Next Article in Journal
A Life Cycle Assessment of Organic and Chemical Fertilizers for Coffee Production to Evaluate Sustainability toward the Energy–Environment–Economic Nexus in Indonesia
Previous Article in Journal
Can Green Credit Policy Promote Firms’ Green Innovation? Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Software Tool for a Stochastic Life Cycle Assessment and Costing of Buildings’ Energy Efficiency Measures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 7
10.3390/su14073910
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimization of Architectural Thermal Envelope Parameters in Modern Single-Family House Typologies in Southeastern Spain to Improve Energy Efficiency in a Dry Mediterranean Climate

by
Carlos Pérez-Carramiñana
*,
Ángel Benigno González-Avilés
,
Antonio Galiano-Garrigós
and
Andrea Lozoya-Peral
Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad de Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 3910; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073910
Submission received: 31 January 2022 / Revised: 10 March 2022 / Accepted: 23 March 2022 / Published: 25 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Construction and Interior Comfort)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The increasing regulatory requirements for energy efficiency in Europe imply a significant increase in insulation and solar control of buildings, especially in hot and semi-arid climates with high annual insolation such as the Spanish Mediterranean southeast. The consequences in architectural design to optimize compliance with the new technical and regulatory requirements of nearly zero-energy buildings are high. This paper analyzes the energy performance of a modern single-family house on the Spanish Mediterranean coast. The objective is to determine which design parameters most influence the energy improvement of this case study in order to establish design strategies that can be generalized to other new construction or energy retrofit projects, taking into account the specific characteristics of the warm and semi-arid Mediterranean climate. The scientific novelty of the work is to demonstrate that the design criteria of most modern single-family houses built or rehabilitated in the Spanish Mediterranean in the last decade comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Directive 2010/31/EU but are not specifically adapted and optimized for the special characteristics of the dry Mediterranean climate. This is the case of the house studied in this paper. The methodology used consisted of a systematized study of the main construction and geometric parameters that most influence the thermal calculation of this project: the thermal insulation thickness, thermal transmittance of the glazing, solar control of the glazing, total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated, size of glazing and the size of façade overhangs. The results obtained show that the use of mobile solar protection devices in summer, such as awnings or blinds, reduces the cooling need in summer up to 44% and the overall annual energy need (Cooling + Heating) up to 20%. This implementation is more efficient than increasing the thermal insulation of facades and glazing, reducing the size of windows or increasing overhangs. The most optimal solution is the simultaneous modification of several parameters. This reduces both heating need in winter and cooling need in summer, achieving an overall reduction in an annual need of 48%. This multiple solution improves the annual energy performance of the house much more than any solution consisting of modifying a single individual parameter. The results determine trends, explanations and deductions that can be extrapolated to other projects.

1. Introduction

The increasing regulatory requirements for energy efficiency in Europe, derived from the European Directive 2010/31/EU [1] on the energy performance of buildings and subsequently from Directive (EU) 2018/844 [2] and transposed into national regulations such as the Basic Document DB-HE on “Energy Saving” of the Technical Building Code in Spain by Royal Decree 732/2019 [3] and Royal Decree 390/2021 on the certification of the energy performance of buildings [4], represent a significant increase in thermal insulation and a significant increase in the solar control requirements of buildings [5,6]. The energy saving requirements of these mandatory European and Spanish regulations are equal to or even more restrictive than the Passive House Standard, as some studies have shown [7]. This situation is especially aggravating in hot semi-arid climates with high annual insolation. Moreover, the dry Mediterranean climate of southeastern Spain is a clear example. In fact, several studies conclude that designing Passive Houses in Southwest Europe is more difficult than in Central Europe due to the hot summers, which require additional measures to avoid overheating [8]. All of these considerations have important implications in the architectural design for optimized compliance with the new technical and regulatory requirements of nearly zero energy buildings (NZEB) [9] and for reducing the significant contribution of greenhouse gases from buildings [10].
The design and construction of nearly zero energy buildings make it necessary to propose more efficient architectural designs that avoid energy need. Equipped with efficient air conditioning systems to save energy consumption and complemented by the use of renewable energies to offset such consumption. This includes following low-energy passive design strategies such as those proposed in the Kyoto Pyramid [11], with the aim of reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions based on higher construction quality resulting in greater comfort and quality of life for users and taking into account thermal and lighting conditions [12] based on the maxim that the cheapest energy is the energy that is not consumed.
However, to reduce the energy need of residential buildings in hot semi-arid climates, it is not enough to reduce thermal transmittance through their envelopes by increasing thermal insulation and implementing the advantages of eliminating thermal bridges in the facades [13,14] by means of continuous thermal envelopes [15], nor is it feasible to take advantage of the benefits of traditional passive energy control strategies typical of Mediterranean vernacular architecture. They are not sufficiently covered either by the current Spanish or European building energy certification regulations, nor do official computer programa [16] facilitate their modeling. Many scientific studies have defended the application or reinterpretation of traditional bioclimatic designs [17]. Other studies have analyzed the advantages of natural cross ventilation in buildings as an energy saving strategy [18], being especially advantageous in climatic zones with moderate summers and mild winters such as this one [19] as a method of dissipating excess energy accumulated inside dwellings in summer. For economic and architectural design reasons, the benefits of the application of integrated adaptive envelope systems (AES) [20] or double-skin ventilated façades [21] with their advantages over single-skin façades [22] cannot be generalized in residential buildings either.
Due to all these limitations, in the dry Mediterranean climate, it is essential to provide buildings with solar shading elements that reduce the high incidence of sunlight gradually depending on the time of year. These solutions make it possible to take advantage of the benefits of solar radiation control through mobile and adaptable solar shading systems throughout the year [23], and preferably external to glazing due to their better thermal performance in this climate compared to internal solar shading devices [24]. The objective is the design of energy-efficient buildings based primarily on the application of passive strategies and that the use of active air-conditioning systems should be reduced to what is strictly necessary [25]. All these technical aspects have repercussions on the modification of the construction systems used, with important implications for the architectural design itself, in order to optimize compliance with the significant increase in technical and regulatory requirements for energy efficiency in buildings [26].
It is, therefore, relevant to analyze which technical and regulatory aspects most influence and condition the energy performance of buildings and, on this basis, to investigate which technical and architectural solutions are the most optimal considering the advantages of better adapting new architectural projects to the characteristics of different existing climates [27,28], since it has been proven that in places with substantially different climatic conditions, such as the Mediterranean, the design and construction criteria for energy efficient houses are very different from the standard procedures in Northern European countries [29].
Although there is a lot of research on the energy efficiency of buildings according to the new nearly zero energy building regulations in Europe, there are few studies that analyze how to optimize the parameters of the building envelope that most influence the correct energy performance of buildings located specifically in warm semi-arid dry Mediterranean climate zones (BShs) in the Köppen Geiger climate classification [30]. Existing studies analyze projects located in countries not constrained by the limitations of European and Spanish regulations, which influences the design variables used and the results obtained [31,32]. The dry Mediterranean climate, characterized by dry and hot summers, has warmer winter temperatures than the typical Mediterranean climate. With less rainfall and high insolation throughout the year, it is a very specific exception in Europe that is located exclusively in the provinces of Alicante, Murcia and Almeria in Saoutheastern Spain, which requires particular considerations in architectural design that are very different from the rest of the European climates.
This article presents the study carried out in a house on the Mediterranean coast of southeastern Spain that analyzed a combination of different architectural design strategies to optimize the energy performance of the building for its energy retrofit as a nearly zero energy building. The study takes advantage of multi-criteria methodologies based on energy simulations [33] and simplifying the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) process [34,35] specifically considered to select the most optimal combination of solutions for the specificities of the hot semi-arid dry Mediterranean climate of Southeastern Spain.
The study focused on geometric and constructive architectural design parameters based on passive energy efficiency measures to analyze the effectiveness of passive design aspects in achieving nearly zero energy buildings. The aim is to identify formal and technical aspects that, from the initial conception of the project, have the greatest influence on the energy performance of the building in this type of climate. For this reason, this study does not include other variables based on active systems, such as the use of renewable energies through thermal panels and photovoltaic panels, which are highly efficient in this geographical area thanks to the high annual sunshine and which have been experiencing great technological advances and interesting possibilities for architectural integration in recent years [36].
Apart from that, current Spanish building energy efficiency regulations condition the possible solutions to be adopted but do not consider the thermal benefits of several bioclimatic design strategies [37]. Therefore, other possible passive cooling measures that could significantly minimize the need for mechanical cooling [38], such as natural cross ventilation [39] or evaporative cooling methods [40], which have been used for many years in vernacular architecture in this region and in similar climates [41], have not been analyzed. These types of solutions would offer proven benefits in energy impact [42] and on the thermal comfort of users [43] and indoor air quality of residential buildings [44].
For the selection of the modified constructive and geometric parameters and the combination of values used, the criteria of constructive coherence and economic feasibility were taken into account in addition to the multiplicity of feasible combinations of constructive solutions and the optimization of their energy performance depending on different environmental, energy, economic and design variables, which prevent a single most effective solution [45], especially in case of energy retrofitting of an existing building where the multi-criteria evaluation methodology ends up being substantially altered by the requirements of the owner–users [46].
This article analyzes, as a case study, the energy performance of one of the most singular works of the architect Fran Silvestre, designed on the Spanish Mediterranean coast, with the aim of analyzing and assessing the architectural design criteria that most influence the energy efficiency of modern single-family dwellings in a warm climate. This type of housing is increasingly demanded by foreign inhabitants and increasingly awarded in architecture exhibitions.
The methodology employed consisted of a systematized study of the main geometric and construction parameters that most influence the thermal calculation of this project.
The usefulness of the study is to quantitatively evaluate and optimize the most relevant architectural design parameters for improving the energy efficiency of single-family houses located specifically in a dry Mediterranean climate, achieving more sustainable rehabilitation methodologies that adapt the house to the climate, thus also contributing to improving the interior comfort of users and achieving greater compatibility of the intervention with the existing building.

2. Materials and Methods

The case study selected is the “Cliff House” designed in 2012 in the town of Calpe (Spain) by the famous Spanish architect Fran Silvestre, a project of recognized prestige that is a representative example of the most contemporary trends in Spanish Mediterranean architecture [47]. It is situated on a mountainside overlooking the sea, and its main façade faces southeast, where most of the rooms are located. It is a house with a living-dining room, kitchen, 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms, with a total built area of 240 m2 and 200 m2 of usable area (Figure 1).
This house was selected because it is a well-known and influential example of modern Mediterranean tourist housing, and its main formal criteria (minimalist forms with flat roofs and large glazing for natural lighting) have ended up influencing and being common to most tourist single-family houses built on the Spanish coast in the last decade.
The predominance of this type of architectural design on the Alicante coast can be seen in the architecture exhibitions of the Alicante Architects’ Association in recent years. [48,49,50] (Figure 2). In fact, after statistically analyzing a sample of 100 randomly selected single-family houses from the projects approved in the last ten years at the Alicante Architects’ Association [51], it can be seen that more than 85% of the houses had flat roofs, and 50% had large south-facing glazing.
In addition, a project was selected for which its formal synthesis and orientation help to better analyze the influence of the modification of the construction and geometric parameters analyzed in this research study on the energy performance of the house. Taking into account the results of this work, another study is being developed by focusing on other typologies of traditional Mediterranean architecture in Spain. These other types of houses, although not very common in the projects of recent years, are very abundant in the large pre-1990s building stock and are in need of energy rehabilitation.
The methodology used consisted of a systematized and organized study of the main construction and geometric parameters that most influence the thermal calculation of this project, with a comparative analysis of the influence that the modification of each of these parameters has on the energy efficiency of the building, taking into consideration the specific characteristics of the dry Mediterranean climate.
To this end, six construction and geometric parameters were analyzed and modified gradually and sequentially (Figure 3), carrying out a sufficient sample of calculations to allow the preparation of comparative graphs used to analyze the trend, coherence and causes of the results obtained. The modified construction parameters were as follows: the thermal insulation thickness of the opaque enclosures, the thermal transmittance of the glazing (Ug), solar control of the glazing (g) and total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated (ggl;sh;wi). The geometrical parameters that were modified were as follows: the size of the glazing by modifying the size ratio between glass and opaque enclosures, and the size of the façade overhangs that act as fixed solar protection for the glazing.
For the modeling and calculation of the energy performance of the dwelling, Design Builder software [52] (version v6.1.8.021) was used for its capacity and accuracy by using the EnergyPlus calculation engine to calculate and analyze individually the thermal loads that affect the energy performance of the house. This software is also very useful for calculating and visualizing the monthly evolution of heating and cooling needs (Figure 4a). In addition, Líder-Calener Unified Tool [53] (version 2.0.2253.1167) was used because it is the official software of the Spanish Government for modeling and assessing the energy of buildings in Spain for the verification of compliance with the Spanish Technical Building Code (Royal Decree 732/2019) and Spanish and European energy certification standards (Royal Decree 390/2021 and Directive (EU) 2018/844). Although the official software was less capable of calculating and analyzing the results, they allow a better verification of the energy performance of the building in accordance with the established regulatory requirements. Moreover, this aspect is fundamental in order to be able to consider possible energy improvements that have to be made (Figure 4b).
For energy calculation, the specific climatic characteristics of the climate zone have been taken into account in terms of where the building is located: between the tourist towns of Calpe and Altea (Spain) and 59 meters above sea level. This geographical area corresponds to B4 climate according to Spanish legislation [54] and climate BShs (dry Mediterranean climate within a warm semi-arid climate) according to the Köppen climate classification [55]. This type of climate is strongly influenced by the Mediterranean because the sea breeze tempers the sensation of heat, with very mild temperatures in winter and warm in summer, and with an average annual temperature of 18.3 °C and tropical nights in summer with minimum temperatures above 22 °C. Rainfall is less than 500 mm concentrated mainly in autumn and with markedly dry summers. This highlights the great insolation with more than 3000 h of sunshine per year and high average annual relative humidity (Figure 5).
The computer model of the existing dwelling took into account its orientation; geometry; glazing arrangement and size; and the constructive compositions of each of the elements of the architectural envelope (Figure 6 and Table 1).
For the modeling of the alterations of the different construction and geometric parameters modified for the proposed comparative study, the parameters have been systematically and sequentially appproahced to introduce individual and progressive variations in each of the selected parameters, calculating their impact on the energy performance of the house by quantifying the differences produced in the thermal needs in summer and winter (Figure 7 and Figure 8 and Table 2).

3. Results

The outcomes obtained show that increasing the thermal insulation of opaque façades up to 10 cm thickness reduces heating needs in winter by up to 42%. For thicker insulation thicknesses, the reduction in heating need becomes lower until it becomes negligible. However, the results also show that, with increasing insulation, cooling needs in summer are not reduced but increases slightly (Figure 9a). On the other hand, the overall annual energy need (Heating + Cooling) is only reduced by 13% (Figure 9b).
The results obtained show that improving the thermal insulation of glazing produces a directly proportional decrease in winter heating needs of up to 37%, but linearly increases summer cooling needs by up to 13% (Figure 10a). As a consequence, the overall annual need (Heating + Cooling) is only reduced by 8% (Figure 10b).
On another note, reducing the solar factor (g) of glazing by using solar control glazing reduces cooling needs in summer by up to 41%, but increases heating needs in winter by the same proportion to 41% (Figure 11a). The overall annual need (Cooling + Heating) is reduced by 8% (Figure 11b) because, as the cooling need is proportionally higher than the heating need, the cooling savings are greater than the increase in heating expenditure.
In addition, the reduction in the solar factor of the glazing is insufficient to meet the solar control parameter limit of the Spanish regulations in this climate zone (qsol; jul), unless very low solar factor glazing values (g < 0.28) are used, which are very expensive and have lower light transmission (Figure 12).
The use of movable solar shading devices in the summer, such as awnings or blinds, decreases cooling needs by up to 44% and hardly increases heating needs (Figure 13a). As a result, the overall annual energy need (Cooling + Heating) is reduced by 20% (Figure 13b).
Furthermore, the use of movable shading devices allows solar gains in the summer to be reduced by up to 90%, meeting the solar control parameter limit of Spanish regulations in this climate zone (Figure 14).
With regard to the modification of the geometrical parameters of the building, calculations show that reducing the window area by up to 50% reduces cooling needs by up to 42%, but this decrease is increasingly negligible. On the contrary, reducing the window size results in an increase in winter heating needs of up to 35% (Figure 15a). Consequently, the overall annual need (Cooling + Heating) is reduced by only up to 7%. Furthermore, decreasing the window size by more than 30% increases the overall annual need again (Figure 15b and Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19).
The reduction in glazing reduces solar gains in the summer but is insufficient to meet the solar control parameter limit of the Spanish regulations in this climate zone (Figure 20).
In relation to the geometric modification of the façade overhang, increasing the overhang to 4 meters decreases summer cooling needs by up to 5%, but this decrease becomes less and less important until it is almost negligible (Figure 21a). In contrast, heating needs in the winter increase proportionally more, so the overall annual need and annual energy consumption of air conditioning installations increases (Figure 21b and Figure 22, Figure 23, Figure 24 and Figure 25).
In addition, despite a reduction of up to 9% of solar gains in the month of highest insolation, the modifications to the overhangs are clearly insufficient to achieve compliance with the limit values of the solar control parameter established by Spanish regulations for this climate zone (Figure 26).
Finally, several combinatorics were calculated by focusing only on altering the parameters for which its modification has been most beneficial in the overall annual need. Therefore, the size of the original cantilever of the project was kept constant, and the size of the windows was kept constant but reduced to 70% as this was the most optimal solution according to the results obtained previously.
The outcomes show that the simultaneous modification of the selected parameters allows a reduction in both winter heating needs by up to 49% and summer cooling needs by up to 48%. As a result, the overall annual need (Cooling + Heating) is reduced by up to 48%, improving the annual energy performance of the house much more than any of the calculated solutions that modified the parameters individually (Figure 27).
Lastly, the energy consumption of air-conditioning systems was calculated by considering the nominal power ratings and nominal and seasonal coefficient of performance and energy efficiency ratio of the air-conditioning equipment. The current installations of the house were considered because the improvement of the air-conditioning equipment was not the subject of this work. The air-conditioning system consists of a heat pump with a rated cooling output of 10.20 KW, an energy efficiency ratio of 3.24, seasonal energy efficiency ratio of 4.92, a rated heating capacity of 11.25 KW, a coefficient of performance of 3.41 and a seasonal coefficient of performance of 3.21. The house also has an aerothermal system for domestic hot water with a renewable energy coverage of 82.50%.
The calculations of the original house and the modified house have considered an indoor operating temperature between 21 and 23 °C in the winter and between 23 and 25 °C in the summer, in accordance with the Spanish thermal regulation for buildings [56,57]. Relative indoor humidities of 40–50% in the winter and 45–60% in the summer, and all other aspects in accordance with the regulations, have also been considered.
The calculated total annual primary energy consumption of the current building was 44.30 kWh/m2·year, with 9.46 in heating consumption, 21.80 in cooling, 9.63 in domestic hot water and 3.41 in ventilation. The calculated total annual non-renewable primary energy consumption was 27.50 kWh/m2·year, with 5.82 in heating consumption, 16.62 in cooling, 2.46 in domestic hot water and 2.60 in ventilation. However, the theoretical consumption calculated with the computer tools does not logically coincide with the actual energy consumption of the house, as it is a holiday home used only on weekends and holidays. In fact, the actual consumption is only 15 kWh/m2·year, with an annual expenditure of approximately EUR 600. This expenditure corresponds to a total energy cost of approximately EUR 0.20/kWh. which includes the cost of the energy consumed plus the proportional charges for the contracted energy and taxes.
The total annual primary energy consumption of the current house calculated using the computer tools complies with the Spanish nearly zero energy buildings standard but without the proposed improvement measures, the house does not comply with the solar control parameter limit of the Spanish regulations.
The results show that the energy performance of the house can be greatly improved. The energy improvement proposals put forward in this study would reduce the theoretical total annual primary energy consumption to 29.10 kWh/m2·year, with 6.23 in heating consumption, 14.26 in cooling, 6.32 in domestic hot water and 2.29 in ventilation. The total annual non-renewable primary energy consumption would reduce to 17.90 kWh/m2·year, with 3.76 in heating consumption, 10.81 in cooling, 1.59 in domestic hot water and 1.74 in ventilation.
These calculations represent a saving of approximately 34% in the primary energy consumption and 35% in the non-renewable primary energy consumption of the dwelling.

4. Discussion

The analysis of the results obtained shows that increasing the thermal insulation of the opaque enclosures reduces the heating need in winter considerably (−42%), although it slightly increases the cooling need in the summer due to the fact that the greenhouse effect inside the house also increases slightly (Figure 9a). However, this reduction in heating expenditure represents little saving in total annual expenditure (−13%) (Figure 9b). This is because cooling expenditure is proportionally much higher than heating expenditure due to being in a warm climate with mild winters. In addition, the results show that further increasing the insulation thickness above 10–12 cm in facades and roofs hardly improves the energy performance of the house. This is explained by the fact that the dry Mediterranean climate is characterized by mild winters with a few very cold days; therefore, excessively insulated houses are not needed.
Regarding the improvement of the glazing characteristics, the comparative analysis of the results shows that the reduction in thermal transmittance and the solar factor of the glazing reduces the total annual energy need only slightly (−8%) (Figure 10b and Figure 11b). There are two reasons for this. On the one hand, the dry Mediterranean climate is characterized by many sunny days throughout the year. This means that increased glass insulation reduces heating needs in the winter but increases the greenhouse effect in the summer by making it more difficult to release the heat from solar radiation that accumulates inside the house, which increases cooling costs (Figure 10a). On the other hand, reducing the solar factor of glazing reduces solar gains and cooling needs in the summer but increases heating costs in the winter by preventing free heat gains from solar radiation in the colder months (Figure 11a).
With regard to the reduction in glazing size, the comparative analysis of the results shows that reducing the percentage of windows slightly reduces the total annual need (Figure 15b) because it improves the cooling need in summer and still allows thermal gains from solar radiation in winter to be used. However, if the window size is reduced too much, the total annual need starts to worsen because the increase in heating expenditure in winter is greater than the cooling savings in summer (Figure 15a), because the heat gains from solar radiation through the windows are wasted for many months of the year.
Regarding the modification of overhangs, calculations show that increasing the size of the overhangs does not improve the total annual need (Figure 21b) because it reduces the cooling need in summer but significantly increases the heating need in winter as a result of reduced heat gains due to the lower incidence of solar radiation through the glazing (Figure 21a). In addition, the solar control caused by the overhang on the glazing is almost negligible when the overhang is very large (>4 m) as the sun no longer shines on the glass.
The comparative analysis of the results obtained for the individually modified variables shows that the incorporation of movable shading devices for solar control leads to the greatest improvement in the annual energy performance of the house (Figure 13b), because it substantially reduces the cooling need in summer but hardly increases the heating need in winter (Figure 13a). This is because movable shading devices allow the control of excessive solar radiation in summers when deployed, but they also allow thermal gains from solar radiation in winters when folded. This is explained by the important influence of high annual insolation during all months of the year, including winter, which characterizes the warm semi-arid climate, which has a strong influence on the energy performance of the house.
These mobile shading devices are passive systems that can be adapted to different sun protection needs throughout the year. They can be traditional elements such as blinds, awnings, louvres or deciduous vegetation. However, they can also be increasingly advanced mobile systems such as bioclimatic pergolas and variable geometry or stationary louvres capable of reducing the penetration of solar radiation into the interior of the house in the warmer months and allowing the heat of solar radiation to pass through in winter. These industrialized solutions can even incorporate photovoltaic modules for electricity production [58], and their potential and relevance in climates with high insolation, such as the dry Mediterranean climate, form the basis for further research. Curtains or blinds inside the house can also be considered as mobile solar shading devices, but their effectiveness in reducing thermal gains from solar radiation is much lower [59,60,61]. The results obtained on the influence of mobile shadowing devices have similarities with other scientific publications in other geographical areas [62]. However, the calculations made in this study are focused on the dry Mediterranean climate, which allows obtaining more specific results and conclusions for this climate zone.
Finally, the study shows that the best results are obtained by modifying several of the parameters considered simultaneously and in a balanced manner (Figure 27). To achieve this, it is necessary to increase the insulation of the enclosures and glazing while improving the solar control of the glazing and also applying movable shading devices. With this solution, the results are better because the heating need in winter is reduced by increasing insulation and also taking advantage of the heat gains from solar radiation, but excessive solar radiation in summer is avoided with the movable shading devices.
However, the size of the overhangs is kept fixed because it does not lead to a clear improvement in energy performance, as demonstrated in this study. The size of the windows is also kept fixed because, as the calculations have shown, changing the glazing can lead to better or worse results depending on the proportion of glazing in relation to the geometry of the house, and a suitable solution for this variable cannot be generalized to other houses.
Despite the great improvement obtained in the energy efficiency of the case study, the results achieved are less optimal than other research works related to other geographical areas that apply multi-objective optimization analysis [63,64]. These works combine energy calculation simulation software with computer optimization tools, using algorithms instead of parametric studies [65,66,67]. Therefore, the results and conclusions of this paper are useful for further research by applying automated optimization methods in dry Mediterranean climates.
Apart from that, the factors analyzed in this case study show the dependence on the use of efficient air conditioning systems. This dependence in Mediterranean climate in other types of housing with social character is practically unaffordable due to the socioeconomic situation of their owners [68]. Because of that, a correct study of the solar protection parameters and the increase in the insulation of the enclosures and glazing will reduce cooling and heating needs and, consequently, the operating hours of air-conditioning equipment and their energy and economic costs.

5. Conclusions

The study carried out shows the convenience of adopting design and energy rehabilitation criteria adapted to the specific climate of the area, in this case the dry Mediterranean climate, given that the modification of each construction and geometric parameter affects the energy performance of the house in very different ways depending on the climatic characteristics.
This work demonstrates that, in the case of a dry Mediterranean climate, it is necessary to simultaneously improve the thermal insulation of the façades and the solar control of the glazing. If only the insulation of the façades is improved, the greenhouse effect and cooling costs are increased by making it more difficult to dissipate the heat introduced by radiation through the glazing due to the high annual insolation in this type of climate.
The analysis of the results obtained shows that, in this type of warm semi-arid climate, flexible solutions that allow incident radiation on the façade glazing to be adjusted according to the time of year and weather conditions, such as blinds, awnings, shutters, louvres, deciduous vegetation, etc., are much more optimal. Due to the specificities of this climate characterized by many sunny days throughout the year, this type of solution makes it possible to use the heat from solar radiation in winter to minimize heating costs, to protect the glazing from excessive solar radiation in summer to reduce cooling costs and to maintain the greatest number of hours of comfort without the need for air-conditioning during the spring and autumn months.
The study shows that the adoption of permanent architectural solutions such as increasing overhangs or reducing the size of windows reduces cooling needs in summer but increases heating need in winter by wasting heat from solar radiation in cold weather.
The study is very conclusive and shows that the best option for improving the energy efficiency of buildings is to combine the increased insulation of the thermal envelope and the use of mobile solar shading devices, taking into account the specific characteristics of the dry Mediterranean climate that is characterized by mild winters and hot summers with high sunshine throughout the year. The improvement achieved with this solution is a reduction in cooling and heating requirements, which reduces the operating needs of air-conditioning systems and their energy consumption.
This developed research study verifies that the most efficient architecture is not that which uses digital tools to seek compliance through the use of more equipment, as if a house was a living machine. The most efficient architecture is that which arranges and balances the rational use of openings, envelopes and solar protection with the support of air conditioning systems. There is nothing more efficient than eliminating consumption.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.P.-C. and Á.B.G.-A.; methodology, C.P.-C.; software, C.P.-C. and A.L.-P.; validation, C.P.-C., Á.B.G.-A. and A.G.-G.; formal analysis, A.L.-P.; investigation, C.P.-C., Á.B.G.-A., A.G.-G. and A.L.-P.; resources, A.L.-P.; data curation, C.P.-C. and A.L.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, C.P.-C. and Á.B.G.-A.; writing—review and editing, C.P.-C. and Á.B.G.-A.; visualization, A.L.-P.; supervision, C.P.-C., Á.B.G.-A. and A.G.-G.; project administration, C.P.-C. and Á.B.G.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Union. Directiva 2010/31/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 19 de Mayo de 2010 Relativa a la Eficiencia Energética de los Edificios (Refundición); European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. European Union. Directiva (UE) 2018/844 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 30 de Mayo de 2018, por la que se Modifica la Directiva 2010/31/UE Relativa a la Eficiencia Energética de los Edificios y la Directiva 2012/27/UE Relativa a la Eficiencia Energética; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 732/2019, de 20 de Diciembre, por el Que se Modifica el Código Técnico de la Edificación, Aprobado por el Real Decreto 314/2006, de 17 de Marzo; Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 390/2021, de 1 de Junio, por el que se Aprueba el Procedimiento Básico para la Certificación de la Eficiencia Energética de los Edificios; Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. López-Ochoa, L.M.; Las-Heras-Casas, J.; Olasolo-Alonso, P.; López-González, L.M. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings in Mediterranean countries: Fifteen years of implementing the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive in Spain (2006–2020). J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. López-Ochoa, L.M.; Las-Heras-Casas, J.; Olasolo-Alonso, P.; López-González, L.M. Environmental and energy impact of the EPBD in residential buildings in hot and temperate Mediterranean zones: The case of Spain. Energy 2018, 161, 618–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Borrallo-Jiménez, M.; LopezDeAsiain, M.; Esquivias, P.M.; Delgado-Trujillo, D. Comparative study between the Passive House Standard in warm climates and Nearly Zero Energy Buildings under Spanish Technical Building Code in a dwelling design in Seville, Spain. Energy Build. 2022, 254, 111570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Figueiredo, A.; Kämpf, J.; Vicente, R. Passive house optimization for Portugal: Overheating evaluation and energy performance. Energy Build. 2016, 118, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Orden FOM/588/2017, de 15 de Junio, por la que se Modifican el Documento Básico DB-HE “Ahorro de Energía” y el Documento Básico DB-HS “Salubridad”, del Código Técnico de la Edificación, Aprobado por Real Decreto 314/2006, de 17 de Marzo; Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. Lucon, O.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Ahmed, A.Z.; Akbari, H.; Bertoldi, P.; Cabeza, L.F.; Eyre, N.; Gadgil, A.; Harvey, L.D.; Jiang, Y.; et al. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. In IPCC Working Group III Contribution to AR5: Chapter 9—Buildings; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  11. Georgiou, G.; Eftekhari, M.; Lupton, T. Investigating the effect of tightening residential envelopes in the Mediterranean region. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies, Nottingham, UK, 25–27 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
  12. Castilla, N.; Llinares, C.; Bisegna, F.; Blanca-Gimenez, V. Emotional evaluation of lighting in university classrooms: A preliminary study. Front. Archit. Res. 2018, 7, 600–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Asdrubali, F.; Baldinelli, G.; Bianchi, F. A quantitative methodology to evaluate thermal bridges in Buildings. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Evola, G.; Margani, G.; Marletta, G. Energy and cost evaluation of termal bridge correction in Mediterranean climate. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2385–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Arias, N.; Bobadilla, A. Evaluación experimental y análisis de la mejora con aislamiento para el caso del puente térmico en el frente de forjado. Inf. Constr. 2017, 69, e188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Grupo de Termotecnia de la Asociación de Investigación y Cooperación Industrial de Andalucía (AICIA) en la Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de la Universidad de Sevilla. HU CTE-HE 2019 y CEE (Version 2.0.2203.1160 de 26 de Abril de 2021) [Computer Software]; Dirección General de Arquitectura, Vivienda y Suelo del Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana e Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDEA): Madrid, Spain, 2020; Available online: https://www.codigotecnico.org/pdf/Programas/lider-calener/iCTEHE2019_last (accessed on 27 April 2021).
  17. Aldersoni, A.A.; Chow, D.H.C. Adapting Traditional Passive Strategies within Contemporary House to Decrease High energy consumption Impact in Nejd Region, Saudi Arabia. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 329, 12007–12015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Schulze, T.; Eicker, U. Controlled natural ventilation for energy efficient buildings. Energy Build. 2013, 56, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Alhamad, I.M.; AlSaleem, M.; Taleb, H. Passive heating and cooling potential strategies: A comparison between moderate summers and warm winters climate zones. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1276, 12059–12067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Dehwah, A.; Krarti, M. Energy performance of integrated adaptive envelope systems for residential buildings. Energy 2021, 233, 121165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Alibaba, H.; Ozdeniz, M. Thermal comfort of multiple-skin facades in warm climate offices. Sci. Res. Essays 2011, 6, 4065–4078. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hamza, N. Double versus single skin facades in hot arid áreas. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Tzempelikos, A.; Shen, H. Comparative control strategies for roller shades with respect to daylighting and energy performance. Build. Environ. 2013, 67, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Atzeria, A.; Cappellettib, F.; Gasparella, A. Internal versus external shading devices performance in office buildings. Energy Procedia 2014, 45, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Prieto, A.; Knaack, U.; Auer, T.; Klein, T. Passive cooling & climate responsive facade design Exploring the limits of passive cooling strategies to improve the performance of commercial buildings in warm climates. Energy Build. 2018, 175, 30–47. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ferrara, M.; Virgone, J.; Fabrizio, E.; Kuznik, F.; Filippi, M. Modelling Zero Energy Buildings: Parametric study for the technical optimization. Energy Procedia 2014, 62, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Simon, F.; Ordoñez, J.; Girard, A.; Parrado, C. Modelling energy use in residential buildings: How design decisions influence final energy performance in various Chilean climates. Indoor Built Environ. 2019, 28, 533–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Harkouss, F.; Fardoun, F.; Biwole, P.H. Passive design optimization of low energy buildings in different climates. Energy 2018, 165, 591–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Causone, F.; Pietrobon, M.; Pagliano, L.; Erba, S. A high performance home in the Mediterranean climate: From the design principle to actual measurements. Energy Procedia 2017, 140, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.; Rudolfm, B.; Rubel, F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 2006, 15, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Albatayneh, A. Optimisation of building envelope parameters in a semi-arid and warm Mediterranean climate zone. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 2081–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Albatayneh, A.; Alterman, D.; Page, A.; Moghtaderi, B. The significance of building design for the climate. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2018, 22, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  33. Harkoussa, F.; Fardouna, F.; Henry, P. Multi-objective optimization methodology for net zero energy buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 16, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Delgarm, N.; Sajadi, B.; Kowsary, F.; Delgarm, S. Multi-objective optimization of the building energy performance: A simulation-based approach by means of particle swarm optimization (PSO). Appl. Energy 2016, 170, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Medineckiene, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Björk, F.; Turskis, Z. Multi-criteria decision making system for sustainable building assessment/certification. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2015, 15, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Panchenko, V.A. Solar Roof Panels for Electric and Thermal Generation. Appl. Sol. Energy 2018, 54, 350–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Echarri-Iribarren, V. Conditioning using ceramic floor panels with capillary tube mats and solar thermal panels on the Mediterranean coast: Energy savings and investment amortization. Energy Build. 2019, 202, 109334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Heiselberg, P.K.; O’Donnavan, A.; Belleri, A.; Flourentzou, F.; Zhang, G.Q.; Da Graca, G.C.; Breesch, H.; Justo-Alonso, M.; Kolokotroni, M.; Pomianowski, M.Z.; et al. Ventilative Cooling Design Guide: Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme. March 2018; Department of Civil Engineering, Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2018; 122p. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pesic, N.; Roset, J.; Muros, A. Natural ventilation potential of the Mediterranean coastal region of Catalonia. Energy Build. 2018, 169, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. MertCuce, P.; Riffat, S. A state of the artreview of evaporative cooling systems for building applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 1240–1249. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ozarisoy, B.; Altan, H. Systematic literature review of bioclimatic design elements: Theories, methodologies and cases in the South-eastern Mediterranean climate. Energy Build. 2021, 250, 111281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Orme, M. Estimates of the energy impact of ventilation and associated financial expenditures. Energy Build. 2001, 33, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. O’Donovan, A.; O’Sullivan, P.D.; Murphy, M.D. Predicting air temperatures in a naturally ventilated nearly zero energy building: Calibration, validation, analysis and approaches. Appl. Energy 2019, 250, 991–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Ozarisoy, B.; Altan, H. A novel methodological framework for the optimisation of post-war social housing developments in the South-eastern Mediterranean climate: Policy design and life-cycle cost impact analysis of retrofitting strategies. Sol. Energy 2021, 225, 517–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Diakaki, C.; Grigoroudis, E.; Kolokotsa, D. Towards a multi-objective optimization approach for improving energy efficiency in buildings. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 1747–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Rey, E. Office building retrofitting strategies: Multicriteria approach of an architectural and technical issue. Energy Build. 2004, 36, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Marcos, P.; Opazo, D. Equilibrio perfecto. La casa del acantilado en Calpe: Fran Silvestre Arquitectos. Diseño Interior 2013, 245, 66–77. [Google Scholar]
  48. Castillo, V. Muestras de Arquitectura Reciente en Alicante 2006–2015, 5th ed.; Colegio Territorial de Arquitectos de Alicante: Alicante, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. Available online: https://www.realexperiencemarket.com/CTAA/PANEL7.jpg (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  50. Available online: https://www.realexperiencemarket.com/CTAA/PANEL14.jpg (accessed on 20 January 2021).
  51. Database of the Visa Department of the Territorial College of Architects of Alicante.
  52. DesignBuilder v6.1.8.021; DesignBuilder Software Ltd.: Stroud, UK, 2021; Available online: https://www.designbuilder.co.uk (accessed on 27 September 2021).
  53. Líder-Calener Unified Tool Software, v2.0.2253.1167; Dirección General de Arquitectura, Vivienda y Suelo del Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana y por el Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDEA): Madrid, Spain, 2021.
  54. Ministerio de Fomento. Documento Descriptivo Climas de Referencia; Ministerio de Fomento: Madrid, Spain, 2017.
  55. Chazarra, A.; Flórez, E.; Peraza, B.; Tohá, T.; Lorenzo, B.; Criado, E.; Moreno, J.V.; Romero, R.; Botey, R. Mapas Climáticos de España (1981–2010) y ETo (1996–2016); Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica, Agencia Estatal de Meteorología: Madrid, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  56. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 1027/2007, de 20 de Julio, por el que se Aprueba el Reglamento de Instalaciones Térmicas en los Edificios; Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  57. Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 178/2021, de 23 de Marzo, por el que se Modifica el Real Decreto 1027/2007, de 20 de Julio, por el que se Aprueba el Reglamento de Instalaciones Térmicas en los Edificios; Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado: Madrid, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  58. Panchenko, V.; Izmailov, A.; Kharchenko, V.; Lobachevskiy, Y. Photovoltaic Solar Modules of Different Types and Designs for Energy Supply. Int. J. Energy Optim. Eng. 2020, 9, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Ministerio de Transporte, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana del Gobierno de España. DA DB-HE/1 Cálculo de Parámetros Característicos de la Envolvente. Documento de Apoyo al Documento Básico DB-HE Ahorro de Energía Código Técnico de la Edificación; Ministerio de Transporte, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana del Gobierno de España: Madrid, Spain, 2020; p. 14.
  60. UNE EN ISO 52022-3:2017; Energy Performance of Buildings—Thermal, Solar and Daylight Properties of Building Components and Elements—Part 3: Detailed Calculation Method of the Solar and Daylight Characteristics for Solar Protection Devices Combined with Glazing. UNE: Madrid, Spain, 2017.
  61. UNE EN 14501:2006; Blinds and Shutters—Thermal and Visual Comfort—Performance Characteristics and Classification. UNE: Madrid, Spain, 2006.
  62. Jian, Y. An investigation into the impact of movable solar shades on energy, indoor thermal and visual comfort improvements. Build. Environ. 2014, 71, 24–32. [Google Scholar]
  63. Rabani, M.; Bayera, H.; Nord, N. Achieving zero-energy building performance with thermal and visual comfort enhancement through optimization of fenestration, envelope, shading device, and energy supply system. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 44, 101020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Nasrollahzadeh, N. Comprehensive building envelope optimization: Improving energy, daylight, and thermal comfort performance of the dwelling unit. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Acar, U.; Kaska, O.; Tokgoz, N. Multi-objective optimization of building envelope components at the preliminary design stage for residential buildings in Turkey. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 102499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Zou, Y.; Zhan, Q.; Xiang, K. A comprehensive method for optimizing the design of a regular architectural space to improve building performance. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 981–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Kheiri, F. A review on optimization methods applied in energy-efficient building geometry and envelope design. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 897–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Escandón, R.; Suárez, R.; Sendra, J.J. Field assessment of thermal comfort conditions and energy performance of social housing: The case of hot summers in the Mediterranean climate. Energy Policy 2019, 128, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Sustainability 14 03910 g001
Figure 1. House under study: (a) external image; (b) floor plan; (c) southwest elevation; (d) southeast elevation.
Figure 1. House under study: (a) external image; (b) floor plan; (c) southwest elevation; (d) southeast elevation.
Sustainability 14 03910 g001
Sustainability 14 03910 g002
Figure 2. Selected houses in the architecture exhibitions of the Alicante Architects’ Association in the last 15 years.
Figure 2. Selected houses in the architecture exhibitions of the Alicante Architects’ Association in the last 15 years.
Sustainability 14 03910 g002
Sustainability 14 03910 g003
Figure 3. Constructive and geometrical parameters to be studied: (a) modification of insulation of opaque enclosures; (b) modification of thermal transmittance of the glazing (Ug), solar control of the glazing (g) and total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated (ggl;sh;wi); (c) modification of the size of the glazing by modifying the size ratio between glass and opaque enclosures; (d) modification of size of the façade overhangs that act as fixed solar protection for the glazing.
Figure 3. Constructive and geometrical parameters to be studied: (a) modification of insulation of opaque enclosures; (b) modification of thermal transmittance of the glazing (Ug), solar control of the glazing (g) and total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated (ggl;sh;wi); (c) modification of the size of the glazing by modifying the size ratio between glass and opaque enclosures; (d) modification of size of the façade overhangs that act as fixed solar protection for the glazing.
Sustainability 14 03910 g003
Sustainability 14 03910 g004
Figure 4. (a) Modeled in the software “Design Builder”; (b) modeled in the software “Herramienta Unificada LIDER-CALENER”.
Figure 4. (a) Modeled in the software “Design Builder”; (b) modeled in the software “Herramienta Unificada LIDER-CALENER”.
Sustainability 14 03910 g004
Sustainability 14 03910 g005
Figure 5. (a) BShs climate zone according to the Köppen–Geiger Climate Classification for the Iberian Peninsula, the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands of the Agencia Estatal de Meteorología del Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica del Gobierno de España; (b) location of the house and BShs climate zone (red) (own elaboration).
Figure 5. (a) BShs climate zone according to the Köppen–Geiger Climate Classification for the Iberian Peninsula, the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands of the Agencia Estatal de Meteorología del Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica del Gobierno de España; (b) location of the house and BShs climate zone (red) (own elaboration).
Sustainability 14 03910 g005
Sustainability 14 03910 g006
Figure 6. Current constructive compositions of the house: (a) construction section of the lower slab; (b) construction section of the roof; (c) constructive section of the façade wall. Materials: 1. reinforced mortar; 2. expanded polystyrene (EPS) type 3; 3. bonding mortar; 4. reinforced concrete wall; 5. ceramic brick; 6. gypsum plaster; 7. plastic paint; 8. anchoring elements; 9. reinforced concrete slab; 10. self levelling mortar; 11. bonding mortar; 12. natural stone (white marble); 13. gravel Ø2–3 mm; 14. geotextile film; 15. extruded polystyrene (XPS); 16. polyester film; 17. air chamber; 18. plasterboard cladding; 19. Ug = 2.80 W/m2·K; 20. g = 0.78; 21. ggl;sh;wi = 0.51; 22. Uf = 3.5 W/m2·K (dimensions in cm).
Figure 6. Current constructive compositions of the house: (a) construction section of the lower slab; (b) construction section of the roof; (c) constructive section of the façade wall. Materials: 1. reinforced mortar; 2. expanded polystyrene (EPS) type 3; 3. bonding mortar; 4. reinforced concrete wall; 5. ceramic brick; 6. gypsum plaster; 7. plastic paint; 8. anchoring elements; 9. reinforced concrete slab; 10. self levelling mortar; 11. bonding mortar; 12. natural stone (white marble); 13. gravel Ø2–3 mm; 14. geotextile film; 15. extruded polystyrene (XPS); 16. polyester film; 17. air chamber; 18. plasterboard cladding; 19. Ug = 2.80 W/m2·K; 20. g = 0.78; 21. ggl;sh;wi = 0.51; 22. Uf = 3.5 W/m2·K (dimensions in cm).
Sustainability 14 03910 g006
Sustainability 14 03910 g007
Figure 7. Entry of the modified geometric data into in the software “Herramienta Unificada LIDER-CALENER”: (a) original house with 2 m overhang on the façade; (b) modified house with 5 m overhang on the façade.
Figure 7. Entry of the modified geometric data into in the software “Herramienta Unificada LIDER-CALENER”: (a) original house with 2 m overhang on the façade; (b) modified house with 5 m overhang on the façade.
Sustainability 14 03910 g007
Sustainability 14 03910 g008
Figure 8. Entry of the modified geometric data into in the software “Design Builder”: (a) original house; (b) modified house with 70% of windows compared to the original house.
Figure 8. Entry of the modified geometric data into in the software “Design Builder”: (a) original house; (b) modified house with 70% of windows compared to the original house.
Sustainability 14 03910 g008
Sustainability 14 03910 g009
Figure 9. Modification of thermal insulation thichness of opaque enclosures: (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Figure 9. Modification of thermal insulation thichness of opaque enclosures: (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Sustainability 14 03910 g009
Sustainability 14 03910 g010
Figure 10. Modification of thermal transmittance of glazing (Ug): (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Figure 10. Modification of thermal transmittance of glazing (Ug): (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Sustainability 14 03910 g010
Sustainability 14 03910 g011
Figure 11. Modification of solar control of the glazing (g): (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Figure 11. Modification of solar control of the glazing (g): (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Sustainability 14 03910 g011
Sustainability 14 03910 g012
Figure 12. Influence of solar control of the glazing (g) on the solar control value qsol;jul.
Figure 12. Influence of solar control of the glazing (g) on the solar control value qsol;jul.
Sustainability 14 03910 g012
Sustainability 14 03910 g013
Figure 13. Modification of total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated (ggl;sh;wi): (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Figure 13. Modification of total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated (ggl;sh;wi): (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Sustainability 14 03910 g013
Sustainability 14 03910 g014
Figure 14. Influence of total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated (ggl;sh;wi) on the solar control value qsol;jul.
Figure 14. Influence of total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated (ggl;sh;wi) on the solar control value qsol;jul.
Sustainability 14 03910 g014
Sustainability 14 03910 g015
Figure 15. Modification of size of the glazing by modifying the size ratio between glass and opaque enclosures: (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Figure 15. Modification of size of the glazing by modifying the size ratio between glass and opaque enclosures: (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Sustainability 14 03910 g015
Sustainability 14 03910 g016
Figure 16. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the original house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Figure 16. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the original house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Sustainability 14 03910 g016
Sustainability 14 03910 g017
Figure 17. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the modified house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Figure 17. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the modified house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Sustainability 14 03910 g017
Sustainability 14 03910 g018
Figure 18. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy needs over the year in the original house using the software “Design Builder”.
Figure 18. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy needs over the year in the original house using the software “Design Builder”.
Sustainability 14 03910 g018
Sustainability 14 03910 g019
Figure 19. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy needs over the year in the modified house using the software “Design Builder”.
Figure 19. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy needs over the year in the modified house using the software “Design Builder”.
Sustainability 14 03910 g019
Sustainability 14 03910 g020
Figure 20. Influence of size of the glazing by modifying the size ratio between glass and opaque enclosures on the solar control value qsol;jul.
Figure 20. Influence of size of the glazing by modifying the size ratio between glass and opaque enclosures on the solar control value qsol;jul.
Sustainability 14 03910 g020
Sustainability 14 03910 g021
Figure 21. Modification of size of the façade cantilever that act as fixed solar protection for the glazing: (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Figure 21. Modification of size of the façade cantilever that act as fixed solar protection for the glazing: (a) cooling and heating energy needs; (b) total energy need.
Sustainability 14 03910 g021
Sustainability 14 03910 g022
Figure 22. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the original house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Figure 22. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the original house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Sustainability 14 03910 g022
Sustainability 14 03910 g023
Figure 23. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the modified house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Figure 23. Analysis of energy gains and losses in the modified house using the software “Design Builder” (yellow column: solar gains of glass).
Sustainability 14 03910 g023
Sustainability 14 03910 g024
Figure 24. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy need over the year in the original house using the software “Design Builder”.
Figure 24. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy need over the year in the original house using the software “Design Builder”.
Sustainability 14 03910 g024
Sustainability 14 03910 g025
Figure 25. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy need over the year in the modified house using the software “Design Builder”.
Figure 25. Analysis of the evolution of heating and cooling energy need over the year in the modified house using the software “Design Builder”.
Sustainability 14 03910 g025
Sustainability 14 03910 g026
Figure 26. Influence of size of the façade cantilever that act as fixed solar protection for the glazing on the solar control value qsol; jul.
Figure 26. Influence of size of the façade cantilever that act as fixed solar protection for the glazing on the solar control value qsol; jul.
Sustainability 14 03910 g026
Sustainability 14 03910 g027
Figure 27. Influence of the combination of construction and geometrical parameters on total energy need.
Figure 27. Influence of the combination of construction and geometrical parameters on total energy need.
Sustainability 14 03910 g027
Table 1. Summary of construction composition of the thermal envelope of the original house.
Table 1. Summary of construction composition of the thermal envelope of the original house.
Composition of the Thermal Envelope
of the Original House		Thickness
(cm)		Thermal Conductivity (W/m·K)Thermal Resistance (m2·K/W)U
(W/m2·K)		g
Roof: 0.53
Gravel Ø2–3 mm
Geotextile film0.150.050
Extruded polystyrene (XPS)4.00.034
Polyester film 1.5 mm0.150.23
Self levelling mortar2.00.55
Reinforced concrete slab252.30
Air chamber3.5 0.31
Plasterboard cladding1.50.25
Walls: 0.65
Reinforced mortar0.50.55
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) type 34.00.038
Bonding mortar0.50.55
Reinforced concrete wall302.30
Ceramic brick70.432
Gypsum plaster1.50.57
Lower slab: 0.66
Natural stone (white marble)2.03.50
Bonding mortar2.00.55
Self levelling mortar4.00.55
Reinforced concrete slab302.30
Bonding mortar0.50.55
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) type 34.00.038
Reinforced mortar0.50.55
Window Uw = 2.87
Glass (90.5% of the window) Ug = 2.80g = 0.78
Frame (9.5% of the winwow) Uf = 3.50
Frame absorptivity = 0.40; Frame air permeability = 9.00 m3/h·m2 (at 100 Pa).
Table 2. Summary of construction and geometrical characteristics of the original house and proposed modifications.
Table 2. Summary of construction and geometrical characteristics of the original house and proposed modifications.
Thermal Insulation Thickness (cm)Ug (W/m2·K)gggl;sh;wiPercentage of Windows
(% with Respect to the Original House)		Façade
Cantilever
(m)
original house52.800.780.511002
modification 162.400.680.36903
modification 272.000.580.28804
modification 381.600.480.20705
modification 491.200.380.14606
modification 5100.800.280.05507
Indicators and parameters of CTE DB-HE: Ug (W/m2·K): thermal transmittance of glass; g: solar factor of glass; ggl;sh;wi: total solar energy transmittance of the glazing with the movable shading device activated.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pérez-Carramiñana, C.; González-Avilés, Á.B.; Galiano-Garrigós, A.; Lozoya-Peral, A. Optimization of Architectural Thermal Envelope Parameters in Modern Single-Family House Typologies in Southeastern Spain to Improve Energy Efficiency in a Dry Mediterranean Climate. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073910

AMA Style

Pérez-Carramiñana C, González-Avilés ÁB, Galiano-Garrigós A, Lozoya-Peral A. Optimization of Architectural Thermal Envelope Parameters in Modern Single-Family House Typologies in Southeastern Spain to Improve Energy Efficiency in a Dry Mediterranean Climate. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):3910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073910

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pérez-Carramiñana, Carlos, Ángel Benigno González-Avilés, Antonio Galiano-Garrigós, and Andrea Lozoya-Peral. 2022. "Optimization of Architectural Thermal Envelope Parameters in Modern Single-Family House Typologies in Southeastern Spain to Improve Energy Efficiency in a Dry Mediterranean Climate" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 3910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073910

APA Style

Pérez-Carramiñana, C., González-Avilés, Á. B., Galiano-Garrigós, A., & Lozoya-Peral, A. (2022). Optimization of Architectural Thermal Envelope Parameters in Modern Single-Family House Typologies in Southeastern Spain to Improve Energy Efficiency in a Dry Mediterranean Climate. Sustainability, 14(7), 3910. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073910

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop