Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Explicit analytical solution of a differential equation model for solar

heating systems
László Székely a, Richárd Kicsiny a, *, Péter Hermanucz b, Gábor Géczi c
a
Department of Mathematics and Modelling, Institute of Mathematics and Basic Science, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter K. u. 1., 2100
Gödöllő, Hungary
b
Department of Energy and Building Engineering, Institute of Technology, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter K. u. 1., 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
c
Department of Environmental Analysis and Technologies, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter K. u. 1., 2100
Gödöllő, Hungary

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the issue of the environmental protection, the role of the widespread application of solar heating systems is
Solar collector very important. Well-usable mathematical models or their solutions can help to promote this aim. In the liter­
Mathematical model ature, analytical solutions for the models of solar heating systems are rather rare, despite of their advantages (fast
Ordinary differential equation
and easy usability, low computational demand, low cost).
Explicit analytical solution
In the present paper, we intend to (partly) make up for this shortage with respect to a two-dimensional or­
Validation
dinary differential equation model of complete collector-storage systems. The worked out new analytical system
solution provides easy- and fast-to-use explicit formulas (for direct algebraic substitutions) to determine both the
temperature of the collector and the temperature of the storage.
The analytical solution is validated with the measured data of a real solar heating system. As a part of the
validation of the (two-dimensional) system solution, the analytical solution of the (one-dimensional) collector
sub-model (which is already known and successfully used in the literature) is also validated separately with the
measured data of a real solar collector. Based on the validation containing a relatively long time period of 19
days, the error of the new system solution is 3.4% in case of the collector and 2.0% in case of the storage, which
means an outstanding precision in the field.

genetic algorithms (Cabello et al., 2011), linear regression models

1. Introduction
In the issue of the environmental protection, especially the mitiga­
tion of global warming, a special role falls on the widespread application
of solar heating systems (Kalogirou, 2013). The theoretical examination
of such systems helps to promote this aim, primarily by means of
mathematical modelling. This means, generally, the description of the
temperature circumstances of the system (in time), since the proper
outlet temperature (with the volumetric flow rate) represents the uti­
lizable heat for the consumer.
The main working components of a solar heating system are the
(solar) collector and the (solar) storage (and optionally a heat
exchanger). It can be stated that the mathematical models describing
solar heating systems (or system components) can be categorized into
two main types. The so-called black-box type models (artificial neural
networks (ANNs) (Géczy-Víg and Farkas, 2010; Kalogirou, 2000),
(Géczi et al, 2019; Kicsiny, 2014; Kicsiny, 2018) etc.) do not take into
account the exact physical relations between the input and output var­
iables of the system, only the tendencies experienced in several experi­
ments/observations. On the contrary, the physically-based (or white-
box) models express theoretically established, known physical laws
(like conservation of energy or mass), so such models facilitate more the
deeper understanding and better prediction of heat phenomena,
generally.
Most of the physically-based models are given in the form of differ­
ential equation (DE), more particularly partial differential equation
(PDE) or ordinary differential equation (ODE). In the PDE models, the
studied physical parameters as dependent variables (generally some
temperature values of the system) are functions of several independent
variables (time and space coordinate(s)). In the ODE models, the
dependent variables are functions of only one independent variable (the
time). The Hottel-Whillier-Bliss model (Hottel and Woertz, 1942) may

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Kicsiny.Richard@uni-mate.hu (R. Kicsiny).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.05.007
Received 20 November 2020; Accepted 1 May 2021
Available online 21 May 2021
0038-092X/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Solar Energy Society. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Székely et al.
Nomenclature
Ac collector surface area, m2
As storage surface area, m2
c specific heat capacity of the collector/storage fluid, J/
(kgK)
Ic global solar irradiance on the collector surface, W/m2
ks heat loss coefficient of the storage, W/(m2K)
t time, s
Tc homogeneous temperature and outlet (fluid) temperature
of the collector, ◦ C
Tc,an collector temperature calculated from the analytical
solution Eq. (3) or Eq. (11), ◦ C
Tc,meas measured collector temperature, ◦ C
Tc,meas,max maximal measured collector temperature for the whole
studied time period, ◦ C
Tc,meas,min minimal measured collector temperature for the whole
studied time period, ◦ C
Tce environment temperature of the collector, ◦ C
Tcold cold inlet (fluid) temperature of the collector/storage, ◦ C
Ts (fluid) temperature of the mixed storage, ◦ C
Ts,an storage temperature calculated from the analytical
be the earliest PDE model among the most important and frequently
used collector models, which is applied in many researches to date
(Deng et al., 2015). Basic and frequently cited ODE models can be found
in the monograph of Duffie and Beckman (2013) both for collectors and
storages. The works (Buzás et al., 1998; Buzás and Farkas, 2000) contain
perhaps the simplest such (linear) ODEs which are still able to describe
the transient processes (temperature changes) inside collectors and
storages with a satisfactory accuracy. This is confirmed by more sources
in the technical literature, which present the easy and successful
applicability of these models (see e.g. (Kicsiny and Varga, 2012; Kumar
and Rosen, 2010)).
Generally, the solution of a DE model (that is the determination of
the corresponding temperature as a function of time) take place in an
approximate and numerical way (Azzolin et al., 2018; Baughn and
Young, 1984; Duffie and Beckman, 2013; Hussein, 2002). It is usually
extremely difficult or impossible to generate the analytical solution,
especially in an exact (precise) and explicit (really user-friendly) form,
even if the studied system and its circumstances are relatively simple
(Dhariwal and Mirdha, 2005). This is the reason for that analytical so­
lutions are rarely published in the literature. If the (exact) analytical
solution is still available, the temperature(s) of the system in demand
can be determined considerably more easily (with substituting directly
in a given formula), fast (with less computational demand) and cheaply
(with lower software cost) than by means of numerical simulations.
Zarmi (1982) and Dhariwal and Mirdha (2005) move out of the PDE
collector model of Klein et al. (1974) completing it with an appropriate
ODE model for storages. These works contain solely theoretical and
computational results without measurement-based validation. Zarmi
(1982) serves with an approximate analytical solution for the (homo­
geneous) temperature of the (mixed) storage containing also the effect of
the collector. The solution is gained with neglecting the heat loss of the
storage and the higher order terms of the infinite series form exact so­
lution. Dhariwal and Mirdha (2005) propose formulas both for the
temperature of the collector and the temperature of the storage. How­
ever, these variables refer to each other and leave certain integrals
220
Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229
solution Eq. (11), ◦ C
Ts,meas measured storage temperature, ◦ C
Ts,meas,max maximal measured storage temperature for the whole
studied time period, ◦ C
Ts,meas,min minimal measured storage temperature for the whole
studied time period, ◦ C
Tse environment temperature of the storage, ◦ C
uIc uncertainty of the solar irradiance measurement, W/m2
UL overall heat loss coefficient of the collector, W/(m2K)
uT uncertainty of the measurement of the temperatures Tce ,
Tcold and Tse , ◦ C
uTc calculated uncertainty of the collector temperature, ◦ C
uTs calculated uncertainty of the storage temperature, ◦ C
uv uncertainty of the flow rate measurement, m3/s
v volumetric pump flow rate in the collector, m3/s
Vc collector volume, m3
vl volumetric flow rate of the consumption load, m3/s
Vs storage volume, m3
η0 optical efficiency of the collector, –
ρ collector/storage fluid density, kg/m3
unexecuted in the formulas, which are therefore not suitable for the
explicit expression of the corresponding temperatures. Also a DE for
storages is presented in (Kulkarni et al., 2007) with respect to domestic
hot water producing collector-storage systems. The solution is implicit
(not direct/explicit) again, which is used to unfold the optimal param­
eter domains (for design) of such systems.
The following publications contain validated results: Belessiotis and
Mathioulakis (2002) propose analytical formulas for the coefficients in
the characteristic equation between the input and output variables of
thermosyphon type solar water systems. In (Hernández and Quiñonez,
2018), the thermal behaviour in parallel flow collectors working with air
is described with an analytical model in case of natural convection. A
one-dimensional model is presented in (Zima and Dziewa, 2010) to
simulate the transient process inside the tubes of flat plate collectors.
The model is validated with comparing the simulated results to the
corresponding analytical ones published in (Serov and Korolkov, 1981).
A heat transfer model is worked out by Zueva and Magiera (2001) for a
collector-heat exchanger system. An analytical solution is gained to
describe the problem of heat conduction through the wall of the col­
lector, in case of certain boundary conditions.
As mentioned above, analytical solutions with respect to the models
of solar heating systems are rather rare in the literature, despite of their
apparent advantages (fast and easy usability, low computational de­
mand, low cost). We would like to (partly) make up for this shortage in
the present paper with respect to a two-dimensional ODE model of
complete solar heating systems containing a collector and a storage,
while the heat loss and the consumption load of the storage are
considered. The circulation is forced by a pump (the system is active).
The linear mathematical relations for the two main working components
are the sub-models of Buzás et al. (1998) and Buzás and Farkas (2000)
used already successfully in former researches. In the paper, we work
out and validate an explicit analytical system solution for this two-
dimensional model. Buzás (2009) has already produced the analytical
collector solution of the (one-dimensional) collector sub-model (Buzás
et al., 1998) but it has not been validated directly yet. (Only the
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

approximate numerical solution of the sub-model was validated.) Below,

we carry out this validation also as a part of the validation of the
analytical solution for the complete solar heating system. Further
specifying of the contribution of the present paper is the following:

1. An analytical solution is worked out for a two-dimensional ODE

model of Buzás et al. (1998) and Buzás and Farkas (2000) for solar
heating systems consisting of a collector and a solar storage. This
system solution provides easy- and fast-to-use explicit formulas to
determine both the temperature of the collector and the temperature
of the storage in a direct way (without their referring to each other).
The solution is validated with the measured data of a real solar
heating system.
2. As a part of the validation of the system solution, the analytical so­ Fig. 2. Scheme of the studied system.
lution of the (one-dimensional) collector sub-model (Buzás et al.,
1998) is also validated separately with the measured data of a real 3. Analytical solutions
solar collector.
In this section, the analytical solutions including the new analytical
The paper has the following organization: Section 2 presents the solution for complete solar heating systems are presented in detail.
basic mathematical models for the solar collector and the solar heating
system. In Section 3, the analytical solutions including the new solution 3.1. Analytical solution of the collector model
for complete systems are given. Section 4 contains the validation of the
analytical solutions based on measured data. Conclusions and sugges­ Based on (Buzás, 2009), the explicit analytical solution of the col­
tions on future researches close the paper in Section 5. lector model Eq. (1) can be expressed in the form of Eq. (3) assuming
that Ic , Tce , Tcold and v are constant. (Accordingly, Eq. (1) is an inho­
2. Mathematical models mogeneous ODE.) In Eq. (3), Tc,0 =Tc (0) is the initial condition, that is
the collector temperature at the timet = 0 (s):
In this section, the used mathematical models for solar collectors and ( )
solar heating systems are presented in detail. c2 − c1 t c2
Tc (t) = Tc,0 − e + . (3)
c1 c1
2.1. Collector model
Here

The scheme of the studied solar collector type can be seen in Fig. 1. c1 =
U L Ac v
+ ,c =
Ac η0
I +
UL Ac Tce vTcold
+
Eq. (1) represents the used collector model from (Buzás et al., 1998), ρcVc Vc 2 ρcVc c ρcVc Vc
which is a linear, one-dimensional ODE:
dTc Ac η0 U L Ac v
= I + (T − Tc ) + (Tcold − Tc ) (1) Remark 3.1. Note, that the only (positive) equilibrium of Eq. (3) is
dt ρcVc c ρcVc ce Vc
c2
Tc,eq = ,
2.2. System model c1

The scheme of the studied solar heating system type can be seen in which is globally asymptotically stable. It means that, independently of
Fig. 2. the initial value of the collector temperature Tc,0 , all solutions tend to
Eqs. (2a)-(2b) represent the used system model from (Buzás and Tc,eq as t tends to infinity. In addition, the solution is strictly mono­
Farkas, 2000), which is a linear, two-dimensional ODE (or, alternatively, tonically increasing if Tc,0 < Tc,eq and strictly monotonically decreasing
a linear system of two one-dimensional ODEs): if Tc,0 > Tc,eq .
dTc Ac η0 U L Ac v
= I + (T − T ) + (T − Tc ), (2a) 3.2. Analytical solution of the system model
dt ρcVc c ρcVc ce c Vc s

dTs v vl As k s In this section, the explicit analytical solution of the system model
= (Tc − Ts ) + (Tcold − Ts ) + (T − Ts ) (2b) Eqs. (2a)-(2b) is derived according to the standard mathematical con­
dt Vs Vs ρcVs se
cepts and tools for linear ODEs (Hartman, 1982). This is the main new
result of the paper.
First, let us rearrange Eqs. (2a)-(2b) in the form of (4a)-(4b), which is
an inhomogeneous, linear, two-dimensional ODE, assuming that Ic , Tce ,
Tse , Tcold , v and vl are constant, then
dTc
= − c1 Tc + c3 Ts + c4 , (4a)
dt
Ic Tc
dTs
= c5 Tc − c6 Ts + c7 . (4b)
dt
Tce Here
Tcold v

Fig. 1. Scheme of the studied collector.

221
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

v Ac η 0 UL Ac Tce v v vl As ks Let
c3 = , c4 = I + , c5 = , c6 = + + ,
Vc ρcVc c ρcVc Vs Vs Vs ρcVs [ ] [ ]
c Tc,0
vl Tcold As ks Tse h = 4 , T0 =
c7 = + . c7 Ts,0
Vs ρcVs
Then according to the constant variation method, the solution of the
Let the initial condition, that is the collector and storage tempera­
inhomogeneous Eqs. (4a)-(4b), with initial condition T0 , is
tures at the time t = 0 (s) be denoted with Tc,0 = Tc (0)and Ts,0 =Ts (0),
[ ] ∫t
respectively. Tc (t)
= Φ(t)Φ− 1 (0)T0 + Φ(t) Φ− 1 (s)hds. (8)
The homogeneous version of Eqs. (4a)-(4b) is Eqs. (5a)-(5b): Ts (t) 0

dTc
= − c1 Tc + c3 Ts , (5a) Here Φ− is the inverse matrix of Φ. One can check that
1

dt [ −λt ]
1 e 1 − s2,1 e− λ1 t
Φ− 1 (t) =
dTs s1,1 − s2,1 − e− λ2 t s1,1 e− λ2 t
= c5 Tc − c6 Ts . (5b)
dt
According to Eq. (8), it follows that
The eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix [
Tc (t)
]
[
− c1 c3
] Ts (t)
([ λ t ][ ][ ]
c5 − c6 1 e 1 s1,1 eλ2 t s2,1 1 − s2,1 Tc,0
=
s1,1 − s2,1 eλ1 t eλ2 t − 1 s1,1 Ts,0
are
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ [ ] ∫ t[ ][ ] )
eλ1 t s1,1 eλ2 t s2,1 e− λ1 s − s2,1 e− λ1 s c4
− c1 − c6 ± (c1 + c6 )2 − 4(c1 c6 − c3 c5 ) + ds
λ1,2 = eλ1 t eλ2 t 0 − e− λ2 s s1,1 e− λ2 s c7
2
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ =
− c1 − c6 ± (c1 − c6 )2 + 4c3 c5 ([( ) ]
= . 1 s1,1 eλ1 t − s2,1 eλ2 t Tc,0 − s1,1 s2,1 (eλ1 t − eλ2 t )Ts,0
λ1 t λ2 t
( λ1 t λ2 t
)
2 s1,1 − s2,1 (e − e )Tc,0 − s2,1 e − s1,1 e Ts,0
Observe that the eigenvalues are distinct, real, negative numbers, [ λt ]∫ t [ ( ) ] )
e 1 s1,1 eλ2 t s2,1 c4 − c7 s2,1 e− λ1 s
since c1 c6 − c3 c5 > 0, according to the physical meaning of the parame­ + ( ) ds
eλ1 t eλ2 t 0 − c4 +c7 s1,1 e− λ2 s
ters forming c1 , …, c7 . The general form of the associated eigenvectors
are =
[ ] [ ] ⎛
s s [( ) ]
s1 = 1,1 , s2 = 2,1 1
⎜ s1,1 eλ1 t − s2,1 eλ2 t Tc,0 − s1,1 s2,1 (eλ1 t − eλ2 t )Ts,0
1 1 ⎜ ( )
s1,1 − s2,1 ⎝ (eλ1 t − eλ2 t )Tc,0 − s2,1 eλ1 t − s1,1 eλ2 t Ts,0
respectively, where
⎡ c4 − c7 s2,1 − λ1 t ⎤⎞
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ [ ] − (e − 1)
λ1 t λ2 t
c1 − c6 − (c1 − c6 )2 + 4c3 c5 e s1,1 e s2,1 ⎢
⎢
λ1 ⎥⎟
⎥⎟
+
s1,1 = − , eλ1 t eλ2 t ⎣ − c4 + c7 s1,1 − λ2 t ⎦⎠
2c5
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ − (e − 1)
λ2
c1 − c6 + (c1 − c6 )2 + 4c3 c5
s2,1 = − . =
2c5 ⎛
Note that the following relations hold: ⎜[( s eλ1 t − s eλ2 t )T − s s (eλ1 t − eλ2 t )T ]
1 ⎜ 1,1 2,1 c,0
( 1,1 2,1
) s,0
s1,1 − s2,1 ⎜
⎝ (eλ1 t − eλ2 t )Tc,0 − s2,1 eλ1 t − s1,1 eλ2 t Ts,0
c6 − c1
s1,1 + s2,1 = , (6a)
c5
⎡ ( ) ( ) ⎤⎞
c3 s1,1 c4 − c7 s2,1 s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1
s1,1 s2,1 = − (6b) ⎢− (1− eλ1 t )+ (1− eλ2 t ) ⎥ ⎟
c5 ⎢ λ1 λ2 ⎥⎟
+⎢ ⎥⎟
⎣ c4 − c7 s2,1 λ1 t c4 − c7 s1,1 λ2 t
⎦⎠
and − (1− e )+ (1− e )
λ1 λ2
λ1 = c5 s1,1 − c6 , (7a) =
([ ( ) ]
λ2 = c5 s2,1 − c6 . (7b) 1 s1,1 eλ1 t − s2,1 eλ2 t Tc,0( − s1,1 s2,1 (eλ1 t − )eλ2 t )Ts,0
= λ1 t λ2 t λ1 t λ2 t +
s1,1 − s2,1 (e − e )Tc,0 − s2,1 e − s1,1 e Ts,0
It follows that there is a fundamental set of solutions with respect to
⎡ ( ) ( ) ⎤⎞
Eqs. (5a)-(5b), which consists of the vectors s1,1 c4 − c7 s2,1 s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1
⎢− (1 − eλ1 t ) + (1 − eλ2 t ) ⎥ ⎟
⎢ λ1 λ2 ⎥⎟
eλ1 t s1 , eλ2 t s2 ⎢ ⎥ ⎟=
⎣ c4 − c7 s2,1 c 4 − c 7 s1,1 ⎦⎠
− (1 − eλ1 t ) + (1 − eλ2 t )
Let Φ denote the fundamental matrix solution of Eqs. (5a)-(5b) which λ1 λ2
has the above two vectors as columns, that is
[ λt ]
e 1 s1,1 eλ2 t s2,1
Φ(t) = λ1 t λ2 t
e e

222
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

⎛⎡ ( ) ⎤
( λ1 t
)
λ2 t λ1 t λ2 t s1,1 c4 − c7 s2,1 λ1 t
⎜⎢ s1,1 e − s2,1 e Tc,0 − s1,1 s2,1 (e − e )Ts,0 + e ⎥
1 ⎜⎢ λ1 ⎥
= ⎜⎢ ⎥+
s1,1 − s2,1 ⎝⎣ ( ) c 4 − c s
7 2,1 λ1 t ⎦
(eλ1 t − eλ2 t )Tc,0 − s2,1 eλ1 t − s1,1 eλ2 t Ts,0 + e
λ1

⎡ ( ) ( ) ( ) ⎤⎞
s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1 λ2 t s1,1 c4 − c7 s2,1 s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1
⎢− e − + ⎥⎟ ⎡c c + c c ⎤
⎢ λ2 λ1 λ2 ⎥⎟
⎢ ⎥⎟ (9) 6 4 3 7
⎣ c4 − c7 s1,1 λ2 t c4 − c7 s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1 ⎦⎠ ⎢ c1 c6 − c3 c5 ⎥
−
λ2
e −
λ1
+
λ2
⎢ ⎥
⎣ c5 c4 + c1 c7 ⎦ (11)

To interpret our result in a more favourable way, we need the c1 c6 − c3 c5

following lemma.
Lemma 3.1. The following equalities hold: Remark 3.2. Observe that since λ1 and λ2 are negative in Eq. (11),
( ( ) ( ))
1 s1,1 c4 − c7 s2,1 s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1 c6 c4 + c3 c7
− + = , (10a) ⎡c c + c c ⎤
s1,1 − s2,1 λ1 λ2 c1 c6 − c3 c5 6 4 3 7
[ ]
Tc (t) ⎢ c1 c6 − c3 c5 ⎥
( ) lim =⎢ ⎥
⎣ c5 c4 + c1 c7 ⎦
1 c4 − c7 s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1 c5 c4 + c1 c7 Ts (t)
(10b)
t→∞
− + = .
s1,1 − s2,1 λ1 λ2 c1 c6 − c3 c5 c1 c6 − c3 c5

hold for all solutions. That is the only equilibrium of Eqs. (4a)-(4b)
Proof. We prove only Eq. (10a). Proof of Eq. (10b) is analogous. Ac­
cording to relations (6a)-(6b) and (7a)-(7b), ( )
( )
c6 c4 + c3 c7 c5 c4 + c1 c7
( ) Tc,eq , Ts,eq = , (12)
s1,1 (c4 − c7 s2,1 ) s2,1 (c4 − c7 s1,1 ) c1 c6 − c3 c5 c1 c6 − c3 c5
1
s1,1 − s2,1 − λ1 + λ2 =
λ1 s2,1 (c4 − c7 s1,1 )− λ2 s1,1 (c4 − c7 s2,1 )
is globally asymptotically stable. We note here that this result can be
1
s1,1 − s2,1 ⋅ λ1 λ2 = obtained also with solving the algebraic (linear) system of equations
1 λ1 s2,1 (c4 − c7 s1,1 )− λ2 s1,1 (c4 − c7 s2,1 )
s1,1 − s2,1 ⋅ λ1 λ2 =
0 = − c1 Tc + c3 Ts + c4
( ) ( )
1 (c5 s1,1 − c6 )s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1 − (c5 s2,1 − c6 )s1,1 c4 − c7 s2,1
⋅ = 0 = c5 Tc − c6 Ts + c7
s1,1 − s2,1 c1 c6 − c3 c5
taking into account that all eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix (of Eqs.
1 − c5 c7 s21,1 s2,1 +s1,1 s2,1 (c5 c4 +c6 c7 )− c6 c4 s2,1 +c5 c7 s1,1 s22,1 − s1,1 s2,1 (c5 c4 +c6 c7 )+c6 c4 s1,1 (5a)-(5b)) have negative real parts.
c1 c6 − c3 c5 ⋅ s1,1 − s2,1 =
1 − c5 c7 s1,1 s2,1 (s1,1 − s2,1 )+c6 c4 (s1,1 − s2,1 ) Remark 3.3. In practical applications, it does not mean a real re­
c1 c6 − c3 c5 ⋅ s1,1 − s2,1 =
striction that Ic , Tce , Tse , Tcold , v and vl (as the inputs of the collector and
( )
c3
system models) are assumed to be constant, since these variables are
− c5 c7 ⋅ − c5
+ c6 c4 always detected as piece-wise constant functions (with respect to time)
c6 c4 + c3 c7
c1 c6 − c3 c5
=
c1 c6 − c3 c5 in accordance with the operation of any measuring equipment. In
particular, solution (3) or (11) can be reused periodically according to
In this way, Eq. (10a) has been proved. the time points of the measurement to express the output value (the
Lemma 3.1 and the previous formula (9) on the solution of ODE (4a)- scalar Tc or the vector (Tc , Ts )) at the end of every time steps (of the
(4b) implies the following result. measurement). In such an application process, the input and the initial
Statement 3.1 condition values should be refreshed at each measured time point. More
The solution of Eqs. (4a)-(4b) with initial condition Tc,0 = Tc (0) and particularly, the input values are measured at the beginning of each time
Ts,0 = Ts (0) is Eq. (11): ( )
step, but the initial condition (Tc,0 or Tc,0 , Ts,0 ) is measured only at the
[ ]
Tc (t) 1 beginning of the first time step (of a given day, for example). Later (on
= ∙
Ts (t) s1,1 − s2,1 the day), the initial condition for any time step is considered as the
calculated output value with respect to the end of the preceding time
step.

⎡ ( ) ( ) ⎤
( λ1 t
) s1,1 c4 − c7 s2,1 λ1 t s2,1 c4 − c7 s1,1 λ2 t
⎢ s1,1 e − s2,1 e Tc,0 − s1,1 s2,1 (eλ1 t − eλ2 t )Ts,0 +
λ2 t
e − e ⎥
⎢ λ1 λ2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥+
⎣ ( ) c4 − c7 s2,1 λ1 t c4 − c7 s1,1 λ2 t ⎦
(eλ1 t − eλ2 t )Tc,0 − s2,1 eλ1 t − s1,1 eλ2 t Ts,0 + e − e
λ1 λ2

223
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

4. Validation

For the identification and the validation of the analytical solutions

(Eq. (3) and Eq. (11)), an experimental solar heating system has been
installed at the campus of the Szent István University (SZIU) in Gödöllő,
Hungary. Let this measured system be called SZIU-system.
In this section, the solar collector (more precisely, its solution Eq.
(3)) is identified and validated in itself first, then it can be already used
in the identification and validation of the whole solar heating system
(more precisely, its solution Eq. (11)). 2 measured days (between 6 and
10 August 2020) have been selected for the identification such that one
of them has relatively fast changing solar irradiance (cloudy weather)
the other has relatively slowly changing/smooth irradiance (cloudless
weather) to cover the widest possible operational conditions. 19
measured days from an independent time period (between 11 and 31
August 2020 according to minor technical interruptions) have been used
for the validation.
The following indices are used to evaluate the difference between the
calculated and measured temperatures throughout the studied time
period (of either the identification or the validation): The average of error
( )
(in ◦ C) is defined as the time average of Tc,an − Tc,meas in case of the
( )
collector and the time average of Ts,an − Ts,meas in case of the storage.
The average of absolute error (in ◦ C) is defined as the time average of
⃒ ⃒ ⃒
⃒Tc,an − Tc,meas ⃒ in case of the collector and the time average of ⃒Ts,an −
⃒
Ts,meas ⃒ in case of the storage. The average of absolute error (in %) is
defined as the average of absolute error (in ◦ C) divided by the difference
between the maximal and minimal measured temperature values
regarding the whole studied time period (which is Tc,meas,max − Tc,meas,min Fig. 4. Photo of the storage and the pump of the SZIU-system.
in case of the collector or Ts,meas,max − Ts,meas,min in case of the storage).
The mentioned calculated temperatures are Tc,an and Ts,an . Tc,an is checked in the validation.
determined directly from the explicit analytical solution Eq. (3) if the In the identification of the solar heating system (or its solution Eq.
collector is examined in itself. Both Tc,an and Ts,an are determined (11)), the already identified η0 and UL values are used and the value of
directly from the explicit analytical solution Eq. (11) if the whole solar the parameter ks is set in such a way that the average of absolute error is
heating system is examined. minimal with respect to the storage temperature and the whole time of
In the identification of the collector (or its solution Eq. (3)), the the identification. Then the precision of the (two-dimensional) solution
values of the parameters η0 and UL are set in such a way that the average Eq. (11) corresponding to the already identified system is checked in the
of absolute error is minimal with respect to the collector temperature validation.
and the whole time of the identification. Then the precision of the so­ According to our measuring possibilities (e.g. possible time of per­
lution Eq. (3) corresponding to the already identified collector is sonal supervision), there are some unmeasured time intervals (mainly at
nights) between the continuously measured intervals (containing most
of the daytime terms) both during the identification (from 6 to 10
August 2020) and during the validation (from 11 to 31 August 2020).
Within a continuously measured interval, the length of the time steps
between the successive measurements is 30 s. In the piece-wise/
recurrent application of Eq. (3) or (11), measured (or known) input
values (Ic , Tce , Tse , Tcold , v and vl ) are used at the beginning of each time
( )
step to express the (calculated) output (Tc,an for Eq. (3) or Tc,an , Ts,an for
Eq. (11)) at the end of the time step. As regards the initial condition (Tc,0
( )
for Eq. (3) or Tc,0 , Ts,0 for Eq. (11)), its measured value is used at the
beginning of the first time step (of the current continuously measured
time interval), but later (in the same interval) the calculated output
value with respect to the end of the preceding time step is used as the
initial condition (see also Remark 3.3).
According to the abovementioned, the calculated and measured
output and the measured input values are available/generated only at
discrete time points with a distance of 30 s or more between the
neighbouring points. Nevertheless, it seems admissible to use a universal
distance visually between the neighbouring time points, then connect
the corresponding neighbouring values continuously on the graphs of
the different calculated and measured variables (see Figs. 5-11) as if they
continuously and uniformly filled in the whole time of the identification
or validation process. In this way, the visual representation of the results
is more convenient while the essential conclusion with respect to the
Fig. 3. Photo of the collector of the SZIU-system, the mobile container and the accuracy of the analytical solutions can be still drawn adequately. After
data acquisition computer. all, the number of the measured time points (in the right chronological

224
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

45 Tcold 2400
Tce 2200
40 Ic 2000

Solar irradiance, W/m2

35 1800

Temperature, °C
1600
30
1400
25 1200
1000
20
800
15 600
400
10
200
5 0

2201

5001
1
201
401
601
801
1001
1201
1401
1601
1801
2001

2401
2601
2801
3001
3201
3401
3601
3801
4001
4201
4401
4601
4801

5201
5401
5601
5801
6001
6201
No. of measured points

Fig. 5. Measured input variables in the identification.

Tcold 2800
45 Tce 2600
Ic
40 2400
2200

Solar irradiance, W/m2

35
2000
Temperature, °C

30 1800
1600
25
1400
20 1200
1000
15
800
10 600
400
5
200
0 0
13501

48001
1
1501
3001
4501
6001
7501
9001
10501
12001

15001
16501
18001
19501
21001
22501
24001
25501
27001
28501
30001
31501
33001
34501
36001
37501
39001
40501
42001
43501
45001
46501

49501 No. of measured points

Fig. 6. Measured input variables in the validation.

20
50
18
45 16
14
Pump flow rate, l/min

40
12
Temperature, °C

35 10
8
30 6
Tc,an 4
25
Tc,meas 2
v
20 0
4601
1
201
401
601

2801
801
1001
1201
1401
1601
1801
2001
2201
2401
2601

3001
3201
3401
3601
3801
4001
4201
4401

4801
5001
5201
5401
5601
5801
6001
6201

No. of measured points

Fig. 7. Comparison of the calculated and measured collector temperatures in the identification of the collector solution.

225
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

59 20
Tc,an
54 Tc,meas 18
v
49 16

Pump flow rate, l/min

14
44

Temperature, °C
12
39
10
34
8
29
6
24 4
19 2
14 0
10501

22501
1
1501
3001
4501
6001
7501
9001

12001
13501
15001
16501
18001
19501
21001

24001
25501
27001
28501
30001
31501
33001
34501
36001
37501
39001
40501
42001
43501
45001
46501
48001
49501
No. of measured points

Fig. 8. Comparison of the calculated and measured collector temperatures in the validation of the collector solution.

20
45
18
16
40

Pump flow rate, l/min

14
Temperature, °C

35 12
10

30 8
6
25 Ts,an 4
Ts,meas
2
v
20 0
2401

6201
1
201

2601
2801
3001
3201
3401
3601
3801
4001
4201
4401
4601
4801
5001
5201
5401
5601
5801
6001
401
601
801
1001
1201
1401
1601
1801
2001
2201

No. of measured points

Fig. 9. Comparison of the calculated and measured storage temperatures in the identification of the system solution.

Tc,an
20
55
Tc,meas 18
50 v 16
Pump flow rate, l/min

45 14
Temperature, °C

40 12

35 10
8
30
6
25
4
20 2
15 0
19501

25501

31501
1
1501
3001
4501
6001
7501
9001
10501
12001
13501
15001
16501
18001

21001
22501
24001

27001
28501
30001

33001
34501
36001
37501
39001
40501
42001
43501
45001
46501
48001
49501

No. of measured points

Fig. 10. Comparison of the calculated and measured collector temperatures in the validation of the system solution.

226
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

Ts,an 20
44 Ts,meas 18
v
16

Pump flow rate, l/min

39 14

Temperature, °C
12
34
10
8
29
6

24 4
2
19 0

13501

30001
1
1501
3001
4501
6001
7501
9001
10501
12001

15001
16501
18001
19501
21001
22501
24001
25501
27001
28501

31501
33001
34501
36001
37501
39001
40501
42001
43501
45001
46501
48001
49501
No. of measured points

Fig. 11. Comparison of the calculated and measured storage temperatures in the validation of the system solution.

Table 1
Uncertainty values of the analytical solutions. Table 2
Average of error and absolute error values for the analytical solutions.
uTc uTs
Collector solution Identification Average of error − 0.05 ◦ C
Collector solution Eq. (3) 0.10 C◦
– Eq. (3) Average of 0.55 ◦ C,
System solution Eq. (11) 0.03 ◦ C 0.01 ◦ C absolute error 2.8%
Validation Average of error 0.14 ◦ C
Average of 0.64 ◦ C,
order) is indicated on the horizontal axis in accordance with the real absolute error 2.5%
System solution Identification Average of error − 0.02 ◦ C
measurement background.
Eq. (11) Average of 0.38 ◦ C,
absolute error 2.6%
Validation Collector Average of error 0.29 ◦ C
4.1. Experimental setup Average of 0.88 ◦ C,
absolute error 3.4%
Figs. 3 and 4 present the main components of the SZIU-system: An Storage Average of error 0.03 ◦ C
Average of 0.39 ◦ C,
evacuated tube collector of 2.2 m2 is placed on the top of a mobile
absolute error 2.0%
container (test-room), which contains the solar storage, the pump and
the data acquisition computer.
The collector is oriented to the south, its tilt angle is 40◦ . The volume Figs. 5 and 6 during the identification and the validation, respectively.
of the collector fluid (water) including the volume of the connecting Tcold is not relevant in the identification and validation of the solar
pipes is 10 l. The utilized volume of the uninsulated (covered) storage is heating system, only of the collector, since there is no consumption from
300 l, its outer surface is of 2.3 m2. The working fluid is water with ρ = the storage.
1000 kg/m3 and c = 4200 J/(kgK). The required temperatures are
measured with K-type thermocouples (with an average uncertainty of 4.2. Uncertainty evaluation
uT = 1 ◦ C), the pump flow rate is measured with a Kobold Unirota URM-
33 33H G5 0 type flow meter (with an average uncertainty of uv = 0.1 l/ Since the measuring uncertainty of the solar irradiance (uIc = 30 W/
min). The type of the global solar irradiance sensor is Theodor Friedrichs
m2), the temperature values Tce , Tcold , Tse (uT = 1 ◦ C) and the flow rates v,
6003.3000 BG (with an average uncertainty of uIc = 30 W/m2).
vl (uv = 0.1 l/min) are known, the uncertainty of the calculated Tc (uTc )
Apart from some technical breaks, the measurements of Ic , Tce , Tcold ,
and Ts (uTs ) can be determined for the collector solution Eq. (3) and the
Tc and Ts are carried out once in every 30 s. During the whole mea­
system solution Eq. (11) based on the well-known relation on the
surement, Tse is set 24 ◦ C as the indoor temperature of the mobile
propagation of error (Kline and McClintock, 1953). t = 30 s is used in
container, by means of an air-conditioner. vl is set 0 (there is no con­
this calculation according to the basic time step of the measurements.
sumption from the solar storage). v is set between 0.5 and 6 l/min so that
The general equality of the uncertainty with respect to Tc in the collector
it is generally kept (nearly) constant within a continuously measured
solution is Eq. (13):
time interval. Usually, the change of this value takes place between such
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(relatively long) intervals. It also means that the system is not controlled (
∂Tc (t)
)2 (
∂Tc (t)
)2 (
∂Tc (t)
)2 (
∂Tc (t)
)2
for maximal solar energy utilization or for avoiding the cooling down of uTc =
∂Ic (t)
uIc +
∂Tce (t)
uT +
∂Tcold (t)
uT +
∂v(t)
uv
the storage (when the collector temperature is lower than that of the
(13)
storage). This is not a problem in view of the aim of this work, which is to
validate the proposed analytical solution under different operational The general equalities of the uncertainty with respect to Tc and Ts ,
circumstances. The measured values of Ic , Tce and Tcold can be seen in respectively, in the system solution are Eqs. (14a) and (14b):

227
L. Székely et al. Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2̅
∂Tc (t) ∂Tc (t) ∂Tc (t) ∂Tc (t) ∂Tc (t) ∂Tc (t)
u Tc = u + u + u + u + u + u (14a)
∂Ic (t) Ic ∂Tce (t) T ∂Tse (t) T ∂Tcold (t) T ∂v(t) v ∂vl (t) vl
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2
∂Ts (t) ∂Ts (t) ∂Ts (t) ∂Ts (t) ∂Ts (t) ∂Ts (t)
u Ts = uIc + uT + uT + uT + uv + uvl (14b)
∂Ic (t) ∂Tce (t) ∂Tse (t) ∂Tcold (t) ∂v(t) ∂vl (t)

temperatures during the identification of the system solution.

The values of the partial derivatives in Eqs. (13) and (14a)-(14b) can
be derived from Eqs. (3) and (11), respectively, assuming approximate 4.4.2. Validation
average operational conditions in the validation with the following In the validation of the system (or its solution Eq. (11)), the already
input values: Ic = 300 W/m2, Tce = 24 ◦ C, Tse = 24 ◦ C, Tcold = 15 ◦ C, v = 2 identified η0 , UL and ks values are used in the whole time of the vali­
l/min andvl = 0 l/min. With these values, Tc,0 = Tc,eq = 40.8 ◦ C and Ts,0 = dation. Then the (average) differences between the calculated and
Ts,eq = 39.0 ◦ C are also assumed according to the equilibrium values in measured collector and storage temperatures are checked. Table 2
(12). Then the approximate average uncertainty results are summarized contains the corresponding error values including that the (average of)
in Table 1. absolute error is 3.4% for the collector and 2.0% for the storage. Figs. 10
and 11 show the comparison of the calculated (with Eq. (11)) Tc,an and
the measured Tc,meas collector temperatures and the calculated (with Eq.
4.3. Validation of the collector solution
(11)) Ts,an and the measured Ts,meas storage temperatures, respectively,
In this section, the solar collector (more precisely, its solution Eq. during the validation of the system solution.
(3)) is identified and validated in itself (independently of the solar
storage). 4.5. Assessment

4.3.1. Identification With respect to the precision of the new analytical system solution
In the identification of the collector (or its solution Eq. (3)), the Eq. (11), its validation (containing a relatively long time period of 19
values of the parameters η0 and UL are set in such a way that the average days) serves with the essential index values. Namely, the average of
( )
of absolute error is minimal with respect to Tc,an − Tc,meas and the absolute error is 3.4% in case of the collector and 2.0% in case of the
storage, which means an outstanding precision in comparison with other
whole time of the identification. The resulted parameter values are η0 =
solar heating system models in the literature. Particularly, 5–10%
0.63 and UL = 4.4 W/(m2K). Table 2 contains the corresponding error
modelling error is usually considered satisfactory, even rather good
values including that the (average of) absolute error is 2.8%.
(rather low), for a mathematical model used in the field of solar heating
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of the calculated (with Eq. (3)) Tc,an and
applications. See e.g. the following works: In (Kalogirou et al., 1999),
the measured Tc,meas collector temperatures during the identification of
the temperature change of the stored water in a solar heating system is
the collector solution.
modelled with an error of 7–10% by means of an ANN. Johannes et al.
(2005) propose a CFD (computational fluid dynamics) model, which
4.3.2. Validation
predicts the solar storage temperature with an error of 10% in the
In the validation of the collector (or its solution Eq. (3)), the already
middle of the storage and about 30% at the top. The error of a linear
identified η0 and UL values are used in the whole time of the validation.
regression based collector model is 4.6% in (Kicsiny, 2014). Many other
Then the (average) difference between the calculated and measured
examples could be cited in this respect.
collector temperatures is checked. Table 2 contains the corresponding
Table 1 shows that the average uncertainty values of the collector
error values including that the (average of) absolute error is 2.5%. Fig. 8
and system solutions are rather low (0.01–0.1 ◦ C). This also suggests that
shows the comparison of the calculated (with Eq. (3)) Tc,an and the
the analytical solutions are rather efficient (McFadden, 2000) in pre­
measured Tc,meas collector temperatures during the validation of the
dicting the collector and storage temperatures.
collector solution.
5. Conclusion
4.4. Validation of the system solution
In the issue of the environmental protection, the role of the wide­
In this section, the solar heating system (more precisely, its solution spread application of solar heating systems is very important. Well-
Eq. (11)) is identified and validated. usable mathematical models or their solutions can help to promote
this aim. In the literature, analytical solutions for the models of solar
4.4.1. Identification heating systems are rather rare, despite of their advantages (fast and
In the identification of the system (or its solution Eq. (11)), the easy usability, low computational demand, low cost).
already identified η0 and UL values are used and the value of the In the present paper, we intended to (partly) make up for this
parameter ks is set in such a way that the average of absolute error is shortage with respect to a two-dimensional ODE model of complete solar
( )
minimal with respect to Ts,an − Ts,meas and the whole time of the heating systems containing a collector and a storage, while the heat loss
identification. The resulted parameter value is ks = 7.2 W/(m2K). and the consumption load of the storage were considered. The worked
Table 2 contains the corresponding error values including that the out new analytical system solution provides easy- and fast-to-use explicit
(average of) absolute error is 2.6%. Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the formulas (for direct algebraic substitutions) to determine both the
calculated (with Eq. (11)) Ts,an and the measured Ts,meas storage temperature of the collector and the temperature of the storage.

228
L. Székely et al.
The analytical solution has been validated with the measured data of
a real solar heating system. As a part of the validation of the (two-
dimensional) system solution, the analytical solution of the (one-
dimensional) collector sub-model (which is already known and suc­
cessfully used in the literature) is also validated separately with the
measured data of a real solar collector. Based on the validation con­
taining a relatively long time period of 19 days, the error of the new
system solution is 3.4% in case of the collector and 2.0% in case of the
storage, which means an outstanding precision in the field.
Accordingly, the proposed explicit analytical system solution can be
suggested for the practice to predict the temperature change in collector-
storage systems. This could help to further study and improve real solar
heating systems. Because of the convenient and fast usability, the
analytical solution might be applied successfully in working out new
model-based/predictive control schemes in future researches. Another
research work might deal with extending the solution for more complex
systems (containing a heat exchanger and/or long pipes with relatively
large volume).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
Funding: This work was supported by the National Research,
Development and Innovation Office, Hungary [grant number 131895].
References
Azzolin, M., Mariani, A., Moro, L., Tolotto, A., Toninelli, P., Del Col, D., 2018.
Mathematical model of a thermosyphon integrated storage solar collector. Renew.
Energy 128, 400–415.
Baughn, J.W., Young, M.F., 1984. The calculated performance of a solar hot water system
for a range of collector flow rates. Sol. Energy 32 (2), 303–305.
Belessiotis, V., Mathioulakis, E., 2002. Analytical approach of thermosyphon solar
domestic hot water system performance. Sol. Energy 72 (4), 307–315.
Buzás, J., Farkas, I., Biró, A., Németh, R., 1998. Modelling and simulation aspects of a
solar hot water system. Math. Comput. Simul. 48 (1), 33–46.
Buzás, J., Farkas, I., 2000. Solar domestic hot water system simulation using block-
oriented software. The 3rd ISES-Europe Solar World Congress (Eurosun 2000)
Copenhagen, Denmark, CD-ROM Proceedings, p. 9.
Buzás, J., 2009. Block-oriented modeling of solar thermal systems. PhD dissertation.
Szent István University, Gödöllő (in Hungarian).
Cabello, J.M., Cejudo, J.M., Luque, M., Ruiz, F., Deb, K., Tewari, R., 2011. Optimization
of the size of a solar thermal electricity plant by means of genetic algorithms. Renew.
Energy 36 (11), 3146–3153.
229
Solar Energy 222 (2021) 219–229
Deng, J., Xu, Y., Yang, X., 2015. A dynamic thermal performance model for flat-plate
solar collectors based on the thermal inertia correction of the steady-state test
method. Renew. Energy 76, 679–686.
Dhariwal, S.R., Mirdha, U.S., 2005. Analytical expressions for the response of flat-plate
collector to various transient conditions. Energy Convers. Manage. 46 (11-12),
1809–1836.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 2013. Solar engineering of thermal processes. John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Géczi, G., Kicsiny, R., Korzenszky, P., 2019. Modified effectiveness and linear regression
based models for heat exchangers under heat gain/loss to the environment. Heat
Mass Transfer 55 (4), 1167–1179.
Géczy-Víg, P., Farkas, I., 2010. Neural network modelling of thermal stratification in a
solar DHW storage. Sol. Energy 84 (5), 801–806.
Hartman, P., 1982. Ordinary differential equations. Birkhauser, Boston.
Hernández, A.L., Quiñonez, J.E., 2018. Experimental validation of an analytical model
for performance estimation of natural convection solar air heating collectors. Renew.
Energy 117, 202–216.
Hottel, H.C., Woertz, B.B., 1942. The performance of flat plate solar heat collectors.
T. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. 64, 91–104.
Hussein, H.M.S., 2002. Transient investigation of a two phase closed thermosyphon flat-
plate solar water heater. Energy Convers. Manage. 43 (18), 2479–2492.
Johannes, K., Fraisse, G., Achard, G., Rusaouën, G., 2005. Comparison of solar water tank
storage modelling solutions. Sol. Energy 79 (2), 216–218.
Kalogirou, S.A., Panteliou, S., Dentosras, A., 1999. Modelling of solar domestic water
heating systems using artificial neural networks. Sol. Energy 65 (6), 335–342.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2000. Long-term performance prediction of forced circulation solar
domestic water heating systems using artificial neural networks. Appl. Energy 66 (1),
63–74.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2013. Solar energy engineering: Processes and systems. Academic Press,
Oxford.
Kicsiny, R., Varga, Z., 2012. Real-time state observer design for solar thermal heating
systems. Appl. Math. Comput. 218 (23), 11558–11569.
Kicsiny, R., 2014. Multiple linear regression based model for solar collectors. Sol. Energy
110, 496–506.
Kicsiny, R., 2018. Black-box model for solar storage tanks based on multiple linear
regression. Renew. Energy 125, 857–865.
Klein, S.A., Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1974. Transient considerations of flat-plate solar
collectors. J. Eng. Power 96 (2), 109–113.
Kline, S.J., McClintock, F.A., 1953. Describing uncertainties in single sample
experiments. Mech. Eng. 75, 3–8.
Kulkarni, G.N., Kedare, S.B., Bandyopadhyay, S., 2007. Determination of design space
and optimization of solar water heating systems. Sol. Energy 81 (8), 958–968.
Kumar, R., Rosen, M.A., 2010. Thermal performance of integrated collector storage solar
water heater with corrugated absorber surface. Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (13),
1764–1768.
McFadden, D., 2000. Statistical tools for economists. Department of Economics,
University of California, Berkeley.
Serov, E.P., Korolkov, B.P., 1981. Dynamics of steam generators. Energia, Moscow (in
Russian).
Zarmi, Y., 1982. Transition time effects in collector systems coupled to a well mixed
storage. Sol. Energy 29 (1), 3–11.
Zima, W., Dziewa, P., 2010. Mathematical modelling of heat transfer in liquid flat-plate
solar collector tubes. Arch. Thermodyn. 31 (2), 45–62.
Zueva, G.A., Magiera, J., 2001. Mathematical model of heat transfer in a solar collector
and its experimental validation. Theor. Found. Chem. Eng. 35, 604–608.