Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 888–892

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Performance evaluation of thermally insulated building integrated

photovoltaic roof
Digvijay Singh, Rubina Chaudhary ⇑
School of Energy and Environmental Studies, Devi Ahilya University, Indore 452001, India

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

Article history: In this paper, the thermal performance of insulated BIPV roofs is studied compared to non-insulated BIPV
Available online 3 November 2021 roofs. The BIPV roof prototype is designed, developed, and experimentally evaluated for composite cli-
matic conditions in the summer season. A surface temperature of PV module and different insulation
Keywords: Polyurethane foam, Rockwool, and Expanded Polystyrene were observed.It was seen that the PUF insu-
Insulated BIPV roof lated BIPV roof has a decrement factor of 0.24 and a time lag of 1 h. The average bottom surface temper-
Surface temperature ature of the insulated BIPV roofs is found between 37.4°C to 39°C.while, non-insulated BIPV has the
Time lag
average temperature of 46 °C. Further, heat gain and percentage heat reduction with respect to non-
Decrement factor
Heat reduction
insulated BIPV roof are calculated. Also, the average Discomfort index ranged between 26 and 29 for
all the cases of insulated BIPV roof. The study reveals that the thermal feasibility of the insulated BIPV
roof is acceptable.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Smart and Sustainable Developments in Materials, Manufacturing and Energy Engineering

1. Introduction Although, the insulation increases the additional capital cost,

The energy demand of the building sector is around 40 %, which
is covered by different energy sources from conventional to renew-
able ones. In renewable sources, due to ease in installing PV tech-
nologies on the building envelopes, the penetration of technologies
in building sectors has increased in recent years. The PV modules
are attached to the building envelope roof and facade either hori-
zontally or in a tilted manner to fulfill the energy demands of the
buildings [1,2]. These attached PV modules have shading on the
rooftop, which reduces the roof surface sol–air temperature and
cut out the maximum amount of heat penetration into the build-
ing, which led to improved thermal comfort and reduced the HVAC
load [3]. However, the PV technology in an integrated manner,
when used as a building material [4,5], leads to 2–3 times more
discomfort hours than conventional roofs. Singh et al. 2021 [6] in
a theoretical simulation, observed an increase in the room temper-
ature of 6.5 °C compared to a conventional reinforced concrete
roof. In a simulation study, Akata et al. [7,8] observed that the PV
technology increased the indoor temperature by 4 °C.In this paper,
the problem of increase in room temperature and discomfort hours
is mitigated by providing insulation at the rear side of the modules.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rubinachoudhary28@gmail.com (R. Chaudhary).
which can be covered within a limited time by reducing opera-
tional costs. A novel non-conditioned insulated BIPV roof prototype
is designed and developed. During the study, the bottom surface
temperatures of different insulation and the top surface of PV mod-
ules were observed from which the performance parameters time
lag, decrement factor, heat gain, and reduction were calculated.
2. Methodology
A small scale prototype with a dimension of 770 m
520 m

920 m was developed, at the School of Energy and Environmen-
tal Studies, Indore, India. The four sides (wall) of a prototype is
made of 18 mm thick plywood. The prototype roof was covered
from two 20 W Polycrystalline PV modules having the temperature
coefficient of 0.5 %/°C with an area of 0.334 m2.The conventional
insulation namely Rock-wool (RW), Expanded Polystyrene (EPS),
and Polyurethane Foam (PUF) with thickness of 25.4 mm was
attached at rear side of the PV modules. The thermal conductivity
(K) of insulation and the PV modules were given in the Table 1.
Because of negligible thickness of the PV module, the K value of
only glass and the solar cell is considered. In a nutshell, the inten-
tion was to increase the feasibility of PV modules as building mate-
rials by providing suitable insulation. The total global solar
radiation readings were recorded using the Pyranometer and PV

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.10.294
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Developments in Materials,
Manufacturing and Energy Engineering
D. Singh and R. Chaudhary Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 888–892

Table 1
Thermal conductiveity and thickness of PV module and insulation materials [6,9].

Material K (W/mK) Thickness (mm)

Glass 1.7 4
Solar Cell 148 0.4
PUF (Insulation) 0.030 25.4
RW (Insulation) 0.040 25.4
EPS (Insulation) 0.038 25.4

module, and insulation surface temperatures were taken for con-

secutive days in summer months using K-type thermocouple and
Keithley 2700 Datalogger.The percentage Relative Humidity (%
RH) inside the prototype was measured through the RH meter
shown below in Fig. 1. The K value of the PV modules layers and
the insulation were given in Table 1.
Fig. 2. Non-insulated BIPV roof top and bottom surface temperature readings of the
system.
3. Time lag and decrement factor calculation

The time lag ðUÞ and Decrement factor (f) can be calculated as
follows:
Time LagðUÞ ¼ tTb ; max  tTt ; max Where: tmax
Tb, tmax
Tt, represent
the time in hours when bottom and top surface temperatures are
at their maximums

Tmax  Tmin
Decremet FactorðfÞ ¼ b b
Tmax
t  Tmin
t

where: Tmax
b :The maximum temperature of bottom surface
Tmin
b : The minimum temperature of bottom surface
Tmax
t : The maximum temperature of top surface
Tmin
t : The minimum temperature of top surface

4. BIPV roof without insulation Fig. 3. EPS Insulated BIPV top and bottom surface temperature readings of the
system.

In case of non insulated BIPV roof due high K (W/mK) value and
lower thickness, there is no significant temperature difference
between upper and lower surface temperature. It is seen from
Fig. 2,that the maximum bottom surface temperature was
observed to be 66.8 °C and upper surface temperature of 68.9 °C.
This led to zero hour of time lag and decrement factor of around
0.95 which makes it unfeasible to be used as a roof. Due the follow-
ing reason it increases the room temperature and discomfort hours
in the building [4,5].

Fig. 1. (a) Photo of the prototype (b) Placement of RW at rear side of PV module placed (c) RH meter installed inside the prototype.

889
D. Singh and R. Chaudhary Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 888–892

Fig. 6. Heat Gain in Non-insulated BIPV roof.

Fig. 4. PUF Insulated BIPV top and bottom surface temperature readings of the
system.

Fig. 7. Heat Gain in insulated BIPV roof.

Fig. 5. RW Insulated BIPV top and bottom surface temperature readings of the HeatGain=lossðWÞ ¼ A
Uroof
ðTtop  Tbottom Þ
system.
A is roof area; DT temperature gradient between roof top and bot-
tom surface; Uroof composite thermal transitivity of roof
5. Replacing with insulated BIPV roof
5.1. Heat flow calculation of PV insulated roof system
The Figs. 3–5, below shows surface temperatures of different
insulation having thickness of 25.4 mm. It can be observed in the
Aroof ¼ 0:485
0:345 ¼ 0:167m2 = 0.167
2 = 0.334m2
figures that surface temperature pattern during the sunshine hours
UPUF ¼ 1:38W=m2 K; DT ¼ 35:9  C
of all the insulation were similar in nature. The average insulation
bottom surface temperature of 37.4 °C, 37.9 °C and 39.2 °C is found Peak heat gain PUF insulated BIPV ¼ 0:334
1:38
35:9 ¼ 16:59 W
in case of RW, PUF and EPS respectively. In case of PUF insulation,
the peak PV top and insulation bottom temperatures were Similarly, the calculation can be performed for other insulation
observed to be 81.5 °C and 46.6 °C, respectively, with a decrement material.
factor of 0.24 and time lag of 1-h.It is observed in Table 2, all the
insulation materials having time lag (U) of 1 h, which was found 5.2. Heat gain reduction
comparable with conventional roof materials having time lag
between 1 and 2 h. The average heat gain reduction in insulation cases compared to
Heat Flow and reduction Calculation without insulation is given as:

Table 2
Time lag and Decrement factors of BIPV roof.

Ref. Thickness (m) Cases Time Lag (U) (Hrs) Decrement Factor (f)
Present study 0.0254 PV roof without insulation 0 0.95
PV roof with RW 1 0.32
PV roof with EPS 1 0.33
PV roof with PUF 1 0.24
[10] 0.050 Concrete Block Roof 1.14 0.47
Brick block Roof 1.15 0.51
[11] – RCC roof – 0.81
[12] 0.140 Concrete Block Roof 2 0.48

890
D. Singh and R. Chaudhary
Fig. 8. Hourly Discomfort Index for different insulated and non insulated BIPV roofs.
Average heat gain of insulated BIPV roof = 7:47W
Average heat gain of non insulated BIPV roof = 112:57 W
Average heat gain reduction through insulated BIPV roof
system with respect to non insulated BIPV roof
=f1  ð7:47=112:57Þg
100% ¼ 93%
The Fig. 6, below depicts the peak heat gain of 274 W for non
insulated BIPV roof, the inconsistency is observed in heat gain/flow
because of negligible thickness of 5.5 mm and high U value. While
for insulated BIPV roof, as shown in Fig. 7, the peak heat gain of
16.88 W, 16.59 W and 15.54 W for RW, PUF and EPS was observed
respectively. The average heat gain reduction during sunshine
hours in insulated BIPV with respect to non-insulated BIPV roof
is found to be above 90%.
6. Discomfort index
The Discomfort Index (DI) is calculated using Thom’s discomfort
index formula given [13]:
DiscomfortIndexðDIÞ ¼ Tr  0:055ð1  0:01RHÞ
ðTr  14:5Þ
In Fig. 8, the discomfort index for insulated BIPV roof was found
between 20 and 30. It was observed that from 13:00 hrs to 16:00
hrs, the DI for insulated BIPV roof was found between 29 and 30
and for non-insulated BIPV the DI is above 30. The average DI dur-
ing sunshine hours was observed between 26 and 28, where above
50% of the population can feel discomfort. The high DI is observed
due to the non-conditioned nature of the developed prototype.
However, the DI also depends upon local climate conditions, where
the people can adopt a DI up to 30. [14]
7. Conclusion
The insulated BIPV roof can provide an average heat gain reduc-
tion of above 90 % compared to non-insulated BIPV under compos-
ite climatic conditions. Such reduction in heat gain is achieved due
to the negligible thickness of PV modules. When compared with
conventional roofs, PUF insulated BIPV roofs showed a decrement
factor of 0.24 followed by a 1-h time lag (U). It is observed that
all the insulation used in the study shows a significant reduction
in heat gain with an acceptable time lag (U),Decrement factor
and DI. The DI for a non-insulated BIPV roof is observed above 30
during the sunshine hours; for an insulated roof, the DI is in the
891
Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 888–892
range of 20–30. All the insulation used in the study showed similar
performance; one can go for low-cost and high durability insula-
tion material in roof construction. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the feasibility of PV insulated modules as a roof in terms of
thermal performance is acceptable.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Digvijay Singh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
original draft, Visualization, Resources, Validation. Rubina Chaud-
hary: Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. .
U value of PV roof:
Lglass LCell LTedlar
RPV ¼ þ þ
Kglass Kcell KTedlar
LIns
Rins ¼
KIns
1
Uroof ¼
½Rins þRPV 
References
[1] D. Singh, A.K. Gautam, R. Chaudhary, Potential and performance estimation of
free-standing and building integrated photovoltaic technologies for different
climatic zones of India, Energy Built Environ. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbenv.2020.10.004.
[2] D. Singh, R. Chaudhary, A. Karthick, Review on the progress of building-
applied/integrated photovoltaic system, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (35)
(2021) 47689–47724, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15349-5.
[3] D. Singh, R. Chaudhary, Impact of roof attached Photovoltaic modules on
building material performance, Mater. Today:. Proc. 46 (2021) 445–450.
[4] G. Aaditya, M. Mani, BIPV: ‘‘A real-time building performance study for a roof-
integrated facility”, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 37 (3) (2018) 249–267.
[5] G. Aaditya, R. Pillai, M. Mani, An insight into real-time performance assessment
of a building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) installation in Bangalore (India),
D. Singh and R. Chaudhary
Energy Sustain. Dev. 17 (5) (2013) 431–437, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
esd.2013.04.007.
[6] D. Singh, M. Rawat, S.P. Singh, R. Chaudhary, Performance of PV integrated wall
and roof as a building material, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science
and Engineering, 1., IOP Publishing, 2021, p. 012005, https://doi.org/10.1088/
1757-899X/1033/1/012005.
[7] M.A.E. Akata, D. Njomo, B. Mempouo, The effect of building integrated
photovoltaic system (BIPVS) on indoor air temperatures and humidity (Iath)
in the tropical region of Cameroon”, Future Cities Environ. 1 (2015) 1, https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40984-015-0002-y.
[8] A.M.E.A. Akata, D. Njomo, B. Agrawal, Assessment of building integrated
photovoltaic (BIPV) for sustainable energy performance in tropical regions of
Cameroon, Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 80 (2017) 1138–1152, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.155.
[9] S. Schiavoni, F. D‫׳‬Alessandro, F. Bianchi, F. Asdrubali, Insulation materials for
the building sector: a review and comparative analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 62 (2016) 988–1011.
892
Materials Today: Proceedings 52 (2022) 888–892
[10] H. Asan, Numerical computation of time lags and decrement factors for
different building materials, Building Environ. 41 (5) (2006) 615–620, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.02.020.
[11] P.K.S. Rathore, S.K. Shukla, N.K. Gupta, Yearly analysis of peak temperature,
thermal amplitude, time lag and decrement factor of a building envelope in
tropical climate, J. Build. Eng. 31 (2020) 101459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2020.101459.
[12] Ö. Kasßka, R. Yumrutasß, Experimental investigation for total equivalent
temperature difference (TETD) values of building walls and flat roofs, Energy
Convers. Manage. 50 (11) (2009) 2818–2825.
[13] E.C. Thom, The discomfort index, Weatherwise 12 (2) (1959) 57–61.
[14] M.F. Md Din, Y.Y. Lee, M. Ponraj, D.R. Ossen, K. Iwao, S. Chelliapan, Thermal
comfort of various building layouts with a proposed discomfort index range
for tropical climate, J. Therm. Biol. 41 (2014) 6–15.