Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Mathematical modelling of unglazed solar collectors under

extreme operating conditions
M. Bunea a,⇑, B. Perers b, S. Eicher a, C. Hildbrand a, J. Bony a, S. Citherlet a
a
Laboratory of Solar Energetics and Building Physics (LESBAT), Avenue des Sports 20, CH-1400 Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
b
Departement of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Brovej, Building 118, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

Received 30 January 2015; received in revised form 11 May 2015; accepted 7 June 2015
Available online 23 June 2015

Communicated by: Associate Editor Ursula Eicker

Abstract

Combined heat pumps and solar collectors got a renewed interest on the heating system market worldwide. Connected to the heat
pump evaporator, unglazed solar collectors can considerably increase their efficiency, but they also raise the coefficient of performance
of the heat pump with higher average temperature levels at the evaporator. Simulation of these systems requires a collector model that
can take into account operation at very low temperatures (below freezing) and under various weather conditions, particularly operation
without solar irradiation.
A solar collector mathematical model is developed and evaluated considering, the condensation/frost effect and rain heat gains or
losses. Also wind speed and long wave irradiation on both sides of the collector are treated. Results show important heat gains for
unglazed solar collectors without solar irradiation. Up to 50% of additional heat gain was found due to the condensation phenomenon
and up to 40% due to frost under no solar irradiation. This work also points out the influence of the operating conditions on the
collector’s characteristics.
Based on experiments carried out at a test facility, every heat flux on the absorber was separately evaluated so that this model can
represent a valuable tool in optimising the design or the thermal efficiency of the collector. It also enables the prediction of the total
energy yield for solar thermal collectors under extreme operating conditions.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mathematical modelling; Solar thermal collector; Long wave irradiation; Condensation; Frost; Rain

1. Introduction been developed depending on the existence or absence of

Solar thermal collectors are originally designed to con-
vert solar irradiation into useful heat. They have been
adopted all over the world as a way to reduce fossil fuel
consumption for space heating and domestic hot water
production. Two main categories of solar collectors have
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 (0)245572817.
E-mail address: mircea.bunea@heig-vd.ch (M. Bunea).
a transparent cover on the absorber. This cover reduces
the heat losses and therefore makes the solar collector more
efficient at higher temperatures levels. On the other hand,
uncovered collectors provide a higher solar energy yield
at temperatures close to the ambient. The most important
differences between these types of collectors are described
by Keller (1985). The performance of these two categories
of collectors is substantially different as that of the glazed
collectors depends primarily on two factors (solar

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.06.012
0038-092X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
548 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561

Nomenclature

Q_ collector thermal power supplied by the solar collector c7 condensation/evaporation dependence coeffi-
(W) cient (J/kg)
Q_ rad;S short wave radiation heat exchange (W) c8 long wave radiation dependence of the heat
Q_ conv convective heat exchange (W) losses/gains coefficient – rear side (–)
Q_ rad;L long wave radiation heat exchange (W) c9 rain dependence of thermal heat losses/gains
Q_ cond conductive heat exchange (W) coefficient (–)
Q_ rain heat exchange with rain water (W) u wind velocity (m/s)
Q_ lat latent energy heat exchange (W) r Stefan–Boltzmann constant (W/m2/K4)
Q_ lat;C latent energy from condensation/evaporation va absolute humidity of the ambient air (kg/m3)
heat exchange (W) vsat(tm) saturated absolute humidity of the ambient air
Q_ lat;F latent energy from frost/melting heat exchange at temperature tm (kg/m3)
(W) twat rain water temperature (°C)
F 0 ðfaÞen zero loss efficiency of the collector at normal cp wat effective thermal capacitance of the rain water
incidence angle for the solar radiation onto the (J/kg/K)
collector surface (–) mwat rain water flow rate (kg/s)
g0 zero loss efficiency of the collector (–) tm arithmetic mean temperature of the collector
Khb(h) incidence angle modifier for beam radiation (–) (tcoll) = (tin + tout)/2 (°C)
Khd(h) incidence angle modifier for diffuse radiation (–) Tm arithmetic mean temperature of the collector
G solar radiation (W/m2) (Tcoll) = (Tin + Tout)/2 (K)
Gb beam solar radiation (W/m2) ta ambient temperature (°C)
Gd diffuse solar radiation (W/m2) thumide wet bulb temperature of the ambient air (°C)
EL long wave radiation (W/m2) tsec dry temperature of the ambient air (°C)
c1 thermal heat loss/gain coefficient (W/m2/K) Ta ambient temperature (K)
c2 temperature dependence of thermal heat losses/ Tb building temperature (K)
gains coefficient (W/m2/K2) hr relative humidity of the ambient air (%)
c3 wind velocity dependence of thermal heat Rt total thermal resistance of a wall (m2 K/W)
losses/gains coefficient (J/m3/K) RSI internal superficial thermal resistance of a wall
c4 long wave radiation dependence of the heat (m2 K/W)
losses/gains coefficient – front side (–) RSE external superficial thermal resistance of a wall
c5 effective thermal capacitance of the solar collec- (m2 K/W)
tor (ccoll) (J/m2/K) U heat flow through a wall (W/m2 K)
c6 wind velocity dependence of the zero loss effi-
ciency coefficient (s/m)

irradiance and ambient temperature) and for the unglazed
collectors several other factors can also strongly influence
their performance. These are the long wave irradiation,
wind velocity, rain, condensation or frost.
Solar energy is sometimes used indirectly through the
evaporator of a heat pump. This configuration may
increase the coefficient of performance of the heat pump
but also shifts the operating range of the solar collectors
to temperature levels below ambient. In this case, heat is
no longer lost to the ambient air, but it becomes a gain.
Therefore, the increasing demand for this type of systems,
forces manufactures to use more frequently unglazed and
sometimes non-insulated collectors in their installations.
The purpose of the proposed solar thermal collector
model is to best represent their behaviour under extended
operating conditions and to quantify all energy inputs
and/or losses as well as their influence on the total energy
supplied by the solar collector.
2. Previous developments
In the past, several studies contributed to a better char-
acterisation of solar collector performance. In particular,
Task III from the International Energy Agency (IEA),
Solar Heating and Cooling Programme (SHC), and EN
12975 (2006) where work was done focused on the testing
of glazed solar collectors. For unglazed collectors, a very
comprehensive work was undertaken by Keller (1985) that
shows the influence of the wind velocity, air humidity and
long wave irradiation on the thermal performance of these
collectors. Morrison and Gilliaert (1992) evaluated the dif-
ference between a three coefficient and a four coefficient
form of the characteristic equation for the unglazed collec-
tors. In IEA-SHC Task 44 several types of solar collectors,
essentially unglazed, have been tested and modelled in
combination with heat pumps.
 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561 549

A mathematical model based on the heat balance and
rate equations for unglazed transpired collectors was devel-
oped by Augustus Leon and Kumar (2006) where wind
velocity was found to have an important effect on the col-
lector effectiveness. The influence of the wind speed on the
convection coefficient has also been presented by Palyvos
(2008) and Keller (1985). For the climate of Limburg in
Germany, Bertram et al. (2008) found that 4% of the
annual unglazed collector yield was due to condensation
when combined to a heat pump system. The condensation
effect under no solar irradiation has also been reported by
Keller (1985) and Philippen et al. (2011).
For characterisation under any climate, condensation
heat gains have been taken into account in several collector
models reported by Keller (1985), Soltau (1992), Morrison
(1994), Eisenmann et al. (2006), Perers (2011) and Bertram
(2011). Still, no references were found in the literature on
the influence of the rain, frost or rear side long wave irra-
diation. It is the purpose of this study to extend the mod-
elling capabilities of current available solar thermal
collectors to include these effects.
3. Heat balance of a solar thermal collector
condensation/evaporation Q_ lat;C or frost formation/melting
Q_ lat;F . The latent energy becomes a heat gain for the collec-
tor in case of condensation or frost formation and a heat
loss in case of evaporation or frost melting. Therefore,
the total energy supplied by a solar collector is the addition
of all these terms:
Q_ collector ¼ Q_ rad;S þ Q_ conv þ Q_ rad;L þ Q_ cond þ Q_ rain þ Q_ lat ð1Þ
It is important to notice that some of these phenomena
may occur not only on the front side of the collector, but
also on its rear side, see Fig. 1.
The internal energy change should also be taken into
account in the dynamic calculation. This term is as a func-
tion of the time derivative of the collector temperature and
the thermal capacitance of the collector: dTdcoll ccoll
3.1. The standard model equation
The EN 12975 (2006) standard provides a definition of
the total heat gain for a collector under outdoor testing
conditions.

Under low temperature conditions, all possible energy optical efficiency:beam radiation
zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{
optical efficiency:diffuse radiation
zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{
flow rates that may contribute to the collector energy bal- Q_ collector ¼ F 0 ðfaÞen K hb ðhÞGb þ F 0 ðfaÞen K hd ðhÞGd
ance are the absorbed solar irradiation Q_ rad;S , the convec- Wind dependence on optical efficiency
zffl}|ffl{
Heat lossngain at no wind
zfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflffl{
tive heat exchange with the ambient air Q_ conv , the long  c6 uG  c1 ðtm  ta Þ

wave irradiation, Q_ rad;L , the heat conduction through the  c2 ðtm  ta Þ2 þ c3 uðtm  ta Þ
|fflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} |fflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
ambient air or the collector’s support Q_ cond , the heat
Temperature dependence of the heat lossngain Wind velocity dependence of the heat lossngain

dtm
exchange with rain Q_ rain and the latent energy exchange þ c4 ðEL  rT 4a Þ  c5 ð2Þ
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} dtffl}
|fflffl{zffl
Q_ lat . This latter can be divided into two terms:
Long wave radiation
Thermal capacitance

̇ ,
̇

̇
̇ ,

̇
̇
̇

̇ ,

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of heat flow rates on the solar thermal collector.
550 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561
This standard has been adopted worldwide as a refer-
ence methodology for solar thermal collectors testing.
Nevertheless, this model has not been designed to cope
with very low temperature operating conditions such as
the case of solar collectors combined with heat pumps. In
this kind of application, the typical operating range of a
solar collector is extended to include energy under no solar
irradiation and at temperatures below ambient air and its
dew point. As a consequence, additional terms have been
introduced to the model presented in the standard along
with some other modifications. For the condensation effect,
Perers (2011) have already proposed an additional term so
that Eq. (2) becomes:
Q_ collector ¼ F 0 ðfaÞen K hb ðhÞGb þ F 0 ðfaÞen K hd ðhÞGd
 c6 uG  c1 ðtm  ta Þ  c2 ðtm  ta Þ2 þ c3 uðtm  ta Þ
dtm
þ c4 ðEL  rT 4a Þ  c5  c7 ð2:8  3:0uÞðva  vsat ðtm ÞÞ
dt |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Condensation
3.2. Considerations on the standard equation
Based on this Eq. (3), a detailed analysis of each term
was performed and a number of considerations were made.
3.2.1. Long wave radiation term
The ðEL  rT 4a Þ term is the calculation term of heat
transfer by infrared irradiation between the sky and the
collector. It is proposed to replace it by ðEL  rT 4m Þ in order
to have the sky radiation as a correction term by equating
the average temperature Tm of the collector and not the
ambient temperature Ta.
3.2.2. Condensation term
(2.8  3u)(va  vsat(tm)) corresponds to evaporation/
condensation term. Beckman and Duffie (1991) proposes
to amend this term into (2.8 + 3u)(va  vsat(tm)). This
change will be retained, as in the basic equation, depending
on the wind speed, this term could be negative or positive
for the same value of (va  vsat(tm)) (term giving the condi-
tion of condensation or evaporation). In addition, for the
same term of condensation, it was decided to reverse the
sign so that it adds a positive value to the total power when
there is condensation and a negative value when there is
evaporation. Thereby, the term becomes +(2.8 + 3u)
(va  vsat(tm)) instead of (2.8  3u)(va  vsat(tm)).
The calculation of the absolute humidity is done with:
V sat ðtÞ ¼ 0:001ð4:85 þ 0:347t þ 0:00945t2
þ 0:000158t3 þ 0:00000281t4 Þ
v ¼ vsat ðtÞ  hr
3.2.3. Temperature dependence of heat
The [(tm  ta)|tm  ta|] term is replacing the (tm  ta)2.
Indeed, when the collector temperature is lower than the
ambient, there is a power supplied by the collector.
Fig. 2. Incidence angle modifier for the unglazed collectors (see
Footnote 3).
ð3Þ
3.2.4. Optical efficiency: beam and diffusion terms
The incidence angles are not taken into account due to
the position of the collectors in relation to the surrounding
buildings. Direct solar radiation reaches the absorber with
relatively small angles of incidence (<60°) where the IAM
coefficients are almost constant (cf. Fig. 2). The
F0 (fa)enKhb(h)Gb + F0 (fa)enKhd(h)Gd terms can be simplified
to form a single term g0G where G includes direct and dif-
fuse irradiation.
Although solar irradiation is, generally, the most influ-
ential parameter in the energy balance of a solar thermal
collector, the purpose of this work is to investigate condi-
tions where this term is of less importance. For this reason,
only the total solar irradiation is used, with no distinction
between diffuse or direct irradiation. The influence of the
angular solar absorptance and incident angles modifier
was reported in literature (Tesfamichael and Wackelgard
(2000)) where important decreases of the solar absorptance
at high angles of incidence were found for two different
coatings.
3.2.5. Long wave radiation on the rear of the collector
As some unglazed collectors have no insulation on rear
side, one term was added to represent gains/losses by long
wave (infrared) radiation exchange on the rear side of the
collector. Calculation of this term is similar to that for
the front side of the collector. The difference consists on
the sky temperature that is replaced by the temperature
of the body behind the collector, in this case it is the build-
ing and the flat roof where the collector is situated (cf.
Fig. 7).
ð4Þ The surface temperature of the building (Tb) is defined
ð5Þ by:
 The room temperature under the roof set as a constant
at 20 °C.
 The outside temperature.
 U value of the flat roof calculated at 0.24 W/m2K, see
below.
 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561 551

The calculation of the thermal resistance of the flat roof Table 1

system instrumentation and accuracy.
is done using the following equations:
X Sensor Manufacturer Type Accuracy
Rt ¼ RSI þ Ri þ RSE ð6Þ Temperature Transmettra Pt100 A class 0.1 K
Flow rate Krohne Electromagnetic 0.3%
and flowmeter
U ¼ 1=Rt ð7Þ Solar radiation Kipp & Zonen Pyranometer 1.4%
Relative Rotronic Hygromer humidity 1%
with RSI = 0.13 (m2 K)/W, RSE = 0.04 (m2 K)/W and Ri humidity sensor
corresponds to the thermal resistance of each layer com- Wind velocity Adolf Thies Weather vane 3%
GmbH
posing the roof.1

3.2.6. Rain term

inlet collector temperatures varying from 10 °C to 5 °C.
One term was added to account for the energy
Sensor description and their accuracy is given in Table 1.
exchanged between the collector and the rain. The rainwa-
Bunea et al. (2012) have shown that for glazed collectors
ter temperature is considered equal to the wet bulb temper- without solar irradiance no significant additional benefits
ature of the air, calculated with Heinrich Gustav were obtained from condensation effect, frost or rain.
Magnus-Tetens.2 No measurements on the test bench were Therefore, only unglazed solar collectors will be addressed
capable to give a better approach of this temperature and in this article.
no other approximations were found in the literature. For the standard collector (insulated), the parameters
thumide ¼ b  aðtsec ; hr Þ=ða  aðtsec ; hr ÞÞ ð8Þ g0, c1, c2, c3 and c5 were taken from the documentation pro-
with : aðtsec ; hr Þ ¼ a  tsec =ðb þ tsec Þ þ lnðhr Þ ð9Þ vided by the collector’s test report30. Parameters for the
non-insulated collector including (c4, c6, c7, c8, c9) for
a ¼ 17:27 ðÞ which no values are documented were initially approxi-

b ¼ 237:7 ð CÞ mated by theoretical values and then refined in order for
the simulations to be closest to the measurements and this
The rain water mass is calculated from the data of the
for all climatic conditions encountered. These parameters
rain gauge installed next to the collectors.
are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Briefs explanations on
the process to arrive to these values will be presented in this
3.3. Proposed model equation section as well as the assumptions made in the laboratory.
The absorber area of both collectors is 1.85 m2.
With the changes outlined above, Eq. (3) becomes Changes of the coefficient value from one test to another
Q_ collector ¼ g0 G  c6 uG  c1 ðtm  ta Þ  c2 ðtm  ta Þjtm will be explained further down.
 ta j þ c3 uðtm  ta Þ
5. Results
Rear side long wave irradioation
zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{
þ c8 ðrT 4b  rT 4m Þ þc4 ðEL  rT 4m Þ The analysis was made in terms of the net power and
energy provided by the collectors. In fact, under these
dtm
 c5 þ c7 ð2:8 þ 3:0uÞðva  vsat ðtm ÞÞ extended operating conditions, the classical definition of
dt the efficiency of a solar collector (output power divided
þ c9 mwat cp wat ðtwat  tm Þ ð10Þ by the solar irradiation) is no longer relevant. Eq. (10)
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Rain has been implemented in a spreadsheet to compare the cal-
culated power against the measured power for several days
under different weather conditions. This spreadsheet can
4. Experimental setup
also be used to estimate the values of various parameters
of each collector.
A testing facility comprising four solar thermal collec-
tors (flat plate collector, evacuated tube collector, insulated
5.1. Sunny periods
unglazed collector and non-insulated unglazed collector)
equipped with different sorts of sensors was developed for
The collector total power obtained with the mathemati-
collector monitoring purposes (see Fig. 3). Several tests
cal Eq. (10) is close to that measured for a sunny day (cf.
under different real weather conditions in
Fig. 4). However, some deviations (15%) are observed at
Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland, have been performed with
certain times such as 12.5 h, but for a short duration.
1
SIA 180 (1999) Isolation thermique et protection contre l’humidité
dans les bâtiments.
2 3
Barenbrug, A.W.T., Psychrometry and Psychrometric Charts, Le Cap, Institut fur solartechnik, Collectors test reports, Factsheet –
Afrique du Sud, Cape and Transvaal Printers Ltd., 1974, 3e éd. SPF-Nr.420.
552 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561
Glazed flat plate
Evacuated tube
Weather Station
C
Fig. 3. Set-up diagram of the testing facility.
For these weather conditions, the parameters used in the
equation correspond to the values given by the manufac-
turer or found in the literature. These values will be named
“standards” for the remaining of this article.
5.2. Condensation periods
To maximise condensed water vapour on the surface of
the absorber, tests were made during the night (no solar
irradiation) with an inlet temperature of the collectors close
to 0 °C. In this case, the main energy sources are convec-
tion, long-wave irradiation and condensation on the sur-
face of the collector.
To experimentally estimate the amount of condensation
on the unglazed collectors, a large bucket was placed
underneath the collectors in order to recover the condensed
water (see Fig. 5a). A lid with a narrow slot for the passage
of the condensed water limits evaporation during the test
(see Fig. 5b). The uncertainty of the condensation heat
gains measurements was determined to be 8% by night.
The measured yield for the conducted tests varied from
0.5 kW h to 3.3 kW h for the insulated solar collector and
from 1.3 kW h to 4.8 kW h for the non-insulated solar col-
lector. It was observed that condensation can represent 23–
55% of the total collector’s yield for these tests depending
on the weather conditions.
plate without rear
plate with rear
Unglazed flat
Unglazed flat
insulation
insulation
Temperature sensor
Flow rate
Pump
Heat exchanger
C
Regulation valve
Chiller
As a consequence of the condensation phenomena, the
collector becomes wet, leading to changes in the physical
properties of its selective surface. Thus, the specific param-
eters of the collector were changed so that the power given
by the equation would closely represent the new conditions
as shown in Fig. 6.
The most important change concerns the infrared emis-
sivity of the absorber (c4 and c8) going from 0.05 with a dry
surface (selective surface in small wavelengths) to a 0.9
(water effective emissivity) when the surface is wet because
the selective layer of the absorber is no longer operative.
The value of emissivity for thin water layers is given by
Wolfe and Zissis (1993). Another important modification
is the disruption of the convective transfer between the
air and the collector through the film condensation, result-
ing in a decrease of parameter c1. Finally, parameter c7
related to condensation.
The dependence of the air pressure or the inclination of
the collector on the condensation phenomena were not
tested in this work. Keller (1985) found negligible the influ-
ence of the air pressure on the condensation effect while
Philippen et al. (2011) has not detected larger condensation
gains for larger inclinations of the collector under outdoor
conditions. Increased heat gains were principally due to
higher long wave irradiance from the field of view of the
unglazed collector.
Table 2
Parameters for non-insulated solar collector under different testing conditions.
Testing Parameters for non-insulated unglazed solar collector
conditions
g0 (–) c1 (W/ c2 (W/(m2 K2)) c3 (J/(m3 K)) c4 (–) c5 (J/(m2 K)) c6 (s/m) c7 (J/kg) c8 (–) c9 (–)
(m2 K))
Optical Convection Temperature Wind Front side Thermal Wind Condensation Rear side emissivity Rain
efficiency at no wind dependence on dependence on emissivity for long capacitance dependence on for long wave
heat loss/gain heat loss/gain wave radiation optical efficiency radiation
Sunny 0.959 12 0 4 0.05 18,000 0.03 0 0.05 0
Condensation 0.959 8.5 0 4 0.9 18,000 0.03 2,000 0.9 0
Frost 0.8 16.5 0 4 0.9 18,000 0.03 2,300 0.9 0
Rain 0.959 12 0 6 0.9 18,000 0.03 2,000 0.9 0.5
Mixed 0.959 12 0 4 0.5 18,000 0.03 2,000 0.5 0.5
conditions

M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561

Table 3
Parameters for insulated solar collector under different testing conditions.
Testing Parameters for insulated unglazed solar collector
conditions
g0 (–) c1 (W/ c2 (W/(m2 K2)] c3 (J/(m3 K)) c4 (–) c5 (J/(m2 K)) c6 (s/m) c7 (J/kg) c8 (–) c9 (–)
(m2 K))
Optical Convection Temperature Wind Front side Thermal Wind Condensation Rear side emissivity Rain
efficiency at no wind dependence on dependence on emissivity for long capacitance dependence on for long wave
heat loss/gain heat loss/gain wave radiation optical efficiency radiation
Sunny 0.959 8.91 0.047 2.26 0.05 18,000 0.03 0 0 0
Condensation 0.959 6.5 0.047 2.26 0.8 18,000 0.03 1,300 0 0
Frost 0.8 12.5 0.047 2.26 0.9 18,000 0.03 1,500 0 0
Rain 0.959 8.91 0.047 4 0.9 18,000 0.03 1,300 0 0.5
Mixed 0.959 8.91 0.047 2.26 0.5 18,000 0.03 1300 0 0.5
conditions

553
554 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561

Non-insulated unglazed solar collector Insulated unglazed solar collector

Fig. 4. Measured vs. calculated power of unglazed collectors – sunny day.

Fig. 5. (a) Buckets under solar collectors; (b) lid on the bucket.

Non-insulated unglazed solar collector Insulated unglazed solar collector

Fig. 6. Measured vs. calculated power of unglazed collector – mild temperatures night conditions.

5.3. Frost periods
If the supplied energy by an unglazed collector is lower
than the one requested by the consumer (e.g. heat pump),
the collector’s temperature will drop and reach negative
values. In this case, the water vapour contained in ambient
air will freeze on the surface of the collector as shown in
Fig. 7. This phenomenon brings, as in the case of conden-
sation, energy to the collector.
A test with an inlet temperature of the collector at about
5 °C was made. The measured collector power was
compared to that calculated by the mathematical model.
The results are shown in Fig. 8. Some differences between
the measurements and the calculations are observed
with little impact on the cumulated energy during the test.
It is to notice the significant thermal power delivered
by the non-insulated solar collector under no solar
irradiation.
An experiment was also carried out to attempt to quan-
tify the amount of frost formed. However, this is very dif-
ficult to perform. A first estimation was made using a
similar approach as performed for the condensation. The
collector temperature was kept stable for several hours,
which contributed to the formation of frost. Then, the fluid
was heated at 20 °C melting the ice and the water was col-
lected in buckets beneath the collector.
 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561
Rear side insulated Non-insulated
Fig. 7. Unglazed solar collectors with frost on the surface.
The amount of water collected was close to that found in
the case of condensation. However, the supplied energy to
the collector is higher because the latent heat of solidifica-
tion is added to the latent heat of condensation.
Simulation results were obtained by modifying some
standard parameters to cope with the above effects:
 The efficiency of the optical collector (g0) decreases
because frost causes reverberation.
 The parameter c1 (convection + radiation) increases as
the frost layer has a higher surface of exchange due to
ice crystals.
 As for condensation, the infrared emissivity of the
absorber (c4 and c8) increases, because the selective sur-
face is no longer operational.
 The parameter c7 is related to the presence of frost and
condensation. This value is higher than the one during
condensation (15%), which corresponds approximately
to the addition of the latent heat of solidification to
the condensation latent heat.
Noninsulated unglazed solar collector
Fig. 8. Measured and calculated power of unglazed collector – cold temperatures.
555
5.4. Rainy periods
The unglazed collectors are able to recover the energy
contained in rainwater, whenever they operate at low tem-
peratures. Conversely, they can lose energy when their tem-
perature is higher than the rainwater. In Switzerland, the
maximum energy gain from the rainwater was estimated
at about 5 kW h/m2 per year, representing 2% of the aver-
age annual energy yield of an unglazed collector under nor-
mal operation.
The unglazed collectors were tested during a rainy per-
iod of 7 h (total 4.8 mm). Fig. 9 shows the results obtained
following some adjustments of the standard parameters.
The results are slightly worse than those for tests with
sunny periods. Still, the deviations do not exceed 15%.
Modified parameters are:
 The dependence on heat loss/gain (c3) increases. It is
assumed that this increase is due to an increased convec-
tive movements related to the rain.
 The c9 parameter related to the presence of rainwater on
the surface of the absorber.
5.4.1. Long periods with changing conditions
A test of 136 h from 15 to 21 of May was performed
with varying weather conditions in order to validate the
model for solar collectors under different conditions (rain,
wind, condensation and sunlight) (cf. Fig. 10). During this
test, the set-point temperature of the collector input was
fixed to 0 °C. In practice, this temperature changes slightly
depending on the weather conditions, especially for high
solar irradiation, when the output temperature increases
considerably.
The chosen parameters for this configuration are the
“standards” parameters except for:
 The effective emissivity parameters (c4 and c8); average
values for sunny period and period with condensation
(see Tables 2 and 3).
Insulated unglazed solar collector
556 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561
Non-insulated unglazed solar collector
Fig. 9. Measured and calculated power of unglazed collector – rainy conditions.
Not insulated unglazed solar collector
Fig. 10. Measured vs. calculated power for unglazed collectors – one week weather conditions (5 min average).
 The parameters of condensation-frost (c7) and rain (c9)
were added.
Calculations (red lines) show a behaviour close to the
measured power (blue) of the collector when there is no
sudden change in climate conditions, such as during the
night or during the second day (May 17). However, on
days with variable solar irradiation, differences are
observed between the measured and the calculated power
as shown in Fig. 11.
A detailed analysis of these periods shows that the aver-
age difference is 32 W for non-insulated collector and
34 W for the insulated collector. Also, standard devia-
tions are 110 W for the non-insulated collector and
107 W for the insulated one (front or rear side area 2 m2).
Important differences, as observed on the encircled
zones in Fig. 11, occur in the morning because of the solar
irradiation getting partially on the surface of the solar col-
lector and not yet on the pyranometer. Differences outside
these zones are explained by the very short time step calcu-
lations (10 s). For such time steps, a single node model as
this mathematical equation, encounters difficulties in
managing the thermal inertia of the solar collector during
sudden changes in the climatic conditions. The temperature
measurements recorded show very rapid changes that can
be out of phase with those calculated. Perers (1997)
revealed that this approximation is satisfying when the time
Insulated unglazed solar collector
Insulated unglazed solar collector
steps for measurements are long compared with the time
for the fluid to pass through collector. Thus, especially
for small mass flow rates and in the absence of solar irradi-
ation, the simplifying assumption of a linear increase of the
inlet fluid temperature and the outlet has to be checked
carefully.
The thermal capacitance of the collector should be in
this case separated into several control volumes or a differ-
ent approach may have to be chosen. Nevertheless, most of
the weather data available are mean hourly values which is
generally longer than the dwell time for the fluid in the
collector.
Kong et al. (2012) have already shown the sensitivity of
this parameter and implemented a two-node method called
“transfer function method” in which the collector was sep-
arated into the solid part and the fluid part in order to be
more precise. He also added a new parameter to take into
account the heat transfer between the solid to the fluid part
of the collector. Possible remedies would be to incorporate
the modifications suggested by Kong et al. (2012). Because
the main objective of this work is to represent the beha-
viour of the collector under certain conditions, not neces-
sary for long periods and to estimate the heat flows
through the collector, these considerations were not inte-
grated into the mathematical equation.
Nevertheless, even if these differences may seem impor-
tant in terms of absolute power output during these
 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561
Non-insulated unglazed solar collector
Fig. 11. Differences between measured and calculated power (5 min average).
Not insulated unglazed solar collector
Fig. 12. Evolution of measured and calculated energies for unglazed collectors – one week weather conditions.
changing periods, they have positive value at one time step
and then negative value at the following time step with
same amplitude. This gives a simulated energy yield very
close to the measured energy as seen in Fig. 12.
The maximum deviation on the energy calculation dur-
ing the 136 h test is 5% for the insulated collector and 2%
for non-insulated collector.
6. Discussion
For classical operation of a solar thermal collector, sim-
ple models, as described in EN12975, have been tested for
years and give fairly accurate estimations of the output
power of the collector. Still, they have not been designed
to cope with operating conditions such as night time or
with temperatures below ambient.
The analysis presented in this work shows that for these
extended weather conditions additional parameters are
needed in order to correctly account for the different phe-
nomena occurring on the unglazed solar collector. On the
other side, significant variation of the standard parameters
was observed for different operating conditions, leading to
the conclusion that optimal parameter sets are not
universal.
The additional power due to condensation was found
relatively low (100 W/m2 maximum). More important heat
gains up to 400 W/m2 were measured during frost
557
Insulated unglazed solar collector
Insulated unglazed solar collector
formation for the non-insulated unglazed collector and
the frost was estimated to contribute to about 40% of this
energy. Notwithstanding, special attention must be paid on
damages that the condensation or frost can create in
long-term operation especially for the selective coating or
insulation. Accelerated aging tests with repeated uses under
these conditions should be made to observe the evolution
of their performance in time. When collector’s tempera-
tures are negative for longer periods, there is also the risk
of ice block development, so once detached from the collec-
tor are likely to fall and cause damage.
The opposite phenomena of condensation (evaporation)
and frost (thaw) are not treated in this manuscript. Still,
what was observed during these tests is that, depending
on the collector’s tilt, most of the water accumulated on
the collector surface falls down and therefore the impact
of the evaporation should be very small. A more important
influence on the collector output power should be observed
by the frost melting, for example on a sunny morning after
a night of very low temperature operation. The energy
needed for this phenomena should be in the same range
as the energy for frost.
The difficulty lies in the choice of these parameters for
testing over periods with changing weather conditions. A
setting that may give very good results during sunny peri-
ods, may produce unreliable results during the night.
Therefore, the use of a static model as presented in this
558 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561

Eq. (10)
work is of interest mainly for analysis with a given weather

62.51
1.37
8.07
6.85
3.33
1.34
3.07
3.34
pattern. With variable conditions, it is essential to have a
dynamic model that allows changing the parameters values
according to the weather conditions in order to simulate all

Type 136
these effects.

Energy yield insulated collector (kW h)

69.29
1.23
4.34
4.22
3.21
1.18
3.27
The influence of the rear side long wave emissivity and

3.8
the relative humidity of the ambient air on the total perfor-
mance of the absorber was not found significant and there-

Type 202
fore is not detailed in this work. Keller (1985) found an

65.97
1.09
4.26
4.21
3.28
1.17
3.11
3.87
important difference on the heat transfer coefficient when
the air humidity is 100% compared to 80%, but almost
no difference between a relative humidity of 80% and 60%.

Measurements
7. Comparison between the proposed mathematical equation
and other available models

62.31
1.65
7.13

3.41
1.00
3.28
3.61
8.5
Perers (2011) and Bertram (2011) have developed and
validated models of unglazed collectors which also include

Eq. (10)
operation under condensation conditions. These have been

11.23

76.72
9.64
4.53
1.99
2.86
3.03
1.9
translated into TRNSYS components (Type 136 and Type
202, respectively). In order to have a global view on the
behaviour of these models under various conditions (rain, Energy yield non-insulated collector (kW h)
Type 136
frost, condensation or sunny) a comparison was performed
1.65
6.06
6.39
4.45
1.65
3.05
3.44
80.8
against the measurements and the mathematical equation.
The required model parameters were taken from the man-
ufacturer and the inputs were set as the measured values on
Type 202

the test bench and kept constant for each model:

72.09
1.36

6.08
4.07
1.49
2.72
3.03
5.6

 Inlet temperature.
 Mass flow rate.
Measurements

 Solar irradiance.
 Ambient temperature.
 Wind velocity.
10.06
11.62

76.76
2.11

5.32
1.76
3.00
3.07

 Sky temperature.
 Relative humidity.
Operating conditions for each test and energy yield measured and simulated.

 Precipitation.
15–16.09 2011
27–28.10.2011

15–21.05.2012
Testing date

07.12.2011
15.12.2011
16.12.2011

23.05.2011
25.05.2011

Table 4 and Fig. 13 shows the operating conditions of

the various tests and the total energy supplied by each col-
lector during the entire test while the average meteorolog-
ical conditions of each test are presented in Table 5.
Test duration (h)

The proposed mathematical equation was also inte-

grated into TRNSYS and then compared to the results
obtained with the TRNSYS models. Parameters, excepted
c5 and c6, are adapted to the weather conditions as in
15.5

136
7.5

5.5
15
13
11

Table 2.
4

Figs. 14 and 15 give the percent difference between the

Condensation (night time testing)

energy obtained in the experimental measurements and

the simulation results, for the non-insulated collector and
the insulated one, respectively. The test between 15 and
21 of May includes various operating conditions (sunny,
rain, condensation and frost).
Testing conditions

Mixed conditions

In general, the proposed mathematical equation pro-

vides less differences than the TRNSYS models, thanks
to the added terms for rain, condensation/frost and infra-
Table 4

Sunny

red radiation behind the collector, but also because the

Frost
Rain

parameters vary with the operating conditions. For all

 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561 559

Rain Frost Condensation Sunny

Fig. 13. Energy yield measured or simulated during each test. Values for Fig. 14. Relative differences between measured and simulated energy on
the first seven tests should be read on left axis while the last one on the several tests for the non-insulated collector.
right axis.

models, the most significant differences are observed for Condensation

tests with frost (40%) and rain. For the TRNSYS models
these differences can be explained by the non-account of
these phenomena.
Results also show a large relative difference for tests
with little quantity of condensed water (27–28 October)
for the insulated collector. Still, in terms of absolute values,
the difference is very small because the energies involved
are small, see Table 4.
At this stage, on the basis of the above comparison, the
mathematical model seems to be the best alternative for
numerical modelling under the specified conditions.
However, a performance analysis based only on the total
energy is not enough. In fact, the evolution of the difference
between the measurement and simulation at each time step
must also be taken into consideration. For this an integra-
tion of the absolute value of the difference was performed
continuously. The obtained sum gives an indication of
the behaviour of the model during the entire test.
Figs. 16 and 17 show the values of this integration: These
figures completes the information given by energy charts
as shown in Fig. 12 by summing differences between mea-
surements and simulations weather the value is negative
or positive.
It can be seen that:
Rain Frost Sunny
Fig. 15. Relative differences between measured and simulated energy on
several tests for the insulated collector.
 The proposed equation provides better results under
frost and rain conditions when compared to alternative
models.
 In times of condensation and sunny periods, results
from the three models are similar and no significant dif-
ference is observed when compared to measurements.
 During the sequence of several days with changing
weather conditions and particularly for the
non-insulated collector, the equation has a much higher
dispersion, due to the single node model and the short
time steps than the two models of TRNSYS, which
are more stable during sudden changes in irradiation.

Table 5
Average meteorological conditions during each test.
Testing conditions Testing date Ambient temp. (°C) Relative Solar radiation Sky temperature (°C) Precipitation (mm)
humidity (%) (W/m2)
Rain 07.12.2011 6.5 84.9 18.1 4.2 4.8
Frost 15.12.2011 5.5 75.9 26.7 1.3 0
16.12.2011 7.0 84.1 2.7 4.6 0
Condensation (night time testing) 15–16.09 2011 14.9 83.4 0 4.8 0
27–28.10.2011 8.0 87.0 0 3.0 0
Sunny 23.05.2011 27.1 45.1 884.2 20.2 0
25.05.2011 26.6 38.3 899.1 18.8 0
Mixed conditions 15–21.05.2012 14.0 89.3 170.2 6.4 5.0
560 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561

phase of a solar collector working under particular

Rain Frost Condensation Sunny
conditions.

8. Conclusions

In this article, a mathematical model is developed able

Fig. 16. Integrated difference between measured and simulated energy on
several tests for the non-insulated collector.
Rain Frost Condensation Sunny
Fig. 17. Integrated difference between measured and simulated energy on
several tests for the insulated collector.
Rain Frost Condensation Sunny
Fig. 18. Heat flows for unglazed non-insulated collector during several
tests.
An advantage of the proposed mathematical equation is
that, unlike the TRNSYS models, it allows quantifying and
to distinguish the different energy gains/losses of the solar
collector, as shown in Fig. 18.
For example it can be seen that the convective effect rep-
resents an important part of the heat gains during night
time periods and greatly contributes to heat losses during
sunny periods.
This comparison has shown the limits of the proposed
mathematical model when simulated periods of changing
weather conditions. On the other side, this tool allows
quantifying the different inputs and losses of a solar collec-
tor. Moreover, this model could be of use in the selection
to simulate unglazed collectors operating under specific
weather conditions like condensation, frost and rain. A
number of simulations have been conducted in order to
compare the model predictions against other available
models already translated into the TRNSYS simulation
tool. The model results were also validated against mea-
surements performed on a collectors test bench.
Based on Figs. 16 and 17, it can be argued that the pro-
posed mathematical model is not better for modelling long
and changing weather conditions, but was able to better
predict the heat delivered from the new terms taken into
account for unglazed solar collectors when compared to
the available models. The latter give satisfying results for
cases with variable weather conditions including night con-
densation (10% deviation from the measurements). In
addition, they are fairly stable during sudden changes in
weather parameters. In comparison to the proposed model,
the main drawback of these models lies in the
non-integration of energy inputs due to frost, rain and
gains/losses of long wave radiation behind the collector.
However, the proposed equation is relatively unstable
when considerable changes in operating conditions occur.
Heat gains up to 50% of the total heat power of the solar
collector were found due to the condensation effect while
frost was estimated to contribute for 40% of the collector’s
power during very low operating temperatures and no solar
irradiation.
Non-negligible thermal power can be exchanged between
the unglazed solar collector and the rain water. The rainwa-
ter temperature is very difficult to define according to cli-
matic conditions. A measurement of this temperature
seems very complicated to implement. However, even if a
solution is found, these results are interesting only for
regions with high rainfall. For the Swiss climate, the poten-
tial energy recovered by an unglazed solar collector in rain-
water was estimated at only 2% of the annual energy yield.
The proposed correction terms validated in this article
could be integrated into the TRNSYS types with quite little
effort and therefore this mode can be used under extreme
operating conditions with good accuracy.
The proposed method of modelling solar collectors can
also provide a tool for determining the strengths or weak-
nesses of a given collector. It could help choosing the best
use of a solar collector under specific weather conditions
and/or on the type of chosen system.
Acknowledgement
The Swiss Federal Office of Energy is gratefully
acknowledged for the financial support of this work
through the AquaPacSol project.
 M. Bunea et al. / Solar Energy 118 (2015) 547–561
References
Augustus Leon, M., Kumar, S., 2006. Mathematical modelling and
thermal performance analysis of unglazed transpired solar collectors.
Sol. Energy.
Beckman, W., Duffie, J., 1991. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes,
ISBN: 0-471-51056-4.
Bertram, E., 2011. Model of an Unglazed Solar Thermal Collector for
TRNSYS 16 (documentation), ISFH.
Bertram, E., Glembin, J., Schueren, J., Rockendorf, G., Zienterra, G.,
2008. Unglazed Solar Collectors in Heat Pump Systems: Measurement,
Simulation and Dimensioning.
Bunea, M., Eicher, S., Hildrand, C., Bony, J., Perers, B., Citherlet, S.,
2012. Performance of solar collectors under low temperature condi-
tions: measurements and simulations results. Eurosun.
DIN EN 12975-2, 2006. Thermal Solar System and Components – Solar
Collectors – Part 2: Test Methods.
Eisenmann, W., Müller, O., Pujiula, F., Zienterra, G., 2006. Metal roofs
as unglazed solar collectors, coupled with heat pump and ground
storage: gains from condensation, basics for system concepts. In: Proc.
of the EuroSun 2006 Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, Paper 256.
Keller, P., 1985. Characterization of the Thermal Performance of
Uncovered Solar Collectors by Parameters Including the Dependence
on Wind Velocity, Humidity and Infrared Sky Radiation as Well as on
Solar Irradiance.
561
Kong, W., Wang, Z., Fan, J., Bacher, P., Perers, B., Chen, Z., Furbo, S., 2012.
An improved dynamic test method for solar collectors. Sol. Energy.
Morrison, G.L., 1994. Simulation of packaged solar heat-pump water
heaters. Sol. Energy 53 (3), 249–257.
Morrison, G.L., Gilliaert, D., 1992. Unglazed solar collector performance
characteristics. J. Sol. Energy Eng.
Palyvos, J., 2008. A survey of wind convection coefficient correlations for
building envelope energy systems’ modeling. Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (8–
9), 801–808.
Perers, B., 1997. An improved dynamic solar collector test method for
determination of non-linear optical and thermal characteristics with
multiple regression. Sol. Energy.
Perers, B., 2011. An Improved Dynamic Solar Collector Model Including
Condensation and Asymmetric Incidence Angle Modifiers.
Philippen, D., Haller, M.Y., Frank, E., 2011. Einfluss der Neigung auf den
äusseren konvektiven Wärmeübergang unabgedeckter Absorber. In:
21. Symposium Thermische Solarenergie, 11. – 13. Mai, OTTI
Regensburg, Bad Staffelstein, Germany, CD.
Soltau, H., 1992. Testing the thermal performance of uncovered solar
collectors. Sol. Energy 49 (4), 263–272.
Tesfamichael, T., Wackelgard, E., 2000. Angular solar absorptance and
incident angle modifier of selective absorbers for solar thermal
collectors. Sol. Energy.
Wolfe, W.L., Zissis, G.J., 1993. The Infrared Handbook, revised edition,
4th printing, pp. 3–104 to 3–109.