Vegetated kinetic façade - monographic review

Cansu Iraz Seyrek Şık

doi:10.37190/arc230408

Abstract

Vertical green façades and kinetic façades are environmentally friendly and energy efficient construction technologies that have gained popularity in recent years. Vegetated kinetic façades are a relatively new façade concept that can combine the positive features of these two systems while the research on them is limited. The aim of this study is to identify the new opportunities and the most promising concepts of vegetated kinetic façades in terms of environmental sustainability and user comfort. In this article, technologies and design trends developed in the last decade are examined for vertical green façade systems and kinetic façades through literature review followed by the comparative analysis. Based on the results of the comparative analysis of vertical green façades and kinetic façades, the author will discuss potential risks and disadvantages of vegetated kinetic façade concepts. The conclusions go beyond the main benefits of vegetated kinetic façades such as energy efficiency, daylight control and outdoor air quality improvement, to present additional potential advantages such as energy generation, rainwater collection and carbon sequestration.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2023

4(76)

Cansu Iraz Seyrek Şık*

Vegetated kinetic façade – monographic review

Introduction

Rapid urbanisation results in a shortage of green ar-

eas in cities. This creates the need to introduce alternative

solutions to cool public spaces in cities, purify the air, con-

trol rainwater and inuence the health and comfort of city

residents. Vertical green façades (VGF) are one of such

solutions. These façades are classied in two main groups

according to their structural typology: green façades (GF)

(Fig. 1a) and living walls (LW) (Fig. 1b). GF are formed

by wrapping and climbing plants which grow by clinging

to the wall surface or on any surfaces such as rope, steel

rope, steel or wooden cage and mesh. Plants can be rooted

in soil or in plant pots. LW contain a vertical growth me-

dium for plants to root and grow [1].

Kinetic façades (KF) shown in Figure 1c change their

shape according to environmental stimuli or user input for

a specic purpose, such as daylighting control and natural

ventilation. In this study, responsive kinetic façades, i.e.,

kinetic façades that respond to environmental stimuli or

user input, are dened as kinetic façades.

Vegetated kinetic façades (VKF) represent a relatively

new concept (Fig. 2). These façades can be designed in

two ways: the plants can be placed on movable modules,

or a kinetic and vertical green layer can form a double

skin. Combining mobility and vegetation, this concept has

many potential benets to users, designers, and for the ur-

ban environment. Due to the opaque growth medium of

LW, they cannot be applied on transparent wall surfaces.

GF on transparent surfaces allow light to pass through,

but they cause visual interruption between the interior

and the exterior, even with deciduous species. The idea of

DOI: 10.37190/arc230408

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

* ORCID: 0000-0002-5190-4195. Doctoral School of Wrocław

Uni versity of Science and Technology, Poland, e-mail: cansu.seyrek@

pwr.edu.pl

planting kinetic modules oers the opportunity to apply

GF and LW on transparent façade surfaces without inter-

rupting the visual connection of the user with the outdoor

environment. Mobility provides the user with an easy ac-

cess to products when VGF are used for food production.

Due to the sun catching motion of panels, plants can max-

imise the use of sunlight. Vegetated kinetic modules pro-

vide partial shading to the plants and substrate during heat

waves periods through self-shading movement performed

in the direction opposite to catching the sun. This feature

protects the plants from the undesirable eect of excessive

solar radiation and prevent water loss on the system. Sim-

ilarly, a kinetic layer used as a second layer to the vertical

greenery in the slab walls enables control over environ-

mental conditions according to plants’ requirements while

enhancing climate resistance of VGF.

Purpose and scope of research

Façade design requires a holistic approach. Environ-

mental conditions, user requirements, building function

and required façade functions directly aect the archi-

tect’s decisions in the rst stage of design. The aim of this

study is to present the overview of current technologies

and design trends of VGF and KF to provide architects

with information advantages and limitations of VGF and

KF. The second aim of the paper is to identify new oppor-

tunities and the most promising concepts of VKF.

Research methodology

The author carried out the comprehensive literature re-

view on VGF and KF followed by a comparative analysis of

the review results. The main source for the review was the

Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection Database. “Design

trends and technologies”, “Kinetic façades” and “Vertical

green façades” were identied as the searched key words.

86 Cansu Iraz Seyrek Şık

The search results were ltered for articles, conference pro-

ceeding, reports and book chapters from the last 12 years. For

the literature review 45 studies were manually selected. The

selection was based on the following content criteria: review

articles published in the last 12 years on these topics, exper-

imental studies including tests on prototypes that propose

a new design or technology, in situ measurements evaluating

the function of dierent system types and reports analysing

the characteristics of KF and VGF technologies. Various sys-

tems were compared based on performance and environmen-

tal sustainability. The research steps are shown in Figure 3.

The state of research

Research on VGF systems has accelerated in the last

decades. Firstly, Alexandra Medl et al. [2] stated that while

there are many studies on the overall performance of plants

in urban environments, studies on the benets of vertical

green systems (vegetated vertical surfaces, whether or not

on building façade – VGS) are still fragmented and incom-

plete. Moreover, there is a research gap in areas such as

improving urban biodiversity, stress recovery, reducing

glare or the ability of VGS to retain rainwater, the appli-

cation of VGS in rural areas or the application of VGS to

construction buildings. Rosmina A. Bustami et al. [3] sum-

marised research trends in VGS under 13 main headings:

thermal, design, vegetation, phytoremediation, economics,

acoustics, social studies, biodiversity, irrigation and crop

production. It is mentioned that studies about VGS have

begun to diversify from building, energy and engineer-

ing elds to increasingly multidisciplinary elds such as

acoustics and social studies. Fabrizio Ascione et al. [4]

emphasised that VGS have a great potential to improve

building energy performance, acoustic and indoor micro-

Fig. 2. Examples of vegetated kinetic façades:

a) view of two types of VKF with vegetated modules,

b) view of the double skin VKF (elaborated by C.I. Seyrek Şık)

Il. 2. Przykłady fasad kinetycznych z roślinnością (FKR):

a) widok dwóch typów FKR z modułami wegetacyjnymi,

b) widok podwójnej powłoki FKR (oprac. C.I. Seyrek Şık)

a b

Fig. 1 Examples of a vertical green and kinetic façade:

a) view of GF on the National Museum in Wrocław, Poland,

b) view of the LW on the building of the Polish Science Foundation in Warsaw, Poland (photo by C.I. Seyrek Şık),

c) view of KF the on building of MediaTIC in Barcelona, Spain (photo by A. Woźniczka)

Il. 1. Przykłady pionowej fasady zielonej i kinetycznej:

a) widok zielonej fasady na Muzeum Narodowym we Wrocławiu, Polska,

b) widok żywej ściany na budynku Fundacji na rzecz Nauki Polskiej w Warszawie, Polska (fot. C.I. Seyrek Şık),

c) widok fasady kinetycznej na budynku MediaTIC w Barcelonie, Hiszpania (fot. A. Woźniczka)

a b c

Vegetated kinetic façade – monographic review 87

climatic comfort according to the results of conducted

comprehensive literature review. On the other hand, the

lack of consistency in data collection methods due to the

lack of an international standard for VGS and the incom-

parability of experimental and numerical results in terms

of energy savings and thermal adaptability are pointed out.

Puyi Wang et al. [5] ranked the keywords frequently used

in research on VGS as “Urban heat island”, “Thermal per-

formance”, “Energy performance” and “Climate change”.

This order is followed by “Indoor air quality” and “Life

cycle assessment”. In addition, the study draws attention to

dierent design trends in dierent countries. In China, the

main focus is on energy saving benets, whereas in Aus-

tralia and Italy the potential of using LW for waste treat-

ment and indoor application is being investigated. In this

study, the concept of KF is dened as a responsive façade

that moves and changes its shape in an externally observ-

able way. Many dierent terms are used to describe these

façades. Some of these terms are “dynamic, active, kinetic,

intelligent, smart, movable, responsive, interactive”, or the

more comprehensive term “adaptive” [6]. Since many ex-

amples of KF show dierent characteristics from each oth-

er, various approaches have been proposed for their classi-

cation, and even classications have been made under the

denition of adaptive façade, which covers a wider group

than KF [6], [7]. On the other hand, Negar Heidari Matin

and Ali Eydgahi [8] categorised the technologies used in

responsive façades. As mentioned earlier, the wide variety

of systems causes the complexity of the research eld and

does not make precise distinctions possible.

The COST TU 1403 Adaptive Façades network initia tive

published three booklets documenting the interdisci pli nary,

horizontal and vertical networking and communi cation

between the dierent stakeholders of the COST-Action,

including the introduction and classication of dierent

adaptive façades technologies, the discussion of numerical

and experimental research methods and nally the organ-

isation of support sessions, industry workshops and relat-

ed surveys as specic dissemination tools to link research

and education

. In addition, there are studies carried out

on the performance evaluation of KF. These are general-

ly simulative studies on daylight control, visual comfort

Access to the reports via http://tu1403.eu/?page_id=1562 [ac-

cessed: 25.11.2023].

and solar thermal heating [9]. The lack of research on KF

about acoustic performance and natural ventilation control

is striking.

Research on VKF is limited. The idea of designing LW

on movable panels was discussed by Leann Andrews and

Nancy Rottle in 2012 [10]. Design possibilities were men-

tioned as a hinged green window wall, a sliding balcony

door green wall and folding brise soleil. The prototype was

then applied to a building at the University of Washington

in Seattle. The prototype was evaluated under the head-

ings of access and movement systems, water, plant growth

and habitat. “American Food 2.0: United to Feed the Plan-

et” designed by Biber architects as the American pavilion

for the Expo 2015 in Milan, Italy featured the “Vertical

Farm”. The façade consisted of moving panels of plants

containing a variety of harvestable crops [11]. In 2017,

Monica Mercedes Sanchez [12] presented kinetic green

façade and kinetic living wall designs in her master the-

sis. Built by Associative Data (BAD) initiative and Green

Studios collaboration designed Kinetic Green Canvas,

a dynamic green art installation for building façades

. An-

astasia Globa et al. [13] mentioned that the kinetic façade

module they designed can also be used for planting verti-

cally. Xing Zheng et al. [14] proposed the movable green-

ery window shading systems by using climbing plants

and tested it. The results showed that heat ux transferred

through the window glass were reduced by 11.5% and

64.8%. The scarcity of studies which examine VKF con-

cept in a broader context than proposing single typolo-

gy was noted. Therefore, in this study, technologies and

promising design ideas for VKF concept are comparative-

ly analysed in terms of compatibility, environmental sus-

tainability and user comfort. The outcomes are presented

to assist designers in the early design phase.

Assessment of advantages and limitations

of VKF

In this section the author presents results of the com-

parative analysis of design trends and technologies of KF

and VGF developed in the last decade. The system detail

parameters of VGF and KF are dened, and the results

https://www.archdaily.com/803168/video-this-kinetic-green

-wall-displays-pixel-plant-art [accessed: 25.11.2023].

Fig. 3. Visualisation of

the research steps towards

the literature review described

in the chapter

“Research methodology”

(elaborated by C.I. Seyrek Şık)

Il. 3. Wizualizacja kroków

badawczych w kierunku

przeglądu literatury

opisanego w rozdziale

„Metodologia badań”

(oprac. C.I. Seyrek Şık)

Web of Science Core Collection Database

Design trends

& technologies

Kinetic

façades

Vertical green

façades

< 12 years

Review articles

Experimental studies

In situ measurements

45 studies selected

Comparison based on system performance and environmental sustainability

88 Cansu Iraz Seyrek Şık

improve indoor air quality. Michael J.M. Davis et al. [22]

tested the performance of LW as an active air condition-

ing unit. These two studies show that LW can be used to

improve indoor air quality if they are designed in the form

of a conditioning unit that will provide air circulation with

the help of a motor. Xiangyu Li et al. [23] developed a hy-

droponic VGS for disposal and utilisation of pre-treated

blackwater. Peter J. Irga et al. [24] designed the Tessellated

Double Green Perforated Façade System to create a hy-

brid of GF and LW. The perforated structure of this sys-

tem is expected to allow the creation of habitat corridors

that facilitate the movement of birds, ying insects and

land-climbing animals between and across the openings of

the façade elements. The aforementioned studies show that

the structural design of VGF directly aects the façades

functions, such as energy generation and water treatment.

Influence of the substrate choice

on the VGF functioning

The substrate of VGF, where plants are rooted getting

access to water and nutrients, inuences functions of the

façades. The substrate for GF is either ground soil or plant

pots. In CLW, plants are rooted between two layers of felt

attached to waterproof panels [17]. MLW systems dier

in substrate content for dierent designs and technologies

such as felt pockets, framed planted boxes, felt + panel

technology, ceramic planting cells, rockwool panels that

can be commonly found in the market [1]. Substrate types

dier in weight, durability and price according to their

structure and content. A number of research on bio-based

substrate material contents and substrate technologies is

increasing. Scientists and designers are looking for nat-

ural and sustainable substrates as an alternative to heavy

substrate assemblies with high environmental burden

made of plastic or metal. For example, Andreia Cortes et

al. [25] presented MLW panels made of expanded cork

agglomerate. Benjamin Riley et al. [26] mentioned that

LW are excessively expensive and introduced the Living

Concrete concept, enabling plants growth on it at a low-

er cost. Ji Yoon Bae and Daekwon Park [27] presented

the concept of 3D printed Weeping Brick. The bricks are

made of soil that becomes porous after baking or drying.

Water from the reservoirs slowly seeps through the po-

rous brick, forming a water layer on the brick surface.

This creates more eective cooling, and the water-seed-

ed plants absorb the surface water. All these studies show

that by using bio-based materials in substrate assemblies,

the environmental burden of VGF can be reduced while

reducing the cost and increasing the cooling performance.

The substrate content aects features of VGF. The sub-

strate of CLW is lighter than that of many MLW, so they

do not represent signicant structural load for the build-

ing. However, MLW, which form a thicker and porous

insulation layer on the building surface, may have better

acoustic and thermal performance. MLW are also easier to

maintain depending on the technology. MLW containing

plastic pots have a longer lifespan than CLW. Moreover,

modularity is one of the most eective factors in the mo-

bility of LW.

are collected under a separate heading for each parame-

ter. The key parameters of VGF are substrate, structure,

irrigation, and plant type [15]. Those for KF can be de-

ned as geometry and movement, technology (sensing

technology, control and actuating), structure and material

[7], [8]. Sustainability-related parameters of VKF were

dened by Cansu Iraz Seyrek et al. [16] as morphological

design, plant type, control of the mechanism and material

type. But to predict advantages and limitations of the VKF

concept, it is necessary to dene the system detail param-

eters at length. Considering the similarity of the two main

features of VKF, enabling plant growth and providing

movement, with the main functions of VGF and KF, these

parameters can be dened as the sum of the ones of these

two systems. Although the comparative analysis was car-

ried out for VGF and KF, the results are informative also

for the design alternatives of VKF.

Comparison of structure types of VGF benefits

and extra function opportunities

The rst main system detail parameter of VGF systems

is the structure. GF are classied as direct and indirect

according to attaching surface of plants. GF are cheap,

easy to install and lightweight. They require less main-

tenance than LW. However, direct green façades (DGF)

may cause integrity damages on the wall surface due to

roots of plants attached to the wall. The extra carrier of

indirect green façades (IGF) avoids this damage while

providing weather resistance and rigidity to the system by

preventing falling of vegetation [17]. The air gap between

the wall and the plant layer for IGF aects the thermal

performance of the system positively [15].

LW are heavier and more complex systems in compar-

ison to GF. According to the structure of growth medium,

LW are classied as continuous living walls (CLW) and

modular living walls (MLW) [17]. Depending on the tech-

nology used, the amount of material and the complexity of

the design, maintenance needs (usually due to problems

with irrigation and nutrition system) and installation costs

can be high. Furthermore, the durability of the system is

also an important factor, e.g. the lifetime of a system based

on planting pots is 5 times longer than that of a felt system

[18]. However, wide range of design alternatives that LW

provide to the designer in terms of aesthetical composition

is one of advantages compared to GF [17]. The growth me-

dium forming a separate layer on the façade surface pro-

vides noise insulation to the building [19]. They provide

better thermal performance by evaporation from the sub-

strate surface [4], [15]. Recently, the design of both GF

and LW has been enriched with extra functions added to

these systems. For example, the VertiKKA (“Vertical Air

Conditioning and Wastewater Treatment System”) project

developed in Germany aims to provide energy production

by integrating photovoltaic panels to VGF [20]. This proj-

ect shows that, with the PV technologies addition to the

VGF structure, they can be used not only to improve ener-

gy eciency but also to generate energy.

Xi Meng et al. [21] stated that if the air conditioning

system is connected to the indoor LW, it will eectively

Vegetated kinetic façade – monographic review 89

Effect of the irrigation amount

and technologies on VGF

Irrigation is one of the key factors aecting the lifetime

and performance of VGF. It is usually provided manually

or by rainwater for GF. If plants are rooted in plant pots,

automatic irrigation and nutrition systems are also used

[4]. Although automatic irrigation and nutrition systems

provide convenience and continuity in irrigation compared

to manual methods, the amount and frequency of irrigation

should be calculated correctly. LW are hydroponic sys-

tems. Irrigation and fertilization system is automatic. The

amount of water is pre-calculated according to the plant

species used in some systems and the system is adjusted.

The irrigation requirements of LW are highly variable and

depend on various factors such as location (outdoor or in-

door), light exposure (direct sunlight and shading), tem-

perature and humidity conditions, functional type (passive

or active) as well as the vegetation and substrate used [28].

The life span of the plants, the maintenance needs of the

system, the thermal and acoustic performance of the sys-

tem are related to how often and how much watering is

done [15]. Excessive watering causes damage to LW. Algae

growing on the substrate surface, yellowish plants with

a “washed-out” appearance are indicators of this destruc-

tion [29]. Automatic irrigation systems with sensors that

monitor and analyse environmental and systematic factors

perform better [4]. Irrigation causing excessive consump-

tion of potable water is considered unsustainable [29]. As

an alternative solution, rainwater can be used for the irriga-

tion of LW. Moreover, LW can improve storm-water reten-

tion in cities [30]. Grey-water treatment and utilisation in

VGF irrigation is another option for preventing excessive

consumption of potable water [31].

Influence of plant types

on features of VGF

Choosing the correct plant type to the environmental

context is of great importance in terms of energy and water

eciency as well as the longevity of GF. One of the main

factors aecting plant selection is climate [17]. In sustain-

able VGF design, it is very important to choose plants that

can adapt to the local climate. For GF, hardy species such

as Clematis montana, Fallopia baldschuanica or semi-har-

dy species such as Akebia quinata, Bouganvillea glabra,

Plumbago auriculata, Trachelospermum jasmino ides and

Doxantha unguiscati are examples of plants that can adapt

to cold climates. Hedera helix is a plant that can adapt to

almost any climate. Therefore, it is frequently encountered

along with Parthenocissus tricuspidata and Wisteria.

Plant species such as Smilax aspera, Clematisammula,

Eriocereus bonplandii, Tecomaria capensis and Delairea

odorata adapt to hot climates. For IGF, climbers such as

Camellia, Ceanothus, Chaenomeles, Co ronilla valentine,

Garrya, Fuchsia, Magnolia grandiora and Pyracantha

as tendril-bearers, hook-climbers or twining plants are

necessary [4]. Plant species compatible to LW are very di-

verse. Woody, herbaceous, succulent plant species can be

used for these façades. It has been observed that woody

species grow more than succulent species in hot and humid

climatic conditions [32]. However, succulent plant species

are frequently used in other climate zones such as temper-

ate climate [5]. Other factors inuencing plant growth are

light quality, quantity, and duration [29]. In addition, the

quality, type and quantity of irrigation are directly related

to plant growth and VGF’ performance [33].

Pros and cons

of technologies for KF

Sensing, control and actuating technologies for KF en-

able façade systems to continuously change their proper-

ties or behaviour over time in response to environmental

stimuli, occupant preferences and needs, such as improv-

ing thermal and visual performance and providing natu-

ral ventilation. Negar Heidari Matin and Ali Eydgahi [8]

classied the technologies used in KF in ve main groups

as mechanical, electro-mechanical, passive, information,

material-based technologies. Mechanical technology is

dened as a manually operated system with a mechanism

consisting of gears, pulleys and cables. This technology

does not need extra energy sources, but it is not suitable

for every user. Moreover, parts of the system require main -

tenance. Actuators such as pneumatic actuators, hy dra ulic

actuators, and servomotors are used in electrome cha ni cal

technologies (Fig. 4a). These systems can be con trolled au-

tomatically by sensors or manually by the user via a central

computer. Electro-mechanical technology has advantages

such as standardisation of parts, modular design compo-

nents, low initial cost and central monitoring and control

[34]. Disadvantages of this technology include the com-

plexity of the system, maintenance and replacement cost

of parts [35]. In addition, façades consume high amounts

of energy during shape change. The passive technology in

KF is that the façade contains modules that can move with

external factors such as wind without any mechanism or

energy (Fig. 4b). These modules protect the façade from

strong storm eects and create a dynamic image [36].

However, these systems do not allow the façade to be con-

trolled according to user needs [8].

In responsive façades based on information technology,

there are interconnected panels consisting of units work-

ing as sensing and activating elements (Fig. 4c) [37]. Data

is shared between these panels. Therefore, changes in the

façade are scalable. The advantages of this façade are its

ability to fully respond to environmental stimuli due to its

scalable adaptability, low cost, diversity in aesthetic com-

position and decentralized control. Centralized controlled

systems mean that it is controlled through a central com-

puter. In decentralized controlled systems, kinetic adapta-

tion is performed like ock behaviour. Therefore, the main

computer is only necessary to serve as user interface for

maintenance and occupants control device. However, any

computer failure poses a risk for the systems [8], [34], [37].

Material-based technologies do not need any mechani-

cal or electro-mechanical actuator. The material has kinetic

potential that allows it to respond to solar, thermal environ-

mental stimuli [36], [38]. These systems have limited re-

sponse capacity and cannot be controlled by occupant [7].

90 Cansu Iraz Seyrek Şık

Dierent technologies determine the energy eciency and

cost of KF. The development of long-lasting and inex pen-

sive materials and technologies that use less or no ener gy

will enable the spread of KF.

The geometry and movement type

for solar thermal performance

and applicability of KF

Dynamic shading devices create shaded areas in various

ways according to their shape and direction of their move-

ment. Solar thermal heating control of building is strongly

related with the size of these areas [9]. The movement and

geometry of KF depend on the façades’ function, orienta-

tion and the designer’s choices. KF modules perform mo-

m ents such as apping, folding, translating, rotating,

sliding, scaling, expanding and extracting. In addition,

some façade surfaces undergo deformation in the form of

bend ing or twisting, contraction or expansion, extension

or compression, deploying and retraction [39]. Recently,

also principles of biomimetics (the use of models imitated

from nature to solve various complex problems) inspire

the design of KF. For example, Flecton a hinge-less ap-

ping mechanism is inspired by elastic deformation in the

Strelitzia reginae ower. This mechanism aims to replace

many hinges with an all-in-one pliable component [40].

Currently, Flectoline, a façade system with pneumatic ac-

tuators inspired by the same moving principles, is being in-

vestigated at the University of Stuttgart [41]. Adaptive So-

lar Facade modules developed within ETH Zurich perform

solar tracking. This movement provides eective shading

in interiors and ensures that the photovoltaic panels inte-

grated into the modules produce the maximum amount of

energy [42]. Origami art oers exibility of a form change

and represents another inspiration for KF such as Al-Ba-

har Towers [38]. Geometry and movement are the most

important factors determining the cost, lifetime, and appli-

cability of KF since they dene the design of movement

mechanism and material usage. Systems that require many

motor drives using smaller and complex parts can be built

but are expensive. Considering that one of the main reasons

for using kinetic façades is to improve energy performance

and reduce cost, the application of multiple expensive me-

chanical and electrical devices contradicts this goal [39].

Features and requirements

of structures and materials of KF

The structure and materials of KF are determined ac-

cording to the designer’s geometry and movement deci-

sions, the function, its location and environmental con di-

tions. Dierent types of wood resistant to outdoor con ditions

(e.g. Aalen university extension by MGF architekten),

bamboo (e.g. Carabanchel social housing by FOA),

alu-

minium, stainless steel, high strength and elastic materials

made of bre-reinforced polymers (e.g. Thematic Pavil-

ion for the EXPO 2012 by SOMA Lima or Flecton) and

shape memory materials are examples of materials used in

KF [38], [40]. To assess the pros and cons of the materials

used for KF, the main function of the façade, determined

by the architect, should be considered. In the HygroSkin

– Meteora Sensitive Pavilion project, the dimensional

instability of wood due to its moisture content is utilised

to open and close autonomously in response to weather

changes. This autonomous movement cannot be planned

and controlled by the occupants. Although this may seem

like a disadvantage, the main aim of this project is to build

a metereosensitive architectural shell that requires neither

operating energy nor any mechanical or electronic con-

trol. Here, the material fulls the project requirement [43].

Fig. 4. Examples of three of the five main category groups of kinetic façade technology:

a) view of an electromechanical system used on the kinetic façade of the HTBLVA Spengergasse building in Vienna, Austria (photo by C.I. Seyrek Şık),

b) view of a passive technology in the form of metal modules used on the kinetic façade known as “Dragon skin”

at the Warsaw Unit building, Poland (photo by C.I. Seyrek Şık),

c) view on information technology based kinetic façade on the MediaTIC building in Barcelona, Spain (photo by A. Woźniczka)

Il. 4. Przykłady trzech z pięciu głównych grup kategorii technologii elewacji kinetycznych:

a) widok systemu elektromechanicznego zastosowanego na fasadzie kinetycznej

budynku HTBLVA Spengergasse w Wiedniu, Austria (fot. C.I. Seyrek Şık),

b) widok technologii pasywnej w postaci metalowych modułów zastosowanych na fasadzie kinetycznej znanej jako „Dragon skin”

w budynku Warsaw Unit, Polska (fot. C.I. Seyrek Şık),

c) widok fasady kinetycznej opartej na technologii informacyjnej na budynku MediaTIC w Barcelonie, Hiszpania (fot. A. Woźniczka)

a b c

Vegetated kinetic façade – monographic review 91

Every material used in the structure and façade should be

able to resist both the static load and dynamic load of the

façade, as well as any wear and deformation that may oc-

cur due to environmental factors such as wind, rain and

sudden temperature changes [7]. The structure must also

full other stringent structural performances such as re

resistance, the capacity to sustain severe seismic events or

other natural hazards. Therefore, the structural design of

KF can involve uncertainties and challenges. It is advanta-

geous to test it by experiments to prove that it meets all ex-

pected performances [44]. Natural materials such as timber

or bamboo can be good options to reduce the carbon foot-

print of the system. Shape memory materials are the ones

that respond to environmental stimuli and change their

shape, returning to their original shape in the event that

this stimulus disappears [45]. The advantage of these ma-

terials is that they are cheaper than other systems and allow

lightweight building skin design. However, these materials

are relatively new, and more research is needed for better

understanding of their advantages and limitations. High

strength and elastic materials made of bre-reinforced

polymers allow designers to design durable, cheap and

lightweight KF inspired by biomimetics [40].

Conclusions

The advances in the design and technologies of KF and

VGF in the last decade were examined and presented in

this study. The system detail parameters of VGF and KF

were analysed. Considering the similarity of two main

features of VKF which are movement capability and en-

abling plant growth to KF and VGF, the system detail pa-

rameters of VKF are determined as the sum of the ones of

KF’ and VGF’. These parameters are listed as structure

and material, substrate, irrigation, plant type, geometry,

movement and technology. The results of the analyses

were compared for each of these parameters separately

in order to present eect of every dierent system detail

alternative for each of these parameters. The results of the

study show that depending on the structural design, ma-

terial selection and substrate content, VKF can generate

energy, actively improve indoor air quality as an air condi-

tioning unit, purify grey and black water and create habi-

tat corridors for species. Since the durability of the system

depends on the structural design and material selection,

the preference should be given to durable materials that

will not corrode due to dynamic loads, irrigation problems

and negative eect of environmental conditions.

For VKF, it is advantageous to use sensor irrigation and

feeding systems that automatically adjust the amount and

frequency of irrigation according to environmental con-

ditions. In the choice of substrate, for the types in which

the plants are located on moving modules, lighter ingredi-

ents are preferred. The use of thick and porous substrates

favourably aects the acoustic and thermal performance

of the system, while the use of bio-based material for the

substrate reduces the environmental impact.

Technologies used in VKF should be compatible to

the concept and size of system. Considering the limita-

tions of mechanical and electro-mechanical technologies,

the use of information-based technology in VKF is more

advantageous in terms of both decentralised control and

ease of maintenance. For smaller size projects mechani-

cal systems also can be used. During material selection,

the eect of the evapotranspiration and evaporation from

substrate surface to the moisture balance between layers

should be considered for double skin VKF. In the geomet-

rical design, attention should be paid to the cost and con-

structability of the system, as well as the availability of

sucient space for the plants to be able to root and grow.

In the double skin VKF, there should be a gap between

2 layers to provide sucient place to the plants to grow.

Finally, by analysing the system detail parameters of VGF

and KF and comparing the alternatives, inferences can be

made to guide the early design stage decisions of VKF.

In order to reach precise and detailed assessment, a de-

sign framework should be created and validated on case

studies. Thermal, acoustic, carbon dioxide sequestration,

daylight control performance of vegetated kinetic façades

should be tested on pilot sites. Climate resilience of VKF

should be also investigated comprehensively.

Translated by

Barbara Widera

[1] Radić M., Brković Dodig M., Auer T., Green façades and living

walls–areviewestablishingtheclassicationofconstructiontypes

andmappingthebenets, “Sustainability” 2019, 11(17), 4579, doi:

10.3390/su11174579.

[2] Medl A., Stangl R., Florineth F., Vertical greening systems – a re-

view on recent technologies and research advancement, “Building

and Environment” 2017, Vol. 125, 227–239, doi: 10.1016/j.build-

env.2017.08.054.

[3]

Bustami R.A., Belusko M., Ward J., Beecham S., Vertical greenery sys-

tems: A systematic review of research trends, “Building and Environ-

ment” 2018, Vol. 146, 226–237, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.09.045.

[4] Ascione F., De Masi R.F., Mastellone M., Ruggiero S., Vanoli G.P.,

Green walls, a critical review: knowledge gaps, design parameters,

thermal performances and multi-criteria design approaches, “Ener-

gies” 2020, 13(9), 2296, doi: 10.3390/en13092296.

[5] Wang P., Wong Y.H., Tan C.Y., Li S., Chong W.T., Vertical greening

systems:technologicalbenets,progressesandprospects, “Sustain-

ability” 2022, 14(20), 12997, doi: 10.3390/su142012997.

[6] Tabadkani A., Roetzel A., Li H.X., Tsangrassoulis A., Design ap-

proaches and typologies of adaptive façades. A review, “Automa-

tion in Construction” 2021, Vol. 121, 103450, doi: 10.1016/j.aut-

con.2020.103450.

[7] Bedon C., Hon D., Machalická K.V. et al., Structural character-

isation of adaptive façades in Europe.Part I: Insight on classi-

cation rules, performance metrics and design methods, “Journal

of Building Engineering” 2019, Vol. 25, 100721, doi: 10.1016/j.

jobe.2019.02.013.

[8] Matin N., Eydgahi A., Technologies used in responsive façade sys-

tems: a comparative study, “Intelligent Buildings International” 2019,

Vol. 14, Iss. 1, doi: 10.1080/17508975.2019.1577213.

References

92 Cansu Iraz Seyrek Şık

[9]

Hosseini S.M., Mohammadi M., Rosemann A., Schröder T., Lichten -

berg J., A morphological approach for kinetic façade design pro-

cess to improve visual and thermal comfort. Review, “Building

and Environment” 2019, Vol. 153, 186–204, doi: 10.1016/j.build-

env.2019.02.040.

[10] Andrews L., Rottle N., Deploying living walls as kinetic façades,

“Journal of Living Architecture” 2017, Vol. 4, No. 2, 17–31, doi:

10.46534/jliv.2017.04.02.017.

[11] Nowysz A., Urban vertical farm – introduction to the subject

and discussion of selected examples, “Acta Scientiarum Polono-

rum Architectura” 2021, Vol. 20, Iss. 4, 93–100, doi: 10.22630/

aspa.2021.20.4.38.

[12]

Sanchez M.M., Kinetic Green Wall System Applications on Reducing

Carbon Emissions in Hot-Arid Climates, MA thesis, University of Ari-

zona, 2017, http://hdl.handle.net/10150/626722 [accessed: 25.11.2023].

[13]

Globa A., Costin G. Tokede O., Wang R., Khoo C.K., Moloney J., Hy-

brid kinetic façade: fabrication and feasibility evaluation of full-

scale prototypes, “Architectural Engineering and Design Manage-

ment” 2021, Vol. 18, Iss. 6, 1–21, doi: 10.1080/17452007.2021.1941739.

[14] Zheng X., Dai T., Tang M., An experimental study of vertical

greenery systems for window shading for energy saving in sum-

mer, “Journal of Cleaner Production” 2020, Vol. 259, 120708, doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120708.

[15] Seyrek Şık C.I., Woźniczka A., Widera B., A conceptual framework

forthedesignofenergy-ecientverticalgreenfaçades, “Energies”

2022, 15(21), 8069, doi: 10.3390/en15218069.

[16] Seyrek C.I., Widera B., Woźniczka A., Sustainability-related pa-

rameters and decision support tools for kinetic green façades,

“Sustainability” 2021, 13(18), 10313, doi: 10.3390/su131810313.

[17] Manso M., Castro-Gomes J., Green wall systems: a review of their

characteristics, “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews”

2015, Vol. 41, 863–871, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.203.

[18] Perini K., Ottelé M., Haas E., Raiteri R., Vertical greening systems,

a process tree for green façades and living walls, “Urban Ecosys-

tems” 2013, Vol. 16, 265–277, doi: 10.1007/s11252-012-0262-3.

[19] Yan F., Shen J., Zhang W., Ye L., Lin X., A review of the applica-

tionofgreenwallsintheacousticeld, “Building Acoustics” 2022,

Vol. 29, Iss. 2, 295–313, doi: 10.1177/1351010X221096789.

[20] Schinkel U., Becker N., Trapp M., Speck M., Assessing the Con-

tribution of Innovative Technologies to Sustainable Development

for Planning and Decision-Making Processes: A Set of Indicators

to Describe the Performance of Sustainable Urban Infrastructures

(ISI), “Sustainability” 2022, 14(4), 1966, doi: 10.3390/su14041966.

[21]

Meng X., Yan L., Liu F., A new method to improve indoor environment:

Combining the living wall with air-conditioning, “Building and Envi-

ronment” 2022, Vol. 216, 108981, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.108981.

[22]

Davis M.J.M., Ramirez F., Pérez M.E., More than just a Green Façade:

Vertical Gardens as Active Air Conditioning Units, “Procedia Engineer-

ing” 2016, Vol. 145, 1250–1257, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.161.

[23] Li X., Zhou J., Tang Y. et al., A hydroponic vertical greening system

for disposal and utilization of pre-treated Blackwater: Optimiza-

tion of the operating conditions, “Ecological Engineering” 2022,

Vol. 183, 106739, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106739.

[24]

Irga P.J., Torpy F.R., Grin D., Wilkinson S.J., Vertical Greening

Systems: A Perspective on Existing Technologies and New Design

Recommendation, “Sustainability” 2023, 15(7), 6014, doi: 10.3390/

su15076014.

[25] Cortês A., Tadeu A., Santos M.I., de Brito J., Almeida J., Innova-

tive module of expanded cork agglomerate for green vertical sys-

tems, “Building and Environment” 2021, Vol. 188, 107461, doi:

10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107461.

[26] Riley B., de Larrard F., Malécot V., Dubois-Brugger I., Lequay

H., Lecomte G., Living concrete: Democratizing living walls,

“ Science of The Total Environment” 2019, Vol. 673, 281–295, doi:

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.065.

[27] Bae J.Y., Park D., Weeping Brick: The Modular Living Wall System

Using 3D Printed Porous Ceramic Materials, [in:] J.H. Lee (ed.),

Computer-Aided Architectural Design, “Hello, Culture”, Daejeon

2019, Republic of Korea, June 26–28, 2019, Selected Papers, Spring-

er, Singapore 2019, 399–409, doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-8410-3_28.

[28] Perez Urrestarazu L., Egea G., Franco-Salas A., Fernandez-Cane-

ro R., Irrigation Systems Evaluation for Living Walls, “Journal of

Irrigation and Drainage Engineering” 2014, 140(4), 04013024-1/11,

doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000702.

[29] Riley B., The state of the art of living walls: Lessons learned,

“Building and Environment” 2017, Vol. 114, 219–232, doi: 10.1016/

j.buildenv.2016.12.016.

[30] Xie L., Shu X., Kotze D.J., Kuoppamäki K., Timonen S., Lehvä-

virta S., Plant growth-promoting microbes improve stormwater

retention of a newly-built vertical greenery system, “Journal of En-

vironmental Management” 2022, Vol. 323, 116274, doi: 10.1016/

j.jenvman.2022.116274.

[31] Alsaad H., Hartmann M., Voelker C., The eect of a living wall

system designated for greywater treatment on the hygrothermal

performance of the façade, “Energy and Buildings” 2022, Vol. 255,

111711, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111711.

[32] Charoenkit S., Yiemwattana S., The performance of outdoor plants

in living walls under hot and humid conditions, “Landscape and

Ecological Engineering” 2021, Vol. 17, 55–73, doi: 10.1007/

s11355-020-00433-8.

[33] Bustami R.A., Beecham S., Hopeward J., The inuence of plant

type, substrate and irrigation regime on living wall performance in

a semi-arid climate, “Environments” 2023, 10(2), 26, doi: 10.3390/

environments10020026.

[34] Decker M., Zarzycki A., Designing resilient buildings with emergent

materials, [in:] E.M. Thompson (ed.), Fusion – Proceedings of the

International Conference on Education and research in Com-

puter aided Architectural Design in Europe, Newcastle upon Tyne,

England, UK, 10-12 September 2014, Vol. 2, Northumbria Univer-

sity, Newcastle 2014, 179–184, doi: 10.13140/2.1.1060.8967.

[35] Capeluto G., Ochoa C., Intelligent envelopes for high perfor-

mance buildings: Design and strategy, Springer, Cham 2017, doi:

10.1007/978-3-319-39255-4.

[36] Fox M., Interactive Architecture: Adaptive World, Princeton Archi-

tectural Press, New York 2016.

[37] Grobman J., Yekutiel T., Autonomous movement of kinetic clad-

ding components in building façades, [in:] A. Chakrabarti, R. Pra -

kash (eds.), ICoRD’13. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering,

Springer, Chennai 2013, doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-1050-4_84.

[38]

Aelenei L., Aelenei D., Romano R., Mazzucchelli E.S., Brzezicki M.,

Rico-Martinez J.M., Case Studies: Adaptive Façade Network, TU

Delft Open 2018.

[39] Tabasi S.F., Banihashemi S., Design and mechanism of building re-

sponsive skins: State-of-the-art and systematic analysis, “Frontiers

of Architectural Research” 2022, Vol. 11, Iss. 6, 1151–1176, doi:

10.1016/j.foar.2022.05.006.

[40] Lienhard J., Schleicher S., Poppinga S. et al., Flecton:ahingeless

appingmechanism inspiredbynature, “Bioinspiration and Bio-

mimetics” 2011, Vol. 6, No. 4, 045001, doi: 10.1088/1748-3182/6/

4/045001.

[41]

Gonzalez E.A., Moser S., Körner A. et al., Advancing solar control and

energy harvesting through the use of pneumatically actuated elastic

adaptivefaҫades, [in:] D.A. Saravanos, A. Benjeddou, N. Chrysochoi-

dis, T. Theodosiou (eds.), X ECCOMAS

Thematic Con ference on Smart

Structures and Materials SMART 2023, 3–5 July 2023,

Patras, Greece,

Eccomas Proceedia, 744–756, doi: 10.7712/150123.9828.444680.

[42]

Nagy Z., Svetozarevic B., Jayathissa P. et al., The adaptive solar fa-

çade: From concept to prototypes, “Frontiers of Architectural Re-

search” 2016, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, 143–156, doi: 10.1016/j.foar.2016.03.002

[43]

Correa D., Krieg O.D., Menges A., Reichert S., Rinderspacher K.,

HygroSkin: A climate-responsive prototype project based on the elas-

tic and hygroscopic properties of wood, [in:] ACADIA 2013 Adap-

tive Architecture: Proceedings of the 33

Annual Conference of the

Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, October

21–27, 2013, Cambridge, Ontario, 33–42, doi: 10.52842/conf.aca-

dia.2013.02.

[44] Bedon C., Hon D., Machalická K.V. et al., Structural character-

isation of adaptive façades in Europe – Part II: Validity of con-

ventional experimental testing methods and key issues, “Journal

of Building Engineering” 2019, Vol. 25, 100797, doi: 10.1016/

j.jobe.2019.100797.

[45] Holstov A., Farmer G., Bridgens B., Sustainable materialisation

of responsive architecture, “Sustainability” 2017, 9(3), 435, doi:

10.3390/su9030435.

Vegetated kinetic façade – monographic review 93

Abstract

Vegetated kinetic façade – monographic review

Vertical green façades and kinetic façades are environmentally friendly and energy ecient construction technologies that have gained popularity

in recent years. Vegetated kinetic façades are a relatively new façade concept that can combine the positive features of these two systems, while the

research on them is limited. The aim of this study is to identify the new opportunities and the most promising concepts of vegetated kinetic façades

in terms of environmental sustainability and user comfort. In this article, technologies and design trends developed in the last decade are examined

for vertical green façade systems and kinetic façades through literature review followed by the comparative analysis. Based on the results of the com-

parative analysis of vertical green façades and kinetic façades, the author will discuss potential risks and disadvantages of vegetated kinetic façade

concepts. The conclusions go beyond the main benets of vegetated kinetic façades such as energy eciency, daylight control and outdoor air quality

improvement, to present additional potential advantages such as energy generation, rainwater collection and carbon sequestration.

Key words: vertical green façades, kinetic façades, vegetated kinetic façades

Streszczenie

Roślinna fasada kinetyczna – przegląd problematyki

Pionowe zielone fasady i fasady kinetyczne to przyjazne dla środowiska i energooszczędne technologie budowlane, które zyskały popularność

w ostatnich latach. Roślinne fasady kinetyczne są stosunkowo nową koncepcją elewacji, która może łączyć pozytywne cechy tych dwóch systemów,

podczas gdy badania nad nimi są ograniczone.

Celem niniejszego badania była identykacja nowych możliwości i najbardziej obiecujących koncepcji wegetacyjnych fasad kinetycznych pod

względem zrównoważenia środowiskowego i komfortu użytkownika. W niniejszym artykule przeanalizowano technologie i trendy projektowe opra-

cowane w ostatniej dekadzie dla pionowych systemów zielonych fasad i fasad kinetycznych poprzez przegląd literatury, a następnie analizę porów-

nawczą. Na podstawie wyników analizy porównawczej pionowych zielonych fasad i fasad kinetycznych autorka omówiła ich potencjalne wady

w celu wyboru optymalnych rozwiązań. We wnioskach przedstawiono nie tylko główne walory roślinnych fasad kinetycznych, takie jak efektywność

energetyczna, kontrola światła dziennego i poprawa jakości powietrza na zewnątrz, ale także dodatkowe potencjalne korzyści płynące z ich zastoso-

wania, takie jak wytwarzanie energii, zbieranie wody deszczowej i sekwestracja dwutlenku węgla.

Słowa kluczowe: pionowe zielone fasady, fasady kinetyczne, fasady kinetyczne z roślinnością