## Experimental and numerical measurement of the thermal performance for parabolic trough solar concentrators

## Khaled Mohamad, Philippe Ferrer

School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2001, South Africa khaled@aims.edu.gh

Abstract Parabolic trough mirror plants are a popular design for conversion of solar energy to electricity via thermal processes. The receiver unit (RU) for absorbing the concentrated solar radiation is limited to a maximum temperatures ( 580 ° C) and is responsible for efficiency losses mainly via thermal radiation. We built a RU in the laboratory to study the thermal performance for different designs and we companied this study with a mathematical module implemented on a simulation code. In this work, the simulation and  the first set of experiments show a good agreement, validating applicability of the code.

## 1.  Introduction

A parabolic trough solar thermal power plant consists of a series of parabolic mirrors concentrating solar radiation onto a linear focal line along which the receiver unit is positioned. The receiver heats up and in turn imparts a large portion of its heat to a heat transfer fluid circulating within. This heat transfer fluid can then be utilized in a steam cycle to generate electricity. The receiver is one of the most complex parts and the efficiency of the entire system is largely determined by it. It has to be carefully designed in such a way so as to minimize the energy losses. Every part of the receiver unit is a topic of ongoing research,  such  as  the  working  fluid  that  can  be  used,  and  also  the  optical,  chemical,  and  thermal properties of the concerned material [1] .

Typically, the receiver unit consists of a blackened absorber pipe (AP) encapsulated by the glass cover (GC), (See Fig. (1a)). There is a vacuum in between to minimize convective heat losses [2]. For the conduction losses, the thermal contacts between the receiver  pipe and the glass cover are kept to a minimum. The heat transfer fluid (HTF) inside the receiver pipe is heated by the concentrated solar radiation. The hot HTF can be used in generating electricity through a steam cycle or in thermochemical applications [3]. The dominant heat losses at high temperatures are due to the thermal emission (IR) from the receiver pipe. There is a conventional method to minimize the IR by painting the receiver pipe with a spectrally selective coating, a dielectric film that absorbs well in the visible region of the solar spectrum and emits poorly in the IR region. Much work has been published in regard to the selective coating and their properties [4]. The main weakness of selective coating is that it prevents the receiver pipe from being heated to high temperature, since it thermally decomposes at about 680 K  [5], [6].

An alternative option to the selective coating is to reduce the thermal emission from the glass cover tube of a trough collector by trapping IR via a reflective surface on the part of the glass not facing the trough.

The solar radiation inlet may be coated with a hot mirror type coating [7-10], i.e., Indium-Tin-Oxide and applying the reflective cavity around the absorber [11], which is shown in Fig. (1b).

Figure 1. a) Receiver unit with a selective coating.    b) Receiver unit with a cavity design [11].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-bd357890-822c-4c2e-8af2-f03dc22a2cae.jpg)

Measuring the heat losses of the receiver unit of the parabolic trough is an effective way to determine the efficiency of the RU especially at a higher Heat transfer fluid (HTF) temperature. It allows us to judge the performance of different RU designs. In this work, we studied the thermal performance of the RU by measuring the heat losses experimentally and compared our results with our simulation code, which is based on a mathematical model of the system.

## 2.  Experiment description

The Receiver Unit (RU) or heat collector element was tested indoor. Two heating elements inside the absorber  pipe  of  the  RU  brought  the  HTF  temperature  to  a  desirable  test  temperature.  In  one experimental set, the glass tube was evacuated, in the other air was left inside the annulus. The heating element power was adjusted to a desired power value using a variac. Once the RU reached a steady state temperature, the electrical power required to maintain the HTF temperature equaled the heat loss of the RU at that temperature. Further, the temperatures along the RU elements were constant. The heat loss of the RU was tested at different temperatures corresponding to heating power generation of the heating elements from 50 W to 1.5 kW in roughly 50 W increments. Heat losses were reported per meter of RU. The temperature around the absorber pipe and the glass cover was measured with thermocouples and hence  we  could  calculate  the  emittance  of  AP  and  the  heat  loss  to  the  environment  at  different temperatures.

The length of the tested RU was 2.7 m at 25 ℃ (It will expand by about 9 mm at 300 ℃ with a mild steel absorber pipe outer/inner diameter of 3.2/2.8 cm and a two pieces of a Pyrex glass cover outer/inner diameter of 5.8/5.4 cm with a length of 1.35 m each. The Pyrex glass pieces were joined together with a brass section in the centre of the AP. We vacuum insulated the central brass piece, glass covers and the AP together using flame resistant high temperature silicon. The high temperature silicon also acted as a thermal insulator between the joints in this experiment.

The heating elements were two 1.2 m with 8 mm outer diameter. In order to prevent the heating element from touching the AP, we introduced spacers to center the heating elements. These spacers can be made from steel with a small size and sharp edge toward the AP inner surface to minimize the losses through it. Thermocouples measured the temperature of the outer surface of the AP and GC. Thermocouples were introduced to determine the average temperatures and heating behavior of the RU. The Absorber pipe  and  Glass  cover  temperatures  were  measured  using  two  and  four  K-type  thermocouples respectively.  A  good  contact  between  the  thermocouples  and  the  surface  was  required  for  accurate measurement. Figs.2 and 3 show more details about the setup.

As indicated in Fig. 3, the thermocouples wires are insulated with a thermally resistance braided tube and  grouped  together  at  the  end.  Their  ends  are  connected  to  the  control  and  measurement  unit.

Furthermore, two holes through the end piece are made to allow the AP thermocouples wires get out and connected to the control and measurement unit via vacuum tight exits. The control and measurement unit allowed us to regulate and adjust the heater power in accordance to temperature requirements.

Figure 2 : The receiver unit set up in the laboratory.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-e3bb97be-8590-487d-8fcc-f834f24ec727.jpg)

Figure 3: The right one-half of RU. T represents the thermocouple position.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-05733b91-fdca-4d41-9b76-3847023b9b49.jpg)

## 3.  Theory and simulation study

The source of the thermal energy is an electrical resistance heater wire with a constant rate of heat generation and can be modified by a variac. Fig. 3 shows the total heat transfer of the system and the interactions  between  its  components.  The  physical  basis  of  our  model  starts  with  a  comprehensive description of the thermal interaction. Under steady operating conditions, the absorber pipe and the glass cover  reach  a  different  stagnation  temperature.  In  addition,  the  heat  loss  and  the  heat  gain  of  each element in the RU must equal the total rate of heat generation of the heating elements 𝐸 ̇ 𝑔𝑒𝑛

$$\dot { q } _ { G C, a m b } = \, \dot { q } _ { G C, c o n d } = \dot { q } _ { A P, G C } = \, \dot { q } _ { A P, c o n d } = \dot { E } _ { g e n },$$

where 𝑞̇ 𝐺𝐶,𝑎𝑚𝑏 is the rate of the heat transfer from the glass cover (GC) to the surroundings, 𝑞̇ 𝐺𝐶,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 is the conduction through the GC layer, 𝑞̇ 𝐴𝑃,𝐺𝐶 is the heat transfer from AP to GC, and 𝑞̇ 𝐴𝑃,𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 is  the conduction through the AP.

The calculations start from the heat loss to the ambient because the ambient temperature is always known. We initially guess the unknown outer GC surface temperature 𝑇 𝑔,𝑜 iteratively, until the steady operating  condition  at  which 𝑞̇ 𝐺𝐶,𝑎𝑚𝑏 = 𝐸 ̇ 𝑔𝑒𝑛 is  fulfilled.  The  heat  rate 𝑞̇ 𝐺𝐶,𝑎𝑚𝑏 consists  of  natural convection and radiation heat transfer from the glass cover to the ambient.

Figure 4 : Receiver unit cross section.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-4e9087c6-964c-4824-a93e-a9b260b22f69.jpg)

The air properties during the calculation were selected at 𝑇 𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 𝑇 𝑔,𝑜 +𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏 2 . We could then evaluate 𝑇 𝑔,𝑖 at which the rate of heat loss due to the conduction through GC equal 𝐸 ̇ 𝑔𝑒𝑛 . In the same way, 𝑇𝑎𝑏,𝑜 is evaluated through iteration until fulfilling 𝑞̇ 𝐴𝑃,𝐺𝐶 = 𝐸 ̇ 𝑔𝑒𝑛 , where 𝑞̇ 𝐴𝑃,𝐺𝐶 consists of the rate of the heat transfer between the AP and GC by convection and radiation. The convection heat transfer inside the evacuated annulus was ignored. Finally, 𝑇𝑎𝑏,𝑖 was evaluated such that the conduction heat loss through the AP equaled 𝐸 ̇ 𝑔𝑒𝑛 . This simulation code was implemented using Python and is shown in Fig. 5.

## 4.  Results

The initial experimental results tested for a normal RU reference unit without any coating. The aim was to validate our theoretical framework and simulation using experimental results. Two experiments were performed testing the thermal behaviour of the RU; 1) with air inside the annulus, and 2) with the annulus evacuated. The simulation predicted differing temperature readings for them, which we wanted to verify experimentally. The tested RU is shown in Fig. 2

In Fig. 6 and 7, the heat loss per meter of the RU length is depicted as a function of the absorber pipe and glass cover temperatures respectively. In the figures, 'Sim' indicates simulation and 'Exp' indicates experimental. In Fig. 6, the discrepancy between the simulation and experimental work in both cases vacuum and air in the annulus are 2% and 5.6% respectively.

Figure 5 : Algorithm for simulation code

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-0c79e7f3-a76e-4b10-8d0f-b36fa921266d.jpg)

Figure 6 : a) Heat loss versus AP temperature (Air in the annulus).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-9e2d583b-e4ba-4c28-9f1b-0f95c23ddeb5.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-dbc34ba6-ab52-47a9-94f6-58684fe7f639.jpg)

b) Heat loss versus AP temperature (Vacuum in the annulus).

The simulation predicted a higher AP temperature for the vacuum system, since there the convective heat transfer has been eliminated, and the only for heat to escape is via radiation. This is clearly shown in the experimental results, where the AP temperature is measurably higher in the vacuum case. In all cases the simulation seems to predict a greater heat loss. This seems to suggest that some of the material  property  values  need  to  be  re-evaluated.  Further,  the  edge  heat  loss  effects  need  to  be incorporated.

In Fig. 7, the simulation predicts that the GC temperature for the case of vacuum and air in the annulus is the same at a fixed value of the heat power generation, since the heat dissipation mechanism from the

Figure 7 :  a)  Heat loss versus GC temperature (Air in the annulus).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-a971abe9-3de8-4a31-bdfd-d0078fce9599.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00515v1-figure-9acc923e-31dc-44cb-a745-e17c398e1a53.jpg)

b) Heat loss versus GC temperature (Vacuum in the annulus).

GC to the ambient is similar. Further, the discrepancy between the simulation and experimental work in both cases vacuum and air in the annulus are 6% and 3% respectively.

## 5.  Conclusion

We  tested  a  receiver  unit  (RU)  of  the  parabolic  trough  collector  indoor,  in  order  to  validate  our theoretical  and  numerical  framework.  Two  experiments  were  performed,  for  which  the  simulation predicted different results. Experimental data verified the results of the simulation to within 2 % and 6% discrepancy for the absorber pipe temperature in the case of vacuum and air in the annulus respectively. Also, a discrepancy of 6% and 3% for the glass cover in the case of vacuum and air in the annulus respectively. This successful set of validations encourages us to continue testing our proposed designs using this experimental setup.

## References

- [1] Cyulinyana M C and Ferrer P 2011 Heat efficiency of a solar trough receiver with a hot mirror compared to a selective coating South Afr. J. Sci. 107 01-7
- [2] Sargent and Lundy LLC Consulting Group 2003 Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts (Chicago, Illinois: DIANE Publishing)
- [3] Lampert C M 1979 Coatings for enhanced photothermal energy collection I. Selective absorbers Sol. Energy Mater. 1 319-41
- [4] Burkholder F and Kutscher C 2008 Heat-loss testing of Solel's UVAC3 parabolic trough receiver (United States: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO.)
- [5] Kennedy C E and Price H 2005 Progress in Development of High-Temperature Solar-Selective Coating ASME Int. Sol. Energy Conf. Sol. Energy 749-55
- [6] Twidell J and Weir T 2015 Renewable Energy Resources (New York: Routledge)
- [7] Kreith F and Kreider J F 1978 Principles of solar engineering (United States: Hemisphere Pub. Corp.)
- [8] Cyulinyana M C and Ferrer P 2011 Heat efficiency of a solar trough receiver with a hot mirror compared to a selective coating South Afr. J. Sci. 107 01-07
- [9] Liu D-S, Sheu C-S, Lee C-T and Lin C-H 2008 Thermal stability of indium tin oxide thin films co-sputtered with zinc oxide Thin Solid Films 516 3196-3203
- [10]   William S J 2000 Engineering heat transfer CRC Press Boca Raton Lond. N. Y. DC
- [11]   Mohamad K and Ferrer P Computational comparison of a novel cavity absorber for parabolic trough solar concentrators Submitt. Proc. 62th Annu. Conf. South Afr. Inst. Phys. SAIP2017
Khaled Mohamad Philippe Ferrer
Experimental and numerical measurement of the thermal performance for parabolic trough solar concentrators
Parabolic trough mirror plants are a popular design for the conversion of
solar energy to electricity via thermal processes. The receiver unit (RU) for
absorbing the concentrated solar radiation is limited to maximum temperature
(580 degree Celsius) and is responsible for efficiency losses mainly via
thermal radiation. We built a RU in the laboratory to study the thermal
performance for different designs and we companied this study with a
mathematical module implemented on a simulation code. In this work, the
simulation and the first set of experiments show a good agreement, validating
the applicability of the code.