COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PERFORMANCES OF UNDERGROUND AND

OVERGROUND TANKS IN SEASONAL STORAGE OF THERMAL ENERGY

M.A.Mahran2, I.S.Taha1, M.M.Abdelghany1, I.M.Ismail1

1
Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering,
Assiut Uni., Egypt.
2
Mechanical Engineer, Assiut Oil Refining Co., Assiut, Egypt.

Key words: thermal energy, seasonal storage, underground storage tank,

thermally stratified storage and storage efficiency

ABSTRACT:
In the present paper, a comparative study of the performances of both over ground and underground
thermally stratified storage tanks which are used in long-term storage (seasonal storage) is carried out
experimentally. A solar water heating system was designed and manufactured to charge both tanks using
a variable electric heater to simulate solar energy. The solar water heating system is sufficient to supply
the hot water demand for six persons. The two storage tanks were fully charged at the same time during
summer at a constant flow rate, which leads to a high degree of stratification inside both tanks. The
obtained results of temperature distributions inside both tanks during charging period are used in the
comparison between the thermal behavior of the two tanks. It appeared that the thermal behavior of the
two tanks has the same trend and the average temperature inside the over ground tank is relatively
higher than that of the underground tank at the beginning of charging. At the end of summer, the
temperature level inside both tanks became close to each other. During the discharging period, which
was carried out on the two tanks simultaneously, several loading patterns were applied. The results of
loading showed that the underground storage tank is better in both storage efficiency and hot water
temperature to load compared with the over ground storage tank under different loading patterns. The
effect of ambient conditions on both tanks after termination of charging and discharging is also
investigated. It was found that the over ground storage tank is highly sensitive to the variation in
ambient temperature compared with the underground storage tank, which is less sensitive to the
variation in ambient conditions.

.
NOMENCLATURE
Ac = collector areas, m2
D = diameter of the storage tank, m
g = gravitational acceleration, m / s2
E = equivalent electric power delivered to the circulated water, KW
GT () = instantaneous total solar flux on horizontal surface, W m -2
L = vertical length between tank inlet and outlet pipes, m
M1 = charging mass flow rate, kg s -1
M2 = Load mass flow rate, kg s -1
Qadd = useful energy added to the tank during charging, J
QL = energy quantity delivered to the load from the storage
tank at temperature equal to or more than 40 0 C, J
r = radial distance from tank center-line, m
0
T = temperature, C
0
Ta = measured ambient temperature, C.
o
Tc = temperature at collector outlet, C

1
V = characteristic velocity ( mean velocity at the inlet port ), m/s
Z = depth from ground surface, m
Z T = downward distance from top of the storage tank, m
ZL = Z T / L = dimensionnels distance
Greek symbols:
T = temperature difference between the inlet and the exit
water for the storage tank, C
= density difference of water between initial (ambient) and
inlet conditions, kg/m 3
m = mean value of density evaluated at the average of
the initial and inlet temperatures, kg/m 3
= time, s
= collector efficiency
Appreviations:
OG = over ground storage tank
UG = underground storage tank
1. INTRODUCTION:

Energy storage plays an important role in energy conservation and improves the performance and the
reliability of energy systems. The reliability of solar energy can be increased by storing its useful portion when it
is available or in excess of the load and using the stored energy whenever needed. Storage in thermal forms as
sensible or latent heat is the commonly adopted method for efficient utilization of solar energy. Water is the
most suitable liquid storage medium of thermal energy in a sensible form at low temperature range (less than100
0
C) [1]. The parameters which directly affect the design and choice of proper storage method of solar energy are
storage duration and the storage location relative to the ground (over-or underground). The designer should aim
to develop a storage system for specific duration that has a small volume and low cost per unit of the energy
stored [1].

Because of the high cost of the insulation which represents more than 20% of the overall cost of any solar
system and specially in case of long-term storage, underground storage tanks are used to cut-down such high
costs. The insulation value of the soil surrounding the underground tank may be adequate and provide the
required bulk insulation thickness. Reuss et al. [2], reported that storage in the ground at temperatures up to 90
0
C seems to be favorable from a technical and economical point of view. Storage duration can be either short as
in diurnal operation or long (seasonal) where energy is stored for few months for future utilization [3]. In
seasonal storage system, the storage tank is fully charged during summer, and the stored heat is fully discharged
during winter load. Most of previous investigations indicate that long-term thermal storage has low efficiency
and low temperature levels due to the excessive thermal losses in such systems compared with ordinary diurnal
storage. However, the system efficiency can be improved by using underground storage tanks and by
maintaining and enhancing stratification in the storage tank [3].

The comparison between the thermal performances of the geometrically similar over ground and underground
storage tanks under same simulated operating condition was achieved theoretically [3]. The majority of the
underground storage tank experimental investigations showed a lack of the basic data of the temperature
distribution throughout the soil surrounding the tank. Accordingly, it can be stated that, the thermal behavior of
the soil that surrounds underground storage tanks has not been fully investigated experimentally at a prototype
scale. The objective of the present work is to experimentally investigate the performance of solar system with
underground storage tank and compare it with that for a geometrically similar over ground tank. Also, to provide

2
the temperature data of the water inside the tank and of the surrounding soil. An experimental set-up was
designed and constructed to represent a solar system with seasonal storage to supply the heat requirements for a
family of six persons. Two similar systems were constructed, one with over ground storage tank and the other
with underground storage tank.

Previous studies showed that improving the thermal stratification in a storage tank improves the collector
efficiency and leads to improvement in the whole system efficiency over that of a geometrically similar
thermally mixed storage tank. Thermal stratification is achieved due to density difference between hot and cold
water. The interface separating the hot and cold water is a narrow zone (thermocline zone) in which there is a
large temperature gradient. Yousef et al. [4] reported that the position and sharpness of the thermocline were
found to be a function of the Richardson and Peclet numbers, and a critical value of Richardson number ( g
L / m V2 ) of 0.244 was found to be the limit below which stratification does not occur. Also, they concluded
that the inlet geometry starts to influence thermal stratification in a thermocline thermal storage tank for a
Richardson number below 3.6.
Also, Satyanaryana et al. [5] reported that heat loss through walls and insulation of the storage tank to the
ambient is the major heat transfer mechanism in stratified storage tanks and that heat losses can be minimized
by using longer tank with a smaller wall thickness and better insulation. Enhancement of stratification was
studied extensively through many previous investigations. Zalman et al. [6] reported that the location and
geometry of the inlet port is very important and the geometry of the exit port is much less crucial. Results
showed that stratification improves with increasing L/D, T and inlet and outlet ports diameters and it decreases
with increasing the flow rates. Best results were obtained when the inlet and outlet ports were near the end walls
and when the flow was directed towards these walls. In the present work, a suitable port geometry using a large
number of small holes to distribute the flow was designed and tested.
Abdelghany et al. [3] studied through a simulation model the thermal behavior of underground stratified liquid
storage and compared its performance with the performance of a geometrically similar over ground storage
under same operating conditions. Storage capacity of 0.277 m 3 was chosen for each tank, based on collector area
of 2 m2 to be suitable for a family of four persons. The model results showed that for long-term operation, the
storage efficiency of the underground tank was better than that for over ground tank. This is due to the large
thermal resistance exerted by the ground on the underground storage tank. The difference in performance for
long-term operation ranged between 2.1% to 9% and it was more pronounced at flow rates greater than or equal
to 0.01kg s-1m-2. Also, it appeared that the daily performance of the underground tank is less sensitive to
variations in ambient conditions compared with over ground tank. Also, the distance through which heat loss
from the underground tank penetrates and heats the soil during seasonal storage was estimated to be 8 times tank
radius [3]. Also, Abdelghany [7] reported that increasing aspect ratio L/D of an underground storage tank
improves its performance up to L/D equals 7 above which the benefit gained from increasing L/D is limited.
Also, the effect of burying a bare tank at different depths indicates that as the depth increases up to 0.75 m, both
the storage efficiency and solar fraction increase while both losses and auxiliary supply decrease. This
improvement occurs because as the tank is buried at large distance from the surface, it becomes less exposed to
variations in the ambient conditions compared with that at zero depth.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 The Test Rig:

Figure 1. shows the main components of the test rig. It consisted of three operating loops. Two of them for
charging of the storage tanks and the third is the discharging loop. Each of the two charging loops mainly
consisted of vertical storage tank (1), pump (2) , three electric heaters (3 & 4), two of them have 1200 W
capacity while the third has a variable capacity from 0 to 1200 W, piping system (5), isolating and non return
valves (6 & 7), rotameter (8) and thermocouples (9). The discharging loop consists of a pump (2'), rotameter
(8'), mixer for hot water with cold water (11), back-up or auxiliary heating system (12), electric heating element
(13) , piping system (5'), isolating and non return valves ( 6'&7' ) and thermocouples ( 9' ). The instruments

3
MAKE UP
WATER
 9 4
1
1
6

5
9
3 sun
2

7 8
6 GROUND
5 SURFACE
SURFACE 1
5 5
' 1
6 4
' 2
' 1
8
' 7
9 '
' 9
1
0

1 1 1
3 2 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram for the test rig and measuring instruments

include two temperature recorders (14), pyranometer to measure solar flux (15), the electric heaters simulating
solar flux consisting
MAKE of UP
variac (16), ammeter, voltmeter and wattmeter. The underground storage tank is a
metallic tank of sizeWATER
0.55 m in diameter and 1.7 m length and it is made from galvanized steel sheets of 2 mm
thickness .It was assembled by welding and painted with a thin layer of bitumen of thickness about 3 mm to
prevent corrosionMAKE
due toUPmoisture content in soil surrounding the tank. The tank bottom is buried at a depth of
2.2 m from the WATER
ground surface. Two openings are located near the bottom of the tank and are connected to
charging loop and make up water supply respectively. Also, two openings are located near the top of the tank,
one of them is used to admit hot water charged from the electric simulator and the second to discharge hot water
to load. Extension wires of the internal thermocouples probes located along the tank centerline are passed
through the top of the tank to temperature recorders. All the connecting pipes between the underground storage
MAKE
tank and the charging UP discharging loops are insulated with a glass wool layer of thickness 0.05 m. Also,
and the
nine thermocouplesWATER
probes are fixed at equal distances along the tank centerline between the top and the bottom
of the storage tank. The over ground tank is installed on the ground and it is geometrically similar to the
underground storage tank with the same openings and internal components. The exterior surfaces of top, bottom
and the external cylindrical surface of the tank are completely insulated with a foam layer which has a thickness
of 0.02 m and a density of 36 kg / m 3. The extension wires of the internal thermocouple probes are directly
connected to temperature recorder type L & D 2500 with 30 channels. Also, two thermocouple probes are
mounted just under the bottom and on the top of the over ground tank to measure the temperature at these
locations. For the inlet and outlet of cold and warm water on the storage tanks, two perforated distributing rings
of 0.475 m and 0.375m diameter respectively were constructed from 19-mm diameter bronze tubing. They were
fixed at 0.05 m above the bottom surface of the tank. Also, two similar rings of 0.475-m diameter used for inlet
and outlet of hot water were fixed at levels of 0.15 m and 0.05 m under the top of the storage tank respectively.

4
Forty holes were drilled at equal distances on the ring centerline and were divided into eight groups (four on
each half of the ring and each group includes five holes of equal diameter having diameters of 3.5, 4, 4.5 and 5.5
mm respectively). These holes are directed axially towards the bottom of the tank for the ring of make up water
and radially for the ring of warm water outlet from the storage tank. Also, the rings of inlet and outlet of hot
water have the same directions towards the top of the storage tank.

2.2 Measurements:
Charging and discharging water flow rates were measured using calibrated rotameters. The global solar
radiation was measured by a pyranometer through a read out unit. The measured value of solar flux was used to
adjust every hour the electric simulator to deliver an equivalent heating rate to the circulating water during the
charging cycle according to the relation, E = Ac GT (). Thermocouples of types K, J and T were used to
measure the temperature at 89 points inside the two storage tanks, outside the over ground storage tank and
throughout the soil surrounding the underground tank. Measurement locations for the underground tank are
shown in Fig.2. Extension wires from thermocouples were connected to two multipoint temperature recorders
with 60 channels that were used for temperature measurements during the charging and discharging periods of
the day. Also, sample of the soil surrounding the underground tank was analyzed at the faculty of agriculture,
University of Assiut to determine the constituents of the soil. It showed that the type of the soil used was sandy
loam and it has a texture of 59.72 % sand, 34 % silt and 6.28 % clay. These results of soil textures were used in
the calculations of thermal and hydraulic properties of the soil
Ground Surface
180 180 140

325
500

450
550
1700

550
550
275 275 225
775

550

275 425 675 825

Dimensions in mm
Fig. 2 Temperature measurements locations for the underground
storage tank and inside soil surrounding it.
2.3 Experimental Procedure:

Experimental work in this study was carried out in three modes as follows:

5
I- In the first mode, long-term operation was carried out. The charging of both over ground and underground
storage tanks began on January 6 th until October 11 th, 2001 as a full charging only. At the beginning of the
experimental work, the charging flow rate corresponding to a high degree of stratification was investigated. Six
values of the charging flow rate (40, 50, 55, 70 and 144 l / hr) were tested. The observed data of temperature
distribution along the centerline of the two storage tanks showed that the higher degree of stratification was
obtained at the charging flow rate of 55 l /hr. The daily charging process was started at 8:00 a.m. and terminated
at the late afternoon at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. when the rate of useful energy gain from the collector approached
zero.
At the beginning of charging, the temperature distribution along the centerlines of the two storage tanks and
the surrounding soil, the solar flux on horizontal surface
GT (), the temperature at inlet to the electric heater and the ambient temperature were measured. Then the
collector efficiency and the useful energy were calculated using the following two equations:
= 0.7 6 ( T1 - Ta ) / GT () (1)
Useful energy collected per day = Ac GT (), [2] (2)
The electric simulator was adjusted to give electric power equal to that useful starting from 8:00 a.m. to
circulate the water at the predetermined flow rate from the bottom of each storage tank through the charging
loop where it was passed to the electric heaters and was delivered as a hot water to the top layers of the two
storage tanks. The temperature distributions and the operating parameters were determined every hour during
each charging day. The electric heaters and the charging pumps were still operated continuously from 8:00 a.m.
to the late afternoon.
II- The second mode of experimental work included both charging and discharging periods on the two storage
tanks. The discharging in this study was carried out from the two storage tanks in three periods and according to
three load patterns. The applied temperature range in the three load patterns was 40 55 0C. If the temperature
of hot water is greater than the upper limit (55 0C), the flow rate could be mixed with a
suitable rate of cold water in such a way to preserve the required temperature for the load (55 0C). At the same
time, if the water temperature is below the lower limit (40 0C), the auxiliary heater had to be used. The first
period of
loading started from October 12 th to 20 th, 2001, during which the hot water with a temperature in the range of
55.6 to 52.2 0C from the underground tank and of 57.7 to 46 0C from the over ground tank was supplied to load
at a constant flow rate of 138 l / day during three draws, from 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30
p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., with 45 minutes of discharging from each tank, one after another.

In the second period of loading, the hot water with a temperature in the range of 53.6 to 47.4 0C from
underground tank and of 51..9 to 40 0C from over ground tank was supplied to load at flow rate of 96 to 105 l /
day during three draws, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., with 30 minutes of discharging from each tank, one after
another. The second period was carried out from 22/10 to 15/11/2002. Also, in the third period of loading, the
hot water with a temperature in the range of 47.2 to 40.5 0C from underground tank and of 42.1 to 33.8 0C from
the over ground tank was supplied to load at the full load of 270 l / day, during three draws, from 1:30 p.m. to
4:30 p.m., with 30 minutes of discharging from each tank, one after another. This period was carried out for
fifteen days from 17/11 to 2/12/2002. During the three periods of both charging and discharging, the variation in
temperature distributions due to loading were determined every fifteen minutes and the loading parameters
which include the load flow rate, the temperature of hot water supplied to load, the temperature of make-up
water and the ambient temperature were determined every five minutes.
III- The third mode of experimental work was the record of the variation in the temperature distributions due to
ambient conditions along the centerlines of the two storage tanks and the surrounding soil after the termination
of both the charging and discharging periods. The temperature distributions of water inside the two tanks and the
surrounding soil were measured from December 3 rd, 2001 to June 11 th, 2002.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Thermal Behavior Of The Storage Tanks:

6
 The thermal behavior of both over ground and underground storage tanks under the effect of charging was
analyzed. At the beginning of charging, the temperature of the top layer started to rise gradually, then the
temperature of the other nodes began to rise downwardly until the bottom layer of the two tanks. Figure 3 shows
that the difference between the top and the bottom temperatures increased gradually on each day of charging
from 8:00 O'clock until it reached its maximum value in the afternoon (at about 14:00 O'clock). Then it tended
to decrease slightly due to the decrease in solar insolation, which caused decrease in the charging stream
temperature. Also, the temperature level of both the top and the bottom layers of each tank were increased with
the progress of charging days until the second half of September. Then the temperature level began to decrease
slightly due to the decrease in solar insolation and the ambient temperature. In general, the two storage tanks
had the same thermal behavior concerning the temperature histories but the temperature level at the nodes of the
over ground tank, Fig. (3-a) were relatively higher than those of the similar nodes of the underground tank, Fig.
(3-b), especially on the first four months of charging. This is due to the excessive heat dissipated in the soil
around the underground tank compared with the heat losses to the ambient from the over ground tank. As the
charging proceeded, this difference decreased and became insignificant on the charging day before loading.
Also, It is evident from Fig.4 that the temperatures of the top, middle and bottom layers for both tanks have the
same trend and they were increased gradually over the charging days. The difference in the temperature of
similar layers for both tanks reached its maximum value through August and then began to decrease until it
reached insignificant value before the start of loading.

3.2 Effect Of Charging On The Soil Temperature:

The results showed that charging had a significant effect on the soil temperature. The soil temperature began
to increase gradually at a high rate during the first months of charging as indicated in Fig.5., while the rate of
rise in soil temperature became relatively small over the period of comparison between the two tanks which
started from the first of May. This change in the rate of temperature rise is due to the ability of the soil to absorb
heat at the beginning of charging and as the soil is warmed up, then the rate of temperature rise became smaller
throughout the rest of charging period. Figure 6. shows the variation in soil temperature at different values of
radial distance (r) from the tank centerline at constant depth (Z) of 0.775 m on selected charging days. It is clear
from this figure that the temperatures at the different radial distances have the same trend and the points located
at the outer surface of the tank have the highest temperatures. Also, figure 5. shows that the temperature near the
soil surface on days 1/5 and 1/6 is higher than that temperature on days 1/10 and 11/10 and this is due to the
effect of the high ambient temperature during 1/5 and 1/6 on the soil surface. The temperature variation is
more pronounced at the zones near

7
 ZL=0.056 ZL=0.279
ZL=0.5 ZL=0.729
ZL=0.95 Charging temperature

80

70
Temperature, C

60

50

40

30

20
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time of the day from midnight, hr
(a) overground tank
Fig.3. Temperature distribution along the centerline on day 1/5/2001

90
80

80
70
70
Temperature, C

Temperature, C

60
60

TOP OG 50
50 TOP UG
MIDDLE OG
40 MIDDLE UG 40
BOTTOM OG
BOTTOM UG
30 30
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
(a) Time of day 11/8/2001 (b)Time of day 11/10/2001
from midnight, hr from midnight, hr

Fig.4. Comparison of the layer temperatures in the storage tanks.

8
 06-Jan 01-May r=0.275 m r=0.7 m
01-Jun 01-Jul r=1.375 m r=2.2 m
01-Aug 01-Sep 60
70
01-Oct 11-Oct
60
50

50

Temperature, C
Temperature, C

40
40

30 30

20
20
10
10
0
ay - Jun ul g p ct ct
1 - J 1 - Au 1- Se 1 - O 1 -O
0 0.14 0.325 0.775 1.325 1.875
1- M 1 1
Down distance from Days of charging
ground surface ( Z), m ( 16:00 O'clock)
Fig.5 Variation of soil temperature Fig.6 Variation of soil temperature
arround the underground tank arround the underground
at r=0.275 m from the tank axis tank at different radial
on different charging days distances from the tank
(16:00 O' clock ). axis, Z=0.775 m.

the tank and decreases at radial distances far away from the tank surface up to a distance at the adiabatic side
boundary. At this boundary the temperature gradient is negligible and no further heat penetrated the soil from
the tank. It was found that this adiabatic side boundary is located at a distance which has a maximum value of
about eight times the tank radius after two weeks from starting the tank charging as indicated in [2]. The
temperature distribution above the top surface of the underground tank on elected days of charging is presented
in Fig.7. It is clear that the soil temperature increased in a curvilinear manner from the soil surface downward
until it reached its maximum value at the top surface of the underground tank 0.5 m from the soil surface, Fig.7
(a). The rate of increase is relatively small near the soil surface and reached its maximum value at the zone
directly above the top surface of the tank. This is due to the heat transferred from the top surface of the tank to
the soil zone adjacent to the top surface of the tank. Also, the temperature distribution under the bottom of the
underground tank is presented in Fig.7 (b). It is clear that the temperature of soil in contact with the bottom
surface has a value near to the temperature of tank

9
 80 06-Jan
06-Feb
06-Mar 80
70 06-Apr
01-May
28-May 70
23-Jun
60 21-July
18-Aug 60
15-Sep
50

Temperature, C
50
Temperature, C

40
40

30
30

20
20

10
10

0 0
0 0.14 0.32 0.5 0 0.225 0.5 0.775

Distance from the soil Distance from the bottom of the

surface, m underground tank, m

(a) Above the top of the tank (b) Under the bottom of the tank

Fig. 7 Temperature distribution in the soil above the top and under the bottom
surfaces of the underground tank axis on different charging days.

bottom. Going down away from the bottom of the underground tank, the soil temperature decreased until it
approached its initial value corresponding to the depth from the soil surface. This variation in soil temperature
under the bottom of the tank is due to the behavior of heat wave from the tank, which penetrates the soil around
the tank until it reached a certain depth where there is no temperature gradient. Also, this figure show that the
curve of January 6 th has different trend where the temperature directly under the bottom of the tank is
relatively lower than the others downward the tank and this because the water temperature inside the tank at the
beginning of charging was lower than the temperature of the surrounding soil.

3.3 Load Temperature During The Loading Periods:

The loading was applied after the temperature level in both storage tanks became close to each other. The
variation in load temperature supplied from both tanks over the first period of loading (50% of the full load) is
presented in Fig.8 For the underground tank Fig.8 (a), the highest temperature level is obtained at the first day of
loading and especially during the second draw of hot water. The difference between the load temperature over
the first draws of hot water is higher than that difference over both the second and the third draws. This is due to
that the first draw of hot water was carried out at the early morning before starting of the daily charging and
because the tank was fully charged in the first day of loading. Also, the difference in the load temperature over
the second and the third draws was relatively small and this happened because the second draw was carried out
during charging at noon and the third draw was carried out after the end of charging directly where the charging

10
compensated the delivered heat to load. For the over ground tank, Fig.8 (b), it appeared that a large temperature
drop happened through the first days of loading and there was a noticeable difference in the temperature level
during the last days of loading in opposite to the behavior of underground storage tank. A comparison between
the temperature obtained from both the underground and over ground tanks on the last day of the first period of
loading (20/10) showed that the difference in temperature level ranged from 5 C to 9 C. During the second
period of loading (about 35% of the full load), a uniform temperature level was obtained over the three draws of
hot water. Also, the load temperature supplied from the underground tank during the last day of the second
period of loading (15/11) was higher than that supplied from the over ground tank by about 5 C. Also, the load
temperature was still over 40 0C during both the first and the second periods of loading.

In the third period of loading, the load demand was increased to the value of full load (270 l / day). This period
was carried out with two modes of operation. In the first mode, the collectors area was assumed to be equal to 4
m2 and the loading was carried out over four days where the temperature level decreased gradually over the
three draws of hot water for both storage tanks. The load temperature on the last day dropped below 40 0 C,
especially for the over ground tank. Also, the difference between the temperature obtained from the underground
and the over ground tanks ranged from 4 C to 10 C. In the second mode, the loading was carried out over
eleven days and the collectors area was modified to be 5 m 2 due to the noticeable drop in the temperature level
in the first mode of loading. During the second mode of loading, the load temperature took the same trend of the
first mode of loading but the difference between the temperature obtained from the underground and the over
ground tanks over the three draws was decreased and ranged from 3 C to 6 C.

Fig. 8. Variation of load temperature over the three periods of loading on

different days.

3.4 Comparison Of The Performance Of The Two Storage Tanks:

11
 The performance of the two storage tanks can be evaluated using loading parameters. These parameters
include the storage efficiency, average hot water temperature supplied to the load and energy quantity delivered
from each tank to the
load. For the first period of loading, these parameters are presented in Figs.9, 10 and 11. The storage efficiency
for the two storage tanks is calculated from the relation:
= Q L / Qadd
Figure.9. shows that the storage efficiency had its highest value for both tanks at the first day of loading where a
large quantity of heat is delivered to the load at high temperature level from the two storage tanks.
As the loading continued over the next days after starting, the storage efficiency began to decrease until it
reached uniform value after four days of loading because the useful heat added to the tank compensated the load
demand and the system came to almost steady state condition. The difference in storage efficiency between the
underground and the over ground tanks ranged from 0.3 to 13 % in favor of the underground tank. The drop
in the storage efficiency in the fourth day of loading is also due to the high useful heat added to the storage tank
corresponding to the applied partial load (50% of full load). The difference in the daily hot water temperature
supplied to the load from both tanks is presented in Fig.10. It is clear that the two storage tanks supplied hot
water at the same temperature on the first day of loading. The variation in temperature took the same trend as
the storage efficiency. The difference in temperature between the underground and over ground storage tanks
ranged from 0 to 5.8 0C. Also, the heat delivered to load had the same trend as the temperature of the supplied
hot water from the two storage tanks. The difference in the heat delivered to the load between the underground
and the over ground tanks ranged from 0 to 917.7 W.h as indicated in Fig.11.

100
65
90
storage efficiency %

60
80
Ttemperature, C

70 55

60 50

50 45

40 40
UG OG
30 35
20 30
12/10 14/10 16/10 18/10 20/10 12/10 14/10 16/10 18/10 20/10
Days of loading Days of loading
Fig.9 Variation of daily storage Fig. 10 Variation of daily average hot
efficiency over the loading w ater temperature delivered
period at volume flow rate to load at volume flow rate
138 l / day. 138 l/ day.

For the second period of loading, the hot water was supplied at an average volume flow rate of 96 l/day and the
difference in the storage efficiency over the loading days between the underground and the over ground storage
tanks ranged from 1.2 to 16.7 %. Also, It was found that the underground tank supplied hot water at almost
uniform temperature ranged from 47.4 to 53.6 0C while the over ground tank was more affected by the variation

12
in solar insolation and ambient temperature. The latter caused the load temperature from the over ground tank to
range from 40 to 51.9 0C. This leads to a heat delivered to load from the underground tank over the loading days
to range from 2854 to 3555 W.h, while this delivered heat ranged from 2012 to 3452 W.h for over ground tank.
For third period of loading (270 l/day and A c = 4 m2), the obtained values of storage efficiency showed the
ability of the underground tank to cover the load demand at a high storage efficiency. On the other hand, a large
drop happened in the storage efficiency of the over ground tank through the first two days of full loading
until it vanished on the last days where the temperature of the supplied hot water reached a value lower than 40
0
C. Also, it appeared that the temperature from the underground tank is above the lower limit (40 0C) over all
days of loading where it ranged from 40.5 to 47.2 0C. On the other hand the temperature from the over ground
tank reached a value less than 40 0C on the second day of loading and it ranged from 33.8 to 42.1 0C. At the
same time, it appeared that the heat delivered to the load from the over ground tank was sharply decreased over
the first two days until it vanished over the rest of loading days where the temperature of the supplied water
dropped below 40 0C . The part of stored heat that was added to the energy delivered to the load is considered an
advantage of the underground tank compared with the over ground tank. When the temperature of the supplied
water to load drops below the lower limit (40 0C), a back-up system should be used to deliver auxiliary heat to
raise the temperature up to 40 oC. The auxiliary heat added to the load for the two storage tanks was increased
gradually over the loading days. This increase was higher for the over ground tank compared with that for the
underground tank.

Due to the drop in the performance of the over ground tank under the application of full load, the collector
area was modified to be 5 m 2 instead of 4 m2. The performance of the two tanks after increasing the collector
area is presented in Figs.12, 13 and 14. These figures show that the performance of underground tank is better
than the performance of the over ground tank, regarding the different loading parameters for the two tanks. The

9000
8000
7000
6000
Heat, W h

5000
4000
3000
2000
Energy extracted from UG
Energy extracted from OG
1000 Daily energy added to each stotage tanks
0
12/10 13/10 14/10 15/10 16/10 17/10 18/10 19/10 20/10
Days of loading
Fig.11 Heat etracted from both underground and overground storage tanks to the load
and daily energy added to each tank, at load volume flow rate 138 L / day.

differences in loading parameters between the underground and the over ground tanks over the different days of
full loading ranged from 46.7 to 60.5 % for storage efficiency, 3 C for the temperature of the supplied hot water
and from 3547 to 4249 W.h for the heat delivered to the load. Also, it appeared that the heat delivered from the
underground tank to the load during the first day of loading was larger than the useful heat added to it from
the charging and this means that a part

13
of the stored heat was extracted from the tank in addition to the useful heat added to cover the load demand as
indicated in Fig.14.

100 50
90

Temperature, C
80 45
Storage efficiency

70 40
60
50 35
40 30
30
%

20 25 UG OG
10 UG OG
20
0

2
22

23

24

25

29

30

1
/1

2
/1
1

1
/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1
2

2
22

23

24

25

29

30

1
/1

2
/1
1

1
/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

/1

Days of loading
Days of loading
Fig. 13 Variation of hot water
Fig. 12 Variation of daily storage
temperature delivered
efficiency over the loading
to load from storage
period at volume flow rate
tanks at volume flow rate
270 l/day, Ac = 5 sq.m
270 l/day, Ac = 5 sq.m

9000
8000 Energy extracted from
UG
7000
6000
Heat, W h

Energy extracted from

5000
OG
4000
3000
2000 Daily energy added to
each of the storage
1000
tanks
0
22/11 23/11 24/11 25/11 29/11 30/11 1/12 2/12
Days of loading

Fig. 14 Heat supplied from both storage tanks to the load and daily heat added
to each tank at load volume flow rate 270 l/day, Ac = 5 sq.m

3.5 Effect Of Ambient Conditions On The Storage Tanks:

The effect of ambient conditions on the temperature distributions of water body inside the two storage tanks
and the temperature distribution in soil was studied over more than six months after termination of both
charging and discharging (loading) periods. The variation in the mean temperature of water body inside both
over ground and underground tanks is presented in Fig.15. This figure shows that the mean temperature of the

14
over ground tank began to decrease gradually at a rate of about 0.32 C per day until it reached its minimum
value at the middle of January. Then it began to rise gradually at a rate of 0.14 C per day until the end of
measurements. On the other side the mean temperature of water body inside the underground tank began to
decrease but at a smaller rate (0.12 C per day) compared with the over ground tank until it reached its minimum
value at the end of February. Then it began to increase gradually at a rate of 0.06 C per day until the end of
measurements. From this analysis, it appeared that the over ground tank was more sensitive to the variation in
the ambient conditions than the underground tank. Also, the variation in the ambient conditions affect the
soil temperature. Figure 16. shows that the variation in the soil temperature at different depths along the side
of the tank at constant radial distance had the same trend as the variation in the mean temperature of water
inside the underground tank. This figure shows that the soil temperature decreased gradually over the first
period of measurements and it reached its minimum value at the end of February. Then it began to increase until
the end of measurements in June.

40

35

30
Temperature, C

25

20
UG
15
OG
10
AMBIENT
5
TEMPERATURE
0
3/ 12 10/ 12 17/ 12 5/ 1 13/ 1 20/ 1 29/ 1 7/ 2 16/ 2 24/ 2 6/ 3 16/ 3 25/ 3 6/ 4 20/ 4 27/ 4 9/ 5 15/ 5 26/ 5 1/ 6 8/ 6 11/ 6

Days of measurements
Fig. 15 Variation of w ater mean temperature in overground and underground
storage tanks after termination of both loading and charging

15
 30 Z=0.325m Z=0.775m Z=1.325m
Z=1.875m Z=2.425m Z=2.975m

25
Temperature, C

20

15

10
3/12 10/12 17/12 2/1 16/1 29/1 7/2 24/2 6/3 25/3 13/4 27/4 9/5 15/5 1/6 11/6
Days of measurements
Fig. 16 Variation of soil temperature after termination of charging
and loading at r = 0.7 m from the underground tank centerline
and at different depths (Z) from the soil surface.

4. CONCLUSIONS:

The present work provides an underground solar water storage system suitable for the demand of six persons.
An extensive experimental work was carried out to compare the performances of geometrically similar
underground and over ground storage tanks under the same operating and ambient conditions. Based upon the
experimental work, which was performed through the present study, the following conclusions can be
considered:

1-The obtained results for long term storage showed that the storage efficiency of the underground tank is
always better than that for the over ground tank under the different loading conditions.
2- The distance through which the wave of heat loss from the tank penetrated the soil and heated it was found
equal to about eight times the radius of the storage tank.
3-The temperature distributions inside the two tanks have the same trend but the temperature level at the
different nodes inside the over ground tank is slightly higher than that inside the underground tank. This
difference in temperature level is due to the relatively higher rate of heat loss to the surrounding soil at the
beginning of charging and it begins to decrease gradually as the soil temperature surrounding the underground
tank is increased.
4-The over ground tank is highly sensitive to the variation in the ambient temperature compared with the
underground tank. Further and more comprehensive studies with a wide variation of affecting parameters would
be required to asses the efficiency of the underground tank in thermal energy storage, on long run basis and for
dimensions compatible with seasonal storage.

REFERENCES

1 - Elsayed, M.M., Taha, I.S. and Sabbagh, J.A. Design of Solar Thermal systems, Scientific publishing
center, King abdualaziz University, Jeddah, (1994).
2 Reuss, M., Beck, M. and Muller, P. Design of a seasonal thermal energy storage in the ground, Solar
energy, Vol.59, No.4-6, PP.247-257, (1997).
3 Abdelghany, M.M., Ismail, I.M. and Taha, I.S. Analysis and comparison of the performance of
overground and underground thermally stratified storage tanks, Bulletin of faculty of Eng., Assiut
University, Vol, 22, PP.113-128, (1994).
4 Zurigat, Y.H., Liche, P.R. and Ghajar, A.J., Influence of inlet geometry on mixing in thermocline
thermal energy storage, Int. J. of heat and mass transfer, Vol.34, No. 1, PP. 115-125, (1991).

16
5 Murthy, S.S., Nelson, J.E.B., and Rao, T.L.S. Effect of wall conductivity on thermal stratification
Soar energy, Vol.49, No.4, PP.273-277, (1992).
6 Lavan, Z. and Thompson, J. Experimental study of thermally stratified hot water storage system,
Solar energy, Vol.19, PP 519-524, (1977).
7 - Abdelghany, M.M. Parametric study of performance enhancement for underground thermally
stratified storage tank, Bulletin of faculty of Eng., Assiut University, Vol, 23, No. 1, PP.1-24,
(1995).

:
) ( .
.
.

.
.
.

.

17