Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

Green building design solution for a kindergarten in Amman

Mahmoud Hammad a,∗ , Munzer S.Y. Ebaid b,1 , Laith Al-Hyari a
a
University of Jordan, Jordan
b
Philadelphia University, Jordan

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

Article history: Buildings in Jordan consume a significant amount of energy for heating, cooling and lighting purposes.
Received 22 September 2013 Therefore, improving energy performance of the existing building in Jordan will significantly reduce
Received in revised form 14 February 2014 national electrical consumption. In this work, an existed kindergarten in Amman was redesigned moving
Accepted 19 February 2014
toward low energy performance, in doing so, the proposed design studied the use of applying lighting
Available online 28 February 2014
saving lamps, adding thermal insulation for walls, solar water heater for domestic hot water, on grid
photovoltaic system as a source of electrical power to generate free solar electricity to cover the electrical
Keywords:
load demand of the kindergarten, and finally a heat recovery system for the exhaust air in air conditioning
Green building
Energy consumption
and ventilation. Also, a suitable economic evaluation criterion was used to estimate the payback period
Photovoltaic of all systems applied. The results showed energy saving fluorescent lamps can reduce the energy use
Heating load by about 15%, and reduce the heating load up to 10%, achieved by using thermal insulation and 61.3%
Carbon emission by using exhaust air heat recovery system. Furthermore, suitable energy conversion using solar systems
were sufficient to cover the domestic hot water heating demand to reach zero of domestic hot water
heating energy during sunshine days. The annual reduction achieved in carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission
was 11.7 ton.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Buildings in Jordan consume a significant amount of energy for
heating, cooling and lighting purposes. In the building sector, most
energy is consumed by existing buildings while the replacement
rate of existing buildings by the new-build is only around 1.0–3.0%
per annum as reported by Barlow and Filala [1]. Therefore, rapid
enhancement of energy efficiency in existing buildings is essen-
tial for a timely reduction in global energy use and promotion of
environmental sustainability. Accordingly, improving energy per-
formance of existing building in Jordan will significantly reduce
national electrical consumption. Studies have shown that the value
of a house can increase anywhere from 10 to 15% if it was eco-
friendly [2]. The energy demand in Jordan has doubled during the
last 20 years, and is expected to continue at the same rate. Hence all
recent energy forecast scenarios have shown that national energy
consumption might double between 2015 and 2020 [3]. Due to
economic growth and increasing population, energy demand is
expected to go up by at least 50% over the next 20 years. This state
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +962 0777421354.
E-mail addresses: hammad@ju.edu.jo (M. Hammad),
mebaid2@philadelphia.edu.jo (M.S.Y. Ebaid), laith@almayanameen.com
(L. Al-Hyari).
1
Tel.: +962 0796013220.
forces Jordan to adopt a number of policies that enhance energy effi-
ciency and support the sustainable development by using clean and
environmentally friendly resources and apply baseline parameters
in harmony with international standards.
Previous work by researchers was highlighted in the open liter-
ature in order to identify the progress and development on existing
green buildings. Asadi et al. [4] and Flourentzou and Roulet [5]
investigated different energy efficiency opportunities in order to
improve energy performance of existing buildings. The results have
showed that energy use in existing buildings can be reduced sig-
nificantly through proper retrofitting or refurbishment. Jaggs and
Palmer [6] stated that the potential retrofit opportunities can be
identified based on the information collected during the energy
audit. Zhenjun et al. [7] presented a systematic methodology to
proper selection and identification of the best retrofit option of
existing buildings for energy efficiency and sustainability. They
concluded that building retrofit with comprehensive energy sim-
ulation, economic analysis and risk assessment is an effective
approach to identifying the best retrofit solutions.
In literature, there are a number of studies focused on existed
commercial and residential buildings retrofits. Among these, stud-
ies reported by Chidiac et al. [8], Flourentzou et al. [9], Juan et al.
[10], and Doukas et al. [11] have demonstrated that energy and
environmental performance of existing commercial office buildings
can be improved greatly if the retrofit measures are selected and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.045
0378-7788/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537 525

Nomenclature
V operating voltage (VDC )
AC solar collector area (m2 ) VMP maximum DC power voltage of PV module (VDC )
Aarray area required by the PV panel (m2 ) V̇ air volume flow rate of ERV (CFM)
Amodule area required by the PV module (m2 ) v1,0 specific volume for the outside condition (m3 /kg)
Aspacing area spacing between required PV panel (m2 ) v2,i specific volume of the exhaust air (m3 /kg)
CP specific heat capacity at constant pressure (kJ/kg K) WP Watt peak (W)
FR removal heat transfer factor X height of titled PV panel (m)
hi indoor air enthalpy (kJ/kg) Y shading distance (m)
h0 outdoor air enthalpy (kJ/kg)
h1 indoor convection heat transfer coefficient Greek letters
(W/m2 K)  density
h2 outdoor convection heat transfer coefficient  azimuth angle
(W/m2 K) ˇ tilt angle
h1,i inlet convection heat transfer coefficient from sup- ˛ solar altitude at certain solar time
ply of fresh air (W/m2 K) (˛)e effective transmittance – absorptance
h1,0 outlet convection heat transfer coefficient from sup- inv,CEC CEC weighted efficiency of inverter
ply of fresh air (W/m2 K) εh exchanger heat transfer coefficient or enthalpy effi-
I total intensity of solar radiation (MJ/m2 ) ciency for ERV
K thermal conductivity (W/m2 ◦ C) εT temperature exchange efficiency for ERV
L material thickness (m)
LT temperature loss factor Abbreviations
LC cable loss factor ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
m hot water demand (kg) conditioning Engineers
N number of daylight hours AIA American Institute of Architects
n number of working days in a month AC alternating current
nC number of collector panels COP coefficient of performance for heating load
nS number of days where there is no sunlight CFM cubic feet per minute
(Pin )C power inout for cooling (W) D/M day per year
(Pin )H power inout for heating (W) DR demand reduction
Pmax maximum rated power of PV module (Wp ) EER energy efficiency ratio for cooling load
Pmax,actual actual rated DC power of a single PV module (W) ERV energy recovery ventilation
Pin electric water heater power consumption (kWh) EAT energy audit team
Pinv,output inverter AC power output (kW) GDP gross domestic product
Pinv,in inverter AC power input (kW)/power input of the HAP hourly analysis program
inverter (kW) HVAC heating, ventilating and air conditioning
Q monthly water heating demand (GJ) H/D hour per day
Qt actual solar collector thermal loss per unit area GoJ Government of Jordan
(MJ/m2 ) kW kilo-Watt
Qu actual solar collector useful gain of energy (MJ) KWh kilo-Watt hour
Qayx auxiliary energy of electric solar heater (GJ) LCC life cycle cost
QERV actual heat transfer by ERV (kW) LEED leadership in energy and environmental design
Qmax maximum heat transfer by ERV (kW) M/Y month per year
Rfi the inner film thermal resistance (m2 ◦ C/W) PBP pay back period
Rf 0 the outer film thermal resistance (m2 ◦ C/W) PV photovoltaic
Rwall wall thermal resistance (W/m2 ◦ C) US$ United State dollar
Rth thermal resistance (m2 ◦ C/W) W Watt
S absorbed solar radiation per unit area (MJ/m2 )
Ti collector inlet temperature (◦ C)
T0 solar heater collector set temperature (◦ C) implemented properly. Retrofit studies on residential buildings by
Tan annular average temperature (◦ C) Cohen et al. [12], Al-Ragom [13], Gustasson [14], Hens [15], Mahlia
Tam monthly average temperature (◦ C) et al. [16] and Zavadskas et al. [17] have showed that appropri-
Ta ambient temperature (◦ C) ate selection of retrofit technologies is very important in building
Tm average module temperature (◦ C) retrofits to achieve maximum energy and environmental perfor-
Ta average ambient temperature (◦ C) mance, and methods developed for residential buildings can also
t time needed to heat the water to the desired tem- be used in other types of buildings.
perature (h) Jaber [18] studied a prototype of the Jordanian “future houses”,
T1,i inlet temperature of supply of fresh air of ERV (◦ C) thermally designed of a class of energy conservation plus passive
T2,i inlet temperature of exhaust air of ERV (◦ C) and active solar systems. Paul and Taylor [19] studied and argued
T1,0 outlet temperature of fresh air of ERV (◦ C) that green buildings have a better indoor environmental quality
T2,0 outlet temperature of exhaust air of ERV (◦ C) as measured by the comfort perceptions of occupants than con-
U overall heat coefficient (W/m2 ◦ C) ventional buildings and that this translated into a more satisfying
UL solar heater overall heat coefficient (W/m2 ◦ C) workplace for the building’s occupants and, in turn, a more pro-
ductive workforce. More work by Badarneh and Kiwan [20] on
renewable energy systems such as PV, wind and using thermal
526 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537
insulation was investigated to meet the energy requirement for a
house. It was found that insulating only the external walls of the
house does not significantly change the cooling load of the building.
However, it reduces 30% of the heating load. On the other hand insu-
lating the roof of the house significantly reduces the heating and
cooling loads to 70% and 20%, respectively. Furthermore, splitting
the house into two zones based on occupation time will signifi-
cantly reduce the size of the renewable energy source needed to
meet the loads requirements.
Awadallah et al. [21] studied the green building guideline and
rating system for Jordan that was referenced to Jordan’s Related
Building Codes (as compulsory requirements), and International
green rating systems such as Leadership in Energy and Envi-
ronmental Design (LEED). Rezaie et al. [22] studied two similar
residential buildings, with low and high energy consumption pat-
terns as case studies. Three different renewable energy technology
and three different hybrid systems were designed for a specified
size. Results obtained showed that the hybrid systems without
considering the economics factors are superior.
Alajmi [23] studied two-story educational facility with total
floor area of 7020 square meter in a hot summer environment.
This includes energy auditing, measurements of thermal perfor-
mance parameters, and cost analysis of making the retrofitting on
the building was performed. The result showed a pay-back period
of less than 6 months for the most effective retrofitting actions.
Al-Salaymeh et al. [24] studied the feasibility of utilizing a pho-
tovoltaic system in a standard residential apartment in Amman city
in Jordan. The output results showed that installation of PV system
in a residential flat in Jordan may not be economically rewarding
owing to the high cost of PV system compared to the cost of grid
electricity. Additional conclusions were that a PV system may be
economically rewarding in Jordan if applied in locations far from
electrical grid or in remote large scale PV power installations to
overcome economical limitations of PV technology. Sakhrieh et al.
[25] studied the comparative results of experimental investigation
of the thermal performance, efficiency and reliability of five solar
water heaters under the same operation conditions. The systems
involved were aluminum, copper, selective black and blue copper
collector plates in addition to evacuated tubes collectors. It was
found that the size of application plays a key role in choosing the
most suitable solar system, and results showed that both blue and
black coating-selective copper collector plates were recommended
for medium and large scale applications due to their long life, high
efficiency, and ease of maintenance. For small applications, like
houses, the results came out to recommend evacuated tubes and
aluminum collectors.
All previous studies were carried out based on numerical sim-
ulations. The actual energy savings due to the implementation of
the selected retrofit measures were not reported. To the best of
our knowledge, no retrofit studies on existed buildings have been
found in the open literature for Jordan. This motivates the present
study, where the main objective is to investigate the feasibility of
implementing some of the “Green Building” technology systems
in Jordan, studying the latest trends in this technology worldwide
and coming up with a customized version with respect to the local
context of Jordan for a retrofiting an old building toward green
building conditions. A case study of this research was to choose
a kindergarten in Amman.
2. Kindergarten building
2.1. Building description
The selected building is a kindergarten in Amman city at latitude
32◦ north and longitude of 35◦ east and an altitude 980 m which
can be classified as a mountain heights plateau, with the following
specifications:
• The kindergarten is located in Amman-Khalda called “Sands
National Academy”.
• The floor area is about 376 m2 , perimeter is 88.9 m and ceiling
height is 3.5 m. It consists of five classrooms, kindergarten prin-
ciple office, administration and a public bathroom, as shown in
Fig. 1.
• Number of occupants is 150 students and 10 teachers including
an administrator.
• Heating thermostat setting is adjusted at 20 ◦ C for heating in win-
ter and 24 ◦ C for cooling in summer.
• All windows are aluminum-framed, sliding with double glazed
window.
• Doors are 50 mm thick wood with storm protection capability.
• The entrances of the kindergarten are facing south.
2.2. Geographical and meteorological data
Jordan has more than 300 sunny days a year, providing a
sunshine duration of about 3125 h/year. The monthly values of
the solar radiation data is calculated based on the mean value
of the daily solar radiation values. The highest solar radiation
is 7.98 kWh/m2 day in June, while the lowest solar radiation is
2.78 kWh/m2 day in January. Moreover, the average daily solar radi-
ation on a horizontal surface is about 5.64 kWh/m2 day. The climate
data for Amman city used in this study was measured and collected
by the Jordanian Green Building Guide [26]. This data shows that
the maximum number of sunshine hours (12.1 h) occurred in June,
while the minimum number of sunshine hours (5 h) occurred in
December.
3. Kindergarten green building design
3.1. Lighting
The existed lighting in the kindergarten rooms is fluorescent
lamps. An energy fluorescent saving lamps are selected to replace
the typical fluorescent lamps. Energy saving fluorescent lamps can
reduce the power demand and energy use by about 15%. Also, they
decrease light levels about 3–10%. These lamps can only be used
with ballasts designed and rated for energy-saving lamps.
3.1.1. Electrical lighting load consumption
The annual lighting power consumption of typical and energy
saving lamps is calculated and presented in Table 1. It is clear that
the total actual consumption AC load is 3636.72 kWh/year, and it
costs US$ 659.81 per year. Furthermore, the total required AC power
when all lights are operated is 2.25 kW. According to that, a proper
energy saving fluorescent lamps that has the same nominal lumen
will be selected instead of the regular fluorescent lamps that are
installed in. Consequently, the total actual consumption of AC load
becomes 2002.16 kWh/year, and the cost is US$ 363.25 per year.
3.1.2. Annual lighting calculations (cost and savings)
3.1.2.1. Annual energy cost saving calculations. The annual energy
savings and energy cost savings per year can be obtained by using
the calculated values in Table 1 as follows:
The annual energy savings per year
= 3636.72 − 2002.16 = 1634.72 kWh/year (1)
The energy cost savings per year
= 659.81 − 363.25 = 296.56 US$/year (2)
 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537 527

Fig. 1. Plan view of the kindergarten.

Table 1
AC consumption and cost of fluorescent lamps and energy saving lamps for the kindergarten.

Area Fixture type Fixture wattage Annual usage Annual consumption

Name Qty H/D D/M M/Y kW kWh/year Cost/year (US$)

Administration Fluorescent lamps 40 W 4 8 22 9 0.16 253.44 45.98

Energy saving lamps 34 W 4 8 22 9 0.136 215.42 39.08
Kindergarten principle office Fluorescent lamps 40 W 4 8 22 9 0.16 253.44 45.98
Energy saving lamps 34 W 4 8 22 9 0.136 215.42 39.08
Five classrooms Fluorescent lamps 40 W 20 8 22 9 0.8 1276.20 231.54
Energy saving lamps 34 W 20 8 22 9 0.68 1077.12 195.42
Four bathrooms Fluorescent lamps 4 × 13 W 4 8 22 9 0.21 333 60.42
Energy saving lamps 34 W 4 8 22 9 0.136 215.42 39.08
Corridor Ordinary reflector spotlight 60 W 16 8 22 9 0.96 1520.64 275.89
Energy saving lamps 11 W 16 8 22 9 0.176 278.78 50.58

Total Fluorescent lamps 2.25 3636.72 659.81

Energy saving lamps 1.264 2002.16 363.25

The tariff pricing = 0.181 cent/kWh, 0.127 JD/kWh [27].

H/D: hour per day; D/M: day per month; M/Y: month per year.

In order to calculate the annual lamp cost savings, the life time Total annual use (lamps hours)
No. of spotlight lights needed =
[28], cost per lamp, annual usage and the total annual use for the Life time
existing lamps and energy saving lamps are all listed in Table 2. 25, 344
= = 16.9 lamp (4)
1500
3.1.2.2. Existing light cost calculations. By using the values listed The annual fluorescent light cost
in Table 3, the existing light cost and energy saving cost can be
determined as follows: = 4.2 lamp/year × 4.6$/lamp = $19.32 (5)

Total annual use (lamps hours) The annual spotlight cost = 16.9 lamp/year × 3.57 US$/lamp
No. of fluorescent lights needed =
Life time
= $60.33 (6)
50, 688
= = 4.2 lamp (3)
12, 000 Total annual existing light cost = 19.32 + 60.33 = 79.65 US$ (7)
Table 2
Total annual use (Lamps hours) of the existing and energy saving lamps.

Lamp type Life time (hours) Cost/lamp (US$) Annual usage No. of used lamps Total annual use
H/D (8) × D/M (Lamps hours)
(22) × M/y (9) (h)

Fluorescent lamps 12,000 4.26 1584 32 50,688

Spot lights lamps 1500 3.57 1584 16 25,344
Energy saving lamps 20,000 5.00 1584 32 50,688
Energy saving spotlights lamps 20,000 3.93 1584 16 25,344
528 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537

3.1.2.3. Energy saving lamp cost calculations. Table 3

Design conditions in summer and winter seasons in Amman city.
No. of fluorescent saving lamps needed
Design parameter Summer Winter
Total annual use (lamps hours) 50, 688 38 ◦ C 0 ◦C
= = = 2.53 lamp (8) Outside air temperature
Life time 20, 000 Wet bulb temperature 27 ◦ C −1.87 ◦ C
Inside air room temperature 24 ◦ C 21 ◦ C
Relative humidity 47% 50%
No. of spotlight saving lamps needed Average wind velocity 5 m/s
Total annual use (lamps hours) 25, 344
= = = 1.27 lamp (9)
Life time 1500
3.1.4. Carbon dioxideCO2 emission
The total reduction in CO2 can be calculated by the following
The annual fluorescent saving lamp cost equation
= 2.53 lamp/year × 5.0$/lamp = $12.65 (10) CO2 reduction (tons) = Savings in power consumption (kWh)

× Emission factor (ton/kWh) (19)

The annual spotlight saving cost = 1.27 lamp/year × 3.93$/lamp

= $4.99 (11) Emission factor is considered to be 1.005 ton CO2 /kWh [27]
Applying Eq. (19), the CO2 reduction is equal to
Total annual energy saving lamp cost = 12.65 + 4.99 = 17.64 US$
CO2 reduction (tons) = (1634.56 + 137.26) kWh × 1.005
(12)
= 1.781 ton CO2
Annual lamp cost savings = Annual existing light cost

− Annual energy saving light cost = 79.65 − 17.64 = 62.01 US$

3.2. Thermal insulation
(13)
3.2.1. Economic thickness of insulation
3.1.2.4. Air conditioning savings calculations. The air conditioning The calculation of economic thickness is complex and in some
(AC) savings can be calculated by multiplying the demand reduction cases is overruled by other listed primary reasons, which can make
(DR) in kW by the total hours of cooling per year, then divide the the calculations unnecessary. According to Al-Saad and Hammad
answer by the energy efficiency ratio (EER) of the AC. The demand [30], the term ambient insulation will be used.
reduction (DR) is calculated as follows:
DR = Input Watts for fluorescent lamps 3.2.2. Design conditions
The following design conditions will be considered as listed in
− Input Watts for energy saving lamps Table 3
= 2.25 − 1.265 = 0.985 kW (14)
3.2.3. Heat transfer coefficients
Suppose that the air conditioner runs at full load 432 h/year in 3.2.3.1. Overall heat transfer coefficient through the wall. The over-
cooling mode. The air conditioner energy efficiency ratio (EER) = 3.1 all heat transfer coefficient of the wall construction is defined as
[29] follow:
AC savings = kW savings × (Air conditioning hours/year) 1
U= (20)
Rth
× (1/EER) = 0.985 × 432 × 1/3.1 = 137.26 kWh/year (15)
The case is studied for adding thermal insulation, only to the
Annual AC cost savings = AC savings × cost of electricity/kWh wall construction of the building (kindergarten) as the space above
and below the floor and ceiling of building is air conditioned. Fig. 2
= 137.26 × 0.181 = 24.90 US$ (16)
shows the wall construction materials for the existed kindergarten
building.
Total annual cost savings = Energy cost savings
The wall thermal resistance equation can be written as
+ Annual lamp cost savings + AC cost savings L L
Rwall = Rf 0 + +
= 296.56 + 62.01 + 24.90 = 383.47 US$ (17) k stone k concrete
L L
+ + + Rfi (21)
3.1.3. Payback period k insulation k plaster
Payback period (PBP) in capital budgeting refers to the period
of time required for the return on an investment to “repay” Substituting the parameters of the table above in Eq. (21), we
the sum of the original investment. It can be calculated as have:
follows:  0.07   0.2   0.02 
Rwall = 0.02 + + +
Initial investment No. of saving lamps × cost of each lamp 1.7 stone 1.75 concrete 0.04 insulation
PBP =
Annual saving
=
Annual saving  0.03 
+ + 0.12 = 0.83 m2 ◦ C/W,
[32 lamp (34 W ) × 5.0 $/lamp] × [16 lamp (11 W) × 3.93 $/lamp] 1.2 plaster
=
383.47 (Eq. (17))
1
222.88 Uwall = = 1.2 W/m2 ◦ C (22)
= = 0.58 year = 6 months (18) Rwall
383.47
 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537 529

The sum of all gross areas of the exterior

walls =16.2 + 16.2 + 11.7 + 16.2 + 16.2 + 11.1 = 103.8 m2 .
The price of extruded polystyrene at the optimum thickness
(0.03 m) is 11.43 US$/m2

Total cost of adding thermal insulation


= Awalls × cost (US$/m2 ) = 103.8 × 11.43 = 1186.43 US$

(23)

3.2.6.2. Payback period. It was found previously from Table 6 that

the saving in cooling and heating loads is 1468.79 W and 1612.63 W,
respectively at 0.03 m optimum thickness. If the coefficient of per-
formance, COP = 3.9 of the existing Daiken air-conditioning and the
energy efficiency ratio EER = 3.1 [29], then the power input for cool-
ing (Pin )C and heating (Pin )H can be calculated according to Eqs. (24)
Fig. 2. Composite wall construction. and (25)
Qc 1468.79
Table 4 (Pin )C = = = 473.80 W (24)
Thermal transmission for the existing windows and doors and interior walls. EER 3.1
QH 1612.63
Section Type Heat transfer (Pin )H = = = 413.49 W (25)
coefficient (U) COP 3.9
2
(W/m ◦ C)
If the hours of residency in kindergarten per day is 8 h and sup-
Doors 50 mm wood with storm 1.4 pose the hours of residency in winter and summer seasons are 462 h
Windows Double glaze with aluminum 3.0
and 422 h, respectively. Then the total saving in kWh/year in sum-
frame thickness = 6 mm
Interior walls Bricks, concrete and plaster 2.8 mer and winter seasons can be calculated by using Eqs. (26) and
(27).

Total saving kWh/year in winter season

3.2.3.2. Heat transfer coefficients through building’s windows, doors,
and interior walls. Thermal transmission for the existing windows, = No. of operating hours is winter
doors and interior walls is calculated according to Eqs. (20) and
462 × 413.49
(22). The results are presented in Table 4. × Total (Pin )H saving in heating =
1000
= 191.03 kW/year (26)
3.2.4. Cooling and heating load calculations
3.2.4.1. Cooling and heating loads calculations. Using hourly anal-
ysis program HAP, the detail results of cooling and heating Total saving in kWh/year in summer
calculations for all rooms in the kindergarten and the percentage = No. of operating hours is summer
of each load with respect to the total load are presented in Table 5.
422 × 473.8
× Total (Pin )C saving in cooling = = 199.94 kW/year
1000
3.2.5. Effects of adding thermal insulation on heating and cooling
(27)
loads
The relative change in thickness of adding thermal insulation
to the existing wall composite is investigated here. The selected Total saving in US$ = total saving (kWh/year)
extruded polystyrene ( = 34 kg/m3 , K = 0.029 m2 K/W, Rth = × electricity tariff (US$/kWh) = (191.03 + 199.94)
0.345 W/m2 K) is added to the inside wall to investigate the effect
of heat insulation behaviors of the specimen. The load saving (W) × 0.181 US$/kWh = 70.77 US$/year
is used to compare the effective thermal transmittances of the
extruded polystyrene with different thicknesses. The results can Initial investment cost
Payback period, PBP =
significantly reduce heat loss or improve thermal insulation. The Total annual saving
degree of improvement in thermal insulation is found to vary with 1186.43 ∼
the added thermal insulation thicknesses. The saving in cooling and = = 17 years (28)
70.77
heating loads with prices for all the rooms with different extrude
polystyrene thicknesses are shown in Table 6. The payback period indicated above is very long, and it is unfea-
It is clear from Table 6 that the maximum saving (W) is obtained sible to invest in thermal insulation for the kindergarten exterior
by adding the extrude polystyrene at thickness equal to 0.03 m, thus walls.
this thickness can be considered optimum or the best thickness to
be added to the wall composite.
3.2.7. CO2 emission
The total reduction in CO2 calculations is similar to the calcula-
3.2.6. Insulation payback period tions in Section 3.1.4
3.2.6.1. Cost of adding thermal insulation. The total cost of adding
thermal insulation is the sum of all gross areas of the exterior walls CO2 reduction (tons) = (191.03 + 199.94) kWh
multiplied by the cost of extruded polystyrene per m2 as shown
× 1.005 = 0.393 ton CO2
below:
530 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537

Table 5
Cooling load for all rooms.

Table 6
Saving in cooling and heating loads at different thicknesses for all rooms.

Thickness of Saving (W) to previous Saving (W) to standard Price for 1 m2 of Total (W) for every
extrude thickness thickness thickness (US$) 1 US$ of thickness for
polystyrene (m) rooms wall area

Cooling Heating Cooling Heating Cooling Heating Cooling Heating

0.01 772.24 846.85 772.24 846.85 7.14 7.14 108.17 118.61

0.02 389.09 428.19 1161.33 1275.04 9.29 9.29 125.01 137.25
0.03 307.43 337.59 1468.76 1612.63 11.43 11.43 128.50 141.09
0.04 183.60 201.93 1652.36 1814.56 13.57 13.57 121.77 133.72
0.05 137.14 150.75 1789.50 1965.31 15.71 15.71 113.91 125.10
0.06 103.96 114.28 1893.47 2079.59 17.86 17.86 106.19 116.44
0.07 79.63 87.53 1973.10 2167.12 20.0 20.0 98.66 108.36

Table 7
Monthly water heating demand.

Month Water demand Month Water demand

(MJ) (MJ)

January 1549 July 1001

February 1517 August 1011
March 1428 September 1049
April 1288 October 1148
May 1151 November 1336
June 1071 December 1486

3.3. Active solar water heating system

The most common types of solar collectors are flat-plate and Fig. 3. Collector efficiency curve [19].

evacuated tube collectors. The selected flat-plate solar collector in

this study is based on the water heating system of the building (ˇ). Fig. 3 shows the collector efficiency curve for the selected solar
to meet the requirements. The entire data and the results, which collector, type HC100, manufactured by Hanania Solar [32]
will be established in the following sections, are based on Jordan
climates and meteorological data. 3.3.2. Design methodology
To estimate the required number of the collector panels nC ,
3.3.1. Water heating load intensity of solar radiation is taken to be I = 1000 W/m2 , maximum
The domestic hot water use for the kindergarten is estimated to plate temperature is approximately reached to 100 ◦ C, and finally
be 2.3 L/student/day [31], and the design temperature is set to be collector inlet temperature is 50 ◦ C.
55 ◦ C. The required heat quantity per month for 150 students can The actual thermal loss Qt can be obtained from Eq. (30),
be estimated by using Eq. (29), and the results in Table 7 represent
Qt (MJ/m2 ) = UL FR (T − Tam ) (30)
the annual water heating demand per month.
The effective transmittance–absorptance (˛)e , and the removal
Q = nS × m × CP × (T0 − Tmn ) (29) heat factor FR can be calculated from Eqs. (31) and (32), respectively
It should be noted here that the solar water heating systems, (˛)e = 1.02 × (˛) = 1.02 × (0.94 × 0.83) = 0.796 (31)
its design and design parameters are well known and are omitted
for brevity. However, the designer must decide the orientation of 0.656 0.656
FR = = = 0.824 (32)
collectors as it is affected by the azimuth angle () and tilt angle (˛)e 0.796
 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537 531

Table 8 The power consumption for the electric water heater to heat the
Monthly thermal heat loss (Qt ), monthly actual absorbed solar radiation (S), and
water when there is no collector installed (using the electric water
monthly actual useful gain of heat (Qu ).
heater all the year)
Month Monthly thermal Monthly actual Useful energy gain,
heat loss, Qt absorption solar Qu (MJ) (Pin ) = 132 × 5 × 4.54 = 2996.4 kWh/year (39)
(MJ/m2 ) radiation, S
(MJ/m2 )
Saving in power consumption in kWh
January 61.07 341.93 416.09
February 61.07 362.88 449.02 = 2996.4 − 454 = 2542.4 kWh/year (40)
March 61.07 548.70 722.78
April 61.07 672.00 912.17
May 61.07 830.80 1151.93
June 61.07 921.00 1288.28 Saving in power consumption in US$
July 61.07 1013.70 1427.29
August 61.07 845.99 1187.01 = Saving in power consumption (kWh)
September 61.07 726.00 1012.10
October 61.07 577.50 818.17
× tariff price = 2542.4 × 0.181 = 460.17 US$/year (41)
November 61.07 417.00 543.65
December 61.07 323.95 400.50
The initial cost for adding a solar collector with four plates for
the selected collector including the installation for the pipes and
where  = 94%, ˛ = 83% (HC100 specifications of the selected col- pumps needed is 1786.0 US$ [32].
lector). The intercept of the collector efficiency curve in Fig. 7 with Initial investment cost
the Y-axis is known as FR (˛)e = 0.656. Payback period, PBP =
Total annual saving
The slope of the collector efficiency curve is known as UL FR equal
to 1.4 W/m2 ◦ C, and is obtained from Fig. 3. Then by using the value 1786
= = 3.88 ∼
= 4 years (42)
of FR from Eq. (32), the value of UL can be obtained as, 460.17

1.4 1.4
UL = = = 1.7 W/m2 ◦ C (33)
FR 0.824 3.3.4. CO2 emission
Once the values of FR and UL are obtained, then Eq. (30) can be CO2 reduction (tons) = 2542.4 kWh × 1.005 = 2.555 ton CO2
used to obtain the values of actual monthly thermal loss Qt .
The monthly absorption solar radiation S values are calculated
3.4. Solar power photovoltaic (PV) system
using Eq. (34)

S = I(˛)e (34) In this work, a grid connected system will be considered in sizing
the PV system for the kindergarten.
And, the monthly actual useful gain Qu values are calculated
using Eq. (35). 3.4.1. Electrical load estimation
Qu = AC FR − [S − UL (Ti − Ta )] (35) The total and average electrical consumption for the kinder-
garten for the past 12 months are 30,612 kWh and 2551 kWh,
The values of Qt , S, and Qu are all listed in Table 8. respectively [27]
It is well known that the energy delivered is linearly related
to the collector area, while the energy delivered between auxil- 3.4.2. Inverter sizing and selection
iary energy source and collector area is not linear. To estimate the The maximum allowable inverter power output (Pinv,output ) for
required number of the collector panels nC , the maximum monthly the grid is calculated according to Eq. (43)
amount of energy required (Q )max from Table 7 is divided by the
Average electrical consumption 2551
minimum actual useful energy (Qu )min from Table 8 for the same Pinv,output = = = 19.62 kW
130 h 130
month as shown in Eq. (36).
(43)
Qmax 1486 ∼
nC = = = 4 collector panels (36) where 130 h represents the average usage of electrical loads during
(Qu )min 400.5
each month in hours.
Based on the above results, the 20 kW inverter SUNNY
3.3.3. Payback period
TRIPOWER 20000TL-10 manufactured by SMA Inc. with DC input
To estimate the payback period, a number of operating hours
range (580–800 VDC ) and CEC weighted efficiency (98.2%) is
for the collector is needed to specify the saving in electrical con-
selected for this purpose.
sumption. Assume the total hours needed for heating the domestic
The power input of the inverter Pinv,in , can be calculated based
water to be 132 day/year when the solar collector is not installed,
on maximum demanded output power and the inverter’s CEC
and the number of hours is needed to use the auxiliary energy sys-
weighted efficiency inv,CEC and by using Eq. (44),
tem (500 L Floor-standing electric water heater of nominal power
of 5 kW, type ACI Electronic) during the cloudy days where there is Pinv,out , kWh 19.62
no sunlight is 20 days/year. So first estimation in kWh/year for the Pinv,in , kWh = = = 19.97 ∼
= 20 kW (44)
inv,CEC 0.982
auxiliary energy system will be carried out to determine the electric
consumption during the cloudy days where there is no sunlight. 3.4.3. PV array sizing and selection
The power consumption for the electric water heater to heat the 3.4.3.1. Panel type selection. A mono-crystalline PS-M 72H solar
water when there is no sunlight is panel Pmax = 300 WP measured at Standard Test Conditions STC of
(Pin ) = n × Nominal power × t (37) 1000 W/m2 irradiance and 25 ◦ C module temperature is selected
from Philadelphia-Solar [33], because it has the highest efficiency
(Pin ) = 20 × 5 × 4.54 = 454 kWh/year (38) (15.4%) and a close price compared to poly-crystalline panels.
532 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537

3.4.3.2. PV array losses. The sources of energy loss are the tempera- where   means rounded up, this yield;
ture loss LT and cable loss LC factors, respectively. The actual power  700 
produced by a single PV panel Pmax,actual [34] is calculated using Eq. Total number of PV panels in series = = 19 (52)
36.58
(45)
Accordingly, the number of parallel lines can be calculated
Pmax,actual (WP ) = [(1 − LT ) × (1 − LC )](Pmax )PV panel (45) according to Eq. (53),
where LT = 7% for the worst month, December in this case, and
Total number of PV panels lines
LC = 4% would be an realistic value given in Ref. [34].
 Total number of PV panels

Substituting the energy loss factors in Eq. (45), the actual pro-
= (53)
duced DC power by a single PV panel Pmax,actual of the type PS-M Total number of PV panels in series
72H with Pmax = 300 WP is calculated.
Pmax,actual = [(1 − 0.07) × (1 − 0.04)] × 300 = 267.84 WP (46) Total number of PV panels lines (summer season)
 42 
3.4.3.3. PV array sizing. Consider May is the best month in solar = ∼
= 2 lines (54)
19
radiation in summer, in which the sun will be able to supply peak
irradiance of 1000 Wh/m2 for about 10.4 h, while December is the
worst month in winter and the sun will supply peak irradiance of Total number of PV panels lines (summer season)
1000 Wh/m2 for about 5 h. Based on that, the total electrical energy  113 
consumption per day in May and December for summer and winter = ∼
= 6 lines (55)
19
seasons, respectively are shown in Table 9.
Summer season. The power produced by PV cell/h of sun light
can be calculated based on the value of daily load in May (Table 9)
according to Eq. (47), 3.4.3.5. PV Panel orientation and row spacing. To maximize the effi-
ciency of the solar installation, along with the capability to install
Daily load (May) kWh as many panels as possible in a given area, two main factors are
Power produced by PV cell/h =
Effective sunlight period often considered in this matter. They are:
115.9
= = 11144 WP (47) • Orientation, which is not affected by the choice of landscape or
10.4
portrait installation [35].
• Row spacing or the shading distance, which is the minimum dis-
Hourly peak hours needed
No. of PV panels required = tance allowed between rows.
Pmax,actual
11, 144 To calculate the shading distance illustrated in Fig. 4, Eq. (56)
= = 41.61 ∼
= 42 Panel (48)
267.84 [36], can be used;
cos 
Winter season. Similarly as above, the power produced by PV Y =X (56)
tan ˛
cell/h is calculated using Eq. (49)
The solar elevation or solar altitude ˛ is the angle between a
Daily load (Dec.) kWh line that points from the site toward the center of the sun, and
Power produced by PV cell/h =
Effective sunlight period the horizon. Height of the PV panel X = (the length of the solar
151.3 panel) × (sin ˇ). For the south azimuth,  = 0◦ for surfaces tilted
= = 30, 260 WP (49) south.
5
The PV array row spacing should be carefully selected to mini-
Hourly peak hours needed mize the effect of shading on the amount of power produced. Using
No. of PV panels required = the selected PS-M 72H solar panels with a length of 1.965 m, the
Pmax,actual
values of Y at solar altitude angles equal to 45◦ and at tilt angles
30, 260 equal to 30◦ is equal to 98.25 cm would be suitable. This will be
= = 112.98 ∼
= 113 Panel (50)
267.84 preferred as it minimizes the total occupied area by the PV array
[36]. Consequently, the value of X = 98.25 cm.
To estimate the space required by the PV array, the spacing
3.4.3.4. Arrangement of PV panels. PV panels can be wired together area is added to the total area of the 30◦ tilted panels, with a 5%
in series, in parallel or a combination of series and parallel to meet contingency factor, and by using Eq. (57),
the demanded DC input voltage and current of inverters, accord-
Aarray = (Amodule + Aspacing ) × No. of PV parallel lines
ing to the inverter’s specifications. The selected SUNNY TRIPOWER
20000TL-10 inverter requires a range of input DC voltage equals

× No. of PV in one line × 1.05 (57)

to Vinv,in = 550–800 VDC , depending on the connected load. For the
purposes of this study, a relatively-high voltage level input is to be
used, specifically 700 VDC . That is to reduce the DC currents which
would help in reducing the size of the required cables. Therefore,
the PV array should have enough panels in series to meet this volt-
age level. If the maximum power voltage VMP = 36.58 VDC of the
PS-M 72H 300P solar panels, the number of PV panels in series
would be given by Eq. (51),
 
Vinv,in
Total number of PV panels in series =
VMP
In summer season, the area of the array using Eq. (57) is 83 m2 ,
while in winter case, the area of the array would be 662 m2 .
3.4.4. Economic analysis
The cost of the PV system will be determined, then the sav-
ing in electrical consumption for each case (summer and winter
seasons) is calculated based on the commercial subscribers tariff
(51) of 0.130 US$/kWh for 1–2000 kW/month, and 0.180 US$/kWh for
more than 2000 kW/month [27].
 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537 533

Table 9
Total electrical energy consumption per day in May for summer and winter seasons.

Appliance Power (kW) Time of operation (h)a Power consumption kWh/day (max)

Summer Winter Summer Winter

Lighting 1.255 1.255 8 h/day 10.4 10.4

Air conditioning 12.900 14.200 8 h/day 103.2 113.6
LCD TV + laptops 0.730 0.730 2 h/day 1.46 0.85
Water heater 0.480 0.480 0.5 h/day 0.24 0.24
Data show projector 1.000 1.000 3 h/week 0.60 0.60
Free stand electric heater – 5.000 5 h/day – 25.0

Total 16.37 kW 21.37 kW 115.9 kWh/day 151.3 kWh/day

* All the duration time of operation are taken at worst case (max duration of operation)

Fig. 4. Illustration of values in Eq. (56) for the shading distance.

Table 10 The annual saving = 5451 − 500.76 = 4950.24.

Saving in electrical consumption per year in summer and winter seasons.
Initial investment cost
Season Electrical Produced Saving in Saving in Payback period, PBP =
consumption power electrical electrical Total annual saving
(kWh/year) (kWh/year) consumption consumption 26, 767 ∼
(kWh/year) (US$/year) = = 5.5 years (58)
4950.24
Summer 30,612 25,456 −5156 −500.76
Winter 30,612 31,200 588 248.69

3.4.5.2. Winter season. The annual cost of electrical consumption

The tariff sale of electrical energy produced using solar energy,
hybrid energy, and others from the user to the distributor is 0.171,
0.136, and 0.121 US$/kWh, respectively given by The Electricity
Regularity Commission ERC [37].
The total present worths (PWs) cost of the PV modules, inverter,
installation, and operation and maintenance (O&M) of the system
are 26,767 US$ and 50,417 US$ for the summer and winter season,
respectively.
However, considering the last 12 months of electrical con-
sumption for the kindergarten, an economic analysis is made
for summer and winter seasons to estimate after adding the PV
array the saving in electricity in US$. Table 10 lists the saving in
electrical consumption per year in summer and winter seasons,
respectively.
3.4.5. Payback period
To estimate the payback period, the annual saving is needed to
specify the saving in electrical consumption per year. (The lifetime
N of all the items is considered to be 25 years.)
per year 2012 = 5451 US$.
The difference in savings in electrical consumption after adding
the PV array = 248.69 US$.
The annual saving = 5451 + 248.69 = 5699.69 US$.
Initial investment cost
Payback period, PBP =
Total annual saving
50, 417
= = 8.8 years (59)
5699.69
Applying the same inflation rates 5% to the increase in the price
of grid electricity leads to a reduction in the payback period to 5
years and 8.4 years for summer and winter seasons, respectively. So
in this case, designing the PV system on summer conditions would
be more feasible than designing at winter conditions. However, the
feed-in-tariff law for PV power will encourage the individuals and
the private sectors in Jordan to invest in installing PV modules. Also,
the declination in the PV cost at the expected rate of 5% annually
will remove one of the most existing barriers and encourage the
people to utilize PV systems in Jordan.

3.5. Heat recovery system

3.4.5.1. Summer season. The annual cost of electrical consumption
per year, 2012 = 5451 US$. 3.5.1. Energy recovery ventilation (ERV)
The difference savings in electrical consumption after adding In this section, a ventilation air system is used as an energy
the PV array = −500.76 US$. recovery ventilator ERV (RHF80KHEE) from the leading company
534 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537

SAMSUNG Electronics Co. [38] to achieve the desired goal of this Table 11
Energy saving for classroom 1.
system. According to Sherman [31], it is assumed that the value of
outdoor air needed is equal to 15 CFM per student for a kindergarten Cooling (summer) Heating (winter)
application, and the acceptable ventilation have been determined Outdoor air (OA)
based on the number of students in each class to provide the Drybulb temperature (◦ C) 38 0
required ventilation. Relative humidity (%) 44 77
Absolute humidity (g/kg) 18.4 2.9
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 85.6 7.3
3.5.2. Heat recovery load assumptions
Room air (RA)
The inside and outside design conditions were assumed in order Drybulb temperature (◦ C) 24 21
to estimate the heat recovery load: Relative humidity (%) 47 45
In summer Absolute humidity (g/kg) 8.7 7
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 46.4 38.8

a. Outside air temperature = 38 ◦ C Supply air conditions and energy saving effect
b. Wet bulb temperature = 27 ◦ C Supply air conditions (SA)
Drybulb temperature (◦ C) 27.8 14.7
c. Inside air room temperature = 24 ◦ C Relative humidity (%) 60.7 54.9
d. Relative humidity = 47% Absolute humidity (g/kg) 14.2 5.7
Enthalpy (kJ/kg) 64.2 29.1
In winter Energy savings
Natural ventilation load (kW) 9.994 8.51
ERV ventilation load (kW) 4.538 2.621
a. Outside air temperature = 0 ◦ C Recovered heat load (kW) 5.456 5.889
b. Wet bulb temperature = −1.87 ◦ C Energy saving percentage (%) 54.5 69.2
c. Inside air room temperature = 21 ◦ C Power input (kW) 0.33 0.33
d. Relative humidity = 50% Coefficient of energy 16.5 17.8

3.5.3. Heat recovery system selection The natural or the maximum ventilation load can be estimated
For this case study, classroom 1 is selected as an example to from Eq. (65),
calculate the requirement of air volume flow rate V̇ as shown below,
V̇
 CFM  Qmax = (h1,i − h2,i ) (65)
V̇ = × nstudents (60) v2,i
person Outdoor
The temperature exchange efficiency εT is calculated from Eq.
If outdoor air needed is equal to 15 CFM per student and the (66),
number of students is known to be 30 students, then the volume T1,i − T1,0
flow rate V̇ from Eq. (60) is equal to εT = (66)
T1,i − T2,i
V̇ = 15 × 30 = 450 CFM (764.5 m3 /h) (61) Then the outlet temperature T1,0 of the fresh air can be calcu-
lated from Eq. (67)
The selected model of ERV (RHF80KHEE) depends on the level
of air volume in order to supply fresh air to space at high speed. T1,0 = T1,i + εT (T2,i − T1,i ) (67)
After applying the heat recovery assumptions (Section 3.5.2) and
And the outlet temperature of the exhaust air T2,0 is estimated
from psychometric chart, it resulted to:
as follows
In summer (cooling) In winter (heating)

hi = 47.8 kJ/kg hi = 38.8 kJ/kg T2,0 = T2,i + εT (T2,i − T1,i ) (68)

h0 = 84.5 kJ/kg h0 = 6.4 kJ/kg
3.5.4. Heat recovery ERV system simulation
Fig. 5 shows the heat exchange between fresh air and exhaust
The outdoor ambient temperature and relative humidity of fresh
air in the energy recovery ventilator for the selected model and
and exhaust air for summer and winter seasons are considered as
illustrates the parameters obtained from the psychometric chart
assumed before, so the exhaust air heat recovery is exchanged heat
after entering the heat exchanger.
between summer and winter conditions. Hours of using heat recov-
Now, the overall heat transfer coefficient U is calculated from
ery in heating, cooling modes are determined based on the outside
Eq. (62)
temperature conditions as will be discussed in the next section. The
1 exhaust air heat recovery system performance data of Classroom 1
U= (62)
(1/h1 ) + (1/h2 ) is presented in Table 11 as an example, which shows the saving in
energy between the ERV and natural ventilation.
The exchanger heat transfer effectiveness or enthalpy efficiency Fig. 6 shows the energy saving load (kW) in cooling and heating
εh , is defined as the actual heat transfer divided by the maximum modes for classroom 1 in the kindergarten.
possible heat transfer [31] as given by Eq. (63):

QERV 3.5.5. Effect of exhaust air heat recovery ERV system on cooling
εh = (63) and heating modes
Qmax
ERV heat recovery system is provided with a controlled way of
Assuming that there is no leakage and change phase in the ventilating the rooms to minimize the energy loss compared to the
enthalpy across the supply and exhaust air stream. Hence, the heat natural ventilation, hence, reduced the cost of heating and cooling
transfer for the ERV can be expressed as: modes during the semesters. Different models of ERV from Sam-
sung Company were studied. These models are RHF 25, RHF 35,
V̇ RHF 50, RHF 80, and RHF 100. Fig. 7 shows the energy saving with
QERV = (h1,i − h1,0 )(1 − εh ) (64)
v1,0 exhaust air heat recovery at different models of ERV (difference in
 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537 535

Fig. 5. The heat exchange between fresh air and exhaust air.

Fig. 6. The heat energy saving in cooling and heating modes.

Fig. 7. The energy saving at different air volume.

size of heat exchange and the level of air volume). It is obvious that It is found after a complete study for the operating hours, that the
the relationships describe the savings in heating and cooling loads annual operation time for the kindergarten in summer and winter
over different models of ERV are linearly proportioned. seasons is 432 and 464, respectively, and the annual saving cost
The total energy savings by ERV for all rooms of the kindergarten (US$/annual) by ERV system used in the kindergarten for all rooms
for both cooling and heating modes are 29.68 kW and 32.02 kW, is 1536.86 US$/annual.
respectively. The capital cost for all the selected ERV systems (RHF 35 KHEE
and RHF 80 KHEE) according to SAMSUNG Co. [38] is 8571.43 US$.
Then, the payback period can be estimated as follows
3.5.6. Payback period
The total saving in capacity in cooling and heating loads is
29.67 kW and 32.02 kW, respectively as noticed from above, respec- Initial investment cost
Payback period, PBP =
tively. The input energy cost is 0.180 US$/kWh for summer and Total annual saving
winter seasons, while the coefficient of performance COP of the
8571.43 ∼
existed air-conditioning is 3.1 and 3.9 for summer and winter sea- = = 5.6 years (69)
1536.86
sons, respectively.
536 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537

Table 12
Percentage saving per year of all energy systems considered.

Energy system Annual saving (US$) Percentage saving annual for each system/total
annual saving (%)

Summer Winter

Lighting fixtures 383.47 5.2 4.6

Thermal insulation 70.77 0.90 0.8
Solar collectors 460.17 6.2 5.5
PV system Summer Winter 66.9 70.8
4950.24 5950.24
Heat recovery system 1536.86 20.8 18.3
Total annual saving Summer Winter
7401.51 8401.51

4. Discussion Table 13
CO2 reduction (kg/year) of all energy systems.

4.1. Green energy systems Green energy system Amount of CO2 reduction (kg/year)

Energy saving lamps 2160

Green building practices aim to reduce energy consumption and
the environmental impact of buildings. In this work, a kindergarten
in Amman is redesigned moving toward low energy building.
Accordingly, the lighting fixtures in the kindergarten is replaced
by a fixtures with an fluorescent energy saving lamps with a pay-
back period of 6 months, then a feasibility study of energy saving
is carried out to find out the effect of adding thermal insulation to
the exterior walls. This is done based on the calculations of cooling
and heating loads using a computer software simulation (HAP).
A complete design process for the addition of solar water heaters
is carried out based on the domestic water heating demand of the
building. Consequently, a solar heater model from Hanania HC100
[32] is selected. Also, an on-grid photovoltaic system is designed
and sized to supply the network with the required electricity to
meet the AC demand of the kindergarten in winter and summer
seasons. Finally, a heat recovery system for the exhaust air in air
conditioning and ventilation are studied and considered for the
building as the payback period is found to be 5.6 years.
4.2. Annual energy savings and PBP of all energy systems
The percentage of energy saved per year of implementing all
of the various energy systems considered together is shown in
Table 12.
The payback period BPP of implementing all the energy systems
considered in this study for summer and winter seasons, respec-
tively, are calculated below.
 Initial investment
(PBP of all energy systems)summer season =
Annual saving
222.88 + 1186.43 + 1786 + 26, 767 + 8571.43
=
383.47 + 70.77 + 460.17 + 4950.24 + 1536.86
38, 533.74
= = 5.2 years
7401.51
 Initial investment
(PBP of all energy systems)winter season =
Annual saving
222.88 + 1186.43 + 1786 + 50, 417 + 8571.43
= light. The percentage of energy saving in heating and cooling load
383.47 + 70.77 + 460.17 + 4950.24 + 1536.86
62, 183.74
= = 8.4 years
7401.51
It is clear from above that the PBP of all energy systems together
for the summer season (5.5 years) is lower than the winter season
(8.4 years). It can be concluded that PV system design in summer
conditions was more feasible than designing in winter conditions.
Solar water heater 2555
PV system Summer Winter
2558 3130
Energy recovery system 1290
Total 11,693
4.3. Reduction in CO2 emission
Applying green energy systems to the kindergarten, resulted in
CO2 reduction as shown in Table 13.
5. Conclusion
The design of green energy systems was carried out for the
kindergarten. Results showed that adding an energy saving fixtures
is very sufficient due to the short period for return of the capital cost
of the fixtures added. Also, the payback period for this operation is
6 months. The implementation of thermal insulation system does
not show a vast economical value due to the long period to return
the capital cost, which is 17 years. This may be due to the high cost
of the insulation material used. Based on that, the payback period
could be reduced by the selection of cheaper ones. However, it was
found that the most economical thickness to be added to the wall
is 0.03 m, which gives the most saving in the load. The heating load
savings after the addition of thermal insulation is about 10% of the
total load of the rooms.
It was found that PV system of 113 modules in winter and 42
modules in summer, respectively with 20 kW inverter are needed
for grid connected to cover the electrical load for the kindergarten
during sunshine days. PV system design in summer conditions is
more feasible than in winter conditions. The payback period is
found 8.8 years for winter season and 5.5 years for summer sea-
son. The difference is obviously due to the long sunshine duration
and high intensity of solar radiation in summer season.
Design calculations showed that four solar collectors are needed
to cover the usage of the students for hot water load. The payback
period for the solar collector was logical; it is about 4 years which
includes the usage of the auxiliary energy when there is no sun-
due to heat recovery system is about 69.2% and 54.5%, respectively
with a total saving of 61.3%. The economic feasibility of adding an
ERV system is found efficient as the payback period for this system
is about 5.5 years which can be considered good to invest in this
system.
The study showed that the PBP of all energy systems together for
the summer and winter seasons is 5.5 and 8.4 years, respectively.
This difference is due to PV system design as calculations showed
 M. Hammad et al. / Energy and Buildings 76 (2014) 524–537
that summer conditions were more feasible than designing in win-
ter conditions. Finally, the annual reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emission is 11.693 ton.
References
[1] S. Barlow, D. Fiala, Occupant comfort in UK offices – how adaptive comfort the-
ories might influence future low energy office refurbishment strategies, Energy
and Buildings 39 (2007) 837–846.
[2] J.S. Adams, It is Easy Being Green, 2008, Available at: http://ezinearticles.com/
?It-is-Easy-Being-Green&id=2780440 (last accessed 7.08.12).
[3] Central Electricity Generating Co. CEGCO, Annual Report 2005, 2005, Available
at http://www.cegco.com.jo (last accessed 15.03.12).
[4] E. Asadi, M.G. Silva, C.H. Antunes, L. Dias, Multi-objective optimization for build-
ing retrofit strategies: a model and an application, Energy and Buildings 41
(2012) 81–87.
[5] F. Flourentzou, C.A. Roulet, Elaboration of retrofit scenarios, Energy and Build-
ings 34 (2002) 185–192.
[6] M. Jaggs, J. Palmer, Energy performance indoor environmental quality retrofit –
a European diagnosis and decision making method for building refurbishment,
Energy and Buildings 31 (2000) 97–101.
[7] Ma. Zheng, P. Coper, D. Daly, L. Ledo, Existing building retrofits: methodology
and state of the art, Energy and Buildings 55 (2012) 889–902.
[8] S.E. Chidiac, E.J.C. Catania, E. Morofsky, S. Foo, Effectiveness of single and mul-
tiple energy retrofit measures on the energy consumption of office buildings,
Energy 36 (2011) 5037–5052.
[9] F. Flourentzou, J.L. Genre, C.A. Roulet, TOBUS software – an interactive decision
aid tool for building retrofit studies, Energy and Buildings 34 (2002) 193–202.
[10] Y.K. Juan, P. Gao, J. Wang, A hybrid decision support system for sustainable
office building renovation and energy performance improvement, Energy and
Buildings 42 (2010) 290–297.
[11] H. Doukas, C. Nychtis, J. Psarras, Assessing energy-saving measures in buildings
through an intelligent decision support model, Building and Environment 44
(2009) 290–298.
[12] S. Cohen, C. Goldman, J. Harris, Energy savings and economics of retrofitting
single-family buildings, Energy and Buildings 17 (1991) 297–311.
[13] F. Al-Ragom, Retrofitting residential buildings in hot and arid climates, Energy
Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 2309–2319.
[14] S. Gustafsson, Optimal fenestration retrofits by use of MILP programming tech-
nique, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001) 843–851.
[15] H. Hens, Energy efficient retrofit of an end of the row house: confronting
predictions with long-term measurements, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010)
1939–1947.
[16] T.M.I. Mahlia, M.F.M. Said, H.H. Masjuki, M.R. Tamjis, Cost–benefit analysis
and emission reduction of lighting retrofits in residential sector, Energy and
Buildings 37 (2005) 573–578.
[17] E. Zavadskas, S. Raslanas, A. Kaklauskas, The selection of effective retrofit sce-
narios for panel houses in urban neighborhoods based on expected energy
savings and increase in market value: the Vilnius case, Energy and Buildings
40 (2008) 573–587.
537
[18] S. Jaber, Thermal design of renewable energy building, towards low energy
house in Jordan (Master Thesis), University of Jordan, 2007.
[19] W. Paul, P. Taylor, A comparison of occupant comfort and satisfaction between
a green building and a conventional building, Building and Environment 43
(2008) 1858–1870.
[20] N. Badarneh, S. Kiwan, Zero net energy building in Jordan, in: GCREEDER 2011,
Amman, Jordan, April 26th–28th, 2011.
[21] T. Awadallah, S.H. Habet, A. Mahasneh, H. Adas, Jordanian Green Building Guide,
Ministry of Public Woks and Housing, 2010.
[22] B. Rezaie, I. Dincer, E. Esmailzadeh, Energy options for residential buildings
assessment, Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2012) 637–646.
[23] A. Alajmi, Opportunities of conserving energy on an existing institutional
building: case study, in: GCREEDER 2011, Amman, Jordan, April 26th–28th,
2011.
[24] A. Al-Salaymeh, Z. Al-Hamamre, F. Sharaf, M.R. Abdelkader, Technical and eco-
nomical assessment of the utilization of photovoltaic systems in residential
buildings: the case of Jordan, Energy Conversion and Management 51 (2009)
1719–1726.
[25] A. Sakhrieh, A. Al-Ghandour, O. Zeidan, M. Al-Sweitty, A. Ala’eddin, Experimen-
tal study for five types of solar collectors for water heating, in: SSI2002, SLAC,
August 5–16, 2002.
[26] Jordanian Green Building Guide, 2010.
[27] Jordanian Electric Power Co. Ltd JEPCO, Electric Tariif 2012, 2012, Available at
http://www.jepco.com.jo
[28] B. Capehart, W. Turner, W. Kennedy, Guide to Energy Management, seventh
edition, The Fairmont Press, Inc., 2012.
[29] Daikin Industries, Air conditioners division, the intelligent air-conditioners
systems, VRIII, 2013 http://www.daikin.com/global ac/products/vrv/vrv3/
outline.html
[30] M. Al-Saad, M. Hammad, Heating and Air Conditioning for Residential Buildings,
fifth edition SI version, Ajial Press, 2011.
[31] M. Sherman, Ventilation and acceptable air quality in low-rise building,
ASHREA Journal: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Condi-
tioning Engineers (2004).
[32] Hanania Solar System-Jordan, HC100 product sheet, 2013, Available online via
http://www.hanania.jo/uploads/9bb22399e2cHC%20100.jpg
[33] Philadelphia Solar, Jordan, PS-M60H-250W Mono-Crystalline Solar Panel prod-
uct sheet, 2013, Available online via http://www.philadelphia-solar.com/
datasheets/PS-M60H%20-%20250watt.pdf
[34] German Energy Society, Planning and Installing Photovoltaic Systems, Earth-
scan Textbook, USA, 2008.
[35] Cooper B-Line Co., Solar Power Panel Orientation: Landscape vs. Portrait, Paper,
USA, 2010.
[36] Clean Energy Council, PV Array Row Spacing, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Bulletin, Australia, 2010.
[37] Renewable feed-in tariff (FiT) progamme, The Electricity Regulatory Commis-
sion (ERC), Jordan, 2012.
[38] Samsung Electronics, Energy recovery ventilation, ERV, 2013, Available online
via http://www.refrigeration-uk.com/Samsung%20Air/ERV%20Catalogue.pdf.
[24] ASHRAE (2005).