Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 28–31

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Modeling seasonal solar thermal energy storage in a large urban residential

building using TRNSYS 16
L.T. Terziotti, M.L. Sweet, J.T. McLeskey Jr. ∗
Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 401 West Main Street, Room E3221, P.O. Box 843015, Richmond, VA 23284-3015, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Space heating, primarily using fossil fuels, is a major component of US energy consumption. Seasonal
Received 27 April 2011 solar thermal energy storage (SSTES) provides a method to store solar thermal energy collected in the
Received in revised form 31 August 2011 summer to use for heating in the colder months. Solar collectors are used to heat a sand bed, which
Accepted 4 October 2011
retains its thermal energy through the winter. That energy is then sent into the building via radiant
floors for space heating use. A sand-based storage bed SSTES system for a new five story student housing
Keywords:
complex at Virginia Commonwealth University is modeled using TRNSYS Version 16 software. A total
TRNSYS
of 15 simulations of various storage bed locations and configurations as well as building efficiencies are
Solar thermal storage
Seasonal storage
modeled to determine whether a system is feasible for an urban environment. Substantial energy savings
Urban buildings are possible within the small footprint required by city lots. Up to 91% of energy for this large building
can be provided by the most efficient SSTES system.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Seasonal solar thermal energy storage systems

Residential space heating makes up a large portion of energy
consumption in the United States. It accounts for 48% of energy con-
sumption in residential buildings alone and is responsible for the
release of approximately 502 million metric tons of carbon diox-
ide into the atmosphere each year. In 2005, 97% of U.S. households
heated their homes using fossil fuels either directly or indirectly,
via electricity derived from such fuels [1,2].
As populations continue to grow, and space and resources
become more scarce, the importance of using renewable energy
sources is paramount. Solar energy is particularly promising. Every
day, 1000 W per square meter of power from the sun reaches the
earth [3]. A major challenge is harnessing that massive amount
of energy. Large scale energy production from photovoltaics faces
the hurdle of intermittent power generation and low efficiencies,
thus requiring costly storage mediums [4,5]. On the other hand,
converting solar energy to thermal energy via solar collectors has
high efficiencies and can be done while also generating electric-
ity via photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) collectors [6,7]. Therefore, it is
important to investigate ways to use solar energy for space heating.
∗ Corresponding author at: 401 West Main Street, Room E3238, P.O. Box 843015,
Richmond, VA 23284-3015, USA. Tel.: +1 804 827 7008, fax: +1 804 827 7030.
E-mail addresses: terziottilt@vcu.edu (L.T. Terziotti), sweetml@vcu.edu
(M.L. Sweet), jtmcleskey@vcu.edu (J.T. McLeskey Jr.).
While more solar energy reaches the earth in the summer
months, thermal energy is most needed in the winter. Seasonal
solar thermal energy storage (SSTES) systems address this fun-
damental issue by providing a method to store solar energy well
into the winter via a thermal storage medium. An SSTES sys-
tem uses two closed fluid (water) loops. One loop runs through
solar collectors to heat the fluid, then into coils inside the storage
medium. Fluid in the second loop is heated in the storage medium
and then sent through a radiant floor, thus heating the building.
The storage medium varies depending on the requirements of the
system.
A basic SSTES system is shown in Fig. 1.
The most common storage medium for an SSTES system is a
water tank [8,9]. Water performs well as it has a high specific heat,
disperses thermal energy via convection, and flows easily. Gener-
ally, the heavily insulated tanks are built above ground or partially
above ground to save cost. In large scale projects, the tanks are usu-
ally constructed of insulated concrete with a high density liner to
prevent permeation [8].
Another method uses the ground itself as a storage medium [10].
A system of boreholes is dug to a depth of 30–200 m, depending on
the terrain. Each borehole contains a pipe that carries the fluid to
the bottom of the hole and returns it to the surface. The fluid is then
sent to the adjacent borehole. A layer of insulation near the surface
of the system prevents loss of thermal energy. This method of SSTES
is not suitable for all locations. Soil and groundwater conditions
may make it impractical [11].

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.10.023
 L.T. Terziotti et al. / Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 28–31
Fig. 1. Schematic of a basic sand-based SSTES system.
Using a sand, gravel, or soil-based storage medium is attrac-
tive due to its low cost and versatility. A pit is dug and lined with
a waterproof membrane and insulation. The storage medium is
spread inside the pit while coils of tubing for the fluid are dis-
tributed throughout the storage medium. The pit is sealed with
more insulation and waterproofing and capped with soil. This type
of storage medium is advantageous as the land above the storage
bed can be used as a parking lot, playground, garden, or for some
other purpose.
3. West Grace housing
Starting in 2011, Virginia Commonwealth University will be
constructing a new student housing project on its Monroe Park
Campus. The Monroe Park Campus is located in the heart of Rich-
mond, Virginia, at an elevation of 57 m above sea level in a humid
subtropical climate. The project will be a 15,700 m2 (168,500 ft2 )
five story mixed use building with shops and restaurants on the first
floor and 457 beds on the upper floors. This building was chosen to
be modeled with SSTES to determine the efficacy of this system in
a large urban residential building.
Implementing SSTES in an urban environment, such as VCU’s
Monroe Park Campus, poses unique problems. Space is scarce. All
construction must be done to avoid danger to surrounding struc-
tures. Past research has examined building sites where space was
of less concern [12]. Other research looked at smaller apartment
buildings [9]. However, with its urban location, this project must
optimize its SSTES system not only for efficiency, but also for geog-
raphy.
The first challenge is determining where to put the solar collec-
tors. Past projects in central Europe have answered this problem
adequately by successfully installing the solar collectors on the
roofs of the structures to be heated [8]. This allows for the large,
contiguous collector areas that have been determined to be most
effective [8].
A more pressing issue is determining a location and medium for
the storage bed. The above-ground water tanks of past large-scale
projects are not feasible in an urban environment where space is
scarce. Installing a subterranean water tank is costly, and repairing
it is even more so. Also, the utility of the space is still compromised
as building over a large water tank presents structural issues that
would be costly to address. Thus, other storage mediums must be
considered. A borehole system was ruled out as is impractical for
Richmond due to its high water table.
Using sand as a medium is both cost and space effective. Sand
is cheap. A sand-based storage bed is structurally sound enough
29
to be installed underneath a parking lot or courtyard. Designs for
sand-based storage beds are adaptable and easily scalable. For these
reasons, sand was chosen as the storage medium for this project.
There are two places near the West Grace Housing Project that
could be used for the storage bed. The building, located at the inter-
section of West Grace and Shafer streets, is labeled WG Building.
The first site is in the courtyards of the building. A second site is
located in a parking lot opposite the building on West Grace Street.
It measures 33 by 43 m and is owned by VCU.
If feasible, it is preferable to place the storage bed in the build-
ing’s courtyards for two reasons. First, it is more cost effective. Using
the parking lot would require a second excavation site, thus adding
significant cost as designing and installing shoring in a city is quite
expensive. The parking lot would then have to be repaved, and
pipes would need to be run under West Grace Street, adding fur-
ther costs and disrupting traffic. Repairs would also be expensive.
On the other hand, the excavation required to install the beds in the
building’s courtyards is already necessary to construct the building
itself, so additional effort is trivial compared to that of the former
scenario.
The second factor that makes the courtyard a more attractive
storage bed location is its permanence. While VCU may choose to
sell or build on the parking lot in the future, the courtyards will
remain courtyards for the entire lifetime of the West Grace Housing
Project.
4. Implementation
Building specifications were provided by VCU’s Facilities Man-
agement Division. The LEED-NC 2009 Silver 16,657 m2 building was
estimated to have a peak-heating load of 18.93 W/m2 (6 BTU/sq.ft h)
when using its electric heat pumps. Without ventilation recov-
ery and other energy savings this estimate rises to 37.86 W/m2
(12 BTU/sq.ft h). Simulations were run at both of these heating loads
as well as at 28.93 W/m2 (9 BTU/sq.ft h) to represent a building with
fewer energy saving features.
The system was modeled using TRNSYS Version 16, transient
thermal energy modeling software developed at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. The building was constructed in TRNYSY with
Type 53 using 6 zones: one for each of the five floors as well as a
zone for the plenum above the first floor’s commercial areas. The
model was designed to meet the specifications of the American
Society of Heating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Ther-
mal interaction with the ground was modeled with Type 703d (slab
on grade). Each of the five 3130 m2 floors had an active layer (radi-
ant floor) with a pipe diameter of 1.8 cm and piping spaced 10 cm
30 L.T. Terziotti et al. / Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 28–31

Table 1 Table 2
Storage bed dimensions. Heat load of theoretical backup system during the fifth year of the simulation.

Location Area (m2 ) Depth (m) Volume (m3 ) Store location High Medium Low
efficiency efficiency efficiency
Parking lot 1430 6.5 9295
building building building
Parking lot 1430 5.5 7865
Two courtyards 1240 5.0 6200 Fifth year load met by theoretical backup system (million kJ)
Parking lot 1430 3.5 5005 No store 574 1030 1480
Parking lot (9295 m3 ) 51.1 294 6130
Parking lot (7865 m3 ) 67.0 331 6540
Two courtyards (6200 m3 ) 78.4 348 6720
apart. The building’s ventilation recovery system was modeled with Parking lot (5005 m )3
124 410 733
the Type 91 heat exchanger. The building’s peak heating load was
manipulated by varying the efficacy of this heat exchanger to simu-
late the varying levels of building efficiencies. As previously noted, Table 3
Heat load of SSTES system during the fifth year of the simulation.
the peak heating loads were 18.93, 28.93, and 37.86 W/m2 .
It is best to have as large a solar collector area as possible [8]. In Store location High Med. Low
all, 1930 m2 of flat panel solar collectors (Type 73) were used. This efficiency efficiency efficiency
building building building
equates to 62% of the roof, allowing ample space for any machinery
or architectural features to share the roof while still providing an Fifth year load, SSTES system (million kJ)
Parking lot (9295 m3 ) 523 739 870
adequate solar collector area.
Parking lot (7865 m3 ) 507 702 829
The storage bed was modeled using Type 342, a module Two courtyards (6200 m3 ) 495 684 811
designed to simulate cylindrical water or rock-filled ponds, tanks, Parking lot (5005 m3 ) 445 623 750
and caverns. The fluid in the collector loop is extracted from the
bottom of the bed and injected at the top. Conversely, the fluid that
goes to the radiant floors is extracted from the top of the bed and 5. Results and discussion
reintroduced at the bottom. Type 342 was programmed to use the
thermal properties of sand rather than water. A limitation was that Table 2 shows the total heat load met by the theoretical backup
Type 342 could only model a cylindrical bed, while the beds at this system during the fifth year of operation after the SSTES system has
site are all rectangular. Still, bed depths and volumes were matched reached a steady state. The first row represents the total heat load
to make the simulation as accurate as possible. of the building without any SSTES and gives a means of comparison
Storage beds were lined with 10 cm of 0.144 kJ/m3 K insula- for the load values with SSTES implemented. This data is plotted in
tion (approximately equivalent to R-6.8 rigid board insulation) and Fig. 2. As expected, larger storage beds correspond with smaller
topped with 0.5 m of soil. Four storage beds were modeled. The loads for the theoretical backup system. This demonstrates that
dimensions of the beds are shown in Table 1. larger storage beds are able to provide more heat to the building.
Water was allowed to flow from the solar collectors to the In Table 3, the total load met by the SSTES system in the fifth
storage bed at a rate of two changes per hour when the outlet year of operation is given. This is plotted in Fig. 3. The sums of the
temperature of the collectors was greater than that of the stor- values in Table 3 and the values of the theoretical backup system
age bed. Water flowed to the radiant floors of each story when the load of Table 2 are consistent with the “No Store” values of Table 2.
ambient temperature of that story dropped below 20 ◦ C, the low- Table 4 compares the load met by the SSTES system to the total
est temperature permitted in a residence by ASHRAE standards, load by giving the solar fraction. This is calculated by dividing the
and was shut off when temperatures were greater than 21 ◦ C or values from Table 3 by the “No Store” values from Table 2. This is
if the temperature of the bed was less than that of the building. plotted in Fig. 4.
The flow was such that there was one change per hour. When The simulation of the courtyard storage bed (6200 m3 ) shows
SSTES was not enough to keep the building at or above 20 ◦ C, a that considerable energy savings can be made without taking the
backup theoretical heating system implemented in the TRNBuild costly step of excavating the neighboring parking lot. While this
software provided just enough energy to reach this temperature.
For simulations without an SSTES system, the theoretical system
provided all of the heat for the building. This system has an unlim- High Efficiency
ited heating capacity, and only takes into account the heat required Medium Efficiency
5th Year Heat Load Met by
to reach 20 ◦ C, not the energy required to transport the heat into the
Theorecal Backup System Low Efficiency
building.
1600
Five year simulations were run to determine the heat load of
the building by integrating the amount of heat provided by the 1400
theoretical system using TRNSYS Type 65a and Type 24. Simulations
Heat Load (millions of kj)

1200
were run for all combinations of building efficiencies and storage
bed dimensions. TRNSYS 16 is unable to simulate a system using 1000
Type 342 for more than five years. For this reason, only the fifth
year of operation was examined. After conducting several similar 800
studies, it has been found that sand-based SSTES systems reach 600
equilibrium in approximately five years [13]. At this point, all the
thermal energy lost during the cold months is regained in the warm 400
months. 200
The term “solar fraction” describes the percentage of total heat
load provided by the seasonal solar thermal energy storage sys- 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
tem. Fifth year solar fractions were determined by comparing the
Storage Volume (cubic meters)
heat load of the simulations without heat from SSTES to identical
building efficiencies with various SSTES implementations. Fig. 2. Fifth year heat load met by the theoretical backup system.
 L.T. Terziotti et al. / Energy and Buildings 45 (2012) 28–31 31

High Efficiency In some situations, an adjacent courtyard might not be avail-

Medium Efficiency able. For a large residential building such as this housing project,
Fih Year Heat Load Met by
the parking lot simulations demonstrate that a considerable solar
SSTES System Low Efficiency
1000
fraction can be obtained from a small plot of land.
As would be expected, solar fractions are lower for less efficient
900
buildings. A higher solar fraction is preferable as the amount of
Heat Load (millions of kj)

800 necessary backup heating machinery would be reduced, potentially

700 saving cost on installation and maintenance. However, the more
600 efficient the building is, the better the performance from the SSTES
system. This is because fluid returning from the radiant floors in a
500
high efficiency building to the storage medium retains more heat
400 than the fluid returning from an inefficient building.
300
200 6. Conclusion
100
Seasonal solar thermal energy storage is a viable heating solu-
0 tion for a building of this size when used with a backup heat source,
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
such as an electric heat pump. This can be done in an urban environ-
Storage Volume (cubic meters)
ment such as VCU’s Monroe Park campus. While neighboring lots
Fig. 3. Fifth year heat load met by SSTES system. can provide enough space for a storage bed, simulations that incor-
porated storage beds into the building’s courtyards showed that
Table 4 these spaces can also be used with minimal loss in solar fraction.
Solar fraction by storage bed and building model. Using the courtyards for storage could potentially minimize costs
Store location High Med. Low
by reducing the amount of additional engineering and excavation
efficiency efficiency efficiency required while also providing a method for taking advantage of an
building building building otherwise underutilized area.
Fifth year solar fraction
Parking lot (9295 m3 ) 0.910 0.716 0.587 Acknowledgments
Parking lot (7865 m3 ) 0.883 0.680 0.559
Two courtyards (6200 m3 ) 0.863 0.663 0.547
This research was funded by Virginia Commonwealth University
Parking lot (5005 m3 ) 0.784 0.603 0.506
Honors Summer Undergraduate Research Program. The authors
would like to thank David Stets of Richmond BySolar for provid-
High Efficiency ing TRNSYS software and computers, as well as Carl Purdin in the
Medium Efficiency VCU Facilities Management Division for providing building speci-
Fih Year Solar Fracon fications.
Low Efficiency
1
References
0.9
0.8 [1] EIA, Total Energy Consumption, EIA, 2005.
0.7 [2] EIA, US Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy and Industry, EIA, 2005.
Solar Fracon

[3] NREL, Annual Average Daily Solar Radiation, 1990, Available from:
0.6 http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/serve.cgi.
0.5 [4] D. Coiante, L. Barra, Can photovoltaics become an effective energy option? Solar
Energy Materials and Solar Cells 27 (1992) 79–89.
0.4 [5] M. Green, J. Zhao, A. Wang, S.R. Wenham, Progress and outlook for high-
0.3 efficiency crystalline silicon solar cells, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells
65 (2001) 9–16.
0.2
[6] S. Dubey, G.N. Tiwari, Thermal modeling of a combined system of photovoltaic
0.1 thermal (PV/T) solar water heater, Solar Energy 82 (2008) 602–612.
0 [7] E. Zambolin, D. Del Col, Experimental analysis of thermal performance of flat
plate and evacuated tube solar collectors in stationary standard and daily con-
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
ditions, Solar Energy 84 (2010) 1382–1396.
Storage Volume (cubic meters) [8] T. Schmidt, D. Mangold, H. Muller-Steinhagen, Central solar heating plants with
seasonal storage in Germany, Solar Energy 76 (2004) 165–174.
Fig. 4. Solar fraction compared to bed volume for all simulations performed. [9] A. Simons, S.K. Firth, Life-cycle assessment of a 100% solar fraction thermal sup-
ply to a European apartment building using water-based sensible heat storage,
Energy and Buildings (2011), doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.029.
SSTES system was less efficient than those utilizing the parking [10] Brunger et al., The Drake Landing Solar Community Project – Early Results,
lot at greater depths, the solar fraction of this system was only 2007.
4.74% less efficient than the largest parking lot store (9295 m3 ) [11] D. Pahud, B. Matthey, Comparison of the thermal performance of double U-pipe
borehole heat exchangers measured in situ, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001) 5.
and only 1.98% less efficient than the second largest parking lot [12] M.N. Fisch, M. Guigas, J.O. Dalenback, A review of large-scale solar heating
store (7865 m3 ) when implemented with the high efficiency model. systems in Europe, Solar Energy 63 (1998) 355–366.
This small loss of efficiency would be outweighed by the economic [13] M.L. Sweet, Numerical Simulation of Underground Seasonal Solar Thermal
Energy Storage, M.S. Thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, 2010.
benefit.