How to install 3 seperate 300 gallon water storage tanks

[PassionForFire&Water]

Dear All,
I need some advise.
A client of mine has 3 x 300 gallons storage tanks available.
I can NOT stack them onto each other, what would give better stratification. Even not 2 of them.
What is the best way to to connect them when they are sitting just next to each other?
Cross ? or bottom/bottom top/top?
My first taught is cross connection: top of 1st tank with bottom of 2nd tank, top of 2nd tank with bottom of 3rd tank.
Load would tap into the top of the 3rd tank, and return into bottom of 3rd tank.
Wood boiler Return would come from bottom 3rd tank
wood boiler supply would go to the 1st tank top

 

[Donl]

Dear All,
I need some advise.
A client of mine has 3 x 300 gallons storage tanks available.
I can NOT stack them onto each other, what would give better stratification. Even not 2 of them.
What is the best way to to connect them when they are sitting just next to each other?
Cross ? or bottom/bottom top/top?
My first taught is cross connection: top of 1st tank with bottom of 2nd tank, top of 2nd tank with bottom of 3rd tank.
Load would tap into the top of the 3rd tank, and return into bottom of 3rd tank.
Wood boiler Return would come from bottom 3rd tank
wood boiler supply would go to the 1st tank top

sounds good. just reverse the flow when drawing off heat.

 

[ewdudley]

Dear All,
I need some advise.
A client of mine has 3 x 300 gallons storage tanks available.
I can NOT stack them onto each other, what would give better stratification. Even not 2 of them.
What is the best way to to connect them when they are sitting just next to each other?
Cross ? or bottom/bottom top/top?
My first taught is cross connection: top of 1st tank with bottom of 2nd tank, top of 2nd tank with bottom of 3rd tank.
Load would tap into the top of the 3rd tank, and return into bottom of [del]3rd [/del] 1st ?? tank.
Wood boiler Return would come from bottom 3rd tank
wood boiler supply would go to the 1st tank top

For all the difference it would make either in series as you describe, or parallel top/top/top bottom/bottom/bottom with reverse-return piping, whichever is easiest to plumb.

Parallel would give gentler flow and less turbulence.

Series gives you convenient points to connect for multi-temperature supplies (e.g., wood and solar) with diverter valves, and multi-temperature loads (e.g., baseboard and radiant) with mixer valves.

Ideally the ports would be horizontally oriented.

--ewd

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Dear All,
I need some advise.
A client of mine has 3 x 300 gallons storage tanks available.
I can NOT stack them onto each other, what would give better stratification. Even not 2 of them.
What is the best way to to connect them when they are sitting just next to each other?
Cross ? or bottom/bottom top/top?
My first taught is cross connection: top of 1st tank with bottom of 2nd tank, top of 2nd tank with bottom of 3rd tank.
Load would tap into the top of the 3rd tank, and return into bottom of 3rd tank.
Wood boiler Return would come from bottom 3rd tank
wood boiler supply would go to the 1st tank top

sounds good. just reverse the flow when drawing off heat.

So drawing heat at the top of the 1st tank instead of the 3rd.
Because the hotest water will be at 1st tank top

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Dear All,
I need some advise.
A client of mine has 3 x 300 gallons storage tanks available.
I can NOT stack them onto each other, what would give better stratification. Even not 2 of them.
What is the best way to to connect them when they are sitting just next to each other?
Cross ? or bottom/bottom top/top?
My first taught is cross connection: top of 1st tank with bottom of 2nd tank, top of 2nd tank with bottom of 3rd tank.
Load would tap into the top of the 3rd tank, and return into bottom of [del]3rd [/del] 1st ?? tank.
Wood boiler Return would come from bottom 3rd tank
wood boiler supply would go to the 1st tank top

For all the difference it would make either in series as you describe, or parallel top/top/top bottom/bottom/bottom with reverse-return piping, whichever is easiest to plumb.

Parallel would give gentler flow and less turbulence.

Series gives you convenient points to connect for multi-temperature supplies (e.g., wood and solar) with diverter valves, and multi-temperature loads (e.g., baseboard and radiant) with mixer valves.

Ideally the ports would be horizontally oriented.

--ewd

It will be only aluminum radiators.
So, in paralell would give more gentle stratification while charging the tanks

 

[ewdudley]

So, in paralell would give more gentle stratification while charging the tanks

Yes, but in series 'compartmentalizes' the hottest water from the coolest water. It's not clear at all to me what would be best, just thinking out loud. [Edit: Vertical T/T/T B/B/B seems obviously better, but flat side-by-side, I don't know, except to say you probably can't go too far wrong either way.]

As far as series load/supply piping, if it goes B1, T1-B2, T2-B3, T3, then boiler pulls from B1 and supplies to T3, and load pulls from T3 and returns to B1. Tank 3 is the hottest tank and tank 1 is the coolest.

--ewd

 

[Clarkbug]

My system is going to utilize three 220 gallon tanks stood vertically, and Im plumbing the top-top-top and bottom-bottom-bottom with a reverse return configuration as EW mentioned.

I had thought about the bottom to top setup, but I wanted to be able to have the tanks stratify evenly, and my emitters are all baseboard.

 

[Donl]

My system is going to utilize three 220 gallon tanks stood vertically, and Im plumbing the top-top-top and bottom-bottom-bottom with a reverse return configuration as EW mentioned.

I had thought about the bottom to top setup, but I wanted to be able to have the tanks stratify evenly, and my emitters are all baseboard.

This is also a good method. The only thing is, it is more difficult to obtain even flow through all the tanks. Plan plumbing strategy with that in mind.

 

[stee6043]

There has been much debate on this forum regarding the pro's and con's of series vs. parallel storage plumbing.

Back when I installed my setup I could not convince myself that I could effectively regulate flow rates both into and out of two tanks separately to make sure they were both being fully utilized. As such series plumbing made the most sense. Full flow to both tanks. Mixing can be managed with creative dip-tube designs to maintain good stratification. Your mileage may vary, however.

 

[ewdudley]

Back when I installed my setup I could not convince myself that I could effectively regulate flow rates both into and out of two tanks separately to make sure they were both being fully utilized. As such series plumbing made the most sense. .

Problem solved with standard practice, reverse return piping:

http://smartgreenbuild.com/blog/download/594/

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

Back when I installed my setup I could not convince myself that I could effectively regulate flow rates both into and out of two tanks separately to make sure they were both being fully utilized. As such series plumbing made the most sense. .

Problem solved with standard practice, reverse return piping:

http://smartgreenbuild.com/blog/download/594/

I agree. So problem solved: reverse return piping to charge the 3 tanks equaly.

So if we do this on the boiler side, logically we need to do the same reverse piping on the load side. Correct?

 

[ewdudley]

: reverse return piping to charge the 3 tanks equally.

So if we do this on the boiler side, logically we need to do the same reverse piping on the load side. Correct?

The only trick is to be sure that when load pulls from the tanks, there will be no parallel flow of cool water through the boiler when it is offline.

I think both of these would work correctly (assuming both the load/boiler tees are close enough to the tanks in the first schematic):

load  ---------------------|    
                           |  
boiler --------------------|---|----|----|
                               T    T    T
                               |----|----|----|--------------------boiler
                                              |
                                              |--------------------load


              
boiler ----|----|----|----load
           T    T    T
   load----|----|----|----boiler

 

[PassionForFire&Water]

: reverse return piping to charge the 3 tanks equally.

So if we do this on the boiler side, logically we need to do the same reverse piping on the load side. Correct?

The only trick is to be sure that when load pulls from the tanks, there will be no parallel flow of cool water through the boiler when it is offline.

I think both of these would work correctly:

load -----| 
| 
boiler ----|---|----|----|
T T T
|----|----|----|----boiler
|
|----load



boiler ----|----|----|----load
T T T
load----|----|----|----boiler

I like both your schematics. Saves on material.
I'm more leaning towards doubling up all the pipe work to avoid the flow trough the boiler when offline.
It is definitely more pipe work but no controls

Keep load and boiler side physically separated, but maybe to conservative