## 3 The Case Study  
The reference building is located in a residential suburb of Pescara, Central Italy, and belongs to the social housing stock (Figure 1). Selected for being representative of an existing building without architectural quality but mostly present on the territory, it reflects the typical construction practice of the past, with no consideration of energy problems. The area is known for its Mediterranean climate, with mild winters and hot, sunny summers. According to the climate classification system developed by [PERSON] [50], the city has a humid subtropical climate denominated Cfa. The C group corresponds to \"Warm Temperate\" climates; the small letter f means \"fully humid\" and indicates the lack of a dry season, whereas the letter a corresponds to a \"hot summer\". The case study is a seven-storey reinforced concrete building characterised by a rectangular shape with 60.00 m and 12.00 m as its main dimensions. The interstorey height is 2.70 m, except for the ground floor, which is higher than the others (3.50 m). The garages and the entrance are on the ground floor, while residential apartments are on the upper levels. The building envelope does not comply with the current standard in the sector. The perimeter walls (0.33 m depth), in fact, do not present any insulation materials but only an air gap enclosed by two brickwork layers, with a total transmittance value (U) equal to 1.46 W/m\({}^{2}\)K. There are also 0.23 m thick walls placed to delimit the apartment from the staircase, and partitions (with 11 cm of depth) to subdivide each apartment into various thermal zones. Moreover, single glass windows with 3.78 W/m\({}^{2}\)K transmittance contribute to the building's inadequate performance, especially during the coldest months. Table 1 summarises the thermal properties of the building envelope. The building heating system involves the use of radiators with a seasonal Coefficient of Performance (COP) equal to 0.84 and natural gas as the source. Splits are installed to  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Building Component** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Material** \\ **(Outer to Inner)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **s** \\ **(m)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **1** \\ **(W/mK)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **U** \\ **(W/m\({}^{2}\)K)** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline  
cool the inner spaces and improve the inhabitants' comfort condition. The cooling COP is set equal to 1.40, and the source is electricity. The temperature setpoints for heating and cooling are, respectively, 22 \({}^{\circ}\)C (with 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C as the set-back temperature) and 28 \({}^{\circ}\)C in all thermal zones. The metabolic factor is set to 0.90 for the whole building, as well as for the clothing insulations, which is 0.50 clo for the summer season and 1.00 for the winter period. The model infiltration is considered to be constant and fixed at 0.70 ac/h. Table 2 depicts the input parameters, which vary according to the activity of the thermal zone. The influence of neighbouring buildings is taken into account by inserting, as block components, the closest structures that could shade the case study and, for the same reason, the balconies on the northwest facade are considered by placing external profiles. Figure 2 shows the main elevations of the elaborated energy model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Thermal Zone**} & **Occupation** & **Fresh Air** & **Illuminance** & **Schedule** \\  & **(People/m\({}^{2}\))** & **(I/s per Person)** & **(Lux)** & **(-)** \\ \hline Bedroom & 0.0229 & 10 & 100 & \\  & & & & \\ Bathroom & 0.0187 & 12 & 150 & \\  & & & & \\ Kitchen & 0.0237 & 12 & 300 & \\ \hline Storage Room & 0.0243 & 12 & 100 & \\  & & & & \\ Dining Room & 0.0169 & 10 & 150 & \\  & & & & \\ Circulation Area & 0.0196 & 10 & 100 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The main input parameters assigned to each thermal zone.