2007 ASHRAE.

ABSTRACT
Cool roofs are defined by the Cool Roof Rating Council as a product with solar reflectivity of at least 0.70 and infrared emis-
sivity of at least 0.75. In its 2005 revision, Title 24, California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings, cool roofs are prescribed in the standard non-residential building. While cool roofs decrease the solar gain of buildings,
thus lowering cooling energy demand, additional insulation also does it. This work investigates the levels of insulation required
with a black roof to accomplish the same cooling energy demand that cool roofs have with minimum insulation requirements.
Both total and peak energy demands are considered and the levels of insulation to accomplish them are different. Oak Ridge
National Laboratorys Simplified Transient Analysis of Roofs (STAR) computer code was used to predict the transient heat gain
and structure temperatures. The 16 Climate Zones in California were used, as well as the minimum insulation requirements
dictated by 2005 Title 24 legislation. The results were compared with the results predicted by the overall envelope approach of
the legislation.
INTRODUCTION
The heating and cooling demands of a building structure
are affected by the thermal characteristics of its envelope. Of
the thermal characteristics usually considered, radiative
surface properties are often regarded as less important than
thermal insulation. However, for flat commercial roofs, the
solar irradiation contributes considerably to the total heat gain
of the building and its solar reflectivity and thermal emissivity
are very relevant in determining the cooling and heating
requirements of the building.
Cool roofs are defined by the Cool Roof Rating Council
as a product with solar reflectivity of at least 0.70 and infrared
emissivity of at least 0.75. That is, a product that reflects most
of the solar irradiation and also highly emits thermal radiation
in the infrared part of the spectrum. Young (1998) and Akbari
and Konopacki (1998) have shown that cool roofs can reduce
the building cooling energy use by 10% to 50%. They also
showed a decrease in summertime air temperature of the build-
ing surroundings of 1-2 K, reducing the Urban Heat Island
Effect.
Cool roofs have been adopted as part of requirements of
several programs, the most prominent of which are the 2005
version of the California Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (known as Title 24)
and ENERGYSTAR

. In Title 24, cool roofs are prescribed in

the standard non-residential building, requiring the heat gain
of any compliant building not to exceed that of a building with
a cool roof.
Upon the publication of the 2005 version of Title 24 there
were questions about the effectiveness of an insulation trade-
off to cool roofs in commercial buildings, with some individ-
uals claiming that insulation would not deliver the same reduc-
tion in heat gain at peak demand hours as cool roofs. The
present manuscript is an attempt to clarify the issue. It presents
first how the insulation trade-off can be calculated from the
Title 24 standard, followed by the findings of a numerical
simulation of heat transfer in roofs with cool and dark
Cool Roofs and Thermal Insulation:
Energy Savings and
Peak Demand Reduction
Marcus V.A. Bianchi, PhD Andr O. Desjarlais
ASHRAE member
William A. Miller, PhD, PE Thomas W. Petrie, PhD
ASHRAE member ASHRAE member
Marcus V.A. Bianchi is a principal scientist at Johns Manville, Littleton, CO. Andr O. Desjarlais is a group leader and William A. Miller
and Thomas W. Petrie are senior research engineers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
2 Buildings X
membranes and different levels of insulation. Only the conse-
quences on energy use are addressed by the present manu-
script, so Urban Heat Island Effect issues are not discussed.
COMPLIANCE THROUGH 2005 TITLE 24
Part 6 of Californias Title 24 standard focuses on energy
conservation through construction management. Included in
the October 1, 2005 legislation are cool roofs (infrared emit-
tance 0.75 and solar reflectance 0.70). In addition to a cool
roof, the current legislation requires minimum insulation
levels of R-11 or R-19, depending on the climate zone.
Analysis of the legislation allows for the derivation of an
insulation trade-off equation within the prescriptive method
(overall envelope approach). Section 143 Prescriptive
Requirements for Building Envelopes (Page 81) states that a
building complies with this section by being designed with
and having constructed and installed either (1) envelope
components that comply with each of the requirements in
Subsection (a) for each individual component (), or (2) and
envelope that complies with the overall requirements in
Subsection (b). Subsequent evaluation of section 143,
subsection (b) revealed a way to arrange the equations to
calculate the insulation trade-off of cool roofs and lower
reflectivity or non-cool roofs. Listed below is the procedural
breakdown of the equations mentioned above.
Heat loss and gain from the proposed building has to be
less or equal to these of the standard building. During the heat-
ing season, when heat loss becomes a concern, cool roofs are
detrimental and using a darker membrane with additional
insulation will significantly increase the heat gain (darker
membrane) and reduce the heat loss (additional insulation)
from the building. Therefore, only the heat gain during the
cooling season must be considered in the present analysis.
Procedure
1. The standard building heat gain (HG
std
) is calculated
using EQUATION 143-D (page 89 of the standard):
2. A proposed building must have the same heat gain of the
standard building to comply. EQUATION 143-E (page 90
of the standard) calculates the proposed building heat
gain as
3. Assuming the standard and proposed buildings are
exactly the same, apart from the roof insulation and radi-
ation properties, all but the third and final terms from
equations 143-D and 143-E are the same. Subtracting
equation 143-E from equation 143-D, under the above
conditions,
4. When the standard and proposed buildings have the same
heat gain, the left side of the previous equation is
cancelled. Since the two buildings have exactly the same
geometry, the previous equation must be satisfied for
each roofing section i (or j), thus:
For each roofing section, the previous equation must hold.
Please note that only the roofing U-value and the roofing
surface reflectance are unique on either side. Using the
prescribed values in Table 143-A (Page 83 of the standard) for
the standard building and the corresponding value of a
proposed roofing surface reflectance, the equivalent roofing
U-value for the proposed building can be calculated.
The proposed arrangement detailed above maintains the
same heat gain during the cooling season. For each reflectivity
lower than 70%, a different value of the insulation level can be
calculated, as shown on Table 1.
NUMERICAL MODEL
Low-slope roofs are constructed of a decking that
supports a layer of insulation and a cover being a single-ply
HG
std
A
Wi
U
Wi
std
TF
i
( )
i 1 =
nW

A
Fi
U
Fi
std
TF
i
( )
i 1 =
nF

+ =
A
Ri
U
Ri
std
TF
i
( )
i 1 =
nR

A
Gi
U
Gi
std
TF
i
( )
i 1 =
nG

+ +
A
Si
U
Si
std
TF
i
( )
i 1 =
nS

WF
Gi
A
Gi
RSHG
Gi
std
( )
i 1 =
nG

SF + +
WF
Si
A
Si
SHGC
Si
std
( )
i 1 =
nS

SF +
WF
Ri
A
Ri
U
Ri
std
1 0.2 0.7
Ri
std
0.2 [ ] + ( ) [ ] ( )
i 1 =
nR

SF +
HG
prop
A
Wj
U
Wj
prop
TF
j
( )
j 1 =
nW

A
Fj
U
Fj
prop
TF
j
( )
j 1 =
nF

+ =
A
Rj
U
Rj
prop
TF
j
( )
j 1 =
nR

A
Gj
U
Gj
prop
TF
j
( )
j 1 =
nG

+ +
A
Sj
U
Sj
prop
TF
j
( )
j 1 =
nS

WF
Gj
A
Gj
SHGC
Gj
prop
OHF
j
( )
j 1 =
nG

+ +
SF WF
Sj
A
Sj
SHGC
Sj
prop
( )
j 1 =
nS

SF +
WF
Rj
A
Rj
U
Rj
prop
1 0.2 0.7
Ri
prop
0.2 [ ] + ( ) [ ] ( )
j 1 =
nR

SF +
HG
std
HG
prop
=
A
Ri
U
Ristd
( ) TF
i
WF
Ri
+ SF 1 0.2 0.7
Ristd
0.2 [ ] + ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ]
i 1 =
nR

A
Rj
U
Rjprop
( ) TF
j
WF
Rj
+ SF 1 0.2 0.7
Rjprop
0.2 [ ] + ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ]
j 1 =
nR

+
U
Rstd
TF WF
R
SF 1 0.2 0.7
Rstd
0.2 [ ] + [ ] + ( ) =
U
Rprop
TF WF
R
SF 1 0.2 0.7
Rprop
0.2 [ ] + [ ] + ( )
Buildings X 3
membrane, bare or painted metal or built up roof. The heat
flow entering or leaving a low-slope roof is driven by the exte-
rior surface temperature of the roof, which in turn is affected
by the surface properties of solar reflectance and thermal emit-
tance of the membrane, the amount of roof insulation, and the
exposure of the surface to the climatic elements. A numerical
computer code, termed STAR, solves for the temperature
profiles through the roof. Wilkes (1989) formulated the code
using an implicit discretization technique to model the tran-
sient one-dimensional heat flow through the exterior roof
cover, through multiple layers of roof insulation, and through
the supporting structure (e.g., a metal deck). The model
accounts for temperature-dependent thermal properties.
Wilkes validated the model against bare concrete paver roofs
and showed the effect of temperature dependent insulation
properties on the accuracy of prediction. Petrie (1998 and
2001) validated the model against some 24 different low-slope
roof coatings. Miller (2001) validated the code against single-
ply TPO and PVC membranes and later against bare and
painted metal roofs.
Thermophysical Properties
No coverboard or deck was considered in the simulation.
The membrane was treated as thin, so only the properties for
Polyisocyanurate were necessary. The density and specific heat
were treated as constant; the density is equal to 1.24910
-1
kg/m
3
(2 lb/ft
3
) while the specific heat is 9.21110
-1
kJ/kg.K (0.220 Btu/
lb.R). The thermal conductivity of Polyiso was considered a
function of the temperature, increasing as the temperature
increases: k [W/m.K] = 1.75410
-2
+ 1.15310
-4
* T[K] (k [Btu-
in/h.ft
2
.F] = 0.1216 + 0.000444 * T[F]).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The numerical code developed was used to generate
hourly temperature and heat flux through the thickness of the
insulation over an entire year. The CTZ2 weather database
(CEC 1992) was used to simulate the weather, and is the same
weather database used by the CEC Title 24 energy standards.
Combinations of insulation levels and radiative transport
properties were used to compare the performance of different
roofing systems and identify the suitable trade-off for a dark
roof. The basic case for each Climate Zone will be the mini-
mum R-value obtained by Table 143-A of Title 24 standard
(either 11 or 19) with solar reflectance of 0.55 and thermal
emittance of 0.75. Note that the cool roof solar reflectance is
degraded to 0.55 to account for soiling and deterioration of the
cool roof membrane through use while the dark roofing
membrane had solar reflectance of 0.2 and thermal emittance
of 0.9, as recommended by Title 24.
Insulation trade-offs can be calculated to match the total
cooling demand or to match the weighted cooling demand
using the Time-Dependent Valuation (TDV) of energy
1
. In the
latter, California assigned higher value of energy when the
demand is near peak. Both cases are discussed.
As an example, Climate Zone 12 was selected to generate
figures. Table 2 displays the summary of results obtained.
Tables such as this one were obtained for each of the CA
climate zones. The first line displays the prescribed case,
where the R-value is 19, the solar reflectance is 0.7, and the
thermal emittance is 0.75. For this case, the annual cooling
load and the TDV-weighted cooling load are in yellow. In the
following line, the results are for an aged cool roof with a solar
reflectance of 0.55 and the cooling loads are marked green.
The results show that, to perform as a cool roof with R-19, a
dark roofing system needs additional insulation: for the same
annual cooling load, if compared to a brand new cool roof, the
dark roof requires a premium additional insulation of R-33,
with a total insulation of R-52 (cooling load marked yellow);
when TDV is considered, the premium drops to R-30 (TDV
cooling load marked green). For Title 24 compliance, compar-
isons are to be made with the initially aged case: for same
annual cooling load, the dark roof requires R-34 insulation (R-
15 premium, cooling load marked yellow), while for same
TDV annual cooling load, it requires R-33 insulation (TDV
cooling load marked yellow). Through Title 24, from Table 1
in Sacramento, the R-value required is equal to R-27, which is
slightly smaller than the calculated through STAR.
Table 1. Required Insulation Levels
Rounded to the Nearest R-value for Title 24
by Equation 143-a Compliance
Using Various Surface Reflectance Levels
Climate
Zone
Reflectance, % {Thermal Emittance > 0.75}
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1 33 31 28 26 24 21 19
2 30 28 26 24 23 21 19
3 30 28 26 25 23 21 19
4 30 28 26 25 23 21 19
5 30 28 26 25 23 21 19
6 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
7 18 16 15 14 13 12 11
8 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
9 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
10 29 27 26 24 22 21 19
11 28 27 25 24 22 21 19
12 29 27 25 24 22 21 19
13 29 27 26 24 22 21 19
14 29 27 26 24 22 21 19
15 28 26 25 23 22 20 19
16 30 28 27 25 23 21 19
1.
Title 24 bases the consumption of building energy and the subse-
quent energy savings on TDV calculations, which apply an hour-
by-hour time dependent weighting to site energy use.
4 Buildings X
While cool roofs are excellent to reduce cooling loads in
the summer, they cause a heating penalty in the winter, since
the solar gain from the roof is smaller, increasing the load for
the heating system. Insulation, however, reduces both the
cooling and the heating loads and this fact should be consid-
ered when such a trade-off is used. Table 3 shows the effect of
additional insulation on the heating load of the building in
Climate Zone 12. The effect of additional insulation reduces
the annual heating load as much as 68% at the same annual
cooling load. For the basic case, the reduction is still substan-
tial at 46.68-48.19%.
Table 4 is a summary of all the insulation trade-off values
calculated. While the comparison with the initial reflectance
cool roof is a curiosity, it shows that to reach the performance
of a brand new cool roof, a significant amount of insulation is
necessary. The equivalent insulation to provide the same TDV
weighted annual cooling energy is slightly smaller than that
for the total annual cooling load. It is also important to point
out that the values calculated through this simulation are larger
(a premium of between R-4 and R-6) than the one predicted by
the use of the equation in the standard. While the source of this
discrepancy is not known, the coefficients used in equation
143-A could have been estimated for a different range of prop-
erties than the ones used here.
Figure 1 displays the cooling load for the highest peak
demand day of the year (for the cool roof system) for two roof-
ing configurations: an aged cool roof with the minimum
prescribed insulation level (R-19) and a dark roof with R-33.
As expected, the peak is not exactly the same, since the insu-
Table 2. Average Surface Temperature and Annual Cooling Load
for Different Roofing System Configurations in Climate Zone 12 (Sacramento)
R-value
Solar
Reflectance
Thermal
Emittance
Average Surface
Temperature,
F
Annual
Cooling Load,
a

Btu/ft
2
TDV Annual
Cooling Energy,
Btu/ft
2
19 0.7 0.75 96.4 2245.4 6771.7
19 0.55 0.75 108.5 3594.4 10155.9
32
0.2 0.9
130.5 3792.9 10396.2
33 130.6 3683.6 10111.6
34 130.6 3579.6 9840.6
36 130.6 3385.1 9333.9
40 130.6 3040.0 8432.6
44 130.7 2737.9 7639.4
48 130.7 2466.9 6920.8
49 130.7 2403.0 6750.2
50 130.7 2340.4 6582.6
51 130.7 2279.2 6418.1
52 130.7 2219.1 6256.1
a
Cooling load defined as roof heat transfer summed over cooling season when outdoor air temperature exceeds 65F (18.3C).
Table 3. Average Surface Temperature and Annual Heating Load
for Different Roofing System Configurations in Climate Zone 12 (Sacramento)
R-value
Solar
Reflectance
Thermal
Emittance
Average Surface
Temperature,
F
Annual
Heating Load,
a
Btu/ft
2
Percentage
Difference of the
Basic Case
19 0.7 0.75 47.7 7216.7 8.09%
19 0.55 0.75 49.5 6676.7 Basic case
33 0.2 0.9 51.8 3559.7 -46.68%
34 0.2 0.9 51.8 3458.9 -48.19%
49 0.2 0.9 51.7 2315.5 -65.32%
52 0.2 0.9 51.7 2136.1 -68.01%
A
Heating load defined as roof heat transfer summed over heating season when outdoor air temperature is lower than 65F (18.3C)
Buildings X 5
lation trade-off of R-33 was calculated based on the equivalent
TDV weighted annual cooling load to be the same.
The roofing surface temperatures are shown in Figure 2
for the same configurations discussed in the previous figure.
As expected, the higher reflectance roof displays a much lower
peak temperature if compared with the dark roof. It is impor-
tant to note that the objective of a building energy code is not
to keep temperatures low, but to reduce the heat gains and
losses of a building. Despite the fact that a highly insulated
roof is much warmer than a cool roof, the heat gain of the dark
roof with more insulation is actually smaller than that of the
cool roof.
SUMMARY
A numerical investigation of the heat transfer through a
roofing system was conducted using a one-dimensional finite
volume code. Several roofing configurations were modeled,
varying the membrane radiative properties and the insulation
levels to determine the insulation level that would produce the
same annual cooling load of a cool roof with the prescribed
minimum amount of insulation. All the simulations were
performed in each of the 16 California Climate Zones. The
following are the relevant conclusions of the work:
1. An equivalent level of insulation under a dark roof can be
determined through simulation to match the annual cool-
ing load of a building with a cool roof.
2. While a trade-off level of insulation can be calculated
through the Title 24 standard, the levels determined by
the simulation were higher between R-4 and R-6.
3. There is a slight difference between the insulation equiv-
alent using the same annual cooling load and the same
TDV weighted annual cooling load.
4. The temperature of dark highly insulated roofs is higher
than cool roofs with prescribed insulation levels.
However, the heat flux into the building may be smaller
for the hotter roof.
Table 4. R-Value Equivalent to Cool Roof for Initial
and Aged Reflectance Cool Roofs
and for Both Annual Cooling Load and TDV Weighted
Annual Cooling Energy
Climate
Zone
With
Cool
Roof
Initial
Reflectance
Aged Reflectance
Annual
Cooling
Load
TDV
Annual
Cooling
Energy
Annual
Cooling
Load
TDV
Annual
Cooling
Energy
143-A
1
19
55 55 37 37 31
2 54 52 35 34 28
3 57 55 38 37 28
4 54 51 35 35 28
5 50 49 35 34 28
6
11
42 38 23 22 16
7 42 39 23 22 16
8 38 35 21 21 16
9 37 33 21 20 16
10
19
55 51 35 34 27
11 54 50 34 33 27
12 52 49 34 33 27
13 52 49 33 32 27
14 55 51 34 33 27
15 47 43 32 30 26
16 55 50 35 34 28
Figure 1 Cooling load during the highest peak day in the
year for both the aged cool roof and an R-33 dark
roof in Sacramento, CA (climate zone 12).
Figure 2 Membrane temperatures during the highest peak
day in the year for both the aged cool roof and an
R-33 dark roof in Sacramento, CA (climate
zone 12).
6 Buildings X
If different assumptions were to be used for calculation of
the cooling loads, the insulation levels necessary to match the
cooling load could be different. Experimental validation of the
results would be necessary for use in determining specific
building configurations.
REFERENCES
California Energy Commission. 1992 Climate Zone
Weather Data Analysis and Revision Project, P400-92-
004. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission.
Konopacki, S.J., and Akbari, H. 2001. Measured Energy
Savings and Demand Reduction from a Reflective Roof
Membrane on a Large Retail Store in Austin. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. LBNL-47149,
Berkeley, CA.
Miller, W. A., and Atchley, J. A. 2001. A Correlation for
Laminar, Low-Temperature Gradient Heat and Mass
Transfer Applied to a Low-Slope Flat Roof, in Thermal
Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings,
VIII, proceedings of ASHRAE THERM VIII, Clearwa-
ter, FL., Dec. 2001.
Petrie, T. W., Atchley, J. A., Childs, P. W., and Desjarlais, A.
O. 2001. Effect of Solar Radiation Control on Energy
Costs A Radiation Control Fact Sheet for Low-Slope
Roofs, Proceedings, Performance of the Exterior Enve-
lopes of Whole Buildings VIII: Integration of Building
Envelopes. December 2001. Paper 146, CD ISBN 1-
883413-96-6.
Petrie, T. W., Childs, P. W., Christian, and J. E. 1998. Radi-
ation Control Coatings on Rough-Surfaced Roofs at a
Federal Facility: Two Summers of Monitoring plus Roof
and Whole Building Modeling. ASHRAE Proceedings,
Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelope of
Buildings VII, Atlanta, GA., 353371.
Wilkes, K. E. 1989. Model for Roof Thermal Performance.
ORNL/CON-274. Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
Young, R. 1998. Cool Roofs: Light Colored Coverings
Reflect Energy Savings and Environmental Benefits.
Building Design and Construction 39, no. 2: 62-64.