Energy and Buildings 82 (2014) 703–708

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

A comprehensive assessment methodology of the building integrated

photovoltaic blind system
Wassim Bahr ∗
SERREI Corporation, Hay El Ramel, Tyr, Lebanon

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Design: strategies that reduce energy demand of buildings and increase energy supply from renew-
Received 4 January 2014 able resources are strategies that improve a building sustainability. The Building Integrated Photovoltaic
Received in revised form 10 May 2014 (BIPV) blind system reduces heat gains during summer therefore it reduces the energy demand for cool-
Accepted 26 July 2014
ing while producing on-site electric energy. The design of the PV blinds should take into considerations
Available online 4 August 2014
issues regarding: the reduction of the cooling loads in summer, the increase of the heating loads in win-
ter, the reduction of the daylight factor, the increase of the artificial lighting use, the reduction of the
Keywords:
view to the outside, the shadow casted on the PV blinds and its impact on the PV panels’ performance;
Sustainability
Renewable energy therefore the identification of their optimal design parameters requires a holistic approach and a system-
Assessment methodology atic methodology. This paper investigates the identification of the PV blinds’ optimal design parameters
PV blinds based on a cost-benefit approach. A methodology, that encompasses thermal comfort, visual comfort,
and energy savings requirements while resolving the conflicting issues resulting from the fulfillment of
these requirements, is highlighted.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The building integrated PV blinds have the benefit of acting as a
shading device while producing energy from a renewable resource
(solar radiation). The PV blinds may represent an important com-
ponent of a zero net energy building; a building that produces
as much energy as it consumes [1,2]. The determination of the
design parameters of the PV blinds was assessed in various papers
[3–6]. Most papers considered the energy harvested per square
meter of panel area as a key assessment parameter. The assessment
approach was based around the maximum electric energy produc-
tion or the combined effect of electricity generation and cooling
load reduction. Bahr [3] has noted that the annual electricity gen-
eration by the PV panels is much more relevant if compared to the
amount of electric energy saved for cooling. The optimal design
solution found resulted into the application of fewer blinds with
more spacing between the PV panels in order to minimize the
shading effect from one panel to another. Kang et al. [4] inves-
tigated the harvested electric energy and the shading effect of a
blind system with integrated photovoltaic modules. The ratio (R)
between the blinds installation distance (d) to the module depth (L)
∗ Tel.: +96176572223; fax: +9617741072.
E-mail address: wassbahr@hotmail.com
was set to 1 (d/L = 1). It was found that a 75◦ tilt angle of the blinds
leads to a maximum energy production for all orientations. The
building was located in Seoul, Korea (37◦ N latitude). Sun et al. [5]
assessed the combined effects of electricity generation and build-
ing cooling load reduction of the shading type building integrated
photovoltaic (BIPV) cladding applied on the vertical wall between
two windows. This combined effect was measured through the
annual electricity savings per unit of PV area. The optimum tilt
angle of the PV modules was found and depended on the height of
the opaque wall between two window openings. Hwang et al. [6]
studied the maximum electric energy production of photovoltaic
modules applied on a building façade according to the PV modules
installation direction (horizontal or vertical), to the modules tilt
angle (inclination), and according to the ratio between the panels’
installation distance (d) and a module depth (L). The building was
located in Incheon (37◦ N), Korea. For a south oriented facade the
optimum PV installation was horizontal, 45◦ inclination, and a ratio
(d/L) ≥ 2. For southeast and southwest orientations the optimum PV
installation was horizontal, with a 60◦ inclination angle, and a ratio
(d/L) ≥ 2.
The assessment methodology, taken into consideration in this
paper, quantifies the profit rate of each design solution over one
year of a PV panel’s life. The integration of more PV panels, leading
to more renewable energy production, is assessed by the designer
based on a cost-benefit approach.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.065
0378-7788/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
704 W. Bahr / Energy and Buildings 82 (2014) 703–708

Fig. 1. Design options.

Fig. 2. Assessment parameters.

Table 1 running costs and the profit of each design option, is summarised
The blinds design variables.
in Fig. 2.
Design condition Design variables

Horizontal blinds tilt 0◦ 25◦ * 60◦ 2.1. Design variables

angle
Ratio R = d/L (between 1 2 3
the blinds The installation variables of the PV blinds are illustrated in Fig. 4
installation distance and are listed in Table 1. The different installation solutions result-
to the module depth) ing from the combination between different design parameters are
Panel type Crystalline Amorphous
listed in Table 2.
*
Tilt angle equal to Abu Dhabi latitude.

2.2. Assessment parameters

2. Methodology
The application of PV blinds on a vertical glass curtain wall is
studied taking into consideration a holistic approach. The benefit
of each design solution, in terms of energy production and energy
savings, was assessed taking into consideration the capital cost (ini-
tial cost) and the running costs (maintenance costs) resulting from
the PV blinds application.
The variables taken into account consist of two categories. The
“design options” category, consisting of the PV panel type and the
installation options, is summarised in Fig. 1 and in Table 2. The
assessment parameters category, consisting of the capital costs, the
The assessment parameters represent the costs and benefits
deriving from the application of a design option. These costs and
benefits are calculated in USD per square meter of façade area.
(1) Capital cost (PV generator cost + steel frame cost)
The capital cost includes the cost of the PV generator (this
includes the cost of the PV panels, the grid tie inverter, cables,
breaker, junction box, and installation costs)+ the cost of the
steel frame that holds the PV blinds (this includes the fabrica-
tion and erection of the steel frame, the civil work for footings
and connection, and engineering works).

Table 2
The PV blinds’ installation options.

Installation options Ratio R = d/L Tilt angle (◦ ) Installation options Ratio R = d/L Tilt angle (◦ )

option 1 a 1 0 option 2 c 2 60
option 1 b 1 25 option 3 a 3 0
option 1 c 1 60 option 3 b 3 25
option 2 a 2 0 option 3 c 3 60
option 2 b 2 25
 W. Bahr / Energy and Buildings 82 (2014) 703–708
Fig. 3. The virtual model.
(2) Electric energy production per year (kWh × electric energy
price)
The electric energy produced by the PV generator is multi-
plied by the electric energy price.
(3) Electric energy savings for cooling [(kW h/COP [7–9])× energy
price)]
The reduction of the cooling loads is divided by the coefficient
of performance (COP) of the air conditioning [7–9] and multi-
plied by the electric energy price. A COP equal to 3 is usually
considered.
(4) Electric energy consumed for additional employment of artifi-
cial lighting
The additional electric energy consumption for artificial light-
ing (due to the Daylight Factor reduction) is multiplied by the
electric energy price.
(5) Maintenance costs of the PV generator [10,11]
The running and maintenance costs (per year) are 0.5% of the
PV generator cost
(6) Cleaning costs of the PV blinds
The Profit Rate “PR” of each design option, over one year of
employment, is calculated as follows:
1- Calculation of the benefits “B” in USD resulting from the appli-
cation of the PV blinds:
B = the price of the energy produced + the price of the energy
saved for cooling
Fig. 4. The PV blinds’ installation variables.
705
2- Calculation of the running costs “RC” in USD resulting from
the application of the PV blinds:
RC = the price of the extra energy consumed for light-
ing + cleaning maintenance costs + maintenance costs of the PV
generator.
3- Calculation of the capital cost “CC” in USD regarding the PV
generator installation:
CC = cost of the PV generator + cost of the steel support.
4- The Profit Rate “PR” (given as %) will be: PR = [(B −
RC)/CC]×100
2.3. Assessment methodology
The assessment methodology highlighted in this paper is sum-
marized in Fig. 5 and consists of the profit rate identification of each
design solution.
The assessment methodology is applied within a specific contest
characterized by weather conditions, an electric energy price, and
local suppliers’ quotations.
The various design options regarding the blinds’ installation are
assessed through computer simulations using a building energy
analysis software. The annual total solar insolation on the blinds,
the cooling loads reduction of the building, the daylight factor
inside the building, and the Geometric Shading Coefficient (GSC) on
the building façade represent the blinds’ performance parameters
taken into consideration.
The annual blinds’ insolation (ABI) and the cooling loads reduc-
tion (CLR), given in kWh, are calculated per square meter of façade
area which was used as a reference parameter. The first perfor-
mance parameter (ABI) is an indicator of how much electric energy
could be produced by the PV panels. The second one (CLR) is an indi-
cator of how much electric energy is saved for cooling. The increase
of artificial lighting use is assessed according to the Daylight Factor
reduction (DFR).
The ratio blinds area to façade area is equal to the d/L ratio
(blinds’ installation distance to the module depth) when the blinds
cover the entire façade width (Fig. 3). The building floor area to
façade area ratio affects the daylight factor inside the building and
the heat gains through the building envelope. This ratio should
be identified according to the ASHRAE 90.1 2013 standard (side-
lighted area computation, page 9).
2.4. Methodology validation
A Virtual model of an experimental building located in Abu
Dhabi is built with Ecotect [12,13] (a building energy analysis tool).
The building (Fig. 3) consists of two floors, 36 m2 each, and a glass
curtain wall (6 m × 6 m) facing the south. The floor depth is equal
to the “secondary side-lighted area” depth calculated according to
the ASHRAE 90.1 2013 standard. Therefore, the floor depth is equal
to the window Head Height multiplied by two.
The design parameters regarding the application of the PV blinds
are illustrated in Fig. 4 and are listed in Table 1. The different design
solutions resulting from the combination between different design
variables are listed in Table 2.
The annual solar insolation of the PV blinds, the geometric
shading coefficient on the building façade, the PV panels self-
shading, the daylight factor (DF) inside the building, and the cooling
loads were calculated using Ecotect. The annual electric energy
production of the PV blinds was obtained according to the PV
panel’s area and efficiency. Dates and times when the PV blinds self-
shading may occur were also identified. The impact of the blinds
partial shading was also taken into consideration according to the
panel technology employed. The additional employment of artifi-
cial lighting due to the blinds installation was estimated according
to the daylight factor reduction (a 15% DF reduction corresponds to
706 W. Bahr / Energy and Buildings 82 (2014) 703–708

Fig. 5. Profit rate calculation of each design option.

Fig. 8. Average daylight factor inside the office room.

Fig. 6. Annual total solar insolation per square meter of facade area.
1 h of additional employment of electric lighting). The cooling loads
reduction caused by the blinds application determined the electric
energy savings for cooling.
2.5. Energy and daylighting analysis
Energy and daylighting analysis conducted for various design
options are summarized in Figs. 6–9. The total amount of solar
radiation harvested by the PV panels depends on the total panel
area, which is defined by the d/L ratio, and on the panels’ tilt angle.
The annual solar insolation of the panels was calculated per square
meter of façade area taking into account the shading effect (the
shadow casted from one panel to another). Cooling loads reductions
were also calculated per square meter of façade area, the ratio floor
area to façade area is equal to 2 (Fig. 3). The average daylight factor
was calculated, for various design options of the PV blinds, taking
into consideration a double-glazed façade with 78% transmission.
The geometric shading coefficient of the blinds was calculated on
March 21 at 12 pm (solar timing).
Figs. 6 and 7 show the annual total solar insolation and the cool-
ing load reduction respectively, while Figs. 8 and 9 show the average
daylight factor and the Geometric Shading Coefficient (GSC) respec-
tively.
An important aspect of the PV blind application is the partial
shading effect [14–16] caused by the shadow casted from one blind
to another. Regarding the application of crystalline silicon cells, the

Fig. 7. Cooling load reduction per square meter of facade area. Fig. 9. Geometric Shading Coefficient (GSC) on March, 21 at 12:01 pm (solar timing).
 W. Bahr / Energy and Buildings 82 (2014) 703–708
Fig. 10. Annual electric energy production/savings per square meter of façade area.
Fig. 11. Annual electric energy production/savings per square meter of façade area.
partial shading effect was excluded. Therefore, the annual total
solar insolation was only calculated during the dates and times
when the panels are fully hit by solar radiation (Fig. 6, grey column).
For the application of amorphous thin films the overall annual solar
insolation was counted, including dates and times when the panel
may be partially shaded (Fig. 6, black column). Figs. 10 and 11 show
the electric energy production and the electric energy savings for
cooling1 per square meter of façade area (kWh/m2 per year) for
various design options and for different panel technologies.2
2.6. Costs-benefits analysis
The application of the PV blinds contributes to an electric energy
production and to electric energy savings for cooling. On the other
hand, the introduction of the PV blinds on the building façade
1
The coefficient of performance of the air conditioning unit [7–9] is considered
equal to 3.
2
An efficiency of 14.62% for crystalline silicon panels and an efficiency of 7% for
amorphous thin films were taken into consideration.
707
Fig. 12. The steel frame holds the PV panels.
causes extra energy consumption for lighting and extra mainte-
nance costs for cleaning. Additional costs are represented by the
maintenance of the PV generator itself.
The assessment parameters of the blinds’ application are sum-
marized in paragraph 2.2 and are listed in Table 3. The electric
energy cost per kWh [17], the cost3 of a PV panel per watt power,
and the maintenance cost4 of a glass curtain wall per square
meter of façade area are identified based on UAE suppliers and are
obtained from current quotations. The real cost of electric energy
in the UAE, which is 0.1 USD per kWh [17], was taken into consid-
eration rather than the actual subsidized cost. This cost includes
generation, transmission, and distribution costs. The cost of the
steel frame5 (Figs. 12 and 13) that holds the PV blinds was estimated
based on the number of PV panels installed.
The costs and benefits were calculated per square meter of
façade area for various design options. Two PV panel types were
taken into consideration; a crystalline silicon cells panel and an
amorphous silicon thin film panel. The results of four design options
are reported in Table 3.
The evaluated design options have a profit rate lower than 1%.
This is due to the low energy price in the UAE [17]. The façade appli-
cation of the PV blinds in low latitudes (Abu Dhabi, 25◦ N) increased
the shading effect and reduced the amount of the harvested solar
radiation. The results obtained suggest the integration of PV panels
on horizontal surfaces rather than vertical building facades. The
application of PV panels with higher efficiency contributes to a
higher profit rate despite the higher price of the panels. A horizontal
installation of the blinds (tilt angle equal to 0) reduced the partial
shading effect between the blinds (Fig. 6). Increasing the number
of the blinds (lower d/L ratios) contributed to a little increase of
the profit rate (Table 3). The PV panels steel support and the pan-
els’ cleaning accounted for the major part of the capital and the
running costs, respectively.
3
The cost of the PV generator was estimated based on a quotation from ptlsolar.
http://www.ptlsolar.com/.
4
The cleaning cost of the PV panels was estimated based on a quotation from
Agha Window Cleaning Services. http://www.aghawindowcleaning.com/
5
The cost of the steel frame was estimated based on a quotation from Technosteel.
http://www.technosteel-uae.com/. It includes the steel frame connection costs to an
existing reinforced concrete building structure.
708 W. Bahr / Energy and Buildings 82 (2014) 703–708

Table 3
Design options versus assessment parameters.

Assessment parameters Crystalline silicon Amorphous silicon

option 2 a option 3 a option 1 b option 2 b

(1) PV generator cost ($) 190.6 120.1 187.7a 133.4

(2) steel frame cost ($) 160.1 130 193.3 160.1
(3) Capital Cost (PV generator + steel frame cost) ($) 350.7 250.1 381 293.5
(4) Electric energy production per year ($) 6.7 5.2 5.6 4.4
(5) Electric energy savings for cooling ($) 0.67 0.41 1.2 0.7
(6) Additional employment of artificial lighting ($) 0b 0 0.3c 0
(7) Maintenance costs of the PV generator ($) 0.95 0.6 0.94 0.67
(8) Cleaning costs of the PV blinds* ($) 3.1 2.8 3.3 3.1
(9) Profit Rate “PR” (%) 0.96 0.88 0.59 0.45
*
The PV blinds will be cleaned once per year.
a
30% less than the crystalline silicon cells PV generator cost for the same total panels’ area.
b
The daylight factor (DF) is still high despite the introduction of the blinds. DF = 7.6% for option 2 a and DF = 8.6% for option 3 a (Fig. 5).
c
An additional employment of artificial lighting for 3 h per day employing a 150W lighting system.

panels as an integrative part of the building envelope in order to

reduce capital costs (steel support) and running costs (cleaning)
and to improve a design solution profit rate. Future research will
investigate the application feasibility of PV cladding tiles installed
on curtain walling systems in low latitudes.

References

[1] D. Bernstein, C. Sarno, M. Wash-Cooke, Zero net energy buildings—from

Fig. 13. The PV panels’ installation.
2.7. Results discussion
The crystalline panels’ application resulted into a higher profit
rate despite their higher cost and despite their intolerance to the
partial shading effect. A horizontal installation (0◦ tilt angle) of the
PV panels is indicated for the crystalline technology since it reduces
the blinds self-shading, while a tilt angle equal to the location lati-
tude is indicated for the amorphous technology since it maximizes
the harvested solar energy. Panels with higher efficiency have a
better profit rate and a shorter pay-back period.
3. Conclusions
In this paper the Profit Rate “PR” (%), obtained in one year from
the capital cost, was calculated for different design solutions of
the building integrated photovoltaic blinds. The approach taken
highlights an assessment methodology of the PV blinds based on a
costs-benefits analysis. The results obtained could be used to eval-
uate the feasibility of integrating more PV blinds into a building
façade, resulting into more energy production per façade area, and
leading towards a zero net energy building.
The methodology was applied within the contest of Abu Dhabi.
The results obtained (Table 3) suggest the incorporation of PV
policy to practice, AIA Virtual Convention (2013) [online].
WWW:<https://live.blueskybroadcast.com/bsb/client/CL DEFAULT.asp?Client
=990767&PCAT=6325&CAT=6719 >.
[2] P. Hernandez, P. Kenny, From net energy to zero energy buildings: defining life
cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB), Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 815–821.
[3] W. Bahr, Optimal design parameters of the blinds integrated photovoltaic mod-
ules based on energy efficiency and visual comfort assessments, in: Conference
Proceedings of the Central Europe towards Sustainable Building Conference,
Prague, 2013, pp. 900–910.
[4] S. Kang, T. Hwang, Theoretical analysis of the blinds integrated photovoltaic
modules, Energy and Buildings 46 (2012) 86–91.
[5] L.L. Sun, H.X. Yang, Impacts of the shading-type building-integrated photo-
voltaic claddings on electricity generation and cooling load component through
shaded windows, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 455–460.
[6] T. Hwang, S. Kang, J.T. Kim, Optimization of the building integrated photo-
voltaic system in office buildings—focus on the orientation, inclined angle and
installation area, Energy and Buildings 46 (2012) 92–104.
[7] Wikipedia. Air conditioning. [online]. WWW:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Air conditioning.
[8] Consumersearch. Seer: Seasonal energy efficiency ratio. [online]. WWW:
http://www.consumersearch.com/central-air-conditioners/seer-seasonal-
energy-efficiency-ratio.
[9] F.W.H. Yik, J. Burnet, I. Prescott, Predicting air-conditioning energy consump-
tion of a group of buildings using different heat rejection methods, Energy and
Buildings 33 (2001) 151–166.
[10] Merlo, Greenenergy. Linea Photovoltaic. [online].
WWW:http://www.merlosrl.com/Merlo-frangisole-schede/Merlo-
Frangisole-pdf/Linea%20PH%20it.pdf. pp. 3.
[11] D.H.W. Li, S.K.H. Chow, E.W.M. Lee, An analysis of a medium size grid-connected
building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) system using measured data, Energy
and Buildings 60 (2013) 383–387.
[12] Autodesk. Autodesk Ecotect Analysis—Sustainable Building Design
Software—WWW:http://usa.autodesk.com/ecotect-analysis/.
[13] L. Yang, B.J. He, M. Ye, Application research of ECOTECT in residential estate
planning, Energy and Buildings 72 (2014) 195–202.
[14] Energethics, Fotovoltaico: un investimento alla luce del sole, Ener-
gethics (2009) [online]. WWW:http://www.energethics.it/download/
libro sul fotovoltaico.pdf.
[15] R. Ramabadran, Effect of shading on series and parallel connected solar PV
modules, Modern Applied Science 3 (10) (2009) 32–41.
[16] N. Thakkar, D. Cormode, V.P.A. Lonij, S. Pulver, A.D. Cronin, Simple non-linear
model for the effect of partial shade on PV systems, University of Arizona, 2010
[online]. WWW:http://www.physics.arizona.edu/∼cronin/Solar/Seminars/
short%20shade.pdf.
[17] J. Krane, For renewables to work, first cut energy subsidies,
The National (2012) [online]. WWW:http://www.thenational.ae/
thenationalconversation/comment/for-renewables-to-work-first-cut-energy-
subsidies.