 3.54 3.42 3.43 3.37 3.10 3.12 3.49 3.40 3.34 3.26 3.35 3.40 3.32 3.27 2.93 2.99 2.91 2.88 2.68 2.79 2.99 3.01 2.88 2.90 2.73 2.77 2.91 292 2.88 2.79 3.00 2.88 2.78 2.86 2.57 2.88 2.50 2.78 2.59 2.64 2.62 2.60 2.47 2.53 272 2.67 2.66 2.60 2.57 2.54 2.39 2.63 2.40 2.56 2.29 2.49 ATEC (kWh/m2) 129.89 125.53 126.19 123.89 113.89 114.71 128.27 124.93 122.89 119.88 122.99 124.98 121.95 120.16 107.72 110.03 107.03 105.70 98.44 102.59 109.68 110.43 105.93 106.47 100.43 101.78 107.05 107.26 105.98 102.64 110.22 105.79 102.03 104.95 94.47 105.73 91.81 102.03 95.25 97.10 96.37 95.55 90.86 92.86 99.79 98.23 97.58 95.66 94.29 93.16 87.99 96.63 88.13 94.10 84.23 91.54 IC (million $) 1.56 2.18 1.57 2.28 1.55 2.27 2.75 3.47 2.81 3.53 2.80 3.52 2.83 3.54 3.04 3.76 3.16 3.88 3.14 3.86 3.09 3.81 3.21 3.93 3.19 3.91 3.00 3.72 3.06 3.78 3.11 3.83 3.17 3.89 3.13 3.85 3.13 3.85 3.29 4.01 3.41 4.13 3.39 4.11 3.40 4.12 3.52 4.24 3.50 4.22 3.38 4.10 3.50 4.22 3.48 4.20 LCEC (million $) 1.47 1.25 1.20 1.14 1.20 1.07 1.45 1.23 1.27 1.15 1.18 1.15 1.13 1.10 1.20 1.04 1.05 0.93 0.98 0.89 1.01 0.98 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.84 1.20 1.08 1.10 0.97 1.02 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.93 1.00 0.86 0.92 1.01 0.91 0.93 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.78 0.75 0.83 0.86 0.78 0.82 0.76 0.79 TLCC (million $) 3.03 3.43 2.77 3.43 2.75 3.34 4.20 4.70 4.07 4.67 3.98 4.67 3.96 4.64 4.24 4.80 4.21 4.81 4.12 4.75 4.10 4.79 4.12 4.83 4.04 4.75 4.19 4.80 4.17 4.75 4.13 4.74 4.09 4.79 4.06 4.86 3.99 4.77 4.30 4.92 4.34 5.00 4.26 4.92 4.26 4.94 4.35 5.03 4.28 4.97 4.21 4.96 4.29 5.04 4.24 4.98

II

III

IV

Heat transmission coefcient (U), solar heat gain coefcient (SHGC), annual total energy loads (ATEL), annual total energy consumption (ATEC), initial cost (IC), life cycle energy cost (LCEC), total life cycle cost (TLCC).

 zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O

683

Fig. 4. The effect of using solar control device. Fig. 2. The effect of the glass/glazing types.

4. Concluding remarks other alternatives for both single and double skin. The reason of this is that using low-E glass reduces the life cycle energy costs of the alternatives. In the double skin congurations, for instance, using double low-E glass on both skins instead of double clear glass increases the total cost by 1.15% inasmuch as it decreases the life cycle energy costs by 24.49% (Fig. 2 and Table 6). 3.3.2.2. The effect of the position of glass/glazing types. Single skin congurations are clearly more cost efcient than the double skin congurations because of their lower initial costs. Similarly, in the double skin congurations, the alternatives that single glazing is used on both skins are the most efcient congurations in terms of the total life cycle cost (Fig. 3 and Table 6). 3.3.2.3. The effect of using solar control device. Whereas the total life cycle energy costs of the alternatives with blind are lower than those without due to their lower energy consumption, their total costs are higher than those without because of the higher initial costs (Fig. 4 and Table 6). In line with the evaluations made in terms of energy and cost efciency, the following are inferred:  Double skin congurations are more energy efcient than single skin congurations. In the double skin congurations, the most energy efcient alternative is the conguration, which is coded as DD33N, formed with the using of double low-E glass on both skins. This alternative is 22.84% more efcient than the most energy efcient single skin conguration, which is coded as D3N, formed with the using of double low-E glass.  Single skin congurations are more cost efcient than double skin congurations. The single skin conguration, which is coded as D3N, formed with the using of double low-E glass has the least total life cycle cost. This alternative is 24.68% more efcient than the most cost efcient double skin conguration, which is coded as DD32N, formed with the using of double low-E glass on external skin and reective glass on internal skin.  Among the double skin congurations, DD33N, which is the most energy efcient alternative, is about 33.91% more efcient than SS11N, which has the highest energy consumption. On the other hand, SS22N, which is the most cost efcient alternative, is about 7.7% more efcient than DD22N, which has the highest life cycle cost.  Using solar control device reduces both the energy and cost efciency of the alternatives. In conclusion, the proposed approach makes possible both to generate fac ade alternatives by considering the objectives, constraints and performance criteria and evaluate their energy and cost efciency. In the future studies, determining the limit values for energy consumption and total life cycle cost and standardizing the efcient component properties that will be able to provide these values are intended.

Fig. 3. The effect of the position of the glass/glazing types.

684

zkan / Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 673684 I. Cetiner, E. O 132, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, USA, 1980, p. 131. ANSI/ASHRAE 55, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, U.S.A., 1992. Turkish Standard, Thermal Insulation in Buildings, Turkish Standard Institute, Ankara, Turkey, 1998, p. 17. D. Van Dijk, J. Goulding, WIS Reference Manual, TNO Building and Construction Research, Delft, Netherlands, 1996. L.O. Degelman, ENER-WIN Users Manual, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA, 1999.

References
[1] M. Wigginton, Bauen mit Glass, Detail, Deutschland, March 1998, p. 309. [2] A. Compagno, Intelligente Glasfassaden Material, Anwendung, Gestaltung = Intelligent Glass Facades, Birkhauser, Basel, Switzerland, 2002, p. 118. [3] E. Oesterle, R. Lieb, M. Lutz, W. Heusler, Double-skin Facades, Prestel Verlag, Munich, Germany, 2001, p. 53. [4] W. Lang, T. Herzog, Using Multiple Glass Skins to Clad Buildings, Architectural Record, July 2000, McGraw-Hill, UK, 2000, p. 182. [5] H. Marshall, R.T. Ruegg, Energy Conservation in Buildings: An Economics Guidebook for Investment Decisions, NBS Handbook [6]

[7] [8] [9]