Energy xxx (2015) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Influence of the building shape on the energy performance

of timber-glass buildings in different climatic conditions


Miroslav Premrov a, Vesna Zegarac Leskovar a, *, Klara Mihali

cb
a
University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovenia
b
MEng, Lineal d.o.o., Slovenia

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

Article history: Designing timber-frame houses with enlarged glazing mostly placed on the south side of the building
Received 23 January 2015 offers numerous possibilities of creating structures with a highly attractive shape. Nevertheless, some
Received in revised form general design guidelines claim that a non-compact building shape usually results in the increased
5 May 2015
energy demand for heating [1]. The aim of the present research therefore is to demonstrate possible
Accepted 6 May 2015
Available online xxx
avoidance of the latter energy related problem. The research is based on a case study of a one-storey
timber-frame house, taking into account the climate data for three different European cities, those of
Ljubljana, Munich (Muenchen) and Helsinki, whose average annual temperature and solar potential
Keywords:
Shape factor
differ significantly. Apart from the climate data, the main variable parameters are the building's shape
Glazing size factor (Fs) and the AGAW (glazing-to-wall area ratios) in the south façade of the building. With the
Energy demand ground floor area and the heated volume remaining constant, the parametric analysis is carried out for
Timber-glass buildings different building shapes, i.e. square, rectangular, L, T and U, with the three-layer insulating glass placed
Climate conditions in the south façade only. The results point out that the total annual energy demand for heating and
cooling depends on the increasing shape factor to a considerably higher extent in cold climate conditions
with a lower solar potential (Helsinki). On the other hand, the analysis of the regions with a higher
average annual temperature (Ljubljana) and solar potential in the heating period shows that the influ-
ence of highly attractive building shapes on the energy demand is evidently less important, especially
when using the appropriate size and position of the insulating glazing.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Refs. [5,6]. Commercial and residential buildings consume almost

Witnessing an intensive focus of the sciences of civil engineering
and architecture on searching for new ecological solutions and
construction methods that would allow for higher energy-efficiency
and, consequently, for reduced environmental burdening, new
combinations of old building materials, such as timber and glass, are
gaining ever more support. The measures employed to save energy
vary in nature, and the decision maker is required to establish
an optimal solution, taking into account multiple and usually
competitive objectives such as energy consumption, financial costs,
environmental performance, renewable energy utilization, etc.,
Diakaki et al. [2]. Many investigations have been carried out toward
100% renewable and sustainable energy [3,4], an extended overview
of many other published recently can be found for example in
* Corresponding author.


E-mail address: vesna.zegarac@um.si (V. Zegarac Leskovar).
40% of the primary energy in the United States or Europe, and nearly
30% in China. Through integrating the technologies of energy-
efficient and renewable energy utilization in building, NZEB (net
zero energy building), which is an innovative concept for high-
performance building, is proposed supported by an application of
LCA (Life Cycle Assesment) in NZEB evaluation, Deng et al. [7].
Timber and glass were formerly rather neglected as construc-
tion materials. Timber is a live organisms' product and thus a
natural material exposed to parasites and bacteria. Alternate
exposure to humidity makes timber unsustainable while its organic
structure accounts for its inhomogeneity which is a rather negative
construction-related feature. Another specific area is timber's fire
resistance. The all characteristics mentioned above are said to be
the main drawbacks of using timber in construction in the past. The
energy aspect of glass was because of its high thermal trans-
mittance often treated as a weak point in the past which arise in
high transmission losses through window openings. Additionally,
due to a relative low tensile strength and low ductility glass was

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
0360-5442/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
2 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11
also not considered as a primary load-bearing structural material.
However with suitable technological development and appropriate
use, timber and glass are nowadays becoming essential construc-
tion materials as far as energy efficiency is concerned. Their com-
bined use is extremely complicated, from the energy efficiency
aspect on the one hand and from the structural viewpoint on the
other. A good knowledge of their advantages and drawbacks is thus
vitally important.
As a natural raw material requiring minimal energy input into
the process of becoming construction material, timber shows
indisputable environmental excellence. It certainly represents one
of the best choices for energy-efficient construction, since it also
functions as a material with good thermal transmittance proper-
ties, if compared to other construction materials. On the other
hand, the use of glazing in buildings has always contributed to
openness and better daylight situation of interiors. Although
characterized by weak thermal properties in the past, glass has
been gaining an ever greater significance as a building material due
to its improved thermal, optical and strength properties, resulting
from years of development. The features of both building materials
presented above lead to the development of a new type of struc-
tures, the so called timber-glass buildings, suitable for the
construction of energy-efficient buildings where an optimal pro-
portion and appropriate orientation of the glazing surfaces play an
important part due to exploitation of solar radiation as a source of
renewable energy within the passive use of energy for heating. The
latter can contribute to higher thermal gains which in turn influ-
ence the reduction of the building's total energy demand. A further
advantage lies in substantial contribution to the living comfort, not
only in a sense of the energy demand for heating and cooling, but
also according to improved daylight. Unfortunately, a desire for
energy generation through solar gains is often in conflict with some
other functional requirements, such as prevention of overheating
in cases where considerably high amounts of solar gains could lead
to the requirement for additional cooling during the summer
period, Wurm [8]. However, the thermal performance can be
treated as one of the main disadvantages of large transparent fa-
çades if these are not correctly designed. The thermal transmission
of glass elements is usually significantly higher than that of
external timber-frame wall elements. It is therefore of utmost
importance to determine the optimal size of glazing placed in the
envelope elements and to consider every single parameter neces-
sary for a complete energy treatment of the building, with a careful
balance between the above mentioned advantages and
disadvantages.
The issue of determining the optimal proportion and orientation
of the glazing surfaces is rather complex. A research on the optimal
glazing size, based on a case study of a two-storey timber-frame


house, carried out in Zegarac Leskovar and Premrov [9] presents the
analytical functional dependence of the AGAW (glazing-to-wall-
area ratio) on the thermal transmittance coefficient of the external
wall (Uwall) of the building. This relation allows a selection of any
external wall element with a specific Uwall and consequently a se-
lection of the optimal AGAW value, which decreases with the in-
crease of the Uwall. For instance, the optimal AGAW for the south
oriented three-pane insulating glazing installed in a timber-frame
house with external wall elements of Uwall ¼ 0.10 W/m2K is be-
tween 34% and 38%, while the glazing surface for walls with
Uwall ¼ 0.18 W/m2K should cover almost 54% of the south façade.
However, the findings of the study are applicable only to simple
rectangular-shaped buildings. Further economic analysis on the
simulation case of a timber-frame house with the optimal size of
glazing is presented in Sor
sak et al. [10]. The paper presents an
approach in the determination of the most economically efficient
building from the viewpoint of the costs of envelope's composition,
Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
the present value of heating costs and the costs incurred in fitting
out the boiler room.
Planning timber-frame houses with enlarged glazing surfaces
offers many possibilities of designing structures with highly
attractive shapes, which are more fragmented than those having a
simple rectangular shape. However, some of the existing studies
prove that an attractive and dynamic design leads to the increase of
the building skin surface, which may result in higher heat trans-
mission losses. For example, the impact of RC (relative compact-
ness) on the building's annual cooling energy demand and the total
annual energy demand was investigated by Al Anzi et al. [11],
whose research involved a prototypical building with over 20 floors
based in Kuwait. Several building models with various shapes (L, U,
T, cut shape, cross shape, trapezoid) were chosen for the simulation
analysis. The results of the study indicate that the energy use de-
creases as the relative compactness increases, if a building without
windows is considered. Moreover, the study focuses on the influ-
ence of the window-to-wall area ratio and on that of orientation
exerted on the energy use, with the analysis being carried out for
various window sizes and glazing types. In this field, Depecker et al.
[12] studied the relationship between shape and energy re-
quirements during the winter season in two French localities with
different climate conditions. They found no correlation between
the energy consumption of a building and its shape in a mild
climate. Albatici and Passerini [13] were encouraged to research
new indicators of energy performance in mild and warm climate
conditions in relation to the building shape. Heating requirements
of buildings with different shapes placed in the Italian territory
were presented in their research which was based on a monthly
method and confirms that compactness is more important in cold
localities than in warm ones. Danielski et al. [14] analysed the
impact of the shape factor on the final energy demand by using five
existing apartment buildings with different values of the shape
factor. Simulations were carried out for different scenarios
considering three variations of the thermal envelope and four
climate zones. The findings indicate that the shape factor has a
higher impact on the specific heat demand in buildings with lower
thermal envelope properties (higher U-value) and in those located
in colder climates. On the contrary, the shape factor influence is
found to be diminishing in non-Nordic climates with the annual
average outdoor temperatures above 14  C for buildings with a high
U-value of the thermal envelope and those above 11  C for build-
ings with a low U-value envelope properties. Apart from the latter,
the majority of the existing studies consider the influence of the
shape factor on the building energy demand for similar climatic
regions. The issue of the current study is thus to analyse the energy
behaviour of a building with altering shape factors for different
macroclimatic zones.
The first, theoretical part of the paper, briefly describes the
present research considering the influence of different variable
parameters, such as the glazing size and the building shape on the
energy performance of buildings. Chapter 2 contains basic princi-
ples of energy flows in buildings, supported by main equations to
be used further in the analysis, which are followed, in Chapter 3, by
the explanation of parameters influencing the architectural ge-
ometry of the building. The second, analysing part of the paper,
Chapter 4, consists of an extensive parametric numerical analysis of
the building's architectural geometry and its impact on the energy
flows through the building skin within three different macro-
climatic zones. Concluding with Chapter 5, the focus is set on
general findings to be linked with a set of basic guidelines providing
architects with a tool for a quick estimation of the energy perfor-
mance of timber-glass buildings with highly attractive shapes, in
addition to that of rectangular-shaped ones.
 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11
The main aim of this study is to investigate the influence of the
building shape with the optimal south-oriented glazing size on the
energy demand for heating and cooling. Three different locations
(Ljubljana, Munich and Helsinki) with rather different macro-
climate conditions and solar potential are analysed. The study is
limited only to timber-frame construction and analyses exterior
wall elements featuring a passive design standard (Uwall ¼ 0.10 W/
m2K), while taking into account that the rest of the parameters,
such as active technical systems, roof and floor slab assemblies, etc.,
remain constant.
The presented study is an extension of our previous study [9]
performed on timber buildings with enlarged size of glazing
placed on the south facade. Therefore, it is important to stress that
the current study is limited to timber construction only which is
also termed as lightweight construction with a quite low thermal
capacity considered in all calcultations.
2. Energy flows in buildings
Planning and designing energy-efficient buildings is a complex
process whose definition could be understood as a three-levelled
one. The first e basic design level comprises an optimal selection
of the building components, i.e. the structural design concept,
thermal envelope composition, construction details, type of glazing
and other materials, with respect to the location, climatic data and a
suitable orientation. The following level is that of passive design
strategies which allow for heating with solar gains, cooling with
natural ventilation, using thermal mass for energy storage where
renewable energy sources are exploited with no need for electricity.
Only the third, i.e. the last level involves design concepts of the
building's active technical systems using renewable sources of
energy with the necessary recourse to electrical energy. The current
study is limited to the first two levels.
Energy efficiency of buildings according to EN ISO 13790 [15]
calls for consideration of the energy demand for heating (QH) and
cooling (QC). To determine both components the building can be
considered as a thermal system with a series of heat flows, inputs
and outputs, Szokolay [16]. The energy balance of the building
therefore generally consists of the transmission heat losses (QT),
ventilation heat losses (QV), internal heat gains (QI) and solar heat
gains (QS), given in the form of Eq. (1) and schematically presented
in Fig. 1.
QT þ QV þ ðQI þ QS Þ ¼ DQ ¼ QH for the cold period scenario
(1a)
Fig. 1. Scheme of energy flows in a building typical of the cold period scenario.
Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
3
QT þ QV þ ðQI þ QS Þ ¼ DQ ¼ QC for the warm period scenario
(1b)
where the main quantities are the following:
QT: transmission heat losses or gains caused by heat flow
through the elements of the building envelope,
QV: ventilation heat losses or gains caused by air exchange be-
tween the building and its surroundings (air infiltration, natural
ventilation, mechanical ventilation, air leakage through the
building envelope),
QI: internal heat gains generated inside the building by occu-
pants, lighting and household appliances,
QS: solar heat gains caused by solar radiation.
Based on different temperatures of the building and its sur-
roundings we can distinguish between two opposite heat flow
scenarios. In cold periods of the year when the average outdoor
temperature is generally lower than the prescribed or chosen in-
door temperature, the sum of all heat flows in the building is
usually negative, which is mainly due to the energy output caused
by transmission and ventilation heat losses (Fig. 1). In such cases
the DQ results in the amount of energy required for heating (QH) in
order to reach a desired indoor temperature of approximately
20  C, typical of cold periods, Eq. (1a).
The opposite is the warm period scenario, i.e. that of the summer
period in the majority of European areas, when the highest daily
outdoor temperature can be higher than the prescribed or chosen
maximal indoor temperature. In this case the sum of all heat flows
in the building results in a positive value, mainly due to solar heat
gains. The DQ shows the amount of heat that has to be extracted
from the building for cooling (QC) to prevent overheating, in order
to reach a desired indoor temperature which should not exceed
25  C, Eq. (1b).
With the focus first set solely on the heating period, we see that
the energy losses (QL) in buildings, according to EN ISO 13790 [15],
consist of a sum of the transmission heat losses (QT) and ventilation
heat losses (QV) caused by air exchange between the building and
its surroundings (air infiltration, natural ventilation, mechanical
ventilation, air leakage through the building envelope), in the form
of:
QL ¼ QT þ QV (2)
The heat gains (QG) in buildings for the heating period are a sum
of solar heat gains caused by solar radiation (QS) and internal heat
gains generated inside the building (QI), in the form of:
QG ¼ QS þ QI (3)
The amount of energy required for heating (QH) equals the dif-
ference between the sums total of heat losses (QL) and heat gains
(QG) of the building taking into account also the impact of the
building's thermal inertia. Therefore, surplus heat, e.g. excess solar
gains, is not or only partially usable for heating. It is thus of the
utmost importance to consider this fact, the best and accurate way
is by dynamic simulation methodology. In a simple calculation
methodology, in the quasi-stationary method according to EN ISO
13790 [15] for example, the heat gains are thus reduced with the
utilization factor hG as the fraction of free heat gains (QG) that can
be used for space heating in the form of:
QH ¼ QL  hG $QG (4a)

.

hG ¼ 1  ðQG =QL Þ5 1  ðQG =QL Þ6 (4b)
4 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11
As they are almost independent of the shape of the building at a
constant usable floor area (ATFA) for the given climatic data the
ventilation losses and the internal heat gains in our study can be
assumed to be almost constant. In that case the change of the en-
ergy demand for heating (DQH) results from Eqs. (1a) and (4a) in the
approximate form of:
DQH zQT  hG$QS (5)
Of course, the values for Qv and Qi will be considered with their
exact values in all calculations for Qh in the numerical study in
Chapter 4.
The transmissions heat losses QT are calculated for every
building element of the heat-exchanging envelope using:
QT ¼ A$U$fT $Gt (6)
where A is the building envelope area, U is the building envelope
thermal transmittance, fT is the reduction factor for reduced tem-
perature difference and Gt is temperature difference time integral
(heating degree hours). The solar heat gains QS are calculated using:
QS ¼ r$g$Aw $G (7)
where r is the reduction factor taking into account the frame-to-
window-area ratio, shading, dirt on the glazing and the tilted
incidence angle of radiation through the glazing; g is the degree of
solar energy transmitted through the glazing normal to the irra-
diated surface, Aw is the window area (rough opening) and G is the
total radiation during the heating period.
All calculated values in Eqs. (1)e(7) are in the end usually pre-
sented per a square metre of the total usable floor area (ATFA), in the
forms of:
Qh ¼ QH =ATFA (8a)
Qt ¼ QT =ATFA (8b)
Qs ¼ QS =ATFA (8c)
Qc ¼ QC =ATFA (8d)
3. Architectural geometry of buildings
Many interesting analyses have been done with a focus on
defining the optimal architectural geometry of the building, e.g. the
impact of windows on the heating and cooling demand, Inanici and
Demirbilek [17], Bülow-Hübe [18], Persson et al. [19], Ford et al.
[20], Bouden [21], Hassouneh et al. [22]. In the study of Singh and
Garg [23] energy rating of different window glazings, available in
the Indian market, has been carried out. This rating is very helpful
in selecting the best window for a given building and a given
climate. An envelope thermal load prediction model that may be
applied to easily predict the annual envelope and solar loads at an
early stage of free-form building design in various climate zones
was proposed by Jin and Jeong [24]. Similarly, Capeluto and Ochoa
[25] developed an adaptable mass-produced façade system with a
simplified methodology to identify preferred strategies and com-
binations for the early design stage of energy renovation. Strategies
were matched with conceptual technologies, like glazing, insu-
lation and shading.
From the existing research findings we summarize that the
process of defining the optimal model of a building is very complex.
The most important parameters influencing the energy
Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
performance of buildings are location of the building along with
climate data for a specific location, orientation of the building,
properties of the materials installed, building design, selection of
active technical systems, etc. Identifying the building parameters
that significantly impact energy performance is an important step
for enabling the reduction of the heating and cooling energy loads
in the design stage, especially for implementing passive design
techniques. A sensitivity analysis was performed by Yildiz and
Arsan [26] to determine the most significant parameters for
buildings in hot-climates by considering the design of an existing
apartment building in Izmir. It is therefore important to investigate
the influence of the above listed parameters with utmost care. Due
to the absence of a direct correlation between the different pa-
rameters, it is more convenient to conduct separate examinations
of their influence on the energy demand for buildings. The latter is
of particular relevance to the influence of the building's orientation
and its glazing size on the one hand, and to the influence of the
building shape, which will be briefly presented in the current
chapter 3 and thoroughly examined with the numerical study in
Chapter 4, on the other.
It has been justified in several existing studies that glazing
surfaces, if oriented towards the equator where the solar potential
is the highest, enable solar radiation to enter the building. The
parameter which can significantly influence the amount of solar
gains and consequently the total energy demand for heating and
cooling is the AGAW (glazing-to-wall area ratio) of the south-
oriented façade described as the ratio between the total area of
the south-oriented glazing (AGS) to the total area of the south-
oriented wall (AWALL,S), schematically presented in Fig. 2:

AGAW ¼ AGS AWALL;S (9)
One of our general critical remarks referring to the existing
studies focussing on the impact of windows on the heating and
cooling demand was that most of them are just calculations for a
single building based on a large number of parameters affecting the


energy demand. In the studies in Zegarac Leskovar and Premrov [9]


and Zegarac Leskovar and Premrov [27] an attempt at a more sys-
tematic analysis was made, with the model of a building being
performed in many variations of timber construction systems.
Based on an extensive parametric analysis, a generalisation of the
problem was performed concerning the optimal glazing area size
(AGAWopt) dependence on one single variable, the Uwall-value which
becomes the only variable parameter for all contemporary pre-
fabricated timber construction systems, independently of their
type. Finally, mathematical linear interpolation is presented as a
Fig. 2. Schematic presentation of the AGAW value in the south façade (a) along with
the self-shading of the building on the south side (b).
 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11
simple method for predicting an approximate energy demand with
regard to the glazing size and the Uwall-value in the analysed case
study, which will be used in Chapter 4 as the first step in deter-
mining the AGAW values to be analysed.
The building shape is defined by architectural geometry of
external building elements [1]. It has a significant effect on thermal
performance, since the major heat flows pass through the building
skin. In the professional practice, the most used index to describe
this architectural geometry is the shape factor (FS) defined as the
ratio between the envelope area of the building (A) and the inner
heated volume of the building (V), given in the form of:
 1

FS ¼ A=V m (10)
To minimize the transmission losses through the building's
envelope a compact shape indicated by a low shape factor is
desirable. On the other hand, a dynamic form with larger trans-
parent surfaces permits provision of higher solar gains. Consider-
ation of solar access in the phase of determining the building shape
is an essential part of the energy-efficient building design, Hachem
et al. [28]. General design guidelines for energy-efficient houses
suggest that a compact shape is the optimum. With reference to the
study presented in Chapter 4, it is important to mention that
Albatici and Passerini [13] were encouraged to research new in-
dicators of the energy performance within mild and warm climate
conditions related to the building shape. They presented heating
requirements of buildings with different shapes in the Italian ter-
ritory. Their research based on a monthly method (simplified
approach) confirms that compactness is more important in cold
localities. Having taken heating requirements into account, Albatici
varied envelope areas of the models, while the volume and the
percentage of the glazing remained constant.
Another important parameter often used to determine solar
access of a building, assuming that the latter is of a given height and
optimally oriented, is the AR (aspect ratio), a ratio between the
building's length and width (AR ¼ L/W). All the parameters are
schematically presented in Fig. 2. The aspect ratio is a significant
parameter in energy efficient design concerning the building shape,
as emphasized in several studies. In cold climates, for example, the
ideal aspect ratio for a rectangular-shaped solar house design
ranges from 1.3 to 1.5, Chiras [29].
In the design stage, when determining a dynamic building ge-
ometry, it is important to consider direct solar penetration through
the glazing in the south façade which significantly depends also on
the so-called self-shading. Buildings with dynamic geometry have a
larger building envelope if compared to those with more compact
building shapes. As a result, they affect the increase of transmission
losses through external walls. On the other hand, a dynamic form of
the building's south façade means significantly larger south-
oriented glazing surfaces, which can contribute to higher solar
gains. However, direct solar penetration through the glazing can be
partly obstructed by other parts of the building in specific periods
of a day, as schematically presented in Fig. 2. The effect of balconies
on direct solar radiation and consequent reduction in energy de-
mand for cooling in 21-story residential building in Hong Kong was
studied by Chan [30]. It was presented that effectiveness of a bal-
cony, in terms of solar shading, may vary for identical residential
flats located on different levels of a building. Hachem et al. [28]
investigated the effects of the geometric shapes of two-storey
single family housing units on their solar potential by using the
so-called depth ratio a/b, where a represents the length of the
shading façade and b the length of the shaded façade (Fig. 2). The
paper demonstrates that both parameters control the extent of
shading and consequently the reduction of the solar radiation
incident on the shaded façade. It is therefore desirable to reduce the
Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
5
depth ratio in order to optimize the solar potential of façades. A
rectangle, with the aspect ratio of 1.3 serves as the reference.
Considering all these facts, the main focus of our research is to
investigate whether the guidelines for a compact building shape
can be accepted as a general rule for energy efficient construction.
The present study thus primarily aims to examine the influence of
the building's architectural geometry on solar access and the
consequent impact on the energy demand. It is therefore important
to carry out analyses for different climatic regions with essentially
different average annual temperatures and solar potential.
4. Numerical study
4.1. Simulation model
4.1.1. Building geometry
The presented numerical research is based on a case study of a
box model of a 3-metre-high one-storey house built in the pre-
fabricated passive timber-frame structural system with the glazing
installed only in the south façade of the building. It is necessary for
further interpretation of the results that the occupied floor area
(ATFA ¼ 81 m2) and the heated volume (V ¼ 243 m3) are kept con-
stant during the whole analysis, but we will vary envelope areas on
the south façade of the models.
The window insulating glazing (Unitop 0.51e52 Uniglas) with
three layers of glass, two low-emissive coatings and krypton in the
cavities for a normal configuration of 4E-12-4-12-E4, is installed.
The glazing configuration with a g-value of 52% and Ug ¼ 0.51 W/
m2K assures a high level of heat insulation and light transmission,
Gustavsen et al. [31]. The U-value of the window frame is
Uf ¼ 0.73 W/m2K.
Three different values of the glazing size placed in the south
façade (AGAW ¼ 35%, AGAW ¼ 45% and AGAW ¼ 55%) are chosen.
The selected AGAW is based on the findings of the study [5], which
demonstrates that the optimal ratio of AGAW mostly depends on
the U-value of the external wall elements. The optimal value for a
house built with external walls featuring a passive standard of
Uwall ¼ 0.10 W/m2K was 35%, however the entire analysis in Ref. [9]
was performed only on one rectangular shape of the house.
Moreover, the study was performed only for the climate condition
of Ljubljana while in the current research three different climate
locations are analysed (Ljubljana, Munich and Helsinki) and
therefore the values for AGAW of 45% and 55% are additionally
considered.
The main aim of the research is to vary the architectural ge-
ometry of the building and consequently the building's shape factor
(FS) whose values are parametrically changed with various floor
plan models of the ground-floor. The following frequently used
shapes - square, rectangular, L and U shapes are therefore analysed
within a total range of 8 different ground floor shapes, as seen in
Fig. 3. The building shape factor values are calculated using Eq. (10)
and vary parametrically from 1.472 for the square building shape to
1.722 for the most dynamic shape.
The Models 4, 5 and 7 are non-symmetrical with the L-projec-
tion on the left (west) side. The models with the L-projection to the
right (east) side with the same shape factor were also calculated,
but there is only a slight difference in the results and therefore
practically no influence on further given conclusions. Geometrical
values presenting the main variable parameters (shape factor, the
building's length and width, the length of the shading façade and
that of the shaded façade along with the size of the glazing in the
south façade) which exert influence on the energy demand of the
building, are listed in Table 1.
It can be seen that models with a higher shape factor FS have a
larger glazing area placed in the south façade (AGS) which will,
6 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11

Fig. 3. Variations of the building geometry (FS).

Table 1
Variable and constant parameters of the building shape.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

FS 1.4722 1.4763 1.5030 1.5539 1.5788 1.5894 1.6567 1.7216

L 9.91 10.91 7.66 13.41 10.91 8.11 9.91 8.41
W 9.91 9.01 12.91 8.31 11.51 15.41 14.41 14.11
a / / / 1.5 5.0 1.5 4.5 3.5
b / / / 7.5 5.0 4.0 9.0 4.3
AGS 35% 14.11 12.83 18.39 17.81 15.54 21.95 20.53 20.07
AGS 45% 18.15 16.50 23.64 24.56 19.98 28.22 26.39 25.84
AGS 55% 22.18 20.17 28.90 30.02 24.24 34.50 32.26 31.59

according to Eq. (7), have a direct effect on solar gains in the
building.
4.1.2. Climate data
Climate data for three cities located in different climate condi-
tions, Ljubljana, Munich (Muenchen) and Helsinki were taken into
consideration with a view to getting feedback on the influence of
the building shape exposed to different solar radiation potential on
transmissions losses. The climate data were taken from Meteonorm
[32], with the temperature data corresponding to the period of
2000e2009 and the radiation data to that of 1991e2010.
4.1.3. Goals and limitations of the research
The main aim of the study is to establish the influence of the
building shape factor (FS) on the energy performance, based on
different climate conditions and various sizes of glazing placed in
the south façade. Both, the winter heating period and the summer
cooling period are taken into account to get a better insight into the
annual energy behaviour of the building with a variable ground-
floor geometry. The study is limited only to timber-frame con-
struction and analyses exterior wall elements featuring a passive
design standard, while taking into account that the rest of the pa-
rameters, such as active technical systems, roof and floor slab as-
semblies, etc., remain constant. Since the influence of the self-
shading on solar gains and overheating in the building, Fig. 3, is
one of the most important facts to be considered in the analysis, a
computer programme with a 3D based graphical design needs to be
used. The programme chosen to perform calculations is Ecotect
[33].
4.2. Results and discussion
The numerical results calculated for the transmission losses (Qt)
through the building thermal envelope along with the solar gains
(Qs) through the glazing in the south façade during the heating
period for Ljubljana (the most southwardly located city with the
maximal solar potential) and Helsinki (the most northwardly
located destination with the lowest average annual temperature
and the lowest solar potential of all three chosen locations) are seen
in Figs. 4 and 5. The results are based on all three AGAW values
selected for the analysis. In addition, linear interpolations of the
parametric results are given as a means of measuring the shape
factor influence on the results obtained. The calculated inclinations
will undergo thorough analysis to be presented in Table 3.
A logical conclusion deriving from the above results for Ljubl-
jana is the fact that the transmission losses Qt basically increase
with the AGAW value due to rather high transmission losses
through the windows. These are, according to the U-values,
approximately 6-times higher than the transmission losses through
the external wall element with the same dimensions. In addition,
the Qt values increase with the shape factor due to the enlarged size
of the external envelope and the glass areas in particular; c.f. Eq. (6).
It is evident from the above facts that the linear inclination of the
transmission losses with respect to the shape factor variable has the
maximal value of 44.94 at AGAW ¼ 55%. On the other hand, solar
gains produced only during the heating period (Qs) increase with
the AGAW value (see Eq. (7)) as well as with the shape factor value
e owing to the increase of the glazing surface, given in Table 1. The
maximal “positive” inclination of 23.882 is lower than the maximal
“negative” inclination for the transmission losses at the same
AGAW value. The impact of the self-shading can be in presented a

Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11 7

Fig. 4. Transmission losses (Qt) and solar gains (Qs) for Ljubljana for all three analysed AGAW values.

Fig. 5. Transmission losses (Qt) and solar gains (Qs) for Helsinki for all three analysed AGAW values.

Table 2
Climate data for the chosen locations.

Location Latitude ( ) Average annual Average temperature in Heating degree Annual solar radiation on south Solar radiation on south vert. surf.
Longitude ( ) temperature ( C) heating period ( C) hours Gt vert. surf. (kWh/m2) in heating period (kWh/m2)

Ljubljana 46.067 11.15 5.5 71,989 973 474

14.517
Munich 48.133 9.23 3.8 85,908 990 503
11.700
Helsinki 60.166 6.36 0.6 109,345 680 346
24.944

Table 3 A comparison of the results for Helsinki and Ljubljana shows a

Inclination of the linear approximation of the results depending on the shape factor.
stronger influence of the shape factor on the increase of trans-
incl. Qt incl. Qs incl. Qt  Qs incl. Qh incl. Qc incl. Qh þ Qc mission losses Qt (the inclination of the linearization functions is
Ljubljana essentially higher) in the Helsinki case, where a difference at the
AGAW 35 35.885 14.277 21.609 21.597 0.759 22.356 given AGAW values is also more significant: the values for Ljubljana
AGAW 45 40.366 18.858 21.508 21.646 2.513 24.159 range from 35.885 at AGAW ¼ 35% to 44.940 at AGAW ¼ 55% (Fig. 4)
AGAW 55 44.940 23.882 21.058 21.478 5.078 26.556 while those for Helsinki rank from 53.096 at AGAW ¼ 35% to 66.492
Average 40.397 19.006 21.392 21.574 2.783 24.357
Munich
at AGAW ¼ 55%. On the other hand, the inclination of the solar
AGAW 35 42.452 15.225 27.227 27.149 0.093 27.242 gains function Qs increases similarly to that for Ljubljana. The latter
AGAW 45 47.702 20.201 27.501 27.521 0.858 28.379 can be explained by a higher number of the heating degree hours,
AGAW 55 53.146 23.240 29.906 29.987 3.183 33.170 given in Table 2, which correspond to the length of the heating
Average 47.767 19.555 28.211 28.219 1.378 29.597
period. Since the heating period for Helsinki is much longer than in
Helsinki
AGAW 35 53.096 16.977 36.119 36.157 0.521 36.678 Ljubljana, solar gain calculations cover a longer period. Therefore
AGAW 45 59.668 22.957 36.711 36.820 2.399 39.219 solar gains (Qs) as well as the inclinations of their linear function
AGAW 55 66.492 27.068 39.425 39.603 4.719 44.322 approximations are thus slightly higher than in the case of
Average 59.752 22.334 37.418 37.527 2.546 40.073 Ljubljana.
As stated in Chapter 2, Eq. (5), the energy demand for heating
depends mostly on the difference between the Qt and Qs values.
simple way by comparing the results for the models with similar Fig. 6 demonstrates these values for all three considered locations
shapes, but different dimensions of the shading façade (a) and the and all three selected AGAW values depending on the shape factor
shaded façade (b). The best case for this is comparison of the solar value.
gains results between the Models 4 and 5. From Fig. 4 we can It is obvious that the calculated parametric results for Ljubljana
observe an essential decrease of the solar gains from Model 4 nearly coincide with their optimal linearization functions. Devia-
(Qs ¼ 14.41 kWh/m2a for AGAW ¼ 45%) to Model 5 tion of the parametric results from the approximation line is
(Qs ¼ 11.45 kWh/m2a). essentially higher in the case of Munich and in that of Helsinki in

Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
8 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11

Fig. 6. The calculated results of Qt  Qs for all three locations and the three selected AGAW values.

particular, in spite of displaying a similar tendency of a general
increase at higher AGAW values. If we consider the line inclination
as a measurement of the shape factor influence on the Qt  Qs
values, it becomes obvious that it is the highest for Helsinki and the
lowest for Ljubljana, at all analysed AGAW values. Such logical
conclusion derives from the presented climate conditions (Table 2)
which affect transmission losses and solar gains, as already dis-
cussed and shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for Ljubljana Helsinki
respectively.
According to Eq. (1) it is now possible to obtain the results for
the influence of the shape factor on the annual energy demand for
heating (Qh), which is the primary goal of our research. The calcu-
lated parametric results with the corresponding optimal line ap-
proximations are graphically presented in Fig. 7.
Owing to a direct correlation in Eq. (5) between the (Qt  Qs) and
Qh values, the obtained results for Qh have a similar tendency as the
already commented results for Qt  Qs. It is important to note that
the increasing shape factor exerts the highest influence on Qh for
Helsinki and the lowest in the case of Ljubljana. A further finding
points to a slight increase of the shape factor influence at a higher
AGAW value, in all three locations, with Helsinki in the leading role
(with the values ranging from 36.157 to 39.603). Evaluation of all
the results in Figs. 4e7 shows a slight deviation from the linear
function for Model 5. The analysis of the latter demonstrates that
despite of its higher shape factor compared to that of Model 4, it has
a smaller glazing size as the previous model, which is the reason for
lower Qt and Qs compared to the values relevant to Model 4. After
analysing the results for all three cities and comparing the selected

Fig. 7. The calculated results of Qh for all three locations and the three selected AGAW values.

Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11
Fig. 8. The calculated results showing Qc for all three locations and the three selected AGAW values.
AGAW values it can be concluded that the function inclination for
Ljubljana proves to be almost independent of the AGAW value. The
results for Munich and those for Helsinki in particular, indicate that
the value of AGAW ¼ 35% corresponds to the minimal energy de-
mand for heating at any value of the shape factor. Also, the linear
function inclination for Helsinki in dependence on the shape factor
systematically increases with the AGAW (in the range of
36.157e39.603). All further conclusions are similar to the already
presented ones for Qt  Qs values.
The results for Helsinki can be compared with the results for
Malmo € from the study of Danielski et al. [14]. For example, by the
value of AGAW ¼ 45% which somehow corresponds to the
windows-to-floor-area value of 0.2e0.25 analysed in Ref. [10], we
can observe from Fig. 7 almost 24% increase of the energy demand
for heating (Qh) with the increasing shape factor, particularly from
37.725 kWh/m2a for Model 1 to 46.721 kWh/m2a for Model 8. In
Ref. [14] this increase is about of 20%. In the both studies similar U-
values for the thermal envelope were used. Of course, it has to be
additionally considered that the average outdoor annual tempera-
ture for Malmo € used in Ref. [14] is 7.7  C and for Helsinki in our
study is 6.36  C. Taking into account also the fact that the influence
of the shape factor on the energy demand for heating is more
obvious in the climate with the lower outdoor temperature the
results for the Nordic climate in the both studies are generally in a
very good relation.
With timber buildings, a particular attention should be paid not
only to the energy demand for heating, but to that for cooling as
well. Due to a low thermal capacity of timber, the risk of over-
heating is considerably higher than in buildings made of brick or
concrete. To make further conclusions about the influence of the
building shape factor on the annual energy demand of the building,
it is also important to consider the cooling period, besides the span
of time in the year when heating is required. Fig. 8 presents the
results for the annual cooling demand (Qc) for Ljubljana, Munich
and Helsinki.
According to the given climate data in Table 2 it is logical that
there is basically no overheating for Helsinki and Munich. On the
contrary, as far as the energy demand for Ljubljana is considered, it
is important to take into account also the energy for cooling which
Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
9
is almost independent of the shape factor at the value of
AGAW ¼ 35% but systematically increases with the size of the
glazing. However, a comparison of the results in Figs. 7 and 8 for
Ljubljana points to a conclusion that there is an essentially higher
impact of the increasing shape factor on the heating than on the
cooling demand. The above finding can be explained by the fact
that the self-shading effect increases along with the increasing
shape factor.
The most interesting point is the comparison of the sum total of
the energy demand for heating and cooling (Qh þ Qc) which is in
fact the sum of values presented in Figs. 7 and 8. The results are
seen in Fig. 9.
Due to only slight overheating for Helsinki and Munich the
conclusions for these two locations are very close to those already
given for Qh. In the case of Ljubljana, where the cooling demand is
not negligible at all, the lowest influence of the increasing shape
factor on the annual energy demand, with respect to winter and
summer periods, is displayed in models with AGAW ¼ 35%, rising
systematically with the AGAW value. The above is in good agree-
ment with the findings in Ref. [9] related to the house built using a
passive standard timber-frame wall with Uwall ¼ 0.10 W/m2K and
the optimal south-oriented glazing size of 35%, considering the
total annual energy demand for heating and cooling. However, the
entire analysis in Ref. [9] was performed only on one rectangular
shape of the house with the shape factor of 1.16. If we take into
account the inclination of the line approximation with a less pro-
nounced deviation of the calculated parametric results as a basic
measurement of the shape factor influence on the energy demand,
it is convenient to present all these values clearly listed in a single
table. The values of the inclination of these lines for all the analysed
values from Figs. 4 to 9 (Qt, Qs, Qt  Qs, Qh, Qc and Qh þ Qc) are
therefore listed in Table 3.
The presented results indicate that the impact of the shape
factor on the energy demand for heating and cooling is essentially
higher for Helsinki than for Ljubljana. The average function incli-
nation for all three AGAW values is set at 24.357 for Ljubljana, at
29.597 for Munich and at 40.073 for Helsinki. Thus, the difference
between Helsinki and Ljubljana amounts to nearly 65%. The second
important fact is that the function inclinations for all energy values
10 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11
Fig. 9. The calculated results of Qh þ Qc for all three locations and the three selected AGAW values.
are the lowest at AGAW ¼ 35%. It can be therefore concluded from
the set of the analysed AGAW values that the above AGAW value
proves to be the most appropriate size of the glazing placed in the
south façade of the building envelope, bearing in mind that the
U-value of the building envelope is approximately 0.1 W/m2K.
5. Conclusions
The findings from the performed parametric analysis evidently
demonstrate a possibility, limited to certain climatic regions, of
designing timber-glass buildings having more attractive ground-
floor geometry with a higher building shape factor. This is contra-
dictory to most of the presented studies performed on different
building shapes with various structural systems which usually
prefer compactness of the passive buildings. However, it should be
underlined that such a dynamic form of timber-glass buildings
achieves the energy optimum only if all the parameters described,
such as the optimal size of glazing, orientation of the external en-
velope, self-shading and climate conditions, are carefully analysed.
As presented, the total annual energy demand for heating and
cooling depends on the shape factor to a considerably higher extent
in cold climate conditions with a lower solar potential (Helsinki).
On the other hand, in regions with a higher average annual tem-
perature and solar potential and the subsequently lower trans-
mittance losses, the influence of the increasing shape factor on the
energy demand is less strong. This conclusion is very close to
findings given by Albatici and Passerini [13] for Italian regions,
proving that the compactness of passive buildings is more impor-
tant in cold localities. It is furthermore close to the study of Dan-
ielski et al. [14] stating that the influence of the shape factor is
weaker in regions with higher average outdoor temperatures.
The presented calculations also demonstrate that the glazing
size of AGAW ¼ 35% placed in the south façade leads to minimum
values of the energy demand for heating (Qh) and the total annual
energy demand for heating and cooling (Qh þ Qc). However, this
finding is relevant to buildings with a highly satisfactory thermal
envelope value of U ¼ 0.1 W/m2K. What is more, the inclination of
the line approximation with the increasing shape factor for all
analysed energy values is the least pronounced at AGAW ¼ 35%, for
Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
all three selected climates. It can be therefore concluded that the
above is the optimal size of glazing placed in the south façade of the
passive type of timber-glass building in basically every climate
condition and any shape of the building.
A number of findings of the present study, especially the ones on
the optimal size of glazing and the influence of the building shape on
the annual energy demand in particular, can serve architects as
systematic guidelines for a quick estimation of the energy perfor-
mance in passive timber buildings. The influence of different thermal
capacities of the building materials is not taken into consideration.
But anyway the presented approach could be applicable to massive
construction (brick, concrete walls) as well, if additional parameters
concerning thermal mass and thermal capacity were considered,
although we would expect slightly different results in the case of a
building model built with a massive construction system.
References
[1] Rules on efficient use of energy in buildings. 2010. Official Gazette RS, 52/
2010.
[2] Diakaki C, Grigoroudis E, Kabelis N, Kolokotsa D, Kalaitzakis K, Stavrakakis G.
A multi-objective decision model for the improvement of energy efficiency in
buildings. Energy 2010;35:5483e96.
[3] Lund H, Mo €ller B, Mathiesen BV, Dyrelund A. Energy system analysis of 100%
renewable energy systems - the case of Denmark in years 2020e2050. Energy
2009;34(5):524e31.
[4] Lund H. The role of district heating in future renewable energy systems.
Energy 2010;35(3):1381e90.
[5] Olabi AG. State of the art on renewable and sustainable energy, Guest Editor's
introduction. Energy 2013;61(1):2e5.
[6] Olabi AG. 100% sustainable energy, Guest Editor's introduction. Energy
2014;77:1e5.
[7] Deng S, Wang RZ, Dai YJ. How to evaluate performance of net zero energy
building e a literature research. Energy 2014;71:1e16.
[8] Wurm J. Glass structures e design and construction of self-supporting skins.
Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkh€auser Verlag AG; 2007.


[9] Zegarac Leskovar V, Premrov M. An approach in architectural design of
energy-efficient timber buildings with a focus on the optimal glazing size in
the south-oriented façade. Energy Build 2011;43(12):3410e8.


[10] Sor
sak M, Zegarac Leskovar V, Premrov M, Gori
canec D, P
sunder I. Economical
optimization of energy-efficient timber buildings: case study for single family
timber house in Slovenia. Energy 2014;77:57e65.
[11] Al Anzi A, Seo D, Krarti M. Impact of building shape on thermal performance
of office buildings in Kuwait. Energy Convers Manag 2009;50(3):822e8.
[12] Depecker P, Menezo C, Virgone J, Lepers S. Design of building shape and en-
ergetic consumption. Build Environ 2001;36(5):627e35.
 M. Premrov et al. / Energy xxx (2015) 1e11
[13] Albatici R, Passerini F. Bioclimatic design of buildings considering heating
requirements in Italian climatic conditions - a simplified approach. Build
Environ 2011;46(8):1624e31.
€ling M, Joelsson A. In: The impact of the shape factor on final
[14] Danielski I, Fro
energy demand in residential buildings in Nordic Climates, Conference: World
Renewable Energy Forum, WREF 2012, Including World Renewable Energy
Congress XII and Colorado Renewable Energy Society (CRES) Annual Confer-
ence, vol. 6; 2012.
[15] EN ISO 13790:2008(en) ISO 13790:2008(en). Energy performance of buildings
d calculation of energy use for space heating and cooling. International Or-
ganization for Standardization; 2008.
[16] Szokolay SV. Introduction to architectural science, the basis of sustainable
design. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008.
[17] Inanici NM, Demirbilek FN. Thermal performance optimization of building
aspect ratio and south window size in five cities having different climatic
characteristic of Turkey. Build Environ 2000;35(1):41e52.
[18] Bülow-Hübe H. The effect of glazing type and size on annual heating and
cooling demand for Swedish offices. In: Proceedings of Renewable Energy
Technologies in Cold Climates'98. Montreal, Canada: Department of Con-
struction and Architecture, Lund University, Division of Energy and Building
Design; 1998 (http://www.belok.se/docs/dagsljus/3_varme_och_kylbehov.
pdf).
[19] Persson ML, Roos A, Wall M. Influence of window size on the energy balance
of low energy houses. Energy Build 2006;38:181e8.
[20] Ford B, Schiano-Phan R, Zhongcheng D. The passivhaus standard in European
warm climates, design guidelines for comfortable low energy homes e part 3.
Passive-on project report. School of the Built Environment, University of
Nottingham; 2007 (http://www.passive-on.org/CD/1.%20Technical%
20Guidelines/Part%203/Part%203.pdf).
[21] Bouden C. Influence of glass curtain walls on the building thermal energy
consumption under Tunisian climatic conditions: the case of administrative
buildings. Renew Energy 2007;32:141e56.
Please cite this article in press as: Premrov M, et al., Influence of the building shape on the energy performance of timber-glass buildings in
different climatic conditions, Energy (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.027
11
[22] Hassouneh K, Alshboul A, Al-Salaymeh A. Influence of windows on the energy
balance of apartment buildings in Amman. Energy Convers Manag 2010;51:
1583e91.
[23] Singh MC, Garg SN. Energy rating of different glazings for Indian climates.
Energy 2009;34:1986e92.
[24] Jin JT, Jeong JW. Thermal characteristic prediction models for a free-form
building in various climate zones. Energy 2013;50:468e76.
[25] Capeluto IG, Ochoa CE. Simulation- based method to determine climatic en-
ergy strategies of an adaptable building retrofit facade system. Energy
2014;76:375e84.
[26] Yildiz Y, Arsan ZD. Identification of the building parameters that influence
heating and cooling energy loads for apartment buildings in hot-humid cli-
mates. Energy 2011;36:4287e96.


[27] Zegarac Leskovar V, Premrov M. Energy-efficient timber-glass houses.
Springer Verlag; 2013. p. 178.
[28] Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P. Parametric investigation of geometric form
effects on solar potential of housing units. Sol Energy 2011;85:1864e77.
[29] Chiras D. The solar house: passive heating and cooling. White River Junction,
VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2002.
[30] Chan ALS. Investigation on the appropriate floor level of residential building
for installing balcony, from a view point of energy and environmental per-
formance. A case study in subtropical Hong Kong. Energy 2015. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.001.
[31] Gustavsen A, Jelle BP, Arasteh D, Kohler K. State-of-the-art highly insulating
window frames. Research and market review, Oslo. 2007.
[32] Meteonorm Software, Meteotest, Bern Switzerland.
[33] Ecotect: Sustainable Building Design Software, Autodesk® Ecotect® analysis,
autodesk ecotect analysis 2011-WIN 32 e EN, http://www.autodesk.com/
education/free-software/ecotect-analysis.