Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase-change material (PCM) glazing and dynamic external shading are promoted as sustainable cooling measures, yet they act on the same solar load and are rarely assessed together under a mandatory energy code. This study aims to evaluate and compare the individual and combined performance of PCM glazing and adaptive external louvres in reducing cooling demand in a code-compliant office building under present and future hot–arid climates. The reference case is an SBC 601-compliant west-facing Riyadh office under present and 2080 weather. EnergyPlus was coupled with a calibrated one-dimensional enthalpy PCM model using a one-way coupling framework. The approach was verified against a fully bidirectional co-simulation (0.5–1.8%). Adaptive louvres cut annual cooling by 10.2% (71% of the west-glazing share). A matched no-latent control attributes only 0.5 of the 9.4 points saved by PCM glazing to latent storage: the code glazing optically starves the PCM. Their combination is sub-additive by 6.6 percentage points across 21 sensitivity variants. Melt and placement sweeps favour a 35 °C melt point and the outer pane. On thermal grounds, adaptive external louvres should be prioritised for code-compliant hot–arid buildings, while PCM glazing is most beneficial where higher solar gains allow latent heat utilisation, informing sustainable façade codes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alammar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: