Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Thermal performance of parabolic trough solar collectors

L. Salgado Conrado a,n, A. Rodriguez-Pulido b, G. Calderón a
a
Facultad de Ingeniería Mecánica y Eléctrica, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, C.P. 27276 Torreón, Coahuila, Mexico
b
Universidad Autonoma del Noreste, A.C. de C.V, C.P. 34000 Durango, Durango, Mexico

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The thermodynamics of a Parabolic Trough Solar Collector (PTC) play an important role in solar energy
Received 20 April 2015 and the efficiency of the collectors. This report presents an up-to-date review on the thermal perfor-
Received in revised form mance of PTC collectors. Various types of mathematical models, simulation and numerical methods, and
19 March 2016
experimental set-ups of the Parabolic Trough Solar Collectors are reviewed. These have been studied in
Accepted 13 September 2016
terms of heat loss, environmental conditions, temperature and heat flux. Furthermore, the report cost
analysis and economic strategy used for PTC collectors. The primary goal is to demonstrate the principal
Keywords: thermal aspects that need to be considered in future developments. The principal challenges that en-
Parabolic Trough Collectors gineers face are (a) combining the thermal models that have been reported in the literature,
Thermal analysis
(b) introducing numerical methods and simulations with less computational requirements, (c) proposing
Experimental set up
new methodologies that efficiently measure the thermal performance of a Parabolic Trough Solar Col-
lector and (d) reducing the costs of these collectors.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346
2. Thermal models for a PTC collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346
2.1. Heat transfer model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346
2.1.1. Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347
2.1.2. Conduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347
2.1.3. Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1347
2.2. Non-uniform thermal model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1348
2.3. One-dimensional thermal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1349
2.4. Three-dimensional thermal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1349
2.5. Statistical model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1349
2.6. Energy and exergy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1350
2.6.1. Energy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1350
2.6.2. Exergy model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1350
2.7. Dynamic model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1351
2.8. Effectiveness of thermal models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1352
3. Simulations and numerical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1352
4. Experimental set-ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1354
5. Cost analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1356
5.1. Initial investment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1356
5.2. Operation and maintenance cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1356
5.3. Instrumentation equipment cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1357
5.4. Strategies for the cost analysis of a PTC collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1357
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1358
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1358

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hechicera_43@hotmail.com (L. Salgado Conrado).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.071
1364-0321/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1346 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1358
1. Introduction
Growing energy demands have led engineers and technicians
to develop new prototypes for the use of renewable energy
without degrading the environment. Over the past decade, solar
power technology was seen as a future viable alternative. Cur-
rently, both photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP)
technologies are feasible commercial options to generate electrical
energy and heat.
The innovative aspect of capturing and concentrating the en-
ergy of the sun in CSP technology is that it supplies the heat
needed to produce electricity or a heat fluid; instead of using fossil
fuels or nuclear reactions. Several significant contributions have
been made in PTCs, to optimise the design and thermal perfor-
mance of CSP technology. They are primarily focused on the
physical aspects of the PTC collectors, which can be given as fol-
lows: (1) Optimisation of geometrical parameters in the collecting
surface, receiver tube [1,2], thermal storage systems and tracking
system [3]. Thus, the specifications, design and manufacturing of a
PTC collector were described by [4–6]; and (2) Using new mate-
rials, such as ReflecTech in the collecting surface, reinforced fi-
berglass and Pyrex in the receiver [7], and nanofluids in the Heat
Transfer Fluid (HTF) [8,9].
Other studies, such as [10–12], studied the thermal perfor-
mance of the solar collector for power plants and industrial pro-
cesses. These studies considered the mathematical models [13–15],
simulations [16–18] and experimental set-ups of Parabolic Trough
Collector systems [19,20]. Furthermore, researchers enhanced heat
transfer by increasing the thermal conductivity of the HTF [21,22],
varying the geometrical parameters (focal length [23,24], aperture
of the solar collector [25–27], etc.) and proposing new control
schemes and innovative strategies of instrumentation and ex-
perimentation [28–30].
Despite the efforts made in theoretical and experimental ana-
lysis, researchers are still attempting to determine the optimal
design of the collector/receiver that increases the efficiency and
reduces the costs of the system [31,32]. Therefore, this report of-
fers an up-to-date review on the thermal performance of Parabolic
Trough Solar Collectors (PTC). To present the aspects that need to
be considered in future developments.
In this review, we focused on thermal mathematical models,
simulation and numerical methods, and experimental set-ups of
the collector/receiver of a Parabolic Trough Solar Collector; in
terms of heat loss, ambient conditions, temperature and heat flux.
Fig. 1. Parameters that affect the thermal performance of a PTC.
The report is organised in the following manner. In Section 2, we
describe and classify thermal mathematical models. An analysis of
the effectiveness of the thermal models is included. In Section 3,
we depict the simulation and numerical methods commonly used
in the literature. In Section 4, we describe a few examples of the
experimental set-up of PTC collectors. In Section 5, we show the
key parameters considered in the cost analysis. Certain strategies
used by the authors in this analysis are included. Lastly, Section 6
summarises the primary conclusions.
2. Thermal models for a PTC collector
This section provides information on various thermal models
using in the analysis of a PTC collector. The goal is to explain the
characteristics of each model and demonstrate their main math-
ematical expressions; because it helps in identifying physical
parameters and processes that have an opportunity for improve-
ment. Several research studies on thermal models focus on the
solar collector/receiver and can be listed as follows: (1) Three heat
transfer modes: conduction, convection and radiation; (2) Non-
uniform thermal model; (3) Three-dimensional thermal model;
(4) Statistical model; (5) Energy and exergy model; and (6) Dy-
namic model. These models are described in detail below.
These models depend on the geometric and optical parameters,
mass flow of the heat transfer fluid (HTF), ambient conditions, etc.
Fig. 1 depicts the different parameters that affect the thermal
performance of a parabolic trough solar collector.
2.1. Heat transfer model
Heat transfer always occurs from a higher temperature object
to lower temperature object. There are three heat transfer modes
in a PTC collector: conduction, convection and radiation, which are
based on the energy flow in and out of the collector/receiver, as
indicated in Fig. 2. To simplify the complexity of the heat transfer
model, several assumption are made: (1) The temperature and
heat flux are uniform; (2) This model does not consider optical
inaccuracies, such as shading, cleanliness of the mirrors; and
Fig. 2. Cross-sectional scheme of a PTC receiver for the Heat Transfer Model [49].
 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359 1347

(3) The tracking errors are not considered. These heat transfer When there is no wind, the correlation of Churchill can be re-
modes can be explained in the following sections. commended as follows [38,39]:

2.1.1. Convection ⎛ 0.387Raga1/6 ⎞2

Nu Dgo ⎜
= ⎜ 0.60 +
, Dgo ⎟ ,
Convection is heat transfer from one place to another by the 9/16 8/27 ⎟
⎝ [1 + (0.559/ Pr ) ] ⎠
movement of fluid. It strongly depends on the fluid properties, go , a (6)
geometry and roughness of the solid surface involved [33]. Three 5 12
different convection heat transfer processes occur in a PTC col- 10 < Raga, Dgo < 10
lector; one between the heat transfer fluid (HTF) and the receiver Conversely, when there is wind, it creates an air flow, which
pipe, between the receiver pipe and the glass envelope wall and can be calculated by the Zhukauskas correlation [34,36,40,38] as
between the glass envelope and atmosphere environment. follows:
According to [33,34,36–38], the convection heat transfer be-
tween the inside surface of the receiver pipe and the HTF can be ⎛ Pr ⎞1/4
Nu Dgo = CReDmgoPran⎜⎜ a ⎟⎟ ,
represented as follows: ⎝ Prgo ⎠ (7)
qf − pi, conv = πhf Dpi (Tpi − Tf ), (1) 6
1 < ReDgo < 10 where Raga, Dgo is the Rayleigh number for air,
where hf is the convection heat transfer coefficient at the inside which is based on the glass envelope outside diameter; Prgo, a is the
( )
pipe diameter W/m2 °C ; Dpi is the inside diameter of the receiver Prandtl number for air; C and m are constants; ReDgo is the Rey-
pipe (m); Tpi is the receiver pipe inside surface temperature (°C) nolds number based on the glass envelope outside diameter; and
and Tf is the mean temperature of the HTF (°C). Eq. (1) considers Prgo is the Prandtl number, which evaluates the glass envelope wall
the type of flow through the receiver pipe (laminar or turbulent outside surface temperature.
flow) as well as the temperatures of the receiver pipe and the HTF.
A few authors [36–38] determined the convection heat transfer 2.1.2. Conduction
between the receiver pipe and the glass envelope wall using two Heat conduction is the flow of internal energy from a region of
heat transfer mechanisms (free-molecular convection and natural higher temperature to a region of lower temperature. In a PTC
convection). These mechanisms depend on the annulus pressure collector, heat transfer conduction occurs in four forms: conduc-
and are examined separately. tion heat transfer through the receiver pipe wall, conduction heat
(a) Vacuum in annulus: when the annulus region is evacuated,
transfer through the envelope and conduction through the steel
the pressure in the annulus is reduced (pressure <0.013 Pa ).
absorber wall and the glass cover wall.
Therefore, the convection heat transfer between the receiver pipe
The conduction heat transfer through the receiver pipe wall
and the glass envelope occurs by free-molecular convection and
and the conduction heat transfer through the glass envelope are
can be represented as follows [36–38]:
connected using the Fourier law (hollow cylinder), which can be
qpo − gi, conv = πDpohpo − gi (Tpo − Tgi ), (2) given as follows [33,36,37,41]:

(b) Pressure in annulus: it occurs by natural convection i.e. 2π k c

qpi − po, conv = (T − Tpo),
when the receiver annulus vacuum is lost or the receiver is filled ⎛ Dpo ⎞ pi
ln⎜ D ⎟
or partially filled with ambient air (pressure >0.013 Pa ), which can ⎝ pi ⎠ (8)
be given as follows [36,39]:
2πk eff
where kc is the receiver pipe thermal conductivity ( W/m °C).
2

qpo − gi, conv = (T − Tpo), The Fourier law of conduction through a thin-wall cylindrical
⎛ Dgi ⎞ gi
ln⎜ D ⎟ shell is used to determine the conduction heat transfer through
⎝ po ⎠ (3)
the steel absorber wall and the glass cover wall, which can be
for 0.7 ≤ Prpo − gi ≥ 6000 and 102FcylRapo − gi ≥ 107, where keff is the given as follows [40,43]:
thermal conductivity ( W/m °C).
2

qgi − go = hgo − a(Tgi − Tgo)

However, the convection heat transfer between the glass en-
velope to the atmosphere is depend on the wind, i.e., when there
is wind, more heat is lost to the atmosphere, and it is named
forced convection. Thus, the convection is natural (no wind).
Therefore, the Newton law for cooling can be used in a general
case [33,34,36] as follows:
qconv = hgo − aDgoπ (Tgo − Ta),
(4)
k air
hgo − a = Nu Dgo ,
Dgo
where hgo a is the convection heat transfer coefficient for air,
( W/m °C), and can be defined by Eq. (5); D
2
go is the diameter in-
side the glass envelope (m); kair is the thermal conductivity of the
air ( W/m °C); Tgo is the glass envelope outside surface temperature
(°C); Ta is the ambient air temperature (°C); and Nu Dgo is the
Nusselt number, which depends on the natural and forced
convection.
πDgo
,
1, conv Nθ (9)
where Dgo is the diameter inside the glass envelope (m); Tgo is the
temperature of the glass envelope outside (°C); and Tgi is the
temperature of the glass envelope inside (°C).
2.1.3. Radiation
Radiation does not require contact between two bodies. The
heat transfer radiation can be reflected, absorbed or transmitted,
which produces an exchange inn the radiant energy. For a PTC
collector, the radiation heat transfer is reflected and absorbed.
(5)
Radiation can be studied in two parts: the first between the re-
ceiver pipe and the glass envelope and the second between the
glass envelope wall and the sky.
The radiation heat transfer between the receiver pipe and the
glass envelope model considers the diffuse reflection and radia-
tion. Furthermore, the glass envelope is considered opaque to in-
frared radiation. Its mathematical expression can be given as fol-
lows [36,38,42,44]:
1348 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359

a Ununiform model
Uniform model
Jeder’s result

b Geers Annular space Glass cover with AR Evacuaon nozzle

Concentraon Rao

HTF Side1

Side 2

Glass-to-metal joints Absorber Selecve coang Bellows

Fig. 3. (a) Schematic of the concentrated solar radiation of a PTC receiver, and (b) Side view of a PTC tubular receiver [37].

4
σπDpo(T po − T gi4 ) The radiation heat transfer between the outer absorber wall
qpi − po, rad = , and the inner cover surface can be calculated as follows [38]:
1 ⎛ (1 − ε )D ⎞
gi po
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
εpo ⎝ εgiDgi ⎠ (10) qag, rad = πR poσεag [(Tpi + 273.15)4 − (Tgi + 273.15)4 ], (13)

where εgi is the glass envelope emissivity; and εpo is the receiver
pipe selective coating emissivity. Eq. (10) represents the relation-
ship between the emissivity and the temperature difference of the
receiver pipe and the glass envelope surface.
Additionally, the radiation heat transfer between the glass en-
velope wall and the sky is considered in the solar absorption ex-
pressions, i.e., this model uses the temperature difference between
the glass cover and the sky. This mathematical expression can be
represented as follows [36,41]:
4
qgo − s, rad = σπDgo(T go − T s4 ),
where Rpo is the outer wall of the absorber radius (m); and εag is
the absorber-glass emissivity. This expression is a function of the
temperature and considers the selective coating type.
Similar to Eq. (4), the convective heat transfer outside the glass
envelope in side 1 and side 2 can be calculated as follows [37,38]:
Side 1Q c, go − s = πDg /2hc, g − s (Tgo − Ta), Side 2Q c, gp − s
= πDg /2hc, g − s (Tgp − Ta), (14)
where Tgo and Tgp is the glass temperature in side 1 and side 2 (°C),
(11) respectively; and hc, g − s is the outside glass envelope heat transfer

where s is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W/m2 K); coefficient ( W/m °C).
2

and Ts is the effective temperature of the sky (K). The convective heat transfer of HTF in side 1 and side 2 is re-
presented by the difference in the temperatures of the absorber
2.2. Non-uniform thermal model tube, which can be given as follows [37,38]:

Side 1Q c, to − f = πDt′/2hc, f (Tto

′ − Tf ), Side 2
This model considers that the solar flux and temperature are
non-uniform when the solar flux is uneven on the collector/re- Q c, tp − f = πDt′/2hc, f (Ttp
′ − Tf ), (15)
ceiver, as indicated in Fig. 3a. In other words, the non-uniform heat
where Dt′ denotes the outer diameter of the absorber tubes (m).
transfer model of a PTC collector is based on the energy balance
According to [37], the glass envelope in side 1 and side 2 can be
between the heat transfer fluid (HTF), absorber tube, glass envel-
calculated as follows:
ope and surroundings. In this model, the receiver (the absorber
tube and glass envelope) is divided into two regions: the positive Side 1Q c, to − go = πDpo /2hto − go(Tto − Tgo), Side 2
region (side 2) and the opposite region (side 1), as indicated in
Q c, tp − gp = πDpo /2hto − go(Ttp − Tgp), (16)
Fig. 3b. Cheng et al. [38] observed that side 2 towards the reflector
receivers has a higher solar flux than that of side 1 due to the where the parameter hto can be defined as follows:
go
radiation reflected by the parabolic mirror. Conversely side 1 ab-
sorbs the incident solar radiation from the upper half absorber k po − gi
hto − go = ,
surface. Dpoln(Dgo /Dpo)/2 + bλ(Dgo /Dpo + 1)
Because the non-uniform thermal model is based on non-uni-
form temperature distributions and temperature-dependent Additionally, the heat conduction through the outer surface of
properties, the basic equations that represent this model, focus on the tube to HTF can be calculated as follows [37]:
absorbed energy, non-uniform radiation, heat convection, heat Side 1Q c, to − f = πDpo /2hpo(Tto − Tto
′ ), Side 2
conduction and heat loss of solar receiver. These equations are
described below. Q c, tp − f = πDpo /2hpo(Ttp − Ttp
′ ), (17)
The solar energy absorbed in the glass cover or at the absorber
The Fourier law of conduction is used to calculate the con-
tube can be determined as follows [38]:
duction heat transfer through the steel absorber wall and the glass
Side 1Q a1, sol = (DpoIg )τgαa, Side 2Q a2, sol = (γif ρr )[(a − Dao)Ib]τgαa, (12) cover wall, which can be estimated as follows [37,38]:
2
where Ig is the global radiation (W m ); τg is the transmissivity of Side 1Q a, cond = Sgπ[k a(Ta)/ln(Dpo /Dpi )](Tpo − Tpi ), Side 2
the glass cover; αa is the absorptivity of the absorber; γif is the Q a, cond = π[kg (Tg )/ln(Dgo /Dgi )](Tgi − Tgo), (18)
intercept factor; and a is the aperture width (m). Eq. (12) considers
the imperfections in the reflector and optical properties. We compared Eq. (8) with Eq. (18) and noted that the heat flux
 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359 1349

direction for the heat transfer from higher temperature to lower Edes
Sgen, dT = ,
temperature (Sg ) and the thermal conductivity are a function of the Ta (25)
temperature k(Ta ).
where Edes is the destroyed energy (W); Tsun is the sun tempera-
2.3. One-dimensional thermal model ture (°C); and Tr is the receiver temperature (°C).

The heat transfer is considered one-dimensional (1D) when 2.4. Three-dimensional thermal model
(1) the absorber is considered an infinitesimal element in angular
coordinates, (2) the glass envelope is considered isothermal [39], The three-dimensional thermal model for the PTC collector is
and (3) there are temperature gradients in the radial direction. The developed to analyse the process of converting solar radiation to
one-dimensional thermal model is based on the law of conserva- solar thermal energy. This model analyses the temperature dis-
tion of energy, which evaluates three elements: glass cover, ab- tribution of the receiver and heat transfer using convection, con-
sorber and working fluid. Several authors [44,46] assumed that the duction and radiation between the HTF, absorber and glass en-
incident solar energy upon the absorber is uniform, the vacuum is velope [39,49,50]. However, it does not consider manufacturing
perfectly maintained at all times, the entropy is considered in the and optical defects or tracking errors [51]. The following expres-
system and the receiver tube is separated into three regions, i.e., sions can represent this model.
the liquid region, the two phase region and the super-heated The convection between the fluid element and the surrounding
region. absorber tube infinitesimal surface can be given as follows [39,49]:
This model uses the convection heat transfer from the inner D
tube wall to the working fluid, which can be given as follows q12conv(x, θ , t ) = hf (Tpi(θ , t ) − Tf (x, t ))dθdx
2 (26)
[41,44–46]:
where θ represents the angular direction; x is the x-axis direction;
qf − pi, conv = hf πDpi Δl(Tpi − Tf ), (19) and t is the time in seconds. Eq. (26) denotes the fluid temperature
evolution along the longitudinal direction in that time.
where Δl is the axial length of the receiver (m); hf is the heat
Conversely, the heat transfer due to natural convection be-
transfer coefficient in the single-phase region W/m2 °C , and the ( ) tween the absorber and the glass cover can be calculated using the
parameter hf can be defined as follows: hf = (kf /Dpi )*Nu, mathematical expression [39,49] as follows:
Nu = ((f /8)(Re − 1000)Pr ) /(1 + 12.7(f /8)1/2(Pr 2/3 − 1)), where f is the
lk eff
friction factor. The second-phase heat transfer coefficient can be qpo − gi, conv(θ , t ) = (T (θ , t ) − Tpo(t ))dθ .
⎛ Dgi ⎞ gi
described as follows [44]: ln⎜ D ⎟
⎝ po ⎠ (27)
θdryhvapour + (2π − θdry)h wet
htp = , The heat transfer by convection to the ambient can be approxi-
2π (20)
mated by natural convection for low wind speeds; or forced con-
where hwet is the wet heat transfer coefficient ( W/m °C); θ
2
dry is vection for high wind speeds, and its mathematical expression can
the dry angle that depends on the type of flow; and hvapour is the be written as follows [39,49]:
heat transfer coefficient in the second phase region W/m2°C . ( ) qgo − a, conv = πDgohgo − aL(Tgo(t ) − Ta(t )). (28)
The convection heat transfer from the outer glass tube to the
ambient can be calculated as follows [41,44–47,69]: The radiation heat transfer between the absorber tube and the
glass envelope can be obtained by the expression as follows
qconv = π Δlk airNu Dgo(Tgo − Ta), (21) [39,49]:
where Eq. (21) differs from Eq. (4). However, the Nu number is Dpo 4
σl 2
(T po (θ , t ) − T gi4 (t ))dθ
equal in both equations. qpo − gi, rad(θ , t ) = .
1 ⎛ (1 − ε )D ⎞
Similar to Eq. (8), the conduction through the glass envelope +⎜ ⎜ gi po
⎟
⎟
(from the inner to the outer wall) can be described as follows εpo ⎝ εgiDgi ⎠ (29)
[41,44,45,47]:
2πlk c
qgi − go, conv = (T − Tgo), 2.5. Statistical model
⎛ Dgo ⎞ gi
ln⎜ D ⎟
⎝ gi ⎠ (22) Liu et al. [52] proposed the least squares support vector ma-
The radiation from the receiver to the glass cover uses the chine (LSSVM) method. The LSSVM method evaluated the com-
Eq. (10). However, the radiation heat transfer from the outer glass plicated relationship between the solar collector efficiency and the
tube to the atmosphere can be described as follows[44,75]: solar flux as well as, the flow rate and the inlet temperature of the
HTF. The method has a remarkable advantage for predicting the
( 4
qgi − sky, rad = πDgoσ ϵgi T go 4
− T sky ) (23) performance of the solar collector and identifying the optimisation
operation parameters. Moreover, this method provides meaningful
where Tsky is the sky temperature (°C). data for developing the Parabolic Trough Solar Collectors in a
Additionally, the entropy generated by the finite temperature Chinese thermal power plant. This model can be represented as
differences is determined in this model, which can be obtained by follows [52]:
the destroyed exergy. Thus, the destroyed exergy and entropy
generation (due to finite temperature differences) can be given as ⎧
⎪ 1
N ⎫
γ ⎪
minJ = ⎨ ∥ w ∥2 + ∑ ei2⎬, yk = w T ϕ(x − k ) + b + ek ,
follows [44–46]: ⎩2
⎪
2 ⎪
⎭
k=l (30)
⎛ T ⎞ ⎛ T ⎞
Eout = Q sun⎜ 1 − a ⎟ − Q f ⎜ 1 − a ⎟, where x represents the inlet temperature, flow rate and out let
⎝ Tsun ⎠ ⎝ Tr ⎠ (24) temperature; y represents the solar collector efficiency; N is the
number of training samples; w is the weighted vector; ϕ is a kernel
1350 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359

function; ek represents the error vector and γ > 0 is a problem-

dependent parameter [52]. Eq. (30) evaluates the temperature,
where U is the overall transfer coefficient ( W/m K).
2

Even in [55], the daily HTF heat gained by convection per unit
flow rate and outlet temperature. of receiver length can be considered as follows:
The following relationship can describe the relationship be-
So− 1
tween the inlet temperature, flow rate, outlet temperature and i
solar collector efficiency [52] as follows:
Q gainday = h ∑ Q gain,
i=1 (37)
N i
where Qgain is the total HTF heat gained by convection per unit
y(x) = ∑ αkK (x, xk) + b,
k=1 (31) length of the receiver ( W/m).
Consecutively, the daily thermal energy capacity of the heat
where αk is the Lagrangian multiplier. transfer fluid HTF can be defined as follows [55]:
So− 1
2.6. Energy and exergy model
E= ∑ Cf (T ifout − T ifin ),
I=1 (38)
The analysis of energy and exergy is another method used to
evaluate the thermal performance of PTC collectors. This method is where T ifout
and T ifin
are the output and input HTF temperature of
based on the energy balance equations and can be used to de- the receiver (°C), respectively.
termine the optimal operating conditions [53], PTC collector effi- In other cases, the continuity, momentum and energy equa-
ciencies, effects of the geometric parameters (length, absorber tions are used for the thermal analysis of the PTC collector. The
tube diameters, materials, type of HTF, etc.) and effects of different primary characteristic of this mathematical expression is that the
the operating conditions. These models are described below. flow is considered turbulent in steady-state conditions. Therefore,
the equations can be written as follows [43,57–59]:
2.6.1. Energy model continuity equation
In the energy model, Kumaresan et al. [54] considered it im-
∂(ρui )
portant to evaluate the useful heat gain by the HTF during its flow = 0,
∂xi (39)
passage between inlet and the outlet of the PTC collector. This
expression can be represented as follows [47,48]: momentum equation
Q u = mC
̇ p(To − Ti ), ⎛ ⎞
(32) ∂ ∂P¯ ∂ ⎜ ⎛ ∂u¯ i ∂u¯ j ⎞ 2 ∂u¯ i
(ρu¯ i u¯ j ) = − + μ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ − μ δij − ρui,u,j ⎟⎟,
where To and Ti denote the temperature of the HTF at the outlet ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ⎜⎝ ⎝ ∂xj ∂xi ⎠ 3 ∂xi ⎠ (40)
and the inlet of the PTC measured at any instantaneous time, re-
spectively, (°C); ṁ is the mass flow rate of the HTF in the flow energy equation
circuit (kg/s); and Cp is the specific heat (kJ/kg °C). ⎛ μ ∂(CpT¯ ) ⎞
∂ ∂ ⎜ ∂T¯ ⎟
Similarly, Al-Sulaiman et al. [47] defined that the useful heat (ρu¯ j CpT¯ ) = ⎜ λ + t
∂xj ∂xj ⎝ ∂xj σh, t ∂xj ⎟⎠
collected from the solar collector can be represented as follows:
⎛ ⎛ ∂u¯ ∂u¯ j ⎞ 2 ∂u¯ i ⎞ ∂u¯
Q u = ṁ (h2a − h1a), (33) ∂P¯
+ u¯ j + ⎜⎜ μ⎜⎜ i + ⎟⎟ − μ δij − ρui,u,j ⎟⎟ i ,
∂xj ⎝ ⎝ ∂xj ∂xi ⎠ 3 ∂xi ⎠ ∂xj (41)
where h1a is the specific enthalpy of the ambient air that enters in
the PTC; and h2a is the enthalpy of the air at the inlet of the PTC. where ρui,u,j is the Reynolds stresses (N m 1); ui and uj are the
Kumaresan et al. [54] proposed analysing the energy collected velocity components (ms 1); x i and xj are the spatial coordinates
by the PTC during a time period of 1 h, which is defined by the (m); μ is the viscosity (Pa s); P is the pressure (Pa); T is the tem-
temperature difference between the outlet and the inlet of the PTC
measured at any time j, (To − Ti )j , and the temperature difference
perature (K); λ is the fluid thermal conductivity Wm−1K−1 ; σh, t is ( )
the turbulent Prandtl number for energy; and μt is the eddy
between the outlet and the inlet of the PTC measured after a 1 h
viscosity (Pas ).
interval from the jth time. It can be represented as follows [54]:
Moreover, the entropy generation is determined by the entropy
ṁ [Cp(To − Ti )j + 1 + cp(To − Ti )j ] generation due to the fluid friction irreversibility, and the entropy
Ec = × 3600,
2 (34) production by direct dissipation as well as indirect dissipation can
be given follows [60]:
However, Yilmaz et al. [41] considered it necessary to evaluate
the useful energy gain transferred to the HTF under steady-state μ ⎛ ∂u ∂uj ⎞ ∂ui ρε
conditions. In this context, the effectiveness of the receiver tube FR, S gen = ⎜⎜ i + ⎟⎟ + .
‴ T ⎝ ∂xj ∂xi ⎠ ∂xj T (42)
absorbed solar energy for the receiver S, aperture of the parabola
w, thermal loss coefficient of the receiver tube UL, concentration Thus, the entropy generation due to the heat transfer irreversi-
ratio C, difference in the temperatures between the pipe inlet Tm, i − 1 bility considers the entropy production by heat transfer using the
and ambient temperature Ta are used in the useful energy gain mean temperature and the production by heat transfer using the
transferred to the HTF. Thus, its expression can be written as fol- fluctuating temperature. This expression can be written as follows
lows [41,87]: [60]:
⎡ U ⎤ λ α λ
qu̇ = FRw ⎢ S − L (Tm, i − 1 − Ta)⎥. (S gen)H = 2 (∇T )2 + t 2 (∇T )2 .
⎣ C ⎦ (35) ‴ T α T (43)

Additionally, Patil et al. [56] suggested a mathematical expression

for the useful energy gain of the HTF in terms of the fluid tem- 2.6.2. Exergy model
perature, which can be represented as follows [56]: The exergy model is based on the control volumes, effects of
the inlet temperature, mass flow rate of the heat transfer fluid,
qf (θ ) = πDpoU (Tpo(θ ) − Tf ), (36) solar radiance and wind speed. The goal of this model is to identify
 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359 1351

Table 1
List of primary software used in thermal models of PTC collectors.

Computational Refs. Numerical Thermal models Descriptions

Software methods

Engineering Equation [36,41,47,74] –Heat Transfer -Clear structure

Solver Model
-Energy Model -Flexible
-High accuracy thermodynamic
-Single and multi-variable optimisation capability
-Extremely fast computational speed

Computational Fluid [8,40,43,49,50,56,58,59,61–69,72,85] -FVM -Heat Transfer -Simple algorithm

Dynamic Model
ANSYS CFD -FEM Energy Model -Uses discretisation methods
-Genetic -Thee-dimensional -Detailed data
Algorithm Model
-Accurate
-Nonuniform Model -Identifies critical process and failures
-Robustness
- Advanced modelling capabilities

Modelica [39,71] -Finite Difference Energy Equation The primary objective of the project is to create an in-
Methods dustrially viable open source platform for simulation opti-
misation of Modelica models while offering a flexible plat-
form serving as a virtual lab for algorithm development and
research.

the irreversibility sources that are used to improve the design of (

ΔPj ln Te, j/Ti, j ),
the PTC collector and its thermal performance. Its mathematical Eḋ , ΔP = Toṁ f ∑
j ρj Te, j − Ti, j
expressions are represented below.
The exergy input involves the exergy inflow rate coming from ⎛ ⎞
To ⎟
Ed, q1 = ηoIbAa ψ − ∑ νoI′bΔzAa⎜⎜ 1 − ,
the heat transfer fluid and the exergy of the solar radiation, which
j ⎝ Ta, j ⎟⎠
can be written as follows [53]:
⎛ Te Te, j ⎞
dT 1
Ed, q2 = Toṁ f ⎜⎜ ∫T Cp(T ) − ∑ ∫T Cp(T )dT ⎟⎟.
⎡ Ti Ti CpT Vi2 ⎤ T Ta, j
Eṫ = ṁ ⎢ ⎥ ⎝ i j i, j ⎠
⎣
∫T Cp(T )dT + ν(Pi − Po) − To ∫T T
dT +
2⎦
+ IbAa ψ ,
o o (44)

2.7. Dynamic model

(
where ν is the specific volume m3/kg ; V is the heat transfer fluid )
velocity (m/s); Ib is the solar irradiance ( W/m ); A
2
a is the cross Xu et al. [75] developed a dynamic model to complement the
2
sectional area of absorber (m ); and ψ is the maximum useful work conventional steady-state test method and provide insight into
available from radiation. outdoor test procedures in actual large-scale experiments. The
The exergy output only includes the exergy outflow rate that mathematical model is based on the energy balance in key com-
comes from the heat transfer fluid at the solar receiver. Its math- ponents of the parabolic trough solar collectors and the transient
thermal processes with multiple disturbance sources, such as
ematical expression can be given as follows [53]:
variations in the incident angle, solar irradiance, inlet temperature
⎡ and working fluid flow rate. Furthermore, this model is based on
Te Te CpT Ve2 ⎤
Eė = ṁ ⎢ ∫T Cp(T )dT + ν(Pe − Po) − To ∫T dT + ⎥. two assumptions, which are: (a) the operating temperature range
⎣ o o T 2⎦ (45) and variations in the volume flow rate should be within an error of
2% and (b) the temperature of the receiver is uniform. A few
Due to optical error and heat transfer losses from the solar receiver equations that represent this model are listed below.
to the ambient, the exergy losses can be considered as follows The energy balance equation for the HCE can be given as fol-
[53]: lows [75]:
dTb
Ta, i To Cb = SAa − Af Ubf (Tb − Tf ) − Aam Uba(Tb − Ta),
̇ = (1 − η )I A ψ + Σ
Eloss ∫T Q̇ i, loss dT , dτ (48)
o b a 2
o T (46)
where Cb is the thermal capacity of the steel tube (J/°C); Tb is the
where ηo is defined as the optical efficiency of the solar collector; steel tube temperature (°C); S is the effective incident solar irra-
diance (W/m2); Aa is the aperture area (m2); Af is the heat transfer
and Q̇ i, loss is the thermal losses.
area from the steel tube to the HTF ; Ubf is the overall heat transfer
The friction of the viscous HTF, heat transfer from the sun to the
coefficient from the steel tube to the HTF (W/(m2 °C)); Tf is the HTF
absorber surface and heat transfer process between the absorber
characteristic temperature (°C); Aam is the heat loss area from the
and the HTF generate exergy destruction. Thus, its equation can be
steel tube to the ambient (m2); Uba is the overall heat loss coeffi-
written as follows [43,53,59]:
cient from the steel tube to the ambient (W/(m2 °C)); and Ta is the
ambient temperature (°C). Eq. (48) is characterised by the heat loss
Eḋ = Eḋ , ΔP + Ed, q1 + Edq2, (47) between the outer glass envelope temperature and the inner steel
tube temperature.
where Similarly, the energy balance for the heat transfer fluid in the
1352 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359
steel tube can be expressed as follows [75]:
dTf
Cf = Af Ubf (Tb − Tf ) − mc
̇ f (Tfo − Tfi ),
dτ
where Cf is the specific heat capacity of the HTF (J/(kg °C)); ṁ is the
oil mass flow rate (kg/s); Tfo is the collector outlet temperature
(°C); and Tfi is the collector inlet temperature (°C). Eq. (49) relates
the temperature difference between the HTF and the solar
collector.
The effective incident solar irradiance can be written as follows
[75]:
Tfo − Tfi θ θ2 1 dTfo 1 dfi
= e0 + e1 + e2 +a +b
Geni cos(θ ) cos(θ ) Geni dτ Geni dτ
Tfi − Ta (Tfi − Ta)2
+c +d , tions, etc. It is clear; that the methodology of these models should
Geni Geni
where Geni is the effective direct normal solar irradiance (W/m2);
Tfo is the collector outlet temperature (°C); Tfi is the collector inlet
temperature (°C); Ta is the ambient temperature (°C); τ is the time
(s); θ is the incident angle (°); and e is the Euler number.
2.8. Effectiveness of thermal models
The models mentioned above have been described by several
authors to understand the thermal behaviour of a parabolic trough
solar collector. The following section presents an overview of the
primary characteristic of the thermal models, thus highlighting
their effectiveness and difficulties.
Heat Transfer Model: this model considers all modes of heat
transfer: convection, conduction and radiation. It assumes that the
temperature and heat flux are uniform, which is an approxima-
tion. This approximation is due to one side of the receiver having a
considerably higher temperature than the other. Moreover, the
imperfections and tracking errors of the PTC collector produce
inaccuracies that are not introduced in this model. The simplicity
of this model allows it to be introduced it into any mathematical or
thermal software.
Non-uniform Thermal Model: this model introduces the non-
uniform temperature due to uneven solar flux on the collector/
receiver. It is clear that the non-uniform thermal model allows for
an increase in the model's accuracy. Its mathematical expressions
are useful when they are compared with the experimental results.
However, its equations are not simple as the heat transfer model.
In fact, the receiver is divided into two regions; therefore, this
model has more equations, thus resulting in a difficult analysis.
One-dimensional Thermal Model: this model is based on the
law of conservation of energy. A simple logarithm is used to solve
non-liner equations. The one-dimensional thermal model can be
considered to be as accurate as the heat transfer model; but more
complicated than the non-uniform model because the receiver
tube is divided into three regions (liquid, two phase region and
super-heated region). Furthermore, the entropy generation is
considered in this model. Thus, it requires more computational
capacity.
Three-dimensional thermal model: this model uses non-uni-
form model equations. It is more realistic than the non-uniform
and heat transfer thermal models. Its primary characteristic is that
considers the evolution along the longitudinal and angular direc-
tion over time. However, it uses the equations of the non-uniform
thermal model. This model is similar to the one-dimensional
thermal model.
Statistical Model: this model evaluates the relationship be-
tween the solar collector efficiency, solar flux, flux rate and inlet
temperature of the HTF. It has the remarkable advantage of rapidly
predicting the performance of PTC collector, but is extremely
complex. The heat losses are not considered.
Energy and Exergy Model: this model uses the energy balance
equations. The useful energy and heat losses are relevant in this
(49)
study. It can be simple or complex, which depends on the analysis.
This model is used to determine the optimal operation condition,
collector efficiency, effects of the geometric parameters and op-
erating conditions.
Dynamic Model: this model is accurate and predictive, and can
be compared with the experimental measurements. Thus, this
dynamic model transcends the limitations of the methods men-
tioned above and significantly reduces the test time and equip-
ment cost.
The methods described above are proposed in the thermal
analysis of a PTC collector. Each model is subjected to different
types of operating conditions, designs, materials, weather condi-
(50)
be considered because they can generate complex or simple so-
lutions. Generally, one-dimensional, three-dimensional and sta-
tistical models needs more computational tools. However, these
approaches can be useful optimising the design of the PTC
collector.
3. Simulations and numerical methods
Due to computer technology, several authors performed var-
ious numerical analyses and thermal simulations using a wide
variety of software. These numerical analyses and simulations can
be seen in Table 1. Their classification was performed by con-
sidering the type of thermal model, method and its description.
The foal of this section is to determine how the authors im-
plemented the thermal model in a simulation and solved the
mathematical model.
For example, two articles written by Cheng et al. [67,68] used
the Monte Carlo Ray-Trace (MCRT) method and the Finite Volume
Method (FVM) in the Fluent-code. Each study analysed the solar
energy flux distribution, characteristics and performance of fluid
dynamics, and heat transfer in the receiver tube with certain types
of typical HTF. In the first report [67], they developed a detailed
three-dimensional computational model with different operating
conditions. Based on the heat transfer model, they simulated the
temperature distributions along the radial lines and observed the
effects on the thermal performance of the PTC collector. However,
in the second study, they presented numerical computation results
on the turbulent flow and coupled heat transfer in a novel para-
bolic trough solar absorber tube. The simulation presented in this
report was based on the governing equations for continuity, mo-
mentum, and energy in terms of non-uniform solar energy flux. In
both models, the governing equations were discretised by the FVM
method.
The research conducted by Hachicha et al. [40] is the only one
in the literature that demonstrates a new geometrical-numerical
method to simulate the solar heat flux distribution around the
absorber tube. The heat collector elements were discretised into
several segments in both axial and azimuthal directions using the
FVM method. This model uses the energy balance equations,
which includes the direct normal solar irradiation, optical losses,
thermal losses and gains in the HTF and absorber tube. The general
algorithm is divided in two steps: the pre-processing calculation of
the concentrated solar flux distribution (the optical model) and
the thermal model for resolving the energy balance equations. The
Hachicha model provides the temperature heat flux distribution,
performance of a PTC through calculating the useful energy,
thermal losses and thermal efficiency.
Conversely, Wang et al. [69] performed a three-dimensional
simulation based on FVM and a damped Newton method. The
 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359
radiation, convection and conduction equations were solved using
ANSYS software. The authors investigated the influence of the key
operating parameters on the PTC collector, i.e., the solar radiation
absorbed by the absorber, convection heat transfer between the
HTF and the absorber, conduction heat transfer through the ab-
sorber wall and the cover, heat transfer from the absorber tube,
heat transfer to the atmosphere and influence of the HTF velocity.
The authors considered the non-uniform thermal model. Based on
this simulation, it was observed that the solar energy flux dis-
tribution is symmetrical, and the solar energy in the circumfer-
ential directions is non-uniform, thus obtaining a relative error of
less than 1% between the simulation and experimental results.
Additionally, Wang et al. [69] solved the system of equations for
the three-dimensional thermal model; using the FVM method. The
goal was to analyse the heat transfer between the heat fluid and
the tube wall using the CFD commercial code FLUENT 6.3. The
energy equations of the flow region and the solid region were
solved separately. To test the grid independence, four types of grid
systems were used. The result indicate that the maximum error of
the average Nusselt number and the friction factor between those
grid systems are 1.67 × 10−8% and 49.2 × 10−8%, respectively.
Lastly, they concluded that to reduce the thermal stress, the
maximum circumferential temperature difference on the out sur-
face of the receiver tube should decrease by 45%. For example,
Mwesigye et al. [43,59] proposed a numerical analysis of the en-
tropy generation for the receiver for different concentration ratios
using ANSYS software, based on the finite volume method, which
indicated the increasing concentration ratios when the entropy
generation rate in the receiver increased.
Similarly, Wu et al. [70] used the CFD commercial code FLUENT.
However, the authors combined the Monte-Carlo method and fi-
nite element analysis to calculate the concentrated solar radiation
heat flux distribution in the absorber tube of a PTC collector as
well as the heat transfer (convection, conduction and radiation) in
the system. A comparison between the simulation and experi-
mental results depicted a 5% deviation. Recently, Wu et al. [49]
presented a non-uniform heat flux distribution analysis between
the absorber tube and the glass envelope; using the FVM method
in the CFD commercial code FLUENT. The authors noted that the
flux distribution on the absorber tube depended on the track and
structural accuracy of the collector. After arriving at this conclu-
sion, a three dimensional mesh of 1,000,000 elements was gen-
erated and used in this study. Other studies developed the thermal
performance of different parabolic-trough designs using the CFD
commercial code were presented by Garcia et al. [72], which are
based on the finite volume discretization method that examines
the thermal performance in a PTC collector. The analysis includes
the error estimation (iteration and round-off errors, discretisation
errors and modelling errors).
In the study presented by Patil et al. [56], a numerical analysis
of the heat loss from a non-evacuated receiver with the CFC si-
mulator was performed. The simulation was performed in two
parts. In the first part, the authors estimated the temperature
profiles for different fluid temperatures. In the second part, these
temperature profiles were used to study the effects of the size of
the receiver on the heat loss. In this study, all modes of heat
transfer were included in the simulation. It was observed that the
critical value of the radio of the radius for the minimum heat loss
depended on the receiver pipe diameter.
Additionally, Zaversky et al. [71] performed a simulation of the
HTF flow within the PTC absorber tube using the one-dimensional
model. The authors used the Modelica standard library for
studying the energy balances in terms of the convective heat
transfer, heat flow and fluid temperature. The authors applied the
FVM method and discussed the influence of the number of finite
1353
control volumes that should be used to obtain a good calculation
accuracy.
Another interesting solution methodology was proposed by
Silva et al. [39]. In this study, the authors implemented a complex
tri-dimensional dynamic non-linear in a thermohydraulic PTC. The
authors used Modelica due to its capability of handling differential
algebraic equation systems. The model is divided in three coupled
sub-models: optical model, thermal model and hydraulic model.
The finite difference method was used to integrate the fluid and
the absorber, in a set of partial differential equations, which were
converted into a set of ordinary differential equations. The time
integration of the resulting systems of ordinary differential equa-
tions was performed using the hybrid variable-step solver. The
model was compared with experimental data and obtained an
error of 1.2%.
Other authors, such as Valladares et al. [73], iteratively solved
the governing equations (continuity, momentum, and energy) in-
side the solar PTC receiver tube, separately along with the energy
equation in the tube wall and cover wall. This model used a rig-
orous mathematical model that considered the geometrical, op-
tical, thermal and fluid dynamic aspects of a single-pass and
double-pass in PTC collectors. It was demonstrated that a detailed
simulation model could enhance the thermal efficiency after;
comparing different configurations in the PTC collectors.
Similarly, Kalogirou [36] solved a detailed transfer heat model
of a parabolic trough collector receiver using the Engineering
Equation Solver (EES). This was performed for two reasons; the
first is that the EES includes routines to estimate the properties of
various substances whereas the second is that this software is
compatible with TRNSYS software, thus allowing the development
of a model in two programs. The author performed a comparison
between the simulation and experimental results and observed
that the results were similar. Another study similar to the Kalo-
girou model was performed by Yilmaz et al. [41]. Their study was
based on solar, optical and thermal models, which consisted of
differential and non-linear algebraic correlations, as well as solar
energy calculations for determining optical efficiency and useful
heat gain supplied to a HTF. The heat loss from the receiver in
steady-state was analysed.
Furthermore, an one-dimensional heat transfer approach and
the effects of the optical efficiency, thermal losses, ambient con-
ditions, and state of the receiver under different scenarios were
evaluated. In this report, the author used the Engineering Equation
Solver. Another study identified in the current literature using the
Engineering Equation Solver is the Mokheimer model [74]. The
model developed in this study considered several key PTC per-
formance parameters, such as the heat end losses of the heat
collector element, velocity of the HTF inside the tube and friction
factor of the absorber inner surface. This simulation was validated
against the Thermoflex code. The numerical results showed similar
data.
Fig. 4. Schematic of cost analysis of the main parameters.
1354 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359

Table 2
Criteria of a parabolic trough solar collector.

Parameters Influencing factors Difficulties Suggested solutions

1. Structure -Scalability and cost -Expensive -Improved materials

-Wind effects -Heavy -Design of lightweight structures
-Manufacturing -Installation and construction -Suitable material selection
processes -Corrosion -Parabola construction method (manual/automatic)
-Deflections, vibrations, torsional moments, -Varying the dimension parameters: focal length, aperture of the
stresses and resonance of the structure solar collector
-Instability in the system -Optimisation of dimension parameters
-Distortion of the parabola -Simple assembly
-Dimensions -Using metal-sheet stamping techniques
-Transport of the structure
- Locally available materials
- Mechanical complexity
- Reducing costs, total mass of the collector,
manufacturing time and the installation
errors

2. Heat transfer - Type of flow -Heat losses -New process control scheme
fluid
-Flow rate - Pumping flow -Using of the glass cover tube
- Inlet temperature -Outlet temperature -Inserting metal foams
- Velocity of the HTF -Implementing proportional, integral, and derivative control
-Using a flow control valve

3. Reflector -Reflectivity -Cleanliness of the mirror(dust on the -Automatic washing

mirrors)
-Optical error -Optical losses -Using flexible sheet reflectors
-Geometry error (mirror alignment) -Using unbreakable reflector (ReflecTech)
-Lateral shading losses -Trough is covered by a flat glass that prevents dirt

4. Receiver -Thermal conductivity -Heat losses (radiation, convection - Evacuated-tube receivers

-Receiver geometry
-Thermal emittance of the absor-
ber tubes
- Receiver structure (Absorber
tube diameter, length, material)
-Absorptivity
-Transmittance of glass
-Bending of the receiver - Double glazing vacuum tubes
-Low transmittance and absorptivity of va- -Optimisation of the geometrical parameter
cuum tube receiver
- Absorber tube which is plated with cermet selective coating on
the surface, black-chrome-coated steel
-Cleanliness of the receiver glazing
-Cost -Developments in materials of fiberglass (conventional and
composite materials)
-Deflection of the fiberglass
-Lower-emittance -Manufacture of fiberglass reinforced (specific
stiffness, strength- to-weight ratio, high resistance to elevated
temperatures and acid corrosion.)
-Glass steal seal
-Misalignment of the receiver tube with
respect the focus line
-Using a novel U-type natural circulation heat pipe system

5. Tracking mode -Alignment -Position error (one single axis and two- -Control-oriented models (closed or open loop)
axis- tracking)
-Position -Automatically align with PLC, LabView data system
-Type of solar sensor -Tracking error -Elements of the control system (variable speed drive, gear)
-Defocused to an off-sun position -Solar sensor: shadow-band solar-tracking sensor, photodiodes
sensor, photo-detector
-Focused to the sun position with
-Weather conditions

6. Thermal storage - High thermal energy storage -Storage tank size -Operation strategy
capacity
-Chemical stability of storage material -Using organic and inorganic materials
-Cost of thermal energy storage materials,
the heat exchanger and the heat exchanger
-Integration to the power plant
-Environmental impact.

The available literature indicates that there are still opportu-
nities for researchers to improve thermal modelling. These op-
portunities are focused on combining the thermal model that is
reported in the literature or proposing new thermodynamic
models that simulate the behaviour of a Parabolic Trough Solar
Collector in terms of conduction heat transfer, convection heat
transfer, solar irradiation, thermal losses, efficiency, etc. It should
be noted that the methods and models proposed in future studies
should have the ability to simulate and evaluate essential
parameters of the thermal behaviour of PTC collectors and discard
irrelevant features. Furthermore, they should not require con-
siderable great computational requirements. The key for an in-
telligent optimisation is to obtain a solution within tactically-re-
levant time lines (hours) rather than weeks/months.
4. Experimental set-ups
Modern research in the field of parabolic trough solar collectors
 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359 1355

Table 3 intensity of the solar radiation at intervals of 15 min using a pyr-

Investment cost of a PTC prototype. heliometer. Then, the fluid (HTF) was carried through the PTC
collector and storage unit. The inlet and outlet temperature var-
Item PTC [82] PTC90 [81] PTC45 [81] UNIVPM.01 [77]
iation of the HTF at the collector was measured continuously using
USD USD USD € a data acquisition system and thermocouples. It was observed that
beyond 16.00 h, the HTF decreased its temperature. It was con-
Structure 452 260 233 133 sidered important to evaluate the error associated with the pri-
Optical system 110 52 52 45
Tracking system 164 – – 128
mary experimental measurements, i.e. they measured the errors
HTF System 80 35 65 52 associated with the temperature, mass flow rate and solar in-
Works with CNC 110 120 185 104 sulation as well as the collector efficiency of the root sum square
Miscellaneous (insula- 50 40 40 15 method.
tions, screws, etc.)
Based on a previous study [76], Xu et al. [75] presented an
Labour per m2 15 – – 383
Cost per collector 1055 447 485 477 outdoor experimental set-up using the dynamic test, which con-
Cost per m2 182.10 172.32 167.47 258 sisted of instrumentation and equipment to operate and adjust
both the temperature and the flow rate of the HTF. The author
proposed acquiring the experimental data at 10-s intervals and
(PTC) aims to obtain mathematical models and propose practical with that capture the transient conditions. The test processes and
simulations. However, a limited number of studies concentrate on conditions are described in four cases. Case 1 is used to identify
experimental set-ups. The numerical simulation is low cost; un- the dynamic model parameters in two periods from 10:09 to 11:16
fortunately, numerical results can have considerable errors be- (the heating period) and from 11:16 to 12:39 h (the heat loss
cause of the simplification and the approximation of the problems period). Case 2 is used to compare the measured and predicted
of interest. Although; the experimental method can provide a re- data calculated using the equations of Section 3.7. Case 3 illustrates
latively satisfactory result; its cost is high [52]. A few experimental the unfavourable weather conditions and is compared with cases
set-ups reported in the literature are presented below. 1 and 2. Furthermore, case 4 was operated from 11:45 to 15:21.
Zhang et al. [42] proposed measuring the heat losses of the The solar irradiance, ambient temperature, inlet and outlet tem-
solar receiver and pipes with 28 type T thermocouples. These peratures, and oil mass flow rate through the solar collector were
thermocouples were connected to a data acquisition board 34970A measured.
and controlled by a computer. The field experiments were divided To calculate the thermal efficiency of the PTC collector, Coccia
into two processes: heating and cooling. In the first process, the et al. [77] measured the mass flow rate, inlet and outlet fluid
solar radiation was concentrated in the solar receiver so that the temperature and direct normal irradiance. The authors proposed a
receiver temperature as well as the temperatures of the steam and test bench, which was composed of two parts: the hydraulic cir-
water pipes increased. It was denoted as the heating process. cuit and the calculation system. The test consisted of a pump; that
However, in the second process, the PTC collector was defocused made the HTF flow in the PTC in time intervals of approximately
to an off-sun position; consequently, the hot fluid was cooled 5 min. During this process, they measured the ambient tempera-
down in the receiver tube. This was denoted as the cooling pro- ture, temperature in the tank, temperature of the HTF (at the inlet
cess. The authors calculated the heat flux through the temperature and outlet of the receiver) using T-type thermocouples, AA Class
differences, average temperature of the receiver and connecting RTDs and an Agilent 34970A data-acquisition unit. To complement
pipe. The thermal efficiencies were determined to between 0.791 this analysis, the authors used Gaussian distributions to estimate
and 0.472 in s calm and windy conditions, respectively. the error of the thermal efficiency.
Lei et al. [61] measured the overall heat loss, heat end loss and Li et al. [78] described the experimental process of a PTC pro-
thermal emittance of the coating using steady state equilibrium totype made of fiberglass-reinforced plastic. This experimental
methods, quasi-steady-state equilibrium methods and surface procedure started by flushing the system. Then, the system was
temperature measurement methods. In the first method, the filled with water and the flow rate was adjusted to the required
electric heater on the inside of the receiver was heated by the value. The solar collector was allowed to run for over 20 min to
absorber tube up to a desired test temperature. The conversion of achieve quasi-steady state conditions before starting the experi-
electric power into heat was measured at steady state conditions. ments, and the proper operation of all measuring instruments was
In the second method, a high temperature fluid was cooled down. checked, including the connection of the temperature indicator to
The heat loss was calculated by multiplying the mass flow with the the temperature sensor, pyranometer, anemometer, and tracking
difference between the inlet enthalpy and the outlet enthalpy of of parabolic trough. The data for all of the readings of the ambient,
the fluid. Furthermore, the third method measured the surface fluid, receiver body, and storage tank temperatures as well as total
temperature of the glass envelope using a pyrometer with wave- solar radiations with the wind speed was collected every half an
lengths ranging from 8 to 14 lm or an infrared camera. The analysis hour. The experiment was performed from 09:30 h to 15:30 h.
indicated that the emittance should be evaluated at different For example, Janotte et al. [79] presented the application of
temperatures, because it affects the receiver performance. advanced testing for the Helio Trough collector. The evaluation of
Moreover, Kumaresan et al. [54] proposed measuring the the thermal collector performance is based on two types

Table 4
The costs of a PTC Power Plant.

Country Area[m2] Lifetime [years] Investment cost O & M Cost LCOE

Southern Greece (PB 30000) [83] 30,000 25 41,987,480.80 € 2,865,199.13 € –

Southern Greece (PB 180000) [83] 30,000 25 116,403,082.02 € 3,729,190.83 € –
Greece [93] 60,000 25 32,974,765.09 € 616,904.13 € 264.85 €/MW h
India [88] 18800 25 153 Millon INR 6.26 Millon INR 474.03 €/MW h
India [87] 14540 30 2297021.377 € 199010.86 € 928.05 €/MW h
Brazil [86] 24,492 25 14,843,700USD 298900USD 563.8 USD/MWh
1356 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359
performance analysis: a standard energy balance evaluation
identifies the analysis periods of steady-state operation and an
advanced evaluation based on dynamic models. The last model
considers the optical efficiency, incident angle modifier and ther-
mal losses. The performance parameters and their respective un-
certainties are determined from the test data using numerical least
squares optimisation and the Levenberg Marquardt algorithm. The
performance parameter uncertainties are calculated combining
random and systematic effects, based on the ATM method.
Valenzuela et al. [80] presented a test method for evaluating
the optical and thermal performance of large-size Parabolic
Trough Solar Collectors. The proposed test method consists of two
stages. (1) The measurement of the optical performance of the
collector is the first stage, in which tests are conducted to measure
the peak optical efficiency and incidence angle modifier. Ad-
ditionally, the heat losses are measured at low temperatures to
quantify its effect. (2) The measurement of the thermal perfor-
mance of the collector is the second stage, in which tests are
performed at different average fluid temperatures within this
range to measure the thermal efficiency when the angle of in-
cidence of the solar radiation is 0°. It was observed that the per-
formance of a Parabolic Trough Collector depended on the in-
cidence angle of the solar radiation whereas the heat loss in the
Parabolic Trough Collector depended on the temperature of the
heat transfer fluid and the ambient.
Although several experimental set-ups are available in the lit-
erature, only a few present a methodology for measuring the
thermal performance of a parabolic trough solar collector. It
should be noted that if more instrumentation and experimental
techniques existed in the literature, it would help us to understand
and improve the mathematical models and simulations of PTC
collectors.
5. Cost analysis
Today, it is widely known that PTC collectors are emphasised in
several applications, i.e., hot water heating, pool heating, desali-
nation, pasteurisation, solar cooling, heating, sterilisation, etc.
These systems must be highly competitive; thus, an efficient per-
formance will allow researchers to make better use of resources,
such as materials, human resources, manufacturing processes and
costs.
As described above, the development of cost-based modelling
is required. Considering the importance of this information in the
thermal performance of a PTC collector, we have included certain
relevant stages. This information could help identify the primary
parameters that should be considered in practical applications.
Fig. 4 indicates the primary parameters that are involved in the
cost analysis of a PTC collector, which are explained in the fol-
lowing sections.
5.1. Initial investment
The construction of a PTC collector begins with an initial in-
vestment which includes the equipment cost and mechanical
systems. The first category considers the cost of the material, i.e.,
receiver, reflector, piping with header system, structure, tracking
system and control of the system; whereas the second category
refers to the manufacturing process and mechanical labour
(Table 2).
In small PTC collectors, Jaramillo et al. [81] presented two si-
milar PTC prototypes, and both prototypes were small, light-
weight, structurally rigid and had a low production. The authors
noted that the material for the structure and the CNC machining
were the most expensive items need to manufacture the PTC. They
considered it important to examine each production process to
minimise the waste of raw material. They claim that the workshop
staff required a minimum degree of technical skill for constructing
the PTCs collector, thus the labour costs did not increase sig-
nificantly in the initial investment. Vengas et al. [82] presented a
prototype similar to that of Jaramillo. However, it was observed
that the support structure and the tracking system where the most
expensive items in this prototype. According Coccia et al. [77], a
mould of the parabolic profile is necessary to obtain high precision
in the structure. However, the most expensive items in the system
are the structure, tracking system and mould. From an industrial
point of view, several collectors can be manufactured with a single
mould and amortise the cost. They also considered that 0.15% of
the final cost should be labour costs. Table 3 presents a few ex-
amples of the costs for a small PTC prototype.
In terms of PTC collectors for industrial use, Mason et al. [31]
designed a new PTC with the foal of increasing the efficiency of the
system and minimising the costs of the construction and in-
stallation of a solar collector. This design was focused on using
new materials: the authors used ReflecTech PLUS mirror film in-
stead of traditional glass mirror facets as well as a lightweight
aluminium space frame. It was observed that the design cost was
36% less than that of the prototypes that used traditional glass and
steel structures and 34% less in installations costs. The SkyTrough
design required fewer (larger) receivers, pylons, trackers, and ro-
tating piping connections, thus contributing to a reduced overall
cost. Moreover, the prototype is significantly lighter than a tradi-
tional PTC collector; thus, the tracking system is extremely accu-
rate. This design offers an excellent and bankable option of con-
centrating solar power. The authors do not mention the cost of this
prototype. Additionally, Bakos et al. [83] proposed that the in-
vestment cost should consider land modifications and fencing,
cost for parabolic trough collectors, piping system, exchangers,
heat transfer fluid, buildings and water steam circuit and con-
tingencies, which represents 90% of the investment cost. However,
the administration, personnel and security cost represent 10% of
the investment. Table 4 lists a few examples of the investment
costs of PTC collectors in power plants.
5.2. Operation and maintenance cost
Operation and maintenance costs (O&M) represent a significant
part of electricity production or heating a fluid. With reference to
operating costs, it should be noted that a limited number of au-
thors considered the levelised cost of energy (LCOE), which refers
to the minimum price that the energy must be sold to consumers,
when the electricity is generated by PTCs. This economic analysis
involves the capital, operating and maintenance costs. Typically,
the levelised cost of energy is calculated over the lifetime of the
project and given in the units of currency per kilowatt-hour, as
indicated in the equation as follows [88]:
FR + Of Co Ci
LCOE = + C0& m + ∑ ,
fc P η (51)
where FR is the capital recovery factor, (92% per year); Of is the
capital, operation and maintenance costs, (% per year); FC is the
capacity factor; Co is the capital cost; P is the installed capacity,
(kW); C0& m is the variable cost of the capital, operation and
maintenance; and Ci are the costs of the inputs.
η
Thus, Silva et al. [39] optimised the PTC design and reduced the
capital investment. The authors calculated a LCOE of 5 cEuros/
kW h an 8 year lifetime; considering the operation conditions
shown in this study. A power plant using PTC collectors that could
generate 8.47 GW h/year in the first year of operation was studied
[88]. In this study, it should be noted that the levelised cost of
 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359
energy was 6.89 cEuros/kW h, with a 10% discount rate LCOE for
25 year lifetime. Sadati [84] compared the LCOE in a photovoltaic
cell and a PTC collector, and the author claimed that the PTC col-
lector was more expensive than the photovoltaic cells. They de-
monstrated that the LCOE of a PTC collector with and without a
storage system was 0.273 and 0.226 USD/kW h, respectively.
Photovoltaic cells had a LCOE of 0.192 USD/kW h during a 30 year
lifetime. The difference in costs was due to a higher capital cost in
the PTC collectors.
Conversely, maintenance costs generally include the staff,
maintenance and repair of the tracking system, collector/receiver
and the HTF system, administration, contract service and mis-
cellaneous costs. A few authors, such as Sadati et al. [84], indicated
that the maintenance cost was approximately 2% of the total initial
cost for PTC collectors. It was important to include the insurance
cost, which represents 0.5% of the total capital cost for PTCs.
However, Bakos et al. [85] included a municipal fee of 3% from the
yearly investment income and a cost of 0.5% of the yearly income
as rent for the land used in the power plant installation. Silva et al.
[39] assumed that the maintenance costs should represent 2% of
the initial investment with an inflation rate of 1% per year. These
percentages considered a potential government subsidy, which
could reduce the price of the operating and maintenance costs.
5.3. Instrumentation equipment cost
The majority of the studies presented in the literature explain
and discuss the initial investment costs and M&O costs of PTC
collectors. However, no reference has considered the cost of the
instrumentation equipment, which is required for sensing and
measuring the thermal aspects of a PTC collector, i.e., measuring
the temperature variations, intensity of the solar radiation, flow
rate of the HTF, optical efficiency, etc. It is necessary to use a data
acquisition system, sensors and personal computers to collect and
store the desired data. Thus, we believe it is important that the
instrumentation equipment cost must be included in the eco-
nomic analysis because it may increase the efficiency and cost of a
PTC collector.
5.4. Strategies for the cost analysis of a PTC collector
The principal objective of the economic strategies is to identify
the factors that should be included in Parabolic Trough Solar
Collector designs. Over last few years, few researchers proposed
economic strategies to reduce the investment cost of the solar
collectors. Therefore, Reddy et al. [87] suggested an economic
analysis of parabolic trough power plants that divided the cost into
the following categories. (a) Levelised electricity cost, which in-
cludes the capital, operation and maintenance costs of the plant
using the PTC collector. Furthermore, they considered the con-
struction (the land area required), material (heat transfer fluid
system, storage, structure, etc.) and contingencies. (b) Operating
costs: In this category, the authors include the administration,
solar field spare parts, equipments, service contracts, water
treatment and labours for operating of the plant and maintenance.
(c) Additional costs. This involved the power consumption for
parabolic collector tracking and water pumping. Additionally, they
performed a sensitivity analysis to study the effects of un-
certainties in the input parameters such as capital cost, capacity
factor, discount rate and plant life time of PTC collectors. The au-
thors concluded that a solar field of PTC collectors depended on
the capital cost, capacity factor and discount rate.
To generate solar thermal power, Mevin et al. [88] re-
commended to conduct an analysis of the following parameters:
(a) Project cost; (b) Operation and maintenance cost; (c) Capacity
factor, which measures the annual efficiency of the power
1357
generation facilities; (d) Capital recovery factor (CRF); (e) Levelised
cost of energy; (f) Net present value; which refers to the difference
between the present value of the benefits and the costs resulting
from an investment; and (g) Internal rate of return.
Del Sol et al. [89] used a multi-variable linear regression to
obtain the investment costs of a solar power plant installed in
Chile. The multi-variable linear regression involves different
combinations of technology, power capacity, storage capacity, and
installed country, year of commissioning, mirror solar field, elec-
tricity generation, capacity factor, total plant area and radiation.
Furthermore, it determines the total investment or installed cost of
a solar power plant with the best fit. The equation that defines the
multi-variable linear regression can be given as follows [89]:
Investment cost=β0 + β1Capacity + β2Area + β3Storage Capacity
+ Dtechnology + DCountry , (52)
where βi are constants; and i = 0, 1, 2, 3. Eq. (52) indicates the
investment cost function for thermal solar power plants, in mil-
lions of US dollars; as a function of the capacity (in MW); utilised
area (in hectares), storage capacity (in hours of storage per capa-
city in MW h), technology used (parabolic trough solar collectors),
and country of installation (Chile, Spain, USA).
Silva et al. [39] proposed a simulation-based design optimisa-
tion methodology to improve the thermo-economic performance
of a PTC collector for industrial applications. They integrated their
design, simulation, economic analysis, and optimisation using the
Memetic or hybrid algorithms. The goal was to obtain a re-
presentative set of optimal solutions, which allowed the costs to
be reduced. In other words, the authors pretended to link up the
number of collectors, spacing between rows and thermal energy
storage volume in an algorithm and obtain the best design. These
results suggested that the short term economic performance still
constitutes a barrier for the market penetration of PTC plants for
industrial applications, due to the tight requirements enforced by
the industrial sector.
Mason et al. [31] focussed on reducing the installation costs in
the collector, and the heat transfer system equipment focussed on
reducing the installation costs in the collector, heat transfer sys-
tem equipment and heat transfer system. Most of the significant
savings are obtained from the system assembly which are esti-
mated to be 133 Man-Hours for installing each SkyTrough col-
lector; thus the savings in labour alone can be no more than 64%.
These savings resulted from the thermal performance over five
years and reflectance for twenty years. Thus, the authors can offer
an excellent and bankable option for producing electricity at low
price.
In the physical aspect, several significant strategies for PTC
systems have been proposed. They have focused primarily on the
structure, heat transfer fluid, reflector, receiver and tracking mode.
Table 2 presents a few difficulties and solutions that involve the
design, construction and operation of the PTC collector in the
literature.
To summarise, the cost management in the PTC collectors is a
powerful tool for substantially optimising the design, developing
and implementing these systems. Based on the work mentioned
above, two key elements were found: (1) the planning and future
projection of the solar collectors on the market, i.e. the application
of methodologies that allow that this system enters the market;
and (2) the assessment and cost management in the design, con-
struction and operation of these solar collectors. This phase is
particularly critical because it will establish strategies to ensure a
competitive product and high thermal efficiency. The challenge is
to make improvements in the quality, performance and pro-
ductivity of solar collector systems using these design parameters.
The studies in these areas will play an important role because they
1358 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359
focus on evaluating and optimising thermal systems as PTC
collectors.
6. Conclusions
The goal of this report is to present an up-to-date review of the
thermal mathematical models for the receiver/collector, simula-
tion and numerical methods, and experimental set-ups. It was
observed that there are still opportunities for researchers to im-
prove the thermal modelling. We can assume that these oppor-
tunities are based on combining the thermal models that have
been reported in the literature. However, the combination of all of
the thermal models would imply complex solutions. Moreover, we
observed that a limited number of software have been used to
analyse the thermodynamic performance of a PTC collector, which
indicates that the numerical methods and simulations proposed in
future studies should not require large computation requirements,
because the key for an intelligent optimisation is to obtain a so-
lution within tactically-relevant time lines (hours) rather than
weeks/months.
Furthermore, we determined that certain references available
in the literature have experimental set-ups but do not describe a
methodology for measuring the thermal performance of a PTC
collector. In a few cases, it is difficult to compare the thermal ef-
ficiency of one study with that of another. Lastly, we found it
useful to consider a cost analysis. The cost management in the
Parabolic Trough Solar Concentrators is a powerful tool to sub-
stantially optimise the design, development and implementation
of these systems. Two key elements were found: (1) the planning
and future projection of solar collectors on the market, i.e., the
application of methodologies that allow these systems to enter the
market; and (2) the assessment and cost management in the de-
sign, construction and operation of these solar collectors. There-
fore, all of these studies will play an important role in future
research.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge financial support from Conacyt
(México) (Grant no. CVU-296620).
References
[1] Boukelia TE, Mecibah MS. Parabolic trough solar thermal power plant: poten-
tial, and projects development in Algeri. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;2:288–97.
[2] Karsli S. Performance analysis of new-design solar air collectors for drying
applications. Renew Energy 2007;32:1645–60.
[3] Peng S, et al. A new rotatable-axis tracking solar parabolic-trough collector for
solar-hybrid coal-fired power plants. Sol Energy 2013;98:492–502.
[4] Binotti M, et al. Geometric analysis of three-dimensional effects of parabolic
trough collectors. Sol Energy 2013;88:88–96.
[5] Eleazar Irving, Montes Perez. Design and construction of a parabolic trough
solar collector for process heat production. Energy Procedia 2014;57:2149–58.
[6] Macedo-Valencia J, et al. Design, construction and evaluation of parabolic
trough collector as demonstrative prototype. Energy Procedia 2014;57:989–98.
[7] Valan Arasu A, Sornakumar T. Design, manufacture and testing of fiberglass
reinforced parabola trough for parabolic trough solar collectors. Sol Energy
2007;81:1273–9.
[8] Mohammad Zadeh P, et al. Hybrid optimization algorithm for thermal ana-
lysis in a solar parabolic trough collector based on nanofluid. Energy
2015;82:857–64.
[9] Sokhansefat T, et al. Heat transfer enhancement in parabolic trough collector
tube using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;33:636–44.
[10] Tian Y, Zhao CY. A review of solar collectors and thermal energy storage in
solar thermal applications. Appl Energy 2013;104:538–53.
[11] El Hefni Baligh. Dynamic modeling of concentrated solar power plants with
the ThermoSysPro library (Parabolic Trough collectors, Fresnel reflector and
Solar-Hybrid). Energy Procedia 2014;49:1127–37.
[12] Llorente Garcia I, et al. Performance model for parabolic trough solar thermal
power plants with thermal storage: comparison to operating plant data. Sol
Energy 2011;85:2443–60.
[13] El Fadar A, et al. Modelling and performance study of a continuous adsorption
refrigeration system driven by parabolic trough solar collector. Sol Energy
2009;83:850–61.
[14] Medinelli Sanino LA, et al. Modeling and identification of solar energy water
heating system incorporating nonlinearities. Sol Energy 2007;81:570–80.
[15] El Fadar A, et al. Study of a new solar adsorption refrigerator powered by a
parabolic trough collector. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:1267–70.
[16] Tao YB, et al. Numerical study on coupled fluid flow and heat transfer process
in parabolic trough solar collector tube. Sol Energy 2010;84:1863–72.
[17] Huang W, et al. Performance simulation of a parabolic trough solar collector.
Sol Energy 2012;86:746–55.
[18] He YL, et al. A MCRT and FVM coupled simulation method for energy con-
version process in parabolic trough solar collector. Renew Energy
2011;36:976–85.
[19] Xu C, et al. Research on the compensation of the end loss effect for parabolic
trough solar collectors. Appl Energy 2014;115:128–39.
[20] Lei D, et al. An experimental study of thermal characterization of parabolic
trough receivers. Energy Convers Manag 2013;69:107–15.
[21] Goldstein RJ, et al. Heat transfer. A review of 2003 literature. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2006;49:451–534.
[22] Balghouthi M, et al. Optical and thermal evaluations of a medium tempera-
ture parabolic trough solar collector used in a cooling installation. Energy
Convers Manag 2014;86:1134–46.
[23] Bakos GC, Petroglou DA. Simulation study of a large scale line-focus trough
collector solar power plant in Greece. Renew Energy 2014;71:1–7.
[24] Paetzold J, et al. Wind engineering analysis of parabolic trough solar collec-
tors: the effects of varying the trough depth. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn
2014;135:118–28.
[25] Xu Q, et al. Performance comparison of solar parabolic trough system with
glass and film reflector. Energy Convers Manag 2014;85:581–90.
[26] Eck M, Hirsch T. Dynamics and control of parabolic trough collector loops with
direct steam generation. Sol Energy 2007;81:268–79.
[27] Rubio FR, et al. Application of new control strategy for sun tracking. Energy
Convers Manag 2007;48:2174–84.
[28] Frank Elimar, et al. Evaluation of measurements on parabolic trough collector
fields for process heat integration in Swiss dairies. Energy Procedia
2014;57:2743–51.
[29] Prahl C, et al. Airborne shape measurement of parabolic trough collector
fields. Sol Energy 2013;91:68–78.
[30] Abu-Hamdeh NH, et al. Design and performance characteristics of solar ad-
sorption refrigeration system using parabolic trough collector: experimental
and statistical optimization technique. Energy Convers Manag 2013;74:162–
70.
[31] Mason A, Reitze E. Establishing bankability for high performance, cost redu-
cing SkyTrough parabolic trough solar collector. Energy Procedia
2014;49:155–62.
[32] Sait HH, et al. Fresnel-based modular solar fields for performance/cost opti-
mization in solar thermal power plants: a comparison with parabolic trough
collectors. Appl Energy 2015;141:175–89.
[33] de Oliveira Siqueira Antonio Marcos, et al. Heat transfer analysis and mod-
eling of a parabolic trough solar collector. Energy Procedia 2014;57:401–10.
[34] Sun, et al. Numerical study of parabolic-trough direct steam generation loop
in recirculation mode: characteristics, performance and general operation
strategy. Energy Convers Manag 2015;96:287–302.
[36] Kalogirou SA. A detailed thermal model of a parabolic trough collector re-
ceiver. Energy 2012;48:298–306.
[37] Lu J, et al. Nonuniform heat transfer model and performance of parabolic
trough solar receiver. Energy 2013;59:666–75.
[38] Cheng Z-D, et al. A detailed nonuniform thermal model of a parabolic trough
solar receiver with two halves and two inactive ends. Renew Energy
2015;74:139–47.
[39] Silva R, et al. Modeling and co-simulation of a parabolic trough solar plant for
industrial process heat. Appl Energy 2013;106:287–300.
[40] Hachicha AA, et al. Heat transfer analysis and numerical simulation of a
parabolic trough solar collector. Appl Energy 2013;111:581–92.
[41] Yilmaz IH, Sylemez MS. Thermo-mathematical modeling of parabolic trough
collector. Energy Convers Manag 2014;88:768–84.
[42] Zhang L, et al. An experimental investigation of the heat losses of a U-type
solar heat pipe receiver of a parabolic trough collector-based natural circula-
tion steam generation system. Renew Energy 2013;57:262–8.
[43] Mwesigye A, et al. Numerical investigation of entropy generation in a para-
bolic trough receiver at different concentration ratios. Energy 2013;53:114–27.
[44] Nolte HC. Second law analysis and optimization of a parabolic trough receiver
tube for direct steam generation. Heat Mass Transf 2015;51:875–87.
[45] Liang H, et al. Comparison of different heat transfer models for parabolic
trough solar collectors. Appl Energy 2015;148:105–14.
[46] Xu R, Wiesner TF. Closed-form modeling of direct steam generation in a
parabolic trough solar receiver. Energy 2015;79:163–76.
[47] Al-Sulaiman FA, et al. Humidification dehumidification desalination system
using parabolic trough solar air collector. Appl Therm Eng 2015;75:809–16.
[48] Al-Sulaiman FA, et al. Energy and sizing analyses of parabolic trough solar
 L. Salgado Conrado et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1345–1359
collector integrated with steam and binary vapor cycles. Energy 2013;58:561–
70.
[49] Wu Z, et al. Three-dimensional numerical study of heat transfer character-
istics of parabolic trough receiver. Appl Energy 2014;113:902–11.
[50] Wang Y, et al. A three-dimensional simulation of a parabolic trough solar
collector system using molten salt as heat transfer fluid. Appl Therm Eng
2014;70:462–76.
[51] Cheng ZD, et al. Three-dimensional numerical study of heat transfer char-
acteristics in the receiver tube of parabolic trough solar collector. Int Commun
Heat Mass Transf 2010;37:782–7.
[52] Liu Q, et al. Modeling and optimizing parabolic trough solar collector systems
using the least squares support vector machine method. Sol Energy
2012;86:1973–80.
[53] Padilla RV, et al. Exergy analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver. Appl
Therm Eng 2014;67:579–86.
[54] Kumaresan G, et al. Performance studies of a solar parabolic trough collector
with a thermal energy storage system. Energy 2012;47:395–402.
[55] Ouagued M, et al. Estimation of the temperature, heat gain and heat loss by
solar parabolic trough collector under Algerian climate using different thermal
oils. Energy Convers Manag 2013;75:191–201.
[56] Patil RG, et al. Optimization of non-evacuated receiver of solar collector
having non-uniform temperature distribution for minimum heat loss. Energy
Convers Manag 2014;85:70–84.
[57] You C, et al. Modeling of fluid flow and heat transfer in a trough solar col-
lector. Appl Therm Eng 2013;54:247–54.
[58] Mwesigye A, et al. Thermodynamic optimisation of the performance of a
parabolic trough receiver using synthetic oil- Al2O3 nanofluid. Appl Energy
2015;156:398–412.
[59] Mwesigye A, et al. Heat transfer and thermodynamic performance of a
parabolic trough receiver with centrally placed perforated plate inserts. Appl
Energy 2014;136:989–1003.
[60] Mwesigye A, et al. Minimum entropy generation due to heat transfer and fluid
friction in a parabolic trough receiver with non-uniform heat flux at different
rim angles and concentration ratios. Energy 2014;73:606–17.
[61] Lei D, et al. An experimental study of thermal characterization of parabolic
trough receivers. Energy Convers Manag 2013;69:107–15.
[62] Mohammad Zadeh P, et al. Hybrid optimization algorithm for thermal ana-
lysis in a solar parabolic trough collector based on nanofluid. Energy
2015;82:857–64.
[63] Khanna S, et al. Explicit expressions for temperature distribution and de-
flection in absorber tube of solar parabolic trough concentrator. Sol Energy
2015;114:289–302.
[64] Lobon DH, et al. Modeling the dynamics of the multiphase fluid in the
parabolic-trough solar steam generating systems. Energy Convers Manag
2014;78:393–404.
[65] Kumar LR, et al. Effect of porous disc receiver configurations on performance
of solar parabolic trough concentrator. Heat Mass Transf 2012;48:555–71.
[66] Marif Y, et al. Numerical simulation of solar parabolic trough collector per-
formance in the Algeria Saharan region. Energy Convers Manag 2014;85:521–
9.
[67] Cheng ZD, et al. Numerical simulation of a parabolic trough solar collector
with nonuniform solar flux conditions by coupling FVM and MCRT method.
Sol Energy 2012;86:1770–84.
[68] Cheng ZD, et al. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement by unilateral
longitudinal vortex generators inside parabolic trough solar receivers. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 2012;55:5631–41.
1359
[69] Wang P, et al. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement in the receiver
tube of direct steam generation with parabolic trough by inserting metal
foams. Appl Energy 2013;102:449–60.
[70] Wu Z, et al. Structural reliability analysis of parabolic trough receivers. Appl
Energy 2014;123:232–41.
[71] Zaversky Fritz, et al. Object-oriented modeling for the transient performance
simulation of parabolic trough collectors using molten salt as heat transfer
fluid. Sol Energy 2013;95:192–215.
[72] Fernandez-Garcia A, et al. A parabolic-trough collector for cleaner industrial
process heat. J Clean Prod 2015;89:272–85.
[73] Garcia-Valladares O, Velazquez N. Numerical simulation of parabolic trough
solar collector: improvement using counter flow concentric circular heat ex-
changer: improvement using counter flow concentric circular heat exchanger.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 2009;52:597–609.
[74] Mokheimer EMA, et al. Techno-economic performance analysis of parabolic
trough collector in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Energy Convers Manag
2014;86:622–33.
[75] Xu L, et al. A comparison of three test methods for determining the thermal
performance of parabolic trough solar collectors. Sol Energy 2014;99:11–27.
[76] Xu L, et al. A new dynamic test method for thermal performance of all-glass
evacuated solar air collectors. Sol Energy 2012;86:1222–31.
[77] Coccia G, et al. Design, manufacture, and test of a prototype for a parabolic
trough collector for industrial process heat. Renew Energy 2015;74:727–36.
[78] Li M, et al. A new study on the end loss effect for parabolic trough solar
collectors. Energy 2015;82:382–94.
[79] Janotte N, et al. Dynamic performance evaluation of the HelioTrough collector
demonstration loop-towards a new benchmark in parabolic trough qualifi-
cation. Energy Procedia 2014;49:109–17.
[80] Valenzuela L, et al. Optical and thermal performance of large-size parabolic-
trough solar collectors from outdoor experiments: a test method and a case
study. Energy 2014;70:456–64.
[81] Jaramillo OA, et al. Parabolic trough concentrators for low enthalpy processes.
Renew Energy 2013;60:529–39.
[82] Brooks M, et. al.. Design, construction and testing of a parabolic trough solar
collector for a developing-country application. In: Proceedings of the ISES
Solar World Congress, Orlando, FL; 2005, 605. p. 6–12.
[83] Bakos GC, Parsa D. Technoeconomic assessment of an integrated solar com-
bined cycle power plant in Greece using line-focus parabolic trough collectors.
Renew Energy 2013;60:598–603.
[84] Sadati SMS, et al. Energetic and economic performance analyses of photo-
voltaic, parabolic trough collector and wind energy systems for Multan, Pa-
kistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:844–55.
[85] Bakos GC, Petroglou DA. Simulation study of a large scale line-focus trough
collector solar power plant in Greece. Renew Energy 2014;71:1–7.
[86] Burin EK, et al. Boosting power output of a sugarcane bagasse cogeneration
plant using parabolic trough collectors in a feedwater heating scheme. Appl
Energy 2015;154:232–41.
[87] Reddy KS, et al. Solar collector field design and viability analysis of stand-
alone parabolic trough power plants for Indian conditions. Energy Sustain Dev
2012;16:456–70.
[88] Mevin, et al. Techno-economic analysis of solar parabolic trough type energy
system for garment zone of Jaipur city. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;17:104–9.
[89] del Sol F, Sauma E. Economic impacts of installing solar power plants in
northern Chile. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:489–98.