Single skin envelope systems

Single skin envelope systems are generally not as effective in insulation as double skin systems. One advantage of a single skin systems is that the single skin system can offer rapid coverage and swift completion of a weatherproof building envelope to give a high  performance building. Alot of the buildings constructed in the past were single skin. For example Stone and mud huts, shelters made for reading and fibrous plant material used in warmer climates. Glass and metal sheeting are 2 modern examples of single skin systems.

Single Skin panels are manufactured  by companies such as A Steadman & Son, and consist of coated steel sheets that are rolled to form different profiles.
These panels provide a swift and effective weather proof building envelope for the Custom FITT Steel Buildings portal frame. Examples of this include tin and corrugated metal sheeting and they are available from many manufactures.

Stone has also been used in single and double skin systems and is a building material that has been in use for 10's of thousands of years.

Stone is different than most structural materials in that it is not manufactured to any quality standards and little can be done to alter its basic properties. These properties can be measured by appropriate testing in order to quantify them for design purposes.
Stone is brittle rather than ductile. It is a product of nature with a wide variation in properties. When exposed to the environment it exhibits a reduction in strength. Due to its formation it has different strengths in different directions. The strength of stone is affected by surface finishes and humidity.


Glass

Glass is used in many commercial buildings such as office blocks and is is used as the major building envelope system. It is now advantageous to have the glass costed in Chrome. This gives good savings on energy  usage as the insulation properties of the glass have been improved.

Electrochromic glazings promise to be the next major advance in energy-efficient window technology, helping to transform windows and skylights from an energy liability to an energy source for the nation building stock.

Test Results overview
The test consisted of two side-by-side, 3.7x4.6- m, office-like rooms. In each room, five 62 x 173 cm lower electrochromic windows and five 62x43-cm upper electrochromic windows formed a large window wall. The window-to-exterior-wall ratio (WWR) was 0.40. The southeast-facing electrochromic windows had an overall visible transmittance (Tv ) range of Tv =0.11-0.38 and were integrated with a dimmable electric lighting system to provide constant work plane illuminance and to control direct sun. Daily lighting use from the automated electrochromic window system decreased by 6 to 24% compared to energy use with static, low-transmission (Tv =0.11), unshaded windows in overcast to clear sky winter conditions in Oakland, California. Daily lighting energy use increased as much as 13% compared to lighting energy use with static windows that had Tv =0.38.


Even when lighting energy savings were not obtainable, the visual environment produced by the electrochromic windows, indicated by well-controlled window and room luminance levels, was significantly improved for computer-type tasks throughout the day compared to the visual environment with unshaded 38%-glazing. Cooling loads were not measured, but previous building energy simulations indicate that additional savings could be achieved. To ensure visual and thermal comfort, electrochromics require occasional use of interior or exterior shading systems when direct sun is present.