A critical review of the energy savings and cost payback issues of double facades

David Stribling Buro Happold Glasgow Byron Stigge Buro Happold New York

Summary This paper presents a dynamic thermal modelling study to show estimated energy savings and projected payback periods for various double faade construction systems in different climates and orientations. It concludes that although the economic case for a double faade based purely on energy cost savings may be marginal, many other factors must be considered. Climate, construction type, construction cost, and energy cost significantly contribute to the feasibility of each unique case and must be assessed for each building.

Introduction Double facades are an effective means of buffering and controlling heat, light, air and noise through a building envelope. They do, however, have a premium cost associated with them compared to conventional facade systems. Justification of their inclusion in a building design, therefore is typically on the basis of energy efficiency and associated cost savings. Qualitative benefits of solar control, moderated surface temperatures, noise reduction, reduced glare, reduced heating/cooling demand, moderated access to fresh air, aesthetic purity and increased daylighting are generally seen only as intangible bonus benefits. The principle of a double skin faade is an additional layer of glass offset from the conventional curtain wall forming an interstitial space that acts as a thermal buffer. Blinds are typically incorporated into the void space to prevent solar heat gains from entering the occupied space. Blinds may be automatically or manually operated. On the outer surface of glazing, operable vents are located top and bottom to prevent the void from overheating in the summer. In the winter the vents are generally closed to trap heat in the void and reduce heat loss through the interior windows. In the mid-season

condition, the inner curtain wall normally has operable windows for natural ventilation. An additional benefit is that modulating outer vents can be used to control the void temperature and thus extend the period suitable for natural ventilation. Despite this sophistication, detailed energy savings analyses rarely conclude double skin facades have affordable paybacks at todays relatively low energy prices although there is no doubt that they do provide better overall energy efficiency. The aim of this paper is to investigate which scenarios may approach affordable payback periods and to what extent these are influenced by different factors Figure 1 Typical double faade components

To this end, dynamic thermal modelling (DTM) has been applied to the problem using the TAS software from EDSL (1). DTM techniques employ a three dimensional virtual model of the building and calculate the time based thermal loads on a building based on its fabric, solar shading and historical weather data. It has been used previously in the application of double faade analysis and validated against detailed CFD analysis in this respect (2).

Faade Construction Costs A double skinned faade is a significant capital investment and an estimate of construction cost is necessary in order to make a calculation as to the likely payback period. There are wide variations depending on the level of sophistication of the faade, location, construction method and contractors experience. Many suppliers give ranges because of these factors but the figures assumed for the Las Vegas, USA analysis have been 300/m2 ($50/ft2) for a conventional curtain wall faade with low-e glass and 800/m2 ($130/ft2) for a simple, flat, double faade with operable vents, blinds and windows for a large building and manufactured in a factory. These figures are estimates rather than quotes and are based on experience and conversations with suppliers for the mid west US. As an example of

regional variations, the same faade installed in New York might cost 50% more, in the UK 40% more and in Germany 20% more. Orientation A basic office building model was simulated with the intent of isolating the annual HVAC energy savings of a double faade over a conventional faade for various orientations. In order to do this a model of a four-storey office block was created with solid walls on three sides. The fourth side was a fully glazed faade which was rotated through 8 different orientations with annual energy consumption calculated for each and for three different climates. Figures 2, 3 and 4 summarise the model geometry whilst the other modelling assumptions are detailed in Appendix A. London was selected as a mild, cloudy climate (Figures 5 and 6). Las Vegas was selected as a hot, dry sunny climate (Figures 7 and 8). And Winnipeg, Canada was selected as a cold climate (Figures 9 and 10). It should be noted that these results are not representative of actual office energy consumption figures due to the simplistic nature of the model. The results are intended purely as a comparison between the energy savings associated with each orientation for one design of double facade. Figure 2 - Plan diagram of simulation model investigating effect of orientation on energy savings of double facade

Figure 3 - Section diagram of simulation model for baseline office building without a double facade

Figure 4 - Section diagram of simulation model for office building with a double facade

120 Energy Consumption (kWh/m2) 90 60 30 0

Heating

Cooling

Fans

Pumps

DF Base

DF Base

DF Base

DF Base

DF Base

DF Base

DF Base W

NE

SE

SW

Figure 5 LONDON: Energy consumption intensity results for 8 orientations for conventional faade (Base) and double faade (DF)

30% HVAC Energy Savings 20% 10% 0% N NE E SE S Orientation

Figure 6 LONDON: Percentage energy savings through faade for different orientations For London, the most significant savings in HVAC energy consumption are achieved with SW and S facades and are in the order of 23%. This is because the void captures solar gain in the winter providing an insulating layer and rejects solar gain in the summer. Other orientations have less solar gain and thus heat up less in the winter and block less solar gain in the summer. Nevertheless, even the N faade shows 14% savings in energy consumption due to a greatly increased overall U-value.

Percentage cost saving Percentage energy saving SW W NW N

DF Base NW

200
Energy Consumption (kWh/m2)

Heating

Cooling

Fans

Pumps

150 100 50 0
DF DF DF DF DF DF DF Base Base Base Base Base Base Base DF Base

NE

SE

SW

NW

Figure 7 LAS VEGAS: Energy consumption intensity results for 8 orientations for conventional faade (Base) and double faade (DF)

HVAC Energy Savings

30% 20% 10% 0% N NE E SE

Percentage cost saving Percentage energy saving

SW

NW

Orientation
Figure 8 LAS VEGAS: Percentage energy savings through faade for different orientations Las Vegas sees more energy savings from a double faade (in the region of 27%) because it is a sunny, hot climate and double facades do well to reduce cooling loads from solar gain.

Heating

Cooling

Fans

Pumps

300

Energy Consumption (kWh/m2)

200

100

0
DF Base DF Base DF Base DF Base DF Base DF Base DF Base DF Base

NE

SE

SW

NW

Figure 9 WINNIPEG: Energy consumption intensity results for 8 orientations for conventional faade (Base) and double faade (DF)

HVAC Energy Savings

30% 20% 10%

Percentage cost saving
Percentage energy saving

0% N NE E SE S SW W NW N Orientation

Figure 10 WINNIPEG: Percentage energy savings through faade for different orientations Winnipeg shows higher annual energy consumption than both London and Las Vegas with predominantly a heating load due to the cold climate. Energy savings shown are best on the South Eastern side and are quite modest at 12%. This suggests one or a combination of two things. That the design of faade selected in this analysis works more efficiently in a warm climate with high cooling load than it does in a cold climate and/or the fact that because solar heat gains are low in this climate, that the low-e faade is already more efficient than it is in Las Vegas or London.

Optimal Climate In order to determine what types of climate achieve the best energy savings through the use of double facades another model was simulated which was more representative of a typical office building. Using a South-West orientation, which was generally accepted as offering the most benefit from a double faade in the previous analysis, the building was simulated through 7 cities in different climate zones throughout the world. The model geometry is summarised in figures 11, 12 & 13. Figure 11: Plan diagram of simulation model investigating energy savings of double faade in various climates

Figure 12: Section diagram of simulation model for baseline office building without a double facade

Figure 13: Section diagram of simulation model for office building with a

Heating
300
Winnipeg

Cooling

Fans

Pumps

Energy Consumption (kWh/m2)

250 200 150

London Las Vegas New York Miami Rome

Munich

100 50 0 LE DF LE DF LE DF LE DF LE DF LE DF LE DF

Figure 14 Energy consumption comparison for a conventional faade (LE) and a double faade (DF) for different locations and climates The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 14 with an indication of the predicted energy consumption for the double faade versus a conventional double glazed faade for different global locations. Those generally with the greater energy consumption show the most potential for savings. It should also be noted that the same faade design has been used in all locations when in fact there may well be a different design for a warm climate as opposed to a cooler climate.

Payback Calculation Although double facades are meant to save energy and hence be more environmentally friendly, it is energy cost savings and payback period that building owners are typically most interested to know. For this calculation it was necessary to make assumptions on the prices of gas and electricity for each of the locations considered. The figures used in the analysis are given in table 1. The simple payback calculations in this paper are based on HVAC energy saving cost savings assuming the same type of air conditioning system for the typical and double faade.

Table 1 Energy prices assumed in payback analysis Electricity (/kWh) United Kingdom USA (Nevada) USA (New York) USA (Florida) Canada Italy Germany 0.07 0.04 0.133 0.053 0.038 0.085 0.09 ($/kWh) $0.105 $0.06 $0.20 $0.08 $0.055 $0.13 $0.14 Gas (/kWh) 0.025 0.013 0.047 0.017 0.012 0.028 0.03 ($/kWh) $0.037 $0.02 $0.07 $0.028 $0.018 $0.042 $0.045 Off Peak Rate Electricity 0.04/kWh 12am and 7am

Table 2 summarises the energy cost payback for the 7 cities modeled and shows that the ultimate feasibility is largely dependent on energy price. The more expensive energy locations such as New York, Rome and Munich show the best paybacks with the lower energy prices of Canada extending the payback period significantly. London shows a longer payback period partly due to a lower energy price, partly due to a less extreme climate and partly due to more expensive construction costs Table 2 Comparison of payback periods for double facades in different locations London Faade area Add. faade cost Add. capital investment Energy cost saving Floor area Annual cost saving Payback period 1,040m2 700/m2 728k 1.01/m2 3,000m2 3,030 240 Yrs Las Vegas 1,040m2 500/m2 520k 1.31/m2 3,000m2 3,930 132 Yrs Winnipeg 1,040m2 500/m2 520k 0.83/m2 3,000m2 2,490 208 Yrs New York 1,040m2 800/m2 832k 2.57/m2 3,000m2 7,710 108 Yrs Miami 1,040m2 600/m2 624k 1.17/m2 3,000m2 3,510 177 Yrs Rome 1,040m2 650/m2 676k 2.18/m2 3,000m2 6,540 103 Yrs Munich 1,040m2 600/m2 624k 1.88/m2 3,000m2 5,640 111 Yrs

From the results in table 2 one conclusion that applies to all locations is HVAC running costs are very low compared to the capital cost of the double facade. With an expected building life of 50 to 70 years these projected paybacks would make double facades seem to be a financially poor decision. There are three things that control this, the cost of construction, the energy savings, and the energy price. The first two of these can be considered in the design and although the third is largely a factor of market forces. In the following section an analysis is carried out for double faades located in Las Vegas and London taking these factors into consideration.

Optimal Faade Design & Cost Previous analysis has shown that the projected payback period for the considered design in Las Vegas is of the order of 132 years. Through simulation however, the baseline double faade design has been optimised to achieve 95 years. This has been achieved through optimizing the solar shading properties and control of the blinds and the temperature setpoints of the automatically opening vents and windows. The next challenge, therefore, is to reduce the construction cost of the faade and functionality to optimise the trade-off between energy savings and construction cost. Additional features such as BMS controlled vents, BMS controlled blinds, daylight dimming, BMS controlled operable windows, shut-off dampers to air supply when windows are open, low-iron glass and an occupiable (wider) void all contribute to energy savings. But all of these features contribute to additional construction cost, as demonstrated in figures 15 & 16. For a given climate and orientation a different set of these functionalities will produce an optimal payback period. This principle is demonstrated in theory by figure 17.

Figure 15: Capital investment for a double facade per faade area vs. functionality features of faade

Figure 16: % HVAC Energy Savings for a double facade vs. functionality features of faade

Figure 17: Payback for a double facades vs. functionality features of faade Five models with various double faade systems were run for Las Vegas to demonstrate this theory. Model description and capital cost assumptions are summarised in table 3.

Table 3 Summary of simulations to investigate effect of faade design Model Description 1 2 3 4 5 Fully controllable faade optimised to give 95 year payback Model 1, but changing motorized vents to permanently open vents Model 2, but changing blinds to static tilted blinds with solar transmittance = 0.6 Model 3, but changing operable windows on internal faade to fixed, closed windows Model 4, but a full height, four storey double faade with inlet only at the bottom of the first floor and outlet only at the top of the fourth floor Additional capital cost over typical faade 600/m2 500/m2 400/m2 350/m2 300/m2 $90/ft2 $75/ft2 $60/ft2 $53/ft2 $45/ft2

3.00

200

Payback
2.00

150

100 1.00 50

0.00

300

400

500

600

Additional Investment (/m2 - facade)

Figure 18: HVAC Energy Cost Savings and payback period for a double facade with different features The results of the analysis are shown in figure 18. Here, the characteristic U shape described in figure 17 is apparent. At the lower point of the U shape, the payback period does, in fact, reach an optimum at an additional investment of 500/m2 ($75/ft2) over a conventional double glazed low-e curtain wall system, achieving an 86 year payback. Note this is purely an analytical analysis for the given assumptions for Las Vegas. The optimal model had permanently open vents, which is reasonable for such a hot climate, but would not be reasonable for a cold climate where closing the vents is very important.

Energy Cost Influences Payback Energy costs influence payback as seen clearly back in table 2. But energy costs vary greatly across the world and with time making it a moving target, so it is important to look at historic price trends and future price predictions for perspective on payback calculations. Simple payback calculations done with todays energy price will not be accurate for very long.

Simple Payback Period (Years)

Energy Cost Saving (/m2 - floor)

Energy cost saving

$0.30 $0.25 Energy Price ($/kWh) $0.20 $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 2017 2027 2037 20 yr payback
Ave. Electricity Price (in 1996$) Ave. Gas Price (in 1996$) Weighted Energy Price (82% elec, 18% gas) 20 Y P b k

40 yr payback 60 yr payback

Figure 19: Energy cost for Nevada 1960-2001 (in constant 1996 dollars) compared to threshold values for target payback periods.

For the optimum Las Vegas design (calculated above to have an 86 year payback at todays energy prices) the energy split is 12% gas, 88% electricity due to the predominance of cooling in this climate. A weighted average energy price for the model building has therefore been calculated and plotted on the graph in figure 19 together with threshold prices that would achieve 20, 40 and 60 year simple paybacks. This analysis shows that the historic gas and electricity prices for Las Vegas, Nevada (4) in constant 1996 dollars would provide between 50 and 90 year simple paybacks. If energy prices reach $0.27/kWh (0.40/kWh) for electricity and $0.09/kWh (0.135/kWh, $2.60/therm) for gas the payback would be 20 years. These energy prices are close to that of New York City today.

In a similar exercise, the faade design for London was optimised through simulation to give an 90 year payback at todays prices of 0.07/kWh ($0.105/kWh) for electricity and 0.025/kWh ($0.04/kWh) for gas. The energy split for the modelled building in London is 59% gas, 41% electricity resulting in a weighted, current energy price of 0.044/kWh ($0.066/kWh). Figure 20 shows the trend of the energy price for the UK normalised to real 1995 prices (5) together with the thresholds for 20,40 & 60 year paybacks.

0.25
20 yr payback

Energy Price (/kWh)

0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1970

Ave. Electricity Price (in 1995)

Ave. Gas Price (in 1995)
Weighted Energy Price (41% elec, 59% gas) 40 yr payback 60 yr payback

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

Figure 20: Energy cost for UK 1970-2001 (in constant 1995 sterling) compared to threshold values for target payback periods.

The graph shows a similar trend to the US with higher energy prices in the early eighties making the case for double facades more feasible. During this period, the projected payback approached 40 years.

Other Important Influences on Cost Payback

Due to the space restrictions of this paper, other very important influences on total life-cycle payback of double facades cannot be fully elaborated on, but are listed below and expanded on in many references on double facades (3)(6). Many are soft issues which improve worker productivity, by far the largest portion of an office buildings life-cycle cost. Little quantifiable research has been done on these topics and this is an area in great need for future research.
Additional Maintenance Costs 4 window surfaces to clean instead of 2, motor replacement, louvre

maintenance, etc.
Reduced Mechanical Plant Capital Costs peak load reductions allow smaller chillers, boilers, air

handlers, ducts, or even different HVAC systems altogether.

Glare Control operable blinds block direct solar glare and accept diffuse light Moderated Glass Surface Temperatures blinds block direct solar rays from striking the inner glass

preventing it from heating to upwards of 60C (140F). In the winter, the warm void heats the inner glass reducing drafts and cold radiant exchange.
Operable Windows in High-Rise Buildings the void buffers wind pressures which otherwise make

operable windows very gusty and disruptive in tall buildings.

Acoustical Buffering the vents and void dampen noise improving acoustics near noisy roads,

airports, factories or rail lines.

Increased Daylighting operable blinds actively bounce light deeper into occupied space. Improved

U-value allows larger windows.

Reduced Emissions greenhouse gases, SOx, NOx and other particulates are reduced as energy

consumption is reduced.
Aesthetic Purity the exterior rain-screen requires no thermal breaks, structural mullions or spandrel

glass providing a visually simple faade. Blocked UV, wind and rain allow a wood framed interior curtain wall. External blinds provide shading, so clear glass is acceptable.
Conclusions

An extensive analytical investigation has been carried out into the cost versus payback benefits of double skin facades with respect to their energy saving potential. From this work the following conclusions can be drawn.

A double faade offers the most energy saving potential on the south and south-west orientations.

Extreme climates offer more opportunity for energy savings as they require more HVAC energy and thus have greater potential for savings through improved building envelope. Energy savings can range from 10% to 50% of HVAC energy, and cost payback can range from 30 to 200 years based on todays local energy prices. and energy price. Double Facades must be assessed specifically on their individual merit considering climate, orientation, detailing, construction cost

The economic viability of double faades in a location is not only a result of the climate. Construction costs and energy price play an even more significant role in the results as there is a large global variation.

Energy prices will also vary greatly over the life of the building and this should also be considered. Although todays climate of low energy prices prohibit significant energy cost savings, one might consider designing todays building for tomorrows energy prices.

The additional benefits of double facades have not been fully explored in this paper an at present many of these are unquantified. Considering their importance in making a financial case for double facades, further research is recommended in this area.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6

Tas Software Manual, EDSL (Environmental Design Solutions Ltd, UK), 1998 F. Wang, M. Davies, B. Cunliffe, P. Heath, The design of double skin faade: modelling study on some design parameters affecting indoor thermal conditions, CIBSE National Conference, 1999 Oesterle, Lieb, Lutz, Heusler, Double-Skin Facades: Integrated Planning, Prestel, Munich, 2001 Energy Information Administration, EIA, Web Page: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/historic/historic.htm Department of Trade and Industry "UK Energy Sector Indicators 2001", Web Page: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_indicators/2001/ D. Arons Properties and Applications of Double-Skin Building Facades, MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 2000

Appendix A Modelling Assumptions Orientation Model

This model was 10m (30ft) deep and 50m (150ft) wide, four stories tall with solid walls and no glazing on three faces. On the fourth face, the faade was applied as described below. The baseline building has 70% glazing on facade side (U-value = 1.8 W/m2K, R-3). The double faade building had a double faade on the glazed side with a 1m (3ft) wide void, motorized blinds with total solar transmittance of 0.6, operable lower and upper vents 300mm (1ft) high which are open in the summer months when the void temperature reaches 24C (75F), clear 10mm single glazing on the outer facade, and insulated low-e inner glass (U-value = 1.8 W/m2K, R-3) on the inner facade. The double faade model had operable windows and are open for natural ventilation when the void is between 16-22C (61-72F). Internal Heat Gains Occupancy - 10W/m2 (sensible), 6W/m2 (latent) between 8am to 6pm, 7 days per week Lighting 15W/m2 Equipment 8W/m2 Plant switched on 8am to 6pm heating 20C, cooling to 24C Night setback heated to 18C in winter

Optimal Climate Model

This model was 15m (45ft) deep and 50m (150ft) wide, four stories tall at the optimal orientation of SW. The baseline building has 40% glazing on all four sides (U-value = 1.8 W/m2K, R-3) which does not have operable windows. The double faade building has a double faade on the southwest and southeast facades. The double faade has a 1m (3ft) wide void, motorized blinds, motorized vents at 500mm width inlet and outlet (0.5ft2/ft), clear single glazed outer glass, and insulated low-e inner glass (U-value = 1.8 W/m2K, R-3) and operable windows. All internal heat gains and plant times were the same as described above for the orientation model.