Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Heat transfer enhancement analysis of tube receiver for parabolic trough

solar collector with pin fin arrays inserting
Gong Xiangtao a, Wang Fuqiang a,⇑, Wang Haiyan b, Tan Jianyu a, Lai Qingzhi a, Han Huaizhi c
a
School of Automobile Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology at Weihai, 2, West Wenhua Road, Weihai 264209, PR China
b
Sionpec Star Petroleum Co., Ltd, No. 263, Xueyuan Street, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, PR China
c
College of Power and Energy Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, 145, Nantong Street, Harbin 150001, PR China

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

Article history: Tube receiver with pin fin arrays inserting was introduced as the absorber tube of parabolic trough recei-
Received 31 August 2016 ver to increase the overall heat transfer performance of tube receiver for parabolic trough solar collector
Received in revised form 14 December 2016 system. The Monte Carlo ray tracing method (MCRT) coupled with Finite Volume Method (FVM) was
Accepted 10 January 2017
adopted to investigate the heat transfer performance and flow characteristics of tube receiver for para-
bolic trough solar collector system. To validate the feasibility of the developed MCRT and FVM combined
method, the numerical results have been compared with experimental results conducted in the DISS test
Keywords:
facility in Spain and the max relative error is less than 5%. The numerical results indicated that the intro-
Solar energy
Parabolic trough collector
duction of absorber tube with pin fin arrays inserting design for the absorber tube of the parabolic trough
Tube receiver receiver can effectively enhance the heat transfer performance. The average Nusselt number can be
Heat transfer enhancement increased up to 9.0% and the overall heat transfer performance factor can be increased up to 12.0% when
Finite volume method the tube receiver with pin fin arrays inserting was used.
Monte Carlo method Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction A typical concentrated solar power plant with PTC technology is

With the advantages of non-pollution, sustainability and inex-
haustibility, solar energy, one of the earliest sources of energy for
human beings, has been playing an increasingly vital role in the
solution of energy crisis and the reduction of CO2 emission today
(Kribus et al., 2014; Mahian et al., 2014; Lei et al., 2010). Solar
energy is collected from sunlight which is naturally replenished
on a human timescale (Mwesigye et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2014;
Wang et al., 2016). Among all the methods of utilizing solar energy,
concentrated solar power (CSP) technology is one of the promising
and mature options, because the use of highly concentrated solar
irradiation provides lower heat losses from smaller areas and con-
sequently higher attainable temperature at the receivers (Barlev
et al., 2011; He et al., 2015; Sarwar et al., 2015). Concentrating
technologies exist in five common forms, namely parabolic trough
collector (PTC), enclosed trough, parabolic dish collector (PDC),
concentrating linear Fresnel reflector, and solar power tower.
Among these technologies, the PTC technology has achieved com-
mercial application for several decades due to the advantages of
higher power plant efficiency and lower production cost (Padilla
et al., 2011; Hachicha et al., 2013; Khanna et al., 2014).
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Wangfuqiang@hitwh.edu.cn (F. Wang).
mainly composed by three modules: PTCs, parabolic trough recei-
vers (PTR) and power generation devices (Xu and Wiesner, 2015;
Wang et al., 2014b; Mao, 2016). The general structure of PTR is
an absorber tube (made of metal) surrounded by a glass cover (also
named glass envelope), while the annular gap between the absor-
ber tube and glass cover is evacuated. In order to absorb the con-
centrated solar irradiation and decrease the thermal radiation
losses effectively, a selective coating is coated on the outer surface
of the absorber tube (Wu et al., 2014). The sunlight is collected and
concentrated on the bottom periphery of PTR which is placed on
the focal line of PTC, and then the concentrated solar irradiation
is converted to heat and transferred by heat transfer fluid in the
absorber tube to power steam turbine to generate electricity in
turn (Cheng et al., 2015; Mwesigye et al., 2013). Parabolic trough
systems have been in wide use for utility-grade power generation
since the mid 1980s. The deployment, performance and operation
of commercial, utility-grade parabolic trough solar thermal power
plants are well-understood and proven. Parabolic trough plants are
inherently modular and scalable. Modularity is important for
achieving low cost through high volume production of components
and subsystems. A parabolic trough solar field also has inherent
‘‘free” energy storage that, depending on the size of the plant,
allows electricity production to continue well after the sun has
been blocked by a cloud.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.01.020
0038-092X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
186 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202
Nomenclature
A PFAI-PTR
APTC aperture of PTC, m
CR concentration ratio
Cp heat capacity, J/(kg
K)
D diameter of receiver, m
Esun solar irradiance, W/m2
f fanning friction factor
FPTC focal length of PTC, m
Gk generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean
velocity gradients
Gb generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to buoyancy
h heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2
K)
LPTR length of PTR, m
M mass flow rate, kg/s
Nu Nusselt number
P pressure, Pa
Pr Prandtl number
q heat flux, W
Re Reynolds number
S smooth tube
Sk and SƐ user-defined source term
T temperature, K
V velocity, m/s
YM contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compress-
ible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate
The bottom periphery of PTR is subjected to concentrated solar
irradiation, while the top periphery of PTR is subjected to solar irra-
diation with low energy density. Therefore, the heat flux distribution
on the periphery of PTR is highly non-uniform, which can result in
high temperature gradients. The large thermal strain, induced by
high temperature gradients, can cause the thermal deformations
of absorber tube and glass envelop. Due to the large thermophysical
and structural properties differences between metal and glass, the
thermal deformation differences between absorber tube and glass
cover can induce the rupture of the glass cover (Khanna et al.,
2013; Patil et al., 2014). Therefore, the PTR of parabolic trough solar
power system is prone to failure during application. For example, the
first nine large commercial-scale parabolic trough solar plants
located in Mojave Desert had experienced an unacceptable high fail-
ure rate of the PTR during the first few years. According to the
recorded data, the average annual PTR replacement rate was still
5.5% (Assessment of parabolic trough and power tower solar
technology cost and performance forecasts, 2003). Although a series
of significant advancements in PTR have been introduced in recent
years, the frequently failure of PTR is still major factor to limit the
optimization and application of solar power technologies (Cheng
et al., 2012; Qiu et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2010).
Large temperature gradient is the essential reason of inducing
the thermal deformation and damage of PTR. Therefore, many
researchers have adopted the method of heat transfer enhance-
ment in absorber tube to decrease the temperature gradient:
Mwesigye et al. (2014) had put forward that perforated plate can
be inserted in tube receiver to decrease the temperature gradients
of PTR for a parabolic trough solar collector, and the results of heat
transfer performance analyses indicated that the thermal efficiency
enhancement of PTR with perforated plate insert can reach up to
8% and the temperature gradient of tube receiver was decreased
dramatically. In order to enhance the heat transfer performance
and reduce heat exchanger size of solar parabolic trough system,
ß ahin et al. (2015) had proposed a concentric tube heat exchanger
S that for the conventional solid pin. With the aim to obtain the best
with different pitches of coiled wire turbulators and performed
numerical simulations using a three dimensional CFD computer
Greek symbols
a absorptivity of receiver
av coefficient of expansion
q reflectivity & density, kg/m3
rƐ turbulent Prandtl numbers for e
rk turbulent Prandtl numbers fork
l dynamic viscosity, kg/(m
s)
h circumferential angle, °
hpar non-parallelism angle, 0
hrim rim angle, °
rmirror mirror error, mrad
rorient pointing error, mrad
U dissipation function
Subscripts
a environment
cal calculated
Exp experimental test
g glass envelope
f fluid
m absorber tube
Max maximum temperature
Min minimum temperature
Num numerical simulation
code to investigate the heat transfer and friction characteristics
of the concentric tube heat exchanger. Their numerical results
showed that the heat transfer enhancement by using turbulators
can reach 228%. With the aim to increase the heat transfer perfor-
mance and reliability of PTR, the symmetric/asymmetric outward
convex corrugated tube designs were introduced for parabolic
trough receivers by Wang et al. (2016a,b), and an optical-
thermal-structural sequential coupled method was also developed
to study the heat transfer performance and thermal strain of tube
receiver for parabolic trough solar collector system. Their numeri-
cal results indicated that the maximum enhancement of overall
heat transfer performance factor was 148% and the maximum
restrain of von-Mises thermal strain was 26.8% by using symmet-
ric/asymmetric outward convex corrugated tube as tube receiver
for parabolic trough solar collector system. With the aim to
increase the thermal efficiency of the commercial parabolic collec-
tor, a dimpled absorber tube with sine geometry had been
researched by Bellos et al. (2016), the numerical simulation was
conducted through Solidworks flow simulation studio and the
numerical results indicated that the collector efficiency can be
increased up to 4.25% by using nanofluids as heat transfer fluid.
In theory, most of the traditional heat transfer enhancement
technologies are also suitable for PTRs (Song et al., 2014; Wang
et al., 2013; Zheng, 2017): (i) decreasing thermal boundary layer,
(ii) increasing flow interruption, (iii) increasing the velocity gradi-
ent of fluid near solid walls (Tao et al., 2002). Pin fin arrays insert-
ing can decrease the thermal boundary layer and increase the flow
interruption in the flow field, therefore it was widely adopted in
industrial applications for heat transfer enhancement (Axtmann
et al., 2016). In order to enhance the heat transfer rate in high
speed multi-functional electronics, Chin et al. (2013) had experi-
mentally and numerically investigated the usage of staggered per-
forated pin fins in these devices, and their results presented that
the Nusselt number for the perforated pins was 45% higher than
thermal performance, Eren and Caliskan (2016) had experimen-
tally researched the effects of inserting grooved pin-fins in a
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202 187

rectangular channel on heat transfer augmentation and friction

factor. The experimental results conducted by Eren and Caliskan
(2016)showed that the average Nusselt number enhancement by
inserting grooved pin-fins over smooth surface were 60.15% and
the thermal performance factor of T type grooved pin-fins was
found to be the best with the value of 2.81. To remove the heat
formed in a working machine at a sufficient rate, Bilen et al.
(2001) had investigated the thermal performances of finned sur-
face comparing to the same surface without fins. The experimental
results conducted by Bilen et al. (2001) showed that a heat transfer
enhancement up to 33% at constant pumping power was achieved
with the usage of staggered pins array.
However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, few researchers
have adopted pin fins arrays inserting design for the PTR of para-
bolic trough solar collector systems to increase the heat transfer
performance and decrease the temperature gradient. As is known,
the bottom periphery of PTR is heated by concentrated solar irradi-
ation while the top periphery of PTR is irradiated by non-
concentrated solar irradiation. Therefore, the large temperature
gradient is produced on the PTR. In order to enhance the heat
transfer performance and decrease temperature gradient with
lower sacrifice of pressure drop, absorber tube with pin fin arrays
inserting on the bottom periphery was introduced by the authors Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the parabolic trough solar collector system with
as absorber tube for PTR (PFAI-PTR). The Monte Carlo Ray Tracing absorber tube.
(MCRT) method coupled with Finite Volume Method (FVM) was
adopted to solve the optical-thermal coupled problem. The flow
resistance and heat transfer performances of PFAI-PTR were com-
pared with those of conventional PTCs with smooth absorber tube
at different Reynolds number (Cheng et al., 2012; Qiu et al., 2015).
The effects of the geometry parameters and arrangements of pin
fins variations on overall heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR
were numerically investigated to give theoretical instructions for
application. In the research field of solar thermal technology, heat
transfer enhancement is always essential. The novelty of this work
will not only provide guidance on how to enhance heat transfer in
parabolic trough receiver, but also can be applied by traditional
shell and tube heat exchanger. In addition, the research method
developed in this article can solve major optic-thermal engineering
problems, the Monte Carlo ray tracing method (MCRT) coupled
with Finite Volume Method (FVM) can be applied in numerical
study to reduce experiment cost.

2. Physical model

The schematic diagram of the parabolic trough solar collector

system with PTR is presented in Fig. 1. As seen from this figure,
the incoming sunlight from the sun is concentrated on the bottom
periphery of PTR (red1 area in Fig. 1) by the PTC, while the top
periphery of PTR (blue area in Fig. 1) is subjected to the non-
concentrated solar irradiation. The cross section sketch of the PTR
is presented in Fig. 2. The absorber tube, made of stainless steel, is
coated with selective coatings (blue area) to increase the solar spec-
trum absorption and minimize the infrared spectrum emittance.
Glass cover with selective coatings which can increase the transmis-
sivity of solar spectrum and minimize the transmissivity of infrared
spectrum surrounds the absorber tube to minimize heat losses.
There is a vacuum gap between the absorber tube and glass cover
to minimize the convective heat losses and increase the solar irradi-
ation transmission. The geometrical and optical parameters of the
parabolic trough solar collector system used in this study are listed
in Table 2, which are the same as reference (Wu et al., 2014).
With the aim to enhance heat transfer performance and
decrease temperature gradient of PTR, absorber tube with pin fin
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of cross section of the PTR.
arrays inserting is introduced as the absorber tube of PTR. The
structure sketches of absorber tube with pin fin arrays inserting
used for numerical simulation are presented in Fig. 3. Meanwhile,
the geometrical dimensions of the pin fin arrays inserted tube are
also illustrated in this figure, which are: tube length (L), flow direc-
tion distance between two pin fins (d), inner diameter of absorber
tube (D), pin fin diameter (d), pin fin height (h), and the angle
between two pin fins (h).
3. Mathematical model and boundary conditions
3.1. Model of sunlight transmission and concentration

1
For interpretation of color in Figs. 1 and 2, the reader is referred to the web MCRT method is a broad class of computational algorithms that
version of this article. rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical results. The
188 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

 
Table 1 @v z @v z v u @v z @v z
Mass flows and corresponding Reynolds numbers. q þ vr þ þ vz
@t @r r @u @z
!
Mass flow (kg/s) Reynolds number
@2v z 1 @v z 1 @2v z @2v z @P
0.054 1979.5 ¼ qgz þ l þ þ 2 þ  ð4Þ
@r2 r @r r @ u2 @z2 @z
0.107 2985.9
0.161 4001.7
Generally, three turbulence models, namely standard k-e model,
0.214 5020.9
0.321 7063.2 realizable k-e model and Reynolds stress model are adopted to
0.428 9107.2 investigate the turbulent flow in the absorber tube of PTR. In order
0.535 11151.6 to find out which model would be the most suitable for further
numerical investigation of PTR, a temperature comparison study
between numerical results and experimental results tested by
Table 2 Róldan et al. in the DISS test facility in PSA in Spain (Roldán
Detailed geometrical and optical parameters of the parabolic trough solar collector et al., 2013) had been performed by the authors (Wang et al.,
system with PFAI-PTC used for investigation (Wu et al., 2014). 2016a,b) previously. The previous comparison studies indicated
Geometrical and optical parameters Values that each model can agree well with thermal performance test con-
Length of PFAI-PTR (with bellows) 4.06 m
ducted in the DISS test facility. However, the average temperature
Outer diameter of absorber tube 0.07 m deviations can reach the smallest value when standard k-e model
Thickness of absorber tube 0.003 m was used. Therefore, the standard k-e model was adopted to calcu-
Outer diameter of glass envelope 0.12 m late the turbulent flow in the absorber tube of PTR. This two-
Aperture of PTC 0.525 m
equation model, proposed by Launder and Spalding (Launder and
Absorptivity of absorber tube 0.95
Reflectivity of PTC 0.90 Spalding, 1975) basing on solving two separate transport
Rim angle 15° equations, is widely used in the practical engineering flow calcula-
Non-parallelism angle 160 tions. The turbulent kinetic energy (k) and its rate of dissipation (e)
were obtained from the following transport equations:
  
@ðqkÞ @ðqui kÞ @ lt @k
essential idea of MCRT method is using randomness to solve prob- þ ¼ lþ þ Gk þ Gb  qe  Y M þ Sk
@t @xi @xj rk @xj
lems that is deterministic in principle. It is widely used in physical
and mathematical problems, especially for problems that are diffi-
ð5Þ
cult or impossible to be solved by other approaches.
and
In this study, the MCRT method was adopted to predict the heat
  
flux distribution on the bottom periphery of absorber tube of PTR. @ðqeÞ @ðqeli Þ @ lt @ e e e2
The basic principle of MCRT method is that each ray carries the þ ¼ lþ þ C 1e ðGk þ G3e Gb Þ  C 2e q þ Se
@t @xi @xj re @xj k k
same amount of energy and has a specific direction determined
ð6Þ
from the appropriate probability density function (Wang et al.,
2015). The concentrated heat flux distribution with ideal condi- The model transport equation for k was derived from the exact
tions (no optical errors) obtained by the MCRT method is imported equation, while the model transport equation for e was obtained by
to the heat transfer performance analyses of PTR by the fitting using physical reasoning and bears little resemblance to its math-
curve method coupled with User Defined Functions (UDFs), which ematically exact counterpart. Where, the symbol Gk represented
induces a very tiny interpolating error (Wang et al., 2014a). The the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity
relative error is below 0.01%. gradients, and was calculated as described in Modeling Turbulent
Production for the k-e models (Launder and Spalding, 1975). Gb
3.2. Computational fluid dynamics model was the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to buoyancy,
and was calculated as described in effects of Buoyancy on turbu-
The governing equations of the computational fluid dynamics lence in the k-e models. Y M represented the contribution of the
(CFD) analysis include mass conservation equation, momentum fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall dis-
conservation equation, energy conservation equation, and radia- sipation rate, and was calculated as described in effects of com-
tive heat transfer equation. pressibility on turbulence for the k-e Models. C 1e , C 2e , and C 3e
were constants. rk and re were the turbulent Prandtl numbers fork
 Mass conservation equation and e, respectively.Sk and Se were user-defined source terms
(Launder and Spalding, 1975).
vr @v r 1 @v u @v z
þ þ þ ¼0 ð1Þ
r @r r @u @z  Energy conservation equation
 Momentum conservation equation
! For the fluid phase
@v r @v r v u @v r v u @v r  
2
q þ vr þ  þ vz @T f @T f v u @T f @T f
@t @r r @u r @z qcp þ vr þ þ vz
! @t @r r @u @z
!
@2v r 1 @v r 1 @2v r @2v r 2 @v u v r @P @ T f 1 @T f 1 @ T f @ 2 T f
2 2
¼ qgr þ l þ þ þ 2  2   ð2Þ ¼k þ þ þ
@r2 r @r r2 @ u2 @z r @ u r2 @r @r 2 r @r r 2 @ u2 @z2
 

@v u @v u v u @v u @v u v rv u
 @P @P v u @P @P
q þ vr þ þ vz þ þ av T þ vr þ þ vz þU ð7Þ
@t @r r @u @z r @t @r r @u @z
!
@2v u 1 @v u 1 @2v u @2v u 2 @v r v u 1 @P where av is the coefficient of expansion with a value of
¼ qgu þ l þ þ þ þ   ð3Þ @ q
@r 2 r @r r 2 @ u2 @z2 r 2 @ u r 2 r @u av ¼  q1 , and U is the dissipation function. For incompressible
@T P
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202 189

(a) Longitudinal section

(b) Cross section

Fig. 3. Sketches of absorber tube with pin fin arrays inserting (PFAI-PTR).

fluids and ignoring the dissipation function, the above equation can qt ¼ 1000  0:96  0:95 ¼ 912 W=m2 ðR ¼ Ro ; 0 6 u
be simplified to
6 180 ; 0 6 L 6 4Þ ð12Þ
 
@T f @T f v u @T f @T f
qcp þ vr þ þ vz 2
where the solar irradiance is 1000 W/m , the transmissivity of glass
@t @r r @u @z
! cover is 0.96 and the absorptivity of absorber tube is 0.95.
@ T f 1 @T f 1 @ T f @ 2 T f
2 2
Bottom periphery of the absorber tube: Subjected to the
¼k þ þ þ ð8Þ
@r 2 r @r r 2 @ u2 @z2 concentrated solar irradiation calculated by the MCRT
method:
For the solid phase
! qb ¼ qcal ðR ¼ Ro ; 180 < u 6 360 ; 0 6 L 6 4Þ ð13Þ
2 2 2
@T s k @ T s 1 @T s 1 @ T s @ T s  Fluid outlet: fully developed conditions.
¼ þ þ þ ð9Þ
@t qcp @r2 r @r r2 @ u2 @z2
3.4. Thermophysical properties of HTF

3.3. Boundary conditions of CFD analyses

The D12 thermal oil with a wide working temperature range
(85 °C to 400 °C) is used as the heat transfer fluid of PTR. Due
The boundary conditions of CFD analyses are defined as:
to the large range of working temperature, the thermophysical
properties of D12 thermal oil are defined as functions of tempera-
 Fluid inlet (Wu et al., 2014; Sokhansefat et al., 2014)
ture (http://www.rosma.ru):
v x ¼ v inlet ; v r ¼ v u ¼ 0m=s; T f ¼ T in ¼ 300 K ðL ¼ 0; 0 6 R q ¼ 0:696982  101 T  1:31384  104 T 2  2:09079
6 Ri ; 0 6 u 6 360 Þ ð10Þ  106 T 3 þ 776:257 ð14Þ
 Wall boundary condition
C p ¼ 2:01422 þ 3:86884  103 T þ 2:05029  106 T 2
No-slip conditions exist at the inside surface of the absorber  1:12621  108 T 3 þ 3:8628  1011 T 4 ð15Þ
tube
v x ¼ v r ¼ v u ¼ 0 m=sðR ¼ Ri ; 0 6 u 6 360 ; 0 6 L 6 4Þ ð11Þ k ¼ 0:112994  1:4781  104 T  1:61429  107 T 2 ð16Þ
Top half periphery of absorber tube: Subjected to the uniform
heat flux:
m ¼ exp ½530:944=ðT þ 146:4Þ  2:68168  106 ð17Þ
190 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

4. Meshing and grid independent verification

4.1. Meshing of PFAI-PTR

Due to the complicated structure of PFAI-PTR, the meshes of

PFAI-PTR were generated through the O-grid and unstructured
mesh generation combined technique: O-grid generation tech-
nique was always adopted in pipe-shaped geometries to obtain
higher precision with better convergence, and the unstructured
grid generation was always used in complex geometry like pin fins
in this study. Mesh merging tools were adopted to merge the nodes
of structured mesh and that of unstructured mesh in the interface,
and then the mesh periodic operation was used to generate the
entire mesh of the PFAI-PTR model.
The integral meshes of PFAI-PTR are presented in Fig. 4. As seen
in this figure, the meshes of smooth tube section were generated
by O-grid generation technique, and the meshes of tube with pin
fin inserting section were generated by unstructured mesh gener-
ation technique. Initially the nodes do not match up at the inter-
face between them without mesh merging operation because
they are created separately. Fig. 5 presents the detailed informa-
tion of the merged meshes on the interface. As seen from this fig- Fig. 5. Diagrammatic sketch of merging unstructured mesh and structured mesh
used in this study.
ure, the merging can match up the nodes so that one-to-one
connectivity is maintained throughout the entire merged domain.
the meshes of PFAI-PTR with 1500,000 grids are selected for CFD
analysis based on the comprehensive consideration of computa-
4.2. Grid independent verification
tional time and accuracy.
Since the heat transfer rate is very sensitive to the change of
external conditions, it is reasonable to adopt the heat transfer rate 5. Model validation
to evaluate the grid independent verification. The parameters for
the grid independent verification test includes overall heat transfer In this study, the model validation investigation includes two
rate from the absorber tube wall to heat transfer fluid (qwfall ), and parts: (1) The heat flux distribution calculated by the authors is
the heat transfer rate from the absorber tube wall to heat transfer compared with that obtained by Hachicha et al. (2013), (2) the
fluid in pin fin area (qwffin ). The grid independent verification test MCRT and FVM combined method developed by the authors is val-
is carried out for five cases with different grid numbers: 72,290, idated by the temperature distributions on the parabolic trough
332,740, 493,233, 710,566, 1,500,000 and 2,318,210, respectively. solar receiver with 4.06 m length in the DISS test facility in Spain
Fig. 6 presents the overall heat transfer rate from the absorber obtained measured by Roldán et al. (2013).
tube wall to heat transfer fluid (qwfall ) and the heat transfer rate
from the absorber tube wall to heat transfer fluid in pin fin area
5.1. Validation of MCRT codes
(qwffin ) variation with the change of grid numbers. As seen from
this figure, the two kinds of overall heat transfer rate keep almost
In order to validate the codes compiled by the authors based on
constant when the number of grids reaches 1500, 000. Therefore,
MCRT method for solving sunlight concentration and transmission
problems, the heat flux distribution on the bottom periphery of

×103
27.5

25.0

22.5
qw-f (W/m2 )

20.0 q w-f-all
qw-f-fin
17.5

15.0

12.5 ×103
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Nmesh

Fig. 6. Heat transfer rate from wall to heat transfer fluid in all area (qw-f-all) and heat
transfer rate from the wall to heat transfer fluid in fin area (qw-f-fin) variations with
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of integral mesh of PFAI-PTR used in this study. the increase of number of grids.
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202 191

Table 3 Table 4
Detailed geometrical and optical parameters of the PTR used for MCRT method Detailed parameters of PTC for thermal performance test conducted by Roldán et al.
validation. (2013).

LPTR APTC FPTC D a q Parameters Values

7.8 m 2.5 m 1.84 m 0.07 m 0.96 0.90 Overall length of a single collector (m) 50/25
Number of parabolic-trough modules per collector 4/2
Length of every module (m) 12.5
Parabola width (m) 5.76
6.0 Material of the absorber pipe Ferritic Steel A335 P22
Outer diameter of steel absorber pipe (m) 0.07
Inner diameter of steel absorber pipe (m) 0.05
Length of steel absorber pipe (m) 4.06
4.8 Cross section of the steel absorber pipe (m2) 2.40  E03
Inner roughness factor of the steel absorber pipe (m) 3.0  E05
q (×10 W/m )

3.6
2

presented in Table 4. The detailed thermal performance test infor-

Ref. [11]
4

This paper
mation of PTR in DISS in Spain is listed in Table 5.
2.4 With the aim to validate the MCRT and FVM combined method
developed by the authors, the tested temperature distributions on
the PTR with 4.06 m length in the DISS test facility in Spain
1.2 obtained by Roldán et al. (2013) are compared with those calcu-
lated by the MCRT and FVM combined method developed by the
authors. Table 6 presents the maximum and minimum tempera-
0.0 tures on the absorber tube of PTR in DISS test facility in Spain of
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
eight different cases obtained by experimental test and numerical
(°)
results using MCRT and FVM combined method developed by the
Fig. 7. Heat flux distribution variation with angle on the bottom periphery of PTR authors. The relative errors between experimental results and
calculated by the authors compared with those obtained by Hachicha et al. (2013). numerical results are also listed in Table 6, where the relative error
(r) is defined as:
 
T Exp  T Num 
r¼  100% ð18Þ
T Exp
As seen from Table 6, the temperature distributions on the PTR
calculated by the MCRT and FVM combined method agree well
with those tested in the DISS test facility in Spain by Roldán
et al. (2013). The maximum relative error between the experimen-
tal results and numerical results is only 4.1%.

6. Results and discussion

6.1. Heat transfer performance of smooth absorber tube

Investigation on the heat flux distribution on the absorber

Fig. 8. View of the thermocouples installed in the PTR to measure the outer surface
temperature of absorber tube tested in DISS in Spain (Roldán et al., 2013).
PTR calculated by the authors is compared with that obtained by
Hachicha et al. (2013). The detailed geometrical and optical param-
eters of the PTR used for model validation are shown in Table 3.
The heat flux distribution variation with angle on the bottom
periphery of PTR calculated by the authors and Hachicha et al.
(2013) are presented in Fig. 7. As seen in this figure, the heat flux
distribution calculated by the authors agrees well with that
obtained by Hachicha et al. (2013).
5.2. Validation of MCRT and FVM combined method
A thermal performance test using thermocouples for PTR with
length of 4.06 m was conducted in DISS test facility in Spain by
Roldán et al. (2013). The outward surface temperature of absorber
tube was measured by thermocouples. Fig. 8 illustrates the instal-
lation method of the thermocouples in the PTR. Superheated steam
was adopted as HTF for the outfield test of the parabolic trough
solar collector with PTR system. The detailed parameters of PTC
for thermal performance test conducted by Roldán et al. are
tube is critical to get detailed knowledge on how to improve
PTR optical efficiency with the aim to enhance the overall heat
transfer performance. Fig. 9 presents the contour of heat flux dis-
tribution on the periphery of absorber tube of PTR calculated by
the MCRT method. As shown in this figure, the circumferential
heat flux distribution on the periphery of absorber tube is highly
non-uniform due to the focusing effect of the PTC: the heat flux
on the bottom periphery (rotated 180° in this figure) of the
absorber tube is highly non-uniform and much higher than that
on the top periphery (rotated 180° in this figure). Radiant energy
is the energy of electromagnetic waves which can travel through
space. The quantity of radiant energy can be calculated by inte-
grating radiant flux (or power) with respect to time. The collector
can concentrate much more solar rays on the bottom periphery of
the absorber tube, which means there is much more thermal
energy converted from radiant energy on the bottom surface of
absorber tube.
Mass flows and corresponding Reynolds numbers in this paper
are listed in Table 1. Fig. 10 presents the temperature distributions
of absorber tube of PTR on four different monitored cross-sections
with Re = 7063.2, T = 300 K, while four cases are studied:
Lc-inlet = 0.0 m, Lc-inlet = 1.0 m, Lc-inlet = 2.0 m, and Lc-inlet = 4.0 m
respectively. As seen from this figure, the temperature distribution
192 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

Table 5
Detailed operation information of PTC for thermal performance test conducted by Roldán et al. (2013).

Case Pin (MPa) Tin (K) Esun, (W/m2) CR M (kg/s)

1 6.0 557.5 838 45 0.73
2 6.0 566.3 766 45 0.51
3 6.0 573.0 627 45 0.56
3 6.1 598.1 761 45 0.62
4 6.0 607.3 635 45 0.55
5 6.0 613.0 627 45 0.56
6 6.0 632.9 635 45 0.55
7 6.0 643.0 627 45 0.56

Table 6
Temperature comparison between results conducted by Roldán et al. (2013) and calculated by the authors.

Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TMax,Exp (K) 635.5 604.7 635.5 649.1 647 646.8 681.6 681.5
TMax,Num (K) 634.8 624.2 641 651.8 650.6 673.5 695.3 705.6
r 0.1% 3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.6% 4.1% 2.0% 3.5%
TMin,Exp (K) 593.6 571.4 604.3 616.6 612.2 612.2 646.8 646.4
TMin,Num (K) 582.9 575.4 583.3 606.4 616.3 623.5 644.2 654.4
r 1.8% 0.7% 3.5% 1.7% 0.02% 1.8% 0.4% 1.2%

Fig. 9. Heat flux distribution on the periphery of absorber tube of PTR calculated by the MCRT method.

on the periphery of absorber tube is very similar to the heat flux
distribution on the periphery of absorber tube (Khanna et al.,
2015). Accordingly, the temperature distribution of the heat trans-
fer fluid on the top section is slightly lower than that on the bottom
section. This phenomenon is caused by the fact that the fluid near
the bottom inner surface of absorber tube is heated by concen-
trated heat flux. With the distance increase along the fluid flow
direction, the maximum temperature on the absorber tube
increases from 456.5 K to 501.3 K due to the reason that continu-
ously heat flux input to the absorber tube.
Fig. 11 shows the variation of average temperature of moni-
tored cross-sections of absorber tube of PTR with the distance from
cross-section to fluid inlet (Lc-inlet). As seen from this figure, the
average temperature of monitored cross-section increase linearly
with the distance from cross-section to fluid inlet (Lc-inlet) as more
concentrated solar energy is absorbed by the absorber tube
along the fluid flow direction. The average temperature of
the Lc-inlet = 0.3 m section is 317.7 K while it increases to 331.9 K
at Lc-inlet = 4.0 m section. Based on the above investigation,
regression correlations are put forward for Tave as follows:
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202 193

a) Lc-inlet = 0 b) Lc-inlet = 1m

c) Lc-inlet = 2 m d) Lc-inlet = 4m
Fig. 10. Temperature distribution of absorber tube of PTR at cross sections with Re = 7063.2.

Tav e ¼ 4:11Lc  inlet þ 315:55 ð19Þ

335
Fig. 12 presents the temperature distribution contours of absor-
ber tube of PTR with different Reynolds numbers (rotated 180° for
each contour). Six cases are investigated: Re = 1979.5, Re = 2985.9,
Re = 5020.9, Re = 7063.2, Re = 9107.2 and Re = 11151.6, respec- 330 ——Fitting Curve
tively. Comparing the six contours, it is obvious that the higher ½ Numerical results
Reynolds number is, the more uniform temperature distribution
on the absorber tube along the flow direction can be obtained. This
Tave (K)

325
phenomenon is induced by the reason that the heat transfer fluid
flows inside the absorber tube can be mixed strongly and the con-
vective heat transfer coefficient is increased significantly when the
Reynolds number increases. The thickness of thermal boundary 320
layer on the near wall side can be reduced by the turbulence inten-
sity enhancing with the increase of Reynolds number.
The temperature difference between the maximum tempera-
315
ture and minimum temperature is an important index to evaluate
0 1 2 3 4
the temperature gradient on the absorber tube. Fig. 13 illustrates Lc-inlet (m)
the variation of temperature difference between the maximum
temperature and minimum temperature (DTmaxmin ) of absorber Fig. 11. Variation of average temperature of monitored cross-sections of absorber
tube of PTR with the increase of Reynolds number. It can be seen tube of PTR with the distance from cross-section to fluid inlet.
194 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

a) Re = 1979.5 b) Re = 2985.9

c) Re = 5020.9 d) Re = 7063.2

e) Re = 9107.2 f) Re = 11151.5
Fig. 12. Temperature distribution contours of absorber tube of PTR with different Reynolds numbers (rotated 180° for each contour).

that the temperature difference between the maximum tempera- investigation, regression correlations are put forward for
ture and minimum temperature (DTmaxmin ) decreases sharply with DTmaxmin as follows:
the increase of Reynolds number which is benefit to decrease the   
Re
thermal stress on the absorber tube. The temperature difference DTmax  min ¼ 4495:99  4210:30 1  exp 
661:65
between the maximum temperature and minimum temperature   
(DTmaxmin ) decrease from 468 K to 128 K when the Reynolds Re
 207:03 1  exp  ð20Þ
number increases from 1980 to 19,332. Based on the above 13168:99
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202
480
420
——Fitting Curve
360 ½ Numerical results
ΔTmax-min, (K)
300
240
180
120
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Re
Fig. 13. Variation of temperature difference between the maximum temperature
and minimum temperature of absorber tube of PTR with the increase of Reynolds
number.
The turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) distribution contours of
absorber tube of PTR with different Reynolds numbers are pre-
sented in Fig. 14. It can be seen that the magnitude of TKE has very
small fluctuations along the fluid flow direction for the same Rey-
nolds number but varies significantly along the radial direction.
With the increase of Reynolds number, the magnitude of TKE
increases at the same cross section of PTR. Take the cross section
with x = 2.0 m of absorber tube of PTR as an example, the maxi-
mum magnitude of TKE is 3.58  105 at the cross section with
x = 2.0 m when the Reynolds number is 1979.5, while it increases
to 1.34  103 when the Reynolds number is 11151.5.
Fig. 15 presents the variation of mass-weighted average TKE of
the absorber tube of PTR with the increase of Reynolds number. It
can be seen that the mass-weighted average TKE of the absorber
tube of PTR increases with the increase of Reynolds number. Based
on the above investigation, regression correlations are put forward
for TKE as follows:
 
Re
TKE ¼ 0:00143 exp  0:00156
22304:39
6.2. Heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR
A tube with pin fin arrays inserting design is introduced for the
absorber tube of the PTR (PFAI-PTR) to increase the overall heat
transfer performance and decrease the temperature gradient. The
schematic view of PFAI-PTR investigated in this study was illus-
trated previously in Fig. 3.
Fig. 16 presents the temperature distribution on the inner sur-
face of the absorber tube of both the PTR and PFAI-PTR
(h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°, d/L = 0.0625) with Re = 7063.2.
As seen in this figure, the average temperature of the absorber tube
is significantly reduced when pin fin arrays inserting is adopted for
the absorber tube of PTR. Fig. 17shows the temperature distribu-
tion contours in cross section of Lc-inlet = 2.0 m of the absorber tube
for both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°,
d/L = 0.0625) with Re = 7063.2. Compared to the cross section of
PTR, the temperature distribution on the cross section of PFAI-
PTR is much more uniform, the max temperature gradient on the
cross section for PFAI-PTR is 15.0% less than that of PTR, and the
high temperature region with temperature larger than 480.0 K dis-
appeared when the pin fin arrays are inserted in the absorber tube
of PTR.
195
Fig. 18 presents the TKE distribution contours of cross section
(Lc-inlet = 2.0 m) and longitudinal section of both the PTR and
PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°, d/L = 0.0625). As
shown in this figure, the existence of pin fin arrays inserting can
augment the turbulence intensity in boundary layer of the absor-
ber tube of PTR, especially on the upstream of the pin fin section,
which is benefit for heat transfer enhancement and decrease the
maximum temperature as well as temperature distribution on
the absorber tube of PTR. The overall heat transfer enhancement
is 4.8% in this case.
6.3. Effects of d/L on the heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR
Effects of d/L on the heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR are
18000 investigated in this section. Fig. 19 presents the Nusselt number
variation in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm,
N = 5, h = 20°) with the increase of Reynolds number at different
d/L values. As seen in this figure, the Nusselt number increases
sharply with the increase of Reynolds number for both the PTR
and PFAI-PTR. At the same Reynolds number, the Nusselt number
increases with the decrease of d/L value. Take the condition of
Re = 7063.2 as an example, the Nusselt number in the absorber
tube of PFAI-PTR is 145.709 when the value of d/L is 0.10, while
it increases to 158.3 when the value of d/L is 0.025. Each pin fin
can be regarded as a vortex generator, which can elevate turbu-
lence level due to the generated vortices. The lower value of d/L
is, the larger number of pin fin arrays along the fluid flow direction
of the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR is. Therefore, the turbulence
intensity in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR augments significantly
with the decrease of the value of d/L.
In order to evaluate the Nusselt number enhancement with the
introduction of PFAI-PTR, the Nusselt number enhancement factor
is introduced in this study. The definition of Nusselt number
enhancement factor (dNu ) is expressed as:
NuPFAI  NuPTR
dNu ¼  100% ð22Þ
NuPTR
Fig. 20 illustrates the Nusselt number enhancement factor (dNu )
variation with the increase of Reynolds number with different val-
ð21Þ ues of d/L of PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°). As seen
in Fig. 20, the Nusselt number enhancement factor (dNu ) increases
with the increase of Reynolds number firstly. The Nusselt number
enhancement factor reaches its maximum value at Re = 7063.2 for
all the conditions with different d/L values. The maximum Nusselt
number enhancement factor is 9.0 at Re = 7063.2 when the value of
d/L is 0.025. The Nusselt number enhancement factor decreases
sharply with the increase of Reynolds number when the Reynolds
number is larger than 7063.2.
Although the adoption of PFAI-PTR can increase the heat trans-
fer performance, the pressure drop may increase when pin fin
arrays are inserted in the absorber tube of PTR. Fig. 21 presents
the variation of pressure drop (DP, DP ¼ Pout  Pin ) in the absorber
tube with the increase of Reynolds number for both the PTR and
PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°) at different d/L val-
ues. As seen in this figure, the pressure drops in the absorber tubes
of both the PTR and PFAI-PTR increase with the increase of Rey-
nolds number. At the same Reynolds number, the pressure drop
in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR is higher than that in the absorber
tube of PTR, and the pressure drop in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR
increases with the decrease of the value of d/L. However, the sacri-
fice of pressure drop in the absorber tube of PTR is very limited
with the introduction of pin fin arrays inserting. Take the condition
of Re = 7063.2 as an example, the maximum sacrifice of pressure
drop is 15.8% with the introduction of pin fin arrays inserting at
d/L = 0.025.
196 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

a) Re = 1979.5 b) Re = 2985.9

c) Re = 5020.9 d) Re = 7063.2

e) Re = 9107.2 f) Re = 11151.5
Fig. 14. TKE distribution contours of absorber tube of PTR with different Reynolds numbers.

Fanning friction factor (f ) is a significant index in assessing the Fig. 22 illustrates the variation of the fanning friction factor (f )
resistance performance of the fluid flow. The definitions of f is in the absorber tube with the increase of Reynolds number (Re) for
expressed as (Han et al., 2012): both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°)
with different d/L values. As seen in this figure, the fanning friction
DP
D factors in the absorber tube of both the PTR and PFAI-PTR decrease
f ¼ ð23Þ
2qu2 L with the increase of Reynolds number. The introduction of pin fin
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202
× 10-4
16
12 ——Fitting Curve
½ Numerical results
TKE
8 transfer performance factor of PFAI-PTR is smaller than 1.0 which
4
0 the overall heat transfer performance when the overall heat trans-
0 3000 6000 9000 12000 15000
Re
Fig. 15. Variation of mass-weighted average TKE of the absorber tube of PTR with
the increase of Reynolds number.
arrays inserting for PTR induces an obvious increase of fanning fric-
tion factor. At the same value of Reynolds number, the fanning fric-
tion factor in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR increases with the
decrease of d/L.
Based on the above analyses, it can be seen that the introduc-
tion of PFAI-PTR can increase the heat transfer performance, while
the pressure drop in the absorber tube of receiver also increases
with the using of pin fin arrays inserting. Therefore, it is necessary
to adopt the overall heat transfer performance factor (g) to conduct
a comprehensive heat transfer enhancement evaluation of the
introduction of PFAI-PTR. The definition of overall heat transfer
performance factor (g) is expressed as (Han et al., 2012):
g ¼ ðNuA =NuS Þ3 =ðf A =f S Þ
Fig. 23 exhibits the variation of overall heat transfer perfor-
mance factor (g) with the increase of Reynolds number (Re) for
PFAI-PTR with different d/L values. The PFAI-PTR with overall heat
transfer performance factor larger than 1.0 indicates that the over-
all heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR is better than that of con-
ventional PTR. As seen in Fig. 23, the overall heat transfer
a) PTR
Fig. 16. Temperature distribution on the inner surface of the absorber tube of both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°, d/L = 0.0625) with Re = 7063.2.
197
performance of PFAI-PTR is better than that of conventional PTR
when the Reynolds number is smaller than 9107.2. Generally, the
overall heat transfer performance factor of PFAI-PTR increases with
the increase of Reynolds number and reaches its peak value when
the Reynolds number is increased to 5020.9 for PFAI-PTR with dif-
ferent d/L values. Then the overall heat transfer performance factor
of PFAI-PTR decreases sharply with the increase of Reynolds num-
ber. When the Reynolds number reaches 11151.6, the overall heat
indicates that the introduction of PFAI-PTR cannot enhance the
overall heat transfer performance. The maximum overall heat
transfer performance factor enhancement by using pin fin arrays
inserting in the absorber tube for PTR (PFAI-PTR) is 12.0% when
the Reynolds number is 4001.7 and the value of d/L is 0.025. It
should be noted that the decrease of d/L for PFAI-PTR can improve
18000 fer performance heat transfer factor is larger than 1.0.
6.4. Effects of N on the heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR
The effects of number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section
(N) of the absorber tube on the heat transfer performance of
PFAI-PTR are investigated in this section. Fig. 24 illustrates the
schematic view of the absorber tube used in PFAI-PTR with differ-
ent numbers of pin fin arrays inserting in one section (N).
Fig. 25 presents the temperature distribution contours of
PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, h = 20°) on the
Lc-inlet = 2.0 m section with different number of pin fin arrays
inserting in one section (N). As seen in this figure, the temperature
distribution on the absorber tube of PTR looks more uniform with
pin fin arrays inserting. While the temperature distribution of the
fluid region is influenced very limitedly when pin fin arrays are
inserted for the absorber tube of PTR. The max temperature gradi-
ent on the cross section of PFAI-PTR with N = 1 is 91.0% of that of
PTR. The ratio of max temperature gradient of PFAI-PTR with
ð24Þ
N = 3 to max temperature gradient of PTR decreases from 85.0%
to 76.0% when it comes to the condition that N = 9. The larger num-
ber of pin fin arrays inserting (N) is, the more uniform temperature
distribution on the absorber tube of PTR can be obtained. The max-
imum temperature on the absorber tube of PTR decreases with the
increase of number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section (N).
The maximum temperature on the absorber tube of conventional
b) PFAI-PTR
198 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

a) Cross section of PTR b) Cross section of PFAI-PTR

Fig. 17. Temperature distribution contours in cross section of L = 2.0 m of the absorber tube for both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°, d/L = 0.0625)
with Re = 7063.2.

a) Cross section of PTR b) Cross section of PFAI-PTR

c) Longitudinal section of PTR d) Longitudinal section of PFAI-PTR

Fig. 18. TKE distribution contours of cross section (L = 2.0 m) and longitudinal section of both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°, d/L = 0.0625).
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202 199

180 0.035

165 PTR
0.030 PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.1000
150 PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0625
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0500
0.025 PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.0400
135 PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.0250

f
Nu

120 PTR 0.020

PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.1000
105 PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.0625
PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.0500 0.015
PFAI-PTR, δ /L= 0.0400
90 PFAI-PTR, δ /L= 0.0250
0.010
75 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000 Re
Re
Fig. 22. Variation of the fanning friction factor (f ) in the absorber tube with the
Fig. 19. Nusselt number variation in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, increase of Reynolds number (Re) for both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm,
d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°) with the increase of Reynolds number at different d/L d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°) with different d/L values.
values.

1.16

1.12
9.0

1.08
7.5 PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.1000
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0625 1.04
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0500
6.0
η

PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0400
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0250 1.00
PTR
4.5
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.1000
δ Nu

0.96
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0625
3.0 PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0500
0.92
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0400
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0250
1.5 0.88
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000
Re
0.0
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000
Fig. 23. Variation of overall heat transfer performance factor (g) with the increase
Re
of Reynolds number (Re) for PFAI-PTR with different d/L values.
Fig. 20. Nusselt number enhancement factor (dNu ) variation with the increase of
Reynolds number with different values of d/L of PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm,
N = 5, h = 20°). PTR is 488.1 K while it decreases to 456.6 K for PFAI-PTR with nine
pin fin arrays inserting in one section (N = 9).
Fig. 26 illustrates the Nusselt number variation in the absorber
tube of PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, h = 20°) with
100 the increase of Reynolds number at different number of pin fin
arrays inserting in one section (N). As seen in this figure, due to
PTR the strong vortices generated by pin fin arrays inserting, the Nus-
80 PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.1000 selt number in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR is always higher than
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0625
PFAI-PTR, δ /L =0.0500 that in the absorber tube of conventional PTR at the same Reynolds
PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.0400 number.
60
PFAI-PTR, δ /L=0.0250 Fig. 27 illustrates the variation of pressure drop (DP) in the
absorber tube with the increase of Reynolds number for both the
Δp

40 PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, h = 20°) at dif-

ferent number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section. As seen in
this figure, the pressure drop in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR with
20 different numbers of pin fin arrays inserting in one section are
always higher than that in the absorber tube of PTR, and the pres-
sure drop in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR increases with the
0
increase of number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section (N).
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000 However, the sacrifice of pressure drop in the absorber tube of
Re PTR is very limited with the introduction of more pin fin arrays
inserting. Take the condition of Re = 7063.2 as an example, the
Fig. 21. Variation of pressure drop (DP) in the absorber tube with the increase of
Reynolds number for both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, h = 20°) maximum sacrifice of pressure drop is 5.8% with the introduction
with different d/L values. of nine pin fin inserting in one section (N).
200 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202

a) N = 1 b) N = 5 c) N = 9
Fig. 24. Schematic view of the absorber tube used in PFAI-PTR with different numbers of pin fin inserting in one section.

a) N = 0 b) N = 1

c) N = 3 d) N = 9
Fig. 25. Temperature distribution contours of PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, h = 20°) on the x = 2.0 m section with different number of pin fin arrays inserting in
one section.

Fig. 28 presents the variation of overall heat transfer perfor-
mance factor (g) with the increase of Reynolds number (Re) for
PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, h = 20°) with different
number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section (N). As seen from
this figure, the overall heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR with
different number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section (N) is
always better than that of conventional PTR when the Reynolds
number is smaller than 9107.2. The PFAI-PTR with five pin fin
arrays inserting in one section (N) attain the maximum overall heat
transfer performance when the Reynolds number is 7063.2.
In this study, the overall heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR
with different d/L values and different number of pin fin arrays
 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202 201

180 inserting in one section (N) is always higher than that of conven-
tional PTR. However, the d/L values and different number of pin
165 fin arrays inserting in one section (N) of PFAI-PTR need to be opti-
mized to obtain the maximum overall heat transfer performance
150 during application.

135
7. Conclusions
Nu

120 PTR
PFAI-PTR, N =1 In this study, the tube with pin fin arrays inserting was intro-
PFAI-PTR, N =3 duced as the absorber tube of PTR (PFAI-PTR) to increase the over-
105
PFAI-PTR, N =5 all heat transfer performance and decrease the temperature
PFAI-PTR, N =9 gradient of absorber tube. The MCRT and FVM combined method
90
was developed to study the heat transfer performance and flow
characteristic of tube receiver for parabolic trough solar collector
75
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000
system. The following conclusions can be drawn:
Re
(1) The average Nusselt number can be increased up to 9.0% and
Fig. 26. Nusselt number variation in the absorber tube of PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, the overall heat transfer performance factor can be increased
d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, h = 20°) with the increase of Reynolds number at different up to 12.0% when the PFAI-PTR is used and the working con-
number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section.
dition is h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, N = 5, d/L = 0.025, h = 20°.
(2) The heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR increases with
the decrease of d/L values and increase of number of pin
fin arrays inserting in one section.
90 (3) The pressure drop of PFAI-PTR increases with the decrease of
d/L values and increase of number of pin fin arrays inserting
75 in one section.
PTR (4) The overall heat transfer performance of PFAI-PTR with dif-
PFAI-PTR, N =1 ferent d/L values and different number of pin fin arrays
60 PFAI-PTR, N =3 inserting in one section is always higher than that of conven-
PFAI-PTR, N =5 tional PTR.
PFAI-PTR, N =9
45 (5) The optimum conditions in this article for overall heat trans-
Δp

fer enhancement by using PFAI-PTR is h = 2 mm, d = 8 mm,

30
d/L = 0.025, h = 20°, Re = 4036.

15
Acknowledgments

0 This work was supported by National Natural Science Founda-

1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000
tion of China (Grant Nos. 51406239 and 51506034), and the China
Re
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Nos. 2015M580261 and
Fig. 27. Variation of pressure drop (DP) in the absorber tube with the increase of 2016T90283). Besides, a special acknowledgment is made to the
Reynolds number for both the PTR and PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, editors and referees whose constructive criticism has improved
h = 20°) at different number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section. this paper.

References

1.06 Assessment of parabolic trough and power tower solar technology cost and
performance forecasts, 2003. Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower
Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts. Other Information: PBD: 1
1.04 Oct 2003; Related Information: Work performed by Sargent and Lundy LLC
Consulting Group, Chicago, Illinois.
Axtmann, M., Poser, R., Wolfersdorf, J.V., Bouchez, M., 2016. End wall heat transfer
1.02 and pressure loss measurements in staggered arrays of adiabatic pin fins. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 103, 1048–1056.
Barlev, D., Vidu, R., Stroeve, P., 2011. Innovation in concentrated solar power. Sol.
1.00 Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 95 (10), 2703–2725.
η

Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., Antonopoulos, K.A., Gkinis, G., 2016. Thermal enhancement
0.98 PTR of solar parabolic trough collectors by using nanofluids and converging-
PFAI-PTR, N =1 diverging absorber tube. Renewable Energy 94, 213–222.
PFAI-PTR, N =3 Bilen, K., Akyol, U., Yapici, S., 2001. Heat transfer and friction correlations and
PFAI-PTR, N =5 thermal performance analysis for a finned surface. Energy Convers. Manage. 42
0.96
PFAI-PTR, N =9 (9), 1071–1083.
Cheng, Z.D., He, Y.L., Cui, F.Q., 2012. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement
0.94 by unilateral longitudinal vortex generators inside parabolic trough solar
receivers. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 55 (s21–22), 5631–5641.
1500 3000 4500 6000 7500 9000 10500 12000
Cheng, Z.D., He, Y.L., Cui, F.Q., Xu, R.J., Tao, Y.B., 2012. Numerical simulation of a
Re parabolic trough solar collector with nonuniform solar flux conditions by
coupling FVM and MCRT method. Sol. Energy 86 (6), 1770–1784.
Fig. 28. Variation of overall heat transfer performance factor (g) with the increase Cheng, Q., Chai, J., Zhou, Z., Song, J., Su, Y., 2014. Tailored non-imaging secondary
of Reynolds number (Re) for PFAI-PTR (h = 2 mm, d = 4 mm, d/L = 0.0625, h = 20°) reflectors designed for solar concentration systems. Sol. Energy 110 (6), 160–
with different number of pin fin arrays inserting in one section. 167.
202 X. Gong et al. / Solar Energy 144 (2017) 185–202
Cheng, Z.D., He, Y.L., Qiu, Y., 2015. A detailed nonuniform thermal model of a
parabolic trough solar receiver with two halves and two inactive ends.
Renewable Energy 74, 139–147.
Chin, S.B., Foo, J.J., Lai, Y.L., Yong, K.K., 2013. Forced convective heat transfer
enhancement with perforated pin fins. Heat Mass Transf. 49 (10), 1447–1458.
Eren, M., Caliskan, S., 2016. Effect of grooved pin-fins in a rectangular channel on
heat transfer augmentation and friction factor using Taguchi method. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf. 102, 1108–1122.
Hachicha, A.A., Rodríguez, I., Capdevila, R., Oliva, A., 2013. Heat transfer analysis and
numerical simulation of a parabolic trough solar collector. Appl. Energy 111
(11), 581–592.
Han, H.Z., Li, B.X., Yu, B.Y., He, Y.R., Li, F.C., 2012. Numerical study of flow and heat
transfer characteristics in outward convex corrugated tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 55 (25–26), 7782–7802.
He, Z., Qi, H., Jia, T., Ruan, L., 2015. Influence of fractal-like aggregation on radiative
properties of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and H2 production rate in the plate
photobioreactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (32), 9952–9965.
http://www.rosma.ru/netcat_files/multifile/2369/Therminol_D_12.pdf.
Khanna, S., Kedare, S.B., Singh, S., 2013. Analytical expression for circumferential
and axial distribution of absorbed flux on a bent absorber tube of solar parabolic
trough concentrator. Sol. Energy 92 (4), 26–40.
Khanna, S., Kedare, S.B., Singh, S., 2014. Deflection and stresses in absorber tube of
solar parabolic trough due to circumferential and axial flux variations on
absorber tube supported at multiple points. Sol. Energy 99 (1), 134–151.
Khanna, S., Singh, S., Kedare, S.B., 2015. Explicit expressions for temperature
distribution and deflection in absorber tube of solar parabolic trough
concentrator. Sol. Energy 114, 289–302.
Kribus, A., Gray, Y., Grijnevich, M., Mittelman, G., Mey-Cloutier, S., Caliot, C., 2014.
The promise and challenge of solar volumetric absorbers. Sol. Energy 110, 463–
481.
Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1975. Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence.
Academic Press, London, England.
Lei, D., Wang, Z., Li, J., 2010. The calculation and analysis of glass-to-metal sealing
stress in solar absorber tube. Renewable Energy 35 (2), 405–411.
Liu, Q.B., Wang, Y.L., Gao, Z.C., Sui, J., 2010. Experimental investigation on a
parabolic trough solar collector for thermal power generation. Sci. China
Technol. Sci. 53 (1), 52–56.
Mahian, O., Kianifar, A., Sahin, A.Z., Wongwises, S., 2014. Entropy generation during
Al2O3/water nanofluid flow in a solar collector: effects of tube roughness,
nanoparticle size, and different thermophysical models. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
78 (11), 64–75.
Mao, Q., 2016. Recent developments in geometrical configurations of thermal
energy storage for concentrating solar power plant. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
59, 320–327.
Mwesigye, A., Bello-Ochende, T., Meyer, J.P., 2013. Numerical investigation of
entropy generation in a parabolic trough receiver at different concentration
ratios. Energy 53 (53), 411–420.
Mwesigye, A., Bello-Ochende, T., Meyer, J.P., 2014. Heat transfer and
thermodynamic performance of a parabolic trough receiver with centrally
placed perforated plate inserts. Appl. Energy 136 (989), 989–1003.
Mwesigye, A., Huan, Z., Meyer, J.P., 2015. Thermodynamic optimization of the
performance of a parabolic trough receiver using synthetic oil-Al2O3 nanofluid.
Appl. Energy 156, 398–412.
Padilla, R.V., Demirkaya, G., Goswami, D.Y., Stefanakos, E., Rahman, M.M., 2011.
Heat transfer analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver. Appl. Energy 88 (12),
5097–5110.
Patil, R.G., Panse, S.V., Joshi, J.B., 2014. Optimization of non-evacuated receiver of
solar collector having non-uniform temperature distribution for minimum heat
loss. Energy Convers. Manage. 85 (9), 70–84.
Qiu, Y., He, Y.L., Cheng, Z.D., Wang, K., 2015. Study on optical and thermal
performance of a linear Fresnel solar reflector using molten salt as HTF with
MCRT and FVM methods. Appl. Energy 146, 162–173.
Qiu, Y., He, Y.L., Wu, M., Zheng, Z.J., Kalogirou, S.A., Christodoulides, P., 2016. A
comprehensive model for optical and thermal characterization of a linear
Fresnel solar reflector with a trapezoidal cavity receiver. Renewable Energy 97,
129–144.
Roldán, M.I., Valenzuela, L., Zarza, E., 2013. Thermal analysis of solar receiver pipes
with superheated steam. Appl. Energy 103 (1), 73–84.
ß ahin, H.M., Baysal, E., Dal, A.R., Sß ahin, N., 2015. Investigation of heat transfer
S
enhancement in a new type heat exchanger using solar parabolic trough
systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (44), 15254–15266.
Sarwar, J., Georgakis, G., Kouloulias, K., Kakosimos, K.E., 2015. Experimental and
numerical investigation of the aperture size effect on the efficient solar energy
harvesting for solar thermochemical applications. Energy Convers. Manage. 92,
331–341.
Sokhansefat, T., Kasaeian, A.B., Kowsary, F., 2014. Heat transfer enhancement in
parabolic trough collector tube using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 33 (2), 636–644.
Song, X., Dong, G., Gao, F., Diao, X., Zheng, L., Zhou, F., 2014. A numerical study of
parabolic trough receiver with nonuniform heat flux and helical screw-tape
inserts. Energy 77 (C), 771–782.
Tao, W.Q., He, Y.L., Wang, Q.W., Qu, Z.G., Song, F.Q., 2002. A unified analysis on
enhancing single phase convective heat transfer with field synergy principle.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 45 (24), 4871–4879.
Wang, P., Liu, D.Y., Xu, C., 2013. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement in
the receiver tube of direct steam generation with parabolic trough by inserting
metal foams. Appl. Energy 102 (2), 449–460.
Wang, F., Tan, J., Wang, Z., 2014a. Heat transfer analysis of porous media receiver
with different transport and thermophysical models using mixture as feeding
gas. Energy Convers. Manage. 83, 159–166.
Wang, K., He, Y.L., Cheng, Z.D., 2014b. A design method and numerical study for a
new type parabolic trough solar collector with uniform solar flux distribution.
Sci. China Technol. Sci. 57 (3), 531–540.
Wang, F., Tan, J.Y., Ma, L.X., Wang, C.C., 2015. Effects of glass cover on heat flux
distribution for tube receiver with parabolic trough collector system. Energy
Convers. Manage. 90, 47–52.
Wang, W., Wang, Y., Song, W., Shi, G., 2016. Evaluation of infrared heat loss of dust-
polluted surface atmosphere for solar energy utilization in mine area. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 41 (35), 15892–15898.
Wang, F., Lai, Q., Han, H., Tan, J., 2016a. Parabolic trough receiver with corrugated
tube for improving heat transfer and thermal deformation characteristics. Appl.
Energy 164, 411–424.
Wang, F., Tang, Z., Gong, X., Tan, J., Han, H., Li, B., 2016b. Heat transfer performance
enhancement and thermal strain restrain of tube receiver for parabolic trough
solar collector by using asymmetric outward convex corrugated tube. Energy
114, 275–292.
Wu, Z., Lei, D., Yuan, G., Shao, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., 2014. Structural reliability
analysis of parabolic trough receivers. Appl. Energy 123 (3), 232–241.
Wu, Z., Li, S., Yuan, G., Lei, D., Wang, Z., 2014. Three-dimensional numerical study of
heat transfer characteristics of parabolic trough receiver. Appl. Energy 113
(113), 902–911.
Xu, R., Wiesner, T.F., 2015. Closed-form modeling of direct steam generation in a
parabolic trough solar receiver. Energy 79, 163–176.
Zheng, Z.J., Li, M.J., He, Y.L., 2017. Thermal analysis of solar central receiver
tube with porous inserts and non-uniform heat flux. Appl. Energy 185 (2),
1152–1161.