Authors:
Dóra Noémi Zetz Breuer Marcel Doctoral School, Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Boszorkány u. 2, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary

Search for other papers by Dóra Noémi Zetz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
István Kistelegdi Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, Boszorkány u. 2 and János Szentágothai Research Center, Ifjúság u. 20, University of Pécs, H-7624 Pécs, Hungary

Search for other papers by István Kistelegdi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract:

A building physics supported development was undertaken for the new block of the University of Pécs, Medical School. During sketch design stage climate, lighting and energy simulations were applied to quantify energy optimization strategies. Simulation cases assess the impact of shading technologies, wall-window ratios and thermal masses on used thermal energy demand. Based on a previous study about visual and comfort performance, goal was to identify the highest energy efficiency rates with maximum investment cost savings. Besides best comfort results, the most optimal development represents 9% saving in used thermal energy, and they were proposed for further design.

Abstract:

A building physics supported development was undertaken for the new block of the University of Pécs, Medical School. During sketch design stage climate, lighting and energy simulations were applied to quantify energy optimization strategies. Simulation cases assess the impact of shading technologies, wall-window ratios and thermal masses on used thermal energy demand. Based on a previous study about visual and comfort performance, goal was to identify the highest energy efficiency rates with maximum investment cost savings. Besides best comfort results, the most optimal development represents 9% saving in used thermal energy, and they were proposed for further design.

1 Introduction and research goal

The Energy Design Research Group at University of Pecs conducts thermal dynamic and light simulation studies for optimal building design. Simulation works as a decision support system for analyzing alternatives of building geometry, building structures, building services systems, comfort and energy. In the framework of the simulation design part, the concept suggestions are tested in building physics, building climate and energy modeling, dynamic calculations and the results serve as basis for understanding and analyzing the variants and then making the concrete design recommendations.

Particular study deals with an office and lab building optimization. A great number of research papers explore solutions and strategies in building energy optimization, with special focus on building envelope, building geometry and shape, energy systems [1]-[8]. Besides sophisticated and systematic analysis of the passive and active design solutions, most research studies assess theoretical and general building energy optimization issues, without any linkage to feedback from real implemented buildings or measurements. In contrast, this research project is the embedded second stage of the University of Pécs, Medical School extension design procedure, to be implemented in 2019. The examined building possesses 5 levels with a total of approx. 12.916 m2 useful floor area. The typical boundary conditions for building optimization were fixed space organisation, functional layout, building body shape and structures, materials, defined by the architect [9] and the contractor. After preliminary comfort tests, energy simulation studies became necessary for decision support of the outline plan [10]. Prior dynamic thermal building simulations of prototype public building projects [11] enabled to gain a broad understanding and experience in hig-tech simulation modeling, as well as calculation accuracy. In the energy simulation tests, diverse shading, wall-window ratio (WWR), and thermal mass design variations were analyzed and the optimal ones were selected. The building envelope represents one of the main energy and comfort influencing design factor in both complex theoretical building optimization investigation domains as well as in real implementation building design optimization projects. This interesting coincidence underlines the building envelope’s crucial and decisive role in office building comfort and energy performance. Fig. 1 displays the new building block of the University of Pécs, Medical School.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Rendering 3D perspective view of the new block of the University of Pécs, Medical School

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 2; 10.1556/606.2020.15.2.16

2 Methodology

Used energy demand surveys were conducted with thermal building simulations using IDA ICE software, taking into account building configuration, neighborhood and orientation to determine the following structures, as it is elaborated in the previous comfort investigation study [10]:

  1. the need for different shading technologies;
  2. investigation of diverse facades with accordingly alternating WWR;
  3. the effect of releasing heat storage masses (abandonment suspended ceiling).

In all cases the used energy demand was examined during both heating and cooling operation periods by taking solar gains in winter, and radiation loads in summer into account.

3 Results and discussion (Case studies)

The cases shown in Table I have already been investigated [10] at thermal and visual comfort performance, hence actual energy consumption cases have been analyzed against the reference Model 1. The Model 2 - Model 5 tests contain different shading solutions, while Model 6 - Model 8 possess various Parapet Heights (PH), as well as different WWR. In case of Model 9, the effect of the heat storage mass released by abandonement of the suspended ceilings was examined.

Table I.

Settings and properties of various models in the investigated cases

Model descript.Shading typePHWWRSC
ModelReference75 cm cantilever per level-Sample 95%, Totalyes
120.9%
ModelShading tech. variants165 cm cantilever per level-Sample 95%, Totalyes
220.9%
Modelsolar controlled external blinds-Sample 95%, Totalyes
320.9%
Modelexternal fixed vertical louver-boards - all year-Sample 95%, Totalyes
420.9%
Modelexternal fixed horizontal-Sample 95%, Totalyes
5louver-boards - all year20.9%
ModelWWR variants75 cm cantilever per level60 cmSample 76%, Total 18,3%yes
6
Model75 cm cantilever per level90 cmSample 66,5%, Total 17%yes
7
Model75 cm cantilever per level120 cmSample 57%, Total 15,7%yes
8
Model‘Active’ heat storage75 cm cantilever per level-Total 20.9%no
9

Main purpose of the model case investigations originally were to test different shading solutions in the fully glazed main facades of the new building block. The best shading, meaning thermal comfort results were performed by model 5, the external fixed hotizontal louvre-boards structure solution. Furthermore, various WWR models examined 60, 90 and 120 cm high parapet wall structures, which appropriately reduced the glazing ratio from 95% (fully glazed façade) to 57% WWR (120 cm high parapet façade version). The less glazing proportion is planned in the façade, the higher number of thermal comfort occupancy hours in thermal comfort category I (A) and II (B) according to EN 15251 and ISO 7730. A last case study quantifed the thermal comfort performance of a model without suspended ceiling structures in the spaces. This solution was able to further improve the number of the class I (A) and II (B) comfort hours, as the activation of the thermal mass in the reinforced concrete slabs acts as an effective internal passive cooling ‘device’. The visual comfort was examined through assessment of the number of occupancy hours with daylight illumination intensity above 500 lx. The more effective various shading versions worked, the more decrease of daylight intensity was achieved. This effect was similar in the desreasing WWR models as well. However, the reduction of the visual comfort hours does not negatively effect the daylight situation in the offices, since in this building use today’s Information Technology (IT) does not require high daylight level in the spaces. Moreover, less illuminantion (but min. 500 lx) can even cause higher visual comfort sensation with improved thermal comfort effects. After the thermal and visual comfort assessments, cardinal question is how these modes behave in terms of energy efficiency.

3.1 Used energy demand - all façade connected rooms

Different shading models have been tested for heating and cooling used energy demand in all façade connected spaces (Fig. 2). It can be clearly seen that the heating energy demand is the dominant scale due to the transmission heat loss caused by the large glazing ratios. Heating demand is growing up to 16% with increasing shading efficiency. Shading reduces cooling by 37-91% according to the different shading techniques. Solar controlled external blinds and fixed horizontal louvres perform the most cooling conservation. However, on the level of total heating and cooling, the difference in total energy demand is max. 5%, therefore shading is not recommended.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Used energy demand in all façade connected rooms, kWh/a, (IDA ICE 4.8)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 2; 10.1556/606.2020.15.2.16

Fig. 2 shows the heating and cooling energy requirements of the models with three different WWR in façade connected rooms (Model 6 - Model 7). It can be observed that Model 6 provides 30%, Model 7 42% and Model 8 52% cooling energy savings compared to the reference case. There was also a decrease in the heating energy demand, but its rate is minimal, due to the compensation effect between less heat loss and less solar gains with decreasing WWR. In total cooling and heating max. 9% savings is possible at room level.

3.2 Used energy demand - complete building

Fig. 3 demonstrate the used energy demand for the whole building, where the cooling energy requirement is already decisive because of the function of the building (office, lab with high thermal loads) and the large number of internal closed rooms. Shading has no impact on total heating and cooling demand, as the large-scale building complex (12 916 m2) has a great number of interior spaces (approx. 40% of the total floor area) and the north oriented spaces (approx. 20% of the net floor area) are less influenced by the shading. In the energy performance of the complete building, the low cooling savings (6-10%) and heating increase (3-10%) compensate each other, therefore energetically the use of expensive external weatherproof shading is not economic. The plus on cooling demand means a much lower energy demand and environmental damage Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) than the production and purchase of shading structures.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Used energy demand in the complete building, kWh/a, (IDA ICE 4.8)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 2; 10.1556/606.2020.15.2.16

Regarding wall-window ratio, the cooling energy demand is decisive too. Based on similar reasons as in the shading study, the glazing ratio has little effect on the total heat demand. The cooling savings are 5-7%, heating conservations are 1%, and in total max. 5% reduction is achieved. Despite the low savings, it is advisable to use parapets, due to high construction an LCA and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) savings in the façades (reduction of glazing ratio). Best results are gained in the 120 cm high parapet design, although the 90 cm high parapet version seems more realistic considering the implementation and architectural aspects, so this solution can be recommended as an optimal compromise.

The test of ‘activating’ heat storage mass has a decisive effect on the whole building, so the evaluation focusses on that scale. With leaving the suspended ceiling the dominant cooling energy demand could be decreased by approx. 8%, the heating energy demand by approx. 4%, while the overall (heating + cooling) saving reached approx. 6%. This saving is already at the threshold value of energy efficiency in case of large sized buildings, coupled with improved life cycle assessment, CO2-balance, furthermore achievable significant investment cost reductions. For these reasons, it may be advisable to abandon suspended ceilings in further design steps. If the design of the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system requires optical coverage in the rooms, it is recommended to design it only locally (e.g. strip-like solution alongside the windows), leaving the slab surface free, or possibly using a perforated, mesh-like ‘optical’ ceiling, which only partly blocks the beneficial energy and comfort effects of heat storage slabs.

3.3 Optimal building envelopre model proposal

Considering the results of the introduced energy case investigations, an optimal combination was proposed to achieve highest energy efficiency perfomance. The Model 10 version was developed within the projects design boundaries, proposing no shading devices, exclusion of suspended ceiling and 90 cm height of parapet structures. The decision of this combination is based on the following:

  1. shading has no considerable impact on used thermal energy demand, due to the intensive shielding effect of the southern existing Medical School block;
  2. the abandonment of the suspended ceiling enable the reduction of heating and cooling used energy demand due to the advantageous self-regulation effect of the internal thermal mass of the reinforced concrete slab structures;
  3. by reducing the WWR, the cooling energy demand can be significantly lowered, while according to achitectural and functional reasons the medium sized, 90 cm high parapet version is proposed.

The analysis results of the optimal model (Model 10), were compared with the results of the reference model (Model 1). Model settings and properties are illustrated in Table II.

Table II.

Settings and properties of the reference and the optimal model cases

Model descript.Shading typePHWWRSC
Model

1
Reference75 cm cantilever per level-Sample 95%, Totalyes
20.9%
Model 10optimal75 cm cantilever per level90Sample 66,5%, Total 17%no
model

In all façade rooms 70% of cooling energy savings were achieved, due to the beneficial effect of the thermal mass and the 90 cm high parapet (30% less WWR). Heating conservation accounts for 4% per year. The lower rate of winter savings is based on the 3-layer glazing’s good thermal properties (the resulting relatively lower heat loss) and the less winter solar gain reduced by the parapet. In total (heating + cooling) the savings rise to 14% (the highest improvement among all cases) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Used energy demand in all façade connected rooms, kWh/a, (IDA ICE 4.8)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 2; 10.1556/606.2020.15.2.16

In the complete building 11% cooling and 4% heating energy savings appears in a year. Cooling reduction decreased due to the high ratio of internal spaces and north oriented rooms. The overall 8.35% savings - the largest case so far - could be finally achieved (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Used energy demand in the complete building, kWh/a, (IDA ICE 4.8)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 15, 2; 10.1556/606.2020.15.2.16

4 Conclusions

Previous experiences in simulation validation of office, indusrty as well as residential experimental reference buildings proved over 90% accuracy of the dynamic thermal simulation tecnology (agreement between calculation and measurement results), applied in particular study. Results of 10 optimisation model versions revealed that in aforementioned office/lab design process external shading delivers used cooling energy savings only in spaces adjacent to east-south-west facades, while heating demand raises. For the complete building, external shading technologies are inefficient due to offset of solar loads and gains. In the previous study of this project the thermal comfort is slightly increased but can be easily compensated by using renewable energies in combination of efficient cooling HVAC technology. The reduction of the WWR from 95 to 57% brought also little thermal comfort enhancement, while the used thermal energy demand reached 5% conservation rate, a threshold value to be considered in building operation costs of this kind of large scaled public buildings (12,916 m2). While expensive and LCA intensive shading devices are inefficient, the reduction of the WWR saves operation, investment and LCA, as well as LCCA costs. Thermal mass application performs similar effect in thermal comfort improvement as in the best shading case, with approx. 6% used thermal energy demand reduction.

As an optimum combination, the architecturally acceptable (contractor’s and architect’s preference) WWR of 66.5% (90 cm parapet) and the thermal mass application (abandonment of the suspended ceilings) could be proposed. Besides increase of thermal comfort hours 11% cooling and 4% heating energy savings (total of 8.35% thermal used energy reduction) were achieved in the entire building per year. This can be reported in annually approx. 112,880 kWh/a and 41.2 t/a CO2-emissions, and approx. 14,000 € (4,760,000 HUF) operating cost reduction. In addition, this solution ensures significant, approx. 300,000 € (102,000,000 HUF) investment savings, further, the LCA impact and CO2-emissions are significantly lower due to the reduction of glazing.

The energy results of the simulation investigations showed that near-by neighborhood structures at south-side of the partcular new building development can provide an intensive shading protection that permits the abandonment of the complete external shading device system. Additionally, it can be stated, that within the framework of the above described boundary conditions, the use of external shading is overwritten by reduction of WWR by approx. 50-70%, and the use of available structures’ thermal mass. Besides operation energy and cost considerations, investment costs, LCA and LCCA play key role as well, whereby WWR reduction and exclusion of external shading are advantageous decisions. Important to emphasize that each design project possess unique shading and radiation circumstances, hence simulations mean always an adequate solution for proving design concepts. Within this ‘narrow’ design scope further optimisation possibilities occur for HVAC systems and operation control strategies in future approval and construction planning stages of such projects.

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out in the Energy Design Research Group, supported by the János Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pécs.

References

  • [1]

    Zhou J., Nazi W. I. W M., Wang Y., Roskilly A. Investigating the impact of building’s facade on the building’s energy performance – a case study, Energy Procedia, Vol. 158, 2019, pp. 31443151.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    Farshid Shadram, Jani Mukkavaara, Exploring the effects of several energy efficiency measures on the embodied/operational energy trade-off: A case study of Swedish residential buildings, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 183, 2019, pp. 283296.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    Kirimtat A., Krejcar O., Ekici B., Tasgetiren M. F. Multi-objective energy and daylight optimization of amorphous shading devices in buildings, Solar Energy, Vol. 185, 2019, pp. 100111.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    Krstić-Furundžić A., Vujošević M., Petrovski A. Energy and environmental performance of the office building facade scenarios, Energy, Vol. 183, 2019, pp. 437447.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    Waibela C., Evins R., Carmeliet J. Co-simulation and optimization of building geometry and multi-energy systems: Interdependencies in energy supply, energy demand and solar potentials, Applied Energy, Vol. 242, 2019, pp. 16611682.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    Baranyai B., Bachmann B., Kistelegdi I. Simulation-supported design of a Hungarian national sports center, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2016, pp. 113127.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    Mozsonics E., Kistelegdi I. Typological investigation of climate systems and design of multifunctional shading structures for the facade of the Szentágothai Research Center, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2015, pp. 6170.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    Póth B., Kistelegdi I. Energy and climate simulations and management system in the Szentágothai Research Center, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014, pp. 6170.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    Kádár M. Technical Supervision and Planning Consulting Hungary Ltd, Budapest, 2018.

  • [10]

    Zetz D. N., Kistelegdi I. Comfort simulation supported sketch plan optimization of the University of Pécs, Medical School extension, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2020, pp. 166177.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    Kistelegdi I., Baranyai B. Dynamic simulation supported indoor climate and energy building modeling, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2013, pp. 181186.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [1]

    Zhou J., Nazi W. I. W M., Wang Y., Roskilly A. Investigating the impact of building’s facade on the building’s energy performance – a case study, Energy Procedia, Vol. 158, 2019, pp. 31443151.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    Farshid Shadram, Jani Mukkavaara, Exploring the effects of several energy efficiency measures on the embodied/operational energy trade-off: A case study of Swedish residential buildings, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 183, 2019, pp. 283296.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    Kirimtat A., Krejcar O., Ekici B., Tasgetiren M. F. Multi-objective energy and daylight optimization of amorphous shading devices in buildings, Solar Energy, Vol. 185, 2019, pp. 100111.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [4]

    Krstić-Furundžić A., Vujošević M., Petrovski A. Energy and environmental performance of the office building facade scenarios, Energy, Vol. 183, 2019, pp. 437447.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [5]

    Waibela C., Evins R., Carmeliet J. Co-simulation and optimization of building geometry and multi-energy systems: Interdependencies in energy supply, energy demand and solar potentials, Applied Energy, Vol. 242, 2019, pp. 16611682.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [6]

    Baranyai B., Bachmann B., Kistelegdi I. Simulation-supported design of a Hungarian national sports center, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2016, pp. 113127.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [7]

    Mozsonics E., Kistelegdi I. Typological investigation of climate systems and design of multifunctional shading structures for the facade of the Szentágothai Research Center, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2015, pp. 6170.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [8]

    Póth B., Kistelegdi I. Energy and climate simulations and management system in the Szentágothai Research Center, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2014, pp. 6170.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [9]

    Kádár M. Technical Supervision and Planning Consulting Hungary Ltd, Budapest, 2018.

  • [10]

    Zetz D. N., Kistelegdi I. Comfort simulation supported sketch plan optimization of the University of Pécs, Medical School extension, Pollack Periodica, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2020, pp. 166177.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [11]

    Kistelegdi I., Baranyai B. Dynamic simulation supported indoor climate and energy building modeling, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2013, pp. 181186.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
Submit Your Manuscript
 
The author instructions template is available in MS Word.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Amália

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Iványi, Péter

 

Scientific Secretary

Miklós M. Iványi

Editorial Board

  • Bálint Bachmann (Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Jeno Balogh (Department of Civil Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA)
  • Radu Bancila (Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Terrestrial Communications Ways, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, “Politehnica” University Timisoara, Romania)
  • Charalambos C. Baniotopolous (Department of Civil Engineering, Chair of Sustainable Energy Systems, Director of Resilience Centre, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, U.K.)
  • Oszkar Biro (Graz University of Technology, Institute of Fundamentals and Theory in Electrical Engineering, Austria)
  • Ágnes Borsos (Institute of Architecture, Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Matteo Bruggi (Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Politecnico di Milano, Italy)
  • Petra Bujňáková (Department of Structures and Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Žilina, Slovakia)
  • Anikó Borbála Csébfalvi (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Mirjana S. Devetaković (Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Szabolcs Fischer (Department of Transport Infrastructure and Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Architerture, Civil Engineering and Transport Sciences Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Radomir Folic (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad Serbia)
  • Jana Frankovská (Department of Geotechnics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • János Gyergyák (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Kay Hameyer (Chair in Electromagnetic Energy Conversion, Institute of Electrical Machines, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, RWTH Aachen University, Germany)
  • Elena Helerea (Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania)
  • Ákos Hutter (Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technolgy, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Károly Jármai (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Teuta Jashari-Kajtazi (Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Prishtina, Kosovo)
  • Róbert Kersner (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Rita Kiss  (Biomechanical Cooperation Center, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • István Kistelegdi  (Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Stanislav Kmeť (President of University Science Park TECHNICOM, Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia)
  • Imre Kocsis  (Department of Basic Engineering Research, Faculty of Engineering, University of Debrecen, Hungary)
  • László T. Kóczy (Department of Information Sciences, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, University of Győr, Hungary)
  • Dražan Kozak (Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia)
  • György L. Kovács (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Balázs Géza Kövesdi (Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Engineering and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Tomáš Krejčí (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Jaroslav Kruis (Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic)
  • Miklós Kuczmann (Department of Automations, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Informatics and Electrical Engineering, Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary)
  • Tibor Kukai (Department of Engineering Studies, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Maria Jesus Lamela-Rey (Departamento de Construcción e Ingeniería de Fabricación, University of Oviedo, Spain)
  • János Lógó  (Department of Structural Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary)
  • Carmen Mihaela Lungoci (Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Universitatea Transilvania Brasov, Romania)
  • Frédéric Magoulés (Department of Mathematics and Informatics for Complex Systems, Centrale Supélec, Université Paris Saclay, France)
  • Gabriella Medvegy (Department of Interior, Applied and Creative Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Tamás Molnár (Department of Visual Studies, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Ferenc Orbán (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Zoltán Orbán (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Dmitrii Rachinskii (Department of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Texas, USA)
  • Chro Radha (Chro Ali Hamaradha) (Sulaimani Polytechnic University, Technical College of Engineering, Department of City Planning, Kurdistan Region, Iraq)
  • Maurizio Repetto (Department of Energy “Galileo Ferraris”, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)
  • Zoltán Sári (Department of Technical Informatics, Institute of Information and Electrical Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Grzegorz Sierpiński (Department of Transport Systems and Traffic Engineering, Faculty of Transport, Silesian University of Technology, Katowice, Poland)
  • Zoltán Siménfalvi (Institute of Energy and Chemical Machinery, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Hungary)
  • Andrej Šoltész (Department of Hydrology, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia)
  • Zsolt Szabó (Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary)
  • Mykola Sysyn (Chair of Planning and Design of Railway Infrastructure, Institute of Railway Systems and Public Transport, Technical University of Dresden, Germany)
  • András Timár (Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)
  • Barry H. V. Topping (Heriot-Watt University, UK, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, Hungary)

POLLACK PERIODICA
Pollack Mihály Faculty of Engineering
Institute: University of Pécs
Address: Boszorkány utca 2. H–7624 Pécs, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36 72) 503 650

E-mail: peter.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu 

or amalia.ivanyi@mik.pte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • SCOPUS
  • CABELLS Journalytics

 

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
14
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.298
Scimago Quartile Score

Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation (Q3)
Software (Q3)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1.4
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 256/350 (27th PCTL)
Modeling and Simulation 244/316 (22nd PCTL)
General Materials Science 351/453 (22nd PCTL)
Computer Science Applications 616/792 (22nd PCTL)
Software 344/404 (14th PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
0.861

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
12
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,26
Scimago Quartile Score Civil and Structural Engineering (Q3)
Materials Science (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Computer Science Applications (Q4)
Modeling and Simulation (Q4)
Software (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
1,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 232/326 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 536/747 (Q3)
General Materials Science 329/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 228/303 (Q4)
Software 326/398 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,613

2020  
Scimago
H-index
11
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,257
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
340/243=1,4
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 219/318 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 487/693 (Q3)
General Materials Science 316/455 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 217/290 (Q4)
Software 307/389 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
1,09
Scopus
Cites
321
Scopus
Documents
67
Days from submission to acceptance 136
Days from acceptance to publication 239
Acceptance
Rate
48%

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
10
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,262
Scimago
Quartile Score
Civil and Structural Engineering Q3
Computer Science Applications Q3
Materials Science (miscellaneous) Q3
Modeling and Simulation Q3
Software Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
269/220=1,2
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Civil and Structural Engineering 206/310 (Q3)
Computer Science Applications 445/636 (Q3)
General Materials Science 295/460 (Q3)
Modeling and Simulation 212/274 (Q4)
Software 304/373 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,933
Scopus
Cites
290
Scopus
Documents
68
Acceptance
Rate
67%

 

Pollack Periodica
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 336 EUR / 411 USD
Print + online subscription: 405 EUR / 492 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

 

Pollack Periodica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2006
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
3
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1788-1994 (Print)
ISSN 1788-3911 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Dec 2023 0 130 2
Jan 2024 0 107 7
Feb 2024 0 48 7
Mar 2024 0 139 7
Apr 2024 0 17 9
May 2024 0 30 3
Jun 2024 0 0 0