Comparative Thermal and Techno-Economic Assessment of Residential Building Envelope Systems with Renewable Energy Integration

Authors

  • Zaryab Basharat MOE Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
  • Faheem Ahmad MOE Key Laboratory of Thermo-Fluid Science and Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
  • Muhammad Usman Amjad Center for Solid Waste Treatment and Recycling, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
  • Muhammad Haris Malik Department of Fluid Machinery and Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
  • Muhammad Faisal Department of Fluid Machinery and Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
  • Furqan Ahmad State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
  • Muhammad Shahryar School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70112/arme-2025.14.2.4319

Keywords:

Thermal Efficiency, Residential Buildings, Walling Systems, Renewable Energy Systems, Net Present Value (NPV)

Abstract

The need for enhanced thermal efficiency in residential buildings cannot be overstated, as it plays a critical role in lowering energy consumption, reducing operational costs, and increasing sustainability. Although superior walling systems can help decrease heating and cooling demands, they also tend to be more expensive. The use of renewable energy systems presents a possible alternative for providing cost-effective thermal comfort. This study aims to comparatively assess the thermal and economic efficiency of four different residential walling systems-namely, Cavity Brick (CB), Insulated Cavity Brick (ICB), Insulated Brick Veneer (IBV), and Insulated Reverse Brick Veneer (IRBV)-and to examine the viability of integrating renewable energy systems to improve the performance of building envelopes at a lower cost. Monthly heating and cooling demands were calculated using Autodesk Ecotect Analysis software. Construction material costs were analyzed in PKR, and economic viability was evaluated using Net Present Value (NPV) analysis with a 20-year lifecycle, a 6% discount rate, and a 3% inflation rate. The ICB module demonstrated the highest thermal efficiency but incurred an additional construction cost of PKR 1,504,366 compared to the least expensive IBV module. Although ICB resulted in annual energy savings of PKR 41,937, the NPV of these savings (PKR 629,144) did not offset the additional capital cost. Renewable technologies, particularly a 2 m² solar air heater and a 1 kW PV system, were identified as economical options for space heating, with total 20-year costs below PKR 198,097, making them more viable than the envelope upgrade alone. The findings suggest that integrating renewable technologies with cost-effective building envelopes provides a more favorable thermo-economic approach than relying solely on insulation upgrades.

References

[1] V. J. Reddy, N. P. Hariram, M. F. Ghazali, and S. Kumarasamy, “Pathway to sustainability: An overview of renewable energy integration in building systems,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 638, 2024.

[2] M. Shehram, M. N. Hamidi, A. A. A. Wahab, and M. K. M. Desa, “Comprehensive review of hybrid solar cooling systems for buildings: integrating PV and thermal energy storage in phase change materials,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., pp. 1–34, 2025.

[3] Duzcan and Y. A. Kara, “Optimization of a multi-generation renewable energy supply system for a net-zero energy building with PCM-integrated Trombe wall,” J. Energy Storage, vol. 134, p. 117966, 2025.

[4] X. Ma, “Development of new water spray strategies for improving the energy performance of indirect evaporative cooling systems,” 2024.

[5] G. R. Araújo, R. Gomes, P. Ferrão, and M. G. Gomes, “Optimizing building retrofit through data analytics: A study of multi-objective optimization and surrogate models derived from energy performance certificates,” Energy Built Environ., vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 889–899, 2024.

[6] 莫文生, “Multi-objective optimization of passive building design in plateau regions using passive solar heating indicators,” 2024.

[7] Ł. Mazur, O. Szlachetka, K. Jeleniewicz, and M. Piotrowski, “External Wall Systems in Passive House Standard: Material, Thermal and Environmental LCA Analysis,” Buildings, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 742, 2024.

[8] S. A. Moghaddam, C. Serra, M. G. da Silva, and N. Simões, “Comprehensive review and analysis of glazing systems towards nearly zero-energy buildings: energy performance, thermal comfort, cost-effectiveness, and environmental impact perspectives,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 17, p. 6283, 2023.

[9] M. Zhao, Y. Yang, and S. Dong, “Research on Energy-Saving Optimization of Green Buildings Based on BIM and Ecotect,” Buildings, vol. 15, no. 11, p. 1819, 2025.

[10] Lešinskis, U. Strauts, M. Metāls, R. Millers, and V. Afoņičevs, “Ventilation and air conditioning design approach based on ASHRAE psychrometric chart and Mollier diagram,” Front. Built Environ., vol. 10, p. 1372288, 2024.

[11] T. Kasprowicz, A. Starczyk-Kołbyk, and R. R. Wójcik, “The randomized method of estimating the net present value of construction projects efficiency,” Int. J. Constr. Manag., vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 2126–2133, 2023.

[12] H. Acaroğlu, M. C. Baykul, and Ö. Kara, “A Life-Cycle Cost Analysis on Photovoltaic (PV) Modules for Türkiye: The Case of Eskisehir’s Solar Market Transactions,” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 24, p. 11023, 2025.

[13] Y. Li, Y. Zeng, W. Tu, G. Ao, and G. Li, “Research on Outdoor Thermal Comfort Strategies for Residential Blocks in Hot-Summer and Cold-Winter Areas, Taking Wuhan as an Example,” Buildings, vol. 15, no. 10, p. 1615, 2025.

[14] A. Abdallah et al., “Experimental investigation of thermal management techniques for improving the efficiencies and levelized cost of energy of solar PV modules,” Case Stud. Therm. Eng., vol. 35, p. 102133, 2022.

Downloads

Published

05-10-2025

How to Cite

Zaryab Basharat, Faheem Ahmad, Amjad, M. U., Muhammad Haris Malik, Muhammad Faisal, Furqan Ahmad, & Muhammad Shahryar. (2025). Comparative Thermal and Techno-Economic Assessment of Residential Building Envelope Systems with Renewable Energy Integration. Asian Review of Mechanical Engineering, 14(2), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.70112/arme-2025.14.2.4319