BIPV Simulation with Conventional Tools and Models; Do We Need More Accuracy?

The present work compares two simulation tools, SAM and PVsyst, to assess their suitability in analysing the behaviour of BIPV systems, with special focus on their management of the effect of shading losses in energy output estimations, in addition to module temperature. The simulations are performed for Building 42 in CIEMAT headquarters, which was renovated in 2017 with monitored BIPV systems on the east, south and west façades. The shading tools in both software are capable of modelling the environment through simple geometric elements; moreover, PVsyst also allows the use of an external 3D file that can simplify the process. The results of this study manifest that the 3D scene method used to assess the effect of shading can have a strong impact on the reliability of energy output estimations. When using the same 3D scenes through their built-in tools, SAM shows better performance than PVsyst. In contrast, PVsyst energy output results improve significantly when using an imported 3D digital asset exchange file derived from Light Detection and Ranging data. This discrepancy in results remarks the need for special attention regarding the configuration and modelling of shading elements, which requires future work to better understand the simulation methods in each tool.