J.enbuild.2015.08.044 Material Values

Energy and Buildings 107 (2015) 456–478
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild
A new methodology for investigating the cost-optimality of energy

retrofitting a building category
Gerardo Maria Mauro a,∗ , Mohamed Hamdy b,c,d , Giuseppe Peter Vanoli e , Nicola Bianco a ,
Jan L.M. Hensen f
a
University of Naples Federico II, DII – Department of Industrial Engineering, Piazzale Tecchio, 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy
b
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of the Built Environment, Building Physics and Services, P.O. Box 513 – Vertigo 6.22, 5600 MB
Eindhoven, Netherlands
c
Helwan University, Department of Mechanical Power Engineering, P.O. Box 11718, Cairo, Egypt
d
Aalto University School of Engineering, Department of Energy Technology, P.O. Box 14400, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland
e
University of Sannio, DING – Department of Engineering, Piazza Roma, 21, 82100 Benevento, Italy
f
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of the Built Environment, Building Physics and Services, P.O. Box 513 – Vertigo 6.18, 5600 MB Eindhoven,
Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: According to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) Recast, building energy retrofitting
Received 13 May 2015 should aim “to achieving cost-optimal levels”. However, the detection of cost-optimal levels for an
Received in revised form 24 July 2015 entire building stock is a complex task. This paper tackles such issue by introducing a novel method-
Accepted 22 August 2015
ology, aimed at supporting robust cost-optimal energy retrofit solutions for building categories. Since
Available online 24 August 2015
the members of one building category provide highly different energy performance, they cannot be
correctly represented by only one reference design as stipulated by the EPBD Recast. Therefore, a repre-
Keywords:
sentative building sample (RBS) is here used to consider potential variations in all parameters affecting
Energy retrofit
Cost-optimality
energy performance. Simulation-based uncertainty analysis is employed to identify the optimal RBS
Building performance simulation size, followed by simulation-based sensitivity analysis to identify proper retrofit actions. Then post-
Building stock processing is performed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of all possible retrofit packages including
Building category energy-efficient HVAC systems, renewables, and energy saving measures. The methodology is denoted as
Uncertainty analysis SLABE, ‘Simulation-based Large-scale uncertainty/sensitivity Analysis of Building Energy performance’. It
Sensitivity analysis employs EnergyPlus and MATLAB® . For demonstration, SLABE is applied to office buildings built in South
Office buildings Italy during 1920–1970. The results show that the cost-optimal retrofit package includes the installation
of condensing gas boiler, water-cooled chiller and full-roof photovoltaic system.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Therefore, building energy retrofitting is a key-strategy to achieve

tangible results in the reduction of world energy demand and
In recent years, the interest of the scientific community toward thus polluting emissions. For instance, Nemry et al. [2] showed
building energy performance is more and more increasing because that, concerning the residential category at EU level, the poten-
the building sector accounts for around 40% of energy demand tial reduction of the environmental impact of new buildings can
in the European Union (EU) and 32% in the world [1]. This leads be neglected compared to that of existing ones. Similar con-
to international calls for achieving net/nearly zero-energy build- clusions are valid for other categories, such as office buildings
ings in order to reduce the energy consumption of the future [3,4].
building stock. However, it is well known that the building turn- The scientific community supports the necessity of acting on
over rate is quite low, especially in the industrialized countries, the existing building stock as shown by Ma et al. [5], who pro-
which are responsible of a wide part of world consumption. posed an admirable review of worthy studies in the field of building
energy retrofitting. Such studies are subdivided into two groups:
those focused on residential buildings and those focused on office
buildings. This distinction is made because the best energy retrofit
∗ Corresponding author.
packages for heterogeneous building types and uses generally dif-
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
(G.M. Mauro), [email protected] (M. Hamdy), [email protected] fer. The attention is directed to these two categories because they
(G.P. Vanoli), [email protected] (N. Bianco), [email protected] (J.L.M. Hensen). cover the vast majority of the building stock of any country.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.08.044
0378-7788/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
G.M. Mauro et al. / Energy and Buildings 107 (2015) 456–478 457
Concerning residential buildings, their energy performance is

Nomenclature highly affected by the characteristics of the building envelope,
mainly because of the low ventilation needs. Thus, the thermal
a, b, . . ., g, h labels of the EEMsd insulation of the building shell [6–8] can induce high energy and
a absorption coefficient for solar radiation economic savings. Furthermore, if this measure is combined with
c specific heat [J/kg K] the use of more efficient building HVAC systems and with the
d density [kg/m3 ] exploitation of renewable energy sources (RESs), especially pho-
e number of parameters describing the EEMsd tovoltaic panels, the energy retrofit of existing buildings to nearly
k thermal conductivity [W/m K] zero-energy ones is possible [9]. However, this outcome is valid
n number of characteristic parameters describing the only for heating-dominated climates (e.g., North Europe), whereas
existing building stock in presence of cooling-dominated climates (e.g., Mediterranean
pi ith parameter area) a deeper analysis is necessary in order to take into account the
r ratio between the number of sampled cases and the issue of summer overheating. In this regard, two macro-strategies
number of characteristic parameters can be identified for reducing the cooling need and avoiding the
rmin minimum value of r for achieving a reliable RBS overheating effect in warm climates: (a) the reduction of the solar
t thickness [m] gain by means the use of solar shadings [10,11] and/or reflective
ACC efficient air-cooled chiller coatings [12]; (b) the adoption of techniques for discharging the
BPS building performance simulation building envelope, thereby operating a passive cooling of indoor
CB condensing boiler spaces [13–15].
COP coefficient of performance of heat pumps [Wth /Wel ] Concerning office buildings, they are characterized, compared
DH percentage of discomfort hours [%] to dwellings, by a higher demand for lighting and various electric
DHW district hot water uses, as well as by a much larger ventilation need and endoge-
EB efficient boiler nous heat gain that increases the energy demand for space cooling.
ED thermal energy demand [kWh/m2 a] Therefore, also in heating-dominated climates, the main compo-
EEMd energy efficiency measure for the reduction of ther- nents of annual primary energy consumption, i.e., space heating,
mal energy demand space cooling, lighting and electric uses, are more balanced [16]
EER energy efficiency ratio of chillers [Wth /Wel ] compared to residential buildings, whose consumption is highly
GC global cost [D per building] affected by space heating. This determines major issues in the
HP heat pump design of retrofit strategies, which simultaneously should take
HVAC heating, ventilating and air conditioning into account environmental, sociocultural and economic criteria
LHS latin hypercube sampling [3]. In this vein, Hestnes and Kofoed [17] investigated ten exist-
N number of cases included in the RBS (RBS size) ing office buildings by exploring the impact of different retrofit
Nmin minimum value of N for achieving reliable results strategies, including measures addressed to building envelope,
PEC primary energy consumption [kWh/a per building] HVAC system and lighting. The outcomes confirmed the complex-
PI performance indicator ity of energy retrofitting the considered building category, since
PV photovoltaic the optimal strategy significantly depends on the specific build-
R thermal resistance [m2 K/W] ing characteristics. Definitely, the energy retrofit of office buildings
RB reference boiler should be designed ‘ad hoc’ by taking into account all levers affect-
RBS representative building sample ing energy performance [18,19]. In this regard, different interactive
RefB reference building decision support tools have been conceived [20,21] in order to
RC reference chiller detect optimal energy retrofit packages for office buildings, based
RES renewable energy source on the trade-off among different performance indicators, such as
S1 sample set representing the existing building stock energy consumption, investment and operating costs, environmen-
(RBS) tal impact.
S2 sample set representing the renovated building As shown by the mentioned studies, the design of building
stock energy retrofit is a challenging task that requires a holistic and
S3 sample set representing the packages of the most integrated team approach [22] because conflicting objectives gen-
important EEMsd erally subsist. The two main objectives are the minimization of
SA sensitivity analysis energy consumption and the maximization of economic benefits.
SLABE simulation-based large-scale uncer- Since they are generally conflicting, multi-objective optimization
tainty/sensitivity analysis of building energy is recommended [23–35]. In order to harmonize such objectives,
performance the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU (EPBD
SRRC standardized rank regression coefficient Recast) [36] focuses on the concept of ‘cost-optimality’. More in
U thermal transmittance [W/m2 K] detail, this directive has introduced a new comparative method-
Uw thermal transmittance of the windows ology framework in order to assess building energy performance
(glass + frame) [W/m2 K] “with a view to achieving cost-optimal levels”. The energy retrofit
UA uncertainty analysis actions should be effective by minimizing the global cost over the
WCC water-cooled chiller lifecycle of the building. Since the cost-optimal analysis cannot be
mean value performed to each building, for reason of complexity, reference
standard deviation buildings (RefBs) have to be defined to represent the national build-
ing stock. They should cover all the building categories, where a
Subscripts
category is meant as a stock of buildings that share climatic con-
c referred to the cooling season
ditions (location), functionality and construction type. Thus, the
h referred to the heating season
cost-optimal analysis should be applied to these RefBs in order to
detect cost-optimal packages of energy measures [37,38]. Then,
458 G.M. Mauro et al. / Energy and Buildings 107 (2015) 456–478
the results achieved for a RefB should be extended to the other one-zone hourly heat balances in order to calculate the energy
buildings of the represented category [39]. However: demand for buildings representative of a building stock, thereby
extending the results to the entire stock through the adoption
(a) Does this procedure ensure reliable results for all the buildings of weighting factors. Afterwards, ECCABS was used by Nik and
of the category (category’s members)? Kalagasidis [51] for predicting the impact of climate change on
(b) Otherwise, how to investigate, in a more rigorous way, the cost- the future energy consumption of the residential building stock
optimality of energy retrofitting a building category? in Stockholm by means of the investigation on a sample of 153
statistically selected buildings. For building shell energy labeling,
The energy analysis of a building stock, rather than of sin- Melo et al. [52] applied artificial neural networks (ANNs) to model
gle buildings, is essential when the purpose is to estimate the the building stock of the city of Florianópolis (Brazil), based on
baseline energy consumption of existing buildings as well as the the results provided by EnergyPlus [55] on a sample of 3200
global potential energy saving, or to give general indications about heterogeneous buildings. In this regard, it should be noted that the
the cost-effectiveness of energy measures. The scientific litera- reliability of the methods adopting the bottom-up approach highly
ture presents different methods for investigating and modeling a depends on the size of the selected buildings’ sample, which has
building stock in order to assess energy performance, as shown to represent the entire building stock. As highlighted by Liang and
by the exhaustive reviews provided by Swan and Ugursal [40] and Shen [53], the minimum sample size is affected by the number of
Kavgic et al. [41]. These methods can be subdivided into two groups parameters influencing stock energy performance as well as by the
according to the adopted approach: top-down and bottom-up. The stock size; therefore it must be established carefully and ‘ad hoc’,
top-down approach operates at an aggregated level by handling based on the peculiarities of the investigated stock.
cumulative historic data of energy consumption and/or polluting This paper aims to answer the aforementioned questions (a)
emissions. The bottom-up approach operates at a disaggregated and (b) by means of a novel methodology that supports a robust
level by extrapolating the energy consumption of a representative cost-optimal analysis of energy retrofit solutions for a building cat-
sample of buildings to regional/national level. egory. The methodology is denoted as SLABE, ‘Simulation-based
Most studies adopting the top-down approach exploited sta- Large-scale uncertainty/sensitivity Analysis of Building Energy
tistical data collections just to provide a picture of the existing performance’. In order to consider all the category’s peculiari-
stock [42–45], and/or explore the potential savings induced by few ties, SLABE investigates a Representative Building Sample (RBS)
energy measures in a simplified manner without considering the instead of only one Reference Building, thereby adopting an orig-
complex building dynamic behavior [46,47]. For instance, Balaras inal bottom-up approach, based on detailed energy simulations,
et al. [42] investigated 193 residential buildings, located in five in stock modeling. Simulation-based uncertainty analysis (UA) is
European countries, by performing energy audits for assessing the carried out to identify the optimal RBS size, followed by simulation-
influence of thermal insulation level, age, HVAC system type and based sensitivity analysis (SA) to identify proper retrofit actions.
geographical location on heating energy consumption and result- Then post-processing is performed in order to reach two main tar-
ing environmental impact. In the same vein, Dascalaki et al. [43] gets:
proposed an original methodology aimed at collecting and analyz-
ing relevant national data on the building stock in order to monitor • detecting the package of actions that represents the cost-optimal
energy performance and extract information concerning the impact solution for most category’s members;
of possible energy measures. Sardianou [44] and Theodoridou et al. • evaluating the effectiveness of current policy of state financial
[45] presented methodological approaches aimed to give detailed incentives directed to these actions.
information on the Greek residential building stock, thereby detec-
ting the energy saving potential via the statistical analysis of survey
In the following lines, the methodology is first described (Sec-
data. Also Balaras et al. [46] focused on the Greek residential stock
tion 2) and then applied to a specific category: office buildings built
by providing a detailed picture of the stock’s current energy con-
in South Italy in the period 1920–1970 (Sections 3 and 4).
sumption through the collection and aggregation of statistical data.
Furthermore, they elaborated a simplified methodology to quan-
tify the impact and effectiveness of different energy conservation 2. Methodology
measures, by assigning to each measure an established potential
energy saving. Analogously, Fracastoro et al. [47] developed an ana- 2.1. Aim and originality
lytical procedure for estimating the primary energy consumption
of a large-scale building stock, starting from statistical data. The The methodology provides a robust cost-optimal analysis of
procedure can be adopted to define the performance scale for build- energy retrofitting a building category. The cost-optimality is esti-
ing energy certification, as well as to evaluate the energy saving mated in line with EPBD Recast [36], but the proposed approach
potential of large-scale retrofit measures addressed to the building introduces an original aspect regarding the simultaneous investi-
envelope. gation of different buildings belonging to the same category. The
Concerning the bottom-up approach, Caldera et al. [48] elab- main originality consists of performing the cost-optimal analysis by
orated a statistical model for assessing heating energy demand of representing a building category by a representative building sam-
residential buildings in the district of Turin (North Italy), based ple (RBS), instead of only one reference building (RefB) as stipulated
on a sample of 50 buildings. In the same vein, Al-Ghandoor et al. by the EPBD Recast. The new approach replaces the concept of RefB
[49] developed a multivariate regression model, which adopts by the concept of RBS, thereby performing an original bottom-up
time series analysis in order to predict future energy demand and stock modeling, based on detailed energy simulations. The method-
evaluate the potential energy saving induced by retrofit actions in ology presents a multi-stage framework, which allows to assess
the residential building stock of Jordan. When statistical data col- the influence of energy retrofit actions on primary energy con-
lections are insufficient or not available, models based on energy sumption (PEC) and global cost (GC) related to RBS; this should
simulations can be used to estimate the energy performance of a be large enough to represent the considered category reliably.
building stock [50–53]. For instance, Mata et al. [50] developed a Simulation-based uncertainty analysis (UA) is employed to identify
model in MATLAB® [54] environment – denoted as Energy, Carbon the optimal RBS size. Then, simulation-based sensitivity analysis
and Cost Assessment for Building Stocks (ECCABS) – based on (SA) allows to identify proper retrofit actions and post-processing
is performed to detect the retrofit packages most affecting PEC and Moreover, BPS tools generally generate nonlinear, multi-modal,
GC savings. The final outcome is the energy retrofit package that discontinuous outputs [23,62–64]. Thus, the SRRCs are selected as
provides the cost-optimality for most category’s members. Fur- sensitivity indices, since they are fine for non-linear (but mono-
thermore, the effectiveness of state financial incentives directed tonic) functions between inputs and outputs. This choice is largely
to energy retrofit actions is evaluated. It is emphasized that UA shared in the BPS community [65,66]. In particular, the SRRC pro-
and SA are generally carried out for a single building [56–58], in vides a measure of how influential a parameter is on an output,
order to assess how the variations of some uncertain parameters based on the effect of moving such parameter away from its
affect energy performance. On the contrary, this study performs expected value while retaining all other parameters constant. It
UA and SA on a large-scale, since the uncertainties in the param- can vary from −1 to 1; a positive value indicates that the parame-
eters are introduced intentionally in order to generate a sample ter and the output change with the same sign, while the opposite
space that covers most category’s members. However, they can occurs for a negative value.
be still denoted as uncertainties because they express the uncer-
tainty of the energy behavior of each single building within the 2.4. Multi-stage framework
category. In other words, this study refers to a category-based
uncertainty (large-scale) and not to building-based uncertainty SLABE consists of two main stages, which are subdivided in two
(small-scale). The developed methodology is therefore denoted as and three steps respectively, as shown in Fig. 1 and summarized
‘Simulation-based Large-scale uncertainty/sensitivity Analysis of below. These steps are described in detail in the following subsec-
Building Energy performance’ (SLABE). tions.
2.2. Possible applications • Step 1 (stage I): the existing building stock is investigated in order
to identify the optimal RBS size (by UA) and the parameters most
SLABE can become a powerful tool for different stakeholders. affecting energy demand for micro-climatic control and thermal
On one hand, it allows to identify the package of energy retrofit comfort (by SA).
actions that implies the cost-optimality for most buildings of the • Step 2 (stage I): some energy efficiency measures for the reduc-
investigated category. Therefore, it can give global indications to tion of energy demand (EEMsd ) are proposed; their impact on
building owners/occupants concerning the best retrofit strategy energy demand and thermal comfort is explored (by UA) and the
from a financial perspective. On the other hand, SLABE allows to most influential measures are detected (by SA).
evaluate the effectiveness of the state policy of financial incen- • Step 3 (stage II): the implementation of new efficient HVAC sys-
tives directed to energy retrofit actions. Therefore, it deals with tems is investigated, by assessing the effect on PEC and GC; this
a macroeconomic perspective, too. step allows to estimate the effectiveness of state incentives for
Definitely, SLABE tackles both financial (looking at the invest- HVAC systems and to identify the cost-optimal HVAC configura-
ment itself) and macroeconomic (looking at the costs and benefits tion.
of energy efficiency investments for the society as a whole) per- • Step 4 (stage II): the implementation of renewable energy source
spectives, as recommended in the Guidelines of the EPBD Recast, (RES) systems is investigated, by assessing the effect on PEC
i.e., Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 244/2012 [59]. Thus, the imple- and GC; this step allows to estimate the effectiveness of state
mentation of this methodology to different building categories can incentives for RES systems and to identify the cost-optimal com-
produce significant benefits in terms of reduction of energy con- bination of HVAC system and RESs.
sumption, and so polluting emissions, of the building sector as • Step 5 (stage II): the implementation of the most influential
wells in terms of global cost savings concerning the buildings’ EEMsd , identified in step 2, is investigated, by assessing the effect
owners/occupants. Eventually, SLABE arises from academic curios- on PEC and GC; this step allows to estimate the effectiveness
ity but its application can produce substantial practical results, as of state incentives for EEMsd and to identify the cost-optimal
shown by the outcomes achieved for the investigated real case package of energy retrofit actions, including HVAC system, RESs
study. and EEMsd .
2.3. Tools 2.5. Stage I. Investigation of energy demand (ED) and discomfort
hours (DH)
SLABE is based on the coupling between EnergyPlus [55] and
MATLAB® [54]. EnergyPlus is chosen as BPS (building performance In this stage (see Fig. 1), energy demand and thermal comfort
simulation) tool because: it is a whole building energy simulation are investigated, by means of UA and SA. In particular four PIs are
program that allows a detailed evaluation of each term of PEC; considered:
it works with text-based format inputs (.idf) and outputs (.csv),
which facilitate the interaction with mathematical tools. MATLAB® – annual energy demand for heating, EDh [kWh/m2 a];
is chosen for UA, SA and post-processing because: it has a very – annual energy demand for cooling, EDc [kWh/m2 a];
strong capability of running statistical routines for data analysis – percentage of discomfort hours on occupied hours, during the
and interpretation; it can automatically launch EnergyPlus as well heating season, DHh [%];
as manipulate EnergyPlus inputs and outputs. – percentage of discomfort hours on occupied hours, during the
The UA is performed by means of Monte Carlo analysis (MCA), cooling season, DHc [%].
which is widely applied to BPS [56–58,60]. As aforementioned, the
UA is carried out on a large scale in order to investigate the distri- The energy demand is the annual request of thermal energy
butions of some performance indicators (PIs) within RBS. Thus, the for micro-climatic control per unit of conditioned area. As regards
ranges of uncertainty of the parameters are wider than when the the assessment of thermal comfort, the weighted under- or over-
UA is applied to a single building [56–58]. heating/cooling hours criterion [57], based on Fanger theory [67], is
As regards the SA, a global approach is used through the assess- used. Discomfort hours represent the occupied hours during which
ment of the standardized rank regression coefficients (SRRCs). In the average predicted mean vote (PMV) in the thermal zones of
building energy analysis, the global approach is more reliable than the building does not fall in the range −0.85 to 0.85, resulting in
the local one [23,61] and regression methods are the most used [61]. a predicted percentage of dissatisfied (PPD) greater than 20%. The
Fig. 1. Framework of SLABE. The symbol e+ indicates the data provided by EnergyPlus and handled by MATLAB® , required for the evaluation of PEC (and so GC).
acceptability range of PMV has been chosen on the basis of the min- parameters (the same analysis is required when the goal is to gen-
imum level of thermal comfort required in a building by ASHRAE erate a robust RefB of the category). Such analysis allows to define
[68]. Nevertheless, stricter criteria can be used, if required. the sampling space to be spanned. It is noted that the param-
As shown in the next sections, the four PIs are first investigated eters’ selection requires expertise and a thorough knowledge of
for the existing building stock (step 1) and then for the renovated the problem. Furthermore, this selection should be carried out by
stock (step 2), namely in presence of EEMsd . In the second step, also considering the trade-off between the reliability of RBS and the
the annual values of energy demand (ED) and discomfort hours computational burden, since more parameters imply more Energy-
(DH) are considered in order to explore the overall effects of the Plus simulations in order to obtain good results. Thus, parameters
EEMsd . that have an insignificant influence on energy performance should
not be chosen. For instance, in this study (see Section 3.2) the ther-
2.5.1. Step 1. Analysis of the existing building stock mal characteristics of some layers of the building envelope (e.g.,
In the first step, the existing building stock is defined by detec- internal plasters, screeds, tiles) are not contemplated because they
ting n characteristic parameters relevant to energy demand and do not significantly affect building energy behavior. The charac-
thermal comfort. The sampling of such parameters generates the teristic parameters should be independent in order to enable ‘free
RBS that should represent the building category. A range of vari- sampling’ and to not compromise the reliability of the sensitivity
ability and a probability distribution (e.g., uniform or normal) are analysis [69]. Therefore, the category’s members should be charac-
assigned to each parameter in order to sample across the whole terized by the same construction type in order to avoid relations
category. A reference building (RefB) related to the investigated cat- between parameters (e.g., certain materials being more common
egory can be exploited to set the mean values of such distributions, for certain building sizes). In other words, the building category
as shown in Section 3. The characteristic parameters are classified should not be too extended. That is why in this study (see Section
in three groups, respectively related to geometry (form and orienta- 3) we consider office buildings built in a specified time horizon;
tion), envelope (thermo-physical characteristics of materials) and thus, they present the same construction type (i.e., reinforced con-
other parameters that cannot be placed in the first two groups (e.g., crete as structural frame) and the size varies within a limited range
set point temperatures, internal loads, people density). SLABE is (e.g., the number of floors varies from one to five). Consequently,
limited to rectangular buildings. This choice facilitates the parame- characteristic parameters can be considered independent.
terization process [60], and it is proper for most building categories The three groups of parameters and their correlated ranges
because of the high percentage of rectangular shapes. define the sample space to investigate. Latin hypercube sampling
In order to build a reliable RBS, a statistical analysis is neces- (LHS) is applied to these parameters within a Monte Carlo frame-
sary for detecting the ranges and distributions of all characteristic work, in order to generate N cases, which correspond to N building
Table 1
Framework of the sample set S2 (renovated building stock).
model instances and, thus, to N EnergyPlus simulations. These cases In light of this, S2 gathers the same building instances of S1 , but in
constitute the sample set S1 , which corresponds to RBS. It repre- presence of one or more EEMsd . This expedient allows the direct
sents the existing building stock. LHS is used because it ensures comparison between the two sets (case by case), by detecting the
uniformity and coverage in the sample space, thanks to its efficient effects of some EEMsd on each building instance.
stratification properties [69,70]. It is widely-used in the scientific The N building model instances, gathered in S2 , are run in Ener-
literature concerning BPS [56,57,65,71,72]. Therefore, once estab- gyPlus in order to evaluate the new sets of values assumed by the
lished the sample space adequately as previously described, LHS four PIs. At this point, the UA allows the estimation of the effects
ensures to sample across any category. It is noted that the value induced by the EEMsd on energy demand and thermal comfort in
of N must be chosen carefully in order to thoroughly represent the the heating and cooling seasons. In addition, the values of the SRRCs
building stock [53]. The N building model instances are run in Ener- are assessed for the Boolean parameters representing the EEMsd , in
gyPlus, by means of the coupling with MATLAB® , obtaining N sets of correspondence of EDh , EDc , DHh , DHc , ED, DH. Thus, the SA allows
values of the four PIs. Of course, the proposed sampling methodol- to detect the most influential EEMsd on the seasonal and annual
ogy cannot represent all the category’s members (there are always values of energy demand and discomfort hours.
buildings with singularities), but it covers the majority of them. Def-
initely, the generation of RBSs requires a statistical analysis similar 2.6. Stage II. Investigation of primary energy consumption (PEC)
to that necessary for the definition of RefBs, but allows to take into and global cost (GC)
account many more category peculiarities, thereby ensuring highly
more accurate and reliable outcomes concerning the assessment of In this stage (see Fig. 1), the potential savings in PEC and GC
the building category’s energy performance. induced by well-selected energy retrofit actions are investigated.
Once built the RBS (i.e., the sample S1 ), the UA is carried out in The actions are selected on the basis of category’s peculiarities,
order to explore the dispersion (distribution) of PIs and to identify best-practice, outcomes of step 2 (only for step 5). Since RBS reli-
the optimal RBS size, denoted with Nmin . This consists of the min- ably represents the building stock, the outcomes are valid for the
imum number of cases (building instances) to be investigated for whole category.
ensuring the stability in mean value and standard deviation of all The PEC is an appropriate metric according to EPBD Recast [36].
PIs (see Section 4.1.1). Thus, Nmin is the minimum RBS size that pro- It represents the sum of the different components of the build-
vides reliable results, valid for most category’s members. The value ing energy use, which are converted by means of primary energy
achieved for Nmin is used in step 5 and can be exploited also in other factors. Heating, cooling, ventilation, pumps and fans, domestic
studies related to the same or similar categories (for instance, for hot water (DHW), lighting, electrical equipment are considered.
setting the initial value of N). If RES systems are present, produced and used energy must be
Finally, the SA (assessment of the SRRCs) is performed to evalu- subtracted to the previous terms, in a consistent way. SLABE cal-
ate which parameters have the most/least influence on the PIs. The culates the PEC through the post-process performed in MATLAB® ,
values assumed by the SRRCs can guide the choice of the EEMsd after EnergyPlus simulations. This expedient allows the reduction
that will be investigated in the next step, since they highlight the of the computational time [29]. EnergyPlus provides the hourly val-
most critical parts of the building system from an energy point of ues of the energy demand for heating, cooling, DHW and electricity
view. (which gathers the remaining components of building energy use).
These values are handled in MATLAB® . First, heating, cooling and
2.5.2. Step 2. Analysis of the renovated building stock DHW demands are turned into hourly demand of electricity or fuel
In the second step, the renovated building stock is explored. In (depending on the type of HVAC system) through the hourly per-
more detail, some EEMsd are introduced, based on outcomes of step formance curves of the HVAC system. Then, the overall values of
1, category’s peculiarities and best-practice. Each EEMd is parame- electricity and fuel demand are converted in primary energy, by
terized through a Boolean parameter, which assumes the value of 0 means of primary energy factors. The PEC is so calculated. In pres-
if the relative measure is absent, 1 if present. These new parameters ence of RESs, EnergyPlus also yields the hourly values of produced
vary according an uniform distribution, so that the probability that energy. If produced energy is consumed according to an hourly
one EEMd occurs is equal to the 50%. Furthermore, the implemen- balance, it represents a subtractive term in PEC evaluation.
tation of the EEMsd generally requires the introduction of other The GC over the lifecycle of the buildings is calculated in
parameters (e.g., the thermo-physical characteristics of thermal MATLAB® , according to the Guidelines of EPBD Recast [59]. The
insulation), for a total of new e parameters. real interest rate and the energy price escalation rate are set equal
Therefore, the renovated building stock is defined by (n + e) to 3% and 2%, respectively. The annual energy demand is assumed
parameters – n for the existing buildings and e for the EEMsd – constant during the calculation period.
whose sampling leads to the second sample set S2 consisting of N The exploration of the achievable savings in PEC and GC is car-
cases alike S1 . In particular, a correspondence between S1 and S2 ried out in three steps, in order to consider the effects produced by
is established, as shown in Table 1. Each case of S2 provides the three distinct groups of retrofit actions: replacement of the primary
same values of the first n parameters assumed by the homologous heating/cooling system (step 3), installation of RES systems (step
case of S1 , while the remaining e parameters are sampled by LHS. 4), implementation of EEMsd (step 5).
The described analysis is carried out in absence and in presence

of state incentives in order to examine the effect of the current
policy of financial grants addressed to energy retrofit actions. The
cost-optimal solution refers to the presence of current incentives.
Therefore, this step allows to:
• evaluate the effectiveness of current incentives directed to HVAC

systems;
• detect the cost-optimal HVAC system, when the replacement of
such system is the unique retrofit action.
2.6.2. Step 4. Installation of RES systems

In this step, the potential savings in PEC and GC induced by the
exploitation of RESs are investigated for S1 . First, the PEC-GC analy-
sis is performed in presence of the reference HVAC system, in order
to assess how the mere implementation of a RES system influence
PEC and GC. The best configurations of the RES (e.g., area of PV
panels), as for PEC and GC savings, are detected in absence and in
presence of current state incentives, in order to:
• evaluate the effectiveness of incentives directed to the considered

RES system;
• determine the cost-optimal configuration of the RES system.
If more RESs are examined, the same procedure is repeated for

each of them.
Then, well-selected combinations of HVAC system and RESs are
investigated by assessing PEC and GC savings in presence of cur-
rent incentives. These combinations are identified on the basis of
the previous results achieved in correspondence of the mere imple-
mentation respectively of new HVAC systems (step 3) and RESs
(first part of step 4);
Eventually, this step allows to:
Fig. 2. Main peculiarities of boxplots.
• detect the cost-optimal combination between the replacement

of the HVAC system and the installation of RES systems, when
2.6.1. Step 3. Replacement of the primary heating/cooling system merely these retrofit actions are implemented.
In this step, the replacement of the primary heating/cooling
(HVAC) system is considered as the only possible retrofit action, 2.6.3. Step 5. Implementation of EEMsd
in order to detect the impact of new efficient HVAC systems on PEC In this step, the effects of EEMsd on PEC and GC are explored. In
and GC. In fact, this generally represents the most influential action this regard, the SA performed in stage I (step 2) identifies the EEMsd
on energy and economic savings [29]. that have a significant influence on the annual value of energy
The PEC-GC analysis is performed. Specifically, the values of PEC demand (ED). This step considers only these EEMsd because the
and GC are calculated for each case of S1 (existing building stock) remaining ones are generally not effective from both analyzed per-
in correspondence of the reference HVAC system and of different spectives (PEC and GC). This conclusion is not rigorous, since some
new efficient options. The potential savings are then evaluated. EEMsd slightly affecting ED might have a higher influence on PEC
Hence, the best configurations of the HVAC system are identified, as and (mainly) GC assessment for some buildings. Nevertheless, a
regards energy and cost perspectives, respectively. In the first case, screening of the EEMsd investigated in this step is fundamental in
the best solution is the one that ensures the highest PEC saving in order to ensure a reasonable computational burden because all the
the building stock. In the second case, it is the one that leads to the possible combinations of EEMsd are explored. The adopted crite-
highest number of category’s members (sampled cases) with posi- rion for screening, albeit not rigorous concerning the cost-optimal
tive GC savings; this represents the cost-optimal configuration. The analysis, allows to achieve reliable global indications for the whole
best compromise between these two perspectives is investigated building category. Thus, the new sample set S3 is generated through
via the concurrent representation of PEC and GC savings: exhaustive sampling, in order to represent all the np possible pack-
ages (combinations) of the selected EEMsd . S3 has a framework
similar to S2 . It collects np ·Nmin cases, which are composed of np
• mean values are considered for PEC savings, because they are groups of Nmin cases. As aforementioned, Nmin denotes the min-
proportional to the energy saving in the whole stock; imal RBS size that provides reliable results. Its value, detected in
• the boxplot is chosen for the representation of GC savings, step 1, is here exploited. Nmin cases are sufficient to represent the
because it allows to estimate, qualitatively, the percentage of existing building stock, and consequently are also sufficient to rep-
members characterized by cost savings. The main peculiarities resent the building stock in presence of the same retrofit package.
of boxplots are resumed in Fig. 2. About them, outliers are not Each of the np groups of S3 gathers the same buildings represented
depicted in this study (see following figures) because they repre- by the first Nmin cases of S1 , in presence of one of the np possible
sent a very restricted, insignificant part of the building stock. EEMsd packages, so that all packages are covered.
Hence, the potential savings in PEC and GC induced by the EEMsd of Naples yields energy outcomes that are valid for a considerable
are investigated, by referring to S3 . The analysis follows the logical part of the investigated category.
order used in step 4. Definitely, the energy retrofit of the chosen category can have
First, the reference HVAC system is considered. The best pack- a significant impact on the reduction of energy consumption, and
ages of EEMsd , as for PEC and GC savings, are detected in absence thus polluting emissions, at national level. Indeed, the category rep-
and in presence of state current incentives, in order to: resents around 13% [73] of the whole Italian office building stock.
Nevertheless, although the case study is very interesting, our main
• evaluate the effectiveness of incentives directed to the considered purpose is to propose SLABE as a new methodology that can be
applied to any building category in order to ensure a more rigorous
EEMsd ;
• identify the cost-optimal package of EEMsd , when only these and robust cost-optimal analysis of energy retrofitting the existing
building stock, compared to the RefB approach.
energy retrofit actions are applied.
3.1. Reference building

Then, PEC and GC savings are evaluated in correspondence of
well-selected combinations of HVAC system, RESs and EEMsd , in
The considered RefB, relative to office buildings built in South
order to find the cost-optimal package of retrofit actions. Like-
Italy in the period 1920–1970, has a rectangular shape, thus per-
wise step 4, the examined combinations are chosen on the basis
fectly fits to SLABE. The structural frame is in reinforced concrete;
of previous results. Eventually, this step allows to:
the vertical walls are made of two layers of bricks separated by an
air gap; a structure in mixed brick-reinforced concrete character-
• detect the cost-optimal package of energy retrofit actions, includ- izes floor and roof. Table 2 shows the stratigraphy of these elements.
ing replacement of the HVAC system, installation of RES systems The composition of internal walls and ceilings are not indicated
and implementation of EEMsd ; if different packages ensure sim- by ENEA; thus, they are supposed to be made of 0.15 m thick
ilar values of GC savings, the thermal comfort can be used as concrete. The windows have single glasses and wooden frames
discriminating criterion, on the basis of the results achieved in (Uw = 5.0 W/m2 K). Their height is equal to 1.5 m. There is no solar
stage I (step 2). shading. All the other characteristics related to geometry, envelope
and operation are reported in Table 3 (column denoted with RefB).
The definition of the HVAC system is not explicit, since only sta-
3. Case study
tistical data are reported by ENEA. Thus, this study is based on the
following assumptions. Fan coils and hot water radiators are alter-
For demonstration and testing purposes, SLABE is applied to a
nately considered as heating terminals, since the presence of one or
category with a large amount of statistical data available in current
the other can significantly affect energy performance and thermal
literature, namely office buildings built in South Italy in the period
comfort. Cooling terminals consist of fan coils, which allow to inves-
1920–1970.
tigate different options of the primary cooling system. The primary
A research study performed by ENEA [73] (Italian national
heating system is a natural gas boiler, with nominal efficiency equal
agency for new technologies, energy and sustainable economic
to 0.85, indicated with reference boiler (RB). The primary cooling
development) provides a deep statistical analysis of structural char-
system is an air-cooled chiller, with nominal EER (energy efficiency
acteristics and plant conditions of the Italian office building stock,
ratio) equal to 2.4, indicated with reference chiller (RC). There are
which is composed of around 65,000 units. This study defines two
not RES systems.
RefBs respectively for office buildings built in the period 1920–1970
and from 1971 until now. Buildings built in the period 1920–1970
are explored in this study, because they are characterized by worse 3.2. Existing building stock
energy performance. Thus, the energy retrofit of these buildings can
induce huge energy savings. Moreover, they represent a significant As aforementioned, SLABE is limited to rectangular construc-
percentage (32.4%) of the national office building stock. tions. Thus, the buildings belonging to the investigated category
South Italy is chosen as geographical location for two main rea- are supposed to have a rectangular shape (Fig. 3a), constituted by
sons. First, the scientific literature concerning the study of office equal height stories. Each floor is subdivided into five thermal zones
buildings in South Italy is quite meager. Secondly, a high percent- in order to contemplate the different sun exposures, as shown in
age (around 60%) of such building dates back before 1970 [73]. Fig. 3b.
Thus, investigated buildings cover a wide segment of office build- The study of ENEA and the authors’ expertise have allowed to
ings in South Italy and ensure high energy saving potentials, as detect the characteristic parameters affecting the energy behav-
aforementioned. ior of the category’s members, based on the recommendations
Finally, the explored building category is composed of around reported in Section 2.5.1. In particular, the existing building stock
8800 units. This is the number of office buildings built in South is defined by the 46 parameters reported in Table 3: 9 for geometry,
Italy (excluding islands) in the period 1920–1970. Islands are not 30 for envelope and 7 other parameters. They are assumed as the
considered because they are characterized by singular weather most influencing energy performance and thermal comfort of the
conditions. stock. Thus, other possible parameters (e.g., thermo-physical char-
The weather file of the city of Naples is used in EnergyPlus sim- acteristics of plasters, screeds, tiles) are not contemplated, since
ulations. Naples is the second district in South Italy concerning the they are considered insignificant. The thickness of the concrete of
number of office buildings and thus the use of such weather file internal walls and ceilings (parameter p13 ) is included in order to
allows to cover rigorously a good percentage (around 8% [73]) of represent the internal thermal inertia. The study of ENEA does not
the buildings belonging to the considered category. It should be provide exactly the ranges and distributions of the aforementioned
noted that the first district is Lecce, but Naples is preferred because characteristic parameters within the explored category, but reports
of its climatic conditions, which are closer to average conditions the most popular configurations concerning building geometry,
in South Italy. Therefore, the results obtained for Naples can be envelope – and thus size, construction type, materials – and HVAC
extended to many other cities of South Italy with an acceptable system. Such analysis has led to the development of the described
approximation and, consequently, the adoption of the weather file RefB, which presents average thermal-energy characteristics across
Table 2
Reference building: stratigraphy of floor, external walls and roof. The values of solar absorptance (a) are indicated only for the external layers.
t [m] k [W/m K] d [kg/m3 ] c [J/kg K] R [m2 K/W] a
Floor
Cobblestone 0.18 0.70 1500 880 – –
Floor block 0.18 0.66 1800 840 – –
Clay 0.06 0.12 450 1200 – –
Screed 0.03 0.90 1800 840 – –
Tiles 0.02 1.00 2300 – –
External walls
External brick 0.12 0.72 1800 840 – 0.5
Air gap 0.20 – 1.03 1010 0.156 –
Internal brick 0.08 0.90 2000 840 – –
Plaster 0.02 1.4 2000 820 – –
Floor
Cement 0.03 1.40 1000 – 0.5
Screed 0.03 1.40 400 1000 – –
Expanded clay 0.05 0.27 900 1000 – –
Roof block 0.22 0.66 1800 840 – –
Plaster 0.02 0.70 800 1000 – –
Table 3
Characterization of the parameters describing the building stock: value assumed in the RefB; type of distribution in the stock; mean value () and standard deviation () for
normal distributions; range of variability.
Parameters RefB Distribution Range
p1 Orientation (North Axis) 0◦ Uniform – – 0; ±30; ±60; 90

p2 Area of each floor [m2 ] 216 Uniform – – 100–500
p3 Form ratio 1.5 Uniform – – 1–5
p4 Floor height [m] 3.4 Uniform – – 2.7–4.2
Geometry p5 Window to wall ratio: S 29% Uniform – – 10–40
p6 Window to wall ratio: E 33% Uniform – – 10–40
p7 Window to wall ratio: N 17% Uniform – – 10–40
p8 Window to wall ratio: W 33% Uniform – – 10–40
p9 Number of floors 2 Uniform 1; 2; 3; 4; 5
p10 Air gap R [m2 K/W] 0.156 Normal RefB 0.01 0.116 ÷0.196
p11 Roof a 0.5 Normal RefB 0.2 0.1–0.9
p12 External walls a 0.5 Normal RefB 0.2 0.1–0.9
p13 Thickness of concrete [m] 0.15 Normal RefB 0.05 0.05–0.25
p14 Type of glass Single Uniform – – Single/Double
p15 Type of frame Wood Uniform – – Wood/Aluminum
p16 Clay t [m] 0.06 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p17 Clay k [W/m K] 0.12 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p18 Clay d [kg/m3 ] 450 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p19 Clay c [J/kg K] 1200 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p20 Expanded clay t [m] 0.05 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p21 Expanded clay k [W/m K] 0.27 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p22 Expanded clay d [kg/m3 ] 900 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p23 Expanded clay c [J/kg K] 1000 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p24 External brick t [m] 0.12 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
Envelope
p25 External brick k [W/m K] 0.72 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p26 External brick d [kg/m3 ] 1800 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p27 External brick c [J/kg K] 840 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p28 Floor block t [m] 0.18 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p29 Floor block k [W/m K] 0.66 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p30 Floor block d [kg/m3 ] 1800 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p31 Floor block c [J/kg K] 840 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p32 Internal brick t [m] 0.08 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p33 Internal brick k [W/m K] 0.9 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p34 Internal brick d [kg/m3 ] 2000 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p35 Internal brick c [J/kg K] 840 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p36 Roof block t [m] 0.22 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p37 Roof block k [W/m K] 0.66 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p38 Roof block d [kg/m3 ] 1800 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p39 Roof block c [J/kg K] 840 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 3)–( + 3)
p40 People density [people/m2 ] 0.12 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 2)–( + 2)
p41 Light load [W/m2 ] 15 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 2)–( + 2)
p42 Equipment load [W/m2 ] 15 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 2)–( + 2)
Other p43 Infiltration rate [h−1 ] 0.5 Normal RefB 0.2 ( − 2)–( + 2)
p44 Heating set point T [◦ C] 20 Normal RefB 1 19–22
p45 Cooling set point T [◦ C] 26 Normal RefB 1 24–27
p46 Heating terminals Fca /Radb Uniform – – Fc/Rad
a
Fan coils.
b
Hot water radiators.
Fig. 3. An example of the investigated rectangular geometries: (a) axonometric view; (b) plan view with specification of orientation and thermal zones.
the category. This RefB is exploited for defining the sample space Regarding the replacement of the HVAC system, the investigated
to be explored. options are described in Table 5, which also recalls the character-
More in detail, the mean values of characteristic parameters’ istics of the reference systems. The hourly performance curves of
distributions are set equal to the values assumed in the RefB, while these systems – provided by suppliers – have been implemented
the ranges and distribution types (see Table 3) are based on the in MATLAB® .
statistical survey of ENEA and on the authors’ experience. Also Finally as for RESs, photovoltaic (PV) panels are considered, since
previous studies on UA applied to single buildings [56–58] have solar energy is one of the most advantageous RESs in Europe [75],
been taken into account, but ranges and distributions are different and particularly in Italy because of favorable climatic conditions.
for a building stock. The uniform distribution is chosen when the PV panels are preferred to solar thermal because they are more
probability that the parameter assumes a certain value is supposed cost-effective [29], in particular for office buildings. In fact, the
constant for all the values of the range (e.g., geometry parameters). demand of electricity is predominant, so that PV panels ensure
Diversely, when the parameter has a higher probability to take the high energy saving potentials. On the other hand, the demand of
value assumed in the RefB (e.g., most envelope parameters), a nor- DHW is very low; thus, the best application of solar thermal is
mal distribution centered on the value in the RefB is used. As shown limited. In this study, PV panels are characterized by 34◦ tilt angle
in Table 3, the normal distributions present a confidence interval and 0◦ azimuth angle (orientation to south), in order to achieve the
either equal to 95% (e.g., for other parameters) or higher than 99% maximum annual production of electricity, as verified by means of
(e.g., for envelope parameters) depending on the parameters’ vari- PV-GIS Software [76]. They have conversion efficiency equal to 14%
ability within the category. The ranges of variability are such to and investment cost (including inverter and installation) equal to
cover a huge segment of the stock. 5 D /W.
4. Results and discussion

3.3. Proposed energy retrofit actions
The results are organized in sections and subsections – which

The proposed energy retrofit is based on three groups of actions:
follow the steps described in the Methodology (Section 2) – in order
energy efficiency measures for the reduction of energy demand
to provide a clear and systematic study of the building stock.
(EEMsd ), replacement of the HVAC system, RES systems. These
measures are detailed below. Also the relative investment costs,
needed for the evaluation of GC are indicated. They have been 4.1. Stage I. Investigation of energy demand (ED) and discomfort
obtained through quotations from suppliers. hours (DH)
Eight EEMsd , detailed in Table 4, are investigated. They are
denoted with the letters from a to h. These EEMsd introduce 18 Energy demand and thermal comfort (more precisely, the per-
new parameters. In particular, the presence or absence of the eight centage of discomfort hours) are investigated for both heating and
EEMsd is encoded by the first eight Boolean parameters. Other nine cooling seasons, by means of UA and SA, in two steps:
parameters represent the thermo-physical characteristics of the
thermal insulants. The values of k, d and c of the three insulants • step 1 refers to the existing building stock (step 1);
(EEMsd a, b, c) vary according normal distributions and cover a great • step 2 refers to the renovated building stock.
part of most used thermal insulants in building application. The
insulation thicknesses are automatically deduced, in such a way 4.1.1. Step 1. Analysis of the existing building stock
to ensure the U values prescribed by Italian law to obtain state The existing building stock is defined by 46 characteristic
incentives, in case of refurbishment [74]. The last new parameter parameters, whose sampling determines the generation of the set
is related to the solar shading (EEMd g). Shading is active if beam S1 , which corresponds to the category’s RBS. As aforementioned,
plus diffuse solar radiation incident on the window exceeds the the investigated building category is composed of around 8800
solar set point, which varies according to an uniform distribution buildings. Therefore, it is clear that the RBS size should be lower
in the range 300–600 W/m2 , chosen to represent a broad segment than 8800. In this regard, an important factor relevant to the sam-
of occupants’ behavior. ple generation is the ratio r between the number of sampled cases
Therefore, the renovated building stock is defined by 64 param- (N) and the number of characteristic parameters (n). Most stud-
eters. ies on UA and SA applied to buildings [56–58] used r values in the
Table 4
Energy efficiency measures for the reduction of energy demand (EEMsd ) and associated parameters.
(1)
Each Boolean parameter assumes the value of 0 if the relative EEMd is absent, 1 if present.
(2)
The symbol (−) stands for minus.
(3)
All the normal distributions are characterized by = 0.1 and range ( − 2)–( + 2).
range r = 2–5. In this study, a higher r value is used for the following Therefore, 500 (N) cases (building model instances) are gener-
reasons: ated via LHS in order to build the sample S1 (RBS), resulting in a
r value equal to 10.9. For each of these 500 cases, an EnergyPlus
• a building category is considered and thus the parameters’ ranges simulation (automatically launched by MATLAB® ) is performed,
of variability are higher; thereby achieving the four PIs explored in this stage, namely the
• the authors want to investigate which is the minimum RBS size values of energy demand and percentage of discomfort hours in the
(Nmin ) that ensures reliable, representative results for the whole heating (EDh and DHh ) and cooling season (EDc and DHc ), respec-
category; the r value in correspondence of Nmin is denoted as rmin . tively. Such outcomes are investigated in order to verify whether
Table 5
Investigated options for the HVAC system.
Description Investment cost [D ]
Heating system
RB Reference boiler Existing natural gas boiler, nominal LCVa efficiency equal to 0.85 –
EB Efficient boiler New natural gas boiler, nominal LCV efficiency equal to 0.95 45 × kWp + 1500
CB Condensing boiler Condensing natural gas boiler, nominal LCV efficiency (Tw b = 35/55 ◦ C) equal to 1.06 80 × kWp + 1900
HP Heat pump Air–water heat pump, nominal COP (Tw = 40/45 ◦ C; Te c = 7 ◦ C) equal to 3.7 150 × kWp + 5000
Cooling system
RC Reference chiller Existing air-cooled chiller, nominal EER (Tw = 12/7 ◦ C; Te = 35 ◦ C) equal to 2.4 –
ACC Efficient air-cooled chiller New air-cooled chiller, nominal EER (Tw = 12/7 ◦ C; Te = 35 ◦ C) equal to 3.5 150 × kWp + 5000
WCC Water-cooled chiller Water-cooled chiller with cooling tower, nominal EER (Tw = 12/7 ◦ C; Tc d = 28 ◦ C) equal to 5.0 250 × kWp + 8000
a
Lower calorific value.
b
Water inlet/outlet temperatures.
c
External temperature.
d
Water inlet temperature to condenser.
The values assumed by the four PIs in correspondence of the

500 simulations are depicted in the histograms of Fig. 5, where the
dots represent the values obtained for the RefB. In particular, the
distinction between the presence of hot water radiators (rectangu-
lar dot) and fan coils (circular dot) is made as regards the heating
season (Fig. 5a and c). Furthermore, the normal distributions that
approximate the four sets of PI values are reported.
The values of the PIs for the RefB are very close to the mean val-
ues of the distributions, showing that the RefB is able to gather
the average characteristics of the building category. However, a
strong dispersion of results occurs in each case, so that the RefB
can represent only a very limited part of the stock, although the
HVAC system is not even considered yet. In fact, an error higher
than 100% can be committed, by using the RefB to evaluate energy
demand and thermal comfort for other buildings belonging to the
category. Furthermore, Fig. 5c confirms that the type of hydronic
terminals mainly affects DHh , since a discontinuity in the distribu-
tion of such PI occurs, due to the alternation between radiators and
fan coils.
The performed UA is followed by the SA, in order to detect the
most relevant parameters. The values of the SRRC are calculated
Fig. 4. Mean values (a) and standard deviations (b) of the PIs, in function of the for the three groups of parameters in relation to the four PIs. These
number of sampled cases, for the existing building stock (S1 ). sensitivity indices are shown in Figs. 6–8 respectively for geome-
try, envelope and other parameters: figures a refer to the energy
demand, figures b refer to the discomfort hours.
the adopted value of N is sufficient, and eventually which is the First, it should be noted that the SRRCs achieved for all groups are
value of Nmin . More in detail, the trends of mean values and standard consistent with thermo-physical considerations, as argued below
deviations related to the four PIs in function of the number of for some parameters.
sampled cases are analyzed, as depicted in Fig. 4. This shows that Geometry parameters exercise the strongest influence on PIs;
the stabilization of the PIs starts to occur after 100 sampled cases among them, the highest values of the SRRCs (Fig. 6) occur in cor-
demonstrating that a r value just higher than 2 is sufficient for the respondence of number of floors (NF ) and area of each floor (AF ).
representation of the considered building category. Therefore, Nmin This happens because these two parameters greatly affect the ratio
is approximately equal to 100 resulting in a value of rmin around 2.2. S/V between the external surface and the conditioned volume as
However, this step considers all 500 cases, since the simulations well as the entity of solar gain. In particular, S/V decreases when
have been already performed: thus, higher accuracy and reliability NF increases, considering the other parameters constant. This rep-
are ensured. Nevertheless, in future applications of SLABE to other resents a clear benefit during the heating season, confirmed by
building categories (or in similar studies) the detected value of rmin the negative values of the SRRCs related to EDh and DHh . This
can be exploited in order to set the RBS size. phenomenon, on the contrary, is adverse in the cooling season
Fig. 5. Distributions of the values assumed by the PIs in the existing building stock (S1 ): (a) EDh ; (b) EDc ; (c) DHh ; (d) DHc .
Fig. 6. Standard rank regression coefficients (SRRCs) for the geometry parameters
in relation to: (a) energy demand (EDh and EDc ); (b) discomfort hours (DHh and Fig. 8. Standard rank regression coefficients (SRRCs) for the other parameters in
DHc ). relation to: (a) energy demand (EDh and EDc ); (b) discomfort hours (DHh and DHc ).
(SRRCs > 0 for EDc and DHc ), since it reduces the rate at which the to the other two groups of parameters. This outcome is mainly
high internal gain is dissipated. As regards AF , when it increases, two due to the high ventilation rate required in office buildings, which
main effects occur: both the ratio S/V and the incidence of solar gain covers a wide part of energy demand, so that building energy per-
decrease with conflicting consequences on the PIs. The first effect formance is slightly affected by the envelope. The specific heat of
prevails in the heating season, the second one during the cooling materials and the thermal internal inertia provide the lowest SRRCs,
season; this explains the negative values assumed by all the SRRCs because of the characteristics of examined buildings, notably the
in correspondence of this parameter. lightweight structure and the high window to wall ratio.
Envelope parameters have the lowest influence on PIs; in fact At last, most parameters belonging to the third group (Fig. 8)
only the roof solar absorptance, the walls solar absorptance, the thick- present not negligible values of the SRRCs. As expected, among
ness and conductivity of internal brick, external brick, roof block and these, the set point temperatures have the greatest influence on
clay, as well as the type of glass, are significant (Fig. 7), while the energy demand and thermal comfort. The positive value of the SRRC
other parameters can be neglected in further analyses (|SRRC| < 0.05 based on EDh for people density could appear strange: actually, it
for all PIs). However, the mentioned envelope parameters – albeit occurs because the required ventilation rate increases when this
not negligible – provide quite lower values of the SRRCs, compared parameter increases.
Fig. 7. Standard rank regression coefficients (SRRCs) for the envelope parameters in relation to: (a) energy demand (EDh and EDc ); (b) discomfort hours (DHh and DHc ).
a higher size for both S1 and S2 , which must have the same size for
allowing the comparison, would be necessary.
The histograms of Fig. 10 show the comparison between the
values assumed by the four PIs respectively in the existing building
stock (S1 ) and in the renovated stock (S2 ).
As expected, the EEMsd induce a desired reduction of the mean
values of all PIs. However, the improvement related to EDc (see
Fig. 10b) is very slight compared to the other PIs. The reason is
that some EEMsd – mainly those related to thermal insulation (a,
b, c) – have a negative effect on the cooling demand because of the
magnitude of internal gain. Thus, most EEMsd produce insignificant
benefits on the annual values of energy demand, by virtue of the
high relevance assumed by the cooling season for the considered
case study.
These observations are confirmed by the values of the SRRCs
evaluated for the 8 Boolean parameters representing the described
EEMsd , in correspondence of EDh , EDc (Fig. 11a), DHh , DHc (Fig. 11b)
and ED, DH (Fig. 11c). The EEMsd a, b, c induce unfavorable effects
in the cooling season, since they provide positive SRRCs for EDc and
DHc ; the opposite occurs for the EEMsd e, f, g, h, which yield negative
SRRCs in correspondence of these two PIs. These conflicting effects
are balanced as for EDc , while the benefits prevail as for DHc . That’s
why the EEMsd lead to a significant improvement of DHc (Fig. 10d)
and not of EDc (Fig. 10b). On the other hand, the advantages induced
Fig. 9. Mean values (a) and standard deviations (b) of the PIs, in function of the
by thermal insulation of external walls and roof (EEMsd a, b) during
number of sampled cases, for the renovated building stock (S2 ).
the heating season are predominant for both energy demand and
thermal comfort. This is demonstrated by the high absolute val-
4.1.2. Step 2: Analysis of the renovated building stock ues of the SRRCs (which are negative), related to EDh and DHh , in
The following EEMsd are investigated, as described in Section 3: correspondence of these EEMsd . That is why the EEMsd lead to a
significant improvement of both EDh (Fig. 10a) and DHh (Fig. 10c).
(a) insulation of the external vertical walls; Overall, the EEMsd most affecting the four seasonal PIs are the
(b) insulation of the roof; insulation of walls and roof, but they have conflicting effects in
(c) insulation of the floor; the heating and cooling seasons; in fact, only new low-e windows
(d) low-a plastering of the external vertical walls; ensure a positive result in both seasons, since they simultaneously
(e) low-a plastering of the roof; induce an increase of thermal resistance and of reflectance to solar
(f) installation of double-glazed low-e windows with PVC frame; radiation.
(g) implementation of external shading of the windows; Therefore, as predicted, Fig. 11c shows that the proposed EEMsd
(h) achievement of night free cooling, by means of mechanical ven- do not have a strong influence on the annual values of thermal
tilation. comfort and, mainly, energy demand. This occurs for two aforemen-
tioned reasons, here recalled: first, in most cases, there are opposite
The renovated building stock is characterized by 64 parame- seasonal repercussions and, secondly, a significant percentage of
ters. Specifically, in addition to the 46 ones describing the existing energy demand for office buildings is affected by ventilation, inde-
buildings, there are eight Boolean parameters (one for each EEMd ), pendently of the characteristics of the envelope.
nine parameters related to the characteristics of thermal insulants Only the four EEMsd e, f, g, h – namely low-a roof plastering, low-
and one parameter related to the shading set point. The sampling e double glazed windows, solar shading and free cooling – have a
(LHS) of these 64 parameters generates the sample S2 , consisting not negligible advantageous effect on annual energy demand. On
of 500 cases alike S1 . In particular, S2 represents the same building the other hand, among these, only f and g induce an improvement –
instances of S1 , but in presence of one or more of the eight EEMsd . albeit slight – of the annual value of discomfort hours, while e and
Hence, other 500 EnergyPlus simulations are performed in order h are irrelevant. In fact, the annual assessment of thermal comfort
to assess the values of the four PIs investigated in this stage – i.e., is mainly affected by the thermal insulation of the envelope (see
EDh , EDc , DHh and DHc – for the cases collected in S2 . The same Fig. 11c), since this measure has a positive effect on the mean radi-
analysis of step 1 is conducted to verify if the number of 500 cases ant temperature of the walls, not only in the heating season but
is sufficient to achieve good results. The trends of mean values and also during the intermediate seasons.
standard deviations related to the four PIs in function of the number
of sampled cases are investigated, as depicted in Fig. 9. This shows
4.2. Stage II. Investigation of primary energy consumption (PEC)
that also for the renovated building stock, 500 cases are sufficient
and global cost (GC)
to generate a reliable representative sample, since the stabilization
of the PIs occur.
The achievable savings in PEC and GC compared to the current
Definitely, the investigation of sample S2 , composed of 500
configuration of the building stock are investigated. The exploration
cases, allows to quantify the global impact of the EEMsd , thereby
follows three steps:
detecting the most influential ones on building energy perfor-
mance. This worthy outcome derives from a careful selection of
the EEMsd , based on authors’ expertise, best-practice and local • step 3 contemplates the mere replacement of the primary heat-
constructive standards. If too many EEMsd with wide ranges of ing/cooling system;
variability are considered, there is the risk that N cases are not suf- • step 4 introduces the installation of RES systems, in particular
ficient for representing the renovated building stock. In such cases, photovoltaic (PV) panels;
Fig. 10. Distributions of the values assumed by the PIs in the existing building stock (S1 ) and in the renovated stock (S2 ): (a) EDh ; (b) EDc ; (c) DHh ; (d) DHc .
• step 5 introduces the implementation of EEMsd , in order to find gas, considered constant, are set equal to 0.25 D /kWhel and
the cost-optimal package of energy retrofit actions. 0.90 D /Nm3 , respectively [77].
Table 6 reports mean value and standard deviation of PEC and
GC for the buildings belonging to S1 (existing building stock).
For PEC evaluation the primary energy factor is set equal to

4.2.1. Step 3. Replacement of the primary heating/cooling system
1 for natural gas and to 2.18 for electricity, according to Italian
The analysis of savings in PEC and GC is initially carried out
standards. Different metrics can be adopted, such as energy per
considering the mere replacement of the primary heating/cooling
building [MWh/a] and energy per area [kWh/m2 a]. The second one is
(HVAC) system. Therefore, the sample S1 is considered in this step.
more used in building applications and recommended by the EPBD
As aforementioned, the RefB is characterized by a natural gas boiler
Recast, but the first one is more appropriate to this study because it
(reference boiler: RB) and an air-cooled chiller (reference chiller:
allows a rapid estimation of the potential PEC saving in the whole
RC), while the proposed options for the replacement of the system
building stock. Furthermore, as verified by the authors, the trends
(see Table 5) are listed below:
are similar, so that the observations made for energy per building
are generally also valid for energy per area. Thus, the first metric is
used hereinafter. – efficient boiler (EB), condensing boiler (CB), heat pump (HP) for
For GC evaluation, a calculation period of 20 years is used, heating generation;
as prescribed by the Guidelines [59] of the EPBD recast for – efficient air-cooled chiller (ACC), water cooled-chiller (WCC) for
non-residential buildings. The prices of electricity and natural cooling generation.
Fig. 11. Standard rank regression coefficients (SRRCs) for the proposed EEMsd in relation to: (a) energy demand (EDh and EDc ); (b) discomfort hours (DHh and DHc ); (c)
annual values (ED and DH).
Table 6
Mean value and standard deviation of PEC and GC for the sample S1 (existing building stock).
Primary energy consumption [MWh/a per building] Global cost [kD per building]
Mean value Standard deviation Mean value Standard deviation
Set S1 73.5 45.6 157 98.5

Existing stock
(500 cases)
Thus, twelve configurations of the HVAC system are investi- Fig. 12 shows that both PEC and GC are highly influenced by the
gated, including RB and RC. type of cooling system, since the cooling demand is predominant
Fig. 12 depicts the potential savings in PEC and GC in corre- for office buildings in Naples. Thus, the best cooling system from
spondence of these configurations, in absence of state incentives, both perspectives is the most efficient one, which is WCC. On the
respectively in presence of fan coils (Fig. 12a) and hot water radia- contrary, the congruency between the two analyzed perspectives
tors (Fig. 12b). In this step, the results are examined separately for is not always ensured as for the heating system, as argued below
these two subsets – characterized by 250 cases each – since the type for the two subsets.
of terminal highly affects the performance of the heating genera- As expected, the presence of fan coils leads to higher values of
tion system. The observations on the cooling system are obviously PEC savings, mainly in correspondence of CB and HP. This occurs
the same for the two subsets, since only a type of cooling terminal because of the lower temperature of inlet hot water for fan coils
is considered, namely fan coils. compared to radiators. On the contrary, GC savings are maximized
Fig. 12. Savings in PEC (mean values) and GC in case of the mere replacement of the HVAC system with no incentives, respectively in presence of fan coils (a) and hot water
radiators (b).
Fig. 13. Savings in PEC (mean values) and GC in case of the mere replacement of the HVAC system with current incentives, respectively in presence of fan coils (a) and hot
water radiators (b).
by RB and EB. Indeed, cost savings are ensured for about 75% of the values of PEC savings do not change compared to the case of
buildings using one of these two boilers together with the WCC, absence of incentives.
so that the probability that one of these two configurations will be The cost-optimal HVAC system is composed of WCC and CB, both
implemented is very high. In this way, the larger potential energy in presence of fan coils (Fig. 13a) and radiators (Fig. 13b), while
savings guaranteed by CB and HP will be wasted. On the other hand, the highest PEC savings occur in correspondence of WCC–HP for
the radiators induce lower values of energy savings and ergo cost fan coils and WCC–CB for radiators. Thus, current incentives are
savings. The higher temperature of inlet hot water causes a dete- fine in the case of radiators since the two solutions match, but
rioration of system efficiency mainly for CB and HP. This leads to a they are not effective in the case of fan coils, because they do not
greater congruence between the energy and cost perspectives, in support enough the heat pumps, which can induce huge energy
presence of radiators. Indeed, the EB represents an optimal com- savings.
promise, since it is very close to both the best solutions respectively
related to PEC (CB) and GC savings (RB).
At this point, the same analysis is carried out by considering 4.2.2. Step 4. Installation of RES systems (PV panels)
current state incentives. The current incentives provided by Ital- Once the best configurations of the HVAC system are identified,
ian Government modify significantly the values of GC savings in the implementation of PV panels is investigated. At first, the savings
presence of CB and HP (Fig. 13), which benefit from a capital grant, in PEC and GC are assessed in presence of RB and RC, in function
accorded in ten years, covering the 65% of the investment cost [78]. of the percentage of PV power (area of PV panels) compared to
Instead, there are no incentives for cooling systems, so that the the maximum installable power (maximum area) on the buildings’
WCC remains the best solution from both perspectives. Thus, the roofs. The whole sample S1 is considered in this step. The mentioned
attention is hereinafter focused on the heating system. Obviously savings are represented in Fig. 14, in the cases of:
Fig. 14. Savings in PEC (mean values) and GC in function of the percentage of PV power compared to the maximum installable power, in presence of RB and RC, respectively
with no incentives (a) and current incentives (b).
• absence of incentives (Fig. 14a); 4.2.3. Step 5. Implementation of EEMsd

• presence of current state incentives, which cover (in ten years) As shown by SA in Section 4.1.2, only four EEMsd have a posi-
the 50% [78] of the investment cost for PV panels (Fig. 14b). tive impact on annual energy demand (Fig. 11c), so that they can
reduce PEC and GC. Thus, only these EEMsd are here considered. In
particular, they consist of:
The implementation of PV maximum power induces huge
energy savings but it is very likely that, in absence of incentives,
most buildings will install only a limited part (20–30%) of the avail- (e) low-a plastering of the roof;
able power, in order to achieve higher cost savings. Instead, current (f) installation of double-glazed low-e windows with PVC frame;
incentives support the installation of the maximum PV power, by (g) implementation of external shading of the windows;
ensuring GC savings for the whole building stock. Indeed the max- (h) achievement of night free cooling, by means of mechanical ven-
imum power (100%) represents the cost-optimal configuration of tilation.
PV panels. Therefore, current incentives are effective.
As regards the explored building category, the greatest part of At this point, a new sample set S3 is needed to consider the
electricity produced by PV panels is absorbed by lights and elec- implementation of the 15 packages deriving from the combination
trical equipment, since these provide a significant energy demand of the EEMsd e, f, g and h. Involved parameters are here 51, including
in office buildings. Thus, the replacement of the HVAC system and 46 for buildings’ description, 4 (Boolean parameters) for EEMsd and
the implementation of PV panels can be considered as indepen- 1 for shading set point. The exhaustive sampling of these 51 param-
dent from an energy point of view. In other words, the installation eters generates the sample S3 of 1500 cases, which are composed
of PV panels induces comparable PEC and GC savings for all the of 15 groups of 100 cases. Each group corresponds to a package of
twelve HVAC configurations. Therefore, the cost-optimal combina- EEMsd and collects a number of cases equal to Nmin that is equal to
tion of PV and HVAC system is provided by the installation of the 100 (see Section 4.1.1).
maximum PV power and of the cost-optimal HVAC option, identi- Hence, the potential savings in PEC and GC refer to S3 . At first,
fied in the case of mere replacement of the HVAC system, namely these savings are assessed for all the considered packages of EEMsd
WCC and CB in both cases of fan coils and radiators. These obser- in presence of RB and RC, respectively:
vations are confirmed by Fig. 15, which depicts the savings in PEC
and GC provided by the adoption of WCC and CB, in function of • in absence of incentives (Fig. 16a);
the percentage of installed PV power, in presence of current incen- • in presence of current incentives (Fig. 16b); among the consid-
tives. ered EEMsd , only the installation of low-e windows (EEMd f) is
Fig. 15. Savings in PEC (mean values) and GC, in function of the percentage of PV power compared to the maximum installable power, provided by the cost-optimal HVAC
system (CB + WCC) with current incentives.
supported by a capital grant that covers the 65% (in ten years) solar shading, the roof low-a plastering and the implementation of
[78] of the investment cost. free cooling. This confirms the results of the sensitivity analysis: the
EEMsd with higher absolute values of the SRRC related to annual
The mere implementation of EEMsd packages induce lower PEC energy demand (see Fig. 11c) have a higher influence on PEC. This
savings compared to the other retrofit actions, because of the dis- outcome is not obvious, since thermal energy demand causes only
cussed characteristics of the building category. The EEMd most a part of PEC. In fact, the replacement of the windows and the solar
affecting PEC is the installation of low-e windows, followed by the shading have very close values of the considered SRRC but the first
Fig. 16. Savings in PEC (mean values) and GC provided by the packages of EEMsd in presence of RB and RC, respectively with no incentives (a) and current incentives (b).
Fig. 17. Savings in PEC (mean values) and GC for the cost-optimal combination of HVAC system (CB + WCC) and PV panels (100%), with current incentives, for the investigated
packages of EEMsd .
EEM is much more influential on PEC; this occurs because solar In conclusion, once improved the heating/cooling/electricity
shading induces an increase of energy consumption for lighting, generation system, the implementation of EEMsd is not convenient
which represents another part of PEC. from both energy and cost perspectives. These considerations are
Although the installation of low-e windows is the EEMd that valid for office buildings in Naples and in other localities of South
induces the highest energy savings, it is not cost-effective in Italy with similar climatic conditions, where the energy demand
absence of incentives. Instead, current incentives ensure GC savings for cooling is predominant.
for about the 50% of buildings that implement only this energy mea-
sure. However, the resulting PEC saving in the stock is much slighter
5. Conclusions
than that produced by new efficient HVAC systems and RESs. Thus,
it does not justify the huge state disbursement required by such
A multi-stage methodology has been developed in order
financial grants. For this reason, current incentives addressed to
to investigate the implementation of energy actions for the
new insulating windows are considered not effective, in relation to
retrofitting of buildings belonging to the same category. The effects
the investigated building category.
of these actions on primary energy consumption (PEC) and global
The GC savings provided by the packages of EEMsd decrease with
cost (GC) are explored in order to achieve two main objectives:
increasing the number of measures. Most packages are not cost-
effective for the majority of explored sampled cases. In particular,
• to detect the package of actions that produces the cost-optimality
in presence of incentives, only low-e windows, low-a roof and their
for most buildings of the category;
combination ensure cost savings for more than half of the cases. The
• to evaluate the effectiveness of current policy of state incentives
cost-optimal package includes only the low-a plastering of the roof
directed to such actions.
that induces GC savings for the 75% of the stock.
Since the EEMsd have a slight influence on PEC compared to the
previous retrofit actions, their implementation does not alter the The methodology is based on uncertainty (UA) and sensitiv-
cost-optimal combination of HVAC system and PV panels, which ity (SA) analyses, carried out via the coupling between EnergyPlus
includes CB, WCC and maximum PV power. Thus, the potential sav- and MATLAB® . Thus, it is denoted as “Simulation-based Large-scale
ings in PEC and GC provided by the packages of EEMsd are calculated uncertainty/sensitivity Analysis of Building Energy performance”
in correspondence of such combination, applied to the building (SLABE). The main originality of this novel methodology is perform-
instances gathered in S3 . The outcomes, related to the existence ing cost-optimal analysis by representing a building category by
of current incentives, are depicted in Fig. 17. a Representative Building Sample (RBS), instead of only one Ref-
As anticipated, the mean increase of PEC saving per building erence Building as stipulated by the EPBD Recast. Therefore, an
(maximum value of 8.9 MWh/a) is slight compared to the mean original bottom-up approach, based on detailed energy simula-
saving induced by the replacement of the HVAC system and the tions, is adopted in stock modeling. SLABE consists of two main
implementation of PV panels (63.3 MWh/a). This shows that the stages, which are subdivided in two and three steps, respectively.
EEMsd do not lead to substantial energy benefits, once improved
the heating/cooling/electricity generation system. • Step 1 (stage 1) the existing building stock is investigated in order
Furthermore, none of the EEMsd introduces evident GC savings, to identify the optimal size of RBS (by UA) and the parameters
so that the best choice for the buildings’ owners is to not implement (related to geometry, envelope and other) most affecting thermal
them. Thus, the cost-optimal package of energy retrofit actions for energy demand for micro-climatic control and thermal comfort
most category’s members is represented by the mere installation (by SA).
of the cost-optimal combination of HVAC system and PV panels, • Step 2 (stage I): some energy efficiency measures for the reduc-
namely CB, WCC and maximum PV power. This retrofit package tion of thermal energy demand (EEMsd ) are proposed based on
implies a PEC saving equal to 63.3 MWh/a per building, resulting outcomes of step 1, category’s peculiarities and best-practice;
in a global potential saving across the category (if the package is their impact on energy demand and thermal comfort is explored
implemented to all category’s members) around 550 GWh/a. (by UA) and the most influential measures are detected (by SA).
• Step 3 (stage II): the implementation of new efficient HVAC sys- the cost-optimal package of retrofit actions. Furthermore, the
tems is investigated by assessing the impact on PEC and GC; this investigation of the best strategy of incentives to address to such
step allows to estimate the effectiveness of state incentives for actions will be deepened in order to identify the optimal state
HVAC systems and to identify the cost-optimal HVAC configura- policies that produce the maximum ratio between potential energy
tion. saving and state disbursement.
• Step 4 (stage II): the implementation of RESs is investigated by A worthy development of this study could consist in the com-
assessing the impact on PEC and GC; this step allows to estimate parison between SLABE versus a simulation-based multi-objective
the effectiveness of state incentives for RESs and to identify the (Pareto) optimization approach, as the one adopted by some of
cost-optimal combination of HVAC system and RESs. these authors in [25,27–29,32,34,35]. However, such optimization
• Step 5 (stage II): the implementation of the most influential methodology is quite time-consuming and thus it cannot be applied
EEMsd , identified in step 2, is investigated, by assessing the to all category’s members. Thus, it could be implemented only to
impact on PEC and GC; this step allows to estimate the effective- the RefB by finding out the retrofit packages that minimize energy
ness of state incentives for EEMsd and to identify the cost-optimal consumption and global cost (points on the Pareto front), thereby
package of energy retrofit actions, including HVAC system, RESs comparing this packages versus those provided by SLABE.
and EEMsd . Finally, a possible interesting enhancement of the methodology
concerns the development of surrogate models [51,57,59,79–81]
As a case study, SLABE is applied to a specific category: office (e.g., artificial neural networks) valid for a whole building cate-
buildings built in South Italy in the period 1920–1970. The results gory. These would enable a fast (computationally cheap) prevision
imply the following conclusions for the examined stock. of the energy behavior of each category’s member, in function of the
most significant parameters and energy actions detected by means
of SLABE. Then, the surrogate models could be integrated in multi-
• The minimum RBS size that ensures a reliable sample is approx-
objective optimization algorithms, as done in [79–81], in order to
imately equal to 100 cases, resulting in a ratio between the
provide the actual cost-optimal retrofit package for each single
number of sampled cases and the number of characteristic
building of the category. This combination between SLABE, surro-
parameters around 2.2.
gate models and optimization algorithms would allow to overcome
• A strong dispersion of the values assumed by energy demand
the main limit of SLABE, which consists in the impossibility of
and thermal comfort occurs; thus, the reference building cannot
obtaining detailed indications on the cost-optimal energy retrofit
provide reliable results for all the buildings of the category (an
strategy for each single building, since global recommendations
error higher than 100% can be committed), although the investi-
about the investigated category are provided.
gated category is quite restricted.
• The energy performance is mainly affected by geometry parame-
ters (in particular number of floors and area of each floor) and other References
parameters (in particular set point temperatures), while most of
[1] H. Khatib, IEA world energy outlook 2011: a comment, Energy Policy 48
the envelope parameters are negligible. This occurs because of (2012) 737–743.
the magnitude of the ventilation load. [2] F. Nemry, A. Uihlein, C.M. Colodel, C. Wetzel, A. Braune, B. Wittstock, I. Hasan,
• The most influential EEMsd on annual energy demand are: the J. Kreißig, N. Gallon, S. Niemeier, Y. Frech, Options to reduce the
environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union –
low-a plastering of the roof, the installation of double-glazed potential and costs, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 976–984.
low-e windows, the implementation of external shading of [3] E. Rey, Office building retrofitting strategies: multicriteria approach of an
the windows, the achievement of night free cooling by means architectural and technical issue, Energy Build. 36 (4) (2004) 367–372.
[4] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, R.F. De Masi, F. de’ Rossi, G.P. Vanoli, Energy
of mechanical ventilation. On the contrary, they are almost
refurbishment of existing buildings through the use of phase change
irrelevant to the annual value of discomfort hours, which is materials: energy savings and indoor comfort in the cooling season, Appl.
mainly reduced by the thermal insulation of the envelope. How- Energy 113 (2014) 990–1007.
ever, this latter EEMd even produces a slight increase of energy [5] Z. Ma, P. Cooper, D. Daly, L. Ledo, Existing building retrofits: methodology and
state-of-the-art, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 889–902.
demand, by virtue of the high relevance assumed by the cooling [6] S. Cohen, C. Goldman, J. Harris, Energy savings and economics of retrofitting
season. single-family buildings, Energy Build. 17 (1991) 297–311.
• The incentives provided by current state policy are effective for [7] T. Stovall, T. Petrie, J. Kosny, P. Childs, J. Atchley, K. Sissom, An exploration of
wall retrofit best practices, in: Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes
condensing gas boilers and photovoltaic (PV) panels. Instead, they of Buildings X, Proceedings of ASHRAE THERM X, Clearwater, FL, December,
are inefficient for heat pumps and thermal insulated windows: 2007.
in the first case, they do not support enough the implementation [8] H. Hens, Energy efficient retrofit of an end of the row house: confronting
predictions with long-term measurements, Energy Build. 42 (2010)
of heat pumps, while, in the second case, the restricted induced 1939–1947.
energy saving does not justify the huge state disbursment. [9] A. Mohamed, M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Sirén, The performance of small scale
• The cost-optimal package of energy retrofit actions for most multi-generation technologies in achieving cost-optimal and zero-energy
office building solutions, Appl. Energy 152 (2015) 94–108.
buildings of the stock does not include EEMsd , but it is repre- [10] L. Bellia, F. De Falco, F. Minichiello, Effects of solar shading devices on energy
sented by the mere installation of the cost-optimal combination requirements of standalone office buildings for Italian climates, Appl. Thermal
of HVAC system and PV panels, namely condensing boiler, water- Eng. 54 (1) (2013) 190–201.
[11] D. Katunský, M. Lopušniak, Impact of shading structure on energy demand
cooled chiller and maximum installable PV power.
and on risk of summer overheating in a low energy building, Energy Procedia
• The cost-optimal retrofit package implies a PEC saving equal to 14 (2012) 1311–1316.
63.3 MWh/a per building, resulting in a global potential saving [12] F. Ascione, L. Bellia, P. Mazzei, F. Minichiello, Solar gain and building
across the category (if the package is implemented to all cate- envelope: the surface factor, Build. Res. Inf. 38 (2010) 187–205.
[13] E. Shaviv, A. Yezioro, I.G. Capeluto, Thermal mass and night ventilation as
gory’s members) around 550 GWh/a. passive cooling design strategy, Renew. Energy 24 (3–4) (2001) 445–452.
[14] S. Kamali, Review of free cooling system using phase change material for
building, Energy Build. 80 (2014) 131–136.
6. Future developments [15] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, C. De Stasio, G.M. Mauro, G.P. Vanoli, Dynamic insulation
of the building envelope: numerical modeling under transient conditions and
coupling with nocturnal free cooling, Appl. Thermal Eng. 84 (2015) 1–14.
Future studies will concern the application of SLABE to other [16] M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Sirén, Impact of adaptive thermal comfort criteria on
building categories in order to detect the influence of climatic building energy use and cooling equipment size using a multi-objective
conditions (location), functionality and construction type on optimization scheme, Energy Build. 43 (9) (2011) 2055–2067.
[17] A.G. Hestnes, N.U. Kofoed, Effective retrofitting scenarios for energy efficiency [45] I. Theodoridou, A.M. Papadopoulos, M. Hegger, Statistical analysis of the
and comfort: results of the design and evaluation activities within the OFFICE Greek residential building stock, Energy Build. 43 (9) (2011)
project, Build. Environ. 37 (2002) 569–574. 2422–2428.
[18] E. Dascalaki, M. Santamouris, On the potential of retrofitting scenarios for [46] C.A. Balaras, A.G. Gaglia, E. Georgopoulou, S. Mirasgedis, Y. Sarafidis, D.P. Lalas,
offices, Build. Environ. 37 (2002) 557–567. European residential buildings and empirical assessment of the Hellenic
[19] S.E. Chidiac, E.J.C. Catania, E. Morofsky, S. Foo, Effectiveness of single and building stock, energy consumption, emissions and potential energy savings,
multiple energy retrofit measures on the energy consumption of office Build. Environ. 42 (3) (2007) 1298–1314.
buildings, Energy 36 (2011) 5037–5052. [47] G.V. Fracastoro, M. Serraino, A methodology for assessing the energy
[20] F. Flourentzou, J.L. Genre, C.A. Roulet, TOBUS software – an interactive performance of large scale building stocks and possible applications, Energy
decision aid tool for building retrofit studies, Energy Build. 34 (2002) Build. 43 (4) (2011) 844–852.
193–202. [48] M. Caldera, S.P. Corgnati, M. Filippi, Energy demand for space heating through
[21] Y.K. Juan, P. Gao, J. Wang, A hybrid decision support system for sustainable a statistical approach: application to residential buildings, Energy Build. 40
office building renovation and energy performance improvement, Energy (10) (2008) 1972–1983.
Build. 42 (2010) 290–297. [49] A. Al-Ghandoor, J.O. Jaber, I. Al-Hinti, I.M. Mansour, Residential past and
[22] C.J. Hopfe, G.L. Augenbroe, J.L. Hensen, Multi-criteria decision making under future energy consumption: potential savings and environmental impact,
uncertainty in building performance assessment, Build. Environ. 69 (2013) Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (6–7) (2009) 1262–1274.
81–90. [50] É. Mata, A.S. Kalagasidis, F. Johnsson, A modelling strategy for energy, carbon,
[23] A.T. Nguyen, S. Reiter, P. Rigo, A review on simulation-based optimization and cost assessments of building stocks, Energy Build. 56 (2013)
methods applied to building performance analysis, Appl. Energy 113 (2014) 100–108.
1043–1058. [51] V.M. Nik, A.S. Kalagasidis, Impact study of the climate change on the energy
[24] C. Diakaki, E. Grigoroudis, D. Kolokotsa, Towards a multi-objective performance of the building stock in Stockholm considering four climate
optimization approach for improving energy efficiency in buildings, Energy uncertainties, Build. Environ. 60 (2013) 291–304.
Build. 4 (9) (2008) 1747–1754. [52] A.P. Melo, D. Cóstola, R. Lamberts, J.L. Hensen, Development of surrogate
[25] M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Siren, Optimum design of a house and its HVAC models using artificial neural network for building shell energy labeling,
systems using simulation-based optimisation, Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 5 Energy Policy 69 (2014) 457–466.
(3) (2010) 120–124. [53] Z. Liang, H.G. Shen, Determining sample size for building energy
[26] F.P. Chantrelle, H. Lahmidi, W. Keilholz, M.E. Mankibi, P. Michel, Development consumption surveys using statistical theory, Energy Build. 47 (2012)
of a multicriteria tool for optimizing the renovation of buildings, Appl. Energy 533–539.
88 (4) (2011) 1386–1394. [54] MATLAB® – MATrixLABoratory, 7.10.0. User’s Guide, MathWorks, 2010.
[27] M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Siren, Applying a multi-objective optimization [55] US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office,
approach for design of low-emission cost-effective dwellings, Build. Environ. Building Technology Program, EnergyPlus 8.0.0, 2013 http://apps1.eere.
46 (1) (2011) 109–123. energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/
[28] M. Hamdy, M. Palonen, A. Hasan, Implementation of pareto-archive NSGA-II [56] S. de Wit, G. Augenbroe, Analysis of uncertainty in building design
algorithms to a nearly-zero-energy building optimization problem, in: The evaluations and its implications, Energy Build. 34 (2002)
First Simulation and Optimization Conference (BSO12), IBPSA-England, 951–958.
Loughborogh University, UK, 2012 http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/ [57] C.J. Hopfe, J.L. Hensen, Uncertainty analysis in building performance
BSO2012/3A3.pdf simulation for design support, Energy Build. 43 (10) (2011) 2798–2805.
[29] M. Hamdy, A. Hasan, K. Siren, A multi-stage optimization method for [58] B. Eisenhower, Z. O’Neill, S. Narayanan, V.A. Fonoberov, I. Mezić, A
cost-optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in line with the methodology for meta-model based optimization in building energy models,
EPBD-Recast 2010, Energy Build. 56 (2013) 189–203. Energy Build. 47 (2012) 292–301.
[30] S. Attia, M. Hamdy, W. O’Brien, S. Carlucci, Assessing gaps and needs for [59] European Commission, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No. 244/2012,
integrating building performance optimization tools in net zero energy 2012.
buildings design, Energy Build. 60 (5) (2013) 110–124. [60] J.S. Hygh, J.F. De Carolis, D.B. Hill, S. Ranji Ranjithan, Multivariate regression as
[31] B. Wang, X. Xia, J. Zhang, A multi-objective optimization model for the an energy assessment tool in early building design, Build. Environ. 57 (2012)
life-cycle cost analysis and retrofitting planning of buildings, Energy Build. 77 165–175.
(2014) 227–235. [61] W. Tian, A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis,
[32] F. Ascione, N. Bianco, C. De Stasio, G.M. Mauro, G.P. Vanoli, A new Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20 (2013) 411–419.
methodology for cost-optimal analysis by means of the multi-objective [62] M. Wetter, J.A. Wright, A comparison of deterministic and probabilistic
optimization of building energy performance, Energy Build. 88 (2015) 78–90. optimization algorithms for non smooth simulation-based optimization,
[33] P. Penna, A. Prada, F. Cappelletti, A. Gasparella, Multi-objectives optimization Build. Environ. 39 (2004) 989–999.
of energy efficiency measures in existing buildings, Energy Build. 95 (2015) [63] M. Wetter, E. Polak, A convergent optimization method using pattern search
57–69. algorithms with adaptive precision simulation, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol.
[34] S. Attia, M. Hamdy, S. Carlucci, L. Pagliano, S. Bucking, A. Hasan, Building 25 (4) (2004) 327–338.
performance optimization of net zero-energy buildings, in: A. Athienitis, W. [64] M. Hamdy, M. Palonen, A. Hasan, Implementation of pareto-archive NSGA-II
O’Brien (Eds.), Modeling, Design, and Optimization of Net-Zero Energy algorithms to a nearly-zero-energy building optimisation problem, in: BSO12
Buildings, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 2015, pp. 175–206. IBPSA-England, 10–11 September, Loughborogh University, UK, 2012, pp.
[35] M. Hamdy, K. Sirén, A multi-aid optimization scheme for large-scale 181–187.
investigation of cost-optimality and energy performance of buildings, J. Build. [65] P. de Wilde, W. Tian, Identification of key factors for uncertainty in the
Perform. Simul. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2015.1069398. prediction of the thermal performance of an office building under climate
[36] EPBD recast, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the change, Build. Simul. 2 (2009) 157–174.
Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (recast), Off. J. [66] Y. Yildiz, K. Korkmaz, T. Göksal Özbalta, Z. Durmus Arsan, An approach for
Eur. Union (2010). developing sensitive design parameter guidelines to reduce the energy
[37] S.P. Corgnati, E. Fabrizio, M. Filippi, V. Monetti, Reference buildings for requirements of low-rise apartment buildings, Appl. Energy 93 (2012)
cost-optimal analysis: method of definition and application, Appl. Energy 102 337–347.
(2013) 983–993. [67] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort. Analysis and Applications in Environmental
[38] K. Kuusk, T. Kalamees, M. Maivel, Cost effectiveness of energy performance Engineering, 1970.
improvements in Estonian brick apartment buildings, Energy Build. 77 (2014) [68] ASHRAE A.S., 55, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy,
313–322. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers,
[39] I. Ballarini, S.P. Corgnati, V. Corrado, Use of reference buildings to assess the Atlanta, GA, 1992.
energy saving potentials of the residential building stock: the experience of [69] J.C. Helton, J.D. Johnson, C. Sallaberry, C.B. Storlie, Survey of sampling-based
TABULA project, Energy Policy 68 (2014) 273–284. methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 91
[40] L.G. Swan, V.I. Ugursal, Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the (2006) 1175–1209.
residential sector: a review of modeling techniques, Renew. Sustain. Energy [70] R. Jin, W. Chen, T.W. Simpson, Comparative studies of metamodelling
Rev. 13 (8) (2009) 1819–1835. techniques under multiple modelling criteria, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 23
[41] M. Kavgic, A. Mavrogianni, D. Mumovic, A. Summerfield, Z. Stevanovic, M. (1) (2001) 1–13.
Djurovic-Petrovic, A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy [71] P. de Wilde, W. Tian, Predicting the performance of an office under climate
consumption in the residential sector, Build. Environ. 45 (7) (2010) change: a study of metrics, sensitivity and zonal resolution, Energy Build. 42
1683–1697. (2010) 1674–1684.
[42] C.A. Balaras, K. Droutsa, E. Dascalaki, S. Kontoyiannidis, Heating energy [72] W. Tian, R. Choudhary, A probabilistic energy model for non-domestic
consumption and resulting environmental impact of European apartment building sectors applied to analysis of school buildings in greater London,
buildings, Energy Build. 37 (5) (2005) 429–442. Energy Build. 54 (2012) 1–11.
[43] E.G. Dascalaki, K. Droutsa, A.G. Gaglia, S. Kontoyiannidis, C.A. Balaras, Data [73] M. Citterio, Analisi statistica sul parco edilizio non residenziale e sviluppo di
collection and analysis of the building stock and its energy performance—an modelli di calcolo semplificati (Statistical analysis on the non-residential
example for Hellenic buildings, Energy Build. 42 (8) (2010) 1231–1237. building stock and development of simplified calculation tools), Report
[44] E. Sardianou, Estimating space heating determinants: an analysis of Greek RSE/2009/161, ENEA, Cresme Ricerche Spa e Ministero dello Sviluppo
households, Energy Build. 40 (6) (2008) 1084–1093. Economico, 2009 (in Italian).
[74] Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, D.M., Aggiornamento del decreto 11 [79] C.J. Hopfe, M.T. Emmerich, R. Marijt, J.L. Hensen, Robust multi-criteria design
marzo 2008 in materia di riqualificazione energetica degli edifici, 2010, optimisation in building design, in: Proceedings of the Building Simulation
January (in Italian). and Optimization Conference, Loughborough, UK, 2012.
[75] European Commission (EC), Energy Technologies, Knowledge, Perception, [80] L. Magnier, F. Haghighat, Multiobjective optimization of building design using
Measures (Eurobarometer), 2006. TRNSYS simulations, genetic algorithm, and artificial neural network, Build.
[76] PV-GIS Software, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environ. 45 (3) (2010) 739–746.
Environment and Sustainability, Renewable Energies Unit, http://re.jrc.cec.eu. [81] E. Asadi, M.G. da Silva, C.H. Antunes, L. Dias, L. Glicksman, Multi-objective
int/pvgis/pv/ optimization for building retrofit: a model using genetic algorithm and
[77] http://www.energy.eu/ artificial neural network and an application, Energy Build. 81 (2014)
[78] Decreto Legge, 4 Giugno 2013, n◦ 63 (in Italian). 444–456.

J.enbuild.2015.08.044 Material Values

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J.enbuild.2015.08.044 Material Values

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J.enbuild.2015.08.044 Material Values

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy and Buildings 107 (2015) 456–478

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

A new methodology for investigating the cost-optimality of energy

1. Introduction Therefore, building energy retroﬁtting is a key-strategy to achieve

Concerning residential buildings, their energy performance is

The described analysis is carried out in absence and in presence

• evaluate the effectiveness of current incentives directed to HVAC

2.6.2. Step 4. Installation of RES systems

• evaluate the effectiveness of incentives directed to the considered

If more RESs are examined, the same procedure is repeated for

• detect the cost-optimal combination between the replacement

3.1. Reference building

t [m] k [W/m K] d [kg/m3 ] c [J/kg K] R [m2 K/W] a

Parameters RefB Distribution Range

p1 Orientation (North Axis) 0◦ Uniform – – 0; ±30; ±60; 90

4. Results and discussion

The results are organized in sections and subsections – which

Description Investment cost [D ]

The values assumed by the four PIs in correspondence of the

For PEC evaluation the primary energy factor is set equal to

Mean value Standard deviation Mean value Standard deviation

Set S1 73.5 45.6 157 98.5

• absence of incentives (Fig. 14a); 4.2.3. Step 5. Implementation of EEMsd

You might also like