Analysis of the relationship of the improvement of façades and thermal bridges of Spanish building stock with the mitigation of its energy and environmental impact
Abstract
The energy improvement of building stock is essential to achieve a low-carbon economy. The improvement of façades is among the most common measures to reduce energy consumption. However, the effect of thermal bridges is undervalued in most cases. This study assesses the effect of improving building façades and thermal bridges. For this purpose, a case study is assessed for all climate zones in Spain, both in current and future scenarios, considering operational patterns from the COVID-19 pandemic. The study shows that the application of energy conservation measures focusing on reducing the thermal transmittance of façades and the linear thermal transmittance of thermal bridges has a more significant energy and environmental effect than other, more economical energy conservation measures that do not improve the effect of thermal bridges. Likewise, the application of energy conservation measures to improve façades can reduce carbon dioxide emissions but are far from achieving the 90% reduction set by the European Union by 2050. Consequently, these measures should be combined with other measures.
Full text
energies Article Analysis of the Relationship of the Improvement of Façades and Thermal Bridges of Spanish Building Stock with the Mitigation of Its Energy and Environmental Impact David Bienvenido-Huertas Department of Building Construction II, University of Seville, 41012 Seville, Spain; [email protected] Received: 28 July 2020; Accepted: 25 August 2020; Published: 1 September 2020 Abstract: The energy improvement of building stock is essential to achieve a low-carbon economy. The improvement of façades is among the most common measures to reduce energy consumption. However, the effect of thermal bridges is undervalued in most cases. This study assesses the effect of improving building façades and thermal bridges. For this purpose, a case study is assessed for all climate zones in Spain, both in current and future scenarios, considering operational patterns from the COVID-19 pandemic. The study shows that the application of energy conservation measures focusing on reducing the thermal transmittance of façades and the linear thermal transmittance of thermal bridges has a more significant energy and environmental effect than other, more economical energy conservation measures that do not improve the effect of thermal bridges. Likewise, the application of energy conservation measures to improve façades can reduce carbon dioxide emissions but are far from achieving the 90% reduction set by the European Union by 2050. Consequently, these measures should be combined with other measures. Keywords: energy consumption; CO 2 emissions; building; envelope improvement; thermal bridges; climate change 1. Introduction The energy improvement of building stock is among the main challenges for architects and engineers due to deficient energy performance resulting from building standards without energy efficiency goals [ 1 ]. Consequently, building energy consumption plays a significant role in the energy consumption generated by anthropogenic activities and thus in greenhouse gas emissions. According to quantified data, the building sector is responsible for 40% of the energy consumption and 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions globally [ 2 , 3 ]. This deficient energy performance of buildings faces demanding goals by international bodies, such as the European Union, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, European buildings should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% [4]. The adoption of energy conservation measures (ECMs) in buildings is required to achieve these goals. ECMs are understood as any type of modification which allows the building energy performance to be improved [ 5 ]. Those ECMs focusing on improving various building elements could be adopted. However, envelope elements are the main element to be treated because of their narrow relationship with energy demand [ 6 – 9 ]. The effectiveness of applying ECMs to building envelopes has been widely analyzed, particularly for the energy improvement of buildings located in cold climate zones. Aksoy and Inalli [ 10 ] analyzed the influence of passive design parameters, such as form factor and orientation, in a building located in a cold region of Turkey. Similarly, Güçyeter and Günaydin [ 11 ] assessed the improvement of the envelope of an office building located in Turkey using six ECMs. Invidiata et al. [12] analyzed the influence of six ECMs in a residential building located in the north of Energies 2020,13, 4499; doi:10.3390/en13174499 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2020,13, 4499 2 of 20 Italy in order to select the best option to improve building sustainability. A greater scale study was conducted by Qian et al. [ 13 ], who assessed the savings achieved at a national scale by combining various ECMs in commercial buildings. Most studies have focused on the analysis of ECMs of the envelope on the improvement of thermal transmittance. However, the effect of thermal bridges could significantly vary the energy consumption of the building being improved. Some studies have quantified the importance of thermal bridges with regard to energy consumption. Theodosiou and Papadopoulos [ 14 ] assessed the influence of thermal bridge designs on the energy demand of representative buildings of the Greek building stock and the importance of correct characterization. Later, Theodosiou et al. [ 15 ] determined that thermal bridges should also be quantified in metal claddings of the ventilated façades. In addition, other studies quantified the effect of thermal bridges on the energy demand. Ramalho de Freitas and Grala da Cunha [16] assessed how the impact of the thermal bridges of reinforced concrete structures of a Brazilian building could vary its energy performance up to 20%. Ge et al. [ 17 ] also analyzed reinforced concrete elements. Their study assessed how the thermal bridges of balconies could vary the energy demand of Canadian residential buildings between 1 and 13%. Evola et al. [ 18 ] studied the effect of thermal bridges in two semi-detached houses located in a mild Mediterranean climate, determining that the improvement of thermal bridges resulted in a 25% reduction in the heating load and an 8.5% reduction in cooling load. Finally, Bienvenido-Huertas et al. [ 19 ] analyzed the energy improvement achieved with patents on the thermal bridge of the slab front, obtaining overall reductions of heating energy demand greater than 18%, and reductions greater than 2.80% for cooling energy demand. However, no existing studies have analyzed the effect of focusing ECMs on the improvement of buildings or a simultaneous assessment of the effect of thermal bridges and how their energy performance could be influenced. Likewise, the economic and environmental profitability of the analyzed ECMs is crucial in this analysis because of the energy consumed and the CO 2 emissions produced by the ECMs during the stages of manufacturing materials, transport to the construction site, and placement or installation in the existing building [ 20 ]. Assessing the true profitability of these ECMs is fundamental to achieving the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, tests to assess the energy performance in current and future climate change scenarios are required using available estimations of how building energy performance could vary throughout the 21st century [21–23] . The research by Bienvenido-Huertas et al. [ 19 ] is the sole study partially analyzing the possible performance of the thermal bridge in future years, although this study focuses on new buildings and very specific designs of slab fronts. Thus, the knowledge gap that is discussed in this work is the reliability of the improvement of façades considering the effect of thermal bridges and the expected building performance throughout the 21st century. Likewise, the payback period of both consumed energy and CO 2 emissions in the manufacturing phases, as well as the reliability of these types of measures to achieve the low-carbon goals by 2050, are also analyzed. These aspects are studied from the perspective of existing climates in Spain, a country with the largest surface area in southern Europe. This work is important as few studies have analyzed the importance of improving façades and the enhancement of the effect of thermal bridges from a varied perspective. Furthermore, this study also aims to improve the energy performance of existing buildings. In this regard, the design of new energy-efficient buildings is a complex task for engineers and architects, which is more difficult in the case of existing buildings [ 24 ]. In addition, the long useful life of buildings implies the need to analyze the building performance over a longer period of use compared to other sectors, such as the automotive industry. This study employs a multidisciplinary perspective to analyze the possibilities of using ECMs to improve façades to reduce the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of existing buildings, assessing the effect of thermal bridges simultaneously. For this purpose, an existing building in Spain was selected and analyzed in various climate zones of the country. Spain was selected because of the difficulties found by some studies to implement nearly zero energy buildings (NZEB) correctly in the southern countries of Europe [ 1 ]. NZEB is included in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
Energies 2020,13, 4499 3 of 20 (EPBD) [ 25 ], and there have been significant difficulties achieving this category in existing buildings [ 24 ]. Thus, this study’s orientation to existing buildings aims to address the limitations of reaching NZEB in such buildings. Furthermore, this work adopts new operational patterns that users could employ as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 26 ]. The study shows that the application of ECMs focused on reducing the thermal transmittance of façades and the linear thermal transmittance of thermal bridges has a more significant energy and environmental effect than other more economical energy conservation measures that do not improve the effect of thermal bridges. Likewise, the application of ECMs to improve façades, although in energy terms clearly reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other problems such as energy poverty [ 27 ], is far from achieving the goals set by the European Union to reduce these emissions by 90%. As such, these measures should be combined with other measures. The structure of the article is as follows: Section 2describes the methodology, Section 3presents and discusses the results of the research. Finally, Section 4summarizes the main conclusions of the study. 2. Methodology The methodological framework of this research consisted of a process of two-dimensional thermal bridge simulations carried out with HTflux and energy simulations carried out with DesignBuilder. Three types of façade were considered in the analysis (the original case study and two ECMs), as well as two climate scenarios (current and future). The number of energy simulations was 648. The payback period of the economic cost of the ECMs and the energy and emissions produced in the manufacture and construction stages were also analyzed. Figure 1shows the steps followed in the research. Energies2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW3of22 PerformanceofBuildingsDirective(EPBD)[25],andtherehavebeensignificantdifficultiesachieving thiscategoryinexistingbuildings[24].Thus,thisstudy’sorientationtoexistingbuildingsaimsto addressthelimitationsofreachingNZEBinsuchbuildings.Furthermore,thisworkadoptsnew operationalpatternsthatuserscouldemployasaresultoftheCOVID‐19pandemic[26].Thestudy showsthattheapplicationofECMsfocusedonreducingthethermaltransmittanceoffaçadesand thelinearthermaltransmittanceofthermalbridgeshasamoresignificantenergyandenvironmental effectthanothermoreeconomicalenergyconservationmeasuresthatdonotimprovetheeffectof thermalbridges.Likewise,theapplicationofECMstoimprovefaçades,althoughinenergyterms clearlyreducesgreenhousegasemissionsandotherproblemssuchasenergypoverty[27],isfarfrom achievingthegoalssetbytheEuropeanUniontoreducetheseemissionsby90%.Assuch,these measuresshouldbecombinedwithothermeasures. Thestructureofthearticleisasfollows:Section2describesthemethodology,Section3presents anddiscussestheresultsoftheresearch.Finally,Section4summarizesthemainconclusionsofthe study. 2.Methodology Themethodologicalframeworkofthisresearchconsistedofaprocessoftwo‐dimensional thermalbridgesimulationscarriedoutwithHTfluxandenergysimulationscarriedoutwith DesignBuilder.Threetypesoffaçadewereconsideredintheanalysis(theoriginalcasestudyand twoECMs),aswellastwoclimatescenarios(currentandfuture).Thenumberofenergysimulations was648.ThepaybackperiodoftheeconomiccostoftheECMsandtheenergyandemissions producedinthemanufactureandconstructionstageswerealsoanalyzed.Figure1showsthesteps followedintheresearch. Figure1.Flowchartoftheresearch. Figure 1. Flowchart of the research.
Energies 2020,13, 4499 4 of 20 2.1. Case Study To assess the influence of improving façades on the energy and environmental performance of buildings in Spain within the context of climate change, a case study representing a large percentage of Spanish building stock was selected. A residential building built in 1981 was selected. Figure 2shows photos of the case study. This building was constructed according to the basic building norm NBE-CT 79 [28] , characterized by having narrow insulating material layers in their envelopes [ 28 ]. As Table 1indicates, the design of the façade is constituted by a double-leaf brick with an air gap and insulating material of 2 cm, whose thermal transmittance value is 0.73 W/(m 2 K). Experimental campaigns were conducted according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9869-1, thus validating the thermal transmittance value of the façade. The building had 5 floors, with 24 dwellings in each. The surface area per floor was 1305 m. Energies2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW4of22 2.1.CaseStudy Toassesstheinfluenceofimprovingfaçadesontheenergyandenvironmentalperformanceof buildingsinSpainwithinthecontextofclimatechange,acasestudyrepresentingalargepercentage ofSpanishbuildingstockwasselected.Aresidentialbuildingbuiltin1981wasselected.Figure2 showsphotosofthecasestudy.Thisbuildingwasconstructedaccordingtothebasicbuildingnorm NBE‐CT79[28],characterizedbyhavingnarrowinsulatingmateriallayersintheirenvelopes[28]. AsTable1indicates,thedesignofthefaçadeisconstitutedbyadouble‐leafbrickwithanairgapand insulatingmaterialof2cm,whosethermaltransmittancevalueis0.73W/(m2K).Experimental campaignswereconductedaccordingtoInternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO)9869‐ 1,thusvalidatingthethermaltransmittancevalueofthefaçade.Thebuildinghad5floors,with24 dwellingsineach.Thesurfaceareaperfloorwas1305m. Figure2.Thecasestudyanalyzed. Oneofthemostimportantaspectsofthebuildingwastheheatlossthroughthethermalbridges ofitsenvelope(Figure3).Themeasurementswereperformedwithinfraredthermographyand showedthatthethermalbridgesoftheslabfrontwerethemostinfluentialthermalbridges,together withthecornersduetothegeometricformoffloors. Table1.Thermalpropertiesofthefaçadelayersofthebuilding. Layers Thickness(m) ThermalResistance ((m2K)/W) The r mal Transmittance (W/(m2K)) Cementmortar 0.01 0.01 0.73 Perforatedbrick 0.11 0.19 Cementmortar 0.01 0.01 Insulation 0.02 0.67 Airgap 0.04 0.18 Hollowbrick 0.05 0.11 Gypsumplaster 0.01 0.03 Figure 2. The case study analyzed. Table 1. Thermal properties of the façade layers of the building. Layers Thickness (m) Thermal Resistance ((m2K)/W) Thermal Transmittance (W/(m2K)) Cement mortar 0.01 0.01 0.73 Perforated brick 0.11 0.19 Cement mortar 0.01 0.01 Insulation 0.02 0.67 Air gap 0.04 0.18 Hollow brick 0.05 0.11 Gypsum plaster 0.01 0.03 One of the most important aspects of the building was the heat loss through the thermal bridges of its envelope (Figure 3). The measurements were performed with infrared thermography and showed that the thermal bridges of the slab front were the most influential thermal bridges, together with the corners due to the geometric form of floors.
Energies 2020,13, 4499 5 of 20 Energies2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW5of22 Figure3.Thermographywiththermalbridgesfoundinthebuilding. 2.2.EnergyConservationMeasuresAnalyzed TwoECMswereanalyzedintheenergysimulationprocesses.TheseECMs,theachieved thermaltransmittanceandtheinvestmentrequired,areshowninTable2.Measuresemployedwere anexternalthermalinsulationcompositesystem(ETICS)withmineralwoolinsulationof5cmand aninternalplasterboardwithmineralwoolinsulationof5cm.Bothmeasureswereselectedaccording tothemostcommonmeasurestoimprovefaçadeperformanceinSpain[29].Inaddition,both measuresweredesignedtoobtainsimilarthermaltransmittanceresultsinanimprovedfaçade: ETICSobtainedathermaltransmittanceof0.371W/(m2K),andtheplasterboardobtainedathermal transmittanceof0.364W/(m2K).ThebudgettoperformECMswasobtainedthroughadatabaseof constructionpricesincludedintheconstructionproductsandsystems(CYPE)database[30].This databasewasusedtoobtainCO2emissionsandtheenergyconsumedinthemanufactureand constructionstagesoftheECMs(i.e.,instagesA1,A2,A3,A4,andA5ofthelifecycle).Table3 includestheenergyandemissionvaluesofthesestages.Thesedatawereusedtodeterminethatthe levelofCO2emissionsrelatedtoETICSwas87,868.18kgCO2,andtheemissionsoftheplasterboard were131,133.22kgCO2,whereastheenergyconsumedwas1,139,614.77MJwithETICSand 2,179,927.16MJwiththeplasterboard.Thesevaluesofemissionsandenergyconsumedinthe manufacturingstageoftheECM,togetherwiththepriceoftheECMitself,wereusedtodetermine thepaybackperiods.Furthermore,threeaspectswereusedtoassessthepaybackperiods:(i) Regardingthepaybackperiodoftheeconomiccost,thepriceestablishedintheelectricitybillwas alwaysthesame.Forthispurpose,avalueof0.1233€/kWperdaywasusedforthepowerterm,and 0.1349€/kWhfortheenergyterm.ApercentageofelectricitytaxinSpain(5.113%)andapercentage ofvalue‐addedtax(21%)werealsoused;(ii)Alsoregardingthepaybackperiodofeconomiccost,in Spain,itispossibletofinancetheenergyimprovementsinbuildingsthroughtheStateHousingPlan. Thisplanreducestheeconomiccostoftheinvestmentby40%.Forthisresearch,boththeeconomic paybackperiodofnotobtainingfinancingandthepaybackperiodwithfinancingof40%were analyzed;(iii)TodeterminethepaybackperiodoftheCO2emissionsgeneratedbytheECMsinthe manufacturingandconstructionstages,thesavingsobtainedinemissionsgeneratedbythebuilding becauseofitsenergyconsumptionwasconsidered.Forthispurpose,theconversionfactor establishedinSpanishlegislationtodetermineCO2emissionsrelatedtotheenergyconsumptionofa dwellingandwithavalueof0.357kgCO2/kWhwasused[31]. Figure 3. Thermography with thermal bridges found in the building. 2.2. Energy Conservation Measures Analyzed Two ECMs were analyzed in the energy simulation processes. These ECMs, the achieved thermal transmittance and the investment required, are shown in Table 2. Measures employed were an external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) with mineral wool insulation of 5 cm and an internal plasterboard with mineral wool insulation of 5 cm. Both measures were selected according to the most common measures to improve façade performance in Spain [ 29 ]. In addition, both measures were designed to obtain similar thermal transmittance results in an improved façade: ETICS obtained a thermal transmittance of 0.371 W/(m 2 K), and the plasterboard obtained a thermal transmittance of 0.364 W/(m 2 K). The budget to perform ECMs was obtained through a database of construction prices included in the construction products and systems (CYPE) database [ 30 ]. This database was used to obtain CO 2 emissions and the energy consumed in the manufacture and construction stages of the ECMs (i.e., in stages A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 of the life cycle). Table 3includes the energy and emission values of these stages. These data were used to determine that the level of CO 2 emissions related to ETICS was 87,868.18 kg CO 2 , and the emissions of the plasterboard were 131,133.22 kg CO 2 , whereas the energy consumed was 1,139,614.77 MJ with ETICS and 2,179,927.16 MJ with the plasterboard. These values of emissions and energy consumed in the manufacturing stage of the ECM, together with the price of the ECM itself, were used to determine the payback periods. Furthermore, three aspects were used to assess the payback periods: (i) Regarding the payback period of the economic cost, the price established in the electricity bill was always the same. For this purpose, a value of 0.1233 € /kW per day was used for the power term, and 0.1349 € /kWh for the energy term. A percentage of electricity tax in Spain (5.113%) and a percentage of value-added tax (21%) were also used; (ii) Also regarding the payback period of economic cost, in Spain, it is possible to finance the energy improvements in buildings through the State Housing Plan. This plan reduces the economic cost of the investment by 40%. For this research, both the economic payback period of not obtaining financing and the payback period with financing of 40% were analyzed; (iii) To determine the payback period of the CO 2 emissions generated by the ECMs in the manufacturing and construction stages, the savings obtained in emissions generated by the building because of its energy consumption was considered. For this purpose, the conversion factor established in Spanish legislation to determine
Energies 2020,13, 4499 6 of 20 CO 2 emissions related to the energy consumption of a dwelling and with a value of 0.357 kg CO 2 /kWh was used [31]. Table 2. Energy conservation measures (ECMs) analyzed in the research. ECM Description Thermal Transmittance (W/(m2K)) Investment (€) External thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS) Insulation with mineral wool of 5 cm (λ=0.038 W/(mK)) 0.371 496,256.35 Internal plasterboard with insulation Insulation with mineral wool of 5 cm (λ=0.037 W/(mK)) 0.364 142,544.19 Table 3. Equivalent carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumed during manufacture, transport, and construction stages of the ECMs. ECM Stage of the Life Cycle Manufacture Construction A1-A2-A3 A4 A5 Energy Added (MJ/m2) Equivalent CO2 Emissions (kg/m2) Energy Added (MJ/m2) Equivalent CO2 Emissions (kg/m2) Energy Added (MJ/m2) Equivalent CO2 Emissions (kg/m2) ETICS 234.733 18.108 10.158 0.752 0.39 0.052 Plasterboard with insulation 460.768 27.594 8.289 0.613 0.132 0.017 2.3. Cities and Climate Data Spain has a wide climate variability. These variations in climate between cities could result in huge variations in building energy performance. To control this aspect, the Spanish Technical Building Code established a climate classification according to the combination of two indicators: winter climate severity (WCS) and summer climate severity (SCS). WCS and SCS are determined by the relationships between the degrees of winter and summer days and the number of hours of sun. A fundamental aspect when obtaining these indicators is that WCS is related to the months between October and May, and SCS to the months between June and September. After determining the value of WCS and SCS, the class that corresponds to the region was determined with the values included in Table 4. A total of 12 various combinations were obtained in the country by combining WCS and SCS. Figure 4 shows the climate zones of the provincial capitals in Spain. Each climate zone was also analyzed. For this purpose, 12 cities corresponding to each climate zone of the Spanish Technical Building Code were selected: Malaga (A3), Almeria (A4), Murcia (B3), Seville (B4), Bilbao (C1), Barcelona (C2), Granada (C3), Caceres (C4), Oviedo (D1), Girona (D2), Albacete (D3), and Soria (E1). In addition, Meteonorm was used to obtain the climate data of these cities. Meteonorm is a software composed of 8325 weather stations, by which the EnergyPlus weather (EPW) files of the locations selected were obtained. Through this process, EPW files were generated for current and future scenarios throughout the 21st century. The A2 scenario from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was selected to generate the future climate files because this scenario is among the most unfavorable [ 32 ], with an increase between 2 and 5.4 ◦ C in 2100 in comparison with the values from the beginning of the 21st century. Through this scenario of emissions, the EPW files were generated for 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070, 2080, 2090, and 2100.
Energies 2020,13, 4499 7 of 20 Table 4. Climate classification related to winter climate severity (WCS) and summer climate severity (SCS). Class Value Class Value A 0 <WCS ≤0.23 1 SCS ≤0.50 B 0.23 <WCS ≤0.50 2 0.50 <SCS ≤0.83 C 0.50 <WCS ≤0.93 3 0.83 <SCS ≤1.38 D 0.93 <WCS ≤1.51 4 SCS >1.38 EWCS >1.51 Energies2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW7of22 Table4.Climateclassificationrelatedtowinterclimateseverity(WCS)andsummerclimateseverity (SCS). Class Value Class Value A 0𝑊𝐶𝑆 0.23 1 𝑆𝐶𝑆 0.50 B 0.23 𝑊𝐶𝑆 0.50 2 0.50 𝑆𝐶𝑆 0.83 C 0.50 𝑊𝐶𝑆 0.93 3 0.83 𝑆𝐶𝑆 1.38 D 0.93 𝑊𝐶𝑆 1.51 4 𝑆𝐶𝑆 1.38 E 𝑊𝐶𝑆 1.51 Figure4.ClimatezonesinSpainaccordingtotheSpanishTechnicalBuildingCode. 2.4.SimulationProcess Thedatadescribedintheprevioussubsectionswereusedtomodelthebuildingin DesignBuilder.Figure5showstheobtainedbuildingmodel.Twooperationalpatternsweredefined: (i)inthecaseofteleworkingusers;(ii)inthecaseofusersworkingoutsidetheirhomes.Thisdivision istheresultofchangesinworkingconditionsduetotheCOVID‐19pandemic[26]inwhichbuilding usersworkinginofficesarenowmorelikelytoteleworkfromhome.Toreflectthisaspect,the residentialprofileestablishedintheSpanishTechnicalBuildingCodewasadapted[33].Table5 presentstheprofilesused.ThemaximumvaluesofloadscorrespondtothosedefinedintheSpanish TechnicalBuildingCode.Forthecharacteristicsofheating,ventilationandairconditioning(HVAC) systems,dwellingswereconsideredtohaveaheatpumpwithanenergyefficiencyratio(EER)of2.00 andacoefficientofperformance(COP)of2.10. Finally,thermalbridgeswerealsosimulatedtodeterminethelinearthermaltransmittanceand includedintheinputsofthesimulationmodel.ThethermalbridgesweresimulatedwiththeHTflux software[34],whichwasvalidatedaccordingtoISO10211[35].Thethermalbridgesofslabfronts Figure 4. Climate zones in Spain according to the Spanish Technical Building Code. 2.4. Simulation Process The data described in the previous subsections were used to model the building in DesignBuilder. Figure 5shows the obtained building model. Two operational patterns were defined: (i) in the case of teleworking users; (ii) in the case of users working outside their homes. This division is the result of changes in working conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic [ 26 ] in which building users working in offices are now more likely to telework from home. To reflect this aspect, the residential profile established in the Spanish Technical Building Code was adapted [ 33 ]. Table 5presents the profiles used. The maximum values of loads correspond to those defined in the Spanish Technical Building Code. For the characteristics of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, dwellings were considered to have a heat pump with an energy efficiency ratio (EER) of 2.00 and a coefficient of performance (COP) of 2.10. Finally, thermal bridges were also simulated to determine the linear thermal transmittance and included in the inputs of the simulation model. The thermal bridges were simulated with the HTflux software [34] , which was validated according to ISO 10211 [ 35 ]. The thermal bridges of slab fronts and corners were analyzed because of their high impact on the previous assessment of the building. Limit conditions and junction dimensions were defined according to the criteria set in ISO 10211 [35].
Energies 2020,13, 4499 8 of 20 Energies2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW8of22 andcornerswereanalyzedbecauseoftheirhighimpactonthepreviousassessmentofthebuilding. LimitconditionsandjunctiondimensionsweredefinedaccordingtothecriteriasetinISO10211[35]. Figure5.ModelofthecasestudyinDesignBuilder. Table5.Operationalprofiles. Mode Loads/SetpointTemperatures 0:00–6:59 07:00–7:59 08:00–18:59 19:00–22:59 23:00–23:59 Working outsidethe home Occupancyload(W/m2) 3.51 0 0 3.51 3.51 Equipmentload(W/m2) 4.40 0 0 4.40 4.40 Lightingload(W/m2) 4.40 0 0 4.40 4.40 Heatingsetpointtemperature(°C) 17 ‐ ‐ 20 17 Coolingsetpointtemperature(°C) 27 ‐ ‐ 25 27 Teleworking Occupancyload(W/m2) 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 Equipmentload(W/m2) 4.40 2.20 4.40 4.40 4.40 Lightingload(W/m2) 4.40 2.20 4.40 4.40 4.40 Heatingsetpointtemperature(°C) 17 20 20 20 17 Coolingsetpointtemperature(°C) 27 25 25 25 27 2.5.LimitationsoftheStudy Itshouldbenotedthatthisstudyhasseverallimitations.First,thisstudydoesnotconsider ECMsfocusedonactivesystems.Likewise,photovoltaicself‐consumptionisnotconsideredasa possibleECMasitisnotoftenusedinSpanishbuildings.Inthisregard,thedesignofECMsfor existingbuildingsinSpainisusuallyadaptedtocomplywiththerequirementsestablishedinthe SpanishTechnicalBuildingCode(CTE).TheCTEdoesnotrequireself‐consumptionsystemsin residentialbuildings[36],sotheimplementationofthistypeofmeasureinSpainisnotvery developed(exceptinthecaseofnon‐residentialbuildings[37]).However,theimprovementof façadesisamongthemainmeasuresadopted.Forthisreason,thisstudyisaimedatimproving passivesystemsbecausetheyarethemainmeasuredevelopedinexistingbuildingsinSpain. Likewise,façadeimprovementECMsareconsideredduetobeingwidelyusedintraditionalsystems. Othersystems,suchasgreenfaçades[38]ortheuseofphasechangematerials[39],arenotconsidered inthisstudy.Theuseofthesedesignscouldleadtovariationswithrespecttotheresultsobtainedin thisstudy. Figure 5. Model of the case study in DesignBuilder. Table 5. Operational profiles. Mode Loads/Setpoint Temperatures 0:00–6:59 07:00–7:59 08:00–18:59 19:00–22:59 23:00–23:59 Working outside the home Occupancy load (W/m 2 ) 3.51 0 0 3.51 3.51 Equipment load (W/m 2 ) 4.40 0 0 4.40 4.40 Lighting load (W/m2)4.40 0 0 4.40 4.40 Heating setpoint temperature (◦C) 17 - - 20 17 Cooling setpoint temperature (◦C) 27 - - 25 27 Teleworking Occupancy load (W/m 2 ) 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 Equipment load (W/m 2 ) 4.40 2.20 4.40 4.40 4.40 Lighting load (W/m2)4.40 2.20 4.40 4.40 4.40 Heating setpoint temperature (◦C) 17 20 20 20 17 Cooling setpoint temperature (◦C) 27 25 25 25 27 2.5. Limitations of the Study It should be noted that this study has several limitations. First, this study does not consider ECMs focused on active systems. Likewise, photovoltaic self-consumption is not considered as a possible ECM as it is not often used in Spanish buildings. In this regard, the design of ECMs for existing buildings in Spain is usually adapted to comply with the requirements established in the Spanish Technical Building Code (CTE). The CTE does not require self-consumption systems in residential buildings [ 36 ], so the implementation of this type of measure in Spain is not very developed (except in the case of non-residential buildings [ 37 ]). However, the improvement of façades is among the main measures adopted. For this reason, this study is aimed at improving passive systems because they are the main measure developed in existing buildings in Spain. Likewise, façade improvement ECMs are considered due to being widely used in traditional systems. Other systems, such as green façades [ 38 ] or the use of phase change materials [ 39 ], are not considered in this study. The use of these designs could lead to variations with respect to the results obtained in this study. 3. Results and Discussion Thus study first assessed the linear thermal transmittance of the thermal bridges in the building. For this purpose, two-dimensional transitory simulations of the thermal bridges of both the slab front and the pillar located at the corner were performed, both with the original design of the building and with the two ECMs presented, thus obtaining the linear thermal transmittance. Figure 6includes the results obtained from the simulation process of the thermal bridges. The building presented a major heat transmission in the thermal bridges that could contribute to a diminished energy performance
Energies 2020,13, 4499 9 of 20 of the building. The linear thermal transmittance of the slab front was 0.855 W/(mK), and that of the protruding corner with pillar, which would be a negative value in a case where there was no material of other thermal properties, was 0.155 W/(mK). These junctions therefore contributed to a greater building energy demand. If one of the two presented ECMs were used, their effects on the linear thermal transmittance of junctions would be different. On the one hand, the implementation of an ETICS in the building was an optimal solution to improve the thermal transmittance of the façade and to mitigate the linear thermal transmittance of the thermal bridges, obtaining a value of 0.124 W/(mK) in the slab front and − 0.001 W/(mK) in the corner. On the other hand, the internal plasterboard had different tendencies in the two thermal bridges: the lowest linear thermal transmittance value was obtained in the corner, and the linear thermal transmittance value was increased in the slab front in comparison with the value obtained in the existing building. Although ETICS and the plasterboard resulted in a similar improvement of the thermal transmittance of the façade, their effects on the thermal bridges could lead to different energy performances. Energies2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW10of22 Figure6.Simulationandlinearthermaltransmittance(Ψ)valuesofthethermalbridgesinthe building(bothwiththebuildingenvelopeandthetwoimprovementsofthefaçade). Theenergyperformanceobtainedinthebuildingwasanalyzedbyimprovingthefaçade. However,theenergyperformanceofthebuildingwasfirstassessedintheclimatezonesinSpain, bothinthecurrentscenarioandthroughoutthe21stcentury,withtheA2climatechangescenario. Figure7includestheyearlyresultsofthecurrentscenario,andFigures8and9showtheyearlyresults oftheclimatechangescenario.Twooperationalpatternswereconsideredaccordingtothenew workingtendenciesasaresultoftheCOVID‐19pandemic:workingoutsidethehomeand teleworking.Accordingtothisoperationalpattern,theintensityoftheenergydemandofthebuilding willbegreaterwithteleworkingusers.Ananalysisoftheresultsdeterminedhowtheenergy performanceofthebuildinginthecurrentscenariowasdifferentaccordingtotheclimatezone,with greaterenergyconsumptioninthecoldestclimatezones.TheclimatezoneswithagreaterWCSwere characterizedbyobtainingthegreatestenergyconsumptionbecauseofthehighheatingenergy consumption.However,thecombinationofthewinterclimatezonesCandDwithzonesofhighSCS Figure 6. Simulation and linear thermal transmittance ( Ψ ) values of the thermal bridges in the building (both with the building envelope and the two improvements of the façade).
Energies 2020,13, 4499 16 of 20 Energies2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW18of22 transmittancevalues,buttheireffectsintermsofenergysavingandreductionofCO2emissionswere clearlydifferentbecauseoftheeffectsgeneratedbythethermalbridgeoftheslabfront.Forthis reason,itisnecessarytodevelopdecision‐makingsupportsystemsthatconsiderthepossible buildingimprovementsfromaninterdisciplinaryperspective[43,44].Thesesupportsystemscould helparchitectsandengineerstodeterminethemostsuitableECMtoachievethesustainabilitygoals foreseenfortheentirebuildingstockoftheEuropeanUnionby2050. Figure10.Periodsofeconomicrecovery,carbondioxideemissions,andtheenergyrelatedtothe implementationoftheECMs.WhetherthecostoftheECMsisconductedwithorwithoutfinancing isdistinguishedintheeconomicrecoveryperiod.Likewise,thegraphsshowtheinfluenceofthe operationalpatternoftheuseronrecoveryperiods(workingoutsidethehomeorteleworking). Figure 10. Periods of economic recovery, carbon dioxide emissions, and the energy related to the implementation of the ECMs. Whether the cost of the ECMs is conducted with or without financing is distinguished in the economic recovery period. Likewise, the graphs show the influence of the operational pattern of the user on recovery periods (working outside the home or teleworking). 4. Conclusions The achievement of a low-carbon building stock by 2050 is among the main challenges of today’s society. For this purpose, one of the lines of action to improve the building stock is dealing with envelopes, which could be significantly influenced by thermal bridges, together with other aspects, such as users’ operational patterns and the climate zone in which the building is located. To study
Energies 2020,13, 4499 17 of 20 these aspects, the performance of a case study representing a large percentage of the Spanish building stock was assessed in 12 climate zones. Performance was assessed in both the current scenario and throughout the 21st century by using the A2 climate change scenarios. The building was assessed with its original envelope design and two different ECMs: ETICS and plasterboard with insulation. The results showed that the energy consumption presented by the building with its original design was greater in the coldest climate zones in Spain, and the energy consumption was lower in the other zones. However, these energy consumption values in the current scenario presented variations throughout the 21st century that tended to reduce the heating energy consumption and to increase the cooling energy consumption, so at the end of the 21st century, less cold climate zones (e.g., B3 or B4 ) achieved similar or greater values than those obtained in the coldest zone in Spain (zone E1). In addition, these energy consumption values could be mitigated by improving the envelope. Important energy saving values were achieved using the two ECMs analyzed in this work. However, the saving values were different between these ECMs, although both achieved similar values in the thermal transmittance of the façade. In quantified data, ETICS achieved reductions between 21.08 and 115.96 MWh, and the plasterboard achieved reductions between 13.87 and 66.24 MWh. This variation was mainly based on the effects generated by both ECMs on the linear thermal transmittance of the slab front of the building. The buildings built with the first energy efficiency regulations of the country were characterized by having thermal insulation in the façade, but their design implied that the linear thermal transmittance of the façade junctions (particularly significant in the slab front) was high. As for the two ECMs presented, ETICS significantly reduced the linear thermal transmittance, but the plasterboard increased the linear thermal transmittance in comparison with the value obtained with the original design of the façade. Although both ECMs could similarly improve the thermal transmittance of the façade, there were different effects on the energy improvement achieved. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on the ECMs presented in the existing buildings, not only on the improvement of the heat transmission of the façade but also on the treatment of the various thermal bridges. Additionally, two other aspects related to the effectiveness of the ECMs should be emphasized: the climate zone of the building and users’ operational pattern. On the one hand, the cold zones obtained a greater energy saving, and the hot zones obtained a low energy saving. On the other hand, users’ operational patterns played an important role in the quantification of the energy saving achieved and the reduction of the environmental impact. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a new working model through teleworking, thus generating a greater use of buildings in comparison to those users working outside the home. As a result, the energy consumption and the energy savings significantly increased, so the energy savings obtained by improving the envelope could be between 15.4% and 209.5% greater compared to that obtained with teleworking users. These aspects became more important when the periods were analyzed not just in relation to economic terms, but also in relation to the emissions and the energy consumed by the ECMs in the manufacture, transport, and installation stages. The energy savings obtained with ETICS achieved rapid recovery periods of emissions and energy consumed during the A stages of the life cycle of the ECM, and the recovery periods were greater with the plasterboard. This aspect was opposed to the economic recovery period, in which the plasterboard had a lower economic recovery time. However, if the government establishes financing programs, then an appropriate economic feasibility for the most expensive ECMs, such as ETICS, could be ensured. Thus, the relationship of economic-environmental amortization stresses the importance of ETICS to the detriment of other ECMs, such as plasterboards. The significant reduction of the thermal transmittance and the linear thermal transmittance of thermal bridges considerably influenced the reduction of the energy consumption, thus treating aspects such as CO 2 emissions or the energy poverty risk. Nonetheless, the improvement achieved by ETICS was insufficient to achieve the goals of a low-carbon building stock established by the European Union for 2050. In this regard, the reduction percentages achieved in 2050 oscillated between 6.9 and 36.7%, which were far from the goal established by the European Union (90%). The difficulties related to the implementation of nearly zero energy consumption buildings in the south of Europe require
Energies 2020,13, 4499 18 of 20 the combination of traditional ECMs, such as the improvement of the envelope, with other ECMs, such as the intelligent use of HVAC systems or self-consumption. Further studies will be focused on the analysis of the possibilities of energy savings achieved by combining the improvement of the envelope, the appropriate use of HVAC systems, and self-consumption. In this regard, it is crucial to analyze the importance of photovoltaic systems to achieve a low-carbon building stock in southern European countries. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Attia, S.; Eleftheriou, P.; Xeni, F.; Morlot, R.; M é n é zo, C.; Kostopoulos, V.; Betsi, M.; Kalaitzoglou, I.; Pagliano, L.; Cellura, M.; et al. Overview and future challenges of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) design in Southern Europe. Energy Build. 2017,155, 439–458. [CrossRef] 2. European Environment Agency. Final Energy Consumption by Sector and Fuel (2016); European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. 3. European Commission. Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2006; pp. 1–37. 4. European Commission. A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. 5. Costa, G.; Sicilia, Á .; Oregi, X.; Pedrero, J.; Mabe, L. A catalogue of energy conservation measures (ECM) and a tool for their application in energy simulation models. J. Build. Eng. 2020,29. [CrossRef] 6. DeLietoVollaro,R.; Guattari,C.; Evangelisti,L.; Battista,G.; Carnielo,E.; Gori,P.Building energy performance analysis: A case study. Energy Build. 2015,87, 87–94. [CrossRef] 7. Escorcia, O.; Garc í a, R.; Trebilcock, M.; Celis, F.; Bruscato, U. Envelope improvements for energy efficiency of homes in the south-central Chile. Inf. La Construcción2012,64, 563–574. [CrossRef] 8. Friedman, C.; Becker, N.; Erell, E. Energy retrofit of residential building envelopes in Israel: A cost-benefit analysis. Energy 2014,77, 183–193. [CrossRef] 9. Pacheco, R.; Ord ó ñez, J.; Mart í nez, G. Energy efficient design of building: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012,16, 3559–3573. [CrossRef] 10. Aksoy, U.T.; Inalli, M. Impacts of some building passive design parameters on heating demand for a cold region. Build. Environ. 2006,41, 1742–1754. [CrossRef] 11. Güçyeter, B.; Günaydin, H.M. Optimization of an envelope retrofit strategy for an existing office building. Energy Build. 2012,55, 647–659. [CrossRef] 12. Invidiata, A.; Lavagna, M.; Ghisi, E. Selecting design strategies using multi-criteria decision making to improve the sustainability of buildings. Build. Environ. 2018,139, 58–68. [CrossRef] 13. Qian, D.; Li, Y.; Niu, F.; O’Neill, Z. Nationwide savings analysis of energy conservation measures in buildings. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019,188, 1–18. [CrossRef] 14. Theodosiou, T.G.; Papadopoulos, A.M. The impact of thermal bridges on the energy demand of buildings with double brick wall constructions. Energy Build. 2008,40, 2083–2089. [CrossRef] 15. Theodosiou, T.; Tsikaloudaki, K.; Bikas, D. Analysis of the thermal bridging effect on ventilated facades. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017,38, 397–404. [CrossRef] 16. Ramalho de Freitas, J.; Grala da Cunha, E. Thermal bridges modeling in South Brazil climate: Three different approaches. Energy Build. 2018,169, 271–282. [CrossRef] 17. Ge, H.; McClung, V.R.; Zhang, S. Impact of balcony thermal bridges on the overall thermal performance of multi-unit residential buildings: A case study. Energy Build. 2013,60, 163–173. [CrossRef] 18. Evola, G.; Margani, G.; Marletta, L. Energy and cost evaluation of thermal bridge correction in Mediterranean climate. Energy Build. 2011,43, 2385–2393. [CrossRef] 19. Bienvenido-Huertas, D.; Quiñones, J.A.F.; Moyano, J.; Rodr í guez-Jim é nez, C.E. Patents analysis of thermal bridges in slab fronts and their effect on energy demand. Energies 2018,11, 2222. [CrossRef] 20. Thibodeau, C.; Bataille, A.; Si é , M. Building rehabilitation life cycle assessment methodology–state of the art. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019,103, 408–422. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020,13, 4499 19 of 20 21. Coelho, G.B.A.; Silva, H.E.; Henriques, F.M.A. Impact of climate change in cultural heritage: From energy consumption to artefacts’ conservation and building rehabilitation. Energy Build. 2020, 110250. [CrossRef] 22. Mikulic, D.; Slijepcevic, S.; Buturac, G. Energy renovation of multi apartment buildings: Contributions to economy and climate changes. Energy Build. 2020,224. [CrossRef] 23. Verichev, K.; Zamorano, M.; Carpio, M. Effects of climate change on variations in climatic zones and heating energy consumption of residential buildings in the southern Chile. Energy Build. 2020 ,215, 109874. [CrossRef] 24. Felgueiras, M.; Caetano, N. ZELab: Planning a living lab to educate modern engineering professionals. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 24–26 October 2018; pp. 535–540. 25. European Union. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; Volume 153, pp. 13–35. 26. Kawashima, T.; Nomura, S.; Tanoue, Y.; Yoneoka, D.; Eguchi, A.; Shi, S.; Miyata, H. The relationship between fever rate and telework implementation as a social distancing measure against the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Public Health 2020. [CrossRef] 27. Thomson, H.; Bouzarovski, S.; Snell, C. Rethinking the measurement of energy poverty in Europe: A critical analysis of indicators and data. Indoor Built Environ. 2017,26, 879–901. [CrossRef] 28. Kurtz, F.; Monz ó n, M.; L ó pez-Mesa, B. Energy and acoustics related obsolescence of social housing of Spain’s post-war in less favoured urban areas. The case of Zaragoza. Inf. La Construcci ó n 2015 ,67, m021. [CrossRef] 29. Bienvenido-Huertas, D.; S á nchez-Garc í a, D.; Rubio-Bellido, C. Comparison of energy conservation measures considering adaptive thermal comfort and climate change in existing Mediterranean dwellings. Energy 2020,190. [CrossRef] 30. CYPE Ingenieros SA. Construction Price Generator 2020; CYPE Ingenieros, SA: Madrid, Spain, 2020; Available online: http://www.generadordeprecios.info/#gsc.tab=0(accessed on 8 February 2020). 31. The Government of Spain. CO 2 Emission Factors and Transition Coefficients to Primary Energy from Different Final Energy Sources Consumed in the Building Sector in Spain; The Government of Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2016. 32. Naki´cenovi´c, N.; Swart, R. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; ISBN 0-521-8008-1. 33. The Government of Spain. Royal Decree 314/2006. Approving the Spanish Technical Building Code; The Government of Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2013. 34. HTFlux HTFlux Hygric and Thermal Simulation. Available online: https://www.htflux.com/en/(accessed on 31 July 2018). 35. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10211:2017—Thermal Bridges in Building Construction—Heat Flows and Surface Temperatures—Detailed Calculations; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. 36. L ó pez-Ochoa, L.M.; Las-Heras-Casas, J.; L ó pez-Gonz á lez, L.M.; Olasolo-Alonso, P. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings in Mediterranean countries: Energy Performance of Buildings Directive evolution and the energy rehabilitation challenge in the Spanish residential sector. Energy 2019,176, 335–352. [CrossRef] 37. D’Agostino, D.; Zangheri, P.; Castellazzi, L. Towards nearly zero energy buildings in Europe: A focus on retrofit in non-residential buildings. Energies 2017,10, 117. [CrossRef] 38. Besir, A.B.; Cuce, E. Green roofs and facades: A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 82, 915–939. [CrossRef] 39. Kuznik, F.; David, D.; Johannes, K.; Roux, J.J. A review on phase change materials integrated in building walls. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011,15, 379–391. [CrossRef] 40. Bienvenido-Huertas, D.; S á nchez-Garc í a, D.; P é rez-Fargallo, A.; Rubio-Bellido, C. Optimization of energy saving with adaptive setpoint temperatures by calculating the prevailing mean outdoor air temperature. Build. Environ. 2020,170. [CrossRef] 41. Luthander, R.; Nilsson, A.M.; Wid é n, J.; Åberg, M. Graphical analysis of photovoltaic generation and load matching in buildings: A novel way of studying self-consumption and self-sufficiency. Appl. Energy 2019 , 250, 748–759. [CrossRef] 42. Garc í a-Gusano, D.; Iribarren, D. Prospective energy security scenarios in Spain: The future role of renewable power generation technologies and climate change implications. Renew. Energy 2018 ,126, 202–209. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020,13, 4499 20 of 20 43. Mela, K.; Tiainen, T.; Heinisuo, M. Comparative study of multiple criteria decision making methods for building design. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012,26, 716–726. [CrossRef] 44. Carli, R.; Dotoli, M.; Pellegrino, R.; Ranieri, L. Using multi-objective optimization for the integrated energy efficiency improvement of a smart city public buildings’ portfolio. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Gothenburg, Sweden, 24–28 August 2015; pp. 21–26. © 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).