photovoltaics' architectural and landscape design options for net zero energy buildings,...

29TH EU PVSEC, AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS, 2014

Photovoltaics’ architectural and landscape designoptions for Net Zero Energy Buildings, towards Net ZeroEnergy Communities: spatial features and outdoorthermal comfort related considerationsAlessandra Scognamiglio1* and François Garde2

1 ENEA, UTTP-FOTO, Largo Enrico Fermi 1, 80055 Portici, NA, Italy2 ESIROI-PIMENT, Université de La Réunion, Campus universitaire sud, 117 rue Général Ailleret 97430, Le Tampon, La Réunion, France

ABSTRACT

Net Zero Energy Building (NetZEB) design has become a crucial topic of research in recent years. Because of its complexity,discussion has been carried out on methodological criteria useful to define and assess NetZEBs (building system boundary,conversion factors, energy balance, interaction with the grid, monitoring, etc.), mainly with the engineering approach, and anumber of case studies worldwide have been investigated. In regard to photovoltaics’ (PV) design, research demonstrated thefollowing: (1) PV is an indispensable technology for meeting the net zero energy target; (2) meeting the target of the net zeroenergy balance at the architectural scale (by using only the surfaces of the building envelope to place renewables) is verydifficult and therefore (3) an extension of the balance boundary to a wider scale is needed. That is the concept of NetZEBshould be advanced towards the one of Net Zero Energy Communities (NetZECs). In view of such an enlargement of thedesign domain, this paper investigates architectural and landscape design options (spatial features and outdoor thermalcomfort considerations) for PV, on the basis of the analysis of case studies collected and assessed in the framework ofthe International Energy Agency Solar Heating and Cooling Programme - Energy in Buildings and CommunitiesProgramme (SHC-EBC) Task 40-Annex 52 Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings. Considering that the traditional under-standing of the use of PV in buildings, mainly rooted in technological and morphological considerations, is not sufficientto describe all the issues emerging from this analysis, this paper is a contribution for setting a new cognitive framework inview of PV design for NetZECs. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEYWORDS

photovoltaics’ design; Net Zero Energy Buildings; Net Zero Energy Communities; architectural and landscape design; photovoltaic

outdoor thermal comfort

*Correspondence

Alessandra Scognamiglio, ENEA, UTTP-FOTO, Largo Enrico Fermi 1, Portici (NA), Italy, 80055.E-mail: [email protected]

Received 30 June 2014; Revised 29 August 2014; Accepted 9 September 2014

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of renewables, and photovoltaics (PV) in particular,is certainly one of the most interesting elements introducedby the Net Zero Energy Buildings (NetZEBs) design, to beinvestigated from the architectural and landscape designperspective, in particular because it introduces new designelements on the ways PV can be envisioned and more ingeneral because it makes a bridge over current thinking inthe fields of architecture and urbanism. Definitions ofNetZEBs foresee the possibility of using PV in the buildingfootprint, nearby, on site [1] or off site, and therefore theusual categories for envisioning the use of PV in relation

to buildings—the so-called building integrated photovol-taics (BIPV) and building added/attached photovoltaics(BAPV)—are no longer sufficient to describe all the possi-ble design options for PV in connection with the building.

In the case of NetZEBs that have been defined as build-ings connected to the energy infrastructure [2], thephysical–technological relationship between the buildingand PV is not the only possible relationship. In some cases,where the building envelope surfaces are not big enough toplace all PV that is needed in relation to energy balance con-siderations, PV is used not only into/onto the building enve-lope but also nearby the building, or on site, or even off site.In such cases, despite the physical direct relationship

PROGRESS IN PHOTOVOLTAICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONSProg. Photovolt: Res. Appl. (2014)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pip.2563

Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

between the building envelope and PV being lost, adifferent relationship remains, and from the energyengineering point of view this can be expressed interms of energy balance.

Shifting to architectural and landscape design consi-derations, if PV is the expression of the need to powerthe energy consumption of a certain building or commu-nity, whatever is the way PV is shaped from the techno-logical point of view (BIPV vs BAPV or even groundmounted), it is anyhow part of the building or communitydesign. Then, depending on the size of the system, andon whether it is placed in proximity of the building ornot, its design should be addressed in terms of architectural(small and in proximity of the building) or landscape(big, far from the building, somewhere in the landscape)design. It is so possible to envision uses of PV that areconnected to the landscape rather than to the building.

This condition is interesting in terms of new PV designthinking, because it is the chance for thinking of PV not onlyat the architectural scale, but also at the landscape scale. Sucha vision puts PV design in contact with current design thinkingon landscape, in connection with (sustainable) city planning.

From this point of view, according to the LandscapeUrbanism discipline, across a range of disciplines, landscapehas become a lens through which the contemporary city isrepresented and a medium through which it is constructed[3]. Landscape is the medium through which solutions forthe integration of infrastructure are formulated and articu-lated with viable programming that can address the pressingissues facing many cities around the world [4].

According to this approach, PV for NetZEBs and forNet Zero Energy Communities (NetZECs) can be envi-sioned as a matter of design not only at the architecturalscale, but also at the landscape scale, as one of the infra-structures (energy) that a modern city needs.

To better understand the topic, some considerations areproposed in the following, useful to define the generalframework for new research.

When considering the energy design of a NetZEB, thepossible energy generation supply options have beendescribed [5,6] as follows:

(1) energy generation in building’s footprint;(2) on-site energy generation;(3) on-site energy generation with off-site renewables;(4) off-site energy generation; and(5) off-site supply (with purchased ‘green’ energy

from grids).

This description focuses on the energy generation andcontains some indications on where the renewables for gen-erating energy are placed; it refers, therefore, to two hetero-geneous aspects. One is purely engineering (generation),and the other one overlaps with architecture and landscapedesign (where renewables are placed).

Moving from the energy balance and focusing on thearchitecture–landscape design aspects, we need to analysethe relationships that renewables, i.e. PV, and the building

have, conceived as a whole system, in terms of spatial andmorphological related features. To do this, the focus is onthe spatial system that PV belongs to, in order to under-stand what design scale is the most appropriated and howto approach its design.

Following this reasoning, it is relevant where PV isplaced, because the physical elements that interact withthe spatial system (from the building to the landscape)are precisely the PV modules and the other visibleelements necessary for realising the systems, e.g. thesupporting structures.

Looking again at the proposed classification for theenergy generation supply options, it is possible to suggesta scheme for topological options for positioning PV. Onlythree options emerge: (1) in building’s footprint; (2) onsite; and (3) off site (Figure 1).

When thinking of NetZEBs towards NetZECs, to eachof these topological options for placing PV, a differentscale of design corresponds. This is clear when thinkingof what the possible technological (and again, topological)options are for installing PV: envelope integrated (for theoption in building’s footprint); envelope integrated but ona different building or detached from the building (for theoption on site); and detached from the building (for theoption off site).

In particular, as Figure 2 shows, the architecturalscale is appropriate when designing PV in buildings’footprint or on site; the scale of landscape is appropri-ated in some cases of PV on site (if the site is big) oroff-site PV.

This first result might sound trivial, and nevertheless itsimplications in terms of research needs are interesting.

Figure 1. Photovoltaics’ topological design options for NetZEBs.

Figure 2. NetZEBs design, photovoltaics’ design options anddesign domain.

PV design options for NetZEBs towards NetZECs A. Scognamiglio and F. Garde

Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.DOI: 10.1002/pip

It is worth to observe that in the current practice thedomain of the architectural design includes only the oneof the site; therefore, anything that is out of the site’sborder is not considered. One might say that in fact thedesign of PV off site is to be approached at the landscapescale, but the experience tells that PV is not understood,generally as a matter of landscape design. PV is conceivedat a big scale according to methods and approaches that aremerely technical: large-scale ground-mounted PV systems,designed and realised, optimising the energy and economicperformance, with not so much attention on landscapeissues. There is, therefore, a lack of approach in terms oflandscape design of PV.

In this regard, recent literature acknowledges that al-though distributed renewable energy generation locationsand sites that landscape architects plan and design are con-ceptually the same, it appears no evidence that distributedrenewable energy generation research is either explicitlyperformed by landscape architects or recognises the rolelandscape architects play in planning and designing thebuilt environment [7].

This paper contributes to a better understanding of theproblem. From an analysis of selected case studies, theuse of PV in NetZEBs is categorised on the basis of anew approach that focuses on NetZEBs and NetZECsdesign, and then new design issues and approaches areintroduced as further steps for research.

2. BACKGROUND ANDMOTIVATION

2.1. Engineering design

The topic of how to design a NetZEB has been widelyinvestigated in recent years. Extensive work has beencarried out within the International Energy Agency (IEA)SHC-EBC Task40/Annex 52 ‘Net Zero Energy SolarBuildings’ (IEA T40/A52) about the solution sets thatallow a building to meet the net zero energy goal. Thisinternational work helped in advancing better knowledgeabout the possible combination of solution sets (passivestrategies + energy-efficient measures + renewable energytechnologies) by type of building and by type of climate.Related outcomes and publications are available on theTask website [8]. One of the conclusions of this work isthat PV is the most used renewable energy technology interms of design of NetZEB, whatever the technologicalsolution (BIPV, BAPV, etc.).

Recently, a complete review of zero-energy buildingshas been published; it is stated that PV is the most pro-mising renewable energy technology in achieving thezero-energy target [2]. Many publications are availableon pilot case studies and their design, in particular inthe UK [9], Hong Kong [10] and Reunion [11]. In thesecases, the NetZEB design is studied from the engineeringpoint of view, that is to say from a modelling (simula-tions) point of view: the authors try to meet the NetZEBgoal through a combination of models including the

building optimisation of the envelope and the combina-tion of Renewable Energy Technologies (RET).

Moving to a wider scale, only a few papers exist onhow to design NetZECs. At this stage, recent publica-tions focus on the definition of NetZEC and the relatedboundaries (geographical, end uses considered, type ofcommunity, etc.) [12,13].

It is worth to say that, both at the building and thecommunity scale, architectural design aspects are nevertaken into account, as it will be discussed in the fol-lowing paragraph.

2.2. Architectural design

The target of the net zero energy balance for the design ofbuildings and communities sets a very strict relationshipbetween the energy consumption of the building and thesize of the energy generation system, i.e. PV generator.The dimensional ratio between the two depends on thefeatures of the installation site and on the features of thePV system itself. Considering that energy needs space tobe generated, at least from a theoretical point of view, thedesign of any building or community should be associatedwith the design of the corresponding energy generationsystem, e.g. PV. This relationship is clear when definingNetZEBs as buildings that are connected to the energyinfrastructure [2].

It is simple to grasp that an immediate morphologicalmeaning of this new relationship between the building/community and its energy balance is that the areas todevote to the PV generation are going to be bigger andbigger, overcoming the building’s envelope boundary.So, if in the past the focus of research could be on integra-tion issues, now a new thinking is necessary also on suchPV systems that till now have been considered not inte-resting in terms of design, e.g. PV fields. In regard toNetZEBs concepts, this is the case when the energy gener-ation happens through on-site renewables as well as off-site renewables.

For longer than 20 years now, the use of PV in con-nection to the building design has been widely investi-gated. Several IEA research groups have been workingon the topic [14–16]; many handbooks, monographicworks [17–26] and papers [27–33] have been pub-lished, and many collaborative research projects havebeen funded to advance knowledge on BIPV and to de-velop innovative PV components to be used in thebuilding’s envelope.

Among the reasons for so much attention on theintegration into the envelope is that the use of PV isa way to avoid the use of additional land to the onealready used for the building construction, and further-more the integration of PV in the building envelope isconsidered a driver for its acceptance: ground-mountedPV modules have certainly a bigger impact than thoseones that are integrated into buildings’ envelope sur-faces [34–36].

PV design options for NetZEBs towards NetZECsA. Scognamiglio and F. Garde


A review of the state of the art of BIPV has been recentlypublished with focus on the categorisation of the uses of PVbased on special PV products for buildings [37].

Research on PV has been carried out also at a widerscale than the building [38]; the focus was also in this caseon integration issues, in order to use PV components inreplacement of traditional technological subsystems ofurban infrastructural landscape elements (urban streetequipments; shelters, barriers and shading structures;and urban art) [39]; research on the use of solar energyat the urban scale is also ongoing under the IEA SHCagreement [40].

The optimisation of urban form and building shapesin view of the use of solar technologies and net zeroenergy concepts has been investigated, and some mor-phological solutions have been defined more suitable tothe integration of solar technologies than others [41–43].

The potential of PV for powering the electric consump-tion of a residential district of a city has been investigatedwith reference to BIPV systems and also the estimatedpotential energy generation (based on the urban mor-phology and the consequent shadowing effects). A resultfrom this literature is that PV systems are foreseen as ableto generate 35% of the district’s total electricity consump-tion [44]. This is particularly relevant for the scope of thispaper, because if by using BIPV systems it is possible tocover only 35% of the electricity energy consumption ofthe district, other renewable energy systems (RES) shouldbe used, or it is necessary to install some more PV out ofthe district boundary, that is, generically, in the landscape,and therefore PV should be designed at the landscapescale.

Recently, research has been performed also on the topicof the use of PV in NetZEBs. This demonstrated that mostNetZEBs use PV; in terms of morphological solutions,urban and nonurban area PV modules/arrays are oftenmounted on rooftops, and also other surfaces of thebuildings are used (facades). PV is described in terms ofPV and BIPV; attention is given to energy performanceissues and to the relationship between the use of PV anddaylight and thermal comfort (opaque vs semitransparentcomponents in the facade) [2].

Some research has been conducted also on architec-tural and landscape design issues in relation to NetZEBs.An important outcome is that a challenge for PV designis extending the domain of design to the site and to thelandscape scale [45–47]. Therefore, new research isneeded, in order to envision the ways PV can be con-ceived and designed.

3. FROM NET ZERO ENERGYBUILDINGS TO NET ZERO ENERGYCOMMUNITIES

This section deals with the analysis of NetZEBs, in orderto select the ways PV was used in all of them, withfocus on architecture/landscape design options.

In particular, case studies that have been selected andassessed by the SubTask C (Advanced Building Design,Technologies and Engineering) participants of the IEAT40/A52 are presented and discussed. This internationalwork involved 19 countries and more than 50 interna-tional experts for 5 years (2008–2013); the focus wason obtaining and improving knowledge about NetZEBsin terms of definition, design tools and case studies. InSubTask C, the main aim was to develop and to testinnovative, whole-building net-zero solution sets for cold(heating dominated), moderate (heating and coolingdominated) and hot climates (cooling dominated) withexemplary architecture and technologies that could bethe basis for demonstration projects and internationalcollaboration [8].

3.1. Case studies analysis and assessment:methodology

The methodology to reach the aforementioned objectiveswas as follows:

• documenting current NetZEBs designs and technolo-gies and benchmarking with near NetZEBs and othervery low energy buildings (new and existing) for cold,moderate and hot climates;

• collecting and assessing case studies and demonstra-tion projects in close cooperation with practitioners;

• investigating advanced integrated design conceptsand technologies in support of the case studies,demonstration projects and solution sets; and

• developing NetZEB solution sets and guidelines withrespect to building types and climate.

A benchmark of NetZEBs worldwide has been set upto identify the innovative solutions sets that make up thisnew type of building. As a first step, a considerablenumber of case studies have been collected [48]; relatedbasic information has been made available thanks to aGoogle map (net zero energy buildings-map of interna-tional projects) [49].

Afterwards, in order to collect more detailed infor-mation to assess the energy performance of the analysedcase studies, a strict filter was applied, so that the numberof case studies was significantly reduced to 30 out of about300 that were presented in the Google map.

To set this filter, some criteria have been established,the following in particular:

• innovative solution sets and/or innovative tech-nologies had to be clearly identified for each project(ventilation/daylighting/architectural integration ofrenewables).

• lessons learned had to be available through directcomments from architect/builder.

• the energy consumption had to be at least <50% stan-dard buildings (primary and final energy) according tonational law/codes.



• An effort of integration of RESs had to be consideredby the design team.

• Monitoring data for at least 1 year had to be available.• The assessment of the mismatch management had tobe available to check if the building was really netor near zero energy.

• Indoor environment data (temperature, humidity, day-light level, etc.) had to be available for assessing thecomfort.

On the basis of these criteria, a database with 30NetZEBs has been built up, useful for the analysis ofsolution sets by type of buildings and type of climate.A technical report is available on the IEA SHC-EBCTask 40-Annex 52 website with in-depth descriptionsof the 30 case studies including passive strategies,energy-efficient solutions and RES used for each pro-ject [50].

3.2. Photovoltaics design options: acategorisation based on the zero energy target

From the analysis of the PV design in the selected casestudies, some interesting outcomes can be presented.Table I reports the architectural design features of PV inthe case studies (based on topological–morphologicalclassification) with reference to the climate and the mainenergy need (heating dominated; heating and coolingdominated; cooling dominated) and to the building type(residential or nonresidential, such as office, educationaland others).

The analysis of the PV features was carried out bystarting from the technological–typological options (forinstance, façade integrated, roof added or carport inte-grated), in order to select the main topological options.The aim is clarifying, according to the approach presentedin Section 1, what the related design domains for PV are.In the following, some more detailed methodological noteson the analysis are given.

A first attempt was made in order to analyse the casestudies on the basis of some current understanding on theuse of PV at the building scale. In particular, in the distinc-tion between BIPV and BAPV, reference is made to thecurrent activities on European BIPV standardisation work.

In this literature (still in draft), PV modules areconsidered to be BIPV if they form a building compo-nent providing a function as defined in the EuropeanConstruction Product Directive (CPD 89/106/EEC).Thus, the BIPV module is a prerequisite for the integrityof the building’s functionality (if the integrated moduleis dismounted, it has to be replaced by an appropriatebuilding component), whereas PV modules are consideredBAPV if the PV modules are mounted on a buildingenvelope and do not fulfil the above criteria for buildingintegration [51].

So the focus is on PV as a construction product and onthe requirements that PV components should have.

Also, the thematic ‘BIPV literature’ mentioned earlier(Section 1) focuses a lot on the performance of the BIPVcomponents.

Nevertheless, this technological product-oriented ap-proach was not sufficient to describe in an efficient way,in relation to the net zero energy design approach, theway PV was used from an architectural design perspective.

In particular, from the investigation, it comes out thatthere are two main approaches when designing PV inNetZEB: (1) enlarging the solar caption surfaces as muchas possible (shaping overhangs) and (2) using the PVcomponents to improve the energy thermal performanceof the building and its surroundings (shading system) andto reduce the energy consumption.

As possible morphological results of these two com-bined approaches, there are cases where PV modules per-form very important functions in relation to the buildingenvelope thermal performance, and nevertheless they arenot building integrated. In particular, the case studieslocated in hot climates (cooling dominated) show that thereare solutions where PV is designed in connection toexternal partitions of the building (such as corridors orbalconies). Apart from a distribution function, these parti-tions have a very important role in terms of improvementof the building comfort, because they work as buffer zones.So the PV modules are arranged in technological elementsthat protect from the sun and allow for natural ventilationstrategies.

The technological approach based on the envelope andon the distinction of BIPV and BAPV is not appropriateto describe such kinds of buildings where the designchallenge is not the building envelope design in itself butrather the design of the appropriate relationships betweenthe inside space of the building and the outdoor space. Thisrelationship is exploited by means of passive designstrategies (cross natural ventilation) and takes the form ofelements that are extensions of the envelope and withoutwhich the envelope would not work appropriately.

In this case, if we make reference to the definition ofBIPV and BAPV given above, we can certainly say thatPV has a role in the functionality of the building, but theclassification would be ambiguous. In particular, if dis-cussion is made on the selection of appropriate PV com-ponents, the two cases of PV used into the envelope or inexternal partitions are different: in the first case, PVmodules (arranged together) would be the technologicalbuilding subsystem that separates the indoor from theoutdoor space (and therefore they would need to meetmany requirements related to the building standards); inthe second case, PV modules (arranged together) wouldbe a technological system that separates the outdoor spacefrom the outdoor space (with a reduced degree of com-plexity in terms of standards and requirements).

So we decided to use a classification that focuses on twomain approaches: topological–morphological (in/onto theenvelope or into/onto external partitions) and on the basisof the net zero energy placement options for PV (withinthe building footprint, on site or off site).



Table I. PV architectural design features (based on topological–morphological classification) for the NetZEBs case studies analysed inthe International Energy Agency SHC-EBC Task40 Annex 52, ST C.

Building typeBuilding name

Country/Climate

PV nominalpower (kWp)

1.a.1 1.a.2 1.a.3 1.b.1 1.b.2 1.c.1 1.c.2.1 1.c.2.2 1.d.1 2.a.1.1.a

ResidentialCasa Zero Energy IT/HCD 16

Ecoterra CA/HD 3Energy FlexFamily

DK/HCD 11

Le Charpak Cargèse FR/HCD 6.5

Kleehauser DE/HD 23

Kraftwerk CH/HD 32

Leaf House IT/HCD 20

Lima ES/HCD 1Plus EnergyHouse Weiz

AT/HD 45

Plus EnergySettlement

DE/HD 404

Riehen CH/HD 14

Riverdale CA/HD 6Office

AEE AT AT/HD 4

Circe ES/HCD 5.34

Elithis Tower FR/HCD 82

Green Office FR/HCD 611

Ilet du Centre RE/CD 20Marchéinternational

CH/HD 45

Pixel AU/HCD 4

Solar XXI PT/HCD 30

EducationalKindegarten DieSprösslinge

DE/HD 49

Enerpos RE/CD 50

GrundshuleHohenNeundorf

DE/HD 55

KyotoHighschool

FR/HCD 118

Laion School IT/HCD 17LimeilBrevannes

FR/HCD 75

Pantin primary school FR/HCD 128

ZEB@BCA Academy SG/CD 190

Other

Alpine refuge AT/HD 8

Based on climate (HD = heating dominated, HCD = heating and cooling dominated, CD = cooling dominated) and building type (residential, office, educational, other).

DK=Denmark; FR=France; IT= Italy;CA=Canada;DE=Germany;CH=Switzerland;ES=Spain;AT=Austria;RE=LaRéunion;AU=Australia; PT=Portugal; SG=Singapore.



Figure 3 presents a conceptual map of the adoptedclassification; this is based on a technological analysis ofthe topological and morphological design options for theuse of PV, in relation to the spatial system it belongs.The spatial systems for the use of PV have been definedon the basis of the NetZEB energy supply options: withinthe building’s footprint, on site and at site. Each systemcan be understood at the scale of the system itself or ata higher hierarchic level (that is, the bigger system itbelongs to). For example, the ‘site’ belongs to the land-scape and includes the building. The landscape is themost complex system that contains any level of organisa-tion and, therefore, the widest domain for design.

3.3. Case studies analysis and assessment:results and summary

From the analysis of the PV design, some interesting out-comes can be presented:

• PV was used in all the case studies.• The roof is the most used topological option forplacing PV (for instance, Figures 4–6); sometimesthe roof can have overhangs, to enlarge the solarcaption surfaces (for instance, Figure 6), or sun-shading devices (for instance, Figure 7).

• Only two buildings use facades instead of roofs forplacing PV: Solar XXI (Portugal) (Figure 8) and theAlpine refuge (Austria). In both cases, some other de-sign solutions are combined together with the use ofPV in facade: in the first case there is a PV carport,and in the second case PV is a row of tilted modulesadded to the facade, just used for generating energy(addition). Only the Portuguese building (Solar XXI)and a French one (Green Office) use PV detachedform the building, in addition to PV used into/ontothe envelope, for carports canopies (respectively,Figures 8 and 9). One project in particular, GreenOffice, presents an interesting combination ofdifferent PV design options aimed to enlarge the

Figure 3. Technological analysis of the topological and morphological design options for the use of PV in relation to the buildings andthe site, based on net zero energy supply options (within the building’s footprint, on site and at site).



available solar caption surfaces: PV roof and PV fa-cades, PV in external devices for sun protection(within the building’s footprint); and PV carport(on-site detached multifunctional site infrastructureelements) (Figure 9).

• For cooling dominated climates, PV components areessentially used for sun shading. With reference to thethree projects that were presented (Enerpos and Ilet du

Centre in Réunion and ZEB@BAC Academy inSingapore), all of them use PV system as solar shadingelements. Enerpos has a one-slope canopy that shadesthe terrace roof as well as the windows and the façades(Figure 7). In the case of Ilet du Centre (Figure 10), PVis used as a solar and rain protection device for anoutdoor corridor; in the case of ZEB@BAC, PVcomponents act as outdoor solar blinds.

Figure 4. Le Charpak, IESC, Institut d’études scientifiques de Cargèse (residential), Cargèse, France. Design: Dominique Villa. Nominalpower of PV (on roof): 6.5 kWp. Image courtesy of Jonathan Leclere.

Figure 5. Energy Flex House (residential), Taastrup, Denmark. Design: Henning Larsens Architects. Nominal power of PV (on roof):11 kWp. Image courtesy of International Energy Agency (IEA) SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52.



3.4. Energy balance in NetZEBs and PV:feedbacks from the case studies

Before going any further, we will give some preliminarydefinitions and concepts.

A NetZEB is a building that balances its low consump-tion thanks to the use of RES at a yearly scale [1].

To reduce its demand, the design of the buildingmust focus on passive solutions and on energy-efficientmeasures.

A ‘solution set’, according to the definition given in theworking group of the IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52, isa combination of passive and energy-efficient measureswith the use of RES.

Figure 6. Plus Energy Settlement (residential), Freiburg, Germany.Design: OttoDisch. Nominal power of PV (on roof and external devices):404 kWp. Image courtesy of IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52.

Figure 7. Enerpos building (nonresidential), Saint Pierre, Réunion, France. Design: Thierry Faessel Bohe. Nominal power of PV (roofand envelope external devices for sun-shading protection): 50 kWp. In this case, because of the climate, PV is used for providingshadow for the roof, the facades and the windows. Image courtesy of IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52 Image ©Jérôme Balleydier.



For the scope of this paper, the energy demand includescooling and heating loads and electric loads.

As a result of the analysis of the case studies, someinnovative solution sets have been identified suitable for reduc-ing the cooling and heating loads of the building, as well as theplug loads. In the following, the main outcomes are given.

In terms of passive solutions, NetZEBs are narrowerbuildings (less than 16m thick), and this solution allowsthe cross natural ventilation and day lighting for both sides

of the building. In this way, cooling and lighting consump-tions are reduced significantly.

All the buildings in heating dominated and heating andcooling dominated climates are well insulated with Uvalues below 0.2W/m2K, with efficient solar shadingdevices. In terms of systems, most of the NetZEBS haveefficient lighting and equipments (T5 bulbs and geothermalor water heat pump with high coefficient of performance(COP) and energy efficiency ratio (EER). In terms of

Figure 8. Solar XXI (nonresidential), Lisbon, Portugal. Design: Pedro Cabrita and Isabel Diniz. Nominal power of PV (in façade anddetached systems): 30 kWp. Image courtesy of IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52.

Figure 9. Green Office (nonresidential), Meudon, France. Design: Ion Enescu, Ateliers 115 Architectes. Nominal power of PV (in roof, infaçade, in envelope external sun-shading devices and detached systems): 611 kWp. Image courtesy of IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52.



RES, all the case studies use PV, many use solar thermal,and 20% of them use biomass combined heat and power(CHP) units and/or wood pellets boilers.

Figure 11 presents the results of monitored data forenergy demand and energy supply for nonresidential build-ings of the analysed case studies for each type of climate.The energy demand and the energy generation are givenin kilowatt-hours per square metre of net floor area(NFA) and per annum (a).

One can see that the NetZEB target is met only for fivebuildings (Pantin primary school, Laion school, Enerpos,Ilet du Centre and ZEB@BCA). The first two of them(Pantin and Laion) are located in temperate climate regionsand have a low consumption level. The other three(Enerpos, Ilet du Centre and ZEB@BCA) are located intropical climate regions. Here the main solution set is givenby a combination of passive design strategies (mainly crossnatural ventilation and sun-shading devices for theenvelope) and the use of PV, able to perfectly cover thepeak demand for cooling in the hottest hours of the day(reducing the mismatch losses). The efficacy of thiscombination of design solution is very significant. Forinstance, the Enerpos building (Reunion, France) canoperate without using air conditioning, thanks to thenatural ventilation and the use of ceiling fans, which greatlycontribute to ensure good comfort for the occupants. Energyefficiency measures are used, too, and these are mainly EERfor chillers and highly efficient ceiling fans.

The NetZEB target is more difficult to achieve in theother cases, in particular for buildings whose main con-sumptions are for heating or for heating and cooling.

Only 30% of them, among the case studies weanalysed, meet the NetZEB goal. One possible interpre-tation for this is that, because of the compact form ofthe envelope (optimised for reducing the heating loads),the surfaces for placing PV are not big enough com-pared with the building’s energy demand, especially ifthe building is taller than two storeys, with an increaseof the energy demand compared with the area of itsfootprint. One design solution, in such cases, can be de-signing RES, that is, PV at a wider scale than thebuilding.

Moving to the PV perspective, it is interesting to havean idea of how PV can contribute in terms of energygeneration to the net zero energy balance of a building,with reference to the NFA, and the installed PV (nominalpower) per NFA. To do this, Figure 12, for some ofthe analysed buildings, compares the total energy genera-tion from RES and the one from the only PV, and the en-ergy demand.

One can see that for an energy demand below100 kWh/m2

NFA.a, all the presented buildings are very closeto be NetZEBs, with a power density between 24Wp/m2

NFA

and 42Wp/m2NFA. Above 100 kWh/m2

NFA.a, the NetZEBgoal is more difficult to reach with only PV. For instance,Green Office has a power density of 26Wp/m

2NFA, and the

PV generation represents less than 43% of the total primaryenergy generation.

Even these short considerations lead to the conclu-sion that the design of PV for NetZEBs should beapproached at different scales, using multifaceted mor-phological options.

Figure 10. Ilet du Centre (mixed use, residential and nonresidential), Saint Pierre, Réunion (France). Design: Antoine Perrau and MichelReynaud. Nominal power of PV (external partition, coverings, and sun and rain protection for an outdoor corridor): 20 kWp. Image©2APMR.



4. ARCHITECTUREANDLANDSCAPEDESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

4.1. Spatial related considerations

In the following, spatial related considerations are made onthe basis of the analysis of the case studies and on datapresented in Table I. The use of PV in NetZEBs is investi-gated by taking into account three different options relatedto different spatial domains: in building footprint, on siteand off site.

4.1.1. Renewables in building footprint and PVdesign options.

Despite the fact that slight variations can be consideredwhen defining the building footprint, the concept is clearenough: it is the area where the building meets the ground;it is the outline of the total area of a lot or site that issurrounded by the exterior walls of a building or portionof a building, exclusive of courtyards (in the absence ofsurrounding exterior walls, the building footprint shall bethe area under the horizontal projection of the roof); or itis the area under the horizontal projection of the roof.

Shortly, the building’s footprint, when thinking of thespace where the energy generation systems are placed,corresponds to the building’s envelope. This meaning isunivocally understood in the engineering field (energybalance) and in the architecture field.

In general, renewables in building’s footprint are placedinto/onto the building’s envelope. Through the analysis ofthe case studies, four main topological options have beenclassified: roof, facade, envelope external devices andexternal partitions. All these systems are designed at thearchitectural scale.

Research has already been performed in the past yearsto investigate how renewables (especially PV) can be de-signed at the architectural scale. So this topic does not re-quire any further investigation here.

4.1.2. Renewables on site and PV design options.If the case of the design of renewables in building’s

footprint is easy to understand in terms of systemicrelationships between PV and the building it belongs to(the energy devices are part of the envelope, and theybelong to the system building), in the case of the designof renewables on site, the topic is more complex. In thiscase, the spatial system that the design of renewablesshould refer to might not be immediately evident, and sosome more investigation is needed.

Primarily, the use of the word site and the associatedconcept (meaning) requires an in-depth analysis.

Site is in general the spatial location of an actual orplanned structure or set of structures. In terms of bound-aries, the building’s site is defined by the boundary of theproject. In practice, we could accept that the building’s siteis the lot the designer considers in the design process,

Figure 11. Comparison between primary energy generation and primary energy demand for the nonresidential NetZEBs case studies(kWh/m2

NFA.a). Data are based on 1 year monitoring.



generally defined by property boundaries. The dimensionof the site is a variable.

Moving to architectural design considerations, a site is aportion of space. If we want to investigate what the spatialsystem the renewables relate to, in order to design them, weshould investigate the relationships that different objectsplaced in a site (the building or the buildings + renewables)set among them, within the site, or beyond the site with othersystems.

On the basis of research findings presented above, thereare at least two ways of conceiving PV design options on site:

(a) PV can be placed on a different building than theconsidered one (within this building’s footprint).

(b) PV can be placed detached from the building (be-yond the building’s physical footprint).

In case (b.1), they can exploit other functions than theenergy generation being integrated in functional urban orlandscape equipment (PV on carports).

Despite the fact that this option is not verified in thecase studies we analysed, there is another option. If theenergy consumption is high (tall buildings with a highnumber of occupants, or communities), independent PVsystems can be considered. In case (b.2), they can exploitthe only energy generation function, being free standing(e.g. a solar array on the ground), as shown in Figure 13.

Case (a) is very similar to the case already analysed ofrenewables in the building’s footprint; in this case, PV

can be designed in relation to the envelope on which theyare placed (architectural scale).

Case (b) is more complex to analyse.The building and its energy generation systems are placed, by

definition, in the same domain, described by the site boundary.The most common possibility is that on-site renewables

and the building are placed close enough to have a relation-ship: at least a proximity, and therefore probably visual,even if not designed, relationship.

As an example for (b.1), we will give the use of PV on car-ports at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)building inGolden, Colorado (USA), shown in Figure 14 [52].

Here the building and PV belong to the same site; thesolar array is designed in relation to the carports at thearchitectural scale (integration). The building and the re-newables do not have a proper spatial perceptive relation-ship (a perceptive relationship might be as follows: bystanding right at the entrance of the building, the observercan enjoy a certain perspective on the landscape, allowedby the shape of the PV canopy on the parking lot); theydo not have a proper spatial relationship (a spatial relation-ship might be as follows: to access the building, it is neces-sary to step underneath the PV canopy); and neverthelessthey belong to the same functional system (NREL sitebecause the PV canopy is part of NREL parking area).So, it is possible to say that here the relationship is thatPV and the building belong to the same functional domain.

This case represents very well a current practice to userenewables on site.

Figure 12. Comparison between primary energy generation and primary energy demand for some nonresidential NetZEBs casestudies (kWh/m2

NFA.a). The graph refers to energy balance of the analysed NetZEBs and compares the primary energy generationfrom all RES and the contribution from PV.



Figure 13. Example of how PV can be used in a Net Zero Energy Community. PV is used on all the roofs in order to get the net zeroenergy balance; PV fields are placed nearby the building. Common Ground, Net Zero Energy Community, Washington, Lopez Island,

USA. Design: Mithun. Image ©Mithun & Juan Hernandez.

Figure 14. On-site PV design options. Multifunctional site infrastructural elements, urban/landscape furniture (carports sun-shadingcanopies). The nominal power of PV within the building’s footprint (rooftop) is 857 kWp, the nominal power of PV on-site is 2.5 MWp.The PV carport on the parking area (on the right of the picture), despite being detached from the building, has a functional relationship withthe building, because it belongs to the same functional domain. Research Support Facility, at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL), Golden, Colorado, USA. Design: Haselden and RNL’s. Image ©Google Earth.



Generally, on-site renewables take the form of additionsto the building or additions to the site, within the build-ing’s functional domain (the site), without exploiting anyspecial spatial ambition.

Nevertheless, even when the spatial relationships be-tween the building and the renewables are not consciouslytaken into account (they are not designed), the use of on-site renewables ends up generally at least in a proximity(and therefore visual) relationship between the two ele-ments or in a functional relationship, as the two elementsbelong to a same system (the site). This condition wouldseem sufficient to argue that the building and its (the useof the adjective ‘its’ is aimed to emphasise that there isan energy relationship between the building and the useof renewables in terms of energy balance) on-site PVshould be designed together at the site scale, because thesite is the domain in which the relationships between thedifferent elements of the domain might happen.

What happens if the proximity relationship is lostbecause the site is very big? Or what happens if thefunctional relationship is lost because PV do not exploitany other function than generating energy?

How should the design deal with this case?As an example for case (b.2), we will give a free-standing

solar array, the Solar Strand at University of Buffalo (USA),designed by the landscape architect Walter Hood.

Despite a current practice that considers the energy gen-eration when it is out of the building’s envelope, as a meretechnical exercise, the design potential of this way of gen-erating energy is significant, and it would deserve furtherinvestigation. The given example demonstrates that PVarrays can be designed to be part of the landscape system,being able to establish new relationships between the usersand the landscape itself and improving the sense of com-munity (Figure 15) [53].

4.1.3. Renewables off site and PV design options.From a design point of view, the issues that emerge from

the off-site renewables are not that different from the onestaken into account for the on-site option. Nevertheless, thereis one main difference, represented by the design scale (andby the size that PV systems can have): off-site renewablesshould be designed at the landscape scale, as they do nothave any relationship with the building or the building’s site.

In this case, generally, renewables are conceived, evenfrom the energy design point of view, as an energy infra-structure, having no relation with any building (detached)but having a relationship with the landscape in terms of en-vironmental impacts. The step forward should be conceiv-ing these energy infrastructures as designed elements ofthe landscape [54,55].

It is possible to envision at least two design options.In the first case, (a) they can exploit other functions than

the energy generation (multifunctionality) being integratedin functional urban or landscape equipment (urban orlandscape equipment; i. e. an urban canopy or a soundinsulation barrier).

In the second case, (b) they can exploit the only energygeneration function, being free-standing (e.g. a solar arrayon the ground).

4.2. Outdoor thermal comfortconsiderations

‘Multifunctionality’ can be extended to thermal comfortconsiderations and related PV design options. As earliermentioned, PV modules can be arranged in technologicalelements that protect against the sun (or against the rain)and allow for natural ventilation strategies. This is oftenthe case in tropical regions where the sun shading is ofprime importance. In such cases, PV can be designed atthe building scale (Figure 7) and also at the communityscale. Figures 16 and 17 show a recently built net zeroenergy neighbourhood in Reunion Island (France), namedFlores Malaca. Here PV sun-protection systems are usedon top of the building to shade its roof; similar systemsare used in order to shade outdoor distribution corridors,terrace roofs, windows and facades, too.

Figure 15. On-site PV design options. PV design for improving spatialrelationships. The nominal power of PV on site is 750 kWp. Here PVarrays have been used to create a new spatial system in the campus.Thesystempowersfivedormitories,whichareplaced in thesamesite.The Solar Strand at the Buffalo University, Buffalo, New York, USA.Design: Walter Hood. Image ©Douglas Levere at Buffalo University.



The same principle was used for the Ilet du Centreproject where PV is used to protect the outdoor corridorof the building from the rain and the sun (Figure 10).

Thinking of a wider scale than the building, and ofan extended energy balance, which includes on-siteenergy generation systems, or even off-site systems(to be designed at the landscape scale), it is interesting

that PV can help in improving the outdoor thermalcomfort of specific environments, such as children play-grounds, pavements and public places to cool these outdoorand public spaces. There are some interesting research per-spectives that need to be explored in such regions at the com-munity scale, with special regard to the discomfort effectsdue to heat islands in urban regions.

Figure 16. Florès-Malaca, Le Port, Réunion, France. This Net Zero Energy Community project is a kind of fresh oasis; the vegetationand the passive design allow for a reduction of the consumption of the buildings, whereas the 80 kWp PV roofs are used as passive

components (solar shading). Design: Antoine Perrau and Michel Reynaud. Image ©SIDR.

Figure 17. The east facades of the Flores Malaca project in the French tropical island of Réunion. One can see the passive strategies(narrow buildings for cross natural ventilation) and efficient solar shadings of the windows. PV systems provide shade for the top of the

building as well as for windows and upper facades. Image ©SIDR.



5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In this work, through an original theoretical approach design,relationships have been analysed between spatial systems(such as building, community and landscape) and energysystems, i.e. PV. These relationships are suggested by thenet zero energy design approach. Thinking of the buildingand its energy infrastructure, i.e. PV, as only one entity,whose size and shape are determined by the energy balance,helps in better understanding the link between our energyneeds and the space in which we live and to better exploitthem in terms of spatial related features.

A fully documented database of 30NetZEBs from the IEASHC-EBC Task40/Annex52 has been used for this study.

A topological and morphological classification of PVdesign options has been proposed in this paper to envisionthe PV design at any scale and on the basis of the climate.

This classification takes into account the different spatialscales from the point of view of the architectural design. ANetZEB ismade of its footprint and of some energy generationdevices that can be installed into/onto the building envelopesurfaces or nearby the building (on site) or off site (in the land-scapes). Even when these systems are not visible together withthe building, they should be conceived as a whole system.

The analysis of the 30 case studies shows that the buildingscale is not enough to reach the NetZEB goal and that PV hasto be designed at a wider scale than the building one. Despitethe fact that the roof is themost used topological option for plac-ing PV components, new design options appeared to be verydiffused (PV use as a canopy for solar shading or for carports).Net zero energy balance is difficult without ‘PV additions’ thatenlarge the building solar caption surfaces, so PV (as well asother renewables) has to be designed at the community scale.

The net zero energy balance approach moves theoreti-cally the boundary of the building envelope towards theexternal environment. From this condition, new issuesarise in terms of design and also new opportunities, suchas the one of improving the outdoor thermal comfort ofbuilding areas, as well as urban or landscape areas, thanksto the use of PV as sun (or rain) protection.

From this perspective, the challenge is designing PV, atthe appropriate scale, setting relationships with the systemsit belongs to and choosing the most suitable design op-tions, also thinking of the outdoor thermal comfort, whenworking at large scale. This is advancement with respectto the most common approach for PV design, where PVis mainly understood in terms of integration (BIPV) or ad-dition (BAPV) into/onto the building envelope.

As PV is most of the time designed from an engineeringpoint of view, it is time now to conceive and design PV atany scale with the architectural or landscape approach, whichis not only when PV is part of the building envelope but alsowhen it is part of the landscape (ground-mounted PV).

GLOSSARY

Building footprint.The area on a project site used by the build-ing structure, defined by the perimeter of the building plan.

Parking lots, parking garages, landscapes and other nonbuildingfacilities are not included in the building footprint [56].

Landscape. A portion of territory that can be viewed atone time from one place [57].

Landscape area. The total site area less the building foot-print, paved surfaces, water bodies and patios [58].

Site. The spatial location of an actual or planned structure orset of structures (as a building, town or monuments); a spaceof ground occupied or to be occupied by a building [59].

Architecture. Art and technique of designing and build-ing, as distinguished from the skills associated with con-struction. The practice of architecture emphasises spatialrelationships, orientation, the support of activities to becarried out within a designed environment and the arrange-ment and visual rhythm of structural elements, as opposedto the design of structural systems themselves (see civil en-gineering). Appropriateness, uniqueness, a sensitive andinnovative response to functional requirements and a senseof place within its surrounding physical and social contextdistinguish a built environment as representative of a cul-ture’s architecture [60].

Landscape architecture. Landscape architecture is theprofession which applies artistic and scientific principlesto the research, planning, design and management of bothnatural and built environments. Practitioners of this profes-sion apply creative and technical skill and scientific, culturaland political knowledge in the planned arrangement ofnatural and constructed elements on the land with a concernfor the stewardship and conservation of natural, constructedand human resources. The resulting environments shall serveuseful, aesthetic, safe and enjoyable purposes [61].

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thework is based on the research carried out by the authors inthe framework of the IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52 ‘To-wards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings’ (2008–2013), in theIEA SHC Task 41 Solar Energy and Architecture (2008–2012) and ongoing in the framework of the IEA SHC Task51 “Solar Energy in Urban Planning” (2013–2017).

The authors would like to thank all the colleagues whohave been working in the IEA research groups for the fruitfulideas exchanged. Moreover, they would like to thank JosefAyoub, operating agent of the Task 40-Annex 52, andMariaWall, operating agent of the Task 41 and Task 51.

The participation of ENEA in the IEA SHC-EBCTask 40-Annex 52, SHCTask 41 and SHCTask 51 activities is fundedthrough national funding ‘Research on electric system’.

The participation of PIMENT Laboratory, of the Univer-sity of La Réunion, in the IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex52 and SHC Task 51 activities is funded by the ADEME,the French Environment and Energy Management Agency.



REFERENCES

1. EPBD recast, Directive 2010/31/EU of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 onthe Energy Performance of Buildings (recast). OfficialJournal of the European Union 2010; L153: 13–35.

2. Li DHW, Yang L, Lam JC. Zero energy buildings andsustainable development implications—a review.Energy 2013; 54: 1–10.

3. Waldheim C. A reference manifesto. In The Land-scape Urbanism Reader, Waldheim C (ed.). PrincetonArchitectural Press: New York, 2006; 5.

4. Aquino G. Preface. In Landscape Infrastructure. CaseStudies by SWA, Hung Y, Aquino G, Waldheim C,Czerniak J, Geuze A, Skjonsberg M, Robinson A(eds). Birkhäuser: Basel, 2011; 7.

5. Marszal AJ, Heiselberg P, Bourrelle JS, Musall E,Voss K, Sartori I, Napolitano A. Zero energy building—a review of definitions and calculation methodologies.Energy and Buildings 2011; 43(4): 971–979. DOI:10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2010.12.022. ISSN: 0378-7788

6. Sartori I, Napolitano A, Voss K. Net zero energybuildings: a consistent definition framework. Energyand Buildings 2012; 48: 220–232. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.032. ISSN: 0378-7788

7. DeVon Beck O.Distributed Renewable Energy Genera-tion and Landscape Architecture: A Critical Review.Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing: Logan, 2011; 5.

8. IEA SHC-EBC Task 40-Annex 52, Net Zero EnergySolar Buildings. Available at: http://www.iea-shc.org/task40/ (accessed 22 May 2014).

9. Wang L, Gwilliam J, Jones P. Case study of zeroenergy house design in UK. Energy and Buildings2009; 41: 1215–1222.

10. Fong KF, Lee CK. Towards net zero energy design forlow-rise residential buildings in subtropical HongKong. Applied Energy 2012; 93: 686–694.

11. Garde F, David M, Lenoir A. Towards net zero energybuildings in hot climates. Part 1: new tools and methods.ASHRAE Transactions 2011; 117: LV-11-C055.

12. Kallushi A,Harris J,Miller J. Think bigger: net-zero com-munities. Proceedings of ACEEE, 2012; 11: 115–127.

13. Carlisle N, Van Geet O, Pless S. Definition of a “ZeroNet Energy” Community. Technical ReportNREL/TP-7A2-46065, National Renewable EnergyLaboratory, Golden, CO, 2009.

14. Available at: www.iea-shc.org/task16/ (accessed 25May 2014).

15. Available at: www.task7.org (accessed 22 May 2014).16. Available at: www.iea-shc.org/task41 (accessed 22

May 2014).17. Humm O, Toggweiler P. Photovoltaik und Architektur.

Die Integration von Solarzellen in Geb.udehüllen.Birkhäuser: Basel, 1993.

18. Sick F. Photovoltaics in Buildings: A Design Hand-book for Architects and Engineers. James & JamesScience Publishers: London, 1996.

19. Randall T. Photovoltaics and Architecture. Taylor &Francis, Inc., 2001.

20. Abbate C (ed.). L’integrazione Architettonica del Foto-voltaico: Esperienze Compiute. Gangemi: Roma, 2002.

21. Hagemann IB. Gebäudeintegrierte Photovoltaik,Architektonische Integration der Photovoltaik in dieGebudehülle. Rudolf Müller: Köln, 2002.

22. Roberts S, Guariento N. Building Integrated Photovol-taics. Birkhäuser Architecture, 2005.

23. Prasad D, Snow M. Designing with Solar Power: ASourcebook for Building Integrated Photovoltaics.Earthscan Publications, 2005.

24. Bosco A, Scognamiglio A (eds). Fotovoltaico eRiqualificazione Edilizia. ENEA: Roma, 2005.

25. Scognamiglio A, Bosisio P, Di Dio V (eds). Foto-voltaico Negli Edifici. Edizioni Ambiente: Milano,2009 and 2012.

26. Weller B, Hammerle C, Jakubetz S, Unnewehr S. DetailPractice: Photovoltaics. The Guide for DesigningBuilding Integrated Photovoltaics. Detail: Munich, 2010.

27. Schoen TJN, Schmidt H. Building-integrated PVactivities within the IEA framework: going from Task16 to Task 7. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research andApplications 1996; 6: 237–245.

28. Reijenga T, Kaan H. Photovoltaics in an architecturalcontext. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Ap-plications 2004; 12: 359–408. DOI: 10.1002/pip.554

29. Tsoutsos T, Frantzeskaki N, Gekas V. Environmentalimpacts from the solar energy technologies. EnergyPolicy 2005; 33: 289–296.

30. Scognamiglio A, Privato C, Starting points for a new cul-tural vision of BIPV. Proceedings of the 23rd EuropeanPhotovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, 2008; 3222–3233.

31. Mercaldo LV, Addonizio ML, Della Noce M, DelliVeneri P, Scognamiglio A, Privato C. Thin film siliconphotovoltaics: architectural perspectives and technologi-cal issues. Applied Energy 2009; 86(10): 1836–1844.DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.11.034. ISSN: 0306-2619.

32. Portolan dos Santos I, Rüther R. The potential of building-integrated (BIPV) and building-applied photovoltaics(BAPV) in single-family, urban residences at low latitudesin Brazil. Energy and Buildings 2012; 50: 290–297. DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.03.052. ISSN: 0378-7788

33. Changhai P, Ying H, Zhishen W. Buidling-integratedphotovoltaics (BIPV) in architectural design in China.Energy and Buildings 2012; 43: 3592–3598.

34. Turney D, Fthenakis V. Environmental impacts fromthe installation and operation of large-scale solarpower plants, Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews 2011; 15: 3261–3270.



http://www.iea-shc.org/task41

35. Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Linee guida perl’individuazione degli impatti potenziali degli impiantifotovoltaici e loro corretto inserimento nel territorio,2008. Available at: http://www.regione.sardegna.it/documenti/1_74_20080624174612.pdf (accessed 21May 2014).

36. Baldescu I, Barion F. Fotovoltaico: prontuario per lavalutazione del suo inserimento nel paesaggio e neicontesti architettonici. Available at: http://www.veneto.beniculturali.it/sites/default/files/fotovoltaico_prontuario_valutazione.pdf (accessed 22 May 2014).

37. Jelle BP, Breivik C. State of the art building integratedphotovoltaics. Energy Procedia 2012: 68–72.

38. Available at: http://iea-pvps-task10.org/ (accessed 21May 2014).

39. Gaiddon B, Fernandes J. Photovoltaics in public spaces.In Photovoltaics in the Built Environment. LessonsLearnt from Large-Scale Projects, Gaiddon B, KaanH, Munro D (eds). Earthscan: London, 2009; 161–164.

40. Available at: http://task51.iea-shc.org/subtasks (accessed19 June 2014).

41. Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P. Investigation ofsolar potential of housing units in different neighbor-hood designs, Energy and Buildings 2011; 43(9):2262–2273. DOI: 10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2011.05.008.ISSN: 0378-7788.

42. Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P. Evaluation of energysupply and demand in solar neighborhood. Energy andBuildings 2012; 49: 335–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.02.021. ISSN: 0378-7788

43. Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P. Parametric investi-gation of geometric form effects on solar potential ofhousing units. Solar Energy 2011; 85(9): 1864–1877.DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2011.04.027. ISSN: 0038-092X

44. Strzalka A, Alam N, Duminil E, Coors V, Eicker U.Large scale integration of photovoltaics in cities. Ap-plied Energy 2012; 93: 413–421. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.033. ISSN: 0306-2619

45. Scognamiglio A, Musall E, Røstvik HN. Photovoltaicsand (nearly) net zero energy buildings: architecturalconsiderations. In Proceedings of ZEMCH 2012 Inter-

national Conference, ZEMCH Network, Noguchi M(ed.). 2012; 286–303. ISBN: 978-0-9574189-0-5.

46. Scognamiglio A, Røstvik H. Photovoltaics and zeroenergy buildings: a new opportunity and challengefor design. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and

Applications 2013; 21(6): 1319–1336. DOI: 10.1002/pip.2286 (Article first published online: 2012)

47. Scognamiglio A, Garde F, Røstvik HN. Net ZeroEnergy Buildings and cities might look like? Newchallenges for passive design and renewables design.Proceedings of International Conference on AppliedEnergy ICAE2014, Taipei, Taiwan,May 30- June 2, 2014.

48. Voss K., Musall E. Net Zero Energy Buildings: Inter-national Projects of Carbon Neutrality in Buildings.Birkhäuser Architecture, Detail Green Books, 2011.

49. Available at: www.enob.info/en/net-zero-energy-buildings/map/ (accessed 25.06.2014).

50. Garde F, Donn M. Technical report of Subtask C-DC.TR1, Solution sets and Net Zero Energy buildings. Areview of 30 Net ZEBs case studies worldwide, 2014.Available at: http://task40.iea-shc.org/data/sites/1/publications/T40A52-DC-TR1-30-Net-ZEBs.pdf(accessed 25.06.2014).

51. Reil F, Althaus J, Szacsvay T, Erban C, Remmels H.Draft standard prEN 50583. Progress in EuropeanBIPV standardization work. Definition of test se-quences and test requirements. Available at: http://www.tuv.com/media/germany/10_industrialservices/downloadsi06/poster_pvsec/PROGRESS_IN_EU-ROPEAN_BIPV_STANDARDIZATION_WORK.pdf (accessed 25 June 2014).

52. Scognamiglio A. The NREL research and supportfacility: a paradigm for designing NetZero Energy Build-ings. Available at: http://www.domusweb.it/en/archi-tecture/2011/06/27/forms-of-energy-12.html (accessed28 February 2014).

53. ScognamiglioA.The solar strand, interviewwithR. Shibley.7Available at:www.domusweb.it/en/interviews/2013/09/02/forms_of_energy_.html (accessed 26 October 2013).

54. Scognamiglio A. Notes and concepts on solar energyissues related to landscapes. Presentation at the IEA-SHC Task 51 Solar Energy in Urban Planning, Kickoff meeting, Stuttgart, 28th of May 2013.

55. Scognamiglio A. Solar energy, Net Zero Energy targetand the community scale. Ongoing activities at theIEA-SHC Task 51 “Solar Energy in Urban Planning”.Advanced Building Skins, Conference Proceedings ofthe 8th Energy Forum, Bressanone (IT), 5–6 November2013; 287–291.

56. Cit. definition of “building footprint”. Available at:http://www.leeduser.com/glossary/term/4695 (accessed25 June 2014).

57. Cit. definition of “landscape”. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landscape (accessed25 June 2014).

58. Cit. definition of “landscape area”. Available at: http://www.leeduser.com/glossary/term/4843 (accessed 24June 2014).

59. Cit. definition of “site”. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/site (accessed 25 June 2014).

60. Cit. definition of “architecture”. Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/architecture(accessed 25 June 2014).

61. Dines N, Brown K. Landscape Architect’s PortableHandbook. American Society of Landscape Architec-ture, 1990–91; 1.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/architecture

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/architecture

photovoltaics' architectural and landscape design options for net zero energy buildings,...

Documents