The current research presents the design and development of a prefabricated modular façade solution for renovating residential buildings. The system is conceived as an industrialised solution that incorporates solar harvesting technologies, contributing to reducing energy consumption by employing an “active façade” concept. One of the main challenges was to achieve a highly flexible solution both in terms of geometry and enabling the incorporation of different solar-capturing devices (photovoltaic, thermal, and hybrid). Therefore, to be able to provide alternative customised configurations that can be fitted to various building renovation scenarios. Guided by the requirements and specifications, the design was defined after an iterative process, concluding with a final system design validated and adopted as viable for the intended purpose. A dimensional study for interconnecting all the technologies composing the system was carried out. Potential alternative configurations were assessed under the modularity and versatility perspective, resulting in a set of alternative combinations that better fit the established requirements. Complementarily, the system also integrates an active window solution a component that incorporates an autonomous energy recovery system through ventilation. The main outcome is explicated in a highly versatile modular façade system, which gives existing buildings the possibility to achieve Nearly Zero Energy Building requirements.

Purpose: The objective of this article is to present a critical analysis of the contribution of KUBIK as a Research Infrastructure or Test Bed Building (TBB) to the research and development of industrialised constructive and digital based solutions for building. The analysis will consist of reviewing multiple projects that have used the building as a TBB and, instead of assessing the outcomes of all those projects, the interest, benefits and limitations of this unique infrastructure will be discussed herein. Main changes performed, recurrent activities, limitations for performing tests in parallel and singular activities will be presented. Design/methodology/approach: The methodology adopted is a “project-based” analysis. Implemented projects are first listed, then classified and clustered according to some concrete categories defined to finally perform a critical analysis to consider how valuable KUBIK is as a TBB. The aim is to extract relevant lessons for future research, considering each category in terms of the capabilities and also, aiming to identify limitations and future improvements. Findings: KUBIK has demonstrated its capacity to accommodate a wide array of R&D activities related to the development of construction solutions for enhancing energy efficiency in buildings. This accomplishment is attributable to its conceptualisation and development guided by the principles and concepts of Open Building. Limitations have also been identified in terms of its difficulty in undertaking the evaluation of structural or durability performances. Additionally, the high demand for R&D related to the envelope assessment has even required expanding the surface exposed to the south orientation. Research limitations/implications: The main limitations of this singular TBB infrastructure to accommodate R&D activities are mainly associated with space and technological capabilities. For the first, the recurrent test in south-oriented façades have even implied expanding the building with an adjacent extension. For the second, the incorporation of digital and innovative tools has allowed the incorporate of testing capabilities that were not foreseen. Social implications: KUBIK has been an excellent platform for the dissemination of R&D related to the industrialisation of construction and the practice of Open Building concepts. Over the years, many experts, professionals from the construction industry and university students, as well as public administration responsible for housing policy, have visited the infrastructure. Originality/value: In terms of the economic viability of KUBIK, the developments that have been supported by co-financing programmes involving industrial companies and innovation support entities, at regional, national or EU level. Finally, the experimental infrastructure itself has become an important means of dissemination for bringing industry closer to institutions involved in R&D and for attracting architecture and engineering students to this field of research.