Sankaewthong, S.; Horanont, T.; Miyata, K.; Karnjana, J.; Busayarat, C.; Xie, H. Using a Biomimicry Approach in the Design of a Kinetic Façade to Regulate the Amount of Daylight Entering a Working Space. Buildings2022, 12, 2089.
Sankaewthong, S.; Horanont, T.; Miyata, K.; Karnjana, J.; Busayarat, C.; Xie, H. Using a Biomimicry Approach in the Design of a Kinetic Façade to Regulate the Amount of Daylight Entering a Working Space. Buildings 2022, 12, 2089.
Sankaewthong, S.; Horanont, T.; Miyata, K.; Karnjana, J.; Busayarat, C.; Xie, H. Using a Biomimicry Approach in the Design of a Kinetic Façade to Regulate the Amount of Daylight Entering a Working Space. Buildings2022, 12, 2089.
Sankaewthong, S.; Horanont, T.; Miyata, K.; Karnjana, J.; Busayarat, C.; Xie, H. Using a Biomimicry Approach in the Design of a Kinetic Façade to Regulate the Amount of Daylight Entering a Working Space. Buildings 2022, 12, 2089.
Abstract
Today, buildings are increasingly designed with transparent materials, with glass paneling being especially popular as an installation material for its architectural allure. However, its major drawback is admitting impractical amounts of sunlight to interior spaces. Office buildings with excessive sunlight in indoor areas result in worker inefficiency. This article studied kinetic façades as means to providing suitable sunlight for interior spaces integrated with a triple identity of DNA structure, photosynthetic behavior, and the twist used, which was divided into generation and evaluation. The generating phase first used an evolutionary engine to produce potential strip patterns. The kinetic façade was subsequently evaluated by Climate Studio software to validate daylight admission in an indoor space with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4.1 criteria. To analyze the kinetic façade system, the building envelope was divided into four types: glass panels, static façades, kinetic façade (version 1, rotating movement), and kinetic façades (version 2, twisting movement). In addition, for kinetic façades, degrees of simulation for versions 1 and 2 were 20, 50, 80, and 100 degrees, in order to ascertain potential for both façades to the same degree. Comparing all façades receiving the daylight factor (DF) into the space from more or less sunlight resulted in the decreasing order of potential as follows: entirely glass façade, kinetic façade version 2, kinetic façade version 1, and static façade. By receiving daylight factor (DF), the façade filtered appropriate amounts of daylight into the working space moderately and beneficially. Daylight simulation results indicated that the newly designed kinetic façade (version 2) had more potential than other building envelope types in terms of filtering beneficial daylight in indoor areas. This article also experimented with the kinetic façade prototype in an actual situation to test conditional environmental potential. The kinetic façade (version 2) was explored in the building envelope with varied adaptability in order to provide sunlight and for private-to-public, public-to-private, or semi-public working areas.
Keywords
kinetic façade; biomimicry; daylight factor (DF); LEED criteria; strip form
Subject
Arts and Humanities, Architecture
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
,
,
,
