Vegetation and Building Facades

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment
Case Study Report
Vegetation on building facades: Bioshader
www.durabuild.org

Executive summary
Plant cover on the external wall has long been used for its decorative and thermal effects. Plants on walls can assist in cooling buildings in summer as they provide shading that reduces solar gains to the building. The effect of transpiration by plants can also extract heat from the surrounding air. Previous studies showed that vegetation could establish cooler microclimate, thus lower the temperatures around the buildings and reduce the requirement for cooling in the summer. In response to the growing awareness of the environmental impact of buildings, there is an emerging architectural design aims to regulate a buildings indoor environment by making use of the local climate and natural renewable resources. Such kind of design is often referred to as bioclimatic as its principles are inspired by the nature. One of the bioclimatic design options is to grow vegetation on buildings to reduce the summer cooling load and to improve the surrounding air quality. Although this kind of vegetative building design has been adapted in traditional masonry buildings, it is unsuitable for modern buildings that use light weight metal or glazed external claddings. This case study investigates the applications of deciduous climbing plants as climatic modifiers. Experiments are being carried out to measure the thermal shading performance of a vertical layer of deciduous climbing plant canopy. The deciduous climbing plants are trailed on a metal framework which is mounted external to the glazed facade of a naturally ventilated building. This so-called bioshader provides some distinct advantages over conventional shading devices such as its foliage shades the building from excessive summer solar gains, the shedding of leaves in the winter allows beneficial solar heat gains, improvement in air quality and aesthetic enhancement of the surrounding. An experiment was setup in two university offices. Bioshader was installed external to the test room and the external and internal environmental parameters were monitored. Temperature and relative humidity improvements made by the bioshader
www.durabuild.org
Page 2 of 57

were reported. Measured solar radiation data were used to determine the solar transmittances of single and multi-layers of leaf. There is very a limited research work on how deciduous climbing plant can affect the internal thermal environment of naturally ventilated buildings. This case study reviews the current status of using vegetation with buildings, and discusses the criteria and selection procedure for suitable plants in this area. The types of building and design features, including the support structures, suitable for applying deciduous plant are also examined. This case study will help to understanding the use of vegetation as a means of solar shading to improve the internal environment for the better comfort of occupants.
www.durabuild.org
Page 3 of 57

Table of contents
Executive summary.................................................................................................. 2 Table of contents...................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures........................................................................................................... 6 List of Tables ............................................................................................................ 7 List of Equation ........................................................................................................ 7 1.0
1.1 1.2 1.3
Introduction.................................................................................................... 8
Aim ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Objectives.................................................................................................................................. 9 Report Structure...................................................................................................................... 10
2.0
2.1 2.2 2.3
Review of vegetation and buildings ........................................................... 11

Trees ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Vertical landscaping ................................................................................................................ 13 Climbing plants........................................................................................................................ 14 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 Climbing patterns ....................................................................................................... 15 Training systems for climbers .................................................................................... 17 List of climbing plants................................................................................................. 18
3.0 4.0 5.0

5.1
Energy savings ............................................................................................ 20 Plant application examples......................................................................... 23 Bioshader Experiment................................................................................. 27

Plant selection for bioshader experiment................................................................................ 28 5.1.1 5.1.2 Plant Selection Criteria .............................................................................................. 28 Plants suitable for the United Kingdom climate ......................................................... 29
5.2
Experimental setup ................................................................................................................. 29
www.durabuild.org
Page 4 of 57

5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 The Site...................................................................................................................... 30 Plant and External Framework .................................................................................. 31 Measuring Equipment ................................................................................................ 32
6.0
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Results.......................................................................................................... 35
Data Selection ......................................................................................................................... 35 Temperature Comparison ....................................................................................................... 35 Relative Humidity Comparison................................................................................................ 36 Leaf Solar Transmittance ........................................................................................................ 38
7.0
7.1 7.2 7.3
Discussion and Analysis............................................................................. 40

Temperatures and Relative Humidities................................................................................... 40 Effect of solar reduction by leaves .......................................................................................... 43 Limitation to bioshader experiment ......................................................................................... 44
8.0 9.0 10.0
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 46 Bibliography................................................................................................. 48 Appendix ...................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A: Solar adjustment for vertically fixed sensors ................................................................... 51 Appendix B: Graphs for leaf solar transmittances ............................................................................... 55
www.durabuild.org
Page 5 of 57

List of Figures
Figure 1: Good reasons for faade greening (Pictures from Jakob Inox Green Solutions G1 catalogue) .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Plants used to cool and shade the cafeteria in Spain. Picture taken from (Crosbie, 1994) ... 9 Figure 3: The red rose plant adds decent colour to the building. Picture obtained from (Tredici, 1994) ............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: Singapore Exhibition Tower model and the vertical landscaping on the right. Picture taken from (Davey, 1999) .............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 6: Hedera helix with clinging stem roots (Fassadengrn) ........................................................ 16 Figure 8: Vitis Coignetiae or grape vine (Gillian, 2000) ....................................................................... 16 Figure 11: Surface temperature difference of wall with and without shading. Graph taken from (Parker, 1983) .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 13: Credomatic Call Centre designed by Bruno Stagno. Picture provided by Bruno Stagno .. 24 Figure 14: Light filters through the green wall into the office interior if the Consorcio-Santiago Building. Photographer: Guy Wenborne. Pictures provided by Enrique Browne ............................................... 25 Figure 17: A vertical section through the bioshader system (Ip et al., 2004) ...................................... 27 Figure 19: The details of the stainless steel framework....................................................................... 31 Figure 20: The Virginia Creeper trained onto the framework and the plant containers....................... 32 Figure 21: Plan showing locations of monitoring equipment ............................................................... 32 Figure 22: Cross section of the bioshader with the locations of sensors ............................................ 33 Figure 23: Temperature distributions on 13th July 2003 ..................................................................... 35 Figure 24: Temperature distributions on 20th July 2003 ..................................................................... 35 Figure 25: Temperature distributions on 10th Aug 2003 ..................................................................... 36 Figure 26: Temperature distributions on 24th Aug 2003 ..................................................................... 36 Figure 27: Temperature distributions on 21st Sept 2003 .................................................................... 36 Figure 28: Temperature distributions on 28th Sept 2003 .................................................................... 36 Figure 29: Temperature distributions on 12th Oct 2003 ...................................................................... 36 Figure 30: Temperature distributions on 26th Oct 2003 ...................................................................... 36 Figure 31: Relative humidity 13th July 2003........................................................................................ 37 Figure 32: Relative humidity 27th July 2003........................................................................................ 37 Figure 33: Relative humidity 10th Aug 2003........................................................................................ 37 Figure 34: Relative humidity 24th Aug 2003........................................................................................ 37 Figure 35: Relative humidity 21st Sept 2003 ....................................................................................... 37 Figure 36: Relative humidity 28th Sept 2003....................................................................................... 37 Figure 37: Relative humidity distributions on 12th Oct2003 ................................................................ 37 Figure 38: Relative humidity distributions on 26th Oct2003 ................................................................ 37 Figure 39: One layer of leaf covering the solar flux sensor for the determination of single-leaf solar transmittance........................................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 40: Bioshader reduced room temperature to comfort range .................................................... 41
www.durabuild.org
Page 6 of 57

Figure 41: Temperature profiles of test room, control room in August ................................................ 42 Figure 42: Solar transmittance for 1-layer of Virginia Creeper leaf ..................................................... 55 Figure 43: Solar transmittance for 2-layers of Virginia Creeper leaf.................................................... 55 Figure 44: Solar transmittance for 3-layers of Virginia Creeper leaf.................................................... 56 Figure 45: Solar transmittance for 4-layers of Virginia Creeper leaf.................................................... 56 Figure 46: Solar transmittance for 5-layers of Virginia Creeper leaf.................................................... 57
List of Tables
Table 1: Popular types of climbing plants ............................................................................................ 19 Table 2: Summary of experiments and results of relevant researches (Lam et al., 2003) .................. 22 Table 3: Selection criteria of climbing plants for use as bioshaders (Lam et al., 2002) ...................... 28 Table 4: Summary of climbers in their order of their suitability for use as bioshader in the southern part of the United Kingdom. Based on plant characteristics described in (Brickell, 1999, Chesshire, 2001) .................................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 5: The mean solar transmittances of one to five layers of Virginia Creeper leaf ....................... 39 Table 6: Peak difference temperatures (C) between test and control rooms on selected Sundays .. 40 Table 7: Peak differences in relative humidity between test and control rooms................................. 43 Table 8: Solar reduction by Virginia Creeper leaves ........................................................................... 44
List of Equation
Tn = In I Ext
(Equation 1: Leaf solar transmittance).................................................................. 38
www.durabuild.org
Page 7 of 57

1.0 Introduction
With the increasing concern of the global energy crisis, designers and researchers are urged to find sustainable alternatives to reduce the energy consumption throughout the life cycle of the building. Almost 50% of the UKs energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are attributed to the buildings operation (Parrott, 1998). The energy usage during the operational phase of the buildings life cycle is often most significant, of which the vast energy is consumed on heating and cooling for occupants thermal comfort. About 55% of the total energy consumptions in buildings are used for space heating and cooling (DTI, 2002). The progressing global climate change has created hotter summers and cooler winters. The emerging heat waves in the summer cause people to inhabit in unbearable weather conditions. Building occupants need to increase the demand for space cooling in order to maintain the required internal thermal comfort. This would result in a conflict between reducing air-conditioning energy consumption and maintaining an acceptable thermal comfort condition during hot weathers. Excessive summer solar gains often causes overheating in buildings and thermal discomfort to occupants. One commonly used option to reduce solar gains is to introduce solar shading. Conventional shading devices such as sun blinds, sunscreens, awnings, projections etc. are examples. Recently there is a growing interest in using vegetation as shading devices. Comparative studies of using plants and conventional shading devices as passive solar control systems have been conducted by a number of researchers (Hoyano, 1988, Papadakis et al., 2001, Stec and Paassen, 2005). Results showed that plants offered some significant advantages over conventional shading devices such as lower surface plant temperature and higher relative humidity of air shaded by plants. This is mainly due to the ability of vegetation to dissipate absorbed solar radiation into sensible and latent heat through the process of evapo-transpiration. It was observed that about 60% of the absorbed radiation can be converted to latent heat in plants (Stec and Paassen, 2005).
Figure 1: Good reasons for faade greening (Pictures from Jakob Inox Green Solutions G1 catalogue)
www.durabuild.org
Page 8 of 57

The current trend to use natural ventilation tor conserve natural resources is also a big drive to incorporate greenery in buildings. Bioclimatic building design is a developing passive architectural design which takes advantage of the local climate and natural resources to provide indoor comfort to the building occupants. One commonly used bioclimatic design option is the growing of vegetation on buildings to regulate the microclimate of the buildings external and internal environment.
Figure 2: Plants used to cool and shade the cafeteria in Spain. Picture taken from (Crosbie, 1994) Applying vegetation around buildings is appealing and ecologically sensible. There are numerous good reasons for greening. The most obvious benefit of having green facades is the regulation of internal temperatures. The familiar pergola, as seen in Figure 2, in southern countries is a very effective method of internal temperature regulation. It promotes the formation of an insulating layer of air, thereby preventing an excessive increase of the inside temperature due to direct solar radiation (Jakob, 2003). This principle also offers several advantages when applied to vertical structures: the insulating cushion of air between vegetation and faade evens out temperature fluctuations and noticeably reduces heating and air-conditioning costs. A well-designed covering of vegetation is a natural shield against rain and ultraviolet radiation. In addition, the space between the faade and the greenery has a temperature regulating effect and promotes optimum ventilation as well. The aesthetics of greening that brings to occupants is also a great advantage. The integration of greened surfaces into contemporary architecture presents novel opportunities and promotes energy efficiency in buildings.
1.1
Aim
The aim of this case study is to evaluate the thermal performance of deciduous climbing plants used as external building shading devices
1.2
Objectives
The objectives of this case study include: To give an overview on the use of vegetation with buildings
www.durabuild.org
Page 9 of 57

To report on previous works on energy savings contributed by vegetation To give examples of vegetated buildings To present research results on using plants as external shading devices (termed as bioshader) To evaluate the performance of the bioshader
1.3
Report Structure
This case study report focuses on the applications of how vegetation is incorporated in the building design, with particular attention to the use of greenery on building facades. An in-depth literature review was performed with a summary on predicted energy savings performed by other researchers. A number of current building examples which integrated vegetation in their designs are described in this report. Further investigation was carried out on evaluating the performance of a plant shading device termed as bioshader. This bioshader is the use of climbing deciduous plants to act as shading devices over a buildings glazed areas. Details of the design were described and the experimental setup was reported. Measurements of the experiment were taken and results were analysed.
www.durabuild.org
Page 10 of 57

2.0 Review of vegetation and buildings
Leaf cover on the external walls has long been used for its decorative and thermal effects. During the pioneering days of study of the thermal performance of buildings, Van Straaten (1967) (Straaten, 1967)wrote:
It must also be remembered that in situations where shade in summer and sun in winter is required, deciduous trees, shrubs and creepers will often provide a convenient and cheap solution. Thirteen years later, Parker (1980) (Parker, 1980) found out that:
Although using vegetation to cool a space is not a new concept; many recent attempts to build energy-efficient buildings have totally ignored its significance. The primary reason for this omission is the lack of detailed quantitative data as to how effective vegetation is in reducing the energy used in heating and cooling a place. In addition, many of the recommendations for energy-conserving landscape design concepts have not been verified through actual experimentation. There is a widespread belief in the past that plants are inimical to built structures, ripping out the mortar and prising apart joints with their roots. The evidence suggests that only where decay has already set in and then plants can indeed accelerate the process of deterioration. Certainly little evidence shows that plants will actually damage building walls. In some cases, the plants covering the wall are acting as a protective layer to the wall from the elements. Furthermore, a layer of vegetation which protects a building from solar radiation may greatly reduce the thermal tensions within the building structure. Contrary to popular belief, walls covered with plants can also be drier. Rainfall is shed by leaves onto the ground whilst the walls remain dry. This can also help to prevent the harmful effects of acid rain since carbonic acid (formed by carbon dioxide and rainwater) is one of the substances responsible for chemical weathering of stonework buildings (Jackson, 2001). Because vegetation block and filter solar radiation, inhibit wind-flow, transpire water into the atmosphere, reduce evaporation from soil, a controlled microclimate exists under a forest-like cover of plants. They stabilise temperature, keeping it lower than the surrounding air during daytime and preventing it from dropping greatly at night (Enis, 1984). The primary reason that vegetation has not been applied more widely in energy-efficient buildings is a notable lack of experimental verification of its effectiveness (Parker, 1987).
www.durabuild.org
Page 11 of 57

Building thermal performance can be significantly affected by the influence of vegetation on microclimate. Influence on solar irradiance is probably the most significant with substantial influences on air temperature, humidity, and airflow as well (McPherson et al., 1988, Brown and Gillespie, 1990). Unfortunately, very few studies have measured detailed effects of vegetation on overall thermal performance of buildings. When the weather is cool, it is important not to shade the building surfaces that can benefit from solar heating. In some cases, use of deciduous plants will allow summer shading and winter sun, in other cases careful integration of native vegetation and building can give excellent results. Vegetation can also be used to provide shelter from prevailing cold winds, thus reducing heat loss in buildings caused by excessive draughts (Todd, 2000). In many parts of the world, civic authorities are now aware of the psychological as well as physical benefits which plants can bring. In Germany 1983, the Kassel City Co-operation launched a campaign to encourage people to grow climbing plants (Witter, 1986). This was then spread to Munich, Berlin and Frankfurt where guidelines for urban development include proposals for vegetation on building fabric. Through the use of plants on walls, the urban climate and the surrounding air quality can be greatly improved. This contribution lies greatly in the reduction of extremes of temperature around buildings, facilitates of the circulation of air and as well as forming a vegetative layer filtering all dust pollutants. A more recent study, conducted at the Washington State University, was carried out to test the effect of plants on peoples productivity. Results confirmed that where plants were added, the workers were more productive, less stressed and 12% quicker reactions on computer tasks (Lohr).
2.1
Trees
Figure 3: The red rose plant adds decent colour to the building. Picture obtained from (Tredici, 1994) Old custom of having trees and plants around homes was usually for enjoyment of natures aesthetic variety as seen in Figure 3. The vegetation was also believed to be able to reduce air-borne sounds with great efficiency if densely planted. The viscous surface of leaves catches dust and filters the air. The vegetation can also secure visual privacy and reduce annoying glare effects from windows or building fabric. However, an especially beneficial effect of plants is their thermal performance. In winter, evergreen plants can block wind and reduce heat loss from buildings and discourage drifting snow. In
www.durabuild.org
Page 12 of 57

summer, the surfaces of leaves absorb radiation, and their evaporation process can cool air temperatures. Above all, they can provide generous shade at the right season. This makes deciduous trees especially valuable when placed closed to buildings because the control of solar light will not be interfered in the winter. There are many ways to control excess solar radiation from reaching into buildings, especially when the radiation acquires extra cooling energy. Of the many available systems, tree plantation can be a delightful option in achieving much more than just energy saving. Trees help in reducing noise and air pollution, modifying temperature and relative humidity and having great psychological effects on humans. Trees can modify both the microclimates around a building and the macroclimate of a region (Raeissi and Taheri, 1999). Shade trees, windbreak trees, and snow fence plants are examples of plants used for climate control. It is well known that plants alter adverse microclimates, making environment more pleasant and liveable for man (Robinette, 1972). The significance of deciduous trees as passive options is in the characteristics of growing leaves in the hot summer months when shading is most needed and loosing them in the cool winter when shading is not desired. When these trees are next to the position of windows, the resulting internal environment will be greatly enhanced to a certain level of thermal comfort of the occupants. However, extensive qualitative studies are necessary to ascertain the degree to which this occurs.
2.2
Vertical landscaping
Architecture, in particular the skyscraper, is a massive concentration of an inorganic mass onto a small location. These inorganic construction materials totally imbalance the ecology of the site. To counteract this, the building designer must introduce as much organic matter in the form of diverse planting and landscaping. This is to compensate for and to match the imbalance. The intention is to counter the intensive inorganic mass of the built structure. In densely populated areas such as London, Hong Kong and Tokyo, designers need to find ways to increase the total building floor area within limited land area. This also means that the increase of street planting or landscaping within these densely populated areas could be an expensive trade-off to building construction. However, if planting is introduced vertically along with building materials such as facades, then more organic vegetation materials can be introduced into these inorganic skyscrapers. This will balance off the extreme of having packed buildings in limited land without much landscaping.
www.durabuild.org
Page 13 of 57
Figure 4: Singapore Exhibition Tower model and the vertical landscaping on the right. Picture taken from (Davey, 1999) There are a number of benefits in using vertical planting. These include: The ecology of the site will be enhanced by the increase use of vegetation within inorganic building materials. The sites biological diversity will also be raised with the increased amount of plant material. The introduction of planting has aesthetic benefits for the users of the buildings and results in improving morale and work productivity. Planting at the faces of building also enhances the aesthetics of the skyscraper as a foliage structure. The planting, besides providing shading to the internal spaces and to the external walls, also minimises heat reflection and glare into the building, thereby providing effective microclimatic responses at the faces of the building. The evaporation process of the plants can also be an effective cooling device to the face of the building. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide (especially from external vehicular emissions), and give out oxygen through photosynthesis, thereby creating a healthier and cooler micro-environment within and around the faade of the building. Plants can act as visual screens and sound diffusers, especially at the sky courts, to reduce the sound or noises from the external site. If the building is located in a draughty area, the vertical landscaping plants can also serve as wind-breakers and reduce the strong wind flows.
2.3
Climbing plants
The use of vegetation on building fabric can play an important role in modifying the microclimate around them (Meier, 1990b, Ong et al., 2000). The leaves of plants on walls provide a large surface, which is capable of filtering out dust and other pollutants in the surrounding air. Large dense areas of
www.durabuild.org
Page 14 of 57

climbing plants on buildings can also reduce noise levels in the interior. Moreover, the layer of climbing plants can also reduce annoying glare effects from windows or adjacent building fabric. Climbing plants growing on buildings can also be used to provide shelter from prevailing cold winds, thus reducing heat loss in buildings. When a layer of deciduous climbing plant is introduced next to the building faade, incoming strong wind will reduce in speed and will also increase in humidity of the air. This is due to the evaporation takes place on the leaf surfaces. Low humidity levels in cities are common, and these green walls can provide some improvements. Plants hold water on their leaf surfaces and through the processes of transpiration and evaporation; they can add more water into the surrounding air (Yeang, 1992, Johnston and Newton, 1994). Climbing plants are similar to trees in their beneficial effects to buildings thermal performance. During the cold seasons, evergreen climbers can reduce heat loss from buildings by trapping stable air within their thick foliage on the building fabric. This also applies to evergreen trees in which their vast leafy branches hinder wind drifting onto the building and reduce convectional heat loss. Climbing plants are mainly the type of vegetation which do not form a firm stem or trunk to support themselves (Chesshire, 2001). Instead, they often scramble along and root themselves onto the way until they find a suitable object that they can lean on. Once they have established the appropriate object to climb on, climbers will grow rapidly upwards and sideways to receive the best location for sunlight. When applying climbing plants vertically on building fabric, it is necessary to take into consideration about their specific climbing patterns. plants have adopted. Different climbers have evolved their own methods for attaching themselves to various surfaces. The following section lists the various ways that climbing
2.3.1
Climbing patterns
Apart from the characteristics of deciduous and evergreen, climbers can also be categorised according to their climbing patterns. A. Adhesive sucker climbers
The branched tendril of Boston ivy, Parthenocissus tricuspidata in Figure 5, is developing touch-sensitive sticky pads that can allow them to cling on almost any surfaces. Figure 5: Young tendril with adhesive pads of Boston ivy. Picture taken from (Garden)
www.durabuild.org
Page 15 of 57

B. Root climbers Figure 6: Hedera helix with clinging stem roots (FassadenGrn) Root climbers can cling onto virtually any surface, except glass, and can extend their roots into mortar if they find their way through cracks.
C.
Twining climbers
This is the most common method of climbing plants. The twining climber will twist itself around structures that it touches, and coiling clockwise or anti-clockwise depending on its particular kind of species. Popular twining climbers are Morning glory and Wisteria. D. Leaf-stem climbers Figure 7: Some vines have tendrils that wrap around any type of support. Picture taken from (Rothenberger, 2001)
Young leaf stems from some climbers will grow out from the main stem and start to twist around small twigs and wires. Once they have established their coiling around the support, the coil tightens and the young leaf stem will develop into full-grown leaves. Example of this kind of leaf-stem climber is Clematis. E. Leaf climbers
Figure 8: Vitis Coignetiae or grape vine (Gillian, 2000) Leaf climbers are similar to leaf-stem climbers. The leaves of this type of climbers act like tendrils structures and coil themselves onto the support. A popular example of leaf climber is the grape vine as seen in Figure 7.
F.
Scrambling plants Figure 9: Many species of roses are armed with strong, pointing hooks on their stems. Picture taken from (Garden)
These types of climbers have hooked thorns and enable them to protect from predators and can also be hooked to hold onto other plants. Climbing and rambler roses are famous examples of these hooked climbers.
www.durabuild.org
Page 16 of 57

2.3.2 Training systems for climbers
Having stated the various kinds of climbing methods that climbers may adopt, it is necessary to provide the appropriate support they would need. The correct training system must be selected for each specific climber. There are a lot of simple techniques available to act as the support framework for climbers, such as netting, wire mesh or even a scaffolding of canes. These methods are easy to setup and cheap for installation, but they are primarily for small scale or potted climbing plants. Considering applying climbing plants with buildings in a larger scale, attractive training systems were developed by companies who provide reliable and aesthetic training systems to building designers. Figure 10 shows the various high-grade stainless steel systems for suitable climbers by the Jakob Inox Line Company.
Figure 10: Different training systems for climbers. Picture taken from Jakob Inox Green Solutions G1 catalogue The dimensions of the training support system depend on the vigour, size and climbing pattern of the chosen climber as well as the architectural structure of the building. The points that need to be considered when choosing a training system are: The ideal height and width of the climber supports The distance of the training system away from the wall The wire rope spacing for vines The lattice sizes The wire rope or the rod diameters
www.durabuild.org
Page 17 of 57

Referring to Figure 10, type A and B climbers do not require a means of support. These are the adhesive-sucker climber and the root climbers respectively as described in section 3.3.1. Their leaf and stem modifications allow them to adhere to the nearby support and find establish their way through building facades or other surfaces. Type C in Figure 10 is the twining climber. Normally one single vertical support wire is required to support this type of climber. If there is more than one twining climber, extra vertical ropes are required. The distance between each vertical rope varies according to the growth rate of the climber. As a rule of thumb recommended from specialist at Jakob, slow growing climbers should have a vertical spacing of about 200-400 mm. While very vigorous twining climbers should have vertical ropes spacing of 400-800 mm. Leaf-stem climbers and leaf climbers are Type D and Type E respectively in Figure 10. Grid-like or rectangular structures provide the best supports for these climbers. The grid-like structures are normally comprised of vertical ropes and horizontal rods. The lattice sizes are also different for slowgrowing and fast-growing climbers. For moderate growth rate climbers, a grid size of about 150 by 250 mm should be used. Those vigorous climbers should be provided with an approximate grid-size 300 by 500 mm of the support system. Scrambling climbers are showed in Figure 10 as Type F. As these climbers possess hooks, they can work their way up by using their epidermal outgrowths. Therefore horizontal rods should be provided for this type of climbers. The spacing of rods is suggested by Jakob specialists to be 250 mm for slow growing scrambling climbers, and 500 mm spacing for fast-growing ones.
2.3.3
List of climbing plants
There is a vast range of climbers which can be applied vertically on and around buildings. The main categories are deciduous, evergreen and herbaceous climbers. Table 1 summarised the types of climbing plants which are most popularly grown with buildings, their main characteristics are also summarised.
www.durabuild.org
Page 18 of 57

Nam e Actinidia chinensis Actinidia kolomikta Aristolochia macrophylla Campsis grandiflora Celastrus orbiculatus Celastrus scandens Dutchman's Pipe Trumpet Vine Com m on Nam e Chinese gooseberry Evergreen/ Clim bing Deciduous Hardy m ethod Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous/ perennial Frost hardy Fully hardy Frost hardy Not hardy Less hardy Less hardy Frost hardy Fully hardy Hardy Fully/ Half Tw iner/ tw istng Tw iner Height (m ) 9 or more Grow th rate Vigorous Sun / Shade Full sun Full sun Soil type Any reasonable Any reasonable Pruning No No
3m to 7m Vigorous 5 or more Vigorous, dense foilage
Tw iner Selfclinging roots
Sun/ Partial shade Fertile
Winter
Deciduous
Full Vigorous sun/Shelter (w hen Fertile 6 to 9m establsihed) ed spot 9 or more 6 or more 9 or more 10m Vigorous, dense cover Less vigorous Easy grow ing Fast Sun/ Partial Any shade reasonable Sun/ Partial Any shade reasonable Sun for the Fertile/Moist stems (+chalk) Any garden Shade/ Sun soil Any garden Shade/ Sun soil Any garden Shade/ Sun soil
Winter
Bittersw eet Bittersw eet
Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Evergreen Evergreen Evergreen
Tw iner Tw iner Leaf-stalk tw iner Selfclinging Selfclinging Selfclinging Tw iner Selfclinging Tw iner Tw iner Tw iner Tw iner Tendrils Selfclinging
Spring Spring Frequent Frequent Frequent Frequent
Virgin's Clematis montana Bow er Hedera colchica Ivy
Hedera hibernica Irish ivy Hedera helix Humulus Lupulus 'Aureus' Hydrangea petiolaris Jasminum officiale Ivy Golden Hop Climbing Hydrangea White Jasmine
4 x 4m Vigorous 1.5m 6m or more Fast
Fully Herbaceous hardy Very hardy Frost hardy Fully hardy Fully hardy Fully hardy Frost hardy
Deciduous Deciduous
Good, loamy, Vigorous Full sun moisture Spring Vigorous (w hen 20 x 20 establsihed) Shady w all Well-drained No 12m 10m Fast Vigorous Sunny w arm site Partial shade Any reasonable Fertile/Moist (+shade) No After flow er Early spring Early spring
Lonicera japonica 'Aureoreticulata' Honeysuckle Evergreen Parthenocissus tricuspidata Parthenocissus quinquefolia Passiflora caerulea Pileostegia viburnoides Polygonum baldschuanicum Trachelospermum jasminoides Vitis coignetiae Vines Boston Ivy Virginia Creeper Passion Flow er Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous
Tall and 6 to 15 spreading Tall and 6 to 12m spreading 6m Moderate
Fertile/freeSun/ shade draining Fertile/freeSun/ shade draining Full sun
Free-draining April Spring for shape As required Early spring
Evergreen Deciduous Russian vine (Woody) Evergreen Deciduous
Hardy Fully hardy Frost hardy Hardy Fully hardy
Tw iner Tw iner Tendrils Tw ining anticlockw ise
5m 5m each year 6m
Moderate
Fertile, moisture, Sun/ shade acid
Sun/ Partial Any Very tough shade reasonable Dense foliage Full sun Well-drained
Up to 20 Fast/ m Vigorous Up to 30m Rampant grow ing
Sun/ Partial Free-draining shade (+chalk) Summer Any reasonable
Wisteria sinensis
Wisteria
Deciduous
Full sun
Summer
Table 1: Popular types of climbing plants
www.durabuild.org
Page 19 of 57

3.0 Energy savings
Having introduced the different aspects on vegetation applications with buildings, there is one factor that is very important to quantify, that is the related energy efficiency brought by plants. A plant wall layer is actually like an additional layer of the external building fabric. When the sun is shining onto the plant wall, the plant wall indeed receives the majority of the suns radiation and casting a shadow on the wall itself. In this way, excessive rise in room temperature can be avoided and the cooling load for the interior can be reduced. Furthermore, the leaves of the plant draw a lot of heat when they transpire through the process of evaporation. Cool air is then drawn inwards and upwards, so warm air is vented at the top of the faade, permitting more air circulation between the plant and the building. This cools by means of the chimney effect. Trees, shrubs and vines affect air-conditioning load mainly in five physical different ways. These are: direct gain through windows, conduction through opaque surfaces, latent heat from infiltrating air, sensible heat from infiltrating air, and shielding wind from air flows. The relative importance of these depends greatly on the vegetation being used, the climate, the building shape and the building orientation. Shading of direct solar gain is typically considered the factor most influenced by plants. In some hot climates, the plant cover on walls can account to 25%-50% savings on peak cooling load (Roseme, 1979).
Figure 11: Surface temperature difference of wall with and without shading. Graph taken from (Parker, 1983) In a study of planting large trees and plants on the west side of a residential house, the results showed that the west-wall temperatures were reduced by 28 degrees Fahrenheit (from 113F to 85F) during very hot, humid afternoon in South Florida (Parker, 1983). Figure 11 shows the result of the experiment including a typical electrical utility load curve for a peak day load. Clearly, trees precisely positioned to shade the west of the house, combined with the effect of the planted hedges, can dramatically reduce electrical consumption by air-conditioners during the peak period.
www.durabuild.org
Page 20 of 57

Another study conducted by Parker (1987) on the comparisons of energy consumption profile of a residential building in the United States before and after introducing plants and trees placed adjacent to the building, results indicated energy savings of up to 60% during warm summer days. Also, peak power demands due to air-conditioning the building are reduced by about five kilowatts (Parker, 1987, Meier, 1990a). The result confirms that vegetation is a very effective passive solar cooling technique. In the daytime on clear days in Japan, the direct solar radiation received from the surroundings at the ground was 291 W/m, while that under the wisteria sunscreen was about 70 W/m, approximately one quarter of the former. A difference of the mean radiation temperature under a plant pergola and at the open ground was found to be 6-8C in the daytime (Hoyano, 1988). The cool feeling people experience under plant screen is a result of a reduction in radiation received. Many researchers have investigated the porosity, or transmissivity values of tree canopies, in both summer and winter. This information had seldom been translated, though, into estimates of the amount of radiation a person would receive under a given tree specimen or the thermal comfort amenity of the trees (Brown and Gillespie, 1990). Windbreak plantings in rural areas might reduce wind-induced air infiltration by up to 50%, and heat loss by conduction or convection through windows by up to about 9% (Ticknor, 1981). This shows that climbing plants on building external walls can, to a certain extent, affect the internal thermal comfort of occupants. Plant leaves can be 1C lower than the ambient temperature and damp surfaces like grass, soil can be even 2C or more below and can contribute significantly to a cooler building. Faade planting can therefore lower ambient temperatures in summer time and heat gains can be reduced by as much as 25% (Kurn et al., 1994). Plants evaporate water through the metabolic process of evapo-transpiration. The water cycle is carried from the soil through the plant and evaporated from the leaves as a part of the photosynthesis process. A single properly watered tree can evapo-transpirate about 40 gallons of water in a day (equivalent to 230000K calories of energy in evaporation). This fact can be seen as offsetting the heat equivalent to that produced by one hundred 100-Watt lamps, burning eight hours per day (Rosenfield, 1997). The transpiration of water by plants will help to control and regulate humidity and temperature as well. As stated above, a single large tree can transpire about 40 gallons of water in a day. The mechanical equivalent is 5 average room air-conditioners, each at 2500K calories per hour, running 19 hours a
www.durabuild.org
Page 21 of 57

day. Air-conditioners only shift heat from indoors to outdoors and also use electric power. The heat therefore still exists to increase urban air temperatures, contributing to even higher inside temperature. Thus increasing the loads of air-conditioning plants. But with the use of plants and other trees, transpiration renders the heat through the vegetation itself as well as providing shade to the building. Therefore, savings in cooling load by plants can be extremely significant. The use of vegetation to improve the buildings microclimate has long been investigated by a number of researchers around the world. Although their methods varied, nearly all the results confirmed that using vegetation around buildings could provide a better comfort for the occupants. Table 2 is a summary of the findings.
Author and year (Hoyano, 1988) (Hoyano, 1988) (Hoyano, 1988)
Location
WallParameters Type of planting vegetation measured distance Top and bottom Fukuoka Horizontal wisteria N/A surface temperatures City, Japan sunscreen of sunscreen Vine sunscreen Kyushu Veranda with and (35 inclined angle N/A University, without vine to the sun) on Japan sunscreen veranda Ivy attaching and Wall with and without Tokyo, Touching covering westivy Japan facing wall Ivy-covered wall at Tsinghua Touching University Virginia Creeper covered on wall
Results 2C higher on the top of sunscreen Veranda without vine screen was 1-3C higher 18C lower with ivy covered
(Di and Wang, China 1999)
Leaf temp was 8.2C Ivy and wall higher than wall temperatures. Wall beneath. Leaf temp with and without ivy. was 4.5C lower than that of the bare wall Vegetated wall 10C Wall with and without lower than creeper unvegetated Parapet with and Parapet with potted without potted plants plants was 4C lower Unshaded wall up to 600W/m2 solar Wall with and without radiation, but tree shading 100W/m2 on shaded wall Global irradiance on Energy received at roof surface with and roof surface was without plants reduced by 39% Direct and diffuse radiation on roof surface with and without plants Energy summer cooling load reduced by 15%
(Cantuaria, 2000) (Ong et al., 2000)
London Singapore
Touching
South parapet with N/A potted plants Not mentioned
(Papadakis et Athens, al., 2001) Greece
Deciduous trees
Brighton, (Evans et al., United 2000) Kingdom Brighton, (Evans, 2002) United Kingdom
Inclined framework of deciduous N/A plants on roof Inclined framework N/A of deciduous plants on roof
Table 2: Summary of experiments and results of relevant researches (Lam et al., 2003)
www.durabuild.org
Page 22 of 57

4.0 Plant application examples
A lot of buildings employing vegetation in their designs are sometimes classified as bioclimatic buildings. Bioclimatic describes an approach to building design which inspired by nature and which applies a sustained logic to every aspect of a project, focused on optimising and using the environment (Lloyd, 1998). It is a way of designing the buildings to conserve energy use and exploit natural resources such as sunlight and daylight in the best effect without much use of mechanical systems within the building. Bioclimatic buildings bring in a number of factors such as: Carefully balance the solar heat gains when the weather is hot, whilst fully utilising solar radiation when the weather is cold. Sunlight and daylight should be abundant to enter into the building but guard against glare, excessive solar gains and excessive heat loss. Amount of fresh and clean air quality should be achieved inside the building. The building fabric should be able to absorb and release heat on a daily cycle, whilst sufficiently insulate the building in cold weathers. Most of the above factors can be achieved by introducing plant growth on building fabric. Firstly, plant growth on walls can block excessive solar gains, while the use of deciduous plants can help to allow sunlight to shine directly onto the building walls in winter to provide warmth. Secondly, plants can produce oxygen and fix carbon dioxide in the air and so improve the quality of air in the surroundings. Finally but not least, the transpiration of plants absorbs heat from the vicinity of the site to provide a cooler environment. Examples of bioclimatic buildings are becoming popular nowadays. One of the most sophisticated prototypes of bioclimatic skyscraper is the Singapore Exhibition Tower as seen in Figure 4. It is designed by the famous architect Ken Yeang from T.R.Hamzah & Yeang. This architect is very keen in developing bioclimatic buildings, especially associated with tall eco-friendly projects. The amount of vegetation used in his designs is extensive. According to the architects, these plants provide shade and improving interior microclimate and oxygenation. Although plants are used as climate modifiers, some air-conditioning is still required in tropical climate as in Singapore. However, the need for air-conditioning is reduced. There are numerous types of bioclimatic buildings throughout the world, and most conventional building designs also incorporated the use of plants. It is evident that the use of plants is a significant feature in the designing of buildings. Below are some recent examples.
www.durabuild.org
Page 23 of 57

The J-R office building The J-R building is located on the 10th Parallel in Costa Rica, a tropical country in Central America. The building is designed by Bruno Stagno, a Chilean-born architect who practices in San Jose. The J-R building is surrounded by a steel mesh. Climbing plants were introduced to grown onto the framework, and it took six to eight months for the plants to cover the facades. This is shown in Figure 12. Shading is required at all seasons in tropical Costa Rica, so evergreen plants Thumbergia and Bignoniaceae are used. The "green screen" wrapping the J-R office building creates a shaded microclimate on the north and south facades, reducing direct sun on the glass without darkening the interior. The east and west faces are closed (Stagno, 2002). The architect, Stagno Bruno, did not perform any thermal modelling for this vegetative design, but he confirmed that plants can reduce the ambient air temperature by at least 3C in tropical climate. The architect also designed another similar vegetated building - Credomatic Building, in which the model is shown in Figure 13.
Figure 12: The J-Y office building with and with climbing plants. The green framework wrapping the J-R building creates a shaded faade. Pictures provided by Bruno Stagno
Figure 13: Credomatic Call Centre designed by Bruno Stagno. Picture provided by Bruno Stagno
www.durabuild.org
Page 24 of 57

The Consorcio-Santiago Building (1990 - 1993) This building is situated in Santiago, Chile and is designed by the architects Enrique Browne and Borja Huidobro. The west side of the building is the intolerable side for solar radiation. Therefore the architect designed stepped greenery to cover this faade as seen in Figure 14. By encouraging the plants to grow on and up the walls of large commercial buildings, the natural environment will then be extended into the urban areas and as well as providing a comfortable environment for all working staff.
Figure 14: Light filters through the green wall into the office interior if the Consorcio-Santiago Building. Photographer: Guy Wenborne. Pictures provided by Enrique Browne The types of plants used are Rosa Banksiae Normalis, Plumbago Capensis, Bouganvillea Glabra and Ampelopsis Quinquefolia. These are all deciduous plants because the designer wants to protect the west side of the building from the sun in summer, whilst allow solar to enter the building during winter. Another advantage is that the vegetative skin changes its colour during the seasons. This commercial building is air-conditioned, and is having a more economical use when the vegetation was fully grown. There is no empirical survey done on the actual performance of the vegetation skin. However, the architect estimates that the "vertical greenery" reduced 60% of the sun absorption, thereby reducing about 10% the total energy cost of the building.
Consorcio-Concepcion Building (2003-2004) The Concepcion building is located south of Santiago, designed by architect Enrique Browne. The building composes the double green skin with mature climbing plants on the East, North and West sides. The various types of climbing plants used are shown in Figure 15.
www.durabuild.org
Page 25 of 57
Figure 15: Consorcio-Concepcion Building. Photographer: Guy Wenborne. Pictures provided by Enrique Browne,
The MFO Park The MFO Park is located at the industrial area of Zurich. It is an open hall that is 100 metres long, 35 metres wide and 17 metres high. This park was mainly constructed using innovative steel cables which are wrapped by different magnificently growing climbers. A total number of 1300 climbers in different varieties will flourish the metal structure. In course of time, the entire park will form green and blossoming walls, ceilings for pergolas, covered walkways and garden spaces.
Figure 16: The MFO Park in Zurich. Pictures provided Virginia Creeper
www.durabuild.org
Page 26 of 57

5.0 Bioshader Experiment
Bioshader is the term used to describe the new biological shading devices for building designs. This sustainable shading design option comprises a vertical layer of deciduous climbing plant canopy that trails on a metal framework, which is mounted external to the glazed facade of a naturally ventilated building. This setup is shown in Figure 17. Solar heat absorbed by metal-shading devices can be re-radiated into building and it heats up the air before entering the building. Whereas a layer of deciduous climbing plants external to the windows can reduce the solar gain and regulate the temperature of air on the shaded side. Apart from modifying the solar gain, the bioshader can also improve the air quality, increase the moisture content and also attenuate the external noise.
In the summer, the dense foliage of the bioshader blocks the high angle sun Bioshader deciduous climbing plants grown on a robust framework
In the winter, the bioshader sheds off its leaves; this allows low angle solar radiation entering the building External stainless steel framework Plant container Openable window
Figure 17: A vertical section through the bioshader system (Ip et al., 2004) The bioshaders shading effect changes with its growing and wilting seasons from spring to winter. In the winter, deciduous plants have bare branches that allow low angle solar radiation through the glazed facade into the building interior. Whereas in the summer, the dense leaf foliage absorbs solar radiation and, through the evapo-transpiration process, lowers the air temperatures. An experiment was set up at the School of the Environment, University of Brighton, to evaluate the bioshaders thermal shading performance. The aim of the experiment is to measure and evaluate the bioshaders shading effect to an occupied office. The results were compared with an identical office, acting as the control room, which has no bioshader.
www.durabuild.org
Page 27 of 57

The following sections outline the physical setup of the experiment, the selection of deciduous climbing plant, the equipment and experimental layout, the test and control rooms details, the measurement and data collection procedure.
5.1
Plant selection for bioshader experiment
The integration of vertical greenery onto contemporary architecture presents a novel design opportunity for designers and architects. When incorporating a framework of deciduous climbing plants external to buildings, the selection of a suitable plant is very important and has to take into consideration factors such as climate, growth rate, leaf coverage and maintenance. This section summarises the selection criteria for bioshader and also the justification for the climber to use in the experiment.
5.1.1
Plant Selection Criteria
Table 2 shows a summary of the plant selection criteria that were identified and considered. These criteria were used for the selection of climber in the bioshader experiment.
Factor Growth rate Leaf size
Possible criteria Slow, moderately fast, vigorous Large, small
Selection criteria Details Vigorous or fast Large Higher level Limitation of research time for plant growth Larger leaf creates large shading effect The higher the climber can reach, the greater coverage Fully hardy plant can sustain through cold winter times The frequencies of watering, pruning and adding fertilizers increase the overall cost. Lowering these costs attracts designers and clients to adopt this kind of design Full sun to act as shading device. Climber able to withstand adverse weather conditions
Height High level, low level climber can reach
Fully hardy (withstand temp down to -15C), frost hardy (withstand Winter temperature temp down to -5C), half hardy Fully hardy tolerance (withstand temp down to 0C) (Brickell, 1999)
Maintenance
High, Low
Low
Orientation/ Sun preference Weather tolerance Types of soil
Full sun, partial shade, shade Costal, sheltered, windy etc. Sandy, coarsely, acidity, alkalinity etc.
Full sun High tolerance
Maintaining nutrients in the soil for Moist, humus-rich, climber to absorb will enable prosperous loose-packed growth Climbing framework for the climber to Twining or clinging grow on. So adhesive type is not suitable
Climbing patterns Adhesive, twining, clinging
Table 3: Selection criteria of climbing plants for use as bioshaders (Lam et al., 2002)
www.durabuild.org
Page 28 of 57

5.1.2 Plants suitable for the United Kingdom climate
The growth of plants relies mainly on water, sunlight, oxygen, climate and the other necessary minerals. Being one of the major factors, the local climate at which the plant is growing is a very important decisive factor when selecting the appropriate plant. The experimental measurement was being carried out at the University of Brighton which is situated in the southern part of the United Kingdom. The average temperature in this location is a few degrees warmer than most parts of the United Kingdom, with earlier springs, warmer summers and milder winters. The lowest winter temperature is rarely below 5C. There are constant onshore breezes with occasional strong winds. Taking the locality regional weather conditions and the criteria identified in Table 3, a number of possible climbing plants were selected from Table 1. These are shown in Table 4 in order of their suitability to this experiment.
Species
Common Hardy Name
Climbing Height method (m)
Growth rate Fast, tall and spreading
Leaf / Flower Soil type
Pruning
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Virginia Creeper
Fully hardy Fully hardy Fully hardy Fully hardy Half hardy
Twining
6 to 12
Very large 5oval leaflets
Fertile/freedraining Any reasonable Fertile/freedraining Any reasonable
Early spring
Polygonum Russian baldschuanicum vine Parthenocissus tricuspidata
Twining
5 m/ year Very tough Small leaves Fast, tall and spreading
Frequent
Boston Ivy
Twining
6 to 15
3-lobed leaves
Early spring
Wisteria sinensis Wisteria
Twining
Up to 30m Rampant
Hanging blue flowers Very large leaves
Summer
Vitis coignetiae
Vines
Tendrils
Up to 20m Fast
Free-draining, Summer alkaline soil
Table 4: Summary of climbers in their order of their suitability for use as bioshader in the southern part of the United Kingdom. Based on plant characteristics described in (Brickell, 1999, Chesshire, 2001) The most appropriate climbing plant to be used in this research is Virginia Creeper. The unique large 5-oval leaflets character makes it a good bio-shading device. Also it is tall, fast spreading, and requires pruning only in early spring. This is relatively more advantageous than Russian vine which requires frequent pruning due to its excessive rampant growth. The leaves of Wisteria are small and so shading efficiency is lower than Virginia Creeper. Whereas, Vitis Coignetiae is only half-hardy which may not withstand the winter cold. On balance, Virginia Creeper is the best option.
5.2
Experimental setup
www.durabuild.org
Page 29 of 57

5.2.1 The Site
The proposed bioshader system is suitable for low-rise lightweight office buildings. The construction type of the building will not constitute a great issue on its suitability on applying this bioshading system. This is because the system uses trailed climbing plant on a framework and therefore, the main issue is whether there is the possibility of having a framework for the bioshader to grow on outside the building. Almost all types of buildings can be fitted with an external metal framework. The selected building is naturally ventilated with large windows to allow the bioshader to locate externally on the metal framework. The offices or buildings that the bioshader can incorporate are best to be suffering from summer excessive solar heating. And the reduction of solar could increase the comfort to the occupants. Within the UK, these buildings should be due to face south or southwest. This is because these are the orientations that are most solar tolerant.
Figure 18: Maps showing the location where the bioshader experiment was setup
www.durabuild.org
Page 30 of 57

The bioshader experiment was set up in the Cockcroft Building at the Moulsecoomb site of the University of Brighton. Figure 18 shows the location of the experiment. Two identical offices on the first floor were selected as the test and control rooms. Each room measures 3m by 3m by 3m. There are two windows in each room; each window measures 1.2 m by 2.1 m. The windows are facing south-west and both rooms are situated next to each other. The rooms are subjected to excessive summer solar gains. Both rooms are occupied by one member of staff at normal office hours.
5.2.2
Plant and External Framework
The external stainless steel metal framework, covering the two windows in the test room was supplied by Jakob-UK (Mendip Manufacturing Agency) which is an international company specialising in architectural plant support frameworks (Jakob 2003). The entire framework, as shown in Figure 19, comprises of 4mm vertical stainless steel wires and horizontal rods. These were fixed together with specialised cross clamps making up the spacing of 150mm x 200mm lattices. Spacer baskets of 150mm long were used as fixings to the building faade.
Rod 4mm rope Cross clamp Spacer basket Angle bar
Figure 19: The details of the stainless steel framework A total number of four plant containers were used. They were evenly lined below the metal
framework under the two windows in the test room as shown in Figure 20. The internal dimension of each plant container is 400mm (length) by 300mm (width) by 600mm (height) and they were tailored made from lined plywood. A layer of 2.5mm aggregates was put at the top of the drainage holes at the bottom of the containers to prevent the compost from clogging up and blocking the drainage holes.
www.durabuild.org
Page 31 of 57
Bioshaders on metal framework outside the test room windows
The windows of the control room using internal blinds for solar shading
Virginia Creeper Plant container
Figure 20: The Virginia Creeper trained onto the framework and the plant containers Four Virginia Creeper plants were planted in the containers were trailed onto the framework. The compost used was mixed with a type of water-storage gels which can hold up water and release it if the soil is dry. A six-month slow release fertiliser was also mixed into the compost to provide the necessary nutrients for the plants.
5.2.3
Measuring Equipment
The locations and types of sensors used in the bioshader experiment are shown in Figure 21.
Corridor temp and RH
N
Internal temp and RH Internal temp and RH
Central data logging unit
Test Room
Air flow
Control Room
Air flow
Solar flux energy sensors
Solar flux energy sensor
Gap temp and RH Dome solarimeter External temp and RH
Figure 21: Plan showing locations of monitoring equipment
www.durabuild.org
Page 32 of 57

Two extractor fans were installed to provide controlled mechanical ventilation inside the two offices. The air velocity, air temperature and relative humidity are monitored with sensors installed in the air ducts. The location of the external dome solarimeter, solar flux energy sensors, external relative humidity and air temperature sensors are also shown in Figure 22. The external dome solarimeter was fixed vertically onto the wooden plant container. The indoor solar flux sensors were secured by means of moveable clamps so that the flux sensors can be positioned anywhere across the windows.
Figure 22: Cross section of the bioshader with the locations of sensors The test and control rooms were fitted with door sensors for the detection of room occupancy. As the thermal environments of the rooms would be affected when doors were opened, data of the days with occupancy were excluded in the analysis. All sensors were linked to the central data logger through the junction boxes. The Agilent 374370A data logger base unit was selected as the central logging system, it has two 20-channel differential multiplexer cards which allows up to 40 channels of data logs. adjacent room. All measuring and monitoring equipment in the control and test rooms were connected to this central logging system in the
www.durabuild.org
Page 33 of 57

Apart from data recorded from the data logger, photos were taken every other day to monitor the growth rate of the plants. These regular photographic shots were taken during the summer season of year 2003. The solar transmittances by various leaf layers were monitored on sunny days throughout the summer. The well established Virginia Creeper were planted from their pots into the troughs on the 13th May 2003 and the monitoring equipment were completely installed in June 2003, The data logging started from the 25th June 2003, and the experiment ended on the 31st August 2004. A total number of 14 months data, recorded at every two-minute interval throughout the experimental period, were collected. The plants were pruned twice over the experimental period. The first time was on 4th Aug 2003 and the second pruning was on the 24th May 2004 to provide a good growth start for the new summer season.
www.durabuild.org
Page 34 of 57

6.0 Results
The collected data were organised and analysed. Three main areas were examined: the temperature changes by the bioshader, the relative humidity changes and the solar transmittances by Virginia Creeper. This section will summarize the findings from the bioshader experiment.
6.1
Data Selection
The collection of the data had been running for 14 months. There had been interruptions during this period of time, so any noise data will be omitted from the dataset. The test and control rooms are occupied offices with staffs going into and out of the rooms. This would affect readings on the thermal environment of the rooms. Therefore, the occupancy sensors were used as an indication for data selection as well. Mostly, weekend data were used for analysis when no one occupied the rooms. The selected dates were Sundays, with different types of weather conditions such as sunny and hot, windy and gloomy. This would provide a broader view of the bioshader performance on different environmental conditions.
6.2
Temperature Comparison
Temperature inside the test room was modified significantly by the bioshader, and can be represented by selected Sundays between July and October when the rooms were not occupied. Figure 23 to Figure 30 show the temperatures in the test room, the control room, the plant canopy and the external ambient air.
Temperature distibutions on 13th July 2003 32.0 30.0 28.0 26.0

Temperature (deg C)
Temperature distributions on 20th July 2003 32.0 30.0 28.0

Test rm Temp C
26.0
Temperature (deg C)
Test rm Temp C
24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 00:00 01:48 03:36 05:24 07:12 09:00 10:48 12:36 14:24 16:12 18:00 19:48 21:36 23:24 Time
24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 00:00
Control rm Temp C
Control rm Temp C
Canopy Temp C
Canopy Temp C
Ambient Air Temp C
Ambient Air Temp C
02:24 04:48
07:12 09:36
12:00 Time
14:24 16:48
19:12 21:36
00:00
Figure 23: Temperature distributions on 13th July 2003
Figure 24: Temperature distributions on 20th July 2003
www.durabuild.org
Page 35 of 57

Temperature distributions on 10th Aug 2003 40.0 38.0 36.0 34.0 32.0 Temperature (deg C) 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 00:01 00:59 01:57 02:55 03:53 04:51 05:49 06:47 07:45 08:43 09:41 10:39 11:37 12:35 13:33 14:31 15:29 16:27 17:25 18:23 19:21 20:19 21:17 22:15 23:13
34.0 32.0
Temperature distributions on 24th Aug 2003
Test rm Temp C
30.0 28.0
Temperature (deg C)
Test rm Temp C
Control rm Temp C
26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0

00:01 00:57 01:53 02:49 03:45 04:41 05:37 06:33 07:29 08:25 09:21 10:17 11:13 12:09 13:05 14:01 14:57 15:53 16:49 17:45 18:41 19:37 20:33 21:29 22:25 23:21
Control rm Temp C
Canopy Temp C
Canopy Temp C
Ambient Air Temp C
Ambient Air Temp C
Time
Time
Figure 25: Temperature distributions on 10th Aug 2003

Temperature distributions on 21st Sept 2003
32.0 30.0 28.0 26.0
Temperature (deg C)
Figure 26: Temperature distributions on 24th Aug 2003

Temperature distributions on 28th Sept 2003 28.0 26.0
Test rm Temp C
Temperature (deg C)
24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0
Test rm Temp C
24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0

00:01 00:57 01:53 02:49 03:45 04:41 05:37 06:33 07:29 08:25 09:21 10:17 11:13 12:09 13:05 14:01 14:57 15:53 16:49 17:45 18:41 19:37 20:33 21:29 22:25 23:21
Control rm Temp C
Control rm Temp C
Canopy Temp C
Canopy Temp C
Ambient Air Temp C
12.0 10.0 8.0

00:01 01:01 02:01 03:01 04:01 05:01 06:01 07:01 08:01 09:01 10:01 11:01 12:01 13:01 14:01 15:01 16:01 17:01 18:01 19:01 20:01 21:01 22:01 23:01
Ambient Air Temp C
Time
Time
Figure 27: Temperature distributions on 21st Sept 2003
Figure 28: Temperature distributions on 28th Sept 2003
Temperature distributions on 12th Oct 2003 30.0

25.0
Temperature distributions on 26th Oct 2003
25.0
Test rm Temp C
Temperature (deg C)
20.0
Test rm Temp C
20.0
Control rm Temp C
Temperature (deg C)
15.0
Control rm Temp C
15.0
Canopy Temp C
10.0
10.0
Canopy Temp C
5.0
Ambient Air Temp C
5.0
Ambient Air Temp C
0.0
00:01 01:01 02:01 03:01 04:01 05:01 06:01 07:01 08:01 09:01 10:01 11:01 12:01 13:01 14:01 15:01 16:01 17:01 18:01 19:01 20:01 21:01 22:01 23:01
0.0
00:00 00:58 01:56 01:54 02:52 03:50 04:48 05:46 06:44 07:42 08:40 09:38 10:36 11:34 12:32 13:30 14:28 15:26 16:24 17:22 18:20 19:18 20:16 21:14 22:12 23:10
Time
Time
Figure 29: Temperature distributions on 12th Oct 2003
Figure 30: Temperature distributions on 26th Oct 2003
6.3
Relative Humidity Comparison
The bioshader located outside the test room also affected the internal room relative humidity. Figures 31 to 38 show the comparison of the relative humidities inside the test room and the control room on selected Sundays from July to October.
www.durabuild.org
Page 36 of 57

Relative humidity distributions on 13th July 2003
Relative humdiity distributions on 27th July 2003 80
50 45 40 RH % 35 30 25 20 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 Time
Test rm RH %
75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 00:01 02:01 04:01 06:01 08:01 10:01 12:01 14:01 16:01 18:01 20:01 22:01
Time
Control rm RH % Test rm RH %
Control rm RH %
Figure 31: Relative humidity 13th July 2003
RH %
Figure 32: Relative humidity 27th July 2003

Relative humidity distributions on 24th Aug 2003 80 70
Relative humidity distributions on 10th Aug 2003

55
50
45
RH %
40
RH %
Test rm RH %
60 50 40 30 20
Test rm RH %
35
Control rm RH %
Control rm RH %
30
25
00:01
02:01
04:01
06:01
08:01
10:01
12:01
14:01
16:01
18:01
20:01
20 00:01 02:01 04:01 06:01 08:01 10:01 12:01 14:01 16:01 18:01 20:01 22:01
22:01
Time
Time
Figure 33: Relative humidity 10th Aug 2003

Relative humidity on 21st Sept 2003 70
Figure 34: Relative humidity 24th Aug 2003

Relative humidity on 28th Sept 2003 55 50
Test rm RH %
60
RH %
Test rm RH %
45
RH %
50
40 35 30 25
00:01 02:01 04:01 06:01 08:01 10:01 12:01 14:01 16:01 18:01 20:01 22:01
Control rm RH %
Control rm RH %
40
30
00:01 02:01 04:01 06:01 08:01 10:01 12:01 14:01 16:01 18:01 20:01 22:01
20
Time
Time
Figure 35: Relative humidity 21st Sept 2003

Relative humidity on 12th Oct2003 50 45 40
RH %
Test rm RH %
Figure 36: Relative humidity 28th Sept 2003

Relative humidity on 26th Oct2003
55 50 45
35 30 25 20
00:01 02:01 04:01 06:01 08:01 10:01 12:01 14:01 16:01 18:01 20:01 22:01
Control rm RH %
RH %
40 35 30 25 20
Test rm RH %
Control rm RH %
00:00
01:00
03:00
05:00
07:00
09:00
11:00
13:00
15:00
17:00
19:00
21:00
Time
23:00
Time
Figure 37: Relative humidity distributions on 12th Oct2003
Figure 38: Relative humidity distributions on 26th Oct2003
www.durabuild.org
Page 37 of 57
6.4
Leaf Solar Transmittance
Leaf solar transmittance is the fraction of solar radiation which is directly transmitted through the leaf. The solar transmittance of the bioshader would dependent on the foliage and coverage of the Virginia Creeper plants. The foliage is the thickness of the plant, which is the number of leaf layers. Different number of leaf layers would have different value of solar transmittances. Generally speaking, the solar transmittance will decrease with increasing number of leaf layers. A series of experiments were carried out to find the solar transmittances through single or multi layers of Virginia Creeper leaves. The solar flux energy sensors were moved across locations of the plant where there were one, two, three, four or five layers of leaf accordingly (as seen in figure 39). Repeated measurements were taken on the external solar radiation on the surface of the leaf or leaves, and the transmitted radiation behind the leaf or layers of leaf.
Leaf covering the solar flux sensor
Solar flux sensor
Figure 39: One layer of leaf covering the solar flux sensor for the determination of single-leaf solar transmittance Since all the solar sensors in this experiment were fixed vertically, the total solar radiation data logged by the external dome solarimeter and the solar flux sensors required adjustment to take into account of their vertical positions. The vertical and horizontal components of the external solar radiations were derived from generic equations by (Sukhatme, 1996) using known latitude, declination, slope of the bioshader, wall azimuth and hour angle. Details of the calculations can be found in Appendix A. Having corrected all the measured solar radiation data, the leaf solar transmittances are then calculated using the following equation:
Tn =
In I Ext
(Equation 1: Leaf solar transmittance)
www.durabuild.org
Page 38 of 57

Where: Tn IExt In = Solar transmittance with nth layers of leaf = External incident solar radiation perpendicular to the leaf canopy [W/m2] = Solar radiation measured by the solar flux sensor behind nth layers of leaf [W/m2]
The calculated results are shown in Appendix B. Results which are considered as outliners were excluded in the calculation for the mean values of solar transmittances were obtained. Table 5 summarises the calculated mean solar transmittances for one to five layers of Virginia Creeper leaf.
Leaf layer
1-leaf
2-leaves
3-leaves
4-leaves
5-leaves
Mean solar transmittance
0.43
0.34
0.25
0.21
0.14
Table 5: The mean solar transmittances of one to five layers of Virginia Creeper leaf
www.durabuild.org
Page 39 of 57

7.0 Discussion and Analysis
The thermal performance of the bioshader was evaluated by comparing the temperatures, relative humidities and solar gains of the test and control rooms. The following sections analyse the findings of the bioshader experiment showed in the previous chapter.
7.1
Temperatures and Relative Humidities
Figure 23 to Figure 30 are the summaries of temperatures of the ambient air, the test room, the control room and, the gap between the leaf canopy and the window. As both the test room and control room are facing South-west, there were high solar gains in the afternoon. The high room temperatures inside both of the rooms were due to the low volume flow of air through the ventilation fans. On the whole the temperatures in the test room were consistently lower than that of the control room, with peak temperature differences shown in Table 6.
Date Time Peak temperature difference between Test room and Control room (C)
13 Jul 03 15:45
20 Jul 03 16:00
10 Aug 03 15:30
24 Aug 03 17:00
21 Sep 03 15:15
28 Sep 03 14:40
12 Oct 03 14:20
26 Oct 03 13:30
4.1
5.6
3.9
4.4
4.3
5.3
3.8
1.1
Table 6: Peak difference temperatures (C) between test and control rooms on selected Sundays The peak temperature differences over the eight selected Sundays range from 1.1C in October to 5.6 C in July. As the control room and test room are identical in terms of size, construction and orientation, theoretically they should have the same internal thermal environments. However, graphs in figures 23 to 30 and peak temperatures differences in Table 6 suggest that the additional layer of bioshader to the test room is the main effect to the substantial reduction in room temperature. July, August and September are the three hottest month in the UK. In July, the external air temperature was well above 24C in figure 23 and was maintained at around 20C on figure 24. Irrespective to the different external ambient air temperatures on both days, the bioshader had lowered the test room temperature by at least 4C at the hottest time in the afternoon. According to CIBSE, the recommended summer comfort temperature for offices should be in between 22-24C (CIBSE, 2004). In figure 24, the bioshader had reduced the test room temperature to the
www.durabuild.org
Page 40 of 57

recommended level of the comfort temperature range recommended by CIBSE, while the control room temperature reached a peak temperature of 30C at the same time. This is shown in Figure 40.
30.0 29.0 28.0 27.0 26.0 25.0 24.0 23.0 22.0 21.0 20.0 00:00 01:10 02:20 03:30 04:40 05:50 07:00 08:10 09:20 10:30 11:40 12:50 14:00 15:10 16:20 17:30 18:40 19:50 21:00
Test rm Temp C Control rm Temp C
comfort range
22:10
Figure 40: Bioshader reduced room temperature to comfort range Looking at a wider period on how the bioshader can reduce the substantial heat gain into the test room, Figure 41 shows the comparison of temperatures of the test room, the control room and the exterior over the August month. The red curve, control room temperature, is constantly higher than the blue curve, which is the test room temperature. There are also peaks on the control room temperature curve which represent each of the hot afternoons over August. All these peaks are lowered on the test room temperature curve, showing that each day the heat gain into the test room was reduced by the additional layer of bioshader. The main reason of the decrease in test room temperature is the direct solar shading by the bioshader, which prevents heat being stored in the low ventilated room and in turn prevent rising the room temperature. Evapo-transpiration from the climbers is also another contribution to the reduction in test room temperature. Heat energy is required in the evaporation of water from plants. The heat added during evaporation is acquired from the climbers surroundings and thus removing excess heat from the microclimate.
www.durabuild.org
23:20
Page 41 of 57

40.0
Test Temp C Control Temp C External Air Temp C
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0 31/07/2003 00:00
05/08/2003 00:00
10/08/2003 00:00
15/08/2003 00:00
20/08/2003 00:00
25/08/2003 00:00
30/08/2003 00:00
Figure 41: Temperature profiles of test room, control room in August The results showed in Figures 23 to 30 also demonstrated the blanket effect of the leaf canopy. Over the eight Sundays, the temperatures between the plant canopy and the window were higher than the external air temperature. The canopy temperature was particularly high after midday and remained so until the early morning. This can be attributed to the relatively higher surface temperature of window glass as it was heated up by the solar gain during the day, which was later maintained by the heat released from the room at night. The other important bioshader improvement to the test room thermal environment is on the relative humidity level. Figures 31 to 38 in the results section show the comparisons of relative humidities of the test room and the control room. The test room has consistently higher relative humidity than the control room on all of the selected Sundays. This was mainly due to the relatively lower air temperature in the test room. The presence of the bioshader also adds moisture into the air from the climbers, in which the moisture might have brought into the test room and improve the internal humidity level. The relative humidity level in the test room was considerably higher than that of the control room with peak difference ranging from 4.9% in October to 13.7% in September. The peak differences for each selected Sunday were shown in Table 7.
www.durabuild.org
Page 42 of 57

Date Time Peak relative humidity difference between Test room and Control room 13-Jul03 15:46 27-Jul03 15:25 10-Aug03 15:29 24-Aug03 16:35 21-Sep03 15:11 28-Sep03 14:43 12-Oct03 14:21 26-Oct03 13:20
10.2%
13.5%
8.4%
11.7%
13.7%
11.8%
9.0%
4.9%
Table 7: Peak differences in relative humidity between test and control rooms
According to CIBSE, under normal circumstances the humidity level should be in the range of 4070% (CIBSE, 1999). Some of the selected Sunday results are below 40% relative humidity level in the control room. Although the relative humidity level in the test room was higher by an average of 8 to 10%, this difference could make a big effect on the occupants comfort. When relative humidity is as low as around 30%, occupants can experience dry eyes and may also result in other sick building symptoms. In October, both rooms temperature and relative humidity differences dropped when compared to previous months over the summer. This is directly related to the growth of the bioshader. The climbers started to grow vigorously in June, and the foliage of the plants reached maximum in July. Pruning was performed at the beginning of August which had greatly reduced the thickness and shading effect of the bioshader. This explains the reason why in August both the temperature and relative humidity peak differences were declined as the bioshader was pruned and cannot perform its full ability to improve the test room environment. After the August pruning, the temperature and relative humidity peak differences (as shown in Table 6 and 7) increase steadily until the end of September. This corresponds to the steady growth of the bioshader over August and September and thus having increasing affect onto the test room environment. Referring to the photographic evidence taken over the summer to monitor the plant growth, the bioshader reached its full foliage in September after the pruning, and was maintained until mid of October. This was when the weather changed from summer to autumn and the leaves started to shed, and performance of the bioshader decreased. This explains the decrease in peak differences in Table 6 and 7.
7.2
Effect of solar reduction by leaves
The leaf solar transmittances are shown in Table 5. Results show that increasing leaf layers will decrease the solar transmission. In terms of solar reduction by the different number of leaf layers, Table 8 demonstrates the effect of solar shading by leaves.
www.durabuild.org
Page 43 of 57

Number of leaf layers Percentage of solar reduction 1 37% 2 66% 3 75% 4 79% 5 86%
Table 8: Solar reduction by Virginia Creeper leaves Even one layer of leaf can reduce 37% of the incident solar radiation, which is about one-third of original incident beam. Up to 86% of solar can be removed by a layer of five leaves. This means that the bioshader can block more solar radiation with better foliage. The entire bioshader comprises areas of various leaf layers. If the area of five-layer leaves is very extensive, the shading effect will be very substantial because 86% of reduction can be achieved by five-layer leaves. On the contrary, bioshader with mostly one-layer leaves will not block as much solar as that with more five-layer leaves. This also agrees to the performance of the bioshader in improving the temperature and relative humidity with increasing growth of the climbers.
7.3
Limitation to bioshader experiment
There are limitations to the bioshader experiment, which are summarised below. The plant framework is limited to a size of lattice of 150 by 200mm. This size is too small to be used by plants such as Virginia Creeper which is used in this bioshader experiment. Due to the fact that time is limited for the plants to establish and cover the glazed faade, this small size lattice is required. In reality, this size can be increased according with different growth rate of climbing plants. The four Virginia Creeper plants bought for this experiment are fairly established and they were already about a one-metre tall when first planted. Although they were not leafy at all when they were bought, they were already well established and so they can perform their ability to shade with their foliage of leaves. Ideally, the experiment should employ young plants in order to monitor fully the growth rate of the bioshader. The sensors used in this experiment were chosen by the Durabuild team and also from experienced technical staff from the School of the Environment in the University of Brighton. The number of sensors used is restricted, partly by cost, and also by the mountable space within the test and control offices. The fixings for some sensors, especially the temperature and relative humidity sensors, require particular attention to position where no direct sunlight can reach. Thus locations of the sensors may not be the ideal positions.
www.durabuild.org
Page 44 of 57

Fixings and working on the sensors were also difficult, as those offices were occupied. Staffs open and close door every now and then during office hours, this affected the ventilations rates within the test and the control rooms and so had impact on the results. The accuracy of the sensors may also affect the data collected in the bioshader experiment. The sensors used in this experiment can be of better accuracy, but owing to the high prices of these sensors, cheaper option may be used. This will also affect the accuracy of data collected. The methodology in assessing the leaf solar transmittances is based on moving the solar flux sensor over certain areas of the bioshader. The accuracy of this method is limited due to the fact that a lot of diffuse or indirect solar radiation will affect the solar flux sensors reading. The filtration of the outliner data (as shown in Appendix B) for solar transmittances was rather subjective. The selection of data was purely depends on the view on the graph to determine which are the times of data to be included for calculation for the solar transmittance.
www.durabuild.org
Page 45 of 57

8.0 Conclusion
The growing global awareness of energy conservation has delegated a big challenge to building designers to control the use of energy in buildings. With the emerging hotter summers, there is an increasing demand for buildings that are able to maintain the required internal thermal comfort without resorting to the use of air conditioning in the summer. One sustainable design option is to implement effective natural ventilation coupled with external shading devices to reduce solar gains. The performance of this kind of design can be further enhanced by the use of live plants acting as the shading device. There is an increasing scope of using vegetation as climatic modifiers in the built environment; such design is often termed as bioclimatic design. The bioshader described in this report has demonstrated the successful use of such design option suitable for use to office buildings with glazed faade. The proposed bioshader has been tested and applied to an office in the University of Brighton. Its performance was monitored and subsequently analysed in this case study report. The room temperature of the university office was greatly reduced on most of the hot summer afternoons. Peak temperature reduction reached 5.6C in the office with the bioshader setup. Room temperatures were at least lowered by 3.5C over each summer afternoon from July to September. Relative humidity levels in the test room (with bioshader) and the control room (without bioshader) were also compared. The humidity level in the test room was permanently higher than that of the control room, demonstrating the added value of using live plants to bring extra moisture into the dry environment of the office. From July to October, the bioshader increased the test room relative humidity level from the range of 13.7% to 4.9%. Calculations from the experimental results show that the leaf solar transmittances are between 0.43 to 0.14 for one to five leaf layers. These correspond to a solar reduction of up to 37% by only one layer of Virginia Creeper leaf, 66% solar reduction by two layers, 75% by three layers, 79% by four layers and 86% by five layers. By looking at these solar reduction figures, it is fairly obvious that leaves or plants can block a considerable amount of excessive sunlight into buildings. Solar radiation falling onto conventional metal shading devices will heat up the temperature of the device. Heat can then be re-radiated from the metal shading devices into the surrounding air before entering the building. Whereas the bioshaders reflect, absorb and transmit proportions of the incident solar radiation without warming up the microclimate. When applying bioshaders onto buildings, it is necessary to carefully consider the growth of the plants. The bioshader shading performance increases with its foliage and coverage over the glazed area. Building designers may wish to adopt established plants rather than newly grown climbers on
www.durabuild.org
Page 46 of 57

the framework in order to achieve a minimum level of shading effect. Implantation of climbers would be best to do as soon as the framework is ready to allow additional time for the plants to establish. Plants are living organisms which are not under control by human beings. Their growth rates are also affected by a lot of other environmental factors such as weather conditions. Therefore, the overall development of the bioshader on the framework is not within exact prediction. This may form another limitation when using plants with buildings. The bioshader design described in this report is a new and novel idea. There would be a lot of improvements to its design by initiating further research in this area.
www.durabuild.org
Page 47 of 57

9.0 Bibliography
BRICKELL, C. (1999) The Royal Horticultural Society new encyclopedia of plants and flowers, Dorling Kindersley. BROWN, R. D. & GILLESPIE, T. J. (1990) Estimating radiation received by a person under different species of shade trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 16, 158-161. CANTUARIA, G. (2000) A comparative study of the thermal performance of vegetation on building surfaces. PLEA: Architecture, City, Environment. Cambridge, UK, James & James (Science Publishers) Ltd. CHESSHIRE, C. (2001) The Royal Horticultural Society Climbing Plants, Dorling Kindersley. CIBSE (1999) CIBSE Guide A: Environmental Design, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers London. CIBSE (2004) CIBSE Concise Handbook, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers London. CROSBIE, M. J. (1994) Green architecture: A guide to sustainable design, Rockport. DAVEY, P. (1999) Green on show. The Architectural Review, Feb99, 52-55. DI, H. F. & WANG, D. N. (1999) Cooling effect of ivy on a wall. Experimental Heat Transfer, 12, 235345. DTI (2002) Energy consumption in the UK. ENIS, R. (1984) Landscape and climate- The interdependence of some of their factors. Energy and Buildings, 7, 77-85. EVANS, J. S., IP, K. & MILLER, A. J. (2000) The deciduous roof: A performance prediction model. Sustainable Building. Maastricht, The Netherlands, Aeneas Technical Publishers. EVANS, J. S. C. (2002) A predictive model for the shading performance of deciduous roof. School of the Environment. Brighton, University of Brighton. FASSADENGRN The pages for greening facades. GARDEN, T. M. E. M. B. Rose GARDEN, T. M. E. M. B. Young tendril of Boston ivy. GILLIAN, R. (2000) The Royal Horticultural Society Gardening Manual, Dorling Kindersley. HOYANO, A. (1988) Climatological uses of plans for solar control and the effects on the thermal environment of a building. Energy and buildings, 11, 181-199. IP, K., LAM, M. H. Y. & MILLER, A. (2004) Bioshaders for sustainable buildings. CIB World Building Congress 2004, May 2-7. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. JACKSON, J. (2001) Climbing plants, suggestions for quick growth, wall cover etc., Jackson, J. JAKOB (2003).
www.durabuild.org
Page 48 of 57

JOHNSTON, J. & NEWTON, J. (1994) Building green - a guide to using plants on roofs, walls and pavements, London ecology unit. KURN, D. M., BRETZ, S. E., HUANG, B. & AKBARI, H. (1994) The potential for reducing urban air temperature and energy consumption through vegetative cooling. USA, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. LAM, M. H. Y., IP, K. & MILLER, A. (2002) Experimental modelling of deciduous climbing plants as shading devices. Sustainable Building 2002, 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Buildings. Oslo, Norway. LAM, M. H. Y., IP, K. & MILLER, M. (2003) Development of bioshaders for office buildings in the United Kingdom. CIB Student Chapters International Symposium, Innovation in Construction and Real Estate, September. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. LLOYD, D. J. (1998) Architecture and the environment- Bioclimatic building design, Laurence King. LOHR, V. I. Impact of interior plants on human stress and productivity. MCPHERSON, E. G., HERRINGTON, L. P. & HEISLER, G. M. (1988) Impacts of vegetation on residential heating and cooling. Energy and Buildings, 12, 41-51. MEIER, A. K. (1990a) Measured cooling saving from vegetative landscaping. American Council for an energy efficient economy, summer study on energy efficiency in buildings, 14, 133. MEIER, A. K. (1990b) Strategic landscaping and air-conditioning savings: a literature review. Energy and Buildings, 15-16, 479-486. ONG, B. L., LIM, G. T. & CHEN, Y. (2000) A survey of the thermal effect of plants on the vertical sides of tall buildings in Singapore. Passive Low Energy Architecture: Architecture, City, Environment. Cambridge, UK. PAPADAKIS, G., TSAMIS, P. & KYRITSIS, S. (2001) An experimental investigation of the effect of shading with plants for solar control of buildings. Energy and Buildings, 33, 831-836. PARKER, J. (1980) Landscaping elements and climate parameters in energy conservation design. Proceedings of the International Expert Group Meeting on Passive and low energy cooling, heating and dehumidification. Florida International University. PARKER, J. (1983) Landscaping to reduce the energy used in cooling buildings. Journal of Forestry, Feb93, 82-84. PARKER, J. H. (1987) The effectiveness of vegetation on residential cooling. Passive Solar Journal, 2, 123-132. PARROTT, L. (1998) An environmental perspective on UK construction materials. CIB World Building Conference. Gvle Sweden. RAEISSI, S. & TAHERI, M. (1999) Energy saving by proper tree plantation. Building and Environment, 34, 565-570. ROBINETTE, G. O. (1972) Plants, People and Environmental Quality, Washington D.C., US, US Department of the Interior, National Park Service. ROSEME, G. (1979) Air-to-Air hat exchangers: Saving energy and improving air quality. USA, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
www.durabuild.org
Page 49 of 57

ROSENFIELD, A. (1997) Painting the town white and green. Technology Review, Feb/Mar97, 52-54. ROTHENBERGER, R. (2001) Selecting Landscape Plants: Ornamental Vines. STAGNO, B. (2002) Shade conditioning. Architecture Week. STEC, W. J. & PAASSEN, A. H. C. V. (2005) Symbiosis of the double skin facade with the HVAC system. Energy and Buildings, 37, 461-469. STRAATEN, V. (1967) Thermal performance of buildings, Amsterdam, Elsevier. SUKHATME, S. P. (1996) Solar energy : principles of thermal collection and storage, Tata McGrawHill. TICKNOR, R. L. (1981) Selecting deciduous trees for climate modification. American Nurseryman, 153, 86-88. TODD, J. J. (2000) Urban air quality. Environmental Design Guide by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, GEN 34, 1-8. TREDICI, P. (1994) Plants in relation to houses. Process Architecture: The Art and Mechanics of Landscape, 117, 82-90. WITTER, G. (1986) A campaign for climbing plants in the city. Anthos, 25, 29-34. YEANG, K. (1992) Designing the tropical skyscraper. MIMAR, 41, 40-45.
www.durabuild.org
Page 50 of 57

10.0 Appendix
Appendix A: Solar adjustment for vertically fixed sensors

True bearing of the experiment location is 225 This means the orientation of the bioshader is 45 west from south. Geographic details of Brighton: Latitude: 5050N Longitude: 008W Details of this obtained from: www.astro.com/atlas www.weatherman.me.uk Terms used in (Sukhatme, 1996): Hour angle is the time in degree of the earth. One circulation of the earth is one day and so one day is 360 degree. That means for every hour of the day, the earth will turn 15 degree. This also means that in terms of minutes calculation, the hour angle will be the number of minutes from the true solar time noon * 0.25 Local apparent time is the true solar time, which is in determination by the position of the sun Mean solar time is the time calculated by lunar adjustment for longitudinal displacement from local time zone. Radian is another form of measure in degree. One 360 degree is equals to 2 radians. So 1 radian = 57.29 Solar radiation geometry In order to find the beam energy falling on a surface having any orientation, it is necessary to convert the value of the beam flux coming from the direction of the sun (I) to an equivalent value corresponding to the normal direction to the surface (I cos), where is the angle of incidence.
S 225 N
Cross section view of the experiment:
www.durabuild.org
Page 51 of 57

Radiation data from dome solarimeter (I)
Horizontal component (I cos )
Wall azimuth This is the angle made in the horizontal plane between the line due south and the projection of the normal to the surface on the horizontal plane. It can vary from -180 to +180. The convention in this formula calculation is that the wall azimuth is positive if the normal is east of south and negative if west of south.
-45 S
S
+60
Hour angle It is an angular measure of time and is equivalent to 15per hour. It varies from -180 to +180. The convention of measuring it from noon based on local apparent time (LAT), being positive in the morning and negative in the afternoon. Time 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 Hour Angle +180 +165 +150 +135 +120 +105 +90 +75 +60 +45 +30 +15 0 -15 -30 -45
N 180
00:00 -90 18:00 0 12:00 +90 06:00
www.durabuild.org
Page 52 of 57

In order to change the time in the data to hour angle for the formula calculation, the following needs to apply. As for each hour, it is 15. Therefore, the change in time from 00:00 to that hour X is equal to t To change t into terms of hour angle, multiply with 15. Say it is 03:00, 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 24:00 -60 -75 -90 -105 -120 -135 -150 -165 -180
so it will be 45. However, this is only an angular measure away from midnight. In order suit back to the hour angle corresponding to the table beside, the formula needs to apply: [(00:00 X) * 15] +180 Example: Three in morning: [(00:00 03:00) * 15] +180 =135 Ten at night: [(00:00 22:00) * 15] +180 = -150 x = time (in hour) y = -15x + 180 Declination is the angle made by the line joining the centres of the sun and he earth with its projection on the equatorial plane. Its arises by the virtue of the fact that the earth rotates about an axis which makes and angle of approximately 66.5 with the plane of its rotation around the sun. The declination angle varies from a maximum value of +23.45 on June 21 to a minimum value of -23.45 on December 21. It is zero on the two equinox days of March 21 and September 22. Solar correction by Sukhatme 1996: To change degree to radian (cos excel calculated in radian) Radian = x degree / 2 = x degree / 57.29577951 21-Jun 172nd day of the year For declination formula: 23.45 sin (360/365 *(284+n)) in degree 23.45 sin [(360/365* (284+n))/57.29] in radian 23.45 *sin (449.75) Formula for angle of incidence (from Sukhatme 1996): cos = sin (sin cos + cos cos cos sin) + (cos (cos cos cos - sin cos sin) + cos sin sin sin Where: = angle of incidence y = hour angle ()
www.durabuild.org
Page 53 of 57

= latitude = declination, which is the angle made by the line joining the centres of the sun and the earth with its projection on the equatorial plane. = slope of the surface, if vertical surface is 90deg = wall azimuth = the hour angle, which is 15 degree per hour. At noon, it is 0 deg. At 0900 is 45 deg. At 1500 is 45deg The vertical solar component falling onto the horizontal sensor is: Solar radiation data logged by the data logger * cos
www.durabuild.org
Page 54 of 57

Appendix B: Graphs for leaf solar transmittances
Solar transmittance by 1-layer of Virginia Creeper leaf

1.20
1.00
0.80 Solar transmittance
0.60
0.43
0.40
0.20
0.00 0 100 200 300 400 Number of readings 500 600 700 800
Figure 42: Solar transmittance for 1-layer of Virginia Creeper leaf
Solar transmittance by 2-layers of Virginia Creeper leaf

1.20
1.00
0.80 Solar transmittance
0.60
0.40
0.34
0.20
0.00 0 50 100 150 Number of readings 200 250 300
Figure 43: Solar transmittance for 2-layers of Virginia Creeper leaf
www.durabuild.org
Page 55 of 57
Solar transmittance by 3-layers of Virginia Creeper leaf

1.00
0.80
Solar transmittance
0.60
0.40
0.25
0.20
0.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Number of readings
Solar transmittance for 4-layers of Virginia Creeper leaves

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 Solar transmittance 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30
0.21
0.20 0.10 0.00 0 50 100 150 200 Number of readings 250 300 350 400
www.durabuild.org
Page 56 of 57

Solar transmittance for 5-layers of Virginia Creeper leaves
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 Solar transmittance 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 50 100 150 Number of readings 200 250 300
0.14
Acknowledgements: Dennis Osborne and Nikki Errington from Mendip Manufacturing Agency Limited (Jakob Inox Line Company) for the provision of the stainless steel framework. Peter Jakob for the interesting pictures that he had provided. Estates Department of the University of Brighton for the help on provision of the experimental site. All technical staff in the school for their assistance in the experimental setup. Bruno Stagno and Enrique Browne for their provisions of building pictures and plans.
Project team Professor Andrew Miller E-mail: a.miller@brighton.ac.uk Tel: 44 (0)1273 642380 Dr Kenneth Ip E-mail: k.ip@brighton.ac.uk Tel: 44 (0)1273 642381 Ms. Kath Shaw E-mail: k.shaw@brighton.ac.uk Tel: 44 (0)1273 643455 Ms. Marta Lam E-mail: m.lam@brighton.ac.uk Tel: 44 (0)1273 643455
University of Brighton School of the Environment Cockcroft Building Lewes Rd Brighton BN2 4GJ United Kingdom
www.durabuild.org
Page 57 of 57

Vegetation and Building Facades

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Vegetation and Building Facades

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Case Study Report

Vegetation on building facades: Bioshader

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Review of vegetation and buildings ........................................................... 11

3.0 4.0 5.0

Experimental setup ................................................................................................................. 29

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Discussion and Analysis............................................................................. 40

8.0 9.0 10.0

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

List of climbing plants

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

3m to 7m Vigorous 5 or more Vigorous, dense foilage

Tw iner Selfclinging roots

Sun/ Partial shade Fertile

Bittersw eet Bittersw eet

Deciduous Deciduous Deciduous Evergreen Evergreen Evergreen

Spring Spring Frequent Frequent Frequent Frequent

Virgin's Clematis montana Bow er Hedera colchica Ivy

4 x 4m Vigorous 1.5m 6m or more Fast

Tall and 6 to 15 spreading Tall and 6 to 12m spreading 6m Moderate

Fertile/freeSun/ shade draining Fertile/freeSun/ shade draining Full sun

Free-draining April Spring for shape As required Early spring

Evergreen Deciduous Russian vine (Woody) Evergreen Deciduous

Hardy Fully hardy Frost hardy Hardy Fully hardy

Tw iner Tw iner Tendrils Tw ining anticlockw ise

Fertile, moisture, Sun/ shade acid

Up to 20 Fast/ m Vigorous Up to 30m Rampant grow ing

Sun/ Partial Free-draining shade (+chalk) Summer Any reasonable

Table 1: Popular types of climbing plants

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Author and year (Hoyano, 1988) (Hoyano, 1988) (Hoyano, 1988)

(Di and Wang, China 1999)

(Cantuaria, 2000) (Ong et al., 2000)

South parapet with N/A potted plants Not mentioned

(Papadakis et Athens, al., 2001) Greece

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Centre for Sustainability of the Built Environment

Plant selection for bioshader experiment

Plant Selection Criteria

Factor Growth rate Leaf size

Possible criteria Slow, moderately fast, vigorous Large, small