## 2 Methodology
### Case Study and Simulation  
This case study corresponds to an experimental prototype reproducing usual parameters in residential buildings (Figure 1) and based on other existing research studies on the subject [34,35]. The prototype is an intermediate floor so slabs and ceilings can be considered adiabatic and heat transfers between the interior and the exterior occur only through the external walls. Likewise, all rooms except for the stairwell were considered as air-conditioned zones, and the same setpoint temperatures were used in all of them. The thermal properties of the opaque elements are specified in Table 2. As for windows, a design with a thermal transmittance of 4.2 W/(m\({}^{2}\)K) and a constant solar heat gain coefficient of 0.6 was considered. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Setpoint Temperature [\({}^{\circ}\)C]**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(T_{rm}\) **= \(<10\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(10\leq T_{rm}\leq 30\)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\(T_{rm}\) **= \(>30\)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **HST** & **CST** & **HST** & **CST** & **HST** & **CST** \\ \hline Adaptive & 17.1 & 26.1 & 0.337\({}_{rm}+18.8-5\) & 0.337\({}_{rm}+18.8+4\) & 23.7 & 32.7 \\ Static & 20 \({}^{\circ}\) 23 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 25 \({}^{\circ}\) 26 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 20 \({}^{\circ}\) 23 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 25 \({}^{\circ}\) 26 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 20 \({}^{\circ}\) 23 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 25 \({}^{\circ}\) 26 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ \hline \hline \endWith respect to the loads schedule, data similar to previous research studies was used [21, 23, 35] (Table 3). All internal loads vary depending on the day of the week (weekdays and weekends). Regarding HVAC equipment, a Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) system is used for both heating and cooling, with a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 3.10 and an Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) of 3.00. The HVAC system did not include mechanical ventilation, and the airflow was set at a constant rate of 0.5 ac/h due to the infiltration of windows. The prototype was modelled using the software package EnergyPlus(r). All data regarding geometry, thermal properties and internal loads were input as specified in this section and were left unchanged, thus being considered control variables. The independent variables were the external temperature and relative humidity for each of the considered cities, as specified in the following sections; amongst the output variables that the software delivers, two of them were selected as dependent variables for this study: Energy consumption and thermal comfort levels, which are defined as follows. Energy consumption is the total energy consumption of the HVAC system over the period of 1 year to keep the operative temperature of a single apartment unit within the limits as per the static or the adaptive model (Table 1). Thermal comfort levels are assessed using the following categories: (i) Comfortable Hours, when the RMOT falls within the applicability limits of the adaptive comfort model and the operative temperature is also within the setpoint temperatures; (ii) Discomfortable Applicable Hot Hours, which are the hours in which the RMOT is within the applicability limits, but the operative temperature overcomes the CST; (iii) Discomfortable Applicable Cold Hours, which are the hours in which the RMOT is within the applicability limits, but the operative temperature is lower than the HST; (iv) Discomfortable Non-Applicable Hot Hours, which are the hours in which the RMOT overcomes the upper applicability limit; (v) Discomfortable Non-Applicable Cold Hours,  
Figure 1: Dwelling prototype. 3D plan (**a**) and schematic section (**b**).