Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

A novel parabolic trough solar collector model – Validation

with experimental data and comparison to Engineering Equation
Solver (EES)
Omar Behar a,⇑, Abdallah Khellaf b, Kamal Mohammedi a
a
L.E.M.I. Laboratory, University of M’Hammed Bougara, UMBB, Boumerdes, Algeria
b
Centre de Développement des Energies Renouvelables, CDER, Bouzareah, Algeria

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

Article history: In the present work, a novel parabolic trough solar collector model has been developed and validated. The
Received 5 July 2015 validation has been carried out through a comparison with results of previous studies conducted in the
Accepted 16 September 2015 worldwide most renowned laboratories, i.e., Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) and National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NERL). The comparison with experimental data collected by SNL, during LS-2 tests
at AZTRAK platform, has shown good agreement, particularly for the case of receivers with Cermet coat-
Keywords: ing. When compared with the Engineering Equation Solver (EES) code developed by NREL, the novel
Concentrating solar power
model offers improvements in the accuracy of thermal performance prediction. It has been found that
Parabolic trough collector
Parabolic trough model
the proposed model in the present study predicts more accurately the thermal efficiency than EES; with
Analytical model an average uncertainty of 0.64% compared to 1.11% for ESS, in the case of Cermet coating. Nevertheless,
Validation minor inaccuracy in the estimation of heat losses at higher operation temperatures has been found due to
the error propagation in the model. The present work also includes a survey of the design and manufac-
turing processes of the parabolic trough collector that are of a particular interest for developing this
promising technology.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Among all Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies avail-
able up to now, the parabolic trough is the most promising and
mature solution for power generation. Typical parabolic trough
solar thermal power plant consists of two main components, i.e.,
a solar field and a power conversion system. The solar field is made
up of a number of parallel rows of several collectors connected in
series. The Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC), which is the key ele-
ment in the field, is a linear imagining concentrator with interme-
diate concentration ratio. It consists of parabolic trough shaped
mirrors, heat receivers, support structure and tracking mechanism.
The literature survey has pointed out that there are intensive R&D
activities on the PTCs, mainly in China, USA, Spain and Germany.
Many of these activities have concentrated on experimental work
aimed at testing the mechanical and thermal performance of the
PTC. Dudley et al. [1] have tested LS-2 PTC to examine the collector
efficiency and the thermal losses. Burkholder and Kutscher [2,3]
have carried out a series of tests to evaluate the heat losses of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +213 555 82 71 29.
E-mail address: beharomar@yahoo.fr (O. Behar).
Schott’s 2008 PTR70 and Solel’s UVAC3 parabolic trough receivers.
They have then developed a correlation to estimate the heat losses
as function of absorber temperature. Reddy et al. [4] have tested
the performance of a PTC with porous disc enhanced receiver
according to ASHRAE 93-1986 test procedure. They have examined
four types of porous disc receivers in terms of time constant, col-
lector acceptance angle, efficiency, and heat losses. The authors
have found that the use porous disc receiver can improve the effi-
ciency of the parabolic trough collector and reduce the angular
thermal gradient in the receiver. Valenzuela et al. [5] have devel-
oped a new outdoor test method to evaluate the optical and ther-
mal performance of PTC of large size. The test method has been
applied to measure the performance of the UrssaTrough collector
installed at the Plataforma Solar de Almería (PSA). The thermal per-
formance including peak optical efficiency, incidence angle modi-
fier and heat loss have been measured during a test at the PSA.
The validity of the method has been successively checked against
design values and indoor results. Li et al. [6] have proposed meth-
ods to reduce or compensate the end loss effect by extending heat
absorber tube setting a fan-shaped end plane mirror at one end of
PTC. They have also conducted experiments to verify the feasibility
of these methods. The optical analyses have shown that the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.09.045
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281 269

Nomenclature

A area [m2] hz solar zenith angle [°]

Cc concentration ratio [–] k mean-free-path between collisions of a molecule [m]
D diameter [m] n(h) geometrical end losses [%]
DNI Direct Normal Irradiance [W/m2] r Stefan–Boltzmann constant [W/m2 K4]
f focal distance [m] q reflectance [–]
fD friction coefficient [–] uR rim angle [°]
h heat transfer coefficient [W/m2 K] s transmittance [–]
l length [m] x hour angle [°]
k thermal conductivity [W/m K]
K (h) incidence angle modifier [%] Subscripts
NuD Nusselt number based on the diameter D [–] abs absorber
Nuf,/ fully developed Nusselt number in turbulent flow [–] amb ambient
P perimeter [m] ap collector aperture
Pr Prandtl number [–] col collector
Q heat flux per unit of length [W/m] cov cover
RaD Rayleigh number [–] h hydraulic
Re Reynolds number [–] i inner
w width [m] o outer
Z distance [m] R resistance, ray
T temperature
Greek symbols
a absorbance [–] Abbreviation
a0 dispersion angle [°] CSP Concentrating Solar Power
ac accommodation coefficient [–] DNI Direct Normal Irradiance
b slop angle of the collector [°] EES Engineering Equation Solver
bc interaction coefficient [–] HCE Heat Collector Element
c intercept factor [–] HTF Heat Transfer Fluid
d declination angle of the earth [°] LS-2 Luz System 2nd Gen.
e emittance [–] LSSVM Least Squares Support Vector Machine
g0 peak optical efficiency [%] NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
h angle of incidence [°] PTC Parabolic Trough Collector
hs half-angle subtended by the sun [°] SNL Sandia National Laboratory
hx half acceptance angle [°]

reduction or compensation methods are capable to improve optical
efficiency of PTC. Macedo-Valencia et al. [7] have designed, con-
structed and evaluated a PTC for heating water. The design has
been based on computer-aided design and manufacturing. During
the tests, it has been recorded a maximum water maximum outlet
temperature of 47.3 °C for a direct solar radiation of 783 W/m2 at a
flow rate of 0.200 L/min. Montes et al. [8] have proposed a new
manufacturing technique by means of a control system and data
acquisition based on a Programmable Logic Controller. The method
is capable to reduce manufacturing costs, logistics times and labor
for PTCs. Ceylan and Ergun [9] have experimentally analyzed the
thermal performance of a new design of temperature controlled
PTC. They have examined the energy and exergy efficiencies at a
temperature range extending from 40 °C to 100 °C. These authors
have found that the higher the operation temperature the higher
the energy efficiency, while the optimum exergy efficiency is
obtained at 70 °C. Kumaresan et al. [10] have experimentally inves-
tigated a PTC with a storage unit. They have evaluated the useful
heat gain, thermal efficiency of the system. It has been found that
minimizing the heat loss is the most suitable solution for perfor-
mance improvement and therefore, they proposed the storage unit
to be located very close to the PTC while the other components are
insulated.
It is obvious that experimental studies are the most accurate
method to evaluated and improve the performance of PTC. How-
ever, this method is not only needs important investments but also
it is a time consuming since it requires long periods (from one
month to more than a year depending of the system complexity
and technical issues). In order to reduce the R&D costs and save
time, the PTC is usually modeled.
Given the importance of the modeling of PTC, many scholars
have developed numerical models to predict their thermal perfor-
mance. Thomas and Thomas [11] have developed a numerical
model to estimate the thermal losses in the receiver of a PTC. They
have then established a set of curve-fitting equations based on the
heat losses in the receiver for different geometries, radiative prop-
erties and meteorological conditions. Xu et al. [12] have developed
a dynamic test model of the transient thermal performance of PTC.
The model includes the effect of the incident angle on the overall
collector performance of a long row of PTCs. The simulation results
including the HTF outlet temperature, useful energy gain and ther-
mal efficiency have shown good agreement with measured results
on both clear and cloudy days. Xu et al. [13] have made a compar-
ative study between three thermal performance test methods, i.e.,
the dynamic method developed by Xu et al. [12], the ASHRAE 93
steady-state method and the EN 12975-2 quasi-dynamic method.
The mathematical regression analysis on the three test models
have revealed that ASHRAE 93 provides the large uncertainty, par-
ticularly in the cases with the heat loss while the quasi-dynamic
method EN 12975-2 induces erroneous projections due to the lack
of the detailed optical modeling. The comparison has also shown
that the dynamic model is the most accurate since it has no more
than ±2% deviations of the collector thermal efficiency from the
measured data at the transient working conditions. Padilla [14]
has developed a one dimensional solar receiver model with special
care to the thermal interaction between the neighboring surfaces
270 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281
(absorber–envelope, and envelope–envelope). The model has
proved higher accuracy when compared to experimental data from
SNL as well as to other theoretical studies. Liang et al. [15] have
reviewed and compared different one dimensional PTC models
on the basis of the experimental data from SNL. They found large
difference in the accuracy between the models. An important find-
ing in the study is that the dimensional models are more accurate
than three dimensional model due to several assumptions for this
latter. Conrado et al. [16] have developed a three-dimensional
mathematical model to analysis the dynamic performance of a
PTC with a water displacement mechanism. The water displace-
ment mechanism has been used to guide and position the collector
perpendicular to the sun rays. The theoretical and experimental
evaluations have shown good agreement for both small and large
PTCs. García-Valladares and Velásquez [17] have proposed a dou-
ble pass receiver to improve the efficiency of the PTC. When com-
pared with single pass receiver, the proposed configuration has
shown higher performance. Price et al. [18] have analyzed the
effect of receiver vacuum on the thermal losses and receiver glass
temperature. They have found that the use of IR camera to measure
the glass temperature provides precise information about thermal
losses from the receiver so that it can be applied to detect the dete-
riorated heat collector elements such as those lost vacuum. Zaver-
sky et al. [19] have developed a transient and object-oriented
Modelica-based parabolic trough collector model. The proposed
model is based on the one-dimensional fluid flow modeling
approach of the Modelica standard library. The authors have suc-
cessfully validated the model with measurement data obtained
at the SOLTERM facility. Yılmaz and Söylemez [20] have presented
a comprehensive thermo-mathematical model for PTC on the basis
of differential and non-linear algebraic correlations. The solutions
for the differential equations have been integrated into EES and
solved simultaneously with the all model equations. The developed
model was compared to the experimental data of SNL with good
agreement. Liu et al. [21] have used the Least Squares Support Vec-
tor Machine (LSSVM) method to model and optimize the PTC. The
LSSVM method is based on the data derived from experimental and
simulation results. They have compared the method predictions to
experimental data from SNL as well as to the results obtained dur-
ing the tests of two solar fields with 30 m2 and 600 m2 respec-
tively. Good agreement between the LSSVM method and the
experiments has been observed. Cheng et al. [22] have developed
an optical model for PTC based on the Monte Carlo ray-tracing
(MCRT) method. The numerical model has been successively vali-
dated, and a sensitivity analysis for different PTCs under different
operating conditions was carried out. Again, Cheng et al. [23] have
coupled MCRT method and the particle swarm optimization (PSO)
algorithm to optimize the optical performance of PTC. The opti-
mization has been carried out for an existing PTC with known opti-
mal optical performance and the results were agree well with the
reference data [24], proving that the PSO–MCRT method is feasible
for geometric optimization of PTC. Wang et al. [25] have coupled
the MCRT method and the finite element method (FEM) to solve
the complex problem coupled with fluid flow, heat transfer and
thermal stress in a PTC. The simulation results have shown that
the circumferential temperature difference of the absorber
decreases with the increase of inlet temperature and velocity of
the heat transfer fluid and increases with the increment of the
direct normal irradiance. Cheng et al. [26] have developed a
three-dimensional numerical model by combining the MCRT
Method and the FLUENT software. They have conducted three typ-
ical testing conditions to validate the model and simulation results
were shown good agreement with experiments. Hachicha et al.
[27] have proposed a numerical model based on the finite volume
method (FVM) and MCRT method. The model has been compared
with recognized analytical solutions, and the performance of the
overall model was tested with the experimental measurements
of SNL and other un-irradiated receiver results showing some
discrepancies.
The above numerical models have been published recently with
the aim of better understanding of the PTC performance. Neverthe-
less, it is revealed that the numerical methods require huge com-
putation time. According to recent studies the time-consuming
computational process is an important issue for modeling and
thermal performance analysis of the PTC. It has been reported that
some numerical methods may take several weeks or months to
complete the optimization process such as those based on CFD
models with the genetic algorithm (GA) or the particle swarm opti-
mization (PSO).
For these reasons, the analytical models of the PTC has received
increasing attention day than day since they are quick, simple and
more accurate compared with numerical methods. Cheng et al.
[28] have developed a one dimensional nonuniform thermal model
that takes into account the nonuniform solar flux and the corre-
sponding nonuniform temperature distributions in the receiver.
To do so, they have dividing the entire receiver into two linear
halves and two inactive ends with different solar radiation and
heat transfer modes. The model is then validated with data of
the LS-2 collector tested at the SNL. Huang et al. [29] have pro-
posed an analytical model to calculate the optical efficiency of
PTC. The model uses the effective light distribution from reflected
point to predict the optical efficiency of each point at mirror. Behar
et al. [30] have analyzed the effect of tracking mode on the perfor-
mance of PTC including thermal efficiency and energy collection.
They have confirmed that the east–west and north–south tracking
modes are the most suitable for PTC. Ratzel et al. [31] have focused
on the heat losses through the annular space of the receiver. They
have analytically and numerically investigated the conduction and
convection heat transfer modes and then suggested three options
to reduce energy losses. These energy loss reduction could be
obtained through the use of low thermal conductivity glass or
though evacuation and oversizing the annular space between the
absorber tube and the envelope. Edenburn [32] has developed an
analytical heat transfer model to estimate the overall efficiency
of a PTC with evacuated and non-evacuated absorber tubes. The
results have shown good agreement when compared to measured
data of Sandia National Laboratories collector test facility. Kalo-
girou [33] has developed a detailed thermal model of a PTC using
the Engineering Equation Solver. Forristall [34] has described in
details the modeling, thermal performance and validation of the
linear receiver model implemented in Engineering Equation Solver.
The analysis of the review has shown that there is limited work
on the use of analytical method to model and optimize the thermal
performance of the PTC. Furthermore, most the developed models
were not well validated. The validation methodologies had mainly
considered few cases of thermal efficiency or heat loss estimations
with a particular interest to the PTC with Cermet coating. There-
fore, the present study has proposed a novel analytical model for
the parabolic trough collector. For validation purpose, the predic-
tions from the model have been compared with data from the
worldwide most renowned laboratories, i.e., SNL and NREL. From
Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), the experimental data collected
during LS-2 collector tests have been used. Both Cermet and Black
Chrome coatings have been considered in the validation. To high-
light the potential of the model, we have compared the simulation
results with those predicted by the Engineering Equation Solver
(EES) that has been developed by National Renewable Energy Lab-
oratory (NREL). It is worthy to note that the design and manufac-
turing processes of PTC are particularly highlighted to provide an
overview of this promising solar power technology.
 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281
Fig. 1. Basic design parameters of parabolic trough concentrator.
2. Design and manufacturing
2.1. Design
A Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC), like the one represented in
Fig. 1, is a linear imagining concentrator with intermediate concen-
tration ratio. It is basically made up of parabolic trough shaped
reflector that focuses direct solar radiation into a receiver tube
located at the focal line of the parabola. The three major parame-
ters on the design of such a collector are the geometric concentra-
tion ratio, the acceptance angle, and the rim angle.
Among the three parameters, the concentration ratio is the
most important. It represents the fraction of the collector aperture
area to the area of the receiver. Based on the second law of thermo-
dynamics applied to energy exchange between the sun and the
receiver, the maximum possible concentration ratio of parabolic
trough collector is in the order of 212 [35].
1 glass, to decrease mirrors absorptivity. This process takes about
Cc ¼ ¼ 212
sin hs
where hs is the half-angle subtended by the sun; hs = 0.27°.
The second parameter is the acceptance angle that is the angu-
lar range over which all direct solar rays that are reflected by the
collector reaches the absorber tube without moving any part of
the collector.
As shown in Eq. (2), the half acceptance angle is a function of
the absorber outer diameter (Dabso), the position (y) and the focal
distance (fPTC).
Dabso
sin hx ¼

2 glass sheets, it is cleaned using dematerialized water. It is then
2f PTC 1 þ ðy=2f PTC Þ
The Rim angle is also of a particular interest for designing the
parabolic trough concentrator. It is linked to the arc length, focal
distance (fPTC) and aperture width (Aap) of the collector [35]
through the following relation:
ðf PTC =Aap Þ
tan uR ¼ 8 2
: ð3Þ
½16ðf PTC =Aap Þ  1
The optimal rim angle is between 70° and 110°. Knowing the
rim angle and the concentration ratio, the half angle acceptance
could be estimated using the following relation:
sin uR
sin hx ¼
p  Cc
271
Theoretical studies have indicated that the minimum practical
acceptance angle is 0.53° [35]. This value corresponds to the aver-
age solid angle at which the sun sphere is seen from the earth.
When the collector is designed with rim angle smaller than
0.53°, a fraction of direct solar irradiation will not reach the recei-
ver. The acceptance angles for recent PTCs available in the market
are between 1° and 2° [35]. A PTC with smaller rim angle (less than
1°) requires very accurate sun-tracking system and this signifi-
cantly increases the manufacturing cost. On the other hand, higher
angle reduces the concentration ratio and requires frequent updat-
ing of the collector position [35].
Eq. (5) gives the minimum absorber outer diameter that inter-
cepts all the reflected direct radiation [35].
0
sinð0:267 þ a2 Þ
Dabso ¼ Aap ð5Þ
sin uR
where a0 is the dispersion angle.
2.2. Manufacturing
As shown in Fig. 2, the parabolic trough collector consists of
reflectors (mirrors), heat receivers, support structure and tracking
mechanism that includes the drive, sensors, and controls. The
parabolic-shaped mirrors are constructed by forming a sheet of
reflective material that concentrates direct solar component onto
a receiver located at the local line [36]. As illustrated in Fig. 3,
the receiver consists of a metal absorber tube surrounded by an
evacuated glass cover to minimize heat losses to the ambient.
The support structure is made of steel or aluminum capable of
insuring structural stability against wind loads, and thus guaran-
tees accurate alignment of the mirrors over the whole length of
the collector, which can reach up to 150 m. The following section
describes in details the fabrication process of each part of the PTC.
2.2.1. Mirror
The fabrication of parabolic mirrors is a costly process. The
green glass is first transformed into low iron glass, known as solar
ð1Þ two weeks [36]. After that it is bent into parabolic shape and tem-
pered for security purpose. There are two techniques for bending
solar glass, i.e., the sag bending process and the quench bending
process. In the former, the glass sheet is heated up to 650 °C and
then placed into a precise forming bed to obtain parabolic form.
In quench bending process, that usually induces internal mechan-
ical stress, the glass tempering is heated up to 700 °C then shock-
cooled.
Next, the mirror is coated into in-line process to enhance its
reflectivity. The in-line process consists of cleaning, silvering,
deposit with protective cooper and lacquers. After bending the
ð2Þ
coated by a reflective silver layer, which is achieved through a
spraying process. A protective copper layer is set on the reflective
coating and the glass is coated with special lacquers to resist the
harsh climates [35,36]. The process of mirror fabrication is illus-
trated in Fig. 4.
It is worthy to note that some alternative materials such as alu-
minum and polymer have been successively applied as reflectors
but they are still not enough competitive in term of
performance-cost compared with glass [37].
2.2.2. Receiver
As shown in Fig. 3, the receiver tube is composed of an inner
ð4Þ steel pipe surrounded by an evacuated borosilicate glass tube. To
improve glass tube transmittance an anti-reflective coating layer
272 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281

Mirror Absorber

Simple steel frame

Fig. 2. Design-concept of ET-like parabolic trough collector.

Evacuating opening Absorber tube Hydrogen getter

Glass-metal joint Glass cover Extension bellows

Fig. 3. Heat collector element of the PTC.

1 2 3 4 5
Green White Bending and Slivering Protective Gluing ceramic
glass glass tempering Coating pads

(1) Transformation to reduce iron dioxide. (2) Sag bending or quench bending process.
(3) Spraying process, (4) lacquers, (5) Gluing

Fig. 4. Manufacturing process of PTC mirrors.

is deposit on both inner and outer surface; minimizing then the
reflection losses to about 4% [37].
The absorber is coated with three different layers to increase
absorptivity and reduce heat losses in the infrared range. The inner
layer is a metal with low thermal emissivity capable of minimizing
heat loss by infrared radiation. The second layer consists of a mix-
ture of ceramics and metal, called Cermet, which enhances the
absorption of solar radiation. The third layer is an anti-reflective
coating to maximize the optical performance of the absorber [36].
The annular space between the absorber and the glass tube is
evacuated to achieve higher thermal efficiency and better perfor-
mance at higher operating temperatures. The glass tube is attached
to the steel pipe by flexible metal differential expansion joints [35].
An advanced glass-to-metal welding technique is applied to
connect the glass tube to the bellows [35,36]. The slight difference
between the thermal expansion of the glass and that of the bellows
induces a weak point in the receiver [35]. To solve this issue and
avoid high thermal and mechanical stress that can cause glass
leakage and welding damage, a special glass with expansion prop-
erties similar to that of steel is used; moreover an aluminum shield
is usually placed over the joint to protect the welds [35,36]. Fig. 5
summarizes the manufacturing phases of the receiver, known as,
Heat Collector Element (HCE).
There is a critical hurdle consists in the decomposition of Heat
Transfer Fluid (HTF) at high temperature. This phenomenon pro-
duces hydrogen that is capable of diffusing through the steel absor-
ber to the evacuated annular space. As hydrogen has higher
thermal conductivity, this results in an increase in heat loss. To
keep vacuum, various chemical getters are placed in the gap
between the steel receiver pipe and the glass cover in order to
absorb gas molecules that diffuse through the steel pipe wall to
the annulus [35]. These getters are capable of trapping hydrogen
molecules inside and keep them permanently. This concept
induces additional shading, for this reason latest innovation by
Schott Company integrates the getters into the expansion joint
[36].
Due to the complex techniques applied in the fabrication pro-
cess of the receiver, only two manufacturers are available in the
market, i.e., the Schott Company and SOLEL which is owned by Sie-
mens Corp. [37].
Up to now, the receiver length is less than 6 m due to technical
limitations. For these reasons the parabolic trough collector is
made up of a number of single receiver pipes connected in series
up to the total length that is usually between 25 m and 150 m [35].
2.2.3. Structure
The parabolic trough mirrors are supported by a metallic struc-
ture and fixed using four mounting pads that are glued on the back.
Nowadays, there are various commercial PTC of different mounting
techniques and fewer parts for faster production assemblies. The
well-known designs are illustrated in Table 1. Most of these collec-
tors use steel however PTCs with aluminum structure are already
entering the market.
 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281 273

Borosilicate Anti-reflective
glass tube coating 1

Expansion Glass- bellows

bellows Welding

Stainless steel Three different

tube coating layers
(1) Glass tube is attached to the steel pipe by a flexible expansion bellows

Fig. 5. Process of absorber manufacturing.

Table 1 system, electric motor-gearbox and a local control unit [35]. To

Different design for PTC [38,39]. reduce costs, one tracking unit is applied for numerous trough
Manufacturer/collector Material Structure Installation site modules assembled in series as single collector. In order to mini-
design mize energy needs for tracking system, the axis of rotation and
Luz/LS-2 Galvanized steel Torque- SEGS I–VII, the center of gravity are closed to the swivel points [37].
tube California, USA The local control units can be classified into two groups [35]:
Luz/LS-3 Galvanized steel Bridge SEGS VIII–IX,
truss California, USA
– The first group based on photocells sensors such as shadow
Skal-ET/ET150 Steel Torque Andasol-1,
box Guadix, Spain band (placed on the concentrator) and flux line trackers (placed
Acciona/SGX-1 Extruded aluminum Space Nevada Solar on the absorber).
frame One, USA – The second group based on astronomical algorithms; find the
Acciona/SGX-2 Aluminum or steel strut Space Nevada Solar
sun elevation and azimuth and calculate the angular motion
frame One, USA
Sener/Senerthrough Steel structure with Torque Andasol-1
using electronic devices like angular encoders and magnetic
stamped cantilever arms tube (Demo. loop) coded tapes.
SkyFuel/SkyTrough Aluminum Space SEGS II (Demo.
frame Loop) The single axis tracking systems are usually employed to rotate
a PTC because they are more cost-effective and more available
compared with the two-axis sun-tracking systems. The latter have
complex design which raises the connecting pipes and thus
The design of the structure has to minimize torsion at the col- increases thermal losses, capital costs and of course maintenance
lector ends and transfer torque when tracking the sun, because costs.
high torsion raises interception and thus optical efficiency is
decreased [35,36]. Recent PTCs used in large-scale solar thermal 2.2.5. Collector assembly
power plants can be classified into two groups, i.e., the torque con- The jig assembly line is applied to mount the collector compo-
cept (similar to Euro Trough) and the space frame concept (similar nents including supports, arms, receiver support and mirrors [41].
to SkyTrough). The amount of material used is very important for To reduce costs, the jig assembly is located close to the solar field.
selecting tracking system equipments. When compared to steel, The assembly step, shown in Fig. 6, can be done by a fairly low-
aluminum has higher specific stiffness and lighter density. Further- skilled workforce because the collector parts have a predetermined
more, energy consumption of the tracking system is much smaller. position on the jig. Moreover, automation process based on robots
Table 2 describes the difference between aluminum-based (SGX-2) instead of people is introduced to reduce workers and increases
and steel-based (ET-150) collectors. accuracy [42].
The steel structure is generally protected by Hot Dip Galvaniza-
tion process against corrosion agents such as humidity and dust. In 3. Solar collector model
this low-cost coating process, the steel is immersed a conductive
liquid, and then an electrical current is connected to produce zinc 3.1. Solar energy absorption
molecules, and therefore form an impermeable thin layer that pre-
vents corrosion of the metal support. Steel framework, cantilever The energy absorbed by the solar receiver is strongly dependent
arms and torque tube supports are manufactured using mass pro- on the optical properties of the reflector, glass envelope and the
duction techniques such as Stamping, laser-based or water-jet absorber tube. In other words, it is related to the design parameters
cutting. and manufacturing processes highlighted in Section 2. The follow-
ing equation is useful for estimating the total solar irradiation
absorption.
2.2.4. Tracking system
The tracking system is used to rotate the collector around its Q abs ¼ DNI  g0 ðhÞ  kðhÞ  fðhÞ  gshading ðhÞ ð6Þ
rotation axis. It is made up of three main components: hydraulic
In this equation, DNI is the Direct Normal Irradiance (W/m2).
The angle of incidence (h) is a function of tracking mode and orien-
tation of the PTC.
Table 2 Table 3 provides the incidence angle for various tracking modes.
Comparison of aluminum and steel structures of PTC [40].
hz, d, x, b are respectively the zenith angle of the sun, the declina-
Collector ET-150 SGX-2 tion angle of the earth, the hour angle of the sun and the slop angle
Installation site Andasol 1 Nevada Solar One of the collector.
Material Steel Aluminum The peak optical efficiency (g0) in Eq. (6) is obtained when the
Weight (kg/m2) 33 22 direct beam radiation is normal to the collector aperture area. It
Needs per MW (Tons) 199 70
is the product of the reflectance of the collector (qcol), the intercept
274 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281

Collector Supports and Arms Geometrical Mirrors Balancing Collector Assembly

parts assembly check assembly check Completed

Fig. 6. Collector assembly steps.

Table 3 Table 5
Angle of incidence for six different tracking systems of parabolic trough collector [37]. Imperfection factors that affect solar collector efficiency [45].

Tracking mode The angle of incidence Optical properties Index Value

Horizontal North–South with cos h = Heat collection element shadowing (bellows, shielding, c1 0.974
continuous adjustment (cos2 hz + cos2 d sin2 x)1/2 supports)
Horizontal East–West with cos h = (1  cos2 d sin2 x)1/2 Twisting and tracking error c2 0.994
continuous adjustment Geometry accuracy of the collector mirrors c3 0.980
Horizontal East–West with a cos h = sin2 d + cos2 d cos x Clean mirror reflectivity c4 0.950
single daily adjustment Dirt on heat collection element c5 0.980
Horizontal North–South parallel cos h = cos d Miscellaneous factors c6 0.960
to the earth’s axis with continuous
adjustment
Vertical axis tracking with cos h = (cos hz cos b
collector’s fixed slope (b) + sin hz sin b)
Two axes tracking mode cos h = 1 therefore they do not reach the absorber tube. These losses are
accounted for by the intercept factor (ccol). This latter in itself is a
multiplication of six parameters. Estimated values for the intercept
factor (ccol), the glass envelope transmittance (scov) and the absor- factor for different imperfections are reported in Table 5.
ber tube absorbance (aabs). It is given by: As highlighted in Section 2, the solar receiver is made up of an
absorber tube surrounded by glass envelope. The absorber tube is
g0 ðhÞ ¼ qcol scov aabs ccol ð7Þ commonly coated with a Cermet, black nickel or chrome whereas
When the incidence angle is greater than 0°, it affects both the the borosilicate is usually used for the envelope. Table 6 illustrates
optical efficiency and the useful area of the PTC. the radiative properties of different commercial solar receivers.
The optical losses induced by the incidence angle are quantified Another factor that affects the solar radiation absorption is the
by the incidence angle modifier K (h). It has been reported that the shading. Shading is produced by neighboring PTCs. This occurs
intensity of optical losses when the irradiance is not normal to the mostly at low sun angles (at sunrise or at sunset) and it strongly
aperture of the PTC are difficult to estimate theoretically [14]. depends on the row spacing.
Therefore, experimental data are usually used and expressed as The shading efficiency is the ratio of the effective mirror aper-
function of the angle of incidence. The specific incidence angle ture area, i.e. the illuminated area of mirror, to the total aperture
modifiers of the widely employed PTCs are reported in Table 4. area.
The effect of the incidence angle on the useful aperture area of    
LRow cos hz
the collector is called the geometrical end losses (n(h)). This factor, gshading ¼ min max 0;  ;1 ð10Þ
wPTC cos h
also known as the end effect, accounts for the fraction of the recei-
ver length which is not illuminated by the sun-rays incident on the With LRow is the row spacing. Eq. (10) is relatively simple however it
aperture [42,43]. Gaul and Rabl have proposed the following equa- provides accurate results.
tion to estimate the end effect.
3.2. Modeling of solar receiver
2
fðhÞ ¼ 1  fðf PTC =lPTC Þ  ½1 þ ðAap 2 =ð48  f PTC ÞÞ  tanðhÞg ð8Þ
This section details the modeling and the heat transfer analysis
fPTC, lPTC are respectively the focal distance and the length of the col- of the solar receiver. Fig. 7 illustrates the heat transfer mechanisms
lector (m), Aap is the collector aperture area (m2).
between the HTF and the ambient. As solar radiation is absorbed by
Lippke [44] have also suggested a simple model that is the outside surface of the absorber tube, the major energy is trans-
expressed by the following relation:
ferred to the inner surface by conduction (Rabsi-abso) and then to the
f PTC HTF by convection mode (Rfluid-absi). The remaining amount of heat
fðhÞ ¼ 1  tan h ð9Þ will be lost by convection/conduction and radiation to the envel-
lPTC
ope (R1abso-covi and R2abso-covi). This energy in its turn transferred
Recent studies have shown that Gaul and Rabl’s model provides to the outside surface of the glass cover by conduction heat trans-
reasonable results. Thus, it will be used in the present study. fer (Rcovi-covo).
The microscopic imperfections of the reflectors, the macro- Due to the difference in temperatures between the envelope
scopic shape errors during the assembly and the site parameters and the ambient, two modes of heat transfer occur, i.e., radiation
can cause reflection of some sun-rays at the wrong angle, and between the sky and the glass envelope and convection between
the ambient air the envelope. The modeling of the heat losses from
the HTF to the ambient is reported in details in what will follow.
Table 4
Incidence angle modifier for the most important PTCs [14]. 3.2.1. Heat transfer from the inner absorber surface to the heat
PTC Incidence angle modifier transfer fluid
LS-2 2 The heat transfers from the absorber tube to the HTF by convec-
kðhÞ ¼ cos
1
h ðcos h þ 0:000884h  0:00005369h Þ
LS-3 k(h) = 1  2.2307e4h  1.1e4h2 + 3.18596e6h3  4.85509e8h4
tion. From Newton’s law of cooling, the amount of this heat can be
ET kðhÞ ¼ cos 4
h  2:859621e5 h2 Þ obtained by:
h ðcos h  5:25097e
1

IST 2
kðhÞ ¼ cos
1
h ðcos h þ 0:0003178h  0:00003985h Þ Q absi-fluid ¼ pNuDabsi kfluid ðT absi  T bulkm Þ ð11Þ
 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281 275

Table 6
Radiative proprieties of different solar receivers [34].

Solar receiver Glass transmittance Coating absorptance Coating emittance

Ò
Schott PTR 70 0.960 0.950 2:00  107 T 2abs;k þ 0:062
Luz Black Chrome 0.935 0.940 5.333  104Tabs,k  0.0856
Luz Cermet 0.935 0.920 3.27  104Tabs,k  0.065971
Solel UVAC Avg 0.965 0.955 1:907  107 T 2abs;k þ 1:208  104 T abs;k þ 0:06282

to increase the Reynolds number and therefore simulate the solar

Rabsi
field operation conditions. The case of annulus flow will be used
Rabso
for the validation of the collector model.
Rcov i
For fully developed turbulent flow, Reynolds number is higher
Rcov o than 2300 [45]. The correlation developed by Gnielinski is com-
Rcov o − sky Tsky monly applied to calculate the Nusselt number. This correlation
R fluid − absi Rabsi − abso Rcov i − cov o is valid for 2300 6 Re 6 5  106 and 0.5 6 Pr 6 2000.
R1abso − cov i
 
f Dabsi =ð8  ðReDabsi  1000Þ  Prfluid Þ Prfluid 0:11
Tbulkm Tabsi Tabso Tcov i Tcov o NuDabsi ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð13Þ
1 þ 12:7 f Dabsi =8  ðPr fluid  1Þ Pr Tabsi
2=3
R 2 abso − cov i Rcov o − amb Tamb
Tbracket Tamb
where f Dabsi is the friction factor for the inner surface of the absorber
Rbracket − amb pipe, Prfluid is the Prandtl number evaluated at the HTF mean tem-
perature, PrTabsi is the Prandtl number evaluated at the absorber
Fig. 7. Thermal resistance for a cross section of the solar receiver. inner surface temperature.
For the absorber tube (smooth pipe), the friction coefficient is
calculated from the Filonenko correlation [47] for isothermal flows.
This correlation is valid for 104 6 Re 6 107.
where Qabsi-fluid is the energy transferred from the absorber inside
2
surface to the HTF (W), kfluid is the thermal conductivity of the f Dabsi ¼ ð1:82  log10 ðReDabsi Þ  1:64Þ ð14Þ
HTF (W/m K), Tbulkm is the mean temperature of the HTF (°C), Tabsi
is the inner surface temperature of absorber pipe (°C), NuDabsi is For rough tubes (e.g. solar field piping), the convection heat
the Nusselt number based on the inner diameter of the absorber transfer coefficient can be calculated by using the friction coeffi-
tube (Dabsi). cient determined from Eq. (15) [14]. This correlation is valid for
The Nusselt number depends on the type of flow through the 4000 < ReD 6 108 and 2  108 < epipe 6 0.1.
 
absorber pipe. At nominal operating conditions the flow in the 1 e 16:2426
absorber tube is turbulent to increase the heat transfer coefficient. pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ 3:48  1:7372Ln 2 pipe  LnC 2 ð15Þ
f absi Dabsi ReDabsi
However, at sunrise and at sunset, it may become transitional
or laminar because the irradiance is lower which results in lower In Eq. (15) the parameter C2 is given by:
viscosity of the HTF.  0:8981
ð2epipe =Dabsi Þ1:1098 7:149
For laminar flow the Reynolds number is less than 2300 and the C2 ¼ þ ð16Þ
Nusselt number on wall with uniform temperature is constant. For 6:0983 Re Dabsi
circular pipe, the Nusselt is 4.36 and the friction for fully developed In the case of annulus flow, the above turbulent correlations are
laminar flow is given by [46]: used by substituting the absorber inside diameter by the hydraulic
diameter [34].
16 For the transition flow (2100 6 Re 6 4000) the formula
f Dabsi ¼ ð12Þ developed by Bhatti and Shah can be used to calculate the friction
ReDabsi
coefficient [48].
As reported in Table 7, in the case of annulus flow, the Nusselt
number depends on the ratio of the hydraulic diameter (Dh) and 2:3  108
f Dabsi ¼ 0:0054 þ ð17Þ
the inner parameter of the absorber pipe. Sandia National Labora- Re3=2
Dabsi
tory has carried out a series of experiments on a small module of
For long tubes (10 6 z/D 6 60), the average Nusselt number for
LS-2 collector. To achieve the operation conditions of large solar
the entire tube is equal to the value associated with the thermally
field a pipe has been inserted in the center of the absorber tube
fully developed turbulent flow.
For short tubes, the mean Nusselt number for thermally devel-
oping flow can be calculated using Al-Arabi’s correlation [48].
Table 7
Nusselt number for laminar annulus flow [34]. Nuf C transition
¼1þ ð18Þ
Nuf ;1 z=Dabsi
Dinsert/Dabsi NuDh
0 4.364 Nuf,/ stands for the fully developed Nusselt number in turbulent
0.05 4.792 flow.
0.10 4.834 The coefficient Ctransition is given by:
0.20 4.833
0.40 4.979
!
ðz=Dabsi Þ0:1 3000
0.60 5.099 C transition ¼ 0:68 þ ð19Þ
0.80 5.24 1=6
PrT absi Re0:81
Dabsi
1.0 5.385
276 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281

3.2.2. Conduction heat transfer through the absorber wall
The heat is transferred from the outer surface of the absorber
tube to the inner surface by conduction. The Fourier’s law of con-
duction is useful to estimate the heat flux though the absorber tube
[46].
2pkabs ðT absi  T abso Þ
Q absi-abso ¼
lnðDabso =Dabsi Þ
Qabsi-abso is the heat flux from outer absorber pipe surface to the
inner absorber pipe surface (W/m), Tabso is the outer surface tem-
perature of absorber pipe (°C), Dabsi is absorber inside diameter
(m), Dabso is the absorber outside diameter (m), kabs is the thermal
conductivity of the absorber tube (W/m K).
The stainless steel is commonly used as the absorber tube mate-
rial. The thermal conductivity, density and specific heat for three
employed stainless steels are reported in Table 8 [14].
Tabso-covi is the average annulus gas temperature (K), Pannulus is the
annulus gas pressure (mmHg), d is the molecular diameter of annu-
lus gas (cm).
There are three gases that could be in the annulus space, i.e., Air,
Hydrogen and Argon. Air is commonly remaining when evaluating
the solar receiver. Hydrogen that is resulted from HTF degradation
ð20Þ at higher temperature is able to penetrate into the annulus and
therefore increase the heat losses. For safety purpose, the Argon
could also be employed in the annulus to reduce the risks associ-
ated with the use of HTF’s.
The heat transfer by molecular conduction from the outer
surface of the absorber to the inner surface of the envelope can
be calculated by:
Q abso-cov i ¼ 2phabso-cov i ðT abso  T cov i Þ ð24Þ
h i4
Dcov i
The above correlations are valid for RaDcov i ðDcov i Dabso Þ
.

3.2.3. Heat transfer from the absorber tube to the glass envelope
The heat transfer between the outer surface of the absorber 3.2.3.2. Annulus pressure higher than 1 torr [1]. The solar receiver is
tube and the inner surface of the glass envelope is strongly depen- evacuated to reduce the heat losses to the ambient. When the
dent on the annulus pressure. At low pressure, less than 1 torr, the receiver loses vacuum the convection heat transfer mechanism
radiation is coupled with the molecular conduction. At higher pres- takes place instead of the molecular conduction and the annular
sures (>1 torr), the free convection takes place instead of the con- convection model should be used.
duction mechanism.
ðT abso  T cov i Þ
Q abso-cov i ¼ 2pK gaseff ð25Þ
lnðDcov i  Dabso Þ
3.2.3.1. Annulus pressure less than 1 torr. At lower pressure the ther-
mal conductivity of the gas in the annulus is function of tempera- In Eq. (25) the effective thermal conductivity of the annulus gas
ture [1] and the collisions between molecules is very small. This is Kgaseff is given by:
known as the free molecule regime. At this regime the theory of  0:25
conduction heat transfer is applied. Based on this theory, the effec- Prabso-cov i
kgaseff ¼ 0:386kgas Ra00:25 ð26Þ
tive heat transfer coefficient is given by: 0:861 þ Prabso-cov i Dabso

kgas The modified Rayleigh number is given by:

habso-cov i ¼

 ð21Þ
Dabso
ln Dcov i
þ bc k Dcov i
þ1 h
 i4
2 Dabso Dabso Dcov i
ln Dabso
Ra0Dabso ¼ RaDabso ð27Þ
habs-covi is the heat transfer coefficient in (W/m2 K), kgas is the ther- 5
D3h ½D0:6 0:6
abso þ Dcov i 
mal conductivity of the annulus gas at standard temperature and
pressure (W/m K), Dcovi is the inner diameter of the glass envelope Prabso-covi is the Prandtl number evaluated at the average annulus
(m), bc is the interaction coefficient, k is the mean-free-path gas temperature and Raabso is the Rayleigh number evaluated the
between collisions of a molecule (m). absorber outer diameter.
The interaction coefficient is calculated using the following
equation: 3.2.3.3. Radiation heat transfer from the outer surface of the absorber
ð2  ac Þð9c  5Þ to the envelope. The heat transfer by radiation between the absor-
bc ¼ ð22Þ ber tube and the glass envelope is calculated by the following
2ac ðc þ 1Þ
equation [34]:
c is the ratio of specific heats for the annulus gas and ac is the
accommodation coefficient. According to the literature, the accom- rphDabso ðT abso 4  T 4coiv i Þ
Qradabso-cov i ¼ ð28Þ
modation coefficient is strongly related to the gas molecular weight 1
eabso þ ð1ecoecov vDi ÞDabso
cov i
and the roughness of the surfaces [49]. However, its exact value
remains an important issue. Experimental studies of various sur- where r is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (W/m2 K4), Tcovi is the
faces and gases have reported values varying from 0.01 to a unity, inner glass envelope surface temperature (K), eabs is the absorber
however most gas–solid integrations are near a unity [50]. There- selective coating emissivity, ecov is the glass envelope emissivity.
fore the value ac = 1 is considered herein.
The mean free path is estimated by: 3.2.4. Conductive heat transfer through the glass envelope
The heat transfer by conduction through the envelope can be
T abso-cov i
k ¼ 2:331e20 ð23Þ evaluated by the following equation:
Pannulus d2
2pkcov ðT cov i  T cov o Þ
Q cov i-cov o ¼ ð29Þ
lnðDcov o =Dcov i Þ
Table 8 Qcovi-covo is the heat flux from inner surface to the outer surface of
Thermal properties of three stainless steel commonly used in the absorber tube.
the glass envelope (W/m), Dabso is the envelope outside diameter
Material Conductivity (W/m C) Density Heat capacity (m), kcov is the thermal conductivity of the glass envelope (W/m K).
(temperature in °C) (kg/m3) (kJ/kg C)
304L 0.0130 ⁄ Tabs + 14.9732 8027.17 0.5024 3.2.5. Heat transfer from the glass envelope to the ambient
316L 0.0130 ⁄ Tabs + 14.9732 8027.17 0.5024 The heat transfer from the outer surface of the glass envelope to
321H 0.0151 ⁄ Tabs + 14.5837 8027.17 0.5024
the ambient occurs by two modes, i.e., convection and radiation.
 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281 277

3.2.5.1. Convective heat transfer between the outer surface of the

envelope and ambient. The following formula is useful for estimat-
ing the part of energy that is lost by convection heat transfer from
the solar receiver to the environment.

Q cov o-amb ¼ pNuDcov o kair ðT cov o  T amb Þ ð30Þ

Dcovo is the outer diameter of the glass envelope (m), Tcovo is the
outer glass envelope surface temperature (°C), Tamb is the ambient
temperature (°C), NuDcovo is the Nusselt number based on the outer
diameter of the glass envelope.
The Nusselt number depends on the regime of convective heat
transfer. For no wind case, i.e., natural convection the following
equation is applied [1]:

NuDcov o ¼ 0:48Ra0:25
Dcov o ð31Þ
For the case of wind, the Nusselt number is calculated by: Fig. 8. AZTRAK LS-2 collector test at Sandia National Laboratory, USA [34].

NuDcov o ¼ 0:193Re0:618 0:33

Dcov o Pr cov o-amb ð32Þ
losses from the receiver, the useful energy is carried out is given
RaDcovo is the Rayleigh number for ambient air based on the glass
by:
envelope outer diameter, Prcovo-amb is the Prandtl number for ambi-
ent air evaluated at (Tcovo + Tamb)/2. Q HTF ¼ Q abs  Q loss ð36Þ
Qabs is the solar energy absorption and Qloss is the heat loses to the
3.2.5.2. Radiative heat transfer between the envelope and the sky. The
environment from the solar receiver.
difference between the temperature of the envelope and the sky is
at the origin of radiation losses from the solar receiver. The amount
of energy losses by radiation from the outer surface of the envelope 4. Validation of the PTC model
is given by:
The collector model developed in this study is based on the heat
Q cov o-sky ¼ rpDcov o ecov ðT 4cov o  T 4sky Þ ð33Þ transfer analysis described in Section 3. To validate the proposed
model, the simulated results have been compared with the exper-
where Tcovo is the outer glass envelope surface temperature (K), Tsky imental data of Sandia National Laboratory. Furthermore, the
is the sky temperature (K). actual results have also been compared with the Engineering
Equations Solver code developed by the National Renewable
3.2.6. Heat loss through HCE support bracket [12] Energy Laboratory [34].
The support bracket is used to support the Heat Collector Ele-
ment (HCE). Some studies have neglected the heat losses through 4.1. Sandia National Laboratory collector tests
the bracket [1]. However, a solar field of 200,000 m2 needs about
3000 HCEs and therefore 60,000 support brackets are installed. The SNL has tested a small module of LS-2 collector at the
Neglecting the heat losses from the bracket overestimates the per- AZTRAK rotating platform, shown in Fig. 8, to investigate the effect
formance of the PTC and this result in erroneous estimation of the of various conditions on the PTC performance and therefore to
total heat gain by a solar field. In this study the bracket is assumed
as an infinite fin with base temperature 10° less than the outer
Table 9
absorber surface temperature [34]. The losses from each bracket
Design data of the LS-2 collector tested by Sandia National Laboratory [1].
can be approximated by:
Symbol Parameter SNL LS-2 Unit
2
!0:5
Nubracket Pbracket kbracket Abracket W Collector aperture width 5 M
Q bracket-amb ¼ ðT bracket  T amb Þ ð34Þ I Collector length 7.8 M
Dbracket L2HCE
qc Collector reflectance 0.935 –
F Focal length 1.84 M
In Eq. (34), Pbracket is the perimeter of bracket (m), kbracket is the Dabso Receiver outer diameter 0.070 M
bracket conductivity (W/m K) at Tbracket. Abracket is the minimum Dabsi Receiver inner diameter 0.066 M
cross-sectional area of the bracket (m2), Tbracket is the temperature Dcovo Cover outer diameter 0.0115 M
at base of bracket (°C), LHCE is the Heat Collector Element length Dcovi Cover inner diameter 0.109 M
Epcov Cover thickness 0.006 M
(m), Nubracket is the average Nusselt number based on the bracket
kabs Absorber thermal conductivity 54 W/m K
temperature. kcov Cover thermal conductivity 0.78 W/m K
The plain carbon steel is commonly used for the support Αabs Absorber absorbance 0.96 –
bracket; its thermal conductivity can be obtained from the follow- ecov Cover emittance 0.86 –
ing relation [14]. scov Cover transmittance 0.95 –
Αcov Cover absorbance 0.02 –
kbracket ¼ 0:0419T bracket þ 73:2357 ð35Þ Ke Cover extinction coefficient 12.5 m1
N2 Cover refractive index 1.526 –
q1 Receiver shadowing 0.974 –
q2 Twisting tracking error 0.994 –
3.3. Useful HTF energy q3 Geometry accuracy of collector 0.98 –
q4 Mirror clearness Reflectivity/qc –
The useful energy gained by the HTF can be obtained from the q5 Receiver clearness (1 + q4)/2 –
energy balance of the solar receiver [51]. Taking into consideration q6 Miscellaneous factors 0.96 –
Dplug Inserted pipe diameter 0.508 M
the solar energy absorbed by the absorber tube and the thermal
278 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281

Table 10
Comparison of model prediction with experimental results from SNL tests and the EES code developed by NREL – Case of Cermet selective coating absorber with vacuum in
annulus (efficiency test).

Data – Cermet efficiency test Outlet temperature (°C) Efficiency (%) Efficiency uncertainty (%)
Tests DNI (W/m2) Wind (m/s) Tamb (°C) Tbulkin (°C) Flow (L/min) SNL test Model Model uncert. SNL test NREL EES Model SNL test NREL EES Model
Case 1 933.7 2.60 21.2 102.20 47.70 124.00 121.70 2.30 72.51 72.50 71.68 1.95 0.01 0.83
Case 2 968.2 3.70 22.4 151.00 47.80 173.30 171.20 2.10 70.90 72.10 71.22 1.92 1.20 0.32
Case 3 982.3 2.50 24.3 197.50 49.10 219.50 217.57 1.93 70.17 71.60 70.58 1.81 1.43 0.41
Case 4 909.5 3.30 26.2 250.70 54.70 269.40 267.49 1.91 70.25 70.40 69.15 1.90 0.15 1.10
Case 5 937.9 1.00 28.8 297.80 55.50 316.90 315.16 1.74 67.98 69.10 67.87 1.86 1.12 0.11
Case 6 880.6 2.90 27.5 299.00 55.60 317.20 315.13 2.07 68.92 68.70 67.24 2.06 0.22 1.68
Case 7 903.2 4.20 31.1 355.90 56.30 374.00 372.43 1.57 63.82 66.10 64.10 2.36 2.28 0.28
Case 8 920.9 2.60 29.5 379.50 56.80 398.00 396.72 1.28 62.34 64.80 62.72 2.41 2.46 0.38
Average uncertainty – – 1.86 – – – 2.03 1.11 0.64

Table 11
Comparison of model predictions with experimental results from SNL tests – Case of Cermet selective coating absorber with vacuum in annulus (heat loss test).

Data – heat loss tests Outlet temperature (°C) Efficiency (%) Heat loss
uncertainty (%)
Test conditions Wind (m/s) Tamb (°C) Tbulkin (°C) Flow (L/min) SNL test Model Model uncert. SNL test Model SNL test Model
Case 1 3.2 26.3 99.55 27.4 99.54 99.32 0.22 0.3 2.47 3.7 2.17
Case 2 2.9 25.4 100.02 27.4 99.97 99.84 0.13 0.85 2.49 4 1.64
Case 3 1.1 19.9 153.4 53.6 153.3 153.2 0.1 5.3 5.35 7.6 0.05
Case 4 0.1 22.5 199.4 54.7 199 199.08 0.08 14.04 8.69 8.5 5.35
Case 5 1.5 24.2 253.8 55.6 253.1 253.19 0.09 23.4 16.58 8.5 6.82
Case 6 2 26.7 299 56 297.9 298.04 0.14 36.7 25.53 8 11.17
Case 7 0.6 27.6 348.3 56.8 346.6 346.89 0.29 55.8 36.32 7.3 19.48
Average uncertainty – – 0.15 – – 6.80 6.67

optimize O&M costs of solar thermal power plants. Due to length
limitation of the platform and in order to achieve the operation
conditions of SEGS VI plant, 2 in. diameter flow restriction device
was centered in the inside diameter of the absorber tube.
Syltherm 800 oil HTF has been selected during the tests to ana-
lyze the collector performance at various temperatures. Two differ-
ent receiver selective coatings have also been considered, i.e., Black
Chrome and Cermet [1]. During the experiments, SNL have carried
out a series of tests with and without sun conditions. The former is
used to evaluate the efficiency whereas the latter is applied for
heat losses measurements. The design parameters of the LS-2 mod-
ule are reported in Table 9.
4.2. Comparison and discussion of the results
Detailed comparisons between the presently proposed model
predictions and SNL experimental results conducted from June
1992 to January 1993 on the AZTRAK rotating test platform at
SNL are presented in Tables 10–13 and visualized in Figs. 9–12.
The predicted results of HTF outlet temperature, collector thermal
loss and collector efficiency are compared with the corresponding
test results from SNL. From Fig. 9, it can be conclude that the pro-
posed model predicts the outlet temperature with higher accuracy
for both Cermet and Black Chrome selective coatings. Accurate pre-
dictions have been obtained for the case of off-sun (heat loss tests)
where the average uncertainty is less than 0.15 °C. The estimation
of thermal efficiency is also in good agreement with SNL test
results.
As it is highlighted in Fig. 10, for the case of evacuated absorber
with Cermet selective coating, the numerical results on the effi-
ciency uncertainties are less than those of measurements in all
the selected cases. Moreover, when compared with the EES code
(denoted NREL model), as it can be seen from Table 10, the pro-
posed model performs better with average efficiency uncertainty
of 0.64% compared to 1.11% for ESS. Another advantage of the pro-
posed model over NREL model is that the outlet temperature is
optimized based on the energy balance of the receiver and there-
fore simulates the real operation conditions when the constant

Table 12
Comparison of model prediction with experimental results from SNL tests – Case of Black Chrome coating absorber with vacuum in annulus (efficiency tests).

Data – Black Chrome efficiency tests Outlet temperature (°C) Efficiency (%) Efficiency uncertainty (%)
DNI (W/m2) Wind (m/s) Tamb (°C) Tbulkin (°C) Flow (L/min) SNL test Model Model uncert. SNL test Model SNL uncert. Model uncert.
Case 1 744.6 1.1 5 100.8 50.7 117.2 115.11 2.09 72.47 70.12 3.62 2.35
Case 2 839.8 1.1 3.6 103.4 50.6 122.2 119.59 2.61 73.56 70.19 3.35 3.37
Case 3 902 0 6.4 154 52.1 173.3 170.87 2.43 72.1 69.6 1.98 2.5
Case 4 871.8 4 1.6 201.5 53.2 219.5 217.28 2.22 69.69 67.68 1.86 2.01
Case 5 900.7 1.3 0.2 201.6 54 219.9 217.76 2.14 69.91 68.09 3.06 1.82
Case 6 882.7 2.1 3.1 253.3 54.8 271.3 268.74 2.56 69.58 65.53 1.95 4.05
Case 7 884.6 3 2.6 303.1 54.9 320.6 318.33 2.27 65.36 62.2 2.03 3.16
Case 8 921.5 0 0.7 349.6 56 367.3 365.2 2.1 61.49 59.48 1.82 2.01
Case 9 928.4 2.4 0.9 379.6 56.1 397.4 394.8 2.6 57.7 55.44 1.91 2.26
Average uncertainty – – 2.34 – – 2.40 2.61
 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281 279

Table 13
Comparison of model prediction with experimental results from SNL tests – Case of Black Chrome coating absorber with vacuum in annulus (heat loss tests).

Data – Black Chrome heat loss tests Outlet temperature (°C) Efficiency (%) Heat loss uncertainty (%)
2
DNI (W/m ) Wind (m/s) Tamb (°C) Tbulkin (°C) Flow (L/min) SNL test Model Model uncert. SNL test Model SNL uncert. Model uncert.
Case 1 0 0.6 2.3 103.2 50.3 102.9 103.03 0.13 6.82 4.21 6.89 2.61
Case 2 0 0.3 5.2 150.9 52.5 150.6 150.59 0.01 12.4 8.25 7 4.15
Case 3 0 1 6 204.1 54.1 203.4 203.5 0.1 22 16.16 7.27 5.84
Case 4 0 1.5 1.1 253.9 55.1 252.8 252.87 0.07 36.7 27.84 7.76 8.86
Case 5 0 1.7 7.5 300.8 55.8 299 299.19 0.19 62 42.45 8.05 19.55
Case 6 0 2.5 8.9 351 56.7 348.2 348.44 0.24 89.1 65.38 8.77 23.72
Case 7 0 2.8 1.1 348.5 56.7 345.7 345.97 0.27 89.1 65.04 9.43 24.06
Average uncertainty – – 0.14 – – 7.88 12.68

400
74

72
350
70
HTF outlet temperature (°C)

300

PTC efficiency (%)

68

66
250
64

200 62

60
150
58

100 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Test conditions number Test conditions number

Fig. 9. Comparison of HTF outlet temperature from the proposed model with Fig. 10. Comparison of PTC thermal efficiency from the proposed model to SNL tests
experimental data. and to NREL model in the case of Cermet selective coating.

mass flow strategy is chosen (as in AZTRAK tests). The AZTRAK Test
Data Version of the EES code sets both outlet temperature and HTF
mass flow constant [34] and this will not reflect the real control 80
strategies.
As illustrated in Fig. 11, for the case of Black Chrome selective 76
coating, the thermal efficiency prediction has also shown good
agreement since the model follows the trends of the experimental 72
values and all the results are almost within the experimental
PTC efficiency (%)

uncertainty bars. More details about the difference between the

68
model predictions and the experimental results are shown in
Table 12.
64
The estimation of the heat losses, for both selective coatings, is
strongly affected by the operation conditions.
Table 11 summarizes the simulation results for the case of 60
Cermet while Table 13 highlights the case of Black Chrome coating.
It could be observed that there is good agreement between the 56
experiments and simulations at lower and medium temperatures
where the uncertainty is within the range of experimental impre- 52
cision. As visualized in Fig. 12, the model seems to be less accurate
at higher operation temperatures, particularly for the case of Black 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Chrome selecting coating.
Test conditions number
It is worth noting that the proposed model predicts the heat loss
for the case of Cermet coating within the experimental uncertainty. Fig. 11. Comparison of PTC efficiency from the proposed model to SNL tests in the
As indicated in Table 11, the model average uncertainty of 6.67% is case of Chrome selective coating.
much lower than that of the SNL tests. Taking into account this fact
and the uncertainty associated in simulations and measurements,
it can be concluded that the proposed model estimates the perfor- However, slight deviation in the estimation of heat losses for
mance of the collector with good accuracy in the range of uncer- both Cermet and Black Chrome selective coatings is observed. This
tainties obtained during the experimental tests. uncertainty is the results of error propagation induced by the
280 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281
100
80
Heat loss (W/m2)
60
40
20
0 [6] Li Ming, Chengmu Xu, Ji Xu, Zhang Peng, Qiongfen Yu. A new study on the end
1 2 3 4 5 6
Test conditions number
Fig. 12. Heat loss predictions vs. experimental data for Cermet and Black Chrome
selective coatings.
uncertainties in the correlations of thermophysical proprieties of
HTF, air and materials used in the collector, the correlations used
for the estimation of heat losses from the absorber to the glass
envelope and from this latter to the environment. The thermal
interaction between the neighboring surfaces might also the
reason of the underestimation of the radiation losses at high
temperatures.
5. Conclusion
A comprehensive study on the Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC)
has been carried out. The major parameters on the design of the
PTC have been highlighted first. Next, the manufacturing processes
of the key components including reflectors and receivers have been
presented. The mathematical analysis of a novel PTC model has
also been particularly described in details. The proposed model
has been developed and validated using Sandia LS-2 tests data.
Furthermore, in order to highlight its potential in predicting the
thermal performance of recent PTCs, it has been compared to the
results obtained by using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) code
that is developed by NREL.
In the case of Cermet coating, it has been observed that the
model proposed in this study predicts more accurately the thermal
efficiency than EES with an average uncertainty of 0.64% compared
to 1.11% for ESS. This might be related to the optimization proce-
dure of the heat transfer fluid outlet temperature adapted in our
model. In other words, the AZTRAK Test Data Version of the EES
code sets both outlet temperature and HTF mass flow constant
while during constant mass flow operation conditions the outlet
temperature cannot kept constant.
However, it seems that the proposed model has a slight devia-
tion in the estimation of heat losses at higher operation tempera-
tures. This certainly results from the error propagation induced
by the uncertainties in the correlations of thermophysical propri-
eties of HTF, air and materials used in receivers. Another important
source of the model deviation is the thermal interaction between
the neighboring surfaces which is not taken into account and this
underestimates the heat losses at higher temperatures. Therefore,
the investigation of the optical and thermal interaction between
the neighboring surfaces of PTC (absorber tube–envelop and
envelop–mirrors) and its effect on the heat loss to the ambient is
strongly recommended for further researches.
References
[1] Dudley V, Kolb G, Sloan M, Kearney D. SEGS LS2 solar collector-test results.
Report of Sandia National Laboratories, SAN94-1884; 1994.
[2] Burkholder F, Kutscher C. Heat loss testing of Schott’s 2008 PTR70 parabolic
trough receiver. Technical report NREL/TP-550-45633, May 2009.
[3] Burkholder F, Kutscher C. Heat-loss testing of Solel’s UVAC3 parabolic trough
receiver. Technical report NREL/TP-550-42394, January 2008.
[4] Reddy KS, Ravi Kumar K, Ajay CS. Experimental investigation of porous disc
enhanced receiver for solar parabolic trough collector. Renew Energy
2015;77:308–19.
[5] Valenzuela Loreto, López-Martín Rafael, Zarza Eduardo. Optical and thermal
performance of large-size parabolic-trough solar collectors from outdoor
experiments: a test method and a case study. Energy 2014;70:456–64.
loss effect for parabolic trough solar collectors. Energy 2015;82:382–94.
[7] Macedo-Valencia J, Ramírez-Ávila J, Acosta R, Jaramillo OA, Aguilar JO. Design,
7 construction and evaluation of parabolic trough collector as demonstrative
prototype. Energy Proc 2014;57:989–98.
[8] Montes Irving Eleazar Perez, Benitez Arturo Mejia, Chavez Omar Mercado,
Herrera Alvaro Eduardo Lentz. Design and construction of a parabolic trough
solar collector for process heat production. Energy Proc 2014;57:2149–58.
[9] Ceylan I, Ergun A. Thermodynamic analysis of a new design of temperature
controlled parabolic trough collector. Energy Convers Manage
2013;74:505–10.
[10] Kumaresan Govindaraj, Sridhar Rahulram, Velraj Ramalingom. Performance
studies of a solar parabolic trough collector with a thermal energy storage
system. Energy 2012;47:395–402.
[11] Thomas A, Thomas S. Design data for the computation of thermal loss in the
receiver of a parabolic trough concentrator. Energy Convers Manage
1994;35:555–68.
[12] Xu L, Wang Z, Li X, Yuan G, Sun F, Lei D. Dynamic test model for the transient
thermal performance of parabolic trough solar collectors. Sol Energy
2013;95:65–78.
[13] Xu L, Wang Z, Li X, Yuan G, Sun F, Lei D, et al. A comparison of three test
methods for determining the thermal performance of parabolic trough solar
collectors. Sol Energy 2014;99:11–27.
[14] Padilla V. Simplified methodology for designing parabolic trough solar power
plants [PhD thesis]. University of South Florida; 2011.
[15] Liang Hongbo, You Shijun, Zhang Huan. Comparison of different heat transfer
models for parabolic trough solar collectors. Appl Energy 2015;148:105–14.
[16] Conrado L Salgado, Campaña JA Meda, Montufar C Palacios. Dynamic model of
a parabolic trough solar concentrator with a water displacement mechanism.
Renew Energy 2014;63:292–6.
[17] García-Valladares O, Velázquez N. Numerical simulation of parabolic trough
solar collector: improvement using counter flow concentric circular heat
exchangers. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:597–609.
[18] Price H, Forristall H, Wendelin T, Lewandowski A, Moss T, Gummo C. Field
survey of parabolic trough receiver thermal performance. In: Conference paper
NREL/CP-550-39459, April 2006.
[19] Zaversky Fritz, Medina Rodrigo, García-Barberena Javier, Sanchez Marcelino,
Astrain David. Object-oriented modeling for the transient performance
simulation of parabolic trough collectors using molten salt as heat transfer
fluid. Sol Energy 2013;95:192–215.
[20] Yılmaz Ibrahim Halil, Söylemez Mehmet Sait. Thermo-mathematical modeling
of parabolic trough collector. Energy Convers Manage 2014;88:768–84.
[21] Liu Q, Yang M, Lei J, Jin H, Gao Z, Wang Y. Modeling and optimizing parabolic
trough solar collector systems using the least squares support vector machine
method. Sol Energy 2012;86:1973–80.
[22] Cheng ZD, He YL, Cui FQ, Du BC, Zheng ZJ, Xu Y. Comparative and sensitive
analysis for parabolic trough solar collectors with a detailed Monte Carlo ray-
tracing optical model. Appl Energy 2014;115:559–72.
[23] Cheng Ze-Dong, He Ya-Ling, Du Bao-Cun, Wang Kun, Liang Qi. Geometric
optimization on optical performance of parabolic trough solar collector
systems using particle swarm optimization algorithm. Appl Energy
2015;148:282–93.
[24] Cheng ZD, He YL, Wang K, Du BC, Cui FQ. A detailed parameter study on the
comprehensive characteristics and performance of a parabolic trough solar
collector system. Appl Therm Eng 2014;63:278–89.
[25] Wang Yanjuan, Liu Qibin, Lei Jing, Jin Hongguang. Performance analysis of a
parabolic trough solar collector with non-uniform solar flux conditions. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 2015;82:236–49.
[26] Cheng ZD, He YL, Xiao J, Tao YB, Xu RJ. Three-dimensional numerical study of
heat transfer characteristics in the receiver tube of parabolic trough solar
collector. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2010;37:782–7.
[27] Hachicha AA, Rodríguez I, Capdevila R, Oliva A. Heat transfer analysis and
numerical simulation of a parabolic trough solar collector. Appl Energy
2013;111:581–92.
[28] Cheng Ze-Dong, He Ya-Ling, Qiu Yu. A detailed nonuniform thermal model of a
parabolic trough solar receiver with two halves and two inactive ends. Renew
Energy 2015;74:139–47.
 O. Behar et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 106 (2015) 268–281
[29] Huang Weidong, Hu Peng, Chen Zeshao. Performance simulation of a parabolic
trough solar collector. Sol Energy 2012;86:746–55.
[30] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K, Ait-Kaci S. Effect of tracking mode on the
performance of parabolic trough solar collector. International conference on
electrical engineering CIGE2013. University of Bechar; 2013.
[31] Ratzel A, Hickox C, Gartling D. Techniques for reducing thermal conduction
and natural convection heat losses in annular receiver geometries. J Heat
Transfer Trans ASME 1979;101:108–13.
[32] Edenburn W. Performance analysis of a cylindrical parabolic focusing
collector and comparison with experimental results. Sol Energy 1976;18:
437–44.
[33] Kalogirou SA. A detailed thermal model of a parabolic trough collector
receiver. Energy 2012;48:298–306.
[34] Forristall R. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar
receiver implemented in engineering equation solver. Colorado: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); 2003.
[35] Romero-Alvarez M, Zarza E. Concentrating solar thermal power. Plataforma
Solar de Almeria-CIEMAT, energy conversion. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC;
2007.
[36] Middle East and North Africa region assessment of the local manufacturing
potential for concentrated solar power (CSP) projects, the World Bank report,
January 2011.
[37] Duffie A, Beckman A. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 2nd ed. New
York: Wiley; 1991.
[38] Kearney. David parabolic trough collector overview. Presentation at the
parabolic trough workshop 2007 at NREL, Golden, CO (USA), March 2007.
[39] Technical report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2010. <www.
nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/solar_field.html>.
281
[40] Concentrating solar power, renewable energy technologies: cost analysis
series. Power sector issue 2/5, vol. 1. IRENA working paper, June 2012.
[41] Casteneda N, Vazquez J, Domingo M, Fernandez A, Leon J. Sener parabolic
trough design and testing. In: Proceedings of 13th international SolarPACES
symposium, June 20–23, 2006, Seville, Spain.
[42] Gaul H, Rabl A. Incidence-angle modifier and average optical efficiency of
parabolic trough collectors. J Sol Energy Eng 1980;102:16–21.
[43] Rabl A. Active solar collectors and their applications. USA: Oxford University
Press; 1985.
[44] Lippke F. Simulation of the part-load behavior of a 30 MWe SEGS plant.
Technical report, SAND-95-1293. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,
NM, US; 1995.
[45] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Solar advisor model CSP
reference manual for version 3.0; 2009.
[46] Incropera P. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 6th ed. Wiley; 2006.
[47] Kakaç S, Shah K, Aung W. Handbook of single-phase convective heat
transfer. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
[48] Rohsenow M, Hartnett P, Cho I. Handbook of heat transfer. 3rd ed. McGraw-
Hill Professional; May 1998.
[49] Rader D, Trott W, Torczynski J, Castañeda J, Grasser T. Measurements of
thermal accommodation coefficients. Technical report SAND2005-6084.
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico; 2005.
[50] Saxena C, Joshi K. Thermal accommodation and adsorption coefficients of
gases. In: CINDAS data series on material properties. New York: Hemisphere
Pub. Corp; 1989.
[51] Stuetzle T. Automatic control of the 30 MWe SEGS VI parabolic trough plant
[Master’s thesis]. University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of Engineering;
2002.