Green Energy and Technology

For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/8059
Maria Kordjamshidi

House Rating Schemes

From Energy to Comfort Base

123
Maria Kordjamshidi
Ilam University
Faculty of Engineering
Pajoohesh
69315-516 Ilam
Iran
[email protected]

ISSN 1865-3529 e-ISSN 1865-3537

ISBN 978-3-642-15789-9 e-ISBN 978-3-642-15790-5
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5
Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010937671

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9,
1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not
imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

Cover design: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Why House Energy Ratings Accomplished . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The Position of Passive Architecture in Current HERS . . . . . . . 3
1.3 A Conflict in HERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Book Outline – How to Read the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 House Rating Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 House Energy Rating Schemes (HERS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 The United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.2 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3 Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.4 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Rating Methodologies for Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 Building Rating Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Energy as the Main Parameter for Rating Buildings . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 Issues Related to Building Energy Rating Schemes . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.1 Rating and Achievement of Sustainability . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.2 Rating Free Running Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.3 Rating Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.4 Occupancy Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.5 Accuracy of HERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5 Need for a New Index for Assessing Building
Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1 Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1.1 Definition of Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.1.2 Human Comfort and Variables Affecting
Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.1.3 Thermal Comfort Models and Standards . . . . . . . . . . 34

v
vi Contents

3.1.4 Applicability of the Thermal Comfort Index

for Naturally Ventilated Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.5 Adaptive Thermal Comfort Models for Naturally
Ventilated/Free Running Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1.6 Acceptable Thermal Conditions in Free Running
Buildings Based on the ASHRAE Standard . . . . . . . . 41
3.1.7 Applicability of the Adaptive Comfort Model
for Free Running Residential Buildings . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2 Evaluation of a Residential Building’s Thermal
Performance on the Basis of Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.1 Computing Degree Hours for Free Running
Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 Indicators to Measure the Thermal Performance of Houses
for Rating Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.1 Conditioned Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.2 Free Running Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.3 How an Indicator Points to Building Efficiency . . . . . . 46
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low
Energy or No Energy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.1.1 Building Simulation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.1.2 Criteria for Modeling the Thermal Performance
of Buildings in Two Different Operation Modes . . . . . . 56
4.1.3 Effective Parameters for Improving Buildings
Thermal Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances
of Buildings: A Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2.1 What Is Sensitivity Analysis? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2.2 Thermal Performances of Dwellings
in the Sydney Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2.3 Summary of Thermal Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . 100
4.3 Relationship Between Thermal Performance of Buildings
on the Basis of Energy and Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.3.1 Correlation Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.3.2 Multivariate Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5 Assembling a House Energy Ratings (HER) and House Free
Running Ratings (HFR) Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.1 Rating Building Thermal Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.1.1 How Should Building Thermal Performance Bands
Be Defined for Rating? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Contents vii

5.2 The Combination of Two Rating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

5.3 How the New Combined System Evaluates Efficiency . . . . . . . 125
5.4 Reliability of the New Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
6 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.1 The Effect of House Envelope Parameters on the Seasonal
Performance of Houses in Different Operation Modes . . . . . . . 131
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
List of Acronyms

HRS House Rating Scheme

HERS House Energy Rating Scheme
HFRS House Free Running Rating Scheme
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
IEA International Energy Agency
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
GHG Green House Gas
MEC Model Energy Code
BREDEM Building Research Establishment Domestic Energy Model
SAP Standard Assessment Procedure
NHER National Home Energy Rating
AECB Association for Environment Conscious Buildings
OEE Office of Energy Efficiency
MNECH Model National Energy Code of Canada
GMI Government Metrics International
FSDR Five Star Design Rating
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
BEP Billed Energy Protocol
MEP Monitored Energy Protocol
EEM Energy-Efficient Mortgages
ITC Index of Thermal Charge
GBA Government Buildings Agency
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems
ACS Adoptive Comfort Standard
DDH Degree Discomfort Hours
HW Heavyweight
LW Lightweight
SS Single Storey
DS Double Storey

ix
Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Why House Energy Ratings Accomplished

During the mid to late 1970s the energy crisis, the increase in greenhouse gas
emissions, and global warming concerns became important international issues.
The importance of these issues for the future of humanity has led to international
efforts in sustainable development. The “Brundtland Report” (1987) entitled “Our
Common Future” showed that economic growth at the world’s current rate was not
sustainable on ecological grounds. The report saw potential climate change as an
issue that threatened sustainable development, and recommended urgent action to
increase energy efficiency. International concern about greenhouse gas emissions
resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, which shared the 1992 United Nations Convention’s
objective for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5% from 1990 levels
in the commitment period 2008–2012, with 168 countries, ratifying the protocol
(United Nation, 1998).
However, according to the IEA (International Energy Agency, 2009), world
energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing sig-
nificantly. At the same time the International Energy Outlook report (Energy
Information Administration, 2009) predicts “strong growth” for world-wide energy
demand until 2030. This is shown in Fig. 1.1.
The impact of buildings on the environment is an important component in the
consideration of sustainability. Buildings not only consume natural resources such
as energy and raw materials, but also produce harmful atmospheric emissions. It is
said that buildings consume one third of the world’s resources (Atkinson, 2006),
which includes approximately one third of primary energy supply (Hong et al.,
2000). That means that buildings are an important contributor to global warming
as well.
The residential building sector is seen to be a significant contributor to energy
consumption and subsequently to greenhouse gas emissions. Residential buildings
have been found to be responsible for emitting about 15% of greenhouse gas emis-
sions in OECD1 countries such as Australia (Harrington et al., 1999), US (United

1 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), consisting of 30 countries.

M. Kordjamshidi, House Rating Schemes, Green Energy and Technology, 1

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5_1, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
2 1 Introduction

Quadrillion
Btu
800
History Projections
678
637
596
600 552
508
472
398
400 348 366
283 308

200

Fig. 1.1 World market energy consumption, 1980–2030 (Source: Energy Information Adminis-
tration (EIA), International Energy Annual (June–December 2008), World Energy and Economic
Outlook (2009))

Nations, 2004) and UK (Office of the UK Deputy Prime Minister, 2004). Meanwhile
the IEA (2007) has projected that residential energy end-use will rise by an average
of 1.7% per year. Thus in most International Energy Agency countries, the resi-
dential sector has been the focus of more energy related policies than any other
sector.
In response to the call for reducing energy demand in the building sector, House
Energy Rating Schemes (HERS) have been developed in order to promote energy
efficient design. These schemes offer a means for comparing the energy efficiency of
different homes by generally providing a standardized evaluation of a home’s exist-
ing energy efficiency, expected energy use cost, and its potential for improvement.
They differ in the range of energy end use categories covered, but commonly the
basis of most programs has been the normalized energy requirement for space heat-
ing and cooling, and sometimes water heating. However, relying on the control of
energy consumption is not the only way to achieve energy efficiency in architectural
design.
The main objective of HERS is to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions. They mainly operate through the calculation of the predicted energy
requirements of buildings in order to enable energy conservation and energy effi-
cient building design. HERS have been created to make it possible for energy
efficiency to become an explicit component in home evaluation and thermal perfor-
mance assessment, and thus in the purchasing decision process. Vine et al. (1988),
Turrent and Mainwaring (1990) and Ballinger and Cassell (1994) have all argued
that HERS are one of the most successful methods for improving residential energy
efficiency in developed countries. This claim is supported in many nations which
have created a link between financing (through mortgages) and HERS, to support
energy efficient design (Farhar et al., 1996).
1.3 A Conflict in HERS 3

Clearly the most effective way of achieving efficient architecture, and thus the
main objective of HERS, would be the promotion of passive architectural design,
with value placed on the efficiency of house design in “free running operation”.2
However, HERS are limited in their effectiveness, since they generally ignore the
significance of passive architectural design as a means of ensuring energy efficiency
(Soebarto, 2000; Williamson, 2000).

1.2 The Position of Passive Architecture in Current HERS

The current House Energy Rating Schemes discriminate against free running
houses3 ; and therefore may be said to discourage architects and designers from
promoting passive architecture buildings. This is a result of the fact that a sys-
tematic method for the evaluation of the free running performance of houses is
missing in current house rating schemes. While the main objective of these schemes
has been a reduction in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the
building industry, they have been developed on the basis of predicted energy require-
ments involving the use of active heating and cooling. They do not deal at all with
free running buildings designed to largely avoid heating and cooling. A building
obtains a higher score through such a scheme if the predicted active energy use
is low compared to the defined standard reference for the system. Logically, how-
ever, the highest score should actually be attached to a passive architectural design
with no need for artificial energy for space heating and cooling. In fact, the result
is that under the current house rating schemes the passive climate control features
of houses may be sacrificed to pay for air conditioners. This becomes a significant
issue in the moderate climates of some regions, such as in Australia, in which pas-
sive architectural design could be said to be the most suitable response for achieving
the objectives of HERS, and should therefore be taken into consideration in building
regulatory frameworks.

1.3 A Conflict in HERS

There is a growing demand for space heating and cooling (EIA, 2009) as people
demand a higher level of indoor comfort in modern society, using air-conditioning,4
and this is a problem which is unlikely to be solved under present conditions because

2 In this book the definition of free running that is used is: the state of a building that is naturally
ventilated and does not use any mechanical equipment to maintain or improve its indoor thermal
condition. In contrast, those buildings that are provided with an energy supply applied to heat/cool
air or surfaces to maintain indoor conditions within a defined comfort zone are referred to as
operating in conditioned mode.
3 This issue is discussed in detail in the next chapter (See Sect. 2.5).
4 See the EIA web site comparison with other projections, at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
pdf/forecast.pdf
4 1 Introduction

of the dependency of current house rating schemes on calculating energy consump-

tion. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that while authorities have been trying
to encourage the application of efficient building design, with higher ratings reflect-
ing decreased energy demand, people tend to think that the higher score means a
higher level of comfort. This tendency results in a “take back effect”, which occurs
when people with more efficient homes actually use more energy than expected
because they are less cautious about basic efficiency measures such as thermostat
settings (Stein, 1997b). It has been noted that despite efforts to improve energy per-
formance, currently “houses do not perform optimally” (Wray et al., 2000); in other
words, the thermal performance of houses when occupied is not such as has been
expected or intended.
Research has demonstrated a number of shortcomings in the current rating
schemes that mean that they have been unable to reach the desired objectives of
sustainability (Kordjamshidi, 2008; Soebarto, 2000; Stein, 1997a; Stein and Meier,
2000; Williamson, 2000). These shortcomings, namely the inaccuracy of ratings,
unrealistic standardised occupancy scenarios, and the unreliability of a normalized
index for evaluating the thermal performance of buildings, will be discussed in more
detail in this book.

1.4 Book Outline – How to Read the Book

The main objective of this book is to introduce a new framework for a House
Rating Scheme by which the efficiency of the architectural design of all houses
can be evaluated without unrealistically compromising the value of any particular
design. This book provides information about developments in the field of Building
Energy Ratings, concentrating on House Energy Rating Schemes. In reviewing cur-
rent House Rating Schemes developed in different countries, the book describes
how these schemes assess the thermal performance of a house, and challenges the
way that these schemes assess building energy efficiency, and their inability to eval-
uate free running buildings. It deals with various approaches and methods for rating
buildings on the basis of different indexes, with implications for both energy effi-
ciency and thermal comfort. It also guides readers through a computer simulation
program for developing a rating system that evaluates and ranks building energy
efficiency.
The book is made up of five chapters:

Chapter 2 describes the current House Energy Rating Schemes (HERS) to

specifically identify shortcomings in the current HERS. It points to the neces-
sity of revising current building rating systems towards a thermal comfort
base rating scheme in order to deal with rating free running houses.
Chapter 3 describes the theoretical aspects of thermal comfort in buildings to
establish how thermal comfort and its measurable parameters can become
References 5

the basis for a rating scheme. In this chapter a specific indicator of thermal
comfort is defined for measuring the thermal performance of buildings.
Chapter 4 deals with building performance evaluation – methods and criteria
for assessing and ranking the thermal performances of dwellings in different
operation modes. This chapter, using statistical analysis, identifies signifi-
cant differences between building thermal performance in free running and
conditioned operation modes.
Chapter 5 presents a method for rating buildings thermal performance in both
free running and conditioned operation modes. This chapter presents a sim-
plified framework for a free running rating scheme for dwellings, and then
proposes a new framework for HRS. The general utility of the proposed
rating framework is then tested and described.

References
Atkinson, M.: The impact of building on the environment – what’s needed to change the status
quo? Green Building Council Australia. www.gbcaus.org (2006). Accessed 30 Aug 2006
Ballinger, J.A., Cassell, D.: Solar efficient housing and NatHERS: an important marketing tool.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy
Society, Sydney, pp. 320–326 (1994)
Brundtland, G.H.: Our Common Future – Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)
Energy Information Administration (EIA): World Energy Demand and Economic Outlook.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/world.pdf (2009). Accessed 10 Feb 2010
Farhar, B.C., Collins, N.E., Walsh, R.W.: Linking Home Energy Rating Systems with Energy
Efficiency Financing: Progress on National and State Programs (No. NREL/TP-460-21322):
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (1996)
Harrington, L., Foster, R., Wilkendfeld, G., Treloar, G.J., Lee, T., Ellis, M.: Baseline Study of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From the Australian Residential Building Sector to 2010. Canberra:
Australian Greenhouse Office (1999)
Hong, T., Chou, S.K., Bong, T.Y.: Building simulation: an overview of developments and
information sources. Build. Environ. 35(4), 347–361 (2000)
United Nations: Framework Convention on Climate Change (Report on the in-depth review of the
third national communication of the United States of America. No. FCCC/IDR.3/USA). United
Nations, New York, NY (2004)
International Energy Agency: Energy projection. http://www.iea.org/Textbase/subjectqueries/
keyresult.asp?KEYWORD_ID=4107 (2009). Accessed 12 Dec 2009
Kordjamshidi, M.: In Australia energy based rating tools appear to have failed to deliver the policy
outcomes for sustainable development, Proceeding of 12th Passive house conference, 11–12,
2008, Nuremberg, Germany (2008)
Office of the UK Deputy Prime Minister: Government Moves Ahead with Developing New Code
for Sustainable Buildings. http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0181
(2004). Accessed 27 July 2007
Soebarto, V.I.: A Low-Energy House and a Low Rating: What is the Problem, Proceedings of
the 34th Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association,
Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 111–118 (2000)
Stein, J.R.: Accuracy of Home Energy Rating Systems (No. 40394). US: Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (1997a)
6 1 Introduction

Stein, J.R.: Home Energy Rating Systems: Actual Usage May Vary. Home Energy Magazine
Online. http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/97/970910.html (1997b, Sep/Oct). Accessed 11 June
2008
Stein, J.R., Meier, A.: Accuracy of home energy rating systems. Energy. 25(4), 339–354 (2000)
Turrent, D., Mainwaring, J.: Saving energy on the rates. RIBA J. 85–86 (1990, Sep)
International Energy Agency: Energy Projection. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/2007.asp
(2007). Accessed 10 Oct 2007
United Nations: Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. United Nations. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (1998). Accessed 15
Jan 2007
Vine, E., Barnes, B.K., Ritschard, R.: Implementing home energy rating systems. Energy. 13(5),
401–411 (1988)
Williamson, T.J.: A critical review of home energy rating in Australia. Proceedings of the 34th
Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association, Adelaide,
South Australia, pp. 101–109 (2000)
Wray, C.P., Piette, M.A., Sherman, M.H., Levinson, R.M., Matson, N.E., Driscoll, D.A. et al.:
Residential Commissioning: A Review of Related Literature (No. LBNL_44535). US:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2000)
Chapter 2
House Rating Schemes

This chapter presents selected House Energy Rating Systems in diverse contexts
and explores the different aspects of a House Energy Rating Scheme (HERS). It
demonstrates that there are inadequacies in the current rating schemes which this
book attempts to address.

2.1 House Energy Rating Schemes (HERS)

The energy rating of a house is a standard measure that allows the energy efficiency
of new or existing houses to be evaluated, in order that dwellings may be compared.
The comparison is commonly performed on the basis of the energy requirements
for the heating and cooling of indoor spaces. Some of the HERS include all energy
requirements, such as energy for water heating, washing machines and cooking.
Energy is not the only criterion for house evaluation in all rating schemes.
Criteria are determined on the basis of the purpose of the rating. Other criteria
that have been used as important parameters in building evaluation systems are the
production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, indoor environment quality, cost
efficiency and thermal comfort.
The energy rating of a residential building can provide detailed information on
the energy consumption and the relative energy efficiency of the building. It is per-
formed through standard measurements carried out under specific regulations and
experimental procedures by specialists (Santamouris, 2005). Overall, HERS can
facilitate informed decision-making for all stakeholders, as well as home-buyers
considering mortgages. The main impetus behind most of the rating systems has
been to inform consumers about the relative energy efficiency of homes, in order
to encourage home-owners to use this information in making their purchasing
decisions (SRC, 1991).
HERS are found in a variety of forms:

• prescriptive
• calculation-based
• performance based

M. Kordjamshidi, House Rating Schemes, Green Energy and Technology, 7

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5_2, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
8 2 House Rating Schemes

All of those evaluate building performance within the scope of a program that
has been developed by the authorities of a country to promote efficiency in building
design. Prescriptive schemes provide minimum standards for the materials, equip-
ment and methods of efficient design and construction that must be met to qualify for
an energy efficiency rating. Calculation based ratings employ computer based mod-
els to predict a building’s performance relative to that required in order to qualify for
a rating under the program. Performance based ratings utilize actual building energy
consumption data to evaluate building energy efficiency, which is then compared
with the required standards of the program.
Prescriptive and calculation schemes are predominant, whereas performance
based rating schemes are very rare because of the time-consuming nature of the
system, which requires an extensive effort. Performance based schemes are also not
applicable to new buildings because of their limited value as a tool for predicting
performance and encouraging improvements prior to construction.
Rating schemes are generally associated with either certification or labelling. The
former refers to the evaluation of building performance at the design stage, while
labelling assesses in-use performance of the building when it is compared with other
similar buildings.
The schemes vary in practice, from simply a paper-based check-list, to full ther-
mal simulations. A good example of a paper-based check-list is the Model Energy
Code (MEC) (Andersen et al., 2004), which was developed for the Department
of Energy Building Standards and Guidelines Program in the United States. MEC
focuses on the insulation of the envelope and windows of a building, the cooling
and heating system, the water heating system, and air leakage. Most of these rating
schemes use a grading scale to score buildings. One hundred point scales and star
rating systems are common, while some use either a pass/fail system, or simply clas-
sify by terms such as bronze, silver, or gold. MEC is a simple pass or fail scheme
(US Department of Energy, 1995).
Generally, all developed rating schemes around the world appear to be similar
in their objectives, but different in programming and details. A general review of
developed HERS has shown that these schemes are particularly widely implemented
in the USA. The following section reviews HERS programs that have been actively
implemented in the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia.

2.1.1 The United States of America

Energy rating schemes have been used in the USA since the 1980s (Santamouris,
2005). Over the past years a range of rating schemes has been implemented by
the different states, cities, utilities and vendors. There are a variety of efficiency
certification programs and numerous tools for analysing building performance.
Among the various schemes, the Energy Rated Homes of America is predom-
inant, as it is currently operating in more than 18 states, with other schemes in
continuous development in the other states. This scheme uses a 100-point scale of
efficiency, divided into ten categories of stars (from one star, one star plus, to five
2.1 House Energy Rating Schemes (HERS) 9

stars plus). A higher star represents a house with better energy efficiency. The energy
efficiency rating in this system expresses the predicted energy consumption, which
is represented in the form of normalised annual energy consumption. The depen-
dency of this rating system on a calculation of the amount of energy consumed
means that the use of efficient appliances results in a more favourable rating than
that for an efficient architect designed house, whereas arguably a free running house
should have priority for reducing energy consumption.
Numerous software programs have been developed to foster increased energy
efficiency in the building sector. In North America alone there exist about a hundred
building energy tools serving a diversity of users (Mills, 2004). Many of these are
applied to rate buildings, such as AkWarm, Building Greenhouse Rating, LEED,
CHEERS, RECA 2000, Kansas, HOT 2000, Ohio, REM/Rate, TRET, Energy Gauge
USA, T. A. P, BESTTEST, HEED, Colorado and E-Star.1
The main objectives of the Home Energy Rating Schemes implemented in
the USA are: affordability (a higher quality and more comfortable home for
less money), qualifying for a more favourable mortgage loan, and environmental
protection (through optimizing residential and commercial energy and indoor envi-
ronmental performance). The association of home energy rating systems, with a
scheme called Energy Efficiency Mortgages, brought about the penetration of this
rating system into the residential market (Santamouris, 2005). The mortgage indus-
try uses existing energy audits to make loans for energy improvements (Barbara,
2000).

2.1.2 Canada
The Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE) has developed and promoted a wide range of
programs in Canada. These are aimed at improving energy efficiency in the energy
sector of the Canadian economy, at conserving energy resources, aiding financial
savings and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Home energy rating systems for houses in Canada, which began in 1997, were
based on the report “Efficiency of Natural Resources Canada” (NRCan). There are
two national energy rating programs for residential buildings, named Ener-Guide for
Houses (EGH) and Ener-Guide for New Houses (EGNH). These governmental pro-
grams use HOT2XP and HOT 2000 as their rating tools. The tools are programmed
to make a comparison for rating purposes of each house, with reference to houses of
a similar size in a similar climatic region. To factor out the influence of occupants
on energy consumption, standard operating conditions are used in calculating the
rating. The energy rating assessment begins with a site evaluation, using a blower

1 More details about software programs can be found in the web-based references given by
the US Department of Energy, 2009: Building energy software tools directory, <Energy
Rated Homes of America US Department of Energy. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
tools_directory/subjects_sub.cfm.
10 2 House Rating Schemes

door test to measure the rate of air leakage in homes. The space heating and cooling
systems and domestic hot water supply, appliance usage, and mechanical systems
are analysed to produce an energy efficiency rating based on the home’s annual
energy consumption, on a rating ranging from 0 to 100 (Allen, 1999). The lower
rating on the scale indicates high leakage, no insulation, high-energy consumption
and therefore an uncomfortable home to live in.
Two standard bases for evaluating buildings are R-2000 standards2 and the
Model National Energy Code of Canada (MNECB).3 To meet Canada’s specifi-
cations Code, a house needs to be rated within the 80–85 range to comply with
R-2000, or in the 70–75 range to comply with MNECH (Allen, 1999). The softwares
used for analysing a building’s performance are: HOT 2000, HOT 3000, HOT2XP,
HOT2EC, EE4, GBtool and BILDTRAD. All can evaluate the energy performance
of a building, but are unlikely to be applicable for a free running house evaluation.
One program used for the Canadian homes rating system is LEED. This rat-
ing system is an adaptation of the US Green Building Council’s LEED Green
Buildings Rating System, tailored particularly for Canadian climates, construction
and regulations. This rating system measures the overall performance of a home
in eight categories: Innovation and Design Process (ID), Location and Linkages
(LL), Sustainable Sites (SS), Water Efficiency (WE), Energy and Atmosphere (EA),
Material and Resources (MR), Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ), Awareness and
Education (AE). The rating system works by requiring a minimum level of per-
formance through prerequisites, and rewarding improved performance in each of
the eight categories. The performance level is indicated by four grades: Certified,
Silver, Gold and Platinum, based on the number of points gained (between 45 and
136 points) (Canada Green Building Council, 2009).

2.1.3 Europe
Following the energy crisis in the 1970s, preliminary steps for energy saving mea-
surements in Europe occurred in Sweden. Since 1993 a “Specific Actions for
Vigorous Energy Efficiency Directive” has been employed throughout the coun-
tries in the European Union (Cook et al., 1997). The aim has been to “certify” the
energy efficiency of homes. Since the directive neither specifies the certification

2 The R-2000 Standard is based on an energy consumption target for each house, and a series
of technical requirements for ventilation, air tightness, insulation, choice of materials, water
use and other factors (See: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/personal/new-homes/r-2000/About-r-
2000.cfm?attr=4).
3 [MNECB] is intended to help in designing energy-efficient buildings. It sets out minimum
requirements for the features of buildings that determine their energy efficiency, taking into account
regional construction costs, regional heating fuel types, and costs and regional climatic differences.
The MNECB has, in addition to sections on the building envelope and on water heating, detailed
information on lighting, HVAC systems and electrical power, which can offer major energy savings
(See: http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/codes/nrcc38731_e.html).
2.1 House Energy Rating Schemes (HERS) 11

procedure, nor identifies the kind of energy that should be assessed, the states were
requested to prepare their own national methodologies (Santamouris, 2005), and
each member country has produced a different interpretation of the term “certifi-
cation”. The European Energy Commission then put forward a proposal for a new
specific directive on the energy rating of buildings (based on “Energy Performance
of Building Directive (EPBD) 2002/91/EC 16”). The EU adopted EPBD, which pro-
vided a common methodology for calculating the energy performance of buildings,
and set minimum efficiency standards for residential and commercial buildings. The
directive then introduced an energy performance certificate to promote greater pub-
lic awareness. However, there are still no standards for the energy performance of
existing buildings in the EU.
A review of the energy ratings of dwellings in the European Union by Miguez
et al. (2006) describes the various rating systems in EU countries. Current rat-
ing systems, based on several regulations, all aim to save energy and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. These rating systems assess a building as to whether
it complies with regulations. A range of techniques has been developed for
such building assessment, and all are based on an experimental protocol for
collecting energy data and theoretical algorithms to normalize total energy con-
sumption for classifying buildings. Total energy consumption results from heating,
hot water supply and lighting. Because of high heating energy requirements, all
the member states in the EU have introduced compulsory maximum levels for
coefficients of heat transmission in new buildings. The cold climate in these coun-
tries demands more insulation generally, meaning lower energy losses and GHG
emissions.
Although the preliminary steps for energy saving and efficient energy use in the
building sector were taken in Sweden, this nation still has no official energy rating
system for buildings. However they do have stringent regulations. Among different
rating systems in the EU, Denmark’s is known as the system which provides full
energy rating, in the sense of awarding a graded score to buildings. The ratings
developed in the UK and Denmark are discussed in more detail below, as they are
the two pioneering rating systems in the EU.

2.1.3.1 United Kingdom

The oldest HERS exists in the United Kingdom. It mainly aims to decrease energy
consumption and GHG emissions. Two house energy-rating schemes are currently
operating in the UK. The National Home Energy Rating scheme (Hasson et al.,
2000) was developed and implemented by the National Energy Foundation, an inde-
pendent charitable trust (Turrent and Mainwaring, 1990). This scheme measures the
thermal efficiency of dwellings in terms of energy running costs on a scale of 0–10.
The rating procedure is carried out through the use of a computer program based
on the Building Research Establishment Domestic Energy Model (BREDEM). This
is used in different ways as the basis of the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP),
National Home Energy Rating (NHER) and C02 Dwelling Emission Rate (DER)
(Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes, 2006). In BREDEM the energy usage of
12 2 House Rating Schemes

a house is calculated on the basis of a description of its dimensions, insulation and

heating system.
The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) has been developed by British plan-
ning authorities as the principal basis for labelling and house rating. It was drawn
up to define the method of energy rating of residential buildings (Miguez et al.,
2006; Richalet and Henderson, 1999). Energy rating is based on energy balance and
cost for space and water heating per square meter of floor area, assuming average
occupancy patterns. It includes details of the house, such as the heating system,
thermal insulation, ventilation characteristics and the type of fuel used for heating,
as factors affecting energy efficiency. Fuel costs and gas emissions are assessed,
and on the basis of this individual suggestions for improvements are given. This
rating does not consider lighting and domestic appliances in the process of calcu-
lating energy consumption, and it ignores the location of the building for the rating
purpose. These omissions would appear to have a significant effect on the accuracy
of the rating system, and to potentially discriminate against the value of a building
design which might be suitable for a particular location and climate.
As there were doubts about its ability to achieve the target of energy saving and
reduction of GHG emissions in the building sector, the SAP regulations were revised
in 2001 (DEFRA, 2005). Nevertheless, as the basis of the methodology for improv-
ing the energy efficiency of buildings continues to be the calculation of energy
consumption, it may well not be accurate in providing passive energy measure-
ments, as demanded by Association for Environment Conscious Buildings (AECB,
2006), and is unlikely to grade passive architecture designs accurately.
NHER measures the energy efficiency of houses as a function of energy run-
ning costs per square meter. It calculates energy usage by taking into account the
house details, including house location, design, construction, water heating system,
cooking, lighting, ventilation and appliances. To calculate the rating, a standard
occupancy scenario is assumed, in which the number of occupants is estimated
from the house floor area and standard heating patterns. Thermostat settings and
the period of occupation are also included as part of the standard. The actual occu-
pancy data can be used to estimate the running costs, fuel use and emissions, but
this will not alter the rating.

2.1.3.2 Denmark
As a pioneer in energy rating in the EU, Denmark started energy saving measure-
ment in 1981. This country established a different type of energy audit, known as the
“Act on the Promotion of Energy and Water Conservation in Buildings” (Energies-
Cites, 2003; International Energy Agency, 2003). It comprises energy certificates for
large and small buildings as well as for industrial buildings, and for CO2 emissions
in industry (Miguez et al., 2006).
The rating system is based on an energy inventory recorded by a qualified spe-
cialist. It includes three parts. The first part reports on water and energy consumption
and CO2 emissions per annum as compared with other similar buildings, on a rat-
ing scale from A1 to C5 (maximum to minimum efficiency). An energy plan is the
2.1 House Energy Rating Schemes (HERS) 13

second part of the system, through which ways for saving energy and water in build-
ings are proposed, with an estimation of the costs involved, and annual savings for
each one. The final section of the rating provides information on the current state of
the building in terms of its size, heating system and energy usage, and the cost of
energy and heating.
This rating system appears to be sufficiently comprehensive for conditioned
buildings but it is not able to deal with rating free running houses, owing to its
dependency on the energy base.

2.1.4 Australia
House Energy Rating Schemes have also been introduced in Australia, with the
same objectives as those in the other mentioned countries. The main objectives
are to decrease residential energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and
to increase thermal comfort by encouraging improved building envelope design
(Ballinger, 1998a).
Where the Australian climates differ from those of Europe and Canada, differ-
ences in the programming of HERS in Australia were expected. “It has been shown
in many studies that passive solar design and energy conservation techniques are
very cost-effective in Australia. Australian climates allow us to enjoy the outdoor
generally throughout the year except on days of temperature extremes” (Ballinger,
1988, p 67). The moderate climate of some regions in Australia makes passive archi-
tectural design such as free running houses a good option, and most suitable for
achieving the objectives of HERS. However, house ratings in Australia, as in other
countries, are based on the prediction of energy requirements, and have not been
modified to give more value to free running houses.
The Five Star Design Rating was the first energy-rating scheme, developed in
Australia in the 1980s by the GMI Council of Australia. It was adopted for use in
Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. “Five Star Design Rating” (FSDR)
is a form of certification available for dwelling buildings which comply with a num-
ber of requirements for energy efficient design. The design principles of a five star
home under this system were based on the three basic elements of glass, mass and
insulation (Ballinger, 1988). However, this system was not widely accepted by the
building industry, because of its restrictive guidelines and its limitation to a single
pass/fail rating.
During the 1990s, individual states in Australia attempted to develop their
own House Energy Rating Schemes (HERS) to meet particular needs (Ballinger,
1991; Gellender, 1992; Wathen, 1992). Among the different schemes, the Victorian
scheme, based on a computer program, was found to be the most effective; however,
it was not flexible enough for all climates, particularly for warm humid climates
such as in Queensland. It was therefore thought appropriate to develop a nationwide
HERS.
The development of a nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (HERS) was
started in 1993 on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand Minerals and Energy
14 2 House Rating Schemes

Council (Ballinger and Cassell, 1994; Szokolay, 1992b). The aim was to create a
simple rating for energy efficiency for each dwelling throughout different climate
zones and conditions in Australia. A graded five-star rating system was used to
categorize the relative energy efficiency of dwellings, using a computer program
based on the CHEETAH (engine), which was developed for the rating assessment
(Ballinger and Cassell, 1994).
HERS predict the demand for the heating and cooling energy required to main-
tain conditions of thermal comfort inside a building, and rate the building’s average
energy consumption per square meter (MJ/m2 ). Predictions are based on the exten-
sive research and development embodied in CHEENATH, the core energy software
model developed by CSIRO as suitable for Australian climates (Ballinger, 1998a).
This engine, which is a significantly enhanced version of the CHEETAH engine,
is the current basis of most modelling systems, such as NatHERS, FirstRate and
Quick Rate, BERS, Q Rate and ACTHERS, which have been developed in differ-
ent states. NatHERS and BERS simulate the operational energy usage in a home
by running CHEENATH directly (with different user interfaces), while FirstRate,
QRate, ACTHERS and Quick Rate are correlation programs, which do not carry
out simulations.
AccuRate is the latest tool developed for HERS. It addresses some of the lim-
itations in the NatHERS software and is now a replacement for NatHERS. More
details regarding this are presented in Sect. 4.1.2.2.
At the time when NatHERS was created, it was assumed that this software would
be developed in the future on the basis of comfort achieved without the use of heat-
ing and cooling (Ballinger, 1998b). However this project still remains incomplete,
even in the latest developed tool for HERS.

2.2 Rating Methodologies for Buildings

Buildings present many characteristics that need to be taken into account for an
appropriate evaluation and rating scheme (Roulet et al., 1999). Thus a wide range
of rating methods has been developed.4 Each method considers a number of param-
eters and criteria to assess buildings on a particular basis. These include perceived
health, the provision of thermal, visual and acoustic comfort, indoor air quality, cost
effectiveness, environmental impact and energy efficiency. However, energy effi-
ciency is seen as the main parameter in almost all current building rating schemes,
even in those which aggregate and evaluate buildings on the basis of a multi-criteria
method.
The various methodologies developed to evaluate the energy efficiency of build-
ings are principally based on predicting energy consumption to assess a building,
in order to certify the level of the building’s performance (Santamouris M., 1995;
Boland et al., 2003; Richalet et al., 2001; Santamouris, 2005; Santamouris and

4 Some of these methods appear in a review by Kotsaki, K. and G. Sourys (2000).

2.2 Rating Methodologies for Buildings 15

Dascalaki, 2002; Santamouris et al., 2007; Zmeureanu et al., 1999). The method
is the same whether the building is residential or contains office space.
A historical review by Fairey et al. (2000) of the national HERS methods used
in the US describes the following four proposed methods for rating the energy
efficiency of homes:

• the original method

• the equipment adjustment factor method
• the modified loads method
• the normalized modified loads method.

Each method was developed to overcome shortcomings in the previous method.

In the original method the score of a home depended on the fraction that the total
estimated purchased energy consumption of the house represented of that for a ref-
erence home.5 The dependence of this method on the fuel type involved represents
a “flaw” in the method. This “flaw” is due to the “floating” value of the refer-
ence house, whose value could change as the function of a selected fuel type, and
consequently the score of a home could simply change. This problem was solved
through the second method, by adding an equipment adjustment factor. However, the
main issue with the second method was that “rating directly by energy consump-
tion misrepresents the relative value of envelope efficiency measures with respect
to equipment efficiency measures” (Fairey et al., 2000, p. 4). The modified loads
method was then developed to avoid the above problem. In this method, building
loads6 were used instead of energy consumption, to establish the rating fraction
used in the original method. Since the load on building end uses does not change as
a function of fuel, the “floating” problem was also solved. However, the presence of
a “fuel neutrality flaw” was a problem with this method, due to the fact that differ-
ent fuel types may be discriminated against in marketing. A “normalized modified
load method” was then proposed that reflects differences in potential equipment
improvements.7
The first two methods rely on the calculation of energy consumption, while the
last two refer to the amount of energy load. Although the second basis is more reli-
able, both bases have the shortcoming that they are unable to exactly predict actual
energy consumption and energy load, because certain variables such as occupancy
and the behaviour of occupants could change the results of the calculation.
Botsaris and Prebezanos (2004) introduced a method for the certification of
the energy consumption of a building by recording its “energy behaviour”. In this

5 A home score in the original method was calculated from 100 to 20∗ (ER/EC), in which ER is the
total purchased energy consumption for heating, cooling and hot water for the rated home, and EC
is that for the reference home.
6 Load in this method is defined as the amount of heating energy that must be added or removed
from a building to satisfy a specified level of comfort in the building, and Energy Use is the amount
of energy required by the equipment that satisfies the load.
7 The mathematical process is described in Fairey et al. (2000).
16 2 House Rating Schemes

method energy indices, such as the Index of Thermal Charge (ITC) or Index of
Energy Disposition (Andersen et al., 2004), are employed to simulate the heat losses
of the building, and the heat flow due to temperature difference between the indoor
and the outdoor space. This work is based on an interpretation of the behaviour of the
energy sources, such as the operation and cessation time of the sources. Cessation
times can be predicted relatively reliably for office buildings with a clear occupation
time. However, this method for residential buildings may not be accurate, owing to
the variability of its occupants’ activities. The method can, however, help to accu-
rately predict the energy consumption of residential buildings if it is adapted to
include multiple occupancy scenarios.
A review of the latest developments in the field of the-energy rating of dwellings,
mainly in Europe, describes the theoretical and experimental techniques for energy
characterization of buildings that have been employed (Santamouris, 2005; Miguez
et al., 2006) and shows that all of the systems have been developed basically to
predict the total energy demand of a building.
EUROCLASS is a recent method developed for the energy rating of buildings
through the European SAVE program. It suggests a theoretical technique that com-
prises all specific energy uses and treats energy normalization in a new manner.
It proposes a new framework based on the use of “the relative frequency distri-
bution curves for the different end users of the energy” (Santamouris, 2005, P71).
The variables which are determined to grade a building are “total supplied energy”
(kWh/m2 ) and “total delivered energy” (kWh/m3 ). These variables can be obtained
from two protocols: the Billed Energy Protocol (BEP) and the Monitored Energy
Protocol (MEP). Each of these protocols provides useful information for carrying
out a rating test of a building in a specific comparison scenario. EUROTARGET is
the software developed within the frame of the EUROCLASS project to apply this
proposed rating methodology for dwellings.
There are a number of studies that propose multi-criteria for a building assess-
ment and rating scheme. These studies include a number of parameters to rank
buildings, such as energy use for heating and cooling, indoor environment quality,
cost, impact on the external environment and the life-cycle of the embodied energy
of construction (Roulet et al., 2002; 2005; Soebarto and Williamson, 2001).
In the study by Soebarto and Williamson (2001) a methodology based on a
weighting method was developed to assist the building design process and assess
a building’s environmental performance in accordance with multi-criteria assess-
ment. This methodology converts the criteria into a two criteria problem by creating
a weighted sum of benefits and costs for each solution. These two functions are
normalized to reflect the average weighting value. An environmental performance
assessment tool, ENE-RATE, was developed on the basis of this method to per-
form environmental ratings. Although this study accepts that thermal comfort in an
unconditioned building should be considered as a criterion for building evaluation,
it does not clarify any method of incorporating that criterion for that purpose.
Roulet et al. (2002) produced a multi-criteria ranking methodology to rate office
buildings. The method employs fuzzy logic on a set of indices, each of which
2.2 Rating Methodologies for Buildings 17

addresses a particular aspect of building performance in the two categories of energy

and comfort. Using a principal components analysis, the energy and comfort param-
eters are combined in a single indicator that globally characterizes the performance
of the building. Annual energy use for heating, cooling and lighting (kwh/m2 ) and
discomfort hours during winter and summer (h) are the criteria used to define this
single indicator. The proposed criteria for indoor environment quality are: predicted
percentage of dissatisfaction based on the Fanger comfort model,8 outdoor airflow
rate per person, and noise level in the working place. Each parameter is given a
weight depending on the scale of values of the user of the method. This method
would not appear to be successful in evaluating thermal comfort conditions in a
naturally ventilated building, because the employed criteria are only applicable for
conditioned buildings. The method can be adapted for use in any multi-criteria rating
scheme.
Regardless of the function of a building, normalised energy use is seen as the
most common method to evaluate the efficiency of a building in the conditioned
operation mode (Chung et al., 2006). This method regards the building’s size and
annual energy use, divided by the conditioned floor area or by volume. There are
shortcomings in this method which make it unrealistic for addressing the efficiency
of an architectural design. This will be discussed later in Sect. 2.4.3.

2.2.1 Building Rating Features

Almost all of the rating schemes address the features of the building’s envelope and
the efficiency of equipment for cooling, heating indoor space, and hot water supply.
Some of them include energy related fixed components such as washing machines,
dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers and dryers. Current tools employed for rating
systems have the capability of calculating heating, cooling, hot water, lighting, and
appliance energy loads. Some of them also predict the energy cost of new and exist-
ing single and multifamily homes, on the basis of the prediction of total energy
requirement, the type of fuel used, and the efficiency of appliances. Occupancy fac-
tors have usually been considered as a default or are standardized; however, a limited
number of ratings tools are flexible enough to change the occupancy variables, such
as the number of occupants and the hours of occupation.
There are many similarities between the different systems. They all use some
combination of data collection and calculation to present information to building
users about energy consumption. Their reliance on calculation is almost inevitable
because of the highly disparate nature of buildings. This utility metric method is,
however, limited in its accuracy, because the amount of energy consumption is so
dependent on occupants’ preferences and occupation time.

8 The Fanger thermal comfort model will be discussed in Chap. 3.

18 2 House Rating Schemes

2.3 Energy as the Main Parameter for Rating Buildings

Energy efficiency is a critical issue for high quality housing. Energy as a measurable
variable not only represents a high percentage of the running cost of a building, but
also has a major effect on the thermal and optical comfort of the occupants.
In some climates it is difficult to have a comfortable indoor condition without an
energy load. As the energy rating of a building can provide specific information on
the energy consumption and the relative energy efficiency of the building, it is then
possible for a potential buyer to have information on the energy bills that are likely
to arise. Through this information the owner of a house may also be able to identify
and pinpoint specific cost-effective improvements. However, in a moderate climate
a successful passive architectural design could provide thermally comfortable con-
ditions, in which occupants do not need heating and cooling devices. In this case
the current energy based rating scheme may fail in its assessment of a building’s
performance.
Whilst environmental issues were the main reason for developing HERS, financ-
ing and marketing have become the major motivations for promoting it. A highly
rated building on the market may be eligible for special recognition through a series
of voluntary or compulsory programs, which increases its value for sale or rental
income. Through HERS, energy-efficient financing is achievable because energy-
efficient houses cost less to operate. For the promotion of HERS, the market needs a
measurable basis for HERS which is attractive enough for the public to apply for it.
Energy and comfort are two parametric options for this purpose, which are related to
each other. Energy, as an expensive parameter, would appear to be the more appro-
priate basis for HERS for marketing purposes, although the provision of comfort
may actually be more expensive. However, in modern society in which the public
are increasingly dependent on energy for the provision of thermal comfort, energy
is seen as a preferable parameter as the basis for HERS.
Connecting HERS and mortgage incentives for energy efficient development
has affected the rating systems in the US (National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Washington, 1992). HERS provides standardized information on the energy per-
formance of homes, and energy-efficient mortgages (EEM) provide a financing
mechanism for energy efficiency. The estimation of energy costs generated by a
reliable HERS is a valuable source of information for facilitating EEM. This objec-
tive has led to the combining of cost- effectiveness and energy efficiency, and so
great attention has been paid to house ratings based on energy usage and its costs.
In addition, predicting ratings on an energy basis helps to choose appropriate
HVAC equipment where heating and cooling plants are a part of building construc-
tion. This creates an opportunity to optimize heating and cooling plants, and also
allows for competition in the market to refine the rated capacity of the size of plant
(Hunt, 2003).
The Australian marketing of rating systems is different from that in the US, the
EU and Canada. In these countries rating schemes have been employed to support
different financial arrangements, while in Australia sustainability and environmen-
tal impact are the main policy drivers of the building rating schemes. Moreover in
2.4 Issues Related to Building Energy Rating Schemes 19

Australia, with most of its population living in its moderate climate zones, HERS
is more amenable to independence from energy and to the provision of thermal
comfort as its basis.

2.4 Issues Related to Building Energy Rating Schemes

2.4.1 Rating and Achievement of Sustainability

Current rating schemes have not been sufficiently complex to address the main
issues of sustainability. It has been argued in the “design paradigm” that buildings
can reverse their environmental impact, and can even have positive impacts over
their whole life cycle. This requires integrating conditions for ecosystem preser-
vation in the building fabric. General ecological criteria must then be added to
any assessment system for sustainable development. However, current building
assessment tools provide only limited support for this issue (Chau et al., 2000).
Sustainability is a design problem rather than a technical problem, but the cur-
rent rating systems are not based on design criteria. Instead, the emphasis is on
predicting the negative impacts of a proposed design, such as the level of energy
consumption, energy cost and GHG emissions. To move toward sustainable devel-
opment, Birkenland (2002) proposed that a building must be designed to interact
with its context beyond the exterior envelope of the building. It appears that no
rating system based on an assessment of energy usage includes all ecologically rel-
evant parameters; not even multi-indicator ratings, such as those described earlier
in Sect. 2.2. However, a few include embodied energy, which is a technical aspect
that can affect the ecosystem. This is one of the reasons for light-weight buildings
being undervalued in the current rating system, while such buildings could actually
contribute to improving sustainability.

2.4.2 Rating Free Running Buildings

Free running buildings cannot be accurately evaluated by the current rating schemes.
Because all existing rating systems assume buildings to be artificially heated and
cooled, they do not deal at all with free running buildings.
When comparing the actual performance of an occupied free running house with
the predicted performance by a rating scheme, Soebarto (2000) demonstrated a low
score from the rating, although her study shows that the house in question per-
formed reasonably well in terms of its indoor comfort condition, energy use and
environmental impact. This reflects the inability of rating systems to assess free
running buildings adequately. The benefits of passive architecture design, there-
fore, may not be properly evaluated, because of the independence of such design
from energy use. Another study on the thermal performance of three award win-
ning houses in Australia (Soebarto et al., 2006), illustrated that the houses did not
20 2 House Rating Schemes

conform to comfort standards and national regulations, in addition to achieving an

unacceptable score in the mandated regulatory rating scheme, while at the same
time the occupants of all the houses were largely satisfied with the houses’ thermal
performances.
These two studies imply that there is a difference between an efficient design for
a free running house, and that for a conditioned house. This issue is examined in
Chap. 4.

2.4.3 Rating Index

Regardless of which method is applied for HERS, an adjusted energy indicator is
employed as an indicator of efficient building design. The chosen indicator plays
an important role in the reliability of the rating designed to assess the thermal
performance of buildings.
Although energy minimization is promoted as an energy efficient building strat-
egy (Boland et al., 2003), low energy usage does not necessarily indicate design
efficiency (Sjosten et al., 2003; Olofsson et al., 2004). Energy consumption can be
relatively low because the building is not occupied most of the time, or the building
amenities are low. Low energy consumption can also be due to efficient appliances.
Since appliances consume a significant proportion of the energy used in a home9
(Environmental Protection Agency, 2000; Office of Energy Efficiency, 2005), highly
efficient equipment can reduce the total energy requirement. This means that the
energy demand of a building can be reduced by using more efficient appliances,
rather than by improving building design.
Furthermore, a normalized energy based rating is not sufficient to convey the
credibility of an energy efficient design. This point has been argued in many studies
(Soebarto, 2000; Williamson, 2000; Meier et al., 2002; Kordjamshidi et al., 2005a).
The concept underlying the definition of energy efficient indicators for policy pur-
poses is discussed in Patterson (1996) and Haas (1997). They show that normalized
energy use is typically derived as annual energy used, divided by the conditioned
floor area or volume. On the basis of this index, a smaller house achieves a poorer
value than a similarly constructed larger house (Thomas and Thomas, 2000), where
in reality reducing house size is an effective way of reducing total energy consump-
tion (Gray, 1998). One of the reasons for this regressive tendency is a physical
phenomenon. Smaller houses have a higher proportion of envelope for a given vol-
ume, and therefore the fabric heat flux per unit of floor area or volume is greater in
smaller houses. A study of project houses in NSW (SOLARCH, 2000) also found
that double storey houses ordinarily could achieve acceptable scores (3.5 stars) with
moderate levels of insulation, while single storey houses, especially smaller houses,
could not easily achieve this rating. Yet according to one study (Luxmoore et al.,

9 Appliances in a home account for 35% of total energy use on average, and up to 50% in a
moderate climate.
2.4 Issues Related to Building Energy Rating Schemes 21

2005), the cooling requirements of larger houses with a high energy rating (5 stars
or more) were found to be significantly higher than those of houses with a low
(3.5) rating, which becomes particularly relevant in the context of predicted global
warming (AGO, 2002).
It is most likely that an appropriate indicator for evaluating the efficiency of
building design could address the issue of the performance of a building inde-
pendent of artificial energy load. In that situation, an improvement in the thermal
performance of a building should reduce the energy requirements for providing a
thermally comfortable space. To fulfil the main objective of HERS, the indicator
should be chosen so as to be related to the prediction of energy requirements, but
not exclusively based on a prediction of energy requirements.
If a building is operated in the conditioned mode, the provision of thermal com-
fort is related to energy consumption. Occupants use energy for space heating or
cooling when the indoor climate does not coincide with thermal comfort. However,
where the indoor environment is naturally comfortable in terms of temperature and
humidity, the need for an active energy load will decrease.
The question then arises as to whether thermal comfort can be used as a basis for
assessing the efficiency of a house design. This is important for assessing the effi-
ciency of a house in entirely free running operation mode, as opposed to assessing
the efficiency of that house in conventional conditioned operation mode on the basis
of energy usage.
The correlation between these two bases: comfort and energy, as indicators of
the efficiency of a house in different operation modes is addressed in Chap. 4.
A probabilistic correlation between thermal comfort and energy requirement does
not necessarily mean that a house designed to be free running (comfort based) is
an equally efficient conditioned house (energy based). This difference can be cru-
cial with regard to the fundamental role of a house rating system which is intended
to influence house performance improvement during the design of a house. This
subject will be addressed in more detail in Chap. 4.

2.4.4 Occupancy Scenarios

Almost all reviewed rating systems designed to evaluate the thermal performance
of buildings in terms of energy efficiency, set a standard scenario for occupants
at the design stage to estimate the annual energy requirements of a building, and
then evaluate the thermal performance of the building on the basis of that estima-
tion. However, a standard set of behavioural assumptions for all possible occupancy
scenarios cannot give an accurate evaluation.
Occupant behaviour is in fact the most significant determinant of actual energy
use. One study suggests that 54% of the variation in energy consumption can be
attributed to the building envelope and 46% to occupants’ behaviour (Sonderegger,
1978). A similar study (Pettersen, 1994) concluded that where inhabitants’
behaviour was unknown, the total predicted energy consumption resulted in +15
to 20% uncertainty, and the range of error for estimated energy heating use was +35
22 2 House Rating Schemes

to 40% in a mild winter climate. A number of studies have gone further and shown
that actual energy performance depends on the way the occupants “use” the build-
ings, and does not necessarily relate to the building design at all (Ballinger et al.,
1991; Haberl et al., 1998). Indeed, “the predicted energy use or energy cost can be
off by 50% or more due to occupant behaviour” (Stein and Meier, 2000).
In a standard occupancy scenario, the parameters such as the number of occu-
pants, period of occupation and thermostat settings for air-conditioners are assumed
to be standard. A standard occupancy scenario seems to be essential in order to sim-
plify comparisons of building performance in similar conditions. However different
occupancy scenarios can result in different grades or values for a building in a rank-
ing system (Kordjamshidi et al., 2009). Some of the systems provide an option to
set the actual number of occupants, but they cannot change the occupied time in a
building when they are set for rating the building.
For instance AccuRate software, programmed for HERS in Australia, sets a
standard scenario for “occupied time”. Living zones are usually considered to be
occupied for 17 h a day between 8 a.m. and midnight, and bed zones to be occupied
for 17 h between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. The “17 h scenario” is extremely effective in pre-
dicting the thermal performance of a house under a conservative possible occupancy
regime, especially when taken together with a completely deterministic estimate of
activation of artificial heating and cooling, regardless of occupants’ behaviour or
climatic seasons.
However, although the occupants’ behaviour is not entirely predictable, a more
realistic estimation could be employed to evaluate a building’s performance and
to estimate energy requirements for space heating and cooling. It is not generally
possible to predict exactly at which times a dwelling is occupied, but defin-
ing multiple occupancy scenarios for rating could result in greater accuracy of
prediction.
Setting a single time for occupation can particularly underestimate the value of
lightweight buildings. In response to the current concerns about occupancy times
and thermostat settings, Boland (2004) noted that “the lightweight dwelling may be
disadvantaged unnecessarily”. Depending on the time of occupation, a lightweight
dwelling may give a better performance because it responds more quickly to temper-
ature changes. This ability, in particular for short period occupation, and particularly
in hot summers, is an advantage that cannot be addressed by a permanent “17 h
occupancy scenario”. The ability of lightweight buildings to achieve a favourable
thermal performance needs therefore to be tested for different durations of occupied
time.
Occupant behaviours are not a predictable factor. Szokolay (1992a) argues that
occupancy factors cannot be taken into account in a rating system because of their
high variability; so that the house itself has to be rated. In contrast, Olofsson et al.
(2004) argue that if the rating is to reflect the energy efficiency of the occupied
building, the actual influence of the users has to be taken into account, for which an
evaluation of users is required.
2.4 Issues Related to Building Energy Rating Schemes 23

2.4.5 Accuracy of HERS

The credibility of HERS depends on its accuracy. However several studies have
demonstrated that the accuracy of energy based rating schemes is questionable. This
situation is mainly due to the variability of occupancy behaviour and the rating
index, as is described above. While the accuracy of rating systems has not been
considered by HERS experts to be the most important barrier to widespread use of
HERS, all agree that accuracy is important for the long-term credibility and success
of this system. A lack of accuracy may eventually impact on some HERS and cause
“irreparable” damage to credibility (Stein, 1997a; Stein and Meier, 2000).
It is clear that while HERS relies on an index of energy, the energy require-
ment cannot be estimated accurately. A comparison by Stein (1997a) between actual
residential energy bills and energy estimation by four different HERS, namely
CHEERS, HERO-Ohio, ERHC-Colorado and Midwest-Kansas, demonstrated a sig-
nificant overestimation (50%) of actual energy cost by CHEERS, and smaller errors
in estimating energy cost or energy use by the other methods. However, interest-
ingly, no clear relationship was observed between rating scores and actual energy
usage. Stein’s case study investigation also showed that it is more difficult to accu-
rately predict energy used in a mild climate than in a severe climate. Stein concluded
that the main reason was the variation in occupants’ behaviour, and suggested that
“incorporating a few pieces of information” about occupants into a rating could
improve its accuracy, while elsewhere he pointed out that “actual usage may vary”
(Stein, 1997b).
A critical aspect of predicting energy consumption, and consequently of the
accuracy of HERS, is determining thermostat settings. All of the current build-
ing rating systems consider standard defaults for thermostat settings, taken from
thermally comfortable conditions in the building standards, based on a particular
strategy. Employing an inappropriate strategy for thermostat settings can effectively
reduce the accuracy of predicting energy requirements. This situation has been
demonstrated to be more critical in a moderate climate, “where the balance between
summer and winter energy consumption is a crucial factor and usually determines
the nature of design advice” (Williamson and Riordan, 1997). Neglecting the effect
of occupants’ behaviour thus also appears to be an issue for thermostat settings in
simulation methods for predicting the energy requirements of buildings.
Another issue is that occupants expect a higher degree of comfort in higher scor-
ing buildings, and this tendency results in higher energy consumption than energy
usage predicted by rating tools. The discrepancy occurs because the rating system
depends on the active energy load, which is variable for different occupants. One
way to deal with this problem could be to make house rating schemes indepen-
dent of energy. Changing the basis of rating from energy to thermal comfort and
evaluating buildings in free running mode could encourage the occupants to reduce
the energy load for space heating and cooling, and to adapt themselves to natural
conditions as far as possible.
24 2 House Rating Schemes

2.4.5.1 The Accuracy of HERS Affected by Occupant Seasonal Behaviour

Ignoring seasonal occupant behaviours that respond to the psychological effect of
cold and hot months also diminishes the accuracy of HERS. To predict the annual
energy requirements in HERS, it is assumed that occupants use energy to maintain
indoor temperature in the comfort range whenever the temperature is outside the
comfort zone. However, in real life, reasonably, there is no tendency for occupants
to mechanically heat a space during summer (hot months) even if the indoor temper-
ature goes down for a few hours. Analogously, the opposite happens for over-heating
periods during winter.
In a study by the author (Kordjamshidi et al., 2005b) it was shown that the sim-
ulation software correctly predicts that during summer the temperature may come
down below the comfort range just between midnight to sunrise, and in winter it may
rise above it around midday for just 2 or 3 h. These two particular conditions not
only are not critical, but psychologically occupants may accept them as desirable.
However, this fact has been ignored in the procedure of calculating or simulating
annual energy demand in dwellings in most software developed for HERS, such as
NatHERS.

2.5 Need for a New Index for Assessing Building

Energy Efficiency
• Rating as ranking
A rating system requires a simplified method of recognition of the complicated
parameters of a building and its occupants. Although estimating energy require-
ments, particularly through simulation programs, seems a simplified method, this
method depends on an active system design for dwellings. Any attempt to achieve
an energy efficient design and to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions
relying only on the active energy load to evaluate a dwelling is not going to pro-
duce satisfactory results, since it encourages the public to acquire conditioned
houses rather than efficient free running ones.
A reliable rating system would be able to rank buildings in order of the effi-
ciency of their design. This is recognised by Soebarto and Williamson (1999)
who claim that “for a HERS mechanism to be sufficient for compliance testing
it is only necessary that the scoring system be relatively correct” and by Stein
(1997a, p. 17), who argues that “the actual numerical scores are not important
as long as the houses are ranked in the correct order”. On the other hand, as the
above discussions show, it is realized that buildings which are designed for energy
conservation in their free running performance cannot achieve a suitable score in
the current rating systems. Therefore, when free running and conditioned build-
ings are ranked in the current rating systems, free running buildings are given
inappropriate placement. This occurs when scoring is dependent on energy con-
sumption ratings. There is, therefore, a need for a new index to be introduced, by
2.6 Summary 25

which the thermal performance of buildings of any design type can be accurately
scored and ranked.
To recapitulate, HERS have not been developed to predict the actual energy
requirements of a house; the estimation of energy requirements is only a basis on
which to make a comparison between the designs of houses for scoring them in
relation to energy consumption. Where energy requirements cannot be predicted
accurately, the scoring will not be a reliable reflection of the rate of efficiency of
houses. If, on the other hand, the efficiency of a house design is to be evaluated on
the basis of its free running performance, a new index would need to be proposed
as the basis for a House Free running Rating Scheme (HFRS).10 Where both
types of performance of a house, conditioned and free running, are important at
the policy level for the development of energy efficiency, then HERS and HFRS
should be aggregated within one framework.
• Metrics, norms and diagnostics
Three elements, namely metrics, norms and diagnostics, are used to evaluate
the thermal performance of buildings. Metrics provides a quantification of the
performance of the relevant components or systems, without indicating the qual-
ity of performance, while they form the basis for developing the norms against
which components or system performance are compared. Diagnostics is a proce-
dure involving measurements and analyses to evaluate performance metrics for a
system or component under functional testing or actual building site conditions.
Metrics used for the evaluation of the free running performance of buildings
can be derived from the indexes of “thermal comfort”. The next chapter reviews
thermal comfort criteria to identify how they can be a reliable basis for a house
rating scheme.

2.6 Summary
HERS are used to evaluate and promote efficient architectural building design.
The most efficient buildings involve architecture design which can provide ther-
mally comfortable indoor conditions for occupants without a mechanical thermal
energy load. This means that the efficiency of a building design should be inves-
tigated in relation to the thermal performance of the building in free running
operation. However, as described in this chapter, energy based ratings cannot at
present deal with free running houses. The development of a House Free running
Rating Scheme (HFRS), therefore, appears necessary in order to promote effi-
cient architecture design and effectively reduce energy requirements in residential
buildings.

10 House Free Running Rating Scheme (HFRS) is a clumsy term in English; however it has been
used in this book to make it consistent with the previous term, “House Energy Rating Scheme
(HERS)” for house ratings.
26 2 House Rating Schemes

With regard to the shortcomings in the current rating schemes (see Sect. 2.4),
the following aspects would need to be addressed to develop a reliable and accurate
building rating scheme:

• Multiple occupancy scenarios, which should be added to the HERS. This would
help to identify the likely better performance of lightweight houses.
• A new index on the basis of thermal comfort should be established as an indicator
for evaluating the thermal performance of free running buildings, to form a basis
for HFRS.
• The psychological effect of seasons on occupants in computing annual energy
requirements should be considered. in order to increase the accuracy of energy
based rating systems.
• Comparisons between the thermal performance of houses in conditioned and free
running operation mode should be studied to see whether designs for free running
houses differ from those for conditioned houses.
• A new framework should be developed for HFRS.
• Since large and double storey houses compared to single storey houses achieve
better scores in current HERS, this comparison needs to be tested for free running
houses.

These subjects will be addressed in the next chapters in this book, by consid-
ering typical residential houses and appropriate tools for evaluating the thermal
performance of these houses in different operation modes.

References
AECB.: Minimising CO2 Emissions from New Homes: a review of how we predict and measure
energy use from new homes (2nd edition): Association for Environment Conscious Building,
available on line: http://www.aecb.net/ (2006)
AGO.: Understanding Greenhouse Science. http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ (2002). Accessed 23
Nov 2005
Allen, D.R.: Canada ratings warming up. Home Energy Magazine Online. Available online:
http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/99/990910.html (1999)
Andersen, P.D., Jorgensen, B.H., Lading, L., Rasmussen, B.: Sensor foresight–technology and
market. Technovation. 24(4), 311–320 (2004)
Ballinger, J.A.: The 5 star design rating system for thermally efficient, comfortable housing in
Australia. Energy Build. 11(1–3), 65–72 (1988)
Ballinger, J.A.: Towards an Energy Rating Scheme for Residential Buildings in the Northern
Territory. Paper presented at a workshop held at Darwin, Australia, 8 May (1991)
Ballinger, J.A.: The Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme for Australia (BDP Environment
Design Guide No.DES 22). Canberra: The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (1998a)
Ballinger, J.A.: The Nationwide House Energy Rating Software (NatHERS) (BDP Environment
Design Guide No.DES 23). Canberra: The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (1998b)
Ballinger, J.A., Cassell, D.: Solar efficient housing and NatHERS: an important marketing tool.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy
Society, Sydney, pp. 320–326 (1994)
References 27

Ballinger, J.A., Samuels, R., Coldicutt, S., Williamson, T.J., D’Cruz, N.: A National Evaluation
of Energy Efficient Houses (No.1274 ERDC Project). Sydney: National Solar Architecture
Research Unit, University of New South Wales (1991)
Barbara, C.F.: Pilot States Program Report: Home Energy Rating Systems and Energy – Efficient
Mortgages (No.NRER/TP- 550- 27722). Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(2000)
Birkenland, J.: Design for Sustainability: A Sourcebook of Ecological Design Solutions. Earthscan,
London (2002)
Boland, J.: Timber Building Construction (N03.1210): The School of Mathematics and Statistics,
University of South Australia (2004)
Boland, J., Kravchuk, O., Saman, W., Kilsby, R.: Estimation of thermal sensitivity of a dwelling to
variations in architectural parameters. Environ. Modell. Assess. 8, 101–113 (2003)
Botsaris, P.N., Prebezanos, S.: A methodology for a thermal energy building audit. Build. Environ.
39(2), 195–199 (2004)
Canada Green Building Council: LEED Canada for home. Canada (2009)
Chau, C.K., Lee, W.L., Yik, F.W.H., Burnett, J.: Towards a successful voluntary building
environmental assessment scheme. Constr. Manage. Econ. 18, 959–968 (2000)
Chung, W., Hui, Y.V., Lam, Y.M.: Benchmarking the energy efficiency of commercial buildings.
Appl. Energy. 83(1), 1–14 (2006)
Cook, G.D., Hackler, R.N., Smith, P.A.: Clothing and laundry techniques to save energy. In
Energy Information Handbook (Energy information document 1028): University of Florida
(1997)
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA): The Government’s Standard
Assessment Procedure for Energy Rating of Dwellings. BRE, Garston, Watford.
www.bre.co.uk/sap2005 (2005). Accessed 15 Jan 2006
Energies-Cites: Energy Management in Municipal Buildings. http://www.display-campaign.org/
IMG/pdf/case-study_odense_en.pdf (2003). Accessed 10 Nov 2007
Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes: Measuring up the Home Energy Ratings.
http://www.est.org.uk/partnership/energy/lead/index.cfm?mode=view&news_id=559 (2006).
Accessed 10th Aug. 2008
Environmental Protection Agency: Energy Efficient Appliances (No. EAP 430-F-97-028). US:
EAP (2000)
Fairey, P., Tait, J., Goldstein, D., Tracey, D., Holtz, M., Judkoff, R.: The HERS Ratings Method
and the Derivation of the Normalized Modified Loads Method (No. FSEC-RR54-00). Florida:
Florida Solar Energy Centre, Cocoa (2000)
Gellender, M.: Energy Rating and/or Energy efficiency standards for new houses: issues and
options for Queensland: Presented at a workshop sponsored by the Queensland Energy
Information Centre (1992)
Gray, E.: NatHERS Effect of Dimension on Star Energy Rating (A report prepared for WA Office
of Energy) (1998)
Haas, R.: Energy efficiency indicators in the residential sector: what do we know and what has to
be ensured? Energy Policy. 25(7–9), 789–802 (1997)
Haberl, J., Bou-saada, T., Reddy, A., Soebarto, V.: An evaluation of residential energy conserva-
tion option using side-by-side measurements of two habitats for humanity houses in Houston,
Texas, Proceedings of the 1998 ACEEE Conference, American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, California (1998)
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., McKenna, H.: Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique. J. Adv.
Nurs. 32(4), 1008–1015 (2000)
Hunt, S.: Focus on Construction Quality, Monthly Newsletter US: IBACOS (2003)
International Energy Agency: IEA ECBCS Annex 36: Energy Concept Adviser for Technical
Retrofit Measures- Energy Audit Procedures. (Jan de Boer ed) December (2003)
Kordjamshidi, M., Khodakarami, J., Nasrollahi, N.: Occupancy scenarios and the evaluation of
thermal performances of buildings, Proceeding of ANZSES conference, Townsville, Australia
(2009)
28 2 House Rating Schemes

Kordjamshidi, M., King, S., Prasad, D.: An Alternative Basis for a Home Energy Rating Scheme
(HERS). Proceedings of PLEA, Environmental sustainability: the challenge of awareness in
developing societies, Lebanon, pp. 909–914 (2005a)
Kordjamshidi, M., King, S., Prasad, D.: Towards the Development of a Home Rating Scheme for
Free Running Buildings. Proceedings of ANZSES, Renewable Energy for a Sustainable Future-
A challenge for a post carbon world. New Zealand. Dunedin University (2005b)
Kotsaki, K. and Sourys, G.: Critical Review and State of the Art of the Existing Rating and
Classification Techniques. Group Building Environmental Studies, University of Athens,
Athens (2000)
Luxmoore, D.A., Jayasinghe, M.T.R., Mahendran, M.: Mitigating temperature increases in high
lot density sub-tropical residential developments. Energy Build. 37(12), 1212–1224 (2005)
Meier, A., Olofsson, T., Lamberts, R.: What is an energy-efficient building? Proceedings of the
ENTAC 2002- IX Meeting of Technology in the Built Environment, Brazil (2002)
Miguez, J.L., Porteiro, J., Lopez-Gonzalez, L.M., Vicuna, J.E., Murillo, S., Moran, J.C. et al.:
Review of the energy rating of dwellings in the European union as a mechanism for sustainable
energy. Renewable Sustain Energy Rev. 10(1), 24–45 (2006)
Mills, E.: Inter-comparison of north American residential energy analysis tools. Energy Build.
36(9), 865–880 (2004)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Washington: A National Program for Energy-Efficient
Mortgages and Home Energy Rating Systems: A Blueprint for Action (No. NREL/TP-261-
4677), Washington, DC (1992)
Office of Energy Efficiency: The State of Energy Efficiency in Canada (No. M141-7/2004).
Canada: The Office of Energy Efficiency of Natural Resources (2005)
Olofsson, T., Meier, A., Lamberts, R.: Rating the energy performance of buildings. Int. J. Low
Energy Sustain. Build. 3, 1–18 (2004)
Patterson, M.G.: What is energy efficiency? Concepts, indicators and methodological issues.
Energy Policy. 24(5), 377–390 (1996)
Pettersen, T.D.: Variation of energy consumption in dwellings due to climate, building and
inhabitants. Energy Build. 21(3), 209–218 (1994)
Richalet, V., Henderson, G.: Europe Union Not Unified on Home Ratings. Home Energy
Magazine Online. http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/99/990911.html (1999, Sep/Oct). Accessed 17
Sep 2007
Richalet, V., Neirac, F.P., Tellez, F., Marco, J., Bloem, J.J.: HELP (house energy labelling
procedure): methodology and present results. Energy Build. 33(3), 229–233 (2001)
Roulet, C.-A., Flourenttzos, F., Santamouris, M., Koronaki, I., Daskalaki, E., Richalate, V.: ORME-
Office Building Rating Methodology for Europe (Office Project Report). University of Athens
(1999)
Roulet, C.-A., Flourentzou, F., Labben, H.H., Santamouris, M., Koronaki, I., Dascalaki, E. et al.:
ORME: A multicriteria rating methodology for buildings. Build. Environ. 37(6), 579–586
(2002)
Roulet, C.A., Johner, N., Oostra, B., Foradini, F., Aizlewood, C., Cox, C.: Multi-criteria analysis
of health, comfort and energy efficiency of buildings, The 10th International Conference on
Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Beijing, pp. 1174–1178 (2005)
Santamouris, M.: Energy Retrofit of Office Buildings. Athens: CIENE; University of Athens
(1995)
Santamouris, M.: Energy Performance of Residential Buildings: A Practical Guide for Energy
Rating and Efficiency. James & James, Earthscan, UK, USA (2005)
Santamouris, M., Dascalaki, E.: Passive retrofitting of office buildings to improve their energy
performance and indoor environment: the OFFICE project. Build. Environ. 37(6), 575–578
(2002)
Santamouris, M., Mihalakakou, G., Patargias, P., Gaitani, N., Sfakianaki, K., Papaglastra, M. et al.:
Using intelligent clustering techniques to classify the energy performance of school buildings.
Energy Build. 39(1), 45–51 (2007)
References 29

Sjosten, J., Olofsson, T., Golriz, M.: Heating energy use simulation for residential buildings, Eight
International IBPSA Conference, Eindhoven, Netherlands, pp. 1221–1226 (2003)
Soebarto, V.I.: A Low-Energy House and a Low Rating: What is the Problem, Proceedings of
the 34th Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association,
Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 111–118 (2000)
Soebarto, V.I., Williamson, T.J.: Design orientated performance evaluation of buildings, Building
Simulation ‘99. Sixth International IBPSA Conference, Kyoto, Japan. International Building
Performance Simulation Association, pp. 225–232 (1999)
Soebarto, V.I., Williamson, T.J.: Multi-criteria assessment of building performance: theory and
implementation. Build. Environ. 36(6), 681–690 (2001)
Soebarto, V., Williamson, T., Radford, A., Bennetts, H.: The performance of award winning houses,
The 23rd Conference on PLEA, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 855–860 (2006)
SOLARCH: Project Homes: House Energy Rating, New South Wales Industry Impact Study
(A report prepared for the Sustainable Energy Development Authority): University New South
Wales (2000)
Sonderegger, R.C.: Movers and stayers: the resident’s contribution to variation across houses in
energy consumption for space heating. Energy Build. 1(3), 313–324 (1978)
SRC: Review of Home Energy Rating Schemes: Findings and Recommendation (No. 03-412-
8900). Melbourne, Victoria: SRC Australia Pty Ltd (1991)
Stein, J.R.: Accuracy of Home Energy Rating Systems (No. 40394). US: Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (1997a)
Stein, J.R.: Home Energy Rating Systems: Actual Usage May Vary. Home Energy Magazine
Online. http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/97/970910.html (1997b, Sep/Oct). Accessed 10 May
2007
Stein, J.R., Meier, A.: Accuracy of home energy rating systems. Energy. 25(4), 339–354 (2000)
Szokolay, S.: An energy rating system for houses. In Energy-efficient Ratings and Standards
for New Houses. Brisbane: Queensland Energy Information Centre Department of Resource
Industries (1992a)
Szokolay, S.V.: HERS: Proposal for a Nationwide Home Energy Rating Scheme (report to Dept.
of Primary Industries and Energy) (1992b)
Thomas, P.C., Thomas, L.: A study of an energy consumption index normalised for area in house
energy rating schemes. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Australian and
New Zealand Solar Energy Society: From Fossils to Photons Renewable Energy Transforming
Business, Brisbane, pp. 113–121 (2000)
Turrent, D., Mainwaring, J.: Saving energy on the rates. RIBA J. 85–86 (1990, September)
US Department of Energy: Model Energy Code Compliance Guide Version 2.0: Us Department of
Energy Building Standards and Guidelines Program (1995)
US Department of Energy: Building Energy Software Tools Directory. http://apps1.eere.energy.
gov/buildings/tools_directory/subjects_sub.cfm (2009). Accessed 13 Nov 2009
Wathen, G.: Energy-efficient Rating Schemes and Building Standards in Victoria. In Energy-
efficient Ratings and Standards for New Houses. Papers presented at a workshop sponsored
by the Queensland Energy Information Centre, April 29, 1992, pp 1–16 (1992)
Williamson, T.J.: A critical review of home energy rating in Australia, Proceedings of the 34th
Conference of the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association, Adelaide,
South Australia, pp. 101–109 (2000)
Williamson, T., Riordan, P.: Thermostat strategies for discretionary heating and cooling of
dwellings in temperate climates. Proceeding of 5th IBPSA Building simulation Conference,
Prague: International Building Performance Simulation Association, pp. 1–8 (1997)
Zmeureanu, R., Fazio, P., DePani, S., Calla, R.: Development of an energy rating system for
existing houses. Energy Build. 29(2), 107–119 (1999)
Chapter 3
Thermal Comfort

The question of how to establish thermal comfort as a basis for HRS is a broad
subject. The extent to which a dwelling can provide thermally comfortable condi-
tions for its occupants is determined from the difference between prevailing weather
conditions and the desired comfort condition. The desired comfort condition is
therefore determined in the context of climate.
This chapter reviews general aspects of thermal comfort and approaches to
measuring thermal comfort for the assessment of naturally ventilated buildings.
It proposes an appropriate indicator as a basis for building performance assessment
in the free running operation mode, and then establishes thermal comfort bound-
aries in specified moderate climates to be used in the evaluation of the free running
performance of houses.

3.1 Thermal Comfort

The main objective of any effort to develop energy efficient buildings is the provi-
sion of thermal comfort with minimum energy consumption, by employing climatic
building design. One of the key points is to ensure that occupants’ thermal comfort is
not sacrificed in order to reduce energy requirements. Therefore any assessment sys-
tem to evaluate the efficiency of a particular building needs to consider the criterion
of thermal comfort as the context for its evaluation of building performance.
The objective of this section is to substantiate the criterion of thermal comfort for
evaluating the thermal performance of buildings. It first reviews many definitions of
thermal comfort in the building sector to determine the most appropriate one for
this study. Secondly, it reviews the main variables which impact on the provision
and affect the sensation of thermal comfort, in order to specify the main parameters
that should be considered in evaluating the performance of a building on this basis.
The third and more important section is a review of the current standards, in order to
select an appropriate indicator of thermal comfort on which building performance
can be evaluated.

M. Kordjamshidi, House Rating Schemes, Green Energy and Technology, 31

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5_3, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
32 3 Thermal Comfort

3.1.1 Definition of Thermal Comfort

Numerous definitions of thermal comfort have been proposed by various researchers
(Fanger, 1970; Givoni, 1976; Watt, 1963; O’Callaghan, 1978; Benzinger, 1979;
Hensen, 1990; Ihab, 2002; Chappells and Shove, 2004). Generally thermal comfort
is defined as “that condition of mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal
environment” (ASHRAE, 2001). Owing to biological variance, it is not possible for
everyone to be satisfied at the same time and in the same climate. Therefore some
subjective criteria need to be applied in order to establish optimal comfort. Fanger
(1970) suggests an optimal thermal condition as being one in which the highest
possible percentage of a group is in thermal comfort. Optimal thermal condition is
defined as a state in which there is no driving impulse to correct the environment by
behaviour. Thermal comfort is interpreted by Givoni (1976) as the absence of irrita-
tion and discomfort due to heat or cold, and the state of pleasantness. Hensen (1990)
detailed the causes of dissatisfaction in terms of the whole body’s being too warm
or cold, as well as unwanted heating or cooling in a part of the body (local body).
Benzinger (1979) examined thermal comfort in terms of “ideal” thermal comfort
and relative or “mixed” comfort.
A universal definition of comfort is almost impossible because of people’s vari-
able preferences, and the particular characteristics of different climates which affect
the sensation of thermal comfort. A condition in which 80–90% of occupants feel
thermally comfortable is accepted as a standard universal term. The specification
of that condition depends on the parameters or variables which impact on thermal
comfort. Theses parameters are described in the following section.

3.1.2 Human Comfort and Variables Affecting Thermal Comfort

Human life requires a deep – body temperature of between 35 and 40◦ C, for which
37◦ C is the proxy mean. Skin temperature is normally between 31 and 34◦ C. If heat
is to be lost, then the temperature of the surrounding environment must be less than
skin temperature.
The most important variable to determine human comfort is air temperature.
However this is not the only indicator. A number of factors influence the various
heat exchange processes on the body surface which affect the sensation of comfort
or discomfort (Szokolay, 1980). These factors are divided into two groups: environ-
mental “climatic” and “non-climate” factors. The main environmental parameters
have been identified as:

• Air temperature
• Humidity
• Air velocity
• Radiation (Parsons, 2003; Szokolay, 2004)
3.1 Thermal Comfort 33

In addition, there are other factors involved, such as draught, a high vertical
temperature difference between head and ankles, or too high radiant temperature
asymmetry. Increasing temperature always causes a corresponding change in the
thermal sensation.
The impact of humidity on the human thermal comfort balance is complex. It
has no significant effect on thermal comfort unless temperatures are very high or
low. It has been demonstrated that up to about 27◦ C a sedentary subject could
not experience any difference between relative humidities of 30 and 80% in
their subjective sensations (Givoni, 1998). At a comfortable temperature perspi-
ration is not important, but the heat dissipation mechanism is important at high
temperatures.
The rate of evaporation of perspiration depends on the absolute humidity of the
surroundings. High proportions of humidity (above 12 g/kg) can cause unpleasant
sensations because of restricting evaporation and consequently its cooling effect.
Low humidity (generally less than 4 g/kg) can cause drying out of mucous mem-
branes. Thus the effect of humidity on the sensation of thermal comfort cannot be
ignored in a climate, in which the relative humidity (RH) is higher much of the time
than the acceptable range.
Air movement around the body convectively transfers heat and causes cooling.
Still air surrounding the body produces a thin insulation layer around the body. Air
movement reduces the thickness of this insulation and so provides a cooling effect.
It is an important mechanism for removing heat generated by the body, particularly
when the level of humidity is high. Increasing air velocity decreases the amount
of moisture held in the air around the body and results in increasing evaporation
(ASHRAE, 1981).
The beneficial effect of air velocity therefore should not be ignored in an effi-
cient design, particularly in a humid climate, as it can significantly reduce cooling
energy requirements. This is a key point in designing for free running buildings.
The employment of a specific strategy to provide maximum air circulation in indoor
spaces should be one of the design priorities for free running buildings in a moderate
climate with relative high humidity.
The thermal sensation experienced by a subject in an environment is significantly
affected by the radiative heat exchange between the human body and the surround-
ing surfaces. This contributes as much as 30% of the whole thermal exchanges of
the subject (La Gennusa et al., 2005).
Mean Radiant Temperature (MRT) is used to define the average temperature of
all surfaces in a given space to which the body is exposed. The MRT is twice as
important as the dry bulb temperature for lightly clothed people, while in cooler
climates these two temperatures are equally important. Olgyay (1963) in his bio-
climatic chart showed the interaction of the four main environmental factors for
thermal comfort, and used a 0.8◦ C increase in the mean radiant temperature to adjust
to a 1◦ C decrease in the dry bulb temperature. This chart, however, has been revised
and has become more complicated in later more sophisticated studies. The most
well-known is found in the ASHRAE standard.
34 3 Thermal Comfort

The interaction between the above four climatic variables is what makes an
indoor environment thermally comfortable or uncomfortable. Givoni (1998) notes
that heat discomfort inside buildings is correlated generally with “environmental
temperature” and air speed over the body. Environmental temperature is the com-
bined effect of the air temperature and mean radiant temperature of the enclosure.
If the air and mean radiant temperature are not the same, the globe temperature is
a convincing measure of the resulting environmental temperature. Environmental
temperature would therefore appear to be a more appropriate indicator than only
air temperature as one of the factors for evaluating the degree of comfort of indoor
conditions.
There are certain other, “non-climate”, factors which can affect how comfort-
able a person feels in a given situation, such as: age (Mayer, 1993; Young, 1991;
Young and Lee, 1997), clothing, acclimatisation, sex (Chung and Tong, 1990; Lee
and Choi, 2004; Nakano et al., 2002; Parsons, 2001), health and activity (Parsons,
2003; Yoshida et al., 2000), and subcutaneous fat.
While the geographic location would seem to have an influence on thermal sen-
sation, Parsons (2003) argues that this has not been shown to be the case in some
research. He refers to the observation of various studies (Ellis, 1953; Fanger, 1970)
that found no significant difference between conditions preferred by subjects in dif-
ferent geographical locations. However, it should be noted that the results of those
studies were obtained for occupants in conditioned buildings and not free running,
naturally ventilated ones, and, as will be explained later, in the case of the latter
geographical location is relevant.
The sensation of comfort depends on the activity, physiology and thermoregu-
latory system of the body (Gagge et al., 1937; Yaglou, 1927; Winslow, Herrington
and Gagge, 1937; Fanger, 1967; Gagge et al., 1967; McNall et al., 1967; Gagge,
1973). The level of an occupant’s activity can be roughly predicted by noting a
building’s function. For instance, in office buildings occupants can be considered
to be sedentary with a low level of activity (1–1.2 met). However, the variation of
activity in residential buildings is not predictable. Because of this unpredictability
and the type clothing worn in the residential sector, the criteria for comfort condi-
tions for this type of building may differ from those in buildings such as offices. It
was observed by de Dear et al. (1997) that although there were distinct differences
in the degree of behavioural thermoregulatory adjustment made by residential build-
ing occupants compared to those in office buildings, there were no discernibly sharp
differences in occupants’ evaluations of the building’s indoor climatic quality. Thus,
in at least some situations, the criteria of thermal comfort for residential buildings
can be considered to be similar to those in office buildings.

3.1.3 Thermal Comfort Models and Standards

Over the past 100 years many research efforts have been devoted to developing
indexes and models predicting the thermal sensation of people. Thermal comfort
prediction models generally are mathematical models of the relationship between
3.1 Thermal Comfort 35

one or more environmental factors and certain occupant factors. The main aim
of comfort models is to provide a single index that encompasses all relevant
parameters.
Thermal models of the human body and its interaction with the surrounding
thermal environment are often proposed and used as the basis of thermal comfort
standards. Comfort standards rely on such models of human thermal comfort to
establish the interior environmental conditions they prescribe, and to provide a sin-
gle index that encompasses all the relevant physical parameters. The two basic types
are empirical and theoretical. A review of the development of these two types and
their details for measuring thermal comfort has appeared in “Thermal Comfort”
(Auliciems and Szokolay, 1997) and Proceedings of “Moving Thermal Comfort
Standards into the twenty-first century” (2001). The models that have been devel-
oped vary from a simple linear equation relative to an indoor comfort temperature,
to outdoor dry bulb temperature, to complex algorithms. Both simple and complex
models have limitations for use in establishing standards. These limitations affect
the accuracy of any system, such as a simulation that employs such models, as well
as affecting the accuracy of the inputs to the model (Jones, 2001). The point is
that the most complex models are not always the most accurate, and the simplest
are not always the easiest to use. However, the simpler index is most likely to find
widespread practical application (Holm and Engelbrecht, 2005). The accuracy of
the model depends to what purpose it has been used for.
The most notable models have been those developed by Fanger (1967, 1970),
the Pierce Foundation (the Pierce two-node mode) originally developed by Gagge
et al. (1971), and that of researchers at Kansas State University (The KSU two-node
model) (Azer and Hsu, 1977). The theory behind these three models is described by
Berglund (1978). All three models are based on the concept of an energy balance
in a person, and use the mechanism of energy exchange, along with physiological
parameters that were derived experimentally to predict the thermal sensation and the
physiological response of a person to their environment. The models differ in the
criteria which are used to predict thermal sensation, physiological models for heat
transfer from the body, and the human control system. Among these three models,
Fanger’s model appears to be the most commonly used in academic research, the
development of software and the establishment of standards.
ASHRAE standard 55 (2004) and ISO 7730 (1995) have been widely adopted
as international thermal comfort standards. These standards are based on a human
energy balance obtained by assuming steady-state conditions. Those are deduced
from the experiments conducted by Fanger (1970) in climatic chambers, using pre-
dicted mean vote (PMV) and Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied (PPD) to estimate
the human mean response to the thermal environment from six thermal vari-
ables. These related indices are based on a combination and interaction between
environmental and personal parameters as follows:

• Environmental parameters comprise:

– air temperature
– radiant temperature or globe temperature
36 3 Thermal Comfort

– air velocity
– air relative humidity (RH) or vapour pressure

• Personal parameters that are related to occupant adaptability to the local climate
comprise:

– metabolic rate
– clothing insulation

However, it has been demonstrated that ISO 7730 and PMV/PPD overestimate
warm discomfort (de Dear et al., 1997; Humphreys and Nicol, 1995; Karynono,
1996; Williamson et al., 1995).
ASHRAE provides the recognized world standard for thermal comfort in interior
environments. This standard sets a narrow temperature zone in which 80–90% of
slightly active people would find the environment thermally acceptable. However
thermal discomfort is often reported by a large percentage of occupants in offices
when the thermal environment complies with the recommendations in the stan-
dards (Melikov, 2004). This is related to the variability of occupants’ preferences.
Personality differences in preferred air temperature may be as great as 10◦ C (Grivel
and Candas, 1991). Occupants’ preferences for air movement may differ by more
than four times (Melikov, 1996).
A thermal comfort zone is typically determined on a psychometric chart which
is related to the air temperature and humidity. A combination of humidity and air
temperature to determine the breadth of the comfort zone appears in (ET∗ ) index
(ASHRAE, 2003).

3.1.4 Applicability of the Thermal Comfort Index for Naturally

Ventilated Buildings
Arguably the most widely accepted index of thermal sensation is Fanger’s “pre-
dicted mean vote” (PMV) (1970), which is the main index of comfort in ASHRAE
Standard 55. This comfort index was developed on the basis of the physics of heat
transfer, combined with an empirical fit to sensation, and based on the steady state.
It is known to be a complicated equation because of the need to consider the main
factors (personal and environmental) affecting thermal comfort. Although it is the
most appropriate thermal index for buildings with an environmental control sys-
tem, there are some features which limit its applicability. The PMV model does
not include the effect of solar radiation through windows on the occupant. It only
includes the mean radiant temperature of a space in its computation. Thus discom-
fort caused by window radiation cannot be predicted by this model. This problem
is addressed by Lyons et al. (1999; 2006), who proposed a solar correction factor
when calculating PPD.
The steady state condition, on the basis of which the PMV model was developed,
makes it inapplicable to free running houses. This has been demonstrated by many
3.1 Thermal Comfort 37

studies, particularly by de Dear (Baker and Standeven, 1996; Brager and de Dear,
1998; de Dear et al., 1997; Forwood, 1995; Humphreys, 1975; Nicol and Aulicien,
1994; de Dear and Brager, 1998; Brager and de Dear, 2000; Brager and de Dear,
2001; de Dear and Brager, 2001; de Dear and Brager, 2002; Humphreys and Fergus
Nicol, 2002; de Dear, 2004). These studies share many of the concerns about the
inapplicability of a laboratory based index to free running buildings.
Because of the strict application of steady state conditions, the index exaggerates
the percentage of dissatisfied people if it is used for naturally ventilated buildings,
and where indoor temperature is controlled manually by the occupants accord-
ing to their feelings. People in real situations show a wider range of preferences
than they do in laboratory experiments. A review of thermal comfort standards by
Lovins (1992) showed that the comfort model developed from chamber research is
“seriously flawed”, basically because it overlooks factors such as acclimatization,
dependence and physiological variables among individuals. It has also been argued
that strict reliance on laboratory-based comfort standards ignores important con-
textual influences that can decrease sensitivity to a given set of thermal conditions
(Brager and de Dear, 1998). A number of case studies (Bouden and Ghrab, 2005;
Feriadi and Wong, 2004; Wong et al., 2002) have also shown a significant devia-
tion between thermal comfort sensation in naturally ventilated buildings and what
PMV predicts. From an exhaustive analysis of all reported research from both nat-
urally ventilated and HVAC controlled buildings, de Dear et al. (1997) concluded
that while a mechanistic model of heat transfer may well describe the responses of
people within a controlled indoor thermal environment, it is “inapplicable to natu-
rally ventilated premises because it only partially accounts for processes of thermal
adaptation to indoor climate”.
The heat balance model ignores the psychological adaptation of occupants to a
natural climate, and the fact that the tolerance of occupants in free running building
is wider than in conditioned buildings. Thermal sensation, satisfaction, and accept-
ability are all influenced by the match between one’s expectations about the indoor
climate in a special context and what the actual outdoor environment is (Fountain
et al., 1996). de Dear and Hart (2002, p. 1) sums this up by stating that this model
“. . .ignores the psychological dimension of adaptation which may be particularly
important in contexts where people’s interactions with the environmental (i.e. per-
sonal thermal comfort), or diverse thermal experiences, may alter their expectations,
and thus their thermal sensation and satisfaction. One context where these factors
play a particularly important role is in naturally ventilated buildings.”
de Dear and Hart (2002) points out that the environmental inputs to conventional
heat balance thermal comfort models, such as PMV, have been taken from the indoor
environment surrounding the building occupants. Such models also need the user to
have information on the occupants’ clothing insulation (clo) and metabolic rates.
These last parameters are often difficult to estimate in the field, particularly for the
use of free running house rating, in which we need to consider identical conditions
for occupants in order to obtain a reliable comparison between dwellings.
A study by Brager and de Dear (2000) clearly showed that thermal sensation
based on PMV does not correspond with that for naturally ventilated buildings. This
38 3 Thermal Comfort

study developed the following model, which shows how people felt too warm or too
cool in conditioned buildings as compared to naturally ventilated buildings. It was
found that the occupants of centralized HVAC buildings were twice as sensitive to
deviations in temperature as were occupants of naturally ventilated buildings.

TS = 0.51 Top − 11.96 (Centralized HAVC buildings) (3.1)

TS = 0.27 Top − 6.65 (Naturally ventilated buildings) (3.2)

In which:

TS = mean thermal sensation, which represents a vote on the seven point

thermal sensation (PMV).
Top = mean indoor operative temperature

Figure 3.1 illustrates a comparison between the thermal sensation of occupants

of a naturally ventilated building and a building with centralized HAVC, based on
the Brager models. It reveals a greater difference between the thermal sensations
in the discomfort temperature range. It would appear from her comparison that
any model developed for evaluation of the thermal performance of a conditioned
building cannot be applied for the evaluation of a free running building.
An extension of the PMV model that includes an “expectancy” factor was added
by Fanger and Toftum (2002) to the PMV index, to make it applicable for use in non-
air-conditioned buildings in warm climates. This model accorded well with some
field studies in warm climates, but its applicability for other climates needs to be
examined further. To extend such a PMV model for naturally ventilated buildings,
more research needs to be done before any practical implications can be drawn.

40
35
Temperature (ºC)

30
25
20 HVAC
15
10 NV
5
0
–3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Thermal sensation

Fig. 3.1 Comparison of PMV for conditioned and free running buildings based on the de Dear
study
3.1 Thermal Comfort 39

3.1.5 Adaptive Thermal Comfort Models for Naturally

Ventilated/Free Running Buildings
The adaptive thermal comfort index has been developed through several investi-
gations using “real” people engaged in “real” tasks in “real” built environments
rather than in laboratory experiments. A number of studies have shown a correla-
tion between outdoor temperature and thermally comfortable indoor condition for
naturally ventilated buildings. “Meta-studies” of thermal comfort field studies have
shown that indoor comfort temperature as felt by the occupants is a function of
the mean outdoor temperature (Auliciems and de Dear, 1986; Brager and de Dear,
1998; de Dear et al., 1993; Nicol and Aulicien, 1994; Nicol and Roaf, 1996; de
Dear and Brager, 1998). This means that we can relate indoor comfort tempera-
ture to climate, region and seasons. For free running buildings and according to
different surveys conducted under different climatic conditions, Humphreys (1976),
reviewing the available field data, found a strong statistical dependence of ther-
mal neutrality on the mean level of air or globe temperature. He found (1978) that
the comfort temperature can be obtained from the mean outdoor temperature with
Eq. (3.3)

Tn = 0.534T + 11.9 (3.3)

Auliciems (1981) revised Humphreys’ equation by deleting some field stud-

ies, such those with children as the subjects, and adding more information from
other studies not included by Humphreys. These revisions increased the database
to 53 separate field studies in various climatic zones, covering more countries
and more climates. After combining the data for naturally ventilated and air-
conditioned buildings, the analysis led to an equation involving both the outdoor
air temperature (To ) and the indoor air temperature (Ti ). The resulting equation is
(Eq. 3.4):

Tc = 0.48Ti + 0.14To + 9.22 (3.4)

Auliciems and de Dear (1986) have also proposed a single line for all buildings,
covering naturally ventilated buildings and air-conditioned buildings. This relation
is given by Eq. (3.5)

Tc = 0.31To + 17.6 (3.5)

Nicol and Roaf (1996) has conducted several surveys under different climatic
conditions. In a first survey in Pakistan he established a relation between comfort
temperature and outdoor temperature given by Eq. (3.6).

Tc = 0.38To + 17.0 (3.6)

40 3 Thermal Comfort

In a second survey in Pakistan (Nicol et al., 1999), he developed a second

regression given by Eq. (3.7).

Tc = 0.36To + 18.5 (3.7)

These relations show clearly that the comfort temperature is related to the outdoor
temperature and so to the climate. A regression has been developed in the function
of outdoor ET∗ (Effective Temperature) (de Dear et al., 1997). The equation for all
buildings is:

Tn = 20.9 + 0.16 ET* (3.8)

And for free running buildings is:

Tn = 18.9 + 0.255 ET* (3.9)

According to De Dear and Hart (2002) the adaptive comfort model which was
formulated in terms of mean monthly outdoor air temperature is more applicable
and familiar than ET∗ to engineers.
. . . .It was agreed by every one on SSPC 551 that ET∗ is primarily an index used by
researchers, and that practitioners would be more likely to use ACS2 if the meteorological
input data was a more familiar and accessible index. The ACS was therefore reformulated
in terms of mean monthly outdoor air temperature, defined simply as the arithmetic average
of the mean daily minimum and main daily maximum outdoor (dry bulb) temperatures for
the month in question. This climate data is readily available and familiar to engineers. (De
Dear and Hart, 2002, p. 557).

Tcomf = 0.31Ta,out + 17.8 (3.10)

The above studies have demonstrated a line of best fit through data analyses.
Figure 3.2 collects these lines together. Variations can be seen between these studies,
particularly between the first study by Humphreys and the last work, done by de
Dear. The two lines intersect at a thermal neutrality of 25◦ C. These measures of
temperature are only the same when the relative humidity is 50%, but a discrepancy
exists at other levels of humidity. The reasons for this lie in the type of buildings
and the characteristics of occupants, such as their physiological, psychological and
cultural features. Although the field investigations seem to cover different countries,
this particular issue needs more research to show the probability of the effect of
culture on thermal sensation and energy consumption.
Although the best correlation is shown between the adaptive comfort models
and thermal sensation in naturally ventilated buildings, a more complex index in
which all effective environmental and personal factors would be included, needs to

1 SSPC 55 is the ASHRAE committee in charge of revising thermal comfort standards.

2 ACT Adoptive Comfort Standard.
3.1 Thermal Comfort 41

35 Humphry model

30 Auliciems model

Nicol and Roaf

25
Thermal neutrality

model

20 de Dear model(for
free running based
15 on ET*)

de Dear model
10
(based on Dbt)

5 de Dear model (for

conditioned based on
0 ET*)
–5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
de Dear model (for
Mean monthly air temperature all type based on
ET*)

Fig. 3.2 Thermal neutrality models, which show the correlation between thermal neutrality and
mean monthly outdoor temperature (DBT)

be developed for free running houses. This model does not include human clothing
or activity, nor the four classical thermal parameters that have a significant impact
on the human heat balance and therefore on thermal sensation. However, the model
should be applicable where there is no other completed model developed for free
running buildings.

3.1.6 Acceptable Thermal Conditions in Free Running Buildings

Based on the ASHRAE Standard

ASHRAE (2004) introduced an acceptable operative temperature range for natu-

rally conditioned buildings, based on de Dear’s adaptive model. It is applicable for
spaces with operable windows that can be opened to the outdoors and adjusted by
the occupants. In this model, metabolic rates range from 1.0 to 1.3 met. Although
“no humidity or air limits are required” in the application of this model, one cannot
ignore the effect of humidity and air ventilation on the sensation of thermal comfort,
particularly in warm and high humid climates.

3.1.7 Applicability of the Adaptive Comfort Model for Free

Running Residential Buildings
The applicability of the adaptive comfort standard in residential buildings is a chal-
lenge, since defining the criteria of thermal comfort in such buildings is problematic
42 3 Thermal Comfort

35

Indoor operative temperature

Tn
y = 0.31 x + 14.7
30 Tn %90(up
band)
25 Tn %90(low
band)
Tn %80(up
20 band)
Tn %80(low
15 band)
Linear (Tn)
10
–5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mean outdoor temperature

Fig. 3.3 Adaptive thermal comfort standard (ACS), applied for naturally ventilated buildings in
ASHRAE 55-2004. Based on (ASHRAE, 2004)

owing to the substantial variability of occupants’ behaviour. The adaptive comfort

standard has emerged from many studies done basically on office buildings, in which
the scenario of occupancy in terms of occupation time, of where occupants sit, and
of the level of activity and of clothes is predictable. However, due no doubt to the
wide variety of occupant behaviour in residential buildings, no comfort model has
been developed specifically for residential buildings.
A study by the Davis Energy Group (2004) presents the reasons for which the
thermal performance of a residential building are most likely to differ from the
developed standards, including adaptive models. The differences are said to be
owing to the following factors:

• activity
• size of population
• steady-state assumption
• assumption of natural ventilation or HVAC but not a combination of both
• minimisation of “circumstantial restraints”.

The report highlights that “finding some agreement on input conditions to gen-
erate a comfort zone for more than one conditioned zone and for all occupants is a
challenge” (Davis Energy Group, 2004, p. 7). While a comfort model is developed
for the sedentary activity of office work, it does not apply to bed zones or to children,
the elderly and disabled people, who would be considered as among the occupants.
Furthermore, the number of occupants varies for different families, which may influ-
ence the thermal conditions of how a house performs. Individuals for many different
reasons vary in their comfort preferences and all variations cannot be predicted for
residential buildings. A thermal condition of a house “tends to cycle through great
flux in internal gains and external gains”. However, a standard cannot address the
effect of this cycle on thermal comfort in adaptive models. An adaptive model is
only suitable for buildings with no mechanical condition at all; it is not applica-
ble for houses with combined systems. Occupants in residential buildings have a
3.2 Evaluation of a Residential Building’s Thermal Performance 43

wide flexibility in choice for clothing, activity and location to adjust themselves
to indoor conditions in order to become comfortable. The concept “circumstantial
restriction”, which is described by Humphreys and Nicol (1998), and considered by
them to develop comfort models for predominantly non-domestic settings, may not
be observed in houses.
In spite of the above argument, the adaptive comfort model appears to be more
applicable for free running houses than other thermal comfort models, since there is
no established model developed for residential buildings. The main advantage of the
adaptive model which makes it applicable for free running houses is that it respects
the effect of acclimatization. Acclimatization is the main parameter that influences
the evaluation of thermal performance of a house through its effect on the behaviour
of occupants. This might be a reason for differences between the evaluations of
thermal performance of a house in different operation modes

3.2 Evaluation of a Residential Building’s Thermal Performance

on the Basis of Thermal Comfort
The evaluation of the thermal indoor climate of a building in terms of human
comfort response can be classified by the percentage of satisfied or dissatisfied occu-
pants. This method has been employed in ISSO (2004) and two other studies (Olesen
et al., 2006; van der Linden et al., 2006) that categorise buildings into three differ-
ent groups: A, B and C. Level A corresponds to 90% thermal acceptability, and is
applied to buildings with high performance for thermal comfort. Level B is defined
as corresponding to 80% thermal acceptability, meaning good indoor thermal com-
fort, and finally 65% thermal acceptability is labelled level C and can be applied in
temporary situations to existing buildings.
As the scope of thermal comfort for a conditioned house differs from that for a
free running house, methods and criteria to determine thermal acceptability should
be determined in relation to the house operation mode. ISSO, 2004 relies on the
Fanger model (PMV) and other studies based on the indoor operative temperature
as a function of mean monthly outdoor air temperature.
However, this method is limited to only three categories, and does not differen-
tiate between buildings with thermal performance below 65% thermal acceptance.
Moreover, it has been developed for office buildings, and its applicability to residen-
tial buildings needs to be examined further. These restrictions make it inapplicable
for the purpose of evaluating house performance for a house rating scheme.
The thermal performance of buildings can also be evaluated by employing the
“degree hour” method. A degree hour is the amount of time spent above or below
a standard reference thermal comfort zone during an hour. This method is used
to express the length of time and how far the indoor temperature falls below or
above the comfort temperature. It can be used to evaluate or predict a building’s per-
formance and to estimate the annual energy requirement of buildings (Buyukalaca
et al., 2001; De Dear and Hart, 2002; Christenson et al., 2005).
44 3 Thermal Comfort

An important issue in employing this method for the thermal performance evalua-
tion of buildings is the method of summing up the length of time that the com-
fort range is exceeded, because the value of different degree hours is not the
same. For this purpose, weighting factors are proposed by some sources (Inter-
national Standards Organisation, 2003; ISSO, 1990; Olesen, 2004), and in the GBA
(Government Buildings Agency) in the Netherlands, as described in van der Linden
(van der Linden et al., 2002). But these are only applicable for conditioned buildings
because they propose a weighting factor which depends on Fanger’s (PMV) model3 ,
the inapplicability of which to free running houses has already been discussed.

3.2.1 Computing Degree Hours for Free Running Houses

The weighting factor for computing “degree hours” in free running houses can
be determined on the basis of the percentage of dissatisfied people in naturally
ventilated houses for each discomfort hour. However, extensive research has still
not produced a framework or model to determine the PPD for naturally ventilated
buildings.
A study in South Brazil (Xavier and Lamberts, 2001) showed a probit regres-
sion of dissatisfied people in a number of naturally ventilated schools. It showed the
percentage of dissatisfied occupants when the temperature changed from the com-
fort temperature range. This method can be applied for office buildings as well as
schools, but not for residential buildings, because there are inflexible conditions for
occupants in both the former, unlike in dwellings. As noted above, the behaviour of
residents and their use of clothing is not predictable in residential buildings.
In a study to assess the thermal performance of free running houses, Willrath
(1998) used an equivalence between degree hours of discomfort, in which ten degree

3 Based on ISO 2003, the time during which the PMV exceeds the comfort boundaries is weighted
with a factor which is a function of the PPD on a yearly basis, and is expressed as follows:

Wf = PPD actual PMV /PPD PMV limit (3.11)

Where PPD actual PMV is the instantaneous value in which the PPD exceeds thelimit PPD PMVlimit
which depends on the class of comfort. The warm period is calculated from Wf ∗ time hours,
where PMV > PMV limit and the cold period is obtained from it when PMV < PMV limit.. The
entirety of the resulting “weighting factor ∗ time” is named “weighting time” in hours, which is
applicable for the assessment of long term conditions but not for free running buildings. A similar
method has been introduced in ISSO for the sum of weighted temperatures exceeding hours (Wf),
as explained by Breesch and Janssens (2004). Wf is considered directly as a proportion of PPD,
in which an hour with 20% dissatisfied occupancy counts twice as much as an hour with 10% dis-
satisfaction. Based on van der Linden et al. (2002) the GBA (Government Buildings Agency) in
the Netherlands also applied Fanger’s PPD as a criterion for calculating the extent of excess tem-
peratures. Over the period in which it exceeded a PMV= 0.5 (PPD = 10%), a weighting directly
proportional to the PPD was applied, which means 1 h with 20% dissatisfied people was weighted
twice as much as 1 h with 10% dissatisfied occupants.
3.3 Indicators to Measure the Thermal Performance of Houses for Rating Purposes 45

hours of discomfort were equivalent to 1 h at ten degrees of discomfort, or 10 h

at one degree over or under the comfort limit. For different occupied zones, a
weighting in proportion to its area as a fraction of the total was given to the total
degree hours of each zone.
The above equivalence between degree hours is a simple concept that can be
applied to evaluate the free running performance of a house on the basis of thermal
comfort. Although there is no linear relationship between the percentage of dissat-
isfied people and the degree range, as there is no framework or model developed for
discomfort beyond the comfort zone, the above simplified method of degree hours
appears to be suitable for evaluating a building’s free running performance.
The main criteria for evaluating free running buildings as a basis for a comfort
based rating scheme can be set to:

• the boundaries of the comfort zone for defining thermal neutrality

• the temperature exceedance degree hour method.

3.3 Indicators to Measure the Thermal Performance of Houses

for Rating Purposes

3.3.1 Conditioned Mode

Conditioned houses have their thermal performance evaluated in terms of energy,

which is an aggregation of the heating and cooling energy (sensible + latent)
required for maintaining comfort temperatures within particular zones for specif-
ically nominated time periods. This is a method applied in nearly all energy based
rating systems. Annual energy required is expressed in MJ/m2 .annum as an indicator
of house thermal performance in the conditioned operation mode.
Despite the unreliability of this indicator for the purpose of a rating scheme, as
previously discussed, we will employ it in order to make a comparison between the
current rating scheme and a rating scheme that is proposed in this book.

3.3.2 Free Running Mode

Houses in the free running operation mode have their thermal performance evalu-
ated in terms of annual Degree Discomfort Hours (DDH). This is calculated from
a combination of “heating and cooling discomfort hours”. Heating energy require-
ments for a conditioned building and “heating” discomfort hours for the building in
free running mode are indicators of a winter building performance. Likewise cool-
ing energy requirements and “cooling” discomfort hours have been determined to
investigate summer performance. Figure 3.4 shows the state of these two categories
associated with the boundaries of the comfort zone.
46 3 Thermal Comfort

Fig. 3.4 The state of discomfort hours relative to the comfort zone

3.3.3 How an Indicator Points to Building Efficiency

The efficiency of an evaluated building can be determined by the value of a specified
indicator in a building performance evaluation system. The value of indicators can
be determined by its numerical value. It should be noted that a greater number does
not always point to the building being more efficient. For instance, if the indicator
for evaluating a building’s energy performance is the amount of energy required
or energy used (MJ/m2 ), obviously a building with less energy required would be
the most energy efficient building. However, in building rating systems efficiency
is indicated by giving a grade of stars or other values such as golden, silver and
bronze, or different colours. In that system, each grade is an indication of a range of
numbers. Such a system must determine the value of the indicators used for grading
buildings.

3.3.3.1 Correlation Between Indicators of Building Efficiency

It appears that the two indicators mentioned above to evaluate the thermal perfor-
mance of houses are strongly related to each other, particularly when DDHs are
adjusted with area weighting. Occupants are basically more willing to turn on air
conditioning or to load energy for space heating and cooling when the indoor envi-
ronment is not thermally comfortable. Thus there may not be a significant difference
between evaluating the thermal performance of houses in different operation modes.
However, even if there is a strong correlation between those two indicators, it does
References 47

not mean that an efficient architectural design for a free running house would be sim-
ilar to an efficient architectural design for that house in conditioned mode. Therefore
the value of an efficient free running house could be underestimated if it is to be eval-
uated on the basis of its thermal performance in conditioned operation mode. This
supposition will be tested and discussed further in the next chapters.

3.4 Summary
The principal work on comfort by Fanger, which was based on the heat balance
between the surrounding environment and subjects in steady state conditions, has
been replaced by recent studies, and adaptive thermal models such as those pro-
duced by Humphries, Auliciems and de Dear. These take into account the effect
of acclimatization. This makes the adaptive comfort model applicable for naturally
ventilated buildings. The de Dear comfort equation, which is expressed in ASHRAE
55 (2004), has been used in this book as a basis for calculating Degree Discomfort
Hours in free running dwellings.
Annual Degree Discomfort Hours (DDH) can be used as an indicator to evalu-
ate the thermal performance of a free running house, and a normalized energy load
(MJ/m2 .annum) as an indicator for the evaluation of the thermal performance of
houses in the conditioned operation mode. Although the latter is not an ideal indi-
cator for the evaluation of the energy performance of houses, we will employ it
as common indicator that is used in the majority of energy based rating systems, in
order to examine its applicability for addressing aspects of efficiency in architectural
design, and to compare the current energy based rating schemes with ones based on
thermal comfort.
It should be noted that the concept of free running houses in this book refers
to naturally ventilated houses without any mechanical equipment to improve their
indoor thermal condition. This definition is not applicable in warm humid climates
in which the benefits of using fans for improving summer performance would not
be ignored. However, the definition used here is appropriate for a moderate climate,
such as that of Sydney in Australia, in which the effect of the “intelligent manage-
ment of buildings” by occupants should not be ignored. The means for this includes
controlling shutters and blinds to take advantage of outside weather, particularly
with regard to directing natural ventilation into the inside environment.

References
ASHRAE: ASHRAE Handbook – 1981 Fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (1981)
ASHRAE: ASHRAE Handbook – 2001 Fundamentals. American Society of Heating.
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, GA (2001)
ASHRAE: Handbook: Heating Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Applications. Inch-Pound Edition
(2003)
48 3 Thermal Comfort

ASHRAE: ASNI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human

Occupancy. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Inc. (2004)
Auliciems, A.: Towards a psycho-physiological model of thermal perception. Int. J. Biometeorol.
25(2), 109–122 (1981)
Auliciems, A., de Dear, R.: Air Conditioning in Australia I – human thermal factors. Architectural
Science (1986)
Auliciems, A., Szokolay, S.V.: Thermal Comfort. Brisbane, QLD: PLEA in association with
Department of Architecture, University of Queensland (1997)
Azer, N.Z., Hsu, S.: The prediction of thermal sensation from a simple model of human
physiological regulatory response. ASHRAE Trans. 83(Pt 1) (1977)
Baker, N., Standeven, M.: Thermal comfort for free running buildings. Energy Build. 23(3),
175–182 (1996)
Benzinger, T.H.: The physiological basis for thermal comfort. First International Indoor Climate
Symposium, Copenhagen: Danish Building Research Institute, pp. 441–476 (1979)
Berglund, L.: Mathematical models for predicting the thermal comfort response of building
occupants. ASHRAE Trans. 84, 735–749 (1978)
Bouden, C., Ghrab, N.: An adaptive thermal comfort model for the Tunisian context: field study
results. Energy Build. 37(9), 952–963 (2005)
Brager, G.S., de Dear, R.J.: Thermal adaptation in the built environment: a literature review. Energy
Build. 27(1), 83–96 (1998)
Brager, G.S., de Dear, R.: A standard for natural ventilation. ASHRAE J. 42(10), 21–28 (2000)
Brager, G.S., de Dear, R.: Climate, comfort and natural ventilation: a new adaptive comfort
standard for ASHRAE standard 55. In: Conference Proceedings: Moving Thermal Comfort
Standards into the 21st Century, pp. 60–77. Oxford Brookes University, Windsor (2001)
Breesch, H., Janssens, A.: Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of the Performances of Natural
Night Ventilation. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Air Distribution in
Rooms, Coimba, Portugal. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/2713 (2004). Accessed 17 Sep 2008
Buyukalaca, O., Bulut, H., Yilmaz, T.: Analysis of variable-base heating and cooling degree-days
for Turkey. Appl. Energy. 69(4), 269–283 (2001)
Chappells, H., Shove, E.: Comfort Paradigms and Practices in Future Comforts: Re-conditioning
the Urban Environment, Workshop. London: The Policy Studies Institute (2004)
Christenson, M., Manz, H., Gyalistras, D.: Climate warming impact on degree-days and building
energy demand in Switzerland. Energy Conversion and Manag. 47(6), 671–686 (2005)
Chung, T.M., Tong, W.C.: Thermal comfort study of young Chinese people in Hong Kong. Build.
Environ. 25(4), 317–328 (1990)
Davis Energy Group: Comfort Reports (No. P500-04-009-A4). California: California Energy
Commission (2004)
de Dear, R.: Thermal comfort in practice. Indoor Air 14(7), 32–39 (2004)
de Dear, R.J., Brager, G.S.: An adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. ASHRAE Trans.
104(1a), 145–167 (1998)
de Dear, R., Brager, G.S.: The adaptive model of thermal comfort and energy conservation in the
built environment. Int. J. Biometeorol. 45(2), 100–108 (2001)
de Dear, R.J., Brager, G.S.: Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings: revisions to
ASHRAE standard 55. Energy Build. 34(6), 549–561 (2002)
de Dear, R., Brager, G.S., Cooper, D.: Developing an Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and
Preference (Final Report on ASHRAE RP-884). Sydney: MRL (1997)
de Dear, R.J., Fountain, M.E., Popovic, S., Watkins, S., Brager, G., Arens, E. et al.: A Field Study
of Occupants Comfort and Office Environment in a Hot- humid Climate (Final report ASHRAE
RP-702). Sydney: Macquarie University (1993)
de Dear, R., Hart, M.: Appliance Electricity End-Use: Weather and Climate Sensitivity. Sydney:
Division of environmental and life sciences, Macquarie University (2002)
Ellis, F.P.: Thermal comfort in warm and humid atmospheres; observations on groups and
individual in Singapore. J. Hyg. (Lond). 51(3), 386–404 (1953)
References 49

Fanger, P.O.: Calculation of thermal comfort: introduction of a basic comfort equation. ASHRAE
Trans. 73(part 2), III.41–III.44.20 (1967)
Fanger, P.O.: Thermal Comfort. Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen (1970)
Fanger, P.O., Toftum, J.: Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned buildings in warm
climates. Energy Build. 34(6), 533–536 (2002)
Feriadi, H., Wong, N.H.: Thermal comfort for naturally ventilated houses in Indonesia. Energy
Build. 36(7), 614–626 (2004)
Forwood, G.: What is thermal comfort in a naturally ventilated building? In: Nicol, F., Humphreys,
M., Skes, O., Roaf, S. (eds.) Standards for Thermal Comfort, Indoor Air Temperature Standards
for the 21st Century, pp. 176–181. E & FN Spon, London (1995)
Fountain, M., Brager, G., de Dear, R.: Expectations of indoor climate control. Energy Build. 24(3),
179–182 (1996)
Gagge, A.P.: Rational temperature indices of mans thermal environment and their use with a 2-nude
model of his temperature relation, Federation Proceedings. pp. 1572–1582 (1973)
Gagge, A.P., Herrington, L.P., Winslow, C.-E.A.: The thermal interchanges between the human
body and its atmospheric environment. Am. J. Hyg. 26, 84–102 (1937)
Gagge, A.P., Stolwijk, J.A., Hardy, J.D.: Comfort and thermal sensations and associated physio-
logical responses at various ambient temperatures. Environ. Res. 1, 1–20 (1967)
Gagge, A.P., Stolwijk, J.A.J., Nishi, Y.: An effective temperature scale based on a simple model of
human physiological regulatory response. ASHRAE Trans. 77, 247–262 (1971)
Givoni, B.: Man, Climate and Architecture. Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London (1976)
Givoni, B.: Climate Considerations in Building and Urban Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY (1998)
Grivel, F., Candas, V.: Ambient temperatures preferred by young European males and females at
rest. Ergonomics. 34, 365–378 (1991)
Hensen, J.M.: Literature review on thermal comfort in transient conditions. Build. Environ. 25(4),
309–316 (1990)
Holm, D., Engelbrecht, F.A.: Practical choice of thermal comfort scale and range in naturally
ventilated buildings in South Africa. J. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Eng. 47(2), 9–14 (2005)
Humphreys, M.A.: Field Studies of Thermal Comfort Compared and Applied (BRE-CP 76/75).
Building Research Establishment, Garston (1975)
Humphreys, M.A.: Field studies of thermal comfort compared and applied. Build. Serv. Eng. 44,
5–27 (1976)
Humphreys, M.A.: Outdoor temperature and comfort indoors. Build. Serv. Eng. 6(2), 92–105
(1978)
Humphreys, M.A., Fergus Nicol, J.: The validity of ISO-PMV for predicting comfort votes in
every-day thermal environments. Energy Build. 34(6), 667–684 (2002)
Humphreys, M.A., Nicol, J.F.: An adaptive guideline for UK office temperatures. In: Nicol, F.,
Humphreys, M., Skes, O., Roaf, S. (eds.) Standards for Thermal Comfort, Indoor Air
Temperature Standards for the 21st Century. E & FN Spon, London (1995)
Humphreys, M., Nicol, J.F.: Understanding the adaptive approach to thermal comfort. ASHRAE
Tech. Data Bull. 14(1), 1–14 (1998)
Ihab, M.K.E.: Designing for indoor comfort: a system model for assessing occupant comfort in sus-
tainable office buildings, Proceedings of the Solar 2002 Conference, Reno, Nevada. American
solar energy society, American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment,
pp. 485–494 (2002)
International Standards Organisation: ISO/DIS 7730 Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment-
Analytical Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the
PMV and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort: International Standards Organisation
(2003)
ISO 7730: Moderate Thermal Environment – Determination of the PMV and PPD Indices
and Specifications for Thermal Comfort. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for
Standardisation (1995)
50 3 Thermal Comfort

ISSO: Design of Indoor Conditions and Good Thermal Comfort in Buildings (in Dutch) (No. ISSO
Research Report 5). Netherlands (1990)
ISSO: Thermal Comfort as Performance (No. ISSO Research Report 58.2). Rotterdam.
Netherlands (2004)
Jones, B.W.: Capabilities and limitations of thermal models. Conference Proceedings: Moving
Thermal Comfort Standards into the 21st century, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK. Oxford
Brookes University, pp. 112–121 (2001)
Karynono, T.H.: Thermal comfort in the tropical south-east Asian region. Archit. Sci. Rev. 39(3),
135–139 (1996)
La Gennusa, M., Nucara, A., Rizzo, G., Scaccianoce, G.: The calculation of the mean radiant
temperature of a subject exposed to solar radiation–a generalised algorithm. Build. Environ.
40(3), 367–375 (2005)
Lee, J.-Y., Choi, J.-W.: Influences of clothing types on metabolic, thermal and subjective responses
in a cool environment. J. Therm. Biol. 29(4–5), 221–229 (2004)
Lovins, A.: Air Conditioning Comfort: Behavioural and Cultural Issues: E Source, Inc., Boulder,
Colorado. Available from: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=
55564 (1992)
Lyons, P.: Window Performance for Human Thermal Comfort (Final report to the national
fenestration rating council). Melbourne: Centre for the Built Environment (2006)
Lyons, P., Arasteh, D., Huizenga, C.: Window performance for human thermal comfort. ASHRAE
Trans. 73(2), 4.0–4.20 (1999)
Mayer, E.: Objective criteria for thermal comfort. Build. Environ. 28(4), 399–403 (1993)
McNall, P.E.J., Jaax, J., Rohles, F.H., Nevins, R.G., Springer, W.: Thermal comfort (thermally
neutral) condition or three levels of activity. ASHRAE Trans. 73(part 1), 1.3.1.–1.3.13 (1967)
Melikov, A.K.: Air Movement at the Neck of the Human Body. Proceedings of Indoor Air, Nagoya,
Japan, pp. 209–214 (1996)
Melikov, A.K.: Personalized ventilation. Indoor Air. 14(7), 157–167 (2004)
Nakano, J., Tanabe, S., Kimura, K.: Differences in perception of indoor environment between
Japanese and non-Japanese workers. Energy Build. 34(6), 615–621 (2002)
Nicol, F., Aulicien, A.: A Survey of Thermal Comfort in Pakistan: Toward New Indoor
Temperature Standards (Final Report to the Overseas Development) UK: Administration.
Oxford Brookes University, School of Architecture (1994)
Nicol, J.F., Raja, I.A., Allaudin, A., Jamy, G.N.: Climatic variations in comfortable temperatures:
the Pakistan projects. Energy Build. 30(3), 261–279 (1999)
Nicol, F., Roaf, S.: Pioneering new indoor temperature standards: the Pakistan project. Energy
Build. 23(3), 169–174 (1996)
O’Callaghan, P.W.: Building for Energy Conservation. Pergamon Press, New York, NY, Oxford
(1978)
Olesen, B.W.: International standards for the indoor environment. Indoor Air. 14(supplement 7),
18–26 (2004)
Olesen, B.W., Seppanen, O., Boerstra, A.: Criteria for the Indoor Environment for
Energy Performance of Buildings: A New European Standard, Windsor Conference.
http://nceub.org.uk/uploads/Olesen.pdf (2006). Accessed 21 Sep 2008
Olgyay, V.: Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ (1963)
Parsons, K.C.: The effects of physical disability, gender, acclimation state and the opportunity
to adjust clothing, on requirements for thermal comfort, Conference Proceedings: Moving
Thermal Comfort Standards into the 21st century, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK. Oxford
Brookes University (2001)
Parsons, K.C.: Human Thermal Environments. Taylor and Francis, London, New York, NY (2003)
Szokolay, S.V.: Environmental Science Hand Book for Architects and Builders. The Construction
Press, London (1980)
Szokolay, S.V.: Introduction to Architectural Science: The Basis of Sustainable Design.
Architectural Press, Oxford (2004)
References 51

van der Linden, K., Boerstra, A.C., Raue, A.K., Kurvers, S.R.: Thermal indoor climate build-
ing performance characterized by human comfort response. Energy Build. 34(7), 737–744
(2002)
van der Linden, A.C., Boerstra, A.C., Raue, A.K., Kurvers, S.R., de Dear, R.J.: Adaptive tempera-
ture limits: A new guideline in the Netherlands: A new approach for the assessment of building
performance with respect to thermal indoor climate. Energy Build. 38(1), 8–17 (2006)
Watt, J.R.: Evaporative Air Conditioning. The Industrial Press, New York, NY (1963)
Williamson, T.J., Coldicutt, S., Riordan, P.: Comfort preferences or design data? In: Nicol,
F., Humphreys, M., Skes, O., Roaf, S. (eds.) Standards for Thermal Comfort, Indoor Air
Temperature Standards for the 21st Century, pp. 50–58. E & FN Spon, London (1995)
Willrath, H.: The Thermal Performance of Houses in Australian Climates. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Queensland, Brisbane (1998)
Wong, N.H., Feriadi, H., Lim, P.Y., Tham, K.W., Sekhar, C., Cheong, K.W.: Thermal com-
fort evaluation of naturally ventilated public housing in Singapore. Build. Environ. 37(12),
1267–1277 (2002)
Xavier, A.A.P., Lamberts, R.: Thermal comfort zones for conditioned and free running buildings
in Florianopolis, South Brazil. Conference Proceedings Moving Thermal comfort standard into
the 21st century, Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK. Oxford Brookes University, pp. 235–245
(2001)
Yaglou, C.P.: The comfort zone for men at rest and stripped to the waist. Trans. ASHVE. 33,
165–179 (1927)
Yoshida, J.A., Nomura, M., Mikami, K., Hachisu, H.: Thermal comfort of severely handicapped
children in nursery schools in Japan. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES Congress, San Diego,
CA, USA, pp. 712–715 (2000)
Young, A.J.: Effects of aging on human cold tolerance. Exp. Aging Res. 17, 205–213 (1991)
Young, A.J., Lee, D.T.: Aging and human cold tolerance. Exp. Aging Res. 23, 45–67 (1997)
Chapter 4
Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency
for Low Energy or No Energy?

As described in the previous chapters, HRS have been developed to promote energy
efficient design and to consequently reduce energy requirements in the buildings
sector. However, zero energy buildings and passive design buildings, whose thermal
performance should be evaluated in their free running operation mode, are not a
target in current HRS. The main purpose of this book is to recommend the evaluation
of the free running performance of buildings on the basis of thermal comfort instead
of energy consumption. A major question is whether an energy efficient building
is one that demonstrates efficient performance in the free running operation mode.
If the answer is yes, then any attempts at making a building energy efficient would
produce improved thermal performance of that building in free running operation.
If the answer is no, then devices and regulations for free running buildings should
differ from those for conditioned buildings, leading to the need to revise current
energy based rating schemes.
This chapter aims to illustrate the similarities and differences between the per-
formances of a building in different operation modes in response to changed design
features. This will demonstrate that an efficient energy based building is not always
an efficient free running building. The recognition of this result should therefore be
considered in the development of the next generation of HRS.
The chapter is divided into two sections: the first section describes the tools, cri-
teria and methods employed for building performances evaluation and then applies
these to a number of house samples in order to evaluate their thermal performances
in two different operation modes. The second section reports the results of the ther-
mal performance evaluations of the sample houses in response to changed design
features, and then investigates the relationship between the thermal performances of
those houses in different operation modes.

4.1 Building Performance Evaluation

Building performance assessment is an approach to the design and construction of
a building which systematically compares the actual or expected performance of
buildings, in order to explicitly document criteria for their expected performance
(Preiser, 2005; Preiser and Vischer, 2005).

M. Kordjamshidi, House Rating Schemes, Green Energy and Technology, 53

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5_4, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
54 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Building performance is assessed by a numerical measure of an indicator. This

is usually expressed in terms of annual energy requirements, thermal comfort,
embodied energy, cost effectiveness, environmental impact and other parameters,
depending on the purpose of the evaluation. The indicator is a value derived from
a parameter that describes the state of a building. Thus, for example, for thermal
performance, two different indicators can be defined to evaluate the building’s per-
formance, depending on its state (conditioned or free running). The thermal quality
of a building can be evaluated in terms of annual energy requirements in its condi-
tioned mode, or an aggregated annual thermal comfort condition in its free running
mode. The latter demonstrates the actual performance of the building, and addresses
multiple aspects of efficiency in a particular architectural design (Kordjamshidi
et al., 2005a).
Building performance assessment is used for post-occupancy performance eval-
uation to enable improvements to be made in further building construction or
renovation (Bordass and Leaman, 2005), often by using simulation programs. The
methods used for building performance evaluation are:

• calculation
• experimentation
• simulations.

The first of these methods, calculation, was done manually in earlier times by
architects and building services engineers, using pre-selected design conditions, and
they often resorted to the “rule-of-thumb” methods of estimation to extend conven-
tional design concepts. This approach frequently led to poor assessment of energy
performance, because of excessive part-load operations (Hong et al., 2000). The
“bin method”, as a simple hand-calculation procedure, has also been used for cal-
culating energy requirements in buildings based on the assumption of steady state
conditions and simple building descriptions, but this method is also limited in its
applicability, in addition to being unreliable (Hanby, 1995; Klein, 1983).
There are also problems with physical experimentation, in that it is often expen-
sive and time consuming. Besides, it is difficult to modify parameters to determine
the effect of modification on the thermal performance of a building. This method
therefore is not suitable at the design stage, but could be appropriate for evaluating
the reliability of any result from a study which employed the other two methods.
The third general approach, simulation, however, has been highly developed
with the advancements in computer technology, and many simulation models now
exist to predict the thermal behaviour of buildings. Simulation computer pro-
grams are flexible, accurate and reliable tools for designing and analysing the
efficiency of a building design. These advantages have been confirmed by a num-
ber of reviews of simulation models (Al-Homoud, 2000; Clarke, 2001; Hong et al.,
2000; Littler, 1982; Sowell and Hittle, 1995). An appropriate computer simulation
can provide information on thermal performance that is as accurate as a physical
experiment, while involving less time and expenditure. In the design stage for a
building, computer tools such as full-scale mock-ups and simulations of interior and
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 55

exterior spaces can provide further information for assessing all the different aspects
of design. Such programs are thus the most appropriate for the evaluation of the
thermal performance of houses at the design stage.
The simulation method is therefore employed here for the purpose of evaluating
the thermal performance of houses in different operation modes. In addition to the
above-mentioned advantages, there are two further important reasons for this. The
first is that it helps to evaluate the thermal performance of a large number of houses
within a limited time, and the second is that it is the most common method used to
evaluate the thermal performance of buildings in HERS. Since the development of
HERS is the core of this book, any improvements based on this method should be
applicable to these rating systems.

4.1.1 Building Simulation Programs

Simulation programs are undergoing continuous development. Most building sim-
ulations perform hour-by-hour calculations for analysis, and all use algorithms and
models which provide approximate representations of the heat transfer mechanism
of the physical elements to the environment, to other buildings and to internal
energy resources. A number of developed programs are listed in the Building Energy
Software Tools Directory,1 which categorises tools on the basis of subject, platform
and country. The subject category is classified as follows:

• Whole Building Analysis

– energy simulation
– load calculation
– renewable energy
– retrofit analysis
– sustainability/green building

• Code and Standards

• Materials, Components, Equipment, and system
• Other applications

Under the energy simulation category there are about 100 software programs,
mainly developed in the US, each of which has a particular weakness or limitation,
depending on the purpose for which it is used.
Software developed in Australia for HERS has been chosen here for simulating
the thermal performance of samples. A review of the software packages developed
in Australia is presented in the following for general information.

1 See: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tools_directory/
56 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

4.1.2 Criteria for Modeling the Thermal Performance of Buildings

in Two Different Operation Modes
A comparison between the thermal performances of buildings in similar conditions
and using constant criteria is made in the following. Similar conditions refer to both
climate and simulation programs, and constant criteria refer to features such as
thermal comfort conditions, occupancy scenarios and thermostat settings. For the
modeling and evaluation of the thermal performances of a building the following
aspects are covered:
• Samples (or case studies)
• Simulation program
• Climate
• Thermal comfort conditions
– Comfort condition boundaries for free running buildings
– Thermostat settings for buildings in conditioned operation mode
• Occupancy scenarios
• Indicators

4.1.2.1 Samples
The sample of typical houses developed initially by SOLARCH (2000) was selected
for examination in this research. Typical houses are representative of popular prac-
tice in national architectural design; therefore the result of an examination of these
samples reflects the performances of representative buildings of the entire nation and
can then be generalized for a larger group of buildings, from which subpopulations
of interest can be extrapolated. In the SOLARCH study, to establish typical houses,
100 designed houses were collected from Project Home Display Villages through-
out Sydney. Six typical houses were identified from these samples to represent the
following parameters:

• single and double storey dwellings

• large and small dwellings
• dwellings with potential for adaptation of plans for a range of ideal orientations

These six house designs selected differ in size and planning and cover a broad
range of those available in Sydney. The floor plans of the samples are shown in
Figs. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7. General metric descriptions of the samples are
presented in Table 4.1. Since window areas in different orientations differ among
these six typical houses, Fig. 4.1 represents this variation. It shows the percentage
of window-to-wall ratio for each orientation of each typical house. The ratio is com-
puted from [window area/total wall area], in which total wall area means (window +
wall) area. The full description of the components of these two types of construction
as used in this book is shown in Table 4.2.
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 57

120
window area / wall area ×100

100 Window(W)

80
Window(E)
60

40 Window(S)

20
Window(N)
0
A1 A2 C1 C2 D1 D2
Samples

Fig. 4.1 The percentage of [window/(window + wall)] for each orientation of typical houses

Fig. 4.2 Plan of typical

house (House A1)

4.1.2.2 Simulation Programs

A simulation program developed in Australia for the purpose of HRS was used
for modeling samples. A summary of developed building simulation programs in
Australia is given below as background.
58 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Fig. 4.3 Plan of typical

house (House C1)

Building Simulation Programs in Australia

Simulation programs for buildings started to be developed in Australia in the 1970s,
with programs such as TEMPER, BUNYIP, Star performer, and CHEETAH. The
latter is a development of the program ZSTEP3 (Delsante, 1987) and is well
documented and validated (Delsante, 1995b). According to Clarke (2006) it is “con-
sidered by many to be equal to any in the world”. This program calculates hourly
temperatures, and the heating and cooling energy requirements of small buildings.
It is based on the total–zone response factor method, which uses measured hourly
weather data (temperature, solar irradiance and wind speed).
The first developed computer program for the establishment of house ratings was
based on CHEETAH (Ballinger and Cassell, 1994), the core energy software model
developed by the CSIRO for Australian climates (Ballinger, 1998a). Most modelling
systems used in HERS, such as NatHERS, FirstRate and QuickRate, BERS, QRate
and ACTHERS are based on this engine. NatHERS and BERS simulate the oper-
ational energy used in a home, while FirstRate, QRate, ACTHERS and QuickRate
are correlation programs, which do not carry out simulations. A study by CSIRO
has found that BERS and NatHERS software give similar results for a range of
house variations. They produce the same results because they use the same engine,
CHEENATH. The former, BERS, originally just contained star rating settings for 12
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 59

Fig. 4.4 Plan of typical

house (House D1)

climate zones in Queensland, but later came to cover all climate zones of Australia
(Ballinger, 1998a).
NatHERS simulation software has been accepted nationally as the benchmark
tool for assessing the thermal performance of houses, and is known to be a tool
unique to Australia in addressing the issue of energy efficiency. It allows houses to
be rated on the basis of energy consumption and has been used for several years
in both regulatory and voluntary rating schemes. However, NatHERS has had a
number of shortcomings, which led to criticism of the software as the foundation of
a national regulatory rating scheme and as an appropriate tool for efficient design
analysis. The main shortcomings are that:

• it ignores the physiological effect of natural ventilation in its computation for

estimating energy requirements;
• it is limited to only three conditioned zones in a house for simulation.
60 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

(a)

(b)
Fig. 4.5 Plan of typical house (House A2). (a) Ground floor. (b) First floor

A new rating tool, AccuRate, which is a development of NatHERS, was created

in 2005 to address these shortcomings (Isaacs, 2005). Its engine is an enhanced ver-
sion of the CHEENATH simulation engine. Its ventilation model was completely
revised to include the physiological cooling effect of ventilation in computing the
cooling energy requirement for conditioned houses. The process of this inclusion is
described by Delsante (2005) and is briefly discussed further under Sect. 4.1.2.4.
The effect of that improvement has been demonstrated in a comparative study
of NatHERS and AccuRate (Isaacs, 2004). This study demonstrated a substantial
reduction in predicting the cooling energy requirement of a well-ventilated house
for seven different climates. The other aspects which are improved in AccuRate are:

• room by room zoning (up to 99 zones)

• flexibility for making a particular construction
• improvement in the modelling of reflective insulation
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 61

(a)

(b)
Fig. 4.6 Plan of typical house (House C2). (a) Ground floor. (b) First floor
62 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4.7 Plan of typical house (House D2). (a) Ground floor. (b) First floor
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 63

Table 4.1 Window, wall, ceiling, floor areas of typical houses

Number of External wall Window area Ceiling area Internal wall Floor area
House floors area (m2 ) (m2 ) (m2 ) (m2 ) (m2 )

1A 1 137 32.4 138.2 96.6 138.2

1C 1 150 24.8 155.4 88.1 155.4
1D 1 196.5 45.9 244.9 160.4 244.9
2A 2 256.7 50 166 156.1 292.8
2C 2 260 56.5 136.3 182.3 315.7
2D 2 234 40 144.4 174.4 229

Table 4.2 General description of the materials used in the simulation for the 6 base houses

Construction Heavy weight (HW) Light weight (LW)

External wall Brick veneer (uninsulated) Weatherboard (uninsulated)

External colour: light External colour: light
Internal colour: Medium Internal colour: Medium
Internal wall Plasterboard on studs Plasterboard on studs
Colour: (Medium) Colour: (Medium)
Window Single glassed clear (4 mm) Single glassed clear (4 mm)
Window internal cover Closed weave Closed weave
Window external cover None None
Window frame Aluminium Timber
Colour: (Medium) Colour: (Medium)
Door Timber (hollow) Timber (hollow)
External (solid) External (solid)
Roof Roofing tiles Roofing tiles
Colour: (Medium) Colour: (Medium)
Ceiling Plasterboard 13 mm Plasterboard 13 mm

• user interface improvement

• detailed hourly output with adjustment for floor area correction2

Although rating houses by AccuRate would appear to be more precise than using
NatHERS, the shortcomings in AccuRate are still considerable, namely the lack of
capability to rate free running buildings completely, and inflexibility in dealing with
different occupancy scenarios.
Notably, AccuRate software is not flexible enough to deal with variations in
occupant behaviour and in modelling occupant interactions. Any condition in which
doors, windows and blinds need to be opened and closed for specific purposes can-
not be simulated by this software. A model has been set into the software, by which

2 Small houses compared to large houses usually are penalized in the star rating scheme because
of the basis of rating (MJ/m2 ), which was discussed in Sect. 2.4.3. AccuRate has addressed this
concern by developing an area correction factor (Isaacs, 2005).
64 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

doors and windows are opened when the indoor environmental temperature exceeds
the boundaries of thermal comfort, and outdoor temperature is less than indoor tem-
perature. The software in this situation opens the windows of a simulated house in
order to reduce indoor temperature by increasing heat transfer and natural ventila-
tion, without considering whether the house is occupied or not. It is obvious that if a
house is not occupied, windows cannot be opened automatically; however, this real-
ity is ignored in the design of the AccuRate software. Another issue in the setting
of the software program is that the state of occupation in relation to the operation
of blinds and external shading is ignored. This simulation therefore does not mirror
the actual performance of a house with real occupants.
Nevertheless, the shortcomings in the AccuRate and NatHERS software are not
as important as they might appear. The main limitation of the inability of the soft-
ware to deal with various occupancy scenarios is a problem that also exists in all
the other available software programs. The few software packages elsewhere which
have attempted to deal with this problem, such as Energy Plus and Energy10, appear
to be difficult and complex in scheduling the opening of windows and doors in a
manner compatible with a rating scheme.
There are other advantages to using AccuRate software in addition to those
mentioned above. Both software programs, NatHERS and AccuRate, have been
designed for the Australian climate and have the capability of analysing the energy
consumption and hourly indoor temperature for non air-conditioned buildings,
and both engines have been validated by BESTTEST (Delsante, 1995a, b, 2004).
Moreover, both softwares have been developed for HERS, which is the main concern
of this book.

4.1.2.3 Climate
The interaction between the outdoor climate and the indoor environment is a major
concern in the context of the thermal performance of buildings. Climate has a major
impact both on the energy and environmental performance of buildings, and also
on the comfort sensation of a building’s occupants. Obviously, then, the charac-
teristics and also the impact of climate on the occupants and building behaviour
depend on the climatic parameters. The main climatic parameters which have to be
taken into account when designing a building are: air temperature, humidity, wind,
solar radiation, and microclimate (Givoni, 1976; Markus and Morris, 1980; Olgyay,
1963).
Currently, a simple basic classification of climate is used in many nations to apply
to building design. It is based on the nature of human thermal requirements in each
particular location (Szokolay, 2004). The four main classifications of climates are:
cold, temperate, hot-dry and warm humid. The major problem in a cold climate is
the lack of heat or excessive heat dissipation for most of the year. Temperate cli-
mates have seasonal variations between under- and overheating, but these are not
severe. Overheating is the main problem in a hot-dry climate, which has large diur-
nal temperature variations. The diurnal fluctuation of temperatures is less in hot
humid climates. Overheating also is not as great as in hot–dry regions, but high
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 65

humidity aggravates the sensation of temperature because of restricting the evapo-

ration potential. From this classification it is clear that a moderate climate is most
likely to have potential for the design of free running houses.
A moderate climate in Australia has therefore been chosen to evaluate and com-
pare the thermal performances of typical houses in the two different operation
modes. A description of the Australian climate follows.

Australian Climate
This continent covers a wide range of latitudes from 9 to 43◦ S and so it encompasses
a significant range of climates. Only the “very cold climate” is not present in the
broad climate classifications. The alpine region of Australia has a climate close to
this classification, but its population is very small.
Three major climate types, namely hot–humid, hot–arid and temperate
(Drysdale, 1975), have been identified for the purpose of building design in
Australia. This classification, which was originally based on max/min temperature,
humidity and precipitation, was later expanded into several sub-zones. Figure 4.8
shows the distribution of six regions on the basis of temperature and humidity in
Australia.
The characteristics of the temperate zone in Australia have been described as
follows by Drysdale (1975):
Summer: High daytime, dry bulb temperature (30–35◦ C)
Moderate dry bulb temperature at night (13–18◦ C)
Moderate humidity (30–40%)
Winter: Cool to cold days (10–15◦ C)
Cold nights (2–7◦ C)
General: Rainfall throughout the year, with winter maximum, except in northern
N.S.W. Considerable diurnal temperature range (11–16◦ C) and a seasonal range of
about 16◦ C.
Both under-heating and overheating, depending on the season, can be a problem
but neither is severe.

Climatic Zones and Data for Modelling Samples

As described in Chap. 2, a moderate climate may be described as a critical cli-
mate, as energy requirements cannot be accurately predicted, with uncertainty
in this regard being greater than in severe climates. Moreover, moderate climate
zones are potentially more amenable to the design and employment of free run-
ning houses. Therefore a House Free running Rating Scheme (HFRS) is likely to
be most appropriate for this type of climate in promoting efficient architectural
design and reducing energy requirements, particularly as the population in this zone
is greater than in other regions. This climatic condition has therefore been chosen
as the context of analysis for the development of a HFRS.
For the purpose of evaluating the thermal performance of buildings, hourly cli-
matic data are required. The Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme defines 28
66 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Fig. 4.8 A broad classification of Australian climates based on Australian Bureau of Meteoro-
logy data

climatic zones based on hourly data throughout Australia, which are used for sim-
ulations in computer programs. Although this climatic classification seems to be
enough for the purpose of building efficiency design, the Australian Greenhouse
Office has reviewed the weather data from more local weather stations in order to
expand the selection of climatic zones and improve the statistical correlation with
average data (Lee and Snow, 2006). Recently climate zones have been divided into
69 categories (Lee and Snow, 2006), which can be employed for simulation in any
relevant software. The parameters which are included in the hourly data file are:
dry bulb temperature (◦ C), absolute humidity (g/kg), wind speed (m/s), cloud cover
(oktas), diffuse irradiance on horizontal (W/m2 ) and direct irradiance normal to sun
(W/m2 ).

4.1.2.4 Thermal Comfort Conditions

As described under Sect. 4.3.1, a thermal comfort condition refers to a condition in
which 80–90% of occupants feel thermally comfortable. This condition is affected
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 67

by both environmental and personal variables. The boundaries of this condition are
not the same for free running as for conditioned buildings. In the following the
boundaries of thermal comfort are defined for both free running and conditioned
houses in the moderate climate of Sydney.

Comfort Condition Boundaries for Free Running Residential Buildings

Adaptive comfort models are arguably more relevant for determining thermal neu-
trality in houses in the free running operation mode. No significant difference
(approximately 1◦ C) was observed, as shown in Fig. 3.2, between the ranges of
temperature and the range used for thermal neutrality proposed by different schol-
ars; thus, for the purpose of a comparative study on the thermal performance of
houses, all proposed equations are applicable.
The boundaries of thermal neutrality in this study have been defined on the basis
of ASHRAE 55(2004), as proposed by de Dear (ACS) (Fig. 3.3). The thermal neu-
trality limits have been set as 90% of occupant acceptability, for which the range of
the comfort zone has been set at 2.5◦ C on either side of the optimum comfort tem-
perature. It has been defined separately for each month, based on hourly climatic
data (Fig. 4.9). These ranges have been taken as the comfort conditions in the living
zone of houses occupied during the day-time. The limits for the bedroom zone, dur-
ing sleeping time (between 12 and 6 am), have been defined as being 5◦ C less than
these bands. The logic is that occupants can easily use a blanket during this time
without any complaints about indoor temperature. Other studies have also applied a
wider range of thermal neutrality for sleeping areas. For example, the AHRC project

45
Tn (%90)
40

35
Tn (%80)
30
Temperature

25
Max
20

15 Min

10

5 Ave.Month.
T.(H)
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

Fig. 4.9 DBT, max and min temperature for each month, and thermal neutrality comfort band for
the Sydney climate
68 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Table 4.3 Average monthly temperatures based on hourly temperature and max min monthly
temperature, and thermal neutrality for 90% occupant acceptability in the Sydney climate

Sydney Based on hourly data Based on max and min data

Average Ave. Tn (opti-

Month T (H) Tn (H) Tn (90%) Max Min Tem mum) Tn (90%)

Jan 22.4 24.7 22.6–27.2 36.8 15.1 25.9 25.8 23.3–28.3

Feb 21.2 24.3 21.8–26.8 33.1 15.2 24.1 25.2 22.7–27.7
Mar 21.6 24.5 22.0–27.0 38.7 14.1 26.4 25.9 23.4–28.4
Apr 18.5 23.5 21.0–26.0 25.4 9.8 17.6 23.2 20.7–25.7
May 15.8 22.7 20.2–25.2 26.4 6.7 16.5 22.9 20.4–25.4
Jun 12.0 21.5 19.0–24.0 19.7 3 11.3 21.3 18.8–23.8
Jul 12.3 21.6 19.1–24.1 22.2 4.4 13.3 21.9 19.4–24.4
Aug 12.9 21.8 19.3–24.3 20.6 4 12.3 21.6 19.1–24.1
Sep 14.8 22.3 19.8–24.8 27.7 7.2 17.45 23.2 20.7–25.7
Oct 17.6 23.2 20.7–25.7 31.5 10 20.75 24.2 21.7–26.7
Nov 19.3 23.8 21.3–26.3 26 11.5 18.75 23.6 21.1–26.1
Dec 22.6 24.8 22.3–27.3 39.3 14 26.0 28.5 29.5–23.5

(Walsh and Gurr, 1982) calculated a lower band of comfort temperature for the
sleeping zone, at 5◦ C less than its range for the living zone.
Table 4.3 shows the average monthly climate data for Sydney. Average mean
monthly temperature is calculated on the basis of hourly and max/min monthly
temperatures.3
The range of optimum thermal neutrality over a typical year was observed to be:
20.7◦ C< Tn < 25.7◦ C
Environmental temperature is used rather than air temperature in evaluating
the thermal performance of houses. During the summer months environmental
temperature computed by AccuRate software is 1 K higher than dry bulb tem-
perature, but during the cold months the two temperatures are approximately the
same. Environmental temperature is more reliable than dry bulb temperature in the
evaluation of thermal comfort conditions, because the actual thermal sensation of
occupants is affected by environmental temperature.

The Effect of Humidity and Airspeed on the Sensation of Indoor Temperature

Although the adaptive model proposed in ASHRAE 55-2004 does not require the
inclusion of humidity and air speed, one cannot ignore the effects of humidity on
temperature sensation in a humid climate. While humidity is not a major factor in
a moderate climate, it cannot be ignored in the Sydney climate in which humidity
reaches 80% at times (Australian Bureau of Meteorology, 2006).
The limit boundaries of thermal neutrality have been changed in this study on an
hourly basis in response to relative humidity. Certain methods have been proposed to

3 For more accuracy in calculating thermal neutrality and the thermostat setting, the mean monthly
temperature should be computed for hourly temperatures rather than max/min temperatures.
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 69

include the effect of humidity on the limits of comfort temperatures in the sensation
of air temperature (Auliciems and Szokolay, 1997; Sutherland, 1971). The effect
of humidity has been taken into account in accordance with the ASHRAE stan-
dard effective temperature line, and by employing the following (Eq. 4.1) simplified
equation proposed by Szokolay (1991).

Tintercept = T + 23*(T − 14) 8 HRT (◦ C) (4.1)

where HRT is the humidity ratio at temperature T and 50% RH.
Indoor humidity has been considered approximately similar to outdoor humidity
in free running houses. However, in reality indoor relative humidity can be lower or
higher than outside humidity (Hyde, 1996), depending on the climate.
The effect of natural air ventilation is accounted for by the AccuRate software.
In summary, the comfort band for free running houses was calculated as follows:

• Thermal neutrality plus or minus 2.5◦ C for the living area

• The lower band limit adjusted downward for sleeping time by 5◦ C
• The effect of humidity included to compensate for its effect on the sensation of
temperature

Thermostat Settings for Buildings in Conditioned Operation Mode

The notion of thermal comfort in conditioned buildings is implied in the thermo-
stat settings. The thermostat settings indicate when heating and cooling is switched
on in the computer simulations. This plays an important role in predicting energy
requirements for space heating and cooling. There are several methods to determine
the thermostat settings for conditioned houses (Williamson and Riordan, 1997).
Different strategies for discretionary heating and cooling of houses result in dif-
ferent predictions of energy requirements, and this issue is particularly critical in
temperate climates.
Thermal neutrality as a reference for thermostat setting in AccuRate software is
calculated on the basis of mean January temperature, rounded to the nearest 0.5◦ .
The thermostat setting for cooling is 24.5◦ C and for heating living space is set to
20◦ C everywhere in Australia. For bedrooms, the heating thermostat setting is 18◦ C,
and over sleeping time (0–7 am) it is 15◦ C.
The settings were left unchanged for simulating the thermal performance of typ-
ical houses in conditioned operation mode, in order to maintain a controlled study,
and to enable a comparison between the evaluations of house thermal performances
on the basis of the current HERS and of the HFRS to be proposed.

Heating and Cooling Condition

For this study, all conditioned zones were taken to be heated and cooled to maintain
the indoor temperature in the comfort band over the occupied time. The occupied
time was taken to be the same as that for the free running mode. Service areas, such
as laundry, bathroom, store room and garage were not heated and cooled at all.
70 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Heating and cooling are invoked in AccuRate4 when they are required. Heating
is applied for a conditioned zone if its environmental temperature at the end of an
hour without heating is below the heating thermostat setting. Cooling is applied if
the zone at the end of an hour without cooling or ventilation is outside (above or
to the right side of) the bounds of thermal comfort. The boundaries of the comfort
region are determined as being between 12 g/kg absolute humidity (AH) at the top
of the range, 0 g/kg AH at the bottom and the ET∗ line based on cooling thermostat
+2.5◦ at the right. If the zone temperature is above the outdoor temperature, ven-
tilation is turned on, and a new temperature and air speed are calculated. If the air
speed is above 0.2 m/s, the described comfort region is extended in two ways: the
90% relative humidity (RH) line is considered for the top boundary, and the right
boundary is an ET∗ where:

T = 6(V − 0.2) − 1.6 (V − 0.2)2 V is estimated indoor speed (m/s) (4.2)

If the conditioned zone is still outside the comfort bounds, the zone openings are
closed and cooling is invoked, and so the zone temperature at the end of the hour is
the same as the cooling thermostat setting.
The samples were considered to be air conditioned when they were simulated in
the conditioned operation mode, so during cooling dehumidification was invoked as
well. The total annual energy consumption reported is therefore the total predicted
energy requirement for cooling, heating and dehumidification.

4.1.2.5 Occupancy Scenarios

As discussed in Sect. 2.4.4, a house performance depends on how its occupants run
the building. Occupant behaviour is not predictable; thus most house/home rating
systems employ a typical one-occupancy scenario for evaluating thermal perfor-
mance. However, establishing multiple occupancy scenarios for such a rating system
can increase its accuracy.
For this purpose, occupancy scenarios should be defined as parameters that affect
the thermal performance of houses, rather than how occupants evaluate the particu-
lar performance of a house. For example, the type of clothing of occupants should
not be an important issue in this definition, since it involves personal evaluation. But
the period of time when a house is occupied is a key parameter because over this
time it is important for the thermal performance of a house to be acceptable for its
occupants, since that is when occupants may turn on the air conditioner. The follow-
ing parameters therefore are the simplest key parameters for establishing occupancy
scenarios.

• Occupation time
• Occupied zones

4 This information is based on the AccuRate manual and the help option in the software (2005).
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 71

Occupancy scenarios could be established on the basis of these two key parame-
ters from:
• Surveys or
• Probabilistic scenario based analysis

Surveys are an appropriate way to establish the time when a house may be occu-
pied by different family types. Since the occupation time depends on the family type,
statistical information of households and family types of any nation can be taken
from its Bureau of Statistics. For example, information taken from the Australian
Bureau Statistics (ABS)5 shows the number and demographic characteristics of peo-
ple living in families, the relationships between family members, and the types of
houses that families live in. It describes the usual resident population of Australia
and how the Australian people use their time. However, this statistical informa-
tion was not sufficient to establish a correlation between family types and house
occupation times.
A study by Foster (2006) using ABS information proposed an “occupants fac-
tor” to deal with the question of occupancy scenarios in response to criticism of
the AccuRate software. By using a section from the ABS survey entitled “How
Australians use their time”,6 he proposed multiple weightings to occupancy profiles
by day of week. The weightings were determined with regard to the percentage of
time that a house might be occupied over a weekday and at weekends, and would be
applied in aggregating the results of multiple simulations based on these profiles.
Nevertheless the proposed method, which is conceived as being based on a sur-
vey, does not reflect occupancy appropriately, because it does not include differences
between occupied zones of a house, which is an important parameter affecting the
evaluation of thermal performance. Moreover, the proposed weightings cannot be
accepted as standard, since the numerical value of these factors may vary in different
countries and in the future, as family types are changing in modern society.
A probabilistic method seems to be a possible solution for determining multiple
occupancy scenarios. Probabilistic occupancy scenarios could be established on the
basis of the above two key parameters (time and zone). There could be at least
24! ×3! scenarios, in which the first number refers to 24 h per day and the second
number refers the minimum number of conditioned zones in a house, namely the
bed zone, living zone and one other conditioned zone.7 However a more manageable
number of scenarios would have to be established for application in a future building
evaluation system.
In order to come up with a manageable number of synthesized probabilistic sce-
narios, it is necessary to divide a typical day and occupied conditioned rooms into
certain categories. A typical day can be divided into the four categories of wakeup,

5 (ABS) http://www.abs.gov.au/
6 Australia Bureau Statistic (ABS) “Time Use Survey” Cat. No. 4153.
7 Note: The three conditioned zones are the minimum zones in a house in which the occupied time
and occupants’ activities differ. This is the condition considered in some HERS such as NatHERS.
72 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Table 4.4 Multiple occupancy scenarios in this study

Zone Living zone Bed zone

Scenarios 0–6 6–12 12–18 18–24 0–6 6–12 12–18 18–24

Scenario 1 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Scenario 2 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Scenario 3 ∗ ∗
Scenario 4 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Scenario 5 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Scenario 6 ∗ ∗ ∗

daytime, evening and night time. Therefore, the 24 h of a day are grouped into four
categories of 6 h each. With regard to the typical activity of occupants at home (liv-
ing and sleeping), all conditioned spaces in a residential house are classed into two
conditioned zones: the living and the bed zone. With four groups of time and two
main conditioned zones, 48 = (4! ×2!) scenarios could be developed for HRS. Each
scenario will show the probability of each zone being occupied at a particular time.
A few scenarios were selected in this study to examine how their different effects
might be significant in evaluating and rating house performances, particularly in
evaluating a lightweight house against a heavyweight one. For this purpose, six
scenarios of the 48 probabilistic occupancy scenarios were employed, as shown in
Table 4.4.
These six scenarios were selected on the basis of a small investigation of the fam-
ily and householder types reported by the ABS. The first scenario involves families
who use bedrooms only for sleeping. The second is similar to the standard sce-
nario defined in the current rating scheme in Australia, namely NatHERS. The third
scenario relates to families who are a couple, and are not at home during the day;
however, it does not include the weekend and holiday occupation times. Through
scenario four, the performance of a building is evaluated for full-time occupation.
Scenarios five and six were considered specifically to investigate the performance
of heavyweight and lightweight buildings over the times when lightweight buildings
are likely to show better performance.
The importance of the above occupancy scenarios in HRS is described in
(Kordjamshidi et al., 2005b, 2009). These two studies show the importance of the
occupied time and occupied zone in determining occupancy scenarios, and demon-
strate how different occupancy scenarios may affect the result of ranking in a house
performance evaluation system.

4.1.2.6 Indicators
As explained under Sect. 3.3, energy (MJ/m2 .annum) requirements and weighted
exceedance hours called Degree Discomfort Hours (DDH) were determined as indi-
cators to evaluate the thermal performance of houses in the conditioned and free
running operation modes respectively. Energy requirements were predicted through
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 73

simulation by AccuRate software with a house run in the conditioned mode. To cal-
culate DDH, an algorithm was designed in order to convert hourly temperature data
produced by AccuRate software into DDH.
Post processing was carried out to calculate the DDH. The process of calculating
DDH is shown in Fig. 4.10. The simplified algorithm was written in Excel to convert

Categorize temperature for each month

Higher than Comfort Range Comfort Range Under Comfort Range

Classified by degree temperature Classified by degree temperature

0 – 2°C 2 – 4°C 4 – 6°C 6 – 8°C 8 – 10°C 10 – 12°C 12 – 14°C 0 – 2°C 2 – 4°C 4 – 6°C 6 – 8°C 8 – 10°C 10 – 12°C 12 – 14°C
> > > > > > > < < < < < < <
Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort Comfort
*13

*13
*11

*11
*3

*5

*7

*9

*1

*3

*5

*7

*9
*1

Weighting hours

Remove total degree discomfort hours Remove total degree discomfort hours
under comfort range for summer above comfort range for winter

Classified degree discomfort hours into four categories of time

Total hours 12am-6am, 6am-12pm ,12pm-6pm, 6pm-12am
for each
conditioned
space is
divided by
Aggregate the hours of all zones based on defined scenarios
the number
of rooms for
a particular
zone (bed or
living zone)

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6

Add a proportion of area to each conditioned zone then aggregate

them for each occupancy scenario

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 4.10 Process of computing DDH

74 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

computed annual indoor temperatures (8,760 h) for all zones of a house into the
respective DDH indicators.
As the typical houses differed in the number of their rooms and area (m2 ), 6
typical files were required to be designed for the 6 base samples in order to compute
DDH for each simulated model. Each Excel file contained a number of separate
sheets matched with the number of conditioned zones. Hourly temperatures for each
simulated house in the free running mode were imported into the related Excel file in
order to calculate its annual DDHs. The outcome contained two indicators of DDH;
one being DDH with area weighting, which is weighted by proportion of area, and
the other being DDH without area weighting.
The purpose of considering an area weighted DDH was to better investigate the
correlation between two identified indicators of house performances: MJ/m2 and
DDH with weighted area, in two different house operation modes. The DDH of each
living area and bed zone (conditioned zones) was given a weighting in proportion
to its area as a fraction of the total area. The sum of the area weighted DDHs of
conditioned zones provided the “DDH with area weighting”.
However, it was assumed that degree discomfort hours would be free of the effect
of floor area, so as to avoid the same probabilistic problem which was observed in
the energy based rating schemes discussed in Sect. 2.4.3.

4.1.3 Effective Parameters for Improving Buildings

Thermal Performance

Building design features are the most important parameters affecting thermal perfor-
mance of buildings. This fact is recognized and demonstrated by many researchers
(Hyde, 2000; Planning, 2006; Tavares and Martins, 2007; Tuhus and Krarti, 2010;
Willrath, 1997; Zhai and Chen, 2006). Some of these parameters are described in
the following:

• Internal wall
Internal walls are a partition from which convective heat flows between zones
and so they affect the indoor temperature of a conditioned zone. An interior wall
between two zones with a large temperature differences behaves like an exte-
rior wall (Akbari et al., 1986). Thus the mass and construction of indoor walls
can significantly affect thermal sensation and also heating and cooling energy
requirements.
• Insulation
Heat conduction through building envelopes noticeably affects the fluctua-
tion of indoor temperature and is a major component of the cooling and heating
energy load, so that the indoor climate effectively depends on the resistance of a
building’s external surface.
• External Colour
The colour of the outside surface of a building envelope influences the ther-
mal performance of a building because it determines the amount of absorbed
4.1 Building Performance Evaluation 75

solar radiation and its inward transmission into a building. Dark external colours
improve performance in the winter as they increase the absorbance of solar
energy, but reduce summer performance.
• Building orientation
Building orientation can also affect the indoor climate of a zone or room
because of its effect on the ventilation and solar absorbance of external walls.
Orientation is relatively more important with respect to wind than to the patterns
of solar irradiation, as discussed by Givoni (1976). Since natural ventilation is
a key parameter in improving the performance of buildings, particularly in free
running operation, the magnitude of orientation as a factor cannot be ignored for
an efficient architectural design.
• Infiltration
Air infiltration through cracks results in heat gain and heat loss; therefore infil-
tration or an uncontrolled ventilation rate reduces the thermal performance of a
building.
• Glazing type
The effect of the glazing type used in the transparent parts of a building on the
performance of the building has been well documented (Klainsek, 1991; Nielsen
et al., 2001; Omar and Al-Ragom, 2002), particularly for air conditioned build-
ings. Glazing systems have a huge impact on the performance of a building, and
glazing modification often presents an opportunity for indoor climate improve-
ments in a building. Window glazing and frames are a major factor in determining
the energy efficiency of the building envelope.
The three main types of glass are clear, reflective and tinted. Reflective win-
dows diminish solar transmission without heating up the glass area. A large
proportion of the radiation can be absorbed by tinted glass when the glass surface
is heated up. The heat is then radiated and conducted to the surrounding area,
so for summer the benefit of this type of glass, compared to reflective glass, is
reduced.
Single glazed windows provide only a small amount of insulation to the pas-
sage of heat because of thin films of still air that exist next to the glass. Double
glazing gives better insulation because there are two panes of glass with a sealed
space between them.
• Internal window covering
Window coverings present a different effect on the performance of a building
depending on their placement, whether internal or external. An internal window
covering limits the glare resulting from solar radiation. This device, depending on
its material and colour, can be effective in minimizing uncomfortable glare from
direct beams, and in reducing the sun’s heat from entering the space. Moreover,
it increases the heat resistance of glazed areas when closed.
• Sun shading devices
External shading devices affect the thermal performance of a house by reduc-
ing the incident solar intensity and therefore incident solar energy, or the amount
of solar energy on windows and walls. Shading can be created by overhangs
or eaves and vertical side fins, but the former have been shown to be more
76 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

effective in shading than the latter (Offiong and Ukpoho, 2004). However their
effectiveness depends on their width.
• Ratio of openable windows
The presence of openable doors and windows affects air ventilation and
improves the thermal performance of a naturally ventilated building when the out-
door temperature is less than the indoor temperature during summer. Depending
on the climate, increasing its ratio to that of overall glazing can also significantly
reduce the cooling load.
• Window to wall ratio
Windows have been described as “thermal holes” (Fisette, 2003). They are
mostly 10 times less energy efficient than the wall area they replace. Thus,
depending on the window area and its orientation, a house can lose 30%
of its air-conditioning energy. However their effect on the indoor environ-
ment of a naturally ventilated building will differ from that on a conditioned
building.
These parameters were identified as being of primary significance in investi-
gating both the energy requirements and DDH in typical houses in the selected
climate zone. Thus the effect of each of these parameters was tested, to investi-
gate whether their individual effect was similar in the performance of a house in
conditioned and in free running operation mode. The variation of each parameter
employed in the simulated modes is shown in Table 4.5

Table 4.5 House parameters for simulations

Parameter descriptions Variation of parameter

1 Ceiling insulation (resistance) 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 (m2 K/W)

2 Wall insulation (resistance) 0, 1, 1.5, 2, 3 (m2 K/W)
3 Floor insulation (resistance) 0, 1, 1.5, 2 (m2 K/W)
4 Internal wall construction Plasterboard, concrete block, brick plasterboard
and cavity brick
5 Infiltration (air change per hour) 0, 1, 2, 5
6 Window covering (resistance) Open weave (0), closed weave (0.03), heavy
drape (0.055) and heavy drape + pelmet (0.33)
7 Percentage of open able window (%) 25(base), 50%, 75%
8 Shading device (eave length) 0, 450, 600, 1,000 mm
9 Orientation (degree) 0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, 315
10 Glazing type (shading coefficient) Single glazing (1), reflective (0.52), tone and
clear (0.70), Double glazing (0.88), clear and
tone (0.60)
11 Roof colour (absorbance) Light (30%), Medium (50%), Dark (85%)
12 Wall colour (absorbance) Light (30%), Medium (50%), Dark (85%)
13 Window to wall ratio (N & S) (%) 0(base), 15%, 25%
14 Window to wall ratio (E & W) (%) 0(base), 15%, 25%

0 (base) refers to the percentage of window to wall ratio in the typical houses which is different for
different models. It does not mean that the ratio of window to wall is 0.
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 77

4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances

of Buildings: A Comparative Analysis

4.2.1 What Is Sensitivity Analysis?

Sensitivity is a measure of the effect of change in one factor on another factor.
Sensitivity analysis is potentially useful in all phases of the modelling process:
model formulation, model calibration and model verification. Tarantola and Saltelli
(2003) demonstrated that sensitivity analysis can produce useful information regard-
ing the behaviour of the underlying simulated system. Sensitivity analysis is used to
assess the relationship between variations in input parameters to variations in output
parameters, and has been used in many studies on buildings (Lam and Hui, 1996;
Lomas and Eppel, 1992; Zhai and Chen, 2006), including for assessing their thermal
performance and their energy load characteristics.
The aim of sensitivity analysis is to observe the system’s response following
modification in a given design parameter (Cammarata et al., 1993). However there
are no formal rules or well-defined procedures for performing sensitivity analy-
sis for building design, because the objectives of each study will be different and
building descriptions are quite complicated. In most cases, perturbation techniques
and sensitivity methods are used to study the impact of input parameters on differ-
ent simulation outputs as compared to a base case situation. The results are then
interpreted and generalized so as to predict the likely responses of the system. The
concept is simple and straightforward, but a clear understanding of what sensitivity
analysis can do for studies of building thermal performance and energy consumption
and how the results should be interpreted is very important.
In this case the aim of sensitivity analysis has been to investigate the effects
of house envelope variations on the annual and seasonal behaviour of the typical
houses studied, and in particular to investigate possible linkages between the thermal
performances of a house in different operation modes in response to the variations
described above in Sect. 4.1.3.
The outcomes of the comparative simulations are explained in the following four
categories for each parameter:

• house operation mode (free running/conditioned)

• house construction (heavyweight (HW)/lightweight (LW))
• house type (single storey (SS)/double storey (DS))
• seasonal performances (summer/winter)

4.2.2 Thermal Performances of Dwellings in the Sydney Climate

The following section reports the result of the simulations for the Sydney climate
and their analysis. Observations are reported based on the absolute value or relative
78 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

(percentage) changes in the predicted thermal performance of base cases resulting

from a modification of each one of their design parameters (presented in Table 4.5).
As the main concern of the comparisons is to find any difference between the ther-
mal performances of houses in each of these categories, differences are noted even
if the numerical value of changes in the thermal performance may not be significant.
Note: As previously defined in Sect. 4.1.2.6, thermal performance of free running
houses was evaluated on the basis of Degree Discomfort Hours (DDH), with and
without area weighting. In a small study by the author on the thermal performances
of the typical houses in free running operation mode, no significant difference was
observed between the evaluation of buildings on the basis of DDH with and without
area weighting. Therefore, calculating DDH without area weighting is more likely
to be appropriate for the purpose of rating, to avoid any discrimination between
bigger and smaller houses. Consequently the result of an evaluation of the thermal
performance of free running houses in terms of DDH with area weighting is not
shown here.

4.2.2.1 Ceiling Insulation

The effect of three different bulks of ceiling insulation on the thermal performance
of the typical houses, with both lightweight and heavyweight construction, was
simulated. The results were as follows.
Free running and conditioned mode. In both free running and conditioned mode
the thermal performance was found to be improved by the use of bulk ceiling insu-
lation as shown in Fig. 4.11. The addition of R2 insulation to the ceiling of a typical
house gave an average reduction in annual energy requirements of 42.5%. In free
running mode, the annual degree discomfort hours was decreased by 32.9%. The
application of insulation greater than R2 produced a minimal change in the thermal
performance of both house modes.
Employing ceiling insulation as a technique for improving design efficiency,
therefore, creates a greater reduction in annual energy requirements in conditioned
houses than in the annual discomfort degree hours in free running houses.

Free running operation Conditioned operation

30000 AH1 600 AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1 AL1
25000 AH2 500 AH2
Energy (MJ/m²)

AL2 AL2
20000 CH1 400 CH1
CL1 CL1
15000 CH2
300 CH2
CL2 CL2
10000 200 DH1
DH1
DL1 DL1
5000 100
DH2 DH2
DL2 DL2
0 0
R=0 R=1 R=2 R=3 R=4 R=0 R=1 R=2 R=3 R=4

Fig. 4.11 Projected effect of ceiling insulation on the annual thermal performances of typical
houses in conditioned and free running operation modes
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 79

Seasonal performance. Ceiling insulation improved both summer and winter per-
formance in both operation modes. This is illustrated in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2, Appendix.
A greater improvement in the seasonal performance of houses in conditioned mode
was found in both summer and winter performances when R2.0 insulation was
added to the ceiling, with an average improvement of 41–44% respectively. In free
running mode the improvements were 32 and 42% respectively. This indicates that
the seasonal performance of houses in the conditioned mode is more sensitive to
any change in ceiling insulation.
Single Storey and Double Storey. Although adding ceiling insulation affected the
thermal performance of both SS and DS houses, this effect was greater in SS houses,
whether the house was in free running or conditioned mode. The application of R3
insulation improved the annual thermal performance of SS houses approximately
1.5 times more than it did in DS houses in both modes. The main reason for this
appears to be the typical placement of the bed zone above the living zone in the
DS houses. This particular arrangement substantially isolates the living zone ceil-
ing from the outdoor environment. Accordingly, heat transfer between the living
zone and the outdoor environment through the ceiling is reduced and ceiling insula-
tion does not change this phenomenon. Since the thermal performance of the living
zone (in DS) is not greatly sensitive to ceiling insulation, and the sensitivity of a
house’s thermal performance depends to a great extent on the sensitivity of its living
zone, the thermal performance of the DS houses does not greatly change when an
insulation layer is added to the ceilings.
This result may differ in other occupancy scenarios, depending on the number
of hours that the living zone is occupied. It could also change if the location of the
living zone was transferred from the ground floor to the first floor.

4.2.2.2 Wall Insulation

Wall insulation has been nominated as a useful technique for improving the thermal
performance of all construction types in conditioned mode in the Sydney climate
(Willrath, 1997). However, this study has found that while adding insulation would
enhance the performance of a conditioned house, this was not the case for some
houses in free running mode.
Free running and conditioned mode. Fig. 4.12 depicts a situation in which an
increase in wall insulation would result in:

– a decrease on annual energy requirements,

– a general decrease on annual degree discomfort hours,
– an increase on annual degree discomfort hours for single storey heavyweight
houses.

The addition of R2 insulation to the external walls of typical houses resulted in

an average 14% improvement in their annual thermal performance in conditioned
mode, but the improvement was only an average of 6.9% for all houses in free
running mode. This average improvement does not include Single Storey houses
80 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Free running operation Conditioned operation

Degree Discomfort Hours

30000 AH1 600 AH1

AL1 AL1
25000 500

Energy (MJ/m²)
AH2 AH2
AL2 AL2
20000 CH1 400 CH1
CL1 CL1
15000 CH2 300 CH2
CL2 CL2
10000 DH1 200 DH1
DL1 DL1
5000 DH2 100 DH2
DL2 DL2
0 0
R=0 R=1 R=1.5 R=2 R=3 R=0 R=1 R=1.5 R=2 R=3
R R

Fig. 4.12 Projected effect of wall insulation on the annual thermal performances of typical houses
in conditioned and free running operation modes

with heavyweight construction, as this group of simulated models appeared to be an

exception to this general observation.
Heavyweight, single storey houses presented a slight deterioration in their free
running annual thermal performances (0.8%) when insulation was added to their
external wall. The reason for this overall deterioration is apparent when their sea-
sonal performances are examined, and is discussed in more detail in the relevant
section below.
Note: the following comparisons between SS & DS and HW & LW do not include
the thermal behaviors of SS HW houses.
Single Storey and Double Storey. DS houses achieved a greater improvement
in their thermal performance when insulation was added to their external walls
than did SS houses. In free running mode the improvement was an average of 7%
more in DS houses; and in conditioned mode it was about 10%. This is shown in
Fig. 4.13.
One reason for the greater improvement in DS houses seems to be the placement
of the bed zone above the living zone, which performs as an insulation layer above
the living zone (above its ceiling) in that typical design of DS houses. With exter-
nal wall insulation, all external sides of a living zone in a DS house appear to be

25.0%
Percentage improvement

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%
Fig. 4.13 Comparison
between the average effect of 5.0%
wall insulation on improving
the thermal performance of 0.0%
Free running mode Conditioned mode
single storey (SS) and double
storey (DS) houses Single Storey Double storey
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 81

Free running operation Conditioned operation

25000 500
450
Degree Discomfort Hours

20000 400
350
15000 300

MJ/m²
250
10000 200
150
5000 100
50
0 0
Annual DDH Hating DDH Cooling DDH Total energy Heating energy Cooling energy
HC LC1 HC LC1

Fig. 4.14 Comparison of the thermal performance of a HW SS house in the Sydney climate
without an insulation (HC) layer and a LW house with R.1 insulation in its external walls (LC)

insulated, while in SS house there is more heat transfer through the ceiling.
Although the situation of the bed zone in both house types is similar, the thermal
performance of a living zone is more important in evaluating annual thermal perfor-
mance of a house based on the first occupancy scenario, in which 75% of the time
the living zone is occupied.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. The typical houses with lightweight construction
achieved greater improvement in their thermal performances than those with heavy-
weight construction in response to the addition of insulation to the external walls.
Greater improvement was observed in both conditioned and free running modes.
With the addition of R.2 insulation, typical LW houses presented an average of
8.7% reduction in annual degree discomfort hours and 17.5% reduction in annual
energy requirements. HW houses showed an average of 4.6% reduction in annual
DDH, and 11.3% reduction in energy requirements.
When R1.0 insulation was added to the external walls of LW single storey houses,
they achieved an aggregate thermal performance equivalent to that of HW SS ones
without insulation (Fig. 4.14). This finding therefore seems to confirm the assump-
tion described in Chap. 2, that LW SS buildings are able to achieve annual thermal
performance comparable to those with HW construction in the Sydney climate.
Seasonal performance. The effect of wall insulation on the seasonal performance
of typical houses is illustrated in Figs. 6.3 and 6.4, Appendix.
As previously noted, for typical houses in conditioned mode, adding insula-
tion to external walls resulted in a predicted reduction of heating and cooling
energy requirements. However, the summer performance of single storey houses
with heavyweight construction appeared to be unresponsive to wall insulation. This
observation implies that wall insulation would not be a useful technique to improve
the thermal performance of single storey detached dwellings in warmer climates.
Also as noted previously, external wall insulation improved the free running
winter performance of typical houses, with the exception of single storey, heavy-
weight houses. The SS, HW winter performances were found to be unresponsive
to wall insulation (an average of 0.2% change), while the summer performances
82 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Summer performance Winter performance

4550 10520

Degree Discomfort Hours

Degree Discomfort Hours

10500
4500
10480
4450
10460
4400
10440
4350 10420

4300 10400
R=0 R=1 R=1.5 R=2 R=3 R=0 R=1 R=1.5 R=2 R=3
R R

Fig. 4.15 Projected effect of wall insulation on the free running seasonal performance of a SS HW
house

deteriorated by about 2%. Thus the slight deterioration that was observed in their
annual performance in response to increased insulation would appear to be the result
of degradation in their summer performances. This situation is depicted in Fig. 4.15
for a typical SS HW house.

4.2.2.3 Floor Insulation

A slab on the ground floor without carpet gives the best performance in the Sydney
climate (Willrath, 1997). However in the housing market most of the floor area is
usually covered by carpet. Therefore, in order to simulate typical houses, slab floors
in heavyweight houses were simulated as covered by carpet. For HW houses an
insulation layer was added under the slab floor.
The timber floor of typical houses with LW construction was suspended 60 cm
above the ground. This type of floor was not covered by carpet, and insulation for
these cases was added under the suspended floor.
Free running and conditioned mode. In free running mode adding a level of
insulation under the ground floor of the typical houses caused a slight degradation
in the annual thermal performances of all of them, whereas in conditioned mode,
depending on the type and construction of houses, this addition produced varying
changes.
As shown in Fig. 4.16, adding R1 insulation resulted on average in 3.9% dete-
rioration in the annual free running performance of the typical houses. In the
conditioned mode this addition produced two different patterns of annual energy
requirement for SS and DS houses, and will be described in the following section.
It is worth noting that in both house modes a higher level of insulation produced a
minimal change of less than 1% in their annual thermal performances.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. Overall patterns of thermal performance of
the typical HW houses showed no significant sensitivity toward the addition of
under-floor R1.0 insulation. The houses with LW construction achieved a slight
improvement in the annual thermal performance in the conditioned mode (average
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 83

Free running operation Conditioned operation

30000 550
AH1 AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

25000 AL1 500 AL1

AH2 AH2
450

Energy (MJ/m²)
AL2 AL2
20000
CH1 400 CH1
CL1 CL1
15000 350
CH2 CH2

10000 CL2 300 CL2

DH1 DH1
250
DL1 DL1
5000
DH2 200 DH2
DL2 DL2
0 150
R=0 R=1 R=1.5 R=2 R=0 R=1 R=1.5 R=2
R (Value) R (Value)

Fig. 4.16 Projected effect of floor insulation on the annual thermal performances of typical houses
in conditioned and free running operation modes

1.15%), but an apparent deterioration in their free running performance (average

6.5%). Possible reasons for the latter unexpected observation are explored in the
following section.
Single Storey and Double Storey. In the free running operation mode no signifi-
cant difference was observed between sensitivity in the thermal performance of DS
and SS houses in response to the insertion of under-floor insulation. In the condi-
tioned operation mode a marginal deterioration (0.8%) was observed in response to
the addition of R.1 insulation under the floor, while the same change made a slightly
greater (2.4%) improvement in the performance of DS houses. The different effect
of floor insulation appears to be attributable to more improvement in the winter
performance of DS houses and will be described in the following.
Seasonal performances. The effectiveness of floor insulation was investigated in
the seasonal behaviour of the typical houses. Figures 6.5 and 6.6 in Appendix depict
the patterns of seasonal behaviour of the houses in response to the addition of three
different levels of under-floor insulation.
The insertion of an R.1 insulation layer under the floor of uninsulated typical
houses resulted in an apparent deterioration in both seasonal performances in the
free running mode, with an average of 8.3 and 5.3% deterioration in the summer and
winter performances respectively. The responses in the winter performance become
more interesting when we note that deterioration in the winter performance of LW
houses (5.8%) was significantly more than that in HW houses (0.014%). A reason
for this phenomenon is the effect of those times when the temperature in the sus-
pended floor zone is higher than the indoor temperature of spaces on the ground
floor, such as the living zone. In this situation, insulation reduces the benefits of
subfloor temperatures by reducing heat transfer between subfloor and ground floor.
The likelihood of this explanation being correct was tentatively confirmed by exam-
ining the zone temperatures from the simulation outputs for a relevant day.8 This

8 A comparison was made between the hourly temperature of the living zone and the suspended
floor for one of the LW typical houses in the free running operation mode when R2 insulation
was added under the suspended floor. The following figure shows the hourly zone temperature
for a warm and cold day respectively, on the 15th of January and of July. Both figures illustrate
84 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

finding points to the inapplicability of floor insulation to improving the thermal

performance of a free running house.
The winter performance of a conditioned house can be improved overall by
insulating its floor. Applying R.1 insulation under the floors of typical houses in
conditioned mode resulted in:
An average of 2.8% reduction in their heating energy requirement. The reduction
in DS houses (4.9%) was greater than that in SS houses (0.8%).
An average of 3.5% increase in their cooling energy requirement. This was the
same for both SS and DS houses.
Therefore the observed improvement in the annual thermal performance of DS
houses occurred because the improvement in the winter performance of these houses
outweighed the deterioration in their summer performances.

4.2.2.4 Wall Colour

External surface colour has a significant effect on the thermal performance of build-
ings. This is shown in a theoretical and experimental study in Bansal et al. (1992).
Dark and light colours reduce under-heating and overheating respectively. That is
to say, a light external colour is effective in reducing cooling energy requirements
in a warm climate. In a Sydney study, when dark external colours were replaced
by light colours, the annual energy requirement of an uninsulated house with stan-
dard mass9 was reduced by 13% (Willrath, 1997). Though the light external colour
enhanced the annual thermal performance of a conditioned house, this colour did
not cause an enhancement in the annual thermal performance of the same house in
free running mode. This will be explored in the following.

that the temperature of the suspended floor zone is closer to thermal comfort temperature than the
temperature of the living zone for more hours of the day. Floor insulation restricts heat transfer
between these two zones and therefore in effect reduces the benefits of a suspended floor for a free
running building in such ambient conditions. Comparison between temperature of living zone and
sub floor zone of a lightweight house for 15th July and January in the Sydney climate.
26
33
Living
Living
24 zone 31 zone

22 29
Temperature
Temperature

Subfloor Subfloor
20 27

25
18
Upper 23 Uper
16 comfort comfort
band 21 band
14 19
Lower Lower
12 comfort 17 comfort
band band

10 15
10

12

14
16

18

20

22
0

4
6

8
10
12

14
16
18

20

22
0
2

6
8

hour (15th of July) hour (15th of Jan)

Comparison between temperature of living zone and sub floor zone of a lightweight house for
15th July and January in the Sydney climate.
9 Standard mass refers to a house with brick veneer RFL in external walls, R2.5 in the ceiling and
no floor insulation.
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 85

Free running operation Conditioned operation

26000 AH1 550
AH1
AL1 500
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1
21000 AH2
450 AH2
AL2

Energy (MJ/m²)
AL2
CH1 400
16000 CH1
CL1 350 CL1
CH2
11000 300 CH2
CL2
CL2
DH1 250
DH1
6000 DL1 200 DL1
DH2
150 DH2
DL2
1000 100 DL2
Light Medium Dark Light Medium Dark
Wall colour Wall colour

Fig. 4.17 Projected effect of external wall colour on the annual thermal performances of typical
houses in conditioned and free running operation modes

Free running and conditioned mode. The colour of the external wall had vari-
ous effects on the thermal performances of houses in different modes. Figure 4.17
clearly demonstrates these differences. When light colour on the external wall was
replaced by dark colour, an average of 3.5% enhancement occurred in the thermal
performances of typical houses in the free running mode. The same change pro-
duced an average of 3.6% deterioration in the thermal performance of the houses in
the conditioned mode. Seasonal behaviour is likely to be the main reason for this
variation.
Seasonal performance. Applying dark colour with 85% absorbance instead of
light colour on the external wall improved a house’s winter performance and
degraded its summer performance in both modes. Figures 6.7 and 6.8, Appendix
illustrates this situation among the typical houses.
The amount of improvement and apparent deterioration in the seasonal per-
formance of an uninsulated house depended on the operation mode. The summer
performance was more sensitive to changing external wall colour in the conditioned
mode than in the free running mode, whereas the winter performance in free running
mode was more sensitive to such changes. With the application of a dark instead of
light external wall colour, the deterioration on the summer performance of houses in
conditioned mode was found to be more than that in the free running mode (about
7%). The same change, by contrast, gave slightly more improvement in the winter
performance of houses in the free running mode (2%).
The lower degradation in the summer performance of free running houses is
related to the capability of such houses to reduce the number of overheating degree
hours. The impact of the exterior dark colour is lessened because of the natural ven-
tilation which benefits these houses during hot months. Although this benefit exists
in conditioned mode,10 it is not as significant as it is in the free running mode.

10 AccuRate software counts the effect of air ventilation for prediction of cooling energy require-
ments (see se Sect. 4.1.2.2 for more clarification).
86 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

The different effects of the external wall colour that are seen in the annual ther-
mal performances are due to the high degradation in its summer performance in
the conditioned mode. This means that advice appropriate for improving the perfor-
mance of the conditioned houses may not necessarily be applicable in the case of
the free running operation mode.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. The impact of external wall colour on the ther-
mal behavior of a house was related to the construction of the building. HW houses
showed more sensitivity to changes in the external colour of the wall in free run-
ning mode, with the thermal performance improving by 5.8%, while LW houses
displayed more sensitivity to the same change in conditioned mode, with a deteri-
oration of 6% in thermal performance. This observation again reinforces the view
that the house operation mode is a significant consideration when making a decision
about adopting appropriate advice for efficient architectural design.
Single Store and Double Storey. There was a greater change in the thermal per-
formance of DS houses than in SS houses in response to variation in external wall
colour. An average of 6.1% reduction occurred in the heating energy requirement of
SS houses with the replacement of a dark colour for a light one, while the reduction
was roughly 1.5 times greater (9.2%) in DS houses. This observation was similar
whether the houses were in the conditioned or free running operation mode. The
reason seems to be due to the typical design of DS houses in this study, as explained
previously, for which the effect of any changes on the external wall, such as wall
insulation and wall colour, produces more changes in the thermal performance of
DS houses.

4.2.2.5 Roof Colour

Absorptance is the thermal property related to material surface and colour. The
absorptance of a roof has a considerably greater effect on energy loads than exter-
nal walls do (Shariah et al., 1998). Givoni (1976) has pointed out that the external
surface of the roof is often subject to the largest temperature fluctuations, depend-
ing on what type it is, and on its external colour. The simulations in this study
similarly demonstrated a considerable impact from roof absorptance on the indoor
environment, particularly in single storey houses and in conditioned mode.
Free running and conditioned mode. A change in the external roof colour from
light (30% absorptance) to dark colour (85% absorptance) degraded a house’s
annual thermal performance by between 4.5 and 44% for all typical houses in
conditioned mode. In free running mode different effects on the annual thermal
performance were found, depending on whether the houses were single or double
storey (Fig. 4.18).
Single Storey and Double Storey. Two different effects were observed among
the free running houses from a change in roof colour. The application of a dark
colour resulted in a deterioration of 7.4–11.7% in SS free running houses. In the
performance of DS houses there was a marginal improvement of 3.7%. The reason
for this is that in DS houses in this sample, as before, the bed zone is designed to
be above the living zone. Because of this, the number of “cooling degree hours”
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 87

Free running operation Conditioned operation

30000 AH1 700 AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1 AL1
25000 AH2
600
AH2

Energy (MJ/m2)
AL2 AL2
500
20000 CH1 CH1
CL1
CL1 400
CH2
15000 CL2
CL2
DH1 300
DH1
10000 DL1
DL1
DH2
200
DH2
DL2 DL2
5000 100
Light Medium Dark Light Medium Dark
Roof colour Roof colour

Fig. 4.18 Projected effect of roof colour on the annual thermal performances of typical houses in
conditioned and free running operation modes

caused by the effect of solar radiation absorptance on the dark roof is reduced in
the living zone. On the other hand, the dark colour advantages DS houses over the
cold months, by reducing “heating” degree hours in the bed zone in winter, without
affecting overheating of the living zones during the hot months.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. Typical houses with LW construction in free run-
ning mode showed more sensitivity to external roof colour change in their thermal
performance than houses with HW construction. There was slightly more sensitiv-
ity (1–3%) in annual thermal performance of LW houses in this mode than in HW
houses when light colour was replaced by dark colour. This situation was reversed
in the conditioned mode.
Seasonal performance. Figs. 6.9 and 6.10 in Appendix illustrate a breakdown of
the seasonal performance of typical houses in response to the variations in exter-
nal roof colour. The figures depict an improvement in the winter performances and
degradation in the summer performances of houses in both free running and condi-
tioned mode. Free running buildings, taking more advantage of natural ventilation,
have the ability to adjust (reduce) overheating caused by a dark roof colour.
In the Sydney climate, therefore, an appropriate external roof colour seems more
important for improving the thermal performance of a conditioned house than for a
free running house. However it should not be ignored that in free running mode the
DDHs may stay high.

4.2.2.6 Orientation
A building’s orientation to the sun will impact on the house’s ability to optimize
passive heating and cooling, and natural ventilation. Solar heat gained through the
external surface of a building depends on the orientation of the surface (azimuth).
The influence on indoor temperature of orientation, together with its interaction
with other building envelope features, has been well documented (Givoni, 1976).
Orientation, therefore, is an important parameter in an efficient architectural design.
The following investigates any difference between the sensitivity of houses’ thermal
performances in different operation modes in response to changing orientation.
88 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Free running operation Conditioned operation

30000 AH1 550
AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1 500 AL1

25000 AH2 450

Energy (MJ/m²)
AH2
AL2 AL2
CH1
400
20000 CH1
CL1 350 CL1
CH2 300 CH2
15000 CL2 CL2
250
DH1 DH1
10000 DL1 200 DL1
DH2 150 DH2
DL2 DL2
5000 100
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
Orientation Orientation

Fig. 4.19 Projected effect of orientation on the annual thermal performances of typical houses in
conditioned and free running operation modes

Free running and conditioned. The findings of this study indicate a relatively
small variation in the thermal performances of houses in response to changes in
its orientation. Figure 4.19 shows the outcomes of changing the orientation by 45◦
increments (over eight orientations), which produced an average variation of 5% in
the annual thermal performance in free running mode, while in conditioned mode
the variation was on average 5.5%. The explanation for this small variability is the
design of all typical house plans, with relatively equally sized windows, which are
distributed on all sides.
The variation depends largely on the changes in the thermal performance of the
living zone, because this zone is occupied for the most time (18 h per day) in the first
specified occupancy scenario. Therefore, to improve the thermal performance of a
house, the highest priority would be to optimize the orientation of the living zone.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. The influence of variations in house orientation
on a house with HW construction was found to be greater than its effect on the same
house with LW construction, because of the substantial potential of thermal mass to
delay transferring heat gains. In response to incrementally rotating the orientation of
the typical houses by 45◦ , the variation in the thermal performances of HW houses
was on average 3 times greater than that for houses with LW construction in free
running mode, but was only about two times greater in conditioned mode.
Seasonal performance. A breakdown of seasonal performance in response to
variations in orientation is given in Figs. 6.11 and 6.12, Appendix. It was observed
that the impact of orientation on the variation of “cooling” degree hours and cooling
energy (summer performance) was greater than its impact on the variation of “heat-
ing” degree hours and heating energy (winter performance). This observation points
to the importance of building orientation for taking advantage of wind direction for
natural ventilation, particularly for free running buildings, in addition to making use
of solar heat gain over winter.
Single Storey and Double Storey. No significant difference was observed between
the average changes in the annual thermal performance of DS and SS houses as a
result of changing the house orientation. DS houses showed slightly more sensitivity
(about 1%) to various house orientations in thermal performance than did SS houses
in this study. As mentioned before, the thermal performance of a house depends
strongly on the thermal performance of the house’s living zone. In DS houses the
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 89

living zones are generally designed on the ground floor and under the bed zone, and
therefore there is no direct heat gain from the roof in this zone. This means that
the thermal performance of a DS house is reasonably sensitive to the external wall
orientation, whereas the thermal performance of the living zone in the SS houses
is significantly affected by the thermal effects of the roof. The fluctuations in the
winter performances of DS houses in response to the various orientations depend on
the external wall area of the living zone.

4.2.2.7 Overhang Depth

Solar gain through windows is obviously the largest load component, and window
shading can have a significant impact on solar loads. Shading provided by overhangs
at the top of windows with no offset distance was studied and its effect on energy
and degree discomfort hours was calculated.
Free running and conditioned. Adding an overhang above all windows improved
annual thermal performance of the typical houses in conditioned mode. However,
this was not the case for the houses in free running mode. The houses presented dif-
ferent patterns of annual thermal performance in the different modes, responding to
increments in overhang width. This situation is shown in Fig. 4.20. Increases in over-
hang width of 1 m resulted in an average of 4.8% enhancement in the house’s annual
thermal performance in conditioned mode. The same overhang generally caused
3.7% deterioration in annual free running performance, while a slight improvement
was observed in thermal performance in some cases. The reason for these different
results is made clear when comparing the seasonal performances of each house in
the two different house operation modes.
Seasonal performance. The setting of overhang at the top of all windows with no
offset was beneficial for improving summer performance. The benefit was greater
for a conditioned house than for a free running house. When all the overhang widths
were increased to 1 m, the summer performance improved by an average of 26.6%
in conditioned mode. The improvement was, however, only an average of 8% for all
houses in free running mode. The winter performance of the typical houses in this
situation deteriorated by an average of 8.2% in conditioned mode and 11.7% in the

Free running operation Conditioned operation

30000 550
Degree Discomfort Hours

AH1 AH1
AL1 500 AL1
25000
AH2 AH2
450
Energy (MJ/m²)

AL2 AL2
20000 400
CH1 CH1
CL1 350 CL1
15000
CH2 300 CH2
CL2 CL2
10000 250
DH1 DH1
DL1 200 DL1
5000
DH2
DH2 150
DL2 DL2
0 100
E=0 E=450 E=600 E=1000 E=0 E=450 E=600 E=1000
Overhang width Overhang width

Fig. 4.20 Projected effect of overhang width on the annual thermal performance of typical houses
in conditioned and free running operation modes
90 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

free running mode. Thus the poorer outcome that was observed in the annual free
running performance of some of the houses (in response to the setting of overhang
with a width of 1 m for all windows) would appear to owe more to deterioration in
their winter performance and less improvement in their summer performance in free
running mode than in conditioned mode (See Figures 6.13 and 6.14 in Appendix).
Operable overhangs are therefore obviously useful for different house operation
modes.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. HW houses were twice as sensitive to changes in
the width of overhang as LW houses in free running mode. This result was reversed
for LW houses in the conditioned mode.
It should be noted that in an efficient architectural design a suitable overhang
width would be designed in relation to window area and orientation. The purpose
of the analysis here is to examine the discrepancy between thermal performances
in two different building modes in response to the same conditions. Thus a series
of overhangs of the same width was applied for all windows, regardless of the
orientation.
Single Storey and Double Storey. A comparison was made between the average
percentage changes in the annual thermal performance of the DS and SS houses
when adding overhang above the windows. It was found that in free running mode
the average change in the DS houses was 12 times greater than that in the SS houses.
In contrast, in conditioned mode the average annual performance of the SS houses
was 1.5 times greater than that in the DS houses. This observation confirms the
importance of house types in the interaction with house modes.

4.2.2.8 Glazing Type

The performances of the typical houses were simulated using a range of glazing
types. Figure 4.21 shows the patterns resulting from changes in performance when
all glazing was changed from single glazing to other specified types (See Sect. 4.1.3
for glazing specifications).
Free running and conditioned modes. Fig. 4.21 depicts the situation of typi-
cal houses in annual thermal performance when all their glazing (SG Clr) was

Free running operation Conditioned operation

25000 550
AH1 AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

23000 AL1 500 AL1

21000 AH2 450 AH2
Energy (MJ/m²)

19000 AL2
400 AL2
CH1 CH1
17000
CL1 350 CL1
15000
CH2 300 CH2
13000 CL2 CL2
11000 DH1
250
DH1
9000 DL1 200 DL1
7000 DH2 150 DH2
DL2
5000 100
DL2

SG Refl SG Tone SG Clr DG Clr DG Tone SG Refl SG Tone SG Clr DG Clr DG Tone
Glazing type Glazing type

Fig. 4.21 Projected effect of glazing types on the annual thermal performances of typical houses
in conditioned and free running operation modes
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 91

replaced by other specified types. All typical houses in free running mode showed
the same patterns in their annual thermal performances in response to the applica-
tion of different glazing types. These patterns were slightly different from those in
the conditioned mode.
The replacement of all SG Clr with SG tone resulted in an average of 4.6%
degradation in free running annual thermal performance, while in the conditioned
mode there was significantly less degradation (0.3).
DG improved the thermal performance of houses in both modes. In a study by
Willrath (1997) replacement of SG with DG reduced the annual energy requirement
by between 12 and 17%, depending on the window frame type. The finding in this
study showed an average of 6.2% reduction in the annual energy requirement of
typical houses, in response to the same glazing replacement, with an aluminium
frame. This replacement caused a reduction of 2.1% in annual degree discomfort
hours in free running mode.
As noted above, the thermal performance of a house is affected by the type of
glazing, whether it is in free running or conditioned mode. Nevertheless, the percent-
age of degradation or improvement depends on the house operation mode, which is
discussed in detail in the following. This phenomenon again highlights the signifi-
cance of house operation mode in providing particular advice for improving design
efficiency.
Double Storey and Single Storey. A comparison of SS and DS performances in
free running mode demonstrated that the thermal performance of DS houses was
more sensitive to the type of glazing. For instance, by replacing SC Clr with SG
Refl. the range of deterioration in the annual thermal performance of DS houses
was between 15.5 and 1.8%, while this range for SS houses was only between 2.9
and 0.5%.
The above observation illustrates that the potentiality of DS houses to improve
their thermal performance differs from that of SS houses.
Seasonal performance. The influence of four different glazing types on the sea-
sonal performance of the houses is illustrated in Figs. 6.15 and 6.16, Appendix.
The illustration shows the patterns of summer and winter performances in both free
running and conditioned modes. The pattern is the same for both modes. However,
the summer performance of conditioned houses was more affected by variations in
glazing. For instance, in conditioned mode the houses achieved an enhancement of
7.67% on average in their summer performance when changing SG Clr to SG tone.
This change improved their free running performance by an average of 4.8%. Their
winter performance was degraded by 4.5% in conditioned mode and by 3.5% in free
running mode.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. The thermal performance of a HW house was
relatively more sensitive to changes in glazing type than the thermal performance
of the same house with LW construction in both building modes. For instance,
replacing all SG Clr glazing by SG tone produced an average of 2.7% deteri-
oration in the annual free running thermal performance of typical houses with
HW construction. This deterioration was reduced to 1.1% for houses with LW
construction.
92 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

4.2.2.9 Window Covering

A building’s thermal performance can be improved by using openable internal win-
dow covering. This improvement depends on the level of resistance, transmittance
and absorptance of the window covering. Simulations were undertaken for four
types of indoor window covering with different levels of resistance.
Free running and conditioned modes. The setting of different window coverings
produced similar patterns in annual thermal performance in both free running and
conditioned modes. However, the simulations with four different window coverings
showed that there was slightly more sensitivity among the conditioned houses. For
instance, all typical houses showed an enhancement in their annual thermal perfor-
mance when “heavy drape” covering (R=0.055) was applied to the windows. The
range of enhancement was on average 7.4% in the free running mode and 9% in
conditioned mode. It is worth noting that no enhancement in performances could
be achieved by adding a pelmet to a heavy drape cover in the Sydney climate, even
though this addition increases the effective resistance of window covering (R =
0.33) (See Fig. 4.22).
Seasonal performance. The improvement in a house’s annual thermal perfor-
mance from window covering was due to improvement in the house’s winter
performance, which occurred because of a reduction in heat transmission through
the windows. There were only marginal changes in the summer performance of
houses. Figures 6.17 and 6.18, Appendix depicts the breakdown of seasonal thermal
performances of both house modes in response to the addition of window covering.
The addition of drape covering (R = 0.055) caused an average of 7.9% enhance-
ment in winter thermal performance in the free running operation mode. This
enhancement improved performance by about 4% for houses in the free running
mode.
Heavyweight and Lightweight. The effect of window covering on thermal per-
formance was the same whether the house construction was heavyweight or
lightweight. However, the addition of drape covers to windows gave 3% greater
improvement in the annual thermal performance of HW houses than LW houses.
Double Storey and Single Storey. If the windows are evenly distributed on all
sides of a building the effect of window covering on a house’s thermal performance

Free running operation Conditioned operation

30000 550 AH1
AH1
500
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1 AL1

25000 AH2
AH2 450
AL2 AL2
400
Energy (MJ/m²)

CH1 CH1
20000 350 CL1
CL1
CH2
CH2 300
15000 CL2 CL2
250 DH1
DH1
10000 DL1 200 DL1
DH2
DH2 150
DL2 DL2
5000 100
O.W (0) C.W (0.03) D (0.055) D+Pel(0.33) O.W (0) C.W (0.03) D (0.055) D+Pel(0.33)
Window cover (R) Window cover (R)

Fig. 4.22 Projected effect of window covering on the annual thermal performances of typical
houses in conditioned and free running operation modes
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 93

depends on the total window area. The improvement will be greater for a house with
a larger window area. Since the window area in typical DS houses is greater than that
in typical SS houses, as represented in the study sample, the average improvement
in annual thermal performance of the DS houses was found to be 5% greater in both
house operation modes.

4.2.2.10 Openable Windows

A building’s performance is affected by many features related to windows, such as
window size, window frame, distribution of windows in all orientations, window
to wall ratios and percentage of openable windows. This last factor seems to be an
important aspect of the thermal behavior of a free running house, largely by improv-
ing summer behavior. To compare the sensitivity of a house’s thermal behavior both
in free running and conditioned mode, the application of three different levels of
openable windows was simulated.
Free running and conditioned. A house’s annual thermal performance could be
improved by increasing the percentage of openable windows. An increase from 25 to
75% of the openable window area resulted in an average reduction of 8.7% in annual
energy requirement in conditioned mode and 6.7% in annual degree discomfort
hours in free running mode (Fig. 4.23). These reductions were due to improvements
in their summer performance, which is described in the following.
Seasonal performance. An increase in the percentage of a building’s openable
windows considerably altered the building’s summer performance owing to an
increase in natural ventilation. With an increase in the percentage of openable win-
dow areas in typical houses from 25 to 75%, without a change the glazed area, their
“cooling” degree discomfort hours decreased by an average of 28.5%. The same
change decreased their cooling energy requirement by an average of 24.5%. This
situation is shown in Figs. 6.19 and 6.20, Appendix.
Winter performances were insensitive to variations in openable windows, unless
such variation was connected with changing the window area.
It is clear that the annual improvement was due to the great improvement in the
summer performance of houses. However, the summer benefits are almost masked

Free running operation Conditioned operation

550
30000 AH1
AH1
500 AL1
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1
25000 AH2 450 AH2
Energy (MJ/m²)

AL2
AL2 400
CH1
CH1
20000 350 CL1
CL1
CH2 300 CH2

15000 CL2 250

CL2
DH1
DH1
200 DL1
10000 DL1
DH2
150 DH2
DL2
DL2 100
5000 25 50 75
25 50 75
Percentage of openable windows Percentage of openable windows

Fig. 4.23 Projected effect of openable window area on the annual thermal performances of typical
houses in conditioned and free running operation modes
94 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

in annual performances by the dominance of the absolute numbers of the heating

energy requirement in conditioned operation mode, and the heating degree hours in
free running operation mode.
Contrary to our assumption, there was no significant difference in improvement
between the two different house modes. This was because of the nature of the
AccuRate software, which automatically counts the beneficial use of natural ventila-
tion to compute the cooling energy requirement of a building in conditioned mode,
as described in Sect. 4.1.2.2. However in reality the effect of openable windows on
improving the summer performance of a conditioned house depends on the opera-
tion of its windows, which in turn depends on the house’s occupancy. Depending
on how occupants are adapted to indoor temperature, therefore, the role of openable
windows in reducing cooling energy requirements might be less than was observed
in this study.
Lightweight and Heavyweight. The summer performance of LW houses in both
house modes was slightly more sensitive to an increase in the percentage of open-
able windows than that of HW houses. The potential of a LW construction to change
the indoor temperature quickly is accelerated by taking advantage of natural venti-
lation. By increasing the percentage of openable window area from 25 to 50%, the
percentage of improvement in summer performance of the typical houses with LW
construction was about 2% more than with HW construction in both house modes.
Single Storey and Double Storey. As noted above, increasing the percentage of
openable window area improved the summer performance of SS and DS houses.
This improvement was greater in SS than DS houses. It was also greater in their
free running mode. By increasing the percentage of openable windows to 50% the
summer performance of typical SS houses was improved by 8% more than that of
DS houses in free running mode.
The greater improvement in SS houses is related to the situation of the living
zone in these houses. With an increase in the percentage of openable windows, the
degree of natural ventilation in SS living zones increased more than in the DS liv-
ing zone. This is because they are also affected by an increase in the percentage
of openable windows in the bed zone, while in DS houses living zones and bed
zones are separated on two levels. Thus the rate of increase in natural ventilation
computed by software, and probably in reality, is greater in SS houses than in DS
ones when the percentage of openable windows is increased similarly for both house
types.

4.2.2.11 Window to Wall Ratio

The effect of window to wall ratio was simulated in two stages. First the window
area in the North (N) and South (S) facades was increased by 15% then 25%, without
changing the area of West (W) and East (E) windows. In the second stage a similar
increase was applied for W/E windows without changing the area of N/S windows.
Free running and conditioned. In both house modes, increasing the percentage of
the window area by 25% made marginal changes in the annual thermal performance.
Increasing the window area, whether for N/S or E/W windows, resulted in a slight
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 95

deterioration in the house’s performance in conditioned mode. However, the thermal

performances improved slightly in free running mode.
Figure 4.24 depicts the situation where an increase in the ratio of N/S windows
caused an average 1.1% (0.1–3.3%) enhancement in thermal performance of houses
in free running mode, and 1.3% (2.7–0.1%) deterioration in their performance in
conditioned mode. The results from changing the percentage of E/W windows are
shown in Fig. 4.25. The figures do not make clear the slight changes in the thermal
performance because of the large differences in the ranges of absolute numerical
value of thermal performance indicators in the 12 samples. For more clarification,
the sensitivity of one of the samples (DH2) in response to an increase in the ratio of
window to wall area in N/S sides is separately shown in Fig. 4.26.
The reasons for these overall differences between the performances of houses
in different modes in response to the same application became apparent when their
seasonal performances were examined and this is described in the following.
Seasonal performance. East and west windows influence the summer perfor-
mance of a building and N & S windows affect the winter performance. The north
vertical surfaces receive more irradiation in winter than in summer and east and west
vertical surfaces are more influenced by solar radiation in summer than in winter.
The winter performances in conditioned mode were not sensitive to variations
in window area, whether the changes were made on the N & S windows or E & W

Conditioned operation Free running operation

550 26000 AH1
AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

500 AL1 24000 AL1

AH2 22000 AH2
450
Energy (MJ/m²)

AL2 AL2
400 20000
CH1 CH1
350 CL1 18000 CL1
300 CH2 16000 CH2
CL2 CL2
250 14000
DH1 DH1
200 DL1 12000 DL1
150 DH2 10000 DH2
DL2 DL2
100 8000
15% 25% 15% 25%
Increase in the percentage of window to wall ratio Increase in the percentage of window to wall ratio

Fig. 4.24 Projected effect of window to wall ratio in north and south orientation on annual thermal
performances of typical houses in conditioned and free running operation modes

Free running operation Conditioned operation

26000 550
AH1 AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

24000 AL1 500 AL1

22000 AH2 450 AH2
Energy (MJ/m²)

AL2 AL2
20000 400
CH1 CH1
18000 CL1 350 CL1
16000 CH2 300 CH2
CL2 CL2
14000 250
DH1 DH1
12000 DL1 200 DL1
10000 DH2 150 DH2
DL2 DL2
8000 100
15 25 15 25
Increase in the percentage of window to wall ratio Increase in the percentage of window to wall ratio

Fig. 4.25 Projected effect of window to wall ratio in east and west orientation on annual thermal
performances of typical houses in conditioned and free running operation modes
96 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Free running operation Conditioned operation

10400 235
Degree Discomfort Hours

234
10300
233

Energy (MJ/m²)
10200 232
231
DH2
10100 230
DH2

229
10000
228
9900 227
226
9800 225
15% 25% 15% 25%
Increase in the percentage of window Increase in the percentage of window
to wall ratio to wall ratio

Fig. 4.26 Projected effect of window to wall ratio in north and south orientation on annual thermal
performances of a typical house (DH2 sample) in conditioned and free running operation modes

windows. There was only a slight improvement in free running performance of 1.6%
on average for an increase in the N & S windows area and 0.9% for the W & E
window area.
Houses in both modes benefited from larger window areas in improving their
daytime winter performance, since solar radiation enters through the windows and
directly heats the building interior. In conditioned mode, however, the amount of
artificial heating energy lost through the windows overnight was the same or even
greater than the amount of obtained heat. Therefore a smaller window area is
appropriate for improving the winter performance of a conditioned house.
As is shown in Figs. 6.21 and 6.24, Appendix, the summer performances of con-
ditioned houses were slightly more sensitive to changes in the window area. When
the window areas were changed in both the N & S and E & W orientations, an aver-
age increase of 4.2 and 5.1% respectively in the cooling energy requirements of the
typical houses was observed.
The effect of increasing the window area on the summer performance of free
running houses depended on the house types, and is described in the following.
Single Storey and Double Storey. A comparison between the summer perfor-
mance of the DS and SS houses in response to an increase in the ratio of windows
to walls, demonstrated a considerable difference in the behavior of these two house
types. Unlike in DS houses, the summer performance of SS houses, in free running
mode, was improved by increasing the window area. For instance a 25% increase in
the area of N/S windows resulted in an average of 1.03% improvement in the sum-
mer performance of SS houses and of 2.2% degradation in the summer performance
of DS houses.
The difference appears to be that in SS houses the improvement in natural venti-
lation outweighs the increase in overheating hours. Such a pattern was not observed
in DS houses.
Larger window areas improve natural ventilation but increase overheating hours
during summer time. In this climate zone therefore, the simulation suggests that
improvement due to natural ventilation outweighs the penalty of overheating
conductive gain and solar loads.
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 97

Lightweight and Heavyweight. Heavyweight houses are more affected by

changes in the window area. This is due to the effect of thermal mass, which delays
heat conduction (transmission), and means that the quality of the indoor environ-
ment is maintained for a longer time than with lightweight construction. Increasing
the window area in HW houses reduces the effect of the mass by accelerating
heat transfer. Since LW houses have this potential characteristic, their sensitivity
to changing the window size is less than that in HW houses.

4.2.2.12 Internal Walls

In a typical construction where no additional insulation is considered, the mass of an
internal wall is a key issue in improving the thermal behavior of a conditioned zone,
particularly when the wall is built between a conditioned and an unconditioned zone.
In this situation the role of the internal wall is relatively similar to that of an external
wall in improving the thermal conditions of its adjacent spaces. The amount of heat
transfer between two rooms depends on the massiveness of the internal wall.
To demonstrate the influence of internal walls on the thermal performance of a
house in different modes, typical houses were simulated with four different internal
wall constructions and these were compared. Figure 4.27 shows the annual thermal
performance of typical houses in free running and conditioned modes, with inter-
nal plasterboard as well as with other specified materials (See Sect. 4.1.3 for other
specifications)
Free running and conditioned. It was found that the performances in both the
conditioned and free running modes were considerably affected by the type of
internal wall construction. The effect was greater in free running buildings.
The annual thermal behavior in conditioned mode was enhanced by an average
of 8.2% when plasterboard was replaced by brick. This enhancement increased to
an average of 19.1% in free running mode. The reasons for this greater improvement
become apparent when comparing the houses’ seasonal performance as follows.
Seasonal performance. A breakdown of seasonal performance (Figs. 6.25 and
6.26, Appendix) demonstrates that both the summer and winter performances of free

Free running operation Conditioned operation

25000 550
AH1 AH1
23000 500 AL1
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1
21000 AH2 450 AH2
Energy (MJ/m²)

AL2
19000 AL2
400
CH1 CH1
17000 350
CL1 CL1
15000
CH2 300 CH2
13000 CL2 CL2
250
11000 DH1 DH1
9000 DL1
200 DL1

7000 DH2 150 DH2

DL2 DL2
5000 100
P C B Cav P C B Cav
Internal wall Internal wall

Fig. 4.27 Projected effect of internal wall on the annual thermal performances of typical houses
in conditioned and free running operation modes
98 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

running houses were more affected by the internal wall mass than were those in the
conditioned mode. In the latter an average of 6.4 and 11.3% reduction in the annual
heating and cooling energy requirement respectively was observed when plaster-
board internal walls were replaced by brick. In free running houses the reduction on
average was 20.7 and 15.7%. The greater overall improvement in this case therefore
would appear to be the result of a greater improvement in winter performance.
Lightweight and Heavyweight. The thermal performance of a house with LW
construction was considerably more affected by an increase in the internal wall mass
than when the construction was HW. Indeed this alteration changed the characteris-
tic of a LW house to HW. In some cases, a change in the internal walls of LW houses
from plasterboard to brick resulted in quite similar and even better thermal perfor-
mance than was observed in the HW base models. This situation was particularly
observed among typical single storey houses in free running mode. Of course this
observation accords with conventional wisdom regarding the relative effectiveness
of internal and external thermal mass in a temperate climate.
Single Storey and Double Storey. Brick walls produced a greater improvement in
the thermal performance of SS houses than in DS houses in both house modes. This
was particularly noticeable for those with LW construction, which achieved indoor
thermal quality close to or even better than the thermal quality of HW SS houses
with plasterboard internal walls. Figure 4.28 illustrates this situation for a typical
house (A1).

4.2.2.13 Infiltration
An increase in the infiltration rate has been found to deteriorate the annual thermal
performance of conditioned houses in other studies and in other climates (Willrath,
1997). This study tested the observation for free running houses as well as those in
conditioned mode.
For this purpose, three different infiltration rates were simulated. The infiltra-
tion rate was increased from 1 to 5 air changes per hour (AC/hr). Indeed 5 AC/hr

Free running operation Conditioned performance

16000 450
Degree Discomfort Hours

14000 400
12000 350
300
10000
MJ/m²

250
8000 200
6000 150
4000 100
2000 50
0 0
Annual DDH Hating DDH Cooling DDH Total energy Heating energy Cooling energy
HA(plasterboard) LA(Brick wall) HA(plasterboard) LA(Brick wall)

Fig. 4.28 Comparison between the thermal performances of a single storey house (A1) in
the Sydney climate when its construction is HW with plasterboard indoor walls, and when its
construction is LW with brick internal walls
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 99

already starts to be ventilation rather than just infiltration; however, the purpose of
choosing this parameter is to highlight the significant differences between its effects
on the thermal performance of houses when considering its interaction with house
operation mode.
Free running and conditioned. Increased infiltration rates degraded the thermal
performance of a house in both free running and conditioned modes. This situation
is depicted in Fig. 4.29 for all the houses when the infiltration rate increased to 5 air
changes per hour.
With this increase, the annual thermal performance of the houses deteriorated
by an average of 17.8% in conditioned mode and 14.7% in free running mode. The
slightly greater deterioration in the performance of conditioned houses became clear
in separating their annual performance into seasonal performances as is shown in the
following.
Seasonal performance. The effect of infiltration on the seasonal performance of
houses is illustrated in Figs. 6.27 and 6.28, Appendix. Higher infiltration rates sig-
nificantly degraded the winter performance of the houses in both modes. Changes in
the infiltration rate from 0 to 5 air changes per hour caused an average deterioration
of 27.2% in their winter performance in conditioned mode, while it was 20.8% for
those in free running operation.
The response to increased infiltration rate changes in the summer performance
of a house depends on the house mode. By increasing the rate of infiltration (5
air changes per hour), the summer performance for free running houses improved
slightly (5.4%), whereas there were no noticeable changes in summer perfor-
mance in the conditioned mode. Moreover, double storey houses recorded a slight
deterioration in their conditioned mode summer performance.
Infiltration causes a latent cooling load in this climate for a conditioned house. By
increasing the infiltration rate (5 air changes per hour) in typical houses, the latent
cooling increased on average by 32.3%, while “sensible” cooling was reduced by
5%. Depending on the amount of increase in latent cooling energy (MJ/m2 ), the total
cooling energy requirement of a house can increase by increasing the infiltration
rate. The infiltration rate, therefore, is an important parameter in architectural design
in a humid summer climate.

Free running operation Conditioned operation

30000 AH1 650
AH1
Degree Discomfort Hours

AL1
AL1
25000 AH2 550
AH2
AL2
Energy (MJ/m²)

AL2
CH1 450
20000 CH1
CL1 CL1
CH2
350
CH2
15000 CL2 CL2
DH1
250
DH1
10000 DL1
150 DL1
DH2 DH2
DL2 DL2
5000 50
0 1 2 5 0 1 2 5
Air infiltration rate (Air changes/hour) Air infiltration rate (Air changes/hour)

Fig. 4.29 Projected effect of infiltration on the annual thermal performances of typical houses in
conditioned and free running operation modes
100 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Heavyweight and Lightweight. The effect of increasing infiltration rates on the

thermal performance of the houses with HW construction was greater than on those
with LW construction. By increasing the infiltration rate to 5 air changes per hour,
deterioration in the thermal performance of HW houses was on average 7% greater
than in LW houses in free running mode, and 4% greater than in LW houses in
conditioned mode.

4.2.3 Summary of Thermal Performance Analysis

The following conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the results of the
simulations of conditioned and free running houses in the Sydney climate.

• Comparisons between the thermal performances of the typical houses in free

running and conditioned mode, demonstrated that the variations in the thermal
performance of the houses in response to variations in design features were often
markedly dependent on the house operation mode. The free running performance
of the houses was clearly different from their performance in conditioned mode.
Thus any effort to improve the thermal performance of a house in conditioned
mode does not necessarily improve its thermal performance in the free run-
ning operation mode. In fact, an effective technique for enhancing the thermal
performance of a conditioned house could actually diminish its free running per-
formance. Even if the thermal performance in both free running and conditioned
modes of a house is improved, the extent of the improvement is not necessarily
the same in both modes. These significant differences between the performances
of houses in different operation modes are evidence that the rating of an efficient
design for a free running house should be different from that for a conditioned
house.
• The effect of changes in a design parameter on the seasonal performance of the
houses depended on the house operation mode. Sometimes the seasonal trade-offs
were different for each house operation mode. Even if a particular modification
in a design parameter produced a similar effect in different operation modes, the
relative changes were not the same for both modes.
• A comparison between the thermal performance of houses with LW and HW
construction illustrates that the LW houses are sometimes able to achieve a com-
parable performance to HW houses, particularly when they are in free running
mode. LW houses, therefore, could under certain circumstances achieve a more
favourable result in a free running rating scheme than in an energy-based rating
scheme.
• From all comparisons between the thermal performances of DS and SS houses
it was found that the numerical range of annual thermal performances for DS
houses was less than that for SS houses, whether in free running or conditioned
mode. Figure 4.30 shows this situation in the Sydney climate.

DS houses compared to SS houses, therefore, are most likely to be given better

values in a rating system. This is probably due to there being a higher proportion of
4.2 Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Thermal Performances of Buildings 101

Free running operation Conditioned operation

50000 1200
Degree Discomfort Hours

45000
40000 1000

Energy (MJ/m²)
35000
800
30000
25000 600
20000
15000 400
10000
200
5000
0 0
Samples Samples
Single storey Double storey Single storey Double storey

Fig. 4.30 Comparison between the range of numerical values of the thermal performance of DS
and SS houses in conditioned and free running modes

envelope in the SS houses for a given volume. In conditioned mode, therefore, the
fabric heat flux per unit of floor area is greater in the SS houses.
In free running mode, although the indicator is free of area weighting, DS houses
still achieve better grades in an assessment system. This phenomenon in free run-
ning mode is no doubt the result of the type of design of DS houses. Placing the
bed zone above the living zone considerably reduces the external fabric area for the
living zone. Since the thermal performance of a building depends heavily on the per-
formance of its living zone, reducing the external surface of the living zone results
in a considerable improvement in the performance of the DS house. However, in a
DS design in which the living zone is constructed on the upper floor, this result may
be different.
For an accurate evaluation system of the thermal performance of a building, it
may be better to separate the score bands for SS and DS houses.

• From the results obtained, the importance of design features can be evaluated
according to their potential for improvements in efficiency. The relative strength
of each variable affecting the thermal performance of the typical base houses is
given in Table 4.6. The percentages for conditioned houses indicate the average
annual energy variations, and for free running houses indicate annual degree dis-
comfort hour variations, corresponding to the changes in the parameters from
their base case values.

When the building parameters are ranked in order of the percentage of their
effect on the thermal performance of the houses in free running mode, this ranking
does not correspond with the rank order of the conditioned houses. This situation is
shown in Fig. 4.31. The finding demonstrates that the choice of application of any
measure to improve a house thermal performance depends on the house operation
mode. This will be discussed in further detail in the next section.
It is important to note that while the results show the potential of various design
features for improving design efficiency of typical houses, their contribution to
102 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Table 4.6 Percentage variations in annual thermal performance of the typical houses in free
running and conditioned modes

Percentage thermal performance variations

Parameters Free running (%) Conditioned (%)

Ceiling insulation (non to R4.0) 36.4 46.1

Wall insulation (none to R4.0) 7.8 9.7
Floor insulation (none to R2.0) 4.7 1.6
Wall colour (0.30–0.85 absorbance) 3.5 3.6
Roof colour (0.30–0.85 absorbance) 3.16 22.6
Orientation 6 5
Window overhang (non to 1 m) 4.8 3.7
Glazing type (SG Clr to SG Refl.) 4.6 2.1
Window covering (open W. to Drape) 7.4 9
Openable window (0.25–0.75) 6.7 8.7
Window to wall ratio (N & S) 1.1 1.3
Window to wall ratio (E & W) 0.24 1.7
Internal wall (Plasterboard to Brick) 19.1 8.2
Infiltration (0–5 air change per hour) 14.7 17.8

50
Window to wall ratio(E&W)
45 Window to wall ratio(N&S)
40 Roof colour
35 Wall colour
Glazing Type
Percentage

30
Floor insulation
25 Overhang
20 Window covering
Orientation
15
Openable window
10 Wall insulation
5 Infiltration
Internal wall
0
Ceiling insulation
Free running Conditioned

Fig. 4.31 A comparison between the effectiveness of design features in improving thermal
performance of the typical houses

actual thermal performance and the relationship among them is not known. A regres-
sion analysis is described in the next section to illustrate their actual contribution to
changing a house’s thermal performance.

4.3 Relationship Between Thermal Performance of Buildings

on the Basis of Energy and Thermal Comfort

Significant differences were observed in the parametric comparison between the

performances of houses in different operation modes. It is important to identify
how the contribution of the various design features differs in improving the thermal
4.3 Relationship Between Thermal Performance of Buildings 103

performance of a house in different operation modes; and how far the different per-
formances of a house are correlated. For this purpose statistical analyses have been
employed.
First this analysis investigates a probabilistic correlation between the indicators
of house performances in free running and conditioned operation modes. This is
followed by an investigation of the contribution of design features to the thermal
performance of houses in different operation modes, using multi-regression analysis
in order to compare their significance in an efficient design for both a free running
and conditioned house.

4.3.1 Correlation Coefficient

The Pearson correlation coefficient was applied to measure the extent to which the
thermal performances of the simulated samples in different operation modes are
linearly related. It was also used to estimate the strength of the relationship between
the thermal performance of houses in conditioned mode and in free running mode in
the data set of simulations. Before that, the normality of the variables was checked
to ensure the applicability of this coefficient.
The simulated samples that were used for the purpose of parametric sensitivity
analysis in this chapter were used again to identify the correlation. The correla-
tion between the thermal performance of conditioned houses on the basis of energy,
and that of free running houses on the basis of DDHs (DDHs with area weight-
ing and DDHs without area weighting as described in Sect. 4.1.2.6) is shown
here to illustrate how far the addition of area weighting affects the strength of
the correlation between the two indicators of energy performance and comfort
performance.
Correlation between thermal performances of the typical houses in different
modes. The scatter plots of the indicators of the thermal performance of the typi-
cal houses (with two different constructions: HW and LW) in conditioned and free
running mode for six defined occupancy scenarios are given in Fig. 4.32a–f. The fig-
ures show a linear relationship with a relatively strong correlation (r2 >0.5) between
these two indicators for all six occupancy scenarios. However the correlation is not
the same for all scenarios; this means that the occupancy scenario is an important
parameter in analyzing the thermal performances of a house, and consequently in
ranking houses in any related rating system.
It is notable that the correlation is stronger when their free running performance
is indicated by degree discomfort hours without area weighting.
As discussed before, the evaluation of a house thermal performance in terms of
thermal comfort should logically be free of area weighting. This issue was discussed
in Sect. 2.4.3 as a shortcoming in the current rating systems and was investigated
by the author in Kordjamshidi et al. (2005a). The addition of area weighting to
the degree discomfort hours was originally assumed to be necessary to make a
better match between the two indicators of a house thermal performance in dif-
ferent modes. However, the finding of this section shows that area weighting is not
104 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Correlation for occupancy scenario 1 Correlation for occupancy scenario 1

6000 30000

DDH (without area weighting)

DDH (with area weighting)

5000 25000
R² = 0.64 R² = 0.68
4000 20000
3000 15000
2000 10000
1000 5000
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
(a) Energy (MJ/m²) Energy (MJ/m²)

Correlation for occupancy scenario 2 Correlation for occupancy scenario 2

30000 6000

DDH (With area weighting)

DDH ( With area weighting)

25000 5000
R² = 0.68 R² = 0.64
20000 4000

15000 3000

10000 2000

5000 1000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
(b) Energy (MJ/m²) Energy (MJ/m²)

Correlation for occupancy scenario 3

Correlation for occupancy scenario 3
2500
12000
DDH (With area weighting)

DDH (Without area weighting)

2000 10000
R² = 0.70 R² = 0.76
1500 8000

6000
1000
4000
500
2000

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
(c) Energy (MJ/m²) Energy (MJ/m²)

Correlation for occupancy scenario 4 Correlation for occupancy scenario 4

6000 30000
DDH (Without area weighting)
DDH (With area weighting)

5000 25000
R² = 0.63 R² = 0.64
4000 20000

3000 15000

2000 10000

1000 5000

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
(d) Energy (MJ/m²) Energy (MJ/m²)

Fig. 4.32 (continued)

4.3 Relationship Between Thermal Performance of Buildings 105

Correlation for occupancy scenario 5 Correlation for occupancy scenario 5

5000 25000

DDH (Without area weighting)

DDH (With area weighting)

4000 20000
R² = 0.64 R² = 0.69
3000 15000

2000 10000

1000 5000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
(e)
Energy (MJ/m²) Energy (MJ/m²)

Correlation for occupancy scenario 6 Correlation for occupancy scenario 6

2000 10000

DDH (Without area weighting)

DDH (With area weighting)

1600 8000
R² = 0.54 R² = 0.48
1200 6000

800 4000

400 2000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
(f) Energy (MJ/m²) Energy (MJ/m²)

Fig. 4.32 Correlation between thermal performances of the typical houses in different operation
modes. (a) Correlation between indicators for 1st occupancy scenario. (b) Correlation between
indicators for 2nd occupancy scenario. (c) Correlation between indicators for 3rd occupancy sce-
nario. (d) Correlation between indicators for 4th occupancy scenario. (e) Correlation between
indicators for 5th occupancy scenario. (f) Correlation between indicators for 6th occupancy
scenario

relevant for this purpose. Therefore the thermal performance of free running houses
is reported in degree discomfort hours without area weighting.
Correlations between the thermal performances of all the simulated houses in
different operation modes. A total number of 620 samples, simulated separately in
free running and conditioned mode (1,240 simulations), for the Sydney climate was
applied to the data set.
Figure 4.33 demonstrates that the correlation between these indicators is positive
and strong (r2 = 0.69). On a bivariate basis, it indicates that 69% of the variation
in predicted energy (MJ/m2 ) in the Sydney climates can be explained statistically
by its relation to DDH. The scatter diagrams in Fig. 4.33 demonstrate the strength
of that relationship. Nevertheless, a close observation of the points in the figure
suggests that there appear to be at least two or three separate linear clusters of points.
Because of this observation, the simulated models were separated into the specific
pairs, namely SS/DS and HW/LW.
Earlier a significant difference was observed between the thermal performances
of the SS and DS houses in the parametric sensitivity analysis. To clarify the rela-
tionships in Fig. 4.33 further, parallel correlation analyses were then conducted for
double-storey and single-storey houses (Fig. 4.34).
106 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

700

600
R² = 0.6911
500

Energy (MJ/m²) 400

300

200

100

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Degree Discomfort Hours

Fig. 4.33 Correlation between the indicators of house thermal performance

Correlation in Double Storey houses Correlation in Single Storey houses

450 700
400
R² = 0.88 600
350 R² = 0.39
Energy (MJ/m²)

500
Energy (MJ/m²)

300
250 400
200 300
150
200
100
50 100
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Degree Discomfort Hours Degree Discomfort Hours
(a) (b)

Fig. 4.34 Correlation between the indicators of house thermal performance among DS and SS
houses. (a) Double storey. (b) Single storey

The data points in Fig. 4.34a, which are limited to the double storey cases,
describe a much clearer linear relationship between the variables, with r2 = 0.88.
The results for single storey cases are equally clear – there are two separate linear
clusters of data points. Given the evident spread between those two clusters, it is
not surprising that for the single storey cases as a whole the correlation, though still
strong, is now (r2 = 0.39).
The strong correlation in DS houses is related to the architectural design of these
houses. As noted before, the thermal performance of a house strongly depends on
the thermal performance of its living zone, because this zone is occupied for the
majority of time in all defined occupancy scenarios. Because the bed zone is gen-
erally disposed above the living zone in the DS houses, the external surface area of
the living zone in this house type is typically less than that in single storey houses.
Therefore the free-running performance of a single storey house is more affected by
outdoor climate than that of a DS house. The difference between the free-running
and conditioned performances of a single storey house is then greater than that in a
double storey house.
4.3 Relationship Between Thermal Performance of Buildings 107

This observation points to a key difference between the characteristic thermal

performance of two storey and single storey houses, and reflects immediately on the
reliability of any system which assesses those house types together under a single
rating framework.
Figure 4.34b, shows that there appear to be two or three separate linear clusters
of points in single storey houses. This observation led to the decision to separate
the samples into the two generic house construction forms: “heavyweight” and
“lightweight”, which are a key variable in the simulation data set. Figures 4.35a,
b focus on the single storey cases and describe the impact of the LW versus HW
variable on the relationship indicated in the previous scatter plot (in Fig. 4.34a).
As it happens, the introduction of the HW/LW variable did nothing to clarify the
meaning of the two clusters of linear points that appeared in Fig. 4.35a.
Parallel correlation analyses were then conducted for three groups of single
storey houses, which were modelled on the basis of the typical SS models, A1, C1,
and D1, as specified in Sect. 4.4. The correlation for all three groups was strong
(r2 = 0.8); however, the distribution of points on the scatter plots in Fig. 4.36
shows more than one linear cluster of points in each group. These observations
suggest that the effects of the building envelope on the quality of the thermal per-
formance of the building depend on its operation mode. This interpretation, which
already was a conclusion in the parametric sensitivity analysis, is taken further in the

Correlation in SS Heavy Weight houses Correlation in SS Light Weight houses

600 700
500 600
R² = 0.38 R² = 0.40
Energy (MJ/m²)

500
Energy (MJ/m²)

400
400
300
300
200
200
100
100
0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Degree Discomfort Hours Degree Discomfort Hours
(a) (b)

Fig. 4.35 Correlation between the indicators of house thermal performance among SS houses with
different construction. (a) Heavy weight. (b) Light weight

Sample A1 Sample C1 Sample D1

600 700 600

500 600 500

R² = 0.86
Energy (MJ/m²)

R² = 0.88 R² = 0.87
Energy (MJ/m²)
Energy (MJ/m²)

400 500 400

400 300
300
300
200 200
200
100 100
100
0 0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Degree Discomfort Hours Degree Discomfort Hours Degree Discomfort Hours

Fig. 4.36 Correlation between the indicators of house thermal performance among SS houses
108 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

following section to find the contribution of each parameter to improving the thermal
performance of a house in different modes.

4.3.2 Multivariate Regression Analysis

Multivariate regression analysis is one of the most widely used statistical techniques
for investigating and modelling the relationship between one variable referred to as a
response or dependent variable, and one or more other variables, called predictor or
independent variables. It is typically used to identify those variables among a series
of predictors that best predict the variation in a dependent variable, and to provide an
estimate of how much variation in the dependent variable can be explained by vari-
ation in the predictor variables. Applications of regression are numerous in every
field, and occur in building performance research whether it is based on experi-
mental or simulated data (Ben-Nakhi and Mahmoud, 2004; Kordjamshidi and King,
2009; Thornton et al., 1997). Also of interest is that regression analysis applied
exclusively to simulated data underpins the development of some current rating
tools (for example FirstRate, the mandated house energy rating tool in the state
of Victoria, Australia, and the regulatory impact studies that support them (Energy
Efficient Strategies, 2002)).
A multivariate regression analysis can therefore be applied to a similar study such
as this, to determine which parameters of building design features contribute most
to overall thermal performance improvement. The main objective of this task is to
compare the contribution of the parameters to improving the thermal performance
of houses in different operation modes or, in other words, to reducing the annual
energy requirement and the degree discomfort hours of houses. For this purpose,
even a limited contribution of any parameter is important.
A total number of 1,240 simulations used for parametric sensitivity analysis was
undertaken for the following multivariate regression analysis.
One of the most important tasks in regression modelling is the selection of
appropriate predictor variables (Beirlant et al., 2005; Gunst and Mason, 1980;
Montgomery and Runger, 2002) to be used in subsequently defining the response
variable. In most instances it is desirable that the selected variables make phys-
ical sense, as well as being useful predictors. Sometimes previous experience or
underlying theoretical considerations can help to establish the predictor variables
(Montgomery and Runger, 2002).
Fourteen parameters, which are specified in Sect. 4.1.3, Table 4.5, were selected
as the main predictors of thermal performance of a house. The likely effect of these
parameters was observed from the sensitivity analysis. These parameters are also
those identified in other studies as the main fabric building variables which affect
the thermal performance of buildings (Willrath, 1997).
It was observed that the main differences between the annual thermal perfor-
mances of simulated houses were related to three main characteristics of the base
models, namely house construction (heavyweight and lightweight), house type
(single storey and double storey) and house plan (6 typical house designs). Therefore
4.3 Relationship Between Thermal Performance of Buildings 109

these three main “design” characteristics of base models were selected as the three
parameters to be added to the previous fourteen “fabric” predictors.
To determine the contribution of each of the specified 17 parameters in predicting
the thermal performance of a house, the multivariate regression analysis required
that all variables be entered into the analysis in a single step. A method which is
known as “Enter”11 procedure was adopted, using SPSS software.
The standardized coefficients correspond to beta weight and a pseudo r2 statistic
is available to summarize the strength of the relationship between the parameters of
the design features and indicators of house thermal performance. A standardized
coefficient was used in the interpretation, as each parameter was measured in
different units.
Using the multiple regression analyses, Table 4.7 indicates how important the
17 variables are as predictors in two contexts: predicting energy (MJ/m2 ) for condi-
tioned houses, and predicting DDH for free running houses. This table indicates that
the 17 variables (or parameters) do very well in explaining any variation in energy
as the dependent variable, where r2 = 0.84 in the Sydney climate.
In contrast, these predictors explain only 53% of the variation in the DDH for
free running houses in the Sydney climate. In other words, the same 17 variables do
not explain nearly half the variation in DDH for free running houses.
This result indicates a significant difference between a desirable design for condi-
tioned houses and that for free running houses. The amount of unexplained variance
for free running houses might be explained by the way occupants operate their
homes, in terms of being at home, opening windows and using curtains. However,
it certainly needs further research.
In order to investigate how climate is important in designing both a condi-
tioned and a free run house, a similar simulation and regression test was done
for Canberra (Australia), which has a moderate climate but with severe winters.
When the simulated climate was changed from Sydney to Canberra, the effect of
the 17 parameters on predicting the annual energy requirements of conditioned
houses changed only by 3% (84–81% = 3%), whereas the effect of these parame-
ters on predicting DDHs for free running houses changed by 13% (53–40% = 13%).
This implies that climatic parameters are more important in designing an efficient
free running house than they are for an efficient conditioned house. It also can be

Table 4.7 Estimated r2 from multivariate regression analysis between the annual thermal
performances and design features

Climate Predicted variable Predictor variables r2

Sydney Conditioned performance (MJ/m2 ) 17 design features 0.84

Free running performance (DDH) 17 design features 0.53

11 There are several selection methods for specifying how independent variables are entered into an
analysis. These methods are: enter, stepwise, remove, backward and forward. Enter is a procedure
for variable selection in which all variables in a block are entered in a single step.
110 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

inferred that free running houses are more sensitive to different climates than are
conditioned houses.
This significant effect of climate on the thermal performance of a free running
house compared to that on conditioned houses means that if a designer wishes to
design a naturally ventilated house rather than an air-conditioned one, a focus on
the immediate climate impact is likely to give significantly greater dividends than
attention to the fabric of the building. That, however, is not to say that the quality
of the fabric cannot help in improving the thermal performance of a free running
house. It does mean that different design types require different approaches for the
provision of an efficient design.
The relative importance of each of the seventeen building fabric variables (design
features) explaining the variations of thermal performance of the simulated houses,
is the focus of Table 4.8. Although the values of some of these are not statistically
significant, all of the variables have been retained for further analysis as effective
parameters for improving the thermal performance of buildings.
Generally a statistically insignificant value for some of the parameters is
explained by the range considered for changing those parameters in the typical base
cases. For instance, “window to wall ratio” with a significance greater than 0.05 is
not statistically an important variable for predicting annual thermal performance of
a house. Parametric sensitivity analysis also demonstrated that increasing the pro-
portion of windows in the typical houses by 15 and 25% could only produce about
1% change in the annual thermal performance of those houses. However, a greater
increase in the size of windows will result in greater changes in the annual ther-
mal performance of the typical houses, and therefore this parameter could then have
significant value in the statistical analysis. Moreover, the effect of this parameter

Table 4.8 Ranking of design features in relation to their importance for the houses’ thermal
performance (based on standardised regression coefficient)
Free running (degree discomfort hours without area weighting Conditioned mode (energy MJ/m2 as
as indicator) indicator)

Rank Variable β Sig. Rank Variable β Sig.

1 X15 (house type) 0.6 0 1 X15 (House type) 0.749 0

2 X1 (ceiling insulation) 0.265 0 2 X1 0.36 0
3 X16 (house construction) 0.242 0 3 X16 0.274 0
4 X5 (infiltration) 0.084 0.005 4 X5 0.099 0
5 X3 (floor insulation) 0.068 0.025 5 X11 0.091 0
6 X9 (orientation) 0.059 0.056 6 X2 0.079 0
7 X4 (internal wall) 0.049 0.089 7 X17 0.059 0.001
8 X10 (glazing type) 0.046 0.13 8 X9 0.057 0.002
9 X8 (shading device) 0.042 0.165 9 X12 0.039 0.025
10 X17 (house plan) 0.038 0.202 10 X4 0.024 0.16
11 X11 (roof colour) 0.027 0.352 11 X13 0.023 0.194
12 X2 (wall insulation) 0.023 0.457 12 X14 0.023 0.179
13 X6 (windows covering) 0.021 0.483 13 X3 0.018 0.311
14 X14 (windows to wall ratio, E/W) 0.015 0.619 14 X6 0.016 0.343
15 X13 (window to wall ratio, N/S) 0.011 0.711 15 X7 0.01 0.563
16 X12 (wall colour) 0.01 0.734 16 X10 0.01 0.573
17 X7 (openable window) 0.002 0.935 17 X8 0.006 0.722
4.4 Conclusion 111

changes under the interaction effect of other parameters. The absolute size of win-
dows is known to be relevant for the thermal performance of buildings in relation to
cooling needs in summer (Persson et al., 2006). It has been identified as an important
parameter by experts, home-buyers and stakeholders in a general sense in the devel-
opment of house ratings, and specifically as a parameter which plays an important
role in improving the energy efficiency of buildings. Therefore even design features
with low (statistical) significance have not been removed in the following analysis.
A comparison has been made between the importance of the 17 design features
in different house modes and on the basis of different indicators. By a considerable
margin, the most variation in the thermal performance of the typical houses was
related to the house type (X15), namely double storey and single storey houses. This
situation can be seen in both conditioned and free running mode operations. This
provides evidence of the significant effect of house type in evaluating the thermal
performance of a house, which should be taken into consideration in an accurate
house performance evaluation system.
In parallel analyses shown in Table 4.8, for both conditioned and free running
modes, the most important predictors, in order, were found to be house type (X15),
ceiling insulation (X3) and house construction (X17). Beyond that point both the
sequence and the statistical significance of the variables (according to their beta
coefficients) vary considerably. For instance, roof colour (X11) and wall insulation
(X2) are clearly significant in the conditioned mode analysis, but are well down
the list and far from statistically significant in the free running houses. Only the
multivariate analyses have shown other factors to be more important.
These observations once again have the clear implication that it cannot be
assumed that a design for good predicted building performance in conditioned mode
achieves good thermal performance in free running mode. A design for conditioned
buildings is reasonably related to the building envelope characteristics and to the
fabric of the building. Ultimately it relates to those attributes that protect or isolate
the building interior from environmental loads, in order to maintain indoor ther-
mal comfort conditions with minimum energy consumption used to overcome those
loads. The determinants of free-running performance are more complex, as has long
been implied by the alternative terminology “climate responsive”. Evidence for this
argument was seen before in the parametric sensitivity analysis.

4.4 Conclusion
The results from the parametric sensitivity analysis and multivariate regression anal-
ysis effectively demonstrate that the contribution of the 17 design features identified,
to the improvement of the thermal performance of a house depends on the house
operation mode. Therefore, the choice of application of any measure to improve a
house thermal performance depends on the house operation mode
Application priorities for changing design features in order to improve the ther-
mal performance of a house in free running mode are illustrated in Fig. 4.37. This
112 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

0.8 Openable window

Wall colour
Standardized coefficient

0.7
Window to wall ratio(N&S)
0.6 Window to wall ratio(E&W)
Window covering
0.5 Wall insulation
Roof colour
0.4 Typical plan
Overhang
0.3 Glazing Type
Internal wall
0.2 Orientation
Floor insulation
0.1 Infiltration
0 Construction
Ceiling insulation
Free running operation Conditioned operation House type

Fig. 4.37 A comparative analyses on the rankings of design feature in different house modes

3000
CH2

2500 DH2
CL2
2000 AH2
DL2
1500
AL2
DH1
1000
AH1
500 DL1
CH1
0 AL1
Conditioned operation (MJ/m²) Free running operation (DDH) CL1

Fig. 4.38 Comparison between ranking typical house performances in conditioned and free
running operation modes

figure depicts the ranking of design features on the basis of their strength in changing
the thermal performance of the simulated houses in free running operation mode.
The ranking is clearly not the same as that for modifying the thermal performance
of the same houses in conditioned operation mode.
The result of regression analysis, confirming the results from the parametric
sensitivity analysis, demonstrates that design advice inferred from a rating tool to
improve the thermal performance of a free running house should differ from that
given for a conditioned house. An efficient free running house might not be efficient
if it is operated in conditioned mode. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.38. It shows that
when the typical houses in conditioned mode were ranked in order, this ranking did
not produce the same order as for free running houses.
It is therefore clear that the regulatory framework for rating free-running houses
should differ from that for conditioned houses.
References 113

References
Akbari, H., Samano, D., Mertol, A., Bauman, F., Kammerud, R.: The effect of variations in convec-
tion coefficients on thermal energy storage in buildings part I – interior partition walls. Energy
Build. 9(3), 195–211 (1986)
Al-Homoud, M.S.: Computer-aided building energy analysis techniques. Build. Environ. 36(4),
421–433 (2000)
ASHRAE: ASNI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2004, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human
Occupancy. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc,
Atlanta, GA (2004)
Auliciems, A., Szokolay, S.V.: Thermal Comfort. PLEA in association with Department of
Architecture, University of Queensland, Brisbane (1997)
Australian Bureau of Meteorology: (2006). Accessed 15 Sep 2007, from http://www.bom.gov.
au/lam
Ballinger, J.A.: The nationwide house energy rating scheme for Australia (BDP environment
design guide no. DES 22). The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra (1998a)
Ballinger, J.A., Cassell, D.: Solar efficient housing and NatHERS: an important marketing tool.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy
Society, pp. 320–326. Sydney (1994).
Bansal, N.K., Garg, S.N., Kothari, S.: Effect of exterior surface colour on the thermal performance
of buildings. Build. Environ. 27(1), 31–37 (1992)
Beirlant, J., Goegebeur, Y., Teugels, J., Segers, J.: Multivariate extreme value theory. In: Statistics
of Extremes: Theory and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2005)
Ben-Nakhi, A.E., Mahmoud, M.A.: Cooling load prediction for buildings using general regression
neural networks. Energy Convers. Manage. 45(13–14), 2127–2141 (2004)
Bordass, B., Leaman, A.: Occupancy- post-occupancy evaluation. In: Preiser, W.F.E., Vischer, J.C.
(eds.) Assessing Building Performance, Elsevier, Sydney (2005)
Cammarata, G., Fichera, A., Marletta, L.: Sensitivity analysis for room thermal response. Int. J.
Energy Res. 17, 709–718 (1993)
Clarke, J.A.: Energy Simulation in Building Design, 2nd ed. Adam Hilger, Oxford and Boston,
MA (2001)
Clarke, D.: The Importance of Being Accurate (The Role and Importance of Thermal Modelling
in Reducing Energy Consumption in Australian Buildings (No 1)). Association of Building
Sustainability Assessors, Surry Hills (2006)
Delsante, A.: Computer User Manual for Program CHEETAH. CSIRO Division of Building
Research, Melbourne (1987)
Delsante, A.: A Comparison of CHENATH, the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme
Simulation Engine, with Measured Test Cell Data, Renewable Energy: The Future in Now,
pp. 441–446. Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, Hobart (1995a)
Delsante, A.: Using the Building Energy Simulation Test (Best Test) to Evaluate CHENATH, the
Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme Simulation Engine, Renewable Energy: The Future
in Now, pp. 447–453. Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, Hobart (1995b)
Delsante, A.: A Validation of the “AccuRate” Simulation Engine Using BESTEST (no. CMIT(C)-
2004-152). CSIRO, Canberra (2004)
Delsante, A.: Is the New Generation of Building Energy Rating Software up to the Task?
– A Review of AccuRate, ABCB Conference, Building Australia’s Future 2005. CSIRO
Manufacturing and Infrastructure Technology, Surfers Paradise (2005)
Drysdale, J.W.: Designing Houses for Australian Climates, 3rd ed. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra (1975)
Energy Efficient Strategies: Comparative Cost Benefit Study of Energy Efficiency Measures of
Class 1 Buildings and High Rise Apartments in Victoria (Final report for the Sustainable Energy
Authority of Victoria). Melbourne (2002)
114 4 Modelling Efficient Building Design: Efficiency for Low Energy or No Energy?

Fisette, P. (2003). Windows: Understanding Energy Efficient Performance. Accessed 6 June 2008
from http://www.umass.edu/bmatwt/publications/articles/windows_understanding_energy_
efficient_performance.html
Foster, R.: Setting Occupancy Factors for Thermal Performance Modelling of Australian
Households. Energy Efficient Strategies, Victoria (2006)
Givoni, B.: Man, Climate and Architecture. Applied Science Publishers Ltd, London (1976)
Gunst, R.F., Mason, R.L.: Regression Analysis and Its Application: A Data Oriented Approach.
Marcel Dekker, New York, NY (1980)
Hanby, V.I.: Error estimation in bin method energy calculations. Appl. Energy. 52(1), 35–45 (1995)
Hong, T., Chou, S.K., Bong, T.Y.: Building simulation: an overview of developments and
information sources. Build. Environ. 35(4), 347–361 (2000)
Hyde, R.: Climatic design: a study of housing in the hot humid tropics. The Proceedings of the
Australian and New Zealand Energy Society, Darwin (1996)
Hyde, R.: Climate Responsive Design: A Study of Buildings in Moderate and Hot Humid Climates.
E & FN Spon, New York, NY (2000)
Isaacs, T.: Revision of the Energy Efficiency Provisions for Housing to Better Allow for the Impact
of Ventilation. ABCB, Canberra (2004)
Isaacs, T.: AccuRate: 2nd Generation Nationwide House Energy Rating software. The Royal
Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra (2005)
Klainsek, J.C.: Glazing and its influence on building energy behaviour. Renewable Energy. 1(3–4),
441–448 (1991)
Klein, S.A.: Computer in the design of passive solar systems. Passive Solar J. 2(1), 57–74 (1983)
Kordjamshidi, M., Khodakarami, J., Nasrollahi, N.: Occupancy scenarios and the evaluation of
thermal performances of buildings. Proceeding of ANZSES conference, Townsville, Australia
(2009)
Kordjamshidi, M., King, S.: Overcoming problems in house energy ratings in temperate climates:
a proposed new rating framework. Energy Build. J. 41(1), 125–132 (2009)
Kordjamshidi, M., King, S., Prasad, D.: An alternative basis for a home energy rating scheme
(HERS). Proceedings of PLEA, Environmental Sustainability: The Challenge of Awareness in
Developing Societies, pp. 909–914. Lebanon (2005a)
Kordjamshidi, M., King, S., Prasad, D.: Towards the development of a home rating scheme for free
running buildings. Proceedings of ANZSES, Renewable Energy for a Sustainable Future – A
Challenge for A Post Carbon World. Dunedin University, New Zealand (2005b)
Lam, J.C., Hui, S.C.M.: Sensitivity analysis of energy performance of office buildings. Build.
Environ. 31(1), 27–39 (1996)
Lee, T., Snow, M.: The Australian climate data bank project. Proceedings of the IBPSA Australia
2006 Conference: Investigating the Roles and Challenges of Building Performance Simulation
in Achieving a Sustainable Built Environment, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide (2006)
Littler, J.G.F.: Overview of some available models for passive solar design. Comput. Aided Des.
14(1), 15–19 (1982)
Lomas, K.J., Eppel, H.: Sensitivity analysis techniques for building thermal simulation programs.
Energy Build. 19(1), 21–44 (1992)
Markus, T.A., Morris, E.N.: Building Climate and Energy. Pitman, London (1980)
Montgomery, D.C., Runger, G.C.: Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers, 3rd edn. Wiley,
New York, NY (2002)
Nielsen, T.R., Duer, K., Svendsen, S.: Energy performance of glazings and windows. Solar Energy.
69(Supplement 6), 137–143 (2001)
Offiong, A., Ukpoho, A.U.: External window shading treatment effects on internal environmental
temperature of buildings. Renewable Energy. 29(14), 2153–2165 (2004)
Olgyay, V.: Design With Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ (1963)
Omar, E.A., Al-Ragom, F.: On the effect of glazing and code compliance. Appl. Energy. 71(2),
75–86 (2002)
References 115

Persson, M.-L., Roos, A., Wall, M.: Influence of window size on the energy balance of low energy
houses. Energy Build. 38(3), 181–188 (2006)
Planning: (2006). New 5 Star Requirements: Making Your Home More Energy Efficient.
Government of South Australia. Accessed 7 Oct 2006, from www.planning.sa.gov.au
Preiser, W.F.E.: Building performance assessment – from POE to BPE, a personal perspective.
Archit. Sci. Rev. 48(3), 201–204 (2005)
Preiser, W.F.E., Vischer, J.C.: The evolution of building performance evaluation: an introduction.
In: Preiser, W.F.E., Visscher, J.C. (eds.) Assessing Building Performance, pp. 3–13. Elsevier,
Oxford, UK (2005)
SOLARCH: Project Homes: House Energy Rating, New South Wales Industry Impact Study (A
report prepared for the Sustainable Energy Development Authority): University New South
Wales (2000)
Shariah, A., Shalabi, B., Rousan, A., Tashtoush, B.: Effects of absorptance of external surfaces on
heating and cooling loads of residential buildings in jordan. Energy Convers. Manage. 39(3–4),
273–284 (1998)
Sowell, E.F., Hittle, D.C.: Evolution of building energy simulation methodology. ASHRAE Trans.
101(P.1), 850–855 (1995)
Sutherland, J.W.: The solution of psychometric problems using a digital computer. Air. Cond.
Heating. 25(4), 43–49 (1971)
Szokolay, S.V.: Handbook of Architectural Technology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY
(1991)
Szokolay, S.V.: Introduction to Architectural Science: The Basis of Sustainable Design.
Architectural Press, Oxford (2004)
Tarantola, S., Saltelli, A.: SAMO 2001: methodological advances and innovative applications of
sensitivity analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 79(2), 121–122 (2003)
Tavares, P.F.A.F., Martins, A.M.O.G.: Energy efficient building design using sensitivity analysis –
a case study. Energy Build. 39(1), 23–31 (2007)
Thornton, S.B., Nair, S.S., Mistry, S.I.: Sensitivity analysis for building thermal loads. ASHRE
Trans. 103, 165–175 (1997)
Tuhus- Dubrow, D., Krarti, M.: Genetic-algorithm based approach to optimize building envelope
design for residential buildings. Build Environ. 45(7), 1574–1581 (2010)
Walsh, P.J., Gurr, T.A.: A Comparison of the Thermal Performance of Heavyweight and
Lightweight Construction in Australian Dwellings (no. TP44). CSIRO Division of Building
Research, Australia (1982)
Williamson, T., Riordan, P.: Thermostat strategies for discretionary heating and cooling of
dwellings in temperate climates. Proceeding of 5th IBPSA Building simulation Conference,
pp. 1–8. International Building Performance Simulation Association, Prague (1997)
Willrath, H.: Thermal sensitivity of Australian houses to variations in building parameters, 35th
Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society, Canberra (1997)
Zhai, Z.J., Chen, Q.Y.: Sensitivity analysis and application guides for integrated building energy
and CFD simulation. Energy Build. 38(9), 1060–1068 (2006)
Chapter 5
Assembling a House Energy Ratings (HER)
and House Free Running Ratings (HFR) Scheme

This chapter describes the proposal for a suitable house rating scheme. A framework
for producing an aggregation of free running and conditioned rating schemes is
put forward. The reliability of this proposed rating framework is supported by a
demonstration of its theoretical sensitivity in improving efficient design quality.

5.1 Rating Building Thermal Performance

A house rating system scores a house by comparing its thermal performance with
that of other houses, which are given the same conditions of climate, user behavior
patterns and house operation. An accurate house rating system should not discrim-
inate against any type of house design. Previous chapters, however, have reached
the conclusion that the current energy-based rating schemes, as exemplified by
AccuRate, are likely to discriminate against single storey houses as opposed to dou-
ble storey houses, and against free running houses in contrast to conditioned ones.
The energy efficiency of different house types is in fact not comparable in terms
simply of an energy performance index. A large single storey house, for example,
is not less efficient than a small double storey house, even though it may have a
grade or an energy performance index more than three times greater on average.
To avoid such discrimination the following steps should be considered for rating
schemes:

• Separating free running houses from conditioned houses

• Separating double storey houses from single storey houses
• Determining the score boundaries for each group separately
• Aggregating the score bands of a house for its free running and conditioned
performances to produce one score for the final evaluation of the thermal
performance of the house

M. Kordjamshidi, House Rating Schemes, Green Energy and Technology, 117

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5_5, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
118 5 Assembling a HER and HFR Scheme

5.1.1 How Should Building Thermal Performance Bands

Be Defined for Rating?
Building regulations usually set the minimum overall requirements for the energy
performance index. There are two different approaches for the determination of lim-
its: fixed and customized (Lombard et al., 2009). In the fixed limit option, the limit
is determined on the basis of regulations, and the threshold value depends on cer-
tain parameters such as climate, buildings type and building operation mode, whose
impact is to be neutralized. The customized limit can be obtained by self-reference,
where the threshold value is set by a reference building with at least similar location,
climate and building type, but different envelope and system.
There is no single standard method for defining performance band ratings based
on five stars, such as the NatHERS, or on ten stars, such as AccuRate (see Chap. 2).
The choice of procedure used for determining the boundaries of each star-scale
varies from place to place, depending on the particular legislation involved in the
promotion of energy efficiency. However, for our purposes the star categories pro-
vide sufficient and meaningful differentiation between the relative efficiencies of
different houses in the same condition and operation mode.
To establish score bands for the ratings in this study, five separate efficiency
categories were first adopted separately for free running (HFR) and conditioned
houses (HER), with a range of scores represented by stars. Then, in order to combine
the two rating systems, a ten star rating scheme was adopted. The ten categories
differentiate sufficiently between the efficiency of the houses’ architectural design
in both their free running and conditioned performances.
One method used for specifying the star bands is based on the theory of educa-
tional measurement and evaluation. The five letter system (A, B, C, D, and F) is
commonly used in education and attempts to classify individuals in terms of their
performance. There are two types of measurements related to specific standards,
namely “criterion- referenced” and “norm- referenced” grading (Ebel and Frisbie,
1991). The second type is used here because of the limited number of data we have
from the simulations in Chap. 4.
Norm-referenced measurement is based on relative standards. The purpose of a
norm-referenced instrument is to compare the performance of a character with the
performance of other characters. The scale is usually anchored in the middle of
some average level of performance for a specific set of characters. The units on the
scale represent the distribution of performances above and below the average level.
In this case, norm-referenced grading was adopted for the range of available data to
develop HRS score bands.
“Grading on a curve” is a common technique for grading performance in norm-
referenced measurement. It is based on frequency distribution, in which the curve
represents a normal distribution. The categories should represent equal intervals on
the score scale. Mean and standard deviations of the distribution of performance
scores are generally used for determining the range of each category. The range of
the normal curve can then be divided into equal segments of standard deviation,
according to the number of expected categories.
5.1 Rating Building Thermal Performance 119

In adopting the grading on the curve technique, the 1,240 estimated values of
thermal performance of simulated houses in different operation modes, which are
representative of house thermal performances in the Sydney climate, have been
used. As previously noted, the process has been staged separately for free running
houses and then for conditioned houses. The score bands have also been determined
separately for single storey and double storey houses in each operation mode.
Figures 5.1a, b and 5.2a, b show the frequency distribution of the annual energy
requirements of conditioned houses and of the annual degree discomfort hours of

80

60
Frequency

40

20 Skewness = –1.7
Kurtosis = 1.83

0 Mean = 406.6242
Std. Dev. = 96.73004
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00
N = 306
Energy
a) Single storey houses

60

50

40
Frequency

30

20

10

Mean = 243.3627
0
Std. Dev. = 69.71535
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 N = 300
Energy
b) Double storey houses

Fig. 5.1 Distribution of estimated annual energy requirements in the Sydney climate, a Single
storey houses, b Double storey houses
120 5 Assembling a HER and HFR Scheme

80

60
Frequency

40

20 Skewness = 0.01
Kurtosis = –0.167

0 Mean = 16744.9095
0.00 5000.00 10000. 15000. 20000. 25000. 30000. Std. Dev. = 4867.00137
00 00 00 00 00 N = 306
a) Single storey houses Comfort

50

40
Frequency

30

20
Skewness = – 0.746
Kurtosis = 0.791
10

Mean = 11305.5435
0
Std. Dev. = 2874.0938
0.00 2500. 5000. 7500. 10000. 12500. 15000. 17500.
N = 300
00 00 00 00 00 00 00
b) Double storey houses Comfort

Fig. 5.2 Distribution of annual degree discomfort hours, (a) Single story houses, (b) Double storey
houses

free running houses. The distributions seem to be normal, although in terms of

skewness1 and kurtosis2 it can be seen that they are not in fact completely nor-
mal. However, as these deviations are relatively slight, the assumption of normal
distribution is accepted.

1 Skewness is a measure of symmetry.

2 Kurtosis is a measure of whether the data are peaked or flat relative to a normal distribution.
5.1 Rating Building Thermal Performance 121

The range of energy requirements and degree discomfort hours is dealt with
separately in defining star bands for single storey and double storey houses, with
star bands for conditioned houses being defined on the basis of the mean of annual
energy requirements and standard deviation for each group, while the star bands for
these houses in the free running mode are defined on the basis of the mean of annual
degree discomfort hours and standard deviation of the related group. The proposed
range of energy requirements and degree discomfort hours for each star rating is
presented in Tables 5.1 and 5.2.
The star bands for each group are determined on the basis of the standard
deviation and mean values related to that group.

Table 5.1 Proposed range of energy requirements and degree discomfort hours for each star rating
for single storey houses in Sydney

Degree discomfort hours Energy requirement Rating of energy Range on normal curve
(DDH) (MJ/m2 ) performance (from mean)

5,794 or less 188 or less 5 Star –2.25 Std dev. or lower

5,794<DDH≤ 8,227.5 188<E≤ 237 4.5 Star –2.25 to –1.75 Std dev.
8,227.5<DDH≤ 10,661 237<E≤ 285 4 Star –1.75 to –1.25 Std dev.
10,661<DDH≤ 13,094.5 285<E≤ 334 3.5 Star –1.25 to –0.75 Std dev.
13,094.5<DDH≤ 15,528 334<E≤ 382 3 Star –0.75 to –0.25 Std dev.
15,528<DDH≤ 17,961.5 382<E≤ 430 2.5 Star –0.25 to +0.25 Std dev.
17,961.5<DDH≤ 20,395 430<E≤ 479 2 Star +0.25 to +0.75 Std dev.
20,395<DDH≤ 22,828.5 479<E≤ 527 1.5 Star +0.75 to +1.25 Std dev.
22,828.5<DDH≤ 25,262 527.5<E≤ 576 1 Star +1.25 to +1.75 Std dev.
25,262<DDH≤ 27,695.5 576<E≤ 624 0.5 Star +1.75 to +2.25 Std dev.
More than 27,695.5 More than 624 0 Star +2.25 Std dev. or higher
Mean = 16,744.9095 Mean = 406.6242
Std. Dev.= 4,867.00137 Std.Dev.= 96.73004

Table 5.2 Proposed range of energy requirements and degree discomfort hours for each star rating
for double storey houses in Sydney

Degree discomfort hours Energy requirement Rating of energy Range on normal curve
(DDH) (MJ/m2 ) performance (from mean)

3,402 or less 86.8 or less 5 Star –2.25 Std dev. or lower

4,839<DDH≤ 6,276 86<E≤ 121 4.5 Star –2.25 to –1.75 Std dev.
6,276<DDH≤ 7,713 121<E≤ 156 4 Star –1.75 to –1.25 Std dev.
7,713<DDH≤ 9,150 156<E≤ 191 3.5 Star –1.25 to –0.75 Std dev.
9,150<DDH≤ 10,587 191<E≤ 226 3 Star –0.75 to –0.25 Std dev.
10,587<DDH≤ 12,024 226<E≤ 261 2.5 Star –0.25 to +0.25 Std dev.
12,024<DDH≤ 13,461 2,601<E≤ 296 2.Star +0.25 to +0.75 Std dev.
13,461<DDH≤ 14,898 296<E≤ 331 1.5 Star +0.75 to +1.25 Std dev.
14,898<DDH≤ 16,335 331<E≤ 366 1 Star +1.25 to +1.75 Std dev.
16,335<DDH≤ 17,772 366<E≤ 400 0.5 Star +1.75 to +2.25 Std dev.
More than 17,772 More than 400 0 Star +2.25 Std dev. or higher

Mean = 11,305.5435 Mean = 243.3627

Std. Dev.= 2,874.0938 Std. Dev.= 69.71535
122 5 Assembling a HER and HFR Scheme

Ideally, the score of a house performance should be represented by one indicator

only, in order to simplify the condition for comparing and rating buildings, and this
is found in international rating systems. However, as it was found (see Chap. 4) that
performances differed between conditioned and free-running houses, two separate
scores have been computed for HFRS and HERS. In order to reduce this to one
single score for the architectural design of a house, a combination of the two ratings
is desirable. The proposed technique for combining the two rating systems is the
aggregation of the scores of free running and conditioned performances of a house
as described below.

5.2 The Combination of Two Rating Systems

A new star band can be obtained by simply adding the scores obtained from the
free running and conditioned performances of a house. However, such a simple
aggregation will not differentiate between the values of efficient design for each
house mode. For instance, if a house achieves 5 stars in its free running rating and
2 stars in its conditioned rating, its final score (7 stars) would be similar to that of a
building with 5 stars in its conditioned rating and 2 stars in its free running rating.
However, these two houses should not achieve a similar score, since their design
efficiency and their characteristics are different. If the former was operating as a
conditioned house, it would result in more energy consumption for space heating
and cooling than the latter.
An algorithm is employed in the following for aggregating the two rating sys-
tems to give more value to either an efficient free running house or an efficient
conditioned house. Either of these would be rewarded, depending on the policy for
reducing energy requirements in the building sector. For instance, where the climate
is suitable for taking the most advantage of the outdoor environment, free running
houses should have priority for promoting efficient architectural design. This sit-
uation would be reversed for promoting efficient conditioned houses if there is a
reason for not constructing free running houses.
The method would be flexible enough to make it also applicable for all regions,
and it should therefore be applicable and adjustable for national or even international
use for HRS.
However, this book is concerned specifically with promoting efficient free run-
ning houses. Thus it aims to give more value to such houses in a moderate climate
(such as Sydney’s), as a matter of policy, in the context of sustainable development.
It is intended to encourage the public to adopt free running houses, in order to reduce
energy consumption for space heating and cooling.
The proposed algorithm for this purpose is presented in Fig. 5.3. A 10 star rating
scheme is proposed for aggregating the scores of a 5 star free running and 5 star
conditioned rating. The algorithm is most conveniently executed as a “lookup table”,
5.2 The Combination of Two Rating Systems 123

Fig. 5.3 An algorithm for aggregating the scores of HERS and HFRS
124 5 Assembling a HER and HFR Scheme

as illustrated in Fig. 5.3. The 11 cells of the table correspond to the initial range of
possible “half star” ratings for conditioned performance. In each cell of the table:

• the first column allocates the probabilistic score for the conditioned performance
of a house in a 5 star rating;
• the second column allocates all probabilistic scores for the free running perfor-
mance of the house in a 5 star rating;
• the third column allocates the final aggregated score in which:
– the top score is obtained from adding the conditioned rating score to the 5 star
rating of the house in free running performance,
– the other final scores allocated in the third column are produced by taking 1
score away from the resulting upper final score. This establishes a different
value to the different performances of a house by rewarding the free running
performance of the house.

In this sort of aggregation the final score is mostly less than the score produced
by simply adding the scores of both ratings. For instance in the first group, by adding
the first two grades of free running (5) and conditioned (5) ratings, the result will be
10, which is the top star rating in the new rating system. The addition of the second
grades in this group, free running (5) and conditioned (4.5), gives a sum of 9.5 but a
score of 9 (10–1=9) stars is given in the proposed method of aggregation. Likewise,
the third grade in the same group produces 8 stars (9–1=8) for aggregating: (5) stars
for conditioned performance and (4) stars for the free running performance of the
house.
A regression analysis has been employed in this case to examine the sensitivity
of the final score (as a dependent variable) in relation to the free running and
conditioned scores (as independent variables).
The regression obtained (5.1) confirms the greater dependency of the final
score on free running performance. The standardized coefficient for free running
performance is 0.87, where that for the conditioned performance is 0.4.

S = 0.40S1 + 0.87 S2 (5.1)

In other words, to produce the final score for the thermal performance of the
house, the proposed new HRS gives more value to the free running performance,
to the extent that the effect of the free running score is more than double the effect
of the conditioned score. As a result, a designer would be likely to give priority to
free running design for improving the thermal performance of the house in order to
achieve an acceptable score in the HRS. This supports the objective of the rating
framework – to encourage the public and architects to opt for free running houses.
However, depending on the appropriate policy for reducing energy consumption,
the method can also be applied to give more value to conditioned houses, simply
by transforming the method of aggregation of the two ratings. In its simplest form,
where the conditioned and free running scores are transposed in the lookup table, the
higher coefficient (0.87) would apply to the score for the conditioned performance
of a house.
5.3 How the New Combined System Evaluates Efficiency 125

5.3 How the New Combined System Evaluates Efficiency

A minimum star level is generally required for designation of efficiency in an archi-
tectural design. This varies according to the state or territory, and is proposed by
authorities in each jurisdiction. For example, the initial regulatory framework of
NatHERS in Australia established a maximum of 5 stars for HERS, with 3.5 stars
as the prerequisite for an efficient house design. This is now superseded by the 10
star system of AccuRate, which requires 5 stars as a prerequisite for an efficient
design in those states of Australia in which AccuRate is approved as a mandated
tool.
Since a 10 star rating is proposed for HRS, with aggregates of 5 stars for HERS
and HFRS, the minimum requirement for an efficient design would be 6.5 stars, by
which a house would achieve at least 4 stars for its free running performance. As
observed above, a house with 4 stars in free running mode would achieve 3.5 stars
in conditioned operation mode. The combination of 4 and 3 stars is 6.5, which is
thus defined as the minimum requirement for energy efficient design.
Figure 5.4 illustrates the position of acceptable states in the proposed framework
in conjunction with stars taken from HFRS and HERS. The final rating score is
displayed as the size of the bubble marker. The highest score is 10 and its position
is indicated in the Fig. 5.4
The proposed prototype rating framework can be summarized as follows:

• single storey houses are separated from double storey houses;

• the evaluation is based on the house performance in both free running and
conditioned mode;
• a house is given two separate scores in a 5 star rating scheme for its free running
and conditioned performances;

Fig. 5.4 Pictorial expression of the proposed framework

126 5 Assembling a HER and HFR Scheme

• the scores of free running and conditioned performances are combined under a
developed algorithm to produce a final score in a 10 star range;
• the proposed algorithm gives more reward to the free running than the condi-
tioned performance of a house; however it is flexible enough to be inverted,
depending on the policy;
• achieving 6.5 stars is the main criterion for acceptable house design, for which a
house would get at least 4 stars from HFRS.

5.4 Reliability of the New Rating System

One way to test the reliability of the proposed framework is to test it on real houses
by employing it for improving their thermal performance. Another way is testing the
framework for its theoretical sensitivity to improvements in efficient design. A sim-
ulated improvement in response to the composed rating was in this case employed
to determine if the framework delivers expected sensitivity. For this purpose the
following steps were taken:

• The design quality of the typical houses was improved by modifying design fea-
tures in order to enhance first the free running performance, then the conditioned
performance of the houses.
• The resulting annual energy requirements and DDHs were input in a regression
model to determine the correlation between the indicators of free running and
conditioned performances for these “improved” houses.
• All simulated houses were scored on the basis of the proposed rating scheme to
check how their scores on the HERS changed in relation to the changes in their
score on the free running component.

The linear regression shows a strong correlation between the annual energy
requirements and degree discomfort hours of houses when their thermal perfor-
mances were improved. The scatter plot of this situation is depicted in Fig. 5.5.
The scatter plots for “improved” houses are circled in this figure to draw specific
attention to them. A strong linear relationship between the thermal performances of
“improved” houses is obvious. The correlation is 0.86.
Before the improvement the correlations were 0.69 for the Sydney climate, and
0.56 for the Canberra climate (see Sect. 4.3.1, Fig. 4.33).
This observation indicates that an efficient house design can result in good per-
formances for a house in both operation modes if its design quality is improved
greatly for either its free running or conditioned operation modes.
This logical implication needs to be checked against the proposed score bands to
see the relationship between the scores of houses in free running (HFRS) and condi-
tioned ratings (HERS). All simulated samples therefore were scored on the basis of
the proposed rating. The relationship between the scores is shown in Fig. 5.6. It can
be seen that there is a linear relationship between the scores of double storey houses
5.4 Reliability of the New Rating System 127

Fig. 5.5 Correlation between 700

energy requirements and
600
degree discomfort hours
(r2 =0.86 for area circled) 500

Energy (MJ/m²)
400

300

200

100

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Degree Discomfort Hours

6
5.5
Conditioned operation

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Free running operation Single Storey
Poly. (Single Storey)

a) Single storey houses

5.5
5
4.5
Conditioned mode

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Free running mode Double Storey
Linear (Double Storey)

b) Double storey houses

Fig. 5.6 Correlation between the score of houses in free running and conditioned modes
128 5 Assembling a HER and HFR Scheme

in different modes. However, the relationship is polynomial among the single storey
houses. This is evidence again of a significant difference between the characteristics
of SS and DS houses, which requires that a rating system separates these two house
types for evaluation.
A remarkable point in this approach is that houses with 4 stars in free running
mode get at least 3.5 stars in their conditioned performance, but houses with 4 stars
in their conditioned performance do not necessarily get a score higher than 3 stars
in their free running performance. In other words, an efficient design for a free
running house could improve the performance of that house in the conditioned mode
if its free running score is not less than 4. This condition has been included in the
proposed prototype framework for HRS.
Under these circumstances it appears that the proposed aggregation of HFRS and
HERS is an appropriate response to the objective of HRS. It does not compromise
the value of the conditioned performance of houses, while highlighting the value of
free running houses, in which energy requirements for space heating and cooling
will be significantly reduced.

5.5 Conclusion
This book was intended to develop a method for HRS that would give appropriate
value to the free running performance of houses, which is missing in the current
house rating schemes, so as to encourage the adoption of such houses. In order to
achieve this, an aggregation technique was developed to differentiate the value of
a free running and a conditioned performance of a house, in which the efficiency
of a designed house is evaluated for grading on the basis of its performances in
both the modes, and which awards more value to free running performance, but
which in application also generally improves conditioned performance. However,
the proposed system remains flexible enough to give higher value to either free
running or conditioned performances, which therefore makes it adjustable for the
promotion of any kind of efficient architectural design, depending on the relevant
policy for reducing energy consumption.
The proposed HRS modifies the current rating scheme by introducing the
following changes:

• It separates double storey houses from single storey houses to remove discrimi-
nation in favour of the value of SS against DS houses.
• It rates the house thermal performance separately for its free running and condi-
tioned operation, then aggregates the star bands to produce a single star rating for
final comparative evaluation.
References 129

It establishes the criterion (in the number of stars) for assessing an efficient
architectural design in order to ascertain the efficiency of house design in both
operations

References
Ebel, R.L., Frisbie, D.A.: Essentials of Educational Measurement (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1991)
Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., Gonzalez, R., Maestre, I.R.: A review of benchmarking, rating and labeling
concepts within the framework of building energy certification scheme. Energy Build. 41(3),
272–278 (2009)
Chapter 6
Appendix

6.1 The Effect of House Envelope Parameters on the Seasonal

Performance of Houses in Different Operation Modes
This Appendix reports in full the additional Figures referred in Chap. 4, being
the sensitivity of seasonal, winter and summer, performances of simulated houses
in response to changing design parameters for two house operation modes in the
Sydney climate
• Ceiling insulation
Winter performance Summer performance
15000 4900 AH1
AH1
AL1
13000 AL1 4400
AH2
AH2
Cooling DDH
Heating DDH

AL2 3900 AL2

11000 CH1
CH1
3400 CL1
CL1
9000 CH2
CH2 2900
CL2 CL2
7000
DH1 2400 DH1
DL1 DL1
5000 1900
DH2 DH2
DL2 DL2
3000 1400
R=0 R=1 R=2 R=3 R=4 R=0 R=1 R=2 R=3 R=4
R R

Fig. 6.1 Projected effect of ceiling insulation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses
in free running operation mode
Winter performance Summer performance
350 AH
200
1 AH
AL 1
180
Heating energy (MJ/m2)

AL
300 1
Cooling energy (MJ/m2)

AH 1
2 AH
AL 160 2
250 2 AL
CH
140 2
1 CH
CL
200 1 120 1
CL
CH
1
150
2
CL 100 CH
2
2 CL
DH 80 2
1
100 DL DH
1
60 1
DH DL
2
50 40 1

R=0 R=1 R=2 R=3 R=4 R=0 R=1 R=2 R=3 R=4
R R

Fig. 6.2 Projected effect of ceiling insulation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses
in conditioned mode

M. Kordjamshidi, House Rating Schemes, Green Energy and Technology, 131

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5_6, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
132 6 Appendix

• Wall insulation

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 5000
AH1 AH1
13000 AL1
4500 AL1

12000 AH2 AH2

4000
Heating DDH

AL2

Cooling DDH
AL2
11000
CH1 CH1
10000 CL1
3500 CL1

9000 CH2
3000 CH2

CL2 CL2
8000
DH1 2500 DH1
7000 DL1 DL1

6000 DH2
2000 DH2

DL2 DL2
5000 1500
R=0 R = 1 R = 1.5 R = 2 R=3 R=0 R = 1 R = 1.5 R = 2 R=3
R R

Fig. 6.3 Projected effect of wall insulation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
free running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

350 190
AH1 AH1
AL1
Heating energy (MJ/m )

Cooling energy (MJ/m2)

300 170 AL1

2

AH2 AH2

250
AL2 150 AL2
CH1 CH1
CL1 130 CL1
200 CH2 CH2
CL2
110
CL2
150 DH1
90 DH1
DL1
DL1
100 DH2 70 DH2
DL2
50 50 DL2

R=0 R = 1 R = 1.5 R = 2 R=3 R=0 R = 1 R = 1.5 R = 2 R=3

R R

Fig. 6.4 Projected effect of wall insulation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode

• Floor insulation

Winter performance Summer performance

15000 AH1
5500 AH1

14000 AL1 5000 AL1

13000 AH2
4500 AH2

AL2 AL2
Cooling DDH
Heating DDH

12000 4000 CH1

CH1
11000 CL1 3500 CL1

10000 CH2 3000 CH2

CL2 CL2
9000 2500
DH1 DH1
8000 DL1 2000 DL1

7000 DH2 1500 DH2

DL2 DL2
6000 1000
R=0 R=1 R = 1.5 R=2 R=0 R=1 R = 1.5 R=2
R R

Fig. 6.5 Projected effect of floor insulation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
free running operation mode
6.1 The Effect of House Envelope Parameters on the Seasonal Performance 133

Winter performance Summer performance

350 AH1 200 AH1
AL1
180
Heating energy (MJ/m2)

AL1

Cooling energy (MJ/m )

2
300 AH2 AH2
AL2 160 AL2

250 CH1 140 CH1

CL1 CL1
CH2
120 CH2
200 CL2 100 CL2

DH1 DH1
80
150 DL1 DL1

DH2 60 DH2

DL2 DL2
100 40
R=0 R=1 R = 1.5 R=2 R=0 R=1 R = 1.5 R=2
R R

Fig. 6.6 Projected effect of floor insulation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode

• Wall colour

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 AH1
5500 AH1

13000 AL1 5000 AL1

AH2
12000 AH2 4500
Cooling DDH

AL2
Heating DDH

AL2
11000 4000 CH1
CH1

10000 CL1 3500 CL1

CH2
9000 CH2 3000
CL2 CL2
8000 2500 DH1
DH1
7000 DL1
2000 DL1

6000 DH2 1500 DH2

DL2
DL2
5000 1000
Light Medium Dark Light Medium Dark
Wall colour Wall colour

Fig. 6.7 Projected effect of external wall colour on the seasonal performance of the typical houses
in free running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

350 AH1 250 AH1
AL1
300
Heating energy(MJ/m )

AL1
2

AH2
200
Cooling energy(MJ/m )

AH2
2

250 AL2
AL2
CH1
CH1
200 CL1
150
CL1
CH2
150 CH2
CL2 100 CL2
100 DH1
DH1
DL1
50 DL1
50 DH2
DH2
DL2
0 0 DL2

Light Medium Dark Light Medium Dark

Wall colour Wall colour

Fig. 6.8 Projected effect of external wall colour on the seasonal performance of the typical houses
in conditioned mode
134 6 Appendix

• Roof colour

Winter performance Summer performance

15000 8000
AH1 AH1
14000 AL1
7000 AL1
13000 AH2 AH2
6000

Cooling DDH
Heating DDH

AL2 AL2
12000
CH1 CH1
11000 5000
CL1 CL1

10000 CH2 4000 CH2

CL2
9000 CL2
3000
DH1 DH1
8000 DL1
DL1 2000
7000 DH2
DH2

1000 DL2
6000 DL2

Light Medium Dark Light Medium Dark

Roof colour Roof colour

Fig. 6.9 Projected effect of roof colour on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in free
running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

400 350 AH1
AH1
Cooling energy (MJ/m )

AL1
2

AL1 300
Heating energy (MJ/m )

350
2

AH2 AH2

AL2 250 AL2

300 CH1 CH1

CL1
200 CL1
250 CH2
CH2
150
CL2 CL2
200 DH1 100 DH1
DL1 DL1
150 DH2
50 DH2
DL2
100 0 DL2

Light Medium Dark Light Medium Dark

Roof colour Roof colour

Fig. 6.10 Projected effect of roof colour on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode

• Orientation

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 AH1 5500 AH1
13000 AL1 5000 AL1

12000 AH2
4500 AH2
Heating DDH

AL2
Cooling DDH

AL2
11000 CH1 4000 CH1
10000 CL1 3500 CL1
9000 CH2
3000 CH2
CL2
8000 DH1 2500 CL2

DH1
7000 DL1 2000 DL1
6000 DH2
1500 DH2
DL2
5000 DL2
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
Orientation Orientation

Fig. 6.11 Projected effect of orientation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in free
running operation mode
6.1 The Effect of House Envelope Parameters on the Seasonal Performance 135

Winter performance Summer performance

350 AH1
200 AH1
180
Heating energy (MJ/m )

Cooling energy (MJ/m )

AL1
2

AL1

2
300 AH2 160 AH2
AL2 140 AL2

250 CH1
120 CH1
CL1 CL1
CH2
100
CH2
200 CL2
80 CL2
DH1 60 DH1
150 DL1 40 DL1
DH2 20 DH2
DL2 DL2
100 0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315
Orientation Orientation

Fig. 6.12 Projected effect of orientation on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode

• Overhang

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 AH1 4500 AH1
13000 AL1
4000 AL1
AH2
AH2
12000
Cooling DDH

AL2 3500
Heating DDH

AL2
11000 CH1
CH1
CL1 3000 CL1
10000 CH2 CH2
2500
9000 CL2 CL2

8000
DH1 2000 DH1
DL1 DL1
7000 DH2 1500 DH2
DL2 DL2
6000 1000
E=0 E = 450 E = 600 E = 1000 E=0 E = 450 E = 600 E = 1000
Overhang width Overhang width

Fig. 6.13 Projected effect of overhang width on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
free running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

350 AH1
200 AH1

AL1 180 AL1

Cooling energy (MJ/m2)
Heating energy (MJ/m2)

300 AH2 160 AH2

AL2
140 AL2

CH1 CH1
250 120
CL1 CL1
CH2
100 CH2
200 CL2 80 CL2
DH1 60 DH1

150 DL1
40 DL1
DH2 DH2
20
DL2 DL2
100 0
E=0 E = 450 E = 600 E = 1000 E=0 E = 450 E = 600 E = 1000
Overhang width Overhang width

Fig. 6.14 Projected effect of overhang width on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode
136 6 Appendix

• Glazing type

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 5000 AH1
AH1
13000 4500 AL1
AL1
12000 AH2
4000 AH2

Cooling DDH
Heating DDH

11000 AL2 3500 AL2

CH1
CH1 3000
10000 CL1 CL1
2500
9000 CH2
2000
CH2

CL2 CL2
8000 DH1 1500 DH1
7000 DL1 1000 DL1

6000 DH2
500 DH2
DL2 DL2
5000 0
SG SG SG Clr DG Clr DG SG Refl SG SG Clr DG Clr DG
Refl Tone Tone Tone Tone
Glazing type Glazing type

Fig. 6.15 Projected effect of glazing type on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
free running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

400 AH1 200 AH1
350 180
Heating energy (MJ/m2)

AL1
Cooling energy (MJ/m )

AL1
2

300
AH2 160 AH2
AL2
140 AL2
250 CH1
120 CH1
CL1 CL1
200 CH2 100 CH2
150 CL2 80 CL2

100
DH1 60 DH1
DL1
40 DL1
50 DH2
20 DH2
DL2
0 0 DL2

SG Refl SG SG Clr DG Clr DG SG Refl SG SG Clr DG Clr DG

Tone Tone Tone Tone
Glazing type Glazing type

Fig. 6.16 Projected effect of glazing type on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode

• Window covering

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 4500
AH1 AH1
13000 AL1 AL1
4000
12000 AH2 AH2
Cooling DDH
Heating DDH

AL2 AL2
11000 3500
CH1 CH1
10000 CL1
3000 CL1

9000 CH2 CH2

8000
CL2 2500 CL2
DH1 DH1
7000 DL1 2000 DL1

6000 DH2 DH2

5000
DL2 1500 DL2
O.W (0) C.W (0.03) D (0.055) D+Pel(0.33)
O.W (0) C.W (0.03) D (0.055) D+Pel(0.33)
Window cover (R) Window cover (R)

Fig. 6.17 Projected effect of window covering on the seasonal performance of the typical houses
in free running operation mode
6.1 The Effect of House Envelope Parameters on the Seasonal Performance 137

Winter performance Summer performance

350 170
AH1 AH1
Heating energy (MJ/m )

AL1 AL1
300
2

Cooling energy (MJ/m )

150

2
AH2 AH2
AL2
250 130
AL2
CH1 CH1
CL1
200 110
CL1
CH2 CH2
CL2
150 90
CL2
DH1 DH1
DL1
100 70 DL1
DH2 DH2
50 DL2
50 DL2
O.W (0) C.W (0.03) D (0.055) D+Pel(0.33) O.W (0) C.W (0.03) D (0.055) D+Pel(0.33)
Window cover (R) Window cover (R)

Fig. 6.18 Projected effect of window covering on the seasonal performance of the typical houses
in conditioned mode

• Openable window area

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 5000 AH1
AH1
13000 AL1 4500 AL1
AH2
AH2
4000
Cooling DDH

12000 AL2
AL2
Heating DDH

11000 CH1 3500 CH1

CL1
CL1
10000 3000 CH2
CH2
9000 CL2 2500 CL2
DH1
DH1
8000 2000 DL1
DL1
7000 DH2 1500 DH2
DL2
DL2
6000 1000
25 50 75 25 50 75
Percentage of openable windows Percentage of openable windows

Fig. 6.19 Projected effect of openable window area on the seasonal performance of the typical
houses in free running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

350 200
AH1 AH1

AL1 180 AL1

Cooling energy (MJ/m )
Heating energy (MJ/m )

2
2

300 AH2 160 AH2

AL2 AL2
140 CH1
CH1
250 120
CL1 CL1

CH2 100 CH2

200 CL2 CL2
80 DH1
DH1

150 DL1 60 DL1

DH2
DH2 40
DL2 DL2
100 20
25 50 75 25 50 75
Percentage of openable windows Percentage of openable windows

Fig. 6.20 Projected effect of openable window area on the seasonal performance of the typical
houses in conditioned mode
138 6 Appendix

• Window to wall ratio (North and South orientation)

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 4500 AH1
AH1
13000 AL1
4000
AL1
AH2 AH2
Heating DDH

12000 AL2 AL2

Cooling DDH
3500
11000 CH1 CH1
CL1 CL1
10000 3000
CH2 CH2
9000 CL2 CL2
DH1
2500 DH1
8000
DL1 DL1
7000 DH2 2000
DH2
DL2
6000 1500
DL2

0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25

Percentage of window to wall ratio Percentage of window to wall ratio

Fig. 6.21 Projected effect of window to wall ratio in north and south orientation on the seasonal
performance of the typical houses in free running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

350 AH1
190 AH1
AL1 AL1
170
Cooling energy (MJ/m2)
Heating energy (MJ/m )
2

300 AH2 AH2

AL2 150 AL2
CH1 CH1
250 130
CL1 CL1
CH2 CH2
200 110
CL2 CL2
DH1 90 DH1
150 DL1 DL1
DH2 70 DH2
DL2 DL2
100 50
0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25
Percentage of window to wall ratio Percentage of window to wall ratio

Fig. 6.22 Projected effect of window to wall ratio in north and south orientation on the seasonal
performance of the typical houses in conditioned mode

• Window to wall ratio (East and West orientation)

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 4500 AH1
AH1
13000 AL1
4000
AL1

AH2 AH2
Heating DDH

12000 AL2 AL2

Cooling DDH

3500
11000 CH1 CH1
CL1 CL1
10000 3000
CH2 CH2
9000 CL2 CL2
DH1
2500 DH1
8000
DL1 DL1
7000 DH2 2000
DH2
DL2
6000 1500
DL2

0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25

Percentage of window to wall ratio Percentage of window to wall ratio

Fig. 6.23 Projected effect of window to wall ratio in east and west orientation on the seasonal
performance of the typical houses in free running operation mode
6.1 The Effect of House Envelope Parameters on the Seasonal Performance 139

Winter performance Summer performance

350 AH1
190 AH1
AL1 AL1
170

Cooling energy (MJ/m2)

Heating energy (MJ/m )

300
2

AH2 AH2
AL2 150 AL2
CH1 CH1
250 130
CL1 CL1
CH2 CH2
200 110
CL2 CL2
DH1 90 DH1
150 DL1 DL1
DH2 70 DH2
DL2 DL2
100 50
0.15 0.25 0.15 0.25
Percentage of window to wall ratio Percentage of window to wall ratio

Fig. 6.24 Projected effect of window to wall ratio in east and west orientation on the seasonal
performance of the typical houses in conditioned mode

• Internal wall

Winter performance Summer performance

14000 4500
AH1 AH1
13000 AL1 AL1
4000
12000 AH2 AH2
Cooling DDH
Heating DDH

11000
AL2 3500 AL2
CH1 CH1
10000 CL1 3000 CL1
9000 CH2
2500 CH2
CL2 CL2
8000
DH1 2000 DH1
7000 DL1 DL1
6000 DH2 1500 DH2
DL2 DL2
5000 1000
P C B Cav P C B Cav
Internal wall Internal wall

Fig. 6.25 Projected effect of internal wall on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
free running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

350 190 AH1
AH1
Heating energy (MJ/m )

Cooling energy (MJ/m )

170 AL1
2

AL1
2

300 AH2 AH2

AL2 150 AL2

250 CH1
130
CH1
CL1 CL1
CH2 CH2
200 110
CL2 CL2
DH1 90 DH1
150 DL1 DL1
DH2 70 DH2
DL2
100 50
DL2

P C B Cav P C B Cav
Internal wall Internal wall

Fig. 6.26 Projected effect of internal wall on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode
140 6 Appendix

• Infiltration

Winter performance Summer performance

15000 4500 AH1
AH1
14000 AL1 AL1

13000 AH2 4000 AH2

Cooling DDH
Heating DDH

AL2 AL2
12000
CH1 CH1
3500
11000 CL1 CL1

10000 CH2 CH2

CL2
3000 CL2
9000
DH1 DH1
8000 DL1 2500 DL1

7000 DH2 DH2

DL2 DL2
6000 2000
0 1 2 5 0 1 2 5
Air infiltration rate (Air changes/hour) Air infiltration rate (Air changes/hour)

Fig. 6.27 Projected effect of infiltration on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in free
running operation mode

Winter performance Summer performance

400 190
AH1 AH1
AL1 170 AL1
Heating energy (MJ/m )

Cooling energy (MJ/m )

350
2

AH2 AH2
AL2 150 AL2
300
CH1 CH1
CL1
130 CL1
250
CH2 CH2
110
CL2 CL2
200
DH1 90 DH1
DL1 DL1
150 70
DH2 DH2
DL2 DL2
100 50
0 1 2 5 0 1 2 5
Air infiltration rate (Air changes/hour) Air infiltration rate (Air changes/hour)

Fig. 6.28 Projected effect of infiltration on the seasonal performance of the typical houses in
conditioned mode
Index

A Australia, 1, 3, 8, 13–14, 18–19, 22, 47, 55,

ABS (Australian Bureau Statistics), 71–72 57–66, 69, 71–72, 108–109, 125
Absolute value, 77 Australian Climate, 13–14, 58, 64–66
Absorbance, 75–76, 85, 102
Acclimatization, 37, 43, 47 B
Accuracy of rating systems, 23 Benchmark tool, 59
accuracy of HERS, 23–24 BEP (Billed Energy Protocol), 16
Accurate house rating system, 117 BERS, 14, 58
AccuRate software, 22, 63–64, 68–69, 71, 73, BESTTEST, 9, 64
85, 94 Beta coefficients, 111
Achievement of sustainability, 19 BREDEM, 11
See also Sustainability
Brundtland Report, 1
Acoustic comfort, 14
Bubble marker, 125
ACTHERS, 14, 58
Building
Active system design, 24
envelopes, 10, 13, 21, 74–75, 87, 107, 111
Actual energy consumption, 15
operation mode, 118
Actual energy cost, 23
orientation, 75, 88
Actual energy performance, 22
Building Energy Rating Schemes, 19–24
Actual performance, 19, 54, 64
Building energy tools, 9
Adaptive comfort models, 40–43, 67
Building performance assessment, 31, 53–54
Adaptive comfort standard, 41–42
Bureau of Statistics, 71
Adaptive thermal comfort models, 39–41
Aggregated score, 124
Aggregation technique, 128 C
Air Calculation, 2, 7–9, 12, 15, 17, 54–55
speed, 34, 68, 70 Canada, 8–10, 13, 18
velocity, 32–33, 36 Canadian homes rating system, 10
ventilation, 41, 69, 76, 85 Ceiling insulation, 76, 78–79, 102, 110–112
Air conditioning, 2, 46, 76 Certification, 8, 10–11, 13, 15
Algorithm, 11, 35, 55, 73, 122–123, 126 Cessation times, 16
simplified algorithm, 73 CHEENATH, 14, 58, 60
Annual energy requirements, 21, 24, 26, CHEETAH, 14, 58
43, 54, 78–79, 81–82, 84, 91, 93, Circumstantial restriction, 43
108–109, 119, 121, 126 Climate
Annual thermal performance, 78–100, 102, cold, 11, 64–65
108–110 hot-dry, 64
Appliances, 9–10, 12, 17, 20 humid, 13, 33, 41, 47, 64, 68
ASHRAE standard, 33, 35–36, 41, 69 moderate, 3, 13, 18–20, 23, 31, 33, 47, 65,
Assessing building energy efficiency, 24–25 67–68, 109, 122

M. Kordjamshidi, House Rating Schemes, Green Energy and Technology, 141

DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-15790-5, C Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
142 Index

severe, 23, 65 E
warm, 38, 84 Ecological criteria, 19
Climate responsive, 111 EEM (Energy-efficient mortgages), 18
Climatic Efficiency categories, see Score bands
data, 65, 67 Efficiency standards, 11
parameters, 66, 109 Efficient architectural design, 47, 65, 75,
Cloud cover, 66 86–87, 90, 122, 128–129
Combined system, 42, 125–126 Embodied energy, 16, 19, 54
Comfortable indoor condition, 18, 25, 39 ENE-RATE, 16
Comfort condition boundaries, 56, 67 Energy
Comfort index based rating schemes, 18, 23, 47, 53, 74,
See also Indices 100, 117
Comfort performance, 103 behaviour, 16
Comfort temperature, 35, 39–40, 43–45, bill, 18, 23
67–69, 84 conservation, 2, 13, 24
Conditioned floor area, 17, 20 consumption, 1–4, 7–21, 23–25, 31, 40, 53,
Conditioned mode, 3, 21, 45, 47, 54, 73, 59, 64, 70, 77, 111, 122, 124, 128
78–82, 84–103, 105, 110–112, 125, cooling, 14, 33, 45, 58, 60, 74, 81, 84–85,
127–128 88, 93–94, 96, 98–99
Conflict in HERS, 3–4 cost, 17–19, 22–23
Constant criteria, 56 crisis, 1, 10
Cost-effective improvements, 18 demand, 1, 2, 4, 16, 20, 24
Cost effectiveness, 14, 18, 54 efficient building, 2, 10, 20, 31, 46, 53
Criteria for modeling, 56–74 efficient design, 2, 13, 20, 24, 53, 125
Criteria of thermal comfort, 34, 41 efficient development, 18
‘criterion- referenced’ measurment, 118 -efficient houses, 18
Cultural features, 40 indicator, 20
Customized limit, 118 inventory, 12
D normalization, 16
DDH (Degree Discomfort Hours) performance, 4, 10–11, 18, 22, 46–47, 54,
annual degree discomfort hours, 45, 47, 103, 117–118, 121
78–79, 81, 91, 93, 101, 119–121 performance index, 117–118
cooling degree hours, 86, 88 See also Indices
cooling’ discomfort hours, 45 plus, 64
heating degree hours, 85, 87–88, 94 related fixed components, 17
heating’ discomfort hours, 45 simulation, 55
DDH with area weighting, 74, 78 supply, 1, 3
DDH without area weighting, 74, 78 total supplied, 16
Degree hours, 43–45, 78, 85–88, 94 Energy requirement
overheating degree hours, 85 cooling, 33, 45, 58, 60, 74, 81, 84–85,
Denmark, 11–12 93–94, 96, 98–99
DER (Dwelling Emission Rate), 11 heating, 11, 45, 84, 86, 94
Design Enter procedure, 109
features, 53, 74, 100–103, 108–112, 126 Environmental impact, 14, 18–19, 54
paradigm, 19 Environmental issues, 18
quality, 117, 126 Environmental parameters, 32, 35
Diagnostics, 25 Environmental performance, 9, 16, 64
Diffuse irradiance, 66 Environmental temperature, 34, 64, 68, 70
Disabled people, 42 EPBD (Energy Performance of Building
Dry bulb temperature, 33, 35, 40, 65–66, 68 Directive), 11
Dwellings, 5, 7, 11, 13–14, 16, 22, 24, 31, 37, ET∗ (Effective Temperature), 40
44, 47, 56, 77–100 EUROCLASS, 16
See also Residential buildings Europe, 8, 10–13, 16
Index 143

EUROTARGET, 16 98–101, 105–106, 117, 119–121,

Evaporation, 33, 65 125–128
Experimentation, 54 SS houses (Single Storey houses), 20, 26,
External walls, 63, 75, 79–81, 84–86, 89, 97 79–81, 83–84, 86, 88–91, 93–94,
96, 98, 100–101, 105–107, 111,
F 125, 127–128, 117, 119–117, 121
Fabric building variables, 108 Human heat balance, 41
Fanger, 17, 32, 34–36, 38, 43–44, 47 Humidity
Financing, 2, 18 absolute, 33, 66, 70
FirstRate, 14, 58, 108 relative, 33, 36, 40, 68–70
Five Star Design Rating, 13
Fixed limit option, 118 I
Floor area, 12, 17, 20, 63, 74, 82, 101 “Ideal” thermal comfort, 32
Floor insulation, 76, 82–84, 102, 110, 112 IEA (International Energy Agency), 1, 2, 12
Framework Inability of rating systems, 19
new, 4, 5, 16, 26 Index of Energy Disposition, 15–16
proposed, 125–126 Indicators, 5, 17, 19–21, 26, 31–32, 34,
prototype rating, 125 45–47, 54, 56, 72–74, 95, 101, 103,
regulatory, 3, 112, 125 105–107, 109–111, 122, 126
Free running mode, 23, 45–46, 54, 69, 74, Indices, 15–16, 35
78–101, 103, 111, 121, 125, Indoor air quality, 14
127–128 Indoor climate, 21, 37, 43, 74–75
Fuel, 10, 12, 15, 17 Indoor comfort condition, 19
Fuzzy logic, 16 Indoor temperature, 24, 37, 43, 64, 67–69, 74,
76, 83, 87, 94
Infiltration, 75–76, 98–100, 102, 110, 112, 140
G
Inhabitants’ behaviour, 21
GBA (Government Buildings Agency), 44
Internal walls, 63, 74, 76, 97–98, 102, 110, 112
Glazing type, 75–76, 90–91, 102, 110, 112 International issues, 1
Grading on a curve, 118 ISO 7730, 35–36, 44
ISSO, 43–44
H ISSO 2004, 43
Heating and cooling condition, 69–70 ITC (Index of Thermal Charge), 16
HERS (House Energy Rating Scheme), 2–4,
7–15, 18–26, 55, 58, 64–65, 69, 71, J
122–123, 125–126, 128 Kyoto Protocol, 1
HFRS (House Free running Rating Scheme),
25, 26, 65, 69, 122–123, 125–126, K
128 Labelling, 8, 11
Home buyers, 7, 111 See also Certification
House construction Laboratory based index, 37
HW house (Heavyweight houses), 79–83, See also Indices
86–88, 90–92, 94, 97, 100 LEED, 9–10
LW houses (Lightweight houses), 26, 72, Lighting, 10–12, 17
81, 83–84, 86–87, 90, 92, 94, 97, Linear relationship, 45, 103, 106, 126
100, 108
House envelope, 77 L
House operation mode, 43, 74, 77, 86, 89, Marketing, 15, 18
90–91, 93, 99–101, 111 Measurements, 7, 10, 12, 25, 118
See also Conditioned mode; Free running MEC, 8
mode MEP (Monitored Energy Protocol), 16
House type Method
DS houses (Double Storey houses), 20, 26, bin, 54
79–80, 82–84, 86–91, 93–94, 96, equipment adjustment factor, 15
144 Index

the modified loads, 15 Pass/fail rating, 13

the normalized modified loads, 15 Passive design, 53
the original, 15 passive architectural design, 3, 13, 18
simplified, 24, 45 Pearson correlation coefficient, 103
Methodologies, 11–12, 14–17 See also Beta coefficients
Metrics, 17, 25, 56 Personal parameters, 35–36
“Mixed” comfort, 32 Perspiration, 33
Modelling, 14, 53–112 Perturbation techniques, 77
process, 77 Physical phenomenon, 20
Mortgage, 2, 7, 9, 18 PMV (Predicted mean vote), 35–38, 43–44
MRT (Mean Radiant Temperature), 33–34, 36 Poor assessment, 54
Multi-criteria, 14, 16–17 Post-occupancy, 54
for a building assessment, 16 PPD (Predicted Percentage Dissatisfied),
method, 14 35–36, 44
Multivariate regression analysis, 108–111 Predictors of thermal performance, 108
Prerequisite for an efficient house, 125
M Prescriptive, 7–8
NatHERS, 14, 24, 58–60, 63–64, 71–72, Provision of thermal comfort, 18–19, 21, 31
118, 125
National regulations, 20 Q
Naturally ventilated houses, 44, 47, 110 QuickRate, 58
Naturally ventilated premises, 37
Natural ventilation, 42, 47, 59, 64, 75, 85, R
87–88, 93–94, 96 Ranking, 5, 16, 22, 24, 72, 101, 103, 110, 112
NHER (National Home Energy Rating), 11–12 of design features, 110, 112
Normalised energy use, 17, 20 Rating buildings, 4–5, 18–19, 117–122
Norm-referenced measurement, 118 features, 17
NRCan (Efficiency of Natural Resources Rating Index, 20–21, 23
Canada), 9 See also Indices
Rating methodologies, 14–17
N Rating scheme in
Occupancy Australia, 13–14, 72
factors, 17, 22 Canada, 9–10
scenarios, 4, 16, 21–22, 26, 56, 63–64, Denmark, 12–13
70–72, 79, 103, 106 Europe, 10–11
variables, 17 UK, 11–12
Occupant behaviour, 21–22, 24, 42, 63, 70 US, 8–9
Occupants factor, 71 Rating system
Occupation time, 16–17, 42, 70–72 current rating schemes, 4, 7, 19, 26, 45,
Occupied zones, 45, 70–72 72, 128
OEE (Office of Energy Efficiency), 9, 20 current, 11, 19, 24, 103
Office buildings, 16, 34, 42–44 five-star, 14
Openable windows, 76, 93–94, 102, 110, 112 See also Five Star Design Rating
Operative temperature, 38, 41–43 house, 21, 117
Outdoor climate, 66, 106 international, 122
Outdoor temperature, 39–42, 64, 70, 76 new, 124, 126–128
Overhang depth, 89–90 A reliable, 24
Regulations, 7, 10–12, 20, 53, 118
O Regulations for free running buildings, 53
Pakistan, 39–40 Regulatory framework, 3, 112, 125
Paper-based check-list, 8 Relative humidity, see Humidity
Parametric sensitivity analysis, 77–103, 105, Reliability of a rating system, 126–128
107–108, 110–112 Renewable energy, 18, 55
See also Sensitivity analysis Renovation, 54
Index 145

Residential buildings, 1, 7, 9, 12, 16, 25, 34, Thermal discomfort, 36

41–45, 67 Thermal mass, 88, 97–98
Retrofit analysis, 55 Thermal neutrality, 39–41, 45, 67–69
Roof colour, 76, 86–87, 102, 110–112 Thermal performance
Rule-of-thumb, 54 actual performance, 19, 54, 64
of buildings, 4–5, 20–21, 25, 31, 43, 55–74,
S 84, 102–111
SAP (Standard Assessment Procedure), 11–12 of dwellings, 5, 77–100
SAVE program, 16 of residential building, 43–45
Scatter plots, 103, 107, 126 Thermal performance analysis, 100–102
Score bands, 101, 117–119, 126 Thermal sensation, 33–38, 40–41, 68, 74
Seasonal performance, 77, 79–100 Thermostat settings, 4, 12, 22–23, 56, 68–70
summer performance, 45, 47, 75, 81–82, Threshold value, 118
84–96, 99 Typical houses, 56–63, 65, 69, 74, 76–103,
winter performance, 79, 81–85, 87–93, 105, 108, 110–112, 126
95–99
Sensation of thermal comfort, 31–33, 41 U
Sensitivity analysis, 77–103, 105, 107–108, United Kingdom (UK), 2, 11–12
110–112 United States of America, 8–9
See also Parametric sensitivity analysis
Simulation programs, 4, 24, 54–64
V
Simulations, 4, 8, 14, 23–24, 35, 54–64, 66,
Variation of activity, 34
69, 71, 73, 76–77, 83, 86, 92, 96,
Victorian scheme, 13
100, 103, 105, 107–109, 118
Solar absorbance, 75
See also Absorbance W
SOLARCH, 20, 56 Wall colour, 76, 84–86, 102, 110, 112
Solar gain, 89 Wall insulation, 76, 79–82, 86, 102, 110–112
SSPC, 40 Water supply, 10, 11, 17
Stakeholders, 7, 111 Weather data, 58, 66
Standard deviations, 118, 121 Weighted exceedance hours, 72
Standardized coefficient, 109, 112, 124 Weighting factor, 44
Standards Window covering, 75–76, 92–93, 102, 112
building standards, 8, 23 Window to wall ratio, 56, 76, 93–96, 102, 110,
thermal comfort standards, 35, 37, 40, 42 112
Suspended floor, 82–84 Wind speed, 58, 66
See also Floor insulation Winning houses, 19
Sustainability, 1, 4, 18–19, 28, 55
Sustainable development, 1, 19, 122 Z
Zero energy buildings, 53
T See also Energy, efficient building
Theory of educational measurement, 118 Zone
Thermal Comfort, 4–5, 7, 13–14, 16–19, 21, bed, 22, 42, 71–72, 74, 79–81, 86–87, 89,
23, 25–26, 31–47, 53–54, 56, 64, 94, 101, 106
66–70, 84, 102–111 conditioned, 42, 59, 69–74, 97
Thermal comfort condition, 17, 54, 56, 66–70, living, 22, 67–68, 71–73, 79–81, 83–84,
111 86–89, 94, 101, 106
Thermal comfort index, 36–39 sleeping, 68
Thermal comfort models, 17, 34–37, 39–41, 43 unconditioned, 97