Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITA’ IUAV DI VENEZIA
Dipartimento di Progettazione e pianificazione in ambienti complessi
Corso di Laurea Magistrale: Architettura e Innovazione
Tesi di laurea
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV towards nearly zero energy districts
Relatore
Prof. Massimiliano Scarpa
Correlatore
Dott. David Moser
Laureanda
Jennifer Adami
Mat. n° 280301
Anno Accademico 2014/2015
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV towards nearly zero energy districts
Adami Jennifer
I
Index
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1 BiPV technology to achieve nearly Zero Energy District...................................................................... 4
1.1 From nearly Zero Energy Building towards nearly Zero Energy District ........................................ 5
1.1.1 Nearly Zero Energy District ................................................................................................ 7
1.2 BiPV (Building integrated PhotoVoltaic)..................................................................................... 9
1.2.1 Photovoltaic technology.................................................................................................... 9
1.2.2 BiPV as multifunctional technology...................................................................................14
1.2.3 BiPV “architectural systems” ............................................................................................16
1.2.4 BiPV flexibility .................................................................................................................27
1.2.5 Design stage ....................................................................................................................30
2 New methodology developed to support BiPV design.......................................................................37
2.1 Barriers related to the use of software tools.............................................................................38
2.2 Developed methodology and simulation tools for BiPV design...................................................41
2.2.1 BiPV parametric design process ........................................................................................41
2.2.2 Software tools for BiPV parametric design ........................................................................52
3 Case study .....................................................................................................................................58
3.1 “Druso Est” district project, Bolzano ........................................................................................58
3.1.1 Participative design process .............................................................................................59
3.2 Implementation of the BiPV design process ..............................................................................61
3.2.1 BiPV as shading device .....................................................................................................63
3.2.2 Model construction .........................................................................................................65
3.2.3 Solar irradiation simulation ..............................................................................................69
3.2.4 Economic optimization of the BiPV system ........................................................................72
3.2.5 Thermal energy demand simulation..................................................................................75
3.2.6 Optimization algorithm ....................................................................................................79
3.3 Optimization results................................................................................................................82
4 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................87
4.1 Outlook ..................................................................................................................................89
References ............................................................................................................................................96
Aknowledgement ........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
1
Introduction
Energy efficiency in buildings is an important objective of energy policy and strategy in Europe.
The reduction of the energy consumption in parallel to an increase in the use of energy from renewable
sources in the building sector are fundamental measures implemented by the European Union in order
to minimize the total final energy use and the carbon dioxide emissions. They represent key parts of
the European regulatory framework. Political statements and directives have the objective to reduce
the building environmental impact on climate and secure future supply of energy. In 2010, the Energy
Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU (EPBD) recast [1] established several new or
strengthened requirements such as the obligation that all the new buildings should be nearly zero-
energy by the end of 2020. A nearly Zero Energy Building (nZEB) “produces enough renewable energy
to meet its own annual energy consumption requirements” [2]. This definition could represent an
ambitious target to achieve for a single building, especially when referring to existing buildings.
However, enlarging the perspective to a wider system of buildings (cluster of buildings or district), able
to achieve a nearly zero energy balance, can be an effective alternative overcoming the limitations
found at single building level.
From nZEB perspective, the buildings are converted from consumer to energy generator
systems (prosumers). The exploitation of the solar radiation not only can reduce the building energy
needs, through solar passive gains and daylighting, but it can also allow the buildings to become energy
producers. Photovoltaic systems are important solar energy systems towards nZEB in terms of self-
production of electric energy, satisfying part of buildings demand as self-consumption. Moreover, the
photovoltaic technology can play an important role in an nZEB prospective also thanks to its
potentialities in terms of “integrability” into the building envelope. A Building integrated Photovoltaic
(BiPV) element, by definition, becomes part of the building structure as it is integrated into the
envelope, even used in substitution of traditional building components (i.e. roofing systems, buildings
façades, fenestration, overhangs, etc.). BiPV products therefore serve dual roles, being both electricity
generators and part of the building’s construction. As a result, they can be considered as
multifunctional construction materials, having not only to comply electro‐technical requirements, but
also to ensure all the functions of the replaced element (e.g. weather protection, thermal insulation,
shading, noise protection, security). In order to have a suitable integration of a multifunctional
technology such BiPV, constructive and functional quality must be simultaneously preserved without
neglecting an architectural, conceptual perspective, which looks at the building as a formal whole
composition. Integrating photovoltaics into the building envelope changes the role of the building skin
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
2
from a passive barrier towards an active layer where the active role of BiPV represents a crucial issue.
The whole design process of a multifunctional element such a BiPV system is complex where several
considerations from different point of views need to be taken simultaneously into account. Architects
and designers should perform such a comprehensive evaluation from the Early Design Phase (EDP),
when several main decisions can crucially impact the overall building lifecycle, the durability and
performance of any project. In order to better manage the complexities of a design process, designers
should be supported by simple software tools that allow them to evaluate the impact of early design
choices on the building’s efficiency, economic feasibility, appearance, etc. The compelling question is:
are there such easy, flexible and integrated software tools, able to support the first design phase?
The present work aims to provide a strong contribution in this sense. Together with the team
at EURAC, I have developed an innovative design methodology, aimed to provide an effective support
for designers. The method employs specific “integrated” software tools, able to address all issues
related to a project (e.g. energy balance, life‐cycle costs, economic issues, architectural appearance,
etc.) into a single platform. Design and analysis are integrated within a single simulation environment,
where a model is constructed and evaluated according to several target, in order to allow the designer
to provide quick and reliable predictions.
What is most interesting is the parametric approach, which is at the base of the whole system.
The parametric design allows us to characterize a model not by fixing properties, but setting the
constraints where the properties are contained. Users can experiment and explore different designs
by altering the parameters of a model. The parametric design process is developed into the platform
of Grasshopper, a graphical algorithm editor that uses a visual programming language. Based on graphs
that map the flow of relations from parameters through user-defined functions, Grasshopper can
create a parametric model. Connecting with validated environmental data sets and simulation engines
(e.g. EnergyPlus and Radiance) by the plugin Ladybug and Honeybee, it can also provide a wide range
of building and environmental analysis of the parametric system. Developing parametric simulations,
however, is not the main object of the thesis. A genetic algorithm evaluates all the simulation solutions
and finds the best ones, according to one or more targets previously set. This represents the main goal
of the parametric simulation and optimization process, to support designers providing a set of
dominant solutions among which they can choose.
Using the described design method can represent a fundamental step in the design strategy
especially when dealing with complex projects, for which several considerations must be taken into
account. In this work, I have applied an example of parametric design process on a residential district
chosen as demo case considering BiPV technology integrated into the buildings façades. Due to the
“multifunctionality” feature of BiPV, a complex simulations process has been performed to evaluate
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
3
from different viewpoints some best performing system configurations, based on a parametric model
construction. The BiPV technology proposed is a shading devices system. The photovoltaic overhangs
have been conceived as moveable elements, the tilt angle of which (i.e. the angle between the
overhang and the normal to the façade) represents the dominant parameter. Being a sun control
strategy, their integration into the buildings envelope has been evaluated not only according to the
photovoltaics energy production performance, but also considering all the issues related to the
sunlight entering into the building sites. Therefore the photovoltaics energy yield and the impact on
the solar gain represent the targets to optimize, even taking into account some economic feasibility
considerations. A parametric optimization has been performed, providing some solutions, a set of
integration strategies able to fulfill the initial intent of an effective integration of PV as overhangs
system. Testing the developed method on a real demo case is an useful opportunity to highlight all the
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of such a complex design process. Each of them will
represent a development key of the methodology proposed, in order to improve its potentialities,
hoping that the present study can represent a starting point for the development of an overall method
for building design.
Chapter 1 defines the BiPV technology as an effective innovative system able to provide a strong
contribution towards nearly zero energy buildings, districts, cities, etc., within an European framework
aimed at achieving specific energy efficiency targets.
Chapter 2 explains in details the new methodology developed through the present thesis work, in
order to provide an useful support to the design process of a complex architectural system such as
BiPV.
Chapter 3 implements on a real demo case the design methodology developed by using specific
software tools. All the main steps of the process are explained. Results are provided to evaluate the
methodology effectiveness and capabilities.
Chapter 4 critically discusses the study results, highlighting identified strengths and weaknesses in
order to provide potential outlooks to improve the developed methodology capabilities.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
4
1 BiPV technology to achieve nearly Zero Energy District
European legislation has set out a cross-sectional framework of ambitious targets for achieving
high-energy performance in buildings, a sector that accounts an important part of the world’s total
primary energy use and the greenhouse gas emissions. Making buildings (refurbishing and new
developments) more energy-efficient and by using a larger fraction of renewable energy, has been
identified as one of the key issues to reduce the non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions. This represents the main objective of the European recast about nZEB requirements [1].
According to nZEB concept, the building has to demonstrate very high-energy performance. Firstly, it
has to use all cost-effective measures to reduce the energy usage, especially non-renewable, through
energy efficiency. Efficient equipment and passive elements such as building orientation, high
insulation, natural daylighting, and ventilation considerably reduce the building energy load. However,
in order to achieve a low energy balance, energy efficiency measures are not enough. The buildings
have to become real energy producers. They have to use renewably energy sources to cover their
energy demand. Several types of localised renewable energy sources are available (i.e. geothermal, air
heat, solar or wind energy), even according to a specific geographic location. Thus, it is necessary to
effectively use active and efficient technologies able to optimize the exploitation of renewables.
Through the current study, the technology of BiPV (Building integrated Photovoltaic) is
presented as an effective option for buildings to optimize the use of the solar energy source. BiPV
systems can play an important role for achieving the nZE target in buildings. Moreover, if integrated in
the urban context, they could enable a supply of renewable energy, helping cities in reaching more
sustainable conditions.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
5
1.1 From nearly Zero Energy Building towards nearly Zero Energy District
The European Directive 2010/31/EU (EPBD) recast [1] represents a strong engagement in order
to cut energy demand in buildings through increased energy efficiency and wider deployment of
renewable technologies. It establishes that starting from the end of 2020 (2018 for new buildings
occupied and owned by public authorities) all new buildings will have to be nearly Zero Energy
Buildings (nZEBs). According to the directive, nearly Zero Energy Building means a building with “very
high energy performance”, where “nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be
covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from
renewable sources produced on-site or nearby” [1]. In a nutshell, the energy needs of a building has to
be reduced thanks to efficient energy gains and supplying the resulting low energy demand through
renewable energy sources, in order to reach a zero energy balance between annual energy
consumptions and energy supply.
The EPBD neither prescribes a
common approach to implement nearly
Zero Energy Buildings nor describes the
assessment categories in detail. Thus, the
Member States have established
different parameters, both in terms of
quantity and quality. They detailed
application in practice of the definition of
nearly Zero Energy Buildings, reflecting
their national, regional or local
conditions, and included a numerical
indicator of primary energy use
expressed in kWh/m2 per year. Primary
energy factors used for the
determination of the primary energy use
may be based on national or regional yearly average values and may take into account relevant
European standards. To date, according to [3], a definition is available in 15 countries (plus Brussels
Capital Region and Flanders). In other 3 countries, the nZEB requirements have been defined and are
expected to be implemented in the national legislation. In the remaining 9 (plus Norway and the
Figure 1.1 - Status of nZEB definition for new buildings [3]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
6
Belgian Region of Wallonia), the definition is still under discussion and has not been finalised yet
[Figure 1.1].
With regard to Italian context [4], an nZEB is a building, new construction or existing, that
meets:
- specific technical requirements from 1 January 2019, for public buildings, and from 1 January 2021,
for all the other ones;
- a minimum portion of renewable energy used as set in Annex 3 of DL 28/11.
The Ministerial Decree “Requisiti minimi” [5], approved on 25 March 2015, defines the
methodology to calculate the energy performance of buildings. It refers to specific performance indices
that, taking into account the winter and summer conditioning period, compare the building with a
reference building [4], in order to establish a range for primary energy consumption expressed in
kWh/m2*year, differing according to building type, location and use.
Regardless on the specific definition set by each Member State, generally the first step towards
the nZEB goal is the reduction of the energy demand by means of passive solutions and energy
efficiency and, of course, using sustainable materials for its construction. The second step is
represented by the generation of the energy required by users with renewable energy systems. In
relation to an nZEB design, the possible renewable supply options are several. Energy can be on-site
(PV on a building roof), nearby (wind farm) and off-site (biomass) produced [Figure 1.2].
Figure 1.2 - Renewable energy on-site (a), nearby (b), off-site (c) production (prEN 15603:2013)
However, the focus for the design of nZEBs is to transform the building itself in a production
system. It implies that the energy generation should be within the building property. This represents a
real step-change relative to the current way of building design, both from an architectural and
engineering perspective.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
7
1.1.1 Nearly Zero Energy District
Achieving a nearly zero energy balance on the scale of a single building is possible when the
energy consumption of the building is low enough and its morphology allows for the optimal
integration of energy generation systems [6]. This is a condition that can not always be met, especially
when dealing with existing building. Consequently, an enlargement of spatial perspective is needed.
The energy balance boundary is thus considered on a broadened scale, looking at the building not only
as a single building, but as a part of a wider system of buildings (district), which itself is part of an even
wider system (the city or the urban context). These considerations lead to the concept of nearly Zero
Energy District (nZED), a complex system of buildings and users, able to achieve a nearly zero energy
balance as a whole. An nZED implies a synergy between buildings, where buildings with a positive
energy balance can compensate those with negative balances.
This approach is possible in the case of new buildings and district design (Example 1), and is
particularly suited for projects on existing buildings or districts (Example 2). In particular, in the case of
interventions on buildings in “dense” urban contexts, where the surfaces for energy generating
systems are limited, very often a single building cannot reach the nZEB balance on its own. The energy
demand may be high, compared to the available surfaces for solar systems, and the effect of shadow
limits the use of the envelope surfaces.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
8
Two example of nZED concept are shown in [6] and hereunder reported.
1. Plus energy settlement in Freiburg, Germany (new settlement)
The zero energy balance is achieved in the frame of settlement. Some of the 59 built terrace
houses have a positive primary energy balance, others a negative one. The average is clearly
positive. The efficient terrace houses are covered with 3150 m² of roof top integrated PV
generators. The heat is supplied by district heating. The efficiency of the houses is based on
the Passive House concept and a consequent urban planning for shadow -free south
orientation, position and shape of the buildings [6].
Figure 1.3 - Plus seattlement in Freiburg, Germany (Rolf Disch) [6]
2. Renovated district in Bad Aibling, Germany (retrofit project)
New buildings generate an energy surplus to compensate negative balances of refurbished
former military accommodation buildings from the 1930s. Solar thermal and photovoltaic
areas differ significantly from each other. In the shown example, heat is fed into the local
heating grid of the settlements by means of 2000 m2 of solar thermal collectors [6].
Figure 1.4 - Renovated district in Bad Aibling, Gemany (Schankula Architekten) [6]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
9
1.2 BiPV (Building integrated PhotoVoltaic)
As stated in the previous sections, in the nZEB concept the building is conceived as an integral
and active part of the energy generation system where the consumer becomes prosumer. Therefore,
its design should consider not only the traditional design aspects, but the energy aspect, too. This
translates into the need to design the energy harvesting system for the building together with the
building itself. The energy production should be strictly connected to the buildings structure.
To this end, one of the most promising renewable energy technologies that can be easily
connected with buildings is photovoltaics. Photovoltaics (PV) is an efficient means of producing energy
on site, directly from the sun. It consists of a solid-state device, simply converting electricity out of
sunlight, silently with no much maintenance, limited pollution (depending on the energy used for the
manufacturing of the modules), and limited depletion of materials [7]. PV technology can play an
important role in nZEB perspective, thanks to its potential in terms of “integrability” into the building
envelope.
1.2.1 Photovoltaic technology
A photovoltaic system captures sunlight and converts it into electricity through a simple
principle. It generates electrical power through the photovoltaic effect, using semiconductor
technologies [8]. The photovoltaic effect occurs when light enters a photovoltaic cell, strikes the
semiconductive material, and transfers enough energy to cause the freeing of electrons. A built-in
potential barrier in the cell acts on these electrons to produce a voltage that can be used to drive a
current through an electric circuit [9].
Figure 1.5 - Solar cell structure [8]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
10
The electricity generated is direct current (DC) and may be stored in batteries, or converted to
alternating current (AC) electricity for general application or connection to the utility grid.
The basic element of a photovoltaic system is the PV module, formed of assembled arrays of
PV cells. Modules are wired together and combined with a set of additional application-dependent
system components. These components include the associated equipment required to convert, use,
and store the electricity (e.g. inverters, batteries, electrical components, and mounting systems) and
differ for “stand-alone” and “grid-connected” systems.
Materials currently used for PV include monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon,
amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, and copper indium gallium selenide/sulphide. These
technologies differ in terms of both employed material and structure, with different efficiency of the
energy conversion. The cell types can be grouped in the following categories.
Silicon wafer based crystalline cells
PV products based on crystalline silicon
technology (c-Si) are the most widespread (about 85%
of the cells used) and predominant on the market [10].
Due to the specific material properties of the crystalline-
Si solar cells, the modules available commercially are
mostly rigid, opaque, and flat. Semi-transparent
solutions can be obtained by a specific encapsulation, typically in glass-glass laminates or by
perforating the wafer. Transparency is produced by means of a particular distance set between the
arrays of solar cells, which allows the transmission of light. There is also a range of coloured crystalline
solar cells on the market. Crystalline silicon cells are further subdivided into two main categories:
- Monocrystalline (sc-Si), are produced from silicon wafers, extracted from a square block of single
crystal silicon by cutting slices of approximately 0.2 mm thick. Square cells of around 100 to 160 mm
sides are produced with a homogeneous structure and a dark blue/blackish colour appearance. The
efficiency of monocrystalline cells is currently the highest available on the market, ranging
approximately from 17% to 22%.
- Policrystalline (mc-Si), are produced from the melted silicon, casted into square ingots where it
solidifies into a multitude of crystals with different orientations, which gives the cells their spotted and
shiny surface. Policrystalline cells have an efficiency of around 11% to 17%.
Figure 1.6 - Mono and poli-cristalline cells
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
11
Both the categories offer a good cost-efficiency ratio. However, one important disadvantage
of this technology is known to be the loss of performance at high temperatures and the effect of
shading caused by the surrounding buildings, their chimneys, or other kinds of obstacles. In fact, even
one single partly shaded c-Si module will lead to a significant loss of power, not only in that particular
module, but – in absence of by pass diodes - in all the others modules connected in series within the
same circuit. In the worst case scenario, they could all be affected and reduced to the same power
output as the one that is shaded, and consequently, the whole system could suffer a “cutout”. This
significant issue has to be taken into account when planning with c-Si technology.
Thin‐film solar cells
Thin‐film solar cells are usually categorized according to the photovoltaic material used. The
three main technologies are amorphous silicon (a‐Si), Copper Indium Gallium Selenide (CIS or CIGS)
and Cadmium Telluride (CdTe). The most promising material in the past was amorphous silicon but
due the low improvement in efficiency, attention has moved towards CdTe and CIGS [8].
Figure 1.7 - Solarhaus Darmstadt, Germany. The façade is covered with black CIS thin-film modules [10]
Thin‐film technology consists in a very thin layer of photovoltaic active material deposited
directly on large area substrates, such as glass panels, stainless steel or polymers (square meter sized
and bigger) or foils (several hundred meters long). In relation to the substrate material, thin-film PV
modules exist also in flexible and lightweight forms, as well as opaque or semitransparent. It can be
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
12
seen as a microscopically thin layer of “disordered” photovoltaic material that gives the module
surface a more homogeneous appearance. Modules general surface appearances range from
brown/orange to purple and black, with parallel lines more or less marked.
For standard amorphous silicon cells the efficiency lies among 4% to 8%. However, compared
with c-Si, the efficiency decrease in silicon thin-film cells is less affected by high temperatures and
there are less significant losses of performance under conditions of indirect and hence lower sun
irradiation caused by cloudy weather conditions and shading by trees, other buildings, or chimneys.
The annual energy output of PV modules based on thin-films, in some
conditions provides a higher energy output in kWh/kWp than common
standard screen printed c-Si technology [10]. Nonetheless, when
calculated in terms of kWh/m2, c-Si results always as the best option.
An alternative thin-film technology that can reach higher
efficiencies is CIGS material [Figure 1.8], with around 12%. CIGS modules
tend to exhibit an efficiency increase in the first time of use, leading to higher system performance
ratio. Furthermore its temperature coefficient is noticeably more favourable than that of standard
crystalline silicon [10].
Figure 1.8 - CIGS photovoltaic
technology [11]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
13
Other cell technologies
Organic Photovoltaics (OPV) technology has interesting
material properties ranging from flexible to semi-transparent and a
reasonable manufacturing costs made possible by roll -to-roll
production techniques. The current limiting factors for OPV are its
still low levels of module efficiency (11.5% under laboratory
conditions) and the absence of products with long lifetime
guarantees [10].
Dye-sensitized Cells (DSC) technology is based on a photochemical system. Its current relatively
low level of efficiency of around 5–6% at module level is offset by the lower cost and other properties,
such as, for example, the potential to be produced in various colours on flexible, rigid, or semi-
transparent substrates in a cost-efficient way [10].
Figure 1.10 - Facade with dye sensitized cell (DSC) technology [10]
Figure 1.9 - OPV on a flexible
substrate [9]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
14
1.2.2 BiPV as multifunctional technology
Building integrated Photovoltaics (BiPV) refer to photovoltaic cells and modules which can be
integrated into the building envelope as part of the building structure, and therefore can replace
conventional building materials [12]. It represents a “prerequisite for the integrity of the building’s
functionality” [13] and, if dismounted, it would have to be replaced by an appropriate building
component.
According to SUPSI [7], “BiPV definition excludes therefore building independent or overlapped
installations such as PV modules simply placed or mounted on pre-existing roofs or other PV systems
merely attached to parts of the building that do not assume other function than the solar power
generation”. The difference between an “integrated” or “applied” PV system is not always clear. An
accurate analysis of the system functions could be required. A BiPV module, which is used in
substitution of traditional elements of the building envelope, has to ensure all the functions of the
replaced element (e.g. weather protection, thermal insulation, shading, noise protection, security). It
has to comply not only electro‐technical requirements as stated in the low voltage directive
2006/95/IEC or CENELEC standards, related to the module itself, but also a function as defined in the
European Construction Product Directive CPD 89/106/EEC. BiPV must be generally designed and built
in such a way that it does not present risks of accidents or damages in service or in operation for
persons involved throughout the entire lifecycle of the building. It has to satisfy the basic requirements
for building component such as mechanical
resistance and stability, safety in case of fire,
hygiene and health of people, safety and
accessibility in use, protection against noise as
well as energy economy and sustainable use of
natural resources.
Besides these standard building
construction constraints, the integration of PV
implies other issues. It refers also to an
architectural, conceptual perspective, which looks at the building as a formal whole. In this case, BiPV
can be described with regard to the role that it plays in the concept of the envelope composition.
Several architectural criteria have been defined in the framework of the International Energy Agency
project IEA-PVPS Task 7 “Photovoltaic power systems in the built environment” [14] and they are
hereunder summarized.
Figure 1.11 - Glass ceiling with transparent BiPV modules [14]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
15
Naturally integrated: the PV system is a natural part of the building, it completes the building.
Without PV, the building would be lacking something.
Architecturally pleasing: based on a good design, the PV system adds eye-catching features to the
architecture.
Good composition: the colour and texture of the PV system is in harmony with the other materials.
Grid, harmony and composition: the sizing of the PV system matches the sizing and grid of the
building.
Contextuality: the total image of a building is in harmony with the PV system (e.g. for historic
buildings).
Well-engineered: the elegance of design details is taken into account. All details are well
conceived, the amount of materials is minimized.
Innovative new design: the PV system adds a value to building. The PV is an innovative technology
in the field of architecture, asking for innovative, creative, thinking of architects.
Figure 1.12 - Casa Solara, Laax, Switzerland [15]
Constructive, functional and formal quality must be simultaneously preserved in order to have
a suitable integration of a multifunctional technology such BiPV.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
16
1.2.3 BiPV “architectural systems”
Photovoltaic modules, available as flat or flexible surfaces, realized with cells or laminates, can
be used together with materials that are common in architecture, such as glass or metal, in opaque as
well as in semitransparent surfaces. They can be integrated into every part of the building envelope,
creating specific “architectural systems”. An architectural system, into the context of this work, refers
to a conceptual model defined by specific structures and components, and associated to specific
physical phenomena. A wide variety of BiPV architectural systems is available today. Several databases
collecting information on existing BiPV products on the market are provided on-line, e.g. in [16] and
[17].
Most of BiPV available can be grouped into three main categories: roofing systems, facade
systems and external devices. These categories will include different technological ways of using PV in
the envelope, which lead to different choices of the PV component.
Roofing system
As a roof element, the PV system is part of the building skin and requires attention to
weatherproofing, structural, and snow accumulation issues. It can displace traditional construction
materials and, depending on the substituted layers, they have to meet different requirements that
influence the choice of the most suitable PV component.
Both crystalline silicon and thin-film technologies are available for BiPV roofing solutions. The former
comfortably dominates the market, whereas the latter is used when chimneys, trees, or neighbouring
buildings cast a shadow or where crystalline modules are excluded because of their rigidity or weight.
Typical bluish or black c-Si solar cell patterns are the most widespread among roof-installed PV
modules. Semi-transparent, wafer-based solutions used as skylights are also an option, especially for
bigger roofs on public, commercial or industrial buildings.
Two first categorizations depending on the tilt of the roof (1) or on its portion dedicated to
BiPV (2) are shown as follows.
1. A pitched roof is made up of angled and sloped parts. It is known as a “discontinuous” roof
due to the presence of small elements (tiles, slates, etc.). Panel installation can be easier than
many other BiPV solutions, but an impermeable roof is required. The most common solutions
is with the use of photovoltaic roof tiles with mono- or polycrystalline solar cells integrated
with the classical roof tiles.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
17
A flat or curved roof, also known as “continuous roof”, is characterized by an uninterrupted
layer with the main function to be water resistant. Flat roofs have the advantage of good
accessibility and easy installation. On the contrary curved roofs need complex supports and
specific flexible panels, involving added costs. In both cases, care must be taken during the
fixing of the array to preserve the roof integrity. The added weight of the PV array on the
roof must be considered.
2. An in-roof system integrates photovoltaics in a limited portion of the roof, simply replacing
the tiles. In order to perform a good integration, the PV panels are required to be placed with
regard to the surrounding roof tiles. They can be framed into the roof structure or overlap it.
Water tightness has to be guaranteed, for instance, by means of an impermeable interlayer
underneath. Architects consider in-roof systems as a not so attractive option when
photovoltaics are additional and visible materials.
The full roof solution refers to a full solar roof concept, where the roof surface is exclusively
and specifically conceived as a solar collector for energy production. Besides in-roof
installations, a full-roof system is regarded as a more economic and more appealing
alternative choice [10]. All the traditional roof components are substituted and a maximum
surface area is dedicated to energy production.
Figure 1.13 - Full-roof BiPV installation on a 19th century Swiss farmhouse, Uettligen [10]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
18
Several categories within roofing system application area include:
- Solar tiles/shingles/slates
This system is usually designed to resemble the conventional ‘”roof tile” with a solar PV tiling.
The panel height is modular to the roof tile’s rows and it can be glazed or foil -based. There are several
varieties, semi-rigid and systems using various thin-film solar cell technologies. Commonly only a part
or the whole roof is used for PV, using the same sub-structure as the mounting system. There are also
smaller panel systems, with module size <0,5 m2,
which are adapted to the conventional roof tile
that becomes itself the PV element. Solar tiles and
solar shingles offer an alternative constructive
and aesthetic approach on account of their
likeness to ordinary roof tiles, but their use could
involve some disadvantages, like for example the
susceptibility to the ingress of water and
humidity, or the lack of compatibility with the multitude of existing different tile types and the
geometric variations. Moreover, in case of PV integration into existing buildings with this solution there
is a need for an additional mounting system and in most cases the reinforcement of the roof structure
due to the additional loads.
- Metal panels
This system consists in mounting flexible laminates PV on building materials such as metal
roofing. BiPV metal roofing can replace an architectural standing seam. The thin film amorphous silicon
PV material is laminated directly onto long metal roofing panels. A
protective waterproof membrane is attached covering the
photovoltaics. A traditional roofer followed by an electrician can
install these metal panels. In an interlocking tongue-and-groove
assembly, the panels are weighed down by pavers that surround
the system to provide access for maintenance and repairs. A cap is
placed over the standing edges to form a seam. This technology can
be used also to redo the roof of an existing building.
Figure 1.15 - PV applied on zinc
standing seam panels [9]
Figure 1.14 - Middle European solar tiles [9]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
19
- PV membranes
This technology uses waterproof membrane as a support of flexible laminates PV. The
mounting procedure of the panels on roofs as well as other building structures is different (easier) than
the conventional, rigid ones. The high performance membrane with integrated flexible and lightweight
PV modules can easily be adhesively bonded to roofing materials. This integration system brings along
many advantages like light weight and avoidance of heavy wind loads (because they do not allow wind
beneath them). Moreover, it allows easier planning permission on new build and retrofit projects.
- Solar glazing
Glazed PV laminates can be used as roof parts, often made by crystalline silicon cells with
adjusted spacing or by laser grooved thin-film which provides filtered vision (skylights).
This integration system is usually one of the most interesting. It combines the advantage of light
diffusion in the building while providing an
unobstructed surface for the installation of PV modules.
PV elements provide both electricity and light to the
building. The amount of light desired to go through the
designed structures can be customized by dimensioning
and adjusting the number and spacing of cells in the
case of crystalline silicon technology or by modifying the
manufacturing process in the case of thin-film. In both
cases the more transparent is the module, the lower is
the energy efficiency. They are also commonly used to
provide sun/wind protection to building surfaces and
interiors. Transparent modules can be used for open
and indoor atria. In both cases the glazing should meet
the standards for mechanical resistance, while in the latter also the thermal requirements of the
envelope. Skylights are used in flat roofs, pitched roofs, and sometimes in the top area of the façade.
They are employed usually for commercial and prestigious buildings, designed to provide a great deal
of natural lightning by using large areas of semitransparent window-like areas.
Figure 1.16 - Solar Glazing system [19]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
20
Façade system
The second field of BiPV application is that of façades where solar panels of all technologies
can be integrated as a conventional cladding system for curtain walls and single layer façades . Current
development is aimed at developing more advanced applications like adaptive modular PV façades
and intelligent ways of balancing daylighting and shading [18].
In many cases, standards modules (frame or frameless) are used for such application although the use
of tailored made modules is sometimes requested in order to match the façade specifications. For
example glass PV laminates, replacing conventional cladding material, are basically the same as tinted
glass. They provide long-lasting weather protection and can be tailor-made to any size, shape, pattern
and colour.
Façade applications typically include warm façades, cold façades and solar glazing.
- Warm façade
A warm façade is typically a continuous building envelope system in which the outer walls are
non-structural. A warm façade fulfils all building envelope requirements such as load bearing, thermal
insulation, weatherproofing and noise insulation. Since it is the building skin system, the parameters
related to solar gain control such as thermal and visual
comfort have to be controlled when using highly-glazed
curtain walls. In this case, a warm façade matches a solar
glazing. In general, it can also be represented by an opaque
curtain wall or by an insulating cladding panel (PV + thermal
insulation without an air gap) where there is no ventilation.
A vertical curtain-wall represents a fairly economical and
standard construction strategy, but a sloped one could be
more productive. However, both systems could have
problems with panels’ junctions and sealing. Figure 1.17 - Warm facade systems
with thin film photovoltaic [20]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
21
- Cold façade
This facade system typically consists of a load-bearing sub-frame, an air gap and a cladding
panel. The PV panel is used as a cladding element, which has no thermal connection with the wall
warm. It offers weather protection and cooling for the wall. Thanks to the naturally ventilated cavity
heat from the sun is dissipated through bottom and top openings. It provides a good ventilation behind
the modules, which enhances the PV system efficiency.
Figure 1.18 – Cold façade system, 28th Street Apartments, Los Angeles [19]
Some systems make use of vents to optimize the air ventilation. An example is shown in Figure
1.19. Poly-crystalline PV modules are installed in the façade in an integral form such that an air cavity
is created between the PV backside and the building envelope. The system thus constitutes an outer
layer (PV panels) and an inner layer (building envelope). The air gap formed between these two layers
interacts with the indoor environment by means of two vents (dampers), one located in the upper part
and the other located in the lower part of the brick wall. The vents can be controlled manually by the
occupants according to their individual comfort needs and weather conditions [8].
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
22
Figure 1.19 - Cold facade system with vents [20]
Another possible option for PV integration is the double‐skin façade, a glazed surface that is a
non-load-bearing exterior wall suspended in front of the structural frame and wall elements [Figure
1.20].
Figure 1.20 - GDF Suez, Dijon, France [21]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
23
- Solar glazing
Solar glazing systems are often used as
windows or as a curtain wall semi-transparent
system, designed with extruded aluminium frames
(but also steel, woods, etc.) in-filled with glass. Since
it is part of the building envelope, parameters
related to solar gain control, such as thermal and
visual comfort, have to be controlled when using
highly-glazed curtain walls. The transparent
functional layer (glass) is replaced with PV glazed
panes, whilst the load-bearing part is equipped for
the electric wirings passages. The cell pattern and
assembly can provide the proper solar and
daylighting control replacing the traditional external
louvers and defining a particular architectural
appearance of the façade. The most common glass
types used are laminated glass, patterned or fritted
glass and spandrel panels. Some companies sell custom-made BiPV glazing products, available in any
size or dimension and consisting of any PV technology. The architect can indicate the spacing between
solar cells, which will determine the power supply and permit the design of passive solar features by
regulating the amount of daylighting allowed to enter into the building. Standard and custom products
are available in many sizes and in a range of thicknesses [18].
External devices
Photovoltaics can be also integrated into the design as external devices on the building skin.
These accessories may include balconies, shading systems, and several other smaller systems. Shading
systems are the most commonly used accessory [12]. The control of the indoor microclimate, especially
in glazed façade systems, usually requires the use of shading devices aimed to select the solar radiation
for ensuring the thermo-hygrometric and visual wellbeing through a proper use of the natural lighting.
Several types of shading devices are available: applied on roof or façade; external, interposed (for
Figure 1.21 - Solar glazing facade BiPV system [22]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
24
example in double skins) or internal; fix or tracking (manually or electrically); vertical, horizontal or
oriented; lamellar, micro-lamellar, sail, grid; curtain or blind; mobile screen [12].
Quite common these are semi‐transparent glass or glass components integrated as canopies
or louvers, but there are also movable shutters with semi‐transparent crystalline or thin film.
Opaque sun protections are also widely used, in most cases with an upper part without cells, to avoid
shading the PV cells when the overhangs overlap.
Figure 1.22 - Hofberg 6/7, Switzerland [22]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
25
- Spandrels, balconies parapets
Spandrels and parapet areas are also suitable for photovoltaic integration, mostly using glass
or glass semi-transparent modules made of security glass. Balcony fronts can either be two‐paned
solutions to protect the PV‐cells or single glasses to which the PV‐cell is laminated. In glazed verandas,
the heat generated at the back of the PV can be used to create thermal comfort in spring and autumn,
while the space can be opened for natural ventilation in summer time.
- Shading systems
PV modules of different shapes can be used as shading elements above windows or as part of
an overhead glazing structure. Since many buildings already provide some sort of structure to shade
windows, the use of PV overhangs should not involve any additional load for the building structure.
The exploitation of synergy effects reduces the total costs of such installations and creates added value
to the PV as well as to the building and its shading system. PV shading systems may also use one -way
trackers to tilt the PV array for maximum power while providing a variable degree of shading.
Figure 1.23 - Shading BiPV system [23]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
26
The main features of the different BiPV architectural systems described in the current
paragraph are highlighted through the comparative analysis outlined in Table 1.1.
Easy
inst
alla
tio
n
and
rep
airs
Stru
ctu
ral
issu
es
Wat
erp
roo
fin
g is
sues
Ove
rhea
tin
g
issu
es
Imp
act
on
day
ligh
tin
g
Imp
act
on
th
erm
al
ener
gy d
eman
d
Aes
thet
ic a
dd
ed
valu
e
Hig
her
en
ergy
effi
cien
cy
ROOFING SYSTEMS
Tiles/shingles/slates
Metal panels
PV membranes
Solar glazing
FAÇADE SYSTEMS
Warm façade
Cold façade
Solar glazing
EXTERNAL DEVICES
Shading system
Table 1.1 - Main features of several BiPV solutions commonly used
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
27
1.2.4 BiPV flexibility
From the building integration point of view,
the market is divided into two main categories: the
standard modules and bespoken products. Both
categories give some formal flexibility in their offer,
but obviously not to the same extent. As PV has to
compete with traditional technologies to generate
electricity at a reasonable price, most producers
have turned to very large factories to mass‐produce
PV modules, achieving economies of scale, but
limiting their offer to a few standard products. Their
fixed sizes and crude frames can make their
integration difficult, as they often do not match the
raster of the project. However, if the PV option is
considered at a very early design stage, an innovative and successful integration can be achieved.
Custom‐made products, developed for special projects for maximum flexibility, can be ordered with
specified formal characteristics (e.g. shape, size, colour, texture, etc.). This freedom usually comes with
an extra cost due to small quantities produced, and attention should be paid to the issue of spare parts,
which should be produced with the main order, to ensure replacement in case of incident.
- Shape and size
The size of standard crystalline photovoltaic modules ranges from 0.2 to 2 m². The small size
of the cells used in crystalline Silicon based modules (10x10 cm to 20x20 cm) gives the dimensional
possible “steps”, as the module will have as dimensions multiples of these cells size. Opaque and
translucent modules, with or without frame, can then be obtained in a large variety of shapes and
sizes, either from existing products or custom made.
About thin-film technology, producers generally offer standard glass modules with specific
size. A set of standardized building dedicated products is also available on the market. Due to the roll‐
to‐roll manufacturing process, there is only flexibility (a set of dimensions to choose from) in the length
of the laminates, that come with a fixed width. Several roofing companies are cooperating with the PV
producers to offer their products (metal roofs, corrugated sheets, insulated panels) with integrated
PV.
Figure 1.24 - SCHOTT Ibèrica SA, Barcelona, Spain [19]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
28
Figure 1.25 – Left: GreenPix media wall, Beijing, China [24]; Right: Opera House, Oslo, Norway [8]
- Colour, patterns, textures
The appearance of crystalline modules depends on the appearance and composition of the
cells, and marginally on the colour of the back coating (Tedlar). There is certain flexibility in choosing
the colour, but black or blue cells and black or white Tedlar are largely dominant. Only a few
manufacturers propose coloured cells, so these are quite rare and come with added cost and reduced
efficiency. The standard choice for crystalline modules front glass is an extra‐white, low iron, 3mm
glass, used by most producers. However, there are options for textured or etched extra‐white glass, or
very thick glass for increased static resistance or for combination with a back gl ass.
Figure 1.26 - Poli cristalline silicon wafer with different coloured anti-reflective
Thin-film manufacturers provide basic products in one single colour, brown, blue or black. New
developments offer now also some reddish brown, chocolate‐brown, hepatic and sage green colours.
Laminates are mainly available in dark blue and pinkish shades. Thin-film technology allows for the
possibility to produce semi‐transparent modules with a variety of patterns (point, stroke, stripes), by
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
29
laser cutting. Some thin-film laminates, like in solar shingles that imitate traditional asphalt roof
shingles, present the general image of a dark blue or magenta cells ribbon, with two empty lateral
areas without cells, where the substrate is visible.
Figure 1.27 - Thin film modules
- Jointing/Framing
The crystalline modules jointing can be made through the aluminium framing, by integration
into curtain‐wall systems with mullion/transom, or modules can be integrated frameless in glazing
systems, with negative jointing. For roof applications, overlapping is often chosen for the horizontal
joint. Custom‐made products can be developed with their own specific fram ing as well, where the
frame becomes part of the module design.
For glass modules, the framing possibilities are the same as for crystalline products. The
jointing and framing of the laminates are defined by their substrate structure. Some laminate
producers are partnering with building component manufacturers to integrate their modules into
existing building products.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
30
1.2.5 Design stage
In order to have an effective integration of PV as a real building component, it is hence
necessary to include BiPV from the first design phases. Due to its multifunctional feature [1.2.2], BiPV
integration entails several considerations from different point of views (e.g. weather protection,
thermal insulation, shading, noise protection, security). This might require that the building team,
including architects, building designers, engineers, building owners and utility companies, work
together from the first phase of the project onwards. Some of the factors that must be taken into
account during the first design stages to optimized the performance of a BiPV system, according to
[19] , are reported in the following sections.
Minimizing electric loads
The first consideration in BiPV applications is to maximize efficiency in the building energy
demand or load. Designers should minimize the electricity load by utilizing integrated energy design
strategies such as building envelope improvements, daylighting techniques, natural ventilation
applications, and additionally installing energy-efficient lighting and cooling equipment. The goal is to
minimize the building energy needs and then supplement the remaining loads with the generated
electricity.
Matching electric loads
A BIPV system may produce the same amount of electricity as consumed in the building on a
yearly base, however the simultaneity of production and consumption needs to be evaluated. An
effective strategy to best optimize the PV energy use can be implemented by matching the offer with
the demand. It means that photovoltaics should produce energy when energy is needed with the final
aim to increase the direct self-consumption. The energy demand is defined by the building use.
Different electric load values are measured for example in residential and commercial buildings [25].
Increasing the correlation between the electricity production and the load profile can have a positive
impact on the PV economic case, optimizing the energy use. Designing a BiPV system, therefore,
cannot disregard considerations about load matching.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
31
Optimizing system configuration and electricity generation
Decisions regarding where and how to best integrate BiPVs into building designs are greatly
influenced by the potential amount of electricity generated from a specific application and its cost
effectiveness. For example, horizontal applications like roof BiPVs and vertical applications like curtain
walls have different material/installation costs and electrical output curves due to the different
position relative to the sun. The electricity generation widely depend on the solar access, the incidence
of solar radiation that reaches a PV surface at any given time. It is important to note that the availability
of solar radiation changes throughout the day and throughout the year. For maximum energy output,
it is important to determine the orientation, tilt angle, size and location of the BiPV system in relation
to the building site and design. As flexibility exists in the placement of BiPV, this gives a limited degree
of freedom to match the time of day, month, and season when peak solar generation is in close match
with the peak electrical needs of the building [9].
- Tilt. Maximum solar intensity occurs on a flat surface perpendicular to the sun’s rays. Inclining the
panels toward the sun increases the amount of sunlight striking the surface and wil l increase the
output. The sun path sweeps a daily arc that changes seasonally throughout the year. In this way, the
sun follows a prescribed solar position described by an altitude angle (vertical) and azimuth angle
(horizontal). By orienting the BiPV panels to be perpendicular to the sun at certain times of day and
year, it is possible to optimize solar exposure to match loads. As a general rule of thumb in the Northern
Hemisphere, BiPV installations produce the most energy over the course of a year when oriented true
south and tilted at an angle equivalent to the site latitude. However, instantaneous output varies
depending on cloud cover and the sun position. As a panel gets farther from a tilt equivalent to the
site latitude, the total annual output decreases. A vertical surface orientation may produce
approximately 30 percent less electricity, while a horizontal surface orientation may produce
approximately 10 percent less electricity than an optimally inclined installation at our latitudes [9].
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
32
- Orientation. The total amount of energy that strikes
a surface is a function of both tilt and orientation. In
Figure 1.28 is shown the amount of the annual
irradiation evaluated on different orientation in
Bolzano. Vertical surfaces with east/west orientation
have a relevant decrease (around the 60%) of annual
irradiation compared to the optimally inclined
southern orientation. For these east/west
orientations, low sun angles at the beginning and end
of the day account for the majority of the power
generated.
- Sizing. For the selection of a BiPV type and for the sizing of a system, three main factors have to be
considered: energy loads, architectural or aesthetic considerations, and economic factors. To
determine the desired power rating of a BiPV system for a building, the electrical requirements of the
building should be evaluated at first. The optimum power rating of the system can be calculated and
sized, based on the share of the building electricity that will be supplied by the BiPV system.
Architecturally, the size of the BiPV system is physically limited to the dimensions of the building
available surface area. The balance between the amount of power required and the amount of surface
area available can determine the type of PV technology that will be used. Each technology has an
associated range of output in watts per square meter. For example, in order to have a certain energy
output, systems made of amorphous silicon can require a larger surface area than equivalent systems
composed of single crystal solar cells, placed with the same surface tilt and orientation.
- Location. BiPVs should be placed where they have secured long-term solar access. It is critical not to
locate BiPV panels where neighboring landscapes or structures that may cast shadows on the system
are present or planned in the future. Full or partial shading of the panels partially inhibits the
production of electricity. The system performs best if there is homogeneous solar access because the
solar cell with the lowest illumination level determines the operating current for all of the cells wired
in series.
100%
70%
84%
72%
62%
91%
94%
66% 45%
Figure 1.28 - Annual irradiation for different orientation evaluated in Bolzano (PVGIS)
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
33
Figure 1.29 - Shading due to environmental factors [26]
In the design phase, it is also important to take into account the surface features that surround
the PV system. Their reflection capacity influences the amount of solar irradiati on that hits the PV
system.
Meeting aesthetic criteria
A BiPV solution may be an appropriate option for designers that wish to create aesthetically
appealing buildings. However, from the beginning of the design process, several aesthetic criteria
should be taken into account when designing distinctive “architectural features” [0]. All the formal
characteristic of the project must be architecturally
integrated into the context. This represents a
crucial issue especially when regarding to old
buildings, historical sites, and “protected”
landscapes [27]. The formal acceptance of a PV
integration is a matter of discussion, both in the
private dimension (i.e. willingness to adopt a
specific PV system) and in the public dimension (i.e.
acceptability of specific BiPV applications in the
urban context where the individual lives), as
reported in [28]. Surely, improving the BiPV design
could increase the acceptability of a PV technology. As shown in [1.2.4], the BiPV products already
available on the market today can make visual statements by adding patterns, textures, colours, and
visual notoriety to the roof or façade of a building. The wide flexibility of BiPV appearance can
contribute to achieve a good aesthetic integration level.
Figure 1.30 - Roof integration of PV on historic building, St Silas Church, Pentonville [24]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
34
Figure 1.31 – Left: Hotel Renovation, Paris [7]; right: Kollektihuset, Copenhagen, Denmark [29]
The economics of BiPV
While the prices of standards PV modules are very well known in the PV sector [30], when it
comes to BiPV, the subject gets much more complex since a combination of many factors may
contribute to affect the final price of BiPV system. It is important to carry out a comprehensive
economic analysis that evaluate all factors specific to the project. The best way to assess the economic
attractiveness of a building strategy like BiPV is to evaluate the total cost of the system over time [9].
A life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis gives the total cost accounting for all the expenses incurred and the cost
savings gained over the life of the system. It allows the designer to compare the economics of many
different power options as well as determine the most cost effective BiPV system design. Most LCC
analysis includes capital costs, installation costs, maintenance costs, energy costs, replacement costs,
energy cost savings, and salvage value. When using LCC to compare different systems, it is important
that each system configuration performs the same work with the same reliability.
Usually BiPV products are subject to comparison with other building materials since their aim
is to replace those conventional materials and their functionalities [1.2.2]. A review of a recent study
published by SUPSI and SEAC [12] displays the results of the price survey conducted to compare
conventional façade materials with BiPV façade solutions. The price is defined as the end-user price
and measured in €/m², which is the end-user PV system cost calculated over the area that the PV
systems covers on the roof or façade. Figure 1.32 shows a benchmark of the conducted price survey.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
35
Figure 1.32 - A benchmark of the conducted price survey, comparing conventional facade materials with BiPV
facade solutions [12]
Conventional façade technologies include fibrocement, brick-ceramic, metal, stone, wood,
window and curtain walls. Prices range all the way from 30-50 €/m2 for a low cost fibre-cement façade
(similar to a traditional plaster) to 1100 €/m2 for a special curtain wall (e.g. self-lighted, interactive
façade, etc.). The price of BiPV solution systems varied from 100-150 €/m2 for a thin-film PV cold façade
(with really simple sub-structures and a low efficiency solar technology) to 750 €/m2 for a high end PV
solar shading system [11].
The survey’s results show that, if considering the materials costs, BiPV systems seem to be
comparable in price with conventional façade materials. However, there is a wide value range, unable
to provide a clear benchmark. Furthermore, into a global costs context, this cost is not so indicative.
When designers have to choose between traditional building materials or photovoltaics, they have to
perform several evaluations. Firstly, they should compare materials with similar conditions, for
instance installation costs, maintainance and disposal costs, architectural integration, impact on the
building thermal balance or on the daylighting, etc. Since the comparison includes a technology that
produce electricity, other crucial issues to evaluate are all the factors connected with the current
electric energy cost and its growth.
A simplified economic analysis can be carried out by calculating what the max imum added cost
should be if the target is a return of investment (ROI) within a 10 year timeframe and represents a
correlation between additional costs, self-consumption and ROI.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
36
Assumption: BiPV makes sense if you can directly self-consume in the building (to go towards
nZEB) or in the district (to go towards nZED) (self-consumption can be increased by using early design
tool to place the BiPV modules accordingly using all façade direction/roof or with batteries).
Figure 1.33 - Economic benefits from generated electricity of BiPV modules on facades over a period of 10 years. Assumptions: cost of electricity in 2015, 0.2 Euros/kWh. Self-consumption: 100% in commercial and industrial buildings, 30% in residential buildings. The calculation was carried out for inflation rate of 1% and 3% and for
BiPV system efficiency of 5% and 10% (source: elaboration EURAC)
From the Figure 1.33 can extrapolate the maximal additional cost for two BiPV system
efficiencies of 5% and 10%, for the residential and for the industrial/commercial sector, to have a
return of investment within ten years (only considering self-consumption, energy to the grid is not
valorized). In the building sector price is given per m2. Clearly, the efficiency of PV here has a high
impact in the final figures if the production is calculated over m2 and not as a specific yield in kWh/kWp.
Within the framework of the EU Photovoltaic Technology Platform, EURAC has provided support to
the European Commission in setting future targets for BiPV Figure 1.34.
Figure 1.34 - Targets set by the EU PVTP for BiPV towards the European Commission
Installation year Inflation rate 5% 10% 5% 10%
1% 63 125 84 168
3% 69 137 92 184
1% 66 132 89 177
3% 79 159 107 214
Installation year Inflation rate 5% 10% 5% 10%
1% 19 38 25 50
3% 21 41 28 55
1% 20 40 27 53
3% 24 48 32 64
London
Economic benefits
[Euros/m2/10 years]
Rome
Economic benefits
[Euros/m2/10 years]
Economic benefits
[Euros/m2/10 years]
London Rome
2015
Economic benefits
[Euros/m2/10 years]
2015
2020
2020
Commercial and industrial
buildings
Residential buildings
Efficiency
semi-transparent opaque
Now (end 2015) 150 – 350€ 130 – 250€
2020 50% reduction on today 50% reduction on today
2030 75% reduction on today 75% reduction on today
Facade-integration
Additional cost
(€/m2)
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
37
2 New methodology developed to support BiPV design
The growing demand for better energy performance in buildings is leading to an ongoing
development of strategies and technologies, involving an increasing complexity of the buildings design.
During the design phase, fundamental decisions are made that have an enormous impact on the whole
building lifecycle, on the durability and performance of any project. Especially the Early Design Phase
(EDP) plays a crucial role. It refers to the “stage of work where initial design ideas are being
conceptualized in tandem with the formulation of the building project requirements” [31]. In order to
achieve an optimal result, designers should be aware of the consequences of these design decisions.
Making informed design decisions requires the management of a large amount of information. An
overview of possible design options and their performance should be created to let the designer
choose the best solution. This can represent a critical task to implement. There is a distinct risk of
missing better design opportunities or obtaining undesirable effects if the design process is not
properly performed [32]. In order to better manage the complexities of a project, therefore, designers
should be supported by computer-based building simulation tools able to make quick and reliable
predictions, which let them evaluate the impact of early design choices on the building efficiency.
Several software tools are currently available. However, as will be explained through the following
sections, their capabilities seem not to satisfy the main designers’ needs. The present study aims to
provide a strong contribution in this sense, attempting to suggest an effective design methodology as
support to the design stage of a complex project.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
38
2.1 Barriers related to the use of software tools
There is a broad variety of digital tools that architects are using today. An international survey
of architects carried out within the framework of the IEA SHC Task 41 identified the most used [33].
The software tools reviewed are organized into the following two section.
- Graphical/physical tools section includes solar
charts/sun-path diagrams and physical models tool. They
allow the architect to perform a number of tasks quickly
and accurately such as determining shadows’ cast,
determining spatial relationships between buildings and
sun access to public space or to the internal spaces of
buildings, etc.
- Digital tools section includes CAAD tools (i.e. AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, GoogleSketchup, Revit,
VectorWorks) and Building Performance Simulation (BPS) tools (i.e. Ecotect, Project Vasari, RETScreen,
Radiance, IES VE, SolarBILANZ, bsol, DAYSIM, DPV, Lesosai, Polysun, PVsyst, PV sol, T sol). Digital tools
provide various outputs (e.g. 3D models, pre-sizing, simulation results, etc.) that can be used in
facilitating and improving communication between the actors of the design and construction process,
i.e. architects, clients, engineers, consultants, etc.
Figure 2.2 - Modelling and simulation outputs [33]
Figure 2.1 - Sun-path diagram [31]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
39
According to the survey, at the early design phase only some of the tools previously mentioned
are usually used [33]. Graphical/physical tools and CAAD, tools that mostly provide qualitative output
in solar modelling, can be helpful during the first design stage. Other tools, predominantly BPS tools or
specialised tools for sizing active solar components, provide quantitative output, but also require more
detailed and time consuming input. However, some BPS tools are considered acceptable also for the
early design stage. The results reported in [34], about simulation software used per design phase,
indicate Ecotect domination, due to its compatibility with CAD tools, its visual 3D output, its accuracy
at least for the scientific purposes, and capabilities that allows a comparison between various design
proposals. Second place in the acceptance for solar design tools in the early design stage is RETScreen,
which is relatively simple to use, despite of its completely numerical input and output. The following
in order are Radiance, PVSol, Polysun, PVsyst, eQUEST, IES VE, Design Builder, Lesosai, followed by
other software that are considered less compatible with early design phase. A wide review of the
software tools mentioned is available in [31].
Figure 2.3 - Output scenes provided by Radiance (left) [35] and IES VE (right) [36]
As stated by the IEA [34], architects and designers are aspiring to create sustainable built
environment and are taking serious consideration of the use of building performance simulation tools
that improves design reliability of energy efficiency. However, there are current obstacles preventing
architects from using existing methods and tools for solar building design. Although a great number of
digital tools for solar design exist today, they are not necessarily quite adequate for architects and the
EDP. The IEA international survey [34] identifies some barriers related to the use of available tools for
architectural integration of solar design [Figure 2.4].
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
40
Figure 2.4 - Barriers related to the use of the tools for the architectural integration of solar design [34]
The results indicate that the tools are first of all too complex. Users have more difficulty in
using several tools (e.g. since capacities and software features are not well‐known) and especially in
interpreting the results. Some software tool are not able to provide architects with results that are
presented in a useful form for the EDP: most provide numerical results, as tables or graphs. Moreover,
most software are mainly suited for detailed design phase where extensive information is available
and important design decisions already have been taken. Another crucial barrier identified by the
survey is the lack of interoperability between software. Most of the used tools do not allow data
exchange and importing and exporting features (like 3D models), increasing errors probabilities and
waste of time during design phases. In addition, the lack of a graphical flexible representation to
interact visually instead of entering command lines represent a serious barrier. Users need a dynamic
interface that can respond in real time to their actions, allowing an iterative design process. A graphical
representation can also provide information more easily accessible than results presented in the form
of reports and/or spreadsheets.
Since EDP software tools have to support adequately architects and designers taking in account
all the factors related to a project, there is the need to employ “integrated” software tools, which can
be able to address all issues related to a project (e.g. energy balance, life‐cycle costs, economic issues,
architectural appearance, etc.). The use of multiple platforms for design and simulation not only slows
down the process, but also introduces interoperability issues which include the use of multiple models
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
41
and interfaces. This represents a crucial problem when referring to the design of a multifunctional
technology like BiPV, which, as explained in [1.2.2], has an impact on several factors related to the
building.
2.2 Developed methodology and simulation tools for BiPV design
In the following paragraphs [2.2.1 and 2.2.2] the new method developed in this work and the
software used for the early design phase of BiPV is described. The methodology proposed aim to
provide a comprehensive evaluation of several issues related to the building integration of a
multifunctional technology as BiPV. It integrates design and analysis within a single parametric
environment, facilitating a smoother, more integrative and efficient workflow.
2.2.1 BiPV parametric design process
The procedure developed in this work evaluates several issues related to the integration of PV
on facades and the architectural system selected for the optimisation is BiPV as overhang. It compares
the output of energy production, shade of thermal gains and shade for daylighting purposes for a set
of different system of BiPV overhangs. Thanks to the aid of parametric design and genetic algorithm,
the three main aspects of the building integration (electricity production, daylighting performance and
thermal performance) are optimized. In the following sections, the main features of the methodology
proposed in this work are presented.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
42
Figure 2.5 – Developed BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
43
Parametric design
The process of parametric design consists in the characterization of a system or object through
a set of dimensions. These can be modified within a certain range of values. In explaining parametric
design, there are a few BiPV examples that deserve to be mentioned.
A glazing system with photovoltaic cells embedded can be described with a technical drawing down to
the smallest detail. Leaving the possibility to change the distance between neighbouring cells, without
changing the design of the element, could open the possibility of variating the overall transparency of
the glazed module. The distance between the cells, in this case, is a parameter. The distance not only
affects the transparency of the glass, but also the peak power per unit area. Analysing a BiPV
ventilated façade, as another example, the distance between the array and the façade could be the
parameter to be optimized. In BiPV overhangs, the type of system used in the following example,
illustrated with the Figure 2.6, the main parameter is the tilt angles. An array of overhangs could be
described with tilt angle, depth and distance between the rows.
Figure 2.6 - In yellow the length and angles characterizing the main parameters in an example facade with overhangs
When the behaviour and the physical performance of a building can be simulated, the main
advantage of the parametric design is its possibility of variating certain aspect of a system in order to
obtain maximum performance. The optimum is found by scanning a vast pool of solutions based on
the same basic design but with varying parameters. This gives an obvious advantage for systems such
as BiPV where simulation is essential to achieve design goals, and where performances and efficiency
are considered as key aspects. For the sake of BiPV architectural systems (defined in [1.2.3]), the
integration of photovoltaic has been grouped in few main categories, characterized by specific physical
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
44
models and specific parameters. Several main solutions of PV integrated in roofs and façades,
accessible and not from within the building, are shown in Figure 2.7.
Figure 2.7 - Schematic subdivision in categories of main BiPV architectural system, each one could be parametrically described [13]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
45
Ray Tracing
The irradiation over the designated surfaces is calculated using a method called backward Ray-
Tracing. The procedure allows for the measurement of the irradiance (or illuminance) over specific
points on a surface. In the backward Ray-Tracing method, the light rays are traced in the opposite
direction to that which they naturally follow. As explained in [31], the process starts from the eye (the
viewpoint) and then traces the rays up to the light sources taking into account all physical interactions
(reflection, refraction) with the surfaces of the objects composing the scene. The idea behind
(backward) ray tracing is to simulate individual light rays in space to calculate the luminance
distribution in a room from a given viewpoint. Therefore, rays are emitted from the point of interest
and traced backwards until they hit either a light source or another object. In the former case, the
luminance distribution function of the light source determines the luminance contribution at the
viewpoint. If a ray hits an object other than a light source, the luminance of the object needs to be
calculated by secondary rays that are emitted from the object. Figure 2.8 shows a simplified model of
the Ray Tracing process.
Figure 2.8 - Ray Tracing method [37]
The Ray Tracing process requires as input at least one point associated to at least one vector.
The point will be the precise position where the irradiation is measured, the vector represents the
normal to the surface that should be measured.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
46
Weather data and environment modelling
To perform a building´s energy simulation the initial step is to create a model that emulates
the real site environmental condition. This means identifying all critical environmental factors that
influence the building. The main features in the model are the weather conditions and the geometries
and optical properties of the surroundings. In order to build a good model, a weather file should be
used. A weather file contains “typical” data derived from hourly observations at a specific location. It
represents local climatic conditions relative to the building models, such as hourly temperature,
humidity, wind speed and direction, atmospheric pressure and solar radiation or cloud cover
conditions.
Main part of the simulation model is based on the Ray Tracing procedure, using a sky function
as light source. The sky function is represented as a semispherical cap, composed of a system of points,
the luminance of which is determined by their coordinates. The value associated with each specific
point into the sky function can represent the radiation evaluated in a specific moment, when the sun
has a defined position (point in time evaluation) or it can be a total amount of annual radiation
(cumulative evaluation). The sky function, derived from the weather file adopted into the simulation
model, uses the value of direct and diffuse radiation combined with the sun position to generate a sky
vault. The sky function contains shadings determined by far objects. Far shadings usually cast an
instantaneous shadow on the whole simulated building. In order to evaluate the real surroundings
conditions, also close shadings have to be added to the model. The close obstructions, like surrounding
buildings and objects (trees, chimneys, etc.) could cast partial shadows on the simulated building (i.e.
leave some measuring point to the direct irradiation while shadowing others), so they have to be
considered (created or imported into 3D model).
As a last step, the definition of the real radiance properties of all the surrounding materials
(i.e. reflectance, roughness and specularity) is required to complete the environmental model, which
represents an essential input of every energy building simulation.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
47
Energy irradiation evaluation and early economic assessment
The developed method allows for an early assessment of the electricity production of the BiPV
system. The Ray-tracing procedure enables a measure of the irradiation over each measuring point of
a specific surface. For the early evaluation of the production and the economic performance of the
system an annual cumulative simulation is performed. For each measuring point, associated with a
single photovoltaic module, an annual cumulative irradiation is retrieved. The irradiation is then
multiplied by the efficiency of the module and by its ownarea, and by the performance ratio of the
system in order to get the system annual energy output. During the simulation every possible PV panel
irradiation is measured, and as results some modules are not worth installing, as their annual
production is low while their price is the same as the best performing ones. The method sorts all the
modules from the most to the least irradiated and calculate the annual electricity production removing
all the modules below a certain threshold with the simplified Equation 1
𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑟 = A ∙ 𝜂 ∙ 𝑃𝑅 ∙ ∑ 𝐻𝑛,
𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑
𝑛=1
Equation 1 - Annual electricity production for a configuration of modules chosen above a certain threshold of irradiation
where Ethr is the energy output [kWh] for one year, nthreshold is the number installed modules, A is the
area of a PV module [m2], η is the module efficiency, PR is the performance ratio of the system, and Hn
is the cumulative insolation of the nth module [kWh/m2 yr]. The performance ratio is a parameter that
evaluates the performance of a PV system over a certain period of time and it is defined as the ratio
between the final yield (energy produced by 1 kWp of PV system) and the reference yield (incident
energy from the sun divided by 1000 W/m2, irradiance defined as Standard Test Conditions). Typical
values of PR varies from 0.7 (roof mounted) to 0.9 (ground mounted).
Once the power production of the system is estimated, its profitability is accessed through the Net
Present Value (NPV), which is defined as
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑𝐸𝑡ℎ𝑟 ∙ 𝐶𝑝(𝑡) ∙ 𝑃𝐸(𝑡) − 𝑚𝑡ℎ𝑟
(1 + 𝑟)𝑡 − 𝐼0
𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
𝑡=1
,
Equation 2 - Net Present Value after a precise time span of the PV system
Ethr is the energy output from Equation 1, Cp(t) is a coefficient of performance defined between 0 (worst
performance) and 1 (best performance), to consider degradation, PE(t) is the price of electricity in the
given year, mthr is the maintenance associated to the number of modules (threshold), I0 is the initial
investment and r is the discount rate, a measure of the future decrease in value of present money.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
48
With these two simple formulae, it is possible to evaluate a BiPV system’s annual electricity
production and maximize its NPV within a selected time frame by choosing an adequate threshold for
the minimum irradiation.
Thermal impact evaluation and thermal model
As a multifunctional technology included into the building envelope [1.2.2], BiPV necessarily
influences the building thermal balance. Its resulting impact can be evaluated through an energy
simulation, that, considering all boundary conditions and loads, models the building energy
consumption. Therefore, an optimization of the PV integration can also contribute to optimise the
building energy needs.
Firstly, a building model must be created for the simulation, identifying one or more thermal
zones. A thermal zone is a space within a building that has its own thermostat, served by the same
system and has the same building use. External and internal loads are assigned to the thermal zone.
- External loads come from the weather file. They are influenced by the building envelope: every
thermal zone has specific construction characteristics that condition the building energy
performances. The construction materials employed in the building envelope have their own thermal
properties and characteristics (i.e. thickness, conductivity, density, specific heat, roughness, thermal
absorptance). The external load of the thermal zones are deeply influenced by their boundary
conditions: the determination of the boundary conditions is thus required for the envelope surfaces
as adiabatic, outdoor, or ground exposed.
When the photovoltaics are integrated in the building envelope, they can have a thermal impact on
the building by modifying the external loads. BiPV are geometrically applied to the building model and,
as PV panels integrated in glazing surfaces or as shading elements, they influence solar gain, by varying
their position, size, tilt, transparency level, etc.
- Internal loads depend on the building use: user occupation, devices and type of activity conducted
condition the building energy balance determining the thermal loads. The internal loads are defined
hourly within schedules and assigned to the simulation model.
External and internal loads are employed as input in the Energy Plus simulation that provides hourly,
daily, monthly or annually energy need values (kWh or kWh/m2) for heating, cooling, ventilation,
lighting. These outputs have to be optimized, in favour of a nearly zero building energy balance.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
49
Study of daylight impact of BiPV
Daylighting concerns the illumination of the building interiors with sunlight or sky light and is
known to affect visual performance, lighting quality, health, human performance, and energy
efficiency. When the photovoltaic modules are integrated into the building glazed surfaces or as
shading elements, they have an impact on the internal illumination, controlling the solar radiation
reaching the interior of the building.
The daylighting is strictly connected with the human visual comfort as it is meaningful in
relation with the human eye. For this reason, it concerns the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum
included into the visible range of wavelengths (from about 390 to 700 nm). This requires the use of lux
(lumen/m2) as unit of the illuminance intensity in spite of raw irradiance (W/m2). The visual comfort is
related to quantity and distribution of light, it is a condition where people have enough light for their
activities and from the occupant’s viewpoint there is no blinding effect or discomfort glare. It is a
matter of subjective reaction, however there is an agreement about the necessity of glare control, and
about a few strategies for glare assessment in the design phase. One of these is to set a comfort range
of illuminance values on the measuring surface.
A daylighting analysis can be conducted through the Ray Tracing methodology previously
introduced, using a sky function as light source and a system of points and vectors. In this case , we
have to use a point in time evaluation to have hourly illuminance values. This is because the visual
conditions are evaluated calculating the percentage of hours in which the illuminance value is
maintained into the comfort range, so it is connected to the solar illumination level (weather file) and
to the occupancy of the building users (schedules), two factors that change every hour.
To perform a daylighting evaluation, we referred to two validate indices: Daylight Autonomy
(DA) and Simplified Daylight Glare Probability (sDGP), both based on the use of a system of points and
vectors. The first one, DA, is represented by the percentage of annual daytime hours that a given point
in a room is above a specified illumination level. The evaluation
is based on a horizontal point grid set on a specific level, which
could be, for example, the desk height [Figure 2.9]. A vector
indicates the normal to the plane on which the illumination is
measured, a vertical vector is associated to each of the points to
calculate horizontal illuminance.
Table height
Figure 2.9 - Points and vectors
system used in illumination analysis
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
50
The second one, sDGP, is used for glare probability analysis,
evaluating the percentage of the annual daytime hours when people
are disturbed due to the high level of vertical eye illuminance. This
index also is based on a point evaluation, but in this case the points
are set at eye-level in particular positions where users are supposed
to stay for a long time during the occupied daytime [Figure 2.10]. Four
horizontal vectors with specific directions from each of the positions
have to be set to evaluate vertical illuminance. In cases of a
preferential viewpoint, the directions can be less than four, for
example if the position of the viewer is known there might be a single view direction. The sDGP index
does not sufficiently represent contrast based glare: to this extend it is required to generate luminance
renderings on a time-step basis. This solution is computationally expensive, and anyway cannot
represent the real daylight conditions of a building, as there is no way to foresee optical properties of
equipment and furniture chosen by the occupants. However, using the sDGP index together with
Daylight Autonomy index, it guarantees more details to the daylighting evaluation, revealing
characteristics of the simulated visual environment that cannot be directly inferred from predictions
of the horizontal work plane illuminance. A daylight simulation, with input the weather file, the points
set and the vectors attached to them, calculates these two percentage values, which can be crucial in
determining different design decisions. To avoid arbitrary choices at the end of the process the two
aspects of a minimum illuminance and glare performance were condensed in a DAI ( Daylight
Aggregated Index), described by following equation:
𝐷𝐴𝐼 = 1 − [ 0.5 ∙ (∑ 𝜏𝐸(𝑎)
𝑛𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠
𝑎=1
𝑛𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠+
∑ 𝜏𝐺(𝑏)𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠𝑏=1
𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠
)]
Equation 3 - DAI (Daylight Aggregated Index)
where τE(a) is the percentage of the time, over the total time of use of the building, when minimum
illuminance (300 lux) is not met on the specific ath point, npoints is the total number of measuring points
in the sample, τG(b) is the percentage of time when maximum irradiance (3473 lux) is exceeded on the
specific bth view while nviews is the total number of views in the sample.The DAI value resulting is
included in a range from 0 to 1.
The output of the daylight simulation provides a list of many different configurations with their
associated DAI. A solution might be excellent in avoiding glare while blocking too much daylight or
Eye height
Figure 2.10 - Points and vectors system used in glare
analysis
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
51
vice-versa without affecting the index. Strongly unbalanced solutions (favouring light penetration or
glare protection) are characterized by lower DAI, while the best solutions are usually balanced.
Optimization algorithms
The core of the process does not lie in the evaluation itself but in the optimization. The method
has to evaluate many different samples with varying parameters and come out with a solution. To find
good performing combination of parameters, genetic algorithms are used. In the single target genetic
optimization, a performance metric (e.g. cumulative annual irradiation over the whole system) is
evaluated for every set of parameters. Each set of parameters can be considered as an individual, and
every single parameter can be considered as one of its genes. After the simulation of a certain number
of individuals (e.g. 100) they are sorted based on their fitness to the performance metric set before.
The low performing ones are excluded while the best performing ones are combined to form new
individuals, in a way passing on their genes to the offspring. In this way, it is possible to find high
performing set of parameters faster than a simple evaluation of every set in the solution space. The
genetic algorithm has as an output a list of individuals ranked from the best performing to the least
ones. In the use of BiPV, considering one simple fitness is not possible because there are, as we saw in
the previous paragraph, at least three criterion for the evaluation (electricity production, daylight
performance, thermal performance). In this case, a multi-target genetic algorithm should be used. The
output of this algorithm is a set of optimized solutions (a curve in case of 2 targets, a surface in case of
3 targets and a hypersurface for higher number of targets). Obviously, this type of output does not
provide the best solution, but a set of dominant solutions among which a choice must be made based
on considerations other than the three fitness metrics.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
52
2.2.2 Software tools for BiPV parametric design
The methodology previously explained in [2.2.1] developed in this work to support the design
stage of a BiPV system, is based on the use of validated software, able to provide a wide range of
building and environmental analysis.
Figure 2.11 shows a comprehensive overview of the software employed to develop the BiPV design
process. The main features of the tools proposed are briefly presented through the following sections.
Figure 2.11 - Software tools employed for the developed BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
53
Grasshopper
Grasshopper is a graphical algorithm editor that uses a visual programming language. It is
integrated with Rhino 3-D modelling software. The Grasshopper plug-in functions by associating
certain parts of a simple geometry with a graphical algorithmic editor. A geometry, created or imported
into Rhino platform, represents a static model. It can be transformed in a dynamic model within
Grasshopper [38]. A parametric transformation of
the geometry is implemented thanks to the “slider”,
a Grasshopper component customized to slide
along a range of numerical values. A slider can be
attached to the geometry, making its properties
parametric values. Every changing of the
parameters gets an instantaneous visual feedback
of the geometric effect in Rhino viewport, allowing
a better direct control of the system. A model based
on a parametric construction is used to perform dynamic evaluations of its performance, providing
different results for every variation of the parameters. In order to run building performance
simulations, Grasshopper is connected with specific validated simulation engines such as Radiance or
EnergyPlus. The model is firstly characterized with its specific properties in Grasshopper. It is then
submitted to the parametric simulations, which provide a dynamic visualization of the effect of the
design.
The BiPV design process I have developed in this work is based on the parametric modelling function of
Grasshopper, creating a complex analysis workflow based on a parametric definition and evaluation of
the BiPV system properties [2.2.1].
Grasshopper was developed by David Rutten at Robert McNeel & Associates [39].
Figure 2.12 - Grasshopper canvas [37]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
54
Ladybug
Ladybug is a free and open source environmental plugin for Grasshopper and Rhino. It allows
designer to import standard EnergyPlus Weather files (.EPW) in Grasshopper. As explained in the
previous section [2.2.1], adding a weather file means create an environmental context model that
represents the real climatic condition, defined with hourly data, of a specific project location. It is the
first step to perform a building energy simulation, identifying all critical environmental factors that
influence the building.
Figure 2.13 - Environmental context model provided by Ladybug [40]
Ladybug provides a variety of 2D and 3D designer-friendly interactive graphics to support the
initial stages of a design process. It allows designers to test several initial design options for
implications from radiation and sunlight-hours analyses results, leading to create environmentally
conscious design decisions. Due to the integration of Ladybug into the parametric environment of
Grasshopper, the process of analysis is automated and provides easy to understand graphical
visualizations, showing an instantaneous feedback on design modifications. Ladybug installed
commands are included into the Grasshopper interface as “palettes”. They are dragged onto the
canvas and connected to the simulation components.
Into the BiPV design process, the setting of the local climatic condition allows us to evaluate the
photovoltaics overhangs energy performance for each of the different configurations defined by
varying the set parameters. Evaluating the photovoltaic production and the overhangs impact on the
solar gain must not disregard from the radiation context defined by the weather file.
Ladybug was developed by Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari [41].
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
55
Honeybee
Honeybee is also a free and open source plugin for Grasshopper and Rhino. As extension of
Ladybug, helps designers to explore and evaluate environmental performance. It connects the visual
programming environment of Grasshopper to four validated environmental data sets and simulation
engines (i.e. EnergyPlus, Radiance, Daysim and OpenStudio) which evaluate building energy
consumption, comfort and daylighting [42]. It makes many of the features of these simulation tools
available in a parametric way. At first, Honeybee enables the characterisation of a model with specific
features required as input by an energy simulations.
For example, if considering a building model, it can
automate the process of intersecting the masses
and finding adjacent surfaces; the user only needs
to provide floor heights and use of each space [43].
Construction set, schedules and internal loads are
automatically assigned to the building. Once the
model features are set, Honeybee can run the
simulations from Grasshopper. It directly exports
the input (e.g. scene geometries, climatic context,
materials properties, sensors, etc.) into specific
format to be evaluated by the simulation engines.
The simulations start when all the required inputs are connected to the Honeybee simulation
components. Then, Honeybee re-imports the results of the simulation into Grasshopper, providing
several ways to visualize them.
The design process developed in this work to evaluate a BiPV system uses Honeybee components to
connect the Grasshopper model with Radiance and EnergyPlus engines. Since the BiPV model is based
on a parametric construction, dynamic evaluations of its performance can be performed, in order to
provide output values for each of the system configurations defined by the parameters variation.
Honeybee was developed by Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari [41].
Figure 2.14 - Output of a Honeybee energy simulation [42]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
56
EnergyPlus
EnergyPlus is an open source building energy simulation software that is widely used to model
the passive performance of an individual building or large communities and the mechanical systems
serving these buildings [44]. It provides both energy consumption results (e.g. for heating, cooling,
ventilation, lighting, and plug and process loads) and water use in buildings. EnergyPlus is a console-
based program that reads input and writes output to text files. It ships with a number of utilities
including IDF-Editor for creating input files using a simple spreadsheet-like interface, EP-Launch for
managing input and output files and performing batch simulations, and EP-Compare for graphically
comparing the results of two or more simulations [45]. The text files used by EnergyPlus (.idf) can be
written through a Honeybee energy simulation. It
contains all the information about the model (e.g.
geometries, materials, climatic data, energy meters,
etc.) connected as input to the Honeybee
component into Grasshopper platform. EnergyPlus
includes a number of innovative simulation features,
such as variable time steps, user-configurable modular systems that are integrated with a heat and
mass balance-based zone simulation. Other planned simulation capabilities include multi-zone airflow,
and electric power and solar thermal and photovoltaic simulation, illuminance and glare calculations
for reporting visual comfort and driving lighting controls, advanced fenestration models [46].
EnergyPlus is used in the parametric design process of BiPV to evaluate the energy demand of the
building simulated. Calculating the amount of energy consumption for heating and cooling allows
to identify the overhangs impact on the solar gain. The simulation provides hourly values for each
variations of the parameters. Once evaluated the shading system performance in increasing or
decreasing the energy demand, its configuration is optimized by the genetic algorithm [2.2.1].
EnergyPlus was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Technologies Office
(BTO), and managed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [45].
Figure 2.15 - Output of an EnergyPlus simulation [45]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
57
Radiance
Radiance is a free and open source suite of programs for the analysis and visualization of
lighting in design. It is able to predict internal illuminance and luminance distributions in complex
buildings or boundary spaces under arbitrary sky conditions or electrical lighting. Radiance is based on
a backward ray-tracing algorithm [2.2.1]. The input required for a simulation in Radiance is a
description of the 3D surface geometry, materials,
and light sources in a scene. Geometric input consists
of a boundary representation using N-sided polygons
(concave or convex), spheres, cones, cylinders and
rings. Using Radiance, complex materials (opaque,
transparent or translucent) and different types of
light sources can be modelled. Once a scene
geometry is created, an "octree" data file is
compiled. It allows the ray tracing process to start,
transmitting which surface is intersected by a ray. The output of a Radiance simulation are hourly
values including the radiance, luminance, irradiance, illuminance and glare indices [31]. The results
may be graphically displayed as colour images or provided as numerical values and plots.
The Radiance software plays a crucial rule in the BiPV design process. It is used both to evaluate the
photovoltaic energy production and the overhangs impact on the daylighting. The model defined in
Grasshopper, including geometries, radiation context, meterials properties, points and vectors grid,
is connected to the Honeybee component that writes the text file to provide the geometries data to
Radiance. For every variation of the system parameters, irradiance values on the panels are
calculated in order to analyse the PV yield [2.2.1]. Illuminance values into the buildings, instead, are
provided to evaluate the shading impact on the visual comfort of the buildings users. Once the
Radiance simulations is performed, the provided performance values are optimized by the genetic
algorithm [2.2.1].
Radiance was developed by Greg Ward at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [31].
Figure 2.16 - Output of a Radiance Simulation
[45]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
58
3 Case study
The developed methodology, explained in [2.2], has been implemented in a real demo case.
The process of parametric design and optimization has been applied on a buildings district of Bolzano.
Throughout the study, several issues related to a complex design process have been evaluated. The
following paragraphs show step by step all the phases of the design procedure, from the parametric
construction of the model to the algorithm optimization, with best configuration solutions provided.
One of the optimized BiPV configurations is analysed in terms of ideal and electric energy balance.
3.1 “Druso Est” district project, Bolzano
The case study, matter of the present thesis, is "Druso Est" district. The new neighbourhood
will be built in the city of Bolzano, in an expansion area named “Prati di Gries” along one of the main
roads called “Viale Druso”. An area of 45000
m2 [Figure 3.1] has been assigned to the
construction of the new development. It will
include about 500 apartments, a parking lot,
a park, a large supermarket, small shops and
services (e.g. kindergarten). Different
authorities are involved into the construction
process of the district. Housing cooperatives,
social housing authority and private investors will collaborate in a technical working group. The
cooperatives are allowed to build 224 apartments (11 buildings ranging from 3 to 10 storeys) as well
as approximately 500 m2 of co-housing. The private investors will build seven 10-storeys residential
buildings for a total 35300 m2 and the supermarket. One of the project proposed to be developed in
the Druso Est area is shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1 - View from Viale Druso (Google Maps)
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
59
Figure 3.2 - Druso Est district project [47]
3.1.1 Participative design process
The project takes place within a participative process, started in 2015, aimed to create a
cohouser community, where common spaces and services will be shared by the residents. Sharing and
participation are two components that characterize all the project development. From the first process
phases, future cohauser are allowed to cooperate with the technical working group in the definition
of the project. They are supported by a group of sociologists, architects and experts to plan their
common structures [48].
Achieving a high quality from the social viewpoint is a main object of the development; the
energy issue is just as much relevant. Druso Est is an ambitious project that aims to achieve high energy
targets. It is placed within the planning activity set up by the city of Bolzano, following the Copenhagen
Agreement, which requests that local communities have to drastically reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, to reach a neutrality condition within 2030 [49].
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
60
The implementation plan of the project aims to achieve that goal trough several integrated
actions. The current guideline for the development includes the following concepts:
renewable energy production mainly through Building integrated Photovoltaic panels (BiPV)
on both roofs and façade;
employment of high technical and qualitative standard (CasaClima class A as minimum target
for energy efficiency);
high-rise structures which optimize the solar supply to the buildings envelop;
investment cost reduction to allow great replicability.
Providing a method able to support an effective implementation of such a complex purposes
is one of the main objectives of this study. In the Druso Est demo case, an example of innovative PV
integration is performed to shows all the potentiality of such a multifunctional system and help
designers to explore all the possible design options. Employing an effective design methodology is the
first step to achieve high quality strategies.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
61
3.2 Implementation of the BiPV design process
Given the context described in [3.1], the porposed concept is to integrate the BiPV technology
into the buildings envelope. Due to their simple shape, three of the district buildings have been
considered in this study. They are three multi-storey residential buildings (11 storeys), with a gross
floor area of about 400 m2 for storey.
Figure 3.3 - Druso Est 3D model
Through the present section, the developed procedure previously explained [2.2.1] is
implemented. The BiPV technology proposed for Druso Est case study is a shading devices system,
integrated into the buildings façades. Based on the sun control strategy, the integration of the system
is evaluated taking into account not only the electricity production, but also all the issues related to
the sunlight entering into the building sites (i.e. impact on the daylighting and thermal performance).
Through the following paragraphs, the BiPV design process is explained step by step, from the model
construction to the PV integration optimization.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
62
Figure 3.4 - Developed BiPV parametric design process applied in the Druso Est case study
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
63
3.2.1 BiPV as shading device
The use of sun control and shading devices can
represent an important aspect of many energy-efficient
building design strategies. For example in warm, sunny
climates, it can avoid an excess solar gain that may result in
high cooling energy consumption; in cold and temperate
climates it can allow winter sun to enter through south-facing
windows, positively contributing to passive solar heating; and
in nearly all climates it can regulate and diffuse natural
illumination, improving daylighting. So by controlling the
amount of sunlight that it is admitted into a building, the
shading device can reduce building energy requirements and
improve the natural lighting quality of building interiors, increasing the user visual comfort by
controlling glare and reducing contrast ratios. Not least, shading devices offer the opportunity of
differentiating one building facade from another. This can provide interest to an otherwise
undistinguished design [50].
Therefore shading devices appear to have a wide impact on building appearance. This impact
can improve or worsen the situation. According to [50] and [51], several considerations should be
made in designing a shading device. Some of them are reported below.
The design of effective shading devices will depend on the solar orientation of a particular
building façade.
North-facing windows hardly need any shading, since the only time the sun impinges on them
is early in the morning or late in the afternoon in summer, and at those times the angle of
incidence is so great that much of the radiation is reflected from the glass or blocked by the
walls on either side of the window.
To the greatest extent possible, limit the amount of east and west facing windows since it is
harder to shade than south facing windows.
Simple fixed overhangs are very effective at shading south-facing windows in the summer
when sun angles are high. However, the same horizontal device is ineffective at blocking low
morning/evening sun from entering east/west-facing windows during peak heat gain periods
in the summer [Figure 3.6].
Figure 3.5 - Schematic representation of a window with a
overhang
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
64
Figure 3.6 - Morning and evening solar radiation [52]
Shading has an impact on the daylighting that has to be taken into account.
The optimal length of an overhang depends on the size of the window and the relative
importance of heating and cooling in the building.
Shading strategies that work well at one latitude, may be completely inappropriate for other
sites at different latitudes.
A variety of shading strategies can be implemented, whichever weather conditions and
building features the designer is dealing with. Some example are shown in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7 - Examples of shading device systems [53]
As seen in [1.2.2], due to its “multifunctional” rule, a shading device requires during design
phase a general evaluation coming from several point of view (i.e. thermal impact and daylight impact).
Moreover the earlier in the design process that it is considered, the more attractive and well -
integrated in the overall architecture of a project the solution can result.
The following paragraphs show the design process proposed to optimize the integration of a
photovoltaic shading technology into the Druso Est buildings. The whole system is submitted to a
multi-target evaluation that allows the designers to achieve a set of optimized conformations. The
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
65
pursued goals are simultaneously maximizing the photovoltaic energy production and the positive
impact of the BiPV system on the buildings thermal demand.
3.2.2 Model construction
The parametric construction of the model (including the buildings, the BiPV architectural
elements and the context) represents the first crucial phase to submit the whole system simulated to
the multi-target evaluation that allows to achieve a set of optimized conformations. A 3D model of
Druso Est district is imported into Grasshopper platform and hence developed through the following
stages.
- Buildings and environment modelling
The first step is to create the geometric model of Druso Est district to be submitted to the
simulation. A 3D model of the buildings is created with a CAAD software tool and then simply imported
into the Rhino platform, being careful to maintain the correct model units. In Rhino, the geometries
are selected and set in Grasshopper canvas [Figure 3.8]. The buildings volumes are represented as a
box, with the real dimensions and the effective glazing surfaces, and simulate the real urban
background of Druso Est district. They create close shading conditions that can have a great impact on
the amount of solar irradiation reaching the building facades. The shading scenario is completed
adding to the 3D model the Druso Est weather file (imported from Meteonorm database [54]), which
set the far shadings and places the buildings in own real location, assigning the effective climatic
conditions [2.2.1].
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
66
Figure 3.8 - Druso Est model visualization in Rhino viewport
- BiPV architectural system
Once this simplified model is created, the BiPV architectural system (i.e. the photovoltaic
overhangs) is added to the buildings [Figure 3.9]. The PV geometries are constructed in Grasshopper
canvas as simple surfaces, with a standard photovoltaic panel size (height=160 cm and weight=90 cm).
They are integrated into the façades of the three high-rise building simulated as shading elements and
parapets. In a preliminary design, the photovoltaics are placed according to several conceptual
statements or strategies (such as those listed in [3.2.1]). The shading photovoltaic panels are
integrated hanging over the windows on south façades and next to the ones towards east and west,
providing the light control especially for the apartments’ living rooms.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
67
Figure 3.9 - Druso Est model with the BiPV architectural system
- Setting simulation parameters
As model components, the shading photovoltaics integrated into façades represent an input
that have to be considered to perform a building´s energy simulation. They are conceived as moveable
elements, with tilt angle (i.e. the angle between the overhang and the normal to the façade) that can
vary from 0°, if photovoltaics are perpendicular to the façade, to 90°, if they are parallel to the facade.
They not only rotate but also move. An extra condition is that when tilt angle increases, the panels
distance itself from the windows. The overhangs tilt angle represents a parameter, the variation of
which affects the buildings energy performances. For Druso Est model, the photovoltaic panels are
separated due to their three orientations (east, south, west), therefore the parameters set are three,
one for each panels orientation. In Grasshopper canvas the three parameters are represented as slider
components with a range that spans from 0 to 90, corresponding to the tilt angle allowed variations.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
68
Figure 3.10 - Model construction phase in the BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
69
3.2.3 Solar irradiation simulation
A solar irradiation simulation is performed within the Grasshopper platform, using the
Radiance software through the Honeybee plugin. As previously explained in [2.2.1], it enables a
measure of the solar energy hitting specific surfaces. In this case, the output required is the total
amount of annual radiation (i.e. insolation), a result obtainable through a cumulative evaluation.
To perform an energy simulation, the whole constructed model, including the sky function
(added through Ladybug components) and the geometries created, must be taken into account as
input. All the buildings surfaces are characterized with specific optical properties, setting proper
surface materials (e.g. generic plaster) which can influence the environmental radiation conditions.
The surfaces designated for the evaluation are the photovoltaic panels integrated into the model. The
aim is to quantify the amount of sunlight, direct and diffuse, that can be potentially absorbed by the
photovoltaics and converted into electricity. The method used, the backward ray tracing (explained in
[2.2.1]), requires a set of points to be located on the panels surfaces, one point for each of them. Then
a vector normal to the panel surfaces is associated to each point. Points and vectors are connected
with photovoltaics position and rotation and represent the “sensors” which allow to measure the solar
irradiation amount. They complete the model, ready to be submitted to the energy evaluation. The
inputs, visible within Grasshopper canvas, are connected to
the component able to run the simulation [Figure 3.11]. The
evaluation process provides results in a short computational
time (less than a minute). The output consisted in 657
cumulative annual values of solar irradiation (kWh/m2 year),
one for each photovoltaic panel.
The simulation results are immediately graphically
visible within the Rhino viewport where the 3D model can be
visualized. Furthermore, connecting the values of irradiation
to a multiple coloured gradient component of Grasshopper,
the corresponding photovoltaic panels are coloured, as showed in Figure 3.12. The red panels
represent the most irradiated, the green ones receive less solar radiation.
Figure 3.11 - Radiance simulation Honeybee component
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
70
Figure 3.12 – Output of the solar irradiation simulation output
The Radiance simulation output are also provided as data in text format. They are available in
an “.ill” file that the software creates once completed the simulation. The file contains 8760 irradiation
map data (one data for each hour of a year) for every photovoltaic panel. Data are provided in a CSL
format, easily importable into Excel.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
71
Figure 3.13 - Solar irradiation simulation in the BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
72
3.2.4 Economic optimization of the BiPV system
To perform the simulation of the annual cumulative irradiation on the photovoltaic surfaces,
all the panels are considered. However, it would not be an effective strategy from an economic point
of view to hang a PV overhang on every window. Especially in the lower floors of the building, in
shadowed conditions, a shaded module would produce little electricity and not benefit the thermal
balance, also burdening the initial investment. An economic evaluation is thus performed to select the
best performing photovoltaic modules. Through the procedure described in [2.2.1], firstly all the panels
are sorted by irradiation from the most irradiated to the least irradiated and an early assessment of
the electricity production is performed with Equation 1. Once all the least performing photovoltaic
modules are removed, the annual electricity production is calculated. In order to estimate the system
production profitability, the Net Present Value (NPV), as defined in Equation 3, is calculated for every
number of panels. Several values related to the photovoltaic system features and the current energy
price are taken into account in the calculations. They are listed into the Table 3.1.
PV panels efficiency 0.12 [8]
PV system performance ratio 75% [55]
Degradation rate 1% /year [56]
PV price 3200 €/kWpeak [10]
Maintenance cost 2% of the initial price [55]
Energy price 0.23 €/kWh [57]
Energy price growth rate 1% [58]
Table 3.1 – Numeric values considered in Equation 1 and Equation 2
The number of photovoltaic panels that
maximized the economic gain in different target time-
frame (i.e. maximum return of the investment in years)
could be chosen. In the Druso Est case study the number
of the photovoltaic overhangs are chosen to maximize
the earnings within 20 years. The best performing panels
are selected conferring to the 3D model a new geometric
configuration [Figure 3.15], with the calculated cash flow
and pay back time shown in Figure 3.14.
Figure 3.14 - Calculated cash flow and pay back time of the economically optimized
BiPV configuration
NPV
Cas
h F
low
(€
)
Year
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
73
Figure 3.15 – Output of the economic optimization
Usually, in traditional PV design, when designers have to decide where to place the
photovoltaic modules, other simple criteria are fullfilled. Two examples of possible results are shown
below. A possible strategy to follow is to maximize the photovoltaics production. All the panels are
included and integrated on the west-south-east façades. The resulting configuration will entail a very
high initial expenditure and a poor average irradiation, with a consequent long pay back time [ Figure
3.16].
Figure 3.16 - Most productive PV configuration with calculated cash flow and pay back time
Another possible configuration is provided following the simple strategy, frequently used in
traditional PV design, of setting photovoltaics south facing. The few selected panels have a low initial
NPV
Cas
h F
low
(€
)
Year
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
74
cost and very high average irradiation. Consequently the resulting pay back time decreases. However,
the overall production is low and cannot effectively influence the final energy balance [Figure 3.17].
Figure 3.17 - South facing PV configuration with calculated cash flow and pay back time
Figure 3.18 - Economic optimization phase in the BiPV parametric design process
NPV
Cas
h F
low
(€
)
Year
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
75
3.2.5 Thermal energy demand simulation
Once the photovoltaic overhang configuration is chosen, their thermal impact is evaluated
through an energy simulation, performed within the Grasshopper platform, using the Energy Plus
software through the Honeybee plugin. As previously explained in [2.2.1], it enables to quantify the
thermal energy demand resulting with a specific building conformation, allowing the designers to
evaluate the impact of the overhangs on heating and cooling demand separately.
The whole model used for Radiance, including the buildings, the BiPV architectural system and
the context, must be taken into account as an input to perform the EnergyPlus simulation.
Furthermore, in this case not only the external loads connected with the local climate condition are
evaluated, but also those produced into the building. The internal loads assigned as input to the
simulation are typical values of residential building used. They refer to the thermal load of equipment,
infiltration and people presence [Table 3.2].
Equipment load 4.14 W/m2
Infiltration rate 0.0004 m3/s*m2
Number of people 0.024 ppl/m2
Table 3.2 - Internal loads values assigned to Druso Est buildings [59]
The internal loads assigned have not the same influence throughout the day on the building
thermal energy balance. To define real conditions, some schedules with hourly profiles are applied to
the simulation process. They contain hourly values of users’ occupancy and activity (EnergyPlus), of
heating and cooling setpoint (EN 15251), of equipment [60] and infiltration [61]. Two examples of
hourly profiles are shown in Figure 3.19.
Figure 3.19 - Left: Occupancy hourly profile (EnergyPlus). Right: Equipment hourly profile [60]
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 00:00
Occupancy profile
0
10
20
30
40
00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 00:00
Equipment profile
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
76
Internal loads and schedules are assigned to each of the buildings’ thermal zones. To define
the thermal zones the three building simulated are simplified and split into stories. One thermal zone
corresponds to one floor of one building. To limit the computation time, the floors designated to be
evaluated are three for each building (i.e. the two exposed stories and the middle one). Since the
buildings envelope has a crucial rule in controlling internal and external loads that must be considered,
the thermal zones are characterized by specific constructive properties. The construction materials
and components employed have their own thermal properties and characteristics (i.e. thickness,
thermal transmittance (U value), density, specific heat, roughness, thermal absorptance). They are
described in Table 3.3.
EXTERNAL ROOF U = 0.31 W/m2*K EXTERNAL WALL U = 0.26 W/m2*K
- green roof substrate 0.15 m - plaster 0.015 m
- EPS insulation 0.1 m - hollow brick 0.05 m
- reinforced concrete roof slab 0.25 m - reinforced concrete 0.25 m
- plaster 0.015 m - mineral wool insulation 0.13 m
EXTERNAL FLOOR U = 0.26 W/m2*K INTERNAL FLOOR adiabatic surface
- parquet flooring 0.01 m - acoustic ti le 0.02 m
- concrete screed 0.07 m - ceil ing air space resistance
- XPS insulation 0.05 m - l ightweight concrete 0.1 m
- screed 0.08 m WINDOW U = 1.5 W/m2*K
- XPS insulation 0.05 m - glass 3*10-3 m
- concrete floor slab 0.24 m - air 0.01*10-3 m
- plaster 0.015 m - glass 3*10-3 m
Table 3.3 - Druso Est construction materials. Definition of thermal transmittance and thickness
The thermal behaviour of the envelope components is
also characterized by specific boundary conditions. External
walls, floors and roofs are outdoor exposed, while internal floors
are adiabatic surfaces. The model is simplified through the
assumption that the thermal zones cannot exchange heat
among each other.
Once the thermal zone model is completed, it is
connected with the other inputs (i.e. buildings and BiPV
geometries, weather file) to the Grasshopper component able Figure 3.20 - EnergyPlus simulation
honeybee component
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
77
to run the EnergyPlus simulation [Figure 3.20]. At the end of the evaluation process, several energy
demand values measured in kWh/m2/ y are provided. In this case, the outputs required are monthly
values.
The simulation results are immediately graphically visible within the Rhino viewport. The
thermal zones are coloured based on total energy (either cooling or heating) output data as shown in
Figure 3.21. The red zones represent those with the most energy demand, the blue ones require lower
energy supply.
Figure 3.21 - Thermal energy demand simulation output
The EnergyPlus simulation outputs are also provided as data in text format. They are available
in a “.csv” file that the software creates once completed the simulation. The file contains all the energy
demand data of each of the thermal zones for every month. Data are provided in a CSL format, which
can be edited in Excel.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
78
Figure 3.22 - Thermal energy demand simulation in the BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
79
3.2.6 Optimization algorithm
The energy simulations provide two performance indicators of the BiPV system: the annual
photovoltaics energy production and the impact of the overhangs integration on the annual buildings
energy demand for heating and cooling. These outputs are
connected with a specific BiPV configuration. Each configuration is
characterized by a combination of the three set of tilt angles (i.e. the
three model parameters): west, south and east [Figure 3.23]. A multi-
target genetic optimization algorithms, described in [2.2.1], is
performed to find the best set of angles to obtain specific
performance indicators. The first step is to connect, also into Grasshopper canvas, the performance
indicators and the three parameter to the optimizer component. Once started, the genetic
optimization process evaluates the current configuration and then the other ones, generated by
varying the parameters and each time restarting the simulation process. A genetic selection of the best
performance configurations, located as points on a Pareto curve, provides a set of optimized values of
electricity production and thermal energy demand. Figure 3.24 shows the distribution of the
configurations found by the two objectives optimization.
Figure 3.24 – Output of the genetic algorithm optimization. Each point corresponds to a BiPV configuration
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.8 25.9 26
Pro
du
zio
ne
BiP
V (k
Wh)
Fabbisogno energetico (kWh/m2)
Figure 3.23 - Tilt angle Grasshopper sliders
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
80
The two axis represent the indicators: the horizontal is the energy demand, the vertical is the
photovoltaic energy production. Each point corresponds to a BiPV configuration that have specific
performance values. The best configurations, i.e. those with optimized values of energy production
and/or of energy consumption, are the ones in red closer to the axes, not “dominated” by other
solutions [62]. In this case, the resulted optimized solutions are not so different in performance. The
one optimized for electricity production (on the right) differs by around 1000 kWh/year from the other
configurations. The one optimized for energy consumption (on the left) differs by less than 0.1 kWh/m2
year from the other configurations. The two target, therefore, seem not to be so competitive. The
reason could be found in the initial intelligent integration of the PV overhangs that, increasing the tilt
angle, distance itself from the windows, limiting the shade [3.2.2]. The resulted performance
differences, also, can be included into an estimated error range of 1.9 % (for the PV production) and
0.6% (for energy consumption), attributable to the software. Therefore, the best configurations can
be considered as a single solution. If otherwise (for e.g. with several optimized solutions with very
different performance), it would be left to designers to choose which solution to develop in the
following stage of the design. The choice would depend from the will of giving more weight to
electricity production or energy savings.
The output of the optimization process performed is shown in the following paragraph. A
resulted solution is analysed in terms of energy performances, evaluating the impact of the BiPV on
the total energy balance.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
81
Figure 3.25 - Genetic algorithm optimization phase in the BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
82
3.3 Optimization results
The optimization process provides a set of best solutions. One of them is analysed below. It is
characterized by the following specific combinations of the overhangs tilt angles: 48° on west façades,
36° on south, 56° on east. Figure 3.26 displays the results.
Figure 3.26 - One of the optimized BiPV configurations
The values reported in the following analysis are the output of the monthly EnergyPlus
simulation performed to evaluate an average energy demand of the three high-rise buildings
simulated. The aim is to evaluate the impact of the resulting shading system integration on the
buildings energy balance.
Figure 3.27 and Figure 3.28 show a comparison of energy demand values calculated in kWh/m2,
evaluated in two different buildings configurations. The first (in grey) represents a condition without
any shading system, the other one (in red and blue) is the result of the optimized overhang integration
on buildings façades.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
83
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
kWh
/m2
Ideal Heating Demand
Without BiPV
Optimized BiPV
According to the simulations results the effect of the overhangs appears to be beneficial for
the cooling load but has a negative impact on the heating load. This is an expected consequence since
the main function of a shading system is to block part of the incoming sunlight, and so the solar thermal
gain. However for an average increase of heating demand of 0.1 kWh/m2/month (i.e. 1140 kWh per
year for the three whole buildings), the results show an average decrease of cooling demand of 0.2
kWh/ m2/month (i.e. 2280 kWh per year for the three whole buildings). Therefore, the presence of
overhangs is more effective in decreasing the cooling load than increasing the heating load. It means
that BiPV overhangs can have an overall positive impact on the thermal energy balance, although not
much relevant.
Annual values
-without BiPV 16 kWh/m2
-with BiPV 17 kWh/m2
Annual values
-without BiPV 16 kWh/m2
-with BiPV 14 kWh/m2 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
kWh
/m2
Ideal Cooling Demand
Without BiPV
Optimized BiPV
Figure 3.28 - Ideal monthly Cooling Demand
Figure 3.27 - Ideal monthly Heating Demand
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
84
Despite the comparison of the two different building configurations (without and with shading
BiPVs) in terms of ideal energy demand does not show a relevant improvement, it is not the same if
the electric energy balance is considered assuming that heat pumps are used.Figure 3.29 shows an
annual balance where the energy demand values, measured in kWh, were converted into electric
energy. Once a conversion factors is applied (2.5 for cooling and 3 for heating, supposing an heat pump
generation system and a low temperature emission system), the total electricity consumption was
calculated. For the first buildings configuration (in grey) it represents the amount of cooling and
heating demand values. For the other one (in blue) it was obtained by summing cooling and heating
demand values and subtracting the photovoltaic total energy production (in yellow).
Figure 3.29 - Electric Energy Balance of the district
Considering the total electricity consumption only, the two building configurations do not
show any relevant annual difference. Integrating the shading photovoltaics, the energy demand is
slightlyreduced, from 136500 to 134800 kWh per year. However, if the whole energy balance is
evaluated, the buildings consumption with overhangs integrated is considerably decreased, due to the
photovoltaic production contribution.
The overhangs benefit is clearly visible also at monthly level in the chart of Figure 3.30. In green
are represented values related to the consumptions savings resulting from the shading system
integration. The savings are calculated as the difference between the thermal energy demand (for
cooling and heating) converted in electric energy of the two different buildings configurations (without
and with shading BiPVs). It is relating with the BiPV energy production (in yellow) to provide a measure
of the monthly energy balance (in blue).
-100000
-50000
0
50000
100000
150000
kWh
Electric Energy Balance
Electric Energy Consumptionwith BiPV minus BiPV AnnualProduction
BiPV Annual Production
Electric Energy Consumptionwhitout BiPV
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
85
Figure 3.30 - BiPV Energy Savings and Electric Energy Balance
As expected, during the heating season the savings values are negative, because the overhnags
are blocking part of the solar gain. On the other hand during cooling period the savings values are
positive, so the shading system has a favourable impact on the energy demand. This output means, as
already highlighted in Figure 3.27 and Figure 3.28, that this specific BiPV solution increases the heating
demand, but less then it decreases the cooling one. Moreover, if the photovoltaic added value of the
energy production is considered, the loss caused during heating season has a low influence on the total
electricity balance.
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
kWh
BiPV Energy Savings and Electric Energy Balance
Energy savings
BiPV Production
Electric EnergyBalance
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
86
Figure 3.31 - Optimized models provided by the BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
87
4 Conclusions
This thesis work shows a methodology able to provide a broad support to design complex
projects integrating BiPV systems from the first design stage. At the beginning, a project is firstly
conceived as a concept, as an idea. Details and strategies are not defined. What is determined is the
final goal. The design process should represent the phase in which the concept evolves in a strategy
and effective solutions. The developed method is an instrument able to support the designers in
realizing their aims, justifying a potential project feasibility. This is enabled by the parametric approach,
which is the main feature of the methodology.
For the Druso Est case study, the developed method was applied to optimize the integration
of a building integrated photovoltaic system (i.e. BiPV overhangs), towards a low energy balance at
district level. The BiPV architectural system is a complex technology whose parameters need a fine
tuning to be optimized. The parameters are involved into a model that is submitted to a comprehensive
evaluation, taking into account all the main concurrent effects such as energy yield, cost analysis,
impact on the building energy demand and on the internal comfort. The simoultaneous consideration
of all these factors is necessary due to the multifunctional feature of the BiPV system. As a
consequence, the optimization does not provide a best solution according to a specific target but a set
of equally good ones. The designer can choose among the solutions according to several additional
considerations. In this case, a designer could choose to focus on the photovoltaic production towards
an optimal energy balance, or he could pursue the goal of minimizing the thermal demand for example
to reduce CO2 emissions, or he could again aim at achieving economic earnings after a given period.
Having a set of defined optimized solutions to select from, can be reflected in an active working
relationship with the customer. The designer can gather the client assessments and considerations,
once showed all the possible options, with peculiarities, limits, pros and cons of each solution. The
customer can see realistic data, previsions justified through a simulation process that, using validated
software tools, creates a model close to the truth. The customer can take advantage of graphic outputs
that make the results obtained more comprehensible and so have a clear representation of what it will
be the result of the project, with an appearance that will be more or less appreciated from an aesthetic
point of view.
One of the main positive aspects of the implemented method is that, after performing a series
of evaluations to determine energy efficient and economically feasible solutions, also aesthetically
good solutions can be considered. These will be solutions where the good appearance will not be
simply an added value but it will keep a “multifunctional” justification inside.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
88
The methodology developed and presented through this thesis is based on a specific linear workflow
workflow characterized by some main steps: create a model, test it, analyse the results, approve them or not. If or not. If not, go back to the beginning and, once changed the previous configuration, repeat the process to find
process to find the best solutions. Although it seems to be a simple process, when many inputs or targets to
targets to evaluate are involved into the optimization procedure, some issues connected to the processing processing timeframe could appear. Hence several questions can arise: How to reduce the time needed? How to
needed? How to simplify the process? Maybe limiting the accuracy? Maybe lowering the detail level? This is a This is a complex topic. These questions are of crucial importance for large the project scale. From the simple
simple inclusion of some buildings, it could comprehend a whole district and a city, etc. Implementing a method Implementing a method such as the one applied for the Druso Est district, able to include in a single
single evaluating environment many targets and to provide realistic previsions, could represent a suitable suitable support into a urban, regional, territorial development and energy planning. A suitable key of
development for the methodology could be the nZEB concept, that takes into account several different factors factors (and buildings, if talking about nZED design) into a global energy balance evaluation.
Figure 4.1 shows an example of SWOT analysis reporting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities
and threats, previously explained in the present paragraph, of the developed design methodology.
Figure 4.1 – Developed BiPV parametric design SWOT analysis
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
89
4.1 Outlook
The suggested methodology and tools have been developed to facilitate the design of a
complex element such a BiPV system. However, it can represent a starting point for the development
of an overall method for building design. The previous paragraph highlighted strengths and
weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the developed design process. Each of them could represent
a development key of the methodology, in order to improve its potentiality. The main issues are
discussed below.
Multi-target evaluation
One of the main aspects characterizing the developed methodology is the capability to involve
in a single workflow, and in a single software platform, several different targets. The aim was to equate
them in a comprehensive evaluation to obtain a series of solutions for which economic feasibility,
photovoltaic production and energy demand are simultaneously considered. However, it was proven
to represent a complex purpose.
At the beginning of the optimization process, once the solar irradiation of the PV overhangs is
calculated [3.2.3], the employed procedure proceeds with the economic selection [3.2.4]. This
represents a critical phase. With the aim of guaranteing economically feasible results, the selection
excludes all the panels that, due to their low solar irradiation, do not allow a payback within a certain
timeframe (e.g. twenty years). Some of the discarded overhangs, however, could lead to an energy
saving (of heating or cooling) higher than the amount of the photovoltaics production. Otherwise,
some of the chosen ones could increase the thermal energy demand exceeding the energy generated.
In this case, the economic selection represent a simplification that could exclude some potentially good
solutions.
Several attempts were made to solve the issue. One of them consisted in basing the first
selection on an evaluation of the energy overhangs benefit. This would mean that, once both the
production and consumption simulations were performed, the panels would be selected according to
their impact on the energy demand. The overhangs that, with a specific outdoor temperature, lead to
the use of cooling or heating are preferably removed. This solution, also, is characterized by
simplifications. Considering as an input the heating and cooling consumption hourly values provided
by the thermal energy demand simulation [3.2.5], the dynamic internal gain are instead not taken into
account.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
90
Finally, the main issue connected with the complex purpose of simultaneously evaluate all the
targets seems to be the problem of simplification. When trying to consider at the same time several
evaluations, it seems complex to keep for each of them a good level of detail. Maybe, starting from a
simplified model to acquire then even more detail throughout the optimization process could be a
solution. Several trials have still to be carried out.
Figure 4.2 - Ideal multi-target BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
91
Daylighting simulation
When shading systems are integrated into the buildings, their impact on the daylighting can
be crucial, as previously seen in [3.2.1]. Optimizing an overhang can be an effective way to guarantee
visual comfort by controlling the glare and allowing enough natural lighting. Therefore, the daylighting
can represent an additional performance indicator to be included into the optimization process,
together with the photovoltaic electricity production and thermal energy building consumption. As
explained in [2.2.1], a daylight analysis uses the same method of the Ray Tracing as the simulation of
PV solar irradiation. However, in this case it is not cumulative but point in time, so the evaluation has
hourly time steps. Being a point grid simulation, it requires a series of points and vectors.
For Druso Est case study a preliminary daylight evaluation was performed. The living rooms of
the three high-rise building are selected to be submitted to the
analysis. Into each of these sites several points were disposed
on an horizontal grid set at desk height to evaluate the
percentage of annual daytime hours that they were above a
specified illumination level. Other three points, for the glare
analysis, were set at eye-level in particular positions where
users are supposed to stay for a long time during the occupied
daytime [Figure 4.3]. The vectors were assigned to each point
according principles already specified in [2.2.1]. Points and
vectors were connected to the Grasshopper component able to
run the Radiance simulation, together with the other input (i.e. 3D model, Druso Est weather file, BiPV
architectural system, users occupation schedule). Once performed the simulation, it provided a set of
values related to the annual percentage of hours in which the illuminance value is maintained into the
comfort range, from 300 [63] to 3473 [64] lux.
Also in this case the output are graphically visible in
Rhino viewport, connecting them to a multiple coloured
gradient component of Grasshopper. An example of a simulated
site, a living room on tenth floor, is shown in Figure 4.4. The
coloured circles are located at the desk level, the visible arrows
represent the vectors set for the glare analysis. The green
elements are indicative of visual comfort, a situation with
enough illumination intensity and an effective glare control.
Figure 4.3 - Points grid and vectors system visualized in Rhino viewport
Figure 4.4 - Daylighting simulation
output
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
92
In the example shown above, the simulation was a long lasting process. The reason could be
found in the high density of the grid points set, excessively thick to be submitted to a point in time
evaluation. Some grid points could be plainly removed, or some sites can be excluded. Simplifying the
model could be a mean to excessively reduce the evaluation accuracy. Therefore, careful
considerations are needed. However, a potential development of the study could allow to achieve a
correct simplification level in order to include the daylighting simulation into the optimization process.
Figure 4.5 - Daylighting simulation in the BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
93
Load matching
One of the main goals usually pursued when installing a photovoltaic system is to maximize
the peak production from the installation over a 24-hour period, orienting the PV panel towards south
[65]. However, this could not result in a suitable approach. Often, the time of peak electric gains from
a PV array of southern azimuth does not coincide with peak electricity demand. As exemplified in [65],
if a load needs to be supplied during the second part of the daylight, from 1pm to 7pm, such a choice
does not ensure a correct energy management in the time interval where it is mainly needed. All the
energy extracted in the morning needs to be temporarily stored. It would be more efficient to point
the photovoltaic panels towards West, in order to maximize the energy converted from solar radiation
in the time interval within the load requirement is centred.
Analysing the interaction between the load required by the utility and the output of the PV
system seems to represent a decisive step during the design process. The load matching can widely
increase a PV system performance. It can be an effective strategy to best optimize the PV energy use,
for example reducing the energy cost associated with the storage system (in case of stand-alone
applications) [65] or to minimize the power injected into a grid, avoiding technical and potential
problems with it connected [66].
PV sizing and orientation are two crucial
aspects in conditioning the quality of the load
matching. Figure 4.6 shows the results arose
comparing the power output of two different PV
installation [67]: a single axis tracking systems
rotating from East to West and a fixed axis
system with south azimuth. The first one tracks
the sun throughout the course of each day,
maximizing the power gains during the morning and evening. The second one concentrate the time of
peak solar gain at midday. A clear difference of peak time and total production characterizes the two
applications. It can represent a useful criteria for evaluating which solution can better adapt to specific
buildings, according to the design goals.
A load matching analysis could be therefore included in an optimization process to evaluate a
PV system installation performance. It could result especially suitable in BiPV systems, due to their
several flexible solutions [1.2.3].
Figure 4.6 - Illustrative comparison of tracking PV (horizontal mount, E-W azimuths) to standard fixed
axis PV with South azimuth [50]
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
94
With regard to Druso Est case study, an assessment of the electric energy consumption was
performed. In Figure 4.7, an hourly definition of the electricity demand profile (in blue) is compared
with the BiPV system production profile (in yellow).
Figure 4.7 - Hourly values of Energy Production and Consumption
The electric energy loads values come from the monitoring of a residential complex composed
of 40 units placed in north Italy [60]. The curve, relating to a typical summer day, shows a considerable
increase during the morning and the evening. Otherwise, the energy production curve is characterized
by a great growth around midday. There is a clear condition of mismatching. This BiPV system
configuration does not provide energy exactly when the buildings need the main electricity supply. The
reason could be that, with the current system solution, the most panels are south facing [Figure 4.8],
so they are especially irradiated around midday. Changing the photovoltaics configuration, for example
adding panels on east and west façades, could represent
the first step to increase the correlation between the
electricity production and the load profile. However, this
improvement of the load matching would have an impact
on other factors (e.g. thermal balance, daylighting, etc.).
Therefore, including the load matching could represent an
interesting development, an additional target to involve
into the design process to improve the optimization
results.
0
10
20
30
40
00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 00:00
kWh
Electric Energy Production and Consumption
BiPV EnergyProduction
Electric EnergyLoads
Figure 4.8 - Resulted BiPV system configuration
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
95
Figure 4.9 - Load matching integration phase in the BiPV parametric design process
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
96
References
[1] European Commission, “Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on the energy performance of buildings (EPBD).” 2010.
[2] K. Peterson, P. Torcellini, R. Grant, “A common definition for Zero Energy Buildings.” 2015. [3] Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE), “Nearly Zero Energy Buildings definitions across
Europe.” 2015. [4] “National plan for increasing the number of ‘nearly-zero energy buildings’_Guidelines and
development framework.” 2013. [5] “DM Requisiti minimi.” 2015. [6] A. Scognamiglio, G. Adinolfi, G. Graditi, R. Paparella, E. Saretta, “Photovoltaics and Net Zero
Energy Buildings: new concepts towards a smart city vision.” 2014. [7] SUPSI, “BiPV building integrated photovoltaics,” 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.bipv.ch/index.php/en/about-en-top. [8] IEA International Energy Agency, “TASK 41. A. 2_Solar Energy systems in architecture_Integration
criteria and guidelines.” 2012. [9] EDR Energy Design Resource, “Design brief_building integrated photovoltaics.” 2001. [10] P. Heinstein, C. Ballif, L. E. Perret Aebi, “Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV): review,
potentials, barriers and myths.” 2013. [11] Global Solar, “Global Solar_Product.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.directindustry.com/prod/global-solar/product-20893-48237.html. [12] SEAC-SUPSI, “BIPV product overview for solar facades and roofs_BIPV status report.” 2015. [13] “prEN 50583_Photovoltaics in buildings.” 2012. [14] T. Schoen, D. Prasad, D. Ruoss, P. Eiffert, H. Sørensen, “TASK 7 of the IEA PV power systems
program-Achievements and outlook.” 2001. [15] Verbene, Guus, et al, “BiPV products for facades and roofs: a market analysis.” 2014. [16] SUPSI, “BiPV modules.” [Online]. Available: http://www.bipv.ch/index.php/en/products-en-
top/bipv-modules. [17] IEA International Energy Agency, “Innovative solar products for building integration.” [Online].
Available: http://solarintegrationsolutions.org/. [18] P. Eiffert, G. J. Kiss, “Building-Integrated Photovoltaic desings for commerical and institutional
structures: a sourcebook for architects.” 2000. [19] “Designing solar power into the built form.” [Online]. Available: http://www.neat.network/. [20] J. H. Kim, H. R. Kim, J. T. Kim, “Analysis of photovoltaic applications in Zero Energy Building.”
2015. [21] Atelier Phileas, “Phileas_Projects.” [Online]. Available: http://www.atelier-
phileas.com/projets/bureaux-lieux-de-travail/article/immeuble-de-bureaux-dijon-21?lang=en. [22] “Fent Solare Architektur.” [Online]. Available: http://www.fent-solar.com/referenzen/projekte/. [23] Solarnova Deutschland GMBH, “Solarnova,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.solarnova.de/en/references/facades.html. [24] SEGD, “GreenPix Zero Energy Media Wall,” 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://segd.org/content/greenpix-zero-energy-media-wall. [25] Victoria State Government, “Smartmeters,” 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.smartmeters.vic.gov.au/about-smart-meters/reports-and-consultations/advanced-metering-infrastructure-customer-impacts-study-volume-1/executive-summary.
[26] Polysolar Ltd., “Guide to BIPV.” 2012. [27] B. Poti, M. Di Fiore, “Case 17: PV Accept solar project.” 2006.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
97
[28] FOSTEr in MED, “Analysis of the social acceptance of PV and BIPV technologies in Mediterranean cities.” 2015.
[29] Domus/Architekter, “Domus/Architekter.” 2013. [30] D.F. Montoro, P.Vanbuggenhout, J.Cieesielska, “BIPV_Overview existing products.” 2011. [31] IEA International Energy Agency, “TASK 41. B. 1_State of the art of digital tools used by architects
for solar design.” 2010. [32] S. Petersen, S. Svendsen, “Method and simulation program informed decisions in the early
stages of building design.” 2010. [33] IEA International Energy Agency, “TASK 41. B. 3_Solar design of buildings for architects: review of
solar design tools.” 2012. [34] IEA International Energy Agency, “TASK 41. B. 2_International survey about digital tools used by
architects for solar design.” 2011. [35] A. Lin, “Andy Lin.” [Online]. Available: http://white.stanford.edu/teach/index.php/Andy_Lin. [36] ies, “PJ Murray Solutions.” [Online]. Available: http://www.pjmsol.com/#!__ve -pro/radiance. [37] G. Butturini, “Radiance.” 2014. [38] K. Lagios, J. Niemasz, C. F. Reinhart, “Animated building performance simulatio (ABPS) - Linking
Rhinoceros/Grasshopper with Radiance/Daysim.” 2010. [39] S. Davidson, “Grasshopper_Algorithm modeling for Rhino,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/. [40] M. S. Roudsari, “Ladybug Primer,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.gitbook.com/book/mostapharoudsari/ladybug-primer/details. [41] M. S. Roudsari, “Ladybug + Honeybee,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.food4rhino.com/project/ladybug-honeybee?etx. [42] M. S. Roudsari, “Honeybee Primer,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.gitbook.com/book/mostapharoudsari/honeybee-primer/details. [43] M. S. Roudsari, M. Pak, “Ladybug: a parametric environmental plugin for Grasshopper to help
designers create an environmentally-conscious design.” 2013. [44] E. Vuong, R. S. Kamel, A. S. Fung, “Modelling and simulation of BIPV/T in EnergyPlus and
TRNSYS.” 2015. [45] U.S. Department of Energy, “EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software,” 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/?utm_source=EnergyPlus&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=EnergyPlus%2Bredirect%2B1.
[46] D. B. Crawley, L. K. Lawrie, F. C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, Y. J. Huang, C. O. Pedersen, R. K. Strand, D. E. Fisher, M. J. Witte, J. Glazer, “EnergyPlus: creating a new-generation building energy simulation program.” 2001.
[47] “Druso Est district.” [Online]. Available: http://www.agci-bz.it/cmscontent/iniziative/file_1/it/73_20140422_113946_Planimetria_140213_christian_zoom.jpg.
[48] Alto Adige Innovazione, “Co-housing di Prati Gries.” 2015. [49] Comune di Bolzano, “Piano di attuazione - Relazione tecnica introduttiva.” 2014. [50] National Institute of Building Sciences, “Sun control and shading devices,” 2014. [Online].
Available: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/suncontrol.php. [51] Florida Solar Energy Center, “Window orientation and shading,” 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/buildings/homes/windows/shading.htm. [52] American Institute of Architects, “Control of solar radiation through shading,” 2012. [Online].
Available: http://www.tboake.com/carbon-aia/strategies1b.html. [53] Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, “Tips for daylighting with windows: shading strategy.” . [54] Meteotest, “Meteonorm.” [Online]. Available: http://www.meteonorm.com/. [55] M. Lovati, L. Maturi, D. Moser, “A BiPV design optimization method.” 2014. [56] Jordan DC, Kurtz SR, “Photovoltaic degradation rates_an analytical review.” 2013.
A support tool for the early design phase of BiPV
towards nearly zero energy districts Adami Jennifer
98
[57] “Eurostat: Energy price statistics,” 2014. [Online]. Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics.
[58] WIP – Renewable Energies, “PV Parity project_Electricity prices scenarios until at least the year 2020 in selected EU countries.” 2012.
[59] CTI, “UNI/TS 11300-1.” 2014. [60] ENEA_F. Ceravolo, B. Di Pietra, F. Margotta, G. Puglisi, “ODESSE: simulazione dinamica del
sistema edificio-impianti per la climatizzazione estiva.” 2010. [61] U.S. Department of Energy, “ENERGY.GOV_Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.”
[Online]. Available: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/existing-commercial-reference-buildings-constructed-or-after-1980.
[62] K.Deb, Multi-Objective Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms. 2001. [63] Advanced Buildings, “Daylight Pattern Guide,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://patternguide.advancedbuildings.net/using-this-guide/analysis-methods/daylight-autonomy.
[64] S. A. Kleindienst, M. Andersen, “The adaptation of daylight glare probability to dynamic metrics in a computational setting.” 2011.
[65] N.Femia, G.Petrone, G. Spagnuolo, .Vitelli#, “Load matching of photovoltaic field orientation in stand-alone distributed power systems.” 2004.
[66] M. A. Eltawil, Z. Zhao, “Grid-connected photovoltaic power systems: technical and potential problems_A review.” 2010.
[67] J. R. S. Browns, S. A. Blumsack, J. Ray, “Matching photovoltaic systems to energy loads.” 2010.