Thomas HErzog

Roland krippner
werner lang

Facade
Edition ∂

Second edition
Authors

Thomas Herzog Student research assistants:

Prof. Dr. (Univ. Rome) Dr. h.c. Dipl.-Ing. Architect BDA
Technical University of Munich, Department of Architecture,
Chair of Building Technology (until 2006)
TUM Emeritus of Excellence
Roland Krippner
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Architect BDA
Technische Hochschule Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm,
Department of Architecture, Field of Construction and Technology
Werner Lang
Prof. Dr.-Ing., M. Arch. II (UCLA) Architect
Technical University of Munich,
Department of Civil, Geo and Environmental Engineering and
Department of Architecture,
Chair of Energy Efficient and Sustainable Design and Building
Expert consultant:
Dr. Tilmann E. Kuhn
Simon Axmann, Lilly Brauner, Annika Ludwig, Verena Schmidt,
Fabiola Tchamko, Ka Xu
Authors of the 2004 edition:
Dr.-Ing. Winfried Heusler (Aspects of building physics and
planning advice)
Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Michael Volz (Timber)
Expert consultants for the 2004 edition:
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Gerhard Hausladen, Dipl.-Ing. Stefan Heeß,
Dr.-Ing. M. Sc. Reiner Letsch, Dr. Volker Wittwer
Research assistants (Chair of Building Technology) for the 2004
edition under the guidance of Prof. Thomas Herzog:
Peter Bonfig (Surfaces – structural principles),
Jan Cremers (External and internal conditions; Metal),
András Reith (Natural stone; Clay),
Annegret Rieger (Timber),
Daniel Westenberger (Edges, openings; Manipulators)

Research assistant: Student research assistants for the 2004 edition:

Andreas Kacinari (Organisational support) Tina Baierl, Sebastian Fiedler, Elisabeth Walch, Xaver Wankerl

Editorial services
Reproduction:
Editing, copy-editing (German edition): ludwig:media, Zell am See
Steffi Lenzen (Project Manager), Daniel Reisch
Printing and binding:
Editorial assistants (German edition): Kessler Druck + Medien, Bobingen
Heike Messemer, Carola Jacob-Ritz, Eva Schönbrunner,
Melanie Zumbansen Publisher:
DETAIL Business Information GmbH, Munich
Editors of the 2004 edition: www.detail-online.com
Steffi Lenzen, Christine Fritzenwallner;
Susanne Bender-Grotzeck, Christos Chantzaras, Carola Jacob-Ritz, © 2017, English translation of the second, revised and expanded
Christina Reinhard, Friedemann Zeitler, Manuel Zoller German edition (2016)
2004, first German and first English edition
Drawings:
Ralph Donhauser, Simon Kramer; ISBN: 978-3-95553-369-4 (Print)
Alexander Araj, Marion Griese, Martin Hämmel, Emese Köszegi, ISBN: 978-3-95553-370-0 (E-Book)
Dejanira Ornelas Bitterer ISBN: 978-3-95553-371-7 (Bundle)

Drawings for the 2004 edition: Bibliographic information published by the German National Library.
Marion Griese, Elisabeth Krammer; The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche
Bettina Brecht, Norbert Graeser, Christiane Haslberger, Oliver Klein, Nationalbibliografie (German National Bibliography); detailed biblio-
Emese Köszegi, Andrea Saiko, Beate Stingl, Claudia Toepsch graphic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Translation into English: This work is subject to copyright. All rights reserved, whether the whole
Christina McKenna for keiki communication, Berlin or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of trans­
lation, reprinting, recitation, reuse of illustrations and tables, broad-
Copy-editing (English edition): casting, reproduction on microfilm or in other ways and storage in data
Matthew Griffon, Meriel Clemett for keiki communication, Berlin processing systems. Reproduction of any part of this work in individual
cases, too, is only permitted within the limits of the provisions of the
Proofreading (English edition): valid edition of the copyright law. A charge will be levied. Infringe-
Stefan Widdess, Berlin ments will be subject to the penalty clauses of the copyright law.

Production & layout: This textbook uses terms applicable at the time of writing and is
Roswitha Siegler, Simone Soesters based on the current state of art, to the best of the authors' and
­editors' knowledge and belief. All drawings in this book were made
specifically by the publisher. No legal claims can be derived from
the contents of this book.

This book is also available in a German-language edition

(ISBN 978-3-95553-328-1)

4
Contents

Imprint   4
Table of contents   5
Foreword   6

Shell, wall, facade – an essay   8

Part A  The fundamentals  16

1  External and internal conditions  18

2  General basics of construction  26
   2.1  Surfaces – structural principles  26
  2.2 Edges, openings  38
  2.3 Modular coordination  46
3 Aspects of building physics and  52
planning advice

Part B  Structures built with specific materials  62

1  Natural stone  64

2 Clay  86
3 Concrete 106
4 Timber 130
5 Metal 158
6 Glass 188
7 Plastics 216

Part C  Special topics 236

1  Multilayer glass facades 238

2 Manipulators 266
3  Solar energy 294
4  Integrated facades 322
5  Refurbishing existing facades 328
6  Green facades 336

Appendix

Authors 342
Image credits 343
Literature 346
Statutory regulations, directives and standards 348
Index 350

5
 Foreword
30 years after the publication of our first con-
struction handbook, this is the first in the series
to deal with facades.
Over the centuries, architects’ design ser-
vices have often concentrated on developing
impressive section drawings of buildings,
which frequently became objects of heated
controversy over questions of style chosen as
well as a medium for conveying new artistic
­positions.
There is now an increasing focus once more
on facades due to the growing importance
taken on by exterior walls in the context of
energy consumption issues and options for
making use of environmental energy. In add­
ition to this focus, and usually contrasting with
it, are efforts at self-promotion and “identifi­
cation with the address” for those clients for
whom the “packaging” of their buildings, which
often have quite banal interiors, has long since
become a substitute for quality architecture.
The booming Asian megacities show this quite
clearly.
The sequence of this book’s chapters takes
an expedient approach to designing and
developing facade structures. Aspects that
apply generally to the exterior walls of build-
ings, involving demands made on them, their
principal functionality and structural design,
have been separated from descriptions of the
special features of individual cases. The book
represents more than just a collection of differ-
ent buildings in various locations and contexts,
of different types and technologies. Rather,
specific features have been classified and
described based on the various materials used
in their walls or cladding.
The first part deals with demands made on
facades from the inside, which derive from
the building’s usage type. Buildings face very
different local climatic conditions, depending
on the region in which they are located. Out of
this confrontation arise the functional demands
on an exterior wall. These are formulated as
a remit that is initially open to a range of pos­
sible solutions, so implementation details are
not described in this section. The book’s most
important statements are made in the form of
6
images, diagrams and schematic illustrations
showing the morphology of surfaces and
openings.
A building’s envelope interacts directly with its
other subsystems: its support structure, the
partitioning of rooms and technical building
equipment. Various interdependencies exist
or must be defined so that each structural sys-
tem can be geometrically coordinated in the
space. Dimensional and modular conditions
and proportions must be defined for the build-
ing as a whole to be developed. Combining
these aspects results in the parameters for
material implementation based on the materials
and construction methods to be chosen. If the
materials and technologies used to manufac-
ture them are important in defining further spe-
cific features, then certain physical, material,
installation-related and aesthetic details must
also be coordinated.
The second part of this book’s structure is
based on this context. Here the chapters have
been kept separate from examples and pre-
cede them. Each begins with a brief summary
of the history of civilisation’s use of the material
and its specific features. Here we do not limit
the area of materials applications to building
construction, simply because as civilisation
has developed, technology has often emerged
in different ways and interactions with mater­
ials and initial applications have often emerged
from very different areas. Stone, ceramics and
metal, for example, are so significant that whole
cultural eras have been named after them.
Today too, much technical innovation comes
from the construction industry, especially in
modern facade construction, through a transfer
of technologies from different sectors, such
as forming technologies, surface treatments
and robotics. These chapters are followed
by a section showing a selection of built ex­­
amples focusing on materials, which provides
insights into the range of possibilities available
and is designed to inspire readers to further
develop their own ideas. This is done by way
of drawings of main facade details with explan­
ations provided in keys because this is the
medium usually used for conveying information
to architects.
We selected new projects with facades that
interestingly embody the building as a whole,
as well as “classics” that still set standards
because of their architectural quality as well
as a range of details that may be of practical
value for architects and engineers working on
older buildings.
Projects are shown here not as whole build-
ings, rather our descriptions focus on their
facades, which is why contributors other than
architects, such as specialist engineers, are
rarely mentioned in project descriptions,
unless they played a major role in creating
the facade.
Readers will also notice that in describing
­construction details we have at times diverged
from solutions or technical rules customary in
Germany, as is justifiable in a book full of inter-
national examples. Those who would like more
details on a project described are referred to
the more detailed bibliographical references,
which are indicated with a “º”.
It may be regarded as valuable to depict a
building as a large technical object, not as
a complicated system, possibly unmanage­
able and consisting of many kinds of com­
ponents, but succinctly, simply, equally power-
fully and sensitively designed. Developments
in recent decades and enormously increased
demands on building envelopes however, have
led to the emergence of multilayer structures,
each layer of which has specific functions.
This is now a frequent feature of modern struc-
tures made of almost all materials, so struc-
tures made of specific materials and special
facade construction topics are dealt with in
separate chapters.
A centuries-old principle of modifying and
­individually influencing the permeability of
facade openings, whether for reasons of the
building’s energy balance, interior climate,
lighting conditions or safety, is dealt with under
the chapter heading of “Manipulators”, which
takes on a new topicality and covers a wide
range of different types.
We also take the view that the prevalence
of multilayer and double facades in recent
­ ecades requires special mention and dis­
d For this second edition, Part B on “Structures
cussion because there is still great uncertainty
regarding their design and planning. Planners
often simply follow fashionable trends instead
of making good use of the main advantages
of such structures. Basic errors are often made
because there is not enough awareness of
structural and energy technology interconnec-
tions or of individual variants available for pos-
sible use in construction.
The integration of directly and indirectly oper-
ating solar systems in building envelopes is
still uncharted territory for many and success-
ful combinations of practical value, technical-
physical function, design and construction
solutions are still the exception rather than the
rule, even though the first pioneering applica-
tions were implemented decades ago.
Munich, spring 2004
Thomas Herzog
built with specific materials” and the “Special
topics” chapter have been revised and
expanded to include examples from the past
decade.
New to this edition are three sections that do
not deal mainly with specific materials but
cover issues that have become increasingly
important and need to be examined separately.
The main reason for this are bioclimatic factors
requiring special architectural solutions for the
structural subsystem “facade” involving design
in accordance with functional, technical and
aesthetic criteria: refurbishment, the integration
of annexed technical structural systems and
the greening of exterior walls.
It was therefore natural to develop a separate
third section of the book covering these six
areas. After a general description of remit
and operating principles, it depicts a range
of different solutions and renderings and vari-
ous examples of built structures that represent
the current state-of-the-art.
Further developments are bound to follow, if
only for reasons of efficiency, profitability and
a commitment to sophisticated design. It is to
be hoped that architects enthusiastic about the
design of structural systems and components,
people whose profession relies on an ability
to comprehend the “technical organism” of a
building as a whole, right down to the smallest
detail, will continue to make cogent contribu-
tions to a broad “culture of construction” as a
social imperative.
The authors would like to thank all the people,
institutions, architects, photographers and
companies that have supported our work with
their skilful contributions and everyone who
worked on the new edition.
Munich, summer 2016
Thomas Herzog, Roland Krippner, Werner Lang
7
16

Sketch for the Schocken department store, Stuttgart (DE)
1929, Erich Mendelsohn
Part A  The fundamentals
Whatever specific and very different facade
designs may result from particular technologies
and materials, there are also general rules and
interdependencies that arise out of a building’s
basic functions, the type of loads and stresses
imposed on it, the logic of its structure and
the way it fits together, its geometric order,
options for using prefabricated elements and
physical effects.
These rules and interdependencies are over­
arching principles of general and fundamental
significance, so we present them here before
describing some completed buildings in detail.
17
 External and internal conditions

Facades’ performance potential

12 h
12hh h
12
12
12 h A facade should be able to meet the require­
11 h 13 h ments resulting from the climate as much
11hh h
11
11
11 h 13hh h
13
13
13 h 60°
60°
60° as possible. Adopting this approach can
nenee ne 60°
60°
JuuJnuuenJu
­minimise or avoid the need for additional
ay
JJ

10 h M Ju 14 h measures, such as further technical equip­

ayyaayy ly 14
14hh h
h
10hh h
10
10
10 h MaM
MM JJuuJJluuy ly 14
14
ly ly ment, to control the interior climate. Know­
50° ledge of the relevant basic physical principles
ril Au 50°
50°
9h Arpilril 15 h 50°
50° involved is indispensable in achieving this
p pil ril
Arp Aug.
AAuuA
9hh h
999 h AApA ggu..gg..
15hh h
15
15
15 h
planning goal.
8h ch 16 h
8hh h
h Mracrrhch Sep
Supplementary direct-acting measures can
888 MM
aaraacrhch SSeS
t
eSpeetpt.
16hh h
16
16
16 h
MM ptp.. t..
7h 17 h support such functions on both sides of the
7hh h
h Febr. Oct 17hh h
17 h facade. Other structural elements inside the
777 eber.br. O . 17
17
FFeFFber.br. . OOO
ccttcc..tt.. 18 h 25°
25°
6h Jan Nov. 18
18 h h 25°25°
25° building can also be “activated” to do this,
6hh h
666 h ana.n. NNN 18 h
18 h19 h
JJaJJna.n. N ovo.v. by storing energy in walls and ceilings, for
5h Doevco..v. 19hh h
19
1919 h 10°
5hh h
555 h D D e example.
e
DeDcce..cc.. 10°
10°
10°10°
Open areas of water outside or in interstices
90° 45° 0° 45° 90° can be used for cooling (by evaporation) or
90°
90°
90°
90° 45°
45°
45°
45° 0°0°
0°0° 45°
45°
45°
45° 90°
90°
90°
90°
dehumidification (if there is a sufficient differ­
East South-east South South-west West ence between the temperature of the water and
East
East
East
East South-east
South-east
South-east
South-east South
South
South
South South-west
South-west
South-west
South-west West
West
West
West of the air in the room), and appropriate meas­
A 1.3
ures can make use of energy generated during
peak periods. Solar radiation, from which build­
ings need protection, can be turned into elec­
[Wh/m2d] South [Wh/m2d] 90° tricity by means of photovoltaic modules or
[Wh/m
[Wh/m
[Wh/m 2 d]
[Wh/m
2 2
d]
d]2d] South
South
South
South [Wh/m
[Wh/m
[Wh/m 2 d]
[Wh/m
2 2
d]
d]2d] 90°
90°
90°
90° absorbed by collectors and used to heat water.
5000 5000
5000
5000 30° 5000
5000 High outdoor temperatures, wind and rain
5000
5000 30°
30° 5000
5000
30°
30° can also be made use of (see “Solar energy”,
0° p. 294ff.).
aal l al

4000 4000
orniznnttaottalnlt

4000
4000 0°
0°0°
0° 4000
4000
4000
4000 4000
4000 Remaining requirements that cannot be ad­­
irziz n
irzizooo

60°
equately met through structural measures must
orH

60°
60°
60°
HHooo

3000 60° 3000

HH r

3000
3000
3000
3000 3000
3000
3000
3000
be met by technical systems providing tem­
90° perature control, lighting, air purification, a
90°
90°
90°
90°
2000 2000 ­sufficient exchange of air or humidification or
WW W

2000
2000 2000
2000 N
2000 2000
/ NW/WN

2000 2000
W

N
NNN ­dehumidification. Such supplementary tech­
SS S
E/
/ EN
/W
/W
NNEEE/NN
/N
/ SS

W
NENEE/ W

nical measures always require additional energy

WWSW
EE/

1000 1000
/ S/ SSWW

as well as costly and complex transport of

SSEEEE/ SS/ E

1000
1000
1000
1000 1000
1000
1000
1000
SS

media and maintenance. If technical equipment

0 0 of this kind is directly integrated into a facade,
0 J A S O N D J F M A M J 0 J A S O N D J F M A M J
000 000 it is referred to as an “integrated facade” (see
JJ JJ AAA
A SSS
S O
OOON
NNN D
DDD JJ JJ FF F
F MM AAA
MM AM M JJ JJ
MM JJ JJ AAA
A SSS
S O
OOON
NNN D
DDD JJ JJ FF F
F MM AAA
MM AM M JJ JJ
MM
p. 322ff.). Equipment housed not in the build­
A 1.4 A 1.5
ing’s technical centre but in the facade, at
the point where it is required, is referred to
as “facade-integrated decentralised building
Summer Spring/Autumn
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer Spring/Autumn
Spring/Autumn
Spring/Autumn
Spring/Autumn S technology” [1].
]] ]

E W
[W/m22]22] 2

800 800 S
SSS
[W/m

800
800 E
EEE WW
WW 800
800
[W/m

800
800 S 800
800 E W
radiation[W/m
[W/m

E Apart from external factors, other conditions

600 S
SSS 600 EEE WWWW
radiation

600
600
600
600 600
600
600
600 imposed by the overall structural context
radiation
Totalradiation
radiation

400 400 must be taken into account, including the

400
400
400
400 400
400
400
400
200 200 coordination of dimensions (see “Modular
Total

200
200 200
200 ­coordination”, p. 46ff.), structural interdepend­
Total

200
200 200
200
Total
Total

0 0 encies, necessary tolerances and installation

04 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 04 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
000 8 10 000 8 10
4 666
444 6 888 10 12
10
10 12 14
12
12 14 16
14
14
Hours 16
16
16 18
1818 20
18
of sunlight 20 20
20
[h] 4 666
444 6 888 10 12
10
10 1212 14
12 14 16
14
14
Hours 16
16
16 18
1818 20
18
of sunlight 20 20
20
[h] sequences – topics that will be dealt with in
Hoursof
Hours
Hours
Hours ofsunlight
ofof sunlight[h]
sunlight
sunlight [h]
[h][h] Hoursof
Hours
Hours
Hours ofsunlight
ofof sunlight[h]
sunlight
sunlight [h]
[h][h] subsequent chapters.
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter S
]] ]
[W/m22]22] 2

800 S
SSS
[W/m

800
800 External conditions: solar radiation
[W/m

800
800
radiation[W/m
[W/m

600
radiation

600
600
600
600
radiation

E W The sun is one of the most central and essential

Totalradiation
radiation

400
400
400 E
EEE W
WW
W
A 1.3  Diagram of the sun’s course (50° N) 400
400 of all site-specific external conditions. It is our
200
Total

A 1.4 Solar radiation hitting south-facing surfaces 200

200 greatest direct and indirect energy source and
Total

200
200
Total
Total

pitched at various angles makes all life possible.

0
A 1.5 Solar radiation hitting vertical surfaces facing vari­ 04 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
000 8 10 The amount of energy that it sends to the Earth
ous directions 4 666
444 6 888 10 12
10
10 12 14
12
12 14 16
14
14
Hours 16
16
16 18
1818 20
18
of sunlight 20 20
20
[h]
A 1.6 Total solar radiation hitting wall surfaces pitched at Hoursof
Hours
Hours
Hours ofsunlight
ofof sunlight[h]
sunlight
sunlight [h]
[h][h] is about 10,000 times what humanity’s global
various angles on sunny days at different seasons energy requirements were in 2010 (an average
A 1.6

20
 External and internal conditions

kWh/m2 Global solar radiation/per annum (energy)

1,353 W of energy hits every square metre 5
of the Earth’s outer atmosphere). For human
Available solar radiation
­purposes, this is an infinite, cost-free and
4
­environmentally friendly source of energy. Direct solar
radiation
To make use of solar energy in a building, it
is essential to consider the intensity and dur­ 3
ation of the radiation on its surface, depending
on its facade’s orientation and inclination. In
2
planning facades, the following related fac­
tors and interdependencies must also be taken Heating Diffuse solar radiation
into account if solar radiation is to be made requirements 1
use of:
•  The course of the sun, depending on the
location and time of day and year J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
•  Solar radiation levels, depending on the Winter Summer Winter Winter Summer Winter
s­ urface’s orientation and inclination, loca­
tion, time of day and year and weather A 1.7 A 1.8
•  Various kinds of solar radiation (diffuse, 70 °C
direct and different wavelengths) and 65 ° 1
their quantitative ratio depending on the 1  Black (high gloss)
60 ° 2
weather, direction, location and time of
day and year 55 ° 2  Dark blue
3
•  Interactions with surfaces and materials 50 ° 3  Brick red
•  Relation to heating requirements based on
45 ° 4 4  Ivory
planned usage
40 ° 5  Opaque white
5
Figures A 1.3 – A 1.11 show a selection of the 35 ° 6  Outside air
main factors involved
30 °

The following solar radiation figures can be 25 ° 6

used as a basis for Germany [2]: 20 °

15 ° Hours of exposure

,300 –1,900 hours of sunlight / year
1 to sun of a south­
750 –1,250 hours of sunlight / heating limit 10 ° west-facing facade
15 °C   5 ° Amount of heat = 330 cal/cm2
500 – 950 hours of sunlight / heating limit
  0 ° 22.06.1963 23.06.1963
12 °C
400 – 775 hours of sunlight / heating limit
A 1.9
10 °C

The proportion of diffuse radiation of all radi­

ation accruing over a year is approximately:

South-facing facade 30 %

East and west-facing facade 60 %
North-facing facade 90 % E S
(Difference from 100 %: direct solar radiation)

Solar radiation can also be hazardous for

­ eople (overheating, premature skin ageing,
p
skin cancer), who may need suitable protec­
tion from it.

N W
Thermal comfort 
A 1.11 E
The various demands on internal climatic con­
ditions can be summed up by the term “thermal
comfort”. A 1.7  Heating demands / duration of sunshine
­(schematic diagram)
Among the main factors influencing these
A 1.8  Daily average intensity of solar radiation in
demands that are connected with the facade, ­central Germany (50° N)
are (Fig. A 1.12): A 1.10 A 1.9  Temperatures measured on a sunny day on the
•  Temperature of the air in the space (a)        over   1,175 1,025 –1,050 surfaces of south-facing facades of different
•  Relative humidity in the space (b) 1,150 –1,175 1,000 –1,025 colours
1,125 –1,150      975 –1,000 A 1.10 Local distribution of annual global radiation
•  Surface temperature of structural compo­ [kWh/m2] in Germany
N
1,100 –1,125      950 –  975
nents adjoining the space (c) 1,075 –1,100   under 950 A 1.11 Projection diagram principle of the sun’s
•  Air flows reaching the body (d) 1,050 –1,075 course

21
Surfaces – structural principles
The principle of double sealing is that a first
external seal prevents water on the surface
from penetrating and a second seal, perhaps
with a hollow-chamber profile, stops air from
flowing through. Turbulence in the interstice
(e.g. in labyrinth form) reduces wind pressure
and any water that has penetrated can run off.
Installation sequences
Two general principles govern the installation
and dismantling of joints based on overlapping
principles:
•  Individual elements can only be installed in
a certain strict order and must be disman­
tled in precisely the opposite order. Individ­
ual elements in such a chain can only be
exchanged with some restrictions and sub­
sequent damage (e.g. of sealing elements or
rebates). Special solutions may be required
for joining and sealing reused or refitted
structural components (e.g. in Fig. A 2.1.13,
p. 33 “tongue and groove” and “grooved”
components).
•  There is no fixed sequence for installing and
dismantling individual structural compo­
nents. Elements in the same system can be
replaced (e.g. in Fig. A 2.1.13, p. 33 “gap
ring”, “cover profile” and “sealing compound”
joints). This is especially recommended if
there is a risk of damage (e.g. in the plinth
zone) and an element has to be replaced.
From monolithic to multilayer / multi-shell
Homogeneous shell structures made primarily
of just one material (often referred to as mono­
lithic) are unlikely to meet the current increased
thermal insulation demands made on building
envelopes.
Planners can precisely adapt a facade’s
­performance profile to meet certain require­
ments by creating differentiated structures
that assign individual functions to different
­layers with a specific material and structure.
Making layers or shells modifiable allows the
building envelope’s properties to adapt to
­periodically changing external conditions.
­Individual layers and shells can be subse­
quently added or replaced, making it possible
to adapt the building envelope to differing
requirements during its use. This means that
an outer weatherproof shell designed to be a
“wearing course layer” can be renewed after
a period of use without the underlying struc­
ture having to be changed. This principle can
also be useful in subsequent retrofitting for
renovating and optimising existing exterior wall
structures.
Assigning individual functions to layers and
shells may, however, also have disadvantages
depending on quality of the materials and con­
struction methods chosen:
•  Creation of lots of interfaces between differ­
ent materials and structural components with
the risk of material incompatibilities
•  Increased number of joints and therefore of
potential weak points
34
•  Creation of uncontrolled cavities
•  Attachment problems: penetration of water-
bearing or insulating layers, creation of
bending moment in the anchoring of facing
shells
•  Greater cost and effort involved in manu­
facture
•  Greater maintenance cost and effort
•  Building a wall may involve several trades
and responsibilities, which can increase the
cost and effort involved in coordinating them
and result in overlapping liabilities
•  Problems in separating and thus disposing
of individual layers
The following tendencies are currently pre­
dominant:
•  Increasing performance of functional
layers
•  Reducing the space required for layers (e.g.
vacuum insulation) through to miniaturising
of functional structures (e.g. prismatic light
deflection systems less than 0.1 mm high)
•  Surface coatings using nanotechnology
•  Combination of several functions in a single
polyvalent layer
The functions of layers and shells
The following functions (often also combined)
can be allocated to individual layers or shells,
e.g.:
•  Visual effects, information media
•  Mechanical protection
•  Protection from driving rain
•  Windproofing
•  Blocking /restricting of vapour permeability
•  Light refraction and diffusion
•  Reflection of light radiation and thermal
­radiation
•  Absorption of thermal radiation
•  Reflection of electromagnetic radiation
•  Absorption of sound
•  Reflection of sound
•  Heat storage
•  Reduction of heat transition
•  Transfer of loads
•  Discharge of heat
•  Absorption and release of water vapour
•  Conversion of solar energy into thermal or
electrical energy
Other layers may be formed based on struc­
tural requirements, e.g.:
•  Release of water vapour
•  Discharge of condensation or surface
water
•  Balancing out unevenness
•  Layers for material-bonded joints (adhesive
layers)
•  Measures for stabilising layers (e.g. prevent­
ing thermal insulation layers from swelling)
•  Substructures for connecting layers and
shells
•  Separating layers that are required because
of materials incompatibilities
•  Sliding layers allowing for unrestrained
movement
Typical structures and how they work
Figure A 2.1.15 shows a selection of schematic
representations of structures classified accord­
ing to functional and structural criteria (see also
“Classification of design solutions”, p. 27f.).
The number and thickness of the layers and
shells vary greatly. They can be divided into
solid and lightweight structures and are suit­
able for temperate climate zones.
Protection from driving rain
Moisture-absorbing materials require protec­
tion from frost, and any moisture that may pene­
trate must be able to periodically completely
evaporate. Facade water can be drained off
through various layers. Some facade water will
run off down the back of the cladding of venti­
lated weatherproof shells with open joints. This
reduces the risk of soiling since less dirt is
deposited on horizontal surfaces because it
is regularly washed off.
Windproofing
Facades usually need to be windproof. The
inner facade layer of a multilayer facade must
be windproof, as must joints with other struc­
tural components.
Thermal insulation
Material layers that trap a large proportion of
stationary air guarantee good insulating prop­
erties. Open-pored insulating materials that
can absorb moisture and water through capil­
lary action, which greatly impairs their func­
tioning, must be effectively protected from
moisture.
Water vapour diffusion
The water vapour diffusion resistance of layers
must generally diminish from the inside to the
outside to prevent condensation from forming
in a structural component (and avoid steam
traps). Condensation that collects in wall struc­
tures during the heating period must be able to
evaporate completely in warmer seasons.
Rear ventilation
Effective rear ventilation of a facing shell
requires a distance of at least 20 mm between
cladding and shell and adequate ventilation
openings of at least 50 cm2 for every metre of
wall length [8] to efficiently release moisture
(infiltrated facade water and/or condensation)
and heat (in summer). Layers of stationary air
(no rear ventilation) have an additional insula­
tion effect.
Heat storage
Inside layers with good heat storage capacity
can be activated to help regulate the interior
climate.
Sun shading
Sun shading devices that reduce the input
of energy through layers that are permeable
to solar radiation are most effective mounted
outside. Their rear ventilation counteracts the
 Surfaces – structural principles

Not permeable Not permeable Not permeable Not permeable Not permeable
Not modifiable Not modifiable Not modifiable Not modifiable Energy producing
Modifiable

Load-bearing or non-load-­ Load-bearing or non-load-­ Load-bearing or non-load-­ Load-bearing or non-load-­ Load-bearing or non-load-­
bearing bearing bearing bearing bearing
Single-layer Multilayer Multilayer Multilayer Multilayer
Single-shell Single-shell Double-layer Double-shell Triple-shell
Not rear-ventilated Not rear-ventilated Not rear-ventilated Rear-ventilated Rear-ventilated (outermost shell)

Material structure determines
performance; can only be ad­
justed by changing the wall
thickness; any moisture that has
penetrated must be able to peri­
odically completely evaporate
Improved insulation due to the
insulation layer; inner and outer
wear and protective layer; heat
storage capacity can be used
to heat the interior
Robust external shell provides
physical protection for the insu­
lation layer and against driving
rain; outer and inner shells may
be partly connected, but do not
form a structural unit
Facing shell can be exchanged;
mounting may not be allowed
to impede rising airflows; con­
densation and any penetrating
moisture are safely extracted;
ventilation openings required
Rear-ventilated shell made of
light-deflecting louvres; trans­
lucent shell with transparent
­insulation in front of a solid ab­
sorber; overall structure opaque;
energy production modifiable
and can be regulated with con­
trol circuit technology

Not permeable Not permeable Permeable (light) Permeable (light) Permeable (light)
Not modifiable Not modifiable Not modifiable Not modifiable Modifiable and regulated

Load-bearing or non-load- Load-bearing or non-load-­ Non-load-bearing Non-load-bearing Non-load-bearing

bearing bearing Single-layer Single-layer Multilayer
Multilayer Multilayer Single-shell Double-shell Single-shell
Single-shell Double-layer Rear-ventilated or not rear-­
Not rear-ventilated Rear-ventilated ventilated

Lightweight structure; inner and
outer layer usually joined to form
a structural unit; vapour trap pre­
vented by a barrier on the inside;
as stud wall also part of the load-
bearing structure; sandwich
structures are a special case
External, rear-ventilated wear
and protective layer; diffusion
resistance declines towards
the outside; separate wind
­protection layer; inner lining
is a separate layer
The structure itself is not energy-
producing, even though it is
permeable to solar energy,
which is absorbed by structural
components in the interior; no
insulation
Low level of insulation because
air circulates in the cavity
(heat losses due to convection);
shells do not form structural
unit; risk of condensation form­
ing in the cavity
Functional unit made of several
translucent or light-refracting
­layers, with reflecting layers if
­required; permeability to light
can be modified

Permeable (to light) Permeable (light) Permeable (light and air) Permeable (light) Permeable (light)
Modifiable Modifiable Modifiable Not modifiable Not modifiable

Non-load-bearing Non-load-bearing Non-load-bearing Non-load-bearing Non-load-bearing

Multilayer
Single-shell
Functional unit made of several
translucent layers; improved
­insulating due to thermal insula­
tion; permeability to light can
be modified and is self-regulat­
ing, with thermotropic glass,
for example
Multilayer
Double-shell
Rear-ventilated
Good thermal insulation due to
two stationary layers of air / inert
gas and possibly reflective coat­
ing (Low-E); adjustable or fixed
louvres as rear-ventilated facing
shell
Multilayer
Four-shell
Rear-ventilated
Double facade, outer and inner
glazing; openable, air cavity
­between shells has controlled
ventilation, louvres and glare
protection on the inside; separ­
ate shell for regulating per­
meability to light
Multilayer
Single-shell
Pneumatic structure with trans­
lucent layers that form a single
structural unit, depending on
the system, i.e. a single-shell
structure
Single or multilayer
Double-shell
Membranes as two structurally
separate shells; layer of air or
controlled ventilation for extract­
ing water vapour and heat;
but there are heat losses due
to convection

Opaque material Translucent Opaque thermal Translucent Light-refracting

structure material structure insulation thermal insulation system
A 2.1.15 Structures /assemblies of
­layers and shells perpendicu­
Rear ventilation Windproofing Vapour barrier Reflection of Light refraction, lar to the plane of the facade,
radiation glare protection left: outside

35
Aspects of building physics and planning advice

Thermal insulation functions

Structural Physiological Ecological Economical

functions functions ­functions ­functions

Hygienic Comfort-related
functions functions

Protection from Minimising usage- Minimising energy

Preventing damage Preventing
excessive cooling related energy costs (heating and
from condensation mould formation
and overheating ­consumption cooling costs)

Reducing Extending the Extending

Preventing damage Reducing interior
dust formation building’s functional the building’s
due to diffusion air speeds
and vortices and service life service life

Adapting and Minimising the

Preventing investment and
­harmonising the
constraining operating costs of
­temperatures of air-conditioning
stresses
wall surfaces systems
inside rooms with A 3.2  Thermal insulation functions
the rooms’ air A 3.3 Facade with roller blinds (inside)
­temperature and louvre system outside, Munich
(DE) 2001, Peter C. von Seidlein
A 3.2

0.15 W/m2K, even good triple insulating
­ lazing, inert gas-filled glazing or vacuum
g of structural components, increase heating
­insulating glazing has U-values of around
0.6 W/m2K. In other words, nowhere near the
thermal values of the well-insulated exterior
walls made of opaque building materials men-
tioned above. Standard commercially avail­
able window frames may well have U-values
of > 1.0 W/m2K, so thermal weak points can
easily develop around them.
In joining window frames or frame profiles in
glass facades to solid walls, details should
be appropriately constructed to ensure that
thermal resistance is as consistently effective
as possible at every point in the facade to
­prevent thermal bridges and the risk of con-
densation forming. Planners should consider
factors such as heat transmission, convection
and the exchange of long-wave radiation in
choosing the properties of materials, structural
components and connections. This is espe-
cially important in and around joints, at the
bonded edges of glazing and panels, and in
the area of fastening elements because linear
or intermittent thermal bridges and leaks can
increase the risk of heat losses, condensation
and mould formation.
Horizontal and vertical corners, inside and
out, attics and footings, and projections and
recesses in insulating and sealing layers are
in practice particularly critical, especially at
junctions between different types of facades
and structures.
Mistakes made in planning or construction
can greatly impair the function and durability
energy consumption, have negative ecologic­
­al effects and be harmful to one’s health if
mould forms.
Protection from moisture
Exterior weather factors such as precipitation
and fluctuating extremes of temperature make
intensive demands on facades, which are also
exposed to considerable loads from moisture
hitting the splash water zone of the building’s
plinth, damp from surrounding soil and humid-
ity inside the building.
Water must not be allowed to penetrate struc-
tures in and around closed facade surfaces
(such as plastered masonry), punctuated
facades and partitioned exterior wall struc-
tures (like glass facades). Any water that does
penetrate must be extracted in a controlled
manner. The moisture content of materials
sensitive to damp, such as certain insulating
materials and timber, must also be kept low.
As well as choosing adequate materials, plan-
ners must make every effort to prevent ther-
mal bridges in building facades because they
are usually also weak points in terms of mois-
ture and can pose an increased risk of con-
densate forming on interior surfaces and inside
the facade.
The permeability to vapour of individual com-
ponents and the application of sealing meas-
ures in and around joints and fastening elem­
ents will determine the risk of condensate
forming inside exterior walls.
Effective prevention of condensation is a fun-
damental precondition for ensuring both a
facade’s durability and a healthy interior cli-
mate. We now know that mould can form even
in the absence of visible condensate, resulting
in critical surface temperatures being redefined
in DIN 4108-8. The basic rule of construction in
Central Europe is that the inside of a building
should be more vapour-proof than the outside.
This basic rule is reversed for warm, damp
­climates, where the outside should be more
vapour-proof than the inside.
Condensate can form in multilayer glass
facades when moist air inside cavities of the
facade meets cold surfaces. The risk of this
occurring can be reduced by improving the
quality of insulation between exterior layers
and ventilating the cavities [5].
The demands on a facade’s moisture protec-
tion depend largely on the building’s usage
and technical equipment. Air in indoor swim-
ming pools (and in winter in air-conditioned
buildings generally), for example, is more
humid, increasing the risk of condensate
­forming.
One phenomenon often overlooked in planning
is the formation of condensate or hoar frost on
a facade’s exterior surface. This risk increases
with the quality of insulation and is especially
great with highly insulating panels and triple
glazing, whose exterior surfaces barely warm
up at all due to these units’ low heat transfer.

54

The result is that the steamed-up glass surface
hardly dries under cold weather conditions.
This phenomenon will become increasingly
common in future.
Sun protection
After thermal insulation, protection from over-
heating is one of a facade’s most important
functions. This is crucial not only in tropical
and subtropical climate zones but also
in ­temperate climates like Central Europe’s
because of changing climatic conditions and
users’ increasing comfort requirements. Plan-
ners need to find a balanced relationship
between the glazing percentage or type of
glazing and the sun-shading system to provide
a consistent overall solution.
The intensity of solar radiation on “permeable”
(or transparent) facade surfaces is more or
less transient due to changing solar radiation
levels and geometric variables in and around
building openings. Relevant for an adequate
and consistent supply of daylight is the build-
ing’s specific geometry, with its projections
and recesses, and the dimensions, distribu-
tion, orientation and angles of transparent or
translucent facade components. The illumin­
ation of interiors by daylight, thermal loads from
solar radiation, and visual contact with the
­outside are influenced by the size, orientation
and position of openings in the facade, by
radiation’s physical characteristics and by the
photometric properties of glazing. This also
applies to added components such as sun-
shading devices and anti-glare screens and to
deflected daylight (Fig. A 3.3).
Sun protection systems
The primary function of sun protection systems
is to prevent overheating and ensure a com-
fortable interior climate. They also greatly influ-
ence the resulting energy consumption used
in cooling, which accounts for a large propor-
tion of power consumption in tropical and sub-
tropical climate zones. Solutions are required
that ensure an adequate supply of daylight in
the interior without overheating it. This can be
achieved by blocking out direct sunshine as
far as possible, while diffuse daylight can be
transmitted into an interior as necessary to illu-
minate it.
Sun shading systems can be classified into
fixed or moving systems. Fixed components
are structural components that can project from
an exterior wall, be freestanding or consist of
fixed louvres (see Fig. A 2.2.8, p. 42). Moving
systems, such as roller blinds and folding shut-
ters, are dealt with in detail in the chapter on
“Manipulators” (p. 266ff.).
One advantage of fixed systems is that they
require little maintenance. The sun’s position
constantly changes over the course of the day
and the year in a defined way, so fixed systems
occasionally let some direct sunlight through.
Some solar radiation may, however, be blocked
out, which can reduce light in the interior.
Aspects of building physics and planning advice
Moving systems, in contrast, are almost ideal.
They can immediately react to the weather,
and with the use of appropriate components,
incoming daylight can be reflected onto a
room’s ceiling, where the reflected light can
provide even illumination into the depths of the
space. The sun protection and light refraction
effect of adjustable louvre systems can be
optimised if:
•  The pitch angle of louvres covering upper
windows and areas of window users look
through is adjustable
•  The topsides and underside of louvres have
different degrees of reflectivity
•  Louvre surfaces have a geometric structure
Common perforated louvre systems (e.g.
blinds or shutters) generally transmit slightly
more radiation and increase cooling loads
­marginally compared with non-perforated
­systems with similar structures and surfaces.
Systems that do not completely block out
direct sun may require appropriate anti-glare
screens. What is essential for a facade’s sun
protection effect is not just the type of sun
­protection used, but also its position. It is
important to ensure that sun protection is
attached outside the glazing. In windy locations
in particular, stable construction of moveable
sun protection systems is crucial in ensuring
their protective function when there is both
sunshine and wind.
Glare protection
External interference should not be allowed
to impair visual function and comfort. The dis­
tribution of luminance in a user’s field of vision
and resulting contrasts are decisive in en­­
abling them to recognise objects and for the
occurrence of glare and absolute levels of
luminance. A distinction is made between
physiological glare, which directly impairs
vision, and psychological glare, which can
cause premature fatigue and adversely affect
performance and well-being.
Direct glare is directly caused by a light
source, while reflected glare is the result of
reflections from light surfaces onto shiny sur-
faces. The crucial variables for direct glare
are the observer’s visual angle relative to their
environment and the luminance perceptible
in the viewing direction. The brighter the envir­
onment is, in a tolerable range, the lower the
risk of glare is.
The low luminance of computer monitors
(10 –100 cd/m2) means that rooms with com-
puter workstations are subject to increased
requirements for glare-free interior illumination.
For this reason, windows in such rooms must
be able to be completely screened against
direct sun-light and its associated heat radi­
ation and glare. Appropriate measures should
be taken to prevent glare from reflecting off
­surfaces the sun shines onto. These demands
are constant, even in the face of strong wind,
A 3.3
55

Wrapped Reichstag, Berlin (DE) 1995,
Christo & Jeanne-Claude
Part B  Structures built with specific materials
Anyone involved in planning and building
facades in compliance with generally accepted
rules will at some point need to make deci-
sions on materials. This entails making targeted
use of the properties of existing construction
materials and of those that may need to be
developed as well as taking them into account
in planning and construction.
Architects face a series of guidelines, consider-
ations, recommendations and ideas with a local
or regional or sometimes even a global back-
ground that are of a functional, economic, eco-
logical and/or cultural nature and arise out of
planning and approvals law constraints, rules,
standards and regulations. A facade is one
subsystem in the wider system of the “build-
ing”, a large and complex technical object
whose use of materials determines phases
in its production in a workshop or factory, its
composition of elements into structural compo-
nents, and its transport, assembly and installa-
tion in both intermediate and final states. This
means that a building's subsequent mainten­
ance and upkeep, operation and options for
exchanging parts must all be well thought out
in terms of the spaces, organisation and effects
on structural details involved.
A knowledge of the structural, physical and
technical features of the building materials
involved and of the construction, technology
and manufacture of structural elements and
components, taking the structure’s special char-
acteristics and technical context into account,
are among the essential skills required of
architects responsible for designing buildings.
The following examples are designed to pro-
vide them with guidance and orientation in
their work.
63
Concrete
B 3.2
formwork and powerfully highlight the material
of the facade and interior.
One building in which concrete was expertly
used in the facade’s modelling is the Goethe­
anum in Dornach (1928) by Rudolf Steiner,
although building such plastic, organic designs
involves a great deal of work and sophisticated
artisanal formwork techniques.
In the 1950s concrete became a mass-market
building material, used in all kinds of con­
struction tasks. One main driving force was
Le Corbusier, who sought to highlight con-
B 3.3 crete’s immediate, “raw” materiality – “Béton
brut”. He used it skilfully as a design medium
in relief and /or plastic facade surfaces, such
as the Sainte-Marie-de-la-Tourette priory (1960)
in Éveux near Lyon (Fig. B 3.2).
While Swiss firm Atelier 5 used raw exposed
concrete for (small) residential buildings in
building the Halen housing estate near Bern
(1961), Louis Kahn chose very smooth sur-
faces for the Jonas Salk Institute in La Jolla
(1965). Kahn was also the first to structure
concrete facades along orthogonal lines by
using shadow joints and carefully positioning
formwork ties, making the facades’ production
B 3.4 process legible.
In the 1960s and 1970s many architects
increasingly used the options concrete offered
for moulding exterior walls and buildings and
the various design possibilities of its surfaces.
Unique buildings from this period include the
Pilgrimage Cathedral in Neviges (1968) and
the Town Hall (Rathaus) in Bensberg (1969) by
Gottfried Böhm. These buildings – especially
the church – model a plastic, rugged structure
with powerful, opaque surfaces whose fine tex-
ture of formwork structures prevents them from
appearing monotonous (Fig. B 3.3).
Another very plastic use of concrete as a
­material is evident in an office building by Bar-
bosa & Guimarães Arquitectos in Porto (2009)
(Fig. B 3.5). Here polygonal facade surfaces
determine not only the building’s outside appear-
ance but also its interior spaces. While Carlo
Scarpa explored concrete’s mouldable qual­
ities in an almost (skilled) craftsmanly manner,
especially in the Brion family monument in San
Vito d’Altivole near Asolo (1975), Paul Rudolph
B 3.5
108
used industrial textured formwork for the Art and
Architecture Building at Yale University in New
Haven (1958 – 64) (Fig. B 3.1, p. 107). The fluted
profiling of its coloured surfaces, alternating
smooth grooves with rough, broken piers, cre-
ates a sophisticated play of light and shade.
Adding locally available materials to concrete
and/or structuring damp surfaces can open
up further design options, as Auer + Weber
demonstrate in their ESO Hotel at Cerro Paranal
(2001) (see p. 123) and Herzog & de Meuron
at the “Schaulager” art storage facility in Basel
(2003) (Fig. B 3.8).
More recently architects have often sought to
express the impression of a monolithic con-
struction method, down to the last detail. The
avoidance of any construction joints, dispens-
ing with visible formwork ties, and structural
components with extremely pared-down cross
sections and novel appearances has subjected
this high-performance material to enormous
technical challenges.
Prefabrication
Producing concrete on a building site has
structural and technical disadvantages, so
efforts have been made to break structures
down into similar, transportable elements that
can be serially produced in prefabrication
plants. These make it possible to work in any
weather and ensure higher quality and greater
precision in production and higher standards
in surface finishes.
The first field factory for precasting concrete
elements opened in France in the early 1890s.
In 1896 French stonemason François Henne-
bique made the first building prefabricated in
a series, using a transportable cubicle made
of 5 cm thick, reinforced concrete slabs.
From 1920 assembly-based construction
methods using steel-reinforced concrete
became increasingly important. Architects
like Ernst May, who applied a system of wall
blocks of various sizes that he developed in
a series of housing estates in Frankfurt am
Main (Praunheim, 1927), and Walter Gropius,
who used a small-format construction method
and hollow slag concrete blocks for the
Dessau-Törten estate (1927), worked on con-
 Concrete

cepts involving extensive prefabrication.
Although these systematic approaches did
not become established in construction tech-
nology or economy, these experiments were
an important (first) step on the path to indus­
trialising building [2].
In the 1950s and 1960s large panel construc-
tion – building with large format, load-bearing
walls – became widespread. While prefabri-
cated system construction resulted in the
building of very schematic facades on a mas-
sive scale, postmodern architecture almost
reversed this approach, using prefabrication
and the plastic malleability of concrete elem­
ents to create arbitrary interplays of colours
and forms.
Architects like Angelo Mangiarotti (see p. 116),
Bernhard Hermkes (Architecture faculty build-
ing at the Technische Universität Berlin, 1968,
Fig. B 3.4), Gottfried Böhm and Eckhard Ger-
ber formulated architectural responses. Böhm’s
administration building for Züblin AG in Stutt-
gart (1984) shows a sophisticated treatment
of the forms and colours of precast elements.
Gerber used orthogonal planar steel-reinforced
facade elements in a structurally clear way to
clad the columns and spandrel panels of an
office building in Dortmund (1994). “Heavy-duty
prefabrication” is once again an option from a
technical and design point of view. Architects
such as Thomas von Ballmoos, Bruno Krucker
(Stöckenacker housing estate in Zurich, 2002)
and Léon Wohlhage Wernik (Sozialverband
headquarters in Berlin, 2003) have planned
buildings with storey-high, multilayered precast
elements that vary slightly in size and create a
harmonious result.
B 3.6
One form of unreinforced facade cladding is
small-format, concrete artificial stone panels.
Panels fixed with mortar are a robust, easily-
worked building material that has been used
in construction for more than 100 years, espe-
cially at the bases of buildings. One of the
­earliest examples of this in Germany was the
Town Hall (Rathaus) in Trossingen (1904),
where concrete panels clad the plinth and
splayed door jambs. The wide range of ways
that concrete can be worked and shaped
and the combinations of different aggregates
possible have been used to create orna­
mental structural elements such as (demi-)
­columns, balusters, gables, rosettes and the
like. Concrete panels are now widely used as
a suspended, rear-ventilated, small-format
cladding material, as in the red facade of the
German School in Beijing (2001) by Gerkan
Marg + Partner.
Concrete blocks
Concrete blocks offer the advantages of en­­
abling small-format, light construction with a
wide range of colours and surface treatments.
From 1914 Frank Lloyd Wright explored various
ways of using them. With his “Textile Block”
B 3.7
system, he was seeking an alternative to large-
format panel construction. Starting from a
square basic module, he worked with variously
shaped bricks and stones. Buildings like his
John Storer house in Hollywood (1923) feature
richly ornamented facade surfaces with alter-
nating patterns of smooth and structured
stones (Fig. B 3.6) [3].
Egon Eiermann focused on the motif of a trans-
lucent wall, using concrete grid blocks with
(coloured) glass infills in the St Matthew Church
in Pforzheim (1956), and the Kaiser-Wilhelm
Memorial Church in Berlin (1963).
Another application for exposed masonry
blocks is as opaque surface filling in a steel-
reinforced concrete structure, a technique fre-
quently found in Herman Hertzberger’s work.
In buildings such as the Centraal Beheer office
building in Apeldoorn (1972, Fig. B 3.7), the
Vredenburg music centre in Utrecht (1978)
and the Apollo Schools in Amsterdam (1983),
untreated exposed masonry, visible inside and
out, with its the slightly porous surfaces and
variously coloured textures, contrasts strikingly
with smooth exposed concrete and glass
(brick) surfaces [4].

B 3.2 Priory of Sainte-Marie-de-la-Tourette, Éveux (FR)

1960, Le Corbusier
B 3.3 Pilgrimage Cathedral, Neviges (DE) 1968, Gottfried
Böhm
B 3.4 Architecture faculty TU Berlin (DE) 1967, Bernhard
Hermkes
B 3.5 Vodafone Headquarters, Porto (PT) 2009, Barbosa
& Guimarães
B 3.6 John Storer House, Hollywood (US) 1924, Frank
Lloyd Wright
B 3.7 Office building, Centraal Beheer, Apeldoorn (NL)
1972, Herman Hertzberger
B 3.8  Schaulager, Basel (CH) 2003, Herzog & de Meuron
B 3.8

109
Plastics
Pneumatic structures
In 1948, Walter Bird designed the first air-filled
pneumatic structure to protect sensitive radar
equipment. Based on his design, pneumatic
structures were further developed for civilian
uses, such as roofs over swimming pools and
tennis courts.
Buckminster Fuller caused a furore in 1950 with
his proposal to build a dome over Manhattan
(Fig. B 7.6) [2]. In 1959, Frei Otto started work
with Kenzo Tange on plans to roof over resi-
dential complexes in the Arctic. These devel-
opments peaked in 1970 at the World Expo in
Osaka, which resembled an exhibition of the
possibilities for pneumatic structures available
at that time [3].
B 7.6
Tent structures
From around 1950, Frei Otto worked inten-
sively on further developing applications for
tensile-stressed structures, which until then
had been almost exclusively produced from
natural materials (Fig. B 7.7) [4], and laid the
foundations for the use of plastics in such
structures. Synthetic fabrics and films are now
among the leading materials used to build tent
structures due to their outstanding material
properties.
Plastics manufacture
Plastics consist of materials that do not exist in
B 7.7 nature in their final form. They are usually made
from petroleum-derived products and their
main characteristic is a macromolecular struc-
ture. Plastics are made in a controlled chemical
reaction in which hydrocarbon ­molecules are
split and recombined to form long macromole-
cules in the following processes [5]:
•  Polymerisation
•  Polycondensation
•  Polyaddition
Classification of plastics
Whatever process is used to make them, the
macromolecules of plastics can be structured
in long molecular chains, be ramified or form
a network.
The following types of plastics are differenti-
ated based on their degree of cross-linking
(Fig. B 7.9):
•  Thermoplastics
•  Elastomers
•  Duroplasts or thermosetting plastics
Material properties
General characteristics
The construction sector is now the second-
largest market for plastics manufacturers
after the packaging industry. It uses more
than 30 different types of plastics, with PVC
predominating, although polystyrene foam,
B 7.8
218
­ olyethylene and polypropylene are also
p
often used.
Plastics have become important in construction
because of their advantageous properties for
individual applications:
•  Sufficient compressive and tensile strength,
rigidity, hardness and wear resistance
•  High levels of transparency
•  Can be coloured in shades ranging from
crystal clear through to black
•  Adequate to outstanding resilience
•  High elasticity
•  Low density
•  Satisfactory temperature resistance
•  Good electrical insulation properties and low
thermal conductivity
•  Weather resistance
•  Low water absorption
•  Highly resistant to chemicals
•  Easy to process and work
•  Very good surface qualities
•  Surfaces can be painted
The material properties of plastics can be
extensively modified by changing the manu­
facturing process and formulation used to
make them so that construction materials with
the same designation can be designed in
­various ways to meet specific requirements.
With regard to their resistance to ageing, it
should be noted that many plastics products
are much younger than the life expectancy of
buildings. This aspect should be particularly
taken into account in planning building elem­
ents that are highly exposed to various risks,
such as facade elements and roof seals.
Reaction of plastics to fire
Fire safety properties become especially
important when plastics are used in and
around a building envelope. The main criteria
here are:
•  Flammability
•  Ignition temperature
•  Disintegration temperature
•  Smoke and gas formation
•  Toxicity of decomposition products
•  Corrosion caused by decomposition
­products
As well as producing highly toxic gases, the
smoke caused by fire can greatly impede visi-
bility, so the choice of a suitable plastic must
depend on its potential toxicity and smoke
release. Decomposition products from smoke
may also have a very corrosive effect on other
materials. Flammability can be reduced by
using a fire retardant.
Semi-finished products for exterior walls
A wide range of semi-finished plastic products
for use in exterior wall structures is available
on the market. Depending on the planned
load, they can be used to build rigid (resistant
to mechanical loads) or flexible (stable under
 Plastics

compression or when subjected to tensile

stresses) structures. Plastics in facades (synthetic plastics)
Plastics can have a variety of physical prop­
erties because a targeted combination of
­various materials or the modification of mate- Thermoplastics,
Elastomers,
Thermoset plastics,
rial properties can produce a great diversity open cross-linked
not cross-linked tightly cross-linked
structure
of characteristics. Further processing raw
materials in certain ways can produce a wide
range of different semi-finished products
Silicone rubber Formaldehyde
(Fig. B 7.11, p. 220). Polystyrene (PS)
(SIR) resin

Flat, corrugated and multi-wall panels Polyurethane Unsaturated

Polyethylene (PE)
Plastic panels are usually produced by extru- (PUR) ­polyester (UP)
sion, calendering (rolling) and pressing, tech-
niques that can produce flat, corrugated and Polypropylene (PP) EPDM Epoxy resin (EP)
multi-wall sheets.
Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and poly­
Polyvinyl chloride Polysulphide Cross-linked
carbonate (PC) are usually used to make flat, (PVC) rubber ­polyurethane (PUR)
transparent panels. Their high level of trans-
parency and resistance to weather and impact Polymethyl meth­ Chloropropene Vinyl ester resin
makes them well suited for use in facades. The acrylate (PMMA) ­rubber (VE resin)
common commercially available panel format
is 205 ≈ 305 cm. The light transmission level Fluoroplastics PMMA,
(ETFE, PTFE) crosslinked
through material 4 mm thick is about 90 %. This
material is classified in building material class
B 2 in terms of its behaviour in fire. Polyamide (PA)
Flat thermoplastic polyester (PET, PETG)
­panels withstand breaking well and are clas­ Polycarbonate
sified in building material class B 1. Plastics (PC)
reinforced with glass fibre (GFRP) can be
used to produce opaque, free-form panels. Saturated ­
polyesters
Their ­corrugated cross section and the result-
ing greater rigidity mean that corrugated B 7.9
PMMA panels can be made in sizes up to
104.5 ≈ 700 cm and polycarbonate panels
up to 126.5 ≈ 400 cm. Corrugated panels up
to 300 ≈ 2,000 cm in size can be produced
with the addition of GFRP.

PMMA, PC and GFRP can also be used to make

panels with a wide range of different cross
­sections (Fig. B 7.16, p. 221). Their webs and
additional diagonal structuring can make them
more rigid. PMMA and PC panels are available
in lengths up to 700 cm. Integrating cavities
into panels gives them a relatively low thermal
transmittance coefficient of about 2.5 W/m2K
for single-layer panels and up to 1.6 W/m2K
for double-wall panels. Using triple or multi-
wall panels or filling cavities with insulation can
further improve this figure. Applying protective
coatings or forming multilayer cav­ities makes it
possible to modify the panels’ sound insulation
and lighting properties to meet specific require-
ments. GFRP panels are especially suited to
this purpose. They are available in a wide range
of cross sections and lengths up to 1,500 cm.

B 7.6  Dome over Manhattan (US), 1960, Buckminster

Fuller
B 7.7   Tanzbrunnen, Cologne (DE) 1957, Frei Otto
B 7.8  Olivetti Training Centre, Haslemere (GB) 1973,
James Stirling
B 7.9  Classification of plastics according to degree of
crosslinking and resulting material properties [6]
B 7.10 Tent roof made from prestressed acrylic glass
panels, Olympic Stadium Munich (DE) 1972,
Günter Behnisch + Partner, Frei Otto and others
B 7.10

219
 Plastics

Bavarian Mountain Rescue Service

training centre

Gaißach near Bad Tölz, DE 2008

Architects:
Herzog + Partner, Munich
Structural engineers:
Sailer Stepan and Partners, Munich
Facade technology planning:
Hightex, Rimsting

º a+w 12/2008
Baumeister 07/2009
Kunststoffatlas p. 260 –261
Tec 21 05/2009
Umrisse 02/2009
UED 06/2016

• Minimal structural requirements make this 3

simple, transparent protection from the 1
weather sufficient 8
5
• Facade made of mechanically tensioned 6 3
ETFE film panels
• Panels pretensioned by curved vertical
c
­ ompression struts
• Self-cleaning effect of the ETFE film keeps
maintenance and cleaning costs low

7
Top view • Vertical cross section • Horizontal cross section b b
Frame panel
9
Scale 1:20
Cross section detail
Scale 1:2.5

1 Steel profile, 240 mm

2 M12 screw
3 Steel Z-bracket, 3 mm
bolted on to form part of the frame
4 Hollow EPDM weather strip, Ø 8 mm
5 ETFE film, 0.20 mm, 0.25 mm or 0.30 mm,
depending on structural requirement
6 Hollow steel compression strut, Ø 35 ≈ 8 mm
7 Hollow steel chord, Ø 8 mm
8 Flat steel section, 60/120/5 mm
9 Steel profile section, HEB 240 mm

a 6
5
2 2
4 4 1 1
3 3
3

5 5 9

8 8
6 6
7 7 a
A bb aa

232
 Plastics
3
2
1

Allianz Arena

Munich, DE 2005 4

Architects:
Herzog & de Meuron, Basel

º Archithese 04/2005
Arquitectura viva 91, 2003 5
Baumeister 06/2005
Hochparterre 08/2005

• 66,500 m2 two-ply pneumatic foil cushion

building shell made of fire-resistant ETFE
• The ETFE structure has a high level of
­daylight transmission and an extremely low
dead weight of less than 1.0 kg/m2
• Ventilators create a nominal internal pres-
sure of 450 Pa (facade) and 300 Pa (roof) 4
to stabilise the forms of the diamond-shaped
cushions, which can measure up to 4.60 ≈
17 metres. 5 7 8
10
• Internal pressure can be adjusted to with-
stand varying wind conditions and snow
loads.
• LED lights mounted behind the foil cushions
can evenly light up the membrane cushions in 9
all the colours in the spectrum. The standard 6
lighting is restricted to red, blue and white.
11
  1 LED lights – 24 for each cushion 2
  2 Sun protection roller blind
  3 Insulating glazing cladding a post-and-rail facade 3
  4 Prefabricated spun concrete supports, Ø variable
  5 Screw connection for spun concrete support 4
  6 Smoothed and painted fibre-cement panel,
2≈ 12.5 mm, mineral wool 100 mm, steel-reinforced
concrete edge beam
  7 Hollow steel section, 200/300 mm, with rails for
lift system
  8 Flat steel facade bracket, 2≈ 100/80 mm
  9 Compressed air for facade cushion, Ø 100 mm 13
10 PE compressed air pipe, Ø 50 mm
11 ETFE foil facade cushion, 0.2 mm
12 Ladder for lift system
13 Hollow steel section secondary structure, 1
120/220 mm
14 Galvanised steel sheeting rainwater gutter, 6 mm 12
15 Polyolefin profile gutter sealing around the joint,
with profiling to absorb movement
16 Flat steel binding piece, 2≈ 250/30 mm
17 Hollow steel section secondary structure, 120/220 mm 5

1
17 11

15

16 7
Vertical cross section
14 Scale 1:50
Detail cross section
Scale 1:20
aa bb

233

Tsinghua University Campus, Beijing (CN) 2006,
Mario Cucinella
Part C  Special topics
Interest in facades specifically designed to
take on specific functions is growing. This inter-
est is of an experimental nature, on the one
hand because building envelopes are being
assigned entirely new functional characteristics
for which different architectural solutions are
currently still being sought. Sufficient experi-
ence with such solutions, with their long-term
durability, for example, is still lacking. On the
other hand, this interest opens up completely
new design opportunities whose cogency in
terms of the “logic of form” has yet to be proven.
Technical correctness, construction methods
suitable for specific materials and manufactur-
ing technologies are all fundamentally import­
ant issues in this context.
237
Manipulators

Permeability
Wall surface
properties
(air, radiation)

Permeable (openings) Not permeable

Non-variable properties Variable properties

Element’s Manoeuvrable element

Immoveable element (rigid)
manoeuvrability (manipulators)

Temporarily manoeuvrable
Permanently manoeuvrable
(fixed)

Segmenting of element / 
One piece More than one piece
size when stowed

Size when stowed Size when stowed Size when stowed

­unchanged ­reduced greatly reduced

C 2.2
Just as general technological develop-
ment has altered the performance profile
of buildings, the functions of the window
and elements in front of openings in build-
ing envelopes have increasingly become
more sophisticated and complex. In recent
years, the diversity of movement mech­
anisms available for manipulators has grown
considerably.
In this context, window manufacturers also
seem to be offering more diverse movement
mechanisms as alternatives to the turn-and-tilt
C 2.3 windows common in Germany, which are also
problematic with respect to heating energy
consumption criteria.
Classification of manipulators
C 2.6
Manoeuvrability
Elements with variable properties can be
divided into:
•  stationary elements
•  moveable elements
Stationary elements include thermotropic
­coatings and gasochromic or electrochromic
glass. Elements that allow for movement can
be characterised by two adjectives [5]:
• temporarily/seasonally manoeuvrable, i.e.
can be moved – e.g. storm windows
• permanently manoeuvrable, i.e. made to
move
The word manipulator refers to facade compo-
nents with variable properties, with permeability
to air, light, heat and moisture which can be
varied by movement.

The wide range of well-known varieties of Segmenting of elements / size when stowed

manipulators is classified below and may
serve as inspiration for new functional, geo-
metric and technical combinations. Three
­factors can be considered when classifying
manipulators:
•  Permeability properties
C 2.4 •  Manoeuvrability of the element
• Segmenting and stowing of the element
(changes in volume and /or size)
Changes in the size of manipulators (their
size when stowed) are crucial to various
­construction, functional and design aspects
of moveable elements in facades. Possible
changes in the size of manipulators can be
defined as:
•  unchanged
•  reduced
•  greatly reduced

Permeability A manipulator usually consists of one or more

Surfaces permeable to air, light, heat and
moisture are distinguished from those that are
impermeable (or almost so). Permeability may
or may not be variable. The type and extent
of permeability largely determines a surface’s
function. If the functional performance profile
of a surface is designed to be able to assume
different states, the surface’s permeability
must be variable.
C 2.5
parts that can be further subdivided into vari-
ous parts. Together with the type of movement,
this results in different states and a range of
features of surfaces with modifiable properties.
Differences in the size of elements when they
are extended or retracted directly influence
operation and may determine functional prop-
erties as well as construction and design char-
acteristics.

268
 Manipulators

C 2.2  Classification of the word “manipulator”

C 2.3  Stone shutters, Torcello (IT) unchanged unchanged

horizontal
C 2.4 Facade opening with folding shutters and perme­
able arches for refracting light and regulating unchanged
­ventilation, Montagnana (IT)
C 2.5 Translucent panels, traditional house, Takayama

Sliding
(JP) unchanged unchanged unchanged
C 2.6 Combination of several manipulators at Palazzo

vertical
Pitti, Florence (IT)
C 2.7 Classification of common manipulators
Figures above the drawings refer to changes in
the size of moveable elements when expanded
or retracted. unchanged

of the facade
perpendicular
to the plane
Push-out
unchanged unchanged unchanged unchanged unchanged

vertical axis
around a
unchanged

unchanged unchanged unchanged unchanged reduced

horizontal axis
around a
Turning

unchanged unchanged reduced

of the element
around an axis
perpendicular
to the plane

Further distinguishing features

Further aspects of manoeuvrable elements
can be differentiated by taking a fourth factor
into account, e. g.: reduced reduced reduced reduced
horizontal

• Position relative to the climatic border:

­outside (at a distance from the opening),
­outside, integrated into the plane of the
Folding (turning – sliding)

­window, inside
reduced reduced reduced
• Position relative to the opening: above, in
vertical

the middle of, below, at the side of, on one

or several sides

The way components are arranged can directly greatly reduced

influence functional factors. Installing a blind
circular

to prevent glare in an opening’s upper area

can reduce the amount of light reaching deep
into an interior. Installing interior solar protec-
tion may result in an unwelcome input of heat greatly reduced greatly reduced greatly reduced
energy.
horizontal

Types and directions of movement

The fundamental types of movement for elem­
ents in the facade are classified in a list in greatly reduced greatly reduced
Gathering

the chapter on “Edges, openings” (p. 38)

vertical

based on the movement mechanisms used

for windows.

The types of movement of manipulators used greatly reduced

circular

often combine various movement principles.

Figure C 2.7 shows an overview of the wide
range of movement options and directions for
manipulators [6]. The overview covers types of
greatly reduced greatly reduced
movement used in practice but does not claim
horizontal

to be exhaustive.
greatly reduced

If a system consists of a combination of vari-

Rolling

ous manoeuvrable elements, the movement greatly reduced greatly reduced greatly reduced
mechanisms used become fundamentally
vertical

important. Elements can only move independ­

ently if they do not have a mutually adverse
effect on each other [7]. Various aspects can
C 2.7

269
Solar energy
ture, i.e. the electrical separation and circuitry
of layers.
Solar cells can be specifically used as design
elements if, for example, their widths are
­varied or more horizontal dividing lines are
added. While reflective layers can expand
the range of crystalline cell colours available,
dark shades predominate in semiconductor-
based thin-film technology. Dye solar cells are
available in various shades of yellow, green
and red.
Photovoltaic modules
Around 30 to 60 crystalline cells usually
form larger, prefabricated units 0.5 to 1 m2
in size. These PV modules are multilayered,
i.e. cells are either inserted between panes
of glass, embedded in synthetic resin or
encapsulated between ethylene vinyl acetate
(EVA) / polyvinyl butyral (PVB) films, set in
casting resin or laid between glass and a
­plastic laminate. Depending on requirements,
their rear sides can be opaque, translucent
(matt glass / light-diffusing films) or transpar-
ent (clear glass / transparent films). Thin-film
cells can also be applied on soft materials
such as membranes. “Sawn”, semi-transpar-
ent monocrystalline cells are now available
on the market. Thin-film cells can also be
printed in a wide variety of ways. Manufactur-
ers offer modules in various standard sizes,
although custom-made systems are usually
used in facades.
302
C 3.25
Integrating solar energy systems
In integrating solar collectors and photovol-
taic modules, planners must first consider
whether they are intended for a cold or a warm
facade. Existing approaches have positioned
solar energy systems before surfaces that
channel water or used them instead of con­
ventional opaque cladding materials or insu­
lating glazing. Additional savings can be made
by replacing a structural component with a
solar energy system. Whether added onto
or integrated flush into the plane of a facade,
what is essential for a harmonious design
­solution are the modules’ dimensions, the pro-
portions of the whole element and its internal
form, especially its positioning in the plane.
Photo­voltaic modules are also used in (bal-
cony) ­parapets and as fixed or moveable solar
protection systems.
Uniaxial and biaxial tracking systems are one
alternative to fixed units. Depending on their
orientation and installation situation, their axis
of rotation can be horizontal or vertical. Biaxial
tracking photovoltaic modules can theoretically
use about twice as much solar radiation per
year as optimally-oriented fixed systems. The
energy yields of biaxial tracking systems are
only slightly higher than those of uniaxial sys-
tems because of the energy the system uses,
so biaxial systems’ more complex mechanism
and additional demands due to integration
must be considered when planning them. The
C 3.26
cost-benefit ratios of tracking systems must be
carefully reviewed because less than 50 % of
the radiation available on an annual average is
direct radiation.
The construction sector is of great relevance
for the success of Germany’s transition to
renewable energy use. Fewer new buildings
are being built so the focus is on existing
buildings. Although the potential uses of
facades are often limited for various reasons
and the energy yields may be less than those
from optimally oriented south-facing roofs,
­collectors and PV modules can be integrated
into almost every facade, although they are
particularly effective used as rear-ventilated
cladding material or as fixed components in a
glass facade system.
Considering the construction aspects of inte-
grating solar power systems, it becomes clear
that manufacturers are constantly refining and
improving installation conditions – especially
fastenings and seals at the sides. New types
of frame sections make assembly easier and
shorten construction times as well as reducing
section heights and visible widths.
There are now many ways to flexibly inte-
grate solar energy systems into building
­envelopes and increasing numbers of com-
plete solutions that better combine solar-­
thermal and photovoltaic systems within a
type of construction technique with each
other and with other elements in the envelope.
A wide range of tried and tested systems for
common types of facades is available on the
market [12].
Collectors and PV modules must be inte-
grated into the building’s technical services
and, depending on the type of use, cable
­routing and additional technical apparatus
may also be required. The relatively slender
structures and flexible, thin electricity cables
of photovoltaic systems make them espe-
cially suitable for integration into facades.
Water collectors, in contrast, have pipes with
a much larger diameter that must not leak
and the system must usually be filled with anti-
freeze agent.

C 3.27
In terms of formal aesthetic criteria, there is a
wide range of design options for integrating
solar power systems into building envelopes.
The range of colours of absorber surfaces
and formal diversity of profiles influence the
look of systems, as do elements connecting
sides and facade surfaces. Architects will
often hear that the wide range of colours avail-
able is a special bonus of photovoltaic systems
(Fig. C 3.27). Adding colours and forms to a
building envelope is an especially sensitive
design task that impacts a building’s appear-
ance and requires careful and thorough con-
sideration. In the context of colour, there is
­currently often a demand for very consistent
surface designs that use crystalline PV mod-
ules. Colouring conductors (bus bars) and
rear-side contacts can make cells fit in and
look like homogeneous surfaces so that films or
glass coatings of the same colour connected
with modules are almost no longer identifiable
as such (Figs. C 3.25 and C 3.26).
Architecturally integrating solar power systems
into a building envelope is a momentous under-
taking. It involves incorporating systems into
roofs and walls in a structurally and functionally
cogent manner and in an aesthetically consist-
ent form that takes the building’s specific char-
acteristics into account and combines them
to form a single architectural entity comprising
the building’s features and (compositional)
lines of solar energy systems. The quality of
this integration is influenced by the construc-
tion, material, colour, surface, size, proportion
and arrangement of components and the struc-
tural system as a whole must always be borne
in mind [13].
C 3.25 Aktiv-Stadthaus apartment building in Frankfurt
(DE) 2015, HHS Planer und Architekten
C 3.26 Children’s daycare centre, Marburg / Lahn (DE)
2014, opus Architekten
C 3.27 Paul-Horn-Arena, Tübingen (DE) 2004, Allman
Sattler Wappner
Solar energy
Notes:
  [1] PV modules and tube collectors were used for
the first time in 1982 in a Munich housing estate
­designed by Thomas Herzog and Bernhard
­Schilling, working with the Fraunhofer Institute for
Solar Energy Systems in Freiburg.
  [2] Krippner, Roland: Die Gebäudehülle als Wärmeer-
zeuger und Stromgenerator. In: Schittich, Christian
(ed.): Gebäudehüllen. Konzepte, Schichten, Mate­
rial. 2nd ed., Munich 2006, p. 48
  [3] Henning, Hans-Martin; Palzer, Andreas: 100 %
­Erneuerbare Energien für Strom und Wärme in
Deutschland. Im Rahmen von Eigenforschung
­erstellte Studie. Freiburg 2012, p. 4f.
  [4] Koblin, Wolfram et al.: Handbuch Passive Nutzung
der Sonnenenergie. Schriftenreihe des BMI für Rau-
mordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau 04, Bau- und
Wohnforschung. Bonn 1984, p. 93 – 99
  [5] Herzog, Thomas et al.: Gebäudehüllen aus Glas und
Holz. Maßnahmen zur energiebewussten Erweite­
rung von Wohnhäusern. Lausanne 1986, p. 8, 15
  [6] As for Note 4, p. 118, 135ff.
  [7] Goetzberger, Adolf; Wittwer, Volker: Sonnenenergie.
Thermische Nutzung. Stuttgart 1993, p. 146f.
  [8] Nachtigall, Werner; Pohl, Göran: Bau-Bionik. Natur –
Analogien – Technik. 2nd edition, Berlin / Heidelberg
2013, p. 41– 46
  [9] Also sometimes referred to as “transparent” thermal
insulation. The adjective “transparent” is confusing
here because these materials are permeable to
­radiation but not necessarily transparent. A clear
distinction must be made for construction purposes
between “diaphanous / translucent” and “clear / 
transparent”, so it is referred to as “translucent”
thermal insulation.
[10] Herzog, Thomas: Transluzente Bauteile. Anmer­
kungen zu ihrer Wirkung. In: Almanach 90/92.
FB Architektur der TH Darmstadt. Darmstadt 1992,
p. 94ff.
[11] Krippner, Roland: Architektonische Aspekte solarer
Energietechnik. In: 9th Symposium on Thermal Solar
Energy. Conference transcript. Regensburg 1999,
p. 237
[12] Krippner, Roland (ed.): Gebäudeintegrierte
­Solartechnik. Detail green books. Munich 2016
[13] Krippner, Roland: Solartechnik in Gebäudehüllen.
In: Detail Green, 01/2012, p. 53 – 57
303
Solar energy

Oskar von Miller Forum

Munich, DE 2009

Architects:
Herzog + Partner, Munich
Facade designed in cooperation with
FKN Fassaden, Neuenstein

º Baumeister 06/2010
UED 06/2016
World architecture 245, 2010
Herzog, Thomas (ed.): Oskar von Miller
Forum. Munich 2010
aa

• International meeting centre for the support
of trainee construction engineers with a
­multifunctional hall, library and bistro on the
ground floor, offices and apartments on the
upper storeys
• 400 m2 of vacuum tube collectors provide
­stationary shade for the top floor and supply
20 % of the heating energy required in the
building and 16 % of cooling energy require-
ments
• Slender photovoltaic louvres in front of glazed
entry area on the south-east facade provide
additional solar protection
• Silver-grey glossy polycrystalline cells fixed
along longitudinal sides
Cross section  Scale  1:750
Vertical cross section  Scale  1:5
  1 Dual-glass photovoltaic module 12 mm
  2 Aluminium U-profile frame 40 ≈ 3 mm
  3 Frame attachment, flat aluminium section
60 ≈ 5 mm, cable routing in OL 90 cover
  4 Square hollow aluminium spacer 20 ≈ 2 mm
  5 System attachment to posts, triple-screwed
  6 Double insulating glazing 39 mm
  7 Cavity for cable routing 80 ≈ 18 mm
  8 Post attachments, fixed bearing
  9 Post attachments, loose bearing
10 Floor structure:
Natural stone in an adhesive mortar bed 30 mm
Screed 90 mm
Reinforced concrete ceiling 150 mm

3
2

10

bb

318
 Solar energy

SwissTech Convention Center

Lausanne, CH 2012

Architects:
Richter Dahl Rocha & Associés, Lausanne

º DBZ 04/2015 A
Fassade, Facade 03/2014
Haustech 06/2014
Tec 21 49 – 50, 2013

3 1

4 2

• Main building for an extension to the École 5

polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) 3 1
campus
• A convention centre designed to accommo- 4 2
date 3,000 people, central foyer with a glass
5
facade covers the full height of the building
• Angled, full-storey, dual-glass modules in a a
­narrow strips cover 300 m2 of the west facade;
angles range from 7.5° to 45° in increments
of 7.5°
• Dye-sensitised solar cell modules in various a a
shades of yellow, green and red
• First use of Grätzel cells on this scale

2 3 4 5
aa

Cross section  Scale  1:1,000

Vertical cross section, west facade  Scale  1:20
Horizontal cross section through a facade detail 
Scale 1:5

1 Steel facade support

2 Double glazing 14 mm + space between
the panes 17 mm + 8 mm, fixed along sides
in glazing bars
3 Anodised aluminium cover
4 Hollow square steel section 50/50/5 mm
5 Dual glass solar panels in anodised aluminium
frames
Four modules (2,100 ≈ 410 mm) in each panel
at 350 ≈ 500 mm, each with a 13 ≈ 2 cm-wide
strip of Grätzel cells
A

319
 Refurbishing existing facades
Annual primary energy requirements for heating [kWh/(m2·a)]

450
400
Minimum regulatory requirements
350
(WSchV / EnEv) depending on building geometry
300

250

200
Solar-powered Building
150 practice
buildings
100
Low-energy buildings
50
Passive / “3-litre” buildings
0
Zero heating energy buildings
-50 Plus-energy buildings
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 C 5.2

construction can usually improve insulation Influencing factors and measures or opaque facing shells of rear-ventilated
and can even allow a building to meet the cur- facade structures) [5].
rent demands made on new buildings. In this Measures to improve a facade’s energy bal-
context, studies have shown that EU Directive ance can be carried out in a wide range of Taking these aspects into account, a distinction
2012/27/EU, which aims to establish an almost ­different ways. Factors that may influence the can be made between the following possibilities:
entirely CO2-neutral building stock, can be choice of renovation concept include: • Interior insulation attached at a distance to
implemented with an assumed annual renova- • Building’s actual condition in terms of meas- a preexisting facade or exterior wall (house-
tion rate of 2 % [2]. ured energy consumption in-a-house concept, Fig. C 5.3)
• Actual state of a structure’s existing sub- • Interior insulation attached without any gap
Here the focus is on facades because, com- stance and energy consumption and the to a preexisting facade or exterior wall
pared with other areas of the building envelope structural and functional quality of the facade (Figs. C 5.4, C 5.11, p. 335)
such as the roof, cellar ceiling and foundation and exterior walls • Partial replacement, supplementation or
plate, they represent by far the largest area in • Actual condition of current building technol- complete replacement of preexisting facade
contact with the outside air or ground (with the ogies or window (Figs. C 5.12, C 5.13 and C 5.14,
exception of large halls). This is especially the • Architectural quality of existing structural p. 335)
case with multistorey buildings, which have a substance • Exterior insulation attached without any
much higher proportion of facade area com- • Legally-binding historic building and area gap to a preexisting facade or exterior wall
pared with roof area than one or two-storey conservation regulations and possibly copy- (Figs. C 5.15, C 5.16, p. 335)
buildings. right laws • Exterior facing shell attached at a distance
• Any planned changes in usage that may to a preexisting facade or exterior wall
Measurements of average multistorey 1950s impact future comfort requirements (Fig. C 5.17, p. 335)
apartment buildings have shown that the • Future energy supply options for the building
rate of transmission heat loss through their to be refurbished Various options for refurbishing and improv-
opaque exterior walls is about 16 % and 12 % • Relation between investment costs and any ing energy use are presented and explained
through windows. To this are added ventila- future reductions in operating costs below. It should be noted that in practice these
tion heat losses of around 20 %, so with a possibilities are often combined to achieve
total of 48 % they lose almost half of all their The analysis and prioritisation of these factors an optimum result, depending on the specific
heat through exterior walls or facades. The greatly influences the development of any over- conditions and requirements.
remaining heat is lost due to transmission all concept for refurbishing a facade in order to
heat losses through the roof (17 %) and cellar improve its energy use. A refurbishing strategy
ceiling (7 %) and power lost by heating sys- for a historic building listed as protected will Interior insulation
tems (28 %). By comparison, a typical 1960s usually be very different from the refurbishing
apartment building loses far more heat through of an average building that is not subject to Refurbishing of the inside of a facade or exter-
its facade – around 63 %. Here heat losses are such protection to modify its energy consump- nal walls to improve their energy use is usually
generally broken down as follows: windows tion. When a building is converted (e.g. from carried out if insulation cannot be added to the
19 %, walls 22 %, ventilation 22 %, roof 4%, commercial to residential use), the changed outside of existing exterior walls because they
­cellar ceiling 4 % and unused heating energy comfort requirements will mean that refurbish- are part of an especially elaborate plaster, half-
29 % [3]. ing its facade will involve measures different timbered or clinker facade, or for design and /
from those that would be required if its use or historic building conservation reasons [6].
These heat loss rates make it clear that refur- were to remain the same. The advantages of this refurbishing method are
bishing measures to improve energy use must that it maintains the building’s external appear-
include facades. For a holistic solution that What all these measures have in common ance and does not require official approval. It
makes use of all energy-saving potential, the is the aim of improving the facade’s thermal is also usually less expensive to add insulating
insulation of roofs and cellars and optimisation performance. This can be done by partly or layers (e.g. mineral foam or calcium silicate
of heating systems must be equally considered completely replacing or supplementing indi­ boards) to an interior than to install thermal
and coordinated in measures. Depending vidual structural elements, windows, glass insulation composite systems or rear-ventilated
on the building’s age, various measures may facades, glazing and/or frames. The thermal systems on the outside.
focus on different areas, although the facade performance of facades and exterior walls
always plays a central role ensuring adequate can also be optimised by adding extra layers A loss of floor space is however one disadvan-
thermal insulation [4]. (e.g. of insulation) or shells (e.g. glass skins tage of this approach for a structure’s physical

330
 Refurbishing existing facades

properties. Interior thermal insulation also
means that an exterior wall’s thermal mass
can no longer compensate for the interior cli-
mate. Interior thermal insulation also means
that during cold times of year the exterior wall
is no longer warmed, so it cools markedly and
temperatures may fall below freezing much
more often. Thermal bridge effects, especially
around connecting walls and ceilings, also
have a major effect on temperatures. Steel
Å-beams and timber beams penetrate the insu-
lating layer at support points and project into
the cold exterior wall. Balconies are directly
connected to the outside, so are at risk from
condensation. Water, drainage and heating
pipes laid in the exterior wall are also at greater
risk of freezing due to more extreme cooling.
To prevent damp from damaging an exterior
wall insulated on the inside, a vapour barrier
should be mounted on the inside to prevent
condensation from accumulating, although a
vapour barrier may be dispensed with if vapour-
proof insulating material is used. Another alter-
native is the use of calcium silicate boards
because they are porous and can absorb
moisture and release it in into dry interior air.
Their high pH levels also prevent the growth
of mould. Structural surveys to resolve such
issues must always be carried out before such
measures are initiated to prevent any subse-
quent damage [7].
Replacing windows and facades
The relatively high heat transmission coeffi-
cients of glazing installed in buildings decades
ago means that the thermal performance of
their windows and glass facades must be
carefully considered. Solar radiation can easily
pass through windows or glass facades into
a building and cause it to overheat in summer.
In hot climates in particular, solar radiation can
intensely heat up glass and frame surfaces.
This heat can be transferred to the interior by
means of heat transfer, radiation and convec-
tion, creating an uncomfortable indoor climate
and usually increasing the energy consumption
required for cooling.
Heat losses through windows and glass facades
can cool down interiors during cold times of
year. The interior surfaces of windows and glass
facades can cause cold downdraughts and
draughts near glazing, and radiative cooling
C 5.3
can make the interior climate uncomfortable. If
there are also leaks in and around a window
frame or glass facade, draughts and ventilation
heat losses can result in excessive energy con-
sumption, further undermining users’ wellbeing.
A range of overlapping factors (glazing and /or
frames with inadequate U-values, leaky and
defective window frames) means that windows
and facades are often completely replaced
with thermally separate window or facade sec-
tions and multilayer insulating glazing (possibly
with an inert gas filling) to greatly improve the
U-values of windows or facades.
While a single-glazed timber window frame
of the kind common until well into the 1950s
may have a UW-value of 5 W/m2K, a thermally
separate window frame combined with triple
insulating glazing can currently achieve a
­UW-value of 0.9 W/m2K [9].

As well as insulation systems directly attached

to the inside of an external wall, there are other
refurbishing concepts that attach an additional
insulating layer at some distance from the ex­­
terior wall. This additional zone of intermediate
temperature can serve as a thermal buffer or
weather-protected useable space [8].

C 5.2 Trends in energy-saving construction in Germany

since the passing of the 1st Thermal Insulation
Regulation in 1977
C 5.3 Two-ply film membrane interior insulation forms
a ventilated zone of intermediate temperature,
­Siemens factory hall, Munich (DE) 1997, Thomas
Herzog with José-Luis Moro
C 5.4 Interior insulation, “Birg mich, Cilli!”, Viechtach (DE)
2008, Peter Haimerl Architektur
C 5.4

331
Green facades
the environmental movement beginning in the
1970s came a renewed focus on the import­
ance of plants in buildings and life. The green
roofs of suburban “eco-housing” estates in par-
ticular became spaces for planting designs.
Facades have increasingly been used for this
purpose since around 1980.
The structural significance of plantings
A functional use of vegetation can have nat­
ural, organic effects that positively influence
the microclimate around a facade. Plants can,
for example, be used as natural sunshades
in front of transparent openings. Depending
C 6.2 on their type and position, growth habit and
degree of leaf coverage, shade plantings can
help regulate the temperatures of layers of
air near facades. The botanical features of
the type of plants used play a vital role in the
effects that can be achieved [6].
Plantings on opaque walls can reduce their
surface temperatures and positively affect
the microclimate. Some types, such as ever-
green climbing plants (e.g. ivy or honeysuckle)
can form cushions of air with their dense foli-
age across large areas, reducing the cooling
of wall surfaces in winter and so functioning
as extra insulation. In contrast to conventional
insulation materials, the effects that can be
achieved vary with different plants and nat­
ural seasonal changes and depend on the
C 6.3 plants’ development and, in the case of wall-
mounted systems, on soil moisture. Studies
have shown that even well-insulated walls can
benefit from the additional insulating effects
of plants [7].
Decreasing facade surface temperatures can
also reduce the need to use compact, decen-
tralised ventilation units (see the chapter on
“Integrated facades”, p. 322ff.) while ensuring
that growing demands for fresh-air quality are
met with greater energy efficiency.
Classifications
Green facades can be classified into soil-
based types using climbing plants and wall-
C 6.4 mounted types with special planting systems
(Fig. C 6.6).
Soil-based green facades
Plants used in soil-based green facades can
generally be classified based on their climbing
behaviour as self-clinging climbing and climb-
ing plants requiring support:
• Self-clinging climbing plants can cling direct-
ly to a wall surface and spread out in a fan
shape. Direct planting with ivy or Virginia
creeper is inexpensive and requires relative-
ly little maintenance but not every exterior
wall is suitable for this purpose. To avoid
damage to buildings, such plants should
only be planted against solid walls (masonry,
concrete) (Figs. C 6.2 and C 6.4).
C 6.5
338
• Climbing plants requiring support need a
trellis or similar and based on their climbing
behaviours can be classified into twining
climbers (e.g. wisteria, honeysuckle) and
creepers (e.g. grapevines, clematis). These
plants grow autonomously upwards along
trellises / espaliers (Fig. C 6.3) – particularly
mesh or grid structures, but linear structures
with rods, tubes or cables can also be used.
Their spread is largely limited by the trellis.
Climbing plants need regular pruning. It must
be ensured that the plants are accessible
and the cost and effort involved in maintain-
ing them should be taken into consideration
in planning appropriate systems.
The speed of growth and climbing behaviour
of plants as well as the building’s height must
be considered when designing soil-based
green facades. Such plantings can last for 5 to
20 years (self-clinging climbing plants) or 3 to
12 years (climbing plants). Around 150 types
and species of climbing plants are suitable for
green facades in Germany. Such plantings
use a technique that has been developed and
refined for centuries and can be applied with
relatively little additional effort to a wide range
of exterior wall surfaces [8].
Construction technology
Soil-based green facades need a certain
amount of space in front of the plinth of the
exterior wall where plants can be planted and
develop roots. Planting substrata must be
carefully positioned to ensure that water can
run off and roots can grow away from the
building.
The construction and anchoring of trellises is
of vital importance. Fasteners (hanger bolts,
bolt and wall anchors, spacers) anchor planar
or linear structures in the load-bearing layer
of the external wall. Possible thermal bridges
must be considered and mounting and fasten-
ing components can be complex and costly if
layers of insulation are very thick.
Added structural loads must be considered if
plants such as wisteria are used in multistorey
plantings, although facade plantings usually
take many years to grow into huge, heavy
masses of vegetation. Structures must be able
to easily bear such loads from the outset. Suffi-
cient distance from sunshading systems and
openings is important because plants can
quickly grow into cavities and /or moving parts
and block them (Fig. C 6.1, p. 336). Structures
added to the fronts of facades (Fig. C 6.10,
p. 341) such as balconies and access and
maintenance walkways are also suitable for
(subsequent) greening.
C 6.2  Castello Sforzesco, Milan, (IT) 1450ff.
C 6.3 Goethe's garden house, Weimar (DE) 16th /
18th century
C 6.4  Villa Bonnier, Stockholm (SE) 1927
C 6.5 Magistratsabteilung 48 office building, Vienna (AT)
2010
C 6.6 Construction and vegetation parameters of deci-
sions on green facades [9]
 Green facades

Soil-based greening Facade greening

Planar growth directly Climbing plants that can Plants in horizontal plantings, Plants in vertical plantings – “vertical gardens”
on the facade be ­trained (depending on plant containers on support
climbing strategy) structures modular systems        planar structures

Self-climbing plants: Root Climbing and twining plants, Perennials (e.g. grasses, ferns,
­ limbers, holdfast climbers
c shrubs on espaliers bulbs and tubers to some
­extent), small shrubs, climbing
and twining plants, spreading
climbing plants to some extent
Perennials (e.g. grasses, Perennials (e.g. grasses,
ferns), small shrubs, mosses; ferns), small shrubs, mosses;
root climbers to some extent, root climbers to some extent,
spreading climbing plants spreading climbing plants

• No trellis necessary • Trellises / espaliers required • Substrata in containers (individ- • Substrata in elements consisting • Textile systems
(rods, tubes, cables, grids, nets) ual and linear containers) of baskets /gabions, mats, tubs • Textile substrata systems
• Substrate-bearing trough • Sheet metal systems with
­system ­openings for plantings
• Directly planted artificial or nat­ (textile or substrate carrier)
ural stone panels with rough sur- • Direct greening on nutrient-­
faces conducive to plant growth bearing wall shells
Design criteria
 
Surface effect Surface effect Surface effect with
Surface effect with pre-culture: immediate
in 5 –20 years* in 3 –12 years* pre-culture: short-term

Scope for creative design: Scope for creative design:

Scope for creative design: large
low to medium medium
Structural and technical requirements
 
Rooting in substratum system / no connection with soil and soil moisture required,
Rooting in soil /connected to topsoil and soil moisture
no contact with subsoil

Water supply depends on location, as required Water and nutrient supply system required

Building authority approval may be relevant, certification of structural soundness necessary,

load-bearing structural elements must be protected from corrosion or made of a rustproof material

Facade must be protected from moisture and root penetration

Suitable for following walls
• Solid walls
(ensure joints are closed and
­exterior skin is intact
Check that surface is suitable
for the plant physiology*)
Economic criteria
Investment costs: low
• Solid walls
• Timber structures, completely
covered or filled in (limited*)
• Metal structures, completely
­covered or filled in (limited*)
• Facing shells (limited*)
• Curtain wall facade (limited*)
• Composite thermal insulation
systems
• Air collector facades
Investment costs:
low to high
• Solid walls
• Timber structures, completely
covered or filled in (limited*)
• Metal structures, completely
covered or filled in (limited*)
• Facing shells (limited*)
• Curtain wall facade (limited*)
• Composite thermal insulation
systems
• Air collector facades
Investment costs:
medium to high
• Solid walls
• Timber structures, completely
covered or filled in (limited*)
• Metal structures, completely
covered or filled in (limited*)
• Facing shells (limited*)
• Curtain wall facade (instead*)
• Composite thermal insulation
systems (limited*)
Investment costs: high
• Solid walls
• Timber structures, completely
covered or filled in (limited*)
• Metal structures, completely
­covered or filled in (limited*)
• Facing shells (limited*)
• Curtain wall facade (instead*)
• Composite thermal insulation
systems

Potential savings in
facade design depending Immediate potential savings in facade design
on plant growth

Maintenance requirements: medium, increasing* Maintenance requirements: medium to high / horticultural*

Care and maintenance

Care and maintenance
cost and effort: Care and maintenance cost and effort: high
Ecological potential cost and effort: low* ­ medium to high*

Shading – relevant over the course of the year deciduous plants

Possible species
Possible species variety (flora / fauna) at the site: low to high* variety (flora / fauna) Possible species variety (flora / fauna) at the site: great*
at the site: medium*

Microclimatic relevance: Microclimatic relevance:

Immediate microclimatic relevance with pre-culture*
medium to long-term* medium-term*
* Figures supplied by the FBB (green buildings industry association), Projektgruppe Fassadenbegrünung (facade greening project group), FLL (Research society for landscape
 

development and landscaping), Regelwerk-Ausschuss Fassadenbegrünung Grundlage (facade greening regulations committee – sources): diagrams and content 1), additions
by the author, ©Nicole Pfoser, 07/2011
1) 
FLL, 2000; Kaltenbach, 2008; Pfoser, 2009, 2010 a, 2010 b, 2011 a, 2011 b, 2011 c
C 6.6

339
Authors
Thomas Herzog
1941 Born in Munich
1960 –1965 Studied architecture at the Technical Uni­
versity of Munich and in parallel completed training in
metalworking and ceramics trades
1965 –1969 Employed in the architects’ firm of Prof. Peter
C. von Seidlein, Munich
1969 –1973 Research assistant to the Chair of Building
Construction and Design at the University of Stuttgart
1971–1972 Studied at Deutsche Akademie Villa Massimo
in Rome
1972 Doctorate from Rome’s La Sapienza University
since 1971 he has worked with partners at his own firm
in Stuttgart / Munich
1973 – 2006 university professor
  - at University of Kassel, for Design and Product Devel-
opment
  - at the Technical University of Darmstadt for Design
and Building Technologies
  - at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), Institute
for “Design and Building Technology”, full professor
for “Building Technology” and Dean of the Faculty of
Architecture
since 2007 “Emeritus of Excellence” at the Technical
­University of Munich
Visiting professor in Lausanne, Copenhagen, Philadel-
phia and Beijing
Member of Akademie der Künste (Academy of the Arts,
Berlin), Académie d’Architecture (Paris), the Bavarian
Academy of Fine Arts (Munich), the St Petersburg State
Academic Institute of Fine Arts, Sculpture and Architec-
ture, Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (Munich) and the Inter­
national Academy of Architecture (Sofia).
Awards (Selection):
1981 Mies-van-der-Rohe Prize
1993 Gold medal /Grand prize from the Bund Deutscher
Architekten (Association of German Architects)
1994 Balthasar-Neumann Prize
1996 Auguste-Perret Prize from the International Union of
Architects (UIA) for applied technology in architecture
1998 Den grønne Nål from the Association of Danish
Architects
1998 Leo-von-Klenze Medal
1998 “Grande médaille d’or d’architecture” from the
French Academy of Architecture
1999 Fritz-Schumacher Architecture Prize
2005 Heinz-Maier-Leibnitz Medal
2006 European Award for Architecture and Technology
2007 Honorary doctorate from Ferrara University in Italy
2009 Global Award for Sustainable Architecture
He has exhibited his work in numerous international
group and solo exhibitions and published books and
monographs in many languages.
www.thomasherzogarchitekten.de
342
Roland Krippner
1960 Born in Frankfurt / Main
1976 –1980 Trained as a mechanic
1982 –1987/1989 –1993 Studied architecture at the
­University of Kassel
1993 Awarded his degree (II) and an award from the
Deutscher Stahlbau-Verband (German Steel Construc-
tion Federation), 3rd prize 1996
1988 –1989 Civilian service year at Landesamt für Denk-
malpflege Hessen (Hessen State Office for Historic
Buildings Conservation) in Marburg
Since 1989 publishing work
1993 –1995 Worked at the Büro für Architektur und Stadt-
planung (BAS), Kassel
since 1995 Freelance architect (R&D projects), author,
lecturer
1995 – 2006 Research assistant / assistant to the Chair
for Building Technologies, Prof. Dr. (Rome University)
Thomas Herzog, Faculty of Architecture, TUM
2004 Doctorate (Dr.-Ing.) at TUM on “Untersuchungen zu
Einsatzmöglichkeiten von Holzleichtbeton im Bereich
von Gebäudefassaden” (Investigations into applications
for lightweight wood chip concrete in building facades)
(Deutscher Holzbaupreis 2005; shortlisted in the “In­­
novative building products” category)
2005 – 2006 Lectureship at Salzburg University of Applied
Sciences
2006 – 2007 Research assistant to the Chair for Industrial
Design, Prof. Dipl.-Des. Fritz Frenkler, TUM
2006 – 2007 Deputy professorship for Environmentally
Conscious Design and Construction at the University
of Kassel
2008 Lectureship at Munich University of Applied
­Sciences
Since 2008 Professor for Construction and Technology at
Technische Hochschule Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm
Werner Lang
1961 Born in Marktoberdorf
1982 –1988 Studied architecture at Technical University
of Munich (TUM)
1985 / 86 Further studies at the Architectural Association,
London
1988 Awarded his degree (recipient of the Hans Döllgast
Prize) from TUM
1988 –1990 Fulbright Scholarship to study at the Univer-
sity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
1990 Master of Architecture II (UCLA), Award for Best
Thesis from the UCLA School of Architecture and
Urban Planning
1990 –1994 Employed at Kurt Ackermann + Partner firm
of architects, Munich
Since 1994 publishing work
1994 – 2001 Research assistant to the Chair for Building
Technologies, Prof. Dr. (Univ. Rom) Thomas Herzog,
Faculty of Architecture, TUM
2000 Awarded his doctorate (Dr.-Ing.) by TUM and
recipient of the doctoral prize from Bund der Freunde
der TUM (the Friends of TUM)
2001– 2006 Employed at Werner Lang firm of architects,
Munich
2001– 2007 Lecturer on “Special facade construction
­topics” and “Building materials” at the Faculty of Archi-
tecture, TUM
2006 Co-founder of Lang Hugger Rampp GmbH
Architekten architects’ firm, Munich
2008 – 2010 Associate Professor for Sustainable Planning
and Construction at the University of Texas at Austin
School of Architecture (UTSoA)
2009 – 2010 Director of the Center for Sustainable Devel-
opment at UTSoA
Since 2010 University professor for Energy-efficient and
Sustainable Design and Building at TUM;
Head of the Centre for Sustainable Building at TUM;
spokesman for the Centre for Urban Ecology and
­Climate Adaptation (ZSK) at TUM
Director of the Oskar von Miller Forum, Munich
Awards:
2008 International Building Skin Tech Award, in collabor­
ation with T. Herzog and K. Stepan, ZAE Bavaria
2000 Bavarian Energy Prize from the Bavarian Ministry of
Economic Affairs and Media, Energy and Technology
2000 Holzkreativ Prize from Friends of the Earth, Germany
(Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz), honourable mention
in the timber construction category
www.langhuggerrampp.de
www.oskarvonmillerforum.de
Image credits
The authors and publisher would like to sincerely thank
everyone who contributed to this book’s production by
providing images, granting permission to reproduce their
work, and supplying other information. All the diagrams
in this book were created especially for it. The authors
and their staff created those graphics and tables for
which no other source is credited. Photos for which no
photographer is credited are architectural or work photos
or come from the archive of DETAIL magazine.
Despite intensive efforts, we have been unable to identify
the copyright holders of some images, but their entitle-
ment to claim copyright remains unaffected. In these
cases, we would ask you to contact us. Figures refer to
­illustration numbers.
Shell, wall, facade
  1 Stefan Cremers, Karlsruhe
  2 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
  3 Jan Cremers, Munich
  4 Christian Schittich, Munich
  5 Pepi Merisio, Bergamo, from Merisio, Pepi;
­Barzanti, Roberto: Italy. Zurich 1975, p. 216
  6 Achim Bednorz, Cologne
  7 Pepi Merisio, Bergamo, from Merisio, Pepi;
­Barzanti, Roberto: Italy. Zurich 1975, p. 218
  9 –11 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
13 Pictor International
14 Thomas, Herzog, Munich
15 Thomas Robbin, Herten
16 Jan-Oliver Kunze / LIN, Paris / Berlin
17 doublespace photography, Toronto
19 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
20 Ogawa, Shigeo / Shinkenchiku-sha, Tokyo
Part A
p. 16 From Lampugnani, Vittorio Magnago, Architektur
unseres Jahrhunderts in Zeichnungen. Utopie
und Realität. Stuttgart 1982
External and internal conditions
A 1.3 – 5 Federal Office for Building and Regional
­Planning (Bundesministerium für Raum­
ordnung, Bauwesen und Städtebau) (pub.):
Handbuch Passive Nutzung der Sonnenenergie.
Heft 04.097. 1984, p. 78 /52
A 1.6 DIN 4710
A 1.9 Kunzel und Gertis, 1969
A 1.10 Deutscher Wetterdienst, Klima- und Umwelt­
beratung. Hamburg
A 1.11 Federal Office for Building and Regional Plan-
ning Bundesministerium für Raumordnung,
­Bauwesen und Städtebau (pub.): Handbuch
Passive Nutzung der Sonnenenergie. Heft
04.097. 1984, p. 14
A 1.13 –15  Kind-Barkauskas, Friedbert et al.: Beton Atlas.
Munich /Düsseldorf 2001, p. 79
A 1.20 From Pültz, Gunter, Bauklimatischer Entwurf für
moderne Glasarchitektur. Passive Maßnahmen
der Energieeinsparung. Berlin 2002, p. 89
A 1.23 European Wind Atlas
Surfaces – structural principles
A 2.1.1 Peter Bonfig, Munich
A 2.1.7 Herzog, Thomas; Nikolic Vladimir: Petrocarbona
Außenwandsystem. Bexbach 1972
Edges, openings
A 2.2.1 Dieter Leistner /ARTUR IMAGES
A 2.2.3 Schittich, Christian (pub.): Solares Bauen.
­Munich / Basel 2003, p. 63
A 2.2.6 Zürcher, Christoph; Frank, Thomas: Bauphysik.
Bd. 2 Bau und Energie – Leitfaden für Planung
und Praxis. Zurich / Stuttgart 1998, p. 80
A 2.2.9 –10  Fassade /Façade 03/2002, p. 24f.
db 09/2003, p. 87f.
Modular coordination
A 2.3.1 Andrew Neuhart, El Segundo
A 2.3.2 Yoshida, Tetsuro: Das japanische Wohnhaus.
Berlin 1954, p. 69
A 2.3.3 Durand, Jean-Nicolas-Louis: Précis des
leçons II. Paris 1819
A 2.3.4 Kunstverein Solothurn (pub.): Fritz Haller.
Bauen und Forschen. Solothurn 1988, p. 3.1.4
A 2.3.7 Bussat, Pierre: Die Modulordung im Hochbau.
Stuttgart 1963, p. 31
A 2.3.9 DIN 18 000. 1984
A 2.3.13 Girsberger, Hans (pub.): ac panel. Asbest-
zement-Verbundplatten und Elemente
für Außenwände. Zurich 1967, p. 46 – 49
Aspects of building ­physics and planning
advice
A 3.1 Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
A 3.2 Cremers, Jan (pub.): Atlas Gebäudeöffnungen.
Munich 2015, p. 50
A 3.3 Detail 9/2002, p. 1,070
A 3.4 – 5 Pfeifer, Günter et al., Mauerwerk Atlas.
Munich / Basel 2001, p. 186, p. 190
A 3.6 Bollinger, Klaus et al.: Atlas Moderner Stahlbau.
Munich 2011, p. 119
A 3.7 Herzog, Thomas et al.: Holzbau Atlas.
Munich 2003, p. 71
A 3.8 – 9 Schüco International
A 3.10 –11  Hart, Franz et al.: Stahlbau Atlas. Brussels,
1982, p. 338f.
A 3.12 Schüco International
Part B
p. 62 Wimmershoff, Heiner; Aachen
Natural stone
B 1.1 Eloi Bonjoch, Barcelona
B 1.2 – 3 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 1.4 Christian Schittich, Munich
B 1.5 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 1.6 Luciano Chiappini, Ferrara und seine Kunst­
denkmäler. Bologna 1979, p. 39
B 1.7 Hugues, Theodor et al.: Naturwerkstein.
Munich 2002, p. 72
B 1.8 Pepi Merisio, Bergamo, from
Merisio, Pepi; Barzanti, Roberto: Italy.
Zurich 1975, p. 247
B 1.9 Eloi Bonjoch, Barcelona
B 1.10 Müller, Friedrich, Gesteinskunde. Ulm 1994,
p. 196 –197
B 1.11 Hugues, Theodor et al.: Naturwerkstein.
Munich 2002, p. 72
B 1.12 Thomas A. Heinz, Illinois
B 1.13 Zooey Braun/ ARTUR IMAGES
B 1.14 –16  Sandsteinmuseum Havixbeck
B 1.17 Stein, Alfred, Fassaden aus Natur- und
Betonwerkstein. Munich 2000, p. 58
B 1.18 – 22  Detail 06/1999, p. 1026
B 1.23 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 1.24 Müller, Friedrich: Gesteinskunde. Ulm 1994,
p. 171
B 1.25 – 26  Detail 06/1999, p. 1032
B 1.27– 30  Christian Gahl, Berlin
B 1.31– 37  From Hugues, Theodor et al.:
Naturwerkstein. Munich 2002, p. 51ff.
B 1.38 Gundelsheimeer Marmorwerk, Treuchtlingen
B 1.39 Müller, Friedrich: Gesteinskunde. Ulm 1994,
p. 196 –197
B 1.40 – 49  Hugues, Theodor et al.:
Naturwerkstein. Munich 2002, p. 74ff.
p. 74 Doris Fanconi, Zurich
p. 75 Gregor Peda, Passau
p. 76 Philippe Ruault, Nantes
p. 78 Thomas Lenzen, Munich
p. 79 Stefan Müller, Berlin
p. 80 Rupert Steiner, Vienna
p. 81 Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
p. 82, 83  Roland Halbe, Stuttgart
p. 84 André Mühling, Munich
p. 85 top:  Victor S. Brigola, Stuttgart
p. 85 bottom:  André Mühling, Munich
Clay
B 2.2 Ulrike Enders, Hanover
B 2.3 Pfeifer, Günter et al.: Mauerwerk Atlas.
Munich / Basel 2001, p. 57
B 2.5 Hirmer Fotoarchiv; Munich
B 2.6 Budeit, Hans Joachim; Kuenheim, Haug von,
Backstein, die schönsten Ziegelbauten
­zwischen Elbe und Oder. Munich 2001, p. 33
B 2.7 Manfred Klinkott, Karlsruhe
B 2.8 Chabat, Pierre (pub.): Victorian Brick and
­Terra-Cotta Architecture. New York 1989, p. 18
B 2.9 Halfen GmbH & Co. KG
B 2.10 Ulrike Enders, Hanover
B 2.11 Halfen GmbH & Co. KG
Pfeifer, Günter et al., Mauerwerk Atlas.
Munich / Basel 2001, p. 125
B 2.12 Kunstbibliothek Berlin
B 2.13 Fischer-Daber, from l’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui
205, 1979, p. 8
B 2.14 Alessandra Chemollo, from Acocella, Alfonso,
An architecture of place. Rome 1992, p. 96
B 2.15–17  Halfen GmbH & Co. KG
B 2.18 – 20  Jaume Avellaneda, Barcelona
B 2.21– 22  Alfonso Acocella, Florence
B 2.23 Roland Krippner, Munich
B 2.24 – 29  Moeding Keramikfassaden GmbH,
Marklkofen
B 2.30 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 2.31 Peter Bonfig, Munich
B 2.32 Moeding Keramikfassaden GmbH, Marklkofen
B 2.33 Roland Krippner, Munich
B 2.34 Alfonso Acocella, Florence
B 2.35 Werner Lang, Munich
B 2.36 Decorated walls of modern architecture.
Tokyo 1983, p. 30
B 2.37– 38  Alfonso Acocella, Florence
B 2.39 Tectónica 15/2003, p. 21
B 2.40 – 41  Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 2.42 – 43  Tectónica 15/2003, p. 18
B 2.44 Alessandro Ciampi, Florence, from: Acocella,
Alfonso, Involucri in cotto. Florence 2002, p. 96
B 2.45 Acocella, Alfonso. Involucri in cotto.
Florence 2002, p. 98
B 2.46 Alessandro Ciampi, Florence, from:
Acocella, Alfonso, Involucri in cotto.
Florence 2002, p. 98f.
p. 94 Bruno Klomfar, Vienna
p. 95 Beat Bühler, Zurich
p. 96, 97 Dieter Leistner / ARTUR IMAGES
p. 98 Annette Kisling, Berlin / Leipzig
p. 99 Andreas Lechtape, Münster
p. 100 Klaus Kinold, Munich
p. 102, 103  Roland Halbe, Stuttgart
p. 104, 105  Timothy Hursley / Moeding Keramikfassaden
GmbH, Marklkofen
Concrete
B 3.1 Thomas Herzog, Munich
B 3.2 Klaus Kinold, Munich
B 3.3 Verlag Bau + Technik, Düsseldorf
B 3.4 BTU Cottbus, Lehrstuhl Entwerfen – Bauen im
Bestand (pub.): Architekt Bernhard Hermkes.
Cottbus 2003
B 3.6 MIT Press, Cambridge
B 3.7 Klaus Kinold, Munich
B 3.8 Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
B 3.9 Grimm, Friedrich, Richarz, Clemens, Hinter-
lüftete Fassaden. Stuttgart /Zurich 1994, p. 161
B 3.11 DIN 18 500 Parts 1– 3. 1991
B 3.12 InformationsZentrum Beton, Erkrath
B 3.13 –16  Heeß, Stefan: Mehr als nur Fassade.
Konstruktion von Betonfertigteil- und Betonwerk-
stein-Fassaden. Wiesbaden
B 3.17 Großformatige Fassaden. Fassaden mit Holz­
zement. Published by Eternit AG. Berlin 2001,
p. 12
B 3.18 Archive Olgiati
B 3.19 –20  Dyckerhoff Weiss Marketing und Vertriebs-
gesellschaft
p. 117 Georg Aerni, Zurich
p. 118, 119  Michael Compensis, Munich
p. 120 © Jens Weber, Munich
343
p. 121 Ulrich Schwarz, Berlin
p. 122 Roland Schneider
p. 123 Roland Halbe /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 124 Roland Halbe, Stuttgart
p. 125 Daniel Malhão, Lisbon
p. 126, 127  Christian Richters, Münster
p. 128 Brigida González, Stuttgart
p. 129 Bruno Klomfar, Vienna
Timber
B 4.1 Shinkenchiku-sha, Tokyo
B 4.2 Sawyer, Peter: The Oxford illustrated history
of the Vikings. Oxford 1997, p. 191
B 4.3 Herzog, Thomas et al.: Holzbau Atlas.
Munich 2003, p. 26
B 4.4 Edoardo Gellner, Cortina d’Ampezzo
B 4.5 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 4.6 –7 Herzog, Thomas et al.: Holzbau Atlas.
Munich 2003, p. 31– 33
B 4.8 Baus, Ursula, Siegele, Klaus, Holzfassaden.
Stuttgart / Munich 2001, p. 19
B 4.9 –10 Herzog, Thomas et al., Holzbau Atlas.
Munich 2003, p. 34 – 46
B 4.11 Hans-Joachim Heyer, Boris Miklautsch / Werk-
statt für Photo­graphie, University of Stuttgart
B 4.12 Friedemann Zeitler, Penzberg
B 4.13 Hans-Joachim Heyer, Boris Miklautsch / Werk-
statt für Photo­graphie, University of Stuttgart
B 4.14 Herzog, Thomas et al., Holzbau Atlas.
Munich, 2003, p. 43
B 4.15 Hans-Joachim Heyer, Boris Miklautsch / Werk-
statt für Photo­graphie, University of Stuttgart
B 4.16 Herzog, Thomas et al., Holzbau Atlas.
Munich, 2003, p. 40
B 4.17 Hans-Joachim Heyer, Boris Miklautsch / Werk-
statt für Photo­graphie, University of Stuttgart
B 4.18 Strandex Europe, Walmley
B 4.19 Christian Cerliani, Zurich
B 4.20 Ruedi Walti, Basel
B 4.21 Jonathan Levi, Boston
B 4.22 – 23  Christian Richters, Münster
B 4.24 Eduard Hueber, New York
B 4.25 Dieter Leistner /ARTUR IMAGES
B 4.26 Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
B 4.27 Annegret Rieger, Munich
B 4.28 Heike Werner, Munich
B 4.29 Friedrich Busam /architekturphoto,
Düsseldorf
B 4.30 Reto Führer, Felsberg
B 4.31 Christian Richters, Münster
B 4.32 – 34  Sampo Widmann, Munich
B 4.35 – 41  Informationsdienst Holz, Düsseldorf 1992
B 4.42 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 4.43 Werner Huthmacher /ARTUR IMAGES
B 4.44 Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
B 4.45 Roland Schweitzer, Paris
B 4.46 Roland Halbe, Stuttgart
B 4.47 Roland Schweitzer, Paris
B 4.48 – 49  Theo Ott Holzschindeln GmbH, Ainring
B 4.50 Gerhard Hagen, Bamberg
B 4.51 Stefan Müller-Naumann, Munich
B 4.52 Satoshi Asakawa, Tokyo
B 4.53 Hans-Georg Esch, Hennef
p. 142 top:  Michael Freeman, London
p. 142 bottom:  Sampo Widmann, Munich
p. 144, 145  Christian Richters, Münster
p. 146 Heinrich Helfenstein, Adliswil
p. 147 Shinkenchiku-sha, Tokyo
p. 148 Peter Bonfig, Munich
p. 149 Henning Koepke, Munich
p. 150 Christian Richters, Münster
p. 151 Dietmar Strauß, Besigheim
p. 152 Marko Huttunen, Helsinki
p. 153 Daniel Malhão, Lisbon
p. 154 Dieter Leistner /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 157 Büro Kaufmann, Dornbirn
Metal
B 5.1 Jo Reid & John Peck, Newport
B 5.2 N. P. Goulandris Foundation, Museum of
­Cycladic Art, Athens
B 5.3 Münchener Stadtmuseum, Munich
344
B 5.4 John Gay, London, from, Murray, John (pub.):
Cast Iron. London 1985, p. 28
B 5.5 The Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller,
Santa Barbara
B 5.6 Erika Sulzer-Kleinemeier, Gleisweiler
B 5.7 Ardean Miller, New York, from Airstream –
The history of the land yacht. San Francisco,
p. 69
B 5.9 –10  Jo Reid & John Peck, Newport
B 5.11 Jan Cremers, Munich
B 5.12 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 5.13 Jan Cremers, Munich
B 5.14 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
B 5.15 Jan Cremers, Munich
B 5.16 Dennis Gilbert / VIEW /ARTUR IMAGES
B 5.17 Jan Cremers, Munich
B 5.21 Hoesch Siegerlandwerke GmbH; Siegen
B 5.22 Alcan Singen GmbH; Singen
B 5.24 Photos: Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
B 5.25 Peter Cook / VIEW /ARTUR IMAGES
B 5.27 Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG; Regensburg
B 5.28 – 32  Mevaco GmbH; Schlierbach
B 5.33 – 34  Alcan Singen GmbH; Singen
B 5.35 Heike Werner, Munich
B 5.36 – 37  Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG;
Regensburg
B 1.5.38 – 39  Heike Werner, Munich
B 1.5.40 Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
B 1.5.41 Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG;
Regensburg
B 1.5.42 AIM; Nürtingen
B 1.5.44, 46  From Kaltenbach, Frank (pub.):
Transluzente Materialien. Glas, Kunststoff,
­Metall. Detail Praxis. Munich, 2003, p. 98
B 1.5.47 Heike Werner, Munich
B 1.5.48 V. Carl Schröter, Hamburg
B 1.5.49 – 50  Heike Werner, Munich
B 1.5.51 Hauer und Boecker; Oelde
B 1.5.52 Heike Werner, Munich
B 1.5.53 – 54  Gebr. Kufferath GmbH & Co. KG; Düren
p. 172, 173  Dieter Lechner, Munich
p. 174, 175  Bernhard Moosbrugger, Zurich
p. 176 John Donat, London
p. 177 left:  Werner Lang, Munich
p. 177 right:  Ken Kirkwood, Desborough
p. 178, 179  Stefan Müller, Berlin
p. 180 Werner Huthmacher, Berlin
p. 181 Cree GmbH
p. 182 Paul Warchol, New York
p. 183 Christian Richters, Münster
p. 184 Heinrich Helfenstein, Zurich
p. 185 Klemens Ortmeyer /architekturphoto,
Düsseldorf
p. 186, 187  Hélène Binet, London
Glass
B 6.1 Dennis Gilbert / VIEW/ARTUR IMAGES
B 6.2 Achim Bednorz, Cologne
B 6.3 Daidalos 66/1997, p. 85
B 6.5 Georges Fessy, Paris
B 6.6 Werner Lang, Munich
B 6.7– 9 Schittich, Christian et al.: Glasbau Atlas.
­Munich / Basel 1998
B 6.11 Roderick Coyne, London
B 6.12 Hans-Georg Esch, Hennef
B 6.13 Georges Fessy, Paris
B 6.14 Christian Schittich, Munich
B 6.15 Schittich, Christian et al.: Glasbau Atlas.
­Munich / Basel 1998, p. 90
B 6.16 –17  Herzog, Thomas: Sonderthemen
Baukonstruktion. Materialspezifische
­Technologie und ­Konstruktion – Gläser,
Häute und Membranen. Munich 1998,
p. 11 (unpublished)
B 6.18 – 20  Schittich, Christian et al., Glasbau Atlas. ­
Munich / Basel 1998
B 6.21 Klaus Littmann, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gro%C3%9Fer_Garten_(Hannover)#/media/
File:Glasfoyer_im_Gro%C3%9Fen_Garten.jpg,
CC BY-SA 3.0
B 6.22 Herzog, Thomas: Sonderthemen Bau­
konstruktion. Materialspezifische Technologie
und Konstruktion – Gläser, Häute und Mem-
branen. Munich 1998, p. 36 (unpublished)
B 6.23 Schittich, Christian et al.: Glasbau Atlas.
­Munich / Basel 1998, p. 120
B 6.24 – 25  Kaltenbach, Frank (pub.): Transluzente
Materialien. Munich 2003
B 6.26 – 28  Schittich, Christian et al.: Glasbau Atlas.
Munich / Basel 1998
B 6.29 David Sundberg, New York
p. 198 Nigel Young, Surrey
p. 199 Duccio Malagamba, Barcelona
p. 200, 201 top:  Florian Holzherr, Munich
p. 201 bottom:  Christian Richters, Münster
p. 202 top left:  Kim Yong Kwan, Seoul
p. 202 top right, bottom:  Timothy Hursley, Little Rock
p. 203 Kim Yong Kwan, Seoul
p. 204 top:  Christian Schittich, Munich
p. 204 middle:  Herzog & de Meuron, Basel
p. 204 bottom:  Maxim Schulz, Hamburg
p. 205 Herzog & de Meuron, Basel
p. 206 top:  Dennis Gilbert / VIEW /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 206 bottom:  John Linden, Woodland Hills
p. 207 Jörg Hempel, Aachen
p. 208 Michel Denancé, Paris
p. 209 Christian Schittich, Munich
p. 210 Hans Ege, Waggis
p. 211 John Linden, Woodland Hills
p. 212, 213  Jocelyne van den Bossche, London
p. 214, 215  Dennis Gilbert / VIEW /ARTUR IMAGES
Plastics
B 7.1 Simon Burt /APEX, Exminster
B 7.2 Hans Hansen / Vitra, Hamburg
B 7.3 The MIT Museum, from Hess, Alan, Googie:
­Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture. San Francisco
1986, p. 50
B 7.4 – 5 Centraal Museum, Utrecht
B 7.6 Buckminster Fuller Institute, Los Angeles
B 7.7 Frei Otto, Warmbronn
B 7.8 Richard Einzig /Arcaid, Kingston upon Thames
B 7.10 Christian Kandzia, Stuttgart
B 7.12 Werner Lang, Munich
B 7.13 Tohru Waki / Shokokusha, Tokyo
B 7.14 –16  Kaltenbach, Frank (pub.): Transluzente
Materialien. Munich, 2003
B 7.17 Hufton + Grow, Hertford
B 7.18 – 21  Detail 06/2000, p. 1,048 –1,054
B 7.22 Ingmar Kurth, Frankfurt
p. 224 Stefan Müller-Naumann, Munich
p. 225 Wolfram Janzer /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 226 Christian Richter, Münster
p. 227 Bleda + Rosa, Valencia
ps. 228, 229  Philippe Ruault, Nantes
p. 230 Adam Mork, Copenhagen
p. 231 Werner Lang, Munich
p. 232 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
p. 233 Allianz Arena, Munich
ps. 234, 235  Skyspan (Europe) GmbH, Rimsting
Part C
p. 236 Thomas Herzog, Munich
Multilayer glass facades
C 1.1 Zooey Braun /ARTUR IMAGES
C 1.2 Werner Lang, Munich
C 1.5 Werner Lang, Munich
C 1.7 Waltraud Krase, Frankfurt
C 1.8 Richard Schenkirz, Leonberg
C 1.11 Rudi Graf, Munich
C 1.15 Richard Bryant, Kingston upon Thames
C 1.18 –19  Werner Lang, Munich
C 1.22 – 23  Werner Lang, Munich
C 1.26 Hans-Georg Esch, Hennef
C 1.27 Jürgen Schmidt, Cologne
p. 247 top:  Achim Bednorz, Cologne
p. 247 bottom:  Werner Lang, Munich
p. 248, 249 unten:  Roland Halbe /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 250 Christian Richters, Münster
p. 251 Stefan Müller-Naumann, Munich
ps. 252, 253 Jörg Hempel, Aachen
p. 254 top:  Dieter Leistner /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 254 bottom:  Thomas Riehle /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 255 Thomas Riehle /ARTUR IMAGES
ps. 256, 257  Dieter Leistner /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 258, 259  Holger Knauf, Düsseldorf
p. 260 Ralf Richter, Düsseldorf
p. 261 top:  Christian Kandzia, Esslingen
p. 261 middle:  Ralf Richter, Düsseldorf
p. 261 bottom:  Martin Schodder, Stuttgart
p. 262 Duccio Malagamba, Barcelona
p. 263 Roland Halbe /ARTUR IMAGES
p. 264 Frédéric Druot, Paris
p. 265 Torben Eskerod, Copenhagen
Manipulators
C 2.1 Jean-Marie Hellwig / Prouvé-Archiv Peter Sulzer,
Gleisweiler
C 2.3 – 4 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
C 2.5 Klaus Zwerger, Vienna
C 2.6 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
C 2.7 ISOTEG Final report. TU Munich, Chair
for ­Building Technologies. Munich 2001
­(unpublished)
C 2.8 Werner Lang, Munich
C 2.9 Margherita Spiluttini, Vienna
C 2.10 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
C 2.11 Hans Werlemann, Rotterdam
C 2.12 Michael Heinrich, Munich
C 2.13 Christian Gahl, Berlin
C 2.14 Roland Halbe /ARTUR IMAGES
C 2.15 Eduard Hueber, New York
C 2.16 Margherita Spiluttini, Vienna
C 2.17 Christian Richters, Münster
C 2.18 Moritz Korn
C 2.19 Dominic Büttner, Zurich
C 2.20 Klaus Kinold, Munich
C 2.21 Shinkenchiku-sha, Tokyo
C 2.23 Satoshi Asakawa, Tokyo
C 2.24 Constantin Beyer, Weimar
C 2.25 Ralph Feiner, Malans
C 2.26 Hans-Peter Wörndl, Vienna
C 2.27 Ritchie Müller, Munich
C 2.28 Daniel Westenberger, Munich
C 2.29 Andreas Gabriel, Munich
C 2.30 René Furer, Benglen
C 2.31 Thomas Lenzen, Munich
C 2.32 Earl Carter, St. Kilda
p. 274 Therese Beyeler, Bern
p. 275 Tomio Ohashi, Tokyo
ps. 276, 277 bottom:  Hisao Suzuki, Barcelona
p. 277 top:  Georges Fessy, Paris
p. 278 Ingrid Voth-Amslinger, Munich
p. 279 Michael Heinrich, Munich
ps. 280, 281  Günter Wett, Innsbruck
p. 282 Christian Richters, Münster
p. 283 Lukas Roth, Cologne
p. 284 Eduard Hueber, New York
p. 285 top:  Jan Bitter, Berlin
p. 285 bottom:  Annette Kisling, Berlin
p. 286 Kees Hummel, Amsterdam
p. 287 top  Dietmar Strauß, Besigheim
p. 288 Shinkenchiku-sha, Tokyo
p. 289 Hiroyuki Hirai, Tokyo
p. 290 Robertino Nikolic, Wiesbaden
p. 291 top:  Robertino Nikolic, Wiesbaden
p. 291 bottom:  Thomas Ott, Mühltal
p. 292 Richie Müller, Munich
p. 293 top:  Sergio Padura, Hecho
p. 293 bottom:  Paul Riddle / VIEW /ARTUR IMAGES
Solar energy
C 3.1 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
C 3.4 – 5 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
C 3.6 Arthur Köster / Stiftung Archiv der Akademie
der Künste, Berlin
C 3.7 Robert Krier
C 3.8 – 9 TWD Eigenschaften und Funktionen.
Info-Mappe 2 des Fachverbands TWD.
­Gundelfingen 2000, p. 5
C 3.10 –11  Roland Krippner, Munich
C 3.12 Dieter Leistner /ARTUR IMAGES
C 3.13 Viessmannwerke, Allendorf
C 3.14 Viessmannwerke, Allendorf
C 3.15 Schott Glas, Mainz The authors and publisher would like to thank the follow-
C 3.17 Bernd Thissen / Energie Solaire S.A., ing people, manufacturers and companies for providing
Sierre information and / or drawings:
C 3.18 Heiko Hellwig, Stuttgart
C 3.20 Schittich, Christian (pub.): Gebäudehüllen. Barbara Finke, Berlin (DE)
Munich, 2001, p. 53 Böhmer Natursteinbau GmbH, Leutenbach (DE)
C 3.21 Roland Krippner, Munich Cordelia Denks, Munich (DE)
C 3.22 Team Rooftop, Berlin Dach + Wand Wolf GmbH & Co. KG, Dornbirn (AT)
C 3.23 Jan-Oliver Kunze, Berlin Delzer Kybernetik GmbH, Lörrach (DE)
C 3.24 Jochen Helle, Dortmund F. Brüderlin Söhne GmbH, Schopfheim (DE)
C 3.25 – 26  Jakob Schoof, Munich Götz GmbH, Würzburg (DE)
C 3.27 Jens Passoth, Berlin Halfen GmbH & Co. KG, Langenfeld (DE)
p. 304 Stefan Müller-Naumann, Munich Hightex Group, Rimsting (DE)
p. 305 Ruedi Walti, Basel Jörg Eschwey, ESO Chile (CL)
p. 306 Nick Brändli, Zurich Josef Gartner GmbH, Gundelfingen (DE)
p. 307 Dieter Leistner /ARTUR IMAGES Lavis Stahlbau GmbH, Offenbach (DE)
p. 308 Willi Kracher, Zurich Magnus Müller GmbH, Butzbach (DE)
p. 309 Margherita Spiluttini, Vienna Metallbau A. Sauritschnig GmbH, St. Veit / Glan (AT)
ps. 310, 311  Roland Halbe /ARTUR IMAGES MEW Manfroni Engineering Workshop, Bologna (IT)
p. 312 Jens Willebrand, Cologne Moeding Keramikfassaden GmbH, Marklkofen (DE)
p. 313 Jordi Miralles, Barcelona nbk Keramik GmbH & Co., Emmerich (DE)
p. 314 top:  Christian Richters, Münster NMP Naturstein Montage GmbH & Co. KG, Vienna (AT)
p. 314 bottom:  Entwicklungsgesellschaft Akademie Serge Lochu, Cosylva Paris-Ouest (FR)
Mont-Cenis mbH, Herne Stahlbau Wörsching GmbH & Co. KG, Starnberg (DE)
p. 316 Arnold Brunner, Freiburg Wortmann Projektbau GmbH, Wenden (DE)
p. 317 Eibe Sönnecken, Darmstadt
p. 318 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
p. 319 top: Frank Kaltenbach, Munich
bottom: FG+SG fotografia de arquitectura,
­Lisbon
p. 320 top: Holger Groß, Berlin
bottom: Hans-Georg Esch, Hennef
p. 321 Christian Richters, Münster
Integrated facades
C 4.1 Reiner Rehfeld, Düsseldorf
C 4.2 Jan Cremers, Munich
C 4.3 Verena Herzog-Loibl, Munich
C 4.4 www.top-air.it
C 4.5 www.trox.de
C 4.6 Fraunhofer-in-Haus-Zentrum,
Duisburg
C 4.7 Thomas Ott, Mühltal
C 4.8 Constantin Meyer, Cologne
C 4.9 Andrea Helbing, Zurich
C 4.10 Maximilian Meisse, Berlin
C 4.11 Fraunhofer-inHaus-Zentrum, Duisburg
C 4.12 Thomas Jantscher, Colombier
C 4.13 Rainer Viertlböck, Gauting
C 4.14 Daniel Reisch, Augsburg
C 4.15 Daniel Reisch, Augsburg
Refurbishing existing facades
C 5.1 Archiv Ruinelli Associati, Soglio
C 5.2 Fraunhofer IBP
C 5.3 Stefan Müller-Naumann, Munich
C 5.4 Elias Hassos, Munich
C 5.5 © Jens Weber, Munich
C 5.10 Ester Havlová, Prague
C 5.11 Hannes Henz, Zurich
C 5.12 Phillip Vile, London
C 5.13 Andrea Martiradonna, Milan
C 5.14 Thomas Riehle /ARTUR IMAGES
C 5.15 Jakob Schoof, Munich
C 5.16 Michael Kiechle-Pausch / IMAGE FOR YOU,
Mauerstetten
C 5.17 Tomaz Greoric, Ljubljana
Green facades
C 6.3 Roland Krippner, Munich
C 6.4 Roland Krippner, Munich
C 6.5 Roland Krippner, Munich
C 6.6 Nicole Pfoser, Darmstadt, from Köhler,
Manfred (pub.): Handbuch Bauwerks­
begrünung. Cologne 2012, p.109
C 6.7 Paul Raftery
C 6.8 Werner Lang, Munich
C 6.9 Roland Krippner, Munich
C 6.10 Adria Goula, Barcelona
C 6.11 Luuk Kramer, Amsterdam
C 6.12 Christian Richters, Münster
C 6.14 Fink + Jocher, Munich
345