Determining the potential risks of naturally ventilated double skin façades

Double skin facade (DSF) as a passive renewable technique has been widely used due to its ability to reduce energy consumption by enhancing natural ventilation. However, previous studies mainly focused on its optimization designs, and its potential risks as determining factors have been less explored. This study reviewed three typical potential risks of DSF, including overheating, structural, and fire risks, and analyzed their manifestations, influencing factors, and possible mitigation. The overheating risk, mainly from direct sunlight and inadequate ventilation, can be mitigated by optimizing DSF design parameters or adding additional components. Windinduced vibration, earthquake, or blast impact are the causes of the second risk, structural damage to DSFs. Appropriate building shapes and vent sizes can improve airflow inside and outside the DSF and reduce windinduced vibrations. Regarding strong shocks, dampers can be used to eliminate excessive movement. Heat and smoke from a fire show complex coupling effects on the structures of DSFs, propagating along the cavity and causing flame spread, glass cracking, and else. Optimizing DSF design parameters and adding perforated plates and refractory glass can reduce the risk of fire to DSF. It is crucial to consider the relevance of the thermal performance of various DSFs to safety. Different types of DSFs have different potential risks, so it is necessary to fully consider not only their energy performance but also their application scenarios and the corresponding areas where risks will occur. This study provides a guideline for designing and optimizing DSFs regarding risk mitigations.

Automated summary

This study reviewed three potential risks of double skin facade (DSF): overheating, structural, and fire risks. It analyzed their manifestations, influencing factors, and possible mitigation strategies. The study found that optimizing design parameters or adding components can reduce overheating risk, improving building shapes and vent sizes can reduce structural risk, and optimizing design parameters and adding specific materials can mitigate fire risk. The study emphasizes the importance of considering the energy performance, application scenarios, and corresponding risk areas of different types of DSFs.