Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Cool roofs: A climate change mitigation and adaptation strategy for

residential buildings
Keivan Bamdad
School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Australia

A B S T R A C T

Cool roofs offer a passive solution to reduce cooling demand in buildings. However, they increase heating demand in cold seasons. The annual energy-saving po­
tential of cool roofs greatly depends on climate characteristics and may change over time due to global warming. This is particularly important for cool and mild
temperate climates, in which the cool roofs’ cooling benefits may exceed their heating penalties in the future. To understand the impact of cool roofs on building
energy demand for each climate and to explore their future energy-saving potential, these roofs should be evaluated under both present and future climates.
Accordingly, this study aims to: 1) quantify the energy savings (or energy penalties) of cool roofs under a wide range of present climate conditions (from cool to hot
climates); 2) evaluate cool roofs’ energy-savings potential under future climates; and 3) predict when (and under which climate change scenarios) cool roofs will
improve buildings’ thermal performance in the future for cool or mild temperate climates. Results showed that cool roofs reduce annual energy loads by up to 14%
and 22% in tropical and subtropical climates under present and future climates, respectively. For cool and mild temperate climates, while cool roofs increase the
building’s total energy demand under present climates, it is predicted that they offer energy-savings in the 2050s and 2070s for Canberra and Melbourne,
respectively. Understanding the present and future impacts of cool roofs is essential for the implementation of appropriate climate change mitigation and adaptation
strategies for residential buildings in each climate.

1. Introduction building emissions could be reduced by 2050 through retrofitting

Global warming is a major environmental problem affecting all
countries. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report states that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by anthro­
pogenic activities (e.g., urbanization and deforestation) are responsible
for virtually 1.1 ◦ C of the global temperature rise since 1850–1900. The
temperature rise is expected to continue under all the emission scenarios
introduced by the IPCC [1]. As a result of global warming, extreme
climate events are forecasted to occur more often and with stronger
magnitudes in the future. To reduce global warming and minimize its
serious risks, developing scalable low-emissions energy solutions and
adaptation strategies along with national and international climate
mitigation policies is necessary.
The building sector is one of the major global energy consumers and
emitters, contributing to approximately 32% of global final energy use
and more than 30% of black carbon emissions [2]. It is expected that
energy demand in this sector will increase in the future for several
reasons, such as population growth, rapid urbanization, and increased
access of people to electricity and housing. Whilst immediate and deep
emissions reductions are vital across all energy-intensive sectors, the
building sector has substantial potential to deliver quick and
cost-effective GHG reductions. It is predicted that up to 61% of global
existing buildings as well as designing new energy-efficient buildings,
and effective implementation of renewable energy measures [2,3]. To
improve building energy performance, passive solutions such as natural
ventilation [4] or energy-efficient building envelope materials [5] play a
critical role and can reduce (or eliminate) the reliance on artificial
heating and cooling.
Of all the building envelope components, roofs are one of the key
elements, contributing significantly to both cooling and heating energy
requirements, particularly in low-rise residential buildings. Roofs are
often exposed to substantial solar radiation, resulting in high solar heat
gain. The heat is then transferred from the roof to the building’s indoor
spaces. In a hot climate, the heat gain through roofs can be substantial.
Prior research shows that roofs contribute approximately 14% of heat
gains in residential buildings in the US [6]. One technique to reduce heat
gain through roofs is to improve their thermal performance [7,8].
A cool roof, also known as a reflective roof, is a roof with high solar
reflectance (albedo) and thermal emittance. These features make the
roof’s surface temperature cooler than conventional roofs under the
same conditions, and less heat flows from the roof into the building,
which means less energy is needed to cool buildings. However, cool
roofs may increase the need for heating energy in the cold months (the
"heating penalty"). In warm and hot climates, the heating penalty is

E-mail address: k.bamdad@westernsydney.edu.au.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110271
Received 7 October 2022; Received in revised form 26 March 2023; Accepted 2 April 2023
Available online 3 April 2023
0360-1323/© 2023 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Bamdad
often lower than the cooling benefits, making cool roofs a cost-effective
and energy-efficient solution to reduce building energy requirements
[9]. Many numerical simulations and field studies have been carried out
so far to investigate the energy-saving potential of cool roofs in different
building types and climates. Akbari et al. [10] monitored the energy
performance of one house and two school bungalows in California. It
was found that seasonal savings of 2.2 kWh/d and cooling energy sav­
ings of 3.1 kWh/d were achieved after applying a high-albedo coating to
the house and schools, respectively. In another study [11], DOE-2
simulation software was used to simulate cool roofs and estimate sav­
ings in energy and money in buildings for 11 cities in the US. It was
found that up to 63% annual energy savings can be achieved. Lapisa
et al. [12] used the TRNSYS simulation tool to investigate the
energy-saving potential of cool roofs in a low-rise commercial building
in a Mediterranean climate. Their results showed a 33.8% savings in
cooling energy demand. However, heating energy demand increased by
11%. Installing a cool roof on an institutional building in a warm climate
in India reduced average indoor air temperature by 1.06 ◦ C over a 24-h
period, according to a field study [13]. Costanzo et al. [14] reviewed
different algorithms for the calculation of the convective heat transfer
coefficient for cool roofs and investigated [15,16] the performance of a
cool roof in an office building in three Italian cities with cold to hot
climates. It was observed that cool roofs with a solar reflectance of 0.85
can reduce up to 12% of the total annual energy need in the hot climate
[15]. Kolokotroni et al. [17] indicated that cool roofs can improve
thermal comfort conditions in a typical single-storey building of
low-income households near the equator by 0.75–1.2 ◦ C. In another
study, cool roofs combined with natural ventilation were identified as
the best passive solution to improve the indoor environment for emer­
gency and temporary buildings [18]. Suehrcke et al. [19] studied the
impact of light-colored roofs in Townsville, Australia, with a hot humid
summer, and a warm winter. It was found that light-colored roofs have
approximately 30% lower total heat gain than dark-colored ones.
Another study in Egypt shows that a vaulted roof with high albedo can
reduce the cooling demand by 53% [20]. A comparison study showed
that insulated dynamic cool roofs can outperform green roofs in hot
summer and cold winter cities in Iran [21]. The impact of a cool roof on
the energy performance of a strip mall building was investigated in
Ref. [22]. To simulate the cool roof properties, a spectral-dependent
model was developed. Their results showed that the annual total pri­
mary energy consumption for heating and cooling increases up to 1.8%
in Denver with a cool dry climate while it reduces up to 5.4% in Tampa
with a hot and humid climate. The impact of cool and green roofs on the
energy use of an office building in London was investigated under both
present and future climates. It was found that cool roofs lead to an
annual energy penalty under the present climate, but they deliver en­
ergy savings in the 2050 climate [23].
Feng et al. [24] investigated the impact of cool and radiative cooling
roofs in Darwin, Sydney, and Alice Springs, Australia. It was found that
in their case study building in Sydney and Alice Springs, the reduction in
cooling load could not offset the increase in heating load. However,
Darwin, with a cooling-dominated climate, can benefit from these roofs.
Miller et al. [25] evaluated the impact of cool roofs on a residential
building with different construction characteristics. It was found that
cool roofs with a solar reflectance of 0.9 can reduce the peak demand by
10–40% on a hot summer day. Optimization algorithms were employed
to identify the optimized values of a number of energy-saving measures,
including roofs’ thermal properties under present and future climates
[26,27]. Bamdad et al. [28,29] applied artificial neural networks to
identify the optimized values for building envelope variables, including
the roof’s thermal reflectivity and emissivity, for commercial buildings
in Australia. A roof with the minimum solar absorptance was identified
for the studied climates. The impact of cool roofs was investigated in 17
different building types in major Australian cities for two summer
months. Results showed that the cooling load saving potential of cool
roofs can vary between 0.5% and 63.6% [30] Another study found that
2
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
combined adaptation and mitigation strategies can decrease the cooling
demand by 70% for typical residential buildings in 2050 [31]. To
minimize the heating penalty of cool roofs, Testa and Krarti [32]
compared energy-saving potentials between static and dynamic cool
roofs for seven different cities in the US located in ASHRAE climate
zones 2–6. It was found that, based on building insulation level, variable
reflective coatings can offer energy savings of between 0.9 and 4.9% for
residential buildings compared to static cool roofs.
Another passive strategy to improve building energy needs is green
roofs. Cascone et al. [33] analysed the green roof feasibility for retro­
fitting existing buildings in Italy. It was found that cooling energy use
can be reduced between 31 and 35%. Another study investigated the
application of green roofs in a university building located in Cosenza,
Italy, leading to annual savings of approximately 34% [34]. A new green
roof technology in Mediterranean climate was proposed by Ref. [35],
which improves the building energy performance of traditional green
roofs. Application of bio-solar green roofs installed in office buildings in
Sydney improved the solar panel energy output compared to conven­
tional solar roofs [36]. Cirrincione et al. [37] investigated the impact of
green roofs on energy and indoor thermal comfort under both present
and future climate conditions for Luxembourg and Palermo, Italy. They
found that up to 15% and 50% energy savings can be achieved by green
roofs. An experimental study in a research institute building in Paris
showed that green roofs reduced temperature and heat flux fluctuations
at the building surface and did not have a negative effect on the surface
urban heat island during winter [38]. A number of studies compared the
impact of cool and green roofs on building energy performance in
different climates [39–41]. Both cool and green roof are applied to roofs,
however, they employ different heat transfer mechanisms to improve
building thermal performance. Cool roofs reflect solar radiation while
green roofs affect building thermal performance through thermal insu­
lation, thermal mass, shading and evapotranspiration [42].
In addition to their cooling energy reduction potential, cool roofs
have proven to improve the efficiency of air conditioning systems [43,
44], mitigate urban heat island effects [45–47], decrease heat wave
impacts [48], improve urban air quality [49] and reduce city-level en­
ergy demand [50]. A comparison study between a cool roof and a green
roof showed that cool roofs have a higher mitigation potential compared
to green roofs in Singapore [51]. Cool roofs’ benefits and limitations, as
well as advancements in cool materials, have been reviewed in Refs.
[52–55].
As indicated in the literature review above, cool roofs have received
extensive attention in recent years. Many simulations and field studies
have investigated the energy-saving potential of cool roofs on buildings.
However, the vast majority of these studies focused on the impacts of
cool roofs on buildings under present climate conditions. Limited studies
have investigated the energy-saving potential of cool roofs on buildings
in the future. To the best of the author’s knowledge, no studies have yet
explored how the energy-saving potential of cool roofs may change over
time in order to develop predictive models to identify when cool roofs
will offer annual energy savings for mild temperate climates in the
future. Previous studies demonstrated that some energy conservation
strategies for a building may not be suitable under the present climate
conditions, but they may become efficient strategies in the future (and
vice versa) [56,57]. Predicting when an adaptation strategy will be
effective is critical to developing cost-effective and efficient adaptation
plans. Accordingly, this study aims to 1) quantify the energy savings (or
energy penalties) of cool roofs under present climate conditions; 2)
evaluate the energy-saving potential of cool roofs under future climate
conditions; and 3) predict when (and under which climate change sce­
narios) cool roofs will improve buildings’ thermal performance in the
future for cool or mild temperate climates. In the latter, this research
aims to predict when cool roofs may offer energy savings (i.e., cooling
load reductions exceed heating load penalties) in cool or mild temperate
climates in the future. This research reports short-and long-term pre­
dictions of cool roof energy saving potential, which can be used as
K. Bamdad
guidance to develop climate change mitigation and adaptation policies
for residential buildings in different climates in Australia.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: The next section
details the research methodology, which includes building modeling
and future weather files. In the results section, the impact of climate
change on the case study with and without a cool roof is presented, along
with future analysis for mild temperate climates. The last section pre­
sents the conclusions of the research and proposes future work.
2. Methodology
The methodology section details the building model employed as a
case study in this research and the future weather files used to project
future climate conditions. The overall methodological framework of this
research is shown in Fig. 1. The cool roof’s impact is first evaluated
under both present and future climate conditions. According to this
evaluation, three cases may occur. In the first case, the application of the
cool roof is recommended if it improves the energy performance of the
building under present and future climate conditions. It is expected that
if cool roofs save energy under current climate conditions, they will
likely save even more energy in the future due to global warming. In the
second case, cool roofs are not recommended if they do not improve
building energy performance under either present or future climate
conditions. In the third case, when cool roofs have a negative impact on
annual energy demand in the present climate and a positive impact in
the future, further analyses are conducted to identify when applications
of cool roofs will be beneficial (the cooling reduction will be greater than
the heating penalty) in the future.
2.1. Building modelling
The case study considered in this research is a detached single-story
house simulated under different Australian climate zones (Table 1). The
house depicted in Fig. 2 represents a relatively large modern house and
has an air-conditioned floor area of approximately 215 m2, including
four bedrooms, a kitchen, a living room, a rumpus room, and non-
conditioned areas including a laundry, a separate bathroom, a toilet,
and a garage. The house is one of the eight sample houses used for en­
ergy rating software accreditation by the Nationwide House Energy
Rating Scheme (NatHERS) and has been used as a case study of a
Fig. 1. The methodological framework of this research.
3
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
Table 1
Building’s locations and their associated climates zones.
City Australian climate zones Köppen climate
Classification
Darwin 1 (high humidity summer, warm Aw
winter)
Brisbane 2 (warm humid summer, mild winter) Cfa
Richmond 6 (mild temperate) Cfb
Melbourne 6 (mild temperate) Cfb
Canberra 7 (cool temperate) Cfb
Hobart 7 (cool temperate) Cfb
residential building in many studies in Australia [58–61]. This house has
a brick exterior wall, which is a common construction type in Australia.
To assess the impact of cool roofs on both old and new houses, two
insulation levels in the ceiling are considered. C1 has a total R value of
2.0 (m2 K/W), representing the medium insulation level in the ceiling,
and C2 has a total R value of 4.0 (m2 K/W), representing the typical
insulation level in the ceiling in most new houses. The occupancy profile
and schedules for equipment, lighting, and HVAC operating hours are
the same as those given by the NatHERS [62,63]. The cooling and
heating thermostat settings, which vary for each city and are listed in
Table 3, are based on the Protocol for House Energy Rating Software
published by the Australian Building Codes Board [63]. Tables 1, 2 and 4
summarize the construction details and simulation assumptions of this
house, and Fig. 2 renders the 3D model of the case study.
In this study, the airflow network method implemented in Ener­
gyPlus was used to define the infiltration rate [64,65]. The HVAC system
is an ideal load air system used to calculate the building’s heating and
cooling demand. Also, a rule-based control algorithm was developed in
the EnergyPlus energy management system module using a runtime
programming language (ERL) to control windows’ operation. In this
algorithm, whenever the outdoor air temperature is suitable, windows
are opened, and the HVAC system shuts down. The acceptable indoor
temperature range is defined by the adaptive thermal comfort model
with an 80% acceptability level. According to this model, occupants in
naturally ventilated and mixed-mode buildings can adapt themselves to
thermal environments and tolerate a wider range of acceptable indoor
thermal conditions. According to ASHRAE Standard 55 [66], the lower
and upper bounds of the adaptive thermal comfort model can be
calculated as follows:
( )
Tadp = Tpma × 0.31 + 17.8 ± 3.5◦ C (1)
where Tpma denotes the prevailing mean outdoor air temperature, and
the subscript i = 1,2 …,12 represents the calendar months. Tpma can be
approximated by taking the arithmetic mean outdoor air temperature
for each month in each climate zone [66]. The TMY weather files, which
contain hourly weather data, were used to calculate the upper and lower
limits of the adaptive thermal comfort model (the next section details
the weather files used in this study). These limits vary by month and city.
Additionally, it is predicted that these bounds will slightly rise for each
city in the future due to global warming. In this research, the cool roof
model has a solar reflectivity and an emissivity of 0.9, as opposed to the
conventional (dark) roof, which has a solar reflectivity of 0.25 and an
emissivity of 0.9.
2.2. Climate change
In this research, projected future weather files developed by the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
were utilized [67] to examine the impact of climate change on the
energy-saving potential of cool roofs in residential buildings. These
future weather files were developed based on scenarios introduced in
the IPCC fifth assessment report [68], called Representative Concen­
tration Pathways (RCPs), which project a range of possible future
K. Bamdad Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271

Fig. 2. Schematic view of the building model ([61]).

Table 2 Table 4
Building construction details. Building simulation inputs.
Envelope Construction details U-value [W/ Type Zone Schedule Value
component m2-K]
Lighting Living space [63] 3.75 W/m2
External walls External: Brick, insulation and plasterboard. 0.51 Bedrooms 1.25 W/m2
Internal: Plasterboard, brick, plasterboard. 1.69
Equipment Living space [63] 800 W (Latent: 1000 W)
Floor Concrete slab on ground, ceramic tiles, 0.45
Bedrooms 200 W (Latent: 1000 W)
carpet.
Ceilings C1: Plasterboard, bulk insulation (total R 0.49 Shading Living space & 0:00–7:00 Off
2.0). Bedrooms 7:00–18:00 On: Interior blinds are on
C2: Plasterboard, bulk insulation (total R 0.25 when the incident solar
4.0). exceeds 200 W/m2
Roof Continuous surface, metal deck roof. 18:00–24:00 Off
Solar reflectivity of dark roof: 0.25
Natural Changeover mode.
Solar reflectivity of cool roof: 0.9
Ventilation Windows are open (0.5 opening factor) and the HVAC system is off
Windows Single glazed windows. Internal blinds. No 5.89
when the outdoor air temperature is suitable for natural
external blinds.
ventilation (Eq. (1)).

Infiltration Airflow network [64]

Cracks: air mass flow coefficient 0.001 & 0.05 (kg/s)
Table 3 at reference conditions
Cooling and heating setpoints. Cracks: air mass flow exponent 0.65
Ground Monthly average temperatures using EnergyPlus Slab program
Zone type Time Heating setpoint (◦ C) Cooling setpoint (◦ C)
temperature
Living spaces 0:00–7:00 Not air conditioned Not air conditioned
7:00–24:00 20 Darwin: 26.5
Brisbane: 25.5 representative of a typical year for years between 2020 and 2039,
Richmond: 24.5
2040–2059, 2060–2079, and 2080–2099, respectively. These future
Melbourne: 24
Canberra: 24 weather files are freely available at (https://agdatashop.csiro.au/buildi
Hobart: 23 ng-energy). Please refer to Refs. [67,69] for more details.
Bedrooms 0:00–7:00 15 Same as living space
7:00–9:00 18 Same as living space 2.3. Cool roofs’ energy saving potential
9:00–16:00 Not air-conditioned Not air conditioned
16:00–24:00 18 Same as living space In this research, the energy-saving potential of cool roofs is calcu­
lated using the following question:
climates with different levels of GHG concentrations, which lead to (( ) ( ))
Hd,i − Hc,i + Cd,i − Cc,i
different radiative forcing values (an indicator representing the amount Ei = × 100 (2)
Hd,i + Cd,i
of energy imbalance in the atmosphere relative to pre-industrial times).
RCP 4.5 is a medium stabilization scenario in which the radiative forcing Where E, H and C denote the annual energy saving potential of the cool
value is stabilized at approximately 4.5 W/m2 after 2100, while RCP 8.5 roof, heating, and cooling thermal loads (demand) (MJ/m2. annum),
represents a future with a continuous rise in GHG concentrations and a respectively. Subscripts d, c, and i refer to the dark roof, cool roof, and
forcing value of 8.5 W/m2 by the end of the 21st century. To generate climate scenarios, respectively. Specifically, the subscript i represents
future weather data, CSIRO used the different global climate models the present, 2030, 2050, 2070, and 2090 climates in this study. It should
discussed in Ref. [67] with the input data of RCP scenarios along with a be noted that negative values for E mean that the installation of cool
statistical downscaling method [69]. The typical meteorological year roofs leads to an increase in the total cooling and heating loads of the
(TMY) weather data sets were extracted from historical weather data building for a given climate.
from 1990 to 2015 and used as the baseline weather files. It should be
noted that future weather files for 2030, 2050, 2070, and 2090 are

4
K. Bamdad Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271

3. Results

In this section, the impact of climate change on monthly mean

temperatures for six Australian cities is first presented. Then, the cooling
and heating loads of the building are presented under the present
climate and two future climate change scenarios. Section 3.2 delves
deeper into the future impact of cool roofs in cool and mild temperate
climates.

3.1. Future climate

Fig. 3 shows the monthly average temperature and projected tem­

perature rise for six cities in different climate zones in Australia
(Table 1). As shown for a given climate change scenario, the rise in the
monthly average temperature is not constant throughout the year and
varies for each city. For example, in Hobart, the minimum monthly air
temperature rise occurs in August with 1.5 ◦ C and 3.1 ◦ C under the RCP
4.5 and RCP 8.5 emission scenarios, respectively, while the maximum
Fig. 4. Simulated attic air temperature with the dark roof (in red) and cool roof
temperature rise is predicted to occur in February, reaching up to 4.9 ◦ C
(in blue). The outdoor air temperature and direct solar radiation are also
under the RCP 8.5 emission scenarios. Notably, under the RCP 8.5
plotted. Attic Infiltration rate is 1.18 ach (averaged day time) and the HVAC
emission scenario by 2090, the annual average temperature is projected
system in off. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
to increase by a range of 4.1–4.5 ◦ C for all cities except Darwin, with a the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
predicted temperature rise of around 3.7 ◦ C. The impact of climate
change on temperature rise in different Australian cities have been also
indoor spaces, resulting in an increase in the cooling load during the
discussed in Refs. [57–59,70].
summer and a decrease in the heating load during the winter. On the
other hand, in the case of the cool roof, the temperature difference be­
3.2. Cool roof impact on attic temperature tween the attic temperature and the outdoor ambient temperature is
small. As can be seen, the attic temperature is slightly lower than the
Fig. 4 shows the impact of the cool roof (CR) on the temperature outdoor ambient temperature before 9:00 a.m. and then becomes
profile in the attic on a sunny day for both C1 and C2. Outdoor air slightly higher, reaching up to a 2 ◦ C temperature increase around noon,
temperature and solar radiation are also plotted in these figures. Ener­ and therefore, only a very small amount of heat is transferred to indoor
gyPlus simulation software was used to simulate the attic’s temperature, spaces.
and the airflow network (AFN) module was employed to estimate the
infiltration rate in the attic [65]. AFN calculates infiltration rates based
on wind speed, temperature, surface cracks, and pressure differences at 3.3. Simulation results
each simulation time step. The average infiltration rate in the attic on
this day was estimated at 1.18 air changes per hour (ACH). As shown, The Australian National Construction Code (NCC) increased the
the attic temperature can reach a maximum of 52 ◦ C with the dark roof, minimum energy efficiency requirement from 5 to 6 stars in 2010, and
which is approximately 22 ◦ C higher than the ambient outdoor tem­ currently, new residential dwellings in most Australian states and ter­
perature. This heat is transferred from the ceiling to the building’s ritories require to achieve the 6 star rating [71]. In this study, in order to

Fig. 3. Monthly average temperature and projected temperature rise in Darwin, Brisbane, Richmond, Melbourne, Canberra, and Hobart.

5
K. Bamdad
Fig. 5. Estimated energy star ratings of the building model in different cities.
estimate the star rating of the building model, the building is simulated
based on NatHERS recommended simulation assumptions, as shown in
Tables 3 and 4 Fig. 5 shows the estimated star rating for the building
with R 2.0 (C1) and R 4.0 (C2) insulation levels in the ceiling. The star
rating is calculated based on total cooling and heating loads. A heating
(or cooling) load is the amount of heat energy that needs to be added to
(or removed from) a space to keep the indoor temperature in a building
within the thermal comfort range. By improving the thermal perfor­
mance of buildings (higher energy rating), less energy is required to be
consumed by cooling and heating systems to keep buildings thermally
comfortable.
As can be seen, the building model represents buildings with an
estimated star rating of 5–6 stars for all cities except Darwin, which has
an estimated star rating of 6.5 and 6.9. It should be noted that the
NatHERS simulation assumptions (e.g., thermostat setpoints) are con­
stant throughout the year for regulatory purposes, allowing dwelling
designs to be compared fairly. However, these assumptions may not
accurately reflect occupants’ thermal preferences [72]. Thus, the con­
stant thermostat setpoints are replaced with the setpoints obtained from
the adaptive thermal comfort model (Eq. (1)) in the rest of this research
to better reflect actual occupants’ thermal preferences in buildings.
3.4. Cool roof impact on cooling loads
Fig. 6 shows the impact of the cool roof on the annual cooling load
for C1 under present and future climate conditions. It was found that the
cool roof reduces the building’s cooling load between 4.7 MJ/m2
(Hobart) and 38 MJ/m2 (Darwin) under present climate conditions. The
cool roof’s cooling load reduction increases with global warming, so that
the maximum predicted reductions are about 86.9, 35.7, and 30.8 (MJ/
Fig. 6. Cool roof’s impact on annual cooling loads (C1: left and C2: right).
6
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
m2 per annum) in Darwin, Brisbane, and Richmond, respectively. Fig. 6
also shows the impact of the cool roof on the annual cooling load for C2
under present and future climate conditions. As expected, with an in­
crease in insulation, the cool roof’s cooling load reduction is reduced.
The maximum cooling load reduction is around 34.6 and 52 (MJ/m2) for
Darwin under present and future climate conditions, respectively. It
should be noted that building’s cooling loads in Hobart are very small,
and cool roofs have a minimal impact on cooling loads, with only 2.4
and 3.5 (MJ/m2) under present and RCP8.5, respectively.
3.5. Cool roof impact on heating loads
Fig. 7 shows the impact of the cool roof on the annual heating loads
for C1 under present and future climate conditions. As shown, the cool
roof increases a building’s heating load up to 23.7 MJ/m2 under present
climate conditions. The heating penalty decreases with global warming
so that the maximum predicted heating penalties are approximately
13.3 and 10.9 MJ/m2 under the RCP8.5 scenario in Canberra and
Hobart, respectively. Fig. 7 also shows the impact of the cool roof on the
annual heating loads for C2 under present and future climate conditions.
As expected, with an increase in insulation, the cool roof’s heating
penalty decreases. The maximum heating penalties are around 11.7 and
11.4 MJ/m2 under present climate conditions and 6.5 and 5.4 MJ/m2
under future climate conditions for Canberra and Hobart, respectively. It
should be noted that building’s heating loads in Darwin are almost zero,
and there is no heating penalty associated with cooling roofs in this city.
Also, the heating load in Brisbane is predicted to be nearly zero under
RCP 8.5 future climate conditions.
K. Bamdad
Fig. 7. Cool roof’s impact on annual heating loads (C1: left and C2: right).
3.6. Cool roof impact on total loads
Figs. 8 and 9 show the total heating and cooling load in the case study
with the dark roof in six cities under present and future climate condi­
tions. Figs. 8 and 9 indicate the results for the cases of C1 and C2,
respectively. As expected for all cities, the energy demand for space
heating will decrease and the energy demand for space cooling will in­
crease under both emission scenarios in the future. In Darwin, with a
tropical climate, the energy demand for space heating is nearly zero
under present climate conditions, and it is estimated that the cooling
energy will significantly increase by a factor of approximately 2.3 in the
future under the RCP8.5 emission scenario in the 2090s. In Brisbane,
with a humid subtropical climate, it is predicted that energy demand for
space heating will be approximately eliminated under both emission
scenarios in the future. However, the energy demand for space cooling
will be remarkably increased by approximately 130% and 400% under
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, respectively. Under present climate conditions in
Richmond, which has a mild temperate climate, the energy re­
quirements for space cooling and heating are approximately balanced.
However, this trend will change noticeably in the future, so that only a
small amount of energy will be required for space heating under the
RCP8.5 emission scenario by the 2090s. It is projected that in Mel­
bourne, with a mild temperate climate, and in Canberra and Hobart,
with a cool temperate climate, the total energy demand for space cooling
and heating would decline by the 2090s. It is estimated that residential
Fig. 8. Energy demand for space heating and cooling under present and future climate conditions (ceiling insulation: C1).
7
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
buildings in Hobart will experience the maximum reduction in their
total cooling and heating energy requirements. This reduction will be
around 27% and 45% under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios by
the 2090s, respectively. It should be noted that whilst these cities may
benefit from global warming in terms of total cooling and heating energy
needs, the impact of extreme weather conditions, which will happen
more frequently and severely in the future, has not been investigated in
this study. It should also be noted that the energy demand for space
heating in Canberra and Melbourne is much higher than for space
cooling under present climate conditions. However, this will change in
the future so that energy demand for space heating will be greater than
space cooling under the RCP8.5 emission scenario in the 2090s.
Figs. 10 and 11 show the impact of the cool roof on the total annual
energy loads for space cooling and heating in the typical residential
house in different cities in Australia under two climate change scenarios.
In Figs. 10 and 11, the left figures present the cool roof’s energy saving
potential in percentage, and the right figures indicate the results in (MJ/
m2) for a ceiling with two insulation levels, respectively. As shown in
Darwin with a tropical climate, Brisbane with a subtropical climate, and
Richmond with a mild temperate climate, cool roofs lead to noticeable
energy savings under the present climate conditions. As can be seen, the
maximum energy saving can be achieved in Darwin by approximately
14%, followed by Brisbane by nearly 5%. Importantly, using cool roofs
in cold climates, including Canberra, Melbourne, and Hobart, leads to an
increase in total cooling and heating energy demand in buildings since
K. Bamdad Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271

Fig. 9. Energy demand for space heating and cooling under present and future climate conditions (ceiling insulation: C2).

Fig. 10. Cool roofs’ impact on the total space cooling and heating energy demand in different cities (ceiling insulation: C1).

Fig. 11. Cool roofs’ impact on the total space cooling and heating energy demand in different cities (ceiling insulation: C2).

8
K. Bamdad
heating penalties are greater than cooling benefits. This negative impact
can lead to an increase of up to 10% in total energy demand for cooling
and heating in Hobart.
A comparison between Figs. 10 and 11 shows that the energy-saving
potential of cool roofs decreases as the thickness of the insulation layer
in the ceiling increases (as expected). This decrease varies for each city.
Under the present climate, the minimum and maximum energy demand
reductions as a result of an increase in insulation are in Brisbane (4.9
MJ/m2) and Darwin (23.6 MJ/m2), respectively. Under RCP 8.5, Hobart
(10.9 MJ/m2) and Darwin (39 MJ/m2) will have the minimum and
maximum energy demand reductions, respectively.
Under future climate conditions, the positive impact of cool roofs on
total cooling and heating energy demand is projected to reach up to
17%, 22%, and 19% for Darwin, Brisbane, and Richmond, respectively.
Notably, under the RCP 8.5 emission scenario, the magnitude of energy
savings is projected to reach up to 86, 35, and 27 (MJ/m2) for Darwin,
Brisbane, and Richmond, respectively, by the 2090s. However, unlike
the present climate scenario, cool roofs have a positive impact on total
cooling and heating loads in Canberra and Melbourne in the future. This
impact, however, depends considerably on the climate change scenario.
It is predicted that, under the RCP 8.5 emission scenario, residential
buildings in both Canberra and Melbourne will benefit from cool roofs in
the 2090s. However, under the RCP 4.5 scenario, only Canberra will
benefit from cool roofs. Therefore, to better understand when this
turning point in energy savings occurs, detailed analyses (for 2030,
2050, and 2070) are performed for these two cities in the next section.
3.7. Cool roofs in cool and mild temperate climates
The Australian Building Codes Board classifies Australian climates
into eight broad climate zones, in which Melbourne, with a mild
temperate climate, and Canberra, with a cool temperate climate, fall into
climate zones six and seven, respectively. Under present climate con­
ditions, these cities are heating-dominated, and residential buildings
require significantly more energy for heating than cooling. The cooling
to heating demand ratio of the case study in Melbourne and Canberra is
approximately 0.2 and 0.3, respectively (Table 5).
Figs. 12 and 13 illustrate the impact of climate change on total en­
ergy load for space cooling and heating in the case study with the cool
roof in Melbourne and Canberra in the 2030s, 2050s, 2070s, and 2090s.
As can be seen, cool roofs have a negative impact on total energy de­
mand for space cooling and heating under present climate conditions in
both cities. As expected, the higher level of insulation in the ceiling
mitigates this negative impact. As a result of global warming, the
negative impact will improve in both cities, with a slightly slower pace
Table 5
Cool roof’s impact on the total space cooling and heating demand in Melbourne and Canberra (the cooling to heating ratio is shown in
parentheses for the case of the dark roof).
9
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
for Melbourne, as can be observed from the slop of the dotted lines in the
figures. In Melbourne, cool roofs can offer approximately 1% energy
savings under the RCP 8.5 emission scenario in the 2070s, and this po­
tential can reach up to 4.5% by the 2090s. In Canberra, cool roofs begin
to offer slight energy savings of around 1% under the high emission
scenario in the 2050s. This potential, however, increases noticeably by
the 2090s, reaching up to 8%. The linear trend lines in these figures
show the correlation between the energy-saving potential of cool roofs
and projected future climates based on twenty-year time intervals. It
should be noted that the p-values for all cases are smaller than 0.01. In
these trend lines, regression coefficients (or slope coefficients) represent
the mean change in the energy-saving potential of cool roofs for each
time interval. For example, the regression coefficient for Canberra with
C1 under RCP8.5 is 3.46, implying that for every twenty-year period in
the future, the energy saving potential of cool roofs should increase by
approximately 3.46%.
Table 5 presents the impact of climate change on the energy-saving
potential of cool roofs for total space heating and cooling in Mel­
bourne and Canberra in the 2030s, 2050s, 2070s, and 2090s. The ratio of
cooling to heating load for the case of the conventional roof (dark roof)
for each scenario is also presented in parentheses in this table. As can be
seen, this ratio rises with global warming over time, so that the cooling
demand will become greater than the heating demand for both cities
under the RCP 8.5 emission scenario by the 2090s. However, in a future
with the RCP 4.5 emission scenario, both cities will remain almost
heating dominated. It should be noted that in this study when the
cooling to heating demand value becomes greater than approximately
0.6, the increased heating demand of cool roofs would be smaller than
the reduction of cooling demand, and thereby, cool roofs are able to
reduce the total energy demand for space cooling and heating in these
cities.
4. Limitations
In this study, the impact of cool roofs on heating, cooling, and total
loads has been investigated. The extent to which replacing a dark roof
with a cool roof will decrease cooling energy load and increase heating
energy load over the lifetime of buildings depends on building opera­
tion, building construction, present climate conditions, future climate
change scenarios, and the potential impact of climate change on the
building’s region. It should be noted that this research evaluates cool
roofs’ impact on the total energy loads. However, the actual amount of
energy (e.g., electricity, gas) consumed by cooling and heating systems
is different from building loads and depends on other factors such as the
efficiency (e.g., COP or EER) of cooling and heating systems and
K. Bamdad
Fig. 12. Impact of climate change on cool roof’s energy saving potential in Melbourne (C1: left and C2: right).
Fig. 13. Impact of climate change on cool roof’s energy saving potential in Canberra (C1: left and C2: right).
occupants’ behaviour. Also, the UHI effect on the building has not been
considered in this study. For buildings located in urban areas, UHI af­
fects the cool roof’s impact on buildings. Finally, any research studying
global warming has some degree of uncertainty that may come from
different sources, such as uncertainty in selected GCM models and
emission scenarios. Further research with different emission scenarios is
encouraged to improve the degree of uncertainty in the prediction
results.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the impact of cool roofs on the thermal
performance of a typical Australian house with an attic under both
present and future climate conditions. A rule-based control model based
on the adaptive thermal comfort model was developed to control mixed-
mode ventilation in the building. The case study was modeled using two
levels of insulation in the ceiling in six different Australian climates,
ranging from cool temperate to hot tropical. Compared with a dark roof,
the application of cool roofs can reduce the total cooling and heating
load by up to 14% in Darwin, which has a tropical climate. With a
10
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
further increase in the insulation level in the ceiling, the cool roof’s
energy-saving potential has been reduced, but it is still significant. For
mild temperate climates, the application of cool roofs should be care­
fully examined case by case for a given location. In this study, it was
found that houses in Richmond can benefit from cool roofs. However, in
Melbourne, the cool roof’s heating penalty is greater than its cooling
benefit. Moreover, neither Canberra nor Hobart, with a cool temperate
climate, can benefit from a cool roof under present climate conditions.
Under future climate conditions, the magnitude of the cool roof’s
energy-saving potential will significantly increase in Darwin, Brisbane,
and Richmond, which have tropical, subtropical, and mild temperate
climates, respectively. Unlike present climate conditions, the applica­
tion of cool roofs can reduce total cooling and heating energy loads in
Canberra and Melbourne in the future. This study revealed that this
positive impact may begin in the 2050s and 2070s for Canberra and
Melbourne, respectively, and can reach up to 4.5% and 8% under the
RCP8.5 emission scenario by the 2090s. In Hobart, with its cool
temperate climate, it does not appear that cool roofs will offer energy
savings by the end of this century.
Realizing the present and future impacts of cool roofs is essential to
K. Bamdad
identifying appropriate pathways to adapt and implement cool roofs in
residential buildings. This research can help policymakers better
develop climate change adaptation plans that improve the thermal
performance of residential buildings.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Keivan Bamdad: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
draft, Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
References
[1] IPCC, Summary for policymakers, in: O.,R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani,
S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann,
J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, J.C. Minx (Eds.), Climate
Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 2014.
[2] IPCC, in: O.,R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth,
A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen,
S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, J.C. Minx (Eds.), Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
2014.
[3] IPCC, Summary for policymakers, in: P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al
Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera,
M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley (Eds.), Climate Change 2022:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022.
[4] K. Bamdad, et al., Introducing extended natural ventilation index for buildings
under the present and future changing climates, Build. Environ. 226 (2022),
109688.
[5] R.-L. Hwang, W.-A. Chen, Identifying relative importance of solar design
determinants on office building façade for cooling loads and thermal comfort in
hot-humid climates, Build. Environ. 226 (2022), 109684.
[6] J. Huang, J. Hanford, F. Yang, Residential Heating and Cooling Loads Component
Analysis, 1999.
[7] D. Kostadinović, et al., Experimental investigation of summer thermal performance
of the green roof system with mineral wool substrate, Build. Environ. 217 (2022),
109061.
[8] F. Tariku, S. Hagos, Performance of green roof installed on highly insulated roof
deck and the plants’ effect: an experimental study, Build. Environ. 221 (2022),
109337.
[9] M. Hosseini, H. Akbari, Heating energy penalties of cool roofs: the effect of snow
accumulation on roofs, Adv. Build. Energy Res. 8 (1) (2014) 1–13.
[10] H. Akbari, et al., Peak power and cooling energy savings of high-albedo roofs,
Energy Build. 25 (2) (1997) 117–126.
[11] H. Akbari, S. Konopacki, M. Pomerantz, Cooling energy savings potential of
reflective roofs for residential and commercial buildings in the United States,
Energy 24 (5) (1999) 391–407.
[12] R. Lapisa, et al., Cool roof and ventilation efficiency as passive cooling strategies
for commercial low-rise buildings – ground thermal inertia impact, Adv. Build.
Energy Res. 7 (2) (2013) 192–208.
[13] R. Arumugam, et al., Experimental determination of comfort benefits from cool-
roof application to an un-conditioned building in India, Adv. Build. Energy Res. 8
(1) (2014) 14–27.
[14] V. Costanzo, et al., Proper evaluation of the external convective heat transfer for
the thermal analysis of cool roofs, Energy Build. 77 (2014) 467–477.
[15] V. Costanzo, G. Evola, L. Marletta, Cool roofs for passive cooling: performance in
different climates and for different insulation levels in Italy, Adv. Build. Energy
Res. 7 (2) (2013) 155–169.
[16] V. Costanzo, et al., Study on the application of cool paintings for the passive
cooling of existing buildings in mediterranean climates, Adv. Mech. Eng. 5 (2013),
413675.
11
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
[17] M. Kolokotroni, et al., Cool roofs: high tech low cost solution for energy efficiency
and thermal comfort in low rise low income houses in high solar radiation
countries, Energy Build. 176 (2018) 58–70.
[18] G. Maracchini, M. D’Orazio, Improving the Livability of Lightweight Emergency
Architectures: A Numerical Investigation on a Novel Reinforced-EPS Based
Construction System, vol. 208, Building and Environment, 2022, 108601.
[19] H. Suehrcke, E.L. Peterson, N. Selby, Effect of roof solar reflectance on the building
heat gain in a hot climate, Energy Build. 40 (12) (2008) 2224–2235.
[20] M. Dabaieh, et al., Reducing cooling demands in a hot dry climate: a simulation
study for non-insulated passive cool roof thermal performance in residential
buildings, Energy Build. 89 (2015) 142–152.
[21] H. Yazdani, M. Baneshi, Building energy comparison for dynamic cool roofs and
green roofs under various climates, Sol. Energy 230 (2021) 764–778.
[22] X. Yu, C. Chen, Coupling Spectral-dependent Radiative Cooling with Building
Energy Simulation, vol. 197, Building and Environment, 2021, 107841.
[23] G. Virk, et al., Microclimatic effects of green and cool roofs in London and their
impacts on energy use for a typical office building, Energy Build. 88 (2015)
214–228.
[24] J. Feng, et al., On the cooling energy conservation potential of super cool roofs,
Energy Build. 264 (2022), 112076.
[25] W. Miller, G. Crompton, J. Bell, Analysis of cool roof coatings for residential
demand side management in tropical Australia, Energies 8 (6) (2015).
[26] K. Bamdad, et al., Ant colony algorithm for building energy optimisation problems
and comparison with benchmark algorithms, Energy Build. 154 (2017) 404–414.
[27] R.F. De Masi, et al., Impact of weather data and climate change projections in the
refurbishment design of residential buildings in cooling dominated climate, Appl.
Energy 303 (2021), 117584.
[28] K. Bamdad, M.E. Cholette, J. Bell, Building energy optimization using surrogate
model and active sampling, J. Build. Perform. Simulat. 13 (6) (2020) 760–776.
[29] K.B. Masouleh, et al., Building energy optimisation using artificial neural network
and ant colony optimisation, in: Proceedings of the Australasian Building
Simulation Conference, 2017.
[30] S. Garshasbi, et al., On the energy impact of cool roofs in Australia, Energy Build.
278 (2023), 112577.
[31] S. Garshasbi, et al., Urban mitigation and building adaptation to minimize the
future cooling energy needs, Sol. Energy 204 (2020) 708–719.
[32] J. Testa, M. Krarti, Evaluation of energy savings potential of variable reflective
roofing systems for US buildings, Sustain. Cities Soc. 31 (2017) 62–73.
[33] S. Cascone, et al., A comprehensive study on green roof performance for
retrofitting existing buildings, Build. Environ. 136 (2018) 227–239.
[34] P. Bevilacqua, R. Bruno, N. Arcuri, Green roofs in a Mediterranean climate: energy
performances based on in-situ experimental data, Renew. Energy 152 (2020)
1414–1430.
[35] S. Cascone, The energy-efficient design of sustainable green roofs in Mediterranean
climate: an experimental study, Energy Build. 273 (2022), 112427.
[36] R. Fleck, et al., Bio-solar green roofs increase solar energy output: the sunny side of
integrating sustainable technologies, Build. Environ. 226 (2022), 109703.
[37] L. Cirrincione, A. Marvuglia, G. Scaccianoce, Assessing the Effectiveness of Green
Roofs in Enhancing the Energy and Indoor Comfort Resilience of Urban Buildings
to Climate Change: Methodology Proposal and Application, vol. 205, Building and
Environment, 2021, 108198.
[38] P. Stella, E. Personne, Effects of Conventional, Extensive and Semi-intensive Green
Roofs on Building Conductive Heat Fluxes and Surface Temperatures in Winter in
Paris, vol. 205, Building and Environment, 2021, 108202.
[39] P. Bevilacqua, The effectiveness of green roofs in reducing building energy
consumptions across different climates. A summary of literature results, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 151 (2021), 111523.
[40] V. Costanzo, G. Evola, L. Marletta, Energy savings in buildings or UHI mitigation?
Comparison between green roofs and cool roofs, Energy Build. 114 (2016)
247–255.
[41] A. Gagliano, et al., A multi-criteria methodology for comparing the energy and
environmental behavior of cool, green and traditional roofs, Build. Environ. 90
(2015) 71–81.
[42] Y. He, et al., Thermal and energy performance of green roof and cool roof: a
comparison study in Shanghai area, J. Clean. Prod. 267 (2020), 122205.
[43] A.L. Pisello, M. Santamouris, F. Cotana, Active cool roof effect: impact of cool roofs
on cooling system efficiency, Adv. Build. Energy Res. 7 (2) (2013) 209–221.
[44] A. Green, et al., Above-roof air temperature effects on HVAC and cool roof
performance: experiments and development of a predictive model, Energy Build.
222 (2020), 110071.
[45] M. Santamouris, Cooling the cities – a review of reflective and green roof
mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban
environments, Sol. Energy 103 (2014) 682–703.
[46] P. Vahmani, et al., Investigating the climate impacts of urbanization and the
potential for cool roofs to counter future climate change in Southern California,
Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (12) (2016), 124027.
[47] X. Wang, H. Li, S. Sodoudi, The effectiveness of cool and green roofs in mitigating
urban heat island and improving human thermal comfort, Build. Environ. 217
(2022), 109082.
[48] J. Gilabert, et al., Abating heat waves in a coastal Mediterranean city: what can
cool roofs and vegetation contribute? Urban Clim. 37 (2021), 100863.
[49] M. Viecco, et al., Green Roofs and Green Walls Layouts for Improved Urban Air
Quality by Mitigating Particulate Matter, vol. 204, Building and Environment,
2021, 108120.
K. Bamdad
[50] J. Joshi, et al., Climate change and 2030 cooling demand in Ahmedabad, India:
opportunities for expansion of renewable energy and cool roofs, Mitig. Adapt.
Strategies Glob. Change 27 (7) (2022) 44. [62]
[51] J. Yang, et al., Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential in
tropical climate, Sol. Energy 173 (2018) 597–609.
[52] J. Testa, M. Krarti, A review of benefits and limitations of static and switchable [63]
cool roof systems, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77 (2017) 451–460.
[53] A. Rosati, M. Fedel, S. Rossi, NIR reflective pigments for cool roof applications: a [64]
comprehensive review, J. Clean. Prod. 313 (2021), 127826.
[54] B. Ashtari, et al., A Conceptual Review of the Potential of Cool Roofs as an Effective [65]
Passive Solar Technique: Elaboration of Benefits and Drawbacks vol. 9, 2021, 624.
[55] M. Santamouris, G.Y. Yun, Recent development and research priorities on cool and [66]
super cool materials to mitigate urban heat island, Renew. Energy 161 (2020)
792–807. [67]
[56] K. Bamdad, et al., Future energy-optimised buildings — addressing the impact of
climate change on buildings, Energy Build. 231 (2021), 110610. [68]
[57] K. Bamdad, et al., Impact of Climate Change on Energy Saving Potentials of Natural
Ventilation and Ceiling Fans in Mixed-Mode Buildings, vol. 209, Building and
Environment, 2022, 108662.
[58] X. Wang, D. Chen, Z. Ren, Global warming and its implication to emission [69]
reduction strategies for residential buildings, Build. Environ. 46 (4) (2011)
871–883. [70]
[59] Z. Ren, Z. Chen, X. Wang, Climate change adaptation pathways for Australian
residential buildings, Build. Environ. 46 (11) (2011) 2398–2412. [71]
[60] D. Chen, X. Wang, Z. Ren, Selection of climatic variables and time scales for future
weather preparation in building heating and cooling energy predictions, Energy [72]
Build. 51 (2012) 223–233.
[61] C. Concepts, Building Improvements to Raise House Energy Ratings from 5.0 Stars.
Overview of Systematic AccuRate Modelling for the Australian Building Codes
12
Building and Environment 236 (2023) 110271
Board, Tony Isaacs Consulting, Australian Building Codes Board, Canberra, ACT,
2009.
A. Delsante, Is the new generation of building energy rating software up to the
task? - a review of AccuRate, in: ABCB Conference ’Building Australia’s Future
2005, Gold Coast, Qld, 2005.
Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS), Software Accreditation
Protocol, 2012.
EnergyPlus™, Version 9.5.0 Documentation: Engineering Reference, in US
Department of Energy, 2022.
L. Gu, Airflow Network Modeling in Energyplus. IBPSA 2007 - International
Building Performance Simulation Association 2007, 2007.
A. Ashrae, Standard 55-Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy,
2017.
Z. Ren, Z. Tang, M. James, Predictive Weather Files for Building Energy Modelling
User Guide, CSIRO, Australia, 2021.
IPCC, in: R.K. Pachauri, L.A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2014, p. 151.
S.E. Belcher, J.N. Hacker, D.S. Powell, Constructing design weather data for future
climates, Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Tecnol. 26 (1) (2005) 49–61.
S. Chen, et al., Long-term prediction of weather for analysis of residential building
energy consumption in Australia, Energies 14 (16) (2021) 4805.
ABCB (Australian Building Codes Board). Vol. 1 of National construction code.
Canberra, Australia. 2019.
W. Miller, et al., Mind the gap: a comparison of socio-technical limitations of
national house rating systems in the UK and Australia, J. Build. Eng. 43 (2021),
102570.