Thermal energy performance of compressed earth building in two different cities in Moroccan semi-arid climate

•Good agreement between the energy model and the monitored indoor temperatures.•The passive techniques with earth blocks provide better energy efficiency.•The summer discomfort is reduced about 12% compared to conventional building. The assessment of the thermal energy performance of earth-based bui...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEnergy and built environment Vol. 5; no. 5; pp. 800 - 816
Main Authors Wakil, Marouane, El Mghari, Hicham, Idrissi Kaitouni, Samir, El Amraoui, Rachid
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chengdu Elsevier B.V 01.10.2024
KeAi Publishing Communications Ltd
KeAi Communications Co., Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:•Good agreement between the energy model and the monitored indoor temperatures.•The passive techniques with earth blocks provide better energy efficiency.•The summer discomfort is reduced about 12% compared to conventional building. The assessment of the thermal energy performance of earth-based buildings with respect to the semi-arid Mediterranean climate of Morocco is scarce, even if the country is historically known for its earthen dwellings. According to this need, this work aims to understand and evaluate the indoor thermal comfort and energy performances of passive building in two different locations. We have used EnergyPlus modeling tool and in addition, the monitored ten-day indoor temperatures in two different thermal zones in the test prototype to justify the empirical validation of Building Energy Model. The findings demonstrate, the use of compressed earth blocks coupled with passive design strategies provides better comfort and great sustainability. Thus, the summer discomfort hours are reduced about 12% for both cities compared to conventional building. However, the combination of semi-arid climate-responsive passive design has allowed to reach a thermal energy intensity reduction difference from 20 to 65 kWh.m−2. y−1. [Display omitted]
ISSN:2666-1233
2666-1233
DOI:10.1016/j.enbenv.2023.06.008