You are on page 1of 11

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Original Research Article

Design, simulation and optimization of a compound parabolic collector
E. Bellos ⇑, D. Korres, C. Tzivanidis, K.A. Antonopoulos
National Technical University of Athens, School of Mechanical Engineering, Thermal Department, Heroon Polytehniou 9, 157 73 Zografou, Athens, Greece

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 12 November 2015
Revised 19 March 2016
Accepted 19 April 2016

Keywords:
CPC
Solidworks
Optical analysis
Thermal analysis
Collector design

a b s t r a c t
In this study, the optical and the thermal performance of a compound parabolic collector (CPC) with
evacuated tube are presented. In the first part, the optimization of the reflector geometry is given and
in the next part the thermal analysis of the solar collector is presented. The design of the reflector has
a great impact on the solar energy exploitation and for this reason is analyzed in detail. In the thermal
analysis of the collector, the two most usual thermal fluids, the pressurized water and typical thermal
oil, are compared. Pressurized water performs better and it is the most suitable working fluid for transferring the heat because of its properties; something that is analyzed in this study. Moreover, the optical
efficiency of the collector for various solar angles (longitude and transverse) is investigated and the heat
flux distribution over the absorber is given. In the last part, the temperature distribution over the absorber and inside the fluid are presented and a simple validation of the thermal model is also presented. The
model is designed in commercial software Solidworks and simulated in its flow simulation studio.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
The increasing cost of fossil fuels and of the electricity conjugated with the environmental problems caused by the CO2 emissions lead our society to turn its interest in renewable energy
sources. Solar energy utilization is a promising way to cover a great
part of worldwide energy demand by various ways. The conventional flat plate collectors (FPC) are widely used for domestic hot
water production and for low temperature applications
(30–90 °C). Concentrating collectors with high concentrating ratios
operate in high temperature levels (300–400 °C) [1] by giving suitable heat for electricity production in power plants. Parabolic
trough collectors (PTC), Fresnel collectors, central tower receivers
and parabolic dish Stirling engines [2,3] are the main solar
technologies for electricity production. For the intermediate
temperature range from 100 °C to 300 °C lessens number of solar
collector types are used while many industrial and residential
applications operate in these temperature limits. Applications as
desalination, oil extraction, low temperature electricity production, food production, methanol reforming and space cooling with
absorption technology [4–13] demand energy sources in the above
temperature range. The most suitable solar collector for these conditions is the compound parabolic collector (CPC) with evacuated
tube which is able to produce efficiently the processing heat. The
use of the evacuated tube is essential in order to overcome the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 772 2340.
E-mail address: bellose@central.ntua.gr (E. Bellos).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2016.04.005
2213-1388/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

limit of 100 °C and the conjugation with a concentrating trough
leads to higher levels.
CPC belongs to non-imaging concentrators with low concentrating ratio (1–5) [14,15] which exploits mainly the beam radiation and a part of diffuse radiation [8]. The small concentration
ratio recuses the tracking demand and many CPC systems are able
to operate without tracking which lead to lower cost [16,17]. More
specifically, a tracking system with the CPC axis in East–West
orientation needs only a small seasonal adjustment in order to perform in a high way [15]. The geometry design of a CPC is related to
the application and every manufacturer takes into consideration
the operating condition in every case. Important point in the
design is the relation between concentration ratio and the acceptance angle which is inversely [14,15]. CPC invented by Winston
in 1960 in the U.S.A. and they presented in 1974 [18,19]. The first
applications were about hot water supply and many studies have
been made for improving their performance. Rabl in 1976 [20]
developed a mathematical model for the average number of rays
reflections in a CPC, something very important for the optical analysis. Studies for CPC with non-evacuated tubes for thermal performance have been made in order to predict the efficiency in various
operating conditions [21,22]. The use of evacuated tubes was first
analyzed in Argonne National Laboratory [23] in before 1980. Snail
in 1984 [24] analyzed an integrated stationary CPC with evacuated
tube. The final results proved an optical efficiency of 65% and a
thermal of 50%. Kim et al. [25] compared a stationary and a tracing
CPC and proved that the tracking mechanism improves the efficiency at about 15%. Because the tracking system is important

a deeper analysis for the best working fluid. [32] made a very interesting review about integrated collector solar water heaters stating the novelties that are able to increase their efficiency. mm Reynolds number temperature.31] analyzed asymmetrical CPC for integrated solar systems with one and two tanks inside the collector respectively. The idea of solar cooker examined by Harmin [33] where a booster reflector was located in order to increase the optical efficiency in the stationary mode operation. In this study. ° hL longitude solar angle. Sallabery [26] analyzed how the tracking error influences on the long-term performance of the system and reported that the yearly energy loss is about 1%. W/m2 parabola length. Guiqiang et al. ° hc half-acceptance angle. ° Subscripts and superscripts a aperture abs absorbed am ambient b beam c cover ca cover-air ci inner cover co outer cover d diffuse e exploited fm mean fluid in inlet L Local loss losses m mean max maximum o oil opt optical out outlet r receiver ri inner receiver ro outer receiver s solar th thermal tube receiver tube u useful w water between lens-walled CPC. kg/s mean Nusselt number Prandtl number absorber placement. has been studied from many researchers. W/m K tube length. The use of lens in the trough in order to increase the acceptance angle is an innovative idea which is being examined in recent years. The main idea is the development of a non tracking collector which performs well during the day due to the different shape of the reflector’s parabolas that allows the collector to operate efficiently for a great range of incident angles. W down part placement. The methodology that is followed lead to an intercept factor close to 1. is presented. a common CPC and a dielectric solid CPC. Pa s q reflectance parameter. The use of asymmetric CPC. Moreover. many other researches have been worked in this area. Firstly. a CPC with an evacuated tube is designed and simulated. Singh et al. Moreover. mm heat flux. a parametric analysis for different solar angles (transversal and longitudinal) is given to calculate the optical losses for different cases. The innovative point of this study is the reflector design. °C losses coefficient. mm solar radiation. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 Nomenclature A C cp D f G H hm k L m Num Pr p Q q Re T UL W area. ° hΤ l dynamic viscosity. Abu-Bakar [28] studied a rotationally asymmetrical compound parabolic concentrator with a PV module. a thermal efficiency comparison between pressurized water and thermal oil as working fluids is presented for different operating conditions. Moreover. A lot of research has been conducted worldwide for the CPC performance improvement. a comparison between pressurized water and thermal oil is presented in order to determine the most suitable fluid energetically. Su et al. ° c intercept factor e emittance g efficiency h solar incident angle. W/m2 K thermal conductivity. mm focal length. Also. These systems include compound parabolic reflectors. but it has lower optical efficiency in low incidence angles. W/m2 K aperture length. while Souliotis et al. [14] analyzed also a lens-walled CPC with a PV module and resulted that the lens creates a uniform flux distribution in the PV-module which increases their efficiency. [34] made a comparison (sa) u transmittance–absorptance product Parabola angle parameter. while both an optical and thermal analysis has been conducted. [29] and Kessentini [30. mm mean convection coefficient. m2 concentration ratio specific heat capacity. Finally. A comparison of N–S and E–W orientated CPCs presented by Kim [5]. mm mass flow rate. which is the ideal modeling. phase change materials and special materials (absorber and cover) in order to achieve high daily performance. longitudinal projection angle are developed by Wang [27] so as the tracking systems to be analyzed more. the pressurized water. an optimization of its geometry is made in order to maximize the optical efficiency. mm Greek symbols b peripheral absorber angle. Bellos et al.54 E. The simulation of the collector has been done with commercial software Solidworks flow simulation. The model was designed in Solidworks by a parametrical way in order to optimize its geometry. Examined model A compound parabolic collector with an evacuated tube is examined in this study. J/kg K diameter. ° transverse solar angle. Mathematical equations for solar transversal projection angle. which means two different parabolic shapes. This optimization gives the opportunity to improve the collector optical . The results showed that lens-walled CPC has greater acceptance angle.

These solar angles are used in the optical analysis. thus an optimization of the reflector geometry is presented. In addition. This tangency is crucial because leads to a smooth surface and as a consequence to a greater optical efficiency. it is essential to state that the solar radiation. the aperture. is the beam radiation and a part of the diffuse radiation which is depended on concentration ratio. the tube diameters and etcetera. 1. Eq. this part is created by two identical circular parts which are tangent with the parabolas. The material selection is presented below: – The absorber is selected to be made of cooper. efficiency and to achieve optimum performance. two other angles. this parameter is calculated as the ratio of the solar irradiation that arrives at the tube to the reflected solar irradiation from the mirror. while the absorber diameter designed at 30 mm. are being introduced to determine the exact position of the sun. The boundary conditions. The absorber’s sketch is located in the symmetry axis of the sketch plane and is tangent to the straight line AB which connects the two parabolas focus as well as to the one is defined from C and B. Qs  q ð2Þ Qtube symbolizes the reaching radiation to the tube while (sa) is the product of cover transmittance and receiver absorbance. the height. For this reason. Qs ð1Þ The mirror reflectivity q is the first optical loss and it is affected by the surface quality. The next loss is expressed by the intercept factor c which is depended on the incident angle of the radiation. extra information about the relative position between collector and sun is necessary in order to predict the exact path of the solar rays inside the collector. the focal distance f and the angle u were selected to be 50 mm and 90° respectively. the acceptance angle. It is important to state that many parameters influence on the optical performance of the collector and the optimization of all them leads to a very complex problem. Fig. The parameters were being optimized are the aperture W and the distance q which is related to the down part of the CPC. as Eq. In the examined case. For this reason. Simulation in Solidworks environment and methodology The examined model was designed in Solidworks and simulated in its flow simulation studio. The optical efficiency of the collector is the ratio of the absorbed energy from the tube to the total solar energy entering to the aperture. that CPC utilizes. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 55 Fig. (3) describes the exploited solar irradiation: Ge ¼ Gb þ Gd . without slope. Eq. However. Moreover. Fig. ð4Þ Table 1 includes the basic dimensions of the collector and other important parameters of the simulation. The first step in the simulation was the determination of the physical problem. These conditions lead all the rays which are incident vertically on the aperture plane and arrive at the parabolic surfaces to reach to the absorber tube. First of all. (1) presents: Q gopt ðhÞ ¼ abs ¼ q  cðhÞ  ðsaÞ. the transverse and the longitude. the height H and the acceptance half-angle hc are easily calculated. (2) summarizes the above analysis: c¼ Q tube . the solar radiation parameters are very important for this analysis and emphasis is given to them. 2 illustrates these solar angles in a 3-D scheme. For this study case. Bellos et al. C ð3Þ The incident angle h is a very important parameter which affects on the optical efficiency. More specifically. Eq. . In this point. Geometric parameters of CPC design. This quantity can be easily calculated by a product of three parameters. 1 shows the CPC scheme and the geometry parameters. the materials of the parts and the properties of every material are the main parameters that have been determined. (4) gives the incident angle (h) as a function of the transversal and the longitudinal angles: tan2 ðhÞ ¼ tan2 ðhL Þ þ tan2 ðhT Þ. CPC is created by two parabolas and a third part which connects them. By knowing these parameters. some of these parameters were selected to be constant and the optimization was applied on the rest of them. the reflector shape determines the intercept factor.E.

000 cells and the total mesh is consisted of about 4.80 1000 W/m2 0. – The reflector has a special mirror surface. – The mean cover temperature in its volume. For this reason. Different refinement levels have been tested and the convergence criterion was the fluid outlet temperature. – The mean receiver temperature in its outer surface. By this way. specific convergence goals were selected in order to take the proper output from Solidworks and to lead the solver to the desirable results. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 Fig. – The pressure of the outlet was determined in every case and is a necessary boundary condition for the flow simulation inside the tube. Solar angles and 3-D CPC shape.1 0. 2. The final mesh contains in every cross cross-section about 50. – The inner and outer cover surfaces have been selected to have the proper radiation properties (emittance. The mesh in the computational domain was created by Solidworks and emphasis was given in the fluid domain. in the mesh generation a standard mesh is created by selecting the basic nodes. The next step is a refinement in fluid and partial cells in order to make the mesh better inside the tube. these materials are not taking part in the thermal analysis. This choice is necessary for the proper solar rays reflection.000 cells. More specifically. In addition. The multiple reflections have been taken into account in this model. Simulation parameter Values Geometry dimensions Values er ec q(sa) 0.88 0. In every case.56 E. Table 1 Geometry dimensions and simulation parameters. Bellos et al. The main outputs of the simulation tool are the following: – The fluid bulk temperature in the outlet. – The thermal losses of the receiver which are equal to its radiation losses. the temperature difference between their surfaces is very low and for this reason the mean volume temperature was selected as output. For the cover. transparency). some parameters were kept constant and others were varied. – The heat convection coefficient between the outer cover surface and the environment.01 kg/s 10 °C 10 W/m2 °C p L f Dri Dro Dci Dco 17 m 1000 mm 50 mm 30 mm 34 mm 44 mm 48 mm Ge mw Tam hca – The cover is transparent to solar energy and is made of glass. These lids were selected to be as ‘‘insulators”. – The flow was selected to be fully developed in the inlet of the tube. The . – The total enthalpy difference between the outlet and the inlet of the tube.000. The model was simulated for various study cases. The next important parameters that have to be taken into consideration are related with the radiation surfaces of the materials: – The absorber outer surface was selected to be selective. extra refinement levels were added in fluid and in partial cells. The solar radiation was determined by its intensity and its direction through the general settings of the program. The choice of these values have made after a small sensitivity analysis. – Lids have been placed in the inlet and in the outlet of the tube in order to create a closed fluid volume. – The temperature in the internal face of the inlet lid. The proper boundary conditions of the simulation are the following: – The inlet mass flow rate in the internal face of the inlet lid. It is essential to state again that the optical analysis is made by Solidworks flow simulation with setting the reflector surface as ‘‘symmetry surface”. – The reflector surface was set as ‘‘symmetry” surface.

the line which connects the focus of each parabola to the opposite upper point is tangent to the receiver (Fig.81 0. 5 shows the local concentration ratio in the peripheral line of the absorber. This distribution is very important because there is a great variation from point to point over the absorber.0 0.6 200 In this paragraph the geometrical parameters which influence on the optical efficiency of the collector are investigated in order to predict the optimum values of the examined geometric parameters. 7 displays how the intercept factor variation as a function of the longitudinal angle.80 q=21 mm 0. 6 depicts the heat flux distribution over the geometry. Moreover Fig. Fig. From the above figures it is obvious that the maximum solar irradiation is concentrated on the top of the absorber (b = 0°). After a critical point. This distance was selected at 21 mm which is a value inside the optimum region. Fig. Intercept factor for different aperture values.95 0. because only a small part of the reflector sent rays on this region. parametrically investigated. while the solar rays are vertical to the aperture plane (h = 0°). 250 300 350 400 450 500 W(mm) Fig. Incident angle impact on intercept factor 1. Heat flux distribution over the receiver The next important issue about the optical analysis is the way that the heat flux is being distributed in the receiver.00 0. Optimization of the reflector geometry The objective of this section is to present the influence of the geometric parameters (q and W) on the intercept factor. and as a consequence on the optical efficiency. but in the concentrating collectors. The next parameter is the aperture length W which is analyzed in Fig. It is obvious that the optical loss is getting greater as the longitudinal angle increases. after the reflection on the mirror. in the longitudinal and in the transversal direction. fact that makes them to belong to the same cycle. this value for the parameter ‘‘q” makes the two circular parts to be tangent in their contact point. we have to calculate the local concentration ratio as Eq. It is essential to mention that in the optimum case. 1). the incident angle is sufficient to similar calculations. the intercept factor is decreasing something that affects directly on the optical efficiency. This is according to the theory which demands this condition in order to determine the optimum aperture. For this reason. Other parameters as the solar radiation intensity. Especially. The energy balances of the thermal model are presented in Appendix A with more details. the ambient temperature and the mass flow rate were kept constant. all the incident solar rays arrive at the tube. More specifically. More specifically. The results were taken from Solidworks for the optimum case. (5) suggests below: CL ¼ dQ tube q  Ge  dA .7 Optical analysis 300 mm 0. the shape of the down part of the CPC as well as the aperture surface value is examined by changing the q and W values respectively.57 E. a more analytic determination of the sun position uses two angles. in order to take a smooth surface.8 0. Table 2 gives the final results of the optimization. Moreover. This leads us to select the optimum value at the critical point which is the aperture of 300 mm width. This means that the position of the sun affects significantly on the optical efficiency.max the receiver. It is obvious that there is a great region of values which lead to an optimum performance of the intercept factor. a deeper analysis is needed. Intercept factor for different shapes of CPC down part.9 0. This can be explained because this part collects beam radiation directly from the sun and simultaneously a part of the reflected radiation from the parabolas. 3.3 m2 2. The lower part of the receiver (b = 180°) collects the lessen radiation. 4. as it is taken by Solidworks results. in the down part of the absorber there are two symmetry regions (b = 145° and b = 215°) where the heat flux takes great values due to the fact that both the parabolas and the down circular part of the mirror reflect the rays to these two specific parts of the absorber.7937 cmax gopt. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 temperature of the working fluid in the inlet and the solar radiation direction were the parameters. The following Figs. 40 The next step in the optical analysis is the determination of optical efficiency for different sun positions. In no concentrating collectors.85 0.75 0 5 10 15 20 q (mm) 25 30 35 Fig. For low aperture values the intercept factor is maximized because all the reflected rays arrive to the receiver.9921 0. 1. Table 2 Optimized geometry parameters.90 0. In order to present the heat flux distribution with a dimensionless way. The optimization of the intercept factor leads to the optimization of the optical efficiency which is the goal of this analysis. ð5Þ Fig. the loss for small . The rest of the parameters were selected to be constant. 3 depicts the effect that distance q has on the intercept factor. This figure gives a strange profile for the heat flux and the reason is the complex geometry of the reflector. It is remarkable that. when the parameter q takes values in the range of 13–26 mm. Bellos et al. 4. 5 and 6 show this distribution over the circular geometry of Geometry parameters Value q W H hC Aa C 21 m 300 mm 150 mm 53° 0.

2 0. the reader is referred to the web version of this article. ð6Þ It is important to state that above the value of 80°. values of the longitudinal angle is almost inconsiderable. The mathematical approximation of the above curve is presented in Eq. Heat flux distribution over the absorber geometry. Incident angle as a function of the transverse solar angle. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 6 5 CL 4 3 2 1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 () Fig.4 0.) 1.8 0.8 0. Incident angle as a function of longitude solar angle. .6 0.0 0 20 40 60 L( 0. 8. the efficiency is extremely low and the system stops operating. 5. Bellos et al. 6.6 0. with red the maximum values and with blue the lower values.0 80 0 o) 10 20 30 T( Fig.58 E. 8.0 1. 7.2 0. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend. 40 50 60 ) Fig. Local concentration ratio distribution in peripheral of the absorber.4 0. The next analyzed angle is the transversal one which is given in the Fig.0 0. (6): cðhL Þ ¼ 0:9921  4:1  104  hL  1:92  104  h2L þ 7  107  h3L . Fig.

Solidworks outputs include these thermal losses and this makes the calculations easier. something that makes the comparison better.05 0. the difference between the two heat loss coefficients is getting greater as the inlet fluid temperature increases something that explains the divergence in the efficiency curves for the respective operating conditions. Fig.8 ð11Þ Thermal comparison of working fluids 0. 8 shows that after 53° no solar rays arrive on the receiver. More specifically. Efficiency curve for different operating conditions. the reason for the greater receiver temperature in the thermal oil case will be presented.68 Water 0.1 Thermal oil 1. gth ¼ 0. (11): Q Loss UL ¼ . (11) by using the total thermal losses.w . Two different working fluids. 100 100 100 cðhT Þ ¼ 0:9921  5:46  0. A tracking system is used in many applications in order to minimize the transversal angle and to achieve greater optical efficiency. Fig. At this point is essential to state that a warmer absorber lead to higher heat losses and this has to been taken into consideration in the presented analysis. It is obvious from Fig. 0.15 0. the mass flow rate of thermal oil is 0. The next equation is the approximation of the Fig. The difference in absorber temperature seems to be constant between the pressurized water and thermal oil case (Fig. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63  The next step after determining optical efficiency optimization is the thermal performance investigation of the examined collector.80 th It is obvious that the intercept factor decreases abruptly for low values of the transversal angle something that makes this parameter crucial for the collector performance. if the two fluids absorb the same amount of heat.76 0 0.25 (Tin-Tam)/Ge Water 1. Heat loss coefficient for different operating conditions. an expected result.72 0. since the half-acceptance angle is also 53°.59 E. 9 that pressurized water performs better in all cases while the difference on the efficiency is getting greater as the inlet temperature increases. The thermal oil operates in lower pressure level because it is kept in liquid phase up to 300 °C without needing a great pressure increase. The water is under a high pressure levels (35 bar) in order to be kept in liquid phase for all study cases.9 0. because only radiation losses exist inside the evacuated tube. Ar  ðT r  T am Þ 0.1 0.05 0. the specific thermal capacity was selected at 4180 kJ/kg K for water and at 1972 kJ/kg K for thermal oil. 10. Fig.2 Fig. Qs 0. as it is depicted in Fig. _  cp Þ to be the same in (10). the above correction equalizes the different into specific capacitance between the working fluids. In this point.6 In this section a comparison between the two working fluids is presented. cp.64 Thermal oil ð7Þ Thermal analysis for water and thermal oil as working fluids Qu . 10) is getting greater for higher fluid temperature levels. 11 proves that the absorber temperature is greater when the collector operates with thermal oil. 9 illustrates the thermal efficiency of the examined collector for a range of operating conditions. The difference in this coefficient is explained by the difference in the receiver temperature. 10. (12) gives the mean Nusselt number for laminar flow [35] and Eq. Qu ¼ m ð9Þ Thermal oil mass flow rate was determined according to Eq. This coefficient is depended on the receiver temperature in the fourth power.5 UL (W/m2K)   2 hT hT  25:96 þ 15:37  100 100  3  4  5 hT hT hT  þ 22:5   7:2  . 0. The ambient temperature and the solar irradiation were selected to be 10 °C and 1000 W/m2 respectively. By this assumption.25 . Eq.o ð10Þ In other worlds.3 0 0 0. 10 shows that the heat loss coefficient (UL) takes greater values in the thermal oil case. (9): _  cp  ðT out  T in Þ.60 Moreover. are tested in order to make a comparison between them. Emphasis is given in the heat transfer coefficient inside the tube. fact that explains the non-linear behavior of Fig.1 0. This coefficient is calculated according Eq. This is a result of the dependence between these parameters. fact that leads to greater overall losses and to low thermal efficiency.15 0.0212 kg/s. pressurized water and thermal oil. the difference in the heat loss coefficient (Fig. 11. A deeper analysis of the heat transfer between tube and working fluid is given below.2 (Tin-Tam)/Ge Fig. The properties of these fluids are taken by Solidworks library. The only parameter that changes is the water inlet temperature which is ranged from 10 °C to 230 °C. (13) the heat convection coefficient: 2.2 0. m_ o ¼ m_w  cp. which is depicted in Fig. according to Eq. 11). Furthermore. The thermal efficiency of the collector can be calculated as the ratio of the useful energy to the solar energy entering in the collector’s aperture: ð8Þ The useful energy from the collector is calculated by the energy balance in the working fluid volume. 10. For typical values of specific thermal capacities. in order the total heat capacity ðm the two cases. Fig. then the same temperature increase is being occurred. Another important parameter is the overall heat loss coefficient which can be calculated by the Eq. 8 curve: 1. This happens due to the difference in the heat losses and as a consequence in the overall heat loss coefficient between the two fluids. This will make the absorber to have similar temperature in both cases. However. Bellos et al. 9.

the reader is referred to the web version of this article.3 ( C) 108. 4m p  Dri  l l  cp k Fluid h (W/ m2 K) Nu Re Pr k (W/ m K) l (Pa s) cp (J/ kg K) Water Thermal oil 150 62 6. Fig. 13. 13a shows that the temperature of the tube increases in the flow direction because the fluid is getting warmer from the inlet to the outlet. (16) describes the correlation between the heat convection coefficient and the absorber temperature: T r ¼ T fm þ Table 3 Mean heat convection coefficient and other properties for working fluid.) . the temperature is lower because the heat did not manage to reach this part of the flow.9 144 0. Dri ð12Þ ð13Þ Eqs. It is obvious from Fig.67 0.9 107. 1 þ 0:04  DLri  Re  Pr hm ¼ Num  k . as it was referred above.0 107.   0:0668  DLri  Re  Pr Num ¼ 3:66 þ  2=3 . This temperature level is an intermediate and representative value for the collector operation. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 300 Thermal oil Water 250 Re ¼ Tr (oC) 200 Pr ¼ 150 100 50 0 0 0.2 () 108.8 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 () Fig. 11. Ari  hm ð16Þ This equation suggests that for a constant useful energy amount. Peripheral temperature distribution in the absorber. the peripheral temperature of the absorber in the middle of the tube is given in Fig. The heat Fig.1 0. In the center core.60 E. It is obvious that the heat transfer coefficient is lower for the thermal oil case. additional figures and diagrams are given for operation pressurized water. 13a) and the distribution of the heat losses (Fig. (14) and (15) show the definition of Reynolds and Prandtl number respectively: In this section.00031 0. . 12. 13b) over the outer tube surface.2 0. something that is explained by the great difference in the dynamic viscosity and the thermal conductivity of thermal oil. Additional results for operation with pressurized water 108. This result makes the heat transfer fluid with higher convection coefficients to be more suitable in thermal solar applications.25 (Tin-Tam)/Ge Fig. (a) Absorber temperature distribution. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend.15 0.05 0. Firstly. Eq. the optimum working fluid according to the previous analysis. that the maximum temperature appears on the top of the tube where the maximum heat flux is observed (Figs. The temperature of the fluid in the inlet is equal to 90 °C for Figs.01240 4180 1972 . it is essential to state that the variation of the temperature distribution is only 0.0 1388 73 1. Fig.17 0.7 11. 12. Receivers mean temperature for different operating conditions. Moreover. the thermal losses have a respective to the temperature distribution due to their dependency. 12–14. a lower heat transfer coefficient leads to a greater absorber temperature. This result proves that the absorber tube temperature distribution can be approximately assumed as isothermal small rings. 13 shows the temperature distribution (Fig. ð14Þ ð15Þ Table 3 includes the calculated parameters for inlet temperature equal to 90 °C which is an intermediate operating temperature. The maximum temperature is observed close to tube walls and especially in the upper and in the lower part of them. 13b.4 °C. In Fig. 12. (b) thermal losses distribution over the absorber (the red color illustrates the greater values and the blue the lower values).1 absorber 108. 14 depicts the water temperature distribution in the outlet cross-section of the tube. Bellos et al. Qu . Fig. 5 and 6).

the receiver and the cover temperature are compared for all the range of operating conditions. It is obvious that the two models give similar results which . The validation is made for pressurized water because this is the working fluid with the better efficiency. 16 shows the validation results between model in Solidworks and model in FORTRAN. Model validation In the final part of this study. Fig. A simple 1-D numerical model written in the FORTRAN programming language was developed for validating the simulation results. 15. the thermal efficiency.E. The main developed model is based on the energy balance in the absorber in order to determine the useful energy and the heat losses [36]. Bellos et al. Fig. The receiver and the cover are supposed to have uniform temperature levels in every case which is a good assumption. because the examined tube is short and the temperature variation along the tube is low. Flow chart of the developed numerical model. 15 illustrates the basic points the developed numerical model. Fig. a simple validation of the developed model is presented. 14. More specifically. the heat loss coefficient. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 61 Fig. conductivity is the factor that determines the temperature distribution on the radial direction of the fluid cross section. Water temperature distribution in the outlet cross section.

Two different working fluids are compared in order to predict the most appropriate as a heat transfer fluid. ðA:1Þ Q abs ¼ Q S  q  c  ðsaÞ. the water temperature in the outlet cross section is characterized by isothermal rings. Bellos et al. These equations lead to the receiver temperature.2): Q S ¼ Aa  Ge . and the results show that the transversal angle variation causes a significant reduction in the optical efficiency. Q loss ¼ r  Aro  ðT 4r  T 4c Þ 1 er þ 1ecec  AAroci . Appendix A The basic equations which describe the general energy balances are given in this appendix. The next part of this study is the thermal analysis of the collector in order to predict the efficiency for different operating conditions. are close to each other. (A. the greater values of these properties in pressurized water increase the heat convection coefficient making water the most suitable working fluid. More specifically. Another important conclusion is that The first author would like to thank the Onassis Foundation for its financial support.62 E. the absorber is getting warmer from the inlet to the outlet and the heat losses have a similar distribution. ðA:4Þ Eqs. From this equation is able the direct determination of heat losses: Q loss ¼ Q abs  Q u . ðA:5Þ ðA:6Þ ðA:7Þ . ðA:2Þ The useful energy that fluid absorbs is calculated by the energy balance in its volume according Eq. (A. Validation results (a) thermal efficiency (b) heat loss coefficient (c) receiver temperature (d) cover temperature. The goal of the optimization is the maximization of the intercept factor for zero incident angle. 16. Moreover. ðA:3Þ The energy balance in the absorber is given in Eq. the temperature distribution in the absorber and in the fluid are presented for operation with pressurized water. the design of this collector is analyzed in order to optimize its geometry. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 Fig. (A. the peripheral temperature distribution over the absorber has a variation of about 0. These results validate the developed model in Solidworks.1) and the energy delivered to the absorber by Eq.4 K. Q loss ¼ Aco  hca  ðT c  T am Þ þ ec  Aco  r  ðT 4c  T 4am Þ. a small variation which leads to the assumption of isothermal tube locally. The shape of the down part has not a significant role in the collector efficiency and for this reason its design is not of great interest. The results showed that the optimum aperture width is about 300 mm with a focal distance of 50 mm and a receiver diameter of 34 mm. the collector tested for various incident angles at the longitude and in the transverse direction. Conclusions Acknowledgments In this study a detailed analysis of a CPC collector is presented. Also.3): Q u ¼ m  cp  ðT out  T in Þ. cover temperature and heat loss coefficient: Q loss ¼ U L  Aro  ðT r  T am Þ. (A. The reason for the water’s better performance is the different thermal properties of it. In the last part of this study.5)–(A. conductivity and dynamic viscosity. Pressurized water performed better than thermal oil by giving greater efficiency in the whole operating range. with the warmer to be closer to the tube. According to the presented figures. This finding indicates the necessity of tracking this collector in order to minimize the incident angle and mainly the transversal incident angle. The energy potential of the solar energy is given by Eq. First of all.7) are three different ways to express the heat losses.4). (A. The final reflector geometry is optimum because all the reflected rays are delivered to the receiver which means ideal design.

92:194–206. Mallick TK. Energy Convers Manage 2013. Thermal-optical analysis of a compound parabolic concentrator for single and multiphase flows including superheat. 014501-014501-7.29(1):19–36. ClarkJ A.57:577–86.57:9–19. Energy 2012.33(5):441–9.30(3):231–95. Appl Energy 2009. Low-cost distributed solar thermal–electric power generation. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2004. Gudekar AS. [11] Gude VG. Munir AB. Hennecke K. [18] Winston R. Amar M. Performance evaluation of two dimensional compound elliptic lens concentrators using a yearly distributed insolation model. Performance study of a box-type solar cooker employing an asymmetric compound parabolic concentrator. Mitsopoulos G. Bouden C. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2016. Ramirez M. Advances in parabolic trough solar power technology. [24] Snail KA.66:56–65.124:109–25. Balkoski K. Murugavel K. [28] Abu-Bakar SH. [19] El-Assay AY. Numerical and experimental study of an integrated solar collector with CPC reflectors. Merzouk M. [15] Kalogirou SA. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 1999. Kale DM. [21] Chew TC. Safari A. [5] Kim YS. Analysis of a new compound parabolic concentrator-based solar collector designed for methanol reforming.85:2474–87. 89–98. The heat transfer coefficient between absorber and fluid can be calculated by Eq. Leinhard V J. Quinlan P. Performance analysis of a novel sun-tracking CPC heat pipe evacuated tubular collector.21:189–98. Panse SV. Yang L. Appl Energy 2013. [4] Gu X. Sol Energy 2011. Muto A. Performance of compound parabolic concentrators with polygonal apertures. 354–60.39:51–64. 2012. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2014. [26] Sallaberry F. A numerical study of the natural convection in CPC solar collector cavities with tubular absorbers. Maganti A. Suzuki A. Tay AO. [27] Wang Y.36:2324–33.54:270–98. solid-sorption chiller with a CPC collector. Bouden C. Jie J. Jie J. Liao C. Principles of solar concentrators of a novel design. Sustainable Cities Soc 2012. Sol Energy 2012. Int J Sustainable Energy 2010. Nirmalakhandan N. [23] Devanarayanan K. [7] Gang P. 63 [16] Gang P. p. / Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 16 (2016) 53–63 The next equation that connects the useful heat and the receiver temperature: Q u ¼ Ari  hm  ðT r  T fm Þ. [34] Su Y. and construction of a double glazed compound parabolic concentrators-type integrated collector storage water heater. J Sol Energy Eng 2002. Winston R. [22] Cooper T. Lucio JH. Low temperature desalination using solar collectors augmented by thermal energy storage. Bellos et al.91:466–74.18:497–511. Zhang X. [2] Grena R. [25] Kim Y. Wijeysundera NE. [35] Leinhard IV J. Joshi JB.9) for laminar flow: hm ¼ " # k 0:0668  Re  Pr  Dri =L :  3:66 þ Dri 1 þ 0:04  ðRe  Pr  Dri =LÞ2=3 ðA:9Þ References [1] Kruger D. Korres D. Heat retaining integrated collector storage solar water heater with asymmetric CPC reflector. Rotationally asymmetrical compound parabolic concentrator for concentrating photovoltaic applications. Thermal and optical efficiency investigation of a parabolic trough collector. Pujol-Nadal R. Appl Energy 2014. [36] Tzivanidis C. Comparative study on annual solar energy collection of a novel lens-walled compound parabolic concentrator (lens-walled CPC). Lazarus IJ.58:398–403. [17] Yoshioka K. Souliotis M.136:363–72. Heat Mass Transfer 1987. Zarza E. Sol Energy 1984. Sol Energy 2013. Ramirez-Iniguez R. Sol Energy 1974. Berube V.111(1):16–23. An evaluation on thermal performance of CPC solar collector. Renewable Energy 2013. [9] Der Minassians A. Riffat SB. Optical and thermal properties of compound parabolic concentrators.34:570–7. Solar assisted method for recovery of bitumen from oil sand. Optical simulation of a parabolic solar trough collector. Chiesa M. Pei G. Bellos E. J Sol Energy Eng 2015. Renewable Energy 2011. Saidur R. Zhu Y.87:381–8. Rosengarten G. A stationary evacuated collector with integrated concentrator. Sol Energy 1976. (A. Design and analysis of a novel low-temperature solar thermal electric system with two-stage collectors and heat storage units. Antonopoulos KA. Integrated collector storage solar water heater with compound parabolic concentrator – development and progress. Zacharopoulos A. Chen H. design. The potential of solar industrial process heat applications. [12] Mekhilef S. Efficient stationary solar thermal collector systems operating at a medium-temperature range. Aschenbach KH. A review on solar energy use in industries. Saitoh T. García de Jalón A. J Sol Energy Eng 2014. [13] Kalogirou S. Rahim RA. Performance analysis of a novel and cost effective CPC system.15:1777–90. Gang P. Recent developments in integrated collector storage (ICS) solar water heaters: a review. Solar thermal collectors and applications. Jiang L. Patil RG. Dahler F. Tripanagnostopoulos Y. A heat tranfer textbook. Muhammad-Sukki F.6:226–37. [33] Harmim A. Experiment and simulation study on the flux distribution of lens-walled compound parabolic concentrator compared with mirror compound parabolic concentrator.220(1–3):612–8. Cohen G. Pandian Y. In: Proc Spie – Int Soc Opt Eng Aug 2003. Desalination 2008. Optical losses due to tracking error estimation for a low concentrating solar collector. Taylor RA. Kearney D. Evaluation of thermal parameters and simulation of a solar-powered. [31] Kessentini H. [29] Souliotis M.86:1437–41. Ambrosetti G. Lόpfert E. ðA:8Þ The mean fluid temperature (Tfm) is approximately the average of inlet and outlet temperature. Riffat SB. [6] Gonzalez Rodrıguez LR. Renewable Energy 2009. Yuehong S. USA: Philogiston Press. Pedretti A. p. Appl Energy 2012. O’Gallagher JJ. Xi Z.86:1280–6. Energy Convers Manage 2015. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2011. Seo T. Guiqiang L. J Sol Energy Eng 1989.35:446–57. Jing L. [10] Kraemer D. Parabolic trough collector testing in the frame of the react project. [3] Price H. Bajpayee A. Torres JL. Gee R.138(1). Winston R. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2008. Energy 2013. Steinfeld A.47:471–80. [32] Singh R. Deng S. [30] Kessentini H.111:1071–9. .95:308–18. Sanders SR. Yuehong S. Appl Therm Eng 2015. [20] Rabl A.16:89–95. 4th ed.E. Boukar M. Case Stud Therm Eng 2015. Yasin SHM. Smyth M. Appl Energy 2003. Jie J. Han GY. Yianoulis P.4:25–40. [8] Jadhav AS. Experimental study and exergetic analysis of a CPC-type solar water heater system using higher-temperature circulation in winter. Numerical simulation. [14] Guiqiang L.76:337–61. Schmitz M.136.