You are on page 1of 8

Solar Eneroy Vol. 25, pp.

Pergamon Press Ltd., 1980. Printed in Great Britain


Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.

(Received 2 January 1980; revision accepted 27 May 1980)

Abstract--The performance of several generic types of solar domestic water heating systems is compared
using a simulation approach. Types of systems studied included those using single and double tanks and
those using direct and indirect methods of transferring solar heat to potable water. In addition, the
effects of collector area, tank size, tank insulation, tempering valves and load distribution are studied.
A modification to tbef-chart design method is developed. This modification allows variation in tank
insulation to be considered in the design method. Simulation results are compared, on a quantitative
basis, with performance predictions generated by the f-chart design method modified in this manner. In
addition, experimental results from the U.S. National Bureau of Standards are compared, on a qualitat-
ive basis, with simulation results, and, on a quantitative basis, with f-chart performance predictions.

!. I N T R O D U C T I O N First, systems may be classified according to the

Several different types of solar domestic water heating method in which solar heat is transferred to the
systems have appeared on the market within the past potable water. This may be done directly, by a heat
few years.~ It is apparent that this sector of the solar exchanger external to the storage tank, or by a heat
industry is expanding. The full economic benefit of a exchanger located within the tank. The thermal per-
solar water heating system cannot be realized unless it formance of systems having an external heat
is properly designed and sized for its intended appli- exchanger may be conveniently determined in the
cation. Needed at this time are design methods which same manner as for direct systems (which employ no
provide reliable estimates of the long-term average heat exchanger and rely on drain-down or freeze-
annual thermal performance for the various types of point circulation for freeze protection) by multiplying
systems commercially available. the collector thermal parameters, Fa(z~), and FaUL,
Detailed computer simulation programs are avail- by FR'/Fa, the collector-heat exchanger correction
able which may be used to model the performance of factor developed by de Winter E3]. (Air heating sys-
a specified solar domestic water heating system. Simu- tems can be treated in this way and are considered to
lations, however, are not convenient for routine be a form of external heat exchange system.) As a
design because they require hourly meterological data result, direct and external heat exchange systems may
and a fair amount of expertise. An improvement on be placed in the same category. Internal heat
this situation is the ./=chart design method [1, 2] exchange ~systems include both jacketed tanks and
which provides estimates of monthly average system tanks having a heat exchange coil immersed in the
performance based on system design and monthly water. These systems may use either antifreeze solu-
average weather data. The f-chart method was devel- tion or drain-down devices for freeze protection.
oped for two-tank systems in which the preheat tank Second, the systems may use either one or two
has a fixed amount of insulation and the auxiliary tanks. In a one tank system, auxiliary heat and solar
tank is perfectly insulated. The use of a tempering heat are added to the same tank. Two tank systems
valve was not considered. In addition, a fixed daily incorporate auxiliary in a second, separate tank which
load distribution was assumed. is connected to the solar preheat tank by piping.
The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, to These" systems are shown schematically in
investigate the effect on system performance of vari- Fig. l(a)-(d). Using these classifications, the four sys-
ations in number of tanks, insulation, storage ca- tem categories are named as follows: single tank,
pacity, daily draw value and time distribution and the external heat exchanger (la); double tank, external
presence or absence of a tempering valve. Second, to exchanger (lb); single tank, internal heat exchanger
determine the applicability of the f-chart method to (lc); and double tank, internal heat exchanger (ld).
the design of the various types of solar water heating
systems now available. 3. M E T H O D

A simulation approach was used to investigate the

2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS thermal performance of the four types of representa-
Excluding thermosyphon systems, most types of tive systems. The simulation program TRNSYS [4]
domestic water heating systems may be placed into was used throughout. Simulation results are reported
one of four categories. in terms off, the fraction of the monthly load supplied

by solar energy. However, f can be defined in several tank(s) to the surroundings; and QIo~d is the rate at
ways, as seen in the following analysis. which energy is delivered to the taps in the form of
An energy balance on a solar domestic water heat- hot water. If eqn (1) is integrated over a period of
a month, the internal energy change becomes small in
ing system is of the form:
comparison with the other quantities. Thus,
-- Qu -}- Q a u x -- Qloss -- Qload (1)
where dU/dt is the rate of change in internal energy (2a)
of the stored water; (2~ is the rate at which energy is
delivered to the tank from the collector loop; Or, using simplified notation:
~ ,,~ is the rate at which auxiliary energy is used;
to,, is the rate of energy loss from the storage 0 = Q~ol + E - L 0-L (2b)



COLLECTOR/~-, "1 -- ±

/ / I
: /



/ / ~CONTR?LLER]UI" "--I- ----'l

/ / ,-"-- -" 1-_.-~

LJ '6PUMP PUMPL----,; ----


i I1 !TANK

f.,- m ..L.. ~
--~--,, L TAN'
Analysis of solar domestic hot water heaters 419






Fig. 1. Four generic types of solar domestic hot water heater. (a) Single tank, direct system; (b) double
tank, direct system; (c) single tank, indirect system; (d) double tank, indirect system.

where A solar fraction,fl,may be defined:

Q~ol = f(~= dt L+Lo-E
ft =
L + Lo
E = f(~ dt Q~o, (3)
= L+Lo"

Lo = f (~l. dt Since system energy lossesvary from system to system

depending on tank configuration and insulation, a
more appropriate fractionby solar may be defined:
L -- : Oload dr.
f2 = (L - E)/L. (4)

The solar fractions fl and f2 are related by the ex- 4. RESULTS

pression: (a) Comparison of system configurations
fl = (f2L + Lo)/(L + Lo). (5) Simulations were performed for the four basic sys-
tem configurations using three representative collec-
In the non-solar case, where Qco~= O, fl also goes
tor areas and hourly weather data for Madison, WI,
to zero since all system energy requirements are sup-
Albuquerque, NM, and Charleston, SC. All systems
plied by auxiliary energy. On the other hand, f2, as
had identical storage capacities and daily hot water
defined above, will become negative in the non-solar
case, since auxiliary energy must be supplied not only demands. Two, three and four collector module sys-
tems were investigated with each module having an
to meet L but L0 as well.
aperture area of 1.44 m 2. Table 1 indicates the range
Still another solar fraction, f3, may be defined as:
of design parameter values studied.
Qaux-solar The annual solar fractions for these systems are
./'3 = 1 (6) summarized in Table 2. The performance ranking of
the systems remains the same from location to loca-
where Q. . . . . . . . lar is the energy requirement of a con- tion and for varying collector areas. Arranged in
ventional hot water heater. This is made up of both order of decreasing solar fraction, the systems are
energy removed in the form of hot water and energy single tank, external heat exchanger; double tank,
required to makeup standby losses. The solar fraction external heat exchanger; single tank, internal heat
f3 represents the fraction of conventional energy dis- exchanger; double tank, internal heat exchanger.
placed by the solar alternative and is related to f2 by However, the variations in solar fraction are small.
the formula: Variations between single and double tank system
performance are chiefly due to differences in storage
(1 - f 2 ) L losses. The two-tank systems have a larger overall loss
f3 -----1 O. . . . . . . . . lar" (7) coefficient-area product (UA) than the one-tank sys-
tems and could be expected to have more tank energy
When economic evaluations of solar vs non-solar losses. Four additional simulations were run using
alternatives are being made, f3 should be used rather three collector modules and Madison weather data
than ft or f2 since the conventional energy require- with zero loss tanks. These results are reported in
ment of the solar system is the product of (l-f3) and Table 3. One- and two-tank external heat exchanger
Q......... ~ar while conventional energy displaced by systems yielded identical performance in the zero loss
solar is fyQ . . . . . . . . lar' Other methods of defining frac- case. Systems with internal heat exchangers gave simi-
tion by solar may be used. It is important, however, lar results. This leads to the conclusion that, for the
to indicate how solar fraction is defined. For the system variables studied, single-tank systems are
remainder of this paper, solar fraction will be superior to double-tank systems with the same stor-
expressed as defined in eqn (4) above, i.e. f2. age capacity as a result of reduced storage losses for
The TRNSYS simulation employs component the one tank system. This superiority is even greater if
models which determine instantaneous values of the the economic penalty of an extra tank and associated
energy quantities defined above for each timestep. piping is considered.
These are then numerically integrated over the month The performance differences beween systems with
and the resulting values are printed. Individual com- external heat exchanger and internal heat exchanger
ponent models used are as follows: are due primarily to differences in heat exchanger
• Collector--using ASHRAE 93-77 test results, effectiveness between these systems. The external heat
(FR(z~t), = 0.84, FRUL = 4.67 W/m2C); angle of inci- exchanger systems listed in Table 2 have an effective-
dence effects neglected; oriented due south at a tilt ness of 1.0, while the internal heat exchanger systems
equal to the latitude. have an effectiveness of 0.5. Additional simulations
• Tank~"fully stratified" model [4], 3 nodes.
• Heat exchanger in tank--constant effectiveness Table 1. Range of design parameters studied
model of immersed coil.
Collector area: 2.88, 4.32, 5.76 m 2
• Controller--on/off differential type, on collector
Number of tanks: 1 or 2
outlet and tank outlet or heat exchanger outlet, if Heat exchanger:
used. Type Internal coil or external
• Load profile--RAND [5] profile, 300 L/day, Effectiveness 0.25-1.00
repeated daily unless otherwise noted. Tank insulation
Conductance: 0.0-1.67 W m - 2_ C -
• Mains temperature--10°C. Tank height to
• Auxiliary heater set temperature--50°C. diameter ratio: 1.75
• Tempering valve--operates at set temperature and Tempering v a l v e Enabled or disabled
above, proportionally mixing water, from tank and Tank volume (total):
1-Tank 300-4501.
mains to achieve a delivery temperature of T~e, to 2-Tank 450--6001.
taps, unless otherwise noted.
Analysis of solar domestic hot water heaters 421

Table 2. Annual fraction by ~ l a r :

System type
Location- l-Tank 2-Tank 1-Tank 2-Tank
area, (m2) Ext. HX Ext. HX Int. HX Int. HX

2.88 0A7 0.43 0.42 0.38
4.32 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.55
5.76 0.73 0.69 0.70 0.66
2.88 0.59 0.54 0.52 0.49
4.32 0.79 0.74 0.73 0.69
5.76 0.88 0.85 0.85 0.82
2.88 0.75 0.69 0.67 0.62
4.32 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.85
5.76 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.93

were run using the 4.32 m 2 Madison systems with a lector areas heat the storage tank up to a higher tem-
heat exchanger effectiveness of 0.5 for external heat perature with the result that the tempering valve
exchanger systems and an effectiveness of 1.0 for operates more often. Under these circumstances, a
internal heat exchanger systems. The results ate sum- system Which does not have a tempering valve will
marized in Table 4. Solar fractions are nearly identi- have more energy removed from storage than a sys-
cal for external and internal heat exchanger systems tem with the tempering valve in supplying a fixed
with identical heat exchanger effectivenesses. volume of heated water. Since more energy is re-
moved from the tank in the system without the tem-
Effect of tempering valves pering valve, the average tank temperature of this sys-
All of the above systems employed tempering tem is reduced resulting in less storage tank loss and a
valves. Additional simulations were run for four col- slightly higher collector efficiency. These factors com-
lector areas using the double tank external heat pensate and the net result is that the tempering valve
exchanger system in Madison. In these simulations, has only a small effect on the monthly average system
the tempering valve was disabled. The results are performance. This conclusion does not imply that
summarized in Table 5. The presence or absence of a tempering valves should be excluded from solar hot
tempering valve had negligible effect on the system water systems. They serve the essential function of
performance with the smallest collector area, and only preventing overheated water from reaching the house
a small effect (0.02 decrease in solar fraction) for the taps and causing personal injury or damage to
largest system. appliances.
These results are due to several factors. For systems
with small collector areas (which provide only a small Effect of storaoe capacity
fraction of the load), the tank temperature seldom (if The preceding results were obtained for systems
ever) exceeds the set temperature. As a result, the having a total storage capacity of 450 !. Additional
tempering valve seldom operates and systems without simulations were r u n for systems in Madison having
a tempering valve perform nearly identically to sys- other storage capacities. A comparison of the per-
tems with tempering valves. Systems with larger col- formance of one-tank systems having storage c a -

Table 3. Tank insulation variation 4.32 m2 collector area, annual results

Insulation System type

cond, 1-Tank 2-Tank 1-Tank 2-Tank
(W-m -2 C -1) Ext. HX Ext. HX Int. HX Int. HX

1.67 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.55

0.0 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.74

Table 4. Heat exchanger variation 4.32 m2 collector area, annual results

System type
HX 1-Tank 1-Tank 2-Tank 2-Tank
Effectiveness Ext. HX Int. HX Ext. HX Int. HX

0.5 0.59 0.59 0.55 0.55

1.0 0.63 0.63 0.59 0.59

Table 5. Systems with and without tempering valves Table 6. Storage capacity variation
annual results annual results; l-Tank systems, Ext.
System type
Collector 2-Tank, Ext. HX 2-Tank, Ext. HX Collector Tank volume
area (m2) tempering valve no tempering valve area (m2) 300-1. 450-1.

2.88 0.43 0.43 2.88 0,49 0.47

4.32 0.59 0.58 4.32 0,65 0.63
5.76 0.69 0.68 5.76 0,73 0.73
7.20 0.75 0.73

Table 7. Storage capacity variation

pacities of 300 and 4501. for three collector areas is annual results; 2-Tank systems, Ext.
summarized in Table 6. For the three collector areas HX
examined, the annual solar fraction was higher for the
Collector Tank volume
systems having the smaller storage capacity. The area (m2) 450-1. 600-1.
explanation for this result is that the smaller storage
tank had less surface area, and thus less energy losses. 2.88 0.43 0.41
The difference between the annual solar fractions for 4.32 0.59 0.58
systems having the 300- and 450-1. storage tanks de- 5.76 0.69 0.69
creased as the collector area increased. When the col-
lector array is sized such that it can provide a large accomplished by adding an additional zero flow hour
fraction of the load, the systems having larger storage to the interval between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m.) The remain-
capacity will operate at a lower average tank tem- ing five distributions are shown in Fig. 2(b)-(0. The
perature than the systems with smaller storage ca- second (Fig. 2b) represents a constant draw 24 hr each
pacity. As a result, the systems with 450-1. storage day while others assume a constant draw for 4 hr each
capacity had a higher collector efficiency than the day, each beginning at a different time of day as
300-1. systems which compensated in part for the ad- shown. The simulation results for these six distribu-
ditional losses compared to the 300-1. system. A com- tions and the RAND distribution are summarized in
parison of the performance of two-tank systems hav- Table 8. The system used in this investigation con-
ing storage capacities of 450 and 600 !. is presented in sisted of a single 300-1. tank with an external heat
Table 7. Here again, the systems with the smaller stor- exchanger and 4.32m 2 of collector area and was
age capacity performed somewhat better than those located in Madison, WI.
having the larger storage for the same reasons as dis- The results in Table 8 indicate that solar water heat-
cussed for the one-tank systems. ing systems having reasonable storage capacity are
relatively insensitive to the hourly distribution of hot
Effect of load distribution water usage. The annual performance for a system
All of the simulation results presented up to this subject to the first and second distribution are nearly
point were obtained assuming a hot water demand of identical to that for the RAND distribution. Differ-
300 L/day distributed throughout the day as shown in ences in the simulation results for the four 4-hr distri-
Fig. 2(a). This "typical" load distribution was pre- butions are small but they show that the early morn-
pared from data collected in a RAND Corp. survey of
residential water heating [5]. However, hot water
demands may be subject to wide variations in both o,
magnitude and time distribution. Even in households >,
in which a regular schedule of hot water usage is
b. OI L I
maintained, it is unlikely that the daily hot water O
demand will be constant from one day to the next,
since clothes and dishwashers may not be operated ~
Z 20 E5I
every day. In addition, the hourly distribution of hot a. io
water usage for a particular household may differ sig- + l l l t l t l J l i i l l l i l l L l ]
o o ~x-J
nificantly from that shown in Fig. 2(a). (b
The effect of the hourly distribution of hot water re
to 20
usage was investigated by simulating the annual per- [5
formance of a solar water heating system subject to
six alternative distributions. In each case, the daily .z. 0 0 ,
2 5 456 78 9 IO I112 2 3 456
78910 I} 12
demand was taken to be 3001. The first distribution MIDNIGHT A.M. NOON P. M MIDNIGHT
considered was one in which the hourly demand pat-
Fig. 2. Hot water use profiles, (a) RAND average profile;
tern differed each day. A distribution of this type was (b) 24 hr constant profile; (c) early morning profile; (d) late
constructed by modifying the RAND distribution so morning profile; (e) early afternoon profile; (0 late after-
that its period was 25 hr, rather than 24. (This was noon profile.
Analysis of solar domestic hot water heaters 423

Table 8. Effect of hourly load distribution

RAND 25-hr Constant 2-6 &m. 8-12 a.m. 2-6 p.m. 8-12 p.m.
(Fig. 2a) RAND (Fig. 2b) (Fig. 2c) (Fig. 2d) (Fig. 2e) (Fig. 2t")

0.66 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.63

Table 9. Non-recurring draw pattern Table 10. Annual results; 1-Tank ext.
HX 4.32 m 2 collector
Percent of weekly demand
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Draw type
Tank -1Slon-
5.7 42.9 2.8 2.8 14.4 2.8 28.5 capacity Recurring recurring
4501. 0.63 0.57 ..
6001. 0.65 0.57 "
ing hours are the worst time to withdraw water from
the system while the mid-afternoon hours are best.
The explanation for these results is that the number of results reported by NBS. Column 2 contains results
hours hot water must be stored (sustaining heat losses generated by f-chart version 3.0t using NBS supplied
from the tank) is highest for early morning demand collector performance data, monthly average collector
and lowest for early afternoon demand. surface radiation data, ambient temperature, water
A series of simulations were run to determine the draw, mains temperature and hot water outlet tem-
effect of differing daily demands on system perform- perature. Most of the discrepancy between the NBS
ance. In these simulations the RAND profile was used test results and f-chart 3.0 may be eliminated if heat
in its original form except the daily total draw was loss from the auxiliary tank (or auxiliary section of
varied so that the total weekly draw was constant but the tank in single-tank systems) is included in the
there was a wide variation between total draw on a system load (see Appendix A). The performance esti-
day-to-day basis. This weekly variation is presented in mates in column 3 were generated by a version of
Table 9. The results Of these simulations are summar- f-chart which has been modified in this way. The tank
ized in Table 10. These results indicate that wide vari- overall energy loss coefficient-area product as
ations in the daily draw pattern can significantly reported :by NBS was used in this version. The agree-
reduce the system thermal performance, particularly if ment between the NBS results and those generated by
the daily draw frequently exceeds the storage tank f-chart version 3.0 modified in this manner is within
capacity. 5 per cent.

Table 11. NBS experiment compared with ./=chart annual

The U.S. National Bureau of Standards tests of flchart Modified
solar domestic hot water heaters [6] may be used to System Test 3.0 f-chart
qualitatively evaluate the conclusions drawn in the
preceding section. Extensive data have been reported 1-Tank
by Hill et al. [7]. The annual average solar fraction Ext. HX 0.36 0.45 0.37
for each of these systems is shown in column 1 of Ext. HX 0.37 0.60 0.40
Table 11. The single tank, external heat exchanger 1-Tank
system had only two-thirds the eoUector area of its Int. HX 0.45 0.51 0.43
two-tank counterpart, but supplied nearly the same 2-Tank,
solar fraction. This confirms the conclusions drawn Int. HX 0.33 0.51 0.30
above concerning the superiority of single-tank sys-
tems. The systems with internal (jacketed) heat Table 12. TRNSYS compared with f-chart, Madison data
exchangers also showed the same trend, with the one- annual average results
tank system performing better than the two-tank sys-
tem even though they both had the same collector f-chart Modified
System Area TRNSYS 3.0 f-chart 3.0
area. (m2)
Tests such as those conducted by NBS invite, and
in fact were intended to be used for, comparison with 1-Tank, 2.88 0.47 0.53 0.44
f-chart and other design method performance predic- Ext. HX 5.76 0.73 0.82 0.77
2-Tank, 2.88 0.43 0.53 0.42
tions. Column 1 of Table 11 contains annual average
Ext. HX 5.76 0.69 0.82 0.75
l-Tank, 2.88 0.42 0.50 0.40
tAllJ:chart results presented in this paper were gener- Int. HX 5.76 0.70 0.80 0.73
ated using a storage size correction factor (as defined in 2-Tank, 2.88 0.38 0.50 0.38
eqn VIII-12 of I"11)of unity,~as this factor appfies to space Int. HX 5.76 0.66 0.80 0.71
heating systems only.

Comparisons between TRNSYS simulations and Q,uz rate of auxiliary energy addition to tank
the modified version of ./=chart were also performed. Qco~ monthly total useful energy gain of col-
They are presented in Table 12. Agreement here is
Q, ..... tar total system auxiliary energy requirement
not as good as it was in the NBS comparisons. One for solar water heating system
explanation for this discrepancy is that the J:chart Qaux-, total system energy requirement of con-
method was developed assuming a preheat tank loss ventional water heating system
coefficient of 0.42 W/m2-°C whereas the TRNSYS Q~o~dsystem rate of energy removal from system in the
form of hot water
simulations used 1.67 W/m2-°C. (~oss rate of energy loss from tank to sur-
6. C O N C L U S I O N (~v rate of useful energy gain of collector
T~e, set temperature of water heating system's
Solar domestic hot water systems may be classified auxiliary heater
in four categories according to the method they use to U internal energy of tank
transfer and store solar heat. The performance differ- UA overall loss coefficient-area product
ences between one and two tank systems of the types UL overall collector loss coefficient
studied were small and due primarily to the difference X,X' horizontal coordinate off-chart
Y,Y' vertical coordinate off-chart
in tank surface areas. Heat exchangers of equivalent (Ta), collector tr ansmittance-absorptance
effectiveness gave the same performance if installed product at normal incidence
external or internal to the tank. Tempering valves are
an essential part of a solar domestic hot water system
for safety reasons but have little effect on the monthly 1. S. A. Klein, A Design Procedure for Solar Heating Sys-
average system performance. For the range of storage tems, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison
sizes studied, little effect on the long-term average 2. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Engineering Experi-
performance was observed. Day to day load vari- ment Station Rep. 49-3, FCHART(June 1978).
ations can have a significant effect on system perform- 3. F. deWinter, Heat exchanger penalties in the double
ance. Because the differences in performance for the loop solar water heating system. Solar Energy 17(6)
four system types studied were small, the f-chart (1975).
4. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Engineering Experi-
method, as modified to account for auxiliary energy ment Station Report 38-10, T R N S Y S (1979).
losses, can be used to provide estimates of the long- 5. J. J. Mutch, Residential water heating, fuel consump-
term average performance of all four systems, even tion, ecomonics, and public policy, RAND Dept.
though it was derived for the two-tank, external heat R1498, NSF (1974).
6. A. H. Fanney, Experimental validation of computer
exchanger system•
programs for solar domestic hot water heating systems,
Acknowledoements--The authors would like to thank the Letter Rep., U.S. National Bureau of Standards, July
students and staff of the University of Wisconsin Solar 1978.
Energy Laboratory for their help and support. Special 7. J. Hill, A. H. Fanney and S. Liu, Personal communi-
thanks are due to Dr. J. A. Duffle for his criticism and cation.
encouragements and to John C. Mitchell for his program- APPENDIX A
ming support. Thanks are also due to the U.S. Dept. of
Energy, which provided the financial support for this Modification of the f-chart method to account for storage
research under Contract EY-76-S-02-2588. losses
The monthly total system load is to be increased by an
NOMENCLATURE amount equal to the monthly total environmental losses of
either the auxiliary tank in two tank systems or the portion
E monthly total auxiliary energy supplied of a single tank between the upper end and the auxiliary
to system heater thermostat sensor. These energy losses are assumed
f~ fraction of system auxiliary energy re- to take place from the auxiliary heater set temperature to
quirements supplied by solar energy the environmental temperature through the overall area-
f2 fraction of hot water energy requirements conductance product of the tank. Thus,
supplied by solar energy
fa fraction of reference system's auxiliary
energy requirements displaced by solar where L' is the adjusted monthly total system load; Lis the
heating system monthly total energy removed from the tank in the form of
f fraction of system auxiliary energy re- hot water; and L, ux is the monthly total energy lost to the
quirements supplied by solar energy. environment from the auxiliary tank or auxiliary section of
Defined in Appendix A a single tank.
F~ collector heat removal factor The X and Y parameters of the water heating f-chart
FR' collector heat removal factor modified to beco me:
account for collector loop heat exchanger X ' = X[L/L']
L monthly total energy removed from the
system in the form of hot water Y ' = Y[L/L'].
Lo monthly total energy lost from tanks to The solar fraction obtained by using these parameters is:
the surroundings
L' monthly total system energy require- f ' = l - E/[L + Laux].
ments Note that f ' is similar tofl defined in eqn (3) above and
L.~z monthly total energy lost from auxiliary must be adjusted to place it on the same basis as the solar
tank to surroundings fractions reported in this paper.