Case Study

July 2012

3. Double-Skin Curtain Walls/Faades

Table of Contents

3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................2

3.2 AVAILABLE TYPES OF THIS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................3

3.3 STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS ......................................................4

3.4 BUILDING PATHOLOGY, DEFECTS, AND WHAT CAN GO WRONG ..............................................5

3.4.1 Invitations to complete questionnaire .......................................................................................................... 5

3.4.2 Responses received ......................................................................................................................................... 6

3.4.3 Summary of responses about databases .................................................................................................... 12

3.4.4 Reasons for failures and defects.................................................................................................................. 13

3.4.5 Failures/defects commentary ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.4.6 Key findings .................................................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Introduction to the technology

Double skin curtain walls (or faades) consist of two glazed skins placed in such a way that
air flows in the intermediate cavity. The ventilation of the cavity can be natural or
mechanical. The origin and destination of the air within the cavity can dif fer depending on
climatic conditions, building use, occupational hours and the overall HVAC strategy.

Adjustable openings are built into both the outer and inner skins of the cavity, and by
controlling the openings to vary the direction of air flow, a double skin faade can be used
to heat or to cool the building. In winter, air is allowed in at the bottom of the cavity and is
vented into the building, causing free heat to be pushed into the building. In summer, air
is allowed in at the bottom of the cavity and is vented to atmosphere at the top, creating a
solar chimney effect which can then pull cooler air through the building from its far side. In
both cases, an automatic control system is normally required to ensure the correct
sequencing and adjustment of the openings and vents.

The glass skins can each be single- or double- glazed, with a distance between them from
20cm to 2m. To protect against overheating, solar shading devices can be placed either
inside the cavity or on the outer face of the building.

Even without the passive heating and cooling effects achieved by the variable air flow, this
glazing configuration has improved insulation properties compared to a conventional glazed
faade.

The most well-known buildings in the UK which have double skin faades are 30 St Mary
Axe, London (also known as The Gherkin) and 1 Angel Square, Manchester (headquarters
of The Cooperative Group). Both of these buildings claim significant environmental
performance due to their double skin faades.

30 St Mary Axe showing 1 Angel Square showing the inner

triangular openings in the skin, with the outer skin under
outer skin construction at the lower part of the
photograph
3.2 Available types of this technology

Double skin faades are not products which can be bought off the shelf; they are
engineered systems which are assembled on site from standard glazing, curtain walling and
M&E components. As a result there is no standard typology for double skin faades, but
they can usefully be categorised using three characteristics, as follows:

Design intent:
a) Intended to heat the internal environment by exploiting passive solar gain
b) Intended to cool, either
the internal envirionment (via a solar chimney effect), or
just the faade, by venting excess summertime heat
c) Intended to both heat and cool depending on the season

Ventilation strategy within the cavity:

a) Natural ventilation (convection only)
b) Mechanical ventilation (fan-assisted)

Shading type
a) In-cavity shading
b) External shading

In all cases the successful performance of a faade

system requires there to be a dedicated control
strategy.

At its simplest, the control strategy might consist of

straightforward manual operation of the openings and
shading devices. At its most complex, the strategy
could be a highly building-integrated energy
management system which controls the openings, fan
speeds and shading devices according to internal and
external conditions (as well as those within the cavity).

A multitude of heating and cooling strategies can be

implemented using the same faade under central
control, by automatically adjusting both the internal
and external openings, other vents, fan speed and
direction, and the operation of shading devices. By virtue of the fact that double skin
faades are engineered systems which are assembled on site, their control systems are likely
to be highly bespoke.
3.3 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
This section outlines a discussion of the key drivers affecting double skin faades.

Strengths
Can provide free heat and/or cooling.
Enables natural ventilation to be implemented in windy environments (including
high-rise buildings).
Achieves improved insulation values.
Improves thermal comfort by buffering the internal glass temperature.
Good acoustic properties in urban environments.
Can have very simple, manual controls (although more normally automatic).

Weaknesses
Not a standard product per se, so very dependent upon the designers skills and the
installation quality.
Similar insulative values may be obtained using conventional high performance, low -
emissivity windows.
The cavity results in a decrease in usable floor space.
Depending on the strategy for ventilating the cavity, there may be problems with
condensation, dirt or outside noise.
The construction of a second skin may significantly increase materials, design and
installation costs.
Building energy modelling is inherently more difficult because of the complex heat
transfer characteristics of the cavity.

Opportunities
General trend towards higher rise buildings, with associated wind and temperature
management issues.
Rising energy costs.
Predilection among building owners for passive systems and natural ventilation.
Extremely flexible; every installation is effectively bespoke, so building forms can be
as simple or as complex as the client wishes.

Threats
Rise of rival technologies (natural ventilation, energy-efficient mechanical cooling).
Construction complexity.
Recession rival technologies may be more scalable, and more easily skilled-up, than
double skin faades.
Increasing wind speed as a result of climate change.
3.4 Building pathology, defects, and what can go wrong

3.4.1 Invitations to complete questionnaire

An invitation to complete the online version of the Elios II questionnaire was sent to 374
individuals in the following industry sectors:

TABLE 3.1 Invitations to complete questionnaire

Number
Sector sent
Insurance 64
Certification Bodies 10
Accreditation Organisations 4
Builders/Installers 55
Manufacturers 74
Trade Associations 27
Professional Institutes 19
Architects 14
Quantity Surveyors 2
Other 4
Building Inspection Services 13
Government Organisation 22
Housing Associations/Commissioner 16
Consultancies 15
Merchant/retailer 5
Unknown 30
Total 374

In total 70 respondents completed some or all of the questionnaire. This is an 18% response
rate.
3.4.2 Responses received

At the closing date of 1st October 2012, 7 responses had been received which related
specifically to paper-based insulation. This is 9% of the received questionnaires. The
industry sectors of the respondents were as follows:

TABLE 3.2 Responses

Responses
Sector received
Government organisation 2
Architectural practice 0
Housing organisation 0
Manufacturer 1
Retailer/merchant 0
Construction company 1
Installer 0
Building inspection service 2
Certification organisation 3
Insurance company 2
Trade association 0
Professional institution 1
Other (please specify) 0
Business in more than one 3
Total 15

Note that a respondent might have classified their business in more than one sector.

The respondents collectively claimed to have data relating to 172 installations of the
technology, of which 57 (33%) were said to have experienced failures or defects. 150 (with
50 having defects) were reported by one respondent.

The following graphs and charts only relate to the people who responded about this
technology.
CHART 3.3
Question asked Does your organisation collect or collate its own data on
these types of buildings?

This chart shows the number of reporting organisations that collect data on each type of property.
This is only for this eco-technology. Organisations may collect data on more than one type of
property.
CHART 3.4
Question asked Does your organisation collect its own data on these issues
(please tick all that apply)?

This chart shows the various reasons that the reporting organisations collect data, and the number
of organisations that gave each reason. This is only for this eco-technology, and not for all 10
technologies. Organisations may collect data for more than one reason.
CHART 3.5
Question asked What kind of damages/defects do the data refer to (please
tick all that apply)?

This chart shows the number of organisations that reported each kind of damage on which they
collect data. Each column represents a different type of damage. This is only for this specific eco-
technology, not overall. Organisations may collect data for more than one reason.
CHART 3.6
Question asked How do you collect the data (please tick all that apply) ?

This chart shows, for the number of organisations that reported for this eco-technology, the type of
organisation for which the data is collected. Organisations may collect data for more than one
reason.

Note that respondents may collect data for more than one organisation.
CHART 3.7
Question asked For whom do you collect the data (please tick all that
apply)?

3
3 3 3
2
2 2
1
1
0

This chart shows the number and type of organisations that reported that they collect data about
this eco-technology. Organisations may collect data for more than one type of organisation.
3.4.3 Summary of responses about databases
About their database:
4 have a database, 1 did not respond;
2 provided a date when data collection started 1970 and 2007;
4 carry out statistical analysis of the data;

About data publication:

4 make data available on the web;
3 in newsletters;
3 in other publications;

About the availability of data, of these 6 respondents:

4 publish summary data only;
2 publish raw data in any form;
1 publish raw data, even anonymously;

3 comments were passed, as follows:

Confidential to ourselves and the providers - used to inform various services and
policy
Publically to house builders not general public on defects
Only the results of research work.

Finally, note that this question was answered in general about all 10 eco-technologies and
may not apply to the specific technology.
3.4.4 Reasons for failures and defects
The reported reasons for the failures and defects were as follows:

TABLE 3.8
Reason for failure/defect Number % of total

Requirement management

Change in clients requirements 2 1.2%

Misunderstanding of the effectiveness of the technology 7 4.1%
Poor project management 4 2.3%
Inaccurate engineering or architectural data 4 2.3%
Delivery

Late delivery 2 1.2%

Storage issues 0 0.0%
Awkward packaging 0 0.0%
Poor transport of product 0 0.0%
Installation

Incorrect design for installation 7 4.1%

Incorrect installation documentation 0 0.0%
Failure in installation 12 7.0%
Commissioning failure 0 0.0%
Operational failure

Product failure once installed 9 5.2%

Incorrect user documentation 6 3.5%
Misuse of product by end-user 0 0.0%
Performance not as claimed 4 2.3%
Other

No other reasons were given for failure

Total

Note that an installation may have had more than one reason to fail.
3.4.5 Failures/defects commentary

The respondents offered the following general comments and suggestions on the ways in
which the failures and defects might be avoided in future:

TABLE 3.9
Reason for Commentary
failure/defect
Requirement
management

Change in clients
requirements
Misunderstanding Better understanding of the system physics (ed: We assumed this means that
of the designers and architects do not fully understand the technology at a
effectiveness of fundamental level. No detail on these lessons has been provided.)
the technology
Poor project
management
Inaccurate
engineering or
architectural data
Delivery

Late delivery
Storage issues
Awkward
packaging
Poor transport of
product
Installation

Incorrect design Respecting the project specifications.

for installation
Incorrect
installation
documentation
Failure in Control documents by independent body
installation
Commissioning Exact supervisor
failure
Operational
failure

Product failure Appropriate choice of materials

once installed
Incorrect user
documentation
Misuse of Control documents by independent body.
product by end- Better understanding of the system physics (Ed, again assumed this is by the
user user; no detail was provided)

Performance not Exact supervisor

as claimed Better understanding of the system physics

Other (specified)

Two other general comments were made

All the above
Speak with technical side of the business
3.4.6 Key findings

In summary:

Unsurprisingly, given the nature of this technology, the installation phase is seen
as key to avoiding failures.
Very little opinion was offered on ways to avoid failures in future.

Lessons:

Improve understanding and manage expectations at all stages of the product

lifecycle (designer, installer, end-user)