RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
                Compare the results of the design strategies applied in the building
                After analysing the design strategies in the four parameters, the results of design solution applied in the building were presented. The results of the energy simulation of the building with different design strategies show a similar behaviour due to the same thermal transmittance. Fig. 9 shows the results of the design solutions compared with the actual project of the building. In the comfort factor, only the two design strategies in steel frame obtained a negative comfort hours compared to the actual design project of the building. The Case 4, reinforced concrete frame with rectified bricks, obtained the best result, increasing the number of hours in the life of the building in which there is internal thermal comfort up to 60000 h (11%) in comparison to the actual design.   In the energy demand factor, the Case 2 obtained a negative energy balance, while the Case 3 resulted in the greatest reduction of energy consumption, compared to the actual design of the building. The design strategy in reinforced concrete frame with cellular concrete blocks (Case 3) allowed for energy savings of approximately 1300 MWh in the life cycle.  In the carbon emissions balance, only the Case 2 improve the performance of the building. The other design solutions obtained a negative CO2e balance compared the actual project.  Finally, in the economic balance, all design solution applied in the building obtained a positive balance. The best design strategy was the reinforced concrete frame with rectified bricks, with cost savings over € 290,000.  The results show that the optimal choice of project strategy is complex. In fact, no design strategies obtained the best performances in the four parameters.