Sol 23 1227

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.
Received August 16, 2023;

Accepted manuscript posted February 22, 2024. doi:10.1115/1.4065039
Copyright © 2024 by ASME
Effects of an Annular Baffle on Heat Transfer to

an Immersed Coil Heat Exchanger in Thermally
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/solarenergyengineering/article-pdf/doi/10.1115/1.4065039/7253189/sol-23-1227.pdf by Indian Institute of Technology- Madras user on 13 March 2024
Stratified Tanks
d
te
Julia Nicodemus Joshua Smith
di
Associate Professor Associate Professor
e
Engineering Studies Mechanical Engineering
py
Lafayette College Lafayette College
Co
Easton, PA 18042 Easton, PA 18042
Email: nicodemj@lafayette.edu
ot
tN
Joseph Noreika, Manaka Gomi, and Tingyu Zhou
Undergraduate Research Scholars

rip
Mechanical Engineering
sc
Lafayette College
Easton, PA 18042
nu
Ma
ABSTRACT
ed
The effect of a cylindrical baffle on heat transfer to an immersed heat exchanger is investigated in
pt
initially thermally stratified tanks. The heat exchanger is located in the annular region created by the
ce
baffle and the tank wall. Three different cases of initial thermal stratification are explored, and in each
case experiments are conducted with and without the baffle in the stratified tank and in a comparable
Ac
isothermal tank with the same initial energy, enabling exploration of the role of the baffle in a stratified
tank and the role of stratification in tanks with or without the baffle. The baffle maintains the high initial
temperature of the upper zone of the stratified tank for 10-16 minutes, as cool plumes that form on the
heat exchanger are confined to the annular baffle region until they exit at the bottom of the tank. Re-
gardless of stratification, the baffle always improves heat transfer to the immersed heat exchanger. In the
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. Received August 16, 2023;
isothermal tanks, the baffle increases total energy extracted in the first 30 minutes of discharge by over
20%. In stratified tanks, the baffle increases total energy extracted in 30 minutes of discharge by 9% to
16%. Initially, improvement in heat transfer in stratified tanks is due to the higher driving temperature
differences around the heat exchanger. Later, after all the water from the hot zone has entered and flowed
through the baffle, the tank is basically isothermal, and velocity increases as the fluid temperature drops,
maintaining rates of heat transfer higher than that in the tank without the baffle. Stratification improves
heat transfer in tanks without a baffle because, by design, the driving temperature difference between the
d
te
heat exchanger wall and the surrounding fluid is considerably higher. However, in tanks with the baffle,
di
stratification has only a modest positive effect on heat transfer to the immersed heat exchanger.
e
py
INTRODUCTION
Co
The impacts of excessive greenhouse gas emissions on our climate have already arrived and will get worse
before they get better. To avoid outright global catastrophe, we must make a rapid and dramatic shift to renewable
ot
and sustainable energy resources [1]. This shift cannot be made by relying on a single technology or focusing on a
single energy sector; it must include a wide array of technologies in all sectors. Reducing emissions from thermal
tN
loads in buildings is no exception. Meeting those loads with heat pumps, electric water heaters, etc. running on
rip
low-carbon electricity can reduce building emissions, but that approach does not apply equally well in all settings.
Moreover, the environmental consequences of PV, wind, and batteries grow when we try to replace more and
sc
more energy services with low-carbon electricity (i.e., transportation, building thermal loads, thermal processes
nu
in manufacturing, etc.) [2, 3]. Solar thermal hot water systems can provide an elegant alternative, as they capture
diffuse and intermittent solar energy, store it, and use it to meet the similarly low-quality energy demands of space
Ma
heating and domestic hot water. Thus, our lab continues to pursue development of more efficient and effective
solar thermal storage systems.

ed
It is well established that stratification in the solar storage tank can improve overall system performance,
pt
often quantified by annual solar fraction [4, 5]. Enhancing stratification decreases the temperature of the water
ce
that leaves the storage tank and flows to the solar collector, resulting in the largest possible gains in the collector.
It can also improve heat transfer to heat exchangers immersed in the tank, increasing the temperature of water
Ac
available to meet thermal loads. Strategic placement of immersed heat exchangers in the tank can maximize a
driving temperature difference for heat transfer and/or create useful thermal zones in the tank [6]. As such, they
are often employed in “combistores” (tanks designed to meet multiple thermal loads simultaneously) [7, 8, 9].
Immersed heat exchangers can also simplify a system by eliminating the need for a pump or a pressurized tank
when the heat exchanger working fluid is pressurized water from the main water supply.
When immersed heat exchangers are made from highly conductive materials, the dominant resistance to heat
transfer between the heat exchanger working fluid and the storage fluid is the natural convection heat transfer
between the heat exchanger outer wall and the storage fluid. Two mechanisms can increase that convective heat
transfer: increasing the driving temperature between the heat exchanger wall and storage fluid, usually done
by increasing thermal stratification in the tank, or increasing the velocity of the recirculating tank fluid as it
flows around the heat exchanger. Strategically placed barriers in the storage tank—baffles and shrouds—can be
used to control the flow field in the tank with the goal of improving heat transfer to immersed heat exchangers
d
te
by one or both of those mechanisms. However, many baffles and shrouds investigated have not successfully
di
improved heat transfer, generally because designs chosen to improve stratification had the unintended consequence
e
of dramatically reducing fluid velocity [10, 11, 12]. Others showed benefits of baffle-shrouds through simulations
py
but used geometries that are not applicable to solar storage tanks [13, 14, 15].
However, work at the University of Minnesota Solar Lab demonstrated the benefits of a cylindrical baffle
Co
that creates an annular region with the tank wall, within which a coiled heat exchanger is located [12, 16]. With
ot
this design, shown in Figure 1, water from the top of the tank enters the baffle region and flows over the heat
exchanger. The cool plumes that form on the heat exchanger are confined to that annular region, only exiting at
tN
the bottom of the baffle region, located towards the bottom of the tank. In these initial studies, we found that
rip
the baffle created a flow field with higher fluid velocities around the heat exchanger, resulting in improved heat
transfer to the heat exchanger when the baffle was in place. Though the baffle did not create significant thermal
sc
stratification (∼ 1◦ C), it did maintain thermal stratification in an initially thermally stratified tank [16].
nu
Subsequent investigations by the Lafayette College Solar Lab into the baffle geometry [17, 18], the width of
the annular region [19], and the heat exchanger pitch [20] have refined and optimized the design of the cylindrical
Ma
baffle and immersed heat exchanger for discharging an initially isothermal hot water storage tank. All experiments
have shown the consistent benefit of the cylindrical baffle, with all baffle experiments outperforming experiments
ed
conducted without the baffle. Through both experiments [17] and simulations [18], we showed that a straight
pt
baffle design outperformed more complicated designs in which the annular width below the heat exchanger was
ce
smaller than that around the heat exchanger. The straight design allowed for the highest velocities across the heat
exchanger and, thus, the most significant improvements to heat transfer. A subsequent experimental optimization
Ac
of the baffle diameter [19] determined that narrowing the annular region created by the baffle and the tank wall
resulted in slight improvements in heat transfer due to slight increases in thermal stratification. The narrowest
baffle region investigated has a width of 1.5 times the heat exchanger diameter, or 1.5D, so that width was used
in subsequent studies. Because the baffle region width of 1.5D leaves only a tiny 2 mm gap between the heat
exchanger and the tank and baffle walls, it was the smallest considered.
Hot
Cold
Water
Water
Outlet
Inlet
d
Baffle
te
e di
py
Co
ot
tN
90
rip
Fig. 1: Sketch of an immersed coil heat exchanger with an annular baffle in a vertical cylindrical storage tank,
with the direction of flow indicated by arrows.
sc
nu
Most recently, we explored the effect the pitch of the coils of the immersed heat exchanger have on heat
transfer in an initially isothermal tank [20]. Experiments were conducted with heat exchangers of pitches varying
Ma
from 2D to 12D, both with and without a straight baffle. All cases with the baffle outperformed all cases without
the baffle. In the tank with no baffle, the heat transfer improves with increasing heat exchanger pitch. In contrast,
ed
with the baffle in place, the heat exchanger pitch has very minimal effect on heat transfer. The performance of
pt
the heat exchanger with a pitch of 3D slightly outperformed those with pitches of 2D, 4D, and 6D, but overall the
ce
baffle significantly reduced the effect of the pitch on heat transfer especially for pitches of 6D and smaller. We
attributed this finding to a direct trade-off between between the temperature of the water around the heat exchanger
Ac
and the velocity of that water as it flows past the heat exchanger. As pitch increased from 2D to 6D, the driving
temperature difference increased but the velocity of the plumes decreased.
In this study, we take the optimized parameters of the past studies—a straight baffle region of width 1.5D and a
heat exchanger with a pitch of 3D—and explore the performance of the system when the tank is initially thermally
stratified. The first experimental study on the utility of a cylindrical baffle [16] included a brief exploration of the
performance of an initially thermally stratified tank. We found that the baffle maintained the existing thermal
stratification and, thus, high temperatures approaching the heat exchanger for 15 minutes. However, that study
did not include comparisons of heat transfer with and without the baffle in place or comparisons to an isothermal
tank. Moreover, while many studies have explored generating and maintaining thermal stratification [5, 4, 21, 22],
none investigated the combined effects of the cylindrical baffle and thermal stratification. In this work, we examine
three variations of initial thermal stratification. For each case, we conduct experiments with and without the baffle.
We also conduct experiments in an isothermal tank with the same initial energy, again with and without a baffle.
d
te
These sets of four experiments for each of the three stratification cases will provide insights into the combined
di
effects of the cylindrical baffle and thermal stratification on heat transfer to an immersed heat exchanger.
e
py
Co
METHODS
The experimental apparatus and procedure used in this study are largely the same as those used in prior work
ot
from our lab [17,19,20]. In prior work we varied the baffle and heat exchanger design, while in this work we vary
tN
only the initial condition of the storage fluid temperature. We refer readers to Nicodemus et al. [17] for a more
detailed explanation of the experimental method.

rip
sc
Experimental Apparatus
nu
The 300 L, well-insulated (UL A = 2.7 W/◦ C) experimental tank is depicted in cross-section view in Figure 2.
Ma
The baffle is constructed from a 3 mm thick polycarbonate sheet, rolled into a cylinder with a radius of 282 mm,
creating an annular region 1.5 times the diameter of the heat exchanger, or 1.5D. The baffle length, LB , is 871 mm
ed
and the baffle sits on legs so that it extends from z =229 mm to z =1.1 m, where z is the distance from the bottom
pt
of the tank. Tank dimensions are as shown in Figure 2.

ce
The heat exchanger, made from a 10 m long copper tube with an outer diameter, D, of 9.5 mm, and an inner
diameter, d, of 8 mm, is sized to ensure that storage side natural convection is the dominant thermal resistance. It
Ac
is formed into a coil with a radius of 290 mm and a pitch 28.5 mm (3 times tube diameter, or 3D), resulting in 5.5
loops. The heat exchanger shape is maintained by four polycarbonate spacers that also secure the heat exchanger
at the top of the tank and center the baffle in the tank. For both experiments with and without the baffle, the center
of the copper tube is 0.75D from the tank wall. In experiments with the baffle, this puts the heat exchanger in
center of the annular region between the tank wall and the baffle.
x
x
x
x
x
290 mm x
x
x
x
x
282 mm
x
x
1170 mm
x
d
x
te
x
14mm
1100 mm
x
di
x
e
x x
py
922 mm
x
Co
x
229 mm
z
ot
x
x
r
tN
595 mm
rip
Fig. 2: Diagram of the experimental tank with the baffle and coiled heat exchanger. Thermocouple locations are
indicated with small, red “x” marks.
sc
nu
Procedure
The nominal initial conditions for the three stratification cases are shown in Figure 3. In Case 1, the upper
Ma
60% of the tank is nominally 60◦ C, while the lower 40% is 40◦ C. In Case 2, which has a smaller cold zone relative
to Case 1, the upper 80% is initially 60◦ C and the lower 20% is initially 40◦ C. In Case 3, which has a smaller
ed
temperature difference relative to Case 1, the upper 60% is initially 60◦ C and the lower 40% is initially 50◦ C.
pt
Experiments in the stratified tanks are run with and without the baffle. As previously described, each stratification
ce
case has a corresponding isothermal case. The initial temperatures of these corresponding isothermal experiments
are such that the initial energy in the isothermal tank is the same as or very close to the initial energy in the
Ac
stratified tank for each case. In other words, the average tank temperature is the same or nearly the same for
isothermal and stratified experiments within each set of four experiments.
Achieving the desired initial conditions consistently required considerable effort. The lab is designed to re-
liably produce water at two temperatures—a “hot” temperature (∼61◦ C) that historically was used to fill fully
charged isothermal tanks, and a “cold” temperature (∼20◦ C) to serve as the working fluid in the heat exchanger.
Hot Hot Hot
Cold Cold Cold
Water Water Water
Water Water Water
Outlet Outlet Outlet
Inlet Inlet Inlet
Baffle Baffle Baffle
d
!"#$!"°% !"#$!"°%
&"#$!"°%
te
e di
'"#$'"°% '"#$("°%
py
)"#$'"°%
Co
90 90 90
!"#$%& !"#$%' !"#$%(
ot
Fig. 3: Visual representation of the nominal initial conditions of the three stratification cases.
tN
rip
Both water delivery systems employ storage tanks and thus have a considerable thermal mass that makes it im-
possible to quickly change temperature set points. Therefore, to achieve the moderate temperatures desired in the
sc
lower zone of the stratified tanks, we employed buoyancy-driven mixing. The tank was filled in stages through a
nu
port at the bottom of the tank. First, hot (∼61◦ C) water was added to the tank until the tank was 60% full (Cases
1 and 3) or 80% full (Case 2). Next, a layer of cold (∼20◦ C) water was added below it, followed by another layer
Ma
of hot water below that. The layer of cold water above the second layer of hot water resulted in gentle buoyancy-
driven mixing of the two lower layers, creating a single cool layer in the bottom portion of the tank. The relative
ed
proportions of the cold layer and second hot layer were determined to achieve the desired temperatures in the
pt
bottom zone of the stratified tanks. In the isothermal cases, set up was simpler. Because there was no need for
ce
water at ∼61◦ C, the hot water delivery system could be given a lower temperature set point of ∼58◦ C. After the
tank was filled with this water, it was allowed to cool until it reached the desired initial temperature.
Ac
Because of this challenging set-up for stratified cases, the initial conditions in the tank are slightly differ-
ent from the nominal conditions, as described in Table 1. However, we worked very hard to ensure consistency
between experiments in these conditions to allow for meaningful comparisons. Specifically, the following param-
eters are highly consistent: (1) the total energy in the tank is consistent within each case; (2) in stratified tanks,
the initial temperature of the top portion of the tank, Ttop,0 , is consistent within and across all cases; and (3) in
Copyright © 20241:byInitial
Table ASMEand operating conditions for the three cases, with and without a baffle, in an initially thermally
stratified tank and the corresponding initially isothermal tank. Initial conditions include the average temperature
of the tank, TS,0 , and, for stratified tanks, the average temperature in the top portion of the tank, Ttop,0 , and the
bottom portion of the tank, Tbot,0 , all at the start of the experiment. The range provided for Tin and ṁ are the
standard deviation in the measured data over the experimental duration.
TS,0 (◦ C) Ttop,0 (◦ C) Tbot,0 (◦ C) Tin (◦ C) ṁ (kg/s)
Case 1: Nominally 60% at 60◦ C and 40% at 40◦ C
Stratified With Baffle 50.0 58.7 40.3 20.01 ± 0.03 0.1002 ± 0.0004
d
Isothermal With Baffle 50.0 - - 20.00 ± 0.04 0.1000 ± 0.0004
te
Stratified Without Baffle 50.0 58.7 40.5 20.00 ± 0.03 0.0998 ± 0.0008
di
Isothermal Without Baffle 50.0 - - 20.01 ± 0.06 0.1000 ± 0.0003
e
py
Co
ot
tN
rip

sc

nu
stratified tanks, the initial temperature of the bottom portion of the tank, Tbot,0 , is close to consistent within each
Ma
case and also between Cases 1 and 2, as can be seen in Table 1.
The heat exchanger working fluid is water with a nominal constant inlet temperature, Tin , of 20◦ C and nominal
ed
flow rate, ṁ, of 0.1 kg/s (Red = 1.6 × 104 ). The constant temperature water is produced by a chiller in series with
pt
three insulated water tanks. When the mains water temperatures are below the cold water inlet temperature (20◦ C),
ce
the chiller is not necessary and four 4500 W electric heating elements in the first two tanks generate the constant
temperature water. They are separately controlled by a LabVIEW data acquisition and control program. The third
Ac
tank adds volume, supporting more consistent operating conditions. If the mains water temperature is above 20◦ C,
the chiller pre-cools the water to ∼ 14 ± 2◦ C before it is reheated by the hot water tanks.
Despite these considerable efforts, the operating conditions can and do vary. We run multiple experiments in
each configuration. To eliminate the possibility that variations in operating conditions affect results, we only con-
sider experiments in which Tin remained between 19.95◦ C and 20.05◦ C and ṁ was generally between 0.1005 kg/s
Copyright © 2024
and by ASME
0.0995 kg/s for the duration of the experiment. For each type of experiment, we ran trials until we had three
experiments with consistent initial conditions (as described above) and operating conditions that met the condi-
tions described here. Those three experiments demonstrated excellent repeatability in all types of experiments.
The experiment that provided the most consistency in initial and operating conditions within and across cases was
selected for each type, and that is the data listed in Table 1. Table 1 includes the mean and standard deviation for
operating conditions Tin and ṁ over the experimental duration.
Tank temperature is monitored with 25 thermocouples (type-T, ±0.5◦ C), located in the tank as shown in Fig-
d
te
ure 2. The heat exchanger wall temperature is measured with five thermocouples affixed to the outside wall of the
di
heat exchanger. Heat exchanger inlet and outlet temperatures are each measured with three type-T thermocouples
connected in parallel to reduce the error (±0.3◦ C) while the mass flow rate is measured with a Coriolis flow meter
e
py
(Micro Motion Elite, ±0.05% uncertainty). The data sampling rate is 1 Hz, and minute averages of that data are
reported here. Experiments end after 60 min.
Co
ot
Data Analysis tN
In our previous papers [17, 18, 19, 20], we used several types of metrics to describe tank performance results,
including the rate of heat transfer from the storage fluid to the working fluid, fractional energy discharge, heat
rip
exchanger outlet temperature, heat exchanger effectiveness, and Nusselt-Rayleigh correlations. In all cases, the
results were consistent across metrics. In this study, we have three stratification cases each with four experiments,
sc
resulting in many types of comparisons and a more complex discussion of results. Thus, for the sake of clarity and
nu
brevity, we present just two metrics: the heat transfer rate, Q̇, and the cumulative energy extracted, Q. Stratification
Ma
plots (i.e., storage fluid temperature vs. height plots at various times), the temperature of fluid surrounding the
heat exchanger (T∞ ), and the estimated velocity of fluid flowing over the heat exchanger are used to explain those
ed
results.
A quasi-steady approximation is applied to the data analysis. The transient heat transfer rate is
pt
ce
Q̇ = ṁc p (Tout − Tin ), (1)

Ac
where ṁ, Tout , and Tin are the measured heat exchanger mass flow rate, outlet temperature, and inlet temperature,
respectively. The specific heat of the cold water, c p , is calculated at the average of the heat exchanger inlet
and outlet temperatures. To illustrate the overall performance over time, we also present plots of total energy
extracted, Q, vs. time. Total energy extracted is calculated from the heat transfer rate using the “cumtrapz”
Copyright © 2024 byinASME
function Matlab. The average absolute uncertainties in Q̇ and Q are ±42 W and ±0.15 MJ (95% confidence
level), respectively.
To understand the mechanisms that influence system performance—that is, the reasons for improvements—we
turn to the temperature of the water surrounding the heat exchanger and the velocity of the storage water as it
flows over the heat exchanger. The temperature of the water surrounding the heat exchanger, T∞ , is calculated by
averaging the temperature measurements from thermocouples at r = 290 mm with vertical locations between or
just above the heat exchanger coils. It is a useful metric to understand system performance, as it is the temperature
d
te
that drives the heat transfer between the storage water and the outer wall of the heat exchanger.
di
The velocity of the fluid as it flows around the heat exchanger is not directly measured. However, we estimate
e
velocities in that region by using a mixed convection analysis described in detail in prior work [17, 19, 20] and
py
summarized here. Though the flow field in the tank is entirely buoyancy-driven, recirculation results in velocities
beyond that which would develop due to pure natural convection in an unbounded domain, resulting in buoyancy-
Co
driven “mixed” convection. The mixed convection NuM,D is calculated from measured data. The pure natural
convection Nusselt number (NuN,D ), is estimated from Morgan’s 1975 correlation for natural convection to/from
ot
a cylinder in an unbounded domain [23]. Knowing NuM,D and NuN,D , we isolate the forced convection Nusselt
tN
number, NuF,D . The Reynolds number, ReD , is determined from Hilpert’s 1933 correlation for forced convection
rip
for a cylinder in cross-flow [24]. Finally, solving for the velocity, u, from ReD provides an estimate of the
additional generated velocity around the heat exchanger that would account for the observed heat transfer. The
sc
validity of this approach has been verified through comparisons to CFD simulations [18]. The average absolute
nu
uncertainty in the velocity estimates is 0.001 m/s (95% confidence level).

Ma
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Figures 4 and 5 show the transient heat transfer rates and total energy extracted, respectively, plotted against
ed
time for the sets of experiments in (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3. In these and all subsequent figures with
pt
data from multiple experiments, experiments with an initially thermally stratified tank are plotted with orange
ce
circles and experiments with an initially isothermal tank are plotted with blue diamonds. Experiments with the
baffle in place are represented by filled markers, while experiments without the baffle are represented by open
Ac
markers. The four types of experiments for each case are plotted on a single figure. In addition, the total energy
extracted by the heat exchanger during the first 30 minutes of discharge for all experiments is listed in Table 2.
Table 2 also includes comparisons that highlight the impacts of the baffle and/or stratification on heat transfer.
Analysis of the data in Figures 4 and 5 and Table 2 provides some interesting results. First, in both the initially
thermally stratified tanks and in the initially isothermal tanks, the presence of the baffle significantly improves heat
10000
Case 1 Stratified With Baffle
9000 Case 1 Isothermal With Baffle
Case 1 Stratified Without Baffle
Case 1 Isothermal Without Baffle
8000
7000
6000
5000
d
4000
Uncertainty
te
3000
di
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
e
(a)
py
10000
Co
8000
7000
ot
6000
tN
5000
4000
Uncertainty
rip
3000
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
sc
(b)
nu
10000
Ma

8000
7000
ed
6000
5000
pt
4000
Uncertainty
3000
ce
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
Ac
(c)
Fig. 4: Rate of heat transfer for all four experiment types for (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3. In all figures,
filled markers represent experiments with the baffle and open markers represent experiments without the baffle.
Initially thermally stratified experiments are represented by orange circles and initially isothermal experiments are
represented by blue diamonds.
25
Case 1 Isothermal With Baffle
20 Case 1 Isothermal Without Baffle
Uncertainty
15
10
d
5
te
di
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
e
(a)
py
25
Co
Uncertainty
15
ot
tN
10
5
rip
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
sc
(b)
nu
25
Ma

Uncertainty
15
ed
10
pt
5
ce
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
Ac
(c)
Fig. 5: Total energy extracted (MJ) for all four experiment types for (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3. In
all figures, filled markers represent experiments with the baffle and open markers represent experiments without
the baffle. Initially thermally stratified experiments are represented by orange circles and initially isothermal
experiments are represented by blue diamonds.
Copyright © 20242:byTotal
Table ASME energy extracted by the heat exchanger after 30 minutes of discharge for all experiments. The effect
of the baffle and/or stratification is also listed.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Data
Stratified With Baffle 11.4 MJ 12.8 MJ 12.6 MJ
Isothermal With Baffle 11.1 MJ 12.5 MJ 12.7 MJ
Stratified Without Baffle 10.4 MJ 11.4 MJ 10.8 MJ
d
Isothermal Without Baffle 8.9 MJ 10.3 MJ 10.4 MJ
te
Comparisons: Percent Change
di
Effect of Baffle in Stratified Tank 9.2% 11.9% 16.6%
e
Effect of Baffle in Isothermal Tank 24.3% 21.9% 22.1%
py
Effect of Stratification in Tank With Baffle 2.8% 2.1% −1.2%
Co
Effect of Stratification in Tank Without Baffle 17.0% 11.1% 3.4%
Combined Effect of Stratification and Baffle 27.8% 24.4% 20.6%
ot
transfer. That benefit on total energy extracted increases with time, as shown in Figure 5. While this effect has
tN
been well documented in isothermal tanks [16, 17, 19, 20], this study is the first to show that the benefit applies in
rip
stratified tanks as well. It is worth noting that the benefit is smaller in the stratified tanks than in the isothermal
tanks. Indeed, in the stratified tank, the total energy extracted after 30 minutes in experiments with the baffle
sc
vs. without is 9.2%, 11.9%, and 16.6% higher for Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In comparison, for experiments
nu
the isothermal tanks, that same metric is 24.3%, 21.9%, and 22.1% higher with the baffle, for Cases 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. The type of stratification affects heat transfer as well. In Case 3, which has a smaller temperature
Ma
difference than the others and is thus more like an isothermal tank, the benefit of the baffle is more pronounced.
The data in Figure 5 and Table 2 show that total energy extracted is very similar for the two experiments with the
ed
baffle in place (i.e., stratification has only a small effect), whereas stratification clearly improves heat transfer in
pt
tanks without the baffle. Thus, the greater benefit of the baffle in isothermal tanks relative to stratified tanks is
ce
largely due to the lower heat transfer in isothermal tanks compared to stratified tanks when no baffle is in place.
While the baffle improves the rate of heat transfer in all cases studied, the role of stratification is more com-
Ac
plicated. In a tank with no baffle, stratification increases total energy extracted in the first 30 minutes by 17.0%,
11.1%, and 3.4% in Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In contrast, the results with a baffle show that the presence of
the baffle reduces the importance of stratification in heat exchanger performance. With the baffle in place, total
energy extracted is very similar at all times, as shown in Figure 5. For example, the amount of energy extracted
after 30 minutes from the stratified tank relative to the isothermal tank is 2.8% and 2.1% higher for Case 1 and
Copyright © 2024
Case 2,by ASME
respectively. For Case 3, the total energy extracted after 30 minutes is actually 1.2% lower in the stratified
tank compared to the isothermal tank. This result may be due to the fact that the average temperature of the
isothermal tank was 0.2◦ C higher than that of the stratified tank, resulting in a slightly higher initial tank energy.
Still, Case 1 has the higher degree of stratification either in terms of volume (Case 1 vs. Case 2) or temperature
(Case 1 vs. Case 3), and it also generates the largest increase in heat transfer relative to the corresponding isother-
mal case. So, greater stratification has a small benefit on heat transfer with the baffle in place. Regardless, a very
interesting result here is that when the baffle is in the tank, stratification has only a small affect on heat transfer to
d
te
the immersed heat exchanger. However, the biggest improvements seen in Table 2 are those due to the combined
di
effects of stratification and the baffle. Total energy extracted after 30 minutes in experiments with the baffle in
e
a stratified tank were 27.8%, 24.4%, and 20.6% higher than their comparable experiments in an isothermal tank
py
without a baffle, for Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Moreover, while stratification has only a modest affect on heat
transfer to the immersed heat exchanger, it is still desirable in solar thermal storage tanks. In addition to having
Co
hotter water at the top of the tank, stratified tanks have colder water at the bottom of the tank, which increases the
amount of energy gain possible during charging from the solar thermal panels.
ot
Conditions in the tank affect heat transfer via two mechanisms: the temperature of the fluid surrounding the
tN
heat exchanger and the velocity of the storage fluid as it flows over the heat exchanger. We present a detailed
rip
analysis of how these mechanisms affect heat transfer in Case 1 experiments, followed by a summary of how
Cases 2 and 3 differ. Temperature profiles are shown in Figure 6 for Case 1 experiments for a stratified tank with
sc
and without a baffle. These figures show centerline temperatures vs. height in the tank at t = 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15,
nu
20, 30 and 60 minutes. Figure 6a shows how temperatures in the tank change with time when the baffle is in
place. The initial temperatures show a hot upper portion and cooler lower portion. As energy is extracted from the
Ma
tank, the upper most temperature readings stay around 60◦ C for about 12 minutes, though the size of the hot zone
decreases. Water flows into the baffle region from the top of the tank, is cooled by the heat exchanger, and exits
ed
the baffle region at the bottom of the tank. As such, it keeps the temperatures of the hot and cool zone relatively
pt
steady, but with time the size of the hot zone shrinks as the cool zone grows. Eventually, all the hot water flows
ce
over the heat exchanger and through the baffle region. At this point, the tank transitions from a stratified operation
to an isothermal operation with the tank cooling uniformly. Once the tank is behaving like the initially isothermal
Ac
experiments with the baffle, the baffle does maintain around a 2.5◦ C temperature difference between the top and
bottom of the tank. In contrast, Figure 6b shows centerline temperatures vs. height in the tank when no baffle is
present in an initially stratified tank. In this case, as energy discharge progresses, the cool plumes that form on the
heat exchanger mix with the water in the hot zone, and largely do not initially affect the cool zone. The hot zone
cools uniformly until it is the same temperature as the cool zone below, at which point the tank is isothermal and
60
55
50
Temperature (° C)
45
40
t=0min t=15min
t=3min t=20min
35 t=6min t=30min
t=9min t=60min
d
t=12min
30
te
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
z (mm)
(a)
e di
60
py
55
Co
50
Temperature (° C)
45
ot
40
t=0min t=15min
tN
t=3min t=20min
35 t=6min t=30min
t=9min t=60min
t=12min
30
rip
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

z (mm)
(b)
sc
Fig. 6: The stratification profiles for the initially stratified experiments in Case 1 (a) with the baffle and (b) without
the baffle in place. Centerline temperatures vs. vertical location in the tank (z) are shown for t = 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15,
nu
20, 30 and 60 minutes.

Ma
cools uniformly for the rest of the experiment.
The temperature profiles demonstrate that stratification and the presence of a baffle clearly affect the tempera-
ed
ture of the fluid surrounding the heat exchanger. This temperature is shown directly in Figure 7 for all three cases.
pt
Focusing on Case 1, Figure 7a shows that for approximately the first 20 minutes, T∞ is considerably higher in both
ce
stratified experiments than in corresponding isothermal experiments with or without the baffle, which of course
is the nature of stratification. This results in a higher driving temperature difference for heat transfer. The figure
Ac
also shows that T∞ is also initially higher in both experiments without the baffle relative to their corresponding
experiments with the baffle in either a stratified or isothermal tank. T∞ is an average of the temperature measure-
ments around the heat exchanger, including near the lower coils. When the baffle is in place, the cool plumes are
confined to the annular baffle region and thus have a greater cooling effect on the temperatures around the heat
exchanger, which explains the initially higher T∞ for experiments without a baffle. As time progresses, the baffle
maintains the high temperature of the hot zone, as described above, resulting in a relatively constant T∞ for about
16 minutes. In contrast, in the stratified tank without the baffle, T∞ rapidly cools, falling below that of the baffle
case at t = 5 min, because without the baffle, the upper hot zone cools uniformly, as described above. While it
is not surprising that stratification increases T∞ —that is the goal of stratification after all—it is interesting to note
the effect that the baffle has on T∞ , in particular that it maintains a higher temperature for longer.
Figure 8 shows the velocity in all types of experiments for the three stratification cases. In Case 1, velocity is
low for all experiments other than the isothermal tank with a baffle for the first 10 to 15 minutes of discharge. The
d
te
isothermal tank with the baffle has a considerably higher fluid velocity throughout the experiment, which explains
di
why it has one of the highest rates of heat transfer (Figure 4a), despite having a much lower T∞ (Figure 7a). The
e
low velocity of the fluid flowing around the heat exchanger has been well established for experiments without a
py
baffle, and is again demonstrated here. However, in past studies the baffle always increased velocity [16,17,19,20],
but in this case, it only does so in the isothermal tank. In the stratified tank for Case 1, the velocity is about as
Co
low with the baffle as without. As described in our past work, the baffle increases the fluid velocity by confining
ot
the plumes to the narrow annular region. However, when the tank is stratified, there is no easy exit for the plumes
descending through the baffle region, as they impinge on the cool layer of water in the bottom portion of the
tN
tank. Because the plumes are no longer negatively buoyant at that point, they need to displace the layer of colder
rip
water in the bottom half of the tank. Thus, thermal stratification prevents the baffle from having the same benefit
on velocity as it does in the isothermal tank. The velocities in the Case 1 experiments are initially low in both
sc
stratified experiments, so heat transfer at that time is primarily affected by T∞ . Indeed, relative trends between
nu
the two stratified experiments in the data for Q̇ and T∞ mirror each other (Figures 4a and 7a)—both are initially
higher in the stratified tank without the baffle, but after about 4 minutes, both Q̇ and T∞ are higher in the stratified
Ma
tank with the baffle. After 16 minutes, the entire hot upper zone has been slowly pushed into the baffle region
(Figure 6a), resulting in a tank that is isothermal and that behaves much like the initially isothermal tank, with
ed
lower T∞ and higher velocity.

pt
In general, T∞ and velocity affect heat transfer in the same ways in Case 2 and Case 3, though there are a few
ce
modest differences. In these cases, the cool plumes that formed in the baffle region in the stratified cases were
still slowed by the barrier created by the layer of cold water at the bottom of the tank. However, because Case 2
Ac
had a smaller cold zone and Case 3 had a smaller temperature difference, the effect on velocity was not as strong.
Figure 8 shows that while the velocity in the stratified tank with the baffle was initially much lower than that in
the isothermal tank with the baffle, it was higher than either experiment without a baffle for both Cases 2 and 3.
Because of these higher velocities, the warm water from the hot zone moved through the baffle region faster, and
the tanks reached a largely isothermal state after 10 minutes (Case 2) and 9 minutes (Case 3), compared to 16
60
55 Case 1 Stratified Without Baffle
50
( C)
°
45
T
40
d
Uncertainty
te
35
di
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
e
(a)
py
60
Co
50
ot
( C)
°
45
T
tN
40
Uncertainty
35
rip
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
sc
(b)
nu
60
Ma

50
( C)
°
ed
45
T
40
pt
Uncertainty
35
ce
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
Ac
(c)
Fig. 7: The temperature of fluid around the heat exchanger for all four experiment types for (a) Case 1, (b) Case
2, and (c) Case 3. In all figures, filled markers represent experiments with the baffle and open markers represent
experiments without the baffle. Initially thermally stratified experiments are represented by orange circles and
initially isothermal experiments are represented by blue diamonds.
0.1
0.09 Uncertainty Case 1 Isothermal With Baffle
0.08 Case 1 Isothermal Without Baffle
0.07
Velocity (m/s)
0.06
0.05
0.04
d
0.03
0.02
te
0.01
di
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
e
(a)
py
0.1
Co
0.07
Velocity (m/s)
0.06
ot
0.05
tN
0.04
0.03
0.02
rip
0.01
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
sc
(b)
nu
0.1
Ma

0.07
Velocity (m/s)
0.06
ed
0.05
0.04
0.03
pt
0.02
ce
0.01
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
t (min)
Ac
(c)
Fig. 8: The estimated velocity of fluid flowing over the heat exchanger for all four experiment types for (a) Case
1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3. In all figures, experiments with the baffle are represented by filled markers while
open markers represent experiments without the baffle. Initially thermally stratified experiments are represented
by orange circles and initially isothermal experiments are represented by blue diamonds.
Copyright © 2024 byofASME
minutes stratification for Case 1.
CONCLUSIONS
The effects of an annular baffle and thermal stratification on heat transfer to an immersed copper coil heat
exchanger situated in the annular region between the baffle wall and the wall of the hot water tank are investigated
for three stratification cases. In each case, experiments with and without the baffle are conducted in initially
d
stratified tanks and in corresponding isothermal tanks with the same initial tank energy. The baffle maintains the
te
high initial temperature of the upper zone of the stratified tank for 10-16 minutes, as cool plumes that form on the
di
heat exchanger are confined to the annular baffle region until they exit at the bottom of the tank in the cool zone.
e
In contrast, without the baffle, the upper hot zone cools uniformly as the cool plumes cause mixing of the entire
py
upper zone.
Co
Regardless of stratification, the cylindrical baffle always improves heat transfer to the immersed heat ex-
changer. In the isothermal tanks, the baffle increases total energy extracted in the first 30 minutes of discharge by
ot
over 20%. As in prior work [16, 17, 18, 19, 20], this improved heat transfer is attributed to increased velocity of
the fluid flowing over the heat exchanger. In stratified tanks, the cylindrical baffle increases total energy extracted
tN
in 30 minutes of discharge by 9.2%, 11.9%, and 16.6% for Cases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Clearly, the impact
rip
of the baffle in stratified tanks is less than that in isothermal tanks, but is still quite considerable. In this case,
th‘e improvement in heat transfer is attributed primarily to the higher driving temperature differences around the
sc
heat exchanger until all the water from the hot zone has entered and flowed through the baffle region. After that
nu
point, the tank is basically isothermal, and the surrounding fluid temperatures drop and the velocity increases,
maintaining rates of heat transfer higher than that in the tank without the baffle.
Ma
Stratification improves heat transfer in tanks without a baffle because, by design, the driving temperature
difference between the heat exchanger wall and the surrounding fluid is considerably higher. However, in tanks
ed
with the annular baffle, stratification has only a modest effect on heat transfer to the immersed heat exchanger
pt
relative to the corresponding isothermal experiment for all cases. Adding stratification to a tank with the baffle
ce
initially results in a higher driving temperature difference, but a much lower velocity of the fluid around the heat
exchanger, as the cool plumes now impinge on cool water, where they no longer have the same negative buoyancy
Ac
to drive the flow field. Thus, the plumes must displace the layer of cold water in the bottom zone of the tank before
they can exit the baffle. Once all the hot water from the top zone of the tank has moved over the heat exchanger
and through the baffle, the velocity increases even as the driving temperature difference rapidly falls, and the
tank behaves like the isothermal tank. In short, the baffle always generates one benefit to heat transfer—either an
increased driving temperature difference in the stratified tank or increased velocity when the tank is isothermal.
Copyright © 2024 bywork
This ASME demonstrates that the benefit of the annular baffle on heat transfer to an immersed copper coil
heat exchanger situated within the annular region between the tank and baffle walls extends to tanks with varying
degrees of initial thermal stratification. Future work will investigate systems with simultaneous charging and
discharging to assess performance of the annular baffle combined with charging devices designed to generate and
maintain thermal stratification.
Acknowledgements
d
te
We are grateful for the various forms of funding from Lafayette College to support undergraduate student
di
researchers as well as to purchase equipment. The Excel Scholars program provided funding for Joseph Noreika
e
and Tingyu Zhou to participate in this research during the summers of 2021 and 2022, respectively. The En-
py
gineering Division’s Clare Booth Luce scholars program provided the funding for Manaka Gomi to participate
in this project in the summer of 2022. Funding for laboratory equipment came from Lafayette College via the
Co
Engineering Studies Program and the Engineering Division.
Nomenclature
ot
tN
cp Specific heat, J/(kg ◦ C)
rip
d Heat exchanger inner diameter, mm
D Heat exchanger outer diameter, mm

sc
LB Length of the baffle, mm

nu
ṁ Mass flow rate, kg/s
NuM/N/F,D Nusselt number for the mixed (M), natural (N), and forced (F) convection components
Ma
Q Cumulative energy extracted from the storage tank, J
Q̇ Heat transfer rate, W

ed
r Radial coordinate, measured from the center of the tank, mm

pt
Red Reynolds number

ce
t Time, min
Tbot,0 Initial volume-averaged storage temperature at the bottom of the tank, °C

Ac
Tin Heat exchanger inlet temperature, ◦ C
Tout Heat exchanger outlet temperature, ◦ C
TS,0 Initial volume-averaged storage temperature, °C
Ttop,0 Initial volume-averaged storage temperature at the top of the tank, °C
T∞ Temperature of the storage fluid surrounding the heat exchanger, °C

Copyright ©u 2024 by ASME
Velocity of the storage fluid over the heat exchanger, m/s
z Vertical coordinate, measured from the bottom of the tank, mm
References
[1] Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L.,
Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, ., Yelekçi, O., Yu,
d
R., and (eds.), B. Z., 2021. IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2021: The Physical
te
Science Basis. Tech. rep., IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
di
[2] Dehghani-Sanij, A., Tharumalingam, E., Dusseault, M., and Fraser, R., 2019. “Study of energy storage sys-
e
tems and environmental challenges of batteries”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 104, pp. 192–
py
208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.023.
Co
[3] Tabassum-Abbasi, Premalatha, M., Abbasi, T., and Abbasi, S., 2014. “Wind energy: Increasing deploy-
ment, rising environmental concerns”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, pp. 270–288.
ot
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.019.
[4] Han, Y., Wang, R., and Dai, Y., 2009. “Thermal stratification within the water tank”. Renewable and
tN
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(5), pp. 1014–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.03.001.
rip
[5] Hollands, K., and Lightstone, M., 1989. “A review of low-flow, stratified-tank solar water heating systems”.
Solar Energy, 43(2), pp. 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(89)90151-5.

sc
[6] Li, S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, K., Li, X., Li, Y., and Zhang, X., 2014. “Study on performance of storage
nu
tanks in solar water heater system in charge and discharge progress”. Energy Procedia, 48, pp. 384–393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.02.045.
Ma
[7] Drück, H., and Bachmann, S., 2002. Hot water performance of solar combistores–description of a test
method and the experience gained with the application of the method on three different types of combistores.
ed
Tech. rep., Internation Energy Agency SHC Task 26 Report, Solar Combisystems, Paris. https://task26.iea-
pt
shc.org/Data/Sites/1/publications/task26-b-hot_water_performance.pdf.
ce
[8] Drück, H., 2002. “Influence of different combistore concepts on the overall system performance”.
In International Energy Agency SHC Task 26, Industry Workshop, pp. 39–46. https://task26.iea-
Ac
shc.org/Data/Sites/1/publications/task26-proceedings-oslo.pdf.
[9] Drück, H., and Hahne, E., 1999. “Test and comparison of hot water stores for solar combis-
tores”. In Proceedings of EuroSun 98, Portoroz, Slovenia, A. Goetzberger, ed., Franklin, pp. 14–17.
https://books.google.com/books?id=q6OHmwEACAAJ.
[10] Mote, R., Probert, S., and Nevrala, D., 1992. “Rate of heat recovery from a hot-water store: influence of the
aspect ratio of a vertical-axis open-ended cylinder beneath a submerged heat-exchanger”. Applied Energy,
41(2), pp. 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(92)90040-I.
[11] Chauvet, L., Nevrala, D., and Probert, S., 1993. “Influences of baffles on the rate of heat recovery
via a finned-tubed heat-exchanger immersed in a hot-water store”. Applied Energy, 45(3), pp. 191–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(93)90032-K.
[12] Su, Y., and Davidson, J. H., 2008. “Discharge of Thermal Storage Tanks via Immersed Baffled Heat Ex-
changers: Numerical Model of Flow and Temperature Fields”. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 130(2),
d
te
p. 021016. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2856012.
di
[13] Boetcher, S. K., Kulacki, F., and Davidson, J. H., 2010. “Negatively buoyant plume flow in a baffled heat
e
exchanger”. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 132(3), p. 034502. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001471.
py
[14] Boetcher, S. K., Kulacki, F., and Davidson, J. H., 2012. “Use of a shroud and baffle to improve natu-
ral convection to immersed heat exchanger”. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 134(1), p. 011010.
Co
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4005089.
[15] Zemler, M. K., and Boetcher, S. K., 2014. “Investigation of shroud geometry to passively improve
ot
heat transfer in a solar thermal storage tank”. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 136(1), p. 011017.
tN
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025708.
rip
[16] Haltiwanger, J. F., and Davidson, J. H., 2009. “Discharge of a thermal storage tank us-
ing an immersed heat exchanger with an annual baffle”. Solar Energy, 83(2), pp. 193–201.
sc
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.07.017.
nu
[17] Nicodemus, J. H., Jeffrey, J., Haase, J., and Bedding, D., 2017. “Effect of baffle and shroud designs on
discharge of a thermal storage tank using an immersed heat exchanger”. Solar Energy, 157, pp. 911–919.
Ma
[18] Nicodemus, J. H., Smith, J. H., and Goldstein, H., 2019. “Numerical simulations of storage-side natural
ed
convection to an immersed coiled heat exchanger with baffle-shrouds”. Solar Energy, 182, pp. 304–315.
pt
ce
[19] Nicodemus, J. H., Huang, X., Dentinger, E., Petitt, K., and Smith, J. H., 2020. “Effects of baffle width on
heat transfer to an immersed coil heat exchanger: Experimental optimization”. Journal of Energy Resources
Ac
Technology, 142(5), p. 050901. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045538.
[20] Nicodemus, J. H., Smith, J., Holme, A., Johnson, S., and Petitt, K., 2022. “The Effect of Pitch on Heat
Transfer to an Immersed Heat Exchanger in a Solar Thermal Storage Tank With and Without a Baffle”.
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 144(6), p. 061010. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4054668.
[21] Wang, Z., Yang, W., Qiu, F., Zhang, X., and Zhao, X., 2015. “Solar water heating: From the-
Copyright © 2024 by application,
ory, ASME marketing and research”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, pp. 68–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.026.
[22] Devore, N., Yip, H., and Rhee, J., 2013. “Domestic Hot Water Storage Tank: Design and Analy-
sis for Improving Thermal Stratification”. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 135(4), p. 040905.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025517.
[23] Morgan, V. T., 1975. “The overall convective heat transfer from smooth circular cylinders”. Advances in
Heat Transfer, 11, pp. 199–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2717(08)70075-3.
d
te
[24] Hilpert, R., 1933. “Wärmeabgabe von geheizten drähten und rohren im luftstrom”. Forschung auf dem
di
Gebiet des Ingenieurwesens A, 4(5), pp. 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02719754.
e
py
Co
ot
tN
rip
sc
nu
Ma
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Sol 23 1227

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sol 23 1227

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.

Received August 16, 2023;

Effects of an Annular Baffle on Heat Transfer to

Undergraduate Research Scholars

solar thermal storage systems.

temperature difference increased but the velocity of the plumes decreased.

detailed explanation of the experimental method.

of the tank. Tank dimensions are as shown in Figure 2.

isothermal and stratified experiments within each set of four experiments.

!"#$%& !"#$%' !"#$%(

TS,0 (◦ C) Ttop,0 (◦ C) Tbot,0 (◦ C) Tin (◦ C) ṁ (kg/s)

Isothermal With Baffle 53.8 - - 20.00 ± 0.03 0.0998 ± 0.0001

Isothermal Without Baffle 53.8 - - 20.01 ± 0.02 0.0998 ± 0.0011

case and also between Cases 1 and 2, as can be seen in Table 1.

operating conditions Tin and ṁ over the experimental duration.

reported here. Experiments end after 60 min.

Q̇ = ṁc p (Tout − Tin ), (1)

uncertainty in the velocity estimates is 0.001 m/s (95% confidence level).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Case 3 Stratified Without Baffle

Case 3 Stratified Without Baffle

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

20, 30 and 60 minutes.

cools uniformly for the rest of the experiment.

lower T∞ and higher velocity.

55 Case 3 Stratified Without Baffle

Case 3 Stratified Without Baffle

d Heat exchanger inner diameter, mm

D Heat exchanger outer diameter, mm

LB Length of the baffle, mm

ṁ Mass flow rate, kg/s

Q Cumulative energy extracted from the storage tank, J

Q̇ Heat transfer rate, W

r Radial coordinate, measured from the center of the tank, mm

Red Reynolds number

Tbot,0 Initial volume-averaged storage temperature at the bottom of the tank, °C

Tin Heat exchanger inlet temperature, ◦ C

Tout Heat exchanger outlet temperature, ◦ C

TS,0 Initial volume-averaged storage temperature, °C

Ttop,0 Initial volume-averaged storage temperature at the top of the tank, °C

T∞ Temperature of the storage fluid surrounding the heat exchanger, °C

z Vertical coordinate, measured from the bottom of the tank, mm

Solar Energy, 43(2), pp. 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(89)90151-5.

41(2), pp. 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-2619(92)90040-I.

Technology, 142(5), p. 050901. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045538.

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 144(6), p. 061010. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4054668.

Heat Transfer, 11, pp. 199–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2717(08)70075-3.

You might also like