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.