The Energy Brick

THE ENERGY BRICK AR1B011 BUCKY LAB DESIGN - 2020/2021 Q1 - GROUP 7 - Karin Backer, Pragya Chauhan, Jordy van Eijk, Sarah Hoogenboom, Daniël Koster, Nienke Smit

page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4

Chapter 1: Introduction

8

Chapter 2: Background Study

18

Chapter 3: Design Engineering & Technical Drawings

26

Chapter 4: Finetuning

32

Chapter 5: Building Weeks

38

Chapter 6: Survey

44

Chapter 7: Competational Design

48

Chapter 8: Final Product

64

Chapter 9: Reflection

70

References

74

Appendix

page 3

ABSTRACT PV panels are not considered to be designed directly for facade application and many panel products are not integrated into the facade design. Therefore current facades do not contribute to energy production but have the potential of solar collection on the south facing facades. This will allow building inhabitants to use roof tops for other functions.

To combine the aesthetic features of a brick facade with the energy producing capabilities of a PV panel we designed: The Energy Brick. An innovative product that has the architectural flexibility to be easily integrated in new construction brick facades.

This report will walk through our entire process, starting from research and concluding with the specifications of our final product. Besides the main design, the computational design and the experimental setup for the Research and Innovation course will be reviewed as well. The final design consists of 3 PV bricks attached to a brick module. This brick module is attached to a mounting system through a clip mechanism that allows the brick module to be detached and replaced if necessary. Wiring is integrated into the product and can be plugged into a home electrical inverter.

This product completely replaces traditional cladding without additional wall construction width.

QUICK SPECS Physical Brick type and size (mm) Max. module dimensions (mm) Module thickness (mm) Weight (kg per m²) Junction box Framing Mounting

(Dutch) waal size*, 210 x 50 660 x 20 x 60 20 20,3 Half-cut cell junction box, IP67, rear placement Frameless Energy Brick Clips * Other sizes available on request

Electrical Yearly power output (kWh per m²) Cell type Cell size (mm) Voltage per module

Up to 102,3* Monocrystalline 95 x 45 per cell 3V * Dependent on color and orientation

Finish Materials Front glass Rear glass Mortar material Fire protection

Tempered glass, tinted* Tempered glass Anodized** Aluminium Non-flammable, non-combustible * Optional ** Different color options available

Environment & Sustainability Embodied carbon emission (kg per m²) Recyclable materials (%) Carbon neutrality

180,98 94,3% As soon as within 4 years* * Dependent on yearly power output

page 4

chapter 1: introduction

CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

1.1: Brief Background 1.2: Problem Statement & Design Vision 1.3: Outline of the report

BRIEF BACKGROUND

page 5

chapter 1: introduction

1. Introduction For the Bucky Lab Design course, we were asked to design a new Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) facade product. This report outlines the design process for the final product by the Bricky Lab team.

1.1. Brief Background

1.2. Problem Statement and Design Vision To start the design process, we began by making a problem statement and design vision. During the course of the project, the problem statement and the design vision evolved.

Problem statements

In the first four weeks of the project, the six group members worked individually on a PV facade concept idea and then were presented individually as a pitch. The pitch posters of each group member can be found in Appendix A.1. The concept ideas showed similarities in modularity and a collective fascination for traditional facades. This was the basis for forming the group and the main concept for the product.

- Current solutions are difficult to architecturally integrate with existing brick facades and do not offer creative freedom. (week 1.6) - Current solutions are difficult to structurally integrate with existing brick facades and do not offer architectural flexibility (week 1.8) The Bucky Lab project began with formulating a problem statement that shows our motivation why we want to make a PV product for brick facades.

During our first pitch presentation, it is clear that we want to integrate PV cells in masonry. We began by targeting ‘existing brick facades’ and then shifted towards ‘brick facades’ due to conclusions made in our research (see chapter 2.3) which showed that new construction better suits our motivation and our final PV product.

At the end of the research phase, our final problem statement became clear.

Design visions - An aesthetically pleasing PV product which emulates the look of a brick but with a modern twist. It can be easily added to an existing facade as a standard element. (week 1.6) - An aesthetically pleasing PV product which emulates the look of a brick facade but with a modern twist. It should be a standard element which can be easily used in new construction. (week 1.8) - An aesthetically pleasing PV product which copies the dimension of a brick facade but with a modern twist. It should be a standard element which can be easily used in new construction. (week 1.10) - An aesthetically pleasing PV product which emulates the look of a brick facade but with a modern twist. It should be a standard element which can be easily used in new construction. (week 2.1) The design vision went through more changes than the problem statement because as time passed by we became more familiar with what our final product would look like. We were able to add more specific and fine-tune keywords each week which resulted in our final design vision. Following this vision, a project group should achieve similar results to our group.

OUTLINE OF THE REPORT

page 6

chapter 1: introduction

1.3. Outline of the Report This report will present the design process, which is divided into 9 chapters. First an introduction will be given in chapter 1.

Chapter 2 will present the research phase (week 1.5-1.7), in which the background study was performed. Chapter 3 will discuss the design engineering phase (week 1.8-1.10) and the technical drawing phase (week 2.1-2.2), which are combined in one chapter as these phases are closely related and were adjusted simultaneously. Chapter 4 will elaborate on the finetuning phase (week 2.3-2.4), in which we focused on the preparation for the Building Weeks. Chapter 5 discusses the Building Weeks (week 2.5-2.6), and the conclusions that were made during the building process. Chapter 6 will present the outcome of the survey that was performed during the Building Weeks. In chapter 7 the computational design is discussed, which was used to optimize the product. Chapter 8 presents an overview of the final product and its specifications. Finally, chapter 9 will present the reflection on the process. At the end of the report, the references and Appendix are enclosed.

Karin Backer

Pragya Chauhan

Jordy van Eijk

Sarah Hoogenboom

Daniël Koster

Nienke Smit

page 8

chapter 2: background study

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND STUDY

2.1: Photovoltaic Details 2.2: Bricks 2.3: Target Groups 2.4: Identification of Criteria

PHOTOVOLTAIC DETAILS

page 9

chapter 2: background study

2. Background Study

PV cell types, common components of a PV, wiring, electrical connections, and PV appearance options.

Before the design process, our group collected information regarding the different aspects of a Photovoltaic (PV) product and the type of facade we were implementing. We decided from the beginning that our aim is to implement our product on a brick facade, therefore further research was completed on aspects of brick facades. Finally, to make our product valuable for the market, we investigated and determined our target group.

An investigation of the different PV technology available followed these five types of PV’s: Monocrystalline, Polycrystalline, Thin Film, Gallium arsenide (GaAS), and Multi-Junction. Research acknowledged that there is continuous PV research and improvements. At this time PV panels are commonly made of monocrystalline, polycrystalline, or thinfilm. Although GaAS and Multi-Junction have shown higher efficiency, they are still developing technologies and would increase the price of our final product (Schulte, Simon, Ptak, 2018). For this reason, further research was performed

Given the goal to implement PV on facades, it was essential to investigate PV cells and PV panels. We investigated

Used

Material

Shape

Recycle

Mono

Widely

Pure silicone

Hexagon wafers

Yes, trimmed parts

Poly

Most common

Silicon fragments

Mold shape

Yes, very easy

Various

Not actively recycled

Thin Film

Sometimes

Based on PV cell research and direct comparison of Mono-Si and Poly-Si in product application, Table 2.2, the best suited type for the product is mono-Si because of its higher efficiency and sizing abilities. It is noted that mono-Si wafers have a maximum size of approximately 156 mm x 156 mm (Osborne, 2018), meaning a single PV cell cannot be sized to a full brick. In the final product, each cell will be approximately 95x45mm (see section 4.5).

2.1.1. PV cell Types

2.1. Photovoltaic Details

Cadmium Telluride, Amorphous Silicon, Copper Indium Gallium Selenide, and Gallium Arsenide

for Mono-Si, Poly-Si and Thin Film and summarized in Table 2.1.

Mono-Si Poly-Si

Looks +/+/-

High efficiency + +/-

Relative Price

Finish

Efficiency

Lifespan

System

Medium

$$$

Uniform

10% 19.3%

25-35

Frame(less) in glass

Short

$$

8.9 14.3%

23-27

Frame(less) in glass

Long

$

Various

7 - 15%

Good recyclability + ++

Sizing + +/-

Table 2.2: Summary of comparison of Mono-Si and Poly-Si Technology in product application.

Production time

Metal flakes and patches

Low costs + ++

10-15

Glue or frame

Product Related Pro Highest efficiency in silicon, recyclable, smooth and uniform look Lower costs, made from recycled materials Super flexible, lightweight, different colors possible, thin laminate, cheap

Product Related Con

More expensive Lower efficiency, patch-like finish Low efficiency, use of adhesives

Table 2.1: Summary of Mono-Si, Poly-Si, and Thin Film PV technology and Pro Con comparison related to the product. Data from: Sage (2020), Tyagi (2013), and Davison (2015).

PHOTOVOLTAIC DETAILS

page 10

chapter 2: background study

2.1.2. Common components of PV Transparent case Research was focused on acrylic and glass for the transparent encasement of the PV laminate. It was found that select PV manufacturers use acrylic due its durability in different climate conditions and its transparency. Unfortunately, acrylic has poor recyclability and creates a considerable amount of pollution during manufacturing.

Additional research through EduPack was performed for other types of materials, such as polymers, and it was found that these materials do not meet our sustainability, transparency, and climate requirements. For this reason we have determined that our product will be using a glass laminate encasement. This will add a thickness of approximately 45mm to the PV panel.

Frame vs frameless To secure the PV cell and transparent case to the product module, frame materials and different types of frames were investigated. Research conducted in EduPack software determined that an aluminum alloy is the best option for a durable, recyclable, and lightweight frame for the PV and glass. Steel alloys were also a suggested material but it was found that steel would be too brittle for shape forming, has more embodied energy and

weighs more than the aluminum.

Further research suggested that a frameless PV would reduce the quantity of material used for the product (Soliculture, 2001). Frameless PV are commonly applied using bifacial PV laminates where a silicon gel is placed between glass and another layer of glass or polymer. Although frameless PV are more expensive, they have the capability of being scaled to brick size. In addition, the PV and glass would not have to be screwed into the back structure, which will decrease risk of corrosion and potential fracture points in the glass. Surface area of solar energy collection for the PV panel will also be optimized using a frameless PV and will only require a 2.5mm trim around the PV cells for the silicon gel (LUMOS, 2020).

In conclusion from the research, it was found that the frameless PV panels better suited our criteria of reducing material use and embodied energy as well as climate durability.

2.1.3. PV Wiring, Connections and Electrical setup

electrical standards,and PV arrangements were used as a basis of design to find a best overall solution.

Each string of the inverter has to be connected directly to a junction box at the beginning and end of a PV string.

Standard PV panels have one single junction box attached on the backside of any PV panel, see Appendix B.2 for the junction box sizing.

The size of a standard junction box is too large to fit our product and we scaled the junction box so it can fit inside the dimensions of our module. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of bypass-diodes and by applying half or quarter-cut cells that require a different wiring layout. The junction box will function for PV cells in series with the same voltage. Specifically, our full PV product will be laid out so the junction box on the back of the module can wire both positive and negative elements rather than the combined connections in standard junction boxes. An example and continuation about this topic can be found in section 4.5.

Our modular approach to a PV system means that a standard PV wiring and installation system cannot be applied directly to our product. However, this is an opportunity to connect each PV module separately in different arrays such as series strings, parallel strings, and combinations.

Based on available inverters, different Figure 2.1: Frameless PV (Exasun.com, n.d.).

PHOTOVOLTAIC DETAILS

page 11

chapter 2: background study

2.1.4. PV Appearance Finish Glass PV panels commonly have a reflective appearance and utilize glazing finished to reduce glare. An appearance with solar reflection would have limitations of overall facade appearance as well as could cause issues to the outside environment due to solar reflection. In order to mitigate this we investigated PV panel finishes.

The goal of the final product is to emulate a brick facade, which commonly has a matte finish. To replicate this finish, research was done on possible PV glass finishes on. It was found that a matte finish on the PV panel is not possible due to a predetermined finish of the panels that guarantee the highest level of solar energy collection efficiency. A matte finish would prevent global direct illuminance from

reaching the solar cell and create heat buildup in the PV panel, which will lower efficiency drastically. A better solution is to apply an anti-reflective finish on our product to increase the transmission rate to 99% of the radiation energy (Shanmugam, Pugazhendhi, Elavarasan, Kasiviswanathan, & Das, 2020).

Color To mimic the appearance of a brick facade, we considered the use of colored PV rather than the industry standard dark blue. It was found that colored PV panels are possible by incorporating an additional colored film in between glass and PV cells. Unfortunately, using colored film will block high-energy lightwaves from being absorbed by the PV cell.

Research has shown that red colored panels have a decreased efficiency of 7.7% (Ji et al., 2019). This is close to a

Figure 2.2: Visible Spectrum of Light (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2012).

reduction of half the efficiency due to the coloring of the PV panel. The same method of research can be performed and calculated for any given color.

In conclusion, colored PV panels are an option for the final product but will significantly decrease the yield efficiency.

For our final product, we want to allow customers a selection of colors when they purchase the product. Customers will be well informed on the consequences of choosing any different color than the industry standard dark blue PV panel.

Figure 2.3: Colored PV (Todoensolar.com, n.d.).

BRICKS

page 12

chapter 2: background study

2.2. Bricks Since our product is inspired by bricks, we found it vital to know more background information and application. The process of brick production starts with mining and blending raw clay of different textures and colors. The clay is then shaped into brick form and air-dried prior to being placed in a kiln and cooled. It is in the step that the brick attains its distinct coloring.

As an alternative, many brick facades use brick tiles instead of full bricks. These brick tiles can be made from clay, sand, or quartz with a polymer binder and mimic the appearance of a brick and come in an array of colors and textures As an alternative for a PV brick, these brick tiles can be utilized as “filler bricks” to fill the gaps where a PV product cannot be applied in the facade. These situationation include locations of shading or a customer’s decision to not cover the entire facade in PV bricks.

2.2.1. Sizes and Patterns Brick facades have a diverse amount of patterns and the standard size of brick differs between countries for brick sizes.

In the Netherlands, the Waalformaat, 210x100x50mm, is the most commonly used size in exterior facades. Since the height of 50mm is a nice rounded number and the context of our design is in the Netherlands, we decided to use this size

as our standard brick size. To imitate different brick pattern constructions, we determined that our product is able to incorporate full bricks, half bricks and quarter bricks. This will allow customers versatile arrangement and patterns as seen in chapter 8. Our full brick has a length of 210mm, half brick is 100mm in length, and the quarter brick is 45mm in length. These are the dimensions that we have established for our PV product.

PICTURE OF MORTAR IMPORTANCE

2.2.2. Mortar It was found that the mortar lines are a key aspect of the appearance of a brick facade, shown in Figure 2.4. To maintain a more “brick-like” appearance, our product must imitate not only the size of the brick but also incorporate mortar appearance on the facade. It was determined that gaps would be used in an ideal design for mortar space, which would utilize casted shadows to create contrast between the PV surfaces - giving the appearance of a brick facade. Utilizing a gap as a mortar space would also increase ventilation and reduce potential overheating.

Figure 2.4: Mortar Importance 1 (Twitter.com, 2016).

Figure 2.5: Mortar Importance 2 (Brickarchitecture.com, 2016).

TARGET GROUPS

page 13

chapter 2: background study

2.3. Target Groups Initially to define the potential target group, a team value criteria rating exercise was completed to see what type of building we individually wanted to focus on (see 2.4.1). It was concluded that our most interested target group would be existing buildings, in hopes to create a product that would assist existing buildings become climate neutral. We also wanted our PV product to be able to attach to an existing brick facade without damaging it. It was mentioned to us that a current facade may not be able to hold the extra attachment.

To verify this, we did research on existing buildings with brick facades.

It was found that there are approximately 7.8 million residential buildings total in the Netherlands, 18.7% of which were constructed before 1945 (CBS, 2019).

Many of these buildings are considered to be cultural heritage of the Netherlands or are reaching the end of their lifespan of approximately 75 years. Thus these buildings are not a sensible target for our PV product due the potential heritage impact and the potential building maintenance required to extend the lifespan of the building.

45.5% of residential buildings constructed after 1945, were constructed between 1945 and 1985. During this time period, facade construction styles were limited.

A majority of these facade constructions are non load bearing walls which are

structurally unstable and cannot carry additional attachments and weight, such as a PV panel. Additionally, a study from VROM (2007) concludes that non load bearing walls constructed between 1945 and 1985 cannot be penetrated without the risk of collapsing and structural failure.

We concluded that residential facades from 1985 or earlier are not suitable for an attachable PV product. It is noted that our product may be applicable to buildings before 1985 when a facade is being completely replaced or renovated.

From this research it was finalized that our target group for our product is new residential construction.

while also maintaining a familiar facade aesthetics. These aspects will also optimize the efficiency of our product and will increase the Return on Investment (ROI) rate in comparison to the limits of an existing rooftop (Paardekooper, 2015). In the best case scenario, our product should be able to compete with regular PV panels on rooftops in a cost-benefit analysis while allowing architects a new medium to make their design more sustainable.

When comparing PV rooftop panels with a PV facade product, it appeared that the cost-benefit analysis of a PV facade is lower than rooftop panels. Property owners of existing buildings may be hesitant to invest in a PV brick facade for these situations. Since these cases cover typical situations property owners may face, it appears that there is limited marketspace left for our product to be successful. This exercise supported our decision to design a PV facade product focused on new construction.

New construction allows the designer to integrate our product where desired with minimal outside variables. They can ensure there are no unwanted casted shadows on the facade and they can optimize orientation of the PV product Figure 2.6: New Construction (Globalconstructionreview.com, 2020).

TARGET GROUPS

page 14

chapter 2: background study

2.3.1. Innovation Model

2.3.2. Residential

The Figure 2.7 shows a general path of acceptance of consumers during the timeline of a product in the market, called the diffusion of innovation Model (Hanlon, 2013). A product will move through this timeline of early acceptance consumers, innovators and early adopters, and once they reach the early majority the product can be considered as a common consumer item. Prior to a product reaching the early majority the price usually decreases, making the product more accessible to this group. This around the time that PV panels became more widely accepted as a form of renewable energy. The remaining groups of consumers, the late majority and laggards, follow the lead of other consumers.

In general, if a product makes it to the early majority group of consumers, it will become a widely accepted product. When we look for a target group for our PV product, we will focus on early adopters and early majority to be willing to shift PV panels from rooftops and to place them on facades. Since PV panels are familiar to the majority of consumer groups in the innovation model (CBS, 2019), the introduction of a PV facade may not take as long as the adaptation to PV panels in general.

The categories of residential building owners in the Netherlands are private property owners, single private property owners, and large scale private property owners. Private property owners have a small quantity of houses which they purchase and rent out. The main goal for these property owners is to make a profit and limit property upgrades until necessary renovation.

Single private property owners are people who own a residential home in which they live in. This category can be divided into smaller general age groups, but we only discuss the ones that are noteworthy. First time home owners are able to invest in home improvements, but also may face financial strain due to owning a home. This group also may continue to move homes, but tend to be more open minded and conscious of new technology. New families are likely to have a stable income and are able to invest in home improvements.

They have a tendency to remain in one home while raising the family. This makes them the most attractive target group.

The large scale private property owners category can be divided into companies and institutional investors. Companies own a large portion of housing and rent all kinds of houses, such as social housing and apartment buildings. They mostly choose to invest in technology if it makes them a profit. This includes housing corporations funded by the government, which may not make any profit and do not have the fund to invest in innovative technology. Institutional investors invest in expensive properties due to financial stability and the ability to invest in larger scale projects. They are most likely to invest in innovation if it gives them profit.

We concluded that first time home owners, families, and large scale private property owners are most likely to buy our product. These groups can be seen as the early adopters and early majority in the innovation model (van der Kam, 2018).

Figure 2.7: Diffusion of Innovation Model by Hanlon for Smart Insights (2013).

TARGET GROUSP

page 15

chapter 2: background study

2.3.3. Non-residential

2.4. Identification of Criteria

2.4.1. Value Criteria Rating

Non-residential buildings are owned by property owners, government organizations and large-scale property owners. These non-residential buildings are seen as commercial spaces, such as restaurants and stores. Property owners usually own a few buildings which they rent out. Government organizations are generally on a tight budget and only invest money in innovation if the building is related to their appearance and status.

The large scale property owners consist mainly of companies. Once the buildings are built and rented out, companies invest during needed renovations to maintain the value and appearance of the building. Because they make large profits through their property, they invest in new technology in hopes of being an innovator or early adopter (van der Kam, 2018).

Overall, non-residential building owners that would potentially purchase our product are the large scale property owners. This is because they have the ability to invest financially and want to show new designs for their image.

During week 1.6, the group created a list of hard and soft criteria concepts that would need determined values by the end product. Hard criteria is defined as metrics that have a specific value that the product must meet. In contrast, soft criteria are defined as metrics that are intangible aspects of the product that are not easily measured but provide important information on goals of the product (Liberti & Petersen, 2017). Based on the concepts during week 1.6, the following hard and soft criteria were defined during week 1.7. Values were given to the hard criteria during the progression of design, while the soft criteria were defined during week 1.6.

In our first week as a group, we created initial criteria in order to see an overview of what each member of the team envisioned as our future design and product. Each criteria included two contradictory words and each member had to determine which word they were leaning towards within the criteria, a sort of method of scaling. Table 2.3 defines the criteria investigated. From the initial scaling done by each member, research was done on each criteria to evaluate feasibility. We noticed that the terms were interpreted differently per person. This gave us reason to better specify the terms. The rating of each member changed during the progression of the project. A comparison of the initial and final ratings of the team are seen in Appendix B.1. It can be seen that the last ratings are more in line with the final product, but also that the team members are more on the same page.

Contrasting Terms (vs.)

Efficiency Add-on

Aesthetics Replace

Older

New Construction Hiring Ease of Reuse

DIY Life-span of Building One Size Traditional Look

Different Sized Modern Interpretation

Description Focus on the efficiency or appearance Design a product that is able to be added on to a current facade or product that replaces the facade Aim for existing buildings or new construction DIY with an easy manual or expect to hire someone to install Design for a lifespan of the building or be able to reuse Design one size or different size bricks Mimic current brick color, size, and texture as much as possible or inspired by traditional with reinterpretations Table 2.3: Value Criteria Rating System.

IDENTIFICATION OF CRITERIA

page 16

chapter 2: background study

2.4.2. Hard Criteria

Dimension of PV brick: 210 x 50mm

To uphold ease of transport, installation, safety, and efficiency, the product follows these hard criteria values.

A single PV standard brick size is based on a standard brick size found in the Netherlands (Waalformaat). From the analysis of the array of brick size in the Netherlands it was determined the most standard and easiest to implement into new construction because of rounded whole numbers is 210 x 50mm.

Number of components: Four To simplify the system and product, we have minimized the number of designed components of our product to four: the mounting vertical element, the module mounting component, back brick, and the PV laminate.

Weight of module: 20 kg For ease of transport and mounting, the product will weigh a maximum of 20 kg. Due to this weight constraint, it was determined that structural components will be made of an aluminum alloy.

Thickness of module added to wall: 14 mm The thickness of the system is determined by the thickness of the wiring as well as the PV panel thickness. It was found that our system is approximately 4mm for the frameless PV glass and 10 mm for the back brick.

Dimension of mortar lines: 6 to 10mm In our brick facade research, it was found that mortar lines are a fundamental component of brick patterns and design.

We have used a standard mortar thickness of 6 to 10mm in between each PV brick to give a variety of looks for your facade.

Usable surface area of PV per m2: 60.6% It was calculated that for each surface area of facade available for the PV panel product, 60.6% of the area of wall can be used for PV product based on the excel sheet in Chapter 4.4.

Fire Hazard Rating: at least D and B for first story Based on Standards EN 13501-1, all facades above 13m must be fire-class

D or higher and higher buildings (7.5m or higher) for residential purpose need fire-class B at the bottom 2.5m. We have determined to follow fire-class D products with fire resistant facade connections around windows and doors in order to ensure a safe facade.

Wind Load Rating: 0.54 kN/m2 Based on wind force equation found in 6.5 of NPR 9096 -1-1, the equation [WEd = 1,35 ca cpe,10 qp] determines the horizontal wind force on a building, where: Ca = constant for the back-construction (load bearing or non load bearing).

Cpe,10 = wind force coefficient (NEN-EN 1991-1-4, tabel 7.1) qp = thrust force of wind (NEN-EN 1991-14, tabel NB.5) In addition it was found that for standards in the Netherlands, there will be at least two (2) wall ties per m2 (NEN-EN 19961-1) based on technical standards 11.8.2 NEN 6790.

Durability Rating: MX3.2 Durability of the product is based on the environmental context of use in the Netherlands. MX3.2 is the durability rating for faces that are exposed to moisture and salty water in combination with freezing and thawing changes based on standards NEN-EN 1996-2.

IDENTIFICATION OF CRITERIA

page 17

chapter 2: background study

2.4.3. Soft Criteria

Easy connection to electrical network

The goal of our product was to create an accessible PV facade that also maintains local character. From an initial list of soft criteria, items were condensed and simplified for the final list as follows:

As an easy and quick installation for a specialist, the product has easy interconnection between PV brick panels and connects to the main electrical network of a building with a standard DC to AC inverter with MPP tracker.

Return on Investment (ROI) within a 15 year timeframe PV panels in general are a long term investment for a homeowner. For a standard roof PV panel, the ROI can be between 6 to 14+ years based on the number of PV panels (Paardekooper, 2015) purchased, orientation of roof, and the angle of the panels. Our goal is 15 years but this is also variable based on the homeowners color choice, facade orientation, and number of panels purchased.

Versatilite arrangement Allow the ability for creative freedom, as well as able to arrange based on the environmental surroundings such as shadowing of landscaping and other buildings.

Focused towards homeowners and new construction Based on target group research, our product targets new construction of private property owners. This can be scaled from single homes to low-rise apartments. We wanted to focus on early adopters and majority customers that will invest to maintain the brick aesthetic of their homes as well as have the funds to implement a new technology. It was found in research that old construction does not have the structural strength to hold an add on PV facade. This was a design directive to focus on new construction in order to guarantee that the PV facade is self supporting. The product can be used on any type of building and can be utilized in refurbishment and remodeling projects but these groups are not the main target groups.

Amount of energy produced determined by customer based on selection of color and number of panels Brick facades come in an array of colors as do PV panels, however one aspect of efficiency of the PV panels is determined by the coloring of the cells. Industry standard color, dark blue, panels have the most efficiency while a red panel has decreased efficiency, therefore requires more panels to produce the same quantity of energy as the standard color.

The group decided to allow customers to make PV brick color choices after they are informed about efficiency and the number of panels that their home may require for their home’s energy use.

Reduce carbon footprint To create a new medium of renewable energy, the group focused on making design choices that reduce the carbon footprint of the product. Material selection focused on minimizing material use, recyclability, and reduction of embodied energy.

page 18

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

4.1: Design Development 4.2: Technical Drawings

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

page 19

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

3. Design Engineering Phase

3.1. Design Development

In this phase, the data collected during the research phase was used to sketch and expand on potential designs.

Promising designs are worked out in 2D and 3D CAD programs and additional research was completed on specific technical aspects. Hard and soft criteria defined during the research phase were finalized.

In week 1.8 the design engineering phase started and the first design concepts were created, see Figures 3.1 through 3.6. These designs focused on the attachment of the back brick to the back structure.

While designing many of these concepts we found that some of our designs would be too easy to remove from the facade, require a lot of material, would not be replaceable, or would not aesthetically

match a brick facade. For these reasons, most of these designs were not further developed but are noted in this section because they inspired more developed design concepts.

As we further developed our design, we separated our product into the following components that needed to be designed: Mounting Design, Back Brick Module Design, PV to Back Brick Design, and Mortar Gap Design. We then integrated these design components together to make a final product design.

Option 1: Make a mesh on the back structure and feel free to add the brick everywhere.

Option 2: Place the PV cell on or in the bricks, which can be layered on top of each other. This idea shifted towards a (steel) frame that would hold the PV cell.

Option 3: Use wall ties to stack bigger panels on the facade. These panels could be PV bricks of normal bricks.

Option 4: Make the mortar lines as a grid where the PV cells can be placed.

Option 5: Place vertical elements on which the brick can be slided on.

Option 6: Place panel in the mortar of the bricks.

Figure 3.1 - 3.6: First Design Ideas.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

page 20

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

3.1.1. Mounting Design

Inspired by Existing Mounting Designs

Initial Mounting Design Outcome

In consideration for replaceability of the product once it is on the facade, research was done on click-on mechanisms. This type of mechanism is found on battery lids, USB sticks, charging cables, and guitar plugs. Users find them easy to use and replaceable. Research revealed that click-on mechanisms require the material to undergo deformation, which may cause long term damage if used repeatedly. It was concluded that a click-on mechanism can only be used when the element does not need to be replaced often. This gave us the initial idea for the plug system.

For the attachment of the back brick to the back structure, multiple designs were created. After the meeting feedback it was decided however to not go through with these ideas and to further investigate existing mounting systems. Applicable existing systems were reviewed, selected, and combined as inspiration as new design concepts for our product. To review and rate the existing systems, the following criteria were used to make the selection: ease of installation, use of material, flexibility, removability, rigidity and aesthetics. The pro-con analysis overview of the reviewed systems are found in Appendix B.4.

Next, we tried to combine the best aspects of the selected products. Of those combined systems, the most promising system was worked out in the 3D modelling program Revit, shown in Figures 3.14 and 3.15.

Based on our most promising mounting and interconnection systems and desire to simplify the mounting design, it was decided to move forward with testing and further designing for a clip, hanging, and plug mounting system. These types of systems were seen in existing mounting systems and were a simplified version of our Revit module. These designs formed the basis for the designs that were tested in the Building Weeks.

Figure 3.7 - 3.11: Plug Design Inspiration (Istockphoto.com, 2015).

Figure 3.12 - 3.13: Combining Existing Systems.

Figure 3.14 - 3.15: Revit Model.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

page 21

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

3.1.2. Brick Module Design Module Sizing To aid and support a decisive design directive for the sizing of the back brick module, a criteria matrix was created.

We used our hard and soft criteria to rate the single module, horizontal row module, and panel module concepts and used a weighted factor from 1 to 3 based on importance according to the design vision.

From this matrix it was decided to explore row options, as one panel or as an interconnected system between bricks.

Although this option did not score the highest in the matrix, it did score second best for both the soft and hard criteria, while the panel scored the lowest on the soft criteria. Initially, we imagined that the horizontal modules would be single PV bricks in order to allow the customer and architect full range creative freedom.

However, to reduce the number of components and to make wiring more efficient, we deemed it important to design for more than one PV brick on a single module. At the beginning, we took a length of four bricks in mind. Even though this was not based on research, it gave an idea of the dimensions of the row (880mm). In the fine tuning phase more conclusions are drawn for this length.

Hard Criteria

Single Horizontal Row Module Module 1 Number of components Hard Criteria 1 3 1 Weight of the system (per m2) 2 3 1 Number of components 1 Thickness of the module added to wall 1 Weight of the- system (per 1 Dimensions of standard module - m2) Thickness 3 Usable surface area of PV1per module of 3the module 3 added to wall 1 Dimensions of 2 Carbon Footprint 1 standard3 module 3 Fire Hazard rating: at least3DUsable surface 3 area of 3PV per module 2 Carbon Footprint 1 Wind load rating 1 2 at least 3 Durability rating: MX3.2 3 Fire Hazard rating: 5 5 D 1 Wind Tload otal rating 16 22 3 Durability rating: MX3.2 Total Soft Criteria

Panel 5Single 4Module -1 -2 3533 51 53 217 5 16

Horizontal Row Module 3 3 3 3 3 2 5 22

Panel 5 4 3 5 3 5 5 27

Single Module 5

Horizontal Row Panel Module Soft Criteria Single 1 Return of Investment Module 2 Versatile Arrangement (Shape in which product is placed 3 2 Return of how easily can we close it at1corners or Investment next to a window) 2 Versatile 5 4 2 Easy Connection to Electrical NetworkArrangement (Shape in which 1 product is 2 placed how easily can we close it at corners or next to a window) 1 Material and Production Cost 1 2 3 Brick ‘feel’ with mortar line2 Easy Connection to Electrical Network 5 4 1 Material and Production Cost 2 Replaceability 5 3 1 5 3 3 Customizability of Patterns3 Brick ‘feel’ with mortar line 5 5 Replaceability 5 4 2 Invisibility of anything that 2doesn't look like brick or mortar.

4 4 3 Customizability of Patterns 5 4 2 Quick and Easy construction 2 3 2 Invisibility of anything that doesn't look like brick or mortar.

4 3 1 Independency of System from Building 3 3 2 Quick and Easy construction 2 2 2 Homogeneity of Surface Perception 5 3 1 Independency of System from Building 3 1 1 Self bearing 1 1 2 Homogeneity of Surface Perception 5 5 1 Number of extra special pieces required/dummies. (Lesser 2 4 1 Self bearing 1 requirement is better) 1 Number of extra special pieces required/dummies.

(Lesser 2 31 Total 38 35 requirement is better) Complete Total 54 57 58 Total 38

Table 3.1: Criteria Matrix (range 1-5, 5 being best).

Horizont Module 3 2 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 1 4 35

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

page 22

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

3.1.3. PV to Brick Design

3.1.4. Mortar Gap Design

Options to attach the PV panels to the module also had to be considered as a design aspect. We investigated using adhesive, screws, or clicking mechanism to secure the PV panel to the brick module.

Another design aspect looked at was the mortar gap, which was established as a vital part of a brick facade appearance.

Two options were discussed: the use of a frame ‘gap’ or a physical gap between PV panels. To decide between these two aesthetic aspects, the usable PV area was taken into account for both situations.

Usable PV area was calculated based on different parameters such as mortar gap width and PV trim thickness. There were no large differences between the two options but visually it appeared that the physical gap between the PV panels was preferred and selected for design. We eventually choose a width of 10 mm for the mortar gap. This width is commonly used in brick facades and with visual rendering it was found that this mortar gap size gave the facade the best brick-like look.

From the beginning we eliminated the clicking mechanism because it would be additional material as well add complexity that is not needed to secure the PV panel.

We decided to use adhesive over the screws because screws could potentially fracture the PV glass and reduce the usable PV area. Using adhesive would allow ease of pattern customization to be manufactured. In addition, the ease of removability shifted from making the PV removable to making the entire Brick module removable.

Figure 3.16-3.19: Physical Gap, Frame Gap and No Gap.

System for PV to Back Brick Adhesive Screws Clicking

Pros Simple mechanism, Cheap Easy to remove Simple mechanism

Cons Hard to remove Fracture of glass Too many moving/mechanical parts

Table 3.2: Pro Con Analysis System PV to Back Brick.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

page 23

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

3.1.5. Integrating Design Mounting and PV Brick As a module consists of multiple bricks, we had to look into options to attach them to each other. We came up with three different mechanisms. The first one was inspired by Lego bricks, which you can easily stack to make one element. The second one was to connect the loose bricks by dowels, such as Ikea closets and the last option was to place them on one continuous module.

In order to make installation more efficient, we carefully considered all module mounting options: the plug, clip and hanging system. A morphological synthesis was performed to answer the following question: What happens when we combine these ideas? We imagined and recorded in a table the potential outcomes of combining a mounting system and back brick. In red are the most illogical options, in orange options that need more investigation or re-engineering.

After the combination analysis, we quickly realised the lego stacking PV modules had many disadvantages compared to the dowel connected modules and continuous modules. It would need additional engineering rather than aesthetic design to satisfy all requirements for strength, stiffness, and practicability. It became not worth further investigating this idea. The variables of the remaining promising ideas

were charted afterwards. Cross table 3.4 counts all possible outcomes when combining these variables. They form the basis for the experiments in the building weeks. Table 3.5 shows a graphical representation of all variables per idea.

Dowel connected 2 variables

Continuous module 2 variables

Clip 4 variables

8

8

Hook 2 variables

4

4

Plug 4 variables

8

8

Total number of possible outcomes:

40

Table 3.4: Cross-table of all possible outcomes.

Combination 1. Lego stacking Analysis

2. Dowel connected 2 variables

3. Continuous module 2 variables

A. Clip

Complications with horizontal connections if needed.

Will work. Can be combined with C2.

Complicated to make?

Wiring is blocking the clip tabs. Needs to be resolved.

B. Hook

No horizontal support.

Unstable construction and extra connections are impractical.

Modules might not be secured down.

Modules might not be secured down.

C. Plug

Not possible to stack and/or click in both vertical and horizontal direction.

Can be combined with A2. Best ‘plug’ option.

Thickness disadvantage.

Cannot be designed from one extrusion.

Table 3.3: The outcome of the combination analysis in week 2.2.

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

page 24

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

Overview of all variables per method or system Plug

Hook

Clip

5cm clip height

3cm clip height

One clip tab

Two clib tab

Continuous module

Dowel connected

Table 3.5: An overview of all variables per method or system.

chapter 3: design engineering & technical drawings

TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

page 25

Figure 3.20: Clip.

Figure 3.23: Continous Plate.

Figure 3.21: Hook.

Figure 3.24: Lego connected.

Figure 3.22: Plug.

Figure 3.25: Dowel connected.

page 26

chapter 4: finetuning

CHAPTER 4: FINETUNING

4.1: Pre-Building Weeks Presentation 4.2: Building Weeks Scheduling 4.3: Patterns 4.4: PV Percentages 4.5: Wiring & Electrics 4.6: Improved Technical Drawings

PRE BUILDING WEEKS PRESENTATION

page 27

chapter 4: finetuning

4. Fine Tuning Leading to the Fine Tuning phase, the team had concluded the designs of the four brick module designs and three mounting designs with variations of design that needed to be tested during the building weeks. It was in the Fine Tuning phase that the Building Week schedule was created and finalized, additional design aspects were considered, such as patterns, usable PV area on facade, and wiring, and technical drawings were improved.

4.1. Pre-Building Weeks Presentation To prepare for the Building weeks a presentation, finalized drawings, and Building Week schedule were created.

We proposed a horizontal brick module with five bricks with 3 different mounting systems to prototype and test during the Buildings Weeks.

In our Pre-Building Weeks presentation, we received positive input from our peers and Marcel to make all of our ideas in cardboard to see the functionality of each design. After we explained our main concept, the following questions arose from Marcel and our peers: How will you wire the bricks? Will every brick have its own junction box? If you are going to use a frameless PV, how can the strength of the product be guaranteed? How many bricks

are you going to make and how many will be enough to test out?

With the recommendations made during the Pre-Building Weeks, it was concluded that we may want to create a 1:5 model of the wall construction as well as test out multiple parts individually. It was also recommended not to test out options that are guaranteed to work and to finalize materials being used in the actual product vs the ones used in the prototyping. We aimed to make a rough cost analysis of each manufactured part throughout the building weeks.

4.2. Building Week Scheduling It was planned that the first week cardboard models would be made. Second week would consist of building three models in “real” material to perform tests on. In the last part of the second week, we planned to fine tune the design and come to a consensus on the best design. After the Pre-Building Weeks Presentation, we decided to alter our plans. Some of the experiments we had planned were not going to be as useful as we previously thought and we outlined new experiments as seen in table 4.1.

In past years the building weeks were meant to build one big prototype to prove your concept. Our focus shifted to making a lot of smaller prototypes to make

proof of concepts. Because of the global pandemic, we were not allowed to work at the faculty as often. We were limited in the range of tools available and we created a plan in case of having to shift all of our work entirely to our kitchen tables. We began with focusing on cardboard since it is strong enough to see if the design works as planned and we could create multiple options quickly prior to the formal building weeks.

We were then told that we would be a faculty for a total of 6 days for Building Weeks and we made it our goal to make 2 of the mounting systems and the more complex Brick module structures. We used “real” materials seeing that we have an entire week available at faculty. At the end of the building weeks, we can quite confidently say which design is the best.

What?

Wind Load

Wiring time of an MC4 connector Ease of positioning and module alignment Torsion strength Adhesive strength Frost resistance Hail resistance

What to validate?

Wind resistance in the nuts and bolts of the system.

Total installation time per module Is our design easy to install?

Flex expectation of the final module.

What happens over a longer period of time?

Does it break with frost?

Impact resistance

How? Assembly a module and test for bending.

Buy a connector and measure how long it takes with a module Try to place a module on the back structure.

Materials?

Final materials.

Comments Use of computational design?

MC4 connector, final module.

We expect results so fast, it is pointless to measure.

The final module, final back structure.

Bonus challenge: eyes closed?

Clamp one end down and try to rotate it along its axis.

Put PV laminate and a Brick module together (metal on glass).

Place a module in a freezer.

Throw hard materials like ice or stone on the PV laminate.

Final module.

We do not expect a lot of torsion in real life.

PV laminate, metal Brick module.

We do not have the time to test the longterm strength.

Pointless?

Final module.

Final PV laminate.

Unable to obtain glass with the properties of our product.

Table 4.1: Building Week Testing.

PATTERNS

page 28

chapter 4: finetuning

Pattern name

4.3. Patterns Once the horizontal row was selected as our module size, we had to determine how many bricks a single module would span.

We wanted to size it so it would support many different brick patterns. Customers would be able to select the pattern they would want to mimic and PV bricks would be placed accordingly on the module. Not all brick patterns would fit on the same module size and the location of layers of bricks are dependent on each other making it difficult to design an element that is repeatable on all rows. In an attempt to standardize the size and number of PV bricks on our module, we charted the minimum length of a horizontal, rowbased module needed in order to make the pattern. Figure 4.1 is an example of a row-based module, it’s repeated length (black square) and an overview table. The full overview can be found in Appendix B.5.

This table gives us information about the required size of a horizontal module in order to make common brick patterns. It was found that a length of three bricks per module covers most patterns.

The French pattern is an exception and requires a repetition of two bricks.

The English/ Schlesischer pattern and Kropholler/Deltrap/Norwegian patterns require a peculiar 2.5 brick module or a 5 brick module (with a length of 125 cm). At first, the length of 5 bricks was preferred, but then the Building Weeks showed us a different perspective. On the construction site, one person could not easily place the module of 5 bricks in combination with the mounting systems on the back structure. We concluded that our module would not be suited for all brick patterns and chose a module of three bricks wide which still makes most patterns accessible to customers.

English / schlesischer French Gothic / flemish Half-stone three-quarters Head-faced Kropholler / Deltrap / Norwegian cross / Dutch Stapelverband

Repeated length Measured in full brick size 2.5 (5) 2 1.5 (3) 1 1 1 2.5 (5) 1 1

Table 4.2: The repeated length for different patterns. The length between (parentheses) is the more-practical rounded repeated length.

Figure 4.1: An example of the repeated length with the Gotic/Flemish pattern as an example.

PV PERCENTAGES

page 29

chapter 4: finetuning

4.4. PV Percentages We initially expected to see a difference in usable PV surface area for each pattern and we created an excel to calculate these differences. Table 4.3 shows the initial outcome of the excel sheet based on analyzing the complete surface area of a brick rather than the cell surface area.

But because we sized (see 4.5) the PV cell to be the same for both the full and half bricks, every pattern will have the same PV cell count, therefore create the same output of energy. It was found that the mortar line thickness is a variable in the usable PV surface area of the wall but because we choose to make all of our mortar gaps to be 10 mm, the energy output will be the same. We found that the usable PV surface area per m2 for our product will be 64.77% regardless of pattern and if mortar lines are maintained at 10 mm, as seen in Table 4.4. The PV percentage excel is also used as a method of seeing the effects of the mortar gap and brick dimensions that a customer may select.

Brick pattern English Schlesisch French Gotic Half-stone Quarter-step Head-faced Deltrap Cross/dutch Northern Standing Stacking Flemish AVERAGE

no. half bricks no. full bricks 21,65 21,65 75,76 50,51

s to n e Full Half

PV cell size 200x40 92x40

151,52 30,30 75,76 30,30 75,76 50,51

PV area [mm2] PV percentage [%/m2] 599.134 59,91% 599.134 59,91% 581.818 58,18% 589.899 58,99% 606.061 60,61% 606.061 60,61% 557.576 55,76% 60,61 596.364 59,64% 37,88 581.818 58,18% 60,61 596.364 59,64% 37,88 581.818 58,18% 75,76 606.061 60,61% 50,51 589.899 58,99% 5 9, 17 % 64,94 64,94 37,88 50,51 75,76 75,76

PV area 8000 mm2 3680 mm2

half

fu ll

Height [mm2] W i d th [ m m 2 ]

60 110

Mortar gap Brick height Full brick width Minimum percentage

10 50 210 50

60 220 Good Decent About average Under average

Table 4.3: Initial Outcome Excel Sheet.

Brick pattern English Schlesisch French Gotic Half-stone Quarter-step Head-faced Deltrap Cross/dutch Northern Standing Stacking Flemish

no. half bricks no. full bricks 21,65 21,65 75,76 50,51

s to n e Full Half

PV cell size 190*45 95*45

151,52 30,30 75,76 30,30 75,76 50,51

PV area [mm2] PV percentage [%/m2] 647.727 64,77% 647.727 64,77% 647.727 64,77% 647.727 64,77% 647.727 64,77% 647.727 64,77% 647.727 64,77% 60,61 647.727 64,77% 37,88 647.727 64,77% 60,61 647.727 64,77% 37,88 647.727 64,77% 75,76 647.727 64,77% 50,51 647.727 64,77% AVERAGE 64,77% 64,94 64,94 37,88 50,51 75,76 75,76

PV area 8550 mm2 4275 mm2

half

fu ll

Height [mm2] W i d th [ m m 2 ]

60 110

Mortar gap Brick height Full brick width Minimum percentage

10 50 210 50

60 220 All the same

Table 4.4: Final Outcome Excel Sheet.

WIRING & ELECTRICS

page 30

chapter 4: finetuning

4.5. Wiring & Electrics It has been found that the current of each PV brick string will be lower than a common PV panel due to the smaller size. Because of this, it is possible to connect multiple strings in parallel without exceeding the maximum current of the MPPT or inverter.

Due to the strings in parallel, the voltage will remain the same. This could benefit the system since it will maintain the same voltage throughout the string making the panels less sensitive to dirt, unwanted shadows, and broken modules. It also doubles the number of modules that the inverter can receive by maximizing the current per string.

In contrast to parallel, which maintains voltage in the circuit, a series circuit requires the same current along the whole circuit. We decided on using one custom PV cell size, 45x95mm, that can be used as a full-sized PV brick with two cut cells and half brick with one cut cell. This means that all cells in the system will be of the same voltage and the same current density. It leaves 2.5mm for the silicon gel trim surrounding the PV cells, see section 2.1.2.

The position of the positive and negative connection will be on the ends of every module. The size of the two junction boxes can be greatly reduced (81x26x17 [mm]).

This enables us to attach the junction boxes directly to our module and saves on installation time.

0,5 V

+

0,5 V

+

0,5 V

1,5 V

1,5 V

1,5 V

1,5 V

8V total + Bypass diode 6V

Bypass diode 6V *) MPPT tracker handles up to 10A/1500V.

-

Figure 4.2-4.6: Examples of Circuits and Wiring.

IMPROVED TECHNICAL DRAWINGS

page 31

chapter 4: finetuning

4.6. Improved Technical Drawings The following drawings and dimensions were used at the start of the building weeks. The design was first made out of cardboard and was used to communicate and visualize the specifics of the design.

We planned to build the prototypes which we did not draw ourselves in order to prevent tunnel vision on a single part and make it easier to see the qualities of the other designs.

Figure 4.7: Dowel Connection.

Figure 4.8: Continious Plate.

Figure 4.8A and B: Clip Two Points and One Point.

Figure 4.9: Plug.

Figure 4.10-4.14: Square Hook Hanging and Diagonal Hanging.

page 32

chapter 5: building weeks

CHAPTER 5: BUILDING WEEKS

5.1: Made Prototypes 5.2: Decision making Process 5.3: Final Products

MADE PROTOTYPES

page 33

chapter 5: building weeks

5. Building weeks In the building weeks several prototypes were made that stimulated the design process and helped us eliminate options.

At the end of the two weeks the best option for the mounting system and the interconnecting system was selected.

5.1. Made Prototypes The building week started with making cardboard models from the technical drawings we made in the weeks prior. We found that these models did not have the strength for any of the tests we wanted to perform but they were very useful as an aesthetic test of transforming drawings to physical models. To create a strength test we decided to build aluminum models during the first week rather than waiting until the second week as originally planned. It was a learning process to figure out the best method of working with aluminum sheets since none of us had prior experience. After a trial day, we got the hang of it and we made some models that looked reasonably good and were functional enough to be used for the experiments.

Since it was not possible to work with the entire group on the aluminum models due to social distancing, the remaining group members started with the computational design part of the project, the PV laminate

design, the 1:5 scale model and the survey (see chapter 6).

5.2. Decision Making Process At the start of the first week, we created a matrix of all of the options we were going to test. While building the models on a 1:1 scale some of the options had to be eliminated due to impossible design errors. We also eliminated some of the options by comparing similar variants on their ease of construction and/or material usage. The one that performed lower in those categories was deemed Illogical.

Some options were also eliminated as they were not feasible to make with the tools available to us.

Figure 5.3: Cardboard Flat Plate.

Figure 5.4: Cardboard Dowel Bricks 1.

Figure 5.1: Cardboard Figure 5.2: Clicking System. Cardboard Hanging System.

Figure 5.5: Cardboard Dowel Bricks 2.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

page 34

chapter 5: building weeks

5.2.1. Starting Point We started the building weeks with 28 options that were determined during the fine-tuning weeks, as seen in Table 5.1.

Since every option consisted of two parts, we were able to reduce the amount of 1:1 models we needed to make. The idea was to combine the most promising models to see if the complete product functioned the way we wanted.

5.2.2. Cardboard Phase After we finished with the cardboard models from the fine-tuning weeks, we could already draw some conclusions about the designs, as seen in Table 5.2.

- The two-sided and one-sided plug of 1cm, Figure 5.1, was so small that it was not feasible to construct. In addition, the metal would need to be thin enough to have a spring effect in the clip which would also make it a fragile product.

- The clip with two points, Figure 5.2, was deemed illogical because the clip with one point was already strong and rigid enough. The two points made it more work to produce and it was seen as a possibly overengineered concept.

- The flat plate, Figure 5.3, was discarded because the mortar lines were not defined enough because of the flat surface. This was not due to technical design or material usage but with aesthetics.

We want to make an aesthetically pleasing PV product and if we do not think it looks good enough we discarded it.

- One dowel vs. two dowels was something we discussed in the weeks before the building weeks. But after the cardboard models were built, Figure 5.4 and 5.5, we immediately saw that one dowel would not work. This is because the individual bricks could rotate relative to each other.

Before: Two-sided plug 1 cm One-sided plug 1 cm One-sided plug 2 cm Square hook Diagonal hook Clip with one point Clip with two points

Flat plate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

For some products, this could be considered a moving feature but we want to make a static brick, therefore we considered it to be an impossible option.

This left us with two options for the brick modules and four options for the mounting system, a total of eight options.

Wavy plate 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Legend Possible Impossible Illogical

Unable to make

Two dowel 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Table 5.1: Pre Fine Tuning and Building Weeks Combinations and Number Tagging System.

After: Two-sided plug 1 cm One-sided plug 1 cm One-sided plug 2 cm Square hook Diagonal hook Clip with one point Clip with two points

One dowel 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Flat plate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Wavy plate 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

One dowel 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Two dowel 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Table 5.2: Fine Tuning Week Combinations and Number Tagging System.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

page 35

chapter 5: building weeks

5.2.3. Aluminum Phase When we started building the products in aluminum we came across some limitations. Cardboard is more forgiving and less rigid than aluminum.

As we started working with the aluminum, we found that the one-sided plug of 2 cm was impossible to make with the tools at hand. We used 0.5 mm thick aluminum and we could not make these tight bends by hand.

The square hook had some problems we did not consider before, such that we would have difficulty manufacturing it by hand. The reason why we discarded it, was because the diagonal hook (Figure 5.6) had more potential than the square hook. It was easier to make, easier to install, and just about as rigid.

After making a second and more precise prototype for the flat plate we reconsidered it as a possibility for the brick module. The mortar lines were visible enough for us to find them aesthetically pleasing and the product was rigid enough.

The wavy plate was considered illogical because it was supposed to be the prettier version of the flat plate, but because the flat plate already met our demands there was no need for the wavy plate.

We also completed a 1:1 model of the two dowel brick module’s, Figure 5.7, and clip with one point, Figure 5.8.

This left us with four options, two for the brick module and two for the mounting system. Because we built these parts in aluminum, we could test them to make a final decision. We tested the hanging systems by attaching the mounting element to a wood plank and hanging them onto the mounting vertical element, Figure 5.9a and b. All items made in aluminum and tested are seen in Figure 10.

Besides the 1:1 models, we have also made a 1:5 model, Figure 11, as an overview of the entire system. The model

Figure 5.6: Hook System.

Two-sided plug 1 cm One-sided plug 1 cm One-sided plug 2 cm Square hook Diagonal hook Clip with one point Clip with two points Legend

was built to show and connect the layers of the system. We found that the 3 brick module was also the right size and aligned well with the wall ties, which require a center to center distance of 60 cm. When constructing the 1:5 model, it was also noted that the attachment of the brick module to the mounting system would not be standard for each pattern. This is something to keep in mind during the installation of our product. By being able to alter the attachment position of the elements we can facilitate many of the patterns.

Figure 5.7: Two Dowel Brick Module.

Flat plate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Possible Illogical Impossible Unable to make

Figure 5.8: Clip with One Point.

Wavy plate 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

One dowel 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Figure 5.9A and B: Mounting one Wood Plank.

Two dowel 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Table 5.3: Building Weeks Combinations and Number Tagging System.

FINAL PRODUCTS

page 36

chapter 5: building weeks

5.3. Final Products In the end, we decided to go with the flat plate and the clip with one point.

The decision for the mounting system was based on the fact that the clip was a lot more rigid and stable than the hook system. The decision for the brick module was made by looking at the results for the survey, which determined that there was no difference in appearance between the two designs, and because the flat plate is easier to manufacture.

The benefit of this clip product is that it does not require bolts to install the product to the wall. The clips are attached to the brick module in the factory with small screws and can be replaced with ease if they are damaged.

The material that is being used for the horizontal brick module and the vertical members is aluminum while the mounting clips are made from steel and the frameless PV is encapsulated by glass.

Aesthetics are very important for this product and we did not want to compromise the appearance of brick. By making panels of three in the factory we give the customer a quick installation time as well as the potential for customization.

The rows of three bricks can be customized in the factory by using a selection of colors or dummy tile panels.

Figure 5.10: Overview of Components.

Figure 5.11: 1:5 Model Wall.

page 38

chapter 6: survey

CHAPTER 6: SURVEY

6.1: Questions of Survey 6.2: Outcomes 6.3: Limitations and Research & Innovations Improvements

QUESTIONS OF SURVEY

page 39

chapter 6: survey

8. Survey

range of 16-25 and have a Bachelors or equivalent level of education. Chart 6.2 shows that participant age distribution is densely 16-25 years from Europe and the United States, while the age groups of participants from India and other countries are better distributed.

During the building weeks, the team created a survey to act as potential customer input and to answer design questions.

8.1. Questions of Survey Participants were asked multiple-choice questions, preference questions and one short response question. The survey, found in Appendix D, was separated into sections with the necessary background knowledge to answer questions. The background knowledge that was given is the following: Dark-Blue Option has 50% energy yield while the red option has 30% energy yield. Well maintained panels yield 3.5% more electricity. Hiring a contractor is more expensive than self-installation, which takes 4 weekends and 70% of the cost compared to hiring.

5

4

32 62

62

43

112 8

137

8 E ducat ion Level B achelor ' s or equivalent Doct or al or equivalent

45

Higher s econdar y educat ion Lower s econdar y educat ion

6

M as t er ' s or equivalent Pr imar y educat ion

40

Count r y (gr oup) E ur ope

167

Age 16-25

India

26-40

Ot her

41-60

Unit ed S t at es of Amer ica

61+

Chart 6.1A, B and C: Participant Demographics, A. Education Level, B. Geographic Location, and C. Age Groups.

8.2. Outcomes Participant Demographic A total of 247 responses were recorded from the period of December 15th, 2020 between January 2nd, 2021.

Chart 6.1A, 6.1B, and 6.1C shows the distribution of participant age group, geographic location, and education level.

It is concluded that most participants were from Europe and between the age

Chart 6.2: Participant Age Groups based on Geographic Location.

OUTCOMES

page 40

chapter 6: survey

Installation The survey asked participants to select their preferred method of PV Brick installation. It was found in Chart 6.3, that respondents were split between DoIt-Yourself and hiring a professional, with hiring 17.6% more preferred between the two. Chart 6.4 illustrates that the country of origin influences the willingness to do it yourself instead of hiring someone. Chart 6.5 illustrates the differences based on the age group. Overall, hiring is the preferred method of installation of the PV Bricks.

Chart 6.3: Installation method preferences between Do-It-Yourself and hiring a contractor.

Chart 6.4: Do-It-Yourself and hiring a contractor preference by Geographic Location.

Chart 6.5: Do-It-Yourself and hiring a contractor preference by Age Group.

OUTCOMES

page 41

chapter 6: survey

Operation and Maintenance

Color

The survey asked participants how often they would maintain the PV Brick facade if maintenance and cleaning increased the efficiency of the PV panels. 95% of participants acknowledged that they would maintain the panels at least once a year and 5% stated they would not maintain it. In this section, age groups 2640 and 41-60 are homeowners and may have a more realistic gauge of frequency of maintenance and cleaning. Many of the participants in these age groups answered they would maintain between once a month to every half year to maintain the efficiency of the PV Bricks.

Participants were shown renderings of the PV Brick in standard PV dark blue and colored red PV and were asked to select which color they would select or if they had no preference. The participants were informed that red would decrease efficiency and that the dark blue would not match the common look of a brick facade.

It was found that 77.7% of participants selected the dark blue. Participants were also asked to give a reason for their color selection. The frequency of words in the reasonings are shown in Figure 6.1A, 6.1B and 6.1C in word clusters.

Chart 6.6: Operation & Maintenance by Age Group.

Chart 6.7: Distribution of Color Preference of PV Brick on a Rendered Facade.

Figure 6.1A, 6.1B, and 6.1C: Word clusters with the frequency of words used in color selection reasoning for red, blue, and no preference, respectively.

OUTCOMES

page 42

chapter 6: survey

Structure Appearances Participants were shown two renderings with two different back structures of the PV Brick module. The back structure is only seen in between the gaps of the PV Bricks. The aim was to see if participants would be able to tell the difference between the two. It was found that the dowel back structure had an overall 40% more attractive appearance but in a close-up, participants found both back structures attractive, as seen in Chart 6.8 and further elaborated in Chart 6.9. The overall preference of which render shows a brick appearance, Chart 6.10, showed that both back structures maintained a brick facade appearance.

Chart 6.8: Overall most attractive close-up and overview based on the dowel, flat plate, and no preference.

Chart 6.9: Overall most attractive close-up and overview based on the dowel, flat plate.

Chart 6.10: Most like a brick facade closeup and overview based on the dowel, flat plate, and no preference.

LIMITATIONS AND R&I IMPROVEMENTS

page 43

chapter 6: survey

8.3 Limitations and Research and Innovation improvements The survey conducted has a limited sample size and demographic. Our product is specifically targeted to a population of consumers that are looking to purchase new building construction and in the age group above 23 years old. Education level may not be necessary for recorded data but the survey would be improved by collecting data of the field of work the participant is in and to gauge their previous knowledge of PV technology.

It was also found that participants had difficulty seeing the difference between the rendering back structures. In addition, the red color selected for the PV panel was not similar enough to the brick color for participants to see that the PV bricks would blend with a standard brick facade.

These are the limitations of online surveys and photos. Language barriers are also a limitation in this survey. Many participants were not geographically located in native English-speaking countries and vocabulary choice for the questions may cause participants to have different definitions and interpretations of the questions and facts given. In addition, it was found that some of the PV technology vocabularies were difficult to understand for general participants that may not have a background in design or PV technology.

For the Research and Innovation course, the survey was improved and expanded to investigate the target group color selection of a PV Brick facade based on building conditions and aspects that may influence user decisions such as the building context. See Appendix E.1 for further elaboration of the R&I experiment and Infographic.

Figure 6.2A, 6.2B: Infographic images.

page 44

chapter 7: computational design

CHAPTER 7:

COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN

7.1: Concepts 7.2: Script Outcomes

CONCEPT

page 45

chapter 7: computational design

7. Computational Design 7.1. Concept Because our product mimics the appearance of a brick facade, our product can be seen as straightforward with no required moving parts or size optimization.

Because of this, our team looked outside of the box in order to integrate computational design. We realized that computational design cannot be applied directly to our product design process, but we found that it can be used in the customer application process.

7.1.1. First Concepts The initial concept to apply computational design in customer application visualization was to create hypothetical restrictions on facade design, such as designing for bricks that are non rectangular or cannot be placed horizontal to the wall. These concepts would not necessarily help customers for realistic product selection and we decided not to pursue this concept.

Our first proposed concept was to optimize wiring plans and brick groups to make sure that wiring can cover the entire facade. We created a flowchart (figure 7.1) that showed the outputs to be junction box placement, brick module count, and wiring plans. We found that

wiring could be done easily through the design process of drawing it out and we could apply computational design in a more complex manner.

7.1.2. Context Based Design As a team we discussed the negative implications of having shading on our product. Because we are designing for low rise residential buildings and homes, landscaping would pose as a challenge for application. Since we were focused on new construction buildings, landscaping can be placed accordingly to prevent shading on the PV facade but these types of restrictions can make our product unappealing since homeowners enjoy having landscaping.

We proposed to use computational design to visualize the locations on a facade that would have less sunlight during the span of a year based on landscaping input (Appendix C.1). Using Grasshopper and Ladybug, the output would be similar to a heat map, illustrating the best places for a PV brick module for the customer. The locations with sunlight below a certain efficiency level would be replaced with a dummy brick. This would create a facade that would be nature and context based. The potential energy output would be calculated for understanding the performance level available on the specific facade.

7.1.3. Pattern Based Design It was found that we could further expand upon the Nature based design concept by integrating different patterns that our product can create. Still using Ladybug sunlight features and weather data, we are able to test out different brick patterns and visualize the parts of a brick facade that will be PV bricks based on yearly average sunlight threshold values. Customers can now see the direct application of PV panels being optimized and catered to their needs regardless of the shape of the facade surface, flat vs curved.

SCRIPT OUTCOMES

page 46

chapter 7: computational design

7.2. Script Outcomes To create a Rhino visualization output, the script can be separated into three stages found in our flowchart (see Figure 7.1) Modeling Basic Elements, Creating Patterns, and Energy Production Analysis.

Modeling Basic Elements 1. The following items are to be defined by customer input: Facade surface, shape and dimensions, and landscaping/ potential shading items.

2. Define the brick dimensions, this is standard for our product but for the sake of the exercise we made it customizable,

and mortar gaps: Height, width, depth of brick and mortar gap width.

3. Define the brick pattern that will be utilized by the customer.

Creating Patterns 1. Determine the number of brick rows allowed for this facade based on the wall and brick height inputs by the customer.

When looking at the solar irradiation levels on a facade, it will show several points along the surface as sensor points of solar collection, not all of these points will be utilized when making the brick facade.

2. Divide the curve into every other row of bricks, all odd rows will have the same

brick in the same location/order while the even rows will be an offset version of the odd rows.

3. Within the rows, the curve is divided by the brick length which is then divided into 4 points to generate brick patterns.

Dispatch function will follow the curve with XY planes.

4. The pattern that is being analyzed is then created using True False inputs and the location of full bricks (List A) and half bricks (List B) are assigned.

5. On the XY planes created, a box shape is centered around the 4 points. This is first done for the odd rows and then even rows since they are shifted. Dispatch to collect the brick surfaces.

Figure 7.1: Flowchart.

SCRIPT OUTCOMES

page 47

chapter 7: computational design

Energy Production Analysis 1. Connect the box geometry into Ladybug Plug-in Context input and connect the surfaces of each of the boxes as the Geometry.

2. In Ladybug, input the location and orientation of the facade and time period of analysis. For customers, analysis of the entire year will be used to optimize with the sun path.

3. Shading created by the input in step 1 of Model Basic Element Stage is then connected to Ladybug and the amount of shading is found through the sunlight hour analysis.

4. Amount of sunlight hour values are output for each brick surface and assigned to each box center point. From these values, set a threshold, or maximum and minimum value, allowed for the PV to be still used efficiently. Surfaces that do not meet the threshold will be given a 0 and those that do meet the requirements will be assigned a 1 and then listed.

5. Boxes with a surface assigned with a 0 are removed and boxes assigned a 1 are re-evaluated and then visualized in Rhino.

Multiply the mortar surfaces and extrude to make a complete surface.

6. Using Ladybug, calculated for the total energy generated per day for the remaining brick locations that have the potential of being our Energy Brick Product.

Figure 7.2: Sunlight Hour Values Wall.

Figure 7.3: Wall Corrected for Bricks that do not meet Threshold.

page 48

chapter 8: final design

CHAPTER 8: FINAL DESIGN

8.1: Pattern, Color, Mortar 8.2: Mounting & Installation 8.3: Technical Drawings 8.4: Construction Details & Axonometric Views 8.5: Environmental & Economical impact 8.6: Product Specifications

page 49

FINAL PRODUCT After many weeks of designing and redesigning we have a final design that meets all of our criteria. Preserving the aesthetics of a brick facade combined with the benefits of photovoltaics, we present The Energy Brick.

- The clip system on the back of the product makes it easy to install and replace. The product slides into place and does not come loose on its own.

- Because of the convenient size of the product, individual panels can be swapped out if damaged. Just remove the broken module from the mounting system and disconnect the easy to use electrical plugs and slide the broken panel up. replace the panel with a new one and the system is ready to go.

- The Frameless PV cells are protected with a layer of glass. This can be made into any color which means that the product can be made to fit any design. The energy yield varies based on the selected color.

- Due to the small element size, the product can fit on nearly any new construction surface. You do not need multiple m2 of the facade. Even when you only have a little bit of space you can start generating energy with your facade cladding.

- The small size and simplicity of the bricks means that you can just pick up parts at the construction store to build or replace. There is no need to rent a van or truck.

- By integrating the PV cells in your facade there is no need to place big bulky PV products on your roof. This leaves room for a dormer, roof window, or roof terrace.

Figure 8.1: Render of Product Street.

Figure 8.2: Render of Product House.

page 50

PATTERN OPTIONS Our modular approach to our PV product leads to a lot of possibilities for different patterns.

Our product currently supports all the patterns that are shown.

DELTRAP

ENGLISH CROSS

ENGLISH

FLEMISH

FRENCH

GARDEN WALL

GOTHIC

HEADER

MONK

RANKING STRECHED

SILISIAN

STRETCHER

page 51

COLOR OPTIONS

BLACK

MORTAR OPTIONS

DARK BLUE

ORANGE

GREEN/BLUE

BROWN

RED

Different personalities come with different colors.

The Energy Brick makes it possible to create any color combination our customer desires.

The finish of the aluminium module makes a huge difference in appearance. We make it possible to apply different mortar colors to fit exactly your architectural design.

BLACK ANODIZED

BLUE ANODIZED

‘CHAMPAGNE’ ANODIZED

BRUSHED

COPPER ANODIZED

REGULAR

MOUNTING & INSTALLATION

page 52

chapter 8: final product

1

2

1. Firstly, confirm that the outer layer of the facade is fire resistant and non-combustible. This only applies if a flammable insulation layer is used.

Max. 600 mm

2. Attach the horizontal wooden framework with a center-tocenter distance of maximum 600mm. Install the Energy Brick vertical rails leveled and with a center-to-center distance of your module length (~660 mm). If needed, an extra vertical framework can be applied behind the horizontal framework.

One module length ~660 mm

3. Before installing the Energy Brick modules, check if the

3

panel is not damaged (including the clips) and if a current and voltage is flowing through. This can be tested with a multimeter, suited for direct current (DC).

4. Align the clips on the back of the module within the 4

indicated area. Make sure the clips are flush with the vertical rail on both sides. No wires should be clamped.

5

5. Push the modules all the way down in the vertical rails. Some force may be required.

Use a rubber hammer on the aluminium body to avoid damage to the PV laminates.

6. Use a flat object like a screwdriver to push the tabs of the clips inwards. The energy brick module should be firmly attached with no movement in any direction.

6

7

7. Continue steps 3 to 6 until the facade is fully cladded. The 4

3

2

1

Figure: 8.3: Installation Instructions.

installation should occur from the bottom upwards.

Do not forget to connect the wiring connectors before installing a new row of modules.

chapter 8: final product

MOUNTING & INSTALLATION

page 53

1. On any given facade orientation, modules can be connected

1

in series up to ~500 modules. However, it is recommended to connect PV strings in parallel for higher efficiency. Note that it reduces the total amount of modules that can be connected to one PV string.

2. Each orientation is connected to a different Maximum

Power to household

DC to AC Inverter

Power Point Tracker (MPPT). This maximizes the power output of your Energy Brick facade. However, it is important to note that preventing shadows and/or dirt building up would be a better solution to maximizing power output.

4

3. The electrical panel functions as a central junction where all the power is divided. It receives AC power from the inverter and/or from the utility grid. Make sure that your electrical panel can handle bi-directional electricity flows.

Electrical panel

2

4. Any power that the household consumes is either from the Energy Brick or from the utility grid. To be as sustainable as possible, Energy Brick electricity should match the demand during the day.

3

5. When an Electrical vehicle (EV) is attached to the charge controller, the DC power from the Energy Brick can directly be used to charge the EV battery. It does not only charge your EV faster, it is also more efficient.

Charge controller

5

6

Charging EV batteries

7

Power to utility grid

6. In the future, your EV can possibly be linked to your inverter, making an off-the-grid electricity network possible. This may affect your choice of inverter.

7. Power that is not consumed by the household or the charge Figure: 8.4: Installation Instructions Wiring.

controller is delivered back to the utility grid. Keep in mind that without netting arrangements your Energy Brick facade (or any other PV product) does not generate capital. Therefore it is best practice to utilize as much electricity during the day as possible.

chapter 8: final product

660

TECHNICAL DRAWING

20

20

60

5 20 5

180

20

200

30

10

30

30

180

40

60

20

1

10

1

8

1

Figure: 8.5: Technical Drawing of the Back-brick.

10

4

1

5

31

1

2

31

5

5 30

6

22

5

5

20

10

10

20

5

4

3 5

5

50

15

10

15

40

8

2

10

2

30

10

60

60

60

10 60

10

20

10

50

22

72

20

page 54

1

72

22

Figure: 8.6: Technical Drawing of the Reciever.

9

30

Figure: 8.7: Technical Drawing of the Clip.

chapter 8: final product

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

page 55

20 20 1010

Facade structure Outside-Inside - PV brick with backbrick 20mm - Clip and Mounting system 21mm - Ventilated cavity with wooden beams 10x38 - Waterretaining vapor open layer - Wood board 10mm - Soft insulation and wooden beams 36x220 mm - Vapor retaining woodboard 15 mm - Gipsumboard 12,5 mm

20 20 1010

220

15

220

15

12.5

Facade structure Outside-Inside - PV brick with backbrick 20mm - Clip and Mounting system 21mm - Ventilated cavity with wooden beams 10x38 - Waterretaining vapor open layer - Wood board 10mm - Soft insulation and wooden beams 36x220 mm - Vapor retaining woodboard 15 mm - Gipsumboard 12,5 mm

12.5

Figure: 8.8: Construction Detail of Connection to Window Bottom.

Scale 1:5

Figure: 8.9: Construction Detail of Connection to Window Top. Scale 1:5

chapter 8: final product

20 20 1010

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

page 56

220

15

12.5

Facade structure Outside-Inside - Dummy brick

- PV brick with backbrick 20mm - Clip and Mounting system 21mm - Ventilated cavity with wooden beams 10x38 - Waterretaining vapor open layer - Wood board 10mm - Soft insulation and wooden beams 36x220 mm - Vapor retaining woodboard 15 mm - Gipsumboard 12,5 mm

Facade structure Outside-Inside - PV brick with backbrick 20mm - Clip and Mounting system 21mm - Ventilated cavity with wooden beams 10x38 - Waterretaining vapor open layer - Wood board 10mm - Soft insulation and wooden beams 36x220 mm - Vapor retaining woodboard 15 mm - Gipsumboard 12,5 mm

20 20 1010

220

15

12.5

Figure: 8.10: Construction Detail of Connection to Roof.

Scale 1:5

Figure: 8.11: Construction Detail of Connection to Facade transition.

Scale 1:5

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS

page 57

chapter 8: final product

20 20 1010

220

15

12.5

Facade structure Outside-Inside -

PV brick with backbrick 20mm Clip and Mounting system 21mm Ventilated cavity with wooden beams 10x38 Waterretaining vapor open layer Wood board 10mm Soft insulation and wooden beams 36x220 mm Vapor retaining woodboard 15 mm Gipsumboard 12,5 mm

Figure: 8.12: Construction Detail of Corner.

Scale 1:5

AXONOMETRIC VIEWS

page 58

chapter 8: final product

11

Vertical rails, stainless steel

22 Screws, flat headed, galvanized

3

1

Mounting clip, stainless steel

MC4 connector (positive)

54 Module’s structural body, aluminium

22 mm

<1 mm

4

6 Junction box, 81x26x17 3 2

7 5

10 mm

<9 mm 7 PV laminate 4-1-4 4 mm Tempered glass, 210x50 <1 mm

EVA encapsulation, mono-crystalline PV cell 4 mm

Tempered glass, 210x50, optionally colored

6

4

Figure: 8.13: Axonometric View of Product.

AXONOMETRIC VIEWS

page 59

chapter 8: final product

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Figure: 8.14: Axonometric View of System.

11

PV brick

2 Vertical mounting, stainless steel

33 Horizontal wooden framework

4 Wooden board, watertight

5 Wooden studs and insulation

6 Wood hardboard

77 Gypsum board

20 mm 22 mm 30 mm 15 mm 220 mm 12 mm 12.5 mm

ENVIRONMENTAL & ECONOMICAL IMPACT

page 60

chapter 8: final product

The environmental aspect of our product is important to us. That is why we utilize materials that are recycable wherever we can. Every decision we have made thus far has resulted in less material use or a higher energy yield. Our team accomplished this without losing track of our initial vision.

With a south orientation and our black Energy Bricks, our facade generates up to 102,3 kWh* per m2 (Dutch situation).

You reduce your carbon footprint with 56.88 kg of CO2 per year (CE Delft, 2020; Milieucentraal, 2020). Your energy bill is reduced by €22,60.- per year.

Our PV product is carbon neutral in under 4 years and the payback period is between 10 and 20 years**, dependent on the system size and orientation.

Traditional facades take much longer to be carbon neutral and will never pay themselves back. So what are you waiting for? *) [PV area]*[PV efficiency]*[gradient coefficient]*[solar yield of the sun per year] = kWh per year. 0.7068*0.193*0.75*1000=102,3 kWh per m2 (Schoenmakers, 2020) **) The price per m2 as calculated in table 8.3 is doubled to account for business costs and manufacturing. Labour is estimated on 50 eu/m2 based on comparable plate facades (Livios, n.d.). Electronics are assumed 600eu but are heavily dependent on the system.

Back brick Glass planes (x3) PV cell (x3) Glass laminate adhesive (x3) UV-curing adhesive (x3) Junction box (x2) Wiring (35 cm) MC4 connector (1 set) Total

Material

Volume (cm³)

Total weight (g)

Aluminium Tempered glass multiple EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate) Epoxy resin

55.57 126

PPE (Polyphenyl ether) Copper PPE (Polyphenyl ether)

CO₂ footprint, primary production* (kg/elem.)

2.02 0.27

Price** (EU/kg)

Price (EU/elem.)

150.03 364.01

CO₂ footprint, primary production* (kg/kg) 13.5 0.76

2.47 1.49

0.37 0.54

unknown 31.5

33.4 29.61

131.25 2.21

3.49 0.06

70.7 1.3

2.36 0.04

15.6

16.38

6.28

0.10

4.18

0.07

unknown

20 (est.)

5.69

0.11

2.43

0.05

0.87

7.84

3.60

0.28

6.22

0.49

unknown

22.3

5.69

0.13

2.43

0.05

643.6 g

7.36 kg co₂

€ 3.97

Table 8.1: Specifications of One PV module (3 bricks long). *) CO2 footprint for primary production has been determined using GRANTA EduPack 2020, using the level 3 database for bulk materials. All numbers are averages. **) Price per kg of material has been determined using GRANTA Edupack 2020, using the level 3 database for bulk materials.

All numbers are maximum values.

ENVIRONMENTAL & ECONOMICAL IMPACT

page 61

chapter 8: final product

Mounting clip Vertical rail (per m1)

Material

Volume (cm³)

Total weight (g)

CO₂ footprint, primary production* (kg/elem.)

0.033

Price** (EU/kg)

Price (EU/elem.)

7.05

CO₂ footprint, primary production* (kg/kg) 4.64

Stainless steel Stainless steel

0.89

2.2

0.02

163.33

1282.17

4.64

5.95

2.2

2.82

Table 8.2: Specifications of other Elements.

Back brick (x25) Glass planes (x75) PV cell (x75) Glass laminate adhesive (x75) UV-curing adhesive (x75) Junction box (x50) Wiring (875 cm) MC4 connector (x25) Mounting clip (x50) Vertical rail (3m) Total

Material

Total weight (g)

CO₂ footprint, primary production* (kg/m²) 50.5

Price** (EU/kg)

Price (EU/m²)

3750

CO₂ footprint, primary production* (kg/kg) 13.5

Aluminium

2.47

9.26

Tempered glass multiple EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate)

9100

0.76

6.75

1.49

13.559

835 750

131.25 2.21

87.25 1.5

70.7 1.3

59.03 0.98

Epoxy resin

409

6.28

2.5

4.18

1.71

PPE (Polyphenyl ether) Copper

500 (est.)

5.69

2.75

2.43

1.22

196

3.60

7.00

6.22

1.22

PPE (Polyphenyl ether) Stainless steel

557

5.69

3.25

2.43

1.35

352

4.64

1.63

2.2

0.77

Stainless steel

3846

4.64

17.85

2.2

8.46

20296 g

180.98 kg CO₂//m²

€ 97.56

Table 8.3: Specifications of One m2 of PV brick (75 bricks / 25 modules).

PRDODUCT SPECIFICATION

page 62

chapter 8: final product

Physical Brick type and size (mm) Max. module dimensions (mm) Module thickness (mm) Weight (kg per m²) Junction box Framing Mounting

(Dutch) waal size*, 210 x 50 660 x 20 x 60 20 20,3 Half-cut cell junction box, IP67, rear placement Frameless Energy Brick Clips * Other sizes available on request

Electrical Yearly power output (kWh per m²) Cell type Cell size (mm) Voltage per module

Up to 102,3* Monocrystalline 95 x 45 per cell 3V * Dependent on color and orientation

Finish Materials Front glass Rear glass Mortar material Fire protection

Tempered glass, tinted* Tempered glass Anodized** Aluminium Non-flammable, non-combustible * Optional ** Different color options available

Environment & Sustainability Embodied carbon emission (kg per m²) Recyclable materials (%) Carbon neutrality

180,98 94,3% As soon as within 4 years* * Dependent on yearly power output Table 8.4: Quick Specifications.

page 64

chapter 8: final design

CHAPTER 9: REFLECTION

9.1: This is Where we Roast Each Other 9.2: Limitations

REFLECTION

page 65

chapter 9: reflection

9. Reflection As a team, we conclude that we have created a nice product that has potential in the built environment. The concept has potential as long as the price of each brick module is reduced, making it more accessible to all homeowners and desirable in comparison with a roof PV panel. The team dynamic aided the fostering of a creative process and positive environment. We explored many ideas and concepts in hopes to create the most suitable product. Overall, it can be concluded that we enjoyed the Bucky Lab course and were able to learn more about PV technology and the applications of brick facades, as well as the design nuances of modern facade design.

Figure 9.1-9.4: Group Pictures.

THIS IS WHERE WE ROAST EACH OTHER

page 66

chapter 9: reflection

Daniel

Jordy

Karin

So that’s it then! This edition of Bucky Lab was different than I had imagined a year ago, but I still learned a lot about working together on a product rather than on a building. Even though Bucky Lab is still about designing as well as engineering, it proposes a different challenge than I experienced in the bachelor. The important aspects of each project were so different for every project, I could follow this course 5 times and still wouldn’t be done learning. I think that is the fun part about Bucky Lab: you can do whatever you find interesting and I am very happy with the concept we came up with and the direction our group went in to. In the beginning it was quite hard to get to know each other, so sometimes I did not know the strengths (and weaknesses) of my fellow group members. This made the process sometimes a little bit frustrating.

However, halfway in, we improved our communication and that, in combination with a product that looked more and more like our final product, led to a very fun and educational course in the last 5 months.

The design process went very well overall.

We had a very good group dynamic and had a lot of fun. From time to time perhaps even a bit too much fun which got in the way of our productivity. This also meant that when we got set back we had very little difficulty crawling back and continuing in a good way. This made the entire process very enjoyable. Personally I am very happy with the end result and especially with the models we made. My highlight of the 20 weeks we worked on the project were the building weeks. I enjoyed working with aluminium a lot.

This also makes me wonder what the building weeks would have been like if we were not in a pandemic and we had more possibilities to build prototypes. But with everything considered I am very happy with the group and the process we went through.

I was looking extremely forward to this course since I saw the exposition of Bucky Lab in the Orange Hall in 2017. I thought that it would be amazing to design a working product for a building on a scale 1:1. Luckily it was indeed a very nice course and even with the Corona measurements, the building weeks were super fun and educational. I liked those weeks the most; not only because the product came to life, but also because lots of decisions were made on a good and practical basis. In the beginning of the 20 weeks, I thought it was hard to draw conclusions with six team members. However, we quickly got to know each other very well and after a nice pizza night, the fun really began. I can honestly say that I never had such a nice and pleasant group. Thanks y’all! R.I.P. Bird.

THIS IS WHERE WE ROAST EACH OTHER

page 67

chapter 9: reflection

Nienke

Pragya

Sarah

Starting this year, I expected the Bucky Lab Design course to be the big highlight of the first year of the master, and I was definitely not wrong about that. During the whole experience I learned a lot and I really enjoyed working with the group of 6. We all have very different personalities and working styles, which led to some chaotic discussion sometimes but also to really interesting ideas when we combined our thoughts. We had a good balance between fun times and serious working.

At the beginning of the project I did not expect us to get so close, especially with the corona restrictions. I am generally really happy with the end result of the project and the collaboration. I am looking forward to bringing all the knowledge and friends that this project brought me into the continuation of my master.

This was one of the longest collaborative projects that I had ever worked on in an academic environment, and I am happy to say that it was a great experience! I learnt punctuality, working everyday (but not all the time) and a kind of thoroughness with an entire design project. 6 members to a team, working together for 16 weeks, was unexpectedly not chaotic. We would have probably arrived at different results as individuals, but I can say that the final output is a good mix of all our individual thoughts and ideas. Looking back, we met for group meetings as a complete team but also worked in pairs with different people each time - this, for me, was something really exciting as we understood each other better and really improved communication within the team.

We were able to exchange a lot of snacks, stories (and socks) on the days we could meet at campus and I feel lucky to have amazing academic but also non-academic memories from this first semester!

To be frank, I was concerned about our dynamic, or lack thereof, the first day we came together as a team after the elevator pitches. I imagined that our team would have a strange power struggle. But as soon as we were all placed in front of a white board the following week, I was amazed by the ideas we were able to create and our ability to build off of each other in different ways. Although our personalities are all quite different, I think we brought out the best in each other and we did well balancing between listening, giving input, and making jokes. Since I did not do my bachelors in architecture, many aspects of the architecture design process were new to me and I am glad these were the people that were there for it. This team taught me how to let go of design ideas, laughed with me when I made my first cardboard model, and they were patient while I scribbled out illegible concepts on the whiteboards. I honestly don’t know what it is that makes our team dynamic work so well. Maybe say it started with a similar enough humor and laughter and it just went from there. Oh and yes, I think we made a nice design and prototypes.

LIMITATIONS

page 68

chapter 9: reflection

9.2. Limitations

Design

Research

Limited design was done in the appearance and functionality of the dummy bricks placed in locations where PV bricks are not used in the facade. There were discussions of alternative materials that could be used for the dummy bricks, such as using sliced bricks. We placed some time into researching how a brick is made and how we could make a thin brick for the dummy bricks. We also discussed the use of tiles with a gloss finish, which would have a similar finish as the glass PV bricks. We then briefly concluded that we would use tiles as a dummy brick and then assumed that it would be functional for the product.

In addition, we would have placed more time designing the connections of a standard wall construction and the PV brick. Although we created details of these connections and transitions, we would have placed more time looking into optimizing material and simplify the transition.

During the process of researching the different aspects of our product, there are some limitations and potentially incomplete research. The research that was completed during the timespan of the course was limited to the available information and published information. PV technology and research has continued to improve and the application of MonoSilicon PV may not be the most logical for our product in the future.

Additional research would be needed in the application of our product and the potential permits needed. We would want the opinion of the municipality office in charge of building aesthetics.

Our product would be applied directly in new construction but would be near major historical cities in the Netherlands.

For future application, we would consult the Welstand Commissie, or aesthetic committees, of nearby cities to see how we would possibly integrate our product in renovated buildings. Since our product is also a full facade of PV, potential permits may be required of the application of an electrical facade, as well as additional building codes outside of the structural codes.

Building Weeks With all things considered, the buildings were quite successful. Of course, if the team was able to spend the entire building weeks prototyping and creating a 1:1 scale wall sample, we would have further proof of concept. Regardless, the weeks were a learning experience for us and allowed us the opportunity to

convert drawings to a 3D prototype. The limitations of scale did not allow us to test out the larger scale connections of wiring and wall construction connections.

We learned that some of the best design lessons are learned while being hands on and resolving unseen design conflicts in the moment.

Computational Design As a team we found there were limitations in the application of computational design for our design. We concluded that we did not use computational design to its fullest since many of its functions did not apply to our facade design. This is due to the fact that 1) computational design was introduced in a the late stage where many already finalized design and 2) the lack of communication and guidance from the computational design group with groups that may not need the application of computational design. For a next edition we would recommend having a clear course manual for computational design with an overview of the assignments and the products that are expected for every assignment/consultation. We also would like the teachers to be more involved in our design process from the beginning so consultation can be of higher quality and have more use. This will also grant them a deeper understanding of our projects and potentially allow for more creative outcomes, instead of being put in between without cohesion.

REFERENCES

page 70

references

Brick Joint Coloring. (2017). Retrieved from Brick Architecture: https://brickarchitecture.com/about-brick/why-brick/joint-colours.

CBS Statline (2019). CBS, hernieuwbare energie in Nederland, 2019. Used on 18-10-2020. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2020/40/hernieuwbare-energie-in-nederland-2019.

CBS Statline (2020). CBS, voorraad woningen; bouwjaar. Used on 18-10-20. Retrieved from https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/82550NED/table?ts=1603035348286.

CE Delft (2020). Emissiekentallen elektriciteit. Used on 28-01-21. Retrieved from https://www.co2emissiefactoren.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ CE-Delft-2020-Memo-emissiekentallen_elektriciteit-190426-januari-2020.pdf.

Colored PV. (n.d.). [Photo}. Retrieved from todoensolar.com: https://www.todoensolar.com/Colored-Solar-Panel.

Davison, A. (2015, August 18). Common Types of Solar Cells. Retrieved from Alternative Energy: https://www.altenergy.org/renewables/solar/commontypes-of-solar-cells.html.

Frameless PV. (n.d.) [Photo]. Retrieved from exasun.com: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fexasun.com%2Fproject%2Fgroenekan%2F&psig=AOvVaw2DW84AS-IwKObrDsVVBvin&ust=1611149488925000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA0QjhxqFwoTCNjQ_emNqO4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAe

Hanlon, A. (2013, October 30). What is the Diffusion of Innovation Model? Retrieved from Smart Insights: https://www.smartinsights.com/marketing-planning/marketing-models/diffusion-innovation-model/.

Ji, C., Zhang, Z., Masuda, T., Kudo, Y., & Guo, L. J. (2019). Vivid-colored silicon solar panels with high efficiency and non-iridescent appearance.

Nanoscale Horizons, 4(4), 874–880. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8nh00368h. Used on 11-01-21.

Van der Kam, A. M. (2018). Diffusion of solar photovoltaic systems and electric vehicles among Dutch consumers: Implications for the energy transition. Energy Research and Social Science, 46, 68-85.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.003.

Kotur-vid. (2015). Plastic buckle clasp vector illustration via Google. Retrieved from istockphoto.com: https://www.istockphoto.com/nl/vector/plastic-buckle-clasp-vector-illustration-gm491407962-75735521.

Liberti, Jose & Petersen, Mitchell. (2017). Information: Hard and Soft. Working Paper. 10.2139/ssrn.3252869.

LUMOS. (2020). LSX Module System Specifications. Retrieved from https://lumossolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-LSX-SpecSheet-7102020.pdf.

Milieu centraal (2020). Notitie CO2-emissiefatoren stroom. Emissiefactoren. Used on 28-01-21. Retrieved from https://www.co2emissiefactoren.nl/ wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CO2-emissiefactoren-stroom-Milieu-Centraal-25-februari-2020.pdf.

REFERENCES

page 71

references

Mortar Importance 2. (2016). [Photo]. Retrieved from brickarchitecture.com: https://brickarchitecture.com/projects/casa-kwantes-mvrdv/itemlist/ user/514-brickarchitecturecom?start=250.

New Construction. (2020). [Photo]. Retrieved from globalconstructionreview.com: https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/netherlands-unveils-plans-build-150000-affordable-/.

Osborne, M. (2018, July 08). Why are monocrystalline wafers increasing in size? Retrieved from PV Tech: https://www.pv-tech.org/editors-blog/ why-are-monocrystalline-wafers-increasing-in-size#:~:text=Traditionally%2C%20monocrystalline%20silicon%20wafers%20before,industry%20until%20leading%20companies%20adopted

Van Overbeek (2020). Afbeelding van een reeds verkochte woning. Used on 19-10-20. Retrieved from https://www.vanoverbeek.nl/woning/purmerend-klipfontein-31/.

Paardekooper, M. (2015, September). Economic Feasibility of Solar Panels in Amsterdam. VU University Amsterdam, Master Earth Sciences and Economics. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam. Retrieved from VU University Amsterdam: https://spinlab.vu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Economic_Feasibility_of_roof_top_solar_panels_in_Amsterdam-Michel_Paardekooper.pdf.

Sage, E. (2020, July 15). Types of Solar Panels. Retrieved from Energy Sage: https://www.energysage.com/solar/101/types-solar-panels/ Soliculture. (2001). SD Frameless Solar Panel. Retrieved from https://www.enf.com.cn/Product/pdf/Crystalline/5c0768d3cd70a.pdf.

Schoenmakers, H. (2020). Calculate Yield. Retrieved from Volta Solar: https://www.bespaarbazaar.nl/kenniscentrum/zonnepanelen/financieel/zonnepanelen-opbrengst/#:~:text=Met%20een%20dak%20op%20het,gemiddeld%20300%20Wp%20per%20zonnepaneel.

Schuit, W. (2020). Afbeelding van een appartementencomplex. Used on 19-10-20. Retrieved from https://www.willemschuitmakelaardij.nl/aanbod/ woningaanbod/blokker/koop/huis-3812891-IJsvogel-12/.

Schulte, KL, Simon, J, Ptak, AJ. Multijunction Ga0.5In0.5P/GaAs solar cells grown by dynamic hydride vapor phase epitaxy. Prog Photovolt Res Appl.

2018; 26: 887– 893. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3027.

Shanmugam, N., Pugazhendhi, R., Elavarasan, R. M., Kasiviswanathan, P., & Das, N. (2020, May). Anti-Reflective Coating Materials: A Holistic Review from PV Perspective. energies, 13(10), 2631.

SH Duinstreek (2020). Afbeelding van zonnepanelen op een twee-onder-een-kapwoning. Used on 19-10-20. Retrieved from https://www.shdeduinstreek.nl/5-redenen-om-zonnepanelen-kiezen/.

Spaland (2020). Afbeelding van een tussenwoning met plat dak. Used on 19-10-20. Retrieved from https://www.spalandmakelaars.nl/nl/woning/schiedam/veldpad-31/5eeb31db65fb304b1f7fdaf1.

REFERENCES

page 72

references

Venus, J. (2106). Mortar colours can transform a facade. Retrieved from Twitter: https://twitter.com/aquarianjulian/status/781848250118733824?lang=en.

Visible Spectrum of Light (2012). [Illustration]. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/science/light.

Voltasolar (s.d.) Instralingsschijf van zonne-energie. Used on 24-01-21. Retrieved from https://www.bespaarbazaar.nl/kenniscentrum/zonnepanelen/financieel/zonnepanelen-opbrengst/#:~:text=Met%20een%20dak%20op%20het,gemiddeld%20300%20Wp%20per%20zonnepaneel.

VROM (2007). Constructieve veiligheid gevels en glazen overkappingen. Analyse van 18 incidenten. Used on 18-10-20. Received from https://www. bwtinfo.nl/get-download/687/VROM_Inspectie_rapportgevels_2007_11.pdf.

V.V. Tyagi, N. A. (2013). Progress in solar PV technology: Research and achievement. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 20, 443-461. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.028.

page 74

chapter 11: appendix

APPENDIX

A.1 PITCH POSTERS

page 75

chapter 11: appendix

Daniël Koster - 4553780 - The all-modular power brick

Swedish pv rabat

Motive and repetition

Jordy van Eijk 4566297

- Commonly used - Easy to instal or to swap - Minimal wires needed - Solar energy at hours you need it Let’s drink coffee together for better ideas

Karin Backer

Daniël

Jordy

Karin

Pragya

Sarah

USABLE FOR RENOVATION

THE GOAL:

BRINGING BACK ARCHITECTURAL FREEDOM You have probably seen something like the above diagram before, as this is the most common way to make our buildings more sustainable these days. But this degrades the design and leaves no room for the architects vision.

FLEXIBILITY

The goal here is to bring back this architectural freedom. But how do we that?

Through these building integrated pv panels.

Their shape makes it possible to configure them in any way it pleases, making them suitable for every façade. They are the ideal solution to brighten up dull facades and make them sustainable all at once. But to make this possible, your input is needed, to create a reality where sustainability does not limit design, but enhances it.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

nienke smit - 4666437 - bucky lab design course - Q1 2020/2021

Nienke

4552962

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 76

chapter 11: appendix

hard criteria

Problem Statement

Design Vision

Current PV systems are difficult to structurally integrate with brick facades and do not offer architectural flexibility.

An aesthetically pleasing PV product which emulates the look of a brick facade but with a modern twist. It should be a standard element which can be easily used in a new construction.

soft criteria

design directive

refined research

→ →

Finish and transparent materials

Colored PV

Building Regulations

PV material

→ ●

Looks

High efficiency

Low costs

Good recyclability

Mono-Si

+/-

+

+

+

Poly-Si

+/-

+/-

++

++

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 77

chapter 11: appendix

design process Summary

questions

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 78

chapter 11: appendix

problem statement

BRICKY LAB

design vision

hard criteria

soft criteria

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 79

chapter 11: appendix

our design

our PV brick

our PV brick

brick connection and wiring

1. Brick Connections and Wiring Options

2. Mounting System Options

Continuous Panel

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 80

chapter 11: appendix

brick connection and wiring

brick connection and wiring

Dowel

Dowel

mounting system

mounting system

Plug

Plug

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 81

chapter 11: appendix

mounting system

mounting system

Hanging

BrickClip 1/5

mounting system

mounting system

BrickClip 2/5

BrickClip 3/5

chapter 11: appendix

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 82

mounting system

mounting system

BrickClip 4/5

BrickClip 5/5

building weeks outline

building week testing

Presentation

Testing combinations

Fine tuning drawings week

Plug: 4 variations

Hanging: 2 variations

BrickClip: 4 variations

Continuous panel: 2 variations

Combination 1: 8 variations

Combination 2: 4 variations

Combination 3: 8 variations

Dowel: 2 variations

Combination 4: 8 variations

Combination 5: 4 variations

Combination 6: 8 variations

Formal Building Weeks

Nov. 17th- 24th

Nov. 24th- Dec. 1st

Dec. 1st- 8th

Dec. 8th- 15th

Dec. 15th- 19th

presentation fine tuning week building weeks

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 83

chapter 11: appendix

shopping list

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 84

chapter 11: appendix

BRICKY LAB BRICKY LAB

Group 7 for

The Design Process

BRICKY LAB

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 85

chapter 11: appendix

Efficiency Add-On Older Buildings

Current solutions are difficult to structurally integrate with existing brick facades and do not offer architectural flexibility.

DIY

Long Life One Size Full Cover Traditional

An aesthetically pleasing PV product which emulates the look of a brick facade but with a modern twist. It should be a standard element which can be easily used in new construction.

Aesthetics Replace Future Old Buildings Hire

Recyclable Multiple Sizes Partial Cover Modern

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 86

chapter 11: appendix

1

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 87

chapter 11: appendix

5

chapter 11: appendix

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 88

Mono Silicon PV

chapter 11: appendix

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 89

Frameless Module

Hard Criteria

Single

Row

1 Number of components

1

3

5

1 Weight of the system (per m2)

2

3

4

1 Thickness of the module added to wall

-

-

Panel

-

1 Dimensions of standard module

-

-

-

3 Usable surface area of PV per module

3

3

3

2 Carbon Footprint

1

3

5

3 Fire Hazard rating: at least D

3

3

3

1 Wind load rating

1

2

5

3 Durability rating: MX3.2

5

5

5

16

22

27

Total Points on Hard Criteria

Soft Criteria

Tinted Film, Resized

1 Return of Investment

-

-

-

2 Versatile Arrangement (Shape in which product is placed - how easily can we close it at corners or next to a window)

5

3

2 4

2 Easy Connection to Electrical Network

1

2

1 Material and Production Cost

-

-

-

3 Brick ‘feel’ wrt mortar line

5

4

2

2 Replaceability

5

3

1

3 Customizability of Patterns

5

5

2 Invisibility of anything that doesn't look like brick or mortar.

4

4

4

2 Quick and Easy construction

2

3

4

3

3

1 Independency of System from Building

3

3

2 Homogeneity of Surface Perception

5

3

1 Self bearing?

1

1

1

1 Number of extra special pieces required/dummies. (Lesser requirement is better)

2

4

5

38

35

31

Total Points on Soft Criteria

2

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 90

chapter 11: appendix

Clip 2 variables

Hanging 4 variables

Plug-in 4 variables

4

8

8

4

8

8

Lego Connection 1 variables

Dowel Connection 2 variables

Fixed Plate 2 variables

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 91

chapter 11: appendix

Insert shortened video

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 92

chapter 11: appendix

4

5 32 62

62

43 112

8 137

8

40 45 6

167

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 93

chapter 11: appendix

chapter 11: appendix

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 94

3.2%

19%

Color Preference

Infographic

77.7%

BRICKY LAB

Target Groups

Control Settings

Results

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 95

chapter 11: appendix

Conclusion & Reflection

BRICKY LAB

chapter 11: appendix

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 96

“The final product is now easy and quick to install.

However we wanted it to be also easy uninstalled.

This is not the case now.”

“Work on the way it will be built at the same time as the aesthetics. Instead of one after the other.”

“Find a good solution for the product to be able to be put on existing facades as well, as this was our initial goal in the beginning.”

“Further research on reducing the carbon emission of our product. I think we can push our product to be a no brainer for every homeowner.”

“Consider more alternatives with the Dummy brick panels.”

“It was challenging to come to terms with a product which looked like a brick from far, but was something essentially different up close.”

A.2 PRESENTATIONS

page 97

chapter 11: appendix

Efficiency Add-On Older Buildings DIY

Long Life One Size Full Cover Traditional

Aesthetics Replace Future Old Buildings Hire

Recyclable Multiple Sizes Partial Cover Modern

October 6th

September 29th

chapter 11: appendix

S. No.

D e s c r ip t io n

1

Efficiency - The quality of the PV panel based on energy production Aesthetics - The quality of the PV appearance as a facade

C r it e r ia

C o nc lus io n

P Aesthetics

The group is more inclined to aesthetics, but we establish that we need to achieve a balance between efficiency and aesthetics.

A e s t he t ic s

The group shifted a bit more towards the aestetics side, because we dicussed that a lot that week.

Aesthetics

From the results of the BW and survey, we conclude that the product achieves a balance between efficiency and aesthetics.

J N K

Efficiency

D S 1

Efficiency - The quality of the PV panel based on energy production Aesthetics - The quality of the PV appearance as a facade

P J N

Efficiency

K D S

Januari 4th

1

Efficiency - The quality of the PV panel based on energy production Aesthetics - The quality of the PV appearance as a facade

P J N

Efficiency

K D

October 6th

September 29th

S S. No.

D e s c r ip t io n

2

Add On - Placing the PV product on an existing building.

Replace - Removing the original construction to make a new system out of the PV product.

C r it e r ia

A d d On

C o nc lus io n

P J N

We are initially motivated to put our product on an existing building.

Replace

K D S

2

Add On - Placing the PV product on an existing building.

Replace - Removing the original construction to make a new system out of the PV product.

P A d d On

Not much changed

J N K

Replace D

S 2

Januari 4th

B.1 VALUE CRITERIA RATING

page 98

Add On - Placing the PV product on an existing building.

Replace - Removing the original construction to make a new system out of the PV product.

P J Add On

N K D S

R e p la c e

After research, we concluded that the product will be made as an complet facade system. However, two of us feel that it still should be able to place on a current facade.

October 6th

September 29th

chapter 11: appendix

S. No.

D e s c r ip t io n

3

Older (Load Bearing walls) - The object is used to maintain the structural integrity of the building.

Future Old (Non-Load walls) - Has not effect on the structural integrity of building.

3

Januari 4th September 29th October 6th

Older (Load Bearing walls) - The object is used to maintain the structural integrity of the building.

Future Old (Non-Load walls) - Has not effect on the structural integrity of building.

C r it e r ia

C o nc lus io n

P J N

Older (Load Bearing walls)

K D S

Older (Load Bearing walls)

The group is divided between choosing whether the new product will be Future Old (Non- independently supported (future old) or will Load walls) be attached to an existing wall (older)

P The group was still divided and more J research needed to be done.

N Future Old (NonLoad walls)

K D S

3

Older (Load Bearing walls) - The object is used to maintain the structural integrity of the building.

Future Old (Non-Load walls) - Has not effect on the structural integrity of building.

S. No.

D e s c r ip t io n

4

DIY - Any person can place it on a facade without any prior knowledge except for a manual. IKEA and Hornbach.

Hiring - Need specialized tools and skills sets. Professional.

P J Older (Load Bearing walls)

K D S

F ut ur e O ld ( N o n- L o a d w a lls )

C r it e r ia

C o nc lus io n P

D I Y ( N o s k ills )

We conclude that the new product will support its own weight and will not be completely dependent on the exsiting structure.

J N

Hiring (Highly Skilled)

K

Most of the group members are leaning towards a DIY and easy to install system.

D S 4

4 Januari 4th

B.1 VALUE CRITERIA RATING

page 99

DIY - Any person can place it on a facade without any prior knowledge except for a manual. IKEA and Hornbach.

Hiring - Need specialized tools and skills sets. Professional.

DIY - Any person can place it on a facade without any prior knowledge except for a manual. IKEA and Hornbach.

Hiring - Need specialized tools and skills sets. Professional.

P J DIY (No skills)

N K D S

Hiring (Highly Skilled)

P

The product is designed to be installed by specialists, so as to reduce installation time Hiring (Highly and improve accuracy.

S k ille d )

J DIY (No skills)

Most of us shifted more towards the hiring side.

N K D S

October 6th

September 29th

chapter 11: appendix

S. No.

D e s c r ip t io n

5

Building Lifespan - Time until it breaks or no longer fulfills its function. Should the product life match the life of a building?

Product Life Span - Focusing on being able to reuse (circularity) Can the product be reinstalled in a new place? We will be able to replace and move product as an add-on.

5

October 6th

September 29th

Januari 4th

5

Building Lifespan - Time until it breaks or no longer fulfills its function. Should the product life match the life of a building?

Product Life Span - Focusing on being able to reuse (circularity) Can the product be reinstalled in a new place? We will be able to replace and move product as an add-on.

Building Lifespan - Time until it breaks or no longer fulfills its function. Should the product life match the life of a building?

Product Life Span - Focusing on being able to reuse (circularity) Can the product be reinstalled in a new place? We will be able to replace and move product as an add-on.

S. No.

D e s c r ip t io n

6

One size - One size fits all.

Multiple sizes - Scaling

C r it e r ia

C o nc lus io n P J N K

Building Life Span

D

The group agrees that the product should Product Life have a lifespan which does not necessarily match the lifespan of a building, implying Span (Recycleability) that it should be easily replaceable.

S P J Building Life Span

K D

Not much shifted

P r o d uc t L if e N Span ( R e c y c le a b ilit y )

S P J Building Life Span

Not much shifted P r o d uc t L if e Span ( R e c y c le a b ilit y )

N K D S C r it e r ia

C o nc lus io n

P 1 S iz e

Most of the group members agree on one standard size of the product.

J N

Multiple Sizes

K D S

6

P

One size - One size fits all.

Multiple sizes - Scaling

Not much shifted

J N

1 S iz e

Multiple Sizes

K D S

6 Januari 4th

B.1 VALUE CRITERIA RATING

page 100

P

One size - One module size fits all.

Multiple sizes - Scaling possible -> square m2 modules

We conclude that there is one standard size of the product.

J N

1 S iz e

K D S

Multiple Sizes

October 6th

September 29th

chapter 11: appendix

S. No.

D e s c r ip t io n

7

Traditional - Mimicking the current brick as much as we can, such as textures, size and colour Modernized - Inspired by the traditional textures, size or colour but may reinterpret other aspects

7

Traditional - Mimicking the current brick as much as we can, such as textures, size and colour Modernized - Inspired by the traditional textures, size or colour but may reinterpret other aspects

C r it e r ia

C o nc lus io n P J N K D S

Traditional Look

Mo d e r niz e d

P

Not much shifted J N K D

Traditional Look

The group agrees that the product will be a modern representation of a brick, not necessarily a copy.

Mo d e r niz e d

S 7

Januari 4th

B.1 VALUE CRITERIA RATING

page 101

Traditional - Mimicking the current brick as much as we can, such as textures, size and colour Modernized - Inspired by the traditional textures, size or colour but may reinterpret other aspects

P J N K D

Traditional Look S

We conclude that the product is a modern representation of a brick.

Mo d e r niz e d

B.2 JUNCTION BOX SIZING

page 102

chapter 11: appendix

Size Junction box(mm) Size Panel 1 88 x 1 41 x 32 1 06 x 2 2 x 7 0 7 4 x 74 x 24

1640 x 992 (approximate) 1240 x 670 (approximate) 1038 x 533 (approximate)

# of cells (167.5 x 138) or 6”

Weight (g)

Rated Power (Watts)

60

161

250 - 300

36

NA

100 - 180

32

280

50 - 100

B.3 EXCEL SHEET USABLE PV

page 103

chapter 11: appendix

Percentage PV per m2 62,00% 60,00% 58,00% 56,00% 54,00% 52,00% 50,00%

Each pattern Average

B.4 PRO-CON LIST EXISTING SYSTEMS

page 104

chapter 11: appendix

System Name/ Example

Pr o

Con

Aberson A-brick

Flexibility

Wiring is hard to reach

Derako facade system

Not a lot of material is used, a pure clicking mechanism

Non-removable with no gaps between bricks

Vinystone

Looks familiar -> use a plastic ‘rail’ and attach the element to this rail. In this case Plastic :( Looks kinda sketchy a stone material, in our case PV.

B.4 PRO-CON LIST EXISTING SYSTEMS

page 105

chapter 11: appendix

System Name/ Example

Pr o

Con

Sculptfrom Timber “Click on” Their design vision: “Completely customizable, easily Push-clicked in mounting tracks. Includes Vertical system, but could be moved to adaptable and quick to install” (get the insulation. Gaps horizontal inspired)

Phoenix facade

No thermal bridge in attachment to the structural wall

Nothing is really good about this, just the thermal interruption.

Lomaxsystems

Teeth and groove system.Clicking removable?

Still you would need a vertical profile every 210 mm. Might require somewhat bigger elements.

Mounting of Max Comp rivets on an aluminium-

B.4 PRO-CON LIST EXISTING SYSTEMS

page 106

chapter 11: appendix

System Name/ Example

Pr o

Con

Fundermax

Multiple systems to look into. Concealed: Not really sure about the whole wiring Has a vertical and horizontal grid Plank: thing. Would have to have vertical every an easy clip for attachment 210mm as well

FASTE Alu-Bl quered Rivet s acc. D Rivet p Pull-o Diame Exterio or as r Fixed Diame substr

Fig. 30 ≥ 8 mm

SCANROC

Looks A LOT like our project Quite flexible?Efficient use of backstructure

Bigger-than-normal size of bricks.Not very removable, might damage back construction.

Kingspan BENCHMARK Thin Brick Façade System

If kingspan does it, it's probably a good idea Flexible Not a lot of thermal bridges

Adhesives? Relatively a lot of material in the construction?

FIXED POINT

SLIDING POINT

Fig. 31

SUPPLIE YOU WIL „WWW.F

B.4 PRO-CON LIST EXISTING SYSTEMS

page 107

chapter 11: appendix

System Name/ Example

Pr o

Con

EXTRABOND made by ALUPROF

Per panel 4 screws

Every 210 mm a vertical element, but guess we're gonna have that anyway.

Need to take all elements out to get to a broken one

Eden Techniclic

There are gaps for the ‘mortar’ Easy to slide out, but wind can’t I don’t see extra screws

Looks like a plastic material as back structure

QuickClip by Carpentier

Super easy to attach Opens with a ‘key’

Lots and lots of clips (but made from alu and not plastic)

B.4 PRO-CON LIST EXISTING SYSTEMS

page 108

chapter 11: appendix

System Name/ Example

Pr o

Con

ALLFACE – smart fixing systems, system Easy attachment, just one screw, NonF1.50 Fixation through a combination of visible attachment, Vertical system – nailing and hanging system. which means less material

Not possible to take out one piece, Does not seem super rigid, Has to be carefully fixed to create horizontal alignment

IPEX Europe BV – B 008 Fixation through clicking in the bottom and then readjusting the top click thingies to fix the whole panel.

Not possible to take out one panel separately Horizontal attachment, which means lots of material needed (maybe better to switch 90 degrees)

Easy attachment – no screwing etc, Horizontal alignment is taken care of by horizontal back system, Non-visible attachment

Onzichtbare bevestigingsmethode voor ge

zien van een gatenpatroon dat parallel loo

Toepassing: tegeltype Tonality

IPEX Europe BV – B 013 Fixation through hanging the panel in part which is attached to the vertical back system

Easy attachment – no screws etc., Non visible fixation, Horizontal alignment is taken care of already as the panels next to each other are clicked in the same component

It

might not be possible to take out one panel separately (careful redesign might take care of that)

B.5 BRICK BONDS

page 109

chapter 11: appendix

Stack Bond

Strechter Bond

Ranking Stretcher Bond (Standing)

Ranking Stretcher Bond (Falling)

English Cross Bond

English Bond

Header Bond

French Bond

B.5 BRICK BONDS

page 110

chapter 11: appendix

Flemish Bond

Gothic Bond

Monk Bond

Silesian Bond

Deltrap Bond

Garden Wall Bond

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 111 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 112 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 113 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 114 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 115 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 116 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 117 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 118 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 119 chapter 11: appendix

C.1 COMPUTATIONAL DESIGN SCRIPT page 120 chapter 11: appendix

D.1 SURVEY QUESTION LIST

page 121

chapter 11: appendix

Dear participant, Thank you in advance for taking the time to fill out this form! All questions are for our design course ‘Bucky Lab’ within the master track ‘Building technology’ on the TU Delft. It is all about integrating PV panels (solar panels) into facades.

Later on, we will briefly explain our product. But first, we would like to know some more about you.

D.1 SURVEY QUESTION LIST

page 122

chapter 11: appendix

Every question has an ‘I don’t know’ option.

Try to choose this option only if you really don’t know. If you have a small preference, choose that given option.

A PV panel is the same as a solar panel.

It generates electricity when the sun is shining.

Current PV products (like regular solar panels on rooftops) do not match the appearance of the building. Sometimes it is not even possible to put solar panels on your rooftop. That is why we want to create a PV product that can be placed on your facade that also looks nice.

The aim of our product is to emulate the look of a brick facade but with a modern twist. We envision this on new construction so that an architect can use it to make the building more sustainable AND aesthetically pleasing.

Below, you can see an example of the product as it is right now.

Our PV product. The left dark surface is outdoors. The right grey surface is an interior wall.

D.1 SURVEY QUESTION LIST

page 123

chapter 11: appendix

We are interested in which design looks the most like brick. Below are two alternatives. It might take a while for the images to load.

D.1 SURVEY QUESTION LIST

page 124

chapter 11: appendix

Imagine purchasing our product for the facade of your newly built home. You have two options: either install it yourself with an instruction manual or hire someone to do it for you. A contractor estimated the cost to be five times higher than a normal brick-cladded facade.

A contractor estimated the cost to be five times higher than a normal brick-cladded facade.

Hiring someone would take one weekend for the facade to be finished. Doing-ityourself takes four weekends.

D.1 SURVEY QUESTION LIST

page 125

chapter 11: appendix

Imagine you are an architect and want to apply our product for a brick building you designed.

Finally, you choose the color of the PV facade. You can either have a different color or match the brick. The dark-blue option has 50% energy yield. The red option is less efficient and has 30% energy yield.

D.1 SURVEY QUESTION LIST

page 126

chapter 11: appendix

Clean PV panels, free from dust and dirt, have a higher efficiency and generate more electricity. The yield increase can be up to 3.5%.

D.1 SURVEY QUESTION LIST

page 127

chapter 11: appendix

We are interested in which design looks the most like brick. Below are two alternatives. It might take a while for the images to load.

This was the survey. Thank you for your participation and your time!

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 128

chapter 11: appendix

W ha t i s your age?

16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 41-60 41-60 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 26-40 41-60 16-25 16-25 16-25 40-60 41-60 41-60 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 16-25

What is your highest finished education level?

Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Lower secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Higher secondary education Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Doctoral or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent

Where are you from?

Which product looks more like a BRICK facade?

Western europe option 2 Western europe No difference Northern europe option 1 Western europe No difference Western europe No difference India option 1 India option 2 Western europe option 1 India option 1 India option 1 Western europe option 2 Northern europe option 1 Western europe option 1 Northern europe option 2 Western europe option 2 Northern europe option 1 Southern europe option 2 India option 2 Western europe No difference Western europe No difference Western europe No difference Western europe option 1 Western europe option 1 Western europe option 2 Northern europe option 1 India option 1 Western europe option 2 Western europe option 2 India option 2 United States of America option 1 Western europe option 2 Western europe No difference Northern europe option 1 Western europe option 2 Western europe option 1 India No difference Western europe option 2 Western europe No difference Western europe No difference Western europe option 1 Western europe option 2 India option 2 Western europe option 1 India No difference Western europe option 1 Western europe option 1 Western europe option 2 Western europe No difference Western europe No difference India option 2 India No difference Western europe option 2 United States of America option 1

Which product is Would you do-it-yourself to reduce total Would you hire someone to decrease OVERALL most attractive cost? You will pay 70% of the contractor's installation time? You will pay 100% of the to you? estimation. contractor's estimation.

Option 1 No Yes No difference Yes Yes option 2 No Yes option 2 Yes No option 2 Yes I don't know No difference No Yes option 2 Yes Yes option 2 Yes No Option 1 Yes Yes Option 1 I don't know Yes option 2 No Yes Option 1 I don't know I don't know option 2 I don't know Yes No difference I don't know I don't know option 2 No Yes Option 1 No Yes option 2 No Yes Option 1 No Yes No difference Yes No No difference Yes No Option 1 Yes Yes Option 1 No Yes Option 1 No Yes option 2 I don't know No Option 1 Yes No No difference No Yes option 2 Yes I don't know No difference Yes No No difference Yes No Option 1 Yes Yes option 2 No Yes Option 1 No Yes Option 1 No Yes option 2 Yes No option 2 No Yes option 2 No I don't know Option 1 I don't know I don't know option 2 No Yes option 2 Yes I don't know Option 1 Yes I don't know option 2 Yes No option 2 Yes Yes Option 1 No Yes Option 1 Yes No option 2 No Yes No difference Yes No option 2 Yes I don't know No difference No Yes No difference I don't know I don't know option 2 Yes No Option 1 Yes No option 2 No Yes option 2 Yes Yes

Which color option would y ou c h o os e ?

Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Red I don't know Red Blue

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 129

chapter 11: appendix

Optional: Why did you choose red/blue?

How often are you willing to clean Which product looks more Which product is the facade if it increased the like a BRICK facade?

OVERALL most attractive efficiency of the PV brick? to you?

Looks fine and better return Every half a year No difference No difference Once a month No difference No difference Looks like it's build by NASA Every half a year option 2 Option 1 I like Every half a year No difference Option 1 Because it had 100% engery yield and it fits with the color of the building. every three months option 2 Option 1 Every half a year option 2 Option 1 Because it has 100%energy yield Once a month option 2 option 2 The energy output is mainly the reason you use it. So a more efficient facade every three is then months preferable. option 1 option 2 Once a month option 1 Option 1 Once a month No difference No difference Larger energy yield every three months option 2 option 2 Depends on how much i need, but red is nicer Every half a year option 2 option 2 Looks better, works better. I don't think you should try to make ik look like Every brick. half You a year can make the facade way option better 2 looking in other ways.

Option 1 every year No difference Option 1 Looks nicer and higher energy every three months No difference No difference every year No difference No difference I find the red more attractive but that difference in yield does justify a more Every oddhalf looking a year facade over a regularoption looking 1 one.

Option 1 Energy efficiency and better looking every three months option 2 Option 1 I think blue option looks better and has a better yield Every half a year No difference No difference I think blue option looks better and has a better yield Every half a year No difference No difference I'm blue dabe see dabe die every three months option 2 option 2 It's nicer and generates 100% energy Every half a year option 1 Option 1 It's nicer and generates 100% energy Every half a year option 1 Option 1 More combination of colors every three months option 2 option 2 Rood is mooier, maar efficiëntie lijkt me hier belangrijker Every half a year option 2 option 2 Looks more like brick every three months option 2 option 2 Dont care about the looks Once a month option 2 option 2 It looks better in my opinion every three months option 2 Option 1 The color contrast is good. There mix of primary colors on the facade that every add three dynamism monthsto the facade. Maybe option the1blue color can be tinted Option to make 1 it brighter.

Because I Ike blue better but if red color is more similar yo brick color,I might Everychoose half a year red one. option 1 Option 1 More energy yield every year No difference No difference every year No difference option 2 Higher energy yield and I don’t find it less attractive than red.

Every half a year option 1 Option 1 I think blue is more pleasing to the eye. every three months option 2 option 2 More energy yield every three months option 1 Option 1 If u r putting pv....it should be efficient to max every three months option 2 option 2 Efficiënter en mooier!

I would not No difference No difference I would chose blue, because it is more efficient and while the red one comes every three closermonths to the appearance of “real” option bricks, 1 you still see difference.

No difference So you might as well choose the efficient ones in my opinion. asthetics, own the uniqueness every three months No difference option 2 here in this building the overall structure is more visible through the blue every panels. three But months both panels look nice and option if using 1 it for a whole facade Option or in1a city with a lot of red bricks i would probably go for the less efficient but visually stronger connected option.

Modern look Every half a year option 2 Option 1 Natural Once a month option 1 Option 1 Nicer design I would not option 2 Option 1 Once a month option 1 Option 1 Because of its better energy yield Every half a year option 1 Option 1 Better colour every three months option 1 Option 1 I like blue better and it is also more efficient Every half a year No difference No difference every three months option 2 No difference Looks more like brick. every three months No difference No difference Somehow complements with the normal bricks , though the color optionEvery really half depends a yearon the Materials used option along2 with it option 2 every year No difference No difference I think the choice of making a lookalike of brick explains the choice. The Every color of half brick a year is a big part of why weoption like brick.

2 To make it blue itoption looks not 2 like a brick. If the reason is the efficiency, than you could ask why not use 'normal' panels.

To have a greater environmental impact every year option 2 No difference

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 130

chapter 11: appendix

26-40 41-60 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 41-60 41-60 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25

Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Doctoral or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Lower secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Primary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Higher secondary education Lower secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Primary education Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Higher secondary education

Western europe Western europe Western europe United States of America India India United States of America Western europe United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America Other United States of America India India United States of America India United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America Western europe United States of America Western europe Western europe United States of America United States of America Southern europe Northern europe Western europe United States of America Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe India Western europe India Western europe Western europe Western europe India Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe

option 1 No difference No difference option 2 option 1 option 1 option 1 option 2 No difference option 1 option 2 option 2 option 1 No difference option 1 No difference No difference option 2 option 1 option 1 option 1 No difference option 2 No difference No difference No difference option 1 No difference No difference option 1 option 2 option 2 option 2 option 2 option 1 No difference option 2 No difference option 1 No difference No difference option 1 option 1 option 2 option 1 No difference option 2 option 1 No difference option 2 No difference No difference No difference option 1 option 1 option 2

Option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 Option 1 option 2 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 option 2 option 2 option 2 option 2 Option 1 No difference No difference option 2 option 2 Option 1 Option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 No difference No difference No difference option 2 No difference option 2 Option 1 Option 1 option 2 option 2 option 2 option 2 Option 1 option 2 No difference option 2 No difference Option 1 option 2 option 2 No difference No difference Option 1 option 2 No difference option 2 No difference No difference Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 option 2

Yes Yes No I don't know Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No I don't know No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes I don't know No I don't know No Yes No I don't know No Yes No Yes

No I don't know Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes I don't know I don't know I don't know No No Yes Yes No I don't know No Yes Yes No No I don't know Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No I don't know Yes No

Red Red Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Red I don't know Blue Blue Red Red Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue Red Blue Blue I don't know Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 131

chapter 11: appendix

Better looks Every half a year option 1 Option 1 Looks more like a normal brick color Every half a year No difference No difference I would chose blue, because it is more efficient and while the red one comes every three closermonths to the appearance of “real” option bricks, 1 you still see difference.

No difference So you might as well choose the efficient ones in my opinion.

Soothing to my eyes Every half a year option 2 No difference More aesthetic Once a month option 1 Option 1 The facade fits well with the other buildings in the Neighborhood every three months option 2 option 2 I like how the blue contrasts with the color of the brick. The other color kind Every of half blends a year in more. option 1 Option 1 Cheaper and prettier every three months No difference No difference The reason i am choosing PV bricks is for solar power generation. Why would Once ianot month want the most efficientNo solar difference panels?

No difference Efficiency and the look every three months option 1 Option 1 contrast I would not option 1 Option 1 The blue option is more attractive and has a higher energy yield. every three months option 1 Option 1 Less noticeable and far more sleek Once a month No difference No difference If red and blue cost the same, the energy yield alone justifies picking blue. every year option 1 Option 1 I think the red looks more like bricks but the energy gained is more important.

Every half a year No difference No difference Energy efficiency. The blue to me is more attractive but has a less conventional every three color. months But I usually pick the Nocolor difference that is more out there.

No difference It will be more energy efficient every three months No difference No difference More energy yield Every half a year No difference Option 1 The difference in 20% energy yield is enough to make me choose dark blue Every half a year No difference option 2 I would prioritize efficiency over aesthetics. Additionally, the blue option is not every significantly year less appealing than option the red 2 option to me. No difference I like the contrast of the blue and surrounding colors. It looks amazing. This Every is so halfcool. a year option 1 Option 1 I think the red clashes with the bricks. Blue looks better.

Once a month option 2 Option 1 The marginal benefit of having the red brick which looks more similar to Every ordinary halfbrick a year does not outweigh theoption 20% additional 1 energy output.

Option Especially 1 given the high price of installing this, I would pick the option with the most efficient energy output I prefer the color blue over red, also red stands out too much since it isntEvery the actual half a color year of a brick option 2 option 2 would definitely depend on the application but in general dark blues goevery with more, three are months sleeker, and induce aoption calmer2feeling in people than option a red2would 20% greater efficiency is a big deal — so I chose blue. I do understandevery wanting three solar months panels to be aesthetically No difference pleasing, but I’d ratherNo have difference a less aesthetically pleasing home that is healthy for the planet een warmere uitstraling Once a month No difference No difference The blue looks cool and if it's more efficient that's better Once a month option 2 option 2 more brick color, maybe change facade color to other color brick it will make Everythe halfblue a year more blend in option 2 No difference I like the color better every three months No difference Option 1 Neither color looks like brick color, but neither looks bad, so higher energy Every yield half is abetter year option 1 Option 1 I think it’s more aesthetically pleasing. Looks more modern every three months option 2 Option 1 The facade has a greater coherence Once a month No difference No difference every three months No difference No difference efficienter Once a month No difference No difference Higher energy yield, and I like the blue better every three months No difference Option 1 it look better Every half a year option 1 Option 1 It maches the other bricks better every three months No difference No difference It looks nicer Once a month option 2 No difference I like the contrast every year option 2 No difference Higher efficiency Every half a year option 1 Option 1 Every half a year option 2 No difference Red is closer to looking like a regular brick. I don't like the shiny blue color Every of the halfcurrent a yearsolar panels, it never No difference matches with the surroundings.

Option 1 Besides the better yield, I also find the blue to be more aesthetically pleasing every three months option 1 Option 1 More appealing and more energy yield is a nice bonus Every half a year option 1 option 2 Red looks more like bricks every three months No difference No difference Because of the 50% energy yield Every half a year option 1 Option 1 Once a month option 2 Option 1 I like them both. Blue looks good and different in my opinion, but red makes Once it stand a month put less, which also has option its beauty.

1 Option 1 Blue because this has higher energy yield. also blue represents green electricity every three more months than red does even though optionred 1 is more brick like Option 1 Looks more modern, is more efficient, two different types of red 'bricks' looks Everyahalf bit aodd year option 2 Option 1 Save energy Once a month No difference No difference Looks nicer and reduces the costs, but is design dependent every three months option 2 option 2 More energy yield and i think it looks better in contrast with the red of the normal I wouldbricks not option 2 Option 1 More effective every three months No difference No difference Wanneer je voor energie zuinig gaat, kan je het maar beter helemaal goed every doen. year Ook vind ik blauw niet perse option lelijker 2 Option 1

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 132

chapter 11: appendix

41-60 41-60 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 61+ 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 41-60 41-60 61+ 41-60 41-60 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 41-60 26-40 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 41-60 16-25 61+ 41-60 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 16-25 16-25 61+ 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25

Doctoral or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Lower secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Primary education Bachelor's or equivalent Lower secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Higher secondary education Higher secondary education Lower secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent

Northern europe Western europe Northern europe Western europe Western europe Western europe United States of America Northern europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe United States of America Western europe United States of America Western europe Western europe Western europe Southern europe India Other United States of America India India Western europe India Western europe United States of America United States of America Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe India India Northern europe Western europe Western europe Western europe United States of America India Western europe Western europe Northern europe India India Western europe United States of America United States of America Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe

option 1 No difference No difference No difference option 1 No difference option 2 No difference option 2 option 1 option 2 option 2 No difference option 1 option 2 No difference option 2 option 2 option 1 option 1 option 1 No difference No difference No difference No difference option 2 No difference option 2 option 2 option 2 option 1 option 1 No difference option 1 option 2 No difference option 1 option 1 option 1 option 2 option 1 option 2 No difference option 1 option 1 option 1 option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 No difference No difference option 2 option 2 option 2 No difference

Option 1 No difference Option 1 No difference Option 1 Option 1 option 2 Option 1 option 2 Option 1 option 2 option 2 option 2 Option 1 option 2 Option 1 No difference option 2 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 No difference No difference No difference No difference option 2 Option 1 option 2 option 2 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 No difference Option 1 option 2 No difference Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 option 2 option 2 Option 1 No difference Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 No difference No difference option 2 option 2 Option 1 Option 1

No No Yes I don't know Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes I don't know No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No I don't know Yes No I don't know No No Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes I don't know No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No I don't know Yes Yes Yes Yes

Blue Blue Blue Blue I don't know Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue I don't know Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue I don't know

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 133

chapter 11: appendix

To me the colour is not important. I care more about the result!

Every half a year option 2 option 2 More efficient every year option 1 Option 1 Higher energy yield with marginal difference in appearance every three months No difference Option 1 More efficient, and could look better depending on the rest of the house every three months No difference No difference Both colors could be best choice. In my opinion, this every much depends on I would the overall not appearance of the building option 1and other colors used.

Option 1 Is mooi I would not No difference No difference higher energy yield and like the dark blue for a more modern look :) Every half a year No difference No difference Meest effectief every year No difference Option 1 I both like the color and the efficiency better every year No difference No difference It wields more and even if the red is better looking, the blue I think can be Every made half soathat yearit fits a bit better withoption the overall 2 architecture of the option building 2 Red is ugly every three months No difference Option 1 Every half a year option 1 option 2 I actually like the way the blue looks better. The higher energy yield is aevery plus. three months option 2 option 2 Efficiency is important and the blue offers a nice accent colour in the buildings every three months option 1 Option 1 every year option 2 option 2 every year option 2 option 2 Do like the look and efficiency is important to me Once a month option 2 option 2 Better looking and more energy Every half a year option 1 Option 1 every three months option 2 Option 1 More efficient Once a month option 1 Option 1 Looks more natural every year No difference No difference Looks better Once a month No difference No difference Energy yield is more Every half a year option 2 option 2 Energy yield is more Every half a year option 2 option 2 Efficiency is more important, and the blue color is not that bad.

Once a month option 1 Option 1 It doesn’t make sense using a PV product with less yield when you have aOnce bettera option. month Colour can be incorporated option 1 as part of the design Option and shouldn’t 1 be the decisive factor Because I think they're equally nice, and if I'm going to do this I would want Once the highest a monthpossible energy yield.

No difference No difference I hope a higher energy yield is a good thing. Enjoy the color blue every three months option 1 Option 1 every three months option 1 Option 1 More appealing to me. + 50% energie yield every year option 1 Option 1 The dark blue matches the brick quite well in my opinion and in this way Every the futuristic half a year characteristics of the facade option are 1 more visible from Option outside;1 'Let the difference be different and stand out' The blue option produces more energy a d i like the colour better.

Every half a year option 2 option 2 More energy yield Every half a year option 2 No difference I would prioritize efficiency over aesthetics. Additionally, the blue option is not every significantly year less appealing than option the red 2 option to me. No difference Having a more versatile colour combination Once a month No difference No difference It still looks aesthetically pleasing and is more efficient so why not?

Every half a year No difference option 2 I don’t have a preference between the optics so I choose for the energy Every efficient halfversio a year No difference No difference The appearance is more pretty and seems to be more in balance with the every rest three of the months architecture option 2 option 2 Looks more natural every year No difference No difference More efficient and esthetically fairly even to me every three months option 2 option 2 every three months option 1 Option 1 It looks just as appealing to me because there are bricks around it, so the every larger three energy months yield was the deal-breaker option 1for me Option 1 Favorite color every year No difference No difference I like blue.

Every half a year option 1 Option 1 Once a month option 1 Option 1 Aesthetics of the building every year option 1 Option 1 Higher energy yield every three months No difference No difference 20% greater efficiency is a big deal — so I chose blue. I do understandevery wanting three solar months panels to be aesthetically No difference pleasing, but I’d ratherNo have difference a less aesthetically pleasing home that is healthy for the planet It looks better, and it's more efficient. every three months option 2 option 2 Every half a year No difference No difference Bright as the air Every half a year No difference No difference At this design the blue collor match better with the other bricks then the redevery bricks. year option 1 Option 1 Heeft een mooiere kleur Every half a year option 1 Option 1 every year No difference option 2 Every half a year option 2 Option 1 I think red is more aesthetically pleasing because it matches the bricks better, Oncebut a month blue is also preferred because optionof1the higher energy yield.

Option I would 1 say that it depends on which design matches the building itself but also the neighbourhood best (I would choos

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 134

chapter 11: appendix

16-25 16-25 16-25 61+ 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 41-60 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 41-60 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 41-60 16-25 26-40 26-40 26-40 16-25 26-40 26-40 41-60 16-25 16-25 26-40 26-40 26-40 16-25 26-40 26-40 16-25 26-40 26-40 16-25 26-40 26-40 26-40

Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Primary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Doctoral or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Lower secondary education Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent

United States of America Western europe United States of America Western europe United States of America India United States of America United States of America Other Southern europe United States of America Northern europe United States of America United States of America Western europe United States of America Southern europe United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America Eastern europe Western europe United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America United States of America India India Northern europe Western europe India India Western europe Western europe Western europe Other India Western europe India Western europe Northern europe India Western europe Western europe Other United States of America Southern europe Northern europe Southern europe India India Southern europe

option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 option 1 No difference option 1 No difference No difference No difference option 2 option 1 option 1 option 1 option 1 option 2 option 2 No difference No difference option 2 option 1 option 1 option 2 option 1 option 1 No difference option 2 No difference No difference option 1 option 1 option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 option 1 option 1 option 1 No difference option 1 option 2 option 1 option 1 option 1 No difference No difference option 1 option 2 No difference No difference No difference option 2 option 2 option 2 option 2 No difference

Option 1 Option 1 option 2 option 2 option 2 No difference option 2 No difference No difference option 2 option 2 Option 1 Option 1 option 2 No difference option 2 Option 1 No difference No difference option 2 Option 1 option 2 option 2 Option 1 No difference No difference Option 1 No difference Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 Option 1 No difference Option 1 No difference option 2 option 2 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 No difference No difference Option 1 Option 1 No difference No difference No difference option 2 option 2 option 2 option 2 Option 1

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes I don't know Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No I don't know Yes I don't know No I don't know No No Yes No I don't know No I don't know Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes I don't know Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No

I don't know Yes No I don't know Yes Yes No Yes No Yes I don't know Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes I don't know Yes I don't know Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes I don't know No Yes No I don't know No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes I don't know No Yes Yes

Blue I don't know Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Red Blue I don't know Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue Red Red Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 135

chapter 11: appendix

Higher energy yield and I think it looks better every three months No difference No difference I think red is more aesthetically pleasing because it matches the bricks better, Oncebut a month blue is also preferred because optionof1the higher energy yield.

Option I would 1 say that it depends on which design matches the building itself but also the neighbourhood best (I woul Preferably the solar bricks would match the rest of the building, but I think every thethree saved months money is worth not having option a perfect 2 match. option 2 I love it every year option 2 option 2 Because it has a higher energy yield #efficient Once a month No difference No difference I chose the blue option because it matches more with walls every three months option 1 Option 1 Once a month option 2 Option 1 efficiency every three months option 1 Option 1 It looks more like a real brick facade Every half a year option 2 option 2 Because is more efficient Once a month option 1 Option 1 every year option 2 option 2 More efficient every year option 2 option 2 I like blue.

Every half a year option 1 Option 1 Blue makes it look like an unmatched replacement window.

Every half a year option 1 Option 1 The contrast looks more natural like brick - even though it’s lower yield.every Blue three looks months like legos No difference option 2 every three months option 1 Option 1 It depends on the look of the building and its surroundings every year option 1 Option 1 Looks more like the other bricks Once a month No difference No difference 50% > 30% every year No difference No difference More efficient. every three months option 2 option 2 I think the blue looks better so I was picking it before I even read that it has Every higher half aenergy year yield option 1 Option 1 To have a greater environmental impact every year option 2 No difference Aesthetically pleasing is of higher importance than PV efficiency from my Once point of a month view option 1 option 2 Using integrated PV is a good example for others and not something to hide.

Once a month option 2 Option 1 Classic color for brick Every half a year No difference No difference Better contrast with actual brick. More efficient.

Every half a year No difference No difference Both stick out at least some what so I would use the blue to create a more Every intentional half a year look instead of a patched option look1 with the red Option 1 Blends better with brick Every half a year No difference No difference The red looks better with the brown brick than the blue every three months No difference No difference I think the blue looks better so I was picking it before I even read that it has Every higher half aenergy year yield option 1 Option 1 Blue because more efficient. But I want to know if other colour options are Every available half a year option 1 Option 1 Once a month No difference No difference more efficient every three months option 2 option 2 Because it is more obvious it is PV. And I don’t mind showing that.

Every half a year option 2 No difference Purely based on higher yield Once a month option 2 option 2 Highest efficiency every three months option 1 Option 1 every year option 2 Option 1 it is more harmonic with brickstone I would not option 2 Option 1 Spending all that extra money, I might as well have a higher yield from it.Every half a year No difference No difference Has better contrast with the exterior normal brick layer Once a month option 2 option 2 I like blue.

Once a month option 2 option 2 I like the contrast with the regular bricks And the energy yield is higher I would not option 1 Option 1 every three months option 1 Option 1 Higher energy yield every three months option 1 Option 1 Blue has greater contrast. Depends on the color of the bricks I guess I would not No difference No difference As Louis Kahn once said “Even a brick wants to be something”. With these everychanging three months times when everything option is changing...we 1 must change Option everything 1 too. In that perspective it should not matter if the PV brick has the same colour as regular bricks. Ene I don’t have a preference between the optics so I choose for the energy Every efficient halfversio a year No difference No difference More appealing to me. + 50% energie yield every year option 1 Option 1 Like the more in realistic appearance Once a month option 2 option 2 Personally, if I’m getting panels it’s for the energy and I don’t mind the look Every (I currently half a year have the blue/blackNo ones difference on my roof and it doesn’t No difference bother me that it’s a different color. It’s actually kind of a flex haha. (I can see more wealthy people or areas that r every three months No difference No difference Aesthetically acceptable. Better energy performance Every half a year option 2 option 2 every year option 2 option 2 I chose blue because I would need the product to give what it is originally intended every year for. option 2 option 2 Contrast Once a month No difference No difference every year No difference No difference

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 136

chapter 11: appendix

16-25 16-25 16-25 26-40 16-25 16-25 26-40 41-60 26-40 41-60 26-40 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25 16-25

Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Doctoral or equivalent Doctoral or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Lower secondary education Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Master's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Bachelor's or equivalent Higher secondary education Higher secondary education

United States of America Other United States of America India United States of America Western europe Other Other Western europe United States of America Western europe United States of America United States of America United States of America Western europe United States of America Western europe Western europe Western europe United States of America United States of America United States of America Western europe Western europe Western europe Western europe

option 1 No difference option 1 option 2 option 1 option 2 No difference option 1 option 1 No difference option 2 No difference option 1 option 1 option 2 option 1 No difference No difference No difference No difference No difference option 2 option 1 No difference No difference option 1

No difference No difference option 2 No difference Option 1 option 2 No difference Option 1 Option 1 No difference option 2 No difference Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 option 2 Option 1 Option 1 Option 1 No difference No difference No difference Option 1 Option 1 No difference Option 1

No No I don't know Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes I don't know No No No No No No No No I don't know No

Yes Yes I don't know Yes Yes I don't know Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes I don't know No Yes Yes I don't know No No No Yes Yes No No No I don't know Yes

Red Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Red Red Red Blue Blue Red Blue Red Blue Blue

D.2 SURVEY RAW DATA

page 137

chapter 11: appendix

It looks more similar to the brick. Although it is less efficient, it provides a Once more attractive a month appearance. option 1 option 2 The red looks more aesthetically pleasing.

Every half a year No difference No difference It shows that it’s different so people ask questions to learn more Every half a year option 1 option 2 Cause it soothes the viewers eyes Once a month option 2 option 2 More efficient and it adds a pop of color - if it’s already being installed, I’dOnce want the a month most efficient option right No from difference the get go.

No difference I like blue better and it is also more efficient Every half a year No difference No difference Every half a year No difference option 2 Aesthetics Once a month option 2 option 2 Looks like metal rainscreen in similar color tones as the brick. From distance Everythe halfbrick a year pattern might dissapear. option If you 1 select blue color itOption will look1 like one large PV panel.

I choose practicality over looks.

Every half a year No difference No difference Looks more beautifull Once a month option 2 option 2 every three months No difference No difference It might be a little childish but it’s my favorite color. Even with brick I would Every prefer halfitaover yearred, the contrast in the option image 1 is aesthetically pleasing Optionto1 me.

Every half a year option 1 Option 1 Every half a year option 2 Option 1 It shows that it’s different so people ask questions to learn more Every half a year option 1 option 2 Is mooi I would not No difference No difference Is mooi I would not No difference No difference Is mooi I would not No difference No difference Both don’t look a ton like the brick, I like the look of the blue better every year No difference No difference Both don’t look a ton like the brick, I like the look of the blue better every year No difference No difference Looks better. every year No difference No difference 30% yield seems like the ROI would become too low to actually apply itevery three months option 1 Option 1 Is mooi I would not No difference No difference At this design the blue collor match better with the other bricks then the redevery bricks. year option 1 Option 1 More effective every three months No difference No difference

E.1 INFOGRAPHIC

page 138

chapter 11: appendix

Group 7: Karin Backer, Pragya Chauhan, Jordy van Eijk, Sarah Hoogenboom, Daniël Koster and Nienke Smit

Do It Yourself

Design a personalized facade for a new construction building, type is determined by the target group you represent, by selecting color and glass finish.

Do

% Efficiency

It Y our

self

Amount of electricity generated. The color of the PV panel determines how much energy is produced.

Would you change your previously selected colors for the Building Type and Location questions, after being told the efficiency of each color?

$ Price

ncy

cie

Effi

The scale of investment. Facade PV panels are a long term investment. A colored PV will cost more than the standard PV color.

Would you pay more for a colored PV for either a commercial or residential building?

Glass Finish

Pric

e

Appearance of the facade. The glass finish can alter the appearance of a color.

Surface finishes are reflective, matte, or texture.

What glass finish would you select for each color on a simple commercial or on a residential facade?

ss

Gla

ish

Location

Fin

The location of the building. Whether it is in a dense city, standard neighborhood, or in the countryside, a color facade can either blend in or stand out.

What is your preferred facade color for a rural farm, a neighborhood home, and a row house?

Loc

Building Type

atio

n

The use of the building. The appearance of a commercial building attracts consumers and the appearance of a home welcomes people.

What is your preferred facade color for a cafe, shopping mall, apartment building, and single resident home?

ing

ild Bu

e Typ

Customize your Energy Brick A facade with brick-sized PV

Current aesthetic decisions of the Energy Brick are research based conclusions of the team. To get input from potential buyers, participants will walk through a series of rooms and answer room specific questions within a virtual reality (VR) experience. Each room will display graphics and information on different topics related to the visual appearance of the Energy Brick. The VR glasses will allow participants to visualize the PV color facade on a 1:1 scale virtual building. The outcomes can help in making a business model.

Target Groups 500 commercial representatives

500 residential representatives

Control Settings Lighting settings: day and night

Participants respond individually

Results Record biases i.e. nationality

Charting the answers

Analysing the outcomes

References: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_permissible_margin_of_error_when_computing_a_social_research_sample_size/5bf367263d48b73b556f9d23/citation/download. https://www.munich-startup.de/31044/millioneninvestment-inflight-vr/

Make conclusions and business model