Desarrollo Del Autoconcepto En El Ciclo Vital.

Analyzing future top ECM combinations is not sufficient to know the impacts of GCC on the decision-making process for building retrofit. We also compared the ranking changes of each ECM combination in future 35 years against in TMY. We used EnergyPlus to run the selected ECM combinations under the TMY and compare its rankings with the results of rankings in future years for the four buildings and listed the ranking changes in Table 8. The ranking changes in the table are calculated by the following function:

Equation 12: ∑ , ,

where, is the rank change of ECM with certain parameter value P; n is the total number of ECM combinations that have the ECM parameter P; _, is the ranking of the ith

ECM combinations that has parameter P by total BEU in the future; _, is the ranking of the ith _{ECM combinations that has parameter P by total BEU in single TMY year.}

50

Table 8Ranking changes of ECM combinations for four buildings compared with TMY scenario San Francisco Philadelphia ECM Parameter Residential Office Residential Office

Window SHGC 0.3 12.5 2.82 -5.77 -2.48 0.5 11.47 -0.34 -8.02 -1.46 0.8 -23.96 -2.48 13.8 3.94 Window U-value 0.4 0.47 - -2.45 4.98 1 2.04 - -0.7 0.85 2 -2.5 - 3.15 -5.84

Window shading N/A -23.03 -2.06 8.65 -1.88

Internal Blind -5.76 0.33 3.66 1.53 External Blind 28.79 1.72 -12.3 0.35

Wall insulation N/A -20.85 - 5.9 2.85

2 9.91 - -5.54 1.3

4 10.94 - -0.35 -4.15

Air infiltration for residential N/A 58.22 - -33.2 -

0.5 -30.51 - 5.3 -

1 -27.71 - 27.9 -

Air infiltration for office N/A - 0.22 - 0

1 - -0.88 - -0.01

2 - 0.65 - -0.01

Roof insulation N/A - - - -

3 - - - -

6 - - - -

Heating efficiency N/A -8.23 - 0.21 -

0.9 8.23 - -0.21 -

Cooling COP N/A - - - 1.83

4.5 - - - -1.83

Cooling air temperature N/A - 2.67 - -

15 - -2.67 - -

Lighting efficiency N/A -20.4 -0.37 -4.15 5.84

40% 20.42 0.37 4.15 -5.84

Daylighting control N/A - -0.43 - -

Applied - 0.43 - -

Note: “-” means that the ECM is not selected by JMIM feature selection procedure or does not apply to the specific building type

51 Philadelphia

San Francisco

Fig. 12 Downscaled monthly mean temperature, daily maximum and minimum temperature under different RCPs (2015 to 2069) and TMY in Philadelphia and San Francisco

It is not difficult to see that residential buildings are more vulnerable to climate change since their ECM ranking changes are relatively larger than office buildings. For residential buildings in Philadelphia, a higher SHGC is more preferable in future years as shown in Fig. 12, which is due to the fact that GCC not only raises the outdoor temperature in summer, but also creates more extreme winter conditions. Thus, the decrease in heating energy due to the increase of SGHC could possibly offset the increase in cooling energy in summer. A higher window U- value also provides better insulation for the building in winter and reduces heating energy use. For the same reason, less shading and wall insulation are needed in future climate for the residential building in Philadelphia. The residential building does not need to be so airtight relative to the TMY scenario but needs to be retrofitted to maintain an air infiltration rate at 1 h-1_.

52

For the office building in Philadelphia, lower window U-value is preferred in the future than today. Better wall insulation is not so important compared to the current climate. Rankings of retrofits that involve increasing cooling COP and lighting efficiency are slightly decreasing, but according to Table 7, they are still very important in high-ranking ECM combinations because only the relative changes are reflected in the table in future climate condition.

For buildings in San Francisco, the most important finding is the big change in air infiltration rate rankings. Given that the air infiltration rate is the most important factor influencing the BEU as indicated by feature importance analysis, the magnitude in its ranking changes could alter the picture of future retrofit decision-making. As shown in Table 8, both residential and office building tend to be less air tightened in the future than in TMY condition, mainly because of the rise in outdoor temperature under future climate condition, as shown in Fig. 12. Moreover, windows with low SHGC is more preferred in the future compared to TMY condition in San Francisco and the building is needed to gain less heat from the sun. This can also be reflected by the fact that the exterior shading is also the most valued parameter in San

Francisco’s future climate, as it is able to best reduce solar heat gain during period of high cooling load. In the meantime, a lower U-value and better wall insulation are preferable to better insulate the building to reduce the heating energy use for residential buildings, while insulation is not an important factor in impacting the BEU in office building in San Francisco as they are not chosen by feature selection. Daylighting control and improvement in lighting efficiency are slightly more preferable in the future climate.

In conclusion, the change of preference for ECM parameters in building retrofit in San Francisco in the future against current climate condition is to make the building less airtight, to reduce the solar heat gain, and to improve thermal insulation, while for buildings in Philadelphia, more solar heat gain, less thermal insulation will be more effective to save BEU.

53