Please wait a minute...
购物车 申请加入邮件组 English
高级检索 图表检索
Frontiers in Energy

ISSN 2095-1701

ISSN 2095-1698(Online)

CN 11-6017/TK

邮发代号 80-972

2019 Impact Factor: 2.657

热点文章  |  下载排行  |  浏览排行
在线投稿 免费RSS订阅
Frontiers in Energy  2022, Vol. 16 Issue (4): 629-650   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-021-0799-z
  本期目录
Reassessment of fenestration characteristics for residential buildings in hot climates: energy and economic analysis
Ali ALAJMI1, Hosny ABOU-ZIYAN2(), Hamad H. Al-MUTAIRI1
1. Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Technological Studies, PAAET, Kuwait
2. Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Technological Studies, PAAET, Kuwait; Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
 全文: PDF(2283 KB)   HTML
Abstract：

This paper attempts to resolve the reported contradiction in the literature about the characteristics of high-performance/cost-effective fenestration of residential buildings, particularly in hot climates. The considered issues are the window glazing property (ten commercial glazing types), facade orientation (four main orientations), window-to-wall ratio (WWR) (0.2–0.8), and solar shading overhangs and side-fins (nine shading conditions). The results of the simulated runs reveal that the glazing quality has a superior effect over the other fenestration parameters and controls their effect on the energy consumption of residential buildings. Thus, using low-performance windows on buildings yields larger effects of WWR, facade orientation, and solar shading than high-performance windows. As the WWR increases from 0.2 to 0.8, the building energy consumption using the low-performance window increases 6.46 times than that using the high-performance window. The best facade orientation is changed from north to south according to the glazing properties. In addition, the solar shading need is correlated as a function of a window-glazing property and WWR. The cost analysis shows that the high-performance windows without solar shading are cost-effective as they have the largest net present cost compared to low-performance windows with or without solar shading. Accordingly, replacing low-performance windows with high-performance ones, in an existing residential building, saves about 12.7 MWh of electricity and 11.05 tons of CO2 annually.
Key words： parametric analysis    high-performance window    window-to-wall ratio (WWR)    facade orientation    solar shading    cost analysis
收稿日期: 2021-01-22      出版日期: 2022-10-21
Corresponding Author(s): Hosny ABOU-ZIYAN   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers in Energy, 2022, 16(4): 629-650.
Ali ALAJMI, Hosny ABOU-ZIYAN, Hamad H. Al-MUTAIRI. Reassessment of fenestration characteristics for residential buildings in hot climates: energy and economic analysis. Front. Energy, 2022, 16(4): 629-650.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/10.1007/s11708-021-0799-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/Y2022/V16/I4/629
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
Index Variable Type Lower bound Upper bound Initial value Increment
1 Façade orientation Discrete (east, west, north, and south)
2 WWR/% Discrete 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1
3 Glazing quality (see Table 2) Discrete W1 W10 W1 1
4 Overhang projection (P) Discrete 0 0.50 H 0.00 0.25
5 Side-fins projection (F) Discrete 0 0.50 W 0.00 0.25
Tab.1  
No. Configuration SHGC U/(W·m−2·K−1) LT Cost /(USD·m−2) Cost difference Window quality
W1 Low-e double sliver (6 mm-12 mm-6 mm) air 0.20 1.60 0.28 53 23
W2 High performance (8 mm-16 mm-8 mm) xenon 0.22 1.23 0.21 67 37 High
W3 Low-e neutral (8 mm-16 mm-8 mm) xenon 0.26 1.40 0.40 67 37
W4 Low-e neutral blue (6 mm-12 mm-6 mm) air 0.31 1.60 0.50 53 23
W5 Super low-e neutral (6 mm-12 mm-6 mm) xenon 0.37 1.15 0.50 73 43 Medium
W6 Low-e super neutral (6 mm-12 mm-6 mm) air 0.38 1.60 0.69 57 27
W7 Low-e clear (6 mm-16 mm-6 mm) argon 0.56 1.52 0.76 67 37 Low
W8 Reflective (6 mm-8 mm-6 mm) air 0.64 1.99 0.76 30 0
W9 Clear (6 mm-4 mm-6 mm) air 0.74 3.40 1.00 30 0
W10 Clear (6 mm-6 mm-6 mm) air 0.85 3.06 0.8 30 Base
Tab.2  
Characteristics Description of the studied case
Wall U-value without thermal bridge/(W·m−2·K−1) 0.574
Roof U-value/(W·m−2·K−1) 0.397
Occupancy density of the tested room/(m2·person−1) 4
Lighting load/(W·m−2) 5
Equipment load/(W·m−2) 3
Ventilation/(L·s−1·person) 10
Infiltration/Air change (ACH) 0.5
Thermostat setting/°C 24 in summer and 21 in winter
Illuminance level/(Lux·m−2) 300
Glare maximum allowable index 19
Frame material of the window/(W·m−2·K−1) 5.881 (polyvinyl chloride (PVC))
Window divider/(W·m−2·K−1) 5.881 (PVC)
Occupancy/Lighting/Equipment schedules Schedule: Time, active fraction
Weekdays: 00: 00–12: 00, 0; 12: 00–14: 00, 0.5; 14: 00–18: 00, 1; 18: 00–24: 00, 0.5
Weekends: 00: 00–12: 00, 0; 12: 00–13: 00, 0.5; 13: 00–23: 00, 1; 23: 00–24: 00, 0.5
Note: 0= zero, 0.5= half, and 1= All
Tab.3  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
Fig.7  
Window East West North South
W1 204.5 194.6 200.6 199.4
W2 209.6 196.1 204.3 202.3
W3 200.0 193.1 197.2 196.5
W4 197.7 192.4 195.5 195.0
W5 197.8 192.4 195.6 195.1
W6 195.1 191.6 193.6 193.3
W7 194.3 191.4 193.0 192.8
W8 194.3 191.4 193.0 192.8
W9 192.9 191.0 192.0 192.0
W10 194.0 191.3 192.7 192.6
Tab.4  
Façade East West North South
WWR= 0.2 WWR=0.8 WWR=0.2 WWR=0.8 WWR=0.2 WWR=0.8 WWR=0.2 WWR=0.8
W1–W3 0.66–1.16 4.05–5.86 1.03–1.39 4.60–6.34 0.61–0.67 2.22–3.34 0.60–0.91 3.22–5.35
W4–W6 1.51–1.75 7.37–8.86 1.70–1.94 7.82–9.30 0.86–1.01 4.24–4.68 1.17–1.36 7.44–9.53
W7–W10 2.68–4.79 13.13–20.88 2.82–5.00 13.43–21.04 1.57–2.83 7.69–12.14 2.13–5.43 16.53–32.39
Tab.5  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
Shading condition WWR= 0.2 WWR= 0.8
W1 W10 W1 W10
East facade/kWh (%)
Full side-fin 8.40 (0.32) 45.40 (1.59) 35.75 (1.25) 298.05 (7.80)
Full overhang 8.80 (0.34) 91.40 (3.20) 79.85 (2.80) 499.45 (13.07)
Combined (full) 17.30 (0.66) 136.80 (4.79) 115.60 (4.05) 797.50 (20.88)
West facade/kWh (%)
Full side-fin 9.28 (0.36) 46.85 (1.65) 43.55 (1.53) 304.90 (7.98)
Full overhang 17.20 (0.67) 95.25 (3.35) 87.33 (3.07) 499.32 (13.06)
Combined (full) 26.48 (1.03) 142.10 (5.00) 130.88 (4.60) 804.22 (21.04)
North facade/kWh (%)
Full side-fin 11.3 (0.44) 58.3 (2.13) 44.8 (1.62) 284.7 (8.31)
Full overhang –2.25 (–0.09) 19.4 (0.71) 16.5 (0.60) 131.3 (3.83)
Combined (full) 9.0 (0.35) 77.7 (2.83) 61.3 (2.22) 415.9 (12.14)
South facade/kWh (%)
Full side-fin 7.9 (0.31) 59.6 (2.21) 39.9 (1.47) 481.5 (14.21)
Full overhang 5.9 (0.23) 86.8 (3.22) 47.7 (1.75) 616.1 (18.18)
Combined (full) 13.8 (0.55) 146.4 (5.43) 87.6 (3.22) 1097.6 (32.39)
Tab.6  
Overhang condition Side-fin condition East West North South
W1 W10 W1 W10 W1 W10 W1 W10
Full Full 248.5 965.3 267.7 978.2 199.4 684.5 181.3 695.3
Half Full 285.5 1143.3 301.7 1153.0 209.6 732.1 195.2 873.3
Zero Full 317.1 1358.4 337.2 1368.3 217.8 799.4 220.3 1184.9
Full Half 261.8 1079.5 285.9 1095.5 214.5 782.9 193.6 852.6
Half Half 300.6 1262.4 320.0 1274.3 224.7 825.9 208.5 1051.9
Zero Half 333.5 1485.2 356.0 1497.8 233.3 893.2 235.7 1385.2
Full Zero 273.4 1203.0 301.3 1222.3 232.7 913.9 210.6 1077.6
Half Zero 313.3 1394.6 336.0 1409.6 243.6 959.0 227.4 1302.0
Zero Zero 346.9 1626.0 372.1 1640.3 251.6 1022.8 255.0 1646.6
Tab.7  
Facade East West North South
WWR=0.2 WWR=0.8 WWR=0.2 WWR=0.8 WWR=0.2 WWR=0.8 WWR=0.2 WWR=0.8
W1–W3 2.36–4.78 4.53–8.12 0.54–0.75 1.25–1.84 1.64–4.36 3.51–6.52 1.32–2.26 3.05–3.96
W4–W6 1.44–1.87 2.92–3.79 0.38–0.48 0.84–1.06 1.03–1.32 2.23–2.94 0.94–1.15 1.94–2.59
W7–W10 1.08–1.35 2.03–2.65 0.28–0.36 0.57–0.75 0.77–0.96 1.51–2.01 0.73–0.89 1.30–1.79
Tab.8  
Window NPV/USD SPPwt/a
East West North South East West North South
W1 2249.2 2277.1 1408.6 1987.9 1.48 1.46 2.27 1.66
W2 2153.2 2195.0 1342.6 1920.1 2.38 2.34 3.60 2.64
W3 2023.3 2040.1 1248.6 1815.3 2.52 2.50 3.83 2.77
W4 1969.0 1983.3 1308.2 1864.8 1.67 1.66 2.43 1.76
W5 1862.9 1873.8 1146.6 1698.0 3.09 3.08 4.65 3.35
W6 1815.5 1824.1 1136.1 1723.4 2.09 2.08 3.17 2.19
W7 1319.8 1327.9 855.8 1362.9 3.65 3.63 5.20 3.55
W8 1122.3 1125.9 781.7 1188.1 0 0 0 0
W9 248.5 238.3 75.7 303.5 0 0 0 0
Tab.9  
Window NPV/USD SPPwt/a
20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80%
W1 1082.5 2277.1 3273.6 4404.8 1.53 1.46 2.85 2.83
W2 1039.4 2195.0 3012.8 4052.4 2.46 2.34 4.58 4.55
W3 972.3 2040.1 2772.4 3728.6 2.61 2.50 4.90 4.86
W4 957.0 1983.3 2799.3 3734.5 1.72 1.66 3.27 3.27
W5 895.6 1873.8 2457.1 3299.3 3.20 3.08 6.04 6.01
W6 875.0 1824.1 2535.6 3403.3 2.16 2.08 4.08 4.05
W7 645.0 1327.9 1647.3 2169.1 3.72 3.63 7.24 7.30
W8 548.0 1125.9 1694.9 2235.5 0 0 0 0
W9 95.3 238.3 411 600.9 0 0 0 0
Tab.10  
Window NPV/USD SPPws/a
East West North South East West North South
W1 −124.1 −89.9 −194.6 −170.9 46.06 36.75 96.10 70.41
W2 −117.8 −67.4 −194.7 −155.2 44.00 32.45 96.34 59.80
W3 −47.2 −22.5 −148.6 −102.2 29.36 26.30 56.22 39.63
W4 60.6 81.9 −84.3 −6.0 19.46 18.25 35.59 24.59
W5 13.5 35.8 −113.8 −42.0 22.83 21.10 42.78 28.66
W6 41.2 56.4 −92.1 −42.9 20.72 19.73 37.24 28.78
W7 242.3 258.3 22.8 184.8 12.42 12.03 22.07 14.02
W8 362.4 380.5 82.3 354.5 10.02 9.73 18.23 10.15
W9 545.6 560.2 178.1 646.0 7.74 7.60 14.24 6.88
W10 729.8 744.0 274.0 649.0 6.30 6.21 11.68 6.86
Tab.11  
Window NPV/USD SPPws/a
20% 40% 60% 80% 20% 40% 60% 80%
W1 −54.3 −89.9 −113.7 −135.8 40.29 36.75 33.59 32.25
W2 −44.7 −67.4 −73.6 −78.0 35.97 32.45 29.45 28.14
W3 −25.2 −22.5 −0.8 24.3 29.57 26.30 24.07 22.97
W4 17.6 81.9 178.1 291.4 21.24 18.25 16.60 15.52
W5 −0.4 35.8 96.3 164.7 24.09 21.10 19.34 18.34
W6 7.4 56.4 130.6 217.5 22.77 19.73 18.09 17.05
W7 92.2 258.3 492.5 756.4 14.25 12.03 10.75 9.91
W8 144.5 380.5 700.5 1050.9 11.58 9.73 8.71 8.07
W9 224.5 560.2 983.2 1421.4 9.00 7.60 6.93 6.54
W10 295.5 744.0 1309.0 1901.7 7.51 6.21 5.61 5.25
Tab.12  
Fig.10  
WWR/Façade Energy saving/kWh Energy saving/unit area of window/(kWh·m−2)
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Mean STD (%)
(a) Without shading for W1 and W10
?East 366.3 791.9 1220.6 1645.5 114.5 123.7 127.1 128.6 123.5 6.3 (5.1)
?West 382.1 801.1 1227.7 1650.3 119.4 125.2 127.9 128.9 125.3 4.3 (3.4)
?North 247.2 514.1 770.6 1018.4 77.3 80.3 80.3 79.6 79.4 1.4 (1.8)
?South 287.2 705.6 1184.0 1678.7 89.7 110.2 123.3 131.2 113.6 18.1(15.9)
(b) With full shading for W1 and W10
?East 246.8 509.7 745.5 963.6 77.1 79.6 77.7 75.3 77.4 1.8 (2.3)
?West 266.4 525.5 757.6 976.9 83.3 82.1 78.9 76.3 80.2 3.1 (3.9)
?North 178.6 359.3 522.8 663.7 55.8 56.1 54.5 51.9 54.6 1.9 (3.6)
?South 154.6 329.7 502.2 668.7 48.3 51.5 52.3 52.2 51.1 1.9 (3.6)
(c) Without shading for W1 and full shading of W10
?East 229.5 465.1 660.9 848.0 71.7 72.7 68.8 66.2 69.9 2.9 (4.2)
?West 240.0 469.5 663.3 846.0 75.0 73.4 69.1 66.1 70.9 4.0 (5.7)
?North 169.5 337.9 477.9 602.4 53.0 52.8 49.8 47.1 50.7 2.8 (5.5)
?South 140.8 300.4 443.2 581.1 44.0 46.9 46.2 45.4 45.6 1.3 (2.7)
Tab.13  
Bw Window luminance/(cd·m−2)
CF Cash flow/USD
Ew10 Annual electrical energy consumed by the room using W10/kWh
Ewi Annual electrical energy consumed by the room using window W1–W9/kWh
GC Glazing cost/USD
GCD Difference between window GC and window 10 GC/USD
iL Reference point index
iS Window shade index
Iset Illuminance setpoint/lux
n Number of years
NPVws Net presen t value for windows with solar shading/USD
NPVwt Net present value for windows without solar shading/USD
PC Production cost of electrical energy/(0.126 USD·kWh−1)
PV Present value/USD
r Discount rate/1.5%
Sw Window background luminance/(cd·m−2)
SSC Solar shading cost/(USD·m−2)
SPPws Simple payback period with solar shading/a
SPPwt Simple payback period without solar shading/a
U Overall heat transfer coefficient of windows/(W·m−2·K−1)
WFP Window facade parameter
ρb Area-weighted average reflectance of zone interior surfaces
ω Solid angle subtended by the window/steradians
Ω Modified solid angle subtended by the window/steradians
Abbreviations
ACH Air change
EUI Energy use intensity
GA Genetic algorithm
GCC Gulf council countries
IDF Input definition file
LT Light transmission
NZEB Net zero energy building
PMV Predicted mean vote thermal occupant’s comfort index
SHGC Solar heat gain coefficient
STD Standard deviation
TMY Typical meteorological year
W# Window number
WWR Window-to-wall ratio
  
1 IEA. Tracking Building 2020. 2020–7, available at website of
2 P Nejat, F Jomehzadeh, M M Taheri, et al. A global review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries). Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 43: 843–862
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.066
3 P Ihm, M Krarti. Design optimization of energy efficient residential buildings in Tunisia. Building and Environment, 2012, 58: 81–90
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.06.012
4 A AlAjmi, H Abou-Ziyan, A Ghoneim. Achieving annual and monthly net-zero energy of existing building in hot climate. Applied Energy, 2016, 165: 511–521
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.073
5 L Belussi, B Barozzi, A Bellazzi, et al. A review of performance of zero energy buildings and energy efficiency solutions. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019, 25: 100772
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100772
6 Y Lu, S Wang, K Shan. Design optimization and optimal control of grid-connected and standalone nearly/net zero energy buildings. Applied Energy, 2015, 155: 463–477
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.007
7 A Alaidroos, M Krarti. Optimal design of residential building envelope systems in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Energy and Building, 2015, 86: 104–117
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.083
8 R Dias Barkokebas, Y Chen, H Yu, et al. Achieving housing energy-efficiency requirements: methodologies and impacts on housing construction cost and energy performance. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019, 26: 100874
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100874
9 F E Boafo, J G Ahn, S M Kim, et al. Fenestration refurbishment of an educational building: experimental and numerical evaluation of daylight, thermal and building energy performance. Journal of Building Engineering, 2019, 25: 100803
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100803
10 B Abediniangerabi, S M Shahandashti, A Makhmalbaf. A data-driven framework for energy-conscious design of building facade systems. Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 29: 101172
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101172
11 Y Gao, F He, X Meng, et al. Thermal behavior analysis of hollow bricks filled with phase-change material (PCM). Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 31: 101447
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101447
12 D K Bhamare, M K Rathod, J Banerjee. Numerical model for evaluating thermal performance of residential building roof integrated with inclined phase change material (PCM) layer. Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 28: 101018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101018
13 U Stritih, V V Tyagi, R Stropnik, et al. Integration of passive PCM technologies for net-zero energy buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2018, 41: 286–295
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.04.036
14 Y Sun, R Wilson, Y Wu. A review of Transparent Insulation Material (TIM) for building energy saving and daylight comfort. Applied Energy, 2018, 226: 713–729
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.094
15 G Feng, D Chi, X Xu, et al. Study on the influence of window-wall ratio on the energy consumption of nearly zero energy buildings. Procedia Engineering, 2017, 205: 730–737
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.003
16 M L Persson, A Roos, M Wall. Influence of window size on the energy balance of low energy houses. Energy and Building, 2006, 38(3): 181–188
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.05.006
17 H Manz, U P Menti. Energy performance of glazings in European climates. Renewable Energy, 2012, 37(1): 226–232
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.016
18 T Potrč Obrecht, M Premrov, V Žegarac Leskovar. Influence of the orientation on the optimal glazing size for passive houses in different European climates (for non-cardinal directions). Solar Energy, 2019, 189: 15–25
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.07.037
19 A Dutta, A Samanta, S Neogi. Influence of orientation and the impact of external window shading on building thermal performance in tropical climate. Energy and Building, 2017, 139: 680–689
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.018
20 V Ž Leskovar, M Premrov. An approach in architectural design of energy-efficient timber buildings with a focus on the optimal glazing size in the south-oriented facade. Energy and Building, 2011, 43(12): 3410–3418
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.003
21 V Ž Leskovar, M Premrov. Design approach for the optimal model of an energy-efficient timber building with enlarged glazing surface on the south facade. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2012, 11(1): 71–78
https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.11.71
22 V Ž Leskovar, M Premrov. Influence of glazing size on energy efficiency of timber-frame buildings. Construction & Building Materials, 2012, 30: 92–99
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.020
23 A Ayse, K Muhsin. Influence of window parameters on the thermal performance of office rooms in different climate zones of Turkey. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 2019, 9: 226–243
24 A Gasparella, G Pernigotto, F Cappelletti, et al. Analysis and modelling of window and glazing systems energy performance for a well insulated residential building. Energy and Building, 2011, 43(4): 1030–1037
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.032
25 S Jaber, S Ajib. Thermal and economic windows design for different climate zones. Energy and Building, 2011, 43(11): 3208–3215
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.08.019
26 A Dutta, A Samanta. Reducing cooling load of buildings in the tropical climate through window glazing: a model to model comparison. Journal of Building Engineering, 2018, 15: 318–327
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.12.005
27 P Ihm, L Park, M Krarti, et al. Impact of window selection on the energy performance of residential buildings in South Korea. Energy Policy, 2012, 44: 1–9
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.046
28 A Mesloub, A Ghosh, M Touahmia, et al. Performance analysis of photovoltaic integrated shading devices (PVSDs) and semi-transparent photovoltaic (STPV) devices retrofitted to a prototype office building in a hot desert climate. Sustainability, 2020, 12(23): 10145
https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310145
29 A Mesloub, A Ghosh, G A Albaqawy, et al. Energy and daylighting evaluation of integrated semitransparent photovoltaic windows with internal light shelves in open-office buildings. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2020, 2020: 1–21
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8867558
30 A Ebrahimpour, M Maerefat. Application of advanced glazing and overhangs in residential buildings. Energy Conversion and Management, 2011, 52(1): 212–219
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.061
31 A Sherif, A El-Zafarany, R Arafa. External perforated window solar screens: the effect of screen depth and perforation ratio on energy performance in extreme desert environments. Energy and Building, 2012, 52: 1–10
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.05.025
32 K J Chua, S K Chou. Evaluating the performance of shading devices and glazing types to promote energy efficiency of residential buildings. Building Simulation, 2010, 3(3): 181–194
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-010-0007-2
33 A I Palmero-Marrero, A C Oliveira. Effect of louver shading devices on building energy requirements. Applied Energy, 2010, 87(6): 2040–2049
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.11.020
34 S N Al-Saadi, K S Al-Jabri. Optimization of envelope design for housing in hot climates using a genetic algorithm (GA) computational approach. Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 32: 101712
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101712
35 US Department of Energy. EnergyPlus energy simulation software. 2020–8-8, available at website of
36 D Tuhus-Dubrow, M Krarti. Genetic-algorithm based approach to optimize building envelope design for residential buildings. Building and Environment, 2010, 45(7): 1574–1581
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.01.005
37 J Zhao, Y Du. Multi-objective optimization design for windows and shading configuration considering energy consumption and thermal comfort: a case study for office building in different climatic regions of China. Solar Energy, 2020, 206: 997–1017
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.05.090
38 D Harenberg, S Marelli, B Sudret, et al. Uncertainty quantification and global sensitivity analysis for economic models. Quantitative Economics, 2019, 10(1): 1–41
https://doi.org/10.3982/QE866
39 M Sheikhshahrokhdehkordi, J Khalesi, N Goudarzi. High-performance building: sensitivity analysis for simulating different combinations of components of a two-sided windcatcher. Journal of Building Engineering, 2020, 28: 101079
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101079
40 A Alberto, N M M Ramos, R M S F Almeida. Parametric study of double-skin facades performance in mild climate countries. Journal of Building Engineering, 2017, 12: 87–98
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.05.013
41 A Ioannou, L C M Itard. Energy performance and comfort in residential buildings: sensitivity for building parameters and occupancy. Energy and Building, 2015, 92: 216–233
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.01.055
42 W Tian. A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 20: 411–419
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.014
43 R Linton, T Frutiger, S Blanc, et al. American society of heating, refrigerating and air-conditioning engineers, inc. (ASHRAE). New York, NY1977, 1977
44 A S Al Busaidi, H A Kazem, A H Al-Badi, et al. A review of optimum sizing of hybrid PV-Wind renewable energy systems in Oman. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016, 53: 185–193
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.039
45 H A Kazem. Renewable energy in Oman: status and future prospects. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2011, 15(8): 3465–3469
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.015
46 Climate OneBuilding Org. Climate data for building performance simulation. 2021–1, available at website of
47 D B Crawley, L K Lawrie, F C Winkelmann, et al. EnergyPlus: creating a new-generation building energy simulation program. Energy and Building, 2001, 33(4): 319–331
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00114-6
48 D B Crawley, J W Hand, M Kummert, et al. Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. Building and Environment, 2008, 43(4): 661–673
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.027
49 Y Zhang. Use jEPlus as an efficient building design optimisation tool. In: CIBSE ASHRAE Technical Symposium, London, UK, 2012
50 Y Zhang. “Parallel” EnergyPlus and the development of a parametric analysis tool. International Building Performance Simulation Association, 2019
51 United States Department of Energy (DOE). EnergyPlus: Engineering Reference. California, USA 2014.
52 J Kneifel, D Webb. Life cycle cost manual for the federal energy management program. National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2020
53 M E W Kuwait. Electricity statistics year book, latest version 2019. 2020–8, available at website of
54 C Cerezo, J Sokol, S AlKhaled, et al. Comparison of four building archetype characterization methods in urban building energy modeling (UBEM): a residential case study in Kuwait City. Energy and Building, 2017, 154: 321–334
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.029
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed