Authors:
Basma Naili Marcel Breuer Doctoral School, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary
Energia Design Building Technology Research Group, Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

Search for other papers by Basma Naili in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6139-2840
,
István Háber Energia Design Building Technology Research Group, Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

Search for other papers by István Háber in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
István Kistelegdi Energia Design Building Technology Research Group, Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary
Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary

Search for other papers by István Kistelegdi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

The design of the envelope in high-rise office buildings is a task of great importance as it can impact the entire building's energy performance. The study presented in this paper is an extension of a previous work reporting on the optimization of the façade and the shading systems of an east-west facing high-rise office building. This study aims to investigate the façade geometry design factors for other potential orientations, e.g., south, south-east, and south-west directions. The IDA ICE 4.8 complex dynamic building energy simulation program was used to assess thermal and lighting simulations. The optimization results revealed the best-performing façade configurations, appropriate for each orientation examined in terms of thermal comfort, visual comfort, and energy consumption.

Abstract

The design of the envelope in high-rise office buildings is a task of great importance as it can impact the entire building's energy performance. The study presented in this paper is an extension of a previous work reporting on the optimization of the façade and the shading systems of an east-west facing high-rise office building. This study aims to investigate the façade geometry design factors for other potential orientations, e.g., south, south-east, and south-west directions. The IDA ICE 4.8 complex dynamic building energy simulation program was used to assess thermal and lighting simulations. The optimization results revealed the best-performing façade configurations, appropriate for each orientation examined in terms of thermal comfort, visual comfort, and energy consumption.

1 Introduction

Energy consumption in the building sector has dramatically increased over the past decade leading to the depletion of energy resources and energy-related environmental problems for instance the urban heat island effect and global warming [1, 2]. Currently, over 40% of total primary energy consumption in Europe is attributed to buildings [35].

Poor architectural design can be seen as a major contributor to the intense energy consumption of buildings [6]. Therefore, the application of energy efficiency measures is crucial and should be considered during the design process. The envelope is a key element in architectural design, especially for high-rise buildings, since it covers more than 95% of the building's exterior surface [7]. However, if not efficiently designed, it can affect the entire building's energy consumption and present a considerable energetic disadvantage.

Nevertheless, optimization can be achieved, and significant savings can be made through alternative envelope designs. In this regard, a previous study [8] attempts to promote decision-making strategies in designing zero-energy high-rise buildings. Multi-objective optimization of buildings' design and construction parameters was conducted. The aim was to define the parameters with the highest impact and potential in thermal comfort and energy efficiency. The focus of the case study was a typical high-rise office building In Greece, in the Mediterranean climate zone. Initial simulations were carried out to investigate the effect of window-to-wall ratio, wall U-value, glazing construction U-value, glazing G-value, airtightness of the façade, cooling set-point of the mechanical cooling system, and PhotoVoltaic (PV) façade surface area. Thereafter, in a second step, the tested parameters were window-to-wall ratio, shading area, and PV surface area, adapted for four façade orientations. In the end, the optimizations resulted in a high-performing building that offers significant energy savings of 33%.

A similar study [9] examined the innovative methods in bioclimatic high-rise buildings' envelope design. Based on a systematic analysis the study presented the principles of bioclimatic architecture and investigated the use of double façades in different climate conditions and their interaction with other architectural elements for instance solar chimneys, passive and active solar control systems, landscaping, intelligent control systems of temperature and humidity conditions in premises and buildings, etc. The analysis stated that the façade system is an essential element in climate adaptation and energy efficiency, and further, the most promising strategy for bioclimatic high-rise buildings is the use of multilayer ventilated façade systems, for instance, double-skin façades adapted to climate conditions.

Further research [10] investigated the effect of three different façade types: simple façade, double-skin façade, and double-skin façade filled with Phase-Change Materials (PCM) in glass, for high-rise office buildings in the cities of Jeddah, Abha, and Tabuk in Saudi Arabia. Design builder software was used as a simulation tool to assess the buildings' heat transfer processes in different months of the year, whereby the investigation results revealed the following: In Jeddah and Tabuk city, the application of double-skin façades filled with PCM decreased the energy consumption by 11.5% and 40% in the cold months of the year, and by 5.6% and 25% in the warm months of the year, respectively compared to the simple façade. However, for the city of Abha, the use of the double-skin façade and the double-skin façade filled with phase-change materials was much less effective.

There are only a few existing research studies, which deal with the geometrical aspects of the building skin in high-rises [11, 12]. Thus, further in-depth investigations are still needed on the envelope geometrical design factors, for instance, the perforation and morphological structure of the façade, which can make high-rise office buildings more energy efficient.

Previous research [13, 14] investigated the fenestration geometry parameters; window-to-wall ratio and window orientation, and the grade of façade perforation of an east-west facing high-rise office building situated in the temperate climate zone as well as identified the morphological parameters with the highest impact. This particular study is a follow-up of the previous ones, aiming to analyze the façade geometry design factors for the south, south-east, and south-west oriented high-rise office building cases, based on complex dynamic thermal simulations to achieve thermal and visual comfort and low energy consumption.

2 Methodology

This study aims to investigate the geometrical design parameters of the fenestration and the folded façade perforation shape of a high-rise office building skin, designed with south, south-east, and south-west orientations. The tests search for the parameters with the highest potential for further optimization in comfort and energy performance.

To conduct this research, a typical high-rise office building was modeled, with 88.0 m in height, situated in the temperate climate zone. Figure 1 shows the 3D model of the 20-story office building. The IDA ICE 4.8 energy simulation engine was adopted as an evaluating tool to assess: thermal comfort (No. of hours with operative temperatures, Top ≥ 26 °C Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) level, i.e., the carbon dioxide concentration), visual comfort (average Daylight Factor, DFave), and heating and cooling final energy demand (kWh m−2) of the interior office spaces.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

3D building model developed in IDA ICE 4.8 with the investigated ‘reference’ storeys

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

The simulations were conducted on each office level (lowest, middle, and top levels). The results of these tests indicate similar values on different levels (2nd, 10th, and 20th) of the high-rise building. The adjacent built neighborhood contains low-rise buildings and did not affect the results of this study. The investigation took place in three phases.

In the first step, the southern orientation was investigated; therefore, the two largest façades of the building were pointed towards the north and south directions. Then, to gradually upgrade the building envelope, three façade configurations were implemented: a simple curtain wall façade, used as a reference model, a simple double-skin façade, and a double-skin façade zig-zag consisting of two different horizontally tilted façade faces. The upper face was covered with an Insulated Sandwich Panel (ISP), a double-sided aluminum Sandwich structure with Expanded Polystyrene Sandwich (EPS), whereas the lower surface remained glazed. The façade folding was applied only to the south and the tilt angles tested were 20°, 30°, and 40°, see Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

South-oriented façade typologies

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

Finally, two different glazing and shading configurations were used to provide further energy savings: the best performing configurations from the previous studies [13, 14], an external shading blind with sun control (≥100 W m−2 solar radiation at outer pane draws shading) and solar protective glazing. The fifteen façade scenarios assessed are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

South oriented façade scenarios

Façade scenarios (FS)Folding anglesShadingISP
Curtain wall façadeFS 01No folding angleNo ShadingNo ISPs
FS 02No folding angleShading BlindNo ISPs
FS 03No folding angleSolar protective glazingNo ISPs
Double-skin façadeFS 04No folding angleNo ShadingNo ISPs
FS 05No folding angleShading BlindNo ISPs
FS 06No folding angleSolar protective glazingNo ISPs
Double-skin façade zig-zag (horizontal)FS 0720° southNo ShadingWith ISPs
FS 0820° southShading BlindWith ISPs
FS 0920° southSolar protective glazingWith ISPs
FS 1030° southNo ShadingWith ISPs
FS 1130° southShading BlindWith ISPs
FS 1230° southSolar protective glazingWith ISPs
FS 1340° southNo ShadingWith ISPs
FS 1440° southShading BlindWith ISPs
FS 1540° southSolar protective glazingWith ISPs

The second step was done by employing the south-west orientation of the first investigation cases (three different types of façades): a simple curtain wall façade, a double-skin façade, and a double-skin façade, zig-zag consisting of two diagonal tilted façade faces. The ISPs were added to each second south-oriented face of the zig-zag façade surfaces to provide effective shading from solar radiation from the south. The tilt angles tested were 20° and 30°, respectively (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

South-East oriented façade typologies

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

The diagonal zig-zag configuration was applied first on one side of the building, the south-east direction, then on both sides, the south-east and north-west directions. Thereafter, different glazing types and shading automation were used, to have a total of eighteen façade scenarios, as it is described in Table 2.

Table 2.

South-East oriented façade scenarios

Façade scenarios (FS)Folding anglesShadingISP
Curtain wall façadeFS 01No folding angleNo ShadingNo ISPs
FS 02No folding angleShading BlindNo ISPs
FS 03No folding angleSolar protective glazingNo ISPs
Double-skin façadeFS 04No folding angleNo ShadingNo ISPs
FS 05No folding angleShading BlindNo ISPs
FS 06No folding angleSolar protective glazingNo ISPs
Double-skin façade zig-zag (diagonal)FS 0720° south-eastNo ShadingWith ISPs
FS 0820° south-eastShading BlindWith ISPs
FS 0920° south-eastSolar protective glazingWith ISPs
FS 1020° south-east, north-westNo ShadingWith ISPs
FS 1120° south-east, north-westShading BlindWith ISPs
FS 1220° south-east, north-westSolar protective glazingWith ISPs
FS 1330° south-eastNo ShadingWith ISPs
FS 1430° south-eastShading BlindWith ISPs
FS 1530° south-eastSolar protective glazingWith ISPs
FS 1630° south-east, north-westNo ShadingWith ISPs
FS 1730° south-east, north-westShading BlindWith ISPs
FS 1830° south-east, north-westSolar protective glazingWith ISPs

The third step was very similar to the previous, with the difference that the different model cases were set in the south-west oriented position; the curtain wall façade, the double-skin façade, the diagonal double-skin façade, the folding angles, the shadings, and the control mechanism, were applied this time for the south-east orientation.

It should be noted that the depth of the simple dual-shell façade cavity is 1.4 m, while the tilted proposed designs possess cavity depth in a range of 0.8–1.9 m. The air volume remains the same in all models. The façade details and thermal properties presented are described as in a previous façade study [13, 14].

3 Results and discussion

3.1 South oriented models with horizontal folded structure: results

The cooling and heating energy results (see Fig. 4) showed the highest energy consumption in the curtain wall façade group. With the integration of the double-skin façade, the consumption was reduced by 51% in FS01 vs. FS 04; 58% in FS02 vs. FS05 and 48% in FS03 vs. FS06. Afterward, with the horizontal folding of the façade (the double-skin façade zig-zag), the consumption decreased further by 70% in FS01 vs. FS13; 70% in FS02 vs. FS14; 54%, and FS03 vs. FS15, compared to the curtain wall façade, and by 39% in FS04 vs. FS13; 29% FS05 vs. FS14 and 10% FS06 vs. FS15 compared to the simple double-skin façade. The best performing model was the FS15, with the 40° slope angle and solar protective glazing, having achieved over 54% energy savings in total and 67% in cooling compared to FS03. The 20° and 30° slope angle cases group achieved high energy savings as well. However, FS12, with the 30° slope angle and solar protective glazing represents a great option, as it achieved 53% savings and it's considered the ideal choice for PV installation (It represents the optimal tilt angle for the country [1517]). The results showed low differences (<15%) in the 3 tilted cases, meaning that the façade tilt angle has no or little effect on the energy performance.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Results: cooling, heating, and total

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

The characteristics of the thermal comfort results, assessing the number of hours with Top ≥ 26 °C (see Fig. 5), were very similar to the energy simulation evaluations. The double-skin façade zig-zag models were the best and performed the highest thermal comfort levels. The worst performing model was FS04, with over 1781 discomfort hours Top ≥ 26 °C, due to the overheating of the double-skin façade cavity in the absence of shading. The application of the shading blind reduced the discomfort hours for all model cases, but the sun protective glazing decreased them even further. The best performing models were FS03, FS09, FS12, and FS15 with no discomfort hours. For the Indoor Air Quality level (IAQmean), assessing the carbon dioxide concentration in the interior office spaces, see Fig. 5 as well. The results range between 614 and 648 ppm for all façade scenarios, which can be considered as high-performing IAQ results due to the mechanical ventilation settings.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Results: indoor air quality and thermal comfort

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

In the visual comfort evaluations (see Fig. 6), the DFave results showed that the highest DF level was in the curtain wall façade cases, as it has the highest level of light transmittance. It then decreased with the addition of the simple and double-skin façade zig-zag. Nevertheless, all the results can be regarded as sufficient by overriding the minimum threshold DFave value of 1.7 [18].

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Results: visual comfort

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

3.2 SE, SW oriented models with vertical folded and tilted structures: results

The results of the energy and comfort simulations of the south-east and south-west-oriented models were similar. Therefore, the section below presents only the results of the south-east-oriented models.

The energy simulation results presented in Fig. 7 showed that the double-skin façade versions could achieve considerable energy savings compared to the curtain wall façade versions: 51% in FS04 vs. FS01; 62% FS05 vs. FS02 and 48% FS06 vs. FS03. The double-skin façade zig-zag versions performed better, compared to the simple double-skin façade versions, especially when the diagonal (tilted) folding was applied on two façade sides of the building (south-east, and north-west). The integration of the shading devices has further reduced energy consumption. The best efficiency was achieved in each case group by the solar protective glazing. The most efficient façade configuration was the double-skin façade zig-zag FS18 with the 30° tilt angle, as it could decrease the overall energy demand by 56%, and the cooling by 72%, compared to FS3. This is mainly due to the application of the tilted façade zig-zag on both sides of the building, the use of the insulated Sandwich panels to the south, and the solar protective glazing. Figure 8 points out the reduction of solar load between blinds vs. solar glazing (33–43%), simple skin vs. double skin (45–56%) and plane vs. zig-zag geometry (55%) of the façade.

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7.

Results: cooling, heating, and total

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8.

Results: solar loads

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

The thermal comfort results in Fig. 9, showed that double-skin façades with no shading were the least efficient models, but with the integration of the blinds and the solar protective glazing the results improved. The best results were observed for FS03, FS09, FS12, FS15, and FS18 (with no discomfort hours). The double skin façade zig-zag case groups performed the best and reached the least number of discomfort hours overall. The IAQ values were acceptable and varied between 611 and 649 ppm for all façade scenarios.

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9.

Results: indoor air quality and thermal comfort

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

Finally, Fig. 10 showed that the average DF results in all façade scenarios were above the minimum threshold of 1.7, therefore, the performance of all the façade types is considered acceptable.

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10.

Results: visual comfort

Citation: Pollack Periodica 18, 2; 10.1556/606.2022.00699

4 Conclusion

In the present study, the effect of the fenestration geometry design factors, the folded façade perforation, and the orientation on a high-rise office building envelope were investigated. Several façade configurations of a typical high-rise office building in temperate climate were tested, assessing thermal comfort, visual comfort, and energy performance.

The three orientations discussed in this study were: the south, the south-east, and the south-west. The investigation results showed that the integration of the simple double-skin façade and then the double-skin façade with the different façade's morphology designs, the horizontal and the diagonal double façade zig-zag, significantly reduced the overall building energy consumption and consequently increased the level of comfort in the working area. As for the south orientation, the results showed that FS15 (south) with horizontal folded (zig-zag 40°) double-skin façade and solar protective glazing was the best performing model by reducing the total energy consumption by 58%. For both, the south-east and south-west orientations, the most efficient model was FS18 (south-west, north-west), the diagonal folded (zig-zag 30°) double-skin façade with solar protective glazing, which could reduce the energy consumption by more than 56% while maintaining a great level of thermal and visual comfort. The energy improvements were based on the considerable reduction of solar loads in summer. It should be emphasized that the insulated Sandwich panels used on the façades could well be replaced with PV panels, and thus take advantage of solar energy and further improve building performance. Eventually, optimization can be achieved with high-performing façade configurations, nevertheless, it is highly recommended to combine it with an efficient ventilation system that applies natural ventilation. Taken together, this will offer a novel perspective for similarly oriented high-rise office building envelope structures. Future research may extend this work by implementing hybrid (natural + mechanical) ventilation.

References

  • [1]

    N. Taib, A. Abdullah, S. F. S. Fadzil, and F. S. Yeok, “An assessment of thermal comfort and users’ perceptions of landscape gardens in a high-rise office building,” J. Sustain. Develop., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 153164, 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    A. Allouhi, Y. El Fouih, T. Kousksou, A. Jamil, Y. Zeraouli, and Y. Mourad, “Energy consumption and efficiency in buildings: current status and future trends,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 109, pp. 118130, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    X. Cao, X. Dai, and J. Liu, “Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy buildings during the past decade,” Energy Build., vol. 128, pp. 198213, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    E. Giama, “Review on ventilation systems for building applications in terms of energy efficiency and environmental impact assessment,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 1, 2021. Paper no. 98.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    E. D. Giouri, M. Tenpierik, and M. Turrin, “Zero energy potential of a high-rise office building in a Mediterranean climate: using multi-objective optimization to understand the impact of design decisions towards zero-energy high-rise buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 209, 2020, Paper no. 109666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    B. Raji, M. J. Tenpierik, and A. van den Dobbelsteen, “A comparative study: design strategies for energy-efficiency of high-rise office buildings,” J. Green Build., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 134158, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    M. Ali and P. J. Armstrong, “Overview of sustainable design factors in high-rise buildings,” in CTBUH 2008 8th World Congress on Tall & Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban Future, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, March 3–5, 2008, pp. 282291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    E. D. Giouri, M. Tenpierik, and M. Turrin, “Zero energy potential of a high-rise office building in a Mediterranean climate: using multi-objective optimization to understand the impact of design decisions towards zero-energy high-rise buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 209, 2020, Paper no. 109666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    E. Generalova, V. Generalov, and A. Kuznetsova, “Innovative solutions for building envelopes of bioclimatical high-rise buildings,” in Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference on Environment, Technologies, Resources, Rezekne, Latvia, June 15, 2017, vol. 1, pp. 103108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    S. Alqaed, “Effect of annual solar radiation on simple façade, double-skin façade and double-skin façade filled with phase change materials for saving energy,” Sustainable Energy Tech. Assessments, vol. 51, 2022, Paper no. 101928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    T. Saroglou, T. Theodosiou, B. Givoni, and I. A. Meir, “A study of different envelope scenarios towards low carbon high-rise buildings in the Mediterranean climate - can DSF be part of the solution?,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 113, 2019, Paper no. 109237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    T. Saroglou, T. Theodosiou, B. Givoni, and I. A. Meir, “Studies on the optimum double-skin curtain wall design for high-rise buildings in the Mediterranean climate,” Energy Build, vol. 208, 2020, Paper no. 109641.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    B. Naili, I. Haber, and I. Kistelegdi, “Simulation-supported design of high-rise office building envelope,” Pollack Period., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 139144, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    B. Naili, I. Haber, and I. Kistelegdi, “Performance trade-off in high-rise office building envelope,” Pollack Period., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 121126, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    A. K. Yadav and S. S. Chandel, “Tilt angle optimization to maximize incident solar radiation: a review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 23, pp. 503513, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    P. Talebizadeh, M. A. Mehrabian, and M. Abdolzadeh, “Prediction of the optimum slope and surface azimuth angles using the Genetic Algorithm,” Energy Build., vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 29983005, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    M. Z. Jacobson and V. Jadhav, “World estimates of PV optimal tilt angles and ratios of sunlight incident upon tilted and tracked PV panels relative to horizontal panels,” Solar Energy, vol. 169, pp. 5566, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    J. Mardaljevic and J. Christoffersen, “Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards,” Build. Environ., vol. 113, pp. 200209, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [1]

    N. Taib, A. Abdullah, S. F. S. Fadzil, and F. S. Yeok, “An assessment of thermal comfort and users’ perceptions of landscape gardens in a high-rise office building,” J. Sustain. Develop., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 153164, 2010.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    A. Allouhi, Y. El Fouih, T. Kousksou, A. Jamil, Y. Zeraouli, and Y. Mourad, “Energy consumption and efficiency in buildings: current status and future trends,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 109, pp. 118130, 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    X. Cao, X. Dai, and J. Liu, “Building energy-consumption status worldwide and the state-of-the-art technologies for zero-energy buildings during the past decade,” Energy Build., vol. 128, pp. 198213, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    E. Giama, “Review on ventilation systems for building applications in terms of energy efficiency and environmental impact assessment,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 1, 2021. Paper no. 98.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    E. D. Giouri, M. Tenpierik, and M. Turrin, “Zero energy potential of a high-rise office building in a Mediterranean climate: using multi-objective optimization to understand the impact of design decisions towards zero-energy high-rise buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 209, 2020, Paper no. 109666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    B. Raji, M. J. Tenpierik, and A. van den Dobbelsteen, “A comparative study: design strategies for energy-efficiency of high-rise office buildings,” J. Green Build., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 134158, 2016.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    M. Ali and P. J. Armstrong, “Overview of sustainable design factors in high-rise buildings,” in CTBUH 2008 8th World Congress on Tall & Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban Future, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, March 3–5, 2008, pp. 282291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    E. D. Giouri, M. Tenpierik, and M. Turrin, “Zero energy potential of a high-rise office building in a Mediterranean climate: using multi-objective optimization to understand the impact of design decisions towards zero-energy high-rise buildings,” Energy Build., vol. 209, 2020, Paper no. 109666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    E. Generalova, V. Generalov, and A. Kuznetsova, “Innovative solutions for building envelopes of bioclimatical high-rise buildings,” in Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference on Environment, Technologies, Resources, Rezekne, Latvia, June 15, 2017, vol. 1, pp. 103108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [10]

    S. Alqaed, “Effect of annual solar radiation on simple façade, double-skin façade and double-skin façade filled with phase change materials for saving energy,” Sustainable Energy Tech. Assessments, vol. 51, 2022, Paper no. 101928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    T. Saroglou, T. Theodosiou, B. Givoni, and I. A. Meir, “A study of different envelope scenarios towards low carbon high-rise buildings in the Mediterranean climate - can DSF be part of the solution?,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 113, 2019, Paper no. 109237.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [12]

    T. Saroglou, T. Theodosiou, B. Givoni, and I. A. Meir, “Studies on the optimum double-skin curtain wall design for high-rise buildings in the Mediterranean climate,” Energy Build, vol. 208, 2020, Paper no. 109641.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [13]

    B. Naili, I. Haber, and I. Kistelegdi, “Simulation-supported design of high-rise office building envelope,” Pollack Period., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 139144, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [14]

    B. Naili, I. Haber, and I. Kistelegdi, “Performance trade-off in high-rise office building envelope,” Pollack Period., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 121126, 2022.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [15]

    A. K. Yadav and S. S. Chandel, “Tilt angle optimization to maximize incident solar radiation: a review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 23, pp. 503513, 2013.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [16]

    P. Talebizadeh, M. A. Mehrabian, and M. Abdolzadeh, “Prediction of the optimum slope and surface azimuth angles using the Genetic Algorithm,” Energy Build., vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 29983005, 2011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [17]

    M. Z. Jacobson and V. Jadhav, “World estimates of PV optimal tilt angles and ratios of sunlight incident upon tilted and tracked PV panels relative to horizontal panels,” Solar Energy, vol. 169, pp. 5566, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [18]

    J. Mardaljevic and J. Christoffersen, “Climate connectivity’ in the daylight factor basis of building standards,” Build. Environ., vol. 113, pp. 200209, 2017.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
Submit Your Manuscript
 
The author instructions template is available in MS Word.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Amália

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Péter

 

Scientific Secretary

Miklós M. Iványi

Editorial Board

  • Bálint Bachmann (Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Jeno Balogh (Department of Civil Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA)
  • Radu Bancila (Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Terrestrial Communications Ways, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, “Politehnica” University Timisoara, Romania)
  • Charalambos C. Baniotopolous (Department of Civil Engineering, Chair of Sustainable Energy Systems, Director of Resilience Centre, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.)
  • Oszkar Biro (Graz University of Technology, Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Austria)
  • Ágnes Borsos (Institute of Architecture, Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Matteo Bruggi (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
  • Petra Bujňáková (Department of Structures and Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Slovakia)
  • Anikó Borbála Csébfalvi (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Mirjana S. Devetaković (Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Szabolcs Fischer (Department of Transport Infrastructure and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Architerture, Civil Engineering and Transport Sciences Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Radomir Folic (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad Serbia)
  • Jana Frankovská (Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • János Gyergyák (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Kay Hameyer (Chair in Electromagnetic Energy Conversion, Institute of Electrical Machines, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
  • Elena Helerea (Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania)
  • Ákos Hutter (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technolgy, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Károly Jármai (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Teuta Jashari-Kajtazi (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina, Kosovo)
  • Róbert Kersner (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Rita Kiss  (Biomechanical Cooperation Center, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • István Kistelegdi  (Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Stanislav Kmeť (President of University Science Park TECHNICOM, Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia)
  • Imre Kocsis  (Department of Basic Engineering Research, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • László T. Kóczy (Department of Information Sciences, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, University of Győr, Hungary)
  • Dražan Kozak (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia)
  • György L. Kovács (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Balázs Géza Kövesdi (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Engineering and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tomáš Krejčí (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Jaroslav Kruis (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Miklós Kuczmann (Department of Automations, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Tibor Kukai (Department of Engineering Studies, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Maria Jesus Lamela-Rey (Departamento de Construcción e Ingeniería de Fabricación, University of Oviedo, Spain)
  • János Lógó  (Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary)
  • Carmen Mihaela Lungoci (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Universitatea Transilvania Brasov, Romania)
  • Frédéric Magoulés (Department of Mathematics and Informatics for Complex Systems, Centrale Supélec, Université Paris Saclay, France)
  • Gabriella Medvegy (Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Tamás Molnár (Department of Visual Studies, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Ferenc Orbán (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán Orbán (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Dmitrii Rachinskii (Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA)
  • Chro Radha (Chro Ali Hamaradha) (Sulaimani Polytechnic University, Technical College of Engineering, Department of City Planning, Kurdistan Region, Iraq)
  • Maurizio Repetto (Department of Energy “Galileo Ferraris”, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
  • Zoltán Sári (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Grzegorz Sierpiński (Department of Transport Systems and Traffic Engineering, Faculty of Transport, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland)
  • Zoltán Siménfalvi (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Andrej Šoltész (Department of Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • Zsolt Szabó (Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary)
  • Mykola Sysyn (Chair of Planning and Design of Railway Infrastructure, Institute of Railway Systems and Public Transport, Technical University of Dresden, Germany)
  • András Timár (Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Barry H. V. Topping (Heriot-Watt University, UK, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)

POLLACK PERIODICA
Pollack Mihály Faculty of Engineering
Institute: University of Pécs
Address: Boszorkány utca 2. H–7624 Pécs, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36 72) 503 650

E-mail: peter.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu 

or amalia.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • SCOPUS
  • CABELLS Journalytics

 

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
14
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.298
Scimago Quartile Score

Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation (Q3)
Software (Q3)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1.4
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 256/350 (27th PCTL)
Modeling and Simulation 244/316 (22nd PCTL)
General Materials Science 351/453 (22nd PCTL)
Computer Science Applications 616/792 (22nd PCTL)
Software 344/404 (14th PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
0.861

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
12
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,26
Scimago Quartile Score Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q4)
Modeling and Simulation (Q4)
Software (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 232/326 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 536/747 (Q3)
General Materials Science 329/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 228/303 (Q4)
Software 326/398 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,613

2020  
Scimago
H-index
11
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,257
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
340/243=1,4
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 219/318 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 487/693 (Q3)
General Materials Science 316/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 217/290 (Q4)
Software 307/389 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
1,09
Scopus
Cites
321
Scopus
Documents
67
Days from submission to acceptance 136
Days from acceptance to publication 239
Acceptance
Rate
48%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
10
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,262
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
269/220=1,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 206/310 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 445/636 (Q3)
General Materials Science 295/460 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 212/274 (Q4)
Software 304/373 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,933
Scopus
Cites
290
Scopus
Documents
68
Acceptance
Rate
67%

 

Pollack Periodica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 336 EUR / 411 USD
Print + online subscription: 405 EUR / 492 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

 

Pollack Periodica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2006
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1788-1994 (Print)
ISSN 1788-3911 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Sep 2023 0 54 36
Oct 2023 0 129 52
Nov 2023 0 89 47
Dec 2023 0 168 26
Jan 2024 0 269 59
Feb 2024 0 242 32
Mar 2024 0 53 0