Energy 113 (2016) 949e956

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energy performance and economic viability of nano aerogel glazing

and nano vacuum insulation panel in multi-story office building
Muhammad Abdul Mujeebu*, Noman Ashraf, Abdulkarim Alsuwayigh
Department of Building Engineering, College of Architecture and Planning, University of Dammam, 31451, Al-Dammam, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study has focused to assess the energy performance and economic feasibility of nano aerogel
Received 1 March 2016 (nanogel) glazing and nano vacuum insulation panel (VIP) when applied to a multi-story office building
Received in revised form located in the Dhahran region of Saudi Arabia. The energy performance of the building was studied in
23 July 2016
cases such as i) without thermal insulation, ii) with conventional insulation (in wall and roof) and
Accepted 25 July 2016
double-glazed (DG) window and iii) with nanogel glazing (in window) and nano VIP (for wall and roof).
The building model was built in Autodesk Revit (2015), and the energy simulation was performed by
Ecotect software (2011). A cost analysis was also performed to assess the economic feasibility of the
Keywords:
Thermal insulation
various insulation options. The results show that, replacing the DG windows with nanogel glazing
Buildings achieves a saving of 14% in the annual energy consumption of the building, while polystyrene foam and
Envelope nano VIP in walls and roof yield savings of 0.5% and 0.8% respectively. The energy saving potential is
Nanogel almost independent of the relative humidity and occupancy, and is sensitive to the set-point tempera-
Nano VIP ture. For the study building, the best option in terms of both energy performance and cost is to provide
Energy saving potential nanogel glazing in windows and polystyrene insulation in walls and roof.
Annual energy consumption © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction aspects have been provided by Bouquerel et al. [1,36].

The vacuum insulation panel (VIP) has proved to be a promising
candidate to meet the demand for thinner and high performance
insulation materials for buildings [1e5]. The unique features of VIP
include relatively low thickness (5e50 mm) that could replace
conventional insulations of up to 250 mm [6] and the thermal
resistance up to ten times higher than the conventional insulation
materials such as polystyrene of comparable thickness [7e11]. A lot
of researches have been reported on the characterization of VIPs
with different envelope and core materials under various operating
environments [9], [12e31]. However, the contributions under the
IEA/ECBCS Annex 39 ‘HiPTI e High Performance Thermal Insu-
lation’ are worth noting [32]. Baetens et al. [33] and Alam et al. [34]
provided exhaustive reviews of VIPs, with special focus on appli-
cation to building envelopes. Kalnæs and Jelle [35] reviewed the
commercially available VIP products and the research opportunities
ahead. Detailed accounts of heat and mass transfer phenomena
across VIPs filled with nano-porous silica and their modeling
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mmalmujeebu@uod.edu.sa, mamujeebu@gmail.com
(M. Abdul Mujeebu).
Aerogel is the lightest known solid material [10], and silica
aerogel has the lowest thermal conductivity (0.0144 W/mK) among
all the common insulation materials [37,38]. Aerogels are excellent
candidates for thermal insulation of buildings [37,39]; the attractive
features, manufacturing details and applications of aerogel as
building insulation material were extensively reported in the
literature [39e43]. Aerogel glazing is a granular aerogel encapsu-
lated between polycarbonate construction panels; its impact
strength is 200 times higher and is 20% lighter when compared to
the equivalent glass unit [44]. With U-values as low as 0.30 W/m2 K,
aerogel glazing has very high potential in the fenestration industry
[45]. The studies of Dowson et al. [46] and Buratti and Moretti [47]
demonstrated its outstanding benefits in the energy performance
of buildings. Huang and Niu [48] studied the thermal and optical
characteristics of a glazing system in which silica aerogel was filled
between two layers of conventional single clear glass panes, by
considering a commercial building in humid subtropical climate. It
was shown that the application of silica aerogel glazing system in
such a climate could reduce the annual cooling load and envelope
heat gain by about 4% and 60% respectively. Other researches
include those reported by Filate [49], Ibrahim et al. [50] and Gao
et al. [51].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.136
0360-5442/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
950 M. Abdul Mujeebu et al. / Energy 113 (2016) 949e956

Recently, Rashwan et al. [52] studied the effect of nanogel and

nano VIP (embedded into the envelope) on the thermal perfor-
mance of an office building under Egypt-Aswan weather condi-
tions. However, there is wide scope for further research in
exploring the combined and individual effects of nano VIP and
nanogel glazing on the energy performance of buildings, for various
climatic conditions and regions. For instance, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA) which is the leading construction industry in the
Middle East region, has a huge potential for energy conservation
and management in buildings [53]. Particularly, by considering the
booming trend in multi-story and glass-clad buildings, the appli-
cation of nano VIP and nanogel glazing should be a focus of
extensive research in KSA. Accordingly, the authors have made a
preliminary study on a simple office building [54] and found that
nanogel glazing and nano VIP (in walls and roof) could yield a
saving of about 18% in the annual energy consumption out of which
16% was contributed by the nanogel glazing alone. However, the
current study has the following objectives:
Fig. 1. The building model built in Revit.
a) to ascertain and substantiate the findings of ref [54] by
considering a multi-story office building in the same region of
KSA
b) to assess the economic viability of the various insulation options
with respect to the uninsulated case, by performing a cost
analysis based on simple payback period

2. Methodology

The specifications of the study building are summarized in

Table 1. The base case was considered as uninsulated, and in the
subsequent cases, 8 options including conventional (polystyrene)
insulation, nanogel glazing and nano VIP were studied individually
and in various combinations. The modeling was performed in
Autodesk REVIT (Fig. 1), which is a building information modeling
tool that works by integrating the building elements such as walls,
windows, floors and roofs [55]. The energy simulation on the built
model was performed by ECOTECT [56]; the simulation model
depicting the intensity of solar radiation on the building is shown in
Fig. 2. Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate the baseline (uninsulated) configu-
rations for wall and roof respectively, which are the most
commonly adopted in KSA. Figs. 5 and 6 depict the wall and roof Fig. 2. The Ecotect simulation model depicting the intensity of solar radiation.
configurations with conventional (polystyrene) insulation, and the
respective configurations with nano VIP are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
The nano VIP and the nanogel glazing configurations used in the
current study were adopted from previous studies [57,58]. The
nano VIP has metallized film envelope and silica aerogel core, and
the nanogel glazing (Fig. 9) comprises a core of 16 mm filled with
nano aerogel, sandwiched by 12 mm gas-filled glass and 5 mm
outer pane (Low-e coated). Table 2 summarizes the details of the

Table 1
Specifications of the study building.

Item Specification

Type Multi-story office building

Location Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
Floor area 3442 m2 per floor
No. of floors 10
Floor height 3.8 m
Occupancy (m2/person) 7 (ASHRAE standard)
Office hours 7 a.m. to 6p.m.
Window to wall ratio 1: 1
Orientation North-South
Windows Double-glazed (DG) with aluminum frame
Fig. 3. Base wall configuration e 250 mm brick masonry with 20 mm cement plaster
Lighting 400 lux
inside and outside.
 M. Abdul Mujeebu et al. / Energy 113 (2016) 949e956 951

Fig. 4. Base roof configuration e 150 mm concrete layer covered by sand, cement
mortar and ceramic tiles, 10 mm each. Fig. 6. Roof configuration for Option 1e150 mm concrete layer covered by 50 mm
polystyrene foam, and 10 mm layers of sand, cement mortar and ceramic tiles.

Fig. 5. Wall configuration for Option 1e50 mm polystyrene foam sandwiched by

100 mm masonry and 20 mm cement plaster. Fig. 7. Wall configuration with nano VIP.

various insulation options studied. Regarding the working schedule

of the office, it was assumed that the air-conditioning system was
switched on 1 h before the office time. While working on the
Ecotect program, various building components were defined and
the related data were either inputted or chosen appropriately, as
summarized in Tables 3 and 4. The data such as lighting level, hu-
midity, number of occupants (occupancy), air speed and air-change
rate were chosen in compliance with the ASHRAE (American So-
ciety of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers)
standard for office buildings. The highest occupant density (80ft2/
occupant) according to the ASHRAE standard was chosen in the
current study.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Monthly cooling and heating loads and total energy

consumption

In the present study, the energy simulation was performed Fig. 8. Roof configuration with nano VIP.
without thermal insulation (base), and then with polystyrene foam
952 M. Abdul Mujeebu et al. / Energy 113 (2016) 949e956

700000

600000 Base
Option 1

Cooling Load (kWh)

500000
Option 2
400000 Option 3
Option 4
300000
Option 5
200000 Option 6
Option 7
100000
Option 8
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fig. 10. Monthly variation in cooling load.

6000

5000 Base

Heating Load (kWh)

Option 1
Fig. 9. Window configuration with nanogel glazing.
4000 Option 2
Option 3
3000
Option 4
Table 2
Option 5
The tested insulation options. 2000
Option 6

Options External wall Roof Window 1000 Option 7

Option 8
Base Uninsulated Uninsulated Double-glazed 0
Option 1 Polystyrene foam Polystyrene foam Double- glazed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Option 2 Nano VIP Polystyrene foam Double- glazed
Option 3 Polystyrene foam Nano VIP Double-glazed Fig. 11. Monthly variation in heating load.
Option 4 Polystyrene foam Polystyrene foam Nanogel glazing
Option 5 Nano VIP Nano VIP Double-glazed
Option 6 Polystyrene foam Nano VIP Nanogel glazing 700000
Option 7 Nano VIP Polystyrene foam Nanogel glazing
Total Energy Consumption (kWh)

Option 8 Nano VIP Nano VIP Nanogel glazing 600000 Base

500000 Option 1
Option 2
400000 Option 3
Table 3
Option 4
Simulation input data for wall and roof. 300000
Option 5

Properties Wall Roof 200000 Option 6

Option 7
Base Ployst. Nano VIP Base Ployst. Nano VIP 100000
Option 8
U-value (W/m2K) 1.61 0.48 0.06 2.47 0.52 0.06 0
Admittance (W/m2K) 4.36 4.72 4.77 4.64 5.04 5.07 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Solar absorption 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.132
Thermal decrement 0.24 0.18 0.1 0.6 0.32 0.2 Fig. 12. Monthly variation in total energy for cooling and heating.
Thermal Lag (hrs.) 11.21 11.21 16.48 7.52 7.52 12.66
Thickness (mm) 290 290 290 180 230 230
consumption are consistent with the average monthly solar inci-
Weight (kg) 550 452 459.3 404 405.8 412.4
dent radiation of the study location as shown in Fig. 13. Obviously,
the heating load of the building should increase during the winter
months (December to February), as evident in Fig. 11. While looking
Table 4
Simulation input data for windows.
into the options, generally the options 1, 2, 3 and 5 show higher
contribution to the cooling load and energy consumption,
Properties Double glazed window Nanogel glazing compared to options 4, 6, 7 and 8. This indicates that the DG
2
U-value (W/m K) 2.71 0.45 window is the major contributor to the heat gain that has been
Admittance (W/m2K) 0.84 0.99 reduced by the nanogel glazing in options 4, 6, 7 and 8 (Table 2).
Solar heat gain coefficient 0.75 0.35
This will be discussed further in the following section.
Visible light transmittance 0.92 0.3
Refractive Index of glass 0.06 3
Thickness (mm) 42.00 50 3.2. Annual energy consumption
Weight (kg) 27.64 0.8
Emissivity (int. & ext.) 0.78 0.78
In order to assess the impact of nanogel glazing and nano VIP on
the energy performance of the building, the annual energy con-
sumption of the building with various insulation options was
insulation (Option 1) before trying various options with nano VIP in
estimated as presented in Fig. 14. The results are consistent with
walls and roof and nanogel glazing in windows (Options 2 to 8). The
those observed in the monthly variation in Fig. 12. With respect to
monthly variation in cooling and heating loads and the total energy
the base case and conventional insulation, the individual and joint
consumption respectively, of the building for all the options stud-
contributions of polystyrene foam, nanogel glazing and nano VIP
ied, are obtained as presented in Figs. 10e12. In general it can be
towards energy saving were also determined (as percentage of base
observed that the cooling and heating loads and the total energy
case) as shown in Fig. 15.
 M. Abdul Mujeebu et al. / Energy 113 (2016) 949e956
Fig. 13. Monthly solar radiation of Dhahran (obtained from ECOTECT).
3200000
Annual Energy Consumption (kWh)
3100000
3000000
2900000
2800000
2700000
2600000
2500000
2400000
Fig. 14. Annual energy consumption by various insulation options.
The energy saving potential of the polystyrene insulation (Op-
tion 1) is observed to be 0.5%, when added to both walls and roof,
which has been increased to 0.8% by replacing it with nano VIP
(Option 5). However, it is worth noting that, only by replacing DG
window with nanogel glazing and keeping polystyrene foam in
walls and roof has contributed about 14% saving in annual energy
consumption (Option 4). This is attributed to the fact that the major
contributor of heat gain inside the building is the DG window when
compared to walls and roof, which can be explained by factors such
as U-value, thermal lag and optical characteristics of glazing. For
instance, DG window has significantly high U-value (2.71 W/m2K)
compared to the polystyrene-insulated wall (0.48 W/m2K) and roof
(0.52 W/m2K). As elaborated by Stein [59], the thermal lag (the time
delay of heat transmitted through a wall or roof), which depends on
density, specific heat, thermal conductivity and thickness of the
Fig. 15. Energy saving potential of various insulation options.
953
structural element, plays a crucial role in the heat gain inside the
building. Since glasses have no thermal lag, the faster heat gain
through the DG window is quite obvious compared to the large
thermal masses such as wall and roof. It can thus be deduced that
adding insulation to wall and roof can influence the heat gain only
when it makes a difference in thermal lag, which depends mainly
on the density of the insulation material. On the other hand, the
heat gain through glazing is governed by U-value, solar heat gain
coefficient (SHGC- or g-value) and visible light transmittance (Tvis).
For this reason, even though the introduction of nano VIP in wall
and roof could reduce the U-value drastically (to 0.06 W/m2K), it
could not yield much saving in energy consumption when
compared to that produced by replacing DG window by nanogel
glazing (U-value, 0.45 W/m2K). This observation is consistent with
that of Iqbal and Al-Homoud [60], who studied the impact of
alternative energy conservation measures on the energy perfor-
mance of office building in the same region of KSA. They showed
that providing polystyrene insulation in walls and roof could save a
maximum of about 1% and 0.8% energy respectively, whereas low-e
DG window could save 8%.
The options 2, 3 and 5 were studied to see the individual and
combined influences of nano VIP in walls and roof; savings of 0.7%,
0.6% and 0.8% respectively, are obtained when added in walls
(Option 2), roof (Option 3), and in both wall and roof (Option 5). It is
evident that the nano VIP has only nominal impact compared to
nanogel glazing. The dominating influence of nanogel glazing in
saving energy is more obvious in options 6, 7 and 8, which indicate
almost negligible impact by the addition of nano VIP in walls and
roof. The main objective of this study was to reaffirm the findings of
the authors' preliminary study [54], by considering a multistory
office building in the same climatic region and also to assess the
economic feasibility of the nano insulation options. The properties
of the nanogel glazing system considered in this study were based
on the experimental findings reported by Reim et al. [58]. The value
of Tvis for the nanogel glazing was chosen as 0.3, which is signifi-
cantly low compared to the DG window (Tvis ¼ 0.92), and enough
discussion is available in the literature on the effect of this
discrepancy on the lighting inside the building. For instance, it is
well established [48,58,61e64], that, unlike the DG windows, aer-
ogel based glazing systems are translucent and light-diffusing. This
unique feature make them excellent candidates to facilitate a
comfortable working environment in the office, without additional
artificial lighting requirement. Moreover, they can be tailored to
optimize the energy and daylighting performances, by adjusting
the thickness of the system and the physical properties of the
aerogel. However, their proper integration into the building needs
careful consideration of the architectural characteristics [63]. Thus
the present findings corroborate those of [54] and both the study
agree well on the excellent energy saving potential of the building
by replacing DG windows with nanogel glazing. However, the
954 M. Abdul Mujeebu et al. / Energy 113 (2016) 949e956

Table 5 relative humidity (RH) and occupancy, on the energy performance

Results of sensitivity analysis. of the building, and eventually on the energy saving potential of the
Operating Parameter Saving in annual energy consumption (%) most attractive options (Options 4, 6, 7 and 8). For each option, the
Option 4 Option 6 Option 7 Option 8
annual energy consumption was estimated by varying ST, RH and
occupancy, and the percentage saving with respect to the corre-
Relative Humidity (%)
sponding baseline energy consumption was obtained as summa-
35 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97
40 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97 rized in Table 5.
45 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97 The occupancy values used for the sensitivity analysis were in
50 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97a line with the ASHRAE standards, and the ST values were according
55 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97
to ASHRAE and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
60 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97
Setpoint Temperature ( C) tration) standards. It is obvious that while RH and occupancy have
19e27 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97a almost negligible impact, while ST shows remarkable influence on
21.5e28 10.46 10.69 10.57 10.79 the energy saving potential of nanogel glazing. A detailed analysis
20e24 15.92 15.89 16.06 16.02 of the crucial influence of ST and its set band on energy con-
20e25 15.23 15.22 15.36 15.35
sumption has been reported by Ghahramani et al. [65] who stated
22e25 14.14 14.16 14.26 14.29
24e24 13.05 13.08 13.08 13.12 that wider ST bands would ensure energy efficient operation of the
Occupancy (m2/person) air-conditioning system. It is worth noting that the ST range set in
7 13.76 13.86 13.87 13.97a the present simulation was also 19e27  C, which is the mostly
9 13.79 13.89 13.90 13.99
accepted temperature range for offices according to ASHRAE stan-
10 13.82 13.98 13.93 14.09
11 13.89 14.08 14.00 14.19
dards. Thus it could be deduced that the predicted energy saving
12 13.96 14.20 14.07 14.31 potential of nanogel glazing is independent of RH or occupancy, and
14 14.16 14.43 14.27 14.54 is valid for the widely accepted range of ST.
a
Simulated case.

3.4. Cost analysis

Table 6
Unit costs of materials. Even though the nano insulation options are shown to be
Material Unit cost USD/m2 excellent with respect to the energy performance, their economic
Nano VIP 60a
viability needs to be verified. Therefore, a cost analysis was per-
Nano aerogel 75a formed, wherein the additional investment required for each
Polystyrene foam 8.5b insulation option and the corresponding annual saving in energy
Brick Masonry 35b cost were evaluated (in USD - United Sates Dollars). By assuming
Cement Plaster 05b
that the installation cost is almost the same for all the options, the
Sand 01b
Ceramic tiles 7.4b additional investment and the simple payback period (SPP, in
Uninsulated wall 45b number of years) were calculated as:
Uninsulated roof 34.2b Additional investment ¼ Total material cost of the option e
Wall with Polystyrene 53.5b material cost of the base case.
Roof with Polystyrene 42.7b
Wall with nano VIP 105a
94.2a
Additional Investment
Roof with nano VIP SPP ¼
DG window 293c Annual Saving
Nanogel glazed window 322c
a
The unit costs (USD/m2) of aerogel, nano VIP, polystyrene foam,
www.alibaba.com.
b and the various constituents of wall and roof, according to the
Al Armak Company, Riyadh, KSA.
c
Saudi Arabian Glass Company Limited, Jeddah, KSA. market prices (costs of aerogel and nano VIP were obtained from
international suppliers and other costs were from local market) are
choice of polystyrene and nano VIP for wall and roof could be summarized in Table 6. The total cost, total annual energy cost,
decided based on the economic analysis presented in section 3.4. annual saving and SPP for all the options are tabulated in Table 7. It
is obvious that out of the options that are attractive in terms of
energy saving potential (Options 4, 5, 6 and 7), the Option 4
3.3. Sensitivity analysis (polystyrene foam in wall and roof and nanogel glazed windows)
has the lowest SPP of 7 yrs. The SPP of 7 years is quite long due to
A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of the the cheapest electricity cost of KSA compared to other countries
operating parameters such as the setpoint temperature (ST), (for instance, about 61% and 86% lower than those of US and

Table 7
Cost analysis summary.

Insulation options Material cost (USD) Additional investment (USD) Energy cost (USD/year) Annual saving (USD/year) SPP (No. of years)

Wall Roof Window Total

Option 1 315506 146952 1594635 2057093 79380 245083.9 1464 54.2

Option 2 619218 146952 1594635 2360804 383092 244859.4 1689 226.8
Option 3 315506 324188 1594635 2234329 256617 244859.4 1689 151.9
Option 4 315506 146952 1752465 2214923 237211 212588 33960 7.0
Option 5 619218 324188 1594635 2538041 560328 244602.6 1946 288.0
Option 6 315506 324188 1752465 2392160 414447 212339.3 34209 12.1
Option 7 619218 146952 1752465 2518635 540922 212334.5 34214 15.8
Option 8 619218 324188 1752465 2695872 718159 212086.5 34462 20.8
 M. Abdul Mujeebu et al. / Energy 113 (2016) 949e956
Australia respectively) [66]. It indicates that nano VIP in wall and
roof is not economically viable for the study building, while
nanogel glazing is consistently promising. It is also interesting to
note that even though the additional investment is the least for
Option 1 (DG window with polystyrene wall and roof), this benefit
is outweighed by high energy cost, leading to unacceptable SPP
(54.2 yrs).
4. Conclusion
The impacts of nanogel glazing and nano VIP on the energy
performance of a multi-story office building and their economic
feasibility were studied. This is extension of a preliminary study on
a simple office building by considering the climatic conditions of
Dhahran region of KSA. The study has revealed that, compared to
the uninsulated case, the nanogel glazing alone could save about
14% in the annual energy consumption of the building, while the
impact of nano VIP in walls and roof is not much attractive. The
predicted energy saving potential was verified by a sensitivity
analysis of operating parameters such as RH, ST and occupancy, and
found that it was virtually independent of RH and occupancy and
valid for the commonly accepted ST band. The cost analysis reveals
that nano VIP in walls and roof is not cost-effective compared to the
polystyrene insulation, whereas nanogel glazing is significantly
attractive. Accordingly, with respect to both energy performance
and cost, the Option 4 (polystyrene foam in walls and roof and
nanogel glazing in windows) is highly recommended for the
building studied. The present findings have prominence in KSA
owing to the boom in glass-clad buildings. Extended research is in
progress, on the energy and thermal performances of the building
with various nano insulation options under all typical climatic
conditions of KSA, on different types of buildings, and with
different window-to-wall ratios. Studies incorporating life cycle
costing, life cycle assessment are also underway.
References
[1] Bouquerel M, Duforestel T, Baillis D, Rusaouen G. Heat transfer modeling in
vacuum insulation panels containing nanoporous silicasdA review. Energy
Build 2012;54:320e36.
[2] Wang X, Walliman N, Ogden R, Kendrick C. VIP and their applications in
buildings: a review, vol. 160; 2007. no. CM4.
[3] Tenpierik MJ, Cauberg JJM, Thorsell TI. Integrating vacuum insulation panels in
building constructions: an integral perspective. Constr Innov 2007;7(1):
38e53.
[4] Chen Z, Chen Z, Qiu J, Xu T, Zhou J. Vacuum insulation panel for green building.
Appl Mech Mater 2011;71e78:607e11.
[5] Brunner S, Ghazi Wakili K, Stahl T, Binder B. Vacuum insulation panels for
building applications-continuous challenges and developments. Energy Build
2015;85:592e6.
[6] Wakili KG, Bundi R, Binder B. Effective thermal conductivity of vacuum
insulation panels. Build Res Inf 2004;32(4):293e9.
[7] Ahadi P. Applications of nanomaterials in construction with an approach to
energy issue. Adv Mater Res 2011;261e263:509e14.
[8] Fricke J, Heinemann U, Ebert HP. Vacuum insulation panels-From research to
market. Vacuum 2008;82:680e90.
[9] Fricke J, Schwab H, Heinemann U. Vacuum insulation panels - exciting ther-
mal properties and most challenging applications. Int J Thermophys
2006;27(4):1123e39.
[10] Hemeida FAEAO. Green nanoarchitecture. University of Alexandria; 2010. MSc
Thesis.
[11] Koebel M, Rigacci A, Achard P. Aerogel-based thermal superinsulation: an
overview. J Sol-Gel Sci Technol 2012;63:315e39.
[12] Gao T, Jelle BP, Ihara T, Gustavsen A. Insulating glazing units with silica aer-
ogel granules: the impact of particle size. Appl Energy 2014;128:27e34.
[13] Simmler H, Brunner S. Vacuum insulation panels for building application.
Energy Build Nov. 2005;37(11):1122e31.
[14] Schwab H, Heinemann U, Wachtel J, Ebert H-P, Fricke J. Predictions for the
increase in pressure and water content of vacuum insulation panels (VIPs)
integrated into building constructions using model calculations. J Build Phys
2005;28(4):327e44.
[15] Schwab H, Stark C, Wachtel J, Ebert H-P, Fricke J. Thermal bridges in vacuum-
insulated building facades. J Therm Envel Build Sci 2005;28(4):345e55.
955
[16] Schwab H, Heinemann U, Beck A, Ebert H-P, Fricke J. Permeation of different
gases through foils used as envelopes for vacuum insulation panels. J Therm
Envel Build Sci 2005;28(4):293e317.
[17] Schwab H, Heinemann U, Beck A, Ebert H-P, Fricke J. Dependence of thermal
conductivity on water content in vacuum insulation panels with fumed silica
kernels. J Therm Envel Build Sci 2005;28(4):319e26.
[18] Schwab H, Heinemann U, Beck A, Ebert H-P, Fricke J. Prediction of service life
for vacuum insulation panels with fumed silica kernel and foil cover. J Therm
Envel Build Sci 2005;28(4):357e74.
[19] Nussbaumer T, Wakili KG, Tanner C. Experimental and numerical investiga-
tion of the thermal performance of a protected vacuum-insulation system
applied to a concrete wall. Appl Energy 2006;83:841e55.
[20] Brunner S, Simmler H. In situ performance assessment of vacuum insulation
panels in a flat roof construction. Vacuum 2008;82:700e7.
[21] Grynning S, Jelle BP, Uvslokk S, Gustavsen A, Baetens R, Caps R, et al. Hot box
investigations and theoretical assessments of miscellaneous vacuum insu-
lation panel configurations in building envelopes. J Build Phys Apr.
2011;34(4):297e324.
[22] Sveipe E, Jelle BP, Wegger E, Uvslokk S, Grynning S, Thue JV, et al. Improving
thermal insulation of timber frame walls by retrofitting with vacuum insu-
lation panels - experimental and theoretical investigations. J Build Phys
2011;35(2):168e88.
[23] Wegger E, Jelle BP, Sveipe E, Grynning S, Gustavsen A, Baetens R, et al. Aging
effects on thermal properties and service life of vacuum insulation panels.
J Build Phys 2011;35(2):128e67.
[24] Jung H, Jang CH, Yeo IS, Song T-H. Investigation of gas permeation through Al-
metallized film for vacuum insulation panels. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2013;56:
436e46.
[25] Kim J, Song T-H. Vacuum insulation properties of glass wool and opacified
fumed silica under variable pressing load and vacuum level. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2013;64:783e91.
[26] Mukhopadhyaya P, Kumaran MK, Normandin N, van Reenen D. Fibre-powder
composite as core material for vacuum insulation panel. In: 9th international
vacuum insulation symposium 17th and 18th september 2009 at the royal
institution of great Britain in London; 2009.
[27] Kwon J-S, Jang CH, Jung H, Song T-H. Vacuum maintenance in vacuum insu-
lation panels exemplified with a staggered beam VIP. Energy Build 2010;42:
590e7.
[28] Yang C, Gao X, Shao X. Finite -element thermal analysis of thermal bridge of
vacuum insulation panels based on temperature-dependent laminate prop-
erties. Phys Procedia 2012;32:658e63.
[29] Di X, Gao Y, Bao C, Ma S. Thermal insulation property and service life of
vacuum insulation panels with glass fiber chopped strand as core materials.
Energy Build 2014;73:176e83.
[30] Tenpierik MJ, Cauberg JJM. Encapsulated vacuum insulation panels: theoret-
ical thermal optimization. Build Res Inf 2010;38(6):660e9.
[31] Chen Z, Chen Z, Yang Z, Hu J, Yang Y, Chang L, et al. Preparation and char-
acterization of vacuum insulation panels with super-stratified glass fiber core
material. Energy 2015;93:945e54.
[32] Binz A, Steinke G. Applications of vacuum insulation in the building sector. In:
7th international vacuum insulation symposium, Empa, Duebendorf/Zurich,
Switzerland, september 28-29, 2005; 2005. p. 43e8.
[33] Baetens R, Jelle BP, Thue JV, Tenpierik MJ, Grynning S, Uvsløkk S, et al. Vacuum
insulation panels for building applications: a review and beyond. Energy Build
Feb. 2010;42:147e72.
[34] Alam M, Singh H, Limbachiya MC. Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIPs) for
building construction industry e a review of the contemporary developments
and future directions. Appl Energy 2011;88(11):3592e602.
[35] Kalnæs SE, Jelle BP. Vacuum insulation panel products: a state-of-the-art re-
view and future research pathways. Appl Energy 2014;116:355e75.
[36] Bouquerel M, Duforestel T, Baillis D, Rusaouen G. Mass transfer modeling in
gas barrier envelopes for vacuum insulation panels: a review. Energy Build
2012;55:903e20.
[37] Huang L. Feasibility study of using silica aerogel As insulation for buildings.
Stockholm: KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management; 2012.
Master Thesis.
[38] Ibrahim M, Biwole PH, Achard P, Wurtz E. Aerogel-based materials for
improving the building Envelope's thermal behavior: a brief review with a
focus on a new aerogel-based rendering. In: Sharma A, Kar SK, editors. Energy
sustainability through green energy, green energy and technology; 2015.
p. 163e88.
[39] Cuce E, Cuce PM, Wood CJ, Riffat SB. Toward aerogel based thermal super-
insulation in buildings: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;34:273e99.
[40] Baetens R, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Aerogel insulation for building applications: a
state-of-the-art review. Energy Build 2011;43:761e9.
[41] Gammampila R, Mendis P, Ngo T, Aye L, Jayalath AS, Rupasinghe RAM.
Application of nanomaterials in the sustainable built environment. In: Inter-
national conference on sustainable built environment (ICSBE-2010) Kandy,
13-14 December 2010; 2010. p. 20e7.
[42] Buratti C, Moretti E. “Nanogel windows,” in nearly zero energy building
refurbishment. 2013th ed. London: Springer-Verlag; 2013. p. 555e80.
[43] Neugebauer A, Chen K, Tang A, Allgeier A, Glicksman LR, Gibson LJ. Thermal
conductivity and characterization of compacted, granular silica aerogel. En-
ergy Build 2014;79:47e57.
956 M. Abdul Mujeebu et al. / Energy 113 (2016) 949e956
[44] Sadineni SB, Madala S, Boehm RF. Passive building energy savings: a review of
building envelope components. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:3617e31.
[45] Jelle BP, Hynd A, Gustavsen A, Arasteh D, Goudey H, Hart R. Fenestration of
today and tomorrow: a state-of-the-art review and future research oppor-
tunities. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2012;96:1e28.
[46] Dowson M, Harrison D, Craig S, Gill Z. Improving the thermal performance of
single-glazed windows using translucent granular aerogel. Int J Sustain Eng
2011;4(3):266e80.
[47] Buratti C, Moretti E. Glazing systems with silica aerogel for energy savings in
buildings. Appl Energy 2012;98:396e403.
[48] Huang Y, lei Niu J. Application of super-insulating translucent silica aerogel
glazing system on commercial building envelope of humid subtropical cli-
mates e impact on space cooling load. Energy 2015;83:316e25.
[49] Filate SS. Investigation of an energy refurbishment concept for office building
using Nanogel® Aerogel insulation plaster and replaced windows by building
simulation. Uppsala Universitet; 2014. MSc Thesis.
[50] Ibrahim M, Biwole PH, Wurtz E, Achard P. A study on the thermal perfor-
mance of exterior walls covered with a recently patented silica-aerogel-based
insulating coating. Build Environ 2014;81:112e22.
[51] Gao T, Ihara T, Grynning S, Jelle BP, Lien AG. Perspective of aerogel glazings in
energy efficient buildings. Build Environ 2016;95:405e13.
[52] Rashwan A, Farag O, Moustafa WS. Energy performance analysis of integrating building
envelopes with nanomaterials. Int J Sustain Built Environ 2013;2:209e23.
[53] Abdul Mujeebu M, Alshamrani OS. Prospects of energy conservation and
management in buildings e the Saudi Arabian scenario versus global trends.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;58:1647e63.
[54] Abdul Mujeebu M, Ashraf N, Alsuwayigh AH. Effect of nano vacuum insulation
panel and nanogel glazing on the energy performance of office building. Appl
Energy 2016;173:141e51.
[55] Revit family _ BIM software _ Autodesk.” [Online]. Available: http://www.
autodesk.com/products/revit-family/overview.
[56] Using Autodesk Ecotect analysis and building information modeling. Auto-
desk, Inc.; 2010 [Online]. Available, http://www.tpm.com/wp-content/
uploads/2013/02/using_autodesk_ecotect_analysis_and_building_
information_modeling_final.pdf.
[57] Vacuum insulation panel properties & building applications e ECBCS Annex
39 project summary report. 2010.
[58] Reim M, Ko €rner W, Manara J, Korder S, Arduini-Schuster M, Ebert H-P, et al.
Silica aerogel granulate material for thermal insulation and daylighting. Sol
Energy Aug. 2005;79:131e9.
[59] Stein B. Building technology: mechanical and electrical systems. 2nd ed. New
York, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
[60] Iqbal I, Al-Homoud MS. Parametric analysis of alternative energy conservation
measures in an office building in hot and humid climate. Build Environ May
2007;42:2166e77.
[61] Huang Y, Niu J. Energy and visual performance of the silica aerogel glazing
system in commercial buildings of Hong Kong. Constr Build Mater 2015;94:
57e72.
[62] Ihara T, Gao T, Grynning S, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Aerogel granulate glazing
facades and their application potential from an energy saving perspective.
Appl Energy 2015;142:179e91.
[63] Gao T, Ihara T, Grynning S, Jelle BP, Lien AG. Perspective of aerogel glazings in
energy efficient buildings. Build Environ 2016;95:405e13.
[64] Gao T, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Building integration of aerogel glazings. Procedia
Eng 2016;145(1877):723e8.
[65] Ghahramani A, Zhang K, Dutta K, Yang Z, Becerik-Gerber B. Energy savings
from temperature setpoints and deadband: quantifying the influence of
building and system properties on savings. Appl Energy 2016;165:930e42.
[66] Global average electricity price by key country 2015.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/477995/global-prices-of-electricity-by-
select-country/.