Retrofitting an Existing O

sustainability
Article
Retrofitting an Existing Office Building in the UAE
Towards Achieving Low-Energy Building
Maatouk Khoukhi * , Abeer Fuad Darsaleh and Sara Ali
College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, 15551 Al Ain, UAE; [email protected] (A.F.D.);
[email protected] (S.A.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]
!"#!$%&'(!
Received: 24 February 2020; Accepted: 20 March 2020; Published: 24 March 2020 !"#$%&'
Abstract: Retrofitting an existing building can oftentimes be more cost-e↵ective than building a
new facility. Since buildings consume a significant amount of energy, particularly for heating and
cooling, and because existing buildings comprise the largest segment of the built environment, it
is important to initiate energy conservation retrofits to reduce energy consumption and the cost of
heating, cooling, and lighting buildings. However, conserving energy is not the only reason for
retrofitting existing buildings. The goal should be to create a high-performance building by applying
an integrated, whole-building design process to the project during the planning phase that ensures
that all key design objectives are met. This paper presents a real case study of the retrofitting of an
existing building to achieve lower energy consumption. Indeed, most of the constructed buildings in
the UAE are unsuitable for the region, which is characterized by a very harsh climate that causes
massive cooling loads and energy consumption due to an appropriate selection of design parameters
at the design level. In this study, a monthly computer simulation of energy consumption of an office
building in Sharjah was carried out under UAE weather conditions. Several parameters, including
the building orientation, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, external shading,
window-to-wall ratio, and the U-values of the walls and the roof, were investigated and optimized to
achieve lower energy consumption. The simulation shows that the best case is 41.7% more efficient
than the real (original) case and 30.6% more than the base case. The most sensitive parameter in the
retrofitting alternatives is the roof component, which a↵ects the energy savings by 8.49%, followed by
the AC system with 8.34% energy savings if well selected using the base case. Among the selected
five components, a new roof structure contributed the most to the decrease in the overall energy
consumption (approximately 38%). This is followed by a new HVAC system, which leads to a 37%
decrease, followed by a new wall type with insulation, resulting in a 20% decrease.
Keywords: low energy; retrofitting; sustainable design; buildings
1. Introduction
In the last decade, the consumption of primary energy has rapidly grown by almost 50% according
to the US Energy Information Administration. The increase in population has led to the enhancement
of building services and increases in the comfort levels; thus, people spend more time inside buildings.
Moreover, economic development is a major reason for the high energy consumption. Figure 1 shows
the global energy usage by territory [1].
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2573; doi:10.3390/su12062573 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2573 2 of 16
Figure 1. Global energy usage by territory [1].
This sudden increase in the energy consumption trends has attracted attention to many aspects,
such as the depletion of energy resources and multiple environmental issues (CO2 emissions, global
warming, climate change, etc.) [2]. Among the various sectors, buildings are the largest consumers
of energy, as shown in Figure 2, consuming up to 45% of the energy in the US [3], with a high
carbon dioxide emission of 30% [4]. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the energy
consumption will exceed 50% by 2025 [5].
Figure 2. US energy consumption in the building sector.
In hot countries such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), buildings account for a major share
of electrical energy consumption due to air conditioning (AC) and ventilation systems used in
the extremely hot climatic conditions [6]. AC systems consume the largest portion of this energy
(approximately 80%) [7]. Therefore, it is essential to search for solutions to reduce the energy
consumption of buildings [8]. To overcome this trend, the same building services need to be achieved
using less energy. This requires the application of the concept of energy efficiency, which relates to the
performances of energy-consuming systems. This concept is defined in detail in [9].
There is a major possibility of decreasing the energy consumption of both new and existing
buildings [10]. That led us to the concept of retrofitting, which is the process of modifying something
(such as a computer, airplane, or building) with new or improved parts or equipment, which were
unavailable or considered unnecessary at the time of manufacture. Retrofitting can also mean adding a
component or feature that an existing building did not have when first constructed [11]. Retrofitting is
one of the main aspects that can be directed to achieve the goals of green buildings, as the ratio of the
existing buildings is larger than the new constructions [12]. According to the World Green Building
Council, a green building is “a building that, in its design, construction, or operation, reduces or
eliminates negative impacts, and can create positive impacts, on our climate and natural environment.
Green buildings preserve precious natural resources and improve our quality of life” [13].
Building Retrofitting
Retrofits for buildings correspond to di↵erent goals, such as green energy and zero-emission
building retrofits. Green building retrofits improve the environmental response of a building, reduce
water consumption, and increase the comfort and value of the space with regard to several factors, such
as light pollution, air pollution, and noise pollution. On the other hand, energy building retrofits focus
on optimizing the energy performance of a building. It is important to initiate energy conservation
retrofits to reduce energy consumption to limit the cost of heating, cooling, and lighting in buildings as
well as to decrease the overall fossil fuel dependency [14].
There are numerous benefits of retrofitting buildings, which can be categorized into environmental
benefits, economic benefits, and social benefits. Environmental benefits include the lowering of
greenhouse emissions and improving water self-sufficiency. The economic benefits of retrofitting can
be one of the strongest means of convincing someone to consider retrofitting; an economic analysis
showing the payback period is usually prepared as a common indicator [15,16]. Moreover, retrofitting
is a more cost-e↵ective means of increasing the asset value of an existing building than building a
new facility [17]. The most complicated part of building retrofitting is the determination of optimal
solutions and understanding the relationships through energy efficiency measures [18]. To reduce
the energy consumption of buildings, engineering methods/approaches have been developed, which
include building energy simulation software, such as eQUEST software, Energy Plus, and Ecotect.
Energy software deals with a building’s parameters and the surrounding environment; for example, the
operation schedules, the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, climate conditions,
shading information, insulation, and new building technologies [19,20].
As the energy consumption of the building sector in the UAE reached 80% [21], the UAE had to
release the Estidama code in 2009 [22]. This code underlines the importance of the right selection of
systems, energy, and materials [23]. The main factors that have been suggested in most studies are
glazing types (SHGC) [21], U-value [24], window-to-wall ratio (WWR), which introduces the suitable
natural light as well as the heat transmission through openings [25], orientation, and AC system
(HVAC) selection [26]. In the present study, the thermal performance of an office building located in the
UAE has been assessed using the eQUEST software by testing all of the above-mentioned parameters.
As the energy consumption in the office buildings is considered one of the highest compared to
the other building types with an annual energy consumption of 100 to 1000 kWh per square meter,
varying levels of consumption depend on various aspects, such as geographic location, type of building
envelope (including walls, roofs etc.), HVAC system, lighting, and operational schedules. A recent
paper dealing with building retrofit and sensitivity analysis in Abu Dhabi (UAE) reported that the
optimal strategies for given a case study villa are a cool roof, cool wall, seasonal energy efficiency
ratio (SEER), and atrium shades, which may lead to total energy savings of 25% [27]. Abdullah
and Alibaba reported that an integration of photovoltaics as responsive shading devices as a retrofit
strategy for an energy-efficient office building would have a huge impact on energy savings. Indeed,
this retrofit method has reduced total site energy consumption by 33.2% compared to the existing
building performance [28]. An analysis of energy efficiency measures and retrofitting solutions for
social housing buildings in Spain as a way to mitigate energy poverty was recently published by
Aranda et al. Indeed, they reported that energy simulation tools have proven to be a↵ordable, fast,
and convenient for assessing the energy-saving potential of each measure implemented in a building.
However, the real savings values are usually 20–30% lower than the simulated results, mainly because
simulated demand is calculated to meet standard thermal comfort conditions, which are not always
met in this type of housing due to its economic limitations [29]. Another paper dealing with an
early-1950s building presents a measurement campaign to investigate the building’s characteristics
and its vulnerability. After that, some retrofit alternatives were simulated and compared by means of a
calibrated model. Concerning opaque surfaces, the e↵ect of an external insulating coating of expanded
polystyrene was studied. The results show that a higher thermal insulation allows mitigation of the
wintry heat dispersions, but, on the other hand, it involves a cooling energy demand increase, which
can reach up to 45% [30].
2. Materials and Methods

The commercial sector accounts for a major share of global energy consumption. Most of this
energy is used in cooling and artificial ventilation systems. For the development of energy-efficient
structures, this paper provides an overview of building design criteria that can reduce the energy
demand for the cooling of commercial buildings. By adopting a case study to find and analyze the most
e↵ective parameters to transform the existing building performance into that of a greener building, the
approach of this methodology answers the questions of how and why [31]. These criteria are based on
the adoption of suitable parameters for building orientation—envelope system, HVAC mechanisms,
shading, glazing, etc.—to examine how the operational and constructional strategies led to an efficient
energy structure as well as to optimize implications for future practices and policymaking.
2.1. Building Selection and Description

Ajmal Makan is a real estate development company with an office building consisting of a ground
floor oriented toward the sea in Sharjah, the third largest city in the UAE. The selection of the case
study was determined based on the accessibility of documents and information necessary for our
study. Drawings such as plans, elevations, sections, 3D models and construction drawings for HVAC
systems, and electrical distribution enabled the construction of a digital model that is highly accurate
with respect to the real building. The electric bills served as a validation tool.
The case study concerns a 2000 m2 office building (Figure 3) with over 40 employees. The activities
carried out in the building pertain to real estate sales, engineering, marketing, and finance, and the
building houses an exhibition hall with display models.
Figure 3. Aerial view of the Ajmal Makan office building in Sharjah, UAE.
The office building was constructed in 2017 and has a modern steel design with a full-height
glazing surrounding three sides of the building and exaggerated overhangs ranging from 4 to 7 m.
Only one wall (South-East) is made of concrete blocks; however, no proper insulation has been used.
The AC system is a basic packaged DX series fan-powered a variable air volume (VAV), as shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Case study description of Ajmal Makan office building.
Building Type Office Building

Total area 2000 m2
Floor number 1 floor
Windows 91% of the windows in three directions and 0% in the west direction
Walls exterior finish on 8” concrete blocks with no insulation; interior
finish of fish plaster U-value = 2.49 W/m2 K
Roof construction U-value = 1.0 W/m2 K
Floor construction slab on grade, unheated, exposed, or tiled
Natural ventilation None
Heating source None
Cooling: air conditioning packaged DX series fan powered VAV no reheat
Operable shading overhangs East 7 m/South 4 m/North 4 m
According to the electric bill shown in Figure 4, the total consumption for July was 17,120 kWh. The
electric bill consumption during this month was considered for the validation of the simulation model.
Figure 4. July electric authority bill for the Ajmal Makan office building.
2.2. Weather Data Analysis

The Abu Dhabi weather data were used for this study. Using the Climate Consultant software
provided us with valuable information that helped us to understand the design intent of the building
and guided us toward di↵erent alternatives. The average minimum and maximum temperatures
during the year are shown in Figure 5A. The average relative humidity is also shown in Figure 5B.
(A)
(B)
Figure 5. (A) Average min and max temperatures; (B) average relative humidity in Sharjah, UAE.
The Revit software was used to determine the sun’s path in the summer months for the selected
building, presenting the orientation, sun path, wind, temperature, and comfort hours throughout the
year, as shown in Figure 6. The climate is hot and humid, with an average temperature of 36 C in
summer and 19.5 C in winter.
Figure 6. Revit model at 1 pm on April 28, presenting the orientation, sun path, wind, temperature,
and comfort hours throughout the year.
The psychrometric chart of Abu Dhabi, as shown in Figure 7, provides detailed information
regarding di↵erent alternatives for achieving thermal comfort in spaces. As with all HVAC systems, a
VAV system must be designed to provide indoor conditions that are within a certain comfort zone.
Psychrometric charts are used to determine which parameters must be maintained in order to obtain
conditions within said comfort zones. For the psychrometric chart shown below, a VAV system
would need to maintain a dry bulb temperature of approximately 75–85 ºF, a wet bulb temperature of
approximately 55–65 ºF, and a relative humidity of approximately 30–70%. A second parameter that
VAV systems must take into account is the change in air velocity in a space. Air velocities are constantly
changing and can play a huge role in properly or improperly conditioning a space. As shown in the
chart below, various types of spaces have various changes in air velocity [32].
Figure 7. Psychrometric chart of Abu Dhabi presenting the numbers of comfortable and uncomfortable
hours during the year [32].
3. Energy Simulations
3.1. Real Case Simulation

First, the simulation was carried out on a real case. The data of the building, as shown in Table 1,
were used, and the electric consumption was computed using eQUEST simulation software and then
compared with the electric bill provided by the management office of the building. Table 2 shows the
energy consumption for the selected building during all of the months for space cooling, heat rejection,
ventilation fans, mechanical equipment, and area lights, then providing the total consumption during
the year, which is 167,380 kWh.
Table 2. Real case simulation results: The energy consumption of the Ajmal Makan office building
during the year (kWh ⇥ 1000) depending on space cooling, heat rejection, ventilation fans, mechanical
equipment, and area lighting.
Real Case Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool 0.59 0.75 1.42 4.2 5.29 5.63 6.26 6.23 5.6 4.98 1.46 0.91 43.32
Heat Reject 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.2 0.2 0.19 0.2 0.2 0.19 0.2 0.08 0.08 1.76
Vent. Fans 0.72 0.76 1.23 3.42 3.61 3.47 3.61 3.61 3.47 3.6 1.17 0.87 29.55
Misc. Equip 4.52 4.13 4.63 4.57 4.63 4.46 4.63 4.63 4.46 4.63 4.24 4.63 46.7
Area Lights 3.59 3.3 3.72 3.02 3.03 2.91 3.03 3.03 2.91 3.03 3.32 3.72 38.62
Total 9.48 8.99 11.08 15.4 16.76 16.67 17.72 17.7 16.64 16.44 10.28 10.21 167.38
Simulation Validation
Once the simulation of the real case was run, we compared the hottest month’s (July) results with
the electric bill of the same month. This was a validation step to ensure that the building was modeled
properly. The error ratio was 3.3%, which is considered to be reasonable. The validation ratio was
calculated using the following equation.
!
17120 (kWh)
3.3% = 100 ⇥ 100 (1)
17720 (kWh)
3.2. Alternative Selection

While retrofitting an existing building, there are two main components to consider: Building
envelope and HVAC system; these include window-to-wall ratio, wall and roof insulation, glazing
and frame type, and overhang for the building envelope, as well as heating and cooling sources and
operation schedule for the HVAC system.
Base Case Simulation (Modified Real Case)

The real case was modified because of an obvious design issue that, once altered, will drastically
reduce the energy consumption. The envelope of the building is made mostly of glass, which allows
the transfer of a large amount of heat. As it is located in a very hot region, the reduction of glazing in
the façade naturally improves the performance of the building. The case study’s WWR, as shown in
Table 3, was carefully calculated using the following equation.
0 P ⇣ ⌘ 1
BB
BB Glazing area m2 CC
CC
WWR (%) = BB P C (2)
@ Gross Exterior wall area (m2 ) CA
Table 3. Base case window-to-wall ratio (WWR) calculation.
Elevation Glazing Area (m2 ) Elevation (m2 ) WWR (%)

North 424 464 91.3
East 132.5 145 91.3
South 424 464 91.3
West 0 145 0
The result was much higher than the recommended value, with an average of 91% for the three
elevations comprising the North, the East, and the South, and 0% for the West elevation. According to
ASHRAE 90.1-2007, the ideal WWR is 24% of the wall [33]. To achieve this value, the window size was
changed, as shown in Table 4, and the building took a new form, as shown in Figure 8.
Table 4. Modified case window to wall ratio (WWR) calculation.
Ideal WWR is 24% by Ashrae [33]

Elevation Glazing area (m2 ) Elevation (m2 ) WWR (%)
North 111.36 464 24
East 34.8 145 24
South 111.36 464 24
West 34.8 145 24
(A) (B)
Figure 8. 3D modeling of the Ajmal Makan office building: (A) WWR real case; (B) WWR base case.
After changing the WWR of the real case, the base-case energy simulation indicated that the
building would be 16% more energy efficient, as shown in Figure 9, with a 140,710 kWh consumption
rate, as indicated in Table 5. The modified building was then considered as a base case for the rest of
the simulation.
Figure 9. Yearly energy consumption for the real case and base case modified.
Table 5. Base-case energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000) (real case modified with the new WWR).
Base Case Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Space Cool 0.47 0.55 1.08 3.46 4.37 4.68 5.22 5.2 4.67 4.13 1.67 0.63 36.14
Heat Reject. 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.08 1.68
Vent. Fans 0.6 0.6 0.99 2.92 3.05 2.94 3.05 3.05 2.94 3.05 1.56 0.67 25.44
Misc. Equip. 3.01 2.74 3.06 4.57 4.63 4.46 4.63 4.63 4.46 4.63 2.85 3.06 46.7
Area Lights 1.99 1.83 2.06 3.02 3.03 2.91 3.03 3.03 2.91 3.03 1.85 2.06 30.75
Total 6.13 5.77 7.26 14.15 15.27 15.17 16.11 16.1 15.15 15.03 8.09 6.49 140.71
3.3. Retrofitting Alternatives

Six retrofitting parameters were studied and applied to the base case. Di↵erent alternatives—
changing the orientation, the U-value of the roof, the U-value of the wall, the glazing, the shading, and
the AC systems—were run on the eQUEST software, and the energy consumptions for each case were
obtained and then compared with others.
3.3.1. Orientation
The orientation of the building on the site a↵ects the amount of energy consumed by the building.
Four di↵erent scenarios were applied, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Orientation alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).
Orientation Total Energy Consumption kWh ⇥ 1000

Base case NNW 140.71
East-South-East 145.59
South-South-West 143.99
West-North-West 145.33
The building is oriented 22 from the north, indicated on a compass, as the initial orientation
(Figure 10). Di↵erent angles were applied to the new base case. The results showed that that the
current orientation is optimal.
Figure 10. Building orientation, 22 from the north, indicated on a compass (Google).
3.3.2. Roof
The roof represents the most exposed element of the envelope of a building. The case study
has a completely flat roof that is mainly composed of heavyweight (HW) concrete with half-inch
expanded polystyrene with a U-Value of 1 W/m2 K. The proposed alternatives include four-inch
expanded polystyrene, four- and six-inch polystyrene, four-inch expanded polyurethane, and three
sizes of preformed roof insulators, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Roof alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).
Roof U-Value Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Construction
Type (W/m2 K) (kWh ⇥ 1000) (%)
1 inch cement mortar, 0.164 ft, HW concrete, 1/2
1 1 140.71 -
inch expanded polystyrene, 4 inch HW ConcBlk
1 inch cement mortar, 0.164 ft HW concrete, 4 inch
2 0.27 130.19 7.47
expanded polystyrene, 4 inch HW ConcBlk
3 0.23 129.64 7.86
polystyrene, 4 inch HW ConcBlk
4 0.15 128.84 8.43
polystyrene, 4 inch HW ConcBlk
5 0.19 129.24 8.15
expanded polyurethane, 4 inch HW ConcBlk
6 0.9 136.53 2.97
preformed roof insulator, 4 inch HW ConcBlk
7 0.6 133.89 4.84
8 0.45 132.38 5.91
Based on the results summarized in the table above, the roof type 4 is found to be the best
alternative compared with other roof types. Indeed, using this roof would lead to energy savings of
8.43% compared with the base case.
3.3.3. Walls
As previously mentioned, the WWR of the real-case building was only 9%, as the three full
facades are entirely glazed. This left us with only one wall of four-inch hollow concrete blocks with no
insulation material, covered with plaster board on both sides. As mentioned previously, the real case
was modified, and the new wall ratio was 76%.
The 19 alternatives were tested on the base case, as shown in Table 8. First, we increased the size of
the block work from the original 4 to 6, 8, and 12 inches. Then, we added di↵erent types of insulation:
Polystyrene with three di↵erent thicknesses, expanded polystyrene in three sizes, polyurethane in
three sizes, expanded polyurethane in three sizes, mineral wool fiber in two sizes, and cellulose in two
sizes; the details are given in Table 8. The simulation showed that the best option for the walls is 0.04 ft
plaster board, 0.299 ft HW Concrete block (ConcBlk), 6-inch polyurethane, 0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, and
0.042 ft plaster board, which decreased the energy consumption of the building by 4.57%.
Table 8. Wall alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).
Wall U-Value Total Energy Consumption Decrease in

Construction
Type (W/m2 K) (kWh ⇥ 1000) Energy (%)
Plaster board, 4 inch HW ConcBlk, no insulation, 4 inch HW
1 2.49 140.71 -
ConcBlk, plaster board
2 2.1 139.32 0.98
3 1.82 138.68 1.44
4 1.5 138.4 1.64
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk, polystyrene 4 inch,
5 0.245 134.83 4.17
0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, 0.042 plaster board
6 0.198 134.59 4.35
7 0.169 134.46 4.44
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk, expanded
8 0.88 136.99 2.64
polystyrene 1 inch, 0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, 0.042 plaster board
9 0.536 135.82 3.47
10 0.295 134.9 4.12
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk, polyurethane
11 0.26 134.85 4.16
3 inch, 0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, 0.042 plaster board
12 0.164 134.46 4.44
13 0.141 134.36 4.51
14 0.66 136.27 3.15
polyurethane 1 inch, 0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, 0.042 plaster board
15 0.38 135.28 3.86
16 0.2 134.62 4.33
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk, mineral wood,
17 0.43 135.47 3.72
fiber 3-1/2 inch, 0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, 0.042 plaster board
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk, mineral wood,
18 0.29 135.96 3.37
fiber 5-1/2 inch, 0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, 0.042 plaster board
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk, cellulose 3-1/2 inch,
19 0.36 135.2 3.91
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk, cellulose 5-1/2 inch,
20 0.24 134.74 4.24
Based on the results summarized in the table above, the wall type 13 is the best alternative
compared with other wall types. Indeed, with wall type 13, 4.57% of energy is saved compared with
the base case.
3.3.4. Glazing and Frame Types

The glazing system of the Ajmal Makan building is made of a double reflective clear glass with a
quarter-inch air gap with a fixed aluminum frame. The WWR in these calculations is the modified
24%, with the same properties as those of the real case. All of the alternatives were tested and run by
eQUEST, which showed that the best option for improving the building’s performance is a double
reflective glass with a half-inch air gap. The annual energy decrease was 0.89%. All of the alternatives
are listed in Table 9.
Table 9. Window alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).
Window Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Construction
Alternative (kWh ⇥ 1000) (%)
Double reflective clear 1/4 inch,
1 140.71 Base case
1/4 air gap
2 Single clear 159.35 13.24
3 Single reflective 143.43 1.93
4 Single low-E 155.19 10.29
5 Double clear 151.7 7.81
6 Double reflective 139.51 0.85
7 Double low-E 152.57 8.42
8 Triple clear 150.19 6.73
9 Triple clear 147.8 5.04
3.3.5. Shading
The building is characterized by unique cantilevered overhangs, which serve as a shading system.
We ran the simulation of the building without any overhang and found out that they contribute to
energy savings of 1.99%. An additional 3 m in the North-West and South-East elevations led to a minor
decrease of 0.19%. Table 10 presents the orientation and depth of the overhang alternatives.
Table 10. Shading alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000) (eQUEST software).
Overhang Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Orientation Depth (m)
Type (kWh ⇥ 1000) (%)
1 SW, NE, NW, SE 0, 7, 4, 4 140.71 Real case
2 SW, NE, NW, SE 0, 0, 0, 0 143.59 2.05%
3 SW, NE, NW, SE 0, 7, 7, 7 140.52 0.13%
3.3.6. HVAC System

It is also important to choose the right AC equipment for the right space for efficient energy saving.
The Ajmal Makan building has a DX Series Fan-Powered VAV for cooling. Di↵erent systems were
tested on the base case, which showed that Packaged VAV would save 8.34% of energy due to the
better and more rational control of the amount of the air flow needed to satisfy the thermal comfort
requirements in the space. Indeed, the electric power needed to run the ventilation fans is much
higher in case of the package DX Series Fan-Powered VAV (25,440 kWh) compared with Packaged
VAV (10,560 kWh). Table 11 shows the e↵ects of di↵erent systems on the energy consumption of
this building
Table 11. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) alternatives with energy consumption
(kWh ⇥ 1000) (eQUEST software).
Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

HVAC Cooling Source System
(kWh ⇥ 1000) (%)
1 DX Coils DX series fan-powered VAV 140.71 Base case
2 DX Coils Packaged VAV 129.05 8.28
3 Chilled water coils Standard VAV 196.22 39.44
4 Chilled water coils Series fan-powered VAV 193.51 37.52
5 Chilled water coils Single-zone air handler 217.37 54.48
4. Discussion
In the previous section, di↵erent alternatives were tested to determine the optimal alternatives
that would improve the building’s performance in terms of energy saving. In Table 12, a matrix of the
optimum alternatives is presented, which we refer to as the best case.
Table 12. Optimum alternatives with total energy consumption (best-case alternative).
Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Element Description
(kWh ⇥ 1000) (%)
Base case 140.71 -
0.04 ft plaster board, 0.299 ft HW ConcBlk,
Wall polystyrene 6 inch, 0.333 ft HW ConcBlk, 134.36 4.51
0.042 plaster board
1 inch cement mortar, 0.166 ft HW concrete,
Roof 128.84 8.43
6 inch polystyrene, 4 inch HW ConcBlk
Double reflective 1/2 inch air gap with fixed
Glazing and frame 139.51 0.85
aluminum with break
HVAC DX coils, packaged VAV 129.05 8.28
Shading device Overhang, SW = 0, NE = 7, NW = 7, SE = 7 140.52 0.13
Table 13 presents the energy distribution breakdown of the best case. The total annual consumption
of the best case is 97,570 kWh, which is 30.6% lower than that of the base case (140,710 kWh), with
energy savings of 43,130 kWh per year.
Table 13. Energy distribution breakdown of the best case.
Total kWh ⇥
Best Case Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1000
Space Cool 0.25 0.35 0.66 1.92 2.41 2.73 3.17 3.18 2.81 2.41 1.1 0.6 21.6
Heat Reject. 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.05 1.03
Vent. Fans 0.05 0.1 0.26 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.32 0.26 5.93
Misc. Equip. 3.01 2.74 3.06 4.57 4.63 4.46 4.63 4.63 4.46 4.63 2.85 3.06 46.7
Area Lights 1.45 1.33 1.49 2.19 2.2 2.12 2.2 2.2 2.12 2.2 1.35 1.49 22.32
Total 4.79 4.54 5.52 9.5 10.06 10.1 10.82 10.84 10.18 10.06 5.71 5.46 97.57
By comparing the obtained results with those of the real case, we can conclude that the best case is
41.7% more efficient than the real case without the modified WWR. The simulation results and change
ratios are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. Annual energy consumption ratios of the real case, the base case, and the best case.
Annual Energy Consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000) Decrease Ratio (%)

Real Case 167.38 -
Base Case (modified) 140.71 30.60
Best Case 97.57 41.70
5. Conclusions
Among the five selected components, a new roof structure contributed the most to the decrease in
energy consumption (approximately 38%). This is followed by a new HVAC system, which leads to a
37% decrease, followed by a new wall type with insulation, resulting in a 20% decrease. In addition,
a glazing change led to a minimal decrease of 4%, while a new overhang resulted in a 1% decrease.
The results are summarized in the pie chart in Figure 11. It is then strongly recommended to have the
building envelope (roof and walls) well insulated and to select the most efficient AC system based on
the type of the building and its occupancy.
Figure 11. Best-case retrofitting components.
The software simulates five main categories, including space cooling, heat rejection, ventilation
fans, mechanical equipment, and area lighting. Figure 12 shows the di↵erent percentages of energy
consumption among the three schemes. Space cooling, ventilation fans, and area lighting have major
shares in electrical consumption. The building components referred to in these categories are the
building envelope and HVAC system, as mentioned earlier in the literature. Thus, in retrofitting
strategies, we have to select the most sensitive parameters, which have significant impact on lowering
energy consumption in buildings.
In conclusion, due to the location of the case study, the external weather (a harsh hot climate)
exerts a huge pressure on the HVAC systems in buildings as well as the exposed surfaces of the
buildings, such as roofs and walls. Therefore, it is important to design buildings by first studying the
climate, wall and roof types, and di↵erent systems, which will contribute significantly in reducing
the energy consumption. Moreover, the analysis of the cost of the implemented changes should be
evaluated and included in the overall cost of saving energy; this will be considered as a future step.
Figure 12. Yearly energy consumption for the real case, base case, and best case.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.K., A.F.D., and S.A.; methodology, M.K., A.F.D., and S.A.; software,
A.F.D. and S.A.; validation, A.F.D. and S.A.; writing—review and editing, M.K. and A.F.D; supervision, M.K.;
project administration, M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Pérez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Pout, C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy Build.
2008, 40, 394–398. [CrossRef]
2. EIA. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/ (accessed on 27 February 2019).
3. Yanga, L.; Yanab, H.; Joseph, C.L. Thermal comfort and building energy consumption implications—A
review. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 164–173. [CrossRef]
4. Xing, Y.; Hewitt, N.; Griffiths, P. Zero carbon buildings refurbishment—A hierarchical pathway. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3229–3236. [CrossRef]
5. IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2011/april/iea-releases-first-clean-energy-
progress-report.html (accessed on 6 April 2011).
6. EMS. Available online: http://ems-int.com/blog/80-energy-consumed-by-buildings-in-uae/ (accessed on
24 September 2015).
7. Abdelrahman, M.A.; Ahmad, A. Cost e↵ective use of thermal insulation in hot climates. Build. Environ. 1994,
26, 189–194. [CrossRef]
8. UNEP. 2016. Available online: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/onegigatonreport_2016.pdf (accessed
on 1 November 2019).
9. Patterson, M.G. What is energy efficiency? Concepts, indicators and methodological issues. Energy Policy
1996, 24, 377–390. [CrossRef]
10. IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepuplecation/Building2013_free.pdf (accessed on
10 October 2019).
11. Paradis, R. Retrofitting Existing Buildings to Improve Sustainability and Energy Performance. In Proceedings
of the 32nd International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture: Cities, Buildings, People:
Towards Regenerative Environments, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11–13 July 2016.
12. Koester, R.J.; Eflin, J.; Vann, J. Greening of the campus: A whole-systems approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14,
769–779. [CrossRef]
13. World Green Building Council. Available online: https://www.worldgbc.org/about-us (accessed on

2 November 2019).
14. Aghdaei, N.A. Energy Retrofitting of Existing Residential Buildings: Developing a Decision Process for
Energy Saving and Cost E↵ectiveness. Ph.D. Thesis, Sustainable Buildings Research Centre, University of
Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, 2018.
15. Amstalden, R.W.; Kost, M.; Nathani, C.; Imboden, D.M. Economic potential of energy-efficient retrofitting in
the Swiss residential building sector: The e↵ects of policy instruments and energy price expectations. Energy
Policy 2007, 35, 1819–1829. [CrossRef]
16. Huang, B.; Yang, H.; Mauerhofer, V.; Guo, R. Sustainability assessment of low carbon technologies–case
study of the building sector in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 32, 244–250. [CrossRef]
17. Hensen, J.L.M. Building Simulation 2003—Final Report 8th International IBPSA Conference; International
Building Performance Simulation Association (IBPSA): Technische Universiteit Eindhoven: Eindhoven,
The Netherlands, 2004.
18. Senel Solmaz, A.; Halicioglu, F.H.; Gunhan, S. An approach for making optimal decisions in building energy
efficiency retrofit projects. Indoor Built Environ. 2018, 27, 348–368. [CrossRef]
19. El-Gohary, C.M. A review of data-driven building energy consumption prediction studies. Renew. Sustain.
Energy 2018, 81, 1192–1205.
20. Esen, H.; Esen, M.; Ozsolak, O. Modelling and experimental performance analysis of solar-assisted ground
source heat pump system. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 2017, 29, 1–17.
21. Abu Dhabi Planning Counsel. Public Realm Rating System: Design & Construction, Version 1.0. Available
online: http://www.carboun.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ThePearlsDesignSystem.pdf (accessed on
12 October 2019).
22. Al Salmi, H.; Al Kadi, H.; Leao, S. Environmental Assessment Methods in Abu Dhabi. Int. J. Humanit. Soc.
Sci. 2013, 7, 1573–1581.
23. Ruppert, K.C.; Porter, W.A.; Cantrell, R.A.; Lee, H.-J. Energy Efficient Homes: Windows and Skylights, IFAS
extension university of Florida. Available online: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu (accessed on 25 October 2019).
24. Ficco, G.; Iannetta, F.; Ianniello, E.; Romanad’Ambrosio Alfano, F.; Dell’Isola, M. U-value in situ measurement
for energy diagnosis of existing buildings. Energy Build. 2015, 104, 108–121. [CrossRef]
25. Geekiyanage, D.; Ramachandra, T. A model for estimating cooling energy demand at early design stage of
condominiums. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 17, 43–51. [CrossRef]
26. Ashrae Handbook. Available online: https://shop.iccsafe.org/media/wysiwyg/material/8950P204-toc.pdf
(accessed on 25 October 2019).
27. Bande, L.; Cabrera, A.G.; Kim, Y.K.; Ashura, A.; Ragusini, M.F.; Cooke, M.G. A Building Retrofit and
Sensitivity Analysis in an Automatically Calibrated Model Considering the Urban Heat Island E↵ect in Abu
Dhabi, UAE. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6905. [CrossRef]
28. Abdullah, H.K.; Alibaba, H.Z. Retrofits for Energy Efficient Office Buildings: Integration of Optimized
Photovoltaics in the Form of Responsive Shading Devices. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2096. [CrossRef]
29. Aranda, J.; Zabalza, I.; Conserva, A.; Millán, G. Analysis of Energy Efficiency Measures and Retrofitting
Solutions for Social Housing Buildings in Spain as a Way to Mitigate Energy Poverty. Sustainability 2017, 9,
1869. [CrossRef]
30. Evangelisti, L.; Guattari, C.; Gori, P. Energy Retrofit Strategies for Residential Building Envelopes: An Italian
Case Study of an Early-50s Building. Sustainability 2015, 7, 10445–10460. [CrossRef]
31. Santamouris, M.; Dascalaki, E. Passive retrotting of o”ce buildings to improve their energy performance and
indoor environment: The OFFICE project. Build. Environ. 2002, 37, 575–578. [CrossRef]
32. Available online: https://sites.google.com/site/hvacsystemvarietyae390/vav---major-system/numeric-parameters
(accessed on 12 October 2019).
33. Available online: https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/Technical%20Resources/Standards%20and%
20Guidelines/Standards%20Addenda/90_1_2007_Supplement.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2019).
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Retrofitting an Existing O

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Retrofitting an Existing O

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Retrofitting an Existing O

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: low energy; retrofitting; sustainable design; buildings

Sustainability 2020, 12, 2573; doi:10.3390/su12062573 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Figure 1. Global energy usage by territory [1].

Figure 2. US energy consumption in the building sector.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Building Selection and Description

Table 1. Case study description of Ajmal Makan office building.

Building Type Office Building

2.2. Weather Data Analysis

3.1. Real Case Simulation

3.2. Alternative Selection

Base Case Simulation (Modified Real Case)

Table 3. Base case window-to-wall ratio (WWR) calculation.

Elevation Glazing Area (m2 ) Elevation (m2 ) WWR (%)

Table 4. Modified case window to wall ratio (WWR) calculation.

Ideal WWR is 24% by Ashrae [33]

3.3. Retrofitting Alternatives

Table 6. Orientation alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).

Orientation Total Energy Consumption kWh ⇥ 1000

Table 7. Roof alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).

Roof U-Value Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Table 8. Wall alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).

Wall U-Value Total Energy Consumption Decrease in

3.3.4. Glazing and Frame Types

Table 9. Window alternatives with energy consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000).

Window Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Overhang Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

3.3.6. HVAC System

Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Total Energy Consumption Decrease Energy

Table 13. Energy distribution breakdown of the best case.

Annual Energy Consumption (kWh ⇥ 1000) Decrease Ratio (%)

Figure 11. Best-case retrofitting components.

13. World Green Building Council. Available online: https://www.worldgbc.org/about-us (accessed on

You might also like