See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320761931

Evaluation of adaptive facades: The case study of Al Bahr Towers in the UAE

Article in QScience Connect · October 2017

DOI: 10.5339/connect.2017.qgbc.6

CITATIONS READS

61 6,185

1 author:

Shady Attia
University of Liège
250 PUBLICATIONS 4,964 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shady Attia on 14 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 OPEN ACCESS Research article

Evaluation of adaptive facades:

The case study of Al Bahr Towers
in the UAE
Shady Attia*

Sustainable Building Design Lab, UEE,

Applied Sciences, Liège University, ABSTRACT
Liège, Belgium
The assessment of adaptive facades presents a barrier as there is no established assessment
*Email: [email protected]
technique. Many of the available facade performance evaluation systems or frameworks have limited
applicability for such advanced building facades. The complexity of adaptive or dynamic facades’
evaluation is related to the performance evaluation of facade elements, systems, and overall building
performance coupled with occupant behavior and occupant satisfaction. In this context, this paper
presents a case study of an adaptive sunscreen facade and evaluation of its performance and occupant
behavior. The evaluation mainly focuses on pre- and post-construction phases of adaptive facades: the
design assist phase (including the durability test, visual mockup, onsite mashrabiya mounting, and
weather stripping), the commissioning phase (field verification and performance testing), and the
monitoring phase. The selected project is a 150-meter-high twin tower that stands with a honeycomb-
inspired structure and automated dynamic solar screen that responds to the sun’s movement. These
solar screens respond dynamically and automatically to the angle of the sun, which improves the
control over energy consumption, solar radiation, and glare with the ability to allow natural light into
the building. This paper is part of the research activities of working group 3 of the European COST
Action 1403 on “Adaptive Facades”. Different methods were used for evaluation and these include the
following: interviews with the architect, facade engineer, technical control specialist and occupants,
reviews of standards and codes, review of energy models, and a systematic design process mapping.
A documentation of the case study describing the post-construction occupant comfort and facade
operation was prepared. This paper’s audience comprises mainly project managers, architects, and
building facade engineers together with facility managers who are concerned with the process of
design, construction, and operation of adaptive sunscreens facades. The outcome of this study
identifies quantifiable performance indicators and effective strategies for the design and performance
evaluation of optimal adaptive facades.

http://dx.doi.org/
10.5339/connect.2017.qgbc.6 Keywords: sunscreens, occupant comfort, solar gain, daylight, operation and control
Submitted: 8 May 2016
Accepted: 13 August 2017
ª 2017 Attia, licensee HBKU Press.
This is an open access article
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution
license CC BY 4.0, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is
properly cited.

Cite this article as: Attia S. Evaluation of adaptive facades: The case study of Al Bahr Towers in the
UAE, QScience Connect , Shaping Qatar’s Sustainable Built Environment – 2 2017:6
http://dx.doi.org/10.5339/connect.2017.qgbc.6
 Page 2 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

1. INTRODUCTION
In a world confronting environmental challenges, there is an earnest requirement for dynamic building
envelopes that respond to climatic changes in an ideal way, thereby giving the best comfort and indoor
environmental quality, while keeping up high effectiveness. Adaptive facades can provide step-change
upgrades in the energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy while improving the comfort of
buildings for tenants. In this manner, they are vital in accomplishing Europe’s 2020 targets.1 Adaptive
facades are building envelopes that can adjust to changing climatic conditions on an hourly, daily,
seasonal, or annual basis. Here the word “adaptive” means the capacity to react or profit from outside
climatic conditions to meet productivity and more essentially to successfully meet the inhabitant’s
comfort and well-being.2 Adaptive facades are multi-objective, high performance envelopes that, unlike
static curtain walls, respond mechanically or chemically to external climate dynamics to meet inside
load requirements (cooling, heating, lighting, or ventilation) and occupants’ needs.3
Various existing projects integrating adaptive building envelopes are constructed worldwide.
According to the Climate Adaptive Building Shells (CABS) database, which is continuously updated,
there are at the moment more than 500 examples of buildings with adaptive facades.4 However,
detailed data on the performance, design, and construction process of those facades are not
commonly available. Commissioning and construction verification details, performance data about
adaptive facade’s monitored operational performance and post-occupancy evaluations are lacking in
literature.5 – 7 Currently, European research in the field of adaptive building envelopes is coined by
numerous nationally funded projects. COST Action TU1403 is one among those projects that aim to
create a knowledge transfer between the individual research institutes among each other and the
industry. The initiated COST Action TU1403 “Adaptive Facades Network” aims to pool together
knowledge, technologies, and research from across European countries and beyond. The initiated
COST Action TU1403 project started in 2014 and will run for four years. Currently, 26 COST member
countries and Liechtenstein, China, and Australia are involved in this COST Action project with more
than 80 participants from research institutions and industries.8 The main objective of this action is to
harmonize, share, and disseminate technological knowledge on adaptive facades at the European
level. This will lead to increased knowledge sharing between European research centers and between
these centers and the industry, thereby leading to the development of novel concepts, technologies,
and new combinations of existing technologies for adaptive facades, as well as gaining knowledge on
effective evaluation tools/design methods for adaptive facades. As part of Workgroup 3, we address
challenges and identify gaps in the systematic assessment and operation of such solutions, in terms of
both commissioning and operation, through literature review and mapping analysis.9,22 Therefore, the
aim of this study was to investigate the adaptive facade of a 150-meter-high twin tower with a unique
honeycomb-inspired structure and an automated dynamic solar screen.
Today, there are a great number of facades and envelopes’ technologies that are readily available in
the market. The decision as to how they are designed, operated, maintained, and assessed remains a
challenge. Our case study, presented in this paper seeks to provide better understanding of their
design process, modeling, and real performance. It will help illustrate the benefits as well as the
challenges seen in specific solutions with respect to energy use, comfort, operation, and maintenance.
Currently, only a limited number of case studies have been documented.5,6 This includes Al Bahr
Towers in Dubai,7 AGC Building in Louvain La Neuve,10 and the BIQ house in Hamburg.11 The decision
as to how they are designed, operated, maintained, and assessed remains undisclosed and this in turn
affects the wide expansion of adaptive facades. The paper is mainly concerned with the adaptive
facades’ system design and assessment. The work group explores to understand how adaptive facades
were designed and assessed during the following major project delivery phases:
1. Predesign and design process;
2. Schematic and conceptual design;
3. Design development and construction;
4. Design assist (pre-construction testing);
5. Commissioning;
6. Occupant operation (behavior);
7. Post-occupancy evaluation and monitoring.
In this paper, different research methods were used for the case study, including: literature review, site
visit, interviews with the architect, facade engineer, glass manufacturer, commissioning agents, reviews
 Page 3 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

of standards and codes, and systematic process mapping. Within the scope of this study, we present
a case study description and technical details for the adaptive facade of Al Bahr Towers. The case
study provides significant insights into the design and construction process and the overlap between
the glass product development and manufacturing and the building delivery process including
mockups and onsite testing and verification. Section 2 begins with the description of the research
methodology followed in the present work. Section 3 describes the case study and discusses the main
findings of the literature review. Section 4 presents the paper findings and results along with three
themes: (i) process mapping, (ii) interviews result, and (iii) performance evaluation. Sections 5 and
6 conclude with setting a list of learned lessons, emphasizing the need for addressing some of
the recommendations and key performance indicators to guarantee a successful performance of
adaptive facades.

2. METHODOLOGY
The goal of this work was to describe in detail the process of design, construction, and use of an
adaptive glass facade of Al Bahr Towers, and to evaluate its performance. Furthermore, it aims to
propose a generic performance process map that could be used as a visual guideline support by
companies in the building industry. First of all, several existing documents were reviewed. Almost all Al
Bahr Towers publications6,7,12 – 15 as well as the different standards and codes used for the building
design and construction were reviewed, including: the CWCT16 Standard Test Methods for Building
Envelopes and British standards including the BS6399-2:1997, loading for buildings, and code of
practice for wind loads.23 Secondly, a design and construction process map was developed. The
development of such a map required more than a literature review. Indeed, the created map had to be
validated and tested through live one-to-one interviews with different project stakeholders. Thus, this
case study follows an iterative loop of development, test, and review of information as presented
below:
1. Extraction of the required information on actual integrated processes from the literature with a main
focus on the three specific points (steps, roles, and tools).
2. Development of a map of the design process based on the previous information.
3. Correction of the map conceived in Step 2 by conducting interviews with architects or engineers
involved in the Al Bahr Towers project.
4. Final discussion and recodification of the maps.
5. Comparison with literature – back to Step 1.
The software MindMap was used to realize global and specific maps of the project delivery process.
This software allowed drawing clearly hierarchical scales, task charges suite, and information flows.
To limit the scope of the process map, we focused on the identification and modeling of generic
processes that were associated with the Al Bahr Towers project delivery. The generic process
identification can be generalized and used as a check-list for future designs of adaptive facades.
Therefore, we focused on the following three main questions:
. Steps: what series of phases an integrated process has to pass through and what are the
determinant criteria for each step?
. Roles: repartition on the responsibilities and scope of work, who must do what, how, and when?
. Tools: which software is used during the process and for what purpose?
STEPS

TOOLS ROLES

Creating a process map involved systematic data-based interviews. Interviewees were asked to
explain exactly what they did during the project delivery of Al Bahr Towers as well as to share their
technical challenges and to express their expectations. For every interviewee, a scope was defined
identifying the parameters he or she was dealing with during the project. A technical drawing software
program was used to visualize the process. After completing the first round of interviews, interviewees
were asked for feedback (reviews) and confirmation to validate the process maps. Finally, a
documentation of the case study was prepared, thereby describing the post-construction occupant
 Page 4 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

comfort and facade operation. The evaluation focuses mainly on preconstruction and post-
construction phases of adaptive facades. We conducted several interviews mainly with the
towers’ designer, Abdulmajid Karanouh, director of facade design and engineering as well as the
technical control specialist.
The third part of the study addresses occupant satisfaction and thermal comfort of Al-Bahr
occupants. Physical monitoring was not allowed by the building manager and the facility manager
could not share any real consumption or comfort data. Therefore, we opted to use questionnaires for
indoor environmental quality assessment. A total of 22 employees responded to our online survey
comprising multiple choice questions with one or more responses and short or long open answers
(not exceeding 10 minutes). The questionnaire was based on Annex “Thermal Environment E2
Satisfaction Survey” of the standard ASHRAE17 55 and the Center of Built Environment standard
questionnaire that seemed complementary.24

3. CASE STUDY
Abu Dhabi Investment Council is the investment arm of the Government of Abu Dhabi that is
responsible for investing part of the government’s surplus financial resources. In 2008, the Abu Dhabi
Investment Council launched an international competition for its new headquarters. The new
headquarters is located on the North Shore of Abu Dhabi Island, overlooking the Eastern Mangroves
and toward Sadiyaat island and the Persian Gulf beyond. Therefore, the project was named Al Bahr
( ), which means “the sea” in Arabic. Abu Dhabi experiences hot and humid climate and extremely
sunny days with temperature and humidity reaching 498C and 100%, respectively during summer.
Aiming to design two iconic towers, the design brief called for two 25 story towers to create an
outstanding landmark reflecting the regions’ architectural heritage together with the corporate status of
the clients’ organization. The primary business functions of the towers include financial transactions,
brokering, and dealing including Al Hilal Bank. At the same time, the project brief requested a
contemporary sustainable building using modern technology without setting any performance or
certification requirement.21

3.1. Concept
The project concept is inspired by the traditional Islamic object the “Mashrabiya” ( ) and motifs to
stand out with two circular towers covered by a honeycomb-inspired structure and its automated
dynamic solar screen. The “Mashrabiya” is a wooden lattice screen found in traditional Islamic
architecture and used as a device for achieving privacy and environmental control including natural
ventilation, solar control, and glare reduction. The project area is 56,000 square meters primarily for
office use (Bank). The design submitted by architect Abulmajid Karanouh (Aedas) offers two 150-meter-
high circular towers clad with curtain wall covered with a kinetic shading system (Figure 1a). The tower
floor is open plan office spaces with service core. In some floors, the space is divided into cellular
offices and meeting rooms. Each tower has a two-level basement with 24-story office space that
includes catering, auditoria, prayer rooms, gymnasium, and plant rooms. There is a basement for car
parking and secure vaults for banking services. Following an international design competition, the
client chose the striking concept submitted by a UK-based multidisciplinary design team (Aedas/Arup).
There is an entrance podium for both towers covered with a 100-m curved roof. The buildings are fully
air-conditioned with various back areas associated with storage and catering.
Finally, the project won the 2012 Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) Innovation
Award5. The project concept was placed second at the Emporis Skyscraper Award – the world’s
premier event for high-rise architecture – for projects completed in 2012. The project has been featured
on the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat’s “Innovative 20” list of buildings
that challenge the typology of tall buildings in the 21st century.

3.2. The envelope

The two circular towers are clad with weather-tight glass curtain wall. The curtain wall is comprised of
unitized panels with a floor-to-floor height of 4200 mm and a variable width of 900 –120 mm. From
floor to ceiling, the vision area of the curtain wall spans 3100 mm. The curtain wall is separated from
the kinetic shading system through a substructure by means of movement joints. The fixation of the
substructure movement joints (cantilever struts) is at the first basement, ground floor, and podium
 Page 5 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

Figure 1. (a) Northern facade and (b) south facade of Al Bahr Towers, with some opened and closed shading
devices – coordinates: 248 27’ 23” N, 548 24’ 4” E; alt: 3m (photo courtesy: Terry Boake).

levels, thereby allowing them to respond independently from the substructure. The dynamic
shading system is a screen comprised of triangulate units such as origami umbrellas. The triangular
units act as individual shading devices that unfold to various angles in response to the sun’s
movement in order to obstruct the direct solar radiation. Each mashrabiya was conceived as a unitized
system, cantilevering 2.8 m from the primary structure. The shading device system contains stainless
steel supporting frames, aluminum dynamic frames, and fiberglass mesh infill. The folding system
transforms the shading screen from a seamless veil into a lattice-like pattern to provide shade or light.
Each shading device comprises a series of stretched polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) panels. When
the shading device is closed, occupants can still see through from inside to the outside (Figure 2).
In total, each tower has 1049 mashrabiya shading devices, each weighing about 1.5 tonnes. The shape
of the building in plan and elevation led to 22 different variations in the mashrabiya geometries,
which in itself created a challenge for managing their manufacture and assembly.

Figure 2. (a) Three fully opened shading devices allowing an open view during non-solar periods and (b) a group
of fully opened shading devices (photo courtesy: Terry Boake).

3.3. Automation and adaptations

The shading screen is computer-controlled to respond to optimal solar and light conditions. The
mashrabiya shading devices are grouped into sectors and are operated through sun tracking software
that controls the opening and closing sequence according to the sun’s angle. Each shading device
comprises a series of stretched PTFE panels and is driven by a linear actuator. The actuator is
 Page 6 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

responsible for opening and closing once per day based on a pre-programmed sequence to prevent
direct solar radiation. Under overcast conditions or high wind conditions, a series of sensors integrated
on the building envelope will send its logged signals to the control unit to open all units. Figure 3 shows
a detailed 3D model of an individual shading device with the actuator, sleeves, arms, and fabric mesh.
The 1049 mashrabiyas are controlled through a central Building Management System (BMS) that can
control each unit individually or in groups. The system is run with Siemens technology in a preset
automated control following the sun’s path through the year. The system is updated every 15 minutes
using a light meter and an anemometer on the roof. In case of weather events, the automated program
gets overridden. Power and data transmission is enabled through the strut sleeves, as shown in
Figure 4a. The mashrabiya has a service life of 20 years including the PTFE-coated fiberglass fabric
and the actuators have a service life of 15 years.

Figure 3. Detailed 3D model of an individual shading device (photo courtesy: Wood15).

Figure 4. (a) A close view of the mashrabiya and curtain wall where the strut sleeves penetrate the curtain wall
and connect to the main structure and (b) a view out when the mashrabiya is open (photo courtesy: Terry Boake).

4. RESULTS
Several interviews have been conducted to identify exactly the roles of the project’s main stakeholders
in different stages. This included the architect, energy consultant, building’s users, adaptive glass
facade sub-contractor, shading system manufactures, commissioning agent, and the facility manager.
The key steps of the adaptive facades’ delivery process are identified as follows: decisions, checklists,
and teams engaged in each stage respectively.
 Page 7 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

One of the most significant findings related to this project was that the client required a “sustainable
office building” similar to Northern or Western type of concrete and steel structures with a panoramic
glass facade similar to mainstream offices that you find in the Gulf Countries. Surprisingly, the project
did not get certified by any LEED rating system and Arup modified its reporting by stating that the
project is designed in accordance with the US Green Building Council’s LEED rating system instead of
stating that the project failed to get certified.

4.1. Al Bahr Towers’ building project stakeholders and process map

The process mapping was completed by interviewing seven project stakeholders representing the
facade contractor, architect, general contractor, energy and building physics consultant,
commissioning agency, and facility manager. Figure 5 shows the results of the interviews and
represents the different stakeholders of the project. The process map, as shown in Figure 6, indicates
that there were 12 major design stages in this project, named according to the AIA.18 The figure
shows the process map after being validated, illustrating the design and construction stages of the
adaptive facade as a whole.

Figure 5. General composition of the Al Bahr Towers’ adaptive facade team.

Figure 6. Process map of the integrated design process of the Al Bahr Towers’ adaptive facade.

4.2. Description of the facade design process

The interviewees revealed that the delivery process of Al Bahr Towers underwent an iterative process
with an experimental validation approach. The iterative approach did allow a holistic, integrated and
iterative approach. The project underwent the following 12 stages:

1. Competition with the dynamic Musharabeya concept (Abdulmajid);

2. Setting the design team, (AEDAS þ Arup);
3. Submission of the project (July 2007);
 Page 8 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

4. Wining the competition (Nov 2007);

5. Assembling a design team (70 architects and 150 engineers (structure, MEP, Fire, etc.)) þ Design
development and construction documentation;
6. Tendering and contractor selection;
7. Mock-ups;
8. Benchmark (Figure 7);
9. Construction;
10. Occupation;
11. Commissioning;
12. Soft landing.

To ensure proper coordination between the various building components, a digital model was used to
guarantee the coordination and integration between the concrete core, the structural steel frame,
and the mashrabiya.

Figure 7. (a) A full-scale prototype of the mashrabiya undergoing mechanical testing at Yuanda’s facilities in
Shenyang (Aeadas Architects Ltd) and (b) the onsite benchmark for six mashrabiyas.7

4.3. Description of the facade assessment process

Most of the facade testing took place offsite. The facade assessment had a limited budget in relation to
the project size. The design team had to rely on simulation tools and computational fluid dynamic
(CFD) analysis. Then static mock-ups and the mechanical mock-ups were put on hold. It was important
to set up a visual and kinematic mock-up first. A series of wind-tunnel tests were also conducted at
various scales. The fluid form of the building led to a low positive and negative pressure during the
testing, averaging 1.5 kPa up to a maximum of 3.5 kPa. The facade contractor was responsible for the
following three mock-ups (Figure 7):

1. Onsite mock up for fabric testing;

2. Laboratory tests in Switzerland (Yuanda Basel) in a special chamber to test the mechanics for 30,
000 cycles (chamber conditions: humidity 100%, temperature 658C, and sand mixed with salt).
The shading devices were tested to check whether it can be operated with a high reliability and
robustness. The shading devices are prone to wind-induced movements and aggressive
environments containing sand, dust, and salt-laden air. A series of prototype tests on the PTFE
panel were conducted at both ambient laboratory and elevated temperatures to the check the
required durability and life of actuators, bearings, and overall mechanism;
3. Mock-up in China for lighting (Shenyang Yuanda). Then, a benchmark was set up onsite.

The facade assessment and commissioning was mainly under the control of facade subcontractor.
There were serious issues with commissioning the building facade. It was supposed to have a third
party commissioning company but it was carried out finally by the facade sub-contractor after two
years of operating the building. The process was underpaid and had misrepresenting professionals.
In general, testing and validation was underappreciated by the client when it came to an adaptive
facade. Regarding soft-landing, the late commissioning of the buildings postponed the soft-landing to
2015; the building was constructed in 2011 and opened in 2012. The project manager needed twenty-
four months to carry out the soft-landing after occupation. The idea was to monitor the building for
twelve months, then effectuate changes, and then measure again the results of their intervention to
 Page 9 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

reach the optimal operation mode. However, only a 12-month monitoring was conducted in 2015. The
monitoring helped in identifying occupant behavior of building users and highlighting the deficiencies
encountered during the summer and winter cycles.

4.4. Survey results

All respondents work in zone 2 of the tower (office floors from 10 to 20). Concerning thermal comfort,
the initial survey results indicate that, 12% of occupants are very comfortable, 42% are comfortable,
32% are neutral, 10% are uncomfortable, and 4% are very uncomfortable. The main reason for
discomfort that was recorded by females was overcooling. For natural lighting, the results are
distributed as follows: 20% are not comfortable and 40% are very uncomfortable. At the beginning,
we thought that this was due to glare; however, the main reason was related to the automated
opening and closing of the mashrabiya. A large percentage of occupants stated that they were annoyed
by the regular opening and closing of the mashrabiya that does not allow them to interact with the
facade. Despite the user-controlled roller-blinds, which allow occupants’ personal control of their
environment, they are kept open most of the time according to the respondents. The automation is
causing a widespread occupant discomfort, which is accentuated by their passivity toward their indoor
environment control. Several respondents indicated that the inability of interaction with the
mashrabiya did not allow them to get involved in controlling their indoor environment. So far,
we have considered this in its initial phase with a little representative number of 22 employees
out of 1000 employees of the two towers.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The primary objectives of this study were to present a detailed case study description of a building
with an adaptive facade and to derive maps of the underlying decisions on how it was designed,
operated, maintained, and assessed. This study required time, effort, and analysis to interview Al Bahr
project key stakeholders. The required data interpretation and classification were mainly based on
the interviews and surveys. The facility management company refused to cooperate in this study and
did not share any performance data on energy consumption or comfort conditions. However, we
succeeded in creating a sophisticated process map representing most stakeholders who participated
in this outstanding project. For sure, the project is an outstanding project from the design and
construction point-of-view but not from a sustainability point-of-view (see arguments 6–9). Therefore,
and after this long endeavor, some key learned lessons were drawn and these can be considered
in any future building with an adaptive external shading facade:
1. The project embedded a series of innovations and is the fruit of a successful collaboration between
the client, design team, and builder. The mashrabiya concept and its implementation are
ground breaking and the towers succeeded as an iconic landmark. The design team pushed the
boundaries of design and managed to set new standards for quality in the AEC industry.
2. Another success of the design team was that their members identified the performance
requirements for the adaptive facade. Without quantified performance indicators, the project would
not have succeeded. Arup in particular had the vision, early on in the project, to develop the
Mashrabiya Performance Criteria Development Guide and the Building Geometry Construction
Manual. Both documents set new standards for the facade design and construction quality. The
performance quantification resulted in a rigorous design assist phase with several models,
mockups, and prototypes testing. Both documents set up the specification of the facade
performance with a focus on structural and mechanical properties and durability of the facades.
3. The use of BIM (building information modeling) and parametric geometrical modeling was a crucial
tool in concept development and team collaboration. The use of building information technology
and parametric modeling allowed the team to operate in an efficient, integrated, and effective
manner. The advanced computation design capacity of the design team (AEDAS þ Gehry
Technologies) allowed the building envelope development and the rationalization of the complex
facade geometry including the curtain wall glass panels in a uniform and coherent manner. The use
of Rhino Script to calculate the deflection limits of glass panels based on established algorithm
rules was a key step in refining and optimizing geometry. The glass panel optimization process led
to the elimination of custom manufacturing of glazing. Moreover, the paramedic advanced
modeling technique was the key methodology used in controlling the mashrabiya folding limits and
 Page 10 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

generating precise shop-drawings for implementation. The procurement of the building envelope
under one contract was the reason to valorize the BIM model and empower the modeling team.
Gehry Technology, which assisted AEDAS in generating the parametric models in the Digital project
and CATIA-based tool during the design development phase, was retained in the construction
phase in order to guarantee compatibility while achieving the highest degree of standardization
integration during construction.
The outcome of parametric modeling and analysis was integrated into one BIM model,
which was the main red thread across the project unifying and integrating both the design and
constructions teams. The construction phase had an almost identical as-built drawing compared to
the design development drawings. The coordination of work among various contractors,
manufactures, and suppliers in a seamless way with minimal class detection was BIM’s
cause of success.
4. Based on the BIM model and seamless exchange of information, the team collaboration in this
project was outstanding during the design and construction phase. Architects and engineers stood
behind the project in an iterative design approach as one integrated design team. Global
collaboration for the design, manufacturing, assembling, and erection of the adaptive facade was
remarkable. The facade was designed in London, the design assist was undertaken in Basel,
Nantes, and Shenyang, the manufacturing was carried out in Shenyang and Guangzhou, and finally
the assembly and completion took place in Abu Dhabi.
5. The design assist was another reason for the project’s success. Indeed as indicated by Mac’s
Matthew Brett, the facade system was the greatest risk in the construction. Therefore, engaging
the construction industry as early as possible was a crucial step resulting in a rigorous testing
program. The testing allowed the assessment of prototypes and full-scale models as mapped
in Figure 6.
On the negative side of the learned lessons, there are four major issues related to the Al Bahr
project that should be avoided in future by clients and design teams:
6. The project has little to do with sustainability and occupant satisfaction. From the beginning, the
client had defined a concise design brief with one focus mainly: Dazzle. The brief stated explicitly
the will of the client to build an iconic building with highest quality materials, finishes, and
architectural features. The exterior of the building should have made it a landmark. Even the
project principal architect stated the same.19 The desire for signature buildings by powerful
clients in the UAE alters the focus from energy-efficient and green architecture toward iconic
signature buildings most of the time.
The two towers embed an ill-contradiction where a curtain wall in Abu Dhabi is protected by a
complex electronic and mechanical technology. A root cause analysis will reveal an ill-design and
ill-logic behind this project. Even calling the project Islamic or inspired by Islamic architecture
makes no sense. According to Fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence of priorities, it is not acceptable to
create a problem; in this case, a glass facade in the desert is created and then they have tried to
succeed in solving it. The Department of Municipal affairs in Abu Dhabi had already recommended
to limit the glass surface to 30% (window-to-wall ratio) of the building facade. This is one of the
reasons why the building failed to obtain the LEED certificate.20
7. The Design Bid Build process and contract were not suitable for such a sophisticated project. The
project would have been delivered much more smoothly and at a lower cost if the contractor had
collaborated on the side of the design team from the beginning. The buildability control of the
movement both mechanically and electrically was left at the last moment to be shouldered by the
subcontractor for commanding advanced orders. The wisdom and experience of the project
management firm and the use of BIM models allowed the team to engage the construction
contractor at the earliest with opportunities to validate the design concept. However, a Design-Build
project delivery process would be more suitable for such a project.
8. The commissioning was another issue that was underestimated in this project. Although a dynamic
mashrabiya system on this scale is without precedent, similar systems should have been
commissioned by a third party and not the facade subcontractor. Despite the advanced design
assist phase, the development of performance specifications, and the strict quality checks of
Yuanda, all the installation of wiring and mechanical components including the actuators, slides,
tension rods, and mobile tripods required independent testing and calibration. One of the key
challenges through the whole process stage is the underestimation of what it takes to design and
 Page 11 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

construct a structure that is as unique as these dynamic screen facades. People do not have
manufacturing and high-tech production background and appreciation, and the AEC industry lacks
protocols and standards for seamless commissioning.
9. Also, the client did not take the soft-landing process and post-occupancy evaluation seriously.
There was an underestimation of the complexity of the facade and the importance of validating
its performance and assessment of its impact of indoor environmental quality and occupant
satisfaction. Almost every piece of the mashrabiya was not like the other, requiring sufficient time
for system calibration. Even the suggested operation schedules for the mashrabiya and its
automated control setting required extra attention to create a satisfying environment to meet the
occupant needs inside the tower. The fact that there was no individual control of the mashrabiya
remains the most annoying feature for the occupants, as discussed in Section 4.4.
Finally, it should be noted that the use of an adaptive facade in this project was meaningless from
a sustainability point of view. The construction cost of Al Bahr Towers in Abu Dhabi was e390 million;
it was not commissioned by a third party and the commissioning process and soft-landing were
underpaid and had misrepresenting professionals. The use of mashrabiya in the Al Bahr project led to
missing the huge opportunity to promote adaptive shading systems as a sustainable technology.
The client did not consider energy consumption or occupant satisfaction from the beginning and
therefore, the mashrabiya lost its meaning as a sustainable element while acting on the side of being a
gadget. On the other hand, the design team revealed the difficulty of integrating adaptive facade
technologies. Adaptive Facades require much more effort to standardize and quantify the performance
of adaptive facades and their evaluation process and protocols in order to increase their use in
future buildings.25

Competing interests
I declare that I have no significant competing financial, professional or personal interests that might
have influenced the performance or presentation of the work described in this manuscript.

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Fabio Favoino, Abdulmajid Karanouh, Peter Osborn, Esraa Elgezery, Matthew Brett,
Alain Anthony, Ian Inglis, and all anonymous interviewees for their valuable comments and feedback.
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge COST Action TU1403 “Adaptive Facades Network” for
providing excellent research networking. The author acknowledges the support of Workgroup 3 members.

REFERENCES
[1] Annunziata E, Frey M, Rizzi F. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: The state-of-art of national regulations in Europe.
Energy. 2013;57:125 –133.
[2] Luible A, Memorandum of understanding for the implementation of a European Concerted Research Action
designated as COST Action TU1403: Adaptive Facades Network. COST Action TU1403; 2014. Available from:
http://w3.cost.eu/fileadmin/domain_files/TUD/Action_TU1403/mou/TU1403-e.pdf
[3] Loonen R, Trčka M, Cóstola D, Hensen JLM. Climate adaptive building shells: State-of-the-art and future challenges.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2013;25:483–493.
[4] Loonen R, Climate adaptive building shells; 2013. Available from: http://pinterest.com/CABSoverview/
[5] Attia S, Bashandy H. Evaluation of adaptive facades: The case study of AGC headquarter in Belgium. In: Belis J,
Louter C, eds. Challenging Glass 5. Conference on Architectural and Structural Applications of Glass. Ghent, Belgium:
Ghent University; ISBN 978-90-825-2680-6 2016.
[6] Boake TM. Hot climate double facades: Avoiding solar gain. Facade Tectonics. 2014;14:2–24.
[7] Karanouh A, Kerber E. Innovations in dynamic architecture. J Facade Des Eng. 2015;3:185 –221.
[8] Luible A, COST Action TU1403 – Adaptive facades network. 12th Conference on Advanced Building Skins, 2–3
October 2017, Bern, Switzerland 2015:1226 –1233.
[9] Attia S, Favoino F, Loonen R, Petrovski A, Monge-Barrio A. Adaptive façades system assessment: An initial review. Adv
Build Skins. 2015a;1226–1233 (Economic Forum, 2015).
[10] Samyn P, De Coninck J, AGC Glass Building, 2014a, Éditions Racine, Brussels, Belgium, ISBN 978-2-87386-882-6.
[11] Wurm J. Developing bio-responsive façades: BIQ House – The first pilot project. Arup J. 2013;90–95.
[12] Cilento K, Al Bahar Towers Responsive Facade/Aedas; 2013. Retrieved 13 January 2014.
[13] Linn C. Kinetic Architecture: Design for Active Envelopes. Shanghai: Images Publishing; 2014.
[14] Oborn P. Al Bahr Towers: The Abu Dhabi Investment Council Headquarters. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
[15] Wood A. Best Tall Buildings: The 2010 CTBUH Reference Guide. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013.
[16] CWCT. 2006, Standard for systemised building envelopes. Available from: http://www.cwct.co.uk/publications/list.
htm#cont26 [Accessed 2016 July 30].
[17] ANSI/ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010: Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, 2010.
 Page 12 of 12
Attia. QScience Connect 2017:6

[18] AIA. Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. Sacramento, CA: American Institute of Architects, California Council; 2007.
[19] Al Bustani H. 2014, UAE sustainable skyscrapers: Understanding Abu Dhabi’s Al Bahar Towers, the National AE,
Available from: http://www.thenational.ae/business/industry-insights/property/uae-sustainable-skyscrapers-unders
tanding-abu-dhabis-al-bahar-towers [Accessed 2016 March 21].
[20] DMA. The Code Handbook: Abu Dhabi International Building Codes. Abu Dhabi: Department of Municipal Affairs; 2012.
[21] Armstrong A, Buffoni G, Eames D, James R, Lang L, Lyle J, et al. The Al Bahar Towers: Multidisciplinary design for
Middle East high-rise. Arup J. 2013;2:90–95.
[22] Attia S, Bashandy H. Evaluation of Adaptive Facades: AGC Building a Case Study of an Automated Glass Facade.
Interviews and process mapping of the design team. 12. Liège, Belgium: SBD Lab, Université de Liège; Available from:
http://www.sbd.ulg.ac.be/research/Files/AGC%20Report%20v1.pdf 2015b.
[23] Causone F, et al., Experimental facilities for adaptive façades characterization. Adv Build Skins. 2015;1244–1252,
(Economic Forum, 2015).
[24] CBE – Center for the Built Environment (s.d), Available from: http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/aboutus/index.htm
[Accessed 2016 April 23].
[25] Struck C, Almeida M, Silva S, Mateus R, Lemarchand P. Adaptive facade systems – Review of performance
requirements, design approaches, use cases and market needs. Adv Build Skins. 2015;1254–1262, (Economic Forum,
2015).

View publication stats