Facade Retrofit of Residential Buildings:

Multi-objective optimization of a typical residential building in Cairo

Medhat Kazem1, Sherif Ezzeldin2, and Moataz Mahrous3
1
Department of Architectural Engineering and Environmental Design, College of Engineering
and Technology, Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Cairo,
Egypt, medhatmkazem@gmail.com
2
Department of Architectural Engineering and Environmental Design, College of Engineering
and Technology, Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Cairo,
Egypt, sherifezzeldin@gmail.com
3
Urban Development Centre, Cairo, Egypt, moatazmahrous@gmail.com
Abstract: The population and the residential sector are continuously expanding especially in highly dense cities
such as Cairo, Egypt. Due to high demand for cooling energy in the residential sector in Egypt recently, a great
attention was paid to retrofit existing buildings to decrease reliance on air conditioning. The existing housing
stock is suffering from poorly insulated buildings envelope and lack of energy conservation measures. This is
mainly to minimize the initial cost of the construction process while available sustainable guidance is still not
mandatory. However, yet façade retrofit solutions include a wide range of variables for wall insulation and
glazing types. This study aims to identify best configurations of the building facade retrofit solutions to
minimize energy consumption due to cooling and retrofitting cost. A multi-objective optimization was
performed on a representative benchmark for typical residential buildings in Cairo using genetic algorithm in
order to test different combinations of retrofit options that best meet study objectives. Simulation results
were assessed and calibrated against monthly electricity bills using Design Builder as a graphical user interface
for EnergyPlus. Best retrofit combinations were highlighted and tested using life cycle cost assessment, and
then effective variables were prioritized based on a sensitivity analysis.

Keywords: Façade retrofit, residential buildings, multi-objective optimization, Cairo.

Introduction
In the last few decades, Cairo witnessed a rapid increase in the rate of investments in the
residential sector with response to population growth. The majority of these investments
have been dedicated towards constructing residential buildings. Accordingly, residential
buildings reached more than 70% of the total building stock in Egypt where 56% of total
energy consumed in buildings is due to cooling (El-Darwish, 2017; Aldali, 2016). As well, a
recent study showed that a sharp rise was noticed in the use of mechanical cooling, and in
the increasing total number of sold A/C units (Ediesy and Cecere, 2017). According to Attia
et al. (2012), the use of air-conditioning has raised the annual electricity bill by a range of 44%
to 57% in residential buildings in Cairo.
Nowadays retrofitting existing buildings became a worldwide approach to overcome
the huge amount of energy needed for cooling and heating loads. The existing housing stock
in Egypt is suffering from poorly insulated buildings’ envelope which is considered
responsible for increasing cooling loads (Albadry et al., 2017). Therefore, existing residential
buildings are considered a good opportunity for reducing cooling loads through retrofitting.
In Egypt, there were some trials from the governments to apply a code for energy
performance in buildings, but no guidelines were provided regarding retrofitting existing
buildings (Attia and Herde, 2009).
 According to He (2015), the main three categories of retrofit measures available in the
market are; 1) improving the building envelope. 2) Improving heating, cooling, lighting and
hot water systems. 3) Installing renewable energy systems. While the most of recent studies
explored limited retrofitting solutions without comparing multiple configurations, or only
focused on one parameter of building envelope such as window glazing (Ediesy and Cecere,
2017; El-Darwish and Gomaa, 2017; Albadry et al., 2017). The aim of this study is to identify
best building façade retrofit configurations that provide highest energy savings with least
initial cost using multi-objective optimization approach for typical residential building in
Cairo.

Literature Review
In order to figure out the best retrofitting solutions for any existing building stock, a better
understanding of the buildings characteristics and its current energy performance is
required (Singh, 2015). The energy consumption patterns in residential building stock in
Egypt were explored by several studies which will be illustrated in the following section. The
energy consumption patterns were discussed, in addition to previous experience in
retrofitting solutions in Egypt. Moreover, multi-objective optimization of retrofitting
buildings was investigated as an approach with generating enormous scenarios of solutions.
Energy consumption patterns in Egypt
Based on a survey of different residential apartments in Egypt, the building characteristics
and electricity patterns were analysed (Attia et al., 2012). The building envelopes of most of
the buildings investigated are not airtight, with single glazed openings, non-insulated walls
and with no shading treatment.
Retrofit Building Stock in Egypt
Albadry et al. (2017) considered the energy performance of existing residential buildings in
Cairo is poor due to the non-insulated walls, the use of single glazing with no shading
devices and window leakage. Consequently envelope retrofit actions was explored including
the use of double glazing windows instead of single glazing ones, low-emissivity films, wall
thermal insulation boards, and replace the traditional foam sheets used for roof insulation
with Tilefoam 2.5 cm thick. The simulation results of the retrofitted case using EnergyPlus
showed that the annual electricity consumption has decreased from 66 MWh to 44 MWh
(Albadry et al., 2017).
Glazing improvement was investigated by Ediesy and Cecere (2017) as an envelope
retrofit approach to decrease cooling loads of the residential sector in Cairo using
EnergyPlus. The investigated glazing strategies included thickness, color, number of layers
and coating of glazing. The results showed that only glazing replacement can lead up to 16.5%
savings in total energy consumption.
The close relationship between different retrofit variables and energy efficiency in 3
higher education buildings in Egypt was examined by El-Drawish and Gomaa (2017). A
comparison between the base case and the retrofitted model showed that using metal
louvers of 0.5 cm as solar shading can reduce energy consumption up to 23% on average,
followed by 8% on average energy consumption reduction due to using double glazing with
low-e 4/6/4 mm Argon filling, and the air tightness strategy reduced only 2%, while adding
0.05 m of EPS Expanded Polystyrene to external walls had almost no effect on average
energy consumption (El-Darwish and Gomaa, 2017).
Building Envelope Optimization
Due to the enormous variables of building envelope design parameters, a consideration has
to be paid to the largest number of design possibilities and multiple configurations (Ascieno,
2016). Ascieno proposed an investigation using a multi-objective optimization to identify the
most suitable sets of technical solutions for building envelope in order to provide the best
compromise between transparent envelope solutions, thermal mass of the building and
radiative characteristics of roof in simple residential building located in four different cities
of the Mediterranean climate. The optimal solutions for each city were proposed. The
minimum value for each objective was discussed according to the specific building envelope
characteristics.

Methodology
This paper investigates a set of various retrofitting configurations for typical residential
façades in Cairo based on computer simulation. The goal is to explore best configurations
that would minimize energy consumption due to cooling and retrofitting cost. A total
number of 480 cases were simulated to test main façade parameters; exterior wall
insulation and glazing types for different building-orientation directions. A Multi-objective
optimisation using Design Builder (Version 5.0.3.007) has been adopted to automatically
simulate and test all possible combinations until optimal set of retrofitting configurations
(Pareto front) have been identified (DesignBuilder Software Ltd, 2014).
The proposed methodology is based on a benchmark model for typical residential
buildings in Cairo developed by Attia et al. (2012). The benchmark has been developed
based on a survey on residential building stock in Egypt. Since the focus of the study is to
investigate the retrofitting solutions for the typical residential buildings, no attention was
paid to the roof retrofit, therefore the middle floor was chosen as a representative for the
typical energy consumption patterns for residential buildings in Cairo. While the study aims
to minimize cooling electricity consumption, therefore the selected zones for optimization
multiple retrofitting options would be applied only for the three conditioned zones in each
apartment as shown in the Figure 1 according to the benchmark model.

Figure 1. Base case floor plan, North-oriented case. The conditioned zones are highlighted.
Base Case Description
The base case has been simulated as an intermediate floor with two apartments per floor
using Cairo typical weather data. The benchmark simulation results were generated by
averaging the four main orientations results in order to address the different orientations of
the surveyed apartments. Each apartment is occupied by one family with total occupancy of
4-5 people and includes three bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom. The
building uses reinforced concrete skeleton and brick walls. External and internal walls are
25cm and 12cm thickness respectively. Windows have wooden and metal frames with 3mm
clear glazing of low thermal insulation properties, and infiltration was set to 0.7 ACH.
Table 1 shows the building envelope solid elements and its characteristics. Airtightness is
very low and infiltration can be observed through window frames. Suspended fluorescent
lamps were assigned in almost all spaces except living rooms with incandescent suspended
lamps. Lighting operation schedule is mainly dependent on space occupancy schedule which
were investigated through the field surveys (Attia et al., 2012). Water heating is a minor
energy consumer in Egyptian residential units since stand-alone water heaters with natural
gas are commonly used to provide hot water in kitchens and bathrooms.

Table 1. Base case's building description (Attia et al., 2012).

Building Description
Shape Rectangular (25 m x 11m)
Floor height 2.8 m
Construction Reinforced-concrete post and beam structure with
brick infill walls without insulations
Apartment Description
Total Floor Area (m²) 122
External Wall Area (m²) 110
Conditioned Floor Area (m²) 30
Conditioned Window Area (m²) 7

Model Calibration and Simulation Results Validation

The simulation tool which was selected for this study is Design Builder (Version 5.0.3.007)
which enables multi-objective optimization approach using EnergyPlus as a simulation
engine. Design Builder provides a systematic framework to calibrate the model; it requires
detailed definition of weather data, zone division, construction materials, openings, space
activity & occupancy rates, light & equipment, domestic hot water, natural ventilation rates
and HVAC systems (Ediesy and Cecere, 2017). The base case was modelled and simulated to
test its thermal behaviour then was checked with the surveyed monthly electricity
consumption from the benchmark as shown in Figure 2. Since one of the objectives of the
study is to explore the retrofitting cost, the cost of the base case was set to zero,
consequently any changes applied in the optimization process would easily be calculated as
a retrofitting cost.
 Figure 2. Validation of the simulated results of the base case against the previous survey (Attia et al., 2012).

Tested Façade Parameters

Wall insulation
Extruded polystyrene sheets are commonly suggested as an efficient way in hot arid
climates when used for insulation in the outer envelope of buildings (Attia and Herde, 2009).
11 alternatives of wall configurations were developed using multiple thicknesses of
extruded polystyrene as a thermal insulation layer, including supplementary 12cm wall as an
isolated thermal mass either with extruded polystyrene sheets or air gap. The proposed
alternatives of wall configurations are illustrated in Table 2. Initial costs were based from
local suppliers submitted on October 2017. The offers were submitted in Egyptian Pound
"1 USD = 17.69 EGP" (Central Bank of Egypt, 2017).

Table 2. Wall construction-Layers configurations with benchmark (base case) highlighted.

Base Case Added Layer 1 Added Layer 2 U-value Retrofitting
(Thickness in (Thickness in (Thickness in mm) W/(m²-K) Price
mm) mm) (EGP /m²)
Brick (250 mm) 1.811 0
Brick (250 mm) EPS (20 mm) Gypsum Board (12.8 mm) 0.912 164
Brick (250 mm) EPS (40 mm) Gypsum Board (12.8 mm) 0.626 187.5
Brick (250 mm) EPS (60 mm) Gypsum Board (12.8 mm) 0.477 211
Brick (250 mm) EPS (80 mm) Gypsum Board (12.8 mm) 0.385 235
Brick (250 mm) EPS (100 mm) Gypsum Board (12.8 mm) 0.323 258
Brick (250 mm) EPS (20 mm) Brick (120 mm) 0.845 59
Brick (250 mm) EPS (40 mm) Brick (120 mm) 0.594 82.5
Brick (250 mm) EPS (60 mm) Brick (120 mm) 0.485 107
Brick (250 mm) EPS (80 mm) Brick (120 mm) 0.373 130
Brick (250 mm) EPS (100 mm) Brick (120 mm) 0.314 153
Brick (250 mm) Air Gap (120 mm) Brick (120 mm) 1.199 39
Window Glazing
Direct solar radiation during summer in Cairo is 0.8 kW/m² between 9:00am and 7:00pm
while maximum solar radiation occurs at midday 0.86 kW/m². Diffuse horizontal solar
radiation maintains a stable value of 0.11 kW/m². In summer, solar gains from exterior
windows and glazing add up to 20 kWh load in inner spaces. Replacement of existing
window glazing is an efficient method to decrease summer heat gain, cooling loads in
conditioned spaces and discomfort hours in unconditioned spaces. The case study’s current
glazing is single 3mm clear glass with thermal transmittance of 5.894 W/(m²-K) and Solar
Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) of 0.861 (Ediesy and Cecere, 2017). The proposed glazing
alternatives are illustrated in Table 3. Retrofitting prices for the last 4 cases, include an
additional aluminium framing price of 1250 EGP/m². It has to be noted that all single glazing
options are assumed to be retrofitted on the existing window frame. Initial costs were
based from local suppliers submitted on October 2017.

Table 3. Glazing types. Benchmark base case is highlighted.

Glazing Types U-value SHGC TVIS Retrofitting
W/(m²-K) Price
(EGP /m²)
Single Clear 3mm (Base Case) 5.894 0.861 0.898 0
Single Clear 6mm 5.778 0.819 0.881 250
Single Grey 6mm 5.778 0.602 0.431 350
Single Blue 6mm 5.778 0.62 0.57 400
Single Ref-A-M Clear 6mm 5.065 0.218 0.14 400
Single l Ref-A-M tinted 6mm 4.664 0.261 0.09 450
Double Clear 6mm/13mm Air 2.665 0.703 0.781 2080
Double Grey 6mm/13mm Air 2.665 0.478 0.381 2280
Dbl Ref-A-M Clear 6mm/13mm Air 2.301 0.185 0.127 2380
Dbl Ref-A-M tinted 6mm/13mm Air 2.301 0.167 0.082 2480

Life-Cycle Costing Assessment (LCCA)

There are different methodologies for the calculation of the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of an asset.
The present value method is the most important and common method as it compares
alternative configurations based on the same lifespan. It depends on converting all the
future and annual cost into present value and this requires inflation and interest rates to be
considered (Heteba, 2009).
The feed-in tariff was accounted as 1.022 EGP/kWh; it represents the just price for the
production of electricity to residential end-users; with no subsidization nor taxation (Al-
Ahram, 2017). LCC was performed for the period of 15 years, with the inflation and interest
rates set to 16% and 12% respectively, and was calculated using the following equation:
LCC = Initial Cost of retrofitting + Electricity bills for N years + Maintenance + Residual Value
- Initial Cost of retrofitting is calculated through multiplying the area of walls insulated
and the new window construction, with the respective case of retrofitting cost rates
as described in tables 2 & 3.
- Present value (P.V.) of Electricity bills has been calculated through the typical
formula of geometric series as follows:
1−(𝑟)𝑛
P.V. Electricity bills = Current Annual Bill × 1−𝑟
 Where n is the number of years for the study (15) and r is the multiplying factor
1.16
accounting for inflation and interest rates (1.12).
- Maintenance costs were ignored since the applied retrofitting alternatives don't
need maintenance.
- Residual value is assumed to be 25% of the initial cost of retrofitting, after the period
of the LCC study.

Simulation Results and Discussion

Different retrofit combinations of façade parameters were investigated to identify the best
configurations which minimize energy consumption due to cooling and retrofitting cost.
Simulation results were used to produce guidelines for façade retrofit of residential
buildings in Egypt.
The following graph in Figure 3 shows the optimization results for North-oriented case,
such that each point represents a certain configuration (retrofitting scenario) of a glazing
construction and a wall construction. Each scenario is evaluated according to the retrofitting
cost (y-axis) and the corresponding cooling energy (x-axis). Best fitting options with least
cooling energy and least capital cost of retrofitting are highlighted (Pareto front).

Figure 3. Optimization results for North-oriented case, with optimal configurations highlighted in red
(Pareto Front).

Retrofitting Solutions Comparison

The graph shows four separate clusters that formed naturally along the evolution of best
results. Through the examination of each cluster constituting configurations, a pattern has
been deduced as follows. Cluster (1), which shows worst results in terms of both cooling
energy and capital cost, has only two window types; Double Clear 6mm/13mm Air and
Double Grey 6mm/13mm Air. Cluster (2), which shows best results along the cooling energy
objective, has only the two window types; Double Reflective Clear 6mm/13mm Air and
Double Reflective tinted 6mm/13mm Air. Cluster (3), which shows best results along the
capital cost objective, has only the four following window types; Single Clear 3mm (Base
Case); Single Clear 6mm; Single Grey 6mm and Single Blue 6mm. Finally, Cluster (4), which
shows best fitting results in terms of both cooling energy and capital cost, has only the two
windows types; 6mm Single reflective clear glazing and 6mm Single reflective tinted glazing,
with the former only showing in the Pareto front. This is expected, as they are the window
construction options with lowest u-value, also having 6mm thick glazing, which requires no
new window framing. Cluster groupings were totally dominated by windows construction
type. This is expected due to the very high cost of windows retrofitting in comparison to
walls retrofitting, as well as the relatively high solar heat gain factor of the glazing.
In addition, Table 5 is showing solutions with the order of feasibility (minimum LCC). It
is evident that among the feasible retrofitting solutions, the less economical wall
constructions are found to have a thick EPS layer (80/100mm) or a gypsum board layer. This
is expected for their relatively high cost. It is also to be noted that 3 out of the 16 feasible
retrofitting solutions use the base-case wall construction, with only a glazing retrofitting
scenario.
Moreover, Table 4 compares between feasible retrofitting solutions for different
building-orientation cases, it is obvious that West and East oriented retrofitting scenarios
have high impacts of retrofitting solutions results, while savings in annual energy
consumption per apartment reach 14.4 % and 12.5% respectively. However, a macro
perspective on all retrofitting solutions in all building-orientation cases shows that
retrofitting costs range from 1,750 to 31,500 EGP, to save from 12 to 738 kWh annually per
apartment (1-39% of the base case cooling energy consumption).

Table 4. Feasible retrofitting solutions according to LCCA per apartment for different building-orientation cases.
Count of Feasible retrofitting solutions
Optimum
feasible
Orientation Savings range in total Savings range in saving in
retrofitting
energy consumption (%) cooling energy (%) EGP (LCC)
solutions
North 16 2 to 8.9 6 to 26 2,418
East 35 3 to 12.5 8 to 32 5,846
South 33 2.1 to 10.6 6 to 30 3,742
West 40 3.4 to 14.4 8 to 35 7,532

LCCA study results

Table 5, states the optimal solutions for North-oriented case, ordered according to the least
LCC values. It shows 16 more feasible solutions than the base case of no-retrofitting
scenario.
A sensitivity analysis on different LCC lifespans shows that for 12, 15 and 20 years, the
North-oriented case offers possible money saving by 1225, 2418, and 6061 EGP respectively;
while for the West-oriented case offers the best money saving by 4435, 7532, and 13656
EGP respectively.
Conclusion
The existing residential buildings in Cairo are suffering from poorly insulated buildings’
envelope which is responsible for increasing cooling energy consumption. However,
retrofitting existing buildings became a worldwide approach to overcome the huge amount
of energy needed for cooling and heating. The aim of this study is to identify best building
façade retrofit configurations that provide highest energy savings with least initial cost using
multi-objective optimization approach for typical residential building in Cairo.
According to the optimization results, four different clusters that formed naturally
along the evolution of best results could be observed. The pattern which shows best fitting
results has only the two window types; 6mm Single reflective clear/tinted glazing. The
optimal solutions for the North-oriented case were ordered according to the least LCC
values, it shows 16 more feasible solutions than the base case of no-retrofitting scenario, it
is also to be noted that 3 out of the 16 feasible retrofitting solutions use the base-case wall
construction, with only a glazing retrofitting scenario. In addition, a macro perspective on all
retrofitting solutions shows that retrofitting costs range from 1,750 to 31,500 EGP, to save
between 1-39% of the base case cooling energy consumption annually per apartment.
Buildings with conditioned spaces oriented to East or West have high potential
opportunities to achieve energy savings by facade retrofitting implementation. Results
showed that West-oriented scenarios have high impacts of retrofitting solutions results,
while savings in annual energy consumption per apartment reach 14.4 %, and 35% of
savings in energy consumption due to cooling.
Although the simulation results could help in extracting general findings such as
determining highly ranked solutions with minimal initial cost but conducting simulation in
the process of design optimization is still necessary for decision makers and designers to
make some trade-offs and identify optimal solutions based on a variety of parameters and
variables.
It is quite obvious from the LCCA and the different lifespan comparison that the initial
retrofit cost is the most challenging factor. Cheap retrofit combinations are highly ranked
providing least LCC. The effect of the initial retrofit cost shrinks with longer LCCA lifespan.
Therefore, one main objective when retrofitting building facades is the selection of cheap
energy efficient materials. However, even if the retrofit combinations don’t provide lower
LCC than the base case, we should still promote for more retrofitting of existing building
facades in order to help in dealing with global warming challenges. Finally, it is important to
clarify that research findings are highly sensitive to the initial cost and energy tariff; any
future changes in these aspects might lead to different optimal solutions.

Further research
It's recommended for further research to include other design variables in consideration
such as shading louvers, and window-to-wall ratio. Moreover, it could expand the scope of
the study to other benchmarks that represent upper-middle-class and upper-class
neighbourhoods that would find a faster and better pay-off for retrofitting. Finally, a
national level could be introduced to offer greater perspective on possible environmental
impact improvements (lower CO2 emissions). In addition, it is important to consider saving
equipment and lighting energy, for they consume around two thirds of total energy
consumption in the benchmark used in this paper.
References
Al-Ahram. (2017). Ministry of electricity announces today the new tariffs brackets, 102.2 piasters is the
cost of producing Kilowatt-hour to households. Available at:
http://www.ahram.org.eg/News/202317/27/602509/‫ق‬---‫اﻟﺠﺪﯾﺪة‬-‫اﻟﺸﺮاﺋﺢ‬-‫أﺳﻌﺎر‬-‫اﻟﯿﻮم‬-‫ﯾﻌﻠﻦ‬-‫اﻟﻜﮭﺮﺑﺎء‬-‫وزﯾﺮ‬/‫ﻣﺼﺮ‬.aspx
Albadry, S., Tarabieh, K., & Sewilam, H. (2017). Achieving Net Zero-Energy Buildings through Retrofitting
Existing Residential Buildings Using PV Panels. Energy Procedia, 115(Supplement C), 195–204.
Aldali, K. M., & Moustafa, W. S. (2016). An attempt to achieve efficient energy design for High-Income
Houses in Egypt: Case Study: Madenaty City. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(2), 334–
344.
Ascione, F., De Masi, R. F., de Rossi, F., Ruggiero, S., & Vanoli, G. P. (2016). Optimization of building
envelope design for nZEBs in Mediterranean climate: Performance analysis of residential case study. Applied
Energy, 183(Supplement C), 938–957.
Attia, S., & De Herde, A. (2009). Impact and potential of community scale low-energy retrofit: case study
in Cairo. In: SASBE - Technical University Delft, 3rd CIB International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built
Environment (SASBE). Delft, Netherlands, June 2009. Delft: TU Delft.
Attia, S., Evrard, A., & Gratia, E. (2012). Development of benchmark models for the Egyptian residential
buildings sector. Applied Energy, 94(Supplement C), 270–284.
Central Bank of Egypt. (2017). Exchange Rates. Retrieved October 14, 2017. Available at:
http://www.cbe.org.eg/en/EconomicResearch/Statistics/Pages/ExchangeRatesListing.aspx
DesignBuilder Software Ltd. (2014). DesignBuilder Optimisation. Retrieved October 14, 2017. Available
at: https://www.designbuilder.co.uk/optimisation/
Edeisy, M., & Cecere, C. (2017). Envelope Retrofit in Hot Arid Climates. Procedia Environmental Sciences,
38(Supplement C), 264–273.
El-Darwish, I., & Gomaa, M. (2017). Retrofitting strategy for building envelopes to achieve energy
efficiency. Alexandria Engineering Journal.
He, M., Brownlee, A., Lee, T., Wright, J., & Taylor, S. (2015). Multi-objective Optimization for a Large
Scale Retrofit Program for the Housing Stock in the North East of England. Energy Procedia, 78(Supplement C),
854–859.
Heteba, N., (2009). Life Cycle Cost and Assessment Model for Systems and Sources of Lighting. MSc. The
American University in Cairo.
Singh, S. (2015). Net Zero Energy Retrofit Using Calibrated Model, Optimization Techniques and
Regression Graphs. In: BS2015, 14th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association.
Hyderabad, India, Dec. 7-9, 2015.
 Table 5. Pareto Front configurations sorted by LCC per apartment for North-oriented case. Benchmark base case is highlighted. (Combinations sorted by LCC).
Annual Electricity Capital Cost LCC (present
# Window Construction External wall Construction Consumption of Retrofitting value method)
[kWh] [EGP] [EGP]
1 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 20 mm EPS 3,850 6,043 79,819
2 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 40 mm EPS 3,818 7,156 79,823
3 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm 3,951 2,808 79,937
4 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 12 mm Air Gap 3,891 5,119 80,092
5 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 60 mm EPS 3,801 8,269 80,123
6 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 20 mm EPS 3,861 6,394 80,238
7 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 40 mm EPS 3,829 7,507 80,246
8 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm 3,961 3,159 80,344
9 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 12 mm Air Gap 3,902 5,470 80,505
10 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 80 mm EPS 3,789 9,382 80,520
11 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 60 mm EPS 3,812 8,620 80,539
12 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 80 mm EPS 3,800 9,733 80,956
13 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 100 mm EPS 3,780 10,495 80,995
14 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 100 mm EPS 3,792 10,846 81,429
15 Sgl Grey 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm 4,066 2,457 82,023
16 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 40 mm EPS 3,808 11,636 82,212
17 Sgl Clr 3mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm 4,148 0 82,237
18 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 20 mm EPS 3,843 10,523 82,263
19 Sgl Grey 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 20 mm EPS 3,984 5,692 82,268
20 Sgl Blue 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm 4,072 2,808 82,339
21 Sgl Grey 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 12 mm Air Gap 4,017 4,768 82,382
22 Sgl Grey 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 40 mm EPS 3,959 6,805 82,416
23 Sgl Ref-A-M Clr 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 60 mm EPS 3,789 12,749 82,471
24 Sgl Blue 6mm Dbl Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 20 mm EPS 3,991 6,043 82,599
25 Sgl Ref-A-M Tint 6mm Solid brick wall, 250 mm, 40 mm EPS 3,819 11,987 82,622