Figure 1. A typical parabolic trough collector.

Steps of the Developed Modeling

The present modeling can be separated into five steps.
STEP 1
The thermal losses from the cover to the ambient are radiation and
convection losses, and they can be written as below. At this point, it is
important to state that the contact thermal losses are neglected.

Qloss = Aco hout ×(Tc − Tam) (1)

The cover temperature is assumed to be close to the ambient temperature
because of the existence of an evacuated tube collector. Thus, using Taylor
series, it can be written:

Tc4 − Tam4 ≈ 4 × Tam3 ×(Tc − Tam) (2)

Equation (2) is an important assumption of this work and its validity is

tested by the comparisons between this and other models, which are given in
Section 3.
Using Equations (1) and (2), it can be written:

h i
3 (3)
Qloss = Aco ×εc ×σ× 4 × Tam + Aco × hout ×(Tc − Tam)

or
Qloss = K1 ×(Tc − Tam) (4)
with
Designs 2018, 2, 9 2 of 12

K1 = Aco ×εc ×σ× 4 × Tam3 + Aco × hout (5)

STEP 2
The present model is developed for steady-state conditions. In this case,
the thermal losses of the absorber to the cover are equal to the thermal losses
of the cover to the ambient.
The thermal losses of the absorber to the cover are only radiation losses
because of the vacuum between the absorber and the cover (there are no
convection thermal losses):

Qloss = Aro (6)

with

εr∗ = ε 1r 1 −εcεc

AAroci (7)
The Equation (6) can be written as below. It is important to state that the
cover has been assumed to radiate to the ambient conditions.

Qloss = Aro Aro (8)

Using Equations (2) and (4), it can be written:
Tc4 − Tam4 = am × (9)
Qloss K1
Using Equations (8) and (9), it can
be said:
4 × T3

Qloss = Aro (10)

or
Qloss (11)
with

K2 = Aro (12)
STEP 3
The useful heat can be calculated using the energy balance in the fluid
volume:
Designs 2018, 2, 9 3 of 12

Qu = m × cp ×(Tout − Tin) (13)

Furthermore, it can be calculated using the heat transfer from the

receiver to the fluid:
Qu (14)
At this point, it can be said that the heat transfer coefficient in the flow has
been assumed to be the same along the absorber tube.
The mean fluid temperature can be estimated as:

Tfm = in out (15)

2
Using the Equations (13)–(15), it can be written:
T+T

Qu (16)
or
Qu = K3 ×(Tr − Tin) (17)
with

K (18)

STEP 4
The goal of this step is to simplify the Equation (11). The following
transformation of the Equation (11) can be written:
Qloss (19)
Generally, the temperature difference between receiver and fluid is not so
high. Thus, using Taylor series, it can be written:
T (20)
Using Equations (17) and (20), it can be written:
Tr4 − Tin4 ≈ K3 in × Qu (21)

Using Equations (19) and (21), it can be said:

4 × T3
Designs 2018, 2, 9 4 of 12

Qloss(22) K3

STEP 5
The energy balance in the absorber indicates that the absorbed energy is
converted into useful heat and to thermal losses. At this point, a uniform heat
flux over the absorber is assumed. The absorbed energy is equal to the optical
efficiency multiplied by the direct beam solar irradiation. Thus, it can be
written:
ηopt × Qs = Qu + Qloss (23)
Using Equations (22) and (23), it can be written:

Qu (24)
or
Qu (25)
with

K (26)
and

K (27)
Designs 2018, 2, 9 5 of 12
Table 1. Parameters of the study
Parameter Symbol Value
Width of the PTC W 5.0 m
Length of the PTC L 7.8 m
Focal distance of the PTC f 1.71 m
Aperture of the PTC Aa 39.0 m2
Concentration ratio of the PTC C 22.74
Receiver inner diameter Dri 66 × 10−3 m
Receiver outer diameter Dro 70× 10−3 m
Cover inner diameter Dci 109 × 10-3 m
Cover outer diameter Dco 115 × 10−3 m
Receiver inner surface Ari 1.617 m2
Receiver outer surface Aro 1.715 m2
Cover inner surface Aci 2.671 m2
Cover outer surface Aco 2.818 m2
Receiver emittance εr 0.2
Cover emittance εc 0.9
Absorber absorbance α 0.96
Cover transmittance τ 0.95
Concentrator reflectance ρc 0.83
Intercept factor γ 0.99
o
Incident angle modifier (zero incident angle) K(θ = 0 ) 1
Incident angle θ 0o
Maximum optical efficiency (zero incident angle) ηopt,max 75%
The working fluid is Syltherm 800, which can operate up to 673 K with a safety [41]. It is
important to state that the collector is investigated for zero incident angle in order to give the
emphasis in the thermal analysis. The examined reflectance has been taken from the literature [22]
and includes various optical losses due to the tracking system, dust in the concentrator, etc.
Table 2 includes the default values of the operating conditions parameters, as well as their
investigated range. These value ranges have been examined in this work and it proved that the model
is valid for these conditions. In every case, only one parameter is variable, while the other parameters
have their default values, as they are given in Table 2. This technique aids to perform a suitable
sensitivity analysis in the developed model and to check its behavior with different parameters.

Table 2. Operating conditions of the examined system.

Parameter Symbol Value Range
Ambient temperature Tam 300 K 280–320 K
Solar direct beam irradiation Gb 1000 W/m2 500–1000
W/m2
Heat transfer coefficient between cover and hout 10 W/m2 K 5–20 W/m2 K
ambient
Volumetric flow rate V 0.025 m3/s 0.001–0.004
m3/s
Inlet temperature Tin 298 K 280–650 K
1. Results

1.1. Model Validation

The first step in this work is the comparison of the developed model with the literature’s
experimental results. The results of Dudley et al. [5] about the LS-2 PTC are used in order to test if
Designs 2018, 2, 9 6 of 12
the suggested model gives reasonable results. Eight different cases are examined and are listed in
Table 3. The outlet temperature and the thermal efficiency are compared in this table between the
experimental results (EXP) of the Ref [5] and the results of the present model (MODEL). The mean
deviation in the outlet temperature is found to be 0.06% and in the thermal efficiency, 1.16%. These
values are relatively low and so it is proved that the developed model is valid for various operating
conditions.

Table 3. Validation of the presented model with literature experimental results.

Gb Tam Tin V Tout (K) ηth (%)
Cases
(W/m2) (K) (K) (m3/s) EXP Model Deviation EXP Model Deviation
1 933.7 294.35 375.35 47.7 397.15 397.55 0.10% 72.51 73.10 0.82%
2 968.2 295.55 424.15 47.8 446.45 446.97 0.12% 70.90 72.21 1.85%
3 982.3 297.45 470.65 49.1 492.65 493.10 0.09% 70.17 71.13 1.37%
4 909.5 299.45 523.85 54.7 542.55 542.48 0.01% 70.25 69.33 1.31%
5 937.9 299.35 570.95 55.5 589.55 589.96 0.07% 67.98 67.42 0.83%
6 880.6 301.95 572.15 55.6 590.35 589.90 0.08% 68.92 67.07 2.69%
7 903.2 300.65 629.05 56.3 647.15 647.24 0.01% 63.82 63.94 0.18%
8 920.9 304.25 652.65 56.8 671.15 671.23 0.01% 62.34 62.48 0.23%
Mean - - - - - - 0.06% - - 1.16%
1.2. Parametric Investigation
The parametric investigation of the solar collector is performed by comparing the obtained
results with a developed model in EES. This model has been presented and validated in our previous
literature studies [19–26], and is a suitable tool for this analysis. Practically, various sensitivity studies
are performed in this section in order to check the model accuracy under different operating cases.

3.2.1. The Impact of the Inlet Temperature on the Results

The inlet temperature is the most important parameter in the present model and thus a
detailed investigation is performed with this parameter. The inlet temperature ranges from 300 up
to 650 K, as has been stated in Table 2. The other parameters (flow rate, solar beam irradiation,
etc.) are the default values of Table 2.
Figures 2–5 depict the comparative results for the different inlet temperatures. Figure 2
illustrates the thermal efficiency, Figure 3 the thermal losses, Figure 4 the receiver temperature,
and Figure 5 the cover temperature. In these figures, the results of the present modeling and of the
literature modeling with the EES program are compared. Moreover, the deviation between these
results is also given.
Generally, the results are extremely close to each other and so it is clearly proved that the
suggested modeling is accurate. The deviations of the thermal efficiency (Figure 2) are up to 0.2%.
Moreover, the deviations in the receiver temperature (Figure 4) are up to 0.045%. These results
practically indicate that the EES modeling and analytical expression give the same results for the
thermal efficiency and receiver temperature.
On the other hand, Figure 5 indicates that the cover temperature is calculated with a deviation
up to 3.5%, a small value but higher than the respective value for the receiver temperature in Figure
4. The maximum deviation of the cover temperature is found at low inlet temperatures. The thermal
losses of the collector are generally in acceptable deviation ranges but at low inlet temperatures, and
there is a deviation up to 28%. These high values are justified by the deviation of the cover
temperature. However, the thermal losses in the low inlet temperatures are too low as heat values
(in Watt) and so they do not have high impact on the thermal efficiency deviation (Figure 2). In other
words, the possible deviations in the thermal losses of the collector at low temperatures do not lead
Designs 2018, 2, 9 7 of 12
to important deviations in the thermal efficiency (or in the useful heat production), which is the main
goal of this modeling.

Inlet temperature (K)

Figure 2. Thermal efficiency for different inlet temperatures—a comparison between the present model and the
literature experimental model.

Inlet temperature (K)

Figure 3. Thermal efficiency for different inlet temperatures—a comparison between the present model and the
literature model.
Designs 2018, 2, 9 8 of 12

Inlet temperature (K)

Figure 4. Thermal efficiency for different inlet temperatures—a comparison between the present model and the
literature model.

Inlet temperature (K)

Figure 5. Thermal efficiency for different inlet temperatures—a comparison between the present model and the
literature model.
1.2.2. The Impact of Various Parameters on the Results
The impact of various parameters on the collector thermal performance is given in the Section
3.2.2. More specifically, Figures 6–9 illustrate the impact of the flow rate, ambient temperature, solar
beam irradiation, and the heat transfer coefficient between cover and ambient on the collector
performance. Figure 6 indicates that the developed model is valid for all the examined flow rates
from
0.001 m3/s up to 0.004 m3/s. The maximum deviation is about 0.5% and is observed at low flow rates.
Figure 7 shows that the impact of the ambient temperature on the model validity is extremely low.
Designs 2018, 2, 9 9 of 12
The deviations are around 0.05%, which are extremely low values. It is essential to state that the
abrupt change in the deviation is very small as a value (about 0.09%) and does not influence the
model validity. Moreover, Figure 8 indicates that the model is valid for all the examined solar beam
irradiation levels, with the deviations to be up to 0.1%. Lastly, Figure 9 proves that the model is also
valid for different values of the heat transfer coefficient between the cover and ambient with
deviations up to 0.06%. The previous results clearly prove that the model is reliable for all the
examined operating conditions.
At this point, it is important to discuss the impact of the examined parameters on the thermal
performance. First of all, it must be said that higher the inlet temperature leads to lower thermal
efficiency. This parameter has been an important impact on the efficiency, as Figure 2 indicates.
Higher flow rate leads to greater performance (Figure 6), but the increase is not so important
especially after the value of 0.0025 m3/s. Higher ambient temperature increases the performance,
as Figure 7 illustrates, but the increase seems to be extremely low. The increase of the solar
irradiation is able to enhance the collector thermal performance according to the results of Figure 8.
Figure 9 indicates that the impact of the heat transfer coefficient between cover and ambient is
practically negligible to the thermal efficiency.

Figure 6. The impact of the flow rate on the model results.

Designs 2018, 2, 9 10 of 12

Ambient temperature (K)

Figure 7. The impact of the ambient temperature on the model results.

Solar beam irradiation (W/m2)

Figure 8. The impact of the solar beam irradiation on the model results.
Designs 2018, 2, 9 11 of 12

20

Figure 9. The impact of the heat transfer coefficient between cover and ambient on the model results.

Nomenclature
A Area, m2
C Concentration ratio
cp Specific heat capacity under constant pressure, J/kg K
D Diameter, m
f Collector focal distance, m Gb Solar direct beam
radiation, W/m2 h Heat transfer coefficient between fluid
2
and absorber, W/m K hout Heat transfer coefficient
between cover and ambient, W/m2 K k Thermal conductivity,
W/mK K Incident angle modifier
K1 Coefficient of Equation (4), W/K
K2 Coefficient of Equation (11), W/K4
K3 Coefficient of Equation (17), W/K
K4 Coefficient of Equation (25)
K5 Coefficient of Equation (25),
4
W/K L Collector length, m m Mass
flow rate, kg/s Nu Nusselt
number
Designs 2018, 2, 9 12 of 12
Pr Prandtl number
Q Heat flux, W
Re Reynolds number
T Temperature, K
V Volumetric flow rate, m3/s
W Collector width, m
Greek Symbols
α Absorbance
γ Intercept factor
εc Cover emittance
εr Absorber emittance
εc * Equivalent emittance
η Efficiency
θ Incident angle, o
µ Dynamic viscosity, Pa s
ρ Density, kg/m3
ρc Reflectance
σ Stefan–Boltzmann constant [=5.67 × 10−8
W/m2 K4]
τ Cover transmittance