Experimental Results Dudley

Test Results
SEGS LS-2 Solar Collector
Vernon E. Dudley
EChC Special Projects
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 19
Gregory I. Kolb
A, Roderick Mahoney
Thomas R. Mancini
Chauncey W.Matthews
Sandia National Laboratories
Michael Sloan
Sloan Solar Engineering
Austin, Texas 78756
David Kearney
Kearney and Associates
Del Mar, California 92014
Distribution
Categories UC-1302, 1303
Issucd by Sandia National Laboratories, opcratcd for the United States
Dcpartmcnt of Encrgy by Sandia Corporation.
NOTICE: This report was prcpared as an account of work sponsorcd by an
agency of the United Statcs Govcrnment. Ncithcr the Unitcd States Govcrn-
ment nor any agcncy thcrcof. nor any of thcir employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or thcir cmployees, makes any warranty, cxpress or
implicd, or assumcs any legal liability or rcsponsibility for the accuracy,
complcteness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, or proccss
discloscd, or represcnts that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Referencc hcrcin to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
tradc name, tradcmark, manufacturer, or otherwise, docs not necessarily
constitute or imply its cndorscmcnt, recommcndation, or favoring by the United
States Govcrnment, any agency thcrcof, or any of their contractors or
subcontractors. Thc vicws and opinions cxpressed hcrcin do not nccessarily
statc or rencct those of thc Unitcd Statcs Govcrnrnent, any agency thereof, or
any of their contractors.
Printed in the Unitcd Statcs of America. This rcport has becn rcproduccd
dircctly from thc bcst availablc copy.
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from

Officc of Scientific and Tcchnical Information
PO Box 62
Oak Ridgc, TN 3783 1
Priccs availablc from (6 15) 576-840 1. FTS 626-840 1
Availablc to thc public from

National Tcchnical Information Scrvice
US Department of Commcrcc
5285 Port Royal Rd
Springfield, VA 22 16 1
NTIS pricc codcs

Printed copy: A16
Microfiche copy: A0 1
. SAND94-1884 Distribution
Unlimited Release Categories UC-1302, 1303
Printed December 1994
Test Results
SEGS LS-2 Solar Collector
Vernon E. Dudley
E G & G Special Projects
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 1 19
Gregory J. Kolb
A. Roderick Mahoney
Thomas R. Mancini
Chauncey W. Matthews
Sandia National Laboratories
Michael Sloan
Sloan Solar Engineering
Austin, Texas 78756
David Kearney
Kearney and Associates
Del Mar, California 920 14
ABSTRACT
A SEGS LS-2 parabolic trough solar collcctor was tcstcd to determinc the collcctor cficicncy and thcrmal
losscs with two typcs of rcccivcr sclectivc coatings, combincd with thrcc diffcrcnt rcccivcr configurations:
glass envelopc with cithcr vacuum or air in tlic rcccivcr annulus, and glass cnvclopc rcmovcd from thc
rcccivcr. As cxpccted, collcctor pcrformance was significantly affected by each variation in rcccivcr
configuration. Pcrformancc dccreascd whcn the ccrmct selcctivc coating was changcd to a black chrome
coating, and progrcssivcly dcgradcd as air was introduccd into thc vacuum annulus, and again whcn the
glass envelopc was rcmovcd from thc rcccivcr. For each receiver configuration, pcrformance equations
wcrc dcrivcd rclating collcctor cficicncy and thcrmal losses to thc opcrating tcmperature. For thc barc
receiver (no glass envelope) eficicncy and thcrmal losscs arc shown as a function of wind spced. An
incident anglc modifier cquation was also dcvclopcd for each rcccivcr case. Finally, cquations wcrc
derivcd showing collcctor pcrformancc as a function of input insolation value, incident angle, and
operating tempcraturc. Rcsults from the cxpcrimcnts werc comparcd with prcdictions from a onc-
dimcnsional analytical modcl of thc solar rcccivcr. Diffcrenccs betwccn thc modcl and experiment were
generally within the band of experimental uncertainty.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thc authors would like to thank scvcral individuals who hclpcd on this projcct. Construction and test
support wcrc provided by Gilbcrt Cohen and Harvcy Stcphcns from KJC Opcrating Company, as well as
John Kelton and AI Hcckcs from Sandia. Wc also appreciatc the revicw comments wc rcccived from
Lindscy Evans (Ewing) and Frank Lippkc (ZSW, Germany)
...
111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Testing of SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collcctor ....................................................................................... 1
.................................................................................
Test Rcsults ...............................................................
Performancc Equations ................. ........................................................................ 13
Referenccs .................................................................................................................... 15
Analytical Modcling of SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collector ................................................................. 15
Model Description ..................................................................................................................... 15

Gcneral Modeling Approach ................ .............17
Sample Calculations ................................................................................................................. 20
Air Versus Hydrogcn ................................................................................................................. 22
Referenccs ...............................
Computer Model of LS-2 Collcctor ............................................................................................ 25
Comparisons of Model Predictions with Expcrimental Data for the Ccrmct HCEs ..................... 25
Emittance Measurements in thc Field 29
Emittance Measuremcnts in thc Laboratory ............................................................................... 30
Effect of Emissivity Uncertainty on Modcl Validation ......... 30
References ................................................................................................................................. 31
Comparisons of Modcl Prcdictions with Experimental Data for thc Black Chromc HCEs ..........31
Appendix A: Thc SEGS LS-2 Tcst Articlc .......................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Test Facility Description ............................................................................ B-1
Appcndix C: Test Plan ....................... ........................................................................... c-1
Appcndix D: Tcst Results ................................................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Error Analysis ................................................................ ..........E-1
Appcndix F: User’s Manual for HCE-HTX Computer Program ........................................................... F-1
V
FIGURES
Figure Pagc
1. Acrial View of SEGS Plants at Kramcr Junction. Californ ................................................ 2
2. Rotating Test Platform at Sandia National Laboratorics .... ................................................ 3
3. Hcat collcction clcment ..............................................
4. SEGS LS-2 Efficiency vs . Tcmpcraturc Abovc Ambient (dT) and Wind - Ccrmct Reccivcr ........6
5. SEGS LS-2 Thcrmal loss vs . Tcmperaturc Abovc Ambient (dT) and Wind - Ccrmct Rccciver ...7
6. Black Chrome Efficicncy Comparison - Air vs . Vacuum 8
7. Black Chrome Thermal Losscs with Air and Vacuum ................................................................. 9
8. Efficiency Comparison of LS-2 Ccrmet and Black Chrome Rcccivers ........................................ 10
9. Thermal Loss Comparison of LS-2 Black Chrome and Ccrmct Rcceivcrs
10. Incidcnt Anglc Modificr - SEGS LS-2 Rccciver ........
11. SEGS LS-2 Ccrmet / Vacuum Effcicncy at Zero Incident Angle ..................... 14
12. Thermal Resistancc Nctwork for Hcat Collcction Elemcnt ......................................................... 16
13. Annular Conduction and Convcction Hcat Loss Modcl .............................................................. 18
14 . Hcat Loss with Convcction and Kinctic Thcory Modcls ............................................................. 20
15. Thermal Losscs from a SEGS HCE . ............................................... ...... .. 23
16. Fraction of Losses-Conduction and Radiation ......................................................... 23
17. Conduction with Air and Hydrogen in thc Annulus ............................. .................... 24
18. HCE Heat Loss: Vacuum Intact case.,....................................................................................... 27
19. HCE Hcat Loss: Air in Annulus casc ........................................................................................ 27
20 . HCE Heat Loss: No-Sun cases ................................................................ .28
21 . HCE Hcat Loss: Full-Sun cases (DNI = 940 W/m2) ... ......................................................... 28
22 . Ccrmet Emissivity Mcasuremcnts and Associatcd Unccrtainty .................................
23 HCE Heat Loss: Comparison betwccn Experimcnt and SEGS Conditions ...............
vi
Testing of SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collector
Introduction
The Sandia National Laboratorics and the KJC Operating Company are involved in a cost-shared
program to identify various means of reducing operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for solar
thermal power plants. As a part of this program, KJC provided Sandia a module of the SEGS LS-
2 parabolic trough conccntrator for thcrmal tcsting. The purpose of the testing was to gain a
thorough understanding of the efficiency of the collcctor givcn a variety of operating conditions.
This information could then bc uscd in studies by the O&M staffs at Solar Electric Gcnerating
Systcm (SEGS) plants to hclp them optimize operation of the plants.
The LS-2 collcctor is one of three generations of parabolic troughs installed in the nine SEGS built
by LUZ in the dcsert near Barstow, CA. The LS-2 design accounts for about 65% of thc
collectors installed. Togcthcr, the nine SEGS plants producc 354 M W of electric power; more
than 90% of the world's grid-connectcd solar gcncrating capacity. Total installed LS-2 mirror
aperture is more than a million sq. meters. Thc SEGS plants use largc fields of SEGS parabolic
trough collectors to supply thermal cnergy to boilers producing steam to drivc a conventional
Rankine steam turbine/generator system. Figure 1 is a view of the SEGS solar plants at Kramcr
Junction, CA.
The LS-2 module tested at Sandia was the smallcst portion of the complete solar collector
assembly (SCA) that could be operated indcpcndently, and was also thc largest piece that could be
installed on the rotating test platform. As tested, the mirror aperturc was 5 m and the length was
7 . 8 m. A complete LS-2 SCA consists of six collcctor modulcs and is 49 m long. Two different
receiver selcctive coatings - black chromc and cermet - were tcsted. Both types are currently in use
at the SEGS plants. Figure 2 shows the LS-2 collector as installcd on the rotating platform at
Sandia for tcst.
The solar collector receivers, known as heat collection elements (HCEs, Figure 3), were tested in
thrce configurations: with vacuum in the annulus between the receiver surfacc and the glass
envelope, with air in thc annulus, and with the glass cnvclope completely removcd. Thc dcsign of
the HCE calls for the vacuum lcvel to be torr. At this lcvcl, convective heat losses arc
essentially eliminatcd. However, duc to a variety of mishaps during operation, the vacuum can be
lost or the glass envelopc can be broken. KJC wanted to quantify how much collection efficiency
degraded given these mishaps to help them decide whcn it bccame cost-cffcctive to replacc a
degraded HCE.
Sclectivc surfacc coatings arc used on the HCEs bccausc they providc a high absorptivity (about
95%) for incoming light from the sun, while rcducing (by IO-20%) the infrared hcat emitted by thc
hot receivcr surfaccs. For comparison, common black paint might have an absorptivity near 90%,
but would also have an emissivity of 90%. Ccrmct is a gradcd ccramic/mctal selcctive surface
coating applied to the steel rcccivcr tube by a vacuum sputtcring process. Black chromc selective
coatings havc bccn used for a numbcr of ycars on both concentrating and non-concentrating solar
collectors. The coating is applicd by an elecroplating process, which must be very carefully donc
for a reasonablc coating lifetime. Black chromc is also limited to lower maximum operating
temperaturcs than those possible with cermet coatings.
N
Figure 1. Aerial view of SEGS plants at Kramer Junction, California.

w
Figure 2. Rotating test platform at Sandia National Laboratories.

Heat Collection Element
Vacuum betweon Glass -to-

Evacualion
Noule glass envelope and metal seals Flange
metal tube
/ \ \
Glass
/ Chemical Sponges
(Genes) to
Incemal Steel Plpe, covered
w-uh absorpive coaling EflVelOp3 maintain and Bellows
indicate status
01 vacuum.
Not to scale: Tube is about 13 feet long and 4 inches in diameter.
Figurc 3 . Heat collection clement.

Test Results
Figurc 4 summarizcs the efficiency test rcsults with thc ccrmet recciver. Whcn air is introduced
into the rcceiver annulus, efficiency falls as thermal losses incrcase because of increased
conduction and convection in the air transferring hcat from thc rcceiver surface to the glass. In still
air, efficiency dccrcases by a comparablc amount when the glass is rcmoved from the receivcr. As
wind spced increascs, efficiency can bc scen to fall to unacceptablc levcls. The cquations shown in
Figurc 4 were obtaincd from a least-squarcs regression analysis of the mcasured data points. Note
that thcse cquations apply only at the insolation values prescnt during thc tcst, and should not be
used for othcr levels of insolation. The complete set of measured data is contained in Tables 1, 2,
and 3 of Appendix D. The error bars on the data points are the expcctcd worst-case errors causcd
by thc measuring instrumcnts. A discussion of the test errors is shown in Appendix E. Error bars
are not included for the bare tubc tcst case, because errors due to ternpcrature instability (caused
by variable winds) could not be quantified. The expected unccrtainty in the data is certainly largcr,
but the magnitude is unknown.
Figure 5 shows thermal loss data from tests at approximately thc samc operating tempcraturcs as
in Figure 4. The thcrmal loss curvcs reflect the same phcnomcna as the efficiency tcst data:
increasing losses as the receiver is dcgraded by allowing air into the vacuum annulus, and
significantly worse losses with increasing wind-driven convcction and conduction. The complete
data sets arc in Tables 6, 7, and 10 of Appendix D.
After exchanging thc cermct receiver for the black chromc vcrsion, all of the tests except for glass
rcmoval wcre repeatcd. Figure 6 shows thc cfficiency test results, and Figure 7 shows rcsults of
thermal loss testing. The efficicncies are slightly lowcr at high tempcraturcs, and losscs slightly
highcr, both probably due to highcr cmissivity of the black chromc selcctive surface. Emissivity of
black chromc is about 0.24 at 3OO0C, compared to about 0.14 for cermet coatings at 350°C. In
Appendix D, cfficiency data are contained in Tablcs 4 and 5 ; thermal loss data are contained in
Tables 8 and 9.
Figures 8 and 9 compare cfficicncy and thermal loss curves for black chrome and cermet selective
coatings, for both thc vacuum and air test cases. Ccrmet is bettcr than black chrome at the 35U-
400°C tempcraturcs uscd for normal opcrations in the SEGS collector fields, but the difference is
not grcat. The biggest advantagc of cermct may be a better lifctimc at high temperatures. But an
evacuated tube is clearly a significant advantage for cithcr selective coating. The barc HCE case
was not included in this comparison, bccausc the performancc degradation with a bare tube
completcly swamps the smallcr diffcrcnces due to selective coatings.
Figure 10 summarizes thc ccrmet HCE tcst data collected to determine the performance
dcgradation duc to increasing solar beam incident angle. All thcse tcsts werc done with cold water
as the heat-transfer fluid, with thc receivcr operating at ncar-ambicnt-air tempcraturcs, so there
wcre no discernible thermal losscs, cven with a barc rcccivcr tube. We expcctcd to sec relativcly
small diffcrcnces when thc glass was rcmoved, due to removal of any glass reflections. Nonc were
found, indicating that the antireflective coatings on both inside and outside of the glass envelopes
were very effectivc.
An incomplctc sct of incidcnt anglc data for the black chromc recciver was obtained (not shown
hcrc). No significant diffcrcnccs from thc ccrmct data wcrc notcd.
5
100 I I I I I I I I
90
Vacuum - 73.1 +
A t 9 4 0 W/m^2
0.00120 (dT)
DNI
- 0.0000BS0 (dT>^2
- - -
a0
I Air 73.3 0.0160 ( d T ) 0.0000810
A t 617 W/m^2 D N I
(dT)^2
70
60
50
40
30
20
I Bare - 74.7 - 0.0420 (dT) - 0.0000731 (dT1~2 - 0.00927 (dT

-Y
Wf
10
0
c
0 50 100 150 2 00 250 300 350 4 00
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE ABOVE AMBIENT (C)
Figurc 4. SEGS LS-2 Efficiency vs. Ternperaturc Abovc Ambient (dT) and Wind - Cermet
Rcccivcr.
6
350
Bare - 0.365 ( d T ) + 0.000636 ( d T ) ^ 2 + 0.0666 (dT*

&I/ /
300
Air - 0.968 ( d T ) + 0.000669 ( d T ) ^ 2
-E
250
0
Y)
\
5 200
In
v)
0
J
J 150
a
t
Q!
W
I
I-
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Figure 5 . SEGS LS-2 Thcrmal Loss vs. Tcmperaturc Above Ambicnt (dT) and Wind - Ccrmet
Receivcr.
7
Figurc 6. Black Chrome Efficiency Comparison - Air vs. Vacuum.
8
175 I I I I I I I
R i r Loss = 0.1212 (dT) + 0.0006428 (dT)*2

150
Vat Loss = -0.0717

Vac (dT> + 0.0009675 (dT>^2 /
125
CI
E
U
(0
2 100
tn LS-2 B l a c k Chrome Recafver

tn
0
-I
J 75
U
I:
U
w
I
I-
50
25
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figurc 7. Black Chromc Thermal Losses with Air and Vacu,um
9
78
68
58
1. Cermet r e c e i v e r , vacuum i n a n n u l u s
48
30
t
-
2.
3.
B l a c k chrome r e c e i v e r , vacuum i n a n n u l u s
Cermet r e c e i v e r , air i n annulus

1
4. B l a c k chrome r e c e i v e r , a i r i n annulus
20 - -
10 - -
I I I I I I I
8
Figure 8. Efficiency Comparison of LS-2 Black Chrome and Cermct Receivers.
10
175
150 EA - B l a c k chrome r e c e i v e r , a i r i n annulus
CA = Cermet r e c e i v e r , a i r i n annulus
n
E
125
BV - B l a c k chrome r e c e i v e r , vacuum i n a n n u l u s
\
5
U
v)
100
CV - Cermet r e c e i v e r , vacuum i n a n n u l u s
m
In
0
-I
-I 75
a
I
IY
w
I
I-
50
25
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 3 00 350 4 00
Figurc 9. Thermal Loss Comparison of LS-2 Black Chromc and Ccrmct Rcccivcrs
11
I
-
I I I 1 I I
1
I P T J K COS (IA) + 0.000864 CIA) - 0.00005369
. .
.9
E
2.6
LL
w
n
g.7
W
-I
U.6
Z
a
I-
2.5
W
n
w
0
2.4
w
.3
Bare tube = X
.2
K - COS
I
CIA)
I
- 0.0003512
I
CIA)
I
- 0.
I I I I .._ 1
10 20 30 50
40 60 70 60 98
SOLAR BEAM INCIDENT WGLE (Degrees)
Figure 10. Incident Angle M d f i c r - SEGS LS-2 Receiver.
12
Performance Eauations
Thc operating cfficiency data and cquations shown in the previous figures arc valid only for a
narrow range of insolation values near those existing during the tcsts. The thermal losscs shown
are valid only for an essentially zero value of incidcnt direct insolation on the receiver. These
equations will not correctly prcdict collector performance when insolation differs by hundreds of
W/m2 from the Sandia test conditions, as happens daily in an operational solar field such as the
SEGS. The performancc cquation can be extended as outlined in Appendix C to cover the
complete range of expectcd solar irradiance. Thc resulting performance equation for the
cermctlvacuum receiver is shown in Figure 1 1 , Incidcnt angle is also included as a factor in the
equation. A performancc equation in this form has becn shown to corrcctly predict the allday,
steady-state output from a single collcctor modulc, and from a small collector field (Ref. 1 and 2).
We believe the equation can also be successfully used with large solar installations such as the
SEGS plants'.
The general shape of Figure 11, and the equation uscd to draw thc figure, show that collcctor
efficiency varies in a hyperbolic fashion with changing valucs of insolation; and as a quadratic
polynomial with changcs in operating tcmperaturc. The pcrformancc equations shown for
efficiency and incident angle modifier are not cxact physical models of thc collector, but arc instead
empirical fits to the experimental test data. The first term in the performance equation (c.g., 73.3)
reprcsents the approximate optical cfficicncy of thc collcctor. Some expcricnce with the Acurex
collector (Ref. 2) indicatcs that the optical cfficiency term can bc varied slightly to account for
accumulated soiling of thc collector mirrors and receiver glass.
It is possible to read a collcctor efficiency from a graph such as Figure 1 1, but not very accuratcly,
and a new graph would bc nccdcd for each different incidcnt anglc. A morc practical way to use
this data is to solve thc equations (1) to ( 5 ) shown below for each operating parameter set of
intcrest. Note that the incident angle modifier K is the same for all thc receiver variations. Also
note that the equations are valid only for stcady-state conditions. If the collcctor field is increasing
or decreasing in temperature, a scparatc calculation is necessary to account for heat stored in, or
removed from, the mass of oil and pipc in the field.
The equations below summarize thc tcst performance of thc SEGS LS-2 collcctor, and should
apply to any tcmperaturc bctween ambicnt and 4OO0C, at any insolation levcl from 100 to 1100
W/m2, and at any incidcnt angle from 0 to 60 degrees.
Cermet with vacuum annulus
q = K 173.3 - 0.007276 (AT)] - 0.496 (AT/I) - 0.0691 (AT2/I)
Cermet with air in annulus
q = K [73.4 - 0.00803 (AT)] - 9.68 (AT/I) - 0.0669 (AT2/I) (2)
'Before applying the equation to a SEGS plant, the reader should understand that differences exist between the flow
conditions in the experiment and in a SEGS plant lhese differences cause the experiment to overpredict losses by
approximately 10% at a given fluid temperature This subject is described In detail in the report section that
describes validation of the analytical model
13
100
80
!?
20
-tpQERATuPE-~IDcT (Dag C)
Figure 1 1. SEGS LS-2 CermetNacuum Efficiency at Zero Incident Angle.
14
Black chromc with vacuum annulus
q = K 173.6 - 0.004206 (AT)] + 7.44 (AT/I) - 0.0958 (AT2/l)
Black chromc with air in annulus
q = K [73.8 - 0.006460 (AT)] - 12.16 (AT/I) - 0.0641 (AT2/l)
lncidcnt Analc Modificr. K
K = cos (Ia) - 0.0003512 (la) - 0.00003137
In pcrformancc cquations ( I ) through ( 5 ) .
q = Collector cfficicncy, in perccnt

K = Incidcnt anglc modificr
AT = Rcccivcr fluid tcmpcrature abovc ambicnt air tcmpcraturc, "C
Ia = Solar bcam incident anglc, in dcgrccs
References:
1 Dudlcy, V E., and Workhovcn, R. M . 1982. SAND8 1-0984, Performance yesring ojthe
Solar Kinetics T-700 Solar Collector Albuqucrquc, N M Sandia National Laboratorics.
2. Camcron, C . P., and Dudlcy, V. E., 1985. SAND85-2316, Acurex Solar Corporation
Modular Industrial Solar Retrofit Qitnlifjcation yest Results. Albuqucrque, N. M.
Sandia National Laboratorics.
Analytical Modeling of SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collector
In order to gain a detailcd undcrstanding of thc heat transfer phcnomcna that havc a significant
influcncc on the performancc of an LS-2 collcctor, an analytical model was developed and
compared to thc results of the Sandia tcsts. In this scction we describe the analytical modcl and
comparc modcl predictions with tcst rcsults. This validatcd model will be used by KJC Opcrating
Company to do trade studies to determinc optimum replacerncnt intervals for dcgradcd HCEs. The
model can also be readily adaptcd to study troughs significantly diffcrent than thc LS-2 (Dudley,
draft).
Model Descrbtion
The thermal loss model for thc hcat collcction clcmcnt is onc-dimcnsional and assumes steady-statc
heat transfer It IS bascd on thc following thcrmal-rcsistancc nctwork.
15
Thermal Network
Ta
Figurc I2 l’hcrmal Resistance Nct\vork for Heat Collection Elcmcnt
16
Nomenclature
A = area lm2]
D = diameter [ml
h = heat transfer coefficient IW/m2"K]
K = thermal conductivity IW/m°KI
K,K = effective thermal conductivity [ W/m"KI
Q = heat flow per unit length of tube IW/ml
R = thermal resistance I"Km/W]
T, = ambient temperature I°K]

T,, = inside glass temperature [OK]
T,, = outside glass tcmpcraturc I"K1
T, = tube surface temperature [OK]
Tsky = sky temperature I"KI
a = absorptivity
E = emissivity
y = intercept factor
p = reflectivity
(3 = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant, 5.67 1 W/m2"K4
Nu Nussclt Number, the ratio of convective to conduction heat transfer

=
P, Prandtl Number. the ratio of viseous to thermal diffusion through a fluid boundary
=
layer
R, = Raylcigh Number, the ratio of the buoyant to viseous forces within a fluid field
General Modelinp Amroach
R, is the resistance between the receiver tube at T, and the inner surface of thc glass cnvclopc a:
Tg 1
The model for R , in the annular spacc at rcduccd prcssurcs It is based on the theory of
conduction heat transfer and kinctic thcoq The modcl IS sho\\n schematically in Figure 13 over
the range of pressures from atmospheric to 1O4 torr In this figure the tcmpcraturcs of the receiver
tube and glass cnvclopc arc assumed to be hcld constant and the only variable is the pressure in
annular region Descriptions of the heat transfer rncchanisms in each of the regions identified in
Figure 13 arc presented bclou
In region (a), the gas in the annular region is circulating b, laminar natural convcction In laminar
flow, thc fluid does not mix and thc heat transfcr mechanism is molecular conduction The region
prcviouslj- described by cquations 1. 2, and 3 and applies when 100 < Ra, < 1O7
The heat transfcr in rcgion (b) is also molecular conduction The thcrmal conductivity of the gas is
a function of tcmpcraturc and not pressure in this region As the pressure dccrcascs, over nearly
three dccadcs from near 100 torr to IO-' torr, the density of the gas also decreases However, there
17
8
Ir- ' -
0
E
s -
-C
o.Ooo1 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 l.m

Pressure in mm of Hg
Figure 13. Annular Conduction and Convection Heat Loss Model
arc still many molecules and the mean-free path bctwccn molccular collisions is vcry small.
Thercfore, sincc thc gcometry, tcmpcraturcs, and thcrmal conductivity are all constant, thc thermal
loss is also constant
In region (c), thc dcnsity of the gas continues to dccrcase. With thc rcduction in prcssure, thc
mcan-frcc path betwcen rnolccular collisions is starting to increase As the mean-frce path
increases, the apparcnt thermal conductivity of thc gas decrcases Mcchanistically, thc molecular
transport is rcduced bccausc thcrc are not enough molcculcs to transfcr cncrgy one to the other.
Thercforc, the mcan-frcc-path tcrm in thc hcat-transfer coefficient starts to dominatc, and the
conduction losscs dccrcasc hrthcr
In region (d), thc conduction is very small and of littlc consequence to thc heat-loss calculation In
this rcgion, intcrmolccular collisions almost never occur and thc only transport is from thc
molccules that travel across the gap between thc recciver tubc and thc glass cnvclopc Thercforc.
in region (d), Rl becomes vcry large and hcat loss IS radiation dorninatcd
Calculating the reduccd prcssure conduction hcat loss requircs only knowing thc gas that is in the
annulus, thc pressurc, and thc tcmpcraturc Thc first step is to calculate the mean-frcc path
bctwccn molcculcs This is calculatcd using the following dirncnsional cquation.
7
1.=2.331x
Pd2
In this cquation,
h = mean-free-path betwcen collisions of a molecule in cm.

T = avcragc tcmpcraturc of the gas in thc annular space in dcgrees K
P = pressurc of thc gas in thc annular space in mm of Hg.
18
6 = molecular diametcr of the gas in cm. Air and hydrogen havc molccular diameters of 3 . 5 3
x and 2.32 x IO-* cm: rcspcctively.
A sccond, intcrmediate cocfficicnt is a hnction of thc gas and thc intcraction betwcen the gas and
thc walls of the cnclosurc. It is calculatcd as s h o w in Equation (2) below
2-a 9y-5
h=- X-
0 2(y+l)
In Equation (2), "b" is a non-dimcnsional cocfficicnt. "a" i s the accommodation cocfficicnt, also
non-dimcnsional, and y is the ratio of spccific hcats for thc gas insidc the annulus (for air and
hydrogen y = 1 4 and 1 4 1, rcspcctivcly)
The accommodation cocfficient is defined as the ratio of the energy actually transferred between
impinging gas molecules and a surface and the energv which would he theoretically transferred
[f the impinging molecules reached complete thermal equilibrium with the surface. Thc
accommodation coefficicnt is not ivcll charactcrized for glass-air surfaccs and, not surprisingly, no
data could be found for selectivc surfaces. Howevcr, several refcrcnccs noted that for normal
surface-gas interactions 'la'' is near unity. Onc experimcntal study for several surfaces and gascs
determined that a = 1 unlcss the surfaccs werc extremely wcll cleancd. This is what was assumcd
herc.
Oncc the quantitics h and "b" arc calculated, Equations (1) and (2), the ncxt stcp is to calculatc thc
effcctivc hcat-transfcr coefficient using Equation (3)
where,
H = hcat-transfer coefficicnt in W/m2K

K = thcrmal conductivity of the gas at standard tcmpcraturc and prcssurc in W/mK
ri and ro = inncr and outcr radii, rcspcctively, of the annulus in metcrs
b = cocficient calculated using Equation (2); it is non-dimensional
h = mcan-free path bctwccn molccular collisions as calculatcd using Equation (1). Its
units should be in mcters for usc in Equation (3).
Thc first term in the denominator of Equation (3) represcnts the molccular conduction through thc
evacuatcd, cylindrical rcgion. In Figurc 13, this tcrm dominates thc heat transfcr in rcgion (b) from
100 to lo-' torr. As the prcssure dccreascs further, thc mcan-free path bctween molccules
incrcases and the second term in the dcnominator incrcascs to thc point that is starts to rcducc thc
value of thc heat-transfcr coeficicnt. This is rcpresented by region (c) in Figurc 13, i.c., from
about 10-1 to torr. As the pressure dccreascs furthcr, thc mean-free path betwccn molcculcs
becomcs very large, as in region (d). In fact, molccules in rcgion (d) arc not likcly to collidc with
one another at all, but rather bounce back and forth betwccn the rcceiver tubc and thc glass
cnvclopc It is not clear that this correlation applies in this prcssurc rcgimc However. since the
conduction heat transfer is small, it is a reasonable assumption to apply the model in region (d)
The heat transfer by conduction for a unit length of thc HCE can now be calculated using Equation
(4).
where,
Q = conduction heat loss per unit length of the HCE in W/m

rl = inncr radius of thc annulus in mctcrs
H = heat-transfer coefficient in W/m2K as calculatcd using Equation (3)
TI and To = temperatures of the inncr and outcr surfaccs of thc annulus in degrccs K
Sample Calculations
To gain additional insights, the model just dcscribed was applied to a very simple case for thc
SEGS HCE. Thc geometry of the annulus was fixed to an outcr diameter of 10.9 cm and an inner
diameter of 7.0 cm. The outcr temperature was chosen to be 112°C and the inncr one 349°C. Air
was assumed to be inside the annulus and only the pressure of the air was allowed to change. The
heat transfer by conduction using thc annular convection modcl described by Equations (I): (2),
and (3) was compounded with thc kinetic theory model described in the previous section. The
results of this analysis arc shown in Figure 14.
5 300
cn
c
Q)
-I 250
Q)
D
3
+
rc 200
0
5E 150
.-E
I - 0
O.(3001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1.000
Figure 14. Heat Loss with Convection and Kinetic Theory Modcls.
20
Figurc 14 clearly dcmonstratcs that applying thc annular convcction model for low prcssures undcr
predicts the thcrmal losscs from thc HCE. This was found whcn comparing thc modcl with data
from thc cxpcriment, describcd bclow
It is recommended that the annular convcction modcl bc uscd down to a lower limit of Ra, = 100.
For lower values of the Ra,, the kinctic theory method for calculating thc heat losscs should bc
used. While the critical Raylcigh numbcr is thc appropriate critcrion for dctcrmining whcn to usc
thc annular convcction modcl and thc kinctic theory modcl, thc pressurc in the annulus can also bc
used as an indicator. For the casc modcled, thc prcssurc that corrcsponds to Ra, = 100 is about
180 torr,
25 I 25
Keg = K (0.386
0.86 1 + P,
R2 is the radiant rcsistance betwecn thc reccivcr tube and the inner surfacc of thc glass envclopc
Thc glass tube IS modclcd as a "black" surfacc in thc thcrmal spectrum, i c , a = E = 1 0
R, is the conduction resistancc bctwccn the inner and outer surfaces of thc glass cnvclopc
R, is thc convective resistancc from the outsidc of thc glass envclopc to thc ambient
Q4 =hA,[7,, -7.1
For Natural Convection
For Forccd Convcction
21
R, is thc radiation hcat loss to the sky and surroundings.
Since the fluid properties vary with tcmpcrature and, in somc cases, pressurc, this model gives risc
to a highly nonlincar set of cquations Thcrcforc, an itcrativc solution technique was used based on
thc following cncrgy balance
In Figurc 14, only Conduction hcat losscs wcrc modeled. Thc total heat loss from the HCE can
also be calculatcd and arc shown in Figurcs 15 and 16 Figurc 15 shows the conduction, radiation,
and total hcat losscs as a function of prcssure Figure 16 s h o w the fraction of thc total heat loss
resulting from conduction and radiation also as a function of thc annulus pressure.
Air Versus Hvdrogen
Since onc of the concerns of the KJC Operating Company is thc influx of hydrogcn from the
ambient air and from thc circulating oil into thc annular spaec, thc conduction hcat transfer for
hydrogen at the samc conditions established for thc earlicr examples \vas also calculatcd. Thc
rcsults arc shown in Figure 17 below.
Figure 17 clcarly dcmonstratcs that the thermal losses n i t h hydrogen in thc annular region can bc
as much as S I Y times the conduction losscs with air The total thermal losses with air at
atmosphcric pressurc. shown in Figure 15, arc 540 W/m of tubc Icngth If thc annulus containcd
hydrogen at a prcssurc of torr, thc samc total thcrmal losses as with air at atrnosphcric
prcssurc would be calculated
In summary, thc annular eonvcction model [Equations (1 l), (12), and ( 1 3)J should be uscd down to
a lower limit of Ra, = 100. For lower values of Ra,, thc kinetic method for calculating hcat losscs
should be uscd.
References
Ratzcl, A , C Hickox, and D Cartling. Techniques for Reducing Thermal Conduction and Natural
Convection Heat Losses in Annular Receiver Gcomctrics, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol 101, No
1, February 1979
Handbook of Vacuum Physics. Volume I (;a.ses and Vacua~A.H. Beck, cd., Pcrgamon Press,
London, 1966.
Holkebocr, D , D. Hones, F Pagano, and D. Santclcr, Vaczitim Izngineenng, Boston Technical

Publishcrs, Cambridge, 1967.
22
Figure 15. Thermal Losses from a SEGS HCE
Figure 16. Fraction of Losses-Conduction and Radiation.
23
I==0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Figure 17. Conduction with Air and Hydrogen in the Annulus.
Handbook of Heat 'lrunsfer, W.M. Rohscnow and J.P. Harnett, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1973.
Incropera, F.P., and D.P. DeWitt, Fiindnmentn1.s of'Heat andMass ir'ransfer, John Wilcy & Sons,
New York, 1985.
Fox, R.W., and A.T. McDonald, Introduction to Fluid Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1978.
Dudley, V.E., and Lindscy R. Evans, "Test Rcsults: Industrial Solar Tcchnology Solar Collector,"
Draft report, to bc published.
24
ComDuter Model of LS-2 Collector
Thc hcat transfer mcthodology dcscribcd in thc prcvious section was incorporated within a
QuickBasic computer program callcd HCE-HTX. The program calculatcs thc onedimensional,
steady-statc heat losses and HTF heat gain pcr unit length (mctcr) of an HCE. The principal modcl
paramcters includc fractional HTF flow rate, HTF bulk tcmpcraturc, ambicnt solar and wcather
conditions, and a detailed spccification of thc HCE. Thc modcl accommodates scvcral conditions
of the HCE annulus: vacuum intact, lost vacuum (air in annulus), and brokcn annulus covcr (barc
tube). A dctailed dcscription of thc program can bc found within thc HCE-HTX Uscr’s Manual
(Appcndix F).
ComDarisons of Model Predictions With Experimental Data for the Cermet HCEs
Thc following section comparcs output from thc HCE-HTX codc with cxpcrimcntal data collcctcd
by Sandia The comparisons arc madc graphically and cach plot is discusscd, including commcnts
on potential sourccs of dcviation Much of thcsc data havc been vcrified through selectcd hand
calculations of subroutinc calculations and property look-ups
Sandia pcrformcd tests for both full sun and no sun conditions using ccrmct HCEs in conditions 1)
as new with vacuum intact, 2) annulus fillcd with ambicnt air, and 3) with thc glass covcr
complctcly removed such that thc barc absorbcr is dircctly cxposcd to ambicnt conditions Data
wcre also collcctcd to evaluatc thc scnsitivity of thc HCE hcat loss to wind spccd
Scvcral conditions spccific to thc SNL, tcst proccdurc diffcr from normal SEGS opcrating
conditions These conditions are surnmarizcd bclow
Whilc esisting SEGS plants utilizc a diphcnylhiphcnyl-oxide hcat transfer fluid

(Thcrminol VP-I or Dowthcrm A): the SNL test utilized a siliconc-based fluid (Syltherm
800). Though the two synthctic oils havc diffcrcnt matcrial properties, thc appropriate
properties wcrc uscd whcn comparing thc modcl with thc cxpcriment.
At f i l l solar powcr, a typical flow ratc in an LS-2 collcctor opcrating in a 30 MW SEGS

plant is about 140 gpm. Howcvcr, bccausc of limitations in thc tcst loop, typical f l o ~
ratcs for thc Sandia tcsts werc about 14 gpm, or 10% of the dcsign flow of a SEGS plant.
To achicvc an increascd flow vclocity in thc tcst loop (approximatcly 3 timcs highcr), a 2-
inch diametcr flow rcstriction dcvicc (solid plug) was ccntcrcd in the 2.6 inch (66 mm)
insidc diameter HCE absorber tube. With the plug thc fluid velocity at 14 gpm of
Sylthcrm in the tcst loop was 0.63 m/s at a Rcynolds number of 1.8 IO4, compared to 2.58
m / s and a Rcynolds numbcr of 7.9 lo5 at 140 gpm of Thcrminol VP-I in an operating
SEGS plant, Howcvcr, the wall-to-fluid AT in the test loop is fivc timcs higher than in a
SEGS HCE, i.e., 20°C vs. 4°C. Hcncc, the comparablc products of hAT for thcse two
cases, which arc cquivalcnt to thc heat flow to the fluid, arc 16,400 W/m2 in thc test loop
and 16,625 W/m2 in a SEGS HCE at full flow. The cffcct that thc highcr AT has on the
prcdicted thermal losses in an opcrating SEGS plant is discusscd at the cnd of this scction.
Thc validation prcscntcd hcre consists of a sct of dircct comparisons bctwecn mcasured and
rnodclcd data Each comparison contains a plot of hcat loss vcrsus tcmpcrature diffcrcncc
25
(between HTF and ambient). Thc tcsts dcscribed carlicr consisted of a series without insolation
(no-sun casc) to mcasure thc thermal loss, and a scrics with insolation to mcasure collcctor
efficicncy. Within these scrics, tests wcrc conductcd with full vacuum. loss of vacuum but with
mechanical intcgrity of thc glass envelope, and with thc glass cnvelopc rcmoved.
The first validation plot, Figurc 18, shows the heat loss for the no-sun case with vacuum intact. A
similar plot for the no-sun casc with ambicnt air in thc annulus ( i t . , bad scal condition resulting in
lost vacuum) is prcsentcd as Figurc 19. No-sun and full-sun cases for all annulus conditions -
vacuum, air, and barc - arc summarized in Figure 20 and 2 1, respcctively.
All of the validation runs prcscntcd in Figs. 18-2 1 arc bascd on the following assumptions: ccrmct
absorber coating, Syltherm 800 HTF; rcstrictcd flow (2 inch diamcter concentric plug), 14 gpm
flow ratc, no wind, ambient atmospheric air pressure at 0.83 atm., ambient temperature at 22"C,
and effcctive sky tcmpcraturc at 14°C. For thc full-sun cases (Figure 21), dircct normal irradiance
was 940 W/m2; for the vacuum c a w (Figs. 18, 20, and 2 l), thc evacuated annulus prcssurc was
1 0 4 torr.
Detailed output from the HCE-HTX validation runs can be found in Appcndix F
Figure 18 - No sun with vacuum intact
Thc most simple case availablc for comparing predicted pcrformance from the modcl with
cmpirically-dcrived data is the casc with no-sun on thc HCE with vacuum intact, Figurc 18. With
vacuum intact, heat loss from the absorber is almost cntirely by radiation. Since the heat transfcr
is betwcen the fluid and thc absorbcr is rclativcly small, the absorber tcmperaturc is almost the
samc as the HTF tcmpcrature. Sincc thc HTF and ambicnt tempcraturc wcrc measurcd during the
cxperiment, the only significant uncertainty stcms from proper charactcrization of the cmissivity of
thc absorber. Predictcd radiation loss is directly proportional to the value of cmissivity.
Accordingly, proper charactcrization of the emissivity of thc absorber is very important. Thc
ccrmet cmissivity data currcntly uscd in the codc as the baseline is a lincar fit to two data points
takcn from the actual tubcs that were tcstcd on the platform at Sandia. (The effect that thc
Uncertainty in cmissivity mcasurcment has on the comparison of thc model with the expcrimcnt is
discusscd later under Figure 22.) Thc agreement between the model and SNL test data is
reasonably good for Figure 18. At normal opcrating tempcraturcs (about 300°C abovc ambient)
modelcd performance, using the basclinc cmissivity, is vcry closc to the uncertainty attributed to
thc expcrimcnt.
Figure 19 - No sun with air in annulus
Thc casc defincd by no-sun with air in the annulus is prescnted in Figurc 19. The agrccmcnt hcre
is very good; thc model and test data csscntially agree, within thc bounds of expcrimental
uncertainty, ovcr thc cntirc tcmpcraturc range. Thc conditions of Figure 19 dcviate from thosc of
Figurc 18 in that convcction within thc annulus is of thc samc ordcr of magnitude as thc radiation.
It is notcd that air in the annulus was modclcd at 0.83 atm rather than 1 atm due to Albuquerquc's
high altitude (> 5,000 ft abovc sea lcvcl).
26
100
N O SUN -VACUUM
80 SNL Trsl (sdid)
SNI, Tat uncerlainly bunds (dashed)
N Model (thick sdld)
E .Model wilh upper bound E (dots)
2 60
vi
v)
0
-A
tu 40
c
a
I
20
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Fluid Temperature above Ambient, deg C
Figure 18. HCE Heat Loss: Vacuum Intact case.
150
120 ................................................................................................................
SNL T a l (sdM)
SNL Test uncutnlnty band, (d-hed)
N Modd (thlck SOW)
E
3 90 .. . . M ~ l . " ' h u?w'.b?nd.E Cdo's? ...........................
In-
In
0
-J
60 .................................
a
I
30 ......................................................
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Fluid Temperature above Ambient. dea C
Figurc 19. HCE Heat Loss: Am in Annulus case.
27
250
200 .............................................
SNL T a t (dashed)
hl Model (solid)
E
3 150 ..................................................... ..........................
a-
v)
0
-I
z;i 100
Q,
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure 20. HCE Heat Loss: No-Sun cases.
250
200
FULL SUN: DNI = 940
I
SNL Tat (dashed)
h( Model (solid) Air
E
2 150
d
0
J
100
a)
I
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure 2 1 . HCE Heat Loss: Full-Sun cases (DNI = 940 W/m2)
28
Comuarison of Figures 18 arid 19
Onc rcason the agreement bctwccn modcl and data may bc bcttcr for Figure 19 than Figure I8 is
because there is less uncertainty rcgarding thc condition within thc annulus for the case depictcd in
Figurc 19. In Figurc 18 it was assumed that a good vacuum cxistcd (i.e., 10 -4 torr). Sandia was
unable to measurc the actual vacuum levcl. As indicatcd in Figure 13, thermal loss is a strong
fknction of vacuum lcvcl. If actual vacuum levcl was significantly worsc than thc assumed lcvcl,
the model would underpredict losses.
Fiaure 20 - HCE heat losses with no sun
Figurc 20 contains the information in Figurcs 18 and 19 supplcmented by additional information

for thc bare annulus case. Agrccmcnt for the barc annulus case is not quite as good as for thc
vacuum and air cascs. Thc barc-annulus convectivc hcat losscs arc modclcd as pure natural
convection. Under test conditions, any wind would incrcase thc convective losscs.
Figure 21 - HCE heat losses with full sun
Figure 21 contains information analogous to Figurc 20 cxcept that thc dircct normal irradiancc is
940 W/m2 rather than zcro. It can bc sccn that thc vacuudfull sun casc shows the grcatest
deviation betwcen measured and modclcd data of any of thc c a m prescnted. This case
(vacuudfull sun) is particularly rclcvant, sincc it is the typical opcrating condition for SEGS
plants.
The presence of high insolation increases the significance of proper modeling of the HTF flow
internal convection. For no-sun cascs, HTF tempcraturcs arc gcncrally only a fcw dcgrees grcater
than absorber tcmpcraturcs. Thc low AT grcatly lcssens thc influencc of HTF intcrnal convection
and its relativc contribution to thc overall solution to thc heat loss problcm. Ovcr the rangc of
tcmperatures considercd in full-sun cases, HTF tempcratures arc about 15-50°C lcss than absorber
tempcraturcs - adcquatc to significantly influencc the resulting hcat loss solution. The concentric-
cylinder forced-flow correlation used in thc modcl (Dittus-Bocltcr cquation with appropriatc
hydraulic diamctcr) is rcportcd by lncropcra and DcWitt to be valid "to a first approximation."
Thc appropriatcncss and adequacy of this modcl is thought to contribute to the differcncc reflectcd
in thc vacuum case of Figurc 2 1 . Thc apparcnt agrcemcnt for bare annulus and air cases, whilc
quitc good, may stem from compensating modcling conditions rather than precisc determination.
Figure 22 - Cermet emissivity measurements and associated uncertain4
Emittance Measurements in the Field
Ficld cmittancc mcasurcmcnts ncrc donc on thc actual ccrmct rcccivcr tubcs testcd on the rotating
platform using a portablc infrarcd rcflcctomctcr, Modcl DB- 100, manufacturcd by Gicr-Dunklc,
Inc This rcflcctomctcr is dcsigncd to mcasurc the normal infrarcd reflcctancckmittancc of flat
opaquc samples placcd ovcr thc mcasurcmcnt port for 100°C and 300°C blackbody radiation
Non-flat samplc surfaccs can bc accuratcl) mcasurcd by calibrating thc instrument using a
rcference matcrial and folloning mcasurcmcnt techniqucs dctailcd In rcfcrencc 1 Thc DB- 100
dctcrmincs thc infrarcd rcflcctancc, Q,n( 100°C or 300°C). by vicwing thc samplc with a singlc
thcrmopilc detector while thc surface is altcrnatcly irradiatcd with blackbody radiation from a
29
rotating split-cavity at differing tcmpcraturcs. To obtain a measurcd valuc, the diffcrcnce in thc
detcctor ac signal is integratcd and wcightcd for cithcr a 100°C or 300°C blackbody. A 300°C
blackbody is approximated by placing a filtcr into thc dctcctor optical path. When calibrated to a
known standard and correcting for thc non-flat surfacc geornctry, thc measurcmcnt uncertainty
should bc within 20.05 reflcctancc units for non-flat samples, sec refcrence 2 (see Figure 22). For
opaquc surfaccs, thc normal DB- 100 mcasured crnittance, EN-GD(100°C or 300°C) is
EN-^;^^( 100°C or 300°C) = I 000 - kD(

100°C or 300°C)
Emittance Measurements in the Laboratory
In addition to the tubes tcstcd on thc rotating platform, Sandia measured the emittancc of scveral
cermet tube sections provided by KJC. The normal emittance was dctermined in thc laboratory
with two spectrophotometers. The hcmispherical rcflcctance properties, covering the wavelength
rangc from 0.265pm to 2.4pm, were measured using a Bcckman 5270 spcctrophotomctcr equipped
with an integrating spherc accessory. All data obtaincd using this instrument were referenced to
NIST calibratcd standard matcrials and corrcctcd for thc non-flat samplc surface geometry. For
the optical propcrties covcring thc wavclcngth range from 2.4pm to 22.4pm, a Pcrkin-Elmer Model
1800 FTIR (Fouricr Transform Infrarcd) spectrophotomcter cquippcd with an integrating sphere
was used. By mcrging the rcflcctancc spcctra from thc two laboratory instruments, material
propertics can be optically charactcrizcd ovcr the combined wavclcngth rangc to within a
mcasurcmcnt uncertainty of f0.02 units for non-flat samplc surfaccs. Using thc spectral
information obtained by this method, blackbody averagcd reflectance values, RBB(T), as a function
of tcrnperature wcrc calculatcd using thc cxprcssion
whcrc A, = 0.265 pm, h,, = 22.4 pm, BB,(T) is the Planck distribution valuc for tcmpcrature
T("K) and wavclcngth h, and pjL(2x)is thc measured and corrcctcd hcmispherical reflectancc valuc
at wavclcngth h.
Sincc thc samplc mcasurcd wcrc opaquc, thc blackbody averagcd normal emittance valuc, E ~ ( T )
was calculated using
EN(T)= 1.000 - Rl3lj(T).
Thc calculatcd EN(T) valucs arc charactcrizcd by thc "normal" dcsignation bccausc both laboratory
instrumcnts utilize optical arrangcmcnts that allou thc mcasurcment of thc rcflcctancc propcrtics at
ncar normal incidcnt anglcs.
Effect of Emissivity Uncertainty on iModel Validation
To gauge thc effect that unccrtainty in cermct cmissivit! has on thc comparison of thc modcl with
thc cxpcrimcntal data. thc modcl \\as rcrun using thc uppcr-bound cmissivity curvc shown in
30
Figurc 22. Model prcdictions givcn this upper-bound curvc arc indicatcd with dots on Figurcs 18
and 19. As can bc scen, agrccmcnt using thc uppcr-bound emissivity I S exccllcnt
References
1. Pcttit, R. B., "Optical Mcasurcment Tcchniqucs Applied to Solar Selectivc Coatings,"

SAND77-042 1, August 1977.
2. Pettit, R. B. and Mahoney, A R , "Portablc Instrumentation for Solar Absorptance and

Emittancc Mcasurcmcnts," SAND80-154 1C, Proc Linc Focus Solar Thcrmal Encrgy
Tcch. Dev. Conf USDOE, Albuquerquc, NM, 1980, pp 437-447
Finure 23 - Comuarison between experiment and actual SEGS conditions
Earlicr in this section it was stated that the wall-to-fluid AT in the test loop was five times higher
than in a SEGS HCE, i.c., 20°C vs. 4°C. Since the tubc wall was hottcr in thc cxpcriment than in
an actual SEGS HCE, the thermal losscs would bc highcr in the experimcnt at a given fluid
tempcraturc. To estimate how much higher, the modcl was rcrun assuming the flow conditions in
an actual SEGS plant, i.c., 140 gpm, no rcstricting annulus, Therminol heat transfer fluid. Thc
results of this analysis arc prescntcd in Figurc 22. By comparing the model for thc experiment and
the model of actual plant condition it can bc seen that losscs would bc about 10% lowcr in an
actual SEGS plant at a given fluid tcmpcrature than was mcasurcd in the expcriment.
Comparisons of Model Predictions with ExDerimental Data for the Black Chrome
HCEs
The cxperimental data was also compared with model prcdictions for thc black chrome HCEs.
Likc the cermct cascs, modcl predictions wcrc gencrally within thc uncertainty bands of thc
expcriment. However, usc of the basc casc cmissivity valuc2 for the black chromc (0.26 @
300"C), gave closer agreement betwwn model and cxperimcnt than was achieved for the ccrmet
cases shown in Figures 18 and 19. We attribute the bcttcr agrccmcnt to the fact that the currcnt
technique we usc to measurc emissivity is morc accuratc with d i f i s e surfaccs such as black
chrome; cermet surfaces tend to bc much morc spccular.
'Emissivity data presented in "Iificicncy 'I'csting of SEGS Parabolic Trough Collcctor," G . Cohcn, et al., Proceedings
of American Solar Encrgy Socicty, April 25-28, 1993, Washington, D.C.
31
Figurc 22, Ccrmet Emissivity Mcasuremcnts and Associatcd Uncertainty.
250
200
FULL SUN: DNI = 940
I
SNL Tm.t (daohod)
(v Yodel of Brprriawnt (solid)
E Modo1 of SBQS Condition (dot.)
3 150 ......... ..........................................
In-
In
-
0
1
(II
Q)
100
T
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure 23. HCE Hcat Loss: Comparison bctwcen Experimcnt and SEGS Conditions.
32
APPENDIX A
SEGS LS-2 TEST ARTICLE
Contents for Appendix A
SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Trough Solar Collcctor Tcst Articlc .................................................................. .A-3
Table
A- 1 . SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Trough Solar Collector ............................................................................ .A-4
A- 1
A-2
APPENDIX A: SEGS LS-2 PARABOLIC TROUGH SOLAR COLLECTOR
TEST ARTICLE
A complctc SEGS LS-2 solar collector assembly (SCA) module, as installed at one of thc Solar Elcctric
Gcncrating Systems (SEGS) was much too long to fit on thc AZTRAK rotating platform at Sandia
Laboratorics for testing. A smallcr portion of onc modulc was selectcd for tcst, consisting of a drivc pylon
with drivc motor and computcr control, one group of mirror faccts, and an cnd support pylon. As
installcd at Sandia, the collcctor was about 8 m long, with an aperture of 39.2 m2. A complctc SCA is
made up of six groups of mirror faccts on cach sidc of the drivc pylon, for a total lcngth of 47.1 m and
235 m2 apcrturc. A total of 4670 LS-2 SCAs (1.097 x IO6 m2 ) are currently installed in several SEGS.
Somc SCA data are summarizcd in Tablc A- 1.
Each SCA tracks thc sun indcpendcntly from thc others in a solar ficld A ccntral computcr controls
startup, stow, and on initial startup, dirccts thc SCA to move to the approximate sun position to bcgin
optical tracking. On loss of sun or mistracking, thc central computcr must again direct the SCA to thc
calculated sun position to rcsumc optical tracking Each SCA rcports it's currcnt position, opcrating
mode, and local heat-transfer fluid temperaturc to thc central control computer
Concentratcd light from the mirror asscmblics is focuscd on an cvacuatcd rcccivcr, or heat collection
clcment (HCE). Thc LS-2 HCE consists of a stccl tube with a black sclcctivc surfacc coating, surroundcd
by an evacuatcd glass tubc. Glass-to-metal seals at cach end of the glass envelopc provide a vacuum scal.
Metal bellows at cach cnd allow for diffcrcnccs in thcrmal cxpansion between thc glass and inner steel
tubc. Thc glass cnvclopc has an anti-reflective coating on both surfaccs; the glass protects the sclcctive
surfacc coating, and also S ~ I V C Sto rcduce convection and conduction thermal losscs from thc hcated tubc.
Thc spacc inside the glass cnvclopc is cvacuatcd to furthcr rcduce thermal losscs. Bccause hydrogcn lcnds
to migratc into thc vacuum space from the hcat transfcr oil, spccial hydrogcn rcmoval dcvices are installed
to prcvent gas accumulation in the cnvclopc.
Two diffcrcnt sclective coatings arc in USC in the SEGS solar fields: black chromc and ccrmct. Black
chromc is an electroplatcd coating, which is not recomrnendcd for long term use much abovc about
300"C, and which somctimcs changes color and sclcctivc propcrtics whilc in use. Ccrmet is a gradcd
ccramic/mctal coating devclopcd by LUZ; it is applied by a sputtering process, and can be used up to
400°C. Cermet has superior cmissivc characteristics a1 high ternpcratures, and does not oxidizc if HCE
vacuum is lost.
Each HCE is 4 m long; two wcrc rcquired for the tcst collcctor installcd at Sandia. Twclve are required in
a normal ficld SCA; more than 55,000 arc installcd i n thc fivc SEGS ficlds at Kramcr Junction.
A-3
Table A-1. SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Trough Solar Collector
Manufacturcr: LUZ Industries, lnc

Israel
Operating Tempcrature 1 100-400°C
Module s i x : 7.8 m x 5 m (as tcstcd at Sandia)
47.1 m x 5 m (in SEGS solar fields)
Rim Angle: 70 dcgrecs
Reflectors: 12 thcrmally sagged glass panels (as tcstcd at Sandia)
72 glass panels in SEGS solar ficld SCA
Second-surfacc silvered
Low Iron glass
Typical rcflcctivity : 0.93
Apcrturc Area: 39.2 m2 (as tcstcd at Sandia)
235 m2 (in SEGS solar fields)
Focal Length: 1.84 m
Conccntration Ratio: 71
Receiver: (HCE) Evacuated tube dcsign, metal bellows at cach cnd
Absorbcr diameter: 70 mm
length: 4 m (2 pcr module at Sandia
( 1 2 per SCA in SEGS solar fields)
Pyrcx glass cnuclopc: 1 15 mm diamctcr
Anti-rcflectivc coated
Transmittance: 0.95
Cermet sclcctive surface
Absorptance: 0.96
Emmitancc: 0.14 @ 350°C
Black chrome sclcctive surfacc
Absorptancc: 0.95
Emittancc: 0.24 @ 300°C
Sun Tracking: Optical, rcstrictcd by computcr to k5" of sun position

Tracking Drive Systcm: 120 vac stcpping motor
Dircct gear box drivc
A-4
APPENDIX B
TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Contents for Appendix B

Test Facility Dcscription ......................................... B-3
AZTRAK Azimuth Tracking Platform ................................................................................................. B-3
Heat Transfer Fluid Supply System ....................................................................................................... B-4
Rcfcrcnces ...... .............................. B-5
Tcst Instrumcntation ...... .................................................................................................... B-7
. . .
Data Acquisition Systcm .............................. B-7
Hcat Transfer Fluid Flow ....................................................................................................... B-7
Fluid Properly Calculations ................................................................................................................... 8-7
Tcmpcraturc .......................................................................................................................................... B-7
Tracking Anglc ..................................................... B-7
Weather Data ....................................................................................................................................... B-8
Rcfcrcnces ............................................................................................................................................ B-8
Figure
B-1,Schematic of High Temperature Fluid Supply Loop ...................................................................... B-6
Table
B-1 . Data Menu for SEGS LS-2 on AZTRAK Platform ........................................................................ B-9
B- 1
APPENDIX B: TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION
AZTRAK Azimuth Tracking Platform
During testing of a lincar-cylindrical parabolic trough solar collector, one of the performance parameters
that must bc measurcd is the pcak cffcicncy of the collector at zcro incident angle. When thc collector is
mounted with a fixed East-West orientation of the trough rotational axis, zero incident anglc occurs only
once each day, at solar noon. If the trough rotational axis has some othcr orientation, such as North-
South, a zero incident anglc may not occur at all on some days of thc year.
Bccause of thc limited timcs that zcro incident anglcs are availablc, complcting a tcst series with a fixcd
collector oricntation can bc a frustrating cxpcricncc. Somc past tests have dragged on for months while
waiting for a few days when no clouds were prcscnt during thc times zero incident angles were also
available. Since each tcst must bc repcatcd at scveral diffcrcnt tcmpcratures (usually 4-6) to dclinc the
opcrating curve, considerablc wastcd time is incvitablc.
Another important opcrating paramctcr is thc collcctor's performancc over a rangc of incidcnt angles,
usually 0-60 degrces. Sufficient data to definc this paramctcr can be even morc frustrating than pcak
performancc, sincc clear skics and stablc insolation must be available over at lcast an entire half-day in
order to complete thc tcst.
Thc remaining paramctcr which must be measured is thermal loss from the collector's receiver as a
function of opcrating tempcrature. Thcrmal loss should bc measured with zero insolation incident on thc
receivcr. Even though the collcctor is dcfocuscd so that no conccntratcd light from the reflector assembly
falls on thc rccciver, somc hcat gain will still rcsult if the direct bcam from thc sun can rcach the rccciver
surfacc. The heat gain from unconcentratcd sunlight is small, but can significantly change measurcd heat
loss. To obtain a true mcasure of rcccivcr thcrmal loss, the rcccivcr must bc shaded from direct sunlight.
Because the rcceivcr cxchangcs infra-red cncrgy with any object in view, it is also not possible to aim the
rcflector asscmbly at thc ground in ordcr to shade the rcccivcr from sunlight, sincc the ground temperature
is considerably highcr than thc sky tempcraturc to which the rcccivcr is normally exposcd, and would
again lead to an error in a thermal loss measurcmcnt. For the same reason, it is not possiblc to covcr thc
rcceivcr with some sort of shadow shield without changing the thcrmal loss propcrties of thc receiver.
Zcro incident insolation is easy if thc tcst is done at night; otherwisc it is usually difficult or impossible to
accomplish during daylight hours whcn the tcst collector has a fixed oricntation. The reflcctor structure
ncvcr seems to bc in the right placc to shadow the receivcr from incident sunlight.
All thc tcst diffcultics rncntioned abovc can be avoidcd if the solar collcctor is on a two-axis sun-tracking
mount. Since linear-cylindrical parabolic trough concentrating collcctors alrcady have a solar clcvation
tracking capability, only a azimuth-tracking platform is needcd to complete a two-axis system. The
AZTRAK rotating platform, locatcd at thc Solar Thcrmal Test Facility, Sandia National Laboratories, is
an azimuth-tracking platform with uniquc capabilitics for testing solar collectors.
The AZTRAK platform is microcomputer controlled, and can position a collector at zero incident anglc at
any hour of any day of thc ycar. In addition, the platform can track any given incident angle from 0-90
dcgrecs, and can be maintaincd for as long as necessary to obtain test data. During thermal loss testing,
thc collector can bc aimed at thc sky away from thc sun, shading the receiver, whilc thc platform tracks
thc sun to maintain the reccivcr shading.
Thc AZTRAK platform incorporates provisions for electrical powcr to an installed collector, hcat-transfcr
fluid flow to and from the reccivcr, and a large variety of instrurncntation lines for tcst instrumentallon
Thc platform is hydraulically drivcn from local or remote manual control stations, or by the tracking
B-3
microcomputer. Provisions arc included for automatic dcfocusing of thc tcst collector and rotation away
from the sun upon an overtcmperaturc condition or if hcat-transfer fluid flow is lost.
The platform construction uscs largc square stccl beams, wcldcd into a rectangular assembly. The
platform's collcctor mounting surfacc is 4m (13.1 ft) wide and 13m (42.6ft) long. It is dcsigned to support
a collector weighing up to 3600 kg (8000 Ibs) with a mirror aperture up to 50 sq m (538 sq. ft), and a
center of pressurc 1.8m (6ft) above the top surface of the platform. Sun tracking operation is possiblc in
winds up to 13.4 d s e c (30 mph), and the platform is designed to support the collector in winds up to 40
d s c c (90 mph). Platform rotation is 115 dcgrccs in cithcr direction from true South.
Heat Transfer Fluid S U D D ~System

Y
Two heat-transfer fluid supply systems arc availablc for solar collector tcsting on thc AZTRAK platform
Domestic cold watcr is uscd for optical cfficicncy and incidcnt angle tcsting, a spccially designed hot-oil
supply systcm is uscd for the clcvated tcmpcrature tcsts
Domestic cold water has often been uscd directly into thc collector inlct, with only a flow-control valvc
nccdcd. During thc present tcst series, we found that the watcr supply prcssurc varied randomly due to
unknown causes, producing variations in fluid flow ratcs, and subsequent unacccptable rcccivcr
tempcrature changes. Thc water supply also contained numerous air bubblcs, which contributcd to
unstable flow measurements. The automatic flow-control valve was unablc to maintain a constant flow
rate, so a portablc pump cart was movcd up to supply watcr to thc collector.
Esscntial components of thc water pump cart arc a 300 gallon watcr tank, a multi-stage centrifugal-flow
pump, and a prcssurccontrol valve. Water was delivered from the pump at 250 psi, and was throttlcd to
about 100 psi at 6 gpm into thc collector. Water flow from thc collector was rcgulated by an automatic
flow-control valve, thcn dumpcd to the surfacc; a gardcn hosc servcd to kecp the watcr tank fillcd. The
large watcr tank allowcd the air bubbles to scparatc from ihc watcr before reaching the pump. This simple
system dclivered cxtremcly stablc watcr flow ratcs and temperatures and was largcly rcsponsiblc for the
excellent optical eficicncy and incident angle data obtained.
The hot-oil fluid system was spccifically designcd for solar collector testing after considerable expcricnce
with the shortcomings of othcr oil systems. Vital components arc a 50 gallon oil tank, centrifugal pump
and drivc motor, a 40 kW elcctric oil heatcr, a water-cooled heat exchanger, an oil filter, flow metcrs, and
scveral control valves. Operation of the oil system is remotely controlled from thc nearby data-acquisition
trailer. At present, the systcm uses Dow Corning's Syltherm@ 800 silicone-based heat-transfer fluid;
other hcat-transfer oils arc compatible with the system and could bc used if desircd. Water cannot be used
in this fluid-supply systcm.
In operation, thc oil systcm pumps oil from thc supply tank through thc heatcr and hcat-exchangcr, out
through the solar collcctor being tcsted, and rcturn to the supply tank. Both automatic and manual
tempcraturc and flow control systems arc provided, as well as local and rcmotc tcmperature and pressure
indicators. Oil is supplicd to the collector inlet at tempcraturcs from 50 to 400"C, as sclccted by thc
opcrator. Oil prcssurc at the pump outlet is about 150 psi, and is throttled to about 100 psi at the systcm
outlet. Fluid flow rates from I gpm to 15 gpm arc availablc. Figure B-1 shows a flow diagram of thc
high-temperaturc fluid loop.
Scvcral of the fluid system's opcrating charactcristics may appcar excessive to those not familiar with the
problems of solar collector testing. For cxample, thc 20 hp fluid pump is quite largc, considering that
only 10-15 gpm fluid flow is nccded through the collector under tcst. The pump actually pumps about 60
gpm at a prcssurc approaching 150 psi. Most of the fluid flow does not go out to thc test collector, but is
returned to the supply tank after passing through the hcating and cooling hcat cxchangers. Onc objcctivc
of the high flow-rate through the heater, cooling hcat-exchanger, and supply tank is to kcep the fluid
B-4
supply cxtrcmely well stirred and uniform in bulk fluid tempcraturc. Close tcmperature control is also
facilitated; sincc the fluid tcrnperature sccn by thc heatcr controller is always an accurate mcasurc of fluid
temperature throughout the systcm. Collcctor input temperaturc rcgulation to 0.1"C is routinely achicvcd.
Another objective of thc largc fluid pump is obtaining a highly stable fluid flow-rate through the collcctor.
The fluid flow-control valves throttle the 150 psi pump prcssure to about 20 psi at thc collcctor inlet.
Fluid flow stability to 0.1 gpm is normally achicved. Constant fluid flow is ultimately a major factor in
tempcraturc stability of the tcst collcctor.
Fluid tcmperaturc control over a widc tcmperaturc range by using either a fluid hcater or coolcr alonc is
inhercntly lcss precise than using both together. For cxamplc, at a low operating tcmperaturc, the
tempcraturc controller will havc difficulty gctting small amounts of hcat from the largc electric heatcr.
Thcrmal losscs will bc low, rcsulting in vcry slow corrcction ratcs is the tcrnperature setpoint is overshot
by the controller. The problem is a vcry high ratc of response to a tcmperaturc below the sctpoint, and a
vcry slow rate of rcsponse to a tcmpcraturc abovc thc sctpoint.
At thc highcst opcrating temperaturcs, thc control problem is cxactly rcvcrsed Only a vcry small amount
of cooling will bc nccdcd, as thermal losses from thc cntirc hcated systcm may dissipate most of the heat
input The cooling controller may find it impossiblc to opcn the cooling water valvc by a small enough
amount to achievc the requircd small amount of fluid cooling.
The tcmperature control schcmc incorporatcd into this high tempcrature fluid loop is the nearly
continuous usc of simultaneous heating and cooling. For a givcn opcrating tempcraturc, the fluid loop
and thc collector are first allowcd to reach a rough statc of tcmperature cquilibrium undcr automatic
control. Thc control systcm is set such that thc cooling hcat exchangcr is always dissipating slightly more
hcat than is produced by the collcctor bcing testcd. The cooling control is then placed under manual
control so that thc amount of cooling cannot change. Thc fluid flow-rate controller is also switched to
manual control to improvc flow stability. This proccdurc lcaves thc hcatcr tcmpcrature as thc only
variable in the systcm. Thc heatcr is thus forccd to always operatc near thc middlc of its control range,
with a continuous rcquircment for addcd hcat. Some expcriencc with thc fluid loop is nccded by thc tcst
operator, in ordcr to judge thc amount of cooling to usc at various operating tcmperatures.
Examplcs of the fluid flow and temperature stability achieved can be sccn in the tcst rcsults scction of this
report.
References
Solar Thcrmal Tcst Facility, 1992. NSSTF OP #038, Operating Procedure for AZ7'RAK Rotating
PlafJorm. Albuquerque, N.M.: Sandia National Laboratorics.
Solar Thermal Tcst Facility, 1992. NSSTF OP #039 Operating Procedure for High 7emperature Fluid
Loop. Albuquerquc, N.M.: Sandia National Laboratorics.
B-5
Figure B-1. Schematic of High Temperature Fluid Supply Loop.
Test Instrumentation
Data Acauisition System
The data acquisition systcm used was based upon a Hewlett Packard 98458 desktop computer.
Instrumentation channcls wcrc scanned with an HP3497A data acquisition unit, and the analog signals
wcre then measured with an HP3526A digital voltmcter. The accuracy of thc voltmetcr is better than
0.01%. Voltage measurements were convcrtcd to engineering units, recorded on a hard disk, and
sclccted data itcms wcre printcd and displayed for thc tcst opcrator. Each day's data file was later
transferred to floppy disk for pcrmancnt archivc. Data was normally measured and recorded at 15-20
second intcrvals during a tcst.
Tablc B-1 lists the tcst data items included in thc data filcs, the transduccr used to measure thc itcm and
the data acquisition systcm channcl numbcrs uscd for thc mcasurement. Many of thc recordcd data itcms
are calculated from other mcasured data.
Heat Transfer Fluid Flow
Both domcstic watcr and Dow Corning's Syhhcrm-800@ wcrc uscd as hcat transfer fluids. Fluid flow was
mcasurcd by two Flow Technology turbine flow meters installed near the collcctor fluid inlet. Flow
Tcchnology Pulse Ratc Convcrtcrs wcrc uscd to convert the voltagc pulses from the flow meters to a 0-5
volt signal, which was thcn rcad by the data acquisition system. When high tcmperature Syltherm-800@
oil was being used, an additional two flow meters measured the oil flow leaving thc fluid loop skid.
Calibration of these flow meters was performed by Flow Technology immcdiately before beginning the
test scrics, and thcir calibration was confirmed to be within 1% by using a bucket and stopwatch during
the water tests.
Fluid ProDertv Calculations
Equations for the properties of watcr were obtaincd by polynomial fits to data from Kecnan & Kcycs (Rcf.
1). Sufficient terms were includcd to providc agrccment within 0.2% over the range of temperatures used.
Equations for thc properties of SyItherm-800@ heat transfcr fluid wcrc supplicd by Dow Corning (Rcf. 2).
Accuracy of these equations IS not spccificd Dcnsity, specific heat, viscosity, and Rcynolds number were
calculatcd for each flow mcasurcmcnt data point. All thc calculated data was rccorded as part of the
collectcd tcst data.
TemDerature
Temperaturc data was mcasured using type T thcrmocouplcs. Some additional illuminated surfacc
temperatures were measurcd using typc K. To obtain the best accuracy possible, a number of type T
thcrmocouplcs wcrc compared by Sandia's Standards Lab; two pairs wcre selectcd from thc lot which were
within 0.1-0.2°C ovcr thc tcmperature range 0-400°C. Thcsc two pairs were used to dctcrminc the input
and output tcmpcraturcs of the heat transfer fluid. An additional thermocouple was installed at thc flow
meters for tempcraturc input to fluid property calculations.
Tracking Angle
Collector elevation tracking angle was measured with a Humphrey modcl CP-49 pendulum potcntiometer
mountcd on the collector. The rcsolution of thc potentiometer is 0.1 dcgrecs. Lincarity of the instrument
is 1%, with a hystcrcsis of 0.4 degrccs. Thc accuracy of this potcntiomcter is not sufficient to cxactly
B-7
quantify the tracking accuracy of thc collcctor, but it can show mistracking and any large errors. A six-
wire voltagc ratio mcasurcmcnt was made to prcvcnt any temperature relatcd inaccuracies.
The azimuth tracking anglc of thc AZTRAK platform (which determines thc azimuth anglc of thc
collcctor rotational axis) is controlled by a microcomputcr as rcquircd by an individual tcst objcctivc.
Thc anglc was mcasurcd by a IO-bit BE1 optical shaft encoder, which has a rcsolution of 0.35 degrees.
Calculatcd azimuth and elevation of the sun, calculatcd tracking and incidcnt angles, and measured
collector positions were included in the data filcs.
Weather Data
Solar encrgy input to thc collcctor was mcasurcd with an Eppley Normal Incidence Pyrhcliomctcr
calibratcd against a Kcndall sccondary standard, activc cavity radiomctcr Accuracy of the pyrhcliometer
is 2% of reading, including uncorrcctcd tcmpcraturc cffccts Wind spccd and direction at thc test site was
measured by a Weathertronics instrument, locatcd at 10 m clcvation about 30 m wcst of the installed
collcctor. Ambicnt air tcmpcraturc was mcasurcd with a typc T thermocouple in a shaded cnclosurc
References
Keenan, J H., Keys, F. G., Hill, J. G.,Moorc, J. G.1978. Sfeam lbbles. New York: Wiley-Interscicnce.
Dow Corning Corporation, 1985. Properties oJSyWerm 800 Heat lransfer Liquid. Midland, Michigan.
B-8
Table B-1. Data Menu For SEGS LS-2 on AZTRAK Platform
Menu Chan Slot

# # # Transdu DescriDtion (Units)
40 1 Tcst systcm numbcr (#4, SEGS LS-2 trough on Aztrak)
402 Clock Date of test (Menu rcviscd 29 Jun 92)
403 Clock Mountain Standard Time (HH:MM:sS)
404 Calc Sitc Solar timc (HH:MM: SS)
405 Calc Collcctor solar timc (HH:MM :sS)
406 021 so1 NIP Direct normal insolation (W/m2)
407 372 S23 TCamb Ambicnt air tcmperaturc P e g C)
408 023 SO1 WSl00 Wind speed (mm
409 024 SO1 WD100 Wind dircction (degrees CW from North)
410 305 S20 A2100 Platform Azimuth (Dcgrces from South, +East, -West)
411 306 S20 FTlOO Collector flow # 1 (L/min)
412 307 S20 FTlOl Collector flow #2 (L/min)
413 308 S20 FIC 1A Fluid loop high flow (L/min)
414 309 s20 FIC 1B Fluid loop Low flow (L/min)
415 310 S20 INlOO lnclinomcter Voltage Ratio
416 311 S20 INlOO Collcctor elcvation Inclinomctcr (Dcg abovc horizon)
417 312 S20 PDI 6 Collcctor delta prcssurc (kPa)
418 313 S20 PI3 Collector Inlct pressure
419 314 S20 Manual Water / Oil Tcst? 1 = Water, 0 = Oil
420 315 S20 Sparc
42 1 316 S20 Spare
422 317 S20 Spare
423 318 S20 TCl/lO Collcctor Diff Delta-T Volts # I
424 319 S20 TC2/09 Collcctor DilT Dclta-T Volts #2
425 360 S23 TCOO 1 Collcctor inlet tempcrature # 1
426 361 S23 TC002 Collcctor inlet temperaturc #2
427 362 S23 TC003 Sparc T-Type Thcrmocouple #3
428 363 S23 TC004 Sparc T-Type Thermocouple #4
429 364 S23 TCOO5 Sparc T-Typc Thcrmocouplc #5
430 365 S23 TC006 Sparc T-Type Thermocouplc #6
43 1 366 S23 TC007 Sparc T-Type Thermocouple #7
432 367 S23 TC008 Flowmctcr tcmperaturc
433 368 S23 TC009 Collector Outlct tempcrature #2
434 369 S23 TCOIO Collcctor Outlct tcmperature # 1
435 Calc. Avcragc Receiver Tempcrature
436 Calc. Avcragc Receiver Temp abovc ambient (TC # I ) (Dei? C)
437 Calc. Solar azimuth (Dcgrees from South, +East, -West)
438 Calc. Solar elevation (dcgrees abovc horizon)
439 Calc. Solar Incidcnt anglc (dcgrees from normal)
440 Calc. Solar tracking anglc (degrees above horizon)
44 1 Calc. Collector delta-T (Diff. dT #1) (TC 01/10) (Dcg C)
442 Calc. Collcctor dclta-T (Sub dT #1) (TC 01/10) (Deg C )
443 Calc. Mass flow (Flowmctcr temp) kg/hr)
444 Calc. Hcat gain (Diff. dT # I ) (TC 01/10) (W/m2)
445 Calc. Heat gain (Sub dT #1) (TC 01/10) (W/m2)
B-9
Table B-1. Data Menu for SEGS LS-2 on AZTRAK Platform (Concluded)
Menu Chan Slot

# # # Transdu Descrintion (Units)
446 Calc. Eflicicncy (Diff. dT #1) (TC 01/10) (%)
447 Calc. Eficicncy (Sub. dT #1) (TC 01/10> (W
448 Calc Dcnsity of Hcat Transfcr Fluid k!4m3>
449 Calc. Specific Heat of Heat Transfer Fluid (J& "0
450 Calc. Viscosity of Heat Transfer Fluid (N sec/m2)
45 1 Calc. Rcynolds Number, Collector HTF flow (Thousands)
452 Calc. Mirror Apcrture of Collector under test (m2)
453 380 S24 TCOl 1 Rcccivcr K Thcrmocouple # 1 (Deg C)
454 381 S24 TCO 12 Rccciver K Thermocouplc #2 (Deg C)
455 382 S24 TCO 13 Receivcr K Thcrmocouplc #3 (Deg C)
456 383 S24 TC014 Rcccivcr K Thcrmocouplc #4 (Dcg C)
457 384 S24 TCO 15 Rcceiver K Thermocouple #5 P e g C)
458 385 S24 TCO 16 Receiver K Thermocouplc #6 (Deg C)
459 386 S24 TCO 17 Rcccivcr K Thcrmocouple #7 0%C)
460 387 S24 TCO 18 Receivcr K Thermocouple #8 (Dei? C)
46 1 388 S24 TCO 19 Collector Outlet Temp - K TC # 9 (Dcg C)
462 389 S24 TC020 Sylthcrm tank Sight Gage TC - Bottom (Dcg C)
463 390 S24 TC02 1 Syltherm tank Sight Gage TC - Mid P e g C)
464 391 S24 TC022 Loop Cooling Water - Output tcmp (Dcg C)
465 Calc. Collector delta-T (Diff. dT #2) (TC 02/09) (Deg C)
466 Calc. Collector delta-T (Sub. dT #2) (TC 02/09) (Dcg C)
(Diff. dT #2) (TC 02/00) (W/m2
467
468
Calc.
Calc.
Heat gain
Hcat gain (Sub. dT#2) (TC02/09) (W/m3
469 Calc. Eflicicncy (Diff. dT #2) (TC 02/09) (%I
470 Calc. Effcicncy (Sub. dT #2) (TC 02/09) (%)
47 1 Calc. Tracking Error - (#440 - # 416)
472 Calc. Efficiency (#447, corrcctcd for cnd loss) (%I
B-10
APPENDIX C
TEST PLAN
Contents for Appendix C

Test Plan.. ................................................................................. ...................................................... (2-3
Peak Efficiency Measurements ..................................................
Procedure for Efficiency Measurerncnt (Elcvated Tcrnperature). .................
Procedure for Efficiency Measurcmcnt (Near-Ambient-Air Ternperaturc) ......................
Incident Angle Modifier Tests....................................
Thermal Loss Tests ............................................................... ........................................... c-6
Test Data Analysis .......................................
References.. .................................................. ...................................................
Figures
C- 1. Idcal Rccciver Hcat Gain and Losses ........ .............................................................. c-10

C-2 LS-2 CermeVVacuum Rcceivcr Thcrmal Loss .............................................................. c-l 1
C-3. SEGS LS-2 CcrrnctlVacuurn Rcceivcr vs. and Insolation ....................................... C- 12
C-4. SEGS LS-2 CerrnetNacuurn Efficiency at Zcro Incidcnt Anglc .................................... C-13
C-5. LS-2 Cerrnet/Vacuum EKiciency at 55 Dcg Incident Angle ............... ............................... C-14
c-1
c-2
APPENDIX C: TESTPLAN
The opcrating characteristics of a concentrating parabolic trough solar collcctor can be determined with
only a few selected tests. These arc:
0 Mcasurc peak efficiency at sevcral clcvated temperatures,
0 Measurc peak efliciency at near-ambicnt-air tcmperature.
0 Mcasurc rcccivcr thcrmal loss as a function of temperature.
0 Measure collector performance as a function of incident angle.
Peak efficiency of a concentrating solar collcctor can bc determined only when the solar beam incident
angle is zero. For singlc-axis tracking deviccs such as thc LS-2 parabolic trough collcctor, zero incident
angles usually occur only once per day if thc rotational axis is oriented East-West; or twicc per day if thc
axis is oricnted North-South, as it is in thc Solar Elcctric Generating Stations (SEGS). To allow
continuous testing at any desircd incident anglc, the test collcctor was mounted on the AZTRAK rotating
platform. For details on this dcvicc, scc Appcndix B.
All the calculations for heat gain or loss from an operating hot fluid systcm assumc that the systcm is in
equilibrium -- constant fluid flow-ratc, and constant input and output temperatures. If equilibrium has not
been establishcd, thcn hcat is either being storcd in thc systcm, or hcat is being extracted from the systcm.
In cithcr casc, calculations of hcat gain or loss will not be correct. Because of the absolute necessity for
highly stable flow and temperaturcs, a spccial hot-fluid supply source was used for the SEGS collcctor
tests. For details on thc Sandia high-tcmperaturc fluid loop, scc Appcndix B.
Even with a stablc tempcrature source, long operating times are still necessary beforc all parts of the
heated system are at their equilibrium temperatures. A time-constant test was performed to dctcrminc the
timc necessary to achieve tempcrature stability (SCC Figurc D-2, Appcndix D). Time to reach temperature
stability was longcr than normal for the SEGS LS-2 collcctor as installed for testing because an inner plug
tubc had to bc inserted insidc the recciver tube. The internal plug was necessary to restrict flow to a small
annulus in order to achieve acccptablc Reynolds numbers with thc fluid flow-rates available from the tcst
fluid loop. The intcrnal plug was fillcd with the heat transfer fluid, but was closed at one cnd; so the
internal fluid mass was hcatcd only by conduction from the outer annulus. After nearly an hour at a given
temperature setpoint, the system would settle down to variations on the order of 0.1"C. Heat gaidloss
measuremcnts werc thcn dccmcd stablc enough to be believed, and a data set was recordcd for a time
equal to about thrcc collcctor timc-constants.
Peak Efficiency Measurements
Measurements of zero-incident-anglc cficiency were made with the heat-transfer fluid at approximatcly
ambicnt-air tcmpcraturc, and at approximately 50°C intervals up to 400°C. Data was continuously
recorded at 15-20 sec intervals while the system was in operation. Each data point listed in the data tables
in Appcndix D, and shown in the performance figures is thc mean of all data measurcd over a time span
of about three collcctor time-constants. Objcctivc of cach data sct was stability of all variables that could
cause significant changes in the desired mcasuremcnts. Stability objcctives for thc thrcc-time-constant
data collection interval wcrc:
0 Fluid tempcraturcs constant to about 0.1"C ( M.05"C).

0 Fluid flow-rate constant to about 0.2 L/min. ( f 0.1 L/min) .
0 Insolation constant to about 1%.
c-3
Performance measurements made within thc systcm stability limits listed above produce data that is
repcatablc from day to day, with stability induccd errors that are within the combined measurement errors
of the instruments in the data acquisition systcm. Thc same stability criterion was applied to all data
measurcmcnts madc on the collcctor undcr tcst.
The near-ambient-air temperature measurement was used to define the approximate optical cfficicncy of
the collector. The higher-temperature cflicicncy mcasuremcnts document thc dccrcasc in efficiency
caused by increasing thermal losses as the operating temperature is increased. Data from all the cfficiency
measurements were used in a Icast-squarcs CUIVC fit to obtain a performance equation of cfficiency vs
tempcrature under bright sunshine, zero incident anglc, stable tempcraturc and flow conditions.
Procedure for Efficiency Measurement (Elevated TemDerature)
Inlet temperature to thc collcctor was set to a constant value, such that the output tcmperature would
approximate the desired tcst tcmpcraturc. The exact tcmperature achicvcd was not important; but
temperature stability was extrcmcly important during these tests.
Heat-transfcr fluid flow was set to a constant value (usually the maximum obtainable for thcse tests). As
for temperature, thc cxact flow-rate value was not vcry important; but flow stability was cxtremely
important, because any change in fluid flow-ratc would also causc changes in collcctor tempcraturcs.
For the series of pcak efficiency measurcmcnts, it IS highly desirable for all the measurcmcnts to be madc
at the same level of solar irradiance. If the individual efficicncy tcst points are obtained with a solar
irradiance that differs more than about 100 W/sq.m between points, data extrapolation to other operational
conditions will be less accurate. The solar irradiance levels during the efficiency tests should also bc as
high as are availablc at the tcst site. This last rcquircment cssentially climinatcs very-carly-morning and
late-afternoon efficiency tcsts. These hours arc more profitably uscd for thermal loss testing.
Procedure for Efficiency Measurement (Near-Ambient-Air TemDerature)
The objective of this test was to dcterminc approximate optical efliciency for the SEGS collector. True
optical eficiency could be measured only if thermal losses from the collector systcm could be reduced to
zero.
Zero thermal loss cannot be achicved during an in-focus test of a real solar collector, but a close approach
can be madc by operating the systcm at a low tempcraturc as closc as possiblc to the ambient air
tcmpcraturc.
Since the oil supply fluid loop could not be operated at temperatures much bclow 60°C, another sourcc of
hcat-transfcr fluid was needed. City water direct from local supply mains was used; see Appcndix B for a
description of the watcr supply system. Note that watcr flow was restrictcd to the collector only; no watcr
was introduced into the oil supply system.
Ideally, watcr flow through thc system would be adjusted such that the average temperature of thc
collector's receiver was approximatcly equal to local ambicnt air temperature. Because of the limited
flow-rates and temperatures of thc available water, this was not always possible. We used thc closest
approximation obtainable.
Two tcst results were necdcd from the tcsts performed with cool watcr:
1. Peak efficicncy at zero incidcnt angle.
2. Efficiency variation with incident angles up to about 60 deg.
c-4
Given a cloud-free sky, data satisfying both test criteria were usually obtainable during a single test day
Incident A n d e Modifier Tests
Mcasured efficiency of a parabolic trough collector decreases as the solar beam incident angle increases.
Collector cfficiency is at a maximum only when the incident angle is zero. The dccreasc in collector
efficiency with increasing incident angle is caused by cosine foreshortening of the collector aperture as
well as other effects, such as thc transmissivity of the glass envelope or the absorption of the selective
surface as a function of incidence angle. Losses caused by the finite length of the collector (i.e., end
losses) were eliminated from the test results; in effect, the results prcsented hcre assume a collector with
infinite length.
The object of the incident angle modifier tcst was documenting cfficiency as a function of incident angle.
Efficiency data was usually measured at 5 degree intervals from zcro to 60 dcgrees incident angle. The
AZTRAK rotating platform was used to maintain each selected constant incident angle for as long as
necessary to obtain stable data. The incident angle modifier K is defined as the efficiency at any given
angle divided by thc efficiency at zero incident angle. A regression analysis of the data was then uscd to
obtain an equation of the form:
K = COS (A) - B (A) - C (A)2
Where:
K = Incident angle modifier; value ranges from 0 to 1

A = Solar beam incident anglc ( 0 to 60 degrees)
B = coefficient for linear term
C = Coefficient for nonlinear term
As noted in the previous section, incident angle data was measured with cold water as the heat-transfer
fluid, in conjuction with testing for optical efficiency. Equation (2) above is not intended as a physical
model of incident angle effects; instead it is an empirical fit from test data that successfully characterizes
the collcctor.
If the collector and it's sun-tracking system were perfcctly symmetrical, the incidcnt angle modifier would
be the same for both positive and negative incident angles. As installed at Sandia for tcsting, the SEGS
LS-2 collector module was not exactly symmetrical because of a small shadowed area at one end of the
recciver at zero incident angle. With positive incident angles, the shadow moved off the receiver within a
few degrees; but at ncgative incidcnt angles, the shadow became a largcr and larger fraction of the
illuminated receiver length as the angle increased. This nonsymmetrical behavior was peculiar to the test
installation, and was not representative of the full collector field at the SEGS power plants. Also, cxcept
for a short time just after sunrise and just before sunset during mid-summer, incident angles at the SEGS
collector fields are always positive.
The SEGS collectors are normally installed with the rotational axis oriented North-South in order to
maximize power production during the summer months. In such an installation, collector rotation to
follow the sun is always clockwise (as sccn from North end of collector row). As a result, the tracking
system was not designed to track the sun with a counter-clockwise rotation, as would be required for sun
tracking during the afternoon (and at negative incident angles) in our test installation. This tracking
problem could be fixed with the proper software changes to the tracking computer, but was not considered
very important, since it would never occur in a normal field installation.
c -5
For thc reasons outlined above, only positivc incidcnt angle test rcsults are shown in this report. Tcst data
obtaincd is shown in Tables 12 and 13 in Appendix D.
Thermal Loss Tests
Objcctive of the thermal loss tcst scrics was detcrmination of steady-statc heat losscs from the collcctor
reccivcr as a function of opcrating tcmperaturc. Losses wcre cxpected to be significantly different for each
of the recciver configurations. Loss tcsts were thcrefore rcpeated with a vacuum in the rccciver annulus,
with air in the annulus, and again with the rcceiver cover glass complctely removed. Since the black
chrome and cermet rcceiver selective coatings had diffcrent emissivity valucs, all of the tests (cxcept bare
rcceiver tube) were also rcpeatcd for each of thc two coatings.
Good thermal loss data is more difficult to obtain than heat gain (cfficiency) data, becausc the tempcraturc
change across thc collcctor receivcr is smaller by as much as an ordcr of magnitude. But thc mcasuring
instrument errors, temperature instabilitics and flow variations remain about thc samc; therefore the
possiblc crrors in the loss measurements arc larger.
The three componcnts of thermal loss (conduction, convection and radiation losses) arc changed in
different ways dcpending on thc reccivcr's configuration and opcrating conditions. When a vacuum is
prescnt in the annulus between the rcceiver surface and thc glass envelope, conduction and convcction
across the annulus is effcctively climinatcd. Whcn air is introduced into the vacuum space, we cxpectcd
the measured losses to increasc significantly as conduction and convection bcgin to transfer hcat to thc
glass envclope. Radiation loss from the hcatcd recciver surfacc to thc glass envelope is not changed very
much by thc prescncc of air in thc annulus. Sincc thc glass is opaquc to thc infrared radiation, all three
loss components scrvc to transfer heat from thc rcccivcr surface to the glass envelope. A second loss
serics then transfcrs hcat by convection and conduction from the glass to the ambient air, and by radiation
to the sky.
Surfacc temperature of the glass is significantly lower than thc reccivcr's metal surface. If the glass
envelope is removed, conduction and convection losses to the ambient air will be grcatly cnhanccd, and
wind cffccts will be much largcr. Radiation losscs will also increase whcn thc glass is rcmovcd becausc of
the highcr tempcraturc radiating surfaces.
Thermal loss from radiation effccts is a problcm for solar collector testing, bccausc radiation loss is not
neccssarily dependent on ambient air tempcraturc in thc samc way as conduction and convcction losses.
Some of the hcat radiated by the collector's receiver is focused back in the dircction the reflcctor is aimed,
so temperature of the aim point becomes a factor in thc radiation loss.
Tempcrature of the ground surface or other nearby objects is ccrtain to be differcnt (usually highcr) than
thc sky temperaturc. Since the collector is always aimed at the sky when in operation, only a sky aim-
point is suitable for reasonably accurate tcst rcsults. Eflective sky temperature is also changed by the
presence of clouds; thcrmal loss tests made with an overcast sky show lowcr losses than those made with a
clear sky. For our test purposes, the sky tempcraturc was unknown, but is probably always lower than thc
ambient air tempcraturc around thc collector. A true mcasurc of rcceivcr thermal loss with zero
contribution due to dircct or scattcred light absorption by the recciver can bc obtaincd by aiming the
reflcctor at a clear sky, at night. Other tests have also shown that an equivalent loss value occurs during
more normal daylight hours whcn thc rcceivcr is shaded from direct sunlight and thc reflcctor is aimed at
a clear sky. (See Ref. 1, SAND 83-0984).
The recciver must be shaded from direct sunlight bccausc thc receivcr surface would absorb encrgy
equivalent to that from a non-conccntrating collcctor with an aperture area cqual to that of thc recciver
surfacc. This small amount of absorbed cnergy is not negligiblc when compared to thc receiver thcrmal
loss.
C-6
Sincc the measurcd temperature drop across the receiver can be quite small during some loss tests (less
than 1"C), a test operator may wish to reducc fluid flow ratcs from normal in-focus flow values in order to
increasc the delta-tcmperature. But changing fluid flow will introduce another error, bccause fluid
pressure drop across the rccciver is converted to heat, which tcnds to cancel some part of the thermal loss.
Thercfore, for minimum thermal loss error, the same fluid flow ratcs used for eficicncy testing must also
be used during loss tests. In this respect, the LS-2 tests at Sandia do not exactly rcproducc thermal losscs
of this collector in a field installation, becausc fluid flow rate was not the same, and receiver configuration
was not the same (added plug tube insidc thc reccivcr). Both these receivcr changes could change fluid
prcssure drop through thc receiver.
Thermal loss from thc SEGS collector receiver was measured at approximatcly the samc temperatures
uscd for pcak efficiency measurcmcnts. As in all thc tests, an cxact value of tcmperaturc was not
important; stability of fluid tempcrature and flow rate were the most important criteria for thc test. The
following test conditions were cstablishcd for thc loss tests:
0 Clear or nearly clear sky.
0 Collector defocuscd.
0 Rcceiver shaded, rcflector aimed at thc sky.
0 Losscs measured at approx. 50°C intcrvals, 100-350°C.
0 At each temperature, thc system was operated until tcmperatures wcre stable to
within about 0.1 "C ovcr a measurcmcnt period equal to about three rccciver time
constants. At least one hour was usually rcquircd to achieve tempcrature stability.
0 Tests wcre rcpeatcd for each rccciver configuration:
Cermet selective coating:
Vacuum in annulus
Air in annulus
Barc receiver
Black chrome selective coating:
Vacuum in annulus
Air in annulus
Test Data Analvsis
Figure C-1 illustrates some of the factors that result in thc opcrating heat gain (or cficicncy) of a solar
collector. By mcasuring collector cfficicncy at a low cnough temperature, thermal losscs will be reduced
to zero (or at least a vcry small value), and wc can detcrmine the approximate optical efficiency, At any
given higher opcrating tcmpcrature, we should bc able to measure total thermal losscs, subtract these
losscs from the heat gain at optical efficiency, and cnd up with the operating heat gain at the new
temperaturc. Or alternatively, we should be able to measure heat gain (cfficicncy) at some high
tempcrature, and derive the losses by thc decrease in hcat gain from that expected at optical efficiency.
We will soon find out that the real collector is not that simplc.
c-7
Figure C-2 shows what actually happens whcn we make some loss measurcrnents. Measurcd thermal loss
in Figure C-2 is that mcasured with thc receivcr shaded, at approximately zero incident sunlight. The "in-
focus" curvc is derived by calculating thc heat gain differencc betwecn the operating efficicncy and the
measured optical eficicncy. In Figure C-2, the in-focus loss resulted from tests at an averagc value of 940
W/m2 insolation. Tcsts at other insolation values rcsult in different in-focus loss curves. Tests which
were done over a large rangc of incident solar irradiance have shown that the opcrating thcrmal loss
scales approximatcly linearly betwccn zero and 1000 W/m2 insolation (sec Ref. 1).
In a thermal loss test where the receiver is shaded from direct sunlight, the receiver surfaccs are slightly
coolcr than the heat-transfer oil inside the receivcr pipe. When the collector is in focus, the receiver
surfaces are hotter than thc oil insidc the recciver. This surface tcmperature diffcrcnce scalcs with the
value of incident insolation, and since thermal losses depend on the surface tempcrature , this is thc causc
of the in-focus loss diffcrences outlined above. We can takc advantage of the loss scaling to calculatc the
pcrformance of the collector at any value of insolation. For an accurate prediction of solar ficld heat
output, solar irradiancc changcs must be considered, sincc insolation changcs by about a factor of threc on
ncarly every day thc field is in opcration.
A multiple linear rcgression of calculatcd heat gain ovcr the range of insolation from zcro to 1100 W/m2,
and tcmperatures from ambient to 4OOOC produccs a hcat gain equation of the following form:
Q = A(I) - B ( I ) (AT) - C (AT) - D (AT2 ) (2)
Where:
Q = Operating hcat gain (W/m2 ) at zero incident angle
AT = Avcrage fluid tcmpcraturc ("C ) above ambient air tcmperature
I = Direct normal insolation (W/m2 )
Equation (2) is valid only at zero incident angle. An incident angle modificr term must be added to obtain
collector heat gain at any othcr incident anglc. Since the end effect of incident angle is to rcduce the
value of insolation arriving at the receiver absorber surfacc, the incident angle modifier K, can be applied
to the insolation in thc first two tcrms of cquation (2):
Q = K[A(I) - B ( 1 ) (AT)] - C(AT) - D ( A T 2 ) (3)
When the heat gain from cquation (3) is dividcd by the incident insolation, an cfficicncy equation for the
collcctor results, which should be valid ovcr the full expccted range of opcrating temperature, insolation,
and incident anglcs.
q = K[A - B(AT)] - C(AT/I) - D(AT2/I) (4)
Equations (2), (3), and (4) are not complete physical models of thc collector; rathcr thcy are empirical fits
to experimcntal data. Equations like (4) have bcen uscd to predict all-day, steady statc thermal output
from small solar collector fields to within about 1% (see Ref. 2 and 3). Note that the equation is valid
only for stcady state opcration; othcr calculations must be made to include the thermal mass and heat
capacity of thc collcctor field and othcr equipment, if the result is to correctly reflect the collector field
during warmup and the temperature variations of a typical intcrmittcntly cloudy day.
Figure C-3 illustrates Equation (4) as dcrivcd from thc test data for thc LS-2 cermctlvacuum receivcr,for
scveral values of dircct normal insolation. For tcmperatures up to about 200°C, the drop in operating
C-8
efficiency is reasonably small as insolation is rcduced. For normal LS-2 operating tcmperatures near
400°C, the changc in cficiency with decrcasing insolation becomes increasingly important.
Figure C-4 shows another way to plot the complete range of Equation (4) for the SEGS LS-2 collector,
with a ccrmet and vacuum receivcr, at a zcro incident angle. Collector efficiency decrcases along a
hypcrbolic path as insolation is reduccd, and along a quadratic polynomial path with increases in
tcmperaturc. A small "floor" arca is visible, where heat gain is zero or ncgativc. The floor defincs
combinations of tempcraturc and insolation whcre positivc heat gain in not possiblc.
Figure C-5 illustratcs the same collector equation, but now for an incidcnt angle of 55 dcgrees, which
would occur in mid-Decembcr for the SEGS collector ficlds. At this incidcnt angle, the heat gain
availablc from the collector is marginal for almost all combinations of tcmpcrature and insolation.
References:
Dudley, V. E., and Workhoven, R. M., 1982. SAND81-0984, Performance Testing of the Solar Kinetics
7'-700Solar Collector. Albuqucrque, N.M. : Sandia National Laboratorics.
Cameron, C. P., and Dudley, V. E., 1986. SAND85-23 16, Acurex Solar Corporation Modular Industrial
Solar Retrofit Qualification Test Results. Albuquerque, N. M. : Sandia National Laboratories.
Cameron, C. P., and Dudlcy, V. E., 1986. SAND85-2320, Solar Kinetics, Incorporated Modular
Industrial Solar Retrofit Qualification Test Results. Albuquerque, N. M. : Sandia National Laboratorics.
c-9
- I I 1 1 I I
- O p t i c a l Losses
\\ L i n e a r Thermal Loss *
\ R a d i a t i o n Loss
1 I I I I I I I
R e c e i v e r O p e r a t i n g Temperature (Deg C )
Figure C-1 . Ideal Receiver Heat Gain and Losses
c-10
150 I I I I I I I 158
-
Loss (WImh2) - -0.01124 (dT) + 8.800799 ( d T 1 ~ 2
125 Loss
dT - W/sq m a t .* 9 4 0 W/sq m D N I
D e g r e e s C above a m b i e n t a f r temp
CI
E
=
n 100
\
n
+J
+J
ID
x
Y
75
u)
u)
0
-I
-1
a
5
W
50
I
I-
25
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE ABOVE flMBIENT ('C)
Figure C-2. LS-2 CermetNacuum Receiver Thermal Loss.
c-11
I I I I I I 1
90 - -
80 - -
70 - I n s o 1 a t ion
1000 W/sq.m
-
CI
60 -
A*
Y
50 -
*0
z
W
n
40- E = 73.3-0.00728(dT)-0.496(dT/f)-8.8691(dT~2/1) -
LL
LL
W
- E - E f f l c l e n c y i n percent
c
30
dT = Temp i n degrees C above ambient a i r temp
I = D l r e c t Normal I n s o l a t i o n i n Watts/sq.m
20
I n c i d e n t angle - 0 Degrees
10 - -
I I I I I I I
Figure C-3.SEGS LS-2 CermetNacuum Receiver vs. Temperature and Insolation.
c-12
20
Figure C-4. SEGS LS-2 CermetNacuum Efficiency at Zero Incident Angle.
C-13
100
I= 1 I:
Figure C-5. LS-2 CermetNacuum Efficiency at 55 Deg Incident Angle.
C-14
APPENDIX D
TEST RESULTS
Contents for Appendix D
Test Results ...... .............................................................. ........................................... D-3

Introduction .................................................................................. ....................... D-3
Efficiency and Thermal Loss-Cermet Receiver-Vacuum Annulus.. ........ ..................... D-3
Cermet Receiver with Air in Annulu .............................................................
Cermet Receiver with Glass Remove ..................... D-12
Black Chrome Receiver-Vacuum ...... ...........................................
Black Chrome Receiver-Air in Annu ..............................................................
Incident Angle Tests. ..............................................................
Data Analysis ................................................... .........................................
Figures
D-I. Reynolds Number vs. Temperature During Sandia Testing ....................... D-4
D-2 SEGS LS-2 Receiver Time Constant Test ....................................
D-3. Efficiency of Cermet Receiver with Vacuum Annulus.. .................
D-4. Thermal Loss From Cermet / Vacuum Receiver ............................
D-5. LS-2 Efficiency Comparison-Vacuum vs Air in Receiver ..... ..................... D-IO
D-6. Thermal Loss ComparisowVacuum vs Air in Receiver.. ........... ..................... D-11
D-7. Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Cermet Receiver ..............................
D-8. Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Receiver with Glass Envelope.. .................................... .D- 15
D-9. Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Receiver ...................... ......................... D-16
D-10. Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Receiver ...................... ..................... D-17
D-11. Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Receiver ..........................................
D-12. Efficiency vs Wind with Bare Cermet Receiver ........ ......................................... D-I9
D-13. Efficicncy vs Wind Averaging with Bare Reccivcr ... ......................................... D-20
D-14. SEGS LS-2 Efficiency vs. Temperature and Wind - Cermet Receiver ..............
D-15. SEGS LS-2 Thermal Loss vs. Temperature and Wind - Cermet Receiver.. .......
D-16. Efficiency Comparison of Black Chrome and Cerm
D-17. Efficiency Change with Air Introduced into Receiver ............................................................ D-28
D-18. Efficiency Comparison of Black Chrome Vacuum and Air Receivcrs ................
D-19. Efficiency Comparison of Black Chrome and Ccrmct Receivers.. .. ..................... D-3 1
D-20. Thermal Loss ComparisonsVacuum and Air-Black Chrome ................................
D-2 1. Thermal Loss C o m p a r i s o n d l a c k Chrome and Cermet Receivers.. ................
D-22. Incident Angle Modifier-SEGS LS-2 Receiver ..... ..........................
D-23. SEGS LS-2 Cermet / Air Efficiency at Zero Incident Angle .............................
D- 1
Tables
D-1. Measured Efficiency Test Data -- Cermet Selective Coating - Vacuum Annulus ...D-6
D-2. Mcasurcd Thermal Loss Data -- Cermet Selective Coating, Vacuum Annulus ......................... D-9
D-3. Measured Efficiency Test Data -- Cermet Selective Coating - Air in Annulus ........................ D-12
D-4. Measured Thermal Loss Data -- Cermet Selcctivc Coating, Air in Annulus ....
D-5. Mcasured Efficiency Test Data -- Cermet Selective Coating - Barc Rcceiver (
D-6. Measured Thermal Loss Data -- Cermet Selective Coating, Bare Rccciver (No Glass)
D-7. Mcasurcd Eficiency Test Data -- Black Chrome Selective Coating, Vacuum
D-8. Measured Thermal Loss Data -- Black Chrome Selective Coating, Vacuum Annulus.. ........... D-29
D-9. Measured Efficiency Test Data -- Black Chrome Selective Coating - Air in Annulus
D-10. Measured Thermal Loss Data -- Black Chrome Selective Coating, Air in Annulus ...
D-11. Incident Angle Perforrnancc Test Data -- Cermet Selective Coating - Air in Annulus.. ..........D-34
D-12. Incident Anglc Pcrformance Test Data -- Cermet Selective Coating - Bare Reccivcr
(No Glass) ..................................... ....................
D-13.
.............. ................................
D-14.
D -2
APPENDIX D: TEST RESULTS
Introduction
Initial testing of the SEGS LS-2 collector module was done with a receiver which had previously been
used for some tests at the Kramer Junction Solar Electric Generating Station (SEGS). The hot oil fluid
loop and AZTRAK rotating platform at Sandia Laboratories had not been used for several years; the first
receiver was used to check out all the equipment, calibrations, and test procedures. This previously used
receiver also had a number of thermocouples welded to the heated receiver surface; we had hoped to
obtain some surface temperatures while the receiver was in concentrated sunlight. Unfortunately, the
receiver was installed in such a way that many of the surface thermocouples were partly shaded; little
useful surface temperaturc data was obtained. This receiver did enable us to bring the test system back to
operational status and to confirm that our test results were similar to those previously obtained at Kramer
Junction.
As used in the SEGS fields, the heat-transfer fluid flow-rate is much higher than is possible with the fluid
system available at the Sandia test site. To promote turbulent flow within the receiver with our maximum
50 litedminute flow rate, a closed-end plug tube was installed within the SEGS LS-2 receiver. This
confined the fluid flow to a narrow annulus next to the heated surface. Figure D-l shows the Reynolds
numbers attained with the test setup as a function of the fluid temperature.
Figure D-2 shows the results of a timeconstant test performed with cold water as the heat transfer fluid.
The test was performed by operating the system until temperatures were stable, then suddenly placing the
reflector into focus. Data collection was continued until temperatures were again stable. The test was also
done by defocusing the collector, and observing the time required for the temperatures to fall to the
original values. Both tests produced approximately the same result; we used a value of about 3 minutes
as one time constant. The values shown in the data tables in this report are the mean values of measured
data over a time interval of 3 time constants, whilc observing the data stability criteria outlined in
Appendix C.
Efliciencv and Thermal Loss-Cermet Receiver-Vacuum Annulus
The initial receiver was removed on 1 June, 1992, and a new receiver with a cermet selective coating was
installed. This receiver had been evacuated during manufacture, and the annulus between the steel
receiver pipe and the glass envelope was under vacuum during the test series discussed below. Any gas
(usually air) present in the annulus causes increased thermal losses from the receiver due to convection
currents in the gas and heat conduction through the gas to the glass envelope. An evacuated envelope
significantly reduces thermal loss by eliminating conduction and convection losses.
Initial testing was done with cold domestic water as the heat transfer fluid. These tests were made to
obtain the approximate optical efficiency of the collector, and the change in performance of the collector
as the incident angle was increased from zero to 60 degrees. The near-optical efficiency was 72.63%,
measured with the average receiver fluid temperature at 1 1.6OC above ambient-air temperature. The
incident angle modifier data points and a least-squares curve fit to the data are shown later in Figure D-
23. The optical efficiency data point is included with other efficiency data in Table D-1.
D-3
38
0
a
25
fiverage F l o w R a t e - 53 L/min
U
C
a 28
a
J
0
x
t;
a
w
15
m
S
3
z
tn
n
A
0 le
z
t
W
a
8
8 58 180 158 200 258 350 488
TE).(PaEATURE (Dog C )
Figure D-1 . Reynolds Number vs. Temperature During Sancba Testing.
D-4
-- ......._....-.-
-__......
................
.......'" ......
- -2..
.......... E f f 1 c I ency
E
-
2
5
3
u)
z
ti
.... ............................
ct I I I I
b9:45 03:47 U9r49 li9:Sl 09 t 53 Et9 t 55
MWUTRIN STRNORUD T I M E
Figure D-2.SEGS LS-2 Receiver Time Constant Test.
D-5
On 16 July, 1992, cold water was removed, and the system was replumbed to the high-temperature oil
fluid loop for elevated temperature testing. Eight test points were obtaincd in 5 days of testing, covering
the temperature range from approximately 100°C to nearly 400OC. These test data are included in Table
D-1, and are shown in graphical form in Figure D-3. The decrease in heat collection efficiency with
increasing operating tempcraturc for this collectorlreceiver combination was the lowest ever measured at
this tcst facility.
An equation for the efficiency curve is also shown in Figure D-3; the equation was obtained from a least-
squares regression of the data from Tablc D-I. Note that the efficiency equation is valid only at the
average insolation present during thc tests, as noted in thc figure.
Table D-1. Measured Efficiency Test Data
Cermet Selective Coating - Vacuum Annulus
Direct
Test Normal Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas Est
Date Insolation speed Temp In out Air rate Effic Error
1992 W/m2 m/sec "C "C "C "C L/min Y
O *YO
02/06 807.9 1.0 15.8 18.34 36.17 11.6 18.4 72.63 1.91
17/06 933.7 2.6 21.2 102.2 124.0 91.9 47.7 72.51 1.95
17/06 968.2 3.7 22.4 151.0 173.3 139.8 47.8 70.9 1.92
17/06 982.3 2.5 24.3 197.5 219.5 184.3 49.1 70.17 1.81
22/06 909.5 3.3 26.2 250.7 269.4 233.9 54.7 70.25 1.90
22/06 937.9 1.0 28.8 297.8 316.9 278.6 55.5 67.98 1.86
25/06 880.6 2.9 27.5 299.0 317.2 280.7 55.6 68.92 2.06
26/06 920.9 2.6 29.5 379.5 398.0 359.4 56.8 62.34 2.41
29/06 903.2 4.2 31.1 355.9 374.0 334.1 56.3 63.82 2.36
Concurrently with efficiency testing at elevated temperatures, heat losses from the receivcr assembly were
also measured. Seven test points were obtained. The complete set of measured thermal loss data is shown
in Table D-2, and a graph is shown in Figurc D-4. A least-squares regression of the data in Table D-2
produced the equation shown in Figure D-4. ' ' * *
At each temperature in Table D-1, we can calculate the thermal loss required to lower the measured
efficiency from the optical efficiency (first point in Table D-1) to thc observed value. These calculated
"in-focus loss" points are also plotted in Figure D-4. Bccause the recciver surface temperatures are higher
when concentrated sunlight is focused on the receiver, the in-focus losses are higher than the measured
losses with no light on the receiver. Note that the in-focus losses are valid only at the value of insolation
present during the efficiency tests. See Appendix C of this report for a discussion of in-focus losses and
their use in deriving a gcncral performance equation for the collector.
D-6
I I I I I I I
90 - -
e0 - -
T 1 T
70 - X I f T
f T -
n
s
60-
* -
U
z 50 -
W
n
U
40- Eff. 0 73.1 + 0.00120 (dT) - 0.0000850 (dT)^2 -
L
W
30 - Efficiency i n percent, at 940 W1sq.m DNI -

dT - Temp i n d e g r e e s C above ambient a i r temp
20 - -
10 - -
I I I I I I I
Figure D-3. Efficiency of Cermet Receiver with Vacuum Annulus.
D-7
150 150
Loss (W/mh2)
- - -0.01124 (dT) + 0.000799 (dT)^2
-
125 Loss
dT - W/sq m at 9 4 0 W/sq m D N I
D e g r e e s C above ambient a l r temp
125
0
4
E
I
\
100 100 ;
m
r
Y)
*,
*,
r
a 0
3 In
Y
m
75 7s
A
In I:
m LI
0 r,
-I r,
H
-I \
(r
W
50 50 4
I 3
I- Y
2s T Loss a t - zero DNI 25
0.0568 (dT) + 0.000695 (dT)A;

I 1 I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE ABOVE AMBIENT ('C)
Figure. D-4.Thermal Loss from CermetNacuum Receiver.
D-X
Table D-2. Measured Thermal Loss Data
Cermet Selective Coating, Vacuum Annulus
Test Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas Est

Date speed Temp In out Air rate Loss Error
1992 mlsec "C "C "C "C Wmin Wlm2 Wlm2
24/06 3.2 26.3 99.55 99.54 74.2 27.4 0.3 3.7

24/06 2.9 25.4 100.02 99.97 74.6 27.4 0.85 4.0
25/06 0.1 22.5 199.4 199.0 176.3 54.7 14.04 8.5
25/06 2.0 26.7 299.0 297.9 271.9 56.0 36.7 8.0
26/06 1.1 19.9 153.4 153.3 133.1 53.6 5.3 7.6
26/06 1.5 24.2 253.8 253.1 229.2 55.6 23.4 8.5
29/06 0.6 27.6 348.3 346.6 3 19.9 56.8 55.8 7.3
Cermet Receiver with Air in Annulus
On completion of the test scrics with the rcccivcr undcr vacuum, a #60 hole was drilled in thc mctal
bcllows at one cnd of the rcccivcr glass cnvelope, thus filling the receiver annulus with ambient prcssurc
air. At the samc time, the system was again replumbcd to thc cold water supply for a rccheck of optical
cffciency and incident anglc modilicr. The prcscncc of air in thc rccciver annulus was not cxpcctcd to
changc cither eflicicncy or incidcnt anglc modifier, sincc at near ambicnt-air tcmpcraturcs the thermal
losscs are small enough that no apprcciablc conduction or convcction occurs in the receivcr gas. Thc
optical efficiency measured is thc first data point is Table D-3 bclow, and is thc essentially thc same as the
vacuum efficiency, within thc error bounds of thc individual measurements. Incident anglc modificr data
was also unchanged; this data is shown in a later scction of this report.
On complction of the cold-watcr tcsts, thc collcctor was again plumbed to thc oil loop to determine the
change in elcvatcd-ternperaturc cffcicncy and thcrmal loss with air replacing a vacuum in the reccivcr
annulus. Scventcen test points wcrc obtained in 5 days of testing. Thc cffcicncy data sct is shown in
Table D-3; thermal loss is in Table D-4. Graphs in Figures D-5 and D-6 show that clcvated temperature
pcrformancc is significantly degraded by incrcascd thermal losses whcn air fills the annulus.
D-9
166 I I I I I I I
96 LS-2 Cermet R e c e l v e r
-
86 -
70
66
50
46
30
20
16
8
0 50 106 150 266 256 306 350 4 66
AVERAGE TEMPERflTURE ABOVE AMBIENT (C)
Figure D-5.LS-2 Efficiency Comparison-Vacuum vs. Air in Receiver.
D-IO
175
1. In-focus loss a t 877 W/m^2, Air
1sa ’ 2. L o s s a t Z e r o W/m^2, Air
3. In-focus loss a t 9 4 6 W/m^2, Vacuum
4. L o s s a t Z e r o W/m^2, Vacuum
125
A
E
U
M
\
5 la0
u)
Ln
0
-I
-I 75
a
I:
R!
w
I
I-
50
25
a
a 50 1a0 150 2 aa 250 3 00 358 4aa
Figure D-6.Thermal Loss Comparison-Vacuum vs. Air in Receiver
D-11
Cermet Selective Coating - Air in Annulus
Test NIP Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas Est
Date speed Temp In out Air rate Effic Error
1992 W/m2 mlsec "C "C "C "C Llmin YO *YO
18/08 925.1 3.4 38.4 29.5 47.3 10.0 20.7 73.68 1.96
27/07 889.7 2.8 28.6 251.1 268.3 231.1 55.3 66.6 1 2.29
28/07 874.1 4.0 28.7 344.9 361.1 324.2 56.2 59.60 2.27
28/07 870.4 0.6 29.1 345.5 36 1.6 324.5 56.1 59.40 2.12
29/07 813.1 3.6 25.8 101.2 1190 84.5 50.3 71.56 2.21
29/07 858.4 3.1 27.6 154.3 171.7 135.4 52.9 69.20 2.10
29/07 878.7 3.1 28.6 202.4 219.4 182.3 54.6 67.10 1.88
29/07 896.4 0.9 30.0 250.7 267.8 229.3 55.2 65.5 1.80
29/07 906.7 0.0 31.7 299.5 3 16.5 276.3 55.4 62.58 1.79
03/08 879.5 1.8 27.4 348.9 365.2 329.6 55.4 58.52 2.02
03/08 898.6 2.8 29.7 376.6 393.1 355.1 56.2 56.54 1.93
Cermet Selective Coating, Air in Annulus

Date speed Temp In out Air rate Loss Error
1992 mlsec C "C "C "C L/min W/m2 W/m2
27/07 5.2 19.6 98.7 98.2 78.8 51.4 13.7 7.0

27/07 4.5 22.1 148.5 147.8 126.0 53.8 24.7 7.7
27/07 0.8 23.6 202.0 200.9 177.9 54.6 36.3 7.4
27/07 0.6 24.7 252.5 250.9 227.1 55.4 54.8 7.5
28/07 1.5 23.2 300.3 297.9 275.9 56.5 78.3 7.8
28/07 1.1 26.3 344.8 341.8 317.1 56.7 38.6 7.7
Cermet Receiver with Glass Removed
In an ideal world, oncc a receiver annulus was cvacuatcd during manufacturc, it would remain so forevcr.
But in a practical ficld installation, dcgradation occurs. A crack or other lcak may introduce air into the
vacuum annulus, as in thc test dcscribed above. Other. morc serious accidents may break the glass
entirely off thc receivcr, lcaving the barc, heated receivcr tube exposed to severe thcrmal losses bccausc of
wind-forced convection. It is difficult and expcnsive to cut out a receiver section and rcplace it with a new
onc; and it may not be possible to always do so promptly. For example, the ninc SEGS solar elcctric
plants in California h a w a combined total of somc 56,000 rcceiver elements likc the two under test;
inevitably, somc are air-filled or brokcn. Since operation may continue for somc time in the damaged
condition, knowlcdge of thc degradation in performancc can be highly important to a collector field
opcrator. Accordingly, we broke up thc receivcr glass cnvclopc and rcmoved it cntirely. This operation
was done carefully to avoid scratching or othcnvisc damaging thc black ccrmet sclcctive coating on the
receivcr.
D-12
The collector was again plumbed to thc domcstic cold watcr supply systcm for optical efficicncy and
incident anglc modifier testing. Thc glass envclopc was thc most transparcnt availablc, but the glass still
absorbs about 4% of thc conccntratcd light passing through it, Thcrcfore, we cxpccted thc optical
cficiency would improvc slightly when the glass was rcmoved. Test data confirmcd this, with the
measured cold watcr eflicicncy increasing about 4 points, from 73 to 77%.
It is also possiblc that the prcscnce of a glass envelopc would cause somc light loss due to rcflections,
especially at high incidcnt angles. However, the glass cnvclopc on the SEGS rcceivcrs is anti-rcflcction
coated on both surfaccs, and no significant changc in thc incident anglc modificr was detcctcd in thc
collcctor data whcn the glass was rcmoved. Thc incident anglc tcst data sct obtaincd in shown later in
Table D- 13, Appcndix D.
Thc collector was disconnected from thc cold watcr supply and replumbcd to thc hot oil supply on 20
October 1992. Elcvatcd tempcraturc tcsting of thc barc rcccivcr then began. Variations in wind spccd
and dircction did not cause any apprcciablc changcs in mcasured efficiency during thc cold-watcr tcsts,
since the rcccivcr tcmperature was so near thc air tcmperature that no significant thermal losscs wcrc
occurring. Elevated tcmpcraturc tcsting with a barc rcceiver is much more difficult. For a reliable,
accuratc mcasuremcnt of rcccivcr tcmperature, the rcccivcr must rcmain at a constant temperature for at
least onc to three timc constants, which for this receivcr would be about thrce to ninc minutcs. Thc wind
in an outdoor test situation ncvcr rcmains constant for more than a few seconds.
Figurc D-7 shows a scgmcnt of a tcst run with the barc rcccivcr at 25OoC, showing the variations in
collector thcrmal loss with wind changes. I t is obvious that thc losses changc with wind, but cxactly how
much is the challenge. For comparison, Figurc D-8 shows an earlier test run at approximately the same
tcmperaturc, while thc rcccivcr was still covered by the glass envclopc. Notc that thc mcasurcd thcrmal
loss data linc shows somc scattcr duc to fluctuations in flow and tcmpcraturc, but thcrc is no apparcnt
correlation of loss change with wind spccd.
Wc chose to apply running-average smoothing to the data in ordcr to cxtract morc consistcnt numbers
from thc data scattcr. The timc constant of this rcccivcr was about 3 minutes. Figurcs D-9, D-10, and D-
1 1 show the samc thermal losses as Figurc D-7, with running-avcragc pcriods of I , 2, and 3 timc
constants (3, 6, and 9 minutcs). By plotting an entirc day’s data in this fashion, wc wcrc ablc to pick out
periods whcn the avcrage wind specd held more or lcss constant for at lcast 1 timc constant. One timc
constant (3 minutcs) was choscn as a comprornisc: lcss timc produccd data that was too scattered, more
averaging seemcd to wipc out all the relcvant structurc.
Similar tests were donc to determine cfficicncy as a function of wind and tcmpcraturc. A samplc of the
rcal-timc data is shown in Figurc D- 12; an csamplc of onc-timc-constant running-avcragc smoothing is
shown in Figurc D-13. Eflicicncy data points obtained arc shown in Table D-S, and the data is plottcd in
Figure D-14. A multiplc rcgrcssion of the data from Table D-5, using tcmperature, wind specd and
cfficicncy produced the equation shown in Figurc D-14. Thc curvcs in thc figure for differcnt wind speeds
wcrc obtaincd by solving the equation for the spccific wind spccds shown. Efficicncy curves for thc
receivcr with vacuum and air arc also shown for comparison.
Figure D-14 summarizes all the efficiency test rcsults with the ccrmet reccivcr. When air is introduccd
into the receivcr annulus, efficiency falls as thermal losscs increase, because of incrcascd conduction and
convection in the air transferring heat from the receiver surface to the glass. In still air, efficiency
dccrcascs by about an cqual amount \%hen the glass is rcmoved from the receivcr. As wind specd
D-13
m
Figure D-7.Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Cermet Receiver.
D-14
Figure D-8.Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Receiver with Glass Envelope.
D-15
Ln
"'1
I
RZTRAK 92/@9/0 1 R u n n l n g a v e r a g e over 9 points.
Figure D-9. Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Receiver.
D-16
1' RZTRAK 92/09 / Q 1 Runnlng a v a r a g a over 16 patnts.
l a ! 1s 13/38 13145
HOUNTRIN STRNORRD T I M E
Figure D-10. Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Receiver
D-17
I I I
13:BQ l a ! 1s la! 38 13:45 14rBQ
MOLINTRIN STANORRD TIME
Figure D-1 1 . Wind Speed and Thermal Loss from Bare Receiver.
D-18
Figure D- 12. Efficiency vs. Wind with Bare Cermet Receiver
D-19
Figure D- 13. Efficiency vs. Wind Averaging with Bare Receiver.
D-20
4
I
A t 9 4 0 W/m^2 DNI
90 - Vacuum - 73.1 + 8.00120 (dT) - 8.0000858 (dT)h2 -

-
Air - 73.3 - 8.0160 (dT) -
0.0000810
A t 8 7 7 W/m^2 D N I
(dT)^2
-
e0
Figure D-14. SEGS LS-2 Efficiency vs. Temperature and Wind - Cermet Receiver.
D-2 1
350
300
Air - 0.968 (dT) + 0.000669 (dTl~2
h
250 Vac - -0.051 (dT) + 0.000695 (dT1~2
E
U
YI
\
5 200
cn
Ln
0
-I
J 150
(r
x
E
W
I
t-
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FlBOVE flMBIENT (C)
Figure D-15.SEGS LS-2 Thermal Loss vs. Temperature and Wind - Cermet Receiver.
D-22
increases, eficicncy can be seen to fall to unacceptablc levels. The equations shown in Figure D-14 wcrc
obtained from a least-squarcs regrcssion analysis of the measurcd data points. Notc that these equations
apply only at thc insolation valucs prcscnt during rhc test, and should not be uscd for other levcls of
insolation. Thc error bars on the data points are thc expcctcd worst-case errors caused by the measuring
instruments. A discussion of thc test errors is shown in Appendix E. Error bars arc not included for thc
bare tube test case, bccause errors duc to temperature instability (caused by variablc winds) could not be
quantified. The cxpccted uncertainty in the data is certainly largcr, but the magnitude is unknown.
Thcrmal loss data from the reccivcr as a function of wind and tcmperature arc shown in Tablc D-6.
Figurc D-15 is a plot of the loss data and fitted equation lines, along with thc curvcs for vacuum and air
losscs for comparison. The thermal loss curvcs reflcct the samc phcnomena as the efficiency tcst data:
incrcasing losscs as the receivcr is degradcd by allowing air into thc vacuum annulus, and significantly
worsc losses with incrcasing wind-drivcn convcction and conduction.
The cfficicncy and thcrmal loss curvcs for the barc rccciver show that thc collcctor pcrformancc IS
degradcd so much by rcasonablc, averagc wind spccds that rcpair of the damagcd receivcr should be a
high priority
Cermet Selective Coating - Bare Receiver (No Glass)
Test NIP Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas

Date speed Temp In out Air rate Effic
1992 Wlm2 mlsec "C "C "C "C Llmin YO
27/08 954.5 23.5 29.0 47.9 14.9 21.3 77.5

2 1/09 911.3 5.2 19.5 351.3 363.1 337.8 54.9 40.0
21/09 940.4 5.3 22.0 384.0 395.0 367.6 55.8 32.0
2 1/09 866.5 2.0 17.6 30 1.3 315.3 291.0 54.3 54.0
22/09 801.3 7.0 18.2 151.7 166.2 140.6 48.4 55.3
22/09 888.6 4.7 20.2 198.2 215.5 185.2 49.8 51.0
22/09 903.0 4.4 20.8 198.4 214.2 185.8 49.7 54.1
22/09 908.8 3.7 20.8 198.4 214.2 185.8 49.7 57.0
22/09 845.2 2.0 19.0 200.1 213.6 187.8 49.6 50.5
22/09 935.7 2.5 22.3 252.1 268.0 238.4 50.9 56.6
22/09 929.8 1.o 21.8 252.2 269.0 238.9 50.8 57.7
23/09 829.6 2.0 18.0 302.1 315.9 291.3 51.0 51.8
23/09 845.7 4.0 18.6 301.9 315.4 290.3 51.0 49.0
23/09 898.0 3.5 20.7 35 1.2 363.8 337.3 51.6 42.0
23/09 904.2 4.5 20.9 351.0 364.4 336.7 51.7 41.0
23/09 908.6 4.6 21.2 351.1 363.3 336.4 51.2 39.5
23/09 919.3 3.8 21.9 351.2 364.3 335.9 51.3 40.7
23/09 859.8 4.1 24.0 386.0 397.3 367.9 52.2 37.0
23/09 85 1.2 2.9 24.2 386.0 400.5 369.2 52.0 47.0
24/09 917.9 4.5 22.5 354.6 367.0 338.4 51.6 39.0
24/09 927.6 4.5 23.6 354.4 367.8 337.1 51.6 38.0
25/09 877.6 6.3 23.0 101.4 122.3 89.0 40.1 62.7
25/09 901.0 8.2 23.8 101.1 122.0 87.4 40.1 57.5
25/09 914.3 8.0 24.6 101.2 121.4 86.9 40.0 58.1
25/09 906.7 6.5 23.8 101.1 121.8 87.9 40.0 60.3
25/09 817.5 4.2 20.8 101.0 120.8 90.3 39.8 64.4
25/09 863.4 5.0 22.3 101.2 122.3 89.2 40.0 61.3
D-23
Table D-5. Measured Efficiency Test Data (Continued)
Test NIP Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas

Date speed Temp In out Air rate Effic
1992 W/m2 m/sec "C "C "C "C L/min Y
O
25/09 878.3 4.6 22.9 101.3 123.1 89.3 40.1 64.5

25/09 922.7 7.5 27.2 206.7 221.9 186.8 50.2 50.6
29/09 843.6 1 .0 19.5 204.3 220.2 192.9 50.0 60.6
29/09 854.5 2.3 19.6 203.1 219.2 191.5 50.1 59.6
29/09 867.6 0.5 19.8 203.4 219.6 191.9 50.0 60.5
29/09 883.3 2.1 19.9 203.4 220.1 191.9 50.0 59.6
29/09 919.0 0.1 22.6 30 1.4 3 18.0 287.0 50.9 54.5
29/09 920.5 3 .0 23.4 30 1 .o 3 14.2 284.6 51.1 45.0
29/09 920.2 1.5 22.9 301.0 3 16.8 286.2 50.9 52.4
29/09 919.2 2.4 23.7 301.0 315.8 284.7 50.9 47.9
06110 920.4 4.0 23.8 100.9 120.4 87.0 48.2 67.0
06110 922.0 1.8 23.7 100.8 121.1 87.2 48.2 68.8
07110 845.3 3.0 10.8 252.0 264.6 247.8 54.8 50.8
07/10 875.8 7.2 11.0 25 1.6 263.3 245.8 55.0 40.1
071 I0 895.1 7.0 11.2 25 1.5 262.8 245.8 55.0 45.6
07/10 913.4 6.1 11.5 25 1.8 264.0 246.0 55.0 46.9
07/10 929.4 5.1 12.6 313.8 324.8 306.4 55.6 40.6
071 10 938.1 7.1 13.3 313.3 320.7 304.5 55.9 35.4
07110 941.1 8.0 13.5 313.1 322.0 304.1 55.9 34.6
07/10 953.0 7.0 14.0 313.6 322.9 304.3 55.9 36.1
071 10 947.7 6.2 14.0 313.5 323.3 305.0 55.9 40.1
07/ 10 958.1 9.3 14.5 3 13.3 321.5 303.0 55.9 32.5
07110 96 1.3 9.3 15.1 3 13.3 320.7 30 I .9 55.9 28.4
07/10 937.6 7.9 15.2 313.5 32 1.7 302.3 55.9 31.2
Notes for Table D-5:
1. All cntrics arc 3-minute running avcrages

(Approximately one timc constant)
2. Estimated mcasurcmcnt crrors wcrc not calculated
Cermet Selective Coating, Bare Receiver (No Glass)
Test Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas

Date speed Temp In out Air rate Loss
1992 mlsec "C "C "C "C Lhin W/m2
0 1/09 0.1 17.2 102.1 101.1 84.5 49.7 32.0

0 1/09 2.5 18.4 103.5 101.9 84.4 49.7 49.0
0 1/09 0.0 16.2 102.9 101.8 86.3 49.7 32.3
D-24
Table D-6. Measured Thermal Loss Data (Continued)
Cermet Selective Coating, Bare Receiver (No Glass)
Test Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas

Date speed Temp In out Air rate Loss
1992 m/sec "C "C "C "C L/m i n W/m2
01/09 0.1 19.2 150.8 149.1 30.8 52.6 56.5

0 1/09 0.2 19.7 150.9 149.3 30.5 52.5 56.6
01/09 1.5 19.4 150.7 148.7 30.3 52.6 69.5
01/09 1.3 21.3 203.4 200.7 80.9 54.4 95.0
01/09 4.0 22.9 202.8 199.3 78.3 54.2 120.0
01/09 2.5 22.0 202.8 199.6 79.2 54.3 1 1 1.0
01/09 5.1 24.3 203.0 199. I 176.8 54.0 135.0
0 1/09 1.1 26.4 252.1 248.5 223.8 55.4 126.0
0 1/09 4.0 26.3 252.1 247.5 223.5 55.5 160.0
01/09 8.4 26.0 251.2 244.4 22 1.3 55.5 239.0
0 1/09 6.5 26.9 25 1.8 245.9 22 1.8 55.6 205.0
0 1/09 8.6 27.6 25 1.4 244.0 220.2 55.5 255.0
01/09 6.5 28.3 299.8 292.6 267.9 56.7 249.0
01/09 8.2 28.3 30 1.7 294.1 269.7 56.7 259.0
02/09 2.0 26.9 20 1.7 198.9 173.4 53.9 101.0
02/09 6.0 26.9 201.4 197.5 172.6 53.9 135.0
02/09 5.2 27.0 201.5 197.8 172.7 53.9 127.0
02/09 0.7 27.1 201.8 199.1 173.4 54.0 93.0
02/09 2.5 29.0 105.0 103.5 75.4 50.4 47.5
18/09 6.0 23.0 51.3 50.6 27.9 40.7 17.7
18/09 1.4 27.8 30 1.7 296.8 271.4 56.5 170.0
18/09 4.7 28.4 301.4 293.6 269.2 56.6 270.0
18/09 0.1 28.2 301.9 297.5 271.5 56.5 155.0
18/09 5.7 26.4 20 1.5 197.2 173.0 54.7 150.0
18/09 4.6 27.2 201.5 197.7 172.5 54.6 135.0
18/09 2.5 27.2 201.7 198.3 172.8 54.5 108.0
18/09 6.0 24.6 100.9 98.9 75.3 46.5 59.0
18.09 7.9 24.9 100.9 98.8 75.0 46.4 62.0
18/09 7.0 25.0 100.8 98.7 75.4 46.6 61.0
18/09 4.1 28.9 301.6 295.5 269.7 56.5 212.0
18/09 0.5 28.4 302.0 297.5 27 1.4 56.4 155.0
18/09 3.0 28.5 301.9 296.4 270.7 56.4 190.0
2 1/09 2.5 24.6 320.3 3 14.3 292.7 54.4 94.0
22/09 3.4 25.7 152.4 149.8 125.4 48.7 83.0
22/09 2.5 23.5 25 1.9 247.1 225.9 51.0 54.0
22/09 3.9 23.7 251.9 246.2 225.4 51.0 85.0
22/09 0.8 23.7 252.1 247.8 226.2 50.8 39.0
25/09 7.5 27.5 205.9 200.4 175.6 50.0 76.0
25/09 8.4 28.0 205.6 199.7 174.7 50.0 90.0
25/09 10.3 28.08 205.6 198.9 174.2 50.0 2 17.0
Notes for Tablc D-6:
1. All cntrics arc 3-minute running avcragcs.

(Approximately onc timc constant)
D-25
2. Estimated mcasurcment errors werc not calculated.
Black Chrome Receiver-Vacuum
On completion of the bare tube tcsts with thc ccrmct receivcr, it was removcd and replaced by an idcntical
rccciver, except that the selcctivc surface treatmcnt was elcctroplatcd black chrome. Initial tcsts werc with
the normal vacuum in the receiver, bcginning on 9 Dcccmber 1992. Ten eficicncy points werc obtained
in 7 tcst days. Data obtained is shown in Table D-7, below, and is plottcd in Figure D-16. Also shown in
thc figurc are the ccrmct receivcr vacuum data for comparison. The two arc nearly identical, with a small
advantagc for cermct at the highest tcmpcratures, probably duc to lower emittancc of the cermet surface.
Thermal losscs were also measurcd, these data arc shown in Table D-8, and are comparcd to the losscs
using an air-filled reccivcr in Figurc D-20.
Black Chrome Receiver-Air in Annulus
When testing the cermct rcccivcr, thc transition from vacuum to air in the reccivcr annulus was made
whilc the system was shut down between tcsts. On 4 January 1993, the last black chromc data point with
vacuum was obtained in mid-morning. Without taking thc collcctor out of focus, a portable drill was used
to drill a #60 holc in each of thc receivcr's metal bellows. F i p r c D-17 shows the change in collector
eficicncy as air fillcd the reccivcr vacuum. Incrcased thcrmal losscs duc to convcction and conduction in
thc air-filled rccciver annulus causcs the drop in eficicncy.
Black Chrome Selective Coating - Vacuum Annulus
Test NIP Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas Est
Date speed Temp In out Air rate Effic Error
1992 WIm2 mlsec "C "C "C "C Llmin T O O h
09/12 850.2 1.3 4.0 14.82 31.81 19.3 20.5 73.1 2.36
11/12 839.8 1.1 3.6 103.4 122.2 109.3 50.6 73.56 3.35
17/12 882.7 2.1 -3.1 253.3 271.3 265.5 54.8 69.58 1.95
17/12 921.5 0.0 -0.7 339.6 367.3 359.2 56.0 61.49 1.82
18/12 902.0 0.0 6.4 154.0 173.3 157.4 52.1 72.1 1.98
22/12 900.7 1.3 0.2 201.6 2 19.9 207.2 54.0 69.91 3.06
23/12 87 1.8 4.0 1.6 201.5 219.5 209.1 53.2 69.69 1.86
23/12 884.6 3 .0 2.6 303.1 320.6 309.3 54.9 65.36 2.03
1993
0410 1 744.6 1.1 -5.0 100.8 117.2 114.2 50.7 72.47 3.62
0410 1 928.4 2.4 -0.9 379.6 397.4 389.4 56.1 57.7 1.91
Interruptcd sevcral times by bad weather, scven cfliciency points and sis thcrmal loss points wcrc obtained
in three morc test days. No testing of the black chromc reccivcr was done with the glass envelope
removed, because the relativcly small diffcrcnccs bctwecn black chrome and cermet selcctive coatings
would probably bc completely obscurcd by thc largc data jitter caused by wind-forced conduction and
convcction losscs. Testing of thc SEGS LS-2 collector was concluded on 20 January 1993.
D-26
90 -
Vacuum Annu 1 us
>
U B l a c k Chrome a t 873 W/mn2 DNI (Dotted l l n e )
w
H
W
H
E 74.1 - 0.0000204 (dT) - 0.0001009 (dT1~2
L
L 40
w
C e r m e t a t 9 4 0 W/mn2 DNI ( S o l I d Lllne)
30t E 73.1 - 0.00120 (dT) - 0.0000850 ( d T ) n 2
0 50 100 150 2 00 250 3 00 350 4 00
Figure D- 16. Efficiency Comparison of Black Chrome and Cermet Receivers.
D-27
3
"I ill f.
Figurc D- 17. Efficiency Change with Air Introduced into Receiver
D-28
Tablc D-8. Measured Thermal Loss Data
Black Chromc Selective Coating, Vacuum Annulus
Test Wind Air Temp Temp Delta Flow Mcas Est

Date q,ced Temp In out Air rate Loss Error
1992 m/scc "C "C "C "C L/min W/m2 W/m2
11/12 0.6 2.3 103.2 102.9 100.7 50.3 6.82 6.89

11/12 1 .o 6.0 204. I 203.4 197.8 54.1 22.0 7.27
11/12 1.7 7.5 300.8 299.0 292.5 55.8 62.0 8.05
11/12 2.5 8.9 35 1 .O 348.2 340.8 56.7 89.1 8.77
17/12 0.3 -5.2 150.9 150.6 156.0 52.5 12.4 7.00
17/12 2.8 I. I 348.5 345.7 346.1 56.7 89.1 9.43
17/12 1.5 1.1 253.9 252.8 252.4 55.1 36.7 7.76
Figure D-18 shows thc air cfficicncy data from Tablc D-9 in graphical form, along with thc equation fitted
to thc data. Also included is ihc vacuum rccci\-cr data for comparison. Figure D-I9 comparcs thc vacuum
and air cfficicncy data for both black chromc and ccrmct rccci\ws. As shown in thc figures, thc
diffcrcncc bct\\.ccn ccrmct and black chromc is small. with a much larger diffcrcncc whcn air is
introduced into thc \wuurti annulus space.
Mcasurcd thcrnial loss data with thc air-filled black chromc rcccivcr arc shoum in Tablc D-IO.Figure D-
20 comparcs tlic black chromc thcrnial loss data for thc vacuum and air cases, including thc in-focus
losscs. Finally, Figure D-2 1 comparcs thc riicasurcd thcrmal losscs for thc four diffcrcnt rcccivcr
configurations tcstcd. As for thc cfficicncy data. thc diffcrcnccs bcttvccn black chromc and ccrmct
coatings arc gcncrally sniallcr than the diffcrcncc bctwccn a n air-fillcd arid ii vacuum annulus. Thc larger
dirrcrcricc abovc 300°C bct\vccn ccrmct and black chrornc for thc vacuum casc may bc mostly duc to not
ha\irig cnough loss data abovc 250°C, Icading to a bias i n thc cuwc fit at highcr tcnipcraturcs. Thc larger
loss shown by thc cun:cs abovc 25OOC is riot supportcd by thc cfficicncy mcasurcnicnts at thc samc
tcnipcraturcs
Tahlc D-9. Measured Efficiency Test Data
Black Chromc Sclccti\.e Coating - Air in Annulus
lest NIP Wind Amb Temp Temp Delta Flow Meas Est
Date spd Temp In out Amb rate Effic Error
1993 W/m2 m/scc "C "C "C "C L/min (Yo O h
04/0 1 9 I9 5 I4 0 1 379 7 3958 3876 56.2 53.71 2 97

12/01 755.0 55 - I .o 101.9 1179 I109 50.3 69 07 4 38
12/01 850 9 17 -0.6 203.2 2190 211 7 54.3 64 I4 198
12/01 899.7 44 0.5 30 1.6 3176 309 I 56 2 60 08 2 23
12/01 909 6 12 1.3 251 8 2687 2590 55 0 63 32 1 76
20/0 1 908. 1 59 5.9 350 2 3663 352 3 55 6 56.17 2 02
21/01 002 6 17 51 151.2 1724 1583 52.1 67.88 189
D-20
100 1 I I I I I I
90 - LS-2 Black Chrome Receiver -
E0 - -
70 - *
... t . . .. :
a
'
. . .. . .. . . .. T
,
e.
. . . . ..... Vacuum -
Y
60 -
>. -
U
Z 50 -
W
n
At E73 W/mh2 DNI
2 74.1 - 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 (dT) - 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 (dT1-2 -
LL
LL 40 - vacuum Efficiency 0
30 - ~ i Efficiency
r - 73.3 - 0.0273 (dT) - 0 . 0 0 0 0 5 6 9 (dT)^2 -
At E50 W/mh2 DNI
20 - -
10 - -
-
R I I I I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 40 0

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE A B O V E AMBIENT (C)
Figure D- 18. Efficiency Comparison of Black Chrome Vacuum and Air Receivers
D-30
70
S
Y
60
>
U
Z 50
W
zL
H
I 1. Cermet r e c e i v e r , vacuum i n a n n u l u s
40t
30 -
2.
3.
B l a c k chrome r e c e i v e r ,
Cermet r e c e i v e r , air
vacuum i n a n n u l u s
i n annulus 3
4. B l a c k chrome r e c e i v e r , a i r i n annulus
20 - -
10 - -
I I I I I I I
0
Figure D- 19. Efficicncy Comparison of Black Chrome and Cermct Receivers
D-3 1
175 1 1 I I I I I
I
156
1.
2.
In-focus loss a t 8 5 0 W/m^2,
Loss a t Z e r o W / m ~ 2 , A i r
Air
T :
..I
3. In-focus loss a t 873 W/mn2, Vacuum
4. Loss a t Z e r o W / m ~ 2 , Vacuum
125
n
E
U
\"
5 108
cn B l a c k Chrome
cn
0
-1
T :
'
A 75
a
I
IY
W
I
I-
56
25
56 160 156 280 256 3 60 356 4 66

Figure D-20. Thcrmal Loss Comparisons-Vacuum & Air-Black Chrome
D-32
175
15 0
125
n
E
100
J
7s
50
2s
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 3 00 350 4 00
Figure D-2 1. Thermal Loss Comparisons-Black Chrome and Cermet Receivers
D-33
Black Chrome Selective Coating, Air in Annulus

Datc speed Tcmp In out Air rate Loss Error
1993 mlsec "C "C "C "C Llmin WIm2 W/m2
0410 1 0.6 3 .o 302.4 299.7 298.1 55.6 92.6 7.82

0410 1 0.6 1.5 349.4 345.? 346.1 56.6 118.5 8.82
12101 2.5 2.7 25 1.9 249.9 248.3 54.9 70.7 7.24
12101 1.7 3.5 201.7 200.2 197.5 53.5 50.5 7.35
1210 1 0.8 3.9 150.4 149.4 146 0 52.0 32.7 7.08
1210 1 2.9 101.6 100.6 98.2 43.0 14.0 6.67
Incident Angle Tests
Thesc tcsts wcrc madc to dctcrminc thc changc in pcrformancc of thc collcctor as the incident anglc was
incrcascd from zero to 60 dcgrces. Thc approsimatc optical cficicncy shown in the carlicr data tablcs
was also obtained during thcsc t a t s whcn thc collcctor was at zcro incident angle. Tests wcrc pcrformcd
with all three rcccivcr configurations: vacuum annulus, air in annulus, and bare rcccivcr tubc. All thc
testing was donc with cold domcstic nater as thc hcat transfer fluid.
Sincc thc rcccivcr was opcrating at v c n ncar thc ambient air tcmpcraturc, thermal losses wcrc negligible.
No significant d i k c n c c s in pcak cfficicncy of thc ccrnict rcccivcr werc cspcctcd as a result of changing
from a vacuum rcccivcr annulus to an air-filled annulus. A diflcrcnce in pcak effcicncy of about 1% was
notcd bctween thc two rcccivcr configurations, which could bc causcd by slight diffcrences in rcflcctor
clcanlincss, and is also lcss than our mcasurcmcnt error band. Thc prcscncc of air should also not make
any diffcrcncc in thc eflicicncy mcasurcd at various incident angles, and no significant changcs in thc
incident anglc modificr ratios wcrc found. Thc incident anglc modificr data points for thc ccrmctlair
rcccivcr arc listed in Tablc D-1 1 . Thc points and a Icast-squares curve fit to thc combined vacuumfair
data arc shown in Figurc D-22
Table D-11. Incident Angle Performance Test Data
Cermet Selective Coating - Air in Annulus
Test NIP Arnb Temp Temp Delta Flow Incid. Calc. Effic. Ratio
Date Tcmp In out Air rate Angle Effic Ratio Error
1992 W/m2 "C "C "C "C LJm 0
%
I 8/08 925 1 38 4 29 5 47 3 99 207 00 73 68 10 0 0496

I 8/08 919 9 2x 1 29 5 47 6 104 207 4 73 73 40 0 996 0 0437
18/08 0 10 0 26 4 29 4 47 0 11 8 20 5 9 72 72 79 0 9879 0 0504
18\08 893 9 24 9 29 2 45 8 12: 205 14 99 71 29 0 9676 0 0473
18/08 888 2 24 4 29 1 44 7 12 5 205 20 04 68 91 0 9353 0 0434
18/08 881 0 23 7 28 0 43 5 12 5 205 25 01 66 06 0 8966 0 0399
18/08 867 9 24 4 28 8 42 0 11 0 205 29 91 62 48 0 8480 0 0391
18/08 851 1 24 3 28 6 40 3 102 205 34 76 57 88 0 7856 0 0404
18/08 833 8 23 7 28 5 3s 6 98 205 39 94 52 88 0 7177 0 0371
18/08 784 1 22 1 28 3 36 6 103 204 44 40 47 57 0 6456 0 0584
18/08 737 1 21 7 28 1 34 7 97 20 4 49 47 41 50 0 5632 0 0424
18/08 665 6 20 8 27 9 32 6 94 204 54 71 34 no 0 4615 0 0391
18/08 602 9 20 1 27 7 30 8 92 20 2 59 65 27 26 0 3999 0 0253
D-34
Removing the glass envelope from thc ccrmct rcccivcr was cxpcctcd to incrcasc thc peak (optical)
efficiency, since thc glass normally absorbs a small pcrccntagc of the light passing through Mcasurcd
cfficicncy did incrcasc, from ncar 74% to about 77 5% Test data for thc barc tubc is listed in Table D-12
Thc glass had an anti-rcflectivc coating on both surfaces, which hclps reduce glass rcflcction losses at
high incident angles. The glass coating was quitc cffectivc: there was little change in thc incident anglc
modifier curve when thc glass was rcmovcd. Curve fit coefficients for thc barc tube incident angle
modifier equation arc slightly different from thosc derived from thc vacuudair test casc, but the resulting
curves (shown in Figure D-22) arc identical for all practical purposes. Either equation could be used for
calculations of ficld pcrformancc.
Table D-12. Incident Angle Performance Tcst Data
Test NIP Air Temp Tcmp Delta Flow Incid. Calc. Effic. Ratio
Date Temp In Out Air rate Angle Effic Ratio Error
1992 W/m "C "C "C "C Um 0
%
2
27/08 954 5 235 290 479 1493 21 3 00 77 46 10 0 0507

27/08 950 8 23 3 288 499 15 I 21 3 4 74 77 17 0 9963 0 0507
27/08 944 7 229 288 473 152 21 3 9 72 76 43 0 9867 0 0497
27/08 941 4 217 287 463 I58 21 3 14 72 74 48 0 9615 0 0497
27/08 934 7 216 286 452 153 212 I9 74 71 87 o 9278 0 0473
27/08 922 9 213 274 437 143 212 24 73 68 18 0 8801 0 0441
27/08 914 5 206 282 421 146 212 29 70 64 16 0 8283 0 0454
27/08 894 4 20 1 280 403 I40 il 2 34 73 59 39 0 7667 0 0469
27/08 881 2 193 279 387 140 21 1 39 76 54 69 0 7060 0 0505
27/08 850 1 177 278 355 140 212 49 67 43 84 0 5660 0 0336
27/08 818 0 172 278 33 I 132 212 55 68 34 21 0 4416 0 0422
27/08 786 7 169 276 316 127 212 59 63 27 93 0 3606 0 0400
27/08 713 1 158 273 297 127 21 1 65 09 21 40 0 2763 0 0305
Notes for Tables D-11: D-12, and D-13:
All data takcn with cold water as the hcat-transfer fluid

Efficicncy data corrcctcd for collector end loss. at focal length = 1.84 m
Table D-13. Incident Angle Performance Tcst Data
Black Chrome Selective Coating - Vacuum in Annulus
Tcst NIP Amb Temp Temp Delta Flow Incid. Calc. Effic. Ratio
Date Tcmp In Out Air rate Angle Effic Ratio Error
1992 W/m2 "C "C "C "C L'm 0
VO
09/12 850 3 40 148 31 8 193 205 00 73 4 10 0 0474

09/I2 856 9 36 147 319 197 205 4 53 73 1 0 996 0 063 !
09/12 868.8 30 145 314 200 205 9 52 73 0 0 995 0 0545
09/12 833 1 28 144 29 3 180 205 19 53 70 4 0 959 0 0789
09/12 852.3 23 138 242 167 2C6 40 6 53 3 0 736 0 0383
09/12 836 0 19 I39 215 158 210 48 0 43 5 0 593 0 0509
09/12 81 1 4 18 138 176 130 21 5 59 5 27 1 0 309 0 0322
D-35
1 I 1 I I I I I
1
f T - K COS ( I A ) + 0.000994 CIA) - 0.00005369 (Ifl1~2
-
Air h Vacuum 0 *
.9
w
:.e
L
H
n
3 7
w
2.6 Cos 1 ne
a
I-
2.5
W
x
n
H
u
2.4
H
.3
Bare t u b e = X
.2
K . COS (IA) -
I I
0 . 0 0 0 3 5 12 ( I f l )
I I
- 0.
I I I\\ I .. I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90
SOLAR BEAM INCIDENT RNGLE (Degrees)
Figure D-22. Incident Anglc Modifier-SEGS LS-2 Rcccivcr
D-36
Data Analysis
By linear scaling of thcrmal losscs bctwccn thc in-focus loss (high valuc of insolation on rcccivcr) and thc
mcasurcd thcrmal loss (zcro insolation) \vc can dcrivc thc collcctor cflicicncy for any dcsircd incident
solar irradiance. This proccdurc (scc Appendix C) was pcrformcd for a matrix of insolation and
tcmpcraturcs. A inultiplc rcgrcssion of thc data matris thcn produced a pcrformancc equation for thc
collector which should predict pcrformancc o\'cr thc tcmpcraturc range from ambient to 400°C. and for
insolation from zcro to about 1100 W/ni2. Thc incident anglc modifier K is also included as a factor in
thc pcrformancc equation. Rcpcatcd for cacti of thc rcccivcr configurations tcstcd, cxccpt for thc bare
tubc, four equations rcsultcd, as shown in Tablc D-14. Thcsc equations arc also sho1r.n in thc introduction
to this report. A plot of onc of thcsc pcrformancc equations, for thc Ccrmethir rcccivcr at zcro incident
angle, is shown in Figure D-23. Thc shapc of thc plot changes significantly with incident anglc: for an
csamplc at 55 dcg incident anglc, scc Appcndis C, Figure C-4. Thc equation can also bc plotted in a
different format for sclcctcd valucs of insolation: scc Appendix C, Figure C-3.
Tablc D-14. LS-2 Collcctnr Pcrfnrmancc Equations
Cermet with vacuum annulus
= K 173.3 - 0.007276 (AT)] + 0.496(AT/I) - 0.0691 (AT2/I)
Cermet with air in annulus
?=l K 173.4 - 0.00803 (AT)] - 9.68 (AT/I) - 0,0669 (AT2/1)
Black chrome with vacuum annulus
'1 = K 173.6 - 0,004206 (AT)] + 7.44 (AT/I) - 0.0958 (AT2/I)
Black chrome with air in annulus
7 = K 173.8 - 0.006460 (AT)] - 12.16 (AT/I) - 0.0641 (AT2/1)
Incident Anale Modifier, K (For all receiver confiaurations)
K = cos (la) - 0.0003512 (la) - 0.00003137 ( h ) 2
In pcrformancc cquations ( I ) through ( 5 ) .
q = Collccror cfficicncy. i n pcrccnt

K = Incident anglc modificr
AT = Rcccn'cr fluid tcnipcraturc abow ambient air tcmpcraturc, "C
In = Solar bcani incidcnt anglc. i n dcgrccs
D-37
EX - -
K (73.4
K
- 8.88883
COS ( J R J -
(dT)l
0.8803912
- 9.68
(IR)
(dT/I)
-
- 8.8669
8.08881137
CdT^Z/II
CIA).-2
Figure D-23. SEGS LS-2 Cermet/Air Eficicncy at Zero Incident Angle.
D-38
APPENDIX E
ERROR ANALYSIS
Contents for Appendix E
Error Analysis ..................................................................................................................... E-3

Introduction ........................................................................... ............................................... E-3
Heat Gain Errors .......................................................................................................... . E-4
Eficicncy Errors,.................................................. ................................................................. E-5
Incidcnt Angle Modificr ....................................................................
Samplc Eficicncy Error Analysis ...................................................... .......................... E-6
Rcfcrcnccs.. .......................................................................................
..
E- 1
Appendix E
Error Analysis
Introduction
An crror analysis was carried out for mcasurcments of collector cficiency, thermal loss, and incidcnt
anglc modifier. Thesc mcasurcmcnts all include a combination of fluid mass flow, specific hcat and
tcmpcraturc. Insolation was also included for cficiency and incidcnt anglc modifier measurcrncnts. Both
mcasuring instrument crror and statistical data variability wcrc considcrcd in this analysis. Thcrc is somc
unccrtainty in thc equations for SylthcrnmO hcat-transfcr fluid propcrtics (Dow-Corning, 1982); thc
magnitude of thcsc is unknown, and was not considcrcd in this analysis. Thc cffcct of tempcraturc
mcasurcmcnt crror on fluid propcrtics was includcd.
lnstrumcnt crrors apply to a singlc mcasurcment sct, Le., a computcr data scan. These mcasuremcnt sets
wcrc repeated at 15-20 sccond intcnals during cach test. In thc analysis of the data to obtain a valuc such
as cfficicncy, thc mcasurcd data was avcragcd ovcr a period of scvcral minutes. To detcrminc thc lcngth
of thc averaging pcriod for cach data point, rcccivcr tirnc constants were mcasurcd at the beginning of thc
tcst scrics, SCC Figurc D-2. The SEGS LS-2 rcccivcr tirnc constant was found to bc about thrcc rninutcs;
data averaging tirnc was thcn set at a niinirnum of two timc constants, or about 6 minutes. Most data
point avcraging was longcr than thc minimum, usuallq about 1 0 minutes.
Even though thc systcrn was operatcd at cach tcmpcraturc for a long tirnc (usually an hour or rnorc) to
obtain maximum systcm stability of flou and tcmpcraturc prior to an avcraging pcriod, therc is always
somc scatter in thc data during thc alcraging pcriod duc to measuring instrument electrical noisc and
rcmaining instabilities in flow, tcmpcraturc or insolation In estimating thc errors of thc avcragcd data
points, the crrors associated with cach point in thc avcragc arc assumcd to be corrclatcd, since instrument
calibration crrors arc not npcctcd to vary ovcr such short periods of tinic
A samplc of data from a thermal loss tcst with thc black chromc /vacuum rcccivcr is shown in Table E-I,
the mcan data valucs arc rcportcd as a thermal loss point in Tablc D-8, line 5 A sarnplc of data from an
clcvatcd tempcraturc cflicicncy test is shotcn in Tablc E-2, thc mcan data kalucs arc tcportcd as an
cfficicncy point in Tablc D-3 All thc data points in Appendix D data tables were obtained from
calculatcd incan valucs similar to those shown i n Tables E-1 and E-2 Again note that thc systcni was
opcratcd at a constant tempcraturc and flow rate for about an hour bcforc thc tirnc pcriods sho\+n in thc
samplc data tablcs
For cach avcraging pcriod, such as thosc shown in rhc samplc data tablcs, the population standard
dcviation of each mcasuremcnt was calculatcd as a chcck on thc stability of the systcrn under test. Also,
thc data rangc from minimum value to maximum mluc during thc averaging pcriod had to bc within thc
stability criteria outlined in thc Tcst Plan, Appcndis C. For csamplc, in Table E-I, thc input and output
tcmpcraturc rangc of about 0.1"C (+ 0.05") is our usual rcquircmcnt for a stablc data point, and is also
about thc bcst the fluid supply systcm can maintain, and thc bcst wc can reasonably mcasurc with current
equipmcnt. Opcration for lcss than an hour at a g i \ m tcmpcraturc produccs lcss stablc temperatures,
operation for longcr times rcsults in littlc impro\~cmcnt.
An important stability rcquircmcnt for thc data avcraging pcriod I S that thcrc be no trend oftcmpcraturcs
(or flow ratcs, insolation, ctc ) to\\ard higher or lowcr valucs, which would indicate that encrgy is being
storcd in (or rcmovcd from) thc mass of thc systcm under tcst Even a stringcnt ? 0 05°C tcmpcraturc
stability rcquircmcnt is not as good as would bc dcsirablc, as the result is a 22% scattcr in thc mcasurcd
E-3
thcrmal losses shown in Tablc E-I The low tcmpcraturc thcrmal losses with thc vacuum receiver
configuration (shown in Tablc E-I) were thc worst casc for data scatter and total crror because of thc vcry
small teinpcrature drop across thc recci\cr during thc tcst (only about 0 4 "C) Table E-2 is more typical,
whcrc the scattcr in mcasurcd efficicncy is about 0 8%).
Data mcasurement crrors wcrc calculatcd using thc root-sum-square method, dcfined as: (Docbclin, 1983:
Bcvington, 1978):
Where: Erss = root-sum-squarc crror

- mcasurcd quantity
ui
- error in mcasured quantity
4
mai = partial dcriviti\ c of thc calculatcd function
with rcspcct to thc measurcd quantity
Two error sources should bc considcrcd: thc instrument calibration (bias) errors, and statistical crrors duc
to scattcr in rcpcatcd mcasurcmcnts of thc samc quantity. lnstrumcnt calibration crrors wcrc as follows:
Tcrnperature Et = 0 5°C (Typc T thcrmocouples)

Dclta-temperature Edt = 0.2"C (Matched typc T thcrmocouplcs)
Flow rate Ef = 1% of f l o ~ (Literslminutc)
Insolation Ei = 2'KofDNI (WattsIm2)
Statistical crror was calculated by using thc mcasurcment standard deviation multiplied by the Student's
T statistic for thc mcasurcment dcgrccs of frccdom (n mcasurcmcnts - 1 ) The two crrors can then bc
combined using the root-sum-square method for a final crror cstimatc
For this rcport, both types of m o r s wcre calculated and includcd in the data, except for the barc rcceivcr
test. Statistical crrors for the pcrformance data with thc barc rcceivcr would havc been larger becausc of
thc incrcascd mcasurement variability causcd by changing wind vclocity.
Heat Gain Errors
The following cquation was uscd in calculating heat gain (or loss):
Q = (flow ratc) * (dcnsity) * (spccific hcat) * (dclta-tcmpcraturc) (2)
Dcnsity of thc heat transfer fluid:
p = A + B (tempcraturc) + c (tcmperature)l+ D (tempcraturc)3 (3)
For water, cocfficients A. B. C and D ucrc obtaincd from an cquation fittcd to data from Kccnan and Keys
(Ref. 4); for SylthcrmO, thc cocfficients werc from Dow Corning (Rcf 1) In each case, thc tcmpcraturc
uscd was thc tcmpcraturc of thc fluid at the flow mcter For dcnsity, thc cocffcicnts arc'
Watcr Svltherm oil

A 0.9997 1 kg/L 954.0 kg/m3
B -1.42399 s -0.019
C -2.69909 x 4.25 10-4
D 0.0 -1.67 x 10-6
For spccific heat of thc heat transfer fluid, thc cquation is:
c p = E + F (tempcraturc) + G (tcmpcraturc)2 (4)
Cocfficients for spccific heat arc from the same sources as for density Thc avcragc tempcraturc of thc
fluid in thc collector's rcccivcr tube was used to cvaluatc thc equations For specific hcat, thc cocffcicnts
arc
Watcr Svlthcrm oil

E 4.0803 kJkg"C 1575 J/kg"C
F -6.379 x 1.708
G 4.487 x 10-6 0.0
For hcat gain Q, the error cquation (1) bccomcs:
Whcrc: aq/ap = Flow * Cp * dt

apl& = B + 2C * Temp + 3D * Temp'
c?cpl& = F + 2G * Temp
cjqlddt = p * Flow * Cp
aqmf = p * Cp * dt
aq1ijcp = p * Flow * dt
- fluid density, kgl m3
P
Ep = Et * 8p/&
Ecp = Et * ZcpI6t
Flow = fluid floic in m3/scc
Ef - flow mcasurcmcnt crror, m3/sec
Temp = fluid tcmpcraturc, "C
Et - tcmpcraturc mcasurcment crror, "C
dt - rcccivcr fluid dclta tcmpcrature, "C
Edt = dclta tcmperaturc measurcmcnt crror. "C
cp = fluid specific hcat. J k g "C
- Heat gain (Loss), Watts
4
Efficiencv Errors
Efficiency is derived from heat gain and input insolation.
q = heat gain I heat input = Q I insolation * collcctor aperture
E-5
For an efficiency measurement, thc crror equation is:
Where:
Eq = crror in hcat gain
Ei = crror in insolation
a, /aq = 1/ (insolation * apcrture)
aq /a, = -q / (insolation2 * aperture)
Incident Angle Modifier
lncidcnt angle modifier K is the ratio of cflicicncy pcrformancc at somc incident angle lo thc cffeiency at
zero incidcnt angle:
Thc incident anglc modificr error cquation is:
Where
Ek = Error in incidcnt anglc modificr K
EA = Error in cfficicncq at incident angle A
EO = Error i n ellicicncq at incident anglc x r o
2k/&l, = l/qo
2
ak /&lo = -q,, / qo
SamDle Efficiencv Error Analysis
Whcn thc cquations above arc cvaluatcd at 202°C inlct tempcraturc (SCC Tablc E-2), thc valucs arc:
(3 = Population Standard Deviation

Inlet tcmp = 202.41"C 0 = 0.037"C
Outlct temp = 219.39"C 0 = 0.032"C

Delta-Tcmp = 16.98"C CT = 0.042"C
Ambicnt air = 28.5"C (3 = 0.135"C
Oil flow ratc = 0.00090928 m3 /scc 0 = 0.00000122 m3 /scc

Dcnsity = 785 4 kg/m3 @? 202.4"C
Specific hcat = 1935.2 Jkg "C @ 210.9 "C
Insolation = n7n.7w/m2 (3 = 1.067 W/m2
Hcat gain Q = 598.7w/m2
E-6
= 67.1 Yo 0=0.171 %
= 0.816 "C
= 0.231 "C
= 17.8 W/m2
= 0.00000971 m3 Iscc
= 1.393 J k g "C
= -0.777 k d m 3
= 12.13
= 1382.03
= -0.9522
= 1.708
= 10.39 W/m2 gain crror
= 0.0010101
- -0.00072367
= 1.88 % cflicicncy crror
For the mcasurcment analyad abovc, 26 data mcasurcments wcre made over a pcriod of 8 minutcs. Thc
95% confidence T statistic for 26 mcasuremcnts is 2.77 1 . Including both statistical and mcasurcmcnt
errors, thc final crror cstimatc is f1.88%. If the statistical crror is not includcd, thc efficiency crror
cstimatc is f1.27%
The calculations for cstimated crror outlined abovc werc rcpeatcd for each cntry in thc data tablcs, the
rcsults arc listcd in the 'Est Error' column of each data tablc in Appendix D, and arc also uscd to sizc thc
crror bars shown on the CUNCS
Thc critical measurcmcnts which haw thc most cffcct on crror s i x arc fluid flow ratc, delta-tcmpcraturc,
and insolation A largc samplc s i x with a small standard dcviation is also ncedcd for a small error
bound, again reinforcing thc rcquircmcnt for maximum systcin stability beforc data mcasurements bcgin
References:
Dow Corning; 1985. Properties ofSyltherm 800 Heat 7rans/L.r I,iquid. Midland, Michigan.
Docbelin, E. O., 1983. Measuretnent System; Application and Design. Ncw York: McGraw-Hill, lnc
Bcvington, P. R., 1969. Data lieduction and Error Analysis f o r the Physical Sciences. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Kccnan, J H., Kcys, F. G., Hill, J. G., Moorc, J. G. 1978. Steam 7bhles. Ncw York: Wilcy-Intcrscicnce
E-7
E-8
APPENDIX F
User’s Manual for HCE-HTX Computer Program
Contents for Appendix F
Introduction ............ ........ .......... ...... F-3

. .
Program Dcscription ............................................................................................................................. F-3
Gencral Description ...... ..... ...... ........ ............................................................. F-3
Analytical Basis. ...................................................................... ......... ...... ........ F-6
Limitations ........................................................................................................................................... F-7
Convcrgencc ...... .............................................................................................. F-7
Sample Runs ........................................................................................... ......... ....... F-8
Sample Problem Input ........................................................................................................................... F-8
Samplc Problcm Output ...... ...... ............. F-9
. .
Validation Runs ............ ................................................................. F-10
Model Uscs ................... ................................................................. F-19
Rcfcrcnccs................................................................................................................ ....... F-19
Figures
F-I. HCE-HTX program flow chart .........................................................................

F-2. Effect of cmissivity on cficicncy of an HCE ....................................................
F-3. Effcct of vacuum on efficiency of an HCE ........................................................... F-20
F-4. Efficiency of an HCE with different gascs ...................................................... ...... F-20
Tables
F-1. Availablc Matcrials with Propcrty Data in HCE-HTX \:ersion 2.0 ................................................. F-6
F-2. CASE: Ccrmct - Vacuum - No Wind - DNI = 940
F-3. CASE: Cermet - Air in Annulus - No Wind - DNI
F-4. CASE: Ccrmct - Barc Annulus - No Wind - DNI = 940 W/m ........................................
F-5. CASE: Cermet - Vacuum- No Wind - No Sun ......
F-6. CASE: Cermct - Air in Annulus - N o Wind - No Sun ..... ........................................... F-15
F-7. CASE: Ccrmet - Barc Annulus - Various Wind Speeds - ..............
F- 1
Introduction
This rcport is designed to assist uscrs of thc SEGS heat collection element (HCE) heat transfer analysis
program (HCE-HTX) that was dcvcloped to support thc Sandia O&M Cost Reduction Program. Thc codc,
written under subcontract to KJC Operating Company by M. Sloan of Sloan Solar Enginccring, uses MS
QuickBasic vcrsion 4.5 (DOS language) and is bascd on analysis provided by T. Mancini of Sandia
National Laboratory. Thc coding is gcncral cnough to allow modeling of other non-SEGS typc collectors.
For examplc, Sandia has used the codc to model heat losses from parabolic trough collcctors built by
Industrial Solar Technologics (Dudlcy & Evans). The code is availablc from Sandia upon rcqucst.
This HCE-HTX manual includcs a program description and flow chart, samplc runs with output, and
comments on various program details. Material property data and a program listing arc included as
addenda.
Program DescriDtion
This section dcscribes thc current HCE-HTX code through discussion of various program featurcs,
program limitations, and a flow chart.
General Description
Thc HCE-HTX program calculatcs thc one-dimcnsional, stcady-state heat losses and HTF hcat gain per
unit length (meter) of an HCE as a function of fractional HTF flow rate, HTF bulk tcmpcraturc, and solar
conditions (direct normal insolation, datc and time). Intcrmcdiatc products of the analysis include glass
envelope and absorber tcmpcratures. In its current form, HCE-HTX v2.0 is an uncompilcd program using
MS QuickBasic v4.5 program. Casc input data are editcd dircctly into the code; future modifications
could include a more convcnicnt uscr intcrfacc if warrantcd by usage. Hencc, a typical program run
rcquircs modification to thc main rnodulc to specify thc input data and, occasionally, changcs to selcctcd
valucs in subroutincs.
Thc primary program variablcs - fractional HTF flow rate, HTF bulk temperature, and solar conditions
(direct normal insolation, sitc information, datc and time) - arc defined in thc main rnodulc, as are
output format and dcvicc (scrccn, filc, printer). Supporting material rounding out thc problcm dcscription
is supplicd in thc HCE.HTXSet. Up subroutinc. ilCI<.H7;..Set.Up provides two functions: 1) it supplies
matcrial dcfinitions (i.c. absorbcr = "Ccrmct"), dimcnsions, optical propcrtics, and ambient conditions;
and 2) it sets up the valucs for all matcrial propcrty look-up tables.
Thc hcat availablc at thc absorbcr surfacc is directly dctcrmincd within thc main module from spccificd
solar conditions and optical propcrties. Undcr steady state conditions, some portion of this cnergy will
rcsult in scnsiblc heating of thc HTF. Thc rcmaindcr of thc heat flowwill be givcn up to the environmcnt
through convcction and radiation losses.
Thc routincs rcqutrcd to perform thc heat transfcr analysis arc organixd in the subroutine
IICE i l 7 X Analym Thc methodology utilixd by in subroutine is outlincd below
METHODOLOGY
Given
0 Dircct normal insolation. sitc location, date. timc, ambicnt conditions
0
Gcomctric configuration and material property data
0 HTF flow rate and bulk inlct tempcraturc
Calculation Method
0
Assume an envelope tcmpcraturc and an absorbcr tcmperaturc
F-3
0
Itcratc for envelope tcmperature until thc nct heat flow in the evacuated rcgion of the
HCE assembly matchcs thc cxtcrnal heat loss to the environrncnt (Loop 1)
0
Calculate thc net heat loss from consideration of thc available insolation at thc HCE
absorber and thc heat gain of the HTF (Loop 2).
0 Compare heat losses from the abovc two steps and rcitcrate on these steps as necessary
until thc two heat loss calculations arc equal.
F-4
(7 START
1 1
Assume 'I cnvclopc
Calculate Material Properties

\
v
Calculate Q loss. inlcrnal 6: Q loss, cxtcrnal
Calculate Material Properties
Q 105s. 2 = loss. I
' YES
0 END
Figure F- 1. HCE-HTX program flow chart.
F-5
Analytical Basis
The methodology and algorithms that h a w bcen incorporated into thc HCE heat transfcr code were
suggcsted by Dr. Thomas Mancini of Sandia (see description in main body of this report.) As stated
previously, the model calculates thc onc-dimensional, stcady-state hcat losses and HTF heat gain per unit
lcngth (meter) of an HCE of specified dimcnsions, configuration and matcrial properties. The principal
modcl parameters include fractional HTF flow ratc, HTF bulk temperaturc, ambient solar and weather
conditions, and a dctailcd spccification of the HCE. Thc modcl accommodates several conditions of the
HCE annulus: vacuum intact, lost vacuum (air in annulus), and brokcn annulus cover @arc tube).
Additionally, thermodynamic property data for sevcral materials have bccn included and are sumrnarizcd
in Table F- 1 below.
Table F-1. Available Materials with Property Data in HCE-HTX version 2.0
Region Material Information Source
HTF: 1) Therminol VP-I Manufacturer's data (tables)

2) Syltherm 800 Manufacturer's data (equations)
Absorber: 1) Stainless Steel w/Cermet coating SNL experiment (E); KJC
2) SS w/ Black Chrome KJC
Evacuated Region: 1) Air @ spccificd prcssure lncropcra and DcWitt (tablcs); idcal gas law
2) Air @ 1 atm lncropcra and DcWitt (tablcs)
3) Hydrogen @ spccificd prcssurc Incropera and DeWitt (tables), ideal gas law
4) Argon @ spccificd prcssure Daubert and Danncr (cquations), idcal gas
law
5 ) None
Envelopc: 1) Low Iron glass w/ anti-reflcctivc KJC
2) None
Environment: 1) Air @ 1 atm lncropera and DeWitt (tablcs)
2) Air @ reduccd prcssurc Incropcra and DcWitt (tables); ideal gas law
References :
Incropera and DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat TransJer, John Wiley and Sons ( 1 98 1)
Daubert and I>anncr,Physical and 7hermodynarnic Properties of Pure Chemicals, Hemisphere Publishers ( 1989)
The material designation of "None" for the envclopc and cvacuated rcgion in Table F-1 are applicable to
conditions in which the HCE envelope is missing, resulting in a bare absorbcr, 1 e , one cxposcd to thc
ambicnt cnvironment
Other program fcaturcs include:

e provision for 2-axis tracking HCE (Sandia cxpcrimental set-up)
e provision for obstruction to bc placcd in flow to increase flow specd (Sandia cxpcrimcntal set-up)
e various code run output options and devices (screen, filc, printcr)
e LS-2 and LS-3 dimcnsions and optical efficicncies
e all convection correlations arc includcd in individual subroutincs to facilitate modifications.
Additionally, thc HCE.HTX main module contains provisions to print various program elements (lines
151-161). Among thcsc arc:
tablc listing of material property values for any specified material.
e sample solar anglc calculations including sunrise. solar noon, and sunset timcs.
tabular listing of the modificd COS(thcta) correction as a hnction of incidcncc anglc.
F-6
Limitations
The following list enumerates somc of thc limitations and simplifying assumptions inhcrcnt in HCE.HTX
v2.0. Somc items may warrant modification if a morc accuratc analysis is rcquircd:
Thc codc neglects all conduction cffccts (axial and radial) in the absorbcr and envelope. In separatc
analyscs the temperaturc diffcrcncc (AT) across the glass was calculatcd in a to bc about 4"C, thc AT
across thc thickness of thc absorbcr was much smaller.
The codc neglccts absorption in the cnvclope. An indcpcndcnt calculation has shown that inclusion
of solar absorption by the glass rcduccs thc tcmpcrature dikrcnce across thc glass by less than 1°C.
The wind corrclation uscd to detcrminc thc convectivc hcat loss of thc HCE annulus is for a circular
cylinder in cross-flow. This corrclation is inadcquatc for modeling thc wind conditions in a parabolic
trough solar field. Thc dcvclopment of improved wind analyscs has becn identificd as a futurc task of
the overall O&M study.
Thc conccntratcd solar flux that strikes 160" of the outcr surface of thc absorbcr is assumed to rcsult
in a uniform absorber tcmpcraturc for calculating hcat transfcr bctween thc receiver tube and the
glass envclope.
No film tempcraturcs are calculatcd. Thc Dittus-Bocltcr cquation, uscd to calculatc thc HTF-absorbcr
hcat transfcr, did not rcquirc thcsc quantitics. Furthermorc, while version 1 of thc HCE-HTX code
included a provision to switch from thc Dittus-Bocltcr cquation to thc Sicder-Tatc relationship for
problcms with high AT, it was decided that the Dittus-Bocltcr cquation alone would adequately model
all cxpcctcd conditions within thc HCE.
Coded matcrial property data have been partially vcrificd; a fcw errors may still rcmain. Based on thc
matcrial property data that havc bccn cxamincd, interpolation error for all properties and materials is
generally less than 2% for tcmpcratures > 0°C. Matcrial property data arc summarized in thc
addcndum.
Convergence
Dctcrmination of thc steady state onc dimcnsional heat transfcr of an HCE rcquircs the simultancous
solution to a sct of non-linear cquations Whilc this could bc achieved through a simultancous cquation
solver, thc convcrgencc methodology currcntly employed by thc modcl is bascd on a simplistic
differencing method which rcquircs uscr-spccificd cxponcnts in thc fccdback loops for iteration on both
absorbcr tcmpcraturc and envclope (glass) tcmperaturc This mcthod could bc grcatly improved, but to
datc, has not rcccivcd attcntion Sctting thc fccdback cxponcnts to vcry small valucs will gcnerally ensurc
convergcncc, but at thc cxpcnsc of longcr run timc
In practice, thc conditionals includcd in the HCE-HTX program must often be modificd to produce
convcrgcncc. Convcrgencc problcms havc bccn much more prevalent for the second iterative loop (heat
gain) since this code section is morc scnsitivc to tcmperaturc diffcrcncc than thc hcat loss itcrative loop (A
T.2 << AT, I). Sometimes thc itcrations divcrgc, other timcs thcy sct into a rccurring pattern which does
not satisfy the convcrgcncc criterion. A scquence of independent suggestions for dealing with general
convcrgcnce problcms in thc HCE.HTX.Analysis' subroutinc arc givcn below.
Loop 2 convcrgcncc problcms.

Line ## statcmcnt comment
~251 X2 = { anothcr valuc) change sccond loop fccdback cxponcnt
11231 { changc} if fcedback valucs arc ncgativc
I1091 T.absorber = { anothcr valuc} changc absorbcr tcmpcraturc initial value
* Thc linc numbers listcd bclow may vary slightly from those in the currcnt working vcrsion of thc codc.
F-7
[I161 DO WHILE Q.diffcrcnce.2 > {higher valuc) loosen loop.2 convcrgence rcquirement
Loop 1 convergcnce problems:

I1421 X1 = {another value} change 1st loop fcedback cxponcnt
T.absorbcr = {another value} change envelopc tempcrature initial value
I1371 WHILE Q.diffcrencc. 1 > { highcr value} looscn loop. 1 convcrgencc rcquirement
SarnDle Runs
This section walks through a sample problem, dcscribing the steps rcquired to specify inpuUoutput, run
the program, and examine output for convcrgcnce.
Sample Problem Input (Cermet - No Glass - 15 MPH wind speed)
1) Load MS QuickBasic v. 4.5 (Some problems may bc encountered if working with diffcrent Basic
language softwarc packages)
2) Open HCE-HTX.BAS
3) Edit HCE-HTX.BAS main modulc to dcfine problem

(statcments from lincs 101-138 which bcgin in column 6 are often modificd.
Thc QuickBasic display in the lowcr right corncr of thc scrccn gives the currcnt cursor
position as line #:column #, i.c. N 00101:006 = line 101; column 6)
Line # statement comment
1lOlI print.flag = 3 prints sample 1st loop and all 2nd loop iterations
[lo91 output.devicc$ = "SCRN:" output to computcr scrccn
11201 delay.length = . 1 slows down output to scrccn for readability
case$ = "No Glass - 15 MPH" dcfinc case namc
I 1 29-1 381 {various} modify sitc info, flow, NIP, time as nccessary
I1781 FOR xx = 25 to 375 STEP 50 define HTF ternperaturc range
4) Sclcct HCE.HTX.Set. Up as the currcnt program item (USCthe F2 key)
5 ) Edit the I-ICL;.HLYS'et.Up subroutine to complete thc problem definition

(statcmcnts from lines 28-102 may bc modificd)
Line # statcment comment
[351 evacuated$ = "None" appropriatc for "No Glass" case
1411 envclopc$ = "Nonc" appropriate for "No Glass" case
1791 wind.spced = 15 * ,44704 set wind specd = 15 MPH; factor convcrts to m / s
6) RUN (use shift-FS scqucnce; use PAUSE kcy as neccssary to examinc output)
For "No Glass" cascs, the cnvelopc tempcraturc is set equal to thc iterative guess for absorbcr temperature;
undcr "Analysis of HCE Hcat Loss Mcchanisms," thc feedback and cvacuatcd hcat transfer tcrms should
bc zero, Thc "HCE Hcat Loss dcrived from Availablc Insolation - HTF Heat Gain" table shows the results
of thc second iterative loop. Most convcrgencc problems arc easily recognizable from vicwing this
tabulation - the fifth column, Q.dif, should convergc toward a sufliciently small number and exit to the
"Summary Results" output section. Suggcstions for dealing with convergcncc and other problcms are
outlincd in scction 5.0.
7) If RUN is satisfactorj, modify to write summary to file.
F-8
Line # statement comment
[loll print.flag = 1 prints summary results only
[io91 output.devicc$ = "FILE" output to file
~ 1 7 1 output.file.name$ = "HTX-6" assign output file name
8) RUN (shift-FS)
Sample Problem Output (Cermet - No Glass - 15 MPH wind speed, NIP = 940;
print.flag = 2)
............................................................................
HCE Heat Transfer Analysis
..............................................................................
CASE: No Glass - Wind = 15 Site: Albuquerque, NM

Date of Analysis: 08-12-1993 Lat: 35.050 N
Long: 106.620 W
HCE Type: LS-2

HTF: Syltherm 800 Flow (gpm): 14 ( 10.0%)
Absorber: S S - Cermet - as new Absorptivity : .905
Emissivity @ 350C: .1378
I.D. / O.D.(mm): 66 / 70
Annulus: None Pressure (torr): N.A.
I.D. / O.D. (mm): N.A. / N.A.
Envelope: None Absorptivity: N.A.
Transmissivity: N.A.
..............................................................................
HCE Heat Loss derived from Available Insolation - HTF Heat Gain
# # T.abs T.env Q.dif Qloss.2 Qloss.1 Qloss.2 Q.gain Q. sun DT.2 DT.1
2 1 (C) (C) (W/m) /Qlossl (W/m) (W/m) (W/m) (W/m) (C) (C)
--- - _____ ___-_ _____ ------- ------- - --- - - - ______ _____ ____ ____
1 1 153 153 678 0.284 947 2 69 3220 3489 31 131
2 1 148 148 84 0.908 9c9 825 2663 3489 26 126
3 1 147 147 38 0.958 906 868 2621 3489 25 125
4 1 147 147 18 0.980 905 887 2602 3489 25 125
5 1 147 147 9 0.990 904 896 2593 3489 25 125
6 1 147 147 4 0.995 904 900 2589 3489 25 125
7 1 147 147 2 0.998 904 902 2587 3489 25 125
8 1 147 147 1 0.999 904 903 2586 3489 25 125
9 1 147 147 0 0.999 904 903 2585 3489 25 125
10 1 147 147 0 1.000 904 904 2585 3489 25 125
11 1 147 147 0 1.000 904 904 2585 3489 25 125
12 1 147 147 0 1.000 904 904 2585 3489 25 125
Summary Results No Glass - Wind = 15

_______________
Temperatures Emiss Opt Heat Heat Internal External HTF DT
T,blk T,abs T,env Abs Eff Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (w/m) (w/m) ( % ) (%) (%) (%) (gpm) ( C )
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ ----- --- --- --- --- --- ---
122 147 147 0.071 0.769 2585 904 0 0 2 9 8 14 57.0
F-9
Validation Runs
This section contains the dctails of thc computcr runs that wcrc performed to validatc thc HCE-HTX
model with the expcrimcntal data. This comparison is furthcr described in the main body of this rcport.
Computcr runs havc also becn included for a bare absorber subjcct to various wind specds. For thesc
modeled wind cascs, wind spccd is refercnccd at the absorbcr surface and assumcs cross flow conditions.
Although Sandia conductcd numcrous tests to examine thc rclationship bctwcen wind spccd and HCE heat
loss, the paramctcrs monitored during cxpcrimcnt wcrc different than the wind modeling parameters
includcd in thc HCE-HTX code. That is, the Sandia wind spccd is given by an anemomctcr locatcd I O m
above ground and 30 m wcst of thc tcst platform, whcreas thc HCE modcl is concerncd with the wind
velocity at thc HCE itsclf, For this rcason, it is not meaningful to prcscnt a dircct comparison betwcen thc
Sandia tcst results and the modeled wind cases. If warrantcd, the correlation betwecn wind and HCE heat
loss may be examined in the future.
HCE-HTX output is provided for the following::
CERMET- FULL SUN CASES (Dircct Normal lrradiancc = 940 W/m2)

1) Vacuum annulus (Table 2)
2) Ambicnt air in annulus (Tablc 3)
3) Bare annulus (Table 4)
CERMET - NO SUN CASES

1) Vacuum annulus (Tablc 5)
2) Ambient air in annulus (Tablc 6)
3) Rare annulus; appcndcd with bare annulus c a m with wind = 2 , 4 , 6, 8, and 10 m / s (Tablc 7)
F-IO
Table F-2. CASE: Cermet - Vacuum - No Wind - DNI = 940 W/m2
............................................................................
............................................................................
CASE: C e r m e t - Vacuum - No Wind Site: Albuquerque, NM

Long: 106.620 W
Input Parameters
----___--_______
HCE Type: LS-2
Absorber: S S - Cermet - as new Absorptivity : .905
Emissivity @ 3 5 0 C : .1378
I.D. / O.D. ( m m ) : 66 / 70
Annulus: Air Pressure (torr): 1 . 0 0 0 D - 0 4
I.D. / O.D.(mm): 109 / 115
Envelope: Low-Iron Glass - AR Absorptivity : .02
Transmissivity: .95
Wind Ambnt S kY
NIP Solar Date Hour Theta POA Speed Temp Temp
(W/m2) (PST) (deg) (W/m2) (m/s) (F) (F)
______ ____-____-__ -____ ____- _-____ ------ ---___ ______
940 06-21-1992 12.0 11.6 920.8 0.0 71.6 57.2
............................................................................
Summary Results Cermet - Vacuum - No Wind

___-______-____
Temperatures Emiss Opt Heat Heat Internal External HTF Eff

T,blk T,abs T,env A b s Ef f Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow NIP
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (W/m) (w/m) (%) (8) (8) (S) (gpm) ( % )
- - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _- _ _ _ - _--__ _____ _____ ___ ___ --_ --_ -_ - ----
47 90 19 0.053 0.731 3308 7 96 4 143 -43 14 73.0
97 131 22 0.066 0.731 3298 16 98 2 100 0 14 72.7
147 176 27 0.081 0.731 3281 33 99 1 83 17 14 72.4
197 223 35 0.096 0.731 3252 62 99 1 73 27 14 71.7
247 271 46 0.112 0.731 3206 108 99 1 67 33 14 70.7
297 319 60 0.128 0.731 3138 177 100 0 63 37 14 69.2
347 368 78 0.144 0.731 3038 277 100 0 62 38 14 67.0
397 418 100 0.160 0.731 2898 417 100 0 62 38 14 63.9
F-11
Table F-3. CASE: Cermet - Air in Annulus - No Wind - DNI = 940 W/m2
............................................................................
............................................................................
CASE: C e n n e t - Air in Annulus - No Wind Site: Albuquerque, NM

Date of Analysis: 0 8 - 1 2 - 1 9 9 3 Lat: 35.050 N
Long: 106.620 w
Input Parameters
-__--___--____-_
HCE Type: LS-2
HTF: Syltherm 8 0 0 Flow (gpm): 1 4 ( 1 0 . 0 % )
Absorber: S S - Cermet - as new Absorptivity: . 9 0 5
I.D. / O.D. (nun): 66 / 70
Annulus: Air Pressure (torr): 6 . 2 9 3 D t 0 2
I . D . / O.D. ( m m ) : 109 / 115
Envelope: Low-Iron Glass - AR Absorptivity: . 0 2
Transmissivity: . 9 5
............................................................................
Summary Results Cermet - Air in Annulus - No Wind

__-___-________
Temperatures Emis s OP t Heat Heat Internal External HT F Eff

T , b l k T,abs T,env AbS Ef f Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow NIP
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (w/m) (w/m) ( % ) ( % ) (8) (%) (9Pd (%I
--_-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ __-__ ___ --- ___ --- ___ __--
47 89 32 0.052 0.731 3 2 62 53 11 89 75 25 14 71.9
97 131 42 0.066 0.731 3221 94 15 85 68 32 14 71.0
147 175 54 0.081 0.731 3168 146 20 80 64 36 14 69.9
197 222 66 0.096 0.731 3103 211 26 74 63 37 14 68.4
247 269 81 0.111 0.731 3022 293 34 66 62 38 14 66.6
297 318 97 0.127 0.731 2920 395 41 59 62 38 14 64.4
347 366 115 0.143 0.731 2790 524 49 51 63 31 14 61.5
397 416 137 0.159 0.731 2624 690 57 43 64 36 14 57.9
F-12
Table F-4. CASE: Cermet - Bare Annulus - No Wind - DNI = 940 W/m2
............................................................................
............................................................................
CASE: C e r m e t - Bare - No Wind Site: Albuquerque, NM

Date of Analysis: 0 8 - 1 2 - 1 9 9 3 Lat: 35.050 N
Long: 106.620 W
Input Parameters
-----________-_-
HCE Type: LS-2
HTF: Syltherm 8 0 0 Flow (gpm): 14 ( 10.0%)
Absorber: SS - Cermet - as new Absorptivity : .905
Emissivity @ 3 5 0 C : .1378
I.D. / O.D. ( m m ) : 66 / 7 0
I.D. / O.D. (mm): N.A. / N.A.
Envelope: None Absorptivity: N.A.
Wind Ambnt Sky

NIP Solar Date Hour Theta POA Speed Temp Temp
(W/m2) (PST) (deg) (W/m2) (m/s) (F) (F)
______ __________-_ --- - _ ----- - --- - - - _ - - -- ------ _ -- - - -
940 06-21-1992 12.0 11.6 920.8 0.0 71.6 57.2
............................................................................
Summary Results Cermet - Bare - No Wind

__-___---------

T,blk T,abs T,env Abs Ef f Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow NIP
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (w/m) (8) (%) (%) (%) (gpm) ( S )
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ----- _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ _ _ ___--___ _-- - _ _ ___ --- ----
47 91 91 0.053 0.769 3389 100 0 0 7 93 14 74.7
97 131 131 0.066 0.769 3309 180 0 0 9 91 14 73.0
147 176 176 0.081 0.769 3209 280 0 0 12 88 14 70.8
197 222 222 0.096 0.769 3090 399 0 0 16 84 14 68.1
247 269 269 0.111 0.769 2949 540 0 0 20 80 14 65.0
297 317 317 0.127 0.769 2780 709 0 0 25 75 14 61.3
347 365 365 0.143 0.769 2577 912 0 0 31 69 14 56.8
397 414 414 0.159 0.769 2330 1159 0 0 37 63 14 51.4
F-13
Table F-5. CASE: Cermet - Vacuum - No Wind - No Sun
............................................................................
............................................................................
CASE: Cermet - Vacuum - No Sun/Wind Site: Albuquerque, NM

Long: 106.620 W
Input Parameters
_______________-
HCE Type: LS-2
Absorber: S S - Cermet - as new Absorptivity: .905
I.D. / O.D. ( m m ) : 66 / 70
Annulus: Air Pressure (torr): 1.000D-04
I.D. / O.D.(mm): 109 / 115
Envelope: Low-Iron Glass - AR Absorptivity: . 0 2
Transmissivity: .95
............................................................................
Summary Results Cermet - Vacuum - No Sun/Wind

_____________--
T,blk T,abs T,env Abs Ef f Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow NIP
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (W/m) (W/m) (%) (%) (%) (%) (gpm) ( % )
_---_ -_-__ _____ ____- --_-- --_-_ __--_ ___ ___ -__ ___ - -- -- - -
47 47 17 0.050 0.731 -2 2 95 5 307 -207 14 0.0
97 97 19 0.055 0.731 -8 8 97 3 130 -30 14 0.0
147 147 24 0.071 0.731 -21 21 98 2 94 6 14 0.0
197 197 30 0.088 0.731 -45 44 99 1 78 22 14 0.0
247 246 40 0.104 0.731 -82 82 99 1 69 31 14 0.0
297 296 52 0.120 0.731 -141 141 100 0 65 35 14 0.0
347 345 69 0.136 0.731 -225 225 100 0 63 37 14 0.0
397 394 89 0.152 0.731 -344 344 100 0 62 38 14 0.0
F-14
Table F-6. CASE: Cermet - Air in Annulus - No Wind - No Sun
............................................................................
............................................................................
CASE: Cermet - Air in A n n u l u s - No Sun/Wind Site: Albuquerque, NM

Long: 106.620 W
Input Parameters
______-________-
HCE Type: LS-2
Absorber: SS - Cermet - as new Absorptivity: .905
I.D. / O.D. ( m m ) : 66 / 70
Annulus: Air Pressure (torr): 6.293D+02
I . D . / O.D.(mm): 109 / 115
Envelope: Low-Iron Glass - AR Absorptivity: .02
Transmissivity: .95
............................................................................
Summary Results Cermet - Air in Annulus - No Sun/Wind

------_-_______
Temperatures Emi ss Opt Heat Heat HT F Ef f

T,blk T,abs T,env AbS Ef f Gain Loss flow NIP
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) W/m) (W/m) (gpm)
----- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ----- - _ - _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _( _%_) _
47 47 23 0.050 0.731 -18 18 10 90 97 3 14 0.0
97 96 34 0.055 0.731 -59 59 11 89 73 27 14 0.0
147 146 46 0.071 0.731 -110 110 16 84 66 34 14 0.0
197 195 59 0.087 0.731 -173 173 23 77 64 36 14 0.0
247 245 73 0.103 0.731 -249 249 30 70 62 38 14 0.0
297 294 89 0.119 0.731 -342 342 38 62 62 38 14 0.0
347 343 106 0.135 0.731 -459 459 45 55 62 38 14 0.0
397 392 126 0.151 0.731 -604 604 53 47 63 37 14 0.0
F-15
Table F-7. CASE: Cermet - Bare Annulus - Various Wind Speeds - No Sun
............................................................................
HCE Heat Transfer Ar.alysis
............................................................................
CASE: Cermet - B a r e - No Sun/Wind Site: Albuquerque, NM

Long: 106.620 W
Input Parameters
________________
HCE Type: LS-2
HTF: Syltherm 800 Flow (gpm): 14 ( 10.0'6)
Absorber: S S - Cermet - as new Absorptivity: .905
I.D. / O.D. ( m m ) : 66 / 70
I.D. / O.D. ( m m ) : N.A. / N.A.
Envelope: None Absorptivity : N.A.
............................................................................
S u m m a r y Results Cermet - B a r e - No Sun/Wind

___________-___
Temperatures Emiss OP t Heat Heat Internal External HTF Eff
T,blk T,abs T,env Abs Ef f Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow N I P
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (W/m) (W/m) ( % ) (%) (8) (%) (gpm) ( e )
_ _ - - -- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ -____ _____ _-___ ___ ___ -__ _-_ ___ ----
47 46 46 0.050 0.769 -28 28 0 0 8 92 14 0.0
97 95 95 0.054 0.769 -109 109 0 0 7 93 14 0.0
147 144 144 0.071 0.769 -208 208 0 0 10 90 14 0.0
197 194 194 0.087 0.769 -324 324 0 0 14 86 14 0.0
247 243 243 0.103 0.769 -459 459 0 0 18 82 14 0.0
297 291 291 0.119 0.769 -617 617 0 0 23 77 14 0.0
347 340 340 0.134 0.769 -802 802 0 0 28 72 14 0.0
397 388 388 0.150 0.769 -1022 1022 0 0 34 66 14 0.0
F-16
Table F-7. CASE: Cermet - Bare Annulus - Various Wind Speeds - No Sun (Continued)
Bare Annulus: WIND = 2 m/s
Temperatures Emiss Opt Heat Heat Internal External HTF Ef f

T,blk T,abs T,env Abs Eff Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow N I P
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (W/m) W/m) (%) (8) (%) (8) (gpm) ( % )
----- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _____ _____ ___ ___ --_ ___ --- _---
47 45 45 0.050 0.769 -83 83 0 0 3 97 14 0.0
97 93 93 0.054 0 . 7 6 9 -250 251 0 0 3 97 14 0.0
147 142 142 0.070 0.769 -421 421 0 0 5 95 14 0.0
197 191 191 0.086 0 . 7 6 9 -598 598 0 0 7 93 14 0.0
247 239 239 0.102 0 . 7 6 9 -785 786 0 0 10 90 14 0.0
297 288 288 0.117 0 . 7 6 9 -992 992 0 0 14 86 14 0.0
347 336 336 0.133 0 . 7 6 9 -1230 1230 0 0 18 82 14 0.0
397 384 384 0.149 0 . 7 6 9 -1498 1499 0 0 22 78 14 0.0
Temperatures Emiss Opt Heat Heat Internal External HTF Ef f

T,blk T,abs T,env Abs Eff Gain LOS s rad conv rad conv flow N I P
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (W/m) (W/m) (%I (%) (%) (%) (gpm) ( % )
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _____ _____ ___ _-- ___ ___ __- __--
47 45 45 0.050 0.769 -122 123 0 0 2 98 14 0.0
97 91 91 0.053 0.769 -371 371 0 0 2 98 14 0.0
147 139 139 0.069 0.769 -623 623 0 0 3 97 14 0.0
197 188 188 0.085 0.769 -880 880 0 0 5 95 14 0.0
247 236 236 0.100 0.769 -1144 1144 0 0 7 93 14 0.0
297 284 284 0.116 0.769 -1420 1421 0 0 9 91 14 0.0
347 332 332 0.132 0.769 -1715 1715 0 0 12 88 14 0.0
397 379 379 0.147 0.769 -2031 2031 0 0 16 84 14 0.0
Temperatures Emi ss Opt Heat Heat Internal External HT F Ef f

T,blk T,abs T,env Ab5 Ef f Gain Loss rad conv rad conv flow N I P
(N/m) ( 8 ) ( % ) (gpm) ( % I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -(1)
(C) (C) (C) (1) (W/m) (%) (%)
-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - --- -__ ___ --- ----
47 44 44 0.050 0.769 -153 153 0 0 1 99 14 0.0
97 90 90 0.053 0.769 -465 4 65 0 0 1 99 14 0.0
147 137 137 0.068 0.769 -782 782 0 0 2 98 14 0.0
197 185 185 0.084 0.769 -1103 1103 0 0 4 96 14 0.0
247 233 233 0.100 0.769 -1429 1429 0 0 5 95 14 0.0
297 281 281 0.115 0.769 -1766 1766 0 0 7 93 14 0.0
347 328 328 0.131 0.769 -2116 2116 0 0 10 90 14 0.0
397 375 375 0.146 0.769 -2485 2485 0 0 12 88 14 0.0
F-17
Table F-7. CASE: Cermet - Bare Annulus - Various Wind Speeds - No Sun (Concluded)
Temperatures Emi s s Opt Heat Heat Internal External HTF Ef f

T,blk T,abs T,env A b S Eff Gain LOSS rad conv rad conv flow N I P
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (W/m) (W/m) (%I (8) (8) (8) (gpm) ( % )
_ _ - - -_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ - _ - _ __--- __- ___ ___ __- ___ -___
47 43 43 0.050 0.769 -178 178 0 0 1 99 14 0.0
97 89 89 0.052 0.769 -544 544 0 0 1 99 14 0.0
147 136 136 0.068 0.769 -917 917 0 0 2 98 14 0.0
197 183 183 0.083 0.769 -1293 1293 0 0 3 97 14 0.0
247 231 231 0.099 0.769 -1674 1674 0 0 4 96 14 0.0
297 278 278 0.114 0.769 -2062 2063 0 0 6 94 14 0.0
347 325 325 0.130 0.769 -2462 2462 0 0 8 92 14 0.0
397 371 371 0.145 0.769 -2876 2876 0 0 10 90 14 0.0

Temperatures Emiss Opt Heat Heat I nt erna 1 External HT F Eff
T,blk T,abs T,env Abs Eff Gain LOSS rad conv rad conv flow NIP
(C) (C) (C) (1) (1) (W/m) (W/m) ( % ) (%) (%) (e) (gpm)
___ ____
_ _ - - -_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _---- _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ --- -_-
47 43 43 0.050 0.769 -200 200 0 0 1 99 14 0.0
97 88 88 0.052 0.769 -614 614 0 0 1 99 14 0.0
147 134 134 0.067 0.769 -1036 1036 0 0 2 98 14 0.0
197 181 181 0.083 0.769 -1462 1463 0 0 3 97 14 0.0
247 229 229 0.098 0.769 -1892 1892 0 0 4 96 14 0.0
297 276 276 0.114 0.769 -2327 2327 0 0 5 95 14 0.0
347 323 323 0.129 0.769 -2771 2771 0 0 7 93 14 0.0
397 368 368 0.144 0.769 -3225 3225 0 0 9 91 14 0.0
F-18
Model Uses
Thc HCE model can be used to examinc thc effect of various operating conditions on thc effcctivencss of
an HCE. In an operating SEGS plant, this knowledge will then permit a trade-off analysis comparing the
cost of HCE repair or rcplacement against the cost of loss revcnues if no repair is carried out.
Figures F-2 through F-4 have bcen gcncrated to illustratc the effccts of several paramcters. The rcfercncc
case for all thc plots is an LS-3 HCE with a new ccrmct selectivc surface (1: = 0.14 at 350°C) and full
vacuum in the annulus (Le., torr). Thc plots show the effect on thermal eflicicncy of highcr
emissivities, of a degradation in vacuum lcvcl within the annulus, and of the prcscnce of different gases in
an HCE with lost vacuum (Le., at 1 atmospherc prcssurc). The vacuum level in Figure F-3 has bcen given
in atmosphercs in order to compare to ambient prcssure (for refcrcnce, torr = 1.31 atmospheres).
References
Dudley, V. E. and Lindsey R. Evans, lest Results: Industrial Solar Technology Solar Collector, Draft
report, To be published.
F-19
t- 0 0.1 0.2
Emissivity
03 0.4 0.s
Figure F-2. Effect of emissivity on cfficiency of an I-ICE.
100
8 RO
z
C
-
al
u
E
: t
I
0 6 0
40
Figure F-3. Effect of vacuum on cficiency of an HCE.
._
..
90 1 I
f j
5 80 '
E 70 i
l
c
9
1 I
Gas and Pressure

-
Figurc F-4 Efficiency of an HCE with diffcrcnt gascs
F-20
Attn: David Hagen Bechtcl National, Inc.
I34 Kitchener Street Attn: Stuart Fry
Garran, ACT 2605, AUSTRALIA 50 Beale Street
50/15 D8
P.O. Box 193965
3M - Solar Optics Program San Francisco, CA 94 I 19-3965
Attn: Paul Jaster
3M Center
Building 225-2N-06 Bechtel National, Inc.
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 Attn: Bruce Kelly
50 Beale Street
45/26 D8
Acurex Corporation P.O. Box 193965
Attn: Hans Dehne San Francisco, CA 94 1 19-3965
555 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View. CA 94039
Bureau of Reclamation
Attn: Stanley Hightower
Acurex Corporation Code D-37 I O
Attn: John Schaeffer P.O. Box 205007
555 Clyde Avenue Denver, CO 80225
Mountain View, CA 94039
California Energy Commission

Advanced Thermal Systems Attn: Alec Jenkins
Attn: Dave Gorman Energy Technology Development Div. R&D Office
7600 East Arapahoe Road, Suite 2 15 15 16 9th Street
Englewood, CO 80 I 12 MS-43
Sacramento, CA 958 14-55 12
Arizona Public Service Co

Attn: Scott McLellan California Polytechnic State University
P.O. Box 53999 Attn: William B. Stine
MS 1424 Department of Mechanical Engineering
Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999 3801 West Tcmple Avenue
Pomona. CA 9 1768-4062
Australian National University

Attn: Stephen Kaneff Carrizo Solar Corporation
R. S. Phy. Sc Attn: John Kusianovich
Energy Research Centre P.O. Box 10239
Canberra, ACT 260 I , AUSTRALIA I O I 1 -C Sawmill Road NW
Albuquerque, NM 87 184-0239
Bechtel National, Inc.

Ann: Pat DeLaquil Central and Southwest Services
50 Beale Street Attn: E.L. Gastineau
50/15 D8 16 16 Woodall Rogers Freeway
P.O. Box 193965 MS 7RES
San Francisco, CA 94 1 19-3965 Dallas, TX 75202
Dist-1
Daggett Leasing Corporation Electric Power Research Institute
Attn: Bill Ludlow Attn: Doug Morris
35 100 Santa Fe St. P.O. Box 10412
P.O. Box 373 3412 Hillview Avenue
Daggett, CA 92327 Palo Alto. CA 94303
Daggett Leasing Corporation Electric Power Research Institute

Attn: Wayne Luton Ann: J. Schaeffer
35 100 Santa Fe St. P.O. Box 104 12
P.O. Box 373 3412 Hillview Avenue
Daggett, CA 92327 Palo Alto, CA 94303
Daggett Leasing Corporation Flachglas Solartechnik GmbH

Ann: Eric Wills Attn: M. Geyer
35 100 Santa Fe St. Theodor-Heuss-Ring 1
P.O. Box 373 5000 Koln 1, GERMANY
Daggett, CA 92327
Florida Solar Energy Center

D E 0 Enterprises Attn: Library
Attn: Dave Ochenrider 300 State Road, Suite 40 I
P.O. Box 21 I O Cape Canaveral, FL 32920-4099
Helendale, CA 92342
Idaho Power
DLR Attn: Jerry Young
Attn: Berthold Obeile P.O. Box 70
Pfaffenwaldring 38-40 Boise, ID 83707
7000 Stuttgart 80, GERMANY
Industrial Solar Technology

DLR - Cologne, MD-ET Attn: Randy Gee
Ann: Manfred Becker 5775 W. 52nd Avenue
Linder Hohe Denver, CO 802 12
P.O. Box 90 60 58
DS000
Koln 90, GERMANY Institute of Gas Technology
Ann: Library
34245 State Street
DLR - Cologne, MD-ET Chicago, 1L 60616
Attn: Klaus Hennecke
Linder Hohe
P.O. Box 90 60 58 Jenna Baskets
D5000 Attn: Dick Holl
Koln 90, GERMANY 1938 A Avenita Del Oro
Oceansidc, CA 92056
Dist-2
Kearney & Associates Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources
Attn: David W. Kearney ( 5 ) Attn: Narendra Singh
14022 Condessa Drive BlockNo. 14
Del Mar, CA 920 I4 CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi. I10003 INDIA
KJC Operating Company
Attn: Gilbert Cohen ( 5 )
4 1 100 Highway 395 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Boron, CA 935 I6 Attn: M.Bohn
16 17 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393
Kramer Junction Company
Attn: Stuart Lawson
900 19th St. NW National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Suite 600 Attn: Hank Price (2)
Washington, DC 20006 16 I7 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393
Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power

Attn: Daryll Yonamine National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Alternate Energy Systcms Attn: Tim Wendelin
1 1 I North Hope Street, Rm. 661A 16 17 Cole Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 900 I2 Golden, CO 80401-3393
McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Attn: Bob Drubka Attn: Tom Williams
530 1 Bolsa Avenue 16 I7 Cole Blvd.
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-2048 Golden, CO 8040 1-3393
Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources Nevada Power Co.

Attn: S.K. Gupta Attn: Eric Dominguez
BlockNo. 14 P.O. Box 230
CGO Complex Las Vegas, NV 89 15 1
Lodhi Road
New Delhi, 110003 INDIA
Plataforma Solar de Almeria
Attn: Manuel Sanchez
Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources Aptdo. 7
Attn: R.S. Sharma Tabernas
BlockNo. 14 Almeria, E-04200 SPAIN
CGO Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi, 110003 INDIA Power Kinetics, Inc.
Attn: W.E. Rogers
4 15 River Strcct
Troy, NY 12 180-2822
Dist-3
Renewable Energy Training Institute Schlaich, Bergermann & Partner
Attn: Kevin Porter Attn: W. Schiel
122 C St. NW, Suite 520 Hohenzollernstr. 1
Washington, DC 2000 1 D-7000 Stuttgart 1, GERMANY
Rockwell International Corp. Science Applications International Corp.

Attn: Bob Musica Attn: Kelly Beninga
Energy Technology Engineering Center 15000 W. 6th Avenue
P.O. Box 1449 Suite 202
Canoga Park, CA 9 1304 Golden, CO 8040 I
Rockwell International Corp. Science Applications International Corp.

Attn: Bill Wahl Attn: Barry L. Butler
P.O. Box 7922 Room 2043, M/S C2J
6633 Canoga Avenue 10260 Campus Point Dr.
Canoga Park, CA 9 1309-7922 San Diego, CA 92 I2 1
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Science Applications International Corp.

Attn: Bud Beebee Attn: Dave Smith
Generation Systems Planning 15000 W. 6th Avenue
Power Systems Dept. Suite 202
620 1 'S' St. Golden, CO 8040 1
P.O. Box 15830
Sacramento, CA 95852- 1830
Sloan Engineering
Attn: Michael Sloan
Sacramento Municipal Utility District 4306 Rarnsey Ave.
Attn: Don Osborne Austin, TX 78756
Generation Systems Planning
Power Systems Dept.
620 1 'S' St. Solar Energy Industries Association
P.O. Box 15830 Attn: Ken Shcinkopf
Sacramento, CA 95852- 1830 122 C Street, NW
4th Floor
Washington, DC 2000 1-2109
Salt River Project
Attn: Bob Hess
Research and Development Solar Energy Industries Association
P.O. Box 52025 Attn: Scott Sklar
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025 122 C Street., N W
4th Floor
Washington, DC 2000 1-2 109
Salt River Project
Attn: Ernie Palomino
Research and Development Solar Kinetics, Inc.
P.O. Box 52025 Attn: Gus Hutchinson
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025 10635 King William Drive
P.O. Box 540636
Dallas, TX 75354-0636
Dist-4
Solel Solar Systems, Ltd. U.S. Department of Energy
Attn: Har Hotzvim Attn: Bob Martin
Science-Based Park Golden Field Office
P.O. Box 23577 I6 17 Cole Boulevard
Jerusalem, 9 I234 ISRAEL Golden, CO 8040 I
South Coast AQMD UC Operating Services

Attn: Ranji George Attn: Dianne Mathis
2 1865 Copley Drive 43880 Harper Lake Road
Diamond Bar, CA 9 1765 Hinkley, CA 92347
Southern California Edison Co. Union of Concerned Scientists

Ann: Mark Skowronski Attn: Donald Aitken
P.O. Box 800 20 100 Skyline Boulevard
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Woodside. CA 94062
Rosemead, CA 9 1770
University of Houston
Southern California Edison Co. Attn: Lorin Vant-Hull
Attn: Paul Sutherland Energy Laboratory 5505
P.O. Box 800 4800 Calhoun Road
2 I3 I Walnut Grove Avenue Houston, TX 77004
Rosemead, CA 9 1770
University of Nevada at Las Vegas

Spencer Management Associates Attn: Bob Boehm
Attn: Byron J. Washom (5) Dept. of Mech. Engr.
P.O. Box 724 4505 Maryland Parkway
Diablo, CA 94528-0724 P.O. Box 454027
Las Vegas, N V 89 154-4027
U.S. Department of Energy

Attn: Dan Alpert Weizmann Institute of Science
2140 L Street, #709 Attn: Michael Epstein
Washington, DC 20037- IS30 P.O. Box 26
Rehovot, 76 IO0 ISRAEL
U.S. Department of Energy

Attn: R. (Bud) Annan (2) Weizmann Institute of Science
Code EE- 13 Attn: Doron Lieberman
Forrestal Building P.O. Box 26
1000 Independence Ave. SW Rehovot, 76 IO0 ISRAEL
Washington, DC 20585
Zentrum f. Sonnenenergie-und Wasserstoff-Forschung

U.S. Department of Energy Attn: Lippke
Attn: Gary Burch (5) P.O. Box 80 1 149
Code EE- I32 Stuttgart, D-705 I 1 1 GERMANY
Forrestal Building
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Dist-5
Zentrum f. Sonnenenergie-und Wasserstoff-Forschung
Ann: Rheinlander
P.O. Box 801 I49
Stuttgart, D-705 1 1 1 GERMANY
Internal Distribution:
MS 0100 Document Proc. for DOE/OSTI, 7613-2 (2)

(2)
MS 0610 Technical Publications, 12613
MS 0702 D.E. Arvizu, 6200
MS 0703 J.R. Anderson, 62 16
MS 0703 C.E. Andraka, 62 16
MS 0703 C. W. Bennett, 62 I6
MS 0703 R.B. Diver, 62 16
MS 0703 L.R. Evans, 62 16
MS 0703 D.R. Gallup, 6216
MS 0703 G.J. Kolb, 6216 ( I O )
MS 0703 F. Lippke, 62 16
MS 0703 T.R. Mancini, 62 16
MS 0703 D.F. Menicucci, 62 16
MS 0703 J.B. Moreno, 62 I6
MS 0703 T.A. Moss, 6216
MS 0703 J.E. Pacheco, 62 16
MS 0703 M.R. Prairie, 62 16
MS 0703 C.E. Tyner, 62 16
MS 0704 P.C. Klimas, 620 1
MS 0724 D.L. Hartley, 6000
MS 0899 Technical Library, 134 14 (5)
MS 1127 J.M. Chavez, 62 15
MS I I27 V.E. Dudley, 62 15 (2)
MS 1127 Library, 62 15 (5)
MS 1127 A.R. Mahoney, 62 15
MS 1127 C. W. Matthews, 62 15
MS 9014 S. Faas, 5371
MS 9018 Central Technical Files, 8523-2
MS 9402 S. Goods, 87 14
MS 9403 B. Bradshaw, 87 I6
Dist-6

Experimental Results Dudley

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental Results Dudley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Test Results

SEGS LS-2 Solar Collector

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from

Priccs availablc from (6 15) 576-840 1. FTS 626-840 1

Availablc to thc public from

NTIS pricc codcs

SEGS LS-2 Solar Collector

Testing of SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collcctor ....................................................................................... 1

Analytical Modcling of SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collector ................................................................. 15

Model Description ..................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix A: Thc SEGS LS-2 Tcst Articlc .......................................................................................... A-1

1. Acrial View of SEGS Plants at Kramcr Junction. Californ ................................................ 2

2. Rotating Test Platform at Sandia National Laboratorics .... ................................................ 3

3. Hcat collcction clcment ..............................................

6. Black Chrome Efficicncy Comparison - Air vs . Vacuum 8

7. Black Chrome Thermal Losscs with Air and Vacuum ................................................................. 9

8. Efficiency Comparison of LS-2 Ccrmet and Black Chrome Rcccivers ........................................ 10

9. Thermal Loss Comparison of LS-2 Black Chrome and Ccrmct Rcceivcrs

10. Incidcnt Anglc Modificr - SEGS LS-2 Rccciver ........

12. Thermal Resistancc Nctwork for Hcat Collcction Elemcnt ......................................................... 16

13. Annular Conduction and Convcction Hcat Loss Modcl .............................................................. 18

14 . Hcat Loss with Convcction and Kinctic Thcory Modcls ............................................................. 20

15. Thermal Losscs from a SEGS HCE . ............................................... ...... .. 23

16. Fraction of Losses-Conduction and Radiation ......................................................... 23

18. HCE Heat Loss: Vacuum Intact case.,....................................................................................... 27

19. HCE Hcat Loss: Air in Annulus casc ........................................................................................ 27

20 . HCE Heat Loss: No-Sun cases ................................................................ .28

22 . Ccrmet Emissivity Mcasuremcnts and Associatcd Unccrtainty .................................

Figure 1. Aerial view of SEGS plants at Kramer Junction, California.

Figure 2. Rotating test platform at Sandia National Laboratories.

Vacuum betweon Glass -to-

Not to scale: Tube is about 13 feet long and 4 inches in diameter.

Figurc 3 . Heat collection clement.

I Bare - 74.7 - 0.0420 (dT) - 0.0000731 (dT1~2 - 0.00927 (dT

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE ABOVE AMBIENT (C)

Bare - 0.365 ( d T ) + 0.000636 ( d T ) ^ 2 + 0.0666 (dT*

R i r Loss = 0.1212 (dT) + 0.0006428 (dT)*2

Vat Loss = -0.0717

tn LS-2 B l a c k Chrome Recafver

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE ABOVE AMBIENT (C)

Figurc 7. Black Chromc Thermal Losses with Air and Vacu,um

Cermet r e c e i v e r , air i n annulus

Figure 8. Efficiency Comparison of LS-2 Black Chrome and Cermct Receivers.

150 EA - B l a c k chrome r e c e i v e r , a i r i n annulus

Figure 10. Incident Angle M d f i c r - SEGS LS-2 Receiver.

Cermet with vacuum annulus

q = K 173.3 - 0.007276 (AT)] - 0.496 (AT/I) - 0.0691 (AT2/I)

Cermet with air in annulus

q = K [73.4 - 0.00803 (AT)] - 9.68 (AT/I) - 0.0669 (AT2/I) (2)

Figure 1 1. SEGS LS-2 CermetNacuum Efficiency at Zero Incident Angle.

q = K 173.6 - 0.004206 (AT)] + 7.44 (AT/I) - 0.0958 (AT2/l)

Black chromc with air in annulus

q = K [73.8 - 0.006460 (AT)] - 12.16 (AT/I) - 0.0641 (AT2/l)

lncidcnt Analc Modificr. K

K = cos (Ia) - 0.0003512 (la) - 0.00003137

In pcrformancc cquations ( I ) through ( 5 ) .

q = Collector cfficicncy, in perccnt

Analytical Modeling of SEGS LS-2 Parabolic Solar Collector

Figurc I2 l’hcrmal Resistance Nct\vork for Heat Collection Elcmcnt

T, = ambient temperature I°K]

Nu Nussclt Number, the ratio of convective to conduction heat transfer

General Modelinp Amroach

o.Ooo1 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 l.m