## 4 Results and Discussion  
### House Energy Balance Analysis  
In this section, the thermal energy balance of SACS for the house under study was established through the evaluation of harvested solar energy, the delivered energy from a hot solar tank, the energy from the auxiliary boiler, and the necessary energy to satisfy the load. Table 5 shows the important and vital information efficiency parameters (result of SACS) for the summer season. Figures 6 and 7 show, respectively, the energy contribution of the integrated gas boiler and solar field during the cooling season. The analyses results show that the useful energy of the solar field was 34,730 kWh and the energy delivered by the boiler was 26,025 kWh, indicating that the total season solar fraction (also called solar coverage) to the load was about 58% (see Figure 7). It is clearly seen that the system operating in May had the highest average solar fraction (a value of about 65%) due to the higher value of captured energy and the lower cooling load. Contrarily, the system presenting the lowest average value of solar fraction (45%) operated under October weather conditions. This is because of the lower energy supplied by the storage tank and lower harvested energy by ETC collectors (see Table 5). This outcome reflects the effect of solar irradiation on the energy performance of SACS. It is also clear that there is a significant impact on the solar fraction from the weather data each month, particularly, solar irradiation that has a direct influence on the energy generated by the ETC field. It is possible to observe this by referring to Equation (18). Figure 8 shows the energy contribution of solar irradiation, energy from solar collectors, and solar tank. The average monthly values of incident solar radiation energy on the solar collectors was 178,023 kWh, while the total captured solar energy was 96,073 kWh, and the energy from the solar tank was 34,730 kWh, which implies that the efficiency of ETC collectors during the cooling season was about 54% (see Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Month**} & **Incident** & **Collected** & **Solar** & **Aux.** & **Load** & **Collector** & **Solar** \\  & **Energy** & **Tank** & **Beiler** & **Energy** & **Efficiency** & **(\%)** & **COP** & **Fraction** \\ \hline April & 17,329 & 9489 & 2350 & 1760 & 4110 & 54.75 & 0.39 & 57.17 \\ \hline May & 19,624 & 11,346 & 3642 & 1954 & 5596 & 57.81 & 0.41 & 65.08 \\ \hline June & 30,632 & 16,358 & 6243 & 4720 & 10,963 & 53.40 & 0.45 & 56.94 \\ \hline July & 33,685 & 18,509 & 7496 & 5153 & 12,649 & 54.94 & 0.51 & 59.26 \\ \hline August & 35,173 & 19,245 & 7889 & 5391 & 13,280 & 54.71 & 0.52 & 59.40 \\ \hline September & 29,627 & 15,296 & 4948 & 4430 & 9378 & 51.62 & 0.40 & 52.76 \\ \hline Oct. & 11,953 & 5830 & 2162 & 2617 & 4779 & 48.77 & 0.40 & 45.23 \\ \hline Total & 178,023 & 96,073 & 34,730 & 26,025 & 60,755 & 53.96 & 0.44 & 57.16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Most relevant data and results for the cooling season operation (kWh). Figure 6: Energy contribution of integration gas boiler and solar field. Table 5 outlines the evaluation of the COP over six months, indicating that the average COP of SACS ranges between 0.39 and 0.52. It was also found that the system, operating in July and August, has the best average COP (a value of 0.51 and 0.52), respectively, due to a large amount of captured energy by ETC and a large cooling load that is led to higher solar coverage. Moreover, the lowest average COP (0.39) was recorded in April. Based on Equation (17), we can conclude that the variation in COP (see Table 5) through the six months is directly reported to the thermal energy at the input and output of the generator, and evaporator of the absorption chiller. The COP strongly depends on the flows of energy in these two parts.