Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For simplicity, SAP 2009 uses only first-order efficiency value for solar
heating panels. This works well for most solar panels that have a relatively
straight-line efficiency characteristic, however solar panels with poorer
insulation and a more curved efficiency characteristic are unfairly
rewarded. A simple enhancement of the current calculation is put forward
to remedy this anomaly and make the calculation in SAP Appendix H more
accurate.
Background
The UK government publishes a methodology for estimating the energy
performance of dwellings, the Standard Assessment Procedure1 (SAP).
Given a set of input data such as U values of building fabric and
performance of heating systems, the calculation estimates the energy
consumption and carbon dioxide emissions from any given dwelling.
In the 2005 revision the calculation was modified to include a more refined
estimate of energy savings from the use of solar water heating. Where
previous versions of SAP assumed a flat rate of energy benefit from solar
heating panels (per square metre installed), SAP 2005 captured the
diminishing return produced by solar water heating systems as they increase
in size.
The calculation was also structured to reflect the better energy outcome from
higher performing solar panels by using accredited test data from EN12-975
part 1, the European standard for testing the thermal performance of solar
heating panels.
These tests describe the performance of a solar heating panel using three
values: zero loss efficiency (0), first order heat loss coefficient (a1) and
second order heat loss coefficient (a2).
The efficiency of a solar heating panel can be calculated at any operating
point using an equation in the following form:
= 0 a1.{(Tm Ta)/ GT} a2.GT.{ (Tm Ta)/ GT}2
where
For the SAP calculation, it was decided to use the zero loss efficiency (0)
and the first order heat loss coefficient (a1) parameters to characterise panel
performance. This was understood to be an approximation to real-world
performance but, after analysis of published test data from a number of solar
panel products, it was decided that this was sufficiently accurate.
2.35
2.50
0.790
0.795
(m2)
Panel A
Panel B
a1
a2
ceff
(W/m2.K)
(W/m2.K2)
(kJ/m2K)
2.414
3.90
0.0490
0.0125
8.09
6.30
Table 1 Efficiency characteristics and heat capacity Ceff for two similar size flat plate solar panels.
Figure 1 Panel A has a better first order heat loss coefficient than Panel B, but by virtue of its
higher second order heat loss coefficient is of overall lower performance than Panel B.
SAP Qs (kWh/year)
1,135
1,058
T*Sol (kWh/year)
1,350
1,390
Table 2 Panel A produces 7% more solar energy in SAP Appendix H than Panel B. T*Sol, taking
account of the second order efficiency coefficient predicts 3% more energy from Panel B.
Table 2 shows the results. Ignoring the differences in total energy between
the two methodologies and considering only the relative energy produced by
each of the two panels, it can be seen that under SAP Panel A produces 7%
more energy than Panel B. By taking the second order coefficient into
account, in T*Sol Panel B produces 3% more energy than Panel A. By
ignoring the second order coefficient, SAP produces an overall 10%
inaccuracy in favour of Panel A.
If:
= 0 a1.{(Tm Ta)/ GT} a2.GT.{ (Tm Ta)/ GT}2
and for simplicity we set b = {(Tm Ta)/ GT}, and choose GT = 600 W/m2,
then:
= 0 a1.b 600a2.b2
[1]
a1 = a1 + a2
= 0 a1.b a2.b
[2]
then:
[3]
A best fit value of was found by numerical methods such that the
weighted difference between [1] and [3] was minimised over the range of
operating points from 0.0 0.22. For panels A and B the value of which
achieved this was found to be 45. As a check a high performance tube was
considered (0 0.76, a1 2.12, a2 0.0077). A value of equal to 45 also
produced the best fit between the straight line and the curve.
a1 = a1 + 45 a2
[4]
The energy collected in the year at different values of irradiation during this
study is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 5 A straight line approximation to the curve is found where the weighted difference
between the two lines is minimised. Weighting values are shown in Figure 4
Figure 3 Annual energy collected by a solar water heating system
at different levels of in-plane irradiation
It was found that the panel collected around half the energy in the year at an
in-plane irradiation below 600W/m2 and around half the energy at irradiation
levels above 600W/m2. The representative value of GT used to derive a1* is
therefore set to 600 W/m2.
The operating point {(Tm Ta)/ GT} was found for each three minute interval
for the year, and the total number of minutes spent at each point summed.
The results are shown in Figure 4.
This new linear coefficient a1 is always greater than the value of a1, so
adopting this as the new coefficient for SAP would mean that the energy
produced by all solar heating systems would be reduced. Consequently, a
scaling value, s is found that reduces a1 in such a way that the energy
produced by a solar panel with an average performance is unaffected by the
overall change.
a1* = s.a1 = s(a1 + 45 a2)
[5]
Figure 4 Time spent at each operating point by a solar water heating panel
during a one year monitoring study
The profile in Figure 4 was used to create a weighting factor for each
operating point and derive a straight-line approximation to the second order
curve that minimised the weighted difference between the two curves.
[6]
Figure 6 Distribution of second order coefficients from test results of 102 solar panels.
Panel A now produces 0.8% lower energy yield than Panel B and is therefore
in better agreement with more sophisticated solar simulations that take the
second order coefficient into account.
Conclusion
A simple modification to SAP Appendix H is recommended, where a new
linear heat loss coefficient is derived:
a1* = 0.892 (a1 + 45 a2)
This would increase the accuracy of SAP solar energy estimates, particularly
with respect to solar panels with a high second order heat loss coefficient.
Although the number of these is small relative to the general population of
panels, the significant benefits the current loophole offers means that they
are increasingly favoured by SAP assessors and building designers who are
often seeking only slight improvements in building performance to achieve
compliance.
1
2
3
4
5
See http://www.bre.co.uk/sap2009
Panel A, Keymark number 011-7S516F, Panel B Keymark Number 011-7S652F
See http://www.viridiansolar.co.uk/Assets/Files/BRE_Report_Viridian_Solar_Average_House_Simulation.pdf
See http://www.solarenergy.ch/Collectors.111.0.html?&L=6