Thermal Storage Comparison and Design for Rock,
Saturated Soil and Sodium Sulfate Decahydrate for
Agricultural Applications
Steven R. Eckhoff, M a r t i n R. O k o s
ASSOC. MEMBER
ASAE
ABSTRACT
HREE thermal storage media; water, saturated soil,
T rock and phase change materials, were tested to
determine their feasibility as a media for a thermal
storage to be used for grain drying. The thermal ef-
fectiveness of phase change material, rock and saturated
soil was found to be 0.79, 0.38 and 0.31, respectively. A
dimensionless thermal storage parameter is derived to
aid in comparing and designing thermal storage devices.
INTRODUCTION
Solar grain drying is attracting the interest of many
farmers as a means of hedging against increasing cost
and decreasing availability of petroleum products.
One way to increase the amount of useable energy
from a solar collector would be to use large thermal
storage facilities which would store heat from the late
summer and early fall to be used in the late fall for grain
drying. Other agricultural applications for heat storage
include livestock ventilation, air heating, farm shop
heating and possibly even home heating. Several
materials are available for long term heat storage. These
include rock, phase change materials and soil. Design in-
formation on heat storage is available for the rock and
phase change storage devices but very little is available
on soil storage.
On a crop production farm, one of the most plentiful
materials available is the soil. Soil has many
characteristics that make it a desirable storage material.
It has a high heat capacity when wet, is readily available,
and can be considered as a free material if a proper loca-
tion on the farm is selected. It can be used to store heat
by blowing air through an array of parrallel pipes buried
in an encased soil mass. The soil mass would be encased
in a moisture impermeable liner to prevent moisture dif-
fusion away from the heat transfer pipes and therefore,
retain the system's heat capacity.
This paper presents the results of a research effort to
determine how three different storage materials; rock,
saturated soil and Glauber's salt, compare in thermal
performance and economics as they relate to thermal
storage. Factors such as storage capacity, heat stratifica-
tion, heat loss and heat transfer characteristics which
will affect the potential utilization and design of storage
devices will be investigated. A dimensionless parameter
Article was submitted for publication in February 1979; reviewed
and approved for publication by the Electric Power and Processing
Division of ASAE in August 1979.
The authors are: STEVEN R. ECKHOFF, Agricultural Engineer,
Agricultural Engineering Dept., Purdue University; and MARTIN R.
OKOS, Associate Professor, Agricultural Engineering Dept., Purdue
University, W. Lafayette, IN.
Acknowledgment: The authors wish to express their sincere ap-
preciation for the help of Dr. V. M. Puri and Mr. M. Broder for their
technical assistance in the preparation of this work.
722 © 1980 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0001-2351/80/2303-0722S02.00
ASSOC. MEMBER
ASAE
is also defined as an aid in comparing and designing
thermal storage devices.
L I T E R A T U R E SURVEY
The application of rock storage to different
agricultural energy storage needs has been tried by
various researchers. King-Ling (1975) used a rock
storage device in order to store heat for a solar machine
shed. Davis (1958, 1959), Mowry and Davis (1960,
1901), and Mowry (1963) used rock storage as part of a
solar supplemented heat p u m p . Greenhouse heating us-
ing rock storage has been documated by Huang et al.
(1975), Bowers et al. (1975; 1976), Willits et al. (1976),
Wilson et al. (1977), Baird et al. (1977) and Price et al.
(1977).
Some of the early work on heat transfer between a pipe
and soil was done by researchers investigating soil as a
heat sink or source for the heat p u m p . Ingersoll et al.
(1948a, 1948b), Guernsey et al. (1949), King and Martus
(1947), Pappas and Freberg (1949), Pease et al. (1947),
and Kemler (1947) all concluded the same basic problem
with using soil. They found that heat transfer to the soil
became difficult as the soil dried out. Other work related
to the heat transfer is soils has been in the area of waste
heat utilization (Kendrick and Haven, 1973; Shapiro and
Roller, 1975; Sepaskhah et al., 1973; Slegel and Davis,
1975). The major problem again seems to be the migra-
tion of the ground water from the heat transfer pipes.
One of the main problems with rock and soil as heat
storage devices is the large volume required. Phase
change materials can store up to 100 times the energy per
unit weight per change in degree temperature. There are
many different materials that change phase at a
temperature that is suitable for solar heating applica-
tions (Eckhoff, 1977). Sodium sulfate decahydrate
(Glauber's Salt), which changes phase at 32 °C, has been
one phase change material (PCM) that has been propos-
ed for home heating for many years. This salt has the ad-
vantages of a high heat of fusion, low cost compared to
other PCM's and it is easily available in large quantities
(Telkes, 1974).
Schumann (1929) developed an analytical solution for
transient heat flow in a rock bed. In recent years, com-
puter models have been developed to simulate the tran-
sient thermal response of the rock storage device. Some
such models are presented by M u m m a and Marvin
(1976), Duncan et al. (1976) and Duffie and Beckman
(1974). While the models appear reliable, their major
problem is the large amount of computations, hence
computer time, that is required (Klein, 1975). Analytical
solutions for various conditions of heat transfer in soil
were developed by Guernsey et al. (1949).
Ingersoll et al. (1948), discussed the theroy of earth
heat exchangers for heat p u m p applications. The
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1980
 TABLE 1. STORAGE DEVICE VARIABLES DURING THE TESTS

Soil Soil
Variable 1.4 m 3 /min 2.8 m 3 /min Rock Salt

Length 3.05 m 3.05 m 1.83 m 0.61m

Width 0.30 m 0.30 m 0.91 m 0.30 m
Height 0.30 m 0.30 m 0.61 m 0.61 m
Volume 0.27 m 3 0.27 m 3 1.02 m3 0.11 m 3
Mass 4 9 7 . 8 Kg 4 9 7 . 8 Kg 1634 Kg 7 5 Kg
Density 1757 Kg/m3 1757 Kg/m3 1634 Kg/m3 1460 Kg/m3 *
(Bulk)
External
surface area 3.75 m 2 3.75m2 8.53 m 2 2.59 m 2
(incl. p l e n u m ) (incl. p l e n u m )
Thermal
conductivity 5 0 4 5 J/h-m-°C 5 0 4 5 J/h-m-°C 1603 J/h-m-°C* 2055 J/h-m-°C*
Specific h e a t 4 x 106 J/m3-°C* 4 x 106 J / m 3 - ° C * 1.3 x 1 0 6 J / m 3 - ° C * 3 3 4 2 J/Kg-°C*
(Liquid)
2 0 8 9 J /Kg-° C*
(Solid)
Latent heat NA NA NA 253,000 J/Kg*
Flow rate 84m3/h 168m3/h 84 m 3 /h 84 m 3 / h
Mass flow rate 9 5 . 7 Kg/h 1 9 1 . 3 Kg/h 9 5.7 Kg/h 9 5 . 7 Kg/h
Air velocity 10,698 m/h 21,395 m/h 436 m/h 914 m / h
Superficial flow area 0.0079 m 3 0.0079 m2 0.55 m2 0.019 m 2
Superficial air velocity 10,698 m/h 21,395m/h 152m/h 457 m/h
Heat transfer area 1.98 m 2 1.98 m 2 78 m 2 8.92 m 2
Heat transfer
coefficient 46,000 J/m2-°C-h 65,000 J/m2-°C-h 11,600 J/m2-°C-h* 30,200 J/m2-h-°C*
Equivalent d i a m e t e r 0.1 ra 0.1 m 0.87 m 0.46 m
Length of h e a t
transfer p a t h 3.05 m 3.05 m 1.83 m 0.61 m
Thermal diffusivity 0.00126 m 2 / h 0.00126 m 2 / h 0.007 m 2 / h * 0 . 0 0 0 6 9 m 2 /h*
(Solid)
0 . 0 0 0 4 2 m 2 /h*
(Liquid)
Reynolds no. 1.8 x 1 0 4 3.7 x 1 0 4 71 212
Pectelt No. 8.6 x 1 0 5 1.7 x 1 0 6 5.4 x 1 0 4 6.1 x 1 0 6
(Solid)
1.0 x 1 0 6
(Liquid)
Nusselt N o . 0.92 1.30 1.08 6.78
Ave. rate of h e a t
6
accumulation 1.04 x 1 0 J / h 6
1.55 x 1 0 J / h 1.30 x 1 0 6 J / h 2.70 x 1 0 6 J / h
Ave. rate of h e a t losses 0.067 x 106 J/h 0.332 x 106 J/h 1.70 x 1 0 6 J / h 0.253 x 106 J/h
Ave. rate of h e a t
transfer p e r u n i t vol 3.85 x 1 0 6 J / h - m 3 5.74 x 1 0 6 J / h - m 3 1.27 x 1 0 6 J / h - m 3 2.4 x 1 0 6 J / h - m 3
Biot n u m b e r h V / k A 1.2 1.75 0.0212 0.18

*(Telkes, 1 9 7 4 )

analytical procedures available at that time are presented
and discussed. Parkerson (1951), concerned about the
relationship between soil physical properties and soil
thermal properties, investigated the existing theory of
soil thermal characteristics and developed design equa-
tions that could be used by engineers sizing soil heat
pump installations. Cropsey (1966), attempting to cor-
relate some experimental results with the various theories
on heat transfer to a saturated soil showed good agree-
ment with the heat transfer equations given by Ingersoll
and Plass (1948).
Analytical methods for determining the heat flux in
phase change materials have focus on two areas, the
mechanism of phase change (Luikov, 1968) and the
design of phase change heat storage systems (Morrison
and Abdel-Khalik, 1978). Recently, Morrison and
Abdel-Khalik (1978) considered various models for com-
parison of rock and phase change heat storage systems.
They concluded that the approach of Hughes et al.
(1976) adequately describes the storage performance
characteristics. For most solar collection systems, about
4 times more volume is needed for rock storage as for
phase change material heat storage.
PROCEDURE
Comparing the performance of thermal
materials is a very difficult task. Procedures have been
developed for the evaluation of commercial thermal
storage devices (Lorsch et al., 1976; Hill et al., 1976;
Kelly and Hill, 1975) but these procedures rate the
design of the storage container as much as the storage
material. This inseparability of the storage material and
the design of the storage container during testing ap-
pears unavoidable.
For the purposes of these laboratory tests, small
storage devices (1 mJ/C) were designed and constructed
in accordance with presently available design informa-
tion from the literature. Some of the design variables are
listed in Table 1. Because of the storage media and
storage configuration interaction, the testing procedure
that appears most feasible involves testing the heat
storage system under similar conditions of storage
volume and air volumetric flow rates. Any differences in
performance between the systems can then be attributed
to the storage material.
The rock used in the rock storage was unwashed septic
gravel between 19 mm and 63.5 mm in diameter pur-
chased from a local quarry. The storage container has a
0.29 m plenum on each end for air distribution and
utilized 3.2 mm expanded metal to constrain the rock.
The cross-section to air glow for the rock bed was 0.55
m2. Styrofoam insulation (25.4 mm) was used to insulate
storage the perimeter of the storage device.

1980—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 723

 , SMALL
ROTAMETER
JLi
STORAGE DEVICE
FIG. 1 Schematic of laboratory test equipment.
The phase change storage consisted of 48 trays of
Glauber's salt mixture. Each tray was 0.3 m X 0.3 m X
2.5 cm and contained 1.8 kg of salt. The trays which are
fabricated to form an air heat exchanger when stacked,
were stacked in two columns of 24 trays each in accor-
dance with manufacturer recommendations (Solar, Inc.,
1975).
The soil used in the water saturated-soil device was
blended top soil consisting of 49.6 percent sand, 41.5
percent silt and 8.9 percent clay. The soil had an initial
moisture content of 12.0 percent but water was added
until the moisture content reached 24.5 percent. Above
this level the soil was over saturated and lost structural
capabilities. Thermal conductivity of the soil was
measure experimentally by a thermal conductivity probe
(Sweat and Haugh, 1974) and determined to be 1.40
W / n r K (Kelvin). The soil was contained with a 20 mm
plactic liner and was insulated with 50.8 mm of
styrofoam insulation. Heat transfer from the air was
achieved by using a 10.2 cm unperforated ribbed plastic
drainage tile through the center of the soil mass.
The method used to compare the thermal properties of
the materials was to subject the storage, initially at a
uniform temperature, to a step change in inlet air
temperature and then monitor the thermal response of
the storage. In all four tests, the initial bed temperature
was 27 °C and the step change was to 62 °C (AT = 35
°C) for 24 h. The inlet air temperature was then dropped
27 °C again for discharging during the next 24 h. The
charging and discharging period was 48 h each for an air
How rate of 1.4 mVmin in the second soil storage test.
Twenty-nine thermocouples were located within each
CHARGING
DISCHARGING
6 12 18 2 5 3 1
DISTANCE FROM INLET (meters)
FIG. 3 Air temperature in soil storage tile at various times.
724
CHARGING
DISCHARGING
.3 .6 .9 1.2
DISTANCE FROM INLET (meters)
FIG. 2 Longitudinal bed temperature profiles—24 to 48 h.
storage device and monitored during the test. Inlet and
outlet air temperatures were measured with thermopiles
to determine the heat transfer to the storage. Data ac-
quisition was done with a programmable multiplexer
capable of automatically sampling thirty channels of in-
formation at designated intervals. The multiplexer was
connected to a cassette tape drive where the information
was stored on cassette tape until it could be processed on
the computer system.
The air tlow was measured by the use of two
rotameters in parallel. Air temperature was maintained
by thermostatically controlled heaters. The inlet air was
preconditioned with an Aminco unit. The air mass tlow
rate was controllable within 3 percent and the
temperature could be controlled within 1.0 °C. Fig. 1
shows a schematic of the laboratory test equipment.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rock Heat Storage
Longitudinal temperature profiles of the rock heat
storage for various times are shown in Fig. 2. During the
twenty-four hour charging cycle, heat quickly transferred
to the rocks closest to the inlet air plenum, giving an in-
dication of the high rate of heat transfer. However, the
air How through the rock is in the laminar range (Re =
71) and the convection heat transfer coefficient was
found to be only 0.307 W / m 2 K (Lof and Hawley, 1948).
The large surface area, (78 m 2 ) to volume (lm 3 ) of
storage media, gives the indication of good convective
heat transfer and allows for the rapid heat build up near
the inlet. In the laboratory test, 70 percent of the heat ac-
cumulated for the first six hours of the run was in the
first 0.3 m of the storage bed. As much as a 12 °C ver-
tical temperature stratification in the rock was observed
cc
2
UJ
a.
UJ 30
15 mm
0 254 50.8 76.2
DISTANCE FROM PIPE (mm)
FIG. 4 Radial temperature profiles vs. time at 2.4 m from the inlet for
the 1.4 mVmin test.
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1980
 CHARGING
DISCHARGING
FIG. 5 Longitudinal salt temperature profiles at various times.
from the laboratory test results. Due to this temperature
variation, it would appeat most advisable to design rock
heat storage devices so that air flow is vertical instead of
horizontal.
Soil Heat Storage
The results indicate that the major limiting factor
found with the soil heat storage is the low heat transfer
rate from the air to the soil due to low surface area per
unit volume. Fig. 4 shows the air temperature profiles
during energy charging for 24 h and discharging for 48 h
at an airflow of 1.4 mVmin. The temperature drop of the
air over the length of the storage varies from 14 °C at the
beginning of the charging cycle to 4 °C after 24 h. There
is at the most a 4 °C temperature gradient through the
soil as shown in Fig. 4, therefore the rate limiting factor
is the convective heat transfer from the air. Air flow tests
of 2.8 mVmin showed similar trends. The Reynold's
number for the tests were in the turbulant range, 1.8 X
104 for the 1.4 mVmin test and 3.7 X 104 for the 2.8
mVmin test.
Calculations of the convective heat transfer coefficient
from the laboratory tests showed good agreement with
the empirical equations for smooth pipes found in
McAdams (1954) and McCabe and Smith (1976) if the
total surface area of the ribs in the tile was used. The
heat transfer coefficient for the soil storage was found to
be 12.50 and 18.05 W/m 2 'K for 1.4 mVmin and 7.8
mVmin respectively, however since the amount of heat
transfer area was only 2 m2 the average temperature drop
of the air was only 6 °C.
Phase Change Salt Heat Storage
Thermocouples located in the Glauber's salt trays were
able to monitor the salt temperature during charging and
discharging as shown in Fig. 5. The amount fo heat
transfer area was 9 m2 and the Reynold's number for the
run was in the laminar range (212). The calculated heat
transfer coefficient was 8.38 W/m 2 , K based on flat plate
empirical equations (McCabe and Smith, 1976) which
correlated well with the experimentally determined
value.
As the temperature of the storage increased it was
found that the plastic containers lose their rigidity. The
salt temperature varied perpendicular to air glow by as
much as 18 °C from the top to the bottom. Measurement
of the air space between trays with a micrometer revealed
that the spaces near the middle of the stack was 4.42 mm
while the space near the top was 10.82 mm. The varia-
1980—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE
0 10 ~20 30 "~ 40~
TIME (hours)
FIG. 6 Outlet air temp for all three storages.
tion in air space was 4.42 mm while the space near the
top was 10.82 mm. The variation in air space caused
more air to flow through the top. This result indicates
that additional structural support may be necessary to
insure proper spacing between the trays and that not
more than 10 trays high should be stacked. Upon
heating, some leakage of salt out of the trays occurred.
Heat Storage Comparison
A heat comparison of the outlet temperature for rock,
soil and salt heat storage tests as a function of time is
shown in Fig. 6. The soil storage has an average
temperature drop of 6 °C during charging and an
average temperature gain of 4 °C during discharging.
The rock bed showed the most significant average
temperature drop of 27 °C during charging and 10 °C
during discharging. If the air flow were reversed during
discharging, the outlet air temperature would be higher.
As indicated in Table 1 the amount of heat transferred
over the entire test period was approximately the same
for the soil storage as compared to rock. However, the
low temperature drop for the soil system results in lower
efficiency.
The salt heat storage average temperature drop during
charging was 20 °C however, during discharging the
average temperature rise was 7 °C with a final steady
state discharge temperature rise of 3 °C. This large dif-
ference between the rate of heat tranferred during charg-
ing and the rate released during discharging was due to
the temperatures used in the tests. The melting point of
Glauber's salt (32 °C) was near the initial bed
temperature. This means that there was a large
temperature differential (AT = 30 °C) for heat transfer
to occur during charging but a small differential (AT = 5
°C) during discharging. The discharge temperature
dropped quickly from 50 °C to near 3 °C where it reach-
ed a steady value. The initial high temperature was due
to the specific heat of the material however, since the
bulk of the heat stored is as latent heat, most of the
energy would be released near 30 °C. When designing a
PCM storage system, it is important to realize that the
temperature differential between the charging and
discharging temperatures, and the phase change
temperature will dictate the rate of heat transfer in a
PCM system.
Hill et al. (1976), Kelly and Hill (1975) and Lorsch et
al. (1976) present a method of rating thermal storage
devices based on the accumulation for a time period (T)
determined by;
TSC
r = [i]
C A *G*AT
725
 TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF SOIL STORAGE DESIGN TO SALT STORAGE DESIGN

Material TSC r Accumulation TE Accumulation* TE*

Rock 47,721,870 J 14 h 18,152,058 J 0.38 41,995,245 J 0.88
Soil
(1.4m 3 /min) 43,866,900 J 13 h 13,532,428 J 0.31 14,410,850 J 0.33
Soil
(2.8 m 3 /min) 43,866,900 J 6.5 h 10,079,636 J 0.25 12,235,832 J 0.28
Salt 27,273,325 J 8h 21,550,679 J 0.79 23,569,078 J 0.86
* Based on amount of energy removed from air.

A thermal efficiency (TE) can be defined as the tained from the Laplace transform of equation [2] where
measured accumulation of the storage over the time Ts remains essentially constant:
period (T) divided by the theoretical storage capacity
(T g - T s )/(T g o - T s ) = exp [-h/P A C A ) (A/V A ) (x/u)]
(TSC). Thermal efficiency (TE) is simply a measure of
the fraction of the energy absorbed in the storage device. for t > x/u [4]
From Table 2 it can be seen that for the system tested,
the salt has a much higher thermal efficiency of 0.78 This solution is based on the idealized case for
compared to the other two heat storage efficiencies of temperature of the solid remaining constant. This is an
0.38 and 0.31 for rock and soil respectively. acceptable assumption since the bulk of the stored
As shown in Table 2, the efficiency of all systems, par- energy is usually latent heat.
ticularly for the rock, increases when no heat loss exists. When comparing the solutions for the sensible heat
This points out the importance of the need for adequate storage of Schumann (1929) and phase change storage,
insulation in a heat storage device. The optimum in- the solution of the sensible heat storage collapses to the
sulation thickness is a matter of economic evaluation and solution of the phase change heat storage when t = x/u,
is especially important for long-term applications. For the residence time. Therefore, the dimensionless
the case of no heat loss, the salt and rock storage are parameter (h/pACA) (A/WA) (x/u) can be used as a
more efficient than the soil storage by approximately 2.6 means of comparing the performances of both PCM and
times. Several variables seem to be related to thermal sensible heat storage on a common basis. This parameter
storage efficiency. Airflow has a significant effect on effi- is important when compating different types of heat
ciency. As shown in Table 2, increasing the airflow from storages or when comparing different configurations of
84 m 3 /h to 168 m 3 /h for the soil storage decreased the ef- the same type of heat storage in order to keep the
ficiency from 0.31 to 0.25. Even though h increases with temperature response the same.
increase in airflow, increasing the air flow rate decreases The storage parameter can assist in determining the
residence time, thereby decreasing TE. Therefore, for relative effect of fluid velocity, length of airflow path,
every system there will exist a mass flow to give the max- volume of storage system, area of heat transfer and void
imum TE. The optimum flow rate will depend on the fraction. The equivalent length of storage can be deter-
rate of heat transfer as compared to the rate of heat mined for various systems. The temperature response
losses. When heat losses are neglected, the thermal effi- characteristics of the 3.0 m long soil system at 1.4
ciency for all storage media is directly related to mVmin is equivalent to 0.10 m of the rock heat storage
residence time. The amount of heat transfer surface area and 0.17 m of the salt heat storage used in this study.
also seems to have an effect on efficiency. Based on the storage parameter defined above, the soil
The above method is useful for evaluating existing storage would have to be 150 m long, to have exactly the
storage systems, however, it provides little guidance to same air temperature response as the rock storage used
the engineer as to the design variables important for effi- in this work.
cient heat storage. It is necessary to develop a simple Lower airflows will increase the efficiency of the system
evaluation criteria for effective heat storage comparison as indicated by the results of the soil storage in Table 2.
and design. Since the storage number is proportional to h/u the total
dependency of velocity on heat transfer efficiency will be
Thermal Storage Parameter proportional to u° Vu. Decreasing the velocity by 1/2 in-
The equation relating the fluid temperature profile creases the storage parameter by 14 percent which is
along the length of any heat storage system can be ex- comparable to the increase in efficiency given in Table 2.
pressed in rectangular coordinates as However, lower airflows mean that more storage is need-
9 T 9 T
ed at a given total airflow. On an equivalent basis the 53
A A
^ACAVA[-^+u-^=hAfTs-TA} ™
m soil storage could be replaced by four parallel pipes
one foot apart each having 1/4 the airflow and 40 m
long. The relative efficiency of the heat storage system
Solution of equation [2] for both the sensible and latent
can be determined from the product of the ratios of heat
heat storage systems would provide such a means of heat
transfer coefficient to fluid heat capacity, heat transfer
storage evaluation. Such a solution will provide the
surface area to void volumes and residence time for a
temperature profile at any place in the storage at any
system with (h)(x1)/(k) < 0.1.
time. The solution for the sensible heat storage where
An unsteady-state finite difference model for each of
Bi = (h) (x, )/(k) < 0.1 [3] the storage systems was developed based on equation [2]
(Holman, 1972; Geankoplis, 1978). The physical proper-
is available from Schumann (1929). ties used for each system are listed in Table 1. Based on
The solution for the phase change material can be ob- observations, the temperature range for salt phase

726 TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1980

 /-PCM STORAGE SIMULATION TABLE 3. ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF STORAGE MATERIALS
_JL—- _ — ^ - ^
"Z—_2fiQ^^CL~ROCK STORAGE SIMULATION

SOIL STORAGE SIMULATION

Mass 2,636,364 Kg 6,422,018 Kg 671,685 Kg
Volume 1637 m 3 4112m3 715m3
Storage
dimensions 30.5 x 6.1 m x 8.8 m 30.5 m x 6.1 m x 22.1 m 9mx9mx9m
Amount of
liner 1019 m 2 1989 m 2
Liner cost $2302 $4494 —
Amount of
—
tile 2134 m
Tile cost $9450 — —
Excavation — —
cost $2900 $7000
Material cost $35,000
—
$369,429
3 4 5 6 7 Insulation cost —
$1202 $2348 $571
STORAGE PARAMETER Total cost $13,552 $48,842 $369,998
Relative cost 1 3.6 27.3
TE 0.31 0.38 0.79
FIG. 7 Thermal efficiency of each thermal storage system at various TE' 0.33 0.88 0.86
storage parameters. $/TE $43,716 $128,532 $468,352
S/TE' $41,066 $55,502 $430,227

change was taken to be between 24 °C and 40 °C. Inter-

nal temperature gradients were assumed to be negligible
for a heat storage system. The standard deviation bet-
ween the model predictions and the experimental data
(Figs. 2-5) is 6 °C. Once validated, the simulations were
run over a range of air flow rates and bed lengths. The
thermal efficiency as defined by Hill (1976) was deter-
mined for each simulation. The thermal efficiency for
each simulated thermal storage system at various storage
parameters is plotted in Fig. 7. Comparison of the ther-
mal efficiencies predicted by the proposed model against
the experimental data indicate a good correlation with
the storage parameter. Theoretically, all storage systems
should generate the same curve. The fit is remarkably
good considering the types of storage systems. The rock
size and tile ribbing for the soil could easily affect the ac-
tual heat transfer coefficient.
The correlation of storage parameter with thermal effi-
ciency for the three heat storage media is a significant
finding. This means that for a well insulated rock, soil or
salt heat storage system, the thermal efficiency can be
predicted based on the storage parameter. Two storage
systems, regardless of their dissimilarity, will respond
identically if the two storage parameter values are equal.
The width of temperature prodile to accomplish a
given change in temperature (i.e., (Tg-Tso)/(Tgo-Tso) —
0.05) given in equation [4] is also an indication of how ef-
ficiently the storage system is utilized. Wide profiles in-
dicate that significant portions of the storage will not be
heated before large portions of heated air will be
discharged at the exit. Therefore, the heat storage system
should be designed to contain a profile small compared
to the total length of the storage. However, the final
design will depend on many considerations the most im-
portant of which may be economic. More work is under-
way to further develop the storage parameter concept.
Economic Comparison
If the thermal characteristics of several storage
materials are equal for a given application the deciding
factor becomes the cost. The economic comparison
presented in Table 3 for rock, Glauber's salt, and
saturated-soil is based upon the cost (excluding labor) to
build a thermal storage large enough to dry 10,000
bushels of corn from 30 percent moisture to 15.5 percent
moisture (2.45 X 1011J) with no additional heat source.
The literature values for specific heat, density, and la-
tent heat were used in the economic comparison. All
prices are based on 1977 values. The rock and soil
storages were considered to be contained underground in
a moisture impermeable pond liner with a cost of
$2.30/m 2 . The pond liner acts to keep the water in the
saturated-soil storage and out of the rock storage. The
cost of soil excavation was calculated at $1.10/1000 Kg.
Rock cost was $5.45/1000 Kg and the Glauber's salt tray
cost was $0.56/kg. 2.54 cm of styrofoam insulation was
applied to all storages at a cost of $1.18/m 2 . The pipe
cost was $0.48/m. The temperature range over which the
heat was stored was 45 °C over ambient.
Table 3 shows that under the above conditions, the soil
storage is the most economical. The rock storage was 3.6
times more expensive and the salt storage was 27 times
more expensive. If the thermal efficiency (TE) coefficient
is divided into the cost ($/TE), all three storages will
have an equal performance basis. The size of the storage
(therefore cost) is being increased to compensate for the
difference between the 100 percent efficiency assumed in
the initial cost calculation and the performance ex-
perimentally determined. When considering the
measured efficiency, the soil storage is 2.9 times more
economical than the rock storage and 10.7 times more
economical than the salt storage. More work is needed to
develop economically optimum storage systems.
CONCLUSIONS
The thermal performance of the storage materials
varied considerably due to significant differences in the
design variables. The rock storage and the Glauber's salt
storage showed rapid response to the change in inlet air
temperature while the soil storage showed slow response
due to low heat transfer area per storage volume and low
residence time.
Heat transfer by conduction in the soil was rapid,
however, the low area limited heat transfer rates. The
temperature drop was low over the 3.1 meters of tile us-
ed, indicating a need for longer residence time, to
transfer heat more effectively. The heat transfer coeffi-
cient for ribbed pipe can be estimated from smooth pipe
correlation when the entire ribbed area is used. The main
disadvantage of the salt system was found to be the loss
of structural rigidity upon heating.
Based on the method of Hill et al. (1976) the thermal
efficiency of equal energy sized storage devices was 0.38
for the rock storage, 0.31 for the saturated-soil storage
and 0.79 for the Glauber's salt. The high thermal effi-
ciency value for the Glauber's salt storage is partially due
to sensible heat storage. A lower rate of heat transfer
could be expected for the Glauber's salt storage during
discharging. A modified thermal efficiency value (TE's),

1980—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 727

taking into account the thermal losses, showed that the
large external surface area of the rock storage and high
temperature concentration makes good insulation of the
rock storage device extremely necessary.
The thermal storage comparison method of Hill et al.
(1976) was found to be of value for existing storage
devices and of little value for designing or scaling up a
storage device. Based on fundamental principles, a
dimensionless parameter was defined and shown to agree
with measured results. This parameter can be used to
design various storage devices on an equivalent basis.
The length of the temperature profile can also be used as
a design parameter.
The economic comparison showed that the soil storage
device has a greater economic potential than does either
the rock storage or the salt storage. The soil storage was
shown to be approximately one-half the cost of the rock
storage and one-nineteenth the cost of the salt storage for
equivalent measured thermal performance. It is obvious
that at the very least more research attention should be
given to the development of saturated-soil storage devices
for agricultural applications. There are still many ques-
tions to be answered such as the optimum tile spacing
and configuration, the optimum tile length, the effect of
heat on the soil and reliability of the system against
damage, but there is sufficient economic desirability for
the development of such a system.
References
1 Baird, C. D., W. E. Waters and D. R. Mears. 1977.
Greenhouse solar heating system utilizing underbench rock storage.
ASAE Paper No. 77-4012. ASAE, St. Joseph, Ml 49085.
2 Bowers, C. G., Jr., B. K. Huang and C. F. Abrams, Jr. 1975.
Solar energy utilization in a bulk curing/greenhouse system. ASAE
Paper No. 75-3504. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
3 Cropsey, M. G. 1966. Analysis of soil as heat source for heat
pump system. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 9(5):846-848.
4 Davis, C. P. 1958. A field installation of a solar-supplemented
air-type heat pump. Annual Report to the Kansas Committee on the
Relation of Electricity to Agriculture.
5 Davis, C. P. 1959. Solar energy supplementation of the air-type
heat pump. Annual Report to the Kansas Committee on the Relation of
Electricity to Agriculture.
6 Duffie, J. A. and W. A. Beckman. 1974. Solar energy thermal
processes, Ed. 1. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 386 pp.
7 Duncan, G. A., O. J.tLoewer, Jr. and D. G. Colliver. 1976.
Simulation of solar energy availability, utilization and storage in
greenhouses. ASAE Paper No. 76-4010. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
8 Eckhoff, S. R. 1977. Evaluation of selected thermal storage
devices for agricultural applications. Masters of Science in Engineering
Thesis. Purdue University. 202 pages.
9 Geankoplis, Christie J. 1978. Transport processes and unit
operations. Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Boston, MA.
10 Guernsey, E. W., P. L. Betz and N. H. Skau. 1949. Earth as a
heat source or storage medium for the heat pump. Trans, of the Am.
Soc. Heating and Ventilating Engineers 55:321-344.
11 Hill, J. E., E. R. Streed, G. E. Kelly, J. C. Geist and T.
Kusuda. 1976. Development of proposed standards for testing solar
collectors and thermal storage devices. U.S. Dept. of Commerce—Na-
tional Bureau of Standards. NBS Technical Note 899.
12 Huang, B. K, C. F. Abrams, L. L. Coats and C. G. Bowers.
1975. Development of greenhouse bulk drying systems for solar energy
utilization and plantbed mechanization. ASAE Paper No. 75-1018.
ASAE, St. Joseph, Ml 49085.
13 Hughes, P. J., S. A. Klein and D. J. Clise. 1976. Packed bed
thermal storage models for solar air heating and cooling systems.
Trans. ASME. J. Heat Transfer. Volume 98. page 336.
14 Hughes, P. J., T. L. Freeman and H. Grunes. 1976. Design of
an experimental solar house heating system. ASAE Paper No. 76-4554.
ASAE, St. Joseph, Ml 49085.
15 Ingersoll, L. R. and H. J. Plass. 1948a. Theory of the ground
pipe heat source for the heat pump. Trans, of the American Society
Heating and Ventilating engineers, 54:339-348.
728
16 Ingersoll, L. R., O. J. Zobel and A. C. Ingersoll. 1948b. Heat
conduction. Ed. 1st. McGraw Book Company, NY. 278 pgs.
17 Kelly, G. E. and J. E. Hill. 1975. Method of testing for rating
thermal storage devices based upon thermal performance. National
Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 74-634.
18 Kemler, E. N. 1947. Methods of earth heat recovery for the heat
pump. Heating and Ventilating, Vo. 44, Sept. 1947. p. 69-72.
19 Kendrick, J. H. and J. A. Havens. 1973. Heat transfer models
for a subsurface water pipe, soil warming system. Journal of En-
vironmental Quality, 2:188-196.
20 King, W. F. and M. S. Martus. 1947. Heat transfer from
ground to water in buried coils. Heating and Ventilating, Vol. 44, July,
p. 71-74.
21 King-Ling, Du. 1975. Application of an inexpensive solar
heating system to pre-engineered metal buildings. Ph.D. Thesis,
Mississippi State University.
22 Klein, S. A. 1975. Mathematical models of thermal storage.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Solar Energy Storage Subsystems for
the Heating and Cooling of Bldgs., p. 119-121.
23 Lof, G. O. G. and R. W. Hawley. 1948. Unsteady-state heat
transfer between air and loose solids. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, 40:1061-1070.
24 Lorsch, H. G. et al. 1976. Method of testing thermal storage
devices based on thermal performance. ASHRAE Standard 94-p.
American Soc. of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.
25 Luikov, A. V. 1968. Analytical heat diffustion theory. Academic
Press, NY.
26 McAdams, W. H. 1 954. Heat transmission, 3rd Ed., McGraw
Hill Book Company, NY. 31 pgs.
27 McCabe, W. L. and J. C. Smith. 1976. Unit operations of
chemical engineers. 3rd Ed., McGraw Hill Book Co., NY. 1028 pgs.
28 Morrison, D. J. and S. I. Abdel-Khalik. 1978. Effects of phase-
change energy storage on the performance of air-based and liquid-
based solar heating systems. Solar Energy, Vol. 20, pg. 57.
29 Mowry, G. R. and C. P. Davis. 1960. Operational
characteristics of a solar-supplemented air-type heat pump. Annual
Report to the Kansas Committee on the Relation of Electricity to
Agriculture.
30 Mowry, G. R. and C. P. Davis. 1961. A solar-supplementally
heated home. Annual Report to the Kansas Committee on the Relation
of Electricity to Agriculture.
31 Mowry, G. R. 1963. Solar energy to assist a rural home heat
pump. Annual Report to the Kansas Committee on the Relation of
Electricity to Agriculture.
32 Mumma, S. A. and W. C. Marvin. 1976. A method of
simulating the performance of a pebble bed thermal energy storage and
recovery system. Proceedings of the Conference on Improving Efficien-
cy and Performance of HVAC Equipment and Systems for Commercial
and Industrial Buildings. Vol. 1, p. 126-136.
33 Pappas, S. L. and C. R. Freberg. 1949. Heat transfer of buried
pipe in clay or sand. Heating and Ventilating, Vol. 46, p. 85-86.
34 Parkerson, W. 1951. Thermal characteristics of soils for ground
coil design. Heating and Ventilating. Vol. 48, p. 83-86.
35 Pease, W. C , C. R. Freberg and Sabert Oglesby. 1947.
Preliminary tests on heat transfer to the ground from buries horizontal
pipes. Research Report for Southeastern Electric Exchange.
36 Price, D. R., G. E. Wilson, D. P. Froehlich and P. W. Crump.
1976. Solar heating of greenhouses in the Northeast. 33rd Annual Pro-
gress Report to the New York Farm Electrification Council.
37 Schumann, T. 1929. Heat transfer: A liquid flowing through a
porous prism. Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vo. 208, No. 3.
38 Sepaskhah, A. R., L. Boersma, L. R. Davis and D. L. Slegel.
1973. Experimental analysis of a subsurface soil warming and irriga-
tion system utilizing waste heat. The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers Publication.
39 Shapiro. H. N. and W. L. Roller. 1975. Feasibility of soil warm-
ing with power plant waste heat. ASAE Paper No. 75-3542. ASAE, St.
Joseph, Ml 49085.
40 Slegel, D. L. and L. R. Davis. 1975. Transient heat and mass
transfer in soils in the vicinity of heated porous pipes. Oregon State
University.
41 Sweat, V. E. and C. G. Haugh. 1974. A thermal conductivity
probe for small food samples. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE
17(l):56-58.
42 Telkes, M. 1974. Solar energy storage. ASHRAE Journal,
9:38-44.
43 Willits, D. H., C. G. Bowers, Jr., P. V. Nelson and B. K.
Huang. 1976. A solar energy storage system for greenhouses. ASAE
(Continued on page 734)
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1980
 systems. Canadian Journal of Chem. Engg. 51:22-30.
References 15 Stephens, L. E., and G. H. Foster. 1976. Grain bulk properties
1 Brooker, D. B. 1961. Pressure patterns in grain drying systems as affected by mechanical grain spreaders. TRANSACTIONS of the
established by numerical methods. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE ASAE 19(2):354-358, 363.

Thermal Storage Comparison

(Continued from page 728)

Paper No. 76-3507. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. G Air mass flow rate k g / h
44 Wilson, G. E., D. R. Price, L. D. Albright, N. R. Scott, R. W. h Heat transfer coefficient J/m 2 -C-h
Langhans and P. Chandra. 1977. Experimental results of a greenhouse k Thermal conductivity W / m ' K
solar collection and modular gravel storage systems. 34th Annual Pro- LH Latent Heat of phase change material J / k g
gress Resport to the New York Farm Electrification Council. M Mass of storage material kg
pA Density of air k g / m 3
t Time h
NOMENCLATURE T* Temperature of air C
Tgo Initial gas temperature C
A Heat transfer surface area m2. T, Temperature of solid C
Bi Biot number (hx^/k TSC (Theoretical Storage Capacity) (C*AT + LH)*M J
C^ Heat capacity of air J/m 3 -C u Velocity of air m / h
Cv Heat capacity of solid J / m 3 - C V.4 Volume of air m 3
AT T h e temperature difference between the initial storage bed V, Volume of solid storage material m
temperature a n d the inlet air temperature x Distance along storage bed m
f Void fraction (Vol. of air/Vol. total) x. Half thickness for heat transfer m

734 T R A N S A C T I O N S of the ASAE—1980