THE COMPARISON OF FACADE PERFORMANCEON VARIOUS METAL TYPESAS THE SLIDING SUDARE’S DEVICE MATERIALSAgus Hariyadi1, Alya Farah Taufiqoh 1

1 Universitas Gadjah Madaagus@ugm.ac.id

Urban Retrofitting: Building, Cities and Communities in The Disruptive Era

The 20th

International Conference on

SustainableEnvironment

& Architecture

Supported By:Organized By:Presenter Affiliation:

SLIDING SUDARE

2

Supported By:Organized By:

Traditional Sudare Sliding Sudare

Sliding Sudare requires thin and slim slats for its blinds, which will not be suitable with its original material (bamboo).

METAL SUDARE

3

Supported By:Organized By:

Bamboo Slats Metal Slats

Bamboo material has a prone potential to be rotten due to the weather, since Sliding Sudare has a specific requirement for it’s slats

Previous research suggests, that metal is a better material, which in this research is limited into stainless steel, aluminium, and titanium

This research is aimed to evaluate the metal types regarding the energy performance and material’s effectiveness

METHODS

4

Supported By:Organized By:

• OTTV• Thermal Energy

Glare Analysis

Daylight Analysis

ENERGYPLUS DATA

5

Supported By:Organized By:

Building type : OfficeWeather data (.epw) : JakartaDowntown.epwBuilding orientation : 0o

Typical floor area : 21.66 m2

Floor to ceiling height : 4.5 mWWR : 100%Number of floors : 1Number of zones : 1Simulation period : Jan 1 to Dec 31External wall : Plaster (15 mm) - Hebel block (100 mm) - Plaster (15 mm)

U-value (wall) - with film: 1.039 W/m2-KHVAC system : Ideal LoadIndoor illuminance level : 300 lux (based on Indonesia National Standard for office building (BSNI 2011a))Metal sudare type : showed in table 2Opening glass type : showed in table 3

Name of Material

Reflectance Specularity Roughness Conductivity DensitySpecific

HeatR G B W/m-K Kg/m3 J/kg-K

StainlessSteel

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.035 15 7.5–8.0 468

Alumunium 0.9 0.88 0.88 0.8 0.02 235 2.710 887Titanium 0.487 0.481 0.436 0.3 0.02 15.6 4.420 521

Name of GlassU Factor SC SHGC Rel. Ht. Gain TvisW/m2-K W/m2

Glass Company C, Indoflot Clear 15.0, NFRC ID1219

5.515 0.816 0.710 554 0.833

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

6

Supported By:Organized By:

No Type OTTV efficiency Thermal Energy efficiency

1 BASELINE 35.00 - 149.00 -

2 INITIAL CONDITION 75.12 (1.15) 246.98 (2.80)

3 Stainless Steel (Full Open) 52.00 (0.49) 185.14 (1.03)

4 Stainless Steel (Half Open) 30.62 0.13 129.60 0.55

5 Stainless Steel (Full Closed) 7.84 0.78 74.51 2.13

6 Alumunium (Full Open) 52.00 (0.49) 185.14 (1.03)

7 Alumunium (Half Open) 30.62 0.13 129.62 0.55

8 Alumunium (Full Closed) 7.84 0.78 74.51 2.13

9 Titanium (Full Open) 52.00 (0.49) 185.14 (1.03)

10 Titanium (Half Open) 30.62 0.13 129.62 0.55

11 Titanium (Full Closed) 7.84 0.78 74.51 2.13 OTTV and Energy Analysis

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

7

Supported By:Organized By:

BASELINE INITIAL CONDITION Stainless Steel (Full Open) Stainless Steel (Half Open)

96% 87% 53% 85%

Stainless Steel (Full Closed) Alumunium (Full Open) Alumunium (Half Open) Alumunium (Full Closed)

17% 54% 86% 1%

Titanium (Full Open) Titanium (Half Open) Titanium (Full Closed) UDI 100 – 2000

55% 87% 3% >60% UDI 100 - 2000

Annual Daylight Analysis

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

8

Supported By:Organized By:

NoDistance

from Window (m)

BASELINE INITIAL CONDITION

Stainless Steel (Full

Open)

Stainless Steel (Half

Open)

Stainless Steel (Full

Closed)

Alumunium (Full Open)

Alumunium (Half Open)

Alumunium (Full Closed)

Titanium (Full Open)

Titanium (Half Open)

Titanium (Full Closed)

1 0.5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.13

2 2.5 0.39 1.00 0.82 0.48 0.23 0.82 0.47 0.23 0.80 0.42 0.13

3 4.5 0.30 0.61 0.51 0.34 0.07 0.51 0.34 0.10 0.50 0.33 0. 04

0.5m from the window 2.5m from the window 4.5m from the window

Stainless Steel (Full Open)

DGP = 1.00 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.82 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.51 (Intolerable Glare)

Stainless Steel (Half O

pen)

DGP = 1.00 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.48 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.34 (Imperceptible Glare)

Stainless Steel (Full Closed)

DGP = 0.24 (Imperceptible Glare) DGP = 0.23 (Imperceptible Glare) DGP = 0.07 (Imperceptible Glare)

0.5m from the window 2.5m from the window 4.5m from the window

Alum

unium (Full O

pen)

DGP = 1.00 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.82 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.51 (Intolerable Glare)

Alum

unium (H

alf Open)

DGP = 1.00 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.47 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.34 (Imperceptible Glare)

A

lumunium

(Full Closed)

DGP = 0.26 (Imperceptible Glare) DGP = 0.23 (Imperceptible Glare) DGP = 0.10 (Imperceptible Glare)

0.5m from the window 2.5m from the window 4.5m from the window

Titanium (Full O

pen)

DGP = 1.00 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.80 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.50 (Intolerable Glare)

Titanium (H

alf Open)

DGP = 1.00 (Intolerable Glare) DGP = 0.42 (Disturbing Glare) DGP = 0.33 (Imperceptible Glare)

Titanium (Full C

losed)

DGP = 0.13 (Imperceptible Glare) DGP = 0.13 (Imperceptible Glare) DGP = 0.04 (Imperceptible Glare)

CONCLUSIONS

9

Supported By:Organized By:

• The simulation result suggests that the Sliding Sudare with different types of metal materials showed the ability to reduce the OTTV and the thermal energy below the SNI standard with the half open state (30.62 watt/m2)

• The visual performance, the imperceptible glare stated can be achieved on the half position at 4.5 m from the window (by directly facing to the window)

• The overall result did not really show a significant difference which means the decision of using the type of the material is determined by the effectiveness of the material specification with regard to the durability and sustainability.

REFERENCES

10

Supported By:Organized By:

World Energy Council, “Bioenergy in Australia - Status and opportunities,” World Energy Resour. 2013 Surv., 2013.

W. Natephra, N. Yabuki, and T. Fukuda, “Optimizing the evaluation of building envelope design for thermal performance using a BIM-based overall thermal transfer value calculation,” Build. Environ., vol. 136, no. November 2017, pp. 128–145, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.03.032.

A. Ahmad and A. Zainonabidin, “An Overall Thermal Transfer Value ( OTTV ) -based approach in analysing the energy efficiency of buildings : A Review,” no. October, pp. 7–8, 2015.

L. S. and P. J., “OTTV (SNI 03-6389-2011) and ETTV (BCA 2008) Calculation for Various Building’s Shapes, Orientations, Envelope Building Materials: Comparison and Analysis,” Civ. Eng. Dimens., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 108–116, 2015, doi: 10.9744/ced.17.2.108-116.

N. H. Matin and A. Eydgahi, “Factors affecting the design and development of responsive facades: a historical evolution.” Intelligent Buildings International, 2019, doi: 10.1080/17508975.2018.1562414.

A. K. Ali, Y. Wang, and J. L. Alvarado, “Facilitating industrial symbiosis to achieve circular economy using value-added by design: A case study in transforming the automobile industry sheet metal waste-flow into Voronoi facade systems,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 234, pp. 1033–1044, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.202.

J. M. Blanco, A. Buruaga, J. Cuadrado, and A. Zapico, “Assessment of the influence of façade location and orientation in indoor environment of double-skin building envelopes with perforated metal sheets,” Build. Environ., vol. 163, no. July, p. 106325, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106325.

M. Formentini and S. Lenci, “An innovative building envelope (kinetic façade) with Shape Memory Alloys used as actuators and sensors,” Autom. Constr., vol. 85, no. November 2017, pp. 220–231, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.006.

Varun Sharma, Anuranjan Sharda, and Vijay Kumar, “Simulation Thermal Analysis of Double Glazed Window with Interpane Chik Blind,” Int. J. Eng. Res., vol. V5, no. 07, pp. 193–199, 2016, doi: 10.17577/ijertv5is070083.

A. Hariyadi, “Study on Optimization of Visibility and Energy Efficiency of New ‘ Sudare ’ for Building Façade AgusHariyadi Graduate School of Environmental Engineering,” no. August, 2017.

A. Hariyadi, E. S. Jati, N. Afif, and A. F. Taufiqoh, “The Comparison of Device Materials of Sliding Sudare Using A Prototyping Method,” ARTEKS J. Tek. Arsit., vol. 6, no. Vol 6 No 1 (2021): Article In Press 2020-2021.

K. Huang, K. F. Liu, H. Liang, and T. District, “Design and Energy Performance of a Buoyancy Driven Exterior Shading Device for Building Application in Taiwan,” pp. 2358–2380, 2015, doi: 10.3390/en8042358.

H. Hullman and W. Willkomm, “Stainless Steel and Solar Energy in Building Applications,” 2009.

Hellenic Aluminium Industry, “Aluminium properties.” .

Chemicool, “Titanium Element Facts.” .

H. Kim and M. J. Clayton, “A multi-objective optimization approach for climate-adaptive building envelope design using parametric behavior maps,” Build. Environ., vol. 185, no. May, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107292.

H. Kim and M. J. Clayton, “Parametric behavior maps: A method for evaluating the energy performance of climate-adaptive building envelopes,” Energy Build., vol. 219, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110020.

A. Tabadkani, M. Valinejad Shoubi, F. Soflaei, and S. Banihashemi, “Integrated parametric design of adaptive facades for user’s visual comfort,” Autom. Constr., vol. 106, no. August 2018, p. 102857, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102857.

J. Yoon and S. Bae, “Performance evaluation and design of thermo-responsive SMP shading prototypes,” Sustain., vol. 12, no. 11, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12114391.

A. A. Ćurĉić, “Photocatalytic Self-Cleaning Facades,” vol. 16, pp. 425–436, 2018.

A. Nabil and J. Mardaljevic, “Useful daylight illuminances: A replacement for daylight factors,” Energy Build., vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 905–913, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.013.

A. Nabil and J. Mardaljevic, “Useful daylight illuminance: a new paradigm for assessing daylight in buildings,” Light. Res. Technol., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 41–59, 2005, doi: 10.1191/1365782805li128oa.

F. Cantin, M. Arch, M. Dubois, and M. Arch, “Daylighting metrics based on illuminance , distribution , glare and directivity,” Light. Res. Technol., vol. 43, pp. 291–307, 2011.

Thank You

The 20th International Conference on Sustainable Environment & Architecture

Supported By:Organized By:Presenter Affiliation: