One of the main goals of the project is to enable adaptive/dynamic building envelopes able to harvest energy through an advanced modular façade conceptual approach. For this reason, three different conceptual approaches have been thoroughly studied for the design of the aluminum façade, in attempt to get elaborate insights and compare their structural and economic advantages and disadvantages. The focus on these three conceptual approaches was driven by the existing market competition and the identified business requirements.
The façade elements consist of serially, stacked side-by-side, rectangle (H: 3m x W: 1.2m) aluminum modules, which can be spitted into three parts (top, middle, bottom) as shown in Figure 1. The cost analysis considers a transparent opening glass element for the middle module part and opaque aluminum covers for the bottom and top parts as well as the total estimated costs for aluminum production, modules fabrication (consumables e.g. screws, gaskets, mullions, cleats, etc.), on-site transportation, façade assembly. Following the essential feature of modularity and technological versatility i.e. being compatible with commercial solutions for façade RES and HVAC elements, the aluminum façade design costs were accumulated into coherent tables as shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 below. Considering a typical average European house of (10m x 10m) 100m2 [ ] the expected external walls façade considers an installation of about half the available wall space (2 walls x 7 modules x 1.2m x 3m) 50.4m2, giving a multiplying factor of (50.4m2/100m2=) 0.504 to calculate the estimated cost per house square meter out of the estimated cost per façade installed square meter. Finally, in order to estimate the total costs down to the installation and the on-site assembly, we considered a common market rule suggesting doubling the fabrication costs of the façade.
Solution 1: 300mm
The current solution is considered the most expensive out of the three, since due to structural reasons, the consumables as well as the aluminum dies and material needed for its construction is the highest. This solution considers a 300mm depth of the frame (see Figure 2), providing more available room for installing larger technological elements while it presents better thermal-insulation values (lower U-values).
Solution 2: 200mm
This current solution is considered the intermediate one out of the three, since the consumables as well as the aluminum dies and material needed for its construction is moderate. This solution considers a 200mm depth of the frame (see Figure 3), providing medium-size available room for installing technological elements while it presents moderate thermal-insulation values (moderate U-values).
Solution 3: 246mm
This solution is considered the cheapest one out of the three, since the consumables as well as the aluminum dies and material needed for its construction is the lowest. This solution considers a 246mm depth of the frame (see Figure 4), providing the least available room for installing technological elements (in this case technology elements are expected to extend out of the façade) while it presents poor thermal-insulation values (poor U-values).
