Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 822–828

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Impact of building shape on thermal performance of office buildings in Kuwait

Adnan AlAnzi a, Donghyun Seo b, Moncef Krarti b,*
a
Architectural Engineering Department, University of Kuwait, Kuwait City, Kuwait
b
Civil Environmental and Architectural Engineering Department, University of Colorado, Campus Box 428, Boulder, CO 80309, United States

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

Article history: This paper provides a simplified analysis method to estimate the impact of building shape on energy effi-
Received 13 February 2008 ciency of office buildings in Kuwait. The method is based on results obtained from a comprehensive
Accepted 12 September 2008 whole building energy simulation analysis. The analysis takes into account several building shapes and
Available online 17 November 2008
forms including rectangular, L-shape, U-shape, and H-shape as well as building aspect ratios, window-
to-wall ratios, and glazing types. The simplified method is suitable for architects during preliminary
Keywords: design phase to assess the impact of shape on the energy efficiency of office buildings.
Building shape
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Cooling energy use
Heating energy use
Office buildings

1. Introduction 2. Parametric analysis

Some studies have shown that the building shape can have
a significant impact on the energy costs of heating and cooling
[1–3]. However, no general guidelines are available for architects
and designers on the impact of the form on the energy efficiency
of buildings. Recently, Ourghi et al. [4] have developed a simpli-
fied analysis tool to predict the effect of shape selection on the
annual energy use for office buildings. In particular, the method
correlates the annual energy use to the relative compactness of
the building. The relative compactness, a normalized ratio of
the volume to the exterior wall area, is commonly used as indi-
cator of shape in buildings. The method of Ourghi et al. has been
developed for limited building shapes (rectangular and L-shapes)
[4].
In this paper, the work of Ourghi et al. is extended to include
several building shapes, window areas, glazing types. Using the re-
sults of a comprehensive parametric analysis, a correlation is
developed to predict the impact of building shape on energy effi-
ciency for various window areas and glazing types. First, the basic
settings for the parametric analysis, conducted using a detailed
building energy simulation tool, are described. Then, selected re-
sults of the parametric analysis are presented. Finally, the simpli-
fied calculation method is developed to correlate annual energy
use to building shape and window-to-wall ratio as well as glazing
type.
For the study presented in this paper, a prototypical Kuwaiti of-
fice building is considered. The total office floor area for this proto-
typical building is 12,500 m2 distributed over 20 floors (625 m2/
floor).
2.1. Building shapes
Several shapes and floor plans have been developed for the
prototypical office building. The floor plans include: Rectangular-
shape, L-shape, T-shape, Cross-shape, H-shape, U-shape and
Cut-shape shape. For an easier comparative analysis, the energy
simulation results are normalized using the results obtained from
a reference shape, which has a square floor plan with the same
floor area (625 m2) and number of floors (20 floors) as the proto-
typical office building. In addition to the reference square floor
plan, a ‘‘bounding rectangle” is defined for each floor plan. This
bounding rectangle is defined by its width W, and depth D as
shown in Table 1 for each shape. The floor area is kept constant
for all shapes. To ensure that the conditioned building volume re-
mains constant, the total height is kept the same for all building
configurations throughout the study.
Table 1 lists the geometric dimensions including the perimeter
(P) and the relative compactness (RC) of the floor plans for all the
building configurations used in this study.

2.2. Relative compactness

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 303 492 3389; fax: +1 303 492 7317. The relative compactness (RC) is used in this study as an indica-
E-mail address: krarti@colorado.edu (M. Krarti). tor of building shape to help the comparative analysis when

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.09.033
 A. AlAnzi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 822–828 823

Table 1
Geometric dimensions for building floor plans with L, cross, T and H shapes
No. Bound rectangle L-shape Cross-shape T-shape H-Shape
W (m) D (m) t (m) P (m) RC t (m) P (m) RC t (m) P (m) RC t (m) P (m) RC
1 19.00 294.00 2.00 626.00 0.16 2.00 626.00 0.16 2.00 626.00 0.16 1.03 1211.94 0.08
2 20.00 231.30 2.50 502.60 0.20 2.50 502.60 0.20 2.50 502.60 0.20 1.30 962.61 0.10
3 22.00 188.33 3.00 420.67 0.24 3.00 420.67 0.24 3.00 420.67 0.24 1.57 794.19 0.13
4 22.50 158.71 3.50 362.43 0.28 3.50 362.43 0.28 3.50 362.43 0.28 1.85 676.16 0.15
5 24.00 135.50 4.00 319.00 0.31 4.00 319.00 0.31 4.00 319.00 0.31 2.14 585.72 0.17
6 25.00 104.40 5.00 258.80 0.39 5.00 258.80 0.39 5.00 258.80 0.39 2.72 462.15 0.22
7 26.00 83.67 6.00 219.33 0.45 6.00 219.33 0.45 6.00 219.33 0.45 3.33 380.00 0.26
8 27.00 68.86 7.00 191.71 0.52 7.00 191.71 0.52 7.00 191.71 0.52 3.97 321.49 0.31
9 28.00 57.75 8.00 171.50 0.58 8.00 171.50 0.58 8.00 171.50 0.58 4.63 277.73 0.36
10 29.00 49.11 9.00 156.22 0.64 9.00 156.22 0.64 9.00 156.22 0.64 5.34 243.77 0.41
11 30.00 42.20 10.00 144.40 0.69 10.00 144.40 0.69 10.00 144.40 0.69 6.08 216.63 0.46
12 31.00 36.55 11.00 135.09 0.74 11.00 135.09 0.74 11.00 135.09 0.74 6.89 194.41 0.51
13 27.00 36.83 12.00 127.67 0.78 12.00 127.67 0.78 12.00 127.67 0.78 7.21 186.91 0.53
14 28.00 32.85 13.00 121.69 0.82 13.00 121.69 0.82 13.00 121.69 0.82 8.01 171.37 0.58

15 29.20 29.23 14.00 116.86 0.85 14.00 116.86 0.85 14.00 116.86 0.85 8.91 157.50 0.63

No. Bound rectangle U-shape Rectangular shape Cut shape

W (m) D (m) t (m) P (m) RC W (m) P (m) RC t1 (m) t2 (m) P
Geometric dimensions for building floor plans with U, rectangle, and cut shapes
1 19.00 294.00 1.03 1211.94 0.08 2.12 592.23 0.17 1.21 147.00 591.63
2 20.00 231.30 1.30 962.61 0.10 2.69 467.98 0.21 1.54 115.65 467.22
3 22.00 188.33 1.57 794.19 0.13 3.30 383.27 0.26 1.89 94.17 382.35
4 22.50 158.71 1.85 676.16 0.15 3.92 325.27 0.31 2.24 79.36 324.18
5 24.00 135.50 2.14 585.72 0.17 4.59 280.18 0.36 2.62 67.75 278.92
6 25.00 104.40 2.72 462.15 0.22 5.96 220.72 0.45 3.40 52.20 219.12
7 26.00 83.67 3.33 380.00 0.26 7.43 182.20 0.55 4.25 41.83 180.29
8 27.00 68.86 3.97 321.49 0.31 9.03 155.78 0.64 5.16 34.43 153.58
9 28.00 57.75 4.63 277.73 0.36 10.77 137.04 0.73 6.15 28.88 134.61
10 29.00 49.11 5.34 243.77 0.41 12.67 123.55 0.81 7.24 24.56 120.98
11 30.00 42.20 6.08 216.63 0.46 14.74 113.88 0.88 8.42 21.10 111.29
12 31.00 36.55 6.89 194.41 0.51 17.02 107.13 0.93 9.73 18.27 104.69
13 27.00 36.83 7.21 186.91 0.53 16.89 107.44 0.93 9.65 18.42 104.99
14 28.00 32.85 8.01 171.37 0.58 18.94 103.57 0.96 10.82 16.42 101.40
15 29.20 29.23 8.91 157.50 0.63 21.28 101.02 0.99 12.16 14.61 99.34

assessing the impact of shape and geometric dimensions on the ðV=As Þbuilding
RC ¼ ð1Þ
building energy performance. It is described mathematically as ðV=As ÞRef
follow:

Table 3
Types of glazing and window-to-wall ratios considered in the simulation analysis
Table 2
Office building model basic features Glazing Label SHGC WWR
Lighting power density (LPD) 12.3 W/m2 Single clear 6 mm SVC 0.815 0–0.75
Equipment power density (EPD) 2.6 W/m2 Double green DGR 0.419 0–0.75
Average occupancy density (m2/person) 26 m2/person Double bronze DBR 0.492 0–0.75
Glazing distribution Uniform glazing distribution Double clear DCL 0.762 0–0.75
HVAC system Water-cooled chiller HVAC system Double clear low e DCLE 0.643 0–0.75
with electric resistance heating Single bronze reflective tint L SBR 0.252 0–0.75
824 A. AlAnzi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 822–828
where (V/As)building is the compactness of a specific shape, and
(V/As)ref is the compactness of the reference building (which has a
square floor plan in this study). Note that V and As refer, respec-
tively, to the conditioned volume and envelope surface area ex-
posed to the outdoor air (i.e., exposed exterior wall area). As
indicated by Eq. (1), the relative compactness (RC) has no dimen-
sions. Since the floor area and total height of any building configu-
ration are identical, the building volume is constant for buildings
including the reference building. Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
RC ¼ ðAs Þref =ðAs Þbuilding
Table 1 shows the geometric characteristics for various building
shapes used in the study. These geometric characteristics include:
the dimensions of the bounding rectangle, W and D, the perimeter
(P) and the relative compactness (RC). An interesting observation
from Table 1 is that the perimeter values of the L-, T- and cross-
shaped buildings are identical for the similar bounding rectangle
dimensions (W and D). In fact, these perimeters’ values indicate
the same degree of surface exposure to the ambient conditions.
In addition, the values shown in Table 1 indicate that higher rela-
tive compactness (RC) is associated with lower perimeter.
2.3. Building models
Models for office buildings with various shapes have been
developed using DOE-2 simulation program [5]. For all models,
typical office space occupancy patterns and schedules suitable for
Kuwait are utilized. In particular, these office space occupancy pat-
terns are listed in Table 2.
Several parameters are varied to estimate the annual electricity
use for several building configurations with different building
shapes and relative compactness values. The analysis is carried
out for various window sizes and glazing types. In particular, win-
Fig. 1. Typical office building renderings for all the floor plan shapes used in the
study. The figure shows: L-shape, T-shape, H-shape, cross-shape, U-shape, cut-
shape and rectangular shape.
dow to wall ratio was set to vary from 0 (no opening) to 0.75. Sev-
eral glazing types with varying solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)
were analyzed and used. Table 3 summarizes the glazing types
characterized by the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) and the
range of window-to-wall ratios (WWRs) used in the analysis.
For all the building models, the roof is made up of 100-mm hea-
vy weight concrete and 75-mm extruded polystyrene insulation
and build-up roofing while the walls are made up of 200-mm hea-
vy weight concrete and 25-mm extruded polystyrene insulation
and 25-mm stucco. The roof and wall constructions meet the
ð2Þ
Kuwaiti Ministry of Energy (MOE) code of practice [6]. The overall
U-values are 0.40 W/m2 K and 0.54 W/m2 K for, respectively, the
roof and the walls.
Fig. 1 shows 3-D rendering for selected building models with
various shapes considered in the simulation analysis.
3. Discussion of results
The total annual energy use, Et, for any building configuration is
normalized relative to the annual energy use, Eref obtained for the
reference building (with a square floor plan) to facilitate the com-
parative analysis. A similar normalization is performed for the an-
nual cooling energy use.
In this section selected results of the parametric analysis are
presented.
3.1. Impact of relative compactness
Fig. 2 illustrates the impact of the relative compactness (RC) on
both annual cooling energy use and annual total building energy
use for a building with no windows (WWR = 0) for all building
shapes considered in the analysis. The results of Fig. 2 indicate that
the energy use decreases as the relative compactness increases. In-
deed, as the relative compactness (RC) increases, the exterior wall
area exposed to ambient conditions decreases and consequently
the building cooling load decreases.
The same results shown in Fig. 2 are rearranged and presented
in Fig. 3 using 1/RC in the x-axis. It is clear that when there is no
window (WWR = 0), the energy use in the building is proportional
to 1/RC. Referring to Eq. (2), this result is expected since 1/RC is
simply related to the building exterior wall area.
3.2. Impact of window wall ratio (WWR)
Fig. 4 illustrates the effect of glazing area on the normalized to-
tal annual energy use for different building shapes with window-
to-wall ratio, WWR = 50%, and clear glazing. The results of Fig. 4
show a similar trend noted for the buildings with no window, that
is, an increase in RC leads to a decrease in energy use. However, the
trend depends slightly on the building shape due most likely to
variation in solar exposure for different building shapes. For exam-
ple, a cross-shaped building of similar RC as an L-shaped building
has different wall area and orientation for solar exposure. This dif-
ference causes variation in solar gains and consequently in cooling
loads.
3.3. Impact of orientation
Fig. 5 shows the variation of normalized annual building total
energy use as a function of building orientation for two window-
to-wall ratios (WWR = 0.25 and WWR = 0.50) for various building
shapes with a given RC-value. The results of Fig. 5 indicate that
while the orientation has an impact on the energy performance
of the building, its effect is almost independent of the building
shape especially for low WWR-values.
 A. AlAnzi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 822–828 825

2.10

2.00 L T + H Cut Rc U
1.90

1.80

1.70

1.60 Ratio of Total Energy Use with 0% Glazing

Et/Eref

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00

0.90
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05

RC
(a) Total Energy
2.20

2.10
L T + H Cut Rc U
2.00

1.90

1.80

1.70 Ratio of Cooling Energy Use with 0% Glazing

1.60
Et/Eref

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10

1.00

0.90
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05

RC
(b) Cooling Energy Use
Fig. 2. Normalized annual building (a) total energy use and (b) cooling energy use for L, T, H, cut, rectangular and U building shapes (WWR = 0) as a function of RC.

4. Development of a simplified analysis method
Based on the results of the parametric analysis, it is determined
that the impact of the building shape on the building energy per-
formance depends primarily on the window area and the glazing
type. Thus, three parameters are considered to correlate the nor-
malized building energy use to the building shape. These parame-
ters include: the relative compactness (RC), the window-to-wall
ratio (WWR), and glazing type defined by its solar heat gain coef-
ficient (SHGC). Several correlation equations are tested. Table 4
826 A. AlAnzi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 822–828

2.10

2.00 L T + H Cut Rc U

1.90

1.80

1.70

1.60
Et/Eref

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10
Ratio of Total Energy Use with 0% Glazing

1.00

0.90
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00

1/RC
(a) Total Energy

2.40
2.30 L T + H Cut Rc U
2.20
2.10
2.00
1.90
Et/Eref

1.80
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
Ratio of Cooling Energy Use with 0% Glazin g
0.90
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00

1/RC
(b) Cooling Energy Use
Fig. 3. Normalized annual building (a) total energy use and (b) cooling energy use for L, T, H, Cut, rectangular and U building shapes (WWR = 0) as a function of 1/RC.
 A. AlAnzi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 822–828 827

14.00

13.00 L T + H U Rc Cut
12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00
Single Clear Glazing (WWR = 50%)
Et/Eref
7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.05

RC

Fig. 4. Normalized annual building total energy use for L, T, H, cut, rectangular and U building shapes with clear glass and 50% WWR.

RC = 0.16, 25%G
7
6
5
E/Er

4
3
2
1
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315

Azimuth Angle
U H L + T Rectangle

(a) WWR = 0.25

RC = 0.16/0.17, 50%G
9
8
7
6
E/Er

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315

Azimuth Angle
U H L + T Rectangle

(b) WWR = 0.50

Fig. 5. Normalized annual building total energy use for L, T, H, rectangular and U shapes with clear glass and RC = 0.16.

Table 4
Regression results for recommended correlation equations

Correlation Equation Coefficients R2

T-1 A + B*(WWR*SHGC)**2 + C*(WWR*SHGC) + D*1/RC A = 1.482; B = 6.756; C = 7.092; D = 1.150 0.926
T-2 A + B*(WWR*SHGC*1/RC)**2 + C*(WWR*SHGC*1/RC) + D*1/RC A = 0.4525; B = 0.223; C = 1.755; D = 0.848 0.945
T-3 A + B*(WWR*SHGC*1/RC)**4 + C*(WWR*SHGC*1/RC)**2*D* (WWR*SHGC*1/ A = 0.367; B = 0.061; C = 1.454; D = 0.851; E = 0.006 0.946
RC) + E*1/RC
828 A. AlAnzi et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 50 (2009) 822–828

15
y = 0.9259x + 0.2244
transmission) to heating and cooling building loads. For buildings
R2 = 0.9259 with small windows (or no windows as the case of the results
12
Et/Etr (Calc) shown in Fig. 2), the term 1/RC is dominant.
Based on simplicity and accuracy, the total building energy use
9
from any building shape can be obtained from the following corre-
6
lation (Equation T-8):
Et ¼ Eref  fA þ B ðWWR SHGC 1=RCÞ 2
3
þ C  ðWWR SHGC 1=RCÞ þ D 1=RCg ð3Þ
0
0 5 10 15 where
Et/Etr (Act)
(a) Correlation T-1  Eref is the total building energy use for a square building (refer-
ence building) with the same floor area and volume of the actual
15
y = 0.9455x + 0.1643 building;
R2 = 0.9456  A, B, C, and D are regression coefficients with A = 0.4525;
12
B = 0.223; C = 1.755; and D = 0.848.
Et/Etr (Calc)

6 5. Summary

3
The results of a detailed parametric analysis indicate that the
effect of building shape on total building energy use depends on
0
0 5 10 15 primarily three factors, the relative compactness, RC, the win-
Et/Etr (Act) dow-to-wall ratio, WWR and glazing type defined by it solar heat
(b) Correlation T-2 gain coefficient, SHGC. For buildings with low window-to-wall
15
ratios, it is found that the total energy use is inversely proportional
y = 0.9464x + 0.1623 to the building relative compactness independent of its form.
R2 = 0.9464
12 Based on regression analysis, a correlation is found to provide a
good curve fit between the annual total building energy use and
Et/Etr (Calc)

9 the three parameters RC, WWR, and SHGC. The correlation

equation (Eq. (3)) can be utilized by architects during preliminary
6 design phase to assess the impact of shape on the energy efficiency
of office buildings in Kuwait.
3

0
Acknowledgement
0 5 10 15
Et/Etr (Act) The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
(c) Correlation T-3 from the Kuwait University Research Administration.

Fig. 6. Prediction accuracy for three correlation equations T-1, T-2, and T-3.
References

[1] Depecker P, Menezo C, Virgone J, Lepers S. Design of building shape and

summarizes the regression results for selected correlation
equations.
Fig. 6 shows the prediction accuracy for the three correlations
using all the building configurations (including variations in shape,
WWR, and SHGC). Note that these correlations include the terms
WWR*SHGC or WWR*SHGC*1/RC that represent the amount of
solar gains through the window and affect both the heating and
cooling loads and thus the total building energy use. In addition
all the correlations have a term function of only 1/RC that
represents the contribution of exterior walls (through heat
energetic consumption. Build Environ J 2001;30(2):201–22.
[2] Pessenlehner W, Mahdavi A. A building morphology, transparency, and energy
performance, Eighth international IBPSA conference proceedings, Eindhoven,
Netherlands; 2003.
[3] Marks M. Multi-criteria optimization of shape of energy saving buildings. Build
Environ J 1997;32(4):331–9.
[4] Ourghi R, Al-Anzi A, Krarti M. A simplified analysis method to predict the
impact of shape on annual energy use for office buildings. Energy Convers
Manage J 2007;48:300–5.
[5] LBL. DOE-2 Manual and supplement version 2.1E. Report by Lawrence Berkley
Laboratory for Department of Energy; 1993.
[6] Kuwaiti Ministry of Energy (MOE). Code of practice for commercial buildings,
Safat, Kuwait; 1983.