Façade Design Stages: Issues and Considerations

Saviz Moghtadernejad1; M. Saeed Mirza, P.Eng. Ph.D.2; and Luc E. Chouinard, Sc.D.3

Abstract: Building façades play an important role in building aesthetics and in protecting the structural system and contents from deteriora-
tion due to exposure to an aggressive environment. Well-designed façades can also help improve the durability and energy efficiency of the
building as well as elevating the level of human comfort. In general, façade design and detailing have not received the same level of rigor and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

overall scrutiny as the load-bearing components of buildings. Current codes and standards require safety provisions for environmental separat-
ing elements of a building. However, there is an urgent need for the development of detailed procedures for the design of durable and sustain-
able building façades. This paper reviews the needed considerations in each stage of an optimal façade life cycle and compares them with the
current available practices and discusses various safety-related issues, failure modes, and the risks involved throughout the system service life.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000335. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Optimal façades; Integrated façade design; Façade risks.

Introduction important to integrate these stages to ensure that façades perform as

The word “façade” has its origin in the French language, meaning
“frontage” or “face” (Simpson 1989a, b) and comprises the exterior
or skin of a building, including special architectural features. It usu-
ally refers to the front of the building, but it can also include its sides
and back.
Façades are a part of the building envelope and provide support
for the external architectural features of buildings; they have
evolved through history from clay, stone, wood, and brick to steel
and glass to meet various functional and climatic needs. The devel-
opment of different materials and construction methods has led to
the emergence of different architectural styles and façades.
Concrete was first used by first-century Roman architects
(Lechtman and Hobbs 1986; Moghtadernejad 2013). The applica-
tion of reinforced concrete triggered a revolution in the construction
industry with the use of reinforced concrete façades in buildings.
Currently, several materials and construction styles are used in
building façades, with varying performance and costs, from con-
ventional materials to advanced façade systems (Table 1).
Fig. 1 shows the different stages in the life cycle of a typical
façade system. Each of these stages may consist of one or more sub-
stages. For example, the design stage can be divided into conceptual
design, detailed design, and related tests and evaluations. To
achieve the intended goal of having an optimal façade system, cer-
tain criteria and requirements must be considered for each stage and
provisions must be made to satisfy these requirements. It is
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied
Mechanics, McGill Univ., Montreal, QC H3G 0A6, Canada (corre-
sponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9860-5523.
Email: saviz.moghtadernejad@mail.mcgill.ca
2
Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied
Mechanics, McGill Univ., Montreal, QC H3G 0A6, Canada.
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied
Mechanics, McGill Univ., Montreal, QC H3G 0A6, Canada.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 2, 2017; approved on
June 7, 2018; published online on October 17, 2018. Discussion period
open until March 17, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431.
predicted during their planned life cycle.
Required Criteria and Attributes
Before starting the façade design process, the designer must define
the expected performance attributes of the system and consider the
risks threatening its life cycle performance. Initially, the main
responsibility of façades as a part of the building envelope was to
provide environmental separation and to protect the building struc-
ture from the effects of an aggressive environment, along with satis-
fying the aesthetic requirements of the building (McFarquhar 2012;
Moghtadernejad 2013). Notwithstanding advances in technology
and the introduction of new high-performance façade systems, their
expected role has been extended. Currently, their major perform-
ance attributes include structural integrity and safety, sustainability,
human comfort, durability, and cost efficiency, which are discussed
in detail in the following so-named subsections. Each of these
attributes has some defining criteria that would need to be satisfied
(Fig. 2).
Structural Integrity and Safety
In terms of safety, as self-load-bearing structural elements, façades
must resist the relevant mechanical and environmental loads (wind,
rain, earthquake, and blast loading), have an acceptable fire resist-
ance, allow for differential movements (caused by moisture, tem-
perature variations, and structural movements), and also keep the
burglars out and the kids in (Patterson and Matusova 2013).
Sustainability
A state of sustainability requires that there be no negative environ-
mental, economic, or social impact on future generations. The
World Commission on Environment and Development has defined
sustainable development as “a development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs” (Burton 1987). Sustainable development
in civil engineering focuses on the carefully planned use of natural
and manufactured resources throughout the design, construction,
and operation phases of a project. The effectiveness of development

© ASCE 04018033-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033

 Table 1. Façade types and characteristics

Façade types Characteristics

Masonry and brick façades Used in low-rise residential and commercial buildings; ordinary or decorative with color and shape vari-
ety; easily molded; inexpensive; minimal repair costs
Wooden façades Used in low-rise residential buildings; unique colors; susceptible to aging and aggressive environments;
should be treated to prevent decay
Stone façades Used in prestigious buildings; unique textures and colors; durable; high compressive strength; lack of
construction flexibility
Concrete façades Various shapes, colors, textures, and finishes; usually prefabricated; appropriate fire resistance, energy effi-
ciency, acoustics, and vibration control; construction flexibility; have higher weight and durability problems
Metal façades Various forms, design, and construction flexibility; usually made from composite metals or stainless steel
with high strength and corrosion resistance; remain shiny and stain-free for a long time; higher initial
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

costs but lower maintenance costs

Glass façades Used in modern, high-rise buildings; desirable for architects; allow natural light and heat to enter; avail-
ability of folded glass façades and high-performance glazing products with minimum energy consump-
tion (Zelenay et al. 2011)
Double-skin façades Consists of two skins with a void in the middle through which air flows; single or double glazing; natural,
fan supported, or mechanical ventilation; enhance building energy performance; higher costs and lower
usable space (Poirazis 2004)
Photovoltaic-integrated façades Can be used as supplementary source of electric power; improved building energy performance by use of
a hybrid design (generating both heat and electrical energy) (Clarke et al. 1997)
Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite Have higher stiffness and strength, lower density and weight; high corrosion resistance and manufactur-
façades ing flexibility; durable and cost effective; have poor fire resistance [can be improved by using phenol-
based composites, but these are costly (Nguyen et al. 2013)]; moisture effects and susceptibility to high
temperatures, ultraviolet (UV) radiation and exposure to light
Sandwich panel façades Made of two thin layers (e.g., FRPs, stainless steel, metal composites, concrete) and a low-density core
(usually made of different foams); cost efficient and prefabricated; high stiffness with minimum weight;
can be used in industrial and commercial buildings, sports facilities, and warehouses

Fig. 1. Building façade life cycle.

Durability and
Safety Sustainability Human comfort Cost efficiency
maintainability

• Resisting • Energy efficiency • Visual comfort • Provisions to avoid • Costs of design and
mechanical and • Use of renewable (appropriate view to premature failure of construction (initial
environment loads resources outside by proper the system before costs)
and natural and • Environmental arrangement of the end of service • Operating costs
man-made hazards footprint windows) life • Costs of
• Security • Aesthetics • Provisions to resist rehabilitation and
• Heating and cooling deteriorations maintenance work
needs caused by • Costs of
• Natural ventilation aggressive disassembly
and indoor air environments
quality • Expected service
• Daylight control life of each system
in a specific
• Acoustics
environment
• Ease of access for
inspection and
rehabilitation work

Fig. 2. Major performance attributes of building envelopes.

© ASCE 04018033-2 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033

 relies on the positive impact of the structure on its environment
(Connal and Berndt 2009).
With the current energy crisis and climate change concerns, the
building envelope (especially the façade) has become a key consid-
eration in design, construction, and operation of ultralow-energy
buildings; approximately 40% of energy consumption and carbon
emissions are related to buildings (US Department of Energy 2007;
Zelenay et al. 2011).
Building façades have the potential to reduce energy consump-
tion and peak electricity demands through the optimal use of day-
light by redirecting and filtering it, providing natural air circulation,
and controlling heat transfer.
In addition to implementing the needed preservation methods,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sustainability can be achieved by using renewable resources, reduc-
ing waste, and using recycled materials (Macia 2011).
Human Comfort
Along with meeting the heating and cooling needs of the occupants,
façades significantly influence human comfort level by creating vis-
ual and physical connections between indoors and outdoors, con-
trolling glare, and providing optimal acoustic characteristics (Lee
et al. 2009; Zelenay et al. 2011).
Durability
Façades contribute to the durability of a structure by resisting
condensation on interior surfaces, preventing moisture ingress,
and facilitating the migration of excess humidity from inside the
building to the outside (Selkowitz 2001; Moghtadernejad 2013).
Like the structural elements of a building, it is important to
design façades for durability. The importance of durability in
construction disciplines has been known since the establishment
of the very first buildings. Over the ages, designers have acquired
considerable knowledge of best construction practices by careful
surveillance of the building performance over time (Rudbeck
1999). With hugely increased housing demands in the 1960s, the
major construction concern then was to build maximum floor
space at minimum cost. Although these buildings had a service
life expectancy of approximately 100 years, within 40 years of
their construction most of them were in need of total renovation,
especially their exteriors because their façades and roofs were
severely deteriorated.
The designer must ensure that the façade system fulfills its major
functional, environmental, and economic needs and that it satisfies
all the needs for the ultimate and serviceability limit states of the
designated service life. The designer must also consider all probable
system deterioration modes and failure mechanisms during the
design stage to ensure façade durability. Durability considerations
should be integrated into façade design by visualizing the perform-
ance of components over time under specific aggressive environ-
mental conditions to predict the façade performance over its service
life.
Cost Efficiency
The importance of focusing on the life cycle costs of an asset,
rather than considering the investment costs (design and con-
struction) as the only economic parameter, was an important les-
son learned in the 1960s. Therefore, the designer must consider
the costs of design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
demolition of a façade system in the related calculations. These
calculations show that it is more economical to make larger initial
© ASCE 04018033-3
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033
investments to offset costs during the operation or maintenance
phases (Rudbeck 1999).
Cost efficiency can be maximized once the various systems
related to a specific performance attribute are integrated with each
other (Zelenay et al. 2011). For instance, in a high-performance
façade, because the peak cooling loads are reduced due to optimal
heat transfer and natural ventilation, a smaller heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) system or a low-energy alternative
can be used to reduce energy consumption. Integration of the façade
and HVAC system can eliminate the need for cooling altogether in
mild climates. Whenever possible, it is recommended to adapt sim-
ple design strategies that have a predictable impact on energy con-
sumption, such as the appropriate building massing and alignment,
optimal window-to-wall ratio (WWR), use of high-performance
glazing, and application of exterior shadings.
Possible Failure Modes
To design an optimal and durable façade, after establishing the
design criteria, the designer must consider the deterioration and fail-
ure mechanisms of materials that are intended to be used in the sys-
tem. Subsequently, remedies to prevent or mitigate these failure
modes must be provided. A brief review of the most common and
important façade failure causes and modes follows.
Exterior Façade Panel Connection Failures
According to the various case studies and inspections performed on
façade systems, the most common cause of façade failure is the
improper installation of the panel connections to the building frame
(Popovic and Arnold 2000).
Improper installation can be caused by either design or construc-
tion deficiencies. Common design problems related to façade panel
connections are not using adjustable connections that allow for var-
iations in panel volume or the building frame (e.g., using fixed con-
nections at both ends of long panels) and eccentricities (or misalign-
ments) between connection plates and bolts. Typical construction
deficiencies consist of attaching the façade panels to the building
frame using the initially designed connections although the frame
connections may not be set at the anticipated position and elevation,
causing misalignment of the connection. Other problems can arise
from the settlement of connection plates, bolts or welds being dif-
ferent from those planned, panel misalignment, not allowing for
volume changes (e.g., welding connection plates instead of using
bolts), and deploying erection shims and bolts as permanent con-
nections. Unfortunately, inspection of these connections, either dur-
ing or after construction, is often not included in the designer’s
scope of work, and the inspection is performed by inspectors who
do not have the proper related knowledge or training. These defi-
ciencies can be easily remediated if detected.
Material-Related Failures
Among the materials for façades, glass, fiber-reinforced polymer
(FRP) with ultraviolet (UV) protection, and metal (i.e., corrosion re-
sistant composite metals) have longer service lives. Despite advan-
ces in the production and assembly of ceramic bricks, brick façades
are still subject to severe degradation. The integrity of brick ma-
sonry can be compromised due to an inadequate amount of binding
material, inadequate expansion joints, reliance on a labor-intensive
skilled workmanship, and exposure to the environment (e.g., sun
and rain) (Tomás et al. 2009). The first three issues are design and
J. Archit. Eng.
 construction deficiencies; the fourth issue is caused by environmen-
tal exposure and microclimate characteristics.
Deterioration and damage of stone façades is mainly caused by
weathering and temperature variations, movement in stone veneers,
and environmental contamination and chemical attacks that initiate
micro cracks that eventually develop into larger cracks (Labuz
1997).
The most frequent material-related failure occurs in precast con-
crete façades. Common deficiencies are inadequate air entrainment
and the presence of reactive aggregates in the concrete (Popovic
and Arnold 2000). Proper air entrainment protects the panels
against degradation due to freeze–thaw cycles, which is more
severe in thin precast panels. Alkali–silica reaction (ASR) and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
delayed ettringite formation (DEF) reactions are both expansive
reactions that result in cracking and deterioration of the panels.
These reactions are slow and their appearance can be delayed for
more than 10 years after construction. The expansive reactions can
be limited by sealing the exposed surfaces to avoid water infiltra-
tion. Other material-related damages (chemical and physical) in
concrete façades and steel joints include freeze–thaw cycles, acid
attack, chloride attack, decalcification, corrosion, and fracture of
the steel.
Failures Caused by Natural or Manufactured Hazards
In addition to connection and material-related failures that are usu-
ally caused by poor design and construction work, natural or manu-
factured hazards (e.g., earthquake, windstorms, fire, blast loads)
have been responsible for many façade failures throughout history.
These failures relate to the response of the façade system to
dynamic loads. In the past, the dynamic behavior of façade systems
was neglected due to their non–load-bearing nature. However, due
to several catastrophic failures, this area is receiving increased
attention.
Building envelopes (façades and roofs) are the parts of a build-
ing that are most susceptible to wind loads (especially in tall and
slender buildings). The current codes and standards estimate these
loads with consideration of the local history. However, these esti-
mates do not protect the building envelope against wind loads for
every situation and have some shortcomings (Geurts et al. 2004).
For example, evaluation of wind loads for square plans and simple
façades are available in the codes; however, many building shapes
are not covered by the standard shapes. Another shortcoming of the
codes relates to their not including the effect of neighboring build-
ings on wind loads and the lack of a full consideration of the effects
of pressure equalization that may reduce, but mostly increase, wind
loads. However, it is now possible to determine the performance of
façade elements by appropriate wind tunnel tests.
With the recent trends to build taller structures, consideration of
fire safety issues related to façades has become more urgent due to
new design complexities (e.g., the use of curved surfaces and
rotated floors) and the hidden details of fire barrier assemblies
(O’Conner 2008). In addition, it is important to understand the
effect of various façade components and façade orientation on its
fire performance.
Current codes and standards suggest that the risk associated with
fire spread along the exterior of a façade can be mitigated with a
properly designed and operational sprinkler system. However,
according to O’Conner (2008) this is a critical assumption and
while our understanding of the fire spread mechanism is intact, the
risk of fire spread related to tall building façades has not been well
examined and further research and investigation is needed in this
field.
© ASCE 04018033-4
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033
With the recent terrorist attacks and bombings, the ability of
building façades to resist blast loads has become a new criterion and
focus of many researchers in designing tall or important govern-
ment and commercial buildings, especially in the case of glass
façades (Hadden and Lee 2005). It must be noted that adding blast
resistance to other design criteria necessitates a complex set of
trade-offs. Blast load concerns must be balanced with other design
criteria, including aesthetics, structural integrity, sustainability, du-
rability, ease of access for inspection and maintenance, and overall
costs. It is preferable that the related security measures not interfere
with other façade attributes because the probability of attack is very
small; however, the catastrophic effects in the case of such an attack
must not be neglected.
To prevent façade failures due to earthquakes, the façade de-
signer must consider the seismic behavior of façades (especially in
tall buildings) while designing them. Researchers have studied the
seismic behavior of various façade systems ranging from heavy pre-
cast concrete façades (Rihal 1989) to lightweight glazing systems
(Behr 1998). In addition, McKay et al. (2015) provided an overview
of the key factors that must be considered in designing façade sys-
tems against seismic, wind, and blast loads along with the common
design approaches and provisions on how to effectively eliminate
or mitigate such design challenges.
Façade Design Procedure and Considerations
To have an optimal façade system, necessary provisions must be
made in each stage of its life cycle (Fig. 3). For instance, building
alignment and WWRs are factors that can affect façade perform-
ance and overall building energy consumption, and they should be
considered during the conceptual design phase of a building irre-
spective of whether the architect is the façade designer or not.
Selection of a proper façade system for each project is the most
important step in designing an optimal system. The designer is re-
sponsible for selecting materials and considering their resistance to
the various environmentally and mechanically caused degradations
along with their compatibility to the adjacent materials and their
overall service life performance (Chew et al. 2006). Because a sin-
gle material, or a combination of various materials, may be used in
façade systems, their performance and durability can be affected by
both individual and integrated material performance under aggres-
sive environmental conditions.
Façade performance can vary in various environmental condi-
tions and locations (e.g., industrial, urban, rural, coastal zones) due
to inconsistent durability characteristics of the façade materials in
each zone. In addition, the maintenance requirements of the system
are key factors that must be considered in the selection process
because they can significantly affect life cycle costs.
Present Design Procedure
The façade design procedure varies in different countries and also
from project to project. Hence, no one, unique method is available.
However, there are similarities in the current design practices
around the world (whether the architect is the façade designer, a
special façade engineering group is available, or a façade contractor
is involved).
Designers often consider façades as secondary components of
the building system. Currently, design, manufacture, and assembly
of façade systems are often subcontracted to a specialty contractor
working as a part of the construction team (Masetti et al. 2013). The
specialty contractor group typically consists of façade designers,
manufacturers, erectors, and, occasionally, other consultants.
J. Archit. Eng.
 Building conceptual Façade conceptual Façade operation and
Façade detailed design Façade construction
design design maintenance
• Design flexibility • Factors affecting • Resistance to mechanical • Qualified • Proper façade
• Building massing and saftey (weight, fire loads workmanship cleaning
oreintation resistance) • Earthquake/Wind/Blast • Proper inspection • Routine visual and
• Window/wall • Factors affecting resistance and quality control detailed inspections
• Building shape to human comfort • Vibrations during • Corrective
allow for easy access • Considering the • Induced deformations construction maintenance in
(for inspection and expected service life (expansion, contraction, • Final inspection accordance with
maintenance) of each componet deflections etc.) façade needs
• Window setbacks or individualy and as a • Required stiffness • Demolition plan at
fixed shadigs provided whole system the end of life cycle
• Construction flexibility
as an aesthetic feature • Energy efficiency (Seasonality,
that also contribute to • Reuse/recyclability sequencing, tolerances,
the performance • Costs (cost-benefit coordination)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

analysis) • Durability considerations

Fig. 3. Necessary façade considerations during various life cycle stages.

In some cases, the façade design procedure is implemented in
two stages. The “architectural design,” followed by the “execution
design” phase, which is directed by the façade constructor.
In some cases, sophisticated consulting engineers and façade
designers consider the building envelope in an all-inclusive build-
ing design and reflect site, orientation, massing and geometry, day-
light, glazing, shading, and materials studies in their projects. After
selecting the appropriate systems, their design and detailing is con-
ducted from a structural and thermal point of view to manufacturing
and waterproofing needs.
Current Deficiencies and Needs
The US Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA
2007) defined a high-performance building or a façade as one that
“integrates and optimizes on a lifecycle basis all major high-
performance attributes, including energy conservation, environ-
ment, safety, security, durability, accessibility, cost-benefit analy-
sis, productivity, sustainability, functionality, and operational con-
siderations” (Patterson and Matusova 2013).
“High-performance” in current building façades is mostly
related to energy efficiency, especially during the operation stage of
the life cycle. Although energy consumption and the resulting emis-
sions are very important and central issues, a thorough assessment
of façade performance requires more detailed considerations.
Currently, new building façades are often mistakenly recognized as
high-performance and those that qualify for the high-performance
label may not meet accurate measures of sustainability (Patterson
and Matusova 2013). It must be emphasized that with the current
worldwide environmental crisis, sustainability of façades should be
considered as a central criterion of high-performance systems.
The Center for the Built Environment (CBE) of the California
Energy Commission has issued a report providing seven key strat-
egies to minimize building energy use that include, for example,
building orientation, solar control, transparency, natural ventilation,
integrated lighting, and HVAC controls (Zelenay et al. 2011). In
practice, these strategies have been useful when combined cor-
rectly. However, achieving high façade performance levels depends
on other criteria that are unique to a project. In the current design
practice, a custom-tailored approach is selected, which considers
each of these criteria as a distinct challenge.
In general, a façade system involves multidomain systems such as
architecture, civil, mechanical, and electrical engineering. In such sys-
tems, the design criteria within one domain can affect or be contradict-
ing to what is performed in the other domains. For example,
Meacham et al. (2012) showed that a building designed for energy ef-
ficiency can increase the susceptibility to fire and decrease the fire re-
sistance of the building. This inherent complexity of the system and
the integration required among the multidomain components make it
difficult for designers to consider all necessary functions of a façade
system as a whole. Consequently, an interactive and integrated design
approach is desirable for such systems; however, most façade design-
ers still tend to use traditional design approaches (which usually lack
consideration of all major criteria) due to the absence of a systematic
method for façade design (Moghtadernejad et al. 2018).
Current façade design satisfies the provisions of national codes
in terms of structural integrity and, in some new cases, energy effi-
ciency; however, they do not adequately address the issues of dura-
bility, sustainability (in terms different from energy efficiency, such
as environmental impacts and recyclability of used materials),
related maintenance costs and needs, inspection needs, or the inter-
action of different criteria with each other.
Conceptual Design Stage
As mentioned earlier, selection of a proper façade system is a key
step in optimal façade design; however, proper façade system selec-
tion is a very challenging task. Being a multifaceted problem, the
façade system design leads to Pareto decisions, which involve mak-
ing decisions between choices where it is impossible to make any
single attribute better without making at least one attribute worse.
When a design is tailored to satisfy each criterion sequentially, the
solutions do not necessarily represent an optimal outcome (Raphael
2014). In such multifaceted cases, attaining optimal design solu-
tions would be a very complex and sometimes an impossible task if
the involved performance attributes are not identified properly. It is
also important to determine and understand the interdependence
among criteria. The most important challenge is to model the inter-
actions and correlations between the design criteria and to form a
systematic design approach to identify and evaluate these key
criteria.
Several issues are encountered in the early design stages when
the designer is required to choose between available alternatives.

© ASCE 04018033-5 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033

 Typically, designers choose the best available components to satisfy
each design attribute. These approaches can sometimes produce a
functional solution that is not necessarily an optimal one. This inef-
ficiency in the decision-making process is mostly related to a lack
of consideration of the interdependence between various objectives.
In the past, several researchers have performed single objective
optimization of building systems (Raphael 2014). For example,
Bouchlaghem (2000) introduced an approach for designing optimal
building envelopes by using a simplified thermal model for build-
ings. Wang et al. (2005) worked on optimizing the building shape
for energy efficiency, whereas Wright et al. (2002) developed a
genetic algorithm to minimize the building energy consumption.
In multicriteria design, the designer must consider various (and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sometimes conflicting) objectives simultaneously. For example,
offsetting the daylight load might require increasing the WWR,
which would consequently result in increasing the radiant heat that
enters the building (Raphael 2014). Thus, in such multicriteria
design problems, it is necessary to find the solutions that balance
various design criteria. Radford and Gero (1988) applied this con-
cept in optimizing buildings with respect to thermal control, use of
daylight, construction costs, and usable area (Wang et al. 2005).
Caldas (2008) used a multicriteria approach to maintain a bal-
ance between the energy efficiency and the initial costs of a build-
ing. Raphael (2014) analyzed the trade-offs in environmental
impacts of a building by considering the embodied energy of the
materials and the building energy conservations by using improved
construction techniques.
In summary, multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) tools offer
a solution to the current challenges faced in conceptual design of
façades. Although MCDM has been used extensively in manage-
ment science, industrial engineering, and economics (Gal et al.
2013), its application in the design of buildings and building
façades is new and rather limited. Currently there is a need for fur-
ther research on multiobjective façade design because current
research and practice lack a consideration of all required design
attributes and their interdependence, resulting in a more conserva-
tive and less accurate value for the overall score of each design
alternative.
Evaluation and Comparison of Available Systems
As mentioned previously, although the importance of each design
attribute (i.e., sustainability, durability, maintainability, and cost ef-
ficiency) is evident to designers, there is a need for a systematic
approach for the integration of these attributes in the conceptual
design phase. Façade designers and researchers are still hesitant to
go any further than emphasizing current needs because these design
attributes are mainly qualitative and the available façade systems
cannot be compared with each other with respect to these criteria.
Although a system can be labeled as sustainable or durable, one
cannot truly measure the sustainability or durability of a system,
thus making the decision-making process an almost impossible
task.
Consequently, there is a need for further research on the quantifi-
cation of these performance attributes. The first simple step would
be to detect the measurable indicators that define or affect each of
these criteria or performance attributes; however, this can be quite
difficult. During the past decades, there have been some efforts to
evaluate the overall performance of façades. Although none have
considered all required attributes in their performance evaluations,
the work of these researchers in terms of assessing some attributes
in specific façade systems are quite useful. For example, the energy
performance of glass façades (both single- and double-skin), has
been studied by Machniewicz and Heim (2013). Recent research
© ASCE
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033
work aimed at predicting the service life of specific façade systems
can be helpful in determining their durability. The main methodolo-
gies currently applied to service life prediction of façades are di-
vided into four categories that were studied by Silva et al. (2014),
who applied these methods for service life prediction of rendered
façades. These categories include deterministic, factorial, stochas-
tic, and artificial intelligence-based methods. Silva et al. (2016) also
introduced fuzzy systems to predict the service life of natural stone
façades.
In addition, in terms of maintainability, Chew et al. (2006) studied
the various risks that occur during the service life of a building façade
in tropical areas, from design to demolition (according to, e.g., their
material, shape, and exposure condition), and assigned a maintain-
ability score to each façade type by using a neural network model.
Detailed Design and Considerations
After selecting a proper façade system, the designer must consider
all approaches regarding the avoidance or elimination of environ-
mental risks in the second design stage (i.e., detailed design).
Façades are directly influenced by various environmental condi-
tions such as moisture effects, solar radiation, freeze–thaw cycles,
thermal expansion/contraction, degradation from salts or air pollu-
tants and sealants, and failure of other materials (Wiseman 1997).
However, moisture and water diffusion are the key initiators of
most façade deterioration problems, either from an aesthetic per-
spective that includes the unpleasant sight of staining and efflores-
cence or from structural defects such as the appearance of cracks
and joint corrosion (Das 2008; Moghtadernejad and Mirza 2014a).
Most moisture and water infiltration issues are due to poor detailing,
such as using a large number of joints and a lack of water tightness
and caulking. One way to enhance the system integrity is to maxi-
mize the grid size and therefore reduce the number of joints needed;
however, this solution can cause manufacturing, handling, and con-
struction problems.
Water infiltration into the façade causes durability problems,
mold growth, and reduced comfort of the occupants (Kyle et al.
2008). Understanding the combination of wind, moisture, and ther-
mal load effects would help the designer determine the façade
response and evaluate the hydrothermal behavior, expansions at
joints, vulnerability to water diffusion, or deterioration of the façade
system due to the development of such combined deterioration
responses.
The designer must ensure that the connections have the potential
to allow structural, thermal, creep, and shrinkage movements. The
designer must also allow for construction alterations, such as when
alignment during erection changes from the original design. In addi-
tion, the connections should be able to accommodate the tolerances
associated with the erection process.
It is best to provide a maintenance plan for a complex façade sys-
tem during the design stage in order to guarantee proper system
operation after initial commissioning (Zelenay et al. 2011).
Ongoing monitoring of the system is necessary to ensure the desired
performance of the façade. Although postoccupancy inspection and
monitoring is usually not included in the scope of the design serv-
ices, it is best that the designer cooperate with contractors and build-
ing owners or managers, at least during the first year of its service
life, to guarantee the proper operation of the façade system. This
will also help the designer learn how well specific systems perform
in practice and develop practical solutions to enhance future
designs.
Currently, designers are provided with building information
models (BIMs), which represent the physical and functional charac-
teristics of their design. BIMs provide a reliable basis for building
04018033-6 J. Archit. Eng.
 life cycle decision making from conception to demolition in the
form of a shared information resource; hence, they facilitate cost
evaluation, construction, and project management processes (Smith
2007). Each BIM dimension provides specific information to the
model (McPartland 2017). Increasing the dimensions of the model
will provide a better understanding of the project (e.g., how it will
be delivered, what the costs and required maintenance concerns
are).
These intelligent three-dimensional (3D) shared information
models are transferred from the design team to the construction con-
tractor, then on to the owner and the maintenance team. It is the
responsibility of each professional to add or update any related in-
formation to the shared model.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The four-dimensional (4D) BIM (construction sequencing) adds
an extra dimension of information in terms of scheduling data
(McPartland 2017). The data provide accurate information and vis-
ualizations on the step-by-step development of the project. The
five-dimensional (5D) BIM provides accurate life cycle cost infor-
mation. This model enables the automatic counting of systems or
subsystems of a project and provides notifications when changes
are made. The six-dimensional (6D) BIM, includes the data related
to the operation and maintenance (O&M) phases such as installation
date, essential maintenance, proper configuration, and operation of
a component for optimal performance, along with decommissioning
information.
Using these models helps mitigate the data losses that usually
occur when a new team is assigned to a project, and they deliver
more detailed and comprehensive information on complex projects.
Importance of Façade Construction Quality
Constructability of a façade system (e.g., construction flexibility,
consideration of details with acceptable clearances, alignments and
proper sequencing, availability of materials and elements, attainable
workmanship, seasonality) is a key factor in attaining the required
performance attributes. To ensure façade integrity and good per-
formance, façade panels must be mounted correctly (Mahmood
2007; Moghtadernejad and Mirza 2014b). To minimize on-site defi-
ciencies, designers favor prefabricated unitized or panelized façade
systems whose performance can be tested before installation on
site. It is essential for the manufacturer to verify the as-built dimen-
sions and the building frame elevation prior to starting the prefabri-
cation procedure (Popovic and Arnold 2000). Although excellent
quality control and rapid assembly are benefits of prefabricated con-
struction, negative aspects include the small error margin, complex-
ity of connections, necessity of bracing throughout the on-site as-
sembly, and, occasionally, a lack of design flexibility. In the case of
the concrete being cast in-place, the supervisor must inspect the
concrete mixture composition (e.g., air entrainment, use of admix-
tures to enhance durability).
Construction quality can be promoted through close collabora-
tion between the design and construction teams, with a clear defini-
tion of the responsibilities of the various parties involved. With
good workmanship and quality control on site, it is possible to guar-
antee the safety, strength, serviceability, and durability provisions
that were specified in an original design. However, good workman-
ship and quality control are only conceivable through accurate
detailing and clear specifications of the system (e.g., waterproofing
components, proper drainage, sealants, joint types, spacing). Hence,
the use of simple and executable member and connection details is
highly recommended in the design phase. The availability of effi-
cient and competent personnel to perform on-site work is a key fac-
tor in ensuring construction quality. An appropriate sampling plan
© ASCE 04018033-7
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033
and testing facilities are essential to satisfying code requirements
that require testing and approval of façade materials before their on-
site use.
Other important considerations for improving construction qual-
ity include using mock-ups and inspection of the completed work
(Parfitt 2007). It is recommended to involve the façade designers in
the inspection procedure both during and after finishing the con-
struction work.
Façade Maintenance Requirements and
Considerations
Once façade installation is complete, some degradation mecha-
nisms commence within a short duration and have a negative influ-
ence on the façade performance. A general expectation is that prop-
erly designed façades maintain their aesthetical and functional
performance, with minimal costs for maintenance, repairs, and
rehabilitation. To ensure the proper functional performance of
façades throughout their life cycle, planned cleanings and inspec-
tions must be carried out regularly (Das 2008; Moghtadernejad and
Mirza 2014a). The costs of these activities depend on the accessibil-
ity and simplicity of the selected system. The accessibility of the
façade is a function of the complexity of façade shape, and it influ-
ences the time required to perform repairs and replacements as well
as decommissioning (removal work).
Preventive Maintenance: Role of Regular Inspection
Over the years, multiple incidents of complete or partial detachment
of façade components have caused disastrous injuries or deaths.
Barnes (2011) and Moghtadernejad and Mirza (2014b) have
reported that a façade failure takes place in North America once ev-
ery 3 weeks. In response to these failures, several cities in the
United States (e.g., New York, Chicago) and in Canada (e.g.,
Montreal) have ordinances requiring regular inspections. Diebolt
(2015) has provided a list of these cities and the related ordinances
in detail.
The required façade assessments are typically performed in three
stages. In the first stage, the related façade documents are reviewed
and as-built drawings are prepared in cases where they are not avail-
able. In the second stage, a visual inspection is initially performed
under appropriate lighting conditions: Sometimes sunlight or shad-
ing may obscure areas of a building at certain viewing angles
(FEA 2011). In a visual inspection, it is possible to detect element
movements and evident visual defects, such as cracks and spalls.
Due to the inability of the inspectors to detect hidden signs of dis-
tress and deterioration that are developing, a second survey is per-
formed and it consists of a close-up and detailed inspection of
particular façade elements using scaffolding or other appropriate
means and probing of selected elements for hidden deterioration.
Some of these assessments can be performed with thermal imag-
ing, laser assessment, or the Smart Virtual Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle Examination (SUAVE) system (SMARTSENSYS 2015)
that have the potential to examine sections of façades that have
limited accessibility and hidden elements. In the final stage, the
inspector is responsible for evaluating the façade condition and
communicating the results to the building owner and the local
building authority. The inspection records are kept throughout
the service life of the building for any future assessment.
J. Archit. Eng.
 Preventive Maintenance: Façade Cleaning
Safety, serviceability, and cleaning requirements vary considerably
for different types of façades. However, the latter depends on the
desired level of aesthetic appearance, building location, and func-
tion in addition to atmospheric conditions (Kadlubowski and
Bynum 2001). Aesthetics is the main reason to clean building
façades, but this also provides the possibility of façade condition
evaluation and repair. Besides, to prevent any acceleration of
façade deterioration, it is important to clean pollutants such as sul-
fur, nitrogen oxides, and acid rain impurities from façades.
Moisture is the principal cause of panel decay. In the presence of
waterproof coatings, moisture can be captured inside the façade
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
panel. However, façade cleaning removes the waterproof coating,
leaving the panel pores unsealed, further facilitating moisture
penetration.
Generally, it is more practical to perform façade cleaning before
any repair work. To do so, appropriate preparations must be made,
including knowledge of the prevailing climate, protection of build-
ing materials that should remain without cleaning against damage
during façade cleaning, and performing test cleaning on a small
façade region. Façade cleaning methods include chemical, non-
chemical (water cleaning), and abrasive techniques and a hybrid
approach that utilizes a combination of these. Each façade type
requires an appropriate strategy that must be defined by the cleaning
agency in consultation with the design professionals.
Corrective Maintenance
Corrective maintenance work is carried out as a result of the inspec-
tions performed on a specific façade. Corrective maintenance can
be performed in the form of repair, rehabilitation, or strengthening.
For rehabilitation, major repairs are carried out to restore the safety
and serviceability of the façade to its approximate original condition
(Moghtadernejad 2013). Strengthening is implemented to enhance
the load-bearing capacity of the façade and restore its stiffness and
strength to its original state.
The service life of façades is generally significantly lower than
the projected building service life of 60–70 years. It is important to
note that deferring proper façade maintenance can increase repair
costs due to accelerated rates of deterioration (EDS Co. 2012), and
it can also cause serious distresses and failures involving large eco-
nomic losses, injuries, and deaths. Façade maintenance should be a
regular activity. To prioritize maintenance activities, one should
consider the most severe combinations of factors that degrade the
façade (Kyle et al. 2008). However, maintenance prioritization is
usually not considered because there are currently no procedures to
measure the façade vulnerability to different deterioration modes.
To avoid excessive maintenance costs, it is recommended to install
moisture barriers, install and repair expansion joints, and apply and
repair window sealants, façade caulking, and panel coatings.
Farahmandpour (2003) proposed repair considerations for façades
and, more specifically, for precast concrete façades. These consider-
ations include defining repair objectives, noting the environmental
and logistical limitations, performance of cost versus service life
analysis, selection of proper repair materials and techniques, and
quality assurance.
Conclusions
With advances in technology, façades have evolved over time along
with heightened expectations relative to their performance. With
the present energy crisis, façade designers are paying more attention
to sustainability and energy efficiency of façades because they can
© ASCE 04018033-8
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033
play an important role in reducing building energy consumption
and its annual energy costs. Another issue that should receive
greater attention is the necessity of façade design for durability.
Like any other structural element, façades have a limited service
life and will gradually degrade over time. It is possible to prolong
their service life to an optimal level, with a balance between mainte-
nance requirements and any required repair costs. This goal can be
achieved through integrating the required performance criteria in
design, construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning
of the façade. It is the responsibility of the designer to consider all
these attributes and adapt appropriate materials and system detail-
ing to minimize the likelihood of any premature component deterio-
ration to guarantee a high-performance system. Consideration of all
required design attributes to an optimal level requires a systematic
MCDM approach for façade design, which, unfortunately, is not
currently available to designers.
Along with proper façade design and good construction quality,
it is important to conduct regular maintenance of façades to ensure
their safety and serviceability. This maintenance work consists of
cleaning, inspection, and, if required, repair and rehabilitation.
Neglecting to perform the required maintenance work will lead to
premature façade failures that can cause social and economic dam-
ages along with injury or death to pedestrians.
In summary, the best practice to achieve an optimal façade sys-
tem is to take in-time actions and necessary considerations over var-
ious stages of a façade system life cycle. Application of a 6D BIM
to integrate life cycle stages facilitates this process significantly
while preventing any risk of information loss. Moreover, it is rec-
ommended to use a proper decision-making method for selecting
the most suitable façade system to ensure its compatibility and effi-
ciency with respect to the design criteria.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Fond de
Recherche du Quebec–Nature et Technologies (FRQNT) and the
Department of Civil Engineering at McGill University.
References
Barnes, C. 2011. “Façade inspections: Part 1.” Accessed April 15, 2014.
http://cbiconsultinginc.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/facade-inspections
-part-1.
Behr, R. A. 1998. “Seismic performance of architectural glass in mid-rise
curtain wall.” J. Archit. Eng. 4 (3): 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)1076-0431(1998)4:3(94).
Bouchlaghem, N. 2000. “Optimizing the design of building envelopes for
thermal performance.” Autom. Constr. 10 (1): 101–112. https://doi.org
/10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00043-6.
Burton, I. 1987. “Report on reports: Our common future: The World
Commission on Environment and Development.” Environment 29 (5):
25–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1987.9928891.
Caldas, L. 2008. “Generation of energy-efficient architecture solutions
applying GENE_ARCH: An evolution-based generative design sys-
tem.” Adv. Eng. Inf. 22 (1): 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2007.08
.012.
Chew, M. Y. L., N. De-Silva, P. P. Tan, and S. Das. 2006. “Grading of risk
parameters for facade maintainability.” Int. J. Archit. Sci. 7 (3): 77–87.
Clarke, J. A., C. Johnstone, N. Kelly, and P. A. Strachan. 1997. “The simu-
lation of photovoltaic-integrated building facades.” In Vol. 2 of Proc.,
Int. Building Performance Simulation Association Conf. 1997, 189–
195. Prague, Czech Republic: International Building Performance
Simulation Association.
J. Archit. Eng.
 Connal, J., and Berndt, M. 2009. “Sustainable bridges—300-year design
life for second gateway bridge, Brisbane.” In Proc., 7th Austroads
Bridge Conf. Melbourne, Australia: New Zealand Transport Agency.
Das, S. 2008. “Comprehensive maintainability scoring system (Comass) for
commercial buildings in tropical climate of Singapore.” Ph.D. thesis,
Dept. of Building Engineering, National Univ. of Singapore.
Diebolt, K. 2015. “Facade ordinance inspections: Specialized services for
accurate reporting.” Accessed September 24, 2015. http://www.vertical
-access.com/facade_ord.html.
EDS Co. 2012. “Services: Restoration.” Accessed April 15, 2013. http://
www.edswaterproofing.com/modules/info/exterior_building_restoration
.html.
EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act). 2007. “Public Law 110-
140, 110th Congress.” Accessed September 22, 2017. https://www.gpo
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/html/PLAW-110publ140.htm.
Farahmandpour, K. 2003. “Considerations for repair of concrete building
facades.” RCI Interface (Mar): 10–19. http://rci-online.org/wp-content
/uploads/2003-03-farahmandpour.pdf.
FEA (Facility Engineering Associates). 2011. “Façade assessment technol-
ogy: Laser scanning as a diagnostic maintenance solution.” Facility
Facts 19 (3): 1–3. https://www.feapc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09
/FEA-Vol-19-no-3-Final.pdf.
Gal, T., T. Stewart, and T. Hanne, eds. 2013. Multicriteria decision making:
Advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. Vol.
21 of International Series in Operations Research & Management
Science. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
Geurts, C. P. W., P. C. van Staalduinen, and M. S. de Wit. 2004. “Towards a
reliable design of facade and roof elements against wind loading.”
Heron 49 (2): 171–187.
Hadden, D., and Lee, A. 2005. “The role of external facades in protecting
building occupants against terrorism and impacts.” In Proc., Materials
Science and Technology in Engineering Conf., 1–9. Hong Kong:
Materials Science and Technology in Engineering (MS&T).
Kadlubowski, R., and C. Bynum. 2001. “Façade cleaning: For more than
appearance’s sake.” J. Archit. Technol. 19 (1): 1–8.
Kyle, B. R., Lacasse, M., Cornick, S., Richard, D., Abdulghani, K. and Hilly,
T. 2008. “A GIS-based framework for the evaluation of building façade
performance and maintenance prioritization.” In Proc., 11th Int. Conf. on
the Durability of Building Materials and Components, 1–9. Istanbul,
Turkey: Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC).
Labuz, J. F. 1997. Degradation of natural building stone. Geotechnical
Special Publication 72. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Lechtman, H., and L. Hobbs. 1986. “Roman concrete and the roman archi-
tectural revolution.” In Ceramics and civilization. Vol. 3 of High tech-
nology ceramics: Past, present, and future: The nature of innovation
and change in ceramic technology, edited by W. D. Kingery and E.
Lense, 81–128. Westerville, OH: American Ceramics Society.
Lee, E. S., S. E. Selkowitz, D. L. DiBartolomeo, J. H. Klems, R. D. Clear, K.
Konis, R. Hitchcock, M. Yazdanian, R. Mitchell, and M. Konstantoglou.
2009. High performance building façade solutions: PIER final project
report. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.
Machniewicz, A., and Heim, D. 2013. “Overall energy performance of glaz-
ing facades and effect of different weather years for energy calculation.”
In Proc., BS2013: 13th Conf. of Int. Building Performance Simulation
Association, 434–441. Chambery, France: Int. Building Performance
Simulation Association.
Macia, J. M. 2011. “Design of concrete bridges for sustainability and dura-
bility.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
McGill Univ.
Mahmood, K. 2007. “Factors affecting reinforced concrete construction
quality in Pakistan.” CBM-CI Int. Workshop. Karachi, Pakistan: Cement
Based Materials and Civil Infrastructure (CBM-CI).
Masetti, F., M. Vatovec, and J. C. Parker. 2013. “Façade attachments: Who
is designing them?” Struct. Mag. 2013 (Jul): 34–36.
McFarquhar, D. 2012. “The role of the building façade—Curtain walls.” In
Proc., Building Enclosure Science & Technology (BEST3) Conf.
Atlanta: McFarquhaer Group, Building Enclosure Technology &
Environment Council (National Institute of Building Sciences).
McKay, A. E., C. A. Jones, E. Conrath, and C. Davis. 2015. “Multi-hazard
design of facades: Important considerations of wind and seismic
© ASCE 04018033-9
J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033
interaction with blast requirements.” In Proc., Structures Congress
2015. 13–23. Reston, VA: ASCE.
McPartland, R. 2017. “BIM dimensions—3D, 4D, 5D, 6D BIM explained.”
Accessed April 20, 2018. https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/bim
-dimensions-3d-4d-5d-6d-bim-explained.
Meacham, B., B. Poole, J. Echeverria, and R. Cheng. 2012. Fire safety chal-
lenges of green buildings. New York: Springer.
Moghtadernejad, S. 2013. “Design, inspection, maintenance, life cycle per-
formance and integrity of building facades.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill Univ.
Moghtadernejad, S., L. E. Chouinard, and S. Mirza. 2018. “Multi-criteria
decision-making methods for preliminary design of sustainable
facades.” J. Build. Eng. 19 (Sep): 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jobe.2018.05.006.
Moghtadernejad, S., and Mirza, S. 2014a. “Performance of building
facades.” In Proc., CSCE—4th Int. Structural Specialty Conf. Halifax,
NS: Canadian Society for Civil Engineers.
Moghtadernejad, S., and Mirza, S. 2014b. “Service life safety and reliability
of building facades.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Vulnerability and Risk
Analysis and Management (ICVRAM) and the 6th Int. Symp. on
Uncertainty, Modeling, and Analysis (ISUMA), 116–124. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Nguyen, Q., T. Ngo, P. Mendis, and P. Tran. 2013. “Composite materials
for next generation building façade systems.” Civil Eng. Archit. 1 (3):
88–95. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2013.010305.
O’Conner, D. J. 2008. “Building façade or fire safety façade?” Counc. Tall
Build. Urban Habitat J. 2 (2): 30–39.
Parfitt, M. K. 2007. “Architectural engineering approach to building façade
design, construction, and evaluation.” J. Archit. Eng. 13 (3): 127–128.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0431(2007)13:3(127).
Patterson, M., and J. Matusova. 2013. “High-performance facades.” Insight
3: 134–149.
Poirazis, H. 2004. Double skin façades for office buildings: Literature
review. Report No. EBD-R-04/3. Lund, Sweden: Dept. of Construction
and Architecture, Div. of Energy and Building Design, Lund Institute of
Technology.
Popovic, P. L., and R. C. Arnold, 2000. “Preventing failures of precast con-
crete facade panels and their connections.” In Proc., 2nd Forensic
Engineering Congress, 532–539. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Radford, A. D., and J. S. Gero. 1988. Design by optimization in architecture,
building, and construction, 325. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Raphael, B. 2014. “Multi-criteria decision making for the design of building
facade.” In Computing in Civil and Building Engineering (2014), 1650–
1658. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Rihal, S. S. 1989. “Earthquake resistance and behavior of heavy facades/clad-
dings and connections in medium-rise steel-framed buildings.” In Vol. 6
of Proc., 9th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering: 1988, Tokyo-
Kyoto, Japan, 207–212. Tokyo: Japan Association for Earthquake Disaster.
Rudbeck, C. 1999. “Assessing the service life of building envelope con-
struction.” In Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on Durability of Buildings Materials
and Components (DBMC), edited by M. A. Lacasse and D. J. Vanier,
1051–1061. Vancouver, Canada: National Research Council of Canada.
Selkowitz, S. E. 2001. “Integrating advanced facades into high performance
buildings.” In Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Architectural and Automotive
Glass, LBNL-47948. Tampere, Finland.
Silva, A., P. L. Gaspar, and J. de Brito. 2014. “Stochastic, deterministic, sta-
tistical and artificial intelligence based models to predict the service life
of rendered facades.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Durability of
Building Materials, edited by M. Quattrone and V. M. John, 351–358.
Paris: RILEM Publications.
Silva, A., S. M. Vieira, J. de Brito, and P. L. Gaspar. 2016. “Fuzzy systems
in the service-life prediction of exterior natural stone claddings.” J.
Perform. Constr. Facil. 30 (5): 04016005. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000860.
Simpson, J. A. 1989a. Oxford English dictionary. 2nd ed., 21. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Simpson, J. A. 1989b. Oxford English dictionary. 2nd ed., 728. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
SMARTSENSYS 2015. “Facade monitoring.” Accessed August 2, 2015.
http://smartsensys.com/suave/.
J. Archit. Eng.
 Smith, D. 2007. “An introduction to building information modeling
(BIM).” J. Build. Inf. Model. 2007 (Fall): 12–14.
Tomás, A. M., V. G. Llopis, and E. G. Benso. 2009. “Environmental condi-
tions in the deterioration of brick façades.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 23
(3): 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000001.
US Department of Energy. 2007. “Annual energy review: Energy flow dia-
gram.” Accessed August 20, 2015. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer
/diagram1.html/.
Wang, W., R. Zmeureanu, and H. Rivard. 2005. “Applying multi-objective
genetic algorithms in green building design optimization.” Build.
Environ. 40 (11): 1512–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004
.11.017.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UTEP LIBRARY-SERIALS on 10/24/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Wiseman, A. 1997. Durability guidelines for building wall envelopes.
Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, Technology
and Environmental Services.
Wright, J. A., H. A. Loosemore, and R. Farmani. 2002. “Optimization of
building thermal design and control by multi-criterion genetic algo-
rithm.” Energy Build. 34 (9): 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378
-7788(02)00071-3.
Zelenay, K., M. Perepelitza, and D. Lehrer. 2011. High-performance
facades: Design strategies and applications in North America and
Northern Europe. Publication No. CEC-500-99-013. Prepared for
California Energy Commission. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Built
Environment, Univ. of California.

© ASCE 04018033-10 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2019, 25(1): 04018033