PLEA SANTIAGO 2022

W il l Ci ti es S ur vi ve?

Influence of cost-benefit of different construction systems

for envelopment on energy consumption in a Housing of
Social Interest
RENATA MANSUELO ALVES DOMINGOS ¹ FERNANDO OSCAR RUTTKAY PEREIRA 1

¹ Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

ABSTRACT: In Brazil, buildings in the residential sector consume about a quarter of the electricity. Due to the low
energy efficiency of these buildings, much electricity is wasted, whether this loss is related to the building
systems of the envelope or other factors. It is known that there is a significant gain and loss of heat in the
envelope. The use of Insulating materials has also changed this phenomenon, but it has added value, so the best
way to analyse the cost benefits of different types of building systems is to use life cycle costs. Therefore, the
objective here is to analyse the cost-benefit of different materials used in walls and roofing through life cycle
costs. The method used is a simulation, in which EnergyPlus calculates the consumption and use of able of price
compositions for budgets to determine the costs of the house and the different types of building systems. The
results show that the lowest consumption model does not have the lowest life cycle cost, but the relationship is
not linear, and the initial cost has the most significant impact. He highlighted the importance of life cycle cost as
a cost-benefit parameter, including the initial input cost and the cost of electricity.
KEYWORDS: Building materials, energy savings, life cycle cost, energy efficiency, simulation.

1. INTRODUCTION living standards are expected to increase its use as

As people pay more and more attention to the
energy crisis and environmental pollution, research
on new technologies has emerged to optimize
energy use and reduce the spread of polluting
waste. The energy consumed by buildings is
responsible for about 40% of the world's primary
energy [1]. According to the National Energy
Balance [2], in Brazil, the energy consumed by the
residential sector represents about 25% of the
country's total energy consumption.
In the residential sector, energy demand is
mainly related to climate, building design, energy
system, occupant usage, and economic level.
Generally speaking, households in developed
countries use more energy than emerging
economies and, due to the installation of new
equipment, especially air conditioning (AC)
equipment, energy consumption is expected to
continue to grow [3]. Buildings with poor thermal
performance will cause discomfort to users, and as
income increases, occupants choose to make
manual adjustments, which increases building
operating costs and carbon dioxide emissions. The
increased use of air conditioning across the country
means expanding its energy infrastructure [4].
Although the use of air conditioning systems for
refrigeration is restricted in Brazil, the use of air
conditioning systems is responsible for
approximately 20% of domestic electricity
consumption [5]. Rising incomes and improving
it will be within the economic range. Brazil's most
used conditioning system is the electrical air
conditioning system, which significantly affects
energy costs. Therefore, homes with low purchasing
power can suffer significant discomfort. This can
affect productivity, happiness, learning skills, etc.,
thus affecting daily activities. For all these factors,
especially for these low-income families, it is
necessary to provide thermal comfort houses with
lower energy consumption to achieve thermal
comfort [5]. In this case, it is crucial to invest in
buildings to improve the quality of the
environment, improving users' quality of life. In
addition, it is essential to benefit low-income
families at affordable prices. Combining these
premises constitutes a proposal for sustainable
development, where the environment, society, and
economy are integrated [6].
According to Almeida et al. [7] and Ghisi et al.
[8], the total consumption of electricity gradually
increased due to the use of air conditioners.
According to Mazzaferro [9], the building envelope
is responsible for the heat exchange between the
internal and external environments and mainly
determines the internal temperature of the
building. In this way, the energy consumption
attributed to air conditioning can be reduced by
suitable construction elements, which provide
better energy efficiency and thermal performance.
 According to Moldovan et al. [10], buildings
must use architectural features (envelope) with
good thermal properties, geometry, and
orientation. In many cases, the importance of
dynamic thermal performance is often ignored or
underestimated, and adequate heat capacity is not
correctly considered as one of the design
parameters, as described by Aste et al. [11].
Gagliano et al. [12] proved the importance of
evaluating the thermal behaviour of the building
according to each direction of the facade to delay
heat transfer so that measures can be taken to
ensure adequate comfort and reduce the cooling
demand of the system. Giordano et al. [13]
emphasized that adequate envelope structure is
essential for buildings.
However, a significant question often raised by
construction professionals is the extent to which
energy-saving measures are adopted in terms of
cost-effectiveness [14]. To carry out an economic
analysis, not only the thermal condition of the
building must be considered, but also the weather
condition, energy price, location, available
resources, and other factors must be considered.
The challenge is to find a strategy that achieves the
best building performance at the lowest cost.
Therefore, there must be a balance and proper
simulation to apply the best strategy for each
specific situation. Deng et al. [15] pointed out that
most projects cannot be shared due to climatic and
cultural characteristics. It also emphasizes that most
projects did not analyse economic viability. It is
known that there is a significant increase and loss of
heat in walls and roofs. Using Insulating materials
changed this phenomenon, but added value, so the
best way to analyse the cost benefits of these
different scenarios is to use lifecycle costs.
The basic premise of financial viability is that the
investment cost is less than or equal to the net
economic value [16]. Most people are unaware of
the renovation measures that can be used to
improve the energy performance of buildings and
the other benefits that these measures can bring
[17]. Of course, all efficiency measures (such as
increasing insulation and using more efficient light
bulbs) will incur financial costs, but the electricity
savings after renovation can be equal to or greater
than the initial cost after several years of operation.
Thus, in the life cycle cost (LCC) method, calculating
the cost of each initial and relative maintenance
measure and its financial benefits is used. This
method decides whether to implement them to
obtain energy savings [18].
In this scenario, this article has the general
objective to analyse the influence of the cost-
benefit relationship with the energy consumption of
different constructive systems for the envelope in a
Housing of Social Interest.
2. METHODOLOGY
The methodological procedures were separated
into three stages: the characterization and
definition of the object of study, thermo-energetic
simulation, and the life cycle cost calculation.
Study object
2.1 Study object
Focusing on single-family housing, a
representative project of one-story residential
housing was used, which is located in the
bioclimatic zone 3 of Florianópolis (SC), which has
the highest frequency of occurrence and was
determined by Triana et al. (2015) [19]. The floor
plan and volume used are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Architectural Project [19]
The main features of the project for the one-
story single-family house are described below:
– Cross ventilation; Eaves: 50 cm; Ceiling height:
2.50 m; Electric shower for water heating,
considering equipment power > 4,600W;
– Floor: ceramic floor 0.75 cm + 2 cm subfloor +
15 cm concrete slab;
– Walls: 13 cm (ceramic brick with 6 holes
9x14x24 cm with internal and external plaster) with
U=2.39W/m²K and thermal capacity=150kJ/m²K and
α of 0.3;
– Coverage: 2 waters, tile (changes) + attic
ceiling (changes). Inclination of 23, 6º. Tile with α of
0.3;
– External doors: 2 of 0.80x2.10 m, wood with U
=1.49 W/m²K; Internal doors: 0.80x2.10 m, wood
with U =1.49 W/m²K;
– Windows: living room and bedrooms: 1.50 m2,
2 sliding leaves, sill=1.10 m; kitchen: 1.20 m2, 2
sliding leaves; bathroom: 0.48 m2, tilting window
with a frame, sill=1.50 m; Windows without
shutters; Glass: 4 mm transparent; Aluminum
frames;
– Installed lighting power density: Living Room
and Bedrooms=5 W/m².
 There are several ways to apply energy-saving 2.2 Thermoenergetic Simulation
strategies in buildings. This article focuses on heat Consumption analysis is based on the physical
transfer through the envelope. Addressing the roof description of buildings, heating or cooling systems,
first, three types of ceilings (PVC, plaster, and slab) and internal loads. The program chosen for this
and two tiles (ceramic and fiber cement) were study is EnergyPlus, which is distributed free of
selected to form six roof models. Its thermophysical charge by the US Department of Energy and is
properties are shown in Table 1. widely used in energy simulation studies. The
software uses IDF and EPW input files. Basically, a
Table 1: software interface inputs data about the building
Thermal properties of the building systems of the roofing and the weather entered. The IDF files contain
models technical data on the building envelope, materials,
Thermal Thermal the HVAC system, and other parameters, while the
Model Element transmittance capacity
EPW contains meteorological data. The
(W/m².°C) (kJ/m².°C)
GroundDomain: Slab object is used to model heat
1 Ceramic tile and PVC 1.75 21
transfer with the ground in the simulation model.
Fiber cement tile and
2 1.76 16 To calculate the thermal load of the rooms in
PVC
Ceramic tile and the house, according to the “Inmetro Residential
3 1.94 37 Building Code” - INI-R [20], each room defines two
plaster
Fiber cement tile and people, so there are four people in total. The COP
4 1.95 32
plaster used to convert this payload is 2.86. The air
5 Ceramic tile and slab 2.05 238 conditioning system only works when there are
Fiber cement tile and people in the room. To avoid discomfort caused by
6 2.06 233
slab heat, start the cooling system after the temperature
reaches 26ºC. For cold discomfort, the system
For the walls, two types of blocks (ceramic and heating method is used from 16ºC. It may not be
concrete) and two Insulating materials (EPS and common to use air conditioning in social housing,
rock wool) were selected, forming six models but as the cost of discomfort cannot be measured,
described in Table 2. it is assumed that air conditioning is used in both
bedrooms.
Table 2:
Thermal properties of the building systems of the walls
2.3 Life Cycle Cost of Housing
models
Considering the life cycle cost of the building,
Thermal Thermal
Model Element transmittance capacity the cost is divided into three groups: initial
(W/m².°C) (kJ/m².°C) investment, maintenance, and energy. For the
Ceramic block - 6 calculation, the online TCPO tables (Tables of
10 2.39 150
holes 9x14x24 Composition of Prices for Budgets) are used as
Concrete block - 2 references for these values, and these tables are
20 2.79 209
holes 9x19x39 constantly updated. Also, the initial investment
Ceramic block - 6 depends on the construction cost, and these cost
30 holes 9x14x24 + EPS 0.41 125 changes are based on the materials present in the
(8cm)
model [21].
Ceramic block - 6
40 holes 9x14x24 + Rock 0.77 195
The maintenance of the system depends on the
wool (4cm) value related to maintenance and installation of the
Concrete block - 2 components of the energy supply system and other
50 holes 9x19x39 + EPS 0.43 228 characteristics necessary for the proper functioning
(8cm) of the building and the comfort of its users. The life
Concrete block - 2 expectancy considered for housing is 50 years.
60 holes 9x19x39 + Rock 0.81 329
wool (4cm) 3. RESULTS
The results were analyzed in three parts, the
The parametric evaluation combines all systems, first being the consumption, then the initial cost,
resulting in 36 housing models. The ten house (10) and finally the life cycle cost where consumption
represents the wall, and the unit house the roof (1); and initial cost are considered together.
for example: in model 11, we have an envelope
composed of a ceramic block wall and a ceramic tile 3.1 Consume
roof with PVC lining. The most significant influence on consumption is
the addition of Insulating material in the
construction systems of the walls. In Figure 2, the
variation system "10" and "20" can see others, and
there is a saving of around 45% in energy
consumption. The combination with the lowest
performance (21) and the best performance (56)
has a difference of approximately 60% of the
amount of energy spent; o shows the great
potential of using suitable materials in civil
construction to save energy.
Figure 2:
Energy consumption according to models
The variation between the different types of
roofing was less expressive than that of the walls.
However, the even models with fiber cement tiles
perform better than those with ceramic tiles, the
difference is around 3%, but it reached 4 .3%. The
difference between the use of PVC and Plaster
ceilings was minimal, less than 1%, the slab, when
compared to both PVC and Plaster, had a more
significant impact, around 5%.
3.2 Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
It is known the importance of energy-saving
measures and how they affect the energy
consumption of buildings. Changing the
construction system will entail costs, in which case
the calculation of energy consumption is the
starting point for calculating the cost of the energy
efficiency measure. With this data, it is possible to
calculate the cost of the building's life cycle and
compare the benefits generated or not generated
by implementing the measures.
Figure 3 shows the initial costs, the percentage
increases or decreases in the cost of the base model
(11). There is a more expressive impact on the walls
again, and there is also a lower investment in
models with ceramic brick when compared to those
with concrete blocks. Among the coverage systems,
the variation was low, around 1%.
Figure 3:
Initial cost of models
When the life cycle is taken into account, the
cost of the operation is also calculated. In this case,
energy consumption is added to the initial cost of
each housing model. The cost-benefit analysis
considers the entire building cycle, hence the use of
life cycle cost. In Figure 4 are these data, it is noted
that the behavior of the LCC graph is similar to that
of initial costs, which leads to the conclusion that in
these cases the initial cost has a more expressive
impact over the life of the building than the costs
generated by consumption in that period.
The models with the best cost-benefit are
models 21 – 26; models 31 to 36 and 41 to 46 even
having a good performance in terms of
consumption, but the worst about LCC having the
highest values accumulated in the life cycle;
however, it is essential to note that this variation is
around 5% to 10%, then an assessment of benefits
beyond the financial can be done. Models 51 to 56
and 61 to 66 have a better performance than the
initial models in terms of consumption, but being in
the middle about LCC can lead to a choice for the
energy issue but still having cost benefits.
Figure 4:
Life Cycle Cost of Models
4. CONCLUSION
This research seeks to evaluate certain types of
construction systems for wrapping from the point
of view of life cycle cost. It can be seen from the
results that consumption by itself is not enough to
assess the benefits as a whole. When the life cycle
cost is used as a cost-benefit parameter, it includes
the initial investment cost and the cost of
electricity.
This article evaluated different building systems.
However, in other evaluations, changes made to the
building design such as orientation, layout, 15. Deng, S.; Dalibard, A.; Martin, M.; Dai, Y.J.; Eicker, U.;
geometry, and others can result in significant Wang, R.Z. (2011) Energy supply concepts for zero energy
energy savings without additional costs. That is why residential buildings in humid and dry climate. Energy
Conversion and Management 52: 2455–2460.
this primary care from the professional is always
16. Dodoo, A.; Gustavsson, L.; Tettey, U. Y. A. (2017) Final
necessary. The research shows the importance of
energy savings and cost-effectiveness of deep energy
these assessments considering the entire building renovation of a multi-storey residential building. Energy,
lifecycle. v. 135, p. 563–576.
17. Ferreira, M.; Almeida, M.; Rodrigues, A. (2016) Cost-
optimal energy efficiency levels are the first step in
REFERENCES achieving cost effective renovation in residential buildings
with a nearly-zero energy target. Energy and Buildings, v.
1. International Energy Agency; Organisation For 133, n. November 2014, p. 724–737.
Economic Cooperation And Development. (2009) World 18. Ouyang, J.; Ge, J.; Hokao, K. (2009) Economic analysis
Energy Outlook2009. Paris: IEA International Energy of energy-saving renovation measures for urban existing
Agency; OECD. residential buildings in China based on thermal simulation
2. Balanço Energético Nacional. (2018) Relatório final and site investigation. Energy Policy, v. 37, n. 1, p. 140–
2018: Ano base 2017. Rio de Janeiro: EPE. 149.
3. Pérez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Pout, C. (2008) A review on 19. Triana, M. A.; Lamberts, R.; Sassi, P. (2015)
buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Characterisation of representative building typologies for
Buildings, v. 40, n. 3, p. 394–398. social housing projects in Brazil and its energy
4. Triana, M. A.; Lamberts, R.; Sassi, P. (2018) Should we performance. Energy Policy, v. 87, n. December 2014, p.
consider climate change for Brazilian social housing? 524–541.
Assessment of energy efficiency adaptation measures. 20. Centro Brasileiro De Eficiência Energética Em
Energy and Buildings, v. 158, p. 1379–1392. Edificações – Cb3e.
5. TUBELO, R. et al. (2018) Cost-effective envelope Proposta de Instrução Normativa Inmetro para a Classe
optimisation for social housing in Brazil’s moderate de Eficiência Energética de Edificações Residenciais.
climates zones. Building and Environment, v. 133, n. 2018.
November 2017, p. 213–227. 21. Domingos, R. M. A., and Pereira, F. O. R. (2021).
6. Jensen, P. A. et al. (2018) 10 Questions Concerning Comparative cost-benefit analysis of the energy efficiency
Sustainable Building Renovation. Building and measures and photovoltaic generation in houses of social
Environment, v. 143, n. May, p. 130–137. interest in Brazil. Energy and Buildings, 243.
7. Almeida, M. A.; Schaeffer, R.; La Rovere, E. L. (2001)
The potential for energy conservation and peak load
reduction in the residential sector of Brazil. Energy and
Buildings, v. 26, p. 413-429.
8. Ghisi, E.; Gosch, S.; Lamberts, R. (2007) Electricity end-
uses in the residential sector of Brazil. Energy Policy, v.
35, p. 4107-4120.
9. Mazzaferro, L. (2013) Influência de elementos
construtivos do envelope no desempenho térmico de
edificações unifamiliares. 93 f. TCC (Graduação) - Curso
de Engenharia Civil, Engenharia Civil, Universidade
Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis.
10. Moldovan, M.D.; Visa, I.; Neagoe, M.; Burduhos, B. G.
(2014) Solar heating & cooling energy mixes to transform
low energy buildings in nearly zero energy buildings.
Energy Procedia 48: 924 – 937.
11. Aste, N.; Leoforte, F.; Manfren, M.; Mazzon, M. (2015)
Thermal inertia and energy efficiency – Parametric
simulation assessment on a calibrated case study. Applied
Energy 145: 111-123.
12. Gagliano, A.; Patania, F.; Nocera F.; Signorello, C.
(2014) Assessment of the dynamic thermal performance
of massive buildings. Energy and Buildings 72: 361-370.
13. Giordano, R.; Serra, V.; Tortalla, E.; Valentini, V.;
Aghemo, C. (2015) Embodied Energy and Operational
Energy assessment in the framework of Nearly Zero
Energy Building and Building Energy Rating. Energy
Procedia 78: 3204 – 3209.
14. Marszal, A. J.; Heiselberg, P. (2011) Life cycle cost
analysis of a multi-storey residential Net Zero Energy
Building in Denmark. Energy 36: 5600-5609.