Proposal of a uid ow layout to improve the heat transfer in the active absorber

surface of solar central cavity receivers

M.J. Montes
a,
*
, A. Rovira
a
, J.M. Martnez-Val
b
, A. Ramos
c
a
Department of Energy Engineering e Universidad Nacional de Educacin a Distancia (UNED), C/Juan del Rosal no. 12, 28040 Madrid, Spain
b
Department of Energy and Fluid Mechanics Engineering e Madrid Polytechnical University, C/Jos Gutirrez Abascal, no. 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain
c
Department of Energy Engineering e Madrid Polytechnical University, C/Ros Rosas, no. 21, 28003 Madrid, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 2 March 2011
Accepted 19 October 2011
Available online 29 October 2011
Keywords:
Solar central cavity receivers
Active absorber surface
Fluid ow layout
Thermouidynamic design
a b s t r a c t
The main objective of concentrated solar power is to increase the thermal energy of a uid, for the uid
to be used, for example, in a power cycle to generate electricity. Such applications present the
requirement of appropriately designing the receiver active absorber surface, as the incident radiation ux
can be very high. Besides that, the solar image in the receiver is not uniform, so conventional boilers
designs are not well suited for these purposes. That point is particularly critical in solar central receivers
systems (CRS), where concentrated solar ux is usually above 500 kW/m
2
, causing thermal and
mechanical stress in the absorber panels.
This paper analyzes a new thermouidynamic design of a solar central receiver, which optimizes the
heat transfer in the absorber surface. This conceptual receiver presents the following characteristics: the
uid ow pattern is designed according to the radiation ux map symmetry, so more uniform uid
temperatures at the receiver outlet are achieved; the heat transfer irreversibilities are reduced by
circulating the uid from the lower temperature region to the higher temperature region of the absorber
surface; the width of each pass is adjusted to the solar ux gradient, to get lower temperature differences
between the side tubes of the same pass; and the cooling requirement is ensured by means of adjusting
the uid ow velocity per tube, taking into account the pressure drop.
This conceptual scheme has been applied to the particular case of a molten salt single cavity receiver,
although the conguration proposed is suitable for other receiver designs and working uids.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Technical literature shows that Heat Transfer Fluids (HTF),
usually usedinthe receiver of a solar power tower system, arewater/
steam, molten salts, or air [1]. Three basic receiver concepts can be
found in this technology [2]: Tube Receiver Concept, Volumetric
Receiver Concept and Direct Absorption Concept. The Tube Receiver
Concept includes two basic congurations: tubes can be arranged as
an external vertical cylinder or within a protected cavity. In all the
cases, the HTF is heated as it ows through metal tubes. Although in
the pilot project GAST-20 the HTF was gas, working uids that better
suited to the tube design are molten salts and water-steam.
Two possible tube arrangements have been proven for the active
absorber surface in both external and cavity receivers: vertical
tubes and horizontal tubes. External receiver design is usually
based on vertical tubes, i.e. Solar One, [3e5], Solar Two [6e9].
Whereas cavity receivers have used both congurations: horizontal
tubes, i.e. CESA-1[10] and Themis [11] and vertical tubes, i.e. the
Molten Salt Subsystem/Component Test Experiment (MSS/CTE)
[12,13]; this last tube direction seems to be the most suitable as it
permits unrestricted downward thermal expansion of the panel,
and it is the one adopted in recently cavity receiver designs, i.e.
PS10 and PS20 [14].
One of the main problems of the cavity receivers cited above are
the high metal temperatures reached in the central part of the
active surface, where the solar ux density is higher. To mitigate
this problem, the cooler uid is usually introduced through this
region. However, fromthe point of viewof heat transfer, this means
increasing the irreversibilities and therefore, decreasing perfor-
mance. As discussed in the next section, the proposed design is
based on a vertical serpentine arrangement, as MSS/CTE, PS10, etc.
The innovation introduced is the heat transfer improvement in the
receiver, avoiding excessive temperature differences between the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 913986465; fax: 34 913987415.
E-mail addresses: mjmontes@ind.uned.es (M.J. Montes), rovira@ind.uned.es
(A. Rovira), mval@etsii.upm.es (J.M. Martnez-Val), aramos@dse.upm.es (A. Ramos).
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Applied Thermal Engineering
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apt hermeng
1359-4311/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2011.10.037
Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232
active surface and the cooling uid thus reducing the heat transfer
irreversibilities, and homogenizing the outlet tube temperatures in
one uid pass thus reducing mixing irreversibilities.
The analysis presented in this paper is referred to the uid ow
layout of the active absorber surface in cavity receivers, regardless
of the type of working uid used, although every uid should
require particular specications. It is important to point out that
this study has focused on the thermal performance of the absorber
surface at nominal conditions. As a rst approach, only the steady-
state performance has been studied. Future analysis will be focused
on the transient model and the thermal fatigue criteria.
2. Description of the proposed uid ow layout for cavity
receivers
As it has been previously said, one of the main difculties of
central receivers is the high temperature gradients due to the non-
uniform concentrated solar ux and the transient behavior. A
theoretical study is presented in next paragraphs, identifying the
main constraints in the heat transfer that can yield to high thermal
gradients.
The global heat transfer coefcient from the external to the
internal absorber tube side, in a tube receiver concept, is given by
Eq. (1).
U
ro

1
r
o
=r
i
h
i

r
o
lnr
o
=r
i

k
(1)
U
ro
(W/m
2
$

C) is the global heat transfer coefcient based on the

tube outer radius; r
o
(m) and r
i
(m) are the tube outer and inner
radii, respectively; h
i
(W/m
2
$

C) is the convection heat transfer

coefcient from the internal tube side to the uid; and k (W/m

C)
is the thermal conductivity of the tube material. This equation
shows that there are two thermal resistances, caused by the
conduction heat transfer through the tube thickness and the
convection heat transfer from the internal tube side to the uid.
Convection thermal resistance is usually the limiting factor. In order
to achieve higher convection heat transfer coefcients, higher
velocities that yield to suitable Reynolds numbers are necessary.
Water-steam receivers are pressurized systems, in comparison
to molten salt receivers, in which the pressure can be relatively low.
The higher pressure, the higher tube thickness and, as a result, the
conduction resistance may become the limiting factor in the heat
transfer. Molten salt receivers, at a lower pressure, can reduce the
tube wall thickness so conduction thermal resistance is reduced
and global heat transfer coefcient increases.
2.1. Basic design criteria
The basic criteria of the proposed design are:
- Adaptation of the uid owlayout to the symmetry of the solar
image.
- Circulation of uid from the zone of lower ux density to the
zone of higher ux density.
- Adaptation of the width of each module to the solar ux
gradient. In this work, a module is considered as the basic
integral unit of the receiver, consisting of a number of parallel
tubes having the same diameter, with the same support and
insulation elements, and owing fromthe same inlet head pipe
to the same outlet head pipe.
- Optimization of uid ow velocity through the tube, by
modifying the cross-section.
2.1.1. Adaptation of the uid ow layout to the symmetry of the
solar image at noon
Solar image on the absorber surface of a cavity receiver is
usually symmetrical at the design-point considered (solar noon on
March 21), for one or two symmetry axis, depending on the focus
strategy. The uid ow layout presented in this study is arranged
tting this symmetry criterion. In this manner, if there are two
symmetry axis that divide the heat ux map in four zones, total HTF
ow is separated into four symmetrical and independent circuits,
located in each of the four quadrants where the absorber surface
has been divided. An example of this arrangement is showed in
Fig. 1, naming A, B, C and D to each uid pathway. The main
advantage of this scheme is that more uniform temperatures are
achieved at the receiver outlet, because all the circuits are subjected
to almost the same solar ux boundary conditions. As the outlet
temperature of the four circuits is fairly similar, irreversibilities are
reduced; thus, a higher outlet temperature is achieved for the same
Fig. 1. Fluid ow circuits and symmetry axis on receiver active absorber surface.
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 221
solar ux map, or the same outlet temperature can be obtained
with lower incident heat ux. This last case implies lower re-
radiation heat losses, resulting in better receiver thermal
efciencies.
It is important to point out that solar image is only symmetrical
at noon. In a north facing cavity receiver, the solar ux peak in the
absorber surface moves form east to west along the day. The
performance of the proposed receiver design under different solar
ux maps will be analyzed in Section 3.3.
2.1.2. Circulation of uid from the zone of lower ux density to the
zone of higher ux density
Fig. 1 also shows that the four circuits have a symmetrical path.
HTF goes intothereceiver throughthecentral line of bothside panels
of the absorber surface, the lower temperature zone in the receiver,
andthenit is circulatedtothe internal panels, to nallyleave through
thecenter of heat uxmap, thehighest temperature region. This ow
direction improves the heat transfer, as it reduces the temperature
difference between the absorber surface and the HTF.
2.1.3. Adaptation of the width of each module to the solar ux
gradient
In the same example, it can be seen that each quadrant consists of
two absorber panels: a side and a central absorber panel. Absorber
panels are divided into individual modules. Although it is recom-
mended that all these modules have the same wide and tube diam-
eters to be completely interchangeable, the design proposed is based
ondifferent modules wideandtube diameters, owing to heat transfer
and thermouidynamic reasons as it will be explained below.
There are two clear advantages of designing with modules of
different widths. The rst one is related to the adaptation to the
solar image, in such a way that all the parallel tubes in one pass are
located in an absorber surface area where the incident solar ux is
approximately uniform. This layout yields to more uniform uid
temperatures at the outlet of every pass. As seen in Fig. 1, thermal
gradients are higher at the center than at the sides, so modules are
narrower in the former zone than in the last one.
The second advantage of the different module widths is con-
nected to the uid velocity optimization, so it will be explained
below.
2.1.4. Optimization of uid ow velocity through the tube, by
modifying the cross-section
The heat transfer is improved by increasing the convection heat
transfer coefcient through the Reynolds number (Eq. (2)). This
may be achieved in two ways: on the one hand, increasing the mass
ow per tube (Eq. (3)) at a constant tube diameter; for that, the
number of tubes per pass is decreased by means of narrower
modules, thus uid velocity is increased, so that Reynolds number.
On the other hand, it may be increased by decreasing the tube
diameter at a constant mass ow per tube; as it can be seen in Eq.
(2) and Eq. (3), this also yields to higher uid velocity and Reynolds
number. These two alternatives are not exclusive so both of them
have been used in the design proposed.
In both cases, uid ow velocity is increased, which also causes
a negative effect: the pressure drop increases, because it is a linear
function of the squared velocity as it can be seen in Dar-
cyeWeisbach equation (Eq. (4)). The nal absorber conguration
should have ultimately incorporated a combination of both factors,
including pressure drop analysis and uid and tube temperatures.
Re
D
i

r v D
i
m
(2)
_ m
tube
r v
p D
2
i
4
(3)
DP
1
2
f
L
D
i
r v
2
(4)
In the previous equations, h
i
(W/m
2
C) is the convection heat
transfer coefcient from the internal tube side to the uid; Nu
D
i
is
the dimensionless Nusselt number; k (W/m-

C) is the thermal
conductivity of the tube material; D
i
(m) is the tube inner diameter;
f is the dimensionless friction factor; Re
D
i
is the Reynolds number
Fig. 2. Fluid ow layout for circuit A of the receiver design proposed.
Fig. 3. Energy balance in a cross-section of the tube (1, HTF; 2, tube inner surface; 3,
tube outer surface).
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 222
based on the tube inner diameter; Pr is the dimensionless Prandtl
number; m (Pa s) is the uid viscosity at the bulk temperature; m
s
(Pa s) is the uid viscosity at the inner tube temperature; n is
a parameter whose value depends on uid regime; m
tube
(kg/s) is
the uid mass owper tube; r (kg/m
3
) is the uid density; v (m/s) is
the uid velocity; DP (Pa) is the uid pressure drop along the tube;
and L (m) is the tube length.
The effect of the tube diameter in the heat transfer and pressure
drop, for central cavity receivers, has also been analyzed in [13]. The
feature of the proposed design, as it will be discussed in the
numerical application of Section 3, is that a tube diameter opti-
mization is proposed, depending on the cooling requirements and
the location of a particular pass (or module) in the solar ux map.
Fig. 2 shows an example of the design described in previous
paragraph. This example is the same as the one that is going to be
numerically analyzed in Section 3. Each quadrant is divided into six
modules. The side panel is divided into two modules of equal wide,
named module 1 and module 2 in the gure. The central panel is
divided into four modules, named modules 3e6. These last
modules are narrower than module 1 or module 2. There are also
two different tube diameters, one for modules 1, 2, 3 and 4, and
other for modules 5 and 6; tube diameter decreases as modules are
located closer to the absorber surface center.
For stability reasons, it would be preferable to have the uid
ow upward in a panel, so that the warmer, less dense uid does
not counteract pumping pressure at low off-design ow rates. In
a multi-pass owcircuit, like the presented in this example, a panel
arrangement for all up-ow requires long interconnecting piping
from the outlet of one module to the inlet of the next module. For
this reason, the ow follows a serpentine arrangement (up and
down), which only requires short horizontal header pipes from the
outlet of one module to the adjacent inlet of the next module. A
serpentine arrangement was also used in the molten salt cavity
receiver MSS/CTE [15], but the uid owlayout adopted in that case
was very different to that presented in this paper: there were two
independent uid paths in the receiver e an east zone and a west
zone; the cold molten salt enters the bottom of the central panels
and serpentines trough the panels, existing at the bottom of the
side panels.
2.2. Thermouidynamic simulation model of the active absorber
surface in the cavity receiver
The simulation model developed is based on a two-coordinate
energy balance, for both the cross-section of each tube and along
its length. Because of the program complexity due to the large
number of tubes on the active surface and the large number of
discrete elements that constitute the computational mesh, it was
necessary to introduce some simplicity hypotheses that are listed
below:
- The receiver is operating in a steady-state regime.
- Fluid owin the tubes is fully developed with no phase change.
- All the temperatures, heat uxes, and thermodynamic prop-
erties are uniform in each of the elements in which the panel
tubes are divided.
- Conduction loss to the environment was determined to be
small [11,12], so it is not included in this analysis.
These simplications enabled to decrease computing time, as
the ultimate goal of the programis to estimate the optimal width of
each module of the active surface, as well as the tubes diameter and
thickness of each of them, fromthe point of viewof heat transfer. In
this rst approach, this process has been performed following
a trial and error iteration.
As explained below, the program has the advantage of being
modular and versatile, which allows it to be easily adapted to any
study of the uid ow path design in the absorber surface.
The concentrated radiation ux map on the active absorber
surface is introduced as the initial information. First, the program
divides it into the four symmetrical uid ow paths marked in the
previous section (see Fig. 1). Then divide each owpath into a series
of modules (this division is identical in the four circuits, to keep the
symmetry criterion), in such a way that the ux boundary condi-
tions do not vary too much in each of them. This will yield to lower
mixing irreversibilities due to outlet temperature differences
between all the tubes in the same module. The tube diameters and
thicknesses are also given as initial conditions to the program,
always in the standard diameters and wall thicknesses marked by
the ASME Boiling and Pressure Vessel Code Section II, part D [16].
Once all the geometry and material properties data are
provided, the program calculates the thermouidynamic variables
along each of the tubes of the module. For this, each tube is divided
into n elements along its length, and in each of which, the ux and
temperature boundary conditions are supposed to be uniform.
Then, a two-coordinate energy balance is performed for each
element, both in a cross-section and along its length, calculating the
heat transferred to the uid by convection, and the radiation and
convection losses. As stated in the hypotheses, the heat loss by
conduction is small and has not been introduced in the model.
Fig. 3 shows the one-dimensional steady-state energy balance
for a cross-section of the tube.
The model validation has been accomplished in the Appendix.
Table 1
Design-point parameters for the 5 MWe solar thermal power plant.
Reference site Almera (Spain)
Solar Beam Radiation (W/m
2
) 900
Longitude (

) 2

21
0
19
00
W
Latitude (

) 37

05
0
27.8
00
N
Altitude (m) 366
Ambient temperature (

C) 25
Table 2
Nominal values for the 5 MWe steam power cycle 3.
Turbine
Inlet temperature (

C) 500
Inlet pressure (bar) 65
Turbine efciency (%) 0.75
Electro-mechanical efciency (%) 98
Extraction point pressures
Extraction no. 1 (bar) 14.57
Extraction no. 2 (bar) 1.59
Pressure drop in extraction lines
Extraction line no. 1 (%) 3
Extraction line no. 3 (deaerator) (%) 4.7
Condenser pump P1
Isentropic efciency 75
Electro-mechanical efciency 98
Feedwater pump P2
Isentropic efciency 78
Electro-mechanical efciency 98
Closed feedwater heater
Terminal temperature difference (

C) 1.5
Drain cooling approach (

C) 5.5
Condenser
Condensing pressure (bar) 0.07
Steam generator
Thermal efciency (%) 98
Total pressure drop (water side) (bar)
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 223
The correlations used to calculate the radiation and convection
heat loss, as well as the convection heat transfer to the uid, are
explained below.
2.2.1. Convection heat transfer to the uid
For single-phase uids and turbulent ow regimes, the
convection heat transfer coefcient may be determined from the
Nusselt number correlations developed by Petukhov [17] or Gnie-
linski [18], both them give similar results. In this case, Petukhov
correlation (Eq. (5)), was used:
Nu
D
in

D
in
h
in
k

f =8Re
D
in
Pr
1:0712:7

f =8
_

_
Pr
2=3
1
_
_
m
m
s
_
n
(5)
with:
1

f
_ 2 log
_
3 =D
in
3:7

2:51
Re
D
in

f
_
_
(6)
where f is the friction factor for the inner surface of the tube.
Implicit equation (6) is used to calculate f according to Moody
Chart; Re
D
in
is the Reynolds number based on inner tube diameter; 3
(m) is the equivalent roughness of the inner tube surface; D
in
(m) is
the inner tube diameter; Pr is the Prandtl number for the HTF; m (kg/
m-s) is dynamic viscosity of the HTF; m
s
(kg/m-s) is the dynamic
viscosity of the HTF evaluated at the inner tube temperature; and k
(W/m-K) is the thermal conductivity of the uid.
The correlation is valid for 0:5 < Pr < 200 and
2300 < Re
D
in
< 5 10
6
.
2.2.2. Radiation heat loss
An accurate heat transfer model in the cavity implies an analysis
of the radiation exchange between all the cavity walls and between
these walls and the aperture. This is the method adopted in
[19e21], in which a geometry optimization of the cavity is
accomplished. This method involves applying the semi-gray theory,
considering solar and infrared radiation [22].
As geometry optimization is not the concern of this study, the
model has been simplied and it directly calculates the emissive
and reective heat loss, like in [23]. The emissive heat loss is
calculated using the equation of radiative exchange between each
tube element and the cavity, considered this last one as a dummy
black surface at the effective sky temperature. Thus, the equation to
apply is Eq. (7):
Q
lost;em;k;i
3
k;i
s A
k;i
Fr
kiap
_
T
4
3;k;i
T
4
sky
_
(7)
where Q
lost,em,k,i
(W) is the emissive heat lost by the element i of
tube k through the aperture; 3
k,i
is the infrared emissivity of the
element i in tube k (all the elements have the same infrared
emissivity, and it is equal to 0.943 emissivity of the Pyromark); A
k,i
(m
2
) is the radiation heat transfer area of the element i in tube k;
Fr
ki-ap
is the view factor of the element i of tube k to the aperture;
T
3,k,i
(K) is the external surface temperature of the element i in tube
k; T
sky
(K) is the effective sky temperature.
The program view factor [24] has been used to generate the
shape factors necessary to quantify the radiative heat transfer
between all elements and the aperture.
Similarly, to calculate the heat loss by reection only the radi-
ative exchange between each element and the aperture has been
taken into account [23], using Eq. (8).
Q
lost;ref;k;i
Fr
k;iap
r
k;i
Q
in;k;i
(8)
where Q
lost,ref,k,i
(W) is the reective heat lost by the element i of
tube k through the aperture; r
k,i
is the solar reectivity of element i
of tube k (all the elements have the same solar reectivity, and it is
equal to 0.03 (r
i
1 a
i
, considering the Pyromark as an opaque
gray surface); Q
in,k,i
(W) is the incident concentrated energy on
element i of tube k.
As one of the objectives of the proposed design is decreasing the
uid temperature differences between side tube of one pass, the
hypothesis adopted for the radiation heat transfer are even more
conservative, because the radiative exchange between the cavity
walls tends to homogenize the surface temperatures over tubes,
Fig. 4. Top view of the cavity receiver.
Table 3
Global results for Rankine cycle simulation at nominal conditions.
Thermal efciency (%) 32.22
Nominal steam mass ow (kg/s) 6.012
Steam generator efciency (%) 98
Steam generator thermal power demand (MW
th
) 15.52
Feedwater pump electrical power (kW
e
) 9.823
Cooling pump electrical power (kW
e
) 47.93
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 224
which implies lower uid temperature differences at the outlet of
each module, then lower mixing irreversibilities in the corre-
sponding head pipe.
2.2.3. Convection heat loss
Due to the complexity of the convection heat transfer inside the
cavity, it is very difcult to estimate these losses, and most used
correlations have been obtained experimentally. The correlation of
Siebers and Kraabel [25] is the most widely used and it is showed in
Eq. (9):
Nu
L

h L
k
0:088 Gr
1=3
L
_
T
w
T
o
_
0:18
(9)
where Nu is the Nusselt number; Gr is the Grashof number; L
subscript indicates the length scale basis for the Nusselt and Grashof
numbers; L is the height of the interior of the cavity; T
o
(K) is the
ambient temperature; and T
w
(K) is the average internal wall
temperature.
Using Siebers and Kraabel correlation as basis, Stine and Mac-
donald [27] calculate a correlation that takes into account the effect
of different receiver orientations and aperture sizes, Eq. (10):
Nu
L

h L
k
0:088 Gr
1=3
L
_
T
w
T
o
_
0:18
cos q
2:47
_
d
L
_
s
(10)
where L is the receiver internal diameter at cylindrical region; d is
the aperture diameter; q is the receiver tilt angle; and s is calculated
as: s 1.12 0.982$(d/L)
Another interesting correlation is the one proposed by Koenig
and Marvin [26], Eq. (11):
Nu
L

h L
k
0:52 Pq l
1:75
c
Gr
L
Pr
0:25
(11)
where L is the characteristic length, L 2
0.5
R
cavity
; q is the receiver
tilt angle, and P(q) cos
3.2
q; and l
c
is calculated as: R
aperture
/R
cavity
.
It can be seen that, in the last three correlations, the convection
is considered as a global phenomenon affecting the whole cavity,
to obtain a heat transfer coefcient uniform for all the walls.
According to [15], one possibility would be to apply this global
factor to each local energy balance. In that work, a local convection
correlation is also considered, which applies a local heat transfer
coefcient to every energy balance, calculated by means of Eq.
(12):
Nu
i
0:052 Gr
0:36
i
(12)
where Nu is the Nusselt number and Gr is the Grashof number.
The four correlations showed in the previous paragraphs have
been implemented in the receiver model. As it will be demon-
strated in Section 3.2, all of them yield to similar results.
3. Numerical simulation for a 5 MW
e
solar thermal power
plant and results
In this section, a numerical application of the proposed receiver
design is developed. First of all, the design-point conditions and
thermal requirements of the power cycle are established. Then, the
solar ux map is obtained and numerical parameters associated
with modules dimensions and diameters are set. Finally results
about uid and tube temperatures, as well as pressure drop are
summarized.
Fig. 5. Solar ux map on the receiver active absorber surface at the design-point conditions.
Table 4
Solar central receiver system design characteristics.
Heliostat eld
Heliostat number 285
Heliostat reective area (m
2
) 121.54
Total reective surface (m
2
) 34 638.9
Total solar eld area (km
2
) 0.21
Power onto reective surface (MW
th
) 31.18
Solar multiple 1.3
Design-point optical heliostat
eld efciency (%)
64.31
Receiver
Tower height (m) 70
Active absorber surface shape Regular
semi-octagon
Number of panels 4
Panel high (m) 6
Panel wide (m) 5
Aperture inclination (degrees) 21.8
Total solar thermal power on the
absorber surface (MW
th
)
20.05
Peak absorbed heat ux (kW/m
2
) 480
Incident solar thermal power
on quadrant A (MW
th
)
5.51
Incident solar thermal power
on quadrant B (MW
th
)
5.50
Incident solar thermal power
on quadrant C (MW
th
)
4.52
Incident solar thermal power
on quadrant D (MW
th
)
4.52
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 225
3.1. Design window
3.1.1. Design-point conditions
A 5 MW
e
solar thermal power plant has been proposed. Plant
location is Almera (Spain) and the solar eld design-point is solar
noon on 21st March. Design-point characteristics at this point are
summarized in Table 1.
Heliostats are arranged in a north eld conguration and the
receiver consists of a single cavity facing to the heliostat eld. Heat
transfer uid in the receiver is Solar Salt (NaNO
3
60%, KNO
3
40%). At
nominal conditions, receiver inlet and outlet molten salt temper-
atures have been set to 290

C and 565

C, respectively. Solar Salt
thermophysical properties have been set compared data tables
from Sandia National Laboratories [28,29], from Molten Salt Data
Center [30] and from [31].
3.1.2. Rankine steam cycle parameters at nominal conditions
The power block considered is a regenerative 5 MW
e
Rankine
cycle. According to the size of this steam cycle coupled to a solar
eld, it is advisable to have two regenerative heat feeders, i.e., the
feedwater will be preheated in one low pressure closed feedwater
heater and a deaerator; for the same reason, steam thermal
conditions at the turbine inlet have been set to 500

C and 65 bar
[32]. Nominal values for the main parameters in the cycle are
summarized in Table 2.
Extraction steam pressures are calculated at nominal condi-
tions in such a way that enthalpy drops are identical along the
expansion turbine line, in the Mollier diagram. Pressure drop in
extraction lines has been dened in percentage terms, related to
turbine extraction pressures, as it can be seen in Table 2.
Condensing pressure value (0.07 bar) is referred to a water cooled
condenser. Closed heat exchangers are dened by means of
temperature differences between streams. For these calculations,
nominal values adopted for TTD (Terminal Temperature Difference)
and DCA (Drain Cooling Approach) are 1.5

C and 5

C, respectively.
Steam Generator (SG) consists of three counter-ow heat
exchangers: preheater, evaporator and superheater. At nominal
conditions, molten salt goes into the SG at 565

C, it cools as it
moves through the heat exchanger, transferring its heat to the
water-steam, and it nally goes out at 290

C from the preheater.
Simulation results for the Rankine cycle, at nominal conditions, are
shown in Table 3.
Thermal power to steam cycle at nominal is 15.52 MW
th
. Steam
generator global thermal efciency is 98%, so the thermal power
that must be supplied by the molten salt is 15.83 MW
th
.
3.1.3. Solar ux map calculation on the active absorber surface
Although the solar eld and the tower design are not specically
critical parts of this conceptual designstudy, bothsubsystems playan
important role in determining the solar ux map on the active
absorber surface of the receiver. According to [33], tower height has
been set to 70 m above the plane of the heliostat pivots, an appro-
priate value to the receiver thermal power and the north eld
conguration. Rectangular heliostats of 12.9 mwide and 9.5 m high
have beenchosen; eachheliostat consists of 21facets of 4.287mwide
and 1.35 m high, so heliostat reective area is equal to 121.54 m.
Fig. 6. Molten salt temperature and external tube temperature proles for circuits A and D.
Table 5
Conguration data for every uid ow circuit in the receiver absorber surface.
Fluid ow circuit Module Module
width (m)
Number of tubes External tube
diameter (mm)
Tube thickness
(mm)
Material
A/B/C/D (symmetrical
conguration)
1 2.5 182 13.716 (1/4
00
) 1.651 Alloy 800H
2 2.5 182 13.716 (1/4
00
) 1.651 Alloy 800H
3 1.25 91 13.716 (1/4
00
) 1.651 Alloy 800H
4 1.25 91 13.716 (1/4
00
) 1.651 Alloy 800H
5 1.25 121 10.287 (1/8
00
) 1.2446 Alloy 800H
6 1.25 121 10.287 (1/8
00
) 1.2446 Alloy 800H
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 226
Fig. 4 shows a top viewof the cavity receiver. The active absorber
surface consists of four panels 5 m wide and 6 m high, located in
four facets that form a regular semi-octagon, so the radius of the
circumcircle is equal to 6.53 m. The cavity aperture is a square-
shape of 5 m side and it is tilted downwards 21.8

facing the
heliostats eld.
These last values and the requirements described in the
previous two sections determine the solar ux map, which has
been obtained using WINDELSOL [34], an adaptation of DELSOL
[35], and a software developed in MATLAB [36].
Table 4 summarizes the solar eld and receiver design charac-
teristics that produce the required solar ux map, showed in Fig. 5.
The maximum ux in the receiver is about 480 kW/m
2
; this is
a proper value to guarantee absorber surface structural integrity,
according to the material selected for the absorber tubes, the
nickel-iron-chromium Alloy 800H. Fig. 5 shows that the absorber
surface has been divided in four quadrants: A, B, C and D, whose
incident power are indicated inTable 4. In this particular case, it can
be seen some asymmetry between the absorber surface upper half
and lower half. The incident solar radiation is not fully balanced in
both sections, but it is slightly higher in the upper circuits than in
the bottom circuits.
3.2. Simulation and results of the proposed design
It has been said in previous paragraphs that active absorber
surface consists of four panels located in the facets of a regular
semi-octagon. Taken into account the symmetry criterion exposed
in Section 2, absorber surface is divided in four quadrants, named A,
B, C and D. Solar ux boundary conditions on the four sections are
not exactly the same, because there is some asymmetry between
the upper half and the lower half, as it has been previously said.
Nevertheless, uid ow layouts in every quadrant are completely
symmetrical. Each layout consists of six modules of two different
widths. Modules dimensions, as well as tubes diameter and thick-
ness are summarized in Table 5 for all the circuits.
According to the experience of Solar Two [6], the corrosion-
resistant material selected for the molten salt receiver is a high
nickel alloy: Alloy 800H. The thermal conductivity of this alloy is
k(W/m-

C) 0.0168 T(

C) 11.239 [37]. Header pipes material is

supposed to be the same as the tubes. Areas of the modules to be
exposed to the solar ux are covered by a high-absorptivity black
paint on the exposed panel surface. The paint considered has been
Pyromark, whose absorptivity is equal to 0.97 [38].
The wall tube thickness depends on the working temperature
and pressure for each heat transfer uid, and it is calculated
according to ASME Boiling and Pressure Vessel Code section II, part D
Table 6
Themouidynamic results for the receiver at design-point conditions.
HTF Flow
Path
HTF ow
rate (kg/s)
Thermodynamics conditions of solar
salt at the outlet of every module
Module Heat gain
(kW)
Temperature
(

C)
Enthalpy
(kJ/kg)
A 12.73 1 448.99 313.58 139.34
2 1308.37 381.94 242.07
3 825.52 424.81 306.89
4 873.72 469.95 375.50
5 946.25 518.58 449.81
6 904.66 564.82 520.85
B 12.72 1 445.86 313.43 139.11
2 1302.46 381.52 241.43
3 828.30 424.56 306.51
4 873.75 469.72 375.17
5 945.49 518.35 449.46
6 904.83 564.63 520.55
C 10.34 1 136.24 298.82 117.25
2 831.32 352.42 197.59
3 707.88 397.81 266.02
4 815.90 449.83 344.89
5 923.55 508.36 434.17
6 921.41 566.37 523.24
D 10.34 1 135.45 298.77 117.18
2 829.97 352.32 197.45
3 709.64 397.85 266.09
4 815.95 449.92 345.02
5 923.61 508.49 434.36
6 921.51 566.54 523.50
Fig. 7. Convection heat transfer coefcient proles for circuits A and D.
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 227
[16]. Because of solar salt systems are not pressurized systems, tube
thickness can be thinner than other systems, like water/steam. This
is an advantage of using molten salt as HTF in the receiver. Never-
theless, there is an important drawback, the freezing point (220

C
for Solar Salt), that requires keeping the salt temperature above this
value. Thus, the receiver inlet temperature is equal to 290

C. The
outlet temperature is high, 565

C, which yields to a better ef-
ciency of the coupled power cycle.
Fig. 6 shows the molten salt temperature and the external tube
temperature proles for the middle tube of every module in circuits
A and D (similar to B and C, respectively). It can be noted that outlet
molten salt temperature is almost uniform in all the circuits (about
565

C). Nevertheless, the molten salt temperature in circuits C and
Dis kept above the molten salt temperature in circuits A and B from
modules 1 to 5. This is due to the higher incident solar ux in
bottom modules than in the corresponding upper ones. In the case
of module 6, upper modules receive more concentrated solar
radiation than the bottom ones, so the HTF temperature increases
more quickly in circuits C and D, yielding to approximately the
same outlet temperature for all the circuits.
It can be observed in the same gure that the three metal
temperature peaks occurred in the central region of the absorber
surface. The maximum external metal temperature is around
650

C, and it occurs in the absorber surface central point (at the
Fig. 9. Molten salt temperature and external tube temperature proles for all the circuits in the receiver at 14.00 p.m. on March 21.
Fig. 8. Solar ux map on the receiver active absorber surface at 14.00 p.m. (top) and 16.00 p.m. (bottom) on March 21.
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 228
outlet of every circuit). For more simplicity, only the external tube
temperature has been represented in the gure; internal tube
temperature is slightly lower than the external one (about
5e10

C).
It has been said in Section 2 that one of the features of these
model is that module wide is adapted to quasi-uniform solar ux
regions, in order to avoid great temperature differences between
side tubes in one module. In the receiver proposed, this maximum
temperature difference is equal to 8

C, and occur in the second
wider panel; in the rest of the panels this difference is even lower,
around 2

C. This small difference reduces mixture irreversibilities
in header pipes, thus receiver efciency is increased.
In Fig. 7, the convection heat transfer coefcient evolutions are
represented for the same circuits. One of the characteristics of the
proposed design is that a convection coefcient increment is ach-
ieved along every circuit length, in such a way that the higher
values are those corresponding to the absorber surface central
zone, where the higher incident solar ux can be critical. It can be
seen in the gure that the convection coefcients are higher in the
upper circuits than in the bottom ones, because total molten salt
ow is greater in the upper circuits; thus, uid ow per tube is also
greater, and also does the velocity.
Table 6 summarizes molten salt thermouidynamic conditions
at the outlet of every module under the design-point conditions.
The total heat lost by convection is equal to 224.94 kW
th
,
calculated by means of Eq. (12); if Siebers and Kraabel correlation is
employed, convection heat lost is equal to 276.16 kW
th
; similar
values are obtained by using Stine and McDonald correlation
(214.88 kW
th
) and Koenig and Marvin correlation (243.42 kW
th
);
the total heat lost by re-radiation is equal to 434 kW
th
; and the total
heat lost by reection is equal to 109.534 kW
th
. The total heat gain
in the receiver is equal to 19.28 MW
th
at the design-point condi-
tions. It has been explained in Section 3.1.2 that nominal thermal
power to turbine is equal to 15.83 MW
th
; the excess thermal power
(around 20% since the solar multiple of the thermal power plant has
been set to 1.2), is sent to the hot salt tank of the thermal storage
system. It has been previously said, molten salt receivers are not
pressurized systems. In the receiver design simulated, inlet pres-
sure is equal to 10 bar, and pressure drop is very small, around
0.5 bar.
3.3. Receiver performance at off-design conditions
As it was said in Section 2.1.1, solar image on the absorber
surface is only symmetrical at noon, whereas at any other time of
day the solar ux peak is not located in the center, moving from
east to west along the day, for the case of a north face cavity
receiver as considered in this study. This section analyzes the
thermal behavior of the proposed design at two off-design
moments, in particular, at 14.00 and 16.00 p.m. on March 21. It
was considered that this analysis also covered the morning, as the
receiver design presents a symmetrical east-west conguration.
Direct solar radiation at these points has been estimated as 865 W/
m
2
and 690 W/m
2
, respectively. These values are taken fromtypical
curves of DNI for the particular day and location considered [39].
Fig. 8 shows the solar ux maps for both moments, whereas
temperature proles for every circuit of the receiver are displayed
in Figs. 9 and 10.
As the thermal boundary conditions of each quadrant are not
the same in this case, Figs. 9 and 10 show both the uid and
external tube temperatures for all the uid owpaths, A, B, C and D.
Comparing these two gures with Fig. 6 it is observed that the
Table 7
Incident solar thermal power and mass ow for every circuit in the receiver at 14.00
and 16.00 p.m. on March 21st.
HTF Flow path 14.00 p.m. on March 21 16.00 p.m. on March 21
Incident solar
ux (MW
th
)
HTF ow
rate (kg/s)
Incident solar
ux (MW
th
)
HTF ow
rate (kg/s)
A 5.50 12.15 3.59 7.92
B 4.44 9.79 2.29 5.06
C 3.44 7.51 1.88 4.11
D 3.82 8.33 2.50 5.44
Fig. 10. Molten salt temperature and external tube temperature proles for all the circuits in the receiver at 16.00 p.m. on March 21.
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 229
maximumtube temperatures are similar. Fig. 8 shows that the solar
ux peak at 14.00 p.m. is about 420 kW/m
2
, and it is located in the
uid ow paths A and D, between modules 5 and 6; solar ux peak
at 16.00 p.m. is around 286 kW/m
2
, and it is located in the module 5
of circuits A and D. The refrigeration by the HTF is suitable for both
cases and the external tube temperature does not exceed the upper
limit.
The temperature proles are very similar in the two moments
considered. It is interesting to observe that, at 16.00 p.m., the tube
temperature of the uid ow path A keeps higher than those of
other circuits, as the incident solar ux is clearly higher, although
outlet uid and tube temperatures are similar in all the circuits.
Table 7 summarizes the incident concentrated solar ux on each
quadrant of the absorber surface, and the uid mass ow through
the corresponding circuit. These mass ows have been calculated
assuming that the thermal efciency of the receiver is equal to that
of nominal conditions, but actually this efciency decreases slightly
at part-load performance (0.5% lower at 14.00 p.m. and 2% lower at
16.00 p.m.). Therefore, the nal uid temperature at the receiver
outlet is slightly lower for the case of 14.00 p.m., and much lower
for 16.00 p.m. (about 560

C).
3.4. Comparative analysis with other conventional uid ow
layouts
This nal section will provide a comparative analysis between
the proposed model and more conventional alternatives. For
a consistent comparison, the same solar ux map and the same
geometry of receiver in Section 3.2 have been chosen. In addition, it
was considered that the number of circuits and the number of
modules or passes of every circuit through the active surface had to
be the same as in the previous case, i.e. 4 circuits and 6 passes in
Fig. 12. Molten salt temperature and external tube temperature proles circuits A in the conguration: cold salt entering the central hotter panels and existing through the side
colder panels; all the modules having the same width and all the tubes having the same diameter.
Fig. 11. Fluid ow layout for circuit A of the receiver design proposed for the comparative analysis.
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 230
every circuit. Keeping these criteria, the following scenario has
been simulated:
3.4.1. All the modules having the same width and all the tubes
having the same diameter. The cold salt entering the central panels
and existing through the side panels
Fig. 11 shows that all modules of this receiver have the same
width (1667 m) and all tubes have the same diameter, 13.716 mm
(1/4
00
). The uid ows in opposite direction to the proposed case,
starting at the central region of the absorber surface and ending at
the side panels, which is the approach adopted in several receivers
found in the bibliography [11e13].
The evolution of the uid temperature and the external tube
temperature for the central tube of every module is displayed in
Fig. 12, similar to Fig. 6, aiming to compare results.
It can be seen that, although the external tube temperature is
lower in the central zone (module 6), which receives more
concentrated solar radiation, the temperature difference between
uid and tube is very large (in the case of circuit A, 230

C), which
involve greater irreversibilities in the heat transfer.
Besides that, the following problem may arise with this
conguration: as seen in Fig. 12, the hot salt in the last module of
the circuit (module 1) just keeps its temperature, so this step could
be avoided, as it only means a greater pressure drop. It is important
to note that the maximum temperature is near the other case,
around 650

C.
Comparing Figs. 6 and 12 it can also be seen that the average
temperature of the active surface in the case 12 is slightly higher,
yielding to greater losses by convection and radiation (the heat lost
by convection is 266.5 kW
th
, compared to 225 kW
th
in the design
proposed; and the heat lost by re-radiation is 514.5 kW
th
, compared
to 434 kW
th
in the design proposed) and, therefore lower thermal
efciency, which is evident because the outlet uid temperature is
slightly lower than in the previous case, for the same uid ow
through each circuit (for circuit A, 558

C versus 565

C in the
previous case).
Finally, the uid temperature differences between side tubes in
the same module, are higher than in the previous case, exceeding
20

C in the last two passes of the circuit (namely, 566e541

C and
571e555

C for circuit A), which are the ones at higher temperature
and where the solar ux gradient is higher (modules 5 and 6 in
Fig. 12).
4. Conclusions
A new thermoudynamic design for the active absorber surface
of cavity central receivers has been proposed. This uid ow
scheme is based on vertical tubes and it presents the following
features in comparison to other designs found in the bibliography:
- The design is conformed to the solar image symmetry on the
absorber surface; thus, the global HTF mass owis divided in as
many circuits as quasi-symmetrical regions can be dened on
the absorber surface. In this way, more uniform temperatures
are achieved at the outlet of all the circuits, reducing mixing
irreversibilities.
- Besides that, the width of every module can be adjusted to limit
the temperature difference between the side tubes in one pass,
tting the module width to an approximately uniform solar
ux zone.
- The uid enters the side panels of the absorber surface, and
existing through the central region, where the solar ux
density is higher. To prevent the overheating of the tubes in this
last region (as the temperature of the cooling uid is also high),
the convection coefcient of the uid is increased by increasing
its velocity.
- The diameter and number of tubes are adjusted in order to
control uid ow velocity, taking into account the pressure
drop (higher as the velocity is greater) and cooling require-
ments in every point (better heat transfer at higher velocity).
Appendix. Model validation
The model has been validated using the data of the MSS/CTE
cavity receiver [12,15,23]. It is important to point out that, as noted
at the end of Section 2.1, the MSS/CTE receiver does not meet the
basic design criteria that have been proposed in this paper.
However, this comparison is to verify that the model and the
assumptions described above yield to similar results to other
models.
The MSS/CTE was a 5 MW
th
north facing molten salt cavity
receiver tested in the Central Receiver Test Facility at Sandia
National Labs. The aperture was 2.13 m wide and 3.66 m high. The
absorber panels, of 3.66 m high, were located at a radius of 1.83 m
from the center of the aperture. There were two independent salt
circuits e an east circuit and a west circuit e that entered the
bottom of the central panels, existing at the bottom of the side
panels. Each circuit consisted of 16 passes and 6 tubes per pass. All
the tubes had the same diameter, 0.019 m, and the same tube
thickness, 0.00165 m. The material of the tubes was Alloy 800. The
inlet and outlet molten salt temperatures were 290 and 590

C,
respectively.
Based on the above data, a simulation of the steady-state
behavior of the receiver was carried out. First, a solar ux map of
a 5 MW
th
receiver, with the same geometric conguration that the
MSS/CTE,was calculated. Once this solar ux map was veried, the
thermouidynamic behavior of the receiver was simulated,
yielding to the results showed in Table A1.
Table A1 shows that there is a great agreement between data
from both sources, so the model simulated is valid.
References
[1] M. Romero, R. Buck, J.E. Pacheco, An update on solar central receiver systems,
projects and technologies, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 124 (2002) 98e108.
[2] C.J. Winter, R.L. Sizmann, L.L. Vant-Hull, Solar Power Plants: Fundamentals,
Technology, Systems, Economics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1990,
ISBN 3-540-18897-5.
[3] Solar Project Division 8132 (SNL), Recommendations for the Conceptual
Design of the Barstow, California, Solar Central Receiver Pilot Plant Tech. Rep.
SAND77-8035. Sandia National Laboratories, USA, 1977.
[4] J.M. Friefeld, G.C. Coleman, Testing of the US solar pilot plant receiver, J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 108 (1986) 146e149.
[5] D.E. Criner, G.L. Gould, M.G. Soderstrum, H.D. Ege, K.C. Wolfs Report on lessons
learned, AP-3285, Res. proj. 2003-2, 10-MW(e) Solar-Thermal Central-
Receiver Pilot Plant, vol. 1, Electr. Power Res. Inst., California, USA, 1983.
[6] A.B. Zavoico, Solar Power Tower Design Basis Document Tech. Rep.
SAND2001-2100. Sandia National Laboratories, California, USA, 2001.
[7] M.J. Hale, Solar Two Performance Evaluation Tech. Rep. NREL/CP-550-26642.
Natl. Renew. Energy Lab., Colorado, USA, 1999.
Table A1
Comparative analysis between data from simulation and bibliography.
Results from the
model simulated
Data from
bibliography [15]
Incident solar thermal power
on the absorber surface (kW
th
)
4785 4836
Heat Gain (kW
th
) 4357 4416
Convection heat loss (kW
th
) 144 160
Radiation heat loss (kW
th
) 284 260
Mass ow (kg/s) 10.45 11.413
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 231
[8] J.E. Pacheco, R. Gilbert, Overview of Recent Results of the Solar Two Test and
Evaluation Program Tech. Rep. SAND99-0091C. Sandia Natl. Labs., California
(USA), 1999.
[9] R.Z. Litwin, Receiver Subsystem: Lesson Learned from Solar Two Technical
Report SAND2002-0084. Sandia Natl. Labs., California (USA), 2002.
[10] A.F. Baker, S.E. Faas, L.G. Radosevich, A.C. Skinrood, USA e Spain Joint Evalu-
ation of the Solar One and CESA-1 Receiver and Storage Systems Tech. Rep.
SAND88-8262. Sandia Natl. Labs., Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1988.
[11] A. Amri, M. Izygon, B. Tedjiza, Central Receiver Plant Evaluation III, Themis
Receiver Subsystem Evaluation Tech. Rep. SAND88-8101. Sandia Natl. Labs.,
Albuquerque, NM (USA), 1989.
[12] J.M. Chavez, D.C. Smith A Summary Report. Tech. Rep. SAND-87-2290, A Final
Report on The Phase 1 Testing of A Molten-salt Cavity Receiver, vol. 1, Sandia
Natl. Labs., Albuquerque, NM (USA), 1992.
[13] D.C. Smith, Designandoptimization of tube-type receiver panels for moltensalt
application, Sol. Eng. 2 (1992) 1029e1036 ASME Sol. Energy Conf., maui HI.
[14] Abengoa Solar (2011). Available from: http://www.abengoasolar.com/corp/
web/en/index.html.
[15] R.D. Skocypec, V. Romero, Thermal modeling of solar central receiver cavities,
J. Sol. Energy Eng. 111 (1989) 117e123.
[16] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part D. ASME, New York
(USA), 2001.
[17] B.S. Petukhov, Heat transfer in turbulent pipe ow with variable physical
properties. in: T.F. Irvine, J.P. Hartnett (Eds.), Advances in Heat Transfer, vol. 6.
Academic Press, New York, 1970, pp. 504e564.
[18] V. Gnielinski, New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe ow
and channel ow, Int. Chem. Eng. 16 (2) (1976) 359e368.
[19] J. Galindo, E. Bilgen, Flux, Temperature, Distribution in the receiver of para-
bolic solar furnaces, Sol. Energy 33 (2) (1984) 125e135.
[20] J.A. Harris, T.G. Lenz, Thermal performance of solar concentrator/cavity
receiver systems, Sol. Energy 34 (2) (1985) 135e142.
[21] Y. Wang, X. Dong, J. Wei, H. Jin, Numerical simulation of the heat ux
distribution in a solar cavity receiver, Front. Energy Power Eng. China 4 (4)
(2010) 571e576.
[22] R. Siegel, J.R. Howell, in: Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, third ed. Taylor&-
Francis, New York (USA), 1992, ISBN 0-89116-271-2.
[23] X. Li, W. Kong, Z. Wang, Ch. Chang, F. Bai, Thermal model and thermodynamic
performance of molten salt cavity receiver, Renew. Energy 35 (2010) 981e988.
[24] N. Lauzier, View Factors. Matlab, 2011.http://www.mathworks.com/.
[25] D.L. Siebers, J.S. Kraabel, Estimating Convective Energy Losses From Solar
Central Receivers Tech. Rep. SAND84-8717. Sandia Natl. Labs., Livermore, CA
(USA), 1984.
[26] A.A. Koenig, M. Marvin, Convection Heat Loss Sensitivity in Open Cavity Solar
Receivers Final Report, DOE Contract No. EG77-C-04e3985. Department of
Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (USA), 1981.
[27] W.M.B. Stine, C.G. McDonald, Cavity receiver heat loss measurements. In:
ASME Solar Energy Division Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA (1988).
[28] C.M. Kramer, C.J. Wilson, The Phase Diagram of NaNO
3
/KNO
3
Tech. Rep.
SAND80-8502. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1980.
[29] D.A. Nissen, Thermophysical Properties of The Equimolar Mixture NaNO
3-
eKNO
3
from 300e600

C Tech. Rep. SAND80-8040. Sandia National Labora-
tories, Albuquerque, NM (USA), 1980.
[30] G.J. Janz, U. Krebs, H.F. Siegenthaler, R.P.T. Tomkins, Molten Salts: Nitrates,
Nitrites and Mixtures, vol. 3, Molten Salt Data Center, Department of Chem-
istry, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York, USA, 1972.
[31] Y. Nagasaka, A. Nagashima, The thermal conductivity of molten salt NaNO
3
and KNO
3
, Int. J. Thermophys. 12 (5) (1991) 769e781.
[32] M.J. Montes, Anlisis y propuestas de sistemas solares de alta exerga que
emplean agua como uido calorfero. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Politcnica de
Madrid, Spain (2008).
[33] P.K. Falcone, A Handbook for Solar Central Receiver Design Tech. Rep.
SAND86-8009. Sandia Natl. Labs., Albuquerque, NM (USA), 1986.
[34] WINDELSOL 1.0 Users Guide. AICIA e CIEMAT e SOLUCAR Central Receiver
Technol., Spain, 2002.
[35] B.L. Kistler, A Users Manual for DELSOL3: A Computer Code for Calculating the
Optical Performance and Optimal System Design for Solar Thermal Central
Receiver Plants Tech. Rep. SAND86-8018. Sandia Natl. Labs., Albuquerque,
NM, USA, 1986.
[36] Matlab (2011). Available from: http://www.mathworks.com/.
[37] High temperature metals (2011). Available from: http://www.
hightempmetals.com/.
[38] J.E. Bigger, D.E. Criner, G.L. Gould, P.E. Skvarna Report on lessons learned. Final
report. Tech. Rep. EPRI-AP-3285, Solar One e 10 MW(e) Solar-Thermal
Central-Receiver Pilot Plant, vol. 1, Burns and McDonnell Engineering Co.,
Kansas City, MO (USA), 1983.
[39] Satel-Light (2011). Available from: http://www.satel-light.com/.
Acronyms
DCA: drain cooling approach
HTF: heat transfer uid
SG: steam generator
TTD: terminal temperature difference
M.J. Montes et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 35 (2012) 220e232 232