- Client:
- Architect:
- Façade Engineering/Consultant: Ramboll
- Façade Contractor:
Conceptualisation of FAT PAnDA
In the architectural design process, submissions for planning approval frequently occur towards the conclusion of RIBA Stage 2, a pivotal phase where fundamental design directions are established. This stage often receives the least allocation of time compared to subsequent phases, leading to the premature finalisation of designs without fully understanding their implications.
Designing façades involves navigating a complex landscape of challenges and choices, where each potential solution represents a metaphorical mountain peak. Traditional methods rely heavily on intuition, past experiences, or professional opinions. When these designs prove unfeasible in later stages, the costs associated with changes increase dramatically, and the flexibility to adapt diminishes significantly. This raises the question: Have we truly explored the best solution? Have we climbed the right mountain?
This philosophy underpins many tools within Ramboll. Fixating early on a design solution is akin to choosing a mountain to climb without considering all available options. Only upon reaching the peak do we realise there might have been higher mountains, representing better solutions, yet it becomes too late to explore alternative paths. Traditional façade optioneering methods often rely on isolated metrics like U-values or embodied carbon, leading to tunnel vision and skewed initial designs, which cause premature reliance on suboptimal solutions.
A comprehensive, multi-criteria assessment is essential for effective façade design. Real-time evaluation of various parameters—including thermal performance, solar gain, embodied and operational carbon, and structural implications—ensures that every possible configuration is considered efficiently. This approach mitigates the risk of premature design fixation and promotes data-backed decision-making. By systematically processing and evaluating all possibilities, we can avoid overlooking the most sustainable and optimal solutions.
The Prototype: Realising the Vision
The goal was to develop an early-stage rapid design optioneering tool capable of real-time simulation for various façade performance aspects. Façade design intersects multiple fields—structural, architectural, fire safety, carbon considerations etc.—that often conflict with each other. Not all performance indicators hold equal weight or provide the same flexibility for change later on.
Focusing on core performance parameters, such as structural integrity, architectural design, building physics, and life cycle assessment (LCA), the objective was to create a workflow that simultaneously appraises these indicators intuitively and accessibly.
The tool is based on a project's façade bay, which can be customised to form a reference study area specific to the project. This approach allows designers to efficiently evaluate multiple configurations, ensuring all key performance metrics are considered. By integrating real-time simulation capabilities, the tool facilitates comprehensive optioneering, enabling optimised and sustainable design choices from the earliest stages of the project.
User Experience: An Intuitive Interface
The user interface of FAT PAnDA is pragmatic and intuitive, allowing any user to harness the tool's full potential without extensive computing skills, thus significantly streamlining the design process.
The User Interface is divided into three distinct parts:
- Setup/Configuration: Configure and model façade bays.
- System Display: A viewer interface for live system adjustments.
- Results Display: Immediate output of performance metrics.
User interface breakdown
The process involves defining comprehensive data, selecting façade systems, configuring sub-components, and interpreting the results.
Core Features: Comprehensive and Progressive
- Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Strategically identifying carbon payback periods through comparisons of Embodied carbon and Operational carbon emissions.
- Thermal Performance Assessment: Rapid modelling and analysis cutting through traditional complexities.
- Architectural & Structural Outputs: Comparing façade build-ups and their structural impacts.
- Building Physics simulations: Tailoring façade properties to optimise environmental and energy efficiencies.
Outline of features
The tool allows users to customise various façade styles, such as stick systems, unitised, and built-up constructions, along with a variety of cladding and glazing options.
Image demonstrating the tool's flexibility in configuring a variety of architectural façades.
Image demonstrating the tool's flexibility in configuring a variety of shading systems.
A shared database is maintained and verified by multiple teams, including Sustainability for embodied carbon data and grid factor reductions, and Building Physics for energy simulations. Ongoing updates and support ensure the information stays current.
Case Studies
Case examples underscore FAT PAnDA's effectiveness in influencing key project outcomes:
-
Carbon Payback Period Analysis (Aligned with CWCT CPP methodology): FAT PAnDA provides empirical evidence to assess the payback periods of Triple Glazed Units (TGUs) versus Double Glazed Units (DGUs), crucially influencing decision-making. The tool evaluates if the use of TGUs is justifiable by comparing their carbon payback period. Here are two examples that illustrate this:
In the first example, a DGU with a U-value of 1.3W/m²K is compared to a TGU with a U-value of 0.9W/m²K. The carbon payback period, which is the time it takes for the operational savings to balance out the initial embodied carbon emissions, is 7.7 years.
In the second example, the same DGU (1.3W/m²K) is compared against a TGU with a U-value of 1.1W/m²K, resulting in a much longer payback period of 21 years.
This scenario highlights that as the U-values of the options become closer, the payback period increases significantly. This analysis helps verify whether a TGU is truly the better option. If the payback period is longer than 25 years, choosing a TGU becomes unjustifiable since its service life would be exceeded.
-
Optimisation of glazing ratios and shading devices: Iterations on glazing ratios and shading depths allow for optimising Incident solar radiation, in accordance with the British Council for Offices (BCO) guidelines. In the example below, the shading options required to keep solar gains within the 65 W/m2 threshold have been analysed keeping the g value and the glazing ratio constant.
Example showing the incident solar radiation distribution across elevations.
