Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

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

The role of the occupant behavior in affecting the feasibility of energy

refurbishment of residential buildings: Typical effective retrofits
compromised by typical wrong habits
Fabrizio Ascione a,⇑, Nicola Bianco a, Rosa Francesca De Masi b, Margherita Mastellone a,
Gerardo Maria Mauro b, Giuseppe Peter Vanoli c
a
Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Department of Industrial Engineering, Piazzale Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy
b
Università degli Studi del Sannio, Department of Engineering, Piazza Roma 21, 82100 Benevento, Italy
c
Università degli Studi del Molise, Department of Medicine and Health Sciences Vincenzo Tiberio, Via Gazzani 47, 86100 Campobasso, Italy

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

Article history: The necessity to predict building energy performance assumes a predominant role today. Present regu-
Received 26 February 2020 lations in energy matter introduce pressing objectives for the energy requalification of buildings.
Revised 7 May 2020 Within spring 2020, EU Member States must adopt the European Directive 2018/844, which focuses
Accepted 5 June 2020
the attention on present buildings. It establishes new obligations to retrofit the existing building stock.
Available online 9 June 2020
Solutions to improve building energy performance and to achieve economic, energy, and environmental
benefits become mandatory, requiring robust and reliable procedures for energy modeling and simula-
Keywords:
tion. The present study will show the importance of considering a non-standard occupant profile in
Occupant behavior
Building energy demands
energy performance simulations. The investigated edifice is a typical residential building in Naples
BES – building energy simulation (southern part of Italy, Mediterranean climate), built during the sixties and seventies. For the energy ret-
Validated building models rofit of the building, the most common refurbishment interventions in the Neapolitan building stock will
Energy retrofit be assessed for energy, economic and emissions savings, and thus new thermal insulation and replace-
Energy efficiency measures ment of windows. Firstly, the results will be analyzed by taking into account a standard-use profile of
Feasibility study the occupants. Secondly, the possible wrong behaviors of users will be examined, to compare an
Primary energy savings ‘‘energy-intensive” model with the standard retrofitted model. The impact on building energy demand
Occupancy patterns
of the following actions will be analyzed: more energy-intensive use of the electric and lighting systems,
the opening of the windows during the activation hours of the heating/cooling systems, the modification
of the thermostat setpoint, the deactivation of the shading systems. The study shows a considerable
increase in energy demand, following the wrong behavior of the occupants, which affects the economic
convenience of the refurbishment investment. The energy retrofit is economically and energetically fea-
sible for a standard building occupation, but sometimes wrong habits can reduce the convenience, if
energy-intensive behaviors occur. This work will show that, when the numerical building model of a
common building refurbishment is realized and when the cost-benefits analysis is performed, the uncer-
tainty in occupant behavior cannot be neglected.
Ó 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environmental criticalities caused by anthropogenic facts and the

In the last decades, pressing challenges of mandatory reduc-
tions of greenhouse gas emissions and irrational energy uses are
becoming a central issue, worldwide. In order to face the growing
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fabrizio.ascione@unina.it (F. Ascione), nicola.bianco@unina.it
(N. Bianco), rfdemasi@unisannio.it (R.F. De Masi), margherita.mastellone@unina.it
(M. Mastellone), germauro@unisannio.it (G.M. Mauro), giuseppe.vanoli@unimol.it
(G.P. Vanoli).
misuse of resources, the European Union has established some tar-
gets for the period 2021 to 2030, compared to 1990 [1]:
- the reduction of at least 40% of greenhouse gas emissions;
- the increment of at least 32% in the use of renewable energy
sources;
- the improvement of at least 32.5% of energy efficiency.
At the EU scale, the building sector plays a significant role,
being responsible for 40% of CO2 emissions. In addition, present

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110217
0378-7788/Ó 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
regulations in energy-matter make mandatory interventions on
the building stock. The European Commission and Parliament have
established obligations to be pursued in the building field, starting
from the Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD)
2002/91/EU [2]. This EU Directive had a historical impact, by intro-
ducing the first mandatory energy efficiency measures for existing
buildings, besides new prescriptions and guidelines for new con-
structions. Other prescriptions have been indicated by the EPBD
Recast 2010/31/EU [3], a revision of the EPBD Directive, that
assigned an exemplary role to public buildings. With reference to
the energy uses, it established for all new buildings, built from
December 31, 2020, the obligation to be nearly ZEB, and the date
is anticipated of two years for public buildings (i.e., December
31, 2018). The EPBD Recast was transposed into the Italian legisla-
tive body starting from the Decree-Law 63/2013 [4], inferring new
measures and prescriptions for building energy performance and
aimed at increasing the use of energy from renewable sources.
The EPBD Recast 2010/31/EU was updated by the EU Directive
2018/844 [5] of the European Parliament and of the Council of
30 May 2018, but it has not been implemented by national legisla-
tion yet.
In this legislative frame and by considering the huge environ-
mental issues related to the building sector, it becomes mandatory
to make progress in research to reduce the energy demand of
buildings. The causes of the excessive building energy demand
are manifold, as the obsolescence of heating and cooling systems,
the high thermal transmittance of both opaque and transparent
building envelope, old lighting systems, wrong behaviors of the
occupants. The latter aspect affects the energy demand of the
building and could cause a big gap between the real energy
demand and the predicted one [6]. Typically, occupants could act
on the indoor thermostat, varying the heating and cooling set-
points, they can open the windows during the hours of activation
of the heating and cooling systems, may use in a wrong way the
shading systems or make a reckless management of electric equip-
ment and lighting systems. These behaviors have a considerable
impact on building energy performance, particularly in residential
buildings. About that, Sarto et al. [7] monitored the energy demand
of a high-performance residential building in Milan (Italy) and
showed the difference between the predicted and monitored data
in the various flats. Each apartment, in the model, with a heating
setpoint of 20 °C, with the same energy systems and thermal
envelope, has a similar energy demand; conversely, in the reality,
flats of the same vertical columns, the same plants and orientation,
have higher – and largely different – energy demands. This discrep-
ancy is caused by different occupant behaviors. In the same way, in
Denmark, a research study [8] demonstrated the difference in the
energy demand of some apartments with the same orientation,
constructive characteristics, materials, building envelope, and
heating systems.
Many studies usually neglect for simplicity, or for necessity of
conventional boundary conditions, the users’ behaviors. Con-
versely, the present study aims to evaluate the influence of the
possible actions of the occupants on building energy savings.
In this paper, starting from a real, reliable, residential building
located in Naples (South Italy, Mediterranean climate), common
energy efficiency measures from the point of view of costs, energy
savings, and emissions were modeled and quantified. Firstly, a
common predefined profile of users’ behavior is modeled and,
later, we have numerically evaluated the possible wrong behaviors
of the occupants. It is shown that the need to sensitize the occu-
pants become relevant and mandatory, for both energy and envi-
ronmental reasons, because the energy efficiency measures,
envisaged as advantageous from the point of view of costs, could
later prove to be economically useless if wrong habits occur.
In the next sections, available previous studies will be analyzed
to underline the innovative contribution of the present investiga-
tion, then the investigated typological building and the methodol-
ogy will be presented, and the results will be discussed to evaluate
the impact of the occupant behaviors on costs, emissions, and
energy demand of the building.
2. The state of art and the motivations of the study
The occupant behavior could have a considerable impact on
building energy demand and on indoor thermal comfort condi-
tions. This depends on the heterogeneous ways of using building
and energy systems and on the occupants’ capability of adapting
to the indoor environment. The two main user’s actions, which
affect the building energy demand, are the adaptive and non-
adaptive ones [10]. In the first case, the occupants try to adapt
themselves to the indoor environment, diversifying clothing, or
moving through the apartment. In addition, they engage actions
to adapt the surrounding environment to their preferences, such
as opening or closing windows, modifying the thermostat setpoint,
or adjusting shadings. The non-adaptive actions concern the addi-
tion of electric equipment which affects the electric load of the
building. The motivations of these behaviors are both physical
and social. About that, Ajzen & Madden [11] conceptualized the
‘‘Theory of planned behavior” and considered the individual agency
(e.g., perception of comfort, relationship with the environment,
personal abilities. . .) as the main cause of the individual behavior.
Strengers and Maller [12] applied a social practice theory to ana-
lyze the cooling practices of Australian householders and under-
lined how the ability to respond to heat depends on the practical
knowledge, the understandings about air-conditioners, and the
available housing infrastructures. These theories were the base to
develop a behavior model for residential buildings in the study of
Samaratunga et al. [13]. They identified a discrepancy between
the predicted energy performance and the measured data and rec-
ognized the prevailing causes in consumer behavior and in the
building construction. A detailed analysis was performed, and the
collected data were used as a base to develop a behavior model
to support sustainability policies, the BASIX tool, and governmen-
tal education programs.
Moreover, many other authors considered fundamental the
modeling of the user’s behavior to evaluate the building energy
demand for heating and cooling. Gucyeter [14] analyzed the
impact of three different behavioral patterns in an office building.
A typical office building was modeled, with integrated occupancy
patterns, by distinguishing the Inactive Occupant (IO), the Slightly
Active Occupant (SAO), and the Active Occupant (AO) models. Each
pattern had various occupancy schedules and different use of the
lighting system and of the thermostat (i.e., changing heating and
cooling setpoints). The results demonstrated the necessity of a
proper interaction of the occupants with the building systems.
Indeed, switching on the lighting system without adjusting it
according to the external lighting conditions, determines excessive
gains, i.e. 38.5% and 44.7%, during the heating and cooling seasons,
respectively, compared to active occupant models. In addition, the
constant presence of people in the office, and thus the increment of
heat due to the metabolic activity, causes the growth of internal
gains in both heating and cooling periods.
Coherently, the study of Azar and Menassa [15] investigated the
effects of the extreme energy use by users in a commercial build-
ing. They underlined the importance of encouraging the occupants
to energy conservation practices, also by the increase of the
extremists’ acceptance of new behaviors of energy uses. In [16],
the same authors quantified the operation-related energy saving
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
potential for a commercial building. The human actions hugely
affect the energy demands and thus the possibility of energy con-
servation for the commercial building stocks, and thus energy poli-
cies must support operation-focused solutions.
Pisello and Asdrubali [17] demonstrated that human-based
energy retrofit can be a cost-effective alternative to classic retrofit
solutions. The authors integrated numerical and experimental
studies about occupant practices of energy saving, in a residential
village in Italy, and developed a model for the dynamic simulation
of building energy performance. Two different sets of simulations
were developed: the first was about the reduction in the use of
electricity, the second, diversely, regarded the energy savings
obtained by adjusting temperature setpoints. The results showed,
in the cases of reduction in the electricity use of 0.5 h/day,
1 h/day, and 1.5 h/day, a primary energy saving of 4.4%, 8.9%,
and 13.3%, respectively. The related cost savings, by considering a
constant electricity price of 0.25 €/kWhe, were of 10.8 €/year, 21.6
€/year and 32.4 €/year, for each occupant. For what concerns the
second group of simulations, the heating setpoint, progressively
lowered from 21 °C to 19 °C during the heating season, implied
energy savings around 24%. During the cooling season, the maxi-
mum energy saving corresponded to 4% at the scale of the village;
in this study, the cooling setpoints were set at 25 °C, 26 °C and
27 °C, increasing progressively. In conclusion, the study showed
how occupant actions could replace energy retrofit interventions,
in terms of energy and costs.
The novel investigation here proposed, compared to the cited
studies, shows an original assessment of the impact of users’
behavior on a typical residential building from the cost, emission,
and energy points of view. More in-depth, the convenience of a
possible energy requalification investment is evaluated depending
on the occupants’ habits. The analysis is carried out with reference
to a refurbished building with energy efficiency measures incen-
tivized by the consolidated tax relief in Italy, and then reliable
changes of behavior were applied in the use of the lighting, heating
and cooling systems, in the schedules of windows’ opening and in
the use of shadings, according to common habits of occupants.
This approach allowed to evaluate the impact of some occupant
behaviors on the economic suitability of an energy requalification
investment. In this regard, the payback period of the investment
is assessed for a typical energy retrofit intervention (ETICS thermal
insulation of walls and flat roof, replacement of window frames
with thermal break windows and low-emissive glass) considering
the standard use profiles of the building. This payback period is
compared with the one of the same refurbished building but con-
sidering a more energy-intensive and incorrect occupant behavior.
The study will demonstrate how a convenient investment in
energy and economic terms could turn into a less convenient sce-
nario, due to the wrong actions of the users. The effectiveness of
energy efficiency measures and the foreseen payback period can
be negatively undermined by the wrong habits of the occupants.
This is the main and meaningful novelty, having quantified a waste
of feasible energy, environmental, and economic potential.
Demonstrating the low convenience of investment in energy
requalification – if the use of the occupants is unconscious and
incorrect – could be the right way to raise awareness among inves-
tors, owners, habitants, and all involved stakeholders. At the same
time, assessing the impact of the occupant behavior on building
energy performance could give a contribution to current policies,
to make them more aware and restrictive.
Consistently, for a complete study of the reference building, the
energy class of the base building and of the refurbished one were
assessed, taking into account the current regulations in force con-
cerning building energy certification/labeling. The differences in
the energy estimation between the energy certification and the
dynamic simulation were evaluated too.
3
3. The building description
The investigated building is a typical residential edifice located
in Naples (Tyrrhenian coastline, Italic Climate C [4]). It is a typical
construction of the sixties and seventies and it is characterized by a
reinforced concrete structural frame and uninsulated walls. It is
located in an urban context, densely built as typical of an expan-
sion neighborhood. The longest facades are oriented to northeast
and southwest respectively. The maximum gross length of the
building is 62.0 m and the maximum gross width is 10.5 m. The
total building area is 4985 m2 and the net-conditioned area is
3877 m2. The overall height aboveground of the building is
25.6 m and the inter-floor height is 3.2 m.
The building has a regular shape, with an approximately rectan-
gular plan, and is made up of 8 floors (Fig. 1), plus a basement,
partly underground (used as a garage, and unheated). Floors above
the ground are used for apartments, 48 in total. Each flat has a dif-
ferent area but generally can accommodate from 2 to 6 people. The
access to the flats, six per floor, is guaranteed by two stairwells,
facing the southeast.
The building opaque envelope has the following thermophysical
characteristics:

The external walls have thickness of 0.37 m and thermal trans-
mittance of 1.01 W/m2K. Starting from the outside, walls have
the following layers: cement-based plaster 0.03 m, aerated
bricks 0.12 m, air gap 0.12 m, lapillus block 0.08 m, lime plaster
0.02 m.

The slab on the ground has thickness of 0.35 m and thermal
transmittance of 1.35 W/m2K (tiles 0.015 m, lightweight con-
crete above reinforced concrete at 2% of iron, 0.08 m in total,
reinforced concrete and hollow blocks mixed slab 0.20 m, bitu-
minous waterproofing membrane 0.005 m).

The inter-floors slab has the same layers of the ground floor,
unlike the last one that is a lime plaster layer of 0.015 m. The
total thickness is 0.31 m and the thermal transmittance is
1.17 W/m2K.

The flat roof has a thickness of 0.44 m and thermal transmit-
tance of 1.01 W/m2K (bituminous waterproofing membrane
0.01 m, lightweight concrete 0.15 m, 2% reinforced concrete
0.06 m, reinforced concrete and hollow tiles mixed slab 0.2 m,
lime plaster 0.02 m).
The values of thermal transmittance, with reference to all build-
ing components, were analytically calculated, according to the UNI
EN ISO 6946 [18], after careful direct inspection and modeling. The
considered data are coherent with the information provided by the
following relevant Italian standards:

UNI TS 11300-1/2008 (abacus A3) [19] (the Official Italian
Application of the ISO EN 13790 [20]);

the CTI recommendation R03/3 of Italian Thermo-technical
Committee (abacus A5) [21].
According to these standards, after 1950, in ‘‘Campania” (i.e.,
the Region of which Napoli is the main city), the most common
building wall typology is the one represented in Fig. 2a. It is quite
clear that this component is quite similar to the wall of the typo-
logical building here considered, whose inspection and models
are shown in the Fig. 2b and 2c, respectively. In detail, the abacus
A.3. of the relevant standard UNI TS 11300-1/2008 [19] proposes a
thermal transmittance of this kind of building envelope between
0.98 W/m2K and 1.11 W/m2K, depending on the thicknesses.
Thus, the value here calculated, i.e. 1.01 W/m2K, is perfectly
within the range.
4 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217

Fig. 1. Buildings similar to the investigated one, in the same city (A), rendered view of the building model (B).

Fig. 2. Direct Inspection of the wall (A), modeling (B), comparison with information provided by relevant standard (C).

The same accurate modeling was provided for all building com-
ponents, opaque (Fig. 3) and transparent (Fig. 4). However, despite
this accuracy, the authors would underline that all boundary con-
ditions were defined in order to model not a specific building but a
building typology, representative of a large part of the building
stock of Italy.
Concerning the microclimatic control, it is guaranteed by a cen-
tralized gas boiler coupled to in-room hot water radiators, during
the heating period, and by DX split systems during the cooling
period.
The gas boiler dedicated to the building heating has a nominal
thermal capacity of 463 kW. The distribution system (hot water
loop) has vertical uninsulated main pipes with horizontal
branches, and the heat emission terminals are hot water radiators.
The mean global efficiency of the heating systems is 0.69. The heat-
ing setpoint, as established by the Italian law (D.P.R. 74/2013 [22]),
is 20 °C, and the heating setback is 16 °C. According to Italian reg-
ulation, the heating period is of 137 days, from November 15 to
March 31, with an activation time of the system of ten hours per
day.
The cooling need is satisfied by direct expansion split systems,
autonomous in every single apartment, and – since there is no a
centralized management of cooling – an activation time of twelve
hours per day (between 11:00 am to 11:00 pm) was considered,

Fig. 3. Horizontal components of the opaque building envelope: roof structure (A), slab on the ground (B), inter-floor slab (C).
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217 5

Fig. 4. Transparent opaque envelope of the original building (A) and of the refurbished flat (B).

from May 16 to September 15, as a consequence of the occupant
behavior. The DX system has an EER (Energy Efficiency Ratio) of
3 Wht/Whe, and the fan total efficiency is 0.7.
Naples has a typical Mediterranean climate, ‘‘Csa” according to
the classification of Koeppen-Geiger, with mild winter and warm
summers. The minimum temperature is generally recorded in Jan-
uary, around 0 °C, with maximum values in July and August, with
daily peaks generally not higher than 35 °C. November is the
month with huger rainfalls, while the driest period is July. A
monthly summary of the main weather parameters is proposed
in Fig. 5.
4. Investigation development
4.1. Building numerical model and base modeling validation
The model was built starting from similar real buildings and by
generalizing some boundary conditions. Indeed, it should be spec-
ified that the model is similar to an existing building, used as a ref-
erence, and some parameters were generalized in order to make
the edifice as representative as possible of the building stock con-
structed in the South Italy coastline (Tyrrhenian), during the sixties
and seventies. The building model for the dynamic energy simula-
tions was realized through the software DesignBuilder V6 [23], a
graphical interface of EnergyPlus [24], a BPS (Building Performance
Simulation) software suitable to test and validate building energy
performance. After defining the 3D model (Fig. 1), and the main
functions of the building (residential areas and garage), the ther-
mophysical properties of the building envelope were specified,
and, in addition, the lighting system, the equipment, the occu-
pancy, and the technical features of the heating and cooling sys-
tems were defined. For what concerns the transparent envelope,
in the numerical modeling, double glass windows with thermal
transmittance Ug = 3.2 W/m2K were considered, with wooden
frames (specific heat around 2390 J/kg K), in only one apartment
per floor. The other flats have single glazed systems with thermal
transmittance Ug = 5.9 W/m2K, and wooden frames. Each window
is equipped with shading systems, with horizontal slats, located
externally and modeled as solar controlled in the numerical model.
In order to model the manual activation of the shadings by the
occupants, solar control was implemented into the software, with
a threshold of activation of 150 W/m2. According to this modeling,
already proposed in [25], the software activates the screen when a
potentially sensible solar radiation on glass occurs. Furthermore,

Fig. 5. Main monthly climate parameters of Naples Italy.

6 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217

depending on the window typology (that affects the airtightness),
different values of the air change per hour (ACH) were considered,
specifically 0.3 h1 for apartments with double glazed systems and
0.7 h1 for apartments with single glass systems. This enables to
take into account the fact that there is an involuntary infiltration
of about 0.1 h1 and 0.5 h1 for new and old systems, respectively.
The remaining 0.2 h1, equal in both cases, is due to the voluntary
and random windows’ openings. This is common for residential
buildings. All boundary conditions and other specifications are
summarized and reported in Table 1.
As mentioned, internal gains and the heating and cooling sys-
tems were accurately planned and scheduled, adopting conven-
tional profiles for residential buildings. The lighting system was
defined by a daylight illuminance control and choosing a typical
schedule for residential uses. In particular, the maximum use is
scheduled during the evening, a minor use during the earlier morn-
ing and late afternoon, while a null use during the remaining hours
of day and night. Lighting system is modeled as activated when the
daylight is not sufficient to allow the visual task: this simulates a
reliable behavior of people in managing the artificial lights. For
what concerns the equipment, a more intense use during the cen-
tral hours of the day and in the evening was scheduled, with peaks
during the use of kitchens, as typical for dwellings. For what con-
cerns the occupancy, a greater crowding is scheduled from the ear-
lier evening to the earlier morning, while a minor presence occurs
during the diurnal hours.
The annual primary energy demand of the building, including
the energy demand for heating, cooling, equipment and lighting,
is equal to 604,978 kWhp/year, and thus 156 kWhp /m2year.
To convert the electric energy demand of the building into
primary energy demand, it was considered a coefficient of
conversion (0.46 Whe/Whp) equal to the average efficiency of the

Table 1
Input parameters, operational and performance data, for the definition of the building numerical model.

BUILDING GEOMETRY
Total Building Area [m2] 4985 Gross area of single floor 597
[m2]
Net Conditioned Building Area [m ]2
3877 Total building volume 160 023
[m3]
Gross Roof Area [m2] 600 Conditioned total volume 12,406
[m3]
ENVELOPE – WINDOW TO WALL RATIO
Total North East South West
Gross Wall Area [m2] 4514 509 1756 480 1769
Above Ground Wall Area [m2] 3920 438 1527 419 1537
Window Opening Area [m2] 743 40 323 51 330
Gross Window-Wall Ratio [%] 16 8 18 11 19
INTERNAL GAINS
Lighting system [W/m2 – 100 lux] 2 Occupancy [person/m2] 0.04
Maximum use of artificial lighting is scheduled during the evening hours, a reduced use The maximum occupancy in the building
during the earlier morning and late afternoon, null in the remaining hours of the day is scheduled from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am.
and night During the diurnal daily hours, the
building occupancy, is reduced by 50%
Light control according to the daylight illuminance (dimming) Electric equipment 4
[W/m2]
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Weather data NAPLES – ITA IWEC Data WMO#=162890
Number of conditioned zones 48 Number of unconditioned 20
zones
Heating setpoint [°C] 20 Cooling setpoint [°C] 26
Ten hours of activation of the heating system during the winter Twelve hours of activation of the cooling
system during the summer
Infiltration
a) not refurbished apartments 0.7 h1 b) refurbished apartments 0.3 h1
Natural Ventilation
Natural ventilation (time-dependent, till a maximum of 4 h1) is activated when both a) the zone air temperature is higher than
summer conditions occur: 27 °C
b) the outdoor temperature is at least 2 °C
lower than indoor one
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Solution Algorithm Conduction Transfer
Function
Surface Convection Algorithm – inside TARP Surface Convection DOE – 2
Algorithm – outside
HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS
Heating systems efficiency (gas boiler and hot water radiators) [–] 0.69 Nominal capacity 463 kWt
Packaged Terminal air Conditioner EER [Wht/Whe] 3.0 Total Cooling capacity 180 kWt
(assumed)
CONVERSION FACTORS, COSTS AND EMISSIONS
Primary Energy Factor of Natural Gas 1.10 Primary Energy Factor of 2.17
Electricity
Natural Gas Cost [€/kWhg] 0.09 Electricity Cost [€/kWhe] 0.237
Natural Gas LCA emission factor [kg CO2-eq/kWhg] 0.24 Electricity LCA emission 0.424
factor [kg CO2-eq/kWhe]

* Please, note that: Wht is thermal energy, Whe is electricity, Whg is natural gas demand, Whp is primary energy. The same subscripts (t, e, g, p) are used for power.
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
thermo-electric Italian system. For what concerns the natural gas, a
primary energy factor (PEF) equal to 1.1 was considered, as com-
mon [26].
The overall primary energy demand – by taking into account
primary energy factors of 1.1 and 2.17 for natural gas and electric-
ity, respectively – is due to:
- Energy demand for the space heating: 255,789 kWhp /year (?
66.0 kWhp /m2year), due to a gas demand of 232,535 kWh.
- Energy demand for auxiliaries (pumps and parasitic loads for
heating): 653 kWhp /year (?0.17 kWhp /m2year), due to an
electricity demand of 300 kWh.
- Energy demand for the space cooling, including fans: 50,122
kWhp /year (?12.9 kWhp /m2year), due to an electricity
demand of 23,056 kWh.
- Energy demand for artificial lighting: 134,219 kWhp /year (?
34.6 kWhp /m2year), due to an electricity demand of 61,741
kWh.
- Energy demand for plugs and equipment: 164,196 kWhp /year
(?42.3 kWhp /m2year), due to an electricity demand of
75,530 kWh.
As said, the overall energy demand of the building is 604,978
kWhp (156 kWh/m2) and, precisely, 349,189 kWhp from electricity
and 255,789 kWhp from natural gas. By taking into account the LCA
emission factors of 0.24 kg CO2-eq/kWhg for the natural gas, and
0.424 kg CO2-eq/kWhe for the electricity [27], the environmental
impact of the building is 123,914 kg CO2-eq/year.
Fig. 6 shows the monthly distribution of the total primary
energy demand and of the heating and cooling primary energy
demand.
The validation of energy results provided by the building
numerical model, and thus the evaluation of the reliability of sim-
ulated heating, cooling, and total energy demands, was performed
by taking into account the demand of the real reference building.
The validation, and thus the ‘‘ex-post” evaluation of the accuracy
of the numerical model in representing reliable energy demands
of the real building, was performed by comparing results of the
dynamic simulations with reliable available data.
The real original building, indeed, has a centralized gas demand
for the centralized heating system, with additional private billings
of natural gas, for some single flats equipped with additional
stand-alone heating systems. In the last years, the installation of
some individual heating system was common, because the central
Fig. 6. Monthly distribution of the primary energy demand.
7
system had fixed operational hours and these could not fulfill the
specific necessities of some families (the hot water radiators can
be turned off or on, but within a daily schedule of activation estab-
lished for the entire building). Thus, some apartments are
equipped with two heating systems, and thus the central one
(serving the entire building) and a private one (equipped with a
small-size natural gas boiler). This information was used in the
comparison between available energy bills and simulations results.
In order to take into account also the energy demand of such pri-
vate additional heating systems, the energy bills were incremented
by a reasonable percentage, as below explained. For verifying the
coherency of simulation results, the Mean Bias Error (Eq. (1))
[28] was calculated, even if merely on annual basis, being available
only annual data concerning the supply of natural gas.
P
ðM  SÞmonth
MBE½% ¼
period
P  100 ð1Þ
M month
period
In Eq. (1), there are the energy demands, measured (‘‘M”) and
simulated (‘‘S”). In our case, as previously cited, the available data
are coarse and concerned merely the gas demand. Taking into
account the centralized energy bills (two years), a reasonable
increment due to local systems (+20%), variable energy costs of
natural gas in two years, the average estimated real gas demand
for the space heating was of about 235,369 kWh, while the simu-
lated gas demand was 232,535 kWh. Thus, even if calculated coar-
sely on annual basis, the MBE results equal to 1.20%, fairly lower
than the thresholds of ASHRAE and U.S. DOE guidelines [28,29]
for calibrated models (Option D), equal to MBE (%)  ±5%. Really,
even a second index should be calculated, and thus the CV(RMSE),
namely the coefficient of variation of the root-mean-square error;
in our case, given that no data were available about the monthly
consumption of gas, it has no sense such calculation. Really, once
again, we do not want to refer to a specific building: our aim is
to be as general as possible.
According to the Italian Authority for Electricity and Gas, the
electricity request per family is equal to 2700 kWh/year (2010)
[30,31]. This number is a reliable mean value because it does not
include the great variability of heating demands (satisfied by nat-
ural gas) and the impact of cooling (in 2010, the share of space
cooling was much lower compared to 2020). If a family of 3 per-
sons is considered, it means 900 kWh/year per person. According
to our model, the overall energy demand of the building is
8 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
160,627 kWhe, and it includes the space cooling so that the elec-
tricity demand is 1036 kWh/person (the share of space cooling is
14% of total electricity). If the cooling is excluded, the calculated
electricity demand is around 891 kWh/person and thus in perfect
agreement, i.e. the MBE is 1.00%. Conversely, if the space cooling
is taken into account, the gap between simulation prediction and
average household electricity request per capita is 15%, and thus
fully realistic, because the simulation considers a full microclimatic
control in the summertime.
Really, the evaluation of the share of the space cooling in resi-
dential buildings is very difficult to quantify. According to IEA
[32], worldwide, it accounts for about 20% of total buildings’ elec-
tricity demand and is ‘‘the fastest growing use of energy in build-
ings”. In Italy, statistical reliable evaluations are very difficult for
this energy service, mainly in households, because it has not a con-
solidated schedule of activation and it can be very variable,
depending on climates, exposure to solar radiation, endogenous
gains, occupation patterns, family incomes, urban areas or back-
country. In general, the use of cooling concerns fewer hours per
day compared to heating and it is largely variable. This great vari-
ability can be verified in [33], in which the cooling share is
between 0.3% and 9.7% of the overall residential electricity
demand, depending on the Italian Region. In general, in residential
buildings, this energy use is considered extraordinary, so that the
activation concerns only few daily hours. On the other hand, space
cooling is surely an increasing energy use [34,35], given also the
decreasing prices of equipment and the progressive overheating
of cities. In order to take into account these last two notes, in our
study, we have stressed the cooling availability in summer
(12 h/day, between 11 am to 11 pm) in order to check the impacts,
on cooling loads and needs, of energy refurbishments devoted to
improving building energy performance relative to the space heat-
ing. Finally, under the considered conditions, the share of about
14% of space cooling, with respect to the total electricity, is surely
plausible. Once again, we would underline that the considered val-
ues are ‘‘average data”, while significant excursions characterize
regions, provinces, climates, and also districts. Simply, we would
like to underline the reasonability of our model output. Our inten-
tion is just to replicate the energy demand of common residential
buildings, equipped with common systems.
Finally, the suitable validation of the building model was per-
formed, considering the standard demand of energy of a residential
building in Naples, as the aim of this study is not to focus on a
specific case but to obtain general conclusions regarding Mediter-
ranean residential buildings. This building was chosen because
well-representative of the stock and thus some boundary condi-
tions were generalized as much as possible; thus, these are not
strictly connected to a specific case study but, conversely, are typ-
ical of large Italian building stock.
In Table 2, energy requests of the base building were summa-
rized, in terms of primary energy for space cooling and heating,
for the equipment and artificial lights, and the percentage impact
on total energy demand of the building is shown.
Table 2
Primary energy demand of the building numerical model, for selected energy uses,
including auxiliaries.
Base building energy demand kWhp/year kWhp/m2
Overall building energy demand 604,978 156.0
Energy demand for cooling 50,122 12.9
Energy demand for heating 256,442 66.1
Energy demand for lighting 134,219 34.6
Energy demand for equipment 164,196 42.4
4.2. The building energy retrofit
Once the building model was calibrated, two different energy
efficiency measures were adopted. In detail, common energy con-
servation measures for the retrofit of the residential building stock
in Naples were considered, and thus the thermal insulation of the
opaque building envelope (walls and flat roof) and the replacement
of windows. These interventions affect predominately the building
energy demands for space heating, which, as shown in Table 2, has
a higher impact on the overall energy request (42%).
The base building has a thermal envelope, for materials and
compositions (i.e., layers and thicknesses), typical of the sixties
and seventies, and thus the thermal transmittances are quite far
from the limits of present Italian regulations. A complete descrip-
tion has been provided in the Section 3 (see also Figs. 2 and 3).
The Italian Ministerial Decree 26/06/2015 [36], established the
threshold value of thermal transmittance of the building envelope,
for buildings to be refurbished. Really, different values are estab-
lished, and it depends on the entity of refurbishment. Specifically,
in the Italian climatic zone C, as Naples, the limit thermal transmit-
tance of the vertical opaque envelope is 0.34 W/m2K; for the hor-
izontal opaque envelope these are 0.33 W/m2K (flat roof) and
0.38 W/m2K (slab on the ground); for windows, including the
frame, the corresponding limit U-value is 2.2 W/m2K. These values
were introduced for the so-called ‘‘reference building” of new con-
structions and also to improve the energy performance of refur-
bished buildings. For limited retrofits, other mandatory values
are available. Obviously, the aim of the Italian law is the following:
a well-insulated building limits the thermal losses during the cold
season, and it should reduce also heat gains during the warm
period.
Specifically, the increment of the thermal insulation of the opa-
que envelope was achieved through a polystyrene layer of 0.08 m
for the walls and by means of a layer of 0.10 m for the roof. The
thermal insulation has a thermal conductivity of 0.035 W/mK, a
density of 35 kg/m3, and a specific heat of 1464 J/kgK. The addition
of this new outside layer contributes to reduce the thermal trans-
mittance of the opaque envelope, achieving a value of 0.30 W/m2K
for the vertical envelope and 0.29 W/m2K for the roof. The achieved
U-values fulfill the prescriptions of the cited Italian regulation. In
terms of costs, the investment was determined by considering
the Italian market trend and comparable works. The estimated cost
is equal to 59.6 €/m2, including scaffoldings (for walls), labor,
materials, and transportation.
For what concerns the transparent envelope, the old wood
frame (conductance: 9.5 W/m2K) and the single glass
(Ug = 5.9 W/m2K) were replaced with an aluminum frame with
thermal break (conductance: 4.0 W/m2K) and a Low-E double glass
6/13/6, with argon-filled cavity (Ug = 1.5 W/m2K). Calculating the
global thermal transmittance of the windows, as suggested by
the standard UNI EN ISO 10077-1, the Uw is 1.9 W/m2K, lower than
the limit of 2.2 W/m2K [37]. The estimated investment cost is 310
€/m2, which includes the cost of labor, materials, transportation,
disposal of old windows. The replacement of low-quality windows
is fundamental to improve the indoor comfort conditions. The
transparent envelope affects the natural lighting of the indoor
spaces and the overall thermal load of the building. The fenestra-
tion surfaces, indeed, regulate the entry of radiation coming
directly from the sun. The typology of glasses contributes to con-
% tain heat losses, and thus triple, double, or single glasses could sig-
nificantly affect the energy balance of the building, both with
100%
8.2%
reference to the winter heating and cooling periods.
42.4% The considered refurbishment interventions were accurately
22.2% evaluated from the points of view of energy, emission and cost fea-
27.2% sibility, as reported in the next sections.
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
The energy impact of the retrofit was calculated as the absolute
or percentage difference between the energy performances of the
refurbished building (EEM – Energy Efficiency Measures) and the
one of the base case (BB), according to Eq. (2). Analogously, the dif-
ferences in costs and emissions were evaluated, as reported in Eqs.
(3) and (4), respectively.
DEP ¼ EP EEM  EP BB
DC ¼ C EEM  C BB
DEM ¼ EMEEM  EMB
In order to perform the technical-economic analysis and the
evaluation of the environmental impacts, primary energy factors,
costs of natural gas and electricity and emissions factors are those
inferred in Table 1. As said, the energy efficiency measures, and the
effects of the user’s actions were assessed in terms of energy
demand, greenhouse gas emissions, and costs. The aim of this
investigation is the understanding of how much the occupant
behavior affects the feasibility of the retrofit, and such a study
was performed through the calculation of the investment costs of
retrofit and its payback period. Indeed, even if the energy efficiency
measures are advantageous from the points of view of energy,
emissions, and costs, with acceptable economic indexes, the wrong
actions of the occupants could make them unprofitable. The eco-
nomic analysis was a proper tool to compare the base building
and the refurbished one, and the effects of wrong habits of users.
The investment cost of the energy efficiency measures, and thus
of the thermal insulation intervention and of windows’ replace-
ment, was estimated by the regional price lists for construction
projects. More in-depth, the prices are intended for finished works
and include the necessary phases for a perfect realization. The
listed costs were compared with metrical calculations of similar
building works in the same Italian country. The indicators to eval-
uate the technical-economic feasibility were calculated as reported
in the Eqs. (5) and (6). The Discounted Pay Back (Eq. (5)) is the
number of years necessary to recover the investment and it consid-
ers the variation of the monetary value. The Net Present Value is
the present value of future cash flows (Eq. (6)).
X
N ‘‘asset rating” calculation [39].
Fi
DPB ¼ N : i
¼ Ci
i¼1 ð i þ Rd Þ
X
LF
Fi
NPV ¼  Ci
ð 1 þ Rd Þ i
i¼1
& Fi = based on i-th year, annual cash flow;
& Rd = discount rate;
& N = number of years;
& Ci = investment cost of the retrofit;
In Italy, significant energy improvements of buildings can ben-
efit from a funding incentive. This is the so-called ‘‘EcoBonus” and
it allows to have a tax credit – equal to 50%, 65% or even 70%, 75%,
80% and 85% of the investment (depending on the retrofits and on
its contextual execution together with structural and seismic
improvements) – to be divided during the next years [38]. These
tax relief is granted for the energy efficiency interventions which
improve the energy performance of existing buildings, and thus
the replacement and improvement of heating and cooling systems,
installation of solar panels, the thermal insulation of the building
envelope or the replacement of windows, new automation systems
and some renewables. The tax credits are distributed in ten years
9
and the amount refundable is calculated as a percentage of the
investment cost. In our cases, we have estimated benefits equal
to 70% and 50% of the costs: Indeed, with reference to opaque walls
and roof slab, the retrofit involves the whole building, with an inci-
dence higher than 25% of the external envelope, without contem-
plating the heating systems; in this case, the percentage of
refund is 70%. Conversely, starting from 2018, the replacement of
ð2Þ the windows has an incentive equal to 50%.
ð3Þ 4.3. Energy certification of buildings
ð4Þ Energy certificates of buildings (EU Energy Performance of
Building Directives [2,3]) are mandatory, in Italy, according to
[9,39–40]. These certificates (APE, in the following lines) are drawn
up by technicians in case of new constructions, sale, donation, or
rental of buildings. The main index is a global energy performance
indicator (EPgl,nren,) with the energy class, with other information
and parameters concerning quality of the thermal envelope, effi-
ciencies of energy systems, primary energy demands for the main
uses, such as space heating, cooling, DHW.
What is important to briefly explain here is the calculation
approach behind the energy labels. No ‘‘tailored ratings” but ‘‘con-
ventional ratings” (i.e., ‘‘asset” or ‘‘design”) are applied. In detail,
energy labels are calculated under conventional boundary condi-
tions, among which a constant indoor temperature equal to 20 °C
and 26 °C, during the heating and cooling season, respectively. Of
course, the indoor control 24 h is merely conventional, motivated
by the fact that these certificates must replicable. The aim is to
qualify the quality of a building and inform about this the people
living there or that are thinking to buy, rent or sell. In this study,
and specifically in the next section, besides the ‘‘tailored energy
analyzes” (suitable for energy diagnoses and design of retrofits,
because these simulate the real building energy performance), also
an ‘‘asset rating” (suitable for an energy label, Fig. 7) was calcu-
lated, according to the standard EN 15603 [39]. The building
energy class is assigned by comparing the evaluated EPgl,nren, with
the one of the reference building (EPgl,nren,rif (2019/21)). The parame-
ters of the reference building are reported in [37]. Table 3 summa-
rizes the input data for modeling the reference building, those of
the present building, and of the refurbished one, according to the
ð5Þ
4.4. The role of the occupant behaviors
The occupants try to achieve thermal and visual comfort in dif-
ð6Þ
ferent manners which not always correspond to convenient behav-
iors, under energy and/or economic point of views. Social and
environmental conditions could affect occupant actions on gains
and loads that result in the energy demand of the building.
Thus, following a literature review, the possible actions of the
users were identified and appropriately modeled. The way that
occupants deal with energy is influenced by many factors, some
objectives and other subjective [41]. The first ones can depend
on environmental conditions such as temperature, air velocity, cli-
mate, or noise. The subjective factors depend on the personal per-
ception of comfort, which can be affected by age, metabolic
activity, particular mood, habits, sensations, social interaction.
Other aspects affect occupant actions such as the social or eco-
nomic conditions. In general, to obtain the comfort conditions,
the users perform adaptive or non-adaptive actions [10], as said
in the previous lines. In this study, the attention was paid on the
adaptive and non-adaptive actions, namely:

the occasional opening/closing of the windows,

the increment or decrement of the heating setpoint,

the adjustment of the shading systems,
10 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217

Fig. 7. Differences between asset and tailored ratings, according to the Standard EN 15603 [39].

Table 3 The reference modeling approach in the current study is the

Data for modeling the reference building, the existing building and the refurbished deterministic one, and the aim is to demonstrate the extent of
building according to ‘‘asset rating”
the occupant actions on building energy demand and related costs.
COMMON CONDITIONS In Fig. 8, the actions actuated by the occupants and the performed
Weather data NAPLES – ITA IWEC Data investigations of related effects are shown.
WMO#=162890 To analyze the impact of the occupant behavior on building
Heating setpoint [°C] 20 energy performance, the users’ actions were integrated into the
Cooling setpoint [°C] 26
simulation model of EnergyPlus [24], by modifying, case by case,
Reference Existing Refurbished
building building building the operation schedules, nominal values, or both. These changes
1
Infiltration [h ] 0.5 0.5 0.2 were made on the refurbished building in order to achieve, in the
Electric equipment – [W/m2] 5 5 5 presence of wrong behaviors of the occupants, two information,
HEATING, COOLING AND DOMESTIC HOT WATER SYSTEMS namely concerning:
Heating system efficiency [-] 0.77 0.69 0.69
Cooling system EER [Wht/Whe] 2.075 3 3 - expected energy performance of the refurbished building not so
Domestic hot water system COP 1.75 (COP) 0.80 (g) 0.80 (g)
[Wht/Whe] or efficiency g [-]
satisfactory;
DHW Heating Systems Heat Pump Electric Electric - a poor energy improvement in comparison to the base building.
Water Boiler Boiler
Heater In more detail, the simulations compared the base building with
BUILDING ENVELOPE calibrated energy demand, the refurbished building with standard
Thermal transmittance of the 0.34 1.01 0.31 users and the refurbished building with energy-intensive users
vertical envelope [W/m2K]
(Fig. 9).
Thermal transmittance of the roof 0.33 1.01 0.29
[W/m2K] The occupants’ behaviors were integrated into the simulation
Thermal transmittance of the 0.38 1.35 1.35 model of EnergyPlus, according to the indications explained in
ground floor [W/m2K] the following paragraphs.
Thermal transmittance of the 2.2 3.2 and 1.9 The opening of the windows is necessary for the air change
transparent envelope [W/m2K] 5.9
needs (i.e., natural ventilation and renewal), mainly in residential
buildings usually not equipped with mechanical ventilation.
Despite this necessary and correct air change, often the occupants
behave incorrectly and without the awareness of ventilation

the addition of electric equipment, impact on the energy demand of the building. Indeed, occupants

the energy-intensive use of the lighting system. sometimes open the windows when the cooling or heating systems
are switched on. This is due to wrong habits or misinformation.
The main ways of modeling the occupant behaviors in the BPS Especially the elder persons do not interact with the heating or
(building performance simulation) are three: a ‘deterministic’, cooling system, because worried about compromising their func-
‘stochastic’, and ‘user types & behavior styles’ approach [42]. tioning. Conversely, they prefer to interact with the fenestration
According to Stazi et al. [42], the ‘deterministic’ approach refers system. This behavior was implemented in EnergyPlus by adjusting
to a uniform behavior of the occupant. In this case, it is assumed the infiltration value. For simulating such wrong behavior, during
that all users have the same actions and make the same modifica- the operation hours of the heating and cooling systems, the infil-
tions to the systems. The ‘stochastic’ approach depends on the vari- tration of 1 h1 was scheduled, instead of the base value equal to
ability in the interaction with the systems by the users. Each 0.2 h1. This is a further outdoor air convective flux, in addition
occupant, influenced by a different boundary conditions, tries to to the simulated natural ventilation.
adapt himself or the surrounding environment in a personal way. Another typical action performed by the users is the variation of
Therefore, this approach takes into account the probability that the heating setpoint. During the winter, the users generally incre-
certain actions will occur. Finally, the ‘user type & behavior style’ ment the value of 20 °C (i.e., for the Italian Law, the standard
approach is based on the energy consumption of the occupants, indoor comfort temperature in winter, used as legislative refer-
that could be waster, normal or conscious, and on the frequency ence), on the basis of environmental and individual conditions.
of interaction with equipment (active, medium, or passive). The feeling of ‘‘cold” and ‘‘warm” depends on kind and intensity
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217 11

Fig. 8. Actions of users and evaluation of their effects.

Fig. 9. Summary diagram of the simulation models compared.

of activities and metabolic rates. In addition, a further reason that
often moves people to increase the temperature setpoint, in win-
ter, is the presence of drafts at the ankles or at the level of the neck.
These motivations could tempt people to increase the heating set-
point. In the numerical model of the building, finally, the heating
setpoint schedule was adjusted, increasing the value progressively
of 1, 2, and 3 °C. To evaluate the effect of a green use of the build-
ing, the setpoint of 20 °C was also decremented of the 1, 2, 3 °C. It
was considered only the possibility to change the heating setpoint.
The energy demand changes due to the variation of the cooling set-
point were not considered in the refurbishment assessment,
because the designed and evaluated energy conservation measures
have a major impact in the cooling season. Indeed, the building
energy retrofit here considered was aimed at the improvement of
the winter energy performance. This is what commonly happens
because most retrofit technologies partly funded by the
12 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
Government (e.g., the addition of thermal insulation, replacement
of windows and boilers, etc.) are mainly aimed at the reduction
of energy demands for the space heating. Finally, in this study,
the impact of the variation of the cooling set-point was not consid-
ered, because the design of the building refurbishment was aimed
at the reduction of energy demand for space heating.
Commonly, residential buildings are equipped with windows’
shading systems, used also as darkening systems to activate during
the night hours. Often, the users do not use such systems in the
correct manner. A standard value for the activation of solar shad-
ings may be a solar radiation on a window of 120–150 W/m2. This
means, for instance, that automated control of windows’ shading
activates the screens when these thresholds are overpassed. Often
occupants, above all in the residential edifices, do not refer to these
values. Indeed, generally, the occupants spend most of the diurnal
hours away from home and do not regulate the shading system: in
most cases, they do not activate it. For this reason, to simulate the
wrong use of the occupants into the simulation model, it was
implemented a solar control that activates the screens when the
solar radiation on windows was higher than 800 W/m2 instead of
150 W/m2. Of course, this behavior can have positive or negative
effects on the thermal and energy performance of the building,
depending on the season. Finally, over the whole year, we have
evaluated the impact of both trends, more or less intensive use
of windows’ shadings.
For what concerns the use of other energy systems, people are
increasingly using electrical equipment, such as notebooks,
mobiles, and I&T devices, in every moment of the day. The addition
of each equipment, and thus a system connected to plugs, used for
work, hobby, lighting, has obviously an impact on the energy
demand of the building. The increment in the equipment use
causes a consequent increment in the need for electricity but, at
the same time, the electric devices contribute to the heating of
the indoor environment, affecting, therefore, the energy demands
of the main dedicated heating system. The standard use of electric
equipment is that a base value of plugged power (4 W/m2) was
scheduled between a minimum of 25% (nights and early morning)
to a maximum of 100% (lunchtime and evening). In the intensive
building use (i.e., occupants’ wrong behavior), such schedule ran-
ged from 75 and 100%.
Moreover, compared to standard use of the lighting systems,
several dynamics could determine an increase in the request for
artificial lighting: the users can choose to keep the artificial lights
‘‘on” even during the day because they simply prefer artificial
lights in addition to the natural one or for reasons related to mete-
orological conditions (e.g., in a cloudy day, with an overcast sky).
Really, the poor attention of the users could cause an electricity
demand higher, for example when users forget the lights activated
also in empty rooms. On the contrary, a user careful to electric con-
sumption will conscientiously try to reduce the energy expendi-
ture related to this aspect and, basically, will make more use of
natural light when possible.
Moreover, it is often presumed that all the users have LED
lights, but really also incandescent halogen lamps and gas dis-
charge lamps (e.g., fluorescent lamps) could be still present. Aver-
agely, a mix of old lamps is characterized by a lower luminous
efficiency compared to LEDs, and this implies a higher electric
demand for lighting but also a thermal gain in the building. The
lighting system of the buildings with standard users was modeled
by considering a lighting power of 5 W/m2. To simulate a more
energy-intensive use of occupants – due to old systems or wrong
behavior or old technology – the power of the lighting system
was increased by 50% (and thus 7.5 W/m2) and doubled (10 W/
m2). As said, these modifications will influence the electric demand
of the building, but also the energy demand for heating.
All aforementioned actions are summarized in Fig. 10.
In the next section, results and discussion concerning the build-
ing refurbishment and the impacts of the occupant behaviors on
building energy performance are reported. In particular, the user’s
actions are examined singularly, in order to understand the specific
contribution of each one, and combined, to evaluate the possible
cumulative effect of wrong occupant habits.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. The results of energy requalification interventions for the standard
building use
Considering the current energy requalification incentives, the
retrofit measures adopted to improve the energy performance of
the residential building located in Naples are the replacement of
the windows and the addition of an outside layer of thermal insu-
lation. Evaluating separately the two interventions, the energy,
environmental (emissions), and economic effects were analyzed.
The external insulation (ETICS) of both vertical walls and build-
ing flat roof implied a reduction of the primary energy demand of
13%, compared to the base building. The energy savings are con-
centrated during the heating months; in fact, the reduction of the
overall primary energy during the heating season is about 30%.
From the point of view of CO2 emissions, such refurbishment pro-
duced a yearly reduction of about 14%; furthermore, the cost-
saving was 11%.
The replacement of single glasses and old wood frames (indeed,
only a few apartments of the base case buildings are equipped with
double glasses), with double Low-E glasses and aluminum frames
with thermal break, determines a strong improvement of building
energy performance. Specifically, the primary energy saving for
heating is equal to about 57%, instead, the yearly primary energy
reduction is about 24%. For what concerns the costs, this windows’
replacement provides a yearly saving of 20%. The emissions reduc-
tion is equal to 25%. It should be noted that, besides a reduction of
heat losses due to lower U-values of windows (both glasses and
frames), the replacement of windows implies an improvement of
building airtight, and thus lower heat losses due to infiltrations.
On the other side, this intervention produces a slight increase
(2%) of the electrical demand for lights, if compared to the base
building. This is due to the different values of the solar transmit-
tance of the glasses. Indeed, the base building has glasses with a
SHGC of 0.86 (0.76 for the few double glasses), while the Low-E
glasses of the refurbished building have a corresponding value of
0.57. For this reason, the lighting system, regulated by the daylight
illuminance, has a higher energy demand.
The combined effect of the two-energy efficiency measures, and
thus the insulation of the opaque thermal envelope and the
replacement of windows, allows a yearly primary energy saving
of about 40%, and the heating energy demand is lowered of around
95%. Energy demands for the space heating, in residential buildings
and thus in edifices characterized by low air changes’ rates, are
mainly due to diffusive heat transfer, so that this increment of
thermal resistance has noteworthy effects. Moreover, the endoge-
nous and solar gains, in the warm climate of Naples, allows favor-
able heat gains that contribute significantly to balance the building
(low) heating loads. The effectiveness of the energy efficiency mea-
sures is justified by a base envelope of poor thermal quality (high
thermal transmittance, high levels of infiltration due to the old
windows). For what concerns the cooling service, as previously
specified and as expected, these energy conservation measures
do not produce considerable energy savings, as clear in Fig. 11,
even if the light improvement (i.e., 1% in cooling demand) testi-
fies, however, an overall positive effect, even if quite negligible.
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217 13

Fig. 10. Schematic modeling of the occupant behavior.

Fig. 11. The primary energy demand of the base building and of the refurbished one (heating, cooling, equipment, lighting).

In terms of environmental pollution, the emissions reduction
corresponds to 43% during a year and the cost reduction is of about
33%. The cited Italian incentives were taken into account for the
technical-economic analysis. The tax credits for the thermal insula-
tion of the opaque envelope is a percentage of 70% (i.e., involved
more than 25% of the envelope [38]) without concerning the cen-
tralized heating system. For windows, the percentage has been
lowered recently to 50%. The calculated Simple Pay Back (SPB) per-
iod corresponds to 10 years and the Discounted Pay Back (DPB) is
16 years (a discount factor of 3%/yearly was considered) and thus
lower than a conservative calculation period of 20 years. Really,
for refurbishments of the building envelope, lifespans of retrofit
measures are quite long, till 50 years [43].
As clear, the result of the feasibility study shows the conve-
nience of the retrofit, explained by a considerable reduction in
energy demand for heating.
5.2. The results of the building energy retrofit as a function of occupant
behavior
The first occupant behavior examined is the opening of the win-
dows during the operation hours of the heating and cooling sys-
tems. Evaluating the impact of this wrong behavior on the
refurbished building, the primary energy reduction is lower com-
pared to the refurbished building with standard users. Indeed, fol-
lowing the adoption of the energy efficiency measures, the
14 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
refurbished building shows a reduction in primary energy demand
of 40%, compared to the base building; conversely, the wrong
behavior about the use of windows implies an increase in the over-
all primary energy demand of +31% of the refurbished building
compared to the same edifice with standard use (from 363,738
to 476,974 kWhp/year), while the primary energy demand reduc-
tion, compared to the base building, is of the 21%. Finally, the ben-
efit of the refurbishment is wasted significantly.
With a specific focus on the single seasons, during the heating
period, the refurbishment implies a primary energy saving of
95%, as previously said, but this outcome can be wasted by wrong
use of the windows, opened during the heating hours, which
reduces this saving, so that the actual reduction, in comparison
to the base building, is ‘‘only” of 53%; finally, around 44% of the
potential saving is wasted.
During the cooling season, the wrong windows opening (and
thus during the operation of the cooling system), nullifies the
achievable benefits of the refurbishment, with an increase of the
primary energy demand for cooling of 9% compared to the base
case.
Annually, as summarized in Table 4, by taking into account
yearly CO2 emissions of the building, the wrong opening of win-
dows reduces the achievable benefits of a refurbished building
compared to the base one from 43% to 23%. In terms of polluting
emissions connected to the building use, this means the waste of
a potential and, in terms of economic feasibility, the discounted
pay-back of the energy retrofit investment passes from 16 to more
than 20 years.
For what concerns the increment of the heating setpoint, as it
may be expected, the yearly primary energy demand has under-
gone a significant increment. Progressively incrementing the heat-
ing setpoint, the primary heating demand reaches values almost
five times higher than the case of the standard setpoint of 20 °C,
as shown in Fig. 12 and Table 5.
The percentage variation of the heating demand compared to
the base building is gradually lower. The refurbished building with
the standard setpoint of 20 °C implies, as said, an energy-saving for
heating of 95%, compared to the base building. When the heating
setpoint is incremented to 21 °C, the percentage energy saving
for heating is 90%; when it is 22 °C, the percentage energy saving
for heating is 83%; when the setpoint is 23 °C, the percentage
energy saving for heating is 76%. It should be noted, moreover, that
the refurbished building increases its energy request for heating,
when the setpoint raises, non-linearly. Indeed, the surplus energy
demand is of +130 052 kWh passing from 20 °C to 21 °C, of
+160 555 kWh passing from 21 °C to 22 °C, +190 314 kWh passing
from 22 °C to 23 °C.
The effect of this wrong behavior on the economic feasibility of
the energy refurbishment is considerable. To a heating setpoint of
20 °C corresponds a DPB of 16 years, but when it is incremented of
1 °C, the DPB is 17 years. When the heating setpoint reaches the
value of 23 °C, the DPB is higher than 20 years. About this outcome,
it would be interesting, but this will be a next investigation, also
Table 4
results of the opening of windows during system activation times.
Yearly Energy D% yearly Heating Energy
Demand – difference Demand –
kWhp kWhp
Base building 604,978 – 256,442
Refurbished 363,738 40% 12,708
building with
standard users
Refurbished 476,974 21% 120,980
building – more
infiltration
Fig. 12. The primary energy demand for heating with different heating setpoint.
evaluating designs of building retrofits when wrong habits are per-
formed in both cases, and thus before and after the refurbishment.
In terms of emissions, in the case of the standard use of the refur-
bished building, the yearly reduction of CO2 emissions is about
43%, compared to the base building. In the worst condition of use
of the thermostat, and thus when the heating setpoint is 23 °C,
the yearly reduction of CO2 emissions is 34% compared to the base
building. The CO2 emission is increased by about 15% (i.e., from
71,234 kg CO2 to 81,905 kg CO2), when the thermostat is set in
the wrong way. These results are summarized in Table 5.
By analyzing a ‘‘green building use”, with a decrement of the
heating setpoint, the situation is reversed. When the heating set-
point varies from 20 °C to 19 °C the percentage energy saving for
heating passes from 95% to 98%, compared to the base building.
This value grows if the setpoint is 17 °C, reaching the value of
almost 100%, as shown in Table 6. Really, 100% means that the
heating service is not required. Obviously, according to the Fanger
theory (PMV and PPD indexes) [44], the calculation of indoor com-
fort in wintertime (in rooms with an air temperature of 17 °C,
mean radiant temperature at the same value for simplicity, relative
humidity 50%, winter clothing with a thermal resistance of 1.1 clo,
airspeed not higher than 0.20 m/s, metabolic rate = 1.1 met) pro-
vides a PMV = 1.34, with a percentage of dissatisfied equal to
42%. Conversely, a heating setpoint of 20 °C is obviously suitable
(PMV = -0.62, PPD = 13%), while 19 °C could be still acceptable
(PMV = 0.86, PPD = 21%). Table 6 shows how ‘‘green behaviors”,
in refurbished buildings in warm climates, can almost nullify the
heating demand.
More in general, comparing the yearly energy demand of the
refurbished building with the lowest heating setpoint (17 °C,
351,107 kWhp) to the one with the highest setpoint (23 °C,
412,666 kWhp), the saving is about 15% annually (by taking into
account all energy uses). This result is in line with [10]: an
energy-aware occupant behavior about the system control could
cause energy-saving up to 20%.
For what concerns the deactivation of the shading system, this
produces low advantages during the winter but very significant
D % yearly Cooling Energy D % yearly Yearly CO2 D % yearly SPB – DPB –
difference Demand – difference emissions – kg difference years years
kWhp CO2 eq
– 50,122 – 123,914 – – –
95% 49,686 1% 71,234 43% 10 16
53% 54,649 9% 95,819 –23% 19 >20
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217 15

Table 5
results of the increase of the heating setpoint.

Yearly Energy D % yearly Heating Energy D % yearly Yearly CO2 emissions D % yearly SPB DPB
Demand – kWhp difference Demand – kWhp difference – kg CO2-eq difference years years
Base building 604,978 – 256,442 – 123,914 – – –
Refurbished building with 363,738 40% 12,708 95% 71,234 43% 10 16
standard users
Refurbished building – 376,792 38% 25,760 90% 74,080 40% 11 17
Heating setpoint 21 °C
Refurbished building – 393,346 35% 42,315 83% 77,691 37% 12 19
Heating setpoint 22 °C
Refurbished building – 412,666 32% 61,629 76% 81,905 34% 13 >20
Heating setpoint 23 °C

Table 6
results of the decrement of the heating setpoint.

Yearly Energy D % yearly Heating Energy D % yearly Yearly CO2 emissions – D % yearly SPB DPB
Demand – kWhp difference Demand – kWhp difference kg CO2-eq/MWh difference years years
Base building 604,978 – 256,442 – 123,914 – – –
Refurbished building with 363,738 40% 12,708 95% 71,234 43% 10 16
standard users
Refurbished building – 355,130 41% 4100 98% 69,357 44% 10 15
Heating setpoint 19 °C
Refurbished building – 351,764 42% 733 100% 68,624 45% 10 15
Heating setpoint 18 °C
Refurbished building – 351,107 42% 75 100% 68,481 45% 10 15
Heating setpoint 17 °C

penalties during the summer. This behavior determines the incre-
ment of the entering solar radiation, which is found to be positive
during the heating seasons but negative during the cooling period,
by incrementing heavily the heat gains and thus the cooling loads.
As said previously, the refurbished building (standard users)
has an energy-saving for heating of 95% compared to the present
one. The deactivation of solar shadings implies a further lowering
of the heating demand (- 97% with respect to the base case):
indeed, there is an increase of the useful solar gains that reduces
the heating demand, even if not so significantly, given the already
extremely low energy need for heating of the refurbished building.
During the summer, the situation is very different. The primary
energy demand for cooling of the base building is about 500 122
kWhp, the one of the refurbished building is 490 686 kWhp and
the one of the refurbished building with no shading activation is
about 630 371 kWhp. The cooling demand is thus incremented by
26% compared to the base case. Although the deactivation of the
shading system causes a decrement of the heating demand, it is
negligible if this outcome is compared to the increment of the cool-
ing energy request (Table 7).
Comparing the refurbished building with more intensive use of
electric equipment to the refurbished building with standard use,
the yearly increment in the electric demand for equipment is equal
to 86%. The addition of electric devices in a residential building, on
one hand, causes an increase in electric demand, but on the other
hand, determines the reduction of the heating energy request. The
electric devices contribute to the building’s endogenous gains and
thus to the involuntary indoor heating. The primary energy reduc-
tion for the space heating, for the building with electric energy-
intensive users, compared to the base building, is about 99.6%,
and thus in percentage terms, this reduction is higher than the
refurbished building with standard users (95%). Oppositely, in
summer, the addition of electric devices determines the growth
of the cooling demand. The primary energy demand for cooling is
higher of 21% compared to the base building. In terms of costs,
the increase in electricity demand corresponds to an increase in
payback periods of investment. The DPB and the SPB are both
longer than 20 years. Even the CO2 emissions, obviously, suffer a
growth comparing the standard refurbished building and the one
with intensive energy users. The first one implies a yearly reduc-
tion of CO2-eq emissions of 43%, the second of 21%. The results,
reported in Table 8, show the negative effect of the intensive elec-
tric use on the primary energy demand of the building and on costs
and emissions.
Finally, the last occupant behavior evaluated is the more inten-
sive use of the lighting system. As it may be expected, this variation
affects the energy electric demand of the building (and not only the
energy demand for lighting). Evaluating the case of a refurbished
building with a lighting system power equal to 7.5 W/m2, the pri-
mary energy demand for lights is incremented by 53% compared to

Table 7
Results of the deactivation of the shading system.

Yearly Energy D % yearly Heating Energy D % yearly Cooling Energy D % yearly Yearly CO2 D % yearly SPB – DPB –
Demand – difference Demand – difference Demand – difference emissions – kg difference years years
kWhp kWhp kWhp CO2 eq
Base building 604,978 – 256,442 – 50,122 – 123,914 – – –
Refurbished building 363,738 40% 12,708 95% 49,686 1% 71,234 43% 10 16
with standard
users
Refurbished building 364,630 40% 6729 97% 63,371 26% 71,270 42% 10 16
– deactivated
shadings
16 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217

Table 8
Results of a more energy-intensive use of equipment.

Yearly D% Heating D% Cooling D% Equipment D% Yearly CO2 D% SPB DPB

Energy yearly Energy yearly Energy yearly Energy yearly emissions – yearly – –
Demand – difference Demand- difference Demand – difference Demand – difference kg CO2 eq difference years years
kWhp kWhp kWhp kWhp
Base building 604,978 – 256,442 – 50,122 – 164,196 – 123,914 – – –
Refurbished 363,738 40% 12,708 95% 49,686 1% 164,196 – 71,234 43% 10 16
building
with
standard
users
Refurbished 503,844 17% 1151 100% 60,608 21% 304,936 86% 98,295 21% > 20 > 20
building –
more
equipment

the base building. Coherently, as in the case of the addition of elec-
tric equipment, even the energy-intensive use of artificial lights
causes the growth of the cooling demand (in this case, about 8%
compared to the base building). During the winter, the more inten-
sive use of the lighting system contributes positively to reduce the
heating loads, implying a further reduction of the energy demand
for heating, from 95% to 98% compared to the base building.
This result is negligible compared to the increase of both cooling
and lighting energy demands.
The growth of the overall building energy demand is even more
significant when the building has a lighting system with a power of
10 W/m2. The reduction of the primary energy demand is about
17% if compared to the base building, a lower value compared to
the refurbished building with standard users (40%). In the same
way, the energy demand for lights reaches 274,296 kWhp, almost
double if compared to the base building and standard refurbished
buildings and higher than 33% if compared to the building with a
lighting system of power 7.5 W/m2. In terms of cost, the SPB and
the DPB are both higher than 20 years, while, in the previous case
(lighting system with a power of 7.5 W/m2), the SPB was 16 years
and the DPB was higher than 20 years. In Table 9 the discussed
results are summarized.
A summary of all, singularly analyzed, wrong behaviors and
habits, is inferred in Table 10, for what concerns absolute energy
demands and by taking into account a single square meter of the
net-conditioned surface area, as common according to EU methods
for evaluating building energy performance.
Evaluating the overall results, the behavior that has the most
negative impact on economic, emissions, and energy terms, is the
energy-intensive use of electric equipment. The yearly energy
demand is 130 kWhp/m2, a lower energy demand compared to
the base building (156 kWhp/m2) but the greater energy demand
among all those referred to the refurbished buildings (standard
use = 94 kWhp/m2) with wrong habits. The addition and more
intense use of equipment nullifies the need for heating (the corre-
sponding value is 0.3 kWh/m2) but causes the increase of the cool-
ing energy demand from 13 kWhp/m2 to 16 kWhp/m2 if compared
to the reference refurbished building. In the same way, when the
lighting system has a nominal power of 10 W/m2, the yearly energy
demand is 129 kWhp/m2 and the electric energy demand of the
refurbished building passes from 78 kWhp/m2 to 113 kWhp/m2.
The occupant behavior which does not lead to an increase in
annual energy demand is the deactivation of the shading system.
In this case, the cooling demand increases but the energy demand
for electricity decreases following the reduction in the use of arti-
ficial lights. Of course, a sapient use of shadings systems (auto-
matic) will provide undebatable thermal and energy benefits.
Finally, in Table 10, the results of the combination of all wrong
behaviors are reported. In this case, all the wrong actions were
taken into account in their more energy-intensive version (e.g.,
the heating setpoint was set at 23 °C and the power of the lighting
system was set at 10 W/m2). The yearly energy demand results
equal to 202 kWhp/m2, which corresponds to a higher value com-
pared to both the refurbished standard building (94 kWhp/m2) and
the base building before the refurbishment (156 kWhp/m2). It is
interesting to note that, even if the overall energy demand is the
highest, the heating energy demand is greater than the reference
refurbished building but lower than the base building. Conversely,
the cooling energy demand has a higher value both with respect to
the base case and the refurbished reference building. Thus, more in
general, the wrong occupant behaviors have a more significant
impact on the cooling demand rather than the heating demand.

Table 9
Results of a more energy-intensive use of the lighting system.

Yearly D% Heating D% Cooling D% Lighting D% Yearly D% SPB DPB

Energy yearly Energy yearly Energy yearly system yearly CO2 yearly – –
Demand difference Demand difference Demand difference Energy difference emissions difference years years
– kWhp – kWhp – kWhp Demand – – kg CO2
kWhp eq
Base building 604,978 – 256,442 – 50,122 – 134,219 – 123,914 – – –
Refurbished building 363,738 40% 12,708 95% 49,686 1% 137,148 2% 71,234 43% 10 16
with standard
users
Refurbished building 429,553 29% 5309 98% 54,325 8% 205,722 53% 83,900 –32% 16 > 20
– intensive use of
the lighting system
(power 7.5 W/m2)
Refurbished building 499,108 17% 1709 99% 58,906 18% 274,296 104% 97,384 21% > 20 > 20
– intensive use of
the lighting system
(power 10 W/m2)
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217 17

Table 10
Results in terms of primary energy demand of the energy-intensive use of the building.

Yearly Overall Energy Heating Energy Demand Cooling Energy Demand Electric uses
Demand
kWhp kWhp/ % of the kWhp kWhp/ % of the kWhp kWhp/ % of the kWhp kWhp/ % of the
m2 BB m2 BB m2 BB m2 BB
Base building (BB) 604,978 156 (100%) 256,442 66 (100%) 50,122 13 (100%) 298,415 77 (100%)
Refurbished building (standard user) 363,738 94 60% 12,708 3 5% 49,686 13 99% 301,345 78 101%
Refurbished building, wrong opening of 476,974 123 79% 120,980 31 47% 54,649 14 109% 301,345 78 101%
windows
Refurbished building, heating setpoint 351,107 91 58% 75 0 0% 49,687 13 99% 301,345 78 101%
17 °C
Refurbished building, heating setpoint 412,666 106 68% 61,629 16 24% 49,693 13 99% 301,345 78 101%
23 °C
Refurbished building, deactivated shadings 364,630 94 60% 6729 2 3% 63,371 16 126% 294,530 76 99%
Refurbished building, increased 503,844 130 83% 1151 0 0% 60,608 16 121% 442,084 114 148%
equipment
Refurbished building, increased lighting 429,553 111 71% 5309 1 2% 54,325 14 108% 369,919 95 124%
(power 7.5 W/m2)
Refurbished building, increased lighting 499,108 129 83% 1709 0 1% 58,906 15 118% 438,493 113 147%
(power 10 W/m2)
Refurbished building, sum of the wrong 781,900 202 129% 126,227 33 49% 90,070 23 180% 565,602 146 190%
behaviors

Fig. 13. EPgl,nrel of the reference building, base building and refurbished building with respective energy classes.

The combination of energy-intensive behaviors is an extreme con-
dition, which could only occur if users simultaneously assume all
the wrong habits. The energy demand of this building typology
could be considered as the maximum primary energy demand of
a refurbished residential building in Naples. Therefore, the tailored,
dynamic and reliable building energy demand of a refurbished
building (with no actions on the heating and cooling systems,
and without considering the domestic hot water need) could vary
from a maximum of 202 kWhp/m2 to a minimum of 94 kWhp/m2
depending on user’s behavior.
5.3. The results of building energy performance certification
In order to evaluate the energy class of the base building and
the one of the refurbished building, even if merely indicative, the
EPgl.nren was calculated according to the Italian Ministerial Decree
26/06/2015 [40]. This indicator considers the primary energy
demands for heating, cooling, and domestic hot water while, for
residential buildings, equipment and lighting are not considered
yet. As reported in Fig. 13, by comparing the EPgl.nren of the base
building with the EPgl,nren,rif,standard (2019/21) of the reference build-
ing, the energy class is ‘‘D”, typical of an energy-inefficient build-
ing. For what concerns the refurbished building, the energy class
becomes ‘‘A2”. The EPgl.nren is equal to 47.8 kWh/m2, evidently a
lower (more than halved) value than the base building (105.3
kWhp/m2). This is due to the improvement of the building energy
performance following the external thermal insulation of the
envelope and the replacement of the old windows. Therefore, the
energy label of the building improves of 4 classes, with better
energy performance and increased economic value of the flats, in
case of rent or sale. Please, note that this evaluation can be consid-
ered merely qualitative; indeed, even if the rating boundary condi-
tions are the same of those prescribed by Italian laws in matter of
building energy certifications (i.e., the ‘‘standard rating” according
to the UNI 11300-1 [19], Fig. 7), here the building energy simula-
tion is performed according to sub-hourly timestep, by taking into
account the transient heat transfer, while, conversely, the building
certification should be based on monthly semi-stationary energy
balances.
6. Conclusions
The environmental issue related to the energy demands of the
present building stock should not be underestimated. Especially
the residential sector is old and high energy-demanding, due to
the low quality of the building envelope, the inefficient heating
and cooling systems but also for a poor ‘‘energy-use” expertise
and wrong habits and behaviors by the occupants.
Often, the users have poor awareness of how much their behav-
ior can affect the building’s energy demand and thus they persist in
wrong actions. The present study has evaluated the impact of the
occupant behaviors on a refurbished building, residential, quite
common in shape, materials, and technologies of the European
Mediterranean area. In particular, the efficacy of typical energy
efficiency measures (thermal insulation of the envelope and
replacement of the windows) applied to a multistory residential
18 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
building in Naples (South Italy, Mediterranean coastline) was eval-
uated, in terms of costs, GHG emissions, and energy saving.
Starting from a validated model of a base building (BB), simu-
lated by means of authoritative codes for transient energy analy-
ses, a second model of the refurbished building (EEM) was
dynamically simulated, by considering a standard occupant behav-
ior. Successively, single and combined wrong actions by the build-
ing occupants were implemented in order to evaluate their
impacts for what concerns the deprecation of expected energy per-
formances. More in detail, several simulations, each one imple-
menting a different behavior of the occupants, were compared to
the energy demand of the refurbished building, as managed by
‘‘standard users”. The considered habits concerned a more
energy-intensive use of the electric and lighting systems, the open-
ing of the windows during the hours of activation of the heating/-
cooling equipment, the modification of the thermostat setpoints,
the deactivation of the shading systems.
The evaluation of erroneous habits by the users has shown their
negative impact on the energy demand of the building and on the
economic feasibility of the energy efficiency measures. The occu-
pant behavior can affect the energy benefits of an energy retrofit
design, and it increases the payback period of the investment.
The reference refurbished building with standard users has a pri-
mary energy demand of 363,738 kWhp, which corresponds to 94
kWhp/m2 (i.e., 40% compared to the BB). The investment DPB
was 16 years, and thus this is fully feasible and convenient, being
the lifespan of the retrofit measures surely longer than 30 years.
Conversely, paybacks’ times could be higher due to wrong occu-
pant behaviors; for instance, in case of an energy-intensive use of
equipment, the building’s primary energy demand is 130 kWh/
m2 and the DPB is longer than 20 years. This, single, wrong action
almost nullifies the energy and economic benefits of the refurbish-
ment investment. In the same way, the more intensive use of the
lighting system determines the increase of the primary energy
demand reaching a value of up to 129 kWh/m2.
Furthermore, to evaluate the maximum energy demand of a
refurbished building of the residential building stock of Naples,
common wrong behaviors were combined in a single building
model: the resulting primary energy demand is 202 kWh/m2 and
thus even higher than the energy demand of the base building,
before the refurbishment but standardly managed (+29% compared
to the BB). Finally, the energy demand of this typical residential
multistory refurbished building (construction periods: sixties and
seventies) could vary between a minimum of 94 kWh/m2 to a max-
imum of 202 kWh/m2, depending on the sensitivity of occupants to
limit the energy demands. This means that the first lever of energy
efficiency is a proper energy-education of users. The air infiltration,
due to a poor airtight or uncontrolled opening of windows, affects
deeply the winter energy demands. Really, a suitable ventilation,
natural or mechanical, is necessary; thus, further developments
will analyze, by means of a dedicated index, the right air change
rates, in order to have the best trade-off, and thus optimal values
of indoor air quality (IAQ), without excessive thermal losses.
This study, besides being an example of implementation of
users’ model of occupancy in a BES simulation model, demon-
strates the relevance of occupants’ behavior from economic, envi-
ronmental, and energy points of view. By taking into account the
new standards of net zero-energy buildings, already into force for
new buildings and, in few years, also for the refurbishment of
existing ones, it seems necessary and urgent a huge energy-
education program for citizens and building users. This study is rel-
evant in this direction. Moreover, it could be the starting point for
expanding the investigation to a larger area, such as urban dis-
tricts, also for better predicting energy demand before and after
refurbishment projects.
The next investigation of the occupant behavior will concern
the building energy demand for cooling. Really, presently, given
that the use of summer air-conditioning systems is less consoli-
dated and there are no general rules and praxis, it is difficult to
start from a conventional occupant behavior, in terms of use of
passive strategies, such as nocturnal natural ventilation and flow
rates, activation of windows’ solar shadings, operational conditions
of cooling systems (set-points and number of activation hours).
Finally, given that the use of cooling is more aleatory, surely this
is an interesting and arduous investigation field.
In a sad historical period (winter/spring 2020), all scholars,
technicians, and people definitively should re-think, since today,
to really sustainable living styles, houses, buildings, cities.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the financial support of the Italian
PRIN (‘‘Progetto di Ricerca di Rilevante Interesse Nazionale)
Project ‘‘SUSTAIN/ABLE – SimultaneoUs STructural And energetIc
reNovAtion of BuiLdings through innovativE solutions”, ERC Sector
PE8, ID 20174RTL7W_007.
Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of
the anonymous reviewers. We thank for the valuable suggestions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110217.
References
[1] EU Institutions, Final Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, A policy framework for climate and energy in the
period from 2020 to 2030, Brussels, 22.1.2014 com(2014) 15, available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_it (accessed April 2020).
[2] EU Commission and Parliament Directive 2002/91/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy
performance of buildings. Off. J. Eur. Union 2003. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32002L0091 (accessed on
April 2020).
[3] EU Commission and Parliament, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of
buildings (EPBD Recast). Off. J. Eur. Union 2010, Available at: https://eurlex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF
(accessed on April 2020).
[4] Italian Decree Law 4 June 2013, n. 63, published on Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 130, 5
June 2013. Available at: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/06/05/
13G00107/sg (accessed on April 2020).
[5] Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
May 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L0844&from=IT.
[6] P. De Wilde, The gap between predicted and measured energy performance of
buildings: a framework for investigation, Autom. Constr. 41 (2014) 40–49.
[7] L. Sarto, A. Galante, G. Pasetti, Comparison between predicted and actual
energy performance for winter heating in high-performance residential
buildings in the Lombardy region (Italy), Energy Build. 47 (2012) 247–253.
[8] R.V. Andersen, J. Toftum, K.K. Andersen, B.W. Olesen, Survey of occupant
behaviour and control of indoor environment in Danish dwellings, Energy
Build. 41 (1) (2009) 11–16.
[9] Italian Law n. 90/2013. Available at: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/
2013/08/03/13G00133/sg (accessed on April 2020).
[10] T. Hong, D. Yan, S. D’Oca, C.F. Chen, Ten questions concerning occupant
behavior in buildings: the big picture, Build. Environ. 114 (2017) 518–530.
[11] I. Ajzen, T.J. Madden, Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22 (5)
(1986) 453–474.
 F. Ascione et al. / Energy & Buildings 223 (2020) 110217
[12] Y. Strengers, C. Maller, Integrating health, housing and energy policies: social
practices of cooling, Build. Res. Inf. 39 (2) (2011) 154–168.
[13] M. Samaratunga, L. Ding, K. Bishop, D. Prasad, K.W. Yee, Modelling and analysis
of post-occupancy behaviour in residential buildings to inform BASIX
sustainability assessments in NSW, Procedia Eng. 180 (2017) 343–355.
[14] B. Gucyeter, Evaluating diverse patterns of occupant behavior regarding
control-based activities in energy performance simulation, Front. Archit. Res. 7
(2) (2018) 167–179.
[15] E. Azar, C.C. Menassa, Evaluating the impact of extreme energy use behavior on
occupancy interventions in commercial buildings, Energy Build. 97 (2015)
205–218.
[16] E. Azar, C.C. Menassa, A comprehensive framework to quantify energy savings
potential from improved operations of commercial building stocks, Energy
Policy 67 (2014) 459–472.
[17] A.L. Pisello, F. Asdrubali, Human-based energy retrofits in residential
buildings: a cost-effective alternative to traditional physical strategies, Appl.
Energy 133 (2014) 224–235.
[18] ISO – International Organization for Standardization. Standard ISO EN 6946 –
building components and building elements: thermal resistance and thermal
transmittance, calculation method, 2007.
[19] Italian Committee for Standardization. Standard UNI TS 11300 part 1: 2008,
Energy performance of buildings: Evaluation of energy need for space heating
and cooling, 2008.
[20] European Committee for Standardization. Standard ISO EN 13790: 2008,
Energy performance of buildings – Calculation of energy use for space heating
and cooling, 2008.
[21] Italian Thermo-technical Committee CTI – CTI Recommendation R03/3, Energy
Performance of building. Winter heating and domestic hot water, 2003.
[22] Italian Decree of the President of the Republic 16 April 2013, n. 74. Available
at: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2013/06/27/13G00114/sg (accessed
on April, 2020).
[23] Design Builder; Version 6.0.01; Design Builder Software Ltd.: Gloucestershire,
UK, 2013.
[24] EnergyPlus simulation software, Version 9.1; U.S. Department of Energy:
Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
[25] F. Ascione, O. Böttcher, R. Kaltenbrunner, G.P. Vanoli, Methodology of the cost-
optimality for improving the indoor thermal environment during the warm
season. Presentation of the method and application to a new multi-storey
building in Berlin, Appl. Energy 185 (2017) 1529–1541.
[26] Hitchin, R., Thomsen, K. E., & Wittchen, K. B. (2010). Primary Energy Factors
and Members States Energy Regulations. Concerted Actions EPBD.
[27] Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy: Default emission factors for local
emission inventories (2017). European commission publications. Available
online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/covenant-mayors-climate-
and-energy-default-emission-factors-local-emission-inventories-version-
2017 (accessed on April 2020).
[28] U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP).
M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance-Based
Contracts; FEMP: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
19
[29] ASHRAE—American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Guideline 14 2002, Measurement of Energy and Demand and
Savings; ASHARE: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2002.
[30] Italian Authority for Electricity and Gas, Delibera ARG/elt 117/08, Attachment
A, 2008.
[31] A. Alberini, G. Prettico, C. Shen, J. Torriti, Hot weather and residential hourly
electricity demand in Italy, Energy 177 (2019) 44–56.
[32] IEA – International Energy Agency, Report: The future of cooling, 2018.
Available at: www.iea.org/futureofcooling (accessed on April, 2020).
[33] Casa&Clima 2015, Aria condizionata, quanto incide sul consumo annuo di
energia? (in Italian), 2015. Art. 23853, Available at: www.casaeclima.com/
ar_23853_Aria-condizionata-quanto-incide-sul-consumo-annuo-di-energia-.
html (accessed on April, 2020).
[34] M. Santamouris, Cooling the buildings–past, present and future, Energy Build.
128 (2016) 617–638.
[35] European Environment Agency, Heating and cooling degree days, Indicator
Assessment, Prod-ID: IND-348-en, CLIM 047, 2019, Available at: https://www.
eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/heating-degree-days-2/assessment
(accessed on April 2020).
[36] Main text of the Italian Ministerial Decree 26/06/2015. Available at: https://
www.mise.gov.it/images/stories/normativa/DM_requisiti_minimi.pdf
(accessed on April, 2020).
[37] Appendix 1 of Italian Ministerial Decree 26/06/2015. Available at: https://
www.mise.gov.it/images/stories/normativa/
DM_requisiti_minimi_appendicesA.pdf (accessed on April 2020).
[38] Ministerial Decree of 19 February 2007. Provisions on deductions for the
energy requalification costs of the existing building stock, pursuant to article
1, paragraph 349, of the law of 27 December 2006, n. 296.
[39] CEN – European Committee for Standardization, EN 15603: Energy
performance of buildings – Overall energy use and definition of energy
ratings, 2008.
[40] Annex 1 of Italian Ministerial Decree 26/06/2015. Available at: https://www.
mise.gov.it/images/stories/normativa/DM_Linee_guida_APE_allegato1.pdf
(accessed on April 2020).
[41] V. Tam, L. Almeida, K. Le, Energy-related occupant behaviour and its
implications in energy use: a chronological review, Sustainability 10 (8)
(2018) 2635.
[42] F. Stazi, F. Naspi, Impact of Occupants’ Behaviour on Zero-Energy Buildings,
Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
[43] BPIE (2013), Implementing the cost-optimal methodology in EU countries,
published in March 2013 by the Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE).
Available at: http://bpie.eu/cost_optimal_methodology.html#.UxS0s_l5OCk.
(accessed on April 2020).
[44] UNI – Italian Unification Body. UNI EN ISO 7730: Ergonomia degli ambienti
termici – Determinazione analitica e interpretazione del benessere termico
mediante il calcolo degli indici PMV e PPD e dei criteri di benessere termico
locale. (In Italian), 2006.