energies Article A Parametric Study and Performance Evaluation of Energy Retrofit Solutions for Buildings Located in the Hot-Humid Climate of Paraguay—Sensitivity Analysis Fabiana Silvero 1,2, * , Fernanda Rodrigues 1 1 2 * and Sergio Montelpare 2 RISCO, Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; [email protected] Geology and Engineering Department, University G. d’Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara, 42–65127 Chieti–Pescara, Italy; [email protected] Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +595975123668 Received: 14 December 2018; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 29 January 2019 Abstract: Nowadays, awareness concerning the need to use energy efficiently is increasing significantly worldwide, thus, improving the energy efficiency levels in the building sector has acquired high importance because of their energy saving potential. However, several intervention options are available to achieve high energy efficiency levels in buildings, and the choice must be made considering the efficiency of the solution and the costs involved. Considering this, the present research aimed to develop a parametric study of several energy retrofit solutions for buildings located in the hot-humid climate of Paraguay, in order to analyse their efficiency in terms of comfort rates and cooling energy needs. Furthermore, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is employed as a decision-making method to choose the most suitable intervention considering the investment costs required. Thus, threshold values of thermal transmittance for the building thermal envelope components are established through a parametric study and sensitivity analysis of the simulations results. Considering that Paraguay does not have national building energy codes, the outcomes of this research will constitute a support and contribute for the thermal parameters regulation of buildings aiding to improve the energy efficiency of Paraguayan buildings. Keywords: energy retrofit solutions; buildings energy efficiency; energy requirement; AHP 1. Introduction Currently, strategies to optimise buildings’ energy efficiency (EE) have become of outstanding importance. The architectural characteristics of buildings and physical properties of materials, such as thermal resistance, structural material, thermal mass, the orientation and shape, are some of the most important parameters influencing buildings’ thermal performance [1]. The use of thermal insulation materials for the building envelope components is one of the most often used methods to improve their thermal performance. In fact, in order to accomplish the EE requirements set in the regulations and energy codes of several countries, the use of these materials has increased significantly in the last years [2]. The referred standards set specific parameters for the buildings’ envelope components in order to attain thermal comfort inside the building with lower energy expenditure. Some of the most used parameters are the thermal resistance or thermal transmittance of buildings’ components [3]. Considering one-dimensional steady-state thermal conduction of a constructive component of the building (such as roofs or walls), these parameters represent the heat transfer taking place through the referred constructive component [4]. Nonetheless, many parameters can be analysed, and several options of intervention can be used to achieve better EE levels in buildings. Different multi-criteria Energies 2019, 12, 427; doi:10.3390/en12030427 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Energies 2019, 12, 427 2 of 27 decision-making processes are available to support such a choice, and an extensive review of them can be found in [5,6]. One of the widely used is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by Saaty [7]. It is a subjective method for analysing qualitative criteria where all parameters or criteria are allocated with a weight indicating the importance of each criterion. A hierarchical structure is used to model the decision-making process. For each hierarchical level, the decision-maker must make a pairwise comparison between the alternatives and the criteria, employing a scaling ratio for the weighing of attributes. The method determines the priorities of the decision alternatives, making possible to create a ranking, as well as allowing the verification of the internal consistency of the weighting assigned to each criterion [8]. Thus, the AHP method provides, as a result, a plan of preference and alternatives based on the level of importance given to the different criteria [9]. Several scientific investigations were developed using the AHP method for the relevance evaluation of different refurbishment buildings options [10–14], as well as to compare and choose the best energy efficiency policies at national level according to each economic sector [15–18]. Further details regarding the AHP method can be found in [19,20]. As previously referred, several options of intervention are available to increase buildings thermal performance, and the choice must be made considering the efficiency of the solution and the possible costs involved. Considering this, this paper aims to develop a parametric study of several energy retrofit solutions for a building located in the hot-humid climate of Asunción, Paraguay, in order to analyse their efficiency in terms of comfort rates and cooling energy needs. Furthermore, the AHP is employed as the decision-making method to choose the most appropriate intervention considering the investment costs required. The general objective of this research work is to establish threshold values of thermal transmittance for building thermal envelope components, in order to contribute to the regulation of thermal parameters to improve the EE of Paraguayan buildings. 2. Methodology This research has mainly seven steps briefly described below and summarised in Figure 1: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Taking as a base the original state of the building, and holding constant orientation, window size, window shading and input parameters for the simulations, different window glazing types, and different configurations for roofs and walls were evaluated; Considering the results in terms of comfort rates, cooling needs and the costs associated for each configuration evaluated in (a), the Analytic Hierarchy Process was applied to choose the best configuration for the roof, walls and glazing type; Once figured out the most recommended configuration for the building envelope components, the sensitivity of the building under different insulation thicknesses for roofs and walls analysing comfort rates and cooling needs was assessed; Considering the results in terms of comfort rates, cooling needs and the costs associated for each insulation thickness evaluated in (c), the Analytic Hierarchy Process was applied to choose the best insulation thickness for roof and walls; The building employing the best configurations of roofs, walls and glazing to evaluate the energy efficiency version was simulated; Taking as a base the energy efficiency version of the building used in (e), the building was rotated 180◦ to evaluate its performance with a different orientation, holding constant the configurations of walls and roof. With the energy efficiency version of the building in the original orientation and rotated 180◦ , holding constant the glazing type and the walls and roofs configurations, and according to the orientation, using or not, window shading systems, different window-wall-ratio (WWR) were evaluated. Energies 2019, 12, 427 3 of 27 A parametric study is developed in this research, in which dynamic energy simulations of a building performed using the EnergyPlus software and DesignBuilder interface. The weather data employed is the default one available in DesignBuilder for Asunción (Paraguay). The weather station corresponds to the Silvio Pettirossi airport, and the dataset cover a period of 18 years, from 1982 to 1999 for most stations. These hourly weather data are ‘typical’ data derived from hourly observations which correspond to a record of multiple years, where each selected month is representative of that month for the period of record [21]. The parameters used as evaluation indicators were operative temperature (Top ), which is employed to determine the discomfort rates, and the energy requirement of the thermal zone under analysis. The internal and external surface temperatures (Tsi . and Tse , respectively), and the heat transfer through the building’s envelope are also studied. The discomfort rate is computed considering two methods: the former, according to the acceptable indoor operative temperatures for buildings in the Category II of the standard EN 15251 for the design of buildings without mechanical cooling systems [22], which employs the adaptive method [23]; and the latter, applying the statistic method, using fixed threshold values of comfort temperature. This approach was already adopted for the thermal comfort assessment of buildings by several scientific research [24–29]. In order to set the fixed range for the city of Asunción, which does not have a national standard energy code, a scientific literature analysis was performed. The static models usually set fixed thresholds values of comfort temperatures, and they have been widely used in a significant number of thermal regulations around the world. In Portugal, the thermal regulation sets as acceptable temperatures the range between 18–25 ◦ C [30]. In Chile, the Sustainable Construction Code considers acceptable the temperatures between the range of 18–26 ◦ C [31]. In Brazil, the NBR 16401-2 [32] sets, as acceptable temperatures, the range between 23–26 ◦ C in the summer season with a relative humidity of 35%. The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) [33] recommends a benchmark summer peak temperature of 28 ◦ C for dwelling’s living areas. In addition, several scientific research has been developed to set thresholds values of comfort temperature considering the climate under analysis. Lu et al. [34] developed a field study of thermal comfort in a building without cooling systems located the tropical island climate of China; the results suggest an admissible comfort temperature range for the residents from 23.1 ◦ C to 29.1 ◦ C. Djamila et al. [35] explored the thermal perceptions of people in the humid tropics of Malaysia employing different thermal perception approach; the results suggest that the optimum temperature was found to be about 30 ◦ C. The research developed by Lopez et al. [36] may be the sole work assessing thermal comfort conditions taking as case study Paraguay. For the referred work, three naturally-ventilated buildings in Asunción were evaluated, and the results were compared to three different methodologies. The outcomes of the research proven that heat discomfort was overestimated by the standard ISO 7730 when air temperature values exceeded 30 ◦ C since users reported neutral thermal conditions, while the method indicated intense heat discomfort. Furthermore, it was stated that methods employing equations as a function of the outdoor climate variables could successfully adjust to the hot-humid climatic context. In this way, it is possible to assert that the occupants of naturally-ventilated buildings have a higher tolerance of high temperatures and greater thermal comfort range. Considering the fixed ranges employed by the reviewed standards and those obtained from scientific researches, the fixed range used for this research was 18 ◦ C to 27 ◦ C. Thus, annually, weekly and daily indoor air temperature profiles are modelled hourly for the thermal zone presenting the worse thermal performance and, the percentage of the simulated time in which the operative temperatures exceed 27 ◦ C or the value recommended by the EN 15251 for buildings in the Category II, corresponds to the overheating rate. Similarly, the percentage of the simulated time in which the operative temperatures are lower than 18 ◦ C or the value recommended by the EN 15251 for buildings in the Category II, corresponds to the underheating rate. In addition, other simulations were run to analyse the building profiles of cooling energy needs. These analyses Energies 2019, 12, 427 4 of 27 aim to calculate the amount of sensible energy that must be removed during the summer season, in order to ensure comfortable indoor conditions. In this way, simulations during the whole year to determine the comfort rates and energy requirement were performed. The hottest and coldest week of the year with hourly intervals were also considered to analyse the results regarding heat transfer through building envelope components. Furthermore, the hottest day of a year was simulated to analyse the results in terms of surface temperatures and to calculate the time shift value of the configurations under analysis. Regarding the methodology for the decision-making process [9], the first step involves building the hierarchy model, which has mainly three hierarchical levels: the main objective on the top, the criteria on the following level and the alternatives in the last level. For this work, the main objective is to choose, firstly, the best configuration for glazing areas, roofs and walls, and subsequently, to choose the most recommended insulation thickness for roofs and walls. For the second level, three common criteria were set for assessing the priorities in glazing, roof and walls interventions, and one additional criterion was added for the evaluation of the walls. The criteria are the annual comfort rate, which represents the percentage of the time the thermal zone is within the comfort range set for the static approach. Then, considering that a hot-humid climate is analysed for this work, where the major discomfort rates are due to overheating conditions, the cooling needs were also considered as a criterion for the decision-making process. The cooling needs are represented by the overall sensible cooling effect on the zone of any air entered in the zone through the cooling system, in other words, it is the total cooling contribution to the heat balance of the thermal zone under analysis [21]. The costs involved with the intervention, which include the costs for labour and materials taking as a base the original state of the building, and for the Paraguayan construction market were also considered. Finally, for the walls was also considered the wall thicknesses, in order to considerer the efficiency of walls with lower thickness allowing a greater indoor useful area of the thermal zone under analysis. Regarding the alternatives, six options were considered for the glazing, four for the roof, and nine for the walls. The second step involves the establishment of priorities for the criteria, the weights. For this purpose, the criteria are compared pairwise concerning the wanted goal to derive their weights. The values depicted in Table 1 are used to set the weights. The third step involves the establishment of local priorities (weights) for the alternatives, comparing the alternatives pairwise regarding every criterion, for which the scale of values is in Table 1. For these two steps previously referred, a review of the allocated weights values has to be done to check consistency regarding proportionality and transitivity [9]. The consistency ratio (CR) shall be between 0 and 0.1 to proceed with the AHP analysis. If it is higher than 0.10, a revision of the weight allocated is necessary to find the reason of the inconsistency in order to put it right. Table 1. The AHP pairwise comparison scale [7]. Intensity of Importance on an Absolute Scale Definition 1 The two criteria/alternatives are equally important and contribute equally to the objective Moderate importance of one criterion/alternative over another Essential or strong importance of one criterion/alternative over another Very strong importance of one criterion/alternative over another Extreme importance of one criterion/alternative over another Intermediate values (when compromise is needed) 3 5 7 9 2, 4, 6, 8 Finally, in the last step, the global priority vector is obtained. For this purpose, the alternatives priorities must be combined through a weighted sum in order to establish the overall priorities of the alternatives. Thus, the alternative with the highest overall priority is the most recommended choice [9]. The global priority vector is calculated through the elaboration of an overall matrix that includes the Energies 2019, 12, 427 5 of 27 local priorities of each alternative concerning each criterion. Then, each column of vectors is multiplied by Energies the priority to each criterion and added to each row, which results in the 5desired 2018, 11,corresponding x FOR PEER REVIEW of 27 vector of best alternatives ordered in a ranking of importance or preference [7]. Further information about the methodology, formulas used the method, theintheorems and considerations information about thethemethodology, thein formulas used the method, the theorems can andbe considerations can be found in [7]. found in [7]. Figure 1. Methodology of the work. Figure 1. Methodology of the work. 3. Case Study Characterisation 3. Case Study Characterisation The building taken as case study consists of a single two-storey family dwelling. The ground floor The building taken aszones case (lounge, study consists of a single two-storey family The ground is composed of four thermal circulations, bathroom, dining roomdwelling. and a kitchen) and the floor is composed of four thermal zones (lounge, circulations, bathroom, dining room and a kitchen) first floor has three thermal zones (two bedrooms and one lounge) (see Figure 2). The main thermal and the first floor has three thermal zones (two bedrooms and one lounge) (see Figure 2). The main thermal zone under analysis and for which the results are depicted corresponds to the Bedroom 2, a thermal zone on the first floor and with an east orientation, which in the original state has two walls to 1, while the values for clothing insulation were 0.5 clo and 1 clo for the summer and winter season, respectively. Table 2 depicts the input parameters used for the dynamic simulations according to every thermal zone of the building. For the thermal comfort evaluation, any heating or cooling system is considered. Nevertheless, natural ventilation is taken into account, where the natural ventilation rate was established in 5 air Energies 2019, 12, 427 6 of 27 changes per hour. Natural ventilation is allowed according to the windows operation schedule. Hence, in the warmer seasons windows are open allowing natural ventilation only when the outdoor temperature is lower and thanfor indoor However, ventilation restricted2,when the zone under analysis whichtemperature. the results are depictednatural corresponds to theisBedroom a thermal outside lower than 20 °C. For the winter windows arehas open when the zone ontemperature the first floorisand with an east orientation, whichseason, in the original state twoonly walls surfaces operative temperature is higher than the comfort temperature calculated from the CEN 15251 interacting with the outdoor conditions, the main facade with northwest (NW) orientation and the adaptive comfort model [22], considering days in because, winter season can reach high valuesand of lateral southwest (SW) facade. The zonethat has some been chosen considering its exposition temperature. orientation, it records the worst comfort conditions and the highest energy demand. In the following Regarding the window Venetian blinds), the schedule of aperture operation subsection are described theshading thermal (exterior properties of the building’s envelope components evaluated in for season is: 100% from 8 am to 6factor pm and fully the rest of the Fortothe summer thiswinter research (Tables 3 andopen 4). The metabolic used for closed all thermal zones wasday. equal 1, while the season, theclothing shadinginsulation is active when theclo solar on the window the medium solar values for were 0.5 andradiation 1 clo for the summer and reaches winter season, respectively. 2 setpoint of 189 W/m [37], parameters with the objective of the reducing thermal discomfort because direct solar Table 2 depicts the input used for dynamic simulations according to of every thermal radiation butbuilding. taking advantage of natural daylight. zone of the Figure 2. Architectural blueprints and thermal envelope characterisation of the case study. Figure 2. Architectural blueprints and thermal envelope characterisation of the case study. For the thermal comfort evaluation, any heating or cooling system is considered. Nevertheless, 2/person), the minimum Table 2. Input parameters set for the simulations. Thenatural occupation density (m natural ventilation is taken into account, where the ventilation rate was established in 5 air fresh air (l/s-person), the target illuminance (Lux), the internal gains (W/m2) and the occupation changes per hour. Natural ventilation is allowed according to the windows operation schedule. schedules are shown. Hence, in the warmer seasons windows are open allowing natural ventilation only when the outdoor temperature is lower than indoor temperature. However, natural ventilation is restricted when the outside temperature is lower than 20 ◦ C. For the winter season, windows are open only when the operative temperature is higher than the comfort temperature calculated from the CEN 15251 adaptive comfort model [22], considering that some days in winter season can reach high values of temperature. Regarding the window shading (exterior Venetian blinds), the schedule of aperture operation for winter season is: 100% open from 8 am to 6 pm and fully closed the rest of the day. For the summer season, the shading is active when the solar radiation on the window reaches the medium solar setpoint of 189 W/m2 [37], with the objective of reducing thermal discomfort because of direct solar radiation but taking advantage of natural daylight. Energies 2019, 12, 427 7 of 27 Table 2. Input parameters set for the simulations. The occupation density (m2 /person), the minimum Energies 2018, 11, PEER REVIEW 7 of 27 Energies 2018, 11, 11, xx FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW of 27 27 fresh air (l/s-person), the target illuminance (Lux), the internal gains (W/m2 ) and the occupation Energies 777 of Energies 2018, 2018, 11, xx FOR FOR PEER REVIEW REVIEW of 27 schedules are shown. Thermal Fresh Internal Thermal Fresh IlluminanceInternal Occupation Internal Thermal Fresh Thermal Occupation Illuminance Internal Thermal Zone Air Occupation Fresh AirFresh Illuminance Occupation Illuminance Internal Gains Zone Air Occupation Illuminance Gains ZoneZone Gains Air Gains Zone Air Gains Kitchen & Kitchen & Kitchen & Kitchen & Kitchen & 59.12 Dining Dining Dining Dining Dining 59.12 59.12 59.12 59.12 Bedroom 43.59 Bedroom 43.59 Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom 43.59 43.59 43.59 Bathroom 53.37 Bathroom 53.37 Bathroom Bathroom 53.37 53.37 53.37 Bathroom 4 14 4 10 4 444 14 14 14 14 4 444 10 10 10 10 100 100 100 100 100 300 300 300 300 300 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 3.903.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 1.57 1.57 1.571.57 1.57 30.28 30.28 30.28 30.28 30.28 3.58 3.58 3.583.58 3.58 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.671.67 Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor 200 200 200 200 200 Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekend Weekend Weekend Weekend Time of Time of of Day Day Time Time of Day Day Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend 1 Weekday Weekend 11 1 Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor 64.50 64.50 64.50 64.50 4 444 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 00 0 Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Circulations Circulations Circulations 64.50 Circulations Circulations 4 1 11 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 00 0 Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor 53.32 53.32 53.32 53.32 53.32 1 11 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 00 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 00 0 Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Occupancy Factor Lounge Lounge Lounge Lounge Lounge Schedule Schedule Schedule Schedule Schedule 1 11 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 00 0 Time of Time of of Day Day Time Time of Day Day Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekend Weekday Weekday Weekend Time of Time of of Day Day Time Time of Day Day Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekend Weekday Weekday Weekend Time of Time of of Day Day Time Time of Day Day Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Time of Time of of Day Day Time Time of Day Day Energy Retrofit Configuration Energy Retrofit Retrofit Solutions Solutions Configuration Configuration Energy Energy Retrofit Solutions Solutions Configuration Energy Retrofit Solutions Configuration At this stage of the energy rehabilitation strategies, several possibilities of intervention At this this stage stage of of defining defining the the energy energy rehabilitation rehabilitation strategies, strategies, several several possibilities possibilities of of intervention intervention At At this analysed, stage of defining defining the energy rehabilitation strategies, several possibilities ofcountry. intervention have been considering the most commonly used configurations in the The have been of analysed, considering the most commonly commonly used configurations configurations in the the of country. The At have this stage defining the energy rehabilitation strategies, several possibilities intervention been analysed, considering the most used in country. The have been analysed, considering the most commonly used configurations in the country. The constructive solutions and their thermal parameters are described in Table 3 for the glazing and Table constructive solutions andthe their thermal parameters are described in in Table Table 3 for for the glazing glazing and Table Table constructive solutions and their thermal parameters are described 3 the and have been analysed, considering most commonly used configurations in the country. The constructive constructive solutions and their thermal parameters are described in Table 3 for the glazing and Table 4 for roofs and walls. for roofs roofs and and walls. walls. 444 for solutions and their thermal are described in Table 3 for the glazing and Table thickness 4 for roofs for roofs and walls.theparameters For calculating thermal parameters of the roofs R3 and R4, an equivalent constant For calculating calculating the the thermal thermal parameters parameters of of the the roofs roofs R3 R3 and and R4, R4, an an equivalent equivalent constant constant thickness thickness For For calculating the thermal parameters of the roofs R3 and R4, an equivalent constant thickness and walls. was used for the air gap. In addition, for some constructive components was considered their thermal was used used for for the the air air gap. gap. In In addition, addition, for for some some constructive constructive components components was was considered considered their their thermal thermal was used for the air gap.ofIntheir addition, for some constructive components was considered their thickness thermal Forwas calculating the thermal parameters of the roofs R3 and R4, an equivalent constant resistance (𝑅 ) instead thermal conductivity. Six different options were evaluated for the resistance (𝑅 (𝑅 )) instead instead of of their their thermal thermal conductivity. conductivity. Six Six different different options options were were evaluated evaluated for for the the resistance resistance (𝑅 ) instead of their thermal conductivity. Six different options were evaluated for the glazing, four for the roofs and nine for the walls. was used for the air gap. In addition, for some constructive components was considered their thermal glazing, four for the roofs and nine for the walls. glazing, four for the roofs and nine for the walls. glazing, four for the roofs and nine for the walls. resistance (R ) instead of their thermal conductivity. Six different options were evaluated for the t Table 3. Description glazing each the of λ Table 3. Description Description ofnine glazing type considered. For each each layer, layer, the the values values of of ss (thickness), (thickness), λ λ (thermal (thermal glazing, fourTable for the roofs andof fortype theconsidered. walls. For Table 3. 3. Description of of glazing glazing type type considered. considered. For For each layer, layer, the values values of ss (thickness), (thickness), λ (thermal (thermal Table 3. Description of glazing type considered. For eachand layer, the values of s (thickness), λ (thermal conductivity), U transmittance), (solar are conductivity), U U (thermal (thermal transmittance), transmittance), ee (emissivity), (emissivity), and and ST ST (solar (solar transmittance) transmittance) are are shown. shown. conductivity), conductivity), U (thermal (thermal transmittance), ee (emissivity), (emissivity), and ST ST (solar transmittance) transmittance) are shown. shown. Energies 2019, 12, 427 8 of 27 Table 3. 2018, Description glazing type considered. For each layer, the values8of s (thickness), λ (thermal Energies 11, x FOR PEERof REVIEW of 28 of 28 conductivity), U (thermal transmittance), e (emissivity), and ST (solar8transmittance) are shown. 8 of 28 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Building component λ (W/m U s (m) e (-) ST (-) 8 of 28 2 Material（outer to inner) λ (W/m K) U (W/m K) Building component s (m) e (-) ST (-) EnergiesEnergies 2018, 11, x FOR 82 of 28 Material（outer to inner) Building λ (W/m U8 of 28 2018, 11, PEER x FORREVIEW PEER REVIEW (W/m λ (W/m U K)e (-) Building componentMaterial s (m) (-) ST (Outer to Inner) sK)(m) e (-) λe (W/m K)(-) ST (-) U (W/m2 K) G – Glazing Material（outer to inner) 2K) Building component s (m) ST (-) K) Component Material（outer to inner) 2(W/m K) K) (W/m G – Glazing λ (W/m U λ (W/m U Building component s (m) 0.006 ST (-) ST Material（outer toClear inner) 0.77 G1Material（outer - (a) Single Building component s (m) K) 0.90 e (-) 0.84 e (-) (-) G – Glazing toglazing inner) K)5.782K) (W/m2(W/m G—Glazing G – Glazing K) G2Single - (a) Reflectance glazing0.006 0.0060.90 0.90 0.84 0.840.77 0.48 5.78 5.78 G1 - (a) Clear glazing G1 -G3 (a) Single Clear glazing 0.006 0.77 5.78 G – Glazing 5.78 0.77 5.78 0.84 0.840.90 0.68 G1 Singleglazing Clear glazing - (a) Low-e glazing 0.006 Reflectance G – Glazing G2 5.78 3.78 0.77 0.84 0.200.48 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.006 0.0060.90 G1 -- (a) (a) Single Clear glazing G2 -G6 (a) Reflectance glazing 0.0060.90 0.20 0.48 5.78 5.78 0.48 3.78 0.84 0.0060.90 G2 5.63 0.33 0.840.90 0.010 - (a) Reflectance glazing 0.68 0.006 G3 -- (a) Low-e glazing 5.78 0.48 0.84 0.90 0.006 G2 (a) Reflectance glazing 5.78 5.78 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.006 0.0060.90 G1 -- (a) (a) Single Clearglazing glazing 3.78 0.68 5.63 0.200.90 G3 Low-e glazing - (a) Single Clear glazing 0.33 0.010 G6 Reflectance G3 -G1 (a) Low-e glazing 0.006 0.20 0.20 0.68 3.78 outer inner 3.78 0.68 0.90 0.006 G3 (a) Low-e glazing 0.48 0.48 0.84 G2 - (a) Reflectance glazing 5.63 0.33 5.78 0.84 0.0100.90 G6 5.78 - (a) Reflectance glazing0.006 0.006 (a) G6(a) -G2 (a) Reflectance 0.0100.90 0.20 0.840.90 0.33 5.63 outer inner 0.33 0.010 G6 Reflectance glazing glazing 3.78 3.78 0.68 0.68 5.63 0.90 0.90 0.84 0.006 0.0060.90 G3 -- (a) Low-e glazing 0.20 G3 (a) Low-e glazing inner (a) G4outer – Double outer innerGlazing 0.010 0.0100.90 0.90 0.84 0.840.33 0.33 5.63 5.63 G6 - (a) Reflectance glazing G6 (a) Reflectance glazing (a) G4 – Double (a) Glazing outer inner Glazing (a) Single clear glazing 0.006 0.90 inner G4outer – Double G4–Double 0.84 0.77 G4 – Double (a) Glazing (b) Air gap 2.76 (a) Single clear glazing 0.006 0.0100.90 𝑹𝒕 = 0.15 Glazing(a) 0.84 0.840.77 0.77 (a) Single clear glazing glazing G4 – Double Glazing (c) Single clear 0.006 0.90 0.90 0.006 (a) Single clear glazing (b) Air gap 0.010 𝑹 = 0.15 2.76 𝒕 G4 – Double Glazing (a) Single clear glazing 0.006 0.90 0.840.77 0.77 0.84 outer inner 0.84 0.77 0.84 0.77 (b) Air gap 0.0100.90 𝑹 = 0.15 2.76 (c) Single clear glazing 0.006 2.76 R (b) gap (b) AirAir gap 0.010 𝑹𝒕0.90 =0.010 0.15𝒕 t = 0.15 0.84 0.77 2.76 (a)(b)(c) outer inner (a) Single clear glazing 0.006 0.006 0.84 0.77 0.77 (c) Single clear glazing (a) 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.77 (c) clearclear glazing 0.90 0.006 (c)Single Single glazing 0.006 0.840.90 0.77 2.76 outer inner (a)(b)(c) (b) Air gap 0.010 𝑹 = 0.15 G5 – Double Glazing (b) Air gap 0.010𝒕 𝑹𝒕 = 0.15 2.76 outer inner 0.84 0.840.77 0.77 (a)(b)(c) clear glazing 0.006 0.0060.90 0.90 G5 – Double Glazing (c) Single (c) Single clear glazing (a)(b)(c) outer inner Glazing (a) Reflectance glazing 0.006 0.90 inner G5outer – Double 0.84 0.48 G5 – Double Glazing (a)(b)(c) (b) Air gap 2.76 (a) Reflectance glazing 0.006 0.0100.90 𝑹𝒕 = 0.15 (a)(b)(c) 0.84 0.840.48 0.48 G5–Double (a) Reflectance glazing glazing G5 – Double Glazing (c) Reflectance 0.006 0.90 𝑹 (b) Air gap 0.010 = 0.15 2.76 𝒕 G5 – Double Glazing (a) Reflectance glazing 0.006 0.90 0.840.48 0.48 0.84 outer inner Glazing 0.84 0.48 (b) Air gap 0.0100.90 𝑹𝒕 = 0.15 2.76 (c) Reflectance glazingglazing 0.006 (a) 𝑹𝒕0.90 (b) AirReflectance gap 0.010 =0.006 0.15 0.840.90 0.48 2.76 (a)(b)(c) outer inner (a) Reflectance glazing 0.006 0.006 (c) Reflectance glazing (a) 0.90 0.84 0.84 0.48 0.84 0.840.48 0.48 0.48 (c) Reflectance glazing 0.006 0.90 outer inner 2.76 R = 0.15 0.010 (b) Air gap (a)(b)(c) 𝑹 (b) Air gap 0.010 = 0.15 2.76 t 𝑹𝒕 = 0.15 (b) Air gap 0.010𝒕 2.76 outer inner 0.84 0.48 0.84 0.840.48 0.48 (a)(b)(c) (c) Reflectance glazing 0.006 0.90 0.90 0.006 (c) Reflectance glazing Table 4. Building’s envelope components description. The values of s (thickness), λ (thermal (c) Reflectance glazing 0.006 0.90 (a)(b)(c) outer outer inner inner Table conductivity), 4. Building’s Uenvelope description. The values (thickness), (thermal (thermal components transmittance) and 𝑀 (thermal mass) of aresshown for eachλ layer. (a)(b)(c) (a)(b)(c) Table 4.U Building’s envelope components description. The valuesfor ofeach s (thickness), λ (thermal conductivity), (thermal transmittance) and description. 𝑀 (thermal mass)values are shown layer.λ (thermal Table 4. Building’s envelope components The of s (thickness), conductivity), U (thermal transmittance) and 𝑀 (thermal mass) are shown for eachU layer. Material λeach conductivity), Ucomponent (thermal transmittance) and 𝑀 (thermal The mass)values ares shown for layer.λ (thermal 𝑴𝒔 Building Table Table 4. Building’s envelope components description. of s (thickness), 4. Building’s envelopeMaterial components description. of sK)(thickness), (Kg/m2) (outer to inner) (m)values s The λ (W/m U (W/m2K)λ𝑴𝒔(thermal Building component conductivity), U (thermal transmittance) and 𝑀and (thermal mass) mass) ares shown forλvalues each 2) 𝑴 2K) U (thermal transmittance) 𝑀 description. (thermal are shown forlayer. each layer. Material U (Kg/m Table 4.conductivity), Building’s envelope components The of s (thickness), λ (thermal conductivity), (outer to inner) (m) (W/m K) (W/m 𝒔 𝑴𝒔 Material s λ U Building component 2) Building component (Kg/m (outer to inner) (W/m K) 2(W/m2K) ROOF (m) (m) 2) (Kg/mlayer. K) each toM inner) (W/m K) (W/m U (thermal transmittance)(outer and (thermal mass) are shown for 𝑴 Material s λ U s ROOF 𝒔 𝑴𝒔 Material s λ U Building component 2) Building component 2K) (Kg/m(Kg/m 2) (outer (outer to inner) (W/m (W/m K) (W/m to inner) K) (W/m2K) ROOF (m) (m) R1 – Without insulation ROOF Material s λ U Ms R1 – Without insulation Building Component wood 0.025 0.29 ROOF 2) 2 K) ROOF R1 – Without insulation (a) High density 4.20 (W/m40K) (Kg/m (Outer to Inner) (m) (W/m R1 – Without insulation (a) High (b)density Ceramicwood Clay Tile 0.025 0.010 0.29 0.84 4.20 40 (a) High density 0.0250.84 0.29 (b) Ceramic Clay Tile wood 0.010 R1 – Without insulation R1 – Without insulation (a) High density wood 0.025 ROOF 0.29 4.20 40 40 (b) Ceramic Clay Tile 0.010 0.84 4.20 (b) Ceramic Claywood Tile 0.010 0.84 (a) High density 0.025 0.025 0.29 0.29 4.20 R1 - Without insulation(a) High density wood 40 4.20 R2 - Pitched Roof Tile (b) Ceramic Clay 0.010 (a) Tile High density wood 0.2940 (b) Ceramic Clay Tile 0.010 0.84 0.840.025 4.20 40 R2 - Pitched Roof Tile (b) Ceramic Clay Tile 0.010 0.84 (a) Ceramic clay tile 0.010 0.84 R2 - Pitched Roof Tile R2 - Pitched Roof Tile (b) Glass 0.67 49 (a) Ceramic claywool tile felt 0.010 0.050 0.84 0.04 (a) High Ceramic clay tile 0.010 0.84 R2 - Pitched Roof Tile (c) density (b) Glass wool felt 0.050 49 - Pitched Roof Tile R2R2 - Pitched Roof Tile (a) Ceramic clay tile wood 0.010 0.025 0.04 0.84 0.29 0.67 (a) Ceramic clay tile0.0500.29 0.8449 (b) Glass wool felt 0.040.010 0.67 (c) High wood 0.025 (b) Glassdensity wool felt 0.050 0.04 0.67 49 (a) Ceramic clay tile 0.010 0.010 0.84 0.84 (c) High density wood 0.290.050 (a) Ceramic clay tile (b) Glass wool0.025 felt 0.0250.29 0.04 0.67 49 (c) density wood (b) High Glass wool felt 0.050 0.04 0.67 49 (b) Glass felt density wood 0.050 0.040.025 0.67 (c)wool High 0.2949 (c) High density wood 0.025 0.29 R3 - Pitched Roof Tile (c) High density wood 0.025 0.29 R3 - Pitched Roof Tile (a) Ceramic clay tile 0.010 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 28 (a) Ceramic clay tile 0.010 0.84 R3 Pitched Roof Tile - Pitched Roof (a) Tile (b) High Ceramic claydensity tile wood R3R3 - Pitched Roof Tile 0.010 0.025 0.84 9 of 28 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.84 0.290.025 0.57 (a)density Ceramic clay (b) High wood 1276 (c) Glass wool felttiledensity (b) High wood 0.010 0.050 0.025 (a) Ceramic clay tile 0.29 R3 - Pitched Roof Tile 0.010 0.84 R3 - Pitched Roof Tile (b)wool High density wood (d) Air gap Material s 0.29 λ 0.050 U 1276 𝑴𝒔 0.57 (c) Glass felt 0.84 0.04 (c) Glass wool 0.050 felt 1.000 0.57 1276 0.025 (b) High density wood Building component 0.025 0.29K) (a) Ceramic clay tile 0.04 0.25 0.04 2K) 0.010 0.030 0.57 1276 2) (c) Glass wool felt (Kg/m (a) Ceramic clay tile (e) Plasterboard (outer to inner) (m) (W/m (W/m (d) Air gap 0.29 0.050 0.010 Material s λ U 1.000 0.57 1276 𝑴𝒔 (c) Glass wool(d) feltwood Air gap 0.050 1.000 0.84 0.84 0.04 (b) High density Building component 0.25 0.025 0.025 (d) High Air (outer gap (b) density wood (e) Plasterboard (Kg/m2) 1.000 to inner) (m) 0.04 K) (W/m2K) 0.25 0.030 (d) Air gap 0.29(W/m (e) Plasterboard 1.000 0.250.030 0.57 0.57 1276 1276 (c) Glass felt 0.29 (e) wool Plasterboard 0.050 0.010 (c) Glass wool felttile R4 - Pitched Roof Tile (a) Ceramic clay 0.0300.25 0.050 (e) 0.04 0.84 0.030 (d) Plasterboard Air(d) gap 0.04 1.000 0.025 Air (a) gap (b) High density wood clay - Pitched Roof Tile Ceramic tile1.000 0.010 (a) Ceramic clay tile 0.0100.25 0.29 Plasterboard 0.25 R4R4 - Pitched Roof (e) Tile 0.84 0.84 0.030 1.000 (e) Air Plasterboard (c) gap 0.57 1276 0.030 (b) High density 0.025 (b) Highwood density wood 0.04 0.290.025 0.29 (d) Glass wool felt 0.050 (c) Air gap 1.000 0.57 1276 0.25 (c) Air gap 0.57 1276 0.041.000 (e) 0.030 0.04 (d) Plasterboard Glass wool felt 0.050 0.250.050 (d) Glass wool felt (e) Plasterboard 0.030 0.25 (e) Plasterboard 0.030 Table 4. Cont. Commented [M5]: Please check if there are two Table 4 in Table 4. Cont. WALLS WALLS W1: Without insulation (original state) WALLS W1: Without insulation W1a - SW orientation W1a - SW cmorientation Wall W1a -20 SW orientation 2020cm Wall cm Wall Commented [M5]: if there two Table 4 in this manuscript. If so,Please pleasecheck reorder tableare number this manuscript. If so, please reorder table number (original state) W1: Without insulation (original state) (a) Sand(a) lime plaster 0.015 Sand lime plaster (b) Solid lime Brickplaster Burned 0.170 (a) Sand 0.015 (b) Solid Brick Burned (c) 0.015 (b) Sand-lime Solid Brickplaster Burned 0.170 1.150.015 0.85 1.150.170 2.53 1.15 0.85 2.53 0.015 1.15 (c) Sand-lime plaster inner (c) Sand-lime plaster 0.015 outer (a)(b)(c)inner W1b - NW orientation (a)(b)(c) W1b - NW cmorientation Wall W1b -30 NW orientation (a) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 3030cm Wall cm Wall (a) Sand lime plaster 0.015 (b) Solid lime Brickplaster Burned 0.270 0.85 1.95 (a) Sand 0.015 1.15 (b) Solid Brick Burned 0.270 (c) 0.015 1.15 (b) Sand Solid lime Brickplaster Burned 0.270 0.85 1.95 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 outer inner (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 outer (a)(b)(c) inner External (W2) and internal (W3) cladding with insulation (a)(b)(c) outer W2a - SW orientationExternal (W2) and internal (W3) cladding with insulation (a) Sand cement plaster 0.010 0.42 cmorientation Wall W2a -26 SW (b) Glass cement wool felt 0.050 0.04 (a) Sand plaster 0.010 0.42 26 cm Wall (c) 0.015 1.15 (b) Sand-lime Glass woolplaster felt 0.050 0.04 (b) Solid brickplaster burned 0.170 0.85 (c) Sand-lime 0.015 1.15 outer inner (e) 0.015 1.15 (b) Sand-lime Solid brickplaster burned 0.170 0.85 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) outer inner (e) Sand-lime plaster 0.015 1.15 (a)NW (b) (c) (d) (e) W2borientation 0.010 (a) Sand cement plaster 0.42 cmorientation Wall W2b-36 NW 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒 (b) Glass cement wool felt 0.050 0.010 (a) Sand plaster 0.42 36 cm Wall 1.15 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒 (b) Glass wool felt 0.050 1.15 309 0.85 309 1.15 2.53 309 1.15 459 0.85 459 1.15 1.95 459 0.60 348 0.60 348 0.56 498 W1a - SW orientation W1a SW orientation W1a --20 SW cmorientation Wall 20 20 cm cm Wall Wall Energies 2019, 12, 427 outer inner outer outer (a)(b)(c)inner inner (a)(b)(c) (a)(b)(c) W1b - NW orientation W1b NW W1b --30 NW orientation cmorientation Wall 30 30 cm cm Wall Wall outer inner Building Component this manuscript. If so, please reorder table number this this manuscript. manuscript. If If so, so, please please reorder reorder table table number number WALLS WALLS WALLS (original state) W1: Without insulation W1: Without insulation W1: Without insulation (original (original state) state) (a) Sand lime plaster (a) Sand lime plaster (a) (b) Sand Solid lime Brickplaster Burned (b) Solid Burned (b) Solid Brick Brickplaster Burned (c) Sand-lime (c) (c) Sand-lime Sand-lime plaster plaster 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.015 0.015 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster 0.0154. Table (a) Sand lime plaster 0.015 (a) 0.015 (b) Sand Solid lime Brickplaster Burned 0.270 (b) Solid Brick Burned 0.270 (b) Solid lime Brickplaster Burned 0.270 (c) Sand 0.015 Material (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.15 1.15 1.15 2.53 2.53 2.53 309 309 309 9 of 27 1.15 Cont. 1.15 1.15 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.15 1.15 1.15 s (m) 1.95 1.95 1.95 459 459 459 λ (W/m K) U outer (Outer to Inner) (W/m2 K) outer (a)(b)(c) inner inner (a)(b)(c) (a)(b)(c) External (W2) and internal cladding(W3) with insulation External (W2) and(W3) internal cladding with insulation External External (W2) (W2) and and internal internal (W3) (W3) cladding cladding with with insulation insulation W2a - SW orientation W2a -- SW orientation (a) Sand cement plaster 0.010 0.420.010 0.42 (a) Sand cement plaster W2a - SW orientation W2a SW orientation 26 cm Wall (a) Sand cement plaster 0.010 0.42 (a) cement plaster 0.010 0.42 cm (b) Sand Glass wool felt 0.050 0.040.050 26cm cm Wall Wall 0.04 (b) Glass wool felt 0.050 2626 Wall (b) Glass wool felt 0.04 (b) Glass woolplaster felt 0.050 0.04 (c) Sand-lime 0.015 1.15 0.60 348 0.60 1.15 0.015 0.60 (c) Sand-lime plaster (c) Sand-lime plaster 0.015 1.15 348 (c) 0.015 1.15 0.60 348 (b) Sand-lime Solid brickplaster burned 0.170 0.85 (b) Solid brick burned 0.170 0.85 outer inner 0.85 0.170 (d) Solid brick burned (b) Solid brick burned 0.170 0.85 (e) Sand-lime plaster 0.015 1.15 outer inner outer inner (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (e) plaster 0.015 1.15 (e) Sand-lime Sand-lime plaster 0.015 1.150.015 1.15 (e) Sand-lime plaster (a) (b) (d) (a)NW (b) (c) (c) (d) (e) (e) W2borientation W2bNW orientation 0.010 (a) Sand(a) cement plaster W2b0.420.010 W2b-NW NW orientation 0.42 Sand cement plaster 36 cmorientation Wall 0.010 (a) Sand cement plaster 0.42 cm 0.010 (a) cement plaster 0.42 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒0.050 (b) Sand Glass wool felt 0.050 36cm cm Wall Wall 3636 Wall 0.04 (b) Glass wool felt 0.050 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒 (b) Glass wool felt 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒 (b) Glass wool felt 0.050 1.15 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 0.56 498 0.56 1.15 0.015 (c) Sand lime plaster 1.15 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 0.56 498 1.15 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 0.56 498 0.85 (b) Solid brick burned 0.270 0.85 (b) Solid brick burned 0.270 0.85 0.270 (d) Solid brick burned outer inner 0.85 (b) Solid lime brickplaster burned 0.270 1.15 (e) Sand 0.015 outer inner 1.15 (e) lime plaster 0.015 outer inner 1.150.015 (a) (b) (c) (d)(e) (e) Sand Sand(e) lime plaster 0.015 1.15 Sand lime plaster (a) (d)(e) (a) (b) (b) (c) (c)Inner (d)(e)(W4) and exterior (W6) cladding with hollow brick leaving an air gap Inner (W4) and exterior (W6) cladding with hollow brick leaving an air gap Inner (W4) and exterior (W6) cladding with hollow brick leaving an air gap Inner (W4) and exterior (W6) cladding with hollow brick leaving an air gap W4a - SW orientation (a) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 W4a -- SW orientation W4a31.5 SWcm orientation Wall (a) lime plaster 0.015 1.15 1.15 (a) Sand lime plaster (a) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 (b) Sand Solid brick burned 0.170 0.850.015 W4a - 31.5 SWcm orientation Wall 31.5 cm Wall (b) Solid brick burned 0.170 0.85 (b) Solid brick burned 0.170 0.85 0.85 (b) Solid brick burned (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.150.170 31.5 cm Wall 1.04 505 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 (c) lime plaster 0.015 = 0.19 (d) Sand Air (c) gap 0.025 𝑹𝒕1.15 505 1.15 0.015 1.04 Sand lime plaster 1.04 505 (d) Air 0.025 𝑹 1.04 0.19 (d) Air gap gap brick 0.025 𝑹𝒕𝒕𝒕 == 0.19 0.35 (e) Hollow 0.050 R = 0.025 (d) Air gap t 0.19 outer inner == 0.35 𝑹 (e) Hollow brick 0.050 0.35 𝑹𝒕𝒕0.42 (e) Hollow brickplaster 0.050 (f) Sand cement 0.010 outer inner outer inner Rt = 0.35 Hollow (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 0.42 (f) cement plaster 0.010 0.420.050 (f) Sand Sand(e) cement plasterbrick 0.010 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 0.42 0.010 (f) Sand cement plaster W4bNW orientation W4bNW orientation 0.015 1.15 (a) Sand lime plaster W4b-41.5 NWcm orientation Wall 0.015 1.15 (a) Sand lime plaster Wall 0.015 1.15 (a) lime plaster (a) Sand lime plaster 1.15 (b) Sand Solid brick burned 0.270 0.850.015 W4b - 41.5 NWcm 41.5 cmorientation Wall (b) Solid brick burned 0.270 0.85 (b) Solid brick burned 0.270 0.85 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.150.270 (b) Solid brick burned 0.85 41.5 cm Wall 0.93 655 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 (c) lime plaster 0.015 = 0.19 (d) Sand Air (c) gap 0.025 𝑹𝒕1.15 0.93 655 Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 0.93 655 = 0.19 (d) Air gap 0.025 𝑹 (d) Air gap brick 0.025 𝑹𝒕𝒕𝒕 = 0.19 0.93 0.35 (e) Hollow 0.050 (d) Airplaster gap 0.025 Rt = 0.19 𝑹 == 0.35 (e) Hollow brick 0.050 outer inner 𝑹𝒕𝒕0.42 0.35 (e) Hollow brick 0.050 (f) Sand cement 0.010 outer inner 0.42 (f) Sand cement plaster 0.010 outer inner (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) Hollow Rt = 0.35 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 28 0.420.050 (f) Sand(e) cement plasterbrick 0.010 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 28 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) Energies 2018, 2018, 11, x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 10 of of 28 28 Energies 11, (f) Sand cement plaster 0.010 0.42 10 Ms (Kg/m2 ) 348 498 505 655 Inner (W5) and exterior (W7) cladding with insulation and hollow brick Inner (W5) and exterior (W7) cladding with insulation and hollow brick Inner and exterior (W7) cladding insulation Inner (W5)(W5) and exterior exterior (W7) cladding cladding with insulationwith and hollow hollow brick and hollow brick Inner (W5) and (W7) with insulation and brick W5a - SW orientation W5a - SW orientation 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster W5a SW orientation 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster cmorientation Wall W5a -34 SW 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 (a) Sand lime plaster 34 cm Wall 0.85 0.170 (b) Solid lime brick burned 1.15 0.015 (a) W5a - SW 34 cm cmorientation Wall 0.85 0.170 (b) Sand Solid brickplaster burned 34 Wall 0.850.170 0.170 (b) Sand Solid brick burned 1.15 0.015 (c) lime plaster (b) Solid brick burned 0.85 0.85 0.170 (b) Solid brick burned 34 cm Wall 1.15 0.015 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.49 484 1.15 0.015 (c) Sand Sand lime plaster 0.49 484 0.04 0.050 (d) Glass wool felt lime plaster 1.15 0.015 (c) lime plaster (c) Sand 1.15 0.49 484 0.040.015 0.49 0.050 (d) Glass wool felt 484 0.04 0.050 (d) Glass wool felt 0.49 484 𝑹𝒕0.04 0.080 (e) Hollow brick = 0.35 0.050 (d) Glass wool felt 𝑹 0.080 (e) Hollow brick = 0.35 (d) Glass wool felt 0.010 0.050 0.04 outer inner 𝑹𝒕𝒕0.42 0.080 (e) Sand Hollow brick = 0.35 0.35 outer inner (f) cement plaster 𝑹 0.080 (e) Hollow brick = 𝒕 0.010 (f) Sand(e) cement plaster 0.42 outer inner (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) outer inner Hollow Rt = 0.35 0.010 (f) Sand Sand cement cement plasterbrick 0.420.080 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 0.010 (f) plaster 0.42 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) W5bNW orientation (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) (f) Sand cement plaster 0.010 0.42 W5b- NW orientation 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster W5b-44 NW orientation cmorientation Wall W5bNW 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster 44 cm Wall 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand Sand lime plaster 0.85 0.270 (b) Solid brick burned 44 cm Wall 1.15 0.015 (a) lime plaster 0.015 1.15 (a) Sand lime plaster W5b - NW orientation 44 cm Wall 0.85 0.270 (b) Solid brick burned 0.85 0.270 (b) Sand Solid lime brickplaster burned 1.15 0.015 (c) 0.85 0.270 (b) Solid brick burned 1.150.270 0.47 0.015 (b) Solid brick burned 0.85 (c) Sand lime plaster 634 44 cm Wall 1.15 0.015 (c) Sand Sand lime plaster 0.47 634 0.04 0.050 (d) Glasslime woolplaster felt 1.15 0.015 (c) 0.47 634 0.040.015 0.47 0.050 (d) Glass wool felt (c)wool Sand 1.15 634 0.04 0.050 (d) Hollow Glass felt lime plaster 𝑹𝒕0.04 0.080 = 0.35 (e) brick 0.050 (d) Glass wool felt 0.47 634 𝑹𝒕 = 0.35 0.080 (e) Hollow brick outer inner 𝑹𝒕0.42 0.080 0.35 (d) Glass wool felt 0.010 0.050 0.04 (e) Sand Hollow brick (f) cement plaster 𝑹 0.080 == 0.35 outer inner (e) Hollow brick 𝒕0.42 0.010 (f) Sand cement plaster outer inner (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 0.010 0.420.080 outer inner (f) Sand Sand(e) cement plasterbrick Hollow Rt = 0.35 0.010 0.42 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) (f) cement plaster (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 4. Cont. Commented [M6]: Please check if there are two Table 4 in (f) SandTable cement plaster 0.010 0.42 Table 4. Cont. Commented [M6]: Please check if there are two Table 4 in Table 4. 4. Cont. Cont. Commented [M6]: [M6]: Please Please check check if if there there are are two two Table Table 44 in in Table Commented this manuscript. If so, please reorder table number Inner (W8)(W8) and exterior (W9) cladding with insulationwith and solid brick Inner and exterior (W9) cladding insulation and solid brick this manuscript. If so, please reorder table number Inner (W8) and exterior (W9) cladding with insulation and solid brick this manuscript. If so, please reorder table number Inner (W8) (W8) and and exterior exterior (W9) (W9) cladding cladding with with insulation insulation and and solid solid brick brick this manuscript. If so, please reorder table number Inner W8a- SW orientation W8a- SW orientation 1.150.015 0.015 (a) Sand(a) lime plaster Sand lime plaster 1.15 W8aSW orientation W8a - SW orientation 31 cmorientation Wall 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster W8aSW 31 cm Wall 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster 0.85 0.170 (b) Solid brick burned 1.15 0.015 (a) lime plaster 31cm cm Wall Wall (b) Solid brick burned 0.85 0.850.170 0.170 (b) Sand Solid brick burned 3131 Wall cm 0.85 0.170 (b) Sand Solid lime brickplaster burned 1.15 0.015 (c) 0.85 0.170 (b) Solid brick burned 1.150.015 0.58 0.015 (c) Sand lime plaster (c) Sand lime plaster 1.15 433 1.15 0.015 (c) Sand lime plaster 0.58 433 0.04 0.080 (d) Glasslime woolplaster felt 0.58 433 1.15 0.015 (c) 0.58 433 0.04 0.080 (d) Sand Glass wool felt 433 (d) Glass 0.04 0.040.080 0.58 0.080 (d) Solid Glass wool felt wool felt 0.050 0.85 (e) brick burned 0.04 0.080 (d) Glass wool felt 0.85 0.050 (e) Solid brick burned outer inner 0.85 0.050 (e) Solid brick burned (e) Solid brick burned 0.050 0.85 0.35 0.015 (f) Sand plaster outer inner 0.85 0.050 (e) Solid cement brick burned 0.35 0.015 (f) Sand cement plaster outer inner (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) outer inner 0.350.015 0.015 (f) Sand Sand(f) cement plaster (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) Sand cement plaster 0.35 0.35 0.015 (f) cement plaster (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) W8bNW orientation W8b- NW orientation 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster W8bNW orientation 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand lime plaster 41 cm Wall (a) Sand lime plaster 0.015 1.15 W8bNW W8b - NW orientation 1.15 0.015 (a) Sand Sand lime plaster 41 cmorientation Wall 0.85 0.270 (b) Solid lime brickplaster burned 1.15 0.015 (a) 41 cm cm Wall Wall 0.850.270 0.270 (b) Solid brick burned 41 (b) Solid brick burned 0.85 0.85 0.270 (b) Solid brick burned 41 cm Wall 1.15 0.015 (c) Sand 0.85 0.270 (b) Solid lime brickplaster burned 1.15 0.015 (c) Sand lime plaster 583 1.150.015 0.54 0.015 (c) Sand Sand lime plaster (c) Sand 1.15 0.54 583 0.04 0.080 (d) Glass wool felt lime plaster 1.15 0.015 (c) 0.54 583 0.04 0.080 (d) Glasslime woolplaster felt 0.54 583 583 0.040.080 0.54 0.080 (d) Solid Glass wool felt wool felt 0.050 0.85 (e) brick burned (d) Glass 0.04 0.04 0.080 (d) Glass wool felt 0.85 0.050 (e) Solid brick burned outer inner 0.85 0.050 (e) Sand Solid cement brick burned burned outer inner 0.35 0.015 (f) plaster 0.85 0.050 (e) Solid brick (e) Solid brick burned 0.050 0.85 outer inner 0.35 0.015 (f) Sand cement plaster (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) outer inner 0.35 0.015 (f) Sand Sand cement cement plaster plaster (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 0.35 0.015 (f) (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) (f) Sand cement plaster 0.015 0.35 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) 4. 4. Results and Discussion 4. Results and Discussion 4. Results Results and and Discussion Discussion 4. Once the building component configurations were defined, coupled with the constants and Once Discussion the building component configurations were defined, coupled with the constants and Results and Once the buildingthe component configurations were defined, defined, coupled with thethe constants and variants consider, dynamic configurations energy simulations were carried out, and results and are Onceto building component were coupled with the constants variants tothe consider, the dynamic energy simulations were carried out, and the results are variants to to consider, consider, the dynamic dynamic energy energy simulations simulations were were carried carried out, out, and and the the results results are are summarised in this section. variants the summarised in this section. Once the building component configurations were defined, coupled summarised in this this section. section. summarised in with the constants and Configurations for Glazing Type variants4.1. to consider, the dynamic energy simulations were carried out, and the results are summarised 4.1. Configurations for Glazing Type 4.1. Configurations Configurations for for Glazing Glazing Type Type 4.1. The first action involved the change of the glazing type, for which six options were considered. in this section. The first action involved the change of the glazing type, for which six options were considered. The first action involved the change of the glazing type, for which six options were considered. For analysing the influence thechange shading onetype, simulation wassix run without considering it. The first action involvedof of system, the glazing for which options were considered. For analysing the influence ofthe the shading system, one simulation was run without considering it. For analysing analysing the influence influence of rates the shading shading system, one simulation simulation was differences run without withoutcan considering it. The results regarding comfort are in Figure 3, where no significant be observed For the of the system, one was run considering it. The results regarding comfort rates are in Figure 3, where no significant differences can be observed The results regarding comfort rates are in Figure 3, where no significant differences can be observed among the regarding results according theare glazing types for both, the static approach and the The results comfortto rates in Figure 3, employed where no significant differences can be observed among the results according to the glazing types employed for both, the static approach and the among the the resultsThis according to the glazing glazing types employed for both, both, the static approach and the adaptive method. can be to attributed to the fact employed that the glazing areas in static the thermal zone under among results according the types for the approach and the adaptive method. This can be attributed to the fact that the glazing areas in the thermal zone under adaptiveare method. This canbeing be attributed attributed toequal the fact fact that the the glazing areas in10% the as thermal zone under under analysis not tooThis large, the WWRto to 8.7%, a value lower thanin recommended by adaptive method. can be the that glazing areas the thermal zone analysis are not too large, being the WWR equal to 8.7%, a value lower than 10% as recommended by analysis are are[38] not for toobuildings large, being being the WWR WWR equal equal to 8.7%, 8.7%, aa value value lower lower than than 10% 10% as as recommended recommended by by Alwetaishi in hot-humid climates. analysis not too large, the to Alwetaishi [38] for buildings in hot-humid climates. Alwetaishi [38] [38] for for buildings buildings in in hot-humid hot-humid climates. climates. Alwetaishi 4. Results and Discussion Once the building component configurations were defined, coupled with the constants and variants to12,consider, the dynamic energy simulations were carried out, and the results Energies 2019, 427 10 ofare 27 summarised in this section. 4.1. Configurations for Glazing Type Type The first action involved the change of the glazing type, type, for for which which six six options options were were considered. considered. For analysing the influence of the shading system, one one simulation simulation was was run run without without considering considering it. it. The results regarding comfort rates are in Figure 3, where no significant differences can be observed among the results according to the glazing types employed for both, the static approach and the adaptive method. This This can can be attributed attributed to the fact that the glazing areas in the thermal zone under analysis are not too large, being the WWR equal to 8.7%, a value lower than 10% as recommended by Alwetaishi [38] for buildings in hot-humid hot-humid climates. climates. (a) Fixed Range 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Single Cl. Single Single 6mm Blue 6mm Low-e (Original) 6mm Underheating Double Double Single Single Cl. Cl. 6mm Blue 6mm Blue 6mm 10mm (No shading) Between 18°C-27°C Overheating (b) Category II - EN15251 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Single Cl. Single Single 6mm Blue 6mm Low-e (Original) 6mm Underheating Double Double Single Cl. 6mm Blue 6mm Blue 10mm Cat II Single Cl. 6mm (No shading) Overheating Figure according to the range range (a) and(a) theand EN15251 for Category (b) considering Figure 3.3.Comfort Comfortrates rates according to fixed the fixed the EN15251 for IICategory II (b) different glazing types. considering different glazing types. As depicted in Figure 4a, the same trend is detected analysing the annual energy requirements, that does not change significantly according to the glazing type employed, for both cooling and heating needs. Figure 4b shows the solar gains to the zone through the glazing areas during the hottest and coldest week of a year, where can be seen how the use of shading systems collaborate to minimise the solar gains during the summer period. Furthermore, considering that the major discomfort rates in the zone correspond to the overheating one, the blue reflective glazing type delivered the best results since the lowest solar gains during the hottest week were delivered with the simulations employing this glazing type. 4.2. Configurations for the Roof Subsequently, the simulations for the four configurations of the roof were performed, and the results regarding comfort rates and energy requirement are depicted in Figures 5 and 6a, respectively. Analysing the results of comfort rates, it is observed that the option 3 and option 4 delivered the highest percentage within the comfort range, presenting the option 4 the lowest overheating rates, for both the static and adaptive approach. Also, it can be observed that only improving the roof insulation, the annual discomfort rates can decrease by 7.4% for the static approach and 13.3% considering the adaptive method. The same trend is performed for the annual energy requirement analysis since the Solar g Energy requir -100 1000 As depicted in Figure 4(a), the same trend is detected analysing the annual energy requirements, that does not change significantly according to the 500 glazing type employed, for both cooling and -300 0 zone through the glazing areas during the heating needs. Figure 4(b) shows the solar gains to the Single Cl. Single Single Double Cl. Double Single Single Cl. Hottest week Week 6mm Blue 6mm Low-e 6mm Blue. 6mm Blue 6mm No hottest and coldest week of a year, where can be seen how the use of shading systems Coldest collaborate to Solar Gains Solar Gains 11 of 27 Energies 2019, 12, 427 (Original) 6mm 10mm shading minimise the solar gains during the summer period. Furthermore, considering that the major G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G1 without shading Heating Cooling discomfort rates in the zone correspond to the overheating one, the blue reflective glazing type lowest cooling and are delivered by R3gains and R4, for which the annual energy requirement delivered bestheating results since the lowest solar gains during the hottest week were delivered with Figure 4.the Annual Energyneeds requirement (a) and solar (b) considering different glazing types. canthe decrease around 37% regarding the original state of the building. simulations employing this glazing type. -200 4.2. Configurations for the Roof Energy requirement (KWh/m2) (a) Annual energy requirement (b) Solar gains through glazing areas Solar gains (W/m2) 2500 Subsequently, the simulations for the four configurations of the roof were performed, and the 100 results regarding comfort rates and energy requirement are depicted in Figure 5 and Figure 6(a), 2000 0 respectively. Analysing the results of comfort rates, it is observed that the option 3 and option 4 1500 -100 delivered the highest percentage within the comfort range, presenting the option 4 the lowest 1000 overheating rates, for both the static and adaptive approach. Also, it can be observed that only -200 500 improving the roof insulation, the annual discomfort rates can decrease by 7.4% for the static -300 0 Cl. 13.3% Single Single Double Cl. Double Single Single Cl. approachSingle and considering the adaptive method. The same trend is performed for the annual Hottest week Coldest Week 6mm Blue 6mm Low-e 6mm Blue. 6mm Blue 6mm No Solar needs Gains Solar by GainsR3 and R4, (Original) 6mm shading energy requirement analysis since the 10mm lowest cooling and heating are delivered G1 around G2 G3 G5 G6 G1 withoutstate shading for which the annualHeating energy Cooling requirement can decrease 37% G4 regarding the original of the building. Figure 4. 4. Annual AnnualEnergy Energyrequirement requirement(a)(a) and solar gains considering different glazing types. and solar gains (b)(b) considering different glazing types. 4.2. Configurations 100.00% (a) Fixed Range (b) Category II - EN15251 for the Roof 100.00% Subsequently, the simulations for the four configurations of the roof were performed, and the 80.00% 12 of 27 results regarding comfort rates and energy requirement are depicted in Figure 5 and Figure 6(a), 60.00% 60.00% respectively. Analysing the results of comfort rates, it is observed that the option 3 and option 4 simulated in order to analyse the surface temperatures of buildings envelope components, as delivered the highest percentage within the comfort 40.00%range, presenting the option 4 the lowest 40.00% depicted in Figure 7(a), the maximum external and internal surface temperatures are recorded overheating rates, for both the static and adaptive approach. Also, it can be observed that only simultaneously, giving thus a time shift value equal20.00% to zero for the roof R1. Figure 7(b) depicts that 20.00% improving the roof insulation, the annual discomfort rates can decrease by 7.4% for the static with the roof R4, this value increased to 5 hours, besides that the internal surface temperatures have 0.00%The same trend is performed for the annual approach and 13.3% considering the adaptive method. 0.00% R1 R2 achieving R3 lower indoor R4 significantly R1decreased, R2 which has R3 impacted R4 the operative temperature, energy requirement analysis since the lowest cooling and heating needs are delivered by R3 and R4, Underheating CatitIIis important Overheating to note temperatures during the highest outdoor temperature conditions. Nonetheless, Underheating Between 18°C-27°C Overheating for which the annual energy requirement can decrease around 37% regarding the original state of the that during the night, the outdoor temperatures are cooler than the interior ones, indicating the need building. Figure 5. Comfort rates according to the fixed range (a) and the EN15251 for Category II (b) for different 80.00% Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure natural 5. Comfort rates accordingrates. to the fixed range (a) and the EN15251 for Category II (b) for to improve night ventilation roof configurations. (a) Fixed Range different roof configurations. (b) Category II - EN15251 100.00% (b) Heat gains to the zone from the roof (a) Annual energy requirement 100Figure 6(b) depicts the heat transfer through the 5000 according to the configuration employed, 80.00% roof 80.00% where it can63.44 be seen how the roof of the original state of the building (R1) has the highest heat gains 3500 60.00% 60.00% 31.58 22.55 21.10 but also the highest heat losses. Furthermore, the heat 0 2000transfer through the roof has significantly 40.00% 40.00% decreased considering the other three configurations500used. The hottest day of a year was also 20.00% -100 -187.18 -192.28 -149.70 -137.18 R3 R4 Heat Transfer (W/m2) Energy requirement (KWh/m2) 100.00% 20.00% 0.00% -2500 0.00% -200 -1000 R1 Underheating R1 R2 Between 18°C-27°C R2 Heating R3 Cooling -4000 Overheating R4 R1 R2 Underheating Hottest week R1 R2 R3 Cat II R4 Overheating Coldest week R3 R4 Figure 5. Comfort rates according to the fixed range (a) and the EN15251 for Category II (b) for Figure 6. 6. Annual Annual Energy Energy requirement requirement (a) (a) and and heat heat gains gains (b) Figure (b) for for different different roof roof configurations. configurations. different roof configurations. Solar Incident Solar Incident kW/m2 Temperature °C Temperature °C Solar Incident kW/m2 Figure 6b depicts the heat transfer through the roof according to the configuration employed, Hottest the day heat 4/Jantransfer - R1 (b) Hottest 4/Jan - R4 6(b)(a)depicts through the roof according to theday configuration employed, 65 itFigure where can be seen how the ϕ roof of the original5 state of65the building (R1) has the highest gains 5but = 5 hr heat = 0 hr where it can be seen how the roof of the original state60of the building (R1) has theϕhighest heat gains 60 4 4 also55the highest heat losses. Furthermore, the heat transfer through the roof has significantly decreased 55 transfer through the roof has significantly but also the highest heat losses. Furthermore, the heat considering the other three configurations used. The hottest day of a year was also simulated 50 50 3 3 in decreased considering the other three configurations used. The hottest day of a year was also 45 to analyse the surface temperatures of buildings45envelope components, as depicted in Figure 7a, order 2 2 40 40 the35maximum external and internal surface temperatures are recorded simultaneously, giving thus 35 1 1 a time shift value equal to zero for the roof R1. Figure 30 30 7b depicts that with the roof R4, this value 25 0 25 0 increased to 5 h, besides that the internal surface temperatures have significantly decreased, which has impacted the operative achieving lower indoor temperatures during the highest Hours temperature, Hours Outside Temp Inside Surface Temp Outside Temp Inside Surface Temp Surface Temp conditions.Operative Temperature it is important Ext Surface Operative Temperature outdoor Ext temperature Nonetheless, toTemp note that during the night, the Solar Incident Figure 7. Surface temperatures for the roof in the original state R1 (a) and for the solution R4 (b). 4.3. Configurations for the Walls The third step was to evaluate the nine configurations chosen for the walls taking as a base the original state of the building. Regarding comfort rates (Figure 8), the lowest underheating and -100 -100 -187.18 -187.18 -200 2019, 12, 427 Energies -200 R1 R1 -192.28 -192.28 R2 R2 Heating Heating 22.55 21.10 -149.70 -149.70 -137.18 -137.18 R3 R3 Cooling Cooling Heat Transfer Heat Transfer (W/( Energy Energy reqr (K (KWh 31.58 0 R4 R4 2000 2000 500 500 -1000 -1000 -2500 -2500 -4000 -4000 Hottest week Hottest week Coldest week Coldest week 12 of 27 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 ϕ = 0 hr Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Outside Temp Solar Incident Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours Hours (b) Hottest day 4/Jan - R4 (b) Hottest day 4/Jan ϕ -=R4 5 hr 65 65 60 60 55 55 50 50 45 45 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 Inside Surface Temp Operative Temperature Inside Surface Temp Operative Temperature 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 ϕ = 5 hr Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Outside Temp Solar Incident Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours Hours Solar Incident kW/m2 Solar Incident kW/m2 (a) Hottest day 4/Jan - R1 (a) Hottest dayϕ4/Jan = 0 hr- R1 Temperature Temperature °C°C 65 65 60 60 55 55 50 50 45 45 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 Solar Incident kW/m2 Solar Incident kW/m2 Temperature Temperature °C°C R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4 outdoor Figure temperatures are coolerrequirement than the interior indicating the needroof to improve natural night 6. Annual Energy (a) and ones, heat gains (b) for different configurations. Figure 6. Annual Energy requirement (a) and heat gains (b) for different roof configurations. ventilation rates. Inside Surface Temp Operative Temperature Inside Surface Temp Operative Temperature Figure 7. Surface temperatures for the roof in the original state R1 (a) and for the solution R4 (b). Figure Surface temperatures the roof the originalstate stateR1R1(a)(a)and andfor forthe thesolution solutionR4R4(b). (b). Figure 7. 7. Surface temperatures forfor the roof inin the original 4.3. Configurations Configurations for for the the Walls Walls 4.3. 4.3. Configurations for the Walls The third step forfor thethe walls taking as aasbase the The step was was to toevaluate evaluatethe thenine nineconfigurations configurationschosen chosen walls taking a base The third step was to evaluate the nine configurations chosen for the walls taking as a base the original state of of thethe building. Regarding comfort and the original state building. Regarding comfortrates rates(Figure (Figure8), 8),the the lowest lowest underheating and original state of the building. Regarding comfort rates (Figure 8), the lowest underheating and overheating rates were recorded recorded by by the the configurations configurations employing exterior claddings (W2, W6, W7, overheating overheating rates were recorded by the configurations employing exterior claddings (W2, W6, W7, W9); in in fact, fact, with with an an exterior exterior reinforcement reinforcement of of exterior exterior walls walls with with 55 cm cm insulation insulation (W2), (W2), it can can be be W9); W9); in fact, with an exterior reinforcement of exterior walls with 5 cm insulation (W2), it can be achieved an an increase increase in in the the annual annual comfort comfort rate rate of of almost almost 7%. 7%. Among the configurations configurations using inner inner achieved achieved an increase in the annual comfort rate of almost 7%. Among the configurations using inner claddings (W3, (W3, W4, W4, W5, W8), the W8 (inner reinforcement reinforcement with with insulation insulation and and solid solid brick) brick) delivered delivered claddings claddings (W3, W4, W5, W8), the W8 (inner reinforcement with insulation and solid brick) delivered the best best results; results; nonetheless, nonetheless, no no higher higher differences differencesthan than1.4% 1.4%are arerecorded recordedamong amongthem. them. the the best results; nonetheless, no higher differences than 1.4% are recorded among them. 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% PEER REVIEW Energies 2018, 11, x FOR 20% 20% 0% 0% W1 W2 W3 W1 W2 Underheating W3 Underheating (a) Fixed Range (a) Fixed Range 13 of 27 Figure 8.W5 Cont. W4 W6 18°C-27°CW6 W4BetweenW5 Between 18°C-27°C (b) Category II - EN15251 100% W7 Overheating W7 Overheating W8 W8 W9 W9 W8 W9 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% W1 W2 W3 W4 Underheating W5 Cat II W6 W7 Overheating Figure Comfortrates ratesaccording according static adaptive (b) approach for different Figure 8. 8. Comfort to to thethe static (a) (a) andand the the adaptive (b) approach for different wall wall configurations. configurations. Regarding cooling and and heating heating needs, needs, Figure Figure9(a) 9a depicts Regarding cooling depictsthe the results results according according to to the the different different walls configurations. It was detected that the changes in the total heat transfer of the walls (Figure 9b) walls configurations. It was detected that the changes in the total heat transfer of the walls (Figure influenced the annual energyenergy requirements, also impacting in the heat transfer the other envelope 9(b)) influenced the annual requirements, also impacting in the heat of transfer of the other components of the building that were maintained in its original configuration. Thus, the walls which envelope components of the building that were maintained in its original configuration. Thus, the have lower heat transfer (W3 and W5), lead to the lowest cooling needs. For the heating needs, walls which have lower heat transfer (W3 and W5), lead to the lowest cooling needs. For the heating W2 delivered the lowest needs, W2 delivered the results. lowest results. irement (KWh/m2) (a) Annual energy requirement 50 20 -10 -40 -70 63.44 38.82 51.83 56.10 53.44 45.67 39.12 45.56 38.98 -125.26-140.85-124.78 -147.03 -163.28-147.82-151.25-149.99 Regarding cooling and heating needs, Figure 9(a) depicts the results according to the different walls configurations. It was detected that the changes in the total heat transfer of the walls (Figure 9(b)) influenced the annual energy requirements, also impacting in the heat transfer of the other envelope components of the building that were maintained in its original configuration. Thus, the walls which have lower heat transfer (W3 and W5), lead to the lowest cooling needs. For the heating Energies 2019, 12, 427 13 of 27 needs, W2 delivered the lowest results. Energy Requirement (KWh/m2) (a) Annual energy requirement 50 63.44 20 38.82 51.83 56.10 53.44 45.67 39.12 45.56 38.98 -10 -40 -125.26-140.85-124.78 -70 -147.03 -163.28-147.82-151.25-149.99 -100 -187.18 -130 -160 -190 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 Heating Cooling (b) Heat gains to the zone from the walls Heat Transfer (W/m2) 3000 2250 1500 750 0 -750 -1500 -2250 Heat gains to the zone Summer W1 W2 W3 W4 Heat gains to the zone Winter W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 Figure Figure9.9.Annual AnnualEnergy Energyrequirement requirement(a) (a)and andheat heatgains gains(b) (b)for fordifferent differentwall wallconfigurations. configurations. Figures Figures10 10and and11 11depict depictthe theresults resultsregarding regardingsurface surfacetemperatures temperaturesofofthe thewall wallininthe theoriginal original state (a) and for the W2 configuration (b). For a southwest orientation (Figure 10), the external surface state (a) and for the W2 configuration (b). For a southwest orientation (Figure 10), the external surface temperature temperatureisishigher higherwith withthe theW2 W2than thanwith withthe theW1. W1.Nonetheless, Nonetheless,the theinternal internalone onehas hassignificantly significantly decreased decreasedwith withthe thewall wallW2, W2,which whichalso alsocollaborated collaboratedtotoslightly slightlydecrease decreasethe theoperative operativetemperatures temperatures ofofthe thethermal thermalzone. zone.For Foraanorthwest northwestorientation orientation(Figure (Figure11), 11),the thesame sameperformance performanceisisrecorded, recorded,but but the solar incident is higher, causing higher external surface temperatures. However, as W1 the solar incident is higher, causing higher external surface temperatures. However, as W1 withwith NW NW orientation 30 cm-thick, the internal surface temperatures are lower, and with the addition of orientation is 30iscm-thick, the internal surface temperatures are lower, and with the addition of 5 cm5Energies cm-thick insulation for the W2 configuration, the internal surface temperature becomes even lower 2018, 11, x FOR REVIEW 14 ofalso 27 thick insulation forPEER the W2 configuration, the internal surface temperature becomes even lower also collaborating slightly lower operativetemperatures temperaturesofofthe the zone. zone. It It is is important collaborating forfor thethe slightly lower operative important to tohighlight highlight that in in thethe graphs were calculated according to thetoresults obtained from that the thetime timeshift shiftvalues valuesreferred referred graphs were calculated according the results obtained the simulations duringduring the hottest of aday year,ofbeing thus the time between the maximum from the simulations the day hottest a year, being thusdifference the time difference between the external surface temperature and the maximum one.internal one. maximum external surface temperature and theinternal maximum 3 35 2 30 1 25 0 Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours 5 ϕ = 7 hr 45 4 40 3 35 2 30 1 25 0 Inside Surf. Temp Operative Temp Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours Solar Incident kW/m2 4 40 50 Temperature °C Temperature °C ϕ = 7 hr (b) Hottest day 4/Jan - W2 - SW orientation 5 Solar Incident kW/m2 (a) Hottest day 4/Jan - W1 - SW orientation 45 Inside Surf. Temp Operative Temp Figure 10. 10. Surface Surface temperatures temperatures for for the the wall wall with with SW SW orientation orientation in in the the original original state state W1 W1 (a) (a) and and the the Figure solution W2 W2 (b). (b). solution 4 40 3 35 2 50 45 (b) Hottest day 4/Jan - W2 - NW orientation ϕ = 7 hr 5 4 3 40 35 2 Incident kW/m2 ϕ = 8 hr 55 5 perature °C erature °C 45 (a) Hottest day 4/Jan - W1 - NW orientation ncident kW/m2 50 25 0 Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours 25 0 Inside Surf. Temp Operative Temp Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours Inside Surf. Temp Operative Temp Figure 10.427 Surface temperatures for the wall with SW orientation in the original state W1 (a) and the Energies 2019, 12, 14 of 27 solution W2 (b). 4 Temperature °C 45 40 3 35 2 30 1 25 0 Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours (b) Hottest day 4/Jan - W2 - NW orientation 50 ϕ = 7 hr 5 4 45 3 40 2 35 30 1 25 0 Inside Surf. Temp Operative Temp Outside Temp Ext Surface Temp Solar Incident Hours Solar Incident kW/m2 ϕ = 8 hr 55 5 Temperature °C (a) Hottest day 4/Jan - W1 - NW orientation Solar Incident kW/m2 50 Inside Surf. Temp Operative Temp Figure 11. 11. Surface temperatures for the wall with NW orientation in the original state W1 (a) and the solution W2 W2 (b). (b). 4.4. 4.4. Application Application of of the the AHP AHP Method Method to to Choose Choose the the Most Most Recommended Recommended Configuration Configuration Once Once all all the the configurations configurations were were evaluated, evaluated, the the AHP AHP method method was was applied. applied. For For this this purpose, purpose, the the first step involves the establishment of the hierarchy structure. Regarding the criteria, the weights were first step involves the establishment of the hierarchy structure. Regarding the criteria, the weights allocated considering the results obtained from the simulations for comfort rates and cooling were allocated considering the results obtained from the simulations for comfort rates and needs. cooling For the cost estimation, a market study of the Paraguayan construction industry was developed. needs. The cost analysis consideredato evaluate theofproposed retrofit construction solutions wasindustry carried was out through an For the cost estimation, market study the Paraguayan developed. analysis of reference costs. For the costs estimation, a market study of the Paraguayan construction The cost analysis considered to evaluate the proposed retrofit solutions was carried out through an industry was developed. The cost considereda to evaluate theof proposed retrofit solutions was analysis of reference costs. For theanalysis costs estimation, market study the Paraguayan construction carried out through an analysis of reference costs. Thus, the monetary value of the retrofit solutions industry was developed. The cost analysis considered to evaluate the proposed retrofit solutions was is not indicated, being the percentage cost increase solution carried out through anused analysis of referenceofcosts. Thus, theassociated monetarywith valueeach of the retrofitreferenced solutions to the cost of the constructive component in its original state. Therefore, the costs of the G1, R1, W1, is not indicated, being used the percentage of cost increase associated with each solution referenced (glazing, roof and walls in the original state) have a value equal to 1 (reference cost), while the cost of to the cost of the constructive component in its original state. Therefore, the costs of the G1, R1, W1, each retrofit is indicated as a multiplier factor (value) into relation with the reference costcost of (glazing, roofsolution and walls in the original state) have a value equal 1 (reference cost), while the each component. of each retrofit solution is indicated as a multiplier factor (value) in relation with the reference cost of the glazing G1, for example, all the solutions involve an increase greater than 1 since a each For component. replacement the original component implying a costan increase of greater 98%, 20%, 100%, 242% For the of glazing G1, for example, is allrequired the solutions involve increase than 1 since a and 167% for the retrofit solutions G2, G3, G4, G5 and G6, respectively. As G1 is a window with simple replacement of the original component is required implying a cost increase of 98%, 20%, 100%, 242% clear glazing 6 mm, and solutions its reference indicated 1, G4 has a double in athe Paraguayan and 167% forofthe retrofit G2,cost G3,isG4, G5 andasG6, respectively. Asprice G1 is window with market, so, its cost related to the reference cost (G1) is 2. simple clear glazing of 6 mm, and its reference cost is indicated as 1, G4 has a double price in the In the case of theso, roof allto the alternatives are associated Paraguayan market, itsand costwalls, related the reference cost (G1) is 2. with reference costs lower than 1 because the substitution of the original components is not necessary since the solution consists on the addition of insulating materials aiming to improve the thermal performance of the building envelope. Thus, the costs involved for each intervention are depicted in Table 5. Table 5. Costs involved for each alternative under consideration. Glazing Roofs Alternative Costs G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 1.00 1.98 1.20 2.00 3.42 2.67 Alternative R1 R2 R3 R4 Walls Costs 1.00 0.32 0.38 0.38 Alternative W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 Costs 1.00 0.31 0.31 0.54 0.64 0.54 0.64 0.61 0.61 Energies 2019, 12, 427 15 of 27 Subsequently, the second step involves the set of priorities for the criteria, where the weights are assigned. For walls and roof, Tables 6 and 7 present the pairwise comparison matrix employed. For both, the highest priority is given to the comfort rates, considering that it considers the efficiency of the solutions for the warm and cold seasons. Then, as a mainly warm climate is under analysis, the cooling needs were considered as criteria and, it was considered as important as the comfort rates. In this way, the cost criteria were the least influential in the analysis when compared to the other referred criteria. Furthermore, for the walls, one additional criterion was taken into account, the walls thicknesses of the solution under analysis, which had the least influence when compared with the other criteria but, it was considered in order to give priority to the solutions allowing to preserve more indoor useful area. For glazing, considering that in terms of comfort rates and cooling needs the results did not vary significantly for the different configurations considered, it was decided to give a higher weight to the associated costs for each glazing type employed, considering that these costs are quite different between each other. For the same reason, the G1 was included as an alternative for the AHP analysis for the glazing, to analyse whether the intervention in glazing areas is justified. Thus, the pairwise comparison matrix for glazing is depicted in Table 8. Table 6. Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria for roofs. Roofs – Consistency Rate: 0.025 Criteria Costs Comfort rate Cooling needs Costs Comfort Rate Cooling Needs Priority 1 5 3 1/5 1 1 1/3 1 1 0.11 0.48 0.41 Table 7. Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria for walls. Walls – Consistency Rate: 0.027 Criteria Costs Comfort Rate Cooling Needs Wall Thickness Priority Costs Comfort rate Cooling needs Wall thickness 1 5 2 1/2 1/5 1 1/2 1/4 1/2 2 1 1/3 2 4 3 1 0.14 0.51 0.26 0.09 Table 8. Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria for glazing. Glazing – Consistency Rate: 0.016 Criteria Costs Comfort rate Cooling needs Costs Comfort Rate Cooling Needs Priority 1 1/3 1/2 3 1 1 2 1 1 0.55 0.21 0.24 The same procedure was employed to develop the pairwise comparison matrix among alternatives considering each criterion. Thus, the calculation of weight for each alternative and criterion was made, and the results from the combined synthesis model are illustrated in Table 9. Regarding the glazing, the results suggest that is not recommended to change the glazing type of the building since as was previously stated, no major differences are delivered by the simulations regarding comfort rates and cooling needs, however, the differences among the costs are meaningful. For the roofs, the analysis suggests that the best option is the configuration R4, followed by the R3 and finally the R2, even though the costs differences among the alternatives were not significant, the differences in terms of comfort rates and cooling needs influence the results. Regarding the walls, W2 and W3, employing Energies 2019, 12, 427 16 of 27 exterior and inner insulation, respectively, delivered similar results, being the most recommended options for the walls, where the wall thickness made the difference to give priority to these options. Table 9. Global priority vector for different configurations. Glazing Roofs Alternative Weight G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 0.246 0.135 0.210 0.121 0.186 0.101 Walls Rank Alternative Weight Rank Alternative 1 4 2 5 3 6 R2 R3 R4 0.141 0.258 0.601 3 2 1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9 Weight 0.200 0.185 0.068 0.124 0.067 0.162 0.055 0.139 Rank 1 2 6 5 7 3 8 4 4.5. Evaluation of Different Insulation Thicknesses for the Roof Once the most recommended configurations were set, the following step involves the use of each configuration for walls and roofs, but varying the insulation thickness, using as a base the original state of the building. Eight different insulation thicknesses were evaluated for the roof, employing the configuration R4. The thermal transmittance value of the roof with the different insulation thicknesses are shown in Table 10, and the results of the dynamic energy simulations are depicted in Figure 12. The first bar depicts the results of the original state of the building, which employs the configuration R1, the following bars depict the results employing the configuration R4 with the different insulation thicknesses. It can be seen that only with the division of the thermal zone with a horizontal plasterboard ceiling, creating an attic making the thermal zone not being in direct contact with the outdoor conditions through the roof, the results regarding comfort rates have significantly improved, even without the use of insulation materials. Table 10. Thermal transmittance of roof R4 according to the insulation thickness used. Description U (W/m2 K) R1 - Original state 4.20 R4 - Without insulation 1.97 R4 - Insulation 1 cm- thick 1.32 R4 - Insulation 3 cm- thick 0.79 R4 - Insulation 5 cm- thick 0.57 R4 - Insulation 8 cm- thick 0.34 R4 - Insulation 10 cm- thick 0.33 R4 - Insulation 12 cm- thick 0.28 R4 - Insulation 15 cm- thick 0.23 Comparing the results using 15 cm-thick insulation with the original state of the building, an increase of around 8.5% was achieved for the comfort rate considering the static approach. For the adaptive method, the improvement is higher, with an increase of around 14.5% of the comfort rate, also achieving a significant decrease in the overheating rate (−11%). Nonetheless, it is important to note that with the use of insulation of 1 cm and 3 cm thick the comfort rate increase around 1.4% in both cases, but for the following insulation thicknesses the improvements become lower, being the difference in the comfort rate of around 1% between the results employing 5 cm-thick and 15 cm-thick insulation. Figure 12c depicts the results regarding cooling and heating needs, where the same trend R1 - Original state 4.20 R4 - Without insulation 1.97 R4 - Insulation 1 cm- thick 1.32 R4 - Insulation 3 cm- thick 0.79 R4 - Insulation 5 cm- thick 0.57 Energies 2019, 12, 427 17 of 27 R4 - Insulation 8 cm- thick 0.34 R4 - Insulation 10 cm- thick 0.33 that for the comfort rates recorded. Also, it is indicated that for an insulation thickness of 8 cm to R4 are - Insulation 12 cmthick 0.28 R4 - Insulation 15 cm-are thick 15 cm the differences between the results not too meaningful. 0.23 (a) ROOF 4 - Fixed Range 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Original state 0cm-thick 1cm-thick 3cm-thick 5cm-thick 8cm-thick 10cm-thick 12cm-thick 15cm-thick insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation Underheating Between 18°C-27°C Overheating (b) ROOF 4 - Category II 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Original state 0cm-thick 1cm-thick 3cm-thick 5cm-thick 8cm-thick 10cm-thick 12cm-thick 15cm-thick insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation Underheating Cat II Overheating Energy requirement (KWh/m2) (c) Annual energy requirement - R4 60 10 63.44 28.98 25.18 22.30 21.10 20.20 19.85 19.59 19.32 -145.48 -141.87 -138.64 -137.18 -136.11 -135.72 -135.46 -135.23 -40 -90 -187.18 -140 -190 Original 0cm-thick 1cm-thick 3cm-thick 5cm-thick 8cm-thick 10cm-thick 12cm-thick 15cm-thick state insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation insulation Heating Cooling Figure 12. 12. Comfort Comfortrates ratesaccording accordingto tothe thestatic static(a) (a)and andthe theadaptive adaptive(b) (b)approach approachand andannual annualenergy energy Figure requirement (c) (c) for for the the roof roof R4 R4 according according to to different different insulation insulation thicknesses. thicknesses. requirement 4.6. Evaluation of Different Insulation Thicknesses for Walls 4.6. Evaluation of Different Insulation Thicknesses for Walls For the walls, five insulation thicknesses were considered. Furthermore, considering that the most For the walls, five insulation thicknesses were considered. Furthermore, considering that the widely used wall thickness in the country is currently 15 cm thick, three different wall thicknesses most widely used wall thickness in the country is currently 15 cm thick, three different wall were evaluated without insulation materials, including the 15 cm wall. Thus, several simulations were thicknesses were evaluated without insulation materials, including the 15 cm wall. Thus, several performed taking as a base the original state of the building and intervening one exterior wall at a time, considering each orientation. For the SW orientation, Table 11 shows the thermal transmittance of the walls simulated, and Figure 13 depicts the results in terms of comfort rates and energy requirement. Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27 simulations were performed taking as a base the original state of the building and intervening one exterior wall the Energies 2019, 12, at 427a time, considering each orientation. For the SW orientation, Table 11 shows 18 of 27 thermal transmittance of the walls simulated, and Figure 13 depicts the results in terms of comfort rates and energy requirement. Table 11. Thermal transmittance of wall W2 with SW orientation according to the insulation thickness used. Table 11. Thermal transmittance of wall W2 with SW orientationUaccording Description (W/m2 K)to the insulation thickness used. W1a – 15 cm-thick 2.97 2 Description U (W/m W1a - Original state 2.53 K) W1a – 15 cm-thick 2.97 W1a - 30 cm-thick 1.95 W1a - Original state 2.53 W2a Insulation 1 cm-thick 1.49 W1a - 30- cm-thick 1.95 W2a - Insulation 1 cm-thick 1.49 W2a - Insulation 3 cm-thick 0.86 W2a Insulation 3 cm-thick 0.86 W2a - Insulation 5 cm-thick 0.60 W2a - Insulation 5 cm-thick 0.60 W2a - Insulation 8 cm-thick 0.41 W2a - Insulation 8 cm-thick 0.41 W2a - Insulation 10 cm-thick 0.34 W2a - Insulation 10 cm-thick 0.34 (a) WALL SW orientation - Fixed Range 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 15cm-thick 20cm-thick 30cm-thick solid brick solid brick solid brick Underheating 1cm-thick insulation 3cm-thick insulation Between 18°C-27°C 5cm-thick insulation 8cm-thick insulation 10cm-thick insulation Overheating (b) WALL SW orientation- Category II 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 15cm-thick 20cm-thick 30cm-thick solid brick solid brick solid brick Underheating Energy requirement (KWh/m2) Cat II 3cm-thick insulation 5cm-thick insulation 8cm-thick insulation 10cm-thick insulation Overheating (c) Annual energy requirement - Wall SW orientation 100 50 1cm-thick insulation 70.64 63.44 56.20 52.98 49.14 47.88 47.22 47.10 -176.99 -187.18 -193.82 -174.47 -165.73 -162.53 -160.73 -160.33 8cm-thick insulation 10cm-thick insulation 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 15cm-thick 20cm-thick 30cm-thick 1cm-thick solid brick solid brick solid brick insulation Heating 3cm-thick 5cm-thick insulation insulation Cooling Figure 13. 13. Comfort rates according to the static (a) and the adaptive adaptive (b) (b) approach approach and annual energy Figure requirement (c) (c) for requirement for the the wall wall W2 W2 with with SW SW orientation orientation according according to to different different insulation insulation thicknesses. thicknesses. As expected, expected, the the lowest lowest comfort comfort rate rate was was delivered delivered for for the the most most widely widely used used wall wall thickness thickness in in As the country (15 cm), nonetheless, with the addition of 3 cm-thick insulation material only on the wall the country (15 cm), nonetheless, with the addition of 3 cm-thick insulation material only on the wall with SW SW orientation the comfort comfort rate rate can can increase around 4% the static static approach approach and and with orientation the increase around 4% considering considering the 5.63% considering the adaptive method. Also, it is recorded that for an insulation thickness of 5 cm to Energies 2019, 12, 427 19 of 27 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 27 10 cm the differences the results are notit very significant. the energy requirement 5.63% considering thebetween adaptive method. Also, is recorded that Regarding for an insulation thickness of 5 cm (Figure 13c), the results for the heating needs follow the same trend of the comfort rates. to 10 cm the differences between the results are not very significant. Regarding the energy For the cooling theresults highest was recorded for thethe 30same cm thick wall, followed the requirement (Figure needs, 13 c), the forvalue the heating needs follow trend of the comfortby rates. 20 cmFor and 15 cm thick, respectively. As the cooling needs are being considered in this research in the cooling needs, the highest value was recorded for the 30 cm thick wall, followed by the terms of the zone sensible cooling, which is, as previously referred, the overall cooling contribution 20 cm and 15 cm thick, respectively. As the cooling needs are being considered in this research in to the heat of the thermal under from the cooling system. So, the values for terms of thebalance zone sensible cooling,zone which is, asanalysis previously referred, the overall cooling contribution the cooling needs are influenced by the heat transfer involved in all building components. With to the heat balance of the thermal zone under analysis from the cooling system. So, the values for the the 15 cm-thick wall is recorded the higher discomfort rates, which indicates a lower gradient temperature cooling needs are influenced by the heat transfer involved in all building components. With the 15 since the wall thermal zone presents conditions morerates, similar to the outdoor conditions. So,temperature this lower cm-thick is recorded the higher discomfort which indicates a lower gradient gradient temperature translates to lower heat transfer values decreasing the values of the cooling since the thermal zone presents conditions more similar to the outdoor conditions. So, this lower thermal loads. Furthermore, with a thinner wall, the component is able to gain and lose heat on an gradient temperature translates to lower heat transfer values decreasing the values of the cooling equal basis. Nonetheless, with the use of insulation, the energy requirement decreased significantly, thermal loads. Furthermore, with a thinner wall, the component is able to gain and lose heat on an achieving a reduction of around 11.4% of insulation, the coolingthe needs andrequirement 22.5% of the decreased heating needs with the equal basis. Nonetheless, with the use of energy significantly, use of 3 cma thick insulation only 11.4% in the wall SW orientation, and regarding the original statethe of achieving reduction of around of thewith cooling needs and 22.5% of the heating needs with the building (20 cm thick). use of 3 cm thick insulation only in the wall with SW orientation, and regarding the original state of For the NW orientation, the building (20 cm thick). Table 12 shows the thermal transmittance of the walls simulated, and Figure 14 depicts the results regarding rates and energy requirement. the results For the NW orientation, Table 12 comfort shows the thermal transmittance of theComparing walls simulated, and between the two orientations, the results suggest that the wall with SW orientation has a higher Figure 14 depicts the results regarding comfort rates and energy requirement. Comparing the results incident comfort rates since higher suggest values within thewall comfort were obtained the between on thethe two orientations, the results that the with zone SW orientation has with a higher intervention in the SW wall. Thus, it is more effective to intervene walls on the SW orientation. incident on the comfort rates since higher values within the comfort zone were obtained with the Regarding theincomfort rates andThus, energy requirement, the same trend of the wall theSW SWorientation. orientation intervention the SW wall. it is more effective to intervene walls ononthe are recorded, but with lower values for the improvements since with the use of 3 cm thick insulation Regarding the comfort rates and energy requirement, the same trend of the wall on the SW the comfort rate increased 1.27% for the static method and the heating and cooling needs decreased orientation are recorded, but with lower values for the improvements since with the use of 3 cm thick around 11%the and 6%, respectively. insulation comfort rate increased 1.27% for the static method and the heating and cooling needs decreased around 11% and 6%, respectively. Table 12. Thermal transmittance of wall W2 with NW orientation according to the insulation thickness used. Table 12. Thermal transmittanceDescription of wall W2 with NW orientation according to the insulation U (W/m2 K) thickness used. W1b - 15 cm-thick 2.97 Description U (W/m2K) W1b - 20 cm-thick 2.53 W1b - 15cm-thick 2.97 W1b - Original state 1.95 W1b - 20cm-thick 2.53 W2bW1b - Insulation 1 cm-thick 1.27 - Original state 1.95 W2b--Insulation Insulation31cm-thick W2b cm-thick 0.771.27 W2b--Insulation Insulation53cm-thick W2b cm-thick 0.560.77 W2b - Insulation 5cm-thick 0.56 W2b - Insulation 8 cm-thick 0.39 W2b - Insulation 8cm-thick 0.39 W2b cm-thick 0.330.33 W2b--Insulation Insulation10 10cm-thick 100% (a) WALL NW orientation - Fixed Range 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 15cm-thick 20cm-thick 30cm-thick solid brick solid brick solid brick Underheating 1cm-thick 3cm-thick insulation insulation Between 18°C-27°C Figure 14. Cont. 5cm-thick 8cm-thick insulation insulation Overheating 10cm-thick insulation Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 27 Energies 2019, 12, 427 20 of 27 Figure 14. Cont. (b) WALL NW orientation- Category II 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 15cm-thick 20cm-thick 30cm-thick solid brick solid brick solid brick 1cm-thick insulation Underheating Energy requirement (KWh/m2) Cat II 5cm-thick insulation 8cm-thick insulation 10cm-thick insulation Overheating (c) Annual energy requirement - Wall NW orientation 100 50 3cm-thick insulation 72.55 68.24 63.44 60.24 56.18 54.69 53.78 53.52 -178.92 -184.06 -187.18 -180.51 -175.86 -174.19 -173.29 -173.13 8cm-thick insulation 10cm-thick insulation 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 15cm-thick 20cm-thick 30cm-thick 1cm-thick solid brick solid brick solid brick insulation Heating 3cm-thick 5cm-thick insulation insulation Cooling Figure 14. 14. Comfort Comfort rates rates according according to to the the static static (a) (a) and and the the adaptive adaptive (b) (b) approach approach and and annual annual energy energy Figure requirement (c) (c)for forthe thewall wallW2 W2with withNW NWorientation orientationaccording accordingto todifferent differentinsulation insulationthicknesses. thicknesses. requirement 4.7. 4.7. Application Application of of the the AHP AHP method method to to choose choose the the most most recommended recommended insulation insulationthickness thickness Once simulations werewere evaluated, the AHP method applied to find the most recommended Onceallallthethe simulations evaluated, the AHP was method was applied to find the most insulation thickness. The same considerations previously described for the method were employed, recommended insulation thickness. The same considerations previously described for the method and the pairwise comparison matrix of criteria used are depicted in Tables 6 and 7. For the criteria, were employed, and the pairwise comparison matrix of criteria used are depicted in Table 6 and the weights considering the results obtained from thethe simulations for comfort Table 7. Forwere the allocated criteria, the weights were allocated considering results obtained fromrates the and cooling for needs, and the for each are depicted in Table 13. Thus, simulations comfort ratescosts and involved cooling needs, andintervention the costs involved for each intervention are the calculation of weight for each alternative and criterion was made, and the results from the depicted in Table 13. Thus, the calculation of weight for each alternative and criterion was made, and combined are illustrated Table 14. general, the most recommended the resultssynthesis from themodel combined synthesisinmodel are In illustrated in Table 14. In general,insulation the most thicknesses are insulation 3 cm, 5 cmthicknesses and 8 cm, are for 3both followed by the employing recommended cm, roofs 5 cm and and 8walls, cm, for both roofs andoptions walls, followed by higher insulation thicknesses. In none case, the walls without the use of insulation materials recorded the options employing higher insulation thicknesses. In none case, the walls without the use of ainsulation good overall weight, which had the last places in thewhich ranking forthe alllast the places alternatives. materials recorded a good overall weight, had in the ranking for all the alternatives. Roof Table 13. Costs involved for each alternative under consideration. Table 13. Costs involved forSW each alternative under consideration. Wall Orientation Wall NW Orientation Roof Alternative Alternative R1 - Original R1 - Original R4-0 cm R4-0 R4-1 cmcm R4-1 R4-3 cmcm R4-5 cmcm R4-3 R4-8 cmcm R4-5 R4-10 cmcm R4-8 R4-12 cm R4-10 cm R4-15 cm R4-12 cm R4-15 cm Costs Costs 1.00 1.00 1.34 1.34 1.36 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.37 1.40 1.38 1.41 1.40 1.44 1.41 1.46 1.44 1.46 Wall SW OrientationCosts Wall Alternative NW Orientation Costs Alternative Alternative Costs Alternative Costs W1a-15 cm 0.72 W1b-15 cm 0.58 W1a-15 cmcm 0.72 1.00 W1b-15 cmcm 0.58 W1a-20 W1b-20 0.80 W1a-20 cmcm 1.00 1.25 W1b-20 cm 0.80 W1a-30 W1b-30 cm 1.00 W1a-30 W1b-30 1.00 W2a-1cm cm 1.25 1.07 W2b-1cm cm 1.05 W2a-3 W2b-3 cm 1.07 W2a-1 cmcm 1.07 1.09 W2b-1 cm 1.05 W2a-5 W2b-5 cm 1.10 W2a-3 cmcm 1.09 1.13 W2b-3 cm 1.07 W2a-8 cm 1.18 W2b-8 cm 1.15 W2a-5 cm 1.13 W2b-5 cm 1.10 W2a-10 cm 1.21 W2b-10 cm 1.17 W2a-8 cm 1.18 W2b-8 cm 1.15 W2a-10 cm 1.21 W2b-10 cm 1.17 Energies 2019, 2018, 12, 11, 427 x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 21of of 27 Table 14. Global priority vector for different insulation thicknesses. Table 14. Global priority vector for different insulation thicknesses. Roof Wall SW Orientation Wall NW Orientation Roof Wall SW Orientation Wall NW Orientation Alternative Weight Rank Alternative Weight Rank Alternative Weight R1 - Original 9Rank W1a-15 cm 0.110 6 W1b-15 cm Weight 0.143 Alternative 0.076 Weight Alternative Weight Rank Alternative R4-0 cm 0.080 8 W1a-20 cm 0.079 7 W1b-20 cm 0.091 R1 - Original 0.076 9 W1a-15 cm 0.110 6 W1b-15 cm 0.143 R4-0 cm 0.080 W1a-20cm cm 0.079 W1b-20 cm 0.091 R4-1 cm 0.114 78 W1a-30 0.075 87 W1b-30 cm 0.066 R4-1 cm 0.114 W1a-30 cm 0.075 W1b-30 0.066 R4-3 cm 0.122 37 W2a-1 cm 0.124 58 W2b-1 cm cm 0.092 R4-3 cm 0.122 3 W2a-1 cm 0.124 5 W2b-1 cm 0.092 R4-5 cm 0.125 2 W2a-3 cm 0.154 2 W2b-3 cm 0.157 R4-5 cm 0.125 2 W2a-3 cm 0.154 2 W2b-3 cm 0.157 R4-8 cm 0.133 1 W2a-5 cm 0.162 1 W2b-5 cm 0.159 R4-8 cm 0.133 1 W2a-5 cm 0.162 1 W2b-5 cm 0.159 R4-10R4-10 cm cm 0.118 4 W2a-8 cm 0.149 3 W2b-8 cm 0.147 0.118 4 W2a-8 cm 0.149 3 W2b-8 cm 0.147 0.117 W2a-10cm cm 0.148 W2b-10 cm 0.145 R4-12R4-12 cm cm 0.117 55 W2a-10 0.148 44 W2b-10 cm 0.145 R4-15 cm 0.116 6 R4-15 cm 0.116 6 Rank 5 Rank 57 78 86 6 2 2 11 33 44 4.8. Thermal Performance Evaluation of the Energy Efficiency Version of the Building next step stepisistotosimulate simulatethe the whole building considering improvements for roofs the roofs The next whole building considering thethe improvements for the and and walls together. forsection this section an insulation thickness cmroof for and the roof 3 cm for walls together. Thus,Thus, for this an insulation thickness of 5 cm of for5the 3 cmand for the walls the walls is evaluated. The results regarding comfort rates and energy requirement are depicted in is evaluated. The results regarding comfort rates and energy requirement are depicted in Figure 15. Figure 15.seen It can be seen that the overheating and underheating rates have significantly decreased, It can be that the overheating and underheating rates have significantly decreased, in fact, in fact, considering the adaptive method the building is overheated only 2.71% the year. In general, considering the adaptive method the building is overheated only 2.71% of theofyear. In general, the the adaptive method tends to be permissive with higher temperatures but not with lower temperatures, adaptive method tends to be permissive with higher temperatures but not with lower temperatures, with thethe static approach, it demonstrates thatthat the delivering an an underheating underheatingrate rateofof20.95%. 20.95%.However, However, with static approach, it demonstrates building is under 18 ◦ C18°C onlyonly 3.76% of the Regarding the energy requirement, the heating needs the building is under 3.76% ofyear. the year. Regarding the energy requirement, the heating per square meter decreased 85% regarding the original state ofstate the building and the cooling needs needs per square meter decreased 85% regarding the original of the building and the cooling 2. 2. decreased aroundaround 45%, having now a now valuea of 104 KWh/m needs decreased 45%, having value of 104 KWh/m (a) Comfort rates Adaptive method 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Original state EE version Underheating Original state In Comfort EE version Overheating (b) Energy requirement Energy requirement (KWh/m2) Static approach 100 50 63.44 9.48 0 -50 -100 -103.94 -187.18 -150 -200 Original state Heating EE version Cooling Figure 15. 15. Results Results of of the the energy energy efficiency efficiency version version of of the the building. Figure building. Once obtained efficiency version of the in its original orientation, the building Once obtainedthe theenergy energy efficiency version ofbuilding the building in its original orientation, the ◦ to run others annual simulations and to evaluate the changes in the comfort rates. was rotated 180 building was rotated 180° to run others annual simulations and to evaluate the changes in the comfort Different insulation thicknesses were considered, for bothfor roofs and walls, and the results depicted rates. Different insulation thicknesses were considered, both roofs and walls, and theare results are in Figure 16. It can be seen that with this orientation (southeast) the thermal zone has a slightly depicted in Figure 16. It can be seen that with this orientation (southeast) the thermal zone has a better response regarding regarding overheating rates, the underheating rates instead had increase, slightly better response overheating rates, the underheating ratesa little instead had awhich little was expected considering that there is not a direct solar incident during winter season with this increase, which was expected considering that there is not a direct solar incident during winter season orientation, and for the summertime only impinges the morning sun radiation. Thus, to achieve with this orientation, and for the summertime only impinges the morning sun radiation. Thus, toa thermal aperformance similar to which thetobuilding hadbuilding in its original the colder for season achieve thermal performance similar which the had inorientation its originalfororientation the is necessary to increase the insulation thickness. Nonetheless, the annual comfort rate is higher with colder season is necessary to increase the insulation thickness. Nonetheless, the annual comfort rate this orientation dueorientation to the improvements for the summerfor season. is higher with this due to the improvements the summer season. Energies 2018, 2019, 11, 12, x427 Energies FOR PEER REVIEW Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% of 27 27 2222of 22 of 27 Fixed range Fixed range 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% Roof= 5cm Roof= 5cm Roof= 8cm Roof= 8cm Roof= Roof= Roof= Roof= Wall SE=5cm 3cm Wall SE=5cm 3cm Wall SE=8cm 3cm Wall SE=8cm 5cm WallNE= SE=3cm 3cm Wall WallNE= SE=5cm 3cm Wall WallNE= SE=3cm 3cm Wall WallNE= SE=5cm 5cm Wall Wall NE= 3cm Wall NE= 5cm Wall NE= 3cm Wall NE= 5cm Underheating In Comfort Overheating Underheating In Comfort Overheating Adaptive approach Adaptive approach Roof= 5cm Roof= 5cm Roof= 8cm Roof= 8cm Roof= Roof= Roof= Roof= Wall SE=5cm 3cm Wall SE=5cm 3cm Wall SE=8cm 3cm Wall SE=8cm 5cm WallNE= SE=3cm 3cm Wall WallNE= SE=5cm 3cm Wall WallNE= SE=3cm 3cm Wall WallNE= SE=5cm 5cm Wall Wall NE= 3cm Wall NE= 5cm Wall NE= 3cm Wall NE= 5cm Underheating Between 18°C-27°C Underheating Between 18°C-27°C Figure 16. Simulations results of the building rotated 180°. ◦ Figure Figure 16. 16. Simulations results results of of the the building building rotated rotated 180 180°.. 4.9. 4.9. Evaluation Evaluation of of Different Different Window-to-Wall Window-to-Wall Ratios According to Orientation 4.9. Evaluation of Different Window-to-Wall Ratios According to Orientation Finally, Finally, the the last last target target of of this this study study is is to to evaluate evaluate different different WWR WWR for for the the thermal thermal zone zone under under Finally, the last target of this study is to evaluate different WWR for the thermal zone under analysis according to each orientation and taking as a base the energy efficiency version of the analysis according to each orientation and taking as a base the energy efficiency version of the building. analysis according to each orientation and taking as a base the energy efficiency version of the building. FourWWR different wereonevaluated on eachwith orientation, with thesystems, use of Four different wereWWR evaluated each orientation, and without theand usewithout of shading building. Four different WWR were evaluated on each orientation, with and without the use of shading systems, and the results regarding comfort rates employing the static approach are depicted and the results regarding comfort rates employing the static approach are depicted in Figure 17. It was shading systems, and the results regarding comfort rates employing the static approach are depicted in Figure 17. wasuse recorded that the use ofcan shading systems can increase aroundthe 2.6% on average recorded thatItthe of shading systems increase by around 2.6% onbyaverage comfort rates in Figure 17. It was recorded that the use of shading systems can increase by around 2.6% on average the comfort rates considering allbeing the WWR used, beingasthis higher as the WWR increases. considering all the WWR used, this rate higher the rate WWR increases. the comfort rates considering all the WWR used, being this rate higher as the WWR increases. As As expected, expected, as as the the WWR WWR increase increase the the discomfort discomfort rates rates also also increase. increase. The The lowest lowest comfort comfort rates rates As expected, as the WWR increase the discomfort rates also increase. The lowest comfort rates were were delivered delivered on on the the SW SW orientation, orientation, being being thus thus not not recommended recommended to to use use large large glazing glazing areas areas on on this this were delivered on the SW orientation, being thus not recommended to use large glazing areas on this orientation. Increasing the WWR to 15% on the SE or NE orientation, the thermal zone presents orientation. Increasing the WWR to 15% on the SE or NE orientation, the thermal zone presents aa orientation. Increasing the WWR to 15% on the SE or NE orientation, the thermal zone presents a slightly betterthermal thermal performance regarding the energy efficiency version of theemploying building slightly better performance regarding the energy efficiency version of the building slightly better thermal performance regarding the energy efficiency version of the building employing original though the rates underheating increased slightly, the the original the WWR (8.7%).WWR Even (8.7%). though Even the underheating increased rates slightly, the addition of extra employing the original WWR (8.7%). Even though the underheating rates increased slightly, the addition of extra glazing areas allowed to enhance the natural ventilation rates during night-time glazing areas allowed to enhance the natural ventilation rates during night-time improving the indoor addition of extra glazing areas allowed to enhance the natural ventilation rates during night-time improving the Nonetheless, indoor temperatures. Nonetheless, higher WWR ratios this feature is not repeated. temperatures. for higher WWR ratiosfor this feature is not repeated. improving the indoor temperatures. Nonetheless, for higher WWR ratios this feature is not repeated. 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% (a) WWR = 15 % (a) WWR = 15 % NW NW SE SE SW SW NE NE With shading systems With shading systems Underheating Underheating 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% NW NW SE SE SW SW NW NW SE SE NE NE Without shading systems Without shading systems Between 18°C-27°C Between 18°C-27°C (b) WWR = 20 % (b) WWR = 20 % NE NE SW SW NW NW SE SE Overheating Overheating SW SW NE NE Without shading systems With shading systems Without shading systems With shading systems Underheating Between 18°C-27°C Overheating Underheating Between 18°C-27°C Figure 17. Cont. Overheating Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW Energies 2019, 12, 427 23 of 27 23 of 27 Figure 17. Cont. (c) WWR = 25 % 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NW SE SW NE With shading systems Underheating NW SE SW NE Without shading systems Between 18°C-27°C Overheating (d) WWR = 30 % 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% NW SE SW NE With shading systems Underheating NW SE SW NE Without shading systems Between 18°C-27°C Overheating Figure 17. Comfort rates byby orientation with andand without the the use Figure rates varying varyingaccording accordingtotodifferent differentWWR WWR orientation with without of shading systems. use of shading systems. 5. Conclusions 5. Conclusions In this paper, a parametric study of several energy retrofit solutions for buildings is developed In this paper, a parametric study of several energy retrofit solutions for buildings is developed in order to analyse their efficiency in terms of comfort rates and cooling needs. For this purpose, in order to analyse their efficiency in terms of comfort rates and cooling needs. For this purpose, more more than 130 annual dynamic energy simulations of the building were performed. Furthermore, than 130 annual dynamic energy simulations of the building were performed. Furthermore, the the Analytic Hierarchy Process is employed as a decision-making method to choose the most Analytic Hierarchy Process is employed as a decision-making method to choose the most convenient convenient intervention considering the investment costs required. intervention considering the investment costs required. Regarding the AHP method, it can be said that it has a clear structure that facilitates its application Regarding the AHP method, it can be said that it has a clear structure that facilitates its to any decision problem. Also, it allows controlling the weights assignment of criteria through the application to any decision problem. Also, it allows controlling the weights assignment of criteria consistency ratio, which gives some robustness to the analysis providing an acceptable approximation through the consistency ratio, which gives some robustness to the analysis providing an acceptable to the expected results. However, its main weakness would be the high subjectivity with which the approximation to the expected results. However, its main weakness would be the high subjectivity analysis is established since the allocation of weights for each criterion/alternative could be decisive with which the analysis is established since the allocation of weights for each criterion/alternative when setting the best alternative. Furthermore, this subjectivity can lead to some inconsistencies in could be decisive when setting the best alternative. Furthermore, this subjectivity can lead to some the final comparison matrices. Nonetheless, consistency ratios lower than 0.10, as the used in this inconsistencies in the final comparison matrices. Nonetheless, consistency ratios lower than 0.10, as research, allows validating the AHP analysis. Thus, after the sensitivity analysis of the results and the the used in this research, allows validating the AHP analysis. Thus, after the sensitivity analysis of performance evaluation, the following conclusions can be stated: the results and the performance evaluation, the following conclusions can be stated: • • glazing areas areare not significant not be be •If the If the glazing areas not significant(WWR (WWRlower lowerthan than10%), 10%),the the intervention intervention may may not justified since thethe incidence of glazing areas on thermal comfort andand energy requirement is not justified since incidence of glazing areas on thermal comfort energy requirement is meaningful, but not so, the costs involved in the interventions. not meaningful, but not so, the costs involved in the interventions. the the intervention on the the annual discomfort ratesrates can decrease by 7.4% for the •With With intervention on roof, the roof, the annual discomfort can decrease by 7.4% forstatic the approach, and the annual energy requirement can decrease by around 37% regarding the original static approach, and the annual energy requirement can decrease by around 37% regarding state of the building. The AHP analysis suggests that the best option is the configuration R4, the original state of the building. The AHP analysis suggests that the best option is the followed by the R3 and finally the R2, even though the costs differences among the alternatives configuration R4, followed by the R3 and finally the R2, even though the costs differences were not significant, the differences in terms of comfort rates and cooling needs influence among the alternatives were not significant, the differences in terms of comfort rates and the results. cooling needs influence the results. Energies 2019, 12, 427 • • • 24 of 27 With the intervention on the walls, the higher comfort rates were recorded by the configurations employing exterior claddings. In fact, an increase of almost 7% in the annual comfort rate can be achieved with an exterior reinforcement of exterior walls with 5cm insulation. The AHP analysis suggests that the configurations employing exterior and inner insulation plus a layer of plaster represents the best options since they delivered a good thermal performance at lower costs, besides allowing a greater indoor useful area of the thermal zone under analysis. Regarding the insulation thicknesses, in general, the most recommended insulation thicknesses are 3 cm, 5 cm and 8 cm, for both roofs and walls, employing an insulation material with 0.04 W/m.K of thermal conductivity. This means that for roofs, a thermal transmittance value between 0.79–0.34 W/m2 K is recommended. For walls with an SW and NE orientation, those values between 0.86–0.41 W/m2 K and for walls with an NW and SE orientation the values between 0.77–0.39 W/m2 K (Table 15). Concerning window to wall ratios, a WWR up to 15% on the SE or NE orientation, with the use of shading systems, can help to increase natural ventilation rates improving comfort rates. Nonetheless, higher values of WWR can increase the overheating rates significantly, and this increase is accentuated without the use of shading systems, and mainly for glazing areas located on SW orientations. Table 15. Threshold values of thermal transmittance recommended. Building Component Roofs Walls SW and NE Walls NW and SE Recommended Values of Thermal Transmittance U (W/m2 K) 0.79–0.34 0.86–0.41 0.77–0.39 The general objective of this research was to establish threshold values of thermal transmittance for the building thermal envelope components, in order to contribute to the regulation of thermal parameters to improve the energy efficiency of Paraguayan buildings. Even though some researchers highlight the importance of combining software tools with sensors for the evaluation of building thermal performance [39,40], real in situ measurements were not possible to develop for the present research work. This is because the building taken as a case study is a private family dwelling and the blueprints were obtained through the local municipality, ensuring privacy and confidentiality. In addition, this work was developed in Europe very far from the building location. Nonetheless, considering that currently Paraguay has no thermal and energy regulations for buildings, concerted efforts were made to use as a case study a building and the climate of Paraguay, with the objective of contributing to the future energy regulations of the country, demonstrating the importance and effectiveness of energy retrofit solutions to improve thermal performance of buildings, having thus an important impact on country’s sustainability. Considering this, one of the main objectives for further research in this area for the country is the validation and calibration of the presented model through monitorisation and in situ measurements at the building location. It is important to highlight that the simulations tools employed in this research are highly recommended by several international and renowned standards, which have been greatly used in several scientific investigations [41–46]. Accordingly, the simulation tools accuracy supports the results reliability of the energy efficiency of the building in its original state, without thermal insulation materials, and the results of the energy efficient version, demonstrating thus the effectiveness of the strategies implemented for the climate under analysis. The results of this paper have demonstrated that passive energy retrofit strategies are effective for the climate under analysis and can significantly reduce the energy requirement of the building sector through the improvement of annual comfort rates. This is a sustainable approach being the building performance and the user’s comfort independent from the energy costs fluctuation. Furthermore, Energies 2019, 12, 427 25 of 27 the results herein presented can serve as support and contribute to the regulation of thermal parameters aiding to improve the energy efficiency of Paraguayan buildings. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.S.; Methodology, F.S., F.R. and S.M.; Investigation, F.S.; Resources, F.S., F.R.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, F.S.; Writing—Review & Editing, F.S., F.R. and S.M.; Supervision, F.R. and S.M. Funding: This project has been funded with support of the European Commission and reflects the view only of the author. The Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein-ELARCH program (Project Reference number: 552129-EM-1-2014-1-IT-ERA MUNDUS-EMA21). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Nematchoua, M.K.; Raminosoa, C.R.R.; Mamiharijaona, R.; René, T.; Orosa, J.A.; Elvis, W.; Meukam, P. Study of the Economical and Optimum Thermal Insulation Thickness for Buildings in a Wet and Hot Tropical Climate: Case of Cameroon. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 1192–1202. [CrossRef] Kolaitis, D.I.; Malliotakis, E.; Kontogeorgos, D.A.; Mandilaras, I.; Katsourinis, D.I.; Founti, M.A. Comparative Assessment of Internal and External Thermal Insulation Systems for Energy Efficient Retrofitting of Residential Buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 64, 123–131. [CrossRef] Noailly, J. Improving the Energy Efficiency of Buildings: The Impact of Environmental Policy on Technological Innovation. Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 795–806. [CrossRef] Verbeke, S.; Audenaert, A. Thermal Inertia in Buildings: A Review of Impacts across Climate and Building Use. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 82, 2300–2318. [CrossRef] Kumar, A.; Sah, B.; Singh, A.R.; Deng, Y.; He, X.; Kumar, P.; Bansal, R.C. A Review of Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) towards Sustainable Renewable Energy Development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 596–609. [CrossRef] Wang, J.J.; Jing, Y.Y.; Zhang, C.F.; Zhao, J.H. Review on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Aid in Sustainable Energy Decision-Making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2263–2278. [CrossRef] Saaty, T. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26. [CrossRef] Kablan, M.M. Decision Support for Energy Conservation Promotion: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. Energy Policy 2004, 32, 1151–1158. [CrossRef] Mu, E.; Pereyra-Rojas, M. Understanding the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In Practical Decision Making; SpringerBriefs in Operations Research; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017. Khalil, N.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Baharum, M.R. Ranking the Indicators of Building Performance and the Users’ Risk via Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): Case of Malaysia. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 567–576. [CrossRef] Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Lou, E.C.W.; Wong, P.F.; Wood, R.; Che-Ani, A.I. Developing Weighting System for Refurbishment Building Assessment Scheme in Malaysia through Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach. Energy Policy 2018, 112, 280–290. [CrossRef] Kuzman, M.K.; Grošelj, P.; Ayrilmis, N.; Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M. Comparison of Passive House Construction Types Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Build. 2013, 64, 258–263. [CrossRef] Kljajić, M.; Andelković, A.S.; Mujan, I. Assessment of Relevance of Different Effects in Energy Infrastructure Revitalization in Non-Residential Buildings. Energy Build. 2016, 116, 684–693. [CrossRef] Liu, K.S.; Hsueh, S.L.; Wu, W.C.; Chen, Y.L. A DFuzzy-DAHP Decision-Making Model for Evaluating Energy-Saving Design Strategies for Residential Buildings. Energies 2012, 5, 4462–4480. [CrossRef] Lee, S.K.; Yoon, Y.J.; Kim, J.W. A Study on Making a Long-Term Improvement in the National Energy Efficiency and GHG Control Plans by the AHP Approach. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2862–2868. [CrossRef] Yang, Y.; Li, B.; Yao, R. A Method of Identifying and Weighting Indicators of Energy Efficiency Assessment in Chinese Residential Buildings. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7687–7697. [CrossRef] Garbuzova-Schlifter, M.; Madlener, R. AHP-Based Risk Analysis of Energy Performance Contracting Projects in Russia. Energy Policy 2016, 97, 559–581. [CrossRef] Mirjat, N.H.; Uqaili, M.A.; Harijan, K.; Mustafa, M.W.; Rahman, M.M.; Khan, M.W.A. Multi-Criteria Analysis of Electricity Generation Scenarios for Sustainable Energy Planning in Pakistan. Energies 2018, 11, 1–33. [CrossRef] Energies 2019, 12, 427 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 26 of 27 Saaty, R.W. The Analytic Hierarchy Process-What It Is and How It Is Used. Math. Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [CrossRef] Saaty, T.L. Relative Measurement and Its Generalization in Decision Making Why Pairwise Comparisons Are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors the Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas, Físicas Nat. Ser. A Mat. 2008, 102, 251–318. [CrossRef] DesignBuilder Software Ltd. DesignBuilder EnergyPlus Simulation Documentation for DesignBuilder V5; DesignBuilder Software Ltd.: Stroud, UK, 2015. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). EN 15251: Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for the Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings; STD Version 2.1c; European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; pp. 1–81. Carlucci, S.; Bai, L.; de Dear, R.; Yang, L. Review of Adaptive Thermal Comfort Models in Built Environmental Regulatory Documents. Build. Environ. 2018, 137, 73–89. [CrossRef] Alves, C.A.; Duarte, D.H.S.; Gonçalves, F.L.T. Residential Buildings’ Thermal Performance and Comfort for the Elderly under Climate Changes Context in the City of São Paulo, Brazil. Energy Build. 2016, 114, 62–71. [CrossRef] Figueiredo, A.; Figueira, J.; Vicente, R.; Maio, R. Thermal Comfort and Energy Performance: Sensitivity Analysis to Apply the Passive House Concept to the Portuguese Climate. Build. Environ. 2016, 103, 276–288. [CrossRef] Roetzel, A.; Tsangrassoulis, A. Impact of Climate Change on Comfort and Energy Performance in Offices. Build. Environ. 2012, 57, 349–361. [CrossRef] Figueiredo, A.; Vicente, R.; Lapa, J.; Cardoso, C.; Rodrigues, F.; Kämpf, J. Indoor Thermal Comfort Assessment Using Different Constructive Solutions Incorporating PCM. Appl. Energy 2017, 208, 1208–1221. [CrossRef] Roetzel, A.; Tsangrassoulis, A.; Dietrich, U. Impact of Building Design and Occupancy on Office Comfort and Energy Performance in Different Climates. Build. Environ. 2014, 71, 165–175. [CrossRef] Rubio-Bellido, C.; Pérez-Fargallo, A.; Pulido-Arcas, J.A.; Trebilcock, M. Application of Adaptive Comfort Behaviors in Chilean Social Housing Standards under the Influence of Climate Change. Build. Simul. 2017, 10, 933–947. Ministerio da Economia e do Emprego. Decreto Lei N◦ 118/2013 de 20 de Agosto—Regulamento de Desempenho Energetico Dos Edifícios de Habitaçao (REH); Diario de la Republica, N◦ 159 1ra Serie.: Lisboa, Portugal, 2013; pp. 4988–5005. Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo del Gobierno de Chile. Estándares de Construcción Sustentable Para Viviendas de Chile, Tomo I: Salud y Bienestar, 2nd ed.; División Técnica de Estudio y Fomento Habitacional, Ed.; Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo: Santiago, Chile, 2018. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT). NBR 16401:2008 Instalações de Ar-Condicionado—Sistemas Centrais e Unitários—Parte 2: ParâMetros de Conforto Térmico; Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2008. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). Environmental Design, 7th ed.; CIBSE: London, UK, 2006. [CrossRef] Lu, S.; Pang, B.; Qi, Y.; Fang, K. Field Study of Thermal Comfort in Non-Air-Conditioned Buildings in a Tropical Island Climate. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 66, 89–97. [CrossRef] Djamila, H. Indoor Thermal Comfort Predictions: Selected Issues and Trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 569–580. [CrossRef] López, V.; Lucchese, J.R.; Andreasi, W.A. Thermal Comfort Assessment in the Hot and Humid Region of Paraguay: A Comparison Between Three Methodologies. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2015, 15, 26–31. Wankanapon, P.; Mistrick, R.G. Roller Shades and Automatic Lighting Control with Solar Radiation Control Strategies. Built 2011, 1, 35–42. Alwetaishi, M. Impact of Glazing to Wall Ratio in Various Climatic Regions: A Case Study. J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 2018, 1–13. [CrossRef] Melgar, S.G.; Bohórquez, M.Á.M.; Márquez, J.M.A. UhuMEB: Design, Construction, and Management Methodology of Minimum Energy Buildings in Subtropical Climates. Energies 2018, 11, 2745. [CrossRef] Asdrubali, F.; Buratti, C.; Cotana, F.; Baldinelli, G.; Goretti, M.; Moretti, E.; Baldassarri, C.; Belloni, E.; Bianchi, F.; Rotili, A.; et al. Evaluation of Green Buildings’ Overall Performance through in Situ Monitoring and Simulations. Energies 2013, 6, 6525–6547. [CrossRef] Energies 2019, 12, 427 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 27 of 27 Auzeby, M.; Wei, S.; Underwood, C.; Tindall, J.; Chen, C.; Ling, H.; Buswell, R. Effectiveness of Using Phase Change Materials on Reducing Summer Overheating Issues in UK Residential Buildings with Identification of Influential Factors. Energies 2016, 9, 605. [CrossRef] Rospi, G.; Cardinale, N.; Negro, E. Energy Performance and Economic Feasibility Study of Historical Building in the City of Matera, Southern Italy. Energies 2017, 10, 2009. [CrossRef] Rey-Hernández, J.M.; Velasco-Gómez, E.; San José-Alonso, J.F.; Tejero-González, A.; Rey-Martínez, F.J. Energy Analysis at a near Zero Energy Building. A Case-Study in Spain. Energies 2018, 11, 857. [CrossRef] Lin, Y.; Zhou, S.; Yang, W.; Shi, L.; Li, C.Q. Development of Building Thermal Load and Discomfort Degree Hour Prediction Models Using Data Mining Approaches. Energies 2018, 11, 1570. [CrossRef] Bhandari, M.; Hun, D.; Shrestha, S.; Pallin, S.; Lapsa, M. A Simplified Methodology to Estimate Energy Savings in Commercial Buildings from Improvements in Airtightness. Energies 2018, 11, 3322. [CrossRef] Yu, S.; Cui, Y.; Shao, Y.; Han, F. Research on the Comprehensive Performance of Hygroscopic Materials in an Office Building Based on EnergyPlus. Energies 2019, 12, 191. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
0
Anuncio
Descargar
Anuncio
Añadir este documento a la recogida (s)
Puede agregar este documento a su colección de estudio (s)
Iniciar sesión Disponible sólo para usuarios autorizadosAñadir a este documento guardado
Puede agregar este documento a su lista guardada
Iniciar sesión Disponible sólo para usuarios autorizados