Building and Environment 48 (2012) 1e6

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Quantifying the direct benefits of cool roofs in an urban setting: Reduced cooling
energy use and lowered greenhouse gas emissions
Tengfang Xua, *, Jayant Sathayea, Hashem Akbarib, Vishal Gargc, Surekha Tetalic
a
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), One Cyclotron Road, MS90R4000, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
b
Department of Building, Civil, and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
c
International Institute for Information Technology (IIIT), Hyderabad, India

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

Article history: Cool roofs, cool pavements, and urban vegetation reduce cooling energy use in buildings, lower local air
Received 7 July 2011 pollution, and decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from urban areas. To promote widespread and
Received in revised form large-scale implementation of cool roofs to moderate urban heat-island phenomenon, more awareness
14 August 2011
and understanding of cool roof benefits at the local level is needed. As part of an investigation of
Accepted 19 August 2011
strategies to mitigate urban heat-island effects, field data gathered from a monitoring project on cool
roofs in India were reviewed. An innovative field-based analytical method was developed to quantify
Keywords:
cooling energy savings resulting from the installation of cool roofs on commercial buildings. For build-
Urban heat-island
Cool roof
ings monitored in the Metropolitan Hyderabad region, the measured annual energy savings from roof-
Energy savings whitening of previously black roofs ranged from 20 to 22 kWh/m2 of roof area, corresponding to
Greenhouse gas a cooling energy use reduction of 14e26%. The application of white coatings to uncoated concrete roofs
Mitigation measure resulted in annual savings of 13e14 kWh/m2 of roof area, corresponding to cooling energy savings of 10
Field-based analytical method e19%. The annual direct CO2 reductions associated with the reduced cooling energy use were estimated
to be 11e12 kg CO2/m2 of flat roof area. Additional field work on various building types and locations will
help to understand magnitudes of regional or global potential in energy savings and GHG emission
reductions from applying cool roofs. Knowledge about quantified cool roof benefits at both the local and
regional level may promote the formulation of new policies and programs throughout the world.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Urban heat-island (UHI) is a common phenomenon where
urban temperatures are significantly higher than those of its
surrounding suburban and rural areas in summertime. Urban heat-
islands can affect communities by increasing summertime surface
temperature of building envelopes and infrastructures; intensifying
thermal discomfort; elevating cooling energy use and peak energy
demand; adding air pollution; and raising risks in heat-related
illness or mortality. A higher air temperature tends to increase
cooling needs and reduce working efficiency of cooling systems for
built environments, resulting in higher power demand and energy
use. For example, a study estimated that an increase of 1
C in air
temperature would require the addition of about 500 megawatts
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 001 510 486 7810.
E-mail address: TTXu@LBL.Gov (T. Xu).
(MW) for air-conditioning for buildings in the Los Angeles Basin [1].
Similar air temperature increases in urban areas are taxing the
ability of developing countries to meet urban electricity demand
while raising global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated
with energy use and power generation.
In fact, a number of past studies have documented that air
temperatures in urban areas are higher and have increased faster
than those in surrounding suburban and rural areas. For example,
from 1930 to 1990, downtown Los Angeles recorded a growth of
0.5
C per decade [1]. Greek researchers analyzed ambient air
temperature data from the National Observatory of Athens for the
period between 1950 and 2004, and found that the number of
hours with high air temperatures in the urban Athens area
dramatically increased in the last two decades [2]. Giannopoulou
et al. [3] recently conducted a detailed statistical analysis of the
heat-island characteristics and distribution in the greater Athens
area using temperature data from 25 stations. The central and
western parts of the city, which are more densely built and have
less green coverage, are significantly warmer than surrounding
areas during the summer. Hua et al. [4] used historical data on air

0360-1323/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.08.011
2 T. Xu et al. / Building and Environment 48 (2012) 1e6

temperatures obtained from 191 urban meteorological stations

grouped into three classes by urban population density to analyze
temporal and spatial distribution of the warming effect caused by
urbanization in China. The results showed a positive correlation
between urban population density and the rate of urban warming.
Ren et al. [5] used a dataset of 282 meteorological stations to
analyze the urbanization effect on surface air temperature trends in
northern China. For the large-city station group, they found
a higher urban warming rate e an annual mean surface air
temperature increasing at 0.16
C per decade compared to an urban
warming rate of 0.07
C per decade for the small-city station group.
Mohan et al. [6] assessed urban heat-island effects in Delhi by
measuring three-day concurrent air temperatures in 30 locations
throughout Delhi in 2008, and reported that air temperatures in the
afternoon (3 p.m.) and at night (9 p.m.) were higher around densely
built infrastructures, such as residential and commercial areas, than
in other Delhi locations.
Various materials on the Earth’s surface absorb incoming solar
Fig. 1. Methodology for energy, air-quality, and GHG analysis.
energy at different rates, while different shapes on the Earth’s
surface (e.g., built environment or landscape) affect the local
airflows [7]. Field studies on urban heat-island effects in Singapore indirect benefit to an urban area. For example, decreasing outside
documented that the difference of daytime air temperatures air temperatures can improve the working efficiency of cooling
between densely built locations and vegetated areas ranged from systems, lower smog and GHG emissions, and indirectly reduce
4.0 to 4.2
C [8,9]. pollution from power plants e all improving environmental health
When sunlight hits an opaque surface on the earth, a portion of
quality.
the sunlight is reflected e the fraction known as the albedo e while
Fig. 1 illustrates applicable strategies for mitigating urban heat-
the rest is absorbed by the surface. High-albedo urban surfaces and
island effects on energy use and urban air pollution. Akbari et al.
tree planting can reduce surface temperatures and summertime air
performed multi-episodic mesoscale meteorological simulations
temperatures in urban areas. The results from modifying the urban
using the PSU/NCAR MM5 [17], and estimated that a reduction of
environment by planting trees and increasing albedo can be cate-
2
C in air temperature in the Hyderabad area of India would be
gorized as either "direct" or "indirect" effects [10]. The direct effects likely if a combination of increased surface albedo and vegetative
of using high-reflectance materials on roofs or walls, or planting cover are used as urban heat-island control strategies. Furthermore,
trees around a building, are to alter the energy balance and energy air temperature reductions on the order of 2.5e3.5
C could be
requirements for cooling that particular building. Direct effects achieved if moderate and aggressive heat-island mitigation
bring immediate benefits to the building where they are applied. measures are adopted.
Indirect effects or benefits become realistic only with widespread To promote widespread and large-scale implementation of
deployment within a selected urban area. mitigation measures to moderate urban heat-island phenomenon
Akbari et al. [11] showed that the amount of CO2 avoided via in developing countries, more awareness and understanding of cool
the indirect effect by tree planting is considerably greater than the roof benefits and how they are applied at the local level in such
amount sequestered directly through photosynthesis in trees. countries is needed. Knowledge about the significance of energy
Similarly, trees directly trap ozone precursors by dry-deposition
savings at both the local and regional level can benefit the devel-
processes in which ozone is absorbed by tree leaves, and indi- opment of new policies and programs throughout the developing
rectly reduce the emission of these precursors from power plants
world.
by reducing combustion of fossil fuels and reducing NOx emissions
from power plants [12]. Rosenfeld et al. [10] investigated the
effects of reduced air temperatures on air-conditioning energy 1.2. Problem statement and objective
costs and air pollution, and examined cool community strategies
(e.g., cool roof, cool pavement, tree shading, and cool roof labeling) Although there were a number of studies on estimating the
to reduce both effects. They concluded that the combined direct magnitudes of cooling energy savings resulting from applying cool
and indirect effects of cool communities strategies could poten- roofs or planting trees in some developed countries (e.g., The
tially reduce air-conditioning energy use in a Los Angles home by United States), common methods used were mostly based upon
half and save about 10% of air-conditioning energy use of a one- building energy simulations e sometimes with limited field data to
story office building. A demonstration study, which used short- tune the simulation models e for estimating or predicting potential
term monitoring to calibrate an energy simulation model, esti- cooling energy savings.
mated that whitening roofs reduced summertime average daily To advance the understanding of the benefits from application
air-conditioning electricity use from 2 to 18% for two medical of cool roofs on buildings in urban areas, the objectives of this paper
buildings and one department-store in different locations of are 1) to develop a new field-based analytical method, as a viable
Northern California [13]. Other studies around the world also have approach in addition to the traditional building simulation
identified tree planting and reflective materials as viable means approach; 2) to quantify the magnitudes of direct cooling energy
for mitigating the effects of urban heat-islands [14e16]. Among savings induced by applying cool roofs on actual buildings; and 3)
energy-efficiency solutions, cool roofs and cool pavements are to estimate potential of carbon-emission reductions associated
suited to the hot climates, which prevail in much of the devel- with the cooling energy savings, using results from field-based
oping world. In addition, cool pavements can also increase analysis.
nighttime visibility and pavement durability. A large-scale Specifically, using data collected from a field study in India, we
deployment of mitigation measures can also bring additional first compared energy performance metrics, and then developed
 T. Xu et al. / Building and Environment 48 (2012) 1e6 3

Table 1
Monitoring periods and roof-surface reflectance.

Monitoring Date Measured outdoor air temperature West building roof East building roof
period and solar radiation (estimated reflectance) (estimated reflectance)
(Average from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.)
Phase I JanuaryeMarch 29.1
C, 653 W/m2 Concrete roof (0.3) Concrete roof (0.3)
Pre-coating
Phase II MarcheJuly 32.4
C, 643 W/m2 White roof (0.7) Black roof (0.1)
Post-coating
Phase III AugusteDecember 27.2
C, 529 W/m2 White roof (0.7) White roof (0.7)
Post-coating

a field-based analytical method to quantify actual cooling energy
savings induced by applying cool roofs on commercial buildings.
The magnitudes of actual cooling energy savings can then be
compared with results from a calibrated simulation using the field
data. Next, with some informed assumptions, we illustrated a way
to estimate potential GHG reductions induced by applying cool
roofs.
2. Field study of cool roof effects: methods and results
In the following sections, we first briefly reviewed building and
weather characteristics and field monitoring, and then analyzed
the field data, including comparisons of key performance metrics
and examination of the correlations between concurrently
measured air-conditioning energy uses by each building. This was
followed by field-based analysis developed in this paper to quantify
actual magnitudes of cooling energy savings corresponding to
applying cool roofs on buildings.
2.1. Summary of building and weather characteristics
Two commercial buildings with identical enclosures and
similar use in Hyderabad, India, were selected for this study.
Each building had a flat, 700 m2 concrete roof and the top floor
(i.e., second floor) was air-conditioned by its own central system
when occupied, while the first floor in each building had its own
separate air-conditioning system. The both systems had the
same design and control strategies. There was no shade on the
roofs caused by nearby structures or trees. Sealed single-pane
glass windows accounted for 7% of the wall area for both
buildings. Each building’s top floor was used as learning centers
with similar operation and occupancies during normal working
hours throughout the year, while the air-conditioned space on
the first floor was used as offices with similar occupancies. The
two buildings were next to each other, experiencing the same
weather conditions, which were changing over the course of this
study. Internal heat load from equipment in the east building
was similar to that of the west building. Various roof coatings
were applied to the roof of each building to create different
reflectance in different phases of the study that lasted for about
12 months.
As the sixth most populous city and urban area in India,
Hyderabad has hot summers starting from late February to early
2.2. Review of pre- and post-coating field monitoring
The field study of cool roof impacts included baseline (i.e., pre-
coating) characterizations, applications of various roof coatings,
and post-coating characterizations. These tasks were carried out in
sequence, with similar building occupancies and operation, in the
two buildings selected.
Key parameters measured included indoor and outdoor air
temperatures, roof-surface temperatures, roof heat fluxes, solar
radiation, and electricity usage of each building’s cooling systems.
Details of instrumentation, monitoring process, and measurement
uncertainties are available in a more comprehensive formal report
[17]. In particular, heat flux meters had a rated accuracy of 5% of
the reading, while power meters had a rated accuracy of within
0.5% of the reading. Table 1 summarizes the averaged outdoor air
temperature and solar radiation monitored for each of the three
phases, each corresponding to specific roof coatings.
2.3. Pre- and post-coating comparison of performance metrics
Table 2 is a comparison between the east and west buildings of
performance metrics including maximum roof-surface tempera-
tures, heat flux through ceilings, and air-conditioning energy use.
Results are compared both before and after various roof coatings
were applied to the roofs of the west and east buildings.
For the west building, the maximum roof-surface temperature
decreased from 54.7
C in Phase I to 41.2
C (a reduction of 13.5
C)
in Phase II e even though the average outdoor air temperature
increased from 29.1
C in Phase I to 32.4
C in Phase II (an increase
of 3.3
C, Table 1), after the white coating was applied to the original
concrete roof. The maximum roof-surface temperature decreased
further down to 38.3
C in Phase III, during which the white coating
remained on the roof and the outdoor air temperature decreased to
Table 2
Monitoring results for the west and east buildings (9 a.m.e5 p.m.).
Parameters and performance metrics West building East building
Roof area (m2) 700 700
Maximum roof-surface temperature (
C)
Phase I 54.7 54.7
Phase II 41.2 71.3
Phase III 38.3 39.6
Roof heat flux (W/m )2

June, monsoon seasons starting from late June to early October, and Phase I e Peak 12.8 11.0
mild winters from late October to early February. The climate of Phase II e Peak 12.6 21.9
Phase III e Peak 7.6 8.6
Hyderabad remains warm through most parts of the year. Given
Phase I e Average 2.2 2.8
that weather conditions change by the day, month, and season over Phase II e Average 3.6 9.7
the course of the year, it would be prohibitively difficult to quantify Phase III e Average 0.1 0.8
the direct energy impact of applying cool roofs by simply focusing Daily air-conditioning energy use in kWh/day
on a single building because the weather condition is uncontrol- Phase I 219 200
Phase II 285 280
lable. In the field measurements, the two buildings were monitored Phase III 215 187
concurrently yearlong.
4 T. Xu et al. / Building and Environment 48 (2012) 1e6
27.2
C on average. For the east building, the maximum roof-surface
temperature increased from 54.7
C in Phase I to 71.3
C in Phase II
(an increase of 16.6
C), after the black coating was applied to the
original concrete roof; and decreased down to 39.6
C in Phase III,
during which the roof was coated white while the outdoor air
temperature decreased by 5.2e27.2
C on average. In Phase III, with
both roofs having the similar white coating under the same
weather condition, the maximum roof temperatures of both roofs
were also similar.
For the west building, the peak heat flux through the ceiling
decreased slightly from 12.8 W/m2 in Phase I to 12.6 W/m2 in Phase
II due to the application of white coating on the original concrete
roof even though the average outdoor air temperature increased
from 29.1
C in Phase I to 32.4
C in Phase II (an increase of 3.3
C).
The peak heat flux decreased to 7.6 W/m2 in Phase III, during which
the white coating remained on the roof and the weather was cooler.
For the east building, the peak heat flux increased from 11.0 W/
m2 in Phase I to 21.9 W/m2 in Phase II, after the black coating was
applied to the original concrete roof, coupled with an increase of
3.3
C in average outdoor air temperature; the peak heat flux
decreased further to 8.6 W/m2 in Phase III, during which the roof
was coated white while the outdoor air temperature decreased by
5.2e27.2
C on average. In Phase III, with both roofs having the
similar white coating under the same weather condition, the peak
heat flux through both roofs again was similar.
For the average heat flux between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Phases I
and III, both buildings exhibited similar magnitudes, with lower
values happening in Phase III e during which the average outdoor
air temperatures and solar radiation were both lower. In Phase II,
the west building, with its white roof, exhibited a higher average
heat flux during the daytime than that in Phase I or Phase III, largely
because outdoor air temperatures were higher in Phase II than they
were in Phase I and Phase III. The observed variations in average
heat flux from 2.2 to 3.6 W/m2 of roof area exhibited that the
impact of increasing outdoor temperatures (i.e., by 3.3
C) on the
average heat flux is more dominant than the sole effect of applying
white coating on the concrete roof (i.e., an increase of reflectance by
0.4). By contrast, in Phase II, the east building with the black coating
applied to the roof exhibited much higher average heat flux during
daytime than that in Phase I and Phase III. For example, average
heat flux changed from 2.8 to 9.7 W/m2 of roof area from Phase I to
Phase II. This indicates that having both a higher outdoor temper-
ature and a black roof (i.e., a decrease of reflectance by0.2) has
a significant collective impact on increasing average heat flux
through roofs.
The table also shows average daily air-conditioning electricity
use in each building with various roof coatings applied sequentially
during the course of the study. For simplicity, we analyzed daily
cooling energy use of each building from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
weekdays. One would expect that the average daily air-
conditioning energy use in the buildings may tend to increase
with the rise in outdoor temperatures and a decrease in roof-
surface reflectance. From Phase I to Phase II, the average outdoor
temperatures increased from 29.1 to 32.4
C because of the seasonal
change, corresponding to an increase of average cooling energy use
from 219 to 285 kWh/day e even though the roof-surface reflec-
tance increased from 0.3 to 0.7 for the west building; while for the
east building there was a smaller increase of average cooling energy
use from 200 to 280 kWh/day e even though the roof-surface
reflectance decreased from 0.3 to 0.1 (Black). Apparently, there
are additional factors affecting the daily cooling energy demand.
For example, because the total area of the west-facing windows in
the west building was larger than that of the east building, higher
solar heat gains into the air-conditioned space in the west building
were expected than that of the east building in all phases, including
Phase II when it was the hottest. The rise of solar heat gains through
the windows intensified the demand for more cooling energy use in
the west building compared to that of the east building, especially
in the hotter season (e.g., Phase II).
In addition, the reduction of daily cooling energy use in Phase I
compared to Phase III (from 219 to 215 kWh/day) seemed to be
smaller than expected, especially when corresponding to the
increased roof albedo (from 0.3 to 0.7), lowered outdoor air
temperature (from 29.1 to 27.2
C), and reduced solar radiation
(653e529 W/m2). In fact, field observations discovered an increase
in average internal gain due to operation of non-air-conditioning
systems in both buildings from Phase I to Phase III. The increased
non-air-conditioning equipment use corresponded with increased
number of occupants, which also magnified the net increase in total
internal heat generation within the buildings. The increased
internal heat gains would demand higher daily cooling energy use
if all other factors remained the same. As a net result, measured
difference of daily cooling energy between Phase I and Phase III of
each building was smaller than expected.
In summary, the above comparisons show that while cooler
roofs contributed to lowering the maximal roof-surface tempera-
tures and moderating the heat flux through the roofs into the
buildings, cooling energy use could increase nonetheless due to
warmer weather conditions. Such direct comparisons are insuffi-
cient to quantify the magnitudes of cooling energy savings attrib-
uted to reflectance changes, because actual cooling energy was also
affected by other concurrent factors that are uncontrollable from
the field, e.g., outdoor air temperatures, heat gains, or solar radia-
tion intensity.
In the following section, we developed a new analytical method
based upon the concurrently measured field data gathered for both
buildings, and used the method to quantify the direct cooling
energy savings that resulted from installation of cooler roofs.
2.4. Field-based analysis to quantify cooling energy savings
resulting from cool roofs
For each building selected in this study, we anticipated that
actual weather conditions would have a significant impact on the
energy use of each air-conditioning system. The comparison of
monitored results of average daily energy usage by air-conditioning
systems during Phase I and Phase II confirmed such impacts. For
example, in the case of the west building, even though its bare
concrete roof was given a white coating for Phase II, cooling energy
use increased slightly from Phase I. Notably, the weather was cooler
during Phase I and became warmer in Phase II. In the following, we
first examine the correlation between concurrently measured air-
conditioning energy usages for each building, and then develop
the field-based analysis to quantify the magnitudes of energy
savings due to roof-surface reflectance changes.
While coating tasks were carried out in sequence with concur-
rent monitoring in both buildings, each building maintained its
normal occupancies and operations at both sites were similar.
Therefore, the impact analysis was performed by quantifying the
correlations of the concurrent energy metrics between the two
buildings, grouped by two phases of the study e Phase II (white
roof on the west building, black roof on the east building) and Phase
III (both buildings with white roofs).
Fig. 2 shows regressions of concurrent daily cooling energy use
between the two buildings, grouped by Phase II and Phase III during
which roof-surface reflectance was used as a controlled parameter.
The quantification of the correlations between the two buildings
using the west building as the reference case can then be used to
quantify cooling energy savings potentials attributable to the
changes of roof-surface reflectance for the east building.
 T. Xu et al. / Building and Environment 48 (2012) 1e6
Fig. 2. Regressions of daily air-conditioning energy usage for both buildings.
First, we established the following regression equations of daily
air-conditioning energy use of the east building as it related to the
air-conditioning energy use in the west building, and examined
their statistical significance.
PhaseII : Eb ¼ 0:6262Ww þ 100:97
PhaseIII : Ew ¼ 0:6468Ww þ 47:49
Where
Eb and Ew denote the daily cooling energy use in the east
building in Phase II (black roof) and Phase III (white roof), respec-
tively; in kWh/day.
Ww denotes the daily cooling energy use in the west building in
Phases II and III (both white roof), in kWh/day.
With all p-values far lower than 103, the statistical significance
is confirmed for each equation. It is clear that the daily cooling
energy use in east building correlated with that of west building
very well for both phases. Given that there are numerous uncon-
trolled or unknown parameters affecting the daily cooling energy
usage, the scales of R-square values associated with both regression
equations exhibit a reasonable account of the measured variance in
actual daily cooling energy usage. While there are, as always with
any other models, uncertainties involved in utilizing the equations,
the observed trends have shown different cooling energy usages
associated with different roof reflectance for the same building. The
distance between the two regression lines indicates that with the
roof coated black, east building used more cooling energy than it
did when coated with white on the daily basis, when correspond-
ing to the same daily cooling energy use by the west building.
Specifically, in order to assess the difference in air-conditioning
energy use with black and white roofs of the east building, we then
calculate the difference of energy use between Phase II and Phase III
as both corresponded to the same energy use in the reference case
(i.e., west building). Therefore, the daily air-conditioning energy
reduction due to the impact of whitening the previously black roof
on the east building was:
DE ¼ Eb  Ew ¼ 0:0206Ww þ 53:48
Where DE is the daily cooling energy savings of east building due to
whitening the roof, in kWh/day.
The fraction of daily air-conditioning energy reduction attrib-
uted to roof coating change from black to white was:
DE=Eb ¼ ð0:0206Ww þ 53:48Þ=ð0:6262Ww þ 100:97Þ
5
Based upon field observation that typical air-conditioning
energy use of the west building ranged somewhere between 150
and 350 kWh/day (9 a.m.e5 p.m.), we applied Equations (3) and (4)
to calculate the concurrent cooling energy use in the east building
and to quantify energy savings potential in the east building
resulting from changes in roof reflectance (from 0.1 to 0.7).
Corresponding to the range of daily cooling energy use in west
building (e.g., 150e350 kWh/day), we calculated that cooling
energy savings resulting from roof-whitening (of a previously black
roof) using Equation (3) for the east building ranged from
approximately 46e50 kWh/day per 700 m2of roof area (i.e.,
0.066e0.072 kWh/m2/day), representing a range of approximately
14e26% of energy savings attributed to cooler roofs, with surface
reflectance changed from 0.1 (black roof) to 0.7 (white roof).
Furthermore, given that the buildings operated 25 days per
month throughout the year (i.e., 300 days per year); we estimated
that the annual energy savings potential from roof-whitening (from
previously black roofs) ranged from 20 to 22 kWh/m2 of roof area,
which corresponds to an air-conditioning energy use reduction of
14e26% for this particular building and location. While these
results showed that the cooling energy savings in cool roof build-
ings were similar in both warm and cool seasons, the percentage
point reduction in cooling energy use was nearly twice as high on
the coolest days (26%) compared with the warmest days (14%). This
is because air-conditioning use depended not only on the effects of
(1) solar radiation, roof-surface reflectance and internal gains, but it
was strongly affected by outside dry bulb temperature. Based on
(2) the experimental data, a cool roof can significantly reduce overall
cooling energy use, but the relative effect of roof-whitening on air-
conditioning energy use is more pronounced on cooler, rather than
warmer days.
3. Estimate of cooling energy savings and GHG reduction
As shown in the analysis presented earlier, using regression of
concurrent cooling energy use data between two buildings can
provide a valid quantification of cooling energy savings potential
attributable to roofing reflectance changes. The analysis indicates
that, while weather changes during the course of the field study
would complicate the quantification of cool roof impacts on cooling
energy use in buildings, a well-designed field study and perfor-
mance of experiments over an extended time period can lessen or
eliminate potential complications. For example, the field tests
performed during the two phases allowed for evaluations of roof
impact (black vs. white coating) on air-conditioning energy use,
based on the data from concurrent monitoring in the two buildings.
With surface reflectance changed from 0.1 (black roof) to 0.7
(white roof), the measured energy savings of air-conditioning
systems (associated with the change from a black roof to a white
roof) was in the range of approximately 46e50 kWh/day per
700 m2 of roof area (i.e., 0.066e0.072 kWh/m2/day, or annual
savings of 20e22 kWh/m2 of roof area). Dividing the savings range
by surface reflectance change (i.e., 0.6), we estimated that the
normalized energy savings per unit of reflectance change would be
77e84 kWh/day (i.e., 0.011e0.012 kWh/m2/day, or annual savings
of 33e36 kWh/m2 of roof area).
Using the normalized energy savings per unit of reflectance
change, and a change in surface reflectance by 0.4 (i.e., from
(3) concrete 0.3 to white 0.7), we estimated that cooling energy savings
associated with the change from a concrete roof to a white-coated
roof would be approximately 31e34 kWh/day for 700 m2 of roof
area (i.e., 0.044e0.048 kWh/m2/day). This is equivalent to an
annual energy savings potential from roof-whitening (of concrete
roofs) in the range of 13e14 kWh/m2 of roof area, corresponding to
(4) a cooling energy use reduction in the range of 10e19% in the east
6 T. Xu et al. / Building and Environment 48 (2012) 1e6
building. It is interesting to note that Bhatia et al. [18] used the
experimental data from the field work reported in [17] to calibrate
a building simulation to predict annual energy savings of applying
white roof over gray-concrete roof (reflectance 0.3) of the west
building. The calibrated model predicted an annual cooling energy
savings of 15 kWh/m2 due to cool roof application, which was
similar to the ranges (13e14 kWh/m2 of roof area) that we have
quantified through the field-based analysis in this paper.
Using GHG emissions factor of 820 kg CO2 per MWh for India
[19], we estimated that annual direct CO2 reductions associated
with the reduced energy use would be approximately 11e12 kg
CO2/m2 of flat roof area per year by changing a concrete roof to
white-coated roof.
Because actual cooling energy use and potential energy savings
in buildings due to applying cool roofs is affected by numerous
factors, including but not limited to localized weather, building
enclosures, design, operation, controls, system types, and occu-
pancies, the estimated ranges of energy savings and CO2 emission
reductions presented above were based upon the field results from
only one geological location and a specific building type. In order to
calculate the regional or national potential in energy savings, more
field work on representative building types in the region or country
will help to further fill knowledge gaps in understanding magni-
tudes of potential energy savings and GHG emission reductions
across different regions and climates in the future. Such under-
taking would make it possible to investigate energy use and savings
potential by advancing the field-based method that can benefit
from further statistical experimenting.
4. Conclusions
In the effort to reduce energy use in buildings in urban areas,
lower local air pollutant concentrations, and decrease greenhouse
gas emissions, we developed an innovative field-based analytical
method to evaluate the effectiveness of applying cool roof coatings
on roofs, and used this method to quantify their direct impact on
cooling energy savings and the associated GHG emission
reductions.
Roofs with higher surface reflectance significantly lowered
roof-surface temperatures and reduced heat flux through the roofs
compared to roofs with lower surface reflectance. Using the field-
based analytical method developed in this study, we quantified
energy saving effects of cool roofs on individual buildings. The
measured annual energy savings from roof-whitening of previ-
ously black roofs ranged from 20 to 22 kWh/m2 of roof area in the
Metropolitan Hyderabad region, corresponding to an air-
conditioning energy use reduction of 14e26%. An estimated
annual savings of 13e14 kWh/m2 of roof area could be achieved by
applying white coatings to uncoated concrete roofs on buildings in
the region, corresponding to cooling energy savings of 10e19%.
The annual direct CO2 reductions associated with the reduced
energy use by whitening concrete roofs were estimated to be
11e12 kg CO2/m2 of flat roof area. The analysis has found that
a cool roof can significantly reduce overall cooling energy use in
buildings, but the relative effect of roof-whitening on air-
conditioning energy use is more pronounced on cooler, rather
than warmer days.
While the findings indicate significant potential in energy
savings and reductions in GHG emissions (i.e., direct benefits)
resulting from the use of cool roofs on individual buildings studied,
large-scale deployment of mitigation measures can bring addi-
tional indirect benefits to the urban area, such as cooling outside
air; thereby improving the efficiency of cooling systems, reducing
GHG emissions, decreasing smog, and indirectly cutting pollution
from power plants e all improving environmental quality and
health impacts. Overall, applying cool roofs globally can be effective
in reducing cooling energy use and the associated GHG emissions.
The study also suggests that additional field studies maybe
helpful to quantify practical scales of potential energy savings
through the installation of cooler roofs in various locations
throughout the world. Future field studies may build upon the
success presented in the paper and benefit from the innovative
field-based analytical method developed from this study. Knowl-
edge about quantified cool roof benefits at both the local and
regional levels may promote the formulation of new policies and
programs throughout the world.
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by USAID. The authors would like to
acknowledge the field work performed by individuals from LBNL
and IIIT included in [17], and a U.S. cool roof manufacturer that
provided in-kind support for applying roof coatings. This paper
benefits from valuable comments from anonymous reviewers for
the journal, and graphic assistance of Anthony Ma.
References
[1] Akbari H, Pomerantz M, Taha H. Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce
energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Solar Energy 2001;70(3):
295e310.
[2] Livada I, Santamouris M, Assimakopoulos M. On the variability of summer air
temperature during the last 28 years in Athens. Journal of Geophysical
Research 2007;112:D12103. doi:10.1029/2006JD008140.
[3] Giannopoulou K, Livada I, Santamouris M, Saliari M, Assimakopoulos M,
Caouris Y. On the characteristics of the summer urban heat island in Athens,
Greece. Sustainable Cities and Society 2011;1:16e28.
[4] Hua L, Ma Z, Guo W. The impact of urbanization on air temperature across China.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology 2007;93(3e4):179e94. Springer. Retrieved
from, http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00704-007-0339-8.
[5] Ren G, Zhou Y, Chu Z, Zhou J, Zhang A, Guo J, et al. Urbanization effects on
observed surface air temperature trends in north China. Journal of Climate
2008;21:1333e48. doi:10.1175/2007JCLI1348.1.
[6] Mohan M, Kikegawa Y, Gurjar B, Bhati S, Kandya A, Ogawa K. Assessment of
urban heat island intensities over Delhi. The Seventh International Conference
on Urban Climate, 29 June - 3 July 2009, Yokohama, Japan;2009.
[7] Ojima T. Changing Tokyo metropolitan area and its heat island model. Energy
and Buildings 1990/1991;15e16:191e203.
[8] Wong N, Yu C. Study of green areas and urban heat island in a tropical city.
Habitat International 2005;29:547e58.
[9] Jusuf S, Wong N, Hagen E, Anggoro R, Hong Y. The influence of land use on the
urban heat island in Singapore. Habitat International 2007;31:232e42.
[10] Rosenfeld A, Akbari H, Romm J, Pomerantz M. Cool communities: strategies
for heat island mitigation and smog reduction. Energy and Buildings 1998;28:
51e62. doi:10.1016/S0378-7788(97)00063-7.
[11] Akbari H, Rosenfeld A, Taha H. Summer heat islands, urban trees, and white
surfaces. ASHRAE Transactions 1990;96(1). American Society for Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia.
[12] Taha H. Modeling the impacts of increased urban vegetation on the ozone air
quality in the south coast air basin. Atmospheric Environment 1996;30(20):
3423e30.
[13] Konopacki S, Gartland L, and Akbari H. Demonstration of energy savings of cool
roofs. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report, LBNL-40673; 2000.
[14] Santamouris M, Synnefa A, Kolokotsa D, Dimitriou V, Apostolakis K. Passive
cooling of the built environmentduse of innovative reflective materials to
fight heat island and decrease cooling needs. International Journal Low
Carbon Technologies 2008;3(2):71e82.
[15] Yu C, Wong N. Thermal impact of strategic landscaping in cities: a review.
Advances in Building Energy Research 2009;3(1):237e60.
[16] Shashua-Bar L, Tsiros I, Hoffman M. A modeling study for evaluating passive
cooling scenarios in urban streets with trees e case study: Athens, Greece.
Building and Environment; 2010. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.06.008.
[17] Akbari H, Xu T, Taha H, Wray C, Sathaye J, Garg V, Tetali S, Babu M, Reddy K.
Using cool roofs to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and urban
heat-island effects: Findings from an India experiment. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory Report, LBNL-4746E; 2011.
[18] Bhatia A, Mathur J, Garg V, Akbari H. Determination of energy saving of cool
roof on an office building in Hyderabad, India using calibrated simulation.
Solar Energy Society of India 2010;20. No. 1 & 2 June - December, 2010.
[19] Central Electricity Authority (CEA). CO2 baseline database for the Indian
power sector, user guide version 5.0. November 2009. Government of India,
Ministry of Power, http://www.cea.nic.in/planning/c%20and%20e/user_guide_
ver5.pdf; 2009.