Figure 7 presents the analysis of all eight samples within the proposed
pattern with respect to geographical directions; Samples A, B, C. D, and
F were found to be the most optimal, respectively, and the most
undesirable performances in energy consumption were found in Samples E,
G and H. Table 7 entails a comparison of the amount of energy
consumption before and after applying the proposed pattern in terms of
thermal performance of the samples. Results showed that Sample B with a
square shape, 34.5% transparency and orientation of 8° towards
south-east had the lowest amount of energy consumption. Samples C, and F
with 37.2 and 36.5% transparency levels and orientations of 8° and 8.1°
towards south-east, respectively, were the subsequent optimal samples.
[CHART]
Figure 7.: Optimal energy consumption performances of the eight
samples within the proposed pattern during a year.
The final results of the analysis are listed in Table 8. Under real
conditions, Samples C and E had the lowest (54.57 KWH/m2 and 8185.5 KWH
energy consumption in a year) and highest (60.08 KWH/m2 and 9012 KWH
energy consumption in a year) energy consumption, respectively. In
contrast, after applying the proposed optimal pattern with regards to
the openings, Samples C and H had the lowest (50.51 KWH/m2 and total
consumption of 7576.5 KWH energy consumption in a year) and highest
(61.68 KWH/m2 and 9252 KWH energy consumption in a year) energy
consumption, respectively. The same change was also observed after
applying the proposed optimal pattern regarding geographical directions.
Accordingly, Sample B had a consumption of 49.90 KWH/m2 and 7485 KWH
energy consumption in a year.
Table 8.: Energy consumption comparison between the times
before and after the application of the proposed pattern in terms of
thermal performance in the eight samples.