BESTFACADE Best Practice for Double Skin Facades EIE/04/135/S07.38652 1st Technical Progress Report Reporting Period: 1.1.2005 – 30.6.2005 Date: 19.7.2005

Reinhard Waldner / MAB (Coordinator)

Page 1 / 16

1. Project objectives and major achievements during the reporting period

1.1 Project objectives Innovative facade concepts are more relevant than ever. An advanced facade should allow for a

comfortable indoor climate, sound protection, good lighting and minimise the demand for auxiliary

energy input. Commercial buildings with integrated double skin facades (DSF) can be very energy

efficient buildings. However not all double skin facades perform well. In many cases large air

conditioning systems have to compensate for summer overheating problems and the energy

consumption badly exceeds the intended heating energy savings.

The BESTFACADE Project will actively promote the concept of double skin facades. A best practice

guideline of double skin facades will be created. It will be based on a comprehensive survey of DSF’s

in Europe. Using the produced guidelines designers and investors can avoid application of non

relevant concepts of DSF performing worse than traditional facades.

A simple calculation method to estimate the energy demand and comfort parameters will be

developed. It will be presented to the relevant CEN committees and could be integrated into

assessment methods of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).

Benchmarks will be made available to allow users and operators to compare their energy consumption

levels with others, set future targets and identify measures to reduce energy consumption. Non-

technological barriers will be identified and solutions to overcome them will be presented.

The project results will be disseminated by different strategies, like a website, CD-Roms, workshops

and presentation at conferences.

Page 2 / 16

1.2 Summary of activities and results for the reporting period

This report covers the first two quarters of the Bestfacade project from 1.1.2005 to 30.6.2005.

year 1 2 3 Work package

quarter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WP1: State of the Art

WP2: Cut-back of non-technological barriers

WP3: Energy related benchmarks and certification method

WP4: Simple calculation method

WP5: Best practice guidelines

WP6: Dissemination

WP7: Common Dissemination Activities

WP8: Management

The following Workpackages started in the reporting period and the following major activities were

accomplished (for details see Item 3.1 in this report):

WP1 - State of the Art:

A literature database on double skin facades to gather relevant information available in articles

and publications was developed. In a first step this database will be available to the members of

the project as a basis of their work.

Two questionnaires for gathering information on existing buildings with double skin facades (for

example on thermal behaviour, costs, energy consumption, etc.) were developed. For these

questionnaires a coherent typology of double skin facades was established. The questionnaires

form the basis for the data representing the current state of the art of double skin facades which

will be available on the homepage of the project.

WP2 - Cut-back of non-technological barriers:

A questionnaire to identify the non-technological barriers to double skin facades in the different

member countries was developed. First feedback was received and analysed. This activities form

the basis for a SWOT analysis. After the analysis of the non-technological barriers a second

phase to develop strategies to overcome these barriers will start.

WP6 – Dissemination:

The project website www.bestfacade.com was established. The website is divided into a publicly

Page 3 / 16

accessible part and a part only for the members of the project. At the moment the publicly

accessible part gives an overview of double skin facades and describes the Bestfacade project.

As soon as the first publishable results of the project are available they will be placed on the

webpage. The ‘members only’ section of the webpage includes - amongst others - a discussion

forum for communication of the project members, the list of deliverables including the status and

dates as well as relevant documents of the project for download (Grant Agreement, Consortium

Agreement, Minutes of the Meetings, presentations, etc.)

Information on the Bestfacade project was published in the June edition of AIR-magazine /

newsletter. This newsletter is distributed in about 3000 – 4000 copies. It may also be downloaded

on www.aivc.org .

WP8 – Management:

see Item 2. of this report

1.3 Identified problems and corrective action taken

There are no deviations from the work plan so far.

Page 4 / 16

2. Consortium management of the period (1-2 pages)

Consortium Agreement In addition to the Grant Agreement a Consortium Agreement dealing with rights and obligations of the

partners was established. This agreement was supplied by the Coordinator. Considerable effort was

put in the wording of the text of the agreement. Several wishes for changes to the agreement from the

partners had to be considered and discussed. Finally a version acceptable to all partners was signed.

Kick-Off Meeting

The next Consortium management task was to organise the kick-off meeting for the project. The kick-

off meeting took place in Vienna on February 3rd and 4th. All partners held a short presentation about

their company or institute and their special expertise relevant to the project. The Coordinator explained

the organisation of the project (Grant Agreement, Consortium Agreement) and the tasks of the

different management bodies (Steering Committee, Project Management Board, Coordinator, Work

Package Leaders, Advisory Group). The procedure to obtain the pre-financing was explained. The

homepage of the project www.bestfacade.com was presented by MAB. In the “partners only” section

of the webpage a discussion forum serving as communication platform for the project was introduced.

In this section there is also an address list of all partners and a list of all deliveries with delivery dates.

These lists are maintained by the Coordinator.

During this kick-off meeting the tasks for WP1 were discussed and assigned to the partners. The

contributions of each partner for WP1 were fixed.

Although WP2 was scheduled to begin in July 2005 it was agreed by all partners that certain activities

should start earlier. Also for this WP tasks were assigned to the project partners.

For WP3 and WP5 starting in July 2005 scope and strategies were discussed.

For WP6 the tasks were discussed and allocated to the partners.

Finally the dates for the next meetings were fixed and the deliverables for the next period were

discussed.

Pre-financing - Bank Guarantee The bankguarantees were gathered by the Coordinator and sent to the Commission. There were

difficulties with the status of Fraunhofer Institue as public body, delaying the procedure of pre-

financing. Finally by suggestion of the Coordinator it was agreed that the pre-financing for all partners

with the exception of Fraunhofer Institue will be released by the Commission no longer delaying the

other payments. So the payments for pre-financing from the Commission were received by the

Coordinator and transferred to the project partners in May.

Page 5 / 16

Communication Communication between the partners was via e-mail and also via the private section of the project-

website. The work was coordinated by the Workpackage Leaders and the Coordinator. The

Workpackage Leader of WP1 informed the Coordinator on the progress of work on a regular basis.

1st Technical Progress Meeting On June 29th the first Technical Progress Meeting of the project took place at Fraunhofer Institute in

Holzkirchen, Germany near Munich. Two partners not present at the kick-off meeting held a

presentation about their company.

The activities and results so far for WP1 were presented by the WP-Leader IWT. For all WP’s the

tasks for the next six month were assigned to the partners.

The dates of the next meetings were fixed. The next technical progress meeting will be held on 19th

and 20th December in Greece.

Page 6 / 16

3. Work package progress of the period

3.1 Progress towards work package objectives

3.1.1 Workpackage 1 – State of the Art Description of the work This work package will utilise the specialised knowledge, experience and

contacts available to each participant from previous and ongoing work. The state of the art of double

skin facades (DSF) in different countries and climatic regions will be evaluated.

Located buildings with double skin facades will be included in a database. The partners will agree on a

standard protocol of information (photographs, diagrams, performance data and graphs etc.) required

from each application to ensure a uniform display on the website and to facilitate the work of the other

WPs.

Outcome of this work package The results of this work package will be used as a starting point for

the other WPs, e.g. all double skin applications located will be used in WP3 “benchmarks”. Buildings

with double skin facades will be presented on the website. The lessons learned from these buildings

will be included into the best practice guidelines (WP5). Especially interesting will be the results in the

different climatic regions of Europe.

Contribution of each partner in this work package This work package will be lead by IWT. Each

partner will contribute to this work package by providing information of his country (climatic region).

ULUND will provide a review of existing literature on DSF for office buildings in Europe, while WSP will

cover the architectural aspects and Skanska the HVAC aspects in northern Europe.

Work done during the first period:

Literature database In June 2005, the adoption of an existing BBRI database of double skin facades to the Bestfacade

needs by BBRI and IWT was finished. The database contains already a lot of references of articles,

books, proceedings, etc. concerning ventilated double skin facades (till now about 300 references). A

special four-language keyword list (English, French, Dutch and German) was developed to classify the

literature by reducing and completing an existing list from BBRI.

Each partner of the Bestfacade project will now provide his own references. There is one responsible

person for the literature database per country. The database will be send around and stay for 2 weeks

in each country to input the data. The check of the database (e.g. doubling, correct input) will be done

by IWT.

Belgium: BBRI / Flammant done Austria: IWT / Mach 11th July Sweden: ULUND / Blomsterberg 25th July Germany FhG-IBP / Erhorn-Kluttig 29th August Portugal: ISQ / Duarte 19th September Greece: NKUA / Santamouris 10th October

Page 7 / 16

The results will be available in the download area of the homepage. A description and brief overview

of the content will be given in deliverable D2. There is the possibility to put some publications in the

restricted part. A description of the database and a manual how to input the data is available.

Standard protocol of information for double skin facades Two questionnaires (one short and one detailed) were developed by IWT and ISQ supported by all

other participants as standard protocol of information (photographs, diagrams, performance data and

graphs etc.), in order to facilitate the work of the other WPs and to give an overview of facades on the

web site. Both questionnaires were deeply discussed during the second project meeting in

Holzkirchen, Germany in June 2005.

It was decided, that as a first step the short questionnaire which gathers information about the

building (address, involved institutions and companies, the room heating and cooling system including

its energy demand, the room ventilation and the local energy tariff) and information of the façade

system (geometry, type and costs) is send to all participants in order to have a high number of double

skin facades described. Included is a coherent typology of double skin facades merged by several

information sources (BBRI and others), where the façade type can be defined by click boxes. For

many of the items in the questionnaire an online explanation is available. The questionnaire should be

filled in for as many as possible façades until September 30th by all participants.

This short questionnaire of WP1, that is accepted by all participants, will go hand in hand with a

comfort questionnaire for users and office managers, developed by ISQ for WP3.

The short questionnaire can be found in the attachments.

The detailed questionnaire, taking into account also measured data about temperatures in the

façade gap and indoors, the detailed control of ventilation, shading, and other features will be send in

a second round where at least three facades per country should be described in all the details needed

in the following WPs. It will comprise the following items

• DSF in different climatic regions in Europe • Existing simulations and measurements • Thermal behaviour, indoor air quality, comfort, user acceptance • Energy demand and consumptions (heating, ventilation, cooling, lighting) • Control strategies • Integrated building technology • Costs (investment, maintenance, operation) • Resource conservation • Environmental impact • Comparison to conventional facades • Renewable energy sources, integration into DSF • Non-energy related issues: acoustics, aesthetics, fire protection, moisture, corrosion,

durability, maintenance, repair 3.1.2 Workpackage 2 – Non-technological Barriers

Page 8 / 16

Objectives: The objective of this work package is to analyse the non-technological barriers to double

skin facades. These non-technological barriers are more difficult to overcome than the technological

barriers. The barriers are identified as follows:

• Legal

• Educational

• Financial

• Cultural

• Social

• Institutional

The activities of Work Package 2 are split into two phases:

• Phase 1 Analysis of the non-technological barriers and

• Phase 2 Strategies to overcome these barriers

Summary of activities: The activities already taken are within the frames of phase 1: A questionnaire

was prepared by NKUA and distributed to all members. The aim of the questionnaire was to analyse

the identified barriers in each country-member. Therefore, the questions are split into the following five

categories:

Legislation, Knowledge, Financial aspects, Sociological and Behavioral aspects and Institutional

aspects.

Description of the questionnaire: The questionnaire forms the basis for a SWOT analysis; therefore the

questions study whether the investigated issues consist of an opportunity or threat for double skin

facades. Additionally, the member-countries are asked to answer on objective issues, i.e. legislation,

and on the other hand to give their opinion on subjective issues i.e. level on knowledge. More

specifically:

The ‘Legislation’ section includes questions on the existence of legislation in each country member in

terms of double skin facades, sound and fire protection, ventilation requirements, thermal

requirements and energy issues.

The ‘Knowledge’ section includes questions on the level of knowledge on the typology, design and

construction of double skin facades. Additionally, the countries – members are asked to answer on the

level of knowledge on the advantages and disadvantages of double facades compared to conventional

facades and on the availability of built examples in their countries.

The ‘Financial aspects’ section includes questions on the cost of double skin facades compared to

traditional facades and the availability of funding schemes.

The ‘Sociological and Behavioral aspects’ section includes questions regarding the applicability of

double skin facades in each country according to their climatic conditions, local architecture, the use of

buildings and the significance of the occupant control for ventilation in specific climatic conditions.

Additionally, the reputation of double skin facade is investigated in each country-member.

The questions of the ‘Institutional aspects’ section investigate the existence of governmental and

regional support and the required bureaucracy for the double skin facade technology.

Page 9 / 16

A first draft of the questionnaire was ready by mid of March. In the kick–off-meeting in Vienna, (3rd and

4th February) it was agreed by the partners to fill the questionnaire by end of April. Till now completed

questionnaires were sent to NKUA by Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Greece. The answers were

comprehensive and representative for each country.

The questionnaire and the received answers were presented in the first technical meeting in

Holzkirchen (29th June).

Because of the nature of questions asking for objective and subjective issues, in the meeting of

Holzkirchen, discussions took place regarding the target group and who should answer the

questionnaire. As the investigation aims at identifying the non-technological barriers in the whole of

each country, it was agreed that at first stage, the questionnaire will circulate within the best façade

members and additional feedback will be provided by external group according to the questions.

Therefore, the target group should be split into the scientific group (members of the Best Facade

project) and industry group (architects, building owners, façade industry).

Progress towards work package objectives: At next stage it is planned that:

- NKUA will carry out an analysis of the questionnaire with the answers from Austria, France and

Portugal supplied till end of June.

- NKUA will circulate the analysis within the members to allow them to update their answers.

- NKUA will prepare a second round questionnaire following the revisions and comments form the

members. Additionally, NKUA will restructure the ‘Knowledge section’ of the questionnaire aiming at

the two separate target groups as they were identified in the meeting of Holzkirchen.

In the revised questionnaire, partners will be able to add their initial thoughts regarding the strategies

to overcome the analysed non-technological barriers to double skin facades. This will be further

investigated during the second phase of Work Package 2.

- NKUA will prepare a report on the non-technological barriers to double skin facades based on the

answers of the revised questionnaire.

- After the completion of the analysis, a workshop and round table discussion with the advisory group

will be carried out to discuss the results of the study.

Phase 2: In the second phase strategies to overcome the barriers will be developed. This will be

implemented into WP6. NKUA asked the partners to contribute with short presentations on the

strategies, in the second technical meeting that will be held in Greece, 19th and 20th December.

Page 10 / 16

3.1.2 Workpackage 6 – Dissemination

Webpage At the start of the project the website www.bestfacade.com was established by MAB.

The website has a publicly accessible part giving information on the history, the definitions, the

fundamentals and the technologies of double skin facades. There were inputs from BBRI and ULUND.

Another part informs on the Bestfacade project giving a description of the work and the objectives of

the project. It also defines the target group and informs on the tasks of the project. There is another

section with the list of all partners involved in the project and with a link to their homepages. A list with

links to webpages supplying information on double skin facades completes the publicly accessible part

of the webpage. As soon as the first publishable results of the project are available they will be

published on the public part of the webpage.

Page 11 / 16

There is also a part only for the members of the project. The ‘members only’ section of the webpage

includes a discussion forum for communication of the project members. There is also a section with

relevant documents of the project for download (Grant Agreement, Consortium Agreement, Minutes of

the Meetings, presentations, reports, etc.) serving as centre of information for the project partners.

Another item is an address list with all persons involved in the project giving their address, phone

number and e-mail address. A list of deliverables maintained by the Coordinator gives information on

the status of the project deliverables and on their begin- and end dates. Another item is a download

area with design guidelines and templates for letters (MS Word) and presentations (MS Powerpoint)

and the project logo.

Design guidelines / templates A project logo and design guidelines and templates for letters and presentations in Word- and

Powerpoint format were developed by MAB to ensure a common appearance and identity of project

documents.

Other Dissemination Activities Information on the Bestfacade project was published in the June edition of AIR-magazine / newsletter.

This newsletter is distributed in about 3000 – 4000 copies. It may also be downloaded on

www.aivc.org . A copy of the magazine was sent to the technical officer of the Commission for this

project. The article for the AIR-magazine was supplied by BBRI.

3.2 Deviations from the project work plan

There are no deviations from the work plan until now.

Page 12 / 16

3.3 List of deliverables

No. Project deliverable Delivery month Start date date due

actual / forecast

delivery dateWP No. Status

Power Point Presentation for the Commission 1 01.01.05 31.01.05 26.01.05 WP8 delivered D1 Web site of the project 2 01.01.05 28.02.05 24.02.05 WP6 delivered D18 1. Progress report 6 29.06.05 31.07.05 31.07.05 WP8 in progress D2 Report on State of the Art of DSF 12 01.01.05 31.12.05 31.12.05 WP1 in progress D3 Web site on DSF 12 01.01.05 31.12.05 31.12.05 WP6 in progress D19 2. Progress report 12 31.01.06 31.01.06 WP8 D20 3. Progress report 18 31.07.06 31.07.06 WP8 D4 Benchmarks 24 01.07.05 31.12.06 31.12.06 WP3 in progress D5 Certification method 24 01.07.05 31.12.06 31.12.06 WP3 D6 Report on non-technological barriers 24 01.07.05 31.12.06 31.12.06 WP2 in progress D7 Simple calculation method 24 01.07.05 31.12.06 31.12.06 WP4 in progress D8 Energy design guide 24 01.07.05 31.12.06 31.12.06 WP4 D22 Interim Report 24 31.01.07 31.01.07 WP8 D9 Best practice guidelines 30 01.07.06 30.06.07 30.06.07 WP5 D10 Brochure on best practice examples of DSF 30 30.06.07 30.06.07 WP6 D11 CD-Rom on best practice examples of DSF 30 30.06.07 30.06.07 WP6 D21 4. Progress report 30 31.07.07 31.07.07 WP8 D12 Workshops, at least one per participating country 36 31.12.07 31.12.07 WP6 D13 Presentations at conferences 36 31.12.07 31.12.07 WP6 D14 Webzines (newsletters) 36 31.12.07 31.12.07 WP6 in progress D15 Abstracts including regular updates 36 31.12.07 31.12.07 WP7 D16 Project presentations 36 31.12.07 31.12.07 WP7 D17 Presentational material 36 31.12.07 31.12.07 WP7 D23 Final Report 36 31.12.07 31.12.07 WP8

Page 13 / 16

4. Progress regarding performance indicators

The project start was on January 1st. In the first six month of the project besides management

activities (WP8) there were only activities for WP1 and WP6 scheduled. WP2, WP3 and WP4 will start

on July 1st. During the kick-off meeting it was agreed that some tasks of WP2 will start earlier in this

reporting period. As all deliverables due until now were delivered in time and also the forecast shows

no deviation from the working plan. The project is within its targets until now.

Page 14 / 16

Annex 2: Overview on the state of advancement in % of the budget expenditure per partner and per work package

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4 WP 5 WP 6 WP 7 WP 8 Travel Other Total

% actual 22% 24% 0% 0% 0% 36% 0% 41% 0% 30% 26%MAB %planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 30% 25% 20%% actual 109% 22% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 69% 14% 0% 43%IWT

%planned 60% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 25% 0%% actual 3% 20% 0% 7% 0% 2% 0% 16% 33% 0% 6%FhG-IBP

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 0% 56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 12%NKUA

%planned 30% 35% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%DIMGLASS

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 40% 15% 0% 8%ISQ

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 33% 0% 9%LASH-

DGCB %planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 4% 10% 8% 1% 2% 1% 0% 53% 16% 0% 6%ULUND

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 37% 9% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 40% 38% 0% 11%BBRI

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% 3%REYNAERS

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 4% 4% 4% 0% 2% 0% 0% 55% 0% 0% 3%WSP

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Skanska

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 0%% actual 38% 25% 2% 1% 0% 7% 0% 37% 15% 7% 12%total WP

%planned 30% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 25% 5%

Page 15 / 16

Remarks on Annex2: Due to holidays no exact information on the percentage of budget expenditure from Dimglass and

Skanska could be obtained. This data will be supplied later.

Since the advance of the WPs is a non linear process it is hard to give numbers on the planned

percentage of work fulfilled until now. In the first half year of the project WP1, WP6 and WP8 as well

as WP2 were started (see project timetable under item 1.2 of this report). There were also some minor

activities on other WPs. There is a significant overshooting of hours for IWT for WP1. IWT is

Workpackage Leader of this WP. IWT stated that although the number of hours used until now

exceeds the number of approved hours on this WP they will fulfil the agreed tasks and objectives of

this WP. For the other partners the percentage of hours used for this WP is below 50 percent. This is

because the contributions of the partners will concentrate on the second half of WP1 after the

underlying tasks for WP 1 are fulfilled.

For WP8 – Management the number of hours used also exceed the planned values, an overshooting

of hours used for this WP is foreseeable, nevertheless the agreed management tasks will be carried

out.

Page 16 / 16