Content uploaded by Majed Abuseif
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Majed Abuseif on Nov 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Zhonghua Gou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zhonghua Gou on Nov 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
energies
Review
A Review of Roofing Methods: Construction Features,
Heat Reduction, Payback Period and
Climatic Responsiveness
Majed Abuseif * and Zhonghua Gou
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD 4215, Australia;
z.gou@griffith.edu.au
*Correspondence: majed@hg-spaces.com; Tel.: +61-(7)-55529510
Received: 30 September 2018; Accepted: 15 November 2018; Published: 18 November 2018
Abstract:
The roofs of buildings play an essential role in energy efficiency because a significant
amount of solar radiation is absorbed by roofs in hot weather and a significant amount of heat is lost
through roofs in cold weather. This paper is a systematic literature review about roofing methods for
flat roofs. Ten roofing methods are reviewed in this paper. They are concrete roof, cool roof, insulated
roof, roof garden, photovoltaic panels’ roof, biosolar roof, double-skin roof, roof ponds, skylight roof,
and wind catcher. The review covers each roof’s main features, heat flux reductions, payback periods,
and the appropriate climate for its implementation. Furthermore, the basic principles for selecting
appropriate roofing methods are discussed and future studies for integrating these roofing methods
are suggested. Some of these methods can eliminate the need of installing HVAC (Heating Ventilation
and Air-conditioning) systems and others can achieve a high percentage of heat reduction if they
are the right choice and they are implemented in the right circumstances. An incorrect selection
could result in mild to severe energy penalties. The review contributes to the increasing knowledge
about sustainable roofing and helps designers to increase building energy efficiency by selecting the
appropriate roofing method.
Keywords: roof types; energy efficiency; passive cooling; literature review; climate responsive
1. Introduction
Building shape, location, materials, and elements of design, all play significant roles in energy
performance inside a building [
1
], and consequently, the role of architects is to integrate them to
produce a sustainable building and save energy usage. When designing a building, unfortunately
roofs have not received much attention, yet the roof of building plays an essential role in building
sustainability, as it absorbs thermal energy significantly in hot climates [
2
]. On the other hand,
a significant amount of thermal energy is lost in cold days from roofs. The difference between internal
and external temperature, roof area, building type, and different roofing construction materials are
important factors influencing energy loss and gain; for instance, the rate of heat transfer by natural
convection between a roof of a shed with an area of 400 m
2
, a surface temperature of 27
◦
C, and
ambient air temperature of
−
3
◦
C, with an average of 10 w/m
2
k of convection heat transfer coefficient
is
−
120,000 W [
3
]. To illustrate further, the average of heat lost through the roof for a typical uninsulated
timber-framed house in New Zealand is 30–35% [
4
], about 25% for an uninsulated home in United
Kingdom [5], and about 40% in Canberra, Australia [6].
In past years, much research has been conducted regarding different ways to deal with building
roofs in order to improve thermal comfort, improve energy performance in buildings, and to reduce
the negative impact on the environment. Many researchers have addressed different sustainable
Energies 2018,11, 3196; doi:10.3390/en11113196 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2018,11, 3196 2 of 22
methods and treatments for building roofs to improve the energy performance in buildings. Some of
these methods are traditional, while others have only been introduced in the past few years. Many
experiments, simulations, and case studies can be found in this area. Based on a review of available
roof construction techniques, ten roofing methods have been identified. These roofing methods
are (1) Concrete roof; conventional roof slab; (2) Cool roof; adding reflective material on roof slab;
(3) Insulated roof; adding insulation material on a roof slab; (4) Roof garden; adding a garden on a
roof slab, which could include different layers such as plantation, soil, waterproofing, and drainage;
(5) Photovoltaic panels roof; adding photovoltaic panels onto a roof slab; (6) biosolar; a combination
of roof garden and photovoltaic panels on a roof slab; (7) Double-skin roof; adding a secondary slab
over the main roof to cover it; (8) Roof ponds; adding water or wet materials on a roof slab to improve
passive cooling; (9) Skylight roof; part of or whole roof containing a skylight; and (10) Wind catcher;
adding an element over a roof to trap air and direct it inside a building. Each one of these roofs
has some advantages accompanied with disadvantages, and they compete with each other in many
aspects such as construction features, heat flux reduction, cost, maintenance, suitability to climate, and
preferred building types. This paper reviews the ten roofing methods and conducts comparisons of
their performance and features to help decision makers to select suitable methods for their buildings.
Methodology in Section 2introduces how the literature review has been conducted; the main feature
of each of the ten roofing methods is reviewed in Section 3; they are further compared in terms of heat
reduction related to a conventional roof, the payback period, and climatic responsiveness in Section 4.
The principles of selecting the ten methods and possible integration are discussed in Section 5followed
by the conclusion where future studies are implied.
2. Methodology
The first stage is a literature search using the Web of Science data base. Using the targeted key
words for the selected roofing methods, 574 peer reviewed articles were identified. Studies were
conducted in different climate conditions (Figure 1). The majority of the studies were conducted in
hot or warm conditions, specifically in Arid and Tropical climates, and even the studies in Temperate
and Mediterranean climates focused on hot days in these climates. Only 35 papers described studies
conducted in polar climates. Past research in this field was conducted in 64 different countries. The top
five countries were: The United States, China, India, Italy, and Greece. Thirty-one countries published
one–two studies. The gradient green coloured map in Figure 2gives a visual view of the countries
where roofing methods have been studied.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 22
methods and treatments for building roofs to improve the energy performance in buildings. Some of
these methods are traditional, while others have only been introduced in the past few years. Many
experiments, simulations, and case studies can be found in this area. Based on a review of available
roof construction techniques, ten roofing methods have been identified. These roofing methods are
(1) Concrete roof; conventional roof slab; (2) Cool roof; adding reflective material on roof slab; (3)
Insulated roof; adding insulation material on a roof slab; (4) Roof garden; adding a garden on a roof
slab, which could include different layers such as plantation, soil, waterproofing, and drainage; (5)
Photovoltaic panels roof; adding photovoltaic panels onto a roof slab; (6) biosolar; a combination of
roof garden and photovoltaic panels on a roof slab; (7) Double-skin roof; adding a secondary slab
over the main roof to cover it; (8) Roof ponds; adding water or wet materials on a roof slab to improve
passive cooling; (9) Skylight roof; part of or whole roof containing a skylight; and (10) Wind catcher;
adding an element over a roof to trap air and direct it inside a building. Each one of these roofs has
some advantages accompanied with disadvantages, and they compete with each other in many
aspects such as construction features, heat flux reduction, cost, maintenance, suitability to climate,
and preferred building types. This paper reviews the ten roofing methods and conducts comparisons
of their performance and features to help decision makers to select suitable methods for their
buildings. Methodology in Section 2 introduces how the literature review has been conducted; the
main feature of each of the ten roofing methods is reviewed in Section 3; they are further compared
in terms of heat reduction related to a conventional roof, the payback period, and climatic
responsiveness in Section 4. The principles of selecting the ten methods and possible integration are
discussed in Section 5 followed by the conclusion where future studies are implied.
2. Methodology
The first stage is a literature search using the Web of Science data base. Using the targeted key
words for the selected roofing methods, 574 peer reviewed articles were identified. Studies were
conducted in different climate conditions (Figure 1). The majority of the studies were conducted in
hot or warm conditions, specifically in Arid and Tropical climates, and even the studies in Temperate
and Mediterranean climates focused on hot days in these climates. Only 35 papers described studies
conducted in polar climates. Past research in this field was conducted in 64 different countries. The
top five countries were: The United States, China, India, Italy, and Greece. Thirty-one countries
published one–two studies. The gradient green coloured map in Figure 2 gives a visual view of the
countries where roofing methods have been studied.
Figure 1. Number of papers from each climate.
Figure 1. Number of papers from each climate.
Energies 2018,11, 3196 3 of 22
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22
Figure 2. Number of papers from each country.
The earliest published record was for cool roof in 1930, followed by an insulated roof in 1970;
the first paper about a wind catcher design was published in 1985; while skylight, roof garden, double
skin roofs, and biosolar roofs started to be investigated in 2001, 2001, 2002, and 2007, respectively. All
roofing methods have been mentioned in published papers during 2018, except concrete roofs which
was published in 2017; this means that these methods are still receiving attention from researchers
and there is still on-going investigation into them (Figure 3). Roof gardens, which was a trend in this
last decade, have received the most attention from researchers, with 129 papers, followed by cool
roofs, and photovoltaic roofs, with 117, and 95 papers respectively. Double-skin, skylight, and
concrete roofs have the lowest number of published papers with 13, 22, and 24, respectively; while
the others have around 50 publications (Figure 4). Energy and Buildings has been most active in this
field by publishing 93 papers, followed by Building and Environment which published 38, while
Renewable Energy, Applied Energy, and Energy Journals published slightly less than 20. Figure 5
shows the top 11 journals which published no less than six papers on this topic.
Figure 3. First paper published for each roof method.
1981
1930
1970
2001
1993
2007 2002
1969
2001
1985
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Figure 2. Number of papers from each country.
The earliest published record was for cool roof in 1930, followed by an insulated roof in 1970; the
first paper about a wind catcher design was published in 1985; while skylight, roof garden, double
skin roofs, and biosolar roofs started to be investigated in 2001, 2001, 2002, and 2007, respectively.
All roofing methods have been mentioned in published papers during 2018, except concrete roofs which
was published in 2017; this means that these methods are still receiving attention from researchers
and there is still on-going investigation into them (Figure 3). Roof gardens, which was a trend in this
last decade, have received the most attention from researchers, with 129 papers, followed by cool
roofs, and photovoltaic roofs, with 117, and 95 papers respectively. Double-skin, skylight, and concrete
roofs have the lowest number of published papers with 13, 22, and 24, respectively; while the others
have around 50 publications (Figure 4). Energy and Buildings has been most active in this field by
publishing 93 papers, followed by Building and Environment which published 38, while Renewable
Energy, Applied Energy, and Energy Journals published slightly less than 20. Figure 5shows the top
11 journals which published no less than six papers on this topic.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 22
Figure 2. Number of papers from each country.
The earliest published record was for cool roof in 1930, followed by an insulated roof in 1970;
the first paper about a wind catcher design was published in 1985; while skylight, roof garden, double
skin roofs, and biosolar roofs started to be investigated in 2001, 2001, 2002, and 2007, respectively. All
roofing methods have been mentioned in published papers during 2018, except concrete roofs which
was published in 2017; this means that these methods are still receiving attention from researchers
and there is still on-going investigation into them (Figure 3). Roof gardens, which was a trend in this
last decade, have received the most attention from researchers, with 129 papers, followed by cool
roofs, and photovoltaic roofs, with 117, and 95 papers respectively. Double-skin, skylight, and
concrete roofs have the lowest number of published papers with 13, 22, and 24, respectively; while
the others have around 50 publications (Figure 4). Energy and Buildings has been most active in this
field by publishing 93 papers, followed by Building and Environment which published 38, while
Renewable Energy, Applied Energy, and Energy Journals published slightly less than 20. Figure 5
shows the top 11 journals which published no less than six papers on this topic.
Figure 3. First paper published for each roof method.
1981
1930
1970
2001
1993
2007 2002
1969
2001
1985
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Figure 3. First paper published for each roof method.
Energies 2018,11, 3196 4 of 22
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22
Figure 4. Number of papers published for each roofing method.
Figure 5. Number of papers published in relevant journals.
Although the majority of the papers provided case study, experimental, or simulation data, few
papers conducted a comparison between two–four different roofing systems or a mix of two of them.
Also, it was noted that researchers tended to conduct their experiments in a specific period such as
summer time, while few studied the overall period during a year. These papers were further
evaluated regarding data and results, climates, times cited, and the journal impact. Finally, the 87
most relevant papers are selected for the review. The following stage of this article reviews and
deeply analyses data and results of the selected papers to find and evaluate the features of roofing
methods, heat flux reduction, cost, maintenance, appropriate climate, and preferred buildings types.
The final stage uses the outcome data from the second stage to conduct comparisons from different
aspects, investigate their climatic applicability, and explore the possibility to introduce new methods.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 4. Number of papers published for each roofing method.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22
Figure 4. Number of papers published for each roofing method.
Figure 5. Number of papers published in relevant journals.
Although the majority of the papers provided case study, experimental, or simulation data, few
papers conducted a comparison between two–four different roofing systems or a mix of two of them.
Also, it was noted that researchers tended to conduct their experiments in a specific period such as
summer time, while few studied the overall period during a year. These papers were further
evaluated regarding data and results, climates, times cited, and the journal impact. Finally, the 87
most relevant papers are selected for the review. The following stage of this article reviews and
deeply analyses data and results of the selected papers to find and evaluate the features of roofing
methods, heat flux reduction, cost, maintenance, appropriate climate, and preferred buildings types.
The final stage uses the outcome data from the second stage to conduct comparisons from different
aspects, investigate their climatic applicability, and explore the possibility to introduce new methods.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 5. Number of papers published in relevant journals.
Although the majority of the papers provided case study, experimental, or simulation data, few
papers conducted a comparison between two–four different roofing systems or a mix of two of them.
Also, it was noted that researchers tended to conduct their experiments in a specific period such as
summer time, while few studied the overall period during a year. These papers were further evaluated
regarding data and results, climates, times cited, and the journal impact. Finally, the 87 most relevant
papers are selected for the review. The following stage of this article reviews and deeply analyses
data and results of the selected papers to find and evaluate the features of roofing methods, heat flux
reduction, cost, maintenance, appropriate climate, and preferred buildings types. The final stage uses
the outcome data from the second stage to conduct comparisons from different aspects, investigate
their climatic applicability, and explore the possibility to introduce new methods.
Energies 2018,11, 3196 5 of 22
3. Roofing Methods
Figure 6illustrates these roofing methods, except for roof ponds, which are further divided into
several sub-types in Figure 7. The following sections elaborate on them one by one.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22
3. Roofing Methods
Figure 6 illustrates these roofing methods, except for roof ponds, which are further divided into
several sub-types in Figure 7. The following sections elaborate on them one by one.
Figure 6. Main features of the reviewed roofing methods.
Figure 6. Main features of the reviewed roofing methods.
Energies 2018,11, 3196 6 of 22
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22
Figure 7. Roof ponds.
3.1. Concrete Roofs
Concrete slabs are one of the most important roofing methods. There are different structures,
but the majority have high thermal conductivity. They absorb external heat in summer while thermal
losses may occur in winter, which makes occupancy under these roofs thermally unstable and
unbearable. Researchers have been trying to improve the concrete slabs by applying different
treatments to these structures. Adding plastic waste and tires in the concrete mixture can reduce
concrete heat gain by 10–19% without affecting its performance [7]. Rubberized concrete which can
reduce the dead-load of roofs is also important [8]. Hollow concrete roofs can reduce thermal
conductivity by 13.65–40.42% [9]. In addition, adding reflective coating and insulation layers to these
slabs can reduce their thermal conductivity significantly [10], these two methods are discussed in
more details in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. Some researchers have introduced the use of phase change
material (PCM) which can absorb heating by a melting process before reaching internal spaces, thus
reducing heat up to 40% [11]. Research conducted upon different climates and specifications of PCM
Figure 7. Roof ponds.
3.1. Concrete Roofs
Concrete slabs are one of the most important roofing methods. There are different structures, but
the majority have high thermal conductivity. They absorb external heat in summer while thermal losses
may occur in winter, which makes occupancy under these roofs thermally unstable and unbearable.
Researchers have been trying to improve the concrete slabs by applying different treatments to
these structures. Adding plastic waste and tires in the concrete mixture can reduce concrete heat
gain by 10–19% without affecting its performance [
7
]. Rubberized concrete which can reduce the
dead-load of roofs is also important [
8
]. Hollow concrete roofs can reduce thermal conductivity
by 13.65–40.42% [
9
]. In addition, adding reflective coating and insulation layers to these slabs can
reduce their thermal conductivity significantly [
10
], these two methods are discussed in more details
in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. Some researchers have introduced the use of phase change material (PCM)
Energies 2018,11, 3196 7 of 22
which can absorb heating by a melting process before reaching internal spaces, thus reducing heat up
to 40% [
11
]. Research conducted upon different climates and specifications of PCM have produced
different outcomes; for instance, Alqallaf and Alawadhi [
12
] estimated that it reduced heat flux
by 15.9–17.3%, and in Alexander and Gaurav’s study and it could be reduced up to 100% in a
Mediterranean climate [13].
3.2. Cool Roofs
By applying a reflective layer/coating over a roof slab, solar radiation can be reflected. Usually,
this layer is white. When colours become darker, the reflectance decreases, and the superficial
temperature becomes higher [
14
]. However, researchers have discussed the fact that dark colours can
still be effective if they have a high reflectivity performance. This treatment is usually used for passive
cooling, and it works well in hot climates such as arid and tropical climates. On the other hand this
method has an energy penalty in cold days or the winter season, because it blocks passive heating at
the building’s roof and is not able to block heat loss from internal spaces though the roof slab, unless
it is combined with thermal insulation. This method can reduce heat flux up to 33% [
15
]. The cool
roof payback period is short compared with other methods which can be in two months [
16
]. In other
climates, as mentioned before, it has an energy penalty towards heating loads, which was recorded in
a Mediterranean climate, of about 12%, and 30% reduction in cooling [
17
]. Cool roofs, compared with
photovoltaic panel roofs and roof gardens, maintains a lower surface temperature, which can improve
the passive cooling during night time [
18
]. Careful selection of this method is needed when heating is
highly required in a building, in order to evaluate its efficiency before applying it on the roofs of a
building, and avoiding its negative impact on heating loads.
3.3. Insulated Roofs
Insulation is the most frequently used roofing method, and in many countries insulation is
mandatory. However, in some cases the other passive cooling/heating methods can be more effective.
Insulation performance depends on the material’s thermal conductivity (k) and insulation layer
thickness. Much research had been conducted to evaluate and test different materials and their thermal
conductivity. In one such experience, Kumar and Suman [
19
] conducted an experimental evaluation of
several materials, and they addressed their R-value. These values were used in Table 1(In the columns
headed with Kumar and Suman [
19
] values). In addition, calculation for total R-value, U-vale, and
heat flux reduction effect was added. Calculation was conducted according to the assumption: basic
roof section: 150 mm RCC (k = 1.26, R-value = 0.267 m
2
k/W) + 50 mm mud phuska (k = 0.519) + 50
mm burnt clay brick tile (k = 0.798, R-value = 0.435 m
2
k/W). R-value for insulation was calculated for
50 mm thickness.
Nandapala and Halwatura [
20
] introduced a system that can achieve a closer result by using the
half thickness of insulation layer; in their system they used a 2.5 cm thickness of insulation layer over
a slab, and then they placed a screed layer over the insulation with discontinuous concrete strips to
support the system and to insure its stability. This insulation system can reach a heat reduction of up to
75% in a tropical climate. In Mediterranean climates another three materials were tested, which were
polystyrene, rock wool, and fine white sand, and their results in heat reduction were 58.5%, 38.01% and
62% respectively [
21
,
22
]. They were tested during hot days, which means that they have similar effects
in hot climates. If insulation is integrated with other techniques such as ventilation or a reflective layer,
it could increase its efficiency up to 84% and 88% respectively [
23
,
24
]. Researchers have introduced
vacuum panels as insulation layers, but experiments have concluded that they are less effective than
traditional insulation and the payback period is about 17 years [
25
]. The environmental payback period
is shorter than its economic payback period for insulation [
26
]. In addition, the economic payback
varied regarding insulation material and its thickness, which can be 3.11–5.55 years [22,26].
Energies 2018,11, 3196 8 of 22
Table 1. Reductions in Heat flux of different insulation materials.
Insulation
Materials
R-Value 1
Insulation
Materials
R-Value 2
RCC
R-Value 3
Mud
Phuska
R-Value 4
Brick Tile
Resistance of
the Inside
Surface
Resistance
of the
Outside
Surface
R-Total
with
Insulation
R-Total
without
Insulation
U-Value
Total with
Insulation
U-Value
Total
without
Insulation
Reduce in
Heat Flux %
Kumar and Suman [19] values Fixed values Values calculated for this paper
EPS
(K = 0.035) 1.429 0.119 0.096 0.063 0.140 0.060 1.907 0.478 0.524 2.092 74.930
PUF
(K = 0.027) 1.852 0.119 0.096 0.063 0.140 0.060 2.330 0.478 0.429 2.092 79.480
Foam
concrete
(K = 0.070)
0.714 0.119 0.096 0.063 0.140 0.060 1.192 0.478 0.839 2.092 59.910
Fiberglass
(K = 0.040) 1.250 0.119 0.096 0.063 0.140 0.060 1.728 0.478 0.579 2.092 72.340
Styropor
(K = 0.032) 1.558 0.119 0.096 0.063 0.140 0.060 2.036 0.478 0.491 2.092 76.520
Peripor
(K = 0.028) 1.786 0.119 0.096 0.063 0.140 0.060 2.264 0.478 0.442 2.092 78.880
Neopor
(K = 0.033) 1.511 0.119 0.096 0.063 0.140 0.060 1.989 0.478 0.503 2.092 75.960
Energies 2018,11, 3196 9 of 22
3.4. Roof Gardens
Engaging vegetation in building roofs provides the building with several benefits such as
fair insulation, passive cooling in summer and passive heating in winter, absorbing CO
2
from the
surrounding environment during day time, improving air quality by producing O
2
and air filtration,
improving space usage and storm water management. In addition, it provides urban heat island
mitigation, and edible landscapes [
27
]. If the roof gardens are compared with other insulation materials,
these insulation materials would excel in terms of price and efficiency. For hot climates roof gardens
work well and can reduce heat flux by 31–37% [
28
–
30
]. The effect of passive cooling diminishes
when the temperature rises, especially in arid climates where a 24–35% drop has been reported [
31
].
By adding insulation layer, reflective material, and ventilation to a roof garden, the heat flux can
be reduced by up to 80% [
32
,
33
]. It has been proven that roof gardens can enhance the ventilation
performance by 20% [
34
], and can be easily retrofitted if the building structure could host it. In the first
zero energy building in Singapore, which was retrofitted from an existing building with a gross floor
area of 4502 m
2
, the estimated energy saving from adding a roof garden by using energy simulation
was 70.2 (kWh/m
2
/year) [
35
]. Moreover, the ambient air temperature reduced by 7
◦
C due to green
roofs, and the surface temperature of the roof reduced by 24.5
◦
C compared with the existing case [
36
].
A roof garden’s payback time is related to its components. If it is just a simple layer of waterproofing,
soil and grass in a wet area, the payback would be about 10 years [
37
]. However, it would increase if it
becomes intensively planted and needs a special structure and components; in this case it would reach
25–57 years [
38
]. The payback period in this method would be unfair if it is compared with others just
from the energy saving perspective, due to many other benefits it can bring to the building and its
value. Decision makers should take the multi-benefits into consideration. Passive heating of a roof
garden during winter in tropical climates is reasonable [
39
], but in cold climates it may not be efficient
enough to stand alone for this purpose, because it still can lose thermal energy in cold days [
28
]. In this
case, integrating the roof garden with insulation can limit the loss of thermal energy and acquire more
energy efficiency.
3.5. Photovoltaic Panel Roofs
Photovoltaic (PV) panels are a renewable energy source, and they are used in the roofs of buildings
because of their ability to supply buildings with electricity and to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel
energy consumption. They also have an indirect effect on a building’s energy performance by providing
shading under panels and absorbing solar radiation which contribute to the reduction of heat gains on
roofs. The reduction of cooling loads due to photovoltaic panels shading differs depending on the type
of roof insulation [
40
]. Heat flux can be reduced by 60–63% [
40
,
41
] compared with exposed roofs, while
it has a lower effect if insulation is applied to the roof. The energy saving in some cases is around 6–7%
in a tropical zone [
42
]. However, there would be an energy penalty if the building is in cold climates or
in a cold winter season. In another experiment in a Mediterranean climate, when a conventional roof
was compared with another roof with Photovoltaic Panels, 6.7% increase of heating loads has been
recorded in winter; while in summer there were 17.8% decrease in cooling loads recorded [
43
]. Panels’
materials, orientation, capacity, tilting degree, and roof finishing materials play direct roles in their
efficiency and payback period, which can be 4–11 years [
44
–
46
]. Buildings location and orientation
play an important role in PV production and energy efficiency in the buildings [
47
]. From the different
climates, hot climates have more reward potential from investing in PV [
48
]. In addition, researchers
have proven that electric and magnetic fields under photovoltaics are internationally accepted for
public exposure [49].
3.6. Biosolar Roofs
The concept in this method is to combine a roof garden and PV panels which should be fixed
over the plantation area. This is a new approach. Plants generated a slight improvement on PV
Energies 2018,11, 3196 10 of 22
performance [
50
] because the plants helped to lower the temperature under the PV which would
improve its production by 1.2–5.3% [
51
–
53
]. The improvement becomes negligible if the temperature
is higher than 25
◦
C [
50
], and it varies according to the type of planting and roof garden features.
On the other hand, PV panels provide a comfortable environment for plants. One of the successful
implementations for this method is Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London which improved the
biodiversity of plants on the roof. Ninety-two species were recorded in this site [
54
]. This combination
reduced the sensible heat flux up to 50% [
18
]. Careful selection and placement of plant species and
ground cover are required to prevent their shading effect on PV panels.
3.7. Double-Skin Roofs
This method aims to reduce heat flux in building roofs by using double layers with a gap between
them. The first layer works as a reflector/absorber for heat, and the second layer covers the internal
spaces. The gap works as an insulation layer to prevent the heat transfer between the addressed
layers. The thermal resistance for a double-skin roof is dynamic, due to the dynamic nature of air in
the gap [
55
]. Researchers have suggested applying a reflective material on the first layer and adding
more efficient insulation materials between the layers to improve its efficiency. A double-skin roof
can be defined as a passive cooling method and it is suitable for hot climates. This method can reduce
heat gains up to 71% as recorded in tropical climates [
56
]; it may be less efficient if the upper layer
has less ability to absorb or reflect heat and its efficiency in this situation would drop to 25% [
57
].
The efficiency can be increased by up to 85% if a reflective layer is used in the upper slab [
2
,
56
,
58
].
No paper discussed the payback period for this method; however, it is likely to take a long time
depending on the construction features of the secondary roof.
3.8. Roof Ponds
From different passive cooling techniques, evaporation has been classified the most efficient way
to reduce temperature in internal spaces [
59
]. The process is to use the evaporation of water in order to
reduce air stream temperature. Water naturally tends to absorb heat from ambient surroundings and
converts it into vapour. This process allows the opportunity for the surrounding air temperature to be
reduced [
60
]. This technique leads to the introduction of roof ponds which uses the same procedure
and benefit from the heat exchange with a building’s roof and walls, contributing in a reduction of
their temperature and cooling down the temperature of the internal spaces. The concept of this method
was firstly introduced by Hay and Yellot in 1978 [
61
]. There are several types of roof ponds. Figure 7
illustrates these ponds, and the following subsections elaborate on each of them.
3.8.1. Uncovered Ponds with/without Sprays
An uncovered pond is the easiest to install and simplest method in roof ponds. It is a pond over
a roof exposed to ambient conditions; the recommended depth for this method is 30 cm. It can cool
down the temperature by exchanging the heat with the roof slab and using the natural physics for
water to cool down the ambient temperature and evaporation. The disadvantage of this method is that
water inside it gains heat from solar radiation, because it is exposed. It causes a fluctuation in water
temperature of about 5
◦
C. If sprays are added to this method, they can increase its efficiency, and in
this way it could reduce heat flux up to 55% in a tropical climate by using 10 cm water layer over a slab
and compared with a conventional slab, both of which had 10 cm roofing construction [
62
]. In another
experiment it was up to 40% in an arid climate by using sprays with shallow water compared with a
conventional roof in Saudi Arabia which usually had 30 cm roof thickness [63].
3.8.2. Covered Ponds with/without Sprays
This method is simply a pond over a roof slab with a movable cover. The cover caps the
pond during the day time to prevent water from being heated by solar radiation, and the cover is
removed during the night time to help water to cool down from ambient temperature and evaporation.
Energies 2018,11, 3196 11 of 22
This system’s performance in cooling can be improved if spray sprinklers have been added [
64
].
The performance for this system with sprays is able to reduce heat flux up to 66% with water filling
10–15 cm [61].
3.8.3. Shaded Ponds
Providing a shading device over a roof pond would reduce or cut off solar radiation from heating
the water. The shading device should allow water to be exposed to wind. The shading device could be
similar to a horizontal curtain, or it can be an elevated metal or concrete roof. This system can maintain
the internal temperature below 30
◦
C when the ambient temperature is over 40
◦
C [
65
]. This method
is applied on concrete slabs; if it is applied over a metal slab, it is called a Skytherm roof, which has
almost the same performance [65].
3.8.4. Cool Roof Ponds
A cool roof pond is a roof pond with a floating insulation. It is made by adding water over a roof
slab which should be treated to be water proof, then adding an insulation layer over the water, and
supplying this system with sprinklers and a pump. It is operated at night time, to spread water over
the insulation panels which can cool down ambient temperature and evaporation, and it is returned to
the pond through the insulation joint [
66
]. To improve exchange with internal spaces the cool water
may be sent through large fan coils in the internal spaces. When the temperature exceeded 37
◦
C this
system was able to keep the internal temperature at about 26 ◦C [66].
3.8.5. Ventilated Roof Ponds
This method integrates the double-skin roof and a roof pond, which prevents solar radiation from
heating the water in the pond and improves the evaporation by ventilation process [
66
]. This roof can
maintain the internal temperature at 24 ◦C, even if the ambient temperature exceeds 40 ◦C [66].
3.8.6. Cool Pools
A cool pool is a shaded roof pond on a roof connected with storage pipes in a building. The cool
water which has been cooled in the pool from the ambient environment and evaporation flows in
these pipes downward inside the building and it exchanges the thermal energy with air in internal
spaces by evaporation and radiation. Then the heated water from the building flows again towards
the pool to be re-cooled and complete the cycle [
67
]. This technique can provide passive cooling to
spaces underneath floors. The efficiency of this method is higher than that a shaded pond. If it is used
in well insulated spaces it can keep temperatures between 20–25
◦
C in a hot ambience; even though
the temperature exceeds 38
◦
C, it can reduce cooling loads by 100%. Also it can be used as passive
heating, but its running cost is not convenient compared with the other techniques available [67].
3.8.7. Walkable Ponds
A walkable bond is a sandwich method with two layers of insulation and between them a layer of
water with a depth of around 3 cm, allowing a thermosyphonic, passive heat exchange circulation [
65
].
In this process the roof is still usable and there is no water to prevent use of the roof. The average
indoor temperature in this method can be 28
◦
C when the ambient temperature fluctuates between
30–42 ◦C [65].
3.8.8. Wet Gunny Bags
This method uses gunny bags, which are placed over a floatable material. The gunny bags are
used in this method as mediators between ambient temperature and a roof slab. It reduces or prevents
solar radiation and disposes of the heat gained from internal spaces, and it can be used with a shallow
Energies 2018,11, 3196 12 of 22
depth on a concrete roof of approximately 5 cm. The efficiency of this method is slightly greater than
the covered pond [68].
3.9. Skylight Roofs
The purpose of this roof is to provide indoor spaces with lighting to improve their internal
comfort, to reduce lighting energy consumption, and to improve interaction between internal and
external spaces. Usually it is used in buildings when the lighting from side windows is not enough
in the day time. Using skylights has a direct effect on thermal loads inside a building. Therefore,
special treatment is needed when selecting this roof to ensure that it does not affect the building in a
negative way and increase the total energy consumption. Skylight performance differs by different
glass treatment or shading devices. Some experiments have been conducted to decrease the thermal
conductivity of skylights. For instance, integrating roof evaporative cooling with a skylight was highly
efficient [
69
], and injecting PCM materials into the gap in double glazed glass can reduce heat flux up
to 47.5% and the payback for PCM material can be about 3.3 years [
70
]. Although increasing PCM
layer thickness can improve its thermal efficiency, it reduces its light transmission, so a balance of
benefits is needed when selecting this method. There are vast choices of glass types and treatments.
However, the limited literature available has included the effect of these different types and treatments
using a skylight. Rezaei et al. [
71
] had conducted a review of different glazing types, technologies, and
materials, which can be a start point for further studies to evaluate their impacts on the HVAC system
and lighting energy loads by using them in skylights. A case study by Nasersharifi and Assadi [
72
] for
arid climates showed that skylights can save 20% of lighting energy loads, and the payback period can
be 19.75 years [
73
]. Li et al. conducted research in a subtropical climate by applying semi-transparent
PV over the glass to improve its efficiency, but this increased its payback period to 23 years [
74
].
Motamed and Liedl [
75
] conducted a study on a small office in a Mediterranean climate in order to
study the skylight areas on roofs and evaluate their benefits. They concluded that in order to achieve
energy efficiency the ratio of a skylight should be 3–14% of the roof area, while 10%–14% is the optimal
ratio to achieve energy efficiency and acquire adequate lighting.
3.10. Wind Catchers
Wind catchers were developed many decades ago as a part of a traditional architecture in arid
climates in the Middle East in order to improve the internal thermal environment by allowing the
natural flow of air. They have been improved and are currently useful in modern architecture.
The mechanism depends on the natural movement of air between the different pressures in the internal
and external spaces. Air and cold breeze are trapped from the roof and diverted through a channel
down to the building’s interiors. It is usually combined with a spray system or wet porous layer to
adjust the air temperature by evaporation and to filter the air as well. This method differs from the
others, and it is not related to heat flux through the roof, but it can be combined with other methods
to improve the internal comfort and reduce cooling loads naturally. Usually, it is used for passive
cooling, however; researchers have introduced concepts to integrate it with other systems, so that it
can be used in passive heating if required [
76
]. Wind speed has an essential impact on its efficiency.
It improves until wind speed reaches 3 m/s; more than this will decrease its efficiency. Researchers
suggested controlling air speed to achieve better performance [
77
]. In hot-humid climates regardless
of the temperature fluctuation ranging from 24.7
◦
C to 40
◦
C, the internal temperature could stay
comfortable [
78
]. Wind capture can reduce energy consumption in cooling loads by 16–27% in the
hottest hours [
79
], and it was recorded in Iran in a hot and dry climate that it can reduce the internal
temperature by 10–20
◦
C [
80
]. The cost of adding this method is not high and the payback can be in
1.3 years [81].
Energies 2018,11, 3196 13 of 22
3.11. Other Roofing Methods
There are other roofing methods which can provide passive cooling/heating and some of these
methods have a similar features to the reviewed methods. As an example, for porous roof tiles, which
absorb water from rainfalls or other sources, the same principles of water evaporation will lead to heat
reduction under this roofing method [
82
]. This method can reduce the external surface temperature by
up to 11.3
◦
C in a subtropical climate [
82
], and in another experiment the temperature can be decreased
6.4
◦
C and 3.2
◦
C, for external and internal roof surfaces respectively. Besides this, the cooling loads
reduces up to 14.8% [
83
]. In addition, other methods and effects can be acquired by integrating two or
more of the reviewed methods. Some of these integrations and their energy efficiency will be presented
in the next section.
4. Comparison
4.1. Suitability of Roofing Methods for Different Climates
Climate conditions play an essential role in selecting the roofing method and any selected method
should respect a building’s needs to adapt to weather conditions. Table 2summarises the climatic
applicability of the roofing methods in terms of six climate zones. In hot climates especially tropical,
sub-tropical, and arid climates, passive cooling performance should be prioritize over insulation [
84
],
due to its ability to prevent heating from solar radiation during the day and enable passive cooling
during the day and night and; while insulation helps to reduce heat gain into slabs and it does not
allow cooling during the night time. However, if a building is exposed to cold days the energy of
heating should be evaluated; under this circumstance, the building may have an energy penalty from
the passive cooling techniques [
17
]. In tropical and arid climates, the benefit from passive cooling
is significant; while roof insulation is more applicable in cold climates to improve thermal stability
inside buildings and to reduce energy consumption needed to heat internal spaces. Akyuz et al. [
26
]
concluded that applying thermal insulation on a roof can decrease heat loss by up to 56% in a
Mediterranean climate compared to a conventional roof. Over all, hot climates such as arid, topical,
and sub-tropical need more cooling, so passive cooling methods are more applicable. Mediterranean
and Temperate climates have changeable needs for cooling and heating due to the fluctuating weather;
under this circumstance a passive cooling/heating methods have a slight impact on the total building
energy during the whole year period; hence, methods with insulation or insulation combined with
passive methods, have positive impact on buildings in these zones. Mountains and polar climates have
very cold days throughout the year. For these climates, insulation is the optimal solution. These roofing
methods can be constructed during the construction process of the project or they can be retrofitted.
In order to exploit and evaluate the benefits of the retrofit, there are three key steps which should be
taken into consideration: energy auditing, building simulation and measurement, and verification [
85
].
Table 2. A roofing method’s impact on different Climates (P = positive, N = negative and F = fair).
Roofing Methods Arid Mediterranean Mountains Polar Temperate Tropical
Concrete roof N N N N N N
Cool roof P F N N N P
Insulated roof F P P P P F
Roof garden P P N F F P
Photovoltaic roof P P N N N P
Biosolar roof P P N F F P
Double-skin roof P P N N N P
Roof ponds P F N N N P
Skylight roof N N N N N N
Wind catcher P P N N N P
Energies 2018,11, 3196 14 of 22
4.2. Comparing the Impact on Heat Gain Reduction
The investigated roofing methods differ in their performance and ability of heat gain reduction,
which has a direct impact on cooling loads inside buildings. Reduction of heat flux from roofs has the
same value of reduction of cooling energy. Some of the investigated methods exceed the benefit of just
reducing the heat flux, and they deliver full adaptation for internal spaces without using mechanical
systems in hot climates such as a cool pool, and wind catcher. The garden roof with reflective materials,
insulated roofs with ventilation, double-skin with cool roof, insulated roof with reflective layer, and
cool pool have great rates of heat flux reduction, which has been addressed in many studies. Ventilated
roof ponds and walkable ponds create a good reduction in internal temperature compared with
outdoor ambient temperature, which means they have high reduction of heat flux as well. If sky lights
have a low U-value and are supported with a shading device or reflective layer, they will lead to better
heat flux reduction. Their effects on thermal energy gained compared with conventional roofs are
summarised in Table 3.
4.3. Comparing Payback Periods
Few papers addressed the payback period of each roofing method, and some of them differed
in the predicted payback periods due to materials used and other factors such as project type, size,
location, and climate. While every method can have a special period to payback its cost, Figure 8
shows the average economic payback period for these methods. The addressed period could be longer
according to factors mentioned above. Although the roof ponds payback periods are not available,
it can be concluded that the payback period for simple systems is short due to their simplicity.
Usually, the payback period refers to the economic benefit, and most of the papers mentioning the
payback period discussed the financial saving from using these roofing methods. On the other hand,
the environmental payback period (which starts from manufacturing until the fitting in a building) is
very important in achieving sustainability however unfortunately, few papers mentioned it. This needs
further investigation.
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22
reflective layer, and cool pool have great rates of heat flux reduction, which has been addressed in
many studies. Ventilated roof ponds and walkable ponds create a good reduction in internal
temperature compared with outdoor ambient temperature, which means they have high reduction
of heat flux as well. If sky lights have a low U-value and are supported with a shading device or
reflective layer, they will lead to better heat flux reduction. Their effects on thermal energy gained
compared with conventional roofs are summarised in Table 3.
4.3. Comparing Payback Periods
Few papers addressed the payback period of each roofing method, and some of them differed
in the predicted payback periods due to materials used and other factors such as project type, size,
location, and climate. While every method can have a special period to payback its cost, Figure 8
shows the average economic payback period for these methods. The addressed period could be
longer according to factors mentioned above. Although the roof ponds payback periods are not
available, it can be concluded that the payback period for simple systems is short due to their
simplicity. Usually, the payback period refers to the economic benefit, and most of the papers
mentioning the payback period discussed the financial saving from using these roofing methods. On
the other hand, the environmental payback period (which starts from manufacturing until the fitting
in a building) is very important in achieving sustainability however unfortunately, few papers
mentioned it. This needs further investigation.
Figure 8. Payback periods in years for roofing methods.
Figure 8. Payback periods in years for roofing methods.
Energies 2018,11, 3196 15 of 22
Table 3.
Comparison between the different roofing methods, the percentage of heat gain reduction, and the reduced temperature inside the building (N/A = not
available).
Roofing Methods Heat Gained
Reductions %
Temperature Reduction
Under Roof ◦CReferences Climates Methods Details
Skylight roof N/A N/A N/A - - -
Wind catcher - 20 [80] Arid Simulation Two-storey building with/without wind catcher
Ventilated roof pond N/A 16 [66] Arid Physical experiment Large room, 3 ×4 m, with well insulated walls and
concrete roof
Walkable pond N/A 14 [66] Arid - -
Cool roof pond N/A 11 [66] Tropical Physical experiment 3 ×3 m pond, with a depth of 60 cm.
Shaded pond N/A 10 [65] Tropical -
Cool pool 100 N/A [67]Hot summer of a
Mediterranean climate Physical experiment Well insulated room
Insulated with reflective layer 88 N/A [24] Laboratory Laboratory experiment Using a halogen lamp as a heating source
Double-skin with cool roof 85 N/A [2] Tropical Simulation Standard house in Djibouti
Insulated with ventilation 84 N/A [23] Tropical Physical experiment Twelve-storey residential building
Roof garden with reflective
material 80 N/A [32] Tropical Physical experiment 5 m2lawn on top of a four-storey building
Roof garden with ventilation 79 N/A [33] Three different hot climates Physical experiment Two cells with dimensions of 1.3 m ×1.0 m ×0.9 m
Insulated roof 75 N/A [20] Tropical Simulation and Physical
experiment Physical model
Double-skin roof 71 N/A [56] Tropical Physical experiment Twelve-storey naturally ventilated residential building
Covered pond with/without
sprays 66 N/A [61] Hot and humid climates Physical experiment Two cells with dimensions of 3.0 m ×3.0 m ×2.45 m
Wet gunny bags 66 N/A [68] Arid Physical experiment Shallow ponds measuring internally 117 ×117 ×22 cm
over a roof of a building in campus
Photovoltaic roof 63 N/A [40]Hot summer of a
Mediterranean climate Measurements Building partially covered by PV
Uncovered pond with/without
sprays 55 N/A [62] Tropical Physical experiment
Two-storey building using 1.2 m
×
1.2 m
×
0.2 m reservoir
Biosolar 50 N/A [18]Hot summer of a
Mediterranean climate Simulation US Department of Energy benchmark buildings
Hollow concrete 40 N/A [9] Hot climates in China Simulation and Physical
experiment Physical model
Concrete with PCM 40 N/A [11] Arid Simulation Common building roof
Roof garden 37 N/A [29] Tropical Simulation Institutional building model
Cool roof 33 N/A [15]Hot summer of different
climates Simulation Global climate model
Concrete with waste plastic
and tires 19 N/A [7] Laboratory Laboratory experiment Using hot-box
Energies 2018,11, 3196 16 of 22
5. Discussion
There are many features of these roofing methods which should be known during the selection
process; for instance: whether the method provides passive cooling/heating and whether it needs
mechanical operation. Table 4summarises the main features for each roofing method. The investigated
methods differ in their energy performance. Some can increase thermal resistance of the roof slab to
improve its insulation and reduce the heat flux; some can reflect solar radiation to protect the slab from
acquiring heat; and others can cool the slab by exchanging heat with water through evaporation.
Each one of the reviewed methods can acquire a sustainable effect in a specific circumstance, while
in other situations, they may generate a negative impact and reduce energy efficiency. For instance, the
different passive cooling roofing methods can achieve significant heat reduction results in hot climates,
which save energy. However, using passive cooling roofing methods in cold climates have negative
impacts and generate an energy penalty. Some buildings can achieve the targeted sustainability from
using more than one method, however, there is usually one method that is most ideal for a specific
building. Hence, before applying the selected roofing method on a building, some factors should be
taken into consideration. One of the most important factors is the building type and function, while
other factors also play an important role in the selection process, such as the owner’s need, the project’s
budget, and the architectural approach. For instance, in the case of industrial buildings, warehouses,
and sheds which have a light roof structure with no need to use their roofs, a cool roof or a light
weight roof pond is highly recommended. Roof gardens or biosolar roofs have a great potential to
increase the value of buildings and deliver more spaces for people to spend more time with nature,
so buildings which can provide accessibility to the roof, such as residential, public, commercial, and
some governmental buildings, have a great potential for these methods. With buildings that consume
large amounts of electricity, and have a free area on their rooftop which is unusable or inaccessible, such
as educational or governmental buildings, a photovoltaic panel roof is a highly recommended option.
With buildings which need a stable indoor temperature without fluctuation, such as a laboratory
or chemical storage buildings, insulation is highly recommended. Buildings with large spans need
more lighting, because the lighting provided from facades is not enough to achieve passive lighting.
With these types of buildings or with buildings that require solid walls, the use of skylights is highly
recommended. Some roof ponds can reduce building cooling loads up to 100%, which classifies them
as good selections for different types of buildings, if these buildings can host them on their roofs.
A wind catcher is an adjustable method which can be turned off when it is not needed, and it provides
effective cooling, which makes it a recommended method for different types of buildings. Finally,
meeting a balance of all the addressed factors and evaluating the short and long terms benefits during
the selection process are essential factors in selecting the right choice.
In addition, a wide implementation of roofing methods such as, roof garden in city can lead to a
significant enhancement in mitigating urban heat, making this an excellent strategy in managing the
extreme heat [
86
]. Moreover, cool roofs can be a viable and cost-effective strategy for mitigating the
city-scale urban heat island effect if it is applied on city-wide scale [
87
]. This kind of implementations
may enhance the probability of precipitation toward the outskirt of the city [
88
]. Furthermore, both
green and cool roofs may reduce horizontal and vertical wind speeds, as well as vertical mixing
during day time and lower atmosphere dynamics, which lead to a stagnation of air near the surface,
potentially causing air quality issues [
89
]. The implementation of above strategies are dependent on
political will and commitment [
90
], and should carefully consider the potential negative impacts [
89
].
Energies 2018,11, 3196 17 of 22
Table 4. The roofing methods’ main features (P = positive, N = negative, H = high and L = low).
Roofing Methods Passive
Cooling
Passive
Heating
Impact on
Hot Days
Impact on
Cold Days Cost Maintenance
Easy to
Construct
or Retrofit
Cool More
than One
Floor
Impact
on
Ambient
Biosolar Yes Yes P P H H Yes No P
Photovoltaic roof Yes No P N H L Yes No P
Photovoltaic roof with ventilation Yes No P N H L Yes No P
Photovoltaic roof with cool roof Yes No P N H L Yes No P
Concrete with waste plastic and tires No No P P L - No No -
Hollow concrete No No P P L - Yes No -
Concrete with PCM No No P - H - No No -
Cool roof Yes No P N L L Yes No P
Double-skin roof Yes No P N H L No No -
Double-skin with cool roof Yes No P N H L No No P
Roof garden Yes Yes P P H H Yes No P
Roof garden with reflective material Yes No P - H H Yes No P
Roof garden with ventilation Yes Yes P P H H Yes No P
Insulated roof No No P P L - Yes No -
Insulated roof with ventilation Yes No P P L L Yes No P
Insulated roof with reflective layer Yes No P P L - Yes No P
Skylight roof No Yes N N H L No No -
Cool pool Yes No P N H L No Yes P
Cool roof pond Yes No P N L L Yes No P
Covered pond with/without sprays Yes No P N L L Yes No P
Shaded pond Yes No P N H - Yes No P
Uncovered pond with/without sprays Yes No P N L L/- Yes No P
Ventilated roof pond Yes No P N H - No No P
Walkable pond Yes No P N L - No No P
Wet gunny bags Yes No P N L - Yes No P
Wind catcher Yes No P - L - Yes Yes -
6. Conclusions
This paper has reviewed 10 roofing methods, which can be applied on flat roofs during the
construction stage or as a retrofit. Their principles are explained, and their main features are
summarized in tables, to give designers and decision makers a better understanding of each method.
These systems’ performances in reducing heat flux, and payback periods in hot climates have been
discussed. In hot climates, designers should use passive cooling methods with low R-value due to their
ability to provide higher energy performance; in Temperate and Mediterranean climates, insulation
or insulation combined with passive cooling methods are preferred; in Polar and Mountain climates,
insulation is the ideal selection. Moreover, cool pool, ventilated roof pond, and wind catcher can help
stabilize a building’s indoor temperature on hot days and they can reduce cooling loads up to 100%;
roof gardens have the highest positive impact on the environment with passive heating on cold days
and passive cooling on hot days; it can reduce the cooling loads up to 37%, and the reduction can be up
to 80% if it is integrated with reflective material and ventilation; cool roof and uncovered pond have a
reasonable heat gain reduction, which can be up to 33% and 55% respectively, with a short payback
period; photovoltaic panels’ roof is a sensible solution to reduce the fossil fuel energy consumption for
a building and it also has a valuable heat reduction, which can be up to 63%. Finally, a skylight with
thermal treatment is an ideal selection if the building has a deficit of natural light.
The possibility of integration of these roofing methods should be explored. For example,
combining a roof garden with roof ponds can generate a new roofing method, such as a water
garden roof, which would be worthy of further investigation; photovoltaic panels can be used as a
secondary slab for double-skin roofs; in dry climates, dry gardens can be used to replace wet gardens
to reduce the reliance on irrigation. These suggested methods need further studies to investigate their
performance and benefits.
Author Contributions:
Methodology; formal analysis; investigation; data curation; writing—original draft
preparation; visualization; and project administration; were done by M.A. In addition, conceptualization;
writing—review; and editing were done by M.A. and Z.G. Moreover, validation; and supervision; was done by
Z.G. Finally, resources were provided by Griffith University.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2018,11, 3196 18 of 22
Abbreviations
R-value thermal resistance
U-value thermal transmittance
K thermal conductivity
R-total
sum of all R-values in the different layers of a construction component, in this case, a roof slab
RCC reinforced cement concrete
PV photovoltaic
PCM phase change material
References
1.
Su, B.; Aynsley, R. Roof Thermal Design for Naturally Ventilated Houses in a Hot Humid Climate. Int. J.
Vent. 2009,7, 369–378. [CrossRef]
2.
Omar, A.I.; Virgone, J.; Vergnault, E.; David, D.; Idriss, A.I. Energy Saving Potential with a Double-Skin Roof
Ventilated by Natural Convection in Djibouti. Energy Procedia 2017,140, 361–373. [CrossRef]
3.
Kreith, F.; Manglik, R.M.; Bohn, M.S. Principles of Heat Transfer; Cengage Learning: Stamford, CT, USA, 2010.
4. Level. Passive Design. In How Insulation Works; BRANZ Ltd.: Porirua, New Zealand, 2017.
5.
Heat Loss from Homes. Available online: https://www.haringey.gov.uk/environment-and-waste/going-
green/green-home-improvements/heat-loss-homes (accessed on 10 December 2018).
6.
Stay Warm. Available online: https://www.actsmart.act.gov.au/quick-tips/energy_saving/stay_warm
(accessed on 10 December 2018).
7.
Yesilata, B.; Isiker, Y.; Turgut, P. Thermal insulation enhancement in concretes by adding waste PET and
rubber pieces. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009,23, 1878–1882. [CrossRef]
8.
Najim, K.B.; Fadhil, O.T. Assessing and improving the thermal performance of reinforced concrete-based
roofing systems in Iraq. Energy Build. 2015,89, 213–221. [CrossRef]
9.
Shi, G.Z.; Li, L.P.; Song, C.F.; Cheng, S.M.; Tao, W.Q.; He, Y.L. 3D numerical thermal optimization of the roofs
constructed with cast-in-situ hollow concrete floor system by finite volume method. Energy Build.
2016
,131,
142–152. [CrossRef]
10.
Xaman, J.; Cisneros-Carreno, J.; Hernandez-Perez, I.; Hernandez-Lopez, I.; Aguilar-Castro, K.M.;
Macias-Melo, E.V. Thermal performance of a hollow block with/without insulating and reflective materials
for roofing in Mexico. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017,123, 243–255. [CrossRef]
11.
Alawadhi, E.M.; Alqallaf, H.J. Building roof with conical holes containing PCM to reduce the cooling load:
Numerical study. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011,52, 2958–2964. [CrossRef]
12.
Alqallaf, H.J.; Alawadhi, E.M. Concrete roof with cylindrical holes containing PCM to reduce the heat gain.
Energy Build. 2013,61, 73–80. [CrossRef]
13.
Thiele, A.M.; Jamet, A.; Sant, G.; Pilon, L. Annual energy analysis of concrete containing phase change
materials for building envelopes. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015,103, 374–386. [CrossRef]
14.
Han, J.; Lu, L.; Yang, H.X. Investigation on the thermal performance of different lightweight roofing structures
and its effect on space cooling load. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009,29, 2491–2499. [CrossRef]
15.
Oleson, K.W.; Bonan, G.B.; Feddema, J. Effects of white roofs on urban temperature in a global climate model.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010,37. [CrossRef]
16.
Zhang, Z.J.; Tong, S.S.; Yu, H.B. Life Cycle Analysis of Cool Roof in Tropical Areas. Procedia Eng.
2016
,169,
392–399. [CrossRef]
17.
Androutsopoulos, A.V.; Stavrakakis, G.M.; Damasiotis, M. Cool Roof Impacts on a School-Building Thermal
and Energy Performance in Athens, Greece. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2017,38, 178–186. [CrossRef]
18.
Scherba, A.; Sailor, D.J.; Rosenstiel, T.N.; Wamser, C.C. Modeling impacts of roof reflectivity, integrated
photovoltaic panels and green roof systems on sensible heat flux into the urban environment. Build. Environ.
2011,46, 2542–2551. [CrossRef]
19.
Kumar, A.; Suman, B.M. Experimental evaluation of insulation materials for walls and roofs and their impact
on indoor thermal comfort under composite climate. Build. Environ. 2013,59, 635–643. [CrossRef]
20.
Nandapala, K.; Halwatura, R. Design of a durable roof slab insulation system for tropical climatic conditions.
Cogent Eng. 2016,3. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018,11, 3196 19 of 22
21.
Pisello, A.L.; Pignatta, G.; Castaldo, V.L.; Cotana, F. Experimental Analysis of Natural Gravel Covering as
Cool Roofing and Cool Pavement. Sustainability 2014,6, 4706–4722. [CrossRef]
22. Daouas, N.; Hassen, Z.; Aissia, H.B. Analytical periodic solution for the study of thermal performance and
optimum insulation thickness of building walls in Tunisia. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2010,30, 319–326. [CrossRef]
23.
Tong, S.S.; Li, H.; Zingre, K.T.; Wan, M.P.; Chang, V.W.C.; Wong, S.K.; Toh, W.B.T.; Lee, I.Y.L. Thermal
performance of concrete-based roofs in tropical climate. Energy Build. 2014,76, 392–401. [CrossRef]
24.
Alvarado, J.L.; Terrell, W.; Johnson, M.D. Passive cooling systems for cement-based roofs. Build. Environ.
2009,44, 1869–1875. [CrossRef]
25.
Alam, M.; Singh, H.; Suresh, S.; Redpath, D.A.G. Energy and economic analysis of Vacuum Insulation Panels
(VIPs) usedin non-domestic buildings. Appl. Energy 2017,188, 1–8. [CrossRef]
26.
Akyuz, M.K.; Altuntas, O.; Sogut, M.Z. Economic and Environmental Optimization of an Airport Terminal
Building’s Wall and Roof Insulation. Sustainability 2017,9, 1849. [CrossRef]
27.
He, B.; Zhu, J. Constructing community gardens? Residents’ attitude and behaviour towards edible
landscapes in emerging urban communities of China. Urban For. Urban Green 2018,34, 154–165. [CrossRef]
28.
D’Orazio, M.; Di Perna, C.; Di Giuseppe, E. Green roof yearly performance: A case study in a highly insulated
building under temperate climate. Energy Build. 2012,55, 439–451. [CrossRef]
29.
Yang, J.; Pyrgou, A.; Chong, A.; Santamouris, M.; Kolokotsa, D.; Lee, S.E. Green and cool roofs’ urban heat
island mitigation potential in tropical climate. Sol. Energy 2018,173, 597–609. [CrossRef]
30.
Bevilacqua, P.; Mazzeo, D.; Bruno, R.; Arcuri, N. Experimental investigation of the thermal performances of
an extensive green roof in the Mediterranean area. Energy Build. 2016,122, 63–79. [CrossRef]
31.
Mahmoud, A.S.; Asif, M.; Hassanain, M.A.; Babsail, M.O.; Sanni-Anibire, M.O. Energy and Economic
Evaluation of Green Roofs for Residential Buildings in Hot-Humid Climates. Buildings
2017
,7, 30. [CrossRef]
32.
Liang, H.H.; Huang, K.T. Study on rooftop outdoor thermal environment and slab insulation performance
of grass planted roof. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2011,6, 65–73.
33.
Jiang, L.; Tang, M.F. Thermal analysis of extensive green roofs combined with night ventilation for space
cooling. Energy Build. 2017,156, 238–249. [CrossRef]
34.
Ran, J.D.; Tang, M.F. Effect of Green Roofs Combined with Ventilation on Indoor Cooling and Energy
Consumption. Energy Procedia 2017,141, 260–266. [CrossRef]
35. Sun, X.; Gou, Z.; Lau, S.S.-Y. Cost-effectiveness of active and passive design strategies for existing building
retrofits in tropical climate: Case study of a zero energy building. J. Clean. Prod.
2018
,183, 35–45. [CrossRef]
36.
Wong, N.H.; Tan, E.; Seng, A.K.; Mok, S.; Goh, A. Performance of greenery systems in zero energy building of
Singapore. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Design and Construction (ICSDC),
Kansas City, MI, USA, 23–25 March 2011.
37.
Chan, A.L.S.; Chow, T.T. Energy and economic performance of green roof system under future climatic
conditions in Hong Kong. Energy Build. 2013,64, 182–198. [CrossRef]
38.
Refahi, A.H.; Talkhabi, H. Investigating the effective factors on the reduction of energy consumption in
residential buildings with green roofs. Renew. Energy 2015,80, 595–603. [CrossRef]
39.
Jim, C.Y. Passive warming of indoor space induced by tropical green roof in winter. Energy
2014
,68, 272–282.
[CrossRef]
40.
Dominguez, A.; Kleissl, J.; Luvall, J.C. Effects of solar photovoltaic panels on roof heat transfer. Sol. Energy
2011,85, 2244–2255. [CrossRef]
41.
Ban-Weiss, G.; Wray, C.; Delp, W.; Ly, P.; Akbari, H.; Levinson, R. Electricity production and cooling energy
savings from installation of a building-integrated photovoltaic roof on an office building. Energy Build.
2013
,
56, 210–220. [CrossRef]
42.
Chenvidhya, T.; Seapan, M.; Parinya, P.; Wiengmoon, B.; Chenvidhya, D.; Songprakorp, R.; Limsakul, C.;
Sangpongsanont, Y.; Tannil, N. Investigation of power values of PV rooftop systems based on heat gain
reduction. In Reliability of Photovoltaic Cells, Modules, Components, and Systems Viii; International Society for
Optics and Photonics: Bellingham, WA, USA, 2015.
43.
Kapsalis, V.; Karamanis, D. On the effect of roof added photovoltaics on building’s energy demand.
Energy Build. 2015,108, 195–204. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018,11, 3196 20 of 22
44.
Hayat, M.; Shahnia, F.; Arefi, A.; Iu, H.; Fernando, T. Comparison of the Economic Benefits and the Payback
Periods of Rooftop Solar Panels in Australia. In Proceedings of the 2017 3rd International Conference on
Power Generation Systems and Renewable Energy Technologies (Pgsret), Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 4–6 April
2017; pp. 113–117.
45.
Buker, M.S.; Mempouo, B.; Riffat, S.B. Performance evaluation and techno-economic analysis of a novel
building integrated PV/T roof collector: An experimental validation. Energy Build.
2014
,76, 164–175.
[CrossRef]
46.
Mittelman, G.; Alshare, A.; Davidson, J.H. A model and heat transfer correlation for rooftop integrated
photovoltaics with a passive air cooling channel. Sol. Energy 2009,83, 1150–1160. [CrossRef]
47.
Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P.A. Investigation of building integrated photovoltaics potential in achieving the zero
energy building target. Indoor Built Environ. 2014,23, 92–106. [CrossRef]
48.
Emziane, M.; Al Ali, M. Performance assessment of rooftop PV systems in Abu Dhabi. Energy Build.
2015
,
108, 101–105. [CrossRef]
49.
Safigianni, A.S.; Tsimtsios, A.M. Electric and Magnetic Fields Due to the Operation of Roof Mounted
Photovoltaic Systems. In Proceedings of the PIERS Proceedings, Stockholm, Sweden, 12–15 August 2013;
pp. 1908–1911.
50.
Nagengast, A.; Hendrickson, C.; Matthews, H.S. Variations in photovoltaic performance due to climate and
low-slope roof choice. Energy Build. 2013,64, 493–502. [CrossRef]
51.
Chemisana, D.; Lamnatou, C. Photovoltaic-green roofs: An experimental evaluation of system performance.
Appl. Energy 2014,119, 246–256. [CrossRef]
52.
Lamnatou, C.; Chemisana, D. Photovoltaic-green roofs: A life cycle assessment approach with emphasis on
warm months of Mediterranean climate. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,72, 57–75. [CrossRef]
53.
Alshayeb, M.J.; Chang, J.D. Variations of PV Panel Performance Installed over a Vegetated Roof and a
Conventional Black Roof. Energies 2018,11, 1110. [CrossRef]
54.
Nash, C.; Clough, J.; Gedge, D.; Lindsay, R.; Newport, D.; Ciupala, M.A.; Connop, S. Initial insights on the
biodiversity potential of biosolar roofs: A London Olympic Park green roof case study. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol.
2016
,
62, 74–87. [CrossRef]
55.
Zingre, K.T.; Yang, E.H.; Wan, M.P. Dynamic thermal performance of inclined double-skin roof: Modeling
and experimental investigation. Energy 2017,133, 900–912. [CrossRef]
56.
Zingre, K.T.; Wan, M.P.; Wong, S.K.; Toh, W.B.T.; Lee, I.Y.L. Modelling of cool roof performance for
double-skin roofs in tropical climate. Energy 2015,82, 813–826. [CrossRef]
57.
Krarti, M. Roof Cover Impact on Cooling Energy Use of Office Buildings. In Proceedings of the Asme 8th
International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Boston, MA, USA, 30 June–2 July 2014.
58.
Lai, C.M.; Huang, J.Y.; Chiou, J.S. Optimal spacing for double-skin roofs. Build. Environ.
2008
,43, 1749–1754.
[CrossRef]
59.
Amer, E.H. Passive options for solar cooling of buildings in arid areas. Energy
2006
,31, 1332–1344. [CrossRef]
60.
Chan, H.-Y.; Riffat, S.B.; Zhu, J. Review of passive solar heating and cooling technologies. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2010,14, 781–789. [CrossRef]
61.
Rincón, J.; Almao, N.; González, E. Experimental and numerical evaluation of a solar passive cooling system
under hot and humid climatic conditions. Sol. Energy 2001,71, 71–80. [CrossRef]
62.
Yang, W.S.; Wang, Z.Y.; Zhao, X.D. Experimental investigation of the thermal isolation and evaporative
cooling effects of an exposed shallow-water-reserved roof under the sub-tropical climatic condition. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 2015,14, 293–304. [CrossRef]
63.
Al-Turki, A.M.; Zaki, G.M. Energy saving through intermittent evaporative roof cooling. Energy Build.
1991
,
17, 35–42. [CrossRef]
64.
Tiwari, G.N.; Kumar, A.; Sodha, M.S. Cooling by Water Evaporation over Roof–Review. Energy Convers.
Manag. 1982,22, 143–153. [CrossRef]
65.
Spanaki, A.; Tsoutsos, T.; Kolokotsa, D. On the selection and design of the proper roof pond variant for
passive cooling purposes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011,15, 3523–3533. [CrossRef]
66.
Givoni, B. Indoor temperature reduction by passive cooling systems. Sol. Energy
2011
,85, 1692–1726.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2018,11, 3196 21 of 22
67.
Ponni, M.M.; Baskar, R. Comparative study of different types of roof and indoor temperatures in tropical
climate. In Proceedings of the 2nd PALENC Conference and 28th AIVC Conference on Building Low Energy
Cooling and Advanced Ventilation Technologies in the 21st Century, Crete, Greece, 27–29 September 2007;
pp. 530–536.
68.
Runsheng, T.; Etzion, Y.; Erell, E. Experimental studies on a novel roof pond configuration for the cooling of
buildings. Renew. Energy 2003,28, 1513–1522. [CrossRef]
69.
Pagliarini, G.; Rainieri, S. Dynamic thermal simulation of a glass-covered semi-outdoor space with roof
evaporative cooling. Energy Build. 2011,43, 592–598. [CrossRef]
70.
Li, D.; Wu, Y.Y.; Zhang, G.J.; Arici, M.; Liu, C.Y.; Wang, F.Q. Influence of glazed roof containing phase
change material on indoor thermal environment and energy consumption. Appl. Energy
2018
,222, 343–350.
[CrossRef]
71.
Rezaei, S.D.; Shannigrahi, S.; Ramakrishna, S. A review of conventional, advanced, and smart glazing
technologies and materials for improving indoor environment. Sol. Energy Mat. Sol. Cells
2017
,159, 26–51.
[CrossRef]
72.
Nasersharifi, Y.; Assadi, M.K. Skylight Application for Natural Lighting in a Building; the University of
Tehran Branch of Melli Bank Case Study. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Production,
Energy and Reliability, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3–5 June 2014.
73.
Motamedi, S. Energy Analysis of Toplighting Strategies for Office Buildings in Austin. 2012. Available
online: https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/20030 (accessed on 11 September 2018).
74.
Li, D.H.W.; Lam, T.N.T.; Cheung, K.L. Energy and cost studies of semi-trans parent photovoltaic skylight.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2009,50, 1981–1990. [CrossRef]
75.
Motamedi, S.; Liedl, P. Integrative algorithm to optimize skylights considering fully impacts of daylight on
energy. Energy Build. 2017,138, 655–665. [CrossRef]
76.
Suleiman, S.; Himmo, B. Direct comfort ventilation. Wisdom of the past and technology of the future
(wind-catcher). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2012,5, 8–15. [CrossRef]
77.
Noroozi, A.; Veneris, Y.S. Thermal Assessment of a Novel Combine Evaporative Cooling Wind Catcher.
Energies 2018,11, 442. [CrossRef]
78.
Priya, R.S.; Sundarraja, M.C.; Radhakrishnan, S. Experimental study on the thermal performance of a
traditional house with one-sided wind catcher during summer and winter. Energy Effic.
2012
,5, 483–496.
[CrossRef]
79.
Hedayat, Z.; Belmans, B.; Ayatollahi, M.H.; Wouters, I.; Descamps, F. Performance assessment of ancient
wind catchers—An experimental and analytical study. Energy Procedia 2015,78, 2578–2583. [CrossRef]
80.
Haghighi, A.P.; Pakdel, S.H.; Jafari, A. A study of a wind catcher assisted adsorption cooling channel for
natural cooling of a 2-storey building. Energy 2016,102, 118–138. [CrossRef]
81.
Mostafaeipour, A.; Bardel, B.; Mohammadi, K.; Sedaghat, A.; Dinpashoh, Y. Economic evaluation for cooling
and ventilation of medicine storage warehouses utilizing wind catchers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2014
,38,
12–19. [CrossRef]
82.
Zhang, L.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Hong, T.; Meng, Q.; Feng, Y. The impact of evaporation from porous tile
on roof thermal performance: A case study of Guangzhou’s climatic conditions. Energy Build.
2017
,136,
161–172. [CrossRef]
83.
Zhang, L.; Zhang, R.; Hong, T.; Zhang, Y.; Meng, Q. Impact of post-rainfall evaporation from porous roof
tiles on building cooling load in subtropical China. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018,142, 391–400. [CrossRef]
84.
Sodha, M.S.; Singh, S.P.; Kumar, A. Thermal performance of a cool-pool system for passive cooling of a
non-conditioned building. Build. Environ. 1985,20, 233–240. [CrossRef]
85.
Sun, X.G.Z.; Lu, Y.; Tao, Y. Strengths andWeaknesses of Existing Building Green Retrofits: Case Study of a
LEED EBOM Gold Project. Energies 2018,11, 1936. [CrossRef]
86.
Sharma, A.; Woodruff, S.; Budhathoki, M.; Hamlet, A.F.; Chen, F.; Fernando, H.J.S. Role of green roofs in
reducing heat stress in vulnerable urban communities—A multidisciplinary approach. Environ. Res. Lett.
2018,13, 094011. [CrossRef]
87.
Li, D.; Bou-Zeid, E.; Oppenheimer, M. The effectiveness of cool and green roofs as urban heat island
mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014,9, 055002. [CrossRef]
88.
Song, J.; Wang, Z.H.; Wang, C. The Regional Impact of Urban Heat Mitigation Strategies on Planetary
Boundary Layer Dynamics Over a Semiarid City. J. Geophys. Res. 2018,123, 6410–6422. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018,11, 3196 22 of 22
89.
Sharma, A.; Conry, P.; Fernando, H.J.S.; Hamlet, A.F.; Hellmann, J.J.; Chen, F. Green and cool roofs to mitigate
urban heat island effects in the Chicago metropolitan area: Evaluation with a regional climate model. Environ.
Res. Lett. 2016,11. [CrossRef]
90.
He, B.-J.; Zhao, D.-X.; Zhu, J.; Darko, A.; Gou, Z.-H. Promoting and implementing urban sustainability in
China: An integration of sustainable initiatives at different urban scales. Habitat. Int. 2018. [CrossRef]
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
