Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Energy and carbon analysis of double skin façades in the hot and dry
climate
Zahra S. Zomorodian, Mohammad Tahsildoost*
Department of Construction, Shahid Beheshti University (SBU), Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Double skin façades (DSF (are a popular feature in office buildings. Although these systems considerably
Received 19 January 2018 reduce the heating energy demand in cold climates, overheating of indoor spaces and therefore excessive
Received in revised form cooling energy consumption are the main problems of DSFs in warm climates. In addition to thermal
11 May 2018
performance, carbon footprint and are important factors in DSFs. In this study, the optimal DSF has been
Accepted 16 June 2018
selected for an office building in Tehran among proposed design alternatives differing in the façade
Available online 18 June 2018
spatial configuration, shadings, and cavity ventilation strategies by dynamic simulations. The final model
is selected based on minimum energy demand and the maximum thermal comfort hours. The overall
Keywords:
Double skin façade
carbon emissions and the costs during the building’s life cycle are also assessed in different alternatives.
Energy demand According to results, the energy consumption is reduced from 7.9% to 14.8%. However, the simple
Carbon emission payback period is more than the buildings lifetime (50 year) under current energy prices in Iran. Envi-
Payback period ronmental analysis show that although the operational carbon emission is reduces by 14%e17%, the
embodied carbon is increased by 23.3%e47%. Due to local construction methods and energy prices,
assessing the economical feasibility and the environmental impact of this technology, are both vital in
the decision making process for DSF application in buildings. Therefore, a new index, Energy Carbon Cost
(ECC), is proposed to help define the best DSF design scenario.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction condition (Barbosa and Ip, 2014). Different DSF geometries

Nowadays double-skin façades (DSF) are widely used in modern
and high-rise buildings due to their high-technical appearance and
energy-saving capacity (GhaffarianHoseini et al., 2016), and po-
tential response to Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) problems.
Different ventilation characteristics and strategies, and various
glazing, internal/external shading, and cavity’s spatial configura-
tion, result in a wide range of typologies, each useful for a specific
Abbreviation: DSF, Double Skin Facade; SHGC, Solar Heat Gain Coefficient; BES,
Building Energy Simulation; CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamic; ECC, Energy Car-
bon Cost; IEQ, Indoor Environmental Quality; PV, Photovoltaic; PCV, Phase
Changing Material; HDPE, High Density Polyethylene; ACH, Air Change per Hour;
NV, Natural Ventilation; ECO2, Embodied Carbon Dioxide; OCO2, Operational Car-
bon Dioxide; CPBP, Carbon Payback Period; HED, Heating Energy Demand and
Reduction (HER); CED, Cooling Energy Demand and Reduction (CER); LED, Lighting
Energy Demand and Reduction (LER); PER, Primary Energy Demand and Reduction
(PER); FCC, Façade Construction Cost; PED, Primary Energy Demand; TEC, Total
Energy Cost; SPP, Simple Payback Period; EOB, Equivalent of Oil Barrel; ICE, In-
ventory of Carbon & Energy.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m_tahsildoost@sbu.ac.ir (M. Tahsildoost).
(Kimouche et al., 2017) and ventilation strategies (Dama et al.,
2017) as well as novel integrated designs (Ioannidis et al., 2017;
Kilaire and Stacey, 2017) have been recently investigated. A
recent study (Pomponi et al., 2016) reviewed the energy perfor-
mance of fifty DSF systems in temperate climates. Normalized re-
sults show the potential of 90% of energy reduction in heating and
30% in cooling load, as result of abovementioned parameters. In
addition, an appropriate shading device reduces the cooling load
about 14% (Baldinelli, 2009; Gratia and De Herde, 2007a), which is
reported up to 17e20% in the subtropical arid climate of Dubai
(Radhi et al., 2013), similar to using low-e coating and low Solar
Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) glazing (Flores Larsen et al., 2015).
Furthermore, (Liu et al., 2017) concluded that the influence of the
position of blinds on indoor temperature and ventilation rate is
greater than the influence of the angle of blinds.
Most of the above-mentioned research have been based on BES
(Building Energy Simulation) and CFD (Computational Fluid Dy-
namic) simulations, and few studies have measured the actual
behavior of DSFs. For example, in a research (Joe et al., 2013) 28.2%
and 2.3% reduction is reported in heating and cooling energy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.178
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
86 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96

consumption respectively. Also, (Dama et al., 2017) developed an from architects toward DSFs’, there is a need to study the applica-
experimental validation of a model for integration of DSF in bility of this technology in Iran based on its current and future
building simulation tools. energy trends, prices, and efficiency. Moreover, an index has been
Developing integrated systems, recent studies have focused on proposed to define the best DSF design scenario based on the
overheating in the cavity, especially in summer. In a study, (Shen aforementioned criteria.
and Li, 2016) proposed a system of embedding cooling pipes into
the venetian blinds of a DSF, with more than 20% effectiveness in all 2. Methodology
the studied cases. Moreover, (Luo et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017),
proposed PVB-DSF, in which photovoltaic (PV) blinds are used as a 2.1. Description of studied context and climate
shading device to produce energy, resulted in 12.16e25.57% of
energy saving in summer. Another study (Zhang et al., 2017) Tehran (35
400 N, 51
190 E, 1191 m), the largest city of Iran and the
developed a comprehensive simulation model to predict the overall third largest in the Middle East. features a mid-latitude steppe and
energy performance of PV-DSF. Moreover, (Esen and Yuksel, 2013) semi-arid cool climate, known as Bsk according to the Ko € ppen-
also monitored the annual behavior of a full-scale prototype Geiger classification. There are a total 2223 heating degree days,
photovoltaic double skin facade under real conditions. PCM panels and 463 cooling degree days, based on minimum 18
C and
are used to reduce space heating and cooling in DSFs (de Gracia maximum 25
C as recorded in Mehrabad synoptic station (Keyhani
et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017). It is shown that High Density Poly- et al., 2010). A characterisation of the climate can be found in Fig. 1
ethylene (HDPE) matrix composites (Sfarra et al., 2017), and cork (Tehran Typical Meteorological Year data).
supports doped with innovative thermal insulation and protective Among the various types of buildings, office buildings, normally
coating (Perilli et al., 2018) are useful materials in facade in the build as high-rises in Iran, are top contributors to energy con-
production of the laminates used in DSF. sumption and carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2) in the
Few studies investigated the environmental and economic non-domestic sector, with the average annual primary energy
consequences of DSFs in real-world constructions, and almost no consumption index of 350 kWh/m2, however occupants are usually
information exists on DSFs life cycle energy (Ahmed et al., 2015; not satisfied with the Indoor environmental quality (Bagheri et al.,
Pomponi et al., 2016). Studies considered the operational carbon 2013).
emission, however both operational and embodied energy of spe-
cific technologies should be considered to understand the overall 2.2. Description of base case model
performance. Researchers estimate up to 86 MtCO2 by 2050
possible saving among non-domestic buildings (Assessment, 2012). There is an increasing tendency to utilize DSF in Tehran new
Since carbon dioxide emission is affected by the facade perfor- office buildings, especially in recent years, based on designer’s
mance according to its barrier role in energy consumption of a preferences. Using a comprehensive analysis, a new bank head
building (Gratia and De Herde, 2007b; Papadaki et al., 2014), DSFs quarter office tower, is analyzed during design process. However,
are known as an appropriate method for reduction of both energy the analysis and the used method are applicable in other cases.
consumption and CO2 emission (Pomponi et al., 2015). However, Parsian Tower is an office building in Tehran, with a total height
some researched show that DSF could increase the energy con- of 138 m and 18000 square meters floor area distributed in 18
sumption and lead to more CO2 emission (de Gracia et al., 2014). stories above parking and a commercial podium (Fig. 2). The tower
Besides carbon emission, the construction costs and payback is oriented 45
plan azimuth. Initially the building was designed
periods reported in studies between 1994-2007 vary greatly, with a single layer (double glazed unit) façade with 60% window to
making it unclear to define the economic feasibility of this tech- wall ratio on the South East and North West side, to provide the
nology. DSFs cost more than common facades; at least between 700 best view for occupants. The building envelope insulation levels
and 1500 V/m2 depending on the size, type, and the context. and glazing properties were defined based on regional building
However different studies report different extra costs in compari- codes (code No: 19) (Ministers, 1992). During the construction
son to a single layer façade (e.g., 100 to 1000 V/m2 (reported in period, the design team was asked to propose a new concept for the
Bestfacade publishable report, EIE/04/135/S07.38652), 50% excess
(Stribling and Stigge, 2003), 300e400% cost (Pollard et al., 2000)).
Consequently, paypack periods fluctuate from 4 to 9 to 80e240
years, specially in those countries with low price of energy or
€
expensive DSF technology (Cetiner and Ozkan, 2005; Hong et al.,
2013). However, integrating DSF with HVAC systems, single and
double skin facades are comparable, and experts believe that DSFs
could be cost effective and feasible in the long term (Ghadamian
et al., 2012).
Despite the necessity and proficiency of new technologies in
building stock, utilizing such a hi-technical method should be
considered more carefully especially in developing and third world
countries. Such limitations in DSF studies and diverse conclusions
on the energy consumption rather aggravate the uncertainty about
the feasibility of the DSF in these countries. Unconscious uli-
tlazation of technology without providing substructures would
cause negative results. Given that, DSF optimization based on en-
ergy demand, carbon emission, and cost for different climates is
necessary.
The aim of this paper is to define an optimal DSF model in an
office building in Tehran, in terms of maximizing energy efficiency
and decreasing carbon emission. Due to an increasing tendency Fig. 1. Monthly temperature and solar radiation for Tehran.
 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96
Fig. 2. a) Parsian Tower 3D model, b) office layout, c) section.
façade, complying with construction limitations (e.g. structural
loads and connections, external wall construction characteristics,
depth of cavity), client obligations (e.g. maximizing view and light,
minimizing construction cost, maximum leasable area), and
architectural assumptions (e.g. glass visual features, shading posi-
tions, operable windows). Moreover, increasing the IEQ and
decreasing the energy consumption were the main ideas to design
the double skin façade. The second layer was added with an offset
of minimum 0.8 m to maximum 1.60 m from the first layer.
Considering the fixed cavity depth and the window to wall ratio of
the first layers, different alternatives were designed, modeled, and
analyzed based on different criteria including energy demand,
thermal comfort, operational and embodied carbon, and cost. Re-
sults are used to select the most appropriate alternatives. The
methodological process is depicted in Fig 3. The building charac-
teristics are presented in Table 1.
2.3. Design alternatives
Among various designed DSF alternatives based on the limita-
tions, four type of DSFs differing in the facade spatial configurations
are designed as the multi-story DSF (without cavity divisions)
(Fig. 4b), corridor DSF (horizontal divisions) (Fig. 4a), shaft DSF
(vertical divisions) (Fig. 4d), and box DSF (both horizontal and
vertical divisions (Fig. 4c). The designed alternatives are modeled
with and without shadings (locating inside and outside the cavity)
and simulated with different strategies for ventilating the cavity
(natural and mixed mode). Table 2 represents the design
alternatives.
3. Energy modeling
Generally two main approaches could be used to evaluate
double skin facades. 1. Experimental method; measuring environ-
mental parameters and analyzing the results to define the relations
of the parameters and variables in scale models. 2. Computerized
simulation; using BES tools (e.g., Energy Plus, ESP-r, TRNSYS, TAS,
IDA IES). Simulations are useful in decision makings in the design
process. Manz and Frank (2005) reviewed the overall concept for
modeling and simulation of the whole building with a double-skin
facade (Manz and Frank, 2005). Among various methods for DSF
simulations (Zhou and Chen, 2010) the air flow network model is
applied for the energy simulation of the Parsian tower via the
Energyplus simulation engine and the DesignBuilder graphical
interface. Airflow network models are always coupled with energy
simulation to evaluate the natural ventilation and energy perfor-
mance of buildings with DSF. “Surface Convection Algorithm
87
Inside”; indoor surface heat transfer convection algorithm to be
used for all zones, was set as TARP (Thermal Analysis Research
Program) using variable natural convection based on temperature
difference. “Surface Convection Algorithm Outside”; outside sur-
face heat transfer convection algorithm to be used for all zones, was
set as DOE-2 which is a combination of MoWiTT and BLAST Detailed
convection models. Solar distribution was set as full exterior with
reflections. The detailed calculation method is described in Ener-
gyplus engineering reference (Engineering Reference. The
Reference to EnergyPlus Calculations, 2015). The validity of the
method and engine could be confirmed in previous studies
(Azarbayjani, 2014; Kirimtat et al., 2016).
The middle cluster of the building including six stories has been
modeled. Each floor consists of two main zones; 1.Open Office
zones and 2.Circulation zones. The building operates from 8:00 to
18:00, 5 days a week, through the whole year. The office temper-
atures are maintained at 21
C in the heating season and 26
C at
the cooling season. The seasonal heating and cooling system CoP is
0.62 (gas) and 1.32 (electricity) respectively. Occupant density is set
to 0.117 (person/m2) in the office zone and 0.111 in the central
stairway and elevator areas. Internal heat gain density is set to
11.7 W/m2 for office equipment and 5 W/m2-100 lux for lighting. All
zones include daylight control sensors, and reflective blinds are
assumed to operate based on glare. Tehran’s hourly metrological
data (TMY2) file has been used for simulations. All the building
fabric, services, and activities are assumed constant during simu-
lations. The hourly operative temperatures (
C) and annual thermal
comfort (% of occupation time) of the middle floor offices, the
annual total (lighting, heating, and cooling) and primary energy
demand (kWh/m2) are simulated in alternatives. Exploring the
thermal performance of the alternatives, two different approaches
are considered, with and without mechanical heating and cooling
systems. The free running cases show the potential of expanding
the zero condition period i.e., no cooling and heating systems
needed due to the passive performance of the building. On the
other hand, the alternatives have been surveyed from the energy
view point, cooling, heating, and lighting, to find the best perfor-
mance solution. Simulations are conducted in three steps; initially a
multi-story double skin façade was added to the Single layer model.
The model was analyzed with different shading alternatives
applied to the exterior skin (30
louvres, 60
louvres, and solar
films) and also without shadings. Ventilation is not considered in
the first step of simulations, so the effect of shadings could be
analyzed separately. In order to define the effect of each parameter
on the indoor temperature, they are applied to the model one by
one.
Second, cavity ventilation, and cavity spatial configuration
88 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96

Fig. 3. Research Methodology flowchart.

Table 1
Parsian Tower building characteristics.

Measure building component value

2
Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m K) External wall 0.50
Floor slab 2.90
Lower slab 0.44
Upper ceiling slab 0.30
Glass (internal) 5.50
Glass (external) 2.40
Window frame (aluminum) 4.70
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient Internal glass 0.43
External glass 0.75
Ventilation (ach) infiltration 0.5
Forced (cavity) 20
Window opening External window Opening/schedule 30% Based on outdoor indoor temp difference 24/7
Internal window Opening/schedule 20%/Based on NV set point when occupied
Shading Internal blind Blind with medium reflect, glare control (offices)
External shading device 4louver, 250 mm depth, 30
(outside cavity)

scenarios, have been added and considered in next steps. To ventilation (alt 14 and 13, respectively), naturally ventilated cavity
investigate the effect of ventilation, a non-ventilated multi-story with top and bottom openings (alt 15), and finally integrating
façade (alt.8a), naturally ventilated cavity with 30% opening on the mechanical and natural ventilation to the cavity (alt 16) are
external layer during the occupation time, with and without night analyzed. Finally, the best shading and ventilation scenarios among
 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96 89

Fig. 4. Simulation model of the façade a) corridor, b) multi-Story, c) box, and d) shaft, by Designbuilder@

Table 2
Simulated alternatives differing in spatial configuration and shading.

Alternative Façade type (compartment) External shading angle (
) Office ventilation Cavity ventilation

0 Single 30 e NA
(1a) Single e mix-modea NA
(1b) Single 30 mix-mode NA
2 Multi-Story e e e
3 Multi-Story 30 mix-mode mix-mode
4 Multi-Story e mix-mode mix-mode
5 Box e mix-mode mix-mode
6 Shaft e mix-mode mix-mode
7 Corridor e mix-mode mix-mode
8a Multi-Story 30 e e
8b Multi-Story 30 inside cavity e e
8c Multi-Story 60 e e
9 Box 30 mix-mode mix-mode
10 Shaft 30 mix-mode mix-mode
11 Corridor 30 mix-mode mix-mode
12 Multi-Story Solar Film e e
a
Mixed-mode ventilation: a hybrid approach to space conditioning, using a combination of natural ventilation (using automatic or operable windows and fenestrations)
and mechanical system (Using air distribution equipment and heating or refrigeration equipment).

Table 3 the alternatives are applied to three other types of DSFs.

CO2 emission factors in Iran (Noorpoor and Kudahi, 2015).

CO2 emissions factor value 4. Carbon and cost modeling

Electricity (kg CO2/kWh) 0.685
Gas (kg CO2/kWh) 0.195 There are two types of carbon emissions with respect to a
building, the Embodied Carbon Dioxide (ECO2) and Operational
Carbon Dioxide (OCO2). The ECO2 emissions of construction ma-
terials, the main portion of CO2 emission in a building formation,
Table 4
includes underlying CO2 emissions generated from the production,
Detailed Energy demands in different design alternatives.
manufacture and transportation. In order to compare the presented
Alt LED LER HED HER CED CER PED PER alternatives from the carbon perspective, the embodied and oper-
kWh/m 2
% kWh/m 2
% kWh/m 2
% kWh/m 2
% ational carbon emission calculations are done based on the final
(1a) 20.48 e 16.35 e 74.76 e 368.74 e
quantities of materials and heating, cooling, and lighting energy
(4) 22.29 8.8 13.58 16.9 65.93 11.8 340.00 7.8 consumption, multiplied by the carbon emission factor of Iran
(6) 21.96 7.2 12.74 22 62.24 16.7 324.28 12.1 (Table 3). Eco invent and the ICE (Inventory of Carbon & Energy)
(5) 21.77 7.2 12.42 24 64.43 13.8 331.36 10.1 database are trustworthy available databases for embodied carbon
(7) 21.73 6.1 13.16 19.5 64.92 13.1 333.77 9.5
calculations. Due to the differences in the levels of technology and
(1b) 20.77 1.4 20.74 26.8 62.69 16.1 329.53 10.6
(10) 22.14 8.1 14.58 10.8 59.79 20 317.72 13.8 the types of fuel consumed, the databases could be varied in each
(11) 22.10 7.9 15.08 7.7 59.33 20.6 316.37 14.2 region (Bayer et al., 2010), although recent studies indicate that
(9) 22.00 7.4 14.28 12.6 59.04 21 314.13 14.8 databases of European countries can be regarded as applicable in
(3) 22.63 10.4 15.70 3.9 59.99 19.7 321.39 12.8 developing countries (Osse s de Eicker et al., 2010).Therefore, based
*Heating Energy Demand (HED) and Reduction (HER). on the mentioned study and due to lack of access to relevant Iranian
*Cooling Energy Demand (CED) and Reduction (CER). database, the English database ICE is used. Despite the inaccuracy of
*Lighting Energy Demand (LED) and Reduction (LER).
the data, the results will be close to the exact number.
*Primary Energy Demand (PED) and Reduction (PER).
The ECO2 is calculated within cradle to gate boundary (e.g.
excluding the transportation of materials to the final building site,
construction, refurbishment and demolition/disposal at the end of
Table 5
the buildings life by the Designbuilder cost and carbon module).
Percentage of time in each temperature range in the single and box model.
The ECO2 intensity (mass of embodied carbon dioxide per unit
Alternative Top¼< 21 21<Top ¼ <26 Top>26 mass of material, usually expressed as kilograms of CO2 per ton
Single 28% 18% 54% (1000 kg) of material, kgCO2/t), derived from the ICE database, is
Box DSF 20% 34% 49% calculated for each material. The process required for
manufacturing the components into the façade, the interior fit out
and furniture, lighting, and HVAC equipments have been excluded
90 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96

Table 6
Equivalent embodied and operational carbon dioxide and carbon payback period in different DSFs, compared to the single façade.

Façade type operational CO2 reduction total embodied carbon increase carbon payback period

Percentage% Percentage% Year

Box 17.50 47.34 7.6

Corridor 17.34 33.04 5.3
Multi-Story 14.28 23.30 4.6
Shaft 17.68 44.30 7.1

Table 7
Operational carbon emission over buildings life cycle.

Box Corridor Multi-Story Shaft Single

Operational CO2/Year (kg CO2) 1199391 1196211 1202289 1257354 1514433

Operational CO2 in 50 year (kgCO2)/embodied CO2 13.17 17.03 17.04 13.25 24.13

Table 8 limited only to construction costs. The payback period of each

Construction and energy costs and Simple Payback Period in different design alternative has been calculated based on the total construction
alternatives.
costs and the annual energy consumption cost of each model.
Façade Type FCC ($/m2) PED (kWh/m2) EOB TEC ($) SPP (year)

Single 650 368.7 4076.4 163059 34.7 5. Results and discussion

Box 1475 331.3 3663.2 146531.6 87.5
Corridor 1100 333.7 3689.8 147595.1 64.9
Four main categories have been resulted i.e., 1. thermal comfort
Multi-Story 1025 340 3758.7 150350 59.4
Shaft 1250 324.3 3586 143442.8 75.7 and energy performance, 2. carbon emission, and 3. cost analysis.
The results of different design alternatives have been presented in
*FCC: Façade Construction Cost.
*PED: Primary Energy Demand. graphs and compared to each other and previous studies.
*TEC: Total Energy Cost. Furthermore, thorough discussions on results are provided in each
*SPP: Simple Payback Period. section. Finally, a practical assessment index has been proposed to
*EOB: Equivalent of Oil Barrel. help decision-making through the design process.

5.1. 1Thermal comfort and energy performance

Table 9
Prioritizing design alternatives based on different objectives.
Although DSFs enhance the view and daylight levels, providing
objective First priority Second priority Third priority
thermal comfort is often a great challenge, especially in the hot and
Minimum discomfort hours (9) (11) (10) dry climate. In the first step of simulations, the operative temper-
Minimum PE (9) (11) (10)
ature of mid-floor office in different alternatives are compared in a
Minimum CPB (10) (9) (11)
Minimum SPBP (9) (11) (10) typical winter and summer week. The hourly data averaged in each
time step is depicted in Figs. 5 and 6. As the outside temperature
increases in summer, the cavity’s temperature rises due to the
greenhouse effect. The warm trapped air transfers to the adjacent
from analysis due to lack of available data. The operational and
spaces (offices) by convective means, causing overheating. How-
embodied carbon emissions in the final box, shaft, corridor and
ever, the air within the cavity heats up, effectively creating thermal
multi-story alternative are compared to the initial single façade
barrier between the external and internal environments in winter.
model. Moreover, The carbon payback period (CPBP) is used to
Results show that adding the multi-story DSF improves the
measure how long a CO2 mitigating process needs to run to
thermal conditions in the offices with and without shadings. The
compensate the emmissioned CO2 to the atmosphere during a life
office temperature is increased 3e6
C in winter day. However, the
cycle stage (Marimuthu and Kirubakaran, 2013). It is calculated by
temperature is severely increased in summer in comparison to the
dividing the life cycle (50 years) CO2 emission to the gross CO2
single layer model. According to the results the multi-story model
emission avoided per year, to verify whether DSF is considered as a
with 30-degree louvers is selected as the optimum model. Results
low-carbon approach in the studied case and which model dem-
of ventilation strategies simulation are shown in Fig. 7. The results
onstrates a better performance among the designed alternatives.
show the influence of ventilation in achieving the thermal comfort
However, to clarify more, the quoitent of operational to embodied
condition.
carbon emmision difference of different DSF types and the single
Results reveal applying different ventilation strategies to the
layer has been calculated.
cavity in warm months can decrease the office temperatures up to
Moreover, cost analyses are carried out to assess the economic
18
C where 30% openings are considered on the external layer and
feasibility of DSF technology in the defined context. The main
approximately 13
C reduction is achieved by ventilating the double
limitation in cost analysis of DSF is that there are some major effect
skin façade from the top and bottom. In addition, night ventilation
of this type of façade which are inconvenient or not practical to
of the cavity improves the thermal condition in the office spaces
measure, such as the possibilities of ventilation and better acous-
since it removes the trapped heat and brings cool air inside the
tical performance of the façade, or hard to measure such as utilizing
cavity, while preventing the condensation. Provision of operable
preconditioning air and maintenance fees. Many kinds of cost
windows in offices in combination to daytime and night ventilation
should be considered such as construction, operation, mainte-
of the cavity can improve the thermal condition considerably. Also
nance, and replacement cost. In this study, the cost analyses are
applying mix-mode ventilation (natural and mechanical) to the
 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96 91

Fig. 5. Average winter typical week office operative temperature, using different shadings (The gray area shows the occupation period).

Fig. 6. Average summer typical week office operative temperature by considering different shadings (The gray area shows the occupation period).

cavity decreased the office temperature up to 2
Celsius.
Next, the optimum shading and ventilation strategies are
assigned to the box, shaft, and corridor DSF model and the energy
demand is simulated. Comparison of office temperature in different
alternatives without HVAC in a typical winter and summer day
shows that all alternatives improve the thermal conditions in
winter where the multi-story has the minimum effect (1.8
C) on
increasing the office temperature, and the box DSF rises the tem-
perature more than the other alternatives (7.9
C).
The lighting, heating and cooling, total and primary energy
demand are simulated considering mixed mode conditioning and
results are compared with the Single layer model, presented in
Figs. 8 and 9. The primary energy demand since considers the gas
and electricity energy balance, has been defined as an index for
comparing the effectiveness of the presented scenarios. The con-
version factors that are used in order to transform the delivered
energy to primary are 3.7 for electricity and 1.0 for gas according to
Iran legislations (ISIRI, 1391). To assess the effect of shadings on
energy performance of different DSFs, the models have been
analyzed with and without shadings. Since the energy demands of
office equipment and domestic hot water are constant in all
models, they have been excluded from the graphs.
According to energy analysis, the DSF alternatives reduce the
total and primary energy demand in comparison to the Single layer
office building model. The reduction varies from 28 kWh/m2 (7.8%)
in the multi-story model without shading to 54 kWh/m2 (14.8%) in
the box model with external louver shading.
The results show that all type of DSFs in Tehran climatic con-
dition, increased the indoor space temperature in the modeled
building, even more than the amount needed to provide thermal
comfort conditions in the winter occupied hours, due to the fact
that heating degree days of Tehran is more than 2223 h. Therefore,
as a general result the thermal performance of these façades are
known appropriate in winter. Moreover natural ventilation and
shadings provide acceptable indoor space in comparison with
typical single layer double glazed windows.
Reduction in different aspects of energy shows that first of all,
appending the second skin leads to more lighting load in all cases.
The increase is more than the intensification caused by adjunction
of external shading on a single layer typical facade. In addition,
92 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96

Fig. 7. Average summer typical week office operative temperature by considering ventilation strategies.

Fig. 8. Heating, cooling, lighting and total energy demand in DSF alternatives.
using external shading in box alternative, in comparison with the
box and single layer (without shading), increased lighting load
about 12% and 19% respectively. Shaft type equipped with 30-
degree louvers shows the lowest lighting load (Fig. 8).
In addition, all types of DSFs decrease the heating load. The
minimum reduction is about 4% resulted in multi-story type with
30-degree shading louvers, and the maximum in box (24%) and
shaft (22%) (both without shading), and box with shading device
(21%) (Fig. 8). Therefore, according to the role of shading devices in
cooling load reduction, minimum heating load could be achieved
utilizing box with external 30-degree louvers shading.
The DSF’s cooling energy demand is only decreased by 5% in
comparison to the single layer model with the same ventilation and
shading strategies. Although, the reduction in comparison to the
single layer model without natural ventilation is 21%. The heating,
cooling, lighting, and the primary energy reduction in different
design alternatives in comparison to the single layer model (alt 1)
are presented in Table 4. The minus values represent the increase in
the energy demand.
The achieved results are in line with previous studies which
have reported an average of 33% reduction of the heating energy

Fig. 9. Primary energy demand in DSF alternatives.

 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96
demand in DSFs. However, normalized results in terms of heating
and cooling demand reduction in DSF research papers show broad
range of variations, i.e. from 90% of reduction potential down to an
adverse increment of 30% or more (Pomponi et al., 2016). Param-
eters such as DSF spatial configuration, cavity width, and its
ventilation, climatic zone, and the methodological approach to the
study are known as responsible factors for this variation. Results
related to reduction of cooling loads deviate less than those of
heating loads with an average of 28%. The low cooling energy
reduction in this study is mainly due to the extreme summer
conditions in Tehran. However, most studies are conducted in
temperate climate zones where the cooling degree days are much
less than Tehran and the DSF can extend the thermal comfort hours
within the building.
The box model with mix-mode ventilation in the cavity (alt 9) is
selected as the optimum alternative from the primary energy view
point. The capability of this DSF type to provide thermal comfort
without heating and cooling systems is compared to the single
façade. Results show that the percentage of occupation time in the
comfort zone is increased from 18% in the single layer model to 34%
in the box model. In addition, the percentage of time with tem-
peratures below 21
C has decreased in the box model during
occupation, while the percentage of overheating time (over 26
C)
is increased (Table 5).
5.2. Carbon analysis (operational and embodied)
Equivalent embodied carbon, operational carbon dioxide, and
carbon payback period have been calculated as indices to evaluate
the environmental performance of the abovementioned design
alternatives (Figs. 10 and 11). The embodied carbon in different
alternatives varies between 377 kg CO2/m2 in the single layer
façade and 556.5 kg CO2/m2 in the box type. As shown in Table 4
embodied carbon of the multi-story alternative is close to the sin-
gle layer façade with about 23.3% surplus, followed by the corridor
model with 33.0%, and the shaft and the box model each with 44.3%
and 47.3% over plus respectively. However, the operational CO2
emission is reduced in different alternatives in comparison to the
single layer façade. The embodied carbon in different alternatives
consists of 81.8%e89.3% and the operational carbon consists of
10.7%e18.2% of the whole carbon emission.
Carbon paybacks periods show how many years each alternative
takes to overcome the total carbon emission by the emission
avoided in a year. According to results in all DSF alternatives, the
carbon payback period is about 4.6e7.6 year (Table 6). This
Fig. 10. Operational and embodied carbon dioxide of different DSF alternatives.
93
Fig. 11. Percentage of operational and embodied carbon dioxide in different DSF
alternatives.
complies with previous studies, in that 1.8e6.8 years and 2.5e16.1
years of payback period has been reported, for narrow and wide
cavities respectively (Pomponi et al., 2015).
Moreover, this would be more sensible when comparing to the
operational carbon, as shown in Table 7, complying with previous
studies (Gratia and De Herde, 2007b; Wadel et al., 2013), shows a
maximum 50% of carbon dioxide and energy consumption reduc-
tion, and about 30e60% of heating and cooling loads reduction.
However, (Gratia and De Herde, 2007b) reports 7.5% environmental
impact reduction of DSF alternatives compared to the base case. The
maximum CO2 emission differences in the alternatives in fifty years
commissioning period is about 5185 Ton, (shaft with the minimum
and single layer façade with the maximum CO2 emission). The ef-
fect of the implementation of this type of façade (ignoring the
probable changes in the structure) is presented in Table 7, in that
the produced CO2 during the commissioning period of the building
with shaft, box, corridor, multi-story, and single façade are 13.2,
13.1, 17.03,17.04, and 24.13 times greater than the embodied CO2
respectively.
117.0e151.9 kg of CO2 per square meter has been calculated
between the above mentioned alternatives, which is lower than the
more complicated DSF systems, such as unitized DSF with 178.64 kg
CO2/m2 reported in previous studies (Wadel et al., 2013). In other
words, assuming the buildings’ lifetime 50 years, it would take
about 13.1e17 years to produce the same amount of carbon of the
façade components raw material in different alternatives. As re-
ported in the previous research (Kolokotroni et al., 2004), this could
be reduced by 17%, using natural ventilation. Researchers report
better performance in life cycle perspective in comparison to single
layer façade for 98% of DSF configurations, and also 83% better
carbon cycle performance (Pomponi et al., 2015). The results of the
reported simulations in this study also confirm that 23.3%e47.3% of
improvement in green house emission has been observed in multi-
story and box alternatives respectively.
5.3. Economic analysis
Construction costs of different DSF alternatives have been
calculated, including workmanship, machinery and equipment, and
material costs per square meter. Data collection from the local
suppliers and contractors show that the construction cost of double
skin facade system (consisting of structural reinforcements, mate-
rial, and installation costs) ranges from 1000 to 2200 $/m2 in
Tehran. The additional investment costs of DSFs around the world
are compared and presented in Fig. 12. The simple payback period,
94 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96
calculated from the total cost and energy cost savings of each
alternative are presented in Table 8.
The simple payback period of the alternatives varies between
34.7 in the single layer case to 87.5 years in the box model which is
longer than the life span of the building, assumed about fifty years.
In this study, the cost analysis is limited to initial and operating
costs. Previous studies report the initial cost and total life cycle cost
of different DSF alternatives between 111.5 and 303.6 $/m2 and
197.8e362.6 $/m2 respectively (Cetiner and Ozkan,€ 2005). Another
study reported the initial cost of different DSF alternatives between
218 and 320 $/m2, equal to about 81 years payback period, which is
economically infeasible (Chan et al., 2009). The payback period has
   

Energy Primary; kWh kg $
m2 * Carbon m2 * Cost m2 of DSF
ECC index ð%Þ ¼    
(1)
Energy Primary; kWh kg $
m2 * Carbon m2 * Cost m2 of Base case ðsingle DGUÞ
been reported between 103 and 240 years in initial cost, and
30e200 years in total cost, in a study for 7 cities, which mentioned
£600e800/m2 of initial cost for a simple façade type DSF, with 50%,
40%, and 20% surplus in New York, UK, and Germany (Stribling and
Stigge, 2003). Compared to single glazed and opaque facades with
windows, DSF’s cost about 20e80% and 100e150% higher in
Belgium, which equals to 500e700 V/m2 (Streicher, 2008).
Considering that DSF can provide a more comfortable working
environment, which in turn can increase employee productivity,
the financial payback can be significantly reduced.
5.4. Holistic assessment index
Despite the eligible aspects DSFs performance in energy, com-
fort, and indoor environmental quality, it is not yet accepted as a
prevalent technology in many countries, especially those with low
energy prices. In Table 9, DSF configurations have been prioritized
based on different objectives i.e., minimum thermal discomfort
Fig. 12. Additional cost of DSF according to different references.
hours, minimum primary energy, minimum carbon payback period
and minimum simple payback period.
Table 9 shows that although multi criteria decision making
needs more specific data for each building to select the best alter-
native, analysis show that the shaft and box are the most acceptable
choices for Tehran’s climatic condition. However, as a more general
result, despite the cost, DSF’s always perform much better than
single skin layer facades if selected, equipped and operated care-
fully. In order to define the appropriate DSF design based on energy
performance, carbon emission and the additional costs the ECC
(Energy-Carbon-Cost ( index is proposed. ECC index is calculated
based on eq. (1)
As shown in Fig. 13, the more the ECC index decreases, the more
the utilization of technology is logical. The graph is divided to three
sections; low cost, mid cost, and high cost, as a decision-making
tool. DSFs with a low ECC index would be more effective and
should be focused more. In other words, as a practical development
approach, the future studies of DSF should be oriented based on
ECC.
6. Conclusion
In this study, result shows that first of all the total energy con-
sumption of an office tower in Tehran climatic condition would be
reduced utilizing a DSF in all the alternatives, from minimum 28 to
maximum 54 kWh/m2. Simulations show that thermal comfort is
achieved in the free running mode of DSF alternatives in more than
34% of the occupied time, while it is about 18% in a single layer
façade.
 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96
Fig. 13. ECC index for decision making of system selection in DSF.
The produced CO2 during the commissioning period of the
building with shaft and box façade are equal to 13.1 and 13.2 time of
the embodied CO2 emission, and 17.03, 17.04, and 24.1 time of that
in case of corridor, multi-story, and a single layer facade respec-
tively. Therefore, the box and shaft are more acceptable from the
overall carbon emission perspective.
The result shows that box and shaft have higher simple payback
period (SPBP) (87.5 and 75.7 years respectively) while the lower
SPBP of corridor and multi-story façade (64.9 and 59.4 years
respectively) are yet not comparable to single façade with 34.9
years of SPBP. It means that DSF are still very expensive to be used
in Tehran office buildings in order to reduce the energy consump-
tion. However, the prestigious of the building and the architectural
features, as well as better acoustic insulation and better ventilation
possibilities are not considered. Overall, DSFs cause an increase in
the capital (material, fabrication, transportation, and installation)
and maintenance costs. However, savings on energy bills and
smaller HVAC systems, and more rentable areas and increase in the
building value is achieved. In the studied context, the application of
double skin facade is economically infeasible, mainly due to the
expensive investment cost and low energy prices. The encourage-
ment often requires the subsidies and motivation from the gov-
ernment. Also more research and post occupancy evaluations in
these buildings is required to measure IEQ improvements, and its
effect on work productivity. Moreover, a multi criteria decision
making tool could help designers select among different DSFs al-
ternatives and ascertain them about the feasibility of the selection.
For the purpose of the study the ECC (Energy-Carbon-Cost) index
was developed. According to results high ECC alternatives would be
more effective especially in developing countries.
References
Ahmed, M.M.S., Abel-Rahman, A.K., Ali, A.H.H., Suzuki, M., 2015. Double skin façade:
the state of art on building energy efficiency. J. Clean Energy Technol 4, 84e89
https://doi.org/10.7763/JOCET.2016.V4.258.
95
Assessment, T.I.N., 2012. Carbon Innovation Coordination Group Technology Inno-
vation Needs Assessment ( TINA ) Non-domestic Buildings Summary Report.
Azarbayjani, M., 2014. Comparative performance evaluation of a multistory double
skin façade building in humid continental climate. In: ARCC Conference
Repository.
Bagheri, F., Mokarizadeh, V., Jabbar, M., 2013. Developing energy performance label
for office buildings in Iran. Energy Build. 61, 116e124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2013.02.022.
Baldinelli, G., 2009. Double skin façades for warm climate regions: analysis of a
solution with an integrated movable shading system. Build. Environ. 44,
1107e1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.08.005.
Barbosa, S., Ip, K., 2014. Perspectives of double skin façades for naturally ventilated
buildings: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40, 1019e1029. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.192.
Bayer, C., Gamble, M., Gentry, R., Joshi, S., 2010. Guide to building life cycle
assessment in practice. Am. Inst. Archit 1e193.
€
Cetiner, I., Ozkan, E., 2005. An approach for the evaluation of energy and cost ef-
ficiency of glass façades. Energy Build. 37, 673e684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2004.10.007.
Chan, A.L.S., Chow, T.T., Fong, K.F., Lin, Z., 2009. Investigation on energy performance
of double skin façade in Hong Kong. Energy Build. 41, 1135e1142. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.05.012.
Dama, A., Angeli, D., Larsen, O.K., 2017. Naturally ventilated double-skin fa??ade in
modeling and experiments. Energy Build. 144, 17e29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2017.03.038.
de Gracia, A., Navarro, L., Castell, A., Boer, D., Cabeza, L.F., 2014. Life cycle assessment
of a ventilated facade with PCM in its air chamber. Sol. Energy 104, 115e123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.07.023.
de Gracia, A., Navarro, L., Castell, A., Cabeza, L.F., 2015. Energy performance of a
ventilated double skin facade with PCM under different climates. Energy Build.
91, 37e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.01.011.
Engineering Reference, 2015. The Reference to EnergyPlus Calculations.
EnergyPlus [WWW Document], n.d.
Esen, M., Yuksel, T., 2013. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable
energy sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build. 65, 340e351. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.06.018.
Flores Larsen, S., Rengifo, L., Filippín, C., 2015. Double skin glazed façades in sunny
Mediterranean climates. Energy Build. 102, 18e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2015.05.019.
Ghadamian, H., Ghadimi, M., Shakouri, M., Moghadasi, M., Moghadasi, M., 2012.
Analytical solution for energy modeling of double skin façades building. Energy
Build. 50, 158e165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.034.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., GhaffarianHoseini, A., Berardi, U., Tookey, J., Li, D.H.W.,
Kariminia, S., 2016. Exploring the advantages and challenges of double-skin
faca˛ des (DSFs). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 1052e1065. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2016.01.130.
96 Z.S. Zomorodian, M. Tahsildoost / Journal of Cleaner Production 197 (2018) 85e96
Gratia, E., De Herde, A., 2007a. The most efficient position of shading devices in a
double-skin facade. Energy Build. 39, 364e373.
Gratia, E., De Herde, A., 2007b. Are energy consumptions decreased with the
addition of a double-skin? Energy Build. 39, 605e619.
Hong, T., Kim, J., Lee, J., Koo, C., Park, H., 2013. Assessment of seasonal energy ef-
ficiency strategies of a double skin façade in a monsoon climate region. Energies
6, 4352e4376. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6094352.
Ioannidis, Z., Buonomano, A., Athienitis, A.K., Stathopoulos, T., 2017. Modeling of
double skin façades integrating photovoltaic panels and automated roller
shades: analysis of the thermal and electrical performance. Energy Build. 154,
618e632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.046.
ISIRI, 1391. Non-residential buildings- criteria for energy consumption and energy
labeling instruction.
Joe, J., Choi, W., Kwon, H., Huh, J.H., 2013. Load characteristics and operation stra-
tegies of building integrated with multi-story double skin facade. Energy Build.
60, 185e198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.01.015.
Keyhani, A., Ghasemi-Varnamkhasti, M., Khanali, M., Abbaszadeh, R., 2010. An
assessment of wind energy potential as a power generation source in the
capital of Iran, Tehran. Energy 35, 188e201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2009.09.009.
Kilaire, A., Stacey, M., 2017. Design of a prefabricated passive and active double skin
façade system for UK offices. J. Build. Eng 12, 161e170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2017.06.001.
Kimouche, N., Mahri, Z., Abidi-Saad, A., Popa, C., Polidori, G., Maalouf, C., 2017. Effect
of inclination angle of the adiabatic wall in asymmetrically heated channel on
natural convection: application to double-skin façade design. J. Build. Eng 12,
171e177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.06.002.
Kirimtat, A., Koyunbaba, B.K., Chatzikonstantinou, I., Sariyildiz, S., 2016. Review of
simulation modeling for shading devices in buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 53, 23e49.
Kolokotroni, M., Robinson-Gayle, S., Tanno, S., Cripps, A., 2004. Environmental
impact analysis for typical office facades. Build. Res. Inf. 32, 2e16.
Li, Y., Darkwa, J., Kokogiannakis, G., 2017. Heat transfer analysis of an integrated
double skin façade and phase change material blind system. Build. Environ. 125,
111e121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.034.
Liu, S., Kong, X., Yang, H., Fan, M., Zhan, X., 2017. Numerical study of thermal
characteristics of double skin facade system with middle shade. Front. Energy
1e13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-017-0480-8.
Luo, Y., Zhang, L., Wang, X., Xie, L., Liu, Z., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., He, X., 2017.
A comparative study on thermal performance evaluation of a new double skin
façade system integrated with photovoltaic blinds. Appl. Energy 199, 281e293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.026.
Manz, H., Frank, T., 2005. Thermal simulation of buildings with double-skin façades.
Energy Build. 37, 1114e1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.06.014.
Marimuthu, C., Kirubakaran, V., 2013. Carbon pay back period for solar and wind
energy project installed in India: a critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
23, 80e90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.045.
Ministers, C. o, 1992. Code 19, Iranian Building Regulations, Tehran, Iran, 1992 (in
Persian).
Noorpoor, A.R., Kudahi, S.N., 2015. CO 2 emissions from Iran’s power sector and
analysis of the influencing factors using the stochastic impacts by regression on
population, affluence and technology (STIRPAT) model. Carbon Manag. 6,
101e116. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2015.1090317.
Osses de Eicker, M., Hischier, R., Kulay, L.A., Lehmann, M., Zah, R., Hurni, H., 2010.
The applicability of non-local LCI data for LCA. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30,
192e199. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2009.08.007.
Papadaki, N., Papantoniou, S., Kolokotsa, D., 2014. A parametric study of the energy
performance of double-skin façades in climatic conditions of Crete, Greece. Int.
J. Low Carbon Technol. 9, 296e304.
Perilli, S., Sfarra, S., Guerrini, M., Bisegna, F., Ambrosini, D., 2018. The thermo-
physical behaviour of cork supports doped with an innovative thermal insu-
lation and protective coating: a numerical analysis based on in situ
experimental data. Energy Build. 159, 508e528.
Pollard, B., BLArch, BaC., Beatty, M., Arch, Bd, 2000. Double Skin Façades More Is
Less?.
Pomponi, F., Piroozfar, P.A.E., Southall, R., Ashton, P., Farr, E.R.P., 2015. Life cycle
energy and carbon assessment of double skin façades for office refurbishments.
Energy Build. 109, 143e156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.09.051.
Pomponi, F., Piroozfar, P.A.E., Southall, R., Ashton, P., Farr, E.R.P., 2016. Energy per-
formance of Double-Skin Façades in temperate climates: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 1525e1536. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.075.
Radhi, H., Sharples, S., Fikiry, F., 2013. Will multi-facade systems reduce cooling
energy in fully glazed buildings? A scoping study of UAE buildings. Energy
Build. 56, 179e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.08.030.
Sfarra, S., Perilli, S., Ambrosini, D., Paoletti, D., Nardi, I., de Rubeis, T., Santulli, C.,
2017. A proposal of a new material for greenhouses on the basis of numerical,
optical, thermal and mechanical approaches. Construct. Build. Mater. 155,
332e347.
Shen, C., Li, X., 2016. Thermal performance of double skin façade with built-in pipes
utilizing evaporative cooling water in cooling season. Sol. Energy 137, 55e65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.07.055.
Streicher, W., 2008. BESTFAÇADE: Best Practice for Double Skin Façades. WP1
Report“State Art”, Append. A.
Stribling, D., Stigge, B., 2003. A critical review of the energy savings and cost
payback issues of double façades. In: CIBSE/ASHRAE Conference.
Wadel, G., Alonso, P., Zamora, J.-L., Garrido, P., 2013. Simplified LCA in skin design:
the FB720 case. Int. J. Sustain. Build. Technol. Urban Dev. 4, 68e81. https://doi.
org/10.1080/2093761X.2012.759890.
Wang, M., Peng, J., Li, N., Yang, H., Wang, C., Li, X., Lu, T., 2017. Comparison of energy
performance between PV double skin facades and PV insulating glass units.
Appl. Energy 194, 148e160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.019.
Zhang, W., Lu, L., Peng, J., 2017. Evaluation of potential benefits of solar photovoltaic
shadings in Hong Kong. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.166.
Zhou, J., Chen, Y., 2010. A review on applying ventilated double-skin facade to
buildings in hot-summer and cold-winter zone in China. Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. 14, 1321e1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.017.