Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Early stage design for an institutional net zero energy archetype building.
Part 1: Methodology, form and sensitivity analysis
Samson Yip *, Andreas K. Athienitis, Bruno Lee
Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper is the first of two that examine the influence of building form, including courtyards, on the energy
Net-zero energy building performance of medium-sized institutional solar net zero energy buildings incorporating building-integrated
Building form photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) roof systems. The inclusion of BIPV/T at the early design stage along with
Building-integrated photovoltaic and thermal
passive design techniques extends to energy flexibility considerations with a smart grid. A two storey 3 000 m2
(BIPV/T)
Windows
medium-sized archetype building was considered. Through simulations, different building plan shapes and BIPV/
Sensitivity analysis T roof tilt angles supported by a range of related building enclosure variables such as insulation level and
Early stage design window characteristics were analyzed and compared. The design configurations used BIPV/T heat recovery for
winter ventilation air preheating in the Montreal region.
In this first paper, the methodology is presented. Then, using annual net energy use intensity as the target, a
global sensitivity analysis was performed to rank and quantify the most sensitive design variables at different
BIPV/T roof slopes. Out of the nine input variables analyzed, the most influential by rank were the orientation,
the window to wall ratio for the south and north façades, and the plan shape, for roof tilt angles of 35◦ , 40◦ , and
45◦ . For a roof tilt angle of 30◦ , the window to wall ratio of the south façade was the most influential, switching
rank with the orientation. Although not an input variable to the sensitivity analysis, this indicates as well the
influence of the BIPV/T roof tilt angle. Also, there was a significant interaction effect between the plan shape and
orientation, highlighting the utility of analyzing interaction effects at the early design stage and the importance
of these two factors in solar-enhanced buildings. At the other end of the spectrum, the window type, the wall and
roof insulation level, and the window to wall ratios for the east and west facades were the least significant – at
least approximately one order of magnitude less sensitive than the first ranked input.
In the second paper, the methodology is applied in a case study for early stage design in which relative
comparisons are made considering building form, net-zero energy, and extended to the grid considering load
matching and energy flexibility.

A common RET used in NZEBs is photovoltaic (PV) technology

1. Introduction
1.1. Solar net-zero energy buildings
Renewable energy technologies (RETs) are being increasingly
adopted in the building sector as potential solutions to address the ur­
gent need for energy use reduction. They provide the energy-generating
component in net zero energy buildings (NZEBs). Although there are
different definitions and calculation methods (Marszal et al., 2011;
Peterson et al., 2015), the strictest definition of an NZEB is a building
that generates at least as much energy on-site from renewable energy
sources as it consumes in a year (Torcellini et al., 2006).
(Athienitis and O’Brien, 2015). PV modules are often mounted on
building facades and roofs using their own racking structures to form so-
called building applied PV (BAPV). The PV can also be integrated as a
component of the building enclosure; creating building-integrated PV
(BIPV). In a BIPV system, the PV system is an integral part of the building
enclosure and follows the building form and contributes to the essential
enclosure functions of support; access and circulation; finish; and con­
trol of rain, air, vapour, and heat (Straube and Burnett, 2005). An
enhancement of BIPV is the building-integrated PV and thermal (BIPV/
T) system. This system increases the performance of a BIPV system by
using a fluid channel behind the PV modules for heat recovery (Athie­
nitis and O’Brien, 2015; Athienitis et al., 2015). The heat recovery

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: samson.yip@mail.concordia.ca (S. Yip), andreask.athienitis@concordia.ca (A.K. Athienitis), bruno.lee@concordia.ca (B. Lee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.05.091
Received 19 October 2019; Received in revised form 14 March 2021; Accepted 25 May 2021
Available online 19 June 2021
0038-092X/© 2021 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Yip et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

Nomenclature WinID window identification number from LBNL Window

software
Symbols WWR window to wall ratio
ACH air changes per hour
CO Courtyard plan shape Greek symbols
COP coefficient of performance α wing rotation angle for L and U plan shapes [◦ ]
Edel energy delivered to the building site β tilt angle from the horizontal plane [◦ ]
Eexp on-site generated renewable energy exported from the κk collinearity index for kth term
building site πk sensitivity or contribution index for kth term
Elight electrical energy required for electric lighting Ψ azimuth angle, due South is 0; +ve clockwise [◦ ]
Eplug electrical energy required for all plug loads Acronyms
EPV electrical energy generated by the BIPV/T system exported ANOVA analysis of variance
from the building site BAPV building-applied photovoltaic
Esite net annual site energy BIPV building-integrated photovoltaic
Esource net annual source energy BIPV/T building-integrated photovoltaic and thermal
EUI energy use intensity DHW domestic hot water
HDD18 heating degree days below 18 ◦ C FAST Fourier amplitude sensitivity test
L L-shaped plan LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
PEF primary energy factor NECB National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings
Qcool required cooling energy NZE net-zero energy
Qheat required heating energy NZEB net-zero energy building
rdel source energy conversion factor for the delivered OFAT one factor at a time
electricity PV photovoltaic
rexp source energy conversion factor for the exported on-site RES renewable energy system
electricity generated from renewables RET renewable energy technology
RE rectangle plan shape SA sensitivity analysis
U U-shaped plan

assists in keeping PV panels cool, thus increasing their electricity pro­
duction. The heat recovered can then be used in the building for low-
grade processes such as ventilation air preheating (Athienitis et al.,
2011), space conditioning through a heat pump (Kamel and Fung, 2014)
and domestic hot water (DHW) heating (Kazanci et al., 2014).
The high degree of functional integration in BIPV/T allows the po­
tential for envelope systems prefabrication and modularization, leading
to better quality and quality control, construction sequencing, materials
savings, and architectural integration. Due to this inextricable connec­
tion, a BIPV/T system’s electricity generating performance and the
overall energy performance of the building will be influenced by the
building form.
Since building form is an important consideration in the overall
design of a NZEB, it is essential to quantify its influence in attaining net
zero energy (NZE) along with typical ‘semantic’ parameters such as
thermal resistance, and thermal mass among others (Pessenlehner and
Mahdavi, 2003). This is particularly the case for medium-sized com­
mercial and institutional buildings – which account for the largest per­
centage of floor space (33%) and energy use (31%) among all
commercial and institutional building sizes in Canada (Natural Re­
sources Canada, 2012) – where the largest surfaces for BIPV/T inte­
gration are roofs.
1.2. Building form diversity
Martin and March (1972) proposed a set of formal building arche­
types to simplify the analysis of urban building morphology and daylight
access: pavilions, slabs, terraces, terrace-courts, pavilion-courts, and
courts. This work was seminal in introducing archetypes as a method of
building form analysis. Since then, they have been used for solar radi­
ation analyses for shadow density, daylight distribution, sky view, and
maximizing incident solar radiation (Kämpf et al., 2010; Ratti et al.,
2003). Others have used alphabet shapes (like L, and T, among others),
cross, rectangle, and trapezoid plan shapes as the basis for creating a
variety of building forms to study energy consumption through
optimization (Ourghi et al., 2007; Tuhus-Dubrow and Krarti, 2010). In
this archetypal approach, simple displacement of vertices, or scaling of
edges, wings, or aspect ratios (Tuhus-Dubrow and Krarti, 2010) creates
new forms. Further form variations have included wing rotations of the
alphabet plan shapes in a parametric study of solar potential (Hachem
et al., 2011).
Different approaches concentrate on a singular base rectangle plan
shape or, by extrusion, the cuboid form and parameterize aspect ratios to
create variations. Hemsath and Alagheband Bandhosseini (2015) used
this method to optimize form based on energy consumption. Multiple
rectangle units were added and subtracted with different adjacency or
overlapping conditions to create composite forms to optimize passive
design (Konis et al., 2016). A cuboid form’s vertices or surfaces were
parameterized and manipulated to optimize through genetic algorithm
the building form for minimum energy consumption (Yi and Malkawi,
2009; Youssef et al., 2016). However, this strategy does not provide a
large enough cross-section of possible building form.
Parametric scripting refers to the generation of building form
through computer scripting while maintaining dynamic links between
parameters (Nembrini et al., 2014). This can be simple as in most of the
previous examples, but can become complex in investigations grouped
around free-form buildings where the objective is form finding or form
exploration, like in Yi and Malkawi (2009). Key parameters can repre­
sent elements on various topological levels such as vertices, edges, and
faces. This is often paired with evolutionary algorithms in optimization
studies. Wang et al., (2006) generated polygonal forms through edge
length and angle or bearing representations to study lifecycle cost and
life cycle environmental impact in a genetic algorithm optimization
procedure. Other parameterizations include polygon triangulation and
vertex manipulation (Kämpf and Robinson, 2010) and surface repre­
sentation by Fourier series, Taylor series, snake forms, and squared
forms to optimize or minimize solar irradiation on façade and roof using
an evolutionary algorithm (Caruso and Kämpf, 2015; Kämpf and Rob­
inson, 2010). Non-uniform rational B-splines (NURBS) and control
curves were used to generate the free form of a community center

517
S. Yip et al.
building in a genetic algorithm optimization for solar radiation, shape
coefficient, and space efficiency (Zhang et al., 2016).
Shape grammars can be considered separately as generative design
systems. They use a set of conditional, ‘if-then,’ rules to create building
forms that follow coded compositional principles. They are difficult to
create due to their complexity and the results are idiosyncratic – sty­
listic, like Frank Lloyd Wright’s prairie houses (Granadeiro et al., 2013).
The previous works mentioned don’t fall neatly into the same cate­
gories across: approach to and type of building form; building perfor­
mance objective and methodology; building function and size; and
inclusion of BIPV. Most previous work concentrated on single-family
dwellings with a smattering of high-rise commercial (Ourghi et al.,
2007; Youssef et al., 2016), and medium-sized institutional/office
(Konis et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016). Most analyzed daylighting and/
or energy consumption, but the single-family housing results cannot be
extrapolated to larger institutional buildings due to differences in scale,
occupant density, occupancy schedules, and internal loads, among
others, which will affect building physics differently. BIPV was consid­
ered in the case of small scale domestic architecture (Hachem et al.,
2011; Kämpf and Robinson, 2010) and high rise commercial (Youssef
et al., 2016); neither are applicable to the archetypes of medium-sized
institutional/commercial buildings due to different sizes and roof
placement of BIPV. Finally, only a couple studies featured the courtyard
shape (Konis et al., 2016; Ratti et al., 2003) in spite of its advantages
such as daylight distribution and microclimate (Ratti et al., 2003), of
benefit even in cold climates (Martin and March, 1972). However, those
courtyard studies only focused on passive design. Semantic variables
like U-values, window properties, etc. were studied in parallel with
building form for all of the studies cited, but while the optimization
studies’ objectives were form finding or form optimization, the para­
metric studies looked for broader influential form relationships as design
guidance.
1.3. Sensitivity analysis
The choices of, and constraints to, building form, materials, all the
way to siting and orientation may be the result of factors outside of the
realm of net energy design. Parametric analyses are typically used
(Hachem et al., 2011) to assess the impacts of changing input design
parameter values one at a time. The limitations of such a process become
evident once the number of input design variables becomes large. To
assist in such design support, sensitivity analysis (SA) can be used. SA
relates the variations or uncertainty in a model output due to the vari­
ations or uncertainty in the inputs. Benefits for building design include
model simplification from screening analysis, quantification of sensi­
tivity, and identification of input variable interactions (Hopfe and
Hensen, 2011; Tian, 2013). By using SA as part of an integrated design
process, identifying such variables early on gives the design team the
greatest chance to respond to such information and improve the design.
Research has shown that design changes made early in the design pro­
cess have less adverse time or budget consequences than in later design
stages (Paulson, 1976).
Different SA types are used based on the nature and quantity of the
input parameters, the model, the output required, and the analysis ob­
jectives. The different types used in building energy analysis have been
reviewed by Tian (2013). SA can be grouped into two approaches: local
and global. Local methods – also called differential sensitivity analysis –
are typically focused on the effects of a single parameter on the model
output variation. The analyses often use a one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT)
method in which the impact of the range of values of a single input
parameter is evaluated on the output, with all other parameters held
constant. The local approach can be useful to explore a restrained, local,
input space around a reference case. It is very easy to implement, has
low computational cost, and the results are easy to interpret. However,
the limitations of the local approach include the inability to identify
interactions or correlations between parameters and the inability to
518
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530
determine how much of the total variances of the output have been
accounted for in the analysis.
In global SA methods, the input parameters are all varied together
over the entire range of the input space. The advantages of global SA
methods include the ability to capture the total variations in the output
and the effects of input parameter interactions. However, this comes at
the cost of greatly increased computational time. The most common
global methods used in building energy analysis are based on regression,
screening, and variance. The regression models like standardized
regression coefficients are easy to implement and understand, and fast to
compute, but are unsuitable for non-monotonic models, and depending
on the method, non-linear models (Tian, 2013).
The Morris method is a screening method. It is a qualitative measure
for ranking important input parameters from a large number of input
variables without reducing the output variance. It requires relatively
few simulations per input parameter compared to other SA types; it can
handle non-linear models and correlated inputs; it uses discrete values of
the input parameters instead of probability distributions; it traverses the
entire input space; its output sensitivity indices are easy to interpret and
can show non-linear effects and input correlations (Heiselberg et al.,
2009; Nembrini et al., 2014; Tian, 2013).
The following papers used the Morris method. Nembrini et al.,
(2014) used an integrated dynamic model (Negendahl, 2015) to study
the influence of window to wall ratios (WWRs) and buffer spaces on
comfort frequency of occupants and energy demand for a high-rise
apartment building. However, they did not change the building form.
Hemsath and Alagheband Bandhosseini (2015) analyzed a single zone
residential building using rectangular plan aspect ratio, stacking height,
orientation, WWR and semantic variables such as window U-value and
wall insulation R-value for different cities to target pre-design heating
and cooling energy performance, but did not have a separate WWR for
each façade orientation, nor did they study different plan shapes. Hei­
selberg et al., (2009) investigated 21 input parameters’ influence on
energy use reduction for an office building, however the building form
was not varied. (Garcia Sanchez et al., 2014) investigated 24 design
variables in an apartment building including the length, width, height,
and separate glazing ratios of the facades for influence on yearly heating
loads, among others, but did not study other building forms.
The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) method decomposes the output
variance to account for the contribution of each input factor. It considers
main effects, representing the impact of the uncertainty of the input
factors on the output variance; second order effects, representing the
interaction effects of two input factors on the output variance; and
higher order effects, representing the interaction of higher order
numbers of input factors on the output variance. It is considered a
model-free approach because it can account for complex nonlinear, non-
additive, and non-monotonic models. Mechri et al. (2010) used ANOVA
on an intermediate floor of a rectangular-shaped plan office building and
found that the envelope transparent surface ratio and the compactness
ratio (surface area to volume) were the most influential parameters on
energy performance. The windows were distributed uniformly across all
facades but no other building plan shapes were studied.
Lam et al. (2016) used ANOVA to study the influence of ten design
parameters for a BIPV curtain wall office perimeter zone on annual
energy consumption and annual energy balance – the ratio of annual PV
electricity generation to annual energy consumption. Their findings
showed that WWR, and U-glazing were sensitive for both energy con­
sumption and energy balance, while the infiltration rate was sensitive
for energy consumption and PV efficiency for energy balance.
Chen et al. (2019a, 2015) used a single zone apartment unit with
limited natural ventilation and daylight on an intermediate floor of a
30–40 storey apartment tower to represent a worst-case design scenario.
BIPV was integrated on the one façade on both opaque and fenestration
areas to create a nearly-zero energy building model for a combined SA
and optimization process. The SA used the Morris and the variance-
based Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test (FAST) method on 11 input
S. Yip et al.
variables for the target of net energy demand. For the FAST total order
index and the Morris method with sufficient sampling, building
airtightness was the most influential input variable, followed by window
to floor area ratio, visible transmittance, and light to solar gain (LSG)
ratio. Building orientation was ranked sixth.
Li et al. (2018) also used an integrated SA and optimization approach
to reduce total annual energy consumption and winter thermal
discomfort for subtropical buildings with only cooling systems. Their
case study building had a BIPV-clad roof and a mix of commercial and
residential uses. Of the 29 input factors, 14 were found to be sensitive
across regression, Morris, and FAST SA methods; among them were the
skylight to roof ratio, WWR, and building orientation. Six, including
orientation and WWR, were then chosen for optimization. The building
shape was fixed and there was only one WWR for all facades.
Chen et al. (2019b) incorporated SA as part of an optimization
approach for a 40 storey high-rise office building with BIPV facades.
Using the Morris and variance-based FAST methods with net energy
demand as the target, they found the WWR, visible transmittance (VT),
LSG, and window U-value to be the most significant. Separate SAs with
square, rectangle, H-, U-, T-, and L-shaped plans did not show any dif­
ference in the ranking of the significant inputs. However, the optimi­
zation showed that the different plan shapes significantly influenced the
energy performance. The optimal square shape design had the least net
energy demand reduction at 36.83%, and the optimal H-shape design
had the most at 48.77%, as compared to their respective reference cases.
Using the shape coefficient (SC), the ratio of envelope area to condi­
tioned volume, they concluded that increasing SC increased both HVAC
demand and PV generation. The same WWR variable was used for all the
facades, the roof area was not a significant element in their study, and
plan shape was not a factor in the SA.
The previous SA works have included common early design stage
factors such as component U-values and window properties. Some have
identified non-linear and non-monotonic relationships between the
factors and target such as WWR, orientation, and thermal insulation
(Chen et al., 2019b; Garcia Sanchez et al., 2014), making variance-based
SA approaches suitable for such models. However, only one defined
separate WWR factors for each façade orientation to allow WWR
behaviour to be analyzed by façade (Garcia Sanchez et al., 2014), but
did not include renewables. Only one SA study included a medium-sized
institutional building with roof-integrated BIPV system, but did not
investigate other building plan shapes (Li et al., 2018). Other SA papers
that did have building form variation addressed it as a series of aspect
ratios or proportions of a reference form: directly, in plan and section
through aspect ratios of a single-family dwelling (Hemsath and Ala­
gheband Bandhosseini, 2015); or indirectly, abstracted as envelope area
to volume ratios of an intermediate floor plate of an office building
(Mechri et al., 2010). This does not provide enough of a variety of
building form to generalize results. Finally, only one SA study featured a
variety of plan shapes, but the building type was a high-rise with façade-
integrated BIPV – which poses different geometry design challenges than
medium-sized roof-integrated BIPV – and it was found that plan shape
did not influence the ranking of the significant inputs (Chen et al.,
2019b). However, plan shape was not included as a factor in the SA,
therefore its significance compared to the other factors such as WWR is
not known.
1.4. BIPV/T and integration of systems with building design
There are different ways to utilize the heat recovery from a BIPV/T
air-based system in a cold climate. The simplest is for ventilation air
preheating. Outdoor air is always required for the operation of a
building. During winter this increases the heating load on the ventilation
system when heating outdoor air to required supply temperature. Pre­
heating some or all of this air through the BIPVT/T system can reduce
this load considerably. The BIPV/T outlet air supply quantity can be
controlled proportionally based on the difference between its
519
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530
temperature, the temperature of the outdoor air, and the set point
temperature. This is a highly efficient heat recovery system because
there are no heat exchangers involved. This system was used in the
Varennes Library (Dermardiros et al., 2019) and the John Molson School
of Business at Concordia University (Athienitis et al., 2011).
The BIPV/T outlet air can be used as input to an air source heat pump
in heating mode. The efficiency of a heat pump decreases with
decreasing outdoor temperature. At really low temperatures, this effi­
ciency is further decreased by defrost cycles triggered by freezing
evaporator coils from condensation. When a BIPV/T system is gener­
ating electricity, its warm outlet air can be fed over the evaporator coils
of a heat pump to increase the source air temperature and hence the
efficiency of the heat pump. Kamel and Fung (2014) performed a
simulation study for a roof-integrated BIPV/T system coupled with an
air source heat pump. They found that the combination could lead to
electricity cost savings and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The
BIPV/T outlet air has also been transferred through an air-to-water heat
exchanger to a water-source heat pump coupled with a storage tank for
space heating in an experimental and simulation study (Nejma et al.,
2013) and through an air-to-water heat exchanger directly to a domestic
hot water tank (Chen et al., 2010). Chen et al. (2010) also thermally
connected the BIPV/T system to a ventilated concrete slab for space
heating. Another use of the heat is through an air-to-water heat pump for
DHW and space heating (Delisle and Kummert, 2016).
There are few studies that relate building form diversity to BIPV/T
implementation. Previous studies including passive and active energy
effects, and BIPV/T energy generation have focused on small-scale res­
idential roof applications (Delisle and Kummert, 2016), office or insti­
tutional high-rise BIPV/T façade applications (Athienitis et al., 2011,
2018). In the case of small-scale (Buonomano et al., 2016) and medium-
sized (Dermardiros et al., 2019) institutional BIPV/T roof applications,
net energy use was assessed without building form analysis or variation.
1.5. Research needs
As performance expectations increase for high performance build­
ings such as NZEBs, so does the need for building systems integration
and the need for research at the intersection of the disciplines that
collaborate in building design. The previous sections have shown there
are few studies for medium-sized NZEBs – the medium-sized institu­
tional building type being a significant component of Canadian city­
scapes – with BIPV or BIPV/T roofs and none of those have examined
building form variations. In general, the studies that included building
form as a variable tended to evaluate either passive or active design – but
seldom both like in a NZEB; those that did used high-rise buildings with
façade-integrated PV. And the forms tended not to include the courtyard
type – an important archetype in the urban fabric. Finally, of those few
papers which analyzed the influence of building form on net energy
consumption, none have quantified the contribution of building form as
a factor on net energy consumption variance in a sensitivity analysis.
In light of this, the objective of this paper is the integration of these
aspects: to quantify the influence of building form, including courtyards,
passive and active design performance, and BIPV/T integration in
medium-sized institutional NZEBs through sensitivity analysis.
First, the approach of archetypical plans – including the courtyard –
was extended to and developed as medium-sized institutional NZEBs
with a BIPV/T roof system to represent a range of possible building
forms. These were parameterized in an automated workflow. The ar­
chetypes were then evaluated in a global sensitivity analysis where plan
shape was included as a factor – among other typical early design stage
variables – to quantify its influence on NZE.
All told, the interactions between building plan shape, BIPV/T roof
area and tilt angle, orientation, window to wall ratios, window prop­
erties, and thermal insulation and their effects on the combined passive
performance, PV electricity generation, and heat recovery were evalu­
ated through an ANOVA global sensitivity analysis targeting annual net
S. Yip et al.
energy use intensity (EUI). The authors are not aware of a parametric
study or sensitivity analysis in the literature that has addressed this set of
design variables and objectives together.
A cold climate with significant cooling loads was used for the sim­
ulations. The heat recovered from the BIPV/T system was used for
winter ventilation air preheating. The archetypes created were partly
inspired by the Varennes Library, on Montreal’s South shore in Var­
ennes, Quebec, Canada, which is Canada’s first net zero energy insti­
tutional building. It is a BIPV and BIPV/T roof-clad building of 2 storeys
and 2 100 m2. The first year operational site EUI was 70 kWh/m2a;
including renewables, the net energy use intensity was 14.5 kWh/m2a.
Alternatively, applying the relevant primary energy factor for source
energy, the building reaches net zero energy (Dermardiros et al., 2019).
A detailed methodology describing the archetypes and modeling
assumptions is contained in the next chapter followed by the sensitivity
analysis findings and conclusion.
In the second paper, the methodology is applied to an early stage
design case study for annual net-zero energy, supported by the results of
the sensitivity analysis. Early design stage input variables in design
configurations are compared on a relative basis and the configurations
are then analyzed in the context of the grid: the impacts on load
matching and energy flexibility.
2. Methodology
2.1. Building design components and assumptions
Based on a national survey of commercial and institutional buildings
in Canada, the medium-sized building (930–4 645 m2) is the category
with the second largest number of buildings after the very small building
(465 m2 or less) and with the largest percentage of floor space (33%) and
energy use (31%) among the different building sizes in the country
(Natural Resources Canada, 2012). Buildings in this size category are
generally low-rise, of a few storeys tall at most, making the roof the
largest enclosure surface on which to integrate a BIPV/T system.
Therefore, this study used the equator facing roof as the BIPV/T surface
to maximize electricity and heat production so as to reach or exceed the
net-zero energy target.
2.1.1. Climate
The climate of Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Table 1, was used for the
simulations. The minimum building enclosure thermal requirements
were based on the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB)
(Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes and Construction,
2015).
2.1.2. Functional and technical program
This paper focused on open-plan spaces in commercial/institutional
buildings such as for office, or informal assembly uses such as libraries.
Open-plan spaces permit daylight to penetrate deeper into spaces to save
on electric lighting costs and enhances natural ventilation to save on
cooling costs.
2.1.3. Building archetype
The two components of building form studied were plan shape, and
BIPV/T roof type and tilt angle. A medium-sized building with a total
useable, net floor area of 3000 m2 was used. The building had two
Table 1
Selected climate characteristics for Montreal, Quebec, Canada (ASHRAE, 2016;
Government of Canada, 2019). HDD18 are heating degree days below 18 ◦ C.
City Lat/Long Zone ASHRAE Annual sunshine
HDD18 hours
Montreal, 45.5◦ N, 6 4603 2051
QC 73.58◦ W
520
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530
storeys in order to include interactions between vertically adjacent
spaces. Each floor was divided into four wings of 375 m2 net floor area
each in an open-plan type of space. The plan shape of each of the wings
may vary but the total floor area was the same to permit comparison
across different plan shapes. The two storeys were stacked; the option to
have different floor areas for each of the storeys was not studied, nor was
the possibility of non-vertical facades. The height of each storey from the
finish floor to the underside of the deck was 3.5 m. This did not include
the ceiling space above the 3.5 m height on the upper storey which was
an additional triangular volume that was created by the pitched roof.
The building design included 200 mm of concrete in the envelope wall
composition as well as exposed on the floor serving as thermal mass.
The depth of a wing was the dimension measured perpendicular to
the longest façade. It was determined based on the goal of enhanced
daylighting permitted by the open-plan space type. Previous studies
have determined that there is a limiting depth for useful daylighting
(Guglielmetti et al., 2010; Yip et al., 2015). For this paper, the depth was
set at 15 m.
The plan shapes, shown in Fig. 1, were inspired in part by those
derived in earlier work by Martin and March (1972) who decomposed
urban built form into a series of reference shapes. These plan shapes
represent individually, or built up in combination, common plan shapes
found in urban settings. The rectangle plan shape, RE, was the reference,
and had its long axis oriented east–west. The L- and U-shapes were
further defined by a plan rotation angle from 15◦ to 75◦ towards the
north in a way that maintained solar exposure while minimizing self-
shading for the inclined BIPV/T roof. The courtyard, CO, shape was
the only plan shape with any significant self-shading. It offered a central
courtyard that was semi-enclosed, being open to the sky. The courtyard
may be further protected with a roof covering; however transforming
this courtyard into a semi-conditioned or interior space would have
increased the total floor area of the building making it unequal in floor
area to the other plan shapes and turning it into a cubic building. The
L15 shape, in Fig. 2, has the closest resemblance to the plan shape of the
Varennes Library.
The roof was pitched symmetrically about the longitudinal axis of
each wing. In order to maximize solar radiation capture, the BIPV/T
system was integrated on all roof surfaces between azimuth angles of
− 90◦ and 90◦ . Where the longitudinal axis was oriented north–south,
both the east- and west-facing roof surfaces were clad with a BIPV/T
system. This was the case for the courtyard shape, CO, allowing for two
more PV roof surfaces than for the other shapes. The gables, which are
the triangular surfaces between the two intersecting roof pitches, were
vertical and not used for BIPV/T.
For the medium-sized building with roof-integrated BIPV/T typol­
ogy, the building depth limitation for daylighting is interconnected with
the BIPV/T roof geometry. A larger building depth will lead to a taller
roof, if respecting the same BIPV/T tilt angle, as shown in Fig. 3, which
creates large interior volumes that may not necessarily be useful. This
triangular volume can be partially or completely closed to form
mezzanine or attic spaces. However, this would add additional floor
space, exceeding the 3000 m2 of net floor area that is a constraint for this
paper. Additionally, this extra net floor area is not without compromise:
the walls would be inclined inwards with no fenestration on the south
side. It would require detailed architectural design to fulfill a specific
function unencumbered by the mezzanine or attic area restrictions. And,
it adds to the material quantities and costs of construction. This can to be
studied in the future as an optimization problem. For example, in the
Varennes Library, the BIPV/T roof pitch is 37◦ , a compromise between
solar radiation capture, limiting roof height and volume, and reducing
snow accumulation in winter.
Triangular roof surfaces are inevitable when intersecting different
geometrical configurations and carry inherent inefficiencies when using
different roof shapes as the surface for BIPV and BIPV/T design appli­
cations (O’Brien et al., 2015). This inefficiency was acknowledged and
accounted for in the building model. An example of the net BIPV/T roof
S. Yip et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

Fig. 1. Plan shape families; grey shading indicates BIPV/T roof surfaces; L- and U-shapes show wing rotation angle (α). Linear measurement in millimeters.

total floor area, the CO shape has more BIPV/T surface area but at a
reduced 85% roof surface area utilisation efficiency.

2.1.4. Renewable energy technologies: BIPV/T

The BIPV/T system was an integral part of the south- and near south-
facing roof of the building. A nominal PV electrical conversion efficiency
of 17% was used across all simulations. For the heat recovery in the
BIPV/T system, this paper assumed an open-loop air-based system. A
schematic is shown in Fig. 3. While this system may be less efficient than
a hydronic system, an air-based system is easier to install in modular
construction, requires little maintenance, tolerates sub-zero tempera­
tures, and has less risk of causing building damage in the case of a

Fig. 2. Legend; plan shape number in parentheses. Grey shading indicates

BIPV/T roof surfaces.

surface area compared to gross roof area available is shown in Fig. 4. For
example, at a 35◦ roof tilt angle, the RE and CO shapes each have an
overall gross roof surface area of 1831 m2. For the RE shape, half (915.5
m2) of this is sun-facing and available to receive BIPV/T. Since the
rectangular roof would be 100% efficient for standard rectangular BIPV/
T deployment, the net BIPV/T surface area would be the same
(neglecting PV framing and other such elements). The CO shape has Fig. 4. 3D view of roof volume showing BIPV/T surface in blue and residual
1373 m2 gross roof surface area available to receive BIPV/T, but the net roof area in light grey. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
BIPV/T surface area is 1167 m2. Thus while all shapes have the same figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 3. Building section showing roof tilt angle (β) and height (in millimeters) and detail of BIPV/T system.

521
S. Yip et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

component or system failure as compared to a liquid system. The height Table 3

of the air channel in the BIPV/T system was fixed at 25 mm. While this Input variables: window properties. WinID is the window ID; the U-value and the
parameter may be varied, it was assumed that varying the height had the SHGC are the overall values for the window; SHGC is the solar heat gain coef­
same, if not identical, effect across all building configurations. A single ficient; Tsol is the solar transmittance; Tvis-daylight is the visible light
inlet system was used; multiple inlet systems show promising perfor­ transmittance.
mance improvements (Rounis et al., 2016; Yang and Athienitis, 2015), Parameter Window 1 Window 2 Window 3
but are beyond the scope of this paper. Description Double-glazed, Double-glazed, Double-glazed,
Due to the large sample size of design configurations studied, details air-filled, low-e argon-filled, low-e krypton-filled, low-e
of the PV/T system such as the exact specifications of the PV modules, WinID 3200 3205 3210
U-value (W/ 1.69 1.40 0.97
the array configuration and other balance of system components may
m2K)
vary significantly and were not examined in this paper. These simpli­ SHGC 0.66 0.70 0.53
fying assumptions are still useful at the early design stage for making Tsol 0.562 0.555 0.445
relative comparisons. But it is acknowledged that as a building design Tvis-daylight 0.80 0.74 0.70
moves from early stage design into design development, there may be
details of the PV system that emerge that would benefit some design
options and penalize others. Table 4
Non-varying parameters.
2.1.5. Related geometrical and other parameters Parameter Value(s)
Window to wall ratio (WWR): A separate WWR was calculated for
Floor plate (m2)/storeys 1 500/2
each building face orientation. The WWR has an influence on
Total floor area (m2) 3 000
daylighting effectiveness, and solar thermal gains. Concrete
Window types: The windows were composed of three components, Density (kg/m3) 2 240
the glazing, the framing, and the shading system. The glazing was Exposed on floor, thickness (m) 0.2
selected from the LBNL Window v7.4.6.0 database (LBNL, 2016). LBNL Within exterior wall assembly, thickness (m) 0.2
BIPV/T channel height (m) 0.025
Window is a software program that calculates total window thermal PV nominal electrical conversion efficiency 0.17
indices such as: U-value; solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC), the fraction Heating COP 2.5
of the incident radiation transmitted and absorbed and then radiated Cooling COP 3.5
inwards; solar transmittance (Tsol), the fraction of the incident radiation Heating Setpoint/Setback (◦ C) 21/18
Cooling Setpoint (◦ C) 24
transmitted from the entire solar spectrum; and visible transmittance
Schedule (occupancy) 07:00–20:00
(Tvis-daylight), the fraction of the incident radiation transmitted from Occupant density (m2/person) 10
the visible spectrum (380–700 nm). Users can create windows from any Occupant gains (W/m2) 7.5
combination of glazing layers, gas layers, frames, spacers, and dividers All humidity gains (kg/h*m2) 0.016
using their own components or chosen from an included database of Plug loads (W/m2) 9
Electric lighting (W/m2) 7
commercial components. As described in Section 2.1.1, glazing units Infiltration (ACH @ 50 Pa) 1*
that satisfied the minimum NECB 2015 requirements were used in this Ventilation (L/s*person) 5.6
paper. The framing accounted for 15% of the window (2.27 W/m2 K)
*The infiltration at natural pressure was estimated as 0.05 ACH using the K-P
and there was an automatically controlled interior solar shading system
model (Sherman, 1987).
on all windows except those on the north façade.
Insulation: The minimum levels of wall insulation and roof insulation
(Klein et al., 2017). It is a widely used platform in building energy
were selected based on NECB 2015 requirements. The maximum insu­
performance simulation research and has been the subject of numerous
lation values were determined based on a case study of a Passivhaus
validation studies (Crawley et al., 2008). Its structure is modular,
building for the Montreal climate.
allowing users and developers alike to custom tailor or restrict their
Details of input variables and non-varying parameters are shown in
efforts to specific components of an energy system without needing to
Tables 2–4.
engage with all the other components of the TRNSYS software. The
components are referred to in TRNSYS as ‘types.’ Each type simulates a
2.2. Simulation model and assumptions component or sub-component of a building or energy system and re­
quires specific inputs to produce outputs. There can be numerous in­
2.2.1. TRNSYS model stances of each type in a model. The manner in which the units are
The building performance simulation program used was TRNSYS 18 connected via their inputs and outputs allows a high degree of functional
flexibility and customization of building design configurations. The
Table 2
configuration of all these types and their connections are contained in
Input variables. the TRNSYS .dck file.
The principal types used in this project are the TYPE 56 which rep­
Input variable Range of values
resents a multi-zone building and TYPE 568 which represents the
Plan shape RE, CO, L15, L30, L45, L60, L75, U15, U30, U45, building-integrated PV and thermal system. The TYPE 56 manages the
U60, U75
3d geometry and windows to describe a building, and has settings for
BIPV/T tilt angle (◦ ) 30–45; 4 levels
Azimuth (◦ ) − 45 to 45; 7 levels building environmental controls, occupancy schedules, and for calcu­
Roof insulation (m2K/W) 5.7–12.4; 5 levels lating ideal heating and cooling loads. This information is contained in
Wall insulation (m2K/W) 3.9–10.5; 5 levels the TRNSYS .b18 file which is referenced in the .dck file. Each unique
Window See Table 3 building combination of plan shape and roof tilt angle required a
WWR; south, east, west, 0.1–0.7; 7 levels each orientation
north
separate TYPE 56 instance. Detailed models of components such as
Dependent variables Range of values mechanical systems are contained in other types that connect to TYPE
56.
Total roof surface area (m2) 827–1591
Total BIPV/T surface area 827–1233 An on/off control signal contained in TYPE 56′ s built-in ‘Daylight
(m2) Control Type Manager’ was used to turn the electric lighting on or off

522
S. Yip et al.
based on two defined horizontal illuminance setpoints of 300 lx and 500
lx. An on/off shade control signal contained in TYPE 56′ s ‘Window Type
Manager’ was used to open or close the interior shade based on total
solar radiation setpoints of 120 W/m2 and 140 W/m2 impinging on the
associated window. Both controls use a hysteresis loop to turn the signal
on or off based on the setpoints at each timestep.
In the present paper, the BIPV/T surface was the roof. In TRNSYS the
roof insulation properties were input to both the TYPE 56 and the TYPE
568 units. Then the TYPE 568 for the BIPV/T was connected to the TYPE
56 to obtain the inside surface temperature from the building zone and
to transmit to the TYPE 56 the back face temperature of the BIPV/T air
channel. Note that for well-insulated roofs, there will be little energy
exchange between the BIPV/T air channel and the building zone below
it.
Each two-storey building wing, totalling 750 m2 of floor area, was
clad with at least one BIPV/T roof system. For the RE, L, and U shapes,
each BIPV/T system was 25 m wide and the heat recovered served only
the wing below it. For the courtyard building, the three outward facing
BIPV/T roof systems were also 25 m wide and served their respective
wings while the three smaller 10 m wide BIPV/T roof systems facing the
inner courtyard served the north wing. The outlet air speed of each
BIPV/T system was set to a constant 0.67 m/s, the lowest speed possible
that would maximize the heat recovery and supply the entire ventilation
need of the wing it was meant to serve when required. This was based on
the channel width of 25 m and height of 25 mm, for a cross sectional
flow area of 0.625 m2 per wing, and a maximum required ventilation
rate per wing of 0.42 m3/s (or 5.6 L/s per person). The net channel width
for the courtyard north wing was 30 m (three 10 m widths), making the
volumetric flow rate slightly higher than required.
The BIPV/T outlet air contribution to the supply air was controlled
based on the difference between its temperature, the temperature of the
ambient air, and the set point temperature. TYPE 56 calculates any
remaining energy required to bring the outdoor air to room conditions.
For increased PV module cooling and thus PV generation, a higher air
flow speed can be used in the BIPV/T air channel. For increased heat
recovery, a lower air flow speed with a taller air channel height can be
used. Different BIPV/T roof shapes will also change this dynamic, as
would a variable air flow speed in the air channel. The balance between
PV cooling, heat recovery, and ventilation requirements can be fine-
tuned after the early design stage or once specific equipment is
selected to match specific project needs.
Further modeling detail was omitted to focus attention on using the
model for comparing the relative performance of the different building
geometries at the early design stage. A more detailed analysis of the
relationships between the PV electrical conversion efficiency, heat re­
covery and air flowrate, ventilation, and BIPV/T roof geometry is a topic
for future investigation.
2.2.2. Simulation workflow
To permit the automation of the simulations, the following workflow
Fig. 5. Flowchart of workflow; * the input variables are listed in Table 2.
523
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530
was devised (Fig. 5). An initial set of four building energy models, one
each for the CO, L, RE, and U plan shape families, represented by four
sets of TRNSYS .dck (building TYPEs and connections) and .b18
(building description file including 3d geometry) input files, was
parameterized by replacing input values with variable expressions based
on wing rotation, α, (Fig. 1), roof tilt angle, β, (Fig. 3), and the input
variables listed in Table 2. These modified .dck and .b18 files served as
base template files.
The number of simulations required was input to the Sobol’ sampling
routine in modeFRONTIER (ESTECO SpA, 2017) which generated the
combination of values for each of the input parameters to create a
unique building design configuration to simulate. modeFRONTIER then
passed these values to a Python (Python Software Foundation, 2019)
script which automatically generated a new building model including
the required building roof pitch, wing rotation (where applicable), and
WWR from the base template .dck and .b18 files and launched the
TRNSYS simulations. The output from each TRNSYS simulation was
collected in a database within modeFRONTIER. This procedure repeated
until all the unique building configurations were simulated. Once all
simulations were complete, results were sorted, visualized, and a
sensitivity analysis was performed.
2.2.3. Performance metric: Net zero energy
Since this investigation was focused on the early stages of design
when the major design decisions for a building are yet to be taken, some
simplifying assumptions were made. Specific mechanical systems were
not studied and no energy losses due to system inefficiencies or in­
teractions were calculated. Instead, an ideal heating and cooling system
was used to determine the heating and cooling demands of the building.
To approximate a total consumption, a separate constant heating and
cooling coefficient of performance (COP) of 2.5 and 3.5, respectively,
was assumed based on heat pump technology.
The energy balance formulation used for the building designs was the
annual import/export balance which is the balance between delivered
(demand) and exported (supply) energy (Sartori et al., 2012). The en­
ergy balance was calculated using net-zero site energy (Torcellini et al.,
2006). Since this was a single building with BIPV/T, the site boundary
was the building footprint for the net-zero energy balance calculations.
The building was all-electric, therefore only one energy carrier was
considered for delivered energy.
The net annual site energy, Esite, using hourly timesteps, is given by
Eq. (1). This is normalized by building size to obtain the net EUI by
dividing Eq. (1) by the building’s total conditioned floor area. Esite ≤
0 indicates the building is a NZEB.
( )
Qheat Qcool
Esite = Edel − Eexp = + + Elight + Eplug − (EPV ) (1)
COPh COPc
where Edel is the energy delivered to the building site;
S. Yip et al.
Eexp is the on-site generated renewable energy exported from the
building site;
Qheat represents the heating energy required, including for ventila­
tion, and to compensate for infiltration losses;
Qcool represents the cooling energy required, including for ventila­
tion, and to compensate for infiltration gains, and internal gains from
occupants, lights, and equipment;
COPh and COPc are the heating and cooling COPs, respectively;
Elight is the electrical energy required for electric lighting;
Eplug is the electrical energy required for all plug loads; and
EPV is the electrical energy generated by the BIPV/T system exported
from the building site.
Note that in winter, the BIPV/T thermal energy recovered is used to
supply the heating energy for preheating the ventilation air, as described
in Section 2.2.1, thus reducing the need for delivered energy to the
building.
While site energy has been used in this paper for simplicity in the all-
electric building, a source energy definition is more generally applicable
and can allow comparisons of the energy performance of buildings using
different energy carriers or across different jurisdictions. In that case, the
energy delivered and exported would be weighted through the concept
of source energy conversion factors (or primary energy factors) to ac­
count for the energy consumed in the extraction, processing and trans­
port of primary fuels; losses in the generation process; and losses in
transmission and distribution to the building site (Peterson et al., 2015;
Voss and Musall, 2011). Furthermore, using the United States Depart­
ment of Energy (US DOE) formulation (Peterson et al., 2015), the PV
exported electricity can be credited for displacing electricity required
from the grid, thus its source energy conversion factor would be equal to
that of the delivered electricity. Therefore, using the US DOE source
energy definition for an all-electric building, Eq. (1) can be modified to
obtain the net annual source energy, Esource, as shown in Eq. (2).
(
Qheat Qcool
) πk =
Esource = Edel rdel − Eexp rexp = + + Elight + Eplug rdel − (EPV )rexp
COPh COPc
(2)
where rdel and rexp are the source energy conversion factors for the
delivered electricity and exported on-site electricity generated from
renewables, respectively, and are equal. Under these conditions, Eq. (2)
can be simplified using Eq. (1) to:
Esource = Esite rdel = Esite rexp
2.2.4. Sensitivity analysis and sampling method
Since the purpose of this analysis was to identify at the early design
stage all the input variables that have significant impact – or conversely,
have no significant impact – on the output, the effect of each input on the
output variation was ranked and quantified. Due to the quantification,
sensitive variables can be compared by output effect proximity. Non-
sensitive variables can be eliminated from design consideration at this
early design stage.
Due to the possibility of non-monotonic relationships between the
input parameters and the target outputs, the ANOVA method was used;
as was the Sobol’ quasi-random sampling method (Lam et al., 2016;
Tian, 2013). Not all input–output relationships will be non-monotonic;
nor will all combinations of inputs in the design space result in non-
monotonic output relationships.
The smoothing spline ANOVA (SS-ANOVA) method (Gu, 2013; Ricco
et al., 2013) was used in modeFRONTIER. This is a non-parametric
regression model that can handle non-linear and non-monotonic re­
lationships. It estimates the mean of an outcome as a smooth function
with a decomposition into main and interaction effects where each term
represents its contribution to the total output variance.
For a given regression problem for an unknown multivariate function
524
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530
f(x) with Gaussian-type response, the responses
yi = f (xi ) + ∊i , i = 1, ⋯, n, (4)
where n is the number of samples, and ∊i represent independent random
errors. Estimation of f can be done with a smoothing spline, or mini­
mizer fλ , that satisfies the following penalized least squares minimiza­
tion function:
1∑ n
min (fi − f (xi ))2 + λJ(f ), (5)
n i=1
where λ is the Lagrange multiplier, or smoothing parameter, and J(f) is
the roughness penalty which serves to prevent overfitting f.
The SS-ANOVA function decomposition can be incorporated into Eq.
(5) through the use of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (Gu, 2013).
When evaluating the model fit at the sampling points xi , from Eq. (4), the
following is obtained as expressed using column vectors of length n:
y = f 0 + f 1 + ⋯ + f p + e, (6)
where f 0 is a constant and p is the number of tensor sum terms deter­
mined by the number and type (main or interaction effect) of effect
terms in the model. Further simplification by removing the constant
term through projection (Gu, 2013) gives:
y* = f * + e* , (7)
where
p
∑
f* = f *k . (8)
k=1
The relative contribution to the output variance of each term in the
model, the sensitivity or contribution index, πk , is
(f *k , f * )
, (9)
‖f * ‖2
where (u,v) is the scalar product of vectors, and ‖v‖ is the vector norm.
This shows the advantage of ANOVA: it provides a straightforward
interpretation of the significance of each term on the output variance.
A measure of the correlation of input variables can be calculated
through a collinearity index, κk . Define a p × p matrix C such that
(f *i , f *j )
Cij = , (10)
‖f *i ‖∙‖f *j ‖
then
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
κk = C−kk1 . (11)
A value of unity for κj indicates true orthogonality of the input f *j to
all other input terms (main and interaction terms) and values much
greater than unity indicate correlated inputs. Finally, R2 is used to
determine the goodness of fit of the ANOVA model:
‖y* − e* ‖2
R2 = . (12)
‖y* ‖2
The Sobol’ sequence is a deterministic algorithm, often referred to as
quasi-random. It provides a uniform sampling of the design space,
reducing the clustering effects of random sampling. The sampled points
ensure maximal distance from each other. It is a low-discrepancy model
– where lower discrepancy means more uniform distribution. All input
variables are varied at once in this sampling method. It is suitable for
non-linear and non-monotonic models (Sobol, 1979).
Different variables that are commonly considered at the early design
stage were tested in the sensitivity analysis. Among the design variables,
the tilt angle is the most significant determinant in solar potential, with
S. Yip et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

the optimal average annual solar radiation collected at an angle equal to

0.350
the site latitude (Duffie and Beckman, 2013).
Even though the tilt angle is the most significant determinant in solar 0.300
potential, in practice it may be difficult for BIPV and BIPV/T integrated 0.250

Sensitivity index (-)

projects to attain this design objective – especially in a cold northern
climate where the optimal yearly average solar capture is at latitudes of 0.200
45◦ and higher. For BIPV and BIPV/T roofs, this creates a lot of extra 0.150
interior volume that may not have a practical use (except as attic) but
0.100
which requires a lot more building materials and therefore increases
construction costs. On the exterior, the benefit of the increased roof area 0.050
would be increased deployable BIPV/T area. On the other hand, a lower 0.000
tilt angle may not achieve NZE and have potential excessive snow

Plan shape

WWR S

WWR N

WWR W
Win ID

WWR E

Insul., roof

Insul., wall
accumulation issues in winter, which also result in lower electricity and
useful heat production. Four separate sensitivity analyses were run with
the BIPV/T tilt angle at 30◦ , 35◦ , 40◦ , and 45◦ . Using the Sobol’ method,
κmin = 1.000001 (Insul., wall) Factor
10 000 samples were simulated for each tilt angle. These configurations κmax = 1.00001 (Plan shape) 2
R = 0.845
did not represent any optimization method; that is a topic for further
research. Fig. 6. Main effects sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 30◦ BIPV/T
roof tilt angle (β).
3. Findings

3.1. Simulation results: insolation, PV yield, EUI 0.350

0.300
The calculated mean daily global insolation for a south-facing sur­
face at a tilt angle equal to the site latitude (equal to 45◦ for Montreal) 0.250
was 4.38 kWh/m2. And the calculated PV yield was approximately Sensitivity index (-) 0.200
1300 kWh/kWp. This compares to a reference of 4.36 kWh/m2 and
0.150
1200 kWh/kWp from Natural Resources Canada’s photovoltaic and
solar resource maps (Natural Resources Canada, 2017). In the simula­ 0.100
tion results, the design configuration with the closest characteristics 0.050
(L15, ψ = − 15◦ , β = 35◦ ) to the Varennes Library yielded an EUI of
63 kWh/m2a without renewables. The most recent published data shows 0.000
ψ

WWR N

WWR W
Plan shape

WWR S

Win ID

WWR E

Insul., roof

Insul., wall
the Varennes Library has an operational EUI of 70 kWh/m2a (Dermar­
diros et al., 2019).
For the purpose of relative energy performance comparisons at the
early design stage, these results are within a reasonable range, within κmin = 1.000001 (Insul., wall) Factor 2
κmax = 1.00001 (Plan shape) R = 0.832
10% or less. A more detailed investigation of the relationship between
the building-integrated PV/T system modeling and the building
morphology is a topic for a future paper. Fig. 7. Main effects sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 35◦ BIPV/T
roof tilt angle (β).

3.2. Sensitivity analysis: Main effects

0.350
The sensitivity analyses showing main effects are provided in Table 5
and shown in Figs. 6–9 for the four BIPV/T roof tilt angles with respect 0.300
to the target of net annual EUI. The minimum and maximum collinearity 0.250
Sensitivity index (-)

index values, κk , hew closely to unity and the coefficients of determi­

nation, R2, vary between 0.811 and 0.845. 0.200
The plan shape was the most influential for β = 30◦ , and second most 0.150
influential for the other roof tilt angles. In all cases this represented
0.100
between 24.0% and 27.4% of the variance. For β = 35◦ , 40◦ , and 45◦ , the
most influential factor was the building orientation, ψ; its range of effect 0.050
was between 21.4% and 30.5% of the variance. The WWR south was the 0.000
ψ

WWR S

WWR N
Plan shape

Win ID

WWR E

WWR W

Insul., roof

Insul., wall

Table 5
Main effects sensitivity indices for net energy use intensity at four different tilt
angles (β).
κmin = 1.000001 (Insul., wall) Factor 2
Factor β = 30◦ β = 35◦ β = 40◦ β = 45◦ κmax = 1.00001 (WWR W) R = 0.821

Azimuth (ψ) 0.214 0.248 0.279 0.305

Plan shape 0.240 0.246 0.258 0.274 Fig. 8. Main effects sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 40◦ BIPV/T
WWR south 0.214 0.195 0.174 0.153 roof tilt angle (β).
WWR north 0.166 0.154 0.142 0.130
WinID 0.054 0.050 0.046 0.041 second most influential factor at a tilt angle of 30◦ , and was otherwise
WWR east 0.049 0.047 0.044 0.041
WWR west 0.049 0.046 0.043 0.040
ranked third, representing between 15.3% and 21.4% of the variance.
Insulation, roof 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.010 The only other factor with a sensitivity index over 10% was the WWR
Insulation, wall 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 north, with 13.0% to 16.6% depending on the roof tilt angle. The

525
S. Yip et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

22.1%. This result is different from that of the main effects SA. The in­
0.350
clusion of the second-order factors with the pronounced effect of the
0.300 interaction pair of plan shape and building orientation diminished the
0.250
contribution of the plan shape and changed the apportioning of the
Sensitivity index (-)

output variance. For the other β, like in the case of the main effects SA,
0.200 WWR S was the second most influential factor. Its contribution index
0.150 range was between 15.6% and 22.1% – within 3% of results from the
main effects SA.
0.100
The next most significant WWR was that for the north façade, which
0.050 at 12.8% to 16.5% was approximately 18 to 25% less significant, but
0.000 within 2% of results in the main effects. Generally, each of the window
to wall ratios’ influences decrease with increasing BIPV/T tilt angle,
ψ

Plan shape

WWR S

WWR N

WWR E

WWR W
Win ID

Insul., roof

Insul., wall
indicating the increased contribution of the PV electricity generation
over the passive design performance in the net EUI target.
The sensitivity index for plan shape was relatively constant, between
κmin = 1.000001 (Insul., wall) Factor
κmax = 1.00001 (WWR W) 2
R = 0.811
11.3% and 11.6%, across the four tilt angles since the BIPV/T roof base
geometry is defined by the plan shape and this relationship is constant
Fig. 9. Main effects sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 45◦ BIPV/T regardless of tilt angle. However, its contribution is approximately half
roof tilt angle (β). as large as in the main effects SA. This reduction can be accounted for by
the interaction effect with orientation, as explained further below. The
sensitivity indices for the plan shape, azimuth, WWR south, and WWR sensitivity indices of the other input variables were significantly lower
north were significantly greater than all other factors. The window type than that of the plan shape. In particular the wall and roof insulation
(Win ID), WWR east, and WWR west occupy a less significant plateau of factors were the least sensitive due to their input values being very high,
between 4.0% and 5.4%. Finally, the roof and wall insulation had the compatible with a cold climate.
least significance, between 0.4% and 1.0%. Like in the case of the insulation factors, the window type’s input
values respect the low thermal conductance energy code requirements
for the cold Montreal climate – resulting in a narrow, low sensitivity
3.3. Sensitivity analysis: Interaction effects range of 3.9% to 5.4%. The WWR east and WWR west contribution
indices are within this same range of influence, at 4.0% to 4.9%, and
However, the results are different once interaction effects between 3.8% to 4.7%, respectively. While certain plan shapes (CO, L60, L75,
the factors – where the impact of one factor is dependent on the level of U60, U75) have sizeable east and west façade surface areas when the
another factor – are taken into account. The second order sensitivity building is oriented south, the east and west facades represent – on
indices are provided in Table 6 and shown in Figs. 10–13 for the four average across all simulations and all orientations – effectively the fa­
BIPV/T roof tilt angles with respect to the target of net annual EUI. Each cades with the smallest surface areas. This made their WWR contribu­
interaction pair that accounted for less than 0.005 of the sensitivity tions to the building passive design performance relatively small. As
index was grouped together in the interactions category. Like in the case previously mentioned, the plan shape and orientation input domains
of the main effects SA, the minimum and maximum collinearity index reflect the design choice of solar-enhanced forms with large south- or
values, κk , are close to unity. The coefficients of determination, R2, vary near-south facing areas.
between 0.814 and 0.831. Also, like in the case of the main effects SA, The SA including second-order effects was able to identify an
the results showed the building orientation, ψ, had the most influence on important interaction effect between the orientation and the plan shape
the variance of the output of net annual EUI for β = 35◦ , 40◦ , and 45◦ . that contributed to between 9.1% and 13.6% of the total variance. Since
Quantitatively, it represents between 21.4% and 29.9% of the variance the input domain for the orientation and the geometrical definition of
across all four tilt angles – within 2% of results from the main effects SA. the plan shapes was focused on maximizing solar gains and the output
Within the ψ input domain of − 45◦ to 45◦ , this ranking result was was net EUI, this was an expected result. The path of the sun makes it
anticipated since the planning objective was to create solar-enhanced such that the BIPV/T roof surfaces need to be oriented as best as possible
building forms – hence south- or near-south facing. However, the towards the south to maximize electricity generation. This interaction
contribution of PV electricity generation to the net EUI decreases as the effect was more pronounced at higher tilt angles where there was more
BIPV/T roof slope decreases, thus passive design factors like the WWR electricity generation.
for the south and north facades become more important. This can
explain why at β = 30◦ , the most influential input variable was the 3.4. Effect of BIPV/T roof tilt angle
window to wall ratio for the south façade, with a sensitivity index of
The BIPV/T roof tilt angle has significant impact on the sensitivity of
Table 6 the input variables since the target was net EUI which depends, in part,
Second order sensitivity indices for net energy use intensity at four different tilt on the PV generation. This is most clearly seen in Fig. 14 in which the
angles (β). second-order SA results are compared across all four β angles used. As
Factor β = 30◦ β = 35◦ β = 40◦ β = 45◦ the tilt angle is increased, the combination of increased PV roof area and
Azimuth (ψ) 0.214 0.245 0.274 0.299
favourable inclination results in the PV generation accounting for a
WWR south 0.221 0.199 0.177 0.156 greater portion of the energy balance. The SA input variable which has
WWR north 0.165 0.152 0.140 0.128 influence on the PV generation, the orientation, along with the plan
Plan shape 0.113 0.113 0.114 0.116 shape and orientation interaction pair, increases in significance. On the
Plan shape * Azimuth (ψ) 0.091 0.107 0.121 0.136
other hand, the window to wall ratios for the south and north facades,
WinID 0.054 0.049 0.044 0.039
WWR east 0.049 0.046 0.043 0.040 factors related to passive solar design, decreased in an almost mirror
WWR west 0.047 0.044 0.041 0.038 image rate compared to orientation and the plan shape and orientation
Insulation, roof 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 interaction pair, respectively. Put another way, as the tilt angle
Insulation, wall 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 increased, the relative significance of the first ranked factor to the other
Interactions 0.031 0.031 0.032 0.032
factors increased as well. At β = 30◦ , the contribution index of the first

526
S. Yip et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

0.350

0.300

0.250

Sensitivity index (-)

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
WWR S

WWR N

Plan shape * ψ

WWR E

WWR W
Plan shape

Win ID

Insul., roof

Insul., wall

Interactions
κmin = 1.001 (Plan shape *ψ) Factor
2
κmax = 1.084 (Insul., roof) R = 0.831

Fig. 10. Second order sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 30◦ BIPV/T roof tilt angle (β).

0.350

0.300

0.250
Sensitivity index (-)

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
ψ

WWR N
WWR S

Plan shape * ψ

WWR E

WWR W
Plan shape

Win ID

Insul., roof

Insul., wall

Interactions

κmin = 1.001 (Plan shape *ψ) Factor 2

κmax = 1.090 (Insul., roof) R = 0.828

Fig. 11. Second order sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 35◦ BIPV/T roof tilt angle (β).

ranked factor (WWR south) was 3.2% greater than the second ranked
factor (orientation). At β = 45◦ , the contribution index of the first ranked
factor (orientation) was 47.8% greater than the second ranked factor
(WWR south).
Other passive solar design factors like window type, window to wall
ratio for east and west facades also had a slight decrease in sensitivity
index with increasing β. Of note, the plan shape and the opaque insu­
lation variables were practically unaffected by tilt angle.
3.5. Discussion
In any global SA, it is important to identify and define the input
variables to be analyzed, their appropriate range of values, and the
target since these influence the SA results. In this paper, compound plan
shapes have been included alongside other, more commonly analyzed,
input variables such as WWR. This is important since the output
variance is apportioned across all input variables – thus quantifying the
influence of the plan shape with respect to the other input variables on
the output variance. This contribution of the plan shape has not been
analyzed in previous papers. As it turns out, from our results, plan shape
is important, but not the most influential input variable.
Previous SA have not been uniform in their findings for WWR in­
fluence. At the extremes, WWR was the most influential factor for both
heating and cooling energy performance, separately, (Mechri et al.,
2010); and not very influential for heating energy performance (Garcia
Sanchez et al., 2014). In one case, the WWR combined all windows from
all facades and orientations (Mechri et al., 2010), while the other used a
separate WWR for each façade orientation (Garcia Sanchez et al., 2014),
like in our case. But, unlike either, ours used NZE as the target and found
only WWR South and North to be influential. Therefore their analyses
focused on passive design while ours on both passive and active design.
Continuing with these two papers, both found that building

527
S. Yip et al. Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530

0.350

0.300

0.250

Sensitivity index (-)

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
ψ

WWR S

WWR N

WWR E

WWR W
Plan shape * ψ

Plan shape

Win ID

Insul., roof

Insul., wall

Interactions
κmin = 1.001 (Plan shape *ψ) Factor 2
κmax = 1.095 (Insul., roof) R = 0.823

Fig. 12. Second order sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 40◦ BIPV/T roof tilt angle (β).

0.350

0.300

0.250
Sensitivity index (-)

0.200

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
ψ

WWR S

Plan shape * ψ

WWR N

WWR E

WWR W
Plan shape

Win ID

Insul., roof

Insul., wall

Interactions

κmin = 1.001 (Plan shape *ψ) Factor 2

κmax = 1.097 (Insul., roof) R = 0.814

Fig. 13. Second order sensitivity index for net energy use intensity at 45◦ BIPV/T roof tilt angle (β).

orientation was not that influential, though not negligible, for heating
energy performance (Garcia Sanchez et al., 2014; Mechri et al., 2010)
and cooling energy performance (Mechri et al., 2010), but that insu­
lation thickness was significant (Garcia Sanchez et al., 2014). In our
case, we found building orientation to be the most influential in three
out of the four SA, with it being second-most influential in the other
case; and insulation levels for roof and walls to be the least significant of
all the factors we analyzed.
The range the other two papers used for orientation was [0, 180◦ ]
whereas we used [− 45◦ , 45◦ ] since the objective was to design a solar
enhanced NZEB. Extending the range of the orientation may have led to
different results but that extended range was viewed as invalid for this
exercise. As for the range of the insulation levels, it was large, but the
lower end represented an already high performance building meeting
strict energy codes. This may explain why the increment of higher
insulation did not produce any sensitivity.
Lastly, the two other papers only analyzed rectangular-shaped plans
and one concluded that analyzing more complex shapes such as L- or U-
shaped plans would be required before being able to extend their results
(Mechri et al., 2010).
As mentioned in Section 1.3, a global SA can be useful as a screening
tool. At the early design stage, input variables that do not contribute
much to the output variance may be eliminated from consideration. A
dilemma at early design stage is how to leave the design space as large as
possible to avoid overlooking possible design solutions while circum­
scribing the space to limit modeling and computational resources.
Since five of the nine input variables analyzed exhibit low sensitivity,
the exploration of the design space through an automated simulation
framework – such as the one described in Section 2.2.2 – using full-
factorial design or numerical optimization can be facilitated by
reducing the dimension of the design space by five.

528
S. Yip et al.
0.350
0.300
ψ
0.250
WWR S
Sensitivity index (-)
WWR N
0.200 Plan shape
Plan shape*ψ
0.150 Win ID
WWR E
WWR W
0.100
Insulation, roof
Insulation, wall
0.050 interactions
0.000
30 35 40 45
Tilt angle, β (°)
Fig. 14. Comparison of the results of second order sensitivity indices for net
energy use intensity at 30◦ , 35◦ , 40◦ , and 45◦ BIPV/T roof tilt angles (β).
4. Conclusion
This paper, part 1, had as objective to quantify the influence of
building form, including courtyards, passive and active design perfor­
mance, and BIPV/T integration on net energy performance in medium-
sized institutional NZEBs through sensitivity analysis. To this end, a
series of archetypes, including the courtyard, for medium-sized institu­
tional NZEBs was developed for early design stage analysis – with con­
centration on air-based BIPV/T roof-integrated systems. The
requirement to reduce unnecessary volume in the attic area limited the
depth of building – which coincided with requirements for enhancing
daylighting depth for the entire building floor plate. This is a design
constraint specific to northern climates. Higher tilt angles are required
to enhance annual solar capture, usually approximately equal to the site
latitude.
The simulation workflow based on TRNSYS, Python, and mode­
FRONTIER was presented and a global sensitivity analysis was carried
out to rank and quantify the most influential input variables commonly
considered at the early design stage using net annual energy use in­
tensity as the target. Most importantly, for the first time, a sensitivity
analysis has included the building form as a factor. In all, the combi­
nation of medium-sized institutional NZEB archetypes with BIPV/T roof
in a sensitivity analysis with building form as a factor has previously not
been found in the literature.
The most influential input variable across the three steepest BIPV/T
tilt angles used was the building orientation; the window to wall ratio of
the south façade was the most influential for the least steep tilt angle,
30◦ . The plan shape, and window to wall ratios for the south and north
façade were also significant input variables; their sensitivity indices and
ranking varied with BIPV/T tilt angle. At the other extreme, all other
input variables were at least one order of magnitude less sensitive than
the most influential variable. Of those, the wall and roof insulation were
the least sensitive, owing to stringent energy code requirements in a cold
climate.
Including second-order factors in the sensitivity analysis was
important. This was most clearly evidenced by the different top ranking
result at the shallowest BIPV/T angle (β = 30◦ ) of plan shape when only
considering main effects and window to wall ratio for the south façade
when considering interaction effects; and the identification of the
529
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530
significant interaction pair of plan shape and orientation.
Although not an input variable to the SA, the BIPV/T tilt angle had a
significant effect on the SA results. As the tilt angle was increased from
30◦ to 45◦ , variables associated with PV energy generation, orientation
and the plan shape * orientation interaction pair, increased in signifi­
cance by 40% and 50%, respectively; while variables associated with
passive design, WWR S and WWR N, decreased by 30% and 22%
respectively. Also, the contribution index of the first ranked factor
increased with increasing tilt angle. At 45◦ , first ranked orientation was
almost 50% more influential than second ranked WWR south.
Identifying and quantifying orientation, plan shape, window to wall
ratios for the south and north facades, and BIPV/T tilt angle as influ­
ential variables in net zero energy building design are important find­
ings to assist building designers in focusing on a subset of early design
stage variables to reach net zero energy while still leaving the input
space large enough for design creativity. The smaller number of input
variables can help reduce the modeling and computational resources
necessary in automated design approaches such as full-factorial design
and numerical optimization. Furthermore, in the case of design variable
restrictions, the remaining significant variables can be prioritized or
optimized using the magnitude of their sensitivity as a guide.
In the second paper, part 2, the methodology is applied in a case
study for early stage design in which relative comparisons are made
considering building form and net-zero energy. This is then extended to
include building interactions with the grid: load matching and energy
flexibility. Archetypal design solutions for energy flexibility are
compared to those for net-zero energy.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada/Hydro-Québec Industrial Research Chair in
Optimized Operation and Energy Efficiency: Towards High Performance
Buildings; and the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et
technologies.
References
ASHRAE, A., 2016. ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016: Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta.
Athienitis, A., O’Brien, W., 2015. Modeling, Design, and Optimization of Net-Zero
Energy Buildings. Wiley, Hoboken.
Athienitis, A.K., Bambara, J., O’Neill, B., Faille, J., 2011. A prototype photovoltaic/
thermal system integrated with transpired collector. Sol. Energy 85 (1), 139–153.
Athienitis, A.K., Barone, G., Buonomano, A., Palombo, A., 2018. Assessing active and
passive effects of façade building integrated photovoltaics/thermal systems:
Dynamic modelling and simulation. Appl. Energy 209, 355–382.
Athienitis, A.K., Cellura, M., Chen, Y., Delisle, V., Bourdoukan, P., Kapsis, K., 2015.
Modeling and design of Net ZEBs as integrated energy systems. In: Athienitis, A.K.,
O’Brien, W. (Eds.), Modeling, Design, and Optimization of Net-Zero Energy
Buildings. Wiley, Hoboken.
Buonomano, A., De Luca, G., Montanaro, U., Palombo, A., 2016. Innovative technologies
for NZEBs: An energy and economic analysis tool and a case study of a non-
residential building for the Mediterranean climate. Energy Build. 121, 318–343.
Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, Construction, I.f.R.i., 2015. National
Energy Code of Canada for Buildings, 2015. National Research Council, Ottawa, ON.
Caruso, G., Kämpf, J.H., 2015. Building shape optimisation to reduce air-conditioning
needs using constrained evolutionary algorithms. Sol. Energy 118, 186–196.
Chen, X., Huang, J., Yang, H., Peng, J., 2019a. Approaching low-energy high-rise
building by integrating passive architectural design with photovoltaic application.
J. Cleaner Prod. 220, 313–330.
Chen, X., Yang, H., Peng, J., 2019b. Energy optimization of high-rise commercial
buildings integrated with photovoltaic facades in urban context. Energy 1–17.
S. Yip et al.
Chen, X., Yang, H., Zhang, W., 2015. A comprehensive sensitivity study of major passive
design parameters for the public rental housing development in Hong Kong. Energy
93, 1804–1818.
Chen, Y., Athienitis, A.K., Galal, K., 2010. Modeling, design and thermal performance of
a BIPV/T system thermally coupled with a ventilated concrete slab in a low energy
solar house: Part 1, BIPV/T system and house energy concept. Sol. Energy 84 (11),
1892–1907.
Crawley, D.B., Hand, J.W., Kummert, M., Griffith, B.T., 2008. Contrasting the capabilities
of building energy performance simulation programs. Build. Environ. 43 (4),
661–673.
Delisle, V., Kummert, M., 2016. Cost-benefit analysis of integrating BIPV-T air systems
into energy-efficient homes. Sol. Energy 136, 385–400.
Dermardiros, V., Athienitis, A.K., Bucking, S., 2019. Energy performance, comfort, and
lessons learned from an institutional building designed for net zero energy. ASHRAE
Trans. 125 (Part 1), 682–695.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 2013. Solar engineering of thermal processes, fourth ed.
Wiley, Hoboken.
ESTECO SpA, 2017. modeFRONTIER 2017R2, 2017R2 ed. ESTECO SpA, Trieste, Italy.
Garcia Sanchez, D., Lacarrière, B., Musy, M., Bourges, B., 2014. Application of sensitivity
analysis in building energy simulations: combining first- and second-order
elementary effects methods. Energy Build. 68(PART C), 741–750.
Government of Canada, 2019. 1981-2010 Climate Normals and Averages, in: Canada, E.
a.C.C. (Ed.). Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Granadeiro, V., Duarte, J.P., Correia, J.R., Leal, V.M.S., 2013. Building envelope shape
design in early stages of the design process: Integrating architectural design systems
and energy simulation. Autom. Constr. 32, 196–209.
Gu, C., 2013. Smoothing Spline ANOVA Models, second ed. Springer, New York, NY.
Guglielmetti, R., Pless, S., Torcellini, P., 2010. On the use of integrated daylighting and
energy simulations to drive the design of a large net-zero energy office building. In:
Proc. Fourth National Conference of IBPSA-USA, New York, NY.
Hachem, C., Athienitis, A., Fazio, P., 2011. Parametric investigation of geometric form
effects on solar potential of housing units. Sol. Energy 85 (9), 1864–1877.
Heiselberg, P., Brohus, H., Hesselholt, A., Rasmussen, H., Seinre, E., Thomas, S., 2009.
Application of sensitivity analysis in design of sustainable buildings. Renew. Energy
34 (9), 2030–2036.
Hemsath, T.L., Alagheband Bandhosseini, K., 2015. Sensitivity analysis evaluating basic
building geometry’s effect on energy use. Renew. Energy 76, 526–538.
Hopfe, C.J., Hensen, J.L.M., 2011. Uncertainty analysis in building performance
simulation for design support. Energy Build. 43 (10), 2798–2805.
Kamel, R.S., Fung, A.S., 2014. Modeling, simulation and feasibility analysis of residential
BIPV/T+ASHP system in cold climate - Canada. Energy Build. 82, 758–770.
Kämpf, J.H., Montavon, M., Bunyesc, J., Bolliger, R., Robinson, D., 2010. Optimisation of
buildings’ solar irradiation availability. Sol. Energy 84 (4), 596–603.
Kämpf, J.H., Robinson, D., 2010. Optimisation of building form for solar energy
utilisation using constrained evolutionary algorithms. Energy Build. 42 (6),
807–814.
Kazanci, O.B., Skrupskelis, M., Sevela, P., Pavlov, G.K., Olesen, B.W., 2014. Sustainable
heating, cooling and ventilation of a plus-energy house via photovoltaic/thermal
panels. Energy Build. 83, 122–129.
Mitchell, J.C., Braun, J.E., Evans, B.L., 2017. TRNSYS 18: A Transient System Simulation
Program, 18 ed. Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Konis, K., Gamas, A., Kensek, K., 2016. Passive performance and building form: An
optimization framework for early-stage design support. Sol. Energy 125, 161–179.
Lam, T.C., Ge, H., Fazio, P., 2016. Energy positive curtain wall configurations for a cold
climate using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) approach. Build. Simul. 9 (3),
297–310.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2016. WINDOW, v7.4 ed. Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkeley.
Li, H., Wang, S., Cheung, H., 2018. Sensitivity analysis of design parameters and optimal
design for zero/low energy buildings in subtropical regions. Appl. Energy 228,
1280–1291.
Marszal, A.J., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J.S., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I.,
Napolitano, A., 2011. Zero Energy Building - A review of definitions and calculation
methodologies. Energy Build. 43 (4), 971–979.
Martin, L., March, L., 1972. Urban Space and Structures. Cambridge University Press,
London.
Mechri, H.E., Capozzoli, A., Corrado, V., 2010. USE of the ANOVA approach for sensitive
building energy design. Appl. Energy 87 (10), 3073–3083.
530
Solar Energy 224 (2021) 516–530
Natural Resources Canada, 2012. Survey of Commercial and Institutional Energy Use -
Buildings 2009. In: Efficiency, O.o.E. (Ed.). Ottawa, Canada.
Natural Resources Canada, 2017. Photovoltaic and solar resource maps. Accessed
2019.06.30 2019. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/18366.
Negendahl, K., 2015. Building performance simulation in the early design stage: an
introduction to integrated dynamic models. Autom. Constr. 54, 39–53.
Nejma, H.B., Guiavarch, A., Lokhat, I., Auzenet, E., Claudon, F., Peuportier, B., 2013. In-
situ performance evaluation by simulation of a coupled air source heat pump/PV-T
collector system. In: IBPSA (Ed.) 13th Conference of International Building
Performance Simulation Association. IBPSA, Chambéry, France, pp. 1927–1935.
Nembrini, J., Samberger, S., Labelle, G., 2014. Parametric scripting for early design
performance simulation. Energy Build. 68(PART C), 786–798.
O’Brien, W., Bourdoukan, P., Delisle, V., Yip, S., 2015. Net ZEB design processes and
tools. In: Athienitis, A.K., O’Brien, W. (Eds.), Modeling, Design, and Optimization of
Net-Zero Energy Buildings. Wiley, Hoboken, pp. 107–174.
Ourghi, R., Al-Anzi, A., Krarti, M., 2007. A simplified analysis method to predict the
impact of shape on annual energy use for office buildings. Energy Convers. Manage.
48 (1), 300–305.
Paulson, B.C., 1976. Designing to reduce construction costs. J. Constr. Div. 102 (4),
587–592.
Pessenlehner, W., Mahdavi, A., 2003. Building morphology, transparence, and energy
performance. In: Eighth International IBPSA Conference 2003. IBPSA, Eindhoven,
NL, pp. 1025–1032.
Peterson, K., Torcellini, P., Grant, R., 2015. A Common Definition for Zero Energy
Buildings. US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, p. 22.
Python Software Foundation, 2019. Python, 3.7.3 ed. Python Software Foundation,
Beaverton, OR.
Ratti, C., Raydan, D., Steemers, K., 2003. Building form and environmental performance:
Archetypes, analysis and an arid climate. Energy Build. 35 (1), 49–59.
Ricco, L., Rigoni, E., Turco, A., 2013. Smoothing spline ANOVA for variable screening,
Dolomites Research Notes on Approximation. Trento, Italy, pp. 130–139.
Rounis, E.D., Athienitis, A.K., Stathopoulos, T., 2016. Multiple-inlet Building Integrated
Photovoltaic/Thermal system modelling under varying wind and temperature
conditions. Sol. Energy 139, 157–170.
Sartori, I., Napolitano, A., Voss, K., 2012. Net zero energy buildings: a consistent
definition framework. Energy Build. 48, 220–232.
Sherman, M.H., 1987. Estimation of infiltration from leakage and climate indicators.
Energy Build. 10 (1), 81–86.
Sobol, I.M., 1979. On the Systematic Search in a Hypercube. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 16
(5), 790–793.
Straube, J.F., Burnett, E.F.P., 2005. Building Science for Building Enclosures. Building
Science Press, Westford, Mass.
Tian, W., 2013. A review of sensitivity analysis methods in building energy analysis.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 411–419.
Torcellini, P., Pless, S., Deru, M., Crawley, D., 2006. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical
Look at the Definition, ACEEE Summer Study. U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific
Grove, California, p. 12.
Tuhus-Dubrow, D., Krarti, M., 2010. Genetic-algorithm based approach to optimize
building envelope design for residential buildings. Build. Environ. 45 (7),
1574–1581.
Voss, K., Musall, E., 2011. Net Zero Energy Buildings: International Comparison of
Carbon-Neutrality in Buildings. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
Wang, W., Rivard, H., Zmeureanu, R., 2006. Floor shape optimization for green building
design. Adv. Eng. Inf. 20 (4), 363–378.
Yang, T., Athienitis, A.K., 2015. Experimental investigation of a two-inlet air-based
building integrated photovoltaic/thermal (BIPV/T) system. Appl. Energy 159,
70–79.
Yi, Y.K., Malkawi, A.M., 2009. Optimizing building form for energy performance based
on hierarchical geometry relation. Autom. Constr. 18 (6), 825–833.
Yip, S., Chen, Y., Athienitis, A., 2015. Comparative Analysis of a Passive and Active
Daylight Redirecting Blind in Support of Early Stage Design, CISBAT 2015. ÉPFL,
Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 229–234.
Youssef, A.M.A., Zhai, Z.J., Reffat, R.M., 2016. Genetic algorithm based optimization for
photovoltaics integrated building envelope. Energy Build. 127, 627–636.
Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., 2016. Shape optimization of free-form buildings based on
solar radiation gain and space efficiency using a multi-objective genetic algorithm in
the severe cold zones of China. Sol. Energy 132, 38–50.