Solar Eneroy Vol. 25, pp.

417-424
Pergamon Press Ltd., 1980. Printed in Great Britain

ANALYSIS O F SOLAR DOMESTIC HOT WATER HEATERS

W. E. BUCKLESand S. A. KLEIN
Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.

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

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

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

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

A simulation approach was used to investigate the

2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS thermal performance of the four types of representa-
Excluding thermosyphon systems, most types of tive systems. The simulation program TRNSYS [4]
domestic water heating systems may be placed into was used throughout. Simulation results are reported
one of four categories. in terms off, the fraction of the monthly load supplied
417
 W. E. BUCKLESand S. A. KLEIN
418

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

RELIEF (IF HANGER

VALVE REQUIRED) RELIEF COLDWATER
VALVE SUPPLY

COLLECTOR/~-, "1 -- ±
-Jr.~ TEM?iRINGI
I I VALVE I

//',
/ / I
i
: /

~l AUXILIARY
HOT WATE~R
Queue,

(a)
: TANK

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

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

LJ '6PUMP PUMPL----,; ----
RELIEF
VALVE EXCHANGER
TEMPERING
VALVE <--
COLLECTOR ~ COLDWATER
ARRAY SUPPLY

J HOTr
WATER
RELIEFI OUTLET
(b)

i I1 !TANK
PREHEAT
k
I
I E
AUXILIARY
~ATE R

)IFFERENTIAL
f.,- m ..L.. ~
--~--,, L TAN'
PUMP
~[~PPUMP
 Analysis of solar domestic hot water heaters 419

RELIEF
VALVE COLDWATER
RELIEF INLET
VALVE ~
C(
TEMPERING HOT
WATER
~ii E SUPPLY
XlUARY
EATER
c

(c)
TANK I
HEAT
"XCHANGER
COIL

RELIEF
VALVE TEMPERING COLDWATER
VALVE INLET
RELIEF
VALVE m

HOTWATER
SUPPLY
RELIEF I
(d) PRE~EKAT

HEAT
EXCHANGER
COIL
AUXILIARY
ANK

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

where A solar fraction,fl,may be defined:

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

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

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

Table 2. Annual fraction by ~ l a r :

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

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

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

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

Insulation System type

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

1.67 0.63 0.59 0.59 0.55

0.0 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.74

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

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

0.5 0.59 0.59 0.55 0.55

1.0 0.63 0.63 0.59 0.59
422 W.E. BUCKLESand S. A. KLEIN

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

2.88 0.43 0.43 2.88 0,49 0.47

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

Table 7. Storage capacity variation

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

Table 8. Effect of hourly load distribution

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

0.66 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.63

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

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

5. EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE average
The U.S. National Bureau of Standards tests of flchart Modified
solar domestic hot water heaters [6] may be used to System Test 3.0 f-chart
qualitatively evaluate the conclusions drawn in the
preceding section. Extensive data have been reported 1-Tank
by Hill et al. [7]. The annual average solar fraction Ext. HX 0.36 0.45 0.37
2-Tank
for each of these systems is shown in column 1 of Ext. HX 0.37 0.60 0.40
Table 11. The single tank, external heat exchanger 1-Tank
system had only two-thirds the eoUector area of its Int. HX 0.45 0.51 0.43
two-tank counterpart, but supplied nearly the same 2-Tank,
solar fraction. This confirms the conclusions drawn Int. HX 0.33 0.51 0.30
above concerning the superiority of single-tank sys-
tems. The systems with internal (jacketed) heat Table 12. TRNSYS compared with f-chart, Madison data
exchangers also showed the same trend, with the one- annual average results
tank system performing better than the two-tank sys-
tem even though they both had the same collector f-chart Modified
System Area TRNSYS 3.0 f-chart 3.0
area. (m2)
Tests such as those conducted by NBS invite, and
in fact were intended to be used for, comparison with 1-Tank, 2.88 0.47 0.53 0.44
f-chart and other design method performance predic- Ext. HX 5.76 0.73 0.82 0.77
2-Tank, 2.88 0.43 0.53 0.42
tions. Column 1 of Table 11 contains annual average
Ext. HX 5.76 0.69 0.82 0.75
l-Tank, 2.88 0.42 0.50 0.40
tAllJ:chart results presented in this paper were gener- Int. HX 5.76 0.70 0.80 0.73
ated using a storage size correction factor (as defined in 2-Tank, 2.88 0.38 0.50 0.38
eqn VIII-12 of I"11)of unity,~as this factor appfies to space Int. HX 5.76 0.66 0.80 0.71
heating systems only.
424 W.E. BUCKLESand S. A. KLEIN
Comparisons between TRNSYS simulations and
the modified version of ./=chart were also performed.
They are presented in Table 12. Agreement here is
not as good as it was in the NBS comparisons. One
explanation for this discrepancy is that the J:chart
method was developed assuming a preheat tank loss
coefficient of 0.42 W/m2-°C whereas the TRNSYS
simulations used 1.67 W/m2-°C.
6. C O N C L U S I O N
Solar domestic hot water systems may be classified
in four categories according to the method they use to
transfer and store solar heat. The performance differ-
ences between one and two tank systems of the types
studied were small and due primarily to the difference
in tank surface areas. Heat exchangers of equivalent
effectiveness gave the same performance if installed
external or internal to the tank. Tempering valves are
an essential part of a solar domestic hot water system
for safety reasons but have little effect on the monthly
average system performance. For the range of storage
sizes studied, little effect on the long-term average
performance was observed. Day to day load vari-
ations can have a significant effect on system perform-
ance. Because the differences in performance for the
four system types studied were small, the f-chart
method, as modified to account for auxiliary energy
losses, can be used to provide estimates of the long-
term average performance of all four systems, even
though it was derived for the two-tank, external heat
exchanger system•
Acknowledoements--The authors would like to thank the
students and staff of the University of Wisconsin Solar
Energy Laboratory for their help and support. Special
thanks are due to Dr. J. A. Duffle for his criticism and
encouragements and to John C. Mitchell for his program-
ming support. Thanks are also due to the U.S. Dept. of
Energy, which provided the financial support for this
research under Contract EY-76-S-02-2588.
NOMENCLATURE
E monthly total auxiliary energy supplied
to system
f~ fraction of system auxiliary energy re-
quirements supplied by solar energy
f2 fraction of hot water energy requirements
supplied by solar energy
fa fraction of reference system's auxiliary
energy requirements displaced by solar
heating system
f fraction of system auxiliary energy re-
quirements supplied by solar energy.
Defined in Appendix A
F~ collector heat removal factor
FR' collector heat removal factor modified to
account for collector loop heat exchanger
L monthly total energy removed from the
system in the form of hot water
Lo monthly total energy lost from tanks to
the surroundings
L' monthly total system energy require-
ments
L.~z monthly total energy lost from auxiliary
tank to surroundings
Q,uz rate of auxiliary energy addition to tank
Qco~ monthly total useful energy gain of col-
lector
Q, ..... tar total system auxiliary energy requirement
for solar water heating system
Qaux-,o.so~ar total system energy requirement of con-
ventional water heating system
Q~o~dsystem rate of energy removal from system in the
form of hot water
(~oss rate of energy loss from tank to sur-
roundings
(~v rate of useful energy gain of collector
T~e, set temperature of water heating system's
auxiliary heater
U internal energy of tank
UA overall loss coefficient-area product
UL overall collector loss coefficient
X,X' horizontal coordinate off-chart
Y,Y' vertical coordinate off-chart
(Ta), collector tr ansmittance-absorptance
product at normal incidence
REFERENCES
1. S. A. Klein, A Design Procedure for Solar Heating Sys-
tems, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison
(1976).
2. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Engineering Experi-
ment Station Rep. 49-3, FCHART(June 1978).
3. F. deWinter, Heat exchanger penalties in the double
loop solar water heating system. Solar Energy 17(6)
(1975).
4. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Engineering Experi-
ment Station Report 38-10, T R N S Y S (1979).
5. J. J. Mutch, Residential water heating, fuel consump-
tion, ecomonics, and public policy, RAND Dept.
R1498, NSF (1974).
6. A. H. Fanney, Experimental validation of computer
programs for solar domestic hot water heating systems,
Letter Rep., U.S. National Bureau of Standards, July
1978.
7. J. Hill, A. H. Fanney and S. Liu, Personal communi-
cation.
APPENDIX A
Modification of the f-chart method to account for storage
losses
The monthly total system load is to be increased by an
amount equal to the monthly total environmental losses of
either the auxiliary tank in two tank systems or the portion
of a single tank between the upper end and the auxiliary
heater thermostat sensor. These energy losses are assumed
to take place from the auxiliary heater set temperature to
the environmental temperature through the overall area-
conductance product of the tank. Thus,
L'=L+Laux
where L' is the adjusted monthly total system load; Lis the
monthly total energy removed from the tank in the form of
hot water; and L, ux is the monthly total energy lost to the
environment from the auxiliary tank or auxiliary section of
a single tank.
The X and Y parameters of the water heating f-chart
beco me:
X ' = X[L/L']
Y ' = Y[L/L'].
The solar fraction obtained by using these parameters is:
f ' = l - E/[L + Laux].
Note that f ' is similar tofl defined in eqn (3) above and
must be adjusted to place it on the same basis as the solar
fractions reported in this paper.