ENERGY PERFORMANCE

ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION

OF GATED COMMUNITIES
IN GREATER CAIRO REGION,
EGYPT.

MOSTAFA ABDELLATIF MARCH 2018

Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization of
Gated Communities in Greater Cairo Region, Egypt.

by
Mostafa Nabil Abdellatif
B.Sc., Cairo University, 2012

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
in the
Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning (REAP) Program
HafenCity University

under the supervision of

Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Udo Dietrich
M. Sc. Gionatan Vignola

© 2018. Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in
accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation.


Acknowledgment

First of all, I thank god for his countless blessings, and my family for their continuous support.

This thesis would not have been possible unless for the supervision of Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Udo Dietrich and
M. Sc. Gionatan Vignola, from HafenCity University; who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted
the research. I am indebted to many of my colleagues from HafenCity University, for their continuous support
and encouragement throughout this research work. I would also like to thank Dipl.-Ing. Sonja Schlipf, for her
support with the scholarship application that made the field work of this thesis possible.

I owe my deepest gratitude to the family of the Architectural Department in Cairo University, in particular,
Prof.  Sahar Attia, for assistance with the conducted interview, by providing contacts and setting up the
meetings; and for her participation in the pilot survey.

I would also like to show my gratitude to Samcrete Developments, for giving me the permission to use their
project (Pyramids Heights Residences) as a case study in this thesis work, and providing the requested data. I
am also grateful to ARCHA Group for their support, by providing the prices of the optimization measures that
resulted in more accurate results of the cost benefit analysis conducted in this research work.

Finally, I would like to thank the 3 interviewees for their valuable insights, and everyone who participated by
any possible mean in the realization of this thesis work, and its credibility.

III


Declaration of Authorship

Surname: Abdellatif

First Name: Mostafa

Student ID: 6028954

Study Program: Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning (REAP)

I hereby declare that I have written this thesis with the title: Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization
of Gated Communities in Greater Cairo Region, Egypt without any help from others and without the use of
documents and aids other than those stated in this work, and that I have mentioned all used sources and cited
them correctly according to established academic citation rules.

Place and Date Author’s Signature

V


Abstract

Climate change has created a new set of economical, social, and environmental challenges all over the globe.
Developing countries are more prone to reach a crisis state due to their lack of the financial and technological
resources, as well as the proper expertise to adapt to climate change or mitigate its outcomes. As a developing
country, Egypt has been facing various threats; including an energy crisis in 2012 which led to several blackouts,
especially during the summer season. With a share of around 55% of the total electricity consumption in Egypt,
the residential sector suffered the most from this energy crisis.

In the 1990s, the concept of gated communities (GCs) was introduced to the urban settings of Greater Cairo
Region (GCR). The concept of GC became popular amongst the Cairenes, as it provided a better quality of life
in comparison to the chaotic and overpopulated city centers. In contrast to their popularity, GCs are highly
criticized academically, as they promote the spatial fragmentation of the city, exclusion of individuals, and
political withdrawal of the GC residences, as well as the municipalities.

This research work investigates the potential of converting the current GC model in GCR into a more sustainable
one, by applying a set of energy‑efficiency measures and energy production strategies, including district
cooling (DC). The research also conducts a cost benefit analysis (CBA) to evaluate the feasibility of applying these
measures -mainly by the developer- in the Egyptian context.

The results of this research show a high potential of creating an energy- and cost‑efficient GC model in GCR.
In the minimum optimization scenario, the results show a possible final energy balance of 26% of the original
model performance. Whereas the maximum optimization scenario resulted in a surplus of energy equivalent to
48% of the consumption of the original model. By trading‑off the implemented strategies based on their costs,
a possible return on investment (RoI) could be achieved between 8-15 years for the minimum optimization
scenario, and 2-12 years for the maximum scenario.

VII
  
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment III
Deceleration of Authorship V
Abstract VII
Table of Contents VIII
List of Tables XV
List of Figures XVI
Acronyms XIX
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction 4
1.1.1. Egypt today and the energy crisis............................................................................................................................................................4
1.1.2. The Urban Situation in Greater Cairo...................................................................................................................................................5
1.2. Problem Definition 6
1.2.1. The energy crisis in Egypt..............................................................................................................................................................................6
1.2.2. The role of the residential sector................................................................................................................................................................7
1.2.3. The gated communities’ dilemma............................................................................................................................................................7
1.2.4. Future risks................................................................................................................................................................................................................8
1.3. Research objectives 8
1.4. Research hypothesis 8
1.5. Research questions 9
1.5.1. Main Question.........................................................................................................................................................................................................9
1.5.2. Sub-questions...........................................................................................................................................................................................................9
1.6. Brief review of the research 10
1.6.1. Research main goals.........................................................................................................................................................................................10
1.6.2. Research approach.............................................................................................................................................................................................10
VIII
Table of Contents
1.6.3. Research contributions..................................................................................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.1. The notion of Gated Communities 14
2.1.1. The history of Gated Communities...................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2. The reemergence of GCs 16
2.3. The paradox of GCs as problematic urban domains 17
2.3.1. The spatial fragmentation...........................................................................................................................................................................17
2.3.2. The exclusion of individuals..................................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.3. Private governance and the political withdrawal..................................................................................................................... 18
2.4. Gated Communities in Egypt 19
2.4.1. The emergence of gated communities in Egypt..........................................................................................................................19
2.4.2. The characteristics of gated communities in GCR....................................................................................................................19
2.4.3. Energy aspects in gated communities................................................................................................................................................20
Chapter 3. Research Method
3.1. Scope of the Methods 24
3.2. Data Gathering 24
3.2.1. Literature................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
3.2.2. The survey-work................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
3.2.3. Interviews................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
3.2.4. The case study.......................................................................................................................................................................................................26
3.2.5. Building envelope..............................................................................................................................................................................................26
3.2.6. Building systems.................................................................................................................................................................................................26
3.2.7. Solar energy harvest systems.....................................................................................................................................................................26
3.2.8. Initial and running costs ............................................................................................................................................................................26
3.2.9. Electricity cost and selling prices...........................................................................................................................................................26
IX
 Table of Contents
3.3. The Case Study 30
3.3.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................................................30
3.3.2. Selection criteria..................................................................................................................................................................................................30
3.3.3. Site Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................................................................30
3.3.4. Design Considerations and Regulations...........................................................................................................................................30
3.3.5. Buildings Typologies.......................................................................................................................................................................................31
3.4. Energy Consumption 31
3.4.1. Modeling and simulation software......................................................................................................................................................31
3.4.2. The base model.....................................................................................................................................................................................................34
3.4.3. Verification of the base model..................................................................................................................................................................34
3.4.4. Building envelope optimization.............................................................................................................................................................35
3.4.5. Building orientation........................................................................................................................................................................................36
3.4.6. Systems and loads optimization..............................................................................................................................................................37
3.4.7. Layout optimization........................................................................................................................................................................................37
3.5. Energy Production 37
3.5.1. Roof-mounted PV system............................................................................................................................................................................37
3.5.2. Solar water heating system.........................................................................................................................................................................38
3.5.3. District cooling system..................................................................................................................................................................................38
3.6. GC energy balance 39
3.7. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) 39
3.7.1. Optimization Strategies.................................................................................................................................................................................39
Chapter 4. Energy Consumption
4.1. Base model simulation 44
4.1.1. Total energy consumption and EUI....................................................................................................................................................44
4.1.2. Building envelope.............................................................................................................................................................................................44
4.1.3. Building components and loads..............................................................................................................................................................45
X XI

Table of Contents
4.2. Simulation results verification 45
4.2.1. Results comparison...........................................................................................................................................................................................46
4.2.2. Reasons for results deviation.....................................................................................................................................................................46
4.3. Envelope optimization 47
4.3.1. The optimization models............................................................................................................................................................................ 47
4.3.2. The effect of wall and roof optimization on heating and cooling demand........................................................... 47
4.3.3. The effect of wall and roof optimization on the total energy consumption..........................................................48
4.3.4. The effect of transparent components optimization on the total energy consumption.............................49
4.4. Building orientation 49
4.5. Systems and loads optimization 49
4.5.1. HVAC system optimization.......................................................................................................................................................................50
4.5.2. Lighting and plug‑loads optimization...............................................................................................................................................50
4.6. Layout optimization 51
4.6.1. Plot distances......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51
4.6.2. Buildings density................................................................................................................................................................................................ 51
4.6.3. Buildings arrangement.................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
4.6.4. Arrangement orientation............................................................................................................................................................................52
Chapter 5. Energy Production
5.1. Roof-mounted PV modules 58
5.1.1. PV modules efficiency and coverage................................................................................................................................................... 58
5.1.2. PV modules in association with the energy consumption optimization strategies........................................ 58
5.1.3. Possible energy offset by building typology..................................................................................................................................59
5.2. Solar water heaters 59
5.2.1. DHW consumption estimation...............................................................................................................................................................59
5.2.2. System sizing.........................................................................................................................................................................................................60
5.2.3. Possible total energy reduction per building typology.........................................................................................................60
 Table of Contents
5.3. District cooling 61
5.3.1. Building typologies share allocation...................................................................................................................................................61
5.3.2. Total cooling load estimation...................................................................................................................................................................61
5.3.3. System specifications.......................................................................................................................................................................................61
5.3.4. Network assumptions and estimations.............................................................................................................................................62
5.3.5. Possible electricity demand reduction...............................................................................................................................................62
Chapter 6. Energy Balance
6.1. Total energy consumption 68
6.1.1. Possible energy consumption reduction..........................................................................................................................................68
6.2. Total energy production 68
6.2.1. Possible energy production.........................................................................................................................................................................68
6.2.2. Possible energy reduction through DC..............................................................................................................................................68
6.3. GC energy balance 69
Chapter 7. Cost-Benefit Analysis
7.1. Investment costs 74
7.1.1. Investment costs per optimization...................................................................................................................................................... 74
7.1.2. Investments costs per typology.............................................................................................................................................................. 74
7.1.3. Investments costs per scenario................................................................................................................................................................ 74
7.2. Electricity costs and revenues 75
7.2.1. Electricity prices and subsidies................................................................................................................................................................75
7.2.2. Electricity cost reduction and revenues............................................................................................................................................76
7.3. Break-even period 76
7.3.1. Break-even per typology...............................................................................................................................................................................76
7.3.2. GC collective break-even...............................................................................................................................................................................77
7.4. Possible return on investment 77
XII

Table of Contents
Chapter 8. Discussion & Conclusion
8.1. Significance of the results 82
8.1.1. GC total possible energy balance.............................................................................................................................................................82
8.1.2. Cost efficiency and possible RoI..............................................................................................................................................................82
8.1.3. Different possible scenarios........................................................................................................................................................................83
8.1.4. Implications for building codes and policies.................................................................................................................................84
8.1.5. Implications on the market value of GCs.........................................................................................................................................84
8.2. Contribution to existing research 85
8.2.1. Building energy sector.................................................................................................................................................................................... 85
8.2.2. From gated communities to sustainable communities........................................................................................................ 85
8.2.3. Contributions to the national goals......................................................................................................................................................86
8.3. Conclusion 88
8.3.1. Review of the purpose of the study....................................................................................................................................................... 88
8.3.2. Major findings......................................................................................................................................................................................................88
8.3.3. Implications of the findings.......................................................................................................................................................................89
8.3.4. Research critique................................................................................................................................................................................................89
8.3.5. GCs from problematic urban domains to sustainable communities..........................................................................89
References 90
Appendices
XIII

List of Tables

List of Tables
Table 1.1. The current population and the total area of the new cities in GCR..............................................................................5
Table 3.1. Simulation defaults. (Continue next page).....................................................................................................................................27
Table 3.2. Building regulations in Giza Governorate.....................................................................................................................................31
Table 3.3. Building Typologies Information. .......................................................................................................................................................35
Table 3.4. Simulation defaults of the roof mounted PV modules. .......................................................................................................37
Table 3.5. Simulation defaults of the solar water heating system. .......................................................................................................38
Table 3.6. DC Calculation Assumptions...................................................................................................................................................................39
Table 4.1. Simulated HVAC Systems..........................................................................................................................................................................49
Table 5.1. Electricity Prices for residential and commercial uses.........................................................................................................64
Table 6.1. Minimum and Maximum optimization strategies................................................................................................................68

XV
  
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Total final energy consumption in Egypt (Mtoe). [Retrieved] from: (IEA, n.d.)................................................ 4
Figure 1.2. Share of residential sector in the total final energy consumption (%). [Retrieved] from: (IEA, n.d.)..4
Figure 1.3. GCR population trend (20092052). [Adapted] from:(GOPP, 2012).................................................................................6
Figure 1.4. Natural gas consumption and production in Egypt (2016-2017). [Adapted] from: (CAPMAS, 2018b). author. 46
6 Figure 4.6. Number of AC units in residential units bigger than 200 Sq.m. Based on the survey conducted by
Figure 1.5. Share of energy consumption by sector. [Adapted] from: (EEHC, 2016)...................................................................7
Figure 1.6. Urban analysis of GCR. [Retrieved] from: (Harre-Rogers, 2006)................................................................................. 11
Figure 2.1. Characteristics of GCs.................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.2. Main critiques of gated communities.............................................................................................................................................17
Figure 2.3. The different typologies of GCs in the GCR. (a) High-end Gated Community Source: Sodic.com.
(b) Moderate Gated Community. Source: alrehabcity.com. (c) Affordable Gated Community. Source: www.
ashgarheights.com...................................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Figure 2.4. Location of gated communities in GCR. [Adapted] from (Almatarneh & Mansour, 2013; Ghonimi, El
Zamly, Khairy, & Soilman, 2011)..................................................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 3.1. Research Methodology. ..............................................................................................................................................................................25
Figure 3.2. Occupancy and lighting schedules. [Adapted] from: Elharidi, Tuohy, & Teamah, (2013).......................29
Figure 3.3. PHR Logo. [Retrieved] from: Samcrete Development (2017)..........................................................................................30
Figure 3.4. The Location of the case study. [Adapted] from: [Location of Pyramids Heights Residences], by
Google, n.d. Retrieved November 16, 2017.............................................................................................................................................................30
Figure 3.5. PHR Landuse allocation. Based on the data provided by the developer (Samcrete Development)... 30
Figure 3.6. Share of different building typologies. Based on the data provided by the developer (Samcrete
Development)...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................31
Figure 3.7. PHR layout (Left side) and layout analysis (Right side). Based on the data provided by the developer
(Samcrete Development). [Adapted] from: [Location of Pyramids Heights Residences], by Google, n.d. Retrieved
November 16, 2017...................................................................................................................................................................................................................32
Figure 3.8. Building envelope components as a ratio of the total BUA.............................................................................................34
Figure 3.9. Base model wall and roof constructions. .......................................................................................................................................34
Figure 3.10. Red clay bricks (10cm x 20cm) from the case study construction site.................................................................34
Figure 3.11. Project windows: double glazed window (right side) and single glazed windows (left side).................34
Figure 3.12. Surveyed residential unit typologies. Based on the survey work conducted by the author................ 35
Figure 3.13. Wall and roof construction optimization. ...............................................................................................................................36
XVI
List of Figures
Figure 3.14. Surveyed Water Heaters. Based on the survey work conducted by the author............................................ 38
Figure 4.1. Monthly energy consumption and Energy Use Intensity per building typology. ....................................44
Figure 4.2. Total annual energy consumption per building typology. ..........................................................................................44
Figure 4.3. Peak cooling and heating demand per envelope component. ......................................................................................45
Figure 4.4. Energy sources and energy use distribution. ...........................................................................................................................45
Figure 4.5. Winter and Summer EUI for the apartment typology in GCR. Based on the survey conducted by the
the author........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................46
Figure 4.7. Wall and roof optimization effect on peak heating and cooling loads. ............................................................... 47
Figure 4.8. Maximum wall and roof optimization effect on peak heat gains and losses. ...................................................48
Figure 4.9. Electricity demand reduction per envelope optimization. ............................................................................................48
Figure 4.10. Energy consumption reduction by optimizing the transparent components. ...........................................49
Figure 4.11. Building orientation effect on energy consumption reduction. .............................................................................49
Figure 4.14. Energy reduction by lighting load optimization. .............................................................................................................50
Figure 4.12. Possible energy reduction by improving the efficiency of the HVAC system. ...........................................50
Figure 4.13. Envelope and conditioned zones as a ratio of BUA. ..........................................................................................................50
Figure 4.15. Plug-load effect on total energy consumption. .....................................................................................................................50
Figure 4.16. Layout optimization effect on energy demand reduction. ......................................................................................... 51
Figure 4.17. The effect of building arrangement orientation on energy demand reduction per layout
optimization. ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................53
Figure 5.1. Solar radiation intensity in Egypt. [Retrieved] from: (Khalil, Mubarak, & Kaseb, 2010)......................... 58
Figure 5.2. Effect of PV efficiency and rooftop coverage on the total energy offset in each typology...................... 58
Figure 5.3. PV modules possible energy offset in association with consumption optimization strategies........... 59
Figure 5.4. Total possible energy offset by applying rooftop-mounted PV modules............................................................59
Figure 5.5. Daily and annual DHW consumption per typology............................................................................................................60
Figure 5.6. DHW peak consumption per typology..........................................................................................................................................60
Figure 5.7. Possible annual energy reduction by solar water heaters per typology.................................................................60
Figure 5.8. Building typologies share allocation for DC estimations.................................................................................................61
Figure 5.9. Typologies’ estimated cooling load per unit area....................................................................................................................61
Figure 5.10. Total estimated cooling demand......................................................................................................................................................61
Figure 5.11. The energy demand of the DC chillers..........................................................................................................................................62
Figure 5.12. DC service area per building typology..........................................................................................................................................62
Figure 5.13. DC Network illustration; ETS allocation and network length estimation.......................................................63
XVII
 List of Figures 

Figure 5.14. Comparison between the electricity demand of DC and the reference case....................................................64
Figure 5.15. Possible total electricity reduction by converting to DC................................................................................................64 Acronyms
Figure 6.1. Energy consumption share per building typology...............................................................................................................69
Figure 6.2. GC possible energy consumption reduction..............................................................................................................................69
Figure 6.3. Energy production share per building typology....................................................................................................................69 AC Air Conditioner
Figure 6.4. GC possible total energy production................................................................................................................................................69
Figure 6.5. DC energy consumption share per building typology........................................................................................................69 CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
Figure 6.6. GC total possible energy reduction through DC......................................................................................................................69 DC District Cooling
Figure 6.7. GC final energy balance..............................................................................................................................................................................70
DHW Domestic Hot Water
Figure 7.1. Investment costs per optimization strategy.............................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 7.2. Total investment costs per optimization scenario............................................................................................................... 74 EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Figure 7.3. Total investment costs per building typology..........................................................................................................................75 EEHC Egyptian Electricity Holding Company
Figure 7.4. Electricity costs and revenues per building typology (2017-2021)............................................................................75
Figure 7.5. Total electricity costs per optimization scenario (2017-2021).......................................................................................76 EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
Figure 7.6. Total electricity cost reduction per optimization scenario (2017-2021)................................................................76 EGP Egyptian Pound
Figure 7.7. Break‑even period per building typology....................................................................................................................................77
EgyptERA Egyptian Electric Utility and Consumer Protection Regulatory Agency
Figure 7.8. GC collective break‑even period per optimization scenario...........................................................................................77
Figure 7.9. Return on Investment (RoI) per optimization scenario for a time span of 20 years.....................................77 EREC Egyptian Residential Energy Code
Figure 8.1. GC final energy balance by optimization scenario................................................................................................................82 ETS Energy Transfer Station
Figure 8.2. Electricity cost reduction per scenario...........................................................................................................................................82
Figure 8.3. Collective electricity savings per optimization scenario..................................................................................................83 EUI Energy Use Intensity
Figure 8.4. Ratio of investment costs per optimization strategy..........................................................................................................83 GBS Green Building StudioTM
Figure 8.5. Development vision of Egypt’s National Plan 2052. [Retrieved] From: (GOPP, 2012)................................86
GC Gated Community
Figure 8.7. GCR 2027 development vision. [Retrieved] from: (GOPP, 2012).................................................................................87
Figure 8.6. Electricity consumption versus GDP. [Adapted] from: (World Bank Group, 2014).....................................87 GCR Greater Cairo Region
GOPP General Organization for Physical Planning
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IEE Intelligent Energy Europe
MEGP Million Egyptian Pound
Mio Million
MOEE Ministry of Energy and Renewable Energy
XVIII XIX
 Acronyms

NEEAP National Energy Efficiency Action Plan

NDA Non-disclosure Agreement
NUCA New Urban Communities Authority
PEF Primary Energy Factor
PHR Pyramids Heights Residences
RESCUE Renewable Smart Cooling in Urban Europe
RoI Return on Investment
WWR Window Wall Ratio

XX
Chapter 1.

INTRODUCTION
 Introduction Introduction

1.1. Introduction the problem (Attia, Evrard, & Gratia, 2012). However, no consideration was given to reform and regulate the Table 1.1. The current population and the total area
of the new cities in GCR.
building energy sector (Attia et al., 2012). In 2004, the United Nations Developing Programme (UNDP) funded
Nowadays, the world is facing multiple crises -economically, socially and environmentally- due to climate Egypt to develop a residential energy standard, which was completed in 2005 (Attia et al., 2012). In addition, City Population Area (Feddan) Area (Km2)
change. Developing countries are more susceptible to climate change, as they -usually- lack the financial and Egypt has developed a building energy code, yet, it is not enforced by the law.
6th of October 1.5 Mio 119,000 499.80
technological resources, as well as the proper expertise to adapt to climate change or mitigate its outcomes
(Abouleish, Keitel, & Boes, n.d.). 1.1.2. The Urban Situation in Greater Cairo 10th of Ramadan 650,000 94,761.9 398.00

15 of May
th
250,000 320 1.34
Egypt is no exception to the rest of the world. As a developing country, Egypt is highly vulnerable to climate Since the 1980s, big cities in developing countries –like the metropolitan area of Greater Cairo- have suffered Al-Obour 303,000 16,000.2 67.20
change, and consequently, facing various economic, social, and environmental threats (Abouleish et al., n.d.). The from the rapid growth in population and urbanization (A. Hassan, 2011). As a consequence of the exploding
Al-Sheikh Zayed 233,000 10,386.75 43.62
rapidly growing population and demand, in addition to the finite resources, are fueling up multiple pressures; population, the living conditions in Greater Cairo Region (GCR) have deteriorated, which resulted in an increase
such as energy security, water security, food security, increasing unemployment rates, growing poverty gap, Figure 1.1. Total final energy consumption in Egypt in demand for land (A. Hassan, 2011). In the 1950s, master plans were laid out envisioning new self-contained Al-Shorouq 170,000 16,000.11 67.20
and increasing financial demand (Abouleish et al., n.d.). These pressures threaten a possible crisis situation if not (Mtoe). [Retrieved] from: (IEA, n.d.). cities outside of Cairo to reorient the urban growth (Harre-Rogers, 2006). This vision was reaffirmed later in the New Cairo 15,000 70,580 296.44
tackled quickly and decisively (Abouleish et al., n.d.). 1970s by the new towns’ program as a counter strategy to face the increasing number of informal settlements TOTAL 3,121,000 327,047 1373.60
(Harre-Rogers, 2006).
Source: (NUCA, n.d.).
1.1.1. Egypt today and the energy crisis

Egypt is ranked the 14th most populated country in the world (World Bank Group, 2016). With more than
96 Mio inhabitants -mostly concentrated in the metropolitan area of Greater Cairo (CAPMAS, 2018a), the
Egyptian government is struggling with its limited resources and aged infrastructure to provide stable and
Within a few decades, and in an attempt to decongest the
GCR metropolis, the new satellite cities -6th  of  October,
Sheikh Zayed, and the new eastern settlements comprising
the New Cairo- have transformed the GCR from a set of
“ Gated housing communities have

increasingly become a profitable segment in

reliable public services (Mostafa, 2014). The energy sector is not an exception. In 2012, and as a result of a rapid remote scattered villages into a planned region of residential
increase in demand (see Figure 1.1), the shortage in electricity generation has reached 4 000 MW (Mostafa, and commercial land-uses (Almatarneh, 2013). Currently, the real estate market and also provide a new
2014). This shortage has resulted in several blackouts, especially during the summer season (Mostafa, 2014). Figure 1.2. Share of residential sector in the total final the satellite cities of the GCR is hosting more than 3 million
Consequently, Egypt has been suffering from an energy crisis since then (Mostafa, 2014). energy consumption (%). [Retrieved] from: (IEA, n.d.). residents (see Table 1.1). marketing angle for developers as offering “
The growing urban population in addition to the economic growth, have led to a relative improvement of the In the mid-1990s, the Egyptian government shifted towards security, status/prestige, and lifestyle
living standards among the Egyptians (Attia & Evrard, 2013). By adding the long hot summers to the factors, the privatization of urban development. Due to the socio-
result was a rapid increase in the energy demand of the residential sector (Attia & Evrard, 2013). The growing cultural and economic changes related to globalization, the (Almatarneh, 2013).
demand of the residential sector which represented around 22% of the total final consumption in 2015 (see development of planned gated residential communities has
Figure 1.2) - is one of the main reasons behind the power shortage, it is also the most affected sector by the power spread throughout the major Egyptian cities including the
cuts. The government policies did not help either. The heavily subsidized domestic energy costs escalated the GCR (Almatarneh, 2013). Nowadays, there are over than
problem and led to an inefficient energy use in the residential sector (Attia & Evrard, 2013). a hundred privately planned gated-communities in the
outskirts of the GCR (Almatarneh, 2013).
The magnitude of the problem drove the Egyptian government to consider new sources of energy to meet
the increasing demand. Consequently, the government considered nuclear energy as a central solution to
4 5
 Introduction Introduction

1.2. Problem Definition GCR Population Trend 1.2.2. The role of the residential sector Electricity Consumption by
Sector
40

GCR Population (Mio)

The Egyptian development plans are subjected to several challenges -economic, social, and environmental, 35
33.5 As shown in Figure 1.5, the residential sector is responsible for around 54.9% of the total electricity consumption
Public Lighting 4.0%
which not only can hinder the progress of the development plans but also pose a threat of potential national in Egypt (EEHC, 2016). As a result, it was one of the most affected sectors by the energy crisis. Additionally,
30 26.8 Agriculture 4.5%
crises. Still, the biggest challenge facing Egypt nowadays is the rapid population growth, which is expected the residential sector is considered the fastest growing sector in electricity consumption This is mainly due to
25 Commercial 6.1%
to be doubled within the next 40 years (GOPP, 2012). The magnitude of this rapid growth in addition to the the growing market of residential compounds and new communities, as well as the widespread use of domestic
Others 7.3%
inappropriate planning led to the concentration of the population in the metropolitan area of the capital; 20
15.8 16.2
appliances -especially air conditioners during the summer months (Elrefaei & Khalifa, 2014).
Governmental
Greater Cairo region (GCR). 15 9.1% Residential 54.9%

10
In the recent years, the government has been addressing the energy consumption problem in the residential
Industry
The government realized early the problem and started working on a new master plan for Cairo. The plan sector. Many development plans -such as the NEEAP- have focused on lowering the household electricity 14.1%
5
indicated that Cairo’s growth has reached the city’s “carrying capacity”, and that the excess population should demand throughout promoting efficient lighting and SWH. In addition, the government developed an energy
0
be redirected to four satellite cities; as shown in Figure 1.6, two in the eastern desert and the other two in the 2009 2012 2027 2052
efficiency code for residential and commercial buildings in 2006. However, all these efforts have not yet been
western desert (Sims & Abu-Lughod, 2010). However, the developed model of satellite cities did not prove to be Year proven successful in lowering the residential demand.
successful, or at least to meet the expectation of decongesting the city. Consequently, the new GCR development Figure 1.3. GCR population trend (2009‑2052). [Adapted]
from:(GOPP, 2012).
plan that was developed in 2012- indicated that GCR is subjected to a population growth that can reach 33.5 Mio 1.2.3. The gated communities’ dilemma Figure 1.5. Share of energy consumption by sector.
[Adapted] from: (EEHC, 2016).
inhabitant by 2052 (See Figure 1.3).
Natural Gas Consumption and GCs have managed to draw the attention of the Cairenes by offering them a better quality of life that they
Production in Egypt (2016-2017)
1.2.1. The energy crisis in Egypt lack in the dense chaotic city center. Along with the informal settlements, GCs has played an active role in the
4000

Energy (x1000 tons)

3472 privatization of the urban development. The GC model has been proven successful in the real‑estate market
3500 3144
Egypt is considered one of the eleven fastest growing GHG emitters in the world (EBRD, 2017), with an economy 3120 amidst a lack of public housing, and the sharp increase in land prices (Harre-Rogers, 2006). Although, they have
3000 2734
that is six times more energy intensive than the EU28 average (EBRD, 2017). The growing population, as well been heavily criticized by academics and planners around the globe.
as the improper consumption of resources, led to a high energy demand that was not met by the national 2500

production. Consequently, and since 2010, Egypt became a net oil importer from outside its national land 2000 Researchers have been debating the effect of the spread of GCs on the cohesion and integrity of the society and
(Elrefaei & Khalifa, 2014). The natural gas situation is not any better. As shown in Figure 1.4, the national 1500 the urban morphology. GCs are accused of increasing the spatial fragmentation of the city, promoting the
production of natural gas cannot satisfy any longer the increasing demand (CAPMAS, 2018b). 1000 exclusion of individuals, and the political withdrawal of GC residents and local municipalities. Even though the
500 marketing strategy of GCs depends mainly on promoting a better quality of life, it does not necessarily promote
The limited participation of the private sector in public utilities -especially the energy sector- led to irregular 0 a sustainable way of living (Almatarneh & Mansour, 2013). There has not yet emerged a model that promotes
2016 2017
or low-quality service provision (EBRD, 2017). Moreover, the public utilities suffer from several constraints sustainability and energy efficiency within GCs.
Production Consumption
-such as subsidies, low tariffs and a lack of incentives- that hinder their operational and financial sustainability
(EBRD, 2017). As a result, the electricity sector started to suffer from the depletion of natural gas -the major Figure 1.4. Natural gas consumption and production in
Egypt (2016-2017). [Adapted] from: (CAPMAS, 2018b).
fuel source for power generation in Egypt (Elrefaei & Khalifa, 2014). In 2012, the national electricity shortage
reached 4 000 MW due to the increasing demand, which resulted in several blackouts -especially during the
summer season (Mostafa, 2014).
6 7
 Introduction
1.2.4. Future risks
Accompanying the rapidly growing population, there is a growing demand for housing. As a result, the urban
situation is being driven towards informality and GCs. This widens the gap between classes and promotes
segregation and political withdrawal. If not tackled, this gab could grow out of control. The implications on
the energy sector could be fatal, as it is difficult to regulate the growing informal housing sector, whereas the
current GC model is promoting a higher energy consumption -mainly due to the improved standards of living,
along with the low urban‑densities- which would require a longer and more stable grid.
1.3. Research objectives
The main objective of this research is to explore the potentials of the current model of GCs to become more
sustainable. The research defines the problems within the current model and attempts to provide a more
sustainable alternative based on the three pillars of sustainability; environmental, social, and economic.
The focus of the research is primarily the energy efficiency aspect of the GC, and how to reach an energy efficient
model not only on the building level but also on the urban level. This is achieved by analyzing the current
energy situation and optimizing it accordingly. The optimizations cover the energy consumption reduction,
potential energy production, and the final energy balance of the individual buildings as well as the whole GC.
Generally, the main goal is to reach an energy efficient GC. Yet, in order to reach not only an energy efficient
but also a sustainable model, the research also investigates the social, urban, and governmental impacts of
the existing model, as well as inspecting the cost efficiency of transforming it into an energy efficient model.
Additionally, it reflects the results on the national and regional goals in Egypt, and their implications on the
status quo.
1.4. Research hypothesis
Despite the socio-cultural segregation that the notion of gated-communities indirectly represents, it carries a
great potential for the development of regulated sustainable communities. The limited expansion in addition to
the monitored planning and construction, as well as the high-quality standards that the real‑estate developers
8 9
Introduction
are using as a marketing strategy, can be the drive to create well-planned and monitored energy efficient
residential settlements.
By dimensioning the new-development residential settlements based on the actual energy consumption of
the residents and the potential power production within the settlement, a set of criteria can be developed to
illustrate the size and characteristics of the new residential settlements based on their energy performance.
This set of criteria can be integrated later on into the national law and building regulations to lower the energy
consumption of the residential sector and regulate the use of renewables and other power sources in small and
medium-scale residential developments.
1.5. Research questions
The study is an attempt to answer a set of questions regarding dimensioning an energy-efficient residential
settlement in the new cities of the GCR based on the current model of gated communities (GC) in Egypt.
1.5.1. Main Question
What are the appropriate design criteria for gated communities –in terms of urban density, energy
consumption, power production, and cost efficiency- that can be achieved in the GCR with the current locally
available technologies in order to be considered as an energy-efficient settlement?
1.5.2. Sub-questions
1. What are the strategies that can be considered to lower the demand of the residential building sector?
2. Which building arrangement and building density would provide the lowest energy demand without
compromising the ratio between the different land-uses within the settlement?
3. What are the power sources that can be used locally within the settlement to decrease the national
grid input?
4. Which combination of power sources would provide maximum power production within the
settlement?
5. What is the possible energy balance that could be achieved by optimizing the current GC model?
 Introduction Introduction

1.6. Brief review of the research

The research is an attempt to reach a sustainable development model in the Egyptian context based on
the existing GC model. The focus of the research is the energy performance optimization of the GC and its
contribution to national and regional development plans.

1.6.1. Research main goals

The research aims to lower the impact of the residential sector on the national energy sector by providing an
energy efficient model of residential settlements based on the common GC design. This is achieved by lowering
the energy demand of the GC, utilizing the on-site energy production potentials, and creating a balance between
the investment costs of the optimization strategies and the final energy balance of the GC.

1.6.2. Research approach

GCs have been proven a successful investment model in the Egyptian real‑estate market, as they provide what
the city lacks, and what the people need; a better quality of life for its residents. Many research works have
tackled the energy performance optimization of the residential sector in Egypt. However, the main problem
has always been the high initial cost of investment, which is usually unaffordable by the users. Accordingly, the
research is utilizing the investment potentials of the GC as well as the added value of the optimized model, in
order to promote and spread a more efficient use of energy throughout the residential sector.

1.6.3. Research contributions Greater Cairo Region

Informal Settlements
The results of this work contribute to the academic field, as well as the practical field. Academically, the results
tackle the energy efficiency of the residential sector on both building and urban scales, which illustrates the Formal Areas
effect of different optimization strategies not only on the energy consumption of the individual buildings but New Towns
also the collective energy performance of the settlement.
City Core
The study explores the optimization strategies based on their availability in the Egyptian market. This provides
Agricultural Area
the developers with a more reliable set of results and a more feasible implementation strategy. Finally, this
research contributes to the national development goals as well as the GCR development strategy to achieve a Desert Land
lower and more stable energy demand, as well as a more sustainable energy production for the future generations
Governorate Boundaries
(GOPP, 2012).
10 11
Ring Road

Figure 1.6. Urban analysis of GCR. [Retrieved] from: (Harre-Rogers,

2006)
Chapter 2. GCs is a worldwide phenomenon that has long existed before it was reintroduced in its modern form of

LITERATURE
real‑estate residential settlements. It has managed to adapt to its contextual needs throughout different times
periods while maintaining its key characteristics. GCs have provided the academic world with a fertile field to
explore the extent of the notion and its definition. Researchers have been trying to identify the phenomenon

REVIEW
and its influence on modern cities and societies. Nevertheless, when it comes to GC, the academic world still
could not reach a consensus. A wide range of factors –both positive and negative- have been associated with GCs,
yet, some of them can be identified as influential.

The following section is addressing the literature that has been written on GCs. The section covers the notion
and its extent, traces the history of GCs, explores the modern discourse, and identifies the key controversial
points that are associated with the modern GCs.

2.1. The notion of Gated Communities
Over the past 30 years, modern cities have been
subjected to a domination by privatized spaces, which
influenced a change in both the use of spaces and the
nature of the urban society (Lemanski, 2010). This
domination has been manifested in different forms,
including the form of GCs. The phenomenon of
GCs has been widely spotted in regions with diverse
cultures and urban history, such as Australia, Eastern
and Western Europe, China, South Africa, Southeast
Asia, and the Arab world (Lemanski, 2010).
In 1997, Edward J. Blakely and Mary Gail Snyder
addressed the issue of GCs in their book ‘Fortress
America’, in which they charted the modern rise of
GCs in the United States. The book shed the light on
the issue of GCs, which was reflected on the academic
and political discourse in the late 1990s (Lemanski,
2010). Since the modern discourse of the GC has
begun in the United States, it is usually mistaken
as an American trend that has spread all over the
world due to globalization. However, the notion and
practice of GCs have a much longer and wider history
that is related to the local context (Lemanski, 2010).
This argument is discussed later on by reviewing the
history of the GCs.
Notion wise, there have been numerous attempts to
identify the extent of the GC’s terminology. Some
academics tried to extend the definition beyond
the physical boundaries, to include the economic,
social, and symbolic aspects as well. Nevertheless,
the majority of the literature work is adopting the
14
definition that was introduced by Blakely and
Snyder. Consequently, they identify the term ‘Gated
Community’ through its physical boundaries, in
addition to the dominant security aspect associated
with it. For example, Lemanski defines GCs by
“ their physical attributes: a perimeter enclosure (e.g., electrified fence, wall), surveillance (e.g., CCTV, security
patrols), and access control (e.g., boomgate, security gatehouse). In other words, gated communities inhabit
spaces that are closely restricted, monitored, and controlled; they are reserved exclusively for residents and their
appointed guests, with no access for uninvited outsiders (2010, p. 289).
Similarly, Atkinson and Blandy emphasized the
role of physical boundaries and the security aspect
by comparing the modern GCs to their ancestors
as “The club good of security and neighborhood
services represented by gated communities resemble
new medieval city-states wherein residents pay dues
and are protected, literally as their ‘citizens’.” (p. 185)
However, Atkinson and Blandy –in order to avoid
the confusion regarding the extent of the notion-
suggested to include the social and legal framework,
since they represent a central feature of the GCs.
Undoubtedly there are other forms of ‘Gating’ –such
as suburban areas with booms along private roads,
housing estates with buffer zones, and even cul-de-
sacs - that can be recognized in the surrounding built
environment, which also promote the exclusion
of the unwanted through defensible spaces and
boundaries (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). However,
Literature Review
the physical structure of gates and walls, alongside
the socio-legal agreements that are associated with
the enclosed space, provide a stronger statement
of exclusion within a legal­‑framework that is
supported by law and accepted by the authorities.
“
This highlights other major concerns such as
“freedom of access to the wider city, social inclusion
and territorial justice” (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).
This issue has manifested in recent studies, which
accentuate the private and/or collective governance
mechanisms in the definition of GC over its physical
boundaries (Lemanski, 2010). Therefore, in addition
to its physical characteristics, the GC can also be
defined by the collective responsibility that is shared
among its residents, which is regulated through a set
of covenants and binding legal agreements (Atkinson
& Blandy, 2005).
To conclude, most of the definitions illustrate a
residential development –it may also include other
amenities and leisure facilities- with restricted public
access. This restriction is usually represented in gates,
booms, walls, and fences; in some cases, it also includes
Literature Review
security staff or CCTV systems or both (see Figure 2.1).
Within this exclusive development, the residents
share a collective responsibility for the management
of the enclosed space regulated by a legal framework.
2.1.1. The history of Gated Communities
The concept of gated or walled cities existed long
before it was reintroduced in its modern form in the
United States. The first evidence of GCs can be traced
all the way back to 300 B.C. in England (Almatarneh,
2013). These early settlements were built by the
Roman to host the soldiers and their families, around
which they erected walls to protect against invaders
or internal warring factions (Almatarneh, 2013).
Almatarneh (2013) explained that during medieval
and Renaissance times, walls and gates were used
as well for protection during times of siege and
pestilence. In addition, they represented a defined
boundary, which made it easier to charge taxes at the
tollgates. She also argued that this defined boundary
–usually surrounding an entire town or a village-
emphasized a sense of unity among the citizens.
In China, Low (2006) demonstrated that GCs are
traditionally found in the form of enclosed workunit
territories (dan wei). They also can be found in
villages and urban neighborhoods in the form of
walled lowrise courtyard houses and residential
neighborhoods (as cited in Le Goix & Webster, 2008).
During the Islamic empire era, gates and walls
were considered as key characteristics of the cities.
Urban studies characterize the Islamic cities by the
socio‑spatial and material fragmentation of urban
patterns (Almatarneh, 2013). This fragmentation
is illustrated in the use of gates, not only around
the city but also in the small alleys ‘Harat’ (Larice &
Macdonald, 2013). The restricted access to the alleys
created a unique fragmented sense of community
within the same city (Almatarneh, 2013; Larice &
Macdonald, 2013).
Foldvary (1994), as well as Mckenzie (1994),
demonstrated that private governance was first
introduced in European cities amid the 19th century.
During which, the European bourgeoisie found a
sanctuary from the city busy life in the privately
operated and enclosed suburban neighborhoods (as
cited in Le Goix & Webster, 2008; McKenzie, 1994).
The first purely residential modern GC can be traced
to the second half of the 19th century in the United
States during the era of robber barons, during which
the richest tried to protect themselves from the hoi
polloi (Almatarneh, 2013). According to Jackson (1985),
the first modern GC in the United States is probably
Haskell’s Llewellyn Park, which has been operated as
a guesthouse and a private police force since 1854 (as
cited in Le Goix & Webster, 2008). He also stated that
the property introduced private governance of shared
amenities based on covenants, which maintained the
homogeneity within the neighborhood (as cited in Le
Goix & Webster, 2008).
GCs stayed exclusive for the richest till the 1960s
and 1970s, when the master-planned retirement
developments got popular (Almatarneh, 2013). The
concept of gates was then realized in resorts and country
club communities promoting exclusivity, as well as
in the middle-class subdivisions (Almatarneh, 2013).
In the 1980s, the concept was developed beyond
exclusivity to promote prestige and leisure, which
was manifested in the development of GCs around
golf courses (Almatarneh, 2013).
Caldeira (2000) describes the spread of the concept
of GCs to Latin America in the 1970s, as the middle
and upper-income classes started spreading to the
suburban areas, which till that time were occupied by
lowerincome groups (as cited in Le Goix & Webster,
2008).
Unlike the Americas, other regions adopted the
concept of GC as a mean of segregation –as in the
case of South Africa amid the apartheid time, or as a
mean of protection during war times. For instance,
during the civil war in Lebanon, gating provided a
solution, as the government was not able to provide
any personal or property security (Le Goix & Webster,
2008).
Homogeneous
Community
Common
Services / Amenities
Security
(Walls)
Restricted Access
(Gates)
Figure 2.1. Characteristics of GCs.
15
 Literature Review Literature Review

2.2. The reemergence of GCs Taiwanese government has the authority to insist on
homeowner associations as a mean of governance in
Oscar Newman (1978) –in an attempt to find a solution new developments (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).
to the rising disorder in American cities- claims that:
In addition to providing a sense of security and being
2.3. The paradox of GCs as problematic
urban domains
Atkinson and Blandy debated that:

“ Architectural design can make evident by the physical layout that an area is the shared extension of the private realms of a group of individuals. For one group to be able to set
a source of revenue for the municipalities, GCs are
considered popular among the people. They offer
proximity to the services of the city; such as schools,
“ Gated communities represent a desire for accentuated positive freedoms (the ability ‘to do’ something) but

“
the norms of behavior and the nature of activity possible within a particular place, it is necessary that it have clear, unquestionable control over what can occur there. Design shopping centers, and employment opportunities; which hinder the negative freedoms of others (the ability to be ‘free from’ something, such as increased crime
while keeping themselves detached from the less
can make it possible for both inhabitant and stranger to perceive that an area is under the undisputed influence of a particular group, that they dictate the activity taking place desirable realities of the city (Lemanski, 2010). Not displaced by the presence of a GC) in adjacent neighbourhoods (2005, p. 180).
only that, GCs also offer a sense of community within
within it, and who its users are to be. This can be made so clearly evident that residents will not only feel confident, but that it is incumbent upon them to question the comings a group of likeminded people, who share interests
and socially mirror their own aspirations (Atkinson Although GCs are considered as family sanctuaries 2.3.1. The spatial fragmentation
and goings of people to ensure the continued safety of the defined areas. Any intruder will be made to anticipate that his presence will be under question and open to challenge; & Blandy, 2005). Other factors –such as the desire for that provide safe and secure financial investments,
status, privacy, and the investment potential- can they have been highly criticized by academics and The first negative outcome is the spatial
“
so much so that a criminal can be deterred from even contemplating entry. Defensible space is a model for residential environments which inhibit crime by creating the physical explain the increasing popularity of GCs (Atkinson &
Blandy, 2005).
the media. As Lemanski (2010) explained, they
are perceived as private fortresses that destroy the
fragmentation of the city. GCs are accused of
physically fragmenting the city into a series of
expression of a social fabric that defends itself. (as cited in Abu-Lughod, 1987, p. 170) vibrancy of the city through their exclusivity. elite private citadels (Lemanski, 2010). This spatial
Nonetheless, some researchers endorse their role distortion results in the disruption of the traffic
in protecting threatened ethnic groups, offering flow, as well as displacing crime into nongated zones
Newman’s argument describes the modern GCs, is not, in particular, a consequence of fear, rather it taxpayers (Lemanski, 2010). Evan McKenzie (1998) employment for the neighboring poor communities, (Lemanski, 2010). Furthermore, GCs are perceived as
where the physical design is reflecting the need for represents a search of some social groups for a more tried to explain this interest from the municipalities in demonstrating economic efficiency in service an attempt by the affluent to disengage with wider
SPATIAL
protection by defining a physical boundary to a suitable residential environment that meets their GCs through a relationship between three vectors: the FRAGMENTATION provision, as well as ensuring the retention of urban problems and responsibilities –both fiscal and
certain area, keeping the untrustworthy outside. This lifestyle (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015). Despite being an developer, potential residents, and the municipality. GATED COMMUNITIES
financial capital (Lemanski, 2010). In general, social, creating elite fractions of secure residential,
EXCLUSION
need for protection is driven by factors such as rising extreme solution, they argue that the GC is a coping He explains that the government is promoting GCs OF INDIVIDUALS CRITIQUE however, the majority see GCs as problematic urban workplace, education, and leisure destinations
crime and decreasing confidence in public security strategy for these groups in response to a sense of place as they represent growth, increased tax revenues, and domains. (Atkinson & Flint, 2004; Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).
(Lemanski, 2010). Consequently, security, as well as detachment and a threat of losing place identity in less public expenditure. This falls directly into the POLITICAL Tim Hope (2000) discussed the effect of –what
WITHDRAWAL
construction industries, started promoting the fear the existing neighborhoods (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015). interest of the developers, while the purchasers can This issue is highlighted in the literature under three he called- ‘ghettoisation of the effluent’ on the
of the urbanlife risks, which contributed to the global only comply with what the market offers (McKenzie, major negative outcomes; the spatial fragmentation of displacement of crime. He explains that while the club
spread of GCs (Lemanski, 2010). Another reason for the continuous growth of the 1998). For example, the local authorities in China the city, the exclusion of individuals, and the political system offers private access to security, it displaces
GC market worldwide is the support of the local accept the GCs as a mean of shifting some of the Figure 2.2. Main critiques of gated communities. withdrawal of GC residents and local municipalities crime away from the hardened targets –represented
As a counter-argument, Havermans and Smeets authorities. GCs are considered as a source of revenue administrative and public services to the homeowner (see Figure 2.2). in GCs- towards other areas that present softer targets
(2010) suggest that the rise of the gated community for the local municipalities, as they attract high-rate associations (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). Similarly, the (as cited in Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).
16 17

That being said, Havermans and Smeets (2010) offer
a counter argument debating that the enclosure
of neighborhoods can be seen as a positive aspect.
They argue that this enclosure is serving several
interrelated functions; physical, economic, social,
and symbolic (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015). They
physically secure residents and properties within
the neighborhood, while creating an identity for the
project in terms of architectural style and types of
amenities (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015). Economically,
they enhance the property value and protect the club
amenities (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015).
2.3.2. The exclusion of individuals
The next negative outcome that has been highlighted
in the literature is the exclusion of individuals. It has
been considered a critical criticism of GCs, as they
hinder the social diversification within the city.
According to Gans (1968), it is important to maintain
socially diverse areas within the city, as they generate
empathy by meeting people of different social
backgrounds and experiences (as cited in Atkinson
& Blandy, 2005). Additionally, as explained by Massy
and Denton (1993), the concentration of poverty along
with the ethnic and socioeconomic clustering hinder
the political empathy, resulting in the exclusion
of these groups from employment and educational
opportunities (as cited in Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).
Generally, the withdrawal of the affluent into
gated enclaves result in a loss of social diversity,
and in return reinforcing tendencies toward social
segregation (Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).
18
GCs –to which only the minority with financial
means have access- are considered as an act of
spatial separation, as they restrict the freedom of
movement in the city (Lemanski, 2010). This result
in deepening the social polarization “by excluding
the unknown mass of “others” or “them” from “our”
safe spaces.”(Lemanski, 2010) Several variations of
this exclusion can be identified all around the world,
for example, South African post-apartheid gated
communities –known as ‘safety villages’, Canadian
age-segregated ‘retirement villages’, and Saudi
Arabian ‘foreigners’ compounds’; which separate
foreigners with different cultural and religious
backgrounds in closed societies (Almatarneh, 2013).
Some researchers tried to highlight the potentials of
GCs in the social reorganization of the city. According
to Brunn et al. (2000), the restriction or accessibility
to certain spaces is reflected upon the social positions
of the individuals (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015). He
explained further that one’s identity is defined by
their access, mobility, and interpretation of space; as
much as it is by race, ethnicity, nationality, gender,
and sexuality (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015).
2.3.3. Private governance and the political
withdrawal
A further implication -which receives less attention
in the literature- is the political withdrawal of GC
residents as well as the local municipalities. The
GC provides its citizens with private services and
governance that render them wholly dependent
on it (Lemanski, 2010). This dependency results
Literature Review
in a depleted reliance on the state, consequently,
they exhibit reduced willingness to submit to the
state in other everyday life aspects (Lemanski,
2010). Atkinson and Blandy (2005) argued that
gating threatens what they described as ‘the
spatial contract between neighborhoods’ that is
mediated by the central and local authorities. They
explained that services in poorer areas can suffer as
a result of the opting out of the municipal provision.
Many researchers see GCs as a clear statement
of undermining the local and central state
responsibilities, in particular, providing equity
between neighborhoods of different social
characteristics and qualities (Atkinson & Blandy,
2005).
Private governance has been portrayed as a better
solution to the inadequacy of the local authorities.
However, several studies show that they have not
been very successful in that regard. For instance,
several studies have shown that in the United States
there is an increasing number of recorded conflicts
between the residents and their management
companies, claiming that they are at least as many as
found in normal developments. (Atkinson & Blandy,
2005). Lately, and with the spread of GCs, a new debate
has emerged, arguing that residents should not pay
twice for a service that they already receive (Atkinson
& Blandy, 2005). This might eventually result in the
privatization of vital aspects of citizenship; such
as security, welfare, and environmental services.
Consequently, the quality of these services will be
dependent on which neighborhood one lives in
(Atkinson & Blandy, 2005).
Literature Review
As opposed to the prevailing consensus of GCs as an
anti-urban form of governance, some cases have been
highlighted as successful examples. For instance,
Roitman (2010) explains that Latin America, local
governments support GCs as they provide a solution
to individual security problems, despite seeing
them as ‘anti-urban’ (as cited in Bagaeen, 2015). In
the case of Budapest, Csefalvay (2010) argues that
GCs are considered as the revolt of the upper middle
class against the centralized government (as cited in
Bagaeen, 2015).
In conclusion, GCs are a controversial topic among
its observers. They provide an alternative reality
for its residents detached from the physical, social,
economic, and political attributes of the wider society
(Lemanski, 2010), as well as the control, predictability,
and personal safety issues facing this society
(Atkinson & Blandy, 2005). However, they carry
further implications for the city that can be described
as destructive (Lemanski, 2010). The paradox of GCs
leaves us questioning whether the ability to pay for
security and privacy justifies the social exclusion and
the fragmentation of the fabric of the city.
2.4. Gated Communities in Egypt
2.4.1. The emergence of gated communities
in Egypt
According to Adham (2005), the idea of gating is
nothing new to the Egyptian urban fabric. They
can even be traced back to Fatimid Cairo, which
was a gated city (Adham, 2005). However, when it
comes to the modern GCs, he explained that they
were first realized in Egypt in the form of a holiday
resort village ‘AlMa’mura’ located east of Alexandria.
In the 1980s, the concept of private gatedresorts
spread along the Mediterranean coast west of
Alexandria. Unlike AlMa’mura, these resorts are
only limited to those who have the luxury to buy a
summer house in one of these resorts (Adham, 2005).
In the late 1990s, the concept of GCs spread to Cairo,
as the new cities began to flourish and the land prices
were getting closer to the market value, in addition
to other factors such as urbanization, population
growth, economic restructuring, and the adaptation
of privatization by the government as an urban
reformation instrument (Almatarneh, 2013; Sims &
Abu-Lughod, 2010). The development of GCs marked
a fundamental shift, as the new cities –opposing to
what was originally planned- became more attractive
to the uppermiddle class and the rich (Almatarneh,
2013; Sims & Abu-Lughod, 2010).
Figure 2.4 shows the magnitude of this flourishing
phenomenon of GCs –or private compounds as being
advertised. They can be found on land allocations of
50 to 250 hectares designated for the construction
of integrated residential communities (Sims &
Abu-Lughod, 2010). Developments such as Beverly
Hills, Hayy AlAshgar, Al-Rehab City, and the two
AlRabwas are well managed and have been considered
successful examples of realestate development
(Sims & Abu-Lughod, 2010). According to Sims and
AbuLughod, such developments are mainly GCs
with extensive landscaping, swimming pools, sports
facilities and the obligatory golf course, which stand
out as prominent islands of success.
2.4.2. The characteristics of gated
communities in GCR
Abaza (2011) has questioned if the interest of –what
she called- the ‘mega companies’ by creating new
centers and new upmarkets in the new satellite cities
is mainly to create
“ Dubai-style walled-off islands with
condominiums and gated communities with
Disneyfied landscaping, together with endless
private cars with chauffeurs and servants
commuting with public transport, and multiple
ring-roads surrounding Cairo, flying over “
unwanted hidden slums. (2011, p. 1077)
19
 The Gated Communities of GCR
Literature Review

It is true that the Egyptian GCs are subjected to the a b c

local market and are fairly open to the outside world
(Almatarneh, 2013). In that sense, they resemble more
the American GC than other middleeastern GCs,
such as in Turkey, Iran, and Lebanon (Almatarneh,
2013). In Egypt, GCs are advertised as a provider of
exclusiveness and prestigious suburban lifestyle, Figure 2.3. The different typologies of GCs in the GCR. (a) High-end Gated Community Source: Sodic.com. (b) Moderate Gated Community.
security, leisure amenities, and sometimes service Source: alrehabcity.com. (c) Affordable Gated Community. Source: www. ashgarheights.com.
facilities; opposing to the unsustainable city life
found in Cairo (Almatarneh, 2013). These different typologies demonstrate that –unlike electricity prices; made both the developers and the
the American trend- they are not only popular among residents reluctant to apply or request any energy
According to Almatarneh (2013), three different the rich, but also among other class groups, who can efficiency applications to reduce the consumption.
types of GCs -based on selling price and physical afford it. The reasons behind this wide popularity of On the other hand, the lack of any feed-in tariff in the
characteristics- can be identified in the GCR: GCs amongst the different classes can be deducted past, and the current system that does not reflect the
1) High-end gated community: This typology from the marketing strategies of the developers. A market value, along with the relatively high initial
emphasizes on the provision of large study conducted by Almatarneh in 2013 explained costs; demotivated the residents and developers
home lots and houses and offers high- that these strategies are driven by six main factors: -alike- to apply any energy production measures (see
end amenities (Figure 2.3a). The houses social, lifestyle, exclusivity and privacy, security, Appendix B).
typologies are usually villas and luxurious environmental, and architectural and urban
apartments with various footprints. factors. Mainly; the lifestyle and security factors are In general, there is a lack of incentives for the efficient
2) Moderate gated community: A medium cost marketed heavily for all the three typologies, while use of energy in Egypt. While academically, there is a
residential subdivision that differs from the other factors are marketed mostly for the highend lack of literature on the energy performance of GCs.
the high-end typology in terms price range and moderate GCs (see Appendix C). These marketing This lack of literature can be related to two reasons: Figure 2.4. Location of gated communities in GCR. [Adapted] from (Almatarneh & Mansour, 2013;
and the more basic design standards (Figure strategies show that the people are seeking in GCs an On the building scale, the effect of the context of Ghonimi, El Zamly, Khairy, & Soilman, 2011).
2.3b). This typology features primarily alternative sustainable lifestyle, a demand that is GCs is minimal on the energy consumption of the West of GCR East of GCR
apartment buildings with a variety of highlighted in contrast to the chaotic unsafe lifestyle individual buildings, while on an urban scale, GCs 1- Beverly Hills (SODIC) 19- Al Sulameneyah Gardens 37- Rayhana Compound 1- Uptown (Emaar) 19- Kattameya Plaza 37- Maxeem
villas; as the more units the project has, the provided by the city. can be considered as regular residential settlements. 2- Meadows Park 20- El Safwa 38- Dreamland (Bahgat) 2- Degla View 20- Qatari Diar 38- Palm Hills Kattameya
lower the price; which attracts more buyers. However, in the context of Egypt and in particular 3- Al Gowhara 21- Green Hills 39- City View 3- Al Baroan City 21- Al Safwa 39- Efad (Kuwait)
4- Al Rabwa (TMG) 22- Al Khamael City 40- Al Ashgar 4- Maadi Grand City 22- Royal Lagoon 40- Barwa (Qatar)
3) Affordable gated community: This 2.4.3. Energy aspects in gated communities the GCR, GCs offer a lot of potentials for the reduction 5- Al Yasmeen 23- Palm Hills 41- Star City 5- La Reve 23- Al Ashrafeya 41- Future City
typology features small lot sizes and basic of the energy consumption in the residential sector. 6- Royal City (Kuwait) 24- Utopia 42- Al Loeloaa 6- Stone Park Kattameya 24- Etoile des Villes 42- Madinaty (TMG)
amenities (Figure 2.3c), targeting the Despite the energy crises that Egypt has been facing 7- Green Hill 25- Al Karma (Oktober) 43- Al Montazah 7- Kattameya Heights 25- Oriental Co. 43- Al Nakheel
8- Al Gowhara (2) 26- Swan Lake 44- Rowdet Al Salemeya 8- Arabella 26- Moon Valley 44- May Fair
average income families. This typology is for the past years, the energy aspects have been 9- Al Karma (Zayed) 27- Royal City (October) 45- Utopia (2) 9- Lake View 27- Al Masraweya 45- Al Shorouk 2000
increasing nowadays, as many employees disregarded in the marketing of GCs. The lack of an 10- Greens (Dorra) 28- October Hills 46- Golf Residence 10- Cairo Festival City 28- Arabeya 46- Loeloat Al Shorouk
want to live closer to their jobs. activated energy building codes, and the subsidized 11- Mohandeseen Gardens 29- Al Worood Compound 47- Al Rabab 11- Marina City 29- Al Aseel 47- Spring Valley
20 12- Zahret 2000 (Dorra) 30- Mena Garden City 48- Peaceful Rabwa 12- Nakheel Village 30- Fountain Blue 48- Golf City (Obour)
13- Diplomats Compound 31- Spring Valley 49- Telal October (Kuwait) 13- Swan Lake 31- Zizinia City
14- Al Nada 32- Royal Hills 14- Mirage City 32- East Town (SODIC)
15- Zayed 2000 (Dorra) 33- Yasmeen Greenland 15- Golden Heights 33- Kattameya Dunes
16- Al Karma (2) 34- Gardenia Park 16- Bright City 34- Center Ville (Damac)
17- Al Gazeerah 35- AlNasayem 17- Al Rahab (TMG) 35- Hyde Park (Damac)
18- Sama Zayed 36- Al Radwa 18- Al Horreyah 36- Mivida (Emaar)
Chapter 3. This research work covers the 3 pillars of sustainability -Environmental, Social, and Economic- with a special

RESEARCH
focus on the environmental aspects. It adopts mainly a quantitative approach to measure and evaluate the
energy performance of the case study and its optimization. This is achieved through a set of methods; including
data gathering, simulation based analysis, data-sheet calculations, and a cost-benefit analysis.

METHOD The research investigates the energy performance of the GC model through its energy consumption, the
possible energy production, and the total energy balance of the model. It also provides outlook on the possible
optimization measures and their cost-effectiveness in the Egyptian context.

This chapter covers the research methodology, the different data-gathering approaches, analysis and
optimization strategies, and the case study -on which the analysis and optimization measures are applied.
 CASE STUDY

Research Method Design

Building
Site Analysis Considerations and
Typologies
Regulations
3.1. Scope of the Methods 3.2.1. Literature 3.2.3. Interviews

This study focuses mainly on the quantitative This study incorporates a wide base of literature, Three interviews were conducted to investigate the DATA
GATHERING
methods to calculate and measure the efficiency of covering multiple topics. These topics mainly address needs and expectations of the different stakeholders
the different models; although, it does not exclude the the three pillars of sustainability; social, economic, (see Appendix B). The interviews cover the main ENERGY CONSUMPTION ENERGY PRODUCTION
qualitative tools. and environmental. It is also considered one of the stakeholders involved in GCs; the designer, the
Literature
main sources of data used in this study. investor, and the legislator.
Base-Model Rooftop-Mounted
The study also covers the three main aspects of Model Verification
Simulation PV Modules
sustainability; Social, Environmental, and Economic. 3.2.2. The survey-work The designer is represented by Prof. Dr. Moemen
The social aspect is mainly discussed and criticized Afify, chairman at MA Consultants and a professor Interviews
through the literature review, the survey work, and An online survey was conducted with a special of architecture and environmental design at Cairo
Envelope Building Solar Water
the interviews that have been conducted in Cairo. The section for the GCs residents, to acquire a deeper and University. Optimization Orientation Heating Systems
environmental aspect is mainly investigated through updated insight on the residents’ preferences and
Survey-Work
the energy efficiency analysis and optimization of patterns, as well as defining the key benchmarks of The investor is represented by Eng. Mohamed
the case study. Finally, the economic aspect is tackled the energy consumption in the residential sector (see Alkateb, engineering director at Samcrete
Systems and Loads Layout District Cooling
by a cost-benefit analysis of the possible energy Appendix A). Development -the development company of the case Optimization System
Optimization
optimization scenarios introduced by this study. study (Pyramids Heights). Case Study
A pilot survey was initially distributed amongst
Different methods were selected for the data a sample of 10 participants, in order to evaluate Finally, the legislator is represented by Dr. Hend Energy Balance
gathering, analysis, and optimization of the model. the feasibility and readability of the survey. The Farouh, head of the green economy and green energy
Building Envelope
These methods include survey‑work, site visits, sample represented different age groups, academic programs at the IMC, and former Executive Director
literature review, interviews, simulations, and data- backgrounds, social status, residential conditions of the central unit of sustainable cities and renewable
Total Energy Minimum Maximum
sheet calculations. The following section discusses within the GCR. The survey was updated based on the energy at the New Urban Communities Authority Total Possible
Consumption Optimization Optimization
Energy Production
these methods in details and their relevance to this feedback collected from the sample. (NUCA). Building Systems Reduction Scenario Scenario

study.
The Survey consists of three sections:
1) Participant and unit’s information Energy Production
3.2. Data Gathering 2) Energy Consumption of the unit Systems COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA)
3) Residents of gated communities
The data gathering process can be sub‑categorized to
Initial and Running
different sets of data, as the sources of information The aim was to reach a representative sample of 200. Costs
differ from one set to another (see Figure 3.1). After a month, the 195 participants took part in the Building Envelope Rooftop-Mounted Solar Water Heating
Optimization PV Modules Systems
survey. A decision was made to stop the survey by the
end of the month due to the low participation rate.
24 Feed-in Tariffs

Figure 3.1. Research Methodology.

 Research Method Research Method

3.2.4. The case study made on‑site, as well as the documented data in the 3.2.8. Initial and running costs Table 3.1. Simulation defaults. (Continue next page)
literature.
The case study data was gathered through the The initial and running cost data can be categorized Component Material Thermal Density Specific Heat Source
developer of the project (Samcrete Development). The 3.2.6. Building systems into: Conductivity (Kg/CBM) (J/kg·°C)
(W/m.K)
collected data (see Appendix D) comprises of: 1) Systems and materials prices; these data
1) Photo documentation of the present status The building systems’ data comprises of the HVAC are mainly acquired from a collection of Hollow Clay Bricks 0.660 1500 1000 (HaBNR Centre, 2008; Hassan, Guirguis, Ibrahim, & Fahim, 2011)
of the project -done by the author on-site. system, lighting and plug‑loads, and domestic literature work, as well as the data acquired
Cement Render 1.400 2000 657 (Sedki, Hamza, & Zaffagnini, 2016; u-wert.net, 2014)
2) Numerical data regarding land-use hot water (DHW) system. The systems simulation from ARCHA Consultants -an Egyptian
allocation, number of units, and foot-print- defaults and sources are shown in Table 3.1 architectural and engineering consultation Reinforced Concrete 2.500 2400 880 (Sedki et al., 2016; u-wert.net, 2014)
area of the different building typologies. firm. Air Gap 0.330 1.2 1000 (HaBNR Centre, 2008; u-wert.net, 2014)

Absorptance = 0.75
External Walls
3) Architectural drawings of the different The occupancy and lighting schedules have been 2) Installation, maintenance, and operation
Extruded Polystyrene 0.035 35 1450 (HaBNR Centre, 2008; u-wert.net, 2014)
building typologies and layout design. adapted from Elharidi and Tuohy work (2013) on costs; these assumptions are based on
4) Electrical loads estimate report. facing the growing problem of the electric power literature. Marble Cladding 2.940 2640 880 (BSI & MIA, 2016)
consumption in an Egyptian residential building (see Stone Cladding 2.300 2600 710 (u-wert.net, 2014)
The developer gave permission to the author to use the Figure 3.2). 3.2.9. Electricity cost and selling prices Reinforced Concrete 2.500 2400 880 (Sedki et al., 2016; u-wert.net, 2014)

Absorptance = 0.58
acquired data in national and international academic
publications, as well as nonacademic publications The DHW system data are extracted from the The data regarding the current electricity prices Extruded Polystyrene 0.035 35 1450 (HaBNR Centre, 2008; u-wert.net, 2014)

outside of Egypt. This agreement was documented ASHRAE standards, EREC, and the research work and feed-in tariffs were acquired from the Egyptian Cement Screed 1.400 2000 657 (Sedki et al., 2016; u-wert.net, 2014)

Roof
by a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) between the done by Elharidi and Tuohy in 2013 (see Table 3.1). Electric Utility and Consumer Protection Regulatory Ceramic Tiles 1.300 1600 830 (Algendy & Anbar, 2017; HaBNR Centre, 2008; u-wert.net, 2014)
developer and the author. Agency (EgyptERA) official website, while the data
3.2.7. Solar energy harvest systems regarding the older electricity prices -mainly in 2016- Reinforced Concrete 2.500 2400 880 (Sedki et al., 2016; u-wert.net, 2014)

Absorptance = 0.58
3.2.5. Building envelope were collected from newspapers and news posts that
Cement Screed 1.400 2000 657 (Sedki et al., 2016; u-wert.net, 2014)
The solar energy harvest systems investigated in this was published in 2016.

Slabs
The data regarding the building envelope and study are on-grid PV and solar water heaters. Ceramic Tiles 1.300 1600 830 (Algendy & Anbar, 2017; HaBNR Centre, 2008; u-wert.net, 2014)
material properties were collected from multiple
sources depending mainly on literature and the The incident solar radiation, as well as the PV Component Material U-Value SHGC Visual Light Source
(W/Sq.m. K) Transmittance
Egyptian building energy code for residential module efficiency data, are accommodated from the
buildings (EREC) (HBRC, 2008). Building materials Autodesk RevitTM (Autodesk, 2018) built-in database.
and the optimized envelope alternatives were selected The losses assumptions of the systems are selected Single Glazing/
5.74 0.86 0.90 Autodesk Revit 2018TM
based on the literature -mainly of the last 10 years- based on literature. PVC Frame

Windows
Envelope
that focused on the envelope design and optimization
Double Glazing/
of the residential buildings in Egypt. As shown in The solar water heater system data and information 3.12 0.76 0.81 Autodesk Revit 2018TM
PVC Frame
Table 3.1, the properties of the different envelope are accommodated from the simulation software
components have been selected based on observations RETScreen (CanmetENERGY, 2017).
26 27
 Research Method Research Method

Table 3.1. Simulation defaults. (Continuous) Occupancy and Lighting Schedules

Space System SEER(a) HSPF(a) Outside Air(b) Air Changes per Hour(b) Cooling Heating Relative Lighting
(cbm/h per person) Set Point Set Point(b) Humidity(b) 100% 100%
90% Schedule 90%
(oC)(b) (oC) (%)

LIVINGROOM
80% 80%
70% 70%
Living/ Residential Split/ 60% 60%
HVAC System

14 8.3 10 - 24 20 50 50%
Bedroom Packaged Heat Pump 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
Services Natural Ventilation - - 30 3 - - - 20% 20%
10% Occupancy 10%
0% 0%
Space Lighting Power Density(C) Plug Load Average Power Density(C) Schedule
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(W/Sq.m.) (W/Sq.m.)
Lighting
100% 100%
90% Schedule 90%
Living Room 19 80% 80%
Lighting and

BEDROOM
70% 70%
Plug-loads

Bed Room 10 5 60% 60%

50% 50%
Services 13 40% 40%
30% 30%
Typology Area/ Person Source 20% 20%
(Sq.m./ Person) 10%
Occupancy
10%
0% 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Apartment 40 Survey (Appendix A) Lighting

100% 100%
Occupancy

90% Schedule 90%

SERVICE AREA
Duplex 40 Survey (Appendix A)
80% 80%
70% 70%
Standalone 100 Survey (Appendix A)
60% 60%
50% 50%
SEER(a) HSPF(a) DHW Consumption per DHW Consumption per DHW Consumption per Average ASHREA Peak Daily Consumption(d)
40% 40%
toilet(b) shower(d) (L/h) kitchen(d) (L/h) (L/Day/Unit)
30% 30%
(L/h) 20% 20%
DHW

10% Occupancy 10%

14 8.3 7.6 114 171 254 0% 0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Sources: (a)Autodesk Revit 2018TMand Autodesk Green Building StudioTM; (b)HaBNR Centre (2008); (C) Elharidi, Tuohy, & Teamah (2013); (d)ASHRAE (2011)

Figure 3.2. Occupancy and lighting schedules. [Adapted] from: Elharidi, Tuohy, & Teamah, (2013).

28 29
 Research Method Research Method

3.3. The Case Study All the aforementioned criteria were present in PHR. Table 3.2. Building regulations in Giza Governorate. Share of Different Building 3.4.1. Modeling and simulation software
An NDA was signed between the author and the Typologies

3.3.1. Introduction developer -Smacrete Development, for retrieving the Building Regulations This study utilizes multiple software programs
project’s data and documents. Foot-Print Area 30% for different purposes; modeling, simulation, data
The study explores the possibility of converting the Figure 3.3. PHR Logo. [Retrieved] from: Samcrete Development Patio, 4% extraction, and data analysis and visualization.
(2017). Units/Feddan 10 Units
common model of GCs in the GCR into an energy 3.3.3. Site Analysis Standalone,
Minimum Unit Area 150 m2 18%
efficient model. This is done by investigating an Apartment,
Autodesk RevitTM was selected as a modeling software
actual GC case study; analyzing the efficiency of The project covers an area of around 458,442 m on a
2
Maximum Building Height 12 m 47% based on the following criteria:
the current design and optimizing it based on the platform overlooking the pyramids of Giza. The site Duplex,
1) BIM‑based software
Landuse
available technologies and materials. has special topographical conditions that limit the 31% 2) Availability of materials and building
flexibility of the design (see Appendix D). Residential 50% components database
Pyramids Heights Residences (PHR) has been Green Areas Min. 15% 3) Availability of a student license
selected as a case study for this research work. As shown in Figure 3.7, most of the buildings are 4) The possibility to extract the model in XML
Community Services 8-15%
PHR is located on the outskirts of Giza governorate, designed in a linear arrangement. The dominant format
on the Cairo‑Alexandria road (see Figure 3.4). PHR orientations of the buildings arrangement are Roads 20%

is a high‑income residential compound, which
incorporates other services and facilities as well into
the scope of its design; such as a clubhouse, a sports
club, and a nursery (see Appendix D).
3.3.2. Selection criteria
The selection of PHR as the case study of this research
work was based on multiple criteria as follows:
1) To be representative of the common GC in
the GCR
2) A newly constructed -within the last 5
years, or an under-construction project.
3) To have at least 2 residential building
typologies; single‑family, and multifamily
housing.
4) The developer should be willing to share the
project information, details, and drawings.
30
North‑South, and North East‑South West.
The distance between buildings is ranging from 6
to 12 meters, while the street widths vary from one
location to another over the whole layout.
3.3.4. Design Considerations and Regulations
According to Eng. Mohamed Alkateb - Engineering
Director at Samcrete Development, PHR follows
-administrationwise- the Giza governorate
(see Appendix B). Accordingly, the project is subjected
to the building regulations set by the governorate
(see Table 3.2.)
The design is aiming for minimizing the roads and
services landuse coverage, while dedicating more to
the green areas and leisure facilities (see Figure 3.5).
The residential landuse covers around 36% of the total
Source. [Adapted] from the author’s interview with Eng. Figure 3.6. Share of different building typologies. Based on the data For energy simulation, Green Building StudioTM
Mohamed Alkateb (Appendix B). provided by the developer (Samcrete Development).
Figure 3.4. The Location of the case study. [Adapted] from: (GBS) was selected for the following reasons:
[Location of Pyramids Heights Residences], by Google, n.d.
Retrieved November 16, 2017. 1) It is a calibrated software.
project area with a total number of buildings of 232. This study focuses on 3 out of the 4 typologies; the 2) A cloud-based simulation software; does not
The design is focusing on providing the residents apartment, duplex, and standalone typologies (see require advanced hardware.
PHR Landuse Allocation with higher quality of life; represented in the massive Table 3.3) -since the patios are only representing 3) The possible collaboration between the
green areas and leisure facilities. around 4% of the total share of building typologies modeling and simulation programs.
(see Figure 3.6). 4) Availability of tutorials and user‑aid
Others, 5%
3.3.5. Buildings Typologies forums and guides.
Sports Club, 4%
Residential, The project features 4 main residential building 3.4. Energy Consumption However, GBS is limited when it comes to simulation
Green Areas, 36%
24%
typologies; apartment buildings, duplexes, data extraction, but there is a possibility to extract the
standalone (villa), and patio typologies (see Appendix The energy consumption analysis and reduction simulation model in DOE format. eQuestTM (Hirsch,
D). The Apartment and duplex typologies represent is a simulation based study, in which the energy 1998) energy simulation software was selected to
Services,
the multifamily housing option, while the standalone performance of the different building typologies extract more detailed simulation data. The extracted
Roads,
21% 10% and condo typologies represent the single‑family -which are identified in the case study- is investigated. data is then analyzed and visualized using Microsoft
option (see Figure 3.6). ExcelTM data sheets.
Figure 3.5. PHR Landuse allocation. Based on the data provided by
the developer (Samcrete Development). 31
 Green Areas Residential Street Public Spaces
Coverage Foot-print Coverage Coverage

LEGEND TYPOLOGY 1
APARTMENT
TYPOLOGY 2
DUPLEX
TYPOLOGY 3
STANDALONE
TYPOLOGY 4
PATIO

24 % 36 % 21 % 33 %

Typology 2 Typology 3
DUPLEX STANDALONE

31 % 18 %
Typology 1 Typology 4
APARTMENT PATIO

47 % 4 %

Figure 3.7. PHR layout (Left side) and layout analysis (Right side). Based on the data provided by the developer (Samcrete Development). [Adapted] from: [Location of
Pyramids Heights Residences], by Google, n.d. Retrieved November 16, 2017.
 Research Method Research Method

3.4.2. The base model The roofs are the only part of the envelope that The design of the three typologies incorporates The average electricity consumption per unit area Table 3.3. Building Typologies Information.
actually utilizes thermal insulation. As shown in double glazed windows and doors in the living was estimated by comparing the electricity bill
The information regarding the base model was Figure 3.9, the roof construction includes a 50mm spaces -bed, living, and dining rooms, while uses data extracted from the conducted survey with the
accumulated from multiple sources; the envelope extruded polystyrene layer. The finish layer of single glazed windows in the services areas -such as electricity prices during 2016. Since the apartment
design was based on the data received from the the three typologies is ceramic tiles, as the roofs staircases, toilets, and kitchens (see Figure 3.11). typology represents around 83% of the surveyed units
developer, while the materials properties, schedules are restricted to the last floor residents and are not (see Figure 3.12), it was selected to verify the accuracy
and loads were collected from the EREC and the considered as a shared space. 3.4.3. Verification of the base model of the base model.
reviewed literature.
Base Model: Wall and Roof Construction 20MM
3.4.4. Building envelope optimization Typology 1 – Apartment Typology 2 – Duplex Typology 3 – Standalone
CEMENT PLASTER
The envelope components of the base model are
20MM 20MM 220MM Type Multi-Family House Multi-Family House Single-Family House
similar for the three building typologies, yet, the ratio CEMENT PLASTER CEMENT PLASTER REINFORCED CONCRETE The building envelope optimization is focusing
200MM 100MM 50MM
between the different components varies (see Figure RED CLAY BRICK RED CLAY BRICK SLOPE CONCRETE mainly on the following building components: Foot-print Area (Sq.m.) 268 302 145
20MM 20MM 5MM
3.8). The walls are mostly a single layer of red clay CEMENT PLASTER CEMENT PLASTER DAMP-PROOFING 1) Walls and roofs
50MM Built-up Area (Sq.m.) 815 899 426
brick with no insulation (see Figure 3.10). EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE 2) Windows
20MM Simulated Floor Area (Sq.m.) 518 624 208
CERAMIC TILES
The wall design in the three typologies incorporates For walls, 4 different combinations of wall and roof Roof Area (Sq.m.) 242 289 141

Information
some double wall installations (see Appendix D), constructions were selected based on the investigated

Building
which is mainly for aesthetic values, and with no literature on residential buildings’ envelope Upper-Roof Area (Sq.m.) 63 41 36
regard to the thermal performance of the envelope. Number of Units 3 3 1
The wall construction utilizes the red clay brick in Surveyed Unit Typologies
Price/kWh (EGP) 1.35 1.35 1.35
both orientations to increase and decrease the wall
thickness based on the design. As shown in Figure 3.9, Figure 3.9. Base model wall and roof constructions. Default Electricity Efficiency (W/
Other, 3%

Information
Sq.m) 7 7 7

Electricity
the wall thickness varies from 140mm to 240mm
Villa, 13%
based on the orientation of the bricks. Default Plug Load Efficiency (W/
Twin-house, 2% Sq.m) 10 10 10
Ratio of Enevelope Components
in Different Typologies Exterior Walls (Sq.m.) 710 614 287

Openings (Sq.m.) 133 536 64

100%
Percentage of BUA

Apartment, Slabs (Sq.m.)

75% 510 569 249
83%

Information
50%
Openings

Openings

Openings

Envelope
Roof (Sq.m.) 305 330 177
Walls

Walls

Walls

25%
Roof

Roof

Roof

WWR (%) 16% 47% 18%

0%
Ty pe 1 Ty pe 2 Ty pe 3

Conditioned
Figure 3.8. Building envelope components as a ratio of the total Figure 3.10. Red clay bricks (10cm x 20cm) from the case study Figure 3.11. Project windows: double glazed window (right side) and Figure 3.12. Surveyed residential unit typologies. Based on the Volume (cbm) 981.19 982.99 378.31
34 BUA. construction site. single glazed windows (left side). survey work conducted by the author. 35

Zones
Area (Sq.m) 358 360 140
 Research Method Research Method

Wall and Roof Optimizations optimization in Egypt. As shown in Figure 3.13, the orientation on the total energy demand of each 4) Buildings arrangement’s orientation 3.5.1. Roof-mounted PV system
selected constructions are as follow: typology.
20MM
20MM CEMENT PLASTER 1) Double wall with 50mm air gap and The layout is optimized by comparing the original The study inspects the potential energy production
CEMENT PLASTER
100MM
220MM
REINFORCED CONCRETE
50mm extruded polystyrene roof 3.4.6. Systems and loads optimization layout parameters of the case study to the optimized by harvesting the solar energy using PV modules. The
RED CLAY BRICK
50MM insulation. situation following the aforementioned criteria. The potential energy production is simulated following 2
10MM SLOPE CONCRETE
AIRGAP 5MM 2) Double wall with 25mm extruded The systems -split HVAC and water heating- are comparison is based on the energy consumption per main criteria:
20MM DAMP-PROOFING
CEMENT PLASTER 100MM polystyrene insulation and 50mm extruded optimized based on their efficiency. The simulated built‑up area of each building typology. 1) Rooftop coverage area
EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE
20MM
polystyrene roof insulation. HVAC system is a split air heat‑pump system, which 2) PV module efficiency
CERAMIC TILES
3) Double wall with 50mm extruded is selected based on the data collected through the
polystyrene insulation and 50mm extruded conducted survey (see Appendix A). The efficiency 3.5. Energy Production The models are simulated with 3 options for the
polystyrene roof insulation. of the system is represented by the lowest split coverage area; 50%, 60%, and 70%; while the efficiency
4) Double wall with 50mm extruded air heat‑pump system efficiency available in the The study considers three main energy production of the PV module covers the available efficiencies in
polystyrene insulation and 100mm simulation engine (see Table 3.1). The optimized systems for the optimization of the GC based on the the simulation engine for both polycrystalline and
extruded polystyrene roof insulation. system is selected as the higher efficiency system conducted interviews (see Appendix B) and survey monocrystalline modules (see Table 3.4).
provided by the simulation engine. (see Appendix A). These systems comprise of: on­‑grid
Double Wall with Typical Roof with For the windows, the study investigates the effect of PV modules, solar water heaters, and district cooling.
10mm Airgap 100mm Extruded Polystyrene
the following parameters on the total energy demand: To be noted that the simulation software considers Table 3.4. Simulation defaults of the roof mounted PV modules.
1) Window Wall Ratio (WWR) the HVAC and the water heating systems as one,
20MM 20MM
CEMENT PLASTER CEMENT PLASTER 2) Shading with different energy sources -electricity for the PV Module Information
100MM 100MM
RED CLAY BRICK RED CLAY BRICK 3) Type of glazing; Low-e double glazing and HVAC and natural gas for the water heating, which
PV Type PV Efficiency (%)
(a)
Losses [Temp./ Roof Area (Sq.m.) PV Coverage (%)
25MM 50MM Low-e triple glazing resembles the commonly used energy sources in the
EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE Maintenance] (%)
20MM 20MM residential units of GCR (see Appendix A).
CEMENT PLASTER CEMENT PLASTER Polycrystaline 16.0% 50%
3.4.5. Building orientation
The lighting and plug‑loads are investigated by Polycrystaline 18.6% 50%

The study investigates the effect of building comparing the design loads -as stated in the EREC- to Monocrystaline 20.4% 50%
orientation on the total annual energy consumption the different loads provided by the simulation engine. Polycrystaline 16.0% 60%
of different typologies. The base and optimized
Polycrystaline 18.6% 5.0% 306 60%
models are all simulated on multiple orientation 3.4.7. Layout optimization
angles with an increment of 45 degrees. Monocrystaline 20.4% 60%
The layout optimization is based on the following Polycrystaline 16.0% 70%
Double Wall with Double Wall with The goal of studying the building orientation is to criteria:
Polycrystaline 18.6% 70%
25mm Extruded Polystyrene 50mm Extruded Polystyrene find the optimum design angle of each typology, also, 1) Plot distances
to investigate the effect of changing the building 2) Buildings density Monocrystaline 20.4% 70%
Figure 3.13. Wall and roof construction optimization. 3) Buildings arrangement
36
(a)
Autodesk RevitTM 37
 Research Method Research Method

3.5.2. Solar water heating system daily cooling patterns, in order to achieve a more Surveyed Water Heaters Table 3.6. DC Calculation Assumptions. 3) To address the energy efficiency of the
sustainable and continuous cooling load throughout whole community, rather than only the
The survey shows a significant interest in the solar the year. In this case, the optimum combination of Residential Hotel Offices Retail Total units, or the individual buildings.
water heating systems (SWH) from the residents of building typologies is 40%, 5%, 6%, and 49% share BUA (Sq.m.) 174,085 21,761 26,113 213,254 435,213 4) The concept of energy efficient
Solar,
GCR (see Figure 3.14). For the system, a simulation of residential, hotel, office, and retail building 12% communities can be marketed, which is
Landuse Share(a) (%) 40% 5% 6% 49% 100%
using RETScreen software (CanmetENERGY, 2017) typologies respectively (see Table 3.6). considered as an added value that can turn
Electric,
was conducted using the original consumption data 41% Cooling load per unit area (b)
a profit for the investor.
0.067 0.1 0.085 0.155 0.41
(kW/Sq.m.)
(see Figure 3.2). The selected system is using evacuated The total cooling loads are calculated based on the 5) The organizational and administrative
tubes as collectors and an overhead tank, to utilize the average cooling load per unit area for each typology. Gas, 46% Total Cooling Load capabilities of the investor.
29311 2176 2226 33088 66,801
(kW)
thermosyphon principle, thus eliminating the need These data are based on an analysis conducted by the
for additional pumps (see Table 3.5). The tank is sized author on a number of DC projects in Egypt serving a Average Weekdays Operation The aim is to analyze the feasibility of the different
10 24 15 15 -
Hours(a) (hrs)
based on the peak‑demand of each typology. variety of building typologies (see Appendix F). scenarios, based on the studied strategies regarding
Average Weekend Operation the energy balance of the GC.
15 24 0 15 -
Hours(a) (hrs)
3.5.3. District cooling system The tool uses the total annual cooling demand, the Figure 3.14. Surveyed Water Heaters. Based on the survey
work conducted by the author.
total floor area, and the national primary energy data Total Cooling Energy
121,932,486 19,010,082 8,682,553 180,657,785 330,282,906
3.7.1. Optimization Strategies
The study investigates the potential of integrating to estimate the total electricity demand of the DC (kWh)

a district cooling (DC) system into the urban
situation in which the GC is located. The aim of this
investigation is to draw a comparison between the
energy efficiency of the conventional HVAC systems
and DC in the urban context of the study.
The calculations are done using the RESCUE Toolbox
(RESCUE, 2015), which was created as a part of the
RESCUE (Renewable Smart Cooling in Urban Europe)
program, and funded by the IEE (Intelligent Energy
Europe). The tool has been adjusted to fit the Egyptian
parameters; average temperature, and the share of the
primary energy sources.
According to Chow, Chan, and Song (2004); it is
more energy efficient to serve different building
typologies with various cooling patterns. The idea is
to serve several building typologies with different
38
system and compare it to the conventional systems.
Table 3.5. Simulation defaults of the solar water Source: (a)(Chow, T. et.al., 2004); (b)(SCG, n.d.) The CBA focuses mainly on 3 main optimization
heating system. strategies:
3.6. GC energy balance provided by the investor, and the number of annual 1) Building envelope optimization
Solar Water Heater Information
dark hours. 2) Roof mounted PV systems
Collector Solar Water Fr UL System and The total energy balance of the GC is addressed by 3) Solar water heating systems.
Heater System Coefficient(a) Tank Losses(b) comparing the possible energy reduction of the
(W/m2.°C) (%)
total number of buildings in each typology, and the 3.7. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) The study focuses on these strategies as they need
Evacuated- Thermosyphon potential energy production by the different systems. to be addressed early in the design phase. They also
3 20%
Tube System Two scenarios are then derived from the results: The CBA is focusing mainly on the investor for the require extra investment, thus need to be proven
(a)
RETScreen (2017) CanmetENERGY; Kulkarni, N. et.al. (2007)
(b) 1) Maximum optimization scenario following reasons: profitable. Most importantly, they are available in
2) Minimum optimization scenario 1) To tackle the issue early from the design the Egyptian market, and various research works
phase onward. have been dedicated to studying their feasibility in
The energy balance calculations mainly focus on 2) The investor can deal with the high initial the Egyptian context.
the residential typologies, disregarding the other costs of the applied techniques, which is the
landuses due to the lack of information regarding main criticism provided by the residents
their energy consumption. However, the street (see Appendix A).
lighting is accounted for, based on the design loads
39
DATA CASE ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY COST BENEFIT
GATHERING STUDY CONSUMPTION PRODUCTION BALANCE ANALYSIS

Literature
Base-Model
Simulation Total Energy
Consumption
Site Analysis Rooftop-Mounted Reduction Building Envelope
Interviews
PV Modules Optimization

Model Verification
Survey-Work

Total Possible
Case Study Energy Production
Envelope
Optimization
Design
Considerations and Solar Water Heating Rooftop-Mounted
Building Envelope
Regulations Systems PV Modules

Building
Orientation Minimum
Building Systems Optimization
Scenario

Energy Production
Systems Systems and Loads
Optimization

Initial and Running Building District Cooling Solar Water Heating

Costs System Maximum Systems
Typologies
Optimization
Layout Scenario
Optimization
Feed-in Tariffs

CHAPTER SUMMARY CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter 4. The energy consumption analysis and optimization is a simulation based study (see Chapter 3), in which

ENERGY
different optimized models are simulated and compared to the base models -representing the different building
typologies, in order to evaluate their impact on the total energy consumption of the base model.

CONSUMPTION
This chapter focuses on the energy consumption analysis and optimization of the three buildings typologies
selected in the case study (see Chapter 3). The chapter investigates the consumption and efficiency of the
current model through analyzing its the different building components -such as wall and roof constructions,
windows, lighting and plug-loads, building orientation, and the layout parameters- and their effect on the
energy performance of each typology, and the possible optimizations and their impact on the efficiency of the
different models.
 Energy Consumption Energy Consumption

4.1. Base model simulation M onthly Energy Consumption per Typology Peak Cooling and Heating Demand per Envelope components Energy-use Distribution
Heat Gains Heat Losses
Typology 1 - Apartment
12000 18
The study focuses mainly on three residential building Roofs

Ty pology 3
Typology 2 - Duplex 16

Energy Consumption (kWh)

typologies; Apartment, Duplex, and Standalone. A 10000 Windows 5%
14

EUI (kWh/Sq.m)
base model was created for each typology to simulate 12
Wall
29%
8000
their current energy consumption and efficiency. Roofs

Ty pology 2
10 Natural Gas Electricity
6000 Hot Water 79% 14%
8 Windows
21%
9%
4.1.1. Total energy consumption and EUI 4000
Typology 1 - Apartment
6 Wall

4 Roofs 22%

Ty pology 1
2000
As shown in Figure 4.1, the standalone typology has Typology 3 - Stand-alone
2 Windows

the lowest annual energy consumption of all three 0 0 Wall Typology 2- Duplex
typologies. That is a result of the lower number of -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
2%
occupants (see Table 3.1), and the smaller footprint of Peak Load Power Demand (kW)

the building (see Table 3.3 ). Though, the 3 typologies Figure 4.1. Monthly energy consumption and Energy Use Intensity per building typology. 26%

have a similar energy use intensity (EUI) pattern Figure 4.3. Peak cooling and heating demand per envelope component.
Natural Gas Electricity
15%
ranging from 8 to 16 kWh/Sq.m. Figure 4.1 shows that contributor to both heat gains and losses, while the Total Annual Energy
Hot Water
32%
68%
8%
the duplex typology has the highest overall annual roofs have much less impact when compared to the Consumption building, and in return affects the incident solar In the second place -in terms of energy consumption-
EUI, while the standalone typology has the lowest walls and windows. Typology 2 show an anomaly by Typology radiation on the building’s envelope. comes the lighting load. It accounts for 1522% of the 17%

EUI for most of the year, sharing its peak with the
apartment typology during the summer months.
The annual energy consumption of the apartment,
as the windows have higher heat gains than the Typology 3
total energy demand of the 3 typologies, while the
walls; that returns to the higher WWR in typology 2 26644 kWh 4.1.3. Building components and loads space equipment comes last with a share of 79% (see Typology 3- Standalone
compared to the other typologies (see Table 33). Figure 4.4).
Typology 1
As shown in Figure 4.4, only DHW is using natural 4%

duplex, and the standalone typologies are 89 566,
107 502, 26 644 kWh respectively (see Figure 4.2). For
the tree typologies, the energy consumption peaks
during the summer month July and August, while
the lowest consumption occurs during November (see
Figure 4.1).
4.1.2. Building envelope
The simulation results show a typical pattern in the
performance of the envelope for the 3 typologies. As
shown in Figure 4.3, the walls are -by far- the biggest
44
The results indicate the priority of improving the 89566 kWh gas as an energy source with a share of 21%, 32%, and 39%
envelope’s thermal performance, in order to reduce 8% for typologies 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The rest of 4.2. Simulation results verification N.G.
Electricity
the heat gains and losses, which in return lead to the demand is covered by the national grid electricity Hot Water
92%
8% 27%
Typology 2
higher cooling and heating demand. The results show 107502 kWh input. The HVAC system is responsible for most of the The simulation results of the apartment typology
7%
as well that optimizing the walls and windows would electricity demand. For typologies 1 and 3, the system show an average EUI of 10.14 kWh/Sq.m. during 15%
have the greatest impact on the cooling and heating consumes -for space heating, cooling, and ventilation- the winter months and 12.62 kWh/Sq.m. during the
demand, while roof optimization comes as a second around 48% and 43% respectively (see Figure 4.4). In summer months. Also, an average EUI of 9.6 kWh/
priority. Figure 4.2. Total annual energy consumption per building the standalone typology, the system consumption Sq.m was calculated based on the designed loads (see Space Heating Space Cooling
typology. Pumps Auxiliary Misc. Equipment
sums up to around 70% of the total energy demand of Appendix D) and the simulated occupancy rates
Ventilation Fan Lighting
To be noted that the design of the building’s form the building (see Figure 4.4). (see Chapter 3). Figure 4.5 illustrates a scatter plot of
has an impact on the total heat gains and losses; as it the average EUI of 141 surveyed apartments during
can maximize or minimize the self‑shading of the Figure 4.4. Energy sources and energy use distribution.
45
 Energy Consumption Energy Consumption

Summer and Winter. In comparison to the simulated EUI complies with the designed EUI with a minimal The simulated EUI shows a minimal deviation insulation layer from 50mm to 100mm when demand reduction of 23% in typologies 1 and 2, and
and designed EUI. deviation of 0.54 kWh/Sq.m during Winter, and from the calculated design EUI (see Figure 4.5). This combined with the maximum wall insulation. 31% in typology 3. For the peak heating demand, the
3.02 kWh/Sq.m during Summer. Number of ACs in Surveyed minimal deviation can return to the fact that the optimization results in a reduction of 38%, 41%, and
4.2.1. Results comparison Units Bigger than 200 Sq.m. design loads are estimated based on the demand of The study investigates the optimization of the 64% for typologies 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
4.2.2. Reasons for results deviation the selected system and not the actual heating and transparent components based on the following
By comparing the simulated EUI to the surveyed EUI, 1 AC cooling loads. Also, the calculation of the design criteria: In spite of the similar reduction pattern in the peak
11%
it appears that the simulated EUI is above average at The simulated EUI can be considered above average 2 ACs EUI did not consider the load fluctuation between 1) WWR Adjustment: 65% and 30% of the heat gains and losses through the wall component,
5%
10.14 kWh/Sq.m. and during Winter months, and when compared to the surveyed EUI, however, it summer and winter. original WWR. the results show a significant variation between the
12.62 kWh/Sq.m. during the Summer. However, the still falls within the results of the surveyed sample. 3 ACs
2) Glazing type: Double Glazing Low-e, and peak heating and cooling loads. This variation can
simulated EUI is still within the surveyed limits at This can be explained by the fact that the simulation 16% Triple Glazing Low-e. be explained by the disproportional increase in the
an average EUI of 5.59 kWh/Sq.m. for Winter, and considered all the living spaces -living, bed, and 4.3. Envelope optimization 3) Shading: none, 1/3 coverage, and 2/3 windows peak heat gains and losses (see Figure 4.8).
>3 ACs
7.19 kWh/Sq.m. for Summer, and a maximum of dining rooms- as air-conditioned spaces. This decision 68% coverage. Another reason for this variation is the low‑efficiency
30.09 kWh/Sq.m. (see Figure 4.5). was made based on the targeted class of residents, as The study addresses the opaque components, as well of the HVAC system, as heating is normally a much
the project is mainly targeting the upper‑middle as the transparent components of the envelope. The The results are then compared in a matrix to efficient process than cooling.
Another comparison can be drawn between the and high-income classes, who can afford a higher opaque components comprise of the external walls determine the best optimization combination (see
simulated and the designed EUI. Based on the electricity bill. Also, the conducted survey showed and the roofs, while the transparent components are Appendix E).
designed demand loads at the cabinet level for the that units bigger than 200 Sq.m. usually have more Figure 4.6. Number of AC units in residential units bigger than represented in the external glass windows and doors.
200 Sq.m. Based on the survey conducted by the author.
apartment typology (see Appendix D), the simulated than 3 AC units (see Figure 4.6). 4.3.2. The effect of wall and roof optimization Wall and Roof Optimization Effect on
4.3.1. The optimization models on heating and cooling demand Peak Heating and Cooling Loads
Summer and Winter Montly Average Electricity Use Intensity (EUI)
for Surveyed Apartments in GCR
23% 23%
For walls, the optimizations were selected based on The results show a significant reduction in the peak 38% 41%
31%
35.00 35.00
the literature review conducted on the topic. The heat gains and losses (see Appendix E). The wall and

Electricity Use Intensity (EUI) (kWh/Sq.m)

Electricity Use Intensity (EUI) (kWh/Sq.m)

64%
Summer Maximum 30.09 Winter Maximum 30.09
30.00 30.00 study mainly compares the effect of the selected roof insulation -50mm and 100mm respectively-
25.00
wall sections on the total energy consumption of the resulted in the highest impact on the heat gains and
25.00
different typologies (see. Chapter 3). The studied wall losses (see Figure 4.8). The results show a reduction
20.00 20.00
sections are as follows: in the heat gains of 40%, 64%, and 80% through the
15.00 15.00 1) Double wall with 50mm air gap walls of typology 1, 2, and 3 respectively, as well as Ty pe 1 Ty pe Ty pe
Summer Simulated Average 12.62
Winter Simulated Average 10.14
2) Double wall with 25mm extruded a reduction in the heat losses of 41%, 62%, and 87% 2 3
Monthly Design Average 9.6 10.00 Peak Heating Load Reduction
10.00
Summer Average 7.19 Monthly Design Average 9.6 polystyrene insulation respectively. Peak Cooling Load Reduction
Original PHL
5.00 5.00
Winter Average 5.59
3) Double wall with 50mm extruded
polystyrene insulation This reduction in heat gains and losses is translated Figure 4.7. Wall and roof optimization effect on peak heating and
0.00 0.00 cooling loads.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 in the peak heating and cooling loads of the three
Unit Area (Sq.m) Unit Area (Sq.m) In the case of roof optimization, the study focuses typologies. As shown in Figure 4.7, optimizing
Figure 4.5. Winter and Summer EUI for the apartment typology in GCR. Based on the survey conducted by the author. on examining the effect of increasing the existing both the walls and roofs results in a peak cooling
46 47
 Energy Consumption Energy Consumption

Energy Consumption Reduction

4.3.3. The effect of wall and roof optimization Maximum Wall and Roof Optimization These results imply that the optimization of the walls The results show a minimal effect of the building by Optimizing the Transparent
on the total energy consumption Effect on Peak Heat Gains and Losses and roofs is more significant in the case of typology 3, rotation on the total energy demand reduction. As Components.
Heat Gains Reduction Heat Losses Reduction
while in typology 1 it is not a priority. shown in Figure 4.11, most of the rotation angels
T3-Roofs 50mm Wall Insulation
The study examines the impact of the wall and roof resulted in an increase in the energy demand rather Ty pology 3 25mm Wall Insulation
T3-Windows
optimization on the total energy demand through the 4.3.4. The effect of transparent components than a reduction. This is due to the form of the 50mm Wall Air gap
T3-Wall
reduction in electricity demand - excluding the fuel optimization on the total energy consumption buildings, as the 3 typologies have almost square
50mm Wall Insulation
consumption for DHW. As shown in Figure 4.9, the T2-Roofs plans, which reduce the impact of the orientation Ty pology 2 25mm Wall Insulation
50mm Wall Air gap
effect of the wall and roof optimization on electricity T2-Windows When it comes to the optimization of the transparent on the energy demand reduction. Also, the design of
reduction varies from one typology to another. T2-Wall components, the results are consistent in the three the three typologies is utilizing the different shading
50mm Wall Insulation
Typology 3 has the highest potential for electricity T1-Roofs typologies. The results show that the highest energy strategies, such as self-shading and fixed horizontal Ty pology 1 25mm Wall Insulation
50mm Wall Air gap
demand reduction with a maximum reduction of T1-Windows consumption reduction occurs when using triple louvers in front of the windows of service areas.
around 11%, while typology 1 has the lowest potential T1-Wall glazing with Low-e and providing shading on 2/3 of 0.00% 2.00% 4.00%
with around 3%. -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% the window’s area (see Appendix E). The effect of the
WWR varies amongst the different typologies and 4.5. Systems and loads optimization Figure 4.10. Energy consumption reduction by optimizing the
transparent components.
This variation in the electricity reduction potential Figure 4.8. Maximum wall and roof optimization effect on peak heat gains and losses. the different orientations, based on the self‑shading
from one typology to another can be explained by the effect of each façade (see Appendix E). The systems and loads optimization comprises
following reasons: of the HVAC system optimization, as well as the Building Orientation Effect on
Accumulative Electricity Demand Reduction by Envelope Optimization Energy Consumption Reduction
1) Each typology has a different self-shading The maximum energy consumption reduction by lighting and plug‑loads. For the HVAC system, the 45
-3.00%
potential. the transparent components is minimal in the three optimization is focusing on the effect of increasing
0 -2.00% 90
2) The different occupancy rate and number Ty pology 3 6.8% 2.2% 1.5% 0.4% typologies. When combined with the highest wall the efficiency of the system on the total energy
-1.00%
of occupants in each typology. optimization, a maximum reduction of 2.35%, 1.55%, consumption reduction (see Table 4.1).
0.00%
3) The different conditioned zones volumes in and 2.11% can be achieved in typologies 1, 2, and 3
Ty pology 2 3.0% 1.1% 0.4% 315 1.00% 135
each typology. respectively (see Figure 4.10).
Table 4.1. Simulated HVAC Systems.
The optimization measures had different effects Ty pology 1 1.0% 1.3% 0.5%
Model System SEER HSPF 270 180
in each typology. For example, the double wall 4.4. Building orientation
with 50mm air gap optimization would result in a Residential Split/ 225
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% Base model 14 8.3
Packaged Heat Pump Ty pology 3 Ty pology 2 Ty pology 1
significant reduction of 6.8% in typology 3, however, it The study investigates the effect of the building
50mm Wall Air gap 25mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall + 100mm Roof Insulation
has almost no effect on typology 1 (see Figure 4.9). The orientation on the total energy demand reduction by Optimized Premium Efficiency Figure 4.11. Building orientation effect on energy consumption
17 9.6
Model Split Heat Pump reduction.
same goes for the double wall with 25mm insulation Figure 4.9. Electricity demand reduction per envelope optimization. simulating the energy consumption of the building
optimization, it results in 2.2% additional reduction in different orientations. The base model of all the
in typology 3 in contrast to almost no additional typologies is simulated with a NS orientation, then
reduction in typology 2. the model is simulated on 45 degrees increment.
48 49
 Energy Consumption Energy Consumption

For optimizing the loads -both lighting and plug‑load-
the study compares the effect of changing the load per
unit area on the total possible energy reduction. A
set of different load intensities are investigated; 3, 7,
11 W/Sq.m. for lighting loads, and 6, 11, 13 W/Sq.m. for
the plug loads. The study also investigates the possible
additional energy reduction by applying daylight
and occupancy control.
4.5.1. HVAC system optimization
The results show that the effect of the efficiency of the
system varies from one typology to another. As shown
in Figure 4.12, an energy consumption reduction of
7%, 4%, and 1% can be achieved for typologies 1, 2, and
3 respectively.
For example, typology 1 has a higher ratio of con-
ditioned zones than the other 2 typologies which
requires more energy to offset the heating and cool-
ing loads, however, it has a moderate envelope ratio;
which reduces the heat gains and losses through the
envelope (see Figure 4.13). This results in a higher
impact of the efficiency on the system’s energy con-
sumption.
4.5.2. Lighting and plug‑loads optimization
Lighting loads represent between 15% and 22% of the
total energy consumption in the three typologies
(see Figure 4.4). Consequently, Optimizing the
lighting loads would result in a significant reduction
in the total energy consumption.
Energy Reduction by Improving the be achieved by applying daylight and occupancy (see Figure 4.16). The other two typologies showed a 2 typologies experienced an increase in the collective
HVAC System Efficiency
control measures (see Figure 4.14). For plug-loads, negligible reduction in both simulations. energy consumption. With a reduction of around
Reduction by SEER 17 Original Consumpti on
the design load is considered the lowest of all the 43%, typology 2 showed the highest reduction of all
T3 studied loads, thus the most efficient. The results 4.6.2. Buildings density the simulated models under the additional row and
show an increase in the electricity consumption by floor model (see Figure 4.16).
T2
increasing the plug-loads (see Figure 4.15). Increasing The effect of the density of the buildings on the
T1 the plug‑load from 6 to 13 W/Sq.m. would lead to an energy demand reduction is investigated through 4.6.3. Buildings arrangement
increase of energy consumption by around 14%, 11%, three models. In the first model a third row of
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
and 16% for typologies 1, 2, and 3 respectively. This buildings is added to the arrangement, in the second A simulation of 3 buildings arrangement models
Figure 4.12. Possible energy reduction by improving the efficiency emphasizes the importance of using energy-efficient an additional floor is added to all the buildings in the was conducted to study the buildings arrangement
of the HVAC system.
equipment to reduce the total energy consumption. original building arrangement. Lastly, a third model effect on the total collective energy consumption. The
with both an additional row and an additional floor is selected building arrangements are as follows:
Envelope and Conditioned
Zones as a Ratio of BUA investigated. 1) U‑shaped arrangement
4.6. Layout optimization 2) O‑shaped arrangement
180%
As shown in Figure 4.16, the results show a significant 3) Shifted rows
160%
140% The layout optimization focuses mainly on reduction in all the typologies for the additional row

Conditioned Zones

Conditioned Zones

The varying impact on the different typologies can
be explained by examining the envelope and condi-
tioned zones ratio in relation to the total BUA.
Conditioned Zones
120% reducing the collective energy demand of the layout and the additional row and floor models, however, in The U-shaped and the O-shaped models -in some
100%
As shown in Figure 4.14, a maximum reduction of 18%, 80%
by changing its design parameters. The study the additional floor model only typology 2 showed a models double U-shaped and double O-shaped- were
14%, and 19% could be achieved in typologies 1, 2, and investigates the effect of the following parameters: significant reduction of around 16%, while the other selected as they create a shared space between the

Envelope

Envelope

Envelope
60%
40%
3 respectively. An additional 4% to 6% reduction could 1) The distance between the plots.
20%
0% 2) Buildings density. Layout Optimization Effect on the Energy Demand Reduction Ty pology 1 Ty pology 2 Ty pology 3
Energy Reduction by
Ty pology 1 Ty pology 2 Ty pology 3 3) Buildings arrangement.
Lighting Load Optimization

Arrangement
Minimum Light Load Reducti on Maximum Light Load Reduction Shifted Rows

Buildings
Figure 4.13. Envelope and conditioned zones as a ratio of BUA. 4) Buildings arrangement orientation.
Daylight and Occupancy Control Original Consumpti on O-Shaped

U-Shaped
Plug-load Effect on The aim is to achieve the maximum collective energy
Ty pe 3
Energy Consumption reduction per total built‑up area by optimizing these 3 Rows / Additional Floor

Buildings
Densit y
6 W/Sq.m. 10 W/Sq.m.
13 W/Sq.m. Original Consumpti on parameters for each typology. Addit ional Floor

Ty pe 2 3 Rows
T3
4.6.1. Plot distances 6m

Distance
T2

Plot
10 m
Ty pe 1 The study examines the effect of reducing the original
T1 Original
distance between plots to 10m and 6m. Only typology
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% -20% -10% 0% -10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
2 showed a significant increase in consumption of
Figure 4.14. Energy reduction by lighting load optimization. Figure 4.15. Plug-load effect on total energy consumption. around 5.5% in both the 10m and 6m simulations Figure 4.16. Layout optimization effect on energy demand reduction.
50 51
 Energy Consumption Energy Consumption

buildings that can provide common services/ facilities
for the residents. The Shifted rows model was selected
as it provides the maximum density arrangement
with the highest privacy, as the buildings would not
face each other.
To be noted that the highest impact of the
arrangement orientation occurs in typology 2 with
an average reduction difference of 5.27% between the The Effect of Building Arrangement Orientation on Energy Demand Reduction per Layout Optimization
maximum and minimum reduction per optimization
50.00%
(see Figure 4.17).

40.00%
The results show a significant reduction in all the
models -except for typology 2 in the U-shaped model.
The shifted rows model had the highest reduction of 30.00%

all the 3 models, in which a reduction of around 29%,

26%, and 23% can be achieved in typologies 1, 2, and 3 20.00%

respectively (see Figure 4.16).

10.00%
4.6.4. Arrangement orientation
0.00%
The arrangement orientation effect is minimal when
compared to the other layout optimization measures.
-10.00%
A comparison was drawn between the layout
optimization measures and the rotation angle of the
arrangement to identify the effect of the rotation -20.00%

3 Rows wi th Addit ional Floor

3 Rows wi th Addit ional Floor

3 Rows wi th Addit ional Floor

Shifted Rows

Shifted Rows

Shifted Rows
Addit ional Floor

Addit ional Floor

Addit ional Floor

3 Rows

3 Rows

3 Rows
O-Shaped

O-Shaped

O-Shaped
20 m

20 m

20 m
6m

6m

6m
10 m

10 m

10 m
U-Shaped

U-Shaped

U-Shaped
angle on the total possible energy consumption
reduction.

As shown in Figure 4.17, the maximum energy

reduction for typology 1 occurs in the additional rows
model at 270 degrees. For typology 2, it occurs in the
additional row and floor model at 90 degrees. For Plot Distance Building Density Buildings Plot Distance Building Density Buildings Plot Distance Building Density Buildings
typology 3, the maximum reduction is observed in Arrangement Arrangement Arrangement
Ty pology 1 Ty pology 2 Ty pology 3
the additional row model at 270 degrees.
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315

Figure 4.17. The effect of building arrangement orientation on energy demand reduction per layout optimization.
52 53
TYPOLOGY 1 CHAPTER SUMMARY CHAPTER SUMMARY
APARTMENTS

ENERGY REDUCTION BY OPTIMIZATION

TOTAL LAYOUT
WALLS / ROOFS WINDOWS SYSTEMS LOADS ORIENTATION REDUCTION REDUCTION

6.8 - 10.9% 2.4% 7.0% 18.0 - 24% <1%

35-45% 34%
55-65%
31-21% FINAL
CONSUMPTION
TYPOLOGY 2
DUPLEX

3.0 - 4.5% 1.6% 4.0% 14.0 - 20% <1%

23-31% 43%
69-77%
26-34% FINAL
CONSUMPTION

TYPOLOGY 3
STANDALONE

1.0 - 2.8% 2.1% 1% 19.0 - 25% <1%

24-31% 34%
69-76%
35-42% FINAL
CONSUMPTION
Chapter 5. This chapter focuses on the potential energy production sources and strategies within the GC. The study focuses

ENERGY
mainly on two strategies; solar energy harvest and district cooling (DC) systems. As shown in Figure 5.1, there is
an abundance of solar energy in Egypt. The solar energy is a sustainable source of energy that can be harvested
all year long on small‑scales, as well as large‑scales. The study investigates the possibility of harvesting this

PRODUCTION
energy using two methods; roof‑mounted PV modules and solar water heaters.

The study also investigates the possibility of integrating DC into the urban situation in order to provide an
efficient cooling energy source. The aforementioned results (see Chapter 4) show that the cooling demand is the
highest contributor to the total energy consumption of the residential buildings in the GCR. The study inspects
the potential of decreasing the total energy demand of the GC by replacing the common split­‑unit systems with
DC.
 Energy Production Energy Production

5.1. Roof-mounted PV modules The results are then compared to identify the PV Modules Effeciency Effect on
Energy Offset in Association with Energy Consumption Optimization Strategies
Total Energy Offset at 50mm Total Possible Energy Offset by
minimum and the maximum energy‑use offset Roof-mounted PV Modules
Wall Insulation
According to the case study developer, the rooftop scenarios. Min Energy Offset

Ty pe 3
are the property of the last floor residents (see 50% Coverage Max Energy Offset

Ty pe 3
Ty pe 3 90% 195%
Appendix B). In order to utilize the roof area for solar 5.1.1. PV modules efficiency and coverage 70% Coverage Min Energy Offset

Ty pe 2
energy harvesting, an additional light‑structure 50% Coverage Max Energy Offset

Ty pe 2
Ty pe 2 40% 82%
over the roof could be used to create a double roof for The results show that increasing the efficiency
70% Coverage Min Energy Offset

Ty pe 1
mounting the equipment. To evaluate the possible from 16% to 20.4% in typologies 1 and 2 would result
50% Coverage

Ty pe 1
rooftop production, a detailed simulation analysis in less than 20% increase in energy production for Ty pe 1 42% 92% Max Energy Offset
70% Coverage
is conducted comparing the combination of the PV both minimum and maximum rooftop coverage. 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
modules with the different energy consumption However, this percentage increases to 27% and 35% in Original Model Double Wall with Air Gap 25mm Wall Insulation
Eff. 16.00% Eff. 18.60% Eff. 20.40%
reduction strategies (see Appendix E). typology 3 for the minimum and maximum coverage 50mm Wall Insulation Wall and Roof Insulat ion Lighiting and Plug-Load Optimization
Min Energy Offset Max Energy Offset
respectively (see Figure 5.2).
Roof Coverage Effect on Total
The study focuses on the following parameters and Energy Offset at 50mm Wall
Figure 5.3. PV modules possible energy offset in association with Figure 5.4. Total possible energy offset by applying rooftop-mounted PV modules.
consumption optimization strategies.
their effects on the energy production of the PV A similar pattern is shown when comparing the Insulation
modules: different rooftop coverage ratios. Increasing the
1) The efficiency of the PV modules. roof coverage from 50% to 70% leads to less than 20% 16.0% Efficiency The lighting and plug-load optimization strategy has 5.1.3. Possible energy offset by building PV modules. That is why a surplus in the energy

Ty pe 3
2) The coverage area of the rooftop. increase in energy production for typologies 1 and 2. 20.4% Efficiency the highest effect on the energy offset. For typologies typology production can be easily achieved in Typology 3 (see
3) Association with the energy consumption For typology 3, the production increases by 25% to 16.0% Efficiency 1 and 2, a minimum energy offset of 11% and 7% Appendix E).

Ty pe 2
optimization strategies. 32% when increasing the efficiency from 16% to 20.4% 20.4% Efficiency respectively- could be achieved when combining the As shown in Figure 5.4, typologies 1 and 2 -when
(see Figure 5.2). 16.0% Efficiency lowest PV module efficiency with the lowest roof optimized- have the potential to reach a minimum

5.1.2. PV modules in association with the
energy consumption optimization strategies.
As shown in Figure 5.3, building envelope
optimizations have a minimal effect on the energy
offset of typologies 1 and 2. For typology 3, the
optimizations have a higher effect on the total energy
offset. For example, introducing an air gap of 5mm to
the building envelope results in an increase of 7% and
11% in the minimum and maximum possible energy
Figure 5.1. Solar radiation intensity in Egypt. [Retrieved] from:
offset respectively (see Figure 5.3).
(Khalil, Mubarak, & Kaseb, 2010).
58
Ty pe 1
20.4% Efficiency coverage -16% and 50% respectively (see Figure 5.3). energy offset of 40% and a maximum of 80-90%. This 5.2. Solar water heaters
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% means that it is possible to cover -at least- half of their
50% Coverage 60% Coverage 70% Coverage
On the other hand, a maximum possible energy offset consumption only by using rooftop‑mounted PV This section focuses on the possible building energy
of 18% and 12% - for typologies 1 and 2 respectively- modules. reduction through the use of solar water heaters
Figure 5.2. Effect of PV efficiency and rooftop coverage on the total could be achieved by combining the highest PV (SWH). At first, a detailed DHW estimation is
energy offset in each typology.
module efficiency with the highest roof coverage Typology 3, on the other hand, has the highest conducted in order to size the system (see Appendix E).
-20.4% and 70% respectively (see Figure 5.3). potential to offset its energy, as the minimum Two scenarios -maximum and minimum reduction-
scenario would offset its consumption by 90%, while are then simulated based on the previous estimations.
the maximum scenario would result in an energy
offset of 195% (see Figure 5.4). As a single-family 5.2.1. DHW consumption estimation
house, typology 3 is characterized by a comparatively
lower energy consumption and a sufficient rooftop The DHW estimations are based on the ASHRAE
area, which allow it to cover its consumption using standards (2011). The results show that typology 2 has
59
 Energy Production Energy Production

the highest consumption of all the three typologies at As shown in Figure 5.6, the DHW peak consumption energy reduction with 18% and 34% minimum and 5.3. District cooling typology, while 5%, 6%, and 49% were allocated to the Typologies' Cooling Load
per Unit Area (kW/Sq.m.)
28 925 L/Day (see Figure 5.5). That is returned to the of the three typologies can be considered as above maximum reduction respectively (see Figure 5.7). hotel, offices, and retail typologies respectively (Chow
higher number of toilets and showers in this typology average in comparison to the ASHRAE standards This section investigates the possibility of using et al., 2004). Ret ail 0.155
(see Appendix E). (2011). Typology 2 stands out with over than The annual reduction in the total building energy DC instead of the conventional HVAC systems. As
Offices 0.085
370 Liters above the average standard (see Figure 5.6). demand is consistent amongst the 3 typologies (see mentioned before, the cooling demand is responsible Based on the residential total BUA of the case study
Hot el 0.1
As a single-family house, stands typology 3 at the That returns to the higher number of showers in this Figure 5.7). For the minimum reduction scenario, for the highest demand amongst all the residential and the share of the other building typologies, the
Residential 0.067
other end of the spectrum with 814 L/Day (see Figure typology (see Appendix E). between 6% and 8% can be achieved in the total annual building components. DC provides an efficient BUA of each typology could be estimated. That
5.5). Following the same pattern, typology 2 has the building energy demand, while between 14% and 17% cooling source for the whole urban situation, rather results in a total BUA of 21 761 Sq.m, 26 113 Sq.m., 0 0.1 0.2

highest annual consumption with 10 557 625 L/yr 5.2.3. Possible total energy reduction per
(Figure 5.5), while typology 3 has the lowest annual building typology
consumption with 297 110 L/yr (see Figure 5.5).
The results show a high potential for DHW energy
5.2.2. System sizing reduction in the three typologies. As shown in
Figure 5.7, Typology 3 has the highest possible
for the maximum reduction scenario (see Figure 5.7).
than focusing only on the individual spaces or
building.
The study estimates the electricity demand of the DC
plant based on the following criteria:
1) The share of different building typologies
and 213 254 Sq.m. for the hotel, offices, and retail
typologies respectively. Figure 5.8. Building typologies share allocation for DC estimations.
Building Typologies Share
5.3.2. Total cooling load estimation Allocation
Based on the simulated results of the residential Offices 6%

The sizing of the system depends mainly on the size of DHW energy reduction of the three typologies 2) The total estimated cooling load typology, literature, and an analysis conducted by
Hotel, 5%
the tank. The size of the tank is estimated based on the with 92% minimum reduction and 100% maximum 3) The design of the system the author on multiple DC projects in Egypt (see
peak daily consumption, which is represented by the reduction. Typology 2 has the lowest possible DHW 4) The size of the network Appendix F); an average cooling load per unit area has
Retail
peak demand of the showers (ASHRAE, 2011). been assigned to each typology (see Figure 5.9). Residential 49%
40%
The estimated electricity demand is then compared
Daily and Annual DHW Consumption Typologies DHW Peak Possible Annual Energy reduction by Solar to the demand of the conventional HVAC systems, in Knowing the cooling load per unit area, the total
per Typology Consumption Water Heaters Minimum Maximum order to determine the possible energy reduction by BUA, and the average operation hours of each
using DC. typology -based on literature and the survey
Daily Average Consumption (L/Day)

1500 35000 1200 100%

Annual Consumption (1000 L/yr)

1250 30000 conducted by the author, a total cooling energy

1000 80%
5.3.1. Building typologies share allocation demand of 330 282 906 kWh has been estimated Figure 5.9. Typologies’ estimated cooling load per unit area.
Peak Consumption (L/h)

25000
1000 60%
20000
800 Average ASHREA (see Figure 5.10). This number defines the cooling
(Type 1,2) Total Estimated Cooling Energy
750
40% According to Chow, Chan, and Song (2004), a capacity of the DC plant, which has to be met by the
15000 600 Demand
500 more efficient and consistent DC supply can be system design.
10000 20%
400 achieved by diversifying the end‑use functions. Total Cooling
250 5000 Average ASHREA
200 (Type 3)
0% By combining different building typologies -that 5.3.3. System specifications Ener gy
DHW Total DHW Total DHW Total (1000 MWh)
0 0 have different operation schedules- in a calculated
Building Building Building
Ty pe 1 Ty pe 2 Ty pe 3
0 Ty pe 1 Ty pe 2 Ty pe 3 ratio, a more sustainable and constant cooling load The design of the system focuses mainly on the
Annual Total Consumpt ion Ty pe 1 Ty pe 2 Ty pe 3
- 100 200 300 400
Aver age Simulated Daily Consumpt ion could be achieved, thus, a more energy efficient chillers as the major contributor to the energy Residential Hot el Offices Ret ail
Figure 5.5. Daily and annual DHW consumption per typology. Figure 5.6. DHW peak consumption per typology. Figure 5.7. Possible annual energy reduction by solar water heaters system (Chow et al., 2004). As shown in Figure 5.8, consumption in the DC plant. The chillers types and
per typology.
a share of 40% has been allocated to the residential the driving energy have been selected as follows: Figure 5.10. Total estimated cooling demand.
60 61

1) A base demand of 45% is covered by
electricity driven industrial chillers.
2) 30% is covered by solar thermal absorption
chillers, to make use of the abundant solar
energy on site.
3) The remaining 25%covered by absorption
chillers supplied by a CHP plant.
The energy consumption of the selected chillers
is then calculated considering two scenarios; the
maximum and minimum energy consumption (see
Appendix F). As shown in Figure 5.11, the energy
demand of the chillers is ranging from 176 151 MWh/a
to 352 302 MW/h. However, only the 39% CHP share
of the demand is fossil fuel based, while 14% is covered
by electricity, and the remaining 47% is covered by
solar thermal.
These results show that the total energy demand is
depending mainly on the efficiency of the chillers,
which in return maximizes or minimizes the heat
source consumption.
5.3.4. Network assumptions and estimations
The network size was estimated based on the
following parameters:
1) The total service area
2) The total number of ETS
3) The total length of the network
The total service area was estimated based on the
previously estimated BUA of each typology, an
assumed number of floors/ buildings per each
62
Energy Production Energy Production
typology, and the building density of each typology The Energy Demand of DC
(see Appendix F). Consequently, a total area of Chillers
181 658 Sq.m. was calculated as the total service
area of the DC plant. As shown in Figure 5.12, the Min Demand | 1 76,151
residential and retail building typologies dominate
the DC service area by 48% and 45% respectively. The
remaining 7% is split between the offices typology
Max Demand | 352,302
and the hotel typology; 6% and 1% respectively. The
number of ETS has been estimated based on the total
number of buildings, which was derived from the 0 200 400
BUA of each typology. Energy Demand (1000 MWh/a)
Electricity Solar Thermal CHP Ther mal
The total number of ETS is estimated by 239, of which Figure 5.11. The energy demand of the DC chillers.
the residential typology is responsible for 232 (see
DC Service Area
Figure 5.13). per Typology
Finally, the length of the network is estimated based Hotel 1%
on an evenly distrusted arrangement of ETS, which
Offices 6%
is in correspondence to the service area allocation of
each typology (see Figure 5.13). Consequently, a total
Residential Retail
network length of 6 570 m is estimated. 48% 45%
The size of the network is then used to calculate the
auxiliary electricity demand of the network. In this
case, a total auxiliary electricity demand is estimated
between 61 003 MWh/a and 68 930 MWh/a (see
Appendix F). Figure 5.12. DC service area per building typology.
5.3.5. Possible electricity demand reduction
Based on the aforementioned parameters, a maximum
and minimum electricity demand have been
calculated for the DC. The result is then compared to a
reference case of which all the typologies are subjected Figure 5.13. DC Network illustration; ETS allocation and network length
estimation. 63
 CHAPTER SUMMARY CHAPTER SUMMARY

Energy Production

to a conventional Split‑unit/Central HVAC system Comparison between the

(see Appendix F). Electricity Demand of DC and
Reference Case
SOLAR WATER ROOF-MOUNTED
The results show that the total electricity demand of
250,000 HEATING (SWH) PV MODULES

Electricity Demand (MWh/a)

TYPOLOGY 1 TYPOLOGY 2 TYPOLOGY 3 TYPOLOGY 1 TYPOLOGY 2 TYPOLOGY 3
the DC system would range between 85 774 MWh/a
6%
200,000
and 118 472 MWh/a (see Figure 5.14). On the other
hand, the reference case would result in a total 150,000

electricity demand ranging between 100 406 MWh/a 17%

100,000
and 192 886 MWh/a (see Figure 5.14).
42% 40%
50,000
These results show a possible electricity demand
-
reduction ranging between 15% and 39%, with an Reference Case Dist rict Cooling
average reduction of around 30% when using DC
(see Figure 5.15). This demand can be supplied by Figure 5.14. Comparison between the electricity demand of DC and
renewable sources, or through the national power the reference case. ORIGINAL
CONSUMPTION
ORIGINAL
CONSUMPTION 82%
grid with a lower price range (see Table 5.1). 92% 90%
Possible Electricity Reduction by DC

ENERGY OFFSET ENERGY OFFSET

195%

Table 5.1. Electricity Prices for residential and 15% 24%

commercial uses.
TYPOLOGY 1 TYPOLOGY 2 TYPOLOGY 3
End-use

Residential
Average Price (LE/kWh)

1.350 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

63-133% 61-123% 111-236%
(>1000 kWh/month) TOTAL ENERGY OFFSET
Min Reduction Max Reduction
Commercial 0.708 Reference Case
(Medium Voltage)

Source: EgyptERA (2017). Figure 5.15. Possible total electricity reduction by converting to DC.

64
DISTRICT
COOLING (DC) 15-24% ENERGY OFFSET
Chapter 6. This chapter investigates the total possible energy balance that can be achieved in the GC through applying

ENERGY
the previously discussed energy consumption reduction measures, as well as the possible energy production
strategies (see Chapter 4, 5).

BALANCE
The total energy balance of the GC is estimated based on three main parameters; the total energy consumption,
the total possible energy production, and the minimum and maximum possible energy balance that can be
achieved in the GC. The study considers two scenarios; maximum optimization and minimum optimization
scenario (see Table 6.1). Finally, a comparison is drawn between the optimized scenarios and the original
situation to evaluate the efficiency of the two scenarios.
 Energy Balance Energy Balance

6.1. Total energy consumption then extrapolated by the total numbers of buildings Table 6.1. Minimum and Maximum optimization Energy Consumption Energy Production DC Consumption
strategies. Share per Typology Share per Typology Share per Typology
in each typology (see Appendix F).
The energy consumption reduction calculations are Minimum Optimization Maximum Optimization
Type 3 Type 3 Type 3
based on the possible reduction in each individual 6.2.1. Possible energy production 8.4% 13.0% 8.3%
Double wall with 50 mm Double wall with 50 mm
typology (see Chapter 4). The results are then Airgap insulation Type 1 Type 1 Type 1
extrapolated by the number of buildings in each As shown in Figure 6.3, each building typologies Type 2 49.3% Type 2 48.9% Type 2 54.9%
Min. WWR Max. WWR adjustment 42.3% 38.0% 36.9%
typology (see Appendix F). Finally, the energy contribute to the final energy production differently. adjustment
consumption of the GC street lighting is added to That returns to the varying rooftop area of each
Min. light & plug‑load Max. light & plug‑load
obtain the total GC energy consumption. typology, as well as the different DHW demand. optimization optimization
Figure 6.1. Energy consumption share per building typology. Figure 6.3. Energy production share per building typology. Figure 6.5. DC energy consumption share per building typology.
High Efficiency split‑unit
6.1.1. Possible energy consumption reduction Typology 1 and 2 contribute the most to the total -
heat pump
energy production with a share of 48.9%, and 38%
- Layout optimization GC Possible Energy Consumption GC Possible GC Possible Energy Reduction
As shown in Figure 6.1, the total energy consumption respectively (see Figure 6.3). Typology 3 -with the Reduction Energy Production through DC
is distributed unevenly amongst the different lowest DHW demand and smallest rooftop area of the 50% Rooftop coverage PV 70% Rooftop coverage PV

DC Energy Reduction
Ener gy Consumption
modules (Efficiency 16%) modules (Efficiency 20.4%)

Possible Energy
typologies. Typology 1 and 2 hold the highest share three typologies- has a share of 13% (see Figure 6.3).

Production
Reduction
with 49.3%, and 42.3% respectively. That returns to Minimum SWH design Maximum SWH design
22% 8% 53% 40% 7% 10%
the higher energy consumption of these typologies, as The results show that the minimum optimization
well as the bigger number of buildings. scenario (see Table 6.1) could produce enough energy
to cover around 53% of the original energy demand 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0% 50% 100%
By applying the optimization measures (see Table (see Figure 6.4). The maximum optimization scenario Min Optimizat ion Max Opt imization Current Sit uat ion Min Optimizat ion Max Opt imization Current Sit uat ion Min Optimizat ion Max Opt imization Current Sit uat ion
6.1) a total of around 30% energy reduction could be would increase this percentage by an additional 40%,
achieved (see Figure 6.2). As shown in Figure 6.2, the to cover around 93% of the original GC energy demand Figure 6.2. GC possible energy consumption reduction. Figure 6.4. GC possible total energy production. Figure 6.6. GC total possible energy reduction through DC.

minimum optimization scenario would lead to a (see Figure 6.4).

possible energy reduction of around 22%, while the
maximum optimization scenario would result in an
additional reduction of 8%.
6.2. Total energy production
The total energy production calculations are based
on the previously investigated energy production
strategies rooftop mounted PV modules and SWH for
each building typology (see Chapter 4). The results are
68
As shown in Figure 6.5, Typology 1 has the highest
6.2.2. Possible energy reduction through DC share of the three typologies with around 54.9%.,
typology 2 comes next with a share of 36.9%, while
As discussed previously in Chapter 5, DC has the typology 3 comes last with a share of 8.3%. This returns
potential to reduce the electrical energy needed for to the different cooling demand of each typology, as
cooling by a range of 15% to 24%. By adding these well as the total number of buildings per typology. By
values to the three typologies, we can estimate the converting to DC, an energy reduction of between 7%
share of each typology in the produced DC energy, as and 17% could be achieved in the GC (see Figure 6.5).
well as the GC total possible energy reduction.
6.3. GC energy balance
The energy balance of the GC could be estimated based
on the total energy consumption and total energy
production of the GC (see above). As mentioned before,
two scenarios are considered; minimum optimization
and maximum optimization scenario.
The results show that the minimum optimization
scenario would lead to an energy balance of 26% of the
original situation (see Figure 6.7). This means that the
minimum optimization scenario has the potential to
reduce the original energy consumption by around
74% (see Figure 6.7).
The maximum optimization scenario has a much
higher effect on the total energy balance. In this
scenario, the energy produced is much higher than
the energy consumed that it creates a surplus of
energy (see Appendix F).
69
 POSSIBLE
CONSUMPTION FROM 42%
Energy Balance REDUCTION
TO 49% 40% POTENTIAL
FROM
ENERGY
By applying the maximum optimization measures, Final Energy Balance

53 %
% OF ORIGINAL CONSUMPTION
a surplus of around 48% of the original consumption
could be achieved (see Figure 6.7). This energy could
then be sold back to the national network or could be TO
PRODUCTION
Maximum Optimization Scenario -17% -48%
used to cover part of the DC energy consumption (see % OF ORIGINAL CONSUMPTION
Appendix F).

An additional energy reduction could be achieved Minimum Optimization Scenario -7% 26%

by converting to DC instead of the conventional

split‑unit heat pump system. The results show that an
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
additional reduction between 7% and 17% (see Figure
Ener gy Balance (%) DC Aditi onal Reduction (%) Current Sit uat ion
6.7) could be achieved by introducing the DC system
to the urban situation in which the GC is located (see Figure 6.7. GC final energy balance.
Appendix F).

REDUCTION BY FROM 7%
DISTRICT
COOLING TO 10%
% OF ORIGINAL CONSUMPTION

70

CHAPTER SUMMARY CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter 7. This chapter investigates the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the previously proposed minimum and maximum

COST-BENEFIT
optimization scenarios (see Chapter 6). It focuses mainly on the GC developer, due to his ability to cover extra
investment costs; as he possesses the highest capital of all the involved stakeholders. The CBA estimates the
optimization cost -for both the individual typologies as well as the whole GC- based on the current market prices

ANALYSIS
in Egypt.

The study also compares the investment costs to the optimized energy costs and revenues -using the current
and future energy prices, in order to estimate the possible return on investment (RoI). The RoI in this study is
calculated for 20 years timespan -the minimum life‑cycle of the optimization components 20 to 25 years (El-
Menchawy, Bassioni, & Farouk, 2011; Puttinger, 2013).
 Cost-Benefit Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis

7.1. Investment costs comparatively insignificant in both scenarios (see Investment Costs per the minimum optimization scenario results in an Total Investment Costs Per Typology
Figure 7.1). Optimization Strategy extra investment cost of around 180.06 MEGP. The
The investment cost estimation is based on the maximum scenario results in a total investment cost Ty pology 3

Optimizat ion
SWH
7.1.2. Investments costs per typology

Maximum
optimization strategies that need to be implemented of around 417.60 MEGP, with an increase of around

Scenario
Ty pology 2
by the developer during the design and construction 132% of the minimum scenario cost (see Figure 7.2.

Optimizat ion
PV Modules

phases. These investment costs are evaluated based on
two main factors; the possible cost reduction by the
optimized electricity consumption, and the possible
As shown in Figure 7.3, the investment costs are Light Loads Total investment costs per optimization scenario.). Ty pology 1
not equally distributed among the three typologies. Windows
This extra cost can be justified by the prospective RoI
Ty pology 3
That returns to the different characteristics of each (see below).

Optimizat ion
Minimum
Walls

Scenario
return on investment (RoI). typology (see Appendix G). These characteristics Ty pology 2
EG P 0 M EG P 300 M
comprise of:
Ty pology 1
7.1.1. Investment costs per optimization Total surface area of external walls Minimum Optimization Scenario 7.2. Electricity costs and revenues
Total surface area of windows Maximum Optimization Scenario EG P 0.00 M EG P 50.00 M EG P 100.00 M EG P 150.00 M EG P 200.00 M EG P 250.00 M EG P 300.00 M

The investments costs are estimated based on BUA and number of rooms Figure 7.1. Investment costs per optimization strategy. The electricity costs are estimated in both scenarios Figure 7.3. Total investment costs per building typology.
5 optimization strategies: Rooftop surface area minimum and maximum- based on the simulated
Wall optimization The efficiency of the installed systems consumption of each typology. These costs are then Electricity Costs and Revenues per Typology (2017
-2021)
Total Investment Costs Per
Windows optimization DHW consumption Scenario compared to the possible revenue from the produced
Light load optimization energy per building typology. Ty pology 3

Optimizat ion
Maximum

Scenario
Roof-mounted PV modules In both optimization scenarios, typology 2 is Ty pology 2
Solar water heaters (SWH) responsible for the highest share of investment costs Maximum As the government is planning to phase out the
Optimizat ion Ty pology 1
with around 59% and 56% for the minimum and subsidies completely over the electricity sector by
The costs of each strategy are calculated once per the maximum optimization scenarios respectively, while 2021 (Ismail, Noueihed, & Fenton, 2016; MOEE, 2017), Ty pology 3

Optimizat ion
Minimum

Scenario
total number of buildings in each typology, and once typology 1 comes in the second place with 32% and the costs and revenues are investigated for the four Ty pology 2
for the whole GC (see Appendix G). 35% (see Figure 7.3). Typology 3 has -by far- the least Minimum years between 2017/2018 and 2020/2021.
Optimizat ion Ty pology 1
investment cost of the three typologies representing
-EG P 40.00 M -EG P 20.00 M EG P 0.00 M EG P 20.00 M EG P 40.00 M EG P 60.00 M
As shown in Figure 7.1, most of the costs are dedicated around 8% and 9% of the total optimization costs of 7.2.1. Electricity prices and subsidies
to the window optimization with around 66% and 58% the minimum and maximum scenarios respectively EG P 0 M EG P 500 M 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 Rev enue

of the total investment costs for the minimum and
maximum optimization scenarios respectively. The
rooftop‑mounted PV modules represent around 24%
and 25% for the minimum and maximum scenarios
respectively, whereas the SWH is responsible for
around 5% and 3%, and the wall optimization is
responsible for around 4% and 13% (see Figure 7.1).
Finally, the costs of the light‑load optimization are
74
(see Figure 7.3). After 2016, the government has extended its plan to Figure 7.4. Electricity costs and revenues per building typology (2017-2021).
Figure 7.2. Total investment costs per optimization scenario.
phase out the subsidies over the electricity sector till
7.1.3. Investments costs per scenario 2021, due to the devaluation of the currency in Egypt
(MOEE, 2017). Currently, the government subsidizes
The total GC investment cost is estimated by the electricity consumption prices of the households
accumulating the investment costs of each building by around 24% -at a price of 1.35 EGP/kWh for
typology (see Appendix G). As shown in Figure 7.2. consumption over 1000 kWh/month (EgyptERA,
Total investment costs per optimization scenario., 2017; MOEE, 2017). This 24% is equally distributed
75
 Cost-Benefit Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis

among the 4 years of investigation -8% increase each
year.
Even though the electricity purchasing costs are
(see Figure 7.4. Electricity costs and revenues per
building typology (2017-2021).).
On the GC level, the minimum and maximum
Total Electricity Cost per
7.3.1. Break-even per typology in Figure 7.8, the minimum optimization scenario original investment for the minimum and maximum
Scenario (2017-2021) reaches the break‑even point in the 12th year, with a optimization scenarios respectively.
In the minimum optimization scenario, all the remainder of 8 years’ worth of revenue.
typologies reached the break‑even point before the
Maximum

subjected to a gradual increase for the next 4 years,
the government has not reflected this increase on the
feed-in tariffs. Thus, the households will be selling
optimization scenarios convey more appealing results.
As shown in Figure 7.5, the minimum optimization
scenario would result in a total costs reduction -not
36 M
Optimizat ion 20th year. As shown in Figure 7.7, typology 1 has the On the other hand, the maximum optimization
GC Collective Break-even Period per
shortest break‑even period of only 8 years, right after scenario has a longer break‑even period of around 18 Scenario
Minimum
comes typology 3 with 16 years, and lastly, comes years. This results in a period of only 2 years’ worth of

26 M
their electricity production at a constant price of taking into consideration the revenues- of around Optimizat ion typology 2 after the 18th year revenue (see Figure 7.8).

0.844 EGP/kWh (EgyptERA, 2014).
7.2.2. Electricity cost reduction and revenues
26 MEGP. On the other hand, the maximum scenario
would result in an extra 10 MEGP. This can be
translated into a total electricity costs reduction of
around 48% by the minimum optimization scenario,
Optimizat ion
Maximum
Original
For the maximum optimization scenario, typology 2
could not reach the break‑even point before the 20th 7.4. Possible return on investment
year. As shown in Figure 7.7, as it needs around 25

Optimizat ion
EG P 0 M EG P 50 M EG P 100 M

The electricity cost reduction and possible revenue
vary between the different building typologies,
as well as the different optimization scenarios. As
shown in Figure 7.4. Electricity costs and revenues
per building typology (2017-2021)., typology 1 is
responsible for the highest cost -during the 4 years
of investigation- with a total of 47.34 MEGP and
42.19 MEGP for the minimum and maximum
optimization scenarios respectively. However, at
16.65 MEGP and 28.39 MEGP for the minimum and
maximum production respectively, it also has the
highest revenues amongst the three typologies in
Minimum
while the maximum scenario would contribute with years to reach the break‑even point, while typology 1 Both scenarios show a positive RoI rate after the end
Figure 7.5. Total electricity costs per optimization scenario (2017-
an extra 28% (see Figure 7.6. Total electricity cost 2021). and 3 need around 13 years. of the 20 years of investigation (see Appendix G).
reduction per optimization scenario (2017-2021). The maximum optimization scenario results in a
Total Electricity Cost Reduction 7.3.2. GC collective break-even lower RoI value of around 73 MEGP in comparison 0 5 10 15 20
per Scenario Years
to the minimum optimization scenario, which
7.3. Break-even period When taking into consideration the total investment results in a RoI of around 140 MEGP (see Figure 7.9). Figure 7.8. GC collective break‑even period per optimization
per each scenario, both scenarios result in a break‑even These numbers represent around 75% and 17% of the scenario.
The break‑even period is estimated based on the period less than 20 years (see Figure 7.8). As shown
electricity consumption costs and production 20 Years RoI per Scenario
Minimum
revenues over a time span of 20 years (see Appendix G). Optimization Break-even Period per Typology
48%
The estimation is taking into consideration the Maximum
Optimization
gradual increase in electricity prices in the first Ty pe 3 Maximum

73 M
Optimizat ion
28%
Optimizat ion

Maximum
both scenarios (see Figure 7.4. Electricity costs and 4 years, to stabilize after the fourth year (see Ty pe 2
revenues per building typology (2017-2021).). Appendix G).
Ty pe 1

140 M
Minimum
On the other hand, typology 3 is considered The break‑even period is calculated twice; once per Ty pe 3

Optimizat ion
Optimizat ion

Minimum
the lowest of the three typologies in both each typology, and another for the GC as a single Figure 7.6. Total electricity cost reduction per optimization
scenario (2017-2021). Ty pe 2
electricity costs and revenues; with a total cost investment, in order to investigate the profitability EG P 0 M EG P 250 M EG P 500 M
Ty pe 1
of 9.32 MEGP and 7.27 MEGP, and revenues of of the collective investment.
Break-even Ret urn on Inv estment
4.43 MEGP and 7.57 MEGP for the minimum and 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years
maximum optimization scenarios respectively
Figure 7.7. Break‑even period per building typology. Figure 7.9. Return on Investment (RoI) per optimization scenario
76 for a time span of 20 years. 77
 CHAPTER SUMMARY MAXIMUM OPTIMIZATION MINIMUM OPTIMIZATION
SCENARIO SCENARIO

SAVINGS
W
IN

26 MEGP
D
O
W
Two main reasons are behind the deviation of the RoI
S
PV
in the two scenarios; the first is the longer break‑even
W
period of the maximum scenario, which leads to a
A
LL

ELECTRICITY
S
shorter period of RoI. The second reason is the long
SW

break‑even period of typology 2 in the maximum

H

3 5 COST REDUCTION
48%
%-
scenario, which exceeds the 20 years of investigation.
% SAVINGS
4 -13
% % 36 MEGP
24 -25 % %

58 -66 % %

76%
MAXIMUM
OPTIMIZATION
SCENARIO

PAYBACK PERIOD
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
MINIMUM
OPTIMIZATION
SCENARIO

506.71 Mio

PAYBACK PERIOD
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
480.72 Mio

PAYBACK PERIOD 402.76 Mio

428.75 Mio

& RETURN ON INVESTMENT 350.79 Mio

376.77 Mio

324.80 Mio

326.91 Mio
272.83 Mio 310.21 Mio
246.84 Mio 293.51 Mio
276.81 Mio
220.85 Mio 260.11 Mio
194.87 Mio 243.41 Mio
226.71 Mio
168.88 Mio 210.01 Mio
142.89 Mio 193.31 Mio
176.61 Mio
116.91 Mio 159.91 Mio
90.92 Mio 143.21 Mio
126.51 Mio
64.93 Mio 109.81 Mio
93.11 Mio
41.13 Mio 76.41 Mio
30.54 Mio 59.71 Mio
43.01 Mio
27.91 Mio

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
YEARS
Chapter 8.

DISCUSSION
& CONCLUSION
 Discussion & Conclusion Discussion & Conclusion

8.1. Significance of the results
The Egyptian government has been calling for
demand. Moreover, the maximum optimization GC Final Energy Balance cost. As shown in Figure 8.2. Electricity cost reduction Collective Electricity Savings per Scenario
Original Consumption, 100% Max. Scenario
scenario resulted in an extra 40%, to cover -all in all- 100% per scenario.2, the minimum optimization scenario 600
345% Extra RoI
around 93% of the original GC energy demand. cut down the costs -for the period between 2017 and

Electricity Savings (MEGP)

500
Min. Scenario
lowering the national energy consumption to 2021- by 21%, whereas the maximum optimization 88% Extra RoI
400
overcome the energy crisis (MOEE, n.d.). Since the In consequence of the significant energy consumption scenario resulted in an extra reduction of 8% (see
residential sector is responsible for around 54.9% reduction and the potential energy production, the Minimum Optimization, 26% Figure 8.2. Electricity cost reduction per scenario.). 300

of the total electricity sold by the EEHC (2016), optimization scenarios resulted in a minimum energy 200
0% Minimum DC, - 7%
the government focused on raising the awareness balance of around 26% of the original scenario (see Similarly, the potential energy production can create
100
of the household owners to consume energy more Figure 8.1). Whereas the maximum scenario managed an encouraging annual revenue. As shown in Figure
0
efficiently (MOEE, n.d.). to achieve a surplus of energy, which resulted in a Maximum Optimization, -48% 8.2. Electricity cost reduction per scenario., in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
total energy balance of around -48% -in relation to the Maximum DC, -17% first four years -2017 to 2021- the minimum scenario Max. RoI (without Windows) Min. RoI (without Windows) Max. RoI
Years

The research provides an insight into the energy original scenario (see Figure 8.1). resulted in a revenue of around 27% of the original Min. RoI Minimum Scenar io Maximum Scenario
performance of the common GC model in GCR as part Figure 8.1. GC final energy balance by optimization scenario. costs, whereas the maximum scenario resulted in 48% Figure 8.3. Collective electricity savings per optimization scenario.
of the residential sector. Undoubtedly, the current An additional energy reduction could be achieved by (see Figure 8.2. Electricity cost reduction per scenario.).
common design cannot be considered energy efficient, introducing DC to the urban situation in which the Electricty Use Costs Reduction 8.1.3. Different possible scenarios

Scenario
Investment Cost
per Optimizaion

therefore, the study focused on improving the energy
performance -consumption and production- of the
individual buildings, as well as the GC as a whole.
Max.
GC is located. DC -when applied- has the potential to 40 The two optimization scenarios have been proven
35
achieve an extra energy reduction between 7% and profitable. As shown in Figure 8.3, both the scenarios The results demonstrate the varying effect of
30
17% of the original GC demand (see Figure 8.1). 25 reach their respective break-even point before the the optimization strategies on the total energy

8.1.1. GC total possible energy balance
The results show that by applying the optimization
strategies the energy consumption of the whole
GC can be significantly reduced. The minimum
optimization scenario resulted in a reduction of
around 22%, while the maximum optimization
scenario resulted in an extra 8% -a total of 30%.
The original scenario did not utilize the existing on-
site potentials for energy production, which led to a
substantial improvement in the energy production
situation of the GC. This was manifested in the results,
as the minimum optimization scenario resulted in
enough energy production to cover 53% of the original
82
Scenario
Min.
Savings (MEGP)
20 twentieth year -the minimum life-cycle of the performance of the GC. For instance, the light
15
8.1.2. Cost efficiency and possible RoI 10
optimization components. and plug­ -load optimization strategy reduces the
24% 66%
29%
5
21%
electricity consumption of all typologies by over 26% 58%
0
Undoubtedly, the investment costs of the -27%
In the maximum optimization scenario, the RoI 19%, while having an insignificant investment cost
-5
optimization scenarios are on the higher end of the -10 -48%
after the 20th year represented only 17% of the initial when compared to the other strategies (see Figure
spectrum. For instance, the windows optimization -15 investment, which can be discouraging for the 8.4). On the other hand, the windows optimization
2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021
alone is responsible for an extra investment of around investor. However, the minimum optimization strategy contributes to the energy demand reduction
Original Scenario Max. Scenario
123.5 MEGP, and 252.7 MEGP for the minimum Min. Scenario Max. Revenue scenario resulted in a remarkable RoI of 75% of the by less than 4% in all building typologies. Yet, it is Windows PV Modules Walls SWH Light Loads
Min. Revenue
and maximum optimization scenarios respectively. original investment cost. This can create a financial responsible for over than 50% of the investment costs Figure 8.4. Ratio of investment costs per optimization strategy.
However, when considering the additional Figure 8.2. Electricity cost reduction per scenario. incentive for the investors as well as the users. Despite in both scenarios (see Figure 8.4).
marketing value, as well as the potential RoI, the extra having a much lower RoI, the maximum scenario can
investment can be considered not only justifiable but be more cost-effective when combined with DC, as it Eliminating the windows optimization would
also profitable. lowers the total cooling demand, thus, reducing the increase the RoI by 88% in the minimum optimization
chillers design capacity. scenario (see Figure 8.3. Collective electricity savings
The aforementioned energy demand optimization per optimization scenario.), whereas, in the maximum
led to considerable reduction in the annual energy optimization scenario, the RoI would increase by a
83

staggering 345% (see Figure 8.3. Collective electricity
savings per optimization scenario.). In this case, the
maximum optimization scenario would be more
appealing to the investor as well as to the users.
This shows that the costs of the optimization
strategies are not proportional to their effect on the
energy performance of the GC. Therefore, the most
energy efficient, as well as cost-efficient scenario
could be achieved by performing a trade off between
the optimizations’ effect and their costs.
8.1.4. Implications for building codes and
policies
The study shows a high potential for improving
the energy situation in the residential buildings in
general, and in GCs in particularly. This falls perfectly
into the Egyptian national goal for the energy sector.
However, the current building codes and policies are
not providing much support -neither to the users nor
to the investors- to apply such measures.
On the building level, the government has never
enforced the Egyptian building energy code since its
development in 2006 (HBRC, 2008b). Moreover, the
study shows a gap between the current code and the
status quo of research and technology, as well as the
market development.
As shown in the results, the building typology
-single‑family and multi-family housing- has
an impact on the energy demand patterns of the
building, which requires a different set of strategies
84
to reach the best optimization scenario. This can
be introduced to the building energy code by
subcategorizing the different building typologies.
Likewise, the optimization strategies have varying
effects on the energy performance of the building.
By introducing a weighing system to the code, the
designer would be able to identify the higher impact
strategies more easily. Lastly, it is important to
introduce the technological solutions; such as PV
systems, SWH, and Light and occupancy sensors; as
well as updating the code periodically.
On the municipal level, the respective authorities
NUCA or the governorates- promote an energy
inefficient planning scheme through the inadequate
building regulations. The study shows a significant
role to the building densities on reducing the collective
energy demand of the residential settlements. In
contrast, the regulations promote a lower building
density (see Appendix B).
Even though the regulations allow a mixed land use
allocation within the residential settlements, the
ratio of the land uses can be adjusted based on the
collective energy performance of the whole urban
situation. Additionally, with proper size and built‑up
ratio, DC can become more energy efficient and more
affordable.
On a national level, the current reformations of
the energy sector promote a more energy efficient
consumption by all the sectors (EBRD, 2017; GOPP,
2012). Lifting the subsidies over the electricity prices
has made the optimization strategies more appealing
Discussion & Conclusion
to the users as they became more cost-effective
(Griffin, Laursen, & Robertson, 2016; MOEE, 2017).
However, the lower feed-in tariffs -in comparison to
the selling prices- reduces the possible RoI. With high
investment costs and a low RoI, the concern becomes
more the initial costs rather than the potential profit.
This issue can be tackled by providing financial
incentives to the user as well as the investor. This can
be achieved through a financial scheme that balances
a higher feed-in tariff, with financial incentives
and grants, as well as loans and tax deductions (see
Appendix B).
8.1.5. Implications on the market value of
GCs
According to the case study developer, the
sustainability and energy performance of the
residential units, as well as the GC, are not yet one of
the concerns of the clients (see Appendix B). However,
the increasing energy prices will -eventually- lead
to the emergence of a demand for energy efficiency
solutions. This is manifested in the increasing
demand for efficient lighting -such as LED lights (see
Appendix B).
Furthermore, the survey results show that the users
are aware of the possible solutions; as around 88% of
the GC residents agreed that the use of PV modules
and solar heater can reduce their energy consumption
(see Appendix A). On the other hand, around 54%
were not willing to invest in such measures, or only
invest less than 500 EGP monthly (see Appendix A);
Discussion & Conclusion
which indicate that the main concern of the users is
the investment cost.
Additionally, the extra cost of the optimization
strategies -except for the windows- can be considered
affordable when compared to the initial price of
the unit. Ergo, by providing the users with an
energy efficient product -residential units- with
an affordable investment cost, and a high RoI; the
concept of an energy efficient GC can be considered
as an added value, and a new real‑estate market for
energy efficient GCs can be developed.
8.2. Contribution to existing research
A few researchers have dedicated their work to the
energy efficiency of the whole residential settlement
in Egypt. Most of the researchers focus on the
residential unit or the building scale. While on
the urban scale, the focus shifts to the energy flow
balance between the different sectors in the city; such
as buildings, traffic, industry, etc. (Khalil & Khalil,
2015). Moreover, the energy performance of GCs in
Egypt has not been tackled in any of the reviewed
literature
The study creates a link between the two scales;
building scale and urban scale. It displays the energy
performance of the residential buildings in relation
to the whole settlement while investigating the
possible optimization strategies on the scale of the
GC, which leads to more energy efficient solutions
that are not viable on the building level; such as DC.
Consequently, the study is an attempt to fill the gap
between the two researched scales, while focusing on
an under-researched real‑estate phenomena; the GC.
8.2.1. Building energy sector
On the building scale, the results show that some
optimization strategies have a higher effect on the
energy performance of the building than others. For
instance, the windows optimization had a minor
effect on the energy consumption reduction, yet, it
was responsible for more than half the investment
costs. Thus, it is more efficient to optimize the form
of the building to provide the most self-shading on its
transparent components.
In contrast, the light and plug‑load optimization had
a significant energy consumption reduction, whereas
its investment cost was insignificant in comparison
to the other optimizations. Accordingly, it is more
important to find the right balance between the
applied strategies in order to reach the highest and
most cost-efficient energy performance
On the urban scale, the study emphasizes the key
role of the building density in reducing the footprint
energy consumption. Additionally, the higher
building density tackle one of the obstacles hindering
the application of DC; the length of the network (see
Appendix B).
8.2.2. From gated communities to sustainable
communities
Undoubtedly, the world is moving towards
urbanization, as most of the world’s countries have
80% -or more- of their population living in urban
settlements (Auclair & Fairclough, 2015). This led to
the withdrawal of the vast majority of the population
from the governance process. As part of the urban
fabric, GCs are criticized of contributing to the
spatial fragmentation of the city, the exclusion of
individuals, and the political withdrawal of GC
residents and local municipalities (see Chapter 2).
To tackle this growing issue, the UNESCO, as well
as the Council of Europe, have proposed a people-
centered governance process with a focus on collective
governance and inhabitants’ participation (Auclair &
Fairclough, 2015). This strengthens the connection
and facilitates the dialogue between the different
neighborhoods, communities, generations; and
promotes social cohesion (Auclair & Fairclough, 2015).
The proposed concept of energy efficient GCs
transforms the GC model from being a consumer
society into a productive society. This develops a need
for self-governance and a sense of responsibility. The
concept of community ownership -or cooperative
societies- is not a new notion. It has been proven
successful in areas of mainland Europe, as it
incentivizes the use of wind energy (Rae & Bradley,
2012). Denmark, for example, has as much as 80%
of its wind power capacity owned by some sort of
community ownership (Rae & Bradley, 2012).
85
 Discussion & Conclusion Discussion & Conclusion

Furthermore, the performance of the proposed GCR 2052 Development Vision: the energy consumption by 5% by 2015 compared to
model can be measured and optimized. As stated the previous 5 years.(RCREEE, 2012).
by Innes and Booher (2000), one of the indicators of
sustainable communities is system performance. The In 2011, the residential sector was responsible for 41%
energy performance of the GC can be measured by of the total national electricity consumption (Elrefaei
individuals as well as governing entities to evaluate & Khalifa, 2014), nowadays, it is responsible for
and optimize the performance of the model. around 52% (EEHC, 2016). Out of the total residential
consumption, 30% is consumed by lighting, and
Finally, the model promotes the share of resources and 70% by the electrical appliances (Elrefaei & Khalifa,
the welfare of the other, since the individual benefits 2014). Therefore, the NEEAP focused on lowering
increase by the increase of the collective benefits. This the residential consumption through 3 main
would sustain the model and would create a space for procedures; efficient lamps, efficient appliances, and
further social interaction and development. the increase of solar water heaters (Elrefaei & Khalifa,
2014). Despite these efforts, the action plan still lacks
8.2.3. Contributions to the national goals adequate energy efficiency regulations within the
policy framework (Elrefaei & Khalifa, 2014).
In 2012, the government developed a national
development plan with a vision for the year 2052
(GOPP, 2012). As shown in Figure 8.5, the main Electricity Consumption versus GDP
objective is to achieve social justice, equal distribution
70

1000 USD/capita
of resources amongst different regions, as well as SWE
providing job opportunities and suitable housing to 60
USA
the increasing population (GOPP, 2012). DEU
50
FRA
JPN
Regarding the energy sector, Egypt has an 40 ITA ISR

unproductive pattern of energy consumption. As ESP KOR

30
shown in Figure 8.6, other countries with emerging
economies; such as Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia, and 20 TUR RUS
BRA MYS
South Africa, are doing much better than Egypt in
10
EGY IRN ZAF
terms of energy-use intensity (Elrefaei & Khalifa, Figure 8.5. Development vision of Egypt’s National Plan 2052. [Retrieved] From: (GOPP, 2012). IND

2014; World Bank Group, 2014). Accordingly, the 0

0 0.5 1 1.5
government adopted a National Energy Efficiency MWh/capita
Action Plan (NEEAP), which was aiming to reduce Figure 8.6. Electricity consumption versus GDP. [Adapted] from:
Figure 8.7. GCR 2027 development vision. [Retrieved] from: (GOPP, 2012). (World Bank Group, 2014).
86 87

The study adopts the national development plans
through providing a model for optimizing the
energy performance of GCs in particular, and the
newly developed residential settlements in general,
thus, improving the quality of life of the residents,
and improving the social justice by promoting the
productive society concept.
Moreover, the study contributes to the
commercialization of the energy sector through the
residential sector. As stated by the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in its
development strategy for Egypt (2017), one of the
priorities is to improve the quality and sustainability
of the public utilities in Egypt through the private
sector participation and commercialization.
In line with the national plan, the GCR has worked
out its own development strategy (see Figure 8.7). As
the Egyptian population increases, GCR is expected
to accommodate around 26.8 Mio inhabitant by the
year 2027, and 33.5 Mio by the year 2052 (GOPP, 2012).
This will require establishing 3.7 Mio additional
residential units in cooperation with the private
sector, mainly in the new cities (GOPP, 2012). As a
result, certain urban problems would emerge; such as
overcrowding, scarcity of land, and pollution (GOPP,
2012). This requires an adequate urban planning with
consideration to the urban situation, environment,
infrastructure, and the mechanisms of the labor force
(GOPP, 2012).
88
The vision aims for achieving environmental
sustainability through the development of
regulations and legislation as well as other eco-
friendly sustainability factors, in order to achieve the
optimal exploitation of resources (GOPP, 2012).
The study complies with the GCR development goals,
as it fulfills the following objectives:
1) Improving energy-saving methods.
2) Developing the capacity of rationalizing
energy consumption in the building and
construction sector.
3) Raising the public awareness of consumers
to rationalize and reduce consumption.
(GOPP, 2012)
It also contributes to the regional goal of achieving
20% increase in reliance on renewable energy
resources in the generation and consumption of
electricity in the GCR.
As identified by the GOPP (2012), GCR suffers from a
lack of community participation and lack of unique
social characteristics for its communities. The study
tackles this issue by promoting the cooperative
society model of governance within the residential
settlements. This model promotes the participation
of the whole community in the governance process
to manage the common resources, thus, become an
active productive community, instead of being idle.
Discussion & Conclusion
8.3. Conclusion
This study is an attempt to revisit the common
real‑estate model for GCs in Egypt. Academically, GCs
are accused of contributing to the defragmentation of
the urban fabric, the exclusion of individuals, and
political withdrawal of the residents as well as the
authorities. The study aims to help the transition of
the current model into a sustainable one by providing
a new model of GCs that focuses on the energy
efficiency and productivity of the community.
8.3.1. Review of the purpose of the study
The main objective of the study is to transition
the common Egyptian GC into a sustainable one
by creating an energy efficient and productive
community, which promotes the integration of
individuals and the collective benefit of the society.
The proposed model aims to improve the energy
performance of the individual buildings as well
as the whole GC through the implementation of
optimization strategies for the energy consumption
and production within the GC.
Moreover, the study attempts to create a balance
between the potential energy balance and the cost of
the implemented strategies, in order to reach not only
an energy efficient but also a cost-efficient model.
Discussion & Conclusion
8.3.2. Major findings
The results highlight the relation between the effect
of the optimization strategy on the final energy
balance and the respective cost. For instance, the
light‑load optimization strategy has been proven
very effective, with a very minimal investment cost,
whereas the windows optimization strategy had the
highest investment cost with a minimal impact on
the energy balance.
Additionally, the results show that the collective
consumption of the GC can be significantly reduced
by increasing the building density. This also
contributes to overcoming one of the major obstacles
hindering the implementation of DC; the network
length.
Finally, the optimized model proved to be a very
profitable investment model, as the RoI period could
reach 12 to 15 years in some scenarios.
8.3.3. Implications of the findings
The proposed model has been proven to be both energy
efficient, and profitable. This could create a new
real‑estate market for energy efficient settlements and
raise the awareness towards sustainable communities.
This model does not only contribute to the energy
consumption reduction of the residential sector
but also provides a potential decentralized power
generation source to aid the aging power plants in
Egypt.
Finally, the proposed model creates productive
communities, which share their common resources
and manage them cooperatively. This promotes the
integration and participation of the society in the
governance process, in contrast to the current idle GC
societies.
8.3.4. Research critique
The research focuses mainly on the energy
performance of the GC and how to achieve the most
energy and cost-efficient model. However, as the aim
is to create a sustainable model, further research is
needed to cover other sustainability aspects; such as
the social integration and participation, waste and
water cycles, management of the resources, etc.
Additionally, further investigations should be
conducted on the effect of applying such a model
on the national grid and its capacity, and how to
prepare the national infrastructure to the potential
decentralized production. Moreover, the study
estimated roughly the size of the DC system needed
to cover the cooling load of the studied GC. Further
detailed calculations are required to evaluate the
feasibility of implementing DC as an optimization
strategy.
Finally, the CBA was calculated based on the current
market prices and feed-in tariff. Due to the current
reformation of the Egyptian economy, the prices are
subjected to a possible fluctuation. A more thorough
study of the market is needed, and its effect on the
feasibility of the model. On the other hand, the
policies and regulations need to be reviewed, in order
to recommend a set of strategies that incentivize the
market’s transition towards such a model.
8.3.5. GCs from problematic urban domains
to sustainable communities
The study shows a high potential for the development
of energy efficient communities in Egypt. The
national development plan aims to increase the
inhabited area of Egypt to 11% with a prospect
to create millions of additional residential units.
The development of new cities will result in more
residential settlements and consequently more GCs.
This can be a burden on the national infrastructure
if not taken into consideration early in the planning
process. Sustainable communities can provide a
solution for such a problem. The private sector has the
means to achieve such a model if proven profitable.
There is a growing need for sustainable communities.
The right model would create a better quality of life
for its residents, which is the main reason behind
the popularity of the GCs nowadays. Sustainable
communities mean a better use of resources, a
productive and a well-integrated society, and
a suitable environment for development and
prosperity.
89
   eferences
References
Abaza, M. (2011). Critical Commentary. Cairo’s Downtown Imagined: Dubaisation or Nostalgia? Urban
Studies, 48(6), 1075–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098011399598
Abouleish, H., Keitel, M., & Boes, P. M. (n.d.). Egypt, SEKEM, and Climate Change. Retrieved January 31, 2018,
from http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/egypt-sekem-and-climate-change
Abu-Lughod, J. L. (1987). The Islamic city–Historic myth, Islamic essence, and contemporary relevance.
International Journal of Middle East Studies, 19(02), 155–176.
Adham, K. (2005). Globalization, Neoliberalism, and New Spaces of Capital in Cairo. Traditional Dwellings and
Settlements Review, 17(1), 19–32.
AFGRE. (2017). Cairo Festival City Brochure. Al-Futtaim Group Real Estate. Retrieved from www.digitaleg.
com
Al Ahly. (2017). Lavenir-Brochure. Al Ahly for Real Estate Developments. Retrieved from www.alahly.com
Almatarneh, R. T. (2013). Choices and changes in the housing market and community preferences: Reasons
for the emergence of gated communities in Egypt. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 4(3), 563–583. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.asej.2012.11.003
Almatarneh, R. T., & Mansour, Y. M. ( 2013). The role of advertisements in the marketing of gated communities
as a new Western suburban lifestyle: a case study of the Greater Cairo Region, Egypt. Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment, 28(3), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-012-9326-1
ARCHA Group. (2018). Material and Equipment Costs. Egypt: ARCHA Group.
Ashgar Heights. (n.d.). Ashgar Heights. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.ashgarheights.com
ASHRAE, A. society of heating refrigerating and air conditioning engineers. (2011). Chapter 50: Service Water
Heating. In 2011 ASHRAE handbook. Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning applications. Atlanta: American
Society of heating, refrigerating and air-conditioning engineers.
R
Atkinson, R., & Blandy, S. (2005). Introduction: International Perspectives on The New Enclavism and the Rise
of Gated Communities. Housing Studies, 20(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000331718
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2004). Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time–space
trajectories of segregation. Housing Studies, 19(6), 875–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303042000293982
Attia, S., & Evrard, A. (2013). Benchmark Models for Air Conditioned Residential Buildings in Hot Humid
Climate. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of International Building Performance Simulation Association.
Chambery.
Attia, S., Evrard, A., & Gratia, E. (2012). Development of benchmark models for the Egyptian residential
buildings sector. Applied Energy, 94, 270–284.
Auclair, E., & Fairclough, G. J. (Eds.). (2015). Theory and practice in heritage and sustainability: between past and
future. London ; New York: Routledge.
Autodesk. (2018). Autodesk Green Building StudioTM (Version 2018).
Bagaeen, S. (2015). Urban gating, soft boundaries and networks of influence and affluence. In S. Bagaeen & O.
Uduku, Beyond Gated Communities (pp. 9–25). Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
CanmetENERGY. (2017). RETScreen Expert (Version 6.1.0.27). Minister of Natural Resources,
CanmetENERGY.
CAPMAS, C. A. for P. M. and S. (2018a). Current Population. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from http://www.
capmas.gov.eg/HomePage.aspx
CAPMAS, C. A. for P. M. and S. (2018b). 8102 ‫ يناير‬.‫ نرشة احصائية شهرية‬:‫املعلوماتية‬. [The Information: Monthly statistical
review. January 2018.] (The Information No. 53-20111–2018). Cairo, Egypt.: Central Agency for Public
Mobilization and Statistics.
Chow, T. T., Chan, A. L. S., & Song, C. L. (2004). Building-mix optimization in district cooling system
implementation. Applied Energy, 77(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(03)00102-8
E. Innes, J., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy Building on
Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(2), 173–186. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14649350020008378
 References
  eferences
EBRD, E. B. for R. and D. (2017). Strategy for Egypt. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
EEHC, E. E. H. C. (2016). Annual Report 2015/2016. Egyptian Electricity Holding Company (EEHC).
EgyptERA, E. E. U. and C. P. R. A. (2014). ‫القواعد التنظيمية لتنفيذ مرشوعات النتاج الكهرباء من مصادر متجددة بنظام تعريفة التغذية‬
[Regulations for renewable energy production with feed-in tarrif system] (p. 9).
EgyptERA, E. E. U. and C. P. R. A. (2017). ‫ [ تعريفة وأسعار الكهرباء‬Electricity tarrif and prices]. Retrieved September
25, 2017, from http://egyptera.org/ar/t3reefa.aspx#
Elharidi, A. M. A. H., Tuohy, P. G., & Teamah, M. (2013). Facing the growing problem of the electric power
consumption in Egyptian residential building using building performance simulation program. In Building
Simulation Cairo 2013 Conference.
El-Menchawy, A., Bassioni, H., & Farouk, A.-A. (2011). Photovoltaic Systems in Existing Residential Building
in Egypt. International Journal Scientific and Engineering: Research, 2(7), 1–10.
Elrefaei, H., & Khalifa, M. A. (2014). A Critical Review on the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan of Egypt.
Journal of Natural Resources and Development. https://doi.org/10.5027/jnrd.v4i0.03
Emaar Misr. (n.d.). Mivida Brochure. Emaar Misr for Development. Retrieved from www.emaarmisr.com
Farrag, N. M., & Mohamed, A. (2016). ACTIVATE APPLICATION OF SOLAR WATER HEATING IN
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS -CAIRO-EGYPT, 11(3), 1698–1716.
Ghonimi, I., El Zamly, H., Khairy, M., & Soilman, M. (2011). The Contribution Of Gated Communities To
Urban Development In Greater Cairo Region, New Towns. Journal of Al Azhar University-Engineering Sector.
GOPP, G. O. for P. P. (2012). Greater Cairo Urban Development Strategy. Part 1: Future vision and strategic
directions. Cairo, Egypt.: Ministry of Housing, Utilities, and Urban Communities (MHUC). Retrieved from
www.CairoFutureVision.gov.eg
Griffin, P., Laursen, T., & Robertson, J. (2016). Egypt: guiding reform of energy subsidies long-term.
Harre-Rogers, D. (2006). Urban studies in Cairo, Egypt: From Cairo to Greater Cairo region. (Urban Update No. 8).
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
R
Hassan, A. (2011). Dynamic Expansion and Urbanization of Greater Cairo Metropolis, Egypt. In M. Schrenk,
V. Popovich, & P. Zeile (Eds.), Change for stability - lifecycles of cities and regions: the role and possibilities of
foresighted planning in transformation processes. Essen, DE.: CORP, Competence Center of Urban and Regional
Planning.
HBRC, H. and B. N. R. C. (2008a). Part 1: Residential Buildings. In ‫الكود املرصي لتحسني كفاءة استخدام الطاقة يف املباين‬. ECP
306-2005 ‫كود رقم‬. [The Egyptian code for improving the energy performance of buildings. ECP 306-2005.] (ECP 305-
2005). Cairo, Egypt.: Ministry of Housing.
HBRC, H. and B. N. R. C. (2008b). Part 1: Residential Buildings. In ‫الكود املرصي لتحسني كفاءة استخدام الطاقة يف املباين‬. ECP
306-2005 ‫كود رقم‬. [The Egyptian code for improving the energy performance of buildings. ECP 306-2005.] (ECP 305-
2005). Cairo, Egypt.: Ministry of Housing.
Hirsch, J. J. (1998). eQuest (Version 3.65). JJH. Retrieved from http://www.doe2.com/equest/
IEA, I. E. A. (n.d.). IEA Energy Atlas. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/
tellmap/-1118783123/1
Ismail, A., Noueihed, L., & Fenton, S. (2016, August). Egypt announces sharp rises in electricity prices as it
aims to phase out subsidies | Reuters. Retrieved May 11, 2017, from http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-egypt-
electricity-idUKKCN10J1US
Kares, M., & Pritpal, S. (2016). Assesment of building integrated photovolatics for the residential section in
representative Urban areas in Egypt. In IEEE (pp. 413–420).
Khalil, A. K., Mubarak, A. M., & Kaseb, S. A. (2010). Road map for renewable energy research and development
in Egypt. Journal of Advanced Research, 1(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2010.02.003
Khalil, H. A. E. E., & Khalil, E. E. (2015). Energy Efficiency in the Urban Environment. London, UK.: CRC Press.
Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hcuhamburg-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1755911
Kulkarni, G. N., Kedare, S. B., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2007). Determination of design space and optimization of
solar water heating systems. Solar Energy, 81(8), 958–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.12.003
Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (2013). The Urban Design Reader. Routledge.
 References
  eferences
Le Goix, R., & Webster, C. J. (2008). Gated Communities. Geography Compass, 2(4), 1189–1214. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00118.x
Lemanski, C. (2010). Gated Communities. In R. Hutchison, Encyclopedia of Urban Studies. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk
&AN=525925&site=ehost-live
McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government.
Bringhamton, NY.: Yale University Press.
McKenzie, E. (1998). Reinventing common interest developments: Reflections on a policy role for the
judiciary. J. Marshall L. Rev., 31, 397.
MOEE, M. of E. and E. (n.d.). ‫الصفحة الرئيسية ملوقع الرتشيد‬. [Tarshed homepage.]. Retrieved January 17, 2018, from
http://www.moee.gov.eg/tarshed/
MOEE, M. of E. and E. (2017). 8102/7102 ‫[ املؤمتر الصحفي الخاص باالعالن عن اسعار بيع الكهرباء للعام املايل‬The press conference for
the announcement of the electricity selling prices for the fiscal year 2017/2018]. Retrieved January 2, 2018,
from http://www.youm7.com/story/2017/7/6/5093133/‫األسعار‬-‫وزيادة‬-‫الكهرباء‬-‫لدعم‬-‫البيانية‬-‫والرسوم‬-‫الكاملة‬-‫الجداول‬-‫ننرش‬
Mostafa, M. (2014). Challenges to Energy Transition in Egypt: A Study of Wind and Solar Sectors (Master of Public
Management). University of Potsdam, Potsdam, DE.
NUCA, N. U. C. A. (n.d.). New Cities. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.newcities.gov.eg/
english/default.aspx
Ogbomo, O. O., Amalu, E. H., Ekere, N. N., & Olagbegi, P. O. (2017). A review of photovoltaic module
technologies for increased performance in tropical climate. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75,
1225–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.109
Puttinger, M. (2013). Economic feasibility of renewable energy in Egypt (Bachelor Thesis). Graz University of
Technology, Graz, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.ansole.org/download/Economic_feasibility_of_RE_
in_Egypt_v1.0_Puttinger.pdf
Rae, C., & Bradley, F. (2012). Energy autonomy in sustainable communities—A review of key issues. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(9), 6497–6506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.08.002
R
RCREEE, R. C. for R. E. and E. E. (2012). Arab guideline to improve electric power efficiency and rational use of
electricity of the end user: Energy efficiency plan in the electricity sector. Retrieved from http://taqaway.net/sites/
default/files/uploads/documents/NEEAP_Egypt_English.pdf
RESCUE. (2015). Sweden: Renewable Smart Cooling in Urban Europe. Retrieved from http://www.rescue-
project.eu
Samcrete Development. (n.d.). Pyramids Heights. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://
pyramidsheights.com
Shaker Consultancy Group, S. C. G. (n.d.). District Cooling & Congestion. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from
http://shakerconsultancygroup.com/district_cooling_&_congestion.html
Sims, D., & Abu-Lughod, J. (2010). Understanding Cairo: The Logic of a City Out of Control. American University
in Cairo Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15m7mmr
SODIC. (2015-a). Allegria Brochure. SODIC Human Developments. Retrieved from www.sodic.com
SODIC. (2015-b). Eastown Brochure. SODIC Human Developments. Retrieved from www.sodic.com
SODIC. (2015-c). SODIC Media Centre. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://sodic.com/media-
downloads/
SODIC. (2015-d). Westown Brochure. SODIC Human Developments. Retrieved from www.sodic.com
TMG Holdings. (n.d.). Al Rehab Gallery. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://alrehabcity.com
World Bank Group. (2014). Data Bank [Text/HTML]. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from http://databank.
worldbank.org
World Bank Group. (2016). Population ranking | Data. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from https://data.
worldbank.org/data-catalog/population-ranking-table
xe.com. (2017, December). XE: USD / EGP Currency Chart. US Dollar to Egyptian Pound Rates. Retrieved
December 31, 2017, from http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=EGP#
Appendix A.

SURVEY
RESULTS
 Survey Results Survey Results

A.1. Survey questions and results Q5. Number of Residents Q9. Average Daily Occupancy Q12. AC Power in horse power (you can choose more than
Q1. Age one answer)
Answer Choices Responses Answer Choices Responses
Answer Choices Responses Answer Choices Responses
1 3.63% 7 Less than 10 hrs 20.32% 38
Less than 20 8.29% 16 1.5 64.00% 96
2-3 34.72% 67 From 10 to 15 hrs 46.52% 87
From 20 to 40 72.02% 139 2.25 44.67% 67
4 or more 61.66% 119 More than 15 hrs 33.16% 62
More than 40 19.69% 38 3 35.33% 53

Q6. Area of the Residential Unit Q10. Number of Air Conditioners in the Unit 4 8.00% 12

Q2. Housing Status Answer Choices Responses Answer Choices Responses 5 to 7 6.67% 10

Answer Choices Responses Less than 90 m2 7.25% 14 None 13.90% 26 8 to 10 0.00% 0

Private 51.30% 99 from 90 to 120 m2 23.32% 45 1 19.79% 37 more than 10 0.00% 0

With the parents 46.63% 90 from 120 to 150 m2 23.83% 46 2 25.67% 48

With friends or unrelated individuals 2.07% 4 Q13. Average AC daily usage hours in Summer
From 150 to 200 m2 26.42% 51 3 16.58% 31
Answer Choices Responses
More than 200 m2 19.17% 37 More than 3 24.06% 45
Q3. Resident Ownership Status less than 5 19.33% 29

Answer Choices Responses Q7. Do you live in one of the new Cities (Satellite Cities)? Q11. AC type (you can choose more than one answer) 5 to 10 53.33% 80

Sole ownership 79.27% 153 Answer Choices Responses Answer Choices Responses 11 to 15 22.00% 33

Rental 19.17% 37 Yes 39.38% 76 Split 88.67% 133 more than 15 5.33% 8

Other 1.55% 3 No 60.62% 117 Window 24.00% 36

Central 2.67% 4
Q4. Type of Unit Q8. Do you (or any of the residents) own more than one
Answer Choices Responses residential unit in the GCR?

Apartment 83.42% 161 Answer Choices Responses

Villa 12.95% 25 Yes 41.97% 81

Twin-House (Semi-attached) 1.55% 3 No 53.37% 103

Other 2.07% 4 Don’t Know 4.66% 9

 Survey Results Survey Results

Q14. Average monthly electricity bill payment in Sum- Q16. Water heater type Q20. How far (approximately) is the work/ study location Q23. Do you pay annually for the operation and mainte-
mer months (for last year) nance of the Gated Community?
Answer Choices Responses Answer Choices Responses
Answer Choices Responses Answer Choices Responses
Natural Gas 51.43% 90 5 to 10 km 19.51% 8
less than 80 EGP 6.86% 12 Yes 70.73% 29
Electricity 45.71% 80 11 to 30 km 36.59% 15
80 to 150 EGP 17.14% 30 No 21.95% 9
Solar Water Heater 1.14% 2 31 to 50 km 24.39% 10
150 to 360 EGP 26.29% 46 I don’t Know 7.32% 3
I don’t know 1.71% 3 more than 50 km 19.51% 8
360 to 950 EGP 28.57% 50
950 to 2000 EGP 12.57% 22 Q24. In case of answering “Yes”, how much -on average-
Q17. Do you own PV modules? Q21. How satisfied are you with the living conditions in
do you annually pay? (In the case of Trust Fund, kindly
2000 to 3000 EGP 4.00% 7 the Gated Community? (1=Not Satisfied…. 5=Very Happy)
Answer Choices Responses divide it by the number of installments years of the unit)
More than 3000 EGP 2.29% 4 Answer Choices Responses
Yes 1.14% 2 Answer Choices Responses
I don’t know 2.29% 4 1 0.00% 0
No 98.29% 172 Less than 1000 EGP 21.62% 8
2 4.88% 2
I don’t know 0.57% 1 1000 to 3000 EGP 48.65% 18
Q15. Average monthly electricity bill payment in Winter 3 19.51% 8
3000 to 6000 EGP 10.81% 4
months (for last year)
Q18. Are you a resident of a Gated Community? 4 51.22% 21
6000 to 9000 EGP 8.11% 3
Answer Choices Responses
Answer Choices Responses 5 24.39% 10
More than 9000 EGP 10.81% 4
less than 80 EGP 18.86% 33
Yes 24.14% 42
80 to 150 EGP 33.14% 58 Q22. In your opinion, what can be improved in your Gat-
No 75.86% 132 Q25. In your opinion, can the use of renewables (such as
150 to 360 EGP 22.86% 40 ed Community? (you can choose more than one answer)
PV modules and Solar heaters) help to reduce the energy
360 to 950 EGP 16.00% 28 Answer Choices Responses bill of the unit?
Q19. Reasons for moving to a Gated Community
950 to 2000 EGP 4.57% 8 (you can choose more than one answer) Units Design 21.95% 9 Answer Choices Responses

2000 to 3000 EGP 0.57% 1 Answer Choices Responses Thermal Comfort within the unit (Building resilience to Yes 87.80% 36
the extreme temperatures in Summer and Winter) 31.71% 13
More than 3000 EGP 1.14% 2 Proximity to Work/ Study Location 27.50% 11 No 2.44% 1
Energy Consumption of the residential unit 17.07% 7
I don’t know 2.86% 5 Escaping the problems of the city center 75.00% 30 I don’t Know 9.76% 4
Quality of the open spaces (Green areas/ Shaded areas/
Availability of services and leisure facilities 22.50% 9 Availability/ Area) 43.90% 18
Availability of Security and Privacy 60.00% 24 Management (Residents’ involvement/ Transparency in
decision making/ Expenses allocation) 73.17% 30
Investment/ future resident for family members 10.00% 4
 Survey Results

Q26. In case of answering “Yes”, how much would you

invest (monthly) for a period of time in order to reduce
the energy cost of the unit?
Answer Choices Responses
I do not want to invest 20.51% 8
Less than 500 EGP 35.90% 14
500 to 1000 EGP 23.08% 9
1000 to 3000 EGP 12.82% 5
3000 to 5000 EGP 5.13% 2
More than 5000 EGP 2.56% 1
Appendix B.

CONDUCTED
INTERVIEWS
 Conducted Interviews Conducted Interviews

Interview 1 Q4 In your opinion, what is the future of renewable energies in Egypt?

- In my opinion the decentralization of energy production is the future.

DESIGNERS/ ACADEM- LOCATION: 26 El-Quds El-Shareef, Mit Akaba, Al Agouzah, A - Converting the residential sector to produce electricity and pump it into the network.
ICS PERSPECTIVE DATE: JULY 17, 2017 TIME: 10:19 Giza Governorate, Egypt. - There is a new project in Ain Al-Sokhna, to produce solar energy and use it in pumped-storage hydropower plant.
moemen@maconsultants-eg.com
Q5 What are the obstacles facing this future?

INTERVIEWEE NAME Prof. Moemen Afify - The technological limitation is one thing. When talking about solar plants in Egypt, PV cells are inefficient due to the high temperature. Solar parabolic
reflectors are the more suitable alternative in the Egyptian context.
Chairman at M A Consultants and - The main challenge to the electricity production –in general- is: the storage and transmission. The problem facing Egypt to create a multi-national grid is
INTERVIEWEE TITLE the transmission; the losses are too much on the long distances.
Professor of Architecture and environmental design at the department of architecture, Cairo University.
- The availability of the technology is another thing, the technology now is –mostly- being imported, which increases the overall cost.
INTERVIEWER Eng. Mostafa Abdellatif - Legally, no one is allowed to sell electricity to the customers, except the government. There is couple of exceptional projects –Cairo festival city and the
A
American University (AUC), which the government permitted them to sell their electricity production to themselves.
FACILITATOR Head of the department of architecture at - The constant electricity price during the day, with no peak-load tariffs.
Prof. Dr. Sahar Attia TITLE
Cairo university. - Finally, it’s purely economics. The selling price in comparison to the cost of the system is currently not economic.
- Increasing the prices is a must, in order to reduce this gap.
NOTE TAKER Eng. Mostafa Abdellatif - The government is currently facing too many problems, which make it more difficult and take longer to develop such strategies.
- The main concern of the user now is the price of the electricity/ energy, not the production alternatives.
THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Interview topics
Q6 What is the significance of the residential sector in dealing with the power crisis in Egypt?
INTERVIEWEE INFORMATION
- The residential sector represents 40-45% of the energy consumption in Egypt.
Q1 Would you kindly introduce yourself? A
- A merely 10% reduction in the residential energy consumption can be significant in solving the energy problem.
- My name is Moemen Afify, professor of Architecture and environmental design at Cairo University, and specialized in energy conservation and
Q7 Despite the existence of a building energy code, why isn’t it activated?
A sustainable buildings. Currently, I am teaching a course about “Solar energy in architectural and urban consideration”.
- I have four projects that were awarded LEED certificates, as well as three currently ongoing LEED projects. - The codes in general are not compulsory. However, the lack of monitoring is the problem.
THE ENERGY SECTOR IN EGYPT - For example, the fire code is activated due to the monitoring of the administration of civil defense, however, there is no such authority responsible for the
A
monitoring of building energy efficiency.
Q2 From your experience, what is the current state of the energy sector in Egypt? - This is mainly due to the lack of tools and expertise that can perform this monitoring.

- There is a lack of incentives for the usage of renewable energies Q8 Who should take the first steps to spread the idea of energy efficient residential buildings?
- The government has created policies and tariffs for the renewables, however, it is uneconomic. This is due to two main reasons; the low selling prices, and - The approach should start from both sides; the government should work on increasing the awareness and creating incentives, while the architect should
the fixation of these prices for 20 years. A
provide the technical support.
- Currently, the government is reevaluating these prices, and there are some loans that covers 4% of the cost of the system.
A
- There is law in the coastal areas and the new cities that compel the usage of solar heaters, however, it is not properly enforced. In some locations solar Q9 In your opinion, what are the reasons for the lack of demand for energy efficient buildings?
heaters are prohibited, because of the aesthetics of the area.
- Unlike the natural gas, the government hasn’t supported the usage of solar heaters for residential uses, while the users prefer the electrical water heaters - The lack of awareness
–which is less efficient, due to the installation complications of the gas alternatives. - The lack of incentives from the government
A - The lack of tools and expertise that monitor and regulate
Q3 What are your expectations for the energy sector in Egypt? - The subsidized energy prices
- The availability of the technology
- The government should include the private sector in the energy market, in order to have an energy market that liberates the prices, and can promote the
A
renewable energy production.
 Conducted Interviews

Q10 With the current increase in the energy prices, do you think that the need for energy efficient buildings will emerge in the near future?

- Of course, the increase in energy prices as well as the energy crisis have already driven the people towards a more efficient usage of energy.
A
- More and more people now are converting to LED lamps, and it’s a step-one in the overall improvement that will occur in the future.

Q11 From your experience, should we address the energy problem in residential buildings on an urban or architecture scale?

- The concept of the residential power plant is an existing concept in a lot of countries nowadays, which treats the residential communities as a power
A
producer, not only as a consumer. It would be great to implement such a concept in Egypt.
GATED COMMUNITIES

Q12 Do you think that gated communities have the potential to support the concept of energy efficient buildings? And what are these potentials?

- The idea of cooperative society is contributing much to the spread of energy efficiency and renewable energy production.
- Like in Germany, the beginning of wind turbines boom was in the form of farmers’ cooperative societies that invested in the wind turbines alongside the
incentives provided by the government.
- The cooperative societies have developed to not only act as investors, but also as operators of the system, where no third-party is required to operate the
A technology itself.
- In a nutshell, the potential of the cooperative society is in the involvement of the investor and the user in the whole process, which exists in the gated
communities one-way or another.
- Gated communities have the potential to be converted to solar communities. The main challenge now is the grid itself; its capacity, and the losses in the
network.

Q13 What are the renewable energy sources/ technologies that can be used on an urban scale in Egypt?

- Solar energy is the most suitable and more realistic in the Egyptian context. For example, the wind energy is not suitable in many regions; like Cairo.
- Solar water heaters, and PV cells are the most convenient in the context of Greater Cairo Region.
A - Solar chillers seem feasible, but I don’t have much information to support it.
- The most important thing now is developing the right tools and mechanisms that regulate the usage of renewables.
- Also the development of incentives for both the user and the investor.

Q14 How can we face the high cooling demand problem during the Summer season?

- First of all we should address the envelope design, to reduce the cooling demand.
A
- Without improving the envelope design, any cooling system designed will be oversized.

Q15 Do you think that district cooling is suitable for the Egyptian context?

- Unfortunately not much. District cooling needs high densities; such as high-rise buildings.
- It all comes back to the losses in the network on the long distances.
A - For spread residential units situation these two main criteria are not met.
- There is a district cooling system in the Smart Village, but they are complaining about the long distances of the network.
- Back again to the economics, it is still uneconomic to use district cooling, due to the high cost.
 Conducted Interviews Conducted Interviews

Interview 2 THE DESIGN ASPECTS

Q5 Regarding the design of the project, are there any sustainability strategies implemented or considered in the design process?
CASE STUDY LOCATION: Pyramids Heights, Business Park,
DATE: JULY 19, 2017 TIME: 13:33 - The only sustainable strategy that is taken in consideration is brown water treatment and recycle for irrigation purposes.
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS Cairo-Alexandria road, Cairo, Egypt.
A - District cooling was proposed in the beginning but the assigned consultant advised that in such low densities, district cooling is neither
efficient, nor profitable.
INTERVIEWEE NAME Eng. Mohamed Alkateb Q6 What about the thermal comfort and energy performance of the units, are there any considerations regarding them?
INTERVIEWEE TITLE Engineering Director at Samcrete Development - Other than the double glazed windows and openings, and the thermal insulation of the roof; there are no other considerations for the thermal
comfort or the energy performance of the units.
INTERVIEWER Eng. Mostafa Abdellatif A
- The lack of these strategies is mainly due to the lack of regulations. There are no requirements from the regulator side, as well as no demand
from the customer side for such strategies.
FACILITATOR Head of the department of architecture at Cairo
Prof. Dr. Sahar Attia TITLE
university. In your opinion –as an investor and a real-estate development company, is there an opportunity to market the sustainability and energy efficiency
Q7
aspects in Egypt?
Managing director of Samcrete real-estate
Eng. Hisham Elkheshen TITLE
development - Of course, it will become a must in the near future. The main obstacle was, and still is the subsidies in the energy sector. However, with the
A
current increment in the energy prices, the demand for such strategies will soon emerge.
NOTE TAKER Eng. Mostafa Abdellatif
Interview topics Q8 From your experience, what interests the client more when purchasing a unit in the project? What are the main considerations?

INTERVIEWEE INFORMATION - Mainly the customers nowadays are much wiser, since it is the third wave of developments. Therefore, they know about the regulations and
design criteria. They are usually more concerned with the following issues:
Q1 Would you kindly introduce yourself? o Who is the developer? (Trustworthy or not)
o The location.
- My name is Mohamed Hussein Alkateb, holder of B.Sc.in Architectural engineering from Cairo University. A o The homogeneity of the residents.
A - I worked in Kuwait and UAE from 1983-1995, since then I work in Egypt as a Capacity Director of Engineering Development. o The designer
- My position in Samcrete Development is Director of Engineering - There are still some traditional concerns, such as the orientation of the building regarding the natural ventilation. However, there is a lack of
PROJECT INFORMATION awareness of how to reach the thermal comfort in the building.
- To date, there is not one single client that questioned any sustainable issues.
Q2 When has the construction begun? And what is the expected completion date?
Q9 Is the HVAC system considered in the design? Or is it left to the owner?
- The project has started in August 2016, and the planned completion year is 2020.
A - What we have designed and catered for is split-room air conditioners for all the spaces in the unit. The power requirements for the AC units are
- The delivery of the units starts from the 4th quarter 2019, till the 4th quarter 2020.
taken in consideration, as well as the installation locations.
A
Q3 What are the available unit-typologies within the project? - We aid any client who wants to install a central system with the engineering calculations and requirements, but eventually, the client is
responsible for the system itself.
A - There are mainly 4 typologies (keys) in this project, 2 single family housing, and 2 multi-family housing.
Q10 Is there any potential for implementing a district cooling system for such a project?
Q4 Is there any predictions for the occupancy rates of the project –after the handing over?
- Basically, district cooling is the distribution of chilled water for cooling purposes, in order to reduce the corresponding electricity (energy)
- For the sake of calculations, the occupancy rate of year one can be considered 20%, year two 50%, year three 70-80%. I do not think it would increase – demand.
A
ultimately- than 80%. - Electricity distribution is cheaper and more feasible in comparison to chilled water; for the reasons of insulation, network requirements, and
A other considerations.
The rest of the project information are included within the delivered data. - In addition, the chilled water network needs more maintenance, and the life cycle is probably shorter than the electricity one.
- For district cooling, one mainly needs two things; high densities, and various applications. For these two reasons, district cooling is not efficient
for purely residential applications.
 Conducted Interviews

MANAGEMENT AND REGULATIONS

Q11 Who is responsible for the management of the compound after the delivery?

- There is a flaw in the management of gated communities. Usually, the management responsibilities shift from the developer to the tenant
association after two to three years from the handing over of the units –sometimes longer, basically to insure the maintenance and operation
A
standards. Some other developers continue managing the project after the handing over.
- The tenant association responsibilities fall on the residents of the units, not the owners.

Q12 How do you finance the operation and maintenance costs of the project?

- In line with common practice in Egypt, the owners pay a certain amount of money on installments for the purposes of operation and
maintenance; such as security, garbage collection, and street cleaning; as well as the maintenance of the different networks. These payments are
then put in a trust fund to finance the running costs of the operation and maintenance.
A - Later on, the owners supplement the original payments, due to the increment of these costs. However, these payments do not cater for the
replacements of the equipment and networks.
- Unfortunately, there are no regulations for funding the operation and maintenance costs.
- For this project, the payments represent 5% of the total price of the unit.

What are the possible financing schemes for improving the energy performance of the buildings, or implementing any other sustainable strategies in
Q13
the project?

- Normally, it would be paid for through regular installments over the life cycle of the applied strategy.
- In my personal opinion, it should be funded through a separate trust fund in addition to the trust fund for the operation and maintenance.
A
Although, the improvements to the building envelope should be added to the initial cost of the unit itself.
- However, these strategies should be regulated and incentivized through the regulator, rather than marketed by the investor.

Q14 Who owns the roof? And what is the possibility of adding a double roof structure?

- The roof is sold to the top unit in the multi-family typologies.

- I doubt it, unless it is pre-planned; as it is bound by the design of the urban fabric, in particular the ratio between the building heights to the
A
building distances, which should be maintained 1:4.
- Adding an additional roof to the existing situation will not be allowed.

Q15 Which set of regulations does the project follow? And which entity is responsible for the project permits?

- This project follows –administration-wise- the Giza governorate, unlike the new satellite cities, which follow the New Urban Communities
Authority (NUCA) and Ministry of Housing.
The regulations are as follows:

Foot-print Area: 30% Minimum unit area: 150 m2

A Units/Feddan: 10 Units Maximum building height: 12 m

Land-uses

Residential: 50% Community Services: 8-15%

Green areas: Minimum 15% Roads: 20%

 Conducted Interviews Conducted Interviews

Interview 3 THE ENERGY SECTOR IN EGYPT

LEGISLATIONS Q2 From your experience, what is the current state of the energy sector in Egypt?
LOCATION: IMC, 1195 Nile Corniche, Boulaq, Cairo
PERSPECTIVE OF THE DATE: JULY 31, 2017 TIME: 11:42 Governorate, Egypt. - The energy sector has been massively developed in the past years. Subsidies cuts led to a significant increase in the public awareness due 1
DECISION MAKER hendfarouh@gmail.com to the increasing energy prices; especially regarding efficient lighting –as in LED lighting, and energy efficient appliances.
- Nowadays, there is a growing energy market that is reflected on several projects such as the UNDP project for improving the energy
A efficiency for lighting and building appliances. Also, PV systems initiatives and projects have been emerging rapidly. Currently, more
INTERVIEWEE than 20 buildings are mounted with PV modules. We started with administrative buildings (City Centers) to act as pilot projects, in
INTERVIEWEE NAME Dr. Hend Farouh #1
NUMBER order to publicize the initiative amongst investors and users.
- Currently the new project of PV small connected is taking place.
Assistance Professor at the Egyptian Housing & Building National Research Center (HBRC)
Project Manager of the small scale PV connected project Q3 What is the national strategy for the development of the energy sector?
INTERVIEWEE TITLE
Former Executive Director of the central unit of sustainable cities and renewable energy at the New Urban Communities
Authority (NUCA) - I am not authorized to speak about the national plans. Please review the Egyptian NEEAP for more information in this regard. 1
- I can inform you about the plans related to the ministry of housing. The current orientation –from the ministry as well as the prim-
INTERVIEWEE ministry cabinet- is that all the new construction buildings should be operated by efficient lighting and LEDs. That includes street
INTERVIEWEE NAME Dr. Ayman Zaki #2 A
NUMBER lightings as well as the buildings.
- Also, the usage of solar heaters for water heating purposes. Further information can be found on the website of the Central Unit of
INTERVIEWEE TITLE Head of the green economy and green energy programs at the IMC.
Sustainable Cities.
INTERVIEWER Eng. Mostafa Abdellatif Q4 Would you kindly inform me more about the Central Unit of Sustainable Cities and Renewable Energy?
FACILITATOR Head of the department of architecture at Cairo - This unit was created by acquiring technical support from the GIZ along with the available local resources to for the so called “Unit of 1
Prof. Dr. Sahar Attia TITLE
university. Sustainable Cities and Renewable Energy”. It is mainly responsible for the strategies for green/ sustainable urban planning in general,
and focusing on the energy efficiency aspects.
NOTE TAKER Eng. Mostafa Abdellatif - The Unit is currently working on 24 of the new cities (satellite cities) with four main branches; in the Southern Upper Egypt, Northern
A
Upper Egypt, Borg Al-Arab, and 15th of May City.
- All the data regarding the energy efficiency projects can be found on the website; plans, pictures, consumption data, Co 2 reduction, and
Interview topics progress.
- One of the goals is to have an open-access database of all the available data and initiatives.
INTERVIEWEE INFORMATION
Q5 What are the obstacles facing the future of the renewable energies in Egypt?
INTERVIEWEE
NUMBER 1 1
- The lack of know-how and the unavailability of the technology is a significant drawback. I am currently supervising a project aiming
towards the manufacturing, R&D, the creation of one stop-shop to provide support to the individuals. This project is a 5-years project,
Q1 Would you kindly introduce yourself? # financed through the GEF and UNDP, and implemented by the Industrial Modernization Centre (IMC). The main goal of the project is
to prepare the market for the small scale implementation of PV systems.
- My name is Hend Farouh, Assistant Professor at the Egyptian Housing & Building National Research Center (HBRC) 1
A - The financial aspect, as the initial cost of the systems are still significantly high.
- I am also a project manager of the small scale PV connected project
A - The local conditions of the high-temperature, maintenance difficulties, and life-time of the batteries under high temperature exposure
- I was the Executive Director of the central unit of sustainable cities and renewable energy at the New Urban Communities Authority
(regarding PV street lighting).
(NUCA)
- The grid capacity is another restriction, as well as its condition in different areas; to be able to accept the decentralized production.
A - Let me also introduce Dr. Ayman Zaki, the head of the green economy project, as well as the green energy program here at the IMC. 1 - The main problem is how to insure the efficiency and stability of both the PV systems, as well as the grid.
2
THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

Q6 What is the significance of the residential sector in resolving the energy crisis in Egypt?

- Around 47% of the electricity demand is residential, which is a very significant number. The more we save in the residential sector,
A
the more we have for industries.
Q7 Is there currently a clear plan/vision to improve the energy efficiency of residential buildings?
- Several projects –all available on the NUCA website- have received the support of the government for improving the energy efficiency
of existing buildings, as well as mounting PV modules. These projects show the support of the government to the notion and its
applications.
A
- Training programs are available now to train specialists and experts in this field, to provide the required tools and support for
application and monitoring.
- We currently have off-grid hybrid system central stations with a capacity of 135 KW on the Nilesat road.
Why hasn’t the existing code for “Energy efficiency in buildings” been activated? And is there any plan in the near future to produce any
Q8
obligatory legislations regarding this topic?
- The code is not yet activated because of the lack of the implementation mechanisms; which is currently being discussed and reformed
to make the code more suitable for non-academics, as well as to train specialists and expertise to provide the needed support.
- There was a consideration in NUCA to give the investors some tendencies in the buildings requirements if energy efficiency were to
A - The same goes for solar water heaters.
be applied, but it was found wrong as it might lead to some sort of chaotic situation. The main incentive should be the savings made
through increasing the efficiency.
- Other considerations are being discussed; such as installments facilitations, lower interests, and others.
Q9 How does the government adopt the energy efficiency notion in its new projects?
- The prim-minster declared that the new settlements should comply with the new direction of efficient street lighting. Also, when
possible, grid-connected PV systems should be taken in consideration.
- Solar heaters are now being integrated in social housing projects –as can be seen on the NUCA website.
- I personally have presented to the minster a proposal for “green social housing”. We still need to have prototypes for the different 8
climatic zones –as per code, a step that should be taken by the government.
A remarkable 60% reduction in the electricity bill.
- The obstacle is mainly a matter of financial issues. 1 million social housing units are planned, an increase of one pound in each unit,
would result in a 1 million pound increase of the total cost.
- The decision maker is restricted by a limited budget. That’s why the argument of initial cost vs. lifecycle cost doesn’t have much effect
on the decisions taken. There is a certain demand that should be met with a certain budget.
- We need research work to create prototypes, almost with the same cost of the current planned social housing.
Q10 What about the demand side management and smart grids option?
- Regarding that, currently there are the types meters planned for the households; the mechanical, the prepaid, and the smart meters.
- The smart meters were supposed to collect consumption data regarding electricity, water, and natural gas.
A with the existing laws regulating the selling of electricity. The regulatory contracts are formed in this case mainly to insure the users’
- The problem with the smart meters is mainly a national security issue, due to the collection of the data on one server that is
vulnerable to hacking.
Q11 How do you see the general public awareness regarding energy efficiency in buildings?
- There is a significant increase in the public awareness, mainly due to the increase of the energy prices.
A - The new initiatives for efficient lighting and LED lights are very successful as can be seen all around. Nowadays, more and more
people are shifting to LED lights in their household.
Q12 Does the government provide any support regarding improving the energy efficiency in residential buildings?
Conducted Interviews Conducted Interviews
1 - The banks are currently having loan programs for energy efficiency and renewables. 1
A - We are working on a database for potential financial support providers, in order to give the public an easy access to the needed
information.
Q13 Regarding the use of renewables in the residential sector, what are the technologies more suitable to be used in the Egyptian context?
1
- Currently we implement mainly solar heaters, PV module systems, as well as LED street lighting. 1
A - These technologies could be integrated within the design to have a multi-functional purpose; as we have in our projects, the usage of
PV modules in parking area shading, in addition to off-grid central stations.
SATELLITE CITIES AND GATED COMMUNITIES
Q14 From your position and experience, does NUCA adopt any sustainability strategies in the new cities (satellite cities)?
- As previously discussed, solar heaters are now being integrated in social housing projects. 1
1 - The min question here is why the government doesn’t obligate the new urban settlements –especially the gated communities- to follow 2
a certain standards regarding energy efficiency through the building requirements. A villa that cost 6-7 million EGP can afford to
A
install a 500,000 EGP system to cover partially its energy demand.
- The profit issue is still a variable due to the unstable prices and economy, as well as the break-even period of 7-8 years.
In your opinion, do the new cities (satellite cities) have the potentials to be the starting point in spreading the notion of energy efficiency in
Q15
buildings?
1 - The new cities are distinctive due to their developed plans, administration, and good monitoring systems and control over the 1
compliance with the building requirements.
- We had already a collaborative project with Elkarma residential compound (Gated community) to improve the energy efficiency of
the street lighting, by switching to LED lights. They have argued against the high cost, so we have managed to get them a loan from
A the UNDP energy efficiency program of 25% of the cost, while the residents covered the remaining 75%. The results were staggering at a
- Other residential compounds are getting more interested now. We just need successful stories to create a mode. Once we have a mode,
evaluation and monitoring can be provided, then the system can operate sustainably.
- In NUCA, the new contracts with the investors demand a 20% renewable energy production of their total energy production.
Q16 What about the potentials of gated communities to become sustainable communities or energy efficient communities?
- There are no laws or legislations that prevents or hinder the development of a self-sustained gated community, if anything, the 1
2 government is fully supportive for such developments.
A - When it comes to energy production on gated community scale, it is not considered as commercial production that should comply
rights, and the selling prices.
Q17 What are the potentials of implementing district cooling systems in the new urban communities, in order to cover the high cooling demand?
1 - We are currently working towards this goal. We have finalized the first code for district cooling in the Middle East region, which is 1
supposed to be published soon. It was created in collaboration with Dr. Alaa Olama, one of the pioneers in district cooling in the region
A and in the world as well.
- We also have a grant from the UNEP to create a national plan for district cooling, to be finished by the end of the year.
- In the new capital, two district cooling plants are planned and their tinder documents are currently available.
 Conducted Interviews

Q18 In your opinion, who should take the first step? The government, investor, or the user?

- No country has started its quest towards energy efficiency by creating obligations. In the first place comes raising the public 1
awareness, and spreading this culture. By time, obligations are created indirectly; increasing the energy prices is a form of indirect
obligation.
- On the other hand, data and information should be provided in line with creating a health competition between suppliers of energy
A
efficiency technologies and tools.
- After the market has developed, the products are available, and the culture has spread; policies can be then reformed to demand
obligatory standards.
- Researchers and designers should work on the optimization of the energy efficiency requirements in relation to the initial cost.
Appendix C.

GATED
COMMUNITIES
ADVERTISEMENT
BROCHURES
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESIDENCES RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS

THE HEIGHT OF LIVING

Welcome;
You’ve reached the height of living pleasures,
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESIDENCES.

Be part of an exceptional way of life, where only the best view will do, and home privacy reaches

RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS

new heights. With close proximity to Cairo’s urban center, Pyramids Heights Residences is a fully
integrated community offering tastefully designed homes with a modern flair surrounded by
sheer comfort, security and leisure. Join us & RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS.

PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESIDENCES RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS

THE INGENUITY OF PLANNING

Pyramids Heights Residences was masterfully planned to add to the lifestyle. Spread across an
approximate land area of 400,000m2 and made up of closely-knit neighborhoods, the community
is intuitively designed to inspire freedom, create a dynamic momentum, and set a harmonious
flow throughout. Spaciously dispersed for optimum privacy and views, homes are set apart with
spacing that reaches up to 12 meters. Also as a finishing touch, cycle paths, pedestrian-only
walkways, open-air greenery and swimming pools tie the whole development together into a
breathtaking picturesque habitat.

Pyramids Heights Brochure. [Retrieved] from: (Smacrete Development, n.d.).

 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESIDENCES RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESIDENCES RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS

ENTRANCE VIEW GARDEN VIEW ENTRANCE VIEW GARDEN VIEW

PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESIDENCES RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESIDENCES RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS

ENTRANCE VIEW ENTRANCE VIEW

THE SUBURB VILLA THE PATIO VILLA

Two Storey Villa with Basement Single-level Villa with Sub-basement & Mezzanine
Starting from 320 sqm Starting from 360 sqm
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

An Ideal Place SODIC West Map

for your
Dream House Ca
iro
-A
lex
and
ria
De
sert R
oad
BISC

Smart Village

Beverly Hills
Toll Station
Dandy Mall
Carrefour

Sheikh Zayed City

Da
Sales Centre

hs
ho
ur
Ro
ad
Allegria is located to the west of Cairo-Alexandria Step inside. You'll be
Desert Road, eight kilometers from Smart Village. r
pleasantly surprised wa
It is next to British International School in Cairo eh
by what you find M
(BISC), Beverly Hills and the Designopolis retail
complex for home furniture and accessories.
Access to services, shopping and entertainment Sixth of October City
facilities will be available soon within Westown. In
the mean time, hypermarkets, malls and medical
facilities are nearby in Sixth of October City.
Juhayna Square

An Award Winning
NEW YORK
CHAPTER

cnbcarabia.com AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF
LANDSCAPE

Development
ARCHITECTS

Merit Award
Un-Built Works
Presented to Edaw,
Inc. and SODIC
For Allegria Master
Plan Cairo, Egypt
2007 Professional
Awards

Allegria is a world-class award-winning development. In

2007 EDAW, a global leader in the fields of landscape
architecture, urban design and environmental planning,
received an award for its Allegria master-plan from the
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).
EDAW brings Allegria’s contemporary, asymmetrical
master-plan and landscaping to life, with another
potentially award-winning feat.
Allegria Brochure. [Retrieved] from: (SODIC, 2015). In 2008 Allegria won two CNBC Arabian Property Awards
in the categories of Best Golf Development in Egypt and
Best Development in Egypt. Additionally, Allegria was
awarded the CNBC Arabian Property Award 2009 for best
architecture in Egypt.
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

A Signature Golf Course The World’s Leading

Golf Management
Miami, Florida, USA Venice, California, USA

in your Front Yard

Company
Arquitectonica is a post-modern architectural,
interior design and planning firm, and is the
creative mind behind many famous buildings Even golf courses have a seal of approval or a mark
including the Atlantis Condominium and the promoting their quality; in this case, a signature
Westin Times Square in New York. It has won from an exceptional golfer after whom the course is A GREG NORMAN SIGNATURE COURSE
many esteemed awards including the AIA Test of named, thus verifying its high standards. So it was
Time Award and the AIA Award for Excellence in with great pride that our golf course named ‘The
Architecture. Allegria’ was designed as a signature course – the
Mark Mack and his design team are recognised for first of its kind in Egypt – by legendary golfer, Greg
Arquitectonica is bringing the hallmarks of its thoughtful, elegant architecture that emphasises Norman. Norman spent 331 weeks as the world’s by Troon Golf

distinctive style to Allegria, emphasising structures the integration of built form and environment. no. 1 golfer in the 1980’s and 1990’s, earning himself
that are bold and graphic in form. Distinctively Clarity of form, simplicity of construction and an the nickname of “The Great White Shark.” He
conceived for Allegria, the main design principle appreciation of tradition, climate, and materiality recently demonstrated his skill after finishing tied In line with Allegria’s philosophy of a happy,
bases itself on shifting volumes and layers. Linear give Mack’s architecture a quality of timelessness. for third place at the 2008 British Open. integrated neighbourhood, ‘The Allegria’ golf
entrances extend throughout the houses, course is designed to be a natural extension of the Troon Golf, the world’s leading luxury brand
connecting the interior spaces to the exterior Mark Mack’s reputation was established in the In 1987, his company, Greg Norman Golf Course overall community. It blends in and is harmonious golf management company will be
gardens. Every room houses large expanses of California Bay Area with a series of villas designed Design (GNGCD) was established, becoming one with the overall shapes, colours and intricate managing ‘The Allegria’ golf course and the
glass capturing light and offers views of the pool with former partner Andrew Batey (Batey & Mack) of the world’s premier signature golf course design nuances of Allegria. Clubhouse at Allegria. Troon Golf is
and garden areas. Roof terraces, double height in the 1980’s. Newsweek magazine placed this work firms, and is proudly the designer of the stunning headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and
foyers, and long rising open stairs add to the among the new wave of architecture that exhibits “a 18-hole golf course situated at the heart of Allegria. “We are extremely excited about the progress of manages over 200 golf courses and their
dramatic and progressive modernist appeal of the blunt beauty and classical dignity.” Mark Mack the Allegria golf course. The course has all the accompanying services in 31 states, and 31
designs. Arquitectonica’s concept for Allegria is established his own firm MACK Architects in San Streams, rock features, vegetation and undulating outstanding characteristics that make it a really countries with international offices in Japan,
proof that neoteric designs can still be Francisco in 1984, and moved his practice to Venice, topography are the natural elements implemented unique golf course, truly beyond anything in the Australia, UAE and Switzerland. With its
synonymous with comfort. California in 1993. in the design of ‘The Allegria.’ Innovative methods region”. Jason Scott-McCoy, Senior Vice President, The Allegria Golf dedication to quality and service, Troon Golf
www.arquitectonica.com www.markmack.com are constantly sought to utilise the greatest number Greg Norman Golf Design. Course, is by far the world’s largest golf operator.
Garden view of Arquitectonica villa Garden view of Mark Mack villa of trees on a site, rather than eliminate them. www.shark.com Sheikh Zayed, Egypt. www.troongolf.com

Cairo, Egypt

The Buzz
of a Charming
Cairo, Egypt

Shahira H. Fahmy’s designs aim to establish

Urban Life
balance between new spatial concepts and
existing context in almost all aspects of urban
design. Shahira is able to work on various levels:
concept design, construction supervision and
research-based designs. After working as an
Bringing together the fundamentals of residential,
architect with the leading engineering firm in the
social and commercial life in one single modern
Middle East, Dar El Handasah for over 3 years,
community, SODIC West is an Egyptian destination
she established her own private architectural
Kamel Consultants and Research Group (KCRG) like no other. A vibrant, spacious community where
practice: Shahira H. Fahmy Architects based in
is a medium-scale architectural firm providing a one can live, work and enjoy themselves in comfort.
Cairo, Egypt, providing architecture, interior
variety of unique services to its clients. KCRG is SODIC West provides all the amenities of
design and furniture design. She has taken part in
primarily specialised in educational, retail, downtown living without the hassle and the stress
milestone projects such as AUC’s new campus in
residential, sports and leisure buildings. Besides that comes with it.
New Cairo and her firm has won many awards
design and technical support, KCRG provides since its founding. Most recently Shahira’s firm
detailed research, evaluation and assessment SODIC West is accessible from both the
won the MIPIM Architectural Review Future
services to clients to help them identify their Cairo-Alexandria Desert Road (at km. 38) as well as
Project Awards 2009 in the category of
needs and set their priorities. The firm stresses on the Dahshour Road. Westown, SODIC West’s
“Regeneration and Master Planning” for her work
quality control and continuous monitoring of all vibrant downtown will act as the heart of the city.
on SODIC and Solidere’s Westown Block 36, in
processes involved since the start of a project until SODIC West offers a range of residential,
Cairo, Egypt.
a post occupancy assessment is conducted. commercial and retail products to cater to Egyptians'
www.sfahmy.com
growing needs and aspirations. Indulgence is just a short
Garden view of KCRG villa View from Shahira Fahmy townhouse
walk away - Westown
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

IT’S ALL ABOUT Westown is a gated development of contemporary

BALANCE buildings, beautifully landscaped piazzas and parks

A lot of thought has gone into Since Westown was planned to

creating business, retail, residential
offer flexibility and diversity. The
and leisure zones that have their east and west ends of town will
own unique feels while being linked
be predominately commercial;
into one bustling neighbourhood. containing ‘Class A’ offices, shopping,
cafés, restaurants and nightlife. The
Westown incorporates arenas of calmer gated residential districts are
public open spaces consisting of overlooking parks and tree-lined
parks, playgrounds and avenues pedestrian spaces.
that are linked by walkways and a
Pedestrian Green Spine.

12

SHOPPING LIKE Shops, boutiques, cafés and restaurants

NOWHERE ELSE Westown will be home to

designer names, lifestyle shops
and gourmet delicatessens.
Forty West, The Strip and Westown
Hub will be home to some of
Cairo’s finest restaurants and
cafés. Set amongst pedestrian
friendly, landscaped squares and
embellished with serene fountains
and beautiful greenery, where could
be better to have a small family
retreat or catch up with friends
and colleagues. Top brands and
small boutiques are here too, as
are vibrant nightspots and relaxing,
shaded courtyards.
As well as being a pleasure for
residents, shopping in Westown will
be the destination of choice for the
whole of Sheikh Zayed and Sixth of
October areas.

Westown Brochure. [Retrieved] from: (SODIC, 2015). 14

 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

WESTOWN’S FIRST GATED YOUR FUTURE BUSINESS With its strategic location, Westown is set
to become Sheikh Zayed’s preferred
business location
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS The Polygon will house a thriving numbers of office floors will be

NEIGHBOURHOOD business community that will service

the surrounding areas.
available for purchase or lease.

In addition, Westown’s strategic

As anyone who has worked in Cairo
knows, this variety of flexibility is in
huge demand. The business district
will feature ‘Class A’ offices catering
to all types of businesses, from
global corporations to start-ups.
Here, an office designed around
your company’s needs is more than
simple wishful thinking. But for a
more economic approach, large
location means it is uniquely placed to
facilitate internships, business training
and exchange programs between the
academic and business worlds.
All offices offer abundant underground
parking; with secure car parks, getting to
and from meetings will be refreshingly
easy for on-the-go executives.

Welcome home

This is Westown’s purely residential
neighbourhood, strategically located
within Westown and along its Pedestrian
Green Spine.
Westown Residences is a short walk away
from Allegria, The British International
School, Forty West, The Polygon and the
restaurants and cafe’s of Westown Hub
and The Strip. Westown Residences’s
clubhouse will offer facilities ranging
from sporting activities to social outings
for the entire family to enjoy.
24 16

URBAN LIVING BE PART OF

REDEFIND WESTOWN

Westown is going to be one of the most exciting projects to come to New

Cairo. If you would like to know more about joining the Westown community,
please get in touch. There are several convenient ways to contact us:

Call us on 16220 in Egypt

or +202 3854 0100/200

Visit our websites:

www.westowncairo.com
or www.sodic.com

For sales and customer services, please email:

sales@sodic.com

For general information and enquiries please email:

The houses in Westown’s purely
residential neighbourhoods are designed
by our own in-house design team, who
were able to maximise internal space and
privacy of the home, while maintaining
intelligent and innovative exterior designs
and facades.
At Westown Residences and The
info@sodic.com
Courtyards we encourage outdoor living,
which is why many homes are designed Or simply drop by one of our Sales Centres, located at:
to include private gardens and/or rooftop
terraces, which are designed to be Sheikh Zayed: Km. 38 Cairo-Alexandria Desert Road
spacious, comfortable and private.
Also, the gated gardens ensure your Heliopolis: 46 El-Thawra Street
family can play in complete safety
and privacy. Zamalek: 3 Aboul El-Feda Street, Abou El Feda Office Building
28 40
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

THE LIFE OF With its location and product offering Eastown will
NEW CAIRO become New Cairo’s neighbourhood of choice

Eastown is strategically situated on premium residential, retail and office

Road 90, immediately adjacent to
the American University in Cairo’s
new campus, a short drive from
Cairo International Airport and in the
midst of the flourishing communities
of New Cairo and Kattameya.
Built on 860,000 square metres
of land, with over 1km of frontage
on Road 90, Eastown will provide
space while offering the best in
shopping and entertainment.
Here, residents, retail staff and office
employees can enjoy a vibrant
environment where buildings are
integrated into the landscape, where
traffic is kept to a minimum and the
air is clean.

04

THE FORMULA BEHIND A

MIXED-USE COMMUNITY

The mix of uses and services, the range of

residential options, and the ability to walk
and cycle as part of daily life all make for a
more sustainable, greener living

Throughout history human to work or watch a movie. Instead of

settlements have tended to evolve
as mixed-use environments. Walking
was always the primary means of
transportation. People lived and
worked in the same areas. These
principles have been adapted to
Eastown. Residents will have the
benefit of being able to walk short
being segregated, neighbourhoods
will combine all aspects of life. The
development of Eastown involved
extensive research by planners,
architects and landscapers. By
translating these findings into the
design of Eastown, we are creating a
community that integrates life, work

Eastown Brochure. [Retrieved] from: (SODIC, 2015). distances to do their shopping, go and recreation.
08

URBAN LIVING
REDEFINED
The heart of Eastown’s vision is to
provide its residents with contemporary
living spaces that are safe, functional,
attractive and within easy reach of
urban essentials.
Eastown Residences is Eastown’s purely
gated residential neighbourhood. The
homes harness the beauty of their
surroundings, while reflecting the
Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures
overall sense of community suited for
people with different needs, tastes
and lifestyles.
This is where the vibrancy of city life
meets the calm retreat of suburban
living, bringing together themed
gardens, parks, and open green spaces,
set in a secured community.
22
A CHARMING
NEIGHBOURHOOD
Eastown will offer Apartments and
Duplexes. Elegantly styled and
supplied with the latest fittings,
they will look out over tree-lined
streets, parks and courtyards.
This gated neighbourhood has
its own distinctive charm and
character- one can live in a home
overlooking Eastown Square, or
for a slower-paced lifestyle, retreat
to the elegant homes near the
AUC campus where children can
freely play in the parks or cycle
Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures
SHOPPING LIKE Shops, boutiques, cafés and restaurants
NOWHERE ELSE At the centre of Eastown’s
commercial area is Eastown Hub. It
embellished with serene fountains
and beautiful greenery, where could
will house designer names, lifestyle
be better to have a small family
shops and gourmet delicatessens. retreat or catch up with friends
and colleagues. Top brands and
Eastown Hub will be home to small boutiques are here too, as
some of Cairo’s finest restaurants are vibrant nightspots and relaxing,
and cafés. Set amongst pedestrian shaded courtyards.
friendly, landscaped squares and
14
BE PART OF
EASTOWN
on the lanes that wind around the
whole neighbourhood.
One can enjoy an urban lifestyle
only a few minutes’ walk from the
world-class shopping facilities
and business district. Families
will appreciate Eastown’s safe
environment, clean air and wide
open spaces, coupled with a host
of recreational and educational
facilities, health clubs, spas, pools
and playgrounds.
Eastown is going to be one of the most exciting projects to come to New Cairo. If you would
like to know more about joining the Eastown community, please get in touch. There are several
convenient ways to contact us:
Call us on 16220 in Egypt
or +202 3854 0100/200
Visit our websites:
www.eastowncairo.com
or www.sodic.com
For sales and customer services, please email:
sales@sodic.com
For general information and enquiries please email:
info@sodic.com
Or simply drop by one of our Sales Centres, located at:
Heliopolis: 46 El-Thawra Street
Sheikh Zayed: Km. 38 Cairo-Alexandria Desert Road
Zamalek: 3 Aboul El-Feda Street, Abou El Feda Office Building
24 36
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

Lavenir Brochure. [Retrieved] from: (Al Ahly, 2017).

Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

VISION & CONCEP T

ANCHORED BY A 33
ACRE CENTRAL PARK
Mivida is anchored by a 33-acre Central Park that will be synonymous with
perfectly manicured gardens, lush foliage and beautiful landscaping.
The Central Park is peppered with walking trails, promenades and lakes, making for
the perfect setting for community activities or a tranquil walk or jog for a one of a kind
outdoor experience.

The Central Park will be home to an array of F&B outlets that will offer a unique
experience for residents and visitors alike.

JUST
BREATHE

AN ECO-SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
At Mivida, every aspect calls for introducing path-breaking innovations.
Starting with the masterplan, which draws inspiration from a green leaf, to the
unprecedented solar lighting of the Mivida community powered by Philips.

Sustainability is a serious commitment. At Mivida emphasis is placed on

conserving energy and water resources, in addition to ensuring that the design
and use of construction materials are aimed at minimising their impact on the
environment. 80% of Mivida is dedicated to green spaces, parks and natural
features, irrigating and maintaining this much flora could not have been
possible without state-of-the-art technology and the recycling water reservoir.

Mivida Brochure. [Retrieved] from: (Emaar Misr, n.d.).

 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

MIVIDA TODAY

EXCLUSIVE
CLUBHOUSES
Mivida is home to 3 elegantly designed clubhouses. Designed with our
residents in mind, the clubhouses will offer an array of facilities that cater
to your health and well-being and your entertainment and your business
requirements. From ballrooms & meeting rooms to a rejuvenating spa, gym
& swimming pool to decadent gourmet restaurants & lounges.

LIV E, WOR K & PL AY LIVE, WOR K & PL AY

MIVIDA BUSINESS PARK A VIBRANT AND PULSING

The Mivida business park brings you world class facilities in an aesthetically-pleasing
environment layered with greenery that will enhance productivity and reduce stress.
DOWNTOWN BOULEVARD
The 100,000-square-meter office space includes amenities such as an executive gym,
spacious meeting rooms, a state-of-the art business center and attractive outdoor food Inspired by the famous La Rambla of Barcelona, this one of a kind destination is set
and beverage areas with covered terraces and landscaped walkways. to be a thriving cosmopolitan area featuring an array of upscale shopping, leisure
and entertainment venues. Lining this iconic destination, the extravagant Boulevard
Residences offer a luxuriously lavish way of life, a short walk from the 33 acre
Central Park and the Lake District.
 Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures Gated Communities Advertisement Brochures

GREEN COMMUNITIES
Avenues - Now a living community, The name Greens, As its name indicates, Mivida Greens is a Views, based at the peak of our inspiring natural
Avenue originally stems from a suburban, usually tree
lined, residential street. Mivida Avenues is precisely that, a
neighborhood defined by its lush landscaping and majestic
sophisticated green haven of tranquility.

The village has a serene view of the perfectly manicured

topography, this sought after neighbourhood is of
breathtaking, panoramic views of the entire development and
beyond. This neighbourhood settled on the highest point of
GREEN COMMUNITIES
towering palm trees that lines the streets. The Avenues is gardens and open areas within Mivida, which offers a Mivida represents quality and great achievements making it the 2
Avenues -
located in the heart of Mivida and is well-distanced from the Now a tranquil
livingretreat
community, Thecity’s
away from the name hectic pace. Greens , As its nameperfect
indicates, Mivida
luxurious Greens is a
neighbourhood. Views, based at the peak of our inspiring natural gardens
hustle and bustle of the downtown area. Avenue originally stems from a suburban, usually tree sophisticated green haven of tranquility. topography, this sought after neighbourhood is of
lined, residential street. Mivida
For thoseAvenues
seekingis
theprecisely that,
freedom to a
customize their home to In a prime location with breathtaking vistas, the Views offer you breathtaking, panoramic views of the entire development and valleys
greens
The Avenues village, which is now a living community is
neighborhood defined bysuitits their
lushpersonal taste, Greens
landscaping offers semi-finished homesThe village has a serene the
and majestic viewmost luxurious
of the villas manicured
perfectly in Mivida. Fully-finished to a pristine beyond. This neighbourhood settled on the highest point of
where you will find the most luxurious fully finished villas delivered to a pristine standard.
towering palm trees that lines the streets. The Avenues is gardens and open areas standard, it leaves you with the sole task of moving in with
within Mivida, which offers a Mivida represents quality and great achievements making it the 2
and townhomes with the highest Emaar finishing quality and your family. gardens
located in the heart of Mivida and is well-distanced from the tranquil retreat away from the city’s hectic pace. perfect luxurious neighbourhood. springs
attention to the smallest details.
hustle and bustle of the downtown area.
7 offer you 2 valleys
For those seeking the freedom to customize their home to In a prime location with breathtaking vistas, the Views 1 greens
The Avenues village, which is now a living community is suit their personal taste, Greens offers semi-finished homes the most luxurious villas in Mivida. Fully-finished to a pristine
Gardens Residence, changes everything wherewe’ve Springs
you will find the most luxurious, Overlooking Mivida’s
fully finished Valleys, This magical village is characterized by its
largest Wadis and with delivered to a pristine standard.
villas standard, it leaves you with the sole task of moving in with
8
come to know about apartment living. Designed without
and townhomes with the homeshighest reminiscent of Tuscan (Italian) architecture, the Springs
Emaar finishing quality and unique Italianate style in its architecture and landscaping.
your family. parkside
compromise, Gardens Residence buildings stand tall and are district is one of the quietest residential areas in Mivida. It With its exclusive appearance, Valleys village has a different springs
nothing less than awe-inspiring.
attention to the smallest details.
is adjacent to the Central Park and Mivida’s Main Club and arrangement of blocks that is more formalized than any other 3
6
walking trails meander throughout this village. Mivida village giving each neighborhood its own neighborhood boulevard 7 2
Discover a whole new level of serenity as you look out your park that is a part of the community open space system. 1
window, with spectacular views of rich green foliage in The Springs has its very own exclusive Clubhouse and
Gardens Residence
the horizon, the landscaping surrounding those exclusive Destination Park, making
, changes it a village
everything Springs, Overlooking Mivida’s largest Wadis and with
that emphasizes the great
we’ve Valleys, This magical village is characterized by its4 8
apartment buildings is taken to a whole new different level. outdoor experience. avenues
come to know about apartment living. Designed without homes reminiscent of Tuscan (Italian) architecture, the Springs unique Italianate style in its architecture and landscaping.
5 parkside
compromise, Gardens Residence buildings stand tall and are district is one of the quietest residential areas in Mivida. It With its exclusive appearance, Valleys village has a different
nothing less than awe-inspiring. is adjacent to the Central Park and Mivida’s Main Club and arrangement of blocks that is more formalized than any other 2 6 3
walking trails meander throughout this village. Mivida village giving each neighborhood its own neighborhood boulevard
Discover a whole new level of serenity as you look out your park that is a part1 1ofcentral
the community
parkopen space system.
window, with spectacular views of rich green foliage in The Springs has its very own exclusive Clubhouse and 2 1 club house
Boulevard, is the real heart of Mivida Downtown with
the horizon, Parkside
the landscaping surrounding, literally describes the location of this village.
those exclusive Destination Park, making it a village that emphasizes the great 3 1 boulevard 4
residential, retail, office spaces, & restaurants. Prestigious and with a front row view of the magnificent 4 1 hotel
apartment buildings is taken to a whole new different level.
Central Park, the premium Parkside homes are aspirational and
outdoor experience. avenues
5 1 medical facility views
A mixed use Main Street is the key component of the whole nothing short of beautiful. 5
6 1 retail
town center area. Retail is orientated to the street and wide
sidewalks promote a comfortable pedestrian environment.
7 1 schools 2
8 1 office park
1 1 central park
2 1 club house
Boulevard, is the real heart of Mivida Downtown with Parkside, literally describes the location of this village. 3 1 boulevard
residential, retail, office spaces, & restaurants. Prestigious and with a front row view of the magnificent 4 1 hotel
Central Park, the premium Parkside homes are aspirational and
5 1 medical facility views
A mixed use Main Street is the key component of the whole nothing short of beautiful.
6 1 retail
town center area. Retail is orientated to the street and wide
sidewalks promote a comfortable pedestrian environment.
7 1 schools
8 1 office park
Appendix D.

CASE STUDY
D.1. Non‑disclosure Agreement (NDA)
Project Total land Areas
Land Area (Sq.m.)
Residential Land 150,132
Services Land 40,663
Roads 85,045
Green Areas 97,849
Total Land Area 373,690

Services
Building Land Area (Sq.m.) BUA (Sq.m.)
Sports Club 17500.87 4,870
Club House 3976.05 1,095
Nursery 2213.18 990
L-shaped Building 2887.20 3,907
community pavilion(4) 4445.43 240
Elec. Power station 5633.96 -
Utilities area 2806.77 -
Total 39463.47 11,102

Residential units
Type No. of buildings No. of units Building BUA Total BUA
Patio 10 10 426 4,260
Suburb 42 42 347 14,574
Garden 88 264 815 71,720
Twin 72 216 899 64,728
Condo 19 114 975 18,525
Condo (198) 1 6 1072 1,072
Total 232 652 174,879

No. of public swimming pools

Type Volume (m3)
Club House pool 170
Nursery pool 15
Sports club 800
Pavilion 01 162
Pavilion 02 164
Pavilion 03 324
Pavilion 04 111

16/05/2017

Case Study Information D.2.

 D.3. Electrical Load Calculation Report

PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS RESDIENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Electrical Load Calculation Report
 Infrastructure Design for Pyramids Heights
Electrical Load Calculations Residential Development

GFA Load Density (VA/m2) LOAD

 LANDUSE
Residential GFA Overall Diversity Factor Demand Load (KVA) Current (Amp) Demand Load (KVA) Total Demand Load 
Residential Clubs Facilities Warehouses Parking No of units
(m2) (at Cabinet level) (at Cabinet Level) (at Substation level) (MVA)

Type 2 909 100 200 50 70 ‐ 0.7 63.63 96.68 54.09 71 4.07

Apartments 848 100 200 50 70 ‐ 0.7 59.36 90.19 50.46 84 4.49
Villa 304 100 200 50 70 ‐ 0.7 21.26 32.31 18.07 51 0.98
Runch Villa 433 100 200 50 70 ‐ 0.7 30.31 46.05 25.76 5 0.14

D.4.
Cluster 1 4,875 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.7 341.25 518.48 290.06 1 0.31
basment 1 2,660 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.7 26.60 40.41 22.61 1 0.02
Cluster 2 3,900 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.7 273.00 414.78 232.05 1 0.25
basment 2 2,130 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 21.30 32.36 18.11 1 0.02

Project Master Plan

Cluster 3 5,850 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.7 409.50 622.17 348.08 1 0.37
basment 3 3,200 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 32.00 48.62 27.20 1 0.03
Cluster 4 4,875 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.7 341.25 518.48 290.06 1 0.31
basment  4 2,660 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 26.60 40.41 22.61 1 0.02
Cluster 5 4,875 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.7 341.25 518.48 290.06 1 0.31
basment  5 2,660 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 26.60 40.41 22.61 1 0.02
Club ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0.45
School ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1 0.45
Pumping Stations ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.17
Street Lighting ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.02

Total Demand Load (MVA) = 12.40

Total Demand Load (MVA) Distributer level = 11.16

E15049-0100D-RPT-EL-01.REV0 1 JULY 2017

 APARTMENT BUILDING (AP)
Typology 1: Apartment Building

PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

D.5.

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
 DUPLEX BUILDING (DP)
Typology 2: Duplex Building

PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

D.6.

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS PYRAMIDS HEIGHTS

SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT SAMCRETE DEVELOPMENT

DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER DR. / MOHAMED ABDEL-KADER

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

ENG. / SAMEH MILAD ENG. / SAMEH MILAD
 STANDALONE VILLA (S)
Typology 3: Standalone Villa
D.7.

& &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

IDEAS IDEAS
 & &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

IDEAS IDEAS
 & &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

IDEAS IDEAS
 & &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

IDEAS IDEAS
 & &
DESIGNS DESIGNS

CIVIL DESIGN CIVIL DESIGN

IDEAS IDEAS
Appendix E.

ENERGY
PERFORMANCE
ANALYSIS AND
OPTIMIZATION
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.1.2. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 50mm air-gap

E.1. Typology 1- Apartment.
Hot Water (kWh) Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction
E.1.1. Original Energy Consumption   (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total
  Jan 1636 906 20 2049 10 703 1621 6945 1015
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
Feb 1518 604 12 1851 42 635 1464 6126 789
Jan 1730 1685 0 2185 0 715 1645 7960
Mar 1668 84 7 2049 371 703 1621 6503 734
Feb 1597 1213 0 1974 0 645 1486 6915
Apr 1570 0.15 0 1983 976 680 1568 6777 -437
Mar 1768 924 0 2185 0 715 1645 7237
May 1502 0 0 2049 1844 703 1621 7719 -961
Apr 1684 257 0 2115 0 692 1592 6340
Jun 1330 0 0 1983 3241 680 1568 8802 -1041
May 1649 16 0 2185 548 715 1645 6758
Jul 1279 0 0 2049 3837 703 1621 9489 -939
Jun 1501 0 0 2115 1861 692 1592 7761
Aug 1216 0 0 2049 4191 703 1621 9780 -526
Jul 1473 0 0 2185 2532 715 1645 8550
Sep 1183 0 0 1983 3431 680 1568 8845 -639
Aug 1420 0 0 2185 3289 715 1645 9254
Oct 1290 0 0 2049 2130 703 1621 7793 -195
Sep 1380 0 0 2115 2427 692 1592 8206 Nov 1370 11 3 1983 342 680 1568 5957 123
Oct 1474 0 0 2185 1579 715 1645 7598 Dec 1538 540 16 2049 15 703 1621 6482 425
Nov 1511 93 0 2115 77 692 1592 6080

Dec 1649 713 0 2185 0 715 1645 6907

Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 50mm Air Gap
Typology 1 - Apartment: Monthly Energy Typology 1 - Apartment: Monthly EUI Monthly Energy Consumption
Consumption
10000 20.00 10000
9000
9000 18.00 Reduction (kWh)

Energy Consumption (kWh)

8000
Energy Consumption (kWh)

8000 16.00
Light ing Light ing 7000 Light ing (kWh)

7000 6000
Misc14.00
Equipment Misc Equipment Misc Equipment (kWh)
EUI (kWh/Sq.m)

5000
6000 12.00
Space Cooling Space Cooling Space Cooling (kWh)
4000
5000 10.00 3000 Ventilati on Fan (kWh)
Ventilati on Fan Ventilati on Fan
4000 8.00 2000
Space Heating Space Heating Pumps Aux (kWh)
1000
3000 6.00
Hot Water Hot Water 0 Space Heating (kWh)
2000 4.00 -1000
Total Total Hot Water (kWh)
1000 2.00 -2000
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
0 0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.1.3. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 25mm Insulation E.1.4. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 50mm Insulation

  Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction   Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
Jan 1646 462 37 2012 27 707 1630 6521 1439 Jan 1632 343 45 1984 34 700 1616 6354 1606
Feb 1528 287 20 1817 79 639 1473 5843 1072 Feb 1515 216 23 1792 92 632 1460 5730 1185
Mar 1678 24 10 2012 463 707 1630 6524 713 Mar 1664 15 11 1984 488 700 1616 6478 759
Apr 1580 0.59 0 1947 1024 684 1578 6814 -474 Apr 1566 0.65 0 1920 1033 677 1564 6761 -421
May 1511 0.04 0 2012 1784 707 1630 7644 -886 May 1498 0.05 0 1984 1764 700 1616 7562 -804
Jun 1339 0 0 1947 2991 684 1578 8539 -778 Jun 1327 0 0 1920 2931 677 1564 8419 -658
Jul 1287 0 0 2012 3525 707 1630 9161 -611 Jul 1276 0 0 1984 3448 700 1616 9024 -474
Aug 1224 0 0 2012 3833 707 1630 9406 -152 Aug 1213 0 0 1984 3754 700 1616 9267 -13
Sep 1190 0 0 1947 3164 684 1578 8563 -357 Sep 1180 0 0 1920 3101 677 1564 8442 -236
Oct 1298 0.01 0 2012 2019 707 1630 7666 -68 Oct 1287 0.01 0 1984 1998 700 1616 7585 13
Nov 1378 4 3 1947 428 684 1578 6022 58 Nov 1367 4 3 1920 466 677 1564 6001 79
Dec 1547 270 25 2012 48 707 1630 6239 668 Dec 1534 199 31 1984 69 700 1616 6133 774

Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 25mm Insulation Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 50mm Insulation
Monthly Energy Consumption Monthly Energy Consumption

9500 9500
8500 Reduction (kWh) 8500 Reduction

Energy Consumption (kWh)

Energy Consumption (kWh)

7500 7500 Light ing

Light ing (kWh)
6500 6500
Misc Equipment (kWh) Misc Equipment
5500 5500
4500 Space Cooling (kWh) 4500 Space Cooling
3500 3500 Ventilati on Fan
Ventilati on Fan (kWh)
2500 2500
Pumps Aux (kWh) Pumps Aux
1500 1500
500 Space Heating (kWh) 500 Space Heating
-500 -500 Hot Water
Hot Water (kWh)
-1500 -1500
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.1.5. Wall and Roof Optimization: Double wall with 50mm Insulation + 100mm Roof Insulation E.1.6. Heat Gains and Losses per Building Components

Typology 01- Apartment

  Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction Heat Gains and Losses per Building Component
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 1632 280 49 1987 40 700 1616 6304 1656

WALL CONDUCTION
Feb 1515 183 25 1795 98 632 1460 5708 1207

Mar 1664 14 11 1987 493 700 1616 6485 752

ROOF CONDUCTION
Apr 1566 0.83 0 1923 1018 677 1564 6749 -409

May 1498 0.08 0 1987 1725 700 1616 7526 -768

WINDOW GLASS+FRM COND
Jun 1327 0 0 1923 2858 677 1564 8349 -588

Jul 1276 0 0 1987 3369 700 1616 8948 -398

WINDOW GLASS SOLAR
Aug 1213 0 0 1987 3673 700 1616 9189 65

Sep 1180 0 0 1923 3050 677 1564 8394 -188

UNDERGROUND SURF COND
Oct 1287 0.01 0 1987 1970 700 1616 7560 38

Nov 1367 4 3 1923 477 677 1564 6015 65

OCCUPANTS TO SPACE
Dec 1534 153 34 1987 80 700 1616 6104 803

LIGHT TO SPACE

Wall and Roof Optimization: 50mm Wall + 100mm Roof Insulation

onthly Energy Consumption EQUIPMENT TO SPACE

9500
Reduction
8500
Energy Consumption (kWh)

INFILTRATION
7500 Light ing
6500
Misc Equipment
5500
-10 -5 0 5 10
4500 Space Cooling
3500 Ventilati on Fan Basemodel Cooling Load (kW) Basemodel Heating Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Heating Load (kW)
2500
1500 Pumps Aux 25mm Insulat ion Cooling Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Heating Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Heating Load (kW)
500 Loads (kW)
Space Heating 100mm Roof Insulation Cooling Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Heating Load (kW)
-500
Hot Water
-1500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.1.7. Annual Heating and Cooling Loads and Hours E.1.8. Energy Consumption Reduction by Openings Optimization

Typology 1
Typology 01- Apartment
Annual Heating and Cooling Loads Type 01 - Annual Heating and Cooling Hours
WWR Façade Double Glazing Low-E Triple Glazing Low-E
800
No Change 1/3 Shaded 2/3 Shaded No Change 1/3 Shaded 2/3 Shaded
30

700
25
North -3.8% -2.6% -1.6% -1.2% 0.2% 1.0%
South -5.2% -0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 1.5% 1.8%
600 65%

with 10mm Air Gap

20 West -22.2% -15.5% -11.0% -9.9% -5.9% -3.1%

Double Wall
East -12.3% -7.8% -4.9% -4.5% -1.5% 0.1%
500
15 North -0.7% -0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 1.1%
South -0.2% 0.9% 1.3% 1.1% 1.5% 1.7%
Load (kW)

400 30%
10 West -7.8% -5.1% -3.3% -2.6% -1.1% -0.1%
East -3.6% -1.9% -0.8% -0.6% -0.1% 1.0%
300
5

North -5.0% -3.6% -2.5% -1.9% -1.0% -0.2%

0 200
South -8.2% -3.0% -1.4% -1.5% 0.4% 1.0%

with 25mm Insulation

65%
West -26.9% -19.3% -14.0% -12.7% -8.3% -5.1%

Envelope Design

Double Wall
-5 100
East -15.8% -10.8% -7.7% -6.8% -4.0% -2.1%
North -1.6% -1.0% -0.7% -0.5% -0.2% 0.5%
-10 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec South -1.3% 0.3% 0.8% 1.1% 1.5% 1.7%
30%
Basemodel Maximum Cooling Load (kW) Basemodel Cooling Load Hours (hr) West -10.3% -7.1% -5.1% -4.3% -2.5% -1.2%

Basemodel Maximum Heat ing Load (kW) Basemodel Heating Load Hours (hr) East -5.8% -3.7% -2.4% -2.0% -1.2% -0.3%
50mm Air G ap Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Cooling Load Hours (hr)

50mm Air G ap Maximum Heati ng Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Heating Load Hours (hr)
North -4.8% -3.3% -2.3% -1.6% -0.6% 0.1%
25mm Insulat ion Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Cooling Load Hours (hr )
South -8.4% -3.1% -1.4% -1.5% 0.5% 1.2%
25mm Insulat ion Maximum Heating Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Heating Load Hours (hr)

with 50mm Insulation

65%
West -26.7% -19.2% -14.0% -12.6% -8.2% -5.1%
50mm Insulation Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Cooling Load Hour s (hr)

Double Wall
50mm Insulation Maximum Heating Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Heating Load Hours (hr) East -16.1% -11.1% -7.9% -7.0% -4.1% -2.2%

100mm Roof Insulation Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Cooling Load Hours (hr) North -1.2% -0.7% -0.3% -0.1% 0.2% 0.6%
100mm Roof Insulation Maximum Heating Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Heating Load Hours (hr ) South -1.2% 0.5% 1.0% 1.2% 1.6% 1.8%
30%
West -10.0% -7.0% -4.9% -4.0% -2.2% -1.0%
East -5.8% -3.7% -2.4% -1.9% -1.0% -0.1%
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.1.9. Energy Consumption Reduction by Walls Optimization E.1.10. Energy Consumption Reduction by Loads Optimization E.1.11. Building Orientation Effect on Energy Consumption Reduction E.1.12. Total Possible Energy Reduction

Typology 1 - Light and Plug Load Effect on Energy Typology 1 - Building Orientation Effect on Energy Typology 1 - Total Possible Energy Reduction
Typology 1 - Wall Insulation Effect on Energy Demand Demand
Demand

Building Orientation (Degrees)

315
Others

Plug Load
Efficiency
(W/Sq.m.)
270
10 13 37%
225
Cooling Minimum r educt ion
180
Maximum Reducti on

Light Efficiency
135

(W/Sq.m.)
Heating 90
11 7 3

45
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10%
-5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2%
-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
10mm Air Gap 25mm Insulat ion 50mm Insulation Original Consumpti on

*Minimum Optimization *Maximum Optimization

Air Gap 50mm Insulation 50mm

WWR Adjustment WWR Adjustment

Light & Plug-Loads Light & Plug-Loads

- High Eff. HP

- Layout Optimization
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.1.13. Roof Mounted Solar PV Modules

PV Module Information Original Model Envelope Optimization Lighting and Plug-Load Optimization Cost and Selling Price

PV Type PV Efficiency (%) Losses [Temp./ Roof Area (Sq.m.) PV Coverage (%) Solar Energy Wall Air Gap Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall Insulation Wall and Roof Insulation Electricity Cost Solar Energy
Maintenance] (%) Production Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy (EGP) Selling Price
(kWh/year) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) (EGP)

(kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year)

Polycrystaline 16.0% 50% 39809 42% 43% 43% 44% 44% 55%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 50% 46278 49% 50% 51% 51% 52% 64%

Monocrystaline 20.4% 50% 50757 54% 55% 55% 56% 57% 70%

Polycrystaline 16.0% 60% 46488 49% 50% 51% 52% 52% 64%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 5.0% 306 60% 54043 89566 57% 87927 58% 86970 59% 85647 60% 85260 60% 68704 75% 1.35 0.844

Monocrystaline 20.4% 60% 59273 63% 64% 65% 66% 66% 82%

Polycrystaline 16.0% 70% 52234 55% 56% 57% 58% 58% 72%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 70% 60722 64% 66% 66% 67% 68% 84%

Monocrystaline 20.4% 70% 66599 71% 72% 73% 74% 74% 92%

Energy Offset at 50% Roof Coverage Energy Offset at 16% PV Efficiency

20.40% 70.00%
PV Efficiency

Roof Coverage

18.60% 60.00%

16.00% 50.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Lighi ting and Plug-Load Optimizat ion Wall and Roof Insulat ion Lighi ting and Plug-Load Optimizat ion Wall and Roof Insulat ion
50mm Wall Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation
Wall Air Gap Insulation Original Model Wall Air Gap Insulation Original Model
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.1.14. Solar Water Heaters E.1.16. Layout Analysis and Optimization

Collector Solar Water Heater Quantity Gross Area per Fr UL Coefficient Tank Price per System and Annual Energy Annual DHW Annual Total Energy   Model Information Base Model Optimized Parameters
System Collector (Sq.m.) (W/m2.°C) Size per System (EGP) Tank Losses (%) Saving (kWh) Energy Reduction Reduction (%)   Plot Distance Buildings Density Buildings Arrangement
System (%)
(L) Plot Distance 15 10 6 0 20 0 0 0 0
3 200 11616 6289 36.87% 7.20%
Evacuated-Tube Thermosyphon System 2.63 3 20%
6 165 9600 11994 70.31% 13.73% Number of Buildings 10 10 10 15 10 15 11 13 14

E.1.15. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Calculation Parameters

Number of Floors 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 4.25 4.25 3.25 3.25 3.25

Model Information
Total Number of Occupants 14
DHW Energy Reduction Total Foot-Print Area 2680 2680 2680 4020 2680 4020 2948 3484 3752
Number of Units 3
Occupancy Rate (%) 58%
Total Built-Up Area 87100 87100 87100 195975 113900 256275 105391 147199 170716
Demand Factor (%) 30%
Toilets Quantity per Unit 10
DHW Consumption (L/h) 76 Buildings Density 32% 32% 32% 48% 32% 48% 35% 42% 45%
Showers Quantity per Unit 7 37%
DHW Consumption (L/h) 798 Double Double
Buildings Arrangement Linear Linear Linear Linear Linear Linear Shifted Rows
Kitchens Quantity per Unit 3 U-Shaped O-Shaped
DHW Consumption (L/h) 513 Total Electricity Consumption 0.00% 0.04% 0.05% 33.32% -1.47% 32.25% 9.14% 23.21% 28.53%
Peak Consumption (L/h)
45 -0.68% -0.61% -0.60% 32.86% -1.98% 31.93% 8.65% 23.45% 28.04%
798

Electricity Reduction
90 0.31% 0.40% 0.42% 33.51% -0.96% 32.62% 9.44% 22.68% 28.67%
Average ASHREA Peak Daily Consumption
135 -1.01% -0.93% -0.92% 32.87% -2.32% 31.93% 8.50% 22.68% 28.04%

Orientation
(L/Day/Unit) 254
Average Simulated Daily Consumption 180 -0.17% -0.13% -0.13% 33.39% -1.65% 32.32% 9.27% 23.32% 28.60%
(L/Person) 1064
225 -0.84% -0.78% -0.77% 33.01% -2.16% 32.06% 8.84% 22.94% 28.19%
Average Simulated Daily Consumption 33%
270 0.27% 0.33% 0.35% 33.77% -1.01% 32.88% 9.85% 23.80% 28.94%
(L/Day) 14,896
Annual Total Consumption Minimum reduction Maximum Reduction 315 -0.82% -0.89% -0.87% 32.87% -2.24% 31.93% 8.44% 22.65% 28.02%
(L/yr) 5,437,040
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.2.2. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 50mm air-gap

E.2. Typology 2- Duplex.
Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction
E.2.1. Original Energy Consumption   Hot Water (kWh)
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 3321 685 53 2259 12 687 1553 8570 319

Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total
  Feb 3085 446 29 2040 47 620 1403 7670 233
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 3320 891 33 2345 14 687 1599 8889 Mar 3392 54 12 2259 356 687 1553 8313 176

Feb 3084 567 20 2118 50 620 1444 7903 Apr 3195 2 0 2186 865 665 1503 8416 140

Mar 3391 80 10 2345 377 687 1599 8489 May 3056 0.19 0 2259 1602 687 1553 9157 79

Apr 3194 4 0 2270 876 665 1547 8556 Jun 2709 0 0 2186 2763 665 1503 9826 -95

May 3056 1 0 2345 1548 687 1599 9236 Jul 2604 0 0 2259 3213 687 1553 10316 -210

Jun 2708 0 0 2270 2541 665 1547 9731 Aug 2475 0 0 2259 3480 687 1553 10454 -296

Jul 2604 0 0 2345 2871 687 1599 10106 Sep 2406 0 0 2186 2904 665 1503 9664 -181

Aug 2475 0 0 2345 3052 687 1599 10158 Oct 2622 0.01 0 2259 1909 687 1553 9030 -12

Sep 2406 0 0 2270 2595 665 1547 9483 Nov 2781 6 3 2186 347 665 1503 7491 95

Oct 2621 0.14 0 2345 1766 687 1599 9018 Dec 3120 358 40 2259 27 687 1553 8044 303

Nov 2780 14 3 2270 307 665 1547 7586

Dec 3119 548 25 2345 24 687 1599 8347

Typology 2- Duplex: Monthly Energy Consumption Typology 2- Duplex: Monthly EUI

Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 50mm Air Gap
18.00
Monthly Energy Consumption
12000

16.00
Energy Use Intensity (kWh/Sq.m.)

11000
10000
Energy Consumption (kWh)

Light ing
14.00 Light ing
Reduction (kWh)

Energy Consumption (kWh)

9000
Misc Equipment
12.00 Misc Equipment
8000 Light ing (kWh)
Space10.00
Cooling Space Cooling 7000 Misc Equipment (kWh)
6000 Ventilati on Fan
Ventilati
8.00on Fan
Space Cooling (kWh)
5000
Pumps auxiliar y Pumps auxiliar y
4000 6.00 Ventilati on Fan (kWh)
Space Heating Space Heating 3000
4.00 Pumps auxiliar y (kWh)
2000 Hot Water Hot Water
2.00 1000 Space Heating (kWh)

0 0.00 Hot Water (kWh)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -1000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.2.3. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 25mm Insulation E.2.4. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 50mm Insulation

Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction
   
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
Jan 3321 386 73 2260 24 680 1582 8326 563 Jan 3321 197 88 2244 37 677 1576 8140 749
Feb 3085 262 36 2041 66 614 1429 7533 370 Feb 3085 149 42 2027 86 612 1424 7425 478
Mar 3392 28 15 2260 373 680 1582 8330 159 Mar 3392 17 16 2244 387 677 1576 8309 180
Apr 3195 2 0 2187 832 658 1531 8405 151 Apr 3195 2 0 2172 820 655 1525 8369 187
May 3056 0.27 0 2260 1518 680 1582 9096 140 May 3056 0.29 0 2244 1479 677 1576 9032 204
Jun 2709 0 0 2187 2595 658 1531 9680 51 Jun 2709 0 0 2172 2496 655 1525 9557 174
Jul 2604 0 0 2260 3025 680 1582 10151 -45 Jul 2604 0 0 2244 2912 677 1576 10013 93
Aug 2475 0 0 2260 3279 680 1582 10276 -118 Aug 2475 0 0 2244 3157 677 1576 10129 29
Sep 2406 0 0 2187 2753 658 1531 9535 -52 Sep 2406 0 0 2172 2667 655 1525 9425 58
Oct 2622 0.02 0 2260 1835 680 1582 8979 39 Oct 2622 0.02 0 2244 1810 677 1576 8929 89
Nov 2781 7 4 2187 390 658 1531 7558 28 Nov 2781 7 5 2172 416 655 1525 7561 25
Dec 3120 164 54 2260 57 680 1582 7917 430 Dec 3120 65 61 2244 80 677 1576 7823 524

Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 25mm Insulation Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 50mm Insulation
Monthly Energy Consumption Monthly Energy Consumption

11000 11000
Reduction (kWh) 9900 Reduction (kWh)
Energy Consumption (kWh)

Energy Consumption (kWh)

9000
Light ing (kWh) 8800
Light ing (kWh)
7000 7700
Misc Equipment (kWh) Misc Equipment (kWh)
6600
Space Cooling (kWh) Space Cooling (kWh)
5000 5500
Ventilati on Fan (kWh) 4400 Ventilati on Fan (kWh)
3000
Pumps auxiliar y (kWh) 3300 Pumps auxiliar y (kWh)

Space Heating (kWh) 2200

1000 Space Heating (kWh)
1100
Hot Water (kWh) Hot Water (kWh)
-1000 0
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.2.5. Wall and Roof Optimization: Double wall with 50mm Insulation + 100mm Roof Insulation E.2.6. Heat Gains and Losses per Building Components

Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction Typology 02- Duplex
  Heat Gains and Losses per Building Component
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 3321 158 91 2244 42 677 1576 8109 780

Feb 3085 131 43 2027 94 612 1424 7416 487

WALL CONDUCTION
Mar 3392 16 16 2244 386 677 1576 8307 182

Apr 3195 2 0 2172 799 655 1525 8348 208

ROOF CONDUCTION

May 3056 0.29 0 2244 1434 677 1576 8987 249

Jun 2709 0 0 2172 2423 655 1525 9484 247 WINDOW GLASS+FRM COND

Jul 2604 0 0 2244 2834 677 1576 9935 171

Aug 2475 0 0 2244 3079 677 1576 10051 107 WINDOW GLASS SOLAR

Sep 2406 0 0 2172 2615 655 1525 9373 110

Oct 2622 0.02 0 2244 1785 677 1576 8904 114 UNDERGROUND SURF COND

Nov 2781 7 5 2172 421 655 1525 7566 20

Dec 3120 46 62 2244 88 677 1576 7813 534 OCCUPANTS TO SPACE

LIGHT TO SPACE

Wall and Roof Optimization: 50mm Wall + 100mm Roof Insulation

EQUIPMENT TO SPACE
Monthly Energy Consumption

11000
9900 INFILTRATION
Reduction (kWh)
Energy Consumption (kWh)

8800
Light ing (kWh)
7700 -10 -5 0 5 10
Misc Equipment (kWh)
6600
Space Cooling (kWh) Basemodel Cooling Load (kW) Basemodel Heating Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Cooling Load (kW)
5500
Ventilati on Fan (kWh) 50mm Air G ap Heating Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Cooling Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Heating Load (kW)
4400
3300 Pumps auxiliar y (kWh) 50mm Insulation Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Heating Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Cooling Load (kW)
Loads (kW)
2200 Space Heating (kWh) 100mm Roof Insulation Heating Load (kW)
1100
Hot Water (kWh)
0
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.2.7. Annual Heating and Cooling Loads and Hours E.2.8. Energy Consumption Reduction by Openings Optimization

Type 02 - Annual Heating and Cooling Loads Type 02 - Annual Heating and Cooling Hours Typology 2

25 800 WWR Façade Double Glazing Low-E Triple Glazing Low-E

No Change 1/3 Shaded 2/3 Shaded No Change 1/3 Shaded 2/3 Shaded
700
20
North -0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.0%

South -1.6% -0.6% -0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%

600 65%

with 10mm Air Gap

15 West -13.5% -8.6% -5.1% -4.0% -2.3% -1.3%

Double Wall
500 East -3.8% -2.0% -1.4% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0%
10 North 0.5% 0.7% 0.8% 1.2% 1.7% 1.8%
Load (kW)

400 South 0.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

30%
5 West -2.9% -1.9% -1.3% -0.9% -0.4% -0.1%
300
East -1.0% -0.6% -0.3% -0.2% -0.1% 0.2%
0
200
North -0.6% -0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.7% 0.8%

-5 South -2.6% -1.3% -0.8% -0.5% -0.1% 0.1%

100 65%

with 25mm Insulation

West -15.7% -10.1% -6.5% -5.3% -3.3% -2.0%

Envelope Design

Double Wall
-10 0 East -4.7% -2.8% -2.0% -1.6% -0.9% -0.5%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
North 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Basemodel Maximum Cooling Load (kW) Basemodel Cooling Load Hours (hr)
South -0.4% -0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%
Basemodel Maximum Heat ing Load (kW) Basemodel Heating Load Hours (hr) 30%
10mm Air Gap Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 10mm Air Gap Cooling Load Hours (hr) West -3.9% -2.6% -1.8% -1.4% -0.8% -0.4%
50mm Air G ap Maximum Heati ng Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Heating Load Hours (hr) East -1.4% -0.9% -0.6% -0.4% -0.4% 0.0%
25mm Insulat ion Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Cooling Load Hours (hr )

25mm Insulat ion Maximum Heating Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Heating Load Hours (hr)
North -0.6% -0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8%
50mm Insulation Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Cooling Load Hour s (hr)

50mm Insulation Maximum Heating Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Heating Load Hours (hr) South -3.2% -1.7% -1.1% -0.8% -0.2% 0.1%
65%

with 50mm Insulation

100mm Roof Insulation Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Cooling Load Hours (hr) West -15.0% -9.8% -6.4% -5.3% -3.6% -2.3%

Double Wall
100mm Roof Insulation Maximum Heating Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Heating Load Hours (hr )
East -5.2% -3.0% -2.2% -1.8% -1.1% -0.7%

North 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1%

South -0.6% -0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.5%

30%
West -4.0% -2.7% -2.0% -1.6% -1.0% -0.6%

East -1.5% -1.0% -0.7% -0.5% -0.6% 0.0%

 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.2.9. Energy Consumption Reduction by Walls Optimization E.2.10. Energy Consumption Reduction by Loads Optimization E.2.11. Building Orientation Effect on Energy Consumption Reduction E.2.12. Total Possible Energy Reduction

Typology 2 - Wall Insulation Effect on Energy Demand Typology 2 - Light and Plug Load Effect on Energy Typology 2 - Building Orientation Effect on Energy Typology 2 - Total Possible Energy Reduction
Demand Demand

Building Orientation (Degrees)

Others 315
26%

Plug Load
Efficiency
(W/Sq.m.)
270
10 13
Cooling 225
Minimum r educt ion
180

Light Efficiency
Maximum Reducti on

(W/Sq.m.)
Heating 135
11 7 3
90 16%
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
45
10mm Air Gap 25mm Insulat ion 50mm Insulation Original Consumpti on -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
-5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2%

*Minimum Optimization *Maximum Optimization

Air Gap 50mm Insulation 50mm

WWR Adjustment WWR Adjustment

Light & Plug-Loads Light & Plug-Loads

- High Eff. HP

- Layout Optimization
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.2.13. Roof Mounted Solar PV Modules

PV Module Information Original Model Envelope Optimization Lighting and Plug-Load Optimization Cost and Selling Price

PV Type PV Efficiency (%) Losses [Temp./ Roof Area (Sq.m.) PV Coverage (%) Solar Energy Wall Air Gap Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall Insulation Wall and Roof Insulation Electricity Cost Solar Energy
Maintenance] (%) Production Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy (EGP) Selling Price
(kWh/year) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) (EGP)

(kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year)

Polycrystaline 16.0% 50% 45092 40% 41% 41% 42% 42% 49%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 50% 52420 46% 48% 48% 48% 49% 57%

Monocrystaline 20.4% 50% 57493 51% 52% 52% 53% 53% 62%

Polycrystaline 16.0% 60% 52735 47% 48% 48% 49% 49% 57%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 5.0% 335 60% 61304 107502 54% 104252 56% 104154 56% 103041 57% 102590 57% 87880 66% 1.35 0.844

Monocrystaline 20.4% 60% 67237 59% 61% 61% 62% 62% 73%

Polycrystaline 16.0% 70% 59360 52% 54% 54% 55% 55% 64%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 70% 69006 61% 63% 63% 64% 64% 75%

Monocrystaline 20.4% 70% 75684 67% 69% 69% 70% 70% 82%

Energy Offset at 50% Roof Coverage Energy Offset at 16% PV Efficiency

20.40% 70.00%
Roof Coverage
PV Efficiency

18.60% 60.00%

16.00% 50.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Lighi ting and Plug-Load Optimizat ion Wall and Roof Insulat ion Lighi ting and Plug-Load Optimizat ion Wall and Roof Insulat ion

50mm Wall Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation

Wall Air Gap Insulation Original Model Wall Air Gap Insulation Original Model
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.2.14. Solar Water Heaters E.2.16. Layout Analysis and Optimization

Collector Solar Water Heater Quantity Gross Area per Fr UL Tank Price per System and Annual Energy Annual DHW Annual Total   Model Information Base Model Optimized Parameters
System Collector (Sq.m.) Coefficient (W/ Size per System Tank Losses Saving (kWh) Energy Reduction Energy Reduction   Plot Distance Buildings Density Buildings Arrangement
m2.°C) System (EGP) (%) (%) (%)
(L) Plot Distance 15 10 6 0 20 0 0 0 0
Evacuated-Tube Thermosyphon System 6 200 11616 6425 18.48% 6.16%
2.63 3 20%
9 165 9600 18099 52.06% 17.35% Number of Buildings 10 10 10 15 10 15 11 13 14

E.2.15. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Calculation Parameters

Number of Floors 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 4.25 4.25 3.25 3.25 3.25

Model Information
Total Number of Occupants 28
Total Foot-Print Area 3020 3020 3020 4530 3020 4530 3322 3926 4228
Number of Units 3
DHW Energy Reduction
Occupancy Rate (%) 58%
Total Built-Up Area 98150 98150 98150 220837.5 128350 288787.5 118761.5 165873.5 192374
Demand Factor (%) 30%

Toilets Quantity per Unit 14 18%

Buildings Density 36% 36% 36% 54% 36% 54% 40% 47% 50%
DHW Consumption (L/h) 106.4
Double Double
Showers Quantity per Unit 10 Buildings Arrangement Linear Linear Linear Linear Linear Linear Shifted Rows
U-Shaped O-Shaped
DHW Consumption (L/h) 1140
Total Electricity Consumption 0.00% -5.48% -5.46% 31.15% 16.14% 42.62% 0.66% 18.51% 26.40%
Kitchens Quantity per Unit 3
45 -3.49% -9.21% -9.19% 29.00% 13.31% 40.99% -2.38% 21.24% 24.11%
DHW Consumption (L/h) 513

Electricity Reduction
90 2.81% -2.70% -2.68% 33.41% 17.68% 44.06% 4.32% 16.38% 28.41%
Peak Consumption (L/h)
1140 135 -3.19% -8.91% -8.90% 29.28% 13.34% 41.12% -1.53% 16.38% 24.29%

Orientation
Average ASHREA Peak Daily Consumption 34% 180 0.59% -4.93% -4.92% 31.62% 16.49% 42.80% 1.79% 19.18% 26.76%
(L/Day/Unit) 254 225 -3.26% -8.99% -8.96% 29.23% 13.45% 41.01% -1.57% 16.35% 24.17%
Average Simulated Daily Consumption 270 2.68% -2.88% -2.85% 33.32% 17.45% 43.62% 3.96% 21.00% 28.53%
(L/Person) 1033
315 -3.54% -9.24% -9.21% 29.00% 13.04% 40.62% -2.38% 15.87% 24.02%
Average Simulated Daily Consumption Minimum reduction Maximum Reduction
(L/Day) 28,925

Annual Total Consumption

(L/yr) 10,557,625
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.3.2. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 50mm air-gap

E.3. Typology 3- Standalone.
Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction
E.3.1. Original Energy Consumption  
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 207 254 16 756 0 238 511 1982 19

Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total
  Feb 186 196 9 683 0 215 461 1750 -17
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 220 397 5 886 0 153 340 2001 Mar 202 49 6 756 48 238 511 1810 -81

Feb 197 286 3 800 2 138 307 1733 Apr 185 8 0 732 175 231 494 1825 -22

Mar 210 76 2 886 62 153 340 1729 May 177 0 0 756 411 238 511 2093 62

Apr 191 14 0 857 264 148 329 1803 Jun 151 0 0 732 845 231 494 2453 273

May 183 0 0 886 593 153 340 2155 Jul 149 0 0 756 1019 238 511 2673 343

Jun 156 0 0 857 1236 148 329 2726 Aug 142 0 0 756 1114 238 511 2761 392

Jul 154 0 0 886 1483 153 340 3016 Sep 145 0 0 732 876 231 494 2478 245

Aug 146 0 0 886 1628 153 340 3153 Oct 167 0 0 756 469 238 511 2141 48

Sep 149 0 0 857 1240 148 329 2723 Nov 189 0 0 732 41 231 494 1687 -106

Oct 172 0 0 886 638 153 340 2189 Dec 206 123 17 756 0 238 511 1851 -16

Nov 196 6 0 857 45 148 329 1581

Dec 216 231 9 886 153 340 622 2457

Typology 3- Standalone: Monthly Energy Consumption Typology 3- Standalone: Monthly EUI Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 50mm Air Gap
Monthly Energy Consumption
3500 16.00
3300
Energy Use Intensity (kWh/Sq.m.)

3000 14.00
Energy Consumption (kWh)

Light ing 2800 Reduction (kWh)

Energy Consumption (kWh)

12.00
2500 Misc Equipment Lighting (kWh)
2300
10.00
2000 Space Cooling Misc Equi pment (kWh)
8.00 1800
Ventilati on Fan Space Cooli ng (kWh)
1500
6.00 1300 Ventilati on Fan (kWh)
Pump Aux
1000 800 Pump Aux (kWh)
4.00 Space Heating

500 Hot Water Space Heating (kWh)

2.00 300
Hot Water (kWh)
0 0.00 -200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.3.3. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 25mm Insulation E.3.4. Wall Optimization: Double wall with 50mm Insulation

Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction
 
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction
Jan 207 127 31 742 0 238 512 1857 144  
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
Feb 187 117 15 670 3 215 462 1669 64
Jan 207 52 44 735 14 239 513 1804 197
Mar 202 32 7 742 56 238 512 1789 -60
Feb 187 72 19 664 26 216 464 1648 85
Apr 185 4 0 718 170 230 495 1802 1
Mar 202 25 7 735 83 239 513 1804 -75
May 177 0 0 742 390 238 512 2059 96
Apr 185 3 0 712 171 232 497 1800 3
Jun 151 0 0 718 780 230 495 2374 352
May 177 0 0 735 365 239 513 2029 126
Jul 149 0 0 742 944 238 512 2585 431
Jun 151 0 0 712 694 232 497 2286 440
Aug 142 0 0 742 1036 238 512 2670 483
Jul 149 0 0 735 846 239 513 2482 534
Sep 145 0 0 718 820 230 495 2408 315
Aug 142 0 0 735 928 239 513 2557 596
Oct 168 0 0 742 457 238 512 2117 72
Sep 145 0 0 712 748 232 497 2334 389
Nov 190 0 0 718 61 230 495 1694 -113
Oct 168 0 0 735 448 239 513 2103 86
Dec 206 43 27 742 0 238 512 1768 67
Nov 190 0 0 712 92 232 497 1723 -142

Dec 206 3 36 735 23 239 513 1755 80

Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 25mm Insulation Wall Optimization: Double Wall with 50mm Insulation
Monthly Energy Consumption Monthly Energy Consumption

34 50 3300

2950 2800 Reduction (kWh)

Energy Consumption (kWh)

Energy Consumption (kWh)

Reduction (kWh)
Light ing (kWh)
24 50 Light ing (kWh) 2300
Misc Equipment (kWh)
1950 Misc Equipment (kWh) 1800
Space Cooling (kWh)
Space Cooling (kWh)
1450 1300 Ventilati on Fan (kWh)
Ventilati on Fan (kWh)
950 800 Pumps Aux (kWh)
Space Heating (kWh)
Space Heating (kWh)
450 Hot Water (kWh) 300
Hot Water (kWh)
-50 -200
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.3.5. Wall and Roof Optimization: Double wall with 50mm Insulation + 100mm Roof Insulation E.3.6. Heat Gains and Losses per Building Components

Hot Water Space Heating Pumps Aux Ventilation Fan Space Cooling Misc Equipment Lighting Total Reduction Typology 03- Standalone
  Heat Gains and Losses per Building Component
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 207 47 45 733 16 239 513 1800 201

Feb 187 69 19 662 31 216 464 1648 85

WALL CONDUCTION
Mar 202 25 7 733 86 239 513 1805 -76

Apr 185 3 0 709 169 232 497 1795 8

ROOF CONDUCTION

May 177 0 0 733 357 239 513 2019 136

Jun 151 0 0 709 677 232 497 2266 460 WINDOW GLASS+FRM COND

Jul 149 0 0 733 824 239 513 2458 558

Aug 142 0 0 733 906 239 513 2533 620 WINDOW GLASS SOLAR

Sep 145 0 0 709 735 232 497 2318 405

Oct 168 0 0 733 446 239 513 2099 90 UNDERGROUND SURF COND

Nov 190 0 0 709 95 232 497 1723 -142

Dec 206 2 36 733 25 239 513 1754 81 OCCUPANTS TO SPACE

LIGHT TO SPACE

Wall and Roof Optimization: 50mm Wall + 100mm

EQUIPMENT TO SPACE
Roof Insulation Monthly Energy Consumption

3300

Reduction (kWh) INFILTRATION

2800
Energy Consumption (kWh)

Light ing (kWh)

2300 -10 -5 0 5 10
Misc Equipment (kWh)
1800
Space Cooling (kWh) Basemodel Cooling Load (kW) Basemodel Heating Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Cooling Load (kW)

1300 Ventilati on Fan (kWh) 50mm Air G ap Heating Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Cooling Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Heating Load (kW)

800 Pumps Aux (kWh) 50mm Insulation Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Heating Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Cooling Load (kW)
Loads (kW)
Space Heating (kWh) 100mm Roof Insulation Heating Load (kW)
300
Hot Water (kWh)
-200
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.3.7. Annual Heating and Cooling Loads and Hours E.3.8. Energy Consumption Reduction by Openings Optimization

Type 03 - Annual Heating and Cooling Loads Type 03 - Annual Heating and Cooling Hours Typology 3

12 800 WWR Façade Double Glazing Low-E Triple Glazing Low-E

No Change 1/3 Shaded 2/3 Shaded No Change 1/3 Shaded 2/3 Shaded
10
700
North -3.6% -2.0% -1.2% -0.2% 0.3% 0.6%
8
600
South -6.2% -3.2% -2.1% -1.6% -0.4% -0.1%
65%

with 10mm Air Gap

West -37.5% -27.7% -20.9% -16.6% -11.1% -7.1%
6

Double Wall
500 East -15.0% -9.3% -6.4% -5.4% -2.8% -1.1%
4
Load (kW)

North 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 1.0% 1.2% 1.7%

400
South -1.3% -0.3% -0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4%
2 30%
West -12.2% -8.0% -5.1% -2.9% -1.5% -0.7%
300
0 East -4.9% -2.8% -1.6% -1.0% -0.7% 0.7%

200
-2 North -2.9% -2.1% -1.6% -0.5% 0.0% 0.3%

100
South -7.2% -3.9% -2.6% -2.5% -0.8% -0.3%
-4 65%

with 25mm Insulation

West -40.0% -29.2% -21.9% -17.6% -11.4% -7.2%

Envelope Design

Double Wall
-6 0 East -17.3% -10.8% -7.6% -6.2% -3.4% -1.6%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
North -0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% 1.1% 1.3%
Basemodel Maximum Cooling Load (kW) Basemodel Cooling Load Hours (hr)

Basemodel Maximum Heat ing Load (kW) Basemodel Heating Load Hours (hr) South -2.0% -0.5% -0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6%
30%
50mm Air G ap Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Cooling Load Hours (hr) West -12.3% -7.7% -4.6% -3.5% -2.1% -1.3%
50mm Air G ap Maximum Heati ng Load (kW) 50mm Air G ap Heating Load Hours (hr)
East -4.9% -2.8% -1.4% -0.8% -1.3% 0.4%
25mm Insulat ion Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Cooling Load Hours (hr )

25mm Insulat ion Maximum Heating Load (kW) 25mm Insulat ion Heating Load Hours (hr)
North -3.2% -2.4% -1.9% -0.7% -0.3% -0.2%
50mm Insulation Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Cooling Load Hour s (hr)

50mm Insulation Maximum Heating Load (kW) 50mm Insulation Heating Load Hours (hr) South -8.1% -4.4% -3.1% -2.8% -1.0% -0.3%
65%

with 50mm Insulation

100mm Roof Insulation Maximum Cooling Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Cooling Load Hours (hr) West -39.9% -28.5% -21.0% -16.5% -10.0% -5.9%

Double Wall
100mm Roof Insulation Maximum Heating Load (kW) 100mm Roof Insulation Heating Load Hours (hr )
East -19.8% -11.5% -8.2% -6.7% -4.0% -2.4%

North -0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 0.7% 0.9%

South -2.0% -0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 1.0% 1.2%

30%
West -10.8% -6.4% -4.7% -3.7% -2.3% -1.4%

East -5.1% -3.2% -2.1% -1.3% -1.4% -0.1%

 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.3.9. Energy Consumption Reduction by Walls Optimization E.3.10. Energy Consumption Reduction by Loads Optimization E.3.11. Building Orientation Effect on Energy Consumption Reduction E.3.12. Total Possible Energy Reduction

Typology 3 - Wall Insulation Effect on Energy Demand Typology 3 - Light and Plug Load Effect on Energy Typology 3 - Building Orientation Effect on Energy Typology 3 - Total Possible Energy Reduction
Demand Demand

Building Orientation (Degrees)

Others 315 22%

Plug Load
Efficiency
(W/Sq.m.)
270
10 13

Cooling 225
Minimum r educt ion
180
Maximum Reducti on

Light Efficiency
13%
135

(W/Sq.m.)
Heating
11 7 3
90

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
45
10mm Air Gap 25mm Insulat ion 50mm Insulation Original Consumpti on
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2%

*Minimum Optimization *Maximum Optimization

Air Gap 50mm Insulation 50mm

WWR Adjustment WWR Adjustment

Light & Plug-Loads Light & Plug-Loads

- High Eff. HP

- Layout Optimization
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

PV Module Information Original Model Envelope Optimization Lighting and Plug-Load Optimization Cost and Selling Price

PV Type Roof Mounted

E.3.13. PV Efficiency
Solar(%) Losses [Temp./
PV Modules Roof Area (Sq.m.) PV Coverage (%) Solar Energy Wall Air Gap Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall Insulation Wall and Roof Insulation Electricity Cost Solar Energy
Maintenance] (%) Production (kWh/ (EGP) Selling Price (EGP)
Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy Energy Building Energy
year)
Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%) Consumption Offset (%)
(kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year) (kWh/year)

Polycrystaline 16.0% 50% 25232 90% 97% 99% 101% 101% 120%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 50% 29333 105% 113% 115% 117% 118% 139%

Monocrystaline 20.4% 50% 32171 115% 123% 126% 129% 129% 153%

Polycrystaline 16.0% 60% 28997 103% 111% 114% 116% 117% 138%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 5.0% 199 60% 33709 26644 120% 24758 129% 24172 132% 23763 135% 23639 135% 19990 160% 1.35 0.844

Monocrystaline 20.4% 60% 36971 132% 142% 145% 148% 149% 176%

Polycrystaline 16.0% 70% 32187 115% 124% 127% 129% 129% 153%

Polycrystaline 18.6% 70% 37417 133% 144% 147% 150% 150% 178%

Monocrystaline 20.4% 70% 41038 146% 157% 161% 164% 165% 195%

Energy Offset at 50% Roof Coverage Energy Offset at 16% PV Efficiency

20.40% 70.00%
Roof Coverage
PV Efficiency

18.60% 60.00%

16.00% 50.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

Lighi ting and Plug-Load Optimizat ion Wall and Roof Insulat ion Lighi ting and Plug-Load Optimizat ion Wall and Roof Insulat ion

50mm Wall Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation 50mm Wall Insulation 25mm Wall Insulation

Wall Air Gap Insulation Original Model Wall Air Gap Insulation Original Model
 Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization Energy Performance Analysis and Optimization

E.3.14. Solar Water Heaters E.3.16. Layout Analysis and Optimization

Collector Solar Water Heater Quantity Gross Area per Fr UL Tank Price per System and Annual Energy Annual DHW Annual Total   Model Information Base Model Optimized Parameters
System Collector (Sq.m.) Coefficient (W/ Size per System Tank Losses Saving (kWh) Energy Reduction Energy Reduction   Plot Distance Buildings Density Buildings Arrangement
m2.°C) System (EGP) (%) (%) (%)
(L) Plot Distance
20 10 6 0 20 0 0 0 0
Evacuated-Tube Thermosyphon System 2 200 11616 1941 92.03% 8.01%
2.63 3 20%
3 165 9600 3379 160.22% 13.95% Number of Buildings
10 10 10 15 10 15 13 14 14

E.3.15. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Calculation Parameters

Number of Floors

Model Information
2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 3.25 3.25 2.25 2.25 2.25
Total Number of Occupants 3
Total Foot-Print Area
Number of Units 1 1450 1450 1450 2175 1450 2175 1885 2030 2030

Occupancy Rate (%) 58%

DHW Energy Reduction
Total Built-Up Area
Demand Factor (%) 30% 32625 32625 32625 73406.25 47125 106031.3 55136.25 63945 63945

Toilets Quantity per Unit 5

Buildings Density
26% 26% 26% 39% 26% 39% 34% 37% 37%
DHW Consumption (L/h) 38

Showers Quantity per Unit 3 Buildings Arrangement

Linear Linear Linear Linear Linear Linear U-Shaped O-Shaped Shifted Rows
DHW Consumption (L/h) 342 68%
Total Electricity Consumption 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% 33.36% -2.88% 31.28% 17.34% 23.34% 23.29%
Kitchens Quantity per Unit 1
45 -0.73% -0.64% -0.61% 32.95% -3.30% 31.09% 17.05% 22.95% 23.02%
DHW Consumption (L/h) 171

Electricity Reduction
92% 90 0.22% 0.32% 0.34% 33.63% -2.02% 31.99% 18.25% 23.99% 24.06%
Peak Consumption (L/h)
342 135 -1.02% -0.86% -0.84% 32.82% -3.84% 30.68% 16.66% 22.69% 22.70%

Orientation
Average ASHREA Peak Daily Consumption 180 0.01% 0.13% 0.14% 33.47% -3.07% 31.13% 17.44% 23.46% 23.40%
(L/Day/Unit) 254 225 -0.61% -0.52% -0.49% 33.05% -3.33% 31.11% 17.17% 23.19% 23.15%
Average Simulated Daily Consumption 270 0.37% 0.38% 0.41% 33.65% -1.96% 32.12% 18.32% 24.16% 24.14%
(L/Person) 271
315 -0.93% -0.92% -0.89% 32.75% -3.44% 30.90% 16.66% 22.75% 22.67%
Average Simulated Daily Consumption Minimum reduction Maximum Reduction
(L/Day) 814

Annual Total Consumption

(L/yr) 297110
Appendix F.

DISTRICT COOLING
& GC TOTAL
ENERGY BALANCE
 District Cooling & GC Total Energy Balance District Cooling & GC Total Energy Balance

F.1.2. C Calculation Assumptions

F.1. District Cooling
Typology Density Number of Buildings FPA/Unit FPA/ Typology Total Service Area
F.1.1. Sample of DC Projects in GCR
(%) (Sq.m.) (Sq.m.) (Sq.m.)

 
Apartment 48% 108 268 28,944
Project Cooling Load (kWh) Area (Sq.m.) Cooling Load per Unit Area Building Typology
Duplex 54% 72 302 21,744

DC Service Area
(kW/Sq.m.)
Stand-alone 39% 52 145 7,540
181658
Mall of Arabia 52,753 230,000 0.23 Retail Hotel 47%* 1 1,451 1,451

AUC 14,067 165,000 0.09 Offices Offices 47%* 5 1,306 6,528

Cairo Financial Center 94,955 850,000 0.11 Complex Retail 47%* 1 53,314 53,314

HNS Recreational Mall 26,376 170,000 0.16 Complex

City Stars Complex 35,169 784,470 0.04 All Length (m) Number of ETS

Network
Cairo Festival City 87,921 1,450,000 0.06 All
6570 239
Source: Shaker Consultancy Group (n.d.)

Chiller EER Min EER Max Driving Energy

Split/ Central Unit 2.14 5.00 Electricity

Plant
Industrial 3.00 6.00 Electricity

Absorption 0.60 1.20 Heat

*Average of the three residential typologies

 District Cooling & GC Total Energy Balance District Cooling & GC Total Energy Balance

F.1.3. Peak‑demand and Total Cooling Load F.1.5. System Design and Total Electricity Demand

Land-use Number of Units BUA Annual Annual Cooling Peak Demand per Annual Total Cooling Load Peak Demand per Cooling System Tree-Selection
(Sq.m.) Maximum Load per Unit Unit per Typology (kW) Typology Cooling Demand 330,283 MWh/a
Cooling Hours (kW/Unit) (kW/Unit) (kW)
District Cooling
(hrs)

Produced Energy Renewable Recycle

Typology 1 107 815 159.07 18.54 17020.92 1983.62 Reference Case
Typology 2 72 899 5620 125.10 14.69 9007.29 1057.48
Electricity Solar Thermal CHP
Typology 3 52 426 63.12 7.28 3282.49 378.42

Total 231 2140   347.30 40.50 29310.69 3419.52

Reference Case Industrial Chiller Absorption Chiller Absorption Chiller

F.1.4. DC Total Cooling Energy Share (%) 100% 45% 30% 25%

EER minimum 2.14 3.00 0.60 0.60

  Residential Hotel Offices Retail Total
EER maximum 5.00 6.00 1.20 1.20
BUA (Sq.m.) 174,085 21,761 26,113 213,254 435,213
Driving energy Electricity Electricity Heat Heat
Building Typology Share(a) 40% 5% 6% 49% 100%
PEF 2.30 2.30 0.00 0.70
Cooling load per unit area
(kW/Sq.m.) 0.067 0.100 (a) 0.085 (b) 0.155 (b) 0.41 Electricity Max MWh/a 154554 49542 - -

Total Cooling Load Electricity Min MWh/a 66057 24771 - -

(kW) 29311 2176 2226 33088 66,801 Heat Max MWh/a - - 165141 137618

Average Weekdays Operation Hours (hrs) Heat Min MWh/a - - 82571 68809
10 (c)
24 (a)
15 (a)
15 (a)
- Auxiliary Electricity Max MWh/a 38332 26114 23354 19462
Average Weekend Operation Hours (hrs) Auxiliary Electricity Min MWh/a 34349 24999 19639 16366
15 (c) 24 (a) 0 (a) 15 (a) -
Max Electricity Demand MWh/a 192,886 75,656 23,354 19,462
Total Cooling Energy
Min Electricity Demand MWh/a 100,406 49,770 19,639 16,366
(kWh) 121,932,486 19,010,082 8,682,553 180,657,785 330,282,906
PEF Minimum 0.46 0.38 - 0.58
Sources: (a)Chow, T. et.al., (2004); (b)SCG, (n.d.); (c)Survey work conducted by the author.
PEF Maximum 1.08 0.77 - 1.17
 District Cooling & GC Total Energy Balance District Cooling & GC Total Energy Balance

F.2.3. Energy Balance: Minimum Optimization Scenario

F.2. GC Total Energy Balance
Land-use Number of Units Minimum Optimization Scenario
F.2.1. Optimization Scenarios
Annual Energy Annual Energy Production Total Energy Balance DC Additional Reduction
Consumption (kWh/Unit) (kWh/Unit) (kWh) (kWh)
Minimum Optimization Maximum Optimization
Typology 1 107 67071 46098 2244127 715124
Walls Double Wall with 50mm Air Gap Double Wall with 50mm Insulation
Typology 2 72 85589 51517 2453193 476518
WWR Adjustment WWR Adjustment
Windows Typology 3 52 27173 25232 100932 108428
Glazing Optimization Glazing Optimization
Street Lighting - - - 89400
Light Sensors Light Sensors
Light & Plug-Loads Total 231.00 179833 122847 4887652 1300069
Occupancy Sensors Occupancy Sensors

HVAC System - High Efficiency HP

F.2.4. Energy Balance: Maximum Optimization Scenario
Layout - Layout Optimization

Roof-Mounted PV Modules Efficiency 16% Efficiency 20.4% Land-use Number of Units Maximum Optimization Scenario

Annual Energy Annual Energy Production Optimum Layout Reduction Total Energy Balance
Coverage 50% Coverage 70%
Consumption (kWh/Unit) (kWh/Unit) (%) (kWh)
Solar Water Heating Minimum SWH Maximum SWH
Typology 1 107 59770 78593 34% -4173786

Typology 2 72 80896 93783 44% -3494282

F.2.2. Energy Balance: Current Situation
Typology 3 52 21208 43147 34% -1511951

Land-use Number of Units Current Situation Street Lighting - - - - 89400

Annual Energy Consumption Annual Energy Production Total Energy Balance Total 231.00 161874 215523 - -9090618
kWh/Unit) (kWh/Unit) (kWh)
Final Energy Balance per Scenario
Typology 1 107 89566 0 9583562
Final Energy Balance
Typology 2 72 107502 0 7740154 Minimum Optimization Maximum Optimization
Typology 3 52 26644 0 1385488 Scenario Scenario
Maximum Optimization Scenario -17% -48%
Street Lighting - - - 89400  

Total Energy Balance (kWh) 4887651.69 -9090617.745 Minimum Optimization Scenario -7% 26%
Total 231.00 223712 0 18798604
DC Additional Reduction (%) -7% -17% -100% -60% -20% 0% 20% 60% 100%

Final Energy Balance (%) 26% -48% Ener gy Balance (%) DC Aditi onal Reduction (%) Current Sit uat ion
Appendix G.

COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS (CBA)
 G.1. Materials and Equipment costs

Date 11 December 2017

Recipient Eng. Mostafa Abdellatif
Issued by Eng. Marawan Wahid
Location 8 Mourad St., Giza, Egypt.
p.o. Box 100 – Al Orman

As per the request of Eng. Mostafa Nabil Abdellatif, ARCHA Group is hereby providing the recipient with the following
price list of a selection of materials and equipment to be used -only by the recipient- for academic work purposes.

1. Materials Costs:

Material Unit Cost per Unit

Hollow Clay Bricks Sq.m. EGP 55.00
Extruded Polystyrene 120*160 sheet EGP 700.00
Double Glazing Low-E Sq.m. EGP 2,200.00
Triple Glazing Low-E Sq.m. EGP 4,500.00

2. Equipment Costs:

Equipment Type Unit Cost per Unit

Light Sensor per unit EGP 60.00
Occupancy Sensor 9 m range EGP 300.00
Occupancy Sensor 12 m range EGP 400.00

N.B. These data are average costs of the Egyptian market which are subjected to the market price fluctuation, and are
only valid for cost estimation purposes.

Signature,
Marawan Wahid
Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

G.1.1.

Systems Envelope
Sources: (a)
Component
Component

SWH(c)
Walls(a)

PV Panels
Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

Windows(a)

(b)
Light & Occupancy

(b)
(a)
List of material and equipment costs

Type
Material

Light Sensor

Polycrystalline
Polycrystalline

Monocrystalline

Evacuated Tubes
Evacuated Tubes
Hollow Clay Bricks

Occupancy Sensor
Triple Glazing Low-E
Extruded Polystyrene
Double Glazing Low-E

Unit
Unit

Sq.m.
Sq.m.
Sq.m.
Sq.m.

Tank 200 L
Tank 165 L
Range 9 m
Range 12 m
-

Efficiency 20.4%
Efficiency 18.6%
Efficiency 16.0%

(c)
Cost

EGP
EGP
EGP
EGP
EGP

1.6 $/W
1.4 $/W
1.1 $/W

EGP 9,600
Cost /Unit

EGP 11,616
EGP 4,500.00
EGP 2,200.00

60.00
55.00

400.00
300.00
365.00

ARCHA Group (2017) Ogbomo,O. et.al.(2016); Kares, M. et.al. (2016); El-Menchawy, A. et.al. (2011). Farrag, N. et.al. (2016).
 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

G.2.2. Costs Estimation of the Window Optimization Strategy

G.2. Optimization Costs and Total Investment.
Building Typology Glazing Type Cost per Unit Area* Total Area (Sq.m) Total Cost per Building Number of buildings Total Cost per Typology
G.2.1. Costs Estimation of the Wall Optimization Strategy (EGP) (EGP) (EGP)

Double Low-e EGP 2,200.00 EGP 292,600 EGP 31,308,200

Building Typology Material Cost per Unit Area* Total Area (Sq.m) Total Cost per Building Number of buildings Total Cost per Typology Typology 1 133 107
(EGP) (EGP) (EGP) Triple Low-e EGP 4,500.00 EGP 598,500 EGP 64,039,500
Double Low-e EGP 2,200.00 EGP 1,179,200 EGP 84,902,400
Hollow Clay Bricks EGP 55.00 EGP 39,050 EGP 4,178,350 Typology 2 536 72
Typology 1 710 107 Triple Low-e EGP 4,500.00 EGP 2,412,000 EGP 173,664,000
Extruded Polystyrene EGP 365.00 EGP 259,150 EGP 27,729,050
Double Low-e EGP 2,200.00 EGP 140,800 EGP 7,321,600
Hollow Clay Bricks EGP 55.00 EGP 33,770 EGP 2,431,440 Typology 3 64 52
Typology 2 614 72 Triple Low-e EGP 4,500.00 EGP 288,000 EGP 14,976,000
Extruded Polystyrene EGP 365.00 EGP 224,110 EGP 16,135,920
*All prices are provided by ARCHA Group (see Appendix G)
Hollow Clay Bricks EGP 55.00 EGP 15,785 EGP 820,820
Typology 3 287 52
Extruded Polystyrene EGP 365.00 EGP 104,755 EGP 5,447,260
*All prices are provided by ARCHA Group (see Appendix G)

Wall Optimization: Wall Optimization: Windows Optimization: Windows Optimization:

Total Cost per Building Total Cost per Typology Total Cost per Building Total Cost per Typology
Ext ruded
Ty pology 3
Ty pology 3

Ty pology 3
Ty pology 3
Ext ruded Polystyrene Tr iple Low-e Tr iple Low-e
Polystyrene

Holl ow Clay Bricks Holl ow Clay Bricks Double Low-e Double Low-e

Ext ruded
Ty pology 2
Ty pology 2

Ty pology 2
Ty pology 2
Ext ruded Polystyrene Tr iple Low-e Tr iple Low-e
Polystyrene

Holl ow Clay Bricks Holl ow Clay Bricks Double Low-e Double Low-e

Ext ruded
Ty pology 1

Ty pology 1
Ty pology 1

Ty pology 1
Ext ruded Polystyrene Tr iple Low-e Tr iple Low-e
Polystyrene

Holl ow Clay Bricks Holl ow Clay Bricks Double Low-e Double Low-e

EG P 0 EG P 200 EG P 10 EG P 30 EG P 0 EG P 1.00 EG P 3.00 EG P 0 EG P 100 EG P 200

xThousands x Millions xMillions xMillions
 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

G.2.3. Costs Estimation of the Light-load Optimization Strategy G.2.4. Costs Estimation of the Rooftop-mounted PV Modules Optimization Strategy

Building Typology Sensor Type Range (m) Cost per Sensor* Total BUA (Sq.m) Number of Rooms Total Cost per Building Number of Total Cost per Typology (EGP) Building PV Type PV Efficiency (%) Rooftop Cost per Currency Total PV Total Cost per Number of Total Cost per Typology
(EGP) per Building (EGP) buildings Typology Coverage Watta ($) Conversion Wattage (W) Building (EGP) buildings (EGP)
(%) Rate

Occupancy 9 EGP 300.00 EGP 961 EGP 102,808 Polycrystalline 16.0% 50% $1.10 8906 EGP 174,575 EGP 18,679,569
Typology 1 815 19 107 Typology 1 107
Light per room EGP 60.00 EGP 1,140 EGP 121,980 Monocrystalline 20.4% 70% $1.60 14899 EGP 424,800 EGP 45,453,631
Occupancy 9 EGP 300.00 EGP 1,060 EGP 76,309 10088 EGP 197,745 EGP 14,237,638
Typology 2 899 26 72 Polycrystalline 16.0% 50% $1.10
Light EGP 1,560 EGP 112,320 Typology 2 17.82 72
per room EGP 60.00 16932 EGP 482,765 EGP 34,759,093
Monocrystalline 20.4% 70% $1.60
Occupancy 9 EGP 300.00 EGP 502 EGP 26,116
Typology 3 426 10 52 Polycrystalline 16.0% 50% $1.10 5645 EGP 110,653 EGP 5,753,971
Light per room EGP 60.00 EGP 600 EGP 31,200 Typology 3 52
Monocrystalline 20.4% 70% $1.60 9181 EGP 261,769 EGP 13,611,971
*All prices are provided by ARCHA Group (see Appendix G)
Source: Ogbomo,O. et.al.(2016); Kares, M. et.al. (2016); El-Menchawy, A. et.al. (2011). xe.com (December,2017)
(a) (b)

Light-load Optimization: Light-load Optimization: PV Modules Optimization: PV Modules Optimization:

Total Cost per Building Total Cost per Typology Total Cost per Building Total Cost per Typology
Ty pology 3

Ty pology 3
Ty pology 3

Ty pology 3
Light Light Monocrystalline Monocrystalline

Occupancy Occupancy Polycrystalline Polycrystalline

Ty pology 2

Ty pology 2
Ty pology 2

Ty pology 2
Light Light Monocrystalline Monocrystalline

Occupancy Occupancy Polycrystalline Polycrystalline

Ty pology 1

Ty pology 1
Ty pology 1

Ty pology 1
Light Light Monocrystalline Monocrystalline

Occupancy Occupancy Polycrystalline Polycrystalline

EG P 0.00 EG P 1.00 EG P 2.00 EG P 0 EG P 50 EG P 100 EG P 150 EG P 200.00 EG P 600.00 EG P 0 EG P 40

x Thousands x Thousands x Thousands x Millions
 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

G.2.5. Costs Estimation of the Solar Water Heaters Optimization Strategy G.2.6. Total Investment Costs

Building SWH Type Tank Size (L) Cost per system* (EGP) Quantity Total Cost per Building Number of Total Cost per Typology     Total Cost Per Typology (MEGP)
Typology (EGP) buildings (EGP) Optimization Scenario Minimum Optimization Scenario Maximum Optimization Scenario

200 EGP 11,616.00 3 EGP 34,848 EGP 3,728,736 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3
Typology 1 Thermosyphon 107
165 EGP 9,600.00 6 EGP 57,600 EGP 6,163,200 Walls 4.18 MEGP 2.43 MEGP 0.82 MEGP 31.91 MEGP 18.57 MEGP EGP 6.27 MEGP
200 EGP 11,616.00 6 EGP 69,696 EGP 5,018,112

Optimization
Windows 31.31 MEGP 84.90 MEGP 7.32 MEGP 64.04 MEGP 173.66 MEGP EGP 14.98 MEGP
Typology 2 Thermosyphon 72
165 EGP 9,600.00 9 EGP 86,400 EGP 6,220,800 Light Loads 0.22 MEGP 0.19 MEGP 0.06 MEGP 0.22 MEGP 0.19 MEGP EGP 0.06 MEGP
200 EGP 11,616.00 2 EGP 23,232 EGP 1,208,064 PV Modules 21.86 MEGP 16.66 MEGP 6.73 MEGP 53.18 MEGP 40.67 MEGP EGP 15.93 MEGP
Typology 3 Thermosyphon 52
165 EGP 9,600.00 3 EGP 28,800 EGP 1,497,600 SWH 3.73 MEGP 5.02 MEGP 1.21 MEGP 6.16 MEGP 6.22 MEGP EGP 1.50 MEGP
* Farrag, N. et.al. (2016) Total Cost EGP 58.12 M 61.30 MEGP 109.20 MEGP 16.14 MEGP 155.52 MEGP 239.31 MEGP

Percentage of Total Cost 32.28% 32.84% 58.51% 8.65% 35.87% 55.20%
Total Cost per Scenario EGP 186.63 MEGP EGP 433.55 MEGP

SWH Optimization: SWH Optimization: Share of Different Building Typologies

Total Cost per Building Total Cost per Typology
Ty pology 3
Ty pology 3

165 L 165 L

200 L 200 L
8 .65% 8 .93%
Ty pology 2
Ty pology 2

165 L 165 L
3 2 .84%
200 L 200 L 3 5 .87%

Minimum Typology 1 Maximum

Ty pology 1
Ty pology 1

165 L 165 L
Optimization Typology 2 Optimization
200 L 200 L
Scenario Typology 3
Scenario
EG P 0.00 EG P 40.00 EG P 80.00 EG P 0 EG P 4 EG P 8
x Thousands x Millions
5 5 .20%
5 8 .51%
 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

G.3. Electricity Costs and Revenues G.4. Possible Return on Investment (RoI)

G.3.1. Annual Electricity Consumption between 2017 and 2021 G.4.1. RoI per Building Typology

Year Electricity Electricity Annual Electricity Cost per Typology (MEGP) Accumulative Electricity Savings per Typology (MEGP)
Cost Annual Cost(b) (EGP/ Original Scenario Minimum Optimization Scenario Maximum Optimization Scenario Year Minimum Optimization Scenario Maximum Optimization Scenario
Increase(a) (%) kWh) Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3
2017/2018 0% 1.35 12.94 M 10.45 M 1.87 M 9.69 M 8.32 M 1.91 M 8.63 M 7.86 M 1.49 M 1 EGP 7.41 M EGP 5.26 M EGP 1.07 M EGP 11.40 M EGP 8.29 M EGP 10.85 M
2018/2019 8% 1.46 13.97 M 11.29 M 2.02 M 10.46 M 8.98 M 2.06 M 9.32 M 8.49 M 1.61 M 2 EGP 15.08 M EGP 10.69 M EGP 2.14 M EGP 11.19 M EGP 16.78 M EGP 13.16 M
2019/2020 16% 1.69 16.21 M 13.09 M 2.34 M 12.14 M 10.42 M 2.39 M 10.82 M 9.85 M 1.87 M 3 EGP 23.32 M EGP 16.49 M EGP 3.20 M EGP 23.68 M EGP 25.72 M EGP 15.53 M
2020/2021 24% 2.10 20.10 M 16.23 M 2.91 M 15.05 M 12.92 M 2.96 M 13.41 M 12.22 M 2.31 M
4 EGP 32.53 M EGP 22.93 M EGP 4.25 M EGP 37.47 M EGP 35.43 M EGP 18.02 M
Accumulative Cost per Typology 63.22 M 51.06 M 9.14 M 47.34 M 40.65 M 9.32 M 42.19 M 38.42 M 7.27 M
5 EGP 41.74 M EGP 29.37 M EGP 5.30 M EGP 51.25 M EGP 45.15 M EGP 20.50 M
Total Cost per Scenario 123.41 MEGP 97.31 MEGP 87.88 MEGP
6 EGP 50.95 M EGP 35.81 M EGP 6.35 M EGP 65.04 M EGP 54.87 M EGP 22.99 M
Sources: (a)MOEE (2017); (b)EgyptERA (2017)
7 EGP 60.16 M EGP 42.25 M EGP 7.40 M EGP 78.82 M EGP 64.58 M EGP 25.48 M
8 EGP 69.37 M EGP 48.69 M EGP 8.45 M EGP 92.60 M EGP 74.30 M EGP 27.96 M
G.3.2. Annual Electricity Revenue
9 EGP 78.58 M EGP 55.13 M EGP 9.50 M EGP 106.39 M EGP 84.02 M EGP 30.45 M

Annual Electricity Revenue per Typology (MEGP) 10 EGP 87.79 M EGP 61.57 M EGP 10.55 M EGP 120.17 M EGP 93.73 M EGP 32.94 M
Electricity Selling Price
Minimum Optimization Scenario Maximum Optimization Scenario 11 EGP 97.01 M EGP 68.01 M EGP 11.60 M EGP 133.95 M EGP 103.45 M EGP 35.42 M
(EGP/kWh)* Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 12 EGP 106.22 M EGP 74.45 M EGP 12.65 M EGP 147.74 M EGP 113.16 M EGP 37.91 M
0.844 4.16 MEGP 3.13 MEGP 1.11 MEGP 7.10 MEGP 5.70 MEGP 1.89 MEGP 13 EGP 115.43 M EGP 80.88 M EGP 13.70 M EGP 161.52 M EGP 122.88 M EGP 40.40 M
Total Revenue per Typology (MEGP) EGP 8.40 M EGP 14.69 M 14 EGP 124.64 M EGP 87.32 M EGP 14.74 M EGP 175.31 M EGP 132.60 M EGP 42.88 M
*EgyptERA (2014) 15 EGP 133.85 M EGP 93.76 M EGP 15.79 M EGP 189.09 M EGP 142.31 M EGP 45.37 M
16 EGP 143.06 M EGP 100.20 M EGP 16.84 M EGP 202.87 M EGP 152.03 M EGP 47.85 M
G.3.3. Possible Electricity cost reduction between 2017 and 2021
17 EGP 152.27 M EGP 106.64 M EGP 17.89 M EGP 216.66 M EGP 161.75 M EGP 50.34 M
18 EGP 161.48 M EGP 113.08 M EGP 18.94 M EGP 230.44 M EGP 171.46 M EGP 52.83 M
Annual Electricity Cost Reduction per Typology (%)
19 EGP 170.69 M EGP 119.52 M EGP 19.99 M EGP 244.23 M EGP 181.18 M EGP 55.31 M
Year Minimum Optimization Scenario Maximum Optimization Scenario
20 EGP 179.90 M EGP 125.96 M EGP 21.04 M EGP 258.01 M EGP 190.90 M EGP 57.80 M
Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3 Typology 1 Typology 2 Typology 3
21 EGP 189.11 M EGP 132.40 M EGP 22.09 M EGP 271.79 M EGP 200.61 M EGP 60.29 M
2017/2018 57% 50% 57% 88% 79% 122%
22 EGP 198.32 M EGP 138.84 M EGP 23.14 M EGP 285.58 M EGP 210.33 M EGP 62.77 M
2018/2019 55% 48% 53% 84% 75% 114%
23 EGP 207.54 M EGP 145.28 M EGP 24.19 M EGP 299.36 M EGP 220.05 M EGP 65.26 M
2019/2020 51% 44% 45% 77% 68% 101%
24 EGP 216.75 M EGP 151.72 M EGP 25.24 M EGP 313.14 M EGP 229.76 M EGP 67.75 M
2020/2021 46% 40% 36% 69% 60% 86%
25 EGP 225.96 M EGP 158.16 M EGP 26.29 M EGP 326.93 M EGP 239.48 M EGP 70.23 M
Total Electricity Cost Reduction per Scenario (%) 48% 76%
 Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)

G.4.2. Collective RoI per Optimization Scenario

Collective Electricity Savings per Scenario Collective Electricity Savings per Scenario
  (MEGP)
600 600

Electricity Savings (MEGP)

Minimum Maximum
500 500
Year Optimization Optimization
Scenario Scenario 400 400

1 EGP 13.74 M EGP 30.54 M 300 300

2 EGP 27.91 M EGP 41.13 M 200 200

3 EGP 43.01 M EGP 64.93 M 100 100
4 EGP 59.71 M EGP 90.92 M
0 0
5 EGP 76.41 M EGP 116.91 M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Years
6 EGP 93.11 M EGP 142.89 M
7 EGP 109.81 M EGP 168.88 M Pay-back Period Max. Pay-back Period Min.

8 EGP 126.51 M EGP 194.87 M Maximum Optimization Scenario Minimum Optimization Scenario

9 EGP 143.21 M EGP 220.85 M

10 EGP 159.91 M EGP 246.84 M
11 EGP 176.61 M EGP 272.83 M
12 EGP 193.31 M EGP 298.81 M
13 EGP 210.01 M EGP 324.80 M
14 EGP 226.71 M EGP 350.79 M
15 EGP 243.41 M EGP 376.77 M
16 EGP 260.11 M EGP 402.76 M
17 EGP 276.81 M EGP 428.75 M
18 EGP 293.51 M EGP 454.73 M
19 EGP 310.21 M EGP 480.72 M
20 EGP 326.91 M EGP 506.71 M
HafenCity Universität
Hamburg