energies

Article
Trombe Wall Thermal Behavior and Energy Efficiency
of a Light Steel Frame Compartment: Experimental
and Numerical Assessments
Victor Lohmann and Paulo Santos *
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Coimbra, Pólo II, Rua Luís Reis Santos,
3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +351-239-797-199




Received: 29 April 2020; Accepted: 27 May 2020; Published: 30 May 2020


Abstract: Buildings are seeking renewable energy sources (e.g., solar) and passive devices, such
as Trombe walls. However, the thermal performance of Trombe walls depends on many factors.
In this work, the thermal behavior and energy efficiency of a Trombe wall in a lightweight steel
frame compartment were evaluated, making use of in situ measurements and numerical simulations.
Measurements were performed inside two real scale experimental identical cubic modules, exposed
to natural exterior weather conditions. Simulations were made using validated advanced dynamic
models. The winter Trombe wall benefits were evaluated regarding indoor air temperature increase
and heating energy reduction. Moreover, a thermal behavior parametric study was performed.
Several comparisons were made: (1) Sunny and cloudy winter week thermal behavior; (2) Office and
residential space use heating energy; (3) Two heating set-points (20 ◦ C and 18 ◦ C); (4) Thickness of
the Trombe wall air cavity; (5) Thickness of the thermal storage wall; (6) Dimensions of the interior
upper/lower vents; (7) Material of the thermal storage wall. It was found that a Trombe wall device
could significantly improve the thermal behavior and reduce heating energy consumption. However,
if not well designed and controlled (e.g., to mitigate nocturnal heat losses), the Trombe wall thermal
and energy benefits could be insignificant and even disadvantageous.

Keywords: passive solar; Trombe wall; light steel frame; thermal behavior; energy efficiency;
Mediterranean climate; office use; residential use; heating set-points

1. Introduction
Energy is one of the main concerns when addressing sustainable development, especially since
the world’s energy matrix is still very dependent on fossil fuels, as oil and coal. The building’s
sector plays an important role, as buildings consume approximately 40% of the total energy in
Europe, being also responsible for about 36% of the CO2 emissions [1]. Aiming to improve the energy
efficiency of buildings, the European Union (EU) has established the energy performance of buildings
directive (EPBD) [2], in which two key concepts are defined: (1) the cost-optimal energy, regarding
cost-efficiency of strategies [3], and (2) the nearly zero-energy buildings (nZEB)—buildings with very
high energy efficiency—that cover their energy needs with energy produced by renewable sources,
on-site or nearby [4]. To meet the EPBD requirements, the optimization of construction systems and
the development of strategies to decrease energy consumption by buildings are key [5].
A sustainable strategy to improve the thermal and energy performance of buildings is exploiting
solar energy, which also meets the EPDB establishments. A Trombe wall (TW) is a passive solar
device that can be present in a building’s façade to accumulate solar heat, heating, and even cooling
indoor spaces, fostering natural ventilation [6]. This passive solar device was patented in 1881 by the

Energies 2020, 13, 2744; doi:10.3390/en13112744 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 2744 2 of 25

American engineer Edward Morse and popularized in the 1960s by the French engineer Felix Trombe
and architect Jacque Michel, as mentioned by Saadatian et al. [7]. The classical configuration of Trombe
walls is an outer glazed area to allow solar radiation to reach a massive storage wall, promoting the
greenhouse effect. The storage wall usually has two interior vents (ventilated TW), connecting the
indoor space to an air cavity between the wall and the glass panel—one at a lower height and other
at an upper height [8]. To reduce heat losses through the TW device during cold winter nights, it is
often used as an external night shutter [6]. Additionally, in warmer climates, exterior shading devices
or overhangs are often used to mitigate overheating risk, as well as external upper and lower vents,
promoting natural air-ventilation cooling effect during the summer season [9].
The operation of a Trombe wall is based on heat transfer principles. It absorbs solar heat in its
high thermal mass storage wall during daytime and transfers part of this heat to the interior space of
the building through conduction, radiation, and convection. The wall stores heat during the day and
releases it during evening and night times, when the occupants require it and outdoor temperature
decreases. The TW system, when exposed to direct solar radiation, exploits the greenhouse effect that
occurs in the glazed air cavity, absorbing and storing heat in a massive wall. When the air cavity is
warmed up by the heated storage wall, the air will flow upward due to buoyancy or thermosiphon effect.
This heated air goes to the interior of the adjacent compartment through an upper vent, while colder
air comes from the same room through a lower vent, re-entering to the TW air cavity [6].
Trombe walls have attracted attention over the last years, with different types studied, incorporating
modern materials and construction methods, such as the incorporation of phase change materials [10]
and photovoltaic cells on the glazed area [11].
Recently, Zhou et al. [12] studied the thermal performance of a composite Trombe wall under
steady-state conditions. They compared three types of Trombe walls: traditional (TTW), water (WTW),
and glass-water (GWTW). They optimized the thermal performance of the composite Trombe walls by
defining two operating modes: (1) heat-collecting mode during the daytime, and (2) heat-preservation
mode during night-time. The WTW exhibited the best efficiency during daytime (3.3% higher than
the TTW) and also during night-time, allowing a heat loss reduction of 31% compared to TTW.
Besides space heating, researchers are also trying to develop new application advantages for
Trombe walls. Hu et al. [13] made some experimental and numerical studies of a novel water
blind-Trombe wall system. This new TW system, besides space heating and natural ventilation, could
also provide domestic hot water since it made use of orientated steel blinds filled with flowing water
and a hot water tank. They performed a comparison with conventional (i.e., without a glazing panel)
and traditional TWs. A significant annual overall thermal load reduction was found compared to
conventional (−42.6%) and traditional (−13%) Trombe walls. They also concluded that the new water
blind-Trombe wall system, besides achieving a favorable insulation performance during winter, was
also able to take advantage of the undesired solar radiation during the summer season to heat the
water for domestic uses.
As mentioned before, Trombe walls could be very useful during the winter season to reduce
space heating energy, but during the cooling season, this may have a negative impact due to limited
control capability. Hong et al. [14] analyzed the thermal performance of a Trombe wall with an
integrated Venetian blind during the cooling season. They evaluated the TW cooling mode operational
control to regulate shading (from orientable Venetian blind slats within the TW air cavity) and natural
ventilation (outside and cross). Several building occupation schedules were compared, i.e., service,
office, and domestic buildings. It was found that the studied Venetian blind integrated TW could
effectively prevent overheating through shading and ventilation. Moreover, they also concluded
that the outside circulation mode was a more effective ventilation strategy to reduce cooling energy
(5.0% to 5.8%) in comparison with the cross ventilation mode (2.5% to 4.6%).
Obviously, the thermal behavior and energy efficiency of buildings also depend on the buildings’
envelope and construction system. In Tunisia, Abbassi et al. [15] performed numerical simulations,
for a small single zone building (4 m × 4 m), to evaluate the heating energy savings provided by a
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 3 of 25

Trombe wall for different heavyweight building envelope façade walls (e.g., brick and stone), having
different thermal transmittances (U-values), ranging from 2.035 W/(m2 ·K) down to 0.388 W/(m2 ·K) for
a higher insulated exterior wall. For a smaller TW (3 m2 area), they predicted heating energy savings,
ranging from 28% up to 69%, for lower and higher thermal insulation levels, respectively. For a larger
TW (6 m2 area), the analogous heating energy savings ranged from 66% up to 98%.
An interesting alternative to traditional reinforced concrete and ceramic masonry construction is the
lightweight steel frame (LSF) system, which has been attracting attention worldwide, given its functional,
economic, and environmental advantages [16,17]. This lightweight innovative system presents
construction flexibility and adaptability due to its modularity [18], safety at work, and construction
economy due to the industrialized nature of the components, which also facilitates series production,
prefabrication, and transportation [19]. In fact, several previous research studies have addressed the
LSF system-related benefits, including sustainability [20], life cycle energy balance [21], and operational
energy [22]. Nevertheless, an effort has been made to mitigate eventual drawbacks related to the
thermal behavior of LSF construction, aiming to mitigate thermal bridges originated by the high
thermal conductivity of the steel elements [23,24] and to increase the thermal inertia of this type of
construction [25].
As mentioned before, the thermal behavior and energy efficiency of a Trombe wall depend on
many factors, such as geometric (e.g., area, height, thickness, and orientation of the TW; existence
and dimension of overhangs), materials’ properties (e.g., storage wall thermal properties; glazed
pane optical and thermal properties; shutter thermal properties; thermal insulation), fluid dynamics
(e.g., dimensions and control of inner/outer and upper/lower vents; thickness of the air channel; natural
or forced airflow), location (e.g., latitude; north or south hemisphere), and weather (e.g., solar radiation
level and incidence angle; nocturnal cloudy or clear sky; temperature; wind speed, and direction) [6].
Thus, it is not an easy task to adequately design and control a TW device to take full thermal, energy,
and economic advantages [26,27].
As stated before, despite the LSF system advantages, there are also possible drawbacks, such
as the reduced thermal inertia, due to its natural weightlessness, compared to traditional concrete
structures [28]. Thus, it would be interesting to evaluate the effect of a solar passive Trombe wall device,
which is characterized by having a massive storage wall, on an LSF construction system, having low
thermal inertia and reduced mass. However, this kind of research has not been found in the literature.
Moreover, research works on water Trombe walls are very scarce. Therefore, in this work, the influence
of a passive solar water Trombe wall (TW) device on the thermal behavior and energy efficiency of a
lightweight steel frame (LSF) compartment, located in Coimbra (Portugal), was studied, being this
evaluation based in numerical simulations and in situ measurements. Measurements of indoor air
temperature were performed inside two real scale experimental identical cubic modules, exposed
to natural exterior weather conditions, while simulations were performed using advanced dynamic
models, validated experimentally.
First, the experimental approach has been described, regarding the LSF experimental modules,
the TW prototype, the weather stations, and temperature/humidity data-logger sensors. After,
the numerical approach has been detailed, including the 2D thermal computations to obtain the
U-values of the LSF components and the advanced numerical simulations. Next, the calibration and
model validation has been reported for both reference and TW LSF models, and some computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) results have also been reported. Afterward, the obtained results have been
discussed and grouped in TW benefits and parametric study. The winter TW benefits were evaluated
regarding indoor air temperature increase and heating energy reduction. The thermal behavior
parametric study was performed for several TW key-factors, such as the thicknesses of the air cavity
and storage wall and dimensions of the internal vents and the storage wall materials. Finally, some
concluding remarks about this research work have been highlighted.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 4 of 25

2. Materials and Methods

The materials and methods used in this research have been described in detail in this section,
starting with the experimental and numerical approaches, followed by the calibration and validation
of the advanced
Energies dynamic thermal simulation models of the LSF modules and water Trombe wall.
2020, 13, 2744 4 of 25

2.1. Experimental Approach

2.1. Experimental Approach

2.1.1. LSF Experimental

2.1.1. LSF Experimental Modules
Modules
The
The experimental
experimental measurements
measurements werewere performed
performed onon two
two similar
similar lightweight
lightweight steel
steel frame
frame (LSF)
(LSF)
modules constructed near the Department of Civil Engineering (DEC) of the University
modules constructed near the Department of Civil Engineering (DEC) of the University of Coimbra of Coimbra
(Portugal), ◦ N, 8.4167◦ W. Those
(Portugal), as
as illustrated
illustrated in
in Figure
Figure 1,1, having
having aa GPS
GPS coordinates:
coordinates: 40.1855
40.1855° N, 8.4167° W. Those
experimental
experimental modules
modules were
were two
two identical
identical cubic
cubic compartments
compartments constructed
constructed in in LSF,
LSF, with
with inner
inner
dimensions: (L) 2.75 m × (W) 2.75 m × (H) 2.80 m. Module 1 was used as a reference
dimensions: (L) 2.75 m × (W) 2.75 m × (H) 2.80 m. Module 1 was used as a reference (for results (for results
comparison),
comparison), while
while module
module 22 had
had aa water
water Trombe
Trombewallwallprototype
prototypeononits
itssouth
southfacade.
facade.

Figure 1.1.LSF
Figure LSF(lightweight
(lightweight steel
steel frame)
frame) experimental
experimental modules
modules constructed
constructed at the University
at the University of
of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Engineering
Engineering Campus
Campus (GPS: 40.1855 ◦
(GPS:N,40.1855°◦
8.4167 N, 8.4167° W).
W).

The external dimensions

dimensions of of the
theexperimental
experimentalmodules,
modules,asaswell wellasasthe the material
material specifications
specifications of
of
thetheLSFLSFconstruction
constructionelements,
elements,such suchasasthethe number
number of of layers,
layers, materials,
materials, and thicknesses,
thicknesses, are are
schematically illustrated in Figure 2, while Table 1 displays the thermal conductivities of the materials.
In these a
these experimental
experimental modules,
modules, the the LSF
LSF system
system B(A)
B(A)a was adopted and manufactured by Urbimagem Urbimagem
company [29], making use of steel profiles
company [29], making use of steel profiles C100 × 45 × C100 × 45 × 1.5 mm. The structural sheathing was provided
provided
by 1212 mm
mm oriented
oriented strand
strand board
board (OSB)
(OSB) panels
panels [30]
[30] on
on both
both sides
sides of
of the
the walls’
walls’ steel
steel frame.
frame. TheThe ceiling
ceiling
was
was also inferiorly
inferiorly lined
linedwith
withOSB OSBpanels,
panels,asaswellwellasasthe
the upper
upper side
side of of
thethe
roof roof steel
steel frame
frame beams.
beams. To
To allow access to the interior, both modules had a similar wooden door
allow access to the interior, both modules had a similar wooden door (2.00 m high by 0.78 (2.00 m high by 0.78 m wide),
which
which waswas thermally
thermally insulated
insulated withwith the
the same
same expanded
expanded polystyrene
polystyrene (EPS) (EPS) external
external thermal
thermal insulation
insulation
composite system (ETICS) system of the walls. There
the walls. There were were no windows in the
the experimental TW
experimental
modules. This This was
wasjustified
justifiedby bythe
theintention
intentiontotoisolate
isolatethetheTW TWeffect
effectininthe
the evaluated
evaluated compartments.
compartments. A
A glazed
glazed window(e.g.,
window (e.g.,south
southorientated)
orientated)would
wouldprovide
provideadditional
additionalsolarsolarheat
heat gains,
gains, which would be be
overlapped and more difficult to to distinguish
distinguishfromfromthetheheat
heatgains
gainsprovided
providedby bythetheTWTWdevice.
device.
Notice that, as illustrated in Figure Figure 2, the experimental modules were were designed
designed to have gypsum
plasterboard
plasterboard(GPB) (GPB)asasananinner
inner sheathing
sheathing layer of walls
layer andand
of walls ceiling, but later
ceiling, it wasitdecided
but later was decidednot to not
apply
to
these GPB panels. The batt insulation was provided by 100 mm mineral
apply these GPB panels. The batt insulation was provided by 100 mm mineral wool (MW) [31], wool (MW) [31], fulfilling
the air-cavity
fulfilling the between
air-cavitythe steel frame.
between The frame.
the steel exteriorThethermal insulation
exterior thermalcomposite
insulationsystemcomposite(ETICS) was
system
made with EPS thermal insulation [32] (50 mm thick) and finished by a reinforced
(ETICS) was made with EPS thermal insulation [32] (50 mm thick) and finished by a reinforced plaster plaster layer (5 mm).
The
layerexterior
(5 mm). thermal insulation
The exterior of theinsulation
thermal roof was madeof theofroof
extruded polystyrene
was made (XPS) [33]
of extruded with the (XPS)
polystyrene same
[33] with the same thickness. To avoid moisture direct contact from the ground, the floor was 300
mm elevated, creating a small crawl space below, as illustrated in Figure 2, having an 18 mm OSB
panel [30] below and another above the continuous XPS [34] thermal insulation layer (60 mm thick).
The inclined flat roof was waterproofed by a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane [35] (1.5 mm thick),
forming a plenum above the ceiling with variable thickness.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 5 of 25

thickness. To avoid moisture direct contact from the ground, the floor was 300 mm elevated, creating a
small crawl space below, as illustrated in Figure 2, having an 18 mm OSB panel [30] below and another
above the continuous XPS [34] thermal insulation layer (60 mm thick). The inclined flat roof was
waterproofed by a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane [35] (1.5 mm thick), forming a plenum above
the ceiling with variable thickness.

Table 1. Thermal conductivity (λ ) of the materials used in the lightweight steel frame (LSF) modules.

Materials λ ((m·K)/W) Reference

Reinforced plaster (ETICS finish) 1 0.720 [37]
2 1
EPS (ETICS thermal insulation) 0.036 [32]
3
OSB (LSF sheathing) 0.130 [30]
Mineral wool (cavity insulation) 0.037 [31]
Steel (profiles C100 × 45 × 1.5 mm) 50.000 [38]
(roof insulation) 0.036 [33]
XPS 4
(floor insulation) 0.035 [34]
Vinyl floor cover 0.250 [39]
5
PVC membrane (roof waterproofing) 0.170 [35]
Wooden door 0.144 [40]
1 ETICS, external thermal insulation composite system; 2 EPS, expanded polystyrene; 3 OSB, oriented strand board;
4 XPS, extruded polystyrene; 5 PVC, polyvinyl chloride.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 5 of 25

Figure
Figure 2. Schematic
2. Schematic detailsofofthe
details theLSF
LSF modules
modules construction
constructionelements (adapted
elements fromfrom
(adapted [36]).[36]).

Table
Table 1. Thermal for
2 displays, conductivity
each LSF (𝜆) of the materials
element, theused in the lightweight
materials steel frame (LSF)
and thicknesses of themodules.
layers, as well
as the computed thermal transmittance
Materials (U-value). Notice 𝝀 ((m∙K)/W)
that two types Reference were assessed
of layers
in these LSF elements: (1) homogeneous,
Reinforced plaster (ETICS 1where
finish) the steel frame0.720was not included
[37] in the thermal
computations, given its location outside the insulation and sheathing materials, and (2) inhomogeneous,
EPS 2 (ETICS 1 thermal insulation) 0.036 [32]
where the steel frame crossed through the insulation materials (e.g., mineral wool). The U-value for
OSB 3 (LSF sheathing) 0.130 [30]
the elements with homogeneous layers (floor, roof, and door) was computed following the analytical
calculation procedures Mineral wool (cavity
prescribed insulation)ISO 6946 [41].0.037
by standard The U-values[31] of the LSF elements
Steel (profiles C100 × 45 × 1.5 mm) 50.000 [38]
(roof insulation) 0.036 [33]
XPS 4
(floor insulation) 0.035 [34]
Vinyl floor cover 0.250 [39]
PVC membrane (roof waterproofing)
5 0.170 [35]
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 6 of 25

containing inhomogeneous layers (walls and ceiling) were computed, making use of bi-dimensional
(2D) finite element method (FEM) models built in the THERM software [42], as has been detailed
next in Section 2.2.1. The obtained U-values (Table 2) ranged from 0.326 W/(m2 ·K) in the walls up to
0.670 W/(m2 ·K) in the ceiling.

Table 2. Materials, thicknesses (d), and thermal transmittances (U) of the LSF elements.

Element Materials d U-Value

(Layers Type) (Layers from Outer to Inner Surfaces) (mm) (W/(m2 ·K))
Reinforced plaster (ETICS 1 finish) 5
EPS 2 (ETICS 1 thermal insulation) 50
Walls
0.326
(inhomogeneous) OSB 3 (LSF sheathing) 12
Mineral wool (cavity insulation) 100
OSB 3 (LSF sheathing) 12
Total thickness = 179
OSB 3 (LSF sheathing) 18
Floor XPS 4 (floor slab insulation) 60
0.426
(homogeneous) 3
OSB (LSF sheathing) 18
Vinyl floor cover 3.4
Total thickness = 99.4
Mineral wool (cavity insulation) 100
Ceiling
3 12 0.670
(inhomogeneous) OSB (LSF sheathing)
Total thickness = 112
5
PVC membrane (roof waterproofing) 1.5
Roof 4
XPS (exterior thermal insulation) 50 0.613
(homogeneous)
3
OSB (LSF sheathing) 12
Total thickness = 63.5
Reinforced plaster (ETICS finish)1 5
Door 2 1
EPS (ETICS thermal insulation) 50 0.534
(homogeneous)
Wooden door 44
Total thickness = 99
1 ETICS, external thermal insulation composite system; 2 EPS, expanded polystyrene; 3 OSB, oriented strand board;
4 XPS, extruded polystyrene; 5 PVC, polyvinyl chloride.

2.1.2. Trombe Wall Prototype

The Trombe wall prototype (2.80 m high and 0.55 m wide) was placed on the south-oriented wall
of module 2 (Figure 1). Figure 3a schematically illustrates the geometry of this Trombe wall prototype,
which was developed and executed during a Ph.D. research work [36]. Notice that the dimensions of
this modular TW prototype were defined, taking into account the ceiling height (2.80 m) and the usual
vertical steel stud spacing in LSF construction (0.60 m). The thermal storage wall was made with a
black-painted steel sheet tank fulfilled with water, having 50 mm of thickness. On the outer side, there
was an aluminum frame glazing system with double glass (4 mm + 16 mm of argon + planistar 6 mm),
having an effective solar absorption area of 1.1 m2 . The glazing panel had a solar heat gain coefficient
(SHGC) equal to 0.743, while the direct solar transmission was 0.667, and the thermal transmittance
was 2.552 W/(m2 ·K), as displayed in Figure 3b.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 7 of 25

Trombe
Energies wall:
2020, (1) an
upper air vent, 0.50 m wide by 0.10 m high, and (2) a bottom air vent with
13, 2744 7 ofthe
25
same width but a smaller height (0.05 m).

(b)

(a)

Figure 3. Trombe wall prototype: (a) Schematic

Schematic geometry
geometry details
details (adapted
(adapted from [36]); (b) Glazing
optical and thermal properties.

2.1.3.This glazed aluminum

Monitoring Equipment frame had a top and lower exterior openings for exterior ventilation, which
were not used during these experiments, being all the time closed. Between the storage wall and the
To reproduce the thermal behavior of the experimental modules exposed to exterior weather
outer glazing, there was a 100 mm thick air cavity. On the inner surface of the storage wall, there was a
conditions, it was needed to have access to hourly weather data recorded nearby. With this purpose,
layer of 0.10 m of mineral wool, covered by an OSB panel (12 mm). To allow air circulation between
two weather stations were used: (1) Department of Mechanical Engineering (DEM) [43], also located
the outer air cavity and the indoor environment, there were two rectangular air vents on the Trombe
in the Engineering campus of the University of Coimbra (GPS: 40.1849° N, 8.4132° W), and (2)
wall: (1) an upper air vent, 0.50 m wide by 0.10 m high, and (2) a bottom air vent with the same width
CoolHaven company [44], located in Coimbra iParque, Antanhol (GPS: 40.1792° N, 8.4654° W).
but a smaller height (0.05 m).
The nearest weather data station (DEM) was used for most of the data needed to perform
advanced
2.1.3. dynamic
Monitoring simulations, including air temperature, dew-point temperature, relative
Equipment
humidity, wind direction, wind speed, atmospheric pressure, and precipitation. However, this
To reproduce
weather station did thenot
thermal
providebehavior of the experimental
some additional modulesdata,
relevant weather exposed
suchtoasexterior weather
the parameters
conditions, it was
related to solar needed toi.e.,
radiation, have access
global to hourlyradiation,
horizontal weather data recorded
diffuse nearby.
horizontal With this
radiation, purpose,
and direct
two weather stations were used: (1) Department of Mechanical Engineering (DEM)
normal radiation. This essential detailed solar radiation information was obtained in the CoolHaven [43], also located in
the Engineering ◦ ◦
weather station,campus
located of the University
about 7 km fromof Coimbra
the (GPS: 40.1849
experimental modules. N, 8.4132 W), and (2) CoolHaven
company [44], located in Coimbra iParque, Antanhol (GPS: 40.1792 ◦ N, 8.4654◦ W).
Regarding the hardware, the DEM weather station is a wireless Davis Vantage Pro2 Plus [45],
whileThe
thenearest weather
CoolHaven data stationof(DEM)
is constituted was
several used for
sensors, most
with theofpyranometer
the data needed to perform
being a sunshine advanced
sensor
dynamic simulations,
Delta-T BF5 [46]. including air temperature, dew-point temperature, relative humidity, wind
direction, wind speed, atmospheric pressure, and precipitation. However, this weather
Notice that according to the Köppen–Geiger climate classification [47], the city of Coimbra (Portugal) station did
not provide some additional relevant weather data, such as the parameters related to
is located in a Csb climate region, which is characterized by a temperate climate with rainy winter and solar radiation,
i.e.,
dry global
summer horizontal radiation,
slightly hot, being adiffuse horizontal
very frequent radiation,
climate withinand the direct normal radiation.
Mediterranean region [16]. This essential
detailed
The indoor air temperature and humidity were measured simultaneously, inside bothabout
solar radiation information was obtained in the CoolHaven weather station, located LSF
7modules,
km fromtothe experimental modules.
monitor their thermal behavior and verify the influence of the solar Trombe wall. With
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 8 of 25

Regarding the hardware, the DEM weather station is a wireless Davis Vantage Pro2 Plus [45],
while the CoolHaven is constituted of several sensors, with the pyranometer being a sunshine sensor
Delta-T BF5 [46].
Notice that according to the Köppen–Geiger climate classification [47], the city of Coimbra (Portugal)
is located in a Csb climate region, which is characterized by a temperate climate with rainy winter and dry
summer slightly hot, being a very frequent climate within the Mediterranean region [16].
The indoor air temperature and humidity were measured simultaneously, inside both LSF modules,
to monitor their thermal behavior and verify the influence of the solar Trombe wall. With this purpose,
one Tinytag Ultra 2—TGU-4500 [48] air temperature and humidity sensor was installed inside each
module, being suspended in the middle ceiling, at mid-height. These sensors were factory calibrated,
having a precision of ±0.45 ◦ C for temperature and ±3% for relative humidity. The measured data
was averaged and recorded every 10 minutes, having a sampling interval of 10 seconds. The in situ
measurements took place from the 26th of July 2019 until the 19th of January 2020.

2.2. Numerical Approach

2.2.1. 2D FEM Thermal Computations

As mentioned before (see Section 2.1.1), the U-values of the inhomogeneous LSF elements (walls
and ceiling) were computed, making use of bi-dimensional (2D) models implemented in a finite element
method (FEM) software: THERM [42]. The FEM mesh was refined to have a maximum error of 2%.

LSF Ceiling Element

For the ceiling element, as the steel profiles are placed only in one direction (see the yellow region
in Figure 4a), the U-value was directly obtained from the 2D FEM model, as illustrated in Figure 4b.
The model had a width of 600 mm, i.e., equal to the distance between the steel studs within the ceiling.
The steel C stud was positioned in the middle of the model, as shown in Figure 4b, and this is a
representative part of the LSF ceiling slab. Moreover, the ceiling mineral wool (MW) insulation was
considered only between steel sections since, in practice, it was not possible to put MW inside the
corresponding steel lattice beam, where it was considered an air gap. Figure 4c displays the temperature
distribution predicted in the ceiling cross-section, where the thermal bridged effect was clear due to
the MW thermal insulation discontinuity. The global U-value computed from the THERM model was
0.670 W/(m2 ·K). Notice that assuming homogeneous layers, i.e., considering continuous MW insulation
and neglecting the steel studs, the U-value obtained was 0.334 W/(m2 ·K), being 50% smaller.

LSF Wall Element

Since the LSF walls had steel studs in vertical, horizontal, and diagonal planes (see Figure 5a),
the bi-dimensional U-value computation procedure was different from the ceiling element, where the
U-value was directly obtained from the THERM model. It is well known that an insulated LSF
element has two distinct thermal zones [49,50]: (1) an increased heat transfer zone (lower thermal
resistance) in the vicinity of the steel studs, given the high thermal conductivity of steel, and (2) a more
reduced heat transfer zone (higher thermal resistance) in the insulated cavity between the steel studs.
Thus, the global thermal transmittance (U global ) of LSF elements with complex steel frame could be
estimated, making an area-weighted summation of the U-values for each thermal zone mentioned
before (“stud” and “cav”), as given in the following equation:

Ustud .Astud + Ucav .Acav

U global = (1)
Aglobal

where A global is the total area of the LSF element (internal dimensions), Astud is the total area of influence
of the steel stud on the LSF element, and Acav is the remaining cavity area of the LSF wall. For this
specific LSF wall, the areas considered in the computations are displayed in Figure 5a.
 seconds. The in situ measurements took place from the 26th of July 2019 until the 19th of January 2020.

2.2. Numerical Approach

2.2.1. 2D FEM Thermal Computations

Energies 2020,As
13,mentioned
2744 9 of 25
before (see Section 2.1.1), the 𝑈-values of the inhomogeneous LSF elements (walls and
ceiling) were computed, making use of bi-dimensional (2D) models implemented in a finite element
method (FEM) software: THERM [42]. The FEM mesh was refined to have a maximum error of 2%.
Both U-values (Ustud and Ucav ) were obtained, making use of a THERM model, as illustrated
in Figure
LSF 5b. This
Ceiling simplified LSF wall model had a length equal to the spacing between the vertical
Element
steel studs, i.e., 600 mm. To obtain the two representative U-values, two “measurement” zones were
For the ceiling element, as the steel profiles are placed only in one direction (see the yellow
simulated in the LSF wall model: one right under the steel stud and another one in the edge of the wall
region in Figure 4a), the 𝑈-value was directly obtained from the 2D FEM model, as illustrated in
Energies
cavity.Figure
These 2020, 13, 2744 9 of 25
4b.“measurement”
The model had a width zonesofwere modeled
600 mm, having
i.e., equal to thethe samebetween
distance width as thethe steel
steel stud
studs flange,
within
i.e., 45the
mm, and is delimited in Figure 5 by twoindashed white lines.
theceiling.
𝑈-value Thewas steel C stud
directly was positioned
obtained from the THERM the middle model.of theIt ismodel, as shown
well known thatinanFigure
◦ C) color distribution along the cross-section of
4b, and
insulated LSF
Figure
this is 5c
a displays
representativethe obtained
part of thetemperature
LSF ceiling (
slab. Moreover, the
element has two distinct thermal zones [49,50]: (1) an increased heat transfer zone (lower thermalceiling mineral wool (MW)
the LSF insulation
wall model
resistance) was considered
in the and
vicinity only
is well
of between
visible
the steel in steel sections
the given
studs, thermal the since,
bridge
high in originated
practice,
thermal it was
by the
conductivity notofpossible
central
steel, andto (2)
putstud
steel a
MW
and itsmore inside
correspondent the corresponding
reduced heattemperature steel lattice
disturbance.
transfer zone (higher beam,
thermalFigure where
resistance) it
5d in was
shows considered an
the computed
the insulated air gap. Figure
heat flux
cavity between 4c 2 )
(W/m
the steel
displays
distribution the temperature
studs. within
Thus, theglobal
the distribution
cross-section
thermal of thepredicted (𝑈 in as
LSF wall,
transmittance the ofceiling
) well LSF cross-section,
as elements
the two with wherecomputed
U-values
complex the thermal
steel in the
frame
bridged
could effect was
be estimated, clear due to the MW thermal insulation discontinuity.
of the 𝑈-values The global 𝑈 -value
2
steel stud vicinity and inmaking
the edge an of
area-weighted
the wall cavity. summationAs expected, the Ustudfor (0.797
each thermal
W/m ·K) zonewas
computed
mentioned from
beforethe(“stud”
THERM model
and “cav”),was 0.670
givenW/(m the∙K).
2 Notice that
2following assuming homogeneous layers,
considerably higher (+260%) than the Ucavas(0.221 in
W/m ·K), confirmingequation:the huge relevance of the steel
i.e., considering continuous MW insulation and neglecting the steel studs, the 𝑈-value obtained was
stud (only
0.334 1.5
W/(m mm thick)
2∙K), beingin50%thesmaller.
thermal performance 𝑈 . 𝐴 of the +𝑈 LSF .wall.
𝐴
𝑈 = (1)
𝐴
where 𝐴 is the total area of the LSF element (internal dimensions), 𝐴 is the total area of
influence of the steel stud on the LSF element, and 𝐴 is the remaining cavity area of the LSF wall.
For this specific LSF wall, the areas considered in the computations are displayed in Figure 5a.
Both 𝑈-values (𝑈stud and 𝑈cav) were obtained, making use of a THERM model, as illustrated in
Figure 5b. This simplified LSF wall model had a length equal to the spacing between the vertical steel
studs, i.e., 600 mm. To obtain the two representative 𝑈-values, two “measurement” zones were
simulated in the LSF wall model: one right under the steel stud and another one in the edge of the
wall cavity. These “measurement” zones were modeled having the same width as the steel stud
flange, i.e., 45 mm, and is delimited in Figure 5 by two dashed white lines. (b)
Figure 5c displays the obtained temperature (°C) color distribution along the cross-section of the
LSF wall model and is well visible in the thermal bridge originated by the central steel stud and its
correspondent temperature disturbance. Figure 5d shows the computed heat flux (W/m2) distribution
within the cross-section of the LSF wall, as well as the two 𝑈-values computed in the steel stud
vicinity and in the edge of the wall cavity. As expected, the 𝑈stud (0.797 W/m2∙K) was considerably
higher (+260%) than the 𝑈cav (0.221 W/m2∙K), confirming the huge relevance of the steel stud (only 1.5
mm thick) in the thermal performance of the LSF wall.
Finally, knowing (a) the three areas (Figure 5a) and the two 𝑈-values (Figure (c) 5d) and making use
of Equation (1), a global 𝑈-value equal to 0.326 W/(m2∙K) was obtained. Notice that when the steel
Figure
studs LSF4.neglected
4.were
Figure ceiling element: (a) Plan
andelement:
LSF ceiling (a)view
homogenous ofview
the were
layers
Plan ceiling steel
assumed,
of the frame;
ceiling steel 𝑈-value
the(b) THERM
frame; model;
reduced
(b) THERM (c)model;
to Temperature
0.225 W/(m
(c) 2∙K)
color
(31%distribution
smaller). and
Temperature colorobtained U-value.
distribution and obtained 𝑈-value.

LSF Wall Element

Since the LSF walls had steel studs in vertical, horizontal, and diagonal planes (see Figure 5a),
the bi-dimensional 𝑈-value computation procedure was different from the ceiling element, where

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Cont.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 10 of 25

(c) (d)

Figure 5. LSF wall element: (a) Frontal view of the wall steel frame; (b) THERM model; (c) Temperature
Figure 5. LSF wall element: (a) Frontal view of the wall steel frame; (b) THERM model; (c)
color distribution; (d) Heat flux distribution and local U-values.
Temperature color distribution; (d) Heat flux distribution and local 𝑈-values.

Finally, knowing the three areas (Figure 5a) and the two U-values (Figure 5d) and making use
It is important to highlight that there are several strategies to mitigate the thermal bridges
of Equation (1), a global U-value equal to 0.326 W/(m2 ·K) was obtained. Notice that when the steel
originated by steel studs within an LSF component, reducing their 𝑈-value, such as the use of thermal
studs were neglected and homogenous layers were assumed, the U-value reduced to 0.225 W/(m2 ·K)
break (TB) strips within steel studs flange [51]. These TB strips could be made of different materials,
(31% smaller).
such as recycled tire rubber [52]. Shortly, it was intended to use this type of TB strips to improve the
It is important to highlight that there are several strategies to mitigate the thermal bridges
thermal performance of these experimental LSF modules.
originated by steel studs within an LSF component, reducing their U-value, such as the use of thermal
break (TB) strips within steel studs flange [51]. These TB strips could be made of different materials,
2.2.2. Advanced Dynamic Simulations
such as recycled tire rubber [52]. Shortly, it was intended to use this type of TB strips to improve the
Theperformance
thermal advanced dynamic
of these thermal simulations
experimental were performed in the software DesignBuilder
LSF modules.
version 5.5.0.012 (DesignBuilder Software Ltd, Stroud, Gloucester, UK) [37]. The computations were
2.2.2. Advanced
performed, Dynamic
making use ofSimulations
hourly interval data. A replica of the two LSF experimental modules
photographed
The advanced in dynamic
Figure thermal
1 wassimulations
modeled, weretaking into account
performed the DesignBuilder
in the software location/climate, the
version
geometry/dimensions, the construction elements composition (e.g., walls, floor, ceiling,
5.5.0.012 (DesignBuilder Software Ltd, Stroud, Gloucester, UK) [37]. The computations were performed, roof, door,
and Trombe
making wall),
use of the interval
hourly materialdata.
properties, the of
A replica airtightness,
the two LSF theexperimental
activity, and modules
occupation parameters.
photographed
Figure 6 exhibits a print-screen view of the two models: (1) module 1, used as
in Figure 1 was modeled, taking into account the location/climate, the geometry/dimensions, reference (Figure 6a),
and (2) module 2, containing the Trombe wall (Figure 6b).
the construction elements composition (e.g., walls, floor, ceiling, roof, door, and Trombe wall),
the material properties, the airtightness, the activity, and occupation parameters. Figure 6 exhibits a
print-screen view of the two models: (1) module 1, used as reference (Figure 6a), and (2) module 2,
containing the Trombe wall (Figure 6b).
The airtightness of these experimental modules was measured in-situ [36], and the obtained value
(0.05 air changes per hour) was implemented in the DesignBuilder model as a constant value and
without any natural ventilation since, during the measurements, the openings (back door and Trombe
wall exterior vents) were always closed. Moreover, the modules were kept empty, i.e., without anyone
inside. Thus, the occupancy was set as “null”, and the activity tab as “none”. Notice that the color of
the materials was also reproduced, in particular, the black color of the Trombe wall (Figure 6b).

2.3. Calibration and Model Validation

To ensure good reliability of the DesignBuilder [37] advanced dynamic models (Figure 6) thermal
behavior predictions, the obtained
(a) simulation results were compared with
(b)the air temperature in-situ
measurements (see Section 2.1.3), performed inside the LSF modules (Figure 1), subjected to natural
Figure 6. DesignBuilder models southeast views: (a) Module 1 (Reference); (b) Module 2 (Trombe
wall, TW).
2.2.2. Advanced Dynamic Simulations
The advanced dynamic thermal simulations were performed in the software DesignBuilder
version 5.5.0.012 (DesignBuilder Software Ltd, Stroud, Gloucester, UK) [37]. The computations were
performed, making use of hourly interval data. A replica of the two LSF experimental modules
photographed in Figure 1 was modeled, taking into account the location/climate,11 ofthe
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 25
geometry/dimensions, the construction elements composition (e.g., walls, floor, ceiling, roof, door,
and Trombe wall), the material properties, the airtightness, the activity, and occupation parameters.
outdoor
Figure weather aconditions
6 exhibits (recorded
print-screen view ofnearby,
the twoasmodels:
previously explained
(1) module in Section
1, used 2.1.3), (Figure
as reference allowing to
6a),
validate these models, as shown next.
and (2) module 2, containing the Trombe wall (Figure 6b).
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 11 of 25

The airtightness of these experimental modules was measured in-situ [36], and the obtained
value (0.05 air changes per hour) was implemented in the DesignBuilder model as a constant value
and without any natural ventilation since, during the measurements, the openings (back door and
Trombe wall exterior vents) were always closed. Moreover, the modules were kept empty, i.e.,
without anyone inside. Thus, the occupancy was set as “null”, and the activity tab as “none”. Notice
that the color of the materials was also reproduced, in particular, the black color of the Trombe wall
(Figure 6b).

2.3. Calibration and Model Validation

To ensure good reliability of the DesignBuilder [37] advanced dynamic models (Figure 6)
thermal behavior predictions, the obtained simulation results were compared with the air
(a)
temperature in-situ measurements (see Section 2.1.3), performed inside(b) the LSF modules (Figure 1),
subjected to natural outdoor weather conditions (recorded nearby, as previously explained in Section
Figure 6. DesignBuilder
DesignBuilder models
modelssoutheast
southeastviews:
views:(a)(a) Module
Module 1 (Reference);
1 (Reference); (b) Module
(b) Module 2 (Trombe
2 (Trombe wall,
2.1.3), allowing to validate these models, as shown next.
wall, TW).
TW).

2.3.1.Reference
2.3.1. ReferenceLSF
LSFModel
Model
Figure 77 presents
Figure presents aa graph
graph with
with aa comparison
comparison among
among predicted
predicted and and measured
measured indoor
indoor air
air
temperaturesininthe
temperatures thereference
referenceLSF
LSFmodule
module(module
(module1)1)during
duringone
oneweek
week(2–8(2–8September
September2019).
2019).AAgood
good
agreement between
agreement between the DesignBuilder
DesignBuildermodel
modelpredictions
predictionsand
andthethe
in-situ indoor
in-situ air temperatures
indoor air temperatureswas
observed. In fact, both average temperatures were very similar: 26.4 °C
was observed. In fact, both average temperatures were very similar: 26.4 C (recorded)◦ (recorded) and 26.3 ◦°C
26.3 C
(predicted). Moreover, the
(predicted). the root
rootmean
meansquare
squareerror
error(RMSE)
(RMSE) was
was only
only0.30.3 ◦
°C, allowing
C, allowingto conclude that
to conclude
this this
that DesignBuilder
DesignBuilder advanced
advanced dynamic
dynamic simulation
simulationreference
referenceLSFLSF model
model was calibrated and
was calibrated and
experimentally validated.
experimentally validated.

Figure7.7. Predicted
Figure Predictedand
andmeasured
measuredindoor
indoortemperatures
temperaturesin
inmodule
module11(reference).
(reference).

2.3.2. Trombe Wall LSF Model

2.3.2. Trombe Wall LSF Model
The accuracy of the Trombe wall LSF model was also verified by comparison among predicted
The accuracy of the Trombe wall LSF model was also verified by comparison among predicted
and measured indoor air temperatures. Figure 8 displays the obtained results plot, in which a good
and measured indoor air temperatures. Figure 8 displays the obtained results plot, in which a good
agreement between both curves was observed. The RMSE for this model was 0.5 ◦ C, confirming also a
agreement between both curves was observed. The RMSE for this model was 0.5 °C, confirming also
good accuracy performance of this second model.
a good accuracy performance of this second model.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 12 of 25
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 12 of 25

Figure 8. Predicted and measured indoor temperatures in module 2 (with a Trombe wall).

2.3.3. Trombe Wall CFD Assessment

To verify if the modeled Trombe wall is operating coherently, a computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) analysis was also conducted on DesignBuilder, which has a built-in CFD tool. Figure 9 displays
the results of the CFD analysis, carried for the 16:00 hours of the 4th of September, with both air
velocity and temperature in a color scale being displayed, as well as velocity vectors.
Looking at the results of the horizontal plane plotted in Figure 9a was well visible the colder air
entrance to Figure 8. Predicted
8.
the Trombe
Figure walland
Predicted airmeasured
and indoor
indoor temperatures
cavity through
measured its in
lower vent,
temperatures inmodule
as well 2as
module 2(with
the awarmer
(with aTrombe wall).
Trombeair flowing out
wall).
of the upper vent near the ceiling. Moreover, in Figure 9b (the vertical plane in front of the Trombe
2.3.3. Trombe Wall CFD Assessment
2.3.3. the
wall), Trombe Wall CFD Assessment
air stratification in height and also the air being heated near the Trombe wall were again
To which
visible, verify was
if theexposed
modeled to Trombe
direct wallradiation
solar is operating coherently,
(4 pm) a computational
and, consequently, fluid dynamics
was flowing up to the
To verify if the modeled Trombe wall is operating coherently, a computational fluid dynamics
(CFD)
ceiling.analysis was
Therefore, also conducted on DesignBuilder, which has a built-in CFD tool. Figure 9 displays
(CFD) analysis wasthese CFD simulation
also conducted results madewhich
on DesignBuilder, sensehasand
th
were coherent
a built-in with
CFD tool. the 9expected
Figure displays
the results
ones for a of the CFD analysis,
compartment with carried
a Trombefor the 16:00 hours ofdirect
the 4 of September, with bothensured
air velocity
the results of the CFD analysis, carried wall exposed
for the 16:00 to
hours of solar
the 4thradiation, which
of September, with boththeair
and temperature
reliability of the in a color scale
implemented being displayed, as well as velocity vectors.
velocity and temperature in a models.
color scale being displayed, as well as velocity vectors.
Looking at the results of the horizontal plane plotted in Figure 9a was well visible the colder air
entrance to the Trombe wall air cavity through its lower vent, as well as the warmer air flowing out
of the upper vent near the ceiling. Moreover, in Figure 9b (the vertical plane in front of the Trombe
wall), the air stratification in height and also the air being heated near the Trombe wall were again
visible, which was exposed to direct solar radiation (4 pm) and, consequently, was flowing up to the
ceiling. Therefore, these CFD simulation results made sense and were coherent with the expected
ones for a compartment with a Trombe wall exposed to direct solar radiation, which ensured the
reliability of the implemented models.

(a) (b)

Figure 9.
Figure CFD(computational
9.CFD (computational fluid
fluid dynamics)
dynamics) analysis
analysis (air(air velocity
velocity and and temperature)
temperature) of module
of module 2 (with2
a Trombe wall): (a) Horizontal planes at vent levels; (b) Vertical plane in front of the Trombe wall. wall.
(with a Trombe wall): (a) Horizontal planes at vent levels; (b) Vertical plane in front of the Trombe

Looking at the results of the horizontal plane plotted in Figure 9a was well visible the colder air
entrance to the Trombe wall(a) air cavity through its lower vent, as well as the (b)
warmer air flowing out of
the upper vent near the ceiling. Moreover, in Figure 9b (the vertical plane in front of the Trombe wall),
the air stratification in height and also the air being heated near the Trombe wall were again visible,
which was exposed to direct solar radiation (4 pm) and, consequently, was flowing up to the ceiling.
Therefore, these CFD simulation results made sense and were coherent with the expected ones for a
Figure 9. CFD (computational fluid dynamics) analysis (air velocity and temperature) of module 2 (with
a Trombe wall): (a) Horizontal planes at vent levels; (b) Vertical plane in front of the Trombe wall.
3. Results and Discussion
In this section, the obtained results have been presented and discussed, starting with the Trombe
wall benefits, regarding the thermal behavior and heating energy savings. Thereafter, the results of
the sensibility analysis, for several Trombe wall parameters, have been described and discussed.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 13 of 25

3.1. Trombe Wall Benefits

compartment with a the
In this section, Trombe wall
water exposed
Trombe to benefits
wall direct solar
wereradiation,
assessed,which ensured
making theinreliability
use of situ indoorof the
air
implemented models.
temperature measurements (Section 3.1.1.) and advanced dynamic numerical simulations for the
heating energy reduction predictions (Section 3.1.2.). These assessments were performed by
3. Results and Discussion
comparison between module 1 (the reference one) and module 2 (the one with a Trombe wall) located
in the
Incity
thisofsection,
Coimbrathe(Portugal), duringhave
obtained results winter.
been presented and discussed, starting with the Trombe
wall benefits, regarding the thermal behavior and heating energy savings. Thereafter, the results of the
3.1.1. Indoor
sensibility Temperature
analysis, Increase
for several Trombe wall parameters, have been described and discussed.
The indoor air temperature comparisons were made using the data from measurements taken
3.1. Trombe Wall Benefits
simultaneously with the temperature and humidity sensors [48], on both modules (with and without
In this section,
the Trombe theare
wall) and water Trombe
plotted wall benefits
in Figure were
10, as well as assessed, making
the exterior use of inair
environment situ indoor air
temperature.
temperature
Two distinct measurements (Section
winter weeks were 3.1.1.)
chosen and advanced
to demonstrate dynamic of
the behavior numerical simulations
the modules for the
under different
heating energy reduction predictions (Section 3.1.2.). These assessments were performed
weather conditions. In Figure 10a, the records for a sunny week (from 28 of December to 3rd of
th by comparison
between
January)module 1 (the reference
are displayed, while in one) and
Figure module
10b, 2 (the one withfor
the measurements a Trombe
a cloudywall)
weeklocated
(from in thetocity
16th of
22nd
Coimbra (Portugal),
of December) during winter.
are shown.
In the sunny winter week (Figure 10a), the indoor air temperature increase in module 2 due to
3.1.1. Indoor Temperature Increase
the Trombe wall was well visible, having an average temperature of 16.2 °C, i.e., a temperature
increase
The of 3.3 °Cair
indoor relative to module
temperature 1. Notice were
comparisons that even
madewith using a Trombe
the datawall,
fromthe indoor comfort
measurements takenair
temperature (e.g.,
simultaneously with18the°C) was not reached.
temperature Another
and humidity interesting
sensors [48], onfeature was that(with
both modules the daily indoorthe
and without air
temperature
Trombe amplitude
wall) and (or fluctuation)
are plotted was
in Figure 10, as also
well asgreater in the
the exterior experimental
environment module withTwo
air temperature. the Trombe
distinct
wall (module
winter weeks were2), having
chosen to a demonstrate
higher temperature
the behaviorincrease
of therate during
modules the different
under day (dueweather
to the conditions.
solar heat
gains)
In Figureand10a,
alsothea records
higher temperature
for a sunny weekdecrease
(from rate th of December
28during 3rd oftoJanuary)
the nightto(due the higher areheat losses
displayed,
through the Trombe wall, which did have any night shutter device).
while in Figure 10b, the measurements for a cloudy week (from 16th to 22nd of December) are shown.
When
In the skywinter
the sunny was cloudy
week (Figure 10b),10a), as
theexpected,
indoor air the daily temperature
temperature increasevariation
in module was2 very
due
smothered,
to the Trombe andwall
the was
air temperature
well visible,difference
having aninsideaverage the temperature
modules became of 16.2 ◦ C,reduced,
very which was
i.e., a temperature
only 1 °Cof
increase 3.3 ◦ Cfor
higher this week
relative inside module
to module 2. Comparing
1. Notice that even with bothaweeks
Trombe(sunny
wall,and
thecloudy), the average
indoor comfort air
environment (e.g.,
temperature exterior ◦
18 C)air was
temperature was Another
not reached. lower during the sunny
interesting week
feature was (Figure
that the10a)daily(12.2 °C)air
indoor in
comparison with
temperature the cloudy
amplitude week (13.4 °C),
(or fluctuation) was which was 1.2
also greater in°Cthehigher. This wasmodule
experimental due to with
the night cooling
the Trombe
effect,
wall which was
(module much higher
2), having a higherintemperature
a winter clearincrease
sky in comparison
rate during with a cloudy
the day (due to sky.
theThus,
solar this
heatfeature
gains)
also also
and demonstrated how important
a higher temperature it wasrate
decrease to control
duringthe thenight
nightheat
(duelosses,
to themainly
higher when the sky
heat losses was clear,
through the
in order to optimize the thermal performance
Trombe wall, which did have any night shutter device). of the Trombe wall during the heating season.

(a)
Figure 10. Cont.
Energies 2020,
Energies 2020, 13,
13, 2744
2744 14 of
14 of 25
25

(b)

Figure
Figure 10. Recorded indoor
10. Recorded indoor air
air temperatures
temperatures with
with and
and without
without aa Trombe
Trombe wall: (a) Winter
wall: (a) Winter sunny
sunny week;
week;
(b)
(b) Winter
Winter cloudy
cloudy week.
week.

When the sky was cloudy (Figure 10b), as expected, the daily temperature variation was very
3.1.2. Heating Energy Decrease
smothered, and the air temperature difference inside the modules became very reduced, which was
only 1In◦ C
this section,
higher the heating
for this energy
week inside decrease
module due to theboth
2. Comparing existence
weeksof(sunny
a Trombe Wall wasthe
and cloudy), predicted,
average
environment exterior air temperature was lower during the sunny week (Figure 10a) (12.2Section
making use of advanced numerical dynamic simulation models, as previously detailed in ◦ C) in

2.2.2 and validated

comparison with theincloudy
Section 2.3. (13.4
week ◦
The hourly weather
C), which was 1.2 ◦
dataCwas obtained
higher. fromdue
This was thetoEnergyPlus IWEC
the night cooling
database
effect, [53]was
which for Coimbra
much higher city in
(Portugal), and the
a winter clear skycomputations
in comparisonwerewithperformed
a cloudy sky.forThus,
all winter season
this feature
(from
also 22nd of December
demonstrated how until the 20it
important th of March). The modeled air-conditioning heating system was a
was to control the night heat losses, mainly when the sky was
“split”intype
clear, orderwith no freshthe
to optimize air,thermal
having performance
a coefficient of of performance
the Trombe wall(COP) for heating
during the heatingmode equal to
season.
2.35, with the adopted energy source the electricity from the grid.
3.1.2.ToHeating
compareEnergy Decreasein the heating energy demand, two heating set-points were simulated,
its relevance
namely, 20section,
In this °C andthe 18heating
°C, respectively;
energy decrease the former andexistence
due to the current ofthermal
a Trombe comfort
Wall was temperatures
predicted,
considered for calculating residential heating energy needs in Portugal [54].
making use of advanced numerical dynamic simulation models, as previously detailed in Section 2.2.2
Moreover,intwo
and validated occupation
Section 2.3. Theschedules
hourlyand use types
weather datawere
was considered,
obtained from namely, (1) an officeIWEC
the EnergyPlus space
occupied from 08:00 to 18:00 during weekdays (Monday to Friday), and (2)
database [53] for Coimbra city (Portugal), and the computations were performed for all winter season a residential space
occupied ndfrom 19:00 to 07:00 during th all days. The predicted energy demand
(from 22 of December until the 20 of March). The modeled air-conditioning heating system was a for heating (electricity)
was displayed
“split” type withand no analyzed as a total
fresh air, having value (kWh)
a coefficient and as normalized
of performance values
(COP) for (kWh/m
heating mode).equal to 2.35,
2

with the adopted energy source the electricity from the grid.
Residential Space Use (Heating during the Night)
To compare its relevance in the heating energy demand, two heating set-points were simulated,
namely, ◦ C and 18 ◦ C, respectively; the former and current thermal comfort temperatures considered
The20heating energy demand predicted for residential space use (night occupation) is displayed
for calculating
in Figure 11 forresidential heating energy
both LSF modules and two needs in Portugal
heating [54].
set-points. As expected, reducing the heating set-
(18 °C instead
pointMoreover, of 20 °C) allowed
two occupation schedules and usealso
reducing types
thewere considered,
heating namely, (1) an This
energy consumption. officeenergy
space
occupied
reductionfromwas 08:00 to 18:00
significant during11b),
(Figure weekdays
ranging (Monday
from −33%,to Friday), and (2) a residential
in the reference LSF module space
1, tooccupied
−40% in
from 19:00 towall
the Trombe 07:00LSFduring all days.
module 2. The predicted energy demand for heating (electricity) was displayed
and analyzed
The heating as aenergy
total value (kWh) and
consumption as normalized
in module 2 was 5% values than in2module
lower(kWh/m ). 1 for an 18 °C heating
set-point, confirming the energy efficiency advantage of the Trombe wall (TW) in the second LSF
Residential Space Use
module. However, when(Heating during
the heating the Night)
set-point was higher (20 °C), the computed results showed a 5%
increase
The in the heating
heating energy energy
demand for predicted
the TW module 2 (24.79 kWh/m
for residential space use2) in comparison with the reference
(night occupation) is displayed
module 1 (23.60 kWh/m 2). This surprising feature was related to the increased heat losses during the
in Figure 11 for both LSF modules and two heating set-points. As expected, reducing the heating
night due(18
set-point ◦ C instead
to the existence ◦ C)
ofof20the TW in module
allowed 2, which
reducing alsowere not enough
the heating to balance
energy the solar
consumption. heat
This gains
energy
during thewas
reduction daytime, and this
significant assumption
(Figure has been
11b), ranging from explained
−33%, ininthe
detail in the following
reference LSF module paragraphs.
1, to −40% in
The space
the Trombe heating
wall LSF moduleenergy2. demand, besides the efficiency of the air-conditioning system
(assumed to be 2.35 for the heating mode in this work), depended on the heat balance (gains versus
losses) for each module. When this heat balance was positive (e.g., during a sunny day due to
significant solar heat gains), the indoor temperature arose. When this heat balance was negative (e.g.,
 Obviously, when the indoor air temperature set-point was elevated from 18 °C up to 20 °C, the
temperature difference between indoor and outdoor conditions also increased, leading also to an
increase in the heat losses, which originated a higher space heating energy consumption to maintain
the defined set-point indoor temperature. Once again, this feature reinforced the importance of
mitigating
Energies 2020, heat losses through the TW, mainly during winter season night-time, for example, making
13, 2744 15 of 25
use of a controllable night shutter device.

(a) (b)

Figure Predicted
11. Predicted
Figure 11. heating
heating energy
energy consumption
consumption (electricity)
(electricity) duringduring the season
the winter winterinseason
Coimbrain
Coimbra
(Portugal),(Portugal),
assumingassuming residential
residential space
space use, foruse,
twofordifferent
two different set-points:
set-points: (a) Total
(a) Total values;
values; (b)
(b) Normalized values.
Normalized values.
The heating energy consumption in module 2 was 5% lower than in module 1 for an 18 ◦ C heating
Office Space Use (Heating during the Day)
set-point, confirming the energy efficiency advantage of the Trombe wall (TW) in the second LSF
module.
The However, when the
heating energy heating
demand set-point results,
simulation was higher (20 ◦ C),anthe
assuming computed
office space results showed
use, i.e., duringa the
5%
increase in the heating energy for the TW module 2 (24.79 kWh/m 2 ) in comparison with the reference
daytime, in both LSF modules, are displayed in Figure 12. Now, the energy efficiency benefits of the
module
TW use 1were (23.60 kWh/m2 ). This
significantly highersurprising feature was
in comparison withrelated to the increased
the residential daytimeheat
uselosses
(Figure during the
11). The
night
heatingdue to the reduction
energy existence ofranged
the TWfrom in module
−14%, 2,forwhich were
a 20 °C not enough
heating to balance
set-point, to −27% thefor
solar
an heat
18 °Cgains
set-
during the daytime,
point. This improved and this assumption
energy efficiency washas been explained
because in detail
the heating in the following
schedule paragraphs.
of the air-conditioning
systemThematched
space heating energyTW
the higher demand, besides gains
solar heating the efficiency
during of thethe air-conditioning
daytime. systemthe
Consequently, (assumed
indoor
to be 2.35 for increased,
temperature the heatingand modethe in this work),
heating energy depended on thefor
use decreased heat
both balance
heating(gains versus losses) for
set-points.
each Comparing
module. When this heat
the energy balancefor
demand was positive
both heating (e.g., during athe
set-points, sunny
energydayreduction
due to significant solar
in percentages
heat
was gains),
similarthe indoor
to the temperature
previous arose.
ones, i.e., When this
residential heatuse
space balance was11b),
(Figure negative (e.g.,from
ranging during−32%the up
night
to
due
−42% to(Figure
the exterior
12b),temperature
for referencedropLSFand absence
module of TW
1 and solarmodule
radiation), the indoor temperature
2, respectively. However, indecreased.
absolute
As measured
values, this energy and previously plotted
consumption reductionin Figure 10a, the i.e.,
was smaller, indoor
−5.41 temperature increase
kWh/m2 (office rate during
daytime use)
the day of
instead was bigger
−7.80 in module
kWh/m 2 (red line)
2 (residential due to use)
night-time the higher solar heat
for module gains
1, while forprovided
module by 2, itthe
wasTrombe
−6.09
wall.
kWh/m However,
2 insteadas ofalso displayed
−9.84 kWh/m2in theoffice
, for sameandfigure, during the
residential night,
space use,the indoor temperature decrease
respectively.
rate was also bigger in the TW module 2, compared to the reference module 1 (black line), due to
higher heat losses through the Trombe wall.
In fact, the thermal transmittance (U-value) of the TW device, due to air circulation between the
glazed air-cavity and the interior of the module, was increased to the U-value of the glazing panel
(2.552 W/(m2 ·K), see Figure 3b). Comparing this U-value with the one provided by the LSF wall
(0.326 W/(m2 ·K), see Table 2), for the same area and temperature difference, the heat losses through the
glazing panel of the TW were almost 7 times higher (+683%).
Obviously, when the indoor air temperature set-point was elevated from 18 ◦ C up to 20 ◦ C,
the temperature difference between indoor and outdoor conditions also increased, leading also to an
increase in the heat losses, which originated a higher space heating energy consumption to maintain the
defined set-point indoor temperature. Once again, this feature reinforced the importance of mitigating
heat losses through the TW, mainly during winter season night-time, for example, making use of a
controllable night shutter device.

Office Space Use (Heating during the Day)

The heating energy demand simulation results, assuming an office space use, i.e., during the
daytime, in both LSF modules, are displayed in Figure 12. Now, the energy efficiency benefits of the TW
use were significantly higher in comparison with the residential daytime use (Figure 11). The heating
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 16 of 25

energy reduction ranged from −14%, for a 20 ◦ C heating set-point, to −27% for an 18 ◦ C set-point.
This improved energy efficiency was because the heating schedule of the air-conditioning system
matched the13,higher
Energies 2020, 2744 TW solar heating gains during the daytime. Consequently, the indoor temperature
16 of 25
increased, and the heating energy use decreased for both heating set-points.

(a) (b)

Figure 12. Predicted

Figure 12. Predicted heating
heating energy
energy consumption
consumption (electricity)
(electricity) during
during the
the winter
winter season
season in
in Coimbra
Coimbra
(Portugal),
(Portugal), assuming office space use, for two different heating set-points: (a) Total values;
assuming office space use, for two different heating set-points: (a) Total (b)
values; (b)
Normalized values.
Normalized values.

Comparing the energy demand for both heating set-points, the energy reduction in percentages
Jaber and Ajib [55] also performed hourly energy computer simulations to analyze the energy
was similar to the previous ones, i.e., residential space use (Figure 11b), ranging from −32% up to −42%
performance of a Trombe wall system for a typical Jordanian residential building (Mediterranean region).
(Figure 12b), for reference LSF module 1 and TW module 2, respectively. However, in absolute values,
The studied house had a rectangular shape, having a floor area of about 154 m2. The heavyweight façade
2 (office
this energy consumption reduction was smaller, i.e., −5.41 kWh/m daytime use) instead of
walls had a very reduced thermal transmittance value, 0.133 W/(m2∙K), which corresponded to 41% of the2
−7.80 kWh/m2 (residential night-time use) for module 1, while for module 2, it was −6.09 kWh/m
LSF walls’ 𝑈-value in the2 experimental modules, i.e., 0.326 W/(m2∙K) (see Table 2).
instead of −9.84 kWh/m , for office and residential space use, respectively.
Their simulations were performed for a 20 °C heating set-point [55]. The predicted normalized
Jaber and Ajib [55] also performed hourly energy computer simulations to analyze the energy
heating energy consumption for the Jordanian building, without a Trombe wall, was 15.27 kWh/m2,
performance of a Trombe wall system2 for a typical Jordanian residential building (Mediterranean region).
which was reduced to 12.09 kWh/m (−21%), simulating a TW filling 18% of the south-oriented façade
The studied house had a rectangular shape, having a floor area of about 154 m2 . The heavyweight
area (two bedrooms). They performed several simulations for different TW area ratios, ranging from
façade walls had a very reduced thermal transmittance value, 0.133 W/(m2 ·K), which corresponded to
0% up to 50%, and based on the obtained results, they adjusted a polynomial curve (2nd order
41% of the LSF walls’ U-value in the experimental modules, i.e., 0.326 W/(m2 ·K) (see Table 2).
regression) to estimate the percentage of energy◦saving.
Their simulations were performed for a 20 C heating set-point [55]. The predicted normalized
Making use of the previously mentioned estimation curve and applying the area ratio for the
heating energy consumption for the Jordanian building, without a Trombe wall, was 15.27 kWh/m2 ,
modular water TW evaluated in this2 paper, which was about 20%, the predicted energy saving would
which was reduced to 12.09 kWh/m (−21%), simulating a TW filling 18% of the south-oriented façade
be around 22%. Not surprisingly, due to our reduced exterior walls insulation level, this energy-
area (two bedrooms). They performed several simulations for different TW area ratios, ranging from 0%
saving prediction was considerably higher than the ones obtained here for the 20 °C indoor set-point
up to 50%, and based on the obtained results, they adjusted a polynomial curve (2nd order regression)
temperature.
to estimate the percentage of energy saving.
Making use
3.2. Parametric of the previously mentioned estimation curve and applying the area ratio for the
Study
modular water TW evaluated in this paper, which was about 20%, the predicted energy saving
would After analyzing
be around the Trombe
22%. wall (TW)due
Not surprisingly, benefits in terms
to our of indoor
reduced exteriorairwalls
temperature
insulationincrease
level, and
this
heating energy decrease, in this section, a parametric study was conducted to assess the
energy-saving prediction was considerably higher than the ones obtained here for the 20 C indoor impact
◦ of the
changes of some TW-related
set-point temperature. parameters on its thermal behavior. In this sensibility analysis, all the
simulations were performed for the TW LSF module 2, having as reference for comparison the
3.2. Parametric Study
DesignBuilder model, previously validated in Section 2.3.2, i.e., an unoccupied module. Notice that
only one parameter was changed for each evaluated scenario, as displayed in Table 3. Four different
After analyzing the Trombe wall (TW) benefits in terms of indoor air temperature increase and
parameters were evaluated: (1) Air cavity thickness; (2) Air vents dimensions; (3) Storage thickness;
heating energy decrease, in this section, a parametric study was conducted to assess the impact of
(4) Thermal storage material. For each parameter, two additional scenarios were assessed, besides
the changes of some TW-related parameters on its thermal behavior. In this sensibility analysis, all
the reference model scenario. Again, the hourly weather data for Coimbra (Portugal) was used [53],
the simulations were performed for the TW LSF module 2, having as reference for comparison the
and a sunny winter week was chosen (23rd–29th January) for these simulations.

Table 3. Overview of evaluated parameters, models’ identifications, and used values.

Parameter Model Value

Reference 10 cm
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 17 of 25

DesignBuilder model, previously validated in Section 2.3.2, i.e., an unoccupied module. Notice that
only one parameter was changed for each evaluated scenario, as displayed in Table 3. Four different
parameters were evaluated: (1) Air cavity thickness; (2) Air vents dimensions; (3) Storage thickness;
(4) Thermal storage material. For each parameter, two additional scenarios were assessed, besides the
reference model scenario. Again, the hourly weather data for Coimbra (Portugal) was used [53], and a
sunny winter week was chosen (23rd–29th January) for these simulations.

Table 3. Overview of evaluated parameters, models’ identifications, and used values.

Energies 2020, 13, 2744 17 of 25
Parameter Model Value
Reference 10 cm
Scenario 2 30 cm
Air cavity thickness
Scenario 1 Lower 20 cm Upper
Reference
Scenario 2 50 × 5 cm 30 cm50 × 10 cm
Air vents dimensions
Scenario 3 50 × 8 cm
Lower 50 × 13Upper
cm
Reference
Air vents dimensions Scenario 4 50 × 11
50 × 5 cm cm 50 × 50 ×cm
16 10 cm
Reference
Scenario 3 50 × 8 cm 5 cm 50 × 13 cm
Storage wall thickness Scenario 5 10 cm
Scenario 4 50 × 11 cm 50 × 16 cm
Scenario 6 15 cm
Reference 5 cm
Storage wall thickness Reference Water
Scenario 5 10 cm
Thermal storage material Scenario 7 Concrete
Scenario 6
Scenario 8 15 stone
Basalt cm
Reference Water
Thermal
3.2.1. Air storage
Cavity material
Thickness Scenario 7 Concrete
The first TW parameter analyzed Scenario
was the 8 air cavity thickness between
Basalt stone
the storage wall and the
glazed exterior frame. Three different air cavity thicknesses were evaluated: 10 cm (reference), 20 cm
3.2.1. (scenario
Air Cavity1), and 30 cm (scenario 2), as illustrated in Figure 13. The increase in the air cavity thickness
Thickness
originated an indoor air temperature decrease. While the reference model had an average
The first TWofparameter
temperature 18.2 °C, when analyzed was the
the air cavity air cavity
thickness thickness
was doubled (20 between the storage
cm) and tripled (30 cm),wall
the and
the glazed exterior frame. Three different air cavity thicknesses were evaluated:
indoor temperature decreased to 0.9 °C and 1.2 °C, respectively. These results allowed to conclude 10 cm (reference),
20 cmthat, for this TW
(scenario configuration,
1), and the better
30 cm (scenario 2),thermal performance
as illustrated was achieved
in Figure 13. Theforincrease
the smaller air cavity
in the air cavity
(10 cm),
thickness which could
originated be related
an indoor to the lower air
air temperature volume to
decrease. be heated
While inside themodel
the reference air cavity
hadand the
an average
higher buoyancy effect,
◦ promoting an increased upwards air convection
temperature of 18.2 C, when the air cavity thickness was doubled (20 cm) and tripled (30 cm),and consequent higher heat
flow through the upper vent to the interior of the module.
the indoor temperature decreased to 0.9 ◦ C and 1.2 ◦ C, respectively. These results allowed to conclude
Hong et al. [56] performed a three-dimensional CFD thermal simulation of a Trombe wall with
that, for this TW configuration, the better thermal performance was achieved for the smaller air cavity
Venetian blind structure located in Hefei (China), assuming adiabatic surfaces for the air vents and
(10 cm), which could be related to the lower air volume to be heated inside the air cavity and the higher
internal wall. They compared several air cavity thicknesses, ranging from 8 cm up to 18 cm, with an
buoyancy effect,
increment of promoting an increased
2 cm. No significant thermal upwards air convection
performance improvement andwas consequent
found for ahigher
thicknessheat
of flow
through the upper vent to the interior of the module.
the air cavity higher than 14 cm. Thus, they suggested a thickness equal to 14 cm.

Figure 13.13.Influence
Figure Influenceof
of different aircavity
different air cavitythicknesses.
thicknesses.

3.2.2. Air Vents Dimensions

The second parameter analyzed was the dimension of the interior vents present on the storage
wall to allow vertical air convection and airflow to/from the LSF module. The reference model had
an upper vent with dimensions of 50 × 10 cm and a lower vent with 50 × 5 cm. Two additional
scenarios were evaluated by modeling increased vents dimensions: 50 × 13 cm (upper) and 50 × 8 cm
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 18 of 25

Hong et al. [56] performed a three-dimensional CFD thermal simulation of a Trombe wall with
Venetian blind structure located in Hefei (China), assuming adiabatic surfaces for the air vents and
internal wall. They compared several air cavity thicknesses, ranging from 8 cm up to 18 cm, with an
increment of 2 cm. No significant thermal performance improvement was found for a thickness of the
air cavity higher than 14 cm. Thus, they suggested a thickness equal to 14 cm.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 18 of 25
3.2.2. Air Vents Dimensions
The second
Figure parameter
14 displays the analyzed
obtained was the dimension
results, of the indoor
where a slightly interiorair
vents present onincrease
temperature the storage
was
wall to allow
visible with an vertical air convection
increase and airflow
in the dimensions to/from
of the the LSF
air vents (+0.4 °C forThe
module. reference
scenario 3 andmodel °C for
+0.5had an
upper
scenariovent
4).with dimensions
As expected, thisof 50 × 10
indoor cm and a lower
temperature vent
increase with
was 50 × 5during
greater cm. Two the additional
daytime, nearscenarios
noon,
were
whenevaluated
the solar by modeling
radiation wasincreased ventsThis
also higher. dimensions: 50 × 13
better thermal cm (upper) could
performance and 50be× justified
8 cm (lower) in
by the
scenario
increased3,natural
and; 50air × 16 cm (upper)
convection andand 50 × 11
airflow cm (lower)
exchange in scenario
between the TW 4. air cavity and the interior of
Figure 14Moreover,
the module. displays the obtained
it could results, where
be deduced a slightly
that forced indoor air making
air convection, temperature
use ofincrease was
small fans,
visible with an increase in the dimensions of the air vents (+0.4 ◦ C for scenario 3 and +0.5 ◦ C for
might improve, even more, the TW thermal performance.
scenario
Hong 4). et
Asal.expected,
[56] alsothis indoor temperature
evaluated the influenceincrease was greatervent
of the inlet/outlet during the daytime,
dimensions near
in the noon,
Trombe
when the solar
wall (2.00 m high radiation
× 1.00 mwas also thermal
width) higher. This better thermal
performance. performance
They assumed equal could
sizedbeupper
justified
andby the
lower
increased
vents andnatural air convection
fixed their height to 10 andcm.airflow exchange
The vents widthbetween
rangedthe TW 20
from aircmcavity
up and
to 70the
cm,interior of
with an
the module.ofMoreover,
increment 10 cm. They it could
foundbe adeduced that forced
slight decrease air convection,
in the TW thermalmaking use of small
performance for 70fans,
cm might
width
improve,
vents andeven more, the TW
suggested use ofthermal
vents performance.
with the following dimensions: 60 cm width × 10 cm height.

Figure 14. Influence of different

different dimensions
dimensions of
of the
the air
air vents.
vents.

Hong et al. [56] also evaluated the influence of the inlet/outlet vent dimensions in the Trombe wall
(2.00 m high × 1.00 m width) thermal performance. They assumed equal sized upper and lower vents
and
3.2.3.fixed theirWall
Storage height to 10 cm. The vents width ranged from 20 cm up to 70 cm, with an increment
Thickness
of 10 cm. They found a slight decrease in the TW thermal performance for 70 cm width vents and
The third parameter analyzed was the thickness of the water storage wall of the Trombe wall.
suggested the use of vents with the following dimensions: 60 cm width × 10 cm height.
The reference model had a 5 cm water storage wall composed of black painted steel, filled with water.
Two additional
3.2.3. scenarios
Storage Wall Thicknesswith increased storage wall thickness were evaluated: 10 cm for scenario 5
and 15 cm for scenario 6.
The third
Figure 15 parameter
exhibits theanalyzed
obtainedwas the thickness
results, of the water
where a decrease storage
in indoor air wall of the Trombe
temperature wall.
was visible
The reference model had a 5 cm water storage wall composed of black painted steel, filled
in scenarios 5 (−0.7 °C) and 6 (−1.0 °C). This worst TW thermal performance could be justified by the with water.
Two
larger additional
volumes scenarios
of water to with
be increased storage
heated, inside thewall thickness
storage walls,were
by theevaluated:
same solar10 radiation
cm for scenario
and the5
and 15 cm for
consequent scenario
lower 6.
temperatures achieved.
Figure 15 exhibits
Briga-sá et al. [9] the
also obtained
evaluated results, where aof
the influence decrease in indoor
the storage air temperature
wall thickness (15 cmwas visible
up to in
40 cm),
scenarios ◦
5 (−0.7 C) ◦
made of concrete, on and 6 (−1.0and
ventilated C).non-ventilated
This worst TWTrombe
thermalwalls
performance could of
for the climate be Vila
justified
Real,by the
a city
larger
located in the north of Portugal. Making use of a simplified calculation methodology prescribedthe
volumes of water to be heated, inside the storage walls, by the same solar radiation and by
consequent lower temperatures
standard ISO13790:2008, achieved.
they found that the heat gains were reduced when increasing the thickness
for non-ventilated TWs, while for ventilated TWs, the heat gains increased.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 19 of 25
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 19 of 25

Figure
Figure 15. Influence of
15. Influence of different
different storage
storage wall
wall thicknesses.
thicknesses.

3.2.4.Briga-sá
ThermaletStorage
al. [9] also evaluated the influence of the storage wall thickness (15 cm up to 40 cm),
Material
made of concrete, on ventilated and non-ventilated Trombe walls for the climate of Vila Real, a city
Theinfourth
located and of
the north last parameter
Portugal. studied
Making usewas
of athe thermal storage
simplified material
calculation of the Trombe
methodology wall. As
prescribed by
stated before, the reference TW thermal storage material was water. Two additional
standard ISO13790:2008, they found that the heat gains were reduced when increasing the thickness scenarios were
simulated,
for makingTWs,
non-ventilated use of two for
while other materials:
ventilated concrete
TWs, in gains
the heat scenario 7 and basalt stone in scenario 8.
increased.
The thermal properties (thermal conductivity, specific heat, and density) of these three materials are
displayed
3.2.4. in Table
Thermal 4. Regarding
Storage Material the optical properties, all these materials were modeled as being
black painted, i.e., having solar and visible absorptances equal to 0.9.
The fourth and last parameter studied was the thermal storage material of the Trombe wall. As
stated before, the reference TW thermal storage material was water. Two additional scenarios were
Table 4. Thermal conductivity (𝜆), specific heat (𝑐), and density (  ) of thermal storage materials
simulated, making use of two other materials: concrete in scenario 7 and basalt stone in scenario 8.
evaluated [37].
The thermal properties (thermal conductivity, specific heat, and density) of these three materials are
displayed in Table 4. Regarding 𝝀 𝒄 
Material the optical properties, all these materials were modeled as being black
((m∙K)/W)
painted, i.e., having solar and visible absorptances equal to 0.9. (J/(kg∙K)) (kg/m 3)

Water 1 0.630 4190 990

Table 4. Thermal conductivity (λ), specific heat (c), and density (ρ) of thermal storage materials
Concrete 1.130 1000 2000
evaluated [37].
Basalt stone 3.490 840 2880
λ1 c ρ
Material For 40 °C temperature.
((m·K)/W) (J/(kg·K)) (kg/m3 )
1
exhibits the obtained0.630
Figure 16Water results, showing a slight 4190 decrease in the average990 indoor air
temperature inside module 2 for the 1.130
Concrete newly evaluated thermal 1000storage materials: 2000−0.4 °C for concrete
(scenario 7) Basalt stone°C for basalt stone
and −0.8 3.490 (scenario 8). Concrete 840 storage material2880 exhibited a higher
temperature increase rate but also the higher temperature
1 For 40 ◦ C temperature.decrease rate during the cooling afternoon
and night time, perhaps due to the significant lower specific heat (about four times smaller) and
higher thermal conductivity (almost two times greater). The basalt stone temperature curve (scenario
8) exhibited
Figure 16a similar
exhibitstrend
the to the water
obtained temperature
results, showing curve (Ref.),
a slight but withinslightly
decrease lower indoor
the average indoor air
air
temperature inside
temperature (−0.8 °C).
valuesmodule 2 for the newly evaluated thermal storage materials: −0.4 C for concrete ◦
As stated
(scenario 7) andby−0.8
Saadatian et al. [7],
◦ C for basalt stone“Because
(scenario the8).specific
Concrete heatstorage
of water (𝑐) is higher
material thana higher
exhibited that of
other types of building material, such as concrete, bricks, adobe, and stone, water
temperature increase rate but also the higher temperature decrease rate during the cooling afternoon stores more heat
thannight
and the other
time,materials.
perhaps due Similarly, because water
to the significant lowerconvects,
specific heat the(about
transfer of times
four heat tosmaller)
the interior space
and higher
occurs faster than with classic Trombe walls.”. Hu et al. pointed out another
thermal conductivity (almost two times greater). The basalt stone temperature curve (scenario advantage of water as8)
a
thermal storage material: “Because the specific heat of water is higher than
exhibited a similar trend to the water temperature curve (Ref.), but with slightly lower indoor air that of the building
materials, thevalues
temperature water’s surface
(−0.8 ◦ C). temperature does not rise as high as that of the masonry. Therefore,
less heat is reflected back through the glazing.” Nevertheless, Saadatian et al. [7], regarding water
TWs, also stated that: “in harsh colder climates the glass layer should be insulated. Otherwise, the
loss of heat from the warm wall to the outside would be significant.”.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 20 of 25
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 20 of 25

Figure
Figure 16. Influence of
16. Influence of different
different thermal
thermal storage
storage materials.
materials.

As stated by Saadatian et al. [7], “Because the specific heat of water (c) is higher than that of other
4. Conclusions
types of building material, such as concrete, bricks, adobe, and stone, water stores more heat than the
otherInmaterials.
this work,Similarly,
the influence of a passive
because modular water
water convects, Trombe
the transfer ofwall
heat(TW)
to the ininterior
the thermal
space behavior
occurs
and energy
faster efficiency
than with classicof a lightweight
Trombe walls.”. steel
Hu etframe (LSF) compartment
al. pointed was evaluated.
out another advantage of water Two
as areal scale
thermal
experimental identical LSF cubic modules, located in Coimbra (Portugal), exposed
storage material: “Because the specific heat of water is higher than that of the building materials, to natural exterior
weather
the conditions,
water’s were used fordoes
surface temperature in situ
notmeasurements.
rise as high asModule 1 was
that of the used asTherefore,
masonry. a reference, while
less heatthe
is
other one (module 2) was used to measure the influence of the TW, positioned in
reflected back through the glazing.” Nevertheless, Saadatian et al. [7], regarding water TWs, also statedthe south façade, on
their “in
that: thermal
harshbehavior by making
colder climates a direct
the glass layercomparison between Otherwise,
should be insulated. both modules. Additionally,
the loss of heat from these
the
measurements
warm wall to theallowed
outside towould
calibratebeand validate two numerical models (without and with a TW), with
significant.”.
very good accuracy, i.e., having a root mean square error (RMSE) equal to 0.3 °C, for the reference
4. and 0.5 °C for the TW model. These two validated models were used to perform advanced
Conclusions
model,
dynamic thermal
In this work, simulations,
the influencemaking use ofmodular
of a passive DesignBuilder software.
water Trombe wallFinally,
(TW) in these
the validated models
thermal behavior
and energy efficiency of a lightweight steel frame (LSF) compartment was evaluated. Two real scalea
allowed to predict the TW benefits in the heating energy consumption, as well as to perform
parametric study
experimental to evaluate
identical the influence
LSF cubic modules,of four TW-related
located in Coimbraparameters
(Portugal),on its thermal
exposed performance.
to natural exterior
The first conclusion remark was that in this work, it was possible
weather conditions, were used for in situ measurements. Module 1 was used as a reference, to evaluate thewhile
thermal
the
behavior
other one influence
(module 2)ofwas a TWusedby to
inmeasure
situ directthemeasurements
influence of theand TW,also performing
positioned in theadvanced thermal
south façade, on
dynamic simulations. The assessment was performed by quantifying the
their thermal behavior by making a direct comparison between both modules. Additionally, these TW benefits (thermal and
heating energy)
measurements and carrying
allowed out and
to calibrate a thermal
validatebehavior parametric
two numerical study.
models Several
(without and comparisons
with a TW), were with
performed, regarding (1) Sunny and cloudy winter week thermal behavior; ◦ (2) Office
very good accuracy, i.e., having a root mean square error (RMSE) equal to 0.3 C, for the reference model, and residential
space
and 0.5use
◦ Cheating
for the TWenergy; (3) Two
model. Theseheating set-points
two validated (20 °C
models were 18 °C);
andused (4) Thickness
to perform advancedof the TW air
dynamic
cavity; (5) Thickness of the thermal storage wall; (6) Dimensions of the interior
thermal simulations, making use of DesignBuilder software. Finally, these validated models allowed upper/lower vents,
and
to (7) Material
predict the TWofbenefits
the thermal
in the storage
heating wall.
energy consumption, as well as to perform a parametric study
Regarding the obtained results
to evaluate the influence of four TW-related for the TW benefitson
parameters evaluation,
its thermalthe following main conclusions
performance.
couldThe be pointed out:
first conclusion remark was that in this work, it was possible to evaluate the thermal
•
behavior influence
In both sunny ofanda TW by inwinter
cloudy situ direct
weeks,measurements
the measured and also performing
temperature advanced
was higher thermal2
in module
dynamic simulations. The assessment was performed by quantifying the TW benefits
(with a TW passive device). However, the warmer effect of the TW was much more effective (thermal and
heating energy)
during and carrying
the sunny out a thermal
week, increasing behavior
the average parametric
indoor study. Several
air temperature comparisons
significantly, °C
were
i.e., +3.3
performed,
and +4.0 °C relative
regarding (1) Sunny and interior
to the cloudy winter week thermal
of module behavior;
1 (reference) and(2)exterior
Office and residential
environment
spacetemperatures,
use heating energy; (3) Two heating set-points (20 ◦ C and 18 ◦ C); (4) Thickness of the TW air
respectively.
•
cavity; (5) Thickness
During the winterof season,
the thermal
it wasstorage
foundwall;
that a(6)
TW Dimensions of the interior
was significantly upper/lower
more efficient for an vents,
office
and (7) Material of the thermal storage wall.
use schedule (during daytime), instead of a residential use schedule (during nigh-time). The
Regarding the obtained
heating energy resultswas
consumption for reduced
the TW benefits evaluation,
from 14.95 kWh/m2the, forfollowing main
residential conclusions
space, down to
could8.53
be pointed
kWh/m2out: for office space (−43%), for an 18 °C indoor comfort temperature.
•• A smaller
In heating
both sunny andset-point (18 °C weeks,
cloudy winter instead the
of 20 °C) allowed
measured to significantly
temperature reduceinthe
was higher heating
module 2
energy consumption with and without a TW device, more than 40% and 32% reductions,
(with a TW passive device). However, the warmer effect of the TW was much more effective during
respectively.
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 21 of 25

the sunny week, increasing the average indoor air temperature significantly, i.e., +3.3 ◦ C and +4.0 ◦ C
relative to the interior of module 1 (reference) and exterior environment temperatures, respectively.
• During the winter season, it was found that a TW was significantly more efficient for an office use
schedule (during daytime), instead of a residential use schedule (during nigh-time). The heating
energy consumption was reduced from 14.95 kWh/m2 , for residential space, down to 8.53 kWh/m2
for office space (−43%), for an 18 ◦ C indoor comfort temperature.
• A smaller heating set-point (18 ◦ C instead of 20 ◦ C) allowed to significantly reduce the
heating energy consumption with and without a TW device, more than 40% and 32%
reductions, respectively.
• A 27% reduction in heating energy due to TW device for an office 18 ◦ C set-point was found,
and this energy reduction was smaller (−14%) for the heating 20 ◦ C set-point.

For residential use, the TW energy benefits were very reduced (only 5% decrease for 18 ◦ C
set-point), and there was even a heating energy consumption increase (+5%) when the set-point was
20 ◦ C, due to nocturnal heat losses through the TW device.
Regarding the TW device parametric study, the main conclusions could be summarized as follows:

• An increase in the original TW air cavity thickness (10 cm) did not show any thermal performance
improvement, and a decrease in the average indoor air temperature was found (−0.9 ◦ C and
−1.2 ◦ C).
• Increasing the dimensions of the interior upper/lower TW vents (50 × 10 cm / 50 × 5 cm) allowed
to slightly increase their thermal performance (+0.4 ◦ C and +0.5 ◦ C).
• An increase in the original thermal storage wall thickness (5 cm) did not show any thermal
performance improvement, and a decrease in the average indoor air temperature was obtained
(−0.7 ◦ C and −1.0 ◦ C).
• Changing the material of the storage wall (water) reduced the thermal performance of the TW
device, originating a decrease in the average indoor air temperature (−0.4 ◦ C and −0.8 ◦ C).

In short, a TW device could, in fact, significantly improve the thermal behavior of an LSF
compartment and reduce heating energy consumption during winter in a Csb Köppen–Geiger [47]
Mediterranean climate. However, there were many factors that could influence the TW thermal
performance, with adequate design and control to mitigate nocturnal heat losses very important.
Otherwise, their thermal performance and energy efficiency improvement could be very insignificant
and even decreased.
As most of the research studies, this work also had some limitations, including the assessment
of only one climate/location, only one TW orientation (south exposed), only one isolated small
compartment (not an entire building) without any window, only one construction system (LSF), only
the heating mode during the winter season was evaluated (not an entire year), etc. Thus, in real
buildings, thermal behavior and energy performance are much more complex, depending on many
more factors. Nevertheless, the obtained results and conclusions could be very useful to identify the
main benefits and possible drawbacks of a solar passive TW device in an LSF compartment, as well
as to enhance the importance of the indoor set-point temperature and the occupation schedule of
the compartment.

Author Contributions: All the authors participated equally in this work. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research work was supported by ISISE (Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural
Engineering) and funded by FEDER funds through the Competitivity Factors Operational Programme—COMPETE
and by national funds through FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology within the scope of the project
POCI-01-0145-FEDER-032061.
 the indoor set-point temperature and the occupation schedule of the compartment.
Author Contributions: All the authors participated equally in this work. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research work was supported by ISISE (Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural
Engineering)
Energies 2020, 13, and
2744 funded by FEDER funds through the Competitivity Factors Operational Programme—
22 of 25
COMPETE and by national funds through FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology within the scope of the
project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-032061.

Acknowledgments: The Trombe wall prototype was manufactured by CoolHaven company, and the
Acknowledgments:
experimental modules The Trombe wallwith
were built prototype was manufactured
the support by CoolHaven
of the following company,
companies: and the experimental
Urbimagem; Fachaimper;
modules wereForbo
CoolHaven; built flooring
with the systems;
support of the following
Weber companies:
(Saint-Gobain); Urbimagem;
Termolan; Fachaimper;
Bifase; Sociveda; CoolHaven;
Falper, Forbo
and FibroPlac.
flooring systems; Weber (Saint-Gobain); Termolan; Bifase; Sociveda; Falper, and FibroPlac.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acronyms
Acronyms
2D
2D Two-Dimensional
Two-Dimensional
CFD
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
Computational Fluid Dynamics
DEC
DEC Department of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
DEM Department of Mechanical Engineering
DEM Department of Mechanical Engineering
EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
EPS Expanded Polystyrene
ETICS External Thermal Insulation Composite System
EU European Union
FEM Finite Element Method
GPB Gypsum Plasterboard
GPS Global Positioning System
GWTW Glass-Water Trombe Wall
HFM Heat Flow Meter
ISO International Standards Organization
LSF Lightweight Steel Frame
MW Mineral Wool
N North
nZEB nearly Zero-Energy Buildings
OSB Oriented Strand Board
PhD Doctor of Philosophy
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
S South
SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
TC Thermocouple
TTW Traditional Trombe Wall
TW Trombe Wall
W West
WTW Water Trombe Wall
XPS Extruded Polystyrene

References
1. European Union. Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on energy
efficiency. In Official Journal of the European Union; European Parliament: Luxembourg, 2018; pp. 75–91.
2. European Union. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the
energy performance of buildings. In Official Journal of the European Union; European Parliament: Luxembourg,
2010; pp. 13–35.
3. Brandão De Vasconcelos, A.; Pinheiro, M.D.; Manso, A.; Cabaço, A. EPBD cost-optimal methodology:
Application to the thermal rehabilitation of the building envelope of a Portuguese residential reference
building. Energy Build. 2016, 111, 12–25. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 23 of 25

4. Attia, S.; Eleftheriou, P.C.; Xeni, F.; Rodolphe, M.; Ménézo, C.; Kostopoulos, A.; Betsi, M.; Kalaitzoglou, I.;
Pagliano, L.; Cellura, M.; et al. Overview and future challenges of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB)
design in Southern Europe. Energy Build. 2017, 155, 439–458. [CrossRef]
5. D’Agostino, D.; Parker, D. A framework for the cost-optimal design of nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs)
in representative climates across Europe. Energy 2018, 149, 814–829. [CrossRef]
6. Hu, Z.; He, W.; Ji, J.; Zhang, S. A review on the application of Trombe wall system in buildings. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 976–987. [CrossRef]
7. Saadatian, O.; Sopian, K.; Lim, C.H.; Asim, N.; Sulaiman, M.Y. Trombe walls: A review of opportunities and
challenges in research and development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 6340–6351. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, D. Classification, experimental assessment, modeling methods and evaluation metrics of Trombe
walls. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 124, 109772. [CrossRef]
9. Briga-Sá, A.; Martins, A.; Boaventura-Cunha, J.; Lanzinha, J.C.; Paiva, A. Energy performance of Trombe
walls: Adaptation of ISO 13790:2008(E) to the Portuguese reality. Energy Build. 2014, 74, 111–119. [CrossRef]
10. Li, W.; Chen, W. Numerical analysis on the thermal performance of a novel PCM-encapsulated porous heat
storage Trombe-wall system. Sol. Energy 2019, 188, 706–719. [CrossRef]
11. Lin, Y.; Ji, J.; Zhou, F.; Ma, Y.; Luo, K.; Lu, X. Experimental and numerical study on the performance of a
built-middle PV Trombe wall system. Energy Build. 2019, 200, 47–57. [CrossRef]
12. Zhou, L.; Huo, J.; Zhou, T.; Jin, S. Investigation on the thermal performance of a composite Trombe wall
under steady state condition. Energy Build. 2020, 214, 109815. [CrossRef]
13. Hu, Z.; Zhang, S.; Hou, J.; He, W.; Liu, X.; Yu, C.; Zhu, J. An experimental and numerical analysis of a novel
water blind-Trombe wall system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 205, 112380. [CrossRef]
14. Hong, X.; Leung, M.K.H.; He, W. Effective use of venetian blind in Trombe wall for solar space conditioning
control. Appl. Energy 2019, 250, 452–460. [CrossRef]
15. Abbassi, F.; Dimassi, N.; Dehmani, L. Energetic study of a Trombe wall system under different Tunisian
building configurations. Energy Build. 2014, 80, 302–308. [CrossRef]
16. Santos, P.; Simões da Silva, L.; Ungureanu, V. Energy Efficiency of Light-Weight Steel-Framed Buildings, 1st ed.;
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (ECCS), Technical Committee 14—Sustainability &
Eco-Efficiency of Steel Construction: Mem Martins, Portugal, 2012; ISBN 978-92-9147-105-8.
17. Santos, P.; Martins, C.; Simões Da Silva, L. Thermal performance of lightweight steel-framed construction
systems. Metall. Res. Technol. 2014, 111, 329–338. [CrossRef]
18. Murtinho, V.; Ferreira, H.; Antonio, C.; Simoes da Silva, L.; Gervasio, H.; Santos, P. Architectural concept for
multi-storey apartment building with light steel framing. Steel Constr. 2010, 3, 163–168. [CrossRef]
19. Santos, P. Chapter 3—Energy Efficiency of Lightweight Steel-Framed Buildings. In Energy Efficient Buildings;
Eng Hwa, Y., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2017; pp. 35–60.
20. Gervásio, H.; Santos, P.; Martins, R.; Simões da Silva, L. A macro-component approach for the assessment of
building sustainability in early stages of design. Build. Environ. 2014, 72, 256–270. [CrossRef]
21. Gervásio, H.; Santos, P.; Simões da Silva, L.; Lopes, A.M.G. Influence of thermal insulation on the energy
balance for cold-formed buildings. Adv. Steel Constr. 2010, 6, 742–766.
22. Santos, P.; Martins, R.; Gervásio, H.; Silva, L.S. Assessment of building operational energy at early stages of
design—A monthly quasi-steady-state approach. Energy Build. 2014, 79, 58–73. [CrossRef]
23. Martins, C.; Santos, P.; Simoes da Silva, L. Lightweight steel-framed thermal bridges mitigation strategies:
A parametric study. J. Build. Phys. 2016, 39, 342–372. [CrossRef]
24. Roque, E.; Santos, P. The Effectiveness of Thermal Insulation in Lightweight Steel-Framed Walls with Respect
to Its Position. Buildings 2017, 7, 13. [CrossRef]
25. Soares, N.; Gaspar, A.R.; Santos, P.; Costa, J.J. Multi-dimensional optimization of the incorporation of
PCM-drywalls in lightweight steel-framed residential buildings in different climates. Energy Build. 2014, 70,
411–421. [CrossRef]
26. Özdenefe, M.; Atikol, U.; Rezaei, M. Trombe wall size-determination based on economic and thermal comfort
viability. Sol. Energy 2018, 174, 359–372. [CrossRef]
27. Duan, S.; Jing, C.; Zhao, Z. Energy and exergy analysis of different Trombe walls. Energy Build. 2016, 126,
517–523. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 24 of 25

28. Soares, N.; Santos, P.; Gervásio, H.; Costa, J.J.; Simões da Silva, L. Energy efficiency and thermal performance
of lightweight steel-framed (LSF) construction: A. review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 194–209.
[CrossRef]
29. LSF System B(A)a, by ‘Balthazar Aroso Arquitectos, Lda’, Manufactured by Urbimagem—Sistemas de
Arquitectura e Construção, Lda, 2019. Available online: www.urbimagem.com/en/empresa/ (accessed on
10 March 2019).
30. Norbord. Technical Brochure—OSB3 Zero. 2019. Available online: www.norbord.co.uk/our-products/
sterlingosb-zero/sterlingosb-zero-osb3/ (accessed on 10 March 2020).
31. Termolan. Technical Brochure—PA30 Mineral Wool, 2019. 2019. Available online: http://termolan.pt/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/pa30-pt.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
32. Weber(Saint-Gobain). Technical Brochure—EPS100, Weber.Therm Classic, 2019. Available online: www.pt.
weber/files/pt/2019-04/FichaTecnica_sistema_webertherm_classic.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
33. Danopren. Technical Brochure—XPS TL-P 50, 2019. Available online: https://portal.danosa.com/danosa/
CMSServlet?node=483103&lng=4&site=3 (accessed on 10 March 2020).
34. TEC. Technical Brochure—XPS RoofTEC SL/FloorTEC 300, 2019. Available online: www.sotecnisol.
pt/resources/777f40511b178afb7f9e2c1a7a9e55af/fichas_tecnicas/dop_rooftec.floortec_50_2016_por.pdf
(accessed on 10 March 2020).
35. Danopol. Technical Brochure—Water-Proofing PVC Membrane: HSF 1.5 Light Grey, 2019. Available online:
https://portal.danosa.com/danosa/CMSServlet?node=210302&lng=4&site=3 (accessed on 10 March 2020).
36. Rosa, N.C.F. Study of structural and thermal performance of lightweight steel framing (LSF) modular
construction. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, 2018.
37. DesignBuilder. DesignBuilder Software Version 5.5.0.012 and Materials Database, 2018. Available online:
https://designbuilder.co.uk/ (accessed on 14 February 2019).
38. Santos, C.; Matias, L. ITE50—Coeficientes de Transmissão Térmica de Elementos da Envolvente dos Edifícios
(in Portuguese); LNEC—Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil: Lisboa, Portugal, 2006.
39. Sarlon. Technical Brochure—Vinyl Acoustic Flooring: Sarlon Traffic 19dB, 2019. Available online: www.
forbo.com/flooring/en-aa/products/acoustic-flooring/sarlon-trafic-19-db/blbfkp (accessed on 10 March 2020).
40. Vicaima. Technical Brochure—Wooden Door: Portaro-SBD-EI30. 2019. Available online: www.vicaima.com/
files/files/Vicaima-FT-Portaro-SBD-EI30.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2020).
41. ISO 6946. Building Components and Building Elements—Thermal Resistance and Thermal Transmittance—Calculation
Methods; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
42. THERM. Software Version 7.6.1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, United States Department of
Energy, 2017. Available online: https://windows.lbl.gov/software/therm (accessed on 14 February 2019).
43. DEM Weather Station. [email protected] Weather Station Located in the Dep. of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Coimbra, Portugal, 2020. Available online: www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/
ICOIMBRA14 (accessed on 15 February 2020).
44. CoolHaven. CoolHaven—Modular Constructions, 2020. Available online: www.cool-haven.com (accessed on
15 February 2020).
45. Davis Instruments. Wireless Vantage Pro2 Plus Automatic Weather Station, Including UV and Solar Radiation
Sensors, from Davis Instruments, 2019. Available online: www.davisinstruments.com/product/wireless-
vantage-pro2-plus-including-uv-solar-radiation-sensors/ (accessed on 15 February 2019).
46. Delta-T Devices. Sunshine Sensor BF5 (pyranometer), from Delta-T Devices, 2019. Available online:
www.delta-t.co.uk/product/bf5/ (accessed on 15 February 2019).
47. Kottek, M.; Grieser, J.; Beck, C.; Rudolf, B.; Rubel, F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification
updated. Meteorol. Zeitschrift 2006, 15, 259–263. [CrossRef]
48. Tinytag. Tinytag Ultra 2—TGU-4500, TGU-4500—Indoor Temperature and Relative Humidity Data Logger
with Built-in Sensors, 2019. Available online: https://www.geminidataloggers.com/data-loggers/tinytag-
ultra-2/tgu-4500 (accessed on 15 February 2019).
49. Santos, P.; Gonçalves, M.; Martins, C.; Soares, N.; Costa, J.J. Thermal Transmittance of Lightweight Steel
Framed Walls: Experimental Versus Numerical and Analytical Approaches. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100776.
[CrossRef]
50. Santos, P.; Lemes, G.; Mateus, D. Analytical Methods to Estimate the Thermal Transmittance of LSF Walls:
Calculation Procedures Review and Accuracy Comparison. Energies 2020, 13, 840. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 2744 25 of 25

51. Santos, P.; Lemes, G.; Mateus, D. Thermal Transmittance of Internal Partition and External Facade LSF Walls:
A Parametric Study. Energies 2019, 12, 2671. [CrossRef]
52. Tyre4BuildIns. Research Project Tyre4BuildIns—‘Recycled Tyre Rubber Resin-Bonded for Building Insulation
Systems towards Energy Efficiency’, Funded by FEDER European and FCT National Funds. Reference:
POCI-01-0145-FEDER-032061. University of Coimbra, Portugal, 2020. Available online: www.tyre4buildins.
dec.uc.pt (accessed on 15 January 2020).
53. PRT_Coimbra.085490_IWEC. International Weather for Energy Calculation (IWEC), Weather Data for Coimbra
(WMO Station 085490), EnergyPlus Weather Database, 2009. Available online: https://energyplus.net/weather-
location/europe_wmo_region_6/PRT//PRT_Coimbra.085490_IWEC (accessed on 15 February 2019).
54. REH. Portuguese Regulation for Energy Performance of Residential Buildings (in Portuguese), Approved by Decree-Law
n. 118/2013 of 20 August; N. 159; Diário da República – I série (in Portuguese): Lisboa, Portugal, 2013;
pp. 4988–5005.
55. Jaber, S.; Ajib, S. Optimum design of Trombe wall system in mediterranean region. Sol. Energy 2011, 85,
1891–1898. [CrossRef]
56. Hong, X.; He, W.; Hu, Z.; Wang, C.; Ji, J. Three-dimensional simulation on the thermal performance of a
novel Trombe wall with venetian blind structure. Energy Build. 2015, 89, 32–38. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).