PSI - Issue 55

48 Tahmineh Akbarinejad et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 55 (2024) 46–56 T Akbarinejad,* , E. Machlein, C. Bertolin, O.Ogutc, G. Lobaccaro, A. T.Salaj / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

3

5. Compatibility : the compatible criterion is covering several aspects such as technical (e.g., choice of materials, fixing system and hygrothermal components - avoiding the development of moisture), structural (i.e., to avoid excessive deflection due to e.g., snowfall, wind gusts, and ageing), aesthetic (e.g., choice of colour, texture of materials, spatial layout and morphological fit (P. López 2020)), chemical (difference in chemical components and properties between old and new materials that could react together or weathering at different degradation rates (Polo López et al. 2021)) and functional (more complex for BIPV that implies multi-functional properties beyond the merely generation of electricity, but also replacing tiles, the façade or the windows and therefore in need of fulfilling multi-functions). 6. Reliability & safety : Reliability refers to the assessment of the quality and durability of the transformation after the BIPV installation, which should be made in a way to avoid maintenance and decay (De Medici 2021). Whereas safety is evaluating the risks generated by the installation (e.g., fire and electrical safety, maintenance operations). 7. Non-invasiveness : this criterion has a twofold significance. On the one hand, non-invasiveness corresponds to the conservation value of keeping some authentic features on the building, on the other hand, it can be interpreted as the idea of not “tricking” the eye and exposing clearly what is authentic and what has been added (Kandt et al. 2011). The replaced parts of a building envelope should be distinguishable from the rest, while still being designed in harmony with its environment (Polo López et al. 2021; Polo López, Troia, and Nocera 2021). 8. Acceptability : Acceptability is complex to predict or measure as it is not tangible or material value. It strongly depends on the significance of a place and or building’s values e.g., historical, sentimental, symbolic, cultural, and social and whether those values are respected through the transformation. It can be seen as an individual perception or a community’s perception. 2.2. Barreires 1. Economic barriers : Economic barriers to PV-BIPV installations in historical areas primarily revolve around high initial costs, lengthy payback periods, and the elevated expenses associated with expert consultations to preserve architectural integrity, contributing to property owners' reluctance ( Jackson Inderberg et al., 2020; Kandt et al., 2011a; Mete Basar Baypinar, Enes Yasa, Selahattin Ersoy, Cem Beygo, Kerem Beygo, n.d.; Polo López, Troia, et al., 2021; Rosa, 2020) 2. Geographic barriers: The geographical barriers to BIPV implementation predominantly arise from location-specific legislation protecting cultural heritage and variances in local outdoor temperature affecting PV efficiency, coupled with policy and insufficient sunlight or landscape restriction. (Ibrahim et al., 2021 ; Sánchez-Pantoja et al., 2021). 3. Technical barriers: Involves limitations due to the need to preserve the historical integrity and aesthetic of an area, affecting the types or modifications of solar installations permissible and lack of standardized data in this field. (Durante et al., 2021; Formolli et al., 2022; Imenes, 2016; Mete Basar Baypinar, Enes Yasa, Selahattin Ersoy, Cem Beygo, Kerem Beygo, n.d.; Pelle et al., 2020; Polo López, Troia, et al., 2021; Rosa, 2020) 4. Legislation Barriers: Legislative and procedural barriers, including complicated authorization processes and a lack of clear legal guidelines, hinder the implementation of Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) in historic districts, with stringent regulations and fragmented legislation causing variations in solar initiatives between countries and within regions (Kandt et al., 2011a; Lucchi et al., 2022; Pelle et al., 2020; Polo López, Troia, et al., 2021; Sesana et al., 2019). The inconsistencies, unclear regulations, and the absence of universal solutions due to the unique nature of each site create uncertainties and deter advancements in integrating renewable energy solutions in protected and historically significant sites, despite the overarching support and encouragement from EU legislations and programs like Horizon 2020 for energy efficiency and renewable energy incorporation.(De Medici, 2021; Horizon Europe , 2022) 5. Conservation criteria: Revolve around the challenges and restrictions associated with conserving the architectural and cultural heritage of historical areas, limiting modifications and implementations of solar energy systems.(Ibrahim et al., 2021; Meraz, 2019; Polo López, Troia, et al., 2021; Roszczynska Kurasinska et al., 2021; Sesana et al., 2019; Tsoumanis et al., 2021)