Simulation based solar water heating system operation in residential

environment
Milovan Medojevic (CA)a,b, Milana Medojevicb,c, Marko Vasiljevic-Toskicc and Miroslav
Kljajicc
a
The Institute for Artificial Intelligence Research and Development of Serbia, Novi Sad, RS,
milovan.medojevic@ivi.ac.rs
b
EnergyPulse DOO, Novi Sad, Serbia, RS
c
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, RS

Abstract: This paper estimates the energy savings by using solar water heating (SWH) system relative to
a conventional water heater, for the northern area of Novi Sad, Serbia referring to a thermodynamic energy
balance formulation, based on System Advisor Model (SAM) SWH model. The modeled installation, which
was subjected to simulation, consists of a solar evacuated tube collector, a water storage tank, a source of
auxiliary energy, a heat exchanger and a circulating pump in general. The main advantage of SAM SWH
model implementation is reflected through provision of higher flexibility in compared to the f-Chart model
at one, without having to deal with the challenges of modeling with TRNSYS at the other hand, while
simultaneously generates reliable and trustworthy results. The model deployed in this study assumes two
distinct modes where the first one corresponds to solar charging, where the storage tank is assumed to be
one mixed node, while the second relates to discharging, where the storage tank is assumed to be two
variable-volume nodes, one of hot, and one of incoming, cold water from the mains. Primary tools used for
the results representations are monthly profiles, heat maps, as well as probability density functions (PDF’s)
in the form of a histogram, based on Sturge’s formula. Also, upon obtaining time step data on relevant
variables Pearson’s correlation method was performed to identify significant relations between observed
variables on an hourly-based time perspective.

Keywords: Solar water heating, Thermodynamic model, System Advisor Model, System modeling,
Simulation.

1. Introduction
It became more than evident that the demand for renewable energy increases every year, while the share of
renewable energy in the world’s total energy consumption is expected to increase by up to 13% in 2040 [1,2].
Here, solar energy is considered to have the most potential among all the renewable sources of energy [3,4],
as being recognized as sufficient to satisfy the overall energy needs of humankind [5]. More interestingly, the
contribution of solar-thermal utilization took the third place, right behind the wind power and PV’s in the
renewable energy category. Its cumulative heat capacity in operation reached 480 GWht by the end of 2018,
while the installed capacity grew by a factor of 7.7 compared to the year 2000 [6]. According to renewable
energy global status report (GSR) overall global energy consumption related to the heating and cooling sector
amounts to approximately 48% [1] indicating thermal energy as an important source of energy in the
fulfillment of societal energy requirements worldwide. Having this in mind, as well as the fact that the most
popular solar thermal utilization technology, solar heating systems (SHSs) account for 80% of the global solar
thermal utilization market [7], which indicates that it is of high importance to consider the long-term planning,
development, and deployment of these systems. As solar thermal energy has received a lot of attention in recent
years as a promising alternative for water heating, in several countries SWH systems started playing a major
role in the water heating processes [8]. However, despite having a large potential for this technology
implementation, in a large number of countries the SWH systems utilization is still modest in comparison to
those with much lower irradiation levels, such as China and Germany, the world leaders in SWH systems
deployment [1,6]. For example, in Brazil, of all households with water heating, only 6% are based on solar
energy utilization, while 83.6% use electricity (predominantly with electric showerheads) and 4.4% use natural
gas [9]. The reason for this distribution is due to the fact that the majority of dwellings prefers electric
showerheads mainly because of their low initial cost and easy installation/operation. Subsequently, the
restricted distribution of natural gas to urban consumption in the country could also help to understand the
given figures. All in all, the current situation worldwide indicates promising trends mainly because of two
complementary reasons. As awareness among dwelling owners/users rises, simultaneously SWH technology
prices decrease. This is the main advantageous driver for SWH systems to penetrate the water heating market
in the recent future.
On the other hand, the design of SWH systems may differ widely depending on meteorological parameters,
the heating demand, load profiles, costs, etc. [10], or in other words, the specific system dynamics and external
environmental influences to it. However, the current design methods are based on simulations of the solar
energy yield and the energy savings throughout the life cycle [11]. Here it is possible to distinguish two main
approaches. The first one is based on monthly average values (e.g., PHPP [12] and F-Chart Software [13]),
while the second focuses on transient values (e.g., TRNSYS [14] and T∗SOL [15]) [16]. In the attempt to be
objective both of these approaches have certain deficiencies. In the case of first one, taking f-Chart model as
an example, the annual average load and the monthly average solar irradiance are used for the solar collector
dimensioning. At the same time, the design capacity of an auxiliary heater is determined by the design heating
load multiplied by a safety factor [17]. This method does not consider the temporal matches between the hourly
heating load and the heat supply, ignoring the fact that solar energy can also supply heat with the auxiliary
heater at the same time [18]. Therefore, solar energy can be used to reduce the peak load, and thus reducing
the maximum capacity of the auxiliary heater. If a reasonable assessment of the system capacity after adding
solar energy isn’t proper, it will equate to higher, unnecessary investments and an oversized SWH system. For
instance, it is not economical to adopt the above safety factor method [11]. Peuser et al. [19] pointed out that
the design value of the solar collector area obtained by the standard may deviate from the actual heat demand
by 50%. Madaeni et al. [20] also concluded that the actual used capacity of centralized solar power plants is
between 45% and 95%. Besides, the other problem is that only the determined parameters are considered to
be the input in the conventional design method, but the simulation results are inevitably affected by the
uncertainty factors. This brings us closer to the main problem when considering simulations based on transient
values known as uncertainty. The uncertainty of the energy supply affected by weather is the main reason since
it is difficult to make the capacity assessment. A typical example of uncertainty variables in both SHS and
SWH is the weather data in terms of irradiation, wind speed, and outdoor temperature changes integrated in
the typical meteorological year (TMY) dataset which are often used during dynamic simulations. Although
this is a more complex approach, while simultaneously being more accurate, it cannot indicate the uncertainty
of future meteorological changes in terms of the aforementioned terms. In order to overcome this challenge,
the probability distribution of the uncertainty factors is used as an input to the iterative models, to obtain the
output probability distributions, and thus describe the meteorological uncertainties related to an SWH [16].
This, however, opens up a new research question not subjected to this study.

2. System overview, calculation method and introduction to simulation

In this paper, the observed system architecture consists of a solar collector with a working fluid running
through it, as given in Figure 1 (left). When the fluid has gone through the collector, it enters a heat exchanger,
where it transfers heat to cooler water. The water heats up and stores in a tank. Also, there are two pumps to
force the circulation of the working fluid and water. The tank is considered mixed during hours with the solar
heat collection. Opposite to charging mode, the second operational mode occurs during discharging, where the
storage tank is assumed to consist of two variable volume nodes, one of hot water, and one of incoming cold
water from the mains.

Fig. 1. Solar Water Heating System (left) and Energy balance (right)
The calculation method starts from recognizing relevant heat sources in order to determine useful energy
delivered as well as accompanied losses that occur during the overall process. Moreover, as cold water enters
the bottom of the tank, the enthalpy of the water in the tank decreases indicating this process behave according
to the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation rule) and thus suitable to be regarded as an open
system with no kinetic or potential energy changes. In addition, in order to obtain a time-accurate solution to
an unsteady flow problem a time-marching method (TMM) was introduced. Bearing in mind the simplicity
and stability purposes of this study, the applied TMM approximates all differential equations using the implicit-
Euler method. This implicit method was chosen due to the fact that in this case the stability requirements of
the latter impose stringent conditions on the time step size. Subsequently, the calculation method reflects both
tank modes (mixed and stratified), accompanied with relevant assumptions and model equations. Lastly, the
irradiance calculation model was integrated upon which is possible to compute the energy delivered by the
solar collection process at the output of the solar storage. More details regarding the calculation method are
provided in the Appendix 1 – Calculation Method. From the simulation requirements point of view, the SAM
SWH model represents a one-tank glycol system with an auxiliary electric heater. The SWH performance
model assumes that the SWH system displaces purchases of electricity for an electric water heater. This model
allows the variation regarding the location, hot water load profiles, mains and set temperature profiles, as well
as characteristics of the collector, heat exchanger, and solar tank properties.

3. System sizing and design

The results of conditional steps for system sizing are briefly segmented and summarized within Table 1, while
the 3D model of the residential building with a solar collector positioning is shown in Fig. 2.
Table 1. System sizing steps summary
Weather conditions at the observed location
Station ID 131680 Global Horizontal [kWh/m2/day] 4.07
Data Source ISD-TMYx Direct Normal (Beam) [kWh/m2/day] 3.76
Elevation [m] 87 Diffuse Horizontal [kWh/m2/day] 1.71
Latitude [°N] 45.333 Average Temperature [°C] 12.1
Longitude [°E] 19.850 Average Wind Speed [m/s] 2.5
Time Zone GMT +1 Maximum Snow Depth [cm] 28
Hot water demand Solar Tank and Heat Exchanger
Total annual hot water draw [kg/a] 91250 Solar tank volume [m3] 0.3
Average daily hot water use [kg/day] 250 Solar tank height to diameter ratio 2
2
Collector specification Solar tank heat loss coefficient (U value) [W/m °C] 2.82
2
Collector area [m ] 4.29 Solar tank maximum water temperature [°C] 99
Incidence angle modifier (IAM) 0.2 Heat exchanger effectiveness [0-1 value] 0.8
FR(τα) 0.508 Outlet set temperature [°C] 55
FRUL [W/m2°C] 0.92 Mechanical room temperature [°C] 20
Test fluid Glycol/H2O System sizing
Test flow [kg/s] 0.0456 Tilt [°] 34
Piping and Pumping Azimuth [°] 180
Total pipe length in the system [m] 10 Total system flow rate [kg/s] 0.091056
Pipe diameter [m] 0.019 Working fluid Glycol/H2O
Pipe insulation conductivity [W/m°C] 0.03 No. of collectors [pcs] 2
Pipe insulation thickness [m] 0.006 Diffuse sky model Perez
Pump power [W] 65 Irradiance inputs Beam and Diffuse
Pump efficiency [%] 0.85 Albedo [0-1 value] 0.2
Annual Degradation for a single-year Total system collector area [m2] 8.58
Annual Degradation rate [%/a] 0.5 Rated system size [kW] 4.12183
 Fig. 2. Residential building with a solar collector positioning
The first step in the system sizing process considers defining the weather conditions at the observed location.
Subsequently, it is necessary to define the average daily hot water usage upon which it is possible to calculate
overall annual hot water draw. Furthermore, the selection of solar modules, the solar water tank, and the heat
exchanger was performed. After the selection of the equipment, it is possible to proceed with the SWH system
design. System design considers several steps that should be taken into account to ensure a reliable and
trustworthy simulation environment. Finally, the necessary information regarding piping and pumping within
the system, as well as information regarding the modules degradation rate for a single-year simulation
(necessary for the multi-year productivity analysis) were also considered.

4. Simulation Results and Discussion

In this section, relevant simulation results in terms of energy generation, relevant system temperatures, heat
loads, irradiance, and other meaningful distributions for the observed case are given as graphical
representations with concrete and brief descriptions where necessary. Primary tools used for these
representations are monthly profiles, heat maps, as well as probability density functions (PDF’s) in the form
of a histogram, based on Sturge’s formula. Also, upon obtaining time step data on relevant variables Pearson’s
correlation method was performed to identify significant relations between observed variables on an hourly-
based time perspective. Having in mind, and taking into account the volume of the generated data as well as
the robustness of their graphical representation, only the most interesting results are presented hereinafter in
this manuscript, while more on results could be found in Appendix 2 – Data Sets and Interactive Charts, and
Appendix 3 - Complete graphical representations.
Primary indicators, or general SWH system metrics are given in Table 2. Here, terms Annual energy saved,
Aux with solar, and Aux without solar are quite obvious and do not require additional clarification. However,
the solar fraction term in the context of SWH systems represents the ratio of solar energy to total energy
delivered to the water storage tank. This term is based on the energy values for the first year of deployment.
Besides, the capacity factor corresponds to the ratio of the system's predicted energy-related output in the first
year of operation to the nameplate output. The capacity factor is equivalent to the quantity of energy the system
would generate if it operated at its nameplate capacity for every hour of the year.
Table 2. General SWH system metrics
Metric Value
Annual energy saved (year 1) [kWh] 1.938
Solar fraction (year 1) 0.46
Aux with solar (year 1) [kWh] 1931.4
Aux without solar (year 1) [kWh] 4196.4
Capacity factor (year 1) [%] 5.5
To ensure better comprehension of simulation results, Table 3 summarizes existing variables and associated
units, covered with a brief description. Within this system setup, almost 40% of overall energy needed for hot
water generation could be achieved in average, while the Fig. 3. Illustrates the monthly values.
Table 3. Key variables in the simulation process
No. Variable name Unit Description
1 Energy saved [kWh] Energy saved by the SWH system
2 Hot water draw [kg/hr] The hourly usage of hot water specified in the draw profile
2
3 Irradiance - Beam [W/m ] Direct normal irradiance value from the weather file
2
4 Irradiance - Diffuse [W/m ] Diffuse horizontal irradiance value from the weather file
5 Irradiance -Incident [W/m2] The total hourly incident global irradiance incident on the collector
Irradiance - The total hourly radiation that makes it into the collector. It depends on the optical properties of
6 [W/m2]
Transmitted the collector
(1) – Startup mode, useful energy is collected and tank temperature is somewhat stratified. (2) –
7 Operation mode [/] Mixed-mode, useful energy is collected and tank temperature is fairly uniform. (3) - Stratified
mode, no useful energy is collected and the tank temperature is very stratified.
8 P pump [kW] Pump power required to drive the collector and heat exchanger loop
Power generated by Equivalent to the energy saved by the system, expressed in kW. When you run the solar water-
9 [kW]
the system heating model with a financial model, this is the value used by the financial model
Electric power required by the auxiliary heater to raise the water temperature from the solar
storage tank to the set temperature (Eq. (e.3.8)) where 𝑇𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 is the temperature of the water
10 Q auxiliary [kW] delivered from the solar tank. Because solar heat has been added to the water, 𝑇𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 >
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 , and less power is needed to bring the water to the set temperature than it would be
required without the SWH system.
11 Q auxiliary only [kW] The electric power that would be required without the solar water heating system (Eq. (e.3.9))
12 Q delivered [kW] Thermal power delivered by the SWH system at the solar storage tank outlet (Eq. (e.3.7))
13 Q loss [kW] Envelope loss to the room 𝑄𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝑈𝐴𝑡 (𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 − 𝑇𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑚 )
Electric energy saved by the SWH system (Eq. (e.3.10)). This value is equivalent to the energy
14 Q saved [kW]
delivered by the SWH system.
Solar irradiance transmitted through the collector glass, accounting for the collector
15 Q transmitted [kW] area𝑄𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝐼𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 ∗ 𝐴𝑐 , where 𝐼𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 is the transmitted irradiance and 𝐴𝑐 is
the total collector area.
Power delivered to the water tank, equal to the power received by the collector minus losses
16 Q useful [kW]
from the collector to the surroundings (Eq. (e.1))
Percent loss of incident beam irradiance due to shading, determined by the shading factors that
17 Shading losses [%]
were previously specified (if any)
The mid-hour ambient temperature calculated by averaging the end-of-hour temperature from
18 T ambient [°C]
the previous hour with the end-of-hour temperature from the current hour in the weather file
The temperature of the cold portion of the solar storage tank volume in stratified mode. If the
19 T cold [°C]
tank is not stratified, this value is equal to the previous hour's cold temperature.
20 T delivered [°C] The temperature of the water delivered from the storage tank
The temperature of the hot portion of the solar storage tank volume in stratified mode. If not
21 T hot [°C]
stratified, this value is equal to the previous hour's hot temperature
22 T mains [°C] The temperature of water incoming from the supply source
23 T tank [°C] The mean temperature of the solar storage tank
The estimated volume of the cold portion of the solar storage tank, where "cold" is for the hot
24 V cold [m3] portion of the tank. SAM models the hot and cold portions as separate nodes. The cold volume
increases as users draw water from the tank and mains water replaces it
The estimated volume of the hot portion of the solar storage tank, where "hot" is for the cold
3 portion of the tank. SAM models the hot and cold portions as separate nodes. The hot volume
25 V hot [m ]
increases from hour to hour as the useful energy from the collector is added until the hot
volume is equal to the tank volume (and cold volume is zero)
 Fig. 3. SWH system energy contribution to the given load
In addition, annual distribution of relevant variables related to the amount of heat, circulating pump power and
generated energy by the observed system are given in the form of monthly profiles in the Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Monthly profiles of heat and power loads within the observed system
From Fig. 4, it could be concluded that despite the significant amount of 𝑄𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 , 𝑄𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 amounts
slightly less than half the 𝑄𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 along with the entire distribution roughly. However, 𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 engaged
in this installation does not exceed 1 kW. Also, on an annual level 𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 demand can be decreased in
the amount of 39.82% if such a system is implemented in the observed location, while the significant heat load
reduction could be expected already in late winter (February (39.5%)). The system provides the highest
benefits during the spring period by substituting auxiliary energy for heating in the amount of 46.98% on
average (March (44.51%), (April (46.87%), and May (49.55%). In the summer period, system can provide
43.67% of necessary heat for hot water preparation on average (June (44.81%), July (47.81%), and August
(38.40%)), while the amount of heat generated by the SWH system in early and mid-Autumn amounts 42.25%
on average (September (47.73%) and October (36.76%). The generated profiles imply that the observed
location is suitable for SWH system implementation, and the significant portion of heat demand could be
covered by the implementation of the proposed system most of the year. Moreover, Fig. 5 provides insight
regarding daily hot water draw profile (left) and its daily variations on annual basis in the form of heat map
(right), while additional, more-detailed representations are given in the appendices’ 2 and 3. The demand for
hot water is pronounced the most in the morning (between 8th and 15th hour of the day), where the maximum
expected demand for hot water does not exceed 23 kg/h. Also, the increase in demand for hot water is repeated
from the 18th to the 23rd hour of the day, but of lower intensity, i.e. in the interval from 11 to 14 kg/h.

Fig. 5. Hot water draw daily profile (left) and daily variations on annual basis (right)
Here, the heat map allows identification of how the data varies by time of day and by the time of year on the
same graph, where the time of year is plotted on the x, while the time of day is on the y axis. The heat map
color is Coarse Rainbow, due to the fact it provides higher color resolution. The “Hot-Cold” color map ensures
that values above zero tend toward red, while values below zero tend toward blue. Although this type of data
visualization is mainly related to temperature (Fig. 6) it could be used in other cases as well. Furthermore,
although it may seem obvious that all system temperatures are directly influenced by the changes in𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 ,
the strength of such influence was validated through correlation analysis. However, high data scattering were
identified among some of the variables and given in the Appendix 2. These mutual influences will be discussed
in more detail hereinafter referred to Pearson’s Correlations.

Fig. 6. Relevant system temperatures representation in the form of the heat map
Subsequently, the primary indicator of the functioning of the thermodynamic system is the fulfilled condition
of temperature differences existence within the system so that the heat transfer transpires continuously. This
was validated by checking the existence of minimum temperature differences at all system levels, while the
table 4 summarizes identified temperature differences on an hourly basis per annum in terms of their minimal
and maximal values (The complete data set could be retrieved from Appendix 2).
Table 4. Selected temperature differences in terms of their minimal and maximal values
ΔT Max Min ΔT Max Min
Δ|Tambient - Tcold| 50.4794 0.0071 Δ|Tcold - Tmains| 47.2275 0.0331
Δ|Tambient - Tdelivered| 57.8071 3.8711 Δ|Tcold - Ttank| 28.5675 0.0013
Δ|Tambient - Tmains| 28.203 0.0005 Δ|Tdelivered - Tmains| 56.3674 1.9719
Δ|Tambient - Ttank| 55.389 3.5124 Δ|Tdelivered - Ttank| 7.1419 0.0007
Δ|Tcold - Tdelivered| 35.7094 0.002 Δ|Tmains - Ttank| 53.1169 1.7823
In this research heat maps were also applied to reveal the daily variations on annual basis in terms of heat and
power demand. These variations are given in the Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Relevant system heat and power loads representation in the form of the heat map
In the existing system setup (without SWH system) Electricity load for 𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 preparation varies from
1 to 1.7 kW where load peaks occur in the spring and summer season between 15 th and 21st hour of the day.
On the other hand, the 𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 peak loads occur in the late autumn, winter and spring season between
8th and 11th hour of the day, while the relatively high heat demand could occur in the evening hours. In the case
of SWH system deployment, the amount of heat transmitted (𝑄𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 ) amounts in range from 4.95 up to
9.9 kW in the day hours (9th to 16th hour) annually, while the peak loads (9.9 kW) could be expected between
12th and 13th hour of the day starting from April to the end of August. With this setup, in the spring and summer
season there is practically almost no need for 𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 demand in the evening hours, as SWH system generates
and stores enough energy to cover the given needs. The amount of heat lost within the proposed SWH system
(𝑄𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 ) is again mostly expected during spring and summer season while the related peaks do not exceed 2.2
kW. This indicates that additional potential for hot water application exists in this period of year if there is
such a need. Finally, the amount of heat delivered by the SWH system (𝑄𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 ) varies in range from 0.33
to 0.83 kW almost all year round, while the highest delivery loads (from 0.75 to 0.83 kW) could be expected
between 10th and 13th hour of the day starting from mid-March to the end of August. Favorable conditions for
the implementation of the SWH system at the analyzed location are reflected in the high availability of solar
resources (irradiation) as it could be noticed from the Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. Irradiance representation in the form of the heat map

From the Fig. 8 it can be concluded that Beam irradiance available for hot water preparation through SWH
system is available during the whole year, while daily availability varies from 500 to 870 W/m2. Moreover,
the potential of diffuse irradiance is also significant, and thus can contribute the system with 150 to 460
W/m2/day annually. These values are obtained for the optimal tilt angle of the fixed-position solar collectors
which was calculated to be 34° for the observed location. Within these system settings the total hourly global
irradiance incident on the collectors varies from 200 to 600 W/m2/day in the autumn and winter seasons, while
in spring and summer season it could be expected from 360 to 1200 W/m2/day. Finally, the total hourly
radiation that makes it into the collector (Irradiance – Transmitted), depends on the optical properties of the
collectors and in this case at least 500 W/m2/day is available annually, while in the spring and summer periods
1100 W/m2/day could be achieved between 12th and 13th hour of the day.
Furthermore, the tank volume variations on a daily basis annually are given in the Fig. 9. In the terms of 𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 ,
the highest amounts of water to be heathen up could be expected starting from the late October to the end of
February in the range from 0.1 to 0.19 m3 most of the daytime hours (starting from 8th to 16th hour of the day).
Opposite to 𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 , 𝑉ℎ𝑜𝑡 is necessary to be delivered in the identified periods to ensure continual availability of
hot water to cover the given needs.

Fig. 9. Tank volume representation in the form of the heat map

Lastly in order to gain insight regarding the mutual dependencies between relevant system variables the
bivariate Pearson’s Correlation analysis was performed (Fig. 10). This analysis ensures generation of
correlation coefficients (r) which measures the strength and direction of linear relationships between pairs of
continuous variables in order to evaluate whether there is statistical evidence for a linear relationship among
the same pairs of variables in the data population. Here the degree of correlation is represented by the value in
the range [-1, 1], the sign of the correlation coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship, while the
magnitude of the correlation (how close it is to -1 or +1) indicates the strength of the relationship. The perfectly
negative linear relationships (numerical values tending towards -1) are colored in blue, no relationships
(numerical values around the 0 value) tend to white color, while perfectly positive linear relationships
(numerical values tending towards +1) are colored in red. The variable correlation strength is evaluated by the
following criteria: 0.1 < |r| < 0.3 indicates small (weak), 0.3 < |r| < 0.5 a medium (moderate), while 0.5 < |r|
point out that variable data sets are characterized by large (strong) correlation. Given the aforementioned,
based on the results given in the Fig. 10, one can reveal which of the following variables have a statistically
significant linear relationship, which among them tend to increase or decrease together, and finally
approximate the magnitude/strength of such association.

Fig. 10. Bivariate Pearson’s Correlation coefficients of key variables in the simulation process
For example, the results provided within the Fig. 10 indicate that the relatively strong (r = -0.52) negative
linear relationship occurs among variables 𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 and 𝑄𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 , meaning that the strong probability exists while
𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 rises 𝑄𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 decreases and vice versa. In addition, a quite strong (r = 0.68) positive linear relationship
occurs among variables 𝑄𝑎𝑢𝑥𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 and Hot Water Draw, meaning that the strong probability exists for both
variables tend to increase or decrease together. Also, there is no statistical relevance and thus relationship
among variables 𝑉ℎ𝑜𝑡 and Hot Water Draw (r = 0), indicating that changes related to each of these variables do
not stimulate change occurrence to another.
4.1. Research Limitations and future steps considerations
Although it is possible to model a system to whatever degree is required, to extract the specified information
in theory, it is quite difficult to represent intimately a number of the phenomena occurring during system
operation in practice. In everyday realities, the systems are subjected to a variety of leaks, scale formation,
plugged or restricted pipes, scale on heat exchangers, controllers’ failure, poor equipment installation,
operating variables, human error, operator behavior, corrosion, etc. [21]. Notwithstanding the simulation
procedure, in this case, relates to the thermal process, it is important to emphasize that mechanical and other
case-specific considerations may and do affect the thermal performance of such systems. Also, the weather
data are the typical uncertain variable where TMY is often used in dynamic simulation engines. Here,
remarkable results could be obtained in terms of past and present, while the uncertainty of future
meteorological changes could not be indicated [16]. To make the designed system closer to the actual
operation, to ensure trustworthy predictions, this issue must be considered before planning, especially because
the uncertainty of the energy supply affected by weather represents the main reason why it is difficult to make
the capacity assessment. Moreover, the vast majority of the studies consider a standard SWH system designed
to meet the water demand of a family with an average of five members [22-25], where a diversity of technical
parameters and behavior aspects represents the major limitation. Furthermore, most of them do not assess
different climate zones, usually analyzing a specific city, which results in narrowing the conclusions to site-
specific conditions. Although the external data are used extensively in the simulation process, the limitations
associated with the data cannot be neglected. As an example, using the weather data recorded at a particular
geographical location may significantly differ in comparison to the results obtained through the experiments
carried out at micro-location in the same region, causing inconsistency, incoherency, and confusion during
data processing. On the other hand, having a sound knowledge base and practical experience can help to
imagine the model and its behavior before prototyping. This unequivocally means that assumptions are
mandatory while deriving an expression for modeling, whereby, as a consequence, final results deviations are
inevitable. More importantly, there is no substitute for carefully planned, designed, and thoroughly executed
experiments mainly because these will reveal whether or not the hypotheses are adequate and where difficulties
arise during the design and operation of the systems. For this reason, one can easily conclude that simulations
and well-designed experiments are complementary. However, comparisons of the measurements results within
the field of performance of purchased and installed systems with simulations, in some instances shown greater
differences than those with experiments. This has two possible explanations. First, field measurements are
often hard to form, while the measurements were performed at an unsatisfactory level. Second, commercially
installed systems are not always built and operated with identical care and knowledge as experimental ones,
which is why they cannot be expected to function similarly. Given the aforementioned, the maximal gain could
be achieved through simultaneous numerical experiment (simulation) and physical experiment
implementation, which eventually paves the path towards better, more efficient systems, better understanding
of system processes operation, increase in knowledge regarding expected difficulties, and finally, developing
next logical steps in the systems evolution. Finally, although simulations are a powerful tool for research and
development, as well as for understanding how systems function and behave, they must be conducted with the
care and skill whereby it is highly desirable to be accompanied by an appropriate experiment as well. Given
the aforementioned, the further research steps are aimed to design and develop specific hardware solution in
terms of decentralized multi-channel stochastic (temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure,
irradiance, etc.) and process (flow) variables data logger which will serve as a real-time thermodynamic data
processor (Conceptualized within Appendix 4 - Experiment and Verification model concepts). Upon data
generation through experimental setup, it would be possible to verify, validate and preferably justify the
simulation results. For that purpose, a simple data-centric model was designed and conceptualized. The model
processes both, by experiment-generated and simulation data with aim to perform comparison between
observed experiment and simulation-based models.

5. Conclusion
In this paper key parameters for determining the energy performance of a conceptual solar water heating
(SWH) system based on a thermodynamic energy balance formulation subjected to a SAM (System Advisor
Model) Solar Water Heating Model simulation were analyzed. The authors destined for this model
implementation because it is based on foundations that are effective in bridging up the complexity gap between
the SWH models in TRNSYS at one, and the simplicity of the f-Chart model on the other hand. From the
obtained results it can be concluded that favorable conditions exist for the use of solar energy at the observed
location for satisfying hot water preparation needs of the single-family residential building. The simulation-
based analysis revealed that the overall energy demand for hot water preparation amounts to 4151.3 kWh.
Moreover, the analysis resulted in forecasted annual energy saved of 1986 kWh with a capacity factor of 5.5
%, where the solar fraction ratio amounts 0.46. Furthermore, simulation results indicate that despite the
significant amount of Qtransmitted, Quseful amounts slightly less than half the Qtransmitted along with the entire
distribution roughly, while the Qauxilary engaged in this installation does not exceed 1 kW. However, on an
annual level, in compared to Qauxilary only, the demand can be decreased in the amount of 39.82% if such a system
is implemented in the observed location, while the significant heat load reduction could be expected already
from February (39.5%). The highest SWH system potential is expected in spring period in which system
provides 46.98% on average of energy needed. This heat load reduction trend continues also in summer and
autumn periods of the year in which SWH system can provide 43.67% and 42.25% of energy needed for hot
water preparation on average respectively. Moreover, this research pointed out possible limitations where the
main challenge is to assume and account for all real-world physical phenomena in simulation (e.g., leakages,
operating variables, human error, operator behavior, etc.) since these repercussions should not be
underestimated. Subsequently, it has been emphasized to carefully take into account mechanical and other
case-specific considerations as they may affect the thermal performance of observed systems. Also, the major
issue of the dynamic simulation is the weather data as a crucial uncertain variable that ensures valuable results
regarding past and present meteorological changes while the uncertainty of future ones still has not been
tackled. Lastly, authors believe that a strive to establish better, more efficient systems could be achieved
through design and development of specific hardware equipment in terms of real-time thermodynamic
processor, integrated into the experimental setup, synchronized with the simulation engine parameters to
ensure effective verification, validation and justification of simulation model or efficient problem
identification as a final result.

Appendices
All previously mentioned appendices are available here1

References
[1] ***, Renewables 2018 Global Status Report, ISBN 978-3-9818911-3-3, REN21, Paris, available at:
https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Full-Report-2018.pdf
[2] ***, 2016 ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Systems and Equipment, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 2016.
[3] Panwar, N.L., et al., Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, (2011), 3, pp. 1513-1524.
[4] Sims, R.E.H., Renewable energy: A response to climate change, Solar Energy, 76, (2004) 1–3, pp. 9-17.
[5] Kalogirou, S. A., Solar thermal collectors and applications, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 30,
(2004), 3, pp. 231-295.
[6] Weiss, W., Spörk-Dür, M., Solar Heat Worldwide - Global Market Development and Trends in 2018 & Detailed
Market Figures 2017, IEA Solar Heating & Cooling Programme, May 2019, AEE - Institute for Sustainable
Technologies, Gleisdorf, Austria, pp. 86. Available at: https://www.iea-shc.org/Data/Sites/1/publications/Solar-
Heat-Worldwide-2019.pdf
[7] Boyle, G, Renewable Energy Power for a Sustainable Future, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK,
2004.
[8] Kalogirou, S. A., (2014), Solar Energy Engineering, 2nd Edition, Chapter 1 - Introduction, Academic Press, San
Diego, CA, USA.
[9] Cruz, T. et al., Solar water heating technical-economic potential in the household sector in Brazil, Renewable
Energy, 146, (2020), pp. 1618-1639.
[10] ***, Solar Heating and Cooling for Residential Applications - Technology Brief, IEA-ETSAP and IRENA©
Technology Brief R12, (2015), available at: https://www.irena.org/publications/2015/Jan/Solar-Heating-and-
Cooling-for-Residential-Applications
[11] Domínguez-Muñoz, F., et al., Design of solar thermal systems under uncertainty, Energy and Buildings, 47,
(2012), pp. 474-484.
[12] ***, PHPP, https://passipedia.org/planning/calculating_energy_efficiency/phpp_-
_the_passive_house_planning_package
[13] ***, F-Chart Software, http://www.fchartsoftware.com/
[14] ***, TRNSYS, http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys/
[15] ***, T ∗SOL, http://www.solardesign.co.uk/tsol.php
[16] Lan, B., et al., Improving the design method of a solar heating system considering weather uncertainty and
system reliability, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 208, (2020), 109606.

1
Appendices access link: https://backo-tech.github.io/Solar-Data-Sets/APPENDICIES.pdf
[17] *** 2017 ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 2017.
[18] Ferreira, L. A. F. M., Carvalho, P. M. S., Capacity credit for renewable energy resources, IEEE Power
Engineering Society, 1999 Winter Meeting (Cat. No.99CH36233), New York, USA, 1999, Vol. 1, pp. 471-47.
[19] Peuser, F. A., et al., Solar thermal systems. Successful planning and construction, Germany, DE, pp. 380, ISBN
3-934595-24-3; ISBN 1-902916-39-5; TRN: DE03G7960.
[20] Madaeni, S.H., et al., Estimating the capacity value of concentrating solar power plants: A case study of the
Southwestern United States, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 27, (2012), 2, pp. 1116–1124.
[21] Duffie, J. A., Beckman, W. A., Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, 4th Edition, John Wiley and Sons, NY,
USA, 2013.
[22] Sadiq, M., Solar water heating system for residential consumers of Islamabad, Pakistan: A cost benefit analysis,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, (2018), pp. 2443-2453.
[23] Allouhi, A., et al., Solar domestic heating water systems in Morocco: An energy analysis, Energy Conversion
and Management, 92, (2015), pp. 105-113.
[24] Hazami, M., et al., Solar water heating systems feasibility for domestic requests in Tunisia: Thermal potential
and economic analysis, Energy Conversion and Management, 76, (2013), pp.
[25] Naspolini, H.F., Rüther, R., Assessing the technical and economic viability of low-cost domestic solar hot water
systems (DSHWS) in low-income residential dwellings in Brazil, Renewable Energy, 48, (2012), pp. 92-99.