Home Technology Analysis of renewable energy use in single-family housing
Article Open Access

Analysis of renewable energy use in single-family housing

  • Wojciech Drozd EMAIL logo and Marcin Kowalik
Published/Copyright: July 26, 2019
Download Article (PDF)
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Open Engineering
From the journal Open Engineering Volume 9 Issue 1

Abstract

The article presents the most frequently chosen heating systems for single-family houses and utility water heating by investors. The most popular installations based on conventional fuels using renewable energy sources were compared. A technical and cost analysis of the adopted cases was carried out. Finally, the most important conclusions resulting from the analys is were given. The article is mainly intended to encourage the reader - the investor to be to choose pro-ecological solutions based on modern technology that guarantees comfortable use and limited environmental pollution. The authors wanted to achieve the intended goal by presenting available heating systems and performing an in-depth analysis, after which the obtained results would be similar to the real situation.

Keywords: single-family housing; renewable energy

1 Introduction

Economic, economical, ecological systems of obtaining energy used in housing construction should be a duty and a requirement of modern times [1, 2, 3]. The current technique gives us the opportunity to combine comfort, safety and economical use with an environmentally friendly approach [4, 5]. The continuous increase in energy demand and shrinking deposits of conventional fuels lead to the discovery of more and more new renewable energy sources.

An important factor influencing the analysis of the use of energy from renewable sources in the construction industry is to investigate for what purpose most of the energy is consumed in the building. Thanks to such a study, you can choose the direction of saving that guarantees the

greatest benefits of cheap operation. Nowadays, energy is mainly used up to [6]:

  • space heating

  • DHW heating

  • lighting

  • electrical devices

  • cooking

It is obvious that different types of buildings and facilities have different needs, resulting primarily from differences related to the nature of use. Other energy needs have residential buildings, and other public buildings, such as schools, hospitals, offices or sports facilities. The conclusion is that a multi-criteria study should be carried out, which will clearly determine the correlation of energy use in a given type of facility, and thus indicate the most favourable development path.

The subject of the analysis in the article is exclusively single-family housing, because one investment entity decides about the investment choices. The study is to help the investor to make decisions most often based on financial options.

The presented energy balance (Figure 1) shows that heat required for space heating and domestic water heating has the largest share in the energy demand. It accounts for about 80 - 90% of total consumption, and thus it is a source of potential energy savings in the building operation process and thus is the main direction of technical and cost analysis in the article.

Figure 1 Structure of energy consumption in residential buildings in Poland. Source: Own study based on [6].
Figure 1

Structure of energy consumption in residential buildings in Poland. Source: Own study based on [6].

The method of space heating used, as well as insulation of walls, ceilings or roofs is very important, however, the article sets the best solution for heat distribution and thermal insulation that guarantees the lowest heat transfer coefficient. Thus, the heat source, the energy carrier used in it and the price of assembly and operation were analyzed.

Nowadays, the biggest dilemma for the investor, in this case for the building owner, is the use of systems using a renewable energy source (RES). Among people there is a lot of interest in such a solution, but still the question of the profitability of purchase and operation raises doubts. Every buyer would like to know what to choose, what to pay attention to, whether the costs of purchase and subsequent use are the cheapest of all solutions. Important issues for buyers are also: the selection of equipment and what to follow during the purchase and assembly, so that the entire heating system meets the required demand at a minimum cost.

2 Description of the most commonly used heating systems

Nowadays, many different heating systems for buildings i.e. central heating (CH) and domestic water heating (DHW) are installed. Generally, the conventional energy sources are used, however, they are partially or even completely becoming substituted via alternative sources. With such a large variety of systems, the analysis would be very difficult and the achieved goal would be less clear. Therefore, the article compared the most popular systems, i.e. the use of hard coal and natural gas from traditional sources, and solar installations and the use of renewable biomass from Oji. Popularity in the use of selected systems has been confirmed in a survey conducted among 60 respondents using various energy carriers. Its results were used in the article. The preliminary objective of the survey was to obtain a percentage share of energy carriers in the central heating and domestic water heating Each respondent could indicate only one main carrier with one use. In the case of heating water, he was to indicate the medium that is used in the summer months [7].

The diagram shown in Figure 2 presents that conventional sources dominate over renewable ones. As much as 51% of respondents indicated hard coal as the basic fuel. Only every fifth respondent in his building uses RES.

Figure 2 Percentage share of individual energy carriers used in single-family housing in central heating. Source: Own study.
Figure 2

Percentage share of individual energy carriers used in single-family housing in central heating. Source: Own study.

Figure 3 shows that gas-fired heaters indicated 40% and RES by 43% of respondents. In the case of hot water, the share of biomass accounts for 2/3 of the RES result, because many people use coal-fired boilers to burn a specific type of biomass. For heating water in the summer months, biofuels are used in the form of firewood or wood waste instead of coal, because they have lower heat (warm water requires less heat than heating) and does not require much effort in ignition (it is easy to light up wood) adequate humidity, which quickly gives away the heat heated by water).

Figure 3 Percentage share of individual energy carriers used in single-family housing in DHW systems. Source: Own study.
Figure 3

Percentage share of individual energy carriers used in single-family housing in DHW systems. Source: Own study.

Figures 2 and 3 show that users more often reach for conventional energy sources such as coal or natural gas. At present, RES is rarely chosen in Poland, and if so - it is based mainly on solar energy and biomass.

3 Energy demand in a single-family house

For the purpose of the analysis, the energy required for space heating and water heating in a building inhabited by a family of 5, located in the third climate zone, for which the design outdoor temperature is −20◦ C, was calculated, where:

(1)system C.H.:Q10962.21ηw[kWh/year]39.46ηDHW[GJ/year]
(2)system DHW:Q3346ηw[kWh/year]12.05ηDHW[GJ/year]

where:

ηw - efficiency of heat generation - the value depends on the adopted source of heat,

ηDHW - overall efficiency of the hot water preparation system - the value depends on the adopted system.

4 Technical and cost analysis of selected solutions

Two solutions from four energy sources (coal boilers, gas furnaces, biomass boilers and solar collectors) used in central heating systems were selected for the analysis. as well as the heat supply unit. Then the total cost was determined for them and the payback period was indicated.

As the total cost (Kc) it is understood:

  1. the initial cost (Kp):

  • the purchase cost of equipment (Kz),

  • the assembly costs (Km),

  • the start-up cost (Kr).

  1. the annual costs of use (Ku):

  • the cost of the energy carrier (Kn) used,

  • the cost of electricity consumed by devices (Ke),

  • any additional costs related to operation (Kd).

4.1 Coal boilers

Variant I concerns the purchase of a cheap popular boiler with lower combustion, in which the basic fuel is hard coal, sorted, nut type. Boilers of this type are equipped with a controller and a blower fan, therefore they have greater stability of work, saving and efficiency in use.

Characteristic

  1. Nominal power: 12 [kW]

  2. Fuel: hard coal

  3. Efficiency: 80%

  4. Power consumption: 40 [W]

  5. Average fuel consumption: 1.1 [kg/h]

  6. Warranty: 4 years

  7. Boiler price: 879 [EUR]

The price of fuel depends largely on the location. The coal recommended in this boiler (Walnut II) is sold by the mine at a price of about 160.5 [EURO], while with handling costs and transport to the customer at a price of 176.5 [EUR / t] for coal with a calorific value of 28 [MJ/kg] [8].

Variant II was based on the purchase of a more modern boiler equipped with a retort burner enabling more efficient combustion of coal fuel. The furnace is equipped with a control, a blower fan, and a fuel feeder enabling a longer, maintenance-free work. The recommended type of fuel is hard coal (pea type).

Characteristic

  1. Nominal power: 14 [kW]

  2. Fuel: hard coal

  3. Efficiency: 85%

  4. Power consumption: 180 [W]

  5. Average fuel consumption: 1.0 [kg/h]

  6. Warranty: 5 years

  7. Boiler price: 1965 [EUR]

In the selected combustion boiler, low granulation coal is recommended, which results from the used burner and fuel feeder. The price of coal burned in such a boiler with its calorific value 27 [MJ/kg] [8] is about 167.5 [EUR/t].

In the given solutions, it will be necessary to purchase a heat exchanger that will accumulate hot usable water heated by a coal-fired boiler. The exchanger should have a capacity of 150% of the daily requirement, i.e. in this case 250 - 300 [dm3].

Calculations [9]:

Initial cost:Variant IVariant II
Boiler purchase [EUR]8791965
Purchase of heat323323
exchangers heat [EUR] (2x140l-695 EUR/unit)
Boiler installation [EUR]116174
Installation of the exchanger [EUR]46.546.5
Initial start [EUR]11.523
Total Kp [EUR]1376.52531.5

The demand for thermal energy [GJ/year] is the sum of individual energies in central heating and domestic water heating divided by appropriate heat sources efficiency:

For variant I:

(3)39.46ηw[GJ/year]+12.05ηDHW[GJ/year]=39.46+12.0580%[GJ/year]=64.39[GJ/year]

For variant II:

(4)39.46ηw[GJ/year]+12.05ηDHW[GJ/year]=39.46+12.0585%[GJ/year]=60.60[GJ/year]

where:

ηw - efficiency of heat generation - the value depends on the adopted source of heat,

ηDHW - overall efficiency of the hot water preparation system - the value depends on the adopted system.

With the demand for electric energy used for the operation of fans, feeders and controllers, it was assumed that they work 2/3 of the total boiler operation time, i.e. 2/3 of 5100 h (of which 5100 h is the average number of hours in the heating period).

For variant I:

(5)40W⋆23⋆5100h=136000Wh=136kWh

For variant II:

(6)180W⋆23⋆5100h=612000Wh=612[kWh]
Usage costs:Variant IVariant II
Required fuel quantity [t/year]64.39GJyear28MJkg=2.3060,60GJyear27MJkg=2.24
The unit price of coal [EUR/t]176.5167.5
Total Kn:406 EUR375 EUR
Demand for electricity [kWh/year]64,39GJyear28MJkg=2.3060,60GJyear27MJkg=2.24
Unit price [EUR/kWh]0.130.13
Total Ke:17.5 EUR80 EUR
Additional costs related to operation
Cleaning agent for soot boiler (3kg of measure for 1t of coal, 1kg)19 EUR18.5 EUR

The sum of annual costs of use: Ku = Kn + Ke + Kd For variant I:

(7)Ku=406EUR+7.5EUR+19EUR=442.5EUR

For variant II:

(8)Ku=375EUR+80EUR+18.5EUR=473.5EUR

Total cost:

(9)Kc=Kp+Ku⋆t,

Where:

Kc – the total cost,

Kp – the initial cost,

Ku – the costs of use,

Kn – the cost of the energy carrier used,

Ke – the cost of electricity consumed by devices,

Kd – any additional costs related to operation.

t – time of use given in years, assuming a service life of 20 years:

For variant I:

(10)Kc=1376.5[EUR]+442.5[EUR/year] ⋆20[year]       =10226.5[EUR]

For variant II:

(11)Kc=2532.5[EUR]+473.5[EUR/year] ⋆20[year]       =12002.5[EUR]

The obtained results indicate that it is more advantageous to install a cheaper coal boiler, which does not require a large amount of electricity for its work. A modern burner, thanks to which the boiler achieves higher efficiency, requires a fuel feeder with additional equipment, which consumes several times more electricity than a traditional solution, based on manual refuelling. Please note that the analysis did not take into account the work and comfort of the owner and all other factors other than economic.

4.2 Gas boilers

Variant I concerns the purchase of a conventional dual-function gas boiler, with a closed combustion chamber, with the following parameters [10]:

  1. Power for central heating 8.9-24 [kW]

  2. Power for heat (DHW) 24 [kW]

  3. Maximum efficiency: 91%

  4. Electric power consumption: 130 [W]

  5. Fuel type: natural gas type E / Lw / Ls / propane

  6. Average fuel consumption: E 2.77 / Lw 3.38 / Ls 3.85 [m3/h]

  7. Warranty: 5 year

  8. Price of the boiler: 1003.5 [EUR]

Variant II concerns the purchase of a condensing gas boiler with an integrated storage heater. Parameters of the boiler:

  1. Power for central heating 6.6-24 [kW]

  2. Power for heat (DHW) 29.7 [kW]

  3. Maximum efficiency: 109%

  4. Electric power consumption: 110 [W]

  5. Fuel type: natural gas type E/Lw/Ls/LPG

  6. Warranty: 5 years

  7. Price of the boiler: 2734 [EUR]

In both cases, the recommended type of fuel is high-methane natural gas (type E) with heat combustion 39.5 [MJ/m3] and a calorific value 34.5 [MJ/m3].

Otherwise, the investor should purchase a conversion kit (about 70 EUR), and the boiler itself should be adjusted by the service.

Calculations [10]:

Initial cost:Variant IVariant II
Boiler purchase [EUR]1003.52734
Installation [EUR]139.5139.5
Initial start [EUR]--
Total Kp [EUR]11432873.5

The demand for thermal energy [GJ/year] is the sum of individual energies in central heating and domestic water heating divided by appropriate heat sources efficiency:

For variant I:

(12)39.46ηw[GJ/year]+12.05ηDHW[GJ/year]=39.46+12.0591%[GJ/year]=56.60[GJ/year]

For variant II:

(13)39.46ηw[GJ/year]+12.05ηDHW[GJ/year]=39.46+12.05109%[GJ/year]=47.26[GJ/year]

where:

ηw - efficiency of heat generation - the value depends on the adopted source of heat,

ηDHW - overall efficiency of the hot water preparation system - the value depends on the adopted system.

The demand for electricity used for the correct operation of boilers was assumed in the same way as in the case of coal boilers. The exact momentary power consumption values are not taken into account, as this is not the subject of analysis.

For variant I:

(14)130W⋆23⋆5100h=442000Wh=442kWh

For variant II:

(15)110W ⋆ 23 ⋆5100h=374000Wh=374[kWh]
Usage costs:Variant IVariant II
Required fuel quantity [m3/year]56.60GJyear34.5MJm3=164147.26GJyear34.5MJm3=1370
The unit price of gas [EUR/m3]0.570.57
Total Kn:935 EUR781 EUR
Demand for electricity [kWh/year]442374
Unit price [EUR/kWh]0.130.13
Total Ke:57.5 EUR48.5 EUR
Additional costs related to operation
Annual maintenance70 EUR81 EUR
along with gas line
inspection:

The sum of annual costs of use: Ku = Kn + Ke + Kd For variant I:

(16)Ku=935EUR+57.5EUR+70EUR=1062.5EUR

For variant II:

(17)Ku=781EUR+48.5EUR+81EUR=910.5EUR

Total cost:

(18)Kc=Kp+Ku⋆t,

Where:

Kc – the total cost,

Kp – the initial cost,

Ku – the costs of use,

Kn – the cost of the energy carrier used,

Ke – the cost of electricity consumed by devices,

Kd – any additional costs related to operation.

t – time of use given in years, assuming a service life of 20 years:

For variant I:

(19)Kc=1143[EUR]+1062.5[EUR/year] ⋆20[year]       =22393[EUR]

For variant II:

(20)Kc=2873.5[EUR]+910.5[EUR/year] ⋆20[year]       =21083.5[EUR]

The obtained results indicate that a more favourable solution is to install a modern condensing boiler with very high efficiency of work, and thus lower consumption of natural gas, that is - lower costs. In this case, the investment in a new technology turns out to be profitable despite more than twice higher initial costs.

5 Calculation of the simple payback period (SPBP)

SPBP = ΔKpΔKu– the ratio of the difference between the initial costs and the difference in the cost of use

(21)ΔKp=ΔKp(B)−ΔKp(A)=2873.5[EUR]           −1143[EUR]=1730.5 EUR
(22)ΔKu=ΔKu(A)−ΔKu(B)=1062.5 EUR/year           −910.5 EUR/year=152 EUR/year
(23)SPBP=1730.5 EUR152 EUR/year=11.38 years

A simple payback period shows that it takes a little over 11 years of trouble-free operation to make an investment in a dual-purpose condensing gas boiler to pay back. Comparing gas and coal boilers you can see that the costs of use are much higher for gas combustion, and the analysis of the 20-year period shows that this system is 80% more expensive. Despite of this, heating installations based on this type of fuel are very popular.

5.1 Biomass boilers

Variant I enables to calculate the purchase of a gasifying boiler with a structure allowing for burning briquette, firewood and waste from it. It is now a very popular solution, because most of boilers offered have the option of burning also coal. The calorific value of the fuel that has been accepted for the calculation is 15 [MJ/kg]. This is the value corresponding to beech wood with a humidity of 15%. The price of beechwood is about 46.5 [EUR/m3],which with its density of 600 [kg/m3] gives about 76.5 [EUR/t] [11].

Parameters of the boiler:

  1. Nominal power 14 [kW]

  2. Maximum efficiency: 80%

  3. Electric power consumption: 40 [W]

  4. Fuel type: wood/briquettes/wood chips/carbon

  5. Warranty: 7 years

  6. Price of the boiler: 1000 [EUR]

Variant II applies to the installation of a boiler equipped with a modern burner, controller and feeder. The unit is fully automated, ensuring minimal losses with maximum safety and comfort of use. It is a solution for burning pellets and oats, which are automatically fed to the boiler from the tank. The tank itself, depending on the boiler load, is topped up with fuel every 3 to 14 days, which ensures larger comfort of use. The calorific value of the pellet is approximately 19 [MJ/kg]. It is delivered throughout Poland at a price of around 186 [EUR/t]. The oat calorific value is 17 [MJ/kg], and its price with the supply is 158 [EUR/t]. Equal amounts of both fuels are fed, 50/50, therefore the average calorific value is 18 [MJ/kg] and the average price of 172 [EUR/t] was adopted [11].

Parameters of the boiler:

  1. Nominal power 14 [kW]

  2. Fuel: pellets / pellets-oats in a 50/50 ratio

  3. Efficiency: 92.8%

  4. Momentary power consumption during firing up: 400 [W]

  5. Warranty: 7 years

  6. Price of the boiler: 1965 [EUR]

In the given solutions, similarly to coal-fired boilers, it will be necessary to purchase a heat exchanger that will accumulate hot utility water heated by a coal-fired boiler. The capacity of the tanks is selected similarly, i.e. 2x140l

Initial cost:Variant IVariant II
Boiler purchase [EUR]10001965
Purchase of heat323323
exchangers heat [EUR] Boiler installation [EUR]116174
Installation of the exchanger [EUR]46.546.5
Initial start [EUR]11.523
Total Kp [EUR]14972531.5

Demand for heat energy [GJ/year], calculated in the same way as for coal and gas boilers:

For variant I:

(24)39.46ηw[GJ/year]+12.05ηDHW[GJ/year]=39.46+12.0580%[GJ/year]=64.39[GJ/year]

For variant II:

(25)39.46ηw[GJ/year]+12.05ηcDHW[GJ/year]=39.46+12.0592.8%[GJ/year]=55.51[GJ/year]

where:

ηw - efficiency of heat generation - the value depends on the adopted source of heat,

ηDHW - overall efficiency of the hot water preparation system - the value depends on the adopted system.

The demand for electricity consumed for boiler operation in option I was calculated in accordance with previous cases,while for variant II according to the proportion given by the manufacturer: 0.005 kWhe of electricity is used to generate 1 kWh of heat energy:

For variant I:

(26)40W ⋆ 23 ⋆5100h=136000Wh=136[kWh]

For variant II:

(27)3.6[GJ]−1000[kWh]→55.51[GJ]=15419.44[kWh]
(28)1[kWh]−0.005[kWhe]→15419.44[kWh]77.10[kWh]
Usage costs:Variant IVariant II
Required fuel quantity [t/year]64.39GJyear15MJkg=4.2955.51GJyear18MJkg=3.08
The unit price of gas [EUR/t]77172
Total Kn:330 EUR530 EUR
Demand for electricity13677.10
[kWh/year]
Unit price [EUR/kWh]0.130.13
Total Ke:17,5 EUR10 EUR

Additional costs related to operation

Boiler cleaning agent36 EUR26 EUR
(3kg of agent for 1t of
fuel, 1kg = 2.8 EUR)

The sum of annual costs of use: Ku = Kn + Ke + Kd For variant I:

(29)Ku=330EUR+17.5EUR+36EUR=383.5EUR

For variant II:

(30)Ku=530EUR+10EUR+26EUR=566EUR

Total cost:

(31)Kc=Kp+Ku⋆t,

Where:

Kc – the total cost,

Kp – the initial cost,

Ku – the costs of use,

Kn – the cost of the energy carrier used,

Ke – the cost of electricity consumed by devices,

Kd – any additional costs related to operation.

t – time of use given in years, assuming a service life of 20 years:

For variant I:

(32)Kc=1497[EUR]+383.5[EUR/year] ⋆20[year]       =9167[EUR]

For variant II:

(33)Kc=2531.5[EUR]+566[EUR/year] ⋆20[year]       =13851.5[EUR]

The results obtained show the unprofitability of investments in the new technology. Variant II with a pellet boiler proves to be too expensive at the moment, and later operating costs lead to higher expenses than with a wood-fired boiler. This is due to the low availability on the fuel market. You can easily buy firewood, and it is much harder to refine your fuel. The only savings result from the consumption of electricity, which in option II is two times smaller. In this case, there is no question of counting a simple payback period, because Kp and Ku pellet boilers cost much higher, so the initial investment will not be refunded. Comparing with coal boilers, which are very similar to biomass boilers, the obtained results are similar, but it is not difficult to notice that in both cases modern means are more expensive. The cheapest solution turns out to be a gasification boiler for fuel, in which you can burn many types of fuel as well. Apart from its price, this is the main argument supporting its purchase.

5.2 Solar collectors

Variant I shows the purchase of flat, liquid solar collectors for the preparation of hot utility water, mainly in the summer months. It meets 99% of the demand for hot water. The profitability of this solution will apply to the period of time after which the investment costs will be reimbursed.

The summary will include the costs of a bivalent solar tank with two 300-liter coils. The main advantage of such a tank is the ability to heat water from two heat sources - solar collectors and an alternative source [12]. In addition to the collectors and the solar tank, it is necessary to purchase a pumping unit and a solar regulator. These are devices that ensure safe and economical use. Currently, many types of solar regulators are produced, differing primarily with functions that help protect the solar installation from damage, while ensuring maximum thermal efficiency. Manufacturers have prepared solar sets for customers, depending on the number of household members and destination. These are more advantageous offers, because buying in one place saves time and money, and above all guarantees full cooperation of devices with each other. In this case, the customer is sure that the purchased installation will work in the right way.

The article includes a ready set containing [13]:

  1. 2 flat-plate solar collectors with a total aperture area of 3.74 m2,

  2. bivalent tank with a capacity of 300 l,

  3. solar controller,

  4. solar pump group with solar fluid,

  5. an expansion tank with a capacity of 18 l,

  6. additional mounting elements - nipples, couplings, handles and end caps.

Parameters of collectors:

  1. Gross area of one collector: 2.04 m2

  2. Absorber area: 1.88 m2

  3. Collector absorption: 95%

  4. Collector efficiency: 75.6%

  5. Coefficient of heat loss a1: 3.545 W / (m2/K)

  6. Maximum power: 1414W

  7. Lifetime: 25 years

  8. Warranty: 10 years

  9. The purchase price of one collector: 310 EUR

  10. Price of the solar set adopted: EUR 1759.5

Variant II includes the purchase of a solar set intended for the preparation of utility water for 3 - 5 people and support for the installation of central heating in a single-family house, with an area up to about 100 m2. The set is based on the use of vacuum collectors with a total aperture area oo 5.43m2 and a heater with a "tank in a tank" design, equipped with a double coil.

The adopted set includes:

  1. 3 liquid vacuum collectors,

  2. dual purpose tank with a capacity of 120/380 l,

  3. a set for connecting collectors,

  4. solar controller,

  5. solar pump group with solar fluid,

  6. an expansion tank with a capacity of 50 l,

  7. additional mounting elements - nipples, connectors

  8. and handles and end caps.

Parameters of collectors:

  1. Gross area of one collector: 2.04 m2

  2. Working area: 1.805 m2

  3. Collector absorption: 95%

  4. Collector efficiency: 61.1%

  5. Heat loss coefficient a1: 0.84 W / (m2/K)

  6. Heat loss coefficient a2: 0.0053 W / (m2/K)

  7. Maximum power: 1106 W

  8. Lifetime: 25 years

  9. Warranty: 10 years

  10. The purchase price of one collector: 534 EUR

  11. Price of the adopted solar set: 3125 EUR

In both cases, it is additionally necessary to purchase a collector mounting frame for the roof slope. The price for flat and vacuum collectors varies and amounts to EUR 46 to 50 per holder for one collector.

Initial cost:Variant IVariant II
Price of the set [EUR]1759.53125
Purchase of mounting brackets [EUR]92150.5
Collector installation [EUR]349372
Initial start [EUR]2323
Total Kp [EUR]2223.53670.5

In the case of solar collectors, the savings from installed collectors and the payback period were calculated. As the costs of using solar collectors, the cost of electricity required for the operation of the solar pump and controller as well as service costs to be incurred in order to maintain the efficiency of the installation were assumed. In both variants an identical power consumption of 50W was introduced. It was assumed that the pump with a regulator works 8 hours a day, which gives: 50W * 365 days * 8h = 146 kWh

Accepted price for 1 kWh is EUR 0.13, so the cost of use for both variants is: EUR 19.

The price for cleaning, maintenance and other service work is EUR 69.5 per solar kit. These activities are carried out once every 3 years.

An important issue is the efficiency of collectors. The efficiency reported by manufacturers is the maximum value that needs to be adjusted depending on the temperature difference between the environment and the absorber.

Figure 4 Efficiency of solar collectors [14].
Figure 4

Efficiency of solar collectors [14].

According to the given formula, the efficiency of collectors in the adopted variants was calculated (Table 1). The average absorber temperature is 50◦C, while the ambient temperature depends on the month as the average temperature at which water is heated. In the example shown Eg. is the value of insolation. In the calculations, the Eg value was assumed at 1000W/m2, as this is the value determined in the standard studies. Coefficients of losses a1, a2 and optical efficiency in accordance with assumed solar collectors.

Table 1

Final results of collector efficiency.

MonthAmbient temperature [◦C]Temperature difference [K]Flat collector efficiency [%]Efficiency of the vacuum collector [%]
January−55561.254.9
February−25261.855.3
March05062.155.6
April104064.156.9
May232767.358.4
June282268.659.0
July302069.259.2
August302069.259.2
September222867.058.3
October104064.156.9
November34762.756.0
December−25261.855.3

  1. Source: Own study.

Variant IVariant II
a1 = 3.545 W/(m2K)a1 = 0.84 W/(m2K)
a2 = 0.017 W/(m2K)a2 = 0.0053 W/(m2K)
η0 = 75.6%η0 = 61.1%

where:

a1, a2 – heat loss coefficients,

η0 – efficiency of collectors,

Eg – the value of insolation.

Table 1 indicates the actual efficiency of the collectors in terms of their operation. It may be seen from the results that vacuum collectors do not lose their efficiency level in such a violent way as liquid collectors. Nevertheless, they have lower work efficiency throughout the year. This is caused by too small temperature differences, to which the flat collectors are extremely sensitive.

Heat demand in the heat pump system. is:

(34)QDHW=3346ηDHW[kWh/year],(279kWh/month).

Taking into account the efficiencies presented in Table 1, the total thermal energy demand was obtained (Table 2).

Table 2

Total heat demand.

MonthFlat collector efficiency [%]Efficiency of the vacuum collector [%]Heat demand for variant I [kWh/month]Heat demand for variant II [kWh/month]
January61.254.9465508
February61.855.3452505
March62.155.6449502
April64.156.9435490
May67.358.4415477
June68.659.0407473
July69.259.2403471
August69.259.2403471
September67.058.3416478
October64.156.9435490
November62.756.0445498
December61.855.3452505
Sum:51675870

  1. Source: Own study.

The average daily irradiation for Poland is shown in Table 3, respectively.

Table 3

Average daily irradiation [9].

MonthAverage irradiation [kWh/m2/day]
January0.71
February1.36
March2.50
April3.69
May4.84
June5.17
July4.97
August4.21
September2.87
October1.73
November0.79
December0.52

  1. Source: Own study.

The next step is to consider meeting the demand for thermal energy by the collectors

For better readability calculations were carried out separately for each variant.

For variant I:

Multiplying the values of average irradiation by the active surface area of the collectors received the daily energy consumed by the collectors (Table 4)

Table 4

Daily energy consumed by collectors in given months (Variant I).

MonthThermal energy [kWh/day]
January2.66
February5.09
March9.35
April13.80
May18.10
June19.34
July18.59
August15.75
September10.73
October6.47
November2.95
December1.94

  1. Source: Own study.

Assuming that during the day the demand is 5167 kWh/year365 days= 14.16 kWh/day for 5 people using 35 litres of hot water), it can be assumed that from the beginning of May to the end of August that is for 4 months the collectors cover the needed amount.

(Table 5) meet set needs in 100%. In the remaining months, the water will not be heated to the required temperature (with the assumed amount), therefore it will be necessary to heat the water by another heat source

By multiplying the fulfilment values (Table 5) by the monthly demand presented in Table 2, the annual value of thermal energy produced by the collectors used in option I was obtained

For variant II

The calculations were carried out in the same way as for variant I. Table 7 presents the values of daily energy consumed by the collectors in the following months.

Table 5

The degree of fulfillment of the demand (Variant I).

MonthValue of fulfillment [%]
January19
February36
March66
April97
May128
June137
July131
August111
September76
October46
November21
December14

  1. Source: Own study.

Table 6

Value of thermal energy obtained by the solar installation (Variant I).

MonthValue of fulfillmentHeat demand for variant I [kWh/month]Heat energy obtained in variant I [kWh/month]
January1946585
February36452162
March66449297
April97435424
May128415415
June137407407
July131403403
August111403403
September76416316
October46435199
November2144593
December1445262

  1. Source: Own study.

Table 7

Daily energy consumed by collectors in given months (Variant II).

MonthThermal energy [kWh/day]
January3.86
February7.38
March13.58
April20.04
May26.28
June28.07
July26.99
August22.86
September15.58
October9.39
November4.29
December2.82

  1. Source: Own study.

The daily requirement is: 5870 kWh/year365 days     =16.08 kWh/day, which was accepted for further calculations. The degree of meeting the demand in the following months is presented in Table 8.

Table 8

Degree of meeting the demand.

MonthValue of fulfillment [%]
January24
February46
March84
April125
May163
June175
July168
August142
September97
October58
November27
December18

  1. Source: Own study.

Variant II also includes supporting applications for vacuum collectors in the central heating system, therefore, when analysing the results from Table 8, the months in which the rooms are heated should be taken into account.

With the solution applied, only April is the month in which the degree of meeting the demand in the heat pump system exceeds 100% and it is a heating month. In order to include central heating in further calculations for April, the value of 125% was assumed instead of 100%.

By multiplying the fulfilment values (Table 8) by the monthly demand presented in Table 2, the annual value of thermal energy produced by the collectors used in option II was obtained

Flat collectors obtain 3265 kWh / a thermal energy to heat the water. Vacuum collectors, on the other hand, obtain 4255 kWh / year, of which 123 kWh / a thermal energy is used to heat the rooms. The conclusion from the calculations is that option II delivers very little heating to the rooms, and the high costs are caused by the purchase of a modern tank, which is required for the proper functioning of solar collectors in a dual-task installation (hot and cold). Analysing the offers of producers, the use of the variant based solely on the sole task and the use of the same number and type of collectors reduces the initial costs by EUR 465. This does not mean, however, that it is unprofitable.

To demonstrate the profitability of investments in solar collectors, comparisons with other energy sources should be made. Therefore, the cost of generating 1 kWh of energy by the solutions analysed in the article was calculated. This will allow you to calculate the annual savings from the use of solar collectors:

Annual costs of use:

  1. Coal boiler I ("W-I") - 442.5 EUR

  2. Coal II boiler ("W-II") - 473,5 EUR

  3. Gas boiler I ("G-I") - EUR 1062.5

  4. Gas boiler II ("G-II") - 910,5 EUR

  5. Biomass I boiler ("B-I") - 383.5 EUR

  6. Biomass boiler II ("B-II") - 566 EUR

  7. Solar collectors I ("K-I") - 19 EUR

  8. Solar collectors II ("K-II") - EUR 19

The amount of energy produced during the year

  1. Coal boiler I ("W-I") - 17886,11kWh

  2. Coal II boiler ("W-II") - 16833,33kWh

  3. Gas boiler I ("G-I") - 15722,22kWh

  4. Gas boiler II ("G-II") - 13127.78 kWh

  5. Biomass I boiler ("B-I") - 17886,11kWh

  6. Boiler for biomass II ("B-II") - 15419,44kWh

  7. Solar collectors I ("K-I") - 3265kWh

  8. Solar collectors II ("K-II") - 4255kWh

  9. By dividing the annual costs of use by the amount of energy generated during the year, we receive the cost of producing 1 kWh of thermal energy (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Production costs of 1 kWh of thermal energySource: Own study.
Figure 5

Production costs of 1 kWh of thermal energy

Source: Own study.

The price of generating 1 kWh of heat energy by the collectors is the lowest and, for example, by EUR 0.063 cheaper than the condensing gas furnace. By multiplying the corresponding cost differences by the amount of energy produced by the solar installation, the annual savings value was obtained (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Annual savings from the use of solar collectors. Source: Own study.
Figure 6

Annual savings from the use of solar collectors. Source: Own study.

The simplest way to determine the profitability of collectors leads by indicating the simple payback period of the SPBP, which in this case was calculated by dividing the initial costs of solar collectors by the calculated savings (Figure 6).

Figure 7 shows the simple period of return on investment in solar collectors. In most cases, this period is longer than the lifetime of collectors, so the investment will never return. The shortest period is given by gas boilers, but it is not a satisfactory result because it is longer than the guarantee time for solar collectors. There is one more issue - in all cases, option II, i.e. liquid and vacuum collectors, are a worse cost option. This is due to the too high initial ex-pense, which, despite cheaper use than flat plate collectors, does not become more advantageous.

Figure 7 The period of return on investment in solar collectors.Source: Own study.
Figure 7

The period of return on investment in solar collectors.

Source: Own study.

6 Summary

The survey shows that 51% of respondents would like to have solar panels installed in their own home as the basic source of heat in the heat pump system. - a modern and future-proof solution. However, the factor that affects the low level of renewable energy use is the too expensive purchase of components and their assembly (40% of respondents) and the lack of specific information on solutions, their advantages and disadvantages (30%).

Table 9

Value of thermal energy obtained by the solar installation (Variant II)

MonthValue of fulfillment [%]Heat demand for variant II [kWh/month]Heat energy obtained in variant II [kWh/month]
January24508122
February46505232
March84502424
April125490613
May163477477
June175473473
July168471471
August142471471
September97478464
October58490286
November27498133
December1850589
Sum:4255

  1. Source: Own study.

The question arises as to which collectors to choose - flat or vacuum. The price of vacuum collectors is currently too high in relation to the benefits that can be achieved. During the analysis it was obtained that only 109 kWh of thermal energy will provide the collectors from variant II as an auxiliary value central heating It is only 1% of the annual energy demand in the space heating system. Such a low value results from the specifics of the work of solar collectors. Collectors in heating months (October to April) have lower efficiency and the average irradiation value is much lower.

Another aspect of this article is to indicate the cheapest solution that fully meets the heat demand in the central heating system and domestic water heating It turns out that the biomass boiler (variant I), in which wood fuel is burned, is the most advantageous solution. The total cost for 20 years of use is around EUR 9167, which is more than twice less than gas boiler systems, which is the most expensive solution (around EUR 21083.5). An important issue is also the fact that the purchase of an advanced boiler, which is better equipped (variant number II), leads to higher parameters and greater comfort of use. However, only in the case of gas boilers incurred twice the higher initial costs will be refunded.

The analysis shows that an investment in renewable energy can be profitable. The article presents a simple way of calculation of costs related to the heat source, so that every interested person could perform such a calculation for his own individual case and obtain a reliable result. However, the decision to choose a system is an individual matter and not always related to the cost criterion.

References

[1] H. D. Stryczewska (red). Renewable energies Review of technologies and applications. Lublin University of Technology. Lublin (2012).Search in Google Scholar

[2] W. M. Lewandowski. Ecological renewable energy sources. Scientific and Technical Publishers. publ. IV upgrade. Warsaw (2012).Search in Google Scholar

[3] R. Tytko. Renewable energy sources. Selected issues. Lotos Poligrafia sp.z o.o.. Fourth Edition (2010).Search in Google Scholar

[4] A. Węglarz, R. Stępień. With environmentally-friendly energy for your brother. Dom Passive, Foundation Institute for Sustainable Development. Warsaw (2011).Search in Google Scholar

[5] K. Kuciński. Energy in times of crisis. Publishing house Dyfin. Warsaw (2006).Search in Google Scholar

[6] K. Kaserkiewicz. Construction: Energy consumption. Present and future (part I). www.muratorplus.pl (2007).Search in Google Scholar

[7] J. Albers, R. Dommel. Central heating and ventilation systems. A guide for designers and installers. Scientific and Technical Publisher. Warsaw (2007).Search in Google Scholar

[8] http://tresko.pl/cennik/cennik-detaliczny/Search in Google Scholar

[9] http://www.sas.busko.pl/Search in Google Scholar

[10] www.muratordom.plSearch in Google Scholar

[11] http://www.biomasa.orgSearch in Google Scholar

[12] http://keno-energy.istore.pl/Search in Google Scholar

[13] http://www.watt.pl/Search in Google Scholar

[14] http://www.hewalex.plSearch in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-02-02
Accepted: 2019-06-05
Published Online: 2019-07-26

© 2019 W. Drozd and M. Kowalik, published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Article
  2. Exploring conditions and usefulness of UAVs in the BRAIN Massive Inspections Protocol
  3. A hybrid approach for solving multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem in construction
  4. Identification of geodetic risk factors occurring at the construction project preparation stage
  5. Multicriteria comparative analysis of pillars strengthening of the historic building
  6. Methods of habitat reports’ evaluation
  7. Effect of material and technological factors on the properties of cement-lime mortars and mortars with plasticizing admixture
  8. Management of Innovation Ecosystems Based on Six Sigma Business Scorecard
  9. On a Stochastic Regularization Technique for Ill-Conditioned Linear Systems
  10. Dynamic safety system for collaboration of operators and industrial robots
  11. Assessment of Decentralized Electricity Production from Hybrid Renewable Energy Sources for Sustainable Energy Development in Nigeria
  12. Seasonal evaluation of surface water quality at the Tamanduá stream watershed (Aparecida de Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil) using the Water Quality Index
  13. EFQM model implementation in a Portuguese Higher Education Institution
  14. Assessment of direct and indirect effects of building developments on the environment
  15. Accelerated Aging of WPCs Based on Polypropylene and Plywood Production Residues
  16. Analysis of the Cost of a Building’s Life Cycle in a Probabilistic Approach
  17. Implementation of Web Services for Data Integration to Improve Performance in The Processing Loan Approval
  18. Rehabilitation of buildings as an alternative to sustainability in Brazilian constructions
  19. Synthesis Conditions for LPV Controller with Input Covariance Constraints
  20. Procurement management in construction: study of Czech municipalities
  21. Contractor’s bid pricing strategy: a model with correlation among competitors’ prices
  22. Control of construction projects using the Earned Value Method - case study
  23. Model supporting decisions on renovation and modernization of public utility buildings
  24. Cements with calcareous fly ash as component of low clinker eco-self compacting concrete
  25. Failure Analysis of Super Hard End Mill HSS-Co
  26. Simulation model for resource-constrained construction project
  27. Getting efficient choices in buildings by using Genetic Algorithms: Assessment & validation
  28. Analysis of renewable energy use in single-family housing
  29. Modeling of the harmonization method for executing a multi-unit construction project
  30. Effect of foam glass granules fillers modification of lime-sand products on their microstructure
  31. Volume Optimization of Solid Waste Landfill Using Voronoi Diagram Geometry
  32. Analysis of occupational accidents in the construction industry with regards to selected time parameters
  33. Bill of quantities and quantity survey of construction works of renovated buildings - case study
  34. Cooperation of the PTFE sealing ring with the steel ball of the valve subjected to durability test
  35. Analytical model assessing the effect of increased traffic flow intensities on the road administration, maintenance and lifetime
  36. Quartz bentonite sandmix in sand-lime products
  37. The Issue of a Transport Mode Choice from the Perspective of Enterprise Logistics
  38. Analysis of workplace injuries in Slovakian state forestry enterprises
  39. Research into Customer Preferences of Potential Buyers of Simple Wood-based Houses for the Purpose of Using the Target Costing
  40. Proposal of the Inventory Management Automatic Identification System in the Manufacturing Enterprise Applying the Multi-criteria Analysis Methods
  41. Hyperboloid offset surface in the architecture and construction industry
  42. Analysis of the preparatory phase of a construction investment in the area covered by revitalization
  43. The selection of sealing technologies of the subsoil and hydrotechnical structures and quality assurance
  44. Impact of high temperature drying process on beech wood containing tension wood
  45. Prediction of Strength of Remixed Concrete by Application of Orthogonal Decomposition, Neural Analysis and Regression Analysis
  46. Modelling a production process using a Sankey diagram and Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT)
  47. The feasibility of using a low-cost depth camera for 3D scanning in mass customization
  48. Urban Water Infrastructure Asset Management Plan: Case Study
  49. Evaluation the effect of lime on the plastic and hardened properties of cement mortar and quantified using Vipulanandan model
  50. Uplift and Settlement Prediction Model of Marine Clay Soil e Integrated with Polyurethane Foam
  51. IoT Applications in Wind Energy Conversion Systems
  52. A new method for graph stream summarization based on both the structure and concepts
  53. “Zhores” — Petaflops supercomputer for data-driven modeling, machine learning and artificial intelligence installed in Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology
  54. Economic Disposal Quantity of Leftovers kept in storage: a Monte Carlo simulation method
  55. Computer technology of the thermal stress state and fatigue life analysis of turbine engine exhaust support frames
  56. Statistical model used to assessment the sulphate resistance of mortars with fly ashes
  57. Application of organization goal-oriented requirement engineering (OGORE) methods in erp-based company business processes
  58. Influence of Sand Size on Mechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Concrete
  59. Architecture For Automation System Metrics Collection, Visualization and Data Engineering – HAMK Sheet Metal Center Building Automation Case Study
  60. Optimization of shape memory alloy braces for concentrically braced steel braced frames
  61. Topical Issue Modern Manufacturing Technologies
  62. Feasibility Study of Microneedle Fabrication from a thin Nitinol Wire Using a CW Single-Mode Fiber Laser
  63. Topical Issue: Progress in area of the flow machines and devices
  64. Analysis of the influence of a stator type modification on the performance of a pump with a hole impeller
  65. Investigations of drilled and multi-piped impellers cavitation performance
  66. The novel solution of ball valve with replaceable orifice. Numerical and field tests
  67. The flow deteriorations in course of the partial load operation of the middle specific speed Francis turbine
  68. Numerical analysis of temperature distribution in a brush seal with thermo-regulating bimetal elements
  69. A new solution of the semi-metallic gasket increasing tightness level
  70. Design and analysis of the flange-bolted joint with respect to required tightness and strength
  71. Special Issue: Actual trends in logistics and industrial engineering
  72. Intelligent programming of robotic flange production by means of CAM programming
  73. Static testing evaluation of pipe conveyor belt for different tensioning forces
  74. Design of clamping structure for material flow monitor of pipe conveyors
  75. Risk Minimisation in Integrated Supply Chains
  76. Use of simulation model for measurement of MilkRun system performance
  77. A simulation model for the need for intra-plant transport operation planning by AGV
  78. Operative production planning utilising quantitative forecasting and Monte Carlo simulations
  79. Monitoring bulk material pressure on bottom of storage using DEM
  80. Calibration of Transducers and of a Coil Compression Spring Constant on the Testing Equipment Simulating the Process of a Pallet Positioning in a Rack Cell
  81. Design of evaluation tool used to improve the production process
  82. Planning of Optimal Capacity for the Middle-Sized Storage Using a Mathematical Model
  83. Experimental assessment of the static stiffness of machine parts and structures by changing the magnitude of the hysteresis as a function of loading
  84. The evaluation of the production of the shaped part using the workshop programming method on the two-spindle multi-axis CTX alpha 500 lathe
  85. Numerical Modeling of p-v-T Rheological Equation Coefficients for Polypropylene with Variable Chalk Content
  86. Current options in the life cycle assessment of additive manufacturing products
  87. Ideal mathematical model of shock compression and shock expansion
  88. Use of simulation by modelling of conveyor belt contact forces
https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2019-0039
Keywords for this article
single-family housing; renewable energy
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Article
  2. Exploring conditions and usefulness of UAVs in the BRAIN Massive Inspections Protocol
  3. A hybrid approach for solving multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem in construction
  4. Identification of geodetic risk factors occurring at the construction project preparation stage
  5. Multicriteria comparative analysis of pillars strengthening of the historic building
  6. Methods of habitat reports’ evaluation
  7. Effect of material and technological factors on the properties of cement-lime mortars and mortars with plasticizing admixture
  8. Management of Innovation Ecosystems Based on Six Sigma Business Scorecard
  9. On a Stochastic Regularization Technique for Ill-Conditioned Linear Systems
  10. Dynamic safety system for collaboration of operators and industrial robots
  11. Assessment of Decentralized Electricity Production from Hybrid Renewable Energy Sources for Sustainable Energy Development in Nigeria
  12. Seasonal evaluation of surface water quality at the Tamanduá stream watershed (Aparecida de Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil) using the Water Quality Index
  13. EFQM model implementation in a Portuguese Higher Education Institution
  14. Assessment of direct and indirect effects of building developments on the environment
  15. Accelerated Aging of WPCs Based on Polypropylene and Plywood Production Residues
  16. Analysis of the Cost of a Building’s Life Cycle in a Probabilistic Approach
  17. Implementation of Web Services for Data Integration to Improve Performance in The Processing Loan Approval
  18. Rehabilitation of buildings as an alternative to sustainability in Brazilian constructions
  19. Synthesis Conditions for LPV Controller with Input Covariance Constraints
  20. Procurement management in construction: study of Czech municipalities
  21. Contractor’s bid pricing strategy: a model with correlation among competitors’ prices
  22. Control of construction projects using the Earned Value Method - case study
  23. Model supporting decisions on renovation and modernization of public utility buildings
  24. Cements with calcareous fly ash as component of low clinker eco-self compacting concrete
  25. Failure Analysis of Super Hard End Mill HSS-Co
  26. Simulation model for resource-constrained construction project
  27. Getting efficient choices in buildings by using Genetic Algorithms: Assessment & validation
  28. Analysis of renewable energy use in single-family housing
  29. Modeling of the harmonization method for executing a multi-unit construction project
  30. Effect of foam glass granules fillers modification of lime-sand products on their microstructure
  31. Volume Optimization of Solid Waste Landfill Using Voronoi Diagram Geometry
  32. Analysis of occupational accidents in the construction industry with regards to selected time parameters
  33. Bill of quantities and quantity survey of construction works of renovated buildings - case study
  34. Cooperation of the PTFE sealing ring with the steel ball of the valve subjected to durability test
  35. Analytical model assessing the effect of increased traffic flow intensities on the road administration, maintenance and lifetime
  36. Quartz bentonite sandmix in sand-lime products
  37. The Issue of a Transport Mode Choice from the Perspective of Enterprise Logistics
  38. Analysis of workplace injuries in Slovakian state forestry enterprises
  39. Research into Customer Preferences of Potential Buyers of Simple Wood-based Houses for the Purpose of Using the Target Costing
  40. Proposal of the Inventory Management Automatic Identification System in the Manufacturing Enterprise Applying the Multi-criteria Analysis Methods
  41. Hyperboloid offset surface in the architecture and construction industry
  42. Analysis of the preparatory phase of a construction investment in the area covered by revitalization
  43. The selection of sealing technologies of the subsoil and hydrotechnical structures and quality assurance
  44. Impact of high temperature drying process on beech wood containing tension wood
  45. Prediction of Strength of Remixed Concrete by Application of Orthogonal Decomposition, Neural Analysis and Regression Analysis
  46. Modelling a production process using a Sankey diagram and Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT)
  47. The feasibility of using a low-cost depth camera for 3D scanning in mass customization
  48. Urban Water Infrastructure Asset Management Plan: Case Study
  49. Evaluation the effect of lime on the plastic and hardened properties of cement mortar and quantified using Vipulanandan model
  50. Uplift and Settlement Prediction Model of Marine Clay Soil e Integrated with Polyurethane Foam
  51. IoT Applications in Wind Energy Conversion Systems
  52. A new method for graph stream summarization based on both the structure and concepts
  53. “Zhores” — Petaflops supercomputer for data-driven modeling, machine learning and artificial intelligence installed in Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology
  54. Economic Disposal Quantity of Leftovers kept in storage: a Monte Carlo simulation method
  55. Computer technology of the thermal stress state and fatigue life analysis of turbine engine exhaust support frames
  56. Statistical model used to assessment the sulphate resistance of mortars with fly ashes
  57. Application of organization goal-oriented requirement engineering (OGORE) methods in erp-based company business processes
  58. Influence of Sand Size on Mechanical Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Concrete
  59. Architecture For Automation System Metrics Collection, Visualization and Data Engineering – HAMK Sheet Metal Center Building Automation Case Study
  60. Optimization of shape memory alloy braces for concentrically braced steel braced frames
  61. Topical Issue Modern Manufacturing Technologies
  62. Feasibility Study of Microneedle Fabrication from a thin Nitinol Wire Using a CW Single-Mode Fiber Laser
  63. Topical Issue: Progress in area of the flow machines and devices
  64. Analysis of the influence of a stator type modification on the performance of a pump with a hole impeller
  65. Investigations of drilled and multi-piped impellers cavitation performance
  66. The novel solution of ball valve with replaceable orifice. Numerical and field tests
  67. The flow deteriorations in course of the partial load operation of the middle specific speed Francis turbine
  68. Numerical analysis of temperature distribution in a brush seal with thermo-regulating bimetal elements
  69. A new solution of the semi-metallic gasket increasing tightness level
  70. Design and analysis of the flange-bolted joint with respect to required tightness and strength
  71. Special Issue: Actual trends in logistics and industrial engineering
  72. Intelligent programming of robotic flange production by means of CAM programming
  73. Static testing evaluation of pipe conveyor belt for different tensioning forces
  74. Design of clamping structure for material flow monitor of pipe conveyors
  75. Risk Minimisation in Integrated Supply Chains
  76. Use of simulation model for measurement of MilkRun system performance
  77. A simulation model for the need for intra-plant transport operation planning by AGV
  78. Operative production planning utilising quantitative forecasting and Monte Carlo simulations
  79. Monitoring bulk material pressure on bottom of storage using DEM
  80. Calibration of Transducers and of a Coil Compression Spring Constant on the Testing Equipment Simulating the Process of a Pallet Positioning in a Rack Cell
  81. Design of evaluation tool used to improve the production process
  82. Planning of Optimal Capacity for the Middle-Sized Storage Using a Mathematical Model
  83. Experimental assessment of the static stiffness of machine parts and structures by changing the magnitude of the hysteresis as a function of loading
  84. The evaluation of the production of the shaped part using the workshop programming method on the two-spindle multi-axis CTX alpha 500 lathe
  85. Numerical Modeling of p-v-T Rheological Equation Coefficients for Polypropylene with Variable Chalk Content
  86. Current options in the life cycle assessment of additive manufacturing products
  87. Ideal mathematical model of shock compression and shock expansion
  88. Use of simulation by modelling of conveyor belt contact forces
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 28.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/eng-2019-0039/html
Scroll to top button