Renewable & Sustainable Energy

Reviews
Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: RSER-D-17-00057

Title: A review on modeling and simulation of parabolic trough solar

collectors

Article Type: Review Article

Section/Category: Concentrating Solar Power (Solar Thermal and PV)

Keywords: parabolic trough collector; optical modeling; thermal modeling;

performance enhancement; computational fluid dynamics; novel design;
nanofluid

Abstract: Parabolic trough solar collector (PTSC) is a proven technology

used dominantly in both commercial and industrial scale among the
concentrating solar collectors. The technology has matured over the
years, and its advancement has become the topic of numerous research
works which were the counter driving force of the field. Particularly in
the recent years, a great number of theoretical studies on the modeling
and simulation of the PTSC appeared in the literature. This review
methodologically holds colossal knowledge of current and past studies to
assess the optical and thermal analyses of PTSCs, modeling approaches and
the potential improvements proposed on behalf of the PTSC design. The
optical modeling approaches are identified: analytic and ray-tracing. The
thermal modeling treats the steady and transient heat transfer analyses
of single and two-phase (with DSG) flows, and also the computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) models. The performance improvement studies are
separately examined: novel design, passive heat transfer enhancement,
nanoparticle laden flow. Lastly, the modeling approaches are interpreted
and useful comments are made for the researchers concerned with the
field.
*Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

A review on modeling and simulation of parabolic trough solar collectors

1
2 İbrahim Halil Yılmaz*
3
4 *
5 Corresponding author: Department of Automotive Engineering, Adana Science and
6 Technology University, Adana, Turkey; E-mail: iyilmaz@adanabtu.edu.tr
7
8
9
10 Abstract
11 Parabolic trough solar collector (PTSC) is a proven technology used dominantly in both
12 commercial and industrial scale among the concentrating solar collectors. The technology has
13 matured over the years, and its advancement has become the topic of numerous research
14
15
works which were the counter driving force of the field. Particularly in the recent years, a
16 great number of theoretical studies on the modeling and simulation of the PTSC appeared in
17 the literature. This review methodologically holds colossal knowledge of current and past
18 studies to assess the optical and thermal analyses of PTSCs, modeling approaches and the
19 potential improvements proposed on behalf of the PTSC design. The optical modeling
20
21 approaches are identified: analytic and ray-tracing. The thermal modeling treats the steady
22 and transient heat transfer analyses of single and two-phase (with DSG) flows, and also the
23 computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. The performance improvement studies are
24 separately examined: novel design, passive heat transfer enhancement, nanoparticle laden
25
flow. Lastly, the modeling approaches are interpreted and useful comments are made for the
26
27 researchers concerned with the field.
28
29 Keywords: Parabolic trough collector; optical modeling; thermal modeling; performance
30 enhancement; computational fluid dynamics; novel design; nanofluid
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Nomenclature
1
2 A area, m2
3
4 c, cp specific heat, J/kg°C
5 C concentration ratio
6
7 Da absorber’s outer diameter, m
8 E total energy per unit mass, J
9 f focal length, m
10
11 Ib beam radiation, W/m2
12 k thermal conductiviy, W/m°C
13
14
Kn Knudsen number
15 Nu Nusselt number
16 Q heat transfer, W
17 Re Reynolds number
18
19 t time, s
20 T temperature, °C
21 UL thermal loss coefficient, W/m2°C
22
23 wa aperture width, m
24
25 Greek symbols
26
27  absorptivity
28  intercept factor
29 o optical efficiency
30
31  incidence angle, °
32  dynamic viscosity, kg/m·s
33 
34  velocity vector
35  reflectivity, density, kg/m3
36  transmissivity
37
38 r rim angle, °
39  particle concentration, %
40
41
42 Abbreviations
43 1-D one-dimensional
44 2-D two-dimensional
45 3-D three-dimensional
46
47
CFD computational fluid dynamics
48 CSP concentrating solar power
49 DARS direct absorption receiver system
50 DSG direct steam generation
51 FDM finite difference method
52
53 FEM finite element method
54 FVM finite volume method
55 HCE heat collector element
56 HTF heat transfer fluid
57
58
IPH industrial process heat
59 LCR local concentration ratio
60 MCRT Monte Carlo ray tracing
61
62
63
64
65
 NCPTSC nanofluid-based concentrating PTSC
1 PSA Plataforma Solar de Almería
2 PTSC parabolic trough solar collector
3
4
PV photovoltaic
5 SEGS solar energy generating systems
6 SNL Sandia National Laboratories
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1. Introduction
1
2 Fossil fuels comprise approximately 83.9% of world energy use by 2012 [1]. World energy
3
4
consumption is projected to grow by 48% between 2012 and 2040 according to the forecasts
5 (see Figure 1). Severe issues such as rise of global demand, depletion of fossil fuels, energy
6 security, and greenhouse gas emissions have forced the energy market to implement stronger
7 sustained energy policies. Renewable energy sources, which are growing fastest relative to the
8 other energy sources at an increasing annual rate of 2.6%, have meaningfully appealed the
9
10 market for the concerned issues, and 13.8% of world total primary energy supply was
11 produced by renewables in 2014 [2]. According to the data of International Energy Agency
12 [2], the average annual growth rates for solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal (ST) have
13 been reported 46.2% and 11.7% respectively. Indeed, solar technologies have experienced
14
15
robust growth since 2009 despite faced with significant barriers in the past. By 2015, the total
16 installed capacity for ST has reached approximately 435 GWth while solar PV has lifted the
17 global total to 227 GWe enlarging the market 25% over 2014 [3].
18
19 2012
20 History Projections
21 250
22
23
24
Energy consumption ( 1015 Btu)

Liquids
25 200
26
27
28
29 150
30
31
Coal
32 Natural gas
33 100
34
35
36 Renewables
37 50
38
39
40 Nuclear
41 0
42 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
43
44
Year
45 Figure 1. World energy consumption by fuel type [1]
46
47 Concentrating solar power (CSP) is an emerging technology and offers significant advantages
48
49
such as built-in storage capability, high economic return and reduced greenhouse gas
50 emissions. Life-cycle CO2 emission of solar-only CSP plants is estimated to be 17 g/kWh
51 while it is on the level of 776 g/kWh and 396 g/kWh for coal and natural gas combined plants
52 respectively [4]. Although the investment costs of CSP plants are relatively higher compared
53 to the conventional technologies, new plants are guaranteeing commercial maturity, increased
54
55 plant efficiency, and reducing levelized costs. As the plant capacity of CSP increases,
56 investment and energy costs are estimated to fall, and the levelized costs of electricity will
57 come to the level of US$97‒130/MWh by 2015‒2020 [4] from US$194/MWh [5].
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Parabolic trough solar collector (PTSC) is dominant technology available today in both
1 commercial and industrial scale among the medium-temperature solar collectors (see Figure
2 2). Numerous manufacturing companies have focused on this technology, Fresnel and
3
4
parabolic dish technologies have become largely overshadowed. The deployment of the
5 technology has been driven by feed-in tariffs and grant programs. Great research and
6 development efforts have been put into action to improve the technology and to be
7 competitive with counterpart energy systems. The PTSC technology has just maintained a
8 substantial progress in mirror and receiver development, use of alternative heat transfer fluids
9
10 (HTFs), identification of a number of thermal storage options, and development of process
11 design concepts [6]. Recent developments in the parabolic trough CSP systems [7, 8] will
12 raise the plant efficiencies by reducing the losses, and operation and maintenance costs. The
13 reduced costs will establish a new era as a counter attack to the market that PVs cannot touch,
14
15
particularly in industrial process heat (IPH) [9, 10] and desalination applications. The current
16 status indicates that the research and development efforts, the operational experiences
17 performed through the time will provide significant benefits to the deployment of the
18 technology.
19
20
21
22 Heliostat field
high-temp.
23 Parabolic dish
24
25 Parabolic trough
26
27 Cylindrical trough
28 Linear Fresnel medium-temp.
29
30 Compound parabolic
31
32 Evacuated tube
33 Flate plate
34 low-temp.
35 Solar pond
36
37 0 500 1000 1500 2000
38
Operating temperature ( C)
39
40
41 Figure 2. Temperatures ranges attainable with different solar technologies [11]
42
43 1.1. Background
44
45
46 The production of PTSCs dates back to the last quarter of nineteenth century. The first
47 constructions were used in small-scale facilities, lower than 100 kW output, like steam
48 generation and water irrigation. The PTSC technology was commercialized in the late 70’s
49 and managed to deploy into the market in the 80’s [12]. In the beginning, several companies
50
51 manufactured and marketed a number of PTSCs which were developed for IPH applications.
52 During the period of 1984 to 1990, nine solar energy generating systems (SEGS), 14 MWe to
53 80 MWe in size and with a 354-MWe total installed capacity, have been built and operated in
54 the California Mojave Desert [6]. Yet, average annual growth rate for the PTSC applications
55
were almost zero from 1999 to 2006 due to numerous barriers to the diffusion of the
56
57 technology. By 2006, the construction of the CSP plants emerged again with an 11-MW plant
58 in Spain, and a 64-MW plant in Nevada. In 2007, about 90 IPH applications were reported to
59 be in 21 countries with a total installed capacity of 25 MWth. By the end of 2014, the number
60 of installed IPH plants reached 124 all over the world with a cumulated capacity over 93
61
62
63
64
65
 MWth [13]. There are currently hundreds of MW under construction, and thousands of MW
1 under development worldwide. Algeria, Egypt and Morocco have built integrated solar
2 combined cycle plants, while Australia, China, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Mexico, South
3
4
Africa and the United Arab Emirates are completing or planning projects [4, 14].
5
6 1.2. Motivation
7
8 Unlike experimental study, modeling does not include uncertainty ‒ but necessarily has
9
10 simplifications/assumptions ‒ and provides wealth of information for the task considered. On
11 the other hand, experimental studies are expensive and time-consuming especially large test
12 facilities are involved. Further they need prior theoretical analyses in most cases. Modeling
13 offers significant advantages over experiment from those aspects while deepening the physics
14
15
of the study.
16
17 In the early stages of the PTSC, mathematical models at hand were insufficient for design
18 analysis and performance prediction. This shortcoming leaded difficulty in the computation of
19 the optical efficiency and the evaluation of collector performance [15]. Generalized analytical
20
21 studies in obtaining the collector optical efficiencies under off-normal incident conditions,
22 considering various geometrical effects such as end-loss, shadowing, were unavailable but
23 further endeavors contributed to have functional relationships for the development of PTSCs.
24 After that, synthesizing the optical and thermal characteristics of the collector components
25
was treated since inefficient heat collector elements (HCEs) played an unfavorable role in the
26
27 overall performance of SEGS. The researchers thus firstly interested with the improvement of
28 current or new HCEs. For this purpose, a heat transfer software model was developed in the
29 early 90’s, and upgraded several years later [16]. This model served as a useful tool in HCE
30 improvements and accordingly the SEGS plants’ performance. Lately, a great number of
31
32
modeling studies have been performed. All these efforts have offered great benefits to
33 researchers for the advancement of the PTSC technology and its futuristic road-map. The aim
34 of this extended review is to assist to examine various modeling studies and the approaches
35 used for the simulation of PTSCs.
36
37
38 2. Description of PTSC
39
40 PTSC is a line-focus concentrator which converts concentrated solar energy into high-
41 temperature heat. As demonstrated in Figure 3, the PTSC assembly necessarily has the
42
43
subsystems to be operated functionally.
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 3. PTSC structure and components. Adapted from [17]
20
21
22 2.1. Concentrating element
23
24 A PTSC has a mirror or reflector curved in the shape of a parabola which thus allows
25 concentrating the sun’s rays onto the focal line. The mirror is produced from different raw
26
27 materials such as aluminum or low iron glass to lessen the absorption losses. Not only solar-
28 weighted reflectivity of the mirror but also its cost, durability and abradable properties are
29 considered to be improved during the mirror production. After bending the mirror, a set of
30 manufacturing processes such as silvering, protective coating and gluing [18] is followed to
31
improve the solar-weighted reflectivity of the mirror.
32
33
34 2.2. Heat collection element
35
36 The HCE is also called as receiver positioned at the focal axis of the mirror. It is basically
37
38
composed of an absorber and an envelope made of borosilicate glass surrounding the
39 absorber. The absorber, is usually a stainless steel tube coated with a selective surface for
40 better solar absorptance, transfers solar heat to a working fluid i.e., HTF circulating through
41 the absorber. The envelope is coated by anti-reflective layer to reduce heat losses by infrared
42 radiation. The HCE has glass-to-metal seals and metal bellows to accommodate for
43
44 eliminating the thermal expansions between the steel tubing and glass envelop. Moreover, the
45 annulus between the absorber and glass tubes can be vacuumed depending on design
46 consideration for minimizing the thermal radiation losses. To monitor the vacuum in the
47 HCE, getters are used to absorb gas molecules that permeate into the vacuum annulus over
48
49
time.
50
51 2.3. Support and tracking
52
53 A PTSC is supported by a constructional frame with pylons which keep the mirror stable.
54
55 Supports are used to hold the HCE in the focal alignment. Pipe installations are made at the
56 ends of the collector for connecting the HCE to the header piping. Collector assembly is
57 driven by a driving configuration (gear, jackscrew or hydraulic actuator) to position the
58 collector tracking via a control unit.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 3. Modeling and simulation of PTSC
1
2 Modeling a PTSC involves both optical and thermal analyses. Modeling studies provide to
3
4
analyze the optical and thermal characteristics of the PTSC, and the evaluation of collector
5 performance. These analyses can be decoupled and dealt with separately as the optical
6 material properties are regarded to be temperature independent [19]. This assumption, which
7 is completely reasonable for a PTSC, provides considerable convenience in analyses. As the
8 literature works are comprehensively reviewed, the scope of the PTSC modeling and
9
10 simulation can be embraced as seen in Figure 4. This review reveals all these works
11 methodologically throughout the paper.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Figure 4. Methodology pursued in the literature for modeling and simulation of PTSCs
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 3.1. Optical analysis
1
2 Optical analysis of a PTSC can be carried out by the methods: analytic and ray-tracing. The
3
4
optical analysis can help to determine many PTSC properties including the optical efficiency,
5 temperature and heat flux variation at the HCE as a function of the concentrator configuration
6 (rim angle, HCE size, optical errors and sun shape etc.). The optical efficiency,  o is related
7
8
to the process of the photo-thermal conversion, can be defined as the ratio of the energy
9 absorbed by the HCE to the energy incident on the collector’s aperture. It is basically function
10 of the reflectivity of mirror (  ), the transmittance of envelope (  ), the absorptivity of
11
absorber (  ) and the intercept factor of the mirror and HCE interaction (  ).
12
13
14 o   0   (1)
15
16
17 Although efficiency curves of solar collectors are usually measured at normal incidence, the
18 incidence angle varies ‒ for a single-axis tracking collector ‒ during operation. In this case,
19 the effect of incidence is taken into account. This variation shows the dependency of the
20
21
whole optical properties on incidence angle, and can be correlated by an incidence-angle
22 modifier [20],
23
24  o  
K    (2)
 o   0 
25
26
27
28 The incidence angle can change in accordance with the tracking mode applied. It is worth
29
30 noting that the incidence angle can be described by the following relations (see Table 1)
31 which help the user for the selection of tracking mode in a given application.
32
33 Table 1. Incidence factors for the various tracking alternatives [19]
34
35
Type Incidence angle, cos Remarks
36 No hourly or seasonal
37 1 variations in output due
38 fully tracking
39
40
No appreciable variation in
41
42
 
1  cos 2  sin 2 
12 seasonal output
considerable variation in
but

43 hourly output
44 No appreciable variation in
 
45
hourly output but
sin  sin   cos  cos  cos  2  cos 2  sin 2 
1 2
46
47 considerable variation in
48 seasonal output
49 No appreciable variation in
50
hourly output but some
51
52 cos  variation in seasonal output
53 depending on the latitude
54 of the location
55
Theoretical calculation of K   requires the functional dependence of  ,  and  on  and
56
57
58 the knowledge of optical errors of the collector.  o   includes the effect of incidence and the
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 end-loss which accounts for the spilling of radiation out the end of line-focus collectors. It is
1 expressed by the terms:
2
 o      cos
3
4 (3)
5
6 The end-loss factor,  is estimated using the relation [20] in Eq. (4)
7
8
9
10 f  w2 
11   1 1  a 2  tan  (4)
12 l  48 f 
13
14
15 for both HCE and collector lengths being equal and placed symmetrically. If the HCE length
16 extends beyond the collector length l by an amount r on one side,  is modified to
17
r f w2 
18
19   1   1  a 2  tan  (5)
20 l l  48 f 
21
22
23 The end-loss effect for horizontal north–south axis is performed by Xu et al. [21] in detail.
24 Method of compensating the end-loss is proposed by Xu et al. for short trough collectors. A
25 different approach accounting the end-loss in cylindrical troughs is given by [22].
26
27
28 In practice, the optical design of the trough is affected by the factors [23]:
29  apparent changes in sun's width and incidence angle effects
30  physical properties of the materials used in HCE and mirror construction
31
32  imperfections (or errors) that may result from manufacture and/or assembly, imperfect
33 tracking of the sun, and poor operating procedures
34
35 These factors, on the other hand, are related according to [24] as described in Figure 5 to
36
envision them easily. Identifying the partial effects of these factors will clarify the
37
38 determination of the optical efficiency.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Figure 5. Parameters affecting the optical efficiency. Adapted from [24]
61
62
63
64
65
 3.1.1. Analytic
1
2 The analytical approach describes an easy method with a minimal computation only. Various
3
4
studies have used this approach to obtain a closed-form solution for the analysis of optical
5 efficiency of a PTSC. Bendt et al. [25] presented an approach in analytical closed form that
6 yields all the parameters needed for the optical design. In their study, the evaluation of the
7 intercept factor is given by a mathematical expression, and the sun shape is approximated by a
8
9
Gaussian distribution instead of the real sun.  Gauss is evaluated solving Eq. (6) numerically.
10

11
 2 
 Gauss   d f C  
1
12 exp  2  (6)
13   tot 2  2 tot 
14
15
16 where  tot   sun
2
  mirror
2
 4 slope
2
  tracking
2
  displaceme
2
nt .
17
18
19 This approach provides a parameter  tot i.e., uniting the various errors in a one single-term.
20
21 Yet, normal distribution (Gaussian) assumption for the whole errors is not valid in practical
22 applications.
23
24
Treadwell and Grandjean [26] have proposed a relation for  tot similar to [25] (see Eq. (7))
25
26 but they separated the effects of tracking and displacement errors from the rest of the errors.
27 Besides they introduced error parameters universal to all geometries. This was the basic
28 deficiency of the approach.
29
30
31  tot   sun
2
  mirror
2
 4 slope
2
  tracking
2
(7)
32
33
34 Güven and Bannerot [27] used a modified code, EDEP [28], which uses a ray-trace technique
35 to project the effective sun shape, for analyzing the effects of potential optical errors on the
36
37 intercept factor. This code was used to validate the existence of the universal error parameters
38 whose detail is given in [23]. Güven and Bannerot [29] analyzed the optical errors within two
39 groups: random and nonrandom (see Figure 6). Then, they presented universal design curves
40 to display the effects of these errors and geometric parameters (concentration ratio, C and rim
41
42 angle,  r ) on the optical efficiency (see Eq. (1)).
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Figure 6. Description of potential optical errors in parabolic trough collectors [29]
31
32
33 The random errors ‒ small-scale slope errors, mirror specularity, apparent changes in sun's
34 width, and small occasional tracking errors ‒ are modeled statistically at normal-incidence:
35
36
37  tot   sun
2
  mirror
2
 4 slope
2
(8)
38
39
40 The nonrandom errors are classified as mirror profile errors, misalignment of the HCE with
41 the effective focus of the mirror, and misalignment of the trough with the sun.
42
43 In their later work, Güven and Bannerot [23] presented a mathematical derivation, holding the
44
45 universal error parameters, for predicting the intercept factor as follows:
46
47
1  cos  r r   sin  r 1  cos  1  2d * sin     * 1  cos  r 
48  
2 sin  r    Erf 
  2 * 1  cos  r 

 
49 0
50
51 (9)
 sin  r 1  cos  1  2d * sin     * 1  cos  r  
52
53 d
 Erf   
2 * 1  cos  r    1  cos  
54
55 
56
57
58 where C : area concentration ratio, C  wa Da ; d * : universal nonrandom error parameter
59 due to HCE mislocation and mirror profile errors, d *  d r Da ;  * : universal nonrandom
60
61
62
63
64
65
 error parameter due to angular errors,  *   C ;  * : universal random error parameter,
1
2 * C .
3
4 Jeter [30] presented a semifinite analytical formulation to analyze the concentrated radiant
5
6
flux on the HCE surface. The obtained concentrated flux density was integrated, subsequently
7 the intercept factor and optical efficiency of the collector were computed.
8

C Da d
9
 
10 R
(10)
11 wa
12
13
14 
where C R  cos 2  sin  r , and  is the angular position on HCE.  is the circular
15
16
 2
17 scattering function to be accepted as realistic from the data of [31].
18
19 The overall optical efficiency of the collector was obtained modifying Eq. (1) and employing
20
the following equation. The equation holds the physical models of realistic nonuniform solar,
21
22 incidence angle dependent transmittance and absorptance, and imperfect reflection, as well.
23

 C     D d
24
o 
R c o a
25 (11)
26 wa
27
28
29 where  c is the angle computed using the mean envelope radius,  o is the angle with the
30
normal to the HCE at the point of interest.
31
32
33 The effects of optical errors on the heat flux distribution on the absorber were investigated by
34 [32] to analyze how the intercept factor and optical efficiency vary. The flux distribution on
35 the HCE was examined for  tot ranging from 0.01‒24 mrad. The results for the study showed
36
37 that  tot has a profound effect over the intercept factor and optical efficiency when its value
38
39
exceeds 8 mrad.
40
41 Forristall [16] presented a relation given in Eq. (12) to estimate the effective optical efficiency
42 of a PTSC with correction parameters instead of using intercept factor. In the equation, the
43
44
first three terms and the last term ( 1,  2 ,  3 ,  6 ) are the estimated parameters (some of them
45 were evaluated and revised with ray-tracing software developed by National Renewable
46 Energy Laboratory) depending completely on the PTSC’s specifications.  4 and  5 are the
47
48 terms recommended by [33].
49
50 o   abs  1 2 3 4 5 6  K   (12)
51
52
53 where 1 : HCE shadowing (bellows, shielding, supports);  2 : tracking error;  3 : geometry
54
55 error (mirror alignment);  4 : dirt on mirror (reflectivity/clear mirror reflectance);  5 : dirt on
56 HCE ( 1   4  2 ;  6 : unaccounted losses.
57
58 Jacobson et al. [34] made an optical analysis using Eq. (1). In this equation, the optical
59 parameters were evaluated accounting the effect of incidence angle. The angular  and
60
61
62
63
64
65
  changes were related with a polynomial equation and Fresnel’s derivation respectively
1 benefiting from [33].  was estimated using the relations in [33] as written below:
2
3
4 For a perfect linear imaging concentrator,  is described by
5
6
sin 0.267 
7 D 1  wa (13)
8 sin  r
9
10
11 For a nonperfect imaging concentrator (defects in the mirror surface)
12
13 sin 0.267   d 2 
14 D 1  wa (14)
15 sin  r
16
17
 8 f wa 
18 where  r  tan 1   and  d is the dispersion angle.

19
 16 f wa 2
 1 
20
21
22 The intercept factor can be taken into account in terms of which case is suitable:
23
24
 1 if Da  D 1
25
  (15)
26
Da D 1 if Da  D 1
27
28
29 Öztürk et al. [35] proposed an optical model based on the vectorial analysis to calculate the
30 energy collected by the HCE. The equation derived can be applied any PTSC in case the
31
32
mirror and the HCE dimension parameters are known.
33
34 Huang et al. [36] proposed a new analytical method, based on the effective light distribution
35 from reflected point at mirror, to calculate the optical efficiency of a PTSC. The derived
36 analytical equation was solved by numerical integration algorithm. The presented model has
37
38 an advantage in terms of reducing the computational time relative to ray-tracing technique.
39 The intercept factor variation for varying incidence angle is also computed and compared with
40 the experimental test data. Although the results agree well with the test data up to 0.6 rad
41 incident angle, the deviation after this value becomes larger.
42
43
44 Zhu and Lewandowski [37] presented a new analytical method called FirstOPTIC, which is
45 fast and gives accurate results, for optical evaluation of trough collectors in 2-D analysis. The
46 comparison of the results for the intercept factor showed the wellness of the method as
47 regards [25] and [38]. Binotti et al. [39] extended the study of [37] to evaluate the geometrical
48
49 impact of 3-D effects. Thus the evaluation of the intercept factor for nonzero incident
50 conditions is made plausible by this method.
51
52 It is worth noting that the 3-D optical analysis provides advantage over the 2-D analysis to
53 examine the effects of optical properties. These effects can be summarized [39]:
54
55  Cosine effect
56  Widened image of the sun
57  End loss
58
59  Reduced acceptance angle due to the elongated optical path of reflected rays
60  Decay of material optical performance with increasing incidence angle
61
62
63
64
65
 3.1.2. Ray-tracing
1
2 Ray-tracing is the widely used technique in both optical performance analyzing and optical
3
4
design/optimization of solar concentrating collectors. The technique is more beneficial in the
5 systems with many surfaces where Gaussian and Newtonian imaging equations are
6 unsuitable. It is essentially based on the act of tracing a ray of light through the optical
7 elements and allows the modeling of the propagation of light in different mediums in
8 accordance with the properties assigned to the optical elements.
9
10
11 The ray-tracing provides an enormous amount of detailed information but obscures functional
12 relationships [25]. Furthermore, the ray-tracing is employed computer-based and requires a
13 substantial computation time for the derivation of the optical characteristics of a PTSC. As the
14
15
computer technology is advanced, time spent for tedious analyses have been shortened, and
16 this provided many advantages to researchers. Even though the ray-tracing technique is time
17 consuming, it is more accurate and commonly used in commercial and scientific works. There
18 are available software tools in the literature using the technique of ray-tracing including
19 SolTrace, ASAP, Opticad, SimulTrough and TracePro. In the optical analysis of a PTSC,
20
21 researchers have excessively utilized the Monte Carlo ray-tracing (MCRT) method either
22 writing their own codes or using ray-tracing software tools. The MCRT uses statistically the
23 principle of geometrical optic based on random sampling to replicate real photon interactions.
24 The method, which is followed by the procedure of tracing bundles of light sent out by a
25
source to randomized locations over the aperture area, is finalized until either the rays are
26
27 completely absorbed or lost by the targeted surfaces (see Figure 7).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44 Figure 7. Visualization of the ray-tracing method
45
46
47 Saltiel and Sokolov [40] derived the relations analyzing the energy absorbed by two types of
48 HCEs and investigated the absorber size where the maximum absorption occurred via ray-
49 tracing. Prapas et al. [41] performed a detailed optical analysis for a PTSC with small C . The
50 analyses indicated that a PTSC with high concentration ratio ( C  10 ) is not able to collect
51
52
diffuse radiation, thus the optical efficiency degrades remarkably less than C  10 . Schiricke
53 et al. [42] presented the results of optical analysis to analyze the influences of certain
54 parameters and their combinations using the commercial software Opticad. Solar flux
55 distribution was simulated for different incidence angles, and also the intercept factor
56 modeling were studied for varying values of tracking offset and transversal displacement of
57
58 the absorber.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Grena [43] presented the optical simulation of a PTSC with and without envelope. The
1 simulations were realized with wavelength-dependent optical properties under a realistic solar
2 irradiation. The 3-D ray-tracing technique was applied, and the effects of various error
3
4
parameters on the optical efficiency and the distribution of the absorbed radiation over the
5 HCE were examined. Additionally, many optical properties were modeled realistically as the
6 other studies did not have. The applied ray-tracing also maintained multiple reflections and
7 refractions that occur at the mirror and HCE. On the other hand, the study involves a realistic
8 sunshape ‒ an average profile of the solar disk with limb-darkening and halo ‒ compared to
9
10 the previous theoretical studies which used different sunshape models such as Gaussian
11 distribution [25-27, 44] or a uniform disc [45].
12
13 Yang et al. [46] established their own MCRT code and compared the numerical results with
14
15 Jeter’s studies [30, 45]. The influences of  r and tracking error over the distribution of local
16 concentration ratio (LCR) were investigated for point source and uniform sunshape. The
17 resulting curves for LCR were shown to follow the same trend. Cheng et al. [47] introduced
18 an in-house MCRT code unified with design/simulation tool of concentrating solar collectors
19
20 including PTSC. The reliability of the numerical results was compared to Jeter’s result [45]
21 and agreed well. Hachicha et al. [48] developed an optical model for calculating the
22 nonuniform solar flux distribution on the HCE. Finite volume method (FVM) and ray-tracing
23 technique were used on the spatial and angular discretized PTSC. The incident solar
24
25
irradiation or sunshape was simulated as an optic cone. The results obtained for LCR were
26 compared to those of [45], and yielded a maximum deviation lower than 8%. Cheng et al. [49]
27 carried out comparative and sensitive analyses for different PTSCs/different geometric
28 parameters under different possible operating conditions by a detailed optical model proposed
29 previously [47]. In addition, an optimization model was proposed by [50] for optical
30
31 performance of PTSCs based on the particle swarm optimization. Zhao et al. [51] made a
32 simulation code based on MCRT to analyze the optical performance of a PTSC. The sunshape
33 was fitted to optics cone, and the numerical results which were compared with that of Jeter’s
34 study [45][Jeter, 1986] yielded pretty good accordance. Zhao et al., 2016 [52] used the same
35
36
simulation to analyze the influences of installation and tracking rooted errors caused by the
37 absorber and the mirror, respectively. It was clearly shown that larger the incident angle is,
38 larger the errors are obtained but the errors can be reduced by increasing C . Liang et al. [53]
39 developed three different optical models based on ray-tracing. The model estimations for
40 LCR were compared to Jeter’s study [45], and the average relative errors of the models were
41
42 obtained very close to each other. Two of the proposed model provided superiorities from the
43 aspects of runtime and computation effort (enhanced approximately 40% and 60%,
44 respectively) over the model based on MCRT. Besides, effects of offset in the absorber,
45 variations in  r and wa at different tracking errors on the optical efficiency were computed
46
47 by the models proposed.
48
49 In this section, it was merely interested with the ray-tracing technique applied for the optical
50
51
analysis rather than coupling it with thermal analysis. The relevant studies which were not
52 given here for the reason mentioned are addressed in Sections 3.2.3, 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
53
54 3.2. Thermal analysis
55
56
57 The aim of the thermal analysis is, in general, related to the calculation of surface temperature
58 profile, fluid temperature and the conversion efficiency of the absorbed solar radiation. As
59 Figure 4 is examined, it is seen that different subjects have been considered under the caption
60
61
62
63
64
65
 of thermal modeling. In this part, all the thermal modeling issues will be taken into account,
1 and the related works will be discussed elaborately.
2
3
4
3.2.1. Heat flux and temperature profile
5
6 The heat flux ( q ) and temperature distributions around the absorber are not constant or
7 uniform in practice. The local heat flux over the HCE surface is evaluated in terms of LCR:
8
9
10 q
11 LCR  (16)
I b ,n
12
13
14 Its usage brings more flexibility when it is multiplied with normal incident beam radiation
15
( I b ,n ). The circumferential distribution of LCR may vary based on the design parameters such
16
17 as material properties however it is not strictly function of them [45]. The incident beam
18 radiation, under the case of the uniform sunshape model, affects strongly the LCR. The LCR
19
20
dips near the bottom side of the absorber due to the HCE shadow, and then it shows a steady
21 increase and reaches a peak value where the angle of reflection is lower than  r . It is
22 followed by a drop and diminishes its effect since only small fraction of the reflected
23 radiation strikes to the upper region of the absorber. As the incident angle increases, the LCR
24
25 falls gradually but its effect is more significant at the higher values. The above evaluation
26 considers the analytical derivation of the LCR, and the effects of imperfect reflection,
27 transmission and absorption of radiation are disregarded. All these effect and nonuniform
28 sunshape were considered in the approach presented in [30]. This approach offers a more
29
30
realistic description for estimating the LCR. The obtained LCR profile for different incident
31 angles exhibits similar characteristics with [45] but at increased incident angles, particularly
32 greater than 45°, the degradation is higher.
33
34 The effect of optical errors has a sufficient impact on the distribution of the heat flux [32].
35
36 The distribution of the heat flux is affected by the intensity of  tot which causes to decrease
37 the quantity of energy collected at increased values. At lower  tot values, the shadow effect
38
39 due to HCE is quite salient. The parabola contour and sun tracking errors have negative
40 effects on the LCR [54] as well as the other flaws being statistically effective [23]. The LCR
41 decreases with increasing of the tracking error which also changes the regularity of the LCR
42 profile. The contour error can change the LCR profile significantly in case the contour
43
44 deviates from the ideal. On the other hand, the heat flux distribution on the absorber is
45 nonuniform even if the sun is tracked properly. The nonuniform distribution of solar heat flux
46 will have an effect on the thermal stress distribution and service life of the HCE. As the
47 incident angle has greater values, the flux intensity will vary along the length of the absorber
48
49
[55]. This causes the bending of the tube, i.e. deviation of the central axis due to thermal
50 stresses [56, 57]. Deflection of the tube leads to increasing of the optical errors. Both the
51 deflection and the resulting optical errors have negative effects on the circumferential heat
52 flux and temperature profiles which are degraded considerably as the magnitude of the errors
53 grow. Furthermore, differential rise in the HTF temperature increases the maximum
54
55 deflection in the absorber.  r is also effective parameter on the heat flux distribution and total
56 absorbed flux. Determining an appropriate  r can reduce the nonuniformity of the heat flux
57
58 distribution and bending deflections [58]. Larger  r produces smaller deflections [57]. When
59 wa is increased, the circumferential nonuniformity in heat flux intensifies. Trough with
60
61
62
63
64
65
 r 110 can be considered optimum value for maximizing the total absorbed flux as the
1 width of the aperture fixed but it may not correspond to minimum mirror cost [55, 58].
2
3 However,  r above 90° have some mechanical and economic drawbacks [59]. Enlarging  r
4 requires both increased envelope dimension and mirror surface which in turn cause the
5 collector structure to be subjected to growing wind loads and lowered optical efficiency as a
6
7
result of this condition. For the sake of increasing the maximum heat flux on the absorber, an
8 optimum value should be arranged with respect to the assigned wa and  r combination.
9
10
11 3.2.2. Heat transfer analysis
12
13 The thermal analysis of a PTSC is made on its HCE which is simply composed of the nested
14 absorber in an envelope as shown in Figure 8. Inside the absorber, a HTF is used for heat
15 carrier such as water, thermal oil, molten salt, gaseous, nanoparticle suspension fluid or new
16
17 alternatives [60]. The outside of the absorber is enclosed by the envelope, and the space
18 between them is inherently filled-air but can be vacuumed for reducing the heat loss. The
19 outer surface of the HCE is subjected to ambient conditions.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 Figure 8. Schematic of a typical HCE. Adapted from [16]
32
33 The heat transfer analysis involves energy balance which is employed on each component of
34 the HCE. This balance can be written in the integral form as
35
36
 
37
38
Q W   t dV   E dA
CV CS
n (17)
39
40
41 Here, Q is the net heat transfer rate, W is the net power interaction. The first term in the
42 right-hand side of the equation represents the time rate of change of the energy content of the
43
44 2
45
control volume (CV),   h   gz which is the total energy of the flowing fluid per unit
2
46
mass. The second term gives the net amount of the energy flowing cross the control surface
47 
48 (CS) per unit time. And where  n is the normal component of the velocity vector,
49
2
50 E u  gz which is the total energy per unit mass.
51 2
52 The flow inside the absorber involves forced convection whose flow pattern can be in single-
53
54
phase or two-phase. Unlike the two-phase flow, the single-phase flow is considered in most of
55 PTSCs where the phase of HTF does not change. Direct steam generation (DSG) collector
56 systems involve two-phase flow which is resulted from boiling of water in the absorber. The
57 flow regime is much complicated in these systems as compared to the former since both the
58 liquid and the vapor are forced to flow together. In the forthcoming sections, the physical
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 structure of the single-phase flow will be first examined in detail, and then the DSG modeling
1 will be considered separately.
2
3
4
3.2.2.1. Single-phase steady flow
5
6 The single-phase flow provides reliability in operation and controllability of the exit
7 temperature of a PTSC. Dealing with single-phase steady flow is relatively easy in most
8 cases, and the analyses for predicting the fluid behavior is quite mature in this flow.
9
10
11 The thermal physics of the HCE involves combined modes of heat transfer mechanisms thus
12 modeling it is relatively complicated. Solving the governing equations of the model is not
13 straightforward and requires usually numerical solutions but different procedures are also
14
15
available such as constant-property or analytical approaches [61]. The approach that uses
16 analytical solution is more convenient with respect to the numerical one, which is tedious and
17 time-consuming, if they are generalized. In evaluation of the overall heat loss, it is useful to
18 use the concept of thermal loss coefficient ( U L ) for simplifying the analysis. Its prediction
19
20 requires numerical iteration but several studies handled it analytically [61-64]. Obtaining U L
21 value provides to evaluate the thermal performance in a simpler form:
22
23
24
25 t   A   I
a o b  U L Tin  Ta dt
(18)
26 Aa  I b dt
27
28
29 where Aa : aperture area, Tin : fluid inlet temperature, and Ta : ambient temperature.
30
31
32
The thermal characterization of a HCE is fundamental to determine the heat loss accurately.
33 Even if different types of HCEs are available in the literature, their physical structures
34 resemble each other. The heat transfer model applied to any HCE involves different
35 governing equations though; they can be utilized in different model studies.
36
37
38 A thermal model given by [65] shows how the HCE type affects U L as a function of absorber
39 temperature. The results for five different types of HCEs ‒ the reference trough, evacuated,
40 xenon back-filled, heat mirror coated envelope, and reduced emittance selective coating ‒ are
41
42
obtained for a fixed absorber diameter. Antireflection and selective coatings (heat mirror
43 coated envelope and reduced emittance selective coating) are shown to be effective to reduce
44 heat losses especially at higher absorber temperatures. Back-filled HCE is more effective than
45 the formers since use of less-conductive gas reduces the heat transfer cross the annulus. While
46
47
larger absorber diameter leads to slight variation in U L , increasing the absorber-to-glass gap
48 size influences U L favorably but too large gap results in excessive convection loss after a
49 certain limit. Contrarily, this argument is not thermally significant for the evacuated HCE.
50
51
52 For a vacuum type HCE, a 1-D theoretical model is presented and compared with off-sun
53 experimental tests [66]. The model agrees well with the tests but when the HCE’s ends are
54 exposed to ambient, the model underestimates. This indicates that end losses can be
55
56
influential depending on the HCE structure. Moreover, coating’s emittance and vacuum
57 conditions have significant effects on the heat loss. The coating’s emittance is affected by
58 oxidation since air-leakage is a problem in vacuumed HCEs [67]. Nitrogen can be chosen
59 instead of air to avoid oxidation. Also, gas properties and vacuum level have significant
60 effects on the heat transfer mode. For example, hydrogen and helium lead to rapid increase of
61
62
63
64
65
 heat loss even at low pressures. The hydrogen, which is absorbed by the HCE made of
1 stainless steel, naturally permeates from the HTF (decomposition of thermal oil at higher
2 temperature) [16], and thus the presence of hydrogen increases the annulus pressure and
3
4
reduces the HCE performance [68] even if the annulus pressure is sufficiently low (<100 Pa).
5 Injecting inert gases such as argon and xenon reduce heat loss caused by the penalty
6 associated with hydrogen permeation. Prediction of the heat transfer characteristics of using
7 gas mixtures (hydrogen/argon, hydrogen/xenon) is modeled and tested by [68]. A distinct 1-D
8 heat transfer model is evaluated for different nonvacuum conditions [67]. Another modeling
9
10 study to investigate the heat losses from a vacuumed HCE is presented in [69]. A new
11 computational model can be found in [70] over a wide range of pressures and gas
12 compositions. The model gives accurate results as compared with the experimental data even
13 at pressure values between 10-4 to 130 mbar. Additionally, the study holds the knowledge of
14
15
different correlations for modeling the rarefied gas dynamics [71-74] that are applicable to
16 vacuumed concentric tubes.
17
18 Figure 9 shows the modes of losses on the cross-sectional view of a PTSC. The heat transfer
19 modeling of the HCE requires some mutual assumptions even if they can limit the accuracy of
20
21 modeling outputs but needed to predict the system behavior. Each model has its own
22 characteristic assumptions but the mutual ones are:
23
24  Fully-developed flow is present.
25
26  The concentrator surface is specularly reflecting.
27  No variation occurs in the collector dimensions such as constant diameters.
28  No free surface comes into existence inside the absorber.
29
30
 The fluid is assumed to be incompressible.
31  The sky is assumed as a blackbody at an equivalent temperature for long-wave radiation.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54 Figure 9. Typical losses from a PTSC
55
56 The 1-D heat transfer model is the most often used approach in the literature. In this model
57
58
approach, the temperature gradient is considered to be significant only cross the radial
59 direction of the HCE rather than the axial and circumferential directions. The energy balance
60 equations can be defined by conserving energy at each surface of the HCE.
61
62
63
64
65
 Qabsorbed solar  Qresidual  Qradiation,abs  Qsupport,bellow (19)
1
2
3 Qbeam radiation  Qoptical  Qconvection  Qradiation,env (20)
4
5
6 Qheat loss  Qconvection  Qradiation,env  Qsupport,bellow (21)
7
8
9 where the optical loss is represented in terms of its equivalent heat loss.
10
11 As the 1-D heat transfer models are reviewed, it is seen the oldest model presented by [22] for
12 a cylindrical PTSC. It includes heat transfer and energy equations which are solved using
13 finite difference method (FDM) to predict the collector performance. This model involves the
14
15 heat transfer between the mirror and envelope, and the view factors determined for the
16 surfaces. Many modeling approaches are introduced [24, 27, 75-88] based simply on energy
17 balance. This approach, as usual, provides to analyze the heat loss. Additionally, some models
18 have been accomplished to integrate them into a thermodynamic cycle [89-92].
19
20
21 Forristall [16], in his extensive study, investigated how design conditions and operating
22 parameters affect the PTSC performance. This evaluation is significant to identify the
23 parameters that most improve the performance, and to show the priority of the design
24 conditions. The summary of the results is given in Table 2.
25
26
27 Table 2. Summary of the parametric study [16]
28 Design option or parameter Evaluation range Results and comments
29
30  Negligible effect, yet material selection is also driven by
304/316L, 321H, B42 copper,
31 Absorber base material
and carbon steel
material strength, corrosion properties, installation ease,
32 coating application, and cost considerations.
33  The improvements in coatings have improved HCE
34  Luz black chrome and cermet performance.
Selective coating
35  Solel cermets  HCE performance would be sensitive to any variance in
36 selective coating optical properties.
37  Vacuum gives the best result.
38 Annulus gas type Vacuum, air, argon, and hydrogen  Filling the annulus with an inert gas is better than air.
39  Hydrogen permeation can degrade HCE performance.
40
41  A broken glass envelope gives unfavorable performance
 Vacuum, loss vacuum, and
42 results, especially with windy conditions.
HCE condition/wind speed broken envelope
 Wind has little influence on HCE performance when the
43  0‒20 mph
annulus vacuum is intact, but does when the vacuum is lost.
44
45  Vacuum levels less than 0.1 torr show negligible
46 improvements from the 0.0001 torr level.
47  Air and hydrogen  HCE performance declines appreciably with pressures of
Annulus pressure
48  0.0001‒760 torr 100 torr or greater in the annulus.
 If hydrogen in present, HCE performance is even more
49 sensitive to annulus pressure.
50
51  The trough performance drops appreciably with solar
weighted reflectivity less than 0.9.
52 Mirror reflectance 0.8‒0.935
 Keeping mirrors clean is very important to solar collector
53 assembly performance.
54
55  Trough performance is very sensitive to solar incident
Incident angle 0°‒60°
angle.
56
57  Trough performance very sensitive to beam radiation.
58 Beam radiation 300‒1100 W/m2  Factors such as atmospheric pollutants and particulates
59 should be considered when choosing a solar site.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 HTF flow rate 100‒160 gpm  HCE performance has weak dependency to HTF flow rate.
1
Therminol VP-1, Xceltherm 600,  Trough performance has weak dependency to HTF type.
2 HTF type Syltherm 800, 60-40 Salt, and  Operation of the HCE at higher temperatures decreases the
3 Hitec XL Salt HCE performance yet increases the power cycle efficiency.
4
 An optimal diameter leads to minimize the heat losses.
5  Vacuum and lost vacuum  Influence of diameter on heat loss is more sensitive under
6 Envelope diameter
 0.08‒0.165 m lost vacuum.
7  Clearance for absorber pipe bowing needs to be included.
8  Temperatures along the length of the HCE increase in a
9 Temperature and heat flux slightly nonlinear.
39.0‒740.5 m  Radiation heat transfer fluxes increase nonlinearly.
10 variation along HCE
11  Optical losses per unit HCE length remain constant.
12
13
More comprehensive models were carried out in the studies; [93] including spatial
14
15 discretization, [94] proposing more accurate heat transfer correlations and a detailed radiative
16 heat transfer analysis with discretization approach, [95] presenting a detailed thermal analysis,
17 [96] performing a discretized modeling with a radiative heat transfer analysis between the
18 mirror and envelope, [97] involving the effects of heat conduction along the HCE wall, mixed
19
20
convection in the absorber, and thermal interaction between the neighboring surfaces
21 (absorber–envelope and envelope–envelope), [18] showing a detailed model, [98]
22 summarizing the 1-D mathematical models under different assumptions and heat interaction
23 cases. All these models were applied to single PTSC modules having short HCE length thus it
24 is unnecessary to consider the heat conduction cross the absorber and envelope walls, as well
25
26 as the neighboring nodes along the HCE length. However, the effects of these issues should
27 be considered in long HCEs so that dividing control volumes along the length is significant to
28 see the axial influence. The influence of radiation heat transfer between the adjacent
29 discretized volumes [98], and the heat loss through HCE supports improves the model
30
31
precision once considered [16, 18, 94, 96, 98]. The existing models mentioned above assume
32 that the solar energy flux, wall temperature or physical properties are uniform for the whole
33 circumference of the HCE. However, all those are not physically happening in the real case
34 owing to the fact that the fluid inside the tube is heated asymmetrically, and thus the
35 temperature distributions and temperature-dependent properties become nonuniform [99].
36
37 Also, the bellows and glass-to-metal joints at either end of the HCE i.e., the inactive ends,
38 should be taken into account in the thermal analysis. The model results obtained for the heat
39 loss and efficiency terms indicate that the uniform and nonuniform approaches differ slightly
40 [98, 100] consequently the uniform model is a reasonable approach to simplify the analysis
41
42
and to estimate the performance parameters, as well.
43
44 Up to here, the 1-D models were reviewed. The 1-D modeling is commonplace and is often
45 applied by the introduction of thermal network method. It is simpler and requires less
46 analyzing time relative to the 2-D and 3-D approaches. Although higher degree analysis
47
48 provides more accurate results, it is more difficult to model, yet it is necessary to account the
49 axial effect in long HCEs, and/or angular effect around the HCE circumference. As the
50 overall length of the HCE reaches hundreds or thousands of meters, the change in flow rate
51 (caused by the density change) and pressure drop can have an appreciable effect on the heat
52 transfer [16]. Thus the 2-D model is required to regard those effects. The Forristall’s model
53
54 showed that the axial effect become significant after the HCE length reaches ~ 80 m. Once the
55 1-D and the 2-D models of Forristall are compared, the 1-D model is not able to capture the
56 nonlinearity change of the HTF temperature along the HCE, and underestimate the heat losses
57 thereof. Tao and He [101] developed a unified 2-D numerical model with uniform heat flux
58
59
over the absorber and isothermal surface inside the envelope. The results show that tube
60 diameter ratio is effective parameter to change the convection coefficients inside the absorber
61
62
63
64
65
 and the annuli. The thermal conductivity of the absorber influences the convection regimes at
1 both sides, but after a certain value (200 W/m·K), it has a little effect over the convection
2 coefficients. Contrast to the studies of Forristall [16] and Tao and He [101], Hachicha et al.
3
4
[48] and Wang et al. [102] considered nonuniform solar heat flux in their models. This
5 approach is more accurate to determine both the circumferential temperature distribution and
6 local heat transfers. By this way, the effects of incident angle and eccentric configuration
7 were investigated [102]. It is shown that the change in incident angle significantly affects the
8 heat transfer characteristic in the “air in annulus” case. The upward and downward
9
10 eccentricities have significant effects on local heat transfer coefficients for both “air in
11 annulus” and “vacuum in annulus” cases. These conditions are not only influencing the heat
12 transfer characteristic but also are effective for the optical errors generated due to deflection
13 of the absorber as mentioned previously. Huang et al. [103] proposed a 2-D thermal model
14
15
including extraordinarily the radiation loss to the side plates of a PTSC and the direct
16 transmission of the absorber radiation to ambient air as compared to the previous models.
17
18 Wirz et al. [104] presented the 3-D optical and heat transfer models using the tools of MCRT
19 coupled with a FVM solver. The distinction used in this model which is the determination of
20
21 the nonuniform solar flux distribution on a HCE comprising specularly reflecting and
22 semitransparent, nongray surfaces is used none of the models to consider the spectral optics in
23 the computation of the radiative exchange.
24
25
26
3.2.2.2. Single-phase transient flow
27
28 None of the PTSC systems operate fully under steady-state due to the heating of collectors
29 from the start-up to shut-down of a daily operation (in the early morning and late afternoon),
30 and intermittent behavior of the driving ambient conditions. While the steady analysis gives
31
32
an idea about how a PTSC is affected by operating conditions, the transient analysis provides
33 knowledge rather on the long-term performance of a PTSC. Thus, the transient behavior of a
34 collector is usually required to obtain actual field performance.
35
36 The transient characteristics of a PTSC can be predicted using lumped-capacitance analysis
37
38 which involves the transient energy balance equations defined for the various parts of the
39 collector at uniform temperatures. The control volume “A×Δx” for the analysis of the HCE is
40 shown in Figure 10. The governing equations can be expressed on the collector parts as
41 follows:
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 10. Lumped capacitance analysis on the HCE
19
20
21 For HTF:
22
Thtf x, t 
cAhtf x  Qu x, t x  Qhtf x, t   Qhtf x  x, t 
23
24 (22)
25 t
26
27 For absorber:
28

cAa Ta x, t   Q0 x, t   Q1 x, t   Qu x, t 

29
30 (23)
31 t
32
33
34
For envelope:
35
36
cAe Te x, t   Q1 x, t   Q2 x, t  (24)
37 t
38
39
40 The model being made by this analysis is less complicated and gives reasonable simulation
41 results. Several studies were used this approach [105-109]. Chang and Roux [105] performed
42 a finite difference numerical analysis to compare three different types of HCEs (single glass
43
44
pipe with black fluid, concentric annulus glass pipes with black fluid, and black-painted
45 copper tubing) with experimental data. Rongrong et al. [108] established a dynamic model
46 introducing Euler method and validated it with the real operating data of SEGS-VI. Xu et al.
47 [109] developed an on-site test model which provides fast dynamic model predictions for the
48 outlet temperature, output energy and thermal efficiency of the PTSC array. The primary
49
50 property of Xu et al.’s model includes the effect of incident angle on the overall collector
51 performance. Ouagued et al. [107] made a numerical model to simulate the time-dependent
52 temperature profile, heat gain and heat loss components of different HTFs under the climate
53 of Algeria. Different tracking modes and tilting configurations were also examined to obtain
54
55
most efficient arrangement for different locations of Algeria. Besides, a simple analysis for
56 quick performance estimation was carried out by [106].
57
58 The transient 1-D energy models were used by some of the reference works for experimental
59 validation, and the subsequent implementation through parametric studies. The variation in
60
61
62
63
64
65
 the HCE temperature [110, 111], HTF temperature [13, 110-116], HTF mass flow rate [111,
1 113], HTF type [114, 115], solar radiation [115], energy collected [116] energetic efficiency
2 [111, 113, 115, 116], and exergetic efficiency [111] were considered in these studies to
3
4
analyze their influences over the dynamics of a specified PTSC.
5
6 The energy equations describing the 1-D transient behavior of the PTSC can be expressed on
7 the control volume given in Figure 10.
8
9
10 For HTF:
11
12 Thtf 
13 cAhtf  m htf cT htf  Qhtf x  (25)
14 t x
15
16 For absorber:
17
18
19 cAa Ta  Aa
  Ta 
 ka   Q0  Q1  Qu (26)
20 t x  x 
21
22
23 For envelope:
24

cAe Te   Te 

25
26  Ae  ke   Q1  Q2 (27)
27 t x  x 
28
29
30
On the other hand, different modeling tools have been widely used in the literature for the
31 dynamic simulation. TRNSYS (TRaNsient SYstem Simulation) [117], SAM (Solar Advisor
32 Model) physical model [118], multi-purpose physical system modeling language, Modelica
33 [119] are widely accepted and validated programs. A good example for modeling and co-
34 simulation of a PTSC plant is available in [120] where SolTrace (for MCRT modeling),
35
36 TRNSYS and Modelica tools are coupled, and the dynamic performance of the plant is
37 investigated elaborately.
38
39 3.2.2.3. Two-phase steady flow
40
41
42 One of the posed obstacles in thermal oil is its maximum temperature limit, called film
43 temperature, which limits the operating temperature up to about 400 °C due to chemical
44 degradation. Although the operation of the SEGS technology is well understood and highly
45 developed, further improvements and reducing its cost are limited due to temperature range,
46
47 necessary components for the oil loop, and parasitics on operation. Contrarily, DSG is a
48 possible solution that offers higher temperature operation and maintains better thermal
49 efficiency. Pros and cons of those HTF usages are presented in the reference works [84, 121-
50 123] with detail.
51
52
53 There are possible operation concepts as schematically shown in Figure 11 that have been
54 commonly discussed in the literature for DSG with PTSCs. The operational details of all these
55 concepts can be found in [124], and their assessments under the various criteria are presented
56 in [125].
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 11. DSG operational concepts [126]
19
20 In a DSG collector, the feed water is heated through the absorber tube and undergoes phase
21
22
change as seen Figure 12. The single-phase flow initially forms, and then the fluid
23 temperature reaches to the saturation temperature where boiling begins and the trace of two-
24 phase flow is seen to be apparent. The two-phase flow in a heated horizontal tube exhibits
25 different flow patterns, including stratified, wavy, slug, intermittent, annular and a possible
26 dryout [121], based on the fractional amounts of the liquid and the vapor phases i.e., the
27
28 quality (x). The prediction of the distribution of liquid and gas flowing is significant since the
29 distribution affects heat transfer rates, temperature variations, mass velocities and the system
30 stability [127]. As the quality increases, the heat transfer from the absorber wall to the water
31 is improved as result of growing vapor shear stress [84]. However, high energy input to the
32
33
DSG collector can make dryout ‒ forming of low conductive dry steam ‒ which leads the
34 convection heat transfer coefficient to fall. It is shown for a wide range of mass flux
35 conditions that the maximum heat transfer coefficient in the two-phase flow takes place at the
36 quality of 0.8 [128]. Hence the inlet and exit states of the collector close to the saturated
37 conditions are desirable for the performance enhancement.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Figure 12. Flow patterns in the absorber of a DSG collector [84]
49
50
51 The type of flow pattern during steam generation is crucial to system safety due to the
52 potential risk of thermal-stress. The presence of a stratified (vapor + water) or a partially filled
53 flow pattern (water + air) can cause large temperature differences, and these states give rise to
54
55
bending of the absorber and possible breakage of envelope [129]. Therefore the flow pattern
56 should be analyzed profoundly. There are many two-phase flow maps developed for
57 predicting the flow patterns in horizontal tubes but they do not produce reliable results, or
58 hold complexity. Elsafi [121] proposed a generalized map (see Figure 13) which was adapted
59 from [130]. This map provides more convenient coordinates (mass flux versus quality) and
60
61
62
63
64
65
 predicts the transition between the flow regimes. On the other hand, a general operation
1 strategy for considering both the performance and safety aspects in a DSG loop is proposed
2 by [123], and the analyses made were presented on a flow regime map shown in Figure 13.
3
4
Based on the findings, it is very required to operate the DSG loop with high quality (in the
5 range of 0.7–0.8) in case of high direct beam radiation (400–1000 W/m2) for enhancing
6 system performance. At low qualities (between 0.2–0.4) and low direct beam radiation (200–
7 400 W/m2) cases, the loop should be operated cautiously to avoid the stratified flow pattern.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Figure 13. Flow pattern map. [121] and [123] (from left to right)
26
27 The flow pattern affects the peripheral temperature gradient around the absorber thus
28 lowering the temperature gradient decrease the thermal stresses. For this reason, it is better to
29
be worked in the annular region since the gradient is in the level of 3 K but it could reach up
30
31 to 50 K in stratified flow [131]. Heidemann et al. [122] concluded that high temperature peaks
32 are obtained in the stratified flow at higher void fractions (volumetric ratio of vapor to water)
33 as a result of the 2-D FDM numerical analyses being performed. It was proposed that these
34 peaks could be reduces using an absorber material with high thermal conductivity. By this
35
36
way, asymmetric thermal expansion of the absorber can be then minimized. For low flow rate
37 (<12 liter/min) and low pressure (<3 bar), Martínez and Almanza [132] presented a theoretical
38 model for annular flow to estimate the temperature profile around the absorber. The study was
39 validated by the experimental results, and it is shown that the highest average temperature
40 difference can reach up to 31 K at low flow trait. A 3-D thermal and optical model for DSG
41
42 under the dryout condition was proposed by [133]. The flow pattern was modeled as single-
43 phase and verified with the experimental results. The 3-D temperature field on the solid
44 bodies of the HCE (bended absorber, and envelope) was presented, as well.
45
46
47
Water evaporation in the absorber involves the modeling of two-phase flow that requires
48 more complex processes than the conventional single-phase flow. The DSG evaluations in
49 PTSCs under steady-flow conditions are presented in [84, 119, 121]. In the work of Odeh et
50 al. [84], the variation in heat transfer coefficients with bulk temperature, efficiencies of
51 different phase sections versus radiation level, thermal loss of collector, variation of collector
52
53 efficiency with radiation level and inlet temperature, temperature distribution along the
54 absorber, variation of collector efficiency with radiation level and water saturation
55 temperature, efficiency of the collector for varying absorber diameters were investigated.
56 Zaversky et al. [119] developed a detailed model using the thermodynamic simulation
57
58
software IPSEpro, and analyzed the heat loss and pressure drop depending on the collector
59 length. Elsafi [121] introduced a new approach encompassing the thermal and pressure drop
60 modeling of all the flow regimes. The model is meaningful as a consequence of showing the
61
62
63
64
65
 flow patterns along the HCE in DSG loops. The effects of direct beam radiation, inlet
1 pressure, and inlet temperature on the flow patterns were shown in this study. Separately,
2 Nolte et al. [134] analyzed a HCE to be used for DSG from the perspective of the second law
3
4
of thermodynamics. Mass flow rate, operating pressure, tube diameter, and concentration ratio
5 were optimized for the minimization of entropy generation.
6
7 3.2.2.4. Two-phase transient flow
8
9
10 In DSG systems, the flow characteristic is more complex in comparison to the single-phase
11 flow on account of the fact that the flow instabilities happen in case of disturbances in the
12 solar radiation or local shading by clouds passing over the solar field for a limited time. At
13 this point, the transient modeling becomes more valuable for predicting the respond of the
14
15
solar field since the lengths of the single-phase, two-phase, and dry steam regions are
16 significantly affected by the regarding dynamic conditions. This issue causes thermal stability
17 problems in the field, and large fluctuations in the outlet temperature and steam flow rate, as
18 well. In other words, the system may not operate in the desired flow regime. Developing a
19 suitable control strategy becomes more important from this respect thereby the anticipation of
20
21 the system reaction is needed. In this context, using the tool of time-dependent modeling is
22 preferable. As the complexity of the system gets higher, a model study provides much
23 information. Estimating the system behavior by experimental methods when the large
24 facilities are involved is also not feasible. Moreover the experimental approach is expensive,
25
time-consuming, and holds uncertainties. An accurate model satisfies to predict the system’s
26
27 dynamic reaction, and to assess the subsequent control strategies.
28
29 Numerous studies performed for describing the transient behavior of the DSG systems can be
30 found in the literature. These studies can be categorized in terms of characterizing the start-up
31
32
or shut-down of a daily DSG operation, prediction of the thermal instabilities, and control
33 strategies for DSG facilities. A part of these numerical models were principally developed
34 based on energy balance [122, 135] or mass, momentum and energy balances [124, 136, 137].
35 Lumped-capacitance model [138], quasi-steady dynamic models [139] were conducted in the
36 remaining studies.
37
38
39 A transient 2-D energy equation was used by Heidemann et al. [122]. It was shown that the
40 temperature field is extremely asymmetric due to the variation of heat transfer coefficient in
41 the tube, and high temperature peaks were obtained especially in stratified flow with higher
42
43
void fractions. The response time of the absorber is also studied for the case of stepwise
44 varying solar radiation levels, and it was resulted that very high temperature gradients were
45 induced within a short time. Another study which is presented by Steinmann and Goebel
46 [135] enables the detailed calculations of the wall temperature.
47
48
49 The 1-D transient homogeneous flow model (the liquid and vapor phases of two-phase flow in
50 thermal equilibrium) were applied by [124, 136, 140, 141]. Unlike the homogeneous model,
51 You et al. [137] established a two-phase flow modeling via the sub-phase approach for a
52 once-through DSG system.
53
54
55 The process used in the DSG solar plants is not at the same level of complexity relative to the
56 SEGS plants. In the SEGS plants, the outlet temperature of the thermal oil flowing through
57 the solar field is controlled by mass flow manipulation at the inlet side however in the DSG
58 solar plants both the fluid temperature and the operating pressure must be controlled to
59
60 maintain the desired steam conditions at the outlet [142]. As it is mentioned in the previous
61
62
63
64
65
 section, the thermal-hydraulic behavior of DSG plants is examined under three operational
1 concepts. In the once-through concept, less system complexity is available thus requires lower
2 investment cost, but process control is the main technical problem in this concept. The
3
4
injection concept seems to be controlled easily but it is more complex and costs more.
5 Additionally, the final proof of this concept is still pending [143]. The recirculation concept is
6 the most conservative and can be controlled well relative to the others. Its loop configuration
7 guarantees to prevent stratified flow but the recirculation causes to increase the parasitic
8 loads, and the system cost.
9
10
11 Particularly, the dynamic reaction and the concerned control ability of a DSG process are the
12 two major points. In this context, the numerical simulation can provide wealth of information
13 to answer the important subjects of a practical application, and its control strategy to be
14
15
defined. Lippke [124] presented the transient response of a once-through process and its
16 control. For these subjects, a numerical solution was performed, and the results were verified
17 with a test facility. First, the reaction of the steam flow under simultaneous changes in the
18 solar radiation was discussed. Second, the reaction of the steam flow and temperature to
19 different size of passing cloud fields, and how cloud field velocity affecting the flow
20
21 controllability at varying weather condition were investigated. As a conclusion, the once-
22 through process seems to be controllable even in bad weather conditions according to the
23 simulation results. Eck and Steinmann [126] compared the experimental results with the
24 simulation results of the recirculation concept and obtained good agreement. The
25
experimental results were presented for both once-through and recirculation concepts. It was
26
27 inferred that the revised simulation program (models for the dynamic and steady behavior of
28 DSG were developed and implemented in [135]) can be used for the controller design and the
29 assessment of different operation modes. More detail can be found in the study of Eck et al.
30 [125]. Hirsch et al. [141] developed a two-phase model of a recirculation DSG loop in
31
32
Modelica combining with simulation tool, Dymola which enables to make numerical
33 integration of the compiled DSG plant. The simultaneous solar disturbance on the overall
34 collector field and the local disturbances like small cloud shading were simulated, and the
35 impact of the recirculation flow rate on the system dynamics was analyzed. Hirsch and Eck
36 [144] also simulated the start-up procedure of the DSG solar field using Modelica. By the
37
38 simulation model, estimation of the time consumption during the start-up procedure was
39 performed, and a control layer was built for improving the start-up strategy. In the later work
40 of Eck and Hirsch [140], the dynamic behavior of the recirculation DSG loop was
41 investigated using the previous simulation tool [141]. For understanding the control
42
43
mechanism of the loop, different feed water control systems, liquid level control of the buffer
44 tank, and steam temperature control by an injection cooler were evaluated, and the reaction of
45 the controlled loop was simulated under the variety of conditions.
46
47 On the other hand, different modeling tools like Modelica [140, 141, 144], RELAP [145],
48
49 ATHLET [146], and TRNSYS [147] have been considered for the dynamic simulation of the
50 DSG systems. The Modelica library “DissDyn” was developed by Hirsch [148] and combined
51 with Dymola [149]. Dymola is a physical modeling and simulation tool which uses the
52 Modelica models as basis. The detail of the physical models considered in DissDyn is given
53
54
in [146]. RELAP [150] is a commercial software package which is mainly used for the
55 modeling of nuclear reactors. One of its usage areas allows to more accurately modeling the
56 multi-dimensional flow behavior. Moya et al. [145] carried out a numerical study for the
57 thermal-hydraulic behavior of a DSG absorber using RELAP and examined the program
58 suitability. RELAP was later evaluated to be appropriate for DSG studies in concentrating
59
60 solar systems, and can help to deepen understanding of the thermal-hydraulic behavior of the
61
62
63
64
65
 two-phase flow in the absorber. The thermal-hydraulic system code, ATHLET [151] is
1 actually applicable for nuclear reactor designs but capable of handling different physical
2 operations, as well. The comparison of the physical models between DissDyn and ATHLET
3
4
codes is clearly demonstrated in [146]. Although there are no specific models for solar
5 thermal power plants in the ATHLET code, it provides interactions between the thermal-
6 hydraulics and the control components. The obtained simulation results approve that
7 ATHLET is applicable for thermodynamic simulations of DSG processes. The TRNSYS
8 environment has been already used in modeling of SEGSs with different working fluids
9
10 however a multi-phase flow modeling requires a more complex treatment relative to the
11 single-phase flow. TRNSYS has a modular structure, thus component routines can be
12 implemented into the program not included in the standard TRNSYS library [152]. As an
13 example, a new quasi-dynamic approach which replies to the transient conditions of DSG
14
15
evaluation, such as start-up, shutdown and cloudy transients, has been integrated in the
16 TRNSYS environment [147].
17
18 3.2.3. CFD analysis
19
20
21 Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) provides to solve the fluid problems which do not have
22 analytical solution. The advancement in the computer technology has had a great impact on
23 the solution of fluid mechanics and heat transfer design problems. Even sophisticated
24 problems can now be solved in short times thanks to the increasing speed of computers.
25
Improvements in numerical algorithms have also contributed in reducing the cost of
26
27 computations over the years. On the other hand, the CFD techniques provide many
28 advantages such as obtaining details about the flow field, reproducing data in design cycle,
29 and possibility to examine practical limits. CFD is witnessed to be fulfilling those aspects
30 better compared with the analytical and experimental methods. Nonetheless, analysts often do
31
32
experiments to complement the CFD analyses in the validation process. The CFD modeling
33 involves numerical solutions of the equations of motion and energy:
34
35 Continuity equation:
36
37
 
38        0 (28)
39 t
40
41
42 Momentum equation:
43
 
        P       f
44
45 (29)
46
t
47
48 Energy equation:
49
50

51 E     E     P     kT          Sr (30)
52 t
53
54 
55 Here P is pressure, f represents external forces such as gravity,  is the shearing tensor,
56 and S r contains all volumetric heat sources.
57
58
59 This section holds the studies where using CFD presents a better insight to analyze the
60 physics of PTSCs. The details of the studies performed with the CFD approach are
61
62
63
64
65
 summarized in Table 3 and the texts followed. First, the studies investigated for the structural
1 analysis are reviewed. Shuai et al. [153] employed a CFD analysis combining with MCRT to
2 obtain the concentrated heat flux and temperature distributions, and thermal stress fields of
3
4
both eccentric and concentric HCEs using Syltherm 800. Four different solid materials
5 (stainless steel, aluminum, copper, and SiC) were evaluated in terms of thermal and structural
6 views. Yaghoubi and Akbarimoosavi [154] studied the deformation characteristics of two
7 types of Schott’s HCE using Behran oil and Therminol VP-1 working fluids respectively. The
8 3-D temperature distribution and thermal expansion of the absorber due to nonuniform solar
9
10 flux were determined numerically. The variation of the 2-D nonuniform solar flux distribution
11 was assigned mathematically. Akbarimoosavi and Yaghoubi [155] moved their previous
12 study [154] to a further point and then examined the deformation characteristics of the
13 absorber array due to the 3-D nonuniform solar flux density distribution. Results of the LCR,
14
15
flux density, temperature distribution and thermal expansions were determined for the given
16 designed conditions.
17
18 Second, the studies involving the heat loss and annulus flow characteristics of HCEs are
19 considered. Kassem [156] studied the natural convection heat transfer process in the filled-air
20
21 annular space of the HCE for the case of an isothermal envelope with a sinusoidal local heat
22 flux distribution on the absorber. The effects of the eccentricity and azimuthal angle variation
23 on the flow and heat transfer characteristics were investigated. Eck et al. [157] developed a 3-
24 D finite element method (FEM) model for the evaporation section of the DSG collectors to
25
determine the circumferential temperature profile and the heat loss of the HCE. The absorbed
26
27 power density was simulated by 2-D heat flux profile derived via ray-tracing. The numerical
28 results obtained for the LS-2 collector was compared with the empirical 1-D model of SNL
29 (Sandia National Laboratories) and the 2-D analytical model. Roesle et al. [158] presented a
30 thermal model, implemented in the CFD software coupled with the MCRT code, for the HCE
31
32
with active vacuum system. The model can accurately predict the heat loss but underestimate
33 the envelope temperature as compared with the experimental results. Roesle et al. [159] also
34 revealed another modeling approach, direct simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) which is valid
35 for high Knudsen numbers (Kn), for the analysis of the conduction heat loss through the
36 annular gap of HCEs. The 2-D and 3-D DSMC simulations were employed to investigate the
37
38 cross-sectional and axial gas behavior in the annular gap, respectively. Patil et al. [160]
39 presented a numerical study for estimating the heat loss from a nonevacuated HCE. The
40 sinusoidal and square wave functions were employed in modeling of the circumferential
41 temperature distribution on the HCE. The effects of the average temperature of the absorber,
42
43
hour angle, and the radius ratio (RR: ratio of the inner radius of the envelope to the outer
44 radius of the absorber) on the heat loss were also studied. Patil et al. [161] also made a
45 parametric study for heat loss estimation from a nonevacuated HCE subjected the temperature
46 distribution fitted by sinusoidal and constant functions. In contrast to the earlier work [160],
47 all the mechanisms of heat losses from the HCE, including radiation in the annulus and
48
49 convection outside the envelope, were considered. The effects of the variation in the absorber
50 diameter and RR were dealt with optimizing the design stage of a nonevacuated HCE.
51
52 Third, the internal flow analyses have been revealed by the researchers. Cheng et al. [162]
53
54
analyzed the heat transfer characteristics in the HCE using the CFD software combined with
55 the MCRT method. As a physical model, the LS-2 collector with Syltherm 800 in the testing
56 attribute of [78] was taken into consideration. After validating the model, three models; the
57 no-wall model (considering only the convective heat transfer and neglecting the heat
58 conduction and radiation), the no-radiation model (considering both the convective heat
59
60 transfer in the inner absorber and the conduction in the wall), and the unabridged model
61
62
63
64
65
 (including convective, conduction, radiation heat transfers) were further simulated to clarify
1 the coupled heat transfer mechanism in the HCE. Sahoo et al. [163] investigated the effects of
2 the mass flow rate of HTF (Therminol VP-1), wind velocity, direct beam radiation and the
3
4
material type of the absorber on the circumferential temperature profile. For this purpose, a 3-
5 D absorber modeling was performed in the CFD environment, and the nonuniform solar flux
6 distribution on the absorber was assigned as a boundary condition by means of mathematical
7 expressions. He et al. [164] established a coupled numerical method incorporating the MCRT
8 and CFD to obtain the 3-D flow fields of Syltherm 800 and the temperature distribution of the
9
10 LS-2 absorber with the complexity of nonuniform heat flux boundary condition. The effects
11 of various geometric concentration ratios and rim angles were also simulated. Roldán et al.
12 [165] developed a CFD model of the LS-3 collector with superheated steam to calculate the
13 temperature distribution of the absorber wall subjected to a nonhomogenous heat flux profile.
14
15
The CFD simulations were compared with experimental results taken at the Plataforma Solar
16 de Almería (PSA), Spain.
17
18 Mwesigye et al. [166-168] presented a set of studies connected with the thermodynamics of
19 PTSCs. The results of entropy generation at different concentration ratios, inlet temperatures
20
21 and flow rates were illustrated in [166] for an evacuated HCE using Syltherm 800 which was
22 subjected to concentrated solar flux on the lower half and direct solar irradiation on the upper
23 half. The entropy generation rates at different rim angles, concentration ratios and fluid
24 temperatures from the view of the second law of thermodynamics were analyzed in [167]. The
25
influence of optical errors (slope and specularity) on the thermal and thermodynamic
26
27 performance of a PTSC was investigated in [168].
28
29 Yaghoubi et al. [169] introduced a combined heat transfer model for HCEs: vacuum, lost
30 vacuum (filled-air) and broken glass (bare) type. The model was numerically solved for the
31
32
case available in the previous study [154]. The experimental measured data were used to
33 validate the numerical simulation. Wu et al. [170] studied the temperature distribution of an
34 evacuated HCE by coupling CFD and MCRT. The whole HCE including envelope, absorber
35 and the bellows were jointly considered in this study. The transient behavior of the HCE
36 under direct concentrated solar irradiance was investigated and the results were compared
37
38 with the indoor experimental data of Himin’s HCE.
39
40 Lobón et al. [171] simulated the DSG behavior of PTSCs using an efficient multiphase model.
41 The heat flux variation on the absorber was represented with the profile studied in [165]. The
42
43
CFD simulations were validated with the field measurements of the LS-3 collectors at the
44 PSA. Lobón et al. [172] modeled the dynamic behavior of the system mentioned in [171]as
45 well. Disturbances in the system operation due to changes in inlet water conditions and/or
46 solar radiation were simulated for process control. Cheng et al. [173] analyzed the effects of
47
48
geometric parameters ( wa , f ,  r , etc.) on the performance indicators of the LS-2 collector
49 by coupling the CFD and MCRT tools. Tijani and Roslan [174] simulated the combined
50 effects of the conduction, convection, and radiation heat transfer on the heat loss of the LS-2
51 water collector subjected to uniform solar heat flux. Also the effects of wind speed and mass
52
53 flow rate of the HTF on the thermal losses were investigated. Wang et al. [175] studied the
54 influences of key operation parameters such as direct solar radiation, HTF inlet velocity and
55 inlet temperature on the circumferential temperature gradient and the performance of a PTSC
56 using molten salt. Further, Wang et al. [176] enlarged the scope of their previous study
57
58
changing the HTF with Dowtherm A, and adding thermal stress analysis. Ghomrassi et al.
59 [177] carried out CFD simulations to analyze the effect of increasing absorber thickness on
60 the thermal performance, thus selection and optimization of the absorber geometry with
61
62
63
64
65
 Syltherm 800 were tackled to maximize the performance. Habib et al. [178] developed the 2-
1 D and 3-D CFD models for lengthy PTSCs which require large meshed domains along with
2 considering the effects of selective emission and absorption are difficult to replicate. They
3
4
proposed that the use of a short domain with fixed length would provide to reduce the
5 required meshing time. The 2-D and 3-D models of the LS-2 collector were developed
6 including the heat flux profile adapted from [162] as polynomial fit, and finally the results
7 were compared with the literature. Tzivanidis et al. [85] simulated a designed PTSC at
8 different operating conditions to predict the consistency of the model, and then to analyze the
9
10 heat transfer properties in the HCE. The working fluid in this analysis was considered to be
11 pressurized water staying in liquid phase in all cases. The simulation results were validated by
12 the numerical model given in the study. Zheng et al. [179] developed a numerical model of a
13 solar parabolic trough receiver–reactor (SPTRR) with methanol steam reforming reaction.
14
15
The characteristics of the hydrodynamics, heat transfer and chemical reaction of the SPTRR
16 were studied. The effects of nonuniform solar flux condition (approximated with a
17 polynomial function) and catalyst layout on the performance of the SPTRR were analyzed. Li
18 et al. [180] studied the laminar mixed convective heat transfer of superheated steam for the
19 LS-2 collector subjected to uniform and non-uniform heat fluxes respectively. The influences
20
21 of Reynolds number (Re), Grashof number (Gr) and solar elevation angle on the fluid flow
22 and heat transfer were analyzed. Qiu et al. [181] simulated the thermal performance of the LS-
23 3 collector with supercritical CO2.
24
25
Forth, the external flow analyses revealed in the literature were considered. Naeeni and
26
27 Yaghoubi [182] investigated the velocity field and pressure contours of a PTSC in Shiraz for
28 the parameters of angle of attack, wind velocity and its distribution with respect to height
29 from the ground. Further, they studied the heat transfer behavior of the PTSC under those
30 parameters in the second part of the study [183].
31
32
33 Hachicha et al. [184] presented a numerical model for the simulation of fluid flow and heat
34 transfer properties of the Eurotrough PTSC. The governing equations were discretized on the
35 3-D unstructured mesh but generated in the spanwise direction of the 2-D unstructured grid.
36 The model analyzed a quantitative assessment of the velocity, pressure and temperature fields
37
38 of the PTSC. Aerodynamic parameters including drag and lift coefficients of the PTSC were
39 also predicted and validated. The effect of pitch angle on the circumferential heat transfer
40 characteristics of the HCE’s envelope exposed to constant temperature was investigated. The
41 effects of wind speed and pitch angle on the aerodynamic behavior and heat transfer
42
43
characteristics of the PTSC were investigated in another study of the authors [185, 186].
44
45 Paetzold et al. [187] performed a numerical study for the aim of optimizing the shape and
46 layout of PTSCs to minimize wind loads as well as wind speeds around the HCE to reduce
47 thermal losses. Varying the depth of the trough, i.e. the focal length of the paraboloid, three
48
49 different trough systems; shallow, medium and deep, were analyzed parametrically.
50 Additionally, the simulation results were obtained over a large range of pitch angles for these
51 geometries. The effects of pitch and yaw angles for the associated geometries were
52 investigated in [188].
53
54
55 Table 3. Summary of the CFD analyses for conventional PTSC
56 Reference Method Properties Solver Remarks
57 Structural analysis
58 Shuai et al. [153] MCRT/FEM 3-D steady-state MCRT-code/Ansys The temperature gradients for the stainless
59 steel and SiC absorbers are much higher than
60 those of the aluminum and copper. The
61
62
63
64
65
 stainless steel has the highest maximum
effective stress whereas the copper has the
1 lowest. The temperature gradient for the
2 concentric HCE, which is higher than that of
3 the eccentric HCE, can lead to higher
4 thermal stresses.
Yaghoubi and FEM 3-D steady-state Ansys Lowering the convection coefficient of the
5 Akbarimoosavi HTF increases the elongation of the
6 [154] absorber, and the risk of envelope failure. To
7 minimize the deformation risk in the focal
8 point, the convection coefficient must be
raised more.
9 Akbarimoosavi and MCRT/FVM & 3-D steady-state SolTrace/Ansys Lowering the HTF velocity increases the
10 Yaghoubi [155] FEM Workbench deflection. While increasing C increases the
11 temperature gradient on the peripheral
12 surface, increasing the thermal conductivity
13 of the absorber reduces it.
14 Heat loss and annulus flow
15 Kassem [156] FDM 2-D steady-state, In-house code The influence of the eccentricity upon the
laminar model local Nusselt number (Nu) is directly
16 indicated by the decrease of the maximum
17 values of the local Nu as the magnitude of
18 eccentricity is increased. The heat flow from
19 the absorber to the envelope is reduced by
20 increasing the eccentricity.
Eck et al. [157] FEM 3-D steady-state Ansys The profile distinction of the heat flux has a
21 significant influence on the determination of
22 the maximum circumferential HCE
23 temperature.
24 Roesle et al. [158] MCRT/FEM 2-D steady-state MCRT-code/Ansys Although the conduction heat loss is small
CFX compared to the incident solar heat gain, the
25
heat loss generated can be significant when
26 the entire collector field is considered.
27 Roesle et al. [159] DSMC/FDM 2-D and 3-D steady- DS2V, DS3V/In- At pressures below 5 Pa, the DSMC
28 state house code simulations have higher conduction heat loss
29 predictions than the continuum simulations.
The DSMC simulations are more accurate,
30 since the slip flow model is generally
31 accurate for Kn <0.1 (pressure higher than 3
32 Pa). For the very low pressures investigated,
33 the slip flow model is somewhat outside its
expected range of validity.
34
Patil et al. [160] FVM 2-D steady-state Fluent As the nonuniformity in the temperature
35 laminar model distribution of the HCE increases, the heat
36 loss decreases. As the hour angle increases,
37 heat loss increases as well. The rate of heat
38 loss progressively decreases as the radius
ratio, RR decreases, and it reaches a
39 minimum for RR = 1.375 where the heat
40 transfer only by conduction and convection
41 just begins after this critical value.
42 Patil et al. [161] FVM 2-D steady-state Fluent The critical RR is lower for bigger absorber
laminar model, S2S diameters. The critical RR for a particular
43
radiation model HCE is independent of the HCE temperature
44 and external wind velocity. In nonevacuated
45 HCE, the comparison of the heat losses in
46 nonuniform and uniform temperature cases
47 differs only by 1.5%. In an evacuated HCE,
wind velocity and RR have insignificant
48 effects on the heat losses.
49
50
Internal flow
Cheng et al. [162] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Fluent Larger Re represents larger heat absorption
51 standard k–ε capability and lower heat loss when other
52 turbulence model parameters remain the same. The smaller the
53 emissivity of the absorber surface is, the
54 higher the collector efficiency can be
obtained.
55 Sahoo et al. [163] FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent At higher mass flow rates, increasing heat
56 laminar model transfer results in high thermal energy
57 potential at the absorber outlet. The outlet
58 temperature decreases as more convection
losses occur by high wind speed. The
59 circumferential temperature gradient is
60 almost uniform in copper relative to steel.
61
62
63
64
65
 He et al. [164] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Fluent With increasing C, the heat flux distribution
standard k–ε becomes gentler, the angle span of reducing
1 turbulence model area becomes larger and the shadow effect of
2 absorber becomes weaker. The HTF
3 temperature rise can be also enhanced by
4 increasing C. With increasing φr, the
5 maximum heat flux becomes lower. If φr is
6 small, lots of rays are reflected by the glass
envelope, and the temperature rise becomes
7 much lower.
8 Roldán et al. [165] FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent For similar process conditions, the thermal
9 standard k–ε stress producing in the absorber is higher as
10 turbulence model the fluid is steam. Higher effective direct
solar radiation and steam temperature cause
11 higher thermal gradients for similar steam
12 mass flow.
13 Mwesigye et al. FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent The entropy generation rate reduces with
14 [166] realizable k–ε inlet temperature rise and increases with
15 turbulence model increasing C. There is an optimal flow rate
where the entropy generation is the lowest
16 for every combination of C and inlet
17 temperature.
18 Mwesigye et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Ansys As φr increases, the circumferential
19 [167] realizable k–ε Fluent temperature gradient reduces on the absorber
turbulence model surface. The reduction in the absorber's peak
20
21 temperature is small above φr = 80°. The
22 Bejan number, which is a measure of total
entropy generation, increases with reducing
23
φr and HTF temperature and increasing C.
24 Mwesigye et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Ansys The presence of slope errors significantly
25 [168] realizable k–ε Fluent influences the heat flux distribution on the
26 turbulence model, absorber as well as the thermal and the
27 DO radiation model thermodynamic performance of the HCE.
The influence of the specularity error on the
28 thermal efficiency is insignificant as it is
29 lower than 4 mrad. While increasing of the
30 slope error reduces both the entropy
31 generation of the HCE, its exergetic
32 performance significantly.
Yaghoubi et al. FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent While the heat loss from the lost vacuum
33 [169] standard k–ε HCE leads to 3‒5% reduction in the
34 turbulence model collector thermal performance, it is on the
35 level of 12‒16% for bare HCE.
36 Wu et al. [170] MCRT/FVM 3-D transient, MCRT-code/Fluent The temperatures of the metal tube-to-bellow
standard k–ε joint and bellows are very high and very
37 turbulence model, close to the maximum temperature of the
38 S2S radiation model absorber. Heat loss through the bellows
39 accounts for ~7% of the total heat loss. The
40 stagnation temperature of the HCE increases
41 linearly with time.
Lobón et al. [171] ‒ 3-D steady-state, STAR-CCM+ The adopted boiling model demonstrates
42 homogeneous two- excellent performance without tuning with
43 phase model experimental data. The presented approach is
44 valuable for design and optimization of DSG
45 collector.
Lobón et al. [172] ‒ 3-D transient, STAR-CCM+ An efficient multiphase model is capable of
46
homogeneous two- simulating the dynamics of the multiphase
47 phase model fluid in PTSCs under the variation of solar
48 radiation, inlet mass water flow and outlet
49 steam pressure.
50 Cheng et al. [173] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Fluent While increasing wa always increases the
standard k–ε thermal efficiency monotonically, it
51 turbulence increases the optical efficiency up to a
52 certain value and then decreases greatly.
53 There are minimum and maximum values
54 for focal lengths beyond which both the
thermal and optical efficiencies drop
55 significantly due to the effect of the
56 defocusing of beam radiation. Increasing φr
57 intensifies the degree of nonuniformity in the
58 circumferential thermal properties of the
59 absorber more and more.
60 Tijani and Roslan FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent As the flow rate reduces, the temperature of
61
62
63
64
65
 [174] RNG k–ε turbulence the absorber and the outlet temperature of
model, S2S the HTF increase considerably. The
1 radiation model convection heat loss across the envelope
2 increases with induced wind speed rise.
3 Convection heat loss constitutes the highest
4 portion of the total heat loss.
Wang et al. [175] MCRT/FEM 3-D steady-state, k– SolTrace/In-house The circumferential temperature gradient on
5 ω turbulence model code the absorber increases with rising of the
6 direct solar radiation and decreases with
7 increasing HTF inlet temperature and
8 velocity. The nonuniform distribution in the
solar energy flux affects the circumferential
9 temperature gradient of the HCE while
10 having a little influence on the heat loss and
11 thermal efficiency as compared to the
12 uniform distribution assumption.
13 Wang et al. [176] MCRT/FEM 3-D steady-state, k– SolTrace/In-house The cross-sectional temperature difference
ω turbulence model, code of the HTF decreases with increasing inlet
14 S2S radiation model velocity of the HTF but increases with rising
15 of direct beam radiation, and almost remains
16 the same with increasing HTF inlet
17 temperature. The displacement in the
absorber is larger than that of the envelope,
18 especially in the axial direction.
19 Ghomrassi et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Fluent Increasing the metallic thickness improves
20 [177] RNG k–ε turbulence the thermal performance up to a critical level
21 model, DO radiation beyond which the heat losses become higher.
22 model Increasing the absorber thickness allows to
dispose of concentrated heat flux in the
23 lower part of the HCE.
24 Habib et al. [178] FVM 2-D and 3-D steady- Ansys Fluent The 3-D model is more accurate than the 2-
25 state, standard k–ε D model. Use of a short domain of fixed
26 model, DO radiation length would undoubtedly reduce the
model required meshing time for long HCEs.
27 Tzivanidis et al. [85] FEM 3-D steady-state, Solidworks The convection heat transfer coefficient of
28 laminar, transitional the HTF is fully dependent on its inlet
29 and turbulence temperature. Greater incident angles produce
30 scheme higher end losses which affect the efficiency
31 unfavorably.
Zheng et al. [179] FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent Under the nonuniform solar flux condition,
32 standard k–ε the SPTRRs partially filled with catalyst
33 turbulence model have better performance than those fully
34 filled with catalyst. 0.4 of catalyst filling
35 ratio is recommended to improve the
chemical energy conversion per unit pump
36 power relative to that of the fully catalyst-
37 filled SPTRR. The conversion efficiency
38 increases stably with increasing flow rate.
39 Li et al. [180] FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent The variation in Nu under uniform heat flux
40 laminar model is less than that of the nonuniform heat flux.
The flow resistance increases with solar
41 elevation angle. As Gr increases, Nu
42 increases sharply with solar elevation angle
43 but it starts to decrease slowly at higher Gr
44 and lower solar elevation angles.
Qiu et al. [181] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Ansys The circumferential temperature gradient of
45 standard k–ε Fluent the absorber is found to be within 18–60 K
46 turbulence model, under typical conditions. Enlarging of the
47 S2S radiation model secondary flow velocity in the pseudo-
48 critical region causes strong heat transfer
49 enhancement relative to the high temperature
region.
50
51 External flow over HCE
Naeeni and FVM 2-D steady-state, Fluent The wind force on the collector structure and
52 Yaghoubi [182] RNG k–ε turbulence mirror increases sharply when the wind
53 model speed increases especially for large collector
54 angles. The pressure field on the leeward
55 side of the collector is very low far from the
56 region about 15–20 times of the collector
aperture.
57 Naeeni and FVM 2-D steady-state, Fluent The wind flow structure around the HCE is
58 Yaghoubi [183] RNG k–ε turbulence completely different than the cross-flow
59 model around a horizontal cylinder. The flow field
60 does not strongly depend upon the wind
61
62
63
64
65
 speed and is asymmetrical with respect to the
horizontal axis. When the wind velocity is
1 high (Re >4.5×105), the collector effect on
2 the circumferential variation of Nu over the
3 envelope is considerable.
4 Hachicha et al. [184] CFD & HT code 3-D time-averaged Termofluids The convection around the HCE might be
steady-state, WALE forced or mixed based on the pitch angle.
5 model The magnitude of the averaged Nu is
6 reduced as the pitch angle lowers. The PTSC
7 structure stability is more affected by the
8 wind forces for the pitch angle <90°.
Hachicha et al. [185, CFD & HT code 3-D time-averaged Termofluids The distribution of Nu for higher the wind
9 186] steady-state, WALE speeds shows a similar trend to that of the
10 model lower wind speeds with higher magnitude
11 and significant peak.
12 Paetzold et al. [187] FEM 3-D steady-state, Ansys CFX Increasing the depth of trough increases the
13 SST turbulence maximum aerodynamic forces and pitching
model moment on the trough. However, a deeper
14 trough which has a sheltering effect on the
15 HCE conduces to reduce the thermal losses
16 accompanied by the forced convection.
17 Paetzold et al. [188] FEM 3-D steady-state, Ansys CFX At the positive pitch angles, increasing the
SST turbulence yaw angle slightly reduces Nu at the HCE
18
model surface. However, in a few cases at the
19 negative pitch angles, the maximum Nu for a
20 given pitch is observed at high yaw angles.
21 Increasing the yaw angle reduces the
22 aerodynamic forces significantly.
23
24 3.3. Performance enhancement
25
26
27
Recently, many research studies have focused on improving the performance of PTSCs to
28 reduce their final costs. The performance of a PTSC can be enhanced by either changing its
29 optical design or HCE properties including augmentation techniques [189]. In recent years,
30 thermal enhancement in the HCE properties has been much dealt by many researchers rather
31 than optical design but in this section, all the efforts exhibited will be considered.
32
33
34 3.3.1. Novel design
35
36 In order to increase the performance, different novel designs have been implemented as seen
37
38
from Table 4. The details of the studies can be followed as:
39
40 Barra and Franceschi [190] made a theoretical analysis to optimize the physical parameters of
41 a PTSC prototype having V-shape cavity and insulated envelope and rows of copper pipes
42 placed to the space between the cavity and the envelope. Grald and Kuehn [191] investigated
43
44 the thermal performance characteristic of a PTSC with a porous HCE absorbing solar
45 radiation through the lower portion of the envelope where a transparent liquid flows in the
46 inlet channel. The effects of the mass flow rate, acceptance angle, HCE dimensions, and
47 material properties on the thermal efficiency were determined. Hegazy [192] studied the
48
performance behavior of the geometrical parameters of an absorber with two externally
49
50 attached longitudinal fins. Daniel et al. [193] proposed to make an improvement on the
51 nonevacuated model by converting the single envelope into the double wall vacuum shell. A
52 numerical investigation was performed to compare the performance of the vacuum shell with
53 the nonevacuated and evacuated tube configurations. Al-Ansary and Zeitoun [194]
54
55 investigated a study for calculating the conduction and convection heat losses of a half-
56 insulated filled-air HCE. The effects of the HCE tilt angle and the thermal conductivity of the
57 insulated material on the heat loss were illustrated.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Bader et al. [195] analyzed a cylindrical cavity-HCE that uses air in the tubular absorber to
1 determine the HCE’s absorption efficiency and pumping power requirement by using a
2 numerical heat transfer model. Bader et al. [196] reported the experimental validation of the
3
4
heat transfer model as well as the application of the model to predict the thermal performance
5 of the air-based cavity-HCE under various operating conditions. Bader et al. [197] analyzed
6 the different configurations of an air-based tubular cavity-HCE: smooth or V-corrugated tube
7 wall, and single or double glazed aperture window. The collector’s performance was
8 characterized, in terms of its optical efficiency and heat loss, as a function of the HTF
9
10 temperature and mass flow rate. Good et al. [198] numerically simulated a novel air-based
11 HCE consisting of an array of helically coiled absorbers contained side-by-side within an
12 insulated groove having a rectangular windowed opening.
13
14
15
The performance enhancement with modifying the optical design has been studied by some
16 candidate works. Kajavali et al. [199] carried out numerical analyses for a modified absorber
17 containing a linear array of water tubes attached to an absorber plate. The validation of the
18 CFD model was conducted for both the conventional single tube and its modified design
19 using experimental method, and the results were compared to evaluate the efficiencies of the
20
21 absorbers. Xiao et al. [200] proposed a V-cavity absorber with rectangular fins and
22 investigated the effects of heat flux distribution, mass flow rate and direct normal irradiance
23 on the heat transfer performance. Wirz et al. [59] optimized the optical properties of a typical
24 PTSC by evaluating both the mirror and HCE designs. First, the mirror design was optimized,
25
and then the different configurations of HCEs (RGS, RAI, aplanat and seagull) were analyzed
26
27 to improve the performance. Demagh et al. [201] presented the feasibility of how the
28 distribution of the heat flux density on the HCE surface is affected by replacing the plain
29 absorber with an S-curved/sinusoidal absorber. Chen et al. [202] proposed a triangular cavity
30 absorber and simulated its optical properties by a design software. The triangular cavity
31
32
absorber’s aperture width, depth-to-width ratio, and the offset distance from the focus were
33 optimized to improve the optical properties. Bootello et al. [203] proposed a new PTSC
34 consisting of a symmetrical absorber with a circular secondary and a concentrator built by a
35 primary discontinuous mirror with two symmetrical portions, and a central parabolic portion
36 located between them. An optical analysis was performed using ray-tracing, and the
37
38 comparison was made with the LS-3 collector. Ghodbane and Boumeddane [204] analyzed
39 the time-dependent optical and thermal efficiencies of a PTSC having four ranked HCEs.
40
41 Table 4. Summary of the novel design studies
42
43 Reference Method Properties Solver Remarks
Barra and FDM 1-D steady-state In-house code The optimum collector efficiency shifts
44 Franceschi [190] approach toward the higher flow rate values at higher
45 inlet temperatures for the same number of
46 rows.
47 Grald and Kuehn FDM 1-D steady-state and In-house code Increasing the envelope diameter causes less
[191] transient approach solar radiation to strike the mirror thus
48 lowers the efficiency. The insulation
49 conductivity has a strong effect on the
50 thermal performance.
51 Hegazy [192] Iteration 1-D steady-state In-house code The intercept factor of the PTSC is strongly
52 approach dependent on the fin height/absorber
diameter ratio. It increases sharply with
53 increasing height/absorber diameter ratio up
54 to a certain value where the curve becomes
55 flat. The collector efficiency increases with
56 the fin height/absorber diameter ratio and
falls after the optimal ratio.
57
Daniel et al. [193] Resistance 1-D steady-state In-house code The performance of the evacuated tube is
58 network superior relative to the vacuum shell and
59 nonevacuated tubes. However, the
60 nonevacuated tube is more sensitive to the
61
62
63
64
65
 external wind conditions compared to the
vacuum shell.
1 Al-Ansary and FVM 2-D steady-state, In-house code The combined conduction and convection
2 Zeitoun [194] laminar model heat loss from the proposed HCE can be
3 smaller than a filled-air HCE as much as
4 25% once the fiberglass insulation is used.
However, the profit reduces with the
5 temperature rise of the HTF due to the
6 increasing thermal conductivity of the
7 insulating material. As the tilt angle becomes
8 smaller, the heat loss reduces.
Bader et al. [195] MCRT/FDM 2-D steady-state In-house code The main energy losses from the incoming
9 energy model solar radiation are spilled and reflected at the
10 HCE aperture but the convection outside the
11 cavity and reradiation losses become
12 predominant with decreasing the mass flow
13 rate.
Bader et al. [196] MCRT/FVM 2-D steady-state In-house code One third of the incident solar radiation on
14 energy model the HCE is lost by spillage, and one sixth
15 due to reflection. The HCE efficiency ranges
16 from 45% to 29% at summer solstice solar
17 noon for the corresponding outlet
temperatures of the HTF ranging from
18 250‒450 °C.
19 Bader et al. [197] MCRT/FVM 2-D steady-state In-house code The optical efficiency of the single-glazed
20 energy model configuration is higher than that of the
21 double-glazed at normal solar radiation.
22 Both increasing the flow rate and using a
corrugated absorber lead to increase the
23 collector efficiency. The benefit of the
24 corrugations is significant at low HTF mass
25 flow rates but diminishes after 5 kg/s. While
26 the single-glazed HCE configuration leads to
higher collector efficiencies below about 300
27 °C, it is above about 400 °C for the double-
28 glazed configuration.
29 Good et al. [198] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state In-house code The major heat losses occur at the primary
30 energy model mirror by absorption and spillage of sunlight,
31 at the window by solar reflection, thermal re-
radiation, and natural convection, and by
32 other loss mechanisms including conduction
33 trough the insulation and chimney effect.
34 Kajavali et al. [199] FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent The daily average efficiency of the proposed
35 laminar model absorber system is higher than the
conventional single tube about 58%.
36
Xiao et al. [200] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Fluent The V-cavity absorber has a high optical
37 laminar model efficiency due to repeatedly reflection of the
38 sunrays thanks to the triangular shape. The
39 rectangular fins in the absorber enhance the
40 heat transfer decreasing the heat loss relative
to the absorber without fins.
41 Wirz et al. [59] MCRT/FVM 3-D model In-house code The optical efficiency can be increased
42 between 0.8% and 1.6% compared to the
43 benchmark design using different
44 configurations (RGS, RAI, aplanat and
seagull).
45
Demagh et al. [201] MCRT 3-D model In-house code The concentrated heat flux distribution on
46 the S-curved absorber is almost
47 homogeneous. As the absorber deflection
48 reduces, a better heat flux distribution on
49 itself is satisfied consequently. The intercept
factor of the S-curved absorber should be
50 comparatively better than that of the plain
51 one.
52 Chen et al. [202] MCRT 2-D model TracePro The absorber’s optical efficiency increases
53 with the decrement of the aperture width and
the increment of the depth-to-width ratio.
54
The optical efficiency increases firstly and
55 then decreases with the increment of the
56 offset distances. The optical efficiency of the
57 optimized absorber is obtained 89.23%.
58 Bootello et al. [203] MCRT 2-D model Commercial The proposed optics yields increases C at the
software level of 65% as compared to its counterpart
59
conventional PTSC for the same φr. It
60 delivers much more energy onto the same
61
62
63
64
65
 absorber perimeter for the higher acceptance
angle.
1 Ghodbane and MCRT/FDM 1-D transient energy SolTrace/In-house The optical and thermal performances of the
2 Boumeddane [204] model code collector reach 83.6% and 82.8%
3 respectively.
4
5 3.3.2. Passive heat transfer improvement
6
7
8 Heat transfer enhancement in the absorber by using passive techniques is one of the research
9 topics in the field of PTSC engineering. Even though improving the heat transfer properties of
10 HCEs offers significant benefits such as reduction in the circumferential temperature gradient,
11 and improved thermodynamic performance noting that it also has certain drawbacks such as
12
13 increasing parasitic loads associated to pressure loss and adding extra manufacturing cost.
14 This section deals with the improvement in the performance indicators of the HCE by
15 manipulating its design/configuration. A great number of researchers have been presented
16 under this caption as shown in Table 5. The details of these studies are as follows:
17
18
19 In recent years, the efforts performed on the enhancement studies have mainly shifted towards
20 the CFD field. Reddy et al. [205] presented the thermal analyses of a HCE with porous
21 inclusions. The effects of the various geometrical parameters such as fin aspect ratio,
22 thickness, and porosity were examined with Therminol VP-1. Reddy et al. [206] developed
23
24 also CFD models for the various configurations of porous inserts including square, triangular,
25 trapezoidal and circular in shape to evaluate their contribution to heat transfer enhancement.
26 Kumar and Reddy [207] further investigated the influence of porous discs on the heat transfer
27 characteristics of a HCE. Various geometrical parameters such as disk angle, orientation,
28 height of the disc and space between the discs were studied. Kumar and Reddy [208] enlarged
29
30 the scope of their previous studies analyzing the porous disc HCE with water and Therminol
31 55. The effects of the geometric parameters, including porosity, tilt angle, pitch, height and
32 thickness of the discs, on the heat transfer enhancement and the pressure drop were studied as
33 a result the optimum configuration was proposed.
34
35
36 Muñoz and Abánades [209] analyzed the effect of utilizing helical fins on the pressure losses,
37 thermal losses, thermo-mechanical stress and thermal fatigue properties of the LS-3 collector
38 using Syltherm 800. The presented results were calculated under the real heating profile
39 having a shape named as HELIOS.
40
41
42 Cheng et al. [210] presented a numerical simulation of the entire HCE of the LS-2 collector
43 (insertion of a closed-end solid plug into the absorber) by coupling the MCRT and CFD to
44 analyze the degree of the solar concentrating, solar collecting, and the whole flow/temperature
45
46
fields in the HCE. Some typical HTF types (Therminol VP-1, Syltherm 800, Nitrate Salt and
47 Hitec XL) and residual gas conditions (vacuum, argon, air and hydrogen) were further
48 studied. Cheng et al. [211] presented the computational results for the turbulent flow and
49 coupled heat transfer enhancement of the LS-2 absorber with unilateral longitudinal vortexes.
50 The effects of Re, HTF inlet temperature, incident solar radiation and the geometric
51
52 parameters of the vortex (pitch interval, length, height and attack angle) were further
53 examined.
54
55 Islam et al. [212, 213] developed a 3-D conjugate heat transfer model of the LS-2 collector
56
with a solid plug subjected to a heat flux profile adapted from [162] as polynomial curve fit in
57
58 order to visualize and analyze the thermal characteristics of the absorber surface.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Mwesigye et al. [214] developed a model for the HCE with a longitudinal externally finned
1 absorber to study the effect of the fin dimensions on the heat transfer and fluid flow
2 performance characteristics. Mwesigye et al. [215] studied the heat transfer and fluid friction
3
4
performance of a HCE including wall detached twisted tape inserts. The variations of Nu,
5 friction coefficient, absorber’s circumferential temperature gradient, and the thermal
6 performance enhancement (the measure of heat transfer enhancement regarding increase of
7 pumping power) were analyzed for a wide range of Re. Mwesigye et al. [216] presented the
8 thermal and thermodynamic performance of a HCE with perforated plate inserts. The analyses
9
10 were carried out for the different parameters including dimensionless plate orientation angle,
11 dimensionless plate spacing, and dimensionless plate diameter. Mwesigye et al. [217]
12 investigated the heat transfer enhancement in the LS-2 HCE using perforated conical inserts.
13 The effects of the conical size, conical angle, and the space between the inserts on the heat
14
15
transfer performance, circumferential temperature gradient, HCE thermal performance and
16 fluid friction were analyzed. Mwesigye et al. [218] studied also the effects of different
17 parameters (thermal enhancement factor, entropy generation) extending the scope of their
18 previous study [217]. Mwesigye et al. [219] studied further the heat transfer enhancement in a
19 HCE using wall-detached twisted tape inserts, and the resulting heat transfer, fluid flow and
20
21 thermodynamic performance behaviors were presented.
22
23 Wang et al. [220] studied the effect of inserting metal foams in a DSG HCE on the heat
24 transfer enhancement. The effects of the layout (top/bottom), dimensionless height, and
25
porosity of metal foams on the flow resistant, heat transfer and thermo-hydraulic performance
26
27 were analyzed. Sadaghiyani et al. [221] analyzed the effect of solid plug usage on the outlet
28 temperature and efficiency of the LS-2 collector. The variations in the plug diameter and
29 nondimensional displacement from the center were simulated for different HTFs including
30 Dowtherm-j, Syltherm 800 and Dowtherm-rd. Sadaghiyani et al. [222] investigated further to
31
32
determine the influence of Rayleigh number, diameter of plug, and thermal conductivity of
33 the tube on the outlet temperature and Nu.
34
35 Ghasemi et al. [223] studied the effects of the porous two segmental rings on the HCE heat
36 transfer characteristic. The variation of the heat transfer coefficient with Re was analyzed for
37
38 the HCE using Therminol 66. Ghasemi et al. [224] enlarged the content of their previous
39 research to investigate the effects of the porous three segmental rings on the HCE heat
40 transfer characteristics. The variations of the heat transfer coefficient, friction coefficient and
41 thermal performance with Re were analyzed for the HCE using Syltherm 800.
42
43
44 Raj et al. [225] conducted to determine the degree of improvement in the performance of a
45 HCE with water by inserting a cylindrical insertion inside the absorber. Ghadirijafarbeigloo et
46 al. [226] proposed the enhancement of heat transfer using a perforated louvered twisted-tape
47 in the absorber. Both the typical twisted-tape and the typical louvered twisted-tape with
48
49 perforation were analyzed for three different twist ratios. Song et al. [227] proposed a HCE
50 with helical screw-tape inserts to homogenize the temperature distribution on the absorber and
51 thus improve the thermal efficiency. The effects of the solar incidence angle on the heat flux
52 distribution, heat loss from the HCE, the maximum temperature on the absorber and the
53
54
maximum circumferential temperature gradient were analyzed considering the various
55 working conditions including inlet temperature, mass flow rate, irradiation level and different
56 heat flux distribution. Natarajan et al., [228] presented numerical analyses to study the flow
57 characteristics and thermal stress of an absorber including triangle, inverted triangle and semi-
58 circular inserts inside the fluid flow path. Huang et al. [229] studied the heat transfer behavior
59
60 of the LS-3 HCE with different fins, dimples, protrusions and helical, subjected to the LCR
61
62
63
64
65
 distribution adapted from [220]. The effects of the size and the arrangement of dimples on the
1 convective heat transfer performance were also investigated. Jebasingh and Herbert [230]
2 presented the fluid flow and temperature distribution of an elliptical absorber. Diwan and Soni
3
4
[231] investigated the heat transfer and flow characteristics of the absorber with wire-coils
5 inserts. The simulations were carried out for the various water flow rates as well as for
6 different pitches of the wire-coils insert. Fuqiang et al. [232, 233] introduced the symmetric
7 and asymmetric outward convex corrugated absorbers for increasing the heat transfer
8 performance and reducing the thermal deformation in the HCE with D12 thermal oil. Bellos
9
10 et al. [234] aimed to increase the thermal efficiency of a commercial collector, IST-PTC by
11 inserting the converging-diverging internal surface (in sinusoidal shape) inside the absorber.
12 Huang et al. [235] studied the fully-developed mixed turbulent convective heat transfer
13 characteristics of the dimpled HCE to produce substantial surface heat transfer augmentations
14
15
with relatively small pressure drop penalties. Both uniform and nonuniform heat flux profiles
16 were analyzed, and the nonuniform profile was adapted from [220] as a user defined function.
17
18 Table 5. Summary of the passive heat transfer enhancement studies
19 Reference Method Properties Solver Remarks
20 Reddy et al. [205] FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent The porous fin improves the HCE overall
21 RNG k–ε turbulence performance better than the solid
22 model longitudinal fin. Increasing the aspect ratio
23 and fin thickness enhance the heat transfer
coefficient in the absorber but the rise of
24 pressure drop is a penalty for both cases.
25 Reddy et al. [206] FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent The heat loss from the HCE is approximately
26 RNG k–ε turbulence the same in all porous configurations.
27 model
28 Kumar and Reddy FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent While lowering the disk angle and the space
[207] RNG k–ε turbulence between the discs both increase Nu, lowering
29 model the height of the disc has a negative impact
30 on Nu.
31 Kumar and Reddy FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent As the porosity and inclination decrease, Nu
32 [208] RNG k–ε turbulence and pressure drop increase for both water
33 model and thermal oil. While increasing the pitch
reduces Nu and pressure drop, increasing the
34 height and thickness increase both the
35 former.
36 Muñoz and FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent Helically finned tube has lower temperature
37 Abánades [209] RNG k–ε turbulence gradients as compared to the plain tube and
model involves less mechanical stress as a
38 consequence. It results in 40% increase of
39 parasitic losses corresponding to 3%
40 improvement in the collector efficiency.
41 Cheng et al. [210] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Fluent Therminol VP-1 and Syltherm 800 have
42 standard k–ε better heat transfer performance and lower
turbulence model, pressure drop than that of Nitrate Salt and
43 S2S radiation model Hitec XL. Among four typical residual gas
44 conditions, the vacuum results in the best
45 HCE performance, followed by argon, air,
46 and hydrogen, respectively.
Cheng et al. [211] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Fluent The thermal loss of the proposed HCE
47 realizable k–ε reduces by 1.35–12.10%, 2.23–13.62%, and
48 turbulence model, 0.11–13.39% to that of the plain HCE along
49 DO radiation model with the increase of Re, HTF inlet
50 temperature, and incident solar radiation
51 respectively within the range studied. Both
Nu and friction coefficient increase with the
52 increment of each geometric parameter.
53 Islam et al. [213] FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent Little or almost no HTF circulation with high
54 RNG k–ε turbulence velocity is attributed for little temperature
55 model change at the upper part of the absorber,
which might be improved by applying swirl
56 generation. Uniformity of the heat flux will
57 improve the overall thermal performance of
58 the PTSC.
59 Islam et al. [212] FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent Even if the absorber thickness is reasonably
60 RNG k–ε turbulence thin (2-mm thick), the thermal conductivity
model of the absorber may have no significant
61
62
63
64
65
 effect on the temperature contour of the
absorber to be uniform.
1 Mwesigye et al. FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent The longer the fin, the more is the heat gain
2 [214] realizable k–ε and higher efficiency but the higher heat
3 turbulence model, losses due to increasing of the glass
4 DO radiation model temperature and the absorber’s peak
temperature.
5 Mwesigye et al. FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent The heat transfer performance increases at
6 [215] realizable k–ε reducing twist ratio and increasing Re and
7 turbulence model width ratio. The thermal enhancement factor
8 is higher at both the smallest twist ratio and
the largest width ratio for the range of Re
9 considered.
10 Mwesigye et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Ansys Nu and friction factor are strongly dependent
11 [216] realizable k–ε Fluent on the spacing and the size of the insert as
12 turbulence model, well as Re. The modified thermal efficiency
13 DO radiation model of the HCE increases 1.2‒8% in case of
using the perforated plate inserts within the
14 provided range. Increasing the plate diameter
15 or reducing spacing yield higher entropy
16 generation rates.
17 Mwesigye et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Ansys Increasing the insert size, cone angle, and
[217] realizable k–ε Fluent reducing the insert spacing improve the heat
18
turbulence model transfer performance at the expense of
19 increasing the fluid friction. Using the
20 perforated conical inserts increases the
21 thermal efficiency in the range of 3‒8%
22 within the provided range.
Mwesigye et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Ansys Using the perforated conical inserts, the heat
23 [218] realizable k–ε Fluent transfer performance increases in the range
24 turbulence model, of 5–124% at the expense of increasing the
25 DO radiation model fluid friction 1.36–69.0 times as compared to
26 the plain absorber. The thermal enhancement
factor increases in the range of 0.53–1.14.
27 The entropy generation rate can be reduced
28 by up to 45% compared to the plain absorber
29 as the flow rate is <0.0121 m3/s.
30 Mwesigye et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Ansys Both the heat transfer and fluid friction
31 [219] realizable k–ε Fluent performances increase as the twist ratio
turbulence model reduces and the width ratio increases.
32 Considerable reduction in the entropy
33 generation is obtained at low Re. The
34 optimal Re increases with increasing twist
35 ratio and reduced width ratios. The heat
transfer performance and thermal efficiency
36 can be increased up to 169% and 10%
37 respectively, and the circumferential
38 temperature gradient can be reduced 68%
39 relative to the plain absorber.
40 Wang et al. [220] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Fluent While the optimum thermo-hydraulic
standard k–ε performance is obtained at the dimensionless
41 turbulence model height = 0.25 (bottom layout), the optimum
42 thermal performance is obtained at the
43 height = 0.75 (top layout). The maximum
44 circumferential temperature gradient
decreases about 45% at the optimum thermal
45 performance. The influence of the height on
46 the thermal performance is greater than the
47 porosity.
48 Sadaghiyani et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, In-house code The outlet temperature for the central plugs
49 [221] standard k–ε is minimum at 40 mm plug diameter but it
turbulence model increases afterward. The maximum outlet
50 temperature and efficiency are obtained
51 where the nondimensional displacement
52 from the tube center equals to +0.5.
53 Dowtherm-j yields better performance
characteristics than Syltherm 800 and
54 Dowtherm-rd as the plug diameter passes
55 over 45 mm.
56 Sadaghiyani et al. MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, In-house code Increasing the plug diameter impresses the
57 [222] standard k–ε natural convection to be predominated by the
58 turbulence model mixed convection. Increasing of the tube
thermal conductivity raises the
59 nondimensional outflow temperature but it
60 becomes nearly constant at higher
61
62
63
64
65
 conductivities. Nu becomes minimum where
the ratio of plug diameter to absorber inner
1 diameter is equal to 0.6.
2 Ghasemi et al. [223] FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent While reducing the distance between two
3 RNG k–ε turbulence segmental rings enhances Nu, increasing the
4 model inner diameter of the segments degrades Nu.
Ghasemi et al. [224] FVM 3-D steady-state, Fluent Decreasing the inner diameter of the porous
5 RNG k–ε turbulence three segmental rings enhances Nu along
6 model with increasing pressure loss and lowering
7 the thermal performance.
8 Raj et al. [225] FEM 3-D steady-state, Ansys CFX The presence of the cylindrical insertion in
9 standard k–ε the HCE provides higher outlet temperature
turbulence model and lower thermal stresses compared to the
10 no-insertion condition.
11 Ghadirijafarbeigloo MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, SolTrace/Ansys For a typical twisted-tape, the maximum Nu
12 et al. [226] RNG k–ε turbulence Fluent and friction coefficient are obtained as 150%
13 model and 210% respectively. The thermal
performance of the perforated louvered
14 twisted-tape is higher than 26% the typical
15 twisted-tape.
16 Song et al. [227] MCRT/FVM 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Ansys The transversal angle of the incident
17 SST k–ω turbulence Fluent radiation affects the heat flux distribution
18 model, DO radiation more greatly than the longitudinal angle. The
model helical screw-tape inserts greatly reduce the
19 maximum temperature and the temperature
20 gradient on the HCE. It loses much less heat
21 than the plain HCE, especially at lower flow
22 rates. As the flow rate increases 6 fold, the
pressure loss raises 4 and 23 folds in the
23 plain and the helical screw-tape absorbers,
24 respectively.
25 Natarajan et al. FEM 3-D steady-state, Ansys CFX No appreciable changes in the outlet
26 [228] SST k–ω turbulence temperature are obtained between the plain
27 model and the triangle, inverted triangle and semi-
circular insertions. The triangular insertion
28 involves lower thermal stresses compared
29 with the other types. The pressure drop is the
30 highest in the semi-circular insertion.
31 Huang et al. [229] FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent The HCE with dimples has superior heat
realizable k–ε transfer performance compared with the
32 turbulence model HCEs with protrusions or helical fins. The
33 dimples with deeper depth, narrower pitch
34 and at increasing numbers in the
35 circumferential direction are useful for
36 enhancing the heat transfer performance
whereas the dimple arrangements have no
37 obvious influence.
38 Jebasingh and FEM 3-D steady-state and MSC Nastran The use of elliptical absorber increases the
39 Herbert [230] transient, k–ε efficiency and the pressure loss of the HCE
40 turbulence model about 9.7% and 24.9% compared to the
circular absorber. Its service life is longer
41 due to lowered thermal stresses on the
42 elliptical absorber.
43 Diwan and Soni FEM 3-D steady-state, k– COMSOL Inserting the wire-coils can amplify Nu as
44 [231] ε turbulence model Multiphysics much as 330% at the expense of increasing
45 the pressure drop.
Fuqiang et al. [232] MCRT/FEM & 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Ansys Introduction of the symmetric outward
46 FVM standard k–ε Fluent convex corrugated design can effectively
47 turbulence model, enhance the heat transfer performance up to
48 S2S radiation model 8.4% with the sacrifice of pressure drop and
49 also decrease the thermal deformations up to
13.1% in the HCE.
50
Fuqiang et al. [233] MCRT/FEM & 3-D steady-state, MCRT-code/Ansys The usage of asymmetric outward convex
51 FVM standard k–ε Fluent corrugated design can enhance the heat
52 turbulence model, transfer performance with lowering the
53 S2S radiation model thermal deformations better than the
54 symmetric design [232].
Bellos et al. [234] FEM 3-D steady-state, Solidworks The absorber with the wavy insert guides
55 turbulence scheme 4.55% mean efficiency improvement
56 compared to the plain geometry. Enhancing
57 the energetic and exergetic efficiencies is
58 greater for the higher fluid temperature
levels.
59
Huang et al. [235] FVM 3-D steady-state, Ansys Fluent The average friction factor and Nu in the
60 realizable k–ε dimpled HCE under uniform heat flux is
61
62
63
64
65
 turbulence model lower than those under uniform heat flux. As
the dimple depth increases, the heat transfer
1 performance is improved up to 7 mm after
2 that it begins to decrease. The performance
3 can be increased 21% relative to the plain
4 HCE.
5
6 3.3.3. Nanoparticle laden fluid flow
7
8
9
One of the solutions to improve the performance can be regarded modifying the
10 thermophysical properties of the HTF used. Enhancing the heat transfer efficiency of the HCE
11 is a primary restriction with conventional HTFs (such as water, oil, molten salt) due to their
12 inherently low thermal conductivities. The thermal conductivities of metallic particles,
13 metallic oxides and carbon nanotubes are extraordinarily higher than that of the conventional
14
15 fluids and dispersing a very small amount of guest colloidal particles i.e., nanoparticle (with
16 average sizes <100 nm) in the conventional HTFs can have significant impacts on the optical
17 and thermo-physical properties of the host fluid. This novel idea of dispersing nanoparticles in
18 a host fluid to make up nanofluid has been first proposed by Choi [236]. The resulting fluid is
19
coined as “nanofluid” which exhibits better thermal properties relative to the host fluid.
20
21
22 Predicting the thermo-physical properties of the synthesized nanofluids is significant to be
23 used in modeling studies. There are various theoretical models in the literature made for this
24 aim. Table 6 illustrates the correlations proposed to calculate the thermo-physical properties ‒
25
26
density, specific heat capacity, viscosity, and thermal conductivity ‒ for any nanoparticle and
27 fluid pair.
28
29 Table 6. Theoretical prediction of thermo-physical properties of nanofluids
30
Correlation Properties
31
32 Density
33  nf   f 1      p Homogenous, thermodynamically
34 stable-state
35 Specific heat
36 Pak and Cho model [237]: c p ,nf  c p , f 1     c p , p Effective specific heat approach
37
38
39  f c p, f 1      p c p , p
Xuan and Roetzel model [238]: c p ,nf  Based on the heat capacity concept
40  nf
41
42 Dynamic viscosity
43 Applicable to   2% linearly
44 Einstein [239]:  nf   f 1    viscous fluid having dilute,
45 suspended, and spherical particles
46
47 Modified Einstein’s model [239],
48
Brinkman [240]:  nf   f 1   
 applicable to high particle
49 concentrations up to   4%
50
51
m Randomly monodispersed spherical
52   
53 Krieger and Dougherty [241]:  nf   f 1   where m is the particles
54  m 
55 maximum particle packing factor which varies 0.495‒0.54 under
56 quiescent conditions and is approximately 0.605 at high shear rates.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
  1
 For a highly concentrated suspension
 
  3   with uniform solid spheres
1
9   m  
 f    1 
2
Frankel and Acrivos [242]:  nf
3 8  
1     
3
4
5    m  
 
6
7
Taylor series expansion of  for
8  25 
Lundgren [243]:  nf   f 1  2.5   2  f  3   
9  4  suspension spheres
10
11 Including the effect of the Brownian
12
13 
Batchelor [244]:  nf   f 1  2.5  6.2 2
 motion, applicable to the isotropic
suspension of rigid and spherical
14 particles.
15
16
   A generalized form of the Frankel
17    and Acrivos model [242] including
18    the particle radius and inter-particle
1
19 Graham [245]:  nf   f 1  2.5  4.5  spacing.
20     
2

  h  2  h 1  h  
21
  dp  d p  d p 
 
22   
23
24 f Calculating the viscosity of a two-
25 Kitano et al. [246]:  nf  2 phase mixture.
26   
1   
27    m 
28
29
Avsec and Oblac [247]: Based on the intermolecular and
30
31 
Ward model:  nf   f 1             
2 3 4
 intramolecular interactions between

 
particles
32 Renewed Ward model:  nf   f 1  e   e   e   e  
2 3 4

33
3
34  h
35 where  e   1  
 r
36
37
Considering the Brownian motion of
38
39 nanoparticles, and including the
40 effects of the temperature, the mean
41  pVB d p2 nanoparticle diameter, the
Masoumi et al. [248]:  nf   f 
42 72C nanoparticle volume fraction, the
43 nanoparticle density and the base
44
fluid physical properties.
45
46
Thermal conductivity
 
47
48 k p  2k f  2 k p  k f For spherical particles and   1%
Maxwell [249]: k nf  k f
49 k p  2k f   k p kf 
50
51
For a binary mixture of
52 Bruggeman [250]: k nf  3  1k p  31     1k f   homogeneous spherical inclusions.
53
where   3  1 k p2  31     1 k 2f  22  9 1   k p k f No limitation on the concentration of
2 2
54
55 inclusions
56
57 Introducing an empirical shape factor
58 to account for different particles
Hamilton and Crosser [251]:
59 shapes
60
61
62
63
64
65
 k nf  k f
k p  n  1k f  n  1 k f  k p   where n  3
1 k p  n  1k f   k f  k p   
2
3
4
 3  1
5 Jeffrey [252]: k nf  k f 1 
 

O2    Modified the Maxwell model [249]
and applied to spherical inclusions.
6  2 
7 where   k f k p
8
Updated Jeffery’s model [252] by
3  1
9
10 Davis [253]: k nf

 k f 1 

  f   2  O  3     adding the ensemble-averaged dipole
11    2    1   strength of a single fixed sphere and
12 a decaying temperature field.
13
14 Xuan et al. [254]: Considering the Brownian motion
15 k p  2k f  2 k p  k f    c k BT and the aggregation process of the
k nf  k f
p p
16
17

k p  2k f   k p  k f  2 3rc  f nanoparticles

18
19
k nf  k f

k p  2k f  2 k p  k f 1      3 Including the effect of solid-like
 k 1    
20 Renovated Maxell [255]: nanolayer between the nanoparticle
k p  2k f  kf
3
21 p and the fluid when the particle
22 where   h r diameter <10 nm
23
24
Kumar et al. [256]: Including the simultaneous effects of
25
26  r f  particle size, concentration, and
Moving particle model: k nf  k f 1  cu p 
27
 k f 1   rp  temperature
28
29  k pr f 
Stationary model: k nf  k f 1  
 k f 1   rp 
30
31
32
Including the effects of particle size,
f T ,  
33 k BT
Koo and Kleinstreuer [257]: k nf  5  10 4  f c f particle volume fraction, particle
34  pd p
35 material and temperature
  0.0137 100 
 0.8229
36 for   1% dependence.
where 
   0.0011 100 
 0.7272
37  for   1%
38
39
40  3 2T2  Considering the effects of nanolayer
Xie et al. [258]: k nf  k f  k f 3T   thickness, nanoparticle size, volume
41  1  T 
42
43
where  

 lf 1   3 
 pl
 fl  fraction, and thermal conductivity
ratio of particle to fluid
44
45
1    3
 2  lf  pl
46
47 Accurately predicting over a wide
48 range of particle sizes (10‒100 nm),
 k pd f  d f  particle concentrations (1‒8%),
49 Patel et al. [259]: k nf  k f 1   ck p Pe 
50  k f d p 1    k f d p 1     particle materials (metal particles as
51 well as metal oxides), different base
52 fluids (water, ethylene glycol) and
53 temperature (20‒50°C).
54 Leong et al. [260]: Including the effects of volume
55

k p       
 klr  p klr 213   3  1  k p  2klr 13  p  3 klr  k f  k f   fraction, thickness, thermal
k nf
 k p  2klr   k  k      1
56 3 3 3 conductivity of the interfacial layer at
57 1 p lr p 1
the solid particle/liquid interface and
58 where   1  h
and 1  1 h

59
a 2a particle size
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Introducing a Brownian-motion-
1 based convective-conductive model
2 which accurately captures the effects
3 Multisphere Brownian model [261]:

 k 1  2   2k    k 1     k 
of particle size, choice of base liquid,
           

4 k 1 2 2k 2 k 1 k thermal interfacial resistance
k nf  k f 1  A Re m Pr  13 p m p m
5
6 p m p m between the particles and liquid,
7 temperature. Good agreement with
8 data on water, ethylene glycol, and
9 oil-based nanofluids
10
11 Including the effects of the average
12 Xiao et al. [262]:
diameter of nanoparticles, the
13  3 2 k BT  K 1 2  d f 1 d 1f 8 2 K 1 2  d f 1  4  d f 1 8 Dav1 2 
14 CD f    n 2 d f 1
 d f 1  nanoparticle concentration, the
 kf   fractal dimension of nanoparticles
15
16
k nf

2 d

Pr 1  K f 4  d f  2  d f  d f 1 4 Dav3 2
38 1
and physical properties of fluids
17
18  is the particle volume fraction,  is the intrinsic viscosity (equals to 2.5),  is the sphericity, the ratio of the
19 surface area of a sphere, with a volume equal to that of the particle, to the surface area of the particle.
20
21
22 3.3.3.1. Nanofluid in conventional PTSC
23
24 As the popularity of nanofluids increases, its applications on different subjects such as solar
25 energy, heat exchanger, fuel cell, nuclear reactors, medical field have widened. Recently, the
26
27
nanofluid researches have been also extended to PTSCs since one of the barrier to the
28 development of the technology is its high cost. Hence reducing the cost will bring advantage
29 for the improvement of the technology. The nanofluids maintain to capture the solar radiant
30 energy more effectively therefore employing nanofluid instead of conventional HTFs could
31 be seen one of the possible way to alleviate the performance restriction. In this section, the
32
33 studies performed on the nanofluid usage in a conventional PTSC are handled, and the effects
34 of nanofluids on the efficiency improvement are also discussed.
35
36 Kasaeian et al. [263] studied the effect of the particle concentration,  on the convection heat
37
38 transfer inside the absorber. A uniform heat flux model was made for Al2O3/synthetic oil
39 nanofluid turbulent flow, and Navier-Stokes mass, momentum and energy equations were
40 applied under steady-state conditions for the 3-D model. For estimating the thermo-physical
41 properties of the synthesized nanofluid, [237] for the specific heat, [239] for the viscosity, and
42
43 [251] for the thermal conductiviy were used.  up to 5% was considered in the study, and
44 revealed that the heat transfer rate can be improved as the concentration is increased. The
45 indicated results depicted that while adding 5% Al2O3 increases the heat transfer rate by 15%
46
at 300K, raising the fluid temperature to 500K lowers the heat transfer enhancement to 4%.
47
48 Sokhansefat et al. [264] studied numerically the convection heat transfer properties of
49 Al2O3/Sylterm 800 nanofluid pair. A circumferential nonuniform heat flux was obtained using
50 the MCRT method that was applied as a boundary condition for the analysis of the 3-D fully
51 developed turbulent flow. The governing equations were solved using Fluent software. The
52
53
thermo-physical properties of the synthesized nanofluid were estimated by [237] for the
54 specific heat, [239] for the viscosity, and [255] for the thermal conductivity. The simulation
55 results for the outlet temperature of the absorber were compared to an existing experimental
56 data, and the absolute errors were found to be less than 3.8 °C. Afterwards, the verified model
57
was simulated for various  (<5% in volume) at the operational temperatures of 300 K, 400
58
59 K, and 500 K. The results showed that while adding 5% Al2O3 increases the heat transfer rate
60 by 14% at 300 K, it is increased only by 6% at 500 K. On the other hand, it was inferred that
61
62
63
64
65
 the effect of nonuniformity in the heat flux is not much effective on the final result. Zadeh et
1 al. [265] moved the previous studies [263, 264] to one step further and made a hybrid
2 optimization for the maximization of the heat transfer performance and minimization of the
3
4
pressure drop. For the study, two different thermo-physical models were used for nanofluid
5 modeling. The first model included the model equations of [237] for the specific heat, [239]
6 for the viscosity, and [255] for the thermal conductivity. The second model included the
7 model equations of [238] for the specific heat, [266] for the viscosity, and [254] for the
8 thermal conductivity. The results delivered 10% and 11.1% improvement in the objective
9
10 function for the models given, respectively. Basbous et al. [267] performed a numerical study
11 on the thermal performance of a PTSC using Al2O3/Syltherm800 nanofluid as a working
12 fluid. The analysis was built on energy balance, and the model was verified with the SNL data
13 [78]. The same models were used in [263] for the estimation of the thermo-physical
properties. The effects of the operating temperature (up to 350 °C) and  (<5%) on the heat
14
15
16 losses and the thermal efficiency were investigated. It was shown that in case of 18%
17 increasing in the heat transfer coefficient lowers the heat loss as much as 10%. Mwesigye and
18 Huan [268] presented the thermal and thermodynamic performance of a PTSC with
19
20 Al2O3/Syltherm800 nanofluid in Ansys Fluent. A nonuniform heat flux obtained from
21 Soltrace was applied on the absorber’s outer surface as a boundary condition. For the
22 estimation of the thermo-physical properties, [238] for the specific heat, [269] for the
23 viscosity, and [250] for the thermal conductivity were employed. The numerical results were
24
25
obtained to consider the effects of the inlet fluid temperature ranging from 350 K to 650 K, 
26 between 0‒8%, and varying Re based on the inlet temperature. It was shown that increasing
27 the operating temperature has a negative effect opposite to the effect of  on the efficiency of
28
29 the HCE which yet increases at reducing  more due to lesser pump work. Although the rise
30 of  enhances the heat transfer performance, there is a limiting Re beyond which the use of
31 nanofluids is not useful thermodynamically at the given inlet temperature. Bellos et al. [234]
32
33 simulated the flow characteristic of a commercial PTSC with nanofluid in Solidworks.
34 Al2O3/thermal oil nanofluid mixture with  to be 2% was considered, and the thermo-
35 physical properties of the nanofluid were estimated using [238] for the specific heat, [244] for
36
37
the viscosity, and [249] for the thermal conductivity. The model was verified with the
38 experimental study not including nanofluid, and then it was used for the prediction of the
39 convection heat transfer coefficient and thermal efficiency under the case of nanofluid usage.
40 Mwesigye et al. [270] also presented another numerical study in Ansys Fluent for the thermal
41 and thermodynamic performance of a PTSC having high concentration ratio with
42
43 Cu/Therminol VP-1 nanofluid. The numerical results including Nu, friction factor, thermal
44 efficiency, heat loss initially were validated with available data in the literature, then the
45 variation in the convection heat transfer coefficient, pressure drop, thermal efficiency and
46 entropy generation of the HCE depending on  and Re were examined. Wang et al. [271]
47
48 investigated the performance of a PTSC with Al2O3/Dowtherm A nanofluid, based on the 3-D
49 FEM combined with SolTrace software. The thermo-physical properties of the nanofluid were
50 estimated using [238] for the specific heat, [266] for the viscosity, and [254] for the thermal
51 conductivity. The numerical results were compared with the experimental data, and good
52
53
agreement was obtained.
54
55 3.3.3.2. Nanofluid in DARS
56
57 In contrast to the conventional PTSC, Khullar et al. [272] introduced an idea of harvesting the
58
59 solar radiant energy through the use of a nanofluid-based concentrating PTSC (NCPTSC).
60 The NCPTSC is similar to the conventional one except its absorber replaced with a glass tube
61
62
63
64
65
 as seen from Figure 14. This property provides the HCE to interact directly with incident
1 radiation for this reason it is called as direct absorption receiver system (DARS).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Figure 14. (a) Conventional HCE, (b) Nanofluid-based HCE [272]
14
15
16 Energy reaching the flowing medium in DARS can be estimated using the following
17 procedure:
18
19 In case the atmospheric absorption is not considered, the spectral power distribution of the
20
21
sun as a radiant heat source can be approximated by Planck’s law.
22
2hc02
I   , T  
23
24 (31)
  hc  
25
 exp  0   1
5

  k BT  
26
27
28
29 In this expression,  is the wavelength in m, and T is the temperature in K,
30
31 h  6.626 10 34 J  s is Planck’s constant, c0  2.9979 108 ms 1 is the speed of light in a
32 vacuum, k B  1.38 10 23 JK 1 is Boltzmann’s constant.
33
34
35 The attenuation of radiation corresponds to the energy gained by the medium and can be
36 mathematically expressed using Lambert–Beer’s law:
37
 I  r 
38
39   K e I  r  K a  K s I  r (32)
40 r
41
42
43 where K a is the spectral absorption coefficient and K s the spectral scattering coefficient.
44 The details of calculating the spectral coefficients can be found in [273].
45
46
47 The heat transfer analysis of the DARS (Figure 15) under 2-D steady conditions can be
48 represented by the energy balance equation as follows
49
50 1   T   rq r  T
51 kr   c pU (33)
52 r r  r  rr x
53
54
The radiative heat flux is defined as
55
56
57 qr    I  d d (34)
58  
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Figure 15. Section view of the DARS
19
20
21
Addition of nanoparticles to the host fluid significantly increases the extinction capability of
22 the fluid resulting in an enhanced solar-weighted absorption relative to that of the host fluid
23 alone [274]. Thus the combination at any nanoparticle and host fluid can exhibit different
24 solar absorption capabilities by virtue of solar intensity attenuation rate within the medium. In
25 order to get maximum solar absorption yielded from the DARS,  and the diameter of the
26
27 DARS should be tailored properly. Toppin-Hector and Singh [274] simulated a NCPTSC
28 including graphene and Al nanosphere-based suspensions in Therminol VP-1. The employed
29 2-D steady-state heat transfer model revealed that graphene has better solar absorption
30
capability than aluminum. Khullar et al. [272] modeled the NCPTSC mathematically using
31
32 the 2-D steady energy balance and solved it numerically via FDM. It was shown that adding
33 0.05% Al nanoparticle into the base fluid, the efficiency of the NCPTSC enhances about
34 5‒10% more than the conventional PTSC of Dudley et al. [78] under the same operating
35 conditions. Ghasemi and Ahangar [275] studied numerically the effect of Cu/Water nanofluid
36
37
on the PTSC performance. It was obtained that adding very small amounts of Cu
38 nanoparticles into the base fluid (<0.015%) considerably improves the absorption
39 characteristics of a PTSC. De Risi et al. [276] proposed an innovative NCPTSC working with
40 gas-based nanofluid. CuO and Ni pair was considered as a nanoparticle, and  , mass flow
41
42 rate and solar radiation intensity parameters were optimized to obtain the maximum thermal
43 efficiency from the gas-based NCPTSC.
44
45 In summary, the nanofluid enhances the heat transfer performance of the HCE due to
increasing extinction capability of the base fluid. Moreover, rise in  has a positive effect on
46
47
48 the improvement of the convection heat transfer coefficient inside the absorber and reducing
49 thermal stresses on the HCE but the optimum pump work should be considered to increase the
50 total collector efficiency, as well. The NCPTSC differs from the conventional one as declared,
51
52 and its optical efficiency is better than the conventional one but with higher thermal loss.
53
54 4. Modeling approaches
55
56
57
Various modeling approaches for PTSCs have been proposed by numerous researches
58 however the most comprehensive numerical analyses and their validation compared with the
59 SNL test results [78] have been addressed in this section. The researchers have commonly
60 utilized the SNL report for validation purpose since it offers functional dataset for a variety of
61
62
63
64
65
 operating conditions. This report presents the LS-2 collector being tested at the AZTRAK
1 rotating platform in SNL as shown in Figure 16.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Figure 16. AZTRAK test platform at SNL [16]
18
19
20 Three HCE configurations: with vacuum intact, with filled-air, and with completely removed
21 envelope (bare tube) were tested on the platform. Additionally, two selective coatings for the
22 absorber, known as black chrome and cermet, were analyzed under the associated
23
24
configurations with the solar cases of full sun and no sun. The technical data of the LS-2
25 collector are summarized in Table 7.
26
27 Table 7. Specifications of the LS-2 collector [78]
28 Module size 7.8 m × 5 m
29
30 Rim angle 70°
31 Mirror Typical reflectivity: 0.93
32 Aperture area 39.2 m2
33 Focal length 1.84 m
34
35
Concentration ratio 71
36 Metal bellows at each end
37 Absorber inner diameter: 66 mm
38 Absorber outer diameter: 70 mm
39 Pyrex glass envelope: Anti reflective coated
40
41 Internal diameter: 109 mm
42 External diameter: 115 mm
43 HCE Transmittance: 0.95
44 Cermet selective surface
45
Absorptance: 0.96
46
47 Emittance: 0.14 @ 350 °C
48 Black chrome selective surface
49 Absorptance: 0.95
50 Emittance: 0.24 @ 300 °C
51
Evacuated annulus pressure: 10-4 Torr
52 Annulus condition
53 Annulus pressure with filled-air: 0.83 atm
54 Tracking mode Two-axis tracking control
55 HTF Syltherm 800
56
57
58 The presented modeling studies in the literature have distinctions in view of modeling
59 approach hence examining them in detail will provide enormous beneficial knowledge to
60
61
62
63
64
65
 researchers considering to make a model study since a useful heat transfer model could be
1 used for improving the HCE design and evaluating new or current HCE designs.
2
3
4
Figure 17 shows the results of the measured and modeled data for the collector efficiency
5 under the conditions mentioned. The experimental datasets of all the configurations can be
6 found in Appendix Table A.1‒A.2.
7
8 80 80
9
10 75 75
11
12 70 70

Collector efficiency (%)

Collector efficiency (%)

13
14 65 65
15
16 60 60

17 Dudley et al. [78] Forristall [16]

García-Valladares & Velázquez [93]
18 55
Wirz et al. [104]
Padilla et al. [94]
Hachicha et al. [48]
55
Dudley et al. [78] Forristall [16]
19 Yılmaz & Söylemez [96] Cheng et al. [99]
Padilla et al. [94] Hachicha et al. [48]
Liang et al. [98] Behar et al. [18]
20 50 50 Behar et al. [18] Barbero et al. [278]
Wang et al. [102] Barbero et al. [278]
Huang et al. [103] Dudley et al. [78] (Vacuum) Huang et al. [103] Dudley et al. [78] (Vacuum)
21 Dudley et al. [78] (Air) Dudley et al. [78] (Air)
45 45
22 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
23 Average temperature above ambient ( C) Average temperature above ambient ( C)
24
25 (a) (b)
26
27 Figure 17. Comparison of the model outputs with experimental data [78] for collector
28 efficiency. (a) Cermet (b) Black chrome
29
30
31 Most of the models in the literature have been examined under the consideration of 1-D
32 approach. The 1-D model has superiorities over the multi-dimensional models, especially for
33 involving less solution time and complexity. The 1-D energy balance gives reasonable results
34
for short HCEs (<100 m) [16], but the longer HCEs require at least 2-D modeling. The 1-D
35
36 model becomes insufficient with increasing of the HCE length, and thus the discretization
37 through the axial direction is needed for reducing the deviation. It is noted that the heat
38 conduction cross the radial direction (in the absorber and envelope) and the adjacent nodes
39 along the axial direction are proposed to be neglected [98]. On the other hand, the conductive
40
41
resistance through the selective coatings can be disregarded since anti-reflective treatment is a
42 chemical etching and introduces no thermal resistance [16].
43
44 As the model results are examined, it is seen in Figure 17a that the model developed by
45 Garcia-Valladares and Velásquez [93] deviates much, particularly at low temperatures, due to
46
47 the assumptions of constant absorber emissivity and radiation heat loss from the envelope
48 realizing only between the glass and the sky. Liang et al.’s model [98] also results in higher
49 deviations, and some part of the data estimated is outside the experimental error bars due to
50 the similar assumptions proposed in [93] however Liang et al. considered the heat transfer
51
52
through the support brackets and the radiation heat transfer between the subsequent nodal
53 segments in the annulus region. In Dudley et al.’s report [78], it is mentioned about the field
54 emittance measurements of the absorbers at 100 °C and 300 °C yet there is no exact
55 information in the report about the coating emittances varying as a function of the
56 temperature. Forristall [16] described the functional relationships for the issue using linear fit.
57
58 Wirz et al. [104] declared that the functions proposed by [16] may underestimate the radiative
59 emission since they were derived from only two data points. Moreover, there were differences
60 between the temperature measurements determined by the laboratory and the normal field,
61
62
63
64
65
 this would be possible prediction error for emittance. Even if the predictions match with field
1 tests of Dudley et al. [78], the relation between the emittance and temperature would not
2 necessarily be linear. Therefore, better optical and thermal component data are expected to
3
4
yield improved model predictions as the spectral properties are used [104]. Nonetheless, the
5 spectral, directional and temperature dependence of the absorption, transmittance and
6 emittance of mirror and envelope are the weak function of temperature thus their effects can
7 be considered negligible [96]. In fact, the solar absorption of the envelope is to be also
8 considered in the analyses since the solar absorptance coefficient for glass is about 0.02 [277].
9
10
11 Forristall and Padilla et al.’s models [16, 94] have growing deviations accompanied by forced
12 convection at the elevated operating temperatures. The external flow over the HCE is
13 commonly analyzed in the PTSC models under two cases: natural and forced convection. The
14
15
empirical correlations derived for isothermal cylinders are constantly used in the model
16 approaches for the estimation of Nu over the HCE even if the actual temperature distribution
17 is nonuniform. Additionally, the forced convection around the HCE is imitated by cross-flow
18 whereas the local Nu distribution is different from this flow pattern in real case. This
19 approach guides to obtain poor simulation results especially for the case of annulus with
20
21 filled-air. Forristall [16] recommended to include a fitting analysis in his model in order to
22 reduce the error by the convection. Likewise, Padilla et al. [94] have altered the fitting
23 parameter and obtained better simulation results. However, Barbero et al. [278] described a
24 new approach which derives the external heat transfer coefficients as a polynomial function
25
instead of constant or linear dependence. These new functions allow the explicit calculation of
26
27 the efficiency as a function of some characteristic parameters of the HCE. Hachicha et al. [48]
28 interrelated the reason of increasing deviations at higher temperatures with the optical
29 properties quantified at lower temperatures. Furthermore, it was argued that some
30 unaccounted optical parameters ‒ such as HCE and mirror alignment, aberration in the
31
32
mirrors, deflections in the collector structure during tracking, and controller tracking errors ‒
33 could lead to negative effects on the simulation results. On the other hand, all the used
34 empirical correlations in the models would be the source of deviations since the error
35 involved might have larger in the convection calculations. In the 1-D heat transfer model, the
36 circumferential heat flux is treated as uniform although the actual heat flux distribution is
37
38 asymmetric. In fact, the distribution depends on random and nonrandom errors as mentioned
39 before. However, the heat flux with uniform profile simplifies the model and allows using the
40 heat transfer correlations (internal, annulus and external flows in the HCE) derived under the
41 uniform temperature assumption. The studies presented by [99, 100] have indicated that the
42
43
uniform and nonuniform models yield close simulation results so that the uniform model can
44 be used to quickly estimate the performance parameters of a PTSC.
45
46 Figure 17b illustrates the results obtained for the collector efficiency in case of using black
47 chrome coating. The efficiencies are slightly lower at high temperatures as compared to the
48
49 cermet due to the higher emissivity of black chrome at those temperatures and its tendency to
50 less specular surface. It is worth noting that the main distinctions between cermet and black
51 chrome are the processes of coating applied, and the operational life time. Cermet maintains
52 better life time with respect to those possible with black chrome coating and can be used up to
53
54
400 °C.
55
56 It is clear from Figure 17b that enormous part of the predictions are inside the experimental
57 uncertainty limits except Behar et al.’s model [18]. It underestimates both the thermal losses
58 (see Figure 18b and 19b) and collector efficiency. The reason is agreeably attributed to the
59
60 facts of unaccounted optical losses and unspecified sky temperature. There are two
61
62
63
64
65
 approaches for the prediction of sky temperature in the model studies. In the first one, the sky
1 is assumed as a blackbody at an equivalent temperature and can be expressed with a simple
2 relationship using local air temperature [279]. The second one is the effective sky temperature
3
4
assumed to be 8 °C below the ambient temperature. The former approach can be treated more
5 feasible to find the sky temperature. Contrarily, Wang et al. [102] evaluated the radiation
6 between the envelope and ambient instead of sky temperature. If the experimental dataset for
7 black chrome is reviewed at Appendix Table A.2, it is observed that the tests had been
8 performed in winter conditions thus the ambient temperatures are comparatively lower than
9
10 the cermet case. The latter approach may not give satisfactory results under this condition. On
11 the other hand, it is worth noting that all the models neglect the radiation heat transfer to the
12 ground and surrounding objects. This should be also handled as a source of error. Huang et al.
13 [103] exhibited in their study that coupling 2-D thermal and 3-D optical models yield good
14
15
simulation results. Here, the 2-D thermal model conduces to the enhancement of the
16 simulation results including the radiation loss to the side plates and the direct transmission of
17 the absorber radiation to ambient air.
18
19 Figure 18 and 19 present the results of the heat loss for the pre-stated cases. It is seen that the
20
21 agreement between the test and model data in black chrome is basically better than those of
22 the cermet case over the entire temperature range. This could be strongly relevant with the
23 proper characterization of the emission measurements for black chrome. Besides, the cases
24 specified by no-sun give better agreements for both coatings with confining the model data
25
largely within the bounds of the experimental uncertainty (see Appendix Table A.3‒A.4). The
26
27 presence of full-sun increases the deviations in the model predictions accompanied by the
28 convection in the absorber. The temperature difference between the HTF and the absorber in
29 full-sun is much higher relative to no-sun. It is at the level of a few degrees in no-sun case
30 which reduces the effect of the convection and its relative contribution to the heat loss.
31
32
Meanwhile, the circumferential temperature profile becomes more uniform in no-sun case; the
33 model predictions would yield better results as a consequence. For this reason the simplest
34 case for comparing heat loss predictions with the model data can be said to be vacuumed HCE
35 under no-sun since the heat loss from the absorber is almost completely by radiation.
36 Additionally, the no-sun case does not involve any optical influence in contrast to the full-sun
37
38 case.
39
40 200 140
Dudley et al. [78] Dudley et al. [78]
41 180 Forristall [16] Forristall [16]
42 120
Padilla et al. [94] García-Valladares & Velázquez [93]
160
43 Hachicha et al. [48] Padilla et al. [94]
Yılmaz & Söylemez [96] 100 Wirz et al. [104]
44 140
Hachicha et al. [48]
45
Heat loss (W/m2)

Heat loss (W/m2)

Air Cheng et al. [99]

120
80 Behar et al. [18]
46 Huang et al. [103]
Air
100
47
60
48 80
49 60 40
50 Vacuum
40 Vacuum
51
20
52 20
53
0 0
54 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
55 Average temperature above ambient ( C) Average temperature above ambient ( C)

56 Figure 18. Comparison of the model outputs with experimental data [78] for cermet thermal
57
58 loss. (a) Full sun (b) No sun
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 200 140
Dudley et al. [78] Dudley et al. [78]
1 180
Forristall [16] Forristall [16]
120
2 160 Padilla et al. [94] Padilla et al. [94]
Hachicha et al. [48]
3 Hachicha et al. [48]
140 100 Behar et al. [18]
4 Huang et al. [103] Air

Heat loss (W/m2)

Heat loss (W/m2)

5 120
Air
80
6 100
7 60
8 80 Vacuum

9 60 40
Vacuum
10
40
11 20
12 20

13 0 0
14 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Average temperature above ambient ( C) Average temperature above ambient ( C)
15
16 Figure 19. Comparison of the model outputs with experimental data [78] for black chrome
17
thermal loss. (a) Full sun (b) No sun
18
19
20 5. Conclusion
21
22 In this study, the optical and thermal modelings of PTSCs are reviewed, and the latest status
23
24
of the research field is extensively presented. It is observed that there is still much room for
25 improvement of the PTSC technology using the powerful tool of modeling. All these efforts
26 are essential for reducing the costs and being competitive with other conventional energy
27 systems since realistic modeling studies can indicate the poor side of the design or the
28 possible improvable points where to be executed in the existing design by simulating it
29
30 parametrically. The modeling offers significant advantages, less cost and opportunity to
31 examining numerous parameters, over the experiment. Moreover, it is capable of identifying
32 the inefficiencies provoked by the system parameters and the order of their effects on the
33 resulting system performance.
34
35
36 The literature clearly shows that the optical losses require much concern to be improved
37 relative to the thermal losses. Ray-tracing is a powerful tool for this argument to develop the
38 optical properties of PTSCs or to analyze new PTSC concepts where the analytic solution is
39 not plausible. Yet, coupling the optical and thermal analyses offers a better insight to the co-
40
41 optimized design of a PTSC and its performance improvement. It is also shown that the heat
42 transfer modeling is not only useful for the enhancement of the thermal performance but also
43 it suits for the thermal stress analysis of the HCE. Obtaining the heat flux and temperature
44 profiles on the HCE are significant for single and two-phase flows to maintain the operation
45
safety. However, it should be noted that two-phase system have much complexity in flow
46
47 pattern as comparison to the single-phase thus its control is difficult. These flows can be
48 analyzed under steady-state to view the operational limits or under transient analysis to
49 provide knowledge on the long-term performance of a PTSC. It is to say that the steady
50 analysis helps mainly in the design stage whilst the transient analysis is useful especially in
51
52 the simulation of the actual field conditions.
53
54 The CFD tool has started to be used much to analyze the complicated HCE geometries
55 recently, and it seems to take on an ever-increasing role in analysis and design of PTSCs.
56 CFD ensures to comprehend the physical nature of the PTSC while bringing useful results
57
58 about the flows with heat transfer characteristics. It is shown that CFD is able to manage
59 parametric studies which help to see the limits where the contribution of the parameter to the
60 performance is significant.
61
62
63
64
65
 To increase the overall performance of the PTSC, different design considerations have been
1 proposed in the literature. The performance of the PTSC is improved by either manipulating
2 its optical design or the thermal properties. It should not be forgotten that even minor
3
4
improvement in the performance can induce significant returns for large-scale plants. All the
5 efforts to be shown are clearly represented in this paper, and the results are shared with the
6 literature.
7
8 Appendix: Experimental dataset
9
10
11 Table A.1. Measured efficiency test data for cermet
12 Beam Wind Air Temp Temp Flow
13 Efficiency Error
radiation speed temp in out rate
14 % ±%
15
W/m2 m/s °C °C °C L/min
16 Vacuum annulus
17 933.7 2.6 21.2 102.2 124.0 47.7 72.51 1.95
18 968.2 3.7 22.4 151.0 173.3 47.8 70.90 1.92
19
20 982.3 2.5 24.3 197.5 219.5 49.1 70.17 1.81
21 909.5 3.3 26.2 250.7 269.4 54.7 70.25 1.90
22 937.9 1.0 28.8 297.8 316.9 55.5 67.98 1.86
23 880.6 2.9 27.5 299.0 317.2 55.6 68.92 2.06
24
25 920.9 2.6 29.5 379.5 398.0 56.8 62.34 2.41
26 903.2 4.2 31.1 355.9 374.0 56.3 63.82 2.36
27 Air in annulus
28 889.7 2.8 28.6 251.1 268.3 55.3 66.61 2.29
29
30 874.1 4.0 28.7 344.9 361.1 56.2 59.60 2.27
31 870.4 0.6 29.1 345.5 361.6 56.1 59.40 2.12
32 813.1 3.6 25.8 101.2 119.0 50.3 71.56 2.21
33 858.4 3.1 27.6 154.3 171.7 52.9 69.20 2.10
34
35 878.7 3.1 28.6 202.4 219.4 54.6 67.10 1.88
36 896.4 0.9 30.0 250.7 267.8 55.2 65.50 1.80
37 906.7 0.0 31.7 299.5 316.5 55.4 62.58 1.79
38 879.5 1.8 27.4 348.9 365.2 55.4 58.52 2.02
39
40 898.6 2.8 29.7 376.6 393.1 56.2 56.54 1.93
41
42 Table A.2. Measured efficiency test data for black chrome
43 Beam Wind Air Temp Temp Flow
44 Efficiency Error
45 radiation speed temp in out rate
% ±%
46 W/m2 m/s °C °C °C L/min
47 Vacuum annulus
48 839.8 1.1 3.6 103.4 122.2 50.6 73.56 3.35
49
50 882.7 2.1 ‒3.1 253.3 271.3 54.8 69.58 1.95
51 921.5 0.0 ‒0.7 349.6 367.3 56.0 61.49 1.82
52 902.0 0.0 6.4 154.0 173.3 52.1 72.1 1.98
53 900.7 1.3 0.2 201.6 219.9 54.0 69.91 3.06
54
55 871.8 4.0 1.6 201.5 219.5 53.2 69.69 1.86
56 884.6 3.0 2.6 303.1 320.6 54.9 65.36 2.03
57 744.6 1.1 ‒5.0 100.8 117.2 50.7 72.47 3.62
58 928.4 2.4 ‒0.9 379.6 397.4 56.1 57.7 1.91
59
60 Air in annulus
61
62
63
64
65
 919.5 1.4 0.1 379.7 395.8 56.2 53.71 2.97
1 755.0 5.5 ‒1.0 101.9 117.9 50.3 69.07 4.38
2 850.9 4.7 ‒0.6 203.2 219.0 54.3 64.14 1.98
3
4 899.7 4.4 0.5 301.6 317.6 56.2 60.08 2.23
5 909.6 1.2 1.3 251.8 268.7 55.0 63.32 1.76
6 908.1 5.9 5.9 350.2 366.3 55.6 56.17 2.02
7 902.6 1.7 5.1 154.2 172.4 52.1 67.88 1.89
8
9
10 Table A.3. Measured thermal loss data for cermet under no sun
11 Wind Air Temp Temp Flow
12 Loss Error
speed temp in out rate
13 W/m2 ± W/m2
14 m/s °C °C °C L/min
15 Vacuum annulus
16 3.2 26.3 99.55 99.54 27.4 0.3 3.7
17 2.9 25.4 100.02 99.97 27.4 0.85 4.0
18
19 0.1 22.5 199.4 199.0 54.7 14.04 8.5
20 2.0 26.7 299.0 297.9 56.0 36.7 8.0
21 1.1 19.9 153.4 153.3 53.6 5.3 7.6
22 1.5 24.2 253.8 253.1 55.6 23.4 8.5
23
24 0.6 27.6 348.3 346.6 56.8 55.8 7.3
25 Air in annulus
26 5.2 19.6 98.7 98.2 51.4 13.7 7.0
27 4.5 22.1 148.5 147.8 53.8 24.7 7.7
28
29 0.8 23.6 202.0 200.9 54.6 36.3 7.4
30 0.6 24.7 252.5 250.9 55.4 54.8 7.5
31 1.5 23.2 300.3 297.9 56.5 78.3 7.8
32 1.1 26.3 344.8 341.8 56.7 98.6 7.7
33
34
35 Table A.4. Measured thermal loss data for black chrome under no sun
36 Wind Air Temp Temp Flow
37 Loss Error
speed temp in out rate
38 W/m2 ± W/m2
39 m/s °C °C °C L/min
40 Vacuum annulus
41 0.6 2.3 103.2 102.9 50.3 6.82 6.89
42 1.0 6.0 204.1 203.4 54.1 22.0 7.27
43
44 1.7 7.5 300.8 299.0 55.8 62.0 8.05
45 2.5 8.9 351.0 348.2 56.7 89.1 8.77
46 0.3 ‒5.2 150.9 150.6 52.5 12.4 7.00
47 2.8 1.1 348.5 345.7 56.7 89.1 9.43
48
49 1.5 1.1 253.9 252.8 55.1 36.7 7.76
50 Air in annulus
51 0.6 3.0 302.4 299.7 55.6 92.6 7.82
52 0.6 1.5 349.4 345.7 56.6 118.5 8.82
53
54 2.5 2.7 251.9 249.9 54.9 70.7 7.24
55 1.7 3.5 201.7 200.2 53.5 50.5 7.35
56 0.8 3.9 150.4 149.4 52.0 32.7 7.08
57 0.8 2.9 101.6 100.6 43.0 14.0 6.67
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 References
1
2 [1] International Energy Outlook 2016. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA); 2016.
3
4
[2] Key Renewables Trends Excerpt from : Renewables information. International Energy
5 Agency (IEA); 2016.
6 [3] Renewables 2016 Global Status Report. REN21; 2016.
7 [4] Renewable Energy Essentials: Concentrating Solar Thermal Power. International Energy
8 Agency (IEA); 2009.
9
10 [5] Timilsina GR, Kurdgelashvili L, Narbel PA. Solar energy: Markets, economics and
11 policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012;16:449-65.
12 [6] Price H, Lupfert E, Kearney D, Zarza E, Cohen G, Gee R, et al. Advances in parabolic
13 trough solar power technology. Journal of solar energy engineering. 2002;124:109-25.
14
15
[7] Profile: Hittite Solar Energy, <http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/profile-hittite-
16 solar-energy>. [accessed 30.12.2016].
17 [8] Project profile: Advanced low-cost receivers for parabolic troughs,
18 <http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/project-profile-advanced-low-cost-receivers-parabolic-
19 troughs>. [accessed 30.12.2016].
20
21 [9] Yılmaz IH, Hayta H, Yumrutas R, Söylemez MS. Performance testing of a parabolic
22 trough collector array. The 6th International Congress of Energy and Environment
23 Engineering and Management (CIIEM15), Paris, France2015. p. 22-4.
24 [10] Yılmaz İH. A theoretical and experimental study on solar-assisted cooking system to
25
produce bulgur by using parabolic trough solar collector. Ph.D. Thesis, Gaziantep University;
26
27 2014.
28 [11] Kalogirou SA. Solar energy engineering: processes and systems: Academic Press; 2013.
29 [12] Fernández-García A, Zarza E, Valenzuela L, Pérez M. Parabolic-trough solar collectors
30 and their applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14:1695-721.
31
32
[13] Yılmaz İH, Söylemez MS. Transient simulation of solar assisted wheat cooking by
33 parabolic trough collector. The Journal of Global Engineering Studies. 2016;3:93-106.
34 [14] Parabolic Trough Projects, <http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/parabolic_trough.cfm>.
35 [accessed 30.12.2016].
36 [15] Jeter SM. Optical and thermal effects in linear solar concentrating collectors. Ph.D.
37
38 Thesis Georgia Inst. of Tech., Atlanta1979.
39 [16] Forristall R. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar receiver
40 implemented in engineering equation solver: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2003.
41 [17] http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10202/334_read-1557/year-
42
43
2011/#/gallery/3281. [accessed 30.12.2016].
44 [18] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A novel parabolic trough solar collector model–
45 Validation with experimental data and comparison to Engineering Equation Solver (EES).
46 Energy Conversion and Management. 2015;106:268-81.
47 [19] Güven HM, Mistree F, Bannerot RB. Design synthesis of parabolic trough solar
48
49 collectors for developing countries. Engineering optimization. 1984;7:173-94.
50 [20] Gaul H, Rabl A. Incidence-angle modifier and average optical efficiency of parabolic
51 trough collectors. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 1980;102:16-21.
52 [21] Xu C, Chen Z, Li M, Zhang P, Ji X, Luo X, et al. Research on the compensation of the
53
54
end loss effect for parabolic trough solar collectors. Applied Energy. 2014;115:128-39.
55 [22] Edenburn MW. Performance analysis of a cylindrical parabolic focusing collector and
56 comparison with experimental results. Solar Energy. 1976;18:437-44.
57 [23] Guven H, Bannerot R. Derivation of universal error parameters for comprehensive
58 optical analysis of parabolic troughs. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 1986;108:275-81.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 [24] Mokheimer EM, Dabwan YN, Habib MA, Said SA, Al-Sulaiman FA. Techno-economic
1 performance analysis of parabolic trough collector in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Energy
2 Conversion and Management. 2014;86:622-33.
3
4
[25] Bendt P, Rabl A, Gaul H, Reed K. Optical analysis and optimization of line focus solar
5 collectors. Solar Energy Research Inst., Golden, CO (USA); 1979.
6 [26] Treadwell G, Grandjean N. Systematic rotation and receiver location error effects on
7 parabolic trough annual performance. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 1982;104:345-8.
8 [27] Guven H, Bannerot R. Optical and thermal analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors
9
10 for technically less developed countries. Texas: Mechanical Engineering Department
11 University of Houston. 1984.
12 [28] Biggs F. EDEP: A Computer Program for Modeling the Parabolic Trough Solar
13 Concentrator. Unpublished Notes Provided by GW Treadwell, Sandia Laboratories,
14
15
Albuquerque, NM. 1976.
16 [29] Güven HM, Bannerot RB. Determination of error tolerances for the optical design of
17 parabolic troughs for developing countries. Solar Energy. 1986;36:535-50.
18 [30] Jeter SM. Analytical determination of the optical performance of practical parabolic
19 trough collectors from design data. Solar Energy. 1987;39:11-21.
20
21 [31] Pettit RB. Characterization of the reflected beam profile of solar mirror materials. Solar
22 Energy. 1977;19:733-41.
23 [32] Thomas A, Guven HM. Effect of optical errors on flux distribution around the absorber
24 tube of a parabolic trough concentrator. Energy conversion and management. 1994;35:575-
25
82.
26
27 [33] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes: Wiley New York;
28 1991.
29 [34] Jacobson E, Ketjoy N, Nathakaranakule S, Rakwichian W. Solar parabolic trough
30 simulation and application for a hybrid power plant in Thailand. Science Asia. 2006;32:187-
31
32
99.
33 [35] Öztürk M, Bezir NÇ, Özek N. Optical, energetic and exergetic analyses of parabolic
34 trough collectors. Chinese Physics Letters. 2007;24:1787.
35 [36] Huang W, Hu P, Chen Z. Performance simulation of a parabolic trough solar collector.
36 Solar Energy. 2012;86:746-55.
37
38 [37] Zhu G, Lewandowski A. A new optical evaluation approach for parabolic trough
39 collectors: first-principle optical intercept calculation. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.
40 2012;134:041005.
41 [38] Wendelin T, Dobos A, Lewandowski A. SolTrace: A ray-tracing code for complex solar
42
43
optical systems. Contract. 2013;303:275-3000.
44 [39] Binotti M, Zhu G, Gray A, Manzolini G, Silva P. Geometric analysis of three-
45 dimensional effects of parabolic trough collectors. Solar Energy. 2013;88:88-96.
46 [40] Saltiel C, Sokolov M. Optical analysis of solar energy tubular absorbers. Applied optics.
47 1982;21:4033-9.
48
49 [41] Prapas D, Norton B, Probert S. Optics of parabolic-trough, solar-energy collectors,
50 possessing small concentration ratios. Solar energy. 1987;39:541-50.
51 [42] Schiricke B, Pitz-Paal R, Lüpfert E, Pottler K, Pfänder M, Riffelmann K-J, et al.
52 Experimental verification of optical modeling of parabolic trough collectors by flux
53
54
measurement. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 2009;131:011004.
55 [43] Grena R. Optical simulation of a parabolic solar trough collector. International Journal of
56 Sustainable Energy. 2010;29:19-36.
57 [44] Rabl A, Bendt P, Gaul H. Optimization of parabolic trough solar collectors. Solar
58 Energy. 1982;29:407-17.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 [45] Jeter SM. Calculation of the concentrated flux density distribution in parabolic trough
1 collectors by a semifinite formulation. Solar Energy. 1986;37:335-45.
2 [46] Yang B, Zhao J, Xu T, Zhu Q. Calculation of the concentrated flux density distribution in
3
4
parabolic trough solar concentrators by Monte Carlo ray-trace method. 2010 Symposium on
5 Photonics and Optoelectronics: IEEE; 2010. p. 1-4.
6 [47] Cheng Z, He Y, Cui F. A new modelling method and unified code with MCRT for
7 concentrating solar collectors and its applications. Applied energy. 2013;101:686-98.
8 [48] Hachicha A, Rodríguez I, Capdevila R, Oliva A. Heat transfer analysis and numerical
9
10 simulation of a parabolic trough solar collector. Applied energy. 2013;111:581-92.
11 [49] Cheng Z, He Y, Cui F, Du B, Zheng Z, Xu Y. Comparative and sensitive analysis for
12 parabolic trough solar collectors with a detailed Monte Carlo ray-tracing optical model.
13 Applied Energy. 2014;115:559-72.
14
15
[50] Cheng Z-D, He Y-L, Du B-C, Wang K, Liang Q. Geometric optimization on optical
16 performance of parabolic trough solar collector systems using particle swarm optimization
17 algorithm. Applied Energy. 2015;148:282-93.
18 [51] Zhao D, Xu E, Yu Q, Lei D. The Simulation Model of Flux Density Distribution on an
19 Absorber Tube. Energy Procedia. 2015;69:250-8.
20
21 [52] Zhao D, Xu E, Wang Z, Yu Q, Xu L, Zhu L. Influences of installation and tracking errors
22 on the optical performance of a solar parabolic trough collector. Renewable Energy.
23 2016;94:197-212.
24 [53] Liang H, You S, Zhang H. Comparison of three optical models and analysis of geometric
25
parameters for parabolic trough solar collectors. Energy. 2016;96:37-47.
26
27 [54] Hegazy A, El-Kassaby M, Hassab M. Prediction of concentration distribution in
28 parabolic trough solar collectors. International journal of solar energy. 1994;16:121-35.
29 [55] Khanna S, Kedare SB, Singh S. Analytical expression for circumferential and axial
30 distribution of absorbed flux on a bent absorber tube of solar parabolic trough concentrator.
31
32
Solar Energy. 2013;92:26-40.
33 [56] Khanna S, Kedare SB, Singh S. Deflection and stresses in absorber tube of solar
34 parabolic trough due to circumferential and axial flux variations on absorber tube supported at
35 multiple points. Solar Energy. 2014;99:134-51.
36 [57] Khanna S, Singh S, Kedare SB. Explicit expressions for temperature distribution and
37
38 deflection in absorber tube of solar parabolic trough concentrator. Solar Energy.
39 2015;114:289-302.
40 [58] Khanna S, Sharma V. Explicit Analytical Expression for Solar Flux Distribution on an
41 Undeflected Absorber Tube of Parabolic Trough Concentrator Considering Sun-Shape and
42
43
Optical Errors. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 2016;138:011010.
44 [59] Wirz M, Petit J, Haselbacher A, Steinfeld A. Potential improvements in the optical and
45 thermal efficiencies of parabolic trough concentrators. Solar Energy. 2014;107:398-414.
46 [60] Benoit H, Spreafico L, Gauthier D, Flamant G. Review of heat transfer fluids in tube-
47 receivers used in concentrating solar thermal systems: Properties and heat transfer
48
49 coefficients. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016;55:298-315.
50 [61] Fraidenraich N, Gordon J, de Lima RdCF. Improved solutions for temperature and
51 thermal power delivery profiles in linear solar collectors. Solar energy. 1997;61:141-5.
52 [62] Mazumder R, Bhowmik N, Hussain M, Huq M. Heat loss factor of evacuated tubular
53
54
receivers. Energy conversion and management. 1986;26:313-6.
55 [63] Mullick S, Nanda S. Heat loss factor for linear solar concentrators. Applied Energy.
56 1982;11:1-13.
57 [64] Mullick S, Nanda S. An improved technique for computing the heat loss factor of a
58 tubular absorber. Solar Energy. 1989;42:1-7.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 [65] Gee R, Gaul HW, Kearney D, Rabl A. Long-term average performance benefits of
1 parabolic trough improvements. Solar Energy Research Inst., Golden, CO (USA); 1980.
2 [66] Gong G, Huang X, Wang J, Hao M. An optimized model and test of the China’s first
3
4
high temperature parabolic trough solar receiver. Solar Energy. 2010;84:2230-45.
5 [67] Wang J, Huang X, Gong G, Hao M, Yin F. A systematic study of the residual gas effect
6 on vacuum solar receiver. Energy Conversion and Management. 2011;52:2367-72.
7 [68] Burkholder FW. Transition regime heat conduction of argon/hydrogen and
8 xenon/hydrogen mixtures in a parabolic trough receiver: University of Colorado at Boulder;
9
10 2011.
11 [69] Pigozzo Filho VC, de Sá AB, Passos JC, Colle S. Experimental and Numerical Analysis
12 of Thermal Losses of a Parabolic Trough Solar Collector. Energy Procedia. 2014;57:381-90.
13 [70] Vinuesa R, de Arévalo LF, Luna M, Cachafeiro H. Simulations and experiments of heat
14
15
loss from a parabolic trough absorber tube over a range of pressures and gas compositions in
16 the vacuum chamber. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2016;8:023701.
17 [71] Kennard EH. Kinetic theory of gases, with an introduction to statistical mechanics. 1938.
18 [72] Ratzel A, Hickox C, Gartling D. Techniques for reducing thermal conduction and natural
19 convection heat losses in annular receiver geometries. Journal of Heat Transfer.
20
21 1979;101:108-13.
22 [73] Sharipov F, Bertoldo G. Heat transfer through a rarefied gas confined between two
23 coaxial cylinders with high radius ratio. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A.
24 2006;24:2087-93.
25
[74] Sherman FS. A Survey of Experimental Results and Methods for the Transition Regime
26
27 of Rarified Gas Dynamics: Academic Press; 1963.
28 [75] Ahmed MH. Two Dimension Numerical Modeling of Receiver Tube Performance for
29 Concentrated Solar Power Plant. Energy Procedia. 2014;57:551-60.
30 [76] Coccia G, Latini G, Sotte M. Mathematical modeling of a prototype of parabolic trough
31
32
solar collector. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2012;4:023110.
33 [77] de Oliveira Siqueira AM, Gomes PEN, Torrezani L, Lucas EO, da Cruz Pereira GM.
34 Heat Transfer Analysis and Modeling of a Parabolic Trough Solar Collector: An Analysis.
35 Energy Procedia. 2014;57:401-10.
36 [78] Dudley VE, Kolb GJ, Mahoney AR, Mancini TR, Matthews CW, Sloan M, et al. Test
37
38 results: SEGS LS-2 solar collector. Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States);
39 1994.
40 [79] España MD, Rodriguez L. Approximate steady-state modeling of solar trough collectors.
41 Solar energy. 1987;38:447-54.
42
43
[80] Guo J, Huai X, Liu Z. Performance investigation of parabolic trough solar receiver.
44 Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;95:357-64.
45 [81] Islam M, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim N. Modelling and analysis of the effect of different
46 parameters on a parabolic-trough concentrating solar system. RSC Advances. 2015;5:36540-
47 6.
48
49 [82] Jradi M, Riffat S. Year-round numerical simulation of a parabolic solar collector under
50 Lebanese conditions: Beirut case study. International Journal of Ambient Energy.
51 2014;35:164-79.
52 [83] Mohamad A, Orfi J, Alansary H. Heat losses from parabolic trough solar collectors.
53
54
International journal of energy research. 2014;38:20-8.
55 [84] Odeh S, Morrison G, Behnia M. Modelling of parabolic trough direct steam generation
56 solar collectors. Solar energy. 1998;62:395-406.
57 [85] Tzivanidis C, Bellos E, Korres D, Antonopoulos K, Mitsopoulos G. Thermal and optical
58 efficiency investigation of a parabolic trough collector. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering.
59
60 2015;6:226-37.
61
62
63
64
65
 [86] Yılmaz İH, Söylemez MS, Hayta H, Yumrutaş R. Model-based performance analysis of
1 a concentrating parabolic trough collector array. Progress in Exergy, Energy, and the
2 Environment: Springer; 2014. p. 815-27.
3
4
[87] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. A detailed working fluid investigation for
5 solar parabolic trough collectors. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016.
6 [88] Guo J, Huai X. Multi-parameter optimization design of parabolic trough solar receiver.
7 Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;98:73-9.
8 [89] He Y-L, Mei D-H, Tao W-Q, Yang W-W, Liu H-L. Simulation of the parabolic trough
9
10 solar energy generation system with Organic Rankine Cycle. Applied Energy. 2012;97:630-
11 41.
12 [90] Manzolini G, Giostri A, Saccilotto C, Silva P, Macchi E. Development of an innovative
13 code for the design of thermodynamic solar power plants part A: Code description and test
14
15
case. Renewable Energy. 2011;36:1993-2003.
16 [91] Qu M, Archer DH, Yin H. A linear parabolic trough solar collector performance model.
17 ASME 2007 Energy Sustainability Conference: American Society of Mechanical Engineers;
18 2007. p. 663-70.
19 [92] Sauceda D, Velázquez N, García-Valladares O, Beltrán R. Numerical simulation and
20
21 design of a parabolic trough solar collector used as a direct generator in a solar-GAX cooling
22 cycle. Journal of mechanical science and technology. 2011;25:1399-408.
23 [93] García-Valladares O, Velázquez N. Numerical simulation of parabolic trough solar
24 collector: Improvement using counter flow concentric circular heat exchangers. International
25
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2009;52:597-609.
26
27 [94] Padilla RV, Demirkaya G, Goswami DY, Stefanakos E, Rahman MM. Heat transfer
28 analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver. Applied Energy. 2011;88:5097-110.
29 [95] Kalogirou SA. A detailed thermal model of a parabolic trough collector receiver. Energy.
30 2012;48:298-306.
31
32
[96] Yılmaz İH, Söylemez MS. Thermo-mathematical modeling of parabolic trough collector.
33 Energy Conversion and Management. 2014;88:768-84.
34 [97] Ghoneim AA, Mohammedein AM. Parabolic Trough Collector Performance in a Hot
35 Climate. Journal of Energy Engineering. 2015;142:04015008.
36 [98] Liang H, You S, Zhang H. Comparison of different heat transfer models for parabolic
37
38 trough solar collectors. Applied Energy. 2015;148:105-14.
39 [99] Cheng Z-D, He Y-L, Qiu Y. A detailed nonuniform thermal model of a parabolic trough
40 solar receiver with two halves and two inactive ends. Renewable Energy. 2015;74:139-47.
41 [100] Lu J, Ding J, Yang J, Yang X. Nonuniform heat transfer model and performance of
42
43
parabolic trough solar receiver. Energy. 2013;59:666-75.
44 [101] Tao Y, He Y. Numerical study on coupled fluid flow and heat transfer process in
45 parabolic trough solar collector tube. Solar Energy. 2010;84:1863-72.
46 [102] Wang P, Liu D, Xu C, Zhou L, Xia L. Conjugate heat transfer modeling and
47 asymmetric characteristic analysis of the heat collecting element for a parabolic trough
48
49 collector. International Journal of Thermal Sciences. 2016;101:68-84.
50 [103] Huang W, Xu Q, Hu P. Coupling 2D thermal and 3D optical model for performance
51 prediction of a parabolic trough solar collector. Solar Energy. 2016;139:365-80.
52 [104] Wirz M, Roesle M, Steinfeld A. Three-dimensional optical and thermal numerical
53
54
model of solar tubular receivers in parabolic trough concentrators. Journal of Solar Energy
55 Engineering. 2012;134:041012.
56 [105] Chang M, Roux J. Parabolic solar collector with glass pipe and black fluid. Journal of
57 solar energy engineering. 1986;108:129-34.
58 [106] Li SD. A Simple Design Method for Thermal Performance of Parabolic Troughs Solar
59
60 Field. Advanced Materials Research: Trans Tech Publ; 2014. p. 57-60.
61
62
63
64
65
 [107] Ouagued M, Khellaf A, Loukarfi L. Estimation of the temperature, heat gain and heat
1 loss by solar parabolic trough collector under Algerian climate using different thermal oils.
2 Energy Conversion and management. 2013;75:191-201.
3
4
[108] Rongrong Z, Yongping Y, Qin Y, Yong Z. Modeling and characteristic analysis of a
5 solar parabolic trough system: thermal oil as the heat transfer fluid. Journal of Renewable
6 Energy. 2013;2013.
7 [109] Xu L, Wang Z, Li X, Yuan G, Sun F, Lei D. Dynamic test model for the transient
8 thermal performance of parabolic trough solar collectors. Solar Energy. 2013;95:65-78.
9
10 [110] El Jai M, Chalqi F. A modified model for parabolic trough solar receiver. American
11 Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) e-ISSN. 2013:2320-0847.
12 [111] Eskin N. Transient performance analysis of cylindrical parabolic concentrating
13 collectors and comparison with experimental results. Energy conversion and management.
14
15
1999;40:175-91.
16 [112] Euh S-H, Kim DH. Simulation and Model Validation of a Parabolic Trough Solar
17 Collector for Water Heating. Journal of the Korean Solar Energy Society. 2013;33:17-26.
18 [113] Jie J, Chongwei H, Wei H, Gang P. Dynamic performance of parabolic trough solar
19 collector. Proceedings of ISES World Congress 2007 (Vol I–Vol V): Springer; 2008. p. 750-
20
21 4.
22 [114] Marif Y, Benmoussa H, Bouguettaia H, Belhadj MM, Zerrouki M. Numerical
23 simulation of solar parabolic trough collector performance in the Algeria Saharan region.
24 Energy Conversion and Management. 2014;85:521-9.
25
[115] Mohamed A. Numerical Investigation of the Dynamic Performance of the Parabolic
26
27 Trough Solar Collector using Different Working Fluids. Port-Said Engineering Research
28 Journal. 2003;7:100-15.
29 [116] Sivaram P. Experimental and numerical investigation on solar parabolic trough
30 collector integrated with thermal energy storage unit. International Journal of Energy
31
32
Research. 2016.
33 [117] Patnode AM. Simulation and performance evaluation of parabolic trough solar power
34 plants: University of Wisconsin-madison; 2006.
35 [118] Wagner M, Blair N, Dobos A. A detailed physical trough model for NREL’s Solar
36 Advisor Model. Proceedings of the SolarPACES International Symposium, SolarPACES
37
38 NREL/CP-5500-493682010.
39 [119] Zaversky F, Medina R, García-Barberena J, Sánchez M, Astrain D. Object-oriented
40 modeling for the transient performance simulation of parabolic trough collectors using molten
41 salt as heat transfer fluid. Solar Energy. 2013;95:192-215.
42
43
[120] Silva R, Pérez M, Fernández-Garcia A. Modeling and co-simulation of a parabolic
44 trough solar plant for industrial process heat. Applied energy. 2013;106:287-300.
45 [121] Elsafi AM. On thermo-hydraulic modeling of direct steam generation. Solar Energy.
46 2015;120:636-50.
47 [122] Heidemann W, Spindler K, Hahne E. Steady-state and transient temperature field in the
48
49 absorber tube of a direct steam generating solar collector. International journal of heat and
50 mass transfer. 1992;35:649-57.
51 [123] Sun J, Liu Q, Hong H. Numerical study of parabolic-trough direct steam generation
52 loop in recirculation mode: Characteristics, performance and general operation strategy.
53
54
Energy Conversion and Management. 2015;96:287-302.
55 [124] Lippke F. Direct Steam Generation in Parabolic Trough Solar Power Plants: Numerical
56 Investigation of the Transients and the Control of a Once-Through System. Journal of Solar
57 Energy Engineering. 1996;118:9-14.
58 [125] Eck M, Zarza E, Eickhoff M, Rheinländer J, Valenzuela L. Applied research concerning
59
60 the direct steam generation in parabolic troughs. Solar energy. 2003;74:341-51.
61
62
63
64
65
 [126] Eck M, Steinmann W-D. Direct steam generation in parabolic troughs: first results of
1 the DISS project. Journal of solar energy engineering. 2002;124:134-9.
2 [127] Murphy LM, May EK. Steam generation in line-focus solar collectors: a comparative
3
4
assessment of thermal performance, operating stability, and cost issues. Solar Energy
5 Research Inst., Golden, CO (USA); 1982.
6 [128] Stephan K, Green CV. Heat transfer in condensation and boiling: Springer; 1992.
7 [129] Almanza R, Jim nez G, Lentz A, ald s A, Soria A. DSG under two-phase and
8 stratified flow in a steel receiver of a parabolic trough collector. Journal of solar energy
9
10 engineering. 2002;124:140-4.
11 [130] Wojtan L, Ursenbacher T, Thome JR. Investigation of flow boiling in horizontal tubes:
12 Part I—A new diabatic two-phase flow pattern map. International Journal of Heat and Mass
13 Transfer. 2005;48:2955-69.
14
15
[131] Ajona J, Herrmann U, Sperduto F, Farinha-Mendes J. Main achievements within
16 ARDISS (advanced receiver for direct solar steam production in parabolic trough solar power
17 plants) project. 1996.
18 [132] Martínez I, Almanza R. Experimental and theoretical analysis of annular two-phase
19 flow regimen in direct steam generation for a low-power system. Solar energy. 2007;81:216-
20
21 26.
22 [133] Serrano-Aguilera J, Valenzuela L, Parras L. Thermal 3D model for Direct Solar Steam
23 Generation under superheated conditions. Applied Energy. 2014;132:370-82.
24 [134] Nolte HC, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Second law analysis and optimization of a
25
parabolic trough receiver tube for direct steam generation. Heat and Mass Transfer.
26
27 2015;51:875-87.
28 [135] Steinmann W, Goebel O. Investigation of the stationary and transient characteristics of
29 parabolic trough collectors for direct steam generation. Solar Engineering. 1998:409-16.
30 [136] Feldhoff JF, Hirsch T, Pitz-Paal R, Valenzuela L. Transient models and characteristics
31
32
of once-through line focus Systems. Energy Procedia. 2015;69:626-37.
33 [137] You C, Zhang W, Yin Z. Modeling of fluid flow and heat transfer in a trough solar
34 collector. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2013;54:247-54.
35 [138] Yan Q, Hu E, Yang Y, Zhai R. Dynamic modeling and simulation of a solar direct
36
steam‐generating system. International Journal of Energy Research. 2010;34:1341-55.
37
38 [139] Xu R, Wiesner TF. Closed-form modeling of direct steam generation in a parabolic
39 trough solar receiver. Energy. 2015;79:163-76.
40 [140] Eck M, Hirsch T. Dynamics and control of parabolic trough collector loops with direct
41 steam generation. Solar Energy. 2007;81:268-79.
42
43
[141] Hirsch T, Eck M, Steinmann W-D. Simulation of transient two-phase flow in parabolic
44 trough collectors using Modelica. Proceedings of the 4th Int Modelica Conference2005.
45 [142] Valenzuela L, Zarza E, Berenguel M, Camacho EF. Control concepts for direct steam
46 generation in parabolic troughs. Solar Energy. 2005;78:301-11.
47 [143] Zarza E, Valenzuela L, León J, Weyers H-D, Eickhoff M, Eck M, et al. The DISS
48
49 project: direct steam generation in parabolic trough systems. Operation and maintenance
50 experience and update on project status. Journal of solar energy engineering. 2002;124:126-
51 33.
52 [144] Hirsch T, Eck M. Simulation of the start-up procedure of a parabolic trough collector
53
54
field with direct solar steam generation. Proceedings 5th International Modelica
55 Conference2006. p. 135-43.
56 [145] Moya SL, Valenzuela L, Zarza E. Numerical Study of the Thermal-Hydraulic Behavior
57 of Water-Steam Flow in the Absorber Tube of the DISS system using RELAP. Concentrating
58 solar power and chemical energy systems (SolarPACES), Granada, Spain2011.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 [146] Hoffmann A, Merk B, Hirsch T, Pitz-Paal R. Simulation of thermal fluid dynamics in
1 parabolic trough receiver tubes with direct steam generation using the computer code
2 ATHLET. Kerntechnik. 2014;79:175-86.
3
4
[147] Biencinto M, González L, Valenzuela L. A quasi-dynamic simulation model for direct
5 steam generation in parabolic troughs using TRNSYS. Applied Energy. 2016;161:133-42.
6 [148] Hirsch T. Dynamische Systemsimulation und Auslegung des Abscheidesystems für die
7 solare Direktverdampfung in Parabolrinnenkollektoren: Universität Stuttgart; 2005.
8 [149] Dymola,
9
10 <http://www.claytex.com/products/dymola?gclid=CLOXkKqtq9ECFaIV0wodW-MLUQ>.
11 [accessed 30.12.2016].
12 [150] RELAP Thermal-Hydraulic Safety Analysis Software, <https://www.relap.com>.
13 [accessed 30.12.2016].
14
15
[151] The Computer Code ATHLET, <https://www.grs.de/en/computer-code-athlet>.
16 [accessed 30.12.2016].
17 [152] A TRaNsient SYstems Simulation Program, <http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys>. [accessed
18 30.12.2016].
19 [153] Shuai Y, Wang F-Q, Tan H-P, Xia X-L. Ray-thermal-structural coupled analysis of
20
21 parabolic trough solar collector system: INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2010.
22 [154] Yaghoubi M, Akbarimoosavi M. Three dimensional thermal expansion analysis of an
23 absorber tube in a parabolic trough collector. SolarPACES, Granada, Spain, Sept. 2011:20-3.
24 [155] Akbarimoosavi S, Yaghoubi M. 3d thermal-structural analysis of an absorber tube of a
25
parabolic trough collector and the effect of tube deflection on optical efficiency. Energy
26
27 Procedia. 2014;49:2433-43.
28 [156] Kassem T. Numerical study of the natural convection process in the parabolic-
29 cylindrical solar collector. Desalination. 2007;209:144-50.
30 [157] Eck M, Feldhoff JF, Uhlig R. Thermal modelling and simulation of parabolic trough
31
32
receiver tubes. ASME 2010 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability: American
33 Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2010. p. 659-66.
34 [158] Roesle M, Coskun V, Steinfeld A. Numerical analysis of heat loss from a parabolic
35 trough absorber tube with active vacuum system. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.
36 2011;133:031015.
37
38 [159] Roesle M, Good P, Coskun V, Steinfeld A. Analysis of conduction heat loss from a
39 parabolic trough solar receiver with active vacuum by direct simulation Monte Carlo.
40 Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications. 2012;62:432-44.
41 [160] Patil RG, Kale DM, Panse SV, Joshi JB. Numerical study of heat loss from a non-
42
43
evacuated receiver of a solar collector. Energy Conversion and Management. 2014;78:617-26.
44 [161] Patil RG, Panse SV, Joshi JB. Optimization of non-evacuated receiver of solar collector
45 having non-uniform temperature distribution for minimum heat loss. Energy Conversion and
46 Management. 2014;85:70-84.
47 [162] Cheng Z, He Y, Xiao J, Tao Y, Xu R. Three-dimensional numerical study of heat
48
49 transfer characteristics in the receiver tube of parabolic trough solar collector. International
50 Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. 2010;37:782-7.
51 [163] Sahoo SS, Singh S, Banerjee R. Parametric studies on parabolic trough solar collector.
52 Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress and Exhibition (WREC XI), Abu
53
54
Dhabi, UAE2010.
55 [164] He Y-L, Xiao J, Cheng Z-D, Tao Y-B. A MCRT and FVM coupled simulation method
56 for energy conversion process in parabolic trough solar collector. Renewable Energy.
57 2011;36:976-85.
58 [165] Roldán MI, Valenzuela L, Zarza E. Thermal analysis of solar receiver pipes with
59
60 superheated steam. Applied energy. 2013;103:73-84.
61
62
63
64
65
 [166] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Numerical investigation of entropy
1 generation in a parabolic trough receiver at different concentration ratios. Energy.
2 2013;53:114-27.
3
4
[167] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Minimum entropy generation due to heat
5 transfer and fluid friction in a parabolic trough receiver with non-uniform heat flux at
6 different rim angles and concentration ratios. Energy. 2014;73:606-17.
7 [168] Mwesigye A, Huan Z, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Influence of optical errors on the
8 thermal and thermodynamic performance of a solar parabolic trough receiver. Solar Energy.
9
10 2016;135:703-18.
11 [169] Yaghoubi M, Ahmadi F, Bandehee M. Analysis of heat losses of absorber tubes of
12 parabolic through collector of Shiraz (Iran) solar power plant. Journal of Clean Energy
13 Technologies. 2013;1:33-7.
14
15
[170] Wu Z, Li S, Yuan G, Lei D, Wang Z. Three-dimensional numerical study of heat
16 transfer characteristics of parabolic trough receiver. Applied energy. 2014;113:902-11.
17 [171] Lobón DH, Baglietto E, Valenzuela L, Zarza E. Modeling direct steam generation in
18 solar collectors with multiphase CFD. Applied Energy. 2014;113:1338-48.
19 [172] Lobón DH, Valenzuela L, Baglietto E. Modeling the dynamics of the multiphase fluid
20
21 in the parabolic-trough solar steam generating systems. Energy Conversion and Management.
22 2014;78:393-404.
23 [173] Cheng Z-D, He Y-L, Wang K, Du B-C, Cui F. A detailed parameter study on the
24 comprehensive characteristics and performance of a parabolic trough solar collector system.
25
Applied Thermal Engineering. 2014;63:278-89.
26
27 [174] Tijani AS, Roslan AMB. Simulation analysis of thermal losses of parabolic trough solar
28 collector in Malaysia using computational fluid dynamics. Procedia Technology.
29 2014;15:841-8.
30 [175] Wang Y, Liu Q, Lei J, Jin H. A three-dimensional simulation of a parabolic trough solar
31
32
collector system using molten salt as heat transfer fluid. Applied Thermal Engineering.
33 2014;70:462-76.
34 [176] Wang Y, Liu Q, Lei J, Jin H. Performance analysis of a parabolic trough solar collector
35 with non-uniform solar flux conditions. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer.
36 2015;82:236-49.
37
38 [177] Ghomrassi A, Mhiri H, Bournot P. Numerical study and optimization of parabolic
39 trough solar collector receiver tube. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 2015;137:051003.
40 [178] Habib L, Hassan MI, Shatilla Y. A Realistic Numerical Model of Lengthy Solar
41 Thermal Receivers Used in Parabolic Trough CSP Plants. Energy Procedia. 2015;75:473-8.
42
43
[179] Zheng Z-J, He Y, He Y-L, Wang K. Numerical optimization of catalyst configurations
44 in a solar parabolic trough receiver–reactor with non-uniform heat flux. Solar Energy.
45 2015;122:113-25.
46 [180] Li Z-Y, Huang Z, Tao W-Q. Three-dimensional numerical study on fully-developed
47 mixed laminar convection in parabolic trough solar receiver tube. Energy. 2016;113:1288-
48
49 303.
50 [181] Qiu Y, Li M-J, He Y-L, Tao W-Q. Thermal performance analysis of a parabolic trough
51 solar collector using supercritical CO 2 as heat transfer fluid under non-uniform solar flux.
52 Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016.
53
54
[182] Naeeni N, Yaghoubi M. Analysis of wind flow around a parabolic collector (1) fluid
55 flow. Renewable Energy. 2007;32:1898-916.
56 [183] Naeeni N, Yaghoubi M. Analysis of wind flow around a parabolic collector (2) heat
57 transfer from receiver tube. Renewable Energy. 2007;32:1259-72.
58 [184] Hachicha A, Rodríguez I, Castro J, Oliva A. Numerical simulation of wind flow around
59
60 a parabolic trough solar collector. Applied energy. 2013;107:426-37.
61
62
63
64
65
 [185] Hachicha A, Rodríguez I, Lehmkuhl O, Oliva A. On the CFD&HT of the flow around a
1 parabolic trough solar collector under real working conditions. Energy Procedia.
2 2014;49:1379-90.
3
4
[186] Hachicha A, Rodríguez I, Oliva A. Wind speed effect on the flow field and heat transfer
5 around a parabolic trough solar collector. Applied energy. 2014;130:200-11.
6 [187] Paetzold J, Cochard S, Vassallo A, Fletcher D. Wind engineering analysis of parabolic
7 trough solar collectors: The effects of varying the trough depth. Journal of Wind Engineering
8 and Industrial Aerodynamics. 2014;135:118-28.
9
10 [188] Paetzold J, Cochard S, Fletcher D, Vassallo A. Wind engineering analysis of parabolic
11 trough collectors to optimise wind loads and heat loss. Energy Procedia. 2015;69:168-77.
12 [189] Sandeep H, Arunachala U. Solar parabolic trough collectors: A review on heat transfer
13 augmentation techniques. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2016.
14
15
[190] Barra O, Franceschi L. The parabolic trough plants using black body receivers:
16 experimental and theoretical analyses. Solar Energy. 1982;28:163-71.
17 [191] Grald EW, Kuehn TH. Performance analysis of a parabolic trough solar collector with a
18 porous absorber receiver. Solar energy. 1989;42:281-92.
19 [192] Hegazy A. Thermal performance of a parabolic trough collector with a longitudinal
20
21 externally finned absorber. Heat and mass transfer. 1995;31:95-103.
22 [193] Daniel P, Joshi Y, Das AK. Numerical investigation of parabolic trough receiver
23 performance with outer vacuum shell. Solar Energy. 2011;85:1910-4.
24 [194] Al-Ansary H, Zeitoun O. Numerical study of conduction and convection heat losses
25
from a half-insulated air-filled annulus of the receiver of a parabolic trough collector. Solar
26
27 Energy. 2011;85:3036-45.
28 [195] Bader R, Barbato M, Pedretti A, Steinfeld A. An air-based cavity-receiver for solar
29 trough concentrators. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 2010;132:031017.
30 [196] Bader R, Pedretti A, Steinfeld A. Experimental and numerical heat transfer analysis of
31
32
an air-based cavity-receiver for solar trough concentrators. Journal of Solar Energy
33 Engineering. 2012;134:021002.
34 [197] Bader R, Pedretti A, Barbato M, Steinfeld A. An air-based corrugated cavity-receiver
35 for solar parabolic trough concentrators. Applied Energy. 2015;138:337-45.
36 [198] Good P, Ambrosetti G, Pedretti A, Steinfeld A. An array of coiled absorber tubes for
37
38 solar trough concentrators operating with air at 600° C and above. Solar Energy.
39 2015;111:378-95.
40 [199] Kajavali A, Sivaraman B, Kulasekharan N. Investigation of Heat Transfer Enhancement
41 in a Parabolic Trough Collector with a Modified Absorber. International Energy Journal.
42
43
2014;14:177-88.
44 [200] Xiao X, Zhang P, Shao D, Li M. Experimental and numerical heat transfer analysis of a
45 V-cavity absorber for linear parabolic trough solar collector. Energy Conversion and
46 Management. 2014;86:49-59.
47 [201] Demagh Y, Bordja I, Kabar Y, Benmoussa H. A design method of an S-curved
48
49 parabolic trough collector absorber with a three-dimensional heat flux density distribution.
50 Solar Energy. 2015;122:873-84.
51 [202] Chen F, Li M, Hassanien Emam Hassanien R, Luo X, Hong Y, Feng Z, et al. Study on
52 the Optical Properties of Triangular Cavity Absorber for Parabolic Trough Solar
53
54
Concentrator. International Journal of Photoenergy. 2015;2015.
55 [203] Bootello JPN, Price H, Pérez MS, Castellano MD. Optical Analysis of a Two Stage XX
56 Concentrator for Parametric Trough Primary and Tubular Absorber With Application in Solar
57 Thermal Energy Trough Power Plants. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.
58 2016;138:041002.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 [204] Ghodbane M, Boumeddane B. A numerical analysis of the energy behavior of a
1 parabolic trough concentrator. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences. 2016;8:671-91.
2 [205] Reddy K, Kumar KR, Satyanarayana G. Numerical investigation of energy-efficient
3
4
receiver for solar parabolic trough concentrator. Heat Transfer Engineering. 2008;29:961-72.
5 [206] Reddy K, Satyanarayana G. Numerical study of porous finned receiver for solar
6 parabolic trough concentrator. Engineering Applications of computational fluid mechanics.
7 2008;2:172-84.
8 [207] Kumar KR, Reddy K. Thermal analysis of solar parabolic trough with porous disc
9
10 receiver. Applied Energy. 2009;86:1804-12.
11 [208] Kumar KR, Reddy K. Effect of porous disc receiver configurations on performance of
12 solar parabolic trough concentrator. Heat and Mass Transfer. 2012;48:555-71.
13 [209] Muñoz J, Abánades A. Analysis of internal helically finned tubes for parabolic trough
14
15
design by CFD tools. Applied energy. 2011;88:4139-49.
16 [210] Cheng Z, He Y, Cui F, Xu R, Tao Y. Numerical simulation of a parabolic trough solar
17 collector with nonuniform solar flux conditions by coupling FVM and MCRT method. Solar
18 Energy. 2012;86:1770-84.
19 [211] Cheng Z, He Y, Cui F. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement by unilateral
20
21 longitudinal vortex generators inside parabolic trough solar receivers. International journal of
22 heat and mass transfer. 2012;55:5631-41.
23 [212] Islam M, Karim A, Saha S, Miller S, Yarlagadda P. Three dimensional simulation of a
24 parabolic trough concentrator thermal collector. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference,
25
Australian Solar Energy Society (Australian Solar Council)2012.
26
27 [213] Islam M, Karim A, Saha SC, Yarlagadda PK, Miller S, Ullah I. Visualization of thermal
28 characteristics around the absorber tube of a standard parabolic trough thermal collector by
29 3D simulation. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computational Methods
30 (ICCM2012): School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland
31
32
University of Technology; 2012.
33 [214] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Numerical analysis of thermal performance
34 of an externally longitudinally finned receiver for parabolic trough solar collector. HEFAT
35 2012. 2012.
36 [215] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat Transfer Enhancement in a Parabolic
37
38 Trough Receiver Using Wall Detached Twisted Tape Inserts. ASME 2013 International
39 Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition: American Society of Mechanical
40 Engineers; 2013. p. V06BT7A031-V06BT07A.
41 [216] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat transfer and thermodynamic
42
43
performance of a parabolic trough receiver with centrally placed perforated plate inserts.
44 Applied Energy. 2014;136:989-1003.
45 [217] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Thermal Performance of a Parabolic Trough
46 Receiver With Perforated Conical Inserts for Heat Transfer Enhancement. ASME 2014
47 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition: American Society of
48
49 Mechanical Engineers; 2014. p. V06BT7A004-V06BT07A.
50 [218] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat transfer enhancement in a parabolic
51 trough receiver using perforated conical inserts. Proceedings of the 15th International Heat
52 Transfer Conference, Kyoto, paper IHTC15-91502014. p. 11-5.
53
54
[219] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat transfer and entropy generation in a
55 parabolic trough receiver with wall-detached twisted tape inserts. International Journal of
56 Thermal Sciences. 2016;99:238-57.
57 [220] Wang P, Liu D, Xu C. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement in the receiver
58 tube of direct steam generation with parabolic trough by inserting metal foams. Applied
59
60 energy. 2013;102:449-60.
61
62
63
64
65
 [221] Sadaghiyani OK, Mirzaee I. Numerical Simulation Coupled With MCRT Method to
1 Study the Effect of Plug Diameter and Its Position on Outlet Temperature and the Efficiency
2 of LS-2 Parabolic Trough Collector. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 2013;135:041001.
3
4
[222] Sadaghiyani OK, Pesteei SM, Mirzaee I. Numerical Study on Heat Transfer
5 Enhancement and Friction Factor of LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collector. Journal of Thermal
6 Science and Engineering Applications. 2014;6:012001.
7 [223] Ghasemi SE, Ranjbar AA, Ramiar A. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of heat
8 transfer characteristics of solar parabolic collector with two segmental rings. J Math Comput
9
10 Sci. 2013;7:89-100.
11 [224] Ghasemi SE, Ranjbar AA, Ramiar A. Numerical study on thermal performance of solar
12 parabolic trough collector. J Math Comput Sci. 2013;7:1-12.
13 [225] Raj RTK, Srinivas T, Natarajan M, Kumar KA, Chengappa A, Deoras A. Experimental
14
15
and numerical analysis using CFD technique of the performance of the absorber tube of a
16 solar parabolic trough collector with and without insertion. Energy Efficient Technologies for
17 Sustainability (ICEETS), 2013 International Conference on: IEEE; 2013. p. 550-6.
18 [226] Ghadirijafarbeigloo S, Zamzamian A, Yaghoubi M. 3-D numerical simulation of heat
19 transfer and turbulent flow in a receiver tube of solar parabolic trough concentrator with
20
21 louvered twisted-tape inserts. Energy procedia. 2014;49:373-80.
22 [227] Song X, Dong G, Gao F, Diao X, Zheng L, Zhou F. A numerical study of parabolic
23 trough receiver with nonuniform heat flux and helical screw-tape inserts. Energy.
24 2014;77:771-82.
25
[228] Natarajan M, Raj R, Sekhar YR, Srinivas T, Gupta P. Numerical simulation of heat
26
27 transfer characteristics in the absorber tube of parabolic trough collector with internal flow
28 obstructions. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2014;9:674-81.
29 [229] Huang Z, Yu G, Li Z, Tao W. Numerical study on heat transfer enhancement in a
30 receiver tube of parabolic trough solar collector with dimples, protrusions and helical fins.
31
32
Energy Procedia. 2015;69:1306-16.
33 [230] Jebasingh V, Herbert GJ. Numerical simulation of elliptical absorber tube in parabolic
34 trough collector for better heat transfer. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015;8:1.
35 [231] Diwan K, Soni M. Heat Transfer Enhancement in Absorber Tube of Parabolic Trough
36 Concentrators Using Wire-Coils Inserts. Universal Journal of Mechanical Engineering.
37
38 2015;3(3):107-12.
39 [232] Fuqiang W, Qingzhi L, Huaizhi H, Jianyu T. Parabolic trough receiver with corrugated
40 tube for improving heat transfer and thermal deformation characteristics. Applied Energy.
41 2016;164:411-24.
42
43
[233] Fuqiang W, Zhexiang T, Xiangtao G, Jianyu T, Huaizhi H, Bingxi L. Heat transfer
44 performance enhancement and thermal strain restrain of tube receiver for parabolic trough
45 solar collector by using asymmetric outward convex corrugated tube. Energy. 2016;114:275-
46 92.
47 [234] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos K, Gkinis G. Thermal enhancement of solar
48
49 parabolic trough collectors by using nanofluids and converging-diverging absorber tube.
50 Renewable Energy. 2016;94:213-22.
51 [235] Huang Z, Li Z-Y, Yu G-L, Tao W-Q. Numerical investigations on fully-developed
52 mixed turbulent convection in dimpled parabolic trough receiver tubes. Applied Thermal
53
54
Engineering. 2016.
55 [236] Choi S. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles. ASME-
56 Publications-Fed. 1995;231:99-106.
57 [237] Pak BC, Cho YI. Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with
58 submicron metallic oxide particles. Experimental Heat Transfer an International Journal.
59
60 1998;11:151-70.
61
62
63
64
65
 [238] Xuan Y, Roetzel W. Conceptions for heat transfer correlation of nanofluids.
1 International Journal of heat and Mass transfer. 2000;43:3701-7.
2 [239] Einstein A. Eine neue bestimmung der moleküldimensionen. Annalen der Physik.
3
4
1906;324:289-306.
5 [240] Brinkman H. The viscosity of concentrated suspensions and solutions. The Journal of
6 Chemical Physics. 1952;20:571-.
7 [241] Krieger IM, Dougherty TJ. A mechanism for non‐Newtonian flow in suspensions of
8 rigid spheres. Transactions of The Society of Rheology (1957-1977). 1959;3:137-52.
9
10 [242] Frankel N, Acrivos A. On the viscosity of a concentrated suspension of solid spheres.
11 Chemical Engineering Science. 1967;22:847-53.
12 [243] Lundgren TS. Slow flow through stationary random beds and suspensions of spheres.
13 Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 1972;51:273-99.
14
15
[244] Batchelor G. The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in a suspension of
16 spherical particles. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 1977;83:97-117.
17 [245] Graham AL. On the viscosity of suspensions of solid spheres. Applied Scientific
18 Research. 1981;37:275-86.
19 [246] Kitano T, Kataoka T, Shirota T. An empirical equation of the relative viscosity of
20
21 polymer melts filled with various inorganic fillers. Rheologica Acta. 1981;20:207-9.
22 [247] Avsec J, Oblak M. The calculation of thermal conductivity, viscosity and
23 thermodynamic properties for nanofluids on the basis of statistical nanomechanics.
24 International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2007;50:4331-41.
25
26
[248] Masoumi N, Sohrabi N, Behzadmehr A. A new model for calculating the effective
27 viscosity of nanofluids. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. 2009;42:055501.
28 [249] Maxwell JC. A treatise on electricity and magnetism: Clarendon press; 1873.
29 [250] Bruggeman VD. Berechnung verschiedener physikalischer Konstanten von heterogenen
30 Substanzen. I. Dielektrizitätskonstanten und Leitfähigkeiten der Mischkörper aus isotropen
31
32 Substanzen. Annalen der physik. 1935;416:636-64.
33 [251] Hamilton R, Crosser O. Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two-component
34 systems. Industrial & Engineering chemistry fundamentals. 1962;1:187-91.
35 [252] Jeffrey DJ. Conduction through a random suspension of spheres. Proceedings of the
36
Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences: The Royal
37
38 Society; 1973. p. 355-67.
39 [253] Davis R. The effective thermal conductivity of a composite material with spherical
40 inclusions. International Journal of Thermophysics. 1986;7:609-20.
41 [254] Xuan Y, Li Q, Hu W. Aggregation structure and thermal conductivity of nanofluids.
42
43
AIChE Journal. 2003;49:1038-43.
44 [255] Yu W, Choi S. The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal conductivity of
45 nanofluids: a renovated Maxwell model. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2003;5:167-71.
46 [256] Kumar DH, Patel HE, Kumar VR, Sundararajan T, Pradeep T, Das SK. Model for heat
47 conduction in nanofluids. Physical Review Letters. 2004;93:144301.
48
49 [257] Koo J, Kleinstreuer C. A new thermal conductivity model for nanofluids. Journal of
50 Nanoparticle Research. 2004;6:577-88.
51 [258] Xie H, Fujii M, Zhang X. Effect of interfacial nanolayer on the effective thermal
52 conductivity of nanoparticle-fluid mixture. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer.
53
54
2005;48:2926-32.
55 [259] Patel HE, Anoop K, Sundararajan T, Das SK. A micro-convection model for thermal
56 conductivity of nanofluids. International Heat Transfer Conference 13: Begel House Inc.;
57 2006.
58 [260] Leong K, Yang C, Murshed S. A model for the thermal conductivity of nanofluids–the
59
60 effect of interfacial layer. Journal of nanoparticle research. 2006;8:245-54.
61
62
63
64
65
 [261] Prasher R, Bhattacharya P, Phelan PE. Brownian-motion-based convective-conductive
1 model for the effective thermal conductivity of nanofluids. Journal of heat transfer.
2 2006;128:588-95.
3
4
[262] Xiao B, Yang Y, Chen L. Developing a novel form of thermal conductivity of
5 nanofluids with Brownian motion effect by means of fractal geometry. Powder technology.
6 2013;239:409-14.
7 [263] Kasaeian A, Sokhansefat T, Abbaspour M, Sokhansefat M. Numerical study of heat
8 transfer enhancement by using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid in a parabolic trough collector
9
10 tube. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2012;69:1154-9.
11 [264] Sokhansefat T, Kasaeian A, Kowsary F. Heat transfer enhancement in parabolic trough
12 collector tube using Al 2 O 3/synthetic oil nanofluid. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
13 Reviews. 2014;33:636-44.
14
15
[265] Zadeh PM, Sokhansefat T, Kasaeian A, Kowsary F, Akbarzadeh A. Hybrid
16 optimization algorithm for thermal analysis in a solar parabolic trough collector based on
17 nanofluid. Energy. 2015;82:857-64.
18 [266] Jamshidi N, Farhadi M, Ganji D, Sedighi K. Experimental investigation on viscosity of
19 nanofluids. International Journal of Engineering. 2012;25:201-9.
20
21 [267] Basbous N, Taqi M, Belouaggadia N. Numerical study of a parabolic trough collector
22 using a nanofluid. Asian Journal of Current Engineering and Maths. 2015;4:40-4.
23 [268] Mwesigye A, Huan Z. Thermal and Thermodynamic Performance of a Parabolic
24 Trough Receiver with Syltherm800-Al 2 O 3 Nanofluid as the Heat Transfer Fluid. Energy
25
Procedia. 2015;75:394-402.
26
27 [269] Maiga SEB, Palm SJ, Nguyen CT, Roy G, Galanis N. Heat transfer enhancement by
28 using nanofluids in forced convection flows. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow.
29 2005;26:530-46.
30 [270] Mwesigye A, Huan Z, Meyer JP. Thermal performance and entropy generation analysis
31
32
of a high concentration ratio parabolic trough solar collector with Cu-Therminol® VP-1
33 nanofluid. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;120:449-65.
34 [271] Wang Y, Xu J, Liu Q, Chen Y, Liu H. Performance analysis of a parabolic trough solar
35 collector using Al 2 O 3/synthetic oil nanofluid. Applied Thermal Engineering.
36 2016;107:469-78.
37
38 [272] Khullar V, Tyagi H, Phelan PE, Otanicar TP, Singh H, Taylor RA. Solar energy
39 harvesting using nanofluids-based concentrating solar collector. Journal of Nanotechnology in
40 Engineering and Medicine. 2012;3:031003.
41 [273] Tyagi H, Phelan P, Prasher R. Predicted efficiency of a low-temperature nanofluid-
42
43
based direct absorption solar collector. Journal of solar energy engineering. 2009;131:041004.
44 [274] Hector A, Singh H. Development of a nanoheat transfer fluid carrying direct absorbing
45 receiver for concentrating solar collectors. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies.
46 2013:1-6.
47 [275] Ghasemi SE, Ahangar GRM. Numerical analysis of performance of solar parabolic
48
49 trough collector with Cu-Water nanofluid. International Journal of Nano Dimension.
50 2014;5:233.
51 [276] De Risi A, Milanese M, Laforgia D. Modelling and optimization of transparent
52 parabolic trough collector based on gas-phase nanofluids. Renewable energy. 2013;58:134-9.
53
54
[277] Touloukian Y, DeWitt D. Thermophysical properties of matter-The TPRC data series.
55 Volume 8. Thermal radiative properties-nonmetallic solids. DTIC Document; 1972.
56 [278] Barbero R, Rovira A, Montes MJ, Val JMM. A new approach for the prediction of
57 thermal efficiency in solar receivers. Energy Conversion and Management. 2016;123:498-
58 511.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 [279] Swinbank WC. Long‐wave radiation from clear skies. Quarterly Journal of the Royal
1 Meteorological Society. 1963;89:339-48.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65