CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
The commercial and residential buildings are responsible for 8% and 25% energy
consumption in India, respectively. The building enclosures such as walls, floors, roofs and
windows are the most important elements of the buildings to control heat gain. Heat gain in
buildings can be attenuated with the help of building enclosures. Glass is the main building
element in the construction of residential and commercial buildings and it also accounts for a
higher conductance coefficient than other building enclosures. Hence, it is mandatory to
study the thermal behavior of the walls and window glasses to reduce heat gain in buildings
(Kumar et al. 2017).

As a material designed for walls of buildings, Cellular Lightweight Concrete (CLC) brick
has an important role to conserve energy consumption in building construction. The proposed
model designs a new CLC brick to create walls for buildings. The materials contain: soil,
Styrofoam, calcium carbonate, iron and water. Soil and Styrofoam and bonding materials to
manufacture CLC brick as it is inexpensive and easy to obtain. In addition, Styrofoam has a
high thermal insulation and it can protect the environment from waste Styrofoam pollution.
Moreover, waste from Styrofoam contributes greatly as detrimental waste that can pollute
water sources either directly or indirectly. In contrast, the materials of traditional design
contain only: cement, foam, sand and water. These materials were expensive and have no
significant impact on the environment. Therefore, manufacturing CLC brick using Styrofoam
is an appropriate solution from an environmental and economic perspective (Marwan 2019).

1.1 THERMAL COMFORT

Thermal comfort is a term that generally regarded as a desirable or positive state of a

person. It is used in relation to how warm or cold a person feels and is clearly related to the
environment a person occupies. A starting point is the generally accepted basic definition of
thermal comfort from ASHRAE (1966) which is now adopted internationally: „Thermal
comfort is that condition of mind which expresses satisfaction with the thermal environment‟
(Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

1.2 CLIMATE ZONES

The word “climate” is derived from the Ancient Greek “klima”, meaning “zone” or
“region”. This implies that people were aware of differences in temperature, rainfall and
6
vegetation across the world. It describes the tilt of the Earth‟s axis. Climate, as opposed to
weather, refers to the state of the Earth's atmosphere as established by statistics, over a period
of time, which may be as long as several decades. These statistics describe the climate
elements relevant to a location, a region or the whole Earth. There are three different types of
climate: macroclimate, mesoclimate and microclimate distinguished mainly by the size of the
area involved (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

1.3 EFFICIENCY OF BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THERMAL COMFORT

Before the advent of modern mechanical means for obtaining thermal comfort, people in
different climate zones cooled or heated their houses with only natural sources of energy and
physical phenomena based on air temperature such as the „Wind catcher‟. Generally, this
situation is unchanged for the majority of people in industrially developing countries, where
the conventional energy sources of the industrialized world are not readily available at
affordable prices. Vernacular architecture has found the solution for achieving occupant‟s
thermal comfort using local materials as protection against heat and cold with low energy
consumption. The walls, as one of a building‟s components control the flow of heat,
moisture, and air inside the building, based on their‟ material type and properties such as
colour, thickness, thermal conductivity, resistivity and transmission, and optical reflectivity,
all of which affect heat transfer through the building (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

7
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Various literatures reviewed on various glass window and outer wall materials to achieve
thermal comfort is presented in this section. Review of literatures is presented in brief
summarizing the work done by different scholars and researchers.

Saboor and Babu (2015) investigation of the effect divided air space thickness within the
wall on steady heat transfer characteristics. Materials used laterite stone, mud brick, cellular
concrete, dense concrete and cinder concrete. The results show that dense concrete was
observed to be the energy efficient with lowest decrement factor 23.65 % for 0.02 m air space
thickness.

Abbood et al. (2015) investigation and comparing the level of energy efficiency in the
conventional system and Industrial Building System. The results show that the annual energy
demand for cooling and heating for the conventional system was 19,311.99 kWh while the
industrial building system performed efficiently with 7374.57 kWh. Industrial Building
System reduced the annual energy consumption of 37.32 % for heating and 65.36% cooling.

Almusaed and Almssad (2015) studied the effect of ecological and energy efficiency
processes and the selection of building systems and materials. The study shows that the local
microclimate directly influences the confirmation of habitat. Natural materials were used
efficiency in vernacular houses. Heavy materials (Bricks) used in the exterior or interior
reduce energy requirements.

Shaik et al. (2016) investigation of thermal performance characteristics which include

thermal transmittance, thermal admittance, decrement factor and composite building walls.
Materials used cellular concrete, mud brick, concrete block, burnt brick and fly ash bricks.
The results show that fly ash brick and their composite walls are energy efficient.

Nina and Oxana (2016) studied the thermo technical research of three layer brick walls with
effective insulation layer. The results suggested that increasing of thermal protection of
external, fencing needs to be combined with the development of requirements for frost
resistance and durability of materials used for the outer layers of the walls construction,
primary made of bricks.

8
Buratti et al. (2018) studied a multi sheet wall by analyzing the thermal properties of each
layer by means of a new experimental apparatus named Small Hot-Box. Results show
thermal conductivities in accordance to literature values both for the wood (0.089 W/mK) and
for the straw (0.065 W/mK).

Kabatova and Durica (2019) focused on a comparison of experimental measurements and

simulations of the selected sandwich wall. The results analysis the coupled walls of a wooden
building and lead to the recommendations for the design of low energy wooden building.

9
 CHAPTER 3
CASE STUDIES
3.1 CASE STUDY 1:

Various Glass Window and Building Wall Materials in Different Climatic Zones of
India for Energy Efficient Building Construction (Kumar et al. 2017)

This study aims to present thermal performance of buildings constructed with various
building and window glass materials in five different climatic zones of India. The climates
considered include: hot and dry (Ahmedabad), moderate (Bangalore), cold (Guwahati), warm
and humid (Madras), and composite (New Delhi). Four building materials such as laterite
stone, dense concrete, burnt brick, and mud brick were selected and four glasses such as
clear, bronze, green, and bronze- reflective glasses were used for windows. The results helps
in selecting energy saving combination of wall envelope and window glass materials for
reducing air-conditioning loads in residential and commercial buildings (Kumar et al. 2017).

3.1.1 Experimental procedure to measure the spectral data of window glasses

Analytical computation of the solar radiation passing through window glasses, the spectral
characteristics of glasses such as transmission and reflection are essential to measure in the
entire solar spectrum wavelength region from 300 - 2500 nm wavelength region. The spectral
data of four glasses were measured with Perkin Elmer Lambda 950 Spectrophotometer at
INUP research center IIT Bombay. The size of the glass used to explore spectral
characteristics is 30 X 30 mm2 with 6mm thickness (Kumar et al. 2017).

Fig.1. (a) Spectral transmission of glass windows; (b) Spectral reflection of glass windows (Kumar et
al. 2017)

10
 A Matlab code was developed to compute solar optical properties of glasses such as
transmittance and reflectance in the entire solar spectrum wavelength region from 300 nm to
2500 nm. The weighted average of measured spectral data was used to compute solar optical
properties of glasses as per BS EN: 410 1998 standards. This method uses Eq. (1), (2) and (3)
to evaluate total solar transmittance, total solar reflectance, and total solar absorbance,
respectively (Kumar et al. 2017).

𝜆 =2500
𝜆 =300 𝑆𝜆 𝜏(𝜆)∆𝜆
𝑇𝑠𝑜𝑙 = 𝜆 =2500 (1)
𝜆 =300 𝑆𝜆 ∆𝜆

𝜆 =2500
𝜆 =300 𝑆𝜆 𝜌(𝜆)∆𝜆
𝑅𝑠𝑜𝑙 = 𝜆 =2500 (2)
𝜆 =300 𝑆𝜆 ∆𝜆

𝜆 =2500 𝜆 =2500
𝜆 =300 𝑆𝜆 𝜏(𝜆)∆𝜆 𝜆 =300 𝑆𝜆 𝜌(𝜆)∆𝜆
𝐴𝑠𝑜𝑙 = 100 − 𝜆 =2500 𝑆 ∆𝜆 − 𝜆 =2500 𝑆 ∆𝜆 (3)
𝜆 =300 𝜆 𝜆 =300 𝜆

Where, Sλ = Relative spectral distribution of the radiation

λ = Wavelength

∆𝜆 = Wavelength interval (nm)

𝜏 = Spectral transmittance

𝜌 = Spectral reflectance
Table1. Solar optical properties of various glass windows (Kumar et al. 2017)

Glass window Code Transmittance Reflectance Absorbance

Tsol (%) Rsol (%) Asol (%)
Clear glazing window CGW 77 7 16
Bronze glazing window BZGW 49 6 45
Green glazing window GGW 42 6 52
Bronze-reflective glazing BZRGW 36 14 50
window

From Fig. 1, it was noticed that the bronze -reflective glass has the least spectral transmission
and the highest spectral reflection values whereas, the clear glass has the highest spectral
transmission and the lower spectral reflection values among four studied glasses. Table 1
depicts the solar optical properties of four glass windows (Kumar et al. 2017).

3.1.2 Thermal Analysis

The building models were designed with different building materials and window glasses in
Design builder 4.3.0.039. The dimensions of building models were 4 X 4 X 3.5 m with 0.22
m wall thickness. The total sixteen building models were designed with different building
11
materials (laterite, dense concrete, burnt brick, and mud brick) and different window glasses
(clear, bronze, green, and bronze-reflective glasses) in each climatic zone, so total eighty
building models were designed and analyzed thermally with Energy plus 8.1.0.009. The floor
was built with dense concrete of 0.15 m thickness. The cement plaster was added on top side
of the floor with thickness 0.0125 m. The roof was modeled with reinforced cement concrete
of 0.15 m thickness. The cement plaster of 0.0125 m thickness was added on top and bottom
sides of the building roof. The walls of the building models were covered inside and outside
by cement plaster of 0.0125 m thickness. Window to wall ratio is the ratio of the net glazing
area to the gross exterior wall area. The 40% window to wall ratio of window area 2.8 X 2 m
has been provided to the building models as per ECBC standards. The South orientation has
been taken as the reference to place the window due to its lowest heat gain in the south
orientation in the summer seasons (Kumar et al. 2017).

Fig.2. (a) Building material images (Laterite, dense concrete, burnt brick and mud brick); (b) Glass
windows images (Clear glass, bronze glass, green glass and bronze-reflective glass) (Kumar et al.
2017)

The heat gain in buildings through window glazing can be reduced by using suitable glasses
for windows. Fig.2. (a) building material images and Fig.2. (b) Glass window images. Table 2
presents thermo-physical properties of building materials. The heat gain in buildings of five
different cities on the peak summer day was computed as per Indian standards. Thermo-
physical properties of building materials are taken as per Indian standards. Thermo-physical
properties of laterite stone have been considered from the literature (Kumar et al. 2017).

12
 Table2. Thermo-physical properties of building materials (Kumar et al. 2017)

Building wall material Density Dn Specific heat Thermal conductivity

3
(kg/m ) Cp (J/kg K) kth (W/mK)
Laterite stone wall 1000 1926.1 1.3698
Dense concrete wall 2410 880 1.74
Burnt brick wall 1820 880 0.811
Mud brick wall 1731 880 0.75
Reinforce cement concrete 2288 880 1.58
Cement plaster 1762 840 0.721

3.1.3 Results and Discussions

Fig.3. shows heat gains in buildings of various building wall and window glass materials at
40% WWR in five various Indian climatic zone cities. In hot and dry (Ahmedabad) climatic
zone, mud brick wall building with bronze-reflective window glass gains 33.56 kWh of heat
whereas, the dense concrete wall building with clear glass window gains 38.93 kWh of heat.
In moderate (Bangalore) climatic zone, mud brick wall building with bronze-reflective
window glass gains 20.29 kWh of heat whereas, the dense concrete wall building with clear
glass window glass gains 23.96 kWh of heat. In cold (Guwahati) climatic zone, mud brick
wall building with bronze-reflective window glass gains 21.20 kWh of heat whereas, the
dense concrete wall building with clear glass window glass gains 26.23 kWh of heat. In warm
and humid (Madras) climatic zone, mud brick wall building with bronze-reflective window
glass gains 18.60 kWh of heat whereas, the dense concrete wall building with clear glass
window gains 22.75 kWh of heat. In composite (New Delhi) climatic zone, mud brick wall
building with bronze-reflective window glass gains 37.82 kWh of heat whereas, the dense
concrete wall building with clear glass window glass gains 45.08 kWh of heat. In all five
climatic zones studied, the mud brick wall building with bronze reflective glass window
combination was found to be energy saving combination for reduced cooling loads in
summer (Kumar et al. 2017).

13
 Fig.3. Heat gain in buildings of various building and window glass materials at 40% WWR in five
different Indian climatic zone cities (Kumar et al. 2017)

3.1.4 Conclusions of case study 1

The following conclusions were obtained at the end of the research carried by Kumar et al.
(2017).
 The mud brick wall envelope with bronze reflective glass window was found to be
energy efficient combination for reduced cooling loads in summer and the dense
concrete wall envelope with clear glass window was found to be the least energy
efficient combination for reduced cooling loads in summer among studied
combinations of wall and glass materials.
 The mud brick wall buildings with bronze, green and bronze reflective window
glasses reduce heat gain in buildings by 2.52%, 3.83%, and 6.46%, respectively as
compared to the mud brick buildings with clear glass window.

14
3.2 CASE STUDY 2:

Different wall material on energy cost reduction in building (Marwan 2019).

In this study, a new composite material was developed to design the walls of buildings. Due
to high thermal resistance, there are possibilities for Styrofoam and soil as a principal
bonding material to produce an innovative Cellular Lightweight Concrete (CLC) brick. The
aim of this study was to investigate the effect of wall materials on energy cost reduction.
There are two kinds of building investigated, such as building-1 using a traditional CLC brick
and building-2 with using innovative CLC bricks to manufacture the wall. To investigate the
energy costs, an economic mathematical model was developed to calculate the optimal cost
of AC according to climate change during the hot season in Barru South Sulawesi-Indonesia.
The investigation revealed that due to the Q factor, a building using a traditional wall material
has a higher energy cost for the AC (IDR 34,109) than if using an innovative wall material
(IDR 28,346). Consequently, the ECR was IDR 5763 (16.89%) (Marwan 2019).

Styrofoam

Styrofoam, also known by the generic term “extruded polystyrene foam”, is one of the most
widely used types of plastic for various purposes and makes it easy to use for many industries
and applications. For example: coffee cups, plates, and bowls, packing material, craft
materials and thermal insulation. Styrofoam is made of plastic polystyrene, a non-metallic
solid with low thermal conductivity. The physical properties of Styrofoam are thermoplastic.
Its material is solid when at room temperature, but it can be a liquid when heated to a specific
point. Therefore, it can be melded in fine detail (Marwan 2019).

3.2.1 Methods

3.2.1.1 Description of the problem

To implement energy saving for buildings, particularly in residential homes during the hot
season. The Indonesian government conducted some trials to prevent increasing electricity
bills for building caused by air conditioning. The electricity demand increased due to
residential air conditioner loads. Indeed, the electricity demand reached the maximum level
during the hot season. Therefore, it‟s important to design an innovative wall material to
replace traditional brick to meet energy savings goals. On the other hand, using non-recycling
material can keep the environment free from polluting waste. It is also inexpensive and easy
for engineers to apply in practice (Marwan 2019).

15
3.2.1.2 Description of building

There are two kinds of buildings that were investigated: The first building uses traditional
CLC brick as wall material. The second building uses an innovative CLC brick as wall
material. To manufacture an innovative CLC break required selected soil, Styrofoam, calcium
carbonate, iron and water. In contrast, to manufacture traditional CLC bricks only required
cement, fly ash, water and foam (Marwan 2019).

Fig.4. Building Description and Wall design (Marwan 2019)

Fig. 4 illustrates the physical model of building description and wall design. The total
thickness of wall design is 15 cm with inside and outside insulation being 2.5 cm. In simple
terms, the thermo physical properties of the inside and outside wall insulation for both
designs are equal. Consequently, thermal conductivity of these insulations for both designs
was similar. However, due to the differences of materials, the characteristics of both CLC
bricks were different (Marwan 2019).

The characteristics of the buildings were illustrated in the following parameters: Heat
Capacity Coefficient (Q) of both building, namely 1.5 W/m2oC and 1.1 W/m2oC for
building-1 and building-2, respectively. Area (A) of building-1 and building-2 are equal to 15
m2. Heat Transmission (B) for building-1 and building-2 is 450 W. Duration Time (X) for
building-1 and building-2 is 10 h. Permitted Inside Temperature (T) maximum and minimum
were 240 C and 200 C, respectively; the Outside Temperature (T0) was 330 C; Rating Power
(S) for both building is 900 W; Electricity Price (P) is IDR/kWh 1352 (Marwan 2019).

16
3.2.1.3 Outside Temperature

Fig. 5 illustrated an example of outside temperature in Barru South Sulawesi. Similar to other
places, the outside temperature during in the morning and night time lowest to low level.
According to the climate change on Barru, the minimum and maximum temperatures were
150 C and 330 C was recorded at 00:00 a.m. and 13:00 p.m., respectively. The high
temperature only increased to the maximum level occurred on 11:00 a.m. to 16:00 p.m., such
as: 310 C in 11:00 a.m., 320 C in 12:00 p.m., 330 C in 13:00, 32.50 C in 14:00 p.m., 310 C in
15:00 p.m. and 300 C in 16:00 p.m. In contrast, the temperature of less than 300 C was
conducted from 00:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 17:00 p.m. to 23:00 p.m. (Marwan 2019).

Fig.5. Outside temperature 22nd July 2019 (Marwan 2019)

3.2.1.4 Mathematical formulation

To achieve the goal of research, an economic mathematical model was developed to

address the energy costs of building, as illustrated in the following equation:

𝑡=𝑛
𝐸𝐶𝐵(𝑡) = 𝑡=1
[ 𝑆 𝑡 .𝑃 𝑡 .𝑋 𝑡 .𝑌 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 (1)

𝑑𝑇 𝑄.𝐴.(𝑇0 𝑡 − 𝑇 𝑡 ) 𝐵.𝑌(𝑡)
= − (2)
𝑑𝑡 𝐻 𝐻

The Energy Cost Reduction (ECR) is calculated based on the following equation:

ECR = ECB2 – ECB1 (3)

Where, ECB1 = Energy cost of building 1

ECB2 = Energy cost of building 2

17
Controlling the air conditioning load based on the outside temperature. The control system
turned off the AC if the inside room temperature reached the maximum level. In contrast, the
AC was turned on if the AC dropped to the minimum permitted temperature. To achieve this
objective, an optimisation package such as MATLAB allows the occupant to carry out
optimisation within operational constraints such as a permitted temperature range (Marwan
2019).

3.2.2 Result and Discussion

3.2.2.1 The effect of wall materials without the AC

Fig. 6 illustrated the simulation of temperature as a function of day. The outside and inside
temperatures are described on July 2019. Local temperature in Barru South Sulawesi was
selected as outside temperature. Inside temperature-1 and inside temperature-2 simulates the
room temperature for building-1 and building-2, respectively (Marwan 2019).

In general, the pattern of inside room temperature is based on the outside temperature. The
inside room temperature was increased to a high level when the outside temperature
increased to the maximum level. In contrast, the inside room temperatures of both buildings
decreased to the minimum level when the outside temperature dropped to a low level. As a
result, due to the thermal insulation wall of building-2 being higher than building-1, then
inside room temperature of building-2 was lower than building-1 (Marwan 2019).

Fig.6. Temperature as a function of the day on July 2019 (Marwan 2019)

3.2.2.2 The effect of wall materials on energy cost reduction

In this research study, simulated energy cost was investigated for a sunny day on Monday,
22nd July 2019 using the AC from 10.00 a.m. to 19.00 p.m. The room temperature is set to

18
200 C and 240 C for minimum and maximum permitted temperatures. Equation (1) and (2)
are used to investigate the energy cost of building-1 and-2, as illustrated in the following
Figs. 7 and 8. The energy cost of building-1 achieved was IDR 34,109 and the energy cost of
building-2 achieved was IDR 28,346 (Marwan 2019).

Fig.7. Cycling temperature and energy costs of Building-1 (Marwan 2019).

Fig.8. Cycling temperature and energy costs of Building-2 (Marwan 2019).

Equation (3) is used to define the ECR. The ECR was IDR 5763. Based on Fig. 9 the energy
cost of building-2 was cheaper than building-1. This is because the material is used to
construct a wall for building-2 has a lower heat transfer coefficient than building-1.
Therefore, the consumer paid a cheaper cost if using an innovative CLC brick to design walls
for building (Marwan 2019).

19
 Fig.9. Cost of building and reduction (Marwan 2019).

3.2.3 Conclusion of case study 2

The case study by Marwan (2019) showed that:

There are two kinds of building was investigated. Building-1 was built from traditional CLC
brick and building-2 was built from an innovative CLC brick. The investigated revealed that
the heat transfer coefficient of building-1 was higher than building-2. Under an economic
mathematical model revealed the energy cost of the AC for building-1 was higher than
building-2. In the calculation, the ECB-1 was IDR 34,109 and ECB-2 was IDR 28,346. As a
result, the ECR was IDR 5763 (16.89%). In addition, it is recommended to the consumer that
the energy cost for building can be minimized when the innovative CLC brick is applied to
manufacture a wall.

20
3.3 CASE STUDY 3:

The Efficiency of Using Different Outer Wall Construction Materials to Achieve

Thermal Comfort in Various Climatic Zones (Felix and Elsamahy 2017)

This study aims to analyze the effect of changing the material for the construction of walls in
the buildings with the same skeletal concrete structure in order to reach the comfort zone
while savings energy consumption in the cooling and heating processes in three different
climate zones (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

3.3.1 Climatic Zones

This research has chosen three main climate zones to study as follows: Figure 10 shows the
six climate zones.

 Equatorial (Brazil for example): lying between the Tropics of Cancer in the northern
hemisphere and Capricorn in the south, where rainfall and humidity are high.
Surprisingly, temperatures are not that extreme generally 25 to 35 °C.
 Arid (Egypt for example): desert climate- the hottest, driest and most inhospitable
places on Earth, the temperature range in our deserts is huge, regularly exceeding
45°C by day in summer and often falling to below freezing overnight in winter.
 Mediterranean (Ukraine for example): hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. In
summer, there are high temperatures of up to 45°C, and in winter, there is more rain
and cooler temperatures, but little frost (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

Fig.10.The six climate zones (Felix and Elsamahy 2017)

21
3.3.2 Specification and Materials used

 Same building design: the selected building is a real residential building in Egypt. It
consists of six floors. Each floor has four apartments. The apartment area is 108m2
and its occupancy is five persons. The design of this building is one of the housing
project prototypes that exist in various other countries. The building has a concrete
skeletal structure system (reinforced concrete slabs, beam and columns). Figure 11
shows a typical floor plan for the building design.
 Same building orientation: the building is oriented to the pure north, south, east and
west.

 Same wall thickness: all walls in this study are massive walls of 20cm thickness. They
all have the same system of HVAC heating (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

Fig.11.The typical floor plan for the building design (Felix and Elsamahy 2017)

The selected wall materials are red brick, cement brick and stone brick. The aim of using
different wall materials in this study is to make a comparison between the effects of artificial
and natural materials on cooling and heating energy consumption (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

3.3.3 Study on zone 1: Egypt

Egypt is located in North Africa, bordering the Mediterranean Sea and Red Sea. Its
geographic coordinates are 27.00 norths and 30.00 east. The climate condition in Egypt is
hot, dry summers with moderate winters Figure 12 shows the diurnal weather averages and
the humidity ranges (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

22
 (a) (b)

Fig. 12 (a) the diurnal weather averages without using HVAC; (b) the humidity without using HVAC
(Felix and Elsamahy 2017)

The case study looks for proof that a change in the building materials of walls affects the
amount of energy consumption in cooling and heating as shown in the following:

 Using red brick wall materials. The maximum space heating is 29953 kWh in
January and the maximum space cooling is 15026 kWh in August.
 Using cement brick wall material. The maximum space heating is 44822 kWh in
January and the maximum space cooling is 16977 kWh in August.
 Using stone brick wall materials. The maximum space heating is 11119 kWh in
January and the maximum space cooling is 13469 kWh in August (Felix and
Elsamahy 2017).
All results are obtained from the software Autodesk Green Building Studio.

Figure 13 shows the result of the simulation analysis of energy consumption in kWh. Table
3 shows the total energy in kWh, space heating in kWh and space cooling in kWh throughout
the year in months (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

By comparing the efficiency of using different wall materials in terms of energy

consumption can be found that buildings with stone walls demonstrate the lowest total energy
consumption during the year, while cement wall buildings result in the highest total energy
consumption. On the other hand, by comparing the space heating and space cooling during
the year that stone is more efficient in terms of space heating while red brick is more efficient
in terms of space cooling. Figure 14 shows space heating, space cooling and total energy
consumption for the three materials during the year (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

23
(a) (b)

(c)

Fig 13 The result of the simulation analysis of energy consumption in Egypt in kWh using (a) red
brick walls; (b) cement brick walls; and (c) stone walls (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

Table 3 the total energy in kWh, space heat in kWh and space cooling in kWh through year months.
By using three different materials stone, cement and redbrick walls in Egypt (Felix and Elsamahy
2017).

Total energy kWh Space heating kWh Space cooling kWh

Month
Stone Cement Redbrick Stone Cement Redbrick Stone Cement Redbrick

January 37175 69352 54384 11119 0 29953 2366 0 0

February 31201 49921 40185 6509 0 17377 276 0 902

March 32047 37082 32125 3189 2309 5478 5469 2309 3129

April 30389 30249 28619 1022 5458 575 7271 5458 6062

May 31758 32128 31649 0 10442 0 10030 10442 10096

June 32356 34988 33360 0 14820 0 12216 14820 13286

July 33099 35863 34168 0 15639 0 12897 15639 14032

August 33281 36844 34776 0 16977 0 13469 16977 15026

September 30389 31668 30722 0 12493 0 11171 12493 11574

October 29000 28064 28154 0 7250 0 8369 7250 7705

November 29642 44981 35835 4659 410 13201 3621 410 853

December 35956 68031 53030 10546 0 29251 2319 0 0

Total 386293 499171 437007 37044 85798 95835 92474 85798 82665

24
Fig.14 (a) space heating of the three different wall materials; (b) space cooling of the three different
wall materials; (c) the summation of total energy consumption, space heating and space cooling for
the three materials during one year (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

3.3.4 Study on zone 2: Brazil

Brazil is located in eastern South America. Its geographical coordinates are 10.00 south
and 55.00 west. The climate condition in Brazil is mostly tropical. Figure 15 shows the
diurnal weather averages and the humidity ranges (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

(a) (b)

Fig. 15 (a) the diurnal weather averages without using HVAC; (b) the humidity without using HVAC
(Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

25
 In this case no space heating is needed and space cooling has various results, as shown in
the following:

 Using red brick wall. The maximum space cooling is 10818 kWh in October.
 Using cement brick wall. The maximum space cooling is 11286 kWh in October.
 Using stone brick wall. The maximum space cooling is 10869 kWh in October
(Felix and Elsamahy 2017).
All results are obtained from the software Autodesk Green Building Studio.

Figure 16 shows the result of the simulation analysis of energy consumption in kWh. Table 4
shows the total energy in kWh, space heating in kWh and space cooling in kWh throughout
the year in months (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig.16 the result of the simulation analysis of energy consumption in Brazil in kWh using (a) red brick
walls. (b) Cement brick walls; and (c) stone walls (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

26
Table 4 the total energy in kWh, space heating in kWh and space cooling in kWh throughout the year
in months by using three different materials (stone, cement and redbrick walls) in Brazil (Felix and
Elsamahy 2017).

Total energy kWh Space heating kWh Space cooling kWh

Month
Stone Cement Redbrick Stone Cement Redbrick Stone Cement Redbrick

January 30977 31070 30715 0 0 0 10427 10553 10205

February 27668 27821 27542 0 0 0 9048 9223 8944

March 30698 30712 30446 0 0 0 10071 10113 9849

April 29253 29184 29000 0 0 0 9329 9274 9090

May 29843 29016 29084 0 0 0 9312 8506 8608

June 28155 26375 26917 0 0 0 8106 6357 7048

July 29272 27941 28180 0 0 0 8698 7393 7842

August 30743 30736 30360 0 0 0 10561 10668 10212

September 29933 30460 29907 0 0 0 10462 11042 10520

October 31032 31399 30921 0 0 0 10869 11286 10818

November 29799 29905 29562 0 0 0 10163 10308 9970

December 30619 30577 30308 0 0 0 10191 10181 9916

Total 357992 355196 352942 0 0 0 117237 114904 113122

By comparing the efficiency of using different wall materials in terms of energy consumption
in Brazil, it can be found that red brick is the material with the lowest total energy
consumption during one year, while stone walls result in the highest total energy
consumption. In addition by comparing the space cooling during the year, it can be found that
red brick is more efficient in terms of total space cooling. Although the results from the
separated months show that stone has the lowest space cooling in the summer months, the
total summation of energy and space cooling during one year shows the efficiency of red
brick is more than that of the other materials Figure 17 shows the space heating, space
cooling and total energy consumption for the three materials during the year (Felix and
Elsamahy 2017).

27
 Fig 17 (a) space cooling of the three different wall materials; (b) the summation of total energy
consumption, space heating and space cooling for the three materials during one year (Felix and
Elsamahy 2017).

3.3.5 Study on zone 3: Ukraine

Ukraine is located in Eastern Europe, bordering the Black Sea, between Poland and
Russia. Its geographic coordinates are 49.00 norths, 32.00 east. Figure 18 shows the diurnal
weather averages without using HVAC and the humidity without using HVAC (Felix and
Elsamahy 2017).

(a) (b)

Fig18 (a) the diurnal weather averages without using HVAC; (b) the humidity without using HVAC
(Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

The case study analyses the energy consumption in cooling and heating as shown in the
following:

 Using red brick wall material. The maximum space heating is 121341 kWh in January
and the maximum space cooling is 4336 kWh in August.

28
  Using cement brick wall materials. The maximum space heat is 165799 kWh in
January and the maximum space cooling is 3402 kWh in August.
 Using stone brick wall material. The maximum space heating is 61574 kWh in
January and the maximum space cooling is 6268 kWh in July (Felix and Elsamahy
2017).
All results are obtained from the software Autodesk Green Building Studio.

Figure 19 shows the results of the simulation analysis of energy consumption in kWh. Table
5 shows the total energy in kWh, space heating in kWh and space cooling in kWh throughout
the year in months (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig19 the result of the simulation analysis of energy consumption in Ukraine in kWh using (a) red
brick walls; (b) cement brick walls; and (c) stone walls (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

29
 Table 5 the total energy in kWh, space heating in kWh and space cooling in kWh throughout the year
in months, by using three different materials (stone, cement and redbrick walls) in Ukraine (Felix and
Elsamahy 2017).

Total energy kWh Space heating kWh Space cooling kWh

Month
Stone Cement Redbrick Stone Cement Redbrick Stone Cement Redbrick

January 90975 195340 150761 61574 165799 121341 0 0 0

February 77542 166093 128464 50587 138990 101470 0 0 0

March 70724 152295 117119 41130 122429 87386 45 0 0

April 44940 91632 71730 16288 63311 43583 1229 0 0

May 36261 61491 49425 6427 33395 21393 3062 330 605

June 31952 40842 35243 2344 13621 7745 5112 2071 2687

July 31191 31689 29639 647 3922 0 6268 3099 4130

August 30463 31549 29627 521 4031 1504 6210 3402 4336

September 30602 53376 42059 4233 28762 17669 2787 0 0

October 43146 88609 68544 16569 62359 42451 1154 0 0

November 59128 126050 97289 32956 99529 70909 0 0 0

December 67953 143006 110413 39808 114594 82134 0 0 0

Total 914877 1181972 930313 273084 850742 597585 25868 8902 11758

By comparing the efficiency of using different wall materials in terms of energy

consumption, it can be found stone walls are the material with the lowest total energy
consumption during the year, while cement walls have the highest total energy consumption.
On the other hand, by comparing the space heating and space cooling during the year, that
stone is more efficient in terms of space heating while cement is more efficient in terms of
space cooling. Figure 20 shows space heating, space cooling and total energy consumption
for the three materials during the year (Felix and Elsamahy 2017).

30
Fig 20 (a) space heating of the three different wall materials; (b) space cooling of the three different
wall materials; (c) the summation of total energy consumption, space heating and space cooling for
the three materials during one year (Felix and Elsamahy 2017)

3.3.6 Conclusion of case study 3

The following conclusion was drawn by Felix and Elsamahy (2017):

The analysis of case studies demonstrated the diversity of using natural and artificial building
materials in energy consumption. In Egypt and Ukraine, the stone material is more efficient
in terms of total energy consumption, while in Brazil the red brick wall is more efficient. The
energy used for space heating in Egypt and Ukraine can be made more efficient by using
stone bricks. The total energy needed for used for space cooling in Egypt and Brazil
demonstrates the efficiency of using red brick, regardless of the fact that the results from all
months show that stone is lower in energy consumption. On the other hand, in Ukraine, space
cooling is more efficient when using cement bricks.

31
 CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY
After analyzing the case studies about various glass materials and outer wall materials to
achieve thermal comfort, the following conclusion can be drawn:

 In case study 1, The mud brick wall envelope with bronze reflective glass window
was found to be energy efficient combination for reduced cooling loads in summer
and the dense concrete wall envelope with clear glass window was found to be the
least energy efficient combination for reduced cooling loads in summer among
studied combinations of wall and glass materials.The mud brick wall buildings with
bronze, green and bronze reflective window glasses reduce heat gain in buildings by
2.52%, 3.83%, and 6.46%, respectively as compared to the mud brick buildings with
clear glass window.
 In case study 2, it was recommended to the consumer that the energy cost for building
can be minimized when the innovative Cellular Lightweight Concrete brick is applied
to manufacture a wall instead of traditional Cellular Lightweight Concrete brick.
 In case study 3, the analysis of case studies demonstrated the diversity of using
natural and artificial building materials in energy consumption. In Egypt and Ukraine,
the stone material is more efficient in terms of total energy consumption, while in
Brazil the red brick wall is more efficient. The energy used for space heating in Egypt
and Ukraine can be made more efficient by using stone bricks. The total energy
needed for used for space cooling in Egypt and Brazil demonstrates the efficiency of
using red brick, regardless of the fact that the results from all months show that stone
is lower in energy consumption. On the other hand, in Ukraine, space cooling is more
efficient when using cement bricks.

32
 References
Arkar, C., Domjan, S., Medved, S., Lightweight composite timber facade wall with improved
thermal response, Sustain. Cities Soc. 38 (2018) 325–332.
ASTM E424, Test for Solar energy Transmittance and Reflectance (terrestrial) of sheet
materials. Washington DC, 1971, USA, 1320-1326.
Baglivo, C., et al., Multi-objective optimization analysis for high efficiency external walls of
zero energy buildings (ZEB) in the Mediterranean climate, Energy Build. 84 (2014)
483–492.
Ber, B., et al., Experimental investigations of timber–glass composite wall panels, Constr.
Build. Mater. 66 (2014) 235–246.
BS EN 410 Glass in Building-Determination of luminous and solar characteristics of the
glazing. British Standards, 1998, 1-24.
Chica, L., Alzate, A., Cellular concrete review: new trends for application in construction,
Constr. Build. Mater. 200 (2019) 637–647.
Conrad, K., Phillips, A.R., Full scale testing and development of wood-steel composite shear
walls, Structures (2019) 268–278.
Croome, D. J. C., “Building Environmental Engineering: The Invisible Architecture”,
University of Reading, 2001.
ECBC, Energy Conservation Building Code. Bureau of Energy Efficiency, New Delhi, 2009,
India.
Fairey, P., “Passive Cooling and Human Comfort”, Florida Solar Energy Center, Florida,
1981.
Fathy, H., “Natural Energy and Vernacular Architecture; Principles and Examples with
Reference to Hot Arid Climates”, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Fernandes, J., Mateus, R., and Bragança, L., “The potential of vernacular materials to the
sustainable building design in Vernacular Heritage and Earthen Architecture”, New
York, CRC Press, 2013, pp.623-629.
Fiorino, L., Pali, T., Landolfo, R., Out-of-plane seismic design by testing of non-structural
lightweight steel drywall partition walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 130 (2018) 213–230.
GRIHA. Green rating for integrated habitat assessment. Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy, New Delhi, India; 2011.
Hall, M.R., “Materials for Energy Efficiency and Thermal Comfort in Buildings”,
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing, 2010.

33
IS 11907 Recommendations for calculation of solar radiation on buildings CED 12:
Functional Requirements in Buildings. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1986,
India.
Jagniatinskis, A., Fiks, B., Mickaitis, M., Lithuanian experience of application the masonry
cavity walls in multistory buildings with sound insulation requirements, Appl. Acoust.
153 (2019) 60–70.
Kontoleon, K.J., Glazing solar heat gain analysis and optimization at varying orientations and
placements in aspect of distributed radiation at the interior surfaces. Appl Energy 2015;
144;152-164.
Liedl, P., Hausladen, G., and Saldanha, M., “Building to Suit the Climate: A Handbook,
Switzerland”, Birkhauser Verlag AG, 2012.
Malik, A., et al., Appliance level data analysis of summer demand reduction potential from
residential air conditioner control, Appl. Energy 235 (2019) 776–785.
Martins, A., Vasconcelos, G., Costa, A.C., Brick masonry veneer walls: an overview, J.
Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 29–41.
Mohelnikova J, Hasim A. Evaluation of Optical and Thermal Properties of Window Glazing.
Wseas Transactions on Environment and Development. 2009; 86-93.
NBC National Building Code of India 2005, Section 1 Building and Services Lighting and
Ventilation. Part 8, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India; 2005.
Parsons, K., “Thermal comfort in buildings, in Materials for Energy Efficiency and Thermal
Comfort in Buildings”, Oxford, Woodhead Publishing; 1st edition, 2010, pp. 127-146.
Pedroso, M., Brito, J., Silvestre, J.D., Characterization of walls with eco-efficient acoustic
insulation materials (traditional and innovative), Constr. Build. Mater. 222 (2019)
892–902.
Quayyum, S., Refined parametric models for wind load resistances of wood-frame walls,
Eng. Struct. 183 (2019) 841–859.
Regnier, C., “Guide to Setting Thermal Comfort Criteria and Minimizing Energy Use in
Delivering Thermal Comfort”, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Energy’s Efficiency & Renewable Energy, USA, 2012.
Siam, A.S., Ezzeldin, M., Reliability of displacement capacity prediction models for
reinforced concrete block shear walls, Structures 20 (2019) 385–398.
Singh, I., Bansal, N.K., Thermal and optical properties of different window systems in India.
Int J Ambient Energy 2011; 23(4): 201–211.

34
Sujoy, P., Biswanath, R., Subhasis, N., Heat transfer modeling on windows and glazing under
the exposure of solar radiation. Energy Build 2009;41:654-661.
Taleb, A.M., Al-Wattar, A.J.H., Design of windows to reduce solar radiation transmittance
into buildings. Solar & Wind Technology 1988; 5:503-515.
Wu, H., Chen, A., Laflamme, S., Seismic behavior of glass fiber-reinforced polymer wall
panels, Compos. Struct. 203 (2018) 300–309.
Yanpeng, W., Yinghou, J., Zhaobo, C., Effect of layouts of wells and the walls of wells on
noise reduction effect, Appl. Acoust. 145 (2019) 228–233.

35