Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Thermo-mathematical model for parabolic trough collector using a complete T

radiation heat transfer model – A new approach
B.S. Jinshah, K.R. Balasubramanian
⁎

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Solar Parabolic Trough Collectors (PTC) are alternative clean solution for the thermal power plants to generate
Parabolic trough electricity and thermal energy. It can be configured to support small, medium and high temperature applica-
Gebhart factor tions. In PTC, solar radiation is concentrated to a pipe coated selectively and enclosed in a glass tube with
View factor vacuum maintained in the annulus, through which a heat transfer fluid is circulated. Heat transfer analysis of
Heat transfer Analysis
PTC is important to determine the operating characteristics as well as for optimization of the parameters under
different operating conditions. In this paper a heat transfer model is developed for receiver tube with the focus
on a complete radiation heat transfer model for the annulus. For the analysis the receiver tube is divided into
severe elements where the governing energy equations are discretized using Finite Volume Method. Gerhart
factor is used for modelling the radiation heat transfer. View factors are computed using contour integration
technique and analytical solutions. Heat transfer results are then validated with the test results obtained from
Sandia National Laboratory. The results obtained show close agreement with the test results. Also the result is
compared with other four published models. Based on the RMSE analysis, it is proven that our model is the best
among all the four models compared.

1. Introduction analysis of parabolic trough solar receivers (Padilla et al., 2011). A

Presently Parabolic Trough Collectors(PTC) are the most grown and
outstanding solution for solar based power generation for electricity. It
is a simple device which absorbs the solar energy in the form of thermal
radiation and converts it to thermal energy of a heat transfer fluid
which can be transferred to any useful energy. The sun’s energy
available in a particular location is not uniform over the year, and also
varies from place to place. This explains the importance of heat transfer
analysis of such system for the effective design of the system in the
initial stage, selection of components and to predict the performance of
the system. From beginning numerous heat transfer models were pro-
posed by the researchers around the world to predict the efficiency of
the collector (Edenburn, 1976). Ratzel et.al proposed various techni-
ques to reduce the heat transfer loss from receiver tube (Ratzel et al.,
1979). Stoddard et.al were first among the researchers to develop a
computer code named SOLERGY to predict the annual energy for a
central receiver plants (Stoddard et al., 1987). Even though many in-
house codes have been developed during these time for modelling such
problems, a commercial software named TRNSYS has become a tool for
the researches (Beckman et al., 1994; Biencinto et al., 2016). Recently
Padilla et.al presented a comprehensive heat transfer model for thermal
simple yet efficient modelling strategy was presented by Agagna et al.
(2018). Comparative studies have been conducted on PTC with single
and double cover to minimize the heat loss (Mohamad et al., 2014).Also
optimization (Odeh and Morrison, 2006; Rabl et al., 1982) of PTC as
well as PTC with Organic Rankine system (Pehlivantürk et al., 2014;
Taccani et al., 2016; Quoilin et al., 2011) have turned to be the active
subject of research these days.
Receiver tube of parabolic trough collectors (PTC) and compound
parabolic collectors (CPC) are in general of concentric tubes. Through the
inner metallic tube (Heat Collecting Element - HCE), heat transfer fluid is
flowing. The outer tube is of borosilicate glass and the annular space is
typically evacuated to reduce the convection losses. For evaluating the
heat transfer efficiency of receiver tube, it is important to determine the
net energy exchange between the high temperature HCE and the glass
tube. Since the annular region is evacuated, radiation is the fundamental
mode of heat transfer. Radiation heat transfer depends on the geometric
parameters, orientation of the exchanging surfaces, radiation properties
of the surfaces and the temperature of the surfaces in exchange. View
factor is the commonly used parameter to represent the orientation of the
exchanging surfaces. It is defined as the fraction of energy intercepted by
the surface which is emitted by the interacting surface.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: krbala@nitt.edu (K.R. Balasubramanian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.12.068
Received 13 September 2019; Received in revised form 25 November 2019; Accepted 24 December 2019
Available online 06 January 2020
0038-092X/ © 2019 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Nomenclature Q heat transfer, W

q heatflux, W/m2
m mass flow rate,m3/s qo radiosity, W/m2
A surface area, m2 R normalized radius in Eq. (15)
Cp specific heat, J/kg K r radius, m
CR geometric concentration factor rrc radius at rim angle, m
D Diameter, m Ra Reyleigh number
F viewfactor Re Reynolds number
f focal length, m S length defined in Eq. (3), m
G Gebhart factor T Temperature, K
H dimensionless length in Eq. (15) Tdpa dew point temperature of air, °C
h specific enthalpy, J/kg u velocity, m/sec
IDNI Direct Normal Irradiation Wa apperature, m
k conducitivity, W/m K x , y, z cartesian coordinate axes
ka conductivity of air, W/m2 K
kg conductivity of gas, W/m2 K Greek
l length between two elements, m
m number of elements in pipe/tube absorptivity, angle subtended by surface I-rad
N Total number of interacting surfaces angle subtended by surface-II, rad
P Pressure, mm of Hg
molecular diameter, cm Subscripts
length of one element, m
emissivity ambient
surface contour a, ab absorber
ratio of specific heats br bracket
thermal accommodation coefficient c concentrator surface
mean free path, m conv convective mode
friction factor e end plates
relative humidity eff effective
heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K g glass
reflectivity, density-kg/m3 HTF Heat Transfer Fluid
Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.67 × 10 8W/m2 K4 i Element index/ inner surface
acceptance angle, rad o outer surface
angle defined in Eq. (3), rad rad radiative mode
r rim angle,rad si ith interacting surface
dimensionless radius defined in Eq. (10) si j ith interacting surface to jth interacting surface
Pe Perimeter, m angle defined in Eq. (3), rad
Pr Prandtl number T total

Heat transfer analysis in the receiver tube includes all the three
modes of heat transfer. It makes the problem non-linear, where iterative
methods are required to solve the problem. This claim the importance
of accuracy needed in the view factor computation. Incorrect View
factor values will lead to accumulate the error on course of iteration
and affect the reliability of results obtained. A variety of numerical
algorithms and analytical methods are extensively used for evaluating
the view factor between generic surfaces (Surinov, 1959; Ozeki et al.,
2000). Among these methods the most used are direct integration
method (Diaconu et al., 2012; Walton and Walton, 2002), contour in-
tegration method (Sparrow, 1963; Jithesh et al., 2007) and Monte Carlo
method (Humphrey et al., 2016; Vujičić et al., 2006). C P Tso et.al
derived analytical relation for the view factor analysis of finite length
rings on the interior of a cylindrical shell (Tso and Mahulikar, 1999).
Reid and Tennant (1973)derived an equation which can be integrated
numerically to obtain the shell to tube view factor that are kept at a
distance apart. Howell (2001) compiled the expressions for evaluating
the view factor for a variety of configurations and surfaces. The Monte
Carlo method (MCM) is used largely due to its powerful nature for
handling obstructions (Mirhosseini and Saboonchi, 2011). Due to the
statistical nature, its accuracy depends on the number of rays con-
sidered and makes this method computationally expensive. Also MCM
lack accuracy when the solid angle subtended between the two surfaces
is very small. Even though few methods are suggested (Daun et al.,
2005) to improve the accuracy at this situation, its computational
intensiveness makes MCM less practical in large scale calculations re-
quired for practical problems. In these situations double integration
method or contour integration method (CIM) out performs with respect
to its comparatively less computational expensive nature and accuracy
(Juul, 1982; Francisco et al., 2014). Even though CIM seems to be the
best method, its application is limited in place where the original sur-
face is partly obstructed and the surfaces share a common edge (loga-
rithmic singularity). Some methods has been suggested to find the
shaded area and to take that in account (de Carvalho Augusto et al.,
2007; Walton and Walton, 2002). More recently generic Romberg in-
tegration formula with trapezoidal rule is used to tackle logarithmic
singularity. Here in this method an analytical solutions will be devel-
oped for such edges while evaluating view factor. This method is ac-
curate and can extend to any geometries (Ambirajan and Venkateshan,
1993). In CIM, desired accuracy can be obtained by wisely choosing the
solution technique. Simpson’s method and Gaussian quadrature
methods are the choice for many researchers for this task (Rao and
Sastri, 1996).
Even though researchers have improved the accuracy of heat
transfer model by choosing better empirical relation for convective heat
transfer, radiation heat transfer modelling is still untouched. Only few
papers are reported which considered the radiation through view factor
algebra. In this paper, a complete radiation model is explained for
evaluating the radiation loss between the absorber tube and the glass
tube. The radiation heat transfer model is based Gebhart Equation.

59
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

View factor is evaluated using both contour integration method pro-
posed by Sparrow (1963) and analytical results obtained from litera-
ture. The paper is structured in 5 sections. The radiation heat transfer
model proposed for the receiver tube is discussed in Section 2. A heat
transfer model based on Finite Volume Method (FVM) with relevant
empirical correlations obtained from literature is discussed in Section 3.
In the subsequent Section 4, the model so developed is validated where
the results are discussed as well in Section 5. In Section 6 the paper is
concluded.
factor can be evaluated by considering the complete radiation heat
transfer for all the surfaces in the enclosure and solving the simulta-
neous equation so obtained. The energy emitted by a surface j which
reaches the surface si directly and absorbed is given by si Aj j T j4 Fj si .
Apart from this, the energy emitted by the surface j which reaches
another interacting surface j and reflected is given by j Aj j T j4 Fj j .
The fraction of this reflected energy absorbed by the surface si can be
expressed using on absorption factor, Gj si . Considering all the inter-
acting surface, net radiation exchange for surface si can be expressed as,

Fj 1 i = Fj 1 1 G1 si Fj 2 2 G2 si + Gj si Fj N N GN si
2. Radiation heat transfer modelling
(2)
In this section the radiation heat transfer model developed for the Eq. (2) can be written for all the interacting surfaces and the si-
receiver tube is explained. It is assumed that the temperature of both multaneous equation can be solved to obtain the Gebhart factor for all
the absorber pipe and glass tube varies along the axial direction only. the surface. Advantage of using Gebhart equation is that the coefficients
Fig. 1 shows a typical receiver tube of parabolic trough collector. The of Gj si in Eq. (2) remains same for all the surface si. So it is easier to
end plate mentioned here is the bellow for supporting the absorber pipe solve the equation using matrix inversion as, Gsi j = C 1f . The coeffi-
with the glass tube. The annular space between the glass tube and the cient matrix C and the f matrix can be written as,
absorber pipe along with the end plates constitute an enclosure where
the participating surfaces emits, absorb and reflect the thermal radia- (1 F1 1 1) F1 2 2 F1 3 3 F1 N N
tion. The borosilicate glass material used for this application is essen- F2 1 1 (1 F2 2 2) F2 3 3 F2 N N
tially opaque to higher wavelength radiation (Thermal radiation). A C=
part of the radiation which falls on the inner surface of the glass tube is
absorbed and remaining is reflected back. Therefore it is essential to FN 1 1 FN 2 2 FN 3 3 (1 FN N N)
consider reflected, absorbed and emitted radiation for the complete
modelling of the radiation heat transfer between the absorber tube and
F1 F1 F1 F1
the glass tube. For modelling the net radiation exchange between the 1 1 2 2 3 3 N N
F2 F2 F2 F2
absorber and glass tube, the receiver tube is divided into m number of 1 1 2 2 3 3 N N
f=
elements having the length each as shown in Fig. 2.
Considering the radiosity and irradiation for the surfaces of ith ele- FN FN FN FN
1 1 2 2 3 3 N N
ment as shown in Fig. 2. Radiosity (qosi ) includes the radiation emitted
from the surface, ( si Tsi4 ) and the reflected radiation, ( si qj si ). The It is evident from the formulation of Gebhart factor that its value is very
incident radiation to ith element surface, (qj si ) includes both the re- sensitive to the View factor. Even a small error in the computation of
flected radiation and emitted radiation from all other surface in the view factor will lead to significant deviation in Gebhart factor. So the
enclosure. This kind of problem can be accurately modelled using accurate computation of the View factor between each interacting
Gebhart equation (Gebhart, 1961). It is based on net energy absorbed surface is essential. The next section deals with the evaluation of View
by each surface in the enclosure. For an opaque surface the net energy factor.
leaving from a surface can be modelled mathematically as,
N
2.1. View factor analysis
Qsi = Asi si Gsi j (Tsi4 T j4 )
j=1 (1)
The objective of this analysis is to obtain the view factor between
where s represents the surface (either glass or absorber tube), j re- the interacting surfaces accurately. Here the view factor is evaluated
presents all the interacting surfaces,N indicates the total number of using both contour integration method proposed by Sparrow (1963)
exchanging surface in the enclosure. Along with the two end plates, and analytical results obtained from literature. Different View factor to
there are 2 m + 2 interacting surfaces in the enclosure. Gsi j is called as be investigated are, the absorber surface for ith element to all other
the absorption factor or Gebhart factor. surface (Fai j ) and the glass surface of ith element to all other surface
The term Gsi j is the fraction of energy emitted by the surface Aj that (Fgi j ) . All other View factor can be determined by considering the re-
reaches the surface Asi and gets absorbed (Howell et al., 1969). This ciprocity theorem (Ai Fi j = Aj Fj i ) . The fundamental expression for the
includes all the path, direct and one or multiple reflections. Absorption View factor between the absorber surface and the glass tube is given by,

Fig. 1. A typical receiver tube of parabolic trough collector.

60
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Fig. 2. Radiation incident and leaving from the surfaces for ith element.

1 cos i cos j absorber tube and the glass tube with all the necessary notations and
Fai = dAi dAj
relations. For modelling the View factor, a differential area, dAai
gj
Ai Ai Aj S2 (3)
bounded by the contour ai with half included angle = 1° is chosen on
where S is the length of line joining the centroids of two interacting
the absorber pipe. The differential area is mutually viewed from glass
surface. i and j are the angle made by S with the normals to absorber
tube over half angle of bounded by the contour gj . Where
and glass tube or end plate respectively. Stoke’s theorem is applied
= + arccos(rg / ra) . It can be proved using view factor algebra that
twice (Modest, 2013) on Eq. (3) to reduce the order of integration from FdAai gj = Fai gj .
4 to 2. With this the Eq. (3) becomes
For simplifying the integration, ai and gj are sub divided into four
1 parts as shown in Fig. 3. The limits of integration over these contours
Fi j = ln(S ) dsi· dsj
2 Ai i j (4) are given in Table 1 With these considerations, the View factor in Eq.
(4) along with 5 becomes,
where the contours are defined using dsi and dsj for the elements chosen
viz the absorber pipe, glass tube or end plate. On Cartesian coordinate Fai gj=
2 . dAai
1
{2ra rg ln(ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( a 2 1/2 cos(
g) + l ) a g ) d a d g+
system, the dot product is written as dsi· dsj = dx i dx j + dyi dyj + dz i dz j . 2ra rg ln(ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( a ) 2)1/2 cos( a
g ) + (l + g ) d a d g+
Since the receiver tube is of cylindrical in shape, polar coordinate l+ l
ln(a2 + (z ai z gj )2)1/2dz a dz g + 2 0 ln(b2 + (z ai z gj )2)1/2dz a dz g }
system with r , , z is preferred. Using the general transformation rule 2 0 l l+
1
x = r cos , y = r sin and z = z the dot product can be written as, = (f
2 . dA ai (ai gj )
+ f(ai gj) z )

dsi·dsj = ra rg cos( i j) d i d j rasin( i j ) d i drj + rg sin( i j)

(6)

dri d j + cos ( i j ) dri drj (5) Due to the complex nature of the integral, f(ai gj ) is integrated nu-
merically using Simpson’s 2D Rule (Hamming, 2012) while f(ai gj ) z is
where S = (x j x i + (yj + (z j z i . with x , y are obtained
)2 yi )2 )2 integrated analytically using the standard tables (Jeffrey and Dai, 2008)
using r and . Eq. (4) with dsai·dsj as in Eq. (5) is integrated over the and obtained as,
contour to obtain the required View factor. Where the direction of in-
tegration is taken using right hand thumb rule. If the thumb pointing in
2 + a2 2 + b2
l+ l+ l 2 a2 l2 b2
f(ai gj ) z = ln(l+2 + a2) ln(l+2 + b2) + ln(l 2 + a2) ln(l 2 + b2)
2 2 2 2
the direction normal to the area, then the finger curl is the direction of l l
(l2 2 2 2
a )ln(l + a ) + (l 2 2 2 2
b )ln(l + b ) 4l aarctan barctan
integration. a b
l l l l
+ 2l+ aarctan + barctan + + 2l aarctan barctan
a b a b
2.1.1. View factor from absorber elements to all other interacting surface
(7)
The View factor interested here are from the absorber pipe to itself
(Fai aj ) , to the glass surfaces (Fai gj ) and to the end plates (Fai ej ) . Since where l+ = l + and l = l . The terms a and b in the Eq. (6) and (7)
the absorber pipe surface is convex in curvature, Fai aj is 0. Other two are ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( ) and ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( + ) respec-
View factors are evaluated using contour integration technique. Fig. 3 tively.
portrays the elements chosen for modelling the View factor between the A similar approach is used to model the View factor between the

Fig. 3. Elements for modelling the View factor, Fai gj .

61
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Table 1 Table 2
Limits for the integration for Fai gj . Limits for the integration of Fai e .

Contour- ai Contour- gj Contour - ai Contour - gj

I: drai = dz ai = 0, d ai i: drgj = dz gj = 0, d gj I: drai = dz ai = 0, d ai i: drgj = dz e = 0, d e

II: drai = d ai = 0, 0 dz ii: drgj = d gj = 0, l dz l+ II: drai = d ai = 0, 0 dz ii: ra dre rg , d e
III: drai = dz ai = 0, d ai iii: drgj = dz gj = 0, d gj III: drai = dz ai = 0, d ai iii: drgj = dz e = 0, d gj
IV: drai = d ai = 0, dz 0 iv: drgj = d gj = 0, l + dz l IV: drai = d ai = 0, dz 0 iv: rg dre ra, d e

absorber pipe to the end plates(Fai e ). The elements chosen for the f(ai e) r = 2
rg
ln(ra2 + re2 2ra re cos( a e) + l2)1/2 sin( a
ra
analysis with all the necessary notations are given in Fig. 4. Here only
one end plate is considered for the analysis, for the other plate, length l e ) d a dre
rg
can be taken as, l = (n i ) . +2 ra
ln(ra2 + re2 2ra re cos( a e) + (l )2)1/2 sin( a
Similar to the previous section, the contours ai and gj are sub-
e ) d a dre
divided into four parts. Eq. (4) is integrated over all the four contours of
the two surfaces. Differential element of half included angle = 1° is where is function of re and is defined as,
e
also chosen. Since the end plate is a flat surface, dz e = 0 . The limits of
integration is given in Table 2. With all these considerations, Eq. (5) C 1
reduces to first two terms which gives the View factor as, e = arccos + arctan
re 1 + m2 m
1
Fai = (f f(ai e) r ) rg sin rasin
With C and m are defined as C = respec-
e ra
2 . dAai (ai e)
(8) sin
and m = rg cos racos
tively. Both f(ai e) and f(ai is integrated numerically using
where f(ai e) and f(ai e) r corresponds to the integration with d
e) r
ai d gj Simpson’s 2D Rule.
and d ai dz gj respectively and is obtained as,

f(ai = ln(ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( e) + l 2 )1/2 cos( e )d ad e

e) a a
2.1.2. View factor from glass element’s inner surface to all other interacting
+ ln(ra2 + re2 2ra re cos( a
2 1/2 cos(
e) + l ) a e)d ad e surface
+ ln(ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( + l 2)1/2 cos( The glass surface will be in radiation exchange with itself, the pipe
a e) a e )d a d e
and end plates as discussed in Section 2. The View factor to be analysed
+ ln(ra2 + re2 2ra re cos( 2 1/2 cos(
e) + l ) e )d ad e
a a
are from the glass surface to itself (Fgi gj ), to the pipe surface (Fgi aj ) and
+ ln(ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( a e) + (l )2)1/2 cos( a to the end plate (Fgi e ) as depicted in Fig. 5.
Here the View factor from the glass surface to pipe can be obtained
e )d a d e
using the reciprocity theorem as,
+ ln(ra2 + re2 2ra re cos( a e) + (l ) 2)1/2 cos( a

e )d a d e Aaj
Fgi aj = Faj gi
+ ln(ra2 + rg2 2ra rg cos( a e) + (l )2)1/2 cos( a Agj (9)
e )d a d
where Faj gi is evaluated using equitation 6 with length as given in
e

+ ln(ra2 + re2 2ra re cos( e) + (l )2)1/2 cos(

a a
Fig. 5a. Analytical method exploiting the view factor algebra originally
e )d a d e explained by Tso and Mahulikar (1999) is used to model the view factor
of other two cases. Here analytical equations reported for short annulus
where re is a function of e and is obtained using the trigonometric re- in literature is used to model the view factor between directly opposed
lations for the curve ii and iv (see Fig. 4) as, surface for the glass to itself and annular disk at the end of cylinder. A
sequence of view factor algebra is used for evaluating the view factor
C
re = for other glass elements. The view factor for directly opposed glass
sin m cos
e e
surface can be obtained asTso and Mahulikar (1999),

Fig. 4. Elements for modelling the View factor, Fai e .

62
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

1 Xa 1 1 R2 2 1 R2
F(g g) = Xg
(X g Xa ) + arccos X F(g e) = {R arctan arctan
g RH RH

RH
1 + 4Xg2 Xg2 Xa2 + 4
[arcsin(2R2 1) arcsinR]
1+ 4Xg2 arctan Xa
+
1 R2
4RH ( 2
+ arcsinR ) (1 + R2 (1 + H2))2
4RH
4R2

+ 2Xa arctan2 Xg2 Xa2 ] (10)

( 2
+ arcsin
R (1 R2 (1 + H2))
1 R2 (1 H2) )+ 4 + R 4H2
4 2 (1 4
2R2H2
4R2 + R2H2 ) }
With being the length of directly opposed glass elements, Xg and Xa (15)
rg r
are defined as Xg = and Xa = a respectively. Now the view factor
between two glass elements separated by a distance of l = (n 2) as where R and H are the dimensionless radius and length defined by
r
illustrated in Fig. 5b can be written as Tso and Mahulikar (1999), R = ra and H = r respectively.
g a

1
Fgi = [nF(g 2(n 1) F(g + (n 2) F(g g ) l]
gj
2
g ) LT g ) l+
(11) 3. Heat transfer model for the receiver tube

The Eq. (10) is used to evaluate F(g g ) in the above equation, where A heat transfer model for the receiver tube is formulated as detailed
takes the values LT = n , l+ = (n 1) and l = (n 2) with in the literature (Forristall, 2003; Padilla et al., 2011; Yılmaz and
n = j i + 1. Söylemez, 2014) with radiation model explained in previous section.
A similar approach is followed by the authors to model the view The thermo-hydraulic system considered in this work consist of a re-
factor between glass tube and the end plates. As illustrated in the ceiver tube of length LT with an effective heating area of L as illustrated
Fig. 5c, the glass element gi is separated by the end plate at a length of in the Fig. 1. The pipe is supported at both ends using brackets. The
l = (n 1) where n = i . For modelling the view factor, consider the physics is governed by mass, momentum and energy conservation laws.
entire glass element attached with the end plate with a length of Only heat transfer equation is modelled in this paper as the variables v
LT = n . Now by the conservation of radiation energy transfer, and p are not a scope for this study. The following assumptions are
made to simplify the analysis without losing dependability of the re-
Fe gi = F(e g ) LT F(e g)l (12)
sults.
Using the reciprocal rule in Eq. (12) gives,
• Since (L/D) ratio is very large the flow is essentially considered one
Agi A gLT Agl dimensional.
Fgi e = F(g e ) LT F(g e) l
(13) • The heat flux is assumed to be uniform over the tube.
• Viscous effect (dissipation and diffusion) on heat transfer me-
Ae Ae Ae

Now dividing the equation by Agi gives the required shape factor for all chanism is considered negligible.
the elements considered as, • The flow regime existing in the pipe is assumed to be the same
(laminar/ laminar-turbulent transition/ turbulent).
Fgi e = nF(g e ) LT (n 1) F(g e) l (14)
With these assumptions, governing equation for the HTF, absorber
where F(g e) with = LT and = l can be obtained using the equation pipe and glass tube can be subsequently obtained as;
(Modest, 2013),

Fig. 5. Elements for modelling Fgi aj , Fgi gj and Fgi e from left to right respectively.

63
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

d Pe
( uh) = ab i
(Tab THTF ) in mm of Hg, represents molecular diameter in cm, being the ratio
(16)
HTF
ds Aab i of specific heats and Tab gl is the average temperature of the glass and
absorber. For air (Berman, 2012) at Pressure, P = 0.0001 torr , thermal
d dTab conductivity,
kab
ds ds kg = 0.02551 W / m2K , = 1.39, = 3.67 × 10 8 cm and = 0.9 .
=
Peab o
(qabs qHTF qconv (ab qrad (ab qbracket ) When the annulus is filled with gas, natural convection is the fun-
Aab ab anu) all)
(17) damental mode of heat transfer. For this case, heat flux (qconv (ab anu) ) is
evaluated using the Nusselt number correlation formulated by Bergman
d
ds ( k gl
dTgl
ds )= Pegl o
Agl
(qabs gl qrad (gl sky ) qconv (gl amb) )
et al. (2011). Using this equation heat flux between the absorber tube
and annulus can be expressed in terms of the effective heat transfer
Pegl i
+ Agl
(qconv (gl anu) qrad (gl all) ) (18) coefficient as,
2keff
In Eqs. (16)–(18), h is the enthalpy of HTF, P is the perimeter, A is ab anu =
the cross sectional area, is the convective heat transfer coefficient, T Dab o ln(Dgl i / Dab o) (22)
represents the temperature, u represents the axial velocity, k represents where the effective thermal conductivity is evaluated as,
thermal conductivity and q is the heat flux with the suffix as illustrated
in Fig. 6. Pr 1/4
keff = k g 0.386 Rac1/4
Heat Transfer Coefficient, HTF in Eq. (16) is obtained from the 0.861 + Pr (23)
Nusselt number correlation relevant for a broad range of Reynolds
[ln(Dgl i / Dab o )]4/3
number including transition region formulated by Bergman et al. with the length scale for Rac is given by, Lc = . All the
(Dab3/5o + Dgl 3/5
i )
5/3
(2011):
properties for this equation is evaluated at the mean temperature as
( /8)(Re Dab i 1000) Pr kHTF discussed for Eq. (19). In order to limit the minimum heat transfer not
=
HTF
1 + 12.7( /8)1/2 (Pr 2/3 1) Dab i (19) to fall below conduction limit, keff is taken as kg when keff < k g .
Radiation heat flux between absorber pipe element and all other
with friction factor defined as, = (1.58Re Dab i 3.28) and all the 2
element is modelled using the radiation model explained in Section 2.
properties evaluated at Tm = (Tab + Tgl )/2 .
Linearised form of Eq. (1) per unit area is written as,
qHTF and qconv (ab anu) in Eq. (17) can be obtained using the Newtons
law of cooling. With qHTF = HTF (Tab THTF ), HTF is obtained using N N

the Eq. (19). Also qconv (ab anu) = ab anu (Tab Tgl ) . The convective heat qrad (ab gl) = ab Gab j Tabj Tab Gab j Tabj Tj
transfer coefficient from absorber pipe to annulus ( ab anu ) depends on
j =i j=i (24)
whether the annulus is evacuated (P < 1 torr) or filled with gas (P > where Tabj = 2
(Tab
+ + Tj ) .
T j2 )(Tab
1 torr). For the case of vacuum, predominant mode of heat transfer is A similar approach is used for modelling qconv (gl anu) and qrad (gl all) in
molecular conduction. A method explained by Ratzel et al. (1977) is Eq. (18) by interchanging the temperature values with glass and ab-
used to model the molecular conduction. Using this model, sorber pipe. Convective heat loss from glass tube and ambient is mod-
2 k eff
ab anu = ln(Dgl i / Dab o )
, with keff is obtained using, elled as, qconv (gl amb) = gl amb (Tg Ta) , where gl amb depends on the
1 regime of convective heat transfer. For natural convection mode gl amb
(2 )(9 5) 1 1 is evaluated using Nusselt number based on the outer diameter of the
keff = k g 1 +
( + 1)ln(Dgl i / Dab o) Dgl i Dab o (20) glass tube (Bergman et al., 2011) as,
2
T ka 0.387Ra Dgl o
with = 2.331 × 10 20 ab gl gl amb = 0.60 +
P 2 (21) Dgl o [1 + (0.559/ Pr )9/16]8/27 (25)

where being the thermal accommodation coefficient, being the For wind condition, correlation for circular cylinder in cross flow de-
mean free path obtained using Eq. (21). Here P is the annulus pressure veloped by Bergman et al. (2011) is used. This correlation covers entire

Fig. 6. Heat transfer model for ithelement .

64
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

range of Re Dgl o as well as a broad range of Pr. absorbed by the absorber pipe and the glass for a particular direct
normal radiation depends on the optical properties of the mirror, glass
0.62Re D1/2 Pr 1/3 5/8 4/5
ka gl o Re Dgl o tube, shading effect and orientation of the collector. It is difficult to
= 0.3 + 1+
gl amb
Dgl o [1 + (0.4/Pr )2/3]1/4 282000 model all these effects using equations. In order to make the modelling
simple, an effective optical efficiency ( eopt ) is considered (Price, 2001),
(26) where it includes error due to shadowing, tracking, dust in glass and
where all the properties are evaluated at mean temperature. mirror, geometrical error and other unaccounted error. With this the
Usually the glass cover of receiver tube is surrounded by con- energy absorbed by the absorber can be written as,
centrator along the rim angle and the rest by sky as illustrated in Fig. 7.
qabs = cl eopt gl ab IDNI CR (32)
When the rim angle is large, concentrator have significant effect on the ab

radiation heat loss from glass cover. For this case, the contribution of and for glass tube,
radiation loss to the concentrator is included to obtain qrad(gl sky) . Here
qabs = gl IDNI CR (33)
the concentrator is approximated with the ambient temperature. Geb- gl cl eopt

hart factors are evaluated for all the control volumes of glass cover In Eq. (32) and (33), IDNI represents the direct normal irradiation
along with the concentrator surface and sky as explained in Section 2. while , and are the reflectivity, transmitivity and absorptivity re-
View factor between the glass cover element and all other interacting spectively. Geometric concentration factor, CR depends on the geo-
surface are obtained using the relations mentioned in Appendix B. As- metric parameters of PTC including acceptance angle ( ), focal length
suming sky to be a black body, radiation heat loss from glass to sky for (f) and the rim angle ( r ) as depicted in Fig. 7. The acceptance angle
ith control volume is modelled as, depends on the accuracy of tracking system as well the surface finish of
qrad (gl reflector. For an ideal rotor, acceptance angle will be close to the sun
sky)
disk angle, ensuring higher concentration with lesser imaging. The
m m
minimum diameter of receiver required for a specular reflector in
= g Ggi j Tgj Tgi Ggi j Tgj Tgj + Ggi c Tgc Tgi Tc + Ggi s perfect alignment to intercept all the reflected rays can be obtained
j=1 j=i
using the trigonometry in Fig. 7, given by:

Tgs Tgi Ts 4f sin m

Da =
(27) 1 + cos r (34)

where Tgj = (Tgi2 + Tgj2 )(Tgi + Tgj ) , Tgc = (Tgi2 + Tc2 )(Tgi + Tc ) and Similarly, the aperture of the parabola can be related to the rim angle
Tgs = (Tgi + Tsky )(Tgi + Tsky ) . For the case of low rim angle, the entire
2 2 as,
glass cover is assumed to be surrounded by the sky. In this case a 4f sin r
linearised form of Stefan Boltzmann equation based on the concept of Wa =
1 + cos r (35)
equivalent radiation heat transfer coefficient is used to model qrad(gl sky)
as. Now for a tubular receiver, geometric concentration ratio is defined
mathematically as,
qrad (gl sky ) = gl sky (Tg Tsky ) (28)
Wa sin r
CR = =
where gl sky = gl + + Tsky ) .
(Tg2 2
Tsky )(Tg Da sin (36)
Sky temperature at any location depends on many factors including
Efficiency of the collector is obtained using the equation,
altitude, cloudiness, humidity and the presence of air pollutants. In this
model a method described by Al-Sanea et al. (2003) is used to obtain hHTF out hHTF in
=
the equivalent sky temperature. This relation is originally proposed by collector
IDNI Aapperature (37)
Clark and Tsky is obtained using,
0.25
Tsky = sky T + 273.15 (29) 3.1. Numerical model
where sky emissivity ( sky ) is a linear function of the dew point tem-
perature (Tdpa in °C) and is expressed by Berdahl and Fromberg as Numerical technique considered in this paper is based on Finite
Volume Method. Eqs. (16)–(18) are integrated separately over the
sky = 0.741 + 0.00062Tdpa .
The Tdpa is determined using ambient air temperature (T in °C) and control volume(CV) for HTF, absorber tube and glass tube respectively
relative humidity using the expression proposed by Murray (1966) as; (see Fig. 6). Upwind scheme is used to discretize the convective terms

17.27T
237.3 ln + T + 237.3
Tdpa = 17.27T
°C
17.27 ln T + 237.3 (30)
Support brackets are used at each end of the receiver to hold it in
the focal line of the concentrator. Heat will be conducted through the
bracket which is eventually lost to the atmosphere by convection along
the lateral surface. As the cross section of the bracket is very small while
considering the length, qbracket can be modelled by considering the
bracket as a long fin. The bracket heat loss is estimated using the
equation,

br Pbr kbr Abr (Tbr T )

qbracket =
Pab LHCE (31)
In Eq. (31), br is estimated on the basis of flow regime as explained
in Eq. (25) and (26). Abr is taken as the minimum area of the bracket
while Tbr is considered as the pipe temperature. Solar radiation Fig. 7. Geometric relations for reflector with the receiver tube.

65
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

while the central difference scheme is chosen for the diffusion terms. Table 3
With these, the discretized energy equation for HTF is obtained as, Specifications of SEGS LS-2 test platform in SNL (Dudley et al., 2017).
Operating Temperature

hi =
hi 1 + ( As HTF
m i
)
(Tab (i) Tr ) Module Size
100–400°C
7.8 m × 5 m
Focal length 1.84 m
(1 + As HTF
mCp )i (38)
Rim Angle
Concentration ratio
70°
71
In Eq. (38), As is the surface area calculated based on inner diameter of Absorber tube Stainless tube with 70 mm outer dia
2 mm thickness
absorber pipe and Tr being reference temperature. For absorber pipe the
Envelope Pyrex glass tube with anti reflective coating,
discretized energy equation becomes, Outer diameter: 115 mm with 3 mm thick.
Absorber coating Cermet selective coating ( = 0.96 and = 0.14)
cab Tab (i 1) + aab Tab (i) + bab Tab (i + 1) = dab (39)
Annulus condition evacuated at pressure 10 4Torr
Where the linearisation coefficients in the Eq. (39) can be written as, Lost vacuum (Air filled at pressure 0.83 atm)

k ab kab Tab (i + 1)
cab = Asc
, bab = Asc
with the coefficient of determination of 1 for all the necessary prop-
N
2kab erties except viscosity. For viscosity an exponential regression equation
= + + + ab Gab j Tabj
aab Asc HTF ab anu
j=i
is obtained with the coefficient of determination of 0.998. All the op-
i
tical losses considered in this model is obtained from the numerical
N
model explained by Forristall (2003).
dab = qabs ab qbracket + HTF Tf + ab anu Tg + ab Gab j Tabj Tj
j=i i

With Asc being the ratio of surface area to cross sectional area of the
absorber pipe with surface area based on the outer diameter. Similarly
discretized equation for glass tube can be written as,
cgl Tgl (i 1) + agl Tgl (i) + bgl Tgl (i + 1) = dgl
Where the linearisation coefficients for the glass elements are,
=
k gl
, =
cab
Asco
2k gl Asci
agl = Asco
+ Asco gl anu + gl
dgl = [qabs gl + gl amb Ta +
+
Asci
gl anu Tab
Asco
Eq. (38) is solved directly for all the elements while Tridiagonal Matrix
Algorithm (TDMA) is used to solve the system of algebraic equations
obtained using Eq. (39) and (40). The numerical programme is written
in C++ on a Linux based personal computer with Intel CoreTM i7-7700
CPU @ 3.60 GHz and 16 Gb RAM. The programme is compiled in GNU
Compiler Collection, version GCC.8.3. Detailed steps for solving the
problem is given in Appendix A
4. Model validation
For validating the heat transfer model presented in this paper, nu-
merical results for SEGS LS-2 solar collector (Sandia National
Laboratory (SNL)) obtained from the model is compared with the ex-
perimental result of Dudley et al. (2017). Also to substantiate the
model, it is compared with other published heat transfer models for
receiver tube (Agagna et al., 2018; Forristall, 2003; Padilla et al., 2011;
García-Valladares and Velázquez, 2009). The experimental solar col-
lector module in SNL is arranged at ASTRAK Azimuth Tracking Plat-
form and maintained the incident angle at zero degree to evaluate the
peak efficiency. The specifications of the test setup is detailed in
Table 3. Two separate coatings were tested for the absorber tube viz.
cermet and black chrome. Test results obtained for cermet coated ab-
sorber is chosen for validation as it have better radiation properties. The
SNL test were performed for both evacuated and air filled (lost vacuum)
situations. The HTF chosen in test setup was Syltherm 800 with the
effective optical efficiency is obtained with water as the HTF. The
properties of HTF is obtained from the product technical data (The Dow
Chemical Company, 1997) and fitted to polynomial regression equation
5. Results and discussion
As a case of plausibility, the authors first analysed the view factor
and Gebhart factor and validated using summation rule. A C++ code is
(40) developed based on the equations described in the Section 2.1 and 2.
Trials are taken for R = 0.2, 0.5 and H = 0.75, 1, 2, 3. Number of
elements considered for the analysis is kept constant while length is
k gl varied based on the value chosen. The results are shown in Fig. 8–10.
bgl
Asco
As expected, the results portrays that view factor for nearest elements
N
are high and as move far the view factors draw close to zero. Since the
Ggl j Tglj + gl amb + gl sky results obtained for view factor varies in the order of 10 1 to very low
j=i
i value (10 6 10 10 ), it is better envisioned in semi log plot. The influ-
gl sky ]i ence of R on the view factor is rather forward as explained by many
N
researchers while H is having a complex relation. As H increases the
shading offered by the (j 1)th elements for i increases exponentially
+ gl Ggl j Tglj Tj
j=i for the jth element. This lead to the exponential decay of the view factor
i
as move away from i, even though it have affirmative influence on nigh
elements with H.
With increase in R, annular space between the absorber and pipe
decreases. Here the effective area viewed by the differential absorber
area is increased while the distance between them is decreased. This
have affirmative effect on Fai gi for near by elements but have antag-
onistic effect on utmost elements (Fig. 8a, 10b). Decay rate Fai gi is
much faster with increase in R which is enhanced further by the H,
while maximum value increases with H value. In the case of Fai e , the
situation is different. As per the physics, Fai e decreases with increase in
H while it decreases with R as represented in Fig. 9b. Similar to
Fai gj , Fai e decays exponentially in the axial direction but with com-
paratively less pace (Fig. 8b).
The trend seems similar in glass element. Since the value of Fgi ai is
a fraction of Fai gi , its relation with R is reverse to the absorber plate. As
R increases, Fgi ai increases for first two to three elements and decays at
a sharp rate exponentially. This is further enhanced by increase in H as
explained in Fig. 9a. Fig. 9b also explain the same trend for Fgi gj . Both
R and H have positive effect only on the directly opposed elements and
2 to 3 nigher elements, afterwords it have negative impact. While Fgi e
behaves same as like Fai e (Fig. 10). View factor for directly opposed
elements (Maximum value) for R = 0.2 and 0.5 are represented in
Fig. 11b. As explained in prior, the effect of H and R on directly opposed
elements can be clearly observed from this figure. At low R value, the
trend is almost linear while for higher R values it is non linear in nature.
The notable result here is, how the view factor is varying for glass
element. At R = 0.2, Fg g is above Fg a , while the case is inverse for
R = 0.5. Also the magnitude by which all the view factors varying are
important. These factors will have a significant effect on the

66
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Fig. 8. View factor Fai gi (a) and Fai e (b).

Fig. 9. View factor Fgi aj (a) and Fgi gj (b).

computation of radiation losses in the receiver tube. From the Table 4 it
is evident that the view factor obtained is accurate in the order of −4 to
−5. For all the parameters analysed, sum of view factor from an ele-
ment to all interacting approaches 1. This shows that the model pro-
posed can give conservative result.
For evaluating Gebhart factor, the radiation properties of glass tube
and absorber pipe are considered as in the case stated in previous
section. End plates are assumed to reflect all the radiation that falls on
them, e = 0 . Gebhart factor factor obtained for R = 0.2 and 0.5 with
H = 0.75 nd 3 are depicted in Fig. 11. The trend is similar to that

Fig. 10. View factor Fgi e (a) and View factor for opposed elements (b).

67
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Fig. 11. Gebhart factor for R = 0.2, 0.5 and H = 0.75, 3.00.

Table 4
Summation rule verification for view factor and RMSE values.

VF R H = 0.75 H=1 H = 1.5 H=2 H=3 RMSE

Fab all 0.2 0.999541 0.999623 0.9993722 0.9990128 0.9997838 5.1057e−4

0.5 0.999717 0.9998729 0.9997885 0.999214 0.99971744

Fgl all 0.2 0.9999768 0.999965 0.9999763 0.999975 0.9999727 5.5394e−5

0.5 0.9999368 0.999927 0.999932 0.9999223 0.9999163

obtained for view factor. After multiple reflection between the inter-
acting surface in the enclosure, a part of the radiation emitted by the
absorber pipe reach back to it. That is, even though view factor from
absorber pipe to absorber pipe is zero, Gebhart factor is non zero. The
change in Gebhart factor observed from lower bound value of H and R
to higher bound value is in the multiple of 100. While the same for
absorber pipe with the glass tube is in multiple of 2. In case of glass tube
the change is the multiple of 10 and 2 respectively. With the assump-
tion, Gebhart factor for the end plates are 0. Like view factor, Gebhart
factor also obeys summation rule (Gebhart, 1961). Minimum and
maximum sum obtained for Gebhart factor are 0.99960 and
1.0000002375 respectively with RMSE of 8.3172e−4. All these result
explains the importance for considering a complete radiation model
which can consider all sorts of radiation heat transfer in the enclosure.
The results obtained for efficiency (%) and heat loss (W / m2 ) are
illustrated in Figs. 12 and 13 respectively. All the results shows close
similarity with the experimental data and are within the error band for
experimental data. The efficiency of the collector drops at elevated
temperature due to increase in glass temperature by which loosing
more heat as convective and radiative loss to the ambient. A RMSE
value of 0.6035 and 1.8381 is obtained for case with vacuum and lost
vacuum condition. This shows that current model have a better
agreement with the experimental data of SNL.
While comparing the model proposed with 4 pertained models
published in literature, it is evident from Fig. 12 that proposed model
gives better result comparing to others. For Vacuum in annulus case,

Fig. 12. Thermal efficiency comparison with predicted result.

68
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Fig. 13. Heat loss comparison with predicted result.

the RMSE analysis (see Table 5) it is evident that the proposed model
Table 5 gives better thermal loss result compare to other model compared with
RMSE values for different model with the experiment data. Behar model being the nearest.
Annular condition Heat transfer model RMSE

Efficiency (%)
6. Conclusion
Heatloss (W/m2 )

Vaccum NREL model 1.382 14.718 In this paper, a complete radiation heat transfer model is developed
García-Valladares 1.433 – for the receiver tube of parabolic trough collector. The model included
Padilla et.a 1.012 10.225
all forms of radiation energy including emission and reflection. For the
Behar et.al 0.7396 4.6351
Current model 0.6035 4.5996 effective analysis of radiation, a view factor algebra is developed using
contour integration technique and analytical models. A heat transfer
Lost vaccum NREL model 1.562 13.594
García-Valladares 2.292 –
model is then developed to simulate the physical behaviour of the re-
Padilla et.a 1.225 8.959 ceiver tube under different operating conditions. The model was based
Behar et.al 2.6709 4.3957 on the optical and thermal aspects of the receiver tube which includes
Current model 1.0381 4.3649 the accurate selection of correlations for different physics of heat
transfer. The governing equations were discretized using FVM with
proper assumptions and solved simultaneously. The developed heat
García-Valladares model shows deviation at low temperatures in the
transfer model is compared with the SNL test data. The results showed a
efficiency. The model proposed by them was based on Foristall’s heat
better agreement with the experiment data. Annulus condition plays a
transfer model. These two models didn’t considered the effect of ra-
vital role in the thermal efficiency of the receiver tube. A peak effi-
diation heat transfer with near by elements except for directly opposed
ciency of 72.5% is obtained for annulus with vacuum while it is 70.45%
elements. RMSE value for these models are the maximum among the
with vacuum lost. In both cases of annulus condition, radiation loss is
models compared in this paper (see Table 5). Both Padilla’s model and
significant. This shows the importance of the need of better radiation
Behar’s model considered the radiation exchange with nearby elements
modelling and accuracy needed for computing the view factor. The
also. Efficiency predicted by these models are close enough with pro-
results were also compared with the models suggested by literature.
posed model. RMSE values evaluated for all the models signifies that
Through RSME analysis, the present model outperforms others with the
current model out perform while comparing to other models compared.
lowest value for vacuum (0.6035, 4.59996) and lost vacuum (1.0381,
The case is evident for lost vacuum case also but with slightly higher
4.3649). Based on the results, it can be concluded that the present
RMSE value. The value obtained here, 1.0381 is very much close to
model can be used for the thermal analysis of receiver tube in different
Padilla’ model. This is because the Nusselt number correlation for an-
operating conditions.
nular heat transfer considered in Padilla et.all model is based on con-
duction boundary-layer model. This correlation requires an iterative
procedure to evaluate the mean bulk fluid temperature. Declaration of Competing Interest
Fig. 13 portrays the thermal losses obtained form the analysis. As
similar to efficiency, thermal losses are also consistent with the ex- The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
periment data with RMSE value of 4.9996 W/m2 and 4.3649 W/m2 . All interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
the values obtained are within the error band of thermal losses. From ence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Solution procedure

Temperature distribution of the heat transfer fluid, absorber pipe and the glass cover are not known prior. So the solution method for this
problem is essentially an iterative process as explained in the flow chart 14. Once the geometric details, heat flux and HTF flow rate are fixed, both
the glass cover, HTF and absorber domains are discretized into equal number of finite control volumes. The view factor and corresponding Gebhart
factor are then evaluated. The solution is initialized with the glass cover and HTF set with atmospheric temperature. Then the energy equation for
absorber pipe is solved. With the new absorber temperature, energy equation for HTF is computed. In order to improve the convergence rate, the

69
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Fig. 14. Flow chart for the analysis.

absorber temperature is updated with the new HTF temperature obtained. Then the energy equation for glass cover is solved. This new Glass cover
temperature is compared with the old value. The process is continued till the convergence criteria of Tgi = 0.001°C is reached. During each iterative
step, the temperature profile is updated with the latest values obtained and the thermo-physical properties are updated accordingly.

Appendix B. Viewfactor algebra for glass cover to concentrator

Fig. 15 shows the control volume chosen for glass cover and the parabolic concentrator for evaluating the viewfactor between the glass cover and
the concentrator (Fgi c ). A similar procedure as explained in Section 2.1 is used here to obtain Fgi c . Here the parabola is defined using the polar
equation,
2f
rc =
1 + cos (B.1)
Using Eq. (4) and (5),
1
Fgi c = (f + f(gi c ) zz )
2 Agi (gi c)
(B.2)
where f (gi c) and f (gi c)zz are the integrals in angular and axial direction respectively and is obtained as,

f(gi c) = rg { r
r r
r
rc ln rg2 + rc2 2rg rc cos( )+ 2 cos(
1 + cos
)
d d +
cos ( )
r r
rc ln rg2 + rc2 2rg rc cos( ) + (n + 1) 2 2 1 + cos d d +
r r
r r
rc ln rg2 + rc2 2rg rc cos( ) + (N n )2 2 cos( )
d d +
r r 1 + cos

r
r r
r
rc ln rg2 + rc2 2rg rc cos( ) + (N n
cos( )
1) 2 2 1 + cos d d }
with rc is obtained from Eq. (B.1) N is the total number of discrete control volumes of glass tube, is the length of each control volume and n = i 1,
i being the index of the control volume chosen. In the above equation r is obtained from the trigonometric relation in Fig. 15 as,

70
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72

Fig. 15. Control volume chosen for view factor analysis of Glass cover to concentrator with necessary notations.

rg
r = r + arccos
rr c
The above equation is integrated numerically, while an analytical solution is obtained for f (gi c)zz as,
b2 ( N n )2 2 a2 ( N n )2 2
f(gi c ) zz = 2
ln(b2 + (N n )2 2 ) 2
ln(a2 + (N n) 2 2)
b2 (N n 1)2 2 a2 (N n 1)2 2
2
ln(b2 + (N n 1)2 2) + 2
ln(a2 + (N n 1)2 2)
b2 (n + 1)2 2 a2 (n + 1)2 2
+ 2
ln(b2 + (n + 1) 2 2) 2
ln(a2 + (n + 1)2 2)
b2
2
n2 2
ln(b2 + n2 2 ) +
a2
2
n2 2
ln(a2 + n2 2 ) + 2 (af ( ) a
bf ( )) b

(2N 1) 2

where a = r 2g + r 2c 2rgrccos( r + r ), b = r 2g + r 2c 2rg rccos( r r) and f ( ) is a function of

a b
/ a or / b defined as (a b implies a or b, taken one at
a time),

f ( )=a b
N n arctan
(N n)
a b
N n 1 arctan
(N n 1)
a b
+

(n + 1) n
n + 1 arctan a b
narctan a b

With Fgi c so obtained, other view factors including Fc gi, Fgi sky and Fsky gi can be obtained by considering the reciprocity rule and summation rule.

Appendix C. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.12.068.

References Conference, Beijing, China.

Agagna, B., Smaili, A., Behar, O., 2018. An improved model for predicting the perfor-
mance of parabolic trough solar collectors. Int. J. Energy Res. 42 (14), 4512–4521.
Al-Sanea, S.A., Zedan, M., Al-Ajlan, S.A., Abdul, A.S., 2003. Hadi, Heat transfer char-
acteristics and optimum insulation thickness for cavity walls. J. Therm. Envelope
Build. Sci. 26 (3), 285–307.
Ambirajan, A., Venkateshan, S., 1993. Accurate determination of diffuse view factors
between planar surfaces. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 36 (8), 2203–2208.
Beckman, W.A., Broman, L., Fiksel, A., Klein, S.A., Lindberg, E., Schuler, M., Thornton, J.,
1994. Trnsys the most complete solar energy system modeling and simulation soft-
ware. Renewable Energy 5 (1–4), 486–488.
Bergman, T.L., Incropera, F.P., DeWitt, D.P., Lavine, A.S., 2011. Fundamentals of Heat
and Mass Transfer. John Wiley & Sons.
Berman, A., 2012. Vacuum Engineering Calculations, Formulas, and Solved Exercises.
Academic Press.
Biencinto, M., González, L., Valenzuela, L., 2016. A quasi-dynamic simulation model for
direct steam generation in parabolic troughs using trnsys. Appl. Energy 161,
133–142.
Daun, K., Morton, D., Howell, J., 2005. Smoothing monte carlo exchange factors through
constrained maximum likelihood estimation. J. Heat Transfer 127 (10), 1124–1128.
de Carvalho Augusto, L.D., Giacomet, B., Mendes, N., 2007. Numerical method for cal-
culating view factor between two surfaces. In: Proceedings Building Simulation
Diaconu, B.M., Cruceru, M., Gheorghian, A.T., Popescu, L.G., 2012. View factors in a
finite length axysymmetric cylindrical annulus enclosure. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat.
Transfer 113 (16), 2100–2112.
Dudley, V.E., Kolb, G.J., Mahoney, A.R., Mancini, T.R., Matthews, C.W., Sloan, M.,
Kearney, D., 2017. Test results: Segs ls-2 solar collector. doi:https://doi.org/10.2172/
70756.
Edenburn, M.W., 1976. Performance analysis of a cylindrical parabolic focusing collector
and comparison with experimental results. Sol. Energy 18 (5), 437–444.
Forristall, R., 2003. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar re-
ceiver implemented in engineering equation solver, Tech. rep., National Renewable
Energy Lab., Golden, CO. (US).
Francisco, S.C., Raimundo, A.M., Gaspar, A.R., Oliveira, A.V.M., Quintela, D.A., 2014.
Calculation of view factors for complex geometries using stokes’ theorem. J. Build.
Perform. Simul. 7 (3), 203–216.
García-Valladares, O., Velázquez, N., 2009. Numerical simulation of parabolic trough
solar collector: Improvement using counter flow concentric circular heat exchangers.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 52 (3–4), 597–609.
Gebhart, B., 1961. Surface temperature calculations in radiant surroundings of arbitrary
complexity—for gray, diffuse radiation. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 3 (4), 341–346.
Hamming, R., 2012. Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers. Courier
Corporation.
Howell, J.R., 2001. A catalog of radiation heat transfer configuration factors, http://
www.me.utexas.edu/howell/sectionc/C11.html.

71
B.S. Jinshah and K.R. Balasubramanian
Howell, J.R., Siegel, R., Menguc, M.P., 1969. Thermal radiation heat transfer. Natl.
Aeronaut. Space Administration.
Humphrey, A., Sunderland, D., Harman, T., Berzins, M., 2016. Radiative heat transfer
calculation on 16384 gpus using a reverse monte carlo ray tracing approach with
adaptive mesh refinement. In: 2016 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed
Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW), IEEE, pp. 1222–1231.
Jeffrey, A., Dai, H.H., 2008. Handbook of Mathematical Formulas and Integrals. Elsevier.
Jithesh, P., Lal, S.A., Rajkumar, M., 2007. Determination of radiation view factors con-
sidering shadow effect. In: Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Radiative
Transfer, vol. 695016, pp. 2–4.
Juul, N., 1982. View factors in radiation between two parallel oriented cylinders of finite
lengths. J. Heat Transfer 104 (2), 384–388.
Mirhosseini, M., Saboonchi, A., 2011. View factor calculation using the monte carlo
method for a 3d strip element to circular cylinder. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer
38 (6), 821–826.
Modest, M.F., 2013. Radiative Heat Transfer. Academic Press.
Mohamad, A., Orfi, J., Alansary, H., 2014. Heat losses from parabolic trough solar col-
lectors. Int. J. Energy Res. 38 (1), 20–28.
Murray, F.W., 1966. On the computation of saturation vapor pressure., Tech. rep., Rand
Corp Santa Monica Calif.
Odeh, S.D., Morrison, G., 2006. Optimization of parabolic trough solar collector system.
Int. J. Energy Res. 30 (4), 259–271.
Ozeki, Y., Konishi, M., Narita, C., Tanabe, S.-I., 2000. Angle factors between human body
and rectangular planes calculated by a numerical model. ASHRAE Trans. 106, 511.
Padilla, R.V., Demirkaya, G., Goswami, D.Y., Stefanakos, E., Rahman, M.M., 2011. Heat
transfer analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver. Appl. Energy 88 (12), 5097–5110.
Pehlivantürk, C., Özkan, O., Baker, D.K., 2014. Modeling and simulations of a micro solar
power system. Int. J. Energy Res. 38 (9), 1129–1144.
Price, H., 2001. Concentrated solar power use in africa, NREL/TP. Golden, CO: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Quoilin, S., Orosz, M., Hemond, H., Lemort, V., 2011. Performance and design optimi-
zation of a low-cost solar organic rankine cycle for remote power generation. Sol.
Energy 85 (5), 955–966.
Rabl, A., Bendt, P., Gaul, H., 1982. Optimization of parabolic trough solar collectors. Sol.
72
Solar Energy 197 (2020) 58–72
Energy 29 (5), 407–417.
Rao, V.R., Sastri, V., 1996. Efficient evaluation of diffuse view factors for radiation. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 39 (6), 1281–1286.
Ratzel, A., Hickox, C., Gartling, D., 1977. Techniques for reducing thermal conduction
and natural convection heat losses in annular receiver geometries, Tech. rep., Sandia
Labs., Albuquerque, N. Mex. (USA).
Ratzel, A., Hickox, C., Gartling, D., 1979. Techniques for reducing thermal conduction
and natural convection heat losses in annular receiver geometries. J. Heat Transfer
101 (1), 108–113.
Reid, R., Tennant, J., 1973. Annular ring view factors. AIAA J. 11 (10), 1446–1448.
Sparrow, E.M., 1963. A new and simpler formulation for radiative angle factors. J. Heat
Transfer 85 (2), 81–87.
Stoddard, M.C., Faas, S., Chiang, C., Dirks, J., 1987. Solergy; a computer code for cal-
culating the annual energy from central receiver power plants, Tech. rep., Sandia
National Labs., Livermore, CA (USA); Sandia National Labs.
Surinov, Y.A., 1959. Concerning the method of calculation of integral and local angle
factors, a paper in heat transfer and thermodynamic modeling, edited by m a,
Mikheev. Akad. Sciences S SSR, Moscow, pp. 319–349.
Taccani, R., Obi, J.B., De Lucia, M., Micheli, D., Toniato, G., 2016. Development and
experimental characterization of a small scale solar powered organic rankine cycle
(orc). Energy Procedia 101, 504–511.
The Dow Chemical Company, 1997. Syltherm-800, Heat Transfer Fluid, product
Technical Data (October 1997).
Tso, C., Mahulikar, S., 1999. View factors between finite length rings on an interior cy-
lindrical shell. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 13 (3), 375–379.
Vujičić, M., Lavery, N., Brown, S., 2006. Numerical sensitivity and view factor calculation
using the monte carlo method. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C: J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 220
(5), 697–702.
Walton, G.N., Walton, G.N., 2002. Calculation of obstructed view factors by adaptive
integration, US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
Yılmaz, İ.H., Söylemez, M.S., 2014. Thermo-mathematical modeling of parabolic trough
collector. Energy Convers. Manage. 88, 768–784.