See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305143871

Review and analysis of solar thermal facades

Article  in  Solar Energy · October 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2016.06.006

CITATIONS READS

10 347

3 authors:

Richard O'Hegarty Oliver Kinnane

Trinity College Dublin University College Dublin
9 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   79 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

S.J. McCormack
Trinity College Dublin
120 PUBLICATIONS   1,629 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

(PEDAL) Plasmonic Enhancement and Directionality of emission for Advanced Luminescent devices View project

Sustainable and Bio-based Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oliver Kinnane on 14 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review and analysis of solar thermal facades

Richard O’Hegarty a,⇑, Oliver Kinnane b, Sarah J. McCormack a
a
Dept of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
b
Architecture at Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

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

Article history: Harnessing solar energy to provide for the thermal needs of buildings is one of the most promising solu-
Received 5 January 2016 tions to the global energy issue. Exploiting the additional surface area provided by the building’s façade
Received in revised form 31 May 2016 can significantly increase the solar energy output. Developing a range of integrated and adaptable prod-
Accepted 2 June 2016
ucts that do not significantly affect the building’s aesthetics is vital to enabling the building integrated
Available online 15 June 2016
solar thermal market to expand and prosper. This work reviews and evaluates solar thermal facades in
terms of the standard collector type, which they are based on, and their component make-up. Daily effi-
Keywords:
ciency models are presented, based on a combination of the Hottel Whillier Bliss model and finite ele-
Solar thermal collector
Solar thermal facades
ment simulation. Novel and market available solar thermal systems are also reviewed and evaluated
Facade integration using standard evaluation methods, based on experimentally determined parameters ISO 9806. Solar
thermal collectors integrated directly into the facade benefit from the additional wall insulation at the
back; displaying higher efficiencies then an identical collector offset from the facade. Unglazed solar ther-
mal facades with high capacitance absorbers (e.g. concrete) experience a shift in peak maximum energy
yield and display a lower sensitivity to ambient conditions than the traditional metallic based unglazed
collectors. Glazed solar thermal facades, used for high temperature applications (domestic hot water),
result in overheating of the building’s interior which can be reduced significantly through the inclusion
of high quality wall insulation. For low temperature applications (preheating systems), the cheaper
unglazed systems offer the most economic solution. The inclusion of brighter colour for the glazing
and darker colour for the absorber shows the lowest efficiency reductions (<4%). Novel solar thermal
façade solutions include solar collectors integrated into balcony rails, shading devices, louvers, windows
or gutters.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction increasingly common (Shukla et al., 2012). Facade integration of

Over one third of all energy consumption is associated with
buildings, about half of this energy is used for space heating/cool-
ing and hot water preparation (IEA, 2013). These loads are primar-
ily served through the burning of fossil fuels resulting in concerns
of climate change and environmental degradation. Alternative,
sustainable methods of meeting these loads are required. The
application of solar thermal technology can reduce or eliminate
fossil fuel requirement to provide for a building’s thermal needs
(Peuser et al., 2010; Baños et al., 2011).
Traditionally Solar Thermal Collectors (STCs) are mounted on
frames that are attached to the roofs of buildings. Facade integra-
tion of renewable technologies exploits a larger proportion of a
building’s surface area for energy generation. Transpired solar
collectors, based on heating air between layers of the facade are
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ohegartr@tcd.ie (R. O’Hegarty).
photovoltaic technologies is today commonplace and the state of
the art is well documented (Cerón et al., 2013). Facade integrated
solar thermal collectors, hereafter, termed Solar Thermal Facades
(STFs), are less common. Authors have reported a paucity of STF
product options that are aesthetically pleasing or widely commer-
cially available (Cappel et al., 2014; Farkas and Horvat, 2012;
Probst and Roecker, 2012). STFs include STCs that are integrated
into the weather line of the building (DOMA Solartechnik, 2015;
S-solar, 2015; Winkler Solar, 2015) or are attached proud of the
façade as, for example, balcony rails (Ji et al., 2015; Schweizer
Energie, 2015; Yang et al., 2013b; Zhai et al., 2008) or louvers
(Abu-Zour et al., 2006; Palmero-Marrero and Oliveira, 2006; Zhai
et al., 2008). These solutions generally derive from common roof
attached solar thermal collectors, configured in alternative orienta-
tion, colour, casings and forms.
Increasing the usable building surface area for energy produc-
tion is particularly beneficial for buildings with low roof to envel-
ope ratios (Chow et al., 2006, 2005; O’Hegarty et al., 2015; Shi

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.06.006
0038-092X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422 409

et al., 2013). Additionally, other components of building services
compete for roof space. STFs replace building cladding elements
and their associated embodied energy (Greening and Azapagic,
2014; Lamnatou et al., 2015; Maurer et al., 2015a). However,
vertically orientating the STCs reduces the annual solar yield per
m2 of collector (by approximately 26% in Dublin) when compared
with an optimally tilted surface (Fig. 1).
Locating the collectors vertically reduces solar gains in the sum-
mer, which can reduce the risk of the system over heating and sub-
sequently damaging the collector, pump and expansion vessel
(DGS, 2010; Peuser et al., 2010). A brief introduction to STCs and
their components is first presented to further understand STF
advantages and limitations.
2. Solar thermal collectors and their components
insulation, and (5) fixings and framing systems). Components (1–
4) are indicated in Fig. 2.
The standard roof attached technologies ((A), (B) and (D)) differ
in performance and appearance, but each follows a similar heat
transfer process. Solar radiation incident on the collector is cap-
tured by its absorber (2), this heat is then transferred to the piping
network (3) via conduction and finally to the working fluid by a
combination of conduction and convection. As the collector tem-
perature exceeds the ambient temperature, heat is lost by conduc-
tion, convection and radiation, and can be reduced by the inclusion
of insulation backing (4) as well as a vacuum or air space between
cover (1) and absorber (2).
Individual collector components are labelled: (1) cover, (2)
absorber, (3) heat transfer fluid network (where light grey indi-
cates inlet and dark is outlet) and (4) insulation.

This work categorises STCs into five core technology types,
which most STFs derive from; (A) Unglazed Collectors (UC), (B)
Glazed Flat Plate Collectors (FPC), (C) Massive Solar Thermal Col-
lectors (MSTC), (D) Evacuated Tube Collectors (ETC) and (E) Con-
centrated Solar Collectors. Simplified section cuts and plan
drawings of each collector (A–E) are shown in Fig. 2. This classifi-
cation aims to capture STFs that replicate standard roof attached
solar thermal systems, as well as novel, and bespoke designs, that
are adapted from these technologies for façade integration. The
collectors are reviewed with reference to five core components
((1) cover, (2) absorber, (3) heat transfer fluid network, (4)
2.1. Unglazed collectors
Unglazed Collectors (UC) (Fig. 2(A)) consist of a hydraulic piping
system connected to, or forming an integral part of, an absorber
layer that captures the solar radiation and transfers the heat to
the circulating fluid. The UC may also include insulation at the
back. High convective heat losses are characteristic of the UC due
to the absence of a covering (Bonhôte et al., 2009;
Tripanagnostopoulos et al., 2000), which reduces the collector’s
efficiency. Convective heat losses become proportionally signifi-
cant when large temperature differences occur between ambient

6 18
Daily solar radiation (kWh/m2d)

16

Ambient temperature (°C)

5
14
4 12
10
3
8
2 6
Optimally tiled
4
1 Vertical
Ambient temperature (°C) 2
0 0
Jan
Feb

May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep

Nov
Dec
Oct
Mar
Apr

(a) (b) Month

Fig. 1. (a) Typical roof mounted installation (53° optimal tilt) and solar thermal façade installation (vertical) where (b) displays annual profiles for the average daily solar
radiation on the two surfaces in Dublin, Ireland (Latitude 53.35N; 6.26W). Data taken from (PVGIS, 2016).

Fig. 2. Simplified section and plan drawings of example solar collectors: (A) Unglazed Collector, (B) Glazed Flat Plate Collector, (C) Massive Solar Thermal Collector, (D)
Evacuated Tube Collector and (E) Concentrated Solar Collector.
410 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
temperature and the absorber temperature. For this reason they
are commonly used in lower temperature applications, such as
swimming pool heating (Energie Solarie SA, 2015; IEA, 2012) and
water preheating for DHW or space heating (Bonhôte et al.,
2009). An advantage of the unglazed system is its lower cost rela-
tive to other collectors.
UCs account for 8.4% of the global installed solar thermal capac-
ity and 4.5% of the European installed capacity (Weiss and
Mauthner, 2014). UC technology is the foundation for many STF
products (Energie Solarie SA, 2015; Rheinzink, 2015).
2.2. Flat plate collectors
Flat Plate Collectors (FPC) (Fig. 2(B)) develops the UC design to
include glazing on the front of the panel, offset by an air gap from
the absorber, which reduces convective heat losses to the exterior.
The piping system is bonded to the front or back of the absorber
plate, or forms an integral part of the plate (Duffie and Beckman,
2013). Insulation is located behind the piping system to reduce
conductive heat losses through the back and edges. Water temper-
atures of up to 80 °C can be achieved with standard FPCs (Wang
et al., 2015).
FPC technology has seen significant advancement in recent
years (Sadhishkumar and Balusamy, 2014; Shukla et al., 2013).
The addition of selective coatings has decreased absorber emit-
tance, enhancing performance (Wijewardane and Goswami,
2012). Other innovations include; increasing the cover efficiency
via selective coatings for glazing (Ehrmann and Reineke-Koch,
2012), reducing heat loss through improved insulation and evacu-
ated systems (Beikircher et al., 2014) and improving the heat trans-
fer, via geometrical optimization of the piping network (Jaisankar
et al., 2009; Kumar and Prasad, 2000). These progressions have
resulted in increased efficiency and product choice.
FPCs account for 26.4% of the global installed solar thermal
capacity and 84.9% of the European installed capacity (Weiss and
Mauthner, 2014). Most STF products derive from the FPC (DOMA
Solartechnik, 2015; H+S Solar, 2015; S-solar, 2015; Winkler Solar,
2015).
2.3. Massive solar thermal collectors
Massive solar thermal collectors (MSTC) (Fig. 2(C)) are opaque
solar collectors that use high capacitance materials in place of
highly conductive metals (D’Antoni and Saro, 2012). They have a
similar configuration to under-floor heating or thermally active
building systems (TABS) but rather than transfer heat from a
heated fluid to a massive material such as concrete, they instead
aim to extract heat from the sunlight exposed material and transfer
it to a circulating fluid (D’Antoni and Saro, 2012; Lehmann et al.,
2007). The high-capacitance properties of the absorber material
means the useful heat gain continues in the absence of solar
radiation.
Asphalt and sand have been used in large scale MSTCs, however,
concrete is primarily used for building applications; also known as
Concrete Solar Collectors (CSCs). They have a lower thermal out-
put, than the standard FPC, however, they are simpler to develop
and have a lower cost (D’Antoni and Saro, 2012). Additionally, their
inherent durability, structural strength and resistance to outdoor
conditions means building integration can be achieved with fewer
maintenance issues (D’Antoni and Saro, 2013; Kuhn, 2012;
Sarachitti et al., 2011).
More recent research has focused on the material and geometric
optimization of CSCs. Increasing the conductivity of the concrete
by incorporating metallic material into the concrete matrix
improves the thermal performance (Keste and Patil, 2012;
Krishnavel et al., 2014). Glazing and insulation can also be included
to reduce heat loss. However these inclusions come with a cost
(Hazami et al., 2010, 2005).
MSTCs have yet to make a notable impact on the commercial
market (E-hub, 2015).
2.4. Evacuated tube collectors
Evacuated Tube Collectors (ETC) (Fig. 2(D)) are composed of an
array of evacuated glass tubes. The heat transfer network is
attached to an absorber contained within the evacuated tubes.
ETCs can achieve the highest temperature and efficiency of the
standard technologies discussed. Temperatures can reach over
95 °C (Wang et al., 2015) because of the vacuum-sealed absorber.
Advancements in ETC technology include geometrical enhance-
ments of the absorber (Kim and Seo, 2007; Perez et al., 1995)
and coating of tubular surfaces (Joly et al., 2013).
ETCs account for 64.6% of the global installed solar thermal
capacity and 9% of the European installed capacity (Weiss and
Mauthner, 2014). UCs and FPCs are most suitable for systemised
façade integration because of their inherently flat geometry
(Yang and Yu, 2011). But ETCs have been integrated in bespoke
designs such as on balcony guardrails (Behling, 2015; Schweizer
Energie, 2015).
2.5. Concentrating solar thermal collectors
Concentrating solar thermal collectors are used to generate hot
water or steam, generally in large industrial installations. These are
commonly realised as line-focus collectors or point-focused collec-
tors (Wang et al., 2015). The sunlight is concentrated, using mirrors
or lenses, to heat fluid to high temperatures.
Concentration techniques are also used for smaller scale appli-
cations (Fig. 2(E)) to boost the collector’s efficiency. Compound
parabolic collectors (CPC) are stationary concentrating systems
which have an optimised double parabolic trough geometry
(Norton et al., 1994). They are typically applied in conjunction with
ETCs to provide for DHW or space heating applications (Kalogirou,
2004). Concentrating solar thermal collectors are not commonly
integrated into buildings, however, the geometry and concentra-
tion technology have inspired some novel research (Behling,
2015; CASE, 2015; Tanaka, 2011).
3. Evaluating solar thermal collector efficiency
Adapting STC technologies for façade integration affect the effi-
ciency. STC efficiency is defined as the ratio of useful energy gain,
Qu, over some specific time period, t, to the solar irradiance, G, over
that same time period (Duffie and Beckman, 2013).
R
Q dt
g¼ R u ð1Þ
Ac G dt
This work includes STFs with non-negligible storage effects,
therefore STF efficiencies are evaluated over a day, gd, using hourly
radiation data (PVGIS, 2016). A model to calculate the useful
energy gain, Qu, of an FPC is outlined (Hottel and Whillier, 1954)
and subsequently modified for evaluating the efficiencies of an
UC (with and without back insulation), MSTC and ETC. The useful
energy gain of an FPC is defined as:
Qu ¼ Qi  Ql ð2Þ
where Qi is the total instantaneous energy gain and Ql is the
instantaneous energy loss. Based on this energy balance, the Hot
tel–Whillier–Bliss relationship for the useful energy gain, Qu, is
defined as:
 
Q u ¼ Ac F R GðsaÞ  U l ðT f ;i  T a Þ ð3Þ
 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
where FR is the heat removal factor; included to compensate for the
assumption that the average collector temperature is represented
by the fluid inlet temperature, Tf,i. Ta is the ambient temperature.
The transmittance-absorptance product, (sa), is based on the opti-
cal properties of the cover and absorber of the collector (Fig. 2(1)
& (2)). The total thermal transmittance, Ul, is the sum of thermal
transmittance through the front (Uf), back (Ub) and edges (Ue) of
the collector. The thickness of the back, Lb, and edge, Le, and the con-
ductivity, ki, of the insulation layer (Fig. 2(4)) affect the heat trans-
mittance through the back (Eq. (4)) and edges (Eq. (5)). The front
heat loss of an FPC (Eq. (6)) is affected by the convective and radia-
tive heat transfer between the absorber and the cover (hc,abs-c and
hr,abs-c); and the convective and radiative heat transfer between
the cover and the ambient (hc,c-a and hr,c-a).
U b ¼ ki =Lb
ki
Lb
ðedge perimeterÞðcollector thicknessÞ
Ue ¼
A nologies, as shown by Ma et al. (2010). The convective heat transfer
 1
1 1
Uf ¼ þ ð6Þ
hc;absc þ hr;absc hc;ca þ hr;ca
Each STC typology requires modifications to account for their
respective unique characteristics, listed below.
UC: The omission of a cover plate results in the omission of the
optical transmittance coefficient, s, from Eq. (3). For UC, the ther-
mal transmittance through the front, Uf, is found by the sum of
the convective, hc,abs-a, and radiative, hr,abs-a, heat loss coefficients
from the absorber to the ambient:
U f ¼ hc;absa þ hr;absa
The convective heat transfer coefficients are evaluated using rela-
tionships outlined by D’Antoni and Saro (2013), where
 0:38
2:66 2:66
hc;absa ¼ hc;w þ hc;n
hc;w ¼ 7ðL0:2 Þðv 0:75 Þ
hc;n ¼ 1:5jT abs  T a j0:33
The forced convective heat transfer coefficient, hc,w, is a function
of the length of the collector L and the wind speed v. The natural
convective heat transfer coefficient, hc,n, is a function of absorber
temperature, Tabs and the ambient temperature Ta.
The radiative heat transfer coefficient is expressed in terms of
the emittance, e, the absorber’s temperature, Tabs, and the sky tem-
perature, Ts.
hr;absa ¼ reðT 2abs þ T 2s ÞðT abs þ T s Þ
where r is the Stefan boltzmann constant.
MSTC:MSTCs, exhibit non-negligible storage effects. An addi-
tional storage term, Qs, is added to Eq. (2) to account for these
effects, to become:
Qu ¼ Qi  Ql  Qs
The positive/negative influence of the stored energy, Qs, on the
useful energy gain, Qu, changes throughout the day depending on
associated external conditions. Using the daily efficiency, gd, as
the key performance indicator captures the influence of these stor-
age effects in the evaluation.
The heat transfer problem for an MSTC may be described as a
one dimensional time dependent problem for the working fluid,
coupled with a three dimensional time dependent problem for
the massive absorber (D’Antoni and Saro, 2013). To simplify this
411
complex problem the unit cell method is used (Abbott, 2004;
Bopshetty et al., 1992; Sokolov and Reshef, 1992), assuming:
(1) The same temperature distribution exists for each of the par-
allel tubes in the collector, and an insulation boundary layer
can be applied to each side of the unit cell.
(2) The temperature gradient parallel to the flow direction is
smaller than the temperature gradient perpendicular to it
and is assumed negligible.
The heat conduction equation is reduced to a two dimensional
problem. The heat transfer in the 2D geometry is developed in
COMSOL Multiphysics 4.3, in which the 3D domain is split into a
number of meshed slices (Fig. 3).
The outlet fluid temperature of one slice becomes the inlet tem-
ð4Þ
perature of the following slice. Further details of this numerical
solution are reported in Sokolov and Reshef (1992).
ETC and CPC: Eq. (3) can be adapted for the ETC and CPC tech-
ð5Þ
coefficient between the absorber plate and the cover, hc,abs-c, is
omitted from Eq. (6) because of the vacuum between the absorber
and glass. Given the tubular forms of ETCs the heat transmittance
area is the area of the tube summed with additional edge transmit-
tance, Ue, from the header tubes. Adaption of ETCs for façade inte-
gration does not typically result in any physical parameters being
changed as they are most commonly attached proud of the facade
as balconies or shading devices. Also the absorber can be optimally
inclined within the tubes, further reducing the impact of façade
integration on ETC and CPC efficiency.
STF fixing and framing systems: The efficiency of an STF is
influenced by the fixing system used to attach the STC to the build-
ð7Þ
ing. STCs replace cladding element that are typically fixed back to
the wall (Fig. 4(A)) or offset from the wall and subsequently venti-
lated behind (Fig. 4(B)).
The ventilated space behind the collector of fixing system (B) is
ð8Þ similar to that of a roof-attached system. For the fully integrated
design (A), the heat is no longer lost to the environment at the back
but transmitted to the interior of the building; Eq. (3) becomes:
ð9Þ  
Q u ¼ Ac F R GðsaÞ  U t ðT f ;i  T a Þ  U b ðT f ;i  T int Þ ð13Þ
ð10Þ
ð11Þ
ð12Þ
Fig. 3. Schematic of the 2D model for massive solar thermal collectors (adapted
from Abbott (2004)).
412 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
Fig. 4. Two fixing systems of an FPC based STF with associated thermal resistivity diagrams for the back heat transmittance.
Ub, is changed as a result of the additional insulation layer from
the building wall. And the temperature difference is given as the
difference between fluid temperature and the interior room tem-
perature, Tint. The same theory can be applied to UCs and MSTCs
for different fixing systems. A wall U-value of 0.21 W/m2 K is used
here, which is the current standards for domestic buildings in the
UK and Ireland. The change in efficiency, gd,change, is used to present
the difference between the fully integrated and offset fixing
systems, given by:
gd;change ¼ gd;integrated  gd;offset
STF system applications: STF daily efficiencies are evaluated
for low-medium temperature applications (preheating bivalent
systems). For the comparison between STF types the inlet water
temperature is kept equal to a temperature of 12 °C (approximate
water mains temperature) in all assessments. The energy output is
calculated directly at the output of the collector. High temperature
applications (domestic hot water) are also considered when evalu-
ating the risks associated with STF over-heating.
Façade specific considerations: It should be noted that as in
Fig. 1(b) the solar irradiance, G, changes for STFs when compared
with standard roof mounted solar collectors (Eq. (3)). As will be
outlined in subsequent sections adaptations to ensure aesthetic
requirements and standards of the façade also influence the
performance.
4. Review of solar thermal façade components
The façade is the public and prominent image of the building.
STCs need to be considered early in the design process and in rela-
tion to other façade components to ensure a seamless design. Cur-
rent STCs are often criticised for their appendage to roof and
envelope and disunity with the building architecture. The wide-
range of architectural facades also necessitates a greater diversity
of STF products. Providing options, in terms of colour, texture
and dimension is key to the success of STFs as architectural compo-
nents (Munari Probst and Roecker, 2007; Probst and Roecker,
2012). Current research on STFs focuses primarily on expanding
the range of colours applicable to the cover or absorber. Other
components of STFs, including the framing and fixing to the facade
have received less academic research focus.
4.1. Cover
The cover (Fig. 2(1)), typically made from glass, is an essential
part of FPC and ETC technology and may also be used with MSTCs.
The cover reduces thermal losses through the front, Uf, but also
reduces the optical efficiency, to an extent depending on the trans-
mittance value, s.
Research related to the cover of STFs focuses predominately on
colour, and achieving this through the use of thin film technology.
Producing a colour that has a high transmittance s in the solar
ð14Þ spectrum but a narrow peak reflectance in the visible spectrum,
Rv, is the objective of researchers in the area. Thin films with these
characteristics were initially proposed by Schüler et al. (2004) for
solar thermal applications, then succeeded by simulation and
experimental studies using different film deposition methods
including reactive magnetron sputtering (Boudaden et al., 2004,
2005; Mertin et al., 2013), sol–gel dip coating (Schüler et al.,
2006) and spray pyrolysis deposition (Dudita et al., 2014). The
sol–gel dip coating technique is most suited to large scale applica-
tions, such as solar collector glazing (Schüler et al., 2006).
These thin film coatings are characterised using M, a figure of
merit; which is defined as the visible reflectance, divided by the
solar reflectance. In general, the results showed that lighter colours
(e.g. yellow) achieved a greater figure of merit, M, than darker col-
ours (e.g. blue) when applied to the cover of solar thermal collec-
tors (Schüler et al., 2005a,b, 2006). However, the figure of merit
is not truly indicative because the solar reflectance of the glazing
is the important parameter in terms of efficiency. A coloured film
with a high M may also have a lower efficiency. The daily effi-
ciency, gd, is used in this work to evaluate STFs with and without
coloured thin films.
4.2. Absorber
An alternative approach to altering the colour of the collector is
to change the colour of the absorber. The absorber (Fig. 2(2)) is a
critical component of all STCs. To maximise solar energy capture
the collector’s absorber is typically given a dark coating with high
absorptance, a. Applying colour to the absorber of an STF, reduces
the absorptance and subsequently reduces the efficiency
(Kalogirou et al., 2005). A reduction in the emittance, e, is also
 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
associated with colour inclusion. A reduction in e results in
reduced radiant heat loss through the front of the collector, Uf,
which in turn increases the collector’s efficiency at greater temper-
ature differences. For optimum performance, the absorber would
have high conductivity, k, high solar absorptance, a, and a low ther-
mal emittance, e.
For a higher optical efficiency, spectrally selective coatings are
applied (Orel and Gunde, 2001). These coatings have a high absorp-
tance, a, between 0.3 and 2.5 lm and a low thermal emittance, e,
above 2.5 lm. While research has been conducted on spectrally
selective coatings since the 1970 s (Hutchins, 1979), coloured spec-
trally selective coatings are a topic of more recent research (Orel
et al., 2005, 2007a,b; Wu et al., 2013; Zhu et al., 2012; Zhu and
Zhao, 2010).
The absorber is generally manufactured from highly conductive
metals including copper (380 W/m K), aluminium (160 W/m K)
and steel (50 W/m K), (BS ISO 10456, 2009). Ceramics have also
been investigated as a cheaper absorber material, suitable for
facade integration (Sun et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2014; Yang et al.,
2013a,b). They have a lower thermal conductance (2.3 W/m K)
but also have a lower cost (Sun et al., 2014). Polymers have also
been considered as an absorber material because of their lighter
weight and lower cost (Tsilingiris, 1999) and have led to the devel-
opment of polymer absorbers for facade integration (Aventa Solar,
2015). However they exhibit a low conductivity (0.2 W/m K),
(BS ISO 10456, 2009). Concrete is typically used as the absorber
material for MSTCs. As with ceramics and polymers, the thermal
conductivity (2 W/m K) and price is lower. However, an advan-
tage of concrete is that it is already used as a precast cladding com-
ponent for facades.
It has been highlighted by Aventa Solar (2015) that many exte-
rior and insulation finishing systems which are installed are nega-
tively affected by the high temperatures of the absorber (when
used for higher temperature applications), making a case for
cheaper, less conductive materials.
4.3. Heat transfer network
The heat transfer network can refer to both the pipes within the
solar thermal collectors, and those running from the collector to
the tank and subsequently to the user. The heat transfer network
within the collectors refers to the pipes, tubes or channels that
transfer the fluid (Fig. 2(3)).
The hydraulic resistance of solar thermal collectors is reduced
by using heat pipes, which use a combination of phase transition
and conductivity to transfer the heat from the heat pipes to the
exterior network while avoiding fluid mixing. This is particularly
beneficial for facade integration where damaged piping is more
difficult to access. Rassamakin et al. (2013) developed a novel
STF where the heat pipe forms an integral part of a flat absorber.
The versatility, scalability and adaptability of the system make it
ideal for facade integration.
The length of the external hydraulic loop, connecting the heat
transfer network within the panels to the point of use in the build-
ing, for an installed STF is generally shorter in comparison to roof
mounted collectors, particularly in medium to high-rise buildings.
Reduced external piping implies reduced heat loss (Cuadros et al.,
2007; He et al., 2014), and limited requirement for anti-freeze as
risk of liquid freezing in the pipes is reduced, (Wang et al., 2015).
4.4. Insulation
Thermal insulation (Fig. 2(4)) can be included in FPCs, UCs and
MSTCs to reduce the heat losses from the back and edges of the
collector. Back insulation thickness of a standard solar thermal
collector commonly ranges from 0.04–0.075 m (Peuser et al.,
413
2010), offering U-values of between 0.75 W/m2 K and 0.42 W/m2 K
for an insulation conductivity of 0.03 W/m K. In many countries, a
thicker insulation layer is required for STFs to ensure the envelope
abides by building regulation specified U-values. An insulation
thickness of between 100 and 140 mm, depending on insulation
conductivity, is required to achieve a wall U-value of 0.21 W/m2 K.
On the other hand, considering the high temperature reached
by the absorber plate, heat radiating to the interior space of the
building can promote overheating if not appropriately insulated
(Ji et al., 2011; Matuska and Sourek, 2006; Salem and Pierre,
2007). This is particularly pertinent in the context of climate
change where building overheating is widely expected (Kinnane
et al., 2015). Heat transfer from the collector to the building inte-
rior is dependent on the variable exterior and interior conditions,
as captured in simplified models by Maurer et al. (2015b).
When integrated directly into the building façade, the insula-
tion contained in the STF can offset insulation that would other-
wise be added to the façade. The embodied energy of insulation
is high (Hammond and Jones, 2008) and offsetting this can facili-
tate the energy payback of the solar collectors.
4.5. Fixing and framing
The range of fixing and framing systems for STFs is wide and
varied, and dependent on the collector and façade typology, as well
as the building construction and structural system. Some novel STF
products, particularly those meant for domestic use, continue to be
attached proud of the façade, incorporating discrete fixing systems
relative to many standard roof fixing systems (SolaCatcher, 2015).
The aim for STFs is often for discrete integration in line with the
building façade (Winkler Solar, 2015). Fixing solutions of commer-
cial STF products are often proprietary and not commonly dis-
closed. Given the bespoke requirements for individual building
applications, two general cases are considered here (Fig. 4).
FPCs are typically encased in metal, commonly aluminium
housing. In the context of curtain wall systems aluminium mul-
lions and transoms are common, allowing for good matching of
the collector frame with the facade framing system. A product
range with varied material and geometrical casings allows for
greatest adaptation to a wider range of framing systems. Nasov
et al. (2014) developed a STF which can be installed in the existing
frames of building windows.
With regard to façade systems STFs may be installed as curtain
wall or rainscreen skins wrapping the building structure. A curtain
wall detailing, as approximately shown in Fig. 4(A) for a single
panel, requires gaskets and/or face sealing between panels. Alter-
natively, the STF may be installed as a rainscreen offset and venti-
lated (Fig. 4(B)) in which case moisture ingress through the skin
can be evacuated via the cavity. Although the rainscreen system
reduces the pressure on the outer face to deal with weather condi-
tions, the performance of the STF is reduced due to the reduction in
insulation. In both cases the STFs are installed on a secondary
structure attached to the primary of mullions and transoms or
rails. For seamless aesthetic integration, façade elements that are
non-active should match with or complement STF elements, as
outlined by Munari Probst and Roecker (2007) following extensive
surveying of architects. In the design of a full façade system these
authors developed both STF and dummy elements that allow for
the practical understanding of STF implementation in a well con-
sidered overall façade design.
5. Analysis of solar thermal façade components
The impact of adapting collector components for façade integra-
tion is evaluated here for three European climates (Dublin,
414 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422

Barcelona and Oslo) and for all seasons, using daily efficiency mod-
els, outlined in Section 3, for the UC (with and without insulation),
FPC and MSTC. The reference parameters defining the STFs are
shown in Table 1. The average daily solar irradiance profile and
associated ambient temperature for the month of March in Dublin
is used as the reference time and location (Table 1).
To maintain consistency for daily efficiency comparison of
collector types, only the parameters that are the focus of the anal-
ysis are changed. The models are computed for both the fixing
types displayed in Fig. 4 and the difference in daily efficiency,
gd,change, is calculated. Unless otherwise mentioned all results refer
to the fully integrated fixing system (Fig. 4(A)).
5.1. Cover
The daily efficiency, gd, of FPC based STFs are 22% greater than
the unglazed STF technologies (UC and MSTC) for an average March
day in Dublin. This increased efficiency is due to the cover plate
reducing the heat loss through the front of the collector, Uf,
(Eq. (3)). However, the additional layer of transmittance, s, through
the cover slightly reduces the optical efficiency. Typically, FPCs
have clear glazing (s  0.94, as in Table 1) to maximise the trans-
mittance through the cover. However, for STFs, providing a choice
of colour is one of the main collector adaptations, and applying
colour to the cover is one method of achieving this. State of the
art FPC colour coatings for the cover are reviewed in Section 4.1.
Schüler et al. (2005a) achieved s values of 0.9 and 0.84 for yellow
and blue colour coatings respectively. Such adaptations to the
cover result in daily efficiency drops of 4% (yellow coating) and
9% (darker blue coating) for the FPC based STF considered here.
The thin films applied to achieve both colours and their associated
s values are made up of silicon and titanium oxide layers with
different thicknesses and number of layers to achieve peak reflec-
tance at wavelengths of 0.577–0.597 lm for yellow and 0.455–
0.492 lm for blue (Hecht, 1987). While the daily efficiency of the
FPC based STF drops by up to 9% (for darker colours) with the inclu-
sion of colour, they still outperform other unglazed STFs by more
than 13%.
5.2. Absorber
Alternatively, the STF’s absorber colour may be changed. This
adaptation is applicable to all STC types affecting the absorptance,
a (Eq. (3)) and emittance, e (Eq. (11)). Typically, STCs have dark
absorbers (a  0.95; e  0.95 as in Table 1) to maximise the
absorptance. State of the art absorber coatings are reviewed in
Section 4.2. Zhu and Zhao (2010) used spectrally selective coat-
ings to achieved yellow (a  0.81; e  0.06) and blue (a  0.86;
e  0.08) colour absorbers respectively. Such adaptations to the
absorber result in daily efficiency drops of 3% (darker blue coat-
ing) and 7% (yellow coating) for the FPC based STF, and 4%
(yellow coating) and 0% (blue coating) for the UC based STF when
compared with the reference case. The small reductions are due to
the spectral selectivity of the blue and yellow coatings, character-
ized by low emittance in the thermal spectrum. This effect is more
apparent for unglazed collectors, whose heat losses are greater. A
spectrally selective black coating would increase the efficiency of
the reference case by 4% for the FPC and 8% for the UC.
Material alterations are also observed for STF absorbers. While
highly conductive absorbers are typical of traditional roof attached
STCs, alternative materials such as ceramic, polymer or concrete
offer advantages for STF construction. The thermal conductivity
of the absorber positively influences the heat transfer from the
absorber plate to the fluid, but simultaneously increases the heat
loss to the surroundings Ul (Eq. (3)). An UC with a copper absorber
is compared with an MSTC with a concrete absorber for both fixing
systems to address this issue. In the case of the offset ventilated
system (Fig. 4(B)) daily efficiency drops of 22% and 14% are
observed for the UCni and MSTC respectively. The sensitivity of
the MSTC to ambient conditions is lower than that of the UCni. This
is due to the absorber’s material inheriting a lower conductivity
and higher heat capacity. Similarly, when the ambient temperature
is greater than the absorber temperature the efficiency increases
(by 38% for the UCni and 27% MSTC for a June day in Barcelona)
for the ventilated system (Fig. 4(B)).
The higher heat capacity of these collectors also results in the
maximum outlet temperature of the MSTC occurring approxi-
mately an hour after peak irradiance for the reference case consid-
ered. This storage effect (shift in peak output) is positively affected
by an increase in the specific heat capacity and decrease in the con-
ductivity of the concrete, but also reduces the maximum energy
output, as displayed in Fig. 5.
Where a shift in energy output is desirable, a balance exists
between having a high conductivity and high thermal capacitance
for MSTC based STFs. And is dependent on location and system
application.

Table 1
Reference parameter values for a solar collector.

Parameter FPC UC UC (nia) MSTC Daily solar irradiance profile for a March day in Dublin (Ta = 6.18 °C)
W (distance between tubes) [m] 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 horizontal
800
D (tube diameter inside) [m] 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Verical
d (sheet thickness) [m] 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.08
Tilted
Solar Irradiance, G (W/m2)

ka (absorber conductivity) [W m1 K1] 385 385 385 2

hf (convective heat transfer) [W m2 K1] 2000 2000 2000 2000
600
_ (flow rate) [kg s1]
m 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Cf (heat capacity fluid) [J kg1 K1] 4190 4190 4190 4190
400
s (cover transmittance) 0.94 NA NA NA
a (absorber absorptance) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
e (emittance of absorber) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
200
b (tilt angle) 90 90 90 90
Lb (back insulation thickness) [m] 0.04 0.04 NA Na
ki (Insulation conductivity) [W m1K1] 0.04 0.04 NA Na 0
vw (wind speed) [m s1] 2 2 2 2 00:00:00 12:00:00 00:00:00
Ti (Inlet temperature) [K] 285.15 285.15 285.15 285.15 Solar time of day
a
ni stands for no insulation at the back.

500
Irradiance; energy output (W/m2)
400
300
200
100
0 in the offset case. In Barcelona where the ambient temperature is
12:00:00 AM
Fig. 5. Solar profile and energy output of three MSTCs with varying heat capacity
(J/kg K).
5.3. Heat transfer fluid network
All STFs are compared for a mass flow rate of 0.03 kg/s; a higher
flow rate results in a higher energy output. A lower mass flow rate
reduces the hydraulic resistance, reducing the risk of leaks, which
are more difficult to maintain in STFs.
Changing the mass flow rate affects the heat removal factor, Fr,
(Eq. (3)). Reducing the mass flow rate for the FPC based STF located
in Dublin in March from 0.03 kg/s to 0.01 kg/s resulted in a 3% daily
efficiency reduction (not including pumping power). But, the max-
imum temperature difference between the inlet and outlet almost
triples. A balance exists between the quantity of energy and the
maximum achievable temperature and is dependent on the overall
solar thermal system and its application. For the low-medium tem-
perature system considered in this study, with a constant inlet
temperature of 12 °C, a lower mass flow rate is more beneficial.
5.4. Insulation
Insulation reduces the heat transmittance through the back of
the collector, Ub, (Eq. (4)), to an extent depending on the insula-
tion’s thickness and conductivity. The daily efficiency, gd, of the
UCni (33%) is lower than the UC (52%) for the offset ventilated fix-
ing system (Fig. 4(B)) and for the reference climate and time. This
lower efficiency is due to the omission of back insulation and sub-
sequent increase in the overall heat transmittance, Ul. The change
in daily efficiency between the offset ventilated fixing system and
the fully integrated fixing system with additional wall insulation
(Eq. (14)) is displayed in Fig. 6 for each technology type.
30%
25%
20%
Change in efficiency (
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
Mar
Fig. 6. Change in efficiency between integrated and offset systems, gd,change, for STFs
located in Dublin.
R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422 415
Integrating the STF directly in the wall (Fig. 4(A)) increases the
Irradiance
daily efficiency, gd, for all instances other than for the UCni and
MSTC for the month of June. The decrease in daily efficiency for
these collectors is due to ambient temperatures exceeding the
Reference
values absorber temperature for this particular month; as this occurs
the influence of the thermal transmittance, Ul, is reversed from a
high heat heat loss to a heat gain. STFs with high thermal transmittances
capacity; low (e.g. unglazed collectors) display the greatest sensitivity to ambi-
conductivity ent temperature (positive or negative).
low heat For low temperature applications the daily efficiency is either
capcity; high increased or decreased by integrating the STFs to the wall and
conductivity the subsequent inclusion of more insulation; the magnitude of
which is dependent on the thermal transmittance of the collector
12:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM higher throughout the year, when compared with Dublin, the
Solar time of day decrease in efficiency is observed for all collector types for both
June and September. For a cooler climate (Oslo) the additional wall
insulation result in higher efficiency for all collector types and
months. For higher temperature applications, the STF with addi-
tional wall insulation outperforms the offset system for all cases
since the operating temperatures are higher than ambient
temperature.
5.5. Fixing and framing
For STF designs integrated in the wall (Fig. 4(A)) a thermal cou-
pling between the interior of the building and the collector exists
(Eq. (13)) which may promote over-heating of the building’s inte-
rior. The heat flux to the interior is dependent on the transmittance
out the back of the collector, Ub, as well as the temperature of the
collector. The offset fixing system (Fig. 4(B)), is ventilated by ambi-
ent conditions at the back and has a negligible influence on the
building’s interior, similar system to that of a roof-attached
system.
For low temperature systems, STFs do not reach a high enough
temperature to have any significant impact on the overheating of
the building. For high-temperature systems, the FPC based STF
can achieve temperatures of up to 90 °C on a September day in Bar-
celona (worst case scenario considered here) due to their lower
heat losses. An FPC based STF operating at this temperature pro-
duces a peak heat flux to the interior of approximately 14 W/m2
at solar noon for a building with a wall U-value of 0.21 W/m2 K.
For an STF in Barcelona with no wall insulation the heat flux to
the interior rises to 64 W/m2. While FPC typologies present the
greatest risk of overheating, achieving U-values of less than
0.21 W/m2 K results in STFs having a low impact on the building’s
interior environment.
6. Novel solar thermal facades
STFs also include novel solar thermal collectors that are inte-
grated into areas of the façade other than the wall. 8 STF types
are displayed and summarised in Table 2, providing examples for
the commercially available STFs (i–iv), along with presenting the
advantages and disadvantages of each. Commercial examples
FPC
include System (i) Winkler Solar’s VarioSol E, System (ii) Schweizer
UC Energie’s Swisspipe Balkone, System (iii) Robin Sun solar thermal
UC-ni glass and System (iv) Energie Solaire’s AS collector.
MSTC
6.1. Unglazed collectors
STFs that enable varied form (shape, size and jointing of the
Jun Sep Dec
individual modules) and material (surface texture, finish and col-
our) are adaptable with a multitude of façade designs. The SOLABS
unglazed STF, which is inspired by existing façade metal claddings,
416 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422

Table 2
Solar thermal facade types (Winkler Solar, 2015; Schweizer Energie, 2015; Robin Sun, 2015; Energie Solarie SA, 2015).

i) ii) iii) iv)

Technology FPC
Location Opaque Facade Area
Advantages • Range of colours
• Geometric flexibility
• Material offsetting
• Inherent flat surface
ETC FPC/ETC UC
Balcony Transparent Facade Area Opaque Facade Area
• Adjustable absorber • Disguised in facade • Range of colours
inclination • Multi-functional • Cost
• Material offsetting • Ease of fabrication
• Multi-functional • Inherent flat surfaces

Dis- • Access difficulties • Connection difficulties • Access difficulties • Performance reduction

advantages • Connection difficulties • Connection difficulties
• Performance reduction • Performance reduction
Example

(Winkler Solar, 2015)
System (i) Winkler
VarioSol E has flexibility
in terms of module sizes.
(Schweizer Energie, 2015) (Robin Sun, 2015) (Energie Solarie SA,
2015)
System (ii) Schweizer System (iii) The Robin System (iv) Energie
Energie’s, Swisspipe Sun solar thermal glass Solaire’s AS collector can
Balkone are installed onto
provides insulation, be fitted to the facade as
balcony railing veneers of
buildings shading and hot water. well as roofs.

v) vi) vii) viii)

Technology ETC/FPC FPC MSTC FPC
Location Louvre Gutter Opaque Facade Area Balcony
Advantages • Adjustable absorber • Disguised • Cost • Inherent flat surface
inclination • Multi-functional • Disguised • Material off setting
• Multi-functional • Inherent flat surface • Multi-functional
• Material offsetting
• Storage benefits
Dis- • Access difficulties • Access difficulties • Access difficulties • Connection difficulties
advantages • Connection difficulties • Connection difficulties • Connection difficulties • Performance reduction
• Performance reduction

is one such UC based STF that offers a range of options in terms of conceptual STF, based on the UC, uses aluminium profiled heat
form and material (Munari Probst and Roecker, 2007). Another pipes to form a layer of the facade (Rassamakin et al., 2013). The
 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
benefit of this system is that a series of heat pipes can be joined
with the piping within the building without the need to fabricate
an entire collector. Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. (2014) developed a
novel UC based STF with curved geometry. This enabled their inte-
gration on facades with curvaceous profiles, which are becoming
increasingly common in contemporary architecture.
6.2. Flat plate collectors
A number of novel FPC based STFs have been designed. Nasov
et al. (2014) have developed an STF, based on the FPC, which can
be installed in existing window frames. A gutter-integrated solar
thermal collector (Table 2(vi)) is another example of where STFs
have been developed based on the FPC technology. The product
is designed and a model is derived and validated experimentally
(Motte et al., 2013a,b; Notton et al., 2013). FPC based STFs have
also been considered as replacements for balcony railings (Table 2
(viii)) (Ji et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2013b).
Triangular modules are the basis of many faceted façade types,
enabling undulating and curved façade geometries. Visa et al.
(2014) presented a new concept of FPC arrays based on triangular
shaped modules, in an effort to produce more options from a geo-
metric point of view for implementation on a variety of building
types. An optimised module of this kind reached an efficiency of
62% under indoor testing (Visa et al., 2015).
6.3. Massive solar thermal collectors
MSTCs are of many types and are varied in their application.
With regard to the building façade, concrete solar collectors (CSC)
are the most applicable. CSCs, in the form of precast concrete façade
panels, may be configured as single skin panels anchored to the
building structure, or incorporated in a sandwich panel configura-
tion where the inner leaf of the concrete panel is load bearing. CSCs
offer a cheaper alternative to other expensive STFs primarily
because of their bulk mono-material makeup. Complex framing is
not necessary and off-the-shelf precast fixing systems may be used.
To date most CSCs have been used for roof attached installa-
tions (Al-Saad et al., 1994; Bopshetty et al., 1992; Hazami et al.,
2010, 2005; Jubran et al., 1994; Keste and Patil, 2012; Krishnavel
et al., 2014; Nayak et al., 1989), as well as horizontal roof inte-
grated installations (Kumar et al., 1981; Sarachitti et al., 2011).
Wall integrated CSCs (Table 2(vii)) have also been investigated;
both theoretically (D’Antoni and Saro, 2013) and experimentally
(Chaurasia, 2000). Results from the latter study showed that at noon,
on a typical day in November (in India), outlet hot water tempera-
ture reached 42 °C, approximately 7 °C higher than an identical hor-
izontally installed collector for the same time and location.
A paucity of research and commercially available products
exists for this type of STF. But, they provide a unique solution for
the integration of solar thermal technology into precast concrete
facades, where pipes are disguised in the concrete matrix.
6.4. Evacuated tube collectors
The tubular nature of the ETC restricts the potential integration
of this technology into flat building facades. A number of alterna-
tive locations for this collector type are feasible, as presented in
Table 2. One location for the building integration of ETCs is the bal-
cony (Table 2(ii)), (Ji et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2013;
Zhai et al., 2008; Zhai and Wang, 2008).
Another location investigated for STFs, based on the ETC geom-
etry, is the louvre or awning above windows (Table 2(v)) (Abu-
Zour et al., 2006; Palmero-Marrero and Oliveira, 2006) where a
payback period of approximately 6 years is observed in Iberia,
(Palmero-Marrero and Oliveira, 2006). Indoor experimental results,
417
on another louvre replacing collector, showed that increasing the
number of heat pipes within the louver increased the efficiency
without significantly affecting the cost (Abu-Zour et al., 2006).
6.5. Concentrating collectors
Concentrating solar thermal collectors are not commonly inte-
grated into buildings, however, the geometry and concentration
technology have inspired some novel research. A novel concentrat-
ing solar thermal collector, which uses partially perforated com-
pound parabolic reflecting mirrors, has been developed for
transparent facade integration (Behling, 2015). The perforation
allows light into the building while only reducing the solar gains
of the collector by 10%.
At a larger scale, facade integration of a vertical heliostat field
on the south facing facade has been considered, and is at a concep-
tual stage (González-Pardo et al., 2013). The array of mirrors
located on the facade reflects solar energy onto a receiver tower;
the dimensions of which depends on the final energy application.
6.6. Partially transparent solar thermal facades
Rather than developing an STF from the standard solar thermal
technologies, the opposite design process may be adopted,
whereby, an element of a facade is developed to harvest solar
energy. These STFs are typical for the transparent section of a
building’s facade. These partially-transparent STFs can also provide
shading and insulation (Table 2(iii)). A novel transparent solar
thermal collector has been installed on a pilot building in Ljubljana,
Slovenia (Hermann et al., 2008; Maurer et al., 2012). Initial results
from this field study showed that solar gain did not vary signifi-
cantly over the year. A model for transparent solar thermal facades
has also been developed by Maurer and Kuhn (2012) which can
predict their performance and can also be integrated with whole
building system simulation.
7. Market available Solar Thermal Facades
For commercially available STFs the physical characteristics are
not typically available, instead performance parameters calculated
by curve fitting are provided by the manufacturers, tested under
standard conditions (BS EN ISO 9806, 2013). The performance
parameters are applicable to instantaneous efficiency calculations,
gi, for which the time t in Eq. (1) is one second. Instantaneous effi-
ciency curves are plotted over a range of temperature differences
and are limited only to collectors that have negligible heat capac-
itance effects, therefore excluding MSTC based STFs.
In accordance with ISO 9806, (Tf,i  Ta) is replaced in Eq. (3) with
(Tf,m  Ta), where Tf,m is the mean of the inlet and outlet tempera-
tures. The performance of market available ETC and FPC based STFs
are simulated using Eq. (15) in place of Eqs. (1) and (3).
   2
T f ;m  T a T f ;m  T a
gi ¼ g0  a1  a2 G ð15Þ
G G
where g0 (the zero heat loss efficiency), a1 (the linear heat loss coef-
ficient) and a2 (the quadratic heat loss coefficient) are the standard-
ised performance parameters. The quadratic form results from the
temperature dependency of the cover plate on the front heat loss
coefficient, Uf, as referred to in Eq. (6). For unglazed collectors, the
absence of a cover results in a linear form of the efficiency equation,
given by Eq. (16).  
T f ;m  T a
gi ¼ g0 ð1  ubu Þ  ðb1 þ b2 uÞ ð16Þ
G
where g0, b1, b2 and bu are performance parameters for the UC. The
different form is due to the absence of a cover, hence greater heat
loss.
418 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
Instantaneous efficiency curves are produced for a constant
irradiance (G = 1000 W/m2) and ambient temperature (Ta = 15 °C)
using Eqs. (15) and (16), as specified in ISO 9806. This standard
method is useful for the comparison between STFs where novel
designs are more common. But is limited to those collectors which
have been standardised and made available on the market.
The performance of four commercially available STFs (i–iv)
using this standard method are displayed in Fig. 7. The perfor-
mance of a typical FPC is included in Fig. 7 as a reference.
System (i), which is based on the FPC, has a similar performance
to the standard FPC. This particular STF provides many module
choices making it suitable for a variety of facades. Other than a
reduction in solar gain as a result of inclining the facade vertically
the physical performance of the collector is not changed
significantly.
The performance plots show that System (ii) has the greatest
efficiency due to the ETC technology exhibiting the lowest heat
loss, particularly for large temperature differences associated with
high temperature applications (>50 °C e.g. DHW preparation).
Another advantage of this collector type is the ability to tilt the
absorber plate within the vacuum tube to optimise the solar gain.
STFs offer other advantages such as aesthetical preservation and
multi-functionality. While System (iii) showed a comparatively
low performance, it also provides solar shading and insulation
advantages for the building. This STF allows sun to enter in the
winter, but minimises internal solar gains in the summer and
offers a product U-value of 1.1 W/m2 K which is lower than a typ-
ical double glazed window. Energy is not just saved from active hot
water provision but also for space conditioning.
From Fig. 7 it can be seen that (iv), which is based on the UC, has
the lowest efficiency at greater temperature differences due to the
absence of a cover. However, this type of STF is cheaper to manu-
facture and can offer a greater range of sizes and geometries since a
casing is not necessary. Solar collectors that do not require a casing
can replace cladding systems with greater ease. This particular
benefit is also evident for MSTC based STFs. This UC based STF
competes with the FPC and ETC technologies at lower temperature
difference associated with low-temperature applications (e.g. pre-
heating, swimming pool heating). Choosing between STFs depend
on the façade type, the solar thermal application and the cost.
7.1. Solar thermal facade economics
Since most STFs are prototypes it is difficult to get reliable data
on the payback period for such systems. Cappel et al. found that
1 System (i) FPC - Opaque Façade
System (ii) ETC - Balcony
System (iii) FPC - Transparent façade
System (iv) UC - Opaque façade
Instantaneous efficiency, ηi
0.8
Standard FPC
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Reduced temperature differnce (Tf,m - Ta)/G
Fig. 7. Theoretical efficiency for four commercially available facade adapted solar
thermal collectors.
STFs have between a 150% and 333% higher initial investment cost
when compared with standard walls. They also noted that the area
of an STF would need to be increased by a factor of between 1.5 and
2.0 when compared with tilted solar thermal collectors. Therefore,
it could be concluded that the cost of a façade located system
would be 1.5–2.0 times the cost of a roof located system. Zhang
et al. (2015) refer to the cost payback time method for economi-
cally assessing a solar thermal façade. The payback period is
dependent on the initial investment (manufacturing, materials
and installation) and the cost of alternative energy. Knowledge
can also be taken from the building integrated photovoltaic ther-
mal (BIPVT) field, for which payback periods of between 11 years
for southern European climates and 20 years for Northern Euro-
pean climates were observed (Buonomano et al., 2016).
For the low temperature, application considered in this work
the cheaper absorber materials (e.g. concrete) have an advantage
over the metal based absorbers (e.g. copper). In the analysis con-
ducted in Section 5 based on the models from Section 3, the refer-
ence parameters for the UC and MSTC are the same other than
absorber material and thickness. Depending on the scale of the
project in question the cost of an 80 mm thick concrete wall would
range between €(4–6)/m2, whereas a 0.5 mm thick copper wall
could range between €(30–100)/m2. Assuming the piping system
for both systems is the same, the cost of an UC is approximately
10 times that of an MSTC. An additional glazing layer would add
an extra €(4–20)/m2 onto the cost, making FPCs approximately
13 times the cost of MSTCs.
For FPC and UCs, applied to aluminium clad facades, offsetting
the 40 mm insulation at the back of a collector €(4–14)/m2 and
replacing aluminium cladding elements €(5–18)/m2 with the STF
result in savings of between (5–32)/m2. For MSTCs the structure
remains the same with the addition of a piping coil embedded in
the precast cladding elements €(2–4)/m length of 10 mm diameter
copper pipe or €(1–1.5)/m length of plastic pipe. Prices fluctuate
depending on scale of application while the cost of alternative
energy also varies. Comparing the relative cost of materials gives
insight into the most economic options for STFs and the savings
associated with material offsetting.
8. Conclusion
This work reviews solar thermal collectors and their compo-
nents modified for facade integration. These solar thermal facades
replace cladding elements to form the weather line and combine
with the thermal insulation of the building. They are the promi-
nent image of the building.
 A strong research focus on providing colour has been
highlighted.
 State of the art colour coatings have been developed to improve
the optical efficiency when colouring the cover (using thin film
technology) or absorber (using spectrally selective coatings).
 Alternative absorber materials (e.g. ceramic, polymer, concrete)
to the traditional metallic absorber materials (e.g. copper,
aluminium, steel) have gained research focus in the area of
STFs.
 A portion of the STF literature has looked at reducing hydraulic
resistance in the solar thermal facades to prevent leaks and
make maintenance easier.
 The fixing system of the STF to the building is important for
both the level of insulation to be included in the efficiency eval-
uation of the collector, as well as the influence of the STF on the
interior space. The range of fixing and framing systems for STFs
is wide and varied, and dependent on the collector and façade
typology.
 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
The daily efficiency changes of these adaptations for STFs, high-
lighted in the literature, have been evaluated using hotel whillier
bliss and finite element simulation models for three European loca-
tions (Barcelona, Dublin, Oslo). Standard practice is to compare
STCs using Instantaneous efficiency curves. While standard com-
parison is valuable for market available STFs it limits the analysis
to absorber materials with negligible heat capacitance effects. In
this work the daily efficiency, gd, is used which captures the stor-
age effects of STFs with high heat capacity. The daily efficiency of
a low temperature system for Dublin in March is used as the refer-
ence time and location for comparing STFs.
 The FPC based STFs produce 22% higher daily efficiencies then
any of the unglazed STFs for this reference case. As a result of
the cover reducing the heat losses through the front.
 The daily efficiency is reduced by approximately 4% for lighter
colours (yellow) and 9% for darker colours (blue) by applying
thin film technology to include colour for FPC covers.
 Colour coating the absorber is applicable to all STFs. Using spec-
trally selective properties, for a and e obtained in the literature,
daily efficiency reduction of 7% for lighter colour (yellow) and
3% for darker colours (blue) for the FPC based STF.
 As a rule of thumb if a darker colour is desirable, one should col-
our the absorber, while if a lighter colour is desirable one should
colour the cover if possible.
 Highly conductive absorbers portray greater sensitivity to
ambient temperatures when compared with concrete absor-
bers. Additionally, the storage effects of the concrete absorber
materials shifts the time of peak temperature output by an
amount of time depending on the heat capacitance of the mate-
rial. Approximately one hour for the MSTC assessed here.
 Reducing the mass flow rate slightly reduces the energy output
but also almost trebles the maximum temperature output. For
low temperature applications, a lower mass flow rate is more
suitable for STFs.
 Two general fixing systems are considered in this study, one
fully integrated in the building’s wall and the second offset from
the building’s insulation layer (similar to that of a roof attached
system). Integrating the collector directly to the walls insulation
reduces the heat loss through the back of the collector resulting
in efficiency increases for any time and location where the tem-
perature of the collector is greater than the ambient
temperature.
 Overheating risks are primarily associated with FPC based STFs
integrated into the building’s insulation. For high-temperature
applications an FPC based STF at 90 °C on a September day in
Barcelona results in heat flux to the interior of 64 W/m2 if inte-
grated into a façade with no wall insulation (only the 40 mm of
insulation included in the FPC).
A review of novel solar thermal facades has highlighted some of
the advantages and disadvantages associated with alternative
designs.
 Advantages are classified as geometric flexibility, material off-
setting, flat surfaces, adjustable absorber angle, multi-
functionality (shading, balcony rails, louvers, windows or gut-
ters), ease of fabrication, cost, disguisable within building
architecture.
 Disadvantages include difficulty to access and maintain sys-
tems, difficulty to connect modules to façade, and ultimately
performance reduction.
Standard assessment procedures measure the instantaneous
efficiency over a range of temperature differences between collec-
419
tor and ambient. While this assessment is not applicable to mas-
sive solar collectors, it provides a good reference case for other
STFs that have reached the market.
 ETC (e.g. Schweizer Energie’s, Swisspipe Balkone) and FPC (e.g.
Winkler VarioSol E) based STFs have the greatest performance
and are suitable for high temperature systems. These technolo-
gies are also more expensive. ETC technologies generally
require the building to have louvers or balcony rails so they
can be integrated into the building. FPCs are applicable to the
opaque area of the façade.
 UC (e.g. Energie Solaire’s AS collector) based STFs have lower per-
formance and are more suitable to lower temperature applica-
tions. Their versatility, scalability and lower cost make them a
good match for most façade types.
 For novel partially transparent solar thermal facades (e.g. The
Robin Sun solar thermal glass) the performance is again lower,
but are the ideal match for transparent façade sections, multi-
functioning as shading devices within a glazed layer.
 For low temperature systems an economic analysis of building
materials revealed unglazed concrete collectors as one of the
most promising solutions in terms low initial cost.
For each application, location and facade typology a specific
solution is best suited. A review and evaluation of the state of
the art of STFs and their components provides a reference value
for designers when selecting a solar thermal technology to adopt.
As a rule of thumb for low temperature applications unglazed STFs
that match the buildings architecture should be selected. For high
temperature applications FPC and ETC based STFs are the only STFs
able to reach these required temperatures and for buildings with
large glazed areas the partially transparent solar thermal facades
should be considered. The importance of market available STF
options is key to the progress of the industry, and is highlighted
by a scenario where renewable thermal energy is required but
the façade type has already been selected.
Conflit of interest
I, Richard O’Hegarty, certify that there is no conflict of interest
in the submission of this manuscript.
Acknowledgments
This work is partial fulfilment of a funded research project sup-
ported by the Irish Research Council with industry partner Firebird
Heating Solutions (EPGS/2013/649). The authors would also like to
acknowledge COST actions TU1205 (Building integration of solar
thermal systems) and TU1104 (Smart energy regions).
References
Abbott, A.B., 2004. Analysis of Thermal Energy Collection form Precast Concrete
Roof Assemblies (Master’s thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Virginia.
Abu-Zour, A.M., Riffat, S.B., Gillott, M., 2006. New design of solar collector integrated
into solar louvres for efficient heat transfer. Appl. Therm. Eng. 26, 1876–1882.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.01.024.
Al-Saad, M.A., Jubran, B.A., Abu-Faris, N.A., 1994. Development and testing of
concrete solar collectors. Int. J. Sol. Energy 16, 27–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01425919408914264.
Aventa Solar, 2015. Polymer Flat Plate Solar Collector, Aventa Solar [WWW
Document]. Aventa <http://www.aventa.no/> (accessed 1.26.15).
Baños, R., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Montoya, F.G., Gil, C., Alcayde, A., Gómez, J., 2011.
Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 1753–1766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2010.12.008.
420 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
Behling, S., 2015. Solar Thermal Tubes in the Facade, CPC Office/System WICONA,
Facade Collector [WWW Document]. Univerität Stuttgart Institut für
Baukonstruktion 2 <http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/ibk2/> (accessed 10.29.15).
Beikircher, T., Osgyan, P., Reuss, M., Streib, G., 2014. Flat plate collector for process
heat with full surface aluminium absorber, vacuum super insulation and front
foil. In: Energy Procedia. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Solar Heating and Cooling for Buildings and Industry (SHC 2013), vol. 48, pp. 9–
17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.003.
Bonhôte, P., Eperon, Y., Renaud, P., 2009. Unglazed coloured solar absorbers on
façade: modelling and performance evaluation. Sol. Energy 83, 799–811. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.11.014.
Bopshetty, S.V., Nayak, J.K., Sukhatme, S.P., 1992. Performance analysis of a solar
concrete collector. Energy Convers. Manage. 33, 1007–1016. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0196-8904(92)90135-J.
Boudaden, J., Ho, R.S.-C., Oelhafen, P., Schüler, A., Roecker, C., Scartezzini, J.-L., 2004.
Towards coloured glazed thermal solar collectors. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
84, 225–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2004.02.042.
Boudaden, J., Oelhafen, P., Schüler, A., Roecker, C., Scartezzini, J.-L., 2005.
Multilayered Al2O3/SiO2 and TiO2/SiO2 coatings for glazed colored solar
thermal collectors. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 89, 209–218. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.solmat.2005.01.015 (EuroSun2004).
BS EN ISO 9806, 2013. Solar Energy – Solar Thermal Collectors – Test Methods.
British Standards Institute.
BS ISO 10456, 2009. Building Materials and Products – Hygrothermal Properties –
Tabulated Design Values and Procedures for Determining Declared and Design
Thermal Values.
Buonomano, A., Calise, F., Palombo, A., Vicidomini, M., 2016. BIPVT systems for
residential applications: an energy and economic analysis for European
climates. Appl. Energy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.145.
Cappel, C., Streicher, W., Lichtblau, F., Maurer, C., 2014. Barriers to the market
penetration of façade-integrated solar thermal systems. In: Energy Procedia.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Solar Heating and Cooling
for Buildings and Industry (SHC 2013), vol. 48, pp. 1336–1344. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.151.
CASE, 2015. Building Integrated Concentrating Solar Facade (ICSF) [WWW
Document]. Cent. Archit. Sci. Ecol. <http://www.case.rpi.edu/page/project.
php?pageid=1> (accessed 12.16.15).
Cerón, I., Caamaño-Martín, E., Neila, F.J., 2013. ‘‘State-of-the-art” of building
integrated photovoltaic products. Renew. Energy 58, 127–133. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.02.013.
Chaurasia, P.B.L., 2000. Solar water heaters based on concrete collectors. Energy 25,
703–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(99)00091-2.
Chow, T.T., Chan, A.L.S., Fong, K.F., Lin, Z., 2005. Hong Kong solar radiation on
building facades evaluated by numerical models. Appl. Therm. Eng. 25, 1908–
1921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2004.11.019.
Chow, T.T., Fong, K.F., Chan, A.L.S., Lin, Z., 2006. Potential application of a centralized
solar water-heating system for a high-rise residential building in Hong Kong.
Appl. Energy 83, 42–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2005.01.006.
Cuadros, F., López-Rodríguez, F., Segador, C., Marcos, A., 2007. A simple procedure to
size active solar heating schemes for low-energy building design. Energy Build.
39, 96–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.05.006.
D’Antoni, M., Saro, O., 2013. Energy potential of a massive solar-thermal collector
design in European climates. Sol. Energy 93, 195–208. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2013.04.011.
D’Antoni, M., Saro, O., 2012. Massive solar-thermal collectors: a critical literature
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 3666–3679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.02.076.
DGS, 2010. Planning & Installing Solar Thermal Systems: A Guide for Installers,
Architects and Engineers, second ed. German Solar Energy Society, Earthscan.
DOMA Solartechnik, 2015. DOMA Solartechnik – Doma Flex [WWW Document].
Doma Sol. <http://www.domasolar.com/> (accessed 10.29.15).
Dudita, M., Manceriu, L.M., Anastasescu, M., Nicolescu, M., Gartner, M., Duta, A.,
2014. Coloured TiO2 based glazing obtained by spray pyrolysis for solar thermal
applications. Ceram. Int. 40, 3903–3911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ceramint.2013.08.034.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 2013. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, fourth ed.
Wiley.
Ehrmann, N., Reineke-Koch, R., 2012. Selectively coated high efficiency glazing for
solar-thermal flat-plate collectors. In: Thin Solid Films. 8th International
Conference on Coatings on Glass and Plastics—ICCG8 520, pp. 4214–4218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2011.04.094.
E-hub, 2015. Concrete Solar Collector Absorbs Solar Radiation for Seasonal Thermal
Energy Storage [WWW Document]. <http://www.e-hub.org/concrete-solar-
collector.html> (accessed 9.2.15).
Energie Solarie SA, 2015. AS, Solar SA [WWW Document]. Energ.-Sol. <http://www.
energie-solaire.com/> (accessed 10.22.15).
Farkas, K., Horvat, M., 2012. Building Integration of Solar Thermal and Photovoltaics
– Barriers, Needs and Strategies (Report T.41.A.1. IEA SHC Task 41, Subtask A).
González-Pardo, A., Cesar Chapa, S., Gonzalez-Aguilar, J., Romero, M., 2013. Optical
performance of vertical heliostat fields integrated in building façades for
concentrating solar energy uses. Sol. Energy 97, 447–459. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2013.09.009.
Greening, B., Azapagic, A., 2014. Domestic solar thermal water heating: a
sustainable option for the UK? Renew. Energy 63, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2013.07.048.
H+S Solar, 2015. H+S Solar: ThermiePanel [WWW Document]. HS Sol. <http://www.
hssolar.ch/thermiepanel.html> (accessed 10.29.15).
Hammond, G., Jones, C., 2008. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE), Sustainable
Energy Research Team (SERT), 1.6a ed. University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Hazami, M., Kooli, S., Lazâar, M., Farhat, A., Belghith, A., 2010. Energetic and
exergetic performances of an economical and available integrated solar storage
collector based on concrete matrix. Energy Convers. Manage. 51, 1210–1218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.12.032.
Hazami, M., Kooli, S., Lazaar, M., Farhat, A., Belghith, A., 2005. Performance of a solar
storage collector. Desalination 183, 167–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2005.03.033.
Hecht, E., 1987. Optics, second ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Hermann, M., Kuhn, T.E., Rommel, M., 2008. Development of a multifunctional
semi-transparent facade collector. In: 1st International Conference on Solar
Heating, Cooling, Buildings. Presented at the EuroSun, Lisbon.
He, W., Hong, X., Zhao, X., Zhang, X., Shen, J., Ji, J., 2014. Theoretical investigation of
the thermal performance of a novel solar loop-heat-pipe façade-based heat
pump water heating system. Energy Build. 77, 180–191. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.03.053.
Hottel, H., Whillier, W., 1954. Evaluation of flat-plate solar collector performance.
Trans. Conf. Use Sol. Energy 3 (Part 2) (Thermal Processes).
Hutchins, M.G., 1979. Spectrally selective solar absorber coatings. Appl. Energy 5,
251–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(79)90016-3.
IEA, 2013. Transition to Sustainable Buildings – Strategies and Opportunities to
2050.
IEA, 2012. Technology Roadmap: Solar Heating and Cooling.
Jaisankar, S., Radhakrishnan, T.K., Sheeba, K.N., 2009. Experimental studies on heat
transfer and friction factor characteristics of forced circulation solar water
heater system fitted with helical twisted tapes. Sol. Energy 83, 1943–1952.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2009.07.006.
Ji, J., Luo, C., Chow, T.-T., Sun, W., He, W., 2011. Thermal characteristics of a building-
integrated dual-function solar collector in water heating mode with natural
circulation. Energy 36, 566–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.10.004.
Ji, X., Li, M., Lin, W., Zheng, T., Wang, Y., Ji, X., Li, M., Lin, W., Zheng, T., Wang, Y.,
2015. Effect of installation of solar collector on performance of balcony split
type solar water heaters, effect of installation of solar collector on performance
of balcony split type solar water heaters. Int. J. Photoenergy 2015, e865041.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/865041.
Joly, M., Antonetti, Y., Python, M., Gonzalez, M., Gascou, T., Scartezzini, J.-L., Schüler,
A., 2013. Novel black selective coating for tubular solar absorbers based on a
sol–gel method. Sol. Energy 94, 233–239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2013.05.009.
Jubran, B.A., Al-Saad, M.A., Abu-Faris, N.A., 1994. Computational evaluation of solar
heating systems using concrete solar collectors. Energy Convers. Manage. 35,
1143–1155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0196-8904(94)90018-3.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2004. Solar thermal collectors and applications. Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 30, 231–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2004.02.001.
Kalogirou, S., Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., Souliotis, M., 2005. Performance of solar
systems employing collectors with colored absorber. Energy Build. 37, 824–835.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2004.10.011.
Keste, A.A., Patil, S.R., 2012. Investigation of concrete solar collector: a review. IOSR
J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 6, 26–29.
Kim, Y., Seo, T., 2007. Thermal performances comparisons of the glass evacuated
tube solar collectors with shapes of absorber tube. Renew. Energy 32, 772–795.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.016.
Kinnane, O., Grey, T., Dyer, M., 2015. Adaptable housing design for climate change
adaption. ICE – Engineering Sustainability.
Krishnavel, V., Karthick, A., Murugavel, K.K., 2014. Experimental analysis of concrete
absorber solar water heating systems. Energy Build. 84, 501–505. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.08.025.
Kuhn, T.E., 2012. Resource and Cost-effective Integration of Renewables in Existing
High-rise Buildings, Seventh Framework Programme Europe (Cost Effective).
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE.
Kumar, A., Prasad, B.N., 2000. Investigation of twisted tape inserted solar water
heaters—heat transfer, friction factor and thermal performance results. Renew.
Energy 19, 379–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(99)00061-0.
Kumar, A., Singh, U., Srivastava, A., Tiwari, G.N., 1981. Thermal design of a roof as an
inexpensive solar collector/storage system. Appl. Energy 8, 255–267. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(81)90022-2.
Lamnatou, C., Chemisana, D., Mateus, R., Almeida, M.G., Silva, S.M., 2015. Review
and perspectives on life cycle analysis of solar technologies with emphasis on
building-integrated solar thermal systems. Renew. Energy 75, 833–846. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.09.057.
Lehmann, B., Dorer, V., Koschenz, M., 2007. Application range of thermally activated
building systems tabs. Energy Build. 39, 593–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2006.09.009.
Li, R., Dai, Y., Wang, R., 2015. Experimental investigation and simulation analysis of
the thermal performance of a balcony wall integrated solar water heating unit.
Renew. Energy 75, 115–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.09.023.
Ma, L., Lu, Z., Zhang, J., Liang, R., 2010. Thermal performance analysis of the glass
evacuated tube solar collector with U-tube. In: Build. Environ., Ventilation for
Better Productivity, Comfort and Health (Roomvent Conference 2009), vol. 45,
pp. 1959–1967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.01.015.
Matuska, T., Sourek, B., 2006. Façade solar collectors. Sol. Energy 80, 1443–1452.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.04.006.
 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
Maurer, C., Cappel, C., Kuhn, T.E., 2015a. Methodology and first results of an R&D
road map for façade-integrated solar thermal systems. Energy Procedia,
International Conference on Solar Heating and Cooling for Buildings and
Industry, SHC 2014 (70), 704–708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2015.02.179.
Maurer, C., Cappel, C., Kuhn, T.E., 2015b. Simple models for building-integrated
solar thermal systems. Energy Build. 103, 118–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2015.05.047.
Maurer, C., Kuhn, T.E., 2012. Variable g value of transparent façade collectors.
Energy Build. 51, 177–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.05.011.
Maurer, C., Pflug, T., Di Lauro, P., Hafner, J., Knez, F., Jordan, S., Hermann, M., Kuhn, T.
E., 2012. Solar heating and cooling with transparent façade collectors in a
demonstration building. Energy Proc. 30, 1035–1041. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2012.11.116.
Mertin, S., Hody-Le Caër, V., Joly, M., Mack, I., Oelhafen, P., Scartezzini, J.-L., Schüler,
A., 2013. Reactively sputtered coatings on architectural glazing for coloured
active solar thermal façades. Energy Build. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2012.12.030.
Motte, F., Notton, G., Cristofari, C., Canaletti, J.-L., 2013a. A building integrated solar
collector: performances characterization and first stage of numerical
calculation. Renew. Energy, Selected Papers from World Renewable Energy
Congress – XI, vol. 49, pp. 1–5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.049.
Motte, F., Notton, G., Cristofari, C., Canaletti, J.-L., 2013b. Design and modelling of a
new patented thermal solar collector with high building integration. Appl.
Energy 102, 631–639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.08.012.
Munari Probst, M., Roecker, C., 2007. Towards an improved architectural quality of
building integrated solar thermal systems (BIST). Sol. Energy 81, 1104–1116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.02.009.
Nasov, I., Koehl, M., Petkoska, A.T., 2014. Novel type of facade window collector-
double benefits: good architectural appearance of facade and solving the
problems of long term stability/efficiency. In: Energy Procedia. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Conference on Solar Heating and Cooling for Buildings
and Industry (SHC 2013), vol. 48, pp. 1320–1325, 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.149.
Nayak, J.K., Sukhatme, S.P., Limaye, R.G., Bopshetty, S.V., 1989. Performance studies
on solar concrete collectors. Sol. Energy 42, 45–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
0038-092X(89)90129-1.
Norton, B., Kothdiwala, A.F., Eames, P.C., 1994. Effect of inclination on the
performance of CPC solar energy collectors. Renew. Energy 5, 357–367.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0960-1481(94)90397-2 (Climate change Energy and
the environment).
Notton, G., Motte, F., Cristofari, C., Canaletti, J.-L., 2013. New patented solar thermal
concept for high building integration: test and modeling. Energy Procedia,
Mediterranean Green Energy Forum 2013. Proceedings of an International
Conference MGEF-13, vol. 42, pp. 43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.egypro.2013.11.004.
O’Hegarty, R., Kinnane, O., McCormack, S., 2015. A case for facade located solar
thermal collectors. In: Energy Procedia. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Solar Heating and Cooling for Buildings and Industry (SHC
2014).
Orel, B., Spreizer, H., Slemenik Perše, L., Fir, M., Šurca Vuk, A., Merlini, D., Vodlan, M.,
Köhl, M., 2007a. Silicone-based thickness insensitive spectrally selective (TISS)
paints as selective paint coatings for coloured solar absorbers (Part I). Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 91, 93–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solmat.2006.07.013.
Orel, B., Spreizer, H., Šurca Vuk, A., Fir, M., Merlini, D., Vodlan, M., Köhl, M., 2007b.
Selective paint coatings for coloured solar absorbers: polyurethane thickness
insensitive spectrally selective (TISS) paints (Part II). Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells 91, 108–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2006.07.012.
Orel, Z.C., Gunde, M.K., 2001. Spectrally selective paint coatings: preparation and
characterization. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 68, 337–353. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0927-0248(00)00367-6 (Sol-Gel Coatings).
Orel, Z.C., Gunde, M.K., Hutchins, M.G., 2005. Spectrally selective solar absorbers in
different non-black colours. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 85, 41–50. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2004.04.010.
Palmero-Marrero, A.I., Oliveira, A.C., 2006. Evaluation of a solar thermal system
using building louvre shading devices. Sol. Energy 80, 545–554. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.04.003.
Perez, R., Seals, R., Anderson, J., Menicucci, D., 1995. Calculating solar radiation
received by tubular collectors. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 117, 341–344. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1115/1.2847893.
Peuser, F.A., Remmers, K.-H., Schnauss, M., 2010. Solar Thermal Systems –
Successful Planning and Construction. Earthscan.
Probst, M., Roecker, C., 2012. Criteria for architectural integration of active solar
systems IEA task 41, subtask A. Energy Proc. 30, 1195–1204. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.egypro.2012.11.132.
PVGIS, 2016. Photovoltaic Geographical Information System [WWW Document].
<http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php> (accessed 3.21.16).
Rassamakin, B., Khairnasov, S., Zaripov, V., Rassamakin, A., Alforova, O., 2013.
Aluminum heat pipes applied in solar collectors. Sol. Energy 94, 145–154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.04.031.
Rheinzink, 2015. Quick Step – SolarThermie [WWW Document]. Rheinzink. <http://
www.rheinzink.ch/> (accessed 10.29.15).
Robin Sun, 2015. Robin Sun, Solar Thermal Glass [WWW Document]. Robinsun.
<http://www.robinsun.com/> (accessed 12.22.15).
Rodríguez-Sánchez, D., Belmonte, J.F., Izquierdo-Barrientos, M.A., Molina, A.E.,
Rosengarten, G., Almendros-Ibáñez, J.A., 2014. Solar energy captured by a
421
curved collector designed for architectural integration. Appl. Energy 116, 66–
75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.059.
Sadhishkumar, S., Balusamy, T., 2014. Performance improvement in solar water
heating systems—a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37, 191–198. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.072.
Salem, T., Pierre, M., 2007. Experimental study of active solar thermal collectors
integrated in building facade. In: Solar World Congress. Springer, Beijing, China.
Sarachitti, R., Chotetanorm, C., Lertsatitthanakorn, C., Rungsiyopas, M., 2011.
Thermal performance analysis and economic evaluation of roof-integrated
solar concrete collector. Energy Build. 43, 1403–1408. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.01.020.
Schüler, A., Boudaden, J., Oelhafen, P., De Chambrier, E., Roecker, C., Scartezzini, J.-L.,
2005a. Thin film multilayer design types for colored glazed thermal solar
collectors. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 89, 219–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solmat.2004.11.015.
Schüler, A., Dutta, D., de Chambrier, E., Roecker, C., De Temmerman, G., Oelhafen, P.,
Scartezzini, J.-L., 2006. Sol–gel deposition and optical characterization of
multilayered SiO2/Ti1xSixO2 coatings on solar collector glasses. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 90, 2894–2907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.solmat.2006.05.003.
Schüler, A., Roecker, C., Boudaden, J., Oelhafen, P., Scartezzini, J.-L., 2005b. Potential
of quarterwave interference stacks for colored thermal solar collectors. Sol.
Energy 79, 122–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2004.12.008.
Schüler, A., Roecker, C., Scartezzini, J.-L., Boudaden, J., Videnovic, I.R., Ho, R.S.-C.,
Oelhafen, P., 2004. On the feasibility of colored glazed thermal solar collectors
based on thin film interference filters. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 84, 241–254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2004.02.045.
Schweizer Energie, 2015. Swisspipe Balcone [WWW Document]. Schweiz. Energ.
<http://www.schweizer-energie.ch/html/index.html> (accessed 10.29.15).
Shi, J., Su, W., Zhu, M., Chen, H., Pan, Y., Wan, S., Wang, Y., 2013. Solar water heating
system integrated design in high-rise apartment in China. Energy Build. 58, 19–
26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.018.
Shukla, A., Nkwetta, D.N., Cho, Y.J., Stevenson, V., Jones, P., 2012. A state of art
review on the performance of transpired solar collector. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 16, 3975–3985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.029.
Shukla, R., Sumathy, K., Erickson, P., Gong, J., 2013. Recent advances in the solar
water heating systems: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 173–190.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.048.
Sokolov, M., Reshef, M., 1992. Performance simulation of solar collectors made of
concrete with embedded conduit lattice. Sol. Energy 48, 403–411. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0038-092X(92)90049-G.
SolaCatcher, 2015. Solar Water Heating System, University of Ulster and Centre for
Sustainable Technologies [WWW Document]. Solaform.
<http://solaform.com/solacatcher-2/> (accessed 12.16.15).
S-solar, 2015. Prisma S-solar AB [WWW Document]. Ssolar. <http://en.ssolar.com/
LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=A1ZhhzOzEek%3d&tabid=633&mid=1734> (accessed
9.25.15).
Sun, X.-Y., Sun, X.-D., Li, X.-G., Wang, Z.-Q., He, J., Wang, B.-S., 2014. Performance
and building integration of all-ceramic solar collectors. Energy Build. 75, 176–
180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.01.045.
Tanaka, H., 2011. Solar thermal collector augmented by flat plate booster reflector:
optimum inclination of collector and reflector. Appl. Energy 88, 1395–1404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.032.
Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., Souliotis, M., Nousia, T., 2000. Solar collectors with colored
absorbers. Sol. Energy 68, 343–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(00)
00031-1.
Tsilingiris, P.T., 1999. Towards making solar water heating technology feasible—the
polymer solar collector approach. Energy Convers. Manage. 40, 1237–1250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(99)00032-1.
Visa, I., Comsit, M., Duta, A., 2014. Urban acceptance of facade integrated novel solar
thermal collectors. Energy Procedia. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Solar Heating and Cooling for Buildings and Industry (SHC 2013),
vol. 48, pp. 1429–1435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.161.
Visa, I., Duta, A., Comsit, M., Moldovan, M., Ciobanu, D., Saulescu, R., Burduhos, B.,
2015. Design and experimental optimisation of a novel flat plate solar thermal
collector with trapezoidal shape for facades integration. Appl. Therm. Eng. 90,
432–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.06.026.
Wang, Z., Yang, W., Qiu, F., Zhang, X., Zhao, X., 2015. Solar water heating: from
theory, application, marketing and research. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41,
68–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.026.
Weiss, W., Mauthner, F., 2014. Weiss, Werner and Franz Mauthner (2012), Solar
Heat Worldwide – Markets and Contributions to the Energy Supply 2010, Solar
Heating and Cooling Programme. AEE INTEC, Gleisdorf, Austria.
Wijewardane, S., Goswami, D.Y., 2012. A review on surface control of thermal
radiation by paints and coatings for new energy applications. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 16, 1863–1873. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.046.
Winkler Solar, 2015. Winkler VarioSol E [WWW Document]. Winkler Sol. <http://
www.winklersolar.com/winkler-solarfassade.html> (accessed 10.29.15).
Wu, Y., Zheng, W., Lin, L., Qu, Y., Lai, F., 2013. Colored solar selective absorbing
coatings with metal Ti and dielectric AlN multilayer structure. Sol. Energy
Mater. Sol. Cells 115, 145–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2013.03.041.
Xu, J., Yang, Y., Cai, B., Wang, Q., Xiu, D., 2014. All-ceramic solar collector and all-
ceramic solar roof. J. Energy Inst. 87, 43–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
joei.2014.02.005.
Yang, M., Yu, H., 2011. China’s Industrial Development in the 21st Century. World
Scientific.
422 R. O’Hegarty et al. / Solar Energy 135 (2016) 408–422
Yang, Y., Cao, S., Xu, J., Cai, B., 2013a. All-ceramic solar collectors. Ceram. Int. 39,
6009–6012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2013.01.011.
Yang, Y., Wang, Q., Xiu, D., Zhao, Z., Sun, Q., 2013b. A building integrated solar
collector: all-ceramic solar collector. Energy Build. 62, 15–17. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.002.
Zhai, X.Q., Wang, R.Z., 2008. Experiences on solar heating and cooling in China.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 12, 1110–1128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2006.10.022.
Zhai, X.Q., Wang, R.Z., Dai, Y.J., Wu, J.Y., Ma, Q., 2008. Experience on integration of
solar thermal technologies with green buildings. Renew. Energy 33, 1904–1910.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.09.027.
View publication stats
Zhang, X., Shen, J., Lu, Y., He, W., Xu, P., Zhao, X., Qiu, Z., Zhu, Z., Zhou, J., Dong, X.,
2015. Active Solar Thermal Facades (ASTFs): from concept, application to
research questions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50, 32–63. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.108.
Zhu, D., Mao, F., Zhao, S., 2012. The influence of oxygen in TiAlOxNy on the optical
properties of colored solar-absorbing coatings. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 98,
179–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2011.11.001.
Zhu, D., Zhao, S., 2010. Chromaticity and optical properties of colored and black
solar–thermal absorbing coatings. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 94, 1630–1635.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2010.05.019.