Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Photovoltaic-green roofs: An experimental evaluation of system

performance
D. Chemisana ⇑, Chr. Lamnatou
Applied Physics Section of the Environmental Science Department, University of Lleida, c/Pere Cabrera s/n, 25001 Lleida, Spain

h i g h l i g h t s

 PV-green roofs under summer Mediterranean climate have been experimentally studied.
 Two PV-green roofs (Gazania, Sedum) are compared with a PV-gravel, reference roof.
 Plant/PV synergy leads to PV electrical yield improvement for sunny, hot days.
 1.29% and 3.33% increase in power was found for PV-gazania and PV-sedum respectively.
 Green systems reduced roof temperature; Sedum kept the roof cooler than Gazania.

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

Article history: The research focused on the experimental evaluation of Photovoltaic (PV) – green roofs under Mediter-
Received 25 July 2013 ranean climate summer conditions. Two autochthonous plants, Gazania rigens and Sedum clavatum, were
Received in revised form 28 November 2013 selected for the PV-green systems while a PV-gravel configuration was used as the reference roof. The
Accepted 18 December 2013
above mentioned roofing systems were developed and tested at the University of Lleida, in Spain.
Available online 27 January 2014
Research focused on electrical differential performances. In addition, thermal and irradiance analysis
were also conducted. The results obtained for a sunny, five-day time period revealed an average increase
Keywords:
of the maximum power output of the PVs (ranging from 1.29% to 3.33% depending on the plant), verifying
Photovoltaics (PVs)
Green roofs
the positive synergy between the PVs and the plants. Another positive effect of the plant/PV interaction
Gravel roof was the fact that the PV-green systems showed considerably lower roof surface temperature in compar-
Electrical performance ison with the PV-gravel configuration. Conclusively, the present work demonstrates the benefits of the
Thermal performance PV-green roofs and fills the gap which exists in the literature in terms of the experimental evaluation
of PV-green systems, especially under Mediterranean climatic conditions.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The building sector is responsible for 40% of the energy con-
sumption and 36% of the CO2 emissions in the European Union.
The results of studies showed that the implementation of energy
systems which produce heat and electricity from renewable energy
sources is one of the key actions towards the reduction of the en-
ergy dependence and CO2 emissions, in the building sector [1]. In
the field of renewable energy technologies, solar energy systems
are important especially for countries with high solar radiation
such as Spain. Among solar energy technologies, Photovoltaics
(PVs) have been already applied in many sectors, including building
sector, and they are a mature technology. Nevertheless, there is a
potential for further development of the PV systems and this can
be achieved for example by combining PVs with other ¨green¨
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 973003711; fax: +34 973003575.
E-mail address: daniel.chemisana@macs.udl.cat (D. Chemisana).
technologies such as green roofs. PV-green roofs are a new ten-
dency and they can provide multiple advantages such as increase
of PV output due to the plant/PV interaction and energy savings
due to the soil/plant layer. Following, representative studies about
PV efficiency, green roofs and PV-green roofs are presented.
PVs are a way to utilize the roof of a building with in situ pro-
duction of electricity which can cover all or a part of the energy
needs of a building. During the operational phase of this type of
systems it is important the efficiency of the PV modules to be as
high as possible. PV efficiency is affected by several factors such
as cell material and temperature. PV efficiency decreases with
increasing temperature and also the cells exhibit long-term degra-
dation if the temperature exceeds a certain limit [2]. The open cir-
cuit voltage (Voc) decreases significantly (about 2.3 mV/°C) with
increasing temperature (reference temperature = 25 °C). This leads
to a reduction of electrical efficiency (g) of around 0.4%/°C (b) for
crystalline silicon solar cells as it is described in the following
equation [3]:

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.027
 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256 247

gðTÞ ¼ gð25 Þ½1  bðt  25 Þ ð1Þ data, the ¨ green roof ¨ effect was estimated at an average 6% in-
crease in yields. The authors noted that since there were many
Thereby, cooling of the PV modules is important in order to
overlapping effects (reflection from other PVs, etc.), it would be
keep the efficiency at high level [2].
desirable to continue that research and get results from other sites
On the other hand, green roofs are a totally different option for
also in order to verify their findings. In addition, there is a study
the utilization of the roof of a building and provide multiple bene-
about CIGS (Cadmium–Indium–Gallium di-Selenide) PV cylinders
fits such as: air quality, temperature regulation, energy conserva-
combined with a Sedum green roof, based on the analysis of Penn
tion, building envelope protection, increase of the longevity of
Statés 2009 ¨ Natural Fusion¨ home which was designed for the
the roofing membranes, economic and ecological benefits, and aes-
2009 Solar Decathlon. Gains in performance were outlined; how-
thetically more pleasing environment in which to work and live
ever, there are no specific results available in the literature about
[4]. In the literature there are studies which verify the benefits of
the increase of the PV efficiency due to the plant/PV interaction
the green roofs in terms of building energy consumption. A recent
[12]. That work is related with Ref. [13]. In the literature there is
study is that of Ascione et al. [5], which verifies the benefits of
also a study conducted in Pittsburg (Pennsylvania). Measurements
green roofs for the building sector. Several green roofs (in Europe)
over a one-year study period (1-7-2011 to 30-6-2012), from a large
were studied including Sedum and gramineous (short and tall
field project in Pittsburgh, were used to determine the differences
height), grass lawn. The results revealed that in warm climates
in power output from green and black roofs as well as to derive
green roofs are suitable for reducing the energy demand for space
two regression functions for back-surface panel temperature and
cooling: the annual reduction of the primary energy ranged be-
PV output. The results showed that a PV-green roof, under those
tween 1% and 11% for Tenerife, 0% and 11% for Sevilla and 2%
climatic conditions (73% of ambient temperatures below 25 °C
and 8% for Rome.
and 90% of solar irradiance values lower than 800 W/m2), can pro-
From the above mentioned issues it can be seen that the com-
vide only a small positive impact of 0.5% in power generation in
bination of green roofs with PVs is an interesting option for the uti-
July, whilst for all the year the PV-black roof outperformed the
lization of the roof of a building. This is because this specific
PV-green one by 0.5%. They remarked that for days achieving tem-
roofing configuration combines the benefits of the soil/plant layer
peratures higher than 25 °C and/or irradiances higher than 800 W/
for the building, the in situ energy generation from the PVs and the
m2 PV-green roof started to outperform the PV-black configuration.
possible synergetic effects between plants and PVs. However, in
It should be noted that moss was adopted for that PV-green system
the literature there are only a few studies about PV-green roofs.
[14]. Another experimental study is that of Perez et al. [15]. In the
With respect to theoretical/modeling works, Scherba et al. [6]
frame of that study, multiple small-scale roof systems: gravel,
investigated the impact of roof reflectivity. The results revealed
green, PV-gravel and PV-green, over small model houses were eval-
that the replacement of a black membrane roof by a PV-covered
uated, in New York. Regarding the plants, varietal Sedum species
white or by a PV-covered green roof, led to reduction of the total
were adopted. Surface temperature variability on the gravel house
sensible flux (approximately 50%). Another investigation is that
was 10.69% higher than on the ¨ PV-green¨ house. Mean internal
of Hui and Chan [7]. The findings of a year-round building energy
and surface temperatures were 5.1% and 1.73% higher on the gravel
simulation (with EnergyPlus), for a low-rise commercial building,
roof than on the ¨ PV-green¨ one, respectively, while PV perfor-
indicated that the PV-green roof generated 8.3% more electricity
mance saw a 2.56% increase in June.
than the PV roof. It should be noted that the considered PV roof
Thus, based on the PV-green studies which are available in the
was roof-mounted with a few inches gap and the fact that there
literature, the ¨ symbiosis ¨ of the PVs with the plants can lead to
is no air circulation behind the module means that the difference
PV performance enhancement, depending on factors such as the
in yield between this system and the PV-green one is expected to
type of the plant and the weather conditions of a certain region.
be higher. In addition, the above mentioned work also included
However, it can be seen that there is a gap in the literature in terms
an experimental part: measurements were taken in a rooftop gar-
of the experimental evaluation of PV-green systems in general and
den in the University of Hong Kong on a sunny summer day from
in particular dealing with their electrical performance. The present
11 am to 2 pm. Two PV panels were placed on a bare and a green
work aims to fill this gap by investigating the experimental behav-
roof. The PV-green system gave about 4.3% more electricity than
ior of two PV-green roofs and their comparison with a reference,
the PV on bare roof (the PVs were not stacked on the roof) during
PV-gravel roof, under the Mediterranean climatic conditions of
the measurement period. In terms of the plant species, Sedum was
Spain. More specifically, the research is addressed to determine
considered. On the other hand, Sui and Munemoto [8] evaluated
performances, and to contrast them with the literature, under the
the performance of CO2 Emission and Investment Value of a Green
hot summer days where the highest efficiency drop arises because
Roof Integrated Photovoltaic System (GRIPVS) by means of genetic
of the high temperatures occurred and since this type of days are
algorithm. For that study, also Sedum was considered. Furthermore,
characteristic of Mediterranean climate regions. In addition, the
Witmer and Brownson [9] developed a model for a PV-green roof,
present study provides data about the experimental behavior of
based on energy balance and microclimate effect. The above men-
PV-green roofs under Mediterranean climatic conditions, filling an-
tioned paper was based on a MSc thesis [10]. In the frame of that
other gap of the literature, since the studies which are currently
thesis, an energy balance model of a Green Roof Integrated Photo-
available regard other climate types. In this sense, autochthonous
voltaic (GRIPV) system was developed and analyzed in a transient
and perfectly adapted to Mediterranean climate plants with apti-
system simulation (by using a FORTRAN code in TRNSYS). Simula-
tudes for positive interaction with the building and the PVs were se-
tions in several locations in Unites States stated a small efficiency
lected. Apart of the electrical performance, thermal and irradiance
gain (0.08–0.55%) in power output. The author noted that further
characterizations were conducted to analyze the effect of the PV/
development of that model (in terms of experimentation and
roofing system on the soil/gravel at the roof surface and the reflec-
benchmarking) is necessary to refine the model for regional
tion/albedo affectation in the irradiance at the module plane.
comparisons.
Regarding experimental works about PV-green roofs, Köhler
et al. [11] investigated several PV-green roof configurations, dom- 2. Selection of the appropriate plant species
inated by Sedum species, in comparison with PV-bitumen ones, in
Berlin. The results revealed that the green roofs had increased effi- For the selection of appropriate plant species for PV-green roof
ciency depending on the studied configuration. According to 5-year systems, multiple criteria should be taken into account e.g. suit-
248 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256

ability of the plants for extensive green roofs, plant resistance to
extreme weather conditions, plant/PV and plant/building interac-
tion, albedo, evapotranspiration, low-height and compact plant
canopy. Thus, plant species such as low-growing, succulent plants
with dense foliage could be considered as appropriate for these
specific roofing systems with additional advantage the fact that
these plants could positively contribute to roof thermal inertia.
Based on the above mentioned criteria, the authors selected two
Mediterranean plant species: Gazania rigens Compositae (Astera-
ceae) and Sedum clavatum Crassulaceae for the development of
their experimental systems at the University of Lleida, in Spain
(Fig. 1). These plants are both resistant and suitable for extensive
green roofs while their characteristics indicate good interaction
with the PVs and the building. Moreover, they have dense, low-
height foliage and their leaves are light-colored (advantage from
albedo point of view).
3. Experimental procedure
The experiments were performed at the Applied Energy Re-
search Centre (CREA) at the University of Lleida (Spain), which is
located in Lleida at latitude 41.36°N and longitude 0.37°E. The cli-
matic conditions in Lleida are influenced by Mediterranean Sea,
and are characterized by two main seasons: a hot, dry, stable sum-
mer (average temperature: 24–30 °C) and a mild/cold dry winter
(average temperature: 6–10 °C). The annual accumulated precipi-
tation ranges from 350 to 550 mm, achieving maximum rains
around equinoxes. The annual mean temperatures are registered
to be from 14 to 16 °C and the winds blow predominately to
south-west with an annual mean value of 1.2 m/s (at 2 m height
and in 2012) [16].
The data were collected during outdoor tests. The electrical per-
formance parameters and the temperature values were monitored
over two months (June–July 2013). In Spain, and in general in the
Mediterranean countries, one of the biggest problems is the fact
that PV output decreases over the summer months because of
the high ambient temperature which leads to PV high temperature.
In order to demonstrate that PV – green roofs can reduce the tem-
perature of the modules (and thus to improve PV performance),
sunny days with no wind and no clouds were selected (high tem-
perature days). In addition, the selected conditions are very repre-
sentative of the Mediterranean conditions, as in Lleida the annual
amount of sun hours in 2012 was 3064 (with an average wind
velocity at 2 m height below than 0.8 m/s) and only rained on
52 days with an accumulated amount of 282.7 mm. Moreover,
the monthly average maximum temperature from March to Octo-
ber was above 25 °C (26.6 °C), the frequency of temperatures high-
er than 20 °C with respect to the sun hours was 79.2% (2426 h with
temperatures above 20 °C over 3064 sun hours) and the frequency
of temperatures higher than 25 °C was 37.4% (1146 over 3064)
[16].
A gravel roof was used as the reference roofing system, because
it is a commonly used roofing material in Europe [17] and it is the
one installed at CREA building. On the other hand, G. rigens and S.
clavatum plants were transplanted into two separate wood boxes
of 0.9  1.30 m2 which contained soil substrate (10 cm height).
The plants were left to grow for several months before the exper-
iments in order to achieve fully-grown canopy characteristics of
the plant species. G. rigens spread over the ground and formed a
quite dense and low-height canopy while S. clavatum formed a suc-
culent and also low-height layer over the ground. During the
experiments the plants were at their final stage of growth (com-
pact, low-growth canopy).
The three experimental set-ups (reference gravel system vs. the
two green roofs and the comparison between the two PV-green
configurations) were placed one beside the other at the same roof
location. Approximately each of the tests had duration of two–
three weeks. In Fig. 1, the general layout of the experimental set-
up (a), the developed green roofs ((b) Sedum and (c) Gazania) and
the reference gravel roof (d) along with the polycrystalline silicon
(p-Si) PV panels and their corresponding pyranometers are illus-
trated. Two PV panels were used to monitor the three configura-
tions in pairs sequentially. The tilt angle of all the panels was
fixed to 33° regarding annual production optimization for Lleida
and all the panels were south-facing. The height of the modules
bottom frame with respect to the roofing system was 2 cm to min-
imize perturbations into the microclimate produced by the plants
(mainly wind). This minimum distance was kept to prevent possi-
ble shading from leaves close to the module; even the canopy was
quite uniform (see Fig. 1).

Wind velocity and ambient

temperature sensors

1.9m 1.9m

PV-sedum PV-gazania PV-gravel (ref. case)

b c d
Fig. 1. The experimental PV roofs developed at the University of Lleida, in Spain: (a) general layout of the experimental set-up, (b) PV-sedum, (c) PV-gazania and (d) PV-
gravel, the reference case.
 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256 249

Module 1 Module 2

Pyranometer Pyranometer

T type thermocouples T type thermocouples

Anemometer &
T type thermocouple

Switching Switching
Amperimetric
relay relay
clamp Amp. clamp

DAQ system

Fig. 2. Diagram of the experimental set-up with the sensors used.

T1: module temperature

T2: temperature at the surface T4
T3: temperature at 3 cm depth
T4: ambient temperature

PV module
5 cm

PV module

10 cm
50 cm
cm
Geotextile protection layer

.25
33°
T1 T1
Plant canopy 18
T2 T2
Gravel T3 Soil T3
Wood box
Waterproof layer
Insulation layer

80 cm
130 cm

Fig. 3. Cross sectional view of the PV-gravel (reference system) and the PV-green roofs developed. The positions of the temperature sensors are indicated with T1-4.

Differential performances were monitored according to the dia-
gram which is shown in Fig. 2. The electrical parameters were mea-
sured using two switching relay circuits to alternate short circuit
an open circuit conditions every 60 s. The short circuit currents
were monitored through a Fluke i30s amperimetric clamp (accu-
racy ± 1% of reading ± 2 mA) connected to a data acquisition
(DAQ) system (datalogger Campbell CR3000). Open circuit poten-
tial and relays were also collected and controlled respectively
through the DAQ system. The thermal behavior of the systems
was characterized by recording various temperatures by means
of T-type thermocouples (accuracy ± 0.5 °C). In Fig. 3, the locations
of the thermocouples are presented in detail. By utilizing these
thermal measurements the effects of the plants to the PV module
and to the roof surface were evaluated. In addition, a Kipp and Zo-
nen CMP11 pyranometer (daily uncertainty < 2%) was positioned
beside of each module and under the same inclination in order to
measure the effective irradiance (effective irradiance involves the
solar global irradiance and albedo/reflection fraction from the roof-
ing system). The wind velocity (sensor: cup anemometer Campbell
A100R with accuracy 1% ± 0.1 ms1) and the ambient temperature
(sensor: T-type thermocouple) were characterized by placing the
appropriate sensors in a mast, holding them at 50 cm height. All
the sensors were connected to the datalogger (Campbell
CR3000). The different input variables were measured every 1 s
and their mean values were recorded every 5 s. For data processing
and graphical representations, 60-s averaging was performed (in
agreement with the switching time of relays).
3.1. Calibration of the PV modules
The two PV modules which were adopted for the development
of the experimental set-up were a 5-W, p-Si panel from Atersa
(A5P), composed of 36 cells connected in series. A summary of
the main characteristics of the module is included in Table 1. A
set of IV (current–voltage) curves were collected employing the
IV tracer PVPM 254 °C to compare module performance. In Figs. 4
and 5, the results of their calibration (potential vs. temperature; IV
curves) are illustrated. At this point it should be noted that the
open circuit dependence on temperature presents a difference in
slope less than 1% and this has been considered as negligible.
250 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256

Table 1 the module and its temperature, respectively, are presented. For
PV module characteristics. Electrical parameters refer to standard conditions a better evaluation of the joint effect of the plants on the PVs,
(1000 W/m2, 25 °C, AM1.5).
the maximum power values (Pm) are presented, considering the
Short circuit current (A) 0.34 FF to be constant as indicated above. The maximum power is cal-
Open circuit voltage (V) 20.5 culated by multiplying the short circuit current (Isc), the open cir-
Current at the maximum power point (A) 0.31
Voltage at the maximum power point (V) 16.5
cuit potential (Voc) and the Fill Factor (FF) as defined in the
Maximum efficiency (%) 7.19 following equation:
Dimensions (mm) 365  195  25
Weight (kg) 1.1 Pm ¼ Isc V oc FF ð2Þ
Back color White
The PV modules used in the three tests performed were the
same; thus, variations on the electrical parameters can be consid-
ered to be caused only because of the different roofing systems
characterized.
As previously indicated, from the period monitored, days
achieving an irradiance profile with no fluctuations and no wind
were selected to present results significant and representative of
the hot summer days in Mediterranean climate. In the following
Potential (V)

subsections, results are referred to a five-day period and to a single

day which average values were the closest to the mean values re-
ported in the period. For the case of daily time period more de-
Module 1 V1(T) = -0.0809T + 24.852
R2 = 0.9982
tailed performance can be observed.

Module 2 V2(T)= -0.0816T + 24.892

R2 = 0.9955 4.1. PV-gazania vs. PV-gravel

Temperature (ºC) In Fig. 6, the frequency histogram of maximum relative power

output differences, referred to gravel, for a five-day period, are
Fig. 4. Calibration of the PV modules: potential (V) vs. temperature (°C). illustrated. The relative power difference data is classified into
ten interval categories according to the power differences: 1, val-
ues less than or equal to 1%; 2, values greater than 1% and less than
0.4
or equal to 2%; 3, values greater than 2% and less than or equal to
3%; 10, values greater than or equal to 10%. This classification is
0.35 adopted for all the cases presented. Relative frequencies are nor-
0.3
malized to sum to 100 for better interpretation.
The profile of the frequencies is clearly skewed to the left,
0.25 achieving a mean relative power difference of 1.29% (see Table 2).
Current (A)

0.2 More analytically, the categories 1–3 accumulate 77.3% of the data
and data with values less than or equal to 1% accounts for 39.0%.
0.15 Module 1
The standard deviation of the data was found to be 0.23%, meaning
Module 2
0.1 that the average value reported is representative and consistent.
Fig. 7 represents the open circuit potential (Voc) and the short
0.05 circuit current (Isc) daytime evolution. Voc values of PV-gazania
0 are always higher than those of PV-gravel configuration, indicating
0 5 10 15 20 25 the PV-gazania temperature to be always lower. In Fig. 8, the mea-
Potential (V) sured temperature values at the back of the module are presented,
corroborating that the temperatures of the module placed on Gaza-
Fig. 5. Calibration of the PV modules: the IV curves obtained under irradiance of
1000 W/m2 and temperature 35 °C.

45
Gazania vs gravel 10/06/2013
Moreover, in the short circuit current, an average relative differ- 40 12/06/2013
ence of 1.91% has been measured between both modules. Even 14/06/2013
35 15/06/2013
though this difference is very small, a normalization factor is
Relative frequency (%)

16/06/2013
accordingly adopted for the correction of the measured values dur- 30
ing the experiments.
25
The IV curves show that the PV modules behave almost identi-
cally with respect to the temperature, as indicated from Fig. 5. 20

After the current mismatch correction, both modules present the 15

same Fill Factor (FF), which is 0.74. This value was considered to
be constant for the calculation of the maximum power delivered 10

by the modules, which is discussed in the next Section 4. 5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4. Electrical performance
Power difference intervals (%)
In the following paragraphs, experimental electrical data Fig. 6. PV-gazania vs. PV-gravel: Relative frequency histogram of the power
regarding the short circuit current and the open circuit potential differences referred to the PV-gravel configuration. Frequencies are normalized to
evolution as proportional indicators of the irradiance received on 100%.
 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256 251

Table 2
A summary of the main results regarding thermal, electrical and irradiance analysis. Values indicated are referred either to gravel for the two first rows and to Gazania for the last.
For the five-day data, minimum (Min.), maximum (Max.), average (Ave.) and standard deviation (St. D.) values are presented.

10,12,14,15&16/6/2013 25,26,28,29/6/2013 & 1/7/2013 3,4,5,6&7/7/2013

Five-day period data
PV-gazania vs. PV-gravel
PV-sedum vs. PV-gravel
PV-sedum vs. PV-gazania
Daily temperature reduction of the soil, 3 cm depth (%) Daily power output increase (%) Daily Irradiance increase (%)
Min./Max./Ave./St. D. Min./Max./Ave./St. D. Min./Max./Ave./St. D.
16.8/18.2/17.5/0.7 1.07/1.62/1.29/0.23 1.10/1.97/1.41/0.41
24.4/26.7/25.9/0.9 2.91/3.63/3.33/0.31 2.88/4.12/3.56/0.57
4.8/6.2/5.7/0.6 1.98/2.52/2.24/0.20 1.08/1.67/1.43/0.24

Daily temperature reduction of the soil, 3 cm depth (%) Daily power output increase (%) Daily Irradiance increase (%)
Representative day of the period data (date between brackets)
PV-gazania vs. PV-gravel 17.8 (15/6/2013) 1.15 (10/6/2013) 1.33 (15/6/2013)
PV-sedum vs. PV-gravel 26.1 (30/6/2013) 3.12 (1/7/2013) 3.29 (30/6/2013)
PV-sedum vs. PV-gazania 5.9 (5/7/2013) 2.21 (6/7/2013) 1.41 (5/7/2013)

60
(a) Gazania. Open circuit potential
Gravel. Open circuit potential
Gazanial. Short circuit current
Gazania. Module temperature

Gravel. Short circuit current

55 Gravel. Module temperature

50

Temperature (ºC)
45
Potential (V)

Current (A)

40

35

30

25

20
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
13:30
14:00
14:30
15:00
15:30
16:00
16:30
17:00
17:30
18:00
18:30
19:00
19:30
Time (hh:mm)
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 8. Temperatures of the modules, at the back side. Date: 10/6/2013.

(b) Gazania
are less than those of temperature. Irradiance analysis is treated in
Gravel
Section 5.2.
Irradiance (W/m2)

Finally, the parameter which best indicates the way that all the
variables influence PV electrical performance is the maximum
power output. Since the power output involves the effects on the
short circuit current and on the open circuit potential, for the other
two tests the discussion will focus on this. Fig. 9 illustrates the
maximum power evolution during the day and the relative differ-
ence values referred to the gravel. As a result, an average relative
power difference of 1.15% was found for Gazania as an improve-
ment of the module performance with respect to the gravel roof.
Time (hh:mm) The high dispersion values observed when irradiance decreases
from 200 W/m2, on the right part of Fig. 9 (from 18:45 h), have
Fig. 7. PV-gazania vs. PV-gravel: (a) open circuit potential and short circuit current; been eliminated in order not to disturb the mean relative power
(b) irradiance profiles. Date: 10/6/2013.
difference. It should be noted that the points removed represent
less than 10% of the daily values monitored.

nia green roof are always lower than the temperature values of the
module placed over the gravel roof (4.2% in average). This graph is
shown only for the first case as the Voc is the parameter linearly
proportional to the temperature and defines jointly with the Isc
(linearly proportional to the irradiance) the PV electrical perfor-
mance (Eq. (1)). In Fig. 7, it can also be observed that at the end
of the day, the Voc is still decreasing despite the temperature reduc-
tion. This is because the Voc presents logarithmic dependence with
irradiance, and as irradiance values are getting lower, Voc decreases
accordingly. Irradiance dependency is much higher for the case of
the short circuit current [18].
Concerning the short circuit current, it can be seen that it is to-
tally correlated to the incident irradiance values. Differences in Isc
are smaller than the Voc ones, because incident irradiance changes
4.2. PV-sedum vs. PV-gravel
In the following subsection the results obtained for the test be-
tween Sedum and gravel roofs are presented.
From Fig. 10, it can be noted that power differences relative to
gravel in the intervals (2%–3%] and (3%–4%] are the most frequent,
representing almost the 50% (relative frequency values are normal-
ized to 100). While relative differences in power greater than 6%
and less than or equal to 1% are very infrequent, values ranged
(4%–6%] and (1%–2%] represent a cumulated frequency of 37.86%.
The average relative power output difference takes a value of
3.33%, with a standard deviation of 0.31%. From these results, as
in the previous case, it can be stated that, under the aforemen-
252 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256

2
200 W/m
(a)

Relative difference (%)

Relative difference (%)

Power (V)
Power (V)

Sedum. Maximum power

Gravel. Maximum power
Gazania. Maximum power Difference relative to gravel

Gravel. Maximum power

Difference relative to gravel

Time (hh:mm)

Time (hh:mm) 1200

(b) Sedum
Gravel
Fig. 9. PV-gazania vs. PV-gravel: a comparison in terms of the power output. Date: 1000
10/06/2013.

Irradiance (W/m2)
800

600
35
Sedum vs gravel 25/06/2013
400
30 26/06/2013
28/06/2013
200
Relative frequency (%)

29/06/2013
25
1/07/2013
0

10:45

11:45

12:45

13:45

14:45

15:45

16:45

17:45

18:45

19:45
20
9:45

15 Time (hh:mm)

10 Fig. 11. PV-sedum vs. PV-gravel: (a) comparison in terms of the power output; (b)
irradiance profiles. Date: 1/7/2013.
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Power difference intervals (%)
Fig. 10. PV-sedum vs. PV-gravel: Relative frequency histogram of the power
differences referred to the PV-gravel configuration. Frequencies are normalized to
100%.
tioned weather conditions, PV placed onto the Sedum green roof in-
creases the performance with respect to the reference gravel roof.
From the representative day data reported in Fig. 11a, a differ-
ence of 3.12% was found (also elimination of the high dispersion
area points on the right has been conducted). In comparison with
the previous case daily profiles, it can be seen a wider and clearer
difference on the relative power values. This difference takes its
maximum value before the solar noon, in correspondence with
the maximum temperatures achieved (6.46% at 13:04 h). As in
the previous case, when irradiance is falling, dispersion increases,
but power difference presents quite stable trend around the aver-
age (3.12%). It can be noted that from around 18:45 h–19 h Sedum
has an irradiance drop. This is due to the shading caused by the
presence of a building on the right (west). As these points were
not considered because of the high dispersion, the shading effect
has no repercussion on the results. Regarding Fig. 1, it can be seen
that the shading effect affects first PV-sedum to progressively ad-
vance to PV-gazania and to PV-gravel configuration, being the last
the one place more to the east. Even though shading is only sub-
jected to PV-sedum (direct irradiance fraction), part of the circum-
solar and diffuse irradiance is gradually blocked in the other two
configurations.
Regarding the irradiance profiles (Fig. 11b), it can be observed a
strong correlation between PV output and irradiance. When com-
9 10
paring both irradiance curves, in the morning the PV module onto
the Sedum, receives higher irradiance than the one placed onto the
gravel (see Section 5.2).
Under no clouds and almost no wind weather conditions (hot
days), PV-gazania achieved 1.29% more power output in average
than PV-gravel. On the other hand, PV-sedum configuration
showed greater differences by up to 3.33% (see Table 2). The differ-
ences in the behavior of PV-gazania and PV-sedum roof can be
attributed to the higher irradiance received on the module over
the Sedum because of its higher albedo/reflection characteristics.
In relation with the different physiognomy of the two plant
species, S. clavatum is a succulent plant with fleshy leaves
which ¨ store ¨ water. Sedum leaves have the ability to form a
thick/high-water content layer over the soil. This ¨succulent ¨ layer
positively contributes to thermal characteristics and keeps the soil
colder than the one underneath G. rigens. Temperature differences
are described in Section 5.1.
Conclusively, the results demonstrate that PV-green roofs stud-
ied improve PV electrical performance and PV-sedum system to a
higher degree.
The electrical behavior of the two PV-green configurations is
analyzed in the following section in order to validate the obtained
results under identical weather conditions.
4.3. PV-sedum vs. PV-gazania
In this comparison between the two green configurations, the
frequency histogram shows the data to be grouped mostly in the
categories 1–3, reaching a cumulated frequency percentage of
76.04%. The main relative power difference for the five-day period
results in 2.24% (Fig. 12).
 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256 253

45
Sedum vs Gazania 3/07/2013 (a)
40 4/07/2013
5/7/2013

Relative difference (%)

35 6/07/2013
Relative frequency (%)

7/7/2013

Power (V)
30

25

20

15 Sedum. Maximum power

Gazania. Maximum power
10 Difference relative to gazania

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time (hh:mm)
Power difference intervals (%)
1200
Fig. 12. PV-sedum vs. PV-gazania: Relative frequency histogram of the power Sedum

differences relative to the PV-gazania configuration. Frequencies are normalized to

(b) Gazania
1000
100%.

Irradiance (W/m2)
800

Based on Fig. 13a, PV-sedum roof has 2.21% higher efficiency

600
than PV-gazania one and this is totally in agreement with the
five-day average and with the differences previously found in com-
400
parison with the PV-gravel system (Table 2). As in the previous
case, the average does not consider values after 18:45 h which 200
for the case of Sedum is also justified not only because of the higher
noise caused when irradiance decreases naturally, but also because 0
it has shading from the buildings beside from 19:15 h. This shading
9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

effect is reflected in the irradiance curves from Fig. 13b, where a
sharp drop appears at 19:15 h. A summary of the main results in
Section 4 is included in Table 2.
Finally, after describing differences obtained with the PV-grav-
el/green configurations, in the following paragraphs the results
presented are compared to those reported in the literature.
4.4. Comparison of the results
Regarding the experimental results described in the introduc-
tion, some of them are worthy of comparison. It is necessary to
point out that from the few studies focused on PV-green roofs,
there are only three reporting experimental results.
In the case of the study presented by Hui and Chan [7], 4.3% PV
output increase was found out for a 3-h period (11–14 h) on a sun-
ny day in summer, with respect to a bare roof. The plant used for
the green roof was Sedum. In the present research, the power in-
creases for the same time period are: 1.51% for Gazania and
3.40% for Sedum. Results are according to data presented in Figs. 9
and 11, respectively. Results obtained for the case of Sedum are
quite in agreement with that reported by Hui and Chan [7]; how-
ever, it should be noted that there is an experimental limitation,
as only 3-h period was considered. In addition, the climatology
in Hong Kong [19] is very different from the Mediterranean one.
Sedum green roof was also employed by Perez et al. [15] for a
one-month period of measurements in New York, in June. They ob-
tained a performance increase of 2.56% with respect to the PV
placed onto a gravel roof. The comparison with this research is
interesting as the reference case was also gravel and the weather
conditions in New York, even not the same climate [19], are similar
in terms of the temperature with those of Lleida, in June. For in-
stance, this last June the average of the maximum daily tempera-
ture in Lleida was 31.7 °C [16] and in New York was 26.1 °C [20].
As it can be seen from values previously reported, the values for
the power difference are in close agreement: 3.33% in Lleida and
2.56% in New York. The 0.77% higher value of Lleida can be due
mainly to the higher temperatures of Lleida, the number of rainy
19:00
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 13. PV-sedum vs. PV-gazania: (a) comparison in terms of the power output; (b)
irradiance profiles. Date: 6/7/2013.
days (11 days in June in New York [20] vs. 3 days in June in Lleida
[16]) and also to the specific Sedum used, the type of gravel used in
the reference case, etc.
Finally, the results presented by Nagengast et al. [14] cannot be
compared adequately as they refer to a large PV installation placed
onto a different plant (moss) and the weather conditions in
Pittsburgh are quite different than those of Lleida regarding both,
temperatures and irradiances. For this reason, the 0.5% higher
power output registered in July by the PV-green roof with respect
to PV-black roof may be less than the values obtained in the
present study because of the factors indicated before: lower
temperatures, lower irradiances, different plant type, etc.
From the experimental results in the literature and from the
results obtained, it can be stated that under hot periods PV-green
roofs are more beneficial than standard bare or gravel roof
configurations.
At this point, it is necessary to mention that the results stated
are referred to warm days, associated to summer, when electrical
performance enhancement can be more visible. Although under
Mediterranean climate conditions, seasonal differences are not
too big, differential electrical performances could be reduced from
the values reported for the coldest temperatures of winter. How-
ever, on sunny winter days, at solar noon, ambient temperatures
may rise above 20 °C [16], and power differences between the
modules on the gravel and on the plants, even to be much less pat-
ent, may appear. In spring and autumn maximum differences, pre-
dictably narrower than in summer, could also be considerable, as
maximum temperatures in both seasons may be close to 30 °C
[16]. Additional research including long term measurements to
determine yearly performance should be conducted for further
elucidation.
254 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256

5. Thermal performance and incident irradiance analysis 70 1200

Ambient temperature at 50cm height

Wind velocity
(a)

Temperature (ºC), Wind velocity (m/s)

Once the electrical performance increase in the PV-green con- 60 Gazania. Temperature at soil surface 1000
figurations is analyzed, thermal analysis focused on the soil and Gazania. Temperature at 3cm depth

gravel temperatures is presented. In addition, incident irradiance 50 Gravel. Temperature at gravel surface

Irradiance (W/m2)
Gravel. Temperature at 3cm depth 800
differences between the three configurations studied are Gazania. Irradiance
40
discussed. Gravel. Irradiance
600
30

5.1. Thermal performance 400

20

For the same period of sunny days with no wind referred in the 200
10
previous section, temperatures according to Fig. 2, were registered.
In Fig. 14, representative days (nearest to the five-day average) 0
0
are illustrated. In the graphs (Fig. 14a–c), the soil and the gravel

0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
temperature values (at the surface and at 3 cm depth) as well as
the ambient temperature, the irradiance and the wind velocity, Time (hh:mm)
for the three test cases, are presented.
As the soil surface temperature, especially for the case of the 70 1200

PV-gazania, showed higher variations than for the case of the tem-
Ambient temperature at 50cm height

Wind velocity
(b)

Temperature (ºC), Wind velocity (m/s)

60
perature values measured at 3 cm depth and in addition the effect Sedum. Temperature at soil surface 1000
of thermal insulation from the ambient temperature is clearly rep- Sedum. Temperature at 3cm depth

50 Gravel. Temperature at gravel surface

resented, the discussion refers to temperatures at 3 cm depth.

Irradiance (W/m2)
Gravel. Temperature at 3cm depth 800
Fig. 14a depicts data referred to the comparison PV-gazania vs. Sedum. Irradiance
40
PV-gravel. In terms of the temperature at 3 cm depth, a daily aver- Gravel. Irradiance
600
age difference of 5.5 °C was reported. However, from 8 to 20 h the
30
average difference increased by up to 7.9 °C. The maximum differ-
400
ence was 11.9 °C (at 12:35 h). On that day, the wind velocity re-
20
mained at very low levels. Although a maximum velocity of
3.87 m/s (13.93 km/h) was recorded, the mean values from 8 to 10
200
20 h and the daily average achieved were for both cases the same:
0.86 m/s (3.10 km/h). From these values it can be said that the 0 0
influence of the wind over the temperature values collected is min-
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00
imum. As low-wind days were selected this low influence is ex-
tended to the next two configurations corresponding to Fig. 14b Time (hh:mm)
and c.
50 1200
Gravel and Gazania temperatures presented a tendency change Ambient temperature at 50cm height Wind velocity

(U shape) from 12 to 18 h. This reduction in the increasing profile 45

Sedum. Temperature at soil surface
Gazania. Temperature at soil surface
Sedum. Temperature at 3cm depth
Gazania. Temperature at gravel surface (c)
Temperature (ºC), Wind velocity (m/s)

Sedum. Irradiance Gazania. Irradiance

was due to the shading caused by the modules. When the sun po- 1000
40
sition corresponds to the hours around the solar noon, the shade
projection from the module reduces the temperature as the sen- 35
800

Irradiance (W/m2)
sors are placed below it. On the contrary, when the sun rays come
30
from the East or West, they impact directly on the plant canopy or
on the gravel. This effect is very clear at 18:30 h when the temper- 25 600
ature rises by quite a sharp slope.
20
From Fig. 14b, differences regarding PV-sedum and PV-gravel
400
can be observed. In this case, a daily average difference of 7.7 °C 15
was recorded while the average difference from 8 to 20 h was
10
found to be 9.8 °C (in order to ¨ avoid ¨ the shading effect perturba- 200
tion indicated above, the average from 8 to 19 h = 9.5 °C). On the 5
other hand, the maximum temperature difference was 14.0 °C (at
0 0
18:27 h). In an analogous manner than in the previous comparison,
0:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
0:00

gravel and Sedum temperatures from 12 to 18 h undergo a decrease

because of the module shading. In this case, a higher difference be-
tween the irradiance values appears during the morning hours
than for the Gazania test. Irradiance and its effects will be pre-
sented and discussed in the next Section 5.2.
Temperature differences indicate a considerable benefit in the
superficial (soil/gravel) temperatures of the building of the green
roof species in comparison to the standard gravel roof. For the case
of Gazania, daily average temperature is 17.8% lower than for the
gravel roof. Sedum green roof achieves a daily average temperature
even relatively lower, which represents a reduction (in comparison
to the gravel) of 26.1%.
In Fig. 14c, the data of the two green configurations, working
simultaneously, are presented. The temperature has a daily aver-
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 14. Temperature, irradiance and wind velocity values for: (a) PV-gazania vs.
PV-gravel, date: 15/6/2013; (b) PV-sedum vs. PV-gravel, date: 30/6/2013 and (c)
PV-sedum vs. PV-gazania, date: 5/7/2013.
age difference of 1.5 °C, an average difference from 8 to 20 h equal
to 2.8 °C (this difference is 2.7 °C if the time interval 8–19 h is con-
sidered to avoid the shading effect on the Sedum) while the maxi-
mum difference was 7.9 °C (at 16:51 h). Thus, in terms of relative
difference, Sedum soil presents 5.9% less daily average temperature
than Gazania one. This value is slightly different than the one ob-
tained from the individual comparisons with gravel, but confirms
 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256 255

Sedum as better plant species for green roof applications from the regarding scattering effects on the module agree with those re-
thermal point of view as well as concerning the plant/building ported by Rahman et al. [21].
interaction. From the results, Sedum characteristics are better to increment
From the temperature reduction observed in the PV-green roofs the incident irradiance on the module throughout the whole day,
with respect to the PV-gravel, better insulation properties can be achieving an average improvement with respect to Gazania of
derived, leading to a potential co-benefit of building energy con- 1.41%.
sumption reduction. This last section is included to illustrate the differential behav-
In Table 2, a summary of the thermal differential behavior main ior observed on incident irradiance values; however, in order to
results for both, the five-day period and the representative day of quantify this effect deeper research, out of the scope of the present
the period, are presented. study, should be conducted. In this manner, results should be con-
sidered as qualitative performance characterization.
In Table 2, a summary of the main results regarding thermal,
5.2. Incident irradiance analysis
electrical and irradiance analysis is presented.
As previously mentioned, the plants may positively change the
quantity of incident sunlight on the module due to the reflective/ 6. Conclusions
albedo effect. From the three data sets presented in Section 5.1,
the difference in incident irradiance of each of the tests has been The combination of Photovoltaics (PV) with green roofs has
calculated as absolute difference and relative difference percent- been experimentally studied to analyze the interaction of the
age; both differences take as reference the configuration achieving plants with the PV module. Three roof configurations: PV-gazania,
lower values. In Fig. 15, the results are drawn. PV-sedum and PV-gravel (reference case) were developed and
With regard to the effects of the modules, front (dark blue) and tested at the University of Lleida, in Spain. The above mentioned
back (white) part, on the irradiance behavior, as the modules were roofing systems have been evaluated based on experimental data
the same their influence was considered not to affect the relative (over June and July 2013).
results presented below. The two plant species selected: G. rigens and S. clavatum, are
The absolute values indicate that both, Sedum and Gazania, re- both autochthonous, then perfectly adapted to Mediterranean cli-
flect higher quantity of light to the module than gravel, from the mate. Within the Mediterranean species, Gazania represents plants
sunrise to approximately 15 h. From that moment, gravel layer im- with narrow leaves, fast growth, big flowers, etc. usually employed
plies progressively higher incident irradiance until the time when in public gardens. On the other hand, Sedum is a totally different
the building shades the experimental set-up and hides the sym- type of plant: succulent and thick leaves, slow growing, etc. Two
metric effect for the sunset. In order to know the real effect of this plant species which ¨ behave ¨ very different but at the same time
difference, values have been referred to the irradiance level at this they have good characteristics as green roof plants.
moment obtaining the relative values depicted in dark colors. A The results revealed that the soil/plant layer causes a positive
very interesting behavior is denoted on the left part of Fig. 15. PV effect which leads to the improvement of PV electrical perfor-
green roofs increase the incident irradiance on the module by up mance, with five-day average percentages of maximum power out-
to 32% (maximum) for the sedum-gravel case. This can be ex- put increase for PV-gazania and PV-sedum of 1.29% and 3.33%,
plained based on two reasons: the first regards the fact that albedo respectively, in comparison with the PV-gravel roof. These values
is higher at the plants; the second reason is related with sun posi- are very representative for the Mediterranean summer and partly
tion: when the sun loci is behind the module plane, the rays that in spring/autumn conditions, as only 52 days were rainy, more than
a normal situation would not impact on the module fall on it be- 3000 h of sun were achieved from which 79.2% had registered tem-
cause the plant canopy behaves as a diffuse reflector. Results peratures above 20 °C and 37.4% had above 25 °C (Lleida, over the

35
Gazania vs Gravel. Irradiance relative difference referred to gravel
Sedum vs Gravel. Irradiance relative difference referred to gravel
Irradiance difference (W/m2), Relative irradiance difference (%)
.

30 Sedum vs Gazania. Irradiance realtive difference referred to Gazania

Sedum vs Gazania. Irradiance difference referred to Gazania
Sedum vs Gravel. Irradiance difference referred to gravel
25 Gazania vs Gravel. Irradiance difference referred to gravel

20

15

10

-5

-10
6:40 7:20 8:00 8:40 9:20 10:00 10:40 11:20 12:00 12:40 13:20 14:00 14:40 15:20 16:00 16:40 17:20 18:00 18:40 19:20
Time (hh:mm)

Fig. 15. Incident irradiance: a comparison between PV-gazania, PV-sedum and PV-gravel. Irradiance data correspond to Figs. 6–8.
256 D. Chemisana, Chr. Lamnatou / Applied Energy 119 (2014) 246–256
year 2012). The results found out were compared to those few re-
ported in the literature and good agreement was observed in the
power output differences, taking into account the differences be-
cause of the location and its associate climate.
PV module placed onto Sedum achieved higher increase of
power (2.24%) than the one placed onto Gazania. However, as both
showed positive interaction, depending on the place to install the
PVs and the user’s preferences (aesthetics, etc.), both options can
be considered as suitable.
In terms of the temperature, referred to values recorded at 3 cm
depth, Gazania green roof reported an average daily value 17.8%
(17.5% for five-day period) lower than the gravel roof and Sedum
daily difference was found to be 26.1% (25.9% over five days) lower.
PV-green configurations also affect the incident irradiance on the
PV, obtaining higher relative incident irradiances in comparison
to gravel. In this way, the PV-green roofs proved to be more bene-
ficial than the conventional gravel one for both, the PV module and
the temperature of the roof surface.
The above mentioned positive effect on the roof surface temper-
atures and PV performance was found to be stronger for Sedum
than for Gazania. Specific tests were conducted to determine how
much more beneficial is Sedum than Gazania, proving that Sedum
kept the soil temperature 5.95% cooler (at 3 cm depth) and in-
creased the power output by 2.24% in a five-day basis. In addition,
Sedum leaf characteristics improved the effective incident irradi-
ance on the module 1.43% more than Gazania.
Conclusively, the present work demonstrates the feasibility of
combining PVs with plants because of its positive synergy. Plant
characteristics lead to a PV output improvement and, in addition
the modules protect the plants from high irradiances. As co-benefit
of the combination of PVs with green roofs, a potential to reduce
the building energy consumption arises.
From the analysis conducted and the results stated in the pres-
ent study, at laboratory scale, further research should be addressed
on long term characterization and large installations to determine
more general results. Also to experimentally corroborate the ob-
tained data for the months achieving hot temperatures and to state
how the system behaves during the winter months.
References
[1] Ashton Acton Q. Advances in ecology environment and conservation research
and application. Scholarly editions. Atlanta; 2013.
[2] Abdolzadeh M, Ameri M. Improving the effectiveness of a Photovoltaic water
pump system by applying water flow over Photovoltaic cells. In: Proceedings
of ISES world congress 2007 (vol. 1–vol. 5): solar energy and human
settlement, solar energy and human settlement, Goswami D. Yogi, Zhao
Yuwen, editors. Jointly published with Tsinghua University Press, Springer;
2009.
[3] Evans DL. Simplified method for predicting photovoltaic array output. Sol
Energy 1981;27:555–60.
[4] Getter KL, Rowe DB. The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable
development. HortScience 2006;41:1276–85.
[5] Ascione F, Bianco N, de’ Rossi F, Turni G, Vanoli GP. Green roofs in European
climates. Are effective solutions for the energy savings in air-conditioning?
Appl Energy 2013;104:845–59.
[6] Scherba A, Sailor DJ, Rosenstiel TN, Wamser CC. Modeling impacts of roof
reflectivity, integrated photovoltaic panels and green roof systems on sensible
heat flux into the urban environment. Build. Environ. 2011;46:2542–51.
[7] Hui SCM, Chan SC. Integration of green roof and solar photovoltaic systems. In:
Joint symposium 2011: integrated building design in the New Era of
Sustainability. Hong Kong; November 22, 2011.
[8] Sui J, Munemoto J. Shape study on a green roof integrated photovoltaic system
for bi-objective optimization of investment value and CO2 emission. J Asian
Archit. Build Eng 2007;6:307–14.
[9] Witmer L, Brownson J. An energy balance model of green roof integrated
Photovoltaics: a detailed energy balance including microclimatic effects. In:
ASES 2011 national solar conference. North Carolina; May 17–21, 2011.
[10] Witmer L. Quantification of the passive cooling of Photovoltaics using a green
roof. MSc thesis. The Pennsylvania State University; 2010.
[11] Köhler M, Wiartalla W, Feige R. Interaction between PV-systems and extensive
green roofs, Greening roofs to sustainable communities. Minneapolis; April
29–May 1, 2007.
[12] Brownson JRS, Iulo, LD. Upsetting the Balance beam: system integrative
photovoltaics as purposeful manipulation of energy demand and microclimate
in the built environment. In: ASES national solar conference. Phoenix, AZ:
American Solar Energy Society; 2010.
[13] Witmer LT, Brownson JRS. System integrative design in the 2009 Penn State
Solar decathlon net-zero energy home. In: 39th ASES national solar conference
2010, SOLAR 2010. Phoenix, AZ; United States; 17 May 2010 through 22 May
2010.
[14] Nagengast A, Hendrickson C, Scott Matthews H. Variations in photovoltaic
performance due to climate and low-slope roof choice. Energy Build
2013;64:493–502.
[15] Perez MJR, Wight NT, Fthenakis VM, Ho C. Green-roof integrated PV canopies –
an empirical study and teaching tool for low income students in the South
Bronx, Solar 2012. ASES, Colorado; May 13–17, 2012.
[16] Meteorological service of Catalonia. <www.meteo.cat> [in Catalan].
[17] Köhler M, Poll PH. Long-term performance of selected old Berlin greenroofs in
comparison to younger extensive greenroofs in Berlin. Ecol Eng
2010;36:722–9.
[18] Vossier A, Chemisana D, Flamant G, Dollet A. Very high fluxes for concentrating
photovoltaics: Considerations from simple experiments and modeling. Renew
Energy 2012;38:31–9.
[19] Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World Map of the Köppen–Geiger
climate classification updated. Meteorol Z 2006;15:259–63. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130.
[20] <http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate.php?location=USNY0996>.
[21] Rahman R, Ahmed DI, Fahmi MA, Tasnuva T, Khan MF. Performance
enhancement of PV solar system by diffused reflection. In: Proceedings of
1st international conference on the developments in renewable energy
technology, ICDRET 2009. Dhaka, Bangladesh; December 17–19, 2009. p. 96.