Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Experimental investigation of porous disc enhanced receiver for solar

parabolic trough collector
K.S. Reddy*, K. Ravi Kumar, C.S. Ajay
Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this article, experimental investigation of 15 m2 solar parabolic trough collector with porous disc
Received 15 March 2014 enhanced receiver is carried out according to ASHRAE 93-1986 test procedure. Six different receiver
Accepted 4 December 2014 configurations are developed and investigated to compare their performance. The performance of solar
Available online
parabolic trough collector with two conventional and four porous disc receivers is characterized in terms
of time constant, collector acceptance angle, peak performance, daily performance and heat loss tests.
Keywords:
The tests are carried out for wide range of flow rates (100 L/he1000 L/h) and weather conditions. Based
Solar energy
on experimental investigation, the time constant of the parabolic trough collector is varied from 70 s to
Parabolic trough collector
Porous disc
260 s for different receiver configurations. The collector acceptance angle is determined for both un-
Performance analysis shielded tubular receiver (USTR) and shielded tubular receiver (STR) as 0.58
and 0.68
respectively. The
Process heat collector efficiencies are obtained as in the range of 63.9%e66.66% under ASHRAE standard test condi-
tion. Off-Sunset heat loss test is conducted to determine the steady state heat losses from the parabolic
trough collector receiver. The heat losses from the parabolic trough collector are in the range of 455 W/
m2e1732 W/m2 for average fluid temperature of Tamb þ 30
C. Stagnation temperature of the collector is
obtained as 258
C and 312
C respectively for USTR and STR corresponding to direct normal insolation
(DNI) of 786 W/m2 and 761 W/m2. Based on the above analysis, the porous disc enhanced receiver
improves the performance of the parabolic trough collector significantly and it can be used effectively for
process heat applications.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Some of the earlier works reported on design, development and

performance analysis of solar parabolic trough collector system.
Concentrating solar power technologies are the promising op- Clark [1] identified the parameters which affects performance of
tions for process heating and power generation applications in PTC: (a) structure of the parabola, (b) reflectivity of the mirror, (c)
recent years. There are four concentrating solar power technologies incident angle, (d) tracking errors, (e) tube intercept factor, (f) ab-
available for power generation such as: linear Fresnel reflector, sorptivity of the receiver, (g) receiver tube misalignment, and (h)
parabolic trough collector, power tower and parabolic dish collec- heat losses from the receiver. A simple welded frame structure was
tor. Among these technologies, Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC) is proposed for the parabolic trough concentrators for the developing
the most matured technology for large scale exploitation of solar countries by Thomas [2]. Static load tests were conducted on this
energy with high dispatchability. PTC consists of parabolic shaped structure to study its deflection characteristics under various load
high reflective concentrator supported with rigid structure, single conditions.
axis tracker and receiver/heat collection element (HCE). The heat Kalogirou [3] developed the parabolic trough collector to
transfer fluid (HTF) is admitted into the HCE to convert solar energy analyze the collector time constant, acceptance angle, collector
into thermal energy. The performance characteristics of parabolic thermal efficiency and incident angle modifier. Bakos [4] analyzed
trough collector may be identified by conducting proper experi- two axis parabolic trough collector system and observed that two
mental investigation of the collector. axis tracking system increases the efficiency up to 46% compared
with the fixed surface for operation under normal weather condi-
tions. The concentration ratio of parabolic trough may be increased
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 44 22574702; fax: þ91 44 22574652. by two-stage concentration of solar radiation. The continuous
E-mail address: [email protected] (K.S. Reddy).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.016
0960-1481/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319 309

tracking system is not necessary for the two-stage concentrating numerical model for porous disc receiver with different porosities
parabolic trough collector (Omer and Infield, [5]). Eck et al. [6] and configurations of porous disc by considering water and ther-
investigated the influence of collector tilt on the thermo- minol oil as working fluids. Kumar and Reddy [19] carried out the
hydraulic behavior of the direct steam generation in parabolic experimental investigation to analyse the performance of solar
trough collectors. Fischer [7] tested the parabolic trough collector parabolic trough collector with conventional tubular receiver and
efficiency according to the European standard EN 12975. The alternative porous disc receiver.
standard includes an incident angle modifier for diffuse irradiation The performance of parabolic trough collector also depends on
and an effective collector thermal capacity apart from steady state the heat losses from the receiver. Heat losses from the receiver
parameters. depend on absorber temperature, ambient temperature, absorber
Brooks et al. [8] performed the low temperature performance size, wind velocity and emissivity of the coatings. Thomas and
test for the parabolic trough collector with and without evacuated Thomas [20] analyzed the thermal losses from the parabolic trough
glass shield receiver and its efficiency was determined as 55.2% and receiver. The curve fitting equations were proposed to determine
53.8% respectively. Arasu and Sornakumar [9] developed and tested the heat losses from the receiver for any ambient temperature,
the fiberglass reinforced parabolic trough collector system for hot absorber temperature, absorber diameter, wind velocity and
water generation. Liu et al. [10] investigated the thermal perfor- emissivity of the coatings. Zhang et al. [21] developed cermet
mance of solar parabolic trough collector with synthetic oil as coating for solar thermal applications with absorptivity of 0.95 and
working fluid. Qiu et al. [11] analyzed the thermal performance of emissivity of 0.05 at room temperature and the coatings are stable
closed cycle solar parabolic trough collector and developed the up to 400
C. Lupfert et al. [22] analyzed the heat losses from
mathematical model. parabolic trough receiver and found as 300 W/m of receiver length
The performance of the receiver may be improved by reducing at 390
C. Kalogirou [23] analyzed the potential of solar industrial
mean temperature difference between the receiver surface and process heat for the range of temperature from 60
C to 260
C. The
heat transfer fluid (HTF) and heat losses from the receiver. This may overview of solar parabolic trough collector for process heat ap-
be achieved by increase in heat transfer rate from the inner surface plications has been carried out by Murphy [24]. Most of the earlier
of the receiver to HTF. The heat transfer rate inside the receiver can studies dealt with experimental performance investigation of the
be enhanced by increasing contact surface between the receiver parabolic trough collector with conventional tubular receiver. In
and working fluid, and by creating turbulence in the receiver. This this article, experimental investigation of solar parabolic trough
can be achieved by incorporating porous inserts at the inner surface collector is carried out for conventional tubular receiver as well as
of the receiver. The porous inserts increase the heat transfer rate by various porous disc enhanced receivers to improve the perfor-
(a) increasing the effective fluid thermal conductivity, (b) mance of the collector.
enhancing mixing between the fluid and receiver wall and (c)
lowering thermal resistance by developing thinner hydrodynamic 2. Description of solar parabolic trough collector
boundary layer. Though porous inserts increase the heat transfer
rate, it will increase pressure drop across the receiver, in turn it will 2.1. System configuration
increase the pumping power (Al-Nimr and Alkam, [12]).
Satyanarayana et al. [13] developed different porous enhanced The parabolic trough collector system consists of two modules
receiver configurations to increase the heat transfer rate from the each 3 m long and 2.5 m aperture with a horizontal north-south
receiver. Reddy et al. [14] developed energy efficient receivers for single axis tracking (Fig. 1). The concentrator consists of support-
solar parabolic trough collector to increase the heat transfer rate ing structure, torque tube, mirror supporting arms. The torque tube
from the receiver surface to the heat transfer fluid by inserting solid is made of 2-U shaped mild steel open channel welded to form a
longitudinal fin, porous fin with different aspect ratios and fin rectangular torque tube. The length of torque tube for each module
thicknesses. Reddy and Satyanarayana [15] studied different porous is 3.2 m. The torque tube is placed on the supporting structure with
fin receiver configurations such as square, triangular, trapezoidal plumber block. The mirror supporting arms are connected with
and circular fins. The model was also extended to predict the heat torque tube by bolts and nuts. The mirrors are supported by para-
loss from receiver surface. Kumar and Reddy [16e18] developed a bolic shaped cantilever arms. The reflector is made of 6 mm

Fig. 1. Solar parabolic trough collector system developed at IIT Madras.

310 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319

Table 1 by borosilicate glass tube of inner and outer diameter of 86 mm and

Technical specification of solar parabolic trough collector. 90 mm respectively to reduce the heat losses. The receivers are
Parameters Specifications coated with high temperature PU-MATT black paint (a ¼ 0.94 and
Reflector material Saint-Gobain glass
ε ¼ 0.9) to absorb the maximum solar radiation. The porous disc has
Reflectivity of the mirrors 0.94 been inserted inside the receiver surface to enhance the heat
No. of mirror segments per module 6 transfer to the fluid. Six different receiver configurations such as
Focal length 0.976 m unshielded tubular receiver (USTR), shielded tubular receiver (STR),
Width 2.5 m
bottom porous disc receiver (BPDR), U-shaped bottom porous disc
Length 3m
Aperture area 7.5 m2 receiver (UBPDR), inclined bottom porous disc receiver (IBPDR) and
Inner & outer diameter of the receiver 54 & 60 mm alternative porous disc receiver (APDR) are tested to the study the
Inner & outer diameter of the glass envelope 86 & 90 mm performance of parabolic trough collector. Different porous disc
Receiver material Stainless steel
enhanced receiver configurations are shown in Fig. 2.
Concentration ratio 26
Rim angle 65

USTR is conventional tubular receiver without glass envelope
Total aperture area 15 m2 and STR is conventional tubular receiver enclosed by glass envelope
to reduce the heat losses. The porous discs for various receiver
configurations are shown in Fig. 3. The porous discs (Fig. 3(a)) are
parabolic shaped Saint-Gobain glass with silvered reflective coating
inserted in the receiver at the bottom of the receiver tube in BPDR.
at the back surface (rrefl ¼ 0.92). Each module consists of six mirror
The porous discs height and thickness are 0.3 di and 2 mm
segments of 1.25 m width and 1 m length. The mirrors are spaced
respectively and placed at the bottom with interval of 1.0 di. In
75 mm apart in order to reduce the wind drag. The focal length and
UBPDR, the U-shaped porous discs (Fig. 3(b)) are placed at bottom
rim angle of the parabolic concentrator is 0.98 m and 65
respec-
of the receiver tube. The height of porous disc is 0.5 di with inner
tively. The collector is oriented north-south axis in horizontal plane
and outer diameter of 0.5 di and 1.0 di respectively. The porosity and
and it is tracked continuously with an accuracy of ±0.25
. The
thickness of porous disc is 0.5 and 2 mm respectively with pitch of
technical details of parabolic trough collector are illustrated in
1.0 di for both BPDR and UBPDR. In case of IBPDR, the porous discs
Table 1.
(Fig. 3(c)) are placed at bottom of the receiver with an inclination of
30
with height of 0.5 di. In case of APDR, the porous discs (Fig. 3(d))
2.2. Receiver configuration
are placed alternatively bottom and top of the receiver. The porosity
of porous disc is 0.3 for IBPDR and APDR configurations. The size of
The receiver is made of stainless steel tube with inner diameter
holes is 5 mm in all porous disc receiver configurations.
and outer diameter of 54 mm and 60 mm respectively. It is enclosed

Fig. 2. Various porous disc receiver configurations (a) BPDR, (b) UBPDR, (c) IBPDR and (d) APDR.
 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319 311

2.3. Measurement system are measured using thermo-well and receiver surface temperatures
are measured by using shielded thermocouples. The hot and cold
The experimental performance of solar parabolic trough col- fluid temperature in the heat exchanging unit is measured using
lector can be evaluated based on accurate measurements of various thermo-wells.
parameters such as (a) solar insolation e beam and diffuse solar
radiation, (b) fluid conditions e flow rate, pressure drop, temper-
3. Performance investigation of solar PTC
ature and (c) weather conditions e ambient temperature, wind
speed & direction, humidity. The direct solar radiation is measured
The solar parabolic trough collector performance is analyzed
using Pyrheliometer (Make: Eppley Laboratory, Model e NIP). The
theoretically in order to evaluate the collector performance for
sensitivity and uncertainty of Pyrheliometer is 8.19 mV/Wm2 and
different solar radiation, ambient and weather conditions. The
±10 W/m2 respectively. The flow rate of HTF is measured using
theoretical analysis is carried out for BPDR, IBPDR and APDR con-
orifice based volume flow meter (Make: Emerson, Housing Serial
figurations. The analysis is carried out to find out the collector fluid
No.: 01665282 and accuracy: ±0.2%). The orifice meter is scheduled
outlet temperature and efficiency for different fluid flow rates
in order that, it withstands high fluid temperature and different
ranging from 100 L/h to 1000 L/h, solar radiation ranging from
working fluids such as water and oil. The differential pressure
500 W/m2 to 900 W/m2. Reflectivity of the mirror, transmissivity of
transmitter (Make: Emerson, Housing Serial No.: 8368603 and ac-
glass shield [25], absorptivity of the receiver [26] and intercept
curacy: ±0.2%) is connected exactly before inlet and after the outlet.
factor of the collector is considered as 0.92, 0.94, 0.91 and 0.9
The static pressure at the inlet & outlet and pressure drop across
respectively. The fluid properties are obtained for the mean fluid
receiver is measured using diaphragm based differential pressure
temperature. Overall heat loss coefficient of the receiver is obtained
transmitter. The sensor and transmitter are separated by fill fluid in
from the experimental analyses. Theoretical analyses of PTC with
order to protect the transmitter from high temperature of fluid.
different porous disc receiver configurations are carried out as
The heat transfer fluid and HCE temperatures are measured
follows:
using K e type (Chromel-Alumel) thermocouples (accuracy:
Solar energy flux absorbed by the receiver is given as [27]:
±0.4%). Thermo well is used to measure fluid inlet and outlet
temperatures. Thermo wells are located very close to the inlet and ~ ðtaÞb K
S ¼ DNI rrefl g (1)
outlet of the receiver. Receiver surface temperatures are measured
by thermocouples placed at 8 different locations along the receiver. where, K is incidence angle modifier and is given as [28]:
Six thermocouples are placed at the bottom and top of the receiver
1 m apart each other. At center of the receiver, four thermocouples KðqÞ ¼ 1  6:74  105 q2 þ 1:64  106 q3  2:51  108 q4
are placed uniformly along the circumference. The positions of
(2)
thermocouples and thermo well on the HCE are shown in Fig. 4. The
thermocouples are calibrated at National Metallurgical Laboratory, Concentration ratio of the collector is given as:
Chennai, whose uncertainty value is given as ±0.5 K. Weather
conditions such as ambient temperature, wind speed, wind direc- Aperture area
CR ¼ (3)
tion and humidity have been measured using weather station Receiver area
(Make: Neurosynaptic communications Pvt. Ltd.). The weather Nusselt number for the porous disc receiver is given as [18]:
conditions data collected for every five minutes interval and logged
in the data logger.

 0:085  0:172  0:183  0:263  0:122

4 q wpd Hpd tpd
Nu ¼ 0:180 Re0:552 Pr0:863 (4)
4max qmax di di di

2.4. Integration of PTC with instruments and other accessories The heat transfer coefficient from receiver wall surface to
working fluid is given as [29]:
A solar parabolic trough collector setup is integrated with
measurement system, tracking unit and other accessories. The
storage tank is connected to the parabolic trough collector module Nu$kf
hf ¼ (5)
through orifice flow meter and the connection is closed with the di
storage tank through heat exchanger. Both the modules are con-
Collector fin efficiency (F0 ) is given as [27]:
nected in series as well as parallel in order to analyze the PTC
system for different working fluid at same solar radiation and
ambient conditions. The heat energy collected from the solar col-
1
lector field is exchanged to the cold fluid (water) in the heat F0 ¼ "  # (6)
exchanger. The cold fluid is continuously circulated from the UL U1L þ do
þ do
ln ddo
di hf 2kr i
overhead tank. The PTC system is integrated with tracking system
using gear and chain drive. Orifice based flow transmitter is inte-
grated with PTC system in between the fluid pump and PTC. Up- where, UL is overall heat loss coefficient and it is calculated from the
stream and downstream of the orifice meter is given as 10 di and experimental analysis.
5 di. The differential pressure transmitter is connected exactly The collector heat removal factor (FR) for the parabolic trough
before inlet and after the outlet. Fluid inlet and outlet temperature collector is given as [27]:
312 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319

Fig. 3. Photograph of porous disc for (a) BPDR, (b) UBPDR, (c) IBPDR and (d) APDR.

  The theoretical analysis of one parabolic trough collector mod-

 
F 0 UL pdo Lc  ule is carried out for BPDR, IBPDR and APDR configurations. The
mcp mcp
efficiency and rise in fluid temperature of the parabolic trough
FR ¼ 1e (7)
UL pdo Lc collector with BPDR, IBPDR and APDR configurations are shown in
Useful heat energy delivered by the collector is given as [27]: Figs. 5e7 respectively. The rise in fluid temperature of BPDR, IBPDR
and APDR varies from 28.91
C to 3.12
C, 29.99
C to 3.16
C and

U   30.22
C to 3.17
C respectively for flow rate varies from 100 L/h to
Qu ¼ FR ðwc  do ÞLc S  L Tf ;in  Tamb (8) 1000 L/h at 700 W/m2. Efficiency of the PTC with BPDR, IBPDR and
CR
APDR increases from 63.2% to 68.29%, 65.55% to 69.08% and 66.07%
Outlet temperature of the fluid coming out from the collector is to 69.27% with increase in flow rate 100 L/h to 1000 L/h at 700 W/
given as: m2. The trend remains same for all receiver configurations. It is
observed that, the slope of the efficiency curve decrease with in-
Qu crease in flow rate. Comparison of PTC efficiency for different
Tout ¼ Tin þ (9)
mcp receiver configurations is studied for different fluid flow rates and
solar insolation and is shown in Figs. 8 and 9 respectively. The ef-
Efficiency of the collector is given as:
ficiency of PTC increases with solar insolation for all the receiver
Qu configurations. The efficiency of BPDR, IBPDR and APDR increases
hth ¼  100 (10) from 66.18% to 66.80%, 67.62% to 68.13% and 67.96% to 68.38%
DNI Lc wc
respectively for 500 W/m2 to 900 W/m2. The maximum efficiency

Fig. 4. Thermocouple positioning in the receiver.

 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319 313

Fig. 5. Variation of efficiency and rise in fluid temperature across the receiver for
different solar insolation for BPDR. Fig. 7. Variation of efficiency and rise in fluid temperature across the receiver for
different solar insolation for APDR.

of BPDR, IBPDR and APDR are found as 68.51%, 69.26% and 69.42% at
1000 L/h and 900 W/m2.

4. Experimental performance investigation

The parabolic trough collector can be characterized by per-

forming (a) time constant (heating and cooling), (b) collector
acceptance angle, (c) peak performance, (d) daily performance, and
(e) heat loss tests with different flow rate and weather conditions.
The performance test parameters such as time constant, efficiency
and collector acceptance angle tests are conducted based on the
American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) 93-1986 standard. All the experiments are
carried out at Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai
(latitude: 13
04ʹ N and longitude: 80
17ʹ E). The tests are con-
ducted for different flow rates varying from 100 L/h (litres per hour)
to 1000 L/h including ASHRAE specified flow rate 300 L/h. The
experiments are conducted for four different flow rates such as
100 L/h, 300 L/h, 500 L/h, and 1000 L/h for all the receiver
Fig. 8. Comparison of porous disc receivers for different flow rate at 700 W/m2.

Fig. 6. Variation of efficiency and rise in fluid temperature across the receiver for
different solar insolation for IBPDR. Fig. 9. Comparison of porous disc receiver with different solar insolation at 300 L/h.
314 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319

configurations. The solar radiation, ambient temperature, wind Time constant for heating test is given as [30]:
velocity, inlet and outlet fluid temperatures and receiver surface
temperatures are measured in 5 s interval for time constant, col-
Tf ;out;ini  Tf ;in
lector acceptance angle and thermal efficiency tests using data 0  0:632 (11)
logging system. The data is retrieved from the PTC for every 1 min Tf ;out;t  Tf ;in
interval for daily performance and heat loss tests. The stagnation Time constant for cooling test is given as [30]:
temperature of PTC is measured for USTR and STR when there is no
useful heat collected from the collector.
Tf ;out;t  Tf ;in
1  0:368 (12)
Tf ;out;ini  Tf ;in
4.1. Time constant
The time constants for PTC with different receiver configura-
The time constant test determines heat capacity or thermal tions have been determined using heating and cooling test. The
inertia of the receiver. It is necessary to determine the time con- time constant for PTC with STR and APDR are shown in Figs. 10 and
stant of a collector in order to evaluate the transient behavior of the 11 respectively. The heating and cooling time constant of the USTR,
collector. Time constant of the collector can be determined using STR, BPDR, UBPDR, IBPDR and APDR at 300 L/h are determined as
either a step input of solar energy when the collector is defocused 260 s, 170 s, 145 s, 70 s, 85 s, 110 s and 260 s, 175 s, 135 s, 70 s, 80 s,
(heating) or a withdrawal of solar energy while it is focused 110 s respectively. Time constant of the UBPDR shows less than that
(cooling). Time constant of the collector may be defined as the time of other receiver configurations due to high porosity. The time
required for the fluid leaving from the receiver to reach 63.2% of its constant of UBPDR is found in the range of 225 s e 50 s for heating
steady state value after a step change in the incident radiation. Time test and 220 s e 55 s for cooling test for flow rates ranging from
constant is a function of fluid temperature and equals to the time 100 L/h to 1000 L/h. The variation of time constant for heating and
required for the time constant quotient to change from 0 to 0.632 cooling test is more at lower flow rates and almost equal at higher
(heating) or from 1 to 0.368 (cooling). flow rates for all receiver configurations. Based on the time con-
stant analysis, the collector stabilizes quickly and it may not affect
the steady state performance analysis.

Fig. 10. Time constant (heating test) of the parabolic trough collector (a) STR, (b) APDR. Fig. 11. Time constant (cooling test) of the parabolic trough collector (a) STR, (b) APDR.
 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319 315

4.2. Collector acceptance angle test

The collector acceptance angle determines the collector sensi-

tivity due to the tracking misalignment. The collector is positioned
ahead of the sun and its performance is continuously measured as
the collector moves in and out of the focus. The maximum allow-
able focal misalignment of the collector is obtained based on the
thermal efficiency as a function of tracking angle. This is useful in
determining the accuracy required for the tracking system. After
the sun has traversed through the PTC's focal position, efficiency
factor is found out, which is function of incident angle. Efficiency
factor is defined as the ratio of thermal efficiency of the collector to
the peak efficiency of the collector recorded at zero angle of inci-
dence. This yields a form of efficiency factor between zero and one,
which is function of incident angle. ASHRAE 93 defines the collector
acceptance angle as the range of incident angles in which the ef-
ficiency factor varies not more than ±2% from the normal incident
value. The collector acceptance angles for USTR and STR configu-
rations are shown in Fig. 12. Based on the analysis, collector
acceptance angles for the PTC with USTR and STR are determined as
0.58
and 0.68
respectively. The collector acceptance angle of the Fig. 13. Thermal efficiency of PTC with various porous enhanced receivers for flow rate
PTC receivers is greater than that of tracking accuracy of the PTC from 100 L/h to 1000 L/h.
(0.25
).

data are logged in the data logging system at every 5 s once.

4.3. Thermal efficiency test
Thermal efficiency of PTC with various receiver configurations is
determined for different flow rates ranging from 100 L/h to 1000 L/
The thermal efficiency of parabolic trough collector is defined as
h and is shown in Fig. 13. The efficiency of parabolic trough collector
the ratio between the useful thermal energy output from the col-
with USTR, STR, BPDR, UBPDR, IBPDR and APDR varies from 55.77%
lector and the solar radiation incident on the concentrator. Thermal
to 64.78%, 57.21% to 66.96%, 58.98% to 67.59%, 59.41% to 67.78%,
efficiency of the PTC is given as [30]:
60.5% to 67.43% and 61.18 % to 69.03% with flow rate ranging from
Z t2   100 L/h to 1000 L/h. The rate of increase in efficiency of IBPDR and
mcp Tf ;out  Tf ;in dt APDR is decreases with increase in flow rate. The efficiency of
t1
hth ¼ Z t2 (13) IBPDR is 1.53 and 1.09 percentage points higher compared to that of
Aa DNI dt BPDR and UBPDR at 100 L/h and 0.16 and 0.35 percentage point less
t1 at 1000 L/h. The effect of porosity is more significant at higher mass
The thermal efficiency of PTC has been analyzed on diurnal basis flow rates and contact surface area is more significant at lower flow
by considering the effect of solar radiation, ambient temperature rates. At higher flow rates fluid is flowing in unheated zone for low
and wind velocity. porosity bottom porous disc receiver.
Thermal efficiency of the PTC with various receiver configura-
4.3.1. Peak performance test tions is determined for different fluid inlet temperatures and is
Peak performance test is carried out during noon time of the day shown in Fig. 14. The (TfiTa/Ibn) is considered in abscissa and
by keeping fluid inlet temperature close to the ambient tempera-
ture. The tests are repeated at least two times for each flow rate. The

Fig. 12. Collector acceptance angle for USTR and STR. Fig. 14. Thermal efficiency of PTC with different receiver configuration at 300 L/h.
316 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319

thermal efficiency is considered in ordinate. The intercept of curve Table 3

gives thermal efficiency (FRhopt) of the PTC and slope of the curve Receiver characteristics parameters for various porous disc receiver configurations.

gives (ArUlFR/Aa). Thermal efficiency of the PTC is determined when Receiver configuration FRUl (W/m2oC) FRhopt (%) FR Ul (W/m2oC)
fluid inlet temperature is close to the ambient temperature and it is USTR 36.85 63.95 0.82 44.94
calculated as 63.9%, 61.5%, 63.5%, 64%, 64.9% and 66.66% respec- STR 15.47 61.49 0.83 18.64
tively at 300 L/h for USTR, STR, BPDR, UBPDR, IBPDR and APDR. BPDR 13.93 63.54 0.86 16.22
Correlation for thermal efficiency of PTC with different receiver UBPDR 12.42 64.04 0.87 14.35
IBPDR 10.86 64.87 0.88 12.39
configurations has been developed and it is expressed in the
APDR 9.6 66.64 0.9 10.67
following form:
 
Tf ;in  Tamb
hth ¼ a þ b (14) that of UBPDR due to low porosity and major part of the fluid passes
DNI
through unheated zone. The temperature difference is less in APDR
The constants “a” and “b” have been found out for all the due to more contact surface area between the fluid the receiver
receiver configurations and it is given in Table 2. The correlation wall surface, better mixing of fluid particles, higher turbulence
coefficients of the above equations are in the order of 0.99. intensity and thin boundary layer thickness. The efficiency of PTC


The PTC with STR, the slope (ArUlFR/Aa) is 2.78 W/m2 C and with porous disc receiver configurations is higher than that of USTR
intercept (FRhopt) is 64%. The geometric concentration ratio of the and STR due to more heat transfer from receiver wall surface to
collector (Aa/Ar) is 13.26. The optical efficiency at near normal angle fluid.
of incidence for PTC with USTR and STR is determined as 78% and
74% respectively. Receiver characteristics parameters such as FRUl, 4.3.3. Stagnation temperature measurements
FRhopt, FR and Ul for various porous disc receiver configurations of Stagnation temperature of the collector with USTR and STR is
solar parabolic trough collector are illustrated in Table 3. The determined. The stagnation temperature of the parabolic trough
highest heat removal factor and lowest heat loss coefficient is ob- collector corresponds to the no flow condition when no useful
tained for APDR. The performance curves of USTR and STR crosses energy is collected from the collector and the system attains peak
at thermal efficiency of 60% and (Tf,inTamb)/DNI at 0.014 m2K/W temperature. Based on the stagnation temperature measurement,
corresponding DNI of 700 W/m2. Based on the above analysis, STR the maximum temperature attained by the USTR and STR is found
performs better than USTR when Tfi > Tamb þ 9.8. Heat losses in the as 258
C and 312
C respectively at the beam radiation of 786 W/
USTR is higher than STR when (Tf,inTamb) > 9.8
C. m2 and 761 W/m2.

4.4. Heat loss test

4.3.2. Daily performance test
The performance of PTC for different ambient conditions has
Heat loss test has been performed to determine the steady state
been analyzed by considering the effect of solar radiation, ambient
heat loss as the function of operating temperature and wind ve-
temperature and wind velocity from morning to evening. Experi-
locity. The fluid is heated approximately to 65
C and stored in the
ments are carried out for four different mass flow rates such as
fluid tank. After sunset, the fluid is circulated through the receiver
100 L/h, 300 L/h, 500 L/h and 1000 L/h. The experiments are con-
at the flow rate of 300 L/h by circulation pump. The heat loss test
ducted for all receiver configurations from morning 6:00 AM to
has been conducted throughout the night. The heat loss analyses
evening 6:00 PM and data logged every 1 min interval. The effective
have been carried out for PTC with different receiver configura-
operating period of PTC is 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM without any shading
tions. The heat losses from the USTR, STR, BPDR, UBPDR, IBPDR and
from the adjacent collector and other structures. The variation of
APDR are found as 1732 W/m2, 455 W/m2, 928 W/m2, 716 W/m2,
beam radiation, ambient, fluid inlet & fluid outlet temperatures and
572 W/m2 and 618 W/m2 respectively for average fluid temperature
efficiency of the collector with APDR for flow rate ranging from
of Tamb þ 30
C. The heat losses for USTR and other porous disc
100 L/h to 1000 L/h are shown in Fig. 15. During short cloud periods,
receiver configurations are higher than that of STR due to higher
the data points not considered for the analysis and data points are
convective heat losses. Among the porous disc receiver configura-
considered for long cloud periods. The temperature difference be-
tion, heat losses are not comparable, because heat losses are
tween the average receiver wall surface and mean fluid tempera-
functions of environmental conditions rather than porous disc
ture of APDR for flow rate 100 L/h, 300 L/h, 500 L/h and 1000 L/h are
receiver configurations. Heat loss analyses are carried out at
34.51
C, 10.77
C, 7.84
C and 7.19
C respectively. The temperature
different seasons for different receiver configurations. Therefore,
difference is higher at low flow rates and lower at higher flow rates.
ambient temperature, wind velocity, humidity are different while
The temperature difference between the average receiver wall
conducting experiments for different porous disc receiver config-
surface and mean fluid temperature of USTR, STR, BPDR, UBPDR,
urations. However, the heat losses in porous disc receivers are
IBPDR and APDR at 300 L/h are 30.16
C, 20.24
C, 16.38
C, 14.07
C,
higher than that of STR due to less temperature difference between
14.2
C and 10.77
C respectively. The temperature difference be-
the fluid and the receiver wall surface. In practice, the receiver wall
tween the receiver surface and fluid for IBPDR is more compared to
surface temperature for porous disc receiver is less than that of
tubular receiver. Therefore, for the same solar radiation and other
Table 2 environmental conditions, heat losses from the porous disc receiver
Constants for thermal efficiency correlation of parabolic trough collector. are less compared to the tubular receiver.
Receiver Configuration a b
4.5. Analysis of pressure drop
USTR 2.779 0.639
STR 1.167 0.615
BPDR 1.05 0.635 The pressure drop is measured across the receiver for different
UBPDR 0.937 0.640 flow rates and receiver configurations. The pressure drop across the
IBPDR 0.819 0.649 various receiver configurations are shown in Fig. 16. The differential
APDR 0.724 0.666
pressure transmitter is used to measure the pressure drop the
 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319 317

Fig. 16. Pressure drop across the receiver configuration.

receiver. The stainless steel bellows of 1/4” is connected exactly at

inlet and outlet of the receiver. The pressure drop across the
receiver is measured as 100 Pa, 150 Pa, 200 Pa, 450 Pa, 550 Pa
respectively for STR, BPDR, UBPDR, IBPDR and APDR configurations
at 1000 L/h. The pressure drop in BPDR and UBPDR is less compared
to that of IBPDR and APDR due to high porosity (4 ¼ 0.5). Higher
pressure drop is observed in case of IBPDR and APDR due low
porosity (4 ¼ 0.3) and fluid mixing.
The uncertainty analysis is carried out to find out the errors in
the various measurements. The uncertainty analysis determines
the error in the time constant, collector acceptance angle and ef-
ficiency calculation based on the error in mass flow, fluid temper-
ature, normal beam radiation and concentrator area measurement.
The error in the instruments is given in Table 4.
Time constant of the parabolic trough collector is function of
temperature ratio and is given in equations (11) and (12). The un-
certainty in time constant is function of error in fluid temperature
measurement. Therefore, uncertainty of time constant is equivalent
to uncertainty in temperature measurement. The uncertainty of
collector acceptance angle and collector efficiency is function of
error in mass flow, fluid temperature, normal beam radiation and
concentrator area measurement. The collector acceptance is
calculated based on the efficiency factor. The efficiency factor is the
ratio between efficiency of the collector at given incidence angle to
efficiency of the collector at zero degree incidence angle. Therefore,
uncertainty in collector acceptance angle is equivalent to uncer-
tainty in efficiency measurements.
The general expression for uncertainty of efficiency is given as:

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
u " 2  2  2 #
u vh vh vh
shth ¼t th
sm þ th
s þ th
s (15)
vm vT T vIbn Ibn

Table 4
Instruments error.

Instruments Error

Pyrheliometer [31] ±14 W/m2 @ 1400 W/m2 (±1%)

K e type thermocouple [32] ±1.6
C @ 400
C
Differential pressure gauge [33] ±40 Pa @ 20 kPa (±0.2%)
Orifice flow meter [34] ±0.0083 kg/s @ 4.1667 kg/s (±0.2)
Anemometer for wind velocity [35] ±0.1 m/s
Fig. 15. Performance of PTC with APDR for (a) 100 L/h, (b) 300 L/h (c) 500 L/h and (d)
1000 L/h.
318 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
u 2 2  2 !2 3 STR shield tubular receiver
u
u4 T m mT t thickness (m)
shth ¼ t sm þ s þ  sIbn 5 (16)

Aa Ibn Aa Ibn T Aa I 2bn T temperature ( C)


Ul overall heat loss coefficient (W m2 C1)
UBPDR U-shaped bottom porous disc receiver
shth ¼ ± 4:967  103 ¼ ± 0:497% USTR un-shielded tubular receiver
w pitch (m)
The uncertainty in efficiency measurement of parabolic trough
collector is 0.497%. Greek symbols
The uncertainty of parabolic trough collector time constant is a absorptivity
1.6 s. The uncertainty in collector acceptance angle and efficiency ge intercept factor
measurement of parabolic trough collector is 0.497%. ε emissivity
q angle (deg)
5. Conclusions h efficiency (%)
s uncertainty
Experimental analyzes of PTC with six different receiver con- rrefl reflectivity of the reflector
figurations have been carried out as per ASHRAE 93-1986 test 4 porosity
procedure. The time constant of the receivers show that the col- ðtaÞb transmissivityeabsorptivity product for beam radiation
lector has a fast response (<180 s) for any change in input condi-
tions for all the receiver configurations. The collector acceptance Suffix
angle of the parabolic trough collector is determined and it is amb ambient
higher than that of tracking accuracy of the collector. The thermal c concentrator
gradient between the receiver wall surface and fluid and across the f fluid
receiver cross section was less in case of porous disc enhanced in inlet
receiver compared to the conventional tubular receiver. Based on ini initial
the experimental investigation, performance of PTC with APDR is max maximum
better than other receiver configurations. Off-sun set heat loss test opt optical
is conducted and the heat losses from the various porous enhanced out outlet
receivers are found out. Introducing porous inserts increase the pd porous disc
pumping power by 0.05 W/m for APDR. The porous disc enhanced r receiver
receiver may be used for solar process heating and power genera- u useful
tion applications to improve the efficiency of the parabolic trough t time
collector and reduce the angular thermal gradient in the receiver. th thermal

Acknowledgments References

The financial support provided by the Department of Science [1] Clark JA. An analysis of the technical and economic performance of a parabolic
trough concentrator for solar industrial process heat application. Int J Heat
and Technology (DST), Government of India, New Delhi, through
Mass Transf 1982;25:1427e38.
the research project is duly acknowledged. [2] Thomas A. Simple structure for parabolic trough concentrator. Energy Convers
Manag 1994;35:569e73.
[3] Kalogirou S. Parabolic trough collector system for low temperature steam
Nomenclature
generation: design and performance characteristics. Appl Energy 1996;55:
1e19.
Aa aperture area (m2) [4] Bakos GC. Design and construction of a two-axis sun tracking system for
parabolic trough collector (PTC) efficiency improvement. Renew Energy
Ar receiver area (m2)
2006;31:2411e21.
APDR alternative porous disc receiver [5] Omer SA, Infield DG. Design and thermal analysis of a two stage solar
BPDR bottom porous disc receiver concentrator for combined heat and thermoelectric power generation. Energy


cp specific heat (J kg1 C1) Convers Manag 2000;41:737e56.
[6] Eck M, Steinmann W-D, Rheinlander J. Maximum temperature difference in
CR concentration ratio horizontal and tilted absorber pipes with direct steam generation. Energy
di inner diameter (m) 2004;29:665e76.
do outer diameter (m) [7] Fischer S, Lupfert E, Muller-Steinhagen H. Efficiency testing of parabolic
trough collectors using the quasi-dynamic test procedure according to the
DNI direct normal insolation (W m2) European standard EN 12975. In: SolarPACES 13th Symposium on Concen-
F0 collector efficiency factor trating Solar Power and Chemical Energy Technologies; June 20e23, 2006.
FR heat removal factor Seville, Spain.
[8] Brooks MJ, Mills I, Harms TM. Performance of a parabolic trough solar col-
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2
C1) lector. J. Energy South Afr 2006;17:71e80.
H height (m) [9] Arasu AV, Sornakumar T. Design, manufacture and testing of fiberglass rein-
IBPDR inclined bottom porous disc receiver forced parabola trough for parabolic trough solar collectors. Sol Energy
thermal conductivity (W/m1
C1)
2007;81:1273e9.
k [10] Liu QB, Wang YL, Gao ZC, Sui J, Jin HG, Li HP. Experimental investigation on a
K incidence angle modifier parabolic trough solar collector for thermal power generation. Sci China Tech
L length (m) Sci 2010;53:52e6.
m mass flow rate (kg s1) [11] Qiu Z, Li P, Gong S, Wang Y, Guo W, He J. Studies on thermal performance of
closed type parabolic trough solar collector. Adv Mater Res 2012;347:812e21.
NU Nusselt number [12] Al-Nimr MA, Alkam MK. A modified tubeless solar collector partially filled
Pr Prandtl number with porous substrate. Renew Energy 1998;13:165e73.
Q heat transfer (W) [13] Satyanarayana GV, Kumar KR, Reddy KS. Numerical study of porous enhanced
receiver for solar parabolic trough collector. In: 3rd International Conference
Re Reynolds number on Solar Radiation and Day Lighting; 7e9 February, 2007. p. 46e55. New
S absorbed flux on the receiver (W m2) Delhi, India.
 K.S. Reddy et al. / Renewable Energy 77 (2015) 308e319 319

[14] Reddy KS, Kumar KR, Satyanarayana GV. Numerical investigation of energy [23] Kalogirou S. The potential of solar industrial process heat applications. Appl
efficient receiver for solar parabolic trough concentrator. J Heat Transf Eng Energy 2003;76:337e61.
2008;29:961e72. [24] Murphy P. IEA solar heating & cooling programme, annual report. 2005.
[15] Reddy KS, Satyanarayana GV. Numerical study of porous finned receiver for Washington, DC, USA.
solar parabolic trough concentrator. J Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2008;2: [25] Chen F, Zhao H. Experimental study on influence of high-borosilicate glass
172e84. transmittance on solar cooling tube thermal performances. Adv Mater Res
[16] Kumar KR, Reddy KS. Thermal analysis of solar parabolic trough with porous 2011;225:324e7.
disc receiver. Appl Energy 2009;86:1804e12. [26] The Engineering ToolBox. Available from: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.
[17] Kumar KR, Reddy KS. Investigation of heat transfer characteristics of line focus com/radiation-surface-absorptivitie-d_1805.html [accessed on 24.05.13].
receiver with porous disc inserts for solar parabolic trough concentrator. In: [27] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 2nd ed. New
Proceedings of the 20th National and 9th International ISHMT-ASME Heat and York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1991.
Mass Transfer Conference; January 4e6, 2010. p. 487e94. Mumbai, India. [28] Gaul H, Rabl A. Incidence angle modifier and average optical efficiency of
[18] Kumar KR, Reddy KS. Effect of porous disc receiver configurations on per- parabolic trough collectors. J Sol Energy Eng 1980;102:16e21.
formance of solar parabolic trough concentrator. Heat Mass Transf 2012;48: [29] Cengel YA. Heat and mass transfer e a practical approach. 3rd ed. New Delhi:
555e71. Tata Mcgraw-Hill; 2007.
[19] Kumar KR, Reddy KS. Experimental investigation of solar parabolic trough [30] ASHRAE Standard 93-1986 (RA 91). Methods of testing to determine the
concentrator with porous disc enhanced receiver. In: Proceedings of Inter- thermal performance of solar collectors. American Society of Heating,
national Conference on Advances in Energy Research (ICAER). India: IIT Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers, Inc.; 1991.
Bombay; 9e11 December 2011. [31] EPLAB. Calibration certificate. Rhode Island, USA: The Eppley Laboratory, Inc.;
[20] Thomas A, Thomas SA. Design data for the computation of thermal loss in the 2006.
receiver of a parabolic trough concentrator. Energy Convers Manag 1994;35: [32] NML. Calibration certificate. Chennai, India: National Metallurgical Labora-
555e68. tory; 2008.
[21] Zhang QC, Zhao K, Zhang BC, Wang LF, Shen ZL, Zhou ZJ, et al. New cermet [33] Emerson. Calibration certificate for differential pressure transmitter. Nani
solar coatings for solar thermal electricity applications. Sol Energy 1998;64: Daman, Daman: Emerson Process Management (India) Private Limited; 2007.
109e14. [34] Emerson. Calibration certificate for orifice flow meter. Nani Daman, Daman:
[22] Lupfert E, Riffelmann K-J, Price H, Burkholder F, Moss T. Experimental analysis Emerson Process Management (India) Private Limited; 2007.
of overall thermal properties of parabolic trough receivers. J Sol Energy Eng [35] Neurosynaptic. Calibration certificate. Bangalore, India: Neurosynaptic Com-
2008;130:1e5. munications Pvt. Ltd.; 2010.