See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348219933

Bermed Earth-Sheltered Wall for Low-Income House: Thermal and Energy

Measure to Face Climate Change in Tropical Region

Article  in  Applied Sciences · January 2021

DOI: 10.3390/app11010420

CITATIONS READS

3 405

7 authors, including:

Ivan Julio Apolonio Callejas Raquel Moussalem Apolonio

Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT) 3 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   
101 PUBLICATIONS   264 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Emeli Lalesca Aparecida da Guarda Luciane Durante

Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT)
59 PUBLICATIONS   91 CITATIONS    106 PUBLICATIONS   266 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY IN URBAN BUILDINGS View project

COURTYARDS: SEARCH FOR A BIOCLIMATIC PASSIVE COOLING STRATEGY FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED IN TROPICAL CLIMATE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ivan Julio Apolonio Callejas on 05 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 applied
sciences
Article
Bermed Earth-Sheltered Wall for Low-Income House: Thermal
and Energy Measure to Face Climate Change in Tropical Region
Ivan Julio Apolonio Callejas 1, *, Raquel Moussalem Apolonio 2 , Emeli Lalesca Aparecida da Guarda 3 ,
Luciane Cleonice Durante 1 , Karyna de Andrade Carvalho Rosseti 1 , Filipa Roseta 2 and
Leticia Mendes do Amarante 1

1 Departamento de Arquitetura e Urbanismo, Faculdade de Arquitetura, Engenharia e Tecnologia,

Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Av. Fernando Corrêa da Costa, 2367, Boa Esperança,
Cuiabá 78060-900, Brazil; [email protected] (L.C.D.); [email protected] (K.d.A.C.R.);
[email protected] (L.M.d.A.)
2 CIAUD—Faculdade de Arquitetura da Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Sá Nogueira, Pólo Universitário,
Alto da Ajuda, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal; [email protected] (R.M.A.);
[email protected] (F.R.)
3 Programa de Pós-graduação em Arquitetura e Urbanismo, Universidade de Santa Catarina,
R. Eng. Agronômico Andrei Cristian Ferreira, s/n, Trindade 88040-900, Brazil; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +55-65-3615-8774

Abstract: Climate change impact is one of the most important global concerns at present. In the build-
ing environment, climate-responsive design may help to enhance the adaptation capacity through
a better building energy performance. In this sense, this study addresses an adaptation strategy to
reduce the effects of global warming on low-income houses, for which bioclimatic passive strategies



should be prioritized, aiming to improve environmental sustainability. The technique chosen to


be analyzed is thermal mass for cooling. Thus, the goal is to evaluate the energy consumption
Citation: Callejas, I.J.A.; and thermal performance impact of implementing bermed earth-sheltered walls on bedrooms in
Apolonio, R.M.; Guarda, E.L.A.d.;
low-income housing (LIH), considered deployed in tropical climate regions. For that, a base scenario
Durante, L.C.;
(1961–1990) is considered, alongside two future scenarios: 2020 (2011 to 2040) and 2050 (2041 to 2070),
de Andrade Carvalho Rosseti, K.;
both considering the effects of climate change, according to the Fourth Report (AR4) of the Inter-
Roseta, F.; Amarante, L.M.d. Bermed
Earth-Sheltered Wall for Low-Income
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The methodologies adopted are (i) computational
House: Thermal and Energy Measure simulation to estimate the annual energy consumption demand and (ii) quantification of the cooling
to Face Climate Change in Tropical degree-hours (CDH), with the subsequent comparative analysis based on Brazilian regulation for
Region. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420. energy efficiency in buildings (RTQ-R). The predictions show that there will be an increase in the
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010420 energy consumption for cooling and in the CDH in both 2020 and 2050 scenarios, regardless of using
a bermed earth-sheltered wall. Nonetheless, this adaptive measure enables the building to be resilient
Received: 19 November 2020 in terms of cooling energy demand in the 2020s, since it is 12.3% lower than in the building without
Accepted: 24 December 2020 the strategy use, compared with the base scenario. In the 2050s, resilience was almost reached with
Published: 4 January 2021
energy consumption only 10.7% higher, for the same conditions described previously. Therefore,
bermed earth-sheltered walls work as a climate-responsive design strategy to face the potential global
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
warming effects, promoting building sustainability in tropical climate regions.
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
ms in published maps and institutio-
Keywords: thermal performance; building simulation; climate-responsive; energy consumption;
nal affiliations.
cooling degree-hours; bioclimatic measure; passive measure

Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li-

censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 1. Introduction
This article is an open access article
Vast knowledge about climate change, motivated by anthropogenic actions and based
distributed under the terms and con-
on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, has been released by the Intergovernmental Panel on
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has published various scientific reports on which the
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
behavior of terrestrial ecosystems is studied by scientists from a wide range of fields [1,2].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
An increase in the number of hot days in most land regions is expected, with the highest

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010420 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 2 of 22

increases in the tropics, therefore, the potential effect of climate change in the building
environment is a critical issue, especially concerning its design and operation. Furthermore,
global warming will directly affect the thermal behavior of buildings, increasing hot season
cooling, and decreasing cold heating demand, raising its energy consumption during the
operational phase [3]. Thus, the strategic framework conceived to mitigate and adapt
buildings environments to climate change increases the importance of the thermal mass
effect as a strategy to counterattack its impacts, especially within warm regions located in
South America with tropical Savannah climate (Aw), which is the second most common
climate in the world, covering 11.5% of the world’s land area, 60.1% of South America [4],
and 81.4% of the Brazilian territory [5].
Mitigation and adaptation are two strategies to address climate change. The first
focuses on the causes (accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) whereas the
second on adaptation to the impacts [6]. Adaptation may respond mainly by reducing or
eliminating the risks of climate change impacts, and on the building environment, it can be
done by enabling the capacity of adaptation through a better building energy performance.
In the last decade, some studies have evaluated the potential of buildings’ energy efficiency
adaptation measures to face climate changes effects. In Australia, a study investigated,
in five regional climates (from cold to hot humid), the potential impact of climate change
on the heating and cooling energy requirements of residential houses. It was observed
that energy-efficient or high star rating houses may experience fewer absolute changes
in energy requirement due to their better thermal insulation [7]. In the Netherlands,
three traditional residential house projects were used to investigate the effectiveness of
passive climate change adaptation measures. The following strategies were tested in the
building components using thermal simulation analysis: (i) increased thermal resistance,
(ii) changed thermal capacity, (iii) increased short-wave reflectivity (albedo), (iv) vegetation
roofs, (v) solar shading, and (vi) additional natural ventilation. The increase in thermal
resistance/ thermal capacity and short-wave reflectivity resulted in a higher and lower
number of overheating hours, respectively. The application of a vegetated roof, the use
the natural ventilation, and the addition of operable exterior solar shading produced a
decrease in the number of overheating hours [8].
A study conducted in three different bioclimatic zones in Brazil (at Curitiba,
Florianópolis, and Belém cities) accessed individual passive strategies, such as solar
shading, low absorptance, and thermal insulation, to reduce energy consumption in a
low-income house under the global warming effects. The aforementioned measures were
able to reduce up to 50% of the future annual cooling and heating energy demand in houses,
contributing to their sustainability [9]. In Guangdong Province, South China, the global
warming impacts on multi-family residences were predicted in two edification typologies:
one with lower thermal insulation (3.5 stars-building envelope) and the other with higher
performance (5.5 stars-building envelope). The total heating and cooling energy demand
of 3.5 and 5.5 star-buildings due to global warming are projected to increase 20% and
25% in the 2080s, respectively, despite their better insulation compared to the existing
housing stock [10].
A medium-sized office building located in five US cities (Miami—FL, Phoenix—AZ,
Los Angeles—CA, Washington—DC, and Akron—CO) was accessed under the climate
change impacts. The adaptation measures focused on the operation heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning system (HVAC), which included the adjustment of thermostat set-
points, the reduction of HVAC operation hours, the reduction of the variable air volume
box minimum flow setting, and mixed-mode ventilation, strategies considered to neutralize
the increased energy consumption in the research building. The mixed ventilation strategy
proved to be an effective measure to reduce energy consumption, and thus mitigate the
impacts of climate change in most research cities in the 2020s and 2050s scenarios [11].
Low-income housing located in the cities of São Paulo and Salvador, Brazil had its envelope
improved with isolated and combined measures to face the impact of climate change. The
most effective isolated adaptation measures to improve thermal performance and energy
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 3 of 22

consumption were those related to lower solar absorptance of the walls, insulated roofs
with lower solar absorptance, and shading to windows in all main rooms. For both cities,
it was demonstrated that it is possible to obtain a good performance in the 2050 period,
compared to the current climate, with the combination of isolated measures [12].
Practical measures were proposed to counterattack the impact of climate change on en-
ergy consumption in a house located at Cuiabá, a region of Tropical Savannah climate (Aw),
Brazil. The house envelope was enhanced, elevating the building system’s thermal resis-
tance and reducing the solar absorptance. Despite the improvements, energy consumption
is predicted to increase by 19.6% in the 2020s and 30.1% in the 2050s, compared to the base
scenario [13]. A study quantified the application of an adaptive comfort control measure
in mixed-mode office buildings in Cadiz, southern Spain. A daily setpoint temperature,
based on the adaptive thermal comfort approach, was applied in a building to simulate
the present and future conditions under climate change. Taking the current scenario as a
reference, a 74.6% reduction in energy demand and a 59.7% drop in energy consumption
was quantified when the adaptive comfort control was implemented in the model [14].
Thus, the specified previous predictions indicated that, despite the enhancement in the
building energy performance, no individual passive strategies might completely neutralize
the increasing of cooling and heating energy usage, suggesting the combination of passive
strategies to counteract the effects of climate change. Some typical measures prescribed in
bioclimatic codes and energy-efficient regulations have been considered in these studies,
however, to reduce energy use for cooling/ heating demands, additional measures must
be considered, especially those that act as a climate-responsive design strategy.
When designing new buildings to face climate change, the traditional strategies, such
as construction elements of the envelope, building geometry, and orientation, may not
be sufficient to achieve adequate levels of energy consumption and thermal performance.
Thus, alternative bioclimatic passive techniques are also important measures to be con-
sidered during the design phase. For hot regions, thermal mass for cooling is an alternative
measure to accumulate and retain heat during the day and return it to the exterior envi-
ronment at night, acting as a climate-responsive design strategy. This behavior reduces
the indoor air temperature fluctuations and maximizes the thermal lag of heat transfer
of the walls, which oscillate in a damped manner [15–17]. Thus, this bioclimatic measure
may reduce the use of active air conditioning systems during hot days, potentially saving
energy and improving thermal comfort in an indoor environment [8].
In a hilly site, building walls may be designed to be in contact with the earth, increasing
its thermal mass properties. In the “elevational” bermed design, the house’s main elevation
or face, usually with a south-facing wall in cold regions and with a north-facing wall in
hot climatic zones, remains unexposed, while the rest may be bermed by the earth. This
type of construction, named earth sheltered building, are defined as structures built with
the use of earth mass against building walls working as external thermal mass to the wall,
which reduces heat loss and maintains a steady indoor air temperature throughout the
seasons [18]. When the earth is in contact with building walls, it acts as a reservoir, storing
the heat in vast spaces inside the soil and modulating indoor air temperatures at different
meteorological conditions [19].
For this reason, the bermed type of construction may contribute to resilience to the
urban heat island phenomenon, and constitutes an alternative measure to adapt buildings
to the impacts of climate change, one of the most important global concerns at present.
Thus, this research strategy is aligned to the principles of sustainable development goals
(SDGs) to promote the 2030 agenda, especially the SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy)
and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), which should guide the production
of sustainable and efficient buildings [20]. Besides, this passive measure, understood
as a measure that does not use the energy once implemented in the building, may help
designers and builders to attend the premises of bioclimatic architecture and thus achieve
the fulfillment of sustainable performance requirements established by the building’s
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 help designers and builders to attend the premises of bioclimatic architecture and4 of thus
22
achieve the fulfillment of sustainable performance requirements established by the
building’s certifications systems, especially concerning energy efficiency and application
of climate-responsive design [21].
certifications systems,
Thus, this study especially concerning
aims to evaluate the energy efficiency
potential thermaland
andapplication of climate-
energy impact of im-
responsive design [21].
plementing bermed earth-sheltered walls as a passive cooling strategy for a residential
Thus, this
building’s study aims
bedrooms, to evaluate
located thewith
in a region potential thermal
a tropical and to
climate energy impact change
face climate of im-
plementing bermed earth-sheltered walls as a passive cooling strategy for a residential
effects. The study helps to deepen the knowledge of this potential climate-responsive
building’s bedrooms, located in a region with a tropical climate to face climate change
strategy as an adaptation measure for building to be deployed in the regions with hot
effects. The study helps to deepen the knowledge of this potential climate-responsive
climate conditions, where future scenario projections of climate change have indicated
strategy as an adaptation measure for building to be deployed in the regions with hot
the increase of hot days frequency, which will induce changes in building energy de-
climate conditions, where future scenario projections of climate change have indicated
mand due to the increase of air conditioning systems used for cooling [22,23]. The anal-
the increase of hot days frequency, which will induce changes in building energy demand
yses are made considering a base scenario (without the influence of climate change) and
due to the increase of air conditioning systems used for cooling [22,23]. The analyses are
two future scenarios (2020 and 2050) contemplating potential climate change effects, ac-
made considering a base scenario (without the influence of climate change) and two future
cording to the Fourth Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
scenarios (2020 and 2050) contemplating potential climate change effects, according to the
(IPCC).
Fourth Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

2.2.Materials
Materialsand
andMethods
Methods
2.1.Local
2.1. LocalClimate
ClimateIdentification
Identificationand
andBioclimatic
BioclimaticZone
ZoneCharacterization
Characterization
AAsingle-family
single-familylow-income
low-incomehouse
house(LIH)
(LIH) selected
selected forfor this
this study
study is considered
is considered to betolo-be
located
cated in ainregion
a region of Tropical
of Tropical Savannah
Savannah climateclimate (Aw), characterized
(Aw), characterized by highby airhigh air tem-
temperature
throughout the year, wide
perature throughout hygrothermal
the year, variations, and
wide hygrothermal undefined
variations, andor absent winter
undefined sea-
or absent
son [24].season
winter Similar climate
[24]. classification
Similar can be found
climate classification caninbe
several
foundlocations
in several around the around
locations world,
such as Australia,
the world, such asAfrica, and South
Australia, Africa,America,
and South especially
America, in regions
especiallylocated between
in regions the
located
Equator
betweenand theTropics
Equatorof Capricorn
and Tropics(Figure 1). The climate
of Capricorn (Figuredatabase
1). Theofclimate
the Cuiabá city, which
database of the
isCuiabá
locatedcity, in the Mid-East,
which Brazil,
is located in in
thethe geometric
Mid-East, center
Brazil, inofthe
Latin America
geometric (15◦ 36
center of0 56 00 S;
Latin
56 ◦ 0 00
06 01 W) is usedS;as56°06′01″
a base of W)
thisisresearch.
America (15°36′56″ used as a base of this research.

Figure1.1.Location
Figure Locationof
ofthe
thecity
cityof
ofCuiabá
Cuiabáin
inSouth
SouthAmerica.
America.Source:
Source:adapted
adaptedfrom
fromPeel
Peeletetal.
al.[4].
[4].

The Brazilian
The Brazilian Association
Association of of Technical
TechnicalStandards
Standards(ABNT)
(ABNT)for forBioclimatic
BioclimaticZoning
Zoning
establishesaaset
establishes setofoftechnical
technical
and and constructive
constructive recommendations
recommendations for region,
for the the region, to opti-
to optimize
the
mizethermal performance
the thermal performanceof buildings through
of buildings througha better climatic
a better climaticadaptation
adaptation [16].
[16].The
The
recommendations
recommendationsand andconstructive
constructiveguidelines
guidelinesfor
foradequate
adequateLIHLIHfor
forthe
theSavannah
Savannahclimate
climate
region
regionare
aredetailed
detailed in in
Table 1, in1,accordance
Table withwith
in accordance the Brazilian Bioclimatic
the Brazilian and asand
Bioclimatic prescribed
as pre-
by the Brazilian Technical Quality Regulation for Energy Efficiency Level
scribed by the Brazilian Technical Quality Regulation for Energy Efficiency Level of of Residential
Buildings
Residential(RTQ-R)
Buildings [25]. As indicated
(RTQ-R) [25]. Asinindicated
Table 1, in
thermal
Table 1,mass for cooling
thermal mass foris cooling
a strategy
is a
recommended to adapt the building to the climate where it is located. Thus, this research
focuses on verifying if this potential passive strategy may be adequate to adapt a building
to the projected climate change scenarios.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 5 of 22

Table 1. Recommendations and constructive guidelines for the bioclimatic zoning of the building location.

Opening’s Guidelines for Building Envelope Strategies for Passive Thermal

Code Conditioning
Recommendations Wall System Roof System
A: NR A:NR
Evaporative Cooling; Thermal
Small openings: 10% < A Type: Heavy Type: Heavy
1 mass for cooling; Selective
NBR 15220 < 15% U ≤ 2.2; CT:NR U ≤ 2.0; CT: NR
ventilation
Shade openings ϕ ≥ 6.5 h ϕ ≥ 6.5 h
(Tint > Text )
SF ≤ 3.5% SF ≤ 6.5%
α ≤ 0.6 α > 0.6 α ≤ 0.4 α > 0.4
RTQ-R 1 A ≥ 5% U ≤ 3.70 U ≤ 2.50 U ≤ 2.30 U ≤ 1.50 No requirement established
CT ≥ 130 CT ≥ 130 NR NR
1 A: floor area (%); α: absorptance (dimensionless); U: total thermal transmittance (W/m2 K); CT: thermal capacity (kJ/(m2 K); ϕ: thermal
lag; SF: sun factor; NR: no requirement established; Tint : internal temperature; Text : external temperature.

2.2. Characterization of the Study Case

A typical low-income house, widely replicated in all regions of Brazil by the Brazilian
government under the social housing program named “My House My Life”, was chosen
for this study [26] (Figure 2a). This choice is based on the fact that this population is the
most vulnerable to the impact of climate change, especially in developing countries. This
typology is handed out to the users without any concern about climatic adaptation to the
implantation region, with a poor thermal performance [9,12,13], compromising its indoor
thermal comfort conditions as well as increasing energy consumption for cooling [13,27].
Due to these facts and how this research focuses on the thermal mass strategy as a climate-
responsive measure, the original standard building project was redesign to attend Brazilian
RTQ-R level ‘A’ of efficiency [25], thereafter named as “LIHe”. It is characterized by a
one-story detached house in contact with the ground. LIHe presents 39.18 m2 of total
area and 34.54 m2 of internal floor area, distributed in four designated areas, namely:
living room/kitchen (17.44 m2 ), bedroom 1 (7.78 m2 ), bedroom 2 (7.57 m2 ), and bathroom
(1.75 m2 ) (Figure 2a–c). The roof construction is dual pitched with an overhang of 0.30 m
depth. The rooms’ ceiling height is 3.00 m.
Regarding openings, living room and bedroom spaces present metallic sliding win-
dows with dimensions of 1.50 × 1.00 m and 1.20 × 1.00 m, respectively, composed of
four panels, two of them being single glass fixed panels and the other two sliding metallic
Venetian panels. The kitchen’s window is a metallic tilting type of 1.00 × 1.00 m. The exter-
nal doors are made of metallic sheets, while interior doors are wood-made. The thermal
resistance of the external walls and roof were improved to provide building efficient level
“A”. The external walls consist of ceramic bricks (six-hole type) coated on the outside with
expanded polystyrene sheets (EPS) (0.04 m) and plaster (0.025 m) in the outermost and
innermost layers. The internal partitions consist of ceramic brick (six-hole type) coated on
both sides with plaster (0.015 m). The external walls absorptance was reduced from 0.3
to 0.15 by changing the painting to white color. The roof system is composed of ceramic
tile, aluminum foil for thermal insulation, an air gap layer, and ceiling panels of polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) (0.01 m). The outermost layer of the tiles was painted with white color
(ranging the absorptance of the roof from 0.8 to 0.15). Regarding the roof air gap, this
layer presents 0.61 m2 K/W thermal resistance (R-value), with a thickness greater than
0.05 m and low thermal emissivity due to the installation of aluminum foil. The Brazilian
Association of Technical Standards NBR 15.220 [16] was used to redesign the building
envelope and to determine the thermal properties of the building system envelope of the
efficient low-income house (LIHe), which are presented in Table 2.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 6 of 22

(a) External image and 3D DesignBuilder model of the low-income house (LIH).

(b) Floor plan (dimensions in meters) (c) Sections AA’ and BB’
Figure 2.
Figure 2. (a)
(a) Standard
Standard low-income
low-income housing
housing picture,
picture, (b)
(b) floor
floor plan,
plan, and
and (c)
(c) section
section plans.
plans.

Regarding
To evaluateopenings,
the thermal living room
inertia and bermed
strategy, bedroomearth-sheltered
spaces presentwallsmetallic
were sliding
imple-
windows
mented inwith dimensions
the original of 1.50
housing × 1.00
design m and 1.20
(hereafter named × 1.00 m, respectively,
as LIHb), composed
so that bedrooms of
walls
four panels,
came twocontact
into direct of themwith
being
thesingle glass fixed
soil (Figure panels and
2), resulting the
in the other two
“LIHb” sliding
design metallic
strategy (see
Venetian panels.
properties in TableThe kitchen’s
2). For window
that, the externaliswalls
a metallic tilting type
of bedrooms 1 andof2,1.00 × 1.00
which m. present
do not The ex-
openings,
ternal doorswereareselected
made oftometallic
be 3.00 sheets,
m (ceiling height)
while grounded
interior earth-sheltered
doors are wood-made.(Figure 3).
The ther-
The
mal bermed
resistanceearth-sheltered
of the externalwalls were
walls andevaluated
roof were inimproved
all four cardinal orientations
to provide building(Figure 4).
efficient
This
levelstrategy
“A”. The allows taking
external advantage
walls consist of natural
ceramicsloping ground while
bricks (six-hole type)providing
coated ona the
passive
out-
design
side withmeasure to improve
expanded indoor thermal
polystyrene comfort
sheets (EPS) conditions.
(0.04 m) and plaster (0.025 m) in the
outermost and innermost layers. The internal partitions consist of ceramic brick (six-hole
type) coated on both sides with plaster (0.015 m). The external walls absorptance was
reduced from 0.3 to 0.15 by changing the painting to white color. The roof system is
composed of ceramic tile, aluminum foil for thermal insulation, an air gap layer, and
ceiling panels of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (0.01 m). The outermost layer of the tiles was
painted with white color (ranging the absorptance of the roof from 0.8 to 0.15). Regarding
the roof air gap, this layer presents 0.61 m2K/W thermal resistance (R-value), with a
thickness greater than 0.05 m and low thermal emissivity due to the installation of alu-
minum foil. The Brazilian Association of Technical Standards NBR 15.220 [16] was used
to redesign the building envelope and to determine the thermal properties of the building
system envelope of the efficient low-income house (LIHe), which are presented in Table
2.
 Building Characteristics R-Value 1 (m²K/W) U 2 (W/m²K) CT (J/m²K) α
Layers (m)
White paint-
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW ing 7 of 23
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2021,11,
Appl. Sci.2021,
11, x FORPEER
2021, 11,xxFOR
PEER REVIEW
FOR PEERREVIEW
REVIEW
Wall System 777 of
of 23
of 23
23
Mortar 0.025
Appl. Sci. Sci.
Appl. 2021, 11, x11,
2021, FOR420PEER REVIEW EPS sheet 0.040 7 of 723 of 22
1.128 0.886 169.38 0.15
Table 2. Thermophysical properties adoptedCeramic for building bricksystems 0.09envelope of the efficient low-income house (LIHe) and
Table2.2.earth-sheltered
Table Thermophysical propertiesadopted
adopted forMortar
buildingsystems systems envelopeof of theefficient
efficient low-incomehouse house (LIHe)and and
Table 2.Thermophysical
bermed Thermophysical properties
low-income
propertieshouse
adopted for
forbuilding
(LIHb). building systems 0.025envelope
envelope ofthethe efficientlow-income
low-income house(LIHe) (LIHe) and
bermedearth-sheltered
bermed earth-shelteredlow-income
low-incomehouse house(LIHb).
(LIHb).
bermed
Table 2. earth-sheltered
Thermophysicallow-income house (LIHb).
properties adopted White
for building paint- systems envelope of the efficient low-income house (LIHe) and
Efficient
Tablelow-income
2. Thermophysical properties adopted
Envelope Materialsfor building systems envelope of the efficient low-income house (LIHe) and
Thickness
Building
bermed Characteristics
earth-sheltered low-incomeEnvelope
Envelope house (LIHb).
Materials
Materials ing Thickness R-Value 11 (m²K/W) U 22 (W/m²K) CT (J/m²K)
Thickness α
house
Building
Building systems
bermed (LIHe)
earth-sheltered
Characteristics Envelope
low-income house Materials
Layers
(LIHb). Thickness
(m) (m²K/W) UU22(W/m²K)
R-Value11(m²K/W) (W/m²K) CT CT(J/m²K)
(J/m²K) αα
BuildingCharacteristics
Characteristics White
Layers
Layers paint- (m)
(m)
R-Value
R-Value (m²K/W) U (W/m²K) CT (J/m²K) α
Envelope White Layers
Materials paint- Thickness (m)
Building Characteristics Whitepaint-
Materials
White ing
paint- R-Value 1 (m²K/W)
R-Value 1 U 2 (W/m²K) CT (J/m²K) α
Building Characteristics Envelope White ingpaint- Thickness
Layers (m) (m) U 2 (W/m2 K) CT (J/m2 K) α
Wall System
Roof System Layers
Ceramic
ing tiles 0.01 (m2 K/W)
Wall System White ing
ing
Mortar paint- 0.025
Wall
WallSystem
System White Mortar Aluminum 0.847 1.18 41.92 0.15
painting
Mortar 0.025
0.025
EPSMortar
ingsheet 0.025-
0.040
Wall System
Wall System EPS
Mortar foil
sheet 0.040
0.025 1.128 0.886 169.38 0.15
EPS
EPS
Ceramic sheet
Mortar sheet
brick 0.040
0.040
0.025
0.09 1.128 0.886 169.38 0.15
Attic
Ceramic space
brick >0.05 m
0.09 1.128
1.128 0.886
0.886 169.38
169.38 0.15
0.15
0.15
Ceramic
EPS
Ceramic
EPS sheet
Mortar brick
sheet brick 0.09
0.040
0.09
0.040
0.025
PVC
Mortar ceiling 0.025 0.01 1.128
1.128 0.886
0.886 169.38
169.38 0.15
White
Ceramic Mortar
Mortar
Ceramic brick
paint-
brick 0.025
0.025
0.09
0.09
Efficient low-income Wall System White Whitepaint- paint-
Efficient
Efficient low-income
low-income White
Mortaring
Mortar paint- 0.025
0.025
Efficient
house low-income
systems (LIHe) ing
ing
house
house systems
systems
Efficient (LIHe)
(LIHe)
low-income White
White ing
Similar paint-
painting Layer and Thickness
house systems
Efficient low-income (LIHe) White paint- Similar properties of the LIHe
house systems (LIHe) White
White ingpaint-
paint-
of the Efficient LIH
house systems (LIHe) White painting
ing
Roof System Whiteing
Ceramic ing tiles
paint- 0.01
Roof
Roof System Ceramic
RoofSystem
System Ceramic
Ceramic tilestiles 0.01
0.01
Roof System Ceramicing tiles
Aluminum tiles 0.01
0.01 0.847 1.18 41.92 0.15
Wall
Roof System
System in con- Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
foil foil -- 0.847
0.847
0.847
0.847 1.181.18
1.18
1.18
41.92
41.92
41.92
41.92
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Bermed earth-sheltered Ceramic tiles 0.01
---
tact with groundAttic foil
foil
space >0.05 m
low-income house sys- Attic
Aluminumfoil
space >0.05 m 0.847 1.18 41.92 0.15
Attic
Attic
Similar space
space Layer and >0.05
>0.05 -Thickness
mm Evaluated by the Energyplus program according to the
tems (LIHb) PVCAttic
PVC foilspace
ceiling
ceiling >0.05
0.01
0.01 m
PVC
of the
PVC ceiling
LIHe + ground
ceiling 0.01 contact
0.01 Basement (GDomain) input data.
Wall
Wall System
System PVC
Attic ceiling
space 0.01m
>0.05
WallSystem
Wall System
Wall System PVC ceiling 0.01
SimilarLayer
Similar Layer andand Thickness
Thickness of
Wall System SimilarLayer Layerand andThickness
Thickness Similar properties
Similar properties ofofthetheLIHe
LIHe
Similar
Roof System Similar ofthe Layer
the and
Efficient
Efficient LIH Thickness
LIH Similarproperties
Similar
Similar
propertiesof
properties
ofthe
of
theLIHe
the
LIHe
LIHe
ofofthe
Similar theLayer
Efficient
Efficientand LIH
LIH Thickness
Similar of the
Layer Efficient LIH
and Thickness Similar properties of the LIHe
of the LIHe Similar properties of the LIHe
of the Efficient LIH
WallWall System in con-
System
Bermed1 earth-sheltered
Thermal Resistance Wall
Wall and System in con-
2 Transmittance
System include the internal e external superficial air resistance. Properties estimated
Bermedearth-sheltered
Bermed earth-sheltered Wall
tact in contactincon-
System
with in
ground con-
Bermed
low-income byearth-sheltered
Bermed NBR house sys-[16].tact
earth-sheltered
15.220 tactwithwith
with ground
ground
ground
low-income
low-income house
house
low-income sys-
house
tact with ground
sys- Wall System in con- Similar Layer and Thickness Evaluated by the Energyplus program according to the
low-income
Bermed tems house
(LIHb)
earth-sheltered sys- Similar Layer and Thickness Evaluated bythethe Energyplus program accordingtoto tothethe
tems (LIHb)
systems (LIHb) tact with ground Similar
Similar
Similar
of
To evaluatethe LIHe Layer
Layer
Layer
the +andand
ground
thermal Thickness
Thickness
and Thickness of Evaluated
contact
inertia strategy, by
Evaluated
Evaluated by the
Basement
bermed Energyplus
by the Energyplus
Energyplus
(GDomain) program
program
program
earth-sheltered according
according
inputwallsaccording
data. were to the
the
imple-
tems
low-income (LIHb)
tems (LIHb)
house sys- ofthe
ofthetheLIHe
LIHe++ground
LIHe + groundcontact
ground contactcontact Basement(GDomain)
Basement
Basement (GDomain)input
(GDomain) inputdata.
input data.
data.
mented in of
the the
Similar LIHe
Layer
original + housing
ground
and Thicknesscontact
design Evaluated
(hereafter Basement
by named (GDomain)
the Energyplus
as LIHb), input
program
so thatdata.
according
bedrooms to walls
the
tems (LIHb)
came into of the LIHe
direct contact + ground
with contact
the soil (Figure 2), Basement
resulting(GDomain) input data.
in the “LIHb” design strategy
Roof System
(see properties in Table 2). For that, the external walls of bedrooms 1 and 2, which do not
RoofSystem
Roof System Similar Layer and Thickness
Roof System openings,
present
Roof System SimilarLayer wereand
Layer selected
and Thickness Similar properties
to be 3.00 m (ceiling of the LIHeearth-sheltered
height) grounded
Similar
Similar Layer Thickness
Roof System Similar Layerof the andand
LIHe Thickness
Thickness of Similarproperties
Similar
Similar
propertiesof
properties
ofthe
theLIHe
ofofthe
LIHe
(Figure 3). The bermed ofof the
the earth-sheltered
LIHe
LIHe walls were evaluated
Similar in
properties all theLIHe
four cardinal orienta-
LIHe
Similar Layer of
the the LIHe
and
LIHe Thickness
tions (Figure 4). This strategy
1 Thermal Resistance and 2 Transmittance include the internal e external superficial
allows taking Similar
advantage properties
of natural
air resistance. of the LIHe
sloping
Properties ground while
estimated
byThermal
111Thermal
NBR Resistance
Resistance
15.220 [16]. and222Transmittance
and includeofthe
Transmittanceinclude theinternal
the LIHe e external superficial air resistance. Properties estimated
internal e external superficial air resistance. Properties estimated
Thermal
1 Thermal Resistance
Resistance and 2 Transmittance include the internal e external superficial
providing a passive design measure to improve indoor thermal comfort conditions. air resistance. Properties estimated
byNBR
by
1by
NBR15.220
15.220 [16]. and 2 Transmittance include the internal e external superficial air resistance. Properties estimated by NBR 15.220 [16].
[16].
NBR 15.220
Thermal [16]. and Transmittance include the internal e external superficial air resistance. Properties estimated
Resistance
To evaluate the thermal inertia strategy, bermed earth-sheltered walls were imple-
by NBR 15.220 [16]. To evaluate
To evaluate the the thermal
thermal inertiainertia strategy,
strategy, bermed
bermed earth-sheltered
earth-sheltered walls walls werewere imple-
imple-
mented To inevaluate the thermal
the original housinginertia
designstrategy,
(hereafter bermed
namedearth-sheltered
as LIHb), so that walls were imple-
bedrooms walls
mented
mented
mented in
in the
inthe original
theoriginal
original housing
housing
housing design
design
design (hereafter
(hereafter
(hereafter named
named
named as
as LIHb),
asLIHb),
LIHb), so
so that
sothat
that bedrooms
bedrooms
bedrooms walls
walls
walls
came To evaluate
into direct the thermal
contact with inertia
the soilstrategy,
(Figure bermed
2), earth-sheltered
resulting in the “LIHb” walls werestrategy
design imple-
came
came into
into direct
in direct contact with the soil (Figure 2), resulting in the “LIHb” design strategy
came
mented
(see into the
properties incontact
direct contact
original with
Tablehousing
2). Forthe
with the soil
soil
design
that, the (Figure
(Figure 2),
(hereafter
external resulting
2),walls
resulting
named ofas ininthe
the“LIHb”
LIHb),
bedrooms “LIHb”
so1 that design
design
and bedrooms
2, whichstrategy
strategy
dowalls
not
(see
(see properties
(seeproperties in
in Table
Table 2). For that, the external walls of bedrooms 111and
and 2, which do not
came properties
present into direct
openings, were2).
incontact
Table 2).For
with
selectedthat,
Forthethat,the
soil
to the
be external
external
(Figure
3.00 m2), walls
walls of
of
resulting
(ceiling bedrooms
bedrooms
in the
height) “LIHb”
grounded and2,2,which
which
design do
donot
not
strategy
earth-sheltered
3.0

present
present
present
(see openings,
openings,
openings,
properties were
were
were selected
selected
selected to
to
to be
be
be 3.00
3.00
3.00 m
m
m (ceiling
(ceiling
(ceiling height)
height)
height) grounded
grounded
grounded earth-sheltered
earth-sheltered
earth-sheltered
(Figure 3). The in Table earth-sheltered
bermed 2). For that, the walls external
werewalls of bedrooms
evaluated in all 1fourandcardinal
2, whichorienta-
do not
(Figure
(Figure 3).
3). The
3).The bermed earth-sheltered walls were evaluated in all four cardinal orienta-
(Figure
present
tions 4).bermed
The
openings,
(Figure bermed
were
This earth-sheltered
earth-sheltered
selected
strategy to betaking
allows walls
walls
3.00 were
were
madvantageevaluated
evaluated
(ceiling height) in
of natural all four
ingroundedfourcardinal
allsloping cardinal orienta-
orienta-
earth-sheltered
ground while
tions
tions (Figure
tions (Figure 4).
4). This
This strategy
strategy allows
allows taking
allowstotaking advantage of natural sloping ground while
(Figure (Figure
providing 3). aThe 4).bermed
passiveThis strategy
earth-sheltered
design measure wallsadvantage
taking
improve advantage
were of
of natural
evaluated
indoor natural
thermal allsloping
sloping
in comfort ground
ground
four cardinal while
while
orienta-
conditions.
providing
providing
providing
tions (Figure a passive
aapassive
passive design
4). Thisdesign
design
strategy measure
measure
allowsto
measure to improve
improve
totaking
improve indoor
indoor thermal
indoorthermal
advantage thermal
of natural comfort
comfort
comfort
sloping conditions.
conditions.
conditions.
ground while
providing a passive design measure to improve indoor thermal comfort conditions.
(a) (b)

Figure 3. (a) Schematic section and (b) modeled bermed earth-sheltered wall located in the bedrooms.
3.0

2.3. Simulation Method

3.0
3.0
3.03.0

The impact of the bermed earth-sheltered wall in the building performance was eval-
uated through computer simulation, using the DesignBuilder Software (Gloucestershire,
United Kingdom, England) [28], to compare the performance of the LIHe and LIHb mod-
els. The simulation results were evaluated following the RTQ-R [25] methodology, which
(a) (b)
considers
(a)
(a) the quantification of the energy consumption
(b)
(b) and the cooling degree-hours for a
(a) (b)
full year of operation. The simulation was carried out considering three distinct climatic
(a) (b)
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 8 of 22
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23

scenarios: base scenario (1961 to 1990 period), 2020 future scenario (2011 to 2040), and 2050
Figure 3. (a) Schematic section and (b)
future modeled
scenario bermed
(2041 earth-sheltered
to 2070), wallpresenting
the last two located in the
thebedrooms.
climate change influence.

North (0°) South (180°) East (90°) West (270°)

Figure
Figure4.4.Variation
Variationofofthe
theembedded
embeddedearth-sheltered
earth-shelteredwall
wallorientation.
orientation.

2.3. Simulation Method

The earth-sheltered wall strategy was configured within the simulation model through
the GroundDomain:
The impact of the bermed(GDomain)
Basement input (Table
earth-sheltered wall in3), the
which calculates
building the temperature
performance was
evaluated through computer simulation, using the DesignBuilder Softwarebermed
of the interface between the soil, the external walls, and the slab of the earth-
(Gloucester-
sheltered
shire, Unitedspaces, obtained
Kingdom, three-dimensionally
England) [28], to compareby thethe simulations
performance of[29]. The simulation
the LIHe and LIHb
was carried out considering the “Finite Difference” model as the ground
models. The simulation results were evaluated following the RTQ-R [25] methodology, temperature
type, which
which considers
considers the weather data
the quantification to define
of the energy boundary conditions
consumption and [30]. The manual
the cooling de-
developed by [31] was used as a reference to the GroundDomain input data.
gree-hours for a full year of operation. The simulation was carried out considering three
distinct climatic scenarios: base scenario (1961 to 1990 period), 2020 future scenario (2011
Table 3. Input data considered in GDomain simulation.
to 2040), and 2050 future scenario (2041 to 2070), the last two presenting the climate
change influence. Input Data Adopted Input Values
The earth-sheltered wall strategy was configured within the simulation model
Ground Domain Depth (m) 15
through the GroundDomain: Basement (GDomain) input (Table 3), which calculates the
Soil Thermal
temperature of theConductivity (W/m K)the soil, the external walls,
interface between 0.52 [32]
and the slab of the
3
bermed earth-sheltered
Soil Densityspaces,
(kg/m obtained
) three-dimensionally by1700 [32]
the simulations [29]. The
simulation Soil
wasSpecific
carriedHeat
out(J/kg
considering
K) the “Finite Difference” model
840 [32] as the ground
temperature type, which considers the weather data to define boundary conditions [30].
Mesh Density Parameter 6
The manual developed by [31] was used as a reference to the GroundDomain input data.

The
Table 3. GroundDomain
Input data consideredrequires the monthly
in GDomain soil temperature data under the dwelling,
simulation.
since it influences, significantly, the thermo-energy simulation. Thus, the Slab input
Input Data Adopted Input Values
tool was used to obtain the soil temperature under the LIH for the base and future
Ground Domain Depth (m) 15
scenarios (Table 4).
Soil Thermal Conductivity (W/m K) 0.52 [32]
The occupancy and equipment power density data were adopted following RTQ-R [25],
Soil Density (kg/m3) 1700 [32]
considering two people in each bedroom and four people in the living room. Regarding the
Soil Specific Heat (J/kg K) 2 840 [32]
occupancy metabolic activity rate, 45 W/m was considered in bedrooms and 60 W/m2
Mesh Density Parameter 6
was set in the living room. The lighting power densities adopted were 5.0 W/m2 in the
living room and 6.0 W/m2 in the bedrooms. The occupancy schedule estimates that the
The GroundDomain
bedrooms are used from requires
9 p.m. tothe monthly
8 a.m. soilthe
during temperature datafrom
weekdays and under the dwelling,
9 p.m. to 10 a.m.
since
on the weekend days, while the living room is used from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. input
it influences, significantly, the thermo-energy simulation. Thus, the Slab duringtool
the
was used toand
weekdays obtain
fromthe11soil
a.m.temperature
to 9 p.m. onunder the LIHdays.
the weekend for the base and future scenarios
(Table 4).

Table 4. Monthly soil temperature for the base scenario (1961–1990) and future estimates
(2020/2050).

Month 1961–1990 2020s 2050s

January 27.94 28.73 29.87
February 27.76 28.32 29.71
March 27.73 28.63 30.11
April 26.78 27.65 29.59
May 26.10 27.05 29.04
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 9 of 22

Table 4. Monthly soil temperature for the base scenario (1961–1990) and future estimates (2020/2050).

Month 1961–1990 2020s 2050s

January 27.94 28.73 29.87
February 27.76 28.32 29.71
March 27.73 28.63 30.11
April 26.78 27.65 29.59
May 26.10 27.05 29.04
June 25.67 26.90 28.32
July 24.35 24.87 26.51
August 26.38 28.95 30.82
September 27.36 29.08 31.13
October 28.36 30.78 32.62
November 27.83 29.09 30.91
December 28.21 28.87 30.26

2.4. Generating Future Climate Scenarios Weather Data

The “morphing” methodology, developed and described in [33], was adopted in this
research, aiming to analyze the implications of climate change on the building’s thermal/
energy performance. The morphing method has been used to generate future Energy-
Plus Weatherfiles (EPW) for any location in the world using the Climate Change World
Weather File Generator for World-Wide Weather Data (CCWorldWeatherGen) tool (Southampton,
United Kingdom) [33–35]. This methodology considers the climatic anomaly by modify-
ing a set of historical climatic variables (1961–1990) of 8760 h per year, disregarding the
influence of urbanization while incorporating the effects of global warming on the climate
archives, making obtaining projections of future climate data possible.
The CCWorldWeatherGen tool consists of an excel template that couples the EPW
weather files to the “Hadley Centre Coupled Model version 3” (HadCM3) General Circula-
tion Model (GCM). The HadCM3 is a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model
and has a resolution of 417 km × 278 km in the Equator region and 295 km × 278 km at 45◦
latitude, coupling the A2 Scenario of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) for the 2020s
time-slice (which covers the 2011–2040 period) and also the 2050s time-slice (2041–2070
period). The selected time-slices were based on a 50-year period, which is the building life
expected for low-income houses [36].

2.5. Indicators for Energy Consumption and Thermal Performance Evaluation

2.5.1. Estimation of the Cooling and Heating Energy Consumption
Through the use of computer simulation, it is possible to obtain the thermal perfor-
mance and the energy demand for heating and cooling when heating, ventilation, and
air conditioning (HVAC) system is utilized in the indoors environment. In energy con-
sumption analysis, two different conditions were utilized that express the habits of local
habitants: (i) from 8 a.m to 9 p.m building operating naturally ventilated, considering 20 ◦ C
as the indoor temperature control of the windows; and (ii) from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m with use
of artificial conditioning system operating in the bedrooms, considering the split system
with heating and cooling setpoint adjusted to 18 ◦ C and 24 ◦ C, respectively. In this case,
the thermal load due to occupation, equipment, lighting, and energy performance of the
air conditioning system followed the prescription of the Brazilian regulation for energy
efficiency in buildings (RTQ-R) [25].
The energy consumption was assessed only for cooling, excluding heating demand,
because the local population does not use heating systems due to the hot weather conditions
in the region, while attending the RTQ-R methodology for the region under evaluation [25].
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 10 of 22

The air conditioning system was considered only in the bedrooms, which is a common
behavior observed in the residences of this region [37]. The coefficient of performance (COP)
for cooling was assumed to be 3.00 W/W (level “A” in the Brazilian Energy Labelling),
and continuous fan operation mode (fan efficiency 0.7 and motor efficiency 0.9), following
the simulation parameters for air conditioning system modeling used in the Brazilian
Energy Label for residential buildings [25]. The estimated final cooling consumption of the
(LIHe and LIHb) typologies were analyzed in terms of kWh/ (m2 /year) in both the base
(1961–1990) and future climate change scenarios (2020 and 2050). Since the sum of energy
spent by equipment and lighting remained almost constant between the present and future
time-slices, not affecting building performance, it was not presented in final energy results.
In this study, energy demand was only quantified for the bedroom zones where the bermed
earth-sheltered walls were deployed, focusing on capturing the influence of the thermal
mass as a passive strategy for cooling.

2.5.2. Indicator of the Envelope Performance by RTQ-R

The cooling degree-hours (CDH) parameter was used as an indicator of building
thermal performance under natural ventilation conditions, based on the RTQ-R recommen-
dations [25]. The heating degree-hours parameter (HDH) was ignored due to their low
occurrence in the study region. The base temperature used to calculate the CDH was set at
26 ◦ C, which was obtained by means of Equation (1):

for Top > 26◦ ; Top − 26◦



8760
CDH = ∑ i=0 for Top ≤ 26◦ ; (0)
, (1)

This indicator was estimated annually based on the hourly indoors operative tem-
peratures (Top ), with the two bedrooms and living room/kitchen considered as long
permanence rooms. Only one indicator was considered in the thermal performance eval-
uation, obtained by the ponderation of the room areas. To classify the building’s energy
efficiency, the indicator proposed for the Brazilian bioclimatic zone in the RTQ-R was used.
In this evaluation, the naturally ventilated condition was considered for 24 h a day [23].
The efficiency level of the envelope varies from level A (CDH ≤ 12.566 ◦ Ch) to level E
(CDH > 30.735 ◦ Ch), as presented in Table 5. Occupancy and internal thermal loads were
considered in the simulation, which was carried out for the 8.760 h/ year [25].

Table 5. Building envelope efficiency for the researched bioclimatic zone according to the Brazilian
Technical Quality Regulation for Energy Efficiency Level of Residential Buildings (RTQ-R).

Level of Efficiency Cooling Degree-Hours Condition

A CDH ≤ 12,566 ◦ Ch
B 12,566 < CDH ≤ 18,622 ◦ Ch
C 18,622 < CDH ≤ 24,679 ◦ Ch
D 24,679 < CDH ≤ 30,735 ◦ Ch
E CDH > 30,735 ◦ Ch

2.5.3. Adaptive Thermal Comfort Conditions in the Indoors Long Permanence Rooms
The effectiveness of the bermed earth-sheltered walls measure adopted for improving
indoor building thermal comfort was evaluated, since it is common for the low-income
population not to have an air conditioning system installed at home due to the costs of
its operation. In this way, it was considered the index based on the study of adaptive
thermal comfort proposed by De Dear and Brager [38]. The methodology may be applied
to represent the user’s thermal comfort conditions inside of buildings naturally ventilated,
considering only the user’s occupancy and internal heat sources. The thermal comfort levels
are defined by the ideal indoor operative temperature or the monthly neutral temperature
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 11 of 22

(Tn , in ◦ C) related to the monthly averages of outdoor air temperature (TEmed , in ◦ C),
following Equation (2). This equation is only valid for TEmed between 10.0 ◦ C and 33.5 ◦ C.

Tn = 17.8 + 0.31 × TEmed (2)

Thermal comfort ranges were determined by the definition of the month neutral
temperature (Tn ) following procedures established in Standard 55 [39]. The monthly upper
and lower limits for 90% of satisfied users were obtained by the use of Equation (3), where
Top represents the hourly indoor operative temperature. Indoor thermal comfort is reached
when the operative temperature is between the intervals prescribed in Equation (3).

(Tn − 2.5) ≤ Top ≤ (Tn + 2.5), (3)

To quantify hot or cold discomfort hours and thermal comfort conditions of the long
permanence rooms for the base scenario and future climate projections, the building was
considered to operate in exclusive use of natural ventilation 24 h per day. Only one indoor
operative temperature pondered by the area of the long permanence rooms was considered
to assess the effectiveness of the measure to improve building performance. In turn, it was
also considered the indoor operative temperature pondered by the area of bedrooms where
the strategy was deployed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Energy Consumption in Accordance with RTQ-R
The energy consumption of both models was quantified by summing only the energy
consumption of the bedrooms, which was not considered in living room/kitchen spaces
since the strategy had a low impact on their performance. Since the region does not
present a well-defined winter season, there are few hours of heating demand, with lower
temperatures only occurring during cold weather fronts. With the climate change impact
projections, it is reduced to almost nil values in 2020 and 2050 scenarios. Thus, heating
loads were disregarded in this study, as the main consumption in typologies comes from
cooling demand in the long permanence rooms.
The energy consumption of both the reference typology (LIHe) and the thermal
mass strategy with the bermed earth-sheltered walls (LIHb) can be seen in Figure 5. In
the LIHe typology, the highest and lowest average energy demand in the bedrooms
occurs when walls are oriented to the north (66 kWh/m2 ) and to the west (63 kWh/m2 ),
respectively. Similar results to the latter are obtained when they are oriented east and
north (~64 kWh/m2 ). Thus, when the thermal mass strategy is not set in the building,
the bedroom’s wall orientations have a low impact on energy demand (reduction of 2%
from north to west). This behavior may be attributed to the building envelope, which has
been improved by increasing its thermal insulation in order to obtain level A of energy
efficiency [40]. In fact, the energy consumption for cooling demand observed in this study
is slightly lower to that quantified for LIHs with combined passive measures located in the
Salvador and Belém city (both Am Köppen–Geiger climate type), in the northern region
of Brazil, which displayed annual energy consumption of 75 kWh/m2 and 85 kWh/m2 ,
respectively [9,12]. Thus, the combined adaptation measures implemented in the standard
LIH are more effective in improving the building energy performance in the base scenario
than in the previous studies.
The incorporation of the thermal mass strategy in the LIH provides a reduction in
the bedroom’s energy demand for cooling for all the orientations considered (Figure 5).
In the LHIb, differently from the LIHe demand pattern, the highest year energy demand
of the bedrooms can be seen when the strategy is oriented to the south (42.7 kWh/m2 ),
while the lowest is obtained when the strategy is oriented west (39.6 kWh/m2 ), provid-
ing a reduction of 7.8% in the annual energy demand. Thus, the design consideration
for thermal mass strategy orientation aiming to improve energy performance follows a
different recommendation, regarding that observed for buildings without its use. In this
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 12 of 22

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23

sense, the adoption of the strategy in bedrooms with the bermed earth-sheltered in the
orientations tested present a 34% to 38% reduction in energy demand for cooling, with a
established for the region of 34.48 kWh/m2 to achieve level A efficiency. Thus, from a
greater reduction in the west, almost reaching the relative cooling consumption indicator
technical perspective, even for building envelopes already displaying an adequate ther-
established for the region of 34.48 kWh/m2 to achieve level A efficiency. Thus, from a
mal performance, the bermed earth-sheltered wall is recommended for the tropical cli-
technical perspective, even for building envelopes already displaying an adequate thermal
mate region as an alternative passive measure to improve building cooling energy per-
performance, the bermed earth-sheltered wall is recommended for the tropical climate
formance.
region as an alternative passive measure to improve building cooling energy performance.

Annualenergy
Figure5.5.Annual
Figure energyconsumption
consumptionof
ofthe
thebedrooms.
bedrooms.

The
The strategy
strategy impacts
impacts areare similar
similar toto those
those observed
observed in in previous
previous building
building simulation
simulation
studies. Thermal performance analysis of earth-sheltered residential
studies. Thermal performance analysis of earth-sheltered residential buildings was buildings was con-
con-
ducted for the city of Yazd, in Iran (hot and dry region) [41]. Building
ducted for the city of Yazd, in Iran (hot and dry region) [41]. Building Case 900 ASHRAE Case 900 ASHRAE
was
was employed
employed in inaaprospective
prospectivestudy,study, with
withprogressively
progressively changing
changingdepth of the
depth of soil
the sur-
soil
rounding the housing prototype [42]. In this case, the highest energy
surrounding the housing prototype [42]. In this case, the highest energy consumption consumption was
found whenwhen
was found the main façade
the main (not (not
façade in contact withwith
in contact the earth) was was
the earth) oriented to the
oriented to north, i.e.,
the north,
when the bermed earth-sheltered wall was displayed in the south, confirming the best
i.e., when the bermed earth-sheltered wall was displayed in the south, confirming the
disposition obtained in this research. However, southern orientation had the lowest energy
best disposition obtained in this research. However, southern orientation had the lowest
consumption, while west obtained the best performance in this research, due to the fact
energy consumption, while west obtained the best performance in this research, due to
that current LIHb has only one wall sheltered by earth, and different opening locations
the fact that current LIHb has only one wall sheltered by earth, and different opening
for ventilation in the facades. The total energy consumption of a residential 1.0 m deep
locations for ventilation in the facades. The total energy consumption of a residential 1.0
earth-sheltered (which corresponds to an entire wall sheltered by the earth, as in this study)
m deep earth-sheltered (which corresponds to an entire wall sheltered by the earth, as in
was reduced by about 67% (south orientation), bringing annual energy consumption to
this study) was reduced by about 67% (south orientation), bringing annual energy con-
80 kWh/m2 . Despite the reduction being more expressive than in this work, final energy
sumption to 80 kWh/m2. Despite the reduction being more expressive than in this work,
consumption for cooling was close to that found here. In another study in the Mediter-
final energy consumption for cooling was close to that found here. In another study in the
ranean climate (temperate), the annual air conditioning energy demand of a prototype
Mediterranean climate (temperate), the annual air conditioning energy demand of a
building with southern elevation located in Poznan (Poland) was evaluated. The building
prototype
wall building
was installed withand
above southern elevation
completely underlocated in Poznan
the ground, with 0.1 (Poland) was evaluated.
m of thermal insulation
thickness on the walls. This configuration provided reductions varying fromwith
The building wall was installed above and completely under the ground, 12%0.1 m of
to 30%,
thermal insulation thickness on the walls. This configuration provided
depending on the type of soil on which the building was founded, which demonstrates reductions vary-
ing soil
the fromtype
12%influence
to 30%, depending
on the buildingon theperformance
type of soil on of which
bermedthe building
houses [43].was
Thefounded,
highest
which demonstrates
reduction was obtained theforsoil
thetype influence
soil with on physical
similar the building performance
and thermal of bermed
characteristics to
houses [43]. The highest reduction
those considered in the current study. was obtained for the soil with similar physical and
thermal characteristics
Despite to those considered
of the implementation in the adaptation
of combined current study. measures and bermed earth-
sheltered strategy in the standard typology envelope, it adaptation
Despite of the implementation of combined is observed thatmeasures andwarming
the global bermed
earth-sheltered strategy in the standard typology envelope, it is
projections influence the annual cooling energy demand within the spaces under study.observed that the global
In
warming projections influence the annual cooling energy demand within the spaces under
study. In the 2020 future scenario, the impacts are high in the LIHe typology, varying from
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 13 of 22

the 2020 future scenario, the impacts are high in the LIHe typology, varying from 28% to
32%, when compared to the base scenario, depending on the orientation. The same trend is
observed for the LIHb typology, but with higher percentages, between 36% and 39%. In
the 2050 scenario, the increase in energy demand exceeds 50% for all orientations when
compared to the base scenario: from 64% to 70% in LIHe, and from 71% to 75% in LIHb.
The projected increase in terms of percentage corroborates with previous studies
conducted in cities located in other countries with the same climate type (Aw). In Darwin,
Australia, the projected increase in air temperature for some emissions scenarios varied
between 1.8 ◦ C to 2.5 ◦ C in the 2050 scenario, inducing an increment in energy consumption
for cooling which varied between 40% and 80%, depending on the type of thermal insula-
tion considered for the building envelope [7]. In Miami, The Unites States, the projected
increase in air temperature in the 2050 scenario (2.52 ◦ C) is similar to those predicted for
Australia and lower than in the current research (3.2 ◦ C). Despite having similar projections
for air temperature to Australia, the possible induced increase in energy consumption for
cooling is lower (between 27% and 37% in 2050 emissions scenarios), including in relation
to this research [44].
In Brazil, similar projections have been observed for low-income houses deployed
in regions with hot weather conditions. At Salvador (Af), the cooling energy demand
is expected to increase by 30% and 46.6% in 2020 and 2050 scenarios, while at Belém
(Af), 43.5% and 70.5% and, at Cuiabá (Aw), 20% and 30%, respectively [9,12,13]. The
projection variations are attributed to the different types of passive strategies used in
building envelopes. However, they are lower than those observed for the standard LIH
studied in the same region, where the energy demand reaches more than double in the
2050 scenario due to its lack of adequate thermal insulation [45].
Despite the thermal load reduction, the LIHb serves as an effective passive strategy to
counteract the effects of climate change, since its performance always remains superior to
that of LIHe typology. For the 2020 scenario, the reduction provided by the strategy, when
compared to the annual cooling energy demand of the building without its implementation,
is significant, varying from 32% to 35% depending on the orientation. The same occurs for
the 2050 scenario, with a variation between 33% and 36%. The highest reduction in thermal
load was observed when the thermal mass strategy was positioned facing west, with a 36%
average reduction. Notice that a partially-bermed earth-sheltered wall has the potential
increased building resilience to face the global warming impacts, since cooling energy
consumption in the 2020s is on average 12.3% lower than the base scenario, while in 2050, it
is surpassed only by 10.7%. For the last time-slice, resilience is almost achieved, providing
a considerable reduction in energy consumption (on average 37 kWh/m2 /year, based
on energy consumption for LIHe in the 2050s) and promoting sustainability in tropical
climate regions.
Previously isolated measures tested in similar low-income houses located in the
southeastern and northeast regions of Brazil were also effective in reducing the building
energy consumption of HVAC [12]. The three best performing solutions were found when
the wall absorptance in buildings was reduced to 0.3 (base scenario reduction: 21.86%|2050
Scenario reduction: 20.98%) when the brick wall was substituted by insulated concrete
(40.82%|21.74%), and when the clay roof was replaced by a metal roof with 0.07 m of
insulation and solar absorptance 0.3 (34.07%|23.64%). Note that the thermal mass strategy
provided by the bermed earth-sheltered walls, when compared to the previous strategies,
is more effective at counterbalancing the climate change effects, in turn, reducing the
energy consumption of the building. Thus, as an isolated passive adaptation measure, as
well as the other strategies tested in the previous study, it is not capable of completely
counterbalancing the impact of climate change on cooling energy consumption. However,
when combined with other adaptation measures, as proposed in this research, it may be
an alternative to improve the building envelope and counterattack the effect of global
warming, as observed in this study and previous ones [9,12,13]. For cities under hot
weather conditions, the idealization of climate-responsive design on residential buildings
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 14 of 22

residential buildings in the design phase is an alternative to reducing energy consump-

tion demand due to the increase of air conditioning systems used for cooling.
in the design phase is an alternative to reducing energy consumption demand due to the
increase of air conditioning systems used for cooling.
3.2. Envelope Performance According to RTQ-R
The CDH
3.2. Envelope performance
Performance behavior
According differs from that observed in energy demand.
to RTQ-R
WhenThe operating with an HVAC
CDH performance conditioning
behavior differs fromsystem, the thermal
that observed exchanges
in energy demand.caused
When by
the winds, that may affect the indoor’ spaces, are minimized since
operating with an HVAC conditioning system, the thermal exchanges caused by the winds, the windows remain
closed
that may and thethe
affect winds basically
indoor’ spaces, remove heat from
are minimized sinceexternal
the windows facades,
remain entering
closed indoors
and the
spaces by fenestrations that exist on the window’s panel (Figure 6). For
winds basically remove heat from external facades, entering indoors spaces by fenestrations the LIHe typol-
ogy, the worst
that exist on theaverage
window’sperformance
panel (Figure is observed when
6). For the LIHe walls are oriented
typology, to the
the worst north
average
(10,269 °Ch).isInobserved
performance contrast,when
the bestwallsaverage performance
are oriented to the northis obtained ◦
(10,269 when Ch). Inthe walls the
contrast, are
oriented westperformance
best average (9,339 °Ch). isInobtained
this case,when
a 9%the
reduction
walls are inoriented
the CDHwest (9339 ◦ Ch).
is achieved, being the
In this
best
case,orientation
a 9% reductionfor the
in building
the CDHwithout the bermed
is achieved, being the earth-sheltered
best orientation wall.
forSimilar to the
the building
cooling energy demand, the incorporation of the thermal mass
without the bermed earth-sheltered wall. Similar to the cooling energy demand, the strategy with bermed
earth-sheltered
incorporation ofwalls provides
the thermal a CDH
mass reduction
strategy in bedrooms
with bermed for all orientations
earth-sheltered (Figure
walls provides a
6).
CDH Forreduction
LIHb, the in worst
bedroomsperformance is seen when
for all orientations (Figurethe6).bermed
For LIHb, earth-sheltered walls are
the worst performance
oriented to thethe
is seen when north (7585earth-sheltered
bermed °Ch), and the best performance
walls are oriented when
to thethenorth
walls(7585 ◦ Ch), and
are oriented to
the west (5810 °Ch, 23.4%
best performance whenreduction). ◦
the walls are oriented to the west (5810 Ch, 23.4% reduction).

Weightedannual
Figure6.6.Weighted
Figure annualaverage
averagecooling-degree
cooling-degreehours
hours(CDH)
(CDH)indicator
indicatorininbaseline
baselineand
and fu-future
ture scenarios
scenarios (colors
(colors in west
in west orientation
orientation for for LIHb
LIHb in the
in the 2050s
2050s waswas changed
changed toto match
match withthe
with thecolors
colors established
established in the in the RTQ-R).
RTQ-R).

Regarding the performance of the CDH, the same design design recommendation
recommendation for the
orientation of the thermal mass strategy for buildings without the tested strategy should
be followed for the building
building with
with the
the bermed
bermed earth-sheltered
earth-sheltered wall.
wall. CDH reduction is
varying from
expressive, varying from26%26%toto38%,
38%,asasmuchmuchasasthose
those observed
observed in in
thethe previous
previous cool-
cooling
ing demand
demand analysis.
analysis. For For
thethe
LIHLIH implanted
implanted ininSalvador
Salvadorcity,
city, the
the combined adaptation
adaptation
measures in the current climate resulted in decreasing decreasing in in cooling
cooling degree-hours
degree-hours ranging
ranging
between 33% to 68%, compared to the standard LIH, reaching CDH varying
between 33% to 68%, compared to the standard LIH, reaching CDH varying between
between
higher than ◦ ◦ Ch [12]. Notice that LIHe typology presented
higher than5000
5,000 Ch
°Chand lower
and than
lower 12,000
than 12,000 °Ch [12]. Notice that LIHe typology pre-
◦ Ch) in all orientations evaluated in the
level “A”
sented energy
level efficiency
“A” energy efficiency rating≤
rating (CDH 12,566
(CDH ≤ 12,566 °Ch) in all orientations evaluated
base
in thescenario, as well as
base scenario, as well
LIHbaswhich
LIHbhad its envelope
which improvedimproved
had its envelope with the implementation
with the imple-
of the partially-bermed earth-sheltered walls.
mentation of the partially-bermed earth-sheltered walls.
The raising of the air temperature, due to climatic conditions that may prevail in future
periods due to climate change, will progressively impact the possibility of transferring heat
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 15 of 22

from the indoors to the outdoors environments, reducing the potential use of naturally
ventilated strategy in the residential buildings. In the 2020 scenario, an increase in the
CDH inside LIHe rooms (18% to 30%) was observed, with the best performance strategy
orientation (west) in the base scenario being the most impacted due to global warming
effects. In the LIHb, the scenario was even more drastic, with CDH doubling (reduction
from 61% to 111%). In the 2050 scenario, the CDH exceeded double in some orientations,
when compared to the base scenario, for both LIHe (148% to 173%) and LIHb (227% to
327%) (Figure 6). The impact in the CDH may be assigned to the predicted increasing
of the outdoor air environment (projected rising of 1.5 ◦ C and 3.3 ◦ C for 2020 and 2050,
respectively) and reduction in the humidity, but also due to the elevation of global hori-
zontal radiation. In turn, the rising in ground temperature (see Table 4) also corroborates
degeneration of the building’s thermal performance [9,13].
Despite the observed impacts, LIHb typology is proposed as a climate-responsive
design strategy to counterbalance the effects caused by climate change in a situation where
natural ventilation occurs 24 h per day, However, its impact is lower than that observed
in cooling energy demand, in which the HVAC system is switched on at night when the
indoor temperature is above the thermostat temperature, defined as a baseline thermal
comfort temperature in the RTQ-R [23]. In the 2020 scenario, the reduction provided by
the implementation of the strategy varies from 11% to 16%, depending on the orientation,
when compared to the thermal performance of the building without the strategy. The same
occurs in the 2050 scenario, with a variation between 9% and 12%. The highest reduction
in the thermal performance was shown when the thermal mass strategy was oriented to
the west, with a 13.9% average reduction, even so, less expressive than that shown for
energy consumption. These projections corroborate the previous study conducted with
the same low-income house, but with different types of passive strategies used in building
envelopes and without the bermed earth-sheltered wall. Projections in the CDH indicator
are expected to increase 31.3% and 28.6% in 2020 and 2050 scenarios [13]. However, in the
standard LIH without any adaptation measures and with the use of bermed earth walls,
the reduction in CDH is similar to that observed in this research [45].
The bermed earth-sheltered wall strategy, when compared with other isolated mea-
sures, displays a lower reduction in terms of percentage [12]: the wall with solar absorp-
tance 0.3 (base scenario reduction: 34.28%|2050 Scenario reduction: 25.97%), concrete wall
with insulation (55.55%|37.14%), and clay roof replaced by a metal roof with 0.07 m of
insulation and solar absorptance 0.3 (57.87%|39.88%). Thus, in terms of CDH, the bermed
earth-sheltered strategy in this study is less expressive when compared to the isolated
measures tested in the previous study. One may note CDH is weighted by the areas of the
long permanence rooms, including the living room/kitchen, which has the same area as
the sum of the bedrooms area and is not in contact with the bermed earth-sheltered walls.
Thus, this room reduced the potential strategy impact (by at least half) due to its lower
performance than the ones in contact with the ground. Yet, this behavior may be attributed
to the fact that before simulations, LIH was redesigned to improve original buildings’
thermal and energy performance, which makes it difficult to improve its envelope due to
its already high thermal insulation.
Due to the future trend of air temperature raising, foreseen in the future climate
change scenarios, the building efficiency level, which is “A” for LIHe and LIHb in the base
scenario, decreases when the future potential impacts of climate change are incorporated
into the weather data. In the 2020 scenario, the building energy efficiency is reduced to
level “C”, with an exception in LIHb for west orientation, where level “B” is reached. In the
2050 scenario, all orientation became level “E”, again with an exception in LIHb for west
orientation, with level “D”. Thus, this orientation must be preferred to achieve the best
energy and thermal performance. Similar decreasing in building energy efficiency is also
reported for five-star buildings analyzed in Darwin, Australia, and in Guangdong Province,
South China, due to the raising of the energy requirement in the 2050 scenario [7,10]. This
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 16 of 22

fact indicates the need to establish specific design guidelines in the building environmental
certification codes to deal with this potential issue.

3.3. Indoor Operative Temperatures and Thermal Comfort Conditions

The raising in energy consumption and the reduction in the thermal performance
previously discussed is related to the tendency of the outdoor air temperature observed
in the future scenarios generated by the tool CCWorldWeatherGen (Figure 7). In the base
scenario, the annual average air temperature is 26.7 ◦ C and in the futures, a gradual increase
is caused due to global warming projections, reaching 28.5 ◦ C and 29.9 ◦ C in the 2020s and
the 2050s, respectively. In this sense, an increase of 3.2 ◦ C is predicted until the 2050s, as
mentioned previously. The highest increase is observed in the dry season in September
(1.9 ◦ C and 4 ◦ C in the 2020s and 2050s, respectively) and the lowest in the wet season
in January (1.2 ◦ C and 2.3 ◦ C in the 2020s and 2050s, respectively). The potential global
warming is more pronounced in the research region than those observed in other Brazilian
cities characterized by different climates [9,12]. This is an important issue, as dwellings
in the region usually operate predominantly with natural ventilation, compromising the
possibility to maintain adequate indoors thermal comfort in the warming predicted context,
as is described below.
The indoors operative temperatures in the house’s rooms accompany the observed rise
in the outdoor air temperature, progressively moving upwards in each time-slice. In the
LIHe, the integrated living room/kitchen operative temperatures related to the building
orientations are higher than in the bedrooms, but the differences are small, causing the
curves to overlap each other (Figure 7a). This is not happening in the LIHb, where the
introduction of bermed earth-sheltering walls caused thermal damping inside the bedrooms
(Figure 7b). The observed modulation is an effective measure to reduce temperature
fluctuations during the day; however, it can also lead to a slower reduction of the operative
temperature during the night, which makes important the use of natural ventilation through
the window openings during this period [8]. It is possible to notice that thermal damp is
progressively reduced, due to the outdoors air temperature warming and also the raising
on the ground temperature, compromising the tested measure effectiveness. Thus, for this
reason, thermal comfort conditions inside the building are accessed in the sequence.
The adaptation measure implemented in the LIHb is effective in improving the build-
ing thermal performance in the base scenario, increasing the comfort, and reducing hot
discomfort hours inside the building (Figure 8). The west orientation is the most effective
in providing the highest thermal comfort hours (82%), 12% higher than the LIHe for the
same orientation. Therefore, a properly designed bioclimatic passive measure may become
an alternative to improve the building’s habitability for the researched location, also, in the
current weather conditions.
In future scenarios, thermal comfort levels have progressively deteriorated inside the
houses, and the raise in the hot discomfort hours is observed in both typologies with the
projections established by the IPCC. The small number of cold discomfort hours almost
vanishes, due to the forecast outdoor air temperature elevation. Despite that, in the 2020
scenario, the typologies are still capable of providing more hours of thermal comfort
than discomfort. Note that LIHb, on average, provides better thermal habitability for
the users (59%), when compared to LIHe (51%), which is near the borderline to have
a warm environment inside its rooms. The LIHe oriented to the north has higher hot
discomfort hours than comfort (49%). In this sense, the impact of climate change is more
pronounced in LIHe than in LIHb. Therefore, bermed earth-sheltering walls are a climate-
responsive alternative design to help to improve the building’s habitability. In turn, in the
2050 scenario, thermal comfort hours are below 50% in both typologies and orientations,
with a hot environment predominating within the buildings. In the LIHb, this behavior
is attributed to the fact that thermal comfort has been assessed considering all the long
permanence rooms, including the living room/kitchen that does not have the researched
strategy deployed. This room has a hotter environment than the bedrooms, as described
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 17 of 22

above. This way, it requires a more detailed analysis of the bedrooms without a living
room/kitchen thermal influence.

(a) LIHe (b) LIHb

Base Scenario

2020

2050

Figure 7. Annual diary course of outdoor air temperature and indoor long permanence rooms operative temperatures for
the base and future scenarios in (a) LIHe and (b) LIHb.
 building thermal performance in the base scenario, increasing the comfort, and reducing
hot discomfort hours inside the building (Figure 8). The west orientation is the most ef-
fective in providing the highest thermal comfort hours (82%), 12% higher than the LIHe
for the same orientation. Therefore, a properly designed bioclimatic passive measure
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 may become an alternative to improve the building’s habitability for the researched lo-22
18 of
cation, also, in the current weather conditions.

Figure 8. Weighted percentage of comfort and discomfort hours inside the LIHe and LIHb in the
Figure 8. Weighted
base and percentage of comfort and discomfort hours inside the LIHe and LIHb in
future scenarios.
the base and future scenarios.
Figure 9 depicts thermal comfort conditions inside the bedrooms where the strategy
wasIn future scenarios,
implemented. Notice thermal comfortislevels
that behavior similar have progressively
to that displayed in deteriorated inside
Figure 8; however,
the houses, and the raise in the hot discomfort hours is observed
thermal comfort conditions preponderates in most orientations and time-slices. All building in both typologies with
the projections
orientations established
present by thepercentage
the highest IPCC. Theof small
comfortnumber hours ofthan
colddiscomfort
discomfortin hours al-
the base
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23
most vanishes,
and 2020 due However,
scenario. to the forecast outdoor
the west air temperature
orientation is the onlyelevation. Despite that,
one that provides moreinhours
the
2020 scenario,
of thermal the typologies
comfort conditions are(51%)
still capable
in the 2050s.of providing more hours of thermal comfort
than discomfort. Note that LIHb, on average, provides better thermal habitability for the
users (59%), when compared to LIHe (51%), which is near the borderline to have a warm
environment inside its rooms. The LIHe oriented to the north has higher hot discomfort
hours than comfort (49%). In this sense, the impact of climate change is more pronounced
in LIHe than in LIHb. Therefore, bermed earth-sheltering walls are a climate-responsive
alternative design to help to improve the building’s habitability. In turn, in the 2050 sce-
nario, thermal comfort hours are below 50% in both typologies and orientations, with a
hot environment predominating within the buildings. In the LIHb, this behavior is at-
tributed to the fact that thermal comfort has been assessed considering all the long per-
manence rooms, including the living room/kitchen that does not have the researched
strategy deployed. This room has a hotter environment than the bedrooms, as described
above. This way, it requires a more detailed analysis of the bedrooms without a living
room/kitchen thermal influence.
Figure
Figure
Figure 9.
9 depicts
9. Weighted
thermalof
percentage
Weighted percentage
comfort
of comfortconditions
comfort anddiscomfort
and
inside
discomfort hours
hours
theforbedrooms
for thebedrooms
the
where
bedrooms thethe
inside
inside
strategy
theLIHb
LIHbin
was
in implemented.
the base and futureNotice that
scenarios.
the base and future scenarios.
behavior is similar to that displayed in Figure 8; however,
thermal comfort conditions preponderates in most orientations and time-slices. All
4. Conclusions
Conclusions
building orientations present the highest percentage of comfort hours than discomfort in
the baseTheand 2020consumption
energy
energy scenario. However,
consumption the west
andthermal
and thermal orientation
analysis
analysis is that
indicated
indicated the that
only oneofuse
the
the use that provides
of
bermed bermed
earth-
more hourswalls
sheltered
earth-shelteredof thermal
as a as
walls comfort
thermal
a thermal conditions
massmass the(51%)
for for bedrooms
the in theis2050s.
bedrooms a successful
is a successfulmeasure
measureto to improve
improve
building performance
building performanceand andhabitability,
habitability,actingactingasasa apotential
potentialclimate-responsive
climate-responsive strategy
strategy to
to adapt
adapt buildings
buildings to tofacefaceandand counterbalance
counterbalance global
global warming
warming effects
effects that
that might
might prevail
prevail in
in tropical
tropical climate
climate regions.
regions. HigherHigher impacts
impacts are observed
are observed in cooling
in cooling energy energy
demand demand
than inthan
the
in the thermal
thermal performance,
performance, once theoncespacestheinspaces
the formerin theareformer are nottoexposed
not exposed to the
the thermal thermal
exchanges
exchanges
resulting fromresulting
natural from natural
ventilation, ventilation,
since the windows since the windows
remain closed when remain closedsystem
the HVAC when
is operating. Due to the expected increase in air temperature in the region (1.5 °C and 3.3the
the HVAC system is operating. Due to the expected increase in air temperature in °C
region ◦ and 3.3 ◦ C for 2020 and 2050, respectively), the potential use of naturally
for 2020(1.5
and C 2050, respectively), the potential use of naturally ventilated strategy in the resi-
ventilated
dential strategy
buildings in the residential
is affected, restricting thebuildings is affected,
possibility to transfer restricting
heat fromthe the possibility
indoors to the to
transfer heat
outdoors from the compromising
environments, indoors to thebuilding outdoors environments,
thermal performance. compromising building
thermal performance.
The reduction in cooling energy consumption varied from 34% to 38% between the
base and future scenarios, being more relevant when the bermed earth-sheltered walls
are oriented to the west, that is, the main façade of the building is oriented to the east.
Similar reductions for cooling degree-hours, evaluated when the building is in a natu-
rally ventilated mode, are observed, ranging from 26% to 38%, with better performance
also following the previous results, i.e., the main façade of the building oriented to the
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 19 of 22

The reduction in cooling energy consumption varied from 34% to 38% between the
base and future scenarios, being more relevant when the bermed earth-sheltered walls
are oriented to the west, that is, the main façade of the building is oriented to the east.
Similar reductions for cooling degree-hours, evaluated when the building is in a naturally
ventilated mode, are observed, ranging from 26% to 38%, with better performance also
following the previous results, i.e., the main façade of the building oriented to the east.
The effects of climate change impact on both operating modes idealized for the
building long permanence rooms, i.e., when the building environments are operating
naturally ventilated and with the use of HVAC. In the 2020 scenario, the increase in cooling
energy consumption is over 28% for LIH, with and without the implementation of the
bioclimatic strategy of bermed earth-sheltered walls, while in the 2050 scenario, it exceeds
64%. In the thermal performance, the projected increase in cooling degree-hours is more
drastic, reaching 111% and 327% in the 2020 and 2050 scenarios, respectively. In these future
scenarios, the reduction provided by the implemented measure depends on its orientation
and varied between 32% to 36%, compared to the energy consumption of the building
without this passive strategy. Again, the highest reduction in cooling energy consumption
was shown when the thermal mass strategy was oriented to the west, with a 36% reduction,
on average. Thus, because of future potential impacts of climate change, building efficiency
level, which is “A” in the base scenario, decreases to level “E” in the 2050 scenario, an
exception in LIHb for west orientation, in which level remains “D”. However, it should
be pointed out that, for a fair judgment, the energy efficiency benchmarks should also be
corrected for the climate change effects. Based on these potential impacts, specific design
guidelines should be established by the international sustainable building organizations
to enable designers, builders, and stakeholders to anticipate the behavior of the built
environment under the potential future global warming scenarios.
The increase in cooling energy consumption, as well as in the cooling degree-hours,
can be easily seen when the effects of climate change are incorporated into the weather
data and thermos-energetic simulation is performed. However, the building with bermed
earth-sheltered walls (LIHb) always presents better performance than the building without
it (LIHe) in all orientations, demonstrating the positive impact of this measure. It can
be considered as a climate-responsive design strategy because of the improvement in
the housing resilience when facing the global warming impacts, since the cooling energy
consumption in the 2020s on LIHb is on average 12.3% lower than in the base scenario,
compared to LIHe, almost being able to provide full demand in the 2050s (consumption
of LIHb surpassed the LIHe in base scenario only by 10.7%). The same behavior is not
observed for CDH, due to the way this indicator is calculated, weighing the areas of the long
permanence building rooms, including living room/kitchen, which is not in contact with
the bermed earth-sheltered walls. This room, considered in the CDH calculation, presents
lower thermal performance than the bedrooms, which influenced the final performance,
reducing the positive impact of the implementation of the earth-sheltered wall.
LIHb provides better thermal habitability for the users, when compared to LIHe, in all
time-slices researched. Despite the progressive deterioration of thermal comfort conditions
within the building rooms, the bermed earth-sheltered walls are an alternative to partially
neutralize the global warming effects. When its impact, together with environments that
do not have the measure deployed (which reduce the positive impact as described above),
is analyzed, more hours of thermal comfort conditions may be achieved only until the
2020 scenario. However, considering only the rooms where the strategy is deployed, this
condition may be guaranteed until the 2050 scenario by the building’s west orientation.
Thus, given the impacts presented, it is possible to verify that bermed earth-sheltered
walls correspond to an alternative strategy for the adaptation effects of climate change and
should be thought of as an adaptive measure to promote building sustainability, in terms of
cooling energy consumption. Therefore, the use of the thermal mass, combined with other
passive adaptation strategies, may help to counterattack the climatic conditions that may
prevail in future periods due to global warming on tropical climates. A cost–benefit analysis
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 20 of 22

between the studied climate change adaptation measure investment and the energy-saving
should be assessed in future work, aiming to evaluate the payback period.
The thermal and energy analysis conducted in this study deals with uncertainties
regarding the internal climate variability related to the climate model and premises adopted
for future scenario definitions. The latter are based on economic growth, social trends,
adaptation/ mitigation policies, technological development, and demographic factors.
Therefore, the evaluation conducted in this study for the future scenarios should be treated
as a possible trend, rather than as absolute values. However, the potential uncertainties in
the future climate data do not invalidate the predictions made by the CCWorldWeatherGen
tool, which can confidently be used to anticipate the behavior of the built environment in
the potential future global warming scenarios.

Author Contributions: Conception and execution of the building simulation—I.J.A.C., R.M.A. and
E.L.A.d.G.; methodology—I.J.A.C., R.M.A. and E.L.A.d.G.; formal analysis—I.J.A.C. and L.C.D.;
writing—I.J.A.C. and R.M.A.; reviewing and editing—L.C.D. and R.M.A.; visualization—F.R.,
K.d.A.C.R. and L.M.d.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT) (Edict
number 01/2020, Process N. 23108.066371/2020-11) and by the Mato Grosso State Research Support
Foundation (FAPEMAT) by a master contract granted (Edict number 017/2015).
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study did not require ethical approval.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Federal University of Mato Grosso/ Brazil
and the Mato Grosso State Research Support Foundation (FAPEMAT) to support this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role
in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the
manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations
α Absorptance (dimensionless) LIH Single-family low-income house
ϕ Thermal lag LIHe Efficient Single-family low-income house
Efficient Single-family low-income house with Bermed
A Floor area LIHb
Earth-Sheltered in the bedrooms walls
ABNT Brazilian Association of Technical Standards HadCM3 Hadley Centre Coupled Model version 3
Fourth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
AR4 HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Climate Change
Aw Tropical Savannah climate PVC Polyvinyl chloride chloride
CDH Cooling Degree-Hours R-value Thermal resistance
COP Coefficient of performance RTQ-R Energy Efficiency Level of Residential Buildings
CT Thermal capacity (kJ/(m2 K) SF Sun factor
EPS Expanded polystyrene Tint Internal temperature
EPW EnergyPlus Weather file Text External temperature
GCM General Circulation Model Tn Monthly average neutral temperature
GHG Greenhouse gas Top Operative temperature
HDH Heating Degree-Hours TEmed Monthly average outdoor air temperature
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change U Total thermal transmittance

References
1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
3. Levesque, A.; Pietzcker, R.A.; Baumstark, L.; De Stercke, S.; Grübler, A.; Luderer, A. How much energy will buildings consume in
2100? A global perspective within a scenario framework. Energy 2018, 148, 514–527. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 21 of 22

4. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci. Discuss. Eur. Geosci. Union 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [CrossRef]
5. Alvares, C.; Stape, J.; Sentelhas, P.; Gonçalves, J.L.M.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z.
2013, 22, 711–728. [CrossRef]
6. Tol, R.S.J. Adaptation and mitigation: Trade-offs in substance and methods. Environ. Sci. Policy 2005, 8, 572–578. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, X.; Chen, D.; Ren, Z. Assessment of climate change impact on residential building heating and cooling energy requirement
in Australia. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 1663–1682. [CrossRef]
8. Van Hooff, T.; Blocken, B.; Hensen, J.L.M.; Timmermans, H.J.P. On the predicted effectiveness of climate adaptation measures for
residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2014, 82, 300–316. [CrossRef]
9. Invidiata, A.; Ghisi, E. Impact of climate change on heating and cooling energy demand in houses in Brasil. Energy Build. 2016,
130, 20–32. [CrossRef]
10. Song, X.; Ye, C. Climate Change Adaptation Pathways for Residential Buildings in Southern China. Energy Procedia 2017, 105,
3062–3067. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, L.; Liu, X.; Brown, H. Prediction of the impacts of climate change on energy consumption for a medium-size office building
with two climate models. Energy Build. 2017, 157, 218–226. [CrossRef]
12. Triana, M.A.; Lamberts, R.; Sassi, P. Should we consider climate change for Brazilian social housing? Assessment of energy
efficiency adaptation measures. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 1379–1392. [CrossRef]
13. Jorge, S.H.M.; Guarda, E.L.A.; Durante, L.C.; Callejas, I.J.A.; Blumenschein, R.N.; Rosseti, K.A.C. Climate change impact on energy
consumption and thermal performance in low-income in Brazilian Savanna. In Proceedings of the International Conference for
Sustainable Design of the Built Environment (SBDE), London, UK, 12–13 September 2018.
14. Sánchez-García, D.; Rubio-Bellido, C.; Del Río, J.J.M.; Pérez-Fargallo, A. Towards the quantification of energy demand and
consumption through the adaptive comfort approach in mixed mode office buildings considering climate change. Energy Build.
2019, 187, 173–185. [CrossRef]
15. Yang, L.; Li, Y. Cooling load reduction by using thermal mass and night ventilation. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 2052–2058. [CrossRef]
16. ABNT. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards. NBR 15.220. Thermal Performance of Buildings—Part 2: Method of Calculating
Thermal Transmittance, Thermal Capacity, Thermal Delay and Solar Factor of Elements and Components of Buildings; ABNT: Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 2005.
17. Gagliano, A.; Patania, F.; Nocera, F.; Signorello, C. Assessment of the dynamic thermal performance of massive buildings. Energy
Build. 2014, 72, 361–370. [CrossRef]
18. Jideofor, A.A. Earth shelters: A review of energy conservation properties in earth sheltered housing. Energy Conserv. 2012, 31,
125–148.
19. Cheng, B.; Peng, G.; Xibin, M.W.L. A numerical simulation of transient heat flow in double layer wall sticking lining envelope
of shallow earth sheltered buildings. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Computational Sciences and
Optimization, Sanya, China, 24–26 April 2009; pp. 195–198.
20. UN General Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. 21 October 2015.
Available online: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html (accessed on 1 December 2020).
21. Bisegna, F.; Mattoni, B.; Gori, P.; Asdrubali, F.; Guattari, C.; Evangelisti, L.; Sambuco, S.; Bianchi, F. Influence of Insulating
Materials on Green Building Rating System Results. Energies 2016, 9, 712. [CrossRef]
22. De Cian, E.; Wing, I.S. Global Energy Consumption in a Warming Climate. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2019, 72, 365–402. [CrossRef]
23. Van Ruijven, B.J.; De Cian, E.; Wing, I.S. Amplification of future energy demand growth due to climate change. Nat. Commun.
2019, 10, 1–12. [CrossRef]
24. Callejas, I.J.A.; Biudes, M.S.; Machado, N.G.; Durante, L.C.; Lobo, F.A. Patterns of Energy Exchange for Tropical Urban and Rural
Ecosystems Located in Brazil Central. J. Urban Environ. Eng. 2019, 13, 69–79. [CrossRef]
25. INMETRO Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia. Requisitos Técnicos da Qualidade para Nível de Eficiência
Energética de Edifícios Residenciais (RTQ-R). 2012. Available online: http://www.inmetro.gov.br/legislacao/rtac/pdf/RTAC001
788.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2020).
26. BRASIL. Ministério das Cidades (Org.). Resultados do Programa Minha Casa, Minha Vida. 2016. Available online:
http://www.minhacasaminhavida.gov.br/ (accessed on 19 April 2018).
27. Guarda, E.L.A.; Gabriel, E.; Domingos, R.M.A.; Durante, L.C.; Callejas, I.J.A.; Sanches, J.C.M.; Rosseti, K.A.C. Adaptive comfort
assessment for different thermal insulations for building envelope against the effects of global warming in the mid-western Brazil.
Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 329, 012057. [CrossRef]
28. DesignBuilder Software. 2009. Available online: http://www.designbuildersoftware.com/docs/designbuilder/DesignBuilder_2.
1_Users-Manual_Ltr.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2020).
29. Resende, B.C.; Souza, H.A.; Gomes, A.P. Modelling of basement heat transfer in EnergyPlus simulation program. Ambiente
Construído 2019, 19, 161–180. [CrossRef]
30. Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Engineering Reference. US. Documentation, EnergyPlus™
Version 8.5. 2016. Available online: https://energyplus.net/sites/all/modules/custom/nrel_custom/pdfs/pdfs_v8.5.0
/EngineeringReference.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2020).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 420 22 of 22

31. Mazzaferro, L.; Melo, A.P.; Lamberts, R. Manual de Simulação Computacional de Edifícios com o uso do Objeto Ground Domain no
Programa EnergyPlus; LABEEE: Florianópolis, Brazil, 2015.
32. Cordeiro, C.C.M.; Brandão, D.; Durante, L.C.; Callejas, I.J.A.; Campos, C.A.B. Thermophysical characterization of lateritic soil for
manufacturing rammed earth walls. Matéria 2020, 25, e-12564.
33. Belcher, S.E.; Hacker, J.N.; Powell, D.S. Constructing design weather data for future climates. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2005,
26, 49–61. [CrossRef]
34. Jentsch, M.F.; Bahaj, A.S.; James, P.A.B. Climate change future proofing of buildings-generation and assessment of building
simulation weather files. Energy Build. 2018, 40, 2148–2168. [CrossRef]
35. Casagrande, B.; Alvarez, C. Preparation of future weather files to evaluate the impact of climate change on the thermoenergetic
performance of buildings. Ambiente Construído 2013, 13, 173–187. [CrossRef]
36. ABNT. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards. NBR 15575-1: Housing Developments-Performance—Part 1: General Requirement;
ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013.
37. Rios, G.A.A.; Durante, L.C.; Callejas, I.J.A.; Rosseti, K.; De, A.C. White roofs as strategy for reducing energy consumption and
carbon emissions. Rev. de Eng. e Tecnol. 2017, 9, 76–90.
38. De Dear, R.; Brager, G. Developing an Adaptive Model of Thermal Comfort and Preference; Center for the Built Environment: Berkeley,
UC, USA, 1998; Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4qq2p9c6 (accessed on 13 July 2020).
39. ASHRAE. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy; American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2013.
40. Guarda, E.L.A.; Durante, L.C.; Gabriel, E.; Domingos, R.M.A.; Mizgier, M.O.; Callejas, I.J.A. Influence of roof thermal insulation
under the climate change impacts. In Proceedings of the XV Encontro Nacional de Conforto no Ambiente Construído e XI
Encontro Latino-Americano de Conforto no Ambiente Construído: Mudanças climáticas, concentração urbana e novas tecnologias
(ENCAC), João Pessoa, Brazil, 18–21 September 2019.
41. Nasrollahia, N.; Abarghuieb, F.A. Thermal Performance of Earth-Sheltered Residential Buildings: A Case Study of Yazd.
Naqshejahan 2017, 6, 56–67.
42. Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. EnergyPlus Testing with Building Thermal Envelope and Fabric Load
Tests from ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2007. US. Documentation, EnergyPlus™ Version 6.0.0.023. 2010. Available online:
https://labeee.ufsc.br/sites/default/files/disciplinas/ECV4202_EnergyPlus%20testing%20with%20Ashrae140.pdf (accessed on
13 July 2020).
43. Staniec, M.; Nowak, H. Analysis of the earth-sheltered buildings’ heating and cooling energy demand depending on type of soil.
Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2011, 11, 221–235. [CrossRef]
44. Shen, P. Impacts of climate change on U.S. building energy use by using downscaled hourly future weather data. Energy Build.
2017, 134, 61–70. [CrossRef]
45. Callejas, I.J.A.; Durante, L.C.; Guarda, E.L.A.; Apolonio, R.M. Thermal Performance of Partially Bermed Earth-Sheltered House:
Measure for Adapting to Climate Change in a Tropical Climate Region. Proceedings 2020, 58, 6919. [CrossRef]

View publication stats