- Email: [email protected]
Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential in European climates for office buildings under free floating conditions
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130 www.elsevier.com/locate/solener
Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential in European climates for office buildings under free floating conditions D. Kolokotsa a,⇑, M. Santamouris b, S.C. Zerefos c a b
Technical University of Crete, Environmental Engineering Department, GR 73100 Crete, Greece Group Building Environmental Studies, Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece c Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece Received 21 February 2013; accepted 1 June 2013 Available online 3 July 2013 Communicated by: Associate Editor Ruzhu Wang
Abstract Heat island which is the most documented phenomenon of climatic change is related to the increase of urban temperatures compared to the suburban. Among the various urban heat island mitigation techniques, green and cool roofs are the most promising since they simultaneously contribute to buildings’ energy efficiency. The aim of the present paper is to study the mitigation potential of green and cool roofs by performing a comparative analysis under diverse boundary conditions defining their climatic, optical, thermal and hydrological conditions. The impact of cool roof’s thermal mass, insulation level and solar reflectance as well as the effect of green roofs’ irrigation rate and vegetation are examined. The parametric study is based on detailed simulation techniques coupled with a comparative presentation of the released integrated sensible heat for both technologies versus a conventional roof under various climatic conditions. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Green roofs; Cool roofs; Urban heat island; Mitigation potential; Sensible heat
1. Introduction The heat island effect concerns higher temperatures in central urban areas as compared to suburban areas, and is considered as the most documented phenomenon of climatic change (Santamouris, 2001). Important research has been carried out to understand this phenomenon and also document its magnitude in various parts of the planet (Mihalakakou et al., 1998; Mirzaei and Haghighat, 2010; Mohsin and Gough, 2012; Santamouris, 2007). Existing data shows that the intensity of the phenomenon may be very important and may reach values close to 10 K (Giannopoulou et al., 2011; Gobakis et al., 2011; Livada et al., 2002; Mihalakakou et al., 2004, 2002; Santamouris et al., 1999). The increase of urban temperatures in associ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2821037808.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Kolokotsa). 0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.06.001
ation to the important climate change influences the quality of life of urban citizens (Cartalis et al., 2001; Livada et al., 2007). In particular, there is a considerable increase in the energy consumption for cooling buildings (Asimakopoulos et al., 2012; Hassid et al., 2000; Kolokotroni et al., 2012; Santamouris, 2012; Santamouris et al., 2001) while high temperatures intensify pollution problems and increase ozone concentration (Sarrat et al., 2006; Stathopoulou et al., 2008). In parallel, the outdoor thermal comfort conditions are deteriorated (Pantavou et al., 2011), the ecological footprint of cities is increasing (Santamouris et al., 2007a), while the thermal stress is more intense for low income population (Sakka et al., 2012). To counterbalance the aforementioned conditions various mitigation techniques have been developed. Some of the more important mitigation techniques deal with the increase of the albedo of buildings and urban structures (Rosenfeld et al., 1995; Santamouris et al., 2011, 2008),
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
the use of additional green spaces in cities (Zoulia et al., 2009), the installation of green gardens on the roof of buildings (Niachou et al., 2001; Santamouris et al., 2007b) as well as the use of cool sinks for heat dissipation, such as the ground and water (Jacovides et al., 1996; Mihalakakou et al., 1994). In particular, the increase of urban albedo may decrease substantially carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Recent studies have shown that a long-term global cooling effect of 3 10 15 K corresponds to each 1 m2 of a surface with an albedo increase of 0.01 and this is equivalent to a CO2 emission reduction of about 7 kg (Akbari et al., 2012). Increase of the albedo in the built environment can be achieved by using high reflectance surfaces in roofs, pavements and other urban surfaces. Natural materials as well as high reflectance white paints have been proposed and used with important results in buildings,(Doulos et al., 2004; Synnefa et al., 2006). Recent studies and applications have shown that the use of cool roofs is associated to important reductions of the cooling load of the corresponding buildings (Kolokotsa et al., 2011; Synnefa and Santamouris, 2012; Synnefa et al., 2012). In parallel, colored materials based on the use of infrared reflective pigments present a much higher reflectivity than conventional colored paints (Akbari and Levinson, 2008; Kolokotsa et al., 2012; Synnefa et al., 2007). Further research on the field of cool coatings has permitted to develop advanced reflective materials, such as thermochromic paints, PCM doped coatings and reflective asphaltic materials that contribute towards better performing buildings and urban structures (Karlessi et al., 2011, 2009; Synnefa et al., 2011). Green roofs are fully or partially covered with vegetation and a growing medium over a waterproofing membrane. Two types of green roofs are available: Intensive roofs, which are heavy constructions and can support small trees and shrubs, and extensive roofs, which are covered by a thin layer of vegetation. There are several advantages associated to green roofs like decreased energy consumption, better air quality, noise reduction, increased durability of the roof materials, etc. (Mentens et al., 2006; Sfakianaki et al., 2009; Theodosiou, 2009). Important energy benefits are associated to the use of green roofs. Energy reductions depend on the design of the green roofs, the local climatic conditions and the characteristics of the building (Castleton et al., 2010; Takakura et al., 2000). A discussion on the main parameters defining the performance of the green roofs is given in (Santamouris, 2012). The total surface of roofs in the urban world is estimated close to 3.8 1011 m2, while roofs constitute over 20% of the total urban surfaces (Akbari et al., 2009, 2003; Zinzi and Agnoli, 2011). Thus roofs provide an excellent medium for the application of mitigation techniques as the construction cost is much lower than that of the available free ground area, while at the same time they offer additional benefits, such as the reduction
119
of the energy consumption of the corresponding buildings. Cool and green roofs are excellent mitigation technologies applied on the roof surface of buildings. The overall energy performance of the two examined mitigation techniques depends mainly on the climatic conditions and the constructional characteristics. A classification of the comparative performance of both roof mitigation techniques based on existing experimental and theoretical data is provided in (Santamouris, 2012). The present paper aims to investigate the comparative performance of cool roofs and green roofs under diverse boundary conditions defining their climatic, optical, thermal and hydrological condition. Parametric studies have been performed using detailed simulation techniques for both technologies and conclusions are extracted and discussed. 2. The mitigation potential of reflective and green roofs: factors affecting their performance The mitigation potential of reflective and green roofs depends on a number of parameters as summarized in (Santamouris, 2012). Four categories of performance parameters have been identified as described below: (a) Climatic parameters like solar radiation, ambient temperature and humidity, wind speed and precipitation. Solar radiation determines the thermal balance of the roofs and defines at large their temperature. Ambient temperature regulates the amount of sensible heat released to the atmosphere as convective heat flux is a function of the temperature difference between the roof and the air. Wind speed determines the heat transfer coefficient between the roof and the atmosphere while relative humidity and precipitation define the moisture balance in green roofs. (b) Optical parameters like solar reflectivity and emissivity for reflective roofs and the absorptivity of the plants for the green roofs. (c) Thermal parameters, such as the thermal capacity of the roofs and the overall heat transfer coefficient, Uvalue, between the roof and the building. (d) Hydrological parameters that define the latent heat budget in green roofs. A direct or indirect comparison of the energy performance and the heat island mitigation of reflective and green roofs is performed by many theoretical and experimental studies (Chen et al., 2009; Gaffin et al., 2005; Hodo-Abalo et al., 2012; Ray and Glicksman, 2010; Sailor et al., 2012; Saiz et al., 2006; Scherba et al., 2011; Simmons et al., 2008; Susca et al., 2011; Takebayashi and Moriyama, 2007; Zinzi and Agnoli, 2011). Both technologies contribute to decrease the energy consumption of buildings, however, their performance and the corresponding energy benefits depend strongly
120
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
on the boundary conditions of the application. The results of the comparative studies provide useful conclusions valid under the specific boundary conditions of the experiments or of the simulations. A detailed presentation of the above comparative studies is reported in (Santamouris, 2012). Given the diversity of the considered cases, the reported results and conclusions vary significantly and it is quite impossible to extract general conclusions that would aid the presented research. 3. The methodology The urban heat mitigation technologies associated with roofs, are: (a) the cool (or reflective) roofs, and (b) green roofs. Both technologies can lower the surface temperatures of roofs and thus decrease the corresponding heat flux released to the atmosphere. The methodology followed in order to calculate, analyze and compare the mitigation potential of both technologies under different boundary conditions, is described below: A building model was developed using Energy Plus, which is a well-known computational package software for transient building simulation with conventional roof construction characteristics. Comparison of simulated against experimental results has shown that the model is very accurate to estimate the performance of cool and green roofs (35). A parametric study was performed concerning the sensible and latent heat flux released to the atmosphere for roofs under different building construction characteristics and climatic conditions. The parametric study included the following: For the cool roofs, the impact of the albedo, the U-value of the roof and its thermal capacitance has been determined for different climatic conditions in Europe. In particular, the following sensitivity analyses have been performed: Analysis of the sensible heat flux released for different solar reflectance versus the building’s thermal mass. Analysis of the sensible heat flux released for different solar reflectance versus the building’s insulation. Analysis of the sensible heat flux versus the climatic conditions.
Based on the sensitivity results a detailed comparison of both technologies is performed and presented below. 3.1. The building model An office building model is developed using Energy Plus v7.1 as it offers the capability to evaluate the sensible heat flux from the roofs while latent heat flux is also calculated using the “ecoroof” module for the simulation of green roofs. The building is designed using Google Sketchup plugin for Energy Plus and is depicted in Fig. 1. The specific characteristics of the building are tabulated in Table 1. The building was simulated as free floating without any use of heating, ventilation air conditioning system and thermostatic control during the whole day and night. 3.2. The mitigation potential of cool roofs Among the aforementioned heat island mitigation techniques, cool roofs present some important advantages: They have an important application potential. In most urban areas, the 60% of urban fabric consists of roofs and pavements. The materials commonly used on these surfaces are characterized by low values of solar reflectance e.g. 0.2 for grey concrete and 0.05 for asphalt. They can be applied on new and existing buildings during renovation in order to avoid additional costs. They are financially viable as their cost is comparable to conventional materials. The users do not have to change their behavior. They are environmentally friendly as they do not add any additional waste, on the contrary they contribute to the reduction of waste as they prolong the lifetime of the roof surfaces they are applied to. The first step in the analysis of the mitigation potential for cool roofs was to calculate the sensible heat flux released for different optical and thermal properties of cool roofs under hot and moderate climatic conditions and in particular for various representative climatic zones. This
For green roofs, the impact of plant characteristics and irrigation rate has been calculated for the same climatic conditions as above. In particular, the following comparisons have been performed: Analysis of the sensible heat flux released versus the characteristics of the plants. Analysis of the sensible heat flux released versus irrigation rate.
Fig. 1. The building as designed using Google Sketchup plugin.
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130 Table 1 Reference building characteristics. General Information Building type Office (two storey) Surface area 800 m2 Orientation N–S Building envelope Walls Brick, insulation, concrete, plasterboard total U: 0.429 W/m2 K, surface area 560 m2 Roof 200 mm Concrete, 25 mm insulation, acoustic tile ceiling of total U = 0.581 W/m2 K, surface area 400 m2 Windows Double glazing windows with: U = 2.720 W/m2 K, surface area 46 m2 (8% of the wall area) Floor One layer (concrete) floor with U = 4.142 W/m2 K Shading Shading the south openings of the building
is performed using the model described in Section 3.1 for the climatic conditions of the Southern and Mid Latitude Europe. The flux of the sensible heat computed for the whole summer period (June–August), and for roof albedos equal to 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6 and 0.3 and for the city of Chania, is depicted in Fig. 2. As shown for highly reflective roofs the median sensible heat flux is negative while the maximum value is of the order of a few W/m2. For reflectivity close to 0.8 and 0.7 the median value of the sensible heat flux is close to zero while the maximum value varies between 15 and 50 W/m2. On the contrary, conventional roofs present a median sensible heat flux close to 30 W/m2, and a maximum flux value around 270 W/m2. Moreover, from the same figure it can be seen that the range of sensible heat flux values is larger for the conventional roofs compared to the cool roofs for the cooling season (summer period). This proves that the use of cool materials minimizes the roofs’ heat stress. The same conclusions can be extracted from Fig. 3 that present the variation of sensible heat flux for a typical summer day. The same results are extracted from Fig. 3. The integrated value of sensible heat during the summer period (kW h/m2) from the various examined roofs and for all the considered sites is given in Table 2. As shown, reflective roofs present a negative value, for all climatic condi-
121
tions, that varies between 24 and 47 kW h/m2. On the contrary, the corresponding values for conventional roofs vary between 86 and 136 kW h/m2. As a conclusion it may be mentioned that conventional roofs send between 100 and 170 kW h/m2 additional sensible heat to the atmosphere during the summer period than highly reflective roofs. 3.2.1. Cool roofs versus thermal mass characteristics The combined effect of the roof’s solar reflectance and thermal mass to the overall heat gain is very important but its impact sometimes is neglected or ignored. In the present section five different roof thermal mass configurations are examined through the corresponding thickness and materials, i.e. very heavyweight concrete, medium weight concrete, lightweight concrete very lightweight concrete and wooden construction roof. These configurations combined with the solar reflectance were used to calculate the sensible heat flux using Energy Plus 7.1 building model described before. Fig. 4 depicts the output of the calculations in the climatic conditions of Southern Europe for SR = 0.9 in different thermal mass conditions. From the specific figure it can be concluded that: (a) During the night, the heat island mitigation potential for all levels of thermal mass is quite similar with a difference in the order of 2 W/m2 (b) During peak hours i.e. 11:00–17:00, the impact of the thermal mass is quite important. Heavyweight roofs present much higher mitigation potential than the lightweight roofs. The relative difference between the two cases for a roof with albedo equal to 0.9 in Southern Europe is close to 13 W/m2. The same pattern but with smaller variations for the heavyweight construction can be noticed for the other European climates. For example the daytime benefit of heavyweight roofs of very high albedo in London is close to 7 W/m2 (Fig. 5). The daynight fluctuation of calculated sensible heat flux released by heavyweight roofs is much higher for the climatic conditions of Southern Europe, while it reduces for northern climates. The combined impact of the solar reflectance and the thermal mass to the mitigation potential of cool roofs in the Southern Europe is illustrated in Fig. 6. As
Fig. 2. Comparison of heat island mitigation potential in Chania, Greece, for a typical construction, between cool and conventional roof.
122
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Fig. 3. Sensible heat flux for a typical construction and for a typical summer day in Chania, Greece in a typical summer day.
Table 2 Sum of the sensible heat flux for the overall summer period and different locations. City Chania-GR Rome-IT Athens-GR London-UK Munich-DE Paris-FR
Sensible heat (kW h/m2) for SR = 0.9 35.67 30.82 47.00 30.52 24.53 28.96
Sensible heat (kW h/m2) for SR = 0.3 136.55 132.21 126.62 79.38 99.59 86.70
shown, heavyweight roofs offer an integrated reduction of the sensible heat during the whole summer period of around 70 kW h/m2 if compared to the lightweight constructions. Therefore the lower the albedo, the higher the
benefit that heavyweight roofs offer. In particular, the sensible heat reduction for roofs with albedo equal to 0.8, 0.7, 0.6 and 0.3 are 210 kW h/m2, 286 kW h/m2 and 490 kW h/m2 respectively. This is easily explained by the fact that the sensible heat flux from the roofs is inversely proportional to their albedo. 3.2.2. Cool roofs versus thermal insulation The present section studies the mitigation potential of the cool roofs versus the insulation level of the construction. The insulation type considered is polystyrene with thermal conductivity 0.3 W/mK while the layers used by the simulation ranged from 25 mm to 150 mm with various solar reflectance characteristics. The simulation results (depicted in Fig. 7) for Crete climatic conditions show that the insulation level does not influence considerably the sen-
Fig. 4. The sensible heat flux versus thermal mass for a cool roof with SR = 0.9 and for the Southern Europe (Crete).
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
123
Fig. 5. The sensible heat flux versus thermal mass for a cool roof with SR = 0.9 and for the Northern Europe (London) in a typical summer day.
Fig. 6. The integrated sensible heat for various thermal mass levels of the roof during the whole summer period for Chania in Southern Europe.
sible heat flux released by the roofs. The same occurs under the London climatic conditions. For albedo values of 0.9 the increase of the insulation level from 25 mm to 75 mm in Crete and London decreased the integrated summer sensible heat released by 1–2 kW h/m2. In parallel, it decreases the peak summer indoor temperature by 0.1 K in Crete and increases it by 2.2 K in London. Such an increase of the temperature in London is due to the low surface temperatures at the exterior part of the roof (almost 13–14 °C). Lower insulation levels increase the flow of heat from the interior to the exterior of the building’s roof and contributes to the decrease of the indoor temperatures. On the
contrary, in Crete, indoor and exterior roofs surface temperatures are quite similar and the flow of heat is negligible. For lower albedo values the impact of the insulation continues to be non-important for all the thermal mass conditions. In almost all cases the increase of the insulation levels decreases the integrated summer sensible heat released. It is characteristic that in Crete and for albedo values close to 0.3 the increase of the insulation levels contribute to increase slightly the integrated summer sensible heat released. Given that for such albedo values, the maximum daily surface temperature of the roof is close to 65 °C, higher insulation levels limits the flow of heat to
124
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Fig. 7. Sensible heat flux released from cool roofs with various insulation levels for a typical summer day.
the interior of the building and thus contribute to slightly higher surface temperatures, and increased integrated summer sensible heat, but also to lower indoor temperatures. In this case, summer indoor maximum temperatures for 75 mm insulation are to about 0.7 °C lower than for 25 mm insulation. The phenomenon is more intense for less massive roofs. For northern climates, the daily surface temperature of the roof is much lower and the heat flux between the roof and the building is reduced. For example in London, the maximum daily surface temperature for albedo equal to 0.3 is close to 38 °C, and the possible increase or decrease of the insulation level does not contribute to any significant variation of the integrated summer sensible flux. However, the maximum summer indoor temperature is found to increase to about 0.4 K for higher insulation levels. This is explained as during the night period, the exterior surface temperature of the roof is much lower that the corresponding indoor temperature. Thus, the heat transferred from inside to the outside part of the roof during the night period is much higher for low insulation levels and the corresponding indoor temperature is also lower. Night cooling of the building contributes to lower daily indoor temperatures in low insulated buildings until the early afternoon period. 3.3. The mitigation potential of green roofs The technology of green roofs, has gained ground during the last decades, as it reduces the energy consumption of buildings while improving the microclimate of the wider urban space where the building is situated. The most important energy advantage of green roofs is their contribution to the insulation of the buildings, which usually results in energy savings both for heating and cooling. Apart from their impact on building energy consumption, planted roofs contribute to the mitigation of heat islands. They increase the total water-permeable city surface, helping water to be retained in the soil and allowing larger quantities to be available for evapotranspiration. At the same time, planted roofs present much higher albedo values than dark urban roof surfaces, thus reflecting
greater proportion of the incident solar radiation and not transforming it into heat (Getter et al., 2006). As already mentioned, the performance of green roofs is a direct function of many climatic, thermal and hydrological parameters. To evaluate the relative impact of the main design parameters, sensitivity analyses are performed to calculate the relative influence of the climate as well as of the Leaf Area Index (LAI) and the rate of irrigation. 3.3.1. Sensible heat of green roofs as a function of LAI and irrigation rate LAI represents the amount of leaf material in an ecosystem and is geometrically defined as the total one-sided area of photosynthetic tissue per unit ground surface area. Therefore the highest the LAI the denser the vegetation used in the green roof. A typical value of LAI for green roofs is LAI = 1. Detailed analysis performed in (Hodo-Abalo et al., 2012) on the rate of evapotranspiration from a green roof has concluded that the Leaf Area Index is the key parameter defining evaporation losses. Sensitivity analysis has been performed for LAI values 0.05, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 to cover all the range of possible vegetation. As shown in Fig. 8, the maximum daily sensible heat released for a conventional roof in Crete is 157 W/m2, while the corresponding values for LAI values 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 are 104 W/m2, 70 W/m2, 33 W/m2 and 21 W/m2 respectively. Values decrease by about 20–25% for the case of an irrigated green roof. The specific values of the maximum daily sensible heat during the summer period in Crete for various LAI and irrigation rates are given in Table 3. As shown, the increase of the irrigation rate from zero to 0.1 reduces the sensible load in Crete by 20–25%, while the increase of the irrigation rate from 0.1 to 0.3 has almost a negligible effect. As it concerns indoor ambient temperatures in Crete, green roofs with LAI = 3 present almost 3 °C lower maximum summer indoor temperatures than roofs with LAI = 1. The sensible heat flux released by the same green roof (i.e. extensive green roof type with LAI = 1 and with no irrigation rate) is calculated under different climatic conditions. As illustrated in Fig. 9, the peak sensible heat released under different climatic
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
125
Fig. 8. Sensible heat flux released from green roofs with no irrigation for a typical summer day in Southern Europe.
Table 3 Maximum daily sensible heat released during the summer period in Crete for various LAI and irrigation rates (W/m2). LAI
Irrigation = 0
Irrigation = 0.1
Irrigation = 0.3
0.05 0.5 1 2 3
157 104 71 34 21
113 79 54 25 15
113 78 54 25 15
conditions varies considerably ranging from 50–70 W/m2 but it always remains lower than the conventional constructions. In London, for LAI values close to zero (0.05), the maximum daily sensible heat released is close to 87 W/m2, for irrigated and non-irrigated green roofs. The corresponding values for LAI equal to 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 are 56 W/m2, 37 W/m2, 17 W/m2, and 10 W/m2. Almost similar values are obtained for irrigated roofs. In parallel, the sensible energy released during the whole summer period by a non-irrigated green roof in Crete is close to 176 kW h/m2 while it is reduced to 124 kW h/m2,
88 kW h/m2, 73 kW h/m2 and 8 kW h/m2 for LAI values of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The corresponding values for London are substantial lower and in particular: 119 kW h/m2, 86 kW h/m2, 62 kW h/m2, 20,176 kW h/m2, and 12 kW h/m2, for LAI values of 0.05, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The variation of the integrated value of the sensible load released by a green roof in Crete during the whole summer period for various LAI and irrigation rate values is given in Table 4. As shown, when the irrigation rate increases from zero to 0.1 the integrated sensible energy decreases to about 14% for a LAI close to zero and 2% for LAI equal to 3. Negligible changes are calculated when the irrigation rate increases from 0.1 to 0.3. It is evident the increase of LAI increases the mitigation potential of the green roof. Therefore the intensive green roofs that have a LAI considerably higher than 2 can contribute to almost 90% reduction of the sensible heat flux released. 4. Results and discussion The maximum daily sensible heat flux for various cool and green roof configurations is given in a comparative
Fig. 9. Sensible heat flux released from green roofs with no irrigation for a typical summer day and with LAI = 1 in different cities.
126
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Table 4 Integrated Value of the sensible heat energy released by a green roof in Crete during the whole summer for various LAI and irrigation rates (kW h/m2). LAI
Irrigation = 0
Irrigation = 0.1
Irrigation = 0.3
0.05 0.5 1 2 3
176 124 88 7 8
161 116 83 5 10
160 116 83 5 7
way for the climate of Crete in Fig. 10, in (W/m2) and for London in Fig. 11. In parallel, Figs. 12 and 13 present the integrated sensible energy released by the same roof configurations for the total summer period and the climates, of Crete and Rome (in kW h/m2). As shown the main parameters that define the performance of cool and green roofs are the albedo and LAI value respectively. The thermal mass as well as the insulation level of cool roofs and the irrigation rate in green roofs play an important role on the sensible heat released but are less significant. For the climatic conditions of Crete, cool roofs with an albedo of 0.9 present the best performance and the maximum daily sensible heat released is negative for the specific climatic conditions. Negative values are also obtained for green roofs with a LAI value of 3 and for irrigated and non-irrigated roofs. All other configurations present a positive maximum daily sensible heat released. When the albedo of cool roofs decreases to 0.8 the corresponding mitigation potential is very similar to that of a green roof with a LAI of 2. In this case the maximum sensible heat
released is between 5 and 10 W/m2. The better performance is achieved by very well insulated cool roofs, while well irrigated green roofs present a higher mitigation potential than non-irrigated roofs. Cool Roofs presenting an albedo of 0.7 and 0.6 release less sensible heat during the day than green roofs with a LAI of 1. When the albedo is 0.7 the released sensible heat is less than 50 W/m2, while for albedos close to 0.6 the corresponding heat is around 60–70 W/m2. In comparison, green roofs with LAI values equal to 1, release almost 70–80 W/m2. When LAI decreases to 0.5 the sensible heat released is higher than 100 W/m2 and may reach values close to 130 W/m2. However, when the albedo decreases to 0.3 the corresponding maximum sensible heat released is higher than 150 W/m2. For Northern Europe and in particular London, cool roofs with albedos 0.9 and 0.8 present a negative daily maximum sensible heat released during the summer period and contribute highly to mitigate urban heat island. In particular, the released sensible heat is 20 W/m2 and 10 W/ m2 for albedos of 0.9 and 0.8 respectively. Green roofs with a LAI value of 1, have also a very low daily maximum sensible heat that is close to 10 W/m2, while for LAI values of 2 the corresponding sensible heat is below 20 W/m2. Similar values are also obtained for cool roofs with an albedo of 0.7. When the albedo decreases to 0.6, the corresponding sensible heat increases to about 30 W/m2. Green roofs with LAI = 1 and LAI = 0.5 have a sensible load just below 40 W/m2 and 60 W/m2 respectively. Finally, the sensible heat released by a roof with an albedo of 0.3 releases on average about 70 W/m2.
Fig. 10. The maximum daily sensible heat flux extracted by cool and green roof configurations for a typical summer day in Southern Europe (W/m2).
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
127
Fig. 11. The maximum daily sensible heat flux extracted by cool and green roof configurations for a typical summer day in London (W/m2).
Fig. 12. The integrated summer sensible energy extracted by various cool and green roof configurations in Southern Europe (Crete) (kW h/m2).
As it concerns the integrated amount of the sensible heat released during the whole summer period by the various examined roof configurations, in Crete, Rome and London is concluded that cool roofs presenting a roof albedo higher than 0.8 present a negative value contributing highly to the
mitigation of the urban heat island. For LAI values of 3 the integrated summer sensible heat in Crete is negative (around 10 kW h/m2), while for London is quite higher (around 10 kW h/m2), while for Rome does not exceed 4 kW h/m2. For lower albedos and LAI values the energy
128
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Fig. 13. The integrated summer sensible energy extracted by various cool and green roof configurations in Rome (kW h/m2).
LAI values equal and higher than 1. As shown, cool roofs in all places present a high mitigation potential that for the whole summer period is close to 178 kW h/m2 in Crete, 162 kW h/m2 in Rome and 112 kW h/m2 in London. In parallel, the maximum summer mitigation potential for green roofs is 147 kW h/m2, 128 kW h/m2 and 70 kW h/m2 for Crete, Rome and London respectively. 5. Conclusions
Fig. 14. Integrated summer sensible heat contribution of cool and green roofs in Crete, Rome and London compared to a conventional roof with albedo equal to 0.3, in kW h/m2.
released is always positive. Green roofs with LAI = 2 have a very low integrated sensible heat during the whole summer and thus present also a significant heat island mitigation potential. Cool roofs with albedos close to 0.6 and 0.7 also present a low integrated sensible heat that ranges between 20 and 45 kW h/m2 for Crete, 18–48 in Rome and between 3 and 22 kW h/m2 in London. Conventional roofs having an albedo of 0.3 contribute almost 140 kW h/m2 through sensible heat during the whole summer period in Crete, 132 kW h/m2 in Rome and 80 kW h/ m2 in London. Finally, green roofs with LAI values of 1 and 0.5 release almost 83 and 116 kW h/m2 respectively during the whole summer period in Crete, 84 and 119 kW h/m2 in Rome and 65 and 91 kW h/m2 in London. A comparative presentation of the possible decrease of the integrated sensible heat released by cool and green roofs compared to a conventional roof with albedo equal to 0.3 for the whole summer and for in Crete, Rome and London is given in Fig. 14. The figure includes data for cool roofs with albedo higher than 0.6 and green roofs with
In this paper a comparative analysis of the green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential is performed under different climatic conditions. By examining the overall analysis it is evident that both cool and green roofs can contribute considerably to the improvement of the urban environment while simultaneously decrease the energy demand. Since the observed high ambient temperatures intensify the energy problem of cities, deteriorate comfort conditions, put in danger the vulnerable population and amplify the pollution problems, all available solutions should be examined in order to improve the urban thermal microclimate. As a result a careful design taking into account the specific performance of green and cool roofs but also other factors like the ageing of cool materials, the green roofs’ irrigation needs as well as the climatic diversities should be taken into account to maximize the mitigation perspective. References Akbari, H., Levinson, R., 2008. Evolution of cool-roof standards in the US. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2, 1–32. Akbari, H., Rose, L.S., Taha, H., 2003. Analyzing the land cover of an urban environment using high-resolution orthophotos. Landscape Urban Plann. 63, 1–14. Akbari, H., Menon, S., Rosenfeld, A., 2009. Global cooling: increasing world-wide urban albedos to offset CO2. Climatic Change 94, 275–286.
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130 Akbari, H., Damon Matthews, H., Seto, D., 2012. The long-term effect of increasing the albedo of urban areas. Environ. Res. Lett. 7. Asimakopoulos, D.A., Santamouris, M., Farrou, I., Laskari, M., Saliari, M., Zanis, G., Giannakidis, G., Tigas, K., Kapsomenakis, J., Douvis, C., Zerefos, S.C., Antonakaki, T., Giannakopoulos, C., 2012. Modelling the energy demand projection of the building sector in Greece in the 21st century. Energy Build. 49. Cartalis, C., Synodinou, A., Proedrou, M., Tsangrassoulis, A., Santamouris, M., 2001. Modifications in energy demand in urban areas as a result of climate changes: an assessment for the southeast Mediterranean region. Energy Convers. Manage. 42, 1647–1656. Castleton, H.F., Stovin, V., Beck, S.B.M., Davison, J.B., 2010. Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build. 42, 1582–1591. Chen, H., Ooka, R., Huang, H., Tsuchiya, T., 2009. Study on mitigation measures for outdoor thermal environment on present urban blocks in Tokyo using coupled simulation. Build. Environ. 44, 2290–2299. Doulos, L., Santamouris, M., Livada, I., 2004. Passive cooling of outdoor urban spaces. The role of materials. Sol. Energy 77, 231–249. Gaffin, S., Rosenzweig, C., Parshall, L., Beattie, D., Berghage, R., 2005. Energy balance modeling applied to a comparison of white and green roof cooling efficiency, In: 3rd Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Cities Conference, Washington, DC, pp. 1–11. Getter, K.L., Rowe, D.B., 2006. The role of extensive Green roofs in sustainable development. Hortscience 41, 1276–1285. Giannopoulou, K., Livada, I., Santamouris, M., Saliari, M., Assimakopoulos, M., Caouris, Y.G., 2011. On the characteristics of the summer urban heat island in Athens, Greece. Sustain. Cities Soc. 1, 16–28. Gobakis, K., Kolokotsa, D., Synnefa, A., Saliari, M., Giannopoulou, K., Santamouris, M., 2011. Development of a model for urban heat island prediction using neural network techniques. Sustain. Cities Soc. 1, 104–115. Hassid, S., Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Linardi, A., Klitsikas, N., Georgakis, C., Assimakopoulos, D.N., 2000. Effect of the Athens heat island on air conditioning load. Energy Build. 32, 131–141. Hodo-Abalo, S., Banna, M., Zeghmati, B., 2012. Performance analysis of a planted roof as a passive cooling technique in hot-humid tropics. Renew. Energy 39, 140–148. Jacovides, C.P., Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Lewis, J.O., 1996. On the ground temperature profile for passive cooling applications in buildings. Sol. Energy 57, 167–175. Karlessi, T., Santamouris, M., Apostolakis, K., Synnefa, A., Livada, I., 2009. Development and testing of thermochromic coatings for buildings and urban structures. Sol. Energy 83, 538–551. Karlessi, T., Santamouris, M., Synnefa, A., Assimakopoulos, D., Didaskalopoulos, P., Apostolakis, K., 2011. Development and testing of PCM doped cool colored coatings to mitigate urban heat island and cool buildings. Build. Environ. 46, 570–576. Kolokotroni, M., Ren, X., Davies, M., Mavrogianni, A., 2012. London’s urban heat island: impact on current and future energy consumption in office buildings. Energy Build. 47, 302–311. Kolokotsa, D., Diakaki, C., Papantoniou, S., Vlissidis, A., 2011. Numerical and experimental analysis of cool roofs application on a laboratory building in Iraklion, Crete, Greece. Energy Build.. Kolokotsa, D., Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki, P., Papantoniou, S., Vangeloglou, E., Saliari, M., Karlessi, T., Santamouris, M., 2012. Development and analysis of mineral based coatings for buildings and urban structures. Sol. Energy 86, 1648–1659. Livada, I., Santamouris, M., Niachou, K., Papanikolaou, N., Mihalakakou, G., 2002. Determination of places in the great Athens area where the heat island effect is observed. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 71, 219–230. Livada, I., Santamouris, M., Assimakopoulos, M., 2007. On the variability of summer air temperature during the last 28 years in Athens. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmos. 112. Mentens, J., Raes, D., Hermy, M., 2006. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape Urban Plann. 77, 217–226.
129
Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Asimakopoulos, D., 1994. Use of the ground for heat dissipation. Energy 19, 17–25. Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Asimakopoulos, D., 1998. Modeling ambient air temperature time series using neural networks. J. Geophys. Res. D: Atmos. 103, 19509–19517. Mihalakakou, G., Flocas, H.A., Santamouris, M., Helmis, C.G., 2002. Application of neural networks to the simulation of the heat island over Athens, Greece, using synoptic types as a predictor. J. Appl. Meteorol. 41, 519–527. Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Cartalis, C., Tsangrassoulis, A., 2004. Simulation of the urban heat island phenomenon in Mediterranean climates. Pure Appl. Geophys. 161, 429–451. Mirzaei, P.A., Haghighat, F., 2010. Approaches to study Urban Heat Island – abilities and limitations. Build. Environ. 45, 2192–2201. Mohsin, T., Gough, W.A., 2012. Characterization and estimation of urban heat island at Toronto: impact of the choice of rural sites. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 108, 105–117. Niachou, A., Papakonstantinou, K., Santamouris, M., Tsangrassoulis, A., Mihalakakou, G., 2001. Analysis of the green roof thermal properties and investigation of its energy performance. Energy Build. 33, 719–729. Pantavou, K., Theoharatos, G., Mavrakis, A., Santamouris, M., 2011. Evaluating thermal comfort conditions and health responses during an extremely hot summer in Athens. Build. Environ. 46, 339–344. Ray, S., Glicksman, L., 2010. Potential energy savings of various roof technologies. ASHRAE Trans.. Rosenfeld, A.H., Akbari, H., Bretz, S., Fishman, B.L., Kurn, D.M., Sailor, D., Taha, H., 1995. Mitigation of urban heat islands: materials, utility programs, updates. Energy Build. 22, 255–265. Sailor, D.J., Elley, T.B., Gibson, M., 2012. Exploring the building energy impacts of green roof design decisions – a modeling study of buildings in four distinct climates. J. Build. Phys. 35, 372–391. Saiz, S., Kennedy, C., Bass, B., Pressnail, K., 2006. Comparative life cycle assessment of standard and green roofs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 4312–4316. Sakka, A., Santamouris, M., Livada, I., Nicol, F., Wilson, M., 2012. On the thermal performance of low income housing during heat waves. Energy Build. 49, 69–77. Santamouris, M., 2001. Energy and Climate in the Urban Built Environment. James and James Science Publishers, London. Santamouris, M., 2007. Heat island research in Europe: the state of the art. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 1, 123–150. Santamouris, M., 2012. Cooling the cities – a review of reflective and green roof mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban environments. Sol. Energy. Santamouris, M., Mihalakakou, G., Papanikolaou, N., Asimakopoulos, D.N., 1999. A neural network approach for modeling the heat island phenomenon in urban areas during the summer period. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 337–340. Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Livada, I., Koronakis, I., Georgakis, C., Argiriou, A., Assimakopoulos, D.N., 2001. On the impact of urban climate on the energy consumption of buildings. Sol. Energy 70, 201– 216. Santamouris, M., Paraponiaris, K., Mihalakakou, G., 2007a. Estimating the ecological footprint of the heat island effect over Athens, Greece. Climatic Change 80, 265–276. Santamouris, M., Pavlou, C., Doukas, P., Mihalakakou, G., Synnefa, A., Hatzibiros, A., Patargias, P., 2007b. Investigating and analysing the energy and environmental performance of an experimental green roof system installed in a nursery school building in Athens, Greece. Energy 32, 1781–1788. Santamouris, M., Synnefa, A., Kolokotsa, D., Dimitriou, V., Apostolakis, K., 2008. Passive cooling of the built environment – use of innovative reflective materials to fight heat islands and decrease cooling needs. Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 3, 71–82. Santamouris, M., Synnefa, A., Karlessi, T., 2011. Using advanced cool materials in the urban built environment to mitigate heat islands and improve thermal comfort conditions. Sol. Energy 85, 3085–3102.
130
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Sarrat, C., Lemonsu, A., Masson, V., Guedalia, D., 2006. Impact of urban heat island on regional atmospheric pollution. Atmos. Environ. 40, 1743–1758. Scherba, A., Sailor, D.J., Rosenstiel, T.N., Wamser, C.C., 2011. Modeling impacts of roof reflectivity, integrated photovoltaic panels and green roof systems on sensible heat flux into the urban environment. Build. Environ. 46, 2542–2551. Sfakianaki, A., Pagalou, E., Pavou, K., Santamouris, M., Assimakopoulos, M.N., 2009. Theoretical and experimental analysis of the thermal behaviour of a green roof system installed in two residential buildings in Athens, Greece. Int. J. Energy Res. 33, 1059–1069. Simmons, M.T., Gardiner, B., Windhager, S., Tinsley, J., 2008. Green roofs are not created equal: the hydrologic and thermal performance of six different extensive green roofs and reflective and non-reflective roofs in a sub-tropical climate. Urban Ecosyst. 11, 339–348. Stathopoulou, E., Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Bagiorgas, H.S., 2008. On the impact of temperature on tropospheric ozone concentration levels in urban environments. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, 227–236. Susca, T., Gaffin, S.R., Dell’Osso, G.R., 2011. Positive effects of vegetation: urban heat island and green roofs. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2119–2126. Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., 2012. Advances on technical, policy and market aspects of cool roof technology in Europe: the cool roofs project,. Energy Build.. Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., Livada, I., 2006. A study of the thermal performance of reflective coatings for the urban environment. Sol. Energy 80, 968–981.
Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., Apostolakis, K., 2007. On the development, optical properties and thermal performance of cool colored coatings for the urban environment. Sol. Energy 81, 488–497. Synnefa, A., Karlessi, T., Gaitani, N., Santamouris, M., Assimakopoulos, D.N., Papakatsikas, C., 2011. Experimental testing of cool colored thin layer asphalt and estimation of its potential to improve the urban microclimate. Build. Environ. 46, 38–44. Synnefa, A., Saliari, M., Santamouris, M., 2012. Experimental and numerical assessment of the impact of increased roof reflectance on a school building in Athens. Energy Build.. Takakura, T., Kitade, S., Goto, E., 2000. Cooling effect of greenery cover over a building. Energy Build. 31, 1–6. Takebayashi, H., Moriyama, M., 2007. Surface heat budget on green roof and high reflection roof for mitigation of urban heat island. Build. Environ. 42, 2971–2979. Theodosiou, T., 2009. Green roofs in buildings: thermal and environmental behaviour. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 3, 271–288. Zinzi, M., Agnoli, S., 2011. Cool and green roofs. An energy and comfort comparison between passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island techniques for residential buildings in the Mediterranean region. Energy Build.. Zoulia, I., Santamouris, M., Dimoudi, A., 2009. Monitoring the effect of urban green areas on the heat island in Athens. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 156, 275–292.
Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130 www.elsevier.com/locate/solener
Green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential in European climates for office buildings under free floating conditions D. Kolokotsa a,⇑, M. Santamouris b, S.C. Zerefos c a b
Technical University of Crete, Environmental Engineering Department, GR 73100 Crete, Greece Group Building Environmental Studies, Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece c Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece Received 21 February 2013; accepted 1 June 2013 Available online 3 July 2013 Communicated by: Associate Editor Ruzhu Wang
Abstract Heat island which is the most documented phenomenon of climatic change is related to the increase of urban temperatures compared to the suburban. Among the various urban heat island mitigation techniques, green and cool roofs are the most promising since they simultaneously contribute to buildings’ energy efficiency. The aim of the present paper is to study the mitigation potential of green and cool roofs by performing a comparative analysis under diverse boundary conditions defining their climatic, optical, thermal and hydrological conditions. The impact of cool roof’s thermal mass, insulation level and solar reflectance as well as the effect of green roofs’ irrigation rate and vegetation are examined. The parametric study is based on detailed simulation techniques coupled with a comparative presentation of the released integrated sensible heat for both technologies versus a conventional roof under various climatic conditions. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Green roofs; Cool roofs; Urban heat island; Mitigation potential; Sensible heat
1. Introduction The heat island effect concerns higher temperatures in central urban areas as compared to suburban areas, and is considered as the most documented phenomenon of climatic change (Santamouris, 2001). Important research has been carried out to understand this phenomenon and also document its magnitude in various parts of the planet (Mihalakakou et al., 1998; Mirzaei and Haghighat, 2010; Mohsin and Gough, 2012; Santamouris, 2007). Existing data shows that the intensity of the phenomenon may be very important and may reach values close to 10 K (Giannopoulou et al., 2011; Gobakis et al., 2011; Livada et al., 2002; Mihalakakou et al., 2004, 2002; Santamouris et al., 1999). The increase of urban temperatures in associ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2821037808.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Kolokotsa). 0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.06.001
ation to the important climate change influences the quality of life of urban citizens (Cartalis et al., 2001; Livada et al., 2007). In particular, there is a considerable increase in the energy consumption for cooling buildings (Asimakopoulos et al., 2012; Hassid et al., 2000; Kolokotroni et al., 2012; Santamouris, 2012; Santamouris et al., 2001) while high temperatures intensify pollution problems and increase ozone concentration (Sarrat et al., 2006; Stathopoulou et al., 2008). In parallel, the outdoor thermal comfort conditions are deteriorated (Pantavou et al., 2011), the ecological footprint of cities is increasing (Santamouris et al., 2007a), while the thermal stress is more intense for low income population (Sakka et al., 2012). To counterbalance the aforementioned conditions various mitigation techniques have been developed. Some of the more important mitigation techniques deal with the increase of the albedo of buildings and urban structures (Rosenfeld et al., 1995; Santamouris et al., 2011, 2008),
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
the use of additional green spaces in cities (Zoulia et al., 2009), the installation of green gardens on the roof of buildings (Niachou et al., 2001; Santamouris et al., 2007b) as well as the use of cool sinks for heat dissipation, such as the ground and water (Jacovides et al., 1996; Mihalakakou et al., 1994). In particular, the increase of urban albedo may decrease substantially carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Recent studies have shown that a long-term global cooling effect of 3 10 15 K corresponds to each 1 m2 of a surface with an albedo increase of 0.01 and this is equivalent to a CO2 emission reduction of about 7 kg (Akbari et al., 2012). Increase of the albedo in the built environment can be achieved by using high reflectance surfaces in roofs, pavements and other urban surfaces. Natural materials as well as high reflectance white paints have been proposed and used with important results in buildings,(Doulos et al., 2004; Synnefa et al., 2006). Recent studies and applications have shown that the use of cool roofs is associated to important reductions of the cooling load of the corresponding buildings (Kolokotsa et al., 2011; Synnefa and Santamouris, 2012; Synnefa et al., 2012). In parallel, colored materials based on the use of infrared reflective pigments present a much higher reflectivity than conventional colored paints (Akbari and Levinson, 2008; Kolokotsa et al., 2012; Synnefa et al., 2007). Further research on the field of cool coatings has permitted to develop advanced reflective materials, such as thermochromic paints, PCM doped coatings and reflective asphaltic materials that contribute towards better performing buildings and urban structures (Karlessi et al., 2011, 2009; Synnefa et al., 2011). Green roofs are fully or partially covered with vegetation and a growing medium over a waterproofing membrane. Two types of green roofs are available: Intensive roofs, which are heavy constructions and can support small trees and shrubs, and extensive roofs, which are covered by a thin layer of vegetation. There are several advantages associated to green roofs like decreased energy consumption, better air quality, noise reduction, increased durability of the roof materials, etc. (Mentens et al., 2006; Sfakianaki et al., 2009; Theodosiou, 2009). Important energy benefits are associated to the use of green roofs. Energy reductions depend on the design of the green roofs, the local climatic conditions and the characteristics of the building (Castleton et al., 2010; Takakura et al., 2000). A discussion on the main parameters defining the performance of the green roofs is given in (Santamouris, 2012). The total surface of roofs in the urban world is estimated close to 3.8 1011 m2, while roofs constitute over 20% of the total urban surfaces (Akbari et al., 2009, 2003; Zinzi and Agnoli, 2011). Thus roofs provide an excellent medium for the application of mitigation techniques as the construction cost is much lower than that of the available free ground area, while at the same time they offer additional benefits, such as the reduction
119
of the energy consumption of the corresponding buildings. Cool and green roofs are excellent mitigation technologies applied on the roof surface of buildings. The overall energy performance of the two examined mitigation techniques depends mainly on the climatic conditions and the constructional characteristics. A classification of the comparative performance of both roof mitigation techniques based on existing experimental and theoretical data is provided in (Santamouris, 2012). The present paper aims to investigate the comparative performance of cool roofs and green roofs under diverse boundary conditions defining their climatic, optical, thermal and hydrological condition. Parametric studies have been performed using detailed simulation techniques for both technologies and conclusions are extracted and discussed. 2. The mitigation potential of reflective and green roofs: factors affecting their performance The mitigation potential of reflective and green roofs depends on a number of parameters as summarized in (Santamouris, 2012). Four categories of performance parameters have been identified as described below: (a) Climatic parameters like solar radiation, ambient temperature and humidity, wind speed and precipitation. Solar radiation determines the thermal balance of the roofs and defines at large their temperature. Ambient temperature regulates the amount of sensible heat released to the atmosphere as convective heat flux is a function of the temperature difference between the roof and the air. Wind speed determines the heat transfer coefficient between the roof and the atmosphere while relative humidity and precipitation define the moisture balance in green roofs. (b) Optical parameters like solar reflectivity and emissivity for reflective roofs and the absorptivity of the plants for the green roofs. (c) Thermal parameters, such as the thermal capacity of the roofs and the overall heat transfer coefficient, Uvalue, between the roof and the building. (d) Hydrological parameters that define the latent heat budget in green roofs. A direct or indirect comparison of the energy performance and the heat island mitigation of reflective and green roofs is performed by many theoretical and experimental studies (Chen et al., 2009; Gaffin et al., 2005; Hodo-Abalo et al., 2012; Ray and Glicksman, 2010; Sailor et al., 2012; Saiz et al., 2006; Scherba et al., 2011; Simmons et al., 2008; Susca et al., 2011; Takebayashi and Moriyama, 2007; Zinzi and Agnoli, 2011). Both technologies contribute to decrease the energy consumption of buildings, however, their performance and the corresponding energy benefits depend strongly
120
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
on the boundary conditions of the application. The results of the comparative studies provide useful conclusions valid under the specific boundary conditions of the experiments or of the simulations. A detailed presentation of the above comparative studies is reported in (Santamouris, 2012). Given the diversity of the considered cases, the reported results and conclusions vary significantly and it is quite impossible to extract general conclusions that would aid the presented research. 3. The methodology The urban heat mitigation technologies associated with roofs, are: (a) the cool (or reflective) roofs, and (b) green roofs. Both technologies can lower the surface temperatures of roofs and thus decrease the corresponding heat flux released to the atmosphere. The methodology followed in order to calculate, analyze and compare the mitigation potential of both technologies under different boundary conditions, is described below: A building model was developed using Energy Plus, which is a well-known computational package software for transient building simulation with conventional roof construction characteristics. Comparison of simulated against experimental results has shown that the model is very accurate to estimate the performance of cool and green roofs (35). A parametric study was performed concerning the sensible and latent heat flux released to the atmosphere for roofs under different building construction characteristics and climatic conditions. The parametric study included the following: For the cool roofs, the impact of the albedo, the U-value of the roof and its thermal capacitance has been determined for different climatic conditions in Europe. In particular, the following sensitivity analyses have been performed: Analysis of the sensible heat flux released for different solar reflectance versus the building’s thermal mass. Analysis of the sensible heat flux released for different solar reflectance versus the building’s insulation. Analysis of the sensible heat flux versus the climatic conditions.
Based on the sensitivity results a detailed comparison of both technologies is performed and presented below. 3.1. The building model An office building model is developed using Energy Plus v7.1 as it offers the capability to evaluate the sensible heat flux from the roofs while latent heat flux is also calculated using the “ecoroof” module for the simulation of green roofs. The building is designed using Google Sketchup plugin for Energy Plus and is depicted in Fig. 1. The specific characteristics of the building are tabulated in Table 1. The building was simulated as free floating without any use of heating, ventilation air conditioning system and thermostatic control during the whole day and night. 3.2. The mitigation potential of cool roofs Among the aforementioned heat island mitigation techniques, cool roofs present some important advantages: They have an important application potential. In most urban areas, the 60% of urban fabric consists of roofs and pavements. The materials commonly used on these surfaces are characterized by low values of solar reflectance e.g. 0.2 for grey concrete and 0.05 for asphalt. They can be applied on new and existing buildings during renovation in order to avoid additional costs. They are financially viable as their cost is comparable to conventional materials. The users do not have to change their behavior. They are environmentally friendly as they do not add any additional waste, on the contrary they contribute to the reduction of waste as they prolong the lifetime of the roof surfaces they are applied to. The first step in the analysis of the mitigation potential for cool roofs was to calculate the sensible heat flux released for different optical and thermal properties of cool roofs under hot and moderate climatic conditions and in particular for various representative climatic zones. This
For green roofs, the impact of plant characteristics and irrigation rate has been calculated for the same climatic conditions as above. In particular, the following comparisons have been performed: Analysis of the sensible heat flux released versus the characteristics of the plants. Analysis of the sensible heat flux released versus irrigation rate.
Fig. 1. The building as designed using Google Sketchup plugin.
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130 Table 1 Reference building characteristics. General Information Building type Office (two storey) Surface area 800 m2 Orientation N–S Building envelope Walls Brick, insulation, concrete, plasterboard total U: 0.429 W/m2 K, surface area 560 m2 Roof 200 mm Concrete, 25 mm insulation, acoustic tile ceiling of total U = 0.581 W/m2 K, surface area 400 m2 Windows Double glazing windows with: U = 2.720 W/m2 K, surface area 46 m2 (8% of the wall area) Floor One layer (concrete) floor with U = 4.142 W/m2 K Shading Shading the south openings of the building
is performed using the model described in Section 3.1 for the climatic conditions of the Southern and Mid Latitude Europe. The flux of the sensible heat computed for the whole summer period (June–August), and for roof albedos equal to 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6 and 0.3 and for the city of Chania, is depicted in Fig. 2. As shown for highly reflective roofs the median sensible heat flux is negative while the maximum value is of the order of a few W/m2. For reflectivity close to 0.8 and 0.7 the median value of the sensible heat flux is close to zero while the maximum value varies between 15 and 50 W/m2. On the contrary, conventional roofs present a median sensible heat flux close to 30 W/m2, and a maximum flux value around 270 W/m2. Moreover, from the same figure it can be seen that the range of sensible heat flux values is larger for the conventional roofs compared to the cool roofs for the cooling season (summer period). This proves that the use of cool materials minimizes the roofs’ heat stress. The same conclusions can be extracted from Fig. 3 that present the variation of sensible heat flux for a typical summer day. The same results are extracted from Fig. 3. The integrated value of sensible heat during the summer period (kW h/m2) from the various examined roofs and for all the considered sites is given in Table 2. As shown, reflective roofs present a negative value, for all climatic condi-
121
tions, that varies between 24 and 47 kW h/m2. On the contrary, the corresponding values for conventional roofs vary between 86 and 136 kW h/m2. As a conclusion it may be mentioned that conventional roofs send between 100 and 170 kW h/m2 additional sensible heat to the atmosphere during the summer period than highly reflective roofs. 3.2.1. Cool roofs versus thermal mass characteristics The combined effect of the roof’s solar reflectance and thermal mass to the overall heat gain is very important but its impact sometimes is neglected or ignored. In the present section five different roof thermal mass configurations are examined through the corresponding thickness and materials, i.e. very heavyweight concrete, medium weight concrete, lightweight concrete very lightweight concrete and wooden construction roof. These configurations combined with the solar reflectance were used to calculate the sensible heat flux using Energy Plus 7.1 building model described before. Fig. 4 depicts the output of the calculations in the climatic conditions of Southern Europe for SR = 0.9 in different thermal mass conditions. From the specific figure it can be concluded that: (a) During the night, the heat island mitigation potential for all levels of thermal mass is quite similar with a difference in the order of 2 W/m2 (b) During peak hours i.e. 11:00–17:00, the impact of the thermal mass is quite important. Heavyweight roofs present much higher mitigation potential than the lightweight roofs. The relative difference between the two cases for a roof with albedo equal to 0.9 in Southern Europe is close to 13 W/m2. The same pattern but with smaller variations for the heavyweight construction can be noticed for the other European climates. For example the daytime benefit of heavyweight roofs of very high albedo in London is close to 7 W/m2 (Fig. 5). The daynight fluctuation of calculated sensible heat flux released by heavyweight roofs is much higher for the climatic conditions of Southern Europe, while it reduces for northern climates. The combined impact of the solar reflectance and the thermal mass to the mitigation potential of cool roofs in the Southern Europe is illustrated in Fig. 6. As
Fig. 2. Comparison of heat island mitigation potential in Chania, Greece, for a typical construction, between cool and conventional roof.
122
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Fig. 3. Sensible heat flux for a typical construction and for a typical summer day in Chania, Greece in a typical summer day.
Table 2 Sum of the sensible heat flux for the overall summer period and different locations. City Chania-GR Rome-IT Athens-GR London-UK Munich-DE Paris-FR
Sensible heat (kW h/m2) for SR = 0.9 35.67 30.82 47.00 30.52 24.53 28.96
Sensible heat (kW h/m2) for SR = 0.3 136.55 132.21 126.62 79.38 99.59 86.70
shown, heavyweight roofs offer an integrated reduction of the sensible heat during the whole summer period of around 70 kW h/m2 if compared to the lightweight constructions. Therefore the lower the albedo, the higher the
benefit that heavyweight roofs offer. In particular, the sensible heat reduction for roofs with albedo equal to 0.8, 0.7, 0.6 and 0.3 are 210 kW h/m2, 286 kW h/m2 and 490 kW h/m2 respectively. This is easily explained by the fact that the sensible heat flux from the roofs is inversely proportional to their albedo. 3.2.2. Cool roofs versus thermal insulation The present section studies the mitigation potential of the cool roofs versus the insulation level of the construction. The insulation type considered is polystyrene with thermal conductivity 0.3 W/mK while the layers used by the simulation ranged from 25 mm to 150 mm with various solar reflectance characteristics. The simulation results (depicted in Fig. 7) for Crete climatic conditions show that the insulation level does not influence considerably the sen-
Fig. 4. The sensible heat flux versus thermal mass for a cool roof with SR = 0.9 and for the Southern Europe (Crete).
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
123
Fig. 5. The sensible heat flux versus thermal mass for a cool roof with SR = 0.9 and for the Northern Europe (London) in a typical summer day.
Fig. 6. The integrated sensible heat for various thermal mass levels of the roof during the whole summer period for Chania in Southern Europe.
sible heat flux released by the roofs. The same occurs under the London climatic conditions. For albedo values of 0.9 the increase of the insulation level from 25 mm to 75 mm in Crete and London decreased the integrated summer sensible heat released by 1–2 kW h/m2. In parallel, it decreases the peak summer indoor temperature by 0.1 K in Crete and increases it by 2.2 K in London. Such an increase of the temperature in London is due to the low surface temperatures at the exterior part of the roof (almost 13–14 °C). Lower insulation levels increase the flow of heat from the interior to the exterior of the building’s roof and contributes to the decrease of the indoor temperatures. On the
contrary, in Crete, indoor and exterior roofs surface temperatures are quite similar and the flow of heat is negligible. For lower albedo values the impact of the insulation continues to be non-important for all the thermal mass conditions. In almost all cases the increase of the insulation levels decreases the integrated summer sensible heat released. It is characteristic that in Crete and for albedo values close to 0.3 the increase of the insulation levels contribute to increase slightly the integrated summer sensible heat released. Given that for such albedo values, the maximum daily surface temperature of the roof is close to 65 °C, higher insulation levels limits the flow of heat to
124
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Fig. 7. Sensible heat flux released from cool roofs with various insulation levels for a typical summer day.
the interior of the building and thus contribute to slightly higher surface temperatures, and increased integrated summer sensible heat, but also to lower indoor temperatures. In this case, summer indoor maximum temperatures for 75 mm insulation are to about 0.7 °C lower than for 25 mm insulation. The phenomenon is more intense for less massive roofs. For northern climates, the daily surface temperature of the roof is much lower and the heat flux between the roof and the building is reduced. For example in London, the maximum daily surface temperature for albedo equal to 0.3 is close to 38 °C, and the possible increase or decrease of the insulation level does not contribute to any significant variation of the integrated summer sensible flux. However, the maximum summer indoor temperature is found to increase to about 0.4 K for higher insulation levels. This is explained as during the night period, the exterior surface temperature of the roof is much lower that the corresponding indoor temperature. Thus, the heat transferred from inside to the outside part of the roof during the night period is much higher for low insulation levels and the corresponding indoor temperature is also lower. Night cooling of the building contributes to lower daily indoor temperatures in low insulated buildings until the early afternoon period. 3.3. The mitigation potential of green roofs The technology of green roofs, has gained ground during the last decades, as it reduces the energy consumption of buildings while improving the microclimate of the wider urban space where the building is situated. The most important energy advantage of green roofs is their contribution to the insulation of the buildings, which usually results in energy savings both for heating and cooling. Apart from their impact on building energy consumption, planted roofs contribute to the mitigation of heat islands. They increase the total water-permeable city surface, helping water to be retained in the soil and allowing larger quantities to be available for evapotranspiration. At the same time, planted roofs present much higher albedo values than dark urban roof surfaces, thus reflecting
greater proportion of the incident solar radiation and not transforming it into heat (Getter et al., 2006). As already mentioned, the performance of green roofs is a direct function of many climatic, thermal and hydrological parameters. To evaluate the relative impact of the main design parameters, sensitivity analyses are performed to calculate the relative influence of the climate as well as of the Leaf Area Index (LAI) and the rate of irrigation. 3.3.1. Sensible heat of green roofs as a function of LAI and irrigation rate LAI represents the amount of leaf material in an ecosystem and is geometrically defined as the total one-sided area of photosynthetic tissue per unit ground surface area. Therefore the highest the LAI the denser the vegetation used in the green roof. A typical value of LAI for green roofs is LAI = 1. Detailed analysis performed in (Hodo-Abalo et al., 2012) on the rate of evapotranspiration from a green roof has concluded that the Leaf Area Index is the key parameter defining evaporation losses. Sensitivity analysis has been performed for LAI values 0.05, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 to cover all the range of possible vegetation. As shown in Fig. 8, the maximum daily sensible heat released for a conventional roof in Crete is 157 W/m2, while the corresponding values for LAI values 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 are 104 W/m2, 70 W/m2, 33 W/m2 and 21 W/m2 respectively. Values decrease by about 20–25% for the case of an irrigated green roof. The specific values of the maximum daily sensible heat during the summer period in Crete for various LAI and irrigation rates are given in Table 3. As shown, the increase of the irrigation rate from zero to 0.1 reduces the sensible load in Crete by 20–25%, while the increase of the irrigation rate from 0.1 to 0.3 has almost a negligible effect. As it concerns indoor ambient temperatures in Crete, green roofs with LAI = 3 present almost 3 °C lower maximum summer indoor temperatures than roofs with LAI = 1. The sensible heat flux released by the same green roof (i.e. extensive green roof type with LAI = 1 and with no irrigation rate) is calculated under different climatic conditions. As illustrated in Fig. 9, the peak sensible heat released under different climatic
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
125
Fig. 8. Sensible heat flux released from green roofs with no irrigation for a typical summer day in Southern Europe.
Table 3 Maximum daily sensible heat released during the summer period in Crete for various LAI and irrigation rates (W/m2). LAI
Irrigation = 0
Irrigation = 0.1
Irrigation = 0.3
0.05 0.5 1 2 3
157 104 71 34 21
113 79 54 25 15
113 78 54 25 15
conditions varies considerably ranging from 50–70 W/m2 but it always remains lower than the conventional constructions. In London, for LAI values close to zero (0.05), the maximum daily sensible heat released is close to 87 W/m2, for irrigated and non-irrigated green roofs. The corresponding values for LAI equal to 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 are 56 W/m2, 37 W/m2, 17 W/m2, and 10 W/m2. Almost similar values are obtained for irrigated roofs. In parallel, the sensible energy released during the whole summer period by a non-irrigated green roof in Crete is close to 176 kW h/m2 while it is reduced to 124 kW h/m2,
88 kW h/m2, 73 kW h/m2 and 8 kW h/m2 for LAI values of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The corresponding values for London are substantial lower and in particular: 119 kW h/m2, 86 kW h/m2, 62 kW h/m2, 20,176 kW h/m2, and 12 kW h/m2, for LAI values of 0.05, 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The variation of the integrated value of the sensible load released by a green roof in Crete during the whole summer period for various LAI and irrigation rate values is given in Table 4. As shown, when the irrigation rate increases from zero to 0.1 the integrated sensible energy decreases to about 14% for a LAI close to zero and 2% for LAI equal to 3. Negligible changes are calculated when the irrigation rate increases from 0.1 to 0.3. It is evident the increase of LAI increases the mitigation potential of the green roof. Therefore the intensive green roofs that have a LAI considerably higher than 2 can contribute to almost 90% reduction of the sensible heat flux released. 4. Results and discussion The maximum daily sensible heat flux for various cool and green roof configurations is given in a comparative
Fig. 9. Sensible heat flux released from green roofs with no irrigation for a typical summer day and with LAI = 1 in different cities.
126
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Table 4 Integrated Value of the sensible heat energy released by a green roof in Crete during the whole summer for various LAI and irrigation rates (kW h/m2). LAI
Irrigation = 0
Irrigation = 0.1
Irrigation = 0.3
0.05 0.5 1 2 3
176 124 88 7 8
161 116 83 5 10
160 116 83 5 7
way for the climate of Crete in Fig. 10, in (W/m2) and for London in Fig. 11. In parallel, Figs. 12 and 13 present the integrated sensible energy released by the same roof configurations for the total summer period and the climates, of Crete and Rome (in kW h/m2). As shown the main parameters that define the performance of cool and green roofs are the albedo and LAI value respectively. The thermal mass as well as the insulation level of cool roofs and the irrigation rate in green roofs play an important role on the sensible heat released but are less significant. For the climatic conditions of Crete, cool roofs with an albedo of 0.9 present the best performance and the maximum daily sensible heat released is negative for the specific climatic conditions. Negative values are also obtained for green roofs with a LAI value of 3 and for irrigated and non-irrigated roofs. All other configurations present a positive maximum daily sensible heat released. When the albedo of cool roofs decreases to 0.8 the corresponding mitigation potential is very similar to that of a green roof with a LAI of 2. In this case the maximum sensible heat
released is between 5 and 10 W/m2. The better performance is achieved by very well insulated cool roofs, while well irrigated green roofs present a higher mitigation potential than non-irrigated roofs. Cool Roofs presenting an albedo of 0.7 and 0.6 release less sensible heat during the day than green roofs with a LAI of 1. When the albedo is 0.7 the released sensible heat is less than 50 W/m2, while for albedos close to 0.6 the corresponding heat is around 60–70 W/m2. In comparison, green roofs with LAI values equal to 1, release almost 70–80 W/m2. When LAI decreases to 0.5 the sensible heat released is higher than 100 W/m2 and may reach values close to 130 W/m2. However, when the albedo decreases to 0.3 the corresponding maximum sensible heat released is higher than 150 W/m2. For Northern Europe and in particular London, cool roofs with albedos 0.9 and 0.8 present a negative daily maximum sensible heat released during the summer period and contribute highly to mitigate urban heat island. In particular, the released sensible heat is 20 W/m2 and 10 W/ m2 for albedos of 0.9 and 0.8 respectively. Green roofs with a LAI value of 1, have also a very low daily maximum sensible heat that is close to 10 W/m2, while for LAI values of 2 the corresponding sensible heat is below 20 W/m2. Similar values are also obtained for cool roofs with an albedo of 0.7. When the albedo decreases to 0.6, the corresponding sensible heat increases to about 30 W/m2. Green roofs with LAI = 1 and LAI = 0.5 have a sensible load just below 40 W/m2 and 60 W/m2 respectively. Finally, the sensible heat released by a roof with an albedo of 0.3 releases on average about 70 W/m2.
Fig. 10. The maximum daily sensible heat flux extracted by cool and green roof configurations for a typical summer day in Southern Europe (W/m2).
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
127
Fig. 11. The maximum daily sensible heat flux extracted by cool and green roof configurations for a typical summer day in London (W/m2).
Fig. 12. The integrated summer sensible energy extracted by various cool and green roof configurations in Southern Europe (Crete) (kW h/m2).
As it concerns the integrated amount of the sensible heat released during the whole summer period by the various examined roof configurations, in Crete, Rome and London is concluded that cool roofs presenting a roof albedo higher than 0.8 present a negative value contributing highly to the
mitigation of the urban heat island. For LAI values of 3 the integrated summer sensible heat in Crete is negative (around 10 kW h/m2), while for London is quite higher (around 10 kW h/m2), while for Rome does not exceed 4 kW h/m2. For lower albedos and LAI values the energy
128
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Fig. 13. The integrated summer sensible energy extracted by various cool and green roof configurations in Rome (kW h/m2).
LAI values equal and higher than 1. As shown, cool roofs in all places present a high mitigation potential that for the whole summer period is close to 178 kW h/m2 in Crete, 162 kW h/m2 in Rome and 112 kW h/m2 in London. In parallel, the maximum summer mitigation potential for green roofs is 147 kW h/m2, 128 kW h/m2 and 70 kW h/m2 for Crete, Rome and London respectively. 5. Conclusions
Fig. 14. Integrated summer sensible heat contribution of cool and green roofs in Crete, Rome and London compared to a conventional roof with albedo equal to 0.3, in kW h/m2.
released is always positive. Green roofs with LAI = 2 have a very low integrated sensible heat during the whole summer and thus present also a significant heat island mitigation potential. Cool roofs with albedos close to 0.6 and 0.7 also present a low integrated sensible heat that ranges between 20 and 45 kW h/m2 for Crete, 18–48 in Rome and between 3 and 22 kW h/m2 in London. Conventional roofs having an albedo of 0.3 contribute almost 140 kW h/m2 through sensible heat during the whole summer period in Crete, 132 kW h/m2 in Rome and 80 kW h/ m2 in London. Finally, green roofs with LAI values of 1 and 0.5 release almost 83 and 116 kW h/m2 respectively during the whole summer period in Crete, 84 and 119 kW h/m2 in Rome and 65 and 91 kW h/m2 in London. A comparative presentation of the possible decrease of the integrated sensible heat released by cool and green roofs compared to a conventional roof with albedo equal to 0.3 for the whole summer and for in Crete, Rome and London is given in Fig. 14. The figure includes data for cool roofs with albedo higher than 0.6 and green roofs with
In this paper a comparative analysis of the green and cool roofs’ urban heat island mitigation potential is performed under different climatic conditions. By examining the overall analysis it is evident that both cool and green roofs can contribute considerably to the improvement of the urban environment while simultaneously decrease the energy demand. Since the observed high ambient temperatures intensify the energy problem of cities, deteriorate comfort conditions, put in danger the vulnerable population and amplify the pollution problems, all available solutions should be examined in order to improve the urban thermal microclimate. As a result a careful design taking into account the specific performance of green and cool roofs but also other factors like the ageing of cool materials, the green roofs’ irrigation needs as well as the climatic diversities should be taken into account to maximize the mitigation perspective. References Akbari, H., Levinson, R., 2008. Evolution of cool-roof standards in the US. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2, 1–32. Akbari, H., Rose, L.S., Taha, H., 2003. Analyzing the land cover of an urban environment using high-resolution orthophotos. Landscape Urban Plann. 63, 1–14. Akbari, H., Menon, S., Rosenfeld, A., 2009. Global cooling: increasing world-wide urban albedos to offset CO2. Climatic Change 94, 275–286.
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130 Akbari, H., Damon Matthews, H., Seto, D., 2012. The long-term effect of increasing the albedo of urban areas. Environ. Res. Lett. 7. Asimakopoulos, D.A., Santamouris, M., Farrou, I., Laskari, M., Saliari, M., Zanis, G., Giannakidis, G., Tigas, K., Kapsomenakis, J., Douvis, C., Zerefos, S.C., Antonakaki, T., Giannakopoulos, C., 2012. Modelling the energy demand projection of the building sector in Greece in the 21st century. Energy Build. 49. Cartalis, C., Synodinou, A., Proedrou, M., Tsangrassoulis, A., Santamouris, M., 2001. Modifications in energy demand in urban areas as a result of climate changes: an assessment for the southeast Mediterranean region. Energy Convers. Manage. 42, 1647–1656. Castleton, H.F., Stovin, V., Beck, S.B.M., Davison, J.B., 2010. Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build. 42, 1582–1591. Chen, H., Ooka, R., Huang, H., Tsuchiya, T., 2009. Study on mitigation measures for outdoor thermal environment on present urban blocks in Tokyo using coupled simulation. Build. Environ. 44, 2290–2299. Doulos, L., Santamouris, M., Livada, I., 2004. Passive cooling of outdoor urban spaces. The role of materials. Sol. Energy 77, 231–249. Gaffin, S., Rosenzweig, C., Parshall, L., Beattie, D., Berghage, R., 2005. Energy balance modeling applied to a comparison of white and green roof cooling efficiency, In: 3rd Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Cities Conference, Washington, DC, pp. 1–11. Getter, K.L., Rowe, D.B., 2006. The role of extensive Green roofs in sustainable development. Hortscience 41, 1276–1285. Giannopoulou, K., Livada, I., Santamouris, M., Saliari, M., Assimakopoulos, M., Caouris, Y.G., 2011. On the characteristics of the summer urban heat island in Athens, Greece. Sustain. Cities Soc. 1, 16–28. Gobakis, K., Kolokotsa, D., Synnefa, A., Saliari, M., Giannopoulou, K., Santamouris, M., 2011. Development of a model for urban heat island prediction using neural network techniques. Sustain. Cities Soc. 1, 104–115. Hassid, S., Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Linardi, A., Klitsikas, N., Georgakis, C., Assimakopoulos, D.N., 2000. Effect of the Athens heat island on air conditioning load. Energy Build. 32, 131–141. Hodo-Abalo, S., Banna, M., Zeghmati, B., 2012. Performance analysis of a planted roof as a passive cooling technique in hot-humid tropics. Renew. Energy 39, 140–148. Jacovides, C.P., Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Lewis, J.O., 1996. On the ground temperature profile for passive cooling applications in buildings. Sol. Energy 57, 167–175. Karlessi, T., Santamouris, M., Apostolakis, K., Synnefa, A., Livada, I., 2009. Development and testing of thermochromic coatings for buildings and urban structures. Sol. Energy 83, 538–551. Karlessi, T., Santamouris, M., Synnefa, A., Assimakopoulos, D., Didaskalopoulos, P., Apostolakis, K., 2011. Development and testing of PCM doped cool colored coatings to mitigate urban heat island and cool buildings. Build. Environ. 46, 570–576. Kolokotroni, M., Ren, X., Davies, M., Mavrogianni, A., 2012. London’s urban heat island: impact on current and future energy consumption in office buildings. Energy Build. 47, 302–311. Kolokotsa, D., Diakaki, C., Papantoniou, S., Vlissidis, A., 2011. Numerical and experimental analysis of cool roofs application on a laboratory building in Iraklion, Crete, Greece. Energy Build.. Kolokotsa, D., Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki, P., Papantoniou, S., Vangeloglou, E., Saliari, M., Karlessi, T., Santamouris, M., 2012. Development and analysis of mineral based coatings for buildings and urban structures. Sol. Energy 86, 1648–1659. Livada, I., Santamouris, M., Niachou, K., Papanikolaou, N., Mihalakakou, G., 2002. Determination of places in the great Athens area where the heat island effect is observed. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 71, 219–230. Livada, I., Santamouris, M., Assimakopoulos, M., 2007. On the variability of summer air temperature during the last 28 years in Athens. J. Geophys. Res. D Atmos. 112. Mentens, J., Raes, D., Hermy, M., 2006. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landscape Urban Plann. 77, 217–226.
129
Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Asimakopoulos, D., 1994. Use of the ground for heat dissipation. Energy 19, 17–25. Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Asimakopoulos, D., 1998. Modeling ambient air temperature time series using neural networks. J. Geophys. Res. D: Atmos. 103, 19509–19517. Mihalakakou, G., Flocas, H.A., Santamouris, M., Helmis, C.G., 2002. Application of neural networks to the simulation of the heat island over Athens, Greece, using synoptic types as a predictor. J. Appl. Meteorol. 41, 519–527. Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Cartalis, C., Tsangrassoulis, A., 2004. Simulation of the urban heat island phenomenon in Mediterranean climates. Pure Appl. Geophys. 161, 429–451. Mirzaei, P.A., Haghighat, F., 2010. Approaches to study Urban Heat Island – abilities and limitations. Build. Environ. 45, 2192–2201. Mohsin, T., Gough, W.A., 2012. Characterization and estimation of urban heat island at Toronto: impact of the choice of rural sites. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 108, 105–117. Niachou, A., Papakonstantinou, K., Santamouris, M., Tsangrassoulis, A., Mihalakakou, G., 2001. Analysis of the green roof thermal properties and investigation of its energy performance. Energy Build. 33, 719–729. Pantavou, K., Theoharatos, G., Mavrakis, A., Santamouris, M., 2011. Evaluating thermal comfort conditions and health responses during an extremely hot summer in Athens. Build. Environ. 46, 339–344. Ray, S., Glicksman, L., 2010. Potential energy savings of various roof technologies. ASHRAE Trans.. Rosenfeld, A.H., Akbari, H., Bretz, S., Fishman, B.L., Kurn, D.M., Sailor, D., Taha, H., 1995. Mitigation of urban heat islands: materials, utility programs, updates. Energy Build. 22, 255–265. Sailor, D.J., Elley, T.B., Gibson, M., 2012. Exploring the building energy impacts of green roof design decisions – a modeling study of buildings in four distinct climates. J. Build. Phys. 35, 372–391. Saiz, S., Kennedy, C., Bass, B., Pressnail, K., 2006. Comparative life cycle assessment of standard and green roofs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 4312–4316. Sakka, A., Santamouris, M., Livada, I., Nicol, F., Wilson, M., 2012. On the thermal performance of low income housing during heat waves. Energy Build. 49, 69–77. Santamouris, M., 2001. Energy and Climate in the Urban Built Environment. James and James Science Publishers, London. Santamouris, M., 2007. Heat island research in Europe: the state of the art. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 1, 123–150. Santamouris, M., 2012. Cooling the cities – a review of reflective and green roof mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban environments. Sol. Energy. Santamouris, M., Mihalakakou, G., Papanikolaou, N., Asimakopoulos, D.N., 1999. A neural network approach for modeling the heat island phenomenon in urban areas during the summer period. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 337–340. Santamouris, M., Papanikolaou, N., Livada, I., Koronakis, I., Georgakis, C., Argiriou, A., Assimakopoulos, D.N., 2001. On the impact of urban climate on the energy consumption of buildings. Sol. Energy 70, 201– 216. Santamouris, M., Paraponiaris, K., Mihalakakou, G., 2007a. Estimating the ecological footprint of the heat island effect over Athens, Greece. Climatic Change 80, 265–276. Santamouris, M., Pavlou, C., Doukas, P., Mihalakakou, G., Synnefa, A., Hatzibiros, A., Patargias, P., 2007b. Investigating and analysing the energy and environmental performance of an experimental green roof system installed in a nursery school building in Athens, Greece. Energy 32, 1781–1788. Santamouris, M., Synnefa, A., Kolokotsa, D., Dimitriou, V., Apostolakis, K., 2008. Passive cooling of the built environment – use of innovative reflective materials to fight heat islands and decrease cooling needs. Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 3, 71–82. Santamouris, M., Synnefa, A., Karlessi, T., 2011. Using advanced cool materials in the urban built environment to mitigate heat islands and improve thermal comfort conditions. Sol. Energy 85, 3085–3102.
130
D. Kolokotsa et al. / Solar Energy 95 (2013) 118–130
Sarrat, C., Lemonsu, A., Masson, V., Guedalia, D., 2006. Impact of urban heat island on regional atmospheric pollution. Atmos. Environ. 40, 1743–1758. Scherba, A., Sailor, D.J., Rosenstiel, T.N., Wamser, C.C., 2011. Modeling impacts of roof reflectivity, integrated photovoltaic panels and green roof systems on sensible heat flux into the urban environment. Build. Environ. 46, 2542–2551. Sfakianaki, A., Pagalou, E., Pavou, K., Santamouris, M., Assimakopoulos, M.N., 2009. Theoretical and experimental analysis of the thermal behaviour of a green roof system installed in two residential buildings in Athens, Greece. Int. J. Energy Res. 33, 1059–1069. Simmons, M.T., Gardiner, B., Windhager, S., Tinsley, J., 2008. Green roofs are not created equal: the hydrologic and thermal performance of six different extensive green roofs and reflective and non-reflective roofs in a sub-tropical climate. Urban Ecosyst. 11, 339–348. Stathopoulou, E., Mihalakakou, G., Santamouris, M., Bagiorgas, H.S., 2008. On the impact of temperature on tropospheric ozone concentration levels in urban environments. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, 227–236. Susca, T., Gaffin, S.R., Dell’Osso, G.R., 2011. Positive effects of vegetation: urban heat island and green roofs. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2119–2126. Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., 2012. Advances on technical, policy and market aspects of cool roof technology in Europe: the cool roofs project,. Energy Build.. Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., Livada, I., 2006. A study of the thermal performance of reflective coatings for the urban environment. Sol. Energy 80, 968–981.
Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., Apostolakis, K., 2007. On the development, optical properties and thermal performance of cool colored coatings for the urban environment. Sol. Energy 81, 488–497. Synnefa, A., Karlessi, T., Gaitani, N., Santamouris, M., Assimakopoulos, D.N., Papakatsikas, C., 2011. Experimental testing of cool colored thin layer asphalt and estimation of its potential to improve the urban microclimate. Build. Environ. 46, 38–44. Synnefa, A., Saliari, M., Santamouris, M., 2012. Experimental and numerical assessment of the impact of increased roof reflectance on a school building in Athens. Energy Build.. Takakura, T., Kitade, S., Goto, E., 2000. Cooling effect of greenery cover over a building. Energy Build. 31, 1–6. Takebayashi, H., Moriyama, M., 2007. Surface heat budget on green roof and high reflection roof for mitigation of urban heat island. Build. Environ. 42, 2971–2979. Theodosiou, T., 2009. Green roofs in buildings: thermal and environmental behaviour. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 3, 271–288. Zinzi, M., Agnoli, S., 2011. Cool and green roofs. An energy and comfort comparison between passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island techniques for residential buildings in the Mediterranean region. Energy Build.. Zoulia, I., Santamouris, M., Dimoudi, A., 2009. Monitoring the effect of urban green areas on the heat island in Athens. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 156, 275–292.