Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

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

Combining use of natural ventilation, external shading, cool roof

and thermal mass to improve indoor thermal environment: Field
measurements and simulation study
Yongcai Li a, *, Xiaohan Tao a, Yaqin Zhang b, Wuyan Li c
a School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 40045, China
b General Research Institute of Architecture & Planning Design Co., Ltd, Chongqing, 400045, China
c Yunnan Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Kunming University of Science and

Technology, Kunming, 650500, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Thermal mass, natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof are commonly regarded as pas-
Natural ventilation sive cooling measures. Combined use of these passive cooling measures could achieve a more
Thermal mass comfortable indoor environment, and further reduce the building energy demand. The aim of this
Cool roof paper was to assess the short and long-term performances of individual and combination passive
External shading
measures in a cooling-dominated region of China experimentally and numerically. The field mea-
Indoor air temperature
surement revealed that natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof can reduce the internal
wall and indoor air temperatures. The mean air temperatures in the test chamber were 1.3, 2.0,
and 1.1 °C lower than that in reference chamber. The combined use of natural ventilation, exter-
nal shading and cool roof can maintain the daily indoor air temperature within the range of 26.2
and 28.1 °C. The mean air temperature in the test chamber was reduced by 2.8 °C. Long-term sim-
ulation results confirmed that applying combination mode of natural ventilation, cool roof and
external shading, the indoor temperature, varying from 21.9 to 28.1 °C, is greatly improved com-
pared with the case operated natural ventilation only, particularly during peak temperature
hours. The effect of specific heat capacity on indoor air temperature is complex. Increasing the
specific heat is not always beneficial to indoor thermal environment. Further, the greater the heat
transfer coefficient leads to the higher indoor air temperature through entire summer. The maxi-
mum indoor air temperature is reduced by 2.6 °C when the heat transfer coefficient changes from
1.0 to 0.1 W/m2·K.

1. Introduction
Global warming has become one of the major concerns to human society, which is fundamentally associated with carbon emis-
sions [1]. The energy consumption in building sector is one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions, accounting for 36% of the
global final energy use, and 39% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions [2]. In China, according to statistics, the total energy
consumption of building sector is as high as 46% in 2018 [3]. To fight the climate change, China government has already set “30–60”
targets: (i) Peaking carbon dioxide emissions before 2030; (ii) Achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. The targets cannot be realized

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yongcail85@163.com (Y. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108904
Received 1 November 2023; Received in revised form 16 February 2024; Accepted 20 February 2024
Available online 21 February 2024
2352-7102/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

without clean and renewable energy participation. It is of great necessity for achieving the carbon neutrality target through reducing
building energy consumption.
Passive cooling building design, improving the thermal performance of buildings and reducing carbon footprint, is gaining more
attraction [4]. Passive cooling measures include natural ventilation to release heat from the building [5–8], installation of a shading
device [9–12], installation of heat insulation on the envelope of the building [13–15], and the use of cool roof to prevent heat gain
[16–19].
Natural ventilation, under the right conditions, is one of the practical ways to improve thermal comfort in buildings with low en-
ergy consumption [20]. Natural ventilation strategies can be used either directly for cooling purpose when the outdoor environment
conditions are within thermal comfort limits, or indirectly, i.e. night ventilation, in order to improve indoor thermal conditions in the
following day [20]. The positive contribution of natural ventilation to building energy demand reduction in areas with different cli-
matic conditions has been studied. A simulation study on utilizing natural ventilation to reduce building energy consumption was
performed under the climatic condition of Tokyo, Japan (having 4 distinct seasons). The simulated result showed a 35% reduction in
electricity energy demand for cooling need [21]. N. Cardinale et al. reported that for a traditional Italian building, natural ventilation
would reduce 43–53 % of cooling energy consumption depending on the local climates [22]. The energy saving potential of utilizing
natural ventilation under warm conditions in Mexico was evaluated. It was found that Natural ventilation can save 54.4 % of the Mex-
ican electric cooling demand for the year of 2008 [23]. The research carried out by Givoni indicated that natural ventilation is most
appropriate for mild climates, where the outdoor air temperature and humidity fall within the comfort limits. To specific, the daytime
ventilation for cooling purpose is recommended when the maximum outdoor air temperature varies between 28 and 32 °C, and the
indoor wind speed from 1.5 to 2 m/s [24].
In order to expand the feasibility of natural ventilation when the outdoor air temperature is extremely high, some renewable en-
ergy technologies such as solar chimney (SC) and earth-air heat exchanger (EAHE) are proposed and used to enhance natural ventila-
tion or reduce the air temperature of external environment. The SC has a transparent cover on its southward wall, and solar radiation
is allowed to pass through the transparent cover to heat the air inside the chimney. The warmed air moves upward along the chimney
height due to the generated buoyancy force and escapes from the top of the chimney, thus the cooler, denser air from external envi-
ronment enters building interior [25]. EAHE is a shallow geothermal energy system that uses the subsoil at the depth between 1.5 m
and 3.5 m as a heat sink, and uses outdoor air as the working fluid to provide fresh air and cooling capacity directly to the building
[26].
Integrating SC and EAHE could form a passive natural ventilation and cooling system, the proposed SCEAHE system is operated
with solar energy as the driving force, and the soil as a heat sink/source. The SC generates buoyancy force, and extracts the stuffy air
from the building, while the outdoor air was pre-cooled by the EAHE before being induced into the building [27]. This system realizes
both cooling and ventilation during daytime with the help of solar energy and geothermal energy. Li et al. [28] further investigated
the ventilation and cooling performance of SCEAHE system considering the heat storage capacity of building thermal mass. The ex-
perimental results showed that the air temperature at EAHE pipe outlet varies between 26.5 and 27.4 °C when the outdoor air temper-
ature fluctuates from 26.8 to 40.1 °C. Additionally, the 24 h continuous natural ventilation was achieved under the coupled effect of
building thermal mass and SC. Long et al. [29] experimentally evaluated the effect of SCEAHE system on indoor thermal environment
under a typical summer day. The field measured data confirmed that the SCEAHE system is able to improve the indoor thermal envi-
ronment greatly in hot summer conditions.
As demonstrated above, the natural ventilation solo could not afford the full cooling need of building. In addition to climate condi-
tions, the benefits from natural ventilation can be increased via a combination of natural ventilation with other passive cooling tech-
nologies. In Refs. [28,29] the SCEAHE system was combined with thermal mass of building to realize night ventilation. Building ther-
mal mass is known to amortize the additional impact of the ambient environment on indoor thermal environment [5]. Thermal mass
passively stores heat during the day then released it at night, consequently, the indoor environment remains naturally cool during the
hottest period of the day.
Because of the attractive characteristics, the thermal mass can be used to regulate the indoor temperature fluctuations and shift
the time of occurrence of peak temperature (increasing time lag). It is certainly able to improve the thermal comfort and to reduce the
heat gain from outdoor environment [30]. Nevertheless, researches argued that high thermal mass is necessarily more effective than
low thermal mass. G.P. Henze et al. [31] reported that high thermal mass is more effective in reducing the total energy consumption
in hot climates. However, some studies claimed that the high thermal mass leads to a slight increase in the cooling load [32,33].
Therefore, it is still not conclusive if the thermal mass is indeed beneficial for energy consumption reduction in buildings, especially
when it is used together with other passive strategies.
For the low or mid-rise buildings, 5–10% of the total building energy consumption is caused by the heat gains from roof, and it is
increased up to more than 40% of top-floor room [34]. Therefore, the roof, as a building component, is an important factor affecting
the building energy consumption and thermal comfort level. The cool roofs, characterized by high solar reflectance and thermal emit-
tance, provide an effective way to reduce solar radiation and dissipate the accumulated heat [35]. Gao et al. [35] reported that the
daily cooling energy use of a conditioned office building is reduced by 9% by adopting the cool roof, and the indoor air temperature is
lowered by 1–3 °C in a naturally ventilated factory. Pisello et al. [36] also revealed that cool roof can lower the internal surface tem-
perature of the roof by 10 °C, and indoor air temperature by 2–4 °C. Guo et al. [37] proposed a numerical approach to evaluate the
thermal performance, energy savings and thermal comfort improvement of a six-storey office building in Xiamen, China by coupling a
cool roof with night ventilation. It was shown that combining a cool roof with night ventilation can significantly decrease the annual
cooling energy consumption by 27 % compared to using a black roof without night ventilation, and by 13 % compared to using a cool
roof without night ventilation.

2
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Among all the building envelopes, windows are responsible for almost 45 % of the heat gain/loss inside buildings [38]. Approxi-
mately 82% of the solar radiation directly incident on the clear glass transmitted into the building [39]. Shading devices are consid-
ered to be an efficient technique to prevent the penetration of direct solar radiation into the building during summer period [40].
Hence, the shading devices could make a positive contribution to reducing building energy consumption, and improving indoor ther-
mal environment. According to Ref. [41], the use of the external shading devices could reduce the cooling load as much as 30 %, and
would be more effective than the use of high-performance glazing. Majority of studies on shading devices to date are focused on cool-
ing-dominated climates, including the hot and dry summer climate, warm and humid climate and the hot and humid climate [42–44].
Wong and Li reported that about 10 % of residential building energy can be reduced by using external shading devices in hot and hu-
mid climates of Singapore [44]. Huo et al. examined the effect of slat angle on the thermal performance of shading device, and found
that the maximum energy saving potential per unit window are is obtained at slat angle of 0° [45]. Similarly, Huang et al. [46] con-
cluded that as the slat angle decreases, the thermal performance of the blind will be even better.
The combined effects of various passive cooling techniques have also been evaluated. Liu et al. found that when natural ventila-
tion and cool roof were used together, the indoor air temperature of the white (albedo: 0.6), blue (albedo: 0.5), and black (albedo:
0.1) rooms could be reduced by more than 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 °C, respectively, in hot summer climate, compared to that of cool roof in-
dividually [47]. Figueroa-Lopez et al. detected the best natural ventilation and shading strategies to mitigate overheating issues dur-
ing the hot period in a passive residential tower in Bilbao, Spain. Combining natural ventilation and shading systems leaded to a de-
sired reduction of indoor temperature [48]. A study performed by Kuczynski et al. revealed that increase of thermal mass, activation
of night ventilation and closing of external blinds decrease the average diurnal and nocturnal peak temperatures by 7.4 and 6.3 K dur-
ing a heat wave, respectively [49]. The existing research confirmed that combining use of more than one passive cooling technique
can further reduce the indoor air temperature through heat modulation and dissipation.
From the above literature review, it is obvious that natural ventilation, cool roof, shading device, and thermal mass as passive
cooling techniques have exhibited some degree of success in building energy saving and indoor thermal comfort improvement. Never-
theless, the literature survey also revealed that the available passive cooling techniques cannot meet the cooling needs of buildings in-
dividually. Therefore, there is a need to combine a variety of passive cooling techniques for more effective results. Although consider-
able research work has been performed using a variety of passive cooling techniques, either individually or in a hybrid configuration
of more than one technique, the hybrid configurations generally include two passive strategies such as natural ventilation and ther-
mal mass, natural ventilation and cool roof, and natural ventilation and shading device.
Few studies were carried out to evaluate and quantify the thermal performances and thermal comfort improvements of individual
and combined uses of natural ventilation, cool roof, external shading and thermal mass. Thermal mass and natural ventilation serve to
slow the process of heat transfer through the internal surfaces of the building envelope, and to remove the internal heat to the outside.
External shading and cool roof prevent heat from solar radiation from entering the interior building. Therefore, these passive cooling
measures reduce the heat gains through all the building envelopes and interior building. It is highly necessary to reveal the applica-
tion efficiency of these passive measures on buildings. In this paper, a comprehensive study was performed to examine the coupled ef-
fects of natural ventilation, cool roof, external shading and thermal mass on the indoor thermal environment of a building located in a
cooling-dominated region of China. Firstly, a series of experiments were carried out to evaluate the impact of natural ventilation, cool
roof and external shading on indoor comfort, both individually and in a hybrid configuration. And then, a numerical study was per-
formed to quantify the combined effect of these four strategies over the entire cooling season. This part focused on the influence of the
thermo-physical parameters of thermal mass on indoor thermal comfort. The aim of this paper is to evaluate how to implement these
passive cooling techniques in an effective way, and guide the application of the aforementioned strategies in buildings in cooling-
dominated area.

2. Outline of the research methodology

In current study, field measurement and numerical simulation were used to identify the effects of natural ventilation, cool roof, ex-
ternal shading and thermal mass on the indoor thermal environment. Firstly, how much the natural ventilation, cool roof, and exter-
nal shading improve the indoor thermal environment were preliminarily explored through filed measurements. Secondly, the com-
bined effect of these strategies on indoor environment over whole cooling season was numerically investigated. Lastly, a parametric
analysis was conducted to examine the contribution of the thermo-physical parameters of thermal mass in order to combined use of
the aforementioned passive measures in an effective way.

2.1. Experimental study

2.1.1. Experimental setup
A full-scale experimental setup was built in a cooling-dominated city of Tongling, Anhui Province, China, with a climate type
“Cfa” according to Köppen climate classification [29]. The climate is characterized by hot summer with high relative humidity.
Hence, the local buildings require cooling in the summer, but heating is not necessary in the winter. The experimental system is illus-
trated in Fig. 1. The whole experimental setup mainly consisted of four components: a) test and reference chambers, b) cool roof, c)
external shading device, and d) natural ventilation system. The detailed information of each component are described as below.

2.1.1.1. Test and reference chambers. As shown in Fig. 1(a), two identical single-story chambers were built as the test and reference
rooms, separately. Each chamber had the internal dimensions of 3 m✕3 m ✕ 3 m (Length ✕ Width ✕ Height). In addition, a well air-
tight door (0.85 m wide × 2 m high) and a window (1.2 m wide × 1.5 m high) were installed on the north and south walls, respec-

3
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Fig. 1. Experimental rig used for field measurement.

tively. The window to wall ratio was 0.2. The detailed specifications of the chambers are shown in Table 1. To comparatively evalu-
ate the effects of different passive measures on the indoor thermal environment, the test chamber integrated the natural ventilation
system, cool roof, and external shading device, while the reference chamber was free floating without any ventilation or cooling sys-
tems.

2.1.1.2. Cool roof. The roofs of test and reference chambers had the same dimension and orientation, and the roof area of each
chamber was 9.0 m2. As shown in Fig. 1(b), only half of the roof area of the test chamber was painted with high reflective coating as
the solar collector occupied about half of the roof area of the two chambers. For comparison purpose, the bare half of the roof area of
the reference chamber remained as it was. The reflective coating had the albedo of 0.84, and the high thermal emittance of 0.92,
which were the two most important parameters to describe the optical and thermal characterization of the reflective coating.

2.1.1.3. External shading device. In this study, the external shading device was only applied to the window of test chamber, of which
slat angles (from 0 to 90°) could be adjusted. Whereas the window of the reference chamber was directly exposed to solar radiation.
The external shading device covered the window completely, as shown in Fig. 1(c). In order to achieve the best thermal perfor-
mance, the slats were closed (90° from the horizontal position). In other words, the shading to window ratio was 100% that equaled
to the window to wall ratio. The detailed specifications of the external shading device are given in Table 2.

Table 1
Thermo-properties of chamber envelope materials.
3
Item Density (kg/m ) Thickness (mm) Thermal conductivity (W/(m·K)) Specific heat (kJ/(kg·K))

Ceiling Expanded polystyrene board 30 20 0.042 1.38

Reinforced concrete 2500 120 1.74 0.92
Cement mortar 1800 15 0.93 1.05
Wall Expanded polystyrene board 30 20 0.042 1.38
Perforated brick 1400 200 0.58 1.05
Cement mortar 1800 15 0.93 1.05
Window Simple glass 2500 3 0.76 –

Table 2
Parameters of external sunshade louvres.

Properties Value

Shading Coefficient (SC) 0.86

Solar heat gain coefficient 0.87
Louver spacing 0.02 m
Louver Width 0.025 m
Louver length 1.4 m
Number of louvers 101

4
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

2.1.1.4. Natural ventilation system. The natural ventilation system aimed to provide fresh air from the outside to indoor space, and
regulate thermal environment passively. The natural ventilation herein was induced by a SCEAHE system, thereby enhancing the
cooling capacity of airflow by EAHE pipe in the summer. As shown in Fig. 1(d), the SCEAHE system included an EAHE pipe, a solar
collector, and a vertical chimney. The working principle of the SCEAHE system was briefly described as follows.
The SCEAHE system is a self-regulating solar and geothermal energy system, and is able to provide 24 h natural ventilation with
the assistance of multiple heat sources. When the solar radiation is available at daytime, the solar collector together with vertical
chimney creates a buoyancy force, and powers the ambient air into the test chamber through buried EAHE pipe. Meanwhile, the am-
bient air is cooled by the underground soil when it circulates inside EAHE pipe. During the nighttime, the buoyant force can be gener-
ated by the combined effect of the thermal mass and subsoil, or by only the thermal mass depending on the relationships between the
temperatures of the internal wall, outdoor air and subsoil [50].
The solar collector with dimensions of 7 m long ✕ 1.5 m wide ✕ 0.3 m high was placed on the roof of the chambers, and oriented
towards the south at an angle of 30° for full use of the solar energy during the daytime. The absorber plate of solar collector was
painted with a high-heat absorbing black coating. Four glass covers were located on the opposite side of the absorber plate, and
formed an air channel with the absorber plate. The other walls of the solar collector were well insulated to reduce the heat loss. The
inlet and outlet of the solar collector were connected to the test chamber and vertical chimney, respectively. The vertical chimney was
a cylinder of 6 m high and 0.3 m in diameter, and was also well insulated. The PVC EAHE pipe with a diameter of 0.3 m consisted of
an inclined inlet pipe, a horizontal main pipe, and a vertical outlet pipe. The horizontal main pipe was 30 m long, and buried 3 m be-
low the ground. The heat exchange between the outdoor air and EAHE was primarily occurred in the horizontal main pipe. Hence, the
outlet pipe was insulated to reduce the influence of surrounding soil on the pre-cooled flowing air before being sent into the indoor
space. Additionally, the inlet of EAHE pipe and outlet of the chimney were equipped with rain caps to prevent rainwater infiltration,
and reduce the effect of wind pressure.

2.1.2. Measurement procedure and instrumentation

Field measurements were conducted in four different scenarios to evaluate the thermal performance of natural ventilation, cool
roof, and external shading.
In scenario 1 (10 August to 11 August 2021), the thermal performance of natural ventilation system was quantified by comparing
the measured results with that of reference chamber. The SCEAHE system was operated to drive the outdoor air into the test chamber
though the EAHE pipe, in which the fresh air is pre-cooled by the surrounding soil.
In scenario 2 (17 August to 18 August 2021), the SCEAHE system was closed, and the external shading device was installed, and
fully cover the southern window. And then the evaluation of the thermal performance of external shading device was conducted.
In scenario 3 (22 August to 23 August 2021), the SCEAHE system was closed, and the external shading device was lifted up. The
exposed roof of the test chamber was painted with high reflective coating, and the thermal performance of cool roof was examined.
In scenario 4 (27 August to 28 August 2021), the SCEAHE system was opened, and the external shading device was put down
again. The combined effect of the three passive measures on indoor thermal environment was tested.
Schematic of the four scenarios are shown in Fig. 2. Each scenario was operated for 2 days to ensure the reliability of the test re-
sults. Furthermore, there was an interval of 3–5 days between each scenario in order to eliminate the influence of the previous sce-
nario on indoor environment. The test dates and corresponding operating conditions are listed in Table 3.
This study focused on how much different passive cooling strategies improve the indoor thermal environment. For that purpose,
the indoor air temperature is the most important factor that would be measured. Moreover, the other variables including the external

Fig. 2. Schematic of four experimental operating scenarios.

5
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Table 3
Different operating conditions of the filed measurement.

Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Date Aug. 10 - 11 Aug. 17- 18 Aug. 22 - 23 Aug. 27 - 28

Duration 48 h 48 h 48 h 48 h
Natural ventilation on off off on
External shading off on off on
Cool roof off off on on

and internal surface temperatures of building envelopes, air temperature and air velocity at pipe outlet that have an impact on indoor
air temperature, were also monitored.
A number of calibrated K-type thermocouples were used to measure the temperatures of various components of the experimental
setup. As shown in Fig. 3(a), three thermocouples were evenly distributed along the centre line of all the external and internal surface
temperatures of the two chamber envelopes including the walls and windows. The external and internal surface temperatures of cool
roof were measured by using three thermocouples, separately. Three thermocouples, arranged at the centre of the horizontal plane of
room at heights of 1.1, 1.7 and 2.9 m from the ground, were used to record the indoor air temperatures. These thermocouples were in-
serted into the reflective aluminium shield to reduce the measurement errors.
The relative humidity and air temperature at EAHE outlet were measured using temperature and humidity sensor. The air velocity
at the EAHE outlet was measured using three air velocity sensors. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the distributions of the airflow sensors were
determined by the ring method of the equivalent area [51].
As shown in. Fig. 3(c), To monitor the air temperature along the main pipe, six K-type thermocouples (T1 to T6) were distributed
along the centre of the pipe, 5 m away from each other. The soil temperatures around the main pipe were measured using 36 K-type
threaded probe thermocouples such that the location of these thermocouples corresponded to that of the thermocouples inside the
main pipe. Additionally, each six thermocouples were distributed at distances of 15 cm, 30 cm, and 45 cm away from the buried pipe,
along the vertical and horizontal directions, as illustrated in Fig. 3(d).
The thermocouples and air velocity sensors were connected to a data acquisition instrument and a transmission module, respec-
tively, and the collected data were saved on a laptop at an interval of 60 s. The temperature and relative humidity of the ambient air
were measured using a temperature and humidity sensor, while the solar irradiation intensity was recorded by a solar power meter.

2.2. Numerical simulation

In order to study the long-term effect of these passive measures, a numerical model of the prototype building was developed, in
which the natural ventilation system of SCEAHE including solar chimney and EAHE pipe was developed by using MATLAB, and the
chamber, external shading as well as the cool roof were developed using the building module available in TRNSYS. The modelling is
accomplished by integrating the developed SCEAHE with chamber models, as shown in Fig. 4. The more detailed description of the
model of SCEAHE system refers to authors’ published work [26].
The developed model had the same construction, layout, dimension as the experimental rig. The optical and thermal characteris-
tics of the external surface (half of the roof area) of chamber roof in the numerical model were identical with those of the reflective
coating applied in experimental rig. The settings of slat angle and specifications of the external shading device in the model were the
same with those described previously. The simulation period from 1 June to 30 September was selected for this long-term perfor-
mance study, and the hourly meteorological data from the typical meteorological year (TMY) was used as the boundary condition in
the simulation.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Experimental result
3.1.1. Weather conditions
The weather conditions during testing period are shown in Fig. 5. The selected days were sunny days, and the trends of weather
data for each day were fairly similar. The daily outdoor air temperature oscillated between 19.2 and 38.6 °C, and the peak of solar ra-
diation can be as high as 1088 W/m2. The weather condition indicated that it is suitable for quantifying the effects of the natural ven-
tilation, external shading, and cool roof. Based on the weather data, the measured results from the full scale experimental rig was ana-
lyzed to identify the individual and combined effects of the aforementioned passive measures on indoor thermal environment. The av-
erage values of measured data for two continuous days were discussed as follows.

3.1.2. Effect of natural ventilation

Fig. 6 shows the cooling effect of natural ventilation on indoor thermal environment. It is seen from Fig. 6(a) that the natural ven-
tilation rate induced by the SCEAHE system can be divided into three stages. In the stages Ⅰ and Ⅲ, the ventilation rate was relatively
low and constant. It fluctuated between 50 and 100 m3/h, while the ventilation rate in stage Ⅱ varied obviously, changing with the
solar irradiance. The maximum value of ventilation rate was 245.0 m3/h. The driving forces for natural ventilation in different stages
have been investigated [28,29,50]. It was confirmed that the natural ventilation in stage Ⅱ is drawn by the buoyancy force generated
by solar chimney, whereas the driving forces in stages Ⅰ and Ⅲ is more complex. It highly depends on the relationships between the
temperatures of the internal wall, indoor air, outdoor air and subsoil [50].

6
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Fig. 3. Arrangements of the measuring devices on the experimental system.

7
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Fig. 4. Simulation platform of the natural ventilation, cool roof and external shading.

Fig. 5. Solar irradiance and outdoor air temperature during testing period.

The temperatures of the internal wall, indoor air, outdoor air and subsoil are illustrated in Fig. 6(b). In stage Ⅰ, the outdoor air tem-
perature was initially lower than the subsoil temperature, meaning that the outdoor air was heated up by the subsoil during this pe-
riod. At the same time, the indoor air temperature was higher than the subsoil temperature but lower than the average internal wall
temperature. This revealed that the air from the buried pipe was again warmed by the internal wall after being heated by subsoil.
With combined heating effect of thermal mass and subsoil, the temperature difference between inside and outside of the chamber was
created and kept relatively stable. And then the outdoor air temperature rose; the temperature difference with subsoil reduced as the
time closed to dawn. Eventually, the outdoor air temperature exceeded the subsoil temperature after 7:30, and then was cooled by the
soil. The outdoor air temperature continuously increased and equaled to the indoor air temperature at 8:00. Afterwards, the buoyancy
force induced by thermal mass indoor air temperature vanished, while the buoyancy force induced by solar chimney dominated the
natural ventilation process between approximately 8: 00 and 19:00. With the solar irradiance disappeared, the outdoor air tempera-
ture become lower than indoor air temperature, and was further lower than subsoil temperature. Furthermore, the evolution of buoy-
ancy forces was exactly consistent with that of natural ventilation processes described in Fig. 6(a). From the analysis above, it was
concluded that the nocturnal buoyancy force generated by the combined heating effect of thermal mass and subsoil.
Fig. 6(c) shows the air temperatures at the outlet of the buried pipe. It seen the inlet air (outdoor air) temperature fluctuated sig-
nificantly from 20.0 to 36.0 °C, whereas the outlet air temperature changed within the range of 24.8 and 26.3 °C. The nearly con-
stant temperature was beneficial to indoor thermal environment regulation. In addition, it can be seen that the outlet air tempera-
ture was higher than the outdoor air temperature during the nighttime and early morning but was lower during the daytime. This
was attributed to the outlet air temperature is greatly influenced by the soil temperature characteristics as shown in Fig. 6(b). The
outdoor air temperature was increased by 5.0 °C in maximum, whereas it was reduced by 10 °C throughout the day.

8
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Fig. 6. Effect of natural ventilation on indoor thermal environment: (a) natural ventilation rate, (b) temperatures of the internal wall, indoor air, outdoor air and sub-
soil, (c) outlet air temperature, (d) external wall temperatures, (e) internal wall temperatures, (f) indoor temperatures in test and reference chambers.

The different external wall temperatures of test chamber are depicted in Fig. 6(d). All the external surface temperatures kept
rather stable and close when the solar radiation absented. The maximum external surface temperatures were 60.6, 50.6, 43.8, 51.5,
45.6 and 54.4 °C for southern wall, western wall, northern wall, eastern wall, window glass and the roof, respectively. Although the
maximum roof temperature was lower than that of southern wall, the roof temperature remained above 40 °C for 7 h, the longest time
amongst all the surface temperatures. This implies that reducing the heat absorbed by roof would greatly decreased the heat gain of
indoor space. Furthermore, the temperature of the window glass was high and lasts for a long time when the solar irradiance was
strong.
As shown in Fig. 6(e), the variation trends of average internal wall temperatures for test and reference chambers were similar. The
internal wall temperature of the test chamber was always lower than that of the reference chamber throughout the day due to the nat-
ural ventilation. As shown, the internal wall temperature of test chamber varied from 27.2 to 29.1 °C, while the internal wall tempera-
ture of the reference chamber varied from 27.8 to 30.6 °C. The temperature difference between them kept within the range of
1.3–1.6 °C.
The maximum and mean reductions in internal wall temperature of the test chamber were approximately 1.6 and 1.0 °C, respec-
tively, comparing with the reference chamber. Meanwhile, the temperature of window glass was obviously influenced by the natural
ventilation. The maximum and mean reductions in glass temperature of the test chamber were approximately 4.9 and 1.1 °C, respec-
tively.

9
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Indoor air temperature is a key parameter to evaluate the performance of the SCEAHE system. Fig. 6(f) shows the indoor air tem-
peratures in the test and reference chambers and the outlet air temperature. The outlet air temperature was lower than the air temper-
ature of the test chamber throughout the day, meaning that the SCEAHE system continuously provides cooling to the test chamber.
The indoor air temperature in the test chamber varied from 26.5 to 29.7 °C, when the outlet air temperature fluctuated from 24.8 to
26.3 °C. Meanwhile, the air temperature of reference chamber fluctuated from 27.1 to 32.5 °C. The mean air temperature in the test
chamber was 1.3 °C lower than that in reference chamber. Additionally, the maximum temperature reduction in the test room can be
up to 3.0 °C. Therefore, the natural ventilation had a great impact on the indoor thermal environment.

3.1.3. Effect of external shading

Fig. 7(a) depicts the average internal wall temperatures for test and reference chambers when the external shading device was ap-
plied. As shown, the average internal wall temperature of test chamber was lower than that of reference chamber. The internal wall
temperature of test chamber varied from 27.1 to 28.5 °C, while that of the reference chamber varied from 28.4 to 30.0 °C. The tem-
perature difference between them fluctuated within the range of 1.3–1.6 °C. This indicates that the shading device had a direct im-
pact on the internal wall temperature.
Fig. 7(b) shows the temperature variations in window glass of test and reference chambers. Compared to the window glass tem-
peratures in Fig. 6(e), the window glass temperature variation of test chamber was greatly attenuated during the period from 9:00 to
18:00. In which the solar irradiation was strong. The maximum and mean reductions in glass temperature of the test chamber were
approximately 14.6 and 2.6 °C, respectively, due to the external shading device.
Fig. 7(c) illustrates the indoor air temperatures in the test and reference chambers. The indoor air temperature in the test cham-
ber changed from 27.0 to 29.2 °C, while the air temperature in reference chamber varied from 28.7 to 32.3 °C. The mean air tem-
perature in the test chamber was 2.0 °C lower than that in reference chamber; the maximum temperature reduction in the test
room was 3.1 °C. Therefore, the external shading also had an obvious influence on the indoor air temperature, especially during
the period of the solar irradiation existence.

Fig. 7. Effect of external shading on indoor thermal environment: (a) internal wall temperatures, (b) Window glass temperatures, (c) indoor temperatures in test and
reference chambers.

10
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

3.1.4. Effect of cool roof

Fig. 8(a) shows the average external and internal roof surface temperatures for test and reference chambers when the cool
roof was applied. As shown, both the external and internal roof surface temperatures of test chamber were lower than those of
reference chamber throughout the day because of high reflective coating. Additionally, for both the test and reference chambers,
the external surface temperatures were lower than the internal surface temperature during night and early morning due to the
long wave radiation. The external and internal surface roof temperatures of test chamber varied from 23.1 to 37.1 °C, and from
27.5 to 29.4 °C, respectively. The temperature difference between external and internal roof surfaces fluctuated from −4.9 to
8.8 °C. However, the external and internal roof surface temperatures of reference chamber varied from 25.2 to 43.2 °C, and
from 28.5 to 30.9 °C, respectively. Further, the temperature difference between them fluctuated from −3.7 to 13.3 °C. The tem-
perature gradient of the external and internal walls reflected the heat transfer characteristics of the wall, which determined the
heat transfer rate. The lager negative temperature difference for test chamber during night and early morning meant that more
heat loss from indoor environment to outdoor environment through the roof, while the smaller temperature difference meant
less heat transfer from outdoor environment to indoor space during daytime.
Fig. 8(b) depicts the average internal wall temperatures for test and reference chambers. The cool roof not only reduced the roof
temperature but also the internal wall temperature of test chamber. The internal roof surface temperature of test chamber was
1.3 °C lower than that of reference chamber in average, while internal wall temperature of the test chamber was 0.7 °C lower than
that of reference chamber in average.
Fig. 8(c) illustrates the indoor air temperatures in the test and reference chambers. The indoor air temperature in the test cham-
ber changed from 28.1 to 31.0 °C, while the air temperature in reference chamber varied from 29.3 to 31.9 °C. Additionally, the
cool roof had a stronger impact on indoor air temperature during nighttime than that during daytime. The mean air temperature in
the test chamber was 1.1 °C lower than that in reference chamber. The maximum temperature reduction in the test room was
1.3 °C, occurring at midnight, while the minimum temperature reduction was 0.8 °C, occurring at 15:00.

Fig. 8. Effect of cool roof on indoor thermal environment: (a) External and internal roof surface temperatures, (b) Internal wall temperatures, (c) indoor temperatures in
test and reference chambers.

11
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

3.1.5. Combined effect of three measures

After evaluating the effects of the natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof, separately, the combined effect of the three
measures was tested. Fig. 9 depicts the airflow rate induced by the SCEAHE system. The variation trend of airflow rate was highly
close to that illustrated in Fig. 6(a), and it changed within the range of 40 and 223.7 m3/h. Additionally, the nocturnal ventilation
rate was lower than that in Fig. 6(a), especially during the period from 20:00–24:00. This is due to the lower indoor air temperature
under the effect of the three passive measures.
The outlet air temperature changed within the range of 25.3 and 26.5 °C, and its variation trend was similar to that of the ventila-
tion rate. However, a 3.0 h time lag existed between the ventialtion rate and outlet air temperature during daytime. This is because

Fig. 9. Combined Effect of three passive cooling measures on indoor thermal environment: (a) airflow rate and outlet air temperature, (b) window glass temperatures,
(c) external and internal roof surface temperatures, (d) internal wall temperatures, (e) indoor air temperatures.

12
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

that the ventilation rate was mainly determined by the solar raidaiton, whereas the outlet air temperature was mainly influenced by
the outdoor air temperature.
Fig. 9(b) shows the window glass temperatures of the test and reference chambers. Similar to that shown in Fig. 7(b), the win-
dow glass temperature of the test chamber was significantly reduced by the external shading during the period from 9:00 to 18:00.
The maximum and mean reductions in glass temperature of the test chamber were approximately 13.4 and 2.6 °C, respectively.
Therefore, the external shading played an important role amongst three measures.
Fig. 9(c) shows the average external and internal roof surface temperatures for test and reference chambers. Similar to that de-
scribed in Fig. 8(a), both the external and internal roof surface temperatures of test chamber were always lower than those of refer-
ence chamber. The external and internal surface temperatures of test chamber varied from 22.2 to 34.3 °C, and from 26.2 to 27.9 °C,
respectively. The temperature difference between external and internal surfaces fluctuated from −4.3 to 7.5 °C. The external and in-
ternal surface temperatures of reference chamber varied from 24.6 to 44.4 °C, and from 28.0 to 30.1 °C, respectively. The maximum
temperature reduction in external surface temperature of test temperature was 10.1 °C, which in turn influenced the internal surface
temperature. The average internal roof surface temperature of test chamber was 1.4 °C lower than that of reference chamber.
Fig. 9(d) depicts the average internal wall temperatures for test and reference chambers. The maximum and mean reductions in
internal wall temperature of the test chamber were 2.1 and 1.5 °C compared with the reference chamber.
Fig. 9(e) illustrates the comparisons of the indoor air temperatures in test and reference chambers when the combined measures
were applied. Clearly, the indoor air temperature in the test chamber was higher than that in reference chamber throughout the
day, varying from 26.2 to 28.1 °C. Whereas the air temperature in reference chamber fluctuated from 28.2 to 32.3 °C. The mean air
temperature in the test chamber was 2.8 °C lower than that in reference chamber. The maximum temperature reduction in the test
room was 4.3 °C. Additionally, comparison of the indoor temperatures for different scenarios is shown in Table 4. As shown, al-
though natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof can improve the indoor thermal environment to varying degrees, the in-
door air temperature created by combined measures was the lowest. This means that combined utilization of the three passive cool-
ing measures could further and effetely improve indoor thermal environment.
The field measured data highlighted the importance of natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof to reduce heating load,
and to improve indoor environment. However, the weather changed from day to day during the testing period. It is necessary to iden-
tify the performances of these passive measures under identical weather conditions. Also, the experiments highlighted the importance
of the thermal mass, and how it affected the natural ventilation as well as the indoor thermal environment. Therefore, it is important
to study the effect of thermal mass that can integrate the thermal mass with other passive cooling measures for more effective results.
Considering the difficulty in changing the properties of thermal mass through field measurement, the effect of thermal mass on indoor
air temperature was investigated by numerical method.

3.2. Validation of the developed model

To verify the accuracy of the developed model, comparison between the experimental results obtained from scenario 4 and the nu-
merical results was performed. According to the theoretical analysis, the critical component of developed numerical model was the
SCEAHE system. Hence, the airflow rate was selected as the performance parameter of the SCEAHE system to verify the accuracy of
the numerical outputs. Another selected parameter was the indoor air temperature of test chamber as it reflected the combined effect
of natural ventilation, cool roof and external shading.
Fig. 10 illustrates comparisons the simulated and experimental data of airflow rate and indoor air temperature. As shown in
Fig. 10(a) that the trend of numerical data was consistent with that of experimental data. The average error between the simu-
lated and measured ventilation volumes was 12.5 %. The error was mainly caused by the difference between the simulated and
measured nocturnal airflow rates. Although the absolute error between them was small, the relative error is large owing to the
low measured nocturnal airflow. Fig. 10(b) presents the simulated and measured indoor air temperatures in test chamber. The
general variation trends of both two profiles are similar. The average deviation was 3.1 %. Overall, the reliability of the devel-
oped model was confirmed.

3.3. Simulated results analysis

Fig. 11 illustrates the hourly solar radiation and outdoor air temperature distributions from 1 June to 30 September. The
weather data was used as boundary conditions in the developed model. The maximum solar intensity was 1100 W/m2, while the
outdoor air temperature fluctuated within 16.4–38.3 °C. The initial soil temperature was set to 23.4 °C, which was obtained from
the field measurement.

Table 4
Comparison of the indoor temperatures for different scenarios.

Scenarios Maximum temperature (°C) Minimum temperature (°C) Average temperature (°C)

Test room Reference room Test room Reference room Test room Reference room

1 29.7 32.5 26.5 27.1 27.9 29.2

2 29.2 32.3 27.0 28.7 28.1 30.2
3 31.0 31.9 28.1 28.3 29.3 30.4
4 28.1 32.3 26.2 28.2 27.2 30.0

13
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Fig. 10. Comparisons between the present results and measured results: (a) airflow rate, (b) indoor air temperature.

Fig. 11. Hourly solar irradiation and outdoor air temperature.

3.3.1. Long-term cooling effects of different combination modes

Fig. 12 depicts the airflow rate and outlet air temperature for the SCEAHE system from Jun 1 to Sep 30. The airflow rates in
early and late summer (June and September) were higher than that in mid-summer (July and August) due to the higher buoyancy
was generated during early and late summer. Although solar radiation was higher in mid-summer than in remaining time, the
higher ambient air temperature in mid-summer would also reduce the buoyancy force [7]. Additionally, the nocturnal buoyancy
force was further enhanced due to the lower ambient air temperature and assistance of the heating effect of subsoil in early and
late periods [26]. The outlet air temperature variation was strongly attenuated compared to the outdoor air temperature shown in
Fig. 11. The outlet air temperature varied from 21.6 to 27.6 °C, with a fluctuation range of 6.0 °C.
Fig. 13 shows the indoor air temperatures for difference combination modes of the passive cooling measures. The indoor temper-
ature created by natural ventilation was the highest, followed by the natural ventilation + cool roof, natural ventilation + external
shading, and natural ventilation + cool roof + external shading. Obviously, combining two or more passive cooling measures could
achieve more effective results, and the cooling effect of external shading was better than that of cool roof. When applying combina-
tion mode of natural ventilation + cool roof + external shading, the indoor temperature was controlled within the range of
21.9–28.1 °C. The indoor thermal environment was greatly improved compared with the case operated natural ventilation only, par-
ticularly during the peak temperature hours.

14
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Fig. 12. Airflow rate and outlet air temperature of the SCEAHE system.

Fig. 13. Indoor air temperatures for difference combination modes of the passive cooling measures.

3.3.2. Long-term effect of thermal mass

With operating the natural ventilation, cool roof as well as external shading, how the material properties of thermal mass influenc-
ing the indoor thermal environment was further investigated in order to effectively integrate the thermal mass with other passive
cooling measures.
Fig. 14(a) shows the indoor air temperatures when the specific heat capacity of thermal mass varied from 0.5 to 5.0 kJ/kg·K. The
fluctuation trends of all the air temperatures were similar. Generally, the higher the specific heat capacity the higher indoor air tem-
perature during early and late summer, but the lower indoor air temperature during mid-summer. This is due to that the thermal
mass with high heat capacity could absorb a part of heat energy during the daytime, and release it when the indoor air temperature
is low, which stabilizes the daily air temperatures compared to the case with low specific heat capacity. Although more heat can be
transferred into the indoor space through the thermal mass with low specific heat capacity, the combined use of the natural ventila-
tion, external shading and cool roof could effectively eliminate it, but more heat would lose from indoor to outdoor at night during
early and late summer.
With high outdoor temperature and high amount of sunlight exposure during the mid-summer, the passive cooling measures could
not eliminate the heat gain completely, while the thermal mass with high heat capacity could absorb a high amount of heat energy,
and less heat transferred to the internal wall surface, resulting in a lower indoor temperature. Hence, the thermal mass with high heat
capacity together with passive cooling measures had a more significant moderating influence on the indoor temperatures.
It should be pointed out that the effect of thermal mass with specific heat capacity of 5.0 kJ/kg·K on indoor air temperature
showed a different behavior from other cases. In other words, the indoor air temperature for the thermal mass with specific heat ca-
pacity of 5.0 kJ/kg·K was lower than that for thermal mass with specific heat capacity of 2.0 kJ/kg·K during the entire summer pe-
riod. The possible reason is that the heat gain was predominantly the influence of solar radiation as the outdoor air temperature was
not particularly high during the early and late summer. More heat stored in the thermal mass with high heat capacity released to the
outdoor environment, while less heat transferred into the indoor environment. Nonetheless, more heat was stored in thermal mass
with high storage capacity during mid-summer, and not completely released to the exterior and interior buildings during the night. It
leaded to a higher internal wall surface temperature. This meant that increasing the specific heat was not always beneficial to indoor
thermal environment.
The maximum and minimum temperatures for different values of specific heat capacity are illustrated in Fig. 14(b). Without con-
sidering the case of 5.0 kJ/kg·K, the maximum temperature decreased with the specific heat increased, while the minimum tempera-
ture increased with the specific heat increased. Specifically, the maximum temperature was reduced by 0.45 °C, while the minimum
temperature was increased by 0.37 °C when the specific heat capacity of thermal mass increased from 0.5 to 2.0 kJ/kg·K.
Fig. 15 plots the indoor air temperatures when the heat transfer coefficient of thermal mass varied from 0.1 to 1.0 W/m2·K. As
shown, the curves of indoor air temperature fluctuated in similar pattern. Additionally, the greater the heat transfer coefficient the
higher indoor air temperature through the entire summer, as shown in the partial enlarged figure. The effect of heat transfer coeffi-
cient on indoor air temperature was more significant in the mid-summer than that in the early and late summer. As shown, the

15
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

Fig. 14. Indoor air temperatures for different values of specific heat capacity: (a) Indoor air temperatures for different values of specific heat, (b) Maximum and mini-
mum temperatures for different values of specific heat.

Fig. 15. Indoor air temperatures for different values of heat transfer coefficient.

daily indoor air temperatures less fluctuated and diverged for different values of heat transfer coefficient during the early and late
summer, while the fluctuations and divergences of indoor air temperatures become more obvious during the mid-summer. This is
due to the combined effect of natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof effectively restrained the indoor air temperature
during the early and late summer, in which the cooling load was relatively low. However, the solar radiation become strong, and
superimposed an additional temperature on the basis of the external wall temperature, which induced a higher indoor air tempera-
ture, and a wider range fluctuation, epically for a greater heat transfer coefficient. Overall, the indoor air temperature was reduced
by 8.8%, with 2.6 °C in maximum when the heat transfer coefficient changed from 1.0 to 0.1 W/m2·K.

16
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

4. Conclusions
Combining use of passive cooling techniques could effectively improve indoor thermal environment as well as reduce energy de-
mand. In order to quantitatively assess the effects of natural ventilation, cool roof, external shading and thermal mass on the indoor
thermal environment a building located in the cooling-dominated region, a comprehensive experimental and numerical study was
performed. The following conclusions are made based on the current study.
1) The field measurement revealed that natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof can reduce the internal wall and indoor
air temperatures. The mean air temperatures in the test chamber were 1.3, 2.0, and 1.1 °C lower than that in reference chamber.
2) The combined use of natural ventilation, external shading and cool roof can maintain the daily indoor air temperature within
the range of 26.2 and 28.1 °C. The mean air temperature in the test chamber was reduced by 2.8 °C compared that in reference
chamber.
3) Long-term simulation results confirmed that combining two or more passive cooling measures can achieve better indoor
environment, and the cooling effect of external shading is better than that of cool roof. When applying combination mode of
natural ventilation, cool roof and external shading, the indoor temperature is greatly improved compared with the case operated
natural ventilation only, particularly during peak temperature hours.
4) The effect of specific heat capacity on indoor air temperature is complex. A higher the specific heat capacity resulted in a higher
indoor air temperature during early and late summer, but a lower indoor air temperature during mid-summer. However, the
effect of thermal mass with specific heat capacity of 5.0 kJ/kg·K on indoor air temperature does not follow this variation trend.
Hence, increasing the specific heat is not always beneficial to indoor thermal environment.
5) The greater the heat transfer coefficient the higher indoor air temperature through entire summer. The effect of heat transfer
coefficient on indoor air temperature is more significant in mid-summer than that in early and late summer. The indoor air
temperature is reduced by 8.8%, with 2.6 °C in maximum when the heat transfer coefficient changes from 1.0 to 0.1 W/m2·K.
Based on the findings of the current study, it can be concluded that there is enough evidence to suggest that combined use of nat-
ural ventilation, external shading, cool roof, and thermal mass can greatly improve the indoor thermal environment in the cooling-
dominated region. With the application of these passive cooling measures, the time to run the air conditioning, or to run the air condi-
tioning at full load will be reduced. Additionally, this paper primarily focuses on the cooling effect of these passive measures in sum-
mer. However, their impact on the indoor thermal environment in winter also needs to be further evaluated in order to determine the
annual energy saving contribution.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Yongcai Li: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Xiaohan Tao: Writing –
original draft, Software, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. Yaqin Zhang: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data cu-
ration. Wuyan Li: Visualization, Validation, Software.

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
Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was supported by Chongqing Science and Technology Commission, China (No. CSTB2022NSCQ-
MSX1019), and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52078075)).

References
[1] M. Röck, M.R.M. Saade, M. Balouktsi, F.N. Rasmussen, H. Birgisdottir, R. Frischknecht, G. Habert, T. Lützkendorf, A. Passer, Embodied GHG emissions of
buildings – the hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation, J. Applied Energy 258 (2020) 114107, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2019.114107.
[2] T. Abergel, B. Dean, J. Dulac, I. Hamilton, T. Wheeler, Global Status Report-Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector,
2018 978-92-807-3729-5.
[3] China association of building energy efficiency, China Building Energy Research Report, 2020 (in Chinese).
[4] M. Rashad, N. Khordehgah, A. Abnieńska-Góra, L. Ahmad, H. Jouhara, The utilisation of useful ambient energy in residential dwellings to improve thermal
comfort and reduce energy consumption, J. International Journal of Thermofluids 9 (2021) 100059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2020.100059.
[5] Y. Li, S. Liu, Experimental study on thermal performance of a solar chimney combined with PCM, J. Applied Energy 114 (2014) 172–178, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.022.
[6] S. Liu, Y. Li, An experimental study on the thermal performance of a solar chimney without and with PCM, J. Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 338–346, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.03.054.
[7] Tianhe Long, Dimeng Zheng, Wuyan Li, Yongcai Li, Jun Lu, Ling Xie, Sheng Huang, Numerical investigation of the working mechanisms of solar chimney
coupled with earth-to-air heat exchanger (SCEAHE), J. Solar Energy 230 (2021) 109–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.10.029.
[8] Ju Lu, Gaoxiao Long, Qianru Li, Yongcai Li, Thermal storage capacity and night ventilation performance of a solar chimney combined with different PCMs, J.

17
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

International Journal of Photoenergy 4 (2023) 1–10.

[9] Huimin Huo, Wei Xu, Angui Li, Guoyou Cui, Yazhou Wu, Changping Liu, Field comparison test study of external shading effect on thermal-optical performance
of ultralow-energy buildings in cold regions of China, J. Building and Environment 180 (2020) 106926, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106926.
[10] A. Tzempelikos, A.K. Athienitis, The impact of shading design and control on building cooling and lighting demand, J. Solar Energy 81 (2007) 369–382, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.06.015.
[11] A. Ghosh, S. Neogi, Effect of fenestration geometrical factors on building energy consumption and performance evaluation of a new external solar shading device
in warm and humid climatic condition, J. Solar Energy 169 (2018) 94–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.025.
[12] A. Dutta, A. Samanta, S. Neogi, Influence of orientation and the impact of external window shading on building thermal performance in tropical climate, J.
Energy and Buildings 139 (2017) 680–689, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.018.
[13] Zhoujie Wang, Yuhao Qiao, Yan Liu, Jiayang Bao, Qinglong Gao, Jingheng Chen, Hui Yao, Yang Liu, Thermal storage performance of building envelopes for
nearly-zero energy buildings during cooling season in Western China: an experimental study, J. Building and Environment 194 (2021) 107709, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107709.
[14] Yan Liu, Liqiang Hou, Yidong Yang, Yinping Feng, Yang Liu, Qinglong Gao, Effects of external insulation component on thermal performance of a Trombe wall
with phase change materials, J. Solar Energy 204 (2020) 115–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.04.010.
[15] K. Imessad, L. Derradji, N.A. Messaoudene, F. Mokhtari, A. Chenak, R. Kharchi, Impact of passive cooling techniques on energy demand for residential buildings
in a Mediterranean climate, J. Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 589–597, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.06.005.
[16] Rui Guo, Yafeng Gao, Chaoqun Zhuang, Per Heiselberg, Ronnen Levinson, Xia Zhao, Dachuan Shi, Optimization of cool roof and night ventilation in office
buildings: a case study in Xiamen, China, J. Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 2279–2294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.032.
[17] Y. Gao, J. Xu, S. Yang, X. Tang, Q. Zhou, J. Ge, T. Xu, R. Levinson, Cool roofs in China: policy review, building simulations, and proof-of-concept experiments, J.
Energy Policy 74 (2014) 190–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.036.
[18] Y. Gao, D. Shi, R. Levinson, R. Guo, C. Lin, J. Ge, Thermal performance and energy savings of white and sedum-tray garden roof: a case study in a Chongqing
office building, J. Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 343–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.091.
[19] A.L. Pisello, M. Santamouris, F. Cotana, Active cool roof effect: impact of cool roofs on cooling system efficiency, J. Advances in Building Energy Research 7
(2013) 209–221.
[20] M.N. Assimakopoulos, A. Tsangrassoulis, G. Mihalakakou, M. Santamouris, S. Jauré, Development of a control algorithm to optimize airflow rates through
variable size windows, J. Energy and Buildings 34 (4) (2002) 363–368, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00116-5.
[21] A. Wood, R. Salib, Liberty Tower of Meiji University. Natural Ventilation in High Rise Office Buildings, Routledge, 2013, pp. 42–49.
[22] N. Cardinale, M. Micucci, F. Ruggiero, Analysis of energy saving using natural ventilation in a traditional Italian building, J. Energy and Buildings 35 (2003)
153–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00024-5.
[23] I. Oropeza-Perez, P.A. Østergaard, Energy saving potential of utilizing natural ventilation under warm conditions – a case study of Mexico, J. Applied Energy 130
(2014) 20–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.05.035.
[24] B. Givoni, Climate Considerations in Building and Urban Design, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 1998.
[25] Y. Li, S. Liu, J. Lu, Effects of various parameters of a PCM on thermal performance of a solar chimney, J. Applied Thermal Engineering 127 (2017) 1119–1131,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.08.087.
[26] Tianhe Long, Ningjing Zhao, Wuyan Li, Wei Shen, Yongcai Li, Jun Lu, Sheng Huang, Zhenyong Qiao, Numerical simulation of diurnal and annual performance of
coupled solar chimney with earth-to-air heat exchanger system, J. Applied Thermal Engineering 214 (2022) 118851, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2022.118851.
[27] M. Maerefat, A. Haghighi, Passive cooling of buildings by using integrated earth to air heat exchanger and solar chimney, J. Renewable Energy 35 (2010)
2316–2324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.003.
[28] Y. Li, T. Long, X. Bai, L. Wang, W. Li, S. Liu, J. Lu, Y. Cheng, K. Ye, S. Huang, An experimental investigation on the passive ventilation and cooling performance of
an integrated solar chimney and earth-air heat exchanger, J. Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 486–500, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.004.
[29] Tianhe Long, Yongcai Li, Wuyan Li, Shuli Liu, Jun Lu, Dimeng Zheng, Kai Ye, Zhenyong Qiao, Sheng Huang, Investigation on the cooling performance of a
buoyancy driven earth-air heat exchanger system and the impact on indoor thermal environment, J. Applied Thermal Engineering 207 (2022) 118148, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118148.
[30] A. Reilly, O. Kinnane, The impact of thermal mass on building energy consumption, J. Applied Energy 198 (2017) 108–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2017.04.024.
[31] G.P. Henze, T.H. Le, A.R. Florita, C. Felsmann, Sensitivity analysis of optimal building thermal mass control, J. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering-Transactions
of the Asme 129 (4) (2007) 473–485, https://doi.org/10.1116/1.2770755.
[32] S.A. Kalogirou, G. Florides, S. Tassou, Energy analysis of buildings employing thermal mass in Cyprus, J. ASHRAE Trans. 27 (3) (2002) 353–368, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(02)00007-1.
[33] E. Rodrigues, M.S. Fernandes, A.R. Gaspar, Á. Gomes, J.J. Costa, Thermal transmittance effect on energy consumption of Mediterranean buildings with different
thermal mass, J. Applied Energy 252 (2019) 113437, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113437.
[34] Y. Gao, D. Shi, R. Levinson, R. Guo, C. Lin, J. Ge, Thermal performance and energy savings of white and sedum-tray garden roof: a case study in a Chongqing
office building, J. Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 343–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.091.
[35] Y. Gao, J. Xu, S. Yang, X. Tang, Q. Zhou, J. Ge, T. Xu, R. Levinson, Cool roofs in China: policy review, building simulations, and proof-of-concept experiments, J.
Energy Policy 74 (2014) 190–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.036.
[36] A.L. Pisello, M. Santamouris, F. Cotana, Active cool roof effect: impact of cool roofs on cooling system efficiency, J. Advances in Building Energy Research 7
(2013) 209–221.
[37] Rui Guo, Yafeng Gao, Chaoqun Zhuang, Per Heiselberg, Ronnen Levinson, Xia Zhao, Dachuan Shi, Optimization of cool roof and night ventilation in office
buildings: a case study in Xiamen, China, J. Renewable Energy 147 (2020) 2279–2294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.032.
[38] S. Grynning, A. Gustavsen, B. Time, B.P. Jelle, Windows in the buildings of tomorrow: energy losers or energy gainers? J. Energy and Buildings 61 (2013) (2013)
185–192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.029.
[39] R. Singh, I.J. Lazarus, V.V.N. Kishore, Effect of internal woven roller shade and glazing on the energy and daylighting performances of an office building in the
cold climate of Shillong, J. Applied Energy 159 (2015) 317–333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.009.
[40] T.E. Kuhn, C. Bühler, W.J. Platzer, Evaluation of overheating protection with sun-shading systems, J. Solar Energy 69 (2001) (2001) 59–74, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0038-092X(01)00017-2.
[41] C.A. Balaras, K. Droutsa, A.A. Argiriou, D.N. Asimakopoulos, Potential for energy conservation in apartment buildings, J. Energy and Buildings 31 (2000) (2000)
143–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(99)00028-6.
[42] A.A.Y. Freewan, Impact of external shading devices on thermal and daylighting performance of offices in hot climate regions, J. Solar Energy 102 (2014) (2014)
14–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.01.009.
[43] A. Ghosh, S. Neogi, Effect of fenestration geometrical factors on building energy consumption and performance evaluation of a new external solar shading device
in warm and humid climatic condition, J. Solar Energy 169 (2018) (2018) 94–104, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.025.
[44] N.H. Wong, S. Li, A study of the effectiveness of passive climate control in naturally ventilated residential buildings in Singapore, J. Build Environment 42 (3)
(2007) 1395–1405 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.032, 207.
[45] Huimin Huo, Wei Xu, Angui Li, Yanjie Lv, Changping Liu, Analysis and optimization of external Venetian blind shading for nearly zero-energy buildings in
different climate regions of China, J. Solar Energy 223 (2021) 54–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.05.046.
[46] Y. Huang, J.L. Niu, T.M. Chung, Comprehensive analysis on thermal and daylighting performance of glazing and shading designs on office building envelope in
cooling-dominant climates, J. Applied Energy 134 (2014) (2014) 215–228, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.07.100.
[47] Ying Liu, Yafeng Gao, Chaoqun Zhuang, Dachuan Shi, Yang Xu, Jingxuan Guan, Yanqiang Di, Optimization of top-floor rooms coupling cool roofs, natural
ventilation and solar shading for residential buildings in hot-summer and warm-winter zones, J. Journal of Building Engineering 66 (2023) 105933, https://

18
Y. Li et al. Journal of Building Engineering 86 (2024) 108904

doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105933.
[48] Anna Figueroa-Lopez, Alba Arias, Xabat Oregi, Inigo Rodríguez, Evaluation of passive strategies, natural ventilation and shading systems, to reduce overheating
risk in a passive house tower in the north of Spain during the warm season, J. Journal of Building Engineering 43 (2021) 102607, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jobe.2021.102607.
[49] Tadeusz Kuczynski, Staszczuk Anna, Marta Gortych, Stryjski Roman, Effect of thermal mass, night ventilation and window shading on summer thermal comfort
of buildings in a temperate climate, J. Building and Environment 204 (2021) 108126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108126.
[50] Yufu Bai, Tianhe Long, Wuyan Li, Yongcai Li, Shuli Liu, Zhihao Wang, Jun Lu, Sheng Huang, Experimental investigation of natural ventilation characteristics of
a solar chimney coupled with earth-air heat exchanger (SCEAHE) system in summer and winter, J. Renewable Energy 93 (2022) 1001–1018, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.076.
[51] H. Li, L. Ni, G. Liu, Z.S. Zhao, Y. Yao, Feasibility study on applications of an Earth-air Heat Exchanger (EAHE) for preheating fresh air in severe cold regions, J.
Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 1268–1284, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.012.

19