Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Poole, Mark R. Solar Air Heating and Heat Storage (Under the direction of Dr. Sanjay B.
Shah).
Solar energy is a renewable energy source that has great potential for air heating. The
focus of this research was to improve the economics and technology of solar heating through
experimental and modeling work. Traditional solar air heaters consist of a black metal surface
for absorbing incident radiation, over which air is drawn, heated, and then supplied as
supplemental heat. In transpired solar collectors (TSCs), air is drawn in through a perforated
collector plate. TSCs are highly efficient ( > 80%) and can raise air temperatures by 25 C.
In a two stage TSC, a glazed cover is placed over the perforated collector to reduce convective
and radiative losses. At a suction velocity of 0.024 m/s, a one stage TSC was superior to a two
stage TSC with regard to temperature rise, efficiency, and power. To explore the potential for
solar heat storage, a phase change material (PCM)-based heat exchanger was coupled to the
one stage TSC. Over a week, the coupled TSC-heat exchanger stored enough energy to
displace 1.2 L/m2 of propane. One and two stage TSC models were developed which could
adequately predict measured temperature rise, though the two stage model was slightly more
accurate. A perforated plastic TSC was also developed and tested for heating a turkey brooder
barn. Whereas the plastic TSC increased air temperature by as much as 25 C, it did not save
propane due to management issues. An even lower cost TSC material (commercial landscape
fabric) was compared with the plastic and metal TSC. At the two suction velocities tested
(0.047 and 0.060 m/s), commercial landscape fabric proved superior, likely due lower
convective and radiative losses. Overall, solar heat storage using PCM lower cost collectors
such as landscape fabric offer potential to increase solar energy use in heating and full-scale
by
Mark R. Poole
2017
APPROVED BY:
_______________________________ _______________________________
Dr. Sanjay Shah Dr. Michael D. Boyette
Committee Chair
_______________________________ _______________________________
Dr. Larry Stikeleather Dr. Michael Flickinger
DEDICATION
McLaurin, who taught me early in life to never give up on what you start.
ii
BIOGRAPHY
Mark R. Poole was born in Raleigh, NC. He attended North Carolina State University and
received two Bachelors of Science degrees, one in Aerospace Engineering and the other
Biological and Agricultural Engineering. He will move on from this work to pursue a PhD in
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my thanks to Phil Harris, who provided extensive support throughout
each one of the projects, and whos expertise still inspires me to work harder and to never stop
I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr. Boyette who provided helpful insights throughout
the process, Dr. Stikeleather who helped with modeling, Dr. Flickinger for serving on my
Adcock, Dr. Grimes, Steven Turnage, Adam Rushing, Mack Warren, Ali Ajami, and Stephen
Thank you also to the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, the Provost for
the fellowship provided and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association that provided support for
part of my research.
Lastly, I am also extremely thankful to Dr. Shah, who has guided me through this research and
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
v
4. Low Cost Plastic Solar Air heater for Turkey .................................................................... 88
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 88
4.2 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................. 90
4.2.1 Room description .............................................................................................. 91
4.2.2 Bird placement and management ...................................................................... 93
4.2.3 Plastic transpired solar collector (pTSC) .......................................................... 94
4.2.4 Instrumentation, Controls, and Calculations ..................................................... 96
4.3 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................... 101
4.3.1 Plastic TSC Performance ................................................................................ 101
4.3.3 Environmental Conditions .............................................................................. 113
4.3.4 Bird Performance ............................................................................................ 119
4.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 120
4.5 References ................................................................................................................... 122
5. Lower Cost Transpired Solar Collector ............................................................................ 126
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. 126
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 127
5.2 Materials and Methods ................................................................................................ 128
5.2.1 Design of the Collector ........................................................................................ 128
5.2.2 Collector Plate materials ...................................................................................... 130
5.2.3 Instrumentation and Experimental Design........................................................... 131
5.3 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................... 132
5.3.1 TSC Plate Materials ............................................................................................. 132
5.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 140
5.5 References ................................................................................................................... 141
6. Conclusions and Future Work .......................................................................................... 142
Appendix A Raw data for Transpired Solar Collector with Phase Change Materials for Heat
Storage (Chapter 2). .............................................................................................................. 146
Appendix B Source Code for the one and two stage models (Chapter 3). ........................ 185
Appendix C Raw data for Low cost plastic solar air heater for turkey brooding (Chapter 4).
............................................................................................................................................... 220
Appendix D Raw data low cost transpired solar collector materials and desiccants (Chapter
5). .......................................................................................................................................... 350
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Average1 values over the course of the monitored day for each location on the
corrugated collector plate as well as temperatures at the outlet (Tout) and ambient (Tamb).
L=Left, M=Middle, R = Right, V=Valley, Rr=Ridge, and T=Top. ....................................... 21
Table 3.1 Parameters for one and two stage models. .............................................................. 62
Table 3.2 Environmental conditions during the one and two stage TSC monitoring periods. 66
Table 3.3 Summary values of operating conditions, measured data, and model outputs for
one stage TSC model. The suction velocity was 0.02 m/s...................................................... 69
Table 3.4 Summary values of operating conditions, measured data, and model outputs for
two stage TSC model. The suction velocity was 0.02 m/s. .................................................... 77
Table 4.1 Flock 1 (January 29 -February 29, 2016) and Flock 2 (March 9 - April 12, 2016)
weekly ventilation rates and setpoint temperatures. ............................................................... 93
Table 4.2 Weekly average ambient temperature (Tamb), average wind speed (U) at 6 m,
average irradiance (I), instantaneous mass flow rate through pTSC (), suction velocity (Vs),
fan duty cycle (DT), average pTSC temperature gain (T), recorded pTSC run time, total
weekly energy gain (Egain), and Ps. Wind speed and I are for daylight hours (8 am-4 pm) for
Flocks 1 (Jan. 29-Feb. 29, 2016) and 2 (Mar. 9-Apr. 12, 2016) while Tamb (hence, Egain and
Ps) is only for those periods during daylight hours when air was being pulled through the
pTSC. .................................................................................................................................... 102
Table 4.3 Mean temperature, RH, CO and CO2 concentrations for Flock 1 (January 29-
Febuary 29) and Flock 2 (March 9 April 12). Measurements were taken at 5 minute
intervals. ................................................................................................................................ 114
Table 4.4 Average daily weight gain (ADWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and mortality
between Test and Control in both flocks. ............................................................................. 120
vii
Table 5.1 Average incident radiation (IR), wind speed (U), temperature rise (eq. 2) of metal
(TM), plastic (TP) and commercial landscape fabric ( TL), energy produced (eq. (3)) by
the metal (EM), plastic (EP), and landscape fabric (EL) respectively, and efficiency (eq. (73))
of metal (M), plastic (P), and landscape fabric (L), respectively. Each measured value is an
average of 96 measurements. Measurements for suction velocity 0.047 m/s and 0.060 m/s
were taken on 6/20/2016 and 6/27/2016 respectively........................................................... 134
Table A.1 Hourly averaged temperatures for each location on the corrugated collector plate
as well as temperatures at the outlet (Tout) and ambient (Tamb). L=Left, M=Middle, R = Right,
V=Valley, Rr=Ridge, and T=Top. ........................................................................................ 146
Table A.2 Hourly averages of the observed incident radiation (IR) and temperatures in the
heat exchanger (T1,T2, T3, as described in Fig. 2.2) and temperature at the outlet of the
collector (Tout) and ambient. ................................................................................................. 147
Table C.1 Flock 1 hourly averaged (n=12) observed temperatures and relative humidity for
each pen (subscript 1, 2, 3) for the control (subscripts leading C) and experimental (subscript
leading T). ............................................................................................................................. 220
Table C.2 Flock 2 hourly averaged (n=12) observed temperatures and relative humidity for
each pen (subscript 1, 2, 3) for the control (subscripts leading C) and experimental (subscript
leading T). ............................................................................................................................. 252
Table. C.3 Flock 1 hourly observed solar radiation (W/m2, n=60), Carbon dioxide (ppm,
n=12) and carbon monoxide (ppm, n=12) for the test and control rooms. ........................... 287
Table. C.4 Flock 2 hourly observed solar radiation (W/m2, n=60), Carbon dioxide (ppm,
n=12) and carbon monoxide (ppm, n=12) for the test and control rooms. ........................... 317
Table D.1 Observed temperature and relative humidity for the metal (subscript M), plastic
(subscript P), and commercial landscape fabric (subscript L) from the TSC materials study
(Chapter 5). Subscripts 1 and subscripts 2 differentiate between locations above (1) and
below (2) the desiccant material. .......................................................................................... 350
Table. D.2 Observed incident radiation (IR), wind speed (U), and volumetric flow rate (V) in
the TSC materials study (Chapter 5). .................................................................................... 361
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 2.1 Transpired solar collector in the a) one and b) two stage configurations with the
right, middle and left regions indicated, when facing the collector. c) View of corrugations.
Reflective insulation on the bottom portion of the collector was placed to prevent heating
from the non-transpired absorber plate. .................................................................................. 12
Fig. 2.2 Heat exchanger shown as a) top view and b) side view. Gaps within the stacked
PCM bricks were for airflow. c) diagram of PCM system with locations of measured
temperatures. ........................................................................................................................... 17
Fig. 2.3 One stage absorber plate variations for TSC operated at suction velocity of 0.044
m/s. Temperatures (n=30) measured on the top, ridge, and valley of the corrugations in a) left
b) middle, and c) right sides of the collector plate. Ambient and outlet temperatures as well
as irradiance data (n=60) are shown in (b). Data was recorded on 12/25/2014. Outlet
temperature was measured in the middle approximately 0.33 m from the back of the collector
surface. .................................................................................................................................... 23
Fig. 2.4 Two stage absorber plate variations for TSC operated at suction velocity of 0.044
m/s. Temperatures (n=30) measured on the top, ridge, and valley of the corrugations in a) left
b) middle, and c) right sides of the collector plate. Ambient and outlet temperatures as well
as irradiance data (n=60) are shown in (b). Data was recorded on 2/3/2015. Outlet
temperature was measured in the middle, approximately 0.33 m from the back of the
collector surface. ..................................................................................................................... 25
Fig. 2.5 Comparison of operating conditions and performance parameters of the one and two
stage TSCs. a) Calculated power output (eq. (3)) and temperature rise in the one stage (P1,
T1) and two stage (P2, T2) collector during daytime. b) Wind speeds and incident radiation
(I) for the one (U1) and two (U2) stage collectors. Hourly incident radiation on both these
days were within 5% of one-another. c) Hourly efficiencies (eq. (4)) of the one and two stage
TSCs. e) Solar energy input (Ea, eq. (2)) and energy output (Eo, eq. (3)) from the one and two
stage collectors. All data points are averages (n=12). Suction velocity was 0.024 m/s. Labels
associated with the Average data points are the average values from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
................................................................................................................................................. 27
Fig. 2.6 Energy stored (ES, eq. (5)) and energy extracted (Eex, eq. (5)) from the heat
exchanger with ambient temperatures during storage (Ts)and extraction Tex) periods at
ix
different flow rates. For each set of data, first flow rate is the storage flow rate and the second
flow rate is the extraction flow rate. ....................................................................................... 30
Fig. 2.7 Average hourly temperatures (n=12) for a 24-hour period monitored at different
points in the heat exchanger for different flow rates: a) 0.033 (8:00 AM-5:00 PM) & 0.038
m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00 AM), b) 0.050 m3/s (8:00 AM-5:00 PM) & 0.045 m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00
AM), c) 0.053 (8:00 AM-5:00 PM) & 0.057 m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00 AM) and d) 0.057(8:00
AM-5:00 PM) & 0.063 m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00 AM). Data points are connected only to show
trend. ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Fig. 2.8 Energy stored and extracted in heat exchanger with phase change material at air flow
rates of a) 0.033 (Storage) & 0.038 (Extraction) m3/s, b) 0.045 (Storage) & 0.050
(Extraction) m3/s c) 0.053 (Storage) & 0.057 (Extraction) m3/s and d) 0.057 (Storage) &
0.063 (Extraction) m3/s. HX1 represents PCM with an activation temperature of 29 C, HX2
represents PCM with an activation temperature of 22 C, and Res represents the residual
energy in the airflow (eq. (9)). ................................................................................................ 34
Fig. 2.9 Heat exchanger performance over 7 consecutive days with a) energy stored (Es, eq.
(5)), extracted (Eex, eq. (5)), residual energy (Res, eq. (9)) and incoming temperature (T1, Ts
for storage, Tex for extraction), b) percent of capacity stored and release for each day and c)
propane displaced for each day. .............................................................................................. 36
Fig. 3.1 Flow of logic for the one- and two stage TSC models. ............................................. 49
Fig. 3.2 Diagram of the a) one stage and b) two stage collector model where , is the
incident irradiance, , is the radiative heat loss from the collector plate to the
surroundings, , is the radiative heat loss from the underside of the collector plate to
the back plate, , is convective heat loss from the absorber plate to the
surroundings, , is the convective heat transfer from the absorber plate to the plenum
air, , is the convective heat transfer from the plenum to the back plate, , is
the heat transfer out of the plenum due to mass flow, , () is the energy lost
through the back plate due to conduction, , , , is the convective heat
exchange from the absorber plate to the absorber plenum, , is the energy out of the
absorber plenum due to mass flow, , is the incident radiation on the cover,
, is the radiative heat transfer between the absorber plate and the cover,
, , is the radiative losses from the cover to the surroundings, , , is
the convective heat loss from the cover to the surroundings, and , , , is the
convective heat loss from the cover to the absorber plenum. The thicknesses of the arrows are
not indicative of the magnitudes of the heat loss and gain terms. .......................................... 51
x
Fig. 3.3 Experimental collector donated by ATAS International in the two stage
configuration. Reflective material on the bottom portion of the collector was to remove
confounding effects from a non-transpired absorber. ............................................................. 65
Fig. 3.4 One stage TSC measured and modeled temperature difference on a) DOY 97 (U =
3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2 m/s). ......................................... 71
Fig. 3.5 Simulated plate, plenum, back plate, and outlet temperatures and measured ambient
temperature on a) DOY 97 (U = 3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2
m/s). ........................................................................................................................................ 73
Fig. 3.6 One stage TSC modeled cumulative radiative, convective and conductive losses on
a) DOY 97 (U = 3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2 m/s). .............. 74
Fig. 3.7 One stage modeled overall efficiency and heat exchange ratio on a) DOY 97 (U =
3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2 m/s). ......................................... 75
Fig. 3.8 Two stage TSC modeled temperature rise and measured temperature rise with
incident radiation on a) DOY 90 (U = 2.7 m/s), b) DOY 94 (U = 3.5 m/s), c) DOY 95 (U =
5.5 m/s). .................................................................................................................................. 79
Fig. 3.9 Simulated plate, plenum, back plate, cover, absorber plenum and outlet temperatures
and measured ambient temperature on a) DOY 90 (U = 2.7 m/s), b) DOY 94 (U = 3.5 m/s),
c) DOY 95 (U = 5.5 m/s). ....................................................................................................... 80
Fig. 3.10 Two stage TSC modeled cumulative radiative, convective and conductive losses on
a) DOY 90 (U = 2.7 m/s), b) DOY 94 (U = 3.5 m/s), c) DOY 95 (U = 5.5 m/s). .................. 81
Fig. 3.11 Two stage modeled overall efficiency and heat exchange ratio on a) DOY 90 (U =
2.7 m/s), b) DOY 94 (U = 3.5 m/s), c) DOY 95 (U = 5.5 m/s). ............................................. 82
Fig. 4.1 Layout of the Test and Control rooms. The two rooms were identical except for the
pTSC (not shown) in the Test room. ....................................................................................... 92
xi
Fig. 4.2 a) Layout of TSC system and b) pTSC as installed in the turkey brooding room. Note
temperature relative humidity (RH) sensors used to measure tempered and untempered
ambient air temperatures. ........................................................................................................ 96
Fig. 4.3 Flow of logic of the control system for the pTSC. SP is setpoint temperature of the
room while RT is actual room temperature (average of the three pens); T is the difference
between the plenum and ambient temperatures (Fig. 4.2). ..................................................... 98
Fig. 4.4 Comparison of operating parameters and pTSC performance with m = 0.04 kg/m2-s
(subscript 1, Mar. 22), 0.06 kg/m2-s (subscript 2, Feb. 29, 2016) and mTSC at 0.04 kg/m2-s
(subscript m, Mar 22). (a) Hourly average irradiance (I, n = 30) and wind speed (U, n = 60);
(b) Normalized calculated hourly power (Ps) (n = 12) and temperature rise (T) (n = 12); and
(c) Efficiency. Data points in Figs. (a) and (b) are connected to show trend. ...................... 107
Fig. 4.5 Cumulative propane use in the Test and Control rooms in (a) Flock 1 (January 29-
Febuary 29) and (b) Flock 2 (March 9-April 12, 2016). Theoretical propane saving was
obtained by multiplying daily Pgain (eq. (4)), duration the pTSC operated every day, and the
energy value of propane. The Y axis ranges are different in the two figures. ...................... 111
Fig. 4.6 Daily average temperature (SD), daily average RH (SD) and setpoint (SP)
temperature in the Test and Control rooms in (a) Flock 1 and (b) Flock 2. Temperature and
RH were recorded every 5-min; data were lost during Feb. 8-10, 2016. Primary y axis ranges
are different in the two figures. ............................................................................................. 116
Fig. 4.7 Daily average CO and CO2 concentrations for the Test and Control rooms in (a)
Flock 1 and (b) Flock 2. Each data point is the average of 288 5-min measurements. CO and
CO2 data was lost on Feb 8-10. Primary and secondary y axis ranges are different in the two
figures. .................................................................................................................................. 118
Fig. 5.1 a) Representative collector with anodized aluminum plate and b) diagram of
collector design. .................................................................................................................... 129
Fig. 5.2 TSC performance as affected by suction velocity. a) T(C) and incident radiation
(W/m2) and b) efficiency and wind speed (m/s) for a suction velocity of 0.047 m/s and c) T
(C), incident radiation (W/m2) and d) efficiency and wind speed (m/s) for a suction velocity
of 0.06 m/s. Measurements for suction velocity 0.047 m/s and 0.060 m/s were taken on
6/20/2016 and 6/27/2016 respectively. Hourly average T value is based on 12 values
xii
whereas the hourly wind speed and incident radiation values are averaged of 30 measured
values. ................................................................................................................................... 136
Fig. 5.3 Thermal images of the a) commercial landscape fabric, b) anodized aluminum plate,
c) plastic pond liner. The suction velocity during operation was 0.024 m/s. ...................... 137
Fig. 5.4 Scanning electron microscopic images of the landscape fabric. a) in-plane view and
b) cross-sectional view. ......................................................................................................... 138
xiii
1. Introduction
Space heating accounts for the largest energy expenditure in the average US home,
comprising 42% of the total energy use, while water heating accounts for an additional 18%
ventilation must be provided to ensure adequate air quality, precluding the use of recirculating
systems that might otherwise reduce costs. The use of solar energy for supplemental space
Solar energy is a renewable, clean, and abundant energy source that is widely available.
However, issues such as storage of excess energy, efficiency of collection, and associated costs
affect adoption of solar energy use. In the context of low fossil fuel prices, considerable capital
costs and the modest savings generated by solar energy conversion systems limit solar energy
use. Even though solar energy technologies have been around since the days of Aristotle
(Vargas et al. 2009), collector efficiencies remain low, and storage technologies are expensive.
Current solar energy technologies can be divided into two major fields: photovoltaic
(P/V) cells and solar heaters. Photovoltaic cells convert solar energy directly into electricity by
capturing electrons that are excited in the cells semiconductor material. The resulting
electrical energy can then be directly used to power electrical devices at the site, fed into the
grid for use off-site, or stored for later use. For heating applications, conversion from P/V to
1
Solar thermal collectors convert solar energy into usable but low-grade heat. Some
collectors are able to overcome the efficiency issues that are seen with P/V collectors and are
often able to achieve efficiencies as high as 90% (Gawlik et. al 2005). One of the most common
solar thermal collector is the solar water heaters (Vargas et. al 2009). In a typical solar water
heater incident radiation is absorbed on an absorber plate and transferred through convection
supplemental heating may be required but overall external energy costs can be reduced.
Though many commercially available solar water heaters exist, applications are limited due to
the difficulty in achieving large temperature gains, and costs associated with implementation
(Kalogirou 2004).
Solar air heaters are another common form of solar heating, with major applications in
crop-drying and space-heating (Leon and Kumar 2007). Crop-drying can be a very energy-
intensive process and utilizing solar energy can reduce or eliminate fuel costs (Leon and Kumar
2007). Space heating with solar collectors involves preheating ambient air or increasing the
temperature of air recirculated through a structure, thereby reducing overall heat input,
resulting in savings. For recirculating systems, high temperature rises (40 C) can be achieved,
but those temperature rises are often not necessary and can lead to reductions in efficiency
(Yang et. al 2013). For the preheating of air, the primary technology employed is the transpired
In a TSC either a flat or corrugated sheet is used to absorb the incident radiation (Fig.
1.1). This absorber is perforated to allow the passage of air to the heated space. During
2
operation, solar energy absorbed by the collector is transferred to the free stream via
convection. Potential for energy losses in this type of system are convective and radiative
losses on the front plate, and conduction losses through the sides of the plenum.
Transpired solar collectors are either one stage or two stage systems. In a one stage
(also known as an unglazed) collector the absorber plate is open to the ambient air. Figure 1.1
shows a typical one stage TSC. Convective losses are minimized in this type of system by
using suction velocity that is high enough to remove the thermal boundary layer (Kutscher
1994). In a two stage collector, convective losses are minimized using a transparent (glazed)
cover placed on top of the absorber plate. One stage collectors offer a reduced overall cost (by
3
not requiring an additional cover) at the expense of higher convective and radiative losses when
compared to a two stage system. Compared to the one stage TSC, there are very few studies
Capital costs of TSCs are relatively high . Hence, due to the current low price of fossil
fuels, without government incentives payback periods can be quite long. To reduce the cost of
the system, Gawlik et al. (2005) proposed using plastic absorber plates instead of the more
expensive metal collectors. Modeling indicated that plastic alternatives yielded slightly lower
temperature rise and exchange efficiency but at a fraction of the cost of the metal collector
(Gawlik et al. 2005)., However, no field studies on the evaluation of plastic collectors could
be located . Therefore, there exists a need to evaluate a plastic TSC system to understand its
overall feasibility.
Apart from collector cost, the most immediate barrier to greater TSC adoption is the
lack of cost-effective energy storage options. During periods of high incident radiation, solar
collectors can produce more heat than can be consumed. Therefore, there is need to store excess
energy for use after the sun has set. For solar heat storage, storage media such as rock beds
have been evaluated but these storage media have large footprints and storing energy as
sensible heat is inherently inefficient (Kurklu et al. 2003). There is need to examine more cost-
effective options of storing solar heat, preferably as latent heat, for use after sundown.
Phase change materials (PCMs) may offer a more feasible medium to store solar heat.
Phase change materials store energy as latent heat of fusion. Because this form of storage has
much higher energy density when compared to sensible heat, PCM based systems require
4
smaller footprints than sensible heat-based systems of the same capacity. When used in
combination with a TSC, it would be possible to store latent heat in the PCM during the day
and then extract that heat when the sun sets. There is no peer-reviewed research on the use of
PCMs with TSCs specifically, though there have been studies on using PCMs integrated into
building walls for heat storage with moderate success (e.g., Bajare et al 2017).
It is possible that a two stage collector can increase the energy stored in a PCM based
system. The addition of the cover can reduce radiative losses by blocking long wave radiation
emitted from the heated plate, and convective losses by preventing wind effects. Together,
these reductions could lead to a larger temperature rise across the plate, and increase the driving
force during PCM storage. The advantage of two stage TSCs is not clear from the literature
Hence, to make solar heating more affordable for both agricultural and non-agricultural
applications, two issues need to be addressed: reducing cost of the collector and energy storage.
The need for lowering costs will be evaluated by testing less-expensive, non-metallic absorber
plate materials and system configurations. Energy storage will be evaluated with a focus on
PCMs.
The overarching goal of this project is to investigate low-cost solar air heating and heat
5
2. Develop and test a heat storage system using phase change materials coupled to the
TSC.
3. Develop and test a mathematical model for one stage and two stage TSCs to simulate
performance.
Objectives one and two are presented in chapter 2, objective 3 is presented in chapter 3,
6
1.2 References
Bajare, D., Kazjonovs, J., and Korjakins, A. 2016. "Development of Latent Heat Storage
94-7.
Gawlik, K, Christensen C., and Kutscher, C. 2005. "A Numerical and Experimental
Kalogirou, S. A. 2004. "Solar Thermal Collectors and Applications." Progress in Energy and
Krkl, A., Bilgin,S., and zkan, B.. 2003. "A Study on the Solar Energy Storing Rock-Bed
Leon, A.M., and Kumar, S. 2007. "Mathematical Modeling and Thermal Performance
Rawangkul, R., Khedari, J., Hirunlabh, J., and Zeghmati, B. 2010. Characteristics and
36 (2): 216-222.
Vargas, J. V., Ordonez, J. C., Dilay, E., Parise, J.A.R. 2009. "Modeling, Simulation and
7
2. Transpired Solar Collector with Phase Change Materials for Heat Storage
Abstract
Some aspects of their design, such as one stage vs two stage, and temperature variations on the
corrugations require further study. Further, because TSCs can heat air to temperatures that are
too high during daytime, their potential cannot be fully realized with strictly direct heating.
Phase change materials (PCM) for heat storage are proposed as a solution to this issue. In this
study, plate temperature variations on a corrugated TSC were investigated o gain insight into
the impact of corrugations on flow. In addition, one vs two stage systems were compared with
respect to temperature rise and efficiency. Lastly, a heat exchanger containing 80 kg of PCM
material was designed, built, and evaluated for its ability to store solar heat for use after
sundown. Plate temperatures varied, with valley temperatures consistently exceeding ridge and
top surface temperatures in the one stage TSC. A one stage TSC performed better than a two
stage TSC under the conditions tested, with higher efficiency and COP. The PCM heat
exchanger effectively stored heat, storing a minimum of 88% of its capacity. The TSC-PCM
system displaced 1.2 L/m2 of collector over one week. Further study is needed of this system
to determine the economics of the PCM, and potential for scale up.
Keywords: Solar air heating, thermal collectors, ventilation, preheating, energy savings, two
8
2.1 Introduction
Transpired solar collectors (TSCs) have been shown to have the highest efficiency of
any solar energy conversion technology with efficiencies reaching 80% and temperature rises
(T) of up to 26 C (Gawlik et al. 2005). Further, they are the most economical solar energy
technology with a fixed cost of $215/m2 (P. Reinhart, ATAS International, personal
communication, 24 April 2017). Despite its low price and high efficiency, the TSC has not
been widely adopted. Researchers (Shah et al. 2016, Love et al. 2012) reported that storing
energy for use later in the day could improve the economics of using TSCs on livestock barns.
One of the primary reasons for low adoption of the TSC is limited use time. During
periods of high T (usually, 11 am-2 pm) the need for preheating of ventilation air is low and
sometimes, unnecessary. As a result, available solar energy is not used because the TSC has to
be bypassed to prevent excessive heating. The storage of this excess heat, and then its use
during periods of low incident radiation offers the opportunity for increased TSC usage.
Traditionally, materials for storing sensible solar heat included rock beds and water
(Krkl et. al 2003), but both media are bulky and possess limited storage capacity per unit
mass as they store heat as sensible heat. Modern heat storage media, such as phase change
materials (PCMs) that store heat, predominantly as latent heat, are a better option. This is
because a PCM can be formulated for a specific activation temperature to fit a particular need,
and heat storage per kilogram is significantly higher than with sensible heat storage media. For
example, rock can store 879 J/kg-K (Sharma et al., 2009), whereas a salt solution based PCM
9
PCM-HSP22P, when activated at 22 C can store 185 kJ/kg (PCM-HS22P Product Data
Sheet).
Heat storage can also be increased when T is higher; with high T values, even if not
all the energy is stored, residual solar heat in the fresh air would still be beneficial. Compared
to a TSC consisting solely of a perforated collector, i.e., a one stage TSC, a two stage TSC
could provide higher T values and increase overall efficiency. A two stage TSC has a glazed
(e.g., transparent acrylic) cover over the black perforated absorber surface. The glazed cover
reduces radiative and convective losses, increasing the efficiency of the system but at a higher
cost. However, the authors could not find any experimental research pertaining to a direct
comparison between one stage and two stage systems. There is a need to understand if a two
stage collectors cost justifies the actual savings in a coupled TSC-heat storage system.
corrugations has been attempted, with various CFD approaches being reported (Li et al 2013,
Gawlik and Kutscher 2002). Monitoring of outlet temperature, plate temperature, efficiency
and heat exchange effectiveness are the parameters of interest in monitoring TSCs. No studies
were found that investigated spatial variations in corrugated plate temperatures, which are
essential to validate flow patterns on the surface. Further, no studies could be found that studied
the impact of corrugations in a two stage TSC. This could be substantial as the corrugations
Hence, the overall objective of this study was to evaluate a combined TSC heat
storage system. Performance of one- and two stage corrugated TSCs were also compared to
10
see which type of TSC would be more appropriate for heat storage. The specific objectives
were:
3. Evaluate the use of PCM material to store excess solar heat generated by a TSC.
Two studies were conducted on a corrugated metal TSC that could be operated either
as a one stage or two stage TSC at the Poultry Engineering Chamber Complex at NCSU. The
TSC was donated by ATAS International. ATAS International converted a one stage TSC into
a two stage system by installing a glazing over the cover; however, the two stage TSC was not
commercialized because it was not cost-competitive with the one stage TSC (P. Reinhart,
stage.php) which is more complicated than the experimental ATAS design (Fig. 2.1). The
TSC was tilted 50 from the horizontal as recommended for NC latitudes to maximize incident
radiation collection. While the TSC had a total area of 4.65 m2 (50 ft2), its collector surface
area was 2.26m2 (30 ft2). A reflective and insulating sheet was used to cover the bottom 1.86
11
m2 (20 ft2) of sheet metal (Fig. 2.1) to minimize the solar heating effects that the sheet metal
would cause on the air in the plenum. Figure 2.1 shows the TSC set up in both configurations.
Fig. 2.1 Transpired solar collector in the a) one and b) two stage configurations with the
right, middle and left regions indicated, when facing the collector. c) View of corrugations.
Reflective insulation on the bottom portion of the collector was placed to prevent heating
12
2.1.1 Absorber Plate Temperature Variations
In this study, temperatures of the back plate, outlet, and plenum were monitored along with
ambient air temperature using Type T thermocouples. Ambient air temperature was measured
inside a radiation shield to minimize radiation effects. Type T thermocouples were placed on
the surface of the collector and were sampled at 10-s intervals with 1 min averages being
recorded on a CR-1000 data logger (Make: Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT). To understand
temperature variations on the absorber plate along its width, the thermocouples were attached
using sheet metal screws in the valley of the corrugation, on the ridge, and on the top surface,
on the left, middle and right region of the plate. An incident radiation sensor was also mounted
at the center of the collector plate via mounting screws. Care was taken to obtain the same
angle for the radiation sensor as the absorber surface. The radiation sensor sampled radiation
data at 10-s intervals with measurements being recorded every minute on a HOBO data logger
(Make: Onset Computer Corp., Bourne, MA; Model: H21). Air was pulled through the TSC
using a variable speed 0.15-m dia. 48V DC fan that provided an airflow rate of 0.133 m3/s at
0 Pa static pressure (Make: Pabst, Model: 6424H). The actual airflow rate was 0.1 m3/s due to
90 Pa pressure drop resulting in a suction velocity of 0.044 m/s (airflow rate divided by the
collector area). The TSC was deployed behind Weaver Labs (North Carolina State University)
for security and ease of access; the site received unobstructed solar radiation beginning
13
2.1.2 One Stage vs. Two Stage
In this study, ambient and outlet temperatures were monitored using Maxim DS18B20
temperature sensors (Accuracy: 0.5 C). The sensors were connected to a wireless transmitter
data to the base station (Manufacturer: Raspberry Pi Foundation, Make: Raspberry Pi 2.0)
every 5 minutes. Transmitted data was stored locally on the base station and downloaded
periodically. The ambient air temperature sensor was housed inside a radiation shield to
minimize radiation effects. A solar radiation sensor (Make: Apogee Model: SP-230, Accuracy:
5%) was mounted at the center of the collector plate. The radiation sensor transmitted
radiation data to the previously described base station every 5 minutes. The radiation sensor
Air was pulled through the TSC using a variable speed 0.15-m dia. DC fan (Make: NMB,
Model: R150) that provided an airflow rates of 0.053 m3/s or a suction velocity of 0.024 m/s
for both stages. Kutscher (1994) indicated that a suction velocity of more than 0.02 m/s would
greatly reduce convective and radiative losses in the one stage system, and thereby reduce the
benefit gained by a two stage TSC. Therefore, it was expected that at a suction velocity of
0.024 m/s would result in lower convective and radiative losses. The test was conducted at the
Poultry Engineering Complex in the Lake Wheeler Roads Field Laboratory. One stage testing
was performed for 34 d (3/23/2016-3/29/2016, 4/6/2016-4/30/2016) while the two stage testing
was performed for 7 d (3/30/2016-4/5/2016). Wind speed data was obtained from the NC
14
The one and two stage TSCs were compared for differences in efficiency, temperature rise,
power supplied and energy extracted compared to energy available. For comparing the one and
two stage TSCs, two days were selected, one day each for each type of TSC, that had similar
incident radiation (IR < 5%) and similar wind speeds to prevent confounding. Power (kW)
= , (1)
3
Where is the volumetric flow rate through the TSC ( ) , , is the specific heat of
the air( ), is the density of air( 3 ) and is the temperature gain across the collector
plate. Energy available to the collector and energy extracted by the TSC was calculated as:
= (2)
And
= (3)
where is described in eq.(1), is the area of the collector surface, is incident radiation
(2 ), and is the time of operation (s). Efficiency was calculated as:
= (4)
Overall energy available and energy extracted was calculated by summing terms for each hour.
Coefficient of performance (COP) was calculated for the one and two stage systems to measure
operating cost:
= (5)
15
Where Ps is described in equation (1), and Pfan is the power (W) consumed by the fan as shown
To store excess heat during daytime there was need to develop and test a heat exchanger
(HX). The first step in the design of an HX was selection of the PCM for storing solar heat.
Factors considered in the selection of the PCM were activation temperature, latent heat storage
capacity, cost, geometry, form of packaging, and number of cycles before degradation. This
lead to the decision to use a proprietary calcium chloride hexahydrate salt solution (plus other
additives) produced by RGEES LLC. The two PCM forms selected for this study were PCM-
HS29P (activation temperature: 29 C; latent heat capacity: 190 kJ/kg) and PCM-HS22P
(activation temperature: 22 C; latent heat capacity: 185 kJ/kg) (PCM-HS22P Product Data
Sheet). Selection of two PCM forms with two activation temperatures allowed for greater
storage of solar heat over a wider range of operating conditions than a single activation
temperature. Other reasons for selection of these PCM forms were their high specific gravities
(1.54 to 1.55) and their availability as bricks, allowing for a more compact design.
Two 120-L commercial coolers, connected in series, were used to house the PCM bricks,
the first one for the PCM-HS29P and the other for the PCM-HS22P. Each brick was a
polypropylene slab 3.5 cm thick, 24.5 cm wide, and 49.5 cm long, containing 5 kg of PCM.
Assuming that air coming out of the TSC would be higher than 29 C, PCM-HS29P was first
exposed to the heated air. The coolers were modified with air inlets and outlets, as shown in
Fig. 2.2 (a). Air exiting the outlet would be directed into a ventilated space. The PCM bricks
16
were stacked inside the coolers and spacers (wood dowels) were used to maintain a uniform
gap of ~6.35 mm between the PCM bricks (Fig. 2.2 (a)). Insulation was added on the sides to
ensure that all air flow occurred between the PCM bricks (Fig. 2.2b). Air filter fabric was
placed at the start and end of the PCM stacks to act as columnators, to ensure uniform flow
Fig. 2.2 Heat exchanger shown as a) top view and b) side view. Gaps within the stacked
PCM bricks were for airflow. c) diagram of PCM system with locations of measured
temperatures.
17
The heat exchanger was evaluated based on flow rate, with focus on energy extracted
and energy stored by individual heat exchangers as well as residual energy in the airstream,
and COP (eq. (5)). Four nominal airflow rates (0.033, 0.045, 0.053, and 0.057 m3/s) for heat
storage were evaluated; their concomitant heat extraction airflow rates were slightly higher, as
presented in the Results and Discussion because bypassing the TSC to pull fresh air slightly
reduced pressure drop in the system. Energy stored and energy extracted were calculated with
the same equation, with the storage period being defined as 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM and the
/ = , (6)
Where , , and were described previously and where is the volumetric flow rate
3
through the heat exchanger ( ), and is the temperature difference across the heat
exchanger (C). In the case of the first and second heat exchanger, the T terms are defined
as:
1 = 1 2 (7)
2 = 2 3 (8)
Where 1 , 2 and 3 are described in Fig. 2.1 (c). For the overall system is defined as:
= 1 3 (9)
Where 1 and 3 are described previously. Residual energy in the outgoing airstream was
calculated as:
= , (3 ) (10)
18
Where , , , , and where described previously and is the ambient air
temperature (C). It may be noted that is useful since it can provide heating during
daytime, if needed.
The heat storage capacity of the PCM vs the amount of energy stored and extracted was also
Where is the energy stored in the system as described in eq.(6) (), and is the total
Lastly, propane displacement was considered to determine how much propane could
Where is the energy extracted from the system as described in eq. (6) (), is the
25.3
residual energy described in eq. (10)() and is the energy value ( )of propane.
19
2.3 Results and Discussion
Temperatures at different points in the one stage TSC, averaged from 9:00 AM to 5:00
PM for one day are shown in Table 2.1. When the outputs of the sensors in the three locations
(top, ridge, and valley) are averaged for each region (left, middle, or right), right-side region
was cooler by 2 C than the middle and left regions, which had very similar temperatures, i.e.,
within the accuracy (1 C) of the type T thermocouple (Table 2.1). In the two stage collector,
temperatures in all three regions were within the accuracy of the type T thermocouple (Table
2.1). In the one stage TSC, the right-side region ran cooler because the TSC faced southeast
and the right side probably received less sunshine, but it is unclear why the two stage TSC had
similar temperature across the width of the collector though the difference in the tracks of the
20
Table 2.1 Average1 values over the course of the monitored day for each location on the
corrugated collector plate as well as temperatures at the outlet (Tout) and ambient (Tamb).
Temperature (C)
Collector TL,V TM,V TR,V TL,R TM,R TR,R TL,T TM,T TR,T Tout Tamb
Type
One 28.6 28.5 26.5 26.9 26.0 25.8 26.7 28.5 23.8 25.2 14.2
Stage
Two 26.7 27.2 26.5 26.6 24.1 26.7 27.6 26.8 27.0 22.5 5.5
Stage
1
Average based on 240 measured values.
When the temperatures in the same location (say, top) are averaged for the three
regions, in the one stage TSC, the valley was about 1.5 C warmer than the ridge and valley
which were comparable (Table 2.1, Fig. 2.3). Valley temperatures were even higher, by 3-4 C
than the ridge and top during the middle of the day (Fig. 2.3). The consistently higher valley
temperatures might be due to heat transfer to the air not occurring as rapidly at this location as
the other two locations. This is contrary to Li et al. (2013) who suggested that the corrugations
created turbulence on the ridges and valleys (thus increasing heat transfer, and hence cooling),
while largely leaving the top regions unaffected. In this study, the top portions of the plate
experienced the most direct incident radiation yet remained cooler than the ridge or the valley.
This could be due to the sides of the corrugation (ridges) reflecting a portion of the incident
21
radiation into the valley causing the temperature in the valley to increase more than expected,
though this will depend heavily on incident angle. Gawlik and Kutscher (2002) suggested that
separated flow could occur across the top of the corrugation and therefore could greatly
decrease heat transfer. To determine separated flow additional measurements would need to
be taken, but the plate temperatures presented here indicate that separated flow does not occur
at this suction velocity. As expected, outlet temperatures closely tracked the collector
temperature (Table 2.1, Fig. 2.3) but are slightly lower because of heat losses in the plenum.
22
Fig. 2.3 One stage absorber plate variations for TSC operated at suction velocity of 0.044
m/s. Temperatures (n=30) measured on the top, ridge, and valley of the corrugations in a) left
b) middle, and c) right sides of the collector plate. Ambient and outlet temperatures as well
as irradiance data (n=60) are shown in (b). Data was recorded on 12/25/2014. Outlet
temperature was measured in the middle approximately 0.33 m from the back of the collector
surface.
23
In the two stage collector, the ridge was slightly cooler, probably due to lower radiation
receipt, than the valley and the top which had similar temperatures (Table 2.1, Fig. 2.4).
occurring at midday which was unexpected since the valley and top temperatures are similar.
As expected, outlet temperatures closely tracked the collector temperature but were slightly
lower due to energy losses through the plenum (Table 2.1, Fig. 2.4).
24
Fig. 2.4 Two stage absorber plate variations for TSC operated at suction velocity of 0.044
m/s. Temperatures (n=30) measured on the top, ridge, and valley of the corrugations in a) left
b) middle, and c) right sides of the collector plate. Ambient and outlet temperatures as well
as irradiance data (n=60) are shown in (b). Data was recorded on 2/3/2015. Outlet
temperature was measured in the middle, approximately 0.33 m from the back of the
collector surface.
25
In a one stage corrugated TSC, based on its orientation and dimensions, there could be
substantial temperature variations across the width of the collector surface. Variations in
collector surface temperature were lower in a two stage TSC. The one stage corrugated TSC
had higher temperatures in the valleys than in the ridge or top whereas in the two stage TSC,
the ridge ran slightly cooler. Though there could be temperature variations across the width of
the collector surface of a non-corrugated one stage TSC, temperature variations across the
Experimental performance and operating conditions of the one and two stage collector
are compared in Fig. 2.5. The performance of the one stage TSC was evaluated on 12/25/2014
whereas the two stage TSC was evaluated on 2/3/2015 and on both days, solar irradiance were
within 5% but average U for the two stage TSC testing was higher (Fig. 2.5). Suction velocity
for both of those stages was 0.024 m/s. In this study, the one stage collector provided a higher
T (by 2 C), produced 15% more average power, and had 8% higher efficiency than the two
stage collector (Fig 2.5). Further, the one stage system produced 18% more energy than the
two stage TSC (Fig. 2.5 (d)). It should be noted that even when the hourly wind speed was
greater in the one stage system the temperature rise and efficiency was still comparable or
26
Fig. 2.5 Comparison of operating conditions and performance parameters of the one and two
stage TSCs. a) Calculated power output (eq. (3)) and temperature rise in the one stage (P1,
T1) and two stage (P2, T2) collector during daytime. b) Wind speeds and incident radiation
(I) for the one (U1) and two (U2) stage collectors. Hourly incident radiation on both these
days were within 5% of one-another. c) Hourly efficiencies (eq. (4)) of the one and two stage
TSCs. e) Solar energy input (Ea, eq. (2)) and energy output (Eo, eq. (3)) from the one and two
stage collectors. All data points are averages (n=12). Suction velocity was 0.024 m/s. Labels
associated with the Average data points are the average values from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
27
Average COP for the one and two stage systems were 3.7 and 3.2, respectively, and
maximum COP values were 5.7 and 4.7, respectively. It is important to note that the cover of
the two stage TSC in this study did not increase the pressure drop; therefore, the power supplied
to both systems was approximately equal. Differences in cover geometry could potentially
change pressure drop and hence, the two stage COP further. In either case, the consistently
higher COP in the one stage system provides further evidence of the one stage TSCs benefit.
Conserval Engineering reported that their two stage collector performs better than their
one stage collector at lower suction velocities, with higher overall efficiencies (Conserval
Engineering, 20XX). It is important to note that Conserval Engineerings two stage design is
different than the design considered here, with Conservals version designed as a wall based
variant and closer to what Rad and Ameri describe (2016). Compared to the one stage TSC,
the cover in the two stage TSC reduces convective and radiative losses. Kutscher (1994) and
Li et al. (2013) reported that with a high enough suction velocity (Vs > 0.02 m/s), convective
losses became negligible. In this study, efficiency of the two stage collector was almost 10%
lower than the one stage. It is unclear though unlikely that the higher wind speeds on the day
when the two stage TSC was evaluated could have reduced the two stage TSCs performance
by increasing convective losses. In this study, the cover did not provide enough benefit to
28
2.3.2 Heat Exchanger Performance
The heat exchanger was tested under several different flow rates to determine the
effectiveness of the heat exchanger design in storing and releasing energy. The theoretical heat
storage capacity, based solely on latent heat of the 80 kg of PCM in the heat exchanger was 15
MJ or 0.6 L of propane, not including sensible heat storage. Under all test conditions, the heat
exchanger stored at least 88% of its theoretical storage capacity. For three of flow rates tested,
over 24-h periods, the energy stored and extracted were very similar, except for 0.045 m3/s (or
0.050 m3/s for extraction) where storage exceeded extraction by nearly one-thirds (Fig. 2.6).
One possible, major contributor to storage exceeding extraction could have been condensation
during extraction (Fig. 2.6). This observation of excess extracted energy occurred on a few
days (data not shown); here again, evaporation during heat storage of the condensate inside the
heat exchanger was likely the main reason. Extraction was performed overnight when relative
humidity is higher than during storage, likely causing condensation on the interior of the heat
exchanger causing condensation. During storage, when heated (and low RH) air passes through
the exchanger, evaporation of pooled condensate will depress the outlet temperature, and cause
overestimation of storage. Though well-insulated, coolers will lose or gain heat through
conduction, depending on the inside and outside temperatures; this could also contribute to
29
Fig. 2.6 Energy stored (ES, eq. (6)) and energy extracted (Eex, eq. (6)) from the heat
exchanger with ambient temperatures during storage (Ts)and extraction Tex) periods at
different flow rates. For each set of data, first flow rate is the storage flow rate and the second
Temperature changes at various locations in the heat exchanger (Fig. 2.2(c)) are shown
for different flow rates over a 24 h period in Fig. 2.7. The Reynolds numbers in the heat
exchanger for these flow rates ranged from 4300 to 2500 during storage and 4800 to 2900
during extraction. While T1, T2, and T3 generally track Ta; during the storage period, T1 and
T2 run higher, while T3 runs the highest during extraction (Fig. 2.7). The heating effect during
extraction (T3-Ta), both in magnitude and duration, seemed to be the highest at the lowest
30
airflow rate, raising the outlet air temperature by about 5 C for 6-8 h (Fig. 2.6). Higher heat
transfer under a larger flow rate is expected as the heat transfer rate is directly proportional to
mass flow. A similar trend is evident in the extraction period, though the temperature gains are
31
Fig. 2.7 Average hourly temperatures (n=12) for a 24-hour period monitored at different
points in the heat exchanger for different flow rates: a) 0.033 (8:00 AM-5:00 PM) & 0.038
m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00 AM), b) 0.050 m3/s (8:00 AM-5:00 PM) & 0.045 m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00
AM), c) 0.053 (8:00 AM-5:00 PM) & 0.057 m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00 AM) and d) 0.057(8:00
AM-5:00 PM) & 0.063 m3/s (6:00 PM-7:00 AM). Data points are connected only to show
trend.
32
Temperature profiles can be observed in Fig. 2.7 (a) where temperatures are more
uniform during extraction, in both heat exchanger, when the Reynolds number indicates
turbulent flow (Re=4300 storage, 4800 extraction). Based on the temperature profiles, the heat
transfer rate is higher at the lower flow rates. As the flow rate is decreased and the Reynolds
number shifts into the transitional range, the temperature drop during storage (T1-T3) increases
and residual heat (T3-Tamb) decreases. This is due to higher residence times at lower airflow
and therefore, heat transfer is increased accordingly. For typical applications, the higher flow
rates may be desirable as this residual heat could still be utilized for supplemental heating.
When only storage is required, flow rate could be deceased to increase storage rates, and when
residual (daytime) heating is needed, the flow rate can be increased. This model could work
well in typical HVAC systems where there is intermittent need for supplemental heat. For
extraction, it is best to obtain the largest temperature gain (T3-T1) because faster extraction
leads to lower losses due to conduction. It is important to note that sharp changes in
temperature during storage or extraction were not observed. This could possibly be due to
uneven heating of the PCM material causing individual bricks to be activated and deactivated
at different times.
The first heat exchanger (HX1) stored and extracted less energy than the second heat
exchanger except at the highest airflow rate (Fig 2.8). The second heat exchanger consistently
stored more energy than the first, despite the lower storage capacity (185 kJ/kg vs 190 kJ/kg
respectively). At the highest flow rate, T1 was 10 C higher (also due to higher Tamb) than T1
at the other flow rates, which were more similar to one-another (Fig. 2.7); so, a larger fraction
of the total energy received was lost as residual energy than under the lower flow rate
33
conditions. As mentioned previously, lower flow rates were in the transitional range (2100 <
Re < 4000). Turbulent flow led to a higher outlet temperature (Fig. 2.7). This difference is
more noticeable in Fig. 2.8, where the residual energy in the airstream increases steadily as the
flow rate increases. Despite more residual energy under the higher flow rates, all flow rates
Fig. 2.8 Energy stored and extracted in heat exchanger with phase change material at air flow
rates of a) 0.033 (Storage) & 0.038 (Extraction) m3/s, b) 0.045 (Storage) & 0.050
(Extraction) m3/s c) 0.053 (Storage) & 0.057 (Extraction) m3/s and d) 0.057 (Storage) &
0.063 (Extraction) m3/s. HX1 represents PCM with an activation temperature of 29 C, HX2
represents PCM with an activation temperature of 22 C, and Res represents the residual
34
To understand the performance of the heat exchanger and the practicality of utilizing
PCM for storing solar heat, the entire system was monitored for 7 consecutive days (Fig. 2.9)
with flow rate being kept constant (0.057 m3/s for storage, 0.063 m3/s for extraction). Energy
stored and extracted is tied closely to the T1 during the day, where a higher temperature leads
to better storage and consequently more energy extracted. This is most evident during day 2,
where the lower daytime T1 leads to greatly decreased storage and extraction (Fig. 2.9 (a)). In
the later part of the week (Days 6, 7) the energy released lags the energy stored considerably
with the difference is storage vs released capacity during this period 20-30% (Fig. 2.9 (b)).
This was likely due to condensation in the coolers during nighttime reducing energy extracted;
evaporation of the condensate the next day would also reduce the energy stored. Of course,
conductive losses from the coolers during the operation as well as during the 2 h the system
35
Fig. 2.9 Heat exchanger performance over 7 consecutive days with a) energy stored (Es, eq.
(6)), extracted (Eex, eq. (6)), residual energy (Res, eq. (10)) and incoming temperature (T1, Ts
for storage, Tex for extraction), b) percent of capacity stored and release for each day and c)
propane displaced for each day, including residual heat in the airstream.
Residual energy is considerable during every day of the week, even exceeding energy
extracted on Day 7. This lends credence to the idea that this system could effectively be utilized
to provide auxiliary heating even during periods of storage. Potential propane displaced by the
36
TSC-heat exchanger system over the week was substantial with a total of 2.6 L from heat
extracted after sundown and 2.4 L from residual heat (Fig. 2.9 (c)), or 0.033 L/kg PCM-wk.
Accounting for only heat extracted and extrapolating over an entire 12-week heating season,
this amounts to 32 L of propane for this system or 14.2 L/m2 of collector surface area. When
the residual and extracted energies are added, 26.7 L/m2 would be displaced, much higher than
3.2 L/m2 collector surface area reported by Love et al. (2014) where the authors did not store
heat. Including the power consumed by the damper (6.5 W), average COP over the entire week
was 1.6, a significant reduction from the values of more than 6 seen for the one stage TSC
alone. This is due to increased operation time of fan; the storage extraction cycle results in
Overall, use of the heat exchanger greatly increased the ability to store solar heat over
the TSC only. High moisture content of the incoming air may affect storage and extraction of
energy. Turbulent flow provided more uniform and rapid heat transfer and higher residual
energy while maintaining high energy storage. Performance of the PCM heat exchanger could
likely be improved by reducing the moisture content of incoming overnight air. Energy transfer
is a function of both the mass flow and temperature rise; therefore, the optimal system can be
found by finding the correct balance between the two. In this study, different wind speed on
37
2.4 Conclusions
A combined TSC-heat exchanger system was tested and evaluated for performance.
Temperature variations across the TSC plate (Left, Middle, Right), at various locations on the
corrugation (Top, Ridge, and Valley) were investigated. One and two stage collectors were
also compared for T, power supplied, and efficiency. The heat exchanger consisted of two
capacity of 15 MJ; these were evaluated for performance under different flow rates. Focus was
placed on stored, extracted and residual energy in each heat exchanger as well as performance
over an entire week. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
A corrugated one stage TSC showed substantial variation in temperature, with the
valley temperatures consistently higher than the top and ridge at a suction velocity of
0.044 m/s.
At suction velocity of 0.024 m/s, the one stage TSC performed consistently better
than the two stage TSC, with higher power supplied, efficiency, T and COP.
The heat exchanger stored at least 88% of its theoretical heat storage capacity and
Turbulent flow rate through the heat exchanger increased residual energy in the
The PCM-based heat exchanger stored propane equal to 1.2 L/m2 of collector surface
38
Future studies should investigate on the economics of integrating phase change materials
considered.
39
2.5 References
Bhagat, K. and Saha, S. K. 2016. "Numerical Analysis of Latent Heat Thermal Energy
Storage using Encapsulated Phase Change Material for Solar Thermal Power
Bouhssine, Z., Najam, M., and El Alami, M. 2016. "Phase Change Material for Solar
Charvat, P., Ostry, M., Mauder, T., and Klimes, L. 2012. "A Solar Air Collector with
Integrated Latent Heat Thermal Storage." EPJ Web of Conferences (25): p.5.
doi:10.1051/epjconf/20122501028.
Collier, R. K. and Arnold, F. H. 1980. "Comparison of Transpired Beds for Solar Collector
DeWinter, F. 1990. Solar Collectors, Energy Storage, and Materials, edited by Francis
El Qarnia, H. 2009. "Numerical Analysis of a Coupled Solar Collector Latent Heat Storage
Unit using various Phase Change Materials for Heating the Water." Energy Conversion
doi://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.09.038.
40
Gawlik, K. M. and Kutscher. C.F. 2002. "Wind Heat Loss from Corrugated, Transpired Solar
doi:10.1115/1.1487886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1487886.
Gawlik, K., Christensen C., and Kutscher, C.F. 2005. "A Numerical and Experimental
Incropera, F. P. 2007. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer / Frank P. Incropera ... Et
Jain, D. and Tewari, P. 2015. "Performance of Indirect through Pass Natural Convective
Solar Crop Dryer with Phase Change Thermal Energy Storage." Renewable Energy 80:
244-250. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.02.012.
Joseph, A., Kabbara, M., Groulx, D., Allred, P., and White. 2016, M.A. "Characterization
Kalogirou, S. A. 2004. "Solar Thermal Collectors and Applications." Progress in Energy and
41
Kapsalis, V. and Karamanis, D. 2016. "Solar Thermal Energy Storage and Heat Pumps with
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.01.071.
Kenisarin, M. and Mahkamov, K. 2007. "Solar Energy Storage using Phase Change
doi://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1016/j.rser.2006.05.005.
Krkl, A., Bilgin, S., and zkan, B. 2003. "A Study on the Solar Energy Storing Rock-Bed
Heating." Assoc of Energy Eng/Et Al 19th World Energy Eng Cong (Energy Business
Mahfuz, M. H., Anisur, M. R. , Kibria, M. A., Saidur, R., and Metselaar, I. H. S. C. 2014.
Rad, H. M., and Ameri, M. 2016. "Energy and Exergy Study of Unglazed Transpired
"PCM-HS22P Product Data Sheet." RGEES Inc. Products. Accessed December 1, 2014.
http://www.rgees.com/documents/aug_2013/savENRG%20PCM-HS22P.pdf.
42
"Solar Air Heating Efficiency Versus Temperature Rise." Conserval Engineering. Accessed
heating-efficiency-vs-temperature-rise.php.
Sharma, A., Tyagi, V. V. , Chen, C. R. and Buddhi, D. 2009a. "Review on Thermal Energy
Storage with Phase Change Materials and Applications." Renewable and Sustainable
Shringi, V., Kothari, S., and Panwar, N. L. 2014. "Experimental Investigation of Drying of
Garlic Clove in Solar Dryer using Phase Change Material as Energy Storage." Journal of
Shukla, Anant, Buddhi, D., and Sawhney, R. L. 2009. "Solar Water Heaters with Phase
Singh, H., Saini, J. S., and Saini, R. P. 2010. "A Review on Packed Bed Solar Energy
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.022.
Su, W., Darkwa, J., and Kokogiannakis, G. 2017. "Development of Microencapsulated Phase
Change Material for Solar Thermal Energy Storage." Applied Thermal Engineering 112:
1205-1212. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.11.009.
43
Xu, Ben, Li, P., and Chan, C. 2015. "Application of Phase Change Materials for Thermal
Xue, H. S. 2016. "Experimental Investigation of a Domestic Solar Water Heater with Solar
Yang, Y., Ye, X., Luo, J., Song, G., Liu, Y., and Tang, G. 2015. "Polymethyl Methacrylate
Based Phase Change Microencapsulation for Solar Energy Storage with Silicon
Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Jiao, H., Wang, W., Shao, Z., Qi, D., and Wang, R. 2016. Thermal
doi://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.357.
Zhou, Z., Zhang, Z., Zhang, L., Zuo, J., and Huang, K. 2015. "Phase Change Materials for
44
3. Modeling of One and Two Stage Transpired Solar Collectors
Abstract
Transpired solar collectors (TSCs) provide high thermal efficiency for
relatively low input costs. One and two stage systems are both commercially available, but
there is limited information on the relative advantages of a two stage system. In this study, the
performance of a stand-alone, tilted, convertible one and two stage TSC was modeled and
validated with field data. Modeling was performed using heat balance with modifications to
include conduction through the plenum and inclusion of convective losses from the TSC
surface. Numerical solutions were obtained with Runge-Kutta methods, eliminating the
uncertainty associated with use of the log mean temperature difference estimation previously
required. The model was able to predict temperature rise in both the one and two stage systems,
though deviations occurred during the midday hours, likely due to overprediction of radiative
or convective loses. Underpredictions of temperature rise in the one stage system was a
maximum of 2 C under low wind conditions, with a relative error of 24%. The two stage TSC
model was more accurate, with underpredictions of less than 0.5 C or 0.4% relative error
during high wind conditions. Convective loss proved to be a significant component of the one
and two stage heat loss, though the two stage losses were reduced and one stage convection
was overestimated. Modeled efficiencies and heat exchange effectiveness were similar to
literature values. Sensitivity analyses are required and more research is needed on the impact
of corrugations.
Keywords: Ventilation heating, efficiency, Runge-Kutta, glazed TSC, unglazed TSC, UTC
45
3.1 Introduction
A transpired solar collector (TSC) is a low-cost method to capture solar energy as heat,
to substantially reduce costs in crop drying and livestock and residential heating. When
lower price point (Li et al. 2014). A TSC consists of a dark perforated material exposed to solar
radiation, through which air is drawn for either ventilation preheating or for integration with
heat pump systems. Temperature rises of 10-27 C have been measured (Gawlik et al. 2005),
showing the potential for a wide array of applications. TSCs are commercially available as one
and two stage systems. In a one stage system, the absorber plate is exposed directly to the
environment, and thus, subject to convective (wind effects) and radiative losses; its
performance can also be affected by the accumulation of dust on the plate surface. In a two
stage system, the absorber plate is augmented with a transparent (glazed) cover, designed to
reduce convective and radiative losses. Two stage collectors are substantially more expensive,
with the average cost 40% greater than a one stage system. It is therefore important to be able
A conventional TSC is generally installed as a faade over a wall. While this type of
TSC has been proven effective, there are benefits to using a collector separated from the
building (Love et al. 2014), including selecting the optimum solar incident angle and direction,
and simpler integration with the HVAC system. Despite these benefits, modeling has focused
on wall-based TSCs (Leon and Kumar 2007, Zheng et al. 2016, Rad and Ameri 2016).
Compared to faade type TSCs, standalone collectors have different environmental losses, due
to full exposure of the back plate, and differences in incident radiation receipt due to more
46
optimum incident angle. In the case of two stage collectors this impact can be very substantial
emphasis being placed on the effect of crosswind, porosity, hole configuration of the absorber
plate, and plate corrugations (Kutscher 1993, Li et al. 2014, Leon and Kumar 2007, Kutscher
1994). Much of the previous research was focused on the one stage collector, due to its low
cost, and because its performance is largely unaffected by wind effects at high suction
velocities, i.e. the ratio of airflow rate to the area of the collector (Kutscher 1994). There have
been a few studies to evaluate the two stage TSC (Zheng et al. 2016, Rad and Ameri 2016).
Both, Zheng et al. (2016) and Rad and Ameri (2016) evaluated faade type two stage TSCs.
Hence, there is need to evaluate standalone designs, as a second stage has been previously
Despite interest in TSCs and modeling of one and two stage systems, there is still a
significant gap in the literature regarding the direct advantages of a practical two stage collector
system when compared to the less expensive one stage system as no studies have investigated
both designs simultaneously. Further, published research on TSC modeling has focused on the
impact of collector parameters under lab conditions with the performance under natural
function of solar irradiance, ambient temperature, and wind speed, it is important to simulate
the simultaneous impact of those parameters under natural conditions. Such simulations will
provide more meaningful performance data and highlight areas of potential improvement.
47
1. To develop time-varying one and two stage models for standalone TSCs
The models allowed comparison of energy losses and TSC efficiencies from the one and two
stage TSCs, and ultimately determination of the cost-effectiveness of the two stage TSC.
To simulate air heating in one and two stage TSCs, a time variant heat balance model
was developed as shown in Fig. 3.1. Input data included incident radiation (IR), wind speed
(U), and ambient temperature (Tamb) for days of differing average wind speeds. Input data was
separated into integration periods by measurement interval and an interpolation matrix was
created for each time step. Time steps for integration were determined by the ode solver based
upon the rate of change of solved terms, with rapid changes leading to smaller time steps and
gradual changes leading to larger ones. The governing equations (sections 2.3, 2.4) for each
integration period were numerically integrated using MATLABs ode45 solver (Shampine and
Reichelt 1997) to calculate change in temperature over time, with initial temperature values
set as the previous periods final values. Initial temperature values for the start of the simulation
48
Fig. 3.1 Flow of logic for the one- and two stage TSC models.
49
3.2.2 Collector geometry
The configurations of the one and two stage TSC standalone systems are illustrated in
Fig. 3.2. The collector consisted of a black (absorptivity = 0.94), perforated (0.8% porosity
with holes shaped like segments of a circle), and corrugated plate inclined at 50 to the
horizontal with the two stage variant containing a transparent acrylic cover attached
approximately 0.051 m above the surface of the collector plate. The collector was placed
facing SSE in the northern hemisphere to maximize incident radiation receipt. The collector
plenum wall material was 0.02 m polyurethane foam with powder-coated aluminum sheet on
both sides with a thermal resistance of ~0.84 m2K/W. Air was moved through the system by a
variable speed tubeaxial fan. Details regarding the TSC are provided in Sec. 3.2.5.
50
Fig. 3.2 Diagram of the a) one stage and b) two stage collector model where , is the
incident radiation, , is the radiative heat loss from the collector plate to the
surroundings, , is the radiative heat loss from the underside of the collector plate to the
back plate, , is convective heat loss from the absorber plate to the surroundings, , is
the convective heat transfer from the absorber plate to the plenum air, , is the convective heat
transfer from the plenum to the back plate, , is the heat transfer out of the plenum due to mass
flow, , () is the energy lost through the back plate due to conduction, ,,, is the
convective heat exchange from the absorber plate to the absorber plenum, , is the energy out of
the absorber plenum due to mass flow, , is the incident radiation on the cover, , is the
radiative heat transfer between the absorber plate and the cover, ,, is the radiative losses
from the cover to the surroundings, ,, is the convective heat loss from the cover to the
surroundings, and ,,, is the convective heat loss from the cover to the absorber plenum.
The thicknesses of the arrows are not indicative of the magnitudes of the heat loss and gain terms.
51
All the heat gain and loss terms show in Fig. 3.2 are in watts. Based on Fig. 3.2 (a),
heat balance equations, for the one stage TSC, the collector (eq. (1) ), plenum air (eq. (2)), and
back plate (eq. (3)) of the one stage TSC were written as:
= , , , , , (1)
, = , , , (2)
= , + , , (3)
Where (), , (), and () are the energy changes for the collector,
is the radiative heat loss from the collector plate to the surroundings, , is the radiative
heat loss from the collector plate to the back plate, , () is convective heat loss from
the absorber plate to the surroundings, , () is the convective heat transfer from the
absorber plate to the plenum air, , () is the convective heat transfer from the plenum
air to the back plate, , () is the heat transfer out of the plenum due to mass flow, and
, () is the energy lost through the back plate due to conduction. In equations (1)
through (3) the mathematical expressions for the heat gain and loss terms are given in Sec.
3.2.3 but the heat storage equations for the one stage TSC collector, plenum air, and back plate
(4)
= ,
, (5)
, = ,
52
(6)
= ,
In equations, (4)-(6), mcol is the mass of the collector (kg), Cp,col is the specific heat of
kJ
the absorber plate (kg K), Tcol is the absorber plate temperature (K), Vpl is the volume of the
plenum (m3), is the density of air (3 ), , is the specific heat of air ( ), , is the
temperature of the air in the plenum (K), is the mass of the back plate (kg), , is the
specific heat of the back plate ( ) and is the temperature of the back plate (K). Constant
Similarly, Fig. 3.2 (b) shows the heat balance for the two stage TSC yielding the
corresponding equations:
= , , , , ,,, (7)
, = , + , , , (8)
= , + , , (9)
= , + , ,, ,, ,,, (10)
Where (), , (), (), , and , are the energy changes for
the collector, plenum air, back plate, cover, and absorber plenum respectively and where
,,, (W) is the convective heat transfer from the absorber plate to the absorber
53
plenum, , is the energy out of the absorber plenum due to mass flow (W), , is
the incident radiation on the cover (W), , is the radiative heat transfer between the
absorber plate and the cover (W), ,, is the radiative losses from the cover to the
surroundings (W), ,, is the convective heat loss from the cover to the surroundings
(W), and ,,, is the convective heat loss from the cover to the absorber plenum (W).
Equations for heat storage in the plenum air, back plate, and collector remain the same as in
the one stage TSC model (equations (4)-(6)). Storage in the absorber cover and absorber
(12)
= ,
, (13)
, = , ,
Where is the mass of the cover (kg), , is the specific heat of the cover ( ),
is the temperature of the cover (K), , is the volume of the absorber plenum (m3), is
the density of air (3 ), , is the specific heat of air ( ) and , is the temperature of
temperature of the collector (eq. (14)), plenum air (eq. (15)), and back plate (eq. (16)) over
, , , , , (14)
=
,
54
, , , (15)
=
,
, +, , (16)
=
,
In eq. (1), incident radiation on the collector (W) was calculated as:
, = (17)
In eq. (17), is the absorptivity of the collector surface and Acol is the area (m2) of the
absorber plate minus the perforations. In eq. (1) and (14), convective heat transfer from the
collector plate to the air passing through it (W) was calculated as:
, = ,, ( ) (18)
W
In eq. (18), the convective heat transfer coefficient (hconv,col,pl, ) for TSC was
m2 K
calculated according to the relationship found by Gawilk and Kutscher (2002) for a corrugated
surface:
(19)
,, =
(21)
=
Where Nu is Nusselts number (eq. (20)), K is the coefficient of thermal conductivity of air
(2 ), is the hole velocity ( ), is the diameter of the hole (m), P is the pitch of the hole
(m), is the porosity, is the velocity of the wind ( ), is the amplitude of the
corrugation, is the pitch of the corrugation, ReD is Reynolds number through the hole,
55
is the density of air (3 ), is the dynamic viscosity of air ( ) and is the suction velocity
( ). The hole velocity is calculated by dividing the suction velocity ( ) by .
In eq. (1), convective heat loss from the collector to the surroundings due to wind (W) was
calculated as:
,, = ,, ( ) (22)
Where Tamb is the ambient temperature (K) and hconv,col,sur, the convective heat transfer
coefficient from the collector to the surroundings (Kutscher 1994) was calculated as:
, (23)
,, =
0.5
, = 0.664, Pr 0.33 (24)
(25)
, =
,
Where Hc is the height of the collector, Pr is the Prandtl number of air ( ) and K, , and
are as described previously. Height of the collector (Hc) was used as the characteristic length
because losses due to wind are assumed to mostly occur in the vertical direction due to
momentum.
In eq. (1), radiative heat loss from the collector plate to the surroundings (W) was
calculated as:
4 4 (26)
, = ( )
Where is the emissivity of the collector, Fcs is sky view factor, is the Stefan-Boltzman
constant and Tsky is the sky temperature (K) calculated as (Leon and Kumar, 2007):
0.25
= (27)
56
In eq. (27), sky is the emissivity of the sky which was assumed to be 0.75. Whereas
sky depends on cloud cover and emissivity (Leon and Kumar, 2007), because the model was
only very slightly sensitive to sky, a single value was used in the model. In eq.(1), radiative
heat transfer between the underside of the collector plate and the back plate (Qrad,bp, W) was
calculated as:
4 4 (28)
( )
, = 1 1
+ 1
,
Where , is the emissivity of the inner surface of the collector plate, is the emissivity
In eq. (1), convective heat transfer from the plenum air to the back plate (W) was calculated
as:
, = , ( ) (29)
Where Apl is the area of the TSC plenum and hconv,bp, was the convective heat transfer
coefficient from the plenum air to the back plate. Since Qconv,bp was assumed to occur by
convection with the assumption that the plenum would act as a large duct, the relationship
0.5 0.33
= 0.664 Pr (31)
(32)
=
57
Where is velocity through the plenum, is the depth of the plenum, and , K, Pr, and
Heat loss through the back plate of the collector (eq. (9)) was assumed to be governed
by conduction only. While energy passing through the back plate wall will be lost through
convection and radiation, due to uncertainty (e.g., ground temperature, surface layer thickness
on the external surface) associated with modeling these loss mechanisms, it was assumed that
conduction loss through the back plate wall controlled heat loss. Therefore,
(33)
, = ( )
2
Where R (m K/W) is the thermal resistivity of the back-plate material.
Heat energy in the air exiting the plenum (eq.(8)) was calculated as:
, = ( ) (34)
Therefore, useful energy extracted from the system is given by:
= ( ) (35)
Overall loss from the system was calculated as:
= , + , + , (36)
To determine the outlet air temperature, an additional differential equation (eq. (37))
was developed to constrain the system. Given that we have the equation for calculating the
heat gain in the plenum, and we know the relationship for overall useful heat gained, the
relative change (numerically) between these two is the difference in the temperature at the
outlet, or:
, , (37)
=
,
58
3.2.4 Two stage TSC governing equations
To simulate two stage TSC, the governing equations for the one stage TSC model (Sec.
3.2.3) hold with slight modifications to the collector plate heat balance (eq. (7)) and additional
energy equations covering the air in the absorber plenum (eq. (11) and (39)) and the transparent
cover (eq. (10)). Expressing these equations as ODEs for Matlab integration yields:
Collector Cover:
, +, ,, ,, ,,. (38)
=
,
Absorber Plenum:
, , , , ,,, (40)
=
,
Where is the temperature of the cover, , is the temperature of the absorber plenum,
is the mass of the cover, , is the specific heat of the cover, , is the velocity
In eq. (40), for convective heat transfer from the collector plate to the air, the
experimental relationship that does not include wind effects (Kutscher 1994) was combined
Incident radiation on the collector plate is altered due to the transmissivity of the cover
yielding:
59
, = (42)
Where is the transmissivity and , and where described previously.
Transmissivity of the cover will vary depending on the material chosen, maintenance schedule,
and age.
Though the absorptivity of the cover can be assumed to be minimal, for complete
energy balance, this parameter was included in the overall heat balance. Energy transfer into
, = (43)
Where and are the absorptivity and area of the cover respectively and is incident
radiation (2 ).
There will be convective heat exchange between the cover and the air in the absorbed
60
Where ,K, and were described previously and is the height of the cover (m). In eq.
(45) the heat transfer coefficient is the same as described in eq. (46). In this case, the
characteristic length is given as instead of the traditional hydraulic diameter for internal
flows. This was done because the porous plate is assumed to provide no resistance to flow;
therefore, the convective relationship with the cover will approach that of a flat plate. The
height is utilized because flow enters from the bottom of the collector and moves upward
Absorber plenum velocity is calculated with (volumetric flow through the collector)
(49)
, =
.
Collector long wave radiative losses are reduced by the cover and this is given by:
4 4 (50)
,, = ( )
Where is the emissivity of the cover and , , and are described previously.
Similarly, radiative transfer between the collector plate and the cover is given as:
4 4 )
( (51)
,, = 1 1
+ 1
cover.
Introducing the cover on top of the collector is intended to reduce convective losses
from the absorber plate to the surroundings, compared with the one stage TSC. Convective
,, = ,, ( ) (52)
61
Where , are described previously and where ,, is the flat plate heat
,
,, =
Where and as described previously and with given by:
0.5
, = 0.664, Pr 0.33 (53)
And , given by:
(54)
, =
Where , , , Pr, and are described previously.
Overall loss from the system in the two stage case was altered to incorporate losses
= ,, + ,, + , (55)
Comparison data for validation of the model came from a system donated by ATAS
International Inc. The collector parameters utilized in the model are shown in Table 3.1.
62
Table 3.2 Continued
Emissivity of the backplate, bp 0.80 - ATAS International
Emissivity of the collector col 0.88 - ATAS International
Emissivity of collector inner col,in 0.85 - ATAS International
surface
Height of the collector plate Hc 0.77 M Measured
Width of the collector plate W 2.93 M Measured
Clear Sky emissivity sky 0.75 - This Study
Backplate thermal Rbp 0.836 m2K/W Estimated
insulation
Porosity of the plate 0.008 - ATAS International
Hole to hole pitch P 0.024 m Measured
Diameter of the hole Dh 0.00066 m Measured
Sky View Factor Fcs 1.0 - Estimated
Depth of the collector Dp 0.33 m Measured
plenum
Suction velocity Vs 0.021 m/s Calculated
Mass of collector mcol 20.3 kg Estimated
Mass of backplate mbp 48.9 kg Estimated
Specific heat of air Cp,air 1.004 KJ/kgK Incopera et al.
(1990)
Specific heat of backplate Cp,bp 1.100 KJ/kgK Incopera et al.
(1990)
Specific heat of collector Cp,col 0.91 KJ/kgK Incopera et al.
(1990)
Amplitude of the Aco 0.032 m ATAS International
corrugations
Pitch of the corrugations Pco 0.20 m ATAS International
63
Table 3.1 Continued
Stefan-Boltzmann Constant 5.607108 W/m2K4
Two Stage Parameters
Cover emissivity cov 0.94 - Arkema Inc.
Absorptivity of the cover cov 0.005 - Arkema Inc.
Suction velocity Vs 0.02 m/s Calculated
Cover transmissivity cov 0.85 - Arkema Inc.
Depth of the absorber Dp1 0.051 m Measured
plenum
Mass of cover mcov 4.2 Kg Calculated
Specific heat of cover Cp,cov 1.47 KJ/kgK Arkema Inc.
The TSC unit is shown in Fig. 3.3. ATAS International converted a one stage TSC into
a two stage system by installing a glazing over the cover; however, the two stage TSC was not
commercialized because it was not cost-competitive with the one stage TSC (P. Reinhart,
stage.php) which is more complex than the experimental ATAS design (Fig. 3.3).
64
Fig. 3.3 Experimental collector donated by ATAS International in the two stage
configuration. Reflective material on the bottom portion of the collector was to remove
The collector was operated for approximately 5 weeks in March-April 2016 to ensure
adequate representation of different wind speeds. A summary of the experimental days is given
in Table 3.2. Incident radiation was monitored by a sensor (Make: Apogee Model: SP-230,
Accuracy: 5%) placed normal to the absorber plate and measurements were taken every 5
minutes. Outlet and ambient air temperatures were monitored also at 5 minute increments with
a digital thermometer (Make: Maxim Integrated Model: DS18B20, Accuracy: 0.5 C).
Incident radiation and temperature were recorded on Raspberry Pi data logger. Wind speed
was monitored with hourly averages at 6 m height at a local weather station less than 1 km
from the test site. For the purpose of modeling, wind speed data was interpolated between
65
Table 3.2 Environmental conditions during the one and two stage TSC monitoring periods.
Range (average) of the environmental parameters
Day of Operation IR (W/m2) U1 (m/s) Tamb (C)
effectiveness ( ) and efficiency () were key outputs of interest. was calculated at the
(,, ) (56)
= ( )
Where ,, is the air temperature calculated immediately above the collector surface
calculated from the log mean temperature difference as described by Kutscher (1994):
,,
(57)
,
,, = (1 ) ( ) +
66
Where ,, , , , , , and are described previously and is the mass flow
(58)
=
,
The model was validated based on measured data collected over 3 days. Operating
conditions and day-long model outputs for those 3 days are shown in Table 3.3. The 3 days
cover a range of wind speeds though average IR values were similar (Table 3.3). The measured
temperature rise tracks closely with average wind speed with a decrease from 10.3 C to 6.7
C as average wind speed increases from 2.2 m/s to 6.7 m/s. Simulated T values also decrease
with increasing wind, but the reductions are smaller than the measured values. Kutscher (1994)
reported that convective losses due to wind were greatly reduced at suction velocities as low
as 0.02 m/s. In this study, with a suction velocity of 0.02 m/s, both measured and modeled T
were inversely correlated with wind speed (Table 3.3). When this model was run with the
assumption of no convective losses, the simulated T values were 10-20 C higher than the
measured data (not shown). The simulated and measured data do disagree on the extent of wind
effects however, with the model showing a decrease of 1.5 C in temperature rise whereas the
measured values show a decrease of 3.6 C between DOY 101 and DOY 100, the two days
with the largest difference in wind speeds (Table 3.3). This is likely due to discrepancies
67
between the actual area of the corrugated plate that sees solar radiation and the horizontal
projection utilized in the model. The actual collector plate had corrugations along the
horizontal direction to provide strength which potentially, increased the turbulence of the flow.
68
Table 3.3 Summary values of operating conditions, measured data, and model outputs for one stage TSC model. The suction
Modeled
97 623.5 3.3 9.0 7.3 0.19 57.0 19.2 36.8 0.71 0.31
100 610.2 6.7 6.7 6.4 0.04 55.4 17.1 38.2 0.56 0.28
101 637.8 2.2 10.3 7.9 0.24 57.9 20.8 36.4 0.71 0.32
1
Wind Speed measurements were based upon hourly averages taken at 6 m.
2
Tmod = Tout-Tamb
3
Relative Error: (Tmeas- Tmod)/ Tmeas)
4
Eq. (17)
5
Eq. (35)
6
Eq. (36)
7
Eq. (56)
8
Eq. (58)
69
Heat exchange effectiveness values in the present study are similar to those reported
by others (Kutscher 1994, Leon and Kumar 2007, Gholampour and Ameri 2013). As expected,
HX was much lower on DOY 100 when U was the highest (Table 3.3). Efficiency of the one
stage collector was low on all days but showed little fluctuation though it was lowest on the
day with the highest wind speed (Table 3.3). Efficiencies observed in this study are slightly
higher than those reported by Gholampour and Ameri (2013) in their model where a corrugated
collector exposed to wind speeds of 2-5 m/s showed efficiencies of 35-17% respectively. Li et
al. (2013) previously modeled the performance of a corrugated plate and determined that an
increase in suction velocity was required to accurately apply homogeneous suction theory, with
as much as a 10% difference between a flat plate collector and corrugated collector at a suction
velocity of 0.01 m/s but that an increase in suction velocity to 0.06 m/s reduced the effect to
3%. Though the relationship applied from Gawlik and Kutscher (2002) attempted to address
flow through a corrugated TSC, the results here show a difference of almost 20% in the midday
hours, higher than what is reported by Li et al. (2013) in the lower flow case. Therefore, the
heat transfer coefficient for convective losses on the plate needs to be better characterized for
a corrugated plate.
On all 3 days, measured and simulated T values tracked one-another early in the
morning and late in the afternoon, particularly on DOY 97 and 100, but not at midday, when
IR values were very high (Fig. 3.4). Higher relative error during midday could have been due
to overestimation of modeled convective losses and the overestimation of radiative losses. The
cause for this could have been the location of the wind speed measurements; wind speed was
70
measured at the local weather station at a 6-m height whereas the collector was at ground level.
Since the model did not reduce the wind speed to account for greater surface roughness closer
to the ground, modeled convective losses were higher. However, in the high wind speed case
(Fig 3.4 (b)), this effect was not seen likely because the wind speed direction was more in plane
with the collector surface. Slight difference in the corrugated TSC area vs. the horizontal
projection of the collector could have also led to differences between the measured and
simulated T values.
Fig. 3.4 One stage TSC measured and modeled temperature difference on a) DOY 97 (U =
3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2 m/s).
Overall, modeled T values in this study are lower than those reported in the literature
(e.g., Leon and Kumar 2007). In the present model, the maximum T was 15 C for incident
radiation of 1100 W/m2., whereas Leon and Kumar (2007) modeled T of 25 C for incident
radiation of 900 W/m2. The lower T values reported here are likely due to the incorporation
of convective losses which were not considered by Leon and Kumar (2007). Further, modeled
T values reported here are also lower than measured values reported in other studies (Gawlik
71
et al. 2005) which could be due to the lower suction velocity (Vs = 0.02 m/s) in this study.
Reduced measured and modeled T at higher wind speeds (Fig. 3.4(b)) indicated that
convective losses were correlated with wind speed and were substantial, even at a Vs of 0.02
Ambient temperatures and simulated temperatures for the plate, plenum, back plate,
and outlet are shown in Fig. 3.5. Collector plate and plenum temperatures followed the trends
expected during a typical day, with temperature increasing steadily along with increases in
solar radiation and then falling sharply as incident radiation decreases in the afternoon. Wind
speeds were also evident in component temperatures, as temperatures fluctuate as wind speed
increases, with the greatest fluctuations in temperature being shown at wind speeds of 6.7 m/s.
Back plate temperature exceeded the plenum temperature in the afternoon due the high thermal
insulation of the back plate material. Changes in component temperatures (Fig. 3.5) due to
changes in IR (Fig. 3.4) showed that the model responded rapidly to changes in input
parameters.
72
Fig. 3.5 Simulated plate, plenum, back plate, and outlet temperatures and measured ambient
temperature on a) DOY 97 (U = 3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2
m/s).
Modeled cumulative energy loss components are shown in Fig. 3.6. Radiative losses
dominated in the low wind case, with convective losses being higher at the highest average
wind speed, 6.7 m/s even though IR was slightly higher (Fig. 3.6). High radiative losses were
expected as this component was the dominant force among one stage collector losses (Kutscher
1994, Leon and Kumar 2007). Despite a relatively high Vs of 0.02 m/s, convective losses were
also quite high and were correlated with wind speed (Fig. 3.6). These results are counter to
Kutscher (1994) that convective losses are very small at Vs of 0.02 m/s. Figure 3.6 shows this
assumption to be untrue as the convective losses equal approximately the radiative losses
even in the lowest average wind speed case. Conductive losses through the plenum were quite
low (Fig. 3.6) probably because of the high R value. However, the dimensions of the plenum
may also affect conductive heat loss, as higher velocities through the plenum will increase
73
convection at the wall surface. Further study is needed to determine the optimal plenum
configuration.
Fig. 3.6 One stage TSC modeled cumulative radiative, convective and conductive losses on
a) DOY 97 (U = 3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2 m/s).
Changes in efficiency and heat exchange effectiveness of the one stage TSC are shown
in Fig. 3.7. As reported earlier, average efficiency values were low but the heat exchange
effectiveness values (Table 3.3) were comparable to those in published literature. As expected,
efficiency was low early in the morning, as the plenum heated up, and then increased slowly
during the day (Fig. 3.7). Relatively rapid changes in heat exchange effectiveness before
midday (Fig. 3.7 (a) & (c)) could be due to changes in wind speed. Sharp fluctuations in heat
exchange effectiveness at the end of the day (Fig. 3.7) could be due to the rapid cooling of the
collector (due to low IR) resulting in rapid cooling of the air passing through it. The model
74
Fig. 3.7 One stage modeled overall efficiency and heat exchange ratio on a) DOY 97 (U =
3.3 m/s), b) DOY 100 (U = 6.7 m/s), c) DOY 101 (U = 2.2 m/s).
The model successfully predicted T in a one stage TSC with the prediction improving
with increase in wind speed. Greater differences between measure and model average T
values (Table 3.3) at lower wind speeds were likely due to overestimation of convective losses.
Efficiency of the modeled system is similar to what is reported in the literature (Gholampour
and Ameri 2013, Gawlik and Kutscher 2002), though this model yields temperature predictions
closer to the measured values. Additionally, the other modeled were tested with a controlled
lab environment, whereas this model was based on field data with constantly varying
conditions. The model was tested with only one suction velocity (0.02 m/s) but it proved to be
viable under a wide range of wind speeds. Improvements to this one stage model could be
made by developing a better experimental relationship for convective and radiative heat losses
due to the corrugations similar to what Gawlik and Kutscher (2002) have done for the
75
3.3.2 Two Stage TSC Results
The two stage TSC model shows similar behavior to the one stage model, but difference
in measured and simulated T values were much smaller, with a maximum difference of 1.0
C (Table 3.4) vs. 2.4 C in the one stage model (Table 3.3). Wind speed had a smaller effect
on T than the one stage model due to the addition of the cover (Table 3.4). Overall, measured
and modeled T values were greater in the two stage collector than the one stage collector, but
the difference was minor; however, average IR values were also slightly higher (Tables 3.3 &
3.4) on those days when the two stage TSC was tested.
Zheng et al. (2016) also reported a two stage modeled T of 15 C for solar radiation
of 600 W/m2 and U= 2 m/s. Gao et al. (2014) and Li et al. (2014) reported modeled two stage
T of 12.5 and 12.8 C, respectively, at 600 W/m2 and U=2 m/s. It is important to note that all
of the models mentioned in the literature (Zheng et al. 2016; Gao et al. 2014; Li et al. 2014)
are for wall based variants, instead of one inclined at 50 to the horizontal as in this study.
76
Table 3.4 Summary values of operating conditions, measured data, and model outputs for two stage TSC model. The suction
Modeled
90 712.3 2.7 12.5 11.5 0.09 51.1 23.1 26.1 0.58 0.38
94 665.5 3.5 10.7 11.0 0.02 52.1 24.0 27.1 0.59 0.40
95 650.9 5.5 10.3 10.3 0.004 50.6 22.1 27.2 0.59 0.37
1
Wind Speed measurements were based upon hourly averages taken at 6 m.
2
Tmod = Tout-Tamb
3
Relative Error: |(Tmeas- Tmod)/Tmeas|
4
Eq. (42)
5
Eq. (35)
6
Eq. (55)
7
Eq. (56)
8
Eq. (58)
77
Modeled Quseful and Qloss in the two stage model (Table 3.4) were, respectively, higher
and lower, than the one stage model (Table 3.3) because, as will be discussed later, convective
and radiative losses were reduced by the cover. While values for the one stage model
decreased with increasing wind speed, in the two stage, they seem to be unaffected by wind
speed (Table 3.4), again due to reduced losses. However, because air entering the plenum had
already been preheated in the absorber plenum, averaged over the 3 d, was slightly lower
(Table 3.4) than the corresponding value of the one stage model (Table 3.3). Efficiency of the
two stage model seem to be affected to a lesser degree by wind speed and slightly higher than
the one stage model (Tables 3.3 & 3.4). It is unclear why efficiency was much higher on DOY
94 than the other 2 d (Table 3.4). Efficiency in this model was similar to those reported by
Rad and Ameri (2016) for their two stage collector where they observed 40-43% efficiency for
incident radiation of 400-800 W/m2 though their two stage model was a wall based variant with
no tilt.
Measured and modeled T values are compared in Fig.3.8. As in the one stage model,
at low wind speeds the model underestimates T during the first half of the day (Fig. 3.8(a)).
This issue disappears at higher wind speeds; therefore, the difference might be due to
overestimated radiative or convective losses in the low wind speed case. Since the cover is a
flat plate and convective transfer on a flat plate is well established (Incropera et al. 1990) the
discrepancy might be due to the difference in wind speed and direction at the collector and
wind speed and direction measured at 6 m height. As mentioned in Sec. 3.3.1 wind speed
increases logarithmically with height over a flat surface. This effect could have been
78
compounded by structures around the collector site which could have provided wind shielding
On DOY 90, the model underpredicted T for most of the day and very slightly
overpredicted T for remainder of the day (Fig. 3.8(a)). For the remaining 2 d, relative error
was much smaller though there seemed to be slight phase shift (Fig. 3.8 (b) & (c)). This effect
is likely due to the difference in transmittance brought upon by increased incidence angle in
the afternoon. The collector was facing SSE and therefore in the afternoon hours ( > 2:00 PM)
the cover might have reflected some of the incident radiation via Fresnel reflection, and
therefore the temperature gain will fall off more rapidly. The current model does not include
the Fresnel equations to account for this, but this is an area of improvement. An additional
Fig. 3.8 Two stage TSC modeled temperature rise and measured temperature rise with
5.5 m/s).
79
In the two stage model temperatures of all components track similarly to what is
observed in the one stage model, though the collector plate temperature is 25-30 C higher in
this case (Fig. 3.9). The higher collector plate temperature is indicative of lower convective
and radiative losses from the plate, due to the addition of the cover. Cover temperature trends
closely with outlet temperature, though as average wind speed increases the cover temperature
starts to exceed the outlet. Further, absorber plenum and collector plenum temperature remain
very close in all cases, indicating that the boundary layer is not completely removed from the
collector surface allowing mixing with the absorber plenum air. If the thermal boundary layer
of the collector surface was being adequately removed then the absorber plenum air would be
much closer to the ambient temperature. The mixing shown here further indicates that complete
Fig. 3.9 Simulated plate, plenum, back plate, cover, absorber plenum and outlet temperatures
and measured ambient temperature on a) DOY 90 (U = 2.7 m/s), b) DOY 94 (U = 3.5 m/s),
80
Modeled cumulative energy loss components for the two stage model are shown in Fig.
3.10. The two stage system considerably reduced both convective and radiative losses
compared with one stage model (Fig. 3.6). Convective losses never exceeded radiative losses
in the two stage case, showing that the addition of a glazed cover reduced both convective and
radiative losses. However, convective losses are quite significant, as they follow closely with
conductive loses through the back plate, even exceeding conductive losses during high wind
(U=5.5 m/s) (Fig. 3.10 (c)). For potential improvement, a thin reflective coating could be
applied to the underside of the cover to increase solar transmittance and reduce long wave
Fig. 3.10 Two stage TSC modeled cumulative radiative, convective and conductive losses on
attenuated the impact of varying wind speeds or because the of more uniform flow in the
81
absorber plenum, whereas fluctuations occurred in the one stage case. These results are
expected in the two stage case, as the cover should provide a more uniform flow across the
collector plate leading to more effective heat transfer and less variation due to wind speed.
While the efficiency of the two stage TSC was higher than the one stage TSC, the efficiency
of the two stage TSC tended to increase, linearly after 11:00 am (Fig. 3.11) while that of the
Fig. 3.11 Two stage modeled overall efficiency and heat exchange ratio on a) DOY 90 (U =
Overall the two stage model was effective at predicting T in a two stage TSC at
average wind speeds ranging from 2.7 to 5.5 m/s. Increased differences in measured and
modeled T under lower wind conditions were likely due to overestimation of either radiative
or convective losses. The current model was comparable to others reported in the literature,
despite differences in orientation (standalone vs wall based variants). Though the model was
82
not tested under different suction velocities, the model adequately predicted T over a range
of incident radiation and wind speeds indicating that it would be useful in the design of two
stage TSCs. However, it may be noted that the two stage TSC used to validate the model is an
experimental unit and differs from commercially-available two stage TSCs sold by Conserval
Engineering.
3.4 Conclusions
Modeling of the one and two stage corrugated collector system was performed and
validated. Component temperatures, energy loss terms, efficiency and heat exchange
effectiveness were all modeled at a suction velocity of 0.02 m/s. Wind effects on both the one
and two stage system were considered. The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study:
The one and two stage models adequately represented the behavior of the measured
system, with very good performance in the early morning and late-afternoon hours.
error of 24%) but its accuracy of prediction increased with wind speed (T of 0.3 C,
9%) and its accuracy increased with wind speed (T of 0.1 C, relative error of 0.4 %)
A corrugated, one stage collector with suction velocity of 0.02 m/s maintains a high
83
Component temperatures tracked closely with incident radiation and appeared
reasonable. Both models responded rapidly to changes in input parameters, e.g., solar
Modeled efficiencies and heat exchange effectiveness are similar to what is reported in
The current study only investigated a single suction velocity while it is known that suction
velocity has a major impact on collector performance. Future research should validate this
model under a range of suction velocities. There is also need to improve modeling of
convective and radiative losses as well as the heat transfer coefficient of a corrugated collector.
Further, there is a need to perform a sensitivity analysis on the model parameters, such as, clear
84
3.5 References
DeWinter, F. 1990. Solar Collectors, Energy Storage, and Materials, edited by Francis
Gao LX, Bai H, Mao SF. 2014. Potential application of glazed transpired collectors to space
doi:101016/jenconman201310030
Gawlik, K., Christensen C., and Kutscher, C. 2005. "A numerical and experimental
Gawlik K.M., Kutscher, C.F. 2002. Wind heat loss from corrugated, transpired solar
Collectors: energetic and exergetic studies. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 136
(3):031004-031004-10. doi:10.1115/1.4026251.
Incropera, F. P., Dewitt, D.P., Bergman, T.L., Lavine, A.S. 2007. Fundamentals of Heat and
85
Kutscher, C. F. 1994. "Heat exchange effectiveness and pressure drop for air flow through
perforated plates with and without crosswind." Journal of Heat Transfer 116 (2): 391-
399. doi:10.1115/1.2911411.
heating." Assoc of Energy Eng/Et Al 19th World Energy Eng Cong (Energy Business
Kutscher, C. F., Christensen, C. B., and Barker, G. M. 1993. "Unglazed transpired solar
collectors: Heat loss theory." Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 115 (3): 182-188.
Kutscher, C., Christensen, C., and Gawlik, K., 2003. "A field study of the wind effects on the
doi:10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00148-8.
Leon, M. A. and Kumar, S. 2007. "Mathematical modeling and thermal performance analysis
doi://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1016/j.solener.2006.06.017.
Li, B., You, S., Ye, T., Zhang, H., Li, X., and Li., C. 2014. "Mathematical modeling and
doi://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1016/j.renene.2014.02.054.
86
Li, S. and Karava, P. 2014. "Energy modeling of photovoltaic thermal systems with
Li, S., Karava, P., Currie, S., Lin, W. E., and Savory, E., 2014. "Energy modeling of
photovoltaic thermal systems with corrugated unglazed transpired solar collectors - Part
doi://dx.doi.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/10.1016/j.solener.2013.12.040.
Rad, H. M., and Ameri, M. 2016. "Energy and exergy study of unglazed transpired collector-
Shampine, L. F. and Reichelt, M. W. 1997. "The MATLAB ODE Suite," SIAM Journal on
Zheng, W., Li, B., Zhang H., You, S., Li, Y., and Ye, T. 2016. "Thermal characteristics of a
87
4. Low Cost Plastic Solar Air heater for Turkey
Abstract
Poults and broiler chicks need supplemental heating because they cannot produce
enough body heat. Propane heaters are often used to provide supplemental heat to ensure bird
comfort. Solar heat could supplement propane heat and reduce costs. A transpired solar
collector (TSC), consisting of a perforated dark-colored metal surface, can increase the
temperature of the air passing through it by up to 26 C; however, metal TSCs are expensive.
Use of a plastic TSC (pTSC), consisting of a perforated black plastic sheet can considerably
reduce cost and weight, permitting retrofitting of existing poultry houses with pTSCs. A pTSC
(1.49 m2) was evaluated in a room housing 240 poults (3 pens of 80 poults) in Raleigh, NC; an
adjacent room served as the Control. Both rooms also had their own propane heaters.
Temperature and relative humidity was monitored in all pens. The pTSC was bypassed during
nighttime or when the room did not require heating to bring in fresh air. The pTSC gave a
operating at a suction velocity of 0.032 m/s provided an average temperature rise of 15 C and
solar energy equal to ~0.54 L of propane per m2 of collector area. Over the 2-flock study, the
pTSC did not reduce propane use probably because ventilation rate in the Test room was
slightly higher than in the Control room and the pTSC did not operate long enough due to the
oversized propane heaters. The pTSC and a commercial metal TSC operating nearby gave
88
4.1 Introduction
North Carolina is the largest meat-producing state in the US, ranking #2 in turkey and
pig production and #4 in broiler production (NCDACS, 2017). Brooding turkey poults, broiler
chicks, and piglets is energy-intensive because barn temperatures of 29 C are required at the
start of brooding. In the US where propane is the most popular energy source used for brooding
livestock, solar heating can reduce propane use in livestock brooding as well as in other heating
and drying applications. Because transpired solar collectors (TSCs) offer high efficiencies for
converting solar energy into heat, they can reduce propane required for heating. In a TSC, the
incoming air is preheated by a dark-colored and unglazed perforated plate exposed to the sun
(Kutscher 1996). In livestock barns, TSCs have increased ambient air temperature by >15 C
(Love et al. 2014, Cordeau and Barrington 2010, Shah et al. 2016).
However, in the US, TSCs are not economically feasible without subsidies for livestock
brooding (Love et al. 2014). For performance, TSCs are made of anodized aluminum or steel
sheets; however, metal TSCs (mTSCs) are expensive. While placing TSCs on the roof of the
barn is desirable for preventing daytime shading of the livestock barn sidewalls, the mass of
mTSC may require the roof to be strengthened. Using inexpensive and lighter materials like
plastic sheeting could make solar heating more affordable. Gawlik et al. (2005) reported that a
perforated styrene sheet gave only slightly lower temperature rise than an aluminum sheet in
the lab. Polyethylene (PE) sheets (0.15 mm thick), less-expensive than rigid styrene, had a
modeled efficiency of 68% vs. 70% efficiency for an aluminum sheet (Gawlik et al. 2005).
Despite plastic TSC (pTSC) possessing a much lower thermal conductivity than mTSC, its
performance was only slightly inferior because heat transfer to the air was mostly through
89
convection (Gawlik et al. 2005). Both black PE and black mTSC possess a solar absorptivity
of 0.94 (Conserval Engineering, 2006; Heninger, 1984) showing that both materials are equally
effective at absorbing incident radiation. Flexible black plastic (PVC or PE) is less-expensive
and lighter than coated metal sheets and will be less expensive to perforate. Since black plastic
sheets are UV resistant and can be used in a temperature range of -57 C to 82 C, they are
warrantied for 15 to 20 years of useful life. Therefore, pTSC has the potential to be more cost-
effective than mTSC. However, no field studies on the field evaluation of flexible pTSC could
Hence, the objective of this study was to fabricate and evaluate a pTSC for its ability
to supply energy during turkey brooding. In addition to the performance of the pTSC, propane
use, barn environmental conditions, and bird performance were evaluated. Finally, the
The study was conducted at NC State Universitys Turkey Education Unit, in Raleigh,
NC, during January through April, 2016. There were two treatments with each treatment
applied to a room. In the Control treatment, room air was heated solely by a propane furnace
while in the Test room, the propane furnace was supplemented by a pTSC. The pTSC was
90
4.2.1 Room description
Two rooms (treatments) were used to house the turkeys with each room containing
three pens (Fig. 4.1); each pen (1.52 m W 4.57 m L) housed 80 birds. Both rooms had
concrete floors. The pens were partitioned with 2.5 m high metal screen. Both rooms were
identical in insulation, heating, and ventilation. The east-facing side had a 1.2-m high curtain
that could be lowered during warm weather to allow greater air circulation while the upper
portion of the eastern sidewall and the other three sides and the ceiling were insulated. Because
of concerns of unequal shading on the curtain in the two rooms, a Mylar film was attached to
the exterior of the curtain to reduce unequal radiation heat gain for the second flock. Zone-
heating was provided by two brooder lamps (each 250 W) in each pen. Each room had a
propane furnace (22 kW) which discharged heated air into a 0.6-m stir fan (Fig. 4.1) that
directed the air against the ceiling; smoke tests showed that the air was fully-mixed in the room.
The propane furnace in each room was controlled by new Johnson Controls A 419 thermostat.
91
Fig. 4.1 Layout of the Test and Control rooms. The two rooms were identical except for the
Positive pressure ventilation was provided with a 0.15-m variable speed 48-VDC fan
(Make: Delta Electronics, Taiwan, Model: EFB1548VHG, 0.142 m3/s at 0 Pa) placed on the
east side of the building (Fig. 4.1), ~2.5 m above the pen floor. The incoming air was conveyed
through a 0.2-m diameter insulated duct and then directed through a 0.15-m diameter flexible
duct (not shown in Fig. 4.1) before being released directly upstream of the stir fan to ensure
even heat distribution and fresh air mixing. In the Test room, during daytime, the fresh air was
preheated via the pTSC that was connected to the ventilation fan. The stale air was exhausted
through a gravity outlet (Fig. 4.1). As will be discussed in Sec. 4.2.3, if solar heating was not
92
Both rooms had the same ventilation rates which were changed weekly as the poults
aged (Table 4.1). Since the ventilation fan could not provide the very low airflow rates needed
early in the study, a timer (Make: Intermatic; Model: INCT2000) was used to run the fan
livestock barns. After the first flock, a 0.1-m dia. exhaust fan was installed in the east wall of
each room. The exhaust fan, controlled by a humidistat, was used to prevent buildup of
Table 4.1 Flock 1 (January 29 -February 29, 2016) and Flock 2 (March 9 - April 12, 2016)
Two flocks of turkey poults (all toms) where evaluated; the first flock was raised for
31 d (29 January to 29 February, 2016) and the second flock was raised for 34 d (9 March to
93
12 April, 2016). Day-of-hatch poults (80 per pen or 240 per room or treatment) were placed
on fresh litter (wood shavings, 12-15 cm deep) after being weighed. The brooder lamps were
on 100% of the time during the first 3 weeks but every week, they were raised higher and by
equal distances in all pens; the brooder lamps were turned off when the poults reached 4 weeks
of age. In both rooms (treatments), the thermostats for propane heaters used the same setpoint
temperature which was decreased weekly (Table 4.1) following industry practice; the dead
Poults in both treatments were fed the same diet and feed consumed was recorded.
Mortality was recorded daily. At the end of each flock, poults were weighed again. Using the
pen as the experimental unit (EU), average daily mass gain (ADMG, g/d) was calculated by
subtracting the initial average mass of the poult from the final average mass and dividing by
the duration of the flock. Feed conversion ratio (FCR, kg-feed/kg-live mass) was calculated at
the end of each flock by dividing the feed consumed in a pen by the final live mass of birds in
that pen. Bird performance (ADMG, FCR, and mortality) were compared between the Test (n
= 3) and Control (n = 3) treatments, separately for each flock with the Students t-test (equal
variance; one-tailed test assuming that Test treatment would yield improved bird performance)
using = 0.05.
A 1.5 m x 1.5 m of 0.34 mm thick black flexible PVC sheet (pond liner) was used to
fabricate the pTSC. Holes were made in a square pattern (25.4 mm 25.4) with a heated metal
94
rod 3.2 mm in diameter in the central 1.22 m 1.22 m portion of the pond liner; therefore, the
pTSC had a nominal porosity of 1.2%. Uniform hole spacing was maintained by using a peg
board with holes in a square pattern spaced 25.4 mm apart as template. Plastic TSCs could be
produced quite economically at the commercial scale by running the flexible plastic sheet
between two rollers, one with pins and the other with matching indentations.
The plenum bottom was exterior grade 12.7 mm thick plywood while the sides were
supports spanned the plenum opening. The plenum edges were covered with pipe insulation to
prevent the pTSC from chafing against the boards and the plenum opening was covered with
a welded wire screen to support the pTSC. The pTSC was stretched tight over the plenum
opening and unperforated pond liner material on the sides were stapled to the the boards and
an aluminum angle frame was pressed over the pTSC to seal the sides. Finally, two bungee
straps were used to secure the aluminum angle frame. The pTSC was placed on a 2.5-m high
scaffold close to the eastern side of the Test room (Fig. 4.2); it was confirmed that the roof of
the barn did not shade the pTSC. The pTSC faced due south and was inclined at 50 from the
horizontal plane to allow for maximum solar energy gain. A drain hole at the lowest point in
the plenum was connected with vinyl tubing to a water-filled flask installed ~1.5 m below it to
allow for accumulated rainwater to drain while preventing air from bypassing the pTSC.
95
(a) (b)
Perforated plastic s heet
Temperature RH
s ensors
TR TR
Tes t
room
pTSC
Tempered air Ventilation
damper (A)
fan
Ins ulated duct Bypa ss
damper (B)
Fig. 4.2 a) Layout of TSC system and b) pTSC as installed in the turkey brooding room. Note
temperature relative humidity (RH) sensors used to measure tempered and untempered
In the Test treatment, fresh air was pulled in by the ventilation fan via a 0.15-m
insulated duct with or without tempering by the pTSC (Fig. 4.2); the flow-of-logic is described
in Sec. 4.2.4. The entire ventilation system including the pTSC was assembled in the lab and
airflow rates were measured with a balometer (Make: Alnor; Accuracy: 5%) for a wide range
of power settings obtained by manually changing the settings of the ceramic rheostat which
was used to change the fan voltage and hence, its speed or airflow rate. The Control rooms
ventilation system though simpler, was also tested in the lab to determine the power settings at
which its airflow rates matched those of the Test rooms ventilation system.
In both treatments, temperature and relative humidity (RH) was measured in the middle
of each pen at a height of ~0.3 m above the litter with an SHT31-D sensor (Make: Sensirion;
96
RH accuracy: 2%; temperature accuracy: 0.3 C). The sensor was housed in a plastic
enclosure and the sensing port was covered with a Sensirion SF 2 filter cap. A WiFi
microcontroller (Huzzah ESP8266) collocated with the SHT31-D wirelessly transmitted the
temperature and RH data to a Raspberry Pi 2, a single board computer, where the data were
stored on an SD card. Temperature and RH were also monitored inside the pTSC plenum and
outside the plenum to represent ambient conditions (taking care to prevent conductive and
radiative heating). Temperature and RH measurements were sampled and recorded at 5-min.
intervals. Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were measured using a nondispersive infrared
sensor (Make: Senseair; Model: K30; range: 0-10,000 ppm; accuracy: 3%30 ppm of
measured value) at the air outlet (Fig. 4.1) using a communication protocol identical to the
temperature and RH sensors. A carbon monoxide (CO) data logger (Make: Lascar Electronics;
Model: EL-USB-CO300; range: 0-300 ppm; accuracy: 5 ppm) placed adjacent to the CO2
sensor monitored CO concentration. The CO data were downloaded using the manufacturers
proprietary software. Concentrations of CO and CO2 were also measured and recorded at 5-
min. intervals. Propane use in the two rooms were monitored using separate EKM-PGM.75
propane meters that were read daily at 8:30 am. Solar radiation was measured in a plane parallel
to the pTSC and adjacent to it, using an S-LIB-M003 sensor (Make: Onset Computers;
accuracy: greater of 10 W/m2 or 5%). Incident radiation was sampled every 5 s and 2-min
If the plenum temperature was higher than the ambient temperature by at least 1.7 C
and average of the pen temperatures (n = 3) in the Test room (RT in Fig. 4.3) was lower than
the setpoint temperature (SP in Fig. 4.3) by 2 C, fresh air was heated in the pTSC by opening
97
pTSC damper (A) and closing bypass damper (B) (Fig. 4.2). Otherwise, to prevent overheating
or avoid pulling in cold air through the pTSC (due to nighttime radiational cooling), damper
(B) was opened and damper (A) was closed (Fig. 4.2). Both of these conditions were tested
every minute. To ensure that airflow rate remained the same whether damper (A) or (B) was
open, a guillotine damper was installed upstream of damper (B) and its position fixed in the
lab by trial-and-error.
Fig. 4.3 Flow of logic of the control system for the pTSC. SP is setpoint temperature of the
room while RT is actual room temperature (average of the three pens); T is the difference
98
The pTSC was evaluated under different suction velocities (vs, eq. (1)) as dictated by
the required ventilation rate which varied with the age of the birds and flock (Table 4.1) as:
Qp
vs = (1)
Ap
where and are the instantaneous airflow rate (m3/s) through the pTSC and its area (1.49
m2), respectively. Instantaneous mass flow rate () through the collector was determined from:
m = m Qp (2)
d (1 + H)
m = (3)
1 + 1.609H
where is the humidity ratio (kg-water vapor/kg-dry air), and is the density of dry air
(kg/m3) calculated from the ideal gas law. Humidity ratio was calculated as a function of
specific volume and absolute humidity, each determined from temperature and RH.
Solar heat gain rate (Pgain, kW) from the pTSC to the moving fluid was calculated as:
Pgain = T (4)
where T is the difference between tempered and untempered ambient air temperature (K),
is the specific heat of moist air (kJ/(kg K)), and DT is the fan duty cycle (0-1) for intermittent
operation, as controlled by the timer. Specific heat of moist air was calculated using the
where is the ambient temperature (K). Since the damper (A) open or close status was also
recorded, T, and subsequently was calculated only when fresh air was pulled through
99
the pTSC. Heat gain rate per unit area of the pTSC (Ps, kW/m2) was also calculated. Hourly
energy gain provided by the pTSC was calculated by multiplying the hourly P gain by the
duration the pTSC operated during that hour; weekly energy gain (Egain, MJ) was calculated
Pgain
= (6)
Ap IR
where IR is the average incident radiation (W/m2). Because convective heat transfer from the
pTSC to the air increases with Reynolds number (Re), Re was calculated (Vasan and
d vs Dh
Re = (7)
Where is the hydraulic diameter (4*cross-section area of the hole divided by the wetted
perimeter) of the holes in the pTSC, is the dynamic viscosity (Pas), and is the pTSC
impact of airflow rate on Pgain. Turbulent flow across the collector plate, with Re > 4300, will
provide higher energy transfer rate. However, achieving turbulent flow can be a challenge
because the increased pressure drop due to the higher flow rates may increase power
100
4.3 Results and Discussion
Weekly operating and performance parameters of the pTSC are shown for the two
flocks in Table 4.2. Raw data pertaining to the pTSC operation and performance are presented
in Appendix A. Suction velocity and mass flow rate increased (Table 4.2) as the ventilation
rate was increased as the birds grew older (Table 4.1). As would be expected, weekly recorded
run times varied widely due to fluctuations in ambient temperatures (Table 4.2) which largely
governed heating needs. However, considerable amount of plenum, ambient, and pen
temperature data were lost during Flock 1 (see appendix A, January 29-15 February), resulting
in the flow-of-logic (Fig. 4.3) not being implemented, and hence the recorded pTSC run times
were reduced. The main reason for loss of T data was due to rapid degradation of the AA
batteries used to power the temperature sensors caused by frequent polling for sensor data,
testing for the control logics (Fig. 4.3), and cold temperatures. Powering the plenum and
ambient air temperature sensors directly with 4.5 VDC power adapters solved the problem and
prevented further loss in Flock 1 and Flock 2. Data in Table 4.2 are only for those periods when
101
Table 4.2 Weekly average ambient temperature (Tamb), average wind speed (U) at 6 m, average irradiance (I), instantaneous
mass flow rate through pTSC (), suction velocity (Vs), fan duty cycle (DT), average pTSC temperature gain (T), recorded
pTSC run time, total weekly energy gain (Egain), and Ps. Wind speed and I are for daylight hours (8 am-4 pm) for Flocks 1 (Jan.
29-Feb. 29, 2016) and 2 (Mar. 9-Apr. 12, 2016) while Tamb (hence, Egain and Ps) is only for those periods during daylight hours
Recorded
Tamb U1 (kg/s) & Vs T Egain
Flock/Week I (W/m2) DT pTSC Run
(C) (m/s) (m/s) (C) (MJ) (kW/m2)
Time (h)
Flock 1
Week 12 16.1 4.6 507 0.060 & 0.033 0.40 8.0 15.2 23.2 0.11
Week 23 7.2 4.1 393 0.062 & 0.034 0.57 4.1 24.6 17.4 0.08
Week 34 5.9 3.1 365 0.062 & 0.034 0.77 7.4 15.7 25.9 0.24
Week 4 14.1 4.6 632 0.066 & 0.036 0.90 6.7 12.5 18.2 0.27
Week 55 14.0 4.6 757 0.092 & 0.051 1.00 7.4 29.1 71.5 0.46
Total or
average for 11.5 531 6.7 95.8 156.3
Flock 16
102
Table 4.2 continued
Flock 2
Week 1 25.0 3.8 569 0.059 & 0.032 0.36 8.0 21.7 36.7 0.11
Week 2 16.8 3.4 601 0.060 & 0.033 0.57 8.1 35.9 54.9 0.16
Week 3 18.3 4.8 585 0.059 & 0.033 0.80 6.0 17.7 21.5 0.18
Week 4 19.2 4.8 589 0.063 & 0.034 0.94 5.0 47.3 51.6 0.19
Week 55 11.9 5.2 723 0.093 & 0.051 1.0 5.0 13.3 22.5 0.32
Total or
average for 18.3 613 6.4 135.9 187.2
Flock 26
1
Wind speed data was calculated from hourly averages (n=60) from NC CHRONOS, Lake Wheeler Station
2
The control system did not operate from January 29-31.
3
Data was lost for a 2-d period between February 9-11.
4
Brief periods (<5 hours) of data were lost on February 6-9 and February 15-17.
5
Week 5 in Flocks 1 and 2 were 4 and 6 d, respectively
6
Tamb, I, and T are time-weighted hourly average values for the flock when data were available. Run time and E gain are sums
for each flock.
103
Despite average ambient temperature being nearly 7 C lower in Flock 1 than Flock 2,
total recorded pTSC run time in Flock 1 was 29% lower (Table 4.2) mainly because of loss of
data in Flock 1. But 10% lower IR (due to greater cloud cover) and 3 d shorter duration when
During Flock 1, T generally increased with IR (Table 4.2) as was reported by Kutcher
(1994), but lower T during week 2 vs. week 3 despite the same suction velocity (Table 4.2)
could have been due to higher average U value during week 2 leading to greater convective
heat losses (Vasan and Stathopoulos 2014). Compared to week 3, in week 5 of Flock 1, m and
IR were 48 and 107% higher, respectively, while T values were identical (Table 4.2).
However, despite average U being 70% higher in week 5 compared with week 3, P s was 92%
higher (Table 4.2) which could be due to reduced convective heat loss at higher m (or vs) due
to more effective boundary layer removal (Kutscher 1994) in addition to higher IR. Over the
entire study, averaged over a 15-min period, the pTSC produced a maximum T of 25.40.3
0.76 m/s on 14 Feb. 2016 (week 3). Hence, the pTSC could be competitive with mTSCs, as
discussed later.
Lower T in Flock 2 than in Flock 1 despite greater IR (Table 4.2) was surprising;
higher U values during the last 3 weeks compared to the same period in Flock 1 (Table 4.2)
could have increased convective heat losses. Also, weekly average IR values were lower in the
last 2 weeks corresponding to the same period in Flock 1 (Table 4.2). Regardless, Egain was
95% higher (with 15% higher IR) than in Flock 1 (Table 4.2). Greater calculated energy gains
and Ps in Flock 2 was also due to higher run times (Table 4.2). The pTSC provided Egain values
104
equivalent to 6.2 and 7.4 L of propane, respectively, for Flocks 1 and 2. When normalized for
collector area, the pTSC displaced 4.2 and 5.0 L/m2, respectively, of propane during Flocks 1
and 2. It should be noted that the calculated propane displacement values are conservative
because on many days, the pTSC continued to operate after 4:00 pm even though Egain in Table
2 are only based on pTSC operation between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm.
An important reason for unexpectedly small Egain with the pTSC may have been due to
the oversized propane heater (also in the Control room). The 22-kW propane heater was
intended to provide heating for 480 poults in six pens, three pens each on the east and west
sides. In this study, the west side was partitioned off with insulation (also in the Control
treatment) which resulted in the propane heater heating the smaller space housing the 240
poults much more rapidly, reducing the need for solar heat. In the second flock, due to higher
incident radiation (Table 4.2), the pTSC operated longer to maintain the average temperature
in the pens at or above the SP temperature, resulting in propane savings, both, calculated (Table
4.2) and measured (Sec. 4.3.2). For reference, the total installed heating capacity in the 9,500-
head turkey brooder barn in Love et al. (2014) was 30 W/poult whereas in this study, it was 98
W/poult. A smaller propane heater would not have overshot the SP temperature so rapidly,
allowing the pTSC to operate longer, leading to potentially greater energy savings.
Performance of the pTSC are compared for two area-normalized m values of 0.04
kg/m2-s (March 22, 2016) and 0.06 kg/m2-s (February 29, 2016) in Fig. 4.4. Average IR for the
two days were within 5% of one-another while average U was 115% higher on Feb. 29, 2016
(Fig. 4.4 (a)). Compared to Mar. 22, on Feb. 29, 2016, even though increased 50%, the
average hourly Ps increased 130%, with bigger differences during the midday hours (Fig. 4.4
105
(b)). As was also mentioned earlier, higher m (and corresponding vs) more effectively removed
the thermal boundary layer, reducing both convective and radiative losses (Kutscher 1994).
Equal T values at both mass flow rates during 2:00 PM through 4:00 PM (Fig. 4.4 (b)) clearly
demonstrates the role of the higher m in reducing losses. Similarly, efficiency values were
much higher at the higher m (Fig. 4.4 (c)). Late in the afternoon, even as incident radiation
decreased, at the higher m, hourly efficiency approached 100% which might be due to the
thermal mass of the system. As the sun went down, release of heat stored in the plastic collector
and plywood plenum might have resulted in greater energy release; such a phenomenon was
also reported by Shah et al. (2016). When such a high m is not desirable, a heat storage unit
106
Fig. 4.4 Comparison of operating parameters and pTSC performance with m = 0.04 kg/m2-s
(subscript 1, Mar. 22), 0.06 kg/m2-s (subscript 2, Feb. 29, 2016) and mTSC at 0.04 kg/m2-s
(subscript m, Mar 22). (a) Hourly average irradiance (I, n = 30) and wind speed (U, n = 60);
(b) Normalized calculated hourly power (Ps) (n = 12) and temperature rise (T) (n = 12); and
(c) Efficiency. Data points in Figs. (a) and (b) are connected to show trend.
107
One of the most important parameters that affects heat transfer efficiency of the TSC
is Re (Kutscher 1993). Because TSCs are susceptible to wind effects, high Re (i.e., increased
turbulence) is required to reduce boundary layer thickness, and hence, increased resistance to
convective heat losses to the surroundings. While Re in the turbulent regime (Re >4300) would
have increased convective heat transfer (Incropera et al. 2007), low ventilation requirements
prevented operation in the turbulent region. However, even in the laminar regime, the effect of
Re is still demonstrable; when Re increased from 583 (m = 0.04 kg/m2-s) to 895 (m = 0.06
kg/m2-s), efficiency increased from 33% to 79% (Fig. 4.4 (c)) despite higher U and lower I.
Gawlik et al. (2005) modeled a plastic collector with 0.3% porosity receiving 840 W/m2; at a
mass flow rate 0.04 kg/m2-s, modeled T was 15.8 C. In this study, with a porosity of 1.2%
and 0.04 kg/m2-s, the pTSC yielded a T of 14 C at 830 W/m2 (Fig. 4.4 (a & b)). Measured
T of 11.6 C at 880 W/m2 at a mass flow rate 0.06 kg/m-s2 (Fig. 4.4 (a & b)) in this study
However, given the much-higher porosity vs. Gawlik et al. (2005), Re in this study (eq. (7))
Temperature rise in the pTSC was compared with a corrugated mTSC (Make: ATAS;
porosity: 0.8%) (Chapter 2) that faced SSE, on March 22, 2016 (Fig. 4.4); the two TSCs were
located within 2 km of one-another. The pTSC was operated on a 57% duty cycle and the
mTSC was operated continuously during daytime. Hourly average U at 6-m height over the
9-h period measured at a weather station close to both sites was 2.6 m/s (Fig. 4.4 (a)), but the
two TSCs had their own incident radiation sensors. However, IR on the mTSC was slightly
lower during 8:30 am-9:30 am due to shading. The mTSC was also inclined at 50 from the
108
horizontal but it was placed on the ground whereas the pTSC was located ~2.5 m above the
ground. The vs values of the mTSC and pTSC were 0.02 m/s and 0.033 m/s, respectively; the
corresponding Reynolds numbers were 109 and 579, respectively. The metal and plastic TSCs
had similar average T for the same average IR (Fig. 4.4 (a) and (b)); in addition, Ps and
efficiency of the pTSC was similar to that of the mTSC (Fig. 4.4 (b) and (c)). The T of the
mTSC was similar to those in the literature (e.g., Love et al. 2014, Kutscher 1991). Operating
both the pTSC and mTSC at higher airflow rates would have been desirable (Kutscher et. al
2003) but fan capacity limited airflow rate through the mTSC while the pTSC airflow rate was
Shah et. al (2016) reported an average T of 7.6 C with an mTSC in a swine barn with
a Vs of 0.05 m/s. Paya-Marin et al. (2015) tested a large scale mTSC and found an experimental
fit yielding average T of 6.7 and 7.7 C for IR of 500 W/m2 and 580 W/m2, respectively,
though vs values were <0.01 m/s. Compared to Paya-Marin et al. (2015), the vs values in this
study were about an order of magnitude higher, but T values were similar. Paya-Marin et al
(2015) reported a maximum efficiency of 37% in their large scale mTSC compared to up to
90% in this study. Further, Vaziri et al. (2015) reported efficiencies of 40-50% in a similar-
sized mTSC operated at 0.05 kg/s-m2 compared to 30-35% with this pTSC, though average IR
Gawlik et al. (2005) hypothesized that similar modeled T values in plastic TSC and
metal TSC was because thermal conductivity of the collector material played a minor role in
its performance. This finding is confirmed in this study. The metal and plastic TSCs showed
109
4.3.2 Propane use
Figure 4.5 compares propane use in the two treatments. In Flock 1, the Control room
used 7.5% less propane than the Test room while the trend was reversed in Flock 2 with the
Control room using 31% more propane. Because Flock 2 was much warmer (Table 4.2), over
the two flocks, propane use in both treatments were comparable (Fig. 4.5). One reason for
greater propane use in Flock 1 in the Test treatment could have been due to greater shading of
the curtain by the scaffold supporting the pTSC. Additionally, ventilation rates in the Test room
might have been slightly higher in Flock 1 (Table 4.2) due to initial difficulties in measuring
ventilation rates with high accuracy and matching those rates in the two treatments. In the
second flock, a reflective Mylar film was attached to the outside of the curtain in both rooms
to provide radiative shielding, and ventilation systems in both treatments were recalibrated.
Consequently, compared to Flock 1, Flock 2 ventilation rates were lower in the Test room
(Table 4.2) but the target was to have equal ventilation rates in both rooms. Ventilation rates
in the two rooms were also affected by the humidistat-controlled duct fans; however, their run
times were not monitored. Compared to Flock 1, greater pTSC run time (Table 4.2) and lower
heat loss in the exhaust air (due to lower ventilation rate) resulted in propane savings in Flock
2.
110
Fig. 4.5 Cumulative propane use in the Test and Control rooms in (a) Flock 1 (January 29-
Febuary 29) and (b) Flock 2 (March 9-April 12, 2016). Theoretical propane saving was
obtained by multiplying daily Pgain (eq. (4)), duration the pTSC operated every day, and the
energy value of propane. The Y axis ranges are different in the two figures.
Love et. al (2014) evaluated a metal TSC in 9,500-bird turkey brooding house. Over
six flocks, propane saving with the metal TSC was 0.04 L/bird per flock (Love et al., 2014).
In Flock 2 in this study, propane saving was also 0.04 L/bird though over the two flocks,
propane use was 0.7% lower in the Control treatment. Further, despite considerable heating of
111
the fresh air by the pTSC (Table 4.2), the theoretical propane saving was small (Fig. 4.5). In
Flock 2, theoretical energy saved was 39% of the actual savings probably because the pTSC
operated longer due to greater IR (Table 4.2) and longer period of sunshine (i.e., after 4:00 pm)
than Flock 1.
To better understand why there was no propane savings even though the pTSC provided
considerable T to the fresh air, actual propane use and propane-equivalent contribution of the
pTSC were analyzed for March 22, 2016. On that day the pTSC operated on a 57% duty cycle
and the average ambient temperature was 17.6 C. Propane consumption in the Test and
Control rooms were 8.24 and 7.23 L, respectively, while the theoretical propane saving was
~0.57 L. Because personnel accessing the Control room had to pass through the Test room,
there may have been greater heat loss from the Test room into the unheated feed storage room.
Also, despite repeated attempts to equalize the ventilation rates in the two rooms, the Test room
might have had slightly higher ventilation rates (as was also indicated by lower CO2 and CO
concentrations, Sec. 4.3.3), though the difference was likely smaller in Flock 2. Additionally,
limited run times due to the oversized propane heater (discussed earlier) and warmer-than-
normal weather resulted in no propane savings with the pTSC in Flock 1 and perhaps, lower
propane saving in Flock 2. Average ambient temperature in Flocks 1 and 2 were 7.7 and 16.1
C, respectively, substantially higher than the 30-year average of 4 and 5 C, respectively, for
Raleigh.
When scaling up to a commercial turkey brooder barn housing 10,000 poults, a 33-m2
pTSC operating at a suction velocity of up to 0.05 m/s could provide cold-weather minimum
ventilation for up to 4 weeks (Table 1). As the poults get older and require less supplemental
112
(including solar) heating, fresh, untempered air could be blended, as needed, with the pTSC-
tempered air to provide sufficient daytime heating and ventilation. In a commercial barn this
would not provide overventilation, but would provide consistently high efficiencies because
the collector would operate in the efficient (>80%) regime continuously and thereby maximize
energy gains. Extrapolating the propane savings in Flock 2 and assuming similar ambient
temperature and IR values, the 33-m2 pTSC would save ~427 L of propane over the 5-week
period.
With the pTSC providing supplemental heat in the Test room but not in the Control
room, there was need to test its impacts on indoor environmental conditions. Daily average
temperature, RH, CO2, and CO summary data in the Test and Control rooms for flocks 1 and
2 are shown in Table 4.. In both flocks, average temperature in the Test room was <1 C lower
than the Control treatment. Low variability in temperature among the pens, as indicated by low
SD values (Table 4.3), indicated that the mixing fan was effective in mixing the air inside.
Average RH in both flocks was higher in the Control treatment which also showed greater
variability among the pens as indicated by the higher SD values than the Test treatment (Table
4.3).
113
Table 4.3 Mean temperature, RH, CO and CO2 concentrations for Flock 1 (January 29-Febuary
29) and Flock 2 (March 9 April 12). Measurements were taken at 5 minute intervals.
Flock 2
Control 29.20.3 553 8.4 1826
Test 28.40.1 520 1.2 1462
1
Mean SD (n = 3)
2
A single CO2 and CO sensor were deployed in each treatment.
Average CO and CO2 concentrations were markedly higher in the Control room (Table
4.3) which could be due to lower ventilation rate than in the Test treatment, as was discussed
combustion. However, CO2 and water vapor are released not only during propane combustion
but also by the birds and litter. Since propane use was higher and ventilation rate was lower in
Flock 1 vs. Flock 2, in both treatments, CO and CO2 were higher in flock 1 (Table 4.3). For
humans, acceptable CO concentrations can be as low as 35 ppm for 8-h exposure (Raub and
Benignus 2002) though for poults, a few hours of exposure to 25 to 30 ppm increased the risk
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) set a threshold limit value (TLV) for 5,000 ppm
114
of CO2 for 8-h human exposure (OSHA, 2012). However, CO2 concentrations >2,500 ppm
Changes in daily average temperature and RH in the two flocks for the two treatments
are shown in Fig. 4.6. During both flocks, daily average temperatures in the two treatments
were similar. In both treatments, the controllers kept the room temperatures close to the
setpoint temperature. Daily average RH in the Test room was ~3% lower than the Control room
(Table 4., Fig. 4.8). Water vapor is a byproduct of propane combustion, but since propane use
was lower in the Control room in Flock 1, ventilation rate could have been slightly higher in
the Test room. High RH late in Flock 1 prompted the installation of a humidistat-controlled
duct fan in both rooms in Flock 2. However, even with the duct fan, RH increased late in Flock
2, with slightly higher values in Control room, which could be due to the rooms having concrete
floors that prevented moisture from being absorbed by the soil below.
115
Fig. 4.6 Daily average temperature (SD), daily average RH (SD) and setpoint (SP)
temperature in the Test and Control rooms in (a) Flock 1 and (b) Flock 2. Temperature and RH
were recorded every 5-min; data were lost during Feb. 8-10, 2016. Primary y axis ranges are
Fig. presents the daily average CO and CO2 concentrations measured at the outlet in
the Test and Control rooms for flocks 1 and 2. In flock 1, CO2 concentrations in both rooms
116
fluctuated considerably but were lower in the Test room. Generally-lower CO2 concentrations
in the Test room in Flock 1 might have been due to difference in back pressure from ambient
wind. The air outlets in both rooms exhausted into empty pens that had curtains on the west
side; since the Test room was further away from the corner, it might have been affected more
by ambient wind. For Flock 2, the curtain opening on the Test room side was slightly reduced
while it was slighted increased on Control room side. Compared with Flock 1, lower
fluctuations in daily average CO2 concentrations in Flock 2 could have been due changes made
to the curtain opening that reduced the effect of ambient wind. Carbon dioxide concentration
were lower in Flock 2 in both rooms (Fig. 4.7 (b), Table 4.3), though the Test room had
substantially lower concentrations with values that were 500 ppm lower in the first 2 weeks of
the study (Fig. 4.7 (b)). While propane use was lower in the Test room in Flock 2, it seems
that in both flocks, the Test room had higher ventilation rates than the Control room.
117
Fig. 4.7 Daily average CO and CO2 concentrations for the Test and Control rooms in (a) Flock
1 and (b) Flock 2. Each data point is the average of 288 5-min measurements. CO and CO2
data was lost on Feb 8-10. Primary and secondary y axis ranges are different in the two figures.
Carbon monoxide concentrations were substantially higher in the Control room than in
the Test room (Fig. 4.7, Table 4.3) which could have been due to incomplete combustion in
the Control propane heater; this could have also been due to lower ventilation than in the Test
118
room. Carbon monoxide concentrations in both treatments were lower in Flock 2 vs. Flock 1
due to warmer weather that required more ventilation and less propane. Prior to placement of
Flock 2, both propane heaters were serviced and this too may have contributed to lower CO
concentrations.
While indoor air quality (lower CO2, CO, and RH) was slightly better in the Test room
in both flocks, propane use was comparable in both treatments. Possibly higher ventilation rate
in the Test room might have led to better air quality rather than reduction in propane use with
the pTSC.
Summary bird performance parameters are presented in Table 4.4. In the first flock,
the Control treatment had a better (lower) feed conversion ratio (FCR) but the average daily
weight gain (ADWG) and mortality were not significantly different between the treatments
(Table 4.4). In the second flock, the Test treatment had higher ADWG and lower mortality
than the Control treatment while the difference in FCR was not significant (Table 4.4). Overall,
the bird performance could be considered to be slightly better in the Test treatment which may
have been due to better air quality, more likely, CO2 concentration which was more likely due
to greater ventilation than use of solar heating. Love et al. (2014) also reported encouraging
bird performance in a barn heated with a metal TSC but did not attribute the improved
performance to solar heating. However, increased daytime ventilation using the pTSC may
119
Table 4.4 Average daily weight gain (ADWG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), and mortality
4.4 Conclusions
A pTSC was evaluated for use during turkey brooding during January April 2016 on
two flocks. The pTSC, made of a black PVC pond liner, had an area of 1.49 m2 and a porosity
of 1.2%. Suction velocities ranged from 0.04 m/s to 0.05 m/s. Two treatments, one containing
a turkey brooding room with pTSC and propane heater and one with no pTSC, were compared.
Additionally, the performance of the pTSC was compared to a metal TSC. Key findings were:
At the highest mass flow rate of 0.06 kg/m2-s and suction velocity of 0.05 m/s, over a
9-h period with average IR of 772 W/m2 and U of 5.6 m/s, the pTSC yielded T, Ps,
120
Over a 15-min period, the pTSC provided a maximum T of 25.3 C at a Vs of 0.03
Whereas T and Ps increased with IR, T decreased but Ps increased with increasing
suction velocity. Performance of the pTSC was less affected by U at the high suction
velocities.
The pTSC did not reduce propane use probably due to higher ventilation rate in the
Temperature and RH in the Test and Control rooms were comparable but CO and CO2
At the same mass flow rate of 0.04 kg/m2-s and similar IR, the pTSC and mTSC yielded
Increasing the run time of the pTSC could have increased its effectiveness. It might be
advantageous to add a solar storage unit to store excess heat energy during periods where the
tempered air would otherwise cause overheating (i.e. midday) and release this heat during
periods of high energy demand (soon after sundown). A 10,000-poult turkey brooder barn
121
4.5 References
Conserval Engineering. Design Guide for the SolarWall Air Heating System. July 24, 2003.
Ontario, Toronto.
Cordeau, S., and Barrington, S. 2011. "Performance of Unglazed Solar Ventilation Air Pre-
Fleck, B. A., Meier, R. M., and Matovi, M. D. 2002. "A Field Study of the Wind Effects on
the Performance of an Unglazed Transpired Solar Collector." Solar Energy 73 (3): 209-
16. Print.
Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. Ed. Frank P. Incropera. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley,
2007. Print.
Gawlik, K. M., and Kutscher, C. F. 2002. "Wind Heat Loss from Corrugated, Transpired
122
Gawlik, K., Christensen, C., and Kutscher, C.F. 2005. "A Numerical and Experimental
Golneshan, A. A., and Nemati., H. 2014. "Exergy Analysis of Unglazed Transpired Solar
Kutscher, C. F. 1994. "Heat Exchange Effectiveness and Pressure Drop for Air Flow through
Perforated Plates with and without Crosswind." Journal of Heat Transfer 116 (2): 391-9.
Web.
Kutscher, C.F. 1996. "Transpired Solar Collector Systems: A Major Advance in Solar
Heating." Assoc of Energy Eng/et al 19th World Energy Eng Cong (Energy Business and
Collectors: Heat Loss Theory." Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 115 (3): 182-8.
Print.
123
Kutscher, C., Christensen, C. and Gawlik, K. 2003. "A Field Study of the Wind Effects on
Li, Xianli, Li, C. and Li, B. 2016. "Net Heat Gain Assessment on a Glazed Transpired Solar
Air Collector with Slit-Like Perforations." Applied Thermal Engineering 99: 1-10. Print.
Love, C. D., Shah, S. B., Grimes, J. L. 2014. "Transpired Solar Collector Duct for Tempering
Air in North Carolina Turkey Brooder Barn and Swine Nursery." Solar Energy 102:
308-17. Print.
Resource]. Ed. Duan D. Gvozdenac. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Hoboken, NJ;
Paya-Marin, M. A., Lim, B.P., Chen, J.F., Lawson, M.R., and Gupta, S.B. 2015. "Large
Raub, J. A., and V. A. Benignus. 2002. "Carbon Monoxide and the Nervous
124
Shah, S. B., Marshall, T. and Matthis, S. 2016. "Transpired Solar Wall for Tempering Air in
Madec, T., Meury, P. A., and Sutour, C. and Rabault, T., and Zerbib, S. 2007.
Vasan, N., and Stathopoulos, T. 2014. "Experimental Study of Wind Effects on Unglazed
Vaziri, R., Ilkan M., and Egelioglu, F. 2015. "Experimental Performance of Perforated
Glazed Solar Air Heaters and Unglazed Transpired Solar Air Heater." Solar Energy 119:
251-60. Print.
Zomorodian, Ali, and Zamanian, M. 2012. "Designing and Evaluating an Innovative Solar
Air Collector with Transpired Absorber and Cover." ISRN Renewable Energy : n/a.
Print.
125
5. Lower Cost Transpired Solar Collector
Abstract
Solar heating has great potential in agricultural and residential applications, but there
are significant barriers to implementation due to cost. Transpired solar collectors (TSC)
overcome some of the cost issues by eliminating the glazing, while also being more efficient.
However, cost still presents a significant issue due to the use of metal and the creation of
perforations. Plastic collector materials are inexpensive and robust but still require
perforations, while commercial landscape fabric has high absorbance, is widely available, is
inexpensive and does not require perforations. Three different collector materials were
investigated, namely anodized aluminum, plastic, and landscape fabric. Materials were tested
based upon temperature rise, energy gained and efficiency at different suction velocities. Plate
temperature variations among the three materials was also investigated. Commercial landscape
fabric provided higher temperature rise and 10% higher efficiency than aluminum and plastic,
in the range of wind speeds or suction velocities tested. The metal and plastic collectors had
higher temperatures which likely lead to higher convective and radiative losses. A potential 3-
D heat transfer theory in the landscape fabric is proposed, but further modeling and
Keywords: Solar heating, UTC, landscape fabric, cost savings, perforated plate theory
126
5.1 Introduction
Transpired solar collectors (TSCs) have been shown to be an effective method of for
heating air with temperature rises of up to 26 C (Gawlik et al. 2005). Despite their
effectiveness in recovering solar heat, their adoption has been slowed by their total installed
cost of $215/m2 (P. Reinhart, ATAS International, personal communication, 24 April 2017)
and the correspondingly low cost of heating fuel. The principle of black body heating is not
limited to aluminum plates and since thermal conductivity of the plate material has been shown
to be unimportant (Gawlick and Kutscher 2002), new options for collector plate materials
should be considered.
Potential TSC materials should be robust, i.e., they must withstand temperature
fluctuations year-round and last for 10 or more years without degradation. Further, they must
be low cost, such that they can be applied to large scale systems with minimal increases in
cost. UV resistant plastics generally fit both requirements due to their low cost, and minimal
degradation after exposure to solar radiation and temperature changes. However, plastics
require a support structure to maintain a smooth heat exchange surface (Chapter 4).
Traditional TSC theory focuses on a 2-D structure with incoming air impinging on the
surface, and then moving towards the holes, picking up heat across this length (Kutscher et al.
1993). There can be substantial convective losses due to the creation of many stagnation points
on a perforated surface, depending on ambient wind speed and suction velocity (airflow rate
through the plate divided by the area of the plate). Under low wind conditions, radiative losses
would be dominant. These losses can be prevented with high enough suction velocities through
127
the system, but that would require more energy and would be less-feasible to implement for
low or intermittent flow applications. To prevent these convective losses, a plate that can
create turbulence throughout a 3-D structure, instead of on the surface, is desired. In a 3-D
structure, the airstream would create stagnation points (and vortices) inside the material which
would therefore be constrained, preventing losses. To achieve this, a highly porous material
would need to be layered, and preferably, be offset to ensure that no incident radiation is lost.
Commercial landscape fabric, which is designed for long term exposure to moisture and UV
radiation, and is also very inexpensive, would be an excellent fit for such an application.
Hence, this study had the objective to compare the performance of a commercial
landscape fabric with metal and plastic absorbers for air heating.
The study was performed at North Carolina State University in front of Weaver Labs.
A wheeled platform was constructed that allowed for the simultaneous testing of three different
collectors side by side. This configuration allowed for direct, side-by-side comparison of
The design of the collector is shown in Fig. 5.1. The collector plenum was constructed
out of exterior-grade 19 mm plywood measuring 0.53 m wide by 0.53 m tall by 0.46 m deep.
The collector was horizontal to allow for uniform incident radiation collection among all three
128
units. Air was drawn through the TSC with a 80 mm diameter 12 V variable speed fan (Make:
Sumon Fans Model: PF80381BX-000U-S99) which was operated continuously. The fan was
controlled with a microcontroller (Make: Adafruit Huzzah Model: ESP8266) with pulse-width
modulation and continuous operation was assured through voltage feedback through the
microcontroller.
Fig. 5.1 a) Representative collector with anodized aluminum plate and b) diagram of collector
design.
An additional screen was placed on the top of the collector to support the plastic pond
liner (Section. 5.2.2), to ensure that a flat surface was maintained for heat transfer when suction
was applied. To ensure that laminar flow was maintained and therefore airflow rates were
accurately measured, a 0.9 m long, 0.80 m diameter circular pipe was attached to the outlet of
the fan (Fig. 5.1 (a)). Airflow rate was measured with a propeller anemometer (Make: Extech;
129
Model: AN300; Accuracy: (1.5% of reading + 0.3 m/s)); to ensure accuracy of airflow rate
measurement, the outlet diameter of the circular pipe was machined to fit the anemometers
frame.
Three different collector materials were selected for use in this study: black anodized
aluminum sheet (1 mm), black plastic pond liner (PVC pond liner with nylon mesh, 0.37 mm
thick), and commercial landscape fabric (dark grey polypropylene, 0.32 mm thick). Anodized
aluminum was selected because it has been previously tested and modeled in the literature
(Kutscher 1994, Gawlik et al. 2005, Shah et al. 2016, Love et al. 2012). Black plastic pond
liner was selected due to its durability and good performance (Chapter 4). Commercial
landscape fabric was selected because of its reported ability to keep soil temperatures high
The anodized aluminum plate was perforated by drilling 0.0032 m diameter holes,
0.0254 m on center in a square grid, for a porosity of 1.2%, on a CNC machine. The black
PVC plastic collector was perforated using a 0.0032 m heated hole punch, with holes 0.025 m
on center, with a final porosity of 1.2%, the chads remained on the underside of the plastic
sheet. The commercial landscape fabric was used as is, but two layers were employed to ensure
that there was no bleed-through of incident radiation. The absorbances of the aluminum plate,
plastic sheet, and landscape fabric (double layer) were 0.95, 0.96, and 0.97, respectively, in a
130
wavelength range of 360 to 750 nm. For reference, the commercial TSC described in Ch. 2
Each collector was outfitted with SHT31-D sensors for temperature and relative
humidity (Make Sensirion; RH accuracy: 2%; temperature accuracy: 0.3 C), incident
5%), and wind speed (Make: Onset Computers Model: S-WCA-M003, Accuracy: 5% ) (Fig.
5.1 (b)). Relative humidity and temperature measurements were taken at 5 minute intervals
Raspberry Pi base station (Make: Raspberry Pi Foundation Model: Raspberry Pi 2.0 ) where
they were stored. Incident radiation and wind speeds measurements were measured at 2 minute
intervals and stored on a HOBO data logger (Make: Onset Computers Model: H21-002).
Airflow was measured by a handheld anemometer placed at the outlet (Make: Model: accuracy:
). Thermal images of each TSC surface were taken with a thermal camera (Make: FLIR, Model:
E8) with special care taken to use the same angle of each measurement. Scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) was used to qualitatively characterize the landscape fabric, to develop an
The TSC systems were tested for 12 d in June 2016 at different flow rates to obtain
performance data at different suction velocities and wind speeds. Suction velocity is defined
as:
131
= (1)
3
Where is the volumetric flow rate ( ), and is the area of the TSC plate (2 ).
= 1 (2)
Where T1 and Tamb are the temperatures at the locations described in Fig. 5.1 (b). Energy
= , (3)
Where is the mass flow rate ( ), and , is the specific heat of air. Efficiency was
calculated as:
, (4)
=
Where is the incident radiation (2 ), and all other terms were defined earlier.
The commercial landscape fabric performed better than the metal and plastic materials,
with 10% higher efficiency under both suction velocities tested. Temperature rise generated
by the landscape fabric was also consistently higher, with 2 C higher temperature rise at a
suction velocity of 0.047 m/s and 1 C at 0.060 m/s (Table 5.1). Energy extracted by the
landscape fabric at a suction velocity of 0.047 m/s was 32% and 27% higher than the metal
132
and plastic plates, respectively. At the higher suction velocity, energy extracted by the
landscape fabric was 33% and 38% higher for metal and plastic, respectively. This consistency
in temperature rise, energy extracted and efficacy indicated that the landscape fabric more
133
Table 5.1 Average incident radiation (IR), wind speed (U), temperature rise (eq. 2) of metal (TM), plastic (TP) and
commercial landscape fabric ( TL), energy produced (eq. (3)) by the metal (EM), plastic (EP), and landscape fabric (EL)
respectively, and efficiency (eq. (4)) of metal (M), plastic (P), and landscape fabric (L), respectively. Each measured value
is an average of 96 measurements. Measurements for suction velocity 0.047 m/s and 0.060 m/s were taken on 6/20/2016 and
6/27/2016 respectively.
Suction IR Tamb U TM TP TL EM EP EL M P L
Velocity (W/m2) (C) (m/s) (C) (C) (C) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ)
0.047 737 33.1 0.9 4.3 4.6 6.2 2.5 2.7 3.7 0.26 0.26 0.39
0.060 658 33.8 2.5 2.2 2.0 3.3 1.6 1.5 2.4 0.28 0.26 0.39
134
Highest hourly T with the landscape fabric was 10.0 and 6.3 C respectively, with
suction velocities of 0.047 and 0.06 m/s, 2.2 and 2.0 C higher than the plastic collector, which
performed similarly than the anodized aluminum sheet (Fig. 5.2). Increased T and in the
commercial landscape fabric is consistent across a standard day under both suction velocities
with varying wind speeds and incident radiation (Fig. 5.2). With high wind speeds that
occurred in the afternoon of 6/27/2016, the landscape fabrics performance was reduced
considerably indicating that the landscape fabric was not immune to convective losses at high
wind speeds. However, the landscape fabric still maintained higher temperature rise and
135
Fig. 5.2 TSC performance as affected by suction velocity. a) T(C) and incident radiation
(W/m2) and b) efficiency and wind speed (m/s) for a suction velocity of 0.047 m/s and c) T
(C), incident radiation (W/m2) and d) efficiency and wind speed (m/s) for a suction velocity
of 0.06 m/s. Measurements for suction velocity 0.047 m/s and 0.060 m/s were taken on
6/20/2016 and 6/27/2016 respectively. Hourly average T value is based on 12 values whereas
the hourly wind speed and incident radiation values are averaged of 30 measured values.
Thermal images of the anodized aluminum, plastic collector, and landscape fabric were
taken (Fig. 5.3) to understand spatial temperature differences among the three collectors (Fig.
5.3). The anodized collector plate showed the most uniform temperature distribution across the
136
plate, except at the holes where it was cooler (Fig. 5.3(b)). The plastic greater temperature
variability than the metal plate but also showed cooler holes (Fig. 5.3(c)). The landscape fabric
showed the most variations in temperature (Fig. 5.3(a)). An important feature of the landscape
material is the significantly lower temperatures observed in both the hot spots and cooler areas
when compared to both the metal and plastic plates (thermal scale, Fig. 5.3). Considering the
higher efficiencies and temperature rises described previously, these lower temperatures
indicate better heat transfer in the landscape fabric. Compared to the other collectors, higher
temperature rise in the landscape fabric may also be due to the lower radiative losses and
Fig. 5.3 Thermal images of the a) commercial landscape fabric, b) anodized aluminum plate,
c) plastic pond liner. The suction velocity during operation was 0.024 m/s.
SEM images of the landscape fabric were taken to understand the microscopic structure
of the material and how it could explain the performance (Fig. 5.4). The landscape fabric
material includes interwoven fibers that allow movement of air while preventing the
137
transmittance of incident solar radiation. In the cross-sectional view small rectangular solid
sections of plastic can be seen where the material has been glued together (Fig. 5.4 (b)). These
small sections likely act as flat plates similar to that seen in the large porous plates, but at a
smaller scale. Since TSC performance is linked to the pitch and diameter of the holes (Kutscher
1994), these small flat plates increase turbulence and thus, likely improve performance. The
3D structure likely facilitated heat transfer inside the material itself, reducing losses. In a
traditional 2D TSC, stagnation points occur on the surface of the collector plate. In the
landscape fabric, these stagnation points occur throughout the depth, and when they occur
Fig. 5.4 Scanning electron microscopic images of the landscape fabric. a) in-plane view and
b) cross-sectional view.
138
Temperature rise values observed here (Table 5.1, Fig. 5.2) are lower than those
reported in other studies (e.g., Gawlik et al. 2005). One reason could be the small size of the
collector. In the modeling study performed previously (Chapter 3) it was shown that convective
losses accounted for approximately 40% of total losses for a one stage TSC with a suction
velocity of 0.02 m/s. In a collector that has a much smaller area (such as this study) these
convective losses will be increase substantially due to edge effects. Another very important
reason for the relatively low T in this study was due to the high suction velocities since T
is negatively correlated with suction velocity (Kutscher et al. 1993). However, the power per
unit area generated by the landscape fabric was 0.46 kW/m2, comparable to larger collectors
tested earlier in this work (metal in Chapter 2 with 0.44 kW/m2 and plastic in Chapter 4 with
0.46 kW/m2). Gawlik et al. (2005) reported 0.50 kW/m2 for their styrene collector plate.
When comparing the three materials, cost is of primary concern. Of the three materials
the metal plate is the most expensive. Further, introducing corrugations into the collector is
often required to ensure rigidity and this can reduce performance (Gawlik and Kutscher 2002,
Chapter 3). The plastic material is inexpensive, but perforating the plastic can greatly increase
cost (Chapter 4). The landscape fabric is the most inexpensive, with minimal support structure
needed and no need for perforation. However, due to easy movement of fluid through the
material it is possible that rainwater could enter the plenum in much larger quantities than the
139
5.4 Conclusions
The performance of metal, plastic, and fabric TSCs was evaluated on the basis of
temperature rise, energy gain and efficiency at two suction velocities (0.047 and 0.06 m/s).
Thermal imaging was performed on the absorber plates to determine variations in surface
temperature. SEM images were taken of the commercial landscape to determine internal
Landscape fabric performed consistently better than the metal and plastic collector
The temperature variations on the metal plate were more uniform than the plastic or
landscape fabric, but the landscape fabric was substantially cooler than the other two.
The landscape fabric performed better likely due to lower convective and radiative
Future studies should investigate the use of commercial landscape fabric in larger scale TSCs.
Also, modeling of the commercial landscape fabric could be performed to better understand
140
5.5 References
Khedari, J., Rawangkul, R., Chimchavee, W., Hirunlabh, J., and Watanasungsuit, A. 2003.
Feasibility study of using agriculture waste as desiccant for air conditioning system.
Gawlik, K. M. and Kutscher. C.F. 2002. "Wind Heat Loss from Corrugated, Transpired Solar
doi:10.1115/1.1487886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1487886.
Gawlik, K., Christensen C., and Kutscher, C.F. 2005. "A Numerical and Experimental
Kutscher, C.F., Christensen, C.B., Barker, G.M. 1993. Unglazed Transpired Solar
Collectors: Heat Loss Theory. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 115 (3):182-188.
doi:10.1115/1.2930047.
Kutscher, C. F. 1994. "Heat exchange effectiveness and pressure drop for air flow through
perforated plates with and without crosswind." Journal of Heat Transfer 116 (2): 391-
399. doi:10.1115/1.2911411.
Heating." Assoc of Energy Eng/Et Al 19th World Energy Eng Cong (Energy Business
141
6. Conclusions and Future Work
agricultural and residential applications. The major limitations of TSCs are their relatively high
cost and limited use time. In this work, several different approaches to overcome these issues
were investigated.
In Chapter 2, a corrugated absorber plate was investigated with focus on plate temperature
variations. Also, one and two stage TSCs were compared based on temperature rise, power
produced, and efficiency. Lastly, phase change materials were investigated for storing excess
A corrugated one stage TSC showed substantial variation in surface temperature, with
the valley temperatures consistently higher than the top and ridge at a suction velocity
of 0.044 m/s.
At suction velocity of 0.024 m/s, the one stage TSC performed consistently better than
the two stage TSC, with higher power supplied, efficiency, and T.
The heat exchanger stored at least 88% of its theoretical heat storage capacity and could
In Chapter 3 one and two stage TSCs were modeled to directly compare the performance
of the two systems. Emphasis was placed on the ability of the model to correctly predict
performance of the system under variable wind and solar radiation conditions. The following
142
The one and two stage models adequately represented the behavior of the measured
system, with very good performance in the early morning and late-afternoon hours.
The one stage collector model underpredicted temperature rise by 2.4 C at low wind
The two stage collector model was superior to the one stage model in predicting
Modeled efficiencies and heat exchange effectiveness were similar to literature values
In Chapter 4 a plastic TSC was tested in a turkey brooder barn to provide supplemental
heating. Propane displaced, bird performance and a comparison of plastic to metal absorber
At the highest mass flow rate of 0.06 kg/m2-s and suction velocity of 0.05 m/s, over a
9-h period with average IR of 772 W/m2 and U of 5.6 m/s, the pTSC yielded T, Ps,
Compared to a metal TSC, performance of the plastic TSC was comparable with T of
14.7 C (metal TSC) and 11.7 C (plastic TSC) for suction velocities of 0.024 m/s and
The pTSC did not reduce propane use probably due to higher ventilation rate in the
143
Lastly, in Chapter 5 three different types of collector plate materials (metal, plastic, and a
commercial landscape fabric) were investigated to determine the performance under different
Landscape fabric performed consistently better than the metal and plastic collector
The landscape fabric performed better due to lower convective losses and likely lower
radiative losses.
Based on these findings, the following recommendations are given for future study:
Based on the performance of phase change materials in storing excess heat, further
study into the economics of practical applications, including scale up, should be
investigated.
Based on the performance of the commercial landscape fabric, full-scale studies should
144
APPENDICES
145
Appendix A Raw data for Transpired Solar Collector with Phase Change Materials for Heat Storage (Chapter 2).
Table A.2 Hourly averaged temperatures for each location on the corrugated collector plate as well as temperatures at the
outlet (Tout) and ambient (Tamb). L=Left, M=Middle, R = Right, V=Valley, Rr=Ridge, and T=Top.
Temperature (C)
Date/Time TL,V TM,V TR,V TL,Rr TM,Rr TR,Rr TL,T TM,T TR,T Tout Tamb
One Stage
12/25/2014 9:00 13.0 12.7 12.4 13.0 12.9 12.6 13.3 12.8 12.2 11.9 11.5
12/25/2014 10:00 28.1 25.5 22.3 26.1 23.5 21.1 26.2 26.1 20.4 21.4 12.8
12/25/2014 11:00 34.4 33.9 32.0 31.4 30.0 30.4 31.5 33.7 28.4 29.2 14.1
12/25/2014 12:00 37.6 37.8 34.7 34.5 33.3 33.2 34.4 37.6 30.7 32.8 15.0
12/25/2014 13:00 39.2 39.5 36.1 36.3 35.0 35.0 35.8 39.2 31.8 34.5 15.6
12/25/2014 14:00 38.4 38.6 35.6 35.9 34.6 34.7 35.3 38.4 31.5 33.9 15.9
12/25/2014 15:00 24.9 26.9 26.1 24.4 25.0 26.0 23.9 27.0 23.7 25.3 15.0
12/25/2014 16:00 13.4 13.5 13.1 13.6 13.8 13.4 13.6 13.4 13.0 13.0 13.4
Two Stage
2/3/2015 9:00 12.2 11.9 11.1 11.6 10.6 10.0 12.5 11.9 20.7 7.4 -0.1
2/3/2015 10:00 24.5 24.7 24.3 23.5 22.0 24.0 25.3 24.5 28.8 19.5 2.4
2/3/2015 11:00 30.8 30.5 29.7 29.8 26.9 29.8 31.4 29.3 34.0 25.0 4.0
2/3/2015 12:00 33.4 34.3 33.0 32.8 30.2 33.2 34.1 32.4 34.8 28.8 5.6
2/3/2015 13:00 33.2 34.9 33.8 34.0 30.4 34.3 35.1 33.6 36.2 29.5 6.6
2/3/2015 14:00 31.6 33.4 32.4 33.1 28.5 33.1 33.7 33.5 35.3 28.5 8.1
2/3/2015 15:00 29.2 29.6 29.0 29.8 26.7 30.1 29.9 30.2 32.9 25.2 9.0
2/3/2015 16:00 19.0 19.1 19.1 19.2 18.3 20.1 19.1 19.7 27.1 17.0 8.3
146
Table A.3 Hourly averages of the observed incident radiation (IR) and temperatures in the heat exchanger (T1,T2, T3, as
described in Fig. 2.2) and temperature at the outlet of the collector (Tout) and ambient.
Table A.2 continued
147
Table A.2 continued
148
Table A.2 continued
149
Table A.2 continued
150
Table A.2 continued
151
Table A.2 continued
152
Table A.2 continued
153
Table A.2 continued
154
Table A.2 continued
155
Table A.2 continued
156
Table A.2 continued
157
Table A.2 continued
158
Table A.2 continued
159
Table A.2 continued
160
Table A.2 continued
161
Table A.2 continued
162
Table A.2 continued
163
Table A.2 continued
164
Table A.2 continued
165
Table A.2 continued
166
Table A.2 continued
167
Table A.2 continued
168
Table A.2 continued
169
Table A.2 continued
170
Table A.2 continued
171
Table A.2 continued
172
Table A.2 continued
173
Table A.2 continued
174
Table A.2 continued
175
Table A.2 continued
176
Table A.2 continued
177
Table A.2 continued
178
Table A.2 continued
179
Table A.2 continued
180
Table A.2 continued
181
Table A.2 continued
182
Table A.2 continued
183
Table A.2 continued
184
Appendix B Source Code for the one and two stage models (Chapter 3).
SolarCollectorModeling.m
close all;
clear all;
clc;
fp = fopen('1StageDataValidation4-10.csv', 'rt');
data = textscan(fp, '%s %f %f %f %f', 'Delimiter',',', 'CollectOutput',1, 'HeaderLines',1);
fclose(fp);
dates=data{1,1};
nums=data{1,2};
time=[]; %Initilize time Matrix
temperatures=[]; %Initilize Temperatures Matrix
eff=[]; % Initialize Efficency Matrix
TT_col = [];
TT_air_plen = [];
TT_bp = [];
TT_air_out = [];
TT_diff = [];
TT_conv_air = [];
TT_amb = [];
Q_stored = [];
oldTime = 0;
timePeriod = 0;
Q_sun =[];
Q_out = [];
Q_loss = [];
Q_sun_0 = 0;
Q_out_0 = 0;
185
Q_loss_0 = 0;
Q_stored_0 = 0;
Q_rad_loss = [];
Q_conv_loss = [];
Q_cond_loss = [];
Q_cond_0 = 0;
Q_conv_0 = 0;
Q_rad_0 = 0;
efficiencies = [];
ehx = [];
for n=1:(size(dates, 1)-1)
actualTime = datenum(dates(:,1));
actualDifference = nums(:,2);
fig2=figure('Name','Comparision of Temperature Differences','Position', [110,200,500,500]);
pH = plot(actualTime(1:6:end), actualDifference(1:6:end), '.', time(1:6:end), TT_diff(1:6:end), '*');
datetick('x', 'HH:MM');
xlim([time(1), time(end)]);
hTitle = title('');
ylim([0,30]);
set(pH(1), 'MarkerSize',10);
set(pH(2), 'MarkerSize',10);
hXLabel =xlabel('Time (HH:MM)');
hYLabel1 =ylabel('\DeltaT, \circC');
yyaxis right;
dQ_sun = diff(Q_sun)/timePeriod;
189
pH = plot(time(1:6:end), dQ_sun(1:6:end)/1000, 'd');
xlim([time(1), time(end)]);
hYLabel2 =ylabel('Power (kW)');
hLegend =legend('\DeltaT_{meas}', '\DeltaT_{mod}', 'Q_{sun}');
co=get(gca,'ColorOrder');
set(pH, 'MarkerFaceColor', co);
set(gcf, 'Color', [1,1,1]);
set( gca , ...
'FontName' , 'Helvetica', ...
'Box' , 'off' , ...
'TickDir' , 'out' , ...
'YGrid' , 'on' , ...
'LineWidth', 1);
set([hTitle, hXLabel, hYLabel1], ...
'FontName' , 'AvantGarde');
set([hLegend, gca] , ...
'FontSize' , 10 );
set([hXLabel, hYLabel1] , ...
'FontSize' , 12 );
set( hTitle , ...
'FontSize' , 12 , ...
'FontWeight' , 'bold' );
SolarCollectorModeling_2Stage.m
close all;
clear all;
clc;
fp = fopen('2StageDataValidation4-4.csv', 'rt');
data = textscan(fp, '%s %f %f %f %f', 'Delimiter',',', 'CollectOutput',1, 'HeaderLines',1);
fclose(fp);
dates=data{1,1};
nums=data{1,2};
lat = 35.78; % [arc-degrees] latitude
long = -78.64; % [arc-degrees] longitude
TZ = -5; % [hrs] offset from UTC, during standard time
193
dst = false;
time=[]; %Initilize time Matrix
temperatures=[]; %Initilize Temperatures Matrix
eff=[]; % Initialize Efficency Matrix
TT_col = [];
TT_air_plen = [];
TT_bp = [];
TT_air_out = [];
TT_diff = [];
TT_cover = [];
TT_plen1 = [];
TT_conv_air = [];
Q_sun = [];
Q_out = [];
Q_loss = [];
Q_stored = [];
Q_sun_0 = 0;
Q_out_0 = 0;
Q_loss_0 = 0;
Q_stored_0 = 0;
Q_rad_loss = [];
Q_conv_loss = [];
Q_cond_loss = [];
TT_amb = [];
Q_cond_0 = 0;
Q_conv_0 = 0;
Q_rad_0 = 0;
incidenceAngles = [];
efficiencies = [];
oldTime = 0;
ehx = [];
194
for n=1:(size(dates, 1)-1)
actualTime = datenum(dates(:,1));
actualDifference = nums(:,2);
fig2=figure('Name','Comparision of Temperature Differences','Position', [510,200,500,500]);
pH = plot(actualTime(1:6:end), actualDifference(1:6:end), '.', time(1:6:end), TT_diff(1:6:end), '*');
xlim([time(1), time(end)]);
ylim([0,30]);
set(pH(1), 'MarkerSize',10);
set(pH(2), 'MarkerSize',10);
datetick('x', 'HH:MM');
hTitle = title('');
hXLabel =xlabel('Time (HH:MM)');
hYLabel1 =ylabel('\DeltaT, \circC');
198
yyaxis right;
dQ_sun = diff(Q_sun)/timePeriod;
pH = plot(time(1:6:end), dQ_sun(1:6:end)/1000, 'd');
xlim([time(1), time(end)]);
ylim([0,2.2]);
co=get(gca,'ColorOrder');
set(pH, 'MarkerFaceColor', co);
200
fig4 = figure('Name', 'Efficiency and Exchange Efficiency','Position', [510,200,500,500]);
pH = plot(time(1:6:end), efficiencies(1:6:end), '.', time(1:6:end), ehx(1:6:end), 'v');
datetick('x', 'HH:MM');
hTitle = title('');
hXLabel =xlabel('Time (HH:MM)');
hYLabel =ylabel('\eta or \in_{HX}');
hLegend =legend('\eta', '\in_{HX}');
ylim([0,1]);
xlim([time(1), time(end)]);
co=get(gca,'ColorOrder');
set(pH(1), 'MarkerSize', 10);
set(pH(2), 'MarkerFaceColor', co(2, :));
201
fprintf('Day of Year: %i\n\n', floor(datenum(StartTime) - datenum(StartTime(1),1,1) + 1));
fprintf('Total energy incident on collector (MJ): %.2f\n', Q_sun(end)/1000000);
fprintf('Total Energy gained as heat (MJ): %.2f\n', Q_out(end)/1000000);
fprintf('Total Energy Lost (MJ): %.2f\n', Q_loss(end)/1000000);
fprintf('Energy in Backplate (MJ) %.2f\n', Q_stored(end)/1000000);
fprintf('Overall Efficiency (%%): %.2f\n', Q_out(end)/Q_sun(end)*100);
Q_diff = Q_sun(end)-(Q_loss(end)+Q_out(end)+Q_stored(end));
fprintf('In-Out-Lost (MJ) = %.2f (%.2f%%)\n\n', Q_diff/1000000, ((Q_diff/Q_sun(end)))*100);
TSCModel1Stage_ODE_Num.m
202
% Transpired Solar Collector Model
%
%
% By Mark Poole
%
% Reference: Augustus, Leon. "Mathematical modeling and thermal performance
% analysis of unglazed transpired solar collectors". 2007.
%
%
%
%------------------------------------
% Variable Definitions
%------------------------------------
% Units (SI, kg, m, sec)
%
%
% A_s = Collector Area
% Cp_air = specific heat capacity of air (j/kg-k)
% Cp_bp = specific heat capacity of back plate material
% CP_col = specific heat capacity of absorber material
% D = perforation diameter
% d_plen = plenum depth
% F_cs = collector sky view factor
% F_cg = collector ground view factor
% F_cl = cloud factor
% H = absorber height (m)
% h = cloud base height (km)
% h_conv = convective heat transfer coeffcient (W/m^2*K)
% I_t = solar radiation incident on the surface of the collector
% K_air = thermal conductivity of air (W/m*K)
% m_air_out = mass flow rate of air through the collector
203
% m_bp = mass o fthe back plate (kg)
% m_col = mass of the absorber plate
% n_sky = fractional area of sky covered by clouds
% Nu = Nusselt number
% P = pitch of perforations (m)
% Patm = atmospheric pressure at the collector location
% Q_conv_air_bp = convection heat transfer from air to back plate (W)
% Q_conv_bp_amb = convection heat transfer from back plate to surrounding
% Q_conv_col_air = convection heat transfer from absorber to air (W)
% Q_rad_col_bp = radiation heat transfer from absorber to back plate (W)
% Q_rad_col_sur = radiation heat transfer from absorber to ambient
% Q_rad_bp_sur = radiation heat transfer from back plate to surrounding (w)
% Re = reynolds number
% T amb = ambient air temperature
% T_air_out = exit air temperature
% T_bp = temperature of the back plate
% T_db = dew point temberature
% T_col = average absorber plate temperature
% T_sky = sky temperature
% T_surr = temperature of surrounding air.
% t = hour of the day
% dt = time increment to process over
%------------------------------------
% End Variable Defintions
%------------------------------------
function F = TSCModel1Stage_ODE_Num(t, X, T_amb, T_ambt, I_t, I_tt, v_wind, v_windt)
%------------------------------------
% Inputs
204
%------------------------------------
% T_amb = Ambient Air Temperature
% TimeStart = Start Time Vector
% TimeEnd = End Time Vector
% I_t = solar radiation incident on the surface of the collector (W/m^2)
%---------------------------------------------------------------
%------------------------------------
% Parameters
%------------------------------------
%------------------------------------
%Outputs
%------------------------------------
v_wind=interp1(v_windt, v_wind, t); %wind velocity (m/s)
I_R = interp1(I_tt, I_t, t); % indicient radiation is interpolated between the two time points.
T_amb = interp1(T_ambt, T_amb, t); %ambient temperature is interpolated between the two time points.
m_air_out = rho_air*v_app*A_s; %mass flow rate of air through the collector kg/s
T_sky = (e_sky^.25)*T_amb; %sky temperature
T_gnd = T_amb; % ground temperature is same as ambient.
206
%------------------------------------
% Rate Equations for heat Transfer
%------------------------------------
%Convection
Re_1= (rho_air*v_hole*D)/mew_air; %Reynolds number through the hole
Re_2= (rho_air*v_plen*d_plen)/mew_air; %reynolds number through the plenum (used for convection on the backplate)
Re_3= (rho_air*v_wind*H)/mew_air; %reynolds number due to wind.
Re_4 = (rho_air*v_wind*H)/mew_air;
Pr_2= Cp_air*mew_air/K_air;
Pr_3=Pr_2;
% x = [T_col, T_air_plen, T_bp, T_air_out];
% THIS MEANS THHAT X(1) = T_COL, X(2) = T_air_plen, X(3) = T_BP, X(4) =
% T_air_out X(5) = T_conv_air
%---- This is From Kutcher (1994)-- Nu_1: 2.87*((P/D)^0.22)*Re_1^0.43-But Yields much too high of Nu number;
Nu_1= (2.75*((P/D)^(-1.21)*Re_1^0.5+0.011*bbeta*Re_1*(v_wind/v_app)^0.48))*(1+0.81*(A_core/P_core)^0.5); % Nu
number through hole OLD: 2.75*((P/D)^(-1.21)*Re_1^0.43%+0.011*beta*Re_1*(v_wind/v_app)^0.48);
Nu_2= 0.664*(Re_2^0.5)*(Pr_2^0.333); %Nu number via plenum
Nu_3 =0.664*(Re_3^0.5)*(Pr_3^0.333);
Nu_4 = 0.664*(Re_4^0.5)*(Pr_3^0.333);
h_conv_col_air =(Nu_1*K_air)/D;
h_conv_air_bp = (Nu_2*K_air)/d_plen;
h_conv_col_sur = (Nu_3*K_air)/H;
h_conv_bp_sur = (Nu_4*K_air)/H;
%Convection
Q_conv_col_air= h_conv_col_air*A_s*(X(1)-X(2)); %convection heat transfer from collector to air (W)
Q_conv_air_bp= h_conv_air_bp*A_plen_conv*(X(2)-X(3)); %convection heat transfer from air to back plate (W)
207
Q_conv_col_sur = h_conv_col_sur*A_s*(X(1)-T_amb); %convective heat transfer from colector surface to surroundings
(W) this is negligble if v_suction is high enough.
%Q_conv_bp_sur = h_conv_bp_sur*A_plen_conv_sur*(X(3)-T_amb);
%Radiation
Q_rad_col_sur = e_col*sigma_sb*A_s*(X(1).^4-F_cs*T_sky^4-F_cg*T_gnd^4); %radiation heat transfer from collector to
surroundings (W)
Q_rad_col_bp = sigma_sb*A_s*(X(1).^4-X(3).^4)/((1/e_col_in)+(1/e_bp)-1); %radiation heat transfer from collector to
back plate (W)
%Q_rad_bp_sur = e_bp*sigma_sb*A_plen_bp*(X(3).^4-T_amb^4);
%Conduction
U = 1/R;
Q_cond_bp = (A_plen_cond)*U*(X(3)-T_amb); %conduction through the backplate.
%------------------------------------
%Energy Balance Equations
%------------------------------------
f1= ((Q_sun-Q_conv_col_air-Q_rad_col_bp-Q_rad_col_sur-Q_conv_col_sur))/(m_col*Cp_col); %dT_col/dt
f2 = (Q_conv_col_air-Q_conv_air_bp-Q_out_plen)/(Cp_air*vol_plen*rho_air); % dT_air_plen/dt
208
f3 = ((Q_rad_col_bp+Q_conv_air_bp-Q_cond_bp))/(m_bp*Cp_bp); %dT_bp/dt
f4 = (Q_out_plen -Q_out_total)/(m_air_out*Cp_air); %dT_air_out/dt
f5 = T_tmp-X(5); %dT_air_conv/dt
f6 = Q_sun; %input energy from the sun.
f7 = Q_out_plen; %energy that exits the system through mass flow.
f8 = Q_cond_bp + Q_rad_col_sur +Q_conv_col_sur; % energy that is lost during the process.
f9 = (Q_sun-(Q_out_plen + Q_cond_bp+Q_rad_col_sur+Q_conv_col_sur)); %%%% THIS is the change in energy of the
system.
f10 = Q_rad_col_sur;
f11 = Q_conv_col_sur;
f12 = Q_cond_bp;
%%%%%%%%%%
F(1,1)= f1;
F(2,1) = f2;
F(3,1) = f3;
F(4,1) = f4;
F(5,1) = f5;
F(6,1) = f6;
F(7,1) = f7;
F(8,1) = f8;
F(9,1) = f9;
F(10,1) = f10;
F(11,1) = f11;
F(12,1) = f12;
end
TSCModel2Stage_ODE_Num.m
%------------------------------------
% Inputs
%------------------------------------
% T_amb = Ambient Air Temperature
% TimeStart = Start Time Vector
211
% TimeEnd = End Time Vector
% I_t = solar radiation incident on the surface of the collector (W/m^2)
%---------------------------------------------------------------
v_app=0.01917; % approach velocity (m/s)
m_col=20.3; %mass of the collector (FIND THIS FOR REAL)
m_cover = 19.5; % mass of the cover;
%------------------------------------
% Parameters
%------------------------------------
% this reflectance data was given from the plexigalass documentation for
% angle of incidence vs reflectance of material at the air interface. They provide a chart and the quation below was fit based
upon approximate values.
% ref = 7E-08*(solarIncidence)^4 - 7E-06*solarIncidence^3 + 0.0002*solarIncidence^2 - 0.0027*solarIncidence + 0.0521;
213
% if(solarIncidence >= 85)
% ref = tau_cover;
% else
% ref = 7E-08*(solarIncidence)^4 - 7E-06*solarIncidence^3 + 0.0002*solarIncidence^2 - 0.0027*solarIncidence + 0.0521;
% end
% % stamdard solar transmittance is given above. The additional reflectance
% % subtracted here comes from the reflectance added by angle of incidence.
% tau_cover = tau_cover-ref;
%------------------------------------
%Outputs
%------------------------------------
v_wind=interp1(v_windt, v_wind, t); %wind velocity (m/s)
I_R = interp1(I_tt, I_t, t);
T_amb = interp1(T_ambt, T_amb, t);
m_air_out = rho_air*v_app*A_s; %mass flow rate of air through the collector kg/s
T_sky = (e_sky^.25)*T_amb; %sky temperature
T_gnd = T_amb;
%------------------------------------
% Rate Equations for heat Transfer
%------------------------------------
%Convection
Re_1= (rho_air*v_hole*D)/mew_air;
Re_2= (rho_air*v_plen2*d_plen2)/mew_air;
Re_3=(rho_air*v_wind*H)/mew_air;
215
Re_4=(rho_air*v_plen1*H)/mew_air;
Re_6 = (rho_air*v_plen1*H_abs_pl)/mew_air;
Re_7 = (rho_air*v_wind*H)/mew_air;
Pr_2= Cp_air*mew_air/K_air;
Pr_3=Pr_2;
Pr_4 = Pr_2;
% x = [T_col, T_air_plen, T_bp, T_air_out, T_Cover];
% THIS MEANS THAT X(1) = T_COL, X(2) = T_air_plen2, X(3) = T_BP, X(4) =
% T_air_out, X(5) = T_conv_air X(6) = T_Cover;, X(7) = T_air_plen1
%---- This is From Kutcher (1994)-- Nu_1: 2.87*((P/D)^0.22)*Re_1^0.43-But Yields much too high of Nu number;
Nu_1= 2.87*((P/D)^(-1.21)*Re_1^0.43)*(1+0.81*(A_core/P_core)^0.5); % Nu number through hole OLD: 2.75*((P/D)^(-
1.21)*Re_1^0.43%+0.011*beta*Re_1*(v_wind/v_app)^0.48);
Nu_2= 0.664*(Re_2^0.5)*(Pr_2^0.333); %Nu number for convection between bp and plenum 2 air
Nu_3 = 0.664*(Re_3^0.5)*(Pr_2^0.333); % Nu number from cover to surroundings;
Nu_4 = 0.664*(Re_4^0.5)*(Pr_4^0.333); % Nu number from collector plate to plenum 1.
Nu_6 = 0.664*(Re_6^0.5)*(Pr_4^0.333); % Nu nuber from cover to plenum 1 air.
Nu_7 = 0.664*(Re_7^0.5)*(Pr_4^0.333); % Nu number between back plate and surroudings.
h_conv_col_air =(Nu_1*K_air)/D;
h_conv_air_bp = (Nu_2*K_air)/d_plen2;
h_conv_cover_sur = (Nu_3*K_air)/H;
h_conv_cover_plen = (Nu_4*K_air)/d_plen1;
h_conv_col_plen1 = (Nu_6*K_air)/H;
h_conv_bp_sur = (Nu_7*K_air)/H;
%Convection
Q_conv_col_air=h_conv_col_air*A_s*(X(1)-X(2)); %convection heat transfer from collector to air (W)
Q_conv_cover_sur = h_conv_cover_sur*A_s*(X(6)-T_amb); %convection heat transfer from cover to surroundings (W)
216
Q_conv_air_bp= h_conv_air_bp*A_plen2_conv*(X(2)-X(3)); %convection heat transfer from air to back plate (W)
Q_conv_cover_plen1 = h_conv_cover_plen*A_s*(X(6)-X(7)); %convection heat transfer from cover to air in plenum1 the
plate (W)
Q_conv_col_plen1 = h_conv_col_plen1*A_s*(X(1)-X(7)); %convective heat transfer from colector surface to plenum1 (W)
this is negligble if v_suction is high enough.
%Radiation
Q_rad_col_cover = sigma_sb*A_s*(X(1).^4-X(6).^4)/((1/e_col)+(1/e_cover)-1); %look at this - radiation heat transfer from
collector to cover (W)
Q_rad_cover_sur = e_cover*sigma_sb*A_s*(X(6).^4-F_cs*T_sky^4-F_cg*T_gnd^4);
Q_rad_col_bp = sigma_sb*A_s*(X(1).^4-X(3).^4)/((1/e_col_in)+(1/e_bp)-1); %radiation heat transfer from collector to
back plate (W)
%Pipe Losses
%Q_ducting_cond = 2*pi*L_duct*k_duct*(T_amb-X(4))/(log(r_duct_i/r_duct_o));
%Conduction
U = 1/(1/h_conv_bp_sur+ R); %Lumped resistance parameter.
Q_cond_bp = (A_plen2_cond)*U*(X(3)-T_amb); %conduction through the entire backplate.
%------------------------------------
%Energy Balance Equations
%------------------------------------
% f1 = dT_col/dt, f2 = dT_air_plen2/dt, f3 = dT_bp/dt, f4 = dT_air_out/dt,
% f5 = dT_cover/dt, f6 = dT_air_plen1/dt
f1= ((Q_sun_plate-Q_conv_col_air-Q_rad_col_bp-Q_rad_col_cover-Q_conv_col_plen1))/(m_col*Cp_col);
f2 = (Q_conv_col_air+Q_out_cover-Q_conv_air_bp-Q_out_plen)/(Cp_air*vol_plen2*rho_air);
f3 = ((Q_rad_col_bp+Q_conv_air_bp-Q_cond_bp))/(m_bp*Cp_bp);
f4 = (Q_out_plen -Q_out_total)/(m_air_out*Cp_air);
f5 = T_tmp-X(5);
f6 = (Q_sun_cover+Q_rad_col_cover-Q_rad_cover_sur-Q_conv_cover_sur-Q_conv_cover_plen1)/(m_cover*Cp_cover);
f7 = (Q_conv_cover_plen1+Q_conv_col_plen1-Q_out_cover)/(Cp_air*vol_plen1*rho_air);
f8 = Q_sun_plate+Q_sun_cover;
f9 = Q_out_plen;
f10 = Q_conv_cover_sur+Q_rad_cover_sur+Q_cond_bp;
f11 = (Q_sun_plate+Q_sun_cover)-(Q_out_plen+Q_conv_cover_sur+Q_rad_cover_sur+Q_cond_bp);
f12 = Q_rad_cover_sur;
f13 = Q_conv_cover_sur;
f14 = Q_cond_bp;
%%%%%%%%%%
F(1,1)= f1;
F(2,1) = f2;
F(3,1) = f3;
F(4,1) = f4;
F(5,1) = f5;
F(6,1) = f6;
F(7,1) = f7;
218
F(8,1) = f8;
F(9,1) = f9;
F(10, 1) = f10;
F(11, 1) = f11;
F(12, 1) = f12;
F(13 ,1) = f13;
F(14,1) = f14;
end
219
Appendix C Raw data for Low cost plastic solar air heater for turkey brooding (Chapter 4).
Table C.4 Flock 1 hourly averaged (n=12) observed temperatures and relative humidity for each pen (subscript 1, 2, 3) for
the control (subscripts leading C) and experimental (subscript leading T).
Table C.1 continued
1/29/2016 16:00 32.5 32.6 32.3 33.1 32.1 31.7 19.9 13.4 18.8 18.5 19.0 18.1 18.6 18.6 24.4 29.2
1/29/2016 17:00 31.9 32.0 31.8 33.0 32.1 31.5 13.5 10.1 19.4 19.1 19.6 18.9 19.3 19.3 30.1 31.5
1/29/2016 18:00 31.6 31.7 31.6 32.7 31.8 31.1 9.9 8.3 20.7 20.5 20.8 19.5 20.1 20.3 36.7 35.6
1/29/2016 19:00 31.4 31.5 31.4 32.7 31.9 30.8 7.1 6.4 21.8 21.7 21.7 20.8 21.3 21.9 41.3 39.3
1/29/2016 20:00 31.0 31.2 31.0 32.8 32.1 30.9 3.1 3.8 22.6 22.6 22.4 22.5 22.9 24.3 48.4 48.7
1/29/2016 21:00 30.9 31.0 31.0 32.6 32.0 30.6 1.8 3.2 23.2 23.1 22.9 23.6 23.7 25.1 53.1 49.5
1/29/2016 22:00 31.2 31.3 31.3 32.4 31.7 30.3 3.2 3.9 22.7 22.6 22.6 22.8 23.2 24.2 51.3 44.0
1/29/2016 23:00 30.9 31.2 31.1 32.4 31.8 30.2 2.3 3.0 22.3 22.1 22.0 22.8 23.1 24.4 51.1 45.5
1/30/2016 0:00 30.6 30.9 30.9 32.3 31.7 30.1 0.2 1.3 22.5 22.2 22.2 23.4 23.7 25.2 55.8 52.1
1/30/2016 1:00 30.8 31.2 31.2 32.0 31.4 29.8 1.5 2.3 22.4 22.1 22.2 22.7 23.1 24.1 55.9 47.2
1/30/2016 2:00 31.0 31.4 31.4 32.0 31.4 29.7 2.3 2.6 21.8 21.4 21.6 22.0 22.2 23.3 54.3 45.6
1/30/2016 3:00 30.4 31.1 30.9 32.3 31.6 29.9 0.9 1.9 21.8 21.3 21.4 22.6 22.9 24.5 54.7 48.2
1/30/2016 4:00 30.2 30.9 30.8 32.2 31.7 29.8 0.5 1.3 22.2 21.5 21.5 23.1 23.4 25.2 57.0 50.8
1/30/2016 5:00 30.2 30.9 30.7 32.3 31.6 29.9 -1.3 0.1 22.6 22.0 22.0 23.4 23.9 25.5 61.1 55.9
1/30/2016 6:00 30.1 30.8 30.7 32.1 31.6 29.7 -2.1 -0.5 22.8 22.2 22.1 23.8 24.1 25.9 64.2 59.3
1/30/2016 7:00 30.0 30.7 30.6 32.1 31.5 29.8 -2.5 -0.9 23.1 22.5 22.4 24.2 24.4 26.1 66.6 61.5
1/30/2016 8:00 30.5 30.8 30.7 32.6 31.9 30.2 1.8 0.9 23.1 22.6 22.6 24.0 24.5 26.3 63.2 58.5
1/30/2016 9:00 32.7 33.0 32.4 35.8 34.6 33.3 11.1 6.3 21.4 20.9 21.5 20.9 22.3 23.6 48.2 42.7
1/30/2016 10:00 32.5 32.9 32.2 35.3 34.9 34.0 9.3 21.4 20.8 21.4 20.6 21.4 22.5 35.2
1/30/2016 11:00 32.3 32.7 32.1 35.0 34.7 33.8 10.9 21.6 21.2 21.6 21.4 22.0 23.1 30.8
220
Table C.1 continued
250
251
Table C.5 Flock 2 hourly averaged (n=12) observed temperatures and relative humidity for each pen (subscript 1, 2, 3) for
the control (subscripts leading C) and experimental (subscript leading T).
Table C.2 continued
3/9/2016 8:00 31.2 31.0 31.0 32.6 32.4 32.0 22.3 18.1 40.8 41.1 41.0 40.8 41.4 42.2 61.0 70.5
3/9/2016 9:00 31.3 31.3 31.2 32.6 32.6 32.2 29.0 21.1 41.1 41.3 41.2 41.4 41.8 42.6 45.6 63.4
3/9/2016 10:00 31.3 31.3 31.3 32.7 32.7 32.3 34.8 23.0 41.4 41.5 41.3 41.7 42.0 42.9 33.7 56.7
3/9/2016 11:00 31.3 31.4 31.4 32.6 32.6 32.3 39.3 25.3 41.6 41.7 41.4 42.3 42.5 43.2 26.4 48.6
3/9/2016 12:00 31.3 31.4 31.4 32.5 32.5 32.3 40.8 25.8 41.1 41.2 40.8 42.4 42.7 43.3 21.5 43.1
3/9/2016 13:00 31.3 31.3 31.3 32.5 32.4 32.3 38.8 26.1 40.6 40.7 40.4 42.1 42.4 42.9 22.0 42.5
3/9/2016 14:00 31.3 31.3 31.3 32.2 32.2 32.1 41.5 26.4 40.8 41.0 40.5 42.5 42.7 43.2 19.2 41.1
3/9/2016 15:00 31.4 31.4 31.4 32.4 32.4 32.3 37.6 26.4 40.9 41.0 40.6 42.5 42.7 43.2 22.0 40.4
3/9/2016 16:00 31.3 31.3 31.2 32.2 32.2 32.1 31.6 25.3 40.8 40.9 40.5 43.5 43.5 44.1 27.6 41.8
3/9/2016 17:00 30.9 30.8 30.8 32.4 32.4 32.2 25.4 23.8 41.2 41.6 41.0 43.9 43.9 44.5 36.9 45.9
3/9/2016 18:00 31.0 30.9 30.9 32.4 32.3 32.1 23.0 22.4 41.8 42.2 41.7 44.6 44.6 45.2 42.9 50.7
3/9/2016 19:00 31.1 30.9 30.9 32.5 32.5 32.1 19.9 42.4 42.8 42.4 45.1 44.9 45.8 57.4
3/9/2016 20:00 31.2 31.0 30.9 32.5 32.4 32.1 20.3 42.8 43.2 42.8 45.6 45.5 46.4 59.4
3/9/2016 21:00 31.1 30.8 30.8 32.5 32.4 32.1 20.2 43.2 43.7 43.4 46.0 46.0 46.9 60.9
3/9/2016 22:00 31.1 30.9 30.8 32.5 32.4 32.0 20.7 19.2 43.4 43.7 43.5 46.6 46.4 47.4 54.2 66.9
3/9/2016 23:00 31.1 30.9 30.9 32.5 32.4 32.0 18.4 18.5 44.0 44.4 44.1 47.0 47.0 47.9 63.2 71.7
3/10/2016 0:00 31.1 30.9 30.8 32.5 32.4 32.1 17.9 19.4 44.1 44.6 44.3 47.0 47.1 47.9 66.8 69.0
3/10/2016 1:00 31.1 30.9 30.8 32.5 32.4 32.0 17.5 18.0 44.1 44.5 44.4 47.3 47.2 48.2 68.9 71.9
3/10/2016 2:00 31.0 30.8 30.8 32.5 32.4 32.0 17.1 17.4 44.1 44.5 44.3 47.1 47.1 48.1 71.0 75.1
3/10/2016 3:00 31.1 30.8 30.8 32.6 32.4 32.1 17.0 17.1 43.9 44.4 44.2 46.9 47.2 48.0 72.3 76.5
252
Table C.2 continued
286
Table. C.6 Flock 1 hourly observed solar radiation (W/m2, n=60), Carbon dioxide (ppm, n=12) and carbon monoxide (ppm,
n=12) for the test and control rooms.
Table C.3 continued
287
Table C.3 continued
288
Table C.3 continued
289
Table C.3 continued
290
Table C.3 continued
291
Table C.3 continued
292
Table C.3 continued
293
Table C.3 continued
294
Table C.3 continued
295
Table C.3 continued
296
Table C.3 continued
297
Table C.3 continued
298
Table C.3 continued
299
Table C.3 continued
300
Table C.3 continued
301
Table C.3 continued
302
Table C.3 continued
303
Table C.3 continued
304
Table C.3 continued
305
Table C.3 continued
306
Table C.3 continued
307
Table C.3 continued
308
Table C.3 continued
309
Table C.3 continued
310
Table C.3 continued
311
Table C.3 continued
312
Table C.3 continued
313
Table C.3 continued
314
Table C.3 continued
315
Table C.3 continued
316
Table. C.7 Flock 2 hourly observed solar radiation (W/m2, n=60), Carbon dioxide (ppm, n=12) and carbon monoxide (ppm,
n=12) for the test and control rooms.
Table C.4 continued
317
Table C.4 continued
318
Table C.4 continued
319
Table C.4 continued
320
Table C.4 continued
321
Table C.4 continued
322
Table C.4 continued
323
Table C.4 continued
324
Table C.4 continued
325
Table C.4 continued
326
Table C.4 continued
327
Table C.4 continued
328
Table C.4 continued
329
Table C.4 continued
330
Table C.4 continued
331
Table C.4 continued
332
Table C.4 continued
333
Table C.4 continued
334
Table C.4 continued
335
Table C.4 continued
336
Table C.4 continued
337
Table C.4 continued
338
Table C.4 continued
339
Table C.4 continued
340
Table C.4 continued
341
Table C.4 continued
342
Table C.4 continued
343
Table C.4 continued
344
Table C.4 continued
345
Table C.4 continued
346
Table C.4 continued
347
Table C.4 continued
348
Table C.4 continued
349
Appendix D Raw data low cost transpired solar collector materials and desiccants (Chapter 5).
Table D.8 Observed temperature and relative humidity for the metal (subscript M), plastic (subscript P), and commercial
landscape fabric (subscript L) from the TSC materials study (Chapter 5). Subscripts 1 and subscripts 2 differentiate between
locations above (1) and below (2) the desiccant material.
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/18/2016 8:00 27.4 22.2 28.2 22.9 24.5 28.5 26.9 63.2 83.5 58.0 78.5 55.2 72.3 57.7
6/18/2016 9:00 31.8 26.8 33.1 28.1 30.0 33.3 28.6 48.6 67.6 44.7 60.1 42.6 55.8 50.6
6/18/2016 10:00 34.4 29.9 36.0 31.3 34.1 37.0 29.3 38.7 53.1 35.3 46.5 32.5 42.6 44.1
6/18/2016 11:00 36.5 32.3 38.2 33.3 36.8 39.5 30.1 32.1 43.3 29.2 38.8 26.9 35.0 38.5
6/18/2016 12:00 37.8 34.1 39.5 34.9 38.7 41.2 31.0 28.0 36.8 25.5 33.6 23.5 30.1 35.3
6/18/2016 13:00 38.1 34.8 39.3 35.4 39.2 41.4 31.0 26.4 33.4 24.2 31.1 22.6 27.8 34.9
6/18/2016 14:00 37.7 34.4 38.3 34.7 38.3 40.4 30.7 22.7 28.9 21.1 27.1 19.5 24.8 28.4
6/18/2016 15:00 35.7 33.4 36.1 33.4 36.6 38.1 29.8 21.9 26.8 20.3 25.7 19.4 23.6 27.4
6/18/2016 16:00 31.5 31.0 31.9 31.1 32.9 32.9 28.6 23.9 26.4 22.3 25.7 22.0 24.3 26.8
6/18/2016 17:00 27.0 26.9 26.7 26.7 27.3 27.0 26.7 28.6 30.2 27.6 29.9 28.2 29.4 29.8
6/18/2016 18:00 25.2 25.4 24.9 25.2 25.5 25.1 25.2 32.1 33.1 31.0 32.9 32.2 32.8 32.7
6/18/2016 19:00 23.5 23.8 23.3 23.6 23.7 23.3 23.4 34.4 34.9 33.4 34.6 34.6 34.9 35.2
6/18/2016 20:00 21.9 22.4 21.8 22.2 22.3 21.8 21.8 38.3 38.1 37.3 38.0 38.7 38.1 39.7
6/18/2016 21:00 20.5 21.0 20.4 20.9 21.0 20.4 20.5 42.5 41.8 41.2 41.8 42.6 41.5 43.7
6/18/2016 22:00 19.5 19.9 19.4 19.8 19.9 19.3 19.5 45.5 44.8 44.4 44.7 46.1 44.6 46.6
6/18/2016 23:00 18.6 19.1 18.5 19.0 19.2 18.4 18.5 49.7 48.2 48.7 48.2 50.3 47.8 51.5
6/19/2016 0:00 17.8 18.4 17.7 18.3 18.5 17.7 17.6 54.7 52.4 53.6 52.4 55.2 52.0 57.0
6/19/2016 1:00 17.1 17.7 17.0 17.6 17.8 17.0 17.1 59.0 56.4 57.8 56.4 59.6 55.6 60.6
350
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/19/2016 2:00 16.4 17.0 16.4 16.9 17.1 16.3 16.5 62.4 59.7 61.5 59.6 63.0 58.7 64.1
6/19/2016 3:00 16.0 16.6 15.9 16.5 16.7 15.9 15.9 65.9 62.9 65.0 62.7 66.7 62.0 67.9
6/19/2016 4:00 15.7 16.2 15.6 16.2 16.3 15.6 15.6 68.9 65.8 68.1 65.7 69.7 64.9 70.7
6/19/2016 5:00 15.9 16.2 15.8 16.2 16.3 15.7 15.9 70.9 68.5 70.0 68.3 71.8 67.4 72.2
6/19/2016 6:00 18.0 17.5 18.1 17.6 17.7 17.8 20.0 68.0 68.6 66.3 68.1 68.7 68.0 63.9
6/19/2016 7:00 23.0 20.9 22.0 20.6 21.3 22.9 24.9 58.0 64.0 58.7 63.7 58.2 63.0 53.5
6/19/2016 8:00 28.6 25.2 29.2 25.5 26.6 29.0 29.2 47.6 57.0 45.6 56.0 46.8 55.0 46.6
6/19/2016 9:00 32.2 28.6 32.8 29.5 31.2 33.2 30.4 37.5 46.4 36.1 43.9 35.5 42.2 41.4
6/19/2016 10:00 35.1 31.0 36.1 31.9 34.7 37.0 31.3 30.8 39.2 28.9 36.9 28.4 34.5 36.3
6/19/2016 11:00 37.9 33.6 38.9 34.5 38.2 40.4 31.9 25.8 33.7 24.8 31.6 23.6 28.7 33.3
6/19/2016 12:00 38.5 34.6 39.2 35.2 39.3 41.0 32.5 23.3 29.8 22.3 28.1 20.8 25.4 31.2
6/19/2016 13:00 38.8 35.3 38.7 35.6 39.6 41.0 33.1 22.3 28.1 21.9 27.1 20.5 24.2 31.4
6/19/2016 14:00 38.2 34.7 37.8 34.7 38.4 39.8 32.6 22.4 27.7 21.9 27.0 21.0 24.3 31.6
6/19/2016 15:00 35.1 33.3 34.1 32.9 35.5 36.1 31.5 24.9 28.3 24.8 28.4 24.0 25.8 32.8
6/19/2016 16:00 31.6 30.5 31.6 30.8 32.4 32.7 30.2 27.1 30.0 26.8 29.4 26.4 28.1 33.3
6/19/2016 17:00 27.9 27.7 27.5 27.6 28.4 28.0 27.5 31.7 33.0 31.2 32.7 31.8 31.8 35.5
6/19/2016 18:00 26.3 26.5 26.2 26.3 26.7 26.4 25.8 34.2 35.0 33.5 34.8 34.5 34.6 37.7
6/19/2016 19:00 24.1 24.6 23.8 24.5 24.8 24.1 23.0 38.6 38.2 38.2 38.2 39.5 37.9 43.3
6/19/2016 20:00 21.6 22.7 21.5 22.5 23.0 21.8 21.1 48.6 45.5 48.0 45.6 48.9 44.6 52.2
6/19/2016 21:00 20.2 21.0 20.3 21.0 21.4 20.4 19.7 55.2 52.2 54.0 52.0 55.7 50.9 58.6
6/19/2016 22:00 19.0 19.8 19.3 19.8 20.1 19.3 18.6 59.8 56.9 58.3 56.4 60.2 55.5 63.1
6/19/2016 23:00 18.1 18.9 18.2 18.9 19.1 18.4 17.6 63.9 60.5 62.6 60.1 64.1 59.3 67.6
6/20/2016 0:00 17.3 17.7 17.4 17.7 18.0 17.4 16.7 65.6 63.4 63.9 62.7 65.8 62.1 69.1
6/20/2016 1:00 17.7 18.2 17.8 18.2 18.3 17.7 16.9 70.0 67.1 68.7 66.7 70.7 65.6 74.5
351
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/20/2016 2:00 17.9 18.4 17.9 18.4 18.6 17.8 17.3 73.2 69.7 72.2 69.4 73.9 68.5 77.2
6/20/2016 3:00 17.8 18.2 17.8 18.2 18.3 17.8 17.2 73.1 70.7 71.7 70.1 73.4 69.6 76.7
6/20/2016 4:00 17.5 17.9 17.5 17.9 18.0 17.5 16.9 74.9 72.2 73.7 71.7 75.2 71.1 78.4
6/20/2016 5:00 17.8 18.1 17.8 18.1 18.2 17.7 17.6 76.6 74.2 75.6 73.8 77.3 73.3 79.1
6/20/2016 6:00 20.2 19.5 20.5 19.6 19.7 20.2 24.1 73.3 74.3 71.4 73.7 73.8 73.7 65.0
6/20/2016 7:00 26.3 23.2 24.4 22.7 23.7 25.6 27.5 59.8 68.2 62.2 67.8 60.5 66.8 54.9
6/20/2016 8:00 31.8 27.9 31.5 27.8 29.3 31.8 31.8 46.4 57.0 46.3 56.2 45.8 54.6 46.7
6/20/2016 9:00 36.0 31.6 36.5 32.3 34.5 37.0 33.2 35.7 46.6 35.5 44.2 34.5 42.0 41.5
6/20/2016 10:00 38.1 33.7 39.2 34.6 37.7 40.3 33.4 28.8 37.6 27.3 35.3 26.2 32.2 35.1
6/20/2016 11:00 40.1 35.7 41.2 36.6 40.6 42.8 33.7 24.1 31.6 22.8 29.7 21.6 26.2 32.4
6/20/2016 12:00 41.3 37.0 41.9 37.7 42.1 44.1 34.2 21.5 28.1 20.5 26.6 19.2 23.4 31.2
6/20/2016 13:00 42.3 38.1 42.1 38.4 42.9 44.7 35.0 20.7 27.2 20.2 26.1 19.0 23.0 31.2
6/20/2016 14:00 41.8 38.1 41.0 37.8 42.1 43.9 34.3 20.4 26.1 20.5 25.5 19.4 22.3 31.5
6/20/2016 15:00 40.0 37.1 39.2 36.7 40.3 41.5 33.6 21.4 26.0 21.9 25.9 20.7 23.2 32.2
6/20/2016 16:00 35.4 34.2 35.1 34.2 36.9 37.2 32.3 26.8 29.1 26.8 29.3 25.6 26.5 33.7
6/20/2016 17:00 29.7 29.8 29.1 29.5 30.4 29.8 29.2 35.2 35.7 35.2 35.8 35.3 34.4 39.5
6/20/2016 18:00 27.5 27.9 27.2 27.8 28.2 27.5 26.9 40.1 39.7 39.6 39.9 40.7 38.8 44.1
6/20/2016 19:00 25.2 25.9 25.3 25.9 26.2 25.5 24.6 45.9 44.5 44.6 44.3 46.2 43.6 49.3
6/20/2016 20:00 23.6 24.2 23.6 24.2 24.6 23.8 23.0 51.7 49.8 50.4 49.5 51.9 48.5 55.2
6/20/2016 21:00 22.8 23.2 22.9 23.3 23.6 22.9 22.1 55.2 53.7 53.9 53.3 55.8 52.4 59.4
6/20/2016 22:00 22.7 23.0 22.7 23.1 23.1 22.7 21.9 56.9 55.7 55.5 55.1 57.5 55.0 61.9
6/20/2016 23:00 22.6 22.9 22.5 22.9 22.9 22.6 21.8 58.3 57.2 57.0 56.5 58.8 56.6 63.2
6/21/2016 0:00 22.0 22.4 21.9 22.4 22.4 22.0 21.4 60.9 59.4 59.9 58.8 61.4 58.6 65.2
6/21/2016 1:00 21.9 22.2 21.9 22.2 22.2 21.8 21.5 62.1 60.9 61.0 60.3 62.7 60.4 65.8
352
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/21/2016 2:00 21.6 22.0 21.6 22.0 22.0 21.6 21.3 63.3 61.8 62.3 61.2 63.8 61.3 66.7
6/21/2016 3:00 21.0 21.5 21.0 21.5 21.5 21.1 20.6 65.8 63.9 65.1 63.4 66.3 63.3 69.4
6/21/2016 4:00 20.7 21.1 20.6 21.1 21.2 20.7 20.3 67.7 65.7 67.0 65.2 68.1 65.1 71.2
6/21/2016 5:00 20.4 20.7 20.3 20.7 20.8 20.4 20.1 69.6 67.8 68.8 67.3 70.1 67.0 73.0
6/21/2016 6:00 22.2 21.6 22.2 21.6 21.8 22.0 22.4 67.2 68.3 66.0 67.7 67.9 67.5 68.8
6/21/2016 7:00 25.0 24.0 24.9 23.9 24.6 24.9 25.2 61.0 64.2 60.1 63.5 61.2 62.4 62.5
6/21/2016 8:00 29.4 27.0 29.5 27.1 28.2 29.5 29.6 53.4 59.9 52.2 59.1 52.6 57.5 55.6
6/21/2016 9:00 31.3 29.5 31.4 29.5 31.0 31.8 30.8 50.1 55.8 49.3 54.8 49.1 52.1 54.3
6/21/2016 10:00 34.1 31.7 34.2 31.8 33.7 34.6 32.4 46.1 52.4 45.0 51.6 44.7 48.0 52.1
6/21/2016 11:00 36.9 33.8 37.4 33.8 36.1 38.0 34.2 41.6 49.5 40.4 48.7 40.3 45.4 49.7
6/21/2016 12:00 42.5 38.2 43.1 38.2 41.9 44.7 37.3 33.6 41.9 32.5 41.2 30.7 36.7 43.1
6/21/2016 13:00 42.5 38.8 42.6 38.7 42.6 44.8 37.4 32.8 39.6 31.3 39.0 30.0 34.2 42.6
6/21/2016 14:00 43.5 40.1 43.1 39.7 44.0 45.8 37.3 28.3 35.0 28.4 35.0 26.3 30.1 40.0
6/21/2016 15:00 38.7 37.4 38.3 36.9 39.8 40.0 35.8 32.5 35.9 32.3 36.1 31.1 32.3 40.8
6/21/2016 16:00 35.3 34.5 34.9 34.3 35.9 35.8 34.0 36.7 39.1 36.5 39.4 36.2 36.9 43.1
6/21/2016 17:00 32.7 32.5 32.4 32.4 33.4 32.9 32.0 41.9 43.1 41.8 43.3 42.2 41.3 47.2
6/21/2016 18:00 30.5 30.9 30.2 30.8 31.4 30.6 30.0 49.1 48.5 48.4 48.3 49.3 46.9 53.3
6/21/2016 19:00 29.0 29.4 28.8 29.4 29.7 29.1 28.4 53.3 52.4 52.5 52.1 53.6 51.3 57.6
6/21/2016 20:00 28.0 28.3 27.9 28.3 28.5 28.1 27.5 55.9 55.1 54.8 54.7 56.3 54.4 59.6
6/21/2016 21:00 27.5 27.8 27.4 27.8 27.9 27.5 27.1 57.3 56.7 56.6 56.3 58.0 56.2 60.9
6/21/2016 22:00 26.9 27.2 26.8 27.2 27.3 26.9 26.5 59.4 58.5 58.5 58.1 60.0 58.1 62.8
6/21/2016 23:00 26.8 26.9 26.7 26.9 27.0 26.8 26.4 59.6 59.3 58.7 58.8 60.1 58.9 62.8
6/22/2016 0:00 26.0 26.3 25.8 26.3 26.4 26.0 25.5 60.8 60.0 60.3 59.6 61.3 59.6 64.3
6/22/2016 1:00 24.7 25.2 24.5 25.2 25.3 24.7 24.2 64.1 62.3 63.6 61.9 64.5 62.0 67.7
353
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/22/2016 2:00 23.9 24.5 23.8 24.4 24.5 23.9 23.5 67.6 65.2 67.0 64.9 68.1 64.7 71.1
6/22/2016 3:00 23.3 23.9 23.2 23.9 24.0 23.3 22.9 70.8 68.2 70.3 67.9 71.4 67.4 74.1
6/22/2016 4:00 22.8 23.4 22.6 23.3 23.5 22.8 22.4 73.6 70.7 73.5 70.5 74.2 69.8 76.7
6/22/2016 5:00 22.5 23.0 22.4 22.9 23.1 22.5 22.2 75.7 73.0 75.3 72.7 76.3 72.0 78.5
6/22/2016 6:00 24.0 23.5 23.9 23.5 23.8 23.8 25.8 73.4 73.8 72.8 73.4 74.3 73.0 70.2
6/22/2016 7:00 27.5 26.0 27.0 25.7 26.4 27.3 28.5 64.4 68.8 64.4 68.7 64.8 67.4 61.9
6/22/2016 8:00 31.3 28.9 32.0 28.9 29.9 31.7 31.9 55.7 63.0 53.6 62.5 54.7 60.9 56.0
6/22/2016 9:00 36.8 32.9 37.8 33.3 35.4 37.8 35.3 44.9 54.8 43.1 53.2 43.0 50.2 49.4
6/22/2016 10:00 40.1 35.8 41.3 36.3 39.5 41.8 35.9 37.7 47.9 36.1 46.2 35.6 41.4 46.2
6/22/2016 11:00 42.2 38.2 44.1 38.9 42.4 45.0 36.5 32.5 40.9 30.3 39.1 29.9 34.8 42.7
6/22/2016 12:00 41.6 38.8 43.1 39.2 42.8 44.4 36.9 33.4 39.5 30.6 38.1 29.8 33.5 42.9
6/22/2016 13:00 40.8 38.0 41.9 38.3 41.1 43.1 36.6 34.3 40.2 32.0 39.2 31.8 35.2 43.1
6/22/2016 14:00 41.9 39.5 43.0 39.8 42.9 44.8 37.2 32.6 37.3 29.8 36.4 29.2 32.4 41.0
6/22/2016 15:00 39.7 37.8 39.5 37.8 40.4 40.9 36.2 35.5 39.4 34.6 39.2 33.9 35.6 43.4
6/22/2016 16:00 37.2 36.0 37.4 36.2 37.9 38.3 35.5 39.7 42.8 38.3 42.2 38.3 39.2 45.8
6/22/2016 17:00 33.7 33.6 33.5 33.6 34.6 34.0 33.3 46.8 47.7 45.9 47.2 46.6 45.2 50.9
6/22/2016 18:00 31.9 32.2 31.7 32.1 32.7 32.1 31.8 52.1 51.8 51.2 51.3 52.1 49.9 55.2
6/22/2016 19:00 29.9 30.4 29.6 30.4 30.9 30.1 29.6 58.1 56.7 57.7 56.1 58.1 54.8 60.9
6/22/2016 20:00 28.4 28.9 28.3 29.0 29.3 28.5 28.1 63.4 61.7 62.5 61.0 63.8 60.0 65.9
6/22/2016 21:00 27.7 28.2 27.6 28.2 28.5 27.8 27.5 66.4 64.4 65.5 63.8 66.6 63.2 68.7
6/22/2016 22:00 27.2 27.5 27.2 27.5 27.7 27.3 26.8 68.5 67.1 67.5 66.4 68.8 65.9 70.8
6/22/2016 23:00 26.3 27.5 25.9 27.5 27.8 26.0 26.3 76.2 70.4 77.2 69.9 80.4 69.1 78.0
6/23/2016 0:00 24.0 26.0 23.8 26.0 26.6 24.0 24.3 92.1 76.7 93.6 76.6 93.2 75.9 90.8
6/23/2016 1:00 23.4 24.5 23.2 24.6 25.2 23.0 23.7 94.2 81.1 95.6 80.6 94.6 77.8 91.6
354
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/23/2016 2:00 23.6 24.3 23.4 24.3 24.9 23.2 23.9 95.2 84.3 95.4 83.6 95.3 80.3 91.7
6/23/2016 3:00 23.6 24.2 23.4 24.2 24.7 23.3 23.7 95.9 86.2 95.9 85.7 95.9 82.7 92.8
6/23/2016 4:00 23.4 23.8 23.2 23.8 24.1 23.0 23.5 95.9 87.2 95.8 86.8 96.2 84.4 92.7
6/23/2016 5:00 23.4 23.5 23.3 23.4 23.6 23.0 23.7 95.1 88.1 94.6 87.5 95.4 85.8 91.4
6/23/2016 6:00 24.5 23.9 24.7 23.9 24.1 24.7 25.6 93.3 88.7 91.1 87.7 92.6 86.5 87.1
6/23/2016 7:00 26.9 25.0 27.2 25.1 25.6 27.7 28.4 87.5 88.7 84.3 86.9 84.7 85.2 79.5
6/23/2016 8:00 31.4 26.5 31.4 27.2 28.2 32.1 31.8 75.0 87.6 71.5 83.1 71.2 79.7 69.4
6/23/2016 9:00 32.6 27.8 32.7 29.2 30.9 32.8 31.8 67.8 82.8 64.5 74.9 65.4 69.2 66.8
6/23/2016 10:00 33.9 30.6 33.9 31.4 33.1 34.1 32.9 62.6 73.7 60.4 67.6 59.8 62.5 63.4
6/23/2016 11:00 36.0 32.9 36.3 33.4 34.8 36.4 34.6 54.8 65.0 53.8 60.9 53.0 57.7 57.8
6/23/2016 12:00 37.4 34.8 37.4 35.0 36.8 37.9 36.1 50.2 58.4 49.9 56.0 48.5 52.4 54.4
6/23/2016 13:00 38.3 36.0 38.3 35.8 37.7 38.7 36.5 47.9 54.9 47.7 53.8 47.1 50.5 53.2
6/23/2016 14:00 38.3 36.7 38.0 36.3 38.3 38.9 36.3 46.2 51.3 46.4 51.4 44.9 47.5 51.3
6/23/2016 15:00 35.8 35.1 35.5 34.9 36.1 36.0 35.1 49.3 51.6 48.9 51.8 48.5 49.1 52.5
6/23/2016 16:00 33.0 33.0 32.8 33.0 33.7 33.1 32.6 55.9 56.1 55.8 55.9 56.0 54.3 58.7
6/23/2016 17:00 31.3 31.6 31.0 31.5 31.8 31.3 31.1 60.2 59.8 60.3 59.6 60.5 58.5 62.1
6/23/2016 18:00 31.2 31.2 30.8 31.0 31.2 31.0 30.7 62.7 62.7 62.9 62.7 63.7 62.1 64.7
6/23/2016 19:00 30.3 30.5 30.0 30.3 30.5 30.1 30.0 64.6 64.0 64.6 63.9 64.6 63.1 66.1
6/23/2016 20:00 26.1 27.1 25.7 26.9 27.0 26.2 26.2 66.1 63.1 66.8 62.9 65.7 62.7 66.4
6/23/2016 21:00 22.3 24.1 22.2 24.0 24.5 22.7 23.1 78.9 71.1 79.5 71.4 78.2 69.2 77.8
6/23/2016 22:00 21.6 22.6 21.6 22.6 22.9 21.7 22.4 81.9 76.3 81.9 76.1 82.0 74.4 80.3
6/23/2016 23:00 21.6 22.4 21.6 22.4 22.6 21.7 22.4 83.9 79.1 83.9 78.7 84.0 77.5 81.6
6/24/2016 0:00 21.6 22.3 21.5 22.3 22.4 21.6 22.3 85.9 81.2 85.8 80.7 85.5 79.7 83.3
6/24/2016 1:00 21.3 22.0 21.2 22.1 22.2 21.4 21.8 88.0 83.1 87.7 82.5 87.0 81.4 85.6
355
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/24/2016 2:00 20.9 21.4 20.8 21.5 21.6 21.0 21.3 88.9 84.6 88.4 83.9 87.7 83.0 86.8
6/24/2016 3:00 21.1 21.5 21.1 21.5 21.5 21.1 21.6 89.0 85.5 88.4 84.9 88.0 84.2 86.2
6/24/2016 4:00 21.1 21.6 21.1 21.6 21.6 21.1 21.8 89.6 86.0 89.1 85.4 88.4 84.7 86.2
6/24/2016 5:00 21.0 21.5 21.0 21.5 21.6 21.1 21.7 90.7 87.0 90.0 86.4 89.3 85.6 87.2
6/24/2016 6:00 21.6 21.8 21.6 21.8 21.8 21.6 22.1 89.8 87.3 89.1 86.8 88.8 86.2 86.5
6/24/2016 7:00 22.5 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.8 88.5 87.0 87.8 86.6 87.7 86.0 85.6
6/24/2016 8:00 23.7 23.4 23.5 23.2 23.3 23.5 23.7 86.2 85.8 85.8 85.7 86.0 85.1 84.3
6/24/2016 9:00 24.9 24.5 24.7 24.2 24.3 24.6 24.8 83.2 84.0 83.3 84.0 83.7 83.8 81.8
6/24/2016 10:00 26.4 25.7 26.1 25.3 25.5 26.1 26.0 79.2 81.3 79.6 81.6 79.5 81.0 78.7
6/24/2016 11:00 27.8 26.9 27.5 26.5 26.7 27.4 27.3 74.8 77.9 75.2 78.6 75.4 78.0 75.2
6/24/2016 12:00 29.0 28.1 28.4 27.6 27.9 28.5 28.3 69.8 73.3 71.3 74.2 71.5 73.8 71.2
6/24/2016 13:00 29.7 28.9 29.0 28.4 28.7 29.2 29.0 66.3 69.4 67.9 70.1 67.2 69.9 67.5
6/24/2016 14:00 30.6 29.7 29.9 29.2 29.4 30.1 29.7 62.4 65.7 63.5 66.4 63.4 66.6 64.0
6/24/2016 15:00 31.8 30.8 31.0 30.1 30.5 31.2 30.8 57.2 61.1 58.5 61.9 58.7 61.9 59.5
6/24/2016 16:00 31.2 30.9 30.5 30.3 30.7 30.8 30.5 59.3 60.9 61.0 62.0 60.6 61.6 61.7
6/24/2016 17:00 31.1 30.7 30.5 30.2 30.5 30.7 30.3 59.1 60.7 60.6 61.7 60.5 61.7 61.3
6/24/2016 18:00 30.5 30.4 29.9 29.9 30.2 30.3 29.9 59.8 60.6 60.9 61.6 61.0 61.4 61.8
6/24/2016 19:00 29.2 29.4 28.8 29.1 29.4 29.1 28.9 64.6 64.0 65.9 64.9 65.9 64.5 66.2
6/24/2016 20:00 28.1 28.5 27.8 28.3 28.6 28.1 28.1 70.2 68.4 70.7 69.0 70.8 68.4 70.4
6/24/2016 21:00 27.1 27.7 27.0 27.5 27.8 27.2 27.4 75.0 72.5 75.7 73.1 75.5 72.1 74.7
6/24/2016 22:00 26.4 26.9 26.2 26.7 27.0 26.4 26.7 78.4 76.0 79.2 76.3 78.9 75.5 77.6
6/24/2016 23:00 25.9 26.3 25.8 26.2 26.4 25.9 26.3 80.4 78.1 80.9 78.3 80.6 77.5 79.2
6/25/2016 0:00 25.7 26.0 25.7 26.0 26.1 25.8 26.1 81.1 79.2 81.2 79.3 81.1 78.7 79.8
6/25/2016 1:00 25.1 25.6 25.0 25.5 25.7 25.2 25.6 83.5 80.9 83.9 81.0 83.2 80.2 81.6
356
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/25/2016 2:00 24.8 25.2 24.7 25.1 25.3 24.8 25.2 85.2 82.6 85.2 82.7 84.7 81.9 83.0
6/25/2016 3:00 24.5 24.8 24.4 24.6 24.7 24.5 24.8 84.0 82.2 83.9 82.3 83.5 81.7 82.1
6/25/2016 4:00 23.8 24.2 23.8 24.1 24.3 23.9 24.3 84.7 82.5 84.6 82.6 84.0 81.9 82.2
6/25/2016 5:00 23.4 23.8 23.3 23.7 23.9 23.4 23.8 86.1 83.6 86.3 83.9 85.3 83.0 83.7
6/25/2016 6:00 23.6 23.8 23.5 23.7 23.8 23.5 23.8 86.8 84.7 86.9 85.1 86.2 84.3 84.8
6/25/2016 7:00 24.2 24.2 24.1 24.1 24.2 24.1 24.3 85.9 84.7 86.1 85.1 85.4 84.2 84.3
6/25/2016 8:00 24.7 24.5 24.5 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 83.2 83.0 83.3 83.3 83.1 82.7 82.1
6/25/2016 9:00 25.0 24.9 24.7 24.6 24.8 24.8 24.9 81.4 81.3 81.8 81.7 81.5 80.9 80.7
6/25/2016 10:00 25.4 25.3 25.1 25.0 25.2 25.3 25.3 80.4 80.3 81.0 81.0 80.5 80.1 80.0
6/25/2016 11:00 26.3 25.9 25.9 25.6 25.8 26.0 26.0 78.2 78.8 78.9 79.6 78.6 78.8 78.2
6/25/2016 12:00 27.1 26.6 26.8 26.3 26.5 26.8 26.7 75.4 76.8 76.0 77.5 76.2 76.9 75.8
6/25/2016 13:00 28.3 27.6 27.8 27.2 27.5 27.9 27.7 71.4 73.6 72.4 74.4 72.2 73.8 72.1
6/25/2016 14:00 29.2 28.5 28.7 28.1 28.4 28.9 28.6 67.6 70.1 68.5 71.0 68.5 70.5 68.7
6/25/2016 15:00 30.1 29.4 29.6 28.9 29.2 29.8 29.4 63.4 66.2 64.5 67.3 64.5 66.8 65.0
6/25/2016 16:00 30.0 29.6 29.3 29.0 29.4 29.7 29.3 62.7 64.3 63.9 65.4 63.6 64.9 64.3
6/25/2016 17:00 29.2 29.2 28.7 28.7 29.0 29.1 28.7 63.7 64.2 64.9 65.4 64.5 64.9 65.3
6/25/2016 18:00 27.8 28.0 27.5 27.7 28.0 27.8 27.5 66.5 66.0 67.5 67.0 67.1 66.5 67.8
6/25/2016 19:00 26.5 26.8 26.2 26.6 26.8 26.5 26.3 69.8 68.7 70.7 69.4 70.6 68.8 71.2
6/25/2016 20:00 24.9 25.3 24.8 25.2 25.4 24.9 24.9 74.9 72.8 75.8 73.4 75.5 72.7 75.7
6/25/2016 21:00 24.6 24.8 24.5 24.7 24.9 24.5 24.6 77.1 75.5 77.7 75.9 77.6 75.3 77.8
6/25/2016 22:00 23.6 24.0 23.4 23.9 24.0 23.6 23.7 79.4 77.3 80.3 77.6 79.6 76.9 79.7
6/25/2016 23:00 22.6 22.8 22.4 22.7 22.8 22.5 22.6 79.4 78.0 79.7 78.1 79.5 77.6 79.4
6/26/2016 0:00 21.8 22.1 21.7 22.1 22.2 21.8 21.8 81.1 79.1 81.6 79.3 81.1 78.6 81.2
6/26/2016 1:00 21.0 21.5 20.9 21.4 21.5 21.0 21.1 84.1 81.4 84.9 81.7 84.0 80.9 84.0
357
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/26/2016 2:00 20.3 20.6 20.2 20.6 20.7 20.2 20.4 85.3 82.9 85.9 83.1 85.1 82.4 84.9
6/26/2016 3:00 19.5 20.0 19.4 19.9 20.1 19.5 19.6 87.7 84.5 88.5 84.9 86.9 83.8 87.1
6/26/2016 4:00 18.9 19.5 18.8 19.4 19.5 18.8 19.0 89.7 86.1 90.4 86.6 88.9 85.5 89.1
6/26/2016 5:00 18.6 19.0 18.5 18.9 19.0 18.4 18.8 90.7 87.3 91.2 87.9 89.8 86.7 89.6
6/26/2016 6:00 19.5 19.2 19.9 19.2 19.4 19.5 19.6 88.9 88.1 87.4 88.1 87.9 87.3 87.0
6/26/2016 7:00 23.5 22.5 23.8 22.2 22.4 23.6 21.8 76.1 81.4 73.4 80.7 75.3 80.5 79.5
6/26/2016 8:00 27.3 25.8 27.7 25.5 26.4 27.6 24.6 63.9 70.5 61.1 69.3 61.7 68.4 69.0
6/26/2016 9:00 31.8 29.3 31.0 28.3 30.4 31.6 27.2 50.3 58.0 49.8 58.6 48.8 55.5 58.6
6/26/2016 10:00 35.4 32.1 34.2 30.8 34.0 35.5 29.4 39.9 47.8 40.0 49.1 38.4 44.7 50.8
6/26/2016 11:00 37.4 33.8 36.1 32.8 36.3 37.9 31.5 34.6 42.0 34.7 43.0 33.4 38.9 45.4
6/26/2016 12:00 38.5 34.8 37.1 34.0 37.6 39.0 32.8 31.9 38.9 32.1 39.9 30.9 35.4 41.0
6/26/2016 13:00 39.2 35.6 37.7 34.7 38.6 39.9 33.7 30.0 36.7 30.5 37.6 29.0 33.3 39.6
6/26/2016 14:00 39.3 35.9 37.9 35.3 38.7 39.8 35.8 29.3 35.8 30.5 36.5 29.1 32.3 35.9
6/26/2016 15:00 38.1 35.4 36.9 34.9 37.8 38.6 36.6 29.0 34.4 29.1 34.5 28.6 31.4 32.4
6/26/2016 16:00 35.1 33.8 34.0 33.3 35.4 35.2 33.9 32.3 35.7 33.1 36.3 32.7 33.7 35.5
6/26/2016 17:00 30.7 30.7 30.5 30.6 31.5 30.8 31.8 39.8 40.9 40.0 41.1 40.4 39.7 39.6
6/26/2016 18:00 27.9 28.3 27.6 28.2 28.7 28.0 27.7 46.9 46.5 47.4 47.0 47.7 45.8 48.8
6/26/2016 19:00 26.0 26.4 26.0 26.4 26.7 26.1 26.0 51.3 50.6 50.8 50.8 51.9 50.0 52.8
6/26/2016 20:00 24.1 24.6 24.1 24.5 24.8 24.3 23.5 55.6 54.3 55.3 54.7 56.1 53.5 58.6
6/26/2016 21:00 22.9 23.3 22.8 23.2 23.6 23.0 22.2 61.2 59.4 61.7 59.9 61.9 58.7 64.9
6/26/2016 22:00 22.2 22.5 22.1 22.4 22.7 22.2 21.5 64.6 62.9 64.7 63.3 65.4 62.2 68.0
6/26/2016 23:00 21.7 22.0 21.7 21.9 22.1 21.8 21.3 67.2 65.8 67.3 66.0 68.0 65.0 70.1
6/27/2016 0:00 21.2 21.5 21.2 21.5 21.7 21.3 21.0 70.1 68.4 70.2 68.5 70.7 67.6 72.3
6/27/2016 1:00 20.7 21.1 20.7 21.1 21.2 20.8 20.5 71.8 69.9 72.3 69.9 72.5 69.1 73.9
358
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/27/2016 2:00 20.1 20.7 20.1 20.6 20.9 20.2 20.1 76.9 73.5 77.5 73.9 77.5 72.6 78.6
6/27/2016 3:00 19.6 20.3 19.6 20.2 20.5 19.7 19.7 80.5 76.5 81.2 76.9 80.8 75.3 81.2
6/27/2016 4:00 19.6 20.1 19.6 20.0 20.2 19.6 19.7 83.6 79.7 84.3 80.2 84.0 78.5 84.1
6/27/2016 5:00 20.5 20.8 20.5 20.8 20.9 20.5 20.6 84.3 81.4 85.0 81.7 84.7 80.4 84.6
6/27/2016 6:00 21.6 21.6 21.5 21.6 21.9 21.5 21.5 85.4 83.4 85.8 83.6 85.6 82.2 86.0
6/27/2016 7:00 24.5 23.7 24.8 23.7 23.8 24.6 23.8 80.4 82.5 79.4 82.5 80.6 81.3 82.1
6/27/2016 8:00 27.0 26.2 27.1 26.2 26.7 27.3 26.3 73.7 76.7 73.2 76.2 72.7 74.7 76.4
6/27/2016 9:00 30.7 28.7 30.9 28.5 29.6 31.1 28.7 64.3 71.2 62.9 70.9 62.6 68.3 69.6
6/27/2016 10:00 35.0 31.8 34.8 31.4 33.5 36.0 31.3 52.0 61.3 52.0 61.0 49.2 57.3 60.6
6/27/2016 11:00 38.9 35.5 38.3 34.9 38.1 40.3 34.1 41.6 50.3 41.7 50.8 39.3 45.5 52.5
6/27/2016 12:00 40.0 36.5 40.1 36.2 39.9 41.8 35.6 38.4 46.4 37.8 46.6 35.9 40.7 47.3
6/27/2016 13:00 39.8 37.0 39.8 36.7 40.1 41.6 36.7 36.7 43.2 35.6 43.6 33.9 38.1 43.1
6/27/2016 14:00 40.2 37.1 40.4 37.2 40.3 42.1 37.9 33.1 39.8 32.2 39.5 30.9 34.9 38.3
6/27/2016 15:00 39.4 36.8 39.1 37.0 39.7 40.7 39.1 32.3 37.7 32.0 37.5 31.3 33.8 35.4
6/27/2016 16:00 37.1 35.5 36.5 35.6 37.6 37.8 36.8 33.8 37.8 33.7 37.6 33.0 34.7 35.3
6/27/2016 17:00 31.7 31.8 31.1 31.5 32.6 31.8 31.1 41.1 42.1 41.7 42.7 41.5 40.4 43.8
6/27/2016 18:00 30.1 30.3 29.8 30.1 30.6 30.2 29.6 46.8 46.9 46.9 47.5 47.0 46.2 49.4
6/27/2016 19:00 28.2 28.6 27.9 28.4 28.9 28.3 27.8 52.7 52.2 53.0 52.7 53.4 51.2 55.7
6/27/2016 20:00 27.0 27.1 26.8 27.0 27.3 27.1 26.5 55.4 55.4 55.5 55.6 55.9 54.5 58.3
6/27/2016 21:00 26.3 26.3 26.2 26.2 26.5 26.4 25.8 57.6 57.8 57.8 58.0 58.4 57.2 60.5
6/27/2016 22:00 26.1 26.7 25.9 26.5 26.9 26.1 26.0 64.6 62.3 65.5 62.9 65.9 61.4 66.9
6/27/2016 23:00 25.4 26.1 25.2 25.9 26.3 25.4 25.4 71.1 68.2 71.8 68.7 72.0 66.9 72.8
6/28/2016 0:00 24.6 25.1 24.4 25.0 25.3 24.6 24.6 75.2 72.2 75.9 72.6 76.0 71.0 76.5
6/28/2016 1:00 24.2 24.6 24.1 24.5 24.7 24.2 24.2 77.0 74.8 77.6 75.1 77.9 73.7 78.1
359
Table D.1 continued
Date/Time TM,1 TM,2 TP,1 TP,2 TL,1 TL,2 Tamb RHM,1 RHM,2 RHP,1 RHP,2 RHL,1 RHL,2 RHamb
6/28/2016 2:00 24.4 24.5 24.2 24.4 24.6 24.3 24.3 77.4 76.1 77.8 76.2 78.0 75.0 78.4
6/28/2016 3:00 24.4 24.5 24.3 24.5 24.6 24.4 24.3 77.9 76.8 78.4 76.8 78.4 75.7 78.7
6/28/2016 4:00 24.3 24.5 24.2 24.4 24.6 24.3 24.2 79.1 77.7 79.7 77.9 79.6 76.7 79.9
6/28/2016 5:00 24.1 24.3 24.1 24.2 24.4 24.1 24.2 80.9 79.4 81.3 79.6 81.2 78.4 81.4
6/28/2016 6:00 25.0 25.0 25.0 24.9 25.1 25.0 24.9 80.0 79.6 80.2 79.6 80.2 78.3 80.7
6/28/2016 7:00 24.8 25.3 24.8 25.2 25.5 24.9 25.3 82.8 80.6 83.1 80.6 82.7 79.1 81.2
6/28/2016 8:00 24.2 24.7 24.0 24.7 24.9 24.2 24.7 86.0 83.0 86.7 83.0 85.5 81.6 84.0
6/28/2016 9:00 23.8 24.4 23.7 24.3 24.5 23.8 24.3 87.7 84.7 88.2 84.8 87.0 83.2 85.6
6/28/2016 10:00 23.6 24.0 23.5 23.9 24.1 23.6 24.1 88.8 86.1 88.9 86.1 87.9 84.6 86.1
6/28/2016 11:00 23.6 23.9 23.5 23.8 24.0 23.6 24.2 88.9 86.7 88.8 86.6 87.8 85.1 85.7
6/28/2016 12:00 23.0 23.4 22.8 23.2 23.4 23.0 23.5 88.8 86.7 89.2 86.7 87.8 85.3 86.0
6/28/2016 13:00 22.7 22.9 22.6 22.8 23.0 22.7 23.2 89.3 87.4 89.2 87.4 88.2 85.9 86.2
360
Table. D.9 Observed incident radiation (IR), wind speed (U), and volumetric flow rate (V) in the TSC materials study
(Chapter 5).
Table D.2 continued
361
Table D.2 continued
362
Table D.2 continued
363
Table D.2 continued
364
Table D.2 continued
365
Table D.2 continued
366
Table D.2 continued
367
Table D.2 continued
368
Table D.2 continued
369
Table D.2 continued
370