What is the Best Solution to Improve

Thermal Performance of Storage

Tanks With Immersed Heat
Exchangers: Baffles or a Divided
Tank?
Aaron D. Wade
Jane H. Davidson
Julia F. Haltiwanger
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Minnesota,
111 Church Street, SE,
Minneapolis, MN 55455

Prior studies of indirect water storage tanks that employ an immersed heat exchanger to discharge the stored energy identified
two potential methods of improving the rate of energy extraction:
(1) an internal baffle to increase the velocity across the heat exchanger and (2) a divided storage compartment to achieve thermal stratification. The relative benefits of the two options are compared and recommendations for implementation are provided
based in part on measurements in a 350 l tank with a 10 m long,
0.3 m2 coiled tubular heat exchanger. DOI: 10.1115/1.3142823

Keywords: heat exchanger, storage, hot water

Introduction

Indirect water storage tanks have one or more heat exchangers

immersed directly in the storage fluid to charge and/or discharge
the stored energy. This arrangement eliminates the need for a mechanical pump. However, charge and discharge rates may be limited by natural convection within the storage fluid. Furthermore,
the buoyant flow that develops in the indirect thermal store during
discharge was shown by both experiments 13 and computational fluid dynamics 4,5 to reduce the potential for thermal
stratification. On the other hand, the confined flow increases the
convective film coefficient of the heat exchanger compared with
natural convection in an unbounded domain e.g., a very large
volume of water relative to the size of the heat exchanger.
Two approaches were proposed to improve the rate of heat
transfer. The first approach uses a baffle to control the flow field in
the tank. Various baffle configurations were studied but most designs provide modest or little improvement in heat transfer 69.
However, analysis of the flow in a straight baffle located below a
heat sink suggests that such a baffle may be useful in controlling
the growth of the thermal plume from an immersed heat exchanger during discharge 10. As an extension of this concept,
numerical 11 and experimental 12 studies of a simple cylindrical sleeve that confines a coiled tube heat exchanger in an annular
space adjacent to the tank wall show that such a baffle improves
the rate of energy discharge by increasing the flow rate across the
heat exchanger. The second approach divides the storage volume
Contributed by the Solar Energy Engineering Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING. Manuscript received December 1,
2008; final manuscript received December 18, 2008; published online July 15, 2009.
Review conducted by Aldo Steinfeld. Paper presented at the 2008 ASME Heat Transfer, Fluids, Energy, Solar, and Nano Conferences HTFESN2008, Jacksonville, FL,
August 1014, 2008.

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

into separate compartments so that the water being heated passes

through them in series 1316. The divided storage provides a
staged heating process for which higher temperatures are maintained in the second compartment for longer periods of time compared with a conventional tank.
The primary objective of the present study is to recommend
when insertion of baffles or division of the tank improves the
performance of indirect water storage tanks. To help answer this
question, comparative discharge experiments were performed with
the three tanks illustrated in Fig. 1. In addition, a model of the
divided storage option is used to demonstrate when this option is
beneficial.
Figure 1a is a conventional water storage tank with a coiled
tube heat exchanger placed at the top of the store for discharge.
The arrows provide a generalized direction of the buoyant motion
due to the operation of the heat exchanger. The large scale buoyant motion maintains a fully mixed tank 12. Figure 1b shows
the same tank/heat exchanger with an internal cylindrical baffle.
The open-ended baffle confines the heat exchanger to an annular
gap between the tank wall and the baffle. The negatively buoyant
plumes formed in the boundary layer of the heat exchanger descend and enter the main compartment of the tank as they exit the
baffle near the bottom of the tank. This arrangement increases the
flow rate across the heat exchanger 12. Figure 1c is a divided
tank with two compartments connected in series. The convective
flow in each tank is similar to that in the conventional tank, but
higher temperatures are maintained for a longer period of time in
the upper compartment tank 2. The objective is to provide hotter
water to the backup water heater or directly to the user.

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure

Discharge experiments for the conventional and baffled tank are

conducted in a well insulated 350 l polycarbonate tank that is 610
mm in diameter and 1.2 m in height. The heat exchanger is a 580
mm diameter helical coil with 3 cm pitch and 0.3 m2 heat transfer
area. It is formed from a 10 m long copper tube with an outer
diameter of 9.5 mm and a wall thickness of 2 mm. To allow
detection of changes in the storage-side convective heat transfer,
the heat exchanger is sized so that the dominant thermal resistance
is on the storage side. An internal baffle is added to the conventional tank by placing a polycarbonate cylinder into the tank. The
3 mm thick polycarbonate baffle forms an annular 40 mm gap
adjacent to the tank wall. The cylindrical sleeve is supported at the
bottom of the tank by three tapered legs details are provided in
Ref. 12.
Two thermally isolated storage tanks, each 600 mm high by 610
mm diameter, comprise the divided storage tank Fig. 2. The total
volume is identical to the conventional tank. The heat exchanger
in each tank is half the total area but otherwise constructed like
the heat exchanger used in the other tank configurations. Fluid
enters the heat exchanger in tank 1 and exits from the top of tank
2.
The tanks and heat exchangers are instrumented to measure the
transient storage fluid temperature distribution, heat exchanger inlet and outlet temperatures, and mass flow rate. The positions of
the 52 copper-Constantan thermocouples 0.5 C within the divided storage tank are shown in Fig. 2. In each compartment,
vertical temperature distributions are measured at 130 mm vertical
intervals at three radial positions r = 0, r = 143 mm, and r
= 286 mm. The temperature distribution in a horizontal plane is
measured at the midheight of each tank. Both tanks remain fully
mixed within 1 C during discharge. The reported average storage temperatures are the arithmetic mean of the temperatures
measured along a single vertical plane in each tank.
The positions of thermocouples in the conventional and baffled
tanks, including schematics of the tanks, are provided in Ref. 12.
Vertical temperature distributions are measured at 150 mm inter-

Copyright 2009 by ASME

AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 034503-1

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 1 Options for an indirect storage tank with immersed heat exchanger

vals at the tank centerline r = 0, along the inside wall of the

baffle r = 260 mm and within the baffle near the heat exchanger
r = 290 mm.
For all tank configurations, the temperature difference across
the heat exchanger is measured with a five junction thermopile
0.5% + 0.05 C. The mass flow rate through the heat exchanger
is measured with a Coriolis mass flow meter 0.2%
+ 0.001 kg/ s. Data are acquired every 48 s.
For all discharge experiments, the storage compartments is
first filled with 60 C tap water. Once the tank is filled, constant
temperature tap water 20 1 C is passed through the heat exchanger at 0.096 0.005 kg/ s. Each discharge experiment is conducted until the difference in the inlet and outlet temperatures is
less than 1 C. The typical duration is 4 h. Differences in heat

transfer and outlet temperature, between the three tank configurations, are negligible after 100 min and thus data are provided for
this time period.
Temperature and heat transfer are analyzed assuming a quasisteady process. The heat transfer to the heat exchanger, Q, at each
time step is
c pTout Tin
Q=m

Tube-side thermophysical properties are evaluated at the average

of the inlet and outlet temperatures. The transient heat exchanger
effectiveness and number of transfer unit NTU at each time step
are

Fig. 2 Experimental apparatus for divided storage tank

034503-2 / Vol. 131, AUGUST 2009

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 3 Comparison of heat transfer

Fig. 4 Comparison of effectiveness and NTU

Tout Tin
Ts Tin

NTU = ln1

2
3

Results

Transient heat transfer for the three tanks is plotted versus time
for 100 min in Fig. 3. The heat transfer diminishes as the temperature in the tank decreases. The baffled storage tank provides
the highest discharge rate. The divided storage tank provides the
lowest heat transfer. The heat transfer during the first 5 min of
discharge is 9639 W in the conventional storage tank, 10,288 W in
the tank with the baffle, and 8479 W in the divided tank. Thus, the
baffle improves heat transfer in the first 5 min by 6.7%, while the
divided storage decreases heat transfer by 12.0% when compared
with the conventional storage tank. The baffle improves heat
transfer from 55 min t 60 min by 5.8% over the conventional
tank, while the divided storage results in a 5.0% decrease. At 100
min, the three options performed similarly.
Heat transfer from the individual tanks in the divided storage
differs slightly. The heat transfer from tank 1 is approximately
half that of the conventional storage tank. This result is anticipated
because the heat exchange area in the divided tank is half that in
the conventional tank and the inlet temperature and the initial
storage temperature are identical. Heat transfer in the second tank
is lower. The reduced heat transfer in the second tank is a result of
a higher inlet temperature to the heat exchanger.
Heat exchanger effectiveness is plotted versus discharge time
for the three tank options in Fig. 4. The heat exchanger effectiveness for tank 2 is slightly lower than the one for tank 1. But as
shown in Fig. 4, for both tanks 0.3. In all tanks, the effectiveness decreases as energy is extracted. The nominal effectiveness
of the conventional tank is 0.57. The effectiveness of the baffled
tank is about 12% higher than the conventional tank.
The decay in the average storage temperature of the conventional, baffled, and divided storage tanks is plotted in Fig. 5. Data
for the divided tank include the average temperature in each tank
as well as the average for the combined storage volume. Consistent with the heat transfer measurements, storage temperature decays most rapidly in the baffled tank followed by the conventional
and divided tanks. Tank 1 in the divided storage vessel behaves
similarly to the conventional tank and cools more rapidly than
tank 2.
Transient outlet temperatures for the three tanks are plotted in
Fig. 6. The baffled storage tank produces higher outlet temperatures than the conventional tank for the first 100 min of discharge.
The divided storage tank produces lower outlet temperatures for
the first 80 min. The time that the heat exchanger outlet temperaJournal of Solar Energy Engineering

ture remains above 40 C is an important parameter for analyzing

the useful effect of the bafflemore time with hotter outlet temperatures reduces the use of a backup system. The outlet temperature is above 40 C for 14 min in the conventional tank, 22 min
with the baffle in place, and 6 min in the divided storage tanks.

Fig. 5 Comparison of storage temperatures

Fig. 6 Comparison of outlet temperatures

AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 034503-3

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Fig. 7 Predicted improvement in heat transfer of the divided

storage tank

Fig. 8 Predicted improvement in outlet temperature of the divided storage

Thus, the baffle increases the time the heat exchanger outlet temperature is above 40 C by 57%, while the divided storage decreases this time by 57%.

advantage of the divided storage depends on the NTU of the immersed heat exchanger. Too low a NTU limits the energy transfer
rate and diminishes the advantage of the divided storage. The
analytical results in Figs. 7 and 8 predict that for NTU 2, the
divided storage will penalize performance. The present data confirm this result. The initial NTU of the heat exchanger used in the
conventional storage is 0.85 Fig. 4. At NTU = 0.85, the model
predicts that the divided storage will impose a penalty of about
2% in heat transfer and 1% in outlet temperature. The measured
data show an even greater penalty about 8% penalty in heat transfer and about 5% in outlet temperature for Vr 0.5. The measured penalty is greater than expected due to the increased surface
area and the accompanying increase in losses to the ambient of the
divided storage tank. The model assumes an adiabatic storage
tank.
The divided storage could be advantageous at higher NTU. This
benefit has been proven for NTU equal to 2.5 and 7 15. In
general, the advantage increases as NTU is increased. However, as
shown in Figs. 7 and 8, increasing the NTU above a certain value
about 12 is not warranted because at high NTU the heat transfer
is limited by the temperature difference between the surface of the
heat exchanger and the storage fluid.
The question of whether a baffle or a divided tank is the best
approach to improve performance of indirect storage tanks does
not have a simple answer. The divided storage is a good option for
situations where the NTU of the heat exchanger exceeds 3. The
coiled heat exchanger used in the present study would need to be
at least 35 m long to benefit from a divided storage tank. A baffle
is potentially beneficial for all NTU. But a baffle impacts heat
transfer on the storage side of the heat exchanger. Consequently, a
baffle is effective only when the largest resistance to heat transfer
is convection on the storage side of the heat exchanger. This circumstance is most likely when the flow through the heat exchanger is turbulent and the heat exchanger is metal. If the heat
exchanger is plastic, the conductive resistance across the polymer
wall may pose a larger thermal resistance than convection. Experience showed that not all baffling schemes work. The cylindrical
baffle evaluated here is appropriate for coiled tubes.

Discussion

Among the three tank/heat exchanger combinations considered

in the present study, the baffled storage tank provides the best
thermal performance. The increased heat transfer and higher outlet
temperatures in the baffled storage tank are attributed to increased
flow rates across the heat exchanger 12. The divided storage
tank has the lowest rate of energy extraction and quality temperature of delivered energy. An analytical model for an indirect storage, previously described in Refs. 15,16, was applied to explain
the empirical results of the present study. Simultaneous solution of
energy balances on the tank and the heat exchanger yields expressions for the transient storage temperature and heat exchanger
outlet temperature for each tank. For tank 1,
Ts,1t = Tin + Ts,0 Tinexp 1Vr,1

Tout,1t = Tin + Ts,0 Tin1 exp 1Vr,1

Ts,2t = Tout,1 + Ts,0 Tout,1exp 2Vr,2

Toutt = Tout,1 + Ts,0 Tout,12 exp 2Vr,2

For tank 2,

The dimensionless parameter for each tank i is defined as

i = i

ic p,i f
ic p,is

where the subscripts f and s represent the tube side and storage,
respectively. The dimensionless parameter Vr is the volume of hot
water delivered divided by the storage volume of tank i:
Vr,i =

ft
m
f,iVs,i

The expressions for the transient outlet and storage temperatures,

for the conventional storage tank, are given by Eqs. 4 and 5
with and Vr based on the effectiveness, fluid properties, and
storage volume of the conventional storage.
The potential percent improvement in the heat transfer of the
divided tank over that of a conventional tank is shown in Fig. 7.
The percent increase in outlet temperature is shown in Fig. 8.
Figures 7 and 8 are labeled according to the initial NTU of the
conventional storage NTU, like effectiveness, decreases as the
heat is removed from the tank. As shown in Refs. 15,16, the
034503-4 / Vol. 131, AUGUST 2009

Conclusion

Indirect water storage tanks, which use an immersed heat exchanger to add or extract energy, are a relatively new innovation
in solar water heating systems. The advantage of these tanks is the
elimination of one or more mechanical pumps. The potential disadvantage is reliance on natural as opposed to forced convection
heat transfer on the storage side of the heat exchanger. Two methTransactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

ods proposed to improve thermal performance are baffles to control the flow of storage fluid around the heat exchanger and a
division of the storage tank into a series of smaller tanks or a
single tank divided into compartments. Both of these methods are
potentially beneficial and thus the question ariseswhich is best?
This paper compares the transient thermal performance of both
options in a 350 l water storage tank with a 10 m long, 0.3 m2
immersed copper coil heat exchanger. The baffle is a cylindrical
sleeve that forms an annulus in which the heat exchanger is positioned. The divided option is two 175 l storage tanks through
which the heat exchanger is operated in series. The two options
are compared with a conventional tank. For these specific configurations, the tank with the baffled heat exchanger provides the best
performance. The baffle increases the storage-side convective heat
transfer to the heat exchanger by 20%. The divided storage tank is
detrimental to performance. However, as shown by an analytic
model, such tanks can be beneficial if the NTU of the heat exchanger is large enough, i.e., greater than 3.
Our conclusion and recommendation to tank designers is to
consider both options as potential methods to improve performance. Under the right circumstances both options can provide a
modest 58% improvement in heat transfer and an increase in
the quality of delivered energy. If the NTU of the heat exchanger
is greater than 3, a divided storage may be used to maintain high
outlet temperatures longer than in a conventional tank of the same
total volume. Baffles are useful regardless of the NTU of the heat
exchanger as long as the storage-side convection poses the greatest thermal resistance to heat transfer. Normally, this situation will
occur when water flow through the heat exchanger is turbulent,
which is typically the case for copper tubes used in most domestic
water pipes and coiled tube heat exchangers.

Nomenclature
A heat transfer area m2
c p specific heat of water at constant pressure
J/kg K
mass flow rate kg/s
m
NTU number of transfer units UA / m
c p
Q heat transfer W
t time s
T temperature C
UA overall heat transfer coefficient area product
W / C
Vr dimensionless ratio of delivered water volume
to storage water volume Eq. 9
Vs volume of storage fluid m3
Greek Symbols




Subscripts

heat exchanger effectiveness

density kg/ m3
dimensionless parameter c p f / c ps
kinematic viscosity m2 / s

0 initial value

Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

1
2
f
i
in
o
out
s

indicates the first divided storage tank

indicates the second divided storage tank
tube-side fluid
indicates tank configuration, inner diameter
inlet of the heat exchanger
outside of heat exchanger tube
outlet of heat exchanger
storage-side fluid

References
1 Liu, W., Davidson, J. H., Mantell, S. C., and Kulacki, F. A., 2003, Natural
Convection From a Horizontal Tube Heat Exchanger Immersed in a Tilted
Enclosure, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 1251, pp. 6775.
2 Liu, W., Davidson, J. H., and Kulacki, F. A., 2004, Natural Convection From
a Tube Bundle in a Thin Inclined Enclosure, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng.,
1262, pp. 702709.
3 Liu, W., Davidson, J. H., and Kulacki, F. A., 2005, Thermal Characterization
of Prototypical Integral Collector Storage Systems With Immersed Heat Exchangers, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 1271, pp. 2128.
4 Su, Y., and Davidson, J. H., 2007, Transient Natural Convection Heat Transfer Correlations for Tube Bundles Immersed in a Thermal Storage, ASME J.
Sol. Energy Eng., 129, pp. 210214.
5 Su, Y., and Davidson, J. H., 2007, Multi-Zone Porous Medium Model of the
Thermal and Fluid Processes During Discharge of an Inclined Rectangular
Storage Vessel Via an Immersed Tube Bundle, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng.,
129, pp. 449457.
6 Chauvet, L. P., Nevrala, D. J., and Probert, S. D., 1993, Influences of Baffles
on the Rate of Heat Recovery Via a Finned-Tube Heat-Exchanger Immersed in
a Hot-Water Store, Appl. Energy, 45, pp. 191217.
7 Mote, R., Probert, S. D., and Nevrala, D., 1992, Rate of Heat Recovery From
a Hot-Water Store: Influence of the Aspect Ratio of a Vertical-Axis OpenEnded Cylinder Beneath a Submerged Heat-Exchanger, Appl. Energy, 41,
pp. 115136.
8 Drck, H., and Bachmann, S., 2002, Hot Water Performance of Solar
CombistoresDescription of a Test Method and the Experience Gained With
the Application of the Method on Three Different Types of Combistores,
International Energy Agency Paris SHC Task 26 Report, Combisystems,
www.iea-shc.org.
9 Drck, H., and Hahne, E., 1998, Test and Comparison of Hot Water Stores for
Solar Combistores, Proceedings of EuroSun 1998, Portoroz, Slovenia, pp.
1417.
10 Kulacki, F. A., Davidson, J. H., and Hebert, M., 2007, On the Effectiveness of
Baffles in Indirect Solar Storage Systems, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 129,
pp. 494498.
11 Su, Y., and Davidson, J.H., 2008, Discharge of Thermal Storage Tanks Via
Immersed Baffled Heat Exchangers: Numerical Model of Flow and Temperature Fields, ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 130, p. 021016.
12 Haltiwanger, J., and Davidson, J. H., 2009, Discharge of a Thermal Storage
Tank Using an Immersed Heat Exchanger With an Annular Baffle, Sol. Energy, 83, pp. 193201.
13 Sekulic, D. P., and Krane, R. J., 1992, Use of Multiple Storage Elements to
Improve the Second Law Efficiency of a Thermal Storage System. Part II:
Completion of the Analysis and Presentation of Results, Proceedings of
ECOS 1992 International Symposium on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, A.
Valero and G. Tsatsaronis, eds., New York, pp. 6772.
14 Mather, D., Hollands, K. G. T., and Wright, J. L., 2002, Single- and MultiTank Energy Storage for Solar Heating Systems: Fundamentals, Sol. Energy,
731, pp. 313.
15 Boies, A. M., and Homan, K. O., 2008, Improving Discharge Characteristics
of Indirect Integral Collector Storage Systems With Multielement Storage,
ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng., 130, p. 021003.
16 Ragoonanan, V., Davidson, J. H., Homan, K. O., and Mantell, S. C., 2006,
The Benefit of Dividing an Indirect Thermal Storage Into Two Compartments: Discharge Experiments, Sol. Energy, 80, pp. 1831.

AUGUST 2009, Vol. 131 / 034503-5

Downloaded From: http://solarenergyengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 06/12/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms