View More View Less
  • 1 Marcel Breuer Doctoral School, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pécs, , Boszorkány u. 2, H-7624, Pécs, , Hungary
  • | 2 Energia Design Building Technology Research Group, Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pecs, , Ifjúság útja 20, H-7624, Pécs, , Hungary
  • | 3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Smart Technology and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pecs, , Boszorkány u. 2, H-7624, Pécs, , Hungary
  • | 4 Department of Building Structures and Energy Design, Institute of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Pecs, , Boszorkány u. 2, H-7624, Pécs, , Hungary
Open access

Abstract

The reduction of energy consumption is a major issue nowadays that should be considered during the design process. High-rise buildings represent a building type with significantly high energy consumption. They serve typically as offices with fully glazed façades, generating considerable energy demand. This study aims to optimize the envelope and the shading systems of a high-rise office building (Middle Europe). For this purpose, multiple façade variants were tested by assessing the thermal and visual comfort, as well as energy demand. The IDA ICE 4.8 building energy simulation program was used for thermal and lighting modeling and to carry out building physics calculations. Results revealed the best performing, optimized façade configuration in terms of comfort and energy efficiency.

Abstract

The reduction of energy consumption is a major issue nowadays that should be considered during the design process. High-rise buildings represent a building type with significantly high energy consumption. They serve typically as offices with fully glazed façades, generating considerable energy demand. This study aims to optimize the envelope and the shading systems of a high-rise office building (Middle Europe). For this purpose, multiple façade variants were tested by assessing the thermal and visual comfort, as well as energy demand. The IDA ICE 4.8 building energy simulation program was used for thermal and lighting modeling and to carry out building physics calculations. Results revealed the best performing, optimized façade configuration in terms of comfort and energy efficiency.

1 Introduction

Given the growing trend of urbanization and population growth, building high-rises is unavoidable and will also continue at an increasing rate. However, typical high-rise buildings are not energy efficient in many aspects of their design [1]. Furthermore, they are seen as buildings with the largest energy consumption.

The envelope has a significant impact on energy efficiency and the quality of the indoor environment. It covers up to 95 percent of the building’s exterior surface in a tall building [2]. The gain or loss of energy for a high-rise building depends considerably on the properties of the façade.

High-rises, in particular, serve as offices, with a large or fully glazed façade, and consequently, the office spaces are facing a major problem of high indoor illuminance, glare issues, and overheating due to high solar radiation, which results in high cooling energy consumption and occupant discomfort [3, 4].

Most design optimization studies investigate energy-saving solutions in offices [5, 6], high-rise office buildings in particular, by optimizing one subsystem of the building, e.g., façade structures, wall-window ratios, shading devices, glazing configurations, ventilation strategies, or sensitivity analyses of the subsystems. However, only a limited number of studies focus on simulation-based conceptual and architectural design.

B. Raji, M. J. Tenpierik and A. van den Dobbelsteen [7] showed interest in the subject and conducted research. They investigated the impact of geometric factors on the energy efficiency of high-rise office buildings in three climates: temperate, subtropical, and tropical. The investigation was conducted on 12 plan shapes, 7 plan depths, 4 building orientations, and discrete values for the window-to-wall ratio. The results showed that the general design of the building is a major issue to consider for high rises: they can affect energy consumption by up to 32%.

In further research [1], they investigated the impact of architectural design elements on building energy performance. The study reviewed the literature and conducted a case study on 6 high-rise buildings with different degrees of sustainability, located in two climate contexts: subtropical and temperate. The investigation was carried out on the exterior envelope, building form and orientation, service core placement, plan layout, and special design elements like atria and sky gardens. One of the main findings was that a double-skin façade with automated blinds is one of the strategies that can provide considerable energy savings for tall buildings.

In a further study [8], they aimed to find energy-saving solutions for the building envelope design of high-rise office buildings in the temperate climate zone. An existing tall office building in the Netherlands was the subject of research. To improve the energy performance of the building envelope, four measures were chosen: the type of glazing, the window-wall ratio, solar shading, roofing strategies, all performed through computer simulations. The study introduced a high-performance envelope design that offers significant energy savings by around 42% for total energy use, 64% for heating, and 34% for electric lighting.

There is still a need for in-depth studies on envelope optimization design strategies that can make high-rise office buildings more energy-efficient.

This study aims to optimize the envelope and the shading systems of a high-rise office building in the temperate climate zone. This project was part of a design competition, the subject of which was a bank tower in Budapest, Hungary. For this purpose, several façade variants were tested using dynamic thermal and lighting simulation modeling by considering optimization in comfort, energy, and environmental performance.

2 Methodology

The overall methodological scheme of this research is shown in Fig. 1. The main objective of this study was the optimization of the envelope and the shading systems of a high-rise office building in the temperate climate zone. The bank tower is situated in Budapest, Hungary. The building has two large fully glazed façades (facing east and west), which had to be optimized to obtain the best façade configuration in terms of energy and comfort. Several façade scenarios were tested. The IDA ICE 4.8 complex dynamic building climate and energy simulation program was adopted as an evaluating tool to assess the following building physics properties:

  1. Thermal comfort (No. of hours with operative temperatures, T op ≥ 26 °C) in the interior office spaces;
  2. Visual comfort (average Daylight Factor, DFAVE) in the interior office spaces;
  3. Heating and cooling energy demand (delivered energy, kWh/m2) of the interior office spaces.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Methodological scheme of research

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2022; 10.1556/606.2021.00253

The 3D model of the building and the neighborhood developed in IDA ICE 4.8 energy software is shown in Fig. 2. The building and the surrounding urban structure are oriented along the north-south axis. The building, with its height of 88.0 m, soars well above its surroundings. The two shorter sides of the building point towards north and south, while the two larger surfaces face east and west.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

3D model of the building developed in IDA ICE 4.8

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2022; 10.1556/606.2021.00253

The following picture Fig. 3 presents the three façade versions of the building (Curtain wall façade, Double-skin façade, and Double-skin façade zig-zag) implemented in IDA ICE 4.8.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Plan typologies and the orientation of the building

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2022; 10.1556/606.2021.00253

The first version was the simple curtain wall façade used as a reference model with different glazing and shading configurations. The second version was the double-skin façade consisting of two glass layers and an intermediate cavity of 1.4 m to improve the building’s thermal efficiency, which was enhanced by the optimization of the glazing and the shading devices. The third version was the double-skin façade Zig-zag; the aim was to improve the poor orientation of the building that possessed two large fully glazed façades (east-west direction). For that two different tilted façade faces were implemented to provide efficient shading to the low-elevation angle solar radiation from east and west by simultaneously enabling outlook and daylight provision from the south. Then, it was upgraded using various glazing types, shading automation, and controls to provide energy savings and thermal comfort.

2.1 Concept of façade optimization

Different model cases were implemented to gradually upgrade the building envelope. The simulation inputs and operation details are presented in the tables below.

Façade scenarios FS01, FS02, and FS03 cases consist of a simple curtain wall with a thermal insulation glass (3 pane glazing); FS01 has no shading; FS02 has an internal shading blind with sun control (The shading is drawn when the solar radiation level on the outside surface of the outer pane reaches 100 W/m2; the shading is automatically drawn when the solar radiation incident angle is below 90°) and FS03 has solar protective glazing (external pane) (see Table 1). FS04, FS05, and FS06 are the double-skin façade cases with thermal insulation glass (2+1 pane); FS04 is without shading; FS05 has an internal shading blind with sun control (same control mechanism as in FS02) and FS06 has solar protective glazing (external pane) (see Table 2). FS07, FS08, FS09, FS10, and FS11 are the double-skin façade Zig-zag cases with a thermal insulation glass (2+1 pane); FS07 has no shading; FS08 has an internal shading blind with sun control (same control mechanism as in FS02 and FS05); FS09 has solar protective glazing (external pane); FS10 has an internal shading blind, sun control, and temperature control (T op ≥ 25 °C) and finally, the last case model FS11 has internal shading blind, sun control, and sun path control (see Table 3).

Table 1.

Simulation inputs and operation details (curtain wall façade scenarios)

Model descriptionFS01FS02FS03
Curtain wall façade with no shadingCurtain wall façade with shadingCurtain wall façade with solar protective glazing
Inner GlazingSolar Heat Gain Coefficient---
Tvis, Visible transmittance---
Glazing U-value [W/m2K]---
Pane---
Outer GlazingSolar Heat Gain Coefficient0.680.680.25
Tvis, Visible transmittance0.740.740.46
Glazing U-value [W/m2K]0.80.80.7
Pane3 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4-12-4 mm3 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4-12-4 mmexternal pane solar protective glazing
Integrated Window Shading-Blinds-
Auto control-Solar radiation 100 [W/m2] outer pane-
Table 2.

Simulation inputs and operation details (double-skin façade scenarios)

Model descriptionFS04FS05FS06
Double-skin façade with no shadingDouble-skin façade with shadingDouble-skin façade with solar protective glazing
Inner GlazingSolar Heat Gain Coefficient0.760.760.76
Tvis, Visible transmittance0.810.810.81
Glazing U-value [W/m2K]1.11.11.1
Pane2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm
Outer GlazingSHGC0.850.850.26
Tvis, Visible transmittance0.90.90.54
Glazing U-value [W/m2K]5.85.85.8
Pane1 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4 mm1 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4 mmexternal pane solar protective glazing
Integrated Window Shading-Blinds-
Auto control-Solar radiation 100 [W/m2] outer pane-
Table 3.

Simulation inputs and operation details (climate Zig-zag façade scenarios)

Model descriptionFS07FS08FS09FS10FS11
Double-skin façade Zig-zag with no shadingDouble-skin façade Zig-zag with shadingDouble-skin façade Zig-zag with solar protective glazingDouble-skin façade Zig-zag with shading and Temperature controlDouble-skin façade Zig-zag with shading and Sun Path control
Inner GlazingSHGC0.760.760.760.760.76
Tvis, Visible transmittance0.810.810.810.810.81
Glazing U-value [W/m2K]1.11.11.11.11.1
Pane2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm2 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4-12-4 mm
Outer GlazingSHGC0.850.850.260.850.85
Tvis, Visible transmittance0.90.90.540.90.9
Glazing U-value [W/m2K]5.85.85.85.85.8
Pane1 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4 mm1 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4 mmexternal pane solar protective glazing1 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4 mm1 pane thermal insulation glazing, 4 mm
Integrated Window Shading-Blinds-BlindsBlinds
Auto control-Solar radiation 100 [W/m2] outer pane-Solar radiation 100 [W/m2] outer pane +

Temperature
Solar radiation 100 [W/m2] outer pane +

Sun Path

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Comfort: thermal and visual

The results obtained from the simulations are assessed as follows: Fig. 4 shows the mean Indoor Air Quality (IAQ mean) that indicates the number of hours, performing Carbon dioxide levels below 1,000 ppm in the interior office spaces. The CO2 level is low and ranges between 614 and 651 ppm for all the façade scenarios, which can be considered as a high level of IAQ performance results.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Results: indoor air quality and thermal comfort (No. of hours with CO2 concentration ≤1,000 ppm and with T op ≥ 26 oC)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2022; 10.1556/606.2021.00253

Figure 4 also indicates the average thermal comfort calculated through the sum of numbers of hours when the operative temperature is above 26 °C. In the double-skin façade and double-skin façade Zig-zag (scenarios FS04 and FS07), the number of discomfort hours in the offices is relatively high due to the absence of shading systems and the overheating of the climate façade’s buffer zone area. By integrating internal and double-skin integrated shading respectively, the thermal discomfort hours decreased in all three groups of façade case-packages. The curtain wall façade scenario with solar protective glazing (FS03) presents the best choice with no discomfort hours due to the absence of the climate façade’s buffer zone area and the solar protection of the glazing. The Zig-zag double-skin façade with integrated shading (FS08) and the Zig-zag double-skin façade with integrated shading + temperature control (FS10) could improve thermal comfort respectively by 36.7% and 55% in comparison to the regular double-skin façade with integrated shading (FS05). The sun path schedule-controlled shading (FS11) could not improve thermal comfort compared to the other Zig-zag double-skin façade scenarios (FS08, FS09, and FS10). Finally, the double-skin façade Zig-zag + Solar protective glazing (scenarios FS09) presents a favorable choice with the least number of discomfort hours (95,3% less than in the worst-performing model FS04).

Figure 5 demonstrates the visual comfort values obtained, based on the average Daylight Factor (DFAVE) results of the four following façade configurations: curtain wall façade, solar protective glazing, double-skin façade, and double-skin façade Zig-zag. The curtain wall façade version performed the highest DFAVE values since this façade possesses the highest light transmittance, however, all façade versions’ DFAVE results are substantially above the 1.7 minimum threshold. Therefore, all façade types performed at an acceptable level.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

Results: visual comfort (average daylight factor)

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2022; 10.1556/606.2021.00253

3.2 Energy: cooling and heating

The energy used for cooling is considerably higher than the energy used for heating due to the high internal load, the lighting, and the congestion of equipment and occupants in the work area. Figure 6 depicts that with the integration of shading devices the cooling demand decreases in general, whereas best efficiency is achieved in each case package by the solar protective glazing in FS03, FS06, and FS09. The double-skin façade versions could achieve significant energy savings compared to the simple curtain wall versions: (FS04-FS01) 51.2%, (FS05-FS02) 65%, and (FS06-FS03) 47.4%. Similar to the thermal comfort results, sun path schedule-controlled shading (FS11) could not generate cooling conservation compared to (FS08, FS09, and FS10). The Zig-zag double-skin façade with integrated shading (FS08) could decrease cooling energy demand by 5.7% in comparison to regular double-skin façade (FS05). The energy demand results showed that double-skin façade Zig-zag + solar protective glazing (FS09) is the best façade configuration in terms of energy efficiency since it could reduce the total energy consumption by (FS03-FS09) 47.3%, and the cooling demand by 58.5%, see Fig. 6. This is basically due to the application of solar protective glazing. The results also have shown that the double-skin façade Zig-zag + shading + temperature control (FS10) and the double-skin façade + solar protective glazing (FS06), represent relevant advantages in terms of energy savings.

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Results: cooling, heating, and total

Citation: Pollack Periodica 2022; 10.1556/606.2021.00253

4 Conclusion

In the present study, the envelope parameters of a high-rise office building in the temperate climate zone were investigated. The aim was the optimization of the fully glazed envelope and shading devices of the building. Different façade configurations were studied to obtain the most efficient model in terms of comfort and energy consumption. A series of energy simulations were performed using IDA ICE 4.8 building climate and energy simulation program. The results showed that the double-skin façade strategies can effectively provide energy savings as they act as a thermal buffer zone between the outdoor and indoor environment. The Zig-zag double-skin façade with shading and radiation control ensures less solar load compared to the simple double-skin façade solution with the same shading options. This results in higher thermal comfort and lower cooling energy requirement. While the best performing façade configuration in terms of comfort and energy efficiency (FS09, Zig-zag double-skin façade with solar protective glazing) can reach over 47% in energy savings, it should be emphasized that further research is needed to investigate the potential development options of the Zig-zag façades: the testing of various glazing and shading options in the two different tilted façade faces. Additionally, the daily solar path-connected control of the shading devices requires further tests and investigation.

References

  • [1]

    B. Raji , M. J. Tenpierik , and A. A. J. F. van den Dobbelsteen , “A comparative study of design strategies for energy efficiency in 6 high-rise buildings in two different climates,” in Proceedings of the 30th International PLEA Conference, Ahmedabad, India, December 16-18, 2014, pp. 18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    M. Ali and P. J. Armstrong , “Overview of sustainable design factors in high-rise buildings,” in CTBUH 2008 8th World Congress on Tall & Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban Future, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, March 3-5, 2008, pp. 282291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    Y. W. Lim and C. Y. S. Heng , “Dynamic internal light shelf for tropical daylighting in high-rise office buildings,” Building Environ., vol. 106, pp. 155166, 2016.

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

    A. K. K. Lau , E. Salleh , C. H. Lim , and M. Y. Sulaiman , “Potential of shading devices and glazing configurations on cooling energy savings for high-rise office buildings in hot-humid climates: The case of Malaysia,” Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 387399, 2016.

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

    E. Mozsonics and I. Kistelegdi , “Typological investigation of climate systems and design of multifunctional shading structures for the façade of the Szentágothai Research Center,” Pollack Period., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 6170, 2015.

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

    G. Kovári and I. Kistelegdi , “Optimized building automation and control for the improvement of energy efficiency and climate comfort of office buildings,” Pollack Period., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7182, 2015.

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

    B. Raji , M. J. Tenpierik , and A. van den Dobbelsteen , “Early-stage design considerations for the energy-efficiency of high-rise office buildings,” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 128, 2017.

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

    B. Raji , M. J. Tenpierik , and A. van den Dobbelsteen , “An assessment of energy-saving solutions for the envelope design of high-rise buildings in temperate climates: A case study in the Netherlands,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 124, pp. 210221, 2016.

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

    B. Raji , M. J. Tenpierik , and A. A. J. F. van den Dobbelsteen , “A comparative study of design strategies for energy efficiency in 6 high-rise buildings in two different climates,” in Proceedings of the 30th International PLEA Conference, Ahmedabad, India, December 16-18, 2014, pp. 18.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [2]

    M. Ali and P. J. Armstrong , “Overview of sustainable design factors in high-rise buildings,” in CTBUH 2008 8th World Congress on Tall & Green: Typology for a Sustainable Urban Future, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, March 3-5, 2008, pp. 282291.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • [3]

    Y. W. Lim and C. Y. S. Heng , “Dynamic internal light shelf for tropical daylighting in high-rise office buildings,” Building Environ., vol. 106, pp. 155166, 2016.

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

    A. K. K. Lau , E. Salleh , C. H. Lim , and M. Y. Sulaiman , “Potential of shading devices and glazing configurations on cooling energy savings for high-rise office buildings in hot-humid climates: The case of Malaysia,” Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 387399, 2016.

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

    E. Mozsonics and I. Kistelegdi , “Typological investigation of climate systems and design of multifunctional shading structures for the façade of the Szentágothai Research Center,” Pollack Period., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 6170, 2015.

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

    G. Kovári and I. Kistelegdi , “Optimized building automation and control for the improvement of energy efficiency and climate comfort of office buildings,” Pollack Period., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7182, 2015.

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

    B. Raji , M. J. Tenpierik , and A. van den Dobbelsteen , “Early-stage design considerations for the energy-efficiency of high-rise office buildings,” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 128, 2017.

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

    B. Raji , M. J. Tenpierik , and A. van den Dobbelsteen , “An assessment of energy-saving solutions for the envelope design of high-rise buildings in temperate climates: A case study in the Netherlands,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 124, pp. 210221, 2016.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
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)
  • Ján Bujňák (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

 

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 2022 Online subsscription: 327 EUR / 411 USD 321
Print + online subscription: 393 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
Aug 2021 0 0 0
Sep 2021 0 0 0
Oct 2021 0 0 0
Nov 2021 0 66 33
Dec 2021 0 23 12
Jan 2022 0 29 24
Feb 2022 0 0 0