COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF FACADE SYSTEMS BASED ON ENERGY PERFORMANCE AND EMBODIED CARBON USING BIM-BASED SIMULATION

Abstract

Facade design plays a critical role in reducing both operational energy demand and environmental impacts of buildings. In recent years, increasing attention has been given to life cycle–oriented approaches that jointly consider operational and embodied carbon emissions. This study presents a comparative assessment of five facade scenarios—base masonry wall, externally insulated wall (ETICS), curtain wall, double-skin facade, and enhanced ETICS with shading—applied to a representative office building located in a Mediterranean climate context. Building energy performance was evaluated through BIM-based simulations using Autodesk Revit and OpenStudio, focusing on annual heating and cooling energy consumption. In parallel, a carbon assessment was conducted using the Carbon Insights tool to estimate embodied carbon (A1–A3) and operational carbon (B6) over a 20-year building lifespan. The results indicate that facade configurations with extensive glazing significantly increase cooling energy demand and embodied carbon, while enhanced opaque wall systems combined with shading devices provide notable reductions in both operational energy use and embodied carbon emissions. The findings highlight the importance of integrating early-stage energy and carbon assessments in facade design decisions and demonstrate the potential of BIM-based tools for supporting sustainable architectural design processes.

Keywords

• Facade systems
• energy performance
• embodied carbon
• life cycle assessment
• BIM

Supporting Institution

This research did not receive support from any institution.

Ethical Statement

This study did not receive any funding, and all procedures performed in this research were in accordance with ethical standards.

BIM TABANLI SİMÜLASYON KULLANILARAK CEPHE SİSTEMLERİNİN ENERJİ PERFORMANSI VE GÖMÜLÜ KARBON AÇISINDAN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Cephe tasarımı, binaların işletme enerjisi gereksiniminin ve çevresel etkilerinin azaltılmasında kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Son yıllarda, işletme ve gömülü karbon emisyonlarını birlikte ele alan yaşam döngüsü odaklı yaklaşımlara olan ilgi giderek artmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Akdeniz iklim koşullarında yer alan temsili bir ofis binası için beş farklı cephe senaryosu—taşıyıcı yığma duvar, dıştan ısı yalıtımlı duvar (ETICS), giydirme cephe, çift kabuk cephe ve gölgeleme elemanlarıyla geliştirilmiş ETICS—karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bina enerji performansı, Autodesk Revit ve OpenStudio yazılımları kullanılarak BIM tabanlı simülasyonlar aracılığıyla analiz edilmiş ve yıllık ısıtma ve soğutma enerji tüketimleri hesaplanmıştır. Buna ek olarak, Carbon Insights aracı kullanılarak 20 yıllık bina kullanım ömrü boyunca gömülü karbon (A1–A3) ve işletme karbonu (B6) değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, yüksek cam oranına sahip cephe sistemlerinin soğutma enerjisi gereksinimini ve gömülü karbon miktarını önemli ölçüde artırdığını; buna karşılık, geliştirilmiş opak cephe sistemlerinin gölgeleme elemanlarıyla birlikte kullanıldığında hem işletme enerjisi tüketimini hem de karbon emisyonlarını belirgin şekilde azalttığını göstermektedir. Çalışma sonuçları, cephe tasarım kararlarında erken tasarım aşamasında enerji ve karbon değerlendirmelerinin entegrasyonunun önemini vurgulamakta ve BIM tabanlı araçların sürdürülebilir mimari tasarım süreçlerini destekleme potansiyelini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Cephe sistemleri
• enerji performansı
• gömülü karbon
• yaşam döngüsü değerlendirmesi
• BIM

Supporting Institution

Bu araştırma herhangi bir kurumdan destek almamıştır.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma herhangi bir fon desteği almamış olup, araştırmada gerçekleştirilen tüm işlemler etik standartlara uygun şekilde yapılmıştır.

References

1. Al-Tamimi, N. A., & Fadzil, S. F. S. (2011). The potential of shading devices for temperature reduction in high-rise residential buildings in the tropics. Energy and Buildings, 43(4), 839–848.
2. Anand, C. K., & Amor, B. (2017). Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in life cycle assessment of buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 408–416.
3. Ascione, F., Bianco, N., De Masi, R. F., de’ Rossi, F., & Vanoli, G. P. (2016). Energy refurbishment of existing buildings through the use of envelope solutions: A case study in Mediterranean climate. Energy and Buildings, 109, 1–15.
4. Azari, R., & Abbasabadi, N. (2018). Embodied energy of buildings: A review of data, methods, challenges, and research trends. Energy and Buildings, 168, 225–235.
5. Cabeza, L. F., Barreneche, C., Miró, L., Morera, J. M., Bartolí, E., & Fernández, A. I. (2014). Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, 536–542.
6. Cavalliere, C., Habert, G., Dell’Osso, G. R., & Hollberg, A. (2019). Continuous BIM-based assessment of embodied environmental impacts throughout the design process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 941–952.
7. Cuce, E., Riffat, S., & Young, C. H. (2019). Thermal insulation materials for building applications: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 2111–2130.
8. Dixit, M. K., Fernández-Solís, J. L., Lavy, S., & Culp, C. H. (2010). Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review. Energy and Buildings, 42(8), 1238–1247.

9. Gervasio, H., & Dimova, S. (2018). Model for life cycle assessment (LCA) of buildings. European Commission, Joint Research Centre.
10. Gratia, E., & De Herde, A. (2007). Are energy consumptions decreased with the use of double-skin façades? Energy and Buildings, 39(5), 605–619.
11. Grynning, S., Gustavsen, A., Time, B., & Jelle, B. P. (2013). Windows in the buildings of tomorrow: Energy losers or energy gainers? Energy and Buildings, 61, 185–192.
12. Hoxha, E., & Jusselme, T. (2024). BIM-based life cycle assessment approaches for early-stage building design: Opportunities and limitations. Building and Environment, 248, 111041.
13. Huang, T., Zhang, Y., & Shi, X. (2024). Embodied carbon assessment in sustainable building envelope design: A review of recent developments. Journal of Building Engineering, 85, 108691.
14. Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., & Acquaye, A. (2013). Operational vs embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends. Energy and Buildings, 66, 232–245.
15. International Energy Agency. (2019). Global status report for buildings and construction. IEA.
16. Keyhani, M., Kiani, M., & Akcay, E. C. (2024). A comparative study of traditional vs. automated BIM-LCA methods for embodied carbon assessment. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes.
17. Kuittinen, M., Häkkinen, T., & Airaksinen, M. (2023). The growing importance of embodied carbon in low-energy buildings. Energy and Buildings, 287, 112921.
18. Olgyay, V. (1963). Design with climate: Bioclimatic approach to architectural regionalism. Princeton University Press.
19. Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2016). Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment—What does the evidence say? Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 687–700.
20. Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., & De Wolf, C. (2017). Furthering embodied carbon assessment in practice: Results of an industry-academia collaboration. Energy and Buildings, 141, 216–224.
21. Röck, M., Ruschi Mendes Saade, M., Balouktsi, M., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Birgisdóttir, H., Frischknecht, R., & Habert, G. (2020). Embodied GHG emissions of buildings—The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258, 114107.
22. Saelens, D. (2002). Energy performance assessment of single storey multiple-skin façades (Doctoral dissertation). KU Leuven.
23. Santos, R., Costa, A. A., & Grilo, A. (2023). BIM-based environmental performance assessment in early design stages: A review and future directions. Automation in Construction, 152, 104912.
24. Simonen, K., Rodriguez, B. X., & De Wolf, C. (2017). Benchmarking the embodied carbon of buildings. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(5), 1307–1317.
25. Soust-Verdaguer, B., Llatas, C., & García-Martínez, A. (2017). Critical review of BIM-based LCA method to support sustainable design. Automation in Construction, 83, 136–150.
26. Tzempelikos, A., & Athienitis, A. K. (2007). The impact of shading design and control on building cooling and lighting demand. Solar Energy, 81(3), 369–382.
27. United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). 2020 global status report for buildings and construction. UNEP.
28. Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., & Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140.