Daylighting and Energy Performance Evaluation of an Egg-Crate Device for Hospital Building Retrofitting in a Mediterranean Climate

sustainability Article Daylighting and Energy Performance Evaluation of an Egg-Crate Device for Hospital Building Retrofitting in a Mediterranean Climate Carmen María Calama-González * ID ,Ángel Luis León-Rodríguez ID and Rafael Suárez ID Instituto Universitario de Arquitectura y Ciencias de la Construcción, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla, Av. Reina Mercedes 2, 410012 Seville, Spain; [email protected] (Á.L.L.-R.); rsuar[email protected] (R.S.) *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-954-559-517 Received: 18 June 2018; Accepted: 31 July 2018; Published: 2 August 2018   Abstract: Hospital buildings present a significant savings potential in order to meet the objectives of H2020. The improvement of healthcare built environments contributes to improving the health of patients. In this respect, passive measurements must be prioritized, especially in relation to the weakest element of the building thermal enclosure: the window opening. Shading devices allow solar radiation and indoor temperature to be controlled, as well as improving visual comfort, mostly in buildings with a Mediterranean climate. This factor is of great importance when considering the increase in outdoor temperatures expected due to climate change. Unlike other studies in which predictive models are implemented, this paper examines a methodology based on the simultaneous monitoring of ambient variables, in real use and operative conditions, for two hospital rooms located in southern Spain. The aim of this research is to provide a comparative assessment of ambient conditions in a standard room with an egg-crate device and in a non-shaded one. The use of an egg-crate device allows a better yearly performance, improving natural illuminance levels, reducing incident solar radiation on the window, and decreasing artificial lighting consumption. However, its efficiency is greatly conditioned by the user patterns in relation to ambient systems, as the blind aperture level and the activation of the lighting system are directly controlled by users. Keywords: hospital buildings; shading devices; solar radiation; daylight; illuminance; overheating; energy consumption; energy savings 1. Introduction One of the priority action requirements established by the Energy Performance of Buidlings Directive (EPBD) [ 1 ] for the improvement of energy efficiency in buildings for H2020 is retrofitting the existing building stock, both housing and tertiary. Although there is extensive research of office and housing stock retrofitting, very few studies focus on hospital buildings. Hospitals are complex buildings, with numerous functional zones and different requirements. This implies an intricate decision-making process when these buildings have to be adapted in order to meet the current energy efficiency standards. In the Mediterranean area, several individual studies have been carried out for the energy characterization and the evaluation of measures for energy efficiency improvement in hospital buildings [ 2 ]. Before using simulation models to their full potential, an application protocol must be designed for the methodology according to the building’s typology, use, and occupation patterns, construction and monitoring data availability; climate zone; and so on [ 3 ]. Hospital buildings present a high savings potential [ 4 ], which can be focused on the energy efficiency improvement of heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems [ 5 ] or the use of LED lighting systems [ 6 ]. However, Sustainability 2018,10, 2714; doi:10.3390/su10082714 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 2 of 17 it is crucial to prioritize passive measures such as natural ventilation, daylighting, or shading [ 7 ]. Kolokotsa et al. [ 8 ] reported how implementing simple energy saving techniques could easily derive into savings of up to 10% of primary energy consumed. Moreover, measures taken ought to consider a new challenge; global warning, which leads to the development of a new line of research relating to the resilience to hospitals overheating, as in the case of public hospitals in the United Kingdom [9]. Considering the existing high levels of solar radiation in the Mediterranean area, initial intervention actions must focus on the element most vulnerable and sensitive to overheating problems, and thermal and visual discomfort: the window opening. Slatted shutters are frequently used as shading devices to block solar radiation in order to prevent glare and unwanted heat gain in patients’ rooms in summer. In addition to mitigating thermal gains, these elements also reduce natural illuminance, which is replaced by artificial lighting, prompting an increase in electrical consumption throughout most of the day. Nevertheless, it should be highlighted that natural lighting has specific qualities that cannot be provided by artificial lighting. The changing intensity of natural lighting, direction, time, and colour connect occupants with climate, season, and hour of day, contributing significantly to the wellbeing of patients [10]. Recent studies have revealed a correlation between the healthcare built environment and patients’ health. This research highlights the positive effect of the built environment on the state of mind [ 11 ] and health outcomes of patients [ 12 ]. When considering the healing environment, several parameters relating to the window opening are outlined: daylight, which has an antidepressant effect on occupants [ 13 ]; and views through the windows, which relieve stress and shorten the length of patients’ stays [ 14 ]. In particular, south- and west-facing windows are more vulnerable to overheating and thermal discomfort, along with a non-uniform distribution of daylight. An adequate design of the shading device reduces solar radiation and indoor temperature and improves visual comfort [ 15 , 16 ]. The design of shading devices must also take into consideration energy, lighting, and visual parameters, maintaining an appropriate level of indoor illuminance with minimum solar gains and promoting the reduction of energy consumption [ 17 ]. The optimal position for shading devices is usually outdoors, in front of the window, because indoor positions can even thermally worsen energy performance, increasing cooling energy consumption, as confirmed by Atzeri et al. [ 18 ]. Several authors have assessed different shading devices solutions [ 19 ], considering their performance in terms of energy savings, thermal comfort, and natural illuminance [ 20 ], mostly using simulation models [ 21 ]. However, in hospital buildings, these techniques come up against the problem of properly defining real operation conditions and use patterns. Given the complexity of this definition in this type of buildings, it must be supported by an adequate validation of the simulation models [22]. Stazi et al. [ 20 ] compared sliding perforated aluminium panels, horizontal aluminium shutters, and wooden slats, validating these as one of the most appropriate solutions. Freewan [ 23 ] observes the effect of external devices in an office building in Jordan: vertical and diagonal fins and egg-crate. Air temperature, illuminance level, and thermal and visual environment were monitored and compared with those of a non-shaded office. Yearly, egg-crate shading devices showed better performance, blocking sunlight in warm periods, but allowing its penetration in cold periods. The main objective of this research is to evaluate the improvement of indoor comfort conditions of a hospital room in the Mediterranean climate, using an egg-crate device. To do so, two hospital rooms were simultaneously assessed by monitoring ambient conditions in real operation and use conditions. An egg-crate device was implemented in one of the rooms, while original conditions were maintained in the other. The influence of the egg-crate device over indoor illuminance (lux), solar radiation reaching the window (W/m 2 ), operative indoor temperatures ( ◦ C), and lighting consumption (kWh) was evaluated throughout a year. Future research will extend this analysis to other variables, as well as to the possibility of optimizing the shading device proposed. Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 3 of 17 2. Methodology The methodology is based on the monitoring of ambient variables, in real use and operational conditions, for two hospital rooms in southern Spain. One of the rooms has an egg-crate device in front of the window, while original conditions are maintained in the other. This configuration allowed the simultaneous evaluation of the influence of solar protections on ambient and energy variables under the same outdoor conditions, monitoring both rooms during a 12-month period. This study focused mainly on the evaluation of solar radiation levels, indoor natural illuminance, and electrical consumption of the lighting system. A descriptive statistical analysis was also carried out, using the Statistics Toolbox of the matrix software Matlab [ 24 ], which allows the comparison between variables considering similar illuminance levels, shutter aperture levels, and solar radiation. 2.1. Description of Case Study The building analysed in this study is the Virgen Macarena University Hospital, a public general hospital built in 1974 and managed by the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain). It is located in the city of Seville (Figure 1): latitude 37.25◦N and longitude −5.60◦W. Sustainability2018,10,xFORPEERREVIEW 3of17 2.Methodology Themethodologyisbasedonthemonitoringofambientvariables,inrealuseandoperational conditions,fortwohospitalroomsinsouthernSpain. Oneoftheroomshasanegg‐cratedeviceinfrontofthewindow,whileoriginalconditionsare maintainedintheother.Thisconfigurationallowedthesimultaneousevaluationoftheinfluenceof solarprotectionsonambientandenergyvariablesunderthesameoutdoorconditions,monitoring bothroomsduringa12‐monthperiod.Thisstudyfocusedmainlyontheevaluationofsolar radiationlevels,indoornaturalilluminance,andelectricalconsumptionofthelightingsystem.A descriptivestatisticalanalysiswasalsocarriedout,usingtheStatisticsToolboxofthematrix softwareMatlab[24],whichallowsthecomparisonbetweenvariablesconsideringsimilar illuminancelevels,shutteraperturelevels,andsolarradiation. 2.1.DescriptionofCaseStudy ThebuildinganalysedinthisstudyistheVirgenMacarenaUniversityHospital,apublic generalhospitalbuiltin1974andmanagedbytheRegionalGovernmentofAndalusia(Spain).Itis locatedinthecityofSeville(Figure1):latitude37.25°Nandlongitude−5.60°W.  Figure1.ImageoftherooftopoftheVirgenMacarenaUniversityHospital(Seville).Thesoutheast wingofthehospital,wherethemonitoredroomsarelocated,isindicatedinred.Baseimage:Google EarthPro.,26July2017. Figure 1. Image of the rooftop of the Virgen Macarena University Hospital (Seville). The southeast wing of the hospital, where the monitored rooms are located, is indicated in red. Base image: Google Earth Pro., 26 July 2017. Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 4 of 17 The two adjoining rooms monitored are located on the fifth floor of the southeast wing of the hospital (Figure 2). Constructive solutions and geometric dimensions are the same in both rooms. Their basic dimensions are 3.65 m width and 5.45 m depth, with a total useful area of 22.50 m 2 and a clearance height of 2.70 m (Figure 3). Another important fact is that each room has three patients’ beds and a sofa for their companions. Sustainability2018,10,xFORPEERREVIEW 4of17 Thetwoadjoiningroomsmonitoredarelocatedonthefifthfloorofthesoutheastwingofthe hospital(Figure2).Constructivesolutionsandgeometricdimensionsarethesameinbothrooms. Theirbasicdimensionsare3.65mwidthand5.45mdepth,withatotalusefulareaof22.50m2anda clearanceheightof2.70m(Figure3).Anotherimportantfactisthateachroomhasthreepatients’ bedsandasofafortheircompanions.  (a)  (b) Figure2.(a)VirgenMacarenaUniversityHospital.Inthephotograph,bothmonitoredroomshave beenmarkedinredcolour:fromlefttoright,theroomwithoutcrateshadingdevicesandtheroom withegg‐crateshadingdevices;(b)indoorimageoftheroomwithegg‐cratedevices(roomA). Figure 2. ( a ) Virgen Macarena University Hospital. In the photograph, both monitored rooms have been marked in red colour: from left to right, the room without crate shading devices and the room with egg-crate shading devices; (b) indoor image of the room with egg-crate devices (room A). Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 5 of 17 Sustainability2018,10,xFORPEERREVIEW 5of17  Figure3.Floorplansoftheroomsmonitoredwiththelocationofthemonitoringsensors. Bothroomshaveawindow0.85‐mhighand2.30‐mwide,whichrepresentsalmost20%ofthe facadesurfaceofeachroom.Windowsaresetback0.30mfromtheexteriorfacadeline,makingthe lintelacontinuouscantileveralongthewindowopenings.Eachwindowismadeupoftwo symmetricalaluminiumslidingframeswithasolarprotectionfilmovertheexternalsurfaceofthe glass.ThetechnicalcharacteristicsofthewindowsareshowninTable1.Thesedatahavebeen obtainedfromthedatasheetsprovidedbythemanufacturerRéflectiv[25]. Table1.Technicalcharacteristicsofthewindows. VariableValue 4/8/4Double‐Glazing,MetalFrame(NoThermalBridge)Uo=3.3W/m2∙K Solarprotectionfilm (RéflectivwindowfilmSOL102) Solarenergyreflection65% Solarenergyabsorption 24% Solarenergytransmission 11% Visiblelighttransmission16% Visiblelightreflection60% Solarenergyrejected79% UV‐raystransmission1% Figure 3. Floor plans of the rooms monitored with the location of the monitoring sensors. Both rooms have a window 0.85-m high and 2.30-m wide, which represents almost 20% of the facade surface of each room. Windows are set back 0.30 m from the exterior facade line, making the lintel a continuous cantilever along the window openings. Each window is made up of two symmetrical aluminium sliding frames with a solar protection film over the external surface of the glass. The technical characteristics of the windows are shown in Table 1. These data have been obtained from the datasheets provided by the manufacturer Réflectiv [25]. Table 1. Technical characteristics of the windows. Variable Value 4/8/4 Double-Glazing, Metal Frame (No Thermal Bridge) Uo = 3.3 W/m2·K Solar protection film (Réflectiv window film SOL 102) Solar energy reflection 65% Solar energy absorption 24% Solar energy transmission 11% Visible light transmission 16% Visible light reflection 60% Solar energy rejected 79% UV-rays transmission 1% Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 6 of 17 The solar control and shading system of the rooms is made up of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) slatted shutters, with horizontal slats. These are all original elements of the building construction. Additionally, an external egg-crate device was implemented in one of the rooms (room A). Its configuration is described in detail in Section 2.2. In the other room (room B), the original state has been maintained. The artificial lighting system is the same for both rooms. This system is made up of three linear luminaires with 18 W power fluorescent lamps, placed above the headboard of each bed. In addition, a down light with two low energy consumption 2 × 18 W lamps are found in the access area for the rooms. Each luminaire can be controlled individually. Both rooms have a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system that uses outdoor air for indoor air quality. Each room has a duct type fan coil that partially overcomes thermal loads and runs continuously 24 h a day. This system is centrally controlled by hospital maintenance personnel and cannot be modified by users. Finally, it should be noted that because of some measurement uncertainties in the analysis conducted, the following boundaries have been considered: (1) the analysis of results reports that both rooms are always occupied by patients. However, the hospital administration has been unable to provide any public records to confirm this and there is no control over patients’ companions. Thus, we have no access to information on the actual number of occupants in the rooms; (2) hospital rooms have a movable curtain separating the beds, which are used whenever there is a need to ensure privacy for sanitary purposes. These curtains are not controlled by the monitoring system. Therefore, the real influence of these elements on natural illuminance levels cannot be measured precisely. 2.2. Shading Device Description The solar protection system studied consists of a white methacrylate slat grid assembled to create a lattice with the window size. This element is designed and manufactured in the Digital Fabrication Laboratory of the Higher Technical School of Architecture of the University of Seville (FabLab), using a laser cutting machine. Each slat is 3 mm thick and 45 mm deep. The solar protection grid, made up of 83 × 83 mm squares, is 180 mm from the solar protection and the window glass, which in turn is 100 mm from the external facade line. For the purposes of assembly safety and mechanical security purposes, two auxiliary 45 × 10 mm metal structures in S235 JR corrosion-proof steel were installed, and separated by 45 × 5 mm metal anchorage. The sections mentioned link together forming two 1220 × 792.5 mm frames, and leaving two empty slots of 1205 ×760 mm where the 1200 ×755 mm lattices are placed (Figure 4). Sustainability2018,10,xFORPEERREVIEW 6of17 Thesolarcontrolandshadingsystemoftheroomsismadeupofpolyvinylchloride(PVC) slattedshutters,withhorizontalslats.Thesearealloriginalelementsofthebuildingconstruction. Additionally,anexternalegg‐cratedevicewasimplementedinoneoftherooms(roomA).Its configurationisdescribedindetailinSection2.2.Intheotherroom(roomB),theoriginalstatehas beenmaintained. Theartificiallightingsystemisthesameforbothrooms.Thissystemismadeupofthreelinear luminaireswith18Wpowerfluorescentlamps,placedabovetheheadboardofeachbed.In addition,adownlightwithtwolowenergyconsumption2×18Wlampsarefoundintheaccess areafortherooms.Eachluminairecanbecontrolledindividually. Bothroomshaveaheating,ventilation,andair‐conditioning(HVAC)systemthatusesoutdoor airforindoorairquality.Eachroomhasaducttypefancoilthatpartiallyovercomesthermalloads andrunscontinuously24haday.Thissystemiscentrallycontrolledbyhospitalmaintenance personnelandcannotbemodifiedbyusers. Finally,itshouldbenotedthatbecauseofsomemeasurementuncertaintiesintheanalysis conducted,thefollowingboundarieshavebeenconsidered:(1)theanalysisofresultsreportsthat bothroomsarealwaysoccupiedbypatients.However,thehospitaladministrationhasbeenunable toprovideanypublicrecordstoconfirmthisandthereisnocontroloverpatients’companions. Thus,wehavenoaccesstoinformationontheactualnumberofoccupantsintherooms;(2)hospital roomshaveamovablecurtainseparatingthebeds,whichareusedwheneverthereisaneedto ensureprivacyforsanitarypurposes.Thesecurtainsarenotcontrolledbythemonitoringsystem. Therefore,therealinfluenceoftheseelementsonnaturalilluminancelevelscannotbemeasured precisely. 2.2.ShadingDeviceDescription Thesolarprotectionsystemstudiedconsistsofawhitemethacrylateslatgridassembledto createalatticewiththewindowsize.ThiselementisdesignedandmanufacturedintheDigital FabricationLaboratoryoftheHigherTechnicalSchoolofArchitectureoftheUniversityofSeville (FabLab),usingalasercuttingmachine. Eachslatis3mmthickand45mmdeep.Thesolarprotectiongrid,madeupof83×83mm squares,is180mmfromthesolarprotectionandthewindowglass,whichinturnis100mmfrom theexternalfacadeline. Forthepurposesofassemblysafetyandmechanicalsecuritypurposes,twoauxiliary45×10 mmmetalstructuresinS235JRcorrosion‐proofsteelwereinstalled,andseparatedby45×5mm metalanchorage.Thesectionsmentionedlinktogetherformingtwo1220×792.5mmframes,and leavingtwoemptyslotsof1205×760mmwherethe1200×755mmlatticesareplaced(Figure4).  (a)(b) Figure4.Egg‐cratedevicedesigned:(a)indoorview;(b)outdoorview. Figure 4. Egg-crate device designed: (a) indoor view; (b) outdoor view. Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 7 of 17 2.3. Monitoring System The monitoring system is integrated by a total of eight nodes or data loggers, recording information at 10-min intervals, following EN ISO 7726:2001 [26]. As can be seen in Figure 3, each room has two monitoring panels in which the hubs are located, with a total of four hubs per room. The first hub measures the electrical consumption of the room’s lighting system, recording voltage data, as well as information on power consumption and electricity intensity. The second hub records data from several monitoring sensors: a detection sensor, four air temperature sensors, four relative humidity sensors, a carbon dioxide detector, and four sensors that control the window opening (open/closed). The seven surface temperature sensors are connected to the third hub, while the fourth and final hub includes four lux meters (three indoors and one outdoors), a pyranometer (outdoor), a pyrgeometer (outdoor), and the sensor that measures the aperture level of blinds. Table 2shows the main technical characteristics of the sensors used to monitor the rooms. Table 2. Probes in the monitored rooms. Y/N—yes/no. Device #per room (Total) Location Unit Range Accuracy Thermocouple 7 (14) On surface: walls and ceiling ◦C−30, +350 ±1±0.75% Thermometer 4 (8) Interior matrix ◦C−40, +80 ± 0.2 ◦ C (0–40 ◦ C) ± 0.2 ◦ C (40–80 ◦C) Hygrometer 4 (8) Interior matrix and outdoors % 0–100 ±1.5% (0–90%) ±2.5% (90–100%) Lux meter 4 (8) Interior matrix and outdoors lux 0–200,000 ±4.0% CO2detector 1 (2) On surface: east wall ppm 0–2000 ±(40 ppm + 4.8% of reading) Presence detector 1 (2) North walls Y/N 4–15 m - Window opening control 4 (8) Windows Y/N - - Blind level sensor 1 (2) Blinds mm 200–8000 ±25 mm Pyranometer 1 (2) Outdoor W/m20–4000 ±2.0% Pyrgeometer 1 Outdoor W/m2−300, +100 ±3.0% (−10, +40 ◦C) Voltmeter 1 (2) Electrical panel V - - Ammeter 1 (2) Electrical panel A - - Potentiometer 1 (2) Electrical panel W - - Energy 1 (2) Electrical panel kWh - - Each room incorporates an outdoor pyranometer, placed in a vertical position and in parallel to the facade line. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the solar protection studied, this device has been located behind the solar protection in room A. Meanwhile, the pyranometer in room B measures the global radiation that reaches the facade (without obstacles). Data loggers regularly store information and every 30 min, data is uploaded to a file transfer protocol (FTP) server through a static IP using a mobile card. Furthermore, it is possible to download and/or modify the configuration of data using a simple remote access to the FTP server or an html portal. Prior to exporting data to the readable format of Microsoft Excel 2016 ® [ 27 ], information is processed and treated. This information has been interpreted and contrasted using the working tools of the multi-paradigm Matlab numerical software [24]. In order to complete outdoor ambient information, meteorological data is obtained from a local weather station 3.5 km from the hospital analysed. This weather station is located in the test cells managed by the research team itself [ 28 ] and measures the outdoor ambient conditions of air temperature, relative humidity, carbon dioxide levels, and wind velocity and direction at 5-min intervals. Table 3below shows the characteristics of these devices. Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 8 of 17 Table 3. Probes in the weather station. Device # Orientation Unit Range Accuracy Thermometer 2 N◦C−40, +80 ±0.15 ±0.1% Hygrometer 1 - % 0–100 ±3% (0.70%) ±5% (71.10%) CO2detector 1 - Ppm 0–2000 ±2.0% Anemometer 1 - m/s 0–50 ±0.5 Vane 1 -◦0–360 ±2.5 2.4. Monitoring Periods Used in the Analysis of Results Both rooms were monitored throughout a 12-month period (from May 2017 to April 2018) and this monitoring process continues to this day. This paper analyses the first annual results obtained relating to solar radiation levels, indoor natural illuminance, and electrical consumption of the artificial lighting systems. To do so, three distinct periods were established: winter, mid-season (spring/autumn), and summer. Similar outdoor temperature ranges were grouped in order to classify the months of the year into these three periods. The characteristics of each period are indicated in Table 4. Table 4. Characteristics of protocols analysed. Periods Description Tout (◦C) Hours Analysed Winter 1 December to 28 February 1.9–26.2 2159 Summer 1 June to 30 September 14.4–47.4 2927 Mid-Season Rest of the year 5.2–38.2 3674 3. Analysis of Results This section is dedicated to the analysis of the influence of the solar protections over the ambient and energy performance of the room with the egg-crate device (room A), compared with the one with no egg-crate device (room B). The results referring to solar radiation levels (W/m 2 ) and illuminance (lux) are presented, as well as those for electrical lighting consumption (kWh), distinguishing the winter period from the summer and mid-season. For the purposes of clarity in the figures introduced in this paper, and as no differences worth noticing were reported when compared with the measurement intervals, all the data analysed have been presented considering average hourly values. These have been determined from the 10-min interval considered for the variables monitored in the rooms and the 5-min interval in the case of the weather station. This decision helped reduce computational cost and calculation time. 3.1. Comparative Analysis of Solar Radiation and Illuminance Levels The results of the descriptive statistical analysis are shown below. Table 5indicates the percentage of hours (in relation to the total hours analysed in each period) in which a specific natural/artificial illuminance range is reached, as well as a given aperture of blinds and solar radiation level. In the natural illuminance analysis, only values equal to or above 10 klux are incorporated into the study. This decision means that it is only possible to consider conditions similar to clear sky, effectively ruling out night values, as well as cloudy sky conditions. In winter, considering the total hours analysed, the percentage of hours with artificial lighting is 38.1% in the egg-crate room (room A), which implies 1336 h of natural illuminance. In contrast, the use of artificial lighting reaches 61.5% of the hours in the non egg-crate room (room B), which means that natural illuminance decreases to 830 h. In summer, the percentages of the use of artificial lighting are 45.6% in room A (with 1104 h of natural illuminance) and 50.4% in room B (with 1018 h of natural illuminance). Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 9 of 17 Table 5. Statistical analysis of the percentage of hours in which specific ranges of natural and artificial illuminance, blind aperture, and solar radiation level are reached. % Hours of Total Hours Analysed Room A (Shading Devices) Room B (No Shading Devices) Variables Ranges Winter Mid-Season Summer Winter Mid-Season Summer Natural Illuminance (lux) <100 47.7 28.6 37.9 28.1 29.7 36.6 100 < L ≤300 10.9 8.9 7.2 6.8 11.8 10.4 >300 3.3 2.7 0.5 3.6 4.9 2.6 Artificial Illuminance (lux) All 38.1 59.8 45.6 61.5 53.6 50.4 Blind level (%) ≤25 25.2 18.0 19.0 7.6 11.8 21.5 25 < B ≤50 74.2 56.0 67.7 31.9 22.4 45.1 50 < B ≤75 0.6 24.2 13.3 34.0 46.5 23.1 >75 0.0 1.8 0.0 26.5 19.3 10.3 Solar radiation (W/m2) ≤200 83.7 80.4 87.9 78.0 71.7 71.6 >200 16.3 19.6 12.1 22.0 28.3 28.4 Note: Blind level of 100% means that blinds are fully open. Logically, natural illuminance values in both rooms are greatly dependent on the aperture levels of the blind, which in turn are greatly conditioned by users. During the whole year, the aperture level of the blinds in winter in the room with egg-crate devices (room A) is between 25–50% during 74.2% of the total hours and during 56.0% of the hours in mid-season. Meanwhile, in the room without egg-crate devices (room B), blinds usually maintain higher aperture levels throughout the year. For instance, in winter, during 26.5% of the hours, the level of aperture of blinds in room B (no egg-crate devices) is above 75%, in comparison with the 0% level of the room A (egg-crate devices). As observed in Table 5, the solar radiation levels that reach the window are over 200 W/m 2 during less than 20% of the hours analysed in the case of the room with egg-crate devices (room A). In room B, with no egg-crate devices, this percentage increases to almost 30% of the hours for summer and mid-season. In other words, in these periods, these solar protections manage to decrease the hours with solar radiation levels above 200 W/m2between 8% and 16%, respectively. In Figure 5, hourly values of outdoor and indoor natural illuminance recorded in both rooms during the year are represented. For the sake of clarity and a greater control of noisy data, these results are classified according to different blind aperture levels: open between 20% and 30%, 30% and 40%, and 40% and 50%. The levels considered are the most frequently recorded during the year, as previously shown in Table 5. Moreover, the analysis of natural illuminance levels has been reduced to the values simultaneously recorded by the luxometers placed in the middle of both rooms. This decision allows the most representative values to be analysed, eliminating uncertainty deriving from the further measurement point, as the behaviour of patients’ companions and the action of movable curtains are not controlled by the monitoring system. In this sense, measurements closer to the window have also been removed from this analysis, as specular behaviour caused by the grid has been observed. For outdoor illuminance levels, only data recorded by the luxometer outside room B (no egg-crate devices and, therefore, no shading obstacles) have been considered, as the luxometer in room A is behind the egg-crate device. Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 16 of 17 2. Buonomano, A.; Calise, F.; Ferruzzi, G.; Palombo, A. Dynamic energy performance analysis: Case study for energy efficiency retrofits of hospital buildings. Energy 2014,78, 555–572. [CrossRef] 3. Pérez Téllez, J.D.; Suárez Medina, R.; León Rodríguez, Á.L. Methodology for the Optimisation of Thermal Performance and Daylight Access to the Retrofit of Hospital Rooms in Mediterranean Climate. In Sustainable Development and Renovation in Architecture, Urbanism and Engineering; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 403–413, ISBN 978-3-319-51441-3. 4. García-Sanz-Calcedo, J.; Al-Kassir, A.; Yusaf, T. Economic and Environmental Impact of Energy Saving in Healthcare Buildings. Appl. Sci. 2018,8, 440. [CrossRef] 5. Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; De Masi, R.F.; Vanoli, G.P. Rehabilitation of the building envelope of hospitals: Achievable energy savings and microclimatic control on varying the HVAC systems in Mediterranean climates. Energy Build. 2013,60, 125–138. [CrossRef] 6. Matsushima, K.; Saito, Y.; Ichikawa, S.; Kawauchi, T.; Tanaka, T.; Hirano, R.; Tazuke, F. Indoor Lighting Facilities. J. Light Vis. Environ. 2010,34, 195–210. [CrossRef] 7. Kolokotsa, D.; Pouliezos, A.; Stavrakakis, G.; Lazos, C. Predictive control techniques for energy and indoor environmental quality management in buildings. Build. Environ. 2009,44, 1850–1863. [CrossRef] 8. Kolokotsa, D.; Tsoutsos, T.; Papantoniou, S. Energy conservation techniques for hospital buildings. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2012,6, 159–172. [CrossRef] 9. Short, C.A.; Lomas, K.J.; Giridharan, R.; Fair, A.J. Building resilience to overheating into 1960’s UK hospital buildings within the constraint of the national carbon reduction target: Adaptive strategies. Build. Environ. 2012,55, 73–95. [CrossRef] 10. Edwards, L.; Torcellini, P. Literature Review of the Effects of Natural Light on Building Occupants; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2002. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/ fy02osti/30769.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2018). 11. Beute, F.; de Kort, Y.A.W. Salutogenic Effects of the Environment: Review of Health Protective Effects of Nature and Daylight. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 2014,6, 67–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Zhang, Y.; Tzortzopoulos, P.; Kagioglou, M. Healing built-environment effects on health outcomes: Environment–occupant–health framework. Build. Res. Inf. 2018, 1–20. [CrossRef] 13. Benedetti, F.; Colombo, C.; Barbini, B.; Campori, E.; Smeraldi, E. Morning sunlight reduces length of hospitalization in bipolar depression. J. Affect. Disord. 2001,62, 221–223. [CrossRef] 14. Shen, E.; Hu, J.; Patel, M. Energy and visual comfort analysis of lighting and daylight control strategies. Build. Environ. 2014,78, 155–170. [CrossRef] 15. Choi, J.-H.; Beltran, L.O.; Kim, H.-S. Impacts of indoor daylight environments on patient average length of stay (ALOS) in a healthcare facility. Build. Environ. 2012,50, 65–75. [CrossRef] 16. Raanaas, R.K.; Patil, G.G.; Hartig, T. Health benefits of a view of nature through the window: A quasi-experimental study of patients in a residential rehabilitation center. Clin. Rehabil. 2012 ,26, 21–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Alzoubi, H.H.; Al-Zoubi, A.H. Assessment of building façade performance in terms of daylighting and the associated energy consumption in architectural spaces: Vertical and horizontal shading devices for southern exposure facades. Energy Convers. Manag. 2010,51, 1592–1599. [CrossRef] 18. Atzeri, A.; Cappelletti, F.; Gasparella, A. Internal Versus External Shading Devices Performance in Office Buildings. Energy Procedia 2014,45, 463–472. [CrossRef] 19. Carletti, C.; Sciurpi, F.; Pierangioli, L. The energy upgrading of existing buildings: Window and shading device typologies for energy efficiency refurbishment. Sustainability 2014,6, 5354–5377. [CrossRef] 20. Stazi, F.; Marinelli, S.; Di Perna, C.; Munafò, P. Comparison on solar shadings: Monitoring of the thermo-physical behaviour, assessment of the energy saving, thermal comfort, natural lighting and environmental impact. Sol. Energy 2014,105, 512–528. [CrossRef] 21. Kirimtat, A.; Koyunbaba, B.K.; Chatzikonstantinou, I.; Sariyildiz, S. Review of simulation modeling for shading devices in buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016,53, 23–49. [CrossRef] 22. Coakley, D.; Raftery, P.; Keane, M. A review of methods to match building energy simulation models to measured data. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014,37, 123–141. [CrossRef] 23. Freewan, A.A.Y. Impact of external shading devices on thermal and daylighting performance of offices in hot climate regions. Sol. Energy 2014,102, 14–30. [CrossRef] 24. MATLAB R2017a Software; The Mathworks Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2017. Sustainability 2018,10, 2714 17 of 17 25. Réflectiv Window Film SOL 102. Available online: https://www.reflectiv.com/product/anti-heat-79/ (accessed on 28 June 2018). 26. EN ISO 7726:2001: Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment. Instruments for Measuring Physical Quantities; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2001. 27. Microsoft Excel 2016®Software; Microsoft: Redmond, WA, USA, 2016. 28. León-Rodríguez, Á.L.; Suárez, R.; Bustamante, P.; Campano, M.Á.; Moreno-Rangel, D. Design and Performance of Test Cells as an Energy Evaluation Model of Facades in a Mediterranean Building Area. Energies 2017,10, 1816. [CrossRef] 29. Guía Técnica IDAE. Procedimientos y Aspectos de la Simulación de Instalaciones Térmicas en Edificios. Asociación Técnica Española de Climatización y Refrigeración (ATECYR) para el Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE). 2008. Available online: http://www.idae.es/uploads/documentos/documentos_13_Guia_tecnica_Procedimientos_y_aspectos_ de_la_simulacion_termicas_en_edificios_72a7f4d6 (accessed on 28 June 2018). © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).