## 5 Results and Discussion
### Climate and Orientation Effect on Energy Performance  
Figure 13 gives the MUZA's energy needs for different locations in Croatia and relative differences with respect to Zagreb Maksimir for southern orientation of the main facade, all compared to the regulation requirements for NZEB for both continental and littoral climates (dashed lines). It can be seen that only the heating energy need \(Q^{\prime\prime}_{H,nd}\) for Gospic is negligibly higher than the technical regulations demand, while for all other locations, it is well under the demanded values. The cooling energy need \(Q^{\prime\prime}_{C,nd}\) complies with the regulations as well, even for the hottest city of Hvar. Due to the efficient heating and cooling system and PV system mounted on the roof of MUZA, \(E^{\prime\prime}_{del}\) and \(E^{\prime\prime}_{prn}\) are negative for all four climates, thus making the MUZA a net-positive building. One can see from Figure 13 that even though the heating energy need in Gospic is 19% higher than that of Zagreb Maksimir, the delivered energy for both of these cities is virtually the same (1% difference in favour of Gospic). This is due to the 46% lower cooling need in Gospic compared to Zagreb. In the cases of the littoral climates of Split Marjan and Hvar, both the delivered energy and the primary energy are significantly lower than in Zagreb Maksimir, which is due to the efficiency of the solar shading systems used, which reduce the cooling energy need. Figure 12: Delivered and primary energy use depending on the thermal bridge consideration approach. Orientation-dependent analysis was performed for the cases of the Zagreb Maksimir and Split Marjan climatic conditions, as representatives of the continental and littoral climates of Croatia for the four cardinal directions. Here, the main facade is the reference facade when analysing the building's orientation. Figure 14 gives the MUZA energy needs for different orientations of the building's main facade, all compared to the regulation requirements for NZEB for both the continental and littoral climates (dashed lines). It can be seen that \(\mathcal{Q}^{\prime\prime}{}_{H,nd}\) and \(E^{\prime\prime}{}_{prim}\) are well under the maximum requirements of the regulations for both continental and littoral climates, for all orientations. It can be noted that the solar shading designed for MUZA worked well for the southern orientation, while it manifested significantly higher solar gains for other orientations. It can be noticed that for Split, eastern and western orientation caused a 45% increase in solar gains, while northern orientation resulted in 18% higher solar gains. This  
Figure 13: MUZA energy performance: (**a**) in different locations for southern orientation of the main facade; (**b**) relative differences in respect to the Zagreb Maksimir climate. in turn caused the \(Q^{\prime\prime}_{C,nd}\) to exceed the regulation requirements for these three orientations in Split. The reasons for the increase in the case of eastern/western orientation can be found in the fact that the MUZA was not adequately protected from the incidence of energy during the lower sun positions in the east and west (morning and afternoon) during the entire year. The northern orientation resulted in an increase because of the smaller sliding doors on the back facade being freely exposed to the south solar gains, and the lack of textile overhang above these sliding doors. One can analyse the contribution of the overhang above the larger sliding doors on the main facade where it contributed to the decrease in the cooling energy need by 54%, and, in turn, the increase of heating energy needs by 17% in Zagreb Maksimir in the case of southern orientation, where the largest differences are noted. In the case of southern orientation in Split Marjan, it contributed to the decrease in \(Q^{\prime\prime}_{H,nd}\) by 28% and the increase in the \(Q^{\prime\prime}_{C,nd}\) by 39%.