Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Research Paper
1 Research Paper
Prior studies of indirect water storage tanks that employ an immersed heat exchanger to discharge the stored energy identified
two potential methods of improving the rate of energy extraction:
(1) an internal baffle to increase the velocity across the heat exchanger and (2) a divided storage compartment to achieve thermal stratification. The relative benefits of the two options are compared and recommendations for implementation are provided
based in part on measurements in a 350 l tank with a 10 m long,
0.3 m2 coiled tubular heat exchanger. DOI: 10.1115/1.3142823
Introduction
Fig. 1 Options for an indirect storage tank with immersed heat exchanger
transfer and outlet temperature, between the three tank configurations, are negligible after 100 min and thus data are provided for
this time period.
Temperature and heat transfer are analyzed assuming a quasisteady process. The heat transfer to the heat exchanger, Q, at each
time step is
c pTout Tin
Q=m
Tout Tin
Ts Tin
NTU = ln1
2
3
Results
Transient heat transfer for the three tanks is plotted versus time
for 100 min in Fig. 3. The heat transfer diminishes as the temperature in the tank decreases. The baffled storage tank provides
the highest discharge rate. The divided storage tank provides the
lowest heat transfer. The heat transfer during the first 5 min of
discharge is 9639 W in the conventional storage tank, 10,288 W in
the tank with the baffle, and 8479 W in the divided tank. Thus, the
baffle improves heat transfer in the first 5 min by 6.7%, while the
divided storage decreases heat transfer by 12.0% when compared
with the conventional storage tank. The baffle improves heat
transfer from 55 min t 60 min by 5.8% over the conventional
tank, while the divided storage results in a 5.0% decrease. At 100
min, the three options performed similarly.
Heat transfer from the individual tanks in the divided storage
differs slightly. The heat transfer from tank 1 is approximately
half that of the conventional storage tank. This result is anticipated
because the heat exchange area in the divided tank is half that in
the conventional tank and the inlet temperature and the initial
storage temperature are identical. Heat transfer in the second tank
is lower. The reduced heat transfer in the second tank is a result of
a higher inlet temperature to the heat exchanger.
Heat exchanger effectiveness is plotted versus discharge time
for the three tank options in Fig. 4. The heat exchanger effectiveness for tank 2 is slightly lower than the one for tank 1. But as
shown in Fig. 4, for both tanks 0.3. In all tanks, the effectiveness decreases as energy is extracted. The nominal effectiveness
of the conventional tank is 0.57. The effectiveness of the baffled
tank is about 12% higher than the conventional tank.
The decay in the average storage temperature of the conventional, baffled, and divided storage tanks is plotted in Fig. 5. Data
for the divided tank include the average temperature in each tank
as well as the average for the combined storage volume. Consistent with the heat transfer measurements, storage temperature decays most rapidly in the baffled tank followed by the conventional
and divided tanks. Tank 1 in the divided storage vessel behaves
similarly to the conventional tank and cools more rapidly than
tank 2.
Transient outlet temperatures for the three tanks are plotted in
Fig. 6. The baffled storage tank produces higher outlet temperatures than the conventional tank for the first 100 min of discharge.
The divided storage tank produces lower outlet temperatures for
the first 80 min. The time that the heat exchanger outlet temperaJournal of Solar Energy Engineering
Thus, the baffle increases the time the heat exchanger outlet temperature is above 40 C by 57%, while the divided storage decreases this time by 57%.
advantage of the divided storage depends on the NTU of the immersed heat exchanger. Too low a NTU limits the energy transfer
rate and diminishes the advantage of the divided storage. The
analytical results in Figs. 7 and 8 predict that for NTU 2, the
divided storage will penalize performance. The present data confirm this result. The initial NTU of the heat exchanger used in the
conventional storage is 0.85 Fig. 4. At NTU = 0.85, the model
predicts that the divided storage will impose a penalty of about
2% in heat transfer and 1% in outlet temperature. The measured
data show an even greater penalty about 8% penalty in heat transfer and about 5% in outlet temperature for Vr 0.5. The measured penalty is greater than expected due to the increased surface
area and the accompanying increase in losses to the ambient of the
divided storage tank. The model assumes an adiabatic storage
tank.
The divided storage could be advantageous at higher NTU. This
benefit has been proven for NTU equal to 2.5 and 7 15. In
general, the advantage increases as NTU is increased. However, as
shown in Figs. 7 and 8, increasing the NTU above a certain value
about 12 is not warranted because at high NTU the heat transfer
is limited by the temperature difference between the surface of the
heat exchanger and the storage fluid.
The question of whether a baffle or a divided tank is the best
approach to improve performance of indirect storage tanks does
not have a simple answer. The divided storage is a good option for
situations where the NTU of the heat exchanger exceeds 3. The
coiled heat exchanger used in the present study would need to be
at least 35 m long to benefit from a divided storage tank. A baffle
is potentially beneficial for all NTU. But a baffle impacts heat
transfer on the storage side of the heat exchanger. Consequently, a
baffle is effective only when the largest resistance to heat transfer
is convection on the storage side of the heat exchanger. This circumstance is most likely when the flow through the heat exchanger is turbulent and the heat exchanger is metal. If the heat
exchanger is plastic, the conductive resistance across the polymer
wall may pose a larger thermal resistance than convection. Experience showed that not all baffling schemes work. The cylindrical
baffle evaluated here is appropriate for coiled tubes.
Discussion
For tank 2,
i = i
ic p,i f
ic p,is
where the subscripts f and s represent the tube side and storage,
respectively. The dimensionless parameter Vr is the volume of hot
water delivered divided by the storage volume of tank i:
Vr,i =
ft
m
f,iVs,i
Conclusion
Indirect water storage tanks, which use an immersed heat exchanger to add or extract energy, are a relatively new innovation
in solar water heating systems. The advantage of these tanks is the
elimination of one or more mechanical pumps. The potential disadvantage is reliance on natural as opposed to forced convection
heat transfer on the storage side of the heat exchanger. Two methTransactions of the ASME
ods proposed to improve thermal performance are baffles to control the flow of storage fluid around the heat exchanger and a
division of the storage tank into a series of smaller tanks or a
single tank divided into compartments. Both of these methods are
potentially beneficial and thus the question ariseswhich is best?
This paper compares the transient thermal performance of both
options in a 350 l water storage tank with a 10 m long, 0.3 m2
immersed copper coil heat exchanger. The baffle is a cylindrical
sleeve that forms an annulus in which the heat exchanger is positioned. The divided option is two 175 l storage tanks through
which the heat exchanger is operated in series. The two options
are compared with a conventional tank. For these specific configurations, the tank with the baffled heat exchanger provides the best
performance. The baffle increases the storage-side convective heat
transfer to the heat exchanger by 20%. The divided storage tank is
detrimental to performance. However, as shown by an analytic
model, such tanks can be beneficial if the NTU of the heat exchanger is large enough, i.e., greater than 3.
Our conclusion and recommendation to tank designers is to
consider both options as potential methods to improve performance. Under the right circumstances both options can provide a
modest 58% improvement in heat transfer and an increase in
the quality of delivered energy. If the NTU of the heat exchanger
is greater than 3, a divided storage may be used to maintain high
outlet temperatures longer than in a conventional tank of the same
total volume. Baffles are useful regardless of the NTU of the heat
exchanger as long as the storage-side convection poses the greatest thermal resistance to heat transfer. Normally, this situation will
occur when water flow through the heat exchanger is turbulent,
which is typically the case for copper tubes used in most domestic
water pipes and coiled tube heat exchangers.
Nomenclature
A heat transfer area m2
c p specific heat of water at constant pressure
J/kg K
mass flow rate kg/s
m
NTU number of transfer units UA / m
c p
Q heat transfer W
t time s
T temperature C
UA overall heat transfer coefficient area product
W / C
Vr dimensionless ratio of delivered water volume
to storage water volume Eq. 9
Vs volume of storage fluid m3
Greek Symbols
Subscripts
0 initial value
1
2
f
i
in
o
out
s
References
1 Liu, W., Davidson, J. H., Mantell, S. C., and Kulacki, F. A., 2003, Natural
Convection From a Horizontal Tube Heat Exchanger Immersed in a Tilted
Enclosure, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 1251, pp. 6775.
2 Liu, W., Davidson, J. H., and Kulacki, F. A., 2004, Natural Convection From
a Tube Bundle in a Thin Inclined Enclosure, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng.,
1262, pp. 702709.
3 Liu, W., Davidson, J. H., and Kulacki, F. A., 2005, Thermal Characterization
of Prototypical Integral Collector Storage Systems With Immersed Heat Exchangers, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 1271, pp. 2128.
4 Su, Y., and Davidson, J. H., 2007, Transient Natural Convection Heat Transfer Correlations for Tube Bundles Immersed in a Thermal Storage, ASME J.
Sol. Energy Eng., 129, pp. 210214.
5 Su, Y., and Davidson, J. H., 2007, Multi-Zone Porous Medium Model of the
Thermal and Fluid Processes During Discharge of an Inclined Rectangular
Storage Vessel Via an Immersed Tube Bundle, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng.,
129, pp. 449457.
6 Chauvet, L. P., Nevrala, D. J., and Probert, S. D., 1993, Influences of Baffles
on the Rate of Heat Recovery Via a Finned-Tube Heat-Exchanger Immersed in
a Hot-Water Store, Appl. Energy, 45, pp. 191217.
7 Mote, R., Probert, S. D., and Nevrala, D., 1992, Rate of Heat Recovery From
a Hot-Water Store: Influence of the Aspect Ratio of a Vertical-Axis OpenEnded Cylinder Beneath a Submerged Heat-Exchanger, Appl. Energy, 41,
pp. 115136.
8 Drck, H., and Bachmann, S., 2002, Hot Water Performance of Solar
CombistoresDescription of a Test Method and the Experience Gained With
the Application of the Method on Three Different Types of Combistores,
International Energy Agency Paris SHC Task 26 Report, Combisystems,
www.iea-shc.org.
9 Drck, H., and Hahne, E., 1998, Test and Comparison of Hot Water Stores for
Solar Combistores, Proceedings of EuroSun 1998, Portoroz, Slovenia, pp.
1417.
10 Kulacki, F. A., Davidson, J. H., and Hebert, M., 2007, On the Effectiveness of
Baffles in Indirect Solar Storage Systems, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 129,
pp. 494498.
11 Su, Y., and Davidson, J.H., 2008, Discharge of Thermal Storage Tanks Via
Immersed Baffled Heat Exchangers: Numerical Model of Flow and Temperature Fields, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 130, p. 021016.
12 Haltiwanger, J., and Davidson, J. H., 2009, Discharge of a Thermal Storage
Tank Using an Immersed Heat Exchanger With an Annular Baffle, Sol. Energy, 83, pp. 193201.
13 Sekulic, D. P., and Krane, R. J., 1992, Use of Multiple Storage Elements to
Improve the Second Law Efficiency of a Thermal Storage System. Part II:
Completion of the Analysis and Presentation of Results, Proceedings of
ECOS 1992 International Symposium on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, A.
Valero and G. Tsatsaronis, eds., New York, pp. 6772.
14 Mather, D., Hollands, K. G. T., and Wright, J. L., 2002, Single- and MultiTank Energy Storage for Solar Heating Systems: Fundamentals, Sol. Energy,
731, pp. 313.
15 Boies, A. M., and Homan, K. O., 2008, Improving Discharge Characteristics
of Indirect Integral Collector Storage Systems With Multielement Storage,
ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 130, p. 021003.
16 Ragoonanan, V., Davidson, J. H., Homan, K. O., and Mantell, S. C., 2006,
The Benefit of Dividing an Indirect Thermal Storage Into Two Compartments: Discharge Experiments, Sol. Energy, 80, pp. 1831.