Original Article

Journal of Building Physics

Effects of solar radiation 2016, Vol. 40(1) 35–54

Ó The Author(s) 2015

asymmetry on buildings’ Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1744259115597444
cooling energy needs jen.sagepub.com

Imre Csáky and Ferenc Kalmár

Abstract
Over the last several years, the energy used for air conditioning in buildings increased
in most European countries because of the high heat loads during the summer and the
occupants’ increased comfort needs. The aim of our research was to determine the
incident solar radiation on horizontal and vertical surfaces and to investigate the heat
loads of buildings with different orientations of the glazed areas and different thermal
masses in the building structures. Using the measured hourly global radiation data for
the years 2009–2013, the diffuse and direct incident solar radiation was determined for
the horizontal and vertical surfaces. A statistical analysis of the daily energy yield from
solar radiation and the daily mean outdoor temperatures was conducted. The number
of symmetric and asymmetric days was determined for torrid days. Using the metho-
dology provided by standard EN ISO 13790:2008, the cooling energy demand and daily
energy need for cooling was determined and evaluated for representative days of the
analyzed years.

Keywords
Cooling load, energy use, operative temperature, solar gains, thermal mass

Introduction
In accordance with the prescriptions of Directive 2010/31/EU of the European
Parliament and the Council, Member States have established new requirements
related to building envelopes over the past several years (EC Directive, 2010).
Consequently, the usage rates of different components that comprise the yearly
energy balance of buildings are changing. In countries with temperate climate, the

Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

Corresponding author:
Ferenc Kalmár, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Otemeto Str. 2-4, 4028 Debrecen, Hungary.
Email: f_kalmar@eng.unideb.hu
36 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

energy used for cooling is rising, whereas the energy used for heating is decreasing.
These changes are accentuated by the increasing number and amplitude of heat
waves that have occurred during summers in recent decades (Luterbacher et al.,
2004). The problem related to electricity consumption, particularly during summer
periods, is more pronounced in subtropical and tropical climates. Multi-year build-
ing energy simulations were conducted for generic air-conditioned office buildings
in Harbin, Beijing, Shanghai, Kunming, and Hong Kong, which represent the five
major architectural climates in China (Wan et al., 2012). The results of the simula-
tions suggested that there would be a decreasing trend in the heating load and an
increasing trend in the cooling load due to climate change in future years. The
impact of climate change on the energy use of buildings was analyzed by several
authors (Li et al., 2012; Wan et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2010). It was concluded that
an increase in temperature has varying impacts on the electricity demand, depend-
ing on the geographical spread of the major climate zones and the prevailing role of
electrical power for heating and cooling purposes. Because space heating is pro-
vided largely by oil- or gas-fired boiler plants but space cooling relies primarily on
electricity, there would most likely be a shift toward electrical power demand (Li et
al., 2012). Complex building energy modeling and simulations proved that new cli-
matic indexes and energy performance indicators should be developed to obtain
reliable results (Chua and Chou, 2010; Lam et al., 2010). Different mitigation mea-
sures (i.e. measures concerning the building envelope, internal conditions, lighting
load density, and chiller plants) of the effect that climate change has on the energy
use in a building were analyzed by Wan et al. (2011b), who concluded that thermal
insulation for the external wall would not effectively mitigate the expected increase
in building energy use due to climate change. Controlling the amount of solar heat
gain through the windows would be a better alternative. Lowering the current light-
ing load would result in substantial energy savings. The coefficient of performance
of chiller plants should be improved to alleviate the impact of climate change
(Wan et al., 2011a). Bichiou and Krarti developed a comprehensive energy simula-
tion environment for the optimal selection of both building envelope features and
heating and air-conditioning system design and operation settings. Building design
features that minimize the life cycle costs can be determined using the simulation
environment. They found that the optimal selection can reduce life cycle costs by
10%–25%, depending on the climate and the type of homes (Bichiou and Krarti,
2011).
Residential building envelope heat gain and cooling energy requirements were
analyzed by Lam et al. (2005), who confirmed that there has been substantial
growth in energy use in Hong Kong, particularly electricity consumption for air
conditioning in the residential sector during the hot, humid summer months.
Gueymard and Thevenard (2009) presented a new model for determining clear-sky
beam normal and diffuse horizontal irradiances that can also be used to calculate
the monthly or extreme cooling loads for buildings. In their model, the evaluation
of aerosol-related information, which is of crucial importance to obtain an accurate
estimate of solar radiation in general, received special attention. Gueymard and
Csáky and Kalmár 37

duPont (2009) analyzed the spectral effects of solar radiation on the transmittance,
solar heat gain, and performance rating of glazing systems. Because modern solar
gain calculations are preferably based on the solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)
method, the authors introduced new reference spectra that have the advantage of
being tailored for two major applications: vertical windows and tilted roof-
mounted skylights (Gueymard and duPont, 2009). Li and Lam (2001) developed
an approach for calculating the solar heat gain factors (SHGF) for the horizontal
and vertical surfaces at the peak load operation of air-conditioning systems and
other significant levels based on solar angles and the clearness index. When sizing
air-conditioning equipment, the calculations are usually based on the assumption
that the building is under a clear sky. Some design guides provide SHGC for cloud-
less days during daylight hours on the 21st day of each month for a given window
orientation at a specific latitude and time of year. Building designers use these data,
which are considered the maximum solar heat gains, to determine the maximum
cooling load and for plant sizing. However, in addition to the expected variations
in solar gains due to latitude and season, solar gains are locality dependent (Li and
Lam, 2000).
In this article, an analysis of cooling load is presented based on long-term global
radiation and temperature data measured by the Agro-Meteorological Observatory
in Debrecen-Kismacs, Hungary. The calculation of the cooling load was performed
using the methodology presented by EN ISO 13790:2008 (2008). It was proven that
this methodology give sufficiently accurate results for energy calculations (Csáky
and Kalmár, 2015).

Analysis of meteorological data

The Agro-Meteorological Observatory provided the hourly global radiation data
and mean outdoor temperatures for the years 2009–2013. The dry bulb tempera-
ture, relative air humidity, and wind velocity were measured at heights of 1.0, 2.0,
4.0, and 10.0 m. The temperature sensor used was a Pt100-1/10 with 60.1 °C accu-
racy. The global solar radiation was measured using a Kipp & Zonen CMP-11 sen-
sor with 61% accuracy.

Direct and diffuse components of hourly global radiation on horizontal surfaces

To properly calculate the summer heat load of the buildings, the diffuse solar
radiation values and the direct solar radiation values were required for each orien-
tation of the facades. Dragsted and Furbo analyzed three different methods for
calculating diffuse radiation in their research report. They confirmed that the maxi-
mum difference between the analyzed methods was 5% (Dragsted and Furbo,
2012).
Using the hourly global radiation values measured by the Agro-Meteorological
Observatory, Debrecen, from 2009 to 2013, the diffuse radiation on horizontal sur-
faces was determined first using the method developed by Erbs et al. (1982)
38 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

IDifH
= 1  0:9kT for kT <0:22
IGH
IDifH
= 0:9511  0:160kT + 4:388kT2  16:638kT3 + 12:336kT4 for 0:22\kT <0:8
IGH
IDifH
= 0:165 for kT .0:8
IGH
ð1Þ

where kT is the clearness index.

The clearness index can be determined using equation (2)
IGH
kT = ð2Þ
GSC cos uz

where GSC is the solar constant.

The solar constant in our calculation was GSC = 1367 W/m2, according to
Basunia et al. (2012), Dragicevic and Vuckovic (2007), and Duffie and Beckman
(2006).
The direct solar radiation on horizontal surfaces (IdifH) can be calculated using
equation (3) (Duffie and Beckman, 2006)
IGH  IdifH
IdirH = ð3Þ
cos uz

where IGH is the global solar radiation on horizontal surfaces (W/m2), IdirH is the
direct solar radiation on horizontal surfaces (W/m2), and uz is the zenith angle of
the sun.
The measured global radiation, the calculated direct radiation on horizontal sur-
faces, and the calculated diffuse radiation on horizontal surfaces between 2009 and
2013 are presented in Figure 1.
Based on an analysis of the diagrams presented in Figure 1, it can be concluded
that the diffuse solar radiation represents an important part of the global radiation
for horizontal surfaces. The ratio of annual diffuse and global radiation for hori-
zontal surfaces during the years 2009–2013 varies from 39% to 76%, but for all 5
years, the average ratio is 50%.
Furthermore, Figure 1 indicates that global radiation values higher than
900 W/m2 were measured in the months of April, May, June, and July. The daily
incident energy from global radiation was calculated for horizontal surfaces based
on the measured global radiation data.

Rb factor
The ratio of direct radiation on the tilted surface to a horizontal surface is called
the geometric factor and it is generally expressed as (Basunia et al., 2012)
Csáky and Kalmár 39

1000
2009
Global radiaon
Solar radiaon [W/m²]

800 Direct radiaon on horizontal

Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600

400

200

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1000
Global radiaon
2010
Solar radiaon [W/m²]

800 Direct radiaon on horizontal

Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600

400

200

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1000
Global radiaon
2011 Direct radiaon on horizontal
Solar radiaon [W/m²]

800
Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600

400

200

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1000
Global radiaon
2012 Direct radiaon on horizontal
Solar radiaon [W/m²]

800
Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600

400

200

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1000
Global radiaon
2013 Direct radiaon on horizontal
Solar radiaon [W/m²]

800
Diffuse radiaon on horizontal
600

400

200

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 1. Global, direct, and diffuse radiation on horizontal surfaces (2009–2013).

40 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

cos u
Rb = ð4Þ
cos uz

where

cos u = sin d sin u cos b  sin d cos u sin b cos g

+ cos d cos u cos b cos v + cos d sin u sin b cos g cos v ð5Þ
+ cos d sin b sin g sin v

and
cos uz = sin d sin u + cos d cos u cos v ð6Þ

where u is the incidence angle, d is the solar declination, u is the latitude of the site,
b is the angle of the horizontal surface, g is the solar azimuth angle, and v is the
hour angle.
The solar declination can be determined with the following equation (Hsieh,
1986)
 
284 + n
d = 23:45 sin 360 ð7Þ
365

where n is the number of the analyzed day of the year.

Over the span of 24 h, the declination varies with a maximum of 0.5°. The maxi-
mum value of the declination angle is 23.45° (June 21), and the minimum value is
223.45° (December 21). During the spring and autumn equinoxes, on March 21
and September 21, respectively, the declination angle is 0°.
The hourly geometric factor values were calculated for each day of 2009 through
2013 using equations (4)–(7). Bogoslovskij presented the Rb values for a south-
oriented vertical wall in his report (for the 15th day of each month in a given year)
(Bogoslovskij and Poz, 1983; Kondratev et al., 1978). In Figure 2, our calculated
values for a south orientation on the 15th day of each month are compared with
the geometric factor values calculated by Kondratev et al. (1978).
The differences in the Rb values for the months of January–November were neg-
ligible, but there was a notable difference in December. However, the results that
we obtained for December are supported by the findings of Celik (2006).
The geometric factor values for a vertical wall for the 21st day of each month are
presented in Figure 3. The daily variation of the Rb factor for each orientation of a
vertical wall is presented in Figure 4.

Direct and diffuse radiation on vertical surfaces

The hourly solar radiation incident on an inclined surface depends on the time of
the day, that is, the sunset hour angle v, nth day of the year (starting with
1 January), declination angle d, the latitude of the site u, and angle b of the
Csáky and Kalmár 41

Rb coefficient 3
Rb coefficients
Kondtratev
2
Rb coefficients
calculaon
1

0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure 2. Validation of calculated Rb values (south orientation).

3
Rb coefficient

Rb coefficients South

2 Rb coefficients East
and West
Rb coefficients North
1

0
Oct
Aug

Dec
Nov
Jan

May
Feb

Sep
Apr

Jul
Jun
Mar

Figure 3. Rb values for different orientations of the wall.

5
Rb coefficient

Rb coefficients South
4 Rb coefficients East

3 Rb coefficients North
Rb coefficients West
2

0
0:00
2:00
4:00
6:00
8:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
20:00
22:00

Figure 4. Daily variation of Rb values for different orientations of the wall.

42 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

Figure 5. Mean monthly energy yield values from global radiation (2009–2013).

Table 1. Energy yields on vertical surfaces from direct radiation on the hottest days of the
analyzed months (Wh/m2 day).

Day South East West North

2 May 2012 2008 3883 352 182

21 June 2012 1581 4555 917 849
10 July 2011 1644 4671 767 858
6 August 2012 2036 3561 711 198

horizontal surface. The required values of these parameters were computed from
the available global solar radiation data measured on a horizontal surface. The
mean monthly global radiation values for the analyzed years (2009–2013) are pre-
sented in Figure 5.
It can be observed that the highest monthly values of energy yield from global
radiation were recorded in May, June, July, and August. The highest mean monthly
temperatures were obtained for the same 4 months. Consequently, from a cooling
perspective, it was determined that only the following months would be considered
in the analysis: May, June, July, and August.
The direct solar radiation is calculated using equation (8) (Hsieh, 1986)

Idirb = Rb I dirH ð8Þ

The energy yields determined from direct solar radiation values for the hottest
day of each month are presented in Table 1 for different orientations, assuming dif-
ferent orientations of the walls.
Csáky and Kalmár 43

Table 2. Energy yields on vertical surfaces from diffuse radiation on the hottest days of the
analyzed months (kWh/m2 day).

Day Diffuse radiation

2 May 2012 998

21 June 2012 1220
10 July 2011 1169
6 August 2012 1114

Table 3. Radiation values for hottest days (2009–2013).

Month IGH IdifH IdifV IdirSouth IdirEast IdirWest IdirNorth

2 May 2012 W/m2 818.33 345.94 172.97 398.33 974.90 173.12 179.72
Wh/m2 day 6211.85 1995.1 997.55 2007.59 3882.59 352.20 182.12
21 June 2012 W/m2 886.83 288.17 144.09 300 979.46 251.19 491.14
Wh/m2 day 7980.63 2440.72 1220.36 1581.25 4554.50 917.30 848.67
10 July 2011 W/m2 865.00 306.32 153.16 304.91 1092.09 222.90 528.54
Wh/m2 day 7610.37 2338.22 1169.11 1643.97 4671.30 767.31 857.68
6 August 2012 W/m2 816.33 284.72 142.36 368.59 910.72 223.41 183.45
Wh/m2 day 6739.82 2229.03 1114.52 2035.92 3560.51 711.17 197.96

When the isotropic diffuse model is used, the diffuse solar radiation on a tilted
surface can be determined using equation (9) (Goetzberger and Wittner, 1993; Liu
and Jordan, 1961; Norris, 1966)
iso
Idif b = Rb Idifh ð9Þ

where
1 + cos b
Rb = ð10Þ
2
iso
For vertical surfaces (b = 90°), Idif b = IdifV . The daily energy yields determined
from diffuse radiation values are presented in Table 2 for the hottest days of the
months analyzed from 2009 to 2013 (May, June, July, and August).
In Table 3, the measured and calculated daily maximum values and the daily
energy yield values for global horizontal radiation, diffuse horizontal and vertical
radiation, and direct solar radiation are presented for different orientations.
Based on an analysis of the values shown in Table 3, it can be observed that
there are important differences between the direct incident solar radiation on east-
and west-oriented vertical surfaces. For each month analyzed, the measured global
radiation values were calculated for the hottest days in the morning (until
44 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

Table 4. Measured global radiation values (energy yields in the morning and in the afternoon).

Day IGH (Wh/m2 day)

In the morning In the afternoon

2 May 2012 3640 1766

21 June 2012 4256 2851
10 July 2011 4115 2632
6 August 2012 3564 2366

Table 5. Number of hot days and extremely hot days (May–August, 2009–2013).

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Hot days 34 34 35 48 44
Extremely hot days 0 1 2 16 8

11:00a.m.) and in the afternoon (after 13:00p.m.). The measured values are shown
in Table 4.
Notable differences between energy yields for east- and west-oriented surfaces
would be expected because the vertical direct and diffuse radiation values for east-
and west-orientations were calculated using the measured global radiations.

Hot and torrid days

According to the Hungarian Meteorological Service (2015), days that have a maxi-
mum temperature of at least 30 °C are called hot days. If the daily maximum tem-
perature is equal or higher than 35 °C, then that day is called an extremely hot day
(Hungarian Meteorological Service, 2015). Because hourly temperature data were
the only temperature data available for this analysis, the daily maximum tempera-
ture values were obtained from other databases (METNET, 2015). The number of
days classified as hot or extremely hot days for the months analyzed from 2009 to
2013 are presented in Table 5.
Based on the available hourly mean temperature values, days that had a maxi-
mum hourly temperature value of at least 30 °C and the days that had a maximum
hourly mean temperature of at least 35 °C were considered torrid and extremely tor-
rid days, respectively. The number of days classified as torrid and extremely torrid
days for the months analyzed from 2009 to 2013 are presented in Table 6.
For the analyzed years, a total of 116 torrid days occurred from 2009 to 2013,
12 of which were extremely torrid days. The energy yields in the morning and in
the afternoon were calculated for the 116 torrid days and 12 extremely torrid days
and were further evaluated to determine whether there was a significant difference
Csáky and Kalmár 45

Table 6. Number of torrid days and extremely torrid days (2009–2013, May–August).

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Torrid days 22 18 17 37 22
Extremely torrid days 0 0 1 8 3

Table 7. Number of torrid and extremely torrid days characterized by a significant difference in
total energy yield between east- and west-oriented vertical surfaces (2009–2013, May–August).

Year Number of days

Extremely torrid days Torrid days

2009 – 1
2010 – 1
2011 1 17
2012 7 34
2013 3 20

in the total energy yield (direct and diffuse radiation) between the east- and west-
oriented vertical surfaces. The significance analysis was performed using the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) method. The results of the evaluation at a p = 0.05
significance level are presented in Table 7.
In 2009 and 2010, except for 1 day, all of the torrid and extremely torrid days
can be considered symmetric days (i.e. days on which the difference in energy yield
between east- and west-oriented vertical surfaces is not significant). All of the torrid
and extremely torrid days were asymmetric in 2011. One extremely torrid day and
two torrid days were symmetric in 2012; and in 2013, two torrid days were sym-
metric. The total number of asymmetric days for 2009 through 2013 was rather
high; consequently, it is extremely important to evaluate the effects of asymmetry
on the cooling demand and cooling energy consumption of buildings. Furthermore,
it is very important to clarify which irradiance values are used as input data when
designing the cooling systems.
The following discussion presents the results of a statistical analysis of symmetric
and asymmetric days that considered the global radiation, total irradiance on verti-
cal surfaces, and daily mean temperature. The highest values of the analyzed para-
meters were determined both for symmetric (Table 8) and asymmetric days (Table
9), assuming a 95% confidence level.
The daily mean temperature and the global radiation value are both higher for
asymmetric days. For the total irradiance, the values are higher for the east- and
north-orientations for asymmetric days, and higher total irradiances are indicated
for the south- and west-orientations for symmetric days.
46 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

Table 8. Statistical analysis of symmetric days.

Meteorological parameter Mean Standard Error Highest values at 95%

error of mean confidence level

Daily mean temperature (°C) 24.96 1.07 0.16 25.28

Global radiation (Wh/m2 day) 6819.73 825.45 121.71 7064.86
Total radiation (south) (Wh/m2 day) 2968.43 224.65 33.12 3035.15
Total radiation (east) (Wh/m2 day) 2955.11 478.48 70.55 3097.20
Total radiation (west) (Wh/m2 day) 2994.08 673.42 99.29 3194.06
Total radiation (north) (Wh/m2 day) 1427.55 176.44 26.02 1479.95

Table 9. Statistical analysis of asymmetric days.

Meteorological parameter Mean Standard Error of Highest values at 95%

error mean confidence level

Daily mean temperature (°C) 25.75 1.32 0.16 26.07

Global radiation (Wh/m2 day) 6896.14 951.45 115.38 7126.44
Total radiation (south) (Wh/m2 day) 2906.86 371.90 45.10 2996.88
Total radiation (east) (Wh/m2 day) 5010.85 974.31 118.15 5246.69
Total radiation (west) (Wh/m2 day) 1969.76 424.90 51.53 2072.61
Total radiation (north) (Wh/m2 day) 1643.24 398.47 48.32 1739.69

A frequency analysis of the daily mean outdoor temperature, global radiation,

and total irradiance was performed to identify the suitable ‘‘design’’ days for cool-
ing demand calculations. The occurrence of days with different mean temperatures
and solar radiation levels (global or total radiation) is presented in Figures 6–10. It
can be observed that the number of days when the mean outdoor temperature
exceeded 23.49 °C is quite high: in 2009, there were 21 days; in 2010, there were 22
days; in 2011, there were 16 days; in 2012, there were 34 days; and in 2013, there
were 21 days. The frequency analysis was performed at a 95% confidence level.
For the south- and west-cardinal directions, the same day satisfied the required
confidence level. Similarly, for east and north, the same day satisfied the required
confidence level (Table 10).

Cooling demand and daily energy need

The dimensions of the room used in the analysis were 4.0 m 3 4.0 m 3 2.8 m. The
overall heat transfer coefficients of external building elements were
Uwall = 0.226 W/m2 K, Uwindow = 1.0 W/m2 K, and Uflatroof = 0.166 W/m2 K. The
room was located in the corner of the attic of a three-story building. All investi-
gated wall materials, that is, concrete (C), solid brick (SB), brick with vertical holes
Csáky and Kalmár 47

Figure 6. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from global radiation.

Figure 7. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (south orientation).

(BVH), and autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC), were provided with an external
insulation layer. The flat roof was also insulated properly to obtain the required
overall heat transfer coefficient. A lightweight steel frame structure that had similar
48 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

Figure 8. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (east orientation).

Figure 9. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (west orientation).

overall heat transfer coefficients as the external building elements were also ana-
lyzed. In each case, it was assumed that the room had a window (no shading, 85%
glazed area, solar energy transmittance: g = 0.7), and that the air change rate/air
Csáky and Kalmár 49

Figure 10. Occurrence of days with different mean outdoor temperatures and energy yields
from total radiation (north orientation).

Table 10. Meteorological data obtained using a frequency analysis of days.

Cardinal direction Mean outdoor temperature (°C) Total irradiance (Wh/m2 day)

South 27.51 3130.86

West 27.51 3623.62
East 27.69 5514.35
North 27.69 1995.29

change per hour (ACH) was 0.5 h21. The energy calculations were performed for
the symmetric and asymmetric real days identified in section ‘‘Analysis of meteoro-
logical data.’’ Furthermore, the cooling energy demand and daily energy used for
cooling were determined, assuming that the building was under a clear sky. The
results are presented in Table 11.

Discussion
Analyzing the obtained energy data indicates that the asymmetric real day had the
highest cooling energy demand and daily energy use for cooling, regardless of the
50 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

Table 11. Daily energy used for cooling and cooling demand of analyzed room.

Daily cooling energy use (Wh/day)

Orientation Structure Asymmetric Symmetric Symmetric day Asymmetric day
real day real day clear sky clear sky

South Lightweight 13,516 12,801 11,816 12,816

AAC 4767 4224 3700 4384
BVH 4536 4038 3517 4171
SB 2243 1844 1475 1984
Concrete 1398 1033 735 1182
North Lightweight 12,413 8394 7980 10,828
AAC 3706 1767 1560 2732
BVH 3495 1640 1433 2540
SB 1355 312 242 650
Concrete 626 0 0 82
East Lightweight 26,867 14,801 17,749 25,428
AAC 12,273 4963 6524 11,379
BVH 11,870 4743 6275 10,997
SB 7562 2186 3298 6930
Concrete 5832 1251 2087 5301
West Lightweight 12,731 12,319 12,302 12,315
AAC 4631 4254 4399 4511
BVH 4396 4047 4199 4297
SB 2261 1980 2066 2195
Concrete 1545 1282 1368 1517
Cooling demand (W)
South Lightweight 1197 1129 1056 1149
AAC 518 466 408 478
BVH 502 452 395 462
SB 308 262 209 271
Concrete 216 169 119 182
North Lightweight 1013 795 775 841
AAC 405 248 238 297
BVH 388 236 226 281
SB 200 71 62 111
Concrete 112 0 0 28
East Lightweight 1806 1120 1233 1757
AAC 954 491 565 855
BVH 933 476 551 836
SB 695 287 357 607
Concrete 578 194 261 497
West Lightweight 1416 1316 1458 1454
AAC 626 566 637 637
BVH 608 549 622 620
SB 397 353 419 408
Concrete 298 254 317 304

SB: solid brick; BVH: brick with vertical hole; AAC: autoclaved aerated concrete.
Csáky and Kalmár 51

Table 12. Relative differences of cooling energy demand and daily energy used for cooling (%).

Orientation of glazed area South West East North

Relative difference in daily energy used for cooling 21.6 14.2 245.9 334.2
Relative difference in cooling energy demand 7.2 12.6 141.7 181.2

building structure and the orientation of the glazed area. In each of the analyzed
cases, the real day had a higher cooling energy demand and daily energy use for
cooling compared with the ‘‘clear-sky’’ day. The highest cooling energy demand
and energy use was found for an east orientation of the glazed area for the days
analyzed. Compared with an east orientation, the cooling energy demand was
27%–93% lower for a glazed area with a west orientation. Compared with a west
orientation, the cooling energy demand was 15%–27% lower for a south-oriented
glazed area. The decrease in cooling energy demand by orientation was higher for
building structures with higher thermal masses.
The trend was similar for the daily energy used for cooling. It is noteworthy that
the ratio between asymmetric and symmetric days for energy demand for cooling
can reach 300%. For operative temperatures, this difference is maintained below
2 K. The operative temperature variation during the analyzed day for a SB struc-
ture is presented for different orientations in Figure 11. For asymmetric and sym-
metric days in a SB structure, the relative differences in cooling energy demand and
daily energy used for cooling are presented in Table 12.

Conclusion
The number of hot and extremely hot days was determined by analyzing the global
radiation and daily mean outdoor temperatures for 2009–2013 for Debrecen. The
torrid and extremely torrid day concept was introduced and used to analyze the
energy required for the cooling loads for buildings based on the hourly mean values
of outdoor temperatures. The concept of asymmetric days was used to distinguish
days that were characterized by significant differences between the incident solar
radiation observed for east- and west-oriented vertical surfaces. Using the ANOVA
method, it was determined that in 2009 and 2010, the torrid and extremely torrid
days were mainly symmetric days, and that in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the torrid and
extremely torrid days were generally asymmetric. The representative symmetric
and asymmetric days were determined for the analyzed period at a 95% confidence
level. For a room with typical dimensions, the cooling energy demand and daily
energy used for cooling were determined by assuming different building materials
for the envelope. In addition, the energy calculations were performed for ‘‘clear-
sky’’ days. It was concluded that an asymmetric real day indicated the highest cool-
ing energy demand and daily energy used. The real days indicated higher cooling
energy consumption values compared with the ‘‘clear-sky’’ days. The differences
52 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

Figure 11. Variation of operative temperature in the analyzed room.

Csáky and Kalmár 53

between energy demand and daily energy consumption were higher for building
structures with higher thermal mass.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Agro-Meteorological Observatory,
Debrecen, for providing indispensable meteorological data.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the TÁMOP-4.2.2.A-11/
1/KONV-2012-0041 project. The project was co-financed by the European Union and the
European Social Fund.

References
Basunia MA, Yoshio H and Abe T (2012) Simulation of solar radiation incident on
horizontal and inclined surfaces. Journal of Engineering Research 9(2): 27–35.
Bichiou Y and Krarti M (2011) Optimization of envelope and HVAC systems selection for
residential buildings. Energy and Buildings 43(12): 3373–3382.
Bogoslovskij BN and Poz MJ (1983) Teplofizika apparatov utilizatii tepla System otoplenija,
ventilatii i konditionirovania vazduha. Moskva: Stroizdat.
Celik AN (2006) Analysis of Ankara’s exposure to solar radiation: evaluation of
distributional parameters using Long-term hourly measured global solar radiation data.
Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 30: 115–126.
Chua KJ and Chou SK (2010) Energy performance of residential buildings in Singapore.
Energy 35(2): 667–678.
Csáky I and Kalmár F (2015) Effects of thermal mass, ventilation and glazing orientation on
indoor air temperature in buildings. Journal of Building Physics 39(2): 189–204.
Dragicevic S and Vuckovic N (2007) Evaluation of distributional solar radiation parameters
of Cacak using long—term measured global solar radiation data. Thermal Science 11(4):
125–134.
Dragsted J and Furbo S (2012) Solar radiation and thermal performance of solar collectors
for Denmark. DTU Civil Engineering Report R-275, October. Available at: http://
orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:117385/datastreams/file_8854fca2-ce61-4017-befd-9d73
8e6f595e/content
Duffie JA and Beckman WA (2006) Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 3rd edn.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
EC Directive (2010) Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast). Official Journal of the
European Communities L 153(13), 18 June. EC Directive: Brussels.
54 Journal of Building Physics 40(1)

EN ISO 13790:2008 (2008) Energy performance of buildings—calculation of energy use for

space heating and cooling.
Erbs DG, Klein SA and Duffie JA (1982) Estimation of the diffuse radiation fraction for
hourly, daily and monthly-average global radiation. Solar Energy 28(4): 293–302.
Goetzberger A and Wittner V (1993) Sonnenenergie: Physikalische Grundlagen und
thermische Anwendung. Stuttgart: Teubner Studienbücher.
Gueymard CA and duPont WC (2009) Spectral effects on the transmittance, solar heat gain,
and performance rating of glazing systems. Solar Energy 83(6): 940–953.
Gueymard CA and Thevenard D (2009) Monthly average clear-sky broadband irradiance
database for worldwide solar heat gain and building cooling load calculations. Solar
Energy 83(11): 1998–2018.
Hsieh JS (1986) Solar Energy Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hungarian Meteorological Service (2015) Evaluation of extreme climate indices. Available
at: http://www.met.hu/en/omsz/tevekenysegek/klimamodellezes/szelsosegek/ (accessed 18
February2015).
Kondratev KJ, Povovarova ZM and Fedorova MP (1978) Radiationnij rejim naklonnih
poverhnostej. Gidrometeoizdat, p. 340.
Lam JC, Tsang CL, Li DHW, et al. (2005) Residential building envelope heat gain and
cooling energy requirements. Energy 30(7): 933–951.
Lam JC, Wan KKW, Lam TNT, et al. (2010) An analysis of future building energy use in
subtropical Hong Kong. Energy 35(3): 1482–1490.
Li DHW and Lam JC (2000) Solar heat gain factors and the implications to building designs
in subtropical regions. Energy and Buildings 32(1): 47–55.
Li DHW and Lam JC (2001) Analysis of solar heat gain factors using sky clearness index
and energy implications. Energy Conversion and Management 42(5): 555–571.
Li DHW, Yang L and Lam JC (2012) Impact of climate change on energy use in the built
environment in different climate zones—a review. Energy 42(1): 103–112.
Liu BYH and Jordan RC (1961) Daily insolation on surfaces tilted towards the equator.
Ashrae Journal 3(10): 53–59.
Luterbacher J, Dietrich D, Xoplaki E, et al. (2004) European seasonal and annual
temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500. Science 303(5663): 1499–1503.
METNET. Available at: http://www.metnet.hu/?m=napi-adatok&;sub=1&oder=1
(accessed 24 February2015).
Norris DJ (1966) Solar radiation on inclined surfaces. Solar Energy 10(2): 72–76.
Wan KKW, Li DHW and Lam JC (2011a) Assessment of climate change impact on building
energy use and mitigation measures in subtropical climates. Energy 36(3): 1404–1414.
Wan KKW, Li DHW, Liu D, et al. (2011b) Future trends of building heating and cooling
loads and energy consumption in different climates. Building and Environment 46(1):
223–234.
Wan KKW, Li DHW, Pan W, et al. (2012) Impact of climate change on building energy use
in different climate zones and mitigation and adaptation implications. Applied Energy 97:
274–282.
Wong SL, Wan KKW, Li DHW, et al. (2010) Impact of climate change on residential
building envelope cooling loads in subtropical climates. Energy and Buildings 42(11):
2098–2103.