Performance Improvement of an Organic Rankine

Cycle with low grade thermal energy input from a

Compound Parabolic Collector

A Thesis Submitted in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
THERMAL ENGINEERING

AJITABH BHAUMICK
(Scholar No.-15-22-115)

Department of Mechanical Engineering

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SILCHAR
2017
Performance Improvement of an Organic Rankine
Cycle with low grade thermal energy input from a
Compound Parabolic Collector
A Thesis Submitted in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Technology
In
Thermal Engineering

AJITABH BHAUMICK
(Scholar No.-15-22-115)

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Agnimitra Biswas (Assistant Professor)

And

Mr. Darpahari Das (Associate Professor)

Department of Mechanical Engineering

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SILCHAR
2017
© NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SILCHAR, 2017
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SILCHAR, ASSAM, INDIA-788010
CERTIFICATE

We, the undersigned,have read the thesis, "PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OF AN

ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE WITH LOW GRADE THERMAL ENERGY INPUT
FROM A COMPOUND PARABOLIC COLLECTOR", submitted by AJITABH
BHAUMICK and conducted the oral examination of the student on ____/____/2017

This is to certify that AJITABH BHAUMICK bearing scholar no. 15-22-115 has
successfully completed the oral examination.

Committee of Examiners

1. Name &Signature of External Expert

2. Name & Signature of Internal Expert From Department of Mechanical Engineering

3. Name & Signature of Internal Expert From Other Department

4. Name & Signature of Project Supervisor

Dr.Agnimitra Biswas
5. Name & Signature of Project Supervisor

Mr. Darpahari Das

6. Name & Signature of Chairman DPCC & Head of Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

Dr. K. M. Pandey
 DECLARATION
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT OF AN ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE WITH
LOW GRADE THERMAL ENERGY INPUT FROM A COMPOUND PARABOLIC
COLLECTOR
Master of Technology
I declare that the presented thesis represents largely my own ideas and work in my own
words. Where ever ideas or words of others have been included in the thesis, I have
adequately cited and listed in the reference materials. The thesis has been prepared without
resorting to plagiarism. I have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity. No
falsified or fabricated data have been presented in the thesis. I understand that any violation
of the above will cause disciplinary action by the institute, including revoking the conferred
degree, if conferred, and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not been
properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken

Ajitabh Bhaumick
15-22-115

Date:

i
 CERTIFICATE
It is certified that the work contained in this thesis entitles ‘Performance Improvement of an
Organic Rankine Cycle with low grade thermal energy input from a Compound Parabolic
Collector’ submitted by Ajitabh Bhaumick, Registration no.15-22-115 for the award of Master
of Technology is absolutely based on his own work carried out under my supervision and that
thesis has not been submitted elsewhere for any degree.

Dr. Agnimitra Biswas Mr. Darpahari Das

Assistant Professor Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
NIT Silchar NIT Silchar

Date:

iii
 ABSTRACT
Solar energy collectors has been the need of the hour for the past couple of decades as
the world has been desperately trying to find new and innovative ways to shift the
dependency on fossil fuel to clean and green energy sources for power generation. The
aim of the present study is two folds- modelling of “Compound Parabolic Collector”
and studying its contribution in the performance improvement of “Organic Rankine
Cycle” engine for different ambient and operating conditions. Compound Parabolic
Collectors (CPC) are mostly used for low temperature applications such as process
heating, waste heat recovery etc., but with integration of the same to a proper heat
engine, considerable amount of work output can be obtained. A concentration ratio of 2
was employed for the CPC, to have a higher acceptance angle so that maximum amount
of solar radiation can be focussed on to the absorber. This also eliminates the use of
tracking for the collector. The CPC module used for this study is the tubular absorber
module. The performance of the CPC has been modelled with the use of a CFD tool,
namely “Ansys”. The physical and the mathematical models are also discussed in
details. The model generated has been validated with similar experimental work. The
use of ORC for the generation of work from the CPC unit has been explored in the
second part of this study. The overall heat loss coefficient and the heat losses from the
collector have been expressed as a function of the outlet temperature of the CPC unit.
The effect of the solar radiation intensity, mass flow rate of the working medium, inlet
temperature of the working medium have been discussed in the results. Finally the
thermal efficiency and the optical efficiency of the collector have been expressed as a
function of the outlet temperature of the working medium. The thermal efficiency has
been found to be in the range of 60-80% at a maximum temperature of 100° C as
attained from the computational study for varying solar radiation (700-1500) W/m2. The
performance of the ORC has been studied with the help of “Engineering equation
solver”. The effects of parameters such as pressure ratio, condenser or the cold side
temperature are discussed in the results. The effect of incident solar radiation of the
CPC on the efficiency of the ORC has been studied. The efficiency of the ORC cycle
with the CPC unit as the heat source has been found and compared with a conventional
ORC cycle. The efficiency of the ORC with a suitable working medium for the study
has been found to be 13.03%.The ORC with CPC as the heat input showed considerable
improvement in thermal efficiency over the conventional ORC unit where the later had
an efficiency of 9 %. The present study illustrates the significance of low grade process
heat in the improvement of the performance of ORC.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this study would not be complete without the profound knowledge and
support of few other people. I take this opportunity in expressing my heartfelt gratitude and
sincere thanks to all those people who have been instrumental in the successful completion of my
project.
I would like to express sincere gratitude to my project supervisors, Dr. Agnimitra Biswas,
Assistant Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Silchar for his constant inspiration, patience, cordial advice and invaluable guidance throughout
the course of investigation. He encouraged me not only to do my project but also gave me the
scope to become an independent thinker in performing project work. I shall always remain
obliged to his greatness in devoting a large share of his valuable time and knowledge to this
work, and most importantly his friendly behaviour and inspiration throughout the entire duration
of my project.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Darpahari Das, Associate Professor, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Silchar for his support, patience,
and valuable suggestions. I shall always remain obliged to his greatness and knowledge to this
work, and most importantly his friendly behaviour and inspiration throughout the entire duration
of my project.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. K.M. Pandey, H.O.D., Mechanical
Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Silchar for providing us the required laboratory
facilities and any kind of academic help needed. I would also like to extend my thankful note to
Faculty members, staff of Mechanical Engineering Department, N.I.T. Silchar for their
invaluable support for the entire duration of M.Tech course.
Last but not the least I am indebted to my parents for their support, patience and
understanding throughout the past two years without which this work would not have been
possible.

Ajitabh Bhaumick
15-22-115

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page no
DECLARATION (i)
CERTIFICATE (iii)
ABSTRACT (v)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (vii)
CONTENTS (ix-xi)
LIST OF FIGURES (xiii-xiv)
LIST OF TABLES (xv)
NOMENCLATURE (xvii-xviii)
1 Introduction 1-7
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Solar Collectors 1
1.3 Classification of Solar Collectors 2
1.4 Concentrating Collectors 4
1.5Compound Parabolic Collectors 4
1.6 Advantages of Compound Parabolic Collectors 5
1.7Parameters Associated With Compound Parabolic Collectors 6
1.7.1Concentrating Ratio 6
1.7.2Thermal Performance of Concentrating Collectors 7
1.8 Organizationof the Thesis 7
References 7
2 Literature Review 9-18
2.1 Overview 9
2.2 State of Research in the Thermal Performance of CPC 9
2.3Review of various parameters effecting the CPC 10
2.4 Effect of the Tube Receiver Length 13
2.5 Effect of Tube Receiver Diameter 13
2.6 Effect of Tube Receiver Emissivity 13
2.7 Effect of Concentration Ratio 13
2.8 Research in the field of ORC 14
2.9 Inferences Drawn From the Literature Review 16
2.10 Objectives of the present study 16
References 17
3. Physical and Mathematical Modelling of CPC 19-27
3.1 Overview 19
3.2 Modelling Of CPC 19
3.4 Basic Assumptions 20
3.4 Geometric construction 21
3.5 System Description 22
3.6 Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer Formulation of the Model 22
3.6.1 Receiver- Aperture 22
3.6.2 Aperture- Ambient 23
3.6.3 Reflector- Ambient 23
3.6.4 Absorber- Reflector 24
3.7 Efficiency of the Collector 25

ix
References 26
4. CFD Analysis of Compound Parabolic Collector 29-52
4.1 Overview 29
4.2 Introduction to CFD 29
4.3 Basic Approach to Use CFD 30
4.3.1 Pre-Processing 30
4.3.2 Defining the Physics of the Problem 30
4.3.3 Solving the Problem 30
4.3.4 Set Up Of the Problem 30
4.4 Governing Equation 31
4.4.1 Continuity Equation 31
4.4.2 Momentum Equation 31
4.4.3 Energy Equation 32
4.5 Discretization Method39 32
4.5.1 Finite Volume Method 32
4.6 Turbulence Model 32
4.6.1 Standard K-Ε Model 33
4.7 Computational Modelling of CPC 33
4.7.1 Pre Processing of the Model 33
4.7.2 CFD Formulation of the Model 36
4.8 Sensitivity Study 37
4.9 Post Processing Of the Models 38
4.10 Computational Results of Performance of CPC 38
4.11 CFD Model Validation 39
4.12 Computational Results and Discussions 40
4.12.1 Impact of Mass Flow Rate to Fluid Temperature in the Flow Direction 40
4.12.2 Impact of Varying Insolation on the Outlet Temperature 40
4.12.3 Effect of Inlet Temperature of the on the Outlet Temperature 41
4.12.4 Effect of Mass Flow Rate on the Outlet Temperature 42
4.12.5 Overall Heat Loss Co-Efficient 42
4.12.6 Thermal Heat Losses 43
4.12.7 Collector Efficiency of the CPC 43
4.12.8 Effect of Inlet Temperature of the Working Fluid on the Efficiency 44
4.12.9 Effect of Mass Flow Rate on the Thermal Efficiency 44
4.12.11 Nusselt Number Variation with Rayleigh Number 45
4.13 Temperature Distribution of the CPC 46
References 62
5. Organic Rankine Cycle 53-61
5.1 Overview 53
5.2 Basic Structure of ORC 53
5.3 Working Fluid Selection 55
5.4 Parameters of Interest for the ORC 55
5.5 Results and Discussions 56
References 61
6 Conclusions and future scope 63-64
6.1 computational study of CPC 63
6.2 Performance analysis of ORC with CPC unit as the heat input 63
x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.3 Future Scope 64

Appendix I

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE CAPTION PAGE
NO. NO
1.1 Possible concentrating collector configurations: (a) tubular
absorbers with diffuse back reflector; (b) tubular absorbers with
specular cusp reflectors; (c) plane receiver with plane reflectors;
(d) parabolic concentrator; (e) Fresnel reflector; (f) array of
heliostats with central receiver.[4] 4
1.2 Schematic diagram of a Compound Parabolic collector 4
1.3 Relationship between concentration ratio and temperature
of receiver operation 6
3.1 Schematic Diagram of the CPC 19
3.2 Geometric Specifications of The CPC 21
4.1 Geometry of the CPC from the front view showing the
various cross section 34
4.2 Geometry of CPC from side view showing the parabolic cavity 34
4.3 Mesh profile of the first geometry 35
4.4 Mesh of the second geometry 36
4.5 Variation of outlet temperature with different refinement levels 38
4.6 Model Validation 39
4.7 Variation of mass flow rate on outlet temperature 40
4.8 Variation of outlet temperature to the radiation flux 41
4.9 Variation of outlet temperature with the inlet temperature 41
4.10 Variation of outlet temperature due to the change in mass flow rate 42
4.11 Overall heat loss coefficient variations with the outlet temperature 42
4.12 Thermal heat loss variation against the outlet temperature 43
4.13 Variation of collector efficiency with the outlet temp at the
same solar insolation 43
4.14 Variation of thermal efficiency with the inlet temperature
of the working fluid 44
4.15 Variation of efficiency against the variation of mass flow rate 45
4.16 Variation of Nusselt number with Rayleigh Number 45
4.17 Isotherms at 45° angle and at receiver temperature of 80°C 46
4.18 Isotherms at 45° angle and at receiver temperature of 100°C 47
4.19 Temperature distributions at 900W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.008 kg/s
and 27°C inlet temperature 47
4.20 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2 and mass flow rate of 0.006 kg/s
and 27°C inlet temperature 48
4.21 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2 and mass flow rate of 0.005 kg/s
and 27°C inlet temperature 48
4.22 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.007 kg/s
and 27°C inlet temperature 49
4.23 Temperature distributions at 800W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.008 kg/s
and 27°C inlet temperature 49
4.24 Temperature distributions at 950W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.009 kg/s
and 24°C inlet temperature 50
4.25 Temperature distributions at 950W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.009 kg/s
and 36°C inlet temperature 50
4.26 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.004 kg/s

xiii
 and 27°C inlet temperature 51
4.27 Streamlines at 45° angle and at receiver temperature of 100°C 51
5.1 System Configurations and Temperature-Entropy Diagram
of Ordinary Rankine Cycle [1] 54
5.2 System Equations for Regular Rankine Cycle [1] 54
5.3 Efficiency variation with the inlet temperature 56
5.4 Work output with respect to the inlet temperature 57
5.5 Expander inlet temperature variations with respect to inlet pressure 57
5.6 Efficiency variations with respect to the inlet temperature
of the cold side 58
5.7 Variation of net work output against cold side temperature 58
5.8 Variation of pressure ratio against cold side temperature 59
5.9 Pressure ratio variation with respect to expander inlet temperature 59
5.10 Efficiency of the cycle with respect to expander inlet pressure 60
5.11 Variation of pressure ratio against expander inlet pressure 60
5.12 Effect of solar flux on the efficiency of the ORC 61

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE NO
NO.

1.1 Types of solar collectors 2

4.1 Computational condition 37
4.2 Sensitivity analyses 37
4.3 Thermophysical properties of the solid components 39
4.4 Thermophysical properties of the fluid components 39
5.1 Working fluids that meets performance and environmental properties 55
5.2 Governing factors for parametric study 56

xv
 NOMENCLATURE

C Concentration ratio
Aa Area of the aperture [m2]
Ar Area of the receiver [m2]
ρm Reflection ratio
εr Emissivity
qcr Convection heat transfer [W]
hcr Convection heat transfer coefficient [W/(m2K)]
Tr Temperature of the receiver [K]
Tap Temperature of the aperture [K]
Tm Temperature of the reflector [K]
H Height of the collector [m]
W Width of the collector [m]
Gr Grassof number
g acceleration due to gravity [m/s2]
β Coefficient of thermal expansion [1/T]
ν Kinematic viscosity [m2/s]
qR Radiation heat transfer [W/m2]
Ρ Density [kg/m3]
 Stefan–Boltzmann constant [5.670367×10−8 W⋅m−2⋅K−4]
Θ Angle of inclination of the collector
Tsky Sky temperature
Tb Ambient Temperature
frat The ratio of absorber-reflector to absorber-aperture convective heat transfer
coefficients
ρ reflectance
τ transmittance
g absorber- reflector gap width [m]
I solar irradiance intensity [W/m2]
K thermal conductivity [W/mK]
n average number of reflections, at the reflector, for solar radiation which reaches
the absorber
no average number of reflections, at the reflector, for solar radiation which does not
reaches the absorber
P gap optical loss factor
α absorptance
ϵ emittance
η efficiency
UL Overall heat loss coefficient [W/m2K]
FR Flow factor
Nu Nusselt number
Ra Rayleigh number
Q heat transfer [W]

xvii
R thermal resistance [KW-1]
m mass flow rate [kg/s]
Cp Specific heat of the fluid [J/kgK]
Φ angle of involute reflector
φʹ angle of parabolic reflector

Abbreviations
CPC Compound Parabolic Collector
FPC Flat Plate Collector
ETC Evacuated Tube Collectors
PTC Parabolic Trough Collector
LFR Linear Fresnel Reflector
FVM Finite volume method
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
BEM Boundary element method
FEM Finite element method
GIL Grid Independency Limit

xviii
 CHAPTER

1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview
The sun is a massive celestial object with a diameter of 1.39 × 109 m. The solar energy hits
earth for a mere 8 min and 20 seconds after leaving the giant star, which is 1.5 × 1011 m
away from the green planet. The sun hasan effective blackbody temperature of 5762 K.
Thetemperature in the central region is much higher and it is estimated at 8 × 106 to 40 ×
106 K. The sun is a continuous fusion reactor in which hydrogen is turned into helium. The
sun’s total energy output is 3.8 × 1020 MW which is equal to 63 MW/m2 of the sun’s
surface. Thisenergy radiates outwards in all directions. Only a tiny fraction, 1.7 × 1014 kW,
of the total radiation emittedis intercepted by the earth. However, even withthis small
fraction it is estimated that 30 min of solarradiation falling on earth is equal to the world
energydemand for one year. All the forms of energy in the world as weknow it are solar in
origin. Oil, coal, natural gas andwoods were originally produced by
photosyntheticprocesses,followed by complex chemical reactions in whichdecaying
vegetation was subjected to very high temperatures and pressures over a long period of
time. Even the wind and tide energy have a solar origin since they are caused by
differences in temperature in various regions of the earth. Advantages of solar energy as
compared withother forms of energy are that, it is clean and can be suppliedwithout any
environmental pollution. The objective of this study a particular type of collector used to
harness solar energy, its thermal analysis and performance, and review of its applications.
Another objective of this study is to find a suitable heat engine for utilizing the heat
obtained from the collector outlet as an input to the cycle and investigate its effects on the
efficiency. The solar energy is very successfully utilized in the photovoltaic and solar
thermal industry. Through different types of collectors and concentrating systems, solar
energy can be collected.

1.2 Solar collectors

Solar energy collectors are special kind of heat exchangers that transform solar radiation
energy to internal energy of the transport medium. The major component of any solar

1
system is the solar collector. This is a device which absorbs the incoming solar radiation,
converts it into heat, and transfers this heat to a fluid (usually air, water, or oil) flowing
through the collector. The solar energy thus collected is carried from the circulating fluid
either directly to the hot water or space conditioning equipment or to a thermal energy
storage tank from which can be drawn for use at night and/or cloudy days. There are
basically two types of solar collectors: non-concentrating or stationary and concentrating.
A non-concentrating collector has the same area for intercepting and for absorbing solar
radiation, whereas a sun-tracking concentrating solar collector usually has concave
reflecting surfaces to intercept and focus the sun’s beam radiation to a smaller receiving
area, thereby increasing the radiation flux. A solar collector differs in several respects from
more conventional heat exchangers. The latter usually accomplish a fluid-to-fluid
exchange with high heat transfer rates and with radiation as an unimportant factor. In the
solar collector, energy transfer is from a distant source of radiant energy to a fluid. The
flux of incident radiation is, at best, approximately 1300 W/m2 (without optical
concentration), and it is variable. The wavelength range is from 0.3 to 3 μm, which is
considerably shorter than that of the emitted radiation from most energy-absorbing
surfaces. Thus, the analysis of solar collectors presents unique problems of low and
variable energy fluxes and the relatively large importance of radiation on flux.

1.3 Classification of solar collectors

Solar energy collectors are basically distinguished by their motion, i.e. stationary, single
axis tracking and two axes tracking, and the operating temperature [4]. The various types
of solar collectors are presented in Table 1.1

TABLE 1.1 Types of solar collectors [4]

Motion Collector type Concentration ratio
Stationary Flat plate collector 1
Evacuated tube collector 1
Compound parabolic 1-5
collector
Single axis tracking Linear Fresnel reflector 10-40
Parabolic trough collector 15-45
Cylindrical trough collector 10-50
Two axes tracking Parabolic dish reflector 100-1000
Heliostat field collector 100-1500

A typical flat-plate solar collector is designed in such a way that when solar
radiation passes through a transparent cover and impinges on the blackened absorber
surface of high absorptivity, a large portion of this energy is absorbed by the plate and then
transferred to the transport medium in the fluid tubes to be carried away for storage or use.
The transparent cover is used to reduce convection losses from the absorber plate through
the restraint of the stagnant air layer between the absorber plate and the glass. It also
reduces radiation losses from the collector as the glass is transparent to the short wave
radiation received by the sun but it is nearly opaque to long-wave thermal radiation emitted
by the absorber plate (greenhouse effect).FPC are usually permanently fixed in position
and require no tracking of the sun. The collectors should be oriented directly towards the
equator, facing south in the northern hemisphere and north in the southern.

2
 ETC has demonstrated that the combination of a selective surface and an effective
convection suppressor can result in good performance at high temperatures. The vacuum
envelope reduces convection and conduction losses, so the collectors can operate at higher
temperatures than FPC. Like FPC, they collect both direct and diffuse radiation. However,
their efficiency is higher at low incidence angles. This effect tends to give ETC an
advantage over FPC in day-long performance.ETC use liquid–vapour phase change
materials to transfer heat at high efficiency. Because no evaporation or condensation above
the phase-change temperature is possible, the heat pipe offers inherent protection from
freezing and overheating. This self-limiting temperature control is a unique feature of the
evacuated heat pipe collector.
In order to deliver high temperatures with good efficiency a high performance solar
collector is required. Systems with light structures and low cost technology for process
heat applications up to 400°C could be obtained with parabolic through collectors (PTCs).
PTCs can effectively produce heat at temperatures between 50°C and 400°C. When the
parabola is pointed towards the sun, parallel rays incident on the reflector are reflected
onto the receiver tube. It is sufficient to use a single axis tracking of the sun and thus long
collector modules are produced. The collector can be orientated in an east–west direction,
tracking the sun from north to south, or orientated in a north–south direction and tracking
the sun from east to west. The advantages of the former tracking mode is that very little
collector adjustment is required during the day and the full aperture always faces the sun at
noon time but the collector performance during the early and late hours of the day is
greatly reduced due to large incidence angles.
Linear Fresnel reflector technology relies on an array of linear mirror strips which
concentrate light on to a fixed receiver mounted on a linear tower. The LFR field can be
imagined as a broken-up parabolic trough reflector but unlike parabolic troughs, it does not
have to be of parabolic shape, large absorbers can be constructed and the absorber does not
have to move. The greatest advantage of this type of system is that it uses flat or elastically
curved reflectors which are cheaper compared to parabolic glass reflectors. Additionally,
these are mounted close to the ground, thus minimizing structural requirements. One
difficulty with the LFR technology is that avoidance of shading and blocking between
adjacent reflectors leads to increased spacing between reflectors. Blocking can be reduced
by increasing the height of the absorber towers, but this increases cost.
A parabolic dish reflector is a point-focus collector that tracks the sun in two axes,
concentrating solar energy onto a receiver located at the focal point of the dish. The dish
structure must track fully the sun to reflect the beam into the thermal receiver. For this
purpose tracking mechanisms similar to the ones described in previous section are
employed in double so as the collector is tracked in two axes. The receiver absorbs the
radiant solar energy, converting it into thermal energy in a circulating fluid. Because the
receivers are distributed throughout a collector field, like parabolic troughs, parabolic
dishes are often called distributed-receiver systems.
For extremely high inputs of radiant energy, a multiplicity of flat mirrors, or
heliostats, using altazimuth mounts, can be used to reflect their incident direct solar
radiation onto a common target. This is called the heliostat field or central receiver
collector. By using slightly concave mirror segments on the heliostats, large amounts of
thermal energy can be directed into the cavity of a steam generator to produce steam at
high temperature and pressure. The concentrated heat energy absorbed by the receiver is
transferred to a circulating fluid that can be stored and later used to produce power.

3
1.4 Concentrating collectors
Many concentrator types are possible for increasing the flux of radiation on receivers. They
can be reflectors or refractors. They can be cylindrical to focus on a ‘‘line’’ or circular to
focus on a ‘‘point.’’ Receivers can be concave, flat, or convex. Examples of six
configurations are shown in Fig 1.1.

FIGURE 1.1 Possible concentrating collector configurations: (a) tubular absorbers with diffuse back
reflector; (b) tubular absorbers with specular cusp reflectors; (c) plane receiver with plane reflectors; (d)
parabolic concentrator; (e) Fresnel reflector; (f) array of heliostats with central receiver.[4]

1.5 Compound Parabolic Collector

CPC are non-imaging concentrators. To make an image, all the parallel light rays should be
concentrated at a single point. Non-Imaging collectors are the collectors which can’t make
the image (of sun). These have the capability of reflecting to the absorber all of the
incident radiation within wide limits. Their potential as collectors of solar energy was
pointed out by Winston [5]. The necessity of moving the concentrator to accommodate the
changing solar orientation can be reduced by using a trough with two sections of a
parabola facing each other, as shown in Fig. 1.2. Compound parabolic concentrators can
accept incoming radiation over a relatively wide range of angles. By using multiple
internal reflections, any radiation that is entering the aperture, within the collector
acceptance angle, finds its way to the absorber surface located at the bottom of the
collector. The absorber can take a variety of configurations. It can be cylindrical as shown
in Fig. 1.2 or flat.

FIGURE 1.2 Schematic diagram of a Compound Parabolic collector

4
 The lower portion of the reflector (AB and AC) is circular, while the upper portions
(BD and CE) are parabolic. As the upper part of a CPC contribute little to the radiation
reaching the absorber, they are usually truncated thus forming a shorter version of the
CPC, which is also cheaper. CPCs are usually covered with glass to avoid dust and other
materials from entering the collector and thus reducing the reflectivity of its walls. The
acceptance angle is defined as the angles through which a source of light can be moved and
still converge at the absorber. The orientation of a CPC collector is related to its acceptance
angle (θc; in Fig. 1.2). Also depending on the collector acceptance angle, the collector can
be stationary or tracking. A CPC concentrator can be orientated with its long axis along
either the north–south or the east–west direction and its aperture is tilted directly towards
the equator at an angle equal to the local latitude. When orientated along the north–south
direction the collector must track the sun by turning its axis so as to face the sun
continuously. As the acceptance angle of the concentrator along its long axis is wide,
seasonal tilt adjustment is not necessary.
The three most important components in a CPC are the receiver, the reflector and
the cover. High absorptance of the receiver is very important in order to absorb as much
solar radiation as possible. It can also be stationary but radiation will only be received the
hours when the sun is within the collector acceptance angle. When the concentrator is
orientated with its long axis along the east–west direction, with a little seasonal adjustment
in tilt angle the collector is able to catch the sun’s rays effectively through its wide
acceptance angle along its long axis.
The minimum acceptance angle in this case should be equal to the maximum
incidence angle projected in a north–south vertical plane during the times when output is
needed from the collector. For stationary CPC collectors mounted in this mode the
minimum acceptance angle is equal to 47°.In practice bigger angles are used to enable the
collector to collect diffuse radiation at the expense of a lower concentration ratio. Smaller
(less than 3) concentration ratio CPCs are of greatest practical interest. These according to
Pereira [6] are able to accept a large proportion of diffuse radiation incident on their
apertures and concentrate it without the need of tracking the sun.

1.6 Advantages of compound parabolic collectors

1. There are many practical applications where moderate temperature (not very high
or low) is required. Such applications are water heating, steam generation,
industrial process heating, pumping of ground water, power generation and many
more. The temperature needed for such application is about 100°C. CPC is most
suitable for this purpose. Even when it is non-evacuated and without any selective
surface coating, it can attain the temperature up to 100°C and higher.
2. CPC can also attain higher temperatures up to 200°C to 300°C at higher
concentration ratio or when it is evacuated between absorber and envelope and the
selective coating is applied on absorber surface or by using some special
modifications.
3. Focusing type simple parabolic concentrator needs a continuous tracking of the sun,
so the costly arrangement for tracking device is required, whereas for CPC, no
continuous tracking is needed. It requires only a few tilt adjustments per year.
4. No diffuse radiation is accepted by simple parabolic concentrator, while a
significant fraction (= 1/C) of diffuse radiation is accepted by CPC.
5. Due to smaller size of absorber in CPC, loss coefficient and hence losses are less as
compared to that in FPC.[7]
5
 6. Higher temperatures can be reached in CPC as compared to the FPC, making it
more suitable for use as a potential heat source input for low temperature
applications.

1.7 Parameters associated with compound parabolic collectors

To study a concentrating collector, there are certain parameters involved which are very
essential to describe a collector. Some of them have been described below.

1.7.1 Concentration Ratio

The most common definition of concentration ratio, and that used here, is an area
concentration ratio,1 the ratio of the area of aperture to the area of the receiver. (A flux
concentration ratio is defined as the ratio of the average energy flux on the receiver tothat
on the aperture, but generally there are substantial variations in energy flux over the
surface of a receiver. A local flux concentration ratio can also be defined as the ratio of the
flux at any point on the receiver to that on the aperture, which will vary across the
receiver.)The area concentration ratio is:
Aa
C
Ar (1.1)
The higher the temperature at which energy is to be delivered, the higher must be
the concentration ratio and the more precise must be the optics of both the concentrator and
the orientation system. Figure 1.3 shows practical ranges of concentration ratios and types
of optical systems needed to deliver energy at various temperatures.

FIGURE 1.3 Relationship between concentration ratio and temperature of receiver operation

6
1.7.2 Thermal performance of concentrating collectors

The absorbed radiation per unit area of aperture S must be estimated from the radiation and
the optical characteristics of the concentrator and receiver. Thermal losses from the
receiver must be estimated, usually in terms of a loss coefficient UL, which is based on the
area of the receiver. In principle, temperature gradients along the receiver can be accounted
for by a flow factor FR to allow the use of inlet fluid temperatures in energy balance
calculations. This section is concerned with the estimation of UL and FR. The losses can be
estimated as being independent of the intensity of incident radiation (although this may not
be strictly true if a transparent cover absorbs appreciable solar radiation). In any event, an
effective transmittance-absorptance product can also be defined for focusing systems.
Furthermore, with focusing systems the radiation flux at the receiver is generally such that
only cover materials with very low absorptance for solar radiation can be used without
thermal damage to the cover. Conduction losses occur through the supporting structure and
through insulation on parts of the receiver that are not irradiated.

1.8 Organization of this Thesis

The present thesis is divided into six chapters. Initializing from chapter one. Chapter two
deals literature review carried out during the present work to understand the basic and
recent advantages in the technologies based on which the objectives of the work has been
formulated. The physical and the mathematical model of the CPC have been illustrated in
chapter three. Chapter four deals with the computational study carried out for the CPC and
the results obtained from the CFD analysis. Chapter five deals with the basic ORC model
and its efficiency solved using the Engineering equation solver. And finally the conclusion
obtained from the computational study and the future scope of the present work has been
presented in chapter six.

References
1. Anderson B. Solar energy: Fundamentals in building desig. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1977.
2. Meinel AB, Meinel MP. Applied solar energy: An introduction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley;
1976.
3. Kreider JF, Kreith F. Solar heating and cooling. New York:McGraw-Hill; 1977.
4. Soteris A. Kalogirou. “Solar thermal collectors and applications”. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 30 (2004) 231–295.
5. Winston R. “Solar concentrators of novel design”. Solar Energy1974;16:89–95.
6. Pereira M. “Design and performance of a novel non-evacuated1.2x CPC type concentrator”.
Proceedings of Intersol Biennial Congress of ISES, Montreal, Canada, vol. 2.; 1985. p. 1199–204.
7. VidhyaSagar S and Krishna V. Compound Parabolic Serpentine Collector. International Journal &
Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and research.

7
 CHAPTER

2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview
The abbreviation CPC stands for "Compound Parabolic Concentrator" and a CPC is a type
of non‐ imaging concentrators. Imaging optics form an image of the source on the
receiver, a non‐ imaging concentrator does not form an image of the source, but transfers
the radiation from source to receiver over a larger distance. [1].After extensive literature
research, it can be said that the main use of CPC´s in solar applications is for use in
thermal collectors. Some of the literature research has been discussed in brief in this
section, based on which the objective for this study has been pinpointed. Study for the
organic rankine cycle has also been done to explore the feasibility of the ORC as a heat
engine for low temperature applications.In thermal collectors, the use of CPC technology
reduces the absorber area relative to the aperture area and this can reduce the overall heat
loss coefficient since the absorber area is reduced.On the other hand the use of CPC in
thermal collectors reduce the optical efficiency due to increased reflector losses, and the
optimal use of CPC reflectors in thermal collectors is the trade of between these two
parameters. This chapter also elaborates the use of ORC as a potential heat engine to be
used along with solar collectors based on the extensive literature review.

2.2 State of Research in thermal performance of CPC-Thermal collector

Bernardo et al.[2] evaluated the performance of the above mentioned low concentrating
thermal CPC collector system and compared it with a traditional flat plate collector system.
The compound parabolic collector which has a geometrical concentration of 1.5 was tested
according to the quasi dynamic method. This collector had no thermal insulation but still,
due to the bifacial absorber and the low concentration, the heat loss factor 8 was low. A
previous work by Haddi [3] in which the thermal performance of the Solarus CPCPV/ T
collector and a new prototype of the Solarus CPC‐ Thermal collector was determined,
showed significantly high values of the heat loss coefficient UL. The determined heat loss
coefficients of the two different troughs of the new prototype CPC‐ Thermal collector

9
showed values of around 8.4W/m2K. Reichl et al [4]showed that 3D-transient calculations
are necessary for a detailed reproduction of the velocity field. However, overall
temperatures and hence the involved heat fluxes can be extracted out of 2D-steady
calculations, if small local deviations are accepted. Computationally cheap 2D-steady
calculations can be sufficient if overall temperatures and heat fluxes are required and local
effects can be ignored. The CFD mesh must resolve thin features (mirror and absorber
tube) to allow physically correct temperature redistribution by thermal conduction along
the walls. The CFD model allows simulating several scenarios, which provide insight into
the heat transfer inside the collector and to the ambient. For example, efficiency curves can
be calculated for various material parameters, heat transfer coefficient, inert gas fillings
and reduced pressures. The CFD simulation model allows separating and quantifying the
individual heat transfer mechanisms. The prediction of the heat losses and their origin is an
important aid in the design of collectors with low thermal losses.
Omer and Infeld [5] studied a design procedure and thermal performance analysis
of a two stage solar energy concentrator. The concentrator is comprised of a primary one
axis parabolic trough concentrator and a second stage compound parabolic concentrator
mounted at the focus of the primary. Results indicate that in addition to improving the
concentration efficiency, the second stage compound parabolic concentrator of the
proposed design also inhibits convective air movement and, consequently, improves the
overall performance of the solar concentrator.

2.3 Review of various parameters affecting the CPC

A CPC consists of curved segments, which are parts of two parabolas. The CPC tubular
profile is such that the reflector touches the absorber at the cusp region. This results in
conductive heat losses. So, a gap between the tubular absorber and the reflector has to be
created to prevent this conduction heat loss from absorber to the metallic reflector, which
will improve the thermal efficiency of the CPC module at high temperatures. However, the
gap between the absorber and any surrounding concentric envelope will result in losses of
the incident light on the absorber, which is called gap losses. So a compromise has to be
made between the optical efficiency and the thermal efficiency. Oommen and Jayaraman
[6] fabricated a CPC module with fibreglass substrate which has the advantage of being
easily fabricated. Hence parts such as sharp corner s in the reflector below the absorber can
be easily made. The advantage of such a design is that the gap losses have been reduced
and the instantaneous efficiency has been pretty high even at higher temperatures. Tchinda
[7] studied the thermal performance of an air heaterwith a truncated compound parabolic
concentrator having a flat one-sided absorber is presented.The effects of the air mass flow
rate, the wind speed and the collector length on the thermal performance of the air heater
exhibit reasonable agreement, with experimental data with an average error of 7%.A
truncated CPC was used for heating air. The CPC had 0.6 m height, 0.6 m width, and 0.72
m2 aperture area. Flat plate absorber had 0.24 m2 area, and concentration ratio was 3.
Maximum temperature of out flowing air was 72 °C and length of receiver tube was2.0 m,
the corresponding thermal efficiency was 10%.The CPC had acceptance angle of 15° and
the receiver reached temperature of 118°C. The concentration ratio reduced from 3.8 to
3,because of truncation.
Sagar and Krishna [8] fabricated a CPC design with serpentine absorber. Serpentine
collectors consist of a flow duct that is bonded to the absorber plate in a serpentine or
zigzag fashion. Serpentine piping for the collector ensures the absorption of heat over a
wide area. They have compared the results obtained with a flat plate collector. the
10
fabricated CPC has an efficiency of 10-15% more than the conventional collectors. Also,
the amount of temperature levels of the water obtained by the use of CPC is much higher
than its counterparts. One major limitationof CPC is its height which increases rapidly with
an increase in the aperture, rendering the supporting structure bulky and costly. Truncation
reduces height, however also reduces the concentration. An improvement in the CPC
design has been suggested by Jadhav et al. [9] which brings down its height, without much
compromise on the concentration ratio. A prototype of this modified CPC design was
constructed and tested for thermal efficiencies and achievable temperatures. Results show
that the modified CPC design can harness the solar energy to provide low cost Industrial
Process Heat. They have designed and investigated a prototype, with aperture width 2 m,
acceptance angle 3° and receiver pipe of 48 mm outer diameter had a height of around 1 m.
For the same aperture width, acceptance angle and receiver dimensions, the height for
conventional, un truncated CPC is around 38 m. Thus the modified CPC design needs
substantially reduced support structure, and consequently, expected to be economical and
easy to handle.
Tang and Yu [10] CPC is proposed to be used to enhance the photovoltaic output.
Positions of the CPC are adjusted thrice every day – eastward, southward and westward in
the morning noon and afternoon respectively. The CPC axis is oriented in the polar
direction. A mathematical model computes annular solar gain captured by such a system.
In a typical case for latitude 40°, the annual solar gain would jump from around 13000
MJ/m2 to 40000 MJ/m2, because of 3-position per day adjustments of CPC. An added
advantage of aligning CPC axis along the polar direction is that the natural convection
currents pass below the photovoltaic panels and cool them. Segal and Epstein [11] studied
a way to club CPC with solar tower. In a central tower solar power plant, a beam down
reflector near the top of the tower greatly simplifies the heat retrieval. It is positioned close
to the top focal point of the tower to minimize its size. This creates a broader image at the
lower focus. The paper discusses the use of a CPC at the base, to reduce image size there.
It also analyzes the effect of truncation of CPC on its cost and performance. Central tower
technology is the latest solar technology, showing much promise. As discussed here, CPC
is likely to help improve its performance. Nixon et al.[12] carried out an exercise to decide
the best technology for solar thermal power production in India. The method adopted was
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is a well-established tool to arrive at
decisions when multiple options and multiple criteria are under consideration. The criteria
included efficiency, compatibility with working fluid, reliability, availability, affordability,
resource usage and scalability. The choices were parabolic trough, heliostat field reflectors
(solar tower), linear Fresnel reflector, parabolic dish reflector and compound parabolic
reflector. The ‘Compound Parabolic Collector with Fresnel lens’ was the most favoured
option for projects in Gujarat, India. A 2-D Fresnel lens is fitted at the aperture of a
truncated CPC. Higher temperatures can be reached, and accuracy demanded in tracking is
reduced because of CPC. Against the five options of established technologies, experts have
preferred the use of CPC. They have recommended the combination of CPC with Fresnel.
Buttinger et al. [13] studied Combination of CPC with evacuated collectors has huge
potential for process heat applications. The CPC was truncated, with aperture width of 122
mm and height of 93 mm. The concentration ratio was just 1.8. The entire collector
assembly was encased in a partially evacuated casing. This resulted in reduced convective
heat losses and higher temperature of the receiver. Jing et al. [14] studied a CPC based
photo catalytic hydrogen production solar reactor has been designed and tested. The
concentration ratio of the CPC was 4; and increased the hydrogen output by an order of
magnitude from 25 ml/h to300 ml/h, other parameters remaining constant.CPC provided
low cost concentration of solar insolation and enhanced the reactor output. Gang et al.[15]

11
studied a low temperature electric generation system, using a CPC and anOrganic Rankin
Cycle (ORC) is proposed. Organic fluid is preheated in a Flat Plate Collector (FPC) prior
to entering CPC. Heat storage units with different phase change materials for FPC and
CPC are also incorporated in the system.The use of organic Rankin cycle appears to have
potential.
Zheng et al.[16] studied a new type of serpentine compound parabolic concentrator
solar collector which is a combination of a compound parabolic concentrator solar
collector and a flat plate solar collector. The numerical results are compared with the
experimental data and the maximum deviation is 8.07%.The experimental results show that
the thermal efficiency of the collector can be as high as 60.5%.The numerical and
experimental results show that the new collector is more suitable to provide low
temperature hot water for space heating in cold regions and the mathematical model will be
much helpful in the designing and optimizing of the solar collectors. The increase of tube
receiver length from 10 to 45 m gives an increase in the temperature rise of 12.3 K and a
decrease in the instantaneous thermal efficiency of 10.8%. Increasing the tube receiver
diameter and the water flow velocity, however, the instantaneous thermal efficiency and
temperature rise were on the contrary. The experimental and numerical results showed that
the new type of SCPC collector had high-efficiency and had a high anti freezing resistance
to provide low temperature hot water for space heating in cold regions and the
mathematical model was much helpful in the designing and optimizing of the solar
collectors.
Yong et al.[17] studied the thermal performance of evacuated CPC solar collector
with a cylindrical absorber experimentally. Modified types of this solar collector are
always combined with the evacuated glass envelop or tracking system. The result shows
the thermal efficiency of the tracking CPC solar collector is more stable and about 14.9%
higher than that of the stationary CPC solar collector. Tracking solar collector exceeded the
stationary one in thermal efficiency of up to 14.94% because the tracking collector always
adjusting the collector to face the sun for a normal incidence. One tolerance problem
caused by the tracking system is due to the motor-driven mechanism moves exactly with
the clock time instead of the real sun trace. The thermal resistant of the air between the
inner glass and the copper tube will be high enough to reduce the convection heat
exchange to some extent. Higher outlet temperatures will be available if the absorber
diameter decreases to obtain higher geometrical concentration ratio. These consequences
might be used for design or performance evaluation of the CPC solar collectors. Antonelli
et al.[18] studied the use of concentrated solar power(CSP) for the production of
electricity. They employed CPC collector for harnessing the solar energy. For the power
cycle, they employed ORC for generating power. The influence of the thermodynamic
cycle parameters, the working fluid, the concentration and the tilt angle of the collectors on
the electrical energy production were taken into account. CPC is able to collect a higher
fraction of both the direct and the diffuse radiation, although they have a lower efficiency
at high temperature. Their employment is therefore suited for the collection of medium
temperature heat (up to 200°C) and is useful for the reduction of the installation cost of
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). González et al. [19] designed an experimental setup to
test different operational conditions for a CPC module that has two water storage tanks, a
recirculation pump, and a support structure that allows positioning the CPC at different
angles. The module has 12 CPCs, each one with real concentration ratio of 1.8, acceptance
angle of 30°, atubular receiver covered by a selective surface, truncation height of 0.044 m
and collector aperture area of 2.1 m. The collector was tested at different inlet temperatures
and mass flow rates with average solar irradiance in the collector plane of 940 W/m2 and

12
ambient temperature of 35.2 °C during the test days. The maximum increment of
temperature was 7°C was obtained with a mass flow rate of 2 kg/min, (Tin equal to 42.5°C,
Tamb equal to 35.6°C, with solar irradiance in the collector plane of 1054 W/m2), while the
highest useful energy gain was 1.47 kW at a mass flow rate of 12 kg/min (a solar
irradiance on the collector plane of 1026 W/m2 and a Tamb equal to 36°C). Kuo et al.[20]
overcame the major limits of a traditional CPC, such as a rapid increase in height for a
larger aperture width and a low concentration ratio by modifying the traditional CPC
through optical analysis by adjusting the vertical position of the receiver. They concluded
that setting the height of the receiver to 0.46 times the aperture width was found to permit a
greater collection range of incident rays. In addition, they proposed a better method for
evaluating the performance of the CPC, using an intercept factor to account for the total
reflection phenomenon caused by the receiver.

2.4 Effect of tube receiver length

Experiments conducted by Zheng et al.[16] showed that with the tube receiver length
increasing, the total solar radiation received by the collector increases, and the temperature
rise of water increases. However, the temperature difference between the collector and the
ambient air increases, which can increase the heat loss and decrease the instantaneous
thermal efficiency.

2.5 Effect of tube receiver diameter

The instantaneous thermal efficiency of the collector increases, when increasing the tube
receiver diameter, but the temperature rise decreases. It can be attributed to the larger the
tube receiver diameter the greater the water mass flow rate and the lower the outlet water
temperature, while the water flow velocity remains constant. Moreover, the temperature
difference between the ambient air and collector decreases, which can decrease the heat
loss and improve the instantaneous thermal efficiency. Results also showed that the effect
of the tube receiver diameter on the thermal efficiency is not significant.

2.6 Effect of tube receiver emissivity

As tube receiver emissivity increases, the instantaneous thermal efficiency and the
temperature rise decrease slowly. This can be explained by the fact, that when the receiver
emissivity increases, the radiation heat transfer is enhanced. Simultaneously, the
convective and radiation heat transfer are increased. The heat loss will increase and the
instantaneous thermal efficiency will decline. Therefore, it is valuable to reduce the
receiver tube emissivity by improving the performance of the selective absorbing coating.

2.7 Effect of concentration ratio

The temperature rise and instantaneous thermal efficiency are both increased with the
increase of the concentration ratio. The increasing rate slows down, when the concentration
ratio increases to 3. When enlarging the concentration ratio, the aperture area increases
while the tube receiver diameter remains constant. The total received radiation intensity
increases, which leads to the increase of temperature rise and instantaneous thermal

13
efficiency. However, the curves of the temperature rise and instantaneous thermal
efficiency are becoming more and more levelled when increasing the concentration ratio. It
can be attributed to the fact, that the ratio of total received radiation intensity and aperture
area is decreased.

2.8 Research related to efficiency studies of ORC

Moran and Shapiro discuss several power generation cycles in Fundamentals of
Engineering Thermodynamics primarily focussing on the Rankine cycle [21].Gang et
al.[22]designed a low-temperature solar thermal electric generation with two stage
collectors and heat storage units. The system consists of FPC and CPC collectors, heat
storage, and ORC subsystem. FPCs offer the advantage of accepting high pressure without
leakage. The organic fluid flows through FPCs directly and is heated indirectly by CPC
collectors with the intermediate of conduction oil. They concluded in their study that the
heat transfer irreversibility between conduction oil and organic fluids will be large if single
stage collectors are adopted. The proportion of FPC area to the total collector area plays an
important role in both the overall heat collection efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the
two-stage collectors. On the condition of evaporation temperature 120°C, environment
temperature20°C and irradiation 750 2 W /m , the ORC efficiency for R123, R113,
R245fa, pentane or butane is 0.154, 0.161, 0.148, 0.160 or 0.147 respectively. Although
R113 and pentane have the best ORC performance the highest collector efficiency is
obtained on the use of R245faand butane. And the heat collection efficiency is 49.23%,
49.18%, 50.12%, 48.56% or 50.04%respectively. They used FPC as the heat source for the
ORC system. Srilatha and Prasad [23] did an extensive review on ORC to find a suitable
solar input source. ORC can be applied to heat and power plants (for example a small scale
cogeneration plant on a domestic water heater) , or to industrial and farming processes
such as organic products fermentation, hot exhausts from ovens or furnaces (e.g. lime and
cement kilns), flue-gas condensation, exhaust gases from vehicles, inter cooling of a
compressor, condenser of a power cycle, etc. They highlighted the advantages of ORC
over conventional rankine cycle such as the problem of high specific investment costs for
machinery such as steam boilers are overcome due to the low working pressures in ORC
power plants. Another advantage is the long operational life of the machine due to the
characteristics of the working fluid, that unlike steam is non eroding and non corroding for
valve seats tubing and turbine blades. The ORC process also helps to overcome the
relatively small amount of input fuel available in many regions becausean efficient ORC
power plant is possible for smaller sized plants. ORC modules are easy to install (compact,
skid mounted standard module) and very easy to operate.ORC systems require low
maintenance (no droplet erosion in the turbine, low pressure evaporator, automation),
thereby reducing the running costs. Mazurek et al. [24] studied the performance analysis of
a power plant with the Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC). The power plant is supplied by
thermal energy utilized from a solar energy collector. R245fa was the working fluid for the
ORC system. The organic cycle with heat regeneration was built and tested experimentally.
The ORC with a heat regenerator obtained the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of
approximately 9%.
Roy et al. [25] analysed a non-regenerative ORC, based on the parametric
optimization, using R-12, R-123, R-134a and R-717 as working fluids superheated at
constant pressure. They compared the system and second law efficiency, irreversibility of
the system, availability ratio, work output, mass flow rate with increase in turbine inlet
temperature under different heat source temperature conditions. Based on their analysis,

14
they concluded that R-134a yields minimum system efficiency, availability ratio, turbine
work output and second law efficiency with maximum irreversibility. Ksayera [26]
analysed an ORC system which delivered the required electric power which provides for
the input for heating sanitary water. The system operates between a cold source of 25°C
and a hot source water at 120°C in solar hours, when solar flux is available, and between a
cold source of 15°C and a hot source : water at 98°C coming from the accumulation tank in
no-solar hours. The maximum generated electric power is 2000 W, and the used daily hot
water is200 l at 60°C. The advantages of the ORC system are the electricity generation, the
hot water production and the low cost compared to photovoltaic electric power generation.
Tchanche et al. [27] extensively reviewed the use of ORC in converting low grade heat
into power. Heat resources listed by them for using along with ORC are solar energy,
geothermal energy, biomass products, surface seawater, and waste heat from various
thermal processes. They investigated mature existing applications such as Binary
geothermal and binary biomass. They studied the Solar modular power plants that can
beused at smaller scale for cogeneration applications in buildings. Various applications of
ORC includes solar thermal electricity, solar thermal driven reverse osmosis desalination
(Solar ORC-RO), Duplex-Rankine cooling, solar pond power systems, ocean thermal
energy conversion (OTEC), biomass combined heat and power plants (CHP), binary
geothermal systems and low-grade waste heat recycling (ORC-WHR) from thermal
devices and processes. Kumar and Shukla [28] analysed the performance of ORC with
benzene as working fluid has been done to improve efficiency and achieve better economy.
they showed experimentally that in order to produce 9 kW of power output with the same
variation of mass flow rate as well as Reynolds number, the efficiency of ORC system will
have to vary from 32.87% to 54.98%and that is possible only when the temperature at the
outlet of turbine will be varied from 259.53°C to 127.22°C respectively. They did not
consider phase change during their study as the fire point of benzene is very low and any
instant sparking may cause hazard and hence in their study they considered only a liquid to
liquid heat transfer device. They designed a novel system working on binary cycle. First
cycle is operated with the heat transfer fluid in liquid state while the second cycle is
operated with organic fluid, Benzene.
Astolfi et al. [29] analyzed a combined concentrating solar power system and a
geothermal binary plant based on a supercritical ORC. Besides utilization of an
intermediate enthalpy geothermal source, a solar parabolic trough field was included in the
plant, introducing an additional high temperature heat source for the cycle and increasing
power production. The off-design performance analysis of the power cycle was performed
and an hour-by-hour simulation was then carried out to estimate the yearly production
using a detailed solar field model. Finally, a differential economic analysis was performed
to determine the cost of the additional electricity generated with the solar source. Delgado
and Rodríguez [30] carried out a theoretical analysis that the thermal energy required by a
solar ORC is supplied by means of stationary solar collectors. They considered twelve
substances as working fluids of the ORC and four different models of stationary solar
collectors including flat plate collectors, compound parabolic collectors and evacuated tube
collectors. They evaluated the operating conditions of the solar ORC that minimizes the
aperture area needed per unit of mechanical power output of the solar cycle for every
working fluid and every solar collector. They also considered the coupling between the
low-temperature solar ORC and seawater and brackish water reverse osmosis desalination
units with four working fluids. They evaluated the volumetric flow of fresh water produced
per unit of aperture area of stationary solar collector. They also analyzed the influence of
condensation temperature of the ORC and regeneration’s process effectiveness on the
productivity of the system. Li et al. [31] proposed a cogeneration system producing

15
electricity and freshwater by a solar field driven supercritical SORC coupled with a
desalination unit. The parabolic trough solar collectors in the proposed system could
produce 700kW thermal energy with temperatures up to 400°C at peak conditions. The
SORC used hexamethyldisiloxane as the working fluid and could achieve cycle efficiency
close to 21%. The RO unit specific energy consumption decreases due to the elevated
temperature of the preheated seawater. Based on variable incident solar radiation, the
proposed system had two modes of operation as electricity only and water-electricity co-
generation. This system could reduce the negative impact of intermittent solar energy
without thermal energy storage by converting solar energy to desalinated water. Bu et al.
[32] developed a thermodynamic model to develop a coupled ORC and vapor compression
cycle (VCC) for ice maker driven by solar energy. Four working fluids of R123, R245fa,
R600a and R600 were selected and evaluated to identify suitable working fluids which
may yield high system efficiencies. Besides, the effects of generation temperature and
condensation temperature on the system performance were also analyzed. In terms of
power efficiency and expander size, R600 and R600a are more suitable working fluids for
ORC. Also, R600a and R600 are more appropriate working fluids for VCC in terms of
pressure ratio and coefficient of performance. In terms of overall efficiency and ice
production per square meter collector per day, R123 is most suitable working fluid for
ORC/VCC. The generation temperature and condensation temperature have important
effects on overall efficiency and ice production. There is always an optimal generation
temperature at which overall efficiency and ice production can achieve the maximum
values, while the generation temperature can be controlled by changing the mass flow rate
of working fluid for ORC. In addition, the system performance and payback period should
be comprehensively considered so as to decide to adopt air cooled or water cooled
condenser due to having different condensation temperature.

2.9 Inferences drawn from the literature review

Based on the above comprehensive literature review carried out for the present work, the
following inferences have been drawn:
 Among all the existing collector technologies, CPC have the highest potential to be
used in low operating temperature condition.
 The use of low or no tracking at all makes it viable for low cost power production
if, coupled with an equally complementing power cycle.
 Study of micro power plants for remote sections can be carried out with CPC being
the heat input source.
 Organic Rankine cycle can be chosen as a heat engine for a CPC unit, where the
temperature of the working fluid can be used as a heat input to the ORC.
 The working fluid to be used in the study of the ORC system is selected as R600a.

2.10 Objectives of the present study

The aim of the present study is two folds- modelling of compound parabolic collector and
studying its contribution in the performance improvement of ORC engine for different
ambient and operating conditions. The study of the thermal performance of the CPC was
carried out by varying the mass flow rate of the working fluid, the inlet temperature of the
working medium and the solar radiation flux falling on the CPC aperture, to determine
their effect on the outlet temperature of the CPC. The outlet temperature of the working

16
medium of the CPC thus obtained is used as an inlet to the expander of ORC to study the
consequences on the efficiency of ORC. The analysis of the CPC is carried out in Ansys
(14.0) and the modelling of ORC for the estimation of its efficiency has been done with the
help of the Engineering equation solver.

References
1. Winston R., Minano J.C. and Benitez P. (2005) Nonimaging Optics, Elsevier AcademicPress,
Burlington.
2. Bernardo L.R., Davidsson H. and Karlsson B. (2011a) Performance Evaluation of a HighSolar
Fraction CPC.Collector System.
3. Haddi J. (2013) Thermal Evaluation of a Solarus PV‐ T Collector, Master Thesis, Dalarna
University, Borlänge, Sweden.
4. Ch. Reichl, F. Hengstberger, Ch. Zauner. Heat transfer mechanisms in a compound parabolic
concentrator. Comparison of computational fluid dynamics simulations to particle image
velocimetryand local temperature measurements.
5. Omer S, Infeld D. Design and thermal analysis of a two stage solar concentrator for combined heat
and thermoelectric power generation.Energy Conversion & Management 41 (2000) 737-756.
6. Oommen R, Jayaraman S Developement and performance analysis of compound parabolic solar
concentrators with reduced gap losses..
7. Tchinda.R. Thermal behaviour of solar air heater with compound parabolic concentrator. Energy
Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 529–540.
8. VidhyaSagar S and Siva Ramakrishna V Compound Parabolic Serpentine Collector. International
Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and research.
9. Jadhav A, Ajitkumar S. Gudekar, Ramchandra G. Patil, Dhanaji M. Kale, Sudhir V. Panse,
Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi. Performance analysis of a novel and cost effective CPC system.Energy
Conversion and Management 66 (2013) 56–65.
10. Tang R, Yu Y. Feasibility and optical performance of one axis three positionssun-tracking polar-
axis aligned CPCS for photovoltaic applications. Sol Energy 2010;84:1666–75.
11. Segal A, Epstein M. Truncation of the secondary concentrator (CPC) as means tocost effective
beam-down system. ASME ConfProc 2009;2009:561–5.
12. Nixon JD, Dey PK, Davies PA. Which is the best solar thermal collectiontechnology for electricity
generation in north-west India? Evaluation of options using the analytical hierarchy process. Energy
2010;35:5230–40.
13. Buttinger F, Beikircher T, Pröll M, Schölkopf W. Development of a new flatstationary evacuated
CPC-collector for process heat applications. Sol Energy 2010;84:1166–74.
14. Jing D, Liu H, Zhang X, Zhao L, Guo L. Photocatalytic hydrogen productionunder direct solar light
in a CPC based solar reactor: reactor design and preliminary results. Energy Conversation Manage
2009;50:2919–26.
15. Gang P, Jing L, Jie J. Design and analysis of a novel low-temperature solarthermal electric system
with two-stage collectors and heat storage units. Renewable Energy 2011;36:2324–33.
16. Zheng W, Yang L, Zhang H, Shijun You, Zhu C. Numerical and experimental investigation on a
new type of compoundparabolic concentrator solar collector. Energy Conversion and Management
129 (2016) 11–22.
17. Yong Kim, GuiYoung Han, Taebeom Seo.An evaluation on thermal performance of CPC solar
collector.International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (2008) 446–457.
18. M. Antonelli, A. Baccioli, M. Francesconi, U. Desideri, L. Martorano. Electrical production of a
small size Concentrated Solar Power plantwith compound parabolic collectors. Renewable Energy
83 (2015) 1110-1118.
19. Santos-González, M. Sandoval-Reyea, O. García-Valladareb, N. Ortega,V.H. Gómez.Design and
Evaluation of a Compound Parabolic Concentrator for Heat Generation of Thermal
Processes.Energy Procedia 57 ( 2014 ) 2956 – 2965.
20. Chia-Wei Kuo, Pei-Shan Yen, Wen-Chey Chang, Keh-Chin Chang.The design and optical analysis
of compound parabolic collector.Procedia Engineering 79 ( 2014 ) 258 – 262.
21. Moran, Michael J., and Howard N. Shapiro. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics.
Hoboken, N.J. : Chichester: Wiley ; John Wiley, 2008. Print.

17
22. Gang P, Li Jing, JiJie. Working Fluid Selection for Low Temperature Solar Thermal Power
Generation with Two-stage Collectors and Heat Storage Units. Solar Collectors and Panels, Theory
and Applications.
23. Srilatha T, B. Anjaneya Prasad, S. Chakradhar Goud. A Review On Organic Rankine Cycle With
Respect To Power Plant Engineering. AIJREAS. VOLUME 1, ISSUE 3 (2016, March).
24. Mazurek A B-, Świeboda T & Mazurek W. Performance Analysis of a Solar-Powered Organic
Rankine Cycle Engine. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. ISSN: 1096-2247
(Print).
25. Roy J.P, Mishra M.K , Misra A. Performance analysis of an Organic Rankine Cycle with
superheating under different heat source temperature conditions. Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2995–
3004.
26. E. BouLawz Ksayera. Design of an ORC system operating with solar heat and producing sanitary
hot water. Energy Procedia 6 (2011) 389–395.
27. Bertrand F. Tchanche, Gr. Lambrinos, A. Frangoudakis, G. Papadakis. Low-grade heat conversion
into power using organic Rankine cycles – A review of various applications. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 3963–3979.
28. Kumar A, Shukla.S.K Analysis and performance of ORC based solar thermal power plantusing
benzene as a working fluid.3rd International Conference on Innovations in Automation and
Mechatronics Engineering, ICIAME 2016. Procedia Technology 23 ( 2016 ) 454 – 463.
29. M. Astolfi, L. Xodo, M. C. Romano, and E. Macchi, “Technical and economical analysis of a solar-
geothermal hybrid plant based on an organic rankine cycle,” Geothermics, vol. 40, pp. 58-68, 2011..
30. A. M. Delgado-Torres and L García-Rodríguez, “Analysis and optimization of the low-temperature
solar organic rankine cycle (ORC),” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 51, pp. 2846-2856,
2010.
31. .C. Li, G. Kosmadakis, D. Manolakos, E. Stefanakos, G. Papadakis, and D. Y. Goswami,
“Performance investigation of concentrating solar collectors coupled with a transcritical organic
rankine cycle for power and seawater desalination co-generation,” Desalination, vol. 318, pp. 107-
117, 2013.
32. Bertrand F. Tchanche, Gr. Lambrinos, A. Frangoudakis, G. Papadakis. Low-grade heat conversion
into power using organic Rankine cycles – A review of various applications. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 3963–3979 .

18
 CHAPTER

3
PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL
MODELLING OF CPC

3.1 Overview
The study of the performance of the compound parabolic collector considering the
formulated objectives of the present work necessitates a physical model and a
mathematical model for calculating the efficiency. This chapter describes the physical
model undertaken for the study and all the necessary formulations that are going to be
required in order to achieve the targeted goal of the present work.

3.2 Modelling of the CPC

FIGURE 3.1 Schematic Diagram of TheCPC

19
The CPC module undertaken for the current study consists of a complex cylindrical-
parabolic reflection surface and a copper tube with ø15 mm diameter used as the absorber.
The schematic diagram is shown in Fig 3.1. Conversion of solar energy into heat is
conducted on the pipe collector. Pipe absorber is painted with selective colour of high
absorbing properties and low emissivity (εr). The area of the reflector has high reflection
ratio (ρm). Between the pipe absorber and the reflector there is a gap (hole) which stops
heat transfer from the collector pipe to the reflector. Water is the working fluid, with a
laminar flow through the pipe of the collector. Apparatus of the collector is covered by
transparent cover layer made of glass so the reflector area could be saved from wearing
and to lower the value of heat loss from the assembly pipe absorber- surrounding pipe
layer.
The reflector is modelled using aluminium. The physical properties of solid
materials were considered constant with temperature. The air in the cavity was modelled as
incompressible ideal gas. Thickness of the aluminium reflector is taken as 1 mm. The glass
cover at the top has a thickness of 4 mm. The length of the reflector is taken as 1 m in the
axial direction. A concentration ratio of 2 was adopted for this study. For the circular
receiver the gap between receiver and bottom of enclosure was obtained joining two
parabolas by a corner radius of 1 mm. Values of tilt angle, measured in relation to the
ground is chosen as 45°. Copper is chosen as the absorber material. The thickness of the
copper tube is taken as 1 mm.

3.3 Basic assumptions

The following assumptions were introduced for the definition of mathematical model:
 Steady state performance is assumed.
 The sky was treated as an absolute black object, which is the source of
infraredradiation during an equivalent sky temperature.
 Reflected radiation from surrounding objects was considered negligible and wasnot
taken into account.
 Diffusive insulation on the apparatus of the cover is isotropic.
 CPC collector has permanent Sun tracking, thus Sun rays are normal to the planeof
transparent cover (aperture plane).
 Radiation to the collector is unified.
 The aperture, envelope, receiver and reflectorhave uniform temperature
distributions and the CPC component properties are independent of temperature.
 Heat transport in the transparent cover, surrounding cover layer,
collectorsurrounding layer, pipe absorber and the fluid is transient.
 Transparent cover, transparent cover layer, collector surrounding layer, and
pipeabsorber are homogenous and isotropic objects.
 Heat transport by conduction in the transparent cover layer and the glass layer is
negligible due to small heat conductivity of glass.
 Thermo-physical properties of the CPC collector component material (ρ*, c, λ) as
well as optic properties (ρ, τ, ε, α) of the components of CPC collector do not
depend on coordinates, temperature or time;
 Fluid flow is steady state and it is conducted only in the axial direction, thus the
velocity field is related just to the speed component.
 Fluid flow shape is the same in every axial cross sections, thus the tangential
velocity component does not exist.

20
  Radial velocity component is neglected as a value of smaller order and thus the
convection in radial direction is also neglected.
 Fluid flow may be considered incompressible.
 Conduction in the axial direction has a negligibly small contribution to the resulting
heat transport compared to the convection.

3.4 Geometric construction

FIGURE 3.2 Geometric specifications of the CPC

The equations of the involute part (AB) as shown in Fig 3.2 are shown below [1]:
X  r (sin    cos  ) (3.1)
Y  r (cos  sin  ) (3.2)

Where, 0      max
2
The equations of the parabolic part (BC) as shown in Fig 3.2 are below [1]:
X  r (sin    sin  ) (3.3)
Y  r (cos   sin  ) (3.4)

  max    cos(   max)
  2
Where, 1  sin(   max)
 3
and   max      max
2 2
When the CPC collector is reduced as half as its height, the concentration ratio decreases
by 10% and the average number of reflections decreases by 17%, which shows that the
truncated CPC has a high optical efficiency but a little effect on the concentration ratio. In
the Fig 3.2 hʹ and aʹ are the theoretically values of the height and aperture width, h and a
are the truncated values.

21
3.5 System description
In this study, a laminar flow of the working fluid through the absorber is assumed. The
pipe of the absorber is subjected to solar radiation. Solar rays go through the transparent
glass cover on the collector apparatus. A part of the solar radiation after going through the
transparent cover of the pipe falls directly to the absorber. Another part of the solar
radiation, after reflection from the reflector goes through the transparent cover layer of the
pipe and falls at the pipe absorber.

3.6 Convection and radiation heat transfer formulations of the model

Various modes of heat transfer that takes place in the above described CPC modelhave
been described in this section. The major modes of heat transfer are radiation and
convection. Conduction is negligible in this case.

3.6.1 Receiver – aperture

a. Heat transfer taking place between the receiver and the aperture through convection
is given by Eq (3.5) [2]
qcr  a  hcr  a (Tr  Tap ) (3.5)
Nur  akair , a
Where, hcr  a 
De
Several experimental and theoretical studies have been undertaken to determine
convective heat transfer correlations for CPCs [2, 3, 4 ]. In each study, a correlation
between Nusselt and Grashof numbers was proposed. A convective heat transfer
correlation has been obtained Eames and Norton [4] which takes into account acceptance
angle and angular inclination. The correlation was of the form:
Grr  a (0.18250.0736 cos(  45))
0.365
H
Nur  a  0.398   
W  1.24  0.066054 cos(  45) (3.6)
Where, Grr  a evaluated from
g  (Tr  Ta )
Grr  a 
2 (3.7)
The results of Eames and Norton [4] yield a linear plot of the angular dependent
Nu-Gr correlations over the range of interest. The system investigated by Eames and
Norton (1993) more closely than any of the others matches the type of CPC system to be
modelled. The conductivity and kinematic viscosity have been parameterized Rabl [6]
from the expressions:
kair  koTa 0.7 (3.8)
4 1 0.7
Where, ko  4.86 10 Wm K (3.9)
And  e   oTe
1.7
(3.10)
10 2 1 1.7
Where,  o  9.76 10 ms K (3.11)

22
 b. The mode of heat transfer through radiation between the aperture and the receiver
has been formulated below as explained in Prapas et al. [3]
qRr  a   ef , r  a (Tr 4  Ta 4 ) (3.12)
 a r  m n
Where,  ef , r  a 
1   m 2n  a  r (3.13)
Total thermal resistances for the absorber-aperture are given by Prapas et al. [3]:
Convective resistance + Radiative resistance
 Tr  Ta   Tr  Ta 
 RR , r  a   +  RC , r  a  
 qR , e  aAr   qC , r  aAe  (3.14)

3.6.2 Aperture- ambient

a. Heat transfer taking place between the ambient and the aperture through convection
is given by Eq (3.15)[7]
If   0 , qC , a  b is given by the equation
qC , a  b  hC , a  b(Ta  Tb) (3.15)
 Ta  Tb  sin  
0.25

Where, hC , a  b  5.7  3.8V  1.42   (3.16)

 W 
And V is the wind velocity outside the CPC. The above equation is valid for laminar flow
where, 1104 Gr 1109 .
b. The mode of heat transfer through radiation between the aperture and the ambient
has been formulated in the Eqbelow as explained in Prapas et al. [3]

qR , a  b   a Ta 4  Tsky 4  (3.17)
Where, Tsky  0.0552Tb K 1.5

Total thermal resistances for the absorber-aperture are given by Prapas et al. [3]:
Convective resistance + Radiative resistance
 Ta  Tb   Ta  Tb 
 RR , a  b   +  RC , a  b  
 qR , a  bAa   qC , a  bAa  (3.18)

3.6.3 Reflector- ambient

In the model and for most practical situations, the underside of the reflector is well
insulated from back losses. Heat losses are therefore minimal for properly designed
concentrators. The heat flux has been estimated to be 10% of that from the aperture to the
ambient as given by Prapas et al. [3]
qC , m  b  0.1qC , a  b (3.19)
And the convective heat transfer coefficient is given by
qC , m  b
hC , m  b 
Tm  Tb (3.20)

23
3.6.4 Absorber- Reflector

a. Heat transfer taking place through convection between absorber and reflector is
formulated below as explained in Prapas et al. [3].

The heat flux from the absorber to the reflector can be expressed as:
qC , a  m  hC , a  m(Ta  Tm) (3.21)
Where from experimental correlations [3]
hC , a  m  frathC , a  m (3.22)
Where, frat=0.55[3]
Heat transfer through radiation between the absorber and the reflector is formulated
b. below as explained by Prapas et al. [3].
The heat transfer due to radiation can be expressed as:
qR , a  m   ef , a  m   (Ta 4  Tm 4 ) (3.23)
Where,

 ef , a  m 
1   men  a
1   me 2n

a
1   e  
e
m
n
e

(3.24)
Total thermal resistances for the absorber-aperture are given by Prapas et al. [3]:
Convective resistance + Radiative resistance
 Ta  Tm   Ta  Tm 
 RR , a  m   +  RC , a  m  
 qR , a  mAa   qC , a  mAa  (3.25)
The part of the incident solar radiation absorbed by the cover (aperture) as given by Prapas
et al. [3]:

qa  Itot a 1   a  e  m 2n  (3.26)
The part of incident solar radiation absorbed by the reflector as given by Prapas et al. [3]:
   max    m no  1


qm  Iu a m  n   m n  e 1 
   
  Itot  Iu   a m
 m 1 (3.27)
where the first term of the right-hand side of the equation accounts for the part of the solar
radiation absorbed by the reflector, which would otherwise have reached the absorber (θ ≤
θmax) and the second term accounts for the absorbed solar radiation entering the CPC
collector at an incidence angle >θ max. This latter radiation, which is attenuated by
absorption at the reflecting surfaces and the top cover, escapes out of the collector after n o
reflections across the reflector surfaces. The part of the incident solar radiation absorbed by
the absorber as given by Prapas et al. [3]:
qr  Iu aP  m n r   r 
(3.28)
Where,
g is the gap loss factor with g = z.
P  1
 rr

24
 The total thermal resistance Ri→j between the collector components i and j
corresponding to the simultaneous radiative and convective contributions, R R,i→j and RC,i→j
respectively, is given by Prapas et al. [3]:
1 1 1
 
Ri  j RR , i  j RC , i  j (3.29)
The above equation can be written in terms of the corresponding heat transfer
coefficients as:
hi  j  hR , i  j  hC , i  j (3.30)

The unknown temperatures in each component of the collector can be estimated from
the following Eqs [9]:
a. Absorber
qabs  qrad , r  a  qrad , r  m  qC , r  a  qCOND , r  amb  qu (3.31)
Reflector
 qR , r  m  qR , m  a  qCOND , m  amb  0
qabs b. (3.32)
c. Cover (aperture)
qabs  qR , r  a  qR , m  a  qC , r  a  qR , a  sky  qC , a  amb  0 (3.33)
Considering absorber and ambient temperature as input parameters, the reflector as
well as the aperture temperature can be obtained. The effective transmissivity of CPC,
τCPC, accounting for reflection loss inside the CPC depends on the specular reflectivity, ρ,
of CPC wall and the average number of reflections, n, and is given as τ cpc = ρn.
Rabl [6]has also shown that the average number of reflection, n, passing through a CPC
inside is acceptance angle is given as:
1  Aa  1  2sin  max 1  sin  max 
n  
2sin  max  Aap  2sin 2  max (3.34)

3.7 Efficiency of the collector

The thermal efficiency of the collector can be estimated in two different ways. Firstly by
considering the most generic ways which is basically its ability to convert a certain amount
of radiated solar energy into heat, and is given as:
mCpf Tout  Tin 

Itot  Ar (3.35)

Secondly, the thermal efficiency can also be calculated by taking the optics of the
collector into account and is given by Antonelli et al. [8]:
Q
   
ItotA (3.36)
For the optical efficiency a simplified approach was employed. Since the main
focus of this paper is the thermal behaviour, the optical efficiency was calculated by a
balance of solar radiation inside the enclosure. Based on this approach, the optical
efficiency was calculated as [8]:

25
 
1   
1
 opt     
 C  (3.37)
Adopting a value of τ = 0.95, α = 0.95, ρ = 0.95, the efficiency comes out to be 0.86.
The heat transfer coefficient was used to obtain the Nusselt number employing an
appropriate characteristic length. The definition of the Grashof number was modified to
take into account the geometry of the collector and tilt angle as follows [8]:
 gH 3 cos  Tr  Tamb 
Gr 
2 (3.38)
The correlation between Nusselt number and Rayleigh number is given by:
NuL  B  Pr Gr   B  Ra 
n n
(3.39)
The values of B and n depend on the geometry of the surface and the flow regime.
The value of n is usually 1/4 for laminar flow and 1/3 for turbulent flow. The value of the
constant B is normally less than 1. In this study the CPC is inclined at an angle of 45°. The
values of B and n will also change depending on the inclination. For the current study the
values of the constant B and n are taken from the study conducted by Antonelli et al.[7].
The values of B and n are chosen as 0.31 and 0.147 respectively for CPC with circular
absorber inclined at an angle of 45°.
Thermal heat losses can be expressed as [8]:
k
Q  B  Ra  Ar Tr  Tamb 
n

L (3.40)
The expansion coefficient β is the reciprocal of film temperature and therefore the
efficiency can be written as [8]:
n 1
BkAr  2 g cos Pr H 3  Tr  Ta 
n

   opt   
   Tr  Ta 
n
LAaI 
(3.41)
The empirical expression of UL for a CPC with tubular absorber coated with
selective coating, covered with a transparent cover is given by Subhi et al. [10]:
UL   0.18  16.95 r  0.212  0.00255Ta   0.00186  0.000012Ta Tr  Ta   (3.42)

References
1. Zheng W, Yang L, Zhang H, You S, Zhu C. Numerical and experimental investigation on a new
type of compoundparabolic concentrator solar collector. Energy Conversion and Management 129
(2016) 11–22
2. Tatara R. A. and Thodos T. Experimental natural convective studies within a compound parabolic
concentrator enclosure. ASME Winter Meeting, Miami, Fla, pp. 17-22 (1985).
3. Prapas D. E., Norton B. and Probert S. D. Thermal design of compound parabolic concentrating
solar energy collectors. J. Solar Energy Engg 109, 161 168 (1987a).
4. Chew T. C., Wijeysundera N. E. and Tay A. O. An experimental study of free convection in
compound parabolic concentration (CPC) cavities. J. Solar Energy Engg 110, 293-298 (1988).
5. Eames P. C. and Norton B. Detailed parametric analysis of heat transfer in CPC solar energy
collectors. Solar Energy 50, 321-338 (1993).
6. Rabl A. Comparison of solar concentrators. Solar Energy 17, 255 258 (1976).

26
7. Kothdiwala A F, B. Norton and P.C. Eames. The effect of variation of angle of inclination on the
performance of low-concentration-ratio compound parabolic concentrating solar collectors. Solar
Energy Vol 55, No. 4, pp. 301-309, 1995
8. Antonelli M, Francesconi M, Marco P Di, Desideri U. Analysis of heat transfer in different CPC
solar collectors: A CFD approach. Applied Thermal Engineering 101 (2016) 479–489
9. N. Fraidenraich, R. De C. F. De Lima, C. Tiba and E. M. De S. Barbosa. Simulation model of a cpc
collector with temperature dependent heat loss coefficient.Solar Energy Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 99–110,
1999.
10. Subhi S. YassenA M T, Khalaf H J. Theoretical Study of the Compound Parabolic Trough Solar
Collector. Tikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences/Vol.19/No.2/June 2012, (1-9).

27
 CHAPTER

4
CFD ANALYSIS OF COMPOUND PARABOLIC
COLLECTOR

4.1 Overview
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) facilitates the researchers to achieve a better insight
to the engineering problems or phenomenon. This chapter concerns with the computational
modelling of the compound parabolic collector to evaluate their performance with the
variation of the incident radiation as well as variation of flow parameters in order to
determine the thermal efficiency of the CPC. But before proceeding further, an
introduction to the CFD is important which is presented in the next section and the results
obtained from the CFD simulations of the CPC collector are discussed in the subsequent
sections.

4.2 Introduction to CFD

Computational fluid dynamics is the most emerging tool in engineering that uses numerical
method and algorithms to solve analyzed problems that involves fluid flows. It is an
integration of the discipline of fluid dynamics along with mathematics and computer
science. The most fundamental consideration in CFD is how one how treats a continuous
fluid in a discretize fashion on a computer. One method is to discretize the spiral domain
into small cell to form a volume mesh or grid, and then apply a suitable algorithm to solve
that equation of motion(Euler’s equation for in viscid and Navier-Stokes equation for
viscous flow).
The utilization of the CFD makes it possible to acquire comprehensive information
about the flow fill, especially in regions where measurements are either difficult or
impossible to obtain. It has the characteristics feature to guide the researchers to the root of
the problem, and is therefore well suited for troubleshooting. CFD is used by engineers in
many fields such as process industries, building services, health and safety, motor industry,
environmental power and energy. The use of this tool is not only confining to the field of
engineering but also extend to the medical science to study some of the vital functioning of
the body such as the blood flow through grafted blood vessels.

29
4.3 Basic approach to use CFD
The engineering problems while dealt with CFD have to undergo a number of stages
initiating from the design of the model up to the post processing to analyze the solved
problems.

4.3.1 Pre-processing:

The first stage deals with the creation of the geometry and generation of a mesh for input
to the physical pre-processor. The geometry and the mesh can be created in the machine
application or any of the other geometry/mesh creation tools. The basic steps involved:
 Defining the geometry of the region of interest.
 Creating region of fluid flow, solid region and surface boundary names.
 Setting properties for the mesh

4.3.2 Defining the physics of the problem

This is one of the most important stages in the formulation of the problem. This involves
setting up of the boundary condition. In the latest CFD software, definition of the boundary
condition is carried upon the generated mesh of the problem.

4.3.3 Solving of the problem

The component that solves the CFD problem is called as Solvers. It produces the required
results in a non interactive/batch processes. A CFD problem is solved as follows.

 The partial differential equations are integrated over all the control volumes in the
region of interest.
 This integral equations are converted to a system of algebraic equation by
generating a set of approximation for the terms in the integral equation
The algebraic equations are solved iteratively .An iterative approach is required
because of the non-linear nature of the equations and as the solution approaches the exact
solution it is said to converge.

4.3.4 Set up of the problem

The post processor is the part that is used to analyze, visualize and the present the result
interactively. Post processing includes anything from obtaining point values to complex
animated sequences. Examples of some important features of post processors are

 Visualization of the geometry and control volumes

 Vector plots showing the direction and magnitude of the flow
 Visualization of the variation of scalar variables(variables that have only
magnitude, not direction, such as temperature, pressure and speed)through the
domain.
 Quantitative numerical calculation.

30
4.4 Governing Equation
The CFD software packages are equipped with certain governing equations that enable it to
accumulate information about the computed zone with highest accuracy possible. To make
a reasonable prediction the software must have numerical solutions to these equations that
governs the flow of fills. For the analyst, it is important to have an understanding both the
basic flow features that can occur and so must be modelled and the equations that governs
the fluid flow. The physical aspects of any fluid flow and heat transfer are governed by
three fundamental principles of “Continuity Equation”, “Momentum Equation” and the
“Energy Equation”.

4.4.1 Continuity Equation

The Continuity Equation is essentially the equation for the conservation of mass .It is
derived by the mass balance on the fluid entering and leaving a volume taken in the flow
fill. The equation of the conservation of the mass for three dimensional Steady flows can
be stated as [1].

𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎 𝑎
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖
[ ] +[ ]+[ ]=0
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖

+ + =0 (4.1)

4.4.2 Momentum Equation

The momentum equations are derived from the Newton’s second law of motion which
states that mass times the acceleration in a given direction is equal to the external force
acting on the body in the same direction. The external force acting on the volume element
in a flow fill is considered to consist of the body forces and surface forces.

Body forces acting in 𝑆 𝑎 𝑎 𝑖

[ 𝑎 ] [𝑎 𝑎 𝑎𝑖 𝑖
]=[ ]+[ ]
𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝑖 𝐷𝑖 𝑖
p
X momentum .  uU     x
   u   SMx (4.2)

p
Y momentum .  vU     y
   v   SMy (4.3)

p
Z momentum .  wU     z
   w   SMz (4.4)

The physical significance of the various terms in Eqs (4.2), (4.3) and (4.4) and are as
follows: the terms in the left hand side represents the inertia forces, the first term on the
right side is the body forces, the second term is the pressure forces and the last term in the
parenthesis is the viscous force on the fluid element.

31
4.4.3 Energy equation

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is always conserved. The temperature

distribution in the flow fill is governed by the energy equation, which can be derived by
writing on energy balance according to the first law of thermodynamics for a differential
volume element in the flow fill. Since radiation is involved in this study the radiation
transfer equation is used which can be stated as:
dI  r , s  
 kIb  r   kI  r , s    sI  r , s   I (si )  si, s  d i
4 
(4.5)
ds

4.5 Discretization method

The stability of the chosen discretization is generally established numerically rather
analytically with simple linear problems. Special care must also be taken to ensure that the
discretization handles discontinues solutions gracefully. The Eulers equation and Navier-
stoke’s equation both admits shocks, and contact surfaces. Some of the discretization
methods being used as finite volume method (FVM), finite element method (FEM), finite
difference method (FDM), Boundary element method (BEM) and High resolution scheme.
One of the most important methods used is the finite volume method (FVM) which is
described as below

4.5.1 Finite volume method (FVM)

This is a “classical” or standard approach used most often inn commercial software’s and
research codes. The governing equations are solved on discreet control volumes. FVM
recasts the PDE’s (Partial Differential Equation) of the NS equation in the conservative for
and then discretized this equation. This guarantees the conservation of fluxes through a
particular control volume.

𝑄 𝑉 + 𝐹 𝐴=0 (4.6)
𝑡

4.6 Turbulence Models

The flow is said to be turbulence when all the transport quantities (mass, momentum and
energy) exhibits periodic, irregular fluctuations in time and space. Such conditions enhance
mixing of these transport variables. Reynolds number serves as an important criterion for
classifying the flow regime. It is unfortunate fact that no single turbulence model is
universally accepted as being superior for all classes of problems.
There are various turbulence models which are chosen for different engineering
problems based on their suitability. Some of the models are Spalart-Allmaras model,
standard K-𝜖 model, RNG K-𝜖 model, Realizable K-𝜖 , standard k-𝜔 model, SST k-
𝜔 model and Reynolds stress model. The standard K-𝜖 is one of the most commonly
used model and is discussed below.

32
4.6.1 Standard K-ε turbulence model

The standard K- 𝜖 is one of the most important turbulence models.It is a two

equation model which means, it includes two extra transport equations to represent the
turbulence properties of the flow. This allows a two equation model to account for history
effects like convection and diffusion of turbulent energy. The turbulence kinetic energy (k)
and its rate of dissipation 𝜖 is obtained from the following transport equations.
µ𝑡
𝑡
𝜌 + 𝑥
𝜌 𝑖 = 𝑥
[ µ+ 𝜎 𝑥
] + Gk + Gb – ρ𝜖-YM (4.7)

µ𝑡 2
𝜌𝜖 + 𝜌𝜖 𝑖 = [ µ+ ] + C1𝜖 Gk + c3𝜖Gb) – c2𝜖ρ (4.8)
𝑡 𝑥 𝑥 𝜎 𝑥

In these equations, Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to

mean velocity gradient and Reynolds stress. Gb represents the generation of turbulence
kinetic energy due to buoyancy. YM represents the contribution of the fluctuation dilation
in compressible turbulence to overall dissipation rate. The values of constants used in Eq
(4.8) are C1𝜖=1.44, C2𝜖 =1.92 and Cµ= 0.09.

4.7 Computational modelling of compound parabolic collector

The need for 3D simulations for the complete description of the motion field was
evidenced. However, as stated by Reichl et al. [1], 2D simulations were able to provide
reasonably accurate results with a much lower computational effort. In this study CPC,
modelled at an angle of 45°, were simulated. The 2D CAD model, represented cross
section of a collector, was defined by its volume of air in the cavity, mirrors and aperture
cover. A second 2D model is also generated where the front view is shown to study the
effect of incident radiation on the flowing working fluid from inlet to outlet.
The aperture length was fixed to 100mm whereas the height of the collector was
fixed to 96mm. The length of the collector in the axial direction was limited to 1 meter.
The absorber tube is of diameter 15 mm with 1 mm thickness. The thickness of the
reflector is fixed to 1 mm. The reflector material is made of aluminium. The absorber tube
is made of copper and the aperture is made of glass. The aperture thickness is 4mm. The
air inside the cavity is modelled as incompressible air and the working fluid is taken as
water in in the current study. The centre point where the two ends of the reflector meets is
created by using fillet of radius 1mm.

4.7.1 Pre-processing of the models

The modelling of the geometry of the Compound Parabolic Collector has been designed
computationally in Ansys Design Modeller (v14.0). Five different sketches were created to
separate out the domains of the glass cover, reflector, absorber, inner fluid domain i.e air
and the working fluid domain. Boolean method is used to separate the working fluid
domain and the inner fluid domain. Using the surface from sketches method, surfaces were
generated for the reflector, cover, absorber, inner fluid domain, and the working fluid
domain. Once he surfaces have been generated, they were coupled together by forming a
part. Two different geometries are modelled to study the effect of incident radiation on the
Compound Parabolic Collector. The two geometries are shown in Figs 4.1 and 4.2
respectively.

33
FIGURE 4.1 Geometry of the CPC from the front view showing the inlet and outlet of the tube.

FIGURE 4.2 Geometry of the CPC from the side view showing the parabolic cavity

34
 After the creation of the geometries, it has been exported to Ansys Mesh (v14.0) so
that it can be meshed with a suitable grid. Figs 4.3, 4.4 show the mesh of the collector
geometry from two different cross sections. The design of the cross sectional view of the
CPC is quite complex. Therefore multi zone method is used to mesh the geometry shown
in figure .All the domain including the inner fluid domain, the reflector domain, and the
glass cover domain. Edge sizing is applied to refine the mesh along the glass cover. Since
it is geometry of curvature in nature, hence curvature and proximity option was used in the
mesh table. The upper glass cover with a minimum element size of 0.1 mm. The minimum
and the maximum face size used for the meshing are 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm respectively. The
quality of the mesh yielded an average value of 0.99. Various named selections have been
created to define the incident radiation flux, absorber, reflector and the glass cover. The
contact region are not automatically resolved here, hence interface zones have been created
manually. Four interface zones have been created between the glass-inner fluid domain,
glass-reflector, inner fluid-reflector and inner fluid domain-absorber by considering each
face as being part of both the domain.

FIGURE 4.3 Mesh profile of the first geometry

35
 FIGURE 4.4 Mesh of the second geometry

The second mesh have been generated by refining all the edges using the edge
sizing method with number of divisions of an edge depending on the length of the edge.
Finally the entire domain has been meshed with multi zone method. The quality of the
mesh yielded an average of 1. Various named selection have been created to define the
inlet fluid, outlet fluid, inlet radiation, the outer walls. Contact regions have been manually
created by generating six interfaces.

4.7.2 CFD formulation of the models

The engineering problems after being undergone through the pre-processing phenomenon
with the creation of the geometry and grid, the process are continued with the solving of
the considered problem. The generated mesh on the geometry has been exported to the
computational solver Ansys Fluent (v14.0) wherein the case has been defined and solved
with necessary conditions. The standard k-ε turbulence model has been adopted that solves
two separate transport equations and allows the independent determination of the turbulent
kinetic energy (k) and its dissipation rate (ε). The standard k-ε turbulence model has the
significance over the other models for the fact that it is suitable to determine the problems
involving fluid flow through the vicinity of the complex geometries. The sharp corners,
straight and curved edges like that of the reflector surface can be easily determined and
covered for the computational process as the model uses wall functions based on the law of
the wall. The simulation has been carried out adopting the second order upwind

36
interpolation scheme for both momentum and turbulence to obtain results with more
accuracy.
Various boundary conditions have been assigned to the meshed geometry. This is
required so as to define a problem. The inlet radiation has been assigned to the upper glass
aperture which has been designated as a wall. The inlet and the outlet of the copper tube
have been defined as a wall to define the mass flow inlet and mass flow outlet of the
working fluid. The outlet wall has been designated as outflow in the boundary conditions
to avoid the problem of reverse flow. In the Fig 4.3, the outlet temperature obtained has
been assigned to the absorber so as to obtain the isotherms inside the cavity of the
collector. Radiation model have been used to study the effect of radiation inside the
collector. The various computational conditions adopted for the study has been tabulated
below in Table 4.1.
TABLE 4.1 Computational conditions
Collector type Compound Parabolic Collector
Inlet mass flow rate conditions (0.003-0.009) m/s
Inlet radiation conditions (700-1500) W/m2
Radiation model Surface to surface model
CFD algorithm SIMPLE
Computational turbulence model Standard k-ε
CFD algorithm SIMPLE
Interpolation scheme Second order upwind for both momentum
and turbulence
Near wall treatment Enhanced wall treatment
Time Steady

4.8 Sensitivity study

The process of simulation has been repeated with different refinement levels of the mesh.
The refinement is carried on undertaking different mesh size and is extended up to a limit
after which there is no significant quantitative change in the result. This limit of the
refinement is called grid independency limit (GIL) and the mesh is said to have attained
the limit of grid independence. The entire mesh size has been varied several times that is
aimed towards the limit of grid independence. Various levels of refinements of the mesh
that have been adopted are listed in Table 4.2. The outlet temperature of the absorber tube
has been selected to be varied for the refinement process so as to determine the grid
independency limit.
TABLE 4.2 Sensitivity analyses
Refinement level No. of elements
1 49500
2 99000
3 118800
4 148500
5 178200
6 198000
7 217800
8 247500
9 297000

37
 The selected level 6 has 198000 numbers of cells with average orthogonal quality
and aspect ratio of 0.9 and 1.95 respectively which lie in the acceptable and very good
quality level. Level 6 has been used in all the simulations. Fig 4.5 shows the result of
sensitivity analysis in the variation of the outlet temperature with number of elements of
the selected mesh. The following readings have been taken at boundary conditions of 1000
W/m2 and 0.009 m/s inlet mass flow rate.

FIGURE 4.5 Variation of outlet temperature with different refinement levels

4.9 Post Processing of the models

The performance of the Compound Parabolic Collector has been evaluated with the help of
CFD and has been studied in detail to explore the influence of incident radiation and the
flow physics on the performance. The process of obtaining results is carried out in the post
processing section. The post processing of the simulations process enables the placing of
the planes, lines and points at the desired locations so as to acquire the information of the
temperature at the outlet. Figure shows the placing of lines starting from the inlet of the
flow to the outlet of the flow to evaluate the temperatures at various locations along the
lines. Further results can be evaluated from the temperatures obtained from various
boundary conditions.

4.10 Computational results of performance of compound parabolic

collector
The post-processing of the models enables the researchers to accumulate the required
parametric values so as to determine the performance of the compound parabolic
collectors. During the calculations, it was assumed that the solar rays fall normal to the
aperture plane. It was assumed that all of the radiation falls to the aperture directly.

38
Various thermo physical properties for the compound parabolic collector module is given
in the Tables 4.3and 4.4.
TABLE 4.3 Thermophysical properties of the solid components
Properties
Materials Density (kg/m3) Specific Heat Thermal conductivity (W/m-
(J/kg-k) k)
Glass 2500 840 1.05
Aluminium 2719 871 202.4
Copper 8978 381 387.6

TABLE 4.4 Thermophysical properties of the fluid components

Properties
3
Materials Density(kg/m ) Specific Heat Thermal Viscosity
(J/kg-k) conductivity (kg/m-s)
(W/m-k)
Air 1.225 1006.43 0.0242 0.00001
Water 998.2 4182 0.6 0.001003

During the calculations, the ambient temperature, Tamb is fixed to 27° C. The values
of incident solar radiation flux have been varied from 700W/m2 to 1500W/m2. The mass
flow rate of the working fluid has been varied from 0.005 m/s to 0.009 m/s. The various
results obtained for the above said condition has been thoroughly studied in the following
section. Various iterations have been performed on Ansys to obtain a feasible value for the
outlet temperature which has been used to obtain the efficiency of the collector.

4.11 CFD model validation with experimental results

The CPC model described in the previous chapter (sec 3.3) has been validated by the
experimental results obtained by Patel and Patel [7]. The results have been obtained by
taking the boundary conditions of 1500 W/m2 solar flux intensity and mass flow rate of
0.012 m/s. The comparison between the results obtained computationally and
experimentally from the reference paper has been shown in the Fig 4.6. The deviation
between the two results have been found to be 0.6 %.

FIGURE 4.6 Model validation

39
4.12 Computational results and discussions
Various parameters have been computationally calculated, which have been used in the
estimation of efficiency. The results have been discussed accordingly to understand the
effect of different parameters on the performance of the CPC.

4.12.1 Impact of mass flow rate to local fluid temperature in the flow direction

On increasing the value of mass flow rate, the outlet temperature can be seen to be reduced
as seen from the Fig 4.7. The above values have been obtained by considering the radiation
flux to be around 1000 W/m2. As the mass flow rate of the working fluid is increased, the
time for heat interaction is reduced in between the working fluid and the absorber cylinder
hence the lower values of temperatures at the outlet for higher mass flow rates. The X axis
represents the length of the absorber tube along the flow direction.

FIGURE4.7 Variationof mass flow rate on the outlet temperature

4.12.2 Impact of various insolation on the outlet temperature

When the direct solar radiation value increases, the heat absorbed by the copper absorber
also increases hence the outlet temperature of the absorber also increases as seen from the
Fig 4.8. The useful part of the solar radiation flux also increases due to the increase in the
heat flux value. The X axis represents the length of the absorber tube along the flow
direction.

40
 FIGURE 4.8 Variation of outlet temperature due to the variation of the radiation flux

4.12.3 Effect of inlet temperature on the outlet temperature

Increasing the inlet temperature from the standard value of 27°C increases the outlet
temperature along the flow direction at the outlet as evident from the Fig 4.9. Similarly
decreasing the inlet temperature decreases the outlet temperature. The above readings have
been taken at an irradiation of 950W/m2 and an inlet mass flow rate of 0.009 m/s. The X
axis represents the length of the absorber tube along the flow direction.

FIGURE 4.9 Variation of outlet temperature with the inlet temperature

41
4.12.4 Effect of mass flow rate on the outlet temperature

On increasing the mass flow rate at the same insolation flux of 1000 W/m2, it can be seen
from Fig 4.10, that the outlet temperature obtained from the collector reduces. As the
quantity of mass flowing through the absorber pipe increases, the time required for the
working fluid to absorb the heat from the walls of the absorber to increase its temperature
reduces, hence the reduction in the final outlet temperature. The nature of the curve can be
validated from the experimental study done by Gómez et al. [2].

FIGURE 4.10 Variation of outlet temperature due to the change in mass flow rate

4.12.5 Effect of temperature on overall heat loss co-efficient

From the Fig 4.11 it can be seen that on increasing the outlet temperature, the overall heat
loss coefficient increases. The above curve of heat transfer coefficient is obtained at the
boundary conditions of 1000 W/m2 and the different outlet temperatures are obtained by
varying the mass flow rate of the working fluid. The nature of the curve can be validated
from the results obtained by Kathodiwala[3].

FIGURE4.11 Overall heat loss coefficient variations with the outlet temperature

42
4.12.6 Thermal heat losses

Heat losses, calculated at the absorber outlet for the whole range of absorber temperatures
and several values of solar radiation are shown in the Fig 4.12. The trend of the curve can
be validated with the results obtained by Fraidenraich et al.[3] and Oommen [4]. The
values along the X axis represent the various temperatures obtained at the outlet of the
absorber tube at different values of incident solar radiation.

FIGURE 4.12 Thermal heat loss variation against the outlet temperature

4.12.7 Collector efficiency of the CPC

With the increase of the temperature along the length of the CPC, the instantaneous
collector efficiency decreases at the same solar insolation as seen from the Fig 4.13. The
graph is drawn between efficiency and Teff, where Teff = ((Tout+Tin)/2)-Ta. The above values
of temperature are obtained at the boundary condition of 1000 W/m2. The nature of the
curve can be validated from the experimental results obtained by Oommen [4].

FIGURE 4.13 Variation of collector efficiency with the outlet temp at the same solar insolation.

43
4.12.8 Effect of inlet temperature of the working fluid on the efficiency

Fig 4.14 shows that by raising the inlet temperature of the working fluid, heat efficiency
drops. This is explained by the fact that solar flux and the environment temperature
remains constant and the difference between inlet temperatures is reduced, thus useful
energy is reduced. The above readings have been taken at the boundary conditions of 950
W/m2 and 0.009 m/s. The above curve can be corroborated with the Figs 4.13 and 4.9.
When the inlet temperature is increased, the outlet temperature also increases as discussed
in sec 4.12.4 but, increasing the outlet temperature will result in drop in the efficiency as
discussed in sec 4.12.7. Hence increasing the inlet temperature will result in decrease in the
efficiency.

FIGURE 4.14 Variation of thermal efficiency with the inlet temperature of the working fluid

4.12.9 Effect of mass flow rate of the working fluid on the thermal efficiency

The thermal efficiency increases with the increase in mass flow rate as seen from the Fig
4.15.The values on the X axis represent the various mass flow rates of the working fluid at
an insolation value of 1000 W/m2. The nature of the curve can be validated with the
experimental results obtained by Patel and Patel [7]. This can also be corroborated from
the fact that on increasing the mass flow rate of the working fluid, the outlet temperature
drops resulting rise in the efficiency.

44
 FIGURE 4.15 Variation of efficiency against the variation of mass flow rate

4.12.10 Nusselt number variation with Rayleigh number

Fig 4.16 shows the trend of the average Nusselt number with the Rayleigh number ranging
from 1.8×105 and 2.9×105. The values of Ra no has been taken from the experimental
results obtained by Antonelli et al.[3] and the corresponding values of the average Nusselt
number obtained by the correlation given in section 3.5. The nature of the curve can be
validated from the results obtained by Diaz and Winston [8]. As the Nusselt number
increases, surface radiation increases. But the convective heat transfer drops and on the
other hand radiative heat transfer between increases. The increase in the radiative heat
transfer is much higher as compared to the drop in the convective heat transfer. Antonelli
et al [3] also pointed out that the radiative Nusselt number depends strongly on the
emissivity of the surface, although the emissivity have very little or negligible changes on
the convective Nusselt number.

FIGURE 4.16 Variation of Nusselt number with Rayleigh Number

45
4.13 Temperature distributions inside the CPC
Using the contour option in Ansys 14.0, temperature contours at different boundary
conditions are extracted which are shown in this section. These contours are helpful in
understanding the temperature change over any profile. From the contours, the temperature
change from the inlet condition to the outlet can be seen with the colour coding. Fig 17 to
26 shows the temperature distribution inside the CPC at different operating conditions. It
can be seen that as the heat flux increases, the temperature at the outlet of the absorber tube
increases or decreases depending on whether the mass flow rate is decreasing or increasing
respectively and as the inlet temperature of the absorber tube increases, the outlet
temperature of the absorber tube decreases. The above temperature distributions
corroborate the results obtained in sec 4.12. Fig 4.27 shows the streamlines inside the
parabolic cavity of the CPC.

FIGURE 4.17 Isotherms at 45° angle and at receiver temperature of 80°C

46
 FIGURE 4.18 Isotherms at 45° angle and at receiver temperature of 100°C

FIGURE 4.19 Temperature distributions at 900W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.008 kg/s and 27° C inlet
temperature

47
FIGURE 4.20 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.005 kg/s and 27° C inlet
temperature

FIGURE 4.21 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.006 kg/sand 27° C inlet
temperature

48
FIGURE 4.22 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.007 kg/s and 27° C inlet
temperature

FIGURE 4.23 Temperature distributions at 800W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.008 kg/s and 27° C inlet
temperature

49
FIGURE 4.24 Temperature distributions at 950W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.009 kg/s and 24° C inlet
temperature

FIGURE 4.25 Temperature distributions at 950W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.009 kg/s and 36° C inlet
temperature

50
FIGURE 4.26 Temperature distributions at 1000W/m2, mass flow rate of 0.004 kg/s and 27° C inlet
temperature

FIGURE 4.27 Streamlines at 45° angle and at receiver temperature of 100°C

51
References
1. Ch. Reichl, F. Hengstberger, Ch. Zauner. Heat transfer mechanisms in a compound parabolic
concentrator: Comparison of computational fluid dynamics simulations to particle image
velocimetry and local temperature measurements. Solar Energy. 97 (2013) 436–446
2. Kothdiwala A. F, Norton B and Eames P. C. The effect of variation of angle of inclination on the
performance of low-concentration-ratio compound parabolic concentrating solar collectors.Solar
Energy Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 301-309, 1995.
3. Antonelli M.,Francesconi M, Marco P. Di, Desideri U. Analysis of heat transfer in different CPC
solar collectors:A CFD approach. Applied Thermal Engineering 101 (2016) 479–489
4. Gonzáleza S, Sandoval-Reyesa M, Valladaresb O , Ortegab N, Gómez V. H. Design and Evaluation
of a Compound Parabolic Concentrator for Heat Generation of Thermal Processes. Energy Procedia
57 ( 2014 ) 2956 – 2965.
5. Oommen R and Jayaraman S. Development and performance analysis of compound parabolic solar
concentrators with reduced gap losses-oversized reflector. Energy conversion and management 42
(2001)1379-1999.
6. Fraidenraich N, Lima R. De, Tiba C and. Barbosa M. De. Simulation model of a CPC collector with
temperature dependent heat loss coefficient. Solar Energy Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 99–110, 1999.
7. Patel D and Patel D. K. Thermal analysis of compound parabolic concentrator. International journal
of Mechanical and Production. Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD). ISSN(P):
2249-6890; ISSN(E): 2249-8001.Vol. 5, Issue 6, Dec 2015, 117-126.
8. Diaz G and Winston R (2008) Effect of Surface Radiation on Natural Convection in Parabolic
Enclosures, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications. 53:9, 891-906.

52
 CHAPTER

5
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF
ORGANIC RANKINE CYCLE

5.1 Overview
In fulfilment of the objective, to generate work from the heat input obtained from the outlet
temperature of the CPC, it was necessary to find a efficient power cycle which can
generate work from the low to medium temperatures obtained from the CPC. Of all the
power cycles explored, the Organic Rankine Cycle has been of high interest in low
temperature applications. Hence ORC have been used as a power cycle for the CPC, where
the CPC outlet temperature has been assumed to be the inlet to the expander, thereby
eliminating the use of the evaporator and limitations involved with it. Before implementing
ORC with CPC outlet, it is required to have a brief idea about ORC.

5.2 Basic structure of ORC

Moran and Shapiro discuss several power generation cycles in Fundamentals of
Engineering Thermodynamics [1]. Of these designs, the four stage Rankine cycle is the
most basic and common. Fig 5.1 below shows the hardware for the system layout of the
cycle on the left and a thermodynamic schematic on the right. The graph is known as a T-s
diagram, which shows the relationship between temperature and entropy, usable energy,
when a substance goes through a phase change from liquid to gas. Curve shown in Fig 5.1
is known as the vapor dome, and any point on the left of the dome represents a substance
that is completely in the liquid state, and alternatively any point that is on the left. of the
vapor dome is one hundred percent in the gaseous phase. Inside the vapor dome,
substances are in a transitional state and are a combination of liquid and gas. The lines that
points one and four are on as well are two and three are on, are constant pressure lines with
the latter being the more pressurized of the two.

53
 FIGURE 5.1 System Configurations and Temperature-Entropy Diagram of Ordinary Rankine Cycle [1]
As Fig 5.1 shows, the four hardware components of the design are the evaporator
(or boiler), expander (or turbine), condenser, and pump. The closed loop cycle works as
follows; at point one the working fluid is completely in the liquid state and at a low
pressure. The pump is used to (ideally, isentropically) raise the pressure of the working
fluid. The pressurized liquid coming out of the pump at point two is then heated by the
vaporizer until it is fully evaporated and possibly superheated. Next, the high pressure gas
is run through an expander which will output usable work and yield a low pressure gas or
high temperature liquid/gas mixture. In order to get the substance back to a fluid which can
be run through the pump, the condenser rejects heat until cycle is back at state one. For this
thesis, certain assumptions about the Rankine cycle were made. It was assumed that both
the vaporizer and condenser operate at constant pressures and the efficiencies of the pump
and expander were 80%.
The amount of Qin, or energy added to the system, can be found by calculating the
enthalpy at state two and subtracting it from the enthalpy at state three (h3-h2) as shown in
Fig 5.2. It should be noted that the value of Qin will be dependent on flow rate and will be
in terms of energy transferred per unit mass. The amount of work per unit mass produced
by the expander can be calculated by finding the difference in enthalpy from state three to
state four. Likewise, the amount of work put into the pump can be found by the subtraction
of the enthalpy at one from the enthalpy at state two.

FIGURE 5.2 System Equations for Regular Rankine Cycle [1]

Calculation of the net work of the system (work produced by the expander minus
the work put into the pump) as well as the overall efficiency of the cycle (dividing the net
work by the energy put into the cycle) can be done from the following equations:

54
Wnet  Wout Win (5.1)
Wnet
Efficiency, 
Qin (5.2)

5.3 Working fluid selection

Majority of Rankine power generation cycles currently use steam as the working fluid in
system. Water is normally utilized because it is the most abundant fluid on the Earth, it has
a relatively low boiling temperature under reasonable pressures, and it is very cheap.
Typical operation conditions for water vapor power generation Rankine cycles include
temperatures ranging from 360° C to 540° C (superheating) at a pressure of around 190
bar. Since for this research project the energy input for the vaporizer is going to from a low
grade solar thermal collector, a working fluid other than water will be more suitable to the
design. Performance parameters, environmental concerns, and other consideration were
taken into account during the selection process.
The first constraint that was considered when searching for possible working fluids
was operating parameters such as temperature and pressure on both the low and high ends.
All of these requirements were functions of the hardware capabilities of the power
generation system. In order for a Rankine cycle to complete, the fluid has to be able to go
through a phase change from liquid to gas and then back to a liquid. In order to properly
design a system, these phase changes need to occur at temperatures and pressures that are
achievable by the collectors and scroll expander. From the literature review, it was found
that the extremes of current solar collector capacities range from 80 ° C to 150 ° C for
compound parabolic collectors. While finding a working fluid that fits best within the
constraints of the hardware of the system was the primary factor in the selection process,
environmental concerns came in at a very close second. When looking at possible
candidates as evident from Table 5.1 there were three main environmental concerns that
were considered: Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP), Global Warming Potential (GWP),
and atmospheric lifetime.
TABLE 5.1 Working fluids that meets performance and environmental properties

FLUID CRITICAL CRITICAL ODP GWP

TEMPERATURE PRESSURE(BAR)
R600a 135 °C 36.47 0 20
n-Pentane 196.5°C 36.64 0 11
Methenol 240.2°C 81.04 n.a n.a
Ethanol 240.8°C 61.48 n.a n.a

5.4 Parameters of interest for the ORC

Parametric study of ORC is done in Engineering Equation Solver. The code for the
calculation of the efficiency for an ORC with R600a as the working fluid has been given in
Appendix I. There were four system inputs that were explored when using EES. The

55
governing elements for each of the system are showed in Table 5.2. By allowing the inlet
temperature to the expander values to vary over a large range, the capability of the power
generation cycle can be found the high side temperature of the cycle will be determined by
the performance of the solar collectors. The expander design will be the limiting factor for
both the high and low pressures in the cycles. The condenser temperature will depend on
the temperature of the domain where the excess heat of the system is going to be rejected.

TABLE 5.2 Governing factors for parametric study

Parameters to be explored Governing element
Expander Inlet Temperature Solar Collectors
Expander Inlet Pressure Expander Design
Expander Pressure Ratio Expander Design
Condenser Temperature Ambient Temperature Source

5.5 Results and discussions

Fig 5.3 shows a graph to understand how the high side temperature of the cycle affects the
overall efficiency of the system. The graph only explores inlet temperatures up to 133.1°
C, which is the vapor dome temperature, or the critical temperature for R600a at the
maximum pressure of 20 Bar. The cycle is forced to have a quality of zero and low side
temperature of 25° C before entering the pump. It can also be concluded that as the high
side temperature continues to increase, the rate at which system efficiency grows trends to
slow down. The maximum efficiency reached was 13.03 %.

FIGURE 5.3 Efficiency variation with the inlet temperature

The objective of this study was to compute the efficiency of the ORC unit with the
heat input from the CPC unit. On comparing this efficiency with a conventional ORC cycle
as studied by Mazurek et.al [6], the efficiency was found to be 44.77% more than the
efficiency obtained in case of a conventional ORC. This increase in the efficiency is due to

56
the fact that the maximum temperature obtained in the conventional ORC is limited due to
the use of the boiler or evaporator. But in case of a CPC-ORC module, the temperature to
the inlet of the expander is obtained from the outlet of the CPC. As a result higher
temperature can be obtained, subjected to the amount of insolation received by the CPC
module.
From the figure 5.4, it can be concluded that on increasing the inlet temperature to the
expander, the net work output per unit mass of the working fluid increases.

FIGURE 5.4 Work output with respect to the inlet temperature

Figure 5.5 shows the effect of increasing the inlet temperature to the expander on the inlet
pressure of the expander. The increased inlet pressure requires a more expensive hardware
in terms of the expander design.

FIGURE 5.5 Expander inlet temperature variations with respect to expander inlet pressure

57
The next parameter of the organic rankine cycle that was investigated was the cold side
temperature of the system. Unlike the high side temperature, which can be controlled better
by varying how long the fluid is in the solar collector, the low side temperature will be
heavily dependent on ambient conditions. It is important to keep the cold side of the cycle
as low as possible. Figure 5.6 and 5.7 shows that the overall efficiency and net work
produced by the expander decrease linearly as the low side temperature increases. The only
benefit that there is to having a heat sink at a higher temperature is the decreased expander
ratio as shown in figure 5.8. This added benefit of a lower pressure ratio only keeps the
manufacturing process of the expander simple.

FIGURE 5.6 Efficiency variations with respect to the inlet temperature of the cold side

FIGURE 5.7 Variation of net work output against cold side temperature

58
 FIGURE 5.8 Variation of pressure ratio against cold side temperature
As the inlet temperature to the expander increases, there is a direct linear correlation to the
expander pressure ratio as sen from the Fig 5.9. The pressure ratio increases due to the rise
in the expander inlet temperature. The increased inlet pressure requires a more expensive
hardware in terms of the expander design

FIGURE 5.9 Pressure ratio variations with respect to expander inlet temperature
.
Fig 5.10 shows a exponential relation between the efficiency and the expander inlet
pressure.

59
 FIGURE 5.10 Efficiency of the cycle with respect to the expander inlet pressure

Fig 5.11 shows that as the inlet pressure increases, there is a direct linear correlation to the
expander pressure ratio.

FIGURE 5.11 Variation of pressure ratio against expander inlet pressure

Fig 5.12 shows the effect of solar flux on the efficiency of ORC cycle. As the solar flux
intensity on the compound parabolic collector increases, the efficiency of the ORC
increases as the outlet temperature of the CPC increases and hence the inlet temperature of
the expander increases. But the increase in the efficiency becomes stagnant after a certain
temperature as the efficiency of ORC is limited by the critical temperature of the working
fluid.

60
 FIGURE 5.12 Effect of solar flux on the efficiency of the ORC

References
1. Moran, M J., and Shapiro H S. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics. Hoboken, N.J. :
Chichester: Wiley ; John Wiley, 2008. Print.
2. Gang P, Jing L, Jie L. Working Fluid Selection for Low Temperature Solar Thermal Power
Generation with Two-stage Collectors and Heat Storage Units. Solar Collectors and Panels, Theory
and Applications.
3. Roy J.P, Mishra M. K and Misra A. Performance analysis of an Organic Rankine Cycle with
superheating under different heat source temperature conditions. Applied Energy 88 (2011) 2995–
3004.
4. Bou Lawz Ksayera E. Design of an ORC system operating with solar heat and producing sanitary
hot water. Energy Procedia 6 (2011) 389–395
5. Bertrand F. Tchanche, Gr. Lambrinos, A. Frangoudakis, G. Papadakis. Low-grade heat conversion
into power using organic Rankine cycles – A review of various applications. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 3963–3979 .
6. Mazurek A B-, Świeboda T & Mazurek W. Performance Analysis of a Solar-Powered Organic
Rankine Cycle Engine. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. ISSN: 1096-2247
(Print).

61
 CHAPTER

6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SCOPE

6.1 Computational study of CPC

Computational study of the ideal compound parabolic collector has been carried out in
ANSYS 14.0 and the results are shown. A number of assumptions have been taken for
simplifying the analysis. The CPC collector under study shows thermal efficiency in the
range of 60-80% under the variation of mass flow rate of 0.003-0.009 kg/s. The
temperature output can also be increased by using series of collectors. The efficiency
shows an increasing trend with respect to the mass flow rate. The heat efficiency also
shows a decreasing trend with respect to the inlet temperature of the absorber tube. The
instantaneous efficiency or the collector efficiency shows a decreasing trend with respect
to the increasing temperature of the absorber outlet. Although the thermal efficiency is of
utmost importance as compared to the collector efficiency, but the collector efficiency
cannot be ignored. An optimum point has been showed in the results for both the
efficiencies. All the results have been obtained with the highest quality mesh possible to
get the most accurate results. The efficiency shows a decreasing trend with increase in the
inlet temperature of the absorber fluid. This is due to the fact, given the insolation and the
ambient conditions are fixed, the temperature difference decreases hence the decrease in
the heat efficiency. The heat loss and the overall heat transfer coefficient show a linear rise
with the rise in the outlet temperature. The Nusselt number curve also rises but non-
linearly with the increasing Grassof number but within the range of the natural convection.

6.2 Performance analysis of ORC with CPC unit as the heat input
Parametric study of the Organic Rankine Cycle is carried out in the Engineering equation
solver and consequently the results are shown. The governing factor for the expander of
the ORC has been designated to the outlet of the absorber of the compound parabolic
collector. The study of the ORC has been carried out withR600a commonly known as iso-
butane. Calculations have been carried out by considering the outlet temperature of the
CPC as a heat input to the expander. Depending on the critical temperature of R600a, the
highest efficiency obtained from the parametric study is 13.03%. ORC has been designed

63
for low temperature applications, hence the low efficiency. The use of the ordinary steam
Rankine cycle in this study would have yielded lower efficiency at temperatures obtained
in the CPC. Hence the use of ORC is justified as ORC’s are fundamentally designed to
work at lower temperatures as compared to steam Rankine cycle. Because of the use of
high density organic fluid as working medium, the requirement of the working medium per
unit energy produced is low and also because of this the volume flow also reduces such
that the size of the components can be lower in ORC. The ORC efficiency has been plotted
against the solar flux intensity to reflect the effect of solar radiation on ORC efficiency.
The efficiency obtained from the current study of ORC with a CPC unit as the heat input
has been compared with a conventional ORC (sec 5.6). The results showed an increase in
the efficiency by 44.77 % due to the use of CPC as a heat source. A correlation can be
found out between the solar flux and the ORC efficiency as the outlet temperature is a
function of the heat flux and mass flow rate of the working fluid as well, whereas the
efficiency of the ORC is a function of the outlet temperature of the CPC module. Hence we
can say that the ORC efficiency is a function of the solar heat flux.

6.3 Future Scope

Studies carried out in this thesis are based on a CPC with tubular absorber, coupled with an
ORC with an objective to improve the efficiency of the ORC. Incorporating solar energy as
the heat input to the ORC shows promising results as we have seen the increase in the
thermal efficiency of the ORC. ORC’s have inherently lower efficiencies, as the working
temperature range is very low. Over the course of the project duration, many different
ideas were encountered, mostly from literature review which can make the whole system
more efficient. A few of such ideas have been penned down in this section:
 An array of CPC collector field can be used to increase the temperature output of
the working fluid.
 The collector field can be divided into two stages. By doing so, the collector
efficiency can be increased .Heat transfer irreversibility can be reduced by using
two stage collectors.
 Extensive study can be carried out to develop or to find a better working fluid for
the ORC, which can improve its efficiency.
 Thermal energy storage can be used with the system such as PCM to store the
energy which can be later used when the solar insolation is not sufficient enough to
generate the required temperature of the working medium.
 Multi stage collector module can be designed in which two different arrangements
of CPC collectors can be used to increase the efficiency and the outlet temperature
of the CPC module

64
 APPENDIX I

For modelling the Organic Rankine Cycle in Engineering Equation Solver, the following
code has been used, from which the required parameters for the study of the ORC can be
calculated.

{Parameters}
eta_t=0.8
eta_p=0.8
T1=120
{State 1}
x1=1
p1=pressure(R600a,T=T1,x=x1)
s1=entropy(R600a,T=T1,x=x1)
h1=enthalpy(R600a,T=T1,x=x1)
{State 2s}
s2s=s1
T2s=temperature(R600a,p=p2s,s=s2s)
h2s=enthalpy(R600a,T=T2s,s=s2s)
{State 2}
eta_t=(h1-h2)/(h1-h2s)
p2=p2s
{State 3}
p3=p2
x3=0
T3=25
s3=entropy(R600a,p=p3,x=x3)
h3=enthalpy(R600a,p=p3,x=x3)
p3=pressure(R600a,T=T3,x=x3)
{State 4s}
s4s=s3
p4s=p1
h4s=enthalpy(R600a,p=p4s,s=s4s)
{State 4}
eta_p=(h4s-h3)/(h4-h3)
{System Equations}
Wt_dot=(h1-h2)
Wp_dot=(h4-h3)
Qin_dot=(h1-h4)
Qout_dot=(h2-h3)
W_net=Wt_dot-Wp_dot
eta_n=W_net/Qin_dot
p_rat=p1/p2s