## 3 Results and Discussion
### Use of Primary Energy Results by Window Shading System Characteristics  
Table 9 shows the results, in absolute terms, of primary energy consumption of cooling, according to the characteristics of the materials used in the window shading systems, differentiated for the eight studied orientations. The results are those for dwelling type SFH-1. For all shading system configurations, it can be seen that the primary energy \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Configuration** & **SFH-1** & **SFH-2** & **SFH-3** \\ \hline WFR1/GL1 & 30.31 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year) & 27.81 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year) & 32.22 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year) \\ WFR2/GL2 & \(-\)4.3\% & \(-\)4.2\% & \(-\)3.5\% \\ WFR2/GL3 & \(-\)12.6\% & \(-\)12.7\% & \(-\)12.5\% \\ WFR2/GL4 & 0.0\% & \(-\)0.3\% & \(-\)1.3\% \\ WFR3/GL2 & \(-\)3.5\% & \(-\)3.5\% & \(-\)2.6\% \\ WFR3/GL3 & \(-\)11.8\% & \(-\)12.3\% & \(-\)11.7\% \\ WFR3/CL4 & 0.3\% & 0.1\% & \(-\)0.4\% \\ WFR4/GL2 & \(-\)3.1\% & \(-\)3.2\% & \(-\)2.3\% \\ WFR4/GL3 & \(-\)11.4\% & \(-\)11.9\% & \(-\)11.4\% \\ WFR4/CL4 & 0.7\% & 0.3\% & \(-\)0.1\% \\ WFR5/GL2 & \(-\)2.0\% & \(-\)2.2\% & \(-\)1.9\% \\ WFR5/GL3 & \(-\)10.3\% & \(-\)10.8\% & \(-\)10.8\% \\ WFR5/GL4 & 0.0\% & \(-\)0.4\% & 0.4\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Variation in primary energy consumption of cooling by different window frame and glass types compared to the base case (WFR1/GL1). Figure 6: CO\({}_{2}\) emissions of cooling by window frame and glass type. consumption is higher for the case of the 'East' orientation. Table 10 shows the results for the variations relative to the base case (WSHA-1) of this energy consumption for all design configurations and orientations. For all orientations, the WSHA-5 shading system achieves the greatest relative reduction in demand with respect to the base case design. It can also be deduced that, regardless of the orientation, the WSHA-6 system always increases the energy demand of the base case. Figure 7 shows the results of the building's primary energy consumption for cooling differentiated by the type of WSHA system used. As with the WFR and GL configurations, the results shown are relative to the specific case of the 'East' orientation. The WSHA-6 system is the only one with which the primary energy consumption is higher than the base case system (WSHA-1), increasing by more than 6% for the SFH-1 and SFH-2 dwelling types and by almost 10% for SFH-3 (see Table 11). It follows that extreme shading systems can impede the transfer of heat generated in the dwelling itself from the inside to the outside, thus requiring a higher cooling energy. However, this primary energy consumption can be significantly reduced with the other WSHA systems studied. For the specific case of the WSHA-5 system, the primary energy consumption of cooling is minimal for all of the types of dwelling studied. The reductions with respect to the base case are 8.95, 7.97, and 8.02 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year), for dwelling types SFH-1, SFH-2, and SFH-3, respectively (see Figure 7). These reductions correspond to 29.5%, 28.7%, and 24.9% (see Table 11). Comparing the results of energy savings according to shading system type with those obtained previously in relation to the characteristics of the window frame and glass, it is concluded that the primary energy consumption of cooling is significantly more sensitive to the shading system installed in the window openings than to the type of frame and glass chosen for the windows.