@prefix ocrer: . @prefix owl: . @prefix scires: . @prefix xsd: . @prefix skos: . @prefix rdfs: . @prefix ocresd: . @prefix swo: . @prefix cito: . @prefix geo: . @prefix ocresst: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix vivo: . @prefix event: . @prefix vann: . @prefix foaf: . @prefix c4o: . @prefix fabio: . @prefix vcard: . @prefix thkoeln: . @prefix vitro: . @prefix vitro-public: . @prefix rdf: . @prefix ocresp: . @prefix bibo: . @prefix obo: . @prefix ro: . . a thkoeln:Organisationseinheit , foaf:Agent , obo:BFO_0000001 , obo:BFO_0000004 , obo:BFO_0000002 , foaf:Organization , owl:Thing ; rdfs:label "Institut für Elektrische Energietechnik" ; . a obo:BFO_0000001 , obo:BFO_0000020 , vivo:Authorship , vivo:Relationship , obo:BFO_0000002 , owl:Thing ; vivo:relates . a thkoeln:Zitat , owl:Thing . a , owl:NamedIndividual , owl:Thing ; rdfs:label "Open Access"@en-US , "Open Access"@de-DE . obo:BFO_0000002 a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Kontinuant"@de-DE , "Continuant"@en-US , "Continuant"@en . thkoeln:Artikel a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Artikel"@de-DE , "Article"@en-US . a thkoeln:Zitat , owl:Thing . obo:BFO_0000001 a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Entität"@de-DE , "Entity"@en-US , "Entity"@en . a owl:NamedIndividual , , owl:Thing ; rdfs:label "Text"@de-DE , "Text"@en-US . a thkoeln:Zitat , owl:Thing . bibo:Document a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Dokument"@de-DE , "Document"@en-US , "Document"@en . a owl:Thing , bibo:Collection , bibo:Journal , obo:BFO_0000031 , obo:IAO_0000030 , thkoeln:Zeitschrift , obo:BFO_0000002 , obo:BFO_0000001 , bibo:Periodical ; rdfs:label "Cleaner Engineering and Technology" ; vivo:publicationVenueFor . owl:Thing a owl:Class . thkoeln:Journalartikel a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Journal Article"@en-US , "Journalartikel"@de-DE . a obo:BFO_0000001 , obo:BFO_0000020 , vivo:Authorship , vivo:Relationship , obo:BFO_0000002 , owl:Thing ; vivo:relates . obo:IAO_0000030 a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Entität für Informationsinhalt"@de-DE , "Information Content Entity"@en-US , "Information Content Entity"@en . a obo:BFO_0000003 , obo:BFO_0000008 , obo:BFO_0000001 , vivo:DateTimeValue , obo:BFO_0000148 , owl:Thing . a obo:BFO_0000001 , obo:BFO_0000020 , vivo:Authorship , vivo:Relationship , obo:BFO_0000002 , owl:Thing ; vivo:relates . a obo:BFO_0000031 , obo:BFO_0000002 , obo:IAO_0000030 , bibo:Document , foaf:Document , thkoeln:Publikation , obo:BFO_0000001 , owl:Thing , thkoeln:Journalartikel , thkoeln:Artikel ; rdfs:label "Towards Qualification and Quantification of Repairability in Residential Electrical Energy Systems" , "RDF description of Towards Qualification and Quantification of Repairability in Residential Electrical Energy Systems - https://fis.th-koeln.de/vivo/individual/publ_21736" ; thkoeln:artikelnummer "101242" ; thkoeln:dokumententyp "Wissenschaftlicher Artikel" ; thkoeln:peerReviewed "true" ; thkoeln:sprache "englisch" ; thkoeln:status "validiert" ; thkoeln:subtitle "The Case Study of LivingLab NRW" ; ; , ; ; , , ; ; "2026-07-14T08:57:35"^^xsd:dateTime ; ; ; bibo:abstract "The energy transition in buildings is mostly evaluated by cost and greenhouse emissions, but this neglects other sustainability dimensions like resource depletion. Accordingly, factors like failure rates and repairability are relevant, as building energy components come from varied origins and have ad hoc assembly by local labour. The closest standards to measure repairability in this context are DIN 45554 and ISO 20887, but they lack the on-site system-of-system approach and an explicit evaluation score respectively. Therefore, this work aims to create a suitable evaluation system based on these standards. This is achieved with a multicriteria scoring system, evaluated by the research community via a survey and tested on two houses in Wuppertal. This component-indicator scoring matrix is additionally tested in sensitivity scenarios such as system boundaries or interpretations. The best evaluated components are the meter and battery (84%–89%), which are simple components with good documentation. Roof-mounted components are the worst evaluated (48%–60%) as they have reduced accessibility and require more preparation. Sensitivity analysis shows a maximal deviation of 3.5%, which does not change which house has a better score (72 vs 68%). Common weak spots are poor labelling or accessibility. Based on the limited number of installations examined, the scoring system seems stable. Further investigations should include additional experiments, professional interviews, and relating the score to monetary and environmental benefits, allowing the layperson to better interpret the benefits of repairability. Acknowledging its limitations, the indicators still help reduce mounting/identifying/dismounting challenges by highlighting subcomponents that can be simplified or standardised." ; bibo:doi "10.1016/j.clet.2026.101242" ; bibo:volume "32" ; vitro:mostSpecificType thkoeln:Journalartikel ; vivo:dateTimeValue ; vivo:freetextKeyword "Disassembly" , "Photovoltaic System" , "HVAC" , "Repairability" , "Energy Systems" ; vivo:hasPublicationVenue ; vivo:relatedBy , , , . a thkoeln:Organisationseinheit , foaf:Agent , obo:BFO_0000001 , obo:BFO_0000004 , obo:BFO_0000002 , foaf:Organization , owl:Thing ; rdfs:label "Institute for Natural Resources Technology and Management" ; . a obo:BFO_0000001 , obo:BFO_0000020 , vivo:Authorship , vivo:Relationship , obo:BFO_0000002 , owl:Thing ; vivo:relates . thkoeln:Publikation a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Publikationen"@de-DE , "Publications"@en-US . obo:BFO_0000031 a owl:Class ; rdfs:label "Bedingter Kontinuant"@de-DE , "Generically Dependent Continuant"@en-US , "Generically Dependent Continuant"@en .