Adaptacje i nowe funkcje użytkowe budynków: jak tradycyjne i współczesne budynki zachowują współczynniki termiczne w warunkach rzeczywistych?

Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

doi:10.37190/arc260206

Streszczenie

W przypadku zachowania odporności na zmiany klimatu w środowisku zurbanizowanym istotnym elementem jest znacząco zwiększający się udział obiektów poddawanych adaptacjom i zmianom sposobów użytkowania w celu osiągnięcia współczesnych wymagań i standardów. Budynki tradycyjne mają odpowiednie znaczenie strategiczne i charakter, jednakże często nie odpowiadają współczesnym wymaganiom, chociaż ich nieodłączne cechy mogą przyczynić się do przedłużenia ich okresu funkcjonowania. W przedstawionym badaniu zajęto się szczególnymi różnicami pomiędzy tradycyjnymi i współczesnymi rozwiązaniami konstrukcyjno-architektonicznymi związanymi z termiką obiektu w bieżących, realnych warunkach. Ciągłość badań temperatur została zebrana w ciągu trzech lat w dwóch wnętrzach budynków – jednego zbudowanego w tradycyjny sposób, a drugiego zgodnie ze współczesnymi technikami budowlanymi – zarówno w okresach użytkowania, jak i braku tegoż i obejmowała badania temperatur powietrza, promieniowania etc. Otrzymane rezultaty świadczą o tym, że różnice wynikające z systemów konstrukcyjnych są relatywnie małe, z użytkowaniem jako dominującym czynnikiem, z niemal ujednoliconym zachowaniem termicznym obu obiektów. Potwierdza to, że w klimacie śródziemnomorskim obiekty tradycyjnej architektury mogą osiągnąć wydajność cieplną porównywalną z wydajnością współczesnych konstrukcji, i podkreśla ich wartość jako elementu zachowującego zrównoważenie energetyczne.

Podgląd pełnego artykułu jest możliwy wyłącznie na większych ekranach.

Pełny artykuł

2026

2(86)

Judit Lopez-Besora*, Helena Coch**, Antonio Isalgue***

Adaptation and reuse of buildings:

how do traditional and contemporary buildings perform thermally

under real-world operating conditions?

DOI: 10.37190/arc260206

Published in open access. CC BY-NC license.

Abstract

Promoting resilience in the built environment increasingly relies on the refurbishment and reuse of existing buildings to meet contemporary

performance and sustainability standards. Traditional buildings have character and strategic importance; however, they are often considered poorly

performing, though their inherent qualities can contribute to extending their lifespan. This study examines whether notable dierences exist between

traditional and contemporary construction systems in terms of thermal performance under real-world operating conditions. Continuous temperature

data were collected over a three-year period from two indoor spaces – one built using traditional techniques and the other employing contemporary

systems – both monitored under occupied and unoccupied conditions. The analysis included air temperature and radiant temperature of interior sur-

faces to evaluate the combined inuence of building characteristics and occupancy patterns. The ndings indicate that dierences between the two

construction systems are relatively minor, with occupancy exerting the dominant eect, bringing the thermal performance of both buildings closer

together. These results suggest that traditional architecture can achieve thermal performance comparable to that of modern constructions in Mediter-

ranean climate, highlighting its value as a resilient and sustainable component of the existing building stock through targeted building refurbishment.

Key words: traditional buildings, monitoring, thermal performance, radiant temperature, building refurbishment

Introduction

Traditional buildings in European countries constitute

a substantial portion of the existing building stock. The ex-

pansion of most cities and towns during the late 19

and

early 20

centuries resulted in an architectural legacy pre-

dominantly constructed using traditional techniques, prior

to the widespread adoption of more technologically ad-

vanced construction systems. This legacy is not conned to

major cities but is equally present in small towns and rural

areas, making traditional architecture both widespread and

territorially signicant.

From both cultural and environmental perspectives, tra

ditional buildings possess inherent values that merit pres-

ervation (Webb 2017; Galatioto, Ciulla and Ricciu 2017).

They stand as tangible evidence of historical construction

practices and are deeply intertwined with local cultural

identity (Akkurt et al. 2020; Mariani, Rosso and Ferrero

2018) oering a stark contrast to the homogenization and

placelessness often associated with the contemporary inter-

national style.

From an environmental standpoint, extending the lifes-

pan of existing buildings is a key strategy for reducing the

embodied energy associated with construction and lifecycle

processes. This can be achieved through regular mainte-

nance and context-sensitive updates, not only in traditional

structures but also across the broader stock of existing build-

ings. Additionally, the reuse of buildings contributes to the

revitalization of depopulated urban centres (Caro, Sen dra

2020), curbs land consumption linked to suburban sprawl,

and helps counteract territorial depopulation (Martín, Ma-

* ORCID: 0000-0002-8659-9346. Department of Archi tec tu ral

Tech nology, Uni ver si tat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Spain, e-mail:

judit.lopez. besora@upc.edu

** ORCID: 0000-0001-9524-8057. Department of Architectu ral

Technology, Uni ver si tat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Spain.

*** ORCID: 0000-0002-4354-5831. Physics Department, Univer-

si tat Poli tèc nica de Catalunya (UPC), Spain.

62 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

zarrón and Cañas 2010). This latter aspect is essential for

promoting a more balanced and sustainable spatial distribu-

tion of population, thereby reducing the pressure on large

urban agglomerations.

Traditional architecture reects a symbiotic relationship

with climate and local environmental conditions. Building

dimensions, forms, and materials were historically adapted

to the availability of local resources and climatic needs. In

contrast, contemporary construction is increasingly shaped

by global market forces, prevailing trends, and standardized

regulations, especially those concerning thermal perfor-

mance. Traditional buildings are often perceived as thermal-

ly inecient, prompting owners to pursue major retrots or

even demolition (Ding 2013).

Policies often assume that traditional buildings are ther -

mal ly underperforming, directing subsidies toward HVAC

(Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) replacement and

thermal insulation addition (Stéphan et al. 2014; de la Flor

al. 2021; Timur, Başaran and İpekoğlu 2022; Dervishi et

al.

2022). However, the thermal behaviour of traditional

buildings is more nuanced and cannot be fully captured by

simplied metrics. For instance, traditional buildings often

achieved insulation through thick, massive walls, unlike

modern buildings that rely on lightweight en velope sys-

tems with added insulation. These dierences aect the

buildings’ dynamic thermal behaviour, with implications

for thermal inertia, comfort, and energy use (Gagliano et al.

2014; Avendaño-Vera, Martinez-Soto and Marincioni 2020;

Stazi et al. 2014; 2015; Slee, Parkinson and Hyde 2013).

However, numerous studies have highlighted a persistent

discrepancy between predicted and actual energy perfor-

mance in buildings, both existing and newly constructed

(Sunnika-Blank, Galvin 2012; van den Brom, Meijer and

Vis scher 2019). This phenomenon, known as the Energy

Per formance Gap (EPG) (De Wilde 2014; Shi et al. 2019) is

frequently associated with two widely discussed eects in

the eld of energy policy: the prebound eect, which stems

from overestimating the energy demand of existing build-

ings based on the assumption of poor construction quality,

and the rebound eect, where high-performing buildings

consume more energy than expected due to user behaviour

and other real-life variables (Galvin 2014; Homann, Geiss-

ler

2017). Incorporating more realistic input data into ther-

mal simulations could help reduce this theoretical perfor-

mance gap and challenge assumptions about the relative

ineciency of traditional construction.

Most studies on the thermal performance of existing

buildings rely on either simulations or environmental mon-

itoring (Martín, Mazarrón and Cañas 2010; Callegaro et al.

2023). A common approach involves the use of software

such as DesignBuilder, built on the EnergyPlus simulation

engine, to develop calibrated digital models (Aste, Angelot-

ti and Buzzetti 2009). Accurate model calibration requires

assigning thermal properties (e.g., U-values, mass, air tight-

ness) to building components, often approximations in the

context of existing structures. These models are typically

created using environmental data collected over a specied

period and then used to test various retrotting scenarios

(Giuliani, Henze and Florita 2016; Mousa, Lang and Yousef

2017; Aste et al. 2015; Evola et al. 2017; di Perna et al. 2011;

Gagliano et al. 2016). However, variables such as solar shad

ing, ventilation, and internal loads are heavily inuenced

by occupant behaviour, which is dicult to replicate with

precision (Delzendeh et al. 2017; Ascione et al. 2020; Stazi,

Naspi 2019). Although standard occupancy schedules can

be used, real patterns are inherently variable. Additional-

ly, climatic data employed in simulations are derived from

statistical models that, while generally reliable, may not

capture the full variability of actual conditions. Therefore,

although simulations oer valuable insights into the com-

parative performance of dierent design strategies, their

reliability in predicting real-world thermal behaviour, par-

ticularly in traditional buildings, remains limited due to un-

certainties in input data (Malik, Bardhan and Banerji 2020).

Environmental monitoring serves both as a tool to cal-

ibrate simulations and as a means of empirical investiga-

tion, particularly in experimental setups such as test cells

or mock-ups (Lindberg, Binamu and Teikari 2004). These

studies often aim to compare the thermal behaviour of dif-

ferent materials and envelope congurations. Nonetheless,

they frequently omit the role of human occupants, whose in-

teractions with buildings are crucial to understanding actual

thermal performance.

Collecting data from real, inhabited spaces presents both

logistical and methodological challenges. Short-term mon-

itoring allows for greater control and observation of user

behaviour, whereas long-term monitoring introduces com-

plexity but provides more representative data regarding sea-

sonal patterns and occupant interaction. Despite these chal-

lenges, long-term monitoring in occupied buildings yields

valuable insights that are often missing from simulations

and lab-based studies.

In light of these complexities, a deeper understanding of

the thermal characteristics of both traditional and contem-

porary buildings is essential to inform eective and con-

text-sensitive interventions (Costa-Carrapiço et al. 2022;

Cal cerano, Cecchini and Martinelli 2017; Martínez-Molina

et al. 2016; Martín, Cañas and González 2004). To this end,

the present study oers a comparative analysis of two con-

struction typologies – traditional and contemporary – based

on long-term environmental monitoring. Conducted outside

a controlled laboratory setting, this empirical research cap-

tures the variability and complexity of real-life conditions in

Mediterranean climate. The methodology provides a more

accurate picture of building performance in use and contrib-

utes to rening the understanding of the Energy Performance

Gap. Ultimately, the ndings aim to support more informed

decision-making in both policy and practice for the sustain-

able management of the built environment.

Methodology

To assess and compare the thermal performance of two

building systems under real-life operating conditions, air

temperature and relative humidity were monitored in two

comparable spaces, one in a traditional building and the oth-

er in a contemporary structure. These indoor measurements

were complemented by outdoor meteorological data (air tem-

perature, relative humidity, and solar radiation), to contextu-

alize insight into the observed indoor thermal behaviour.

Adaptation and reuse of buildings 63

The monitoring campaign lasted three years, allowing

for a comprehensive and longitudinal assessment that ac-

counted for interannual climatic variability and ensured

a representative range of environmental conditions.

The collected data were analysed across four complemen-

tary levels:

– Annual trends. Annual datasets were examined to iden-

tify general temperature trends and assess the typical thermal

behaviour associated with each construction system. Specif-

ic timeframes were also selected for more detailed investiga-

tion. One such analysis focused on thermal amplitude, com-

paring a winter and a summer week in both buildings during

free-running operation and in the absence of occupancy. This

approach enabled an evaluation of the thermal response of

the envelope alone, isolating it from user behaviour and me-

chanical conditioning.

– Summer results. Occupant inuence was assessed by

comparing summer weeks with and without occupancy. This

comparison highlighted the role of user interaction, speci-

cally in terms of natural ventilation, solar shading strategies,

and internal heat gains, and revealed the resulting dierenc-

es in thermal performance between the two case studies.

– Thermal decay and winter heat loss. A winter week was

analysed to calculate and compare the theoretical and ob-

served time constants. These ndings were further supported

by steady-state heat loss calculations, providing additional

insight into the passive thermal performance of each enve-

lope system.

– Air and radiant temperature. Simultaneous measure-

ments of air and radiant temperatures were conducted over

a weekend in both summer and winter of 2023. The inclu-

sion of radiant temperature provided a more complete and

comprehensive understanding of indoor thermal conditions,

more accurately reecting the actual thermal sensation

experienced by occupants. This nal stage of analysis en-

hanced the comparative assessment of the two construction

systems by incorporating comfort-related parameters be-

yond air temperature alone.

Case study

The study was conducted in two adjacent houses located

in a small town within the coastal mountain range of Cata-

lonia, Spain (40°N17’N, 1°1’E). Despite being built a cen-

tury apart, the two dwellings are comparable in size, form

and orientation, making them suitable for a comparative

analysis of dierent construction systems. The town (Ca-

pafonts), situated at an altitude of 750 m above sea level,

has approximately 100 inhabitants. According to Köppen’s

climate classication, the area has a Mediterranean climate

with warm summers (Csb), characterized by an average

annual temperature of 13.3 °C and a seasonal amplitude of

17.9 °C between the coldest and the warmest periods. The

average daily temperature uctuation is 10 °C. Relative hu-

midity averages 70.3% annually, and total yearly precipita-

tion amounts to 525 mm/year, with spring and autumn being

the rainiest seasons.

The town is located atop a hill in the centre of a valley,

with its built fabric arranged concentrically along the slope.

The two houses selected for the study are located at the

western edge of the town, with open views to the west and

facing the town to the east. They are attached to adjacent

buildings on their northern and southern façades. For clari-

ty, House 1 is the traditional dwelling situated on the north-

ern side, and House 2 is the contemporary dwelling on the

southern side (Fig. 1).

Access to both dwellings is through the east façade at street

level. Each house has three above-ground oors (ground,

rst, and second) and two semi-basement levels oriented

westward due to the sloped terrain. The ground oor of the

traditional house (House 1) comprises a lobby, a living room

with an open kitchen, and a staircase connecting all levels.

The contemporary house (House 2) has the same arrange-

ment but also features an additional bedroom and bathroom

on this level. Both dwellings open to balconies or terraces on

the west façade.

The rst oor in each dwelling contains three bedrooms

and one bathroom, with House 2 also incorporating a laun-

dry room. The second oor occupies a smaller footprint in

both cases, being set back from the west façade in the tra-

ditional house and from the east and west façades in the

contemporary.

On the rst semi-basement level the traditional house ac-

commodates two bedrooms, a bathroom and a storage area,

while the contemporary house is designed as a garage. The

second semi-basement level is smaller in area and is not

conditioned for occupancy in either dwelling.

The traditional house was constructed around the ear-

ly 20

century, although the exact date is unknown. It has

Fig. 1. West façade of the houses. At left, House 1; at right, House 2

(photo by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 1. Zachodnia fasada domów. Po lewej dom 1; po prawej dom 2

(fot. J. Lopez-Besora)

64 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

undergone various renovations throughout its lifespan. Its

construction system is traditional with load-bearing stone

masonry walls approximately 60 cm thick, supporting one-

way structural slabs composed of wooden joists and ceram-

ic vaults. Exterior joinery consists of wooden frames with

single glazing and high air permeability, complemented by

internal shutters. The calculated U-values of the façade and

windows are 1.91 and 4.30 W/m

K, respectively (Table 1).

This typology is representative of vernacular construction

across the region and other areas with similar climatic and

geographic conditions. It remained prevalent until the emer-

gence of modern systems, such as brick load-bearing walls

with concrete slabs and, later, reinforced concrete structures.

The contemporary house, by contrast, was built in 2015

based on a technical design project. Its structural system

consists of reinforced concrete columns and one-way con-

crete slabs. The envelope comprises multilayer façades with

exterior and interior brickwork (14 cm and 7 cm thick, re-

spectively), a ventilated cavity, and 5 cm of thermal insula-

tion (expanded polystyrene). Openings consist of high-per-

formance windows with aluminium-clad exteriors and

wooden interiors, and double glazing; one of the windows

includes interior shutters. The U-values of the façade and

windows are 0.45 and 2.70 W/m

K, respectively.

Both dwellings are equipped with heating systems consisting

of oil-red boilers connected to aluminium radiators. Neither

house has mechanical cooling systems for the summer season.

The study was conducted in the living room of both

houses, which have nearly identical dimensions. The oor

areas measure 36.4 m

in House 1 and 34.5 m

in House 2,

while the corresponding volumes are 92.2 m

and 91.7 m

All surfaces, except for the west façade, are considered adi-

abatic. Table 1 and Figure 2 present a detailed breakdown of

the envelope elements of each monitored space. Each com-

ponent is coded (F for façades, W for windows, PW for par-

ty walls, P for partitions, D for doors, FL for oors and C for

ceilings), along with their area (S, in m

), U-value (W/m

total mass (M, in kg) and eective mass (M′, in kg). The

total mass (M) refers to the full material thickness, while

the eective mass (M′) accounts for only half the thickness

for non-insulated elements, or the mass from the insulation

layer inward for insulated assemblies.

Methods

Air temperature and relative humidity were continuously

monitored in the living rooms of both houses over a three-

year period, from 27 September 2019 to 26 September 2022.

Data acquisition was uninterrupted except for brief pauses

required for battery replacement. Two TESTO 175H1 data

loggers were employed, one in each dwelling, placed in the

north-west corner of the living room (Fig. 2). Measurements

were recorded every 20 min starting on the hour. For clarity,

the air temperature in House 1 and House 2 is denoted as

T_H1 and T_H2, respectively.

In addition to the long-term monitoring, a short-term mea-

surement campaign was carried out in 2023 to capture both

air temperature and radiant temperature in the same rooms.

These measurements were conducted over two week end

pe-

riods, one in winter (10–12 February 2023) and one in sum-

mer (30 June–2 July 2023). The same TESTO data loggers

used in the long-term monitoring were deployed in identical

locations. Radiant temperature was recorded using a FLIR

TG267 thermal imaging camera. Air temperature and rela-

tive humidity were logged at 20-minute intervals.

Thermal images were captured at multiple times through-

out each weekend at predened and equivalent points in

both living rooms, including the oor, ceiling, west façade,

party wall, and the north wall of the traditional house. In the

winter campaign, thermal imaging was performed on Fri-

day upon arrival, immediately before activating the heating

system (Table 2).

Climate data (outdoor air temperature, relative humidity,

and solar radiation) were obtained from a weather station

located 40 m from the monitored houses (764 m altitude,

UTM coordinates E 334739, N 4573418). This station is

operated by Meteoprades (meteoprades.net), a non-prot

organization that collects meteorological data from sever-

al sites in the region. All meteorological variables were re-

corded in synchrony with the indoor monitoring intervals.

No behavioural guidelines were provided to the occu-

pants during the monitoring period; they were instructed

to go about their daily routines without modication. Both

houses are used intermittently, primarily on weekends and

during holidays. The traditional house is typically occupied

by 2 to 6 people, while the contemporary is occupied by

2 to 4. As both are second residences, occupancy may uc-

Code

S [m

]

U-value

[W/m

M [kg] M′ [kg]

House 1

F1 10.5 1.91 13192 6596

W1 3.1 4.30 77 77

PW1 7.2 – 6057 3028

PW2 14.8 – 14322 12454

P1 11.2 – 558 279

D1 2.8 – – –

FL1 8.3 – 2543 1271

FL2 28.1 – 8605 1652

C1 36.4 – 11148 5574

TOTAL 122.4 – 56500 33581

House 2

F2 13.0 0.45 2493 849

W2 8.2 2.70 286 286

PW2 10.2 – 9830 1282

PW3 12.8 – 6438 1609

P2 14.2 – 926 463

D1 6.8 – – –

FL3 34.6 – 10585 5292

C2 34.6 – 10585 5292

TOTAL 134.4 – 41142 15075

Table 1. Constructive elements of House 1 and House 2,

and their physical characteristics (elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Tabela 1. Elementy konstrukcyjne i detal architektoniczny

w domach 1 i 2 oraz ich specyfikacja (oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

Key in the text and Figure 2.

Adaptation and reuse of buildings 65

Fig. 2. Floor plan: a) codes of constructive elements, b) location of the measurement points for air temperature and radiant temperature

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 2. Rzut: a) oznaczenia elementów konstrukcyjnych, b) lokalizacja punktów pomiarowych temperatury powietrza i temperatury promieniowania

(oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

a b

House 1 House 2

Day Time Day Time

Winter

10/02/2023 22:20 10/02/2023 22:20

11/02/2023

01:20

11/02/2023

01:20

11:40

15:40 15:40

17:40

22:20 22:20

12/02/2023

10:00

12/02/202314:00 14:00

15:40 15:40

Summer

30/06/2023

21:40

30/06/2023

21:40

01/07/2023

00:40

01/07/2023

00:40

10:00 10:00

13:20 13:20

16:40 16:40

20:20 20:20

22:40

02/07/2023

10:40

02/07/2023

10:40

16:00 16:00

19:20 19:20

Table 2. Day and time of thermographic imaging for each house

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Tabela 2. Dzień i czas obrazowania termograficznego dla każdego

z obiektów (oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

tuate, especially during leisure periods or visits. The liv-

ing rooms in both houses feature an integrated open-plan

kitchen, which is regularly used when the dwellings are

occupied. It is important to note that the monitoring period

includes the nationwide lockdown imposed in Spain due to

the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which began in the third week

of March 2020 and lasted through the end of May 2020.

Results and discussion

Yearly thermal behaviour

The initial results present the complete dataset of indoor

air temperatures measurements from both houses, along with

the corresponding outdoor temperature data obtained from

the nearby weather station (https://dataverse.csuc.cat/data-

set.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.34810/data1479). Figure 3

illustrates the temporal evolution of indoor and outdoor

temperatures over three annual periods, each spanning

from October to September, for the years 2019, 2020, 2021,

and 2022.

The dierence in mean annual indoor temperature be-

tween the two dwellings ranges from 0.68 °C to 2.07 °C, with

House 2 consistently registering higher average tempera-

tures than the traditional house. The largest temperature gap

was recorded during the 2021–2022 period, which also co-

incided with the highest average outdoor temperature across

the study duration. On average, the indoor temperature in

66 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

House 1 exceeded the outdoor temperature by 2.35–2.94 °C,

while in the contemporary house the dierence was greater,

ranging from 3.62–4.42 °C. These measurements reect re-

al-life operating conditions, as both homes were occupied

for a comparable, though not identical, number of days.

The annual temperature curves in Figure 3 capture typical

occupancy rhythms, for instance, brief peaks during winter

weekends associated with heating system activation upon

arrival, and heightened temperature variability during the

summer, especially in August, corresponding to increased

household activity.

To explore this in greater detail, a focused analysis was

conducted on two one-week periods under free-running

conditions and in the absence of occupants: one in winter

and one in summer (Fig. 4). The winter week analysed spans

from 10 to 17 January 2020. During this period, both hous-

es exhibited similar thermal behaviour, with average indoor

temperatures of 7.75 °C in the traditional house, 7.78 °C in

the contemporary, and 6.48 °C outdoors. Daily thermal am-

plitude was below 1 ° C in the traditional house and slightly

above 1 °C in the contemporary one, indicating stable in-

door conditions in both dwellings under winter free-running

scenarios (Lopez-Besora et al. 2022).

In contrast, the summer week analysed, from 8 to 15 July

2020, revealed more signicant dierences. The average

indoor temperature in the traditional house was 24.10 °C,

while in the contemporary it reached 25.04 °C; both were

signicantly higher than the average outdoor temperature,

which was 20.41 °C. The daily peak temperatures were also

higher in the contemporary house than in the traditional,

Fig. 3. Yearly results of air temperature in House 1, House 2, and outdoor:

a) October 2019–September 2020, b) October 2020–September 2021, c) October 2021–September 2022

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 3. Temperatura powietrza w domu 1 i 2 oraz temperatura zewnętrzna w ciągu roku: a) październik 2019–wrzesień 2020,

b) październik 2020–wrzesień 2021, c) październik 2021–wrzesień 2022 (oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

Adaptation and reuse of buildings 67

Summer results with and without occupants

The summer week in Figure 4 shows a regular thermal

pattern driven by outdoor temperature and solar radiation.

In contrast, the annual curves in Figure 3 become less dis-

tinct and begin to overlap from late July through August,

making it dicult to discern clear trends. This period coin-

cides with the summer holiday season when both dwellings

are regularly occupied.

To assess thermal variability in this period, four repre-

sentative summer weeks were analysed: two unoccupied

(6–12 July 2020 and 12–18 July 2022), and two occupied

(9–15 August 2021 and 1–7 August 2022). The results are

shown in Figures 5 and 6.

During the unoccupied weeks (Fig. 5), the indoor tem-

perature proles remained consistent and showed predict-

able patterns, minimally inuenced by internal gains. In the

week of 6–12 July 2020, the contemporary house recorded

the highest average indoor temperature (25.1

C), exceeding

both the traditional (24.2

C) and the outdoor temperature

(21.3

C). A similar trend was observed during the week

of 12–18 July 2022, when the contemporary reached an

and this dierence was more pronounced than in the winter

analysis. These ndings suggest that the traditional house

is less responsive to solar radiation gains, particularly from

the west.

Moreover, the indoor air temperature in the traditional

house consistently remained lower than in the contempo-

rary throughout the summer week. On some days, the max-

imum temperature in the traditional house was even lower

than the minimum temperature recorded in the other, un-

derscoring the superior thermal buering capacity of the

traditional envelope.

These results highlight the greater sensitivity of the con-

temporary house to external climatic conditions and solar

heat gains, while the traditional house exhibits greater ther-

mal inertia and indoor temperature stability in both summer

and winter. It is important to note that these ndings corre-

spond to periods with no internal heat loads or user inter-

actions, thus oering a clearer view of the intrinsic thermal

performance of each construction system.

The following sections build upon this foundation by an-

alysing how occupancy and daily routines inuence indoor

thermal conditions, specically on summer and winter periods.

Fig. 4. Air temperature in House 1 (T_H1), House 2 (T_H2), outdoor air temperature (T_out), and solar radiation (Sol_rad): a) week of 10–17

January 2020, b) week of 8–15 July 2020, c) detail of T_H1 and T_H2 in the winter week, d) detail of T_H1 and T_H2 in the summer week

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 4. Temperatura powietrza w domu nr 1 (TH_1), domu nr 2 (TH_2), temperatura powietrza na zewnątrz (T_out) i promieniowanie słoneczne

(Sol_rad): a) 10–17 stycznia 2020, b) 8–17 lipca 2020, c) szczegółowy rozkład temperatury TH_1 i TH_2 w tygodniu zimowym,

d) szczegółowy rozkład temperatury TH_1 i TH_2 w tygodniu letnim (oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

a b

c d

68 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

average of 27.2

°C, while the traditional maintained a lower

average (25.7

°C) than the outdoor environment (26.6

°C). It

is noteworthy that the 2022 week experienced signicantly

higher solar radiation levels than the corresponding period in

2020, likely contributing to the overall temperature increase.

Figure 7 illustrates that during these unoccupied periods,

traditional house consistently exhibited a narrower tempera-

ture range (lower diurnal thermal amplitude) compared to

the contemporary one, which also maintained higher peak

temperatures throughout. This suggests that the traditional

building envelope provides greater thermal buering capac-

ity under passive conditions.

In contrast, the occupied weeks (Fig. 8), reveal marked

dierences in thermal behaviour. The temperature curves

become less regular due to the inuence of occupant ac

tivity. Since no behavioural protocols were imposed, users

were free to manage ventilation, shading, and cooking prac

tices according to their needs. During the week of 9–15 Au-

gust 2021, the average indoor temperature was identical in

both houses (26.4

C), slightly above the outdoor average of

25.5

C. However, during the week of August 2022, indoor

temperatures in both the traditional and the contemporary

houses exceeded the outdoor average by 2.2

C and 1.3

respectively. Unlike in 2021, the 2022 period was character

ised by sustained high outdoor temperatures with minimal

daily variation, which contributed to heat accumulation,

particularly in the traditional, where dissipation appeared

less eective.

Figures 7 and 8 conrm that the regular thermal uc tua -

tion patterns observed during unoccupied weeks are dis-

rupted during occupancy Both houses exhibited increased

tem

perature variability, with wider ranges between ma xi-

mum and minimum values. The expansion of the interquar-

tile range (IQR) boxes also indicates greater dispersion in

the indoor thermal data, reecting the heterogeneity of occu-

pant-driven events.

These variations underscore the impact of occupant pre-

sence on thermal dynamics. For instance, in the contempo-

rary house, morning ventilation commonly produced a tem-

perature drop of approximately 1

C. In contrast, limited

early-morning activity was observed in the traditional during

the week of 1–7 August 2022, which diminished the eec-

tiveness of ventilation as a cooling strategy during that peri-

od. Around midday, occupancy and cooking activities in both

Fig. 5. Air temperature in House 1 (T_H1), House 2 (T_H2), outdoor air temperature (T_out), and solar radiation (Sol_rad), during two weeks

without occupancy: a) 6–12 July 2020, b) 12–18 July 2022 (elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 5. Temperatura powietrza w domu nr 1 (TH_1), domu nr 2 (TH_2), temperatura powietrza na zewnątrz (T_out) i promieniowanie słoneczne

(Sol_rad) w trakcie dwóch tygodni braku użytkowania domów przez mieszkańców: a) 6–12 lipca 2020, b) 12–18 lipca 2022 (oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

Adaptation and reuse of buildings 69

houses caused temperature peaks exceeding 1 °C, relative to

adjacent periods. Although such uctuations were observed

in both dwellings, the traditional house tended to retain heat

for longer durations, indicating higher thermal inertia.

In summary, the summer data reveal that while both

houses are sensitive to internal gains during occupancy, the

traditional construction system exhibits greater thermal sta-

bility during unoccupied periods, and higher heat retention

Fig. 6. Air temperature in House 1 (T_H1), House 2 (T_H2), outdoor air temperature (T_out), and solar radiation (Sol_rad), during two weeks

with occupancy: a) 9–15 August 2021, b) 1–7 August 2022 (elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 6. Temperatura powietrza w domu nr 1 (TH_1), domu nr 2 (TH_2), temperatura powietrza na zewnątrz (T_out) i promieniowanie słoneczne (Sol_rad)

w trakcie dwóch tygodni użytkowania obiektów przez mieszkańców: a) 9–15 sierpnia 2021, b) 11–7 sierpnia 2022 (oprac J. Lopez-Besora)

Fig. 7. Daily maximum and minimum temperatures in House 1 (dark grey) and House 2 (light grey) for the summer weeks without occupancy:

a) 6–12 July 2020, b) 12–18 July 2022 (elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 7. Maksymalna i minimalna dzienna temperatura powietrza w domu nr 1 (ciemnoszary), domu nr 2 (jasnoszary) w trakcie tygodni letnich

bez użytkowników: a) 6–12 lipca 2020, b) 12–18 lipca 2022 (oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

70 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

once internal gains are introduced. These ndings illustrate

the combined inuence of construction system and user be-

haviour on summer indoor thermal performance.

Winter results:

stationary heat loss and time constant

To evaluate and compare the thermal behaviour of both

dwellings in winter conditions, a twofold approach was

adopted: rst, we conducted theoretical calculations of sta-

tionary heat losses, and second, we validated these results

with empirical data from monitored winter periods.

• Stationary heat loss analysis

The heat loss through transmission and ventilation in

each living room was estimated under static, free-running

conditions, using the parameters outlined in Table 1. The

calculation of total heat losses followed Equation (1), while

the thermal time constant was derived using Equation (2).

Transm.loss = (U window

S window) + (U wall

S wall)

(1)

Vent.loss = Cp air

ρ air

V air

ach/3600

Total loss = Transm.loss + Vent.loss

Time constant = (2)

where:

Transm.loss – Transmission loss [W/K],

U window – U thermal transmittance [W/m

K],

S window – S surface [m

Vent.loss – Ventilation loss [W/K],

Cp air – Cp heat capacity [J/kg K],

ρ air – ρ density [kg/m

V air – V volume [m

ach – ach air changes per hour,

Total loss – total loss [W/K],

Time constant – time constant [h],

M′ – M′ eective mass [kg]

Transmission heat losses were obtained by multiplying

U-values with the surface areas of the building envelope

components. The results indicate a transmission heat loss

of 33.38 W/K for the traditional house and 27.99 W/K for

the contemporary one, which represents only a 19% higher

value for the traditional house despite its less thermally e-

cient construction system.

Ventilation heat losses were calculated based on assumed

air change rates. For House 2, we considered 0.7 ACH, in

accordance with the Spanish building code (RITE), whereas

for House 1, the inltration rate was doubled to 1.4 ACH

due to lower airtightness and older window systems. As-

suming an air density of 1.1 kg/m

(for 10

°C at 751 m alti-

tude) and a specic heat capacity of 1030 J/kg·K, the venti-

lation losses were 40.6 W/K for House 1 and 20.2 W/K for

House 2. In this case, the traditional house doubles the value

of the contemporary one.

Summing both components, the total heat loss amounts to

74.0 W/K in the traditional house and 48.2 W/K in the con-

temporary, implying that the traditional house exhibits approx-

imately 53% greater thermal losses. Notably, the ventila tion

component is the most critical contributor to this dierence.

A hypothetical retrot scenario (RI1) in which the win-

dows of the traditional house were replaced with those

from the contemporary would reduce transmission losses

to 28.42 W/K, and ventilation losses to 20.3 W/K, there-

by aligning total thermal losses (48.7 W/K) closely with

those of the contemporary house (Table 3). A more com-

prehensive intervention (RI2), involving both window re-

placement and external insulation to match the U-values of

the contemporary, would result in 44% lower heat loss than

in the contemporary house. Nevertheless, adding thermal

insulation may not be viable due to heritage conservation

constraints and limited interior space, in addition to hinder-

ing heat dissipation during the summer.

• Thermal mass and dynamic behaviour

Beyond steady-state conditions, thermal mass signi-

cantly inuences the dynamic thermal response of a build-

ing, particularly during unheated periods. Following occu-

pant departure, the decay in indoor temperature is governed

by the building’s eective thermal mass (M′), which, when

combined with heat loss values, denes the thermal time

constant (τ), a measure of the time required for indoor tem-

perature to stabilise in the absence of heat gains. The coe-

Fig. 8. Daily maximum and minimum temperatures in House 1 (dark grey) and House 2 (light grey) for the summer weeks with occupancy:

a) 9–15 August 2021, b) 1–7 August 2022 (elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 8. Maksymalna i minimalna dzienna temperatura powietrza w domu nr 1 (ciemnoszary), domu nr 2 (jasnoszary) w trakcie tygodni letnich

z użytkownikami: a) 9–15 sierpnia 2021, b) 1–7 sierpnia 2022 (oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

Total loss

M′

Adaptation and reuse of buildings 71

cient τ is calculated by dividing thermal mass by the thermal

loss coecient (Equation 2).

Using the eective thermal mass values from Table 1 and

a specic heat of 1000 J/kg·K, House 1 and House 2 present

33.6 MJ/K and 15.1 MJ/K, respectively. As such, the tradi-

tional house has more than double the thermal mass of the

contemporary one. Calculated time constants τ are 126.1 h

for House 1 and 87.0 h for House 2, indicating that the tra-

ditional house takes 39 hours more to stabilise, reecting

greater thermal inertia.

• Empirical validation

These theoretical results were then compared with mon-

itored data during a selected winter week (16–23 March

2020), which captures a full heating cycle: activation of

heat ing from Friday to Sunday (during occupancy), fol-

lowed by ve days of unheated operation after the occu-

pants’ departure on Sunday evening.

As shown in Figure 9, both houses exhibit a temperature

decay pattern after heating is turned o, with distinct be-

haviours. The contemporary house shows higher afternoon

temperature peaks due to greater exposure to solar gains,

while the traditional one maintains a more gradual and con-

sistent temperature decline, likely due to reduced glazing

and the presence of shutters.

To model this decay, we tted the indoor temperature

curves to an exponential decay function. The resulting

curves

displayed strong correlation, with R

values of 0.974

(House 1) and 0.965 (House 2). From these ts, we derived

empirical time constants of 115 h for House 1 and 116 h for

House 2. While the tted value for House 1 closely matches

the theoretical estimate (dierence of 11 h), House 2 exhib-

its a notable discrepancy of 29 h, potentially due to greater

exposure to solar radiation, which compensates for some

of the cooling and prolongs the eective decay (Marincic

1999; Isalgue et al. 1980).

Despite the fundamental dierences in construction, insu-

lation, exposure, and thermal mass, the overall cooling be-

haviour of both dwellings is remarkably similar in practice.

The traditional house’s higher mass and reduced exposure to

solar gains oset its inferior insulation and greater heat loss,

while the contemporary house benets from superior enve

lope performance but is more sensitive to external conditions.

Summer and winter air

and radiant temperature

This phase of the study involved measuring and compar-

ing the air temperature and radiant temperature of the living

room interior surfaces during a winter weekend (10–12 Feb-

ruary 2023) and a summer weekend (30 June – 2 July 2023)

(Figs. 10–13) (Lopez-Besora, Isalgue and Coch 2024).

Winter measurements began on Friday evening and con-

cluded on Sunday afternoon (Figs. 10, 12). These measure-

ments were taken under real-use conditions, with occupants

present and the heating system in operation. Results indicate

that radiant temperatures in the traditional house remained

below the air temperature until Sunday. Thereafter, some

surfaces, particularly the ceiling and oor, exhibited slight-

ly higher radiant temperatures than the air. The lowest ra-

diant temperature values were consistently recorded on the

façade surfaces (TS1_W and TS1_N). In contrast, the con-

temporary house exhibited a more rapid thermal response.

Several surfaces reached radiant temperatures exceeding

the air temperature within just a few hours of activating the

heating. Notably, the façade in the contemporary showed

elevated radiant temperatures (TS2_W and TS2_W′) due to

direct solar radiation.

During the summer period, the air temperature in the tra-

ditional house remained approximately 1 °C lower than that

of the contemporary for most of the time (Figs. 11, 13). Ra-

diant temperatures closely tracked air temperatures in both

dwellings, although they were slightly higher, particularly

in the contemporary house. Compared to winter, the am-

plitude of radiant temperature uctuations was signicantly

reduced in both houses. As observed in winter, the ceiling

and oor tended to register the highest radiant temperatures.

Thermal sensation is inuenced by both air temperature

and radiant temperature. In summer, the convergence of these

two variables implies that air temperature largely governs

thermal perception. In winter, however (especially under in-

termittent occupancy) radiant temperature becomes a critical

Transm. loss

[W/K]

Vent. loss

[W/K]

Total loss

[W/K]

House 1 33.38 40.6 74.0

RI1 (window) 28.42 20.3 48.7

RI2

(window+thermal

insulation)

13.095 20.3 33.4

House 2 27.99 20.2 48.2

Table 3. Transmission, ventilation and total thermal losses in House 1

and House 2. In the case of House 1, two retrofit scenarios have been

considered:

RI1

corresponds to window replacement, and

RI2

corresponds to window replacement and addition of thermal insulation

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Tabela 3. Przenikanie, wentylacja oraz całkowite straty ciepła

w domu nr 1 i domu nr 2. W przypadku domu nr 1 były rozważane

dwa scenariusze modernizacji:

RI1

– wymiana okien,

RI2

– wymiana okien z dodaną izolacją termiczną

(oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

Fig. 9. Air temperature in House 1 and House 2 from 16 to 23 March 2020

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 9. Temperatura powietrza w domu 1 i domu 2 od 16 do 23 marca 2020

(oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

72 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

parameter. When comparing buildings with markedly dier-

ent thermal mass, radiant temperature plays a decisive role.

The traditional house, with its higher thermal mass, demon-

strates less favourable performance under winter conditions

but oers potential benets for thermal comfort in summer,

particularly during the early part of the season.

Conclusions

The reuse of traditional architecture plays a pivotal role

in enhancing urban resilience and preserving cultural heri-

tage. This study contributes to that goal by expanding the

understanding of thermal performance in traditional build-

ings compared to contemporary counterparts of similar mor -

phology in a specic climate. The methodology, based on

long-term in situ monitoring of occupied dwellings, pro-

vides valuable insights into real-life thermal dynamics under

typical use conditions.

In a context where existing buildings, particularly tradi-

tional ones, often face intensive retrotting or demolition due

to economic pressures, this research underscores the contin-

Fig. 10. Measurements of air temperature and radiant temperature

from 10 to 12 February 2023: a) House 1, b) House 2;

the codes for the measured points are listed in Figure 2

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 10. Pomiary temperatury powietrza i temperatury promieniowania

w okresie 10–12 lutego 2023: a) dom nr 1, b) dom nr 2,

opis oznaczeń zgodny z il. 2

(oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

Fig. 11. Measurements of air temperature and radiant temperature

from 30 June to 2 July 2023: a) House 1, b) House 2;

the codes for the measured points are listed in Figure 2

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 11. Pomiary temperatury powietrza i temperatury promieniowania

w okresie 30 czerwca – 2 lipca 2023: a) dom nr 1, b) dom nr 2,

opis oznaczeń zgodny z il. 2

(oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

ued relevance and functional viability of traditional archi-

tecture when addressed through well-founded, context-sen-

sitive interventions. The ndings support the idea, aligned

with theories such as the rebound and prebound eects, that

the thermal performance gap between traditional and con-

temporary buildings may be narrower than often assumed.

The climatic context is fundamental, as the climate under

study is a temperate one, in which conditions are favourable

for living for much of the year. Therefore, the potential for

architecture reuse in this specic case is a relevant factor.

Throughout the monitoring period, both houses exhibit-

ed remarkably similar annual average indoor temperatures.

However, under unoccupied conditions, the contemporary

house proved more sensitive to external climatic variations,

with sharper thermal uctuations. In contrast, the traditional

house demonstrated greater thermal stability, attributed to its

higher thermal mass. Under occupied conditions, both hous-

es were strongly inuenced by user behaviour, including

ventilation practices, internal heat gains, and solar shading.

In this context, the dierences between the two construc-

tion systems are less pronounced. These nding emphasize

b b

a a

Adaptation and reuse of buildings 73

Fig. 12. Thermal images with the radiant temperature in the specified points of House 1 and House 2. Data acquisition: 12 February 2023

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 12. Obrazy termiczne z temperaturą promieniowania w określonych punktach domu nr 1 i domu nr 2. Data badania: 12 lutego 2023

(oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

Fig. 13. Thermal images with the radiant temperature in the specified points of House 1 and House 2. Data acquisition: 1 July 2023

(elaborated by J. Lopez-Besora)

Il. 13. Obrazy termiczne z temperaturą promieniowania w określonych punktach domu nr 1 i domu nr 2. Data badania: 1 lipca 2023

(oprac. J. Lopez-Besora)

74 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

the decisive role of occupants in shaping thermal perfor-

mance in architecture, rearming that user behaviour is as

critical as construction quality in determining real-world

outcomes. In fact, the study reveals the character of both

buildings: holiday residences with a social function and

a strong mediterranean character, which shape their beha-

viour, as observed in the monitoring results.

Beyond user inuence, construction systems and building

typology also played a key role. Despite the contemporary

house having components with lower thermal transmit

tance

(U-values), the overall transmission heat losses were com-

parable between the two dwellings. The traditional house

ompensates for a less insulated envelope with smaller win-

dows and compact design, whereas the contemporary house,

with larger glazed areas and greater façade exposure, ex-

periences higher heat losses. This contrast embodies diver-

gent design philosophies and reveals the distinct aesthetic

character of each architectural approach: traditional archi-

tecture emphasizes thermal performance through mass and

compactness, while contemporary architecture often prio -

ritizes formal expression and spatial openness achieved

through the use of thermally ecient materials.

Ultimately, this study contributes to the scientic under-

standing of thermal behaviour in traditional buildings in

Me diterranean context and highlights the importance of re-

trot strategies that respect and leverage the intrinsic charac-

teristics of existing structures. Rather than applying standard

solutions, adaptive reuse should be guided by real-life data

and contextual sensitivity to ensure both energy perfor-

mance and building preservation.

References

Akkurt, Gülden Gökçen, Niccolò Aste, Julien Borderon, et al. “Dynamic

Thermal and Hygrometric Simulation of Historical Buildings: Critical

Factors and Possible Solutions.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews 118 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109509.

Ascione, Fabrizio, Nicola Bianco, Rosa F. De Masi, Margherita Mastel-

lone, Gerardo M. Mauro, and Giuseppe P. Vanoli. “The Role of the

Occupant Behaviour in Aecting the Feasibility of Energy Refurbish-

ment of Residential Buildings: Typical Eective Retrots Compro-

mised by Typical Wrong Habits.” Energy and Buildings 223 (2020).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110217.

Aste, Niccolò, Adriana Angelotti, and Michela Buzzetti. “The Inuence

of the External Walls Thermal Inertia on the Energy Performance of

Well Insulated Buildings.” Energy and Buildings 41, no. 11 (2009):

1181–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.06.005.

Aste, Niccolò, Fabrizio Leonforte, Massimiliano Manfren, and Manlio

Mazzon. “Thermal Inertia and Energy Eciency – Parametric Sim-

ulation Assessment on a Calibrated Case Study.” Applied Energy 145

(2015): 111–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.084.

Avendaño-Vera, Constanza, Aner Martinez-Soto, and Valentina Marin-

cioni. “Determination of Optimal Thermal Inertia of Building Ma-

terials for Housing in Dierent Chilean Climate Zones.” Renewable

and Sustainable Energy Reviews 131 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.rser.2020.110031.

Calcerano, Filippo, Carlotta Cecchini, and Letizia Martinelli. “Numerical

Analysis of Passive Strategies for Energy Retrot of Existing Build-

ings in Mediterranean Climate: Thermal Mass and Natural Ventila-

tion Combination.” Sustainable Buildings 2 (2017): 4. https://doi.org/

10.1051/sbuild/2017003.

Callegaro, Nicola, Luca Endrizzi, Luca Zaniboni, and Rossano Albatici.

“Management of Indoor Thermal Conditions in Heavy and Lightweight

Buildings: An Experimental Comparison.” In Sustainability in Energy

and Buildings 2022, edited by J. Littlewood, R.J. Howlett and L.C.

Jain. Springer, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8769-4_24.

Caro, Rosana, and Juan José Sendra. “Evaluation of Indoor Environment

and Energy Performance of Dwellings in Heritage Buildings. The

Case of Hot Summers in Historic Cities in Mediterranean Europe.”

Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.scs.2019.101798.

Costa-Carrapiço, Inês, Javier Neila González, Rokia Raslan, and Carmen

Sánchez-Guevara. “Understanding the Challenges of Determining

Thermal Comfort in Vernacular Dwellings: A Meta-Analysis.” Jour-

nal of Cultural Heritage 58 (2022): 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

culher.2022.09.019.

de la Flor, Francisco José Sánchez, Enrique Ángel Rodríguez Jara, Álvaro

Ruiz Pardo, José Manuel Salmerón Lissén, and Maria Kolokotroni.

“Energy-Ecient Envelope Design for Apartment Blocks – Case

Study of a Residential Building in Spain.” Applied Sciences 11, no. 1

(2021): 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11010433.

De Wilde, Pieter. “The Gap Between Predicted and Measured Energy

Performance of Buildings: A Framework for Investigation.” Auto-

mation in Construction 41 (2014): 40–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.autcon.2014.02.009.

Delzendeh, Elham, Song Wu, Angela Lee, and Ying Zhou. “The Impact

of Occupants’ Behaviours on Building Energy Analysis: A Research

Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80 (2017):

1061–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.264.

Dervishi, Sokol, Frida Pashako, Xhenisa Dushaj, and Ina Osmani Der-

vishi. “Energy Performance Optimization of Traditional Housing in

Mediterranean Climate.” Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022):

103423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103423.

Di Perna, Costanzo, Francesca Stazi, Casalena, A. Ursini, and Marco

D’Ora zio. “Inuence of the Internal Inertia of the Building Enve-

lope on Summertime Comfort in Buildings with High Internal Heat

Loads.” Energy and Buildings 43, no. 1 (2011): 200–6. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.007.

Ding, Grace. “Demolish or Refurbish: Environmental Benets of Hous-

ing Conservation.” Construction Economics and Building 13, no. 2

(2013): 18–34. https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v13i2.3322.

Evola, Gianpiero, Luigi Marletta, Sukumar Natarajan, and Elisabettà Maria

Patanè. “Thermal Inertia of Heavyweight Traditional Buildings: Ex-

perimental Measurements and Simulated Scenarios.” Energy Procedia

133 (2017): 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.369.

Gagliano, Antonio, Francesco Nocera, Francesco Patania, Antonella Mo s-

chella, Maurizio Detommaso, and Gianpiero Evola. “Synergic Eects

of Thermal Mass and Natural Ventilation on the Thermal Behaviour

of Traditional Massive Buildings.” International Journal of Sustain-

able Energy 35, no. 5 (2016): 411–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786

451.2014.910517.

Gagliano, Antonio, Francesco Patania, Francesco Nocera, and Carmelo

Sign o rello. “Assessment of the Dynamic Thermal Performance of

Massive Buildings.” Energy and Buildings 72 (2014): 361–70. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.060.

Acknowledgements

This research was developed under the project PID2020-116036RB-I00,

funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.

Adaptation and reuse of buildings 75

Galatioto, Alessandra, Giuseppina Ciulla, and Roberto Ricciu. “An Over-

view of Energy Retrot Actions Feasibility on Italian Historical

Buildings.” Energy 137 (2017): 991–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.energy.2016.12.103.

Galvin, Ray. “Making the ‘Rebound Eect’ More Useful for Performance

Evaluation of Thermal Retrots of Existing Homes: Dening the

‘Energy Savings Decit’ and the ‘Energy Performance Gap.’” Ener-

gy and Buildings 69 (2014): 515–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en-

build.2013.11.004.

Giuliani, Marco, Gregor P. Henze, and Anthony R. Florita. “Modelling

and Calibration of a High-Mass Historic Building for Reducing the

Prebound Eect in Energy Assessment.” Energy and Buildings 116

(2016): 434–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.01.034.

Homann, Caroline, and Achim Geissler. “The Prebound-Eect in Detail:

Real Indoor Temperatures in Basements and Measured Versus Cal-

culated U-Values.” Energy Procedia 122 (2017): 32–7. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.301.

Isalgue, Antonio, Jordi Ortin, Vicenç Torra, and J. Viñals. “Heat Flux Calo-

rimeters: Dynamical Model by Localized Time Constants.” Anales de

Física 76 (1980): 192–6.

Lindberg, Ralf, Augustino Binamu, and M. Teikari. “Five-Year Data of

Measured Weather, Energy Consumption, and Time-Dependent Tem-

perature Variations Within Dierent Exterior Wall Structures.” Ener-

gy and Buildings 36, no. 6 (2004): 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.enbuild.2003.12.009.

Lopez-Besora, Judit, Antonio Isalgue, and Helena Coch. “Adaptation and

Reuse of Buildings: The Role of Radiant Temperature Distribution

as a Resilience Factor.” In PLEA 2024: (Re)Thinking Resilience.

Proceedings of 37

PLEA Conference, Sustainable Architecture and

Urban Design, edited by Barbara Widera, Marta Rudnicka-Bogusz,

Jakub Onyszkiewicz and Agata Woźniczka. PLEA Conference Foun-

dation, 2024.

Lopez-Besora, Judit, Antonio Isalgue, Helena Coch, and Isabel Crespo.

“Inuence of Mass and Insulation in Building Retrotting.” In In-

ternational Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture.

“PLEA-STGO-2022 Will Cities Survive?” Book of Proceedings. Vol. 1.

Online sessions. PLEA, 2022.

Malik, Jeetika, Ronita Bardhan, and Pradipta Banerji. “Rethinking Indoor

Thermal Comfort in the Era of Rebound and Pre-Bound Eect for

the Developing World: A Systematic Review.” Indoor Air 30, no. 3

(2020): 377–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12664.

Mariani, Silvia, Federica Rosso, and Marco Ferrero. “Building in Historical

Areas: Identity Values and Energy Performance of Innovative Massive

Stone Envelopes with Reference to Traditional Building Solutions.”

Buildings 8, no. 2 (2018): 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8020017.

Marincic, Irene. Respuestas térmicas dinámicas en edicios: control tér

mi co a través de la climatización natural. PhD diss., Universitat Poli-

tècnica de Catalunya, 1999.

Martín Ocaña, Silvia, Ignacio Cañas Guerrero, and Ignacio González Re-

quena. “Thermographic Survey of Two Rural Buildings in Spain.” En-

ergy and Buildings 36, no. 6 (2004): 515–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.enbuild.2003.12.012.

Martín, Silvia, Fernando R. Mazarrón, and Ignacio Cañas. “Study of Ther-

mal Environment Inside Rural Houses of Navapalos (Spain): The

Advantages of Reuse Buildings of High Thermal Inertia.” Construc-

tion and Building Materials 24, no. 5 (2010): 666–76. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.11.002.

Martínez-Molina, Antonio, Isabel Tort-Ausina, Soolyeon Cho, and José-

Luis Vivancos. “Energy Eciency and Thermal Comfort in Hi sto-

ric Buildings: A Review.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

61 (2016): 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.018.

Mousa, Wael A. Yousef, Werner Lang, and Waleed A. Yousef. “Simulations

and Quantitative Data Analytic Interpretations of Indoor-Outdoor

Temperatures in a High Thermal Mass Structure.” Journal of Build-

ing Engineering 12 (2017): 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.

2017.05.007.

Shi, Xing, Binghui Si, Jiangshan Zhao, et al. “Magnitude, Causes, and

Solutions of the Performance Gap of Buildings: A Review.” Sustain-

ability 11, no. 3 (2019): 937. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030937.

Slee, Ben, Tom Parkinson, and Richard Hyde. “Can You Have Too Much

Thermal Mass? Is There a Point at Which Adding Additional Mass

to a Space Will Not Reduce the Internal Diurnal Temperature Range

During Summer Beyond Its Current Range?” In Cutting Edge: 47

International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, ed-

ited by Marc A. Schnabel. ANZAScA, 2013.

Stazi, Francesca, and Federica Naspi. Impact of Occupants’ Behaviour on

Zero-Energy Buildings. Springer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

319-71867-5.

Stazi, Francesca, Cecilia Bongli, Elisa Tomassoni, Costanzo Di Perna,

and Placido Munafò. “The Eect of High Thermal Insulation on High

Thermal Mass: Is the Dynamic Behaviour of Traditional Envelopes

in Mediterranean Climates Still Possible?” Energy and Buildings

88 (2015): 367–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.056.

Stazi, Francesca, Elisa Tomassoni, Cecilia Bongli, and Costanzo Di

Perna. “Energy, Comfort and Environmental Assessment of Dier-

ent Building Envelope Techniques in a Mediterranean Climate with

a Hot Dry Summer.” Applied Energy 134 (2014): 176–96. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.023.

Stéphan, Emma, Richard Cantin, Antoine Caucheteux, Sihem Guernou-

ti, and Pierre Michel. “Experimental Assessment of Thermal Inertia

in Insulated and Non-Insulated Old Limestone Buildings.” Building

and Environment 80 (2014): 241–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.build-

env.2014.05.035.

Sunikka-Blank, Minna, and Ray Galvin. “Introducing the Prebound Eect:

The Gap Between Performance and Actual Energy Consumption.”

Building Research and Information 40, no. 3 (2012): 260–73. https://

doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.690952.

Timur, Barış Ali, Tahsin Başaran, and Başak İpekoğlu. “Thermal Retro-

tting for Sustainable Use of Traditional Dwellings in Mediterranean

Climate of Southwestern Anatolia.” Energy and Buildings 256 (2022):

111712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111712.

van den Brom, Paula, Arjen Meijer, and Henk Visscher. “Actual Energy

Saving Eects of Thermal Renovations in Dwellings – Longitudinal

Data Analysis Including Building and Occupant Characteristics.”

Energy and Buildings 182 (2019): 251–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.enbuild.2018.10.025.

Webb, Amanda L. “Energy Retrots in Historic and Traditional Build-

ings: A Review of Problems and Methods.” Renewable and Sustain-

able Energy Reviews 77 (2017): 748–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.rser.2017.01.145.

Streszczenie

Adaptacje i nowe funkcje użytkowe budynków:

jak tradycyjne i współczesne budynki zachowują współczynniki termiczne w warunkach rzeczywistych?

W przypadku zachowania odporności na zmiany klimatu w środowisku zurbanizowanym istotnym elementem jest znacząco zwiększający się

udział obiektów poddawanych adaptacjom i zmianom sposobów użytkowania w celu osiągnięcia współczesnych wymagań i standardów. Budyn-

ki tradycyjne mają odpowiednie znaczenie strategiczne i charakter, jednakże często nie odpowiadają współczesnym wymaganiom, chociaż ich

nieodłączne cechy mogą przyczynić się do przedłużenia ich okresu funkcjonowania. W przedstawionym badaniu zajęto się szczególnymi różnicami

pomiędzy tradycyjnymi i współczesnymi rozwiązaniami konstrukcyjno-architektonicznymi związanymi z termiką obiektu w bieżących, realnych

warunkach. Ciągłość badań temperatur została zebrana w ciągu trzech lat w dwóch wnętrzach budynków – jednego zbudowanego w tradycyjny

sposób, a drugiego zgodnie ze współczesnymi technikami budowlanymi – zarówno w okresach użytkowania, jak i braku tegoż i obejmowała badania

temperatur powietrza, promieniowania etc. Otrzymane rezultaty świadczą o tym, że różnice wynikające z systemów konstrukcyjnych są relatywnie

76 Judit Lopez-Besora, Helena Coch, Antonio Isalgue

małe, z użytkowaniem jako dominującym czynnikiem, z niemal ujednoliconym zachowaniem termicznym obu obiektów. Potwierdza to, że w klima-

cie śródziemnomorskim obiekty tradycyjnej architektury mogą osiągnąć wydajność cieplną porównywalną z wydajnością współczesnych konstruk-

cji, i podkreśla ich wartość jako elementu zachowującego zrównoważenie energetyczne.

Słowa kluczowe: budynki tradycyjne, monitoring, wydajność cieplna, temperatura promieniowania, modernizacja budynków