Next Article in Journal
Biomass Polygeneration Systems Integrated with Buildings: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
How Effective Are Palm-Fiber-Based Erosion Control Blankets (ECB) against Natural Rainfall?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 4
10.3390/su16041656
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Different Forms on BIPV Gymnasium Carbon-Saving Potential Based on Energy Consumption and Solar Energy in Multi-Climate Zones

by
Yu Dong
1,2,
Haoqi Duan
1,2,
Xueshun Li
1,2 and
Ruinan Zhang
1,2,*
1
School of Architecture and Design, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
2
Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Harbin 150001, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(4), 1656; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041656
Submission received: 8 January 2024 / Revised: 9 February 2024 / Accepted: 14 February 2024 / Published: 17 February 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, the influence of the gymnasium building form on energy consumption and photovoltaic (PV) potential was investigated to address its high energy consumption and carbon emissions issues. Five cities in different climate zones in China (Harbin, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Kunming) were selected as case study environments to simulate and calculate the energy use intensity (EUI), photovoltaic power generation potential (PVPG), and CO2 emission (CE) indicators for 10 typical gymnasium building forms, while also assessing the impact of building orientation. This study found that changes in gymnasium building orientation can cause a 0.5–2.5% difference in EUI under the five climatic conditions, whereas changes in building form can cause a 1.9–6.4% difference in EUI. After integrating a building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) system on the roof, changes in building orientation and form can lead to a 0–14.4% and 7.6–11.1% difference in PVPG and a 7.8–68.1% and 8.7–72.0% difference in CE. The results demonstrate that both the choice of form and orientation contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions from BIPV gymnasiums, with the rational choice of form having a higher potential for carbon savings than orientation. These research findings can guide the initial selection of gymnasium designs to pursue low-carbon goals.

1. Introduction

Global climate change and the depletion of fossil energy resources have become major environmental issues that threaten human survival and development [1]. The construction industry consumes approximately 37% of the world’s energy and emits approximately 36% of the global greenhouse gases, and these numbers are expected to increase in the future [2]. In China, carbon emissions during the operational stages of buildings account for approximately 22% of the country’s total emissions, with public buildings being particularly energy-intensive [3]. With the advancement of China’s goal to become a sports power, the number of sports venues has increased [4]. However, like typical large-scale public buildings, gymnasiums have high energy consumption owing to their large volume and requirements for user comfort [5,6]. Therefore, research on low-carbon gymnasium designs has received increasing attention.
Mitigating the climate crisis necessitates developing and utilizing renewable energy sources, including solar energy [7,8,9]. Solar energy, as a safe, clean, and abundant energy source, is increasingly being utilized through photovoltaic (PV) technology, particularly building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), which integrate energy production into building design [10,11]. Because of their large roofs with minimal equipment occupying the area, smooth shapes, and typical location in open areas, gymnasiums are well suited for installing BIPV to provide an additional electricity supply [12,13,14].
Previous studies have shown that early design decisions affect 80% of the environmental load of a building and operational costs [15]. In these early design decisions, building design is crucial. The building form not only shapes the aesthetics and appearance of the building but also plays a crucial role in determining its energy efficiency [16,17]. Furthermore, some studies have shown that building form significantly influences solar energy utilization [18,19,20]. Therefore, there is a need to study the effect of gymnasium building form on energy consumption and PV generation.

1.1. Energy Performance of Gymnasiums

Researchers have explored the design of gymnasium buildings from various perspectives to reduce their energy consumption and carbon emissions. Dong et al. [21] showed that wood gymnasiums have lower whole life cycle energy consumption and carbon emissions than reinforced concrete gymnasiums. Yue et al. [5] considered factors such as wall type, roof type, and air conditioning system in designing a gymnasium at Qingdao University, and the optimization objective added thermal comfort indicators in addition to energy consumption. Fan et al. [22] reduced energy loads and improved daylight comfort by optimizing the shading arrangement on a gymnasium facade. Guo et al. [23] evaluated the impact of climatic conditions and building form on passive ventilation in a medium-sized gymnasium in a subtropical region and proposed energy-saving measures by effectively controlling air-conditioning operations during noncompetition periods in summer.
In addition, some studies considered the energy-saving effects of actively utilizing solar energy in gymnasiums. Li and Yue [24] carried out an energy-saving retrofit for a gymnasium, with an estimated annual electricity generation of 1818.5 kWh after adding a PV system. Jiang et al. [13] analyzed the effect of building shape on the solar radiation of a gymnasium in the Nanjing area of China. They found that the roof has a more significant solar potential than the facade and that a change in the shape of the roof leads to a solar potential fluctuation of up to 11%. Manni et al. [25] studied the roof of a football stadium in Italy and compared the carbon emission compensation of high-reflective coatings with BIPV, and the results showed that high-reflective coatings only compensated for approximately 100 kgCO2−eq/m2, which is much lower than the 1500 kgCO2−eq/m2 compensation of BIPV.

1.2. Building Form and Energy Consumption

Many studies have been conducted on optimizing building forms for energy savings. The building form influences the communication between indoor and outdoor environments and affects the self-shading performance of the building [26]. Several studies have focused on comparing or optimizing building forms under specific climatic conditions. For example, Zerefos et al. [27] found that prism-shaped buildings are more energy efficient than rectangular buildings in Mediterranean climates, with differences in annual energy demand ranging from 2.51% to 16.01% depending on the orientation. Liu et al. [17] found that reducing the floor height of a typical office building in Tianjin, increasing the floor plan factor, and reducing the floor area are effective energy-saving measures. Giouri et al. [28] compared the energy consumption of square, octagonal, regular rectangular, and elongated rectangular high-rise office buildings in Mediterranean climates and found that square buildings performed the best. Gan et al. [29] improved the natural ventilation and sunlight utilization by optimizing the layout of a high-rise residence, leading to significant reductions in energy consumption for air conditioning and lighting by a remarkable 30–40%.
In addition, some studies have compared the differences in suitable building forms for different climatic conditions. Raji et al. [30] studied the effects of building orientation and form on the energy consumption of high-rise office buildings under three climatic conditions: subtropical, temperate, and tropical. They summarized that these factors may affect energy use by up to 32%. Ola et al. [31] divided high-rise buildings into three forms: Extruder, Rotor, and Twister; they analyzed their energy consumption using climate data from seven climate zones in North America and Egypt and found that the rotor model was suitable for all climate zones. Yang and Zhang [26] categorized outpatient buildings into centralized, corridor, and courtyard forms and analyzed suitable building forms and orientations for five climate zones with low energy consumption. Deng et al. [32] analyzed four types of university library buildings: point, slab, block, and comb, and summarized the appropriate low-energy building forms for four different climate zones. Premrov et al. [33] analyzed the energy demand of square, rectangular, L-shaped, T-shaped, and U-shaped cabins in three different climates and showed that the shape factor only had a significant impact on energy consumption in cold regions with low solar energy.

1.3. Building Form and BIPV

The design of building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) systems follows classical photovoltaic system design methods and requires the selection of appropriate tilt angles to maximize electricity generation [34]. Many studies have been conducted on the selection and optimization of building forms in order to maximize the solar energy collection efficiency of BIPV systems. Azami and Sevinç [19] evaluated the BIPV potential of six different exposed surfaces and found optimal shape selections for each surface group. The results showed that shape configuration and orientation affect the sufficiency of energy generation. Yang et al. [35] compared the electricity generation efficiency of BIPV high-rise buildings of different forms and found that circular or square high-rise buildings paired with U-shaped podiums achieved better efficiency. Hassan and El-Rayes [36] formulated a multi-objective optimization framework that considered building form and other factors to improve on-site renewable energy generation and investment ratios while reducing building costs.
Some studies have been devoted to the relationship between the BIPV roof form and PV generation. The roof form, orientation, and area significantly impact the solar radiation reception [37,38]. Kumar et al. [39] investigated the optimal angles and orientations of BIPV thin-film roofs in residential buildings in Malaysia. Esfahani et al. [40] used a genetic algorithm to optimize the shape of a sloped roof after installing BIPV, which resulted in a 16% increase in solar energy production compared to the basic shape.
Some studies are concerned with optimizing the building form to reduce energy consumption and increase the efficiency of PV power generation. For example, Youssef et al. [41,42,43] conducted extensive research on optimizing building forms to reduce net energy consumption. Early studies established a set of standards for optimizing building envelope structures using BIPV integration. In subsequent research, further reductions in net energy consumption and improvements in photovoltaic utilization were achieved by optimizing the building dimensions and orientations using genetic algorithms. Additionally, they developed a method and design tool based on the shape grammar theory to optimize the shape of building envelope structures, with photovoltaic generation, photovoltaic economic impact, and energy consumption as the optimization objectives. Optimization was conducted for 12 cases, resulting in improvements in net energy consumption ranging from 3.1% to 20.5%. Samarasinghalage et al. [44] introduced a multi-objective optimization framework that optimizes the life-cycle energy and cost of BIPV envelope structures while considering various envelope structure characteristics and BIPV-related features. Ciardiello et al. [45] presented a new multi-objective optimal design framework that first optimizes the geometry and then the passive design and photovoltaic placement strategies. The optimized building reduced carbon emissions and energy costs by 23%.

1.4. Research Gap and Objective

Much of the existing research has focused on the energy-saving potential of office and residential building form changes, emphasizing changes in plan geometry, whereas variations in roof form have received less attention, often assuming a flat roof. However, for large-scale public buildings such as gymnasiums, the roof is a key factor influencing the building form, so the results of existing studies are not as applicable to gymnasium buildings. Although previous studies have found significant influences of climate on building form selection, the impact of changes in gymnasium building form on energy consumption under different climatic conditions has yet to be explored in depth.
While existing research has discussed the relationship between BIPV systems, roof form, and orientation, these studies are often limited to simple roof forms and are not applicable to the diverse roof forms of gymnasium buildings. Furthermore, although the impact of some stadium building forms on the potential for solar power generation has been studied, the impact of orientation changes has not been fully considered.
Most previous studies have only singularly analyzed the energy-saving potential or solar power generation potential of building forms; relatively few studies have analyzed them together. Carbon emission levels during the operational phase of a building can be used for a comprehensive assessment of energy consumption and PV power generation; however, studies related to the form of the building have rarely been used.
Given the shortcomings of the existing studies mentioned above, this study aims to compare the effects of the building form and orientation of gymnasiums on energy consumption and BIPV roof PV generation in different climatic conditions and to analyze the synergistic effects using carbon emission indicators. The insights from this study provide useful guidance in the design phase for selecting the appropriate form and orientation of the gymnasium in different climatic conditions.

2. Methodology

Figure 1 illustrates the working framework of this study. First, the building forms of gymnasiums are summarized, and the geometric parameters of typical gymnasium models are determined. Second, the performance simulation parameters of the gymnasium are set. Finally, the simulation results are analyzed and discussed.

2.1. Climates and Representative Cities

2.1.1. Climatic Conditions

The aim of this study is to evaluate the carbon-saving potential of different forms of gymnasiums with integrated BIPV systems on their roofs, taking into account the differences in energy consumption and PV power generation due to different building forms based on the different climatic conditions in China. The Chinese national standard “Thermal Design Code for Civil Building” (GB 50176-2016) [46] divides China into five primary building thermal design zones, and many building performance studies are based on this climate zone division [26,32,47]. However, this study also needs to focus on the impact of solar energy resources on PV power generation, so this study will use a new climate zone model that was reformulated by Sun [48] based on the consideration of climatic factors and solar radiation levels, which consists of seven climate zones: severe cold high irradiation, severe cold medium irradiation, cold high irradiation, cold and summer hot, moderate high irradiation, hot and humid cold winter, and hot and high humid zones, which has been applied in a number of studies on PV systems for buildings in China [49,50].

2.1.2. Spatial Differences in the Development of Sports Venues

Since this study focuses on the carbon-saving potential of BIPV system applications in Chinese gymnasiums, its development in different regions of China also needs to be considered. The construction of gymnasiums in eastern and central China has increased and developed rapidly in recent decades due to the large population size and financial support for the construction of sports facilities in these regions [4,51].

2.1.3. Representative Cities

Although solar radiation is higher in the western region of China, considering that the construction and development of gymnasiums are mainly concentrated in the eastern and central regions, five cities, Harbin, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Kunming, were selected to represent the five climate zones of China’s severe cold medium irradiation zone, cold and summer hot zone, hot and humid cold winter zone, hot and high humid zone, and moderate high irradiation zone for the study. The selected cities all have high numbers of gymnasiums with high populations and large potential for gymnasium construction and renovation, with great potential for integrated PVs. Figure 2 illustrates the geographic location of the five representative cities selected and their relative relationship to the climate zone and the sports facility development index. The meteorological data of these cities obtained from the China Standard Weather Data (CSWD) were used for the experimental simulation. The average values of the basic climate data for each city are listed in Table 1.

2.2. Gymnasium Form Selection and Simplification

The building form of a gymnasium is primarily derived from its basic plan. Based on a survey and summary of gymnasiums in China, this study classified the plan geometries of gymnasiums into six basic forms: square, rectangular, circular, elliptical, and polygonal. Among these, the hexagon was selected as the representative polygon for further research. The roof design is another important factor influencing the form of a gymnasium, and its design must be coordinated with the building plan.
As shown in Figure 3, 10 typical gymnasium models with the same spatial composition but different forms were designed based on six plan shapes combined with different roof shapes. The modeling was conducted using the Rhinoceros/Grasshopper software (Version 7.35). The model is divided into three areas to simplify the layout: sports, traffic, and ancillary spaces. The layout followed a surrounding pattern, with the sports space located in the center of the plan, consisting of a large single-story space with a standardized sports field size of 40 m × 55 m. The circulation and ancillary spaces surrounded the sports space and were two stories high, with a height of 5 m per story. The building encompasses a ground area of 6400 m2 and a comprehensive floor space of 14,800 m2. The plan dimensions were 80 m × 80 m for the square gymnasium, 64 m × 100 m for the rectangular gymnasium, a side length of 49.63 m for the hexagonal plan, a radius of 45.14 m for the circular plan, and a major axis radius of 55 m and a minor axis radius of 37.04 m for the elliptical plan. The building height was uniformly set at 25 m, and considering the requirements of the sports space, the lowest point of the non-flat roofs was set at 15 m. The window-to-wall ratio of the building was uniformly set at 45%, and the window surfaces were evenly distributed on the building facade.

2.3. Setting Building Orientation

To test the influence of the orientation, this study employed a controlled variable experimental method by rotating the building models. Figure 3 shows the orientation control method, in which all models were rotated clockwise with a step size of 10° while the other design parameters of the models remained unchanged.

2.4. Performance Simulation

Three energy performance indicators (ENPI) were selected to evaluate the performance of the gymnasium: energy use intensity (EUI), photovoltaic power generation potential (PVPG), and CO2 emissions (CE). The EUI assesses the energy consumption performance of the buildings, PVPG evaluates the solar energy generation potential of the buildings, and CE comprehensively considers the carbon emission performance of the buildings after considering both the EUI and PVPG.
The performance simulation of the buildings was conducted using Ladybug and Honeybee plugins integrated into Rhinoceros/Grasshopper software (Version 7.35). The Ladybug plugin simulates solar radiation by calling the Radiance engine, and the Honeybee plugin simulates building energy consumption by calling the EnergyPlus engine [46].

2.4.1. Building Energy Consumption Simulation

Uniform simulation parameters were set to eliminate factors other than building form. The operational parameters for the building energy consumption simulation were set based on the “Standard for Green Performance Calculation of Civil buildings” (JGJ/T 449-2018) [52] and “Design Code for Sports Buildings” (JGJ 31-2003) [53] in China. The parameters for the building envelope simulation were designed based on different climatic conditions. Because this study focused on the early design stage of gymnasiums, specific material performances and construction methods were not considered. Instead, the critical values specified in the “General Code for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Application in Buildings” (GB 55015-2021) [54] were used. Table 2 lists the sets of operational parameters for the building energy consumption simulation, and Table 3 lists the sets of parameters for the building envelope structures. Following the “General Code for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Application in Buildings” (GB 55015-2021) [54], the coefficient of performance (COP) for the cooling systems of HVAC in all cities was set to 3.5, and the COP for the heating systems in Harbin and Beijing was set to 2.18, while the COP for the heating systems in Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Kunming was set to 2.29.
The EUI is an important indicator used for evaluating building energy consumption [55]. This was calculated using Equation (1).
E U I = E T A
where EUI is the energy use intensity (kWh/(m2·y)), E T is the total building energy consumption (kWh/y), and A is the total building area (m2).

2.4.2. Simulation of BIPV System Power Generation on the Roof

The generating capacity of a BIPV system is calculated based on the solar radiation received from the surface of the PV panels arranged on the roof. Many forms of gymnasium roofs in this study have curved shapes that do not lend themselves to standard crystalline silicon PV cells and require the use of flexible thin-film cells [56]. Among the various thin film cells, copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin-film cells were hypothesized to be used for the BIPV system in this study due to their low production cost, high photovoltaic conversion efficiency, and ease of use on building surfaces [57,58,59,60]. The conversion efficiency of the cells was set to 15% [61], and the DC-to-AC conversion efficiency was set to 85%. Considering the influence of other building equipment and facilities on the roof, the coverage area of the photovoltaic panels was assumed to be 90% of the roof area. For consistency with the building energy consumption study, the photovoltaic power generation potential (PVPG) was also evaluated based on the unit building area calculated using Equation (2).
P V P G = I × K E × K S × A P A
where PVPG is the annual electricity generation of a photovoltaic system (kWh/(m2·y)), I is the annual solar radiation intensity on the surface of the photovoltaic cell (kWh/(m2·y)), KE is the conversion efficiency of the photovoltaic cell (%), KS is the conversion efficiency from DC to AC in the photovoltaic system (%), AP is the net area of the photovoltaic panel in the photovoltaic system (m2), and A is the total building area (m2).

2.4.3. Calculation of Building Carbon Emissions

This study used CE to comprehensively evaluate carbon emissions during the operational stage of gymnasiums with integrated BIPV systems on the roof. The CE is calculated by subtracting the EUI of the gymnasiums from the PVPG and multiplying it by the average carbon emission factor of the Chinese power grid. The average carbon emission factor of the Chinese power grid is 0.5703 kgCO2/kWh. The CE was calculated using Equation (3).
C E = E U I − P V P G × C E F
where CE is the annual carbon emissions per unit area (kgCO2/(m2·y)), EUI is the energy use intensity (kWh/m2), PVPG is the annual electricity generation of a photovoltaic system (kWh/m2), and CEF is the CO2 emission factor (kgCO2/kWh).

3. Result

3.1. Building Orientation, Form, and Energy Consumption

3.1.1. Building Orientation and Energy Consumption in Five Climate Zones

Figure 4 shows the variations in the EUI for all building forms in different orientations in the five climate zones. In the severe cold medium irradiation, cold and summer hot, hot and humid cold winter, hot and high humid, and moderate high irradiation climate zones, the forms with the largest fluctuations in EUI due to orientation were Form 5, Form 5, Form 5, Form 4, and Form 4. The percentage decreases in EUI from the maximum to the minimum were 1.1%, 2.5%, 1.4%, 0.5%, and 0.9%, respectively, indicating that although building orientation impacts energy consumption, the influence is relatively small for these gymnasium forms.

3.1.2. Building Form and Energy Consumption in Five Climate Zones

As shown in Figure 5, the minimum EUI values of all forms in each climate zone shown in Figure 4 were compared to eliminate the interference of orientation in analyzing the relationship between form and energy consumption. The change in climate zones resulted in a slight change in lighting energy consumption and a significant change in heating and cooling, but equipment energy consumption remained the same. In the context of various climate regions—namely, the severe cold medium irradiation, cold and summer hot, hot and humid cold winter, hot and high humid, and moderate high irradiation zones—the proportions of energy dedicated to cooling and heating were significantly diverse. Specifically, these proportions were approximately 43.7% to 48.4% in severe cold medium irradiation zones, 40.4% to 45.4% in cold and summer hot zones, 34.4% to 37.2% in hot and humid cold winter zones, 49.0% to 51.2% in hot and high humid zones, and 18.5% to 20.0% in moderate high irradiation zones out of the total energy utilization. Notably, the hot and high humid zones exhibited the highest energy consumption, predominantly because of the markedly elevated demand for cooling, which constituted about 48.8% to 51.0% of the overall energy usage. The second highest was in the severe cold medium irradiation zones, mainly due to significantly higher heating energy consumption, accounting for 30.3–35.0% of the total energy consumption. These results indicate that the variation in the form of a gymnasium building primarily affects heating and cooling energy consumption under different climatic conditions.
In the severe cold medium irradiation climate zone, Form 9 had a 6.8% decrease in EUI compared to Form 3, which had the highest EUI. In the cold and summer hot climate zone, Form 9 had a 6.1% decrease in EUI compared with Form 1. In the hot and humid cold winter climate zone, Form 4 had only a 2.6% decrease in EUI compared with Form 1. In the hot and high humidity climate zone, Form 4 had only a 1.9% decrease in EUI compared with Form 3. In the moderate high irradiation climate zone, Form 5 had only a 2.9% decrease in EUI compared with Form 7. The results show that Form 9 is particularly well-adapted for severe cold medium irradiation and cold and summer hot climate zones; Form 4 is apt for zones with hot summers transitioning to hot and humid cold winters and hot and high humid climate zones; and Form 5 is more suitable for moderate high irradiation climate zone with less annual climate variation. Compared with the other three climate zones, selecting appropriate forms is more beneficial for achieving optimal building energy performance in severe cold medium irradiation and cold and summer hot climate zones.

3.2. Building Orientation, Form, and PV Generation

3.2.1. Building Orientation and PV Generation in Five Climate Zones

Figure 6 shows the variations in PVPG for all building forms with different orientations in the five climate zones. In all climate zones, Form 5 had much larger fluctuations in PVPG owing to its orientation compared to the other forms. In severe cold medium irradiation, cold and summer hot, hot and humid cold winter, hot and high humid, and moderate high irradiation climate zones, the maximum PVPG of Form 5 compared to the minimum PVPG increased by 14.4%, 12.2%, 8.4%, 6.5%, and 8.8%, respectively. The PVPG of the other forms increased by 0% to 2.5%. Form 5 is the only form with a single-slope roof, whereas the roofs of the other gymnasiums are symmetrical. This indicates that for forms with a single-slope roof, more attention must be paid to the design of the orientation to achieve higher PV generation.

3.2.2. Building Form and PV Generation in Five Climate Zones

As shown in Figure 7, the maximum PVPG values of all forms in each climate zone in Figure 6 were compared to eliminate the interference of orientation in analyzing the relationship between form and PV potential. Although the PVPG of the same form varied owing to changes in solar radiation in different regions, the trends of all forms were similar. In each climate zone, Forms 5, 6, and 10 had significantly higher PVPG, whereas Form 7 had the lowest PVPG. In the severe cold medium irradiation and cold and summer hot climate zones, Form 5 had the highest PVPG compared with Form 7, with increases of 11.1% and 9.6%, respectively. In the hot and humid cold winter and moderate high irradiation climate zones, Form 6 had the highest PVPG compared with Form 7, with an increase of 8.4% in both cases. In the hot and high humid climate zone, Forms 6 and 10 had the highest PVPG, with an increase of 7.6%. Notably, the high PVPG of Forms 5 and 10 are owing to their large roof areas and high annual average solar radiation intensity on the surface of the photovoltaic cells, whereas Form 6 has a relatively high PVPG mainly because of its large roof area, despite having a smaller annual average solar radiation intensity.
The results indicate that variations in building form significantly affect PV generation in any climate zone. Therefore, the selection of building forms should be considered in the design of gymnasiums to enhance their potential for PV generation.

3.3. Building Orientation, Form, and Caron Emissions

3.3.1. Building Orientation and Carbon Emissions in Five Climate Zones

Figure 8 shows the variations in the CE for all building forms with different orientations in the five climate zones. In all climate zones, similar to PVPG, Form 5 exhibited the largest fluctuations in the CE owing to its orientation. In the severe cold medium irradiation, cold and summer hot, hot and humid cold winter, hot and high humid, and moderate high irradiation climate zones, the percentage decreases in CE from the maximum to the minimum for Form 5 were 15.0%, 17.9%, 14.4%, 7.8%, and 68.1%, respectively. The other forms exhibited smaller fluctuations, further confirming the earlier results that building orientation had a minor impact on energy consumption. Except for Form 5, the PV generation of the other forms was less affected by building orientation.

3.3.2. Building Form and Carbon Emissions in Five Climate Zones

As shown in Figure 9, the minimum CE values of all forms in each climate zone shown in Figure 8 were compared to eliminate the interference of orientation in analyzing the relationship between form and carbon emissions. In the severe cold medium irradiation climate zone, Form 9 had a 17.3% decrease in CE compared to Form 3, which had the highest CE. In the cold and summer hot climate zone, Form 6 had an 18.2% decrease in CE compared to Form 1. In the hot and humid cold winter climate zone, Form 5 had a 12.6% decrease in CE compared to Form 7. In the hot and high humid climate zone, Form 5 had an 8.7% decrease in CE compared to Form 7. In the moderate high irradiation climate zone, Form 5 showed a 72.0% decrease in CE compared to Form 7.
The results showed that Form 9 is more suitable for severe cold medium irradiation climate zones, while Form 6 proves to be better suited for cold and summer hot climate zones. Moreover, Form 5 displays optimal performance in hot and humid cold winters, hot and high humid, and moderate high irradiation climate zones. Notably, the carbon reduction rate in the moderate high irradiation climate zone was significantly higher than in the other zones, mainly because of the significantly lower total carbon emissions.

4. Discussion

4.1. Interpretation of Main Findings

This study systematically evaluated the effects of 10 stadium building forms on EUI, PVPG, and CE under five climatic conditions, as well as the effects of building orientation, addressing the lack of understanding of the effects of gymnasium building forms on energy consumption and PV potential. First, this study found significant differences in energy consumption in gymnasiums between different climate zones, indicating that suitable building forms vary according to climatic conditions. Furthermore, this study further validates the main effects of climatic conditions on heating and cooling energy consumption [26,30,32]. This study discovered that the building orientation has a minor influence on gymnasium energy consumption, which differs from previous research findings [27]. This is primarily because the gymnasiums simulated in this study had centralized and symmetrical floor layouts with uniform window-to-wall ratios in all directions. Second, the impact of orientation on PVPG was particularly significant for gymnasiums with single-slope roofs, whereas gymnasiums with symmetrical roofs were less affected by orientation. This is consistent with the study by Jiang et al., who also pointed out the advantages of single-slope roofs in terms of solar potential [13]. Additionally, in other studies on building PV potential in typical cities in the five different climate zones considered for this study, the PV potential showed the same trend [62,63]. Finally, this study found that the carbon-saving capacity of buildings using PV in the moderate high irradiation climate zone was significantly higher than that of the rest of the regions because of not only their low energy consumption but also their higher PV power production. This is in line with previous findings, such as that of Shi et al., who showed that the use of photovoltaic-integrated shading devices in better-form dwellings produces more energy than their energy consumption [62].

4.2. Study Implications

Most studies mainly focus on the effect of building form and orientation on energy consumption or solar potential. By contrast, this study comprehensively considers how building form and orientation influence energy consumption, PV generation, and carbon emissions based on different climate perspectives. The conclusions confirm that the choice of the appropriate form and orientation of the gymnasium building contributes to the reduction in energy use and the increase in PV generation, thus achieving the goal of reducing carbon emissions.
The results of this study have important implications for building design. First, the results can guide the low-carbon design of gymnasiums in various climate zones in China, as well as assist architects in making rapid choices during the building form selection stage. Moreover, the technical framework used in this study can be applied to other types of large-scale building designs to assess the influence of form on energy consumption and PV generation.

4.3. Limitations and Future Work

Although this study examined the carbon-saving potential of up to 10 typical forms of gymnasiums, it could not fully cover all possible building forms, as actual building designs are more diverse and complex. Therefore, it is necessary to develop optimized design methods, specifically for complex building forms, to keep pace with gymnasium design trends. While exploring gymnasium building forms, this study mainly focused on the carbon strategy for integrating BIPV systems on the roof. However, several other carbon-reduction strategies related to gymnasiums are present, such as the arrangement of shading devices [22], passive ventilation, and HVAC system control [5,23]. Further research should comprehensively consider the effects of energy-saving strategies on the selection of building forms. The design of a building envelope is also an important means of reducing carbon emissions from buildings. In this study, simple parameters were set for building envelopes in different climate zones based on building codes. Subsequent studies will consider the design of specific building envelope configurations and materials in detail. The heat transfer rate of a building structure [64,65] was investigated in relation to the effects of phase change materials (PCMs) [66], double-glazed low-emissivity materials [67], and other advanced isolation materials on building carbon emissions.

5. Conclusions

This study summarized 10 typical gymnasium building forms and used the Ladybug and Honeybee plugins to calculate the energy use intensity (EUI), photovoltaic power generation potential (PVPG), and CO2 emission (CE). It compared the influence of gymnasium building forms and orientations on energy consumption, PV potential, and carbon emissions under different climatic conditions. The primary findings can be summarized as follows.
(1)
According to Section 3.1.1, changing the building orientation can reduce the EUI in the five climate zones by 0.5–2.5%. However, as stated in Section 3.1.2, changing the building form can further increase the reduction in EUI to 1.9–6.4%, indicating that the influence of the gymnasium building form on EUI is greater than that of orientation. Elliptical floor plans with convex roofs are suitable for severe cold medium irradiation and cold and summer hot climate zones, rectangular floor plans with double-slope roofs are suitable for hot and humid cold winter and hot and high humid climate zones. and rectangular floor plans with single-slope curved roofs are suitable for moderate high irradiation climate zones with less climate variation.
(2)
According to Section 3.2.1, the PVPG of gymnasiums with single-slope roofs is highly sensitive to changes in building orientation, with variations ranging from 6.5% to 14.4%, which is significantly higher than the 0–2.5% for symmetrical roofs. According to Section 3.2.2, when the building form was changed, the maximum increase in PVPG for the five climate zones ranged from 7.6% to 11.1%. Rectangular floor plans with single-slope roofs and elliptical floor plans with saddle roofs are more suitable for BIPV.
(3)
Optimizing the building orientation and form of gymnasiums can significantly reduce the CE when integrating BIPV systems on the roof. According to Section 3.3.1, when changing the building orientation, the CE for single-slope roofs exhibited the most significant fluctuations, with reductions ranging from 7.8% to 68.1% in the five climate zones, which were significantly higher than those for symmetrical roof forms. Section 3.3.2 shows that when changing the building form was changed, the CE reductions in the five climate zones ranged from 8.7% to 72.0%. Elliptical floor plans with convex roofs are suitable for severe cold medium irradiation climate zones; rectangular floor plans with arched roofs are suitable for cold and summer hot climate zones; and rectangular floor plans with single-slope curved roofs are suitable for hot and humid cold winters, hot and high humid, and moderate high irradiation climate zones.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.D. and H.D.; methodology, Y.D. and H.D.; software, H.D. and R.Z.; validation, Y.D., H.D. and R.Z.; formal analysis, Y.D. and H.D.; investigation, Y.D. and H.D.; resources, Y.D. and R.Z.; data curation, Y.D., H.D. and X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.D. and H.D.; writing—review and editing, Y.D. and H.D.; visualization, H.D. and X.L.; supervision, Y.D. and R.Z.; project administration, Y.D.; funding acquisition, Y.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Key Research and Development Program Project of 2023, Heilongjiang Province, China (Innovation Base, JD2023SJ01).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ebi, K.L.; Vanos, J.; Baldwin, J.W.; Bell, J.E.; Hondula, D.M.; Errett, N.A.; Hayes, K.; Reid, C.E.; Saha, S.; Spector, J.; et al. Extreme Weather and Climate Change: Population Health and Health System Implications. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2021, 42, 293–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. GlobalABC. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zhang, C.; Luo, H. Research on Carbon Emission Peak Prediction and Path of China’s Public Buildings: Scenario Analysis Based on LEAP Model. Energy Build. 2023, 289, 113053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Systems, M.I. Retracted: Spatial Heterogeneity Analysis of Resource Allocation Efficiency of Sports Venues in China from the Perspective of Polarization Theory. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2023, 2023, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yue, N.; Li, L.; Morandi, A.; Zhao, Y. A Metamodel-Based Multi-Objective Optimization Method to Balance Thermal Comfort and Energy Efficiency in a Campus Gymnasium. Energy Build. 2021, 253, 111513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Xiong, D.; Cheng, K.; Chen, J. Climate-Adaptive Design Strategies of Sports Stadia in a Hot Summer and Cold Winter Zone: A Case Study of Nanjing. Buildings 2023, 13, 2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boccalatte, A.; Thebault, M.; Ménézo, C.; Ramousse, J.; Fossa, M. Evaluating the Impact of Urban Morphology on Rooftop Solar Radiation: A New City-Scale Approach Based on Geneva GIS Data. Energy Build. 2022, 260, 111919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, W.; Liu, K.; Zhang, M.; Shen, Y.; Jing, R.; Xu, X. From Simulation to Data-Driven Approach: A Framework of Integrating Urban Morphology to Low-Energy Urban Design. Renew. Energy 2021, 179, 2016–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xie, M.; Wang, M.; Zhong, H.; Li, X.; Li, B.; Mendis, T.; Xu, S. The Impact of Urban Morphology on the Building Energy Consumption and Solar Energy Generation Potential of University Dormitory Blocks. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 96, 104644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Peng, C.; Huang, Y.; Wu, Z. Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) in Architectural Design in China. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 3592–3598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shukla, A.K.; Sudhakar, K.; Baredar, P.; Mamat, R. Solar PV and BIPV System: Barrier, Challenges and Policy Recommendation in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3314–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Osseweijer, F.J.W.; Van Den Hurk, L.B.P.; Teunissen, E.J.H.M.; Van Sark, W.G.J.H.M. A Review of the Dutch Ecosystem for Building Integrated Photovoltaics. Energy Procedia 2017, 111, 974–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jiang, L.; Liu, W.; Liao, H.; Li, J. Investigation of the Geometric Shape Effect on the Solar Energy Potential of Gymnasium Buildings. Energies 2020, 13, 6369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Li, S.; Zhang, T.; Liu, X.; Xue, Z.; Liu, X. Performance Investigation of a Grid-Connected System Integrated Photovoltaic, Battery Storage and Electric Vehicles: A Case Study for Gymnasium Building. Energy Build. 2022, 270, 112255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bogenstätter, U. Prediction and Optimization of Life-Cycle Costs in Early Design. Build. Res. Inf. 2000, 28, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hemsath, T.L.; Alagheband Bandhosseini, K. Sensitivity Analysis Evaluating Basic Building Geometry’s Effect on Energy Use. Renew. Energy 2015, 76, 526–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, L.; Wu, D.; Li, X.; Hou, S.; Liu, C.; Jones, P. Effect of Geometric Factors on the Energy Performance of High-Rise Office Towers in Tianjin, China. Build. Simul. 2017, 10, 625–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kämpf, J.H.; Montavon, M.; Bunyesc, J.; Bolliger, R.; Robinson, D. Optimisation of Buildings’ Solar Irradiation Availability. Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Azami, A.; Sevinç, H. The Energy Performance of Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) by Determination of Optimal Building Envelope. Build. Environ. 2021, 199, 107856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hachem, C.; Athienitis, A.; Fazio, P. Parametric Investigation of Geometric Form Effects on Solar Potential of Housing Units. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 1864–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dong, Y.; Qin, T.; Zhou, S.; Huang, L.; Bo, R.; Guo, H.; Yin, X. Comparative Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Saving and Carbon Reduction Performance of Reinforced Concrete and Timber Stadiums—A Case Study in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fan, Z.; Liu, M.; Tang, S. A Multi-Objective Optimization Design Method for Gymnasium Facade Shading Ratio Integrating Energy Load and Daylight Comfort. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Guo, W.; Liang, S.; He, Y.; Li, W.; Xiong, B.; Wen, H. Combining EnergyPlus and CFD to Predict and Optimize the Passive Ventilation Mode of Medium-Sized Gymnasium in Subtropical Regions. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lingling, L.; Naihua, Y. Climate Adaptation Research on the Energy-Saving Design of Gymnasiums in Cold Regions. Desalination Water Treat. 2014, 52, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Manni, M.; Petrozzi, A.; Coccia, V.; Nicolini, A.; Cotana, F. Investigating Alternative Development Strategies for Sport Arenas Based on Active and Passive Systems. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 31, 101340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yang, J.; Zhang, Q. Effect of the Spatial Form of Outpatient Buildings on Energy Consumption in Different Climate Zones in China. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0293982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zerefos, S.C.; Tessas, C.A.; Kotsiopoulos, A.M.; Founda, D.; Kokkini, A. The Role of Building Form in Energy Consumption: The Case of a Prismatic Building in Athens. Energy Build. 2012, 48, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Giouri, E.D.; Tenpierik, M.; Turrin, M. Zero Energy Potential of a High-Rise Office Building in a Mediterranean Climate: Using Multi-Objective Optimization to Understand the Impact of Design Decisions towards Zero-Energy High-Rise Buildings. Energy Build. 2020, 209, 109666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gan, V.J.L.; Wong, H.K.; Tse, K.T.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Lo, I.M.C.; Chan, C.M. Simulation-Based Evolutionary Optimization for Energy-Efficient Layout Plan Design of High-Rise Residential Buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 1375–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Raji, B.; Tenpierik, M.; Van Den Dobbelsteen, A. Early-Stage Design Considerations for the Energy-Efficiency of High-Rise Office Buildings. Sustainability 2017, 9, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ola, F.B.; Sekarlangit, N.; Michelle, B. Heat Transfer in the Universal Form of High-Rise Buildings in Various Climate Zones. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2021, 25, 187–194. [Google Scholar]
  32. Deng, X.; Wang, M.; Sun, D.; Fan, Z. Effect of Building Form on Energy Consumption of Academic Library Buildings in Different Climate Zones in China. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 531, 012060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Premrov, M.; Žegarac Leskovar, V.; Mihalič, K. Influence of the Building Shape on the Energy Performance of Timber-Glass Buildings in Different Climatic Conditions. Energy 2016, 108, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zomer, C.; Rüther, R. Simplified Method for Shading-Loss Analysis in BIPV Systems—Part 1: Theoretical Study. Energy Build. 2017, 141, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yang, L.; Liu, X.; Qian, F. Optimal Configurations of High-Rise Buildings to Maximize Solar Energy Generation Efficiency of Building-Integrated Photovoltaic Systems. Indoor Built Environ. 2019, 28, 1104–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hassan, A.A.; El-Rayes, K. Optimal Use of Renewable Energy Technologies during Building Schematic Design Phase. Appl. Energy 2024, 353, 122006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yazdani, H.; Baneshi, M. Building Energy Comparison for Dynamic Cool Roofs and Green Roofs under Various Climates. Sol. Energy 2021, 230, 764–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Panagiotidou, M.; Brito, M.C.; Hamza, K.; Jasieniak, J.J.; Zhou, J. Prospects of Photovoltaic Rooftops, Walls and Windows at a City to Building Scale. Sol. Energy 2021, 230, 675–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kumar, N.M.; Sudhakar, K.; Samykano, M. Performance of Thin-Film BIPV as Double Sloped Pitched Roof in Buildings of Malaysia. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2018, 40, 2476–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kaji Esfahani, S.; Tenorio, R.; Karrech, A.; Defendi, K.; Jerez, F. Analysing the Role of Roof Mounted BIPV System Optimization on Decreasing the Effect of Duck Curve in Perth, Western Australia: An Experimental Case Study. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Youssef, A.M.A.; Zhai, Z.J.; Reffat, R.M. Generating Proper Building Envelopes for Photovoltaics Integration with Shape Grammar Theory. Energy Build. 2018, 158, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Youssef, A.M.A.; Zhai, Z.J.; Reffat, R.M. Genetic Algorithm Based Optimization for Photovoltaics Integrated Building Envelope. Energy Build. 2016, 127, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Youssef, A.M.A.; Zhai, Z.J.; Reffat, R.M. Design of Optimal Building Envelopes with Integrated Photovoltaics. Build. Simul. 2015, 8, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Samarasinghalage, T.I.; Wijeratne, W.M.P.U.; Yang, R.J.; Wakefield, R. A Multi-Objective Optimization Framework for Building-Integrated PV Envelope Design Balancing Energy and Cost. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 342, 130930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ciardiello, A.; Rosso, F.; Dell’Olmo, J.; Ciancio, V.; Ferrero, M.; Salata, F. Multi-Objective Approach to the Optimization of Shape and Envelope in Building Energy Design. Appl. Energy 2020, 280, 115984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Thermal Design Code for Civil Building (GB 50176-2016); China Architecture & Building: Beijing, China, 2016.
  47. Oral, G.K.; Yilmaz, Z. Building Form for Cold Climatic Zones Related to Building Envelope from Heating Energy Conservation Point of View. Energy Build. 2003, 35, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sun, D.Y. Research on Energy Performance Criteria for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, China Academy of Building Research, Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. Liu, C.; Xu, W.; Li, A.; Sun, D.; Huo, H. Analysis and Optimization of Load Matching in Photovoltaic Systems for Zero Energy Buildings in Different Climate Zones of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, C.; Xu, W.; Li, A.; Sun, D.; Huo, H. Energy Balance Evaluation and Optimization of Photovoltaic Systems for Zero Energy Residential Buildings in Different Climate Zones of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1202–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, J.; Li, J.; Cheng, J. Spatial Disparity of Sports Infrastructure Development and Urbanization Determinants in China: Evidence from the Sixth National Sports Venues Census. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Standard for Green Performance Calculation of Civil buildings (JGJ/T 449-2018); China Architecture & Building: Beijing, China, 2018.
  53. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Code for Design of Sports Buildings (JGJ 31-2003); China Architecture & Building: Beijing, China, 2003.
  54. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. General Code for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Application in Buildings (GB 55015-2021); China Architecture & Building: Beijing, China, 2021.
  55. Konis, K.; Gamas, A.; Kensek, K. Passive Performance and Building Form: An Optimization Framework for Early-Stage Design Support. Sol. Energy 2016, 125, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tian, X.; Wang, J.; Yuan, S.; Ji, J.; Ke, W.; Wang, C. Investigation on the Electrical Performance of a Curved PV Roof Integrated with CIGS Cells for Traditional Chinese Houses. Energy 2023, 263, 125911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ramanujam, J.; Bishop, D.M.; Todorov, T.K.; Gunawan, O.; Rath, J.; Nekovei, R.; Artegiani, E.; Romeo, A. Flexible CIGS, CdTe and a-Si:H Based Thin Film Solar Cells: A Review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2020, 110, 100619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barman, B.; Kalita, P.K. Influence of Back Surface Field Layer on Enhancing the Efficiency of CIGS Solar Cell. Sol. Energy 2021, 216, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bednar, N.; Caviasca, A.; Sevela, P.; Severino, N.; Adamovic, N. Modelling of Flexible Thin-Film Modules for Building and Product Integrated Photovoltaics. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, 181, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kong, H.; Yu, Z.; Zhang, J.; Han, Y.; Wu, L.; Wang, H.; Wang, J. Perspective of CIGS-BIPV’s Product Competitiveness in China. Int. J. Photoenergy 2020, 2020, 5392594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ghosh, A. Potential of Building Integrated and Attached/Applied Photovoltaic (BIPV/BAPV) for Adaptive Less Energy-Hungry Building’s Skin: A Comprehensive Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shi, S.; Sun, J.; Liu, M.; Chen, X.; Gao, W.; Song, Y. Energy-Saving Potential Comparison of Different Photovoltaic Integrated Shading Devices (PVSDs) for Single-Story and Multi-Story Buildings. Energies 2022, 15, 9196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, C.; Zhou, D.; Zheng, Y. Techno-Economic Comparative Study of Grid-Connected PV Power Systems in Five Climate Zones, China. Energy 2018, 165, 1352–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, F.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Gao, W.; Cao, Y. A Numerical Investigation of the Thermal Performance of a Gabion Building Envelope in Cold Regions with a Mountainous Climate. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chbani Idrissi, Y.; Belarbi, R.; Ferroukhi, M.Y.; Feddaoui, M.; Agliz, D. Development of a Numerical Approach to Assess the Effect of Coupled Heat and Moisture Transfer on Energy Consumption of Residential Buildings in Moroccan Context. J. Build. Phys. 2022, 45, 774–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ait Laasri, I.; Outzourhit, A.; Oualid Mghazli, M. Multi-Parameter Analysis of Different Building Forms in a Semi-Arid Climate: Effect of Building Construction and Phase Change Materials. Sol. Energy 2023, 250, 220–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. O’Neill, R.; Window, A.; Kenway, S.; Dargusch, P. Integrated Operational and Life-Cycle Modelling of Energy, Carbon and Cost for Building Façades. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 01656 g001
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 16 01656 g001
Sustainability 16 01656 g002
Figure 2. Representative cities of different climate zones and sports infrastructure development index in China [51].
Figure 2. Representative cities of different climate zones and sports infrastructure development index in China [51].
Sustainability 16 01656 g002
Sustainability 16 01656 g003
Figure 3. The 10 typical forms of BIPV gymnasium with 36 orientations.
Figure 3. The 10 typical forms of BIPV gymnasium with 36 orientations.
Sustainability 16 01656 g003
Sustainability 16 01656 g004
Figure 4. EUI of all forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones under different orientations.
Figure 4. EUI of all forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones under different orientations.
Sustainability 16 01656 g004
Sustainability 16 01656 g005
Figure 5. Comparing the EUI of different forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones.
Figure 5. Comparing the EUI of different forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones.
Sustainability 16 01656 g005
Sustainability 16 01656 g006
Figure 6. PVPG of all forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones in different orientations.
Figure 6. PVPG of all forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones in different orientations.
Sustainability 16 01656 g006
Sustainability 16 01656 g007
Figure 7. Comparison of the PVPG of different forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones.
Figure 7. Comparison of the PVPG of different forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones.
Sustainability 16 01656 g007
Sustainability 16 01656 g008
Figure 8. CE of all forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones in different orientations.
Figure 8. CE of all forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones in different orientations.
Sustainability 16 01656 g008
Sustainability 16 01656 g009
Figure 9. Comparison of the CE of different forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones.
Figure 9. Comparison of the CE of different forms of gymnasiums in five climate zones.
Sustainability 16 01656 g009
Table 1. Meteorological data for five cities.
Table 1. Meteorological data for five cities.
Representative CityHarbinBeijingShanghaiGuangzhouKunming
Climate ZonesSevere Cold Medium IrradiationCold and Summer HotHot and Humid Cold WinterHot and High HumidModerate High Irradiation
Dry-bulb
temperature (°C)		5.5312.6516.6923.1116.01
Dew-point
temperature (°C)		−1.28.7712.8217.69.27
Relative
humidity (%)		64.0776.887873.0868.82
Wind speed (m/s)2.552.353.252.354.03
Wind direction (°)214.18166.66164.53167.9181.13
Direct normal radiation (Wh/m2)199.69219.16151.42144.55195.27
Diffuse horizontal radiation (Wh/m2)58.6160.7170.0567.867.12
Barometric pressure (Pa)100,025.28101,312.82101,683.15101,166.8681,324.06
Table 2. Energy consumption simulation operation parameter settings.
Table 2. Energy consumption simulation operation parameter settings.
ParameterSports SpaceAffiliate SpaceTraffic Space
Occupancy (person/m2)0.250.10.02
Personnel heat dissipation (W/person)407134134
Cooling set point (°C)161816
Heating set point (°C)262626
Lighting power density (W/m2)777
Internal equipment power density (W/m2)101010
Air infiltration rate (m3/s·m2)0.00030.00030.0003
Mechanical ventilation rate (m3/h·person)202020
Table 3. Energy consumption simulation of enclosure structure parameter settings.
Table 3. Energy consumption simulation of enclosure structure parameter settings.
ParameterHarbinBeijingShanghaiGuangzhouKunming
External wall U-value (W/m2·K)0.350.50.60.70.8
Roof U-value (W/m2·K)0.250.40.40.40.5
Glazing U-Value (W/m2·K)1.71.92.22.52.7
SHGC0.40.40.30.250.3
Ground floor R-value (m2·K/W)1.10.60.60.60.6
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dong, Y.; Duan, H.; Li, X.; Zhang, R. Influence of Different Forms on BIPV Gymnasium Carbon-Saving Potential Based on Energy Consumption and Solar Energy in Multi-Climate Zones. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041656

AMA Style

Dong Y, Duan H, Li X, Zhang R. Influence of Different Forms on BIPV Gymnasium Carbon-Saving Potential Based on Energy Consumption and Solar Energy in Multi-Climate Zones. Sustainability. 2024; 16(4):1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041656

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dong, Yu, Haoqi Duan, Xueshun Li, and Ruinan Zhang. 2024. "Influence of Different Forms on BIPV Gymnasium Carbon-Saving Potential Based on Energy Consumption and Solar Energy in Multi-Climate Zones" Sustainability 16, no. 4: 1656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16041656

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop