Thermal Performance of Flat Plate Solar Collector Equipped

with Rectangular Cell Honeycomb

A. H. Abdullah and A. A. Ghoneim
Applied Sciences Department, College of Technological Studies,
Shuwaikh 70654,
KUWAIT
E-mail: aghoneim@paaet.edu.kw

Abstract

This paper presents the measurement results of the performance of flat plate solar collector
equipped with rectangular cell honeycomb. A collector test facility has been designed and
installed for the purpose of this study. To suppress heat convection losses, rectangular cell
honeycomb material is inserted between the absorber and the glass cover of the solar collector.
The effect of air gap thickness above and below the honeycomb material has been investigated.
Linear regression analysis is applied to the experimental data to evaluate the thermal
performance of the solar collector. The results indicated that the bottom and the top gap
thickness are crucial with respect to the heat loss coefficient. The arrangement of honeycomb
with bottom gap thickness of 4 mm is found to be the optimum as it offers the lowest heat loss
coefficient among other honeycomb arrangements. Generally, a significant improvement can be
accomplished for collectors with honeycomb with proper design and placement of the honeycomb
within the collector air gap. Reductions in heal loss coefficient up to 51% is achieved with only
12% reduction in optical efficiency compared to the solar collector without honeycomb.

1. INTRODUCTION

Flat plate solar collectors can be used efficiently for low temperature applications. On the other hand,
relatively high temperature applications require collectors of high efficiency. This goal can be achieved
either by using evacuated tube collectors or by inserting a transparent insulation material between the
plate and the glazing of a flat plate collector. Manufacturing evacuated tube collector necessitates high
technology; consequently they are expensive. Transparent insulation materials (TIM) are not
expensive and have high optical transmission to solar radiation besides, they have excellent
mechanical strength. Significant decrease in both radiative and free convection losses can be
achieved by using TIM. Consequently, a flat plate collector equipped with TIM can give a performance
comparable with vacuum tube collector (Rommel and Wagner, 1992).

Early studies concerning convection suppression in flat plate collectors used honeycombs to
completely fill the air gap between the plate and the glazing (Francia 1962, Buchberg and Edwards
1968, Lalude and Bucherg 1971, and Hollands 1971). A significant suppression in convection losses
has been observed by Cane and Hollands, 1971 when compared with an air layer of the same
thickness without honeycomb. The heat transfer across liquid filled rectangular cell honeycombs with
different aspect ratios and tilt angles has been measured (Arnold et al. ,1976). Two different collector
systems using polycarbonate honeycomb material have been studied (Rommel and Wagner, 1992).
Their measurements illustrated the superior performance of these systems. On the other hand, many
theoretical models have been developed to study the heat transfer mechanisms through solar
collector honeycomb (Hollands et al. 1979, Marcus 1983, Arulanantham and Kaushika 1996).

It must be mentioned that the honeycomb reduces the value of optical efficiency (), which has a
direct impact on the collector performance. A number of studies have been performed to determine
the optical properties of honeycomb structures. The calculation of () for the glazing containing the
cellular array is presented by (Symons, 1984). The solar transmittance for different honeycomb
materials for incidence angles up to 70 was measured by Platzer, 1992. A model was developed to
determine () of beam, sky and ground diffuse solar radiations using the individual transmittances of
cellular array (Kaushika and Arulanantham, 1996).
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

The importance of leaving small air gaps above (between honeycomb and glazing) and below
(between honeycomb and absorbing plate) in solar collectors has been previously demonstrated
(Edwards et al. 1976). Leaving small air gaps above and below a rectangular-cell can enhance the
thermal performance of solar collectors by minimizing the coupling between conduction and radiation.
A significant decrease in coupled heat transfer across the compound-honeycomb layer in comparison
with a similar honeycomb without gaps was reported by Hollands and Iynkaran, 1993. This decrease
in heat was confirmed in a series of heat transfer measurements made on compound-honeycomb
layers with a range of aspect ratios. Using experiments, Abou-Ziyan and Richards, 1997 concluded
that a compound honeycomb is superior in performance compared with the one which employs only
one air gap below the honeycomb. Applications of honeycomb are nowadays extended to integrated
collector storage solar water heaters systems (Reddy and Kaushika, 1999) and to solar cookers
(Nahar, 2001).

The previous discussion indicates the importance of leaving an air gap above and below the
honeycomb for decoupling conduction and radiation, thereby reducing heat losses of compound
honeycomb collector. Most of the reported work in the literature deals with either heat loss or optical
properties, using laboratory measurements. Consequently this treatment separates the honeycomb
combined effect of reducing both heat loss and optical efficiency. This may lead to incorrect values of
the overall performance of compound honeycomb collector. Thus, the proper honeycomb thickness
and position in the air gap that can suppress convection without reducing the overall collector
efficiency needs to be determined using outdoor measurements. The present work addresses these
issues by investigating the effects of gap thickness on collector performance.

2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of the collector test facility, designed and installed at the College
of Technological Studies, Kuwait to conduct this work. It consists of a solar collector (1), storage tank
(2) of 100 liters capacity, cross flow heat exchanger (3), constant temperature circulator (4) and a
circulator pump (5) to overcome the pressure resistance of the system. Several non-return valves (9)
are fitted in the pipeline to define the flow direction and a control valve (10) is used to regulate the flow
rate through the circuit with the aid of a valve in the pump by-pass line. Filters (8), pressure relief
valve (11) and an air bleed valve (12) are included in the circuit. The necessary instruments are
attached to the apparatus and then connected to the data acquisition system.

1. solar collector
2. storage tank
3. cross flow heat exchanger
4. const. Temp. circulator
5. centrifugal pump
6. radiation pyranometer 11 12
7. flow meter
8. filter
9. non return valve 6
10. flow control valve 2
11. pressure relief valve 2
12. air bleed valve
9 8 8
1 water makeup
4 3

7 9 9 9
8
9 10 5 9
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the collector test facility

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 2 of

10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

The solar collector has an area of 2 m2 and is inclined 30 on the horizontal. The intensity of the
global and diffuse solar radiation incident on the collector surface are measured and recorded by two
Eppley Precision Spectral Pyranometers. The pyranometer used to measure the diffuse solar
radiation is fitted with a shading ring to shield the detector from direct solar radiation to measure the
diffuse radiation only. Standard resistance thermometer detectors (RTD-PT100) are used to monitor
the surrounding ambient temperature, inlet and outlet fluid temperatures of the collector to ensure high
accuracy for these crucial temperatures. The water flow rate through the collector is measured using a
turbine meter suitable for 0.2 to 5 liters/min with accuracy of 2%. A data acquisition system is used to
record the instantaneous measurements of temperatures, flow rates and solar intensities and to
control the collector inlet fluid temperature through the constant temperature water circulator.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

A number of initial tests have been performed to examine the durability and reliability of the collector
at sever conditions. These tests are static pressure test, high temperature stagnation test, thermal
shock/water spray test and collector time constant test. The tests are performed according to the
certification of operation issued by Florida Solar Energy Center (2001).

The honeycomb slats, which are adopted as convection suppressor devices are packed and installed
at right angles to absorber and glass cover as shown in Figure 2. The honeycomb slat is a triple
wall polycarbonate sheet of 16 mm thickness, 1 m width and 40 mm height and has a solar
transmissivity of about 0.82. The middle wall is 0.14 mm thick whereas outer walls are about 0.8 thick.
Each honeycomb unit incorporates two rows of rectangular honeycomb cells with longitudinal distance
of 8 mm, and transversal distance of 20 mm.

Glass Cover

Lt

Lb

Honeycomb Slats Absorber Plate

Figure 2 Honeycomb arrangements in the collector air gap

The experimental program incorporates testing the performance of the solar collector with and without
honeycomb slats. The experiments are carried out on a 30-tilted collector surface for global solar
radiation between 600 and 1000 W/m2. The water flow rate of all the experiments ranges from 0.01 to
0.017 kg/m2s and the inlet water temperature is changed from around the ambient temperature up to
85C in 5C steps.

The collected data are examined to ensure that it presents quasi steady state conditions according to
the recommendations outlined in (ASHRAE, 1986). Then, the concluded data are divided into test
periods, each of which is 15 minutes (more than double the collector time constant as stated in
(ASHRAE, 1986). The data for each test period are averaged and used in the analysis as a single
point, while other data are rejected. Knowing inlet (T i) and outlet (To) fluid temperatures and the mass
flow rate of water (m), the useful energy (Q u) is given by :

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 3 of

10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

(1)

where cp is the specific heat of water. The instantaneous collector efficiency () which is defined as
the ratio between the useful energy and the total radiation (G) incident on the collector surface area
(Ac) can be expressed in the form:

(2)

The collector efficiency can also be related to inlet fluid temperature in the form:

(3)

Where FR is the heat removal factor, ()av is the average transmittance-absorptance product, UL
overall heat loss coefficient and Ta is the ambient temperature. The uncertainty analysis shows an
experimental error of about 0.8, 1.1 and 3.2% for F RUL, FR(), and the collector efficiency, ,
respectively. The uncertainty analysis, for the experimental data fitted by equation (3), revealed that
the optical efficiency, , is more sensitive to experimental error than heat loss coefficient, U L.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The experimental results include the performance of solar collector without honeycomb and
compound collectors with honeycomb units with different arrangements. The experimental results are
presented in forms of graphs and equations that describe the collector efficiency against a reduced
temperature parameter (Ti–Ta)/G. All the presented data grant a quasi steady state conditions
following the recommendations outlined in (ASHRAE , 1986) for each test period. This is confirmed by
the fact that, within the test period (15 min), the maximum variations in ambient, inlet and outlet
temperatures are 0.5C, 0.2C and 0.2C, respectively, while in global radiation is 20W/m2. Also,
the diffuse radiation did not exceed 15% of the global radiation in any experiment.

4.1 Performance of Solar Collector

The solar collector is tested first for fixed air gap thickness of 60 mm for the operating conditions
stated earlier. The performance of the solar collector provides the base for comparison with the
compound honeycomb collector of different gaps thickness. Figure 3 presents the variations of
collector efficiency versus the reduced temperature parameter (T i–Ta)/G.

The average points of the experimental data are shown in the figure. The scatter of the data is mainly
attributed to the angle of incidence, wind speed and the dependence of UL on plate temperature. Also,
the variations of the proportions of beam, diffuse and ground reflective components of solar radiation
are participating in the data scattering. The collector is usually characterized by the line intercept
FR() and the slope - FRUL. The experimental data are fitted with linear equations to provide
the characteristic parameters of the collector in order to compare it with those of the
compound honeycomb collector. The efficiency is expressed by the following equation with
R2 of 0.973 :

(4)

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 4 of

10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

Comparing the above equation with equation (3) results in F R() = 0.68 and FRUL= 7.78.

Figure 3 Efficiency versus (T i – Ta )/G for solar collector without honeycomb

4.2 Performance of Solar Collector with Rectangular Honeycomb

The tests are performed for stacked honeycomb slats to determine the optimum bottom gap
thickness. Each case is implemented in the solar collector using the honeycomb unit and wooden
spacers, which were used to obtain the required gaps thickness. The inlet fluid temperature is fixed
using cross flow heat exchanger and a constant temperature circulator. The tests are allowed to run
for over 30 minutes (about 5 times the collector time constant) to achieve quasi-steady-state
conditions before collecting the data. Each experiment continued for 90 minutes, after that the inlet
fluid temperature is changed and a new experiment is started until the set of runs is completed for this
arrangement. Then, the collector cover is removed and another case is configured and exercised. It
should be mentioned that the experiments were performed before noon and repeated after noon to
provide similarity around the solar noon. This would minimize the collector heat capacity effect (Duffie
and Beckman, 1991).

The performance of compound honeycomb solar collector was tested for various gap thicknesses.
The thickness of the total air gap is L+ Lt + Lb =60 mm and the honeycomb height is L= 40 mm, thus
the thickness of top and bottom gaps is 20 mm, i.e Lt + Lb =20 mm. To study the effect of gap
thickness on collector performance, the compound honeycomb solar collector was tested for bottom
air gap thickness of 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 mm which corresponds to top gap thickness of 20, 16, 12,
8,4, and 0 mm, respectively. Again the test results for the six tested cases of compound honeycomb
collector showed a scatter in the data. However the scatter in each case is generally lower than that
for solar collector without honeycomb. This is because the tendency of UL to be less dependent on
temperature in cases of honeycomb collectors.

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 5 of

10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

The data were fitted with linear regression and the intercepts and slopes of the linear equations are
presented in Table 1 for the six tested cases. The table reveals that the intercepts F R() vary from
0.59 to 0.61, i.e the transmissivity of compound collector is independent on the position of the
honeycomb in the gap. So, these small variations may be attributed to data scattering or to little
differences in the values of FR between the cases. Also the changes of top and bottom gaps may have
altered radiation shape factor slightly. However, the average value of F R() can be considered as
0.600.01 indicating very small discrepancy in the results. The values of F RUL, listed in Table 1,
changed from 3.82 to 5.22 (about 37%) as the bottom and top gap thickness changes. This indicates
the strong dependence of FRUL on the position of the honeycomb in the air gap.

Table (1) Characteristic parameters of compound

honeycomb collector

Case no. Lb (mm) Lt (mm) FR () FR UL R2

1 0 20 0.60 4.33 0.971
2 4 16 0.61 3.82 0.989
3 8 12 0.60 4.11 0.984
4 12 8 0.59 4.47 0.992
5 16 4 0.61 4.86 0.968
6 20 0 0.59 5.22 0.993

Figure 4 presents the efficiencies of the six tested cases of compound honeycomb against
(Ti–Ta)/G. For the sake of clarity, only the linear regression equations of the test results are presented
in the figure. Since, the variations in F R() are small, the efficiency curves are close at low values of
(Ti–Ta)/G. As this parameter increases the curves diverge because the efficiency becomes more
dependent on FRUL. Thus the curves are ordered according to the values of the heat loss coefficient.
Clearly, case 2 (Lb=4 mm) produces the highest collector performance whereas case 6 (Lb=20mm)
gives the lowest performance. The efficiency of case 2, at reduced temperature parameter of 0.08, is
approximately twice the value for case 6. This indicates the strong effect of gap thickness on the
performance of compound honeycomb collector.

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 6 of

10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

Figure 4 Efficiency versus (T i – Ta )/G for compound honeycomb collector

It is experienced that the values of FRUL are sensitive to changes in FR(). Thus, in order to explore
the effect of FRUL separated from the small variations in FR() a value of FR() = 0.60 is fixed for the
six cases and the resulted FRUL is plotted against gap thickness as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Effect of gap thickness on efficiency for compound

honeycomb collector

As shown from the figure, FRUL decreases as the bottom gap thickness increases from 0 to 4 mm,
then increases up to bottom gap thickness of 20 mm. Obviously, an optimum gap thickness around 4
mm is observed in Figure 5. This can be explained in the light of the heat transfer mechanism in the
compound honeycomb collector. As the bottom gap thickness approaches zero, the conduction from
absorber plate to honeycomb walls increases and consequently radiation from the relatively warm
honeycomb walls becomes significant. This results in increase in FRUL compared to that occurred at
the optimum gap thickness.

On the other hand, if the bottom gap is increased beyond the optimum thickness, convection from
absorber to honeycomb walls increases causing radiation from honeycomb to increase. Thus, the
optimum gap thickness must be attempted in order to attain a significant reduction in heat loss
coefficient to achieve the proper design using honeycomb material. As predicted, the value of FRUL
can be reduced by about 51% compared to solar collector without honeycomb. This shows the
significant improvement accomplished when using compound honeycomb with proper configuration.

4.3 Comparison between Solar and Compound Honeycomb Collectors

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 7 of

10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

In order to conclude the effect of honeycomb units on the collector performance, the arrangement that
produced the best performance using honeycomb is compared with reference to the solar collector
without honeycomb. Figure 6 shows the efficiency variations with reduced temperature parameter for
the two stated cases.

Figure 6 Comparison between the performance of solar collector

with and without honeycomb

The solar collector without honeycomb has a higher FR() than the compound collector. The
compound honeycomb collector reduces FR() by about 12%. On the other hand, the reductions in
the heat loss coefficient for collector using honeycomb slats is about 51% compared to collector
without honeycomb. The honeycomb acts to reduce both heat loss coefficient (UL) and the optical
efficiency (). The combined effect of these two factors changes the intercept and slope of the
efficiency curves. The effect of optical efficiency is dominant at low temperature difference whereas
the effect of heat loss is important at high temperature difference.

Thus, the efficiency of compound honeycomb collector is better than that without honeycomb
particularly at medium and high temperatures. On the other hand, the collector without honeycomb
gives better efficiency for limited low temperature range. Figure 6 shows an intersection between the
efficiency curves for the collector without honeycomb and the collector with honeycomb units at
reduced temperature value of about 0.02. This proves that good design of compound honeycomb
collector has obvious enhancement over that without honeycomb in the practical temperature range.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Based on experimental results obtained from the present study, the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. The use of honeycombs in solar collectors has the benefit of reducing the heat loss and also the
penalty of decreasing the optical efficiency.
2. The effect of gap thickness on F RUL is considerable for collectors with honeycomb units. Variations
in FRUL from 3.8 to 5.2 W/m2K (37%) are reported for different bottom gaps thickness.
Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 8 of
10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

3. An optimum bottom gap thickness of 4 mm is achieved for a collector with honeycomb units. It
produces the lowest heat loss coefficient and consequently the highest efficiency.
4. A bottom gap thickness of 4 mm can reduce the heat loss, F RUL, by about 51% while reducing the
optical efficiency, FR (), by only about 12%. This indicates the significant improvement which can be
accomplished for collectors using honeycomb with proper design and placement of the honeycomb.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was financially supported by the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences under
project no. (02-10-99).

REFERENCES
Abou-Ziyan H.Z. and Richards R.F. (1997). Effect of gap thickness on a rectangular –cell compound-
honeycomb solar collector. Solar Energy. 60 (5), 271-280.
Arnold J.N., Catton I. and Edwards D.K. (1976) Experimental investigation of natural convection in
inclined rectangular regions of different aspect ratio. J. Heat Transfer. 98, 67-71.
Arulanantham M. and Kaushika N.D. (1996). Coupled radiative and conductive thermal transfers
across transparent honeycomb insulation materials. Applied Thermal Engineering. 16 (3), 209-217.
ASHRAE, ASHRAE Standard 93-86.(1986). Methods of Testing to Determine the Thermal
Performance of Solar Collectors. Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1986.
Buchberg.H., Edwards D.K. and Lalude O.A. (1968). Design considerations for cellular solar
collectors. AMSE paper No. 68-WA/Sol-3.
Cane R.L.D, Hollands K.G.T., Raithby G.D. and Unny T.E. (1971). Free convection heat transfer
across inclined honeycomb panels. J. Heat Transfer. 99, 86-91.
Duffie J.A, and Beckman W.A. (1991). Solar Engineering of Thermal Process. Wiley Interscience,
New York.
Edwards D.K., Arnold J.N. and Catton I. (1976). End-clearance effects on rectangular-honeycomb
solar collectors. Solar Energy. 18, 253-257.
Florida Solar Energy Center. (2001). Operation of the Collector Certification Program. FSEC-GP-6-
80, Cocoa, Florida 32922-5703.
Francia G.A. (1961). A new collector of solar radiant energy-theory and experimental verification.
United Nations Conference on New Sources of Energy, Rome, Italy.
Hollands K.G.T., (1973). Natural convection in horizontal thin-walled honeycomb panels. J. Heat
Transfer. 95, 439-444.
Hollands K.G.T., Raithby G.D., Russell F.B. and Wilkinson R.G. (1979). Methods for reducing heat
losses from flat plate solar collectors. Report No. COO-2597-5, University of Waterloo.
Hollands K.G.T. and Iynkaran K. (1993). Analytical model for the thermal conductance of compound
honeycomb transparent insulation, with experimental validation. Solar Energy. 51 (3), 223-227.
Kaushika N.D. and Arulanantham M. (1996). Transmittance-absorptance product of solar glazing with
transparent insulation materials. Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells. 44, 383-395.
Lalude O.A. and Buchberg.H. (1971). Design of honeycomb porous bed solar air heaters. Solar
Energy. 13, 223-242.
Marcus S.L. (1983). An approximate method for calculating the heat flux through a solar collector
honeycomb. Solar Energy. 30 (2), 127-131.
Nahar N.M. (2001). Design, Development and testing of a double reflector hot box solar cooker with a
transparent insulation material. Renewable Energy. 23, 167-179.
Platzer W.J. (1992). Directional-hemispherical solar transmittance data for plastic honeycomb-type.
Solar Energy. 49 (5), 359-369.
Rommel M. and Wagner A. (1992). Application of transparent insulation materials in improved flat
plate collectors and integrated collector storages. Solar Energy. 49 (5), 371-380.
Reddy K.S. and Kaushika N.D. (1999). Comparative study of transparent insulation materials cover
systems for integrated collector storage solar water heaters. Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells.
58, 431-446.
Symons J.G. (1984). Calculation of the transmittance-absorptance product for flat plate collector with
convection suppression device. Solar Energy. 33, 637.

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 9 of

10
Thermal Perf. of FPC Equipped w. Rec. HC Abdullah

Destination Renewables – ANZSES 2003 10 of

10