3. Energies - Parametri study

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/).