Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Effects of solar shading devices on energy requirements of standalone

office buildings for Italian climates
Laura Bellia, Francesco De Falco, Francesco Minichiello*
DII, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

< Solar shading devices on a building reduce annual energy requests of the systems.
< The energy saving has been evaluated for an office building in Italian climates.
< These savings have been evaluated considering heating, cooling and lighting systems.
< In warm summer climates (Palermo), the highest saving has been obtained (about 20%).
< Building and shading device characteristics influence the energy savings.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Europe, the building energy demand is about 40% of the total energy requirement. In order to obtain
Received 22 October 2012 significant energy saving in this sector, the European Energy Performance Building Directive (EPBD)
Accepted 19 January 2013 2002/91/CE and the EPBD Recast (Directive 2010/31/UE) promote the use of passive strategies for
Available online 9 February 2013
buildings, which improve indoor thermal conditions above all in summer and so allow the reduction of
size and energy requirements of air conditioning systems.
Keywords:
This paper analyzes the influence of external solar shading devices on the energy requirements of
Building
a typical air-conditioned office building for Italian climates. A type of office building widespread in
Office
Solar shading
Europe has been considered. The energy saving related to the solar shading refers only to summer air
Louver conditioning, but the evaluation has been carried out for the entire year, by using a building energy
Overhang simulation code. The energy demand of the main technical systems (heating, cooling and lighting) and
Energy saving the energy saving related to the use of solar shading devices have been evaluated, as a function of the
Dynamic simulation most significant parameters, such as the climate, the geometrical characteristics of the shadings and the
Italian climates building, the thermal transmittance of the building envelope and the building orientation. The solar
shading devices have shown the highest energy efficiency for warm summer climates: for example, the
global annual energy saving related to the use of suitable shading devices has been evaluated between 8%
for Milan (the coldest climate) and 20% (for Palermo, the warmest one).
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Performance Building Directive (EPBD) 2002/91/CE [5] and the

With reference to the total final energy requirement, 29% de-
pends on the household sector [1,2]. In particular, as regards
Europe, the building energy demand is about 40% of the global
energy requirement. In order to obtain significant energy saving in
this sector, several strategies have been proposed related to air
conditioning systems [3,4]. On the other hand, the European Energy
* Corresponding author. DII, University of Naples Federico II, Napoli, P. le Tecchio
80, 80125 Italy. Tel.: þ39 081 2538665; fax: þ39 081 2390364.
E-mail addresses: minichie@unina.it, francesco.minichiello@unina.it (F. Minichiello).
EPBD Recast (Directive 2010/31/UE) [6] promote the use of passive
strategies for buildings, which improve indoor thermal conditions
above all in summer and so allow the reduction of size and energy
requirements of air conditioning systems [7,8]. This allows also
a useful reduction of peaks for summer electric energy demand [9].
Among the various passive strategies proposed for opaque [9,10]
and transparent [11,12] building envelope, the use of suitable
shading devices for building transparent components is note-
worthy. Nowadays, this solution is still more useful, as the “shift
toward better insulated building envelopes, reduced air-infiltration
rates . is leading to indoor spaces that are more sensitive to solar
gain” [13].

1359-4311/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.01.039
 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201 191

The main function of a shading system is the protection of the climates: Palermo is the hottest among them, Milan the coldest,
building transparent envelope from solar radiation in summer while Rome is characterized by an intermediate climate. The energy
conditions, so preventing overheating by blocking the access of requirements of the main technical systems (heating, cooling and
unwanted energy flow into the building. In fact, although several lighting) have been evaluated. The influence of various parameters
factors contribute to summer heat gain (e.g., electrical equipment, on the energy saving related to the use of suitable solar shadings
occupants, lights, etc.), in hot climates a significant fraction derives (overhangs on the south facade and louvers on the eastewest fa-
from solar heat gain entering through the fenestration areas. cades) has been analyzed. The most important examined parame-
Among the several shading solutions for limiting this thermal load, ters are: geometrical characteristics of shadings and building,
intercepting the solar radiation before it reaches the glazed area, thermal transmittance of the building envelope, type of lighting
through the use of external shading devices, is the most effective control system and building orientation.
one [14,15]. It is noteworthy that “fenestration products fully The aim of this paper is to provide simplified criteria for engi-
shaded from the outside reduce solar heat gain by as much as neers and architects in order to: a) establish if the use of external
80%” [16]. solar shading devices for standalone office buildings is suitable or
Palmero-Marrero and Oliveira [17] investigated the effects of not, in terms of energy requirements, for various Italian climates
louver shading devices applied to a building for different climates (but this evaluation is applicable also to other similar climates); b)
(Mexico, Cairo, Lisbon, Madrid, London), assessing their impact on in the case of energetic suitability, quantify obtainable energy
indoor thermal conditions and energy demand compared to saving and optimize the geometry and positioning of the shading
a building without shading devices. devices, as a function of various parameters. The analysis has been
Tzempelikos and Athienitis [18] evaluated the effects of shading carried out considering above all the end user electric energy
device characteristics, shading control and glazing area on cooling (neither the primary energy, nor the CO2 equivalent emissions);
and lighting energy needs for a building located in Montreal; an only a simplified evaluation of the full life cycle energy consump-
exterior roller blade has been considered as shading device. tion related to the production of shading devices has been also
Datta [19] analyzed the influence of fixed horizontal louver reported.
shading devices on thermal performance of a building for Italian
climates, considering a simple 2-zone building with high external 2. Case study
wall U-value (1.691 W m2 K1); the study was focused on a louver
shading device applied to the south-facing window. In Fig. 1, the modeled office building is shown, while the main
Overhang application on electrochromic windows and the characteristics of the complex building-systems and boundary
related energy saving for commercial buildings in USA are analyzed design conditions are reported in Table 1. The air conditioning
by Lee and Tavil [20], while in Ref. [21] thermotropic glass with
active dimming control for solar shading is investigated.
Florides et al. [22] show that the cooling load reduction related
to the use of window shading is about 8e9% for modern houses in
Cipro.
David et al. [23] analyze the thermal effects and the visual ef-
ficiency of solar shades, proposing simple indices to consider both
these aspects.
In Ref. [15], an experimental configuration of external shading
devices applied to apartment houses in South Korea is presented;
daylight aspects and energy savings for heating and cooling are
evaluated, by using also an energy simulation program.
Abu-Zour et al. [24] propose a new design of solar collector in-
tegrated into solar louvers.
Anyway, few research investigations have been carried out to
evaluate the energy performances of solar shading devices applied
to buildings for Italian climates [19]; moreover, in the energy
analysis on building shading devices, the energy request of the
lighting system has been rarely considered [18], as well as a com-
plete building instead of a single-zone building.
Hence, in this paper, an extended analysis on energy saving
related to external solar shading devices for Italian climates is
presented. The investigation has been carried out by using Ener-
gyPlus, an accurate building energy simulation program [25];
EnergyPlus is an energy and thermal load simulation program
which can help the user to size appropriate HVAC equipment,
improve energy performance of buildings and related systems,
develop life cycling cost analyses, etc. It is noteworthy that shading
models used by EnergyPlus have been validated by means of
experimental investigation [13,26]. The approach based on building
performance simulation has been conveniently used in several
research works related to the building energy efficiency [27,28].
Three different Italian climates (cities of Palermo, Rome and
Milan) and a typical air-conditioned office building have been
analyzed for both winter and summer. The above mentioned lo-
calities have been chosen as representative of typical Italian Fig. 1. The simulated office building: volumetric scheme and plan of the typical floor.
192 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201

system of the building is characterized by fan-coils connected to an

electric water chiller/heat pump; the values of global heating COP
and cooling EER are reported in Table 1.
The choice of the optimal shading device for a given window
depends above all on the orientation of the facade and on the
apparent path of the sun. Therefore, in Fig. 2 the modeled solar
shadings applied to the examined building are shown, i.e. over-
hangs on the south facade and louvers on the eastewest facades,
coherently with the practice and the indications from scientific
literature [16,30]. The main characteristics of the selected shading
devices are reported in Table 2. As regards the louver configuration
and, in particular, the slat angle of 25 (Fig. 2 and Table 2), they have
been chosen on the basis of a carried-out energy optimization, as
reported in Section 3.8.
It can be also noted that this paper refers to Mediterranean
climates, so the optimal energy solutions are different from those of
Central-Northern Europe, whose cold climates usually require high
solar gains in winter and, thus, not fixed shading devices for
buildings (or no shading).
In Fig. 3, typical applications of external solar shading devices in
Italy are shown.

3. Results

Several parameters have been varied for the case study, in order
to better analyze the effects of solar shading devices on the building
energy requirements, as regards heating, cooling and lighting sys-
tems; unless otherwise specified, the values of the most important
parameters are those reported in Tables 1 and 2. It can be noted that
because the short sides of the examined building are eastewest
oriented (except for the Section 3.8), their fenestration area is lit-
tle compared to the long sides, therefore the influence of the lou-
vers on the energy requirements is much minor compared to the
overhangs (on long south side).
Moreover, it can be noted that the use of the solar shadings leads
to energy saving only for the cooling system, while it leads to an
increase in energy requirements for both heating and lighting
systems (because less solar radiation, useful for daylighting and
Fig. 2. The considered solar shading devices: louvers and overhangs.

Table 1
Main characteristics of the analyzed building, systems and climates.

Width (NeS direction) 12.8 m Length 32.3 m

Height 10.5 m Plan area and volume 413.4m2e4341.1 m3
Surface to volume ratio 0.28 m1 Infiltration airflow rate 0.5 ACH
Window to wall ratio (WWR) for each facade 30% (unless otherwise specified) Window height 1.5 m
Window area South exposure: 100 m2 East exposure: 23 m2 West exposure: 16 m2
North exposure: 100 m2
TSUMMER-SET-POINT 26  C Glass g-value 0.70
UGLAZING 2.7 W m2 K1 TWINTER-SET-POINT 20  C
UFRAME 3.6 W m2 K1 Uwall 0.58 W m2 K1
UROOF 1.0 W m2 K1 UBASEMENT FLOOR 0.90 W m2 K1
Occupancy level 0.111 persons/m2 Occupancy scheduling From 9:00 a.m. to 18 p.m.,
5 days/week
Illuminance level on work plane Office: 400 lx atrium and corridors: Thermal load related to the office 20 W/m2
100 lx toilets: 200 lx electrical equipment
Metabolic rate 0.9 met/person Clothing thermal resistance 1 clo for winter, 0.5 clo for
summer
Cooling SEER (fan-coils þ water chiller) 2.8 (Milan) Heating SCOP (fan-coils þ 2.8 (Milan)
2.7 (Rome) heat pump) 3.0 (Rome)
2.6 (Palermo) 3.2 (Palermo)
Note: HVAC systems only operate with building occupancy
Weather data from Italian Climatic data collection “Gianni De Giorgio” [29]
Location Milan (Linate) Latitude 45.43 , Rome (Fiumicino) Latitude 41.80 , Palermo (Punta Raisi)
Longitude 9.28 Longitude 12.23 Latitude 38.18 , Longitude
13.10
Cooling degree-days (base 10  C) 1771 2174 3082
Heating degree-days (base 18  C) 2454 1514 744
Maximum monthly global horizontal radiation (average daily total) 5539 Wh m2 (July) 6121 Wh m2 (July) 6714 Wh m2 (July)
 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201 193

Table 2
Characterization of selected shading devices.

Overhang Louver

Orientation South Orientation East, west

Projection 1.0 m (unless otherwise specified) Blades of the louver 4 (unless otherwise specified)
Vertical offset from top of window 0.0 m Vertical offset from top of window 0.0 m
Horizontal window overlap 0.0 m Horizontal window overlap 0.0 m
Note: the geometrical parameters reported in this table are also shown in Fig. 2. Blade depth 0.7 m
Angle 25
Vertical spacing 0.3 m
Distance from window 0.3 m
Material of the selected shading devices (for both overhangs and louvers): aluminium.
Thermal conductivity ¼ 221.0 W/mK; specific heat ¼ 896 J/kg K; density ¼ 2740 kg/m3; solar reflectance ¼ 0.61; infrared emittance: 0.25.

winter heating, enters the building when solar shadings are
adopted). Therefore, the best energy solution for the building
minimizes the overall annual energy demand.
A preliminary analysis has been carried out showing that in
winter, for Italian climates, the thermal energy picking-up is suit-
able for the analyzed office building. For instance, with reference to
the hottest locality (Palermo), we have verified that in the period
from 1 December to 31 March (identified as conventional winter
period by the Italian rules for the climatic zone of Palermo) cooling
is required only in 117 h, i.e. about 4% of the total hours (2904 h).
3.1. Influence of the overhang depth
Energy requirements of the examined building were calculated,
adopting the overhang typologies reported in Table 2, for Palermo,
Rome and Milan climates. Moreover, the energy demands for each
type of overhang and climate were compared to those related to the
reference building with no shading devices. The overhang depth
has been fixed to 0.5 m, 1.0 m and 1.5 m, a variation similar to that
reported in Ref. [30]. The results are reported in Fig. 4.
For Palermo climate (Fig. 4A), the best energy performances
have been obtained for overhangs with depth of 1.0 m e savings of
about 20% in terms of total electric energy for heating, cooling and
lighting (as regards heating and cooling, the electric energy is that
required by all the equipment of the HVAC system, i.e. fan-coils,
electric chiller/heat pump, pumps, etc.). The saving drops to 16%
when adopting a 0.5 m or 1.5 m overhang.
Similar results have been obtained (Fig. 3B and C) for Rome
(savings between 9% and 15%) and Milan (1e8%).
For all the climates investigated, 1.0 m overhangs represent the
best solution in terms of energy demand reduction for the exam-
ined building, but it should be noted that the optimal overhang
depth depends on the window height (1.5 m in the reference case).
The influence of the geometrical characteristics of the shadings
(louvers) on the eastewest facades is examined in a successive
section.
Even though this paper refers to the end user electric energy,
also a simplified analysis has been carried out on the full life cycle
energy consumption in the production of shading devices. The
“cradle-to-gate” approach (instead of the “cradle-to-site” one) has

Fig. 3. Typical applications of external solar shading devices.

194 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201

Fig. 4. Influence of the overhang depth on the annual energy requests for Palermo (A), Rome (B) and Milan (C).
 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201 195

Fig. 5. Influence of the climatic conditions on the annual energy requests for shaded building and no-shaded one.

been used, so neglecting the energy related to transport from fac- material), and the embodied energy value of 200 MJ/kg has been
tory gate to construction site [31]. With reference to the case of used for the aluminium production. The results show that the
1.0 m overhangs, the global mass of the overhangs and louvers has primary energy saved by using the solar shading devices equalizes
been evaluated (about 470 kg, considering extruded aluminium as the embodied energy by 3 years for the most irradiated locality

Fig. 6. Influence of the building height on the annual energy requests in the cases of shaded building and no-shaded one, for Palermo (A) and Milan (B).
196 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201
(Palermo) and by 5 years for the less irradiated one (Milan). The
actual value (0.46) of the thermal to electrical conversion efficiency
for Italy has been considered. Obviously, if extruded recycled alu-
minium is used, much minor embodied energy value has to be
considered (about 17 MJ/kg), and therefore the above cited time
period is significantly minor. Finally, it is noteworthy taking into
account that aluminium is a recyclable material.
In the following analyses, only the end user electric energy
saving has been considered.
3.2. Influence of the climate
The influence of the different Italian climates has been evaluated
considering three typical localities of Southern, Central and
Northern Italy, i.e. Palermo, Rome and Milan. As expected, the en-
ergy saving potential related to the shading system is greater in
climates characterized by warmer summer, because the cooling
energy requirements are higher compared to the other considered
climates. With reference to Fig. 5, 1.0 m overhangs allow 20%
reduction of total energy demand for Palermo, which has the
Fig. 7. Influence of the building external wall thermal insulation on the annual energy requests in the cases of shaded building and no-shaded one, for Palermo (A) and Milan (B).
warmest climate in summer, 15% reduction for Rome (intermediate
climate), and 8% for Milan (the coldest of the considered climates).
It can be noted that only for Milan, the chiller (cooling) energy
requirements are similar or lower than the heating ones.
It is also noticeable that, for the considered climates, the per-
centage energy savings related only to the cooling system are be-
tween 26% and 29%.
3.3. Influence of the building height
In Fig. 6, results relative to the same building, but with 11
instead of 3 floors, are shown, in order to verify if the percentage
energy saving connected to the solar shadings depends also on the
height of the building. This possible dependence is negligible. In
fact, comparing the results for Palermo (Fig. 6A), the energy saving
values are 17%, 22% and 17% (for 0.5 m, 1.0 and 1.5 m overhangs),
very similar to 16%, 20% and 16% obtained for the building of 3
floors (Fig. 4A). Also for Milan (7%, 8% and 1% versus 6%, 8% and 1%,
i.e. Fig. 6B versus Fig. 4B), the dependence of the percentage energy
savings on the number of building floors is negligible.
 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201
3.4. Influence of the building thermal insulation
The examined building is now considered for two different
conditions of thermal insulation: no thermal insulation (U-values:
1.5 W m2 K1 for flat roof and ground floor, 2.1 W m2 K1 for
external wall) and high thermal insulation (U-values:
0.15 W m2 K1 for flat roof and ground floor, 0.25 W m2 K1 for
external wall). For each insulation level, the effects of the shading
systems on building energy demand are investigated, for both
Palermo and Milan climates (Fig. 7).
For Palermo climate (Fig. 7A), the considered shading system
allows a 14% energy saving for the uninsulated building and a 24%
saving for the well insulated building. It can be also noted that the
insulated building envelope leads to a relevant increase in cooling
energy demand compared to the uninsulated building (69% with no
shading system, 59% with shading system). The cooling energy
demand represents the highest energy requirement for this warm
climate, leading to a relevant increase in global energy demand
(39% and 29%).
Fig. 8. Influence of the building thermal mass on the annual energy requests in the cases of shaded building and no-shaded one, for Palermo (A) and Milan (B).
197
For colder climate of Milan, the global energy savings are 3% for
the uninsulated building and 16% for the well insulated building
(Fig. 7B). It can be noted that for Milan, in the case of uninsulated
building, the energy saving related to the use of solar shadings is
negligible, because the cold winter climate leads to heating energy
requirements significantly higher than the summer cooling
ones. This result is coherent with those of other previous research
papers [19].
So, the level of thermal insulation of the building envelope plays
a significant role on the total energy requirements, both in warm
and cold climates. In the case of cold climate and very low level of
building insulation, the solar shadings are not useful.
3.5. Influence of the external wall thermal mass
The results reported in Fig. 8 for Palermo and Milan show that
the influence of the external wall thermal mass on the energy
saving related to the use of solar shadings is negligible (external
wall internal heat capacity: 134.8 kJ m2 K1 for high thermal mass,
198 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201

Fig. 9. Influence of the building window to wall ratio (WWR) on the annual energy requests in the cases of shaded building and no-shaded one, for Palermo (A) and Milan (B).

12.8 kJ m2 K1 for low thermal mass). In fact, for Palermo (Milan)
this energy saving is about 20% (8%) independently of the level of
the external wall thermal mass (see Fig. 4 versus Fig. 8). In case of
high thermal mass, a future investigation considering also suitable
night ventilation (not present in this case study) could be useful.
3.6. Influence of the window to wall ratio
In the previous sections, a typical window to wall ratio
(WWR ¼ 30%) has been considered for the examined building
[18,32] (WWR represents, for each facade, the ratio between the

Fig. 10. Schemes of the lighting control system: two steps (A), linear with off (B).
 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201
window area and the total area of the wall). In this section, the
influence of WWR of the building on the energy saving related to
the use of solar shadings has been investigated for Palermo and
Milan (Fig. 9). The following main considerations can be drawn:
 In case of WWR ¼ 60%, higher percentage energy savings can
be obtained by using solar shadings compared to the case of
WWR ¼ 30% (for Palermo these saving rises from 20% to 28%,
for Milan from 8% to 15%);
 In case of WWR ¼ 60%, energy saving slightly increases when
using 1.5 m overhangs instead of 1.0 m overhangs, because the
height of the windows of the new building (WWR ¼ 60%) is
major compared to the reference building (WWR ¼ 30%) and,
thus, overhangs with higher depth work slightly better;
 As expected, passing from WWR ¼ 30% to WWR ¼ 60%, the
global energy requirements increase, above all for Palermo
(25% adopting shading devices, 38% without shading devices);
 Both for Palermo and Milan, the global energy requirements of
the building with WWR ¼ 30% without shadings are about
equal to those of the building with WWR ¼ 60% and the
shadings. This result not only confirms that highly glazed
building require more energy, but also shows that the use of
suitable shading devices can eliminate or significantly reduce
Fig. 11. Influence of the lighting control system on the annual energy requests in the cases of shaded building and no-shaded one, for Palermo (A) and Milan (B).
199
this increase; this conclusion is coherent with that obtained by
other researchers [32].
3.7. Influence of the lighting control system
In this section, the influence of the lighting control system on the
energy saving related to the use of solar shadings has been inves-
tigated for Palermo and Milan. The following types of lighting control
system have been considered: one step, two steps, linear with off
(the schemes of the second and the third type are shown in Fig. 10).
The results reported in Fig. 11 show that the energy saving related to
the use of solar shadings is almost independent of the type of lighting
control system: in fact, these savings are about 20% for Palermo and
8% for Milan, independently of the selected lighting control system.
Besides, in Fig. 11 it can be seen that the linear control system leads to
significant energy savings for lighting compared to the case of one
step control system (37e42%), even if the savings are minor when the
overall energy demand is considered (8e9%).
It is also noticeable that, passing from a building with one step
lighting control system and no shadings (the worst case) to the
same building with linear lighting control system and 1.0 m over-
hangs (the best solution), significant global energy savings are
obtained (26% and 15% for Palermo and Milan).
200 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201
Fig. 12. Influence of the building orientation on the annual energy requests in the cases of shaded building and no-shaded one, for Palermo and Milan.
3.8. Influence of the orientation of the building
The same building has been analyzed, but with the long sides
oriented toward east and west (instead of south and north). In this
case, instead of overhangs, the shading system more suitable for the
long sides is represented by a louver unit with 10 blades, height
equal to 0.15 m and inclination of 25 (this configuration has been
chosen on the basis of a carried-out energy optimization). On the
contrary, the short side oriented toward south is better shaded by
means of overhangs instead of louvers; no shading device has been
considered for north side.
In Fig. 12 the results relative to this building are reported for
Palermo and Milan. The following main considerations can be
drawn:
- The use of shadings for Milan is even negative e the global
energy requirements increase of 9%, due above all to the sig-
nificant rising in the lighting energy demand (133%);
- For Palermo only little global energy savings (5%) are obtained
e in fact, the reduction of the energy requirement for cooling is
significant (31%), but also the increase in lighting energy de-
mand is relevant (189%);
- As expected, the energy behavior of this building is worse
compared to the reference typical building with long sides
oriented toward south and north (for example, as regards the
case of the building without shading, a 10% increase in global
energy requirements has been obtained for Palermo, 6% for
Milan).
4. Conclusions
This paper analyses the influence of solar shading devices on the
energy requirements of a typical standalone office building, for
three Italian climates. Energy performances achievable by applying
external solar shading to an air-conditioned building have been
evaluated for both winter and summer, by means of a suitable
building energy simulation code, EnergyPlus. The energy re-
quirements for heating, cooling and lighting have been analyzed, as
a function of the main boundary conditions.
The aim of this paper is to provide simplified criteria for engi-
neers and architects in order to: a) establish if external solar
shading devices for standalone office buildings are suitable or not,
in terms of energy requirements, for a given Italian climate (but this
evaluation is applicable also to other similar climates); b) in the
case of energetic suitability, quantify obtainable energy saving and
optimize the geometry and positioning of the shading devices, as
a function of the main parameters. The analysis has been carried
out considering above all the end user electric energy.
The following principal conclusions can be highlighted (with
reference to the use of suitable overhangs on south-facing facades
and louvers on the east and west facing facades, unless otherwise
specified):
- The energy savings are higher when choosing overhangs with
depth of 1.0 m e but this depth is strictly correlated to the
height of the windows;
- In the optimal case (overhangs with depth of 1.0 m), the global
energy saving is equal to about 20% for Palermo (the hottest
climate), 15% for Rome (intermediate climate) and 8% for Milan
(the coldest one), and this confirms that shadings are prefer-
able in warm climates;
- For Palermo, the considered shading system allows a 14% en-
ergy saving for an uninsulated building and a 24% saving for
a highly insulated building. For colder climate of Milan, these
saving values are 3% and 16%. This shows that for cold winter
climates, in the case of uninsulated building, the energy saving
related to the use of solar shadings is negligible, because the
heating energy requirements are significantly higher than the
summer cooling ones (on which solar shadings have a positive
influence);
- The window to wall ratio WWR of the building influences
significantly the energy saving related to the use of solar
shadings (for example, in the case of WWR ¼ 60%, compared to
the case of WWR ¼ 30%, the global energy requirements
increase, above all for Palermo, and higher percentage energy
savings can be obtained by using solar shading e for Palermo
this saving rises from 20% to 28%, for Milan from 8% to 15%);
moreover, the global energy requirements of the building with
WWR ¼ 30% without shadings are about equal to those of the
building with WWR ¼ 60% and the shadings. This result shows
that the use of suitable shading devices can eliminate or sig-
nificantly reduce the increase of energy demand typical of
 L. Bellia et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 54 (2013) 190e201
highly glazed building; this conclusion is coherent with that
obtained by other researchers [32];
- The global energy saving connected with the use of shadings is
almost independent of the type of lighting control system;
- Negligible influence on the global energy saving connected
with the use of shadings is related to the height of the exam-
ined building and the external wall thermal mass;
- When the long sides of the building are oriented toward east
and west instead of north and south, the energy behavior of the
building worsens (for example, as regards the case of the
building without shading, a 10% increase in global energy re-
quirements has been obtained for Palermo, 6% for Milan), and
the use of shadings for Milan is even negative (the global en-
ergy requirements increase of 9%), while for Palermo only little
global energy savings (5%) are obtained.
Finally, these further general conclusions can be derived:
- The long sides of the building have to be oriented toward north
and south, if possible;
- The depth of the overhangs (on the south side) depends also on
the window height (for example, the depth of 1 m is suitable
for window height of 1.5 m, but the optimal depth should be
increased for higher windows).
A useful further research will be focused on the evaluation of
a suitable relationship between climatic characteristics and energy
convenience in using solar shading devices on buildings.
Nomenclature
T temperature,  C
U unitary thermal transmittance, W m2 K1
Acronyms
MI referred to Milan, e
PA referred to Palermo, e
RM referred to Rome, e
SCOP mean winter seasonal energy efficiency ratio, e
SEER mean summer seasonal energy efficiency ratio, e
WWR window to wall ratio, e
References
[1] International Energy Agency, Worldwide Trends in Energy Use and Efficiency,
Authoring Institution: International Energy Agency (IEA), Head of Communica-
tion and Information Office, Paris, France, 2008 (last access: December 2012),
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Indicators_2008-
1.pdf.
[2] M.J. Suarez, C. Sanjuan, A.J. Gutierrez, J. Pistono, E. Blanco, Energy evaluation of an
horizontal open joint ventilated facade, Appl. Therm. Eng. 37 (2012) 302e313.
[3] A. Capozzoli, P. Mazzei, F. Minichiello, D. Palma, Hybrid HVAC systems with
chemical dehumidification for supermarket applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26
(2006) 795e805.
[4] F. Ascione, L. Bellia, A. Capozzoli, F. Minichiello, Energy saving strategies in air-
conditioning for museums, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 676e686.
201
[5] European Parliament, EPBD e Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.
Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the
European Union, European Parliament, 2002.
[6] European Parliament, EPBD Recast e Energy Performance of Buildings
Directive. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of the European Union, European Parliament, 2010.
[7] G.H. dos Santos, N. Mendes, Numerical analysis of passive cooling using
a porous sandy roof, Appl. Therm. Eng. 51 (2013) 25e31.
[8] M. Kayfeci, A. Kecebas, E. Gedik, Determination of optimum insulation
thickness of external walls with two different methods in cooling applications,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 50 (2013) 217e224.
[9] A. Synnefa, M. Santamouris, I. Livada, A study of the thermal performance of
reflective coatings for the urban environment, Sol. Energy 80 (2006) 968e981.
[10] F. Ascione, L. Bellia, P. Mazzei, F. Minichiello, Solar gain and building envelope:
the surface factor, Build. Res. Inform. 38 (2) (2010) 187e205.
[11] T. Inoue, Solar shading and daylighting by means of autonomous responsive
dimming glass: practical application, Energy Build. 35 (2003) 463e471.
[12] P.A.B. James, A.S. Bahaj, Smart glazing solutions to glare and solar gain: a ‘sick
building’ case study, Energy Build. 37 (2005) 1058e1067.
[13] B.A. Lomanowski, J.L. Wright, Modeling fenestration with shading devices in
building energy simulation: a practical approach, in: Proceedings of Building
Simulation 2009, Glasgow, Scotland, July 27e30, 2009, pp. 976e983.
[14] E. Gratia, A. De Herde, The most efficient position of shading devices in
a double-skin façade, Energy Build. 39 (2007) 364e373.
[15] G. Kim, H.S. Lima, T.S. Limb, L. Schaeferc, J.T. Kim, Comparative advantage of
an exterior shading device in thermal performance for residential buildings,
Energy Build. 46 (2012) 105e111.
[16] ASHRAE, 2009 ASHRAE Handbook e Fundamentals, Chapter 15 (Fenestration),
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning
Engineers), Atlanta, 2009.
[17] A.I. Palmero-Marrero, A.C. Oliveira, Effect of louver shading devices on
building energy requirements, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 2040e2049.
[18] A. Tzempelikos, A.K. Athienitis, The impact of shading design and control on
building cooling and lighting demand, Sol. Energy 81 (2007) 369e382.
[19] G. Datta, Effect of fixed horizontal louver shading devices on thermal
performance of building by TRNSYS simulation, Renew. Energy 23 (2001)
497e507.
[20] E.S. Lee, A. Tavil, Energy and visual comfort performance of electrochromic
windows with overhangs, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 2439e2449.
[21] T. Inoue, M. Ichinose, N. Ichikawa, Thermotropic glass with active dimming
control for solar shading and daylighting, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 385e393.
[22] G.A. Florides, S.A. Kalogirou, S.A. Tassau, L.C. Wrobel, Modeling of the
modern houses of Cyprus and energy consumption analysis, Energy 25 (2000)
915e937.
[23] M. David, M. Donn, F. Garde, A. Lenoir, Assessment of the thermal and visual
efficiency of solar shades, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 1489e1496.
[24] A.M. Abu-Zour, S.B. Riffat, M. Gillott, New design of solar collector integrated
into solar louvres for efficient heat transfer, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26 (2006)
1876e1882.
[25] D.B. Crawley, L.K. Lawrie, C.O. Pedersen, R.J. Liesen, D.E. Fisher, R.K. Strand,
R.D. Taylor, R.C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, Y.J. Huang, A.E. Erdem, ENERGYPLUS,
a new-generation building energy simulation program, in: Proceedings of
Building Simulation ’99, vol. 1, 1999, pp. 81e88.
[26] P.G. Loutzenhiser, H. Manz, S. Carl, H. Simmler, G.M. Maxwell, Empirical val-
idation of solar gain models for a glazing unit with exterior and interior blind
assemblies, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 330e340.
[27] F.R. Mazarrón, J. Cid-Falceto, I. Cañas, An assessment of using ground thermal
inertia as passive thermal technique in the wine industry around the world,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 33e34 (2012) 54e61.
[28] M.R. Hall, K.B. Najim, C.J. Hopfe, Transient thermal behaviour of crumb
rubber-modified concrete and implications for thermal response and energy
efficiency in buildings, Appl. Therm. Eng. 33e34 (2012) 77e85.
[29] Last access: December 2012. Authoring institution: USA Department of energy
(DOE), apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/weatherdata_sources.cfm.
[30] A.I. Palmero-Marrero, A.C. Oliveira, Evaluation of a solar thermal system using
building louvre shading devices, Sol. Energy 80 (5) (2006) 545e554.
[31] G.P. Hammon, C.I. Jones, Embodied energy and carbon in construction ma-
terials, Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Energy 161 (2) (2008) 87e98.
[32] H. Poirazis, A. Blomsterberg, M. Wall, Energy simulation for glazed office
buildings in Sweden, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 1161e1170.