Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study evaluates the thermal performance and transient heat transfer characteristics of an experimental modular living wall (LW) compared to a bare control wall (CW) on a single-storey, uninsulated commercial building in Adelaide, South Australia. A full-scale 7.2 m 2 vertical greenery system (VGS) was retrofitted onto a 220 mm west-facing solid double-brick facade and monitored continuously for over 12 months. To ensure high-precision data collection, the experimental setup was instrumented with post-calibrated Type K thermocouples (with a relative error of ± 0.5 °C) to measure surface temperatures, alongside DS1923 iButtons housed in louvred radiation shields placed at distances of 400 mm, 700 mm, and 1000 mm to monitor ambient dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity. To bridge the gap between raw surface temperature reductions and actual building energy performance, a one-dimensional (1-D) transient finite-difference unsteady conduction model was developed to solve conductive heat flux (Q) at iterative 7.5-minute timesteps. Statistical analyses using independent sample T-tests confirmed significant ( p < 0.05) seasonal thermal buffering. During an extreme heatwave day (ambient 46.4 °C), the LW reduced peak external surface temperatures by 26.6 °C and delayed the thermal peak by 1 h and 45 min. Thermodynamic modelling demonstrated that the VGS physically reduced cumulative summer heat gain by 48% (saving 19.5 kWh/m 2 ) and winter heat loss by 21% (saving 2.5 kWh/m 2 ). These empirical and numerical findings provide robust quantification of vertical greenery as a passive building envelope retrofit, offering critical validation data for modern dynamic energy modelling and urban microclimate simulations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bustami et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: