Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Hybrid transpired solar collector updraft tower T

⁎
Dogan Eryener , Hilmi Kuscu
Trakya University Mechanical Engineering Department, Ahmet Karadeniz Yerleskesi, Edirne 22180, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A novel hybrid solar updraft tower prototype, which consists of photovoltaic panels and transpired solar col-
Solar updraft tower lector, is studied, its function principle is described and its experimental performance is presented for the first
Hybrid solar power time. A test unit of transpired solar collector updraft tower was installed at the campus of Trakya University
Photovoltaic/thermal systems Engineering Faculty in Edirne-Turkey in 2015. PV modules cover 42% of transpired solar collector area. PV and
Transpired solar collector
turbine power output, solar radiation, ambient temperature, temperature rise, collector cavity temperatures, and
chimney velocities were monitored during 18 months. The results showed that hybrid solar updraft tower ef-
ficiency increased by about 2% in average compared to stand-alone PV system. The temperature rise in hybrid
solar updraft tower is found to be 12–14 °C on the typical sunny day. Energy was produced continuously for 24 h.
The results showed that solar utilization ranges from 60% to 80% during daytime.

1. Introduction other solar power technologies, and large construction requirements

(Zhou and Xu, 2016; Haaf et al., 1983; Haaf, 1984). However, it can be
Climate changing and rising demand for energy accelerate usage of stated that SUT research and development works are in the beginning
renewable energy technologies; particularly the use of solar power phase at the moment, and there are big opportunities to develop SUT
plants has become more attractive in recent years among all renewable systems. Recent works showed that SUT performance can be increased
energy systems. However, high investment costs, relatively low energy significantly by using some new methods and different configurations.
conversion efficiencies and longer payback periods of investment in Some recent and important works on the performance of SUT can be
solar power production prevent these systems’ wide use, especially in lined up as follows. Hollick and Eryener (2015, 2016) invented a new
developing countries. On the other hand, low energy yields of solar method to produce hot air for SUT systems and offered a transpired
power systems increase the amount of required land for specific energy solar collector updraft tower. Experimental test of transpired solar
production target. Also, monotype technologies lead to inefficient land collector updraft tower showed that thermal efficiency is increased 3
management in terms of solar power production. In general, main times and land requirements can be reduced by more than 50%
problems in solar power production are as follows: low efficiency, high (Eryener et al., 2017). Koonsrisuk and Chitsomboon (2013) showed
amount of land in use, monotype technology, low energy production, that convergent-divergent solar updraft tower configuration chimney
high investment costs and longer payback periods. Considering current can produce several hundred times more power than a conventional
solar power systems, one of the methods to overcome these problems solar updraft power plant. Hu et al. (2017) studied a divergent tower
can be a hybridization of different solar power technologies. With this configurations theoretically for SUT and found that a divergent tower
purpose in mind, in this study, two different solar power technologies, could produce power output of 680 kW instead of obtained output of
photovoltaic and solar updraft tower, are combined to find a potential 48 kW for the first modern SUT in Manzanares in the 90s. Okada et al.
solution for the aforementioned problems. (2015) studied diffuser tower experimentally and showed that power
Modern solar updraft towers (SUT) are relatively new, attractive output can be increased by 3 times compared to conventional tower.
topic for scientists because it includes multi-disciplinary physics, but Cottam et al. (2016) showed that canopy design has a big effect on SUT
less known for end-users because it is not used in commercial systems performance and proposed a new collector profile to increase power
and not available in the market, as described in relevant literature output. Moreover, double collector configurations are proposed by
(Bennett, 1896; Cabanyes, 1903; Günther, 1931; Ley, 1954; Schlaich several researchers to improve performance (Pretorius, 2007; Pretorius
et al., 1980). One of the main reasons for non-commercial-experimental and Kröger, 2006). All these studies show that solar updraft tower re-
level of SUT is very low energy conversion efficiency, compared to search and development can be considered relatively new and there is a

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Eryener).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.035
Received 28 April 2017; Received in revised form 9 November 2017; Accepted 13 November 2017
0038-092X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

Nomenclature out outlet

HYB hybrid
Abbreviations r reference
rad radiation
A surface (m2) therm thermal
cp specific heat capacity (J kg−1 °C−1) TSC transpired solar collector
F view factor (–) TSCUT transpired solar collector updraft tower
G solar irradiation (W m−2) turb turbine
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C) SUT solar updraft tower
ṁ mass flow rate (kg s−1) sur surroundings
T temperature (°C) PV photovoltaic panel
Q̇ heat (W) PVT photovoltaic thermal

Subscripts and abbreviations Greek letters

cav cavity ε emissivity

cg collector-ground σSB Stefan-Boltzmann constant
coll collector βp PV module temperature coefficient for efficiency
con convection ηp PV module efficiency
cs collector-sky ηp reference PV module efficiency at standard conditions
gr ground
in inlet

big potential to increase SUT performance by applying new methods. Trakya University Engineering Faculty in Edirne-Turkey in 2015. Solar
In order to produce more power from the large area of solar col- radiation, PV power output, chimney turbine power output, ambient
lector in SUT, some hybridization was proposed by various researchers temperature, collector cavity temperatures, and chimney velocity data
for the use of geothermal sources and compost waste heat (Anderson were monitored for two years. Total efficiency was determined and
et al., 2016; Cao et al., 2014). Some mountain-SUT arrangements are potential power of SUT system was analyzed.
studied to increase power naturally (Bilgen and Rheault, 2005; Zhou
and Yang, 2009). Some of these proposals also include photovoltaic
2. Experimental setup
panels, namely multiple technologies are combined theoretically such
as Geothermal/PV/SUT or Compost Waste/PV/SUT (Anderson et al.,
In order to see performance of photovoltaic integrated transpired
2016; Chen et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2009). All these studies show
solar collector updraft tower, a pilot experimental prototype was built
another aspect of SUT systems: SUT systems can be combined with any
at the campus of Trakya University Engineering Faculty, Edirne, Turkey
kind of heat source, however, none of them were realized as either
in 2015. The roof is composed of transpired solar collector, photo-
commercial or experimental projects.
voltaic and glazed polycarbonate panels. Photovoltaic panels are in-
The present study provides experimental performance of a hybrid
tegrated into transpired solar collectors, and glazed polycarbonate pa-
solar updraft tower test unit which was installed at the campus of
nels were installed to provide daylight to facilitate plant growth and to

Fig. 1. Top view of hybrid SUT.

562
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

ensure some direct heating of the ground if required. Photovoltaic PV. Consequently, two different solar power methods are combined in
modules covered 42% of transpired solar collector area. Periphery of one system to produce electricity from solar energy. At the same time,
solar collector roof is fully closed; hence outdoor air enters transpired this method reduces PV temperature significantly and increases solar
solar collector through micro perforations. Pictures of hybrid SUT is conversion efficiency of PV panels. With this mechanism, a higher solar
given in Figs. 1–4. Technical features of test unit are given in Tables utilization efficiency is achieved in a unit area which is limited for big
1–4. solar projects that require large land units.

3. Measurement apparatus and procedure 5. Basic energy equations

The measurement setup can be seen in Fig. 5. The setup was located For the present study, heat transfers of four main components were
on a spot where no shadows of the surrounding objects would fall onto considered in energy balance equation: perforated absorber, photo-
the collector. Twelve SHT11 temperature and humidity sensors were voltaic panels, roof cavity, and ground. As seen in Fig. 7, after absorbed
used to monitor thermal performance of TSC at SUT. As seen from solar radiation, energy losses occur due to convection and radiation
Fig. 5, eight sensors with 2 meters interval were installed under TSC to losses from the perforated collector surface and PV module to the sur-
measure cavity temperature, three sensors were used at the tower inlet, rounding, air gap, cavity and the ground. The basic energy balance
and one sensor for ambient temperature. For the measurement of the equations of photovoltaic modules and TSC for daytime operation can
solar radiation, a pyranometer has been fixed horizontally in front of be expressed as follows:
SUT unit, consequently it always measured the intensity of solar ra-
̇ TSC = Qrad
Qabs ̇ ,TSC − gr + Qrad
̇ ,TSC − sur + Qcon
̇ ,TSC − sur + Qcon
̇ ,TSC − cav (1)
diation in the horizontal plane. Furthermore, one velocity sensor at
tower inlet and two pressure sensors before and after the turbine were
̇ PV = Qrad
Qabs ̇ ,PV − TSC + Qrad
̇ ,PV − TSC + Qcon
̇ ,PV − sur + Qcon
̇ ,PV − gap + PPV
used to monitor air flow performance. The values were continuously
taken in one-minute intervals by a monitoring system which is designed (2)
specifically for the SUT. Thermal imaging was used to see the surface
̇ ,TSC − cav + Qcon
̇ p ΔT = Qcon
mc ̇ ,PV − cav−Qcon
̇ ,cav − gr (3)
temperature’s distribution. The specifications of measurement instru-
ments are given in Table 5.
Q̇gr ,stored = Qrad
̇ ,TSC − gr + Qcon
̇ ,cav − gr (4)
4. Functional principle of hybrid SUT where

A transpired solar collector updraft tower (TSCUT) which is in- Qrad ̇ ,TSC − gr heat transfer by radiation from TSC to ground.
vented by Hollick and Eryener (2015) is used for testing of photovoltaic ̇ ,TSC − sur heat transfer by radiation from TSC to surrounding
Qrad
integrated SUT. As described by Hollick and Eryener (2015), in a reg- ̇ ,TSC − sur heat transfer by convection from TSC to surrounding
Qcon
ular TSCUT, air enters through perforations of transpired solar collector Qcon ̇ ,TSC − cav heat transfer by convection from TSC to roof cavity
(TSC), and solar heated air is drawn into tower to produce electricity. Qraḋ ,PV − sur heat transfer by radiation from PV to surrounding
At night, the ground is several degrees warmer than the night air Qcon ̇ ,PV − sur heat transfer by convection from PV to surrounding
temperature, which creates continual air flow to the tower. Unlike in Qcon ̇ ,PV − gap heat transfer by convection from PV to air gap between
TSCUT, in hybrid SUT air is heated by two mechanisms: First, directly PV and TSC
by exposed TSC, and second, in the gap between PV and TSC by heat, ̇ ,PV − TSC heat transfer by radiation from PV to TSC
Qrad
released from PV panels as seen in Fig. 6. So, the main heat transfer Qcon ̇ ,cav − gr heat transfer by convection from roof cavity to ground
mechanism is similar to the mechanism used in the combination of TSC Q̇gr ,stored stored thermal energy in ground
and PV, which is available in the market and studied by various re- mc ̇ p ΔT thermal energy difference between inlet and outlet of
searchers (Hollick, 1998; Delisle, 2008; Athienitis et al., 2011; working air.
Bambara, 2012; Li et al., 2014; Li and Karava, 2014). In solar cogen- PPV Power produced by PV.
eration of classical PV/T applications, which utilize about 75% of in-
coming solar radiation and produce heat and thermal energy, heat can Rate equations for each heat transfer term above is examined and
be used for space heating. However, unlike in classical PVT applica- studied extensively by various researchers in relevant literature
tions, in hybrid SUT, the heat produced by PV is used for power gen- (Delisle, 2008; Athienitis et al., 2011; Bambara, 2012; Li et al., 2014; Li
eration in tower turbine, which is a novel way to use “waste heat” of and Karava, 2014; Kutscher, 1992; Kutscher et al., 1993; Maurer, 2004;

Fig. 2. Hybrid SUT and chimney turbine.

563
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

Fig. 3. Photovoltaic panels and transpired solar col-

lector.

Fig. 4. Air cavity of hybrid SUT.

Table 1 Leon and Kumar, 2007; Shukla et al., 2012). Basic rate equations are
General features of the hybrid solar power test unit. given below; the radiative heat losses from exposed TSC and PV to the
surroundings take place both to the sky and to the ground. The pro-
Tower height 16.5 m
Tower diameter 0.96 m portion of these is defined by view factors Fcs and Fcg which are func-
Outer roof height 0.5 m tions of the collector tilt.
Inner roof height 1.5 m
Transpired solar collector area 110 m2 ̇ ,TSC − sur = εTSC σsb ATSC exp (TTSC
Qrad 4 4 4
exp−Fcs Tsky−Fcg Tgr ) (5)
Polycarbonate panels area 204 m2
Number of photovoltaic panels 28 units
Photovoltaic panel power 265 W/module
̇ ,PV − sur = εPV σsb APV (TPV
Qrad 4 4
−Fcs Tsky 4
−Fcg Tgnd ) (6)
Total photovoltaic power 7420 W
Turbine 200 W/piece The radiative heat transfer between TSC and ground is,
Turbine rotor diameter 0.8 m
Turbine power 200 W ̇ ,TSC − gr = σsb [ATSC exp (TTSC
4 4 4 4 −1
Qrad exp−Tgr ) + ATSC PVT (TTSC PVT −Tgr )]/(εTSC
Collector and PV slope 4°
−1
+ εgr + 1) (7)

Table 2 The radiative heat transfer between PV and TSC is,

Technical specifications of solar collector.
̇ ,PV − TSC = σsb APV (TPV
Qrad 4 4
−TTSC −1
)//(εPV −1
+ εTSC + 1)
back front (8)
Collector type Unglazed transpired solar collector

Maximum thermal power 1000 W

The convective heat transfer from exposed TSC and PV to sur-
Minimum air flow 18 m3/h/m2 rounding can be estimated as follows,
Maximum air flow 180 m3/h/m2
Maximum temperature rise 41 °C ̇ ,TSC − sur = hTSC − amb ATSC exp (TTSC exp−Tamb)
Qcon (9)
Panel color Black
Absorptivity 0.95
̇ ,PV − sur = hPV − amb APV (TPV −Tamb)
Qcon (10)
Emissivity 0.77
Thermal efficiency 80%
The convective heat transfer from of TSC to air cavity of SUT can be
divided into two terms, because of different temperatures: Heat transfer
from exposed TSC and heat transfer from TSC, and it can be estimated
as

564
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

Table 3 Table 5
Technical specifications of photovoltaic panel. Measurement instrument specifications.

Module type Poly-crystal Device Specifications

STC NOCT Pressure sensor

Model Bosch BMP180
Maximum power (P MAX) 260 Wp 193 Wp Range 300–1100 hPa
Maximum Power Voltage (Vmp) 31.1 V 28.7 V Operating temperature −40 to 85 °C
Maximum Power Flow (Imp) 8.37 A 6.71 A Full accuracy 0–65 °C
Open circuit voltage (Voc) 38.1 V 35.2 V Relative accuracy pressure ± 0.12 at 950–1020 hPa (25 °C)
Short circuit current (Isc) 8.98 A 7.31 A ± 0.12 at 700–900 hPa (25–40 °C)
Module efficiency STC (%) 15.88% Absolute accuracy pressure −1 hPa at 300–1100 hPa (0–65 °C)
Operating temperature (°C) −40 °C to +85 °C −1 hPa at 300–1100 hPa (−20 to 0 °C)
Power tolerance 0 to +3%
Velocity sensor
Pmax temperature coefficient −0.41%/°C
Model E+E EE671
Voc temperature coefficient −0.31%/°C
Range 0–20 m/s
Isc temperature coefficient 0.06%/°C
Accuracy ± 0.2 at 0.5–5 m/s
Nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) 45 ± 2 °C
± 0.3 at 1–10 m/s
± 0.35 at 1–15 m/s
± 0.4 at 1–20 m/s
Table 4 Temperature range −20 to 60 °C
Technical specifications of tower turbine.
Temperature sensor
Turbine type HAWT Model Sensirion SHT11
Range −40 to 128 °C
Blade number 6 Resolution 0.01 °C
Cut-in wind speed 1.5 m/s Accuracy ± 0.4 °C
Cut-out wind speed 35 m/s Repeatability ± 0.1 °C
Rated power at 13 m/s 200 W Pyranometer
Output 12 V, DC Model CM6B
Type of gearing Direct drive Sensitivity 11.47 × 10−6 V/W m−2
Rotor diameter 82 cm ISO classification First class
Sensitivity µV/W m−2 9–15
Impedance (Ω) 70–100
Operating temperature −40 to +80 °C
Spectral range (50% points, nm) 305–2800
Expected signal output in atmospheric 0–25 mV
application
Maximum irradiance 2000 W m−2
Expected accuracy for daily sums ± 5%

̇ p (Tout −Tin )
mc
ηcoll =
Acoll G (16)

where m is the mass flow rate of air inside the SUT, Acoll is the total
collector area, and G is the global solar radiation on a horizontal sur-
face. The combined thermal and electricity efficiency of the PVT con-
figuration for SUT can be expressed as follows
Fig. 5. Temperature and velocity measurement points (T1-11: Temperature points; V:
̇ p ΔT + PPV
mc
Velocity point, P1-2; pressure points; SR: Solar Radiation point). ηPVT =
APVT G (17)

̇ ,TSC − cav = hTSC − cav ATSC exp (TTSC exp−Tcav ) + hTSC − cav ATSC PVT (TTSC PVT
Qcon The electricity produced per unit area by the PV modules can be
calculated by multiplying module efficiency and solar radiation:
−Tcav ) (11)
PPV = ηp G (18)
The convective heat transfer from of PV to air gap between TSC and
PV can be written as PV module efficiency which is a function of the module tempera-
ture, is given by Evans (1981) as follows
̇ ,PV − gap = hPV − gap APV (TPV back−Tgap)
Qcon (12)
ηp = ηr [1−βp (TPV −Tr )] (19)
Heat loss from SUT air cavity to ground can be defined as
where ηr , reference module efficiency at standard test conditions, βp , PV
̇ ,cav − gr = hcav A (Tcav−Tgr )
Qcon (13) module temperature coefficient for efficiency (%/°C), TPV , PV module
cell temperature, Tr reference module cell temperature at 25 °C.
Stored heat from ground can be expressed as
The electric power output of a conventional SUT is given by
dTgr Schlaich et al. (2005) as
Q̇gr ,stored = mgr cgr
dt (14) PSUT = GAcoll ηcoll ηtower ηturb (20)
The heat transfer to the air cavity of SUT is calculated as follows: where tower efficiency is a function of tower height and can be cal-
̇ ,plen = ṁ air cp,air (Tplen−Tamb) culated as follows
Qconv (15)
gH
As mentioned by Zhou and Xu (2016), the thermal efficiency of a ηtower =
cp T0 (21)
solar collector can be calculated as

565
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

heat transfer in the gap between PV and TSC Fig. 6. Basic heat transfer mechanism of hybrid
SUT.

Transpired
solar collector

Closed
air inlets through perforations on absorber,
periphery
partly heated by PV and partly by TSC outlet air tower

Ground

Qabs,PV Qrad,PV-sur Qcon,PV-sur Fig. 7. Main heat transfer mechanism of PVT for
hybrid SUT.

Qabs,TSC
Qrad,TSC-sur Qcon,coll-sur
Photovoltaic Panel

Qcon,PV-gap Qrad, PV-TSC

Roof Qcon,TSC-cav Tair, out to tower

cavity
Qrad,TSC-gr

Ground

700 20 Fig. 8. Temperature rise between collector

Solar Radiation outlet and tower inlet for 24 h.
18
600 Temperature Rise
16
500 14
Temperature, C
Solar Radiation, W/m2

12
400
10
300
8

200 6
4
100
2
0 0
23:59:32
00:34:13
01:09:23
01:44:33
02:19:43
02:54:53
03:30:03
04:05:13
04:40:23
05:15:33
05:50:43
06:25:53
07:01:03
07:36:13
08:11:23
08:46:33
09:21:44
09:56:54
10:32:04
11:07:15
11:42:25
12:17:36
12:52:46
13:45:02
14:20:13
14:55:23
15:30:34
16:05:44
16:40:55
17:16:05
17:51:16
18:26:27
19:01:37
19:36:47
20:11:58
20:47:08
21:22:18
21:57:28
22:32:38
23:07:48
23:42:58

With the optimal pressure ratio which is recommended by Schlaich which can be found in relevant literature. The ratio can be important in
(1995) the power output can be expressed as follows terms of cost optimization for hybrid SUT projects.
2 gH
PSUT = GAcoll η η
3 cp T0 coll turb (22) 6. Results

By combination Eqs. (18) and (22), the total power output of hybrid
In order to evaluate hybrid SUT performance, field data were col-
tower can be expressed as follows
lected from August 2015 to March 2017. For better understanding of
2 gH hybrid SUT functioning, only several standard performance graphs
Phyb = GAtotal ⎡ η (xη + (1−x ) ηPVT therm) + (1−x ) ηPV ⎤ were selected out of the whole amount of data collected during this
⎢ 3 cp T0 turb TSC exp ⎥
⎣ ⎦ period. In addition, the total performance of the system is given in the
(23) following tables. Fig. 8 shows a typical temperature rise between am-
where x is the ratio of between exposed TSC part and total area of bient temperature and solar collector outlet for 24 h period in hybrid
exposed TSC and PV in SUT, ηTSC exp is the thermal efficiency for exposed SUT. As seen from Fig. 8, hybrid SUT heats ambient air continuously
TSC in SUT, ηPVT therm is the thermal efficiency of PV/T section. because, when there is no sun, it uses heat previously released from the
The ratio between exposed TSC and total area is one of the key ground. The temperature rises by approximately 6 °C, which is enough
parameters for the performance of hybrid SUT, because it is obvious to create a driven force for tower turbine; however, the density dif-
that thermal efficiencies for exposed TSC and PVT sections are different, ference is smaller than the one during daytime operation, and air flow is

566
 D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

700 6.0 Fig. 9. Tower inlet velocity profile for 24 h.

Solar Radiation
600 Velocity
5.0

500
Solar Radiation, W/m2

4.0

Velocity, m/s
400
3.0
300

2.0
200

1.0
100

0 0.0
23:59:32
00:34:13
01:09:23
01:44:33
02:19:43
02:54:53
03:30:03
04:05:13
04:40:23
05:15:33
05:50:43
06:25:53
07:01:03
07:36:13
08:11:23
08:46:33
09:21:44
09:56:54
10:32:04
11:07:15
11:42:25
12:17:36
12:52:46
13:45:02
14:20:13
14:55:23
15:30:34
16:05:44
16:40:55
17:16:05
17:51:16
18:26:27
19:01:37
19:36:47
20:11:58
20:47:08
21:22:18
21:57:28
22:32:38
23:07:48
23:42:58
70000 50 Fig. 10. Temperature and heating energy
Total solar radiation profiles for 24 h.
Heat produced 45
60000
Ttower_inlet
Tamb 40
50000
Heating energy W

Temperature C
35
40000
30
30000
25
20000
20

10000 15

0 10
23:59:32
00:35:44
01:12:24
01:49:05
02:25:45
03:02:25
03:39:06
04:15:46
04:52:26
05:29:07
06:05:47
06:42:27
07:19:08
07:55:49
08:32:29
09:09:10
09:45:51
10:22:32
10:59:12
11:35:53
12:12:34
12:49:15
13:43:01
14:19:42
14:56:23
15:33:04
16:09:45
16:46:27
17:23:08
17:59:49
18:36:30
19:13:10
19:49:51
20:26:32
21:03:12
21:39:53
22:16:33
22:53:14
23:29:54

5000 140 Fig. 11. Power output profiles for 24 h.

4500 Ppv Pturb

120
Turbine DC power output, W

4000
3500 100
PV, DC power output, W

3000
80
2500
60
2000
1500 40
1000
20
500
0 0
23:59:32
00:34:44
01:10:24
01:46:04
02:21:44
02:57:24
03:33:04
04:08:44
04:44:24
05:20:04
05:55:44
06:31:24
07:07:05
07:42:45
08:18:25
08:54:06
09:29:46
10:05:27
10:41:07
11:16:48
11:52:28
12:28:09
13:03:50
13:56:35
14:32:16
15:07:57
15:43:38
16:19:18
16:54:59
17:30:40
18:06:21
18:42:01
19:17:42
19:53:22
20:29:02
21:04:43
21:40:23
22:16:03
22:51:43
23:27:23

significantly lower in the test unit, which is also related to small tower 1–2 m/s during nighttime. An air stream in tower during nighttime is
dimensions which effect pressure difference in general. At daytime, the happening because of heat produced from warmer ground. Fig. 10
temperature rise increased by up to 18 °C characteristically, and it re- shows the heat produced by transpired solar collectors during nighttime
mains about 12–14 °C at the level of solar radiation above 400 W/m2 and daytime. It is obvious that, with increased solar radiation, heat
during daytime. As seen in Fig. 9, similar behavior is obtained for production is increased on average 8 times compared to heat produc-
measured velocity at the inlet of tower before producing power by tion at nighttime. This causes a big difference for power production
turbine. Velocities are changing between 3–4 m/s during daytime, and during daytime and nighttime, however, it should be noted that the

567
 D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

18% 0.30% Fig. 12. Efficiency profiles of PV and tower

PV for 24 h.
16% Tower
0.25%
14%

Tower efficiency, %
PV efficiency, %

12% 0.20%

10%
0.15%
8%

6% 0.10%

4%
0.05%
2%

0% 0.00%
23:59:32
00:35:44
01:12:24
01:49:05
02:25:45
03:02:25
03:39:06
04:15:46
04:52:26
05:29:07
06:05:47
06:42:27
07:19:08
07:55:49
08:32:29
09:09:10
09:45:51
10:22:32
10:59:12
11:35:53
12:12:34
12:49:15
13:43:01
14:19:42
14:56:23
15:33:04
16:09:45
16:46:27
17:23:08
17:59:49
18:36:30
19:13:10
19:49:51
20:26:32
21:03:12
21:39:53
22:16:33
22:53:14
23:29:54
700 100% Fig. 13. Solar energy utilization efficiency
Solar Radiation for 24 h.
Total Solar Utilization 90%
600
80%
500 70%
Solar Radiation W/m2

Efficiency, %
60%
400
50%
300
40%

200 30%

20%
100
10%

0 0%
23:59:32
00:34:13
01:09:23
01:44:33
02:19:43
02:54:53
03:30:03
04:05:13
04:40:23
05:15:33
05:50:43
06:25:53
07:01:03
07:36:13
08:11:23
08:46:33
09:21:44
09:56:54
10:32:04
11:07:15
11:42:25
12:17:36
12:52:46
13:45:02
14:20:13
14:55:23
15:30:34
16:05:44
16:40:55
17:16:05
17:51:16
18:26:27
19:01:37
19:36:47
20:11:58
20:47:08
21:22:18
21:57:28
22:32:38
23:07:48
23:42:58

700 18% Fig. 14. Efficiency profiles for stand-alone

Solar Radiation Stand-alone PV efficiency Hybrid efficiency PV and hybrid SUT.

600

17%
500
Solar Radiation W/m 2

Efficiency, %

400
16%
300

200
15%

100

0 14%
23:59:32
00:34:13
01:09:23
01:44:33
02:19:43
02:54:53
03:30:03
04:05:13
04:40:23
05:15:33
05:50:43
06:25:53
07:01:03
07:36:13
08:11:23
08:46:33
09:21:44
09:56:54
10:32:04
11:07:15
11:42:25
12:17:36
12:52:46
13:45:02
14:20:13
14:55:23
15:30:34
16:05:44
16:40:55
17:16:05
17:51:16
18:26:27
19:01:37
19:36:47
20:11:58
20:47:08
21:22:18
21:57:28
22:32:38
23:07:48
23:42:58

power output is affected by tower dimensions in general, therefore the solar collector area, however, it is significantly related to the tower
power output ratio between nighttime and daytime would be different dimensions. As stated by various studies, tower height and diameter are
for different tower dimensions. Fig. 11 shows the typical daily power key parameters for producing more power. Consequently, there is
output of PV and turbine. Installed PV power is 7420 W which is rated greater power output potential for given solar area in SUT projects if
for standard test conditions (STC). Installed turbine power is 200 W the tower dimensions are big enough. One important note is that in-
which is rated for 13 m/s. It is possible to install more turbines for given stalled turbine cut-in wind speed is 1.5 m/s, however, turbine works

568
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

Fig. 15. Thermal images of hybrid SUT.

Fig. 16. Thermal image of air cavity.

even under tower airflow velocity of 1 m/s. It shows how tower can conversion efficiency is low for turbine while it is high for PV as seen in
increase performance compared to regular wind power applications. As Fig. 12. It should be noted that the turbine efficiency is calculated based
seen in Fig. 11, turbine power output is considerably smaller than the on heat produced by collectors, otherwise it could be zero during
output of photovoltaic panels. Despite the continuous air flow and nighttime because of absence of solar radiation. Obtained tower effi-
power production in tower, turbine’s power output is changed sig- ciency is changed in the range of typical efficiencies for SUT applica-
nificantly during daytime and nighttime. Photovoltaics power output tions, however, as mentioned in introduction, the efficiency can be
change is typical for standard PV applications, higher solar intensity increased by using different tower configurations. Fig. 13 shows the
causes higher power output in general, and no energy is produced solar energy utilization efficiency for 24 h. In hybrid SUT, solar energy
during nighttime. As a result of lower production, the energy is converted by two different technologies at the same time and in the

569
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

Fig. 17. Thermal image of tower turbine and tower

inside.

Table 6 during thermal imaging, however the cooling effect can be clearly ob-
PV performance between August 2015 and March 2017. served. On the other hand, perforations on the solar collector are cooler
than other surfaces, which show the effect of incoming ambient air
Recorded maximum PV power (W) 8470
Recorded maximum turbine power (W) 192 through perforations. Fig. 16 shows the thermal image of air cavity
Recorded average power (W) 5215 which is taken from inside of the SUT. The picture shows temperature
MPPT1 maximum power (W) 4205 difference between PV section and exposed TSC. From the temperature
MPPT2 maximum power (W) 4398 profile, the location of PV panels is obvious. The temperature difference
MPPT1 average power (W) 2620
MPPT2 average power (W) 2703
is about 30 degree Celsius, and incoming air through perforations are
visible in the thermal image. Fig. 17 shows the thermal image of turbine
and tower inside. Turbine is heated by hot air stream and it is about
same area, so the solar energy utilization is higher compared to stand- 50 °C, this is a typical value obtained for solar radiation higher than
alone systems. As seen in Fig. 14, solar energy utilization efficiency is 500 W/m2, and the temperature rise is changing between 12 and 15 °C.
increased up to 90% during daytime. The problem is low solar air – When the solar radiation is high, such as 700–800 W/m2, turbine speed
turbine power energy conversion, which is related to tower design in is reaching up to 2000 rpm, which can be understood from Fig. 17.
general, however the benefit from solar energy is high. The system also In terms of power output, total operational performance of hybrid
produces heat energy at nighttime, which partly comes from the solar SUT is given in Table 6. Hybrid SUT power production is converted and
energy accumulated during daytime and the heated ground. Fig. 15 recorded by an inverter and the produced energy is given to the faculty.
shows one of the most important results of the study, a comparison As seen in Table 6, maximum power output recorded as 8470 W, re-
between hybrid system efficiency and stand-alone PV efficiency. Since corded average power 5215 W and turbine power as 192 W. Con-
the system includes all integrated PV panels and there is no stand-alone sidering rated total STC power output of PV is 7420 W, obtained results
PV installed at the site, it was not possible to see efficiency differences are remarkable in terms of PV performance. PV circuit is divided into
simultaneously. Therefore, stand-alone PV efficiencies are estimated two maximum power point tracking (MPPT) in experimental setup.
approximately by using classical PV Eqs. (18) and (19) for comparison. MPPT1 is east orientated, MPPT2 is orientated west principally. A ty-
Hybrid efficiency is a combined efficiency of PV and turbine in the pical changing of MPPT1 and MPPT2 is given in Fig. 18. In general,
systems, however, turbine general efficiency is significantly lower than total performance of MPPT1 and MPPT2 are almost equal, which is an
PV efficiency, which is about 0.10% in general, so its effect is insig- effect of low slope and different directions of PV panels for MPPT1 and
nificant in total efficiency of hybrid SUT. On the other hand, integrated MPPT circuits.
PV panels on the tower collector area have higher efficiency compare to
stand-alone PV panels, because their temperature is reduced by TSC air 7. Conclusion and future work
flow as a result of PV/T mechanism. Therefore, it is obvious that hybrid
SUT has higher efficiency than stand-alone PV or stand-alone SUT This study has presented an experimental performance of a novel
systems. method based on a recent innovation, the hybridization of transpired
Some examples of typical thermal images in hybrid SUT is given in collectors and photovoltaic panels in a solar updraft tower.
Figs. 15–17. As seen in Fig. 15, photovoltaic panels are cooler than Experimental study of a hybrid solar updraft tower has produced solar
transpired solar collectors. There are some problems with reflection power efficiencies in the 16–18% range, or hundred times higher
compared to the solar power conversion efficiencies of conventional

3000 Fig. 18. Typical changing of MPPT1 (east

orientated) and MPPT2 (west orientated).
MPPT1 MPPT2
2500

2000
Power, W

1500

1000

500

0
11:51:59
12:14:11
12:36:22
12:59:04
13:22:28
13:45:11
14:07:58
14:30:33
14:53:30
15:16:18
15:39:13
16:02:04
16:24:53
16:47:36
17:10:35
08:56:22
09:19:26
09:42:12
10:04:45
10:27:49
10:51:02
11:13:54
11:36:56
11:59:48
12:23:11
12:47:07
13:10:13
14:04:52
14:27:51
14:50:38
15:13:33
15:36:28
15:59:19
16:22:13
16:44:58
17:07:41
09:02:15
09:25:17
09:48:24
10:11:10
10:34:15
10:57:18
11:20:10
11:43:17
12:06:03

570
D. Eryener, H. Kuscu Solar Energy 159 (2018) 561–571

solar towers. With increased solar conversion efficiency, large solar Pretorius, J.P., Kröger, D.G., 2006. Critical evaluation of solar chimney power plant
collector areas for solar updraft towers can be significantly reduced, performance. Sol. Energy 80, 535–544.
Anderson, K.R., Salem, Y., Shihadeh, S., Perez, P., Kampen, B., Jouhar, S., Bahrani, S.,
making solar updraft towers much more cost effective. The experi- Wang, K., 2016. Design of a compost waste heat to energy solar chimney power plant.
mental investigation confirmed that photovoltaic integrated transpired J. Civ. Eng. Res. 6 (3), 47–54.
solar collectors have a great potential for wide use in solar updraft Chen, K., Wang, J.F., Dai, Y.P., Liu, Y.Q., 2014. Thermodynamic analysis of a low-tem-
perature waste heat recovery system based on the concept of solar chimney. Energy
towers. This work shows merely the experimental performance of new Convers. Manage. 80, 78–86.
concept, however, for comparison, additional work will be required to Cao, F., Li, H.S., Ma, Q.M., Zhao, L., 2014. Design and simulation of a geothermal–solar
show the detailed heat mechanism for both concepts of solar updraft combined chimney power plant. Energy Convers. Manage. 84, 186–195.
Bilgen, E., Rheault, J., 2005. Solar chimney power plants for high latitudes. Sol. Energy
tower. Also, another future study is planned to analyze economic as- 79, 449–458.
pects of using PVT in SUT systems. Zhou, X.P., Yang, J.K., 2009. A novel solar thermal power plant with floating chimney
stiffened onto a mountainside and potential of the power generation in China’s de-
serts. Heat Transf. Eng. 30, 400–407.
Acknowledgments
Zhou, X., Yang, J., Wang, J., Xiao, B., 2009. Novel concept for producing energy in-
tegrating a solar collector with a man made mountain hollow. Energy Convers
This research has been supported by Trakya University Scientific Manage 50, 847–854.
Research Project Fund (Project Number: TÜBAP-2015/30). Hollick, J.C., 1998. Solar cogeneration panels. Renew. Energy 15, 195–200.
Delisle, V., 2008. Analytical and Experimental Study of a PV/Thermal Transpired Solar
Collector. M.A.Sc. Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
References Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Athienitis, A.K., Bambara, J., Neill, B.O., Faille, J., 2011. A prototype photovoltaic/
thermal system integrated with transpired collectors. Sol. Energy 85, 139–153.
Bennett, A.R., 1896. Convection mill. British Patent no: 8,711. Bambara, J., 2012. Experimental Study of a Façade-integrated Photovoltaic/Thermal
Cabanyes, I., 1903. Las chimeneas solares (Solar chimneys). La ernergia electrica. System with Unglazed Transpired Collector. M.A.Sc.Thesis. Department of Building,
Günther, H., 1931. In hundert Jahren – Die künftige Energieversorgung der Welt (In Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
hundred years – Future energy supply of the world). Kosmos, Franckhsche Li, S., Karava, P., Currie, S., Lin, W.E., Savory, E., 2014. Energy modeling of photovoltaic
Verlagshandlung, Stuttgart. thermal systems with corrugated unglazed transpired solar collectors – Part 1: Model
Ley, W., 1954. Engineers Dreams. Viking Press. development and validation. Sol. Energy 102, 282–296.
Schlaich, J., Simon, M., Mayr, G., 1980. Baureife Planung und Erstellung einer Li, S., Karava, P., 2014. Energy modeling of photovoltaic thermal systems with corrugated
Demonstrations anlage eines atmosphären-thermischen Aufwindkraftwerkes im unglazed transpired solar collectors – Part 2: Performance analysis. Sol. Energy 102,
Leistungsbereich 50–100 kW (Design and erection of a pilot plant of a solar chimney). 297–307.
Technischer Bericht Phase 1, BMFT Förderkennzeichen ET 4249A. Kutscher, C.F., 1992. An Investigation of Heat Transfer for Air Flow through Low Porosity
Zhou, X., Xu, Y., 2016. Solar updraft tower power generation. Sol. Energy 128, 95–125. Perforated Plates Doctoral thesis. Doctoral thesis. University of Colorado.
Haaf, W., Friedrich, K., Mayr, G., Schlaich, J., 1983. Solar chimneys, Part I: Principle and Kutscher, C.F., Christensen, C.B., Barker, G.M., 1993. Unglazed transpired solar collec-
construction of the pilot plant in Manzanares. Int. J Sol. Energy 2, 3–20. tors: heat loss theory. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 115, 182–188.
Haaf, W., 1984. Solar chimneys, Part II: Preliminary test results from the Manzanares Maurer, C.C., 2004. Field Study and Modeling of an Unglazed Transpired Solar Collector
pilot plant. Int. J. Sol. Energy 2, 141–161. System. Ms Thesis. NCSU Libraries.
Hollick, J., Eryener, D., 2015. Transpired Solar Collector Chimney Tower. US9097241. Leon, M.A., Kumar, S., 2007. Mathematical modelling and thermal performance analysis
Hollick, J., Eryener, D., 2016. Transpired Solar Collector Chimney Tower. US9334853. of unglazed transpired solar collectors. Sol. Energy 81, 62–75.
Eryener, D., Hollick, J., Kuscu, H., 2017. Thermal performance of a transpired solar Shukla, A., Nkwetta, D.N., Cho, Y.J., Stevenson, V., Jones, P., 2012. A state of art review
collector updraft tower. Energy Convers. Manage. 142, 286–295. on the performance of transpired solar collectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16,
Koonsrisuk, A., Chitsomboon, T., 2013. Effects of flow area changes on the potential of 3975–3985.
solar chimney power plants. Energy 51, 400–406. Evans, D.L., 1981. Simplified method for predicting photovoltaic array outputSolar.
Hu, S., Leung, D.Y.C., Chan, J.C.Y., 2017. Impact of the geometry of divergent chimneys Energy 27, 555–560.
on the power output of a solar chimney power plant. Energy 120, 1–11. Schlaich, J., Bergermann, R., Schiel, W., Weinrebe, G., 2005. Design of commercial solar
Okada, S., Uchida, T., Karasudani, T., Ohya, Y., 2015. Improvement in solar chimney updraft tower systems – utilization of solar induced convective flows for power
power generation by using a diffuser tower. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 137, 031009. generation. J. Sol. Energy Eng. – Trans. ASME 127, 117–124.
Cottam, P.J., Duffour, P., Lindstrand, P., Fromme, P., 2016. Effect of canopy profile on Schlaich, J., 1995. The solar chimney: electricity from the sun. In: Maurer, C., (Ed.),
solar thermal chimney performance. Sol. Energy 129, 286–296. Geislingen, Germany.
Pretorius, J.P., 2007. Optimization and Control of a Large-scale Solar Chimney Power
Plant. Doctoral thesis. University of Stellenbosch.

571