Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Impact of urban block typology on building solar potential and energy use T
efficiency in tropical high-density city
Ji Zhanga, , Le Xua, Veronika Shabunkoa, Stephen En Rong Tayb, Huixuan Suna,
⁎

Stephen Siu Yu Lauc, Thomas Reindla

a
Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS), National University of Singapore, Singapore
b
Department of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore
c
Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore

HIGHLIGHTS

• Simulated effects of building typology on solar potential and energy use intensity.
• Identified impacts of design factors on solar potential and energy performance.
• Hybrid and courtyard typologies have twice the rooftop solar potential from others.
• Reduction in CO emissions was twice higher for hybrid and courtyard typologies.
• Roof PV for courtyard typology reduced building energy use intensity by up to 25%.
2

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper presents the results of an investigation on the relationship between urban block typology, solar energy
Urban block typology harvesting potential and building energy use efficiency in the context of the tropical high-density city Singapore.
Urban form Thirty generic urban block cases in six typologies that represent a diverse range of urban forms were examined
Solar energy through simulation-based studies under the same planning conditions and simulation assumptions so as to rule out
Photovoltaic (PV) system
the impact of non-design related factors. Several key planning and geometric parameters which capture the formal
Building energy use efficiency
characteristics of the urban blocks were examined as independent variables, and the dependent variables include the
Renewable energy application
performance indicators on solar energy harvesting potential and building net energy use intensity that capture the
dual benefits of photovoltaic (PV) systems in reducing building cooling loads and offsetting local plug loads with
electricity generated on site. The results indicate that, under the same planning conditions and design premises,
differences in urban block typology could lead to up to 200% increase in solar energy harvesting potential and
electricity generated from rooftop PV, twelve times higher rate of reduction in building cooling loads, tow times
higher rate of reduction in net purchased electricity, and 25% lower building net energy use intensity. The courtyard
and hybrid urban block typologies consistently outperform the other typologies, especially the commonly im-
plemented tower and slab blocks, and they benefit the most from PV deployment in the tropics. The comparison
between an existing residential precinct and a hypothetical alternative hybrid urban block further demonstrated the
significant impact of urban design on efficiency of PV electricity generation and building energy use efficiency. In
addition to the significant economic benefit in reduction in utility cost and environmental implication in terms of
equivalent reduction in CO2 emissions on urban scale, this study highlights the crucial role that urban design plays in
terms of maximising on-site renewable energy production such as solar energy. The significant planning and geo-
metric parameters in relation to the performance indicators provide insight as reference for establishing solar energy
friendly urban planning and architectural design guidelines. The methodology and technical workflow as developed
can support reliable and efficient feasibility studies, especially in the early stage of urban planning and architectural
design. Integrated with other performance evaluations, they can facilitate decision-making on implementation of
renewable energy integrated green building technologies and passive design strategies.

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: ji.zhang@nus.edu.sg (J. Zhang), xule.nus@gmail.com (L. Xu), veronika.shabunko@nus.edu.sg (V. Shabunko),
stephen.tay@nus.edu.sg (S.E.R. Tay), sunhuixuan@nus.edu.sg (H. Sun), akilssy@nus.edu.sg (S.S.Y. Lau), thomas.reindl@nus.edu.sg (T. Reindl).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.033
Received 10 August 2018; Received in revised form 26 January 2019; Accepted 6 February 2019
Available online 19 February 2019
0306-2619/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Zhang, et al.
1. Introduction
More than half of the global population is accommodated in cities
today which account for nearly two-thirds of global energy demand and
70% of energy-related CO2 emissions [1]. This put cities in the frontline for
the need to reduce energy consumption and carbon emission. Applications
of cost-effective on-site renewable energy generation such as photovoltaic
(PV) systems on building rooftops could technically meet one-third of ci-
ties electricity demand by 2050 [1]. However, solar energy harvesting
capacity is not solely determined by PV cell, module and system tech-
nologies, though, for which tremendous progress have been made in the
past decades. It is, first and foremost, dependent on the intensity of in-
solation in a given geographic and climate context and the availability of
spaces suitable for system deployment, the latter is primarily related to
urban planning strategies and building design solutions adopted.
Compared to cities with relatively low built density, high-density
cities face many challenges in terms of harnessing solar energy.
Assuming that the PV module technologies to be implemented are fixed,
solar energy collection in urban context is highly sensitive to available
areas for PV installation and level of obstruction as a result of the com-
pact urban forms. Buildings in high-density cities have substantial mu-
tual- and self-shading and, consequently, less suitable surfaces to deploy
solar systems such as PV panels on roof-tops and Building Integrated
Photovoltaic (BIPV) systems. Previous studies have revealed that, al-
though different building typologies can be implemented under the same
urban planning conditions to achieve the same built density in a given
urban context, their implications in various environmental performance
domains may vary significantly [2]. Therefore, it is very important to
examine and optimize the potential to harvest solar energy for different
urban and architectural design solutions, especially in the early stage of
urban planning when the potential for optimization is the greatest.
As a tropical city with relatively strong annual cumulative global
horizontal solar irradiance (1671 kWh/m2/y) and low seasonal fluctua-
tions throughout the whole year (Fig. 1), Singapore has great potential in
solar energy harvesting. In the past decade, the grid-connected installed
capacity of solar PV systems in Singapore has increased tremendously to
nearly 130MWp by 2017 [3], among which 58% is attributed to those
installed in public housing blocks which accommodate more than 80% of
Singapore’s population. Currently, PV deployment in the public housing
estates primarily focuses on the rooftops of buildings where obstruction
is low. However, this is highly restricted by the spatial limitation of the
Fig. 1. Singapore’s monthly and daily total global horizontal irradiance level (GHI) and diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI) and monthly average and daily range of
dry bulb temperature (DBT) based on statistically representative weather data. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy).
514
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
roof areas and relevant building regulations (Fig. 2). Considering the
target of raising the adoption of solar power to 350 MWp by 2020 and 1
GWp beyond 2020, more research is needed to guide the future urban
planning and deployment of PV in addition to engineering improvements
and breakthrough in PV technologies.
To this end, this study investigates the potential of cities in solar
energy harvesting and building energy consumption from an urban
planning and architectural design perspective. Representative generic
urban block typologies under fixed built density and planning condi-
tions were studied to examine the relationship between urban form,
solar energy harvesting potential and building energy use efficiency in
the context of the high-density tropical city-state of Singapore.
The study aims to provide reliable and efficient method of analysis
and generalizable findings to both the scientific community of renew-
able energies seeking integrated urban planning strategies to maximize
the efficiency of solar energy utilization and the urban and architectural
design practitioners seeking applicable design solutions for renewable
energy systems adoption to minimize energy use intensity.
1.1. Literature review
The relationship between urban form and environmental perfor-
mance has been investigated from different perspectives in previous
studies. For example, in light of Leslie Martin and Lionel March’s
seminal study [4] on urban form and land use economy, Ratti and his
colleagues [5] examined six generic urban arrays based on archetypal
building forms in hot and arid climate in terms of their daylight po-
tential and implications on thermal environment. Based on calculations
derived from the Digital Elevation Models (DEMs), the results suggested
that the courtyard typology, commonly used in this type of climate
region, indeed has advantageous than other typologies in thermal and
daylight performances. However, their analysis was primarily based on
estimation from geometric variables, and no daylight and energy si-
mulations were conducted to verify their conclusions. In a later study,
Ratti, Baker and Steemers [6] further examined the impact of urban
fabric on thermal performance for three urban areas in different
building forms and densities in relation to a variety of geometric
parameters which were calculated based on the same DEMs method.
They found that passive to non-passive zone ratio is a better predictor
than surface-to-volume ratio on building energy consumption on urban
scale.
J. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 2. Panoramic view of the PV panels installed on the rooftop of a high-rise residential building in a public housing new town in Singapore. (Source: the authors).
In terms of methodology, Zhang and his colleagues [7] implemented a
normalization and replication approach to create a uniform environment
to evaluate the theoretical performance of a given urban form within a
homogeneous context in their investigation on the relationship between
density, built form and environmental performance. Based on the study of
seven urban block cases the results demonstrate the impact of urban form
on level of exposure to the sky which have various implications in daylight
availability, solar radiation heat gain and perceived openness. Im-
plementing the same method, this study was further extended to examine
more than ninety urban block cases in different densities for more per-
formance aspects by Heng, Malone-Lee and Zhang [2]. The results provide
convincing evidences that geometric characteristics of urban forms, such
as building depth, Open Space Ratio, site coverage, frontal area index and
permeability, have significant impacts on a variety of environmental
qualities, such as daylight availability, exposure to the sky, receivable solar
radiation and outdoor air movement. More specifically, the results indicate
that solar radiation receivable on building surfaces may drop significantly
as built density increases which implies lower solar heat gain but lower
potential to collect solar energy.
The impact of urban block typology on energy use and thermal
comfort were also explored by Taleghani, Tenpierik, van den
Dobbelsteen and de Dear [8] who found that surface-to-volume ratio is a
significant geometric factor, and the courtyard model performs better as
compared to the single and linear ones. Rode, Keim, Robassa, Viejo and
Schofield [9] found in their study of representative urban fabrics and
corresponding archetypal forms that urban morphological factors can
affect heating energy efficiency up to a factor of six. They also found that
compact and tall building typologies have higher energy efficiency than
that for detached houses on neighbourhood scale. Through parametric
study of generic slab, perimeter and pavilion urban blocks, Vartholo-
maios [10] examined the impact of urban form on residential energy
consumption for heating and cooling in the Mediterranean climatic
context, and compactness and south orientation were found to be the key
contributing factors to low energy neighbourhood design. Sattrup and
Strømann-Andersen [11] also found that up to 16% and 48% differences
in building energy consumption and daylight autonomy, respectively,
can be attributed to the difference in urban block typology.
The impact of urban form on solar access and solar energy harnes-
sing has been examined in previous studies with different emphasis
[12,13]. Compagnon [14] used a case study approach to examine the
impact of urban form on active and passive solar heating, PV electricity
production and daylighting potential. Using the validated Perez all
weather sky model [15] for more accurate solar radiation simulation,
the results show that the potential to harvesting solar energy on
building surfaces vary significantly across five different building lay-
outs within the same urban context and under the same density. Mo-
hajeri and his colleagues [16], on the other hand, found that the po-
tentials for BiPV and passive solar heating drop significantly as urban
density increases from dispersed to compact neighbourhood, though
the impact on façades is greater that for roofs.
In a series of studies, Hachem and her colleagues [17–19] in-
vestigated the key design parameters of two-story residential units and
neighbourhood patterns that may affect the potential of solar energy
collection. Generic building typologies in convex and concave shapes
515
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
were studied in different spatial layout patterns. Their findings suggest
that shape and orientation of buildings have significant impact on peak
solar electricity generation potential, and up to 50% increase can be
achieved in certain building configurations. Depth ratio and number of
shaded facades, angle enclosed by the wings and distance between
parallel rows of buildings are the key design factors to consider.
Guidelines for mid-latitude climatic regions were proposed accordingly
based on the findings for design of solar optimized neighbourhoods.
Applying multi-objective optimization method, Martins, Adolphe
and Bastos [20] examined five representative building typologies in
Brazil and the relative contributions of a series of morphological factors
in solar control and solar energy production. Their methodology iden-
tified the most significant factors to be prioritized to maximize solar
potential for energy collection and minimize solar heat gains, and it
also demonstrated the diverse design options that can be adopted. In a
later study, Martins and his colleagues [21] conducted sensitivity
analysis for a larger amount of samples by applying the same method.
Street canyon aspect ratio, spacing between buildings and surface
equivalent albedo are found to be the most significant design factors.
The study of Chatzipoulka, Compagnon and Nikolopoulou [22] on 24
representative urban fabric from London found that density has negative
impact on solar potential. They also identified some of key factors
quantifying urban layout that will affect solar potential on open space
and building facades significantly, such as average spacing between
buildings, site coverage, directionality and complexity of building form,
and variance in building height. Their study highlights the significant
relationship between urban geometry and solar availability in relation to
the latitude of a given location. Their findings agree partially with pre-
vious study by Cheng, Steemers, Montavon and Compagnon [23] and a
later study by Lobaccaro, Carlucci, Croce, Paparella and Finocchiaro [24]
on the important urban morphological factors related to solar potential.
Sarralde, Quinn, Wiesmann and Steemers [25] expanded the study
of the impact of urban morphology on solar potential to city scale for
Greater London. They found that the combined effect of several urban
form parameters led to 9% and 45% increase in collectable solar irra-
diance for roof and façade surfaces, respectively, such as average spa-
cing between buildings, variation in building heights, average building
perimeter, etc., though prioritization might be needed considering the
potential conflict between the parameters.
Although the impacts of urban forms on the environmental perfor-
mance have been addressed in previous studies from different per-
spectives, the relationship between urban block typology and solar
potential in the context of tropical cities, which are dominated by
cooling demands, has not been evaluated in detail. There is also a lack
of studies that integrate solar potential assessment with building energy
modelling to have a comprehensive understanding on the impact of PV
deployment on building energy use efficiency and the related en-
vironmental and economic implications.
1.2. Research objectives
Depending on the design approach and technologies adopted, the
impacts of PV deployment on building energy use are primarily twofold
in cooling dominated regions. On the one hand, PV or BIPV systems can
J. Zhang, et al.
provide shading for buildings which reduces solar radiation heat gains
through the building envelope and, consequently, reduces building
cooling loads and cooling energy use. On the other hand, the electricity
generated from PV or BIPV systems can be used to offset local electricity
demands, thus reducing the electricity to be purchased from the power
grid and relieving peak electricity demand.
This study aims to have a better understanding on the following two
questions in the context of a tropical high-density city:
• Does urban block typology matter in terms of solar harvesting po-
tential and building energy consumption, and to what extent, if it
does?
• What are the significant planning and geometric parameters which
are pertinent to the maximization of solar energy harvesting po-
tential and building energy use efficiency?
2. Methodology
2.1. Urban block typologies
The basic unit of analysis in this study is an “urban block”, which is
defined as the smallest area in urban planning, or the basic component
of urban fabric, that is surrounded by external roads. It is usually
subdivided into smaller land plots and is primarily composed of
buildings in similar typology in terms of their form, function and spatial
relationship between each other.
A case study approach was implemented and thirty generic urban blocks
representing a diverse range of urban design strategies were analysed
through simulation to examine the relationship between urban form, solar
energy harvesting potential and building energy use. These cases were
created and grouped into six representative urban block typologies: 1) tower
typology is composed of standalone tower buildings with a floor plan in the
shape of a square or cross that are arranged in even spacing between each
other; 2) slab typology is composed of parallel linear slab buildings in dif-
ferent lengths with even spacing between each other; 3) courtyard typology
is composed of buildings with a fully enclosed courtyard in the middle and
uniform or alternating height variation for the buildings surrounding the
Fig. 3. The thirty generic urban blocks in six typology categories (left) and the simulation context (right).
516
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
courtyard; 4) hybrid typology is composed of a mixture of tower buildings
and lower podiums without an entirely enclosed courtyard; 5) center ty-
pology is composed of low-rise linear buildings along the periphery of the
site and high-rise tower buildings located at the centre of the site; and 6)
perimeter typology is composed of linear buildings positioned along the
periphery of the site in different heights. The depth of the building is fixed
as 10 m for linear blocks and 20 m for tower blocks.
As illustrated in Fig. 3 each case was examined within a context which is
composed of a 3x3 array of the same urban block typology as itself. The
implementation of this approach is to examine the performance of a given
urban form in a theoretically homogenous urban context. As a result, the
impact of the urban block at the centre of the array to its neighbours within
this context will be “mirrored” back into the site and reflected in the overall
performance of itself [2,5,26,7]. Several basic urban planning parameters
were controlled to be the same across all cases in order to establish a
common ground for performance comparison under the same planning
conditions. In this study built density as indicated by plot ratio or Floor Area
Ratio (FAR), i.e. the maximum total floor area buildable in relation to the site
area, was set to 3.0 with minor deviation. The area of the square-shape site
was defined as 10,000 m2. The spacing between each plot was set as 20 m,
representing the width of a typical neighbourhood road. The distance of
building setback from the boundary of the site as set as either 5 m or 10 m.
It should be noted that this method of constructing a homogenous
simulation context is different from those used in some of the existing
solar potential studies [14,27] in which the target urban blocks were
analysed in their existing context which is usually nonuniform or in-
consistent with the target block typology-wise. In those studies, the
outcomes and conclusions may remain context specific. In contrast,
implementing the current method, the findings of this study could be
generalizable when comparing the performances of alternative urban
block typologies, assuming each of them is to be applied generically for
an extended neighbourhood or urban district.
2.2. Planning and geometric parameters
As illustrated in Table 1, several urban planning and geometric
parameters were calculated for the thirty cases to capture the spatial
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

and geometric characteristics of their designs (Table 2). Building site

Sky View Factor (SVF)

coverage is calculated as the percentage of the site area that is covered
by building footprints. Open Space Ratio indicates the amount of out-
door open space per unit floor area [28]. Average area-to-perimeter
ratio (APR) across all the floor surfaces is an indicator of the mean floor
depth [29]. Compacity, calculated as the ratio between building en-
velope area and building volume, is an indicator of the compactness of a
built form [30].
Two geometric variables, roof-to-floor area ratio and roof-to-en-

Sky Exposure Factor (SkyEF)

velope area ratio, were calculated to quantify the proportion of hor-
izontal building surface areas in relation to the building form, the
former is assumed to have the highest potential to collect solar energy
in the geographic regions close to the Equator. PV roof coverage, cal-
culated as the ratio between the surface area of the PV panels as de-
ployed and that of the total roof surface is also calculated for the
analysis related to building energy use.

Planning and geometric parameters (the upper and lower diagrams represent the nominator and denominator in the calculation of a given parameter, respectively).
Two additional geometric indicators were also examined: Sky
Exposure Factor (SkyEF) [2,7] and Sky View Factor (SVF) [31,32,

PV roof coverage
33,34], the former, calculated as the ratio of visible sky measured
through solid angle, quantifies the level of obstruction for a given point
on the building surface within a given physical context, whereas the
latter quantifies the ratio of radiation received on a building surface
within a given physical context to that from the unobstructed sky
hemisphere, assuming isotropic radiation conditions [34]. Area-

Roof-to-envelope area ratio

weighted average and total gross floor area (GFA) normalized values for
both variables were calculated as geometric parameters for analysis.

2.3. Solar energy harvesting potential

Solar energy harvesting potential, or the annual cumulative solar

radiation receivable, for a given building is highly dependent on the
form and orientation of the building and its physical context as well as
its geographic location. The electricity generated from PV panels as

Roof-to-floor area ratio

deployed across building surfaces may also depend on the irradiance
threshold level to be adopted below which the deployment of PV panels
may not be economical. Table 3 illustrates the significant decrease of
the percentage of building surfaces suitable for PV deployment ac-
cording to several gradually increasing minimum annual cumulative
irradiance thresholds for an unobstructed urban block in Singapore’s
irradiance conditions.
Radiance [35], a validated software package for lighting and solar
radiation studies, was used for the simulation of annual cumulative
Compacity

irradiance receivable on a building surface for a grid of virtual receivers

positioned in one meter spacing, both horizontally and vertically. Two
ambient bounces were specified based on the results of sensitivity test
which revealed no more than 1.6% difference in irradiance simulation
Area-to-perimeter ratio

as compared to that with three ambient bounces and the consideration

of efficiency. A diffuse reflectance of 0.2 was specified for all building
surfaces and the surface representing the ground in order to take into
account the second-order reflection of radiation between building sur-
faces with typical cladding materials that might be prevalent in a re-
lative dense and compact built environment.
As to solar energy harvesting potential, two performance indicators
were calculated which quantify the annual cumulative solar radiation
Open Space Ratio

incident on the building envelope surfaces relative to the total usable

floor area (GFA), i.e. total the solar radiation energy received on
building surfaces per unit floor area. The first indicator was calculated
assuming the entire building envelope surfaces are to be utilized for PV
deployment, and the second indicator was calculated for the building
surfaces with an annual cumulative irradiance of no less than
Building site coverage

1000 kWh/m2 [14,27] only, or the “qualified surfaces”, i.e. surfaces

that can collect at least 60% of the maximum solar energy receivable on
a given surface in Singapore’s context (1671 kWh/m2). The former is
denoted as SPe, and the latter SPq. It should be noted that the selection
Table 1

of this irradiance threshold is based on the considerations to maintain

consistency with previous studies for comparison purpose and to

517
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Table 2
Planning and geometric parameters of the thirty generic urban block cases.
Typology Case GFA (m2) Site coverage Open Avg area-to- Compacity PV roof Roof-to- Roof-to- Area-weighted Area-weighted
Space perimeter ratio (m−1) coverage floor area envelope area avg envelope avg envelope
Ratio (m) ratio ratio SkyEF SVF
(OSR)

Tower A01 30,400 32% 0.56 10.00 19.58 0.72 0.11 0.16 0.93 0.83
A02 30,000 40% 0.54 8.33 23.50 0.49 0.13 0.17 0.74 0.71
A03 30,000 40% 0.54 8.33 23.50 0.49 0.13 0.17 0.70 0.69
A04 30,400 32% 0.56 10.00 19.58 0.72 0.11 0.16 0.83 0.78

Slab B01 30,000 48% 0.50 8.57 22.83 0.60 0.16 0.21 0.87 0.77
B02 30,000 36% 0.54 7.45 25.81 0.56 0.12 0.14 0.80 0.69
B03 30,000 36% 0.54 7.45 25.81 0.56 0.12 0.14 0.79 0.70

Courtyard C01 30,000 96% 0.34 9.64 22.94 0.63 0.32 0.42 0.91 0.87
C02 30,400 96% 0.34 8.46 25.11 0.63 0.32 0.38 0.88 0.81
C03 30,400 96% 0.34 7.10 27.48 0.56 0.32 0.34 0.82 0.75
C04 30,400 96% 0.34 7.10 27.48 0.60 0.32 0.34 0.80 0.76
C05 31,200 80% 0.38 6.86 27.63 0.57 0.26 0.28 0.81 0.72
C06 29,200 80% 0.42 9.44 22.06 0.66 0.27 0.37 0.92 0.87

Hybrid D01 30,400 96% 0.34 11.54 18.12 0.66 0.32 0.52 0.97 0.93
D02 30,400 96% 0.34 10.46 20.02 0.59 0.32 0.47 0.89 0.87
D03 30,800 72% 0.42 9.87 21.84 0.54 0.23 0.32 0.79 0.75
D04 30,400 80% 0.40 10.38 20.18 0.68 0.26 0.39 0.87 0.84
D05 30,400 64% 0.44 6.94 28.74 0.60 0.21 0.22 0.72 0.67
D06 29,600 88% 0.38 9.94 21.54 0.70 0.30 0.41 0.89 0.87

Centre S01 30,400 64% 0.44 9.93 21.16 0.65 0.21 0.30 0.85 0.79
S02 30,400 64% 0.44 9.46 22.59 0.65 0.21 0.28 0.79 0.76
S03 30,400 64% 0.44 7.11 27.32 0.65 0.21 0.23 0.71 0.64
S04 30,400 64% 0.44 8.28 24.24 0.65 0.21 0.26 0.80 0.73
S05 30,000 72% 0.42 7.38 26.53 0.58 0.24 0.27 0.69 0.66

Perimeter T01 30,000 40% 0.54 8.33 23.50 0.62 0.13 0.17 0.83 0.77
T02 31,200 48% 0.48 9.23 22.00 0.65 0.15 0.21 0.87 0.81
T03 30,000 48% 0.50 7.75 24.50 0.65 0.16 0.20 0.83 0.76
T04 30,400 40% 0.52 7.83 24.72 0.62 0.13 0.16 0.81 0.73
T05 30,400 48% 0.50 7.36 25.59 0.60 0.16 0.19 0.78 0.73
T06 30,000 56% 0.48 7.40 25.49 0.61 0.19 0.22 0.77 0.73

implement a relatively strict condition for solar potential analysis.
Considering the ever-increasing efficiency and ever-decreasing cost of
PV technology, alternative and lower irradiance thresholds could be
applied which may lead to different observations. The ratio of qualified
building envelope surface as a function of different irradiance thresh-
olds for the 30 urban block cases and the six typologies in general is
reported and analysed in Section 3.1.
2.4. Building energy use
Building energy consumption is dependent on a variety of factors,
such as external thermal loads, building form, building materials, de-
sign of fenestration, internal thermal loads, schedules of equipment and
occupants, and the efficiency of Heating, Ventilation and Air-con-
ditioning (HVAC) system.
To evaluate the impact of solar energy harvesting on building en-
ergy use and its difference across the urban block typologies, the energy
consumption and electricity output from PV panels for the 30 cases
before and after the PV deployment were estimated and compared
through simulation in EnergyPlus, a validated software for whole
building energy modelling [36].
In order to rule out the impact of the factors other than those related
to building form, several settings for the energy modelling were con-
trolled to be the same across all the cases. The building volume of each
case was split vertically into floors with a standard height of 3 m, and
each floor was further subdivided into the perimeter zones in 3 m depth
and the core zones so as to achieve a more realistic representation of the
spatial and thermal relationship between the peripheral and internal
spaces across a floor. A typical window-to-wall ratio of 0.4 was specified
for all external wall surfaces so as to account for the solar heat gain

Table 3
Percentage of building envelope surface area suitable for PV deployment based on different minimum annual cumulative irradiance thresholds.
Visualization of the qualified
building envelope
surface areas with
annual cumulative
irradiance level above a
given threshold value

Annual cumulative 0 300 500 800 1000

irradiance threshold
[kWh/m2/y]
Ratio of qualified building 100% 86.2% 48.0% 18.6% 16.5%
envelope surface area

518
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

through external glazing surfaces (Fig. 4). No exterior or interior shading Table 4
device was modelled as the focus of this study is the impact of the overall Parameters and settings for the building energy simulation in EnergyPlus.
geometric characteristic of building form rather than architectural design Parameter Setting
details. Table 4 shows the general settings of the main parameters of a
typical apartment building which were applied to each case for building Building and zone program Midrise apartment
template
energy modelling in EnergyPlus. Each thermal zone was set as fully air-
Window-to-wall ratio 0.4
conditioned throughout the whole year with a cooling set point tem- Cooling set point 24 °C
perature of 24 °C to represent the “worst case scenario” for energy use in
Internal loads
tropical areas predominated by cooling demands. Equipment 3.875 W/m2
To achieve a more realistic estimation of the electricity yield of the Lighting 11.84 W/m2
PV system, horizontal shading surfaces covering the entire roof areas Infiltration rate 0.0002 m3/s-m2
were specified as PV panels detached from roofs. They were positioned Occupancy 0.0283 person/m2
at a height of 1.2 m with an inward setback of 1.5 m from the edges of Building construction
the roofs for safety and maintenance considerations [37]. The specifi- Floor surface 100 mm lightweight concrete with acoustic
tile
cations of a standard PV panel product were adopted in the simulation
U value = 1.45 W/m2 K
which include the panel dimension of 0.992 × 1.96 m, peak power Wall surface 200 mm heavyweight concrete with insulation
output of 320 Wp, cell efficiency of 17.5% and inverter efficiency of U value = 0.46 W/m2 K
90%. Although tilting of PV panels was not modelled in this study Window surface Double glazing of 3 mm clear glass with air
considering the schematic nature of the building geometry, it shall be gap
U value = 2.36 W/m2 K
noted that a typical angle of 10° is implemented in solar deployment
Solar transmittance = 0.837
practice in Singapore which facilitates self-cleaning of PV panel uti-
lizing the draining of rainwater.
Several building energy use related outputs were examined, such as Singapore’s weather data in the EPW file format [40] was used as input for
total building cooling loads and electricity generated from PV panels. Net both the solar radiation and building energy simulations which includes
purchased electricity was calculated as electricity demands for lighting the statistically representative data of some of the key meteorological
and equipment, or plug loads, subtracting electricity generated from the parameters for a particular location, such as hourly global horizontal ra-
PV system. Cooling energy use was calculated by multiplying cooling diation, dry bulb temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, etc.
loads with a cooling Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 4.5 which re-
presents the typical cooling efficiency of domestic split unit air-condi- 2.6. Demonstration through hypothetical re-design of a real residential
tioner commonly used in Singapore and other Asian countries. GFA- precinct
normalized values, i.e. the quantity per unit floor area, were calculated
for these outputs as performance indicators to quantify the efficiency of In order to demonstrate the impact of urban block typology design on
solar energy harvesting and building energy use for each case. Assuming efficiency of solar energy harvesting and building energy use, a public
electricity generated from PV panels is completely used on-site to offset housing precinct in Singapore was selected as the baseline for a comparative
plug loads, annual total building net energy use intensity (nEUI), i.e. study to illustrate a solar energy friendly design scenario alternative to the
whole building net energy consumption per unit floor area, was calcu- status-quo. As shown in Fig. 6, the current building typology for this pre-
lated as the GFA-normalized sum of the annual total energy use for cinct is dominated by monotonous 10-story linear slab blocks arranged in
cooling and net purchased electricity, which captures the combined ef- several clusters with semi-enclosed courtyards at the centre, and most of the
fects of PV deployment in terms of reducing cooling loads and in off- rooftops of the buildings are already covered by PV panels.
setting local electricity usage to reduce reliance on the power grid. A hypothetical new design in the same plot ratio was proposed as an
alternative for this precinct. As shown in Fig. 7, the proposed design is
2.5. Integrated workflow characterized by hybrid urban block typology with a mixture of rela-
tively higher tower or slab buildings and lower podiums arranged in
To facilitate the simulation and performance evaluation, an integrated alternating manner around a semi-enclosed courtyard at the centre. The
workflow (Fig. 5) was created using the Grasshopper parametric model- objectives of the proposed design are to maximize solar energy har-
ling plugin for the Rhinoceros3D software [38] and the Ladybug and vesting potential by increasing roof surface areas potentially utilizable
Honeybee component groups [39] within Grasshopper for both solar ra- for PV deployment, reduce shading between buildings by increasing the
diation and building energy modelling. This customized workflow in- spacing between them, and break the monotony of the current building
tegrates the functions of parametric 3D modelling of buildings, perfor- form by creating undulating profile of the buildings the streets and the
mance simulation, calculation of geometric variables and performance public spaces in the centre of the precinct which are now organized in a
indicators, data processing, and results visualization in a seamless way. less fragmented manner as compared to the current design.

Fig. 4. Subdivision of the thermal zones (left), façade layout based on window-to-wall ratio of 0.4 (center), and positions of the PV panels on the roof top (right) of
case D04.

519
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Fig. 5. The framework of the integrated workflow developed in this study.

Table 5 shows the key planning and geometric parameters for both
designs. Simplified building massing models were created for both de-
signs while maintaining the same level of abstraction in terms of
building form. In both cases, PV panels were modelled to cover the
entire roof area at the height of 1.2 m with a fixed inward setback of
1.5 m from the edges of the roofs. Other settings for energy simulation
were the same as the ones applied in the study for the 30 generic urban
blocks as explained above. The efficiency in solar energy harvesting and
building energy use for between the existing and the proposed designs
were compared using the same workflow as introduced above. The
results are discussed in Section 3.3.
3. Results
3.1. Solar energy harvesting potential
Table 6 shows the visualizations of the simulated annual cumulative
irradiance levels on building envelope surfaces. The distribution of the
point-by-point irradiance values for each of the 30 cases in box plot is
shown in Fig. 8. Regarding mean insolation across the entire building
envelope surfaces, the hybrid (659 kWh/m2/y) and the courtyard
(633 kWh/m2/y) typologies outperformed the perimeter (589 kWh/m2/
y), tower (588 kWh/m2/y) and center (583 kWh/m2/y) typologies, while
the slab blocks (569 kWh/m2/y) had the lowest mean insolation level.
Welch ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests were conducted,
given that the variances across the samples are not equal based on
Levene’s test (df = 5; p < 0.001). As shown in Table 7, the mean in-
solation levels were significantly different from each other among the six
groups (df = 5; F = 1065.1; p < 0.001), except those between the
tower and perimeter typologies. Among them, the largest differences
were that between the hybrid typology and slab, center, tower and
perimeter typologies, respectively, ranging from 70.9 to 90.6 kWh/m2/y.
Considering the cumulative distribution of insolation as shown in
Table 8 and Fig. 9, the ranking of the cases and typologies seemed to be
sensitive to the irradiance threshold selected. The courtyard, hybrid and
center typologies outperformed the others by having more envelope
surface areas meeting the irradiance thresholds ranging from 600 to
1400 kWh/m2/y, and the courtyard typology had the highest ratio of
qualified surfaces even up to the threshold of 1600 kWh/m2/y. On the
other hand, the tower, slab and perimeter typologies had relatively
higher ratio of qualified surfaces for irradiance threshold below
600 kWh/m2/y, and this is probably because they have relative less
mutual-shading between building volumes as compared to the other
typologies which have more heavily shaded surfaces due to self-
shading. Nevertheless, the relatively higher ratio of qualified surfaces
for the courtyard, hybrid and center typologies within a wide range of
irradiance thresholds suggests that they are more advantageous and
flexible to be considered in terms of PV deployment aiming at max-
imizing solar energy harvesting.
The two performance indicators of solar potential calculated for each
case (Fig. 10) and the results of ANOVA test between typologies regarding
the difference in mean values of the two performance indicators (Table 9)
show that the courtyard typology performed significantly better than the
other ones, with an average of 541 kWh/m2/y and 203 kWh/m2/y in
terms of annual cumulative solar radiation received per unit floor area for
the entire building envelope surfaces (SPe) and that for the qualified sur-
faces (SPq), respectively. This was followed by the hybrid (SPe =
479 kWh/m2/y, SPq = 158 kWh/m2/y), center (SPe = 475 kWh/m2/y,
SPq = 154 kWh/m2/y) and perimeter (SPe = 480 kWh/m2/y, SPq =
113 kWh/m2/y) typologies. The cases in the slab and the tower typology
groups performed relatively the worst. On average, the courtyard typology
had 27.7% and 14.4% higher solar potential regarding the entire envelope
and 105.8% and 90.2% higher potential regarding the qualified surfaces
than the tower and slab typologies, respectively. More specifically, the best
case C04 (SPe = 561 kWh/m2/y) was 36.5% higher than that of the worst
case A04 (SPe = 411 kWh/m2/y) regarding total envelope solar potential,
and if considering only the qualified surfaces, the performance of the best
case C01 (SPq = 261 kWh/m2/y) was 200% higher than that of the two
worst cases A01 and A04 (SPq = 87 kWh/m2/y). Nevertheless, it shall be
noted that the ranking of the cases and typologies regarding solar potential
for qualified surfaces may vary if alternative, in particular lower, irra-
diance threshold is considered.
Fig. 11 shows that the relatively greater solar potential for the
courtyard and the hybrid typologies as compared to the other typolo-
gies could probably be attributed to their relatively larger roof-to-floor
area ratio and roof-to-envelope area ratio that might have contributed

Fig. 6. The design of an existing public housing precinct.

520
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Fig. 7. The 3D models for both the existing (a) and the proposed (b) urban block designs with roof PV deployed.

Table 5 View Factor on building envelope was the most significant factor re-
Planning and geometric parameters for the current and proposed designs. garding the solar potential on the entire envelope which accounted for
Current Proposed Difference
88% of its variance, and this was followed by GFA-normalized Sky
design design Exposure Factor (R2 = 0.683). Roof-to-floor area ratio (R2 = 0.432),
Open Space Ratio (R2 = 0.427), site coverage (R2 = 0.425), and com-
GFA (residential buildings) [m2] 159,116 159,330 0.1% pacity (R2 = 0.357) also had significant impacts, though to lesser ex-
GFA (multi-storey carparks) [m2] 14,788 14,788
tents. If the consideration is limited to the qualified envelope surfaces
Site Area [m2] 59,852 59,852
Building footprint area [m2] 20,845 19,717 −5.4% (≥1000 kWh/m2/y), roof-to-floor area ratio (R2 = 0.762), site cov-
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.91 2.91 erage (R2 = 0.739), Open Space Ratio (R2 = 0.694) and roof-to-en-
Site coverage [%] 34.8% 32.9% −5.4% velope area ratio (R2 = 0.632) were the most significant factors,
Open space ratio 0.22 0.23 2.8%
whereas GFA-normalized SVF (R2 = 0.369) and area-weighted average
Avg area-to-perimeter ratio [m] 5.15 4.87 −5.4%
Compacity [m−1] 17.67 18.76 6.2% envelope SVF (R2 = 0.238) had the least effects. It should be noted that
Total roof area [m2] 15,911 18,838 18.2% the effects of site coverage and roof-to-floor area ratio on both perfor-
Total PV area [m2] 11,394 15,357 34.8% mance indicators are very similar, because they are mathematically
PV roof coverage [%] 71.6% 81.5% 13.8% proportional to each other due to the plot ratio being fixed in this study.
Roof-to-floor area ratio 0.10 0.12 18.2%
Roof-to-envelope area ratio 0.15 0.16 11.4%
Area-weighted avg. envelope 0.96 0.87 −9.1% 3.2. Building energy use before and after PV deployment
SkyEF
Area-weighted avg. envelope SVF 0.94 0.88 −5.7% 3.2.1. Total building cooling loads
Fig. 13 shows the GFA-normalized annual total building cooling
loads, i.e. the amount of heat energy to be removed from all air-con-
to their higher proportion of unobstructed horizontal surfaces and,
ditioned thermal zones through HVAC system per unit floor area, before
consequently, larger ratio of qualified envelope surface with no less
and after the PV deployment for the 30 cases. The difference between
than 1000 kWh/m2 cumulative irradiance annually.
each pair of cases ranged from 1% to 20% for both scenarios. The ab-
Fig. 12 depicts the scatter plots between the planning and geometric
solute amount and the rate of reduction in building cooling loads per
parameters and the two solar energy harvesting potential performance
unit floor area due to the shading effect of the PV panels varied sig-
indicators. Based on linear regression analysis, the GFA-normalized Sky
nificantly across the six typologies and the 30 cases (Fig. 14). The

Table 6
Visualization of annual cumulative insolation on building envelope surfaces.

521
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Fig. 8. Box plot of the annual cumulative insolation on building envelope surfaces by typology and case.

Table 7 Space Ratio are likely to benefit more from the shading provided by PV
Games-Howell post hoc test for Welch ANOVA on the difference in mean ir- deployed on their rooftops to achieve greater rate of reduction in
radiance between typologies. building cooling loads.
(I) Typology (J) Typology Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig.
3.2.2. Electricity generated from PV panels
*
Tower Slab 19.1 1.67 0.000 GFA-normalized electricity generated from roof PV and the rate of
Courtyard −45.2* 1.60 0.000
Hybrid −71.4* 1.56 0.000
reduction in GFA normalized net purchased electricity for the six urban
Center 5.0* 1.60 0.024 block typologies are shown in Fig. 16. The courtyard (20.4 kWh/m2/y)
Perimeter −0.5 1.44 0.999 and hybrid (17.5 kWh/m2/y) typologies outperformed the other typolo-
Slab Tower −19.1* 1.67 0.000 gies, followed by the centre (15.2 kWh/m2/y), perimeter (10.8 kWh/m2/
Courtyard −64.3* 1.61 0.000 y), slab (9.3 kWh/m2/y) and tower (8.7 kWh/m2/y) typologies. Case C01
Hybrid −90.6* 1.57 0.000 among the courtyard typology had the highest PV electricity output per
Center −14.2* 1.61 0.000
unit floor area with 24.7 kWh/m2/y which was more than 200% higher
Perimeter −19.7* 1.45 0.000
than that of the worst cases A02 and A03 (8 kWh/m2/y) of the tower
Courtyard Tower 45.2* 1.60 0.000 typology. Since the settings for lighting and equipment loads for all the
Slab 64.3* 1.61 0.000
Hybrid −26.3* 1.50 0.000
thermal zones were fixed in this study, the electricity demands per unit
Center 50.1* 1.54 0.000 floor area was the same across all the 30 cases. Consequently, the rate of
Perimeter 44.7* 1.38 0.000 reduction in GFA-normalized net purchased electricity after the PV de-
Hybrid Tower 71.4* 1.56 0.000 ployment showed similar trend as that for GFA-normalized electricity
Slab 90.6* 1.57 0.000 generated from PV. This means that, assuming the electricity generated
Courtyard 26.3* 1.50 0.000 by PV panels is used to offset the electricity demands on-site, the cases in
Center 76.4* 1.50 0.000
the courtyard and hybrid typologies on average can achieve higher rate
Perimeter 70.9* 1.33 0.000
of reduction in electricity to be purchased from the power grid than the
Center Tower −5.0* 1.60 0.024 cases in the center, perimeter, slab and tower typology groups. ANOVA
Slab 14.2* 1.61 0.000
Courtyard −50.1* 1.54 0.000
test further confirmed that the courtyard and hybrid typologies had
Hybrid −76.4* 1.50 0.000 significantly higher PV electricity production and greater rate of reduc-
Perimeter −5.5* 1.38 0.001 tion in purchased electricity than the tower and slab typologies.
Perimeter Tower 0.5 1.44 0.999 Fig. 17 shows the scatter plot and linear regress analysis results
Slab 19.7* 1.45 0.000 between the planning and geometric parameters and the GFA-normal-
Courtyard −44.7* 1.38 0.000 ized electricity generated from the PV panels deployed on the rooftops
Hybrid −70.9* 1.33 0.000
of the 30 cases. Roof-to-floor area ratio, site coverage, Open Space Ratio
Center 5.5* 1.38 0.001
and roof-to-envelope area ratio were the most significant factors which
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. account for more than 80% of the variation in PV electricity production
per unit floor area. Area-weighted average SVF and GFA-normalized
results of ANOVA test indicate that the reductions in cooling loads for SVF had relatively smaller effects in this regard, and area-weighted
the hybrid, courtyard and center typologies were significantly greater average SkyEF has the least impact. The results suggest that electricity
than the perimeter, slab and tower blocks regarding the mean values. generated from PV panels on horizontal roof surfaces per unit floor area
There was a 12-fold difference in terms of the magnitude of reduction of urban blocks in the tropical context is highly dependent on their
between the highest case C04 (8 kWh/m2/y) and the lowest case A03 geometric characteristics in terms of the ratio of roof area, and to a
(0.6 kWh/m2/y). Case D02 (4.0%) had the highest rate of reduction in lesser extent, Sky View Factor and level of obstruction on building
cooling loads which was more than 12 times that of the lowest case A03 surfaces. The same observations can be made for the rate of reduction in
(0.32%). On average, the hybrid (3.1%) and the courtyard (2.7%) GFA-normalized net purchased electricity.
typologies still had the largest rates of reduction in cooling loads after
the PV deployment on their rooftops. 3.2.3. Total building net energy use
The results of regression analysis between the planning and geo- Table 10 summarizes the key outcomes on the total and intensity of
metric parameters and cooling loads reduction rate for the 30 cases, as net energy use as calculated for the 30 cases before and after PV panels
shown in Fig. 15, indicate that site coverage, Open Space Ratio and were deployed on their roofs. The difference between the 30 cases
roof-to-floor area ratio were the most significant factors, each ac- before the PV deployment was relatively small. However, with the PV
counting for slightly more than 86% of the variance in the rate of re- panels installed, the courtyard and hybrid typologies on average
duction in cooling loads, followed by the roof-to-envelope area ratio achieved greater amount of reduction in net energy use as compared to
(80.7%). This suggests that in terms of urban block design under the the center, perimeter, slab and tower typologies. Translated pro-
same planning conditions the typologies with relatively higher site portionally to equivalent reduction in utility cost for electricity and CO2
coverage, roof-to-floor or roof-to-envelope area ratios, and lower Open emission as estimated based on Singapore’s average electricity tariff

522
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Table 8
Percentage of building envelope surfaces meeting different annual cumulative irradiance thresholds by typology and case.
Annual cumulative irradiance threshold [kWh/m2/y]

Typology Case ≥ 100 ≥ 200 ≥ 300 ≥ 400 ≥ 500 ≥ 600 ≥ 700 ≥ 800 ≥ 900 ≥ 1000 ≥ 1100 ≥ 1200 ≥ 1300 ≥ 1400 ≥ 1500 ≥ 1600

Tower A01 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.5% 68.0% 33.4% 15.9% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7% 7.7%
A02 100.0% 99.9% 92.7% 66.3% 41.9% 22.0% 12.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4%
A03 100.0% 95.9% 82.6% 63.5% 41.1% 22.5% 12.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4%
A04 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 94.1% 63.9% 32.9% 16.0% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1% 8.1%
Overall 100.0% 98.8% 93.3% 78.1% 52.7% 27.3% 14.1% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 8.2%

Slab B01 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 79.3% 48.0% 22.8% 14.9% 11.0% 10.5% 10.5% 10.2% 10.1% 9.8% 9.7% 9.4% 8.4%
B02 100.0% 100.0% 96.3% 71.9% 43.7% 18.8% 10.6% 7.3% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.3% 5.7%
B03 100.0% 100.0% 98.0% 74.3% 44.4% 18.4% 10.3% 7.3% 6.9% 6.9% 6.8% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.3% 5.7%
Overall 100.0% 100.0% 98.0% 75.0% 45.3% 19.9% 11.8% 8.4% 8.0% 8.0% 7.8% 7.7% 7.6% 7.5% 7.2% 6.6%

Courtyard C01 100.0% 97.6% 81.3% 68.5% 58.0% 40.2% 26.6% 21.2% 20.8% 20.8% 20.5% 20.4% 20.3% 20.1% 19.9% 18.9%
C02 100.0% 97.3% 86.2% 72.2% 54.7% 30.9% 21.5% 18.4% 17.8% 17.1% 16.3% 15.3% 13.4% 12.6% 12.5% 12.5%
C03 100.0% 97.2% 82.0% 67.6% 51.3% 31.3% 20.7% 14.2% 12.8% 11.9% 11.6% 11.4% 11.4% 11.4% 11.4% 11.4%
C04 100.0% 99.3% 88.6% 74.8% 53.4% 30.9% 20.8% 16.1% 15.5% 14.5% 12.6% 9.3% 6.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7%
C05 100.0% 94.6% 84.3% 66.2% 45.6% 24.5% 15.6% 11.1% 10.5% 10.0% 9.3% 8.5% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4%
C06 100.0% 98.4% 86.9% 71.7% 57.7% 38.6% 27.0% 18.3% 18.1% 18.1% 17.8% 17.7% 17.5% 17.4% 17.1% 16.1%
Overall 100.0% 97.4% 84.9% 70.1% 53.1% 32.3% 21.7% 16.3% 15.6% 15.1% 14.4% 13.4% 12.6% 12.2% 12.1% 11.8%

Hybrid D01 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 86.6% 58.8% 37.7% 26.0% 23.5% 20.2% 16.3% 13.0% 8.8% 8.4% 8.4% 8.4%
D02 100.0% 100.0% 99.4% 89.4% 68.0% 42.3% 26.7% 19.7% 18.3% 16.7% 13.7% 11.3% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
D03 100.0% 100.0% 98.3% 79.0% 54.0% 29.3% 17.4% 12.1% 11.0% 9.8% 8.9% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6%
D04 99.8% 96.7% 92.7% 86.3% 72.4% 46.9% 28.3% 19.0% 17.9% 16.7% 15.4% 13.6% 11.9% 10.7% 8.1% 7.8%
D05 100.0% 96.4% 80.8% 67.1% 46.1% 26.1% 15.5% 10.0% 9.3% 9.0% 7.8% 6.9% 5.9% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5%
D06 100.0% 99.7% 92.3% 80.1% 67.1% 46.3% 29.1% 20.3% 19.7% 19.1% 18.3% 16.7% 15.4% 13.8% 12.1% 7.6%
Overall 100.0% 98.6% 93.0% 81.9% 63.9% 40.2% 24.8% 17.1% 16.0% 14.7% 13.0% 11.3% 9.9% 9.3% 8.6% 7.8%

Center S01 99.9% 98.1% 91.2% 78.1% 66.4% 39.9% 21.6% 14.9% 14.8% 14.4% 14.0% 13.4% 12.9% 11.9% 7.3% 3.7%
S02 100.0% 96.4% 82.7% 71.0% 59.5% 36.7% 20.2% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0% 13.5% 11.4% 5.6% 3.5%
S03 99.2% 80.9% 66.5% 57.9% 49.1% 30.0% 17.7% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 11.1% 9.4% 6.4% 2.9% 2.9%
S04 99.9% 94.5% 79.2% 67.6% 56.9% 33.2% 17.7% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 12.1% 8.8% 3.4% 3.3%
S05 98.5% 84.2% 68.9% 60.2% 52.2% 32.4% 18.6% 13.2% 12.7% 12.0% 11.5% 10.9% 10.0% 8.1% 5.0% 3.0%
Overall 99.5% 90.2% 76.9% 66.3% 56.3% 34.1% 19.1% 13.1% 13.0% 12.8% 12.6% 12.3% 11.5% 9.1% 4.7% 3.3%

Perimeter T01 100.0% 100.0% 95.6% 82.0% 52.5% 26.6% 14.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0%
T02 100.0% 100.0% 96.7% 83.2% 55.8% 28.1% 15.5% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9%
T03 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 89.8% 57.2% 23.2% 12.7% 9.7% 9.5% 9.2% 8.8% 8.1% 6.9% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
T04 100.0% 100.0% 97.5% 83.5% 53.5% 20.4% 10.6% 7.7% 7.5% 7.3% 7.1% 6.7% 6.0% 5.0% 4.7% 4.7%
T05 100.0% 100.0% 93.0% 80.1% 53.1% 26.3% 14.2% 8.8% 8.7% 8.6% 8.4% 8.1% 7.4% 4.1% 3.2% 3.2%
T06 100.0% 96.0% 84.4% 74.3% 57.3% 29.6% 16.4% 10.6% 10.3% 10.1% 9.7% 9.2% 7.7% 4.7% 3.1% 3.1%
Overall 100.0% 99.3% 94.3% 82.0% 54.9% 25.7% 13.9% 9.1% 9.0% 8.9% 8.6% 8.3% 7.6% 6.0% 5.5% 5.5%

Fig. 9. Percentage of building envelope surfaces meeting a given annual cumulative irradiance threshold by urban block typology.

rate1 of 0.2 S$/kWh and Singapore’s Grid Emission Factor of 0.4244 kg
CO2/kWh [3], the relatively stronger economic and environmental
implications for the these two typologies in reduction in building en-
ergy use as a result of PV deployment are also quite evident. On
1
Retrieved from https://www.ema.gov.sg/Residential_Electricity_Tariffs.
aspx.
average, with PV deployed the courtyard, hybrid and center typologies
can reduce more than S$90 K in utility cost and 200 tons of CO2 on
precinct scale which is significantly higher than that for the other three
typologies.
A similar trend was observed regarding net energy use intensity (nEUI).
As shown in Fig. 18, after the PV deployment the average nEUI for the
courtyard and hybrid typologies dropped to the lowest level as compared to
that for the center, perimeter, tower and slab typologies. The nEUI of the

523
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Fig. 10. The two performance indicators of solar energy harvesting potential as calculated for the 30 cases and grouped by urban block typology.

Table 9
Games-Howell post hoc test for Welch ANOVA on the difference in mean solar potential between typologies.
GFA normalized solar radiation received on the entire envelope [kWh/m2/y] GFA normalized solar radiation received on the qualified envelope [kWh/m2/y]

(I) Typology (J) Typology Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig. (I) Typology (J) Typology Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig.

*
Tower Slab −49.0 8.61 0.016 Tower Slab −8.2 12.46 0.978
Courtyard −117.1* 10.63 0.000 Courtyard −104.4* 17.94 0.007
Hybrid −56.0* 14.41 0.041 Hybrid −58.9* 14.91 0.041
Center −51.1* 8.92 0.009 Center −55.2* 6.81 0.015
Perimeter −56.2* 9.53 0.005 Perimeter −14.8 8.31 0.536

Slab Tower 49.0* 8.61 0.016 Slab Tower 8.2 12.46 0.978
Courtyard −68.1* 9.49 0.002 Courtyard −96.2* 19.67 0.014
Hybrid −7.0 13.59 0.994 Hybrid −50.7 16.96 0.137
Center −2.1 7.52 1.000 Center −47.0 10.57 0.155
Perimeter −7.2 8.24 0.942 Perimeter −6.6 11.59 0.986

Courtyard Tower 117.1* 10.63 0.000 Courtyard Tower 104.4* 17.94 0.007
Slab 68.1* 9.49 0.002 Slab 96.2* 19.67 0.014
Hybrid 61.1* 14.95 0.026 Hybrid 45.5 21.31 0.345
Center 66.0* 9.77 0.001 Center 49.2 16.68 0.174
Perimeter 61.0* 10.33 0.002 Perimeter 89.6* 17.34 0.016

Hybrid Tower 56.0* 14.41 0.041 Hybrid Tower 58.9* 14.91 0.041
Slab 7.0 13.59 0.994 Slab 50.7 16.96 0.137
Courtyard −61.1* 14.95 0.026 Courtyard −45.5 21.31 0.345
Center 4.9 13.79 0.999 Center 3.7 13.37 1.000
Perimeter −0.2 14.19 1.000 Perimeter 44.1 14.19 0.125

Center Tower 51.1* 8.92 0.009 Center Tower 55.* 6.81 0.015
Slab 2.1 7.52 1.000 Slab 47.0 10.57 0.155
Courtyard −66.0* 9.77 0.001 Courtyard −49.2 16.68 0.174
Hybrid −4.9 13.79 0.999 Hybrid −3.7 13.37 1.000
Perimeter −5.0 8.56 0.989 Perimeter 40.4* 5.06 0.002

Perimeter Tower 56.2* 9.53 0.005 Perimeter Tower 14.8 8.31 0.536
Slab 7.2 8.24 0.942 Slab 6.6 11.59 0.986
Courtyard −61.0* 10.33 0.002 Courtyard −89.6* 17.34 0.016
Hybrid 0.2 14.19 1.000 Hybrid −44.1 14.19 0.125
Center 5.0 8.56 0.989 Center −40.4* 5.06 0.002

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

lowest case C01 (74 kWh/m2/y) was 23% lower than that of the highest
case B03 (96 kWh/m2/y). On the other hand, in terms of the rate of re-
duction in nEUI, the courtyard and hybrid typologies on average also per-
formed better than the other four typologies. The highest reduction rate was
achieved by case C01 (25.4%) which was more than three times that of the
case A02 and A03 (8%) with the lowest reduction rate. ANOVA test also
confirmed that the courtyard typology had significantly lower mean nEUI
than tower and slab typologies, and both the mean rates of reduction in
nEUI after PV deployment for both the courtyard and hybrid typologies
were significantly greater than the tower and slab typologies. The results
suggest that, under the same planning conditions, courtyard and hybrid
urban block typologies are significantly more advantageous in terms of
benefiting from PV deployment on rooftop than the commonly
implemented slab and tower typologies. They can achieve not only greater
amount of PV electricity production but also higher rates of reduction in
nEUI with PV deployed, and consequently, lower nEUI level.
Fig. 19 shows the relationship between nEUI and the planning and
geometric variables and several predictors regarding irradiance level
normalized by envelope surface area or floor area. Without considering PV
deployment, average area-to-perimeter ratio, irradiance normalized by the
entire envelope surface area, roof-to-envelope area ratio, compacity,
qualified envelope surface ratio, area-weighted average envelope SVF
were the strongest predictors, each accounting for more than 50% of the
variance in nEUI. Area-weighted average envelope SkyEF, roof-to-floor
area ratio, site coverage, GFA normalized solar radiation receivable on
qualified envelope surfaces and Open Space Ratio had less effect on nEUI.

524
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Fig. 11. Roof-to-floor area ratio, roof-to-envelope area ratio and the ratio of qualified envelope surface area as calculated for the 30 cases.

Fig. 12. Scatter plots and results of the linear regression analysis for the planning and geometric parameters and the two solar energy harvesting potential per-
formance indicators (*Regression is significant at the 0.01 level).

525
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Fig. 13. GFA-normalized annual total building cooling loads before and after the PV deployment.

Fig. 14. Amount and rate of reduction in building cooling loads after PV deployment.

Taking into account of the dual benefits of shading and electricity
production, roof PV deployment led to the drop of nEUI for all 30 cases,
though to various extents. Under such condition, the most significant
predictors of nEUI in descending order changed to qualified envelope
surface ratio, roof-to-envelope surface area ratio, GFA normalized solar
radiation on qualified envelope surfaces, roof-to-floor area ratio and
site coverage, each associated with more than 80% of the variation in
nEUI. This was followed by Open Space Ratio and irradiance normal-
ized for entire envelope surface which were associated with 75.5% and
63.5% variance in nEUI, respectively. Area-weighted average envelope
SVF and SkyEF and area-to-perimeter ratio had the least impacts.
It shall be noted that the nEUI shown in Table 10 for the generic
urban block typologies are higher than the actual energy use intensity
of a typical public housing flat in Singapore because the conditions for
building energy modelling in this study assumed the worst case sce-
nario for energy consumption without considering naturally ventilation
and use of fans. As a reference, the average monthly household elec-
tricity consumptions of 3-room (65 m2), 4-room (90 m2) and 5-room
(110 m2) public housing units are 275.8 kWh, 372.9 kWh and 453.9
kWh, respectively, which indicate an electricity use intensity of about
50 kWh/m2/y [41,42].
3.3. Demonstration of the impact of alternative urban block typology
Fig. 20 illustrates the annual cumulative irradiance level of the PV
deployment area on the rooftops of the residential precinct in Tempines

Fig. 15. Significant planning and geometric parameters for rate of reduction in total building cooling loads (*Regression is significant at the 0.01 level).

526
J. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 16. GFA normalized PV electricity generation and rate of reduction in net purchased electricity for the 30 cases grouped by typology.
for both the current design and the proposed hybrid urban block ty-
pology as a design alternative under the same planning conditions.
The building energy use and PV electricity generation performance
indicators for both the current and the proposed designs before and after
the PV deployment are shown in Table 11. Assuming that there is no PV
installed on the rooftops, the proposed design outperformed the current
design with 4.6% lower cooling loads intensity, largely due to the reduc-
tion in solar heat gains through less glazing surfaces (−15.2%). The
shading effect of the PV panels as indicated by the drop in building cooling
loads after the PV deployment was slightly higher for the proposed design
(−3.1%) than that for the current design (−3%). This resulted in 2%
lower annual net energy use intensity for the entire precinct.
Considering PV deployment on the entire rooftops under the same
design conditions, the performances of both designs improved to various
extents, with the proposed design showing more benefits. The building
cooling load intensity of the proposed hybrid urban block design was
4.7% lower than that of the current linear slab building typology, which
can be attributed to the combined effects of the reduction in solar heat
gains through glazing surfaces (13.2%) and the increased shading as
provided by larger surface areas of the PV panels due to the difference in
building form. On the other hand, the GFA-normalized electricity gen-
erated from PV panels for the hybrid design was 24.8% higher, which
amounts to 11.3% lower GFA-normalized net purchased electricity to
meet the energy demands for lighting and equipment. Combining the
reduction in both building cooling loads and plug loads, the proposed
design had 7.8% lower net energy use intensity (nEUI) than the current
design. This resulted in 11.6% and 11.3% lower GFA-normalized annual
total utility cost and CO2 emission, respectively, suggesting significant
economic and environmental advantages of the proposed hybrid ty-
pology with rooftop PV panels for the entire precinct.
As compared to the existing linear urban block design, the relatively
better performances for the proposed hybrid typology in terms of solar
energy harvesting efficiency and total building energy use intensity could
be primarily attributed to its significant increase in PV roof coverage, roof-
to-floor area ratio, and roof-to-envelope area ratio as shown previously in
Fig. 17. Significant planning and geometric parameters for GFA-normalized roof PV electricity generation (*Regression is significant at the 0.01 level).
527
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
Table 5. The prominent impacts of these parameters as shown in Fig. 17
may have overwhelmed that of the other design factors, such as site
coverage, area-to-perimeter ratio, average envelope Sky Exposure Factor
and Sky View Factor and Open Space Ratio, whose changes in this case
seem to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, as compared to the current pre-
cinct design without roof PV, the proposed hybrid urban block typology
with roof PV deployed reduced the nEUI by 25.2%, demonstrating the
significant and combined impacts of urban design strategy and renewable
energy application on building energy use efficiency on urban scale.
4. Discussion
4.1. Impact of urban block typology on solar energy harvesting potential
The results of the study on 30 generic urban block cases that capture
a wide range of building design variations suggest that solar energy
harvesting potential varies significantly across the six generic urban
block typologies, considering either the entire building envelope sur-
faces or the qualified surfaces meeting the minimum annual cumulative
irradiance threshold. Under the fixed plot ratio of 3.0, the courtyard
typology composed of medium-rise linear buildings surrounding en-
closed courtyards and the hybrid typology composed of a mixture of
alternating high-rise towers and medium-rise podiums have con-
sistently greater solar potential than the commonly used evenly spaced
standalone tower buildings and parallel linear slab blocks. More spe-
cifically, the performance for case C01 is two times higher than that of
cases A01 and A04, considering only the qualified surfaces.
Although the deployment of solar PV systems in Singapore has been
accelerating since 2008 as shown in Fig. 21 [43], the installed capacity
seems to have plateaued in the last two years, especially in the re-
sidential sector. This could, to some degree, be attributed to the lim-
itation in available and suitable roof areas on the existing buildings to
install PV panels. As shown in Fig. 22, the spaces on the rooftops of the
high-rise residential tower blocks are usually covered by utility ele-
ments such as water tanks, water pipelines and telecommunication
J. Zhang, et al. Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533

Table 10
Building energy use parameters before and after the PV deployment.
Typology Case Annual total building net energy use [kWh/y] Equivalent reduction Equivalent reduction in Annual total building net energy use intensity (nEUI) [kWh/
in utility cost [S$/y] CO2 emission [ton/y] m2/y]

Without PV With PV Reduction Without PV With PV Reduction Reduction [%]

Tower A01 3,087,663 2,800,584 287,079 57,416 122 101.6 92.1 9.4 9.3%
A02 3,037,097 2,794,510 242,588 48,518 103 101.2 93.2 8.1 8.0%
A03 3,026,919 2,784,780 242,139 48,428 103 100.9 92.8 8.1 8.0%
A04 3,081,838 2,794,698 287,140 57,428 122 101.4 91.9 9.4 9.3%
Avg. 3,058,379 2,793,643 264,737 52,947 112 101.3 92.5 8.8 8.7%

Slab B01 3,050,041 2,694,845 355,197 71,039 151 101.7 89.8 11.8 11.6%
B02 3,123,761 2,874,086 249,675 49,935 106 104.1 95.8 8.3 8.0%
B03 3,130,728 2,880,848 249,880 49,976 106 104.4 96 8.3 8.0%
Avg. 3,101,510 2,816,593 284,917 56,983 121 103.4 93.9 9.5 9.2%

Courtyard C01 2,976,730 2,221,326 755,404 151,081 321 99.2 74 25.2 25.4%
C02 3,058,866 2,347,107 711,760 142,352 302 100.6 77.2 23.4 23.3%
C03 3,113,055 2,517,199 595,856 119,171 253 102.4 82.8 19.6 19.1%
C04 3,144,239 2,543,595 600,644 120,129 255 103.4 83.7 19.8 19.1%
C05 3,198,963 2,707,721 491,242 98,248 208 102.5 86.8 15.7 15.4%
C06 2,919,600 2,261,526 658,074 131,615 279 100 77.4 22.5 22.5%
Avg. 3,068,576 2,433,079 635,497 127,099 270 101.4 80.3 21 20.8%

Hybrid D01 2,962,447 2,324,314 638,133 127,627 271 97.4 76.5 21 21.5%
D02 2,966,782 2,405,552 561,229 112,246 238 97.6 79.1 18.5 18.9%
D03 3,067,241 2,672,539 394,701 78,940 168 99.6 86.8 12.8 12.9%
D04 3,015,818 2,417,538 598,279 119,656 254 99.2 79.5 19.7 19.8%
D05 3,200,072 2,792,644 407,427 81,485 173 105.3 91.9 13.4 12.7%
D06 2,953,323 2,248,758 704,565 140,913 299 99.8 76 23.8 23.9%
Avg. 3,027,614 2,476,891 550,722 110,144 234 99.8 81.6 18.2 18.3%

Center S01 3,053,710 2,572,896 480,813 96,163 204 100.5 84.6 15.8 15.7%
S02 3,075,752 2,590,428 485,324 97,065 206 101.2 85.2 16 15.8%
S03 3,123,454 2,660,397 463,057 92,611 197 102.7 87.5 15.2 14.8%
S04 3,099,406 2,626,372 473,034 94,607 201 102 86.4 15.6 15.3%
S05 3,063,389 2,594,744 468,645 93,729 199 102.1 86.5 15.6 15.3%
Avg. 3,083,142 2,608,967 474,175 94,835 201 101.7 86 15.6 15.4%

Perimeter T01 3,113,998 2,806,595 307,403 61,481 130 103.8 93.6 10.2 9.9%
T02 3,185,005 2,796,418 388,587 77,717 165 102.1 89.6 12.5 12.2%
T03 3,133,972 2,782,955 351,017 70,203 149 104.5 92.8 11.7 11.2%
T04 3,175,536 2,891,301 284,235 56,847 121 104.5 95.1 9.3 9.0%
T05 3,187,092 2,868,342 318,751 63,750 135 104.8 94.4 10.5 10.0%
T06 3,127,181 2,751,667 375,514 75,103 159 104.2 91.7 12.5 12.0%
Avg. 3,153,797 2,816,213 337,585 67,517 143 104 92.9 11.1 10.7%

Fig. 18. Net energy use intensity and its rate of reduction after PV deployment for the 30 cases grouped by typology.

facilities, leaving only limited roof spaces to be considered for the in-
stallation of PV panels, not to mention the difficulties in construction
posed by the ventilation insulation layers already installed on the roofs
and the restrictions on safety setback distance from the edges of the
roof. For the example illustrated in Fig. 23, the actual rooftop spaces
potentially suitable for PV deployment as highlighted in the diagram is
less than half of the area of the floor plan. As revealed in an internal
survey the deployed PV panels cover only 21% to 47% of the roof
surface for 35 public housing blocks. The findings of this study further
emphasize the importance and necessity of implementing alternative
building typologies in future urban planning and architectural design of
public housing new towns.
The findings also suggest that Sky View Factor (SVF) and Sky
Exposure Factor (SkyEF) could potentially be adopted as proxy factors

528
J. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 19. Scatter plots of total building net energy use intensity (nEUI) with and without PV deployment against planning and geometric parameters and the results of
linear regression analysis (*regression is significant at 0.01 level).
for preliminary evaluation of solar harvesting potential on whole-
building and neighbourhood scales, if detailed local weather data is not
available. Both geometric variables can be used to quantify the ratio of
visible sky for a building surface within a given urban context, with the
former taking into consideration the relative orientations between a
given surface and the visible sky. Therefore, they can be used to gauge
the level of obstruction for the external surfaces of a group of buildings,
and this is particularly relevant during feasibility studies of the im-
plementation of building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) technology on
vertical surfaces such as external walls, windows and shading surfaces.
In particular, this finding agrees with that reported by Chatzipoulka,
Compagnon, Kaempf and Nikolopoulou [44] who found strong linear
relationship between SVF and global irradiance on façade which is in-
dependent of latitude and location. This implies that SVF as a geometric
parameter which is faster to calculate than full irradiance simulation
Fig. 20. Annual cumulative irradiance as simulated and visualized for PV deployment area on the rooftops of the existing and the proposed designs.
529
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
could be implemented as a reliable and efficient predictor of solar po-
tential in early design stage.
On the other hand, if certain solar irradiance thresholds are to be
met, the parameters such as roof-to-area ratio, site coverage, Open
Space Ratio, and roof-to-envelope area ratio become the prominent
factors to consider as effective predictors for solar energy harvesting
potential for the qualified surfaces only, which is in line with the
findings from previous studies [23]. Understandably, in the context of
the tropical climate, consideration of these factors may favour those
urban block designs with relatively larger proportion of unobstructed
horizontal surfaces under given planning conditions.
These findings are particularly relevant in the planning and design
of high-density cities in which the prominent shading and self-shading
between buildings require a more sophisticated method for solar po-
tential estimation and more specific suggestions on intervention
J. Zhang, et al.
Table 11
GFA-normalized building energy use parameters for the current and proposed designs before and after PV deployment.
Without PV
Current design Proposed design
2
Total building cooling loads per GFA [kWh/m /y] 199.2 190.0
Solar heat gains through glazing surfaces per GFA [kWh/m2/y] 70.8 60.0
Electricity generated from PV panels per GFA [kWh/m2/y] 0 0
Total building net purchased electricity per GFA [kWh/m2/y] 56.4 56.4
Utility cost per GFA [S$/m2/y] 11.3 11.3
Equivalent CO2 emission per GFA [kg/m2/y] 23.9 23.9
Total building net energy use intensity [kWh/m2/y] 100.7 98.6
Fig. 21. Singapore’s installed capacity of grid-connected solar PV systems by
user type.
solutions. The urban block typologies as examined in this study can be
further expanded to include other representative typologies. They can
be used as a database to inform urban planners in the exploration of
new urban forms through comparative study to identify the ones having
higher solar potential which can be further developed into detailed
architectural designs. The significant predictors of solar potential as
identified in this study can be referenced as design factors to inform
architects which geometric characteristics of a given design can be
adjusted to improve its capacity of solar energy harvesting.
4.2. Impact of urban block typology on building energy use efficiency
The dual impacts of the deployment of PV on rooftop of building in
terms of reducing cooling loads and purchased electricity were further
investigated by comparing the building energy use of the thirty generic
urban blocks before and after the PV deployment based on realistic
assumptions and specifications for building energy modelling.
Although the absolute amount and the rate of reduction in cooling
loads after the PV deployment were relatively small, their variations
across the thirty cases are quite large. Relatively speaking, the hybrid
and courtyard typologies benefit from the shading provided by the PV
panels on their rooftops to a far greater extent than the others, espe-
cially the slab and tower typologies. The results of regression analysis
also identified the significant planning and geometric parameters, such
Fig. 22. Rooftop spaces of typical high-rise residential tower blocks. (Photos courtesy: Sunseap, 2017).
530
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
With PV
Difference Current design Proposed design Difference
−4.6% 193.2 184.1 −4.7%
−15.2% 64.0 55.6 −13.2%
17.7 22.0 24.8%
38.7 34.4 −11.3%
7.8 6.9 −11.6%
16.4 14.6 −11.3%
−2.0% 81.7 75.3 −7.8%
as site coverage, Open Space Ratio, roof-to-floor area ratio and roof-to-
envelope area ratio, which can be considered in search of urban block
designs that are more advantageous in reducing cooling loads as a result
of PV installation.
The relatively greater advantages of the courtyard and hybrid
typologies are most evident in terms of their higher amounts of annual
cumulative electricity generated from rooftop PV panels and their
greater rates of reduction in purchased electricity assuming PV elec-
tricity is used on-site to offset the plug loads. The difference between
the worst and the best case is as high as two folds, which amounts to
significant alleviation of reliance on power grid as the primary source of
energy. The results of regression analysis also highlight that the plan-
ning and geometric characteristics of urban block typology may have
significant impacts on the efficiency of solar energy harvesting and
electricity output of rooftop PV deployment.
The combined impact of rooftop PV on reductions in cooling loads
and net purchased electricity is reflected in the decrease of total
building net energy use. After the PV deployment, the courtyard and
the hybrid typologies achieved greater absolute amount and rate of
reduction in whole building net energy use. The potential economic
implication in reduction of utility cost and environmental implication
in equivalent reduction of CO2 emission on the precinct scale are sig-
nificant as shown in the results. These observations were also echoed in
the design demonstration in Section 3.3 regarding the energy perfor-
mance of the hypothetical hybrid urban block as an alternative ty-
pology as compared to that of the existing residential precinct in linear
slab block typology. Based on these findings, it is reasonable to extra-
polate that if urban block typologies with greater solar energy yield are
implemented beyond individual neighbourhoods, the accumulative
economic and environmental impacts on urban scale could be quite
significant, considering the growing role of cities in contributing to
sustainable development in terms of conversion to renewable energy,
reducing energy use intensity and greenhouse gases emission, and
combating climate change [45,46].
On the other hand, the findings also indicate that the relationships
between building energy use efficiency and the planning and geometric
parameters and other irradiance related predictors examined here are
not straight forward but affected by PV deployment. As shown in
Fig. 19 with roof PV integrated in energy modelling, the effects of those
parameters and predictors related to envelope surface meeting irra-
diance threshold become more prominent than those quantifying solar
J. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 23. Building floor plan and panoramic view of the rooftop space of a public housing block. (Source: the Authors).
potential of the entire building envelope surfaces and building geo-
metry characteristics in general. For example, compacity was found to
be a significant predictor of nEUI without PV deployed, and this is
consistent with the findings reported by Zhang, Wong and Hii [47]
regarding building cooling loads in the tropical context and that by
Depecker, Menezo, Virgone and Lepers [48] and Nault, Peronato, Rey
and Andersen [27] regarding heating needs in relatively colder climate.
However, its effect became insignificant when roof PV was considered.
This could probably be attributed to the shading effect of PV panels
which diminished the direct link between heat gains or heat losses
through external building surfaces and exposed surface areas. In this
regard, the authors agree with Nault, Peronato, Rey and Andersen that
the limitations of using simplified geometric parameters in predicting
building performance shall be considered cautiously.
The findings are informative to PV engineers, urban planners and
architectural designers to gauge electricity yield and the combined ef-
fects of PV in reducing building cooling loads and net energy use in-
tensity in relation to different building forms. The urban block typol-
ogies that benefit more from PV deployment shall be considered as
more advantageous to implement in terms of integrating renewable
energy application in urban planning. The significant planning and
geometric predictors for PV yield and energy use intensity reduction as
identified in this study shall be prioritized as main design factors to
inform architects the approaches to enhance the energy performance of
a given design when solar energy harvesting is integrated.
4.3. Limitations and future studies
There are several limitations in this study which shall be addressed
in future investigations. For example, the findings of this study were
based on the analysis of a limited number of urban block typologies and
cases, and they shall be interpreted with caution. Alternative typologies
and more cases shall be collected and examined to further verify the
significant relationships between urban form, solar energy collection
and building energy use as identified in this study. The impact of the
planning and geometric parameters were examined independently in
relation to the performance indicators in this study. In planning and
design practices, these factors may affect each other and vary together
as design strategies change. Therefore, the interactions between them
and their combined effects on solar potential and building energy use
need to be further investigated systematically through parametric study
which varies the key predictor variables progressively and multivariate
methods such as multiple regression and path analysis.
The simulation study was conducted using Singapore’s weather data
as representative of the tropical climate. The building energy models
were created based on simplified, though consistent, assumptions. Future
studies shall examine the generalizability of the findings in other climatic
contexts in which building surfaces in different orientation other than the
horizontal ones might have greater potential in solar energy harvesting.
More refined settings for building energy models shall also be considered
if detailed information on building materials, loads and schedules are
available. Building energy use was investigated in this study by assuming
the worst case scenario for cooling. In order to have a more compre-
hensive and realistic understanding of building energy use efficiency,
future studies could consider integrated performance evaluation which
531
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
addresses other important building performance areas, such as daylight
availability and natural ventilation potential, and the impact of other
green building technologies such as green roof together with PV de-
ployment. Although the relative differences in simulated solar potential
and energy use efficiency between urban block typologies were the focus
here considering the comparative nature of this investigation, future
study shall verify simulated results against measured data on urban block
scale so as to further ascertain the applicability of the findings.
The current study focuses primarily on the examination of solar
potential and PV electricity output based on a fixed set of PV module
specifications. In order to have more accurate estimation of the long-
term energy yield of PV systems, future studies could consider life-cycle
cost-effective analysis that takes into account of more technical and
economic factors related to the PV system. The well-known effect of
ambient temperature on the efficiency of PV panels examined in pre-
vious studies [49,50,51,52,53] was not investigated in this study which
applied a simple PV array mode specification in EnergyPlus that as-
sumes a fixed cell efficiency and constant power level. Considering the
consistent hot and humid weather conditions during daytime in the
tropical region, future studies shall consider PV cell efficiency as a
function of ambient temperature to acquire a more accurate and rea-
listic estimation of the PV electricity production.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents an investigation on the relationship between
urban form, solar energy harvesting potential and building energy use in
the context of tropical high-density cities from an urban block typology
perspective. In total, thirty generic building forms belonging to six re-
presentative urban block typologies were examined through a custo-
mized workflow integrating the functions of 3D modelling, solar radia-
tion and building energy use simulations, data analysis and visualization.
Assisted with these original urban block typologies that have not be
systematically examined before and the new results thus derived in the
tropical climate, this study provides convincing evidences from a theo-
retical point of view that urban form matters to a great extent in terms of
utilization of solar energy and building energy consumption. Depending
on the urban block typology selected, significant improvements in solar
energy harvesting and building energy use efficiency can be achieved
with the deployment of photovoltaic systems on external building sur-
faces, which may have significant economic and environmental im-
plications on urban scale in the long run in terms of equivalent reduction
in energy consumption and CO2 emission.
The results highlight the necessity and importance of exploring in-
novative urban planning and architectural design strategies in the tro-
pical high-density city context aiming for efficient application of re-
newable energy technologies. The significant planning and geometric
parameters related to solar potential and building energy use efficiency
as identified in this study have crucial implications to urban planning
and architectural design practices by serving as references to establish
design guidelines of passive design strategies.
This study also implemented a novel methodology to create
homogenous urban context for building typology based performance
evaluation and comparative study. Particular attention was paid to
control the key planning conditions and the settings for performance
J. Zhang, et al.
evaluation to be consistent across all the cases in order to rule out the
impacts of non-design factors and to ensure that the results are com-
parable across different typologies and the findings are generalizable on
urban scale in renewable energy integrated urban planning practices.
Integrated with other performance evaluations, the methodology
and technical workflow as developed in this study can facilitate reliable
and efficient decision-making, especially in the early stages of in urban
planning and architectural design for preliminary feasibility studies.
They could be applied in other climatic regions and cities for solar
potential assessment and application of photovoltaic technologies to
identify the most effective design solutions suitable for the local con-
text. The findings also provide insights for the general public and de-
cision-makers in city administrations to promote clean energy aware-
ness and implement renewable energy application friendly policies.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support from the
National Research Foundation (NRF) of Singapore from the research
project “Holistic LCOE reduction for distributed solar PV systems in
Singapore” [WBS: R-712-000-065-272] through the Singapore
Economic Development Board (EDB). The project is implemented by
the Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS) in collabora-
tion with Department of Architecture in the School of Design and
Environment (SDE) at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The
authors also wish to thank the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) for
sharing the building footprint data and Dr Eddie Siu-Kit LAU for his
input in the early stage of this study. The authors also want to thank the
reviewers for their invaluable comments.
References
[1] Poponi D, Bryant T, Burnard K, Cazzola P, Dulac J, Pales AF, et al. Energy tech-
nology perspectives: towards sustainable urban energy systems (executive sum-
mary). Paris, France: International Energy Agency; 2016.
[2] Heng CK, Malone-Lee LC, Zhang J. Relationship between density, urban form and
environmental performance. In: Bay JH, Lehmann S, editors. Growing compact:
urban form, density and sustainability. Routledge; 2017.
[3] Energy Markety Authority. Singapore Energy Statistics 2017 Retrieved from
https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Publications/
SES17/Publication_Singapore_Energy_Statistics_2017.pdf; 2017.
[4] Martin L, March L. Urban space and structures. London: Cambridge University
Press; 1972.
[5] Ratti C, Raydan D, Steemers K. Building form and environmental performance:
archetypes, analysis and an arid climate. Energy Build 2003;35:49–59.
[6] Ratti C, Baker N, Steemers K. Energy consumption and urban texture. Energy Build
2005;37(7):762–76.
[7] Zhang J, Heng CK, Malone-Lee LC, Hii DJC, Janssen P, Leung KS, et al. Evaluating
environmental implications of density: a comparative case study on the relationship
between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Autom Constr
2012;22:90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011.
[8] Taleghani M, Tenpierik M, van den Dobbelsteen A, de Dear R. Energy use impact of
and thermal comfort in different urban block types in the Netherlands. Energy Build
2013;67:166–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.08.024.
[9] Rode P, Keim C, Robazza G, Viejo P, Schofield J. Cities and energy: urban mor-
phology and residential heat-energy demand. Environ Plan B: Plan Des
2014;41(1):138–62. https://doi.org/10.1068/b39065.
[10] Vartholomaios A. A parametric sensitivity analysis of the influence of urban form on
domestic energy consumption for heating and cooling in a Mediterranean city.
Sustain Cities Soc 2017;28:135–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.09.006.
[11] Sattrup PA, Strømann-Andersen J. Building typologies in Northern European cities:
daylight, solar access, and building energy use. J Architect Plan Res 2013;30(1).
[12] Beckers B. Solar energy at urban scale. Hoboken, NJ; London: ISTE Ltd.; 2012.
[13] Sanaieian H, Tenpierik M, Linden Kvd, Mehdizadeh Seraj F, Mofidi Shemrani SM.
Review of the impact of urban block form on thermal performance, solar access and
ventilation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:551–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.06.007.
[14] Compagnon R. Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy Build
2004;36(4):321–8.
[15] Perez R, Ineichen P, Seals R, Michalsky J, Stewart R. Modeling daylight availability
and irradiance components from direct and global irradiance. Sol Energy
1990;44:271–89.
[16] Mohajeri N, Upadhyay G, Gudmundsson A, Assouline D, Kämpf J, Scartezzini J-L.
Effects of urban compactness on solar energy potential. Renewable Energy
2016;93:469–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.053.
[17] Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P. Investigation of solar potential of housing units in
532
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
different neighborhood designs. Energy Build 2011;43:2262–73.
[18] Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P. Parametric investigation of geometric form effects
on solar potential of housing units. Sol Energy 2011;85:1864–77.
[19] Hachem C, Athienitis A, Fazio P. Solar optimized residential neighborhoods: eva-
luation and design methodology. Sol Energy 2013;95:42–64.
[20] Martins TAL, Adolphe L, Bastos LEG. From solar constraints to urban design op-
portunities: optimization of built form typologies in a Brazilian tropical city. Energy
Build 2014;76:43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.056.
[21] Martins TAdL, Adolphe L, Bastos LEG, Martins MAdL. Sensitivity analysis of urban
morphology factors regarding solar energy potential of buildings in a Brazilian
tropical context. Sol Energy 2016;137:11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2016.07.053.
[22] Chatzipoulka C, Compagnon R, Nikolopoulou M. Urban geometry and solar avail-
ability on façades and ground of real urban forms: using London as a case study. Sol
Energy 2016;138:53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.09.005.
[23] Cheng V, Steemers K, Montavon M, Compagnon R. Urban form, density and solar
potential. Paper presented at the 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy
Architecture. Geneva, Switzerland; 2006.
[24] Lobaccaro G, Carlucci S, Croce S, Paparella R, Finocchiaro L. Boosting solar ac-
cessibility and potential of urban districts in the Nordic climate: a case study in
Trondheim. Sol Energy 2017;149:347–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.
04.015.
[25] Sarralde JJ, Quinn DJ, Wiesmann D, Steemers K. Solar energy and urban mor-
phology: scenarios for increasing the renewable energy potential of neighbourhoods
in London. Renewable Energy 2015;73:10–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.
2014.06.028.
[26] Zhang J. A study of the relationship between urban form and environmental per-
formance for three urban block typologies of Paris. In: O'Brien L, editor.
Proceedings of the symposium on simulation for architecture and urban design
(SimAUD 2013). San Diego, CA, USA; 2013.
[27] Nault É, Peronato G, Rey E, Andersen M. Review and critical analysis of early-
design phase evaluation metrics for the solar potential of neighborhood designs.
Build Environ 2015;92:679–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.05.012.
[28] Berghauser Pont M, Haupt P. The spacemate – density and the typomorphology of
the urban fabric. Nordic J Architect Res 2005;4:55–68.
[29] Building Performance Research Unit, Markus TA. Building performance; Building
Performance Research Unit, School of Architecture, University of Strathclyde.
London: Applied Science Publishers; 1972.
[30] Adolphe L. A simplified model of urban morphology: application to an analysis of
the environmental performance of cities. Environ Plan B: Plan Design
2001;28(2):183–200.
[31] Brown MJ, Grimmond S, Ratti C. Comparison of methodologies for computing sky
view factor in urban environments. Paper presented at the international symposium
on environmental hydraulics, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA. 2001.
[32] Johnson GT, Watson ID. The determination of view-factors in urban canyons. J Am
Meteorol Soc 1984;23:329–35.
[33] Oke TR. Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale
model and field observations. J Climatol 1981;1(3):237–54.
[34] Watson ID, Johnson GT. Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban en-
vironments. Int J Climatol 1987;7(2):193–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.
3370070210.
[35] Larson GW, Shakespeare R. Rendering with radiance: the art and science of lighting
visualization. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann; 1998.
[36] EnergyPlus Development Team. EnergyPlus engineering reference: The reference to
EnergyPlus calculations. EnergyPlus Version 8.8. US Department of Energy; 2017.
[37] Singapore Civil Defence Force. Code of Practice for Fire Precautions in Buildings;
2018.
[38] McNeel R. Grasshopper: algorithmic modeling for Rhino Retrieved from https://
www.grasshopper3d.com/; 2018.
[39] Roudsari MS, Mackey C. Ladybug tools; 2018. Retrieved from https://www.
ladybug.tools/.
[40] EnergyPlus Development Team. Weather Data for EnergyPlus Retrieved from
https://energyplus.net/weather; 2018.
[41] Energy Markety Authority. Singapore Energy Statistics 2018 Retrieved from
https://www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Publications/
SES18/Publication_Singapore_Energy_Statistics_2018.pdf; 2018.
[42] Housing & Development Board. Home is where the heart is – HDB annual REPORT
2017/2018: key statistics Retrieved from http://www10.hdb.gov.sg/ebook/
AR2018/key-statistics.html; 2018.
[43] Energy Markety Authority. Singapore Energy Statistics: Installed Capacity of Grid-
Connected Solar Photovoltaic (PV) systems by User Type Retrieved from https://
www.ema.gov.sg/cmsmedia/Publications_and_Statistics/Statistics/47RSU.pdf;
2017.
[44] Chatzipoulka C, Compagnon R, Kaempf J, Nikolopoulou M. Sky view factor as
predictor of solar availability on building façades. Sol Energy 2018;170:1026–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.028.
[45] AGECC. Energy for a sustainable future Retrieved from http://www.un.org/
millenniumgoals/pdf/AGECCsummaryreport[1].pdf; 2010.
[46] Masson V, Marchadier C, Adolphe L, Aguejdad R, Avner P, Bonhomme M, et al.
Adapting cities to climate change: a systemic modelling approach. Urban Clim
2014;10:407–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.03.004.
[47] Zhang J, Wong NH, Hii DJC. The Relationship between Building Form Typology
and Cooling Loads in the Tropical Climatic Context. Paper presented at the Passive
and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA), Bologna, Italy; 2015.
[48] Depecker P, Menezo C, Virgone J, Lepers S. Design of buildings shape and energetic
consumption. Build Environ 2001;36(5):627–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-
J. Zhang, et al.
1323(00)00044-5.
[49] Cuce E, Cuce PM, Bali T. An experimental analysis of illumination intensity and
temperature dependency of photovoltaic cell parameters. Appl Energy
2013;111:374–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.05.025.
[50] Dubey S, Sarvaiya JN, Seshadri B. Temperature dependent Photovoltaic (PV) effi-
ciency and its effect on PV production in the world – a review. Paper presented at
the PV Asia Pacific Conference. 2012.
[51] Gedik E. Experimental investigation of module temperature effect on photovoltaic
533
Applied Energy 240 (2019) 513–533
panels efficiency. J Polytech-Politeknik Dergisi 2016;19(4):569–76. https://doi.
org/10.2339/2016.19.4.569-576.
[52] Heim D. The simultaneous effect of the operating temperature and solar radiation
on the efficiency of photovoltaic panels. Arch Civ Eng 2011;57(3):261–74. https://
doi.org/10.2478/v.10169-011-0019-z.
[53] Skoplaki E, Palyvos JA. On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module
electrical performance: a review of efficiency/power correlations. Sol Energy
2009;83(5):614–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.10.008.