APPENDIX D

APPLYING THE SIZING METHODS

D.O THE DESIG~~_.IGNMENT

The managE~r of a Daytona Beach oceanfront
solar

pool

heatE!r

a full-load

with

capability,

motel plans to install a

LPG-fired,

backup heater

The motel is oW]led by a major chain which owns another motel in Ormond

Beach -- six miles north of the Daytona Beach site.

layou t , pool size and relative
for

the two motels.

The buildings,

pool location and climate are almost identical

Monthly LPG consumption figures

for pool heating at

the Ormond Beach motel are available for the past six years.
does

not

have

heater.

solar

site

Both

~1s

are

That pool

to be kept at a minimum

water temperature of 80F

The manage ~r of the Daytona Beach motel has two estimates from solar
contractors

for

installed

solar pool heaters.

use 2500 ft2 of unglazed,

lated roof deck.
contractor
with

flexible-mat

His bid for

copper

mounted facing south at a 40 slope.

includes the LP(:;
contracto~

s;m;l;~r

Bot}:

backup

strategy

and automatic valving)

cases

heater

cover plates.

It will be installed

(differentially

Freeze protection

with

other

the

copper

not seen as a problem

D-l

are

to

be

Neither contract

by the swimming pool

Both

systems

use

controlled l~-hp booster pumps

is adequately provided

The chemical balance of the pool is carefully

contact of pool water

The

They

His bid is $25,600.

have good reputations

contractors

flow con trol

system is $20 t 000.

4' x 10' flat black, insulated solar collectors

and single-glass

passages

proposes to

collectors laid flat against the insu-

the installed

plans to use forty

One contractor

passages

in

the

controlled
glazed

in both
so the

collectors

is

Both contractors contend that their system represents the best return
on the initial in vestment and the manager has asked you to help him decide
He has requested an estimate of monthly and

contract to accept.

annual savings based on average weather conditions and the history

energy

consum~ed tor

has requested that

pool heating
you

advise

at the Ormond Beach motel

his

construction

Finally

of
he

foreman so that he can

effectively supervise the installation

THE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED

D.l..1

STEP

Beach pool

Analyze the annual energy consumption of the Ormond

The average monthly energy consumption for pool heating at

the Ormond Bea,ch motel is reported in Table D. 1

TABLE D.l
:)rmond Beach Motel Pool Energy Consumption

Gal LPG

Month

$/Mo
($l.20/gal)

Energy

Consupmtion

B tu/Mo

Btu/Day

600

$ 720

38,640,000

1,288,000

1350

$1620

86,940,000

2,804,516

1500

$1800

96,600,000

3,116,129

1455

$1746

93,702,000

3,346,500

450

$540

28,980,000

934,839

D.l.2

STEP 2: Tabulate the Required Weather Data

$:r_EJ>~ Tabulate wind conditions using Table D. 2

D-2

TABLE D.2
Site-specific

Month

Direction

Wind Conditions

Site Wind Speed (in MPH)

Rooftop Sp~ed (in l\'IPH)

(from Table C .4, page C-13)

Jan

(site

speed x [. 33 to

NW

13.3

4.4 - 6.65

NW

13.3

4.4

NE

13.'7

4.5 - 6.9

NNE

14.9

4.9 - 7.5

ssw

15.2

5.0 - 7.6

1600 ft2 to 2500 ft2 of collectors

Because

- 6.65

will be installed on the 5200

ft2 roof, which is wind mapped in Figure C. 9 , some of the collectors will
be subjected to as much as .5 times the unobstructed
receive the full

protection

afforded

Others

wind speed.

by the building

and its parapet

Thus, a range c)f roof top wind speeds is tabulated in Table D. 2

arithmetic

averag;e will be used in subsequent calculations.

STEP 2b

Tabulate daytime temperatures

using information

from the

table on page E.10.

Table D.3
Daytime Temperature Data
Month
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

Their

Tar npa Day time Mean

( 2"'4fijr Average mean + 5OF)

Max

Mean

71.2
65.8
65.8
65.8
71.2

74.8
69.8
68.8
69.3
14.6

68.2
59.5
57.9
58.8
64.6

D-3

Daytona

24hr

Average

51

w'eather

Daytona

Thus,

data does not appear in Appendix E

for the city wi th the most similiar weather should be chosen

data

Jacksonville

is too cold., Mt mri is too hot. Gainesville is mlaDd and north of Daytona so
Tampa appears to be a good choice.
TemperatuJ:'e data for Daytona Beach is available from NOAA (see page
C-7 for

the acidress)

Table D.3

and is tabluated in the right

hand two columns of

Th1 correlation between the calculated daytime average temper-

ature for Tamp.a and the average of measured mean and high temperat~res
tor Daytona Be~lch is good.

STEP 2c
on

page

Tabulate monthly available insolation data using the table

E-10

TABLE D.4
Insolation Data (tor Tampa)
Average B tultt2

Month

.day

Average B tu/ft2 . day

South facing-, 400 slope

(Horizontal)

Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

1913

1314
1112
1204
1439
1756

1722
1799
1870
1939

In this case. too. we will select Tampa weather data because it is the
city

with

availa Lble insolation

data listed

in Appenidx

whose climate most

resembles that found in Daytona Beach..

We now have tabulated the weather data that we will use to calculate
the output

D.l..3
solar

of the two solar pool heating systems which require evaluation

STEP 3

Estimate the thermal

systems
D-4

performance

of

the

competing

STEP 3a
under

Assemble collector

performance

data for

the collectors

consideration
Performance data for both the glazed and unglazed collectors under

evaluation have been made available by the two competing solar contractors
and are presentE~d in Figure

1.00
.80

D.l

Unglazed Perf ormance Equation:

"

.808- 3.60

Glazed PerformanceEquation:

!!:!!.
I ' < 3 MPH

.,. .72 -1.003

.70'

!!:!!.

<10 MPH

I
Low temperature rating: 1032BTU/Ft2'Oay

.80

,-Low temperatl ure rating: aeo BTU/Ft2.0ay

.80
.50

-GI~eo <'10 '!~~

.40
.30
.20
.10

-t".;.

I Calculated
.05

.15

.2

.25

.3

.35

.4

.45

.5

.55

.8

.85

.7

!!:!!I

Figure

D.

Thermal Performance Graphs

STEP 3b

Estimate the thermal output of the unglazed solar system

D-5

75

TABLE D.S
Unglazed Collector Output
(Btu/tt2.day)
Corrected Collector Output
Wind
Speed
Temp/lnsol
from
Wind Speed
Correction
Table
Correction
from Fig.
D.2
from
(A.S)

80-71
80-66
80-66
80-66
80-71

Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

=
=
=
=
=

9
14
14
14
9

Fig.(5.3)

5.5
5.5
5.7
6.2
6.3

785*
500(A.5)
580(A.5)
750(A.5)
1110*

1314
1112
1204
1439
1756

*Average
of va lues from Figure
to approxmate
a AT of goF.

~~

(A.6)

A.5 (AT = 14) and Figure

700
380
450
630
1080

A.6 (AT = 5) is used

The dotted lines on Figures A. 5 and A. 6 trace the rerating path for

a 860 Btu/ft2 . standard-Florida-day

unglazed collector through the nomo-

graphs for No~rember temperature/insolation

dure,

aJ:.propriate

using

pool heating is expected

conditions.

The

same proce-

nomographs is used for .each month during which

to be required.

The dotted lines on Figure 5. 3 indicate the path through the

speed correctic .n nomograph
November colle-ctor rating,

tor

a 785 B tu/ft2

obtained by averaging

~T = 5 temp/iI lsolation nomographs)

the

2500 ft2

predicted

daily

I1nglazed-mat-type
collector

output

rating

(the

values from AT = 14 and

which

has been proposed

has been multiplied

by the nwnber of days

system correction

factor,

wh:ich corresponds to 0 slope and no heat exchanger

D-6

modified

Table D. 6 lists the monthly output. of

system

in each month and by the appropriate

Table 5.4),

.day

.95 (from

.
Table D.6
Therma 1 Output of Unglazed Solar Pool Heating System
Colle<~tor output
Month

~~

Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

52.5
29.5
34.9
44.1
83.7

(30)
(31)
(31)
(28)
(31)

c 106 /month

In Table D.7 the monthly

energy

predictec

to

System Correction
Factor

Btu

.95
.95
.95
.95
.95

49.9
27.9
33.1
41.9
79..5

energy

be available

requirements

from

System Output
x 106 /month

of the pool and the

the unglazed

solar pool heating

system are tabulated

Table D.7

Month
N;;v-Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

Pool Energy

Requirements/Unglazed
(Btu x lO6/month)

Pool
Requn ~ement
(Table ~ D.l)
3a .6
as,.9
9S,.6
93:.7
291.0

Cost in $
$1.20/gal LPG
(Table D.1)
720
1620
1800
1746
540

System

Output

Available
from Solar
System
49.9*
27.9
33.1

41.9
79.5*

6426

*Cannot all be utilized

STEP 3c. Estmat e the thermal output of the glazed solar system

D-7

Savings
in
Dollars
720
520
617
781
540
3178

Table D.8
Daily Glazed Collector Output
(Btu/ft2.day)

t.-t
1

(Table

M2.!!!fl.
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

Insolation on
South-facing
3{)O Slope
(Table D.4)

6.3)

goF
!4OF
14F
14F
goF

Collector Output
Modified for Temp
and Insolation
(Fig. A.12, A.13)

1913
1722
1799
1870
1939

1290*
1110
1160
1210
1320*

*Average of valuE~s from A.12 and A.13 used

dotted lines on Figures A .12 and A .13 trace the modification of a
glazed

collector

at

rated

1032 Btu/ft28standard-Florida-day

t. - t

to

reflect

9F. insolation rate = 1913 Btu/

predicted

)er conditions:
Novem1:

ft2 .day.

The mlodification

conditions

are be tter than the original rating conditions -- AT = 950 - 810

At

of

14,

inS( >lation

ance improves

1
in this

a
case indicates

rate = 1600 Btu/ft2

-day

that because November

--

the predicted

perform-

rhe same situation holds for all the pool heating months in

this sample problem but certainly

weather condition:

not for all months, locations and winter

in Florida.

ou~ut of glazed collectors does not require correction for wind

speeds

likely

to be encountered

Table D.9 lists

collector

system ~Ihich

the

predicted

during
monthly

has been proposed

D~8

periods
output

of operation
of

the

in Florida

1600 ft2

glazed

Table D.9
Thenr tal Output of Glazed Solar Pool Heating System
(Btu x lO6/month)
System
Output

Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

61.9
55.1
57.5
54.2
65.5

(30)
(31)
(31)
{28)
(31)

In this

58.8
52.4
54.6
51.5
62.2

.95
.95
.95
.95
.95

case the

appropriate

system

correction

factor

is

.95 (from

Table 5.~).

This is a more favorable system factor than that assigned to

a horizontal

surf 'ace because the collector slope (30) improves the collec-

tion geometry.

The incident

(o!: l~s)

winter collection hours

during

angle of the incoming radiation is near 300

The incident angle on a horizon-

tal surface durin: g win ter collection hours is 30 (or more)

Table D .10 tabulates the monthly energy requirements of the pool and
the

energy

predi

lcted to be available from the glazed pool heating system.

Poo] Energy

Month

Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar

Pool
Requirt ~ment
(Table ~
38.6
86.9
96.6
93.7
29.0

Table D .10
Requirements/Glazed

(Btu x 106/month)
Cost

~
720
1620
1800
1746
540
6426

*Cannot aU be used

D-9

System Output

Available
from
Solar System
58.
52.
54.
51.
62.

8*
4
6
5

2*

Savings
($)
720
975
1016
958
540
4209

D.2 STEP 4
Under
both

about

C_9_r1~~~ErHE ECONOMICS OF BOTH PROPOSED SYSTEMS

the

assumed

systen1S offer

conditions,

system

an equally good return

The actual

15%.

weather

figures

are:

characteristics and

on initial

3178/20000 = 15.9% for

system and 4209/'26500 = 15.9% for the glazed system.

annual pool heati ng load is:

investment
the

unglazed

The portion of the

3162/ 6426 = 49% in the case of the unglazed

collectors and 4209/6426 = 65% in the case of the more expensive

glazed collectors
(50%-80%)

as heir

systems
limited

It

FSEC suggests a solar fraction

kg cost effective
fairly

valid or invalid,

of

solar

range of roughly.

of

5 - .8

for solar' service or domestic water heat-

may be argued

to the smme range

array

that

pool heating

~ether

fractions.

should

not

such ar~ents

be

are

both systems are reasonably close to the suggested range.

STEP 5 COM[PARE CALCULATOR (APPENDIX F) WITH NOMOGRAPH

(APPENDIX A) RESULTS
Table

gives monthly inputs and outputs for the unglazed collec-

D-ll

tors under cons:ideration

as calculated using Program "A" for a HP 15C

calculator

INSOLATION WIND
MONTH TO of t. ~Btu/ft2day) ~)
1

Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.

71
66
66
66
71

80
80
80
80
80

1314
1112
1204
1439
1756

3.6 x 1.2* = 4.32

5.5
5.5
5.7
6.2
6.3

3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6

x
x
x
x

1.2
1.22
1.28
1.29

=
=
=
=

4.32
4.40
4.60
4.65

.808
.808
.808
.808
.808

737
444
506
653
1055

*Wind speed modifiers

The predict ed annual solar savings using the calculator program equal

vs $3178

LlSing

the

nomographs--very

D-1O

close

agreement

A similar

for the glazed collector array under consideration

malysis

shows a differen ce of less than 1%

It should
thermal

order

be noted

that

the

comparisons

are

either

performance equations,

for

collectors

exactly

like

with

(unglazed)

very close to (2~lazed) those for which the nomographs were derived
agreement

will n.01 be this

close if the thermal performance

first

equations

or

The
vary

substantially from

1}

808

tt =

- 3.60 (t. - t ) (unglazed)

1

67 - 1.03 (ti -.ta)

(glazed)

UNCERTA!J~rI~S ASSOCIATED WITH USING "AVERAGE" VALUES

D.4

If

January

consisted of 31 equally

tempera ture,

daytime

the calculated

with

66F average

actual solar heater performance would closely follOW

p,erfonnance.

Its more likely

be clo,udy, some clear,

days will

sunny days

This will aft ect the perfonnance

however,

that

some January

some unseasonably warm and some cold.

of both

solar system and may cause major

differences
If half of the month
the

has 75F average

month
will

changes

in the January
on

the

55F

average

daytime

reI nain at about 66F

average

justed

has

b asis

contribution

daytime

temperatures
It

temperatures

and half

the monthly

may be interesting

daytime

to calculate

of the two solar systems when ad-

of half a month of each of the new temperature pro-

files

D..,U

75 F
(AT:5)

55 F
(6.T = 25)

Rating modified [or temp/ingot

(from Figure ~.6 or A.4)

820 Btu/ft2 -day

200 Btu/ft2.day

Rating modified f~or wind speed

(from Figure 5 .3)

725 Btu/ft2 . day

90 Btu/ft2.day

unglazed

output

half month outpu t

(Btu x 106)

31 x 725 x 2500 x
-2

with

of

the

unglazed

system

drops

85 = 3.0

31 x 90 x 2500 x
2

Total = 26.0

So the out]put
unbalanced

85 = 23.9

21% and

becomes

very

respect to time of month

75 F

55 F

Rating modified ror temp/insol

(from Figure ~.13 or A.1!.)

1260

1065

half month outpu .t.:

(Btu x 106)

95 = 29.7

Glazed output

31 x 1260 x 1600 x
2

31

x 1065 x 1600 x

""2

Total = 54.8

So the out] ;>ut of the system remains about the same and is reasonably
well balanced wi1:h respect to time of month

D.S THERELA1rIONSHIP BETWEEN SYSTEM SIZE AND ENERGY AND

DOLLAR SAVINGS
It is notew orthy
heating

during

systems

that in November and March both proposed solar pool

produce more energy than the Ormond Beach pool used

those months

Yet

during

produce less thoan is required.

December,

January

and

February

both

The selection of an economically op timized

system must takl e the following factors into account

The cost p er square fo?t of solar heating

systems tends to rise as the

system size is reduced. This is because certain costs

D-12

-- engineering and

95 = 25.1

valves and supply lines -- do not

company ove~head, controllers,

design,

decrease linearly with a reduction in system size

the fraction of the thermal load carried

Additionally
system

(solar

Witness

Novembe

and

March

would contribute

posed

not

increase

linearly

when

a system

twice

does

fraction)

no

reasons, a syste:m that meets about 50%

in a size and co;st range that maximizes return

Another

The maximum ~

seasonally

these

and

proother

the annual thermal load is

on the buyer's

investment

at which either solar system can con-

temperate

severe cold snal= during

Btu/day,

the LPG-fired

rate

the motel-sized

pool may lose 5-6 million

heater will have be used to maintain a comfortable

basis.

the pool with heat at

If an unseasonable cold snap occurs in November or

some LPG utilization

months which on a 3D-day

able

and immediately after

of 200,0100 to 600,000 B tu per hour (depending on their size) on a

24-hour-a-day

March,

which

During

day.

Such heaters are able to supply

pool temperature

that

as those

energy dluring the period when it is needed is about 2 million Btu

on a clear,

the

area

imJ:)ortant fact is apparent from a close examination of tables

D.7 and D.I0

tribute

For

- 80% of

collector

as large

usable energy

extra

with

by the solar

costs

basis

may

have

incurred

excess

caution must be exercised

Thus,

be

solar

heating

in predicting

f] rom solar pool heating system.

will result

even

during
capacity

those
avail~

the dollar savings

Those savings are effected

by weathe~ patte ~rns as well as by monthly average conditions

Fortuna tely
may be heated
out

causing

swimming pools have high

to 50

use

- 7F

thermal storage capacity and

over the minimum acceptable temperature with-

r discomfort.

A 50,000 gal

pool

has

a thermal

storage

capacity of 432, )00 Btu per of and thus can maintain a minimum temperature

of

80F

(ai .ded by normal

days of cold weather

in

daily solar system input)

November
D-13

or

March

if

preheated

through
to say

several
87F