Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Thermal-fluid analysis of a parabolic trough solar collector of a direct

supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton cycle: A numerical study
Samad Gharehdaghi, Ph.D. a, *, Samir F. Moujaes b, Alireza Mahdavi Nejad c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, United States
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154, United States
c
School of Engineering, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Boston, MA 02115, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recently, supercritical carbon dioxide, S-CO2, has been suggested for utilization as the working fluid in solar
Supercritical carbon dioxide thermal power plants. Replacing current working fluids with S-CO2, however, is not a straightforward task. This
Solar thermal power plant work numerically investigates the heat transfer and flow filed in a parabolic trough solar collector which carries
Parabolic trough
S-CO2. A full-scale three-dimensional model of the parabolic trough is developed and analyzed using the Star
Turbulence
Brayton cycle
CCM + software. The variation of carbon dioxide’s thermophysical properties inside the receiver tube is
Numerical considered. The computational model is validated against a set of experimental data published by Sandia Na­
tional Laboratories with no more than a 2.81% error margin. The numerical experiment is carried out at five
different times during a typical summer day in Albuquerque, NM. Numerical results confirm that in all cases, heat
loss from the upper half of the receiver tube is more than the absorbed solar incidence on that side. At noon,
when the absorbed heat flux on the lower surface of the receiver tube reaches its maximum at 29810 W/m2, the
net heat loss flux from the upper half of the receiver tube reaches 2622 W/m2. Consequently, the heat transfer
from the upper half of the receiver tube unfavorably impacts the thermal efficiency of the parabolic trough.
Additionally, while from 8 AM to 12 PM thermal efficiency drops less than 2.4%, the S-CO2 temperature
increment grows over 182%. A reverse trend occurs from noon to 4 PM, mainly due to the change in the available
solar incidence.

1. Introduction
For decades, researchers from various fields have pushed to decrease
the LCOE of concentrating solar power (CSP). Novel thermal energy
storage technologies are developed to improve dispatch-ability of power
from a CSP and to increase its annual capacity factor (Liu et al., 2014;
Ward et al., 2015). Hybridization techniques are developed, and novel
operation and control strategies are invented to optimize the perfor­
mance of hybrid renewable systems in both linear and nonlinear oper­
ating regimes (Pan and Das, 2016; Haruni et al., 2013). New materials
are developed to build deep foundations of solar towers (Farhangi and
Karakouzian, 2020; Jazaei et al., 2018). Yet, a major obstacle towards
building economically competent CSP is to enhance the thermal effi­
ciency of the power cycle.
In general, three main methods are used to enhance the thermal ef­
ficiency of steam power plants. First, lowering the condenser pressure
automatically lowers the temperature at which the heat is rejected to the
cold reservoir because the working fluid in the condenser experiences a
two-phase process, through which the pressure by itself determines all
other thermodynamic properties, including the temperature. However,
lowering condenser pressure cannot continue indefinitely and is limited
to the triple point pressure of the working fluid. Below triple point
pressure, the fluid vapor, when cooled at constant pressure, is converted
directly into solid ice in a process known as deposition. Second,
increasing the working pressure of the boiler automatically increases the
average temperature at which heat is transferred to the working fluid,
and consequently, enhances the thermal efficiency of a steam power
plant (Sonntag and Borgnakke, 2013). The push to increase the boiler
pressure over a period of decades has finally resulted in the development
of a new generation of power plants, known as supercritical thermal
power plants (Kroos and Potter, 2015). Boiler operating pressure, which
was about 2.7 MPa (400 psia) in 1922, has continuously increased over
the years to above 30 MPa (4500 psia) today in modern steam power
plants (Çengel and Boles, 2014). Third, superheating the steam in a

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sgharehd@pfw.edu (S. Gharehdaghi), Samir.moujaes@unlv.edu (S.F. Moujaes), Mahdavinejada@wit.edu (A. Mahdavi Nejad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.039
Received 10 August 2020; Received in revised form 13 February 2021; Accepted 15 March 2021
Available online 16 April 2021
0038-092X/© 2021 International Solar Energy Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
boiler to higher temperatures increases the temperature at which the
heat is transferred to steam, and consequently, increases the thermal
efficiency of a steam power plant. In vapor power plants, all of these
three approaches are usually applied in combination, with reheating and
regeneration techniques, to increase the thermal efficiency of the power
plant as much as possible. However, the superheating of steam in a
boiler is applicable only to a limited degree, due to safety requirements
that do not allow for plants’ exceeding metallurgically safe values. One
way to break down this barrier is to replace the water with alternative
fluids that are less corrosive and cause less material degradation in high
temperature and pressure operating conditions, and hence, are safer.
Several alternative working fluids are suggested by researchers,
among which, carbon dioxide (CO2) is widely believed to be the best
alternative for water, due to its superior characteristics (Kim, M., 2004).
CO2 is a non-flammable, non-toxic natural refrigerant with no Ozone
Depletion Potential (ODP) and a negligible Global Warming Potential
(GWP). Its critical temperature is 31.1 ◦ C, compared to 373.9 ◦ C of
water, and considerably less than all other common alternative choices.
Such a low critical temperature makes CO2 a good candidate for heat
absorption when it comes to low degree applications (Xiao-Dong et al.,
2011). At higher temperatures, where material degradation due to high
temperature and pressure operating conditions is a serious issue, su­
percritical carbon dioxide (S-CO2) shows better performance compared
to other candidates, including ultra-supercritical steam. Therefore, the
S-CO2 cycle is relatively safer and more reliable. In addition, as S-CO2 is
less corrosive, compared with steam at the same temperature and
pressure (Holcomb et al., 2016), the S-CO2 cycle can potentially increase
the turbine inlet temperature (Was et al., 2007). As a result, the thermal
efficiency can be increased up to 5% compared with the steam Rankine
cycle. Additionally, since the minimum pressure in the S-CO2 cycle is
about the same as the CO2 critical pressure (7.38 MPa), the purification
system requirements are lower than those of the steam Rankine cycle to
prevent air ingress. Thus, the power conversion system can be much
simpler. Moreover, among various fluids, CO2 is relatively cheaper and
less harmful when an appropriate ventilation system is installed to
prepare for a sudden large release of CO2 from the power. The
competitiveness of S-CO2 dry cooled systems over wet cooled systems is
still a controversial issue. Yet, the potential of the air-cooled S-CO2 cycle
can grow as the system design becomes more sophisticated and the
component level technology becomes more advanced. Lastly, in com­
parison to the current steam turbines, the S-CO2 turbomachinery is
significantly smaller. Consequently, the overall system size can be
reduced by a factor of four.
Thermodynamically, the main advantage of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle
relies on its high useful work to expansion work ratio, which is in the
range 0.7–0.85 when the compressor inlet is in supercritical conditions
(Chacartegui et al., 2011). In this system, the fluid is compressed in the
transcritical region, where the compressibility factor of CO2 is around
0.2, and hence, less work is needed to compress the working fluid,
compared to a conventional Brayton cycle, where superheated steam, a
compressible fluid, is compressed. The compressed S-CO2 is then heated
up to the turbine inlet temperatures, even higher than those achievable
by current gas turbines (Ahn et al., 2015)(Wright, Steven A. et al., 2010).
High-temperature and high-pressure CO2 is then expanded in a CO2
turbine to a sub-critical pressure, but CO2 still leaves the turbine at
temperatures well above its critical temperature. Lastly, the exhaust CO2
cools down in a series of heat exchangers and coolers. Then it returns to
the compressor at a subcritical temperature and pressure.
Supercritical and transcritical closed Brayton cycles working with
CO2, first proposed by Feher and Angelino, have been studied for the last
50 years (Feher, 1968; Angelino, 1968). Although Feher and Angelino
initially suggested their cycle for nuclear power production in gas re­
actors, its applicability to other heat sources has also been explored. For
instance, the S-CO2 power cycle can be utilized as a topping cycle for
fossil fuel power plants, and a bottoming cycle for gas combined cycle
plants. Additionally, the S-CO2 power cycle is suggested to be utilized
767
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
and commercialized for the exhaust (or waste) heat recovery applica­
tion, especially from small gas turbines, where using a steam Rankine
cycle is not practically feasible (Manjunath et al., 2018; Mondal and De,
2015; Wu et al., 2016). There are also promising heat sources soon to be
developed, which include several renewable energy sources, such as
high temperature fuel cells, geothermal power, and concentrated solar
power (Açıkkalp, 2017; Mehrpooya et al., 2016; Qiao et al., 2020;
Binotti et al., 2017; Iverson et al., 2013).
S-CO2 is widely believed to be the best candidate for working fluid in
the next generation of concentrating solar thermal power plants (Mehos
et al., 2017) and therefore, is suggested for use in a variety of solar
power generation systems. Zhang and Yamaguchi experimentally
investigated the application of S-CO2 in a Rankine power cycle, where
evacuated tubes were used as the cycle’s heater (Yamaguchi et al., 2006;
Zhang and Yamaguchi, 2008). In 2007, Zhang et al. developed a theo­
retical analysis of the same cycle (Zhang et al., 2007). Chen et al. used
evacuated tubes carrying S-CO2 with natural convection to produce hot
water, as hot as 80 ◦ C. They achieved thermal efficiencies generally
above 60%, which is much higher than existing natural convection
water-based collectors or transcritical CO2 flow-based collectors (Chen
and Zhang, 2014). Song et al. proposed a transcritical CO2 power cycle
driven by solar energy, which uses the cold heat rejection to a Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) evaporation system. They showed that the daily solar
insolation is the dominant parameter in defining the net power output of
the system. Moreover, there is an optimum turbine inlet pressure under
given conditions, where both the net power output and system efficiency
reach maximum values (Song et al., 2012).
Various layouts suggested for S-CO2 Brayton cycle can be categorized
under two main classes, namely direct and indirect cycles. In all layouts
S-CO2 is the working fluid in the turbine. It leaves turbine at transcritical
pressures but at temperatures significantly higher than its critical tem­
perature. Therefore, a variety of techniques are implied to cool down the
turbine exhaust gas and bring it back to the compressor inlet condition
which is near to the critical point of carbon dioxide. After S-CO2 leaves
the compressor it can be heated up directly inside the PTC array. Such a
system is technically referred to as direct S-CO2 Brayton cycle. An
alternative approach is to use a different heat transfer fluid in the PTCs
(e.g. synthetic oil or molten salt) and then use a heat exchanger to
transfer the heat collected by the HTF to S-CO2. These layouts are called
indirect S-CO2 Brayton cycle. Many of the past efforts to study the S-CO2
Brayton cycle have been mostly theoretical and focused on the general
aspects of the cycle (Dostal, 2004; Gong et al., 2006; Behar et al., 2015;
Kim, Y. M. et al., 2012; Bellos, Tzivanidis, 2017). For instance, Carstens
et al. and Dostal et al. studied different layouts to increase the efficiency
of supercritical CO2 power conversion cycles (Carstens et al., 2006;
Dostal, 2004).
In recent years, however, researchers have increasingly tended to
study different components of the S-CO2 Brayton cycle, rather than
analyzing the entire cycle holistically (Odabaee et al., 2016; Zhou et al.,
2020; Meshram et al., 2016). Vilim et al. and Gong et al. analyzed the
necessary features of turbomachinery (Vilim et al., 2008; Gong et al.,
2006), while Utamura studied heat exchanger layouts (Utamura, 2007).
Yet, a major obstacle towards building a direct S-CO2 Rankine cycle is to
develop components especially designed for S-CO2 application. To
respond to this requirement, Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) began
efforts to manufacture an S-CO2 Brayton cycle in recent years. After
accomplishing an experimental study on low-pressure closed Brayton
cycles, SNL is now working to develop large S-CO2 Brayton units (i.e.
greater than 10 MW) for various electrical production schemes (Write
et al., 2010; Wright, Steven Alan et al., 2011).
In addition to analytical and experimental investigations, several
researchers have developed computational analysis as an effective tool
to improve the efficiency of supercritical power cycles. Most of the
earlier numerical analyses were restricted to simplified models, like a
tube exposed to the uniform heat flux (Ničeno and Sharabi, 2013) or
heat augmentation by utilizing a variety of methods in a receiver tube
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
that carries S-CO2 (Wang, K. et al., 2015; Wang, P., Liu and Xu, 2013).
Recently, more sophisticated numerical models of power plant major
components have been introduced in the literature (Cui et al., 2019; Son
et al., 2018). As far as parabolic trough power plants are considered, part
of these computational analyses is focused on the flow field and heat
transfer around heat collecting element (HCE) (Naeeni and Yaghoubi,
2007a,b; Hachicha et al., 2013; Hachicha, Rodríguez, Lehmkuhl et al.,
2014; Hachicha, Rodríguez and Oliva, 2014; Zemler et al., 2013; Naeeni
and Yaghoubi, 2007a,b), while others simulate the flow field inside the
receiver (Cheng, He, Cui et al., 2012; Cheng, He, Xiao et al., 2010;
Serrano-Aguilera et al., 2014; Lobón et al., 2014; Roldán et al., 2013).
Mullick and Nanda studied the convection heat transfer around a
tubular absorber with a glass cover in cross flow, and suggested a simple
formula that correlates the overall convection heat transfer coefficient,
around a tubular absorber with a glass cover, to the velocity of wind, but
it does not consider the collector’s orientation (Mullick and Nanda,
1989). However, the exact flow pattern, and subsequent heat loss
around the collector tube, is a strong function of the collector orientation
and depends less on the wind velocity (Naeeni and Yaghoubi, 2007;
Hachicha et al., 2013; Paetzold et al., 2014).
On the other hand, inside the receiver tube of a parabolic trough
collector’s (PTC) heat collecting element, there is a turbulent flow field.
The thermophysical properties of S-CO2 vary considerably when passing
through the receiver tube. The available turbulence models, however,
were originally developed to predict the flow field and heat transfer of
constant property fluids. Hence, the extension of their applicability to
variable property flows is questionable (Bazargan and Mohseni, 2012).
However, in the last two decades, the predictive capabilities of various
turbulence models have been tested on experimental data, and some
models have been proven to predict such flow fields reasonably accu­
rately. Koshizuka et al. numerically analyzed a turbulent flow utilizing
the Jones-Launder k-ε turbulence model (Koshizuka et al., 1995). Their
study showed that the k-ε turbulence model, without modification for
fluctuating terms, performed reasonably well compared with Yamaga­
ta’s experimental data for water at supercritical pressures (Yamagata
et al., 1872).
Further, Kim et al. studied the predictive capabilities of a variety of
two-equation turbulence models (Seong Hoon et al., 2004). They tested
several low-Reynolds k-ε models, two k-ω models, and three high-
Reynolds k-ε models against experimental data obtained from Yama­
gata using the commercial software, Fluent (Yamagata et al., 1972).
Although each model showed some deficiencies, the RNG k-ε model
made the closest prediction to the Yamagata experimental values. In the
same year, He et al. conducted a similar analysis to investigate the
predictive capabilities of several two-equation low-Reynolds turbulence
models for mixed convective heat transfer using another CFD code,
SWIRL (He et al., 2004). Their study found that the buoyancy effect on
turbulence and heat transfer is poorly predicted by typical two-equation
low-Reynolds number turbulence models. Additionally, Roelofs
compared the predictive capabilities of an RNG k-ε model with a Rey­
nolds Stress Model (RSM). Roelofs concludes that even though the RSM
predictions in a single channel may be on par with a common two
equation model, for more complicated geometries the RSM will give a
more accurate prediction (Roelofs, 2004).
In another study, Jue et al. performed a similar analysis comparing
several k-ε turbulence models, three two-layer models, and four k-ω
models to the experimental data of Yamagata (Jue et al., 2006). They
found that the two-layer model of Hassid and Poreh (Hassid and Poreh,
1978) resulted in the best prediction, and the k-ε model with standard
wall functions also gave an acceptable prediction. Moreover, Seo et al.
used the FLUENT software to prove that the standard k-ε model with
standard wall functions works well in a normal heat transfer regime;
however, it failed in producing reasonable predictions in a high heat flux
and low mass flow rate regime (Seo et al., 2006). He et al. compared the
performance of a number of turbulent models in predicting supercritical
pressure heat transfer in a vertical tube. They concluded that the V2F
768
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
model performs the best among all models tested (He et al., 2008a).
Furthermore, Mohseni et al. modified a low Reynolds number k–ε tur­
bulence model for applications in supercritical fluid flows, which led to
flow predictions that were in good agreement with the experiments for
an enhanced mode of heat transfer (Mohseni and Bazargan, 2012). To
sum up, multidimensional turbulence models are more successful in
predicting the supercritical flow and heat transfer than the one-
dimensional correlations. Given that, in these conditions, radial prop­
erty variations have a significant effect on fluid flow and heat transfer,
particularly in the boundary layer, such results are expected (Gallaway,
2011). Among two-dimensional models, k-ε models work well for simple
geometries and conditions, while an RSM model results in the best
predictions when it comes to more complicated situations, where other
models poorly predict the flow field and heat transfer.
Most of the previous computational simulations of PTC have
simplified the heat flux on the receiver, and hence, have ignored the
nonuniform nature of the flow field and heat transfer in PTC. Addi­
tionally, most of the correlations that are derived analytically to predict
the heat transfer and thermal efficiency of PTC are developed based on
simple boundary conditions. A constant heat flux or a uniform temper­
ature profile on the receiver are the two most popular boundary con­
ditions used in these analyses. The real condition, however, differs
greatly from these assumptions (Qiu et al., 2017). In reality, the beam
component of solar irradiation is reflected by the parabolic reflectors
and is concentrated on one side of the glass cover of a receiver tube,
while the diffuse component of solar incident cannot be concentrated on
the receiver tube by the parabolic reflectors, and hence, heats up the
entire system, including the glass cover of the receiver uniformly. In
addition, both the parabolic reflectors and the receiver tube emit ther­
mal radiation to the surroundings, including the sky. The solar irradi­
ance transmits through the glass cover of the receiver and hits the
receiver tube. While a large part of this irradiation is absorbed by the
receiver and conducted to the flow inside, a small fraction of it reflects
back on the cover glass. The reciprocating of thermal radiation between
these components continues until the entire system reaches a steady
state condition, in which case the nonuniform solar irradiance on the
surface of the absorber tube results in a circumferentially nonuniform
heat flux. This in turn heats the flow asymmetrically, and consequently,
forms a nonuniform flow field (Cheng et al., 2012; Qiu et al., 2017)(Qiu
et al., 2017; Khanna et al., 2013). One of the contributions of this
research is to model such a sophisticated network of heat transfer be­
tween different components of the system and the surroundings, without
implying any simplified boundary condition.
This study numerically investigates the thermal characteristics of a
parabolic trough solar collector that carries S-CO2, in-depth. The
temperature-dependent thermophysical properties of the S-CO2 are
considered in this paper, which are rarely considered in the literature. In
order to accurately estimate the thermal performance of PTC, a full-scale
model of the entire system, including the reflectors and receiver tube,
with its surrounding evacuated glass envelope, as well as the S-CO2
working fluid inside the receiver, was developed. This model solves for
temperature fields throughout the entire three-dimensional system. A k-
ε turbulent model is used for the S-CO2 motion inside the receiver tube
with wall functions. A ray-tracing approach is implemented to model
solar incident radiation. A multiband radiation model is implemented
with two bands, to simulate the selective thermal radiation behavior of
the receiver coating and glass envelope. The numerical model is vali­
dated against some experimental data available in the literature and
good agreement is observed. Results show that highly nonuniform heat
flux, and consequently temperature distribution, exists in the entire
parabolic trough solar collector, including the receiver tube, glass en­
velope, and parabolic collectors. The numerical results also indicate
considerable variations in the thermophysical properties of the S-CO2
passing through the receiver tube. The simulation is repeated five times
to evaluate the change in the solution over a typical summer day.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2, the problem
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic Layout of split-flow recompression Brayton cycle components (Iverson et al., 2013).
Fig. 2. Typical current system operating conditions at SNL (Dostal et al., 2004)
(Iverson et al., 2013).
theory and its mathematical model are described. The numerical scheme
and operational conditions are presented in section 3 along with the
validation of the model against experimental data. Section 4 presents
and discusses the numerical results. The paper concludes with a sum­
mary of the main findings, and directions for future work in section 5.
2. Theory and model development
The viability of developing S-CO2 parabolic trough power plan
mainly depends on the thermal performance of the PTC when it carries
S-CO2. To make such power plants economically competent to conven­
tional fossil fuel power plants, it is necessary to enhance the thermal
efficiency of the heat collecting elements to above 90% from the current
60% (Mehos et al., 2017). Clearly, current HCEs are neither capable of
working for 30 years at temperatures as high as 700–750 ◦ C, suggested
for Gen-3 CSP, nor will their thermal efficiency be anywhere close to
90%. Hence, to meet the targets of the Gen-3 CSP roadmap, it is
necessary to design and manufacture a new generation of HCEs. The first
step to accomplish this project is to fully understand the flow field and
heat transfer in an HCE, which in turn, allows design engineers to both
evaluate the thermal stresses exerted on the HCE, and to develop
769
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
methods that augment the thermal efficiency of the HCE.
2.1. Problem statement
In this study, a detailed numerical analysis of the heat transfer and
flow field inside the receiver of a parabolic trough power plant is
considered. In general, S-CO2 power cycles are modifications of a closed
Brayton cycle in supercritical and transcritical regions. Numerous lay­
outs of S-CO2 cycles are suggested (Feher, 1968; Angelino, 1968; Iverson
et al., 2013; Cheang et al., 2015), which can all be classified under
twelve groups (Ahn et al., 2015). Despite the difference between these
layouts, the solar field has the same position in all of them. In fact, in CSP
applications of S-CO2 cycles, solar collectors are utilized as the boiler of
the power plant. For instance, the SNL test loop is a split-flow recom­
pression Brayton cycle. A schematic of this layout is illustrated in Fig. 1,
where the solar resource is simulated by a heater.
The thermodynamic state of this cycle is shown in Fig. 2, where the
crucial points are marked in red. In the present work, only a part of the
heating pro cess (process 4–5 in Fig. 2) is numerically simulated. This
heating process occurs in the solar field where S-CO2 absorbs the solar
insolation by passing through a series of receiver tubes. This study
considers the non-uniform solar irradiance around the HCE and the
natural convection inside the receiver tube. Additionally, the nonlinear
variations in the thermophysical properties of S-CO2 are taken into ac­
count in the numerical model.
(Iverson et al., 2013) suggest that a Brayton cycle that uses solar
resources should operate at temperatures above 600 ◦ C to yield effi­
ciencies in the vicinity of 50%. The operating temperature of the Bray­
ton cycle is the inlet temperature of high pressure (HP) turbine,
illustrated as state 5b-A in Fig. 1 which is slightly less than the tem­
perature at which S-CO2 leaves the solar collector array, but signifi­
cantly higher than the temperature at which S-CO2 enters the solar
collector array. As illustrated in Fig. 2, in a direct Brayton cycle, CO2
leaves the compressor at temperatures slightly above the critical tem­
perature of carbon dioxide (i.e. 31 ◦ C). Then the CO2 is heated up in a
series of recuperators with the exhaust gas of turbines. Using recuper­
ators is particularly beneficial for smaller size power plants where the
exhaust temperature of the turbine is significantly higher than the exit
temperature of the compressor. The amount of temperature increment in
preheating stage depends on several factors and therefore, varies from
power plant to power plant. Inside the solar field, S-CO2 passes through
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Fig. 3. (a) Heat transfer schematic of a PTC cross section, (b) Thermal resistance network (Liang et al, 2015).
an array of PTCs where it absorbs solar irradiation, and its temperature
increases. Therefore, the inlet temperature of each collector is different
from the rest of the PTCs in the array. In current research, it is assumed
that the S-CO2 enters the solar collector at 300 ◦ C.
A single LS2 parabolic trough collector equipped with a single-axis
east–west oriented sun tracker is modeled. To investigate the varia­
tions in the efficiency and outlet temperatures of the receiver during a
typical summer day, a pseudo-steady state scheme is applied. The
tracker system rotates the collector at a preset time interval to adjust its
tracking angle and minimize the angle of incidence. However, the
receiver is stationary in between the tracker adjustments. Moreover, the
variations in ambient conditions on a clear sunny day are much slower
than the variations in the flow field. Hence, in each time step, the flow
field is assumed to fulfill the steady state conditions. Therefore, a steady
state numerical analysis is applied for five time steps (8 AM, 10 AM, 12
PM, 2 PM, and 4 PM) on a typical summer day.
The following additional assumptions are also imposed onto the
model:
• The S-CO2 flow field inside the receiver tube is assumed three-
dimensional, turbulent, steady, and compressible.
• The turbulent flow field is modeled using a k-ε model.
• The near vacuum condition inside the annulus (i.e. the clearance
between the receiver tube and the glass envelope) is replaced with
low-pressure hydrogen.
• The S-CO2 thermophysical properties are tempearture-dependant.
• The brackets, receiver glass-metal joints, evacuating opening, and
hydrogen getter are neglected. Further, extension bellows are
replaced with adiabatic boundaries.
• The reflector is modeled as a single piece of mirror; although, in
practice, it consists of several smaller pieces assembled to form a big
parabolic reflector. All gaps and possible misalignments are conse­
quently ignored. The effect of dust and surface imperfections are not
addressed.
770
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
• The sky is considered clear.
• The optical and thermal properties of the glass cover and its selective
coating are temperature-independent. The same is true for the
receiver tube and its cermet coating.
• A multiband radiation model is used with two bands.
• The deflection of the receiver, due to its weight and thermal stress, is
not considered. The same is true for the glass cover and the reflector.
2.2. Governing equations
The mathematical model presented in this section addresses several
heat transfer modes that exist between the sun, parabolic trough col­
lector, HCE, working fluid, and surroundings. The system of governing
equations also includes the full Navier Stokes equations, along with the
k-ε turbulent flow model inside the receiver tube.
All three modes of heat transfer (i.e., conduction, convection, and
radiation) are present in the comprehensive thermal analysis of the
parabolic trough system (Jinshah and Balasubramanian, 2020; Wang,
P., Liu, Xu, Zhou et al., 2016). The heat transfer modes between various
components of the parabolic trough are summarized as follows:
• sun–parabolic collector: radiation
• parabolic collector–glass envelope: radiation
• glass envelope–receiver tube: radiation + condvection + conduction
• receiver tube–fluid: convection
• parabolic collector-surrounding: radiation + convection
• glass envelope–surrounding: radiation + convection
Fig. 3 schematically illustrates this thermal network.
Radiation heat transfer mode plays a dominant role in heat transfer
model and deserves a particular attention. While a significant amount of
the incident solar energy is lost to the surroundings, due to both con­
vection and radiation, a larger portion of it is eventually absorbed by the
S-CO2 fluid inside the receiver tube. Radiation analysis in this study is
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

divided into two categories: (1) solar radiation, and (2) thermal
KJ = E (7)
radiation.
A solar calculator is embedded in Star CCM+, the commercial soft­ where K is an N × N matrix, J is the radiosity vector, and E is the
ware used in this research. However, this solar calculator does not emissive power vector.
consider various environmental conditions including but not limited to That the solar incidence, parabolic trough orientation, and ambient
the clouds effect, dust etc. Therefore, to consider all environmental conditions vary over time suggests that the equations governing this
conditions, instead of relying on the solar calculator, we have used ob­ system are, by nature, transient. However, given that the variation of all
tained solar load and meteorological data form TMY3 database and have aforementioned parameters is much slower than the variations in the
introduced them to the software. TMY3s are believed to be the best flow field, a quasi-steady approach is implemented in this study. The
datasets of experimentally measured solar and meteorological data problem is solved for five different times on a typical summer day (i.e., 8
across the USA. They are data sets of hourly values of solar radiation and AM,10 AM, 12 PM, 2 PM, and 4 PM), but at each time, it is assumed that
meteorological elements for a 1-year period. In this research TMY3 the system operates steadily. The governing equations of the flow field
dataset of Albuquerque, NM is used to estimate the beam and diffuse inside the receiver tube consists of a set of three Reynolds averaged
solar irradiance as well as altitude and azimuth angle of sun on June conservation equations, as follows (Hinze, 1975):
11th. In addition, the ambient temperature, dew point temperature, and
∂
wind velocity are excerpted from TMY3 datasets. TMY3 contains data (ρui ) = 0 (8)
collected by measuring the solar radiation either on a horizontal surface
∂xi
or on a surface which tracks the sun using a two-axis tracker so that the [ ( )]
∂ ( ) ∂P ∂ ∂ui ∂uj 2 ∂ul
solar beams are always normal to the tracking surface. In this research, ρui uj = − + (μt + μ) + − δij + ρg i (9)
∂xi ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi 3 ∂xl
on the other hand, the PTC is installed horizontally in an East-West di­
rection and tracks the sun using a single-axis tracking system with [( ) ]
∂ ∂ μ μt ∂T
continuous adjustment. Therefore, the solar angles reported in TMY3 (ρTui ) = + + SR (10)
∂xi ∂xi Pr σT ∂xi
datasets cannot be directly used to compute the solar incidence on a
parabolic trough. Rather, we used following set of formula to compute Additional equations are required to model the turbulence of the
the solar incidence angles as well as the PTC surface azimuth angle at flow field. Multidimensional turbulence models are more successful in
each case and then introduced it to software (Duffie and Beckman, predicting the supercritical flow and heat transfer than the one-
2013). dimensional correlations (Jue et al., 2006). Among multidimensional
( )1 models, the k-ε model has proven to work well for simple geometries and
Angle of Incidence : Cosθ = 1 − cos2 δ.sin2 ω 2 (1) conditions (Jiang et al., 2008). Hence, the k-ε model is used to capture
the turbulence of the flow field inside the receiver tube. This model
Slope of surface : tanβ = tanθz |cosγs | (2) consists of two transport equations including the kinetic energy, as well
{ ◦
as the rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy:
0 if |γ s | < 90
Surface azimuth angle : γ = ◦ (3) ∂ ∂
[( ) ]
μ ∂k
180 if |γs | ≥ 90 (ρkui ) = μ+ t + Gk − ρε (11)
∂xi ∂xi σ k ∂xi
Where, θ stands for angle of incidence, θz denotes solar zenith angle,
[( ) ]
δ is solar declination, ω is hourly angle, β is slope of surface, γ represents ∂ ∂ μt ∂ε ε
surface azimuth angle, and γ s is the solar azimuth angle. (ρεui ) = μ+ + (c1 Gk − c2 ρε) (12)
∂xi ∂xi σ ε ∂xi k
Thermal radiation between various components of the system is
computed by discretizing the gray surface radiation equation. The en­ where Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due
ergy flux leaving a given surface is composed of directly emitted and to the mean velocity gradients;
reflected energy. The reflected energy flux depends on the incident en­ (
∂ui ∂ui ∂uj
)
ergy flux from the surroundings, which then can be expressed in terms of G k = μt + (13)
∂xj ∂xj ∂xi
the energy flux leaving all other surfaces. The energy reflected from
surface k is, The turbulent viscosity is given by:

qout,k = ∊k σTk4 + ρk qin,k (4) μt = C μ ρ

k2
(14)
ε
where qout,k is the energy flux leaving the surface, ∊k is the
The model constants are derived analytically by RNG theory, c1 ¼
emissivity, σ is Boltzmann’s constant, and qin, k is the energy flux inci­
1.44, c2 = 1.92, Cµ = 0.09, σk = 1.0, σε = 1.3, and σT = 0.85.
dent on the surface from the surroundings. The amount of incident en­
The k-ε turbulence model is valid only in high Reynolds number
ergy upon a surface from another surface is a direct function of the view
regions and is not applicable in near wall regions where the viscous
factor, Fij , which is defined as,
terms predominate over the turbulent terms. The near wall regions,
1 ∑ N ∑ N
cosθi cosθj hence, should be modeled using either a low Reynolds number scheme
Fij = δij dAj dAi (5) or wall functions (Rodi, 2012). In this research the wall functions
Ai i=1 j=1 πr2
method is used to model the near wall regions.
where the Kronecker delta δij is determined by the visibility The wall function method assumes that in the vicinity of a solid wall,
of dAj to dAi (Siegel et al., 2011). For N surfaces using the view factor where the molecular transport effects are insignificant, the velocity and
reciprocity relationship, energy reflected from the surface is written as temperature profiles can be described by universal logarithmic corre­
follows, lations. It is also assumed that, in this region, the turbulence is in a state
of local equilibrium (Chieng and Launder, 1980). The success of wall
∑
N
J k = Ek + ρ k Fkj Jj (6) function methods, hence, depend on the near wall cell size, which can be
j=1 represented by wall Y + function. Y + is a direct function of the near wall
cell size and should be greater than 30 and less than 200 in a wall
Where Jj represents the energy that is given off (or radiosity) of
function type mesh, and should not exceed 1 in a low Reynolds number
surface k, and Ek represents the emissive power of surface k. This rep­
type mesh (Rodi, 2012).
resents N equations, which can be recast into matrix form as,
To close the system of equations governing the flow field and heat

771
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
transfer inside the receiver tube, one should define thermodynamic
properties of S–CO2 at each and every point inside the receiver tube. To
this end, REFPROP software from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) is used to interpolate thermodynamic properties of
S–CO2. REFPROP is a computer program that provides thermophysical
properties of pure fluids and mixtures over a wide range of fluid con­
ditions including liquid, gas, and supercritical phases (Lemmon et al.,
2013).
The heat transfer mechanism and, consequently, the governing
equations inside the annulus depend on the type and pressure of the
residual gas in this space. In case of higher vacuum degrees, that is at a
low pressure (≤10-4 torr), the Knudsen number (Kn) is larger than 10,
and therefore, free molecular conduction is the dominant heat transfer
mechanism. Whereas at higher pressures (greater than1 torr), the
dominant mechanism is natural convection (Wang et al., 2011). All of
these cases can be simulated in Star CCM + code. In this study, it is
assumed that hydrogen (H2) exists within a poorly vacuumed annulus
space and causes buoyancy-induced laminar flow in the annulus. To
simplify the draft, the details of the governing equations are not pre­
sented here.
Thermal efficiency of the PTC, ηI , at each case is computed using the
following formula.
ηI =
Qabsorbed
× 100 (15)
Ib
Additionally, the exergy analysis is performed based on the work of
(Öztürk et al., 2007) where the following relationship is developed to
calculate the second law efficiency of the PTC through exergy analysis.
ηII =
Ex,Q
(16)
Ex,solar
Where Ex,Q and Ex,solar are respectively the exergy transfer accompa­
nying the heat of the solar collector and the exergy released by the solar
irradiance and obtained as follows,
( )
Tambient
Ex,Q = I ηI 1 − (17)
Tlm
( )
4 Tambient
Ex,solar = I 1 − (1 − 0.28logf ) (18)
3 Ts
Where I stands for the global irradiance, and Tlm denotes the loga­
rithmic mean temperature difference of the collector, which is defined as
follows,
Tin − Tout
Tlm = ( ) (19)
log TTout
in
in which Tin and Tout are inlet and outlet temperature of the collector,
respectively. Ts is the solar temperature (5777 K), and f represents
dilution factor. The latter can be estimated using the following formula.
I lector, receiver tube, and glass envelop surrounding the receiver tube.
f = (20)
σ Ts 4
Where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
2.3. Boundary conditions
The constant total temperature and mass flow rate are prescribed at
the inlet boundary of the receiver tube. The inlet temperature is 300 ◦ C;
the inlet pressure is 10 MPa; and the flow rate equals 530 Lit/min. These
conditions are reasonably close to the real conditions in a solar thermal
power plant, where recuperators are used to preheat the S-CO2.
The length of the receiver tube is greater than the entry length cri­
terion of turbulent flow (i.e., 10 to 20 times the diameter) (Jiji, Latif M
(Latif Menashi), 2009). Consequently, the fluid reaches its fully devel­
oped condition before it reaches the end of the receiver tube. Therefore,
772
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
Table 1
Averaged Nusselt numbers for each pitch
angle (Hachicha et al., 2013).
Position Nuavg
0◦ 24.5
45◦ 36.4
90◦ 47.4
135◦ 25.1
180◦ 22.5
270◦ 43.4
the fully developed condition is applied at the outlet boundary of the S-
CO2 flow inside the receiver tube.
The length of receiver tube is three orders of magnitude larger than
its thickness. The same is true for the collector and glass envelope.
Consequently, the axial thermal resistance of these elements is three
orders larger than their radial resistance. Therefore, the axial heat
transfer in all solid components is ignorable, compared to the radial heat
transfer. However, both ends of solid component, including the collec­
tor, receiver tube, extension bellows, and glass envelope, are assumed
adiabatic.
Since convection is the dominant term of the heat loss from the HCE,
it is necessary to model the convection between the HCE and the
ambient air precisely, by implementing an accurately estimated con­
vection coefficient. The crossflow model poorly describes the flow field
around the receiver tube of a PTC (Naeeni and Yaghoubi, 2007a,b). As
previously discussed, the parabolic trough modeled in this research is
equipped with a single axis tracking system oriented in a south-north
direction. Therefore, depending on the apparent position of the sun in
the sky, the pitch angle changes. This motion not only affects the
absorbed solar irradiance, but also changes the convection coefficient on
the outer surface of the collector. Therefore, to avoid oversimplification
in boundary conditions, it is necessary to consider the effect of the pitch
angle on the averaged convection coefficient. Table 1 presents the
average Nusselt number versus pitch angle (Hachicha et al., 2013).
Radiation exchange between the PTC and the sky significantly con­
tributes to the heat loss of HCE. Assuming that the sky emits as a
blackbody, its equivalent temperature, Ts, is computed using following
equation proposed by Berdahl and Martin (Berdahl and Martin, 1984):
[ ]14
2
Ts = Ta 0.711 + 0.0056Tdp + 0.000073Tdp + 0.013cos(15t) (21)
where Ts is the effective sky temperature in degrees Kelvin, Ta de­
notes dry bulb temperature in degrees Kelvin, Tdp is the dew point
temperature in degrees Celsius, and t denotes the hour from midnight.
3. Numerical technique and operational conditions
In this study, the geometry of the PTC consists of the parabolic col­
Currently, there is no HCE in the market especially manufactured for S-
CO2 applications. Hence, the geometric model is generated based on the
characteristics of a LS-2 collector designed for synthetic oil applications
(Dudley et al., 1994)(Fernández-García et al., 2010)(Moss and Brosseau,
2005). Fig. 4 illustrates the geometry of the parabolic trough that is used
in the present computational model. Extremely low-pressure hydrogen
fills inside the annulus, while S-CO2 turbulently flows inside the receiver
tube. The entire parabolic trough is modeled in 3D using finite volume
techniques. The software used to develop this model was STAR CCM + .
3.1. Mesh generation
Three distinct types of mesh are used in this model (Fig. 5). The thin
elements, including the reflector, glass envelope, and receiver tube, are
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Fig. 4. (a) Isometric view of LS-2 collector, (b) Schematic of the cross section of LS-2 HCE.

Fig. 5. The mesh generated to discretize different regions of the solution domain.

773
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

coarse mesh overestimates the axial velocity in near wall region by

about 0.164 m/s and underestimates it in the core region by 0.085 m/s.
The mid-size mesh, in comparison, overestimates the axial velocity in
the near wall region by about 0.054 m/s and underestimates it in the
core region by 0.028 m/s. In the present numerical experiment, a mesh
consisting of 3,781,034 cells and 996,785 boundary faces is used. The
base size of the mesh is 2.7 mm, and its growing ratio is 1.3.
The present computational model is validated against a set of ex­
periments carried out by Moss et. al. (Moss and Brosseau, 2005), who
investigated an LS-2 collector with a Schott PTR 70 Heat Collector
Element, equipped with a continuous 2D tracking system, to maximize
the solar incidence on the collector at SNL. Moss et al. used DOW
Corning Syltherm 800 as the working fluid at an elevated fluid tem­
perature, approaching 400 ◦ C, while at near ambient fluid temperature,
they replaced the working fluid with water. There is no study or data
available in the literature, related to experimental or numerical ap­
proaches, using S-CO2 as the working fluid in PTC. Therefore, a slight
modification was needed to account for the working fluid. Pure water
and Syltherm 800 are used in the current validation computational runs
for a fair comparison between the two cases.
Table 2 lists the test conditions of five experiments conducted by
(Moss and Brosseau, 2005). Table 3 summarizes the comparison be­
tween the results of the present work and Moss and Brosseau. for each
case. The pictorial comparison results are depicted in Fig. 7. It can be
Fig. 6. The axial velocity profile on the receiver tube’s middle cross section. observed that the numerical simulation overestimates the outlet tem­
perature of the working fluid, and consequently, the thermal efficiency,
in all cases. However, the declination from the experimental data is
comparable to the uncertainty of the experiments. The most accurate
result, with only a 0.40% error, is obtained with the lowest inlet tem­
meshed using prismatic layered volume mesh. Orthogonal prismatic
perature, where water is used as the working fluid. By increasing the
cells are generated next to wall surfaces or boundaries. Such a fine mesh
inlet temperature, the percentage of error in estimating the efficiency
is necessary in solid–fluid boundaries to capture the steep hydraulic and
increases up to 2.81% at Tin = 199.56 ◦ C and then decreases again to
thermal gradients in the boundary layers. The bulk fluid regions,
1.05% at Tin = 362.97 ◦ C. In comparison with the uncertainty of each
including the S-CO2 inside the receiver tube and hydrogen inside the
experiment, the worst estimation occurs in case three, with a 2.45%
annulus, are meshed by polyhedral mesh. The main advantage of poly­
error above the uncertainty of the experiment. Nevertheless, the nu­
hedral mesh over tetrahedral mesh is that for a given starting surface,
merical simulation provides acceptable results.
polyhedral mesh contains about five times fewer cells. The size, density,
and distribution of the mesh are controlled to generate fine cells in
solid–fluid boundaries, where steep temperature gradients are expected.
This mesh generation strategy improves the accuracy of the flow, solving
with considerably fewer number of cells, compared to a uniform
distribution.
Table 3
Numerical model’s verification against (Moss and Brosseau, 2005).
3.2. Grid study and model validation Tested Outlet Temp (◦ C) Thermal Efficiency (%)
conditions
present (Moss and Error present (Moss and Error
In order to verify the numerical simulation framework, a grid reso­
work Brosseau, (◦ C) work Brosseau, (%)
lution study is performed. This is followed by a validation process, in 2005) 2005)
which the results of the numerical simulation are compared with the
Case 1 33.19 33.13 0.06 79.00 78.6 ± 2% 0.40
experimental data. A grid independency analysis is conducted on axial Case 2 122.68 121.98 0.70 76.57 74.2 ± 2.37
velocity to ensure the numerical solution accuracy is independent of the 1.61%
mesh size. Fig. 6 demonstrates the axial velocity profile along the ver­ Case 3 222.15 221.28 0.87 72.91 70.1 ± 2.81
tical line on the central cross section of the receiver tube, obtained for 1.56%
Case 4 318.84 318.2 0.64 69.77 67.6 ± 2.17
three different mesh sizes at noon. The total number of cells in this grid 1.59%
resolution experiment were 2315956, 3,781,034 and 6534463. The total Case 5 385.28 384.92 0.36 65.35 64.3 ± 1.05
number of boundary faces corresponding to this mesh were 887511, 1.47%
996,785 and 1679121, respectively. Compared to the finest mesh, the

Table 2
Summary of verification cases’ working conditions.
Tested conditions Working fluid Average Flow Rate Average NIP Average Ambient Air Temp Ave. Wind Speed Inlet Temp.
gal/min W/m2 ◦
C MPH ◦
C

Case 1 H2O 9.95 999.45 17.98 4.5 21.35

Case 2 Syltherm 800 14.34 1029.05 6.38 3.1 100.02
Case 3 Syltherm 800 14.27 1051.08 5.83 5.3 199.56
Case 4 Syltherm 800 14.45 953.29 7.63 3 298.27
Case 5 Syltherm 800 14.35 1015.78 11.98 7.9 362.97

774
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Moss and Brasseau Current Research Table 6

Meteorological data in the reference date, time, and location of the present
25
research.
Site Albuquerque,
20 Location NM
Date 07/11/2005
Time Vwind (m/s) Tambient Tdp Tsky hcover (W/
15 (◦ C) (◦ C) (◦ C) m2. K)

8:00 AM 3.6 24.4 12.8 6.63 14.67

10 10:00 AM 5.2 25.8 13.3 8.28 11.96
12:00 PM 5.2 30.6 12.8 12.46 16.23
2:00 PM 3.6 32.2 11.1 12.81 11.74
5 4:00 PM 5.2 33.3 8.3 11.99 20.53

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Case Number
Direct Solar Flux (W/m2) Solar Incidence (Wh/m2)
(a)
1400 1400
Current Research Moss and Brasseau
90 1200 1200

Solar Incidence (Wh/m2)

Solar Irradiance (W/m2)
80 1000 1000

70 800 800
Thermal Efficiency (%)

60 600 600

50 400 400

40
200 200
30
0 0
20 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
Time (hour)
10
Fig. 8. Variation of direct solar flux and solar incidence in July 11th, 2005 at
0 Albuquerque, NM, USA adapted from TMY3.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Average HCE Fluid Temperature Above Ambient (°C)
(b)
Fig. 7. Comparison between current research and (Moss and Brosseau, 2005):
(a) HTF temperature increment, (b) thermal efficiency of PTC.

Table 4
S-CO2 Properties at the receiver tube’s inlet.
Inlet Pressure (MPa) 10
Flow Rate (Lit/min) 530
Tin (◦ C) 300
Vin (m/s) 2.582
ρin (kg/m3) 95.03
Cpin (J/kg.K) 1153.35
Thermal Conductivityin (mW/m.K) 42.47200
Dynamic Viscosityin (μPa.s) 28.01
Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) 0.839
Reynolds Number 578,183 Fig. 9. Effect of pressure on the near-critical properties of CO2 (Lemmon et al.,
2013), (He et al., 2008b).

Table 5
Available solar radiation in the reference date, time, and location of the present research.
Site Location Albuquerque, NM
Date 07/11/2005
Time Azimuth (deg) Altitude (deg) Gb (Wh/m2) Direct Solar Flux (W/m2) Diffuse Solar Flux (W/m2) Total Solar Incidence (Wh)

8:00 AM 85.46 34.07 356 740.43 72 11,940

10:00 AM 105.43 58.42 701 1125.87 106 26,519
12:00 PM 167.78 76.71 894 1286.21 136 34,517
2:00 PM 248.28 63.08 786 1178.33 154 29,121
4:00 PM 271.22 38.97 562 831.11 107 17,754

775
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

7 et al., 2013).
Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of pressure on the specific heat capacity of
5 Specific Volume CO2 in the neighborhood of its critical point (He et al., 2008b). Visibly, a
Property Change (%)

3 Cv change in pressure in a transcritical region strongly affects the ther­

Cp mophysical properties. However, the S-CO2 state in the receiver tube of a
1
Therm. Cond.
PTC is far from the pseudo-critical region, due to a significantly higher
-1 temperature.
Viscosity
To evaluate the effect of temperature and pressure on the thermo­
-3 Density physical properties of S-CO2 within the range of the operating conditions
-5
Prandtl of the PTC receiver tube, thermophysical data are collected from
REFPROP and processed (Lemmon et al., 2013). Fig. 10 demonstrates
-7 the percentage of variation in the thermophysical properties of S-CO2 at
300 305 310 315 320 325 330
the range of operating temperatures inside the receiver tube, assuming
that the pressure is constant at 10 MPa. Similarly, Fig. 11 demonstrates
Fig. 10. Percentage of temperature-dependent variation of the thermophysical the percentage of variation in thermophysical properties of S-CO2 at the
properties of S-CO2 at P = 10 MP. range of operating pressures inside the receiver tube, assuming that the
temperature is constant at 300 ◦ C. Reference S-CO2 pressure and tem­
perature values are set as 10 MPa and 300 ◦ C, respectively. S-CO2
0.02 properties are then scaled by dividing them to the corresponding
property at the reference site. Comparing these two graphs shows that
Volume
the variation of the thermophysical properties of S-CO2 inside the
0.01 Cv
receiver tube because of pressure drop is two orders of magnitude less
Property Change (%)

Cp than the change in properties because of temperature increment. In

0 Therm. Cond.
Viscosity
Density
-0.01
Prandtl
-0.02
10000 9999 9998
Pressure (kPa)
Fig. 11. Percentage of pressure-dependnt variation of the thermophysical
properties of S-CO2 at T = 300 ◦ C.
3.3. Operating conditions
In the numerical simulation, the solar radiation data and meteoro­
logical data, as well as the inlet conditions of the flow field, are needed.
The inlet condition of S-CO2 is listed in Table 4, while Table 5 and
Table 6 summarize the solar radiation data and the meteorological data,
respectively. Tsky and hcover in Table 6 are calculated from (Eq. (21)) and
Table 1, respectively.
The solar radiation and the meteorological data were obtained from
Typical Meteorological Data (TMY3) and correspond to a typical sum­
mer day in Albuquerque, NM. Fig. 8 illustrates the variation of direct
solar radiation and solar incidence on the collector obtained for the
purpose of the present simulations.
S-CO2 inside the receiver tube is a simple compressible system, and
hence, the state principle applies to it. Therefore, any arbitrary set of two
independent intensive properties determine its thermodynamic state.
Additionally, S-CO2 enters the PTC at 573 K that is significantly higher
than its critical temperature at 303 K. Consequently, the thermodynamic
state of S–CO2 inside the receiver tube is far enough from the pseudo-
critical region to be considered a superheated gas. This fact validates
assuming temperature and pressure as two independent intensive
properties. Like most engineering materials, experimentally measured
properties of S-CO2, which are commonly available in the literature, are
tabulated either by pressure or temperature. However, the available
thermodynamic properties of S-CO2 are limited to some specific pres­
sures and temperatures. In other words, for many points within the S-
CO2 flow field inside the PTC receiver tube, no experimental data is
available. To address this lack of experimental data REFPROP software
is employed to interpolate thermophysical properties of S-CO2 (Lemmon
conclusion, the properties of the CO2 in the working conditions of a PTC
are a strong function of temperature and a weak function of pressure.
Therefore, in this study, the physical properties of the S-CO2 inside the
receiver tube are modeled as functions of temperature at P = 10 MPa,
and the negligible effect of pressure drop on the thermophysical prop­
erties of the S-CO2 is not considered.
REFPROP software is employed to generate isobaric polynomials
that describe the temperature-dependent thermophysical properties of
carbon dioxide. These polynomials are then incorporated into the CFD
solver (Star CCM + ) to interpolate the thermophysical properties of S-
CO2 at each point inside the receiver tube. To initiate solution S-CO2
properties are estimated using REFPROP at the inlet temperature and
pressure of the receiver tube (i.e. T = 300 ͦ C and P = 10 MPa). These
fixed properties are incorporated into the CFD solver to solve for an
approximate solution. The outcome of this approximate solution is an
estimate of the range of temperature and pressure in the flow field. In the
next step, that range of temperature variation is introduced to the
REFPROP software to generate polynomial functions that interpolate the
thermophysical properties within the range of temperature and pressure
changes. Lastly, these polynomials are incorporated into the CFD solver
to conduct the final accurate solution. Such a two-step solution is
necessary to minimize the interpolation error.
4. Results and discussion
In this section, a numerical study on the thermal performance of a
PTC carrying S-CO2 at five different times during a typical summer day
in Albuquerque, NM is presented.
4.1. Direct solar irradiation
Fig. 12 illustrates the beam radiation on the reflector at 10 AM and at
12 PM. Moving from the edges of the reflector, the angle of incidence (i.
e. the angle between the direct solar radiation on a surface and the
normal to that surface) decreases and reaches its minimum along the
centerline of the reflector. Consequently, at 12 PM, moving from the
edges towards the center, the beam radiation, which is around 760 W/
m2 around the edges of the collector, continuously increases and reaches
its maximum of 1260 W/m2 around the center of the collector. The
center itself receives zero flux of beam radiation, for it is shadowed by
the HCE. It is noteworthy that, in practice, the center of the collector is a
gap between the adjacent pieces of mirror located on opposite sides of
the collector. A similar pattern can be recognized at 10 AM, but with two

776
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Fig. 12. Direct solar irradiation on the reflector at (a) 10 AM, (b) 12 PM.
major differences: first, at 10 AM, the beam radiation at each position on
the reflector is less than the beam radiation at the same location at 12
PM. This matches with the solar incidence data presented in Table 5. The
second major difference is rooted in the fact that the east–west oriented
PTC tracks the sun around one axis. Consequently, at 12 PM, the HCE
shadows the center of the reflector symmetrically and creates a sym­
metrical distribution of solar incidence on the reflector. At 10 AM, in
contrast, the HCE does not shadow one end. Moreover, the distribution
of the beam radiation on the reflector is asymmetric.
777
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
4.2. Hydraulic behavior of S-CO2 inside the receiver tube
Fig. 13 shows that the value of the Y + function in the first cell
adjacent to the solid wall varies from 47 to 212, which is quite a large
range, even for a two-layer wall treatment model. In order to resolve this
problem, an all Y + wall function scheme is utilized to model the near
wall region.
Contours of the three components of velocity on the receiver tube’s
middle cross section are illustrated in Fig. 14. A Cross-sectional distri­
bution of axial velocity, j direction, shows that, in comparison to the
flow field in a pipe subjected to uniform heat flux, the maximum velocity
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Fig. 13. Wall Y + function on the receiver tube’s inner wall.
is shifted downward, where the receiver tube is subjected to higher
levels of heat flux. Expectedly, static pressure continuously decreases as
the flow moves from inlet to outlet of the receiver tube, mainly due to
the friction loss. Additionally, as depicted in Fig. 15 on the cross-section,
the static pressure continuously increases from top to the bottom,
mainly due to the gravity. However, the variation of pressure across the
cross-section, 60 Pa, is one order of magnitude smaller than the pressure
drop along the receiver tube at 550 Pa.
4.3. Thermal behavior of parabolic trough collector
4.3.1. Temperature distribution
Fig. 16 illustrates the temperature distribution on the receiver tube’s
inner wall, on four different longitudinal cross-sections with θ = 0◦ , θ =
45◦ , θ = 90◦ , θ = 135◦ , and on a transverse cross-section at y = 3.9 m.
The temperature distribution on the transverse cross-section is approx­
imately symmetrical. The temperature reaches its maximum value at the
bottom half of the receiver tube, and reaches its minimum value on
either side of the receiver, at about θ ≈ ±60◦ . This distribution matches
the heat flux distribution on the receiver tube’s wall. Additionally, these
contours show that, at each angle, the temperature increases continu­
ously along the axis, for the S-CO2 absorbs heat as it moves from inlet to
outlet. Since there are large temperature gradients across the receiver
tube, applying heat augmentation methods is expected to enhance the
thermal efficiency of the PTC.
Fig. 17 illustrates the temperature distribution on a cross-section in
the annulus space. Marching from the receiver tube towards the glass
envelope, the temperature continuously decreases to reach its minimum
value on the inner surface of the glass envelope, with slightly higher
values on the lower half, where the glass envelope is exposed to
concentrated radiation.
Fig. 18 demonstrates the temperature distribution on the glass en­
velope’s outer surface at 10 AM. The bottom side of the glass envelope is
exposed to the concentrated radiation, and hence, has a higher tem­
perature compared to the upper half, which is exposed to the sky.
Moreover, one end of the bottom half receives no beam radiation at all
because of the incidence angle. As a consequence, the temperature of
this end of the lower half of the glass envelope is even less than the upper
half. As the incidence angle decreases around 12 PM, this region shrinks
and, in the case of a zero incidence angle, completely vanishes.
778
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
4.3.2. Heat flux distribution
The heat flux on the receiver tube’s inner wall is illustrated in Fig. 19.
This graph looks puzzling at first glance and needs to be interpreted. The
key point in interpreting this graph is that the upper half of the receiver
tube loses more heat to the ambient than it receives from the sun. Two
dominant terms of heat loss include (1) radiation to the sky and (2)
convection to the ambient. The upper half of the receiver tube is exposed
to the sky and does not receive concentrated solar irradiation reflected
from the collector. Instead, it receives the solar irradiation from the sun
itself. Additionally, the effective temperature of the sky is about 20 ◦ C
less than the ambient temperature (Table 6). On the other hand, the
logarithmic mean temperature of the receiver tube is about 280 ◦ C above
ambient. Such a large temperature gap between the receiver tube and
sky causes significant radiative heat loss. Although the glass cover acts
as a radiation shield and reduces the radiative heat loss significantly, it
introduces convective heat loss. Besides, following the general rule in
the mathematics of vector fields, Star CCM + software considers the flux
direction towards the outside as positive and towards the inside as
negative. Hence, on the upper half, where the net balance of heat
transfer indicates a heat loss to the surrounding, the heat flux is positive.
On contrary, on the lower half of the receiver tube, where the heat is
absorbed from the collector (and heat flux is toward the inside), the heat
flux is negative.
Reviewing the heat flux graph (Fig. 19) shows that the heat flux on
the receiver tube is circumferentially highly non-uniform. While most of
the lower half of the HCE receives the concentrated solar irradiation
with heat fluxes up to 29,810 W/m2 , there is a very small region on the
lower surface of either end of the receiver which does not receive
concentrated solar radiation and loses heat with fluxes up to 10,731
W/m2 . This region neither receives beam radiation from the sun nor
radiation reflected by the reflector. Around sunset and sunrise, when the
angle of incidence is maximum, this shadowed region expands more. In
contrast, at solar noon, when the angle of incidence minimizes this re­
gion shrinks to its daily minimum area and completely vanishes should
the angle of incidence reaches zero, for instance, in the case of a double-
axis tracking PTC. The upper half of the receiver tube, on the other hand,
loses heat at about 2622 W/m2 to the surrounding.
In all cases that are studied in this research, the heat loss from the
upper half of the HCE, mainly due to radiation to the sky and convection
on the glass cover, is more than the absorbed solar incidence on that
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Fig. 14. Contours of the three components of velocity on the receiver tube’s middle cross section.

779
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Fig. 15. Static pressure distribution on the receiver tube’s (a) inner wall, (b) longitudinal sections, and (c) cross section.

780
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Fig. 16. Temperature distribution on the receiver tube’s (a) inner wall, (b) longitudinal sections, and (c) cross section.

part. Hence, the heat transfer from the upper half of the receiver de­
creases the thermal efficiency of the HCE. The situation is expected to
become even more serious as the operating temperature of the Brayton
cycle increases to 700 ◦ C and beyond, suggested for the next generation
of concentrating solar power plants (Mehos et al., 2017). As the average
temperature of HCE increases, so does the amount of heat loss. Hence,
insulating the upper half of the annulus is expected to enhance the PTC’s
thermal efficiency.
4.3.3. Thermal performance
Five different cases are considered in this study. Using the mass flow
averaged temperature of the S-CO2 at the outlet, the amount of energy

781
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Fig. 17. Temperature distribution on the mid-cross section inside the annulus space.
absorbed by the fluid is computed Table 7 and Fig. 20. Although the inlet
temperature is constant, the absorbed solar energy, Qabsorbed, changes
dramatically within a typical summer day, which is mainly attributed to
the variation of both solar incident intensity and angle of incidence. In
contrast, the thermal efficiency of PTC changes slightly most likely for
the ambient condition does not change drastically in the specific date
and location that the study is conducted for. At 8 AM, when the thermal
efficiency set at its highest level at 70.45%, the beam solar radiation is at
its lowest level at 740.43 W/m2, and the difference between the inlet
and outlet temperature of the receiver is only 8.69 ◦ C. In contrast, at 12
PM, the thermal efficiency decreases to its lowest level at 68.77%, while
the beam radiation experiences its maximum at 1286.21 W/m2, and the
difference between the inlet and outlet temperatures of the receiver
reaches its peak at 24.52 ◦ C. In brief, while from 8 AM to 12 PM the
thermal efficiency drops less than 2.4%, the difference between the inlet
and outlet temperature of receiver shows a dramatic growth of over
182%. Regarding the huge variations in the outlet temperature of the
receiver, it is necessary to combine the parabolic trough S-CO2 Brayton
cycle with a thermal storage system.
Moss and Brosseau experimentally measured thermal efficiency of
the Schott HCE on a LS-2 collector (Moss and Brosseau, 2005). They
conducted their tests during clear sunny days one or two hours either
side of solar noon when the atmospheric absorption is most constant.
Their extensive assessment showed that as the difference between the
ambient temperature and the collector temperature increases, thermal
efficiency decreases. Although Moss and Brosseau conducted their tests
with conventional heat transfer fluids, their results agree with our
findings for a PTC carrying S-CO2 (Moss and Brosseau, 2005).
Table 8 summarizes the exergy analysis of all five cases.
4.4. Variation of Thermo-Physical properties of S-CO2
Fig. 21 parts a and b illustrate the density variation of the S-CO2
inside the receiver tube. As can be inferred from this figure, at each cross
section, the density decreases from the top to bottom. Additionally, the
density decreases from the inlet to outlet as the fluid absorbs heat and its
temperature increases. The maximum density on each cross section oc­
curs at either side, where θ ≈ ±60◦ , and reaches to its minimum at the
bottom. On the mid cross-section, the range of density is from 91.166
782
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
kg/m3 to 95.275 kg/m3, which shows a 4.5% increase in density across
the receiver tube. Comparing Fig. 21 with Fig. 16 shows that the vari­
ation of density is in agreement with the temperature distribution in the
receiver tube, and when compared to Fig. 10, the range of density
variation matches the expectations. A similar pattern can be recognized
for dynamic viscosity Fig. 21 parts c and d and specific heat, illustrated
in Fig. 21 parts e and f.
The variation in receiver tube’s average temperature at the outlet
from 8 AM to 4 PM (Table 7) causes the variation in the thermophysical
properties of the S-CO2 accordingly, as enlisted in Table 9.
5. Conclusions
A comprehensive three-dimensional numerical simulation of flow
field and heat transfer on the full-scale model of a parabolic trough solar
collector of a direct S-CO2 Brayton cycle is presented. Solar radiation is
computed, and the non-uniform heat flux on the heat collecting element
is calculated. Several heat transfer modes that exist between the sun,
parabolic trough collector, heat collecting element, working fluid, and
surroundings are modeled. It is shown that the thermophysical proper­
ties of S-CO2 in the operational conditions of a parabolic trough collector
are strong functions of temperature and weak functions of pressure.
Hence, the thermophysical properties of S-CO2 are introduced to the Star
CCM + code as a function of temperature.
The numerical model is validated against a set of experimental re­
sults of assessing the thermal performance of an LS-2 parabolic trough
collector. The numerical simulation slightly overestimates the outlet
temperature of the working fluid, and consequently, the thermal effi­
ciency in all cases. The declination from the experimental data ranges
from 0.4% to 2.81%, which is comparable to the uncertainty of the
experiments.
The variation in the thermophysical properties of the S-CO2 inside
the receiver tube is presented. The characteristics of the coupled heat
transfer and the flow field inside the receiver tube are presented elab­
orately. Additionally, the variations of thermal efficiency and the outlet
temperature of the parabolic trough collector during a typical summer
day are investigated. The following conclusions can be drawn:
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Fig. 18. Temperature distribution on the outer surface of the glass envelope at two opposite sides: (a) exposed to the sky, (b) facing the parabolic collector.
• Heat flux around the receiver tube is circumferentially highly non-
uniform. Consequently, the temperature profile and flow field
pattern inside the receiver tube are assymetric. At each cross section
of the receiver tube, the temperature reaches its maximum value at
the bottom, and its minimum value on either side of the receiver, at
about θ ≈ ±60◦ . This distribution matches the heat flux distribution
on the receiver tube’s wall.
• Although the thermophysical properties of the S-CO2 are pressure
and temperature dependent, the effect of pressure drop is negligible
in the PTC. In contrast, the temperature increment within the
receiver tube significantly changes the S-CO2′ sthermophysical
properties.
• Significant variations in the thermophysical properties of S-CO2 are
observed inside the receiver tube. This has a substantial effect on the
783
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
flow field and heat transfer characteristics throughout the entire
receiver tube. The maximum density on each cross section occurs at
either side, where θ ≈ ±60◦ , and reaches to its minimum at the
bottom. On the mid cross-section, the range of density is from
91.166 kg/m3 to 95.275 kg/m3, which shows a 4.5% increase in
density across the receiver tube.
• The heat loss from the upper half of the HCE is more than the
absorbed solar irradiance in all cases. As a result, the heat transfer
from the upper half of the receiver tube unfavorably impacts the
thermal efficiency of the PTC. This situation is expected to worsen as
the inlet temperature of HCE increases. Therefore, it is recommended
to thermally insulate the upper half of the receiver tube.
• Generally, the thermal efficiency of a parabolic trough during a
typical summer day is almost constant. However, its outlet
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Fig. 19. Heat flux on the receiver tube’s inner wall.

Table 7 Table 8
Variation of thermal performance of the LS2 PTC during the reference date. Variation of exergy efficiency of the LS2 PTC during the reference date.
Time Direct Tin TO ΔT Ave. HCE Q’absorb ηI Time GHI Ta Tin TOut f (dilution Tlm ηII
Solar (◦ C) (◦ C) (◦ C) fluid (Wh) (%) (W/ (◦ C) (◦ C) (◦ C) factor) (K) (%)
Flux Temp. m2)
(W/ Above
8:00 428 24.4 300 308.7 6.78E-06 577.5 48.6
m2) Ambient
AM
(◦ C)
10:00 807 25.8 300 319.0 1.28E-05 582.6 47.4
8:00 740 300 308.69 8.69 279.95 8,412 70.45 AM
AM 12:00 1030 30.6 300 324.5 1.63E-05 585.3 46.4
10:00 1126 300 319.03 19.03 283.65 18,422 69.47 PM
AM 2:00 940 32.2 300 320.8 1.49E-05 583.5 46.4
12:00 1286 300 324.52 24.52 281.55 23,737 68.77 PM
PM 4:00 669 33.3 300 312.8 1.06E-05 579.5 46.6
2:00 1178 300 320.79 20.79 278.15 20,129 69.12 PM
PM
4:00 831 300 312.75 12.75 273.05 12,339 69.50
PM

temperature varies dramatically mainly due to the change in the

available solar incidence.
• Thermal efficiency drops less than 2.4% from 8 AM to 12 PM.
Total Solar Incidence Total Absorbed Irradiation
Simultaneously the difference between the inlet and outlet temper­
40000
ature of receiver dramatically grows up to 182%, mainly due to the
35000 change in the available solar incidence.
• Exergy efficiency of the PTC which is at its maximum at 48.6% at 8
30000
Am, decreases to 46.4% at noon and then increase to 46.6% at 4 PM.
25000

20000
The results of this study suggest some techniques to meet the targets
of next generation of HCEs defined in the Gen3 concentrating solar
15000 power plants roadmap (Mehos et al., 2017). This roadmap has set targets
10000 at 90% thermal efficiency and 30 years of working life at operating
temperatures as high as 750 ◦ C. Current HCEs are neither capable of
5000
working for 30 years at such temperatures, nor does their thermal effi­
0 ciency reach anywhere close to 90%, should they be used. Hence, to
7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 meet such aggressive targets, a new generation of heat collecting ele­
Time ments needs to be designed and manufactured. Anticipated future work
includes decreasing the heat loss by insulating the upper half of the HCE
Fig. 20. Variation of the solar incidence and total absorbed radiation during
the reference date.
and applying heat transfer augmentation techniques inside the receiver
tube. Additionally, the effect of misalignments in the reflectors, deflec­
tion of the receiver tube, brackets and extension bellows, and wind
conditions need to be evaluated at the elevated temperatures of Gen3
concentrating solar thermal power plants.

784
S. Gharehdaghi et al. Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787

Fig. 21. Variation of the thermophysical properties of S-CO2 on the inner wall and mid-cross section of the receiver tube: (a, b) density, (c, d) dynamic viscosity, and
(e, f) specific heat.

References
Table 9
Thermophysical properties of S-CO2 on the receiver tube’s outlet during the Açıkkalp, E., 2017. Ecologic and sustainable objective thermodynamic evaluation of
reference date. molten carbonate fuel cell–supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle hybrid system. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 42, 6272–6280.
Time ρout Cpout (J/ Thermal Dynamic
Ahn, Y., Bae, S.J., Kim, M., Cho, S.K., Baik, S., Lee, J.I., Cha, J.E., 2015. Review of
(kg/m3) kg.K) ConductivityOut (mW/ ViscosityOut (μ Pa. supercritical CO2 power cycle technology and current status of research and
m.K) s) development. Nuclear Engineering and Technology 47, 647–661.
8:00 93.32 1154.04 43.10 28.31 Angelino, G., 1968. Carbon Dioxide Condensation Cycles for Power Production. J. Eng.
Power 90, 287–295.
AM
Bazargan, M., Mohseni, M., 2012. Algebraic zero-equation versus complex two-equation
10:00 91.37 1155.17 43.85 28.68
turbulence modeling in supercritical fluid flows. Comput. Fluids 60, 49–57.
AM
Behar, O., Khellaf, A., Mohammedi, K., 2015. A novel parabolic trough solar collector
12:00 90.36 1155.89 44.24 28.87 model – Validation with experimental data and comparison to Engineering Equation
PM Solver (EES). Energy Convers. Manage. 106, 268–281.
2:00 91.04 1155.39 43.97 28.74 Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2017. Parametric investigation of supercritical carbon dioxide
PM utilization in parabolic trough collectors. Appl. Therm. Eng. 127, 736–747.
4:00 92.54 1154.45 43.39 28.46 Berdahl, P., Martin, M., 1984. Emissivity of clear skies. Sol. Energy 32, 663–664.
PM Binotti, M., Astolfi, M., Campanari, S., Manzolini, G., Silva, P., 2017. Preliminary
assessment of sCO2 cycles for power generation in CSP solar power plants. Appl.
Energy 204, 1007–1017.
Carstens, N., Hejzlar, P., Driscoll, M., 2006. Control system strategies and dynamic
Declaration of Competing Interest
response for supercritical CO2 power conversion cycles. Center for Advanced
Nuclear Energy Systems.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Çengel, Y.A., Boles, M., 2014. Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 8th ed.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence McGraw-Hill, New York.
Chacartegui, R., Muñoz de Escalona, J.M., Sánchez, D., Monje, B., Sánchez, T., 2011.
the work reported in this paper. Alternative cycles based on carbon dioxide for central receiver solar power plants.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 31, 872–879.

785
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Cheang, V.T., Hedderwick, R.A., Mcgregor, C., 2015. Benchmarking supercritical carbon
dioxide cycles against steam Rankine cycles for Concentrated Solar Power. Sol.
Energy 113, 199–211.
Chen, L., Zhang, X., 2014. Experimental analysis on a novel solar collector system
achieved by supercritical CO2 natural convection. Energy Convers. Manage. 77,
173–182.
Cheng, Z.D., He, Y.L., Cui, F.Q., Xu, R.J., Tao, Y.B., 2012. Numerical simulation of a
parabolic trough solar collector with nonuniform solar flux conditions by coupling
FVM and MCRT method. Sol. Energy 86, 1770–1784.
Cheng, Z.D., He, Y.L., Xiao, J., Tao, Y.B., Xu, R.J., 2010. Three-dimensional numerical
study of heat transfer characteristics in the receiver tube of parabolic trough solar
collector. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 37, 782–787.
Chieng, C., Launder, B., 1980. On the calculation of turbulent heat transport downstream
from an abrupt pipe expansion. Numerical heat transfer 3, 189–207.
Cui, X., Guo, J., Huai, X., Zhang, H., Cheng, K., Zhou, J., 2019. Numerical investigations
on serpentine channel for supercritical CO2 recuperator. Energy 172, 517–530.
Dostal, V., 2004. A supercritical carbon dioxide cycle for next generation nuclear
reactors. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Dudley, V.E., Kolb, G.J., Mahoney, A.R., Mancini, T.R., Matthews, C.W., Sloan, M.,
Kearney, D., 1994. Test results: SEGS LS-2 solar collector. NASA STI/Recon
Technical Report N 96, 11437.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 2013. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, 4th ed. John
Wiley and Sons, USA.
Farhangi, V., Karakouzian, M., 2020. Effect of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Tubes Filled
with Recycled Materials and Concrete on Structural Capacity of Pile Foundations.
Applied Sciences 10, 1554.
Feher, E.G., 1968. The supercritical thermodynamic power cycle. Energy Conversion 8,
85–90.
Fernández-García, A., Zarza, E., Valenzuela, L., Pérez, M., 2010. Parabolic-trough solar
collectors and their applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 1695–1721.
Gallaway, T., 2011. Modeling of flow and heat transfer for fluids at supercritical
conditions. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Gong, Y., Carstens, N.A., Driscoll, M.J., Matthews, I.A., 2006. Analysis of Radial
Compressor Options for Supercritical CO2 Power Conversion Cycles. MIT-GFR-034.
Hachicha, A.A., Rodríguez, I., Castro, J., Oliva, A., 2013. Numerical simulation of wind
flow around a parabolic trough solar collector. Appl. Energy 107, 426–437.
Hachicha, A.A., Rodríguez, I., Lehmkuhl, O., Oliva, A., 2014a. On the CFD&HT of the
Flow around a Parabolic Trough Solar Collector under Real Working Conditions.
Energy Procedia 49, 1379–1390.
Hachicha, A.A., Rodríguez, I., Oliva, A., 2014b. Wind speed effect on the flow field and
heat transfer around a parabolic trough solar collector. Appl. Energy 130, 200–211.
Haruni, A.M.O., Negnevitsky, M., Haque, M.E., Gargoom, A., 2013. A Novel Operation
and Control Strategy for a Standalone Hybrid Renewable Power System. IEEE Trans.
Sustainable Energy 4, 402–413.
Hassid, S., Poreh, M., 1978. A turbulent energy dissipation model for flows with drag
reduction.
He, S., Kim, W.S., Bae, J.H., 2008a. a. Assessment of performance of turbulence models
in predicting supercritical pressure heat transfer in a vertical tube. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 51, 4659–4675.
He, S., Kim, W.S., Jiang, P.X., Jackson, J.D., 2004. Simulation of mixed convection heat
transfer to carbon dioxide at supercritical pressure. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C 218,
1281–1296.
He, S., Kim, W.S., Jackson, J.D., 2008b. b. A computational study of convective heat
transfer to carbon dioxide at a pressure just above the critical value. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 28, 1662–1675.
Hinze, J.O., 1975. Turbulence, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Holcomb, G.R., Carney, C., Doğan, Ö.N., 2016. Oxidation of alloys for energy
applications in supercritical CO2 and H2O. Corros. Sci. 109, 22–35.
Iverson, B.D., Conboy, T.M., Pasch, J.J., Kruizenga, A.M., 2013. Supercritical CO2
Brayton cycles for solar-thermal energy. Appl. Energy 111, 957–970.
Jazaei, R., Karakouzian, M., O’Toole, B., Moon, J., Gharehdaghi, S., 2018. Energy
Absorption of Cementitious Composites Incorporating Carbon Nanotubes Subjected
to Low-Velocity Impact Tests. J. Materials in Civil Engineering 7, 717–725.
Jiang, P., Zhang, Y., Xu, Y., Shi, R., 2008. Experimental and numerical investigation of
convection heat transfer of CO2 at supercritical pressures in a vertical tube at low
Reynolds numbers. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47, 998–1011.
Jiji, Latif M (Latif Menashi), 2009. Heat Convection, 2nd ed. ed. Berlin; Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag, Berlin; Heidelberg.
Jinshah, B.S., Balasubramanian, K.R., 2020. Thermo-mathematical model for parabolic
trough collector using a complete radiation heat transfer model – A new approach.
Sol. Energy 197, 58–72.
Jue, Y., Yoshiaki, O., Yuki, Y., Jaewoon, Y., Jie, L., 2006. Numerical Study of Heat
Transfer in Supercritical Pressure Water in Tight Fuel Rod Channels. 39, 405–414.
Khanna, S., Kedare, S.B., Singh, S., 2013. Analytical expression for circumferential and
axial distribution of absorbed flux on a bent absorber tube of solar parabolic trough
concentrator. Sol. Energy 92, 26–40.
Kim, M., 2004. Fundamental process and system design issues in CO2 vapor compression
systems. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 30, 119–174.
Kim, Y.M., Kim, C.G., Favrat, D., 2012. Transcritical or supercritical CO2 cycles using
both low- and high-temperature heat sources. Energy 43, 402–415.
Koshizuka, S., Takano, N., Oka, Y., 1995. Numerical analysis of deterioration phenomena
in heat transfer to supercritical water. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 38, 3077–3084.
Kroos, K.A., Potter, M.C., 2015. Thermodynamics for Engineers, 1st ed. Cengage
Learning.
786
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
Lemmon, E.W., Huber, M.L., McLinden, M.O., 2013. NIST Standard Reference Database
23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP, Version
9.1. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Liang, H., You, S., Zhang, H., 2015. Comparison of different heat transfer models for
parabolic trough solar collectors. Appl. Energy 148, 105.
Liu, M., Belusko, M., Steven Tay, N.H., Bruno, F., 2014. Impact of the heat transfer fluid
in a flat plate phase change thermal storage unit for concentrated solar power plants.
Sol. Energy 101, 220–231.
Lobón, D.H., Baglietto, E., Valenzuela, L., Zarza, E., 2014. Modeling direct steam
generation in solar collectors with multiphase CFD. Appl. Energy 113, 1338–1348.
Manjunath, K., Sharma, O.P., Tyagi, S.K., Kaushik, S.C., 2018. Thermodynamic analysis
of a supercritical/transcritical CO2 based waste heat recovery cycle for shipboard
power and cooling applications. Energy Convers. Manage. 155, 262–275.
Mehos, M., Turchi, C., Vidal, J., Wagner, M., Ma, Z., 2017. Concentrating Solar Power
Gen3 Demonstration Roadmap. NREL/TP-5500-67464.
Mehrpooya, M., Bahramian, P., Pourfayaz, F., Rosen, M.A., 2016. Introducing and
analysis of a hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell-supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton
cycle system. Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 18, 100–106.
Meshram, A., Jaiswal, A.K., Khivsara, S.D., Ortega, J.D., Ho, C., Bapat, R., Dutta, P.,
2016. Modeling and analysis of a printed circuit heat exchanger for supercritical CO2
power cycle applications. Appl. Therm. Eng. 109, 861–870.
Mohseni, M., Bazargan, M., 2012. Modification of low Reynolds number k–ε turbulence
models for applications in supercritical fluid flows. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 51, 51–62.
Mondal, S., De, S., 2015. CO2 based power cycle with multi-stage compression and
intercooling for low temperature waste heat recovery. Energy 90, 1132–1143.
Moss, T.A., Brosseau, D.A., 2005. Final test results for the Schott HCE on a LS-2 collector.
Report of Sandia National Laboratories. SAND2005-4034.
Mullick, S.C., Nanda, S.K., 1989. An improved technique for computing the heat loss
factor of a tubular absorber. Sol. Energy 42, 1–7.
Naeeni, N., Yaghoubi, M., 2007a. Analysis of wind flow around a parabolic collector (1)
fluid flow. Renewable Energy 32, 1898–1916.
Naeeni, N., Yaghoubi, M., 2007b. Analysis of wind flow around a parabolic collector (2)
heat transfer from receiver tube. Renewable Energy 32, 1259–1272.
Ničeno, B., Sharabi, M., 2013. Large eddy simulation of turbulent heat transfer at
supercritical pressures. Nucl. Eng. Des. 261, 44–55.
Odabaee, M., Sauret, E., Hooman, K., 2016. CFD Simulation of a Supercritical Carbon
Dioxide Radial-Inflow Turbine, Comparing the Results of Using Real Gas Equation of
Estate and Real Gas Property File. Applied Mechanics and Materials 846, 85–90.
Öztürk, M., Çiçek Bezir, N., Özek, N., 2007. Optical, Energetic and Exergetic Analyses of
Parabolic Trough Collectors. Chinese Phys. Lett. 24, 1787.
Paetzold, J., Cochard, S., Vassallo, A., Fletcher, D.F., 2014. Wind engineering analysis of
parabolic trough solar collectors: The effects of varying the trough depth. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 135, 118–128.
Pan, I., Das, S., 2016. Fractional order fuzzy control of hybrid power system with
renewable generation using chaotic PSO. ISA Trans. 62, 19–29.
Qiao, Z., Cao, Y., Li, P., Wang, X., Romero, C.E., Pan, L., 2020. Thermoeconomic analysis
of a CO2 plume geothermal and supercritical CO2 Brayton combined cycle using
solar energy as auxiliary heat source. J. Cleaner Prod. 256, 120374.
Qiu, Y., Li, M., He, Y., Tao, W., 2017. Thermal performance analysis of a parabolic trough
solar collector using supercritical CO2 as heat transfer fluid under non-uniform solar
flux. Appl. Therm. Eng. 115, 1255–1265.
Rodi, W., 2012. Experience with two-layer models combining the k-epsilon model with a
one-equation model near the wall. 29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting.
Roelofs, F., 2004. CFD Analyses of Heat Transfer to Supercritical Water Flowing
Vertically Upward in a Tube. NRG–21353-04-60811-P.
Roldán, M.I., Valenzuela, L., Zarza, E., 2013. Thermal analysis of solar receiver pipes
with superheated steam. Appl. Energy 103, 73–84.
Seo, K.W., Kim, M.H., Anderson, M.H., Corradini, M.L., 2006. Heat Transfer in a
Supercritical Fluid: Classification of Heat Transfer Regimes. Nucl Technol 154,
335–349.
Seong Hoon, K., Young In, K., Yoon Yeong, B., Bong Hyun, C., 2004. Numerical
Simulation of the Vertical Upward Flow of Water in a Heated Tube at Supercritical
Pressure. 40, 1527–1534.
Serrano-Aguilera, J., Valenzuela, L., Parras, L., 2014. Thermal 3D model for Direct Solar
Steam Generation under superheated conditions. Appl. Energy 132, 370–382.
Siegel, R., Howell, J., Pinar Menguc, M., 2011. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 5th ed.
CRC Press.
Son, S., Heo, J.Y., Lee, J.I., 2018. Prediction of inner pinch for supercritical CO2 heat
exchanger using Artificial Neural Network and evaluation of its impact on cycle
design. Energy Convers. Manage. 163, 66–73.
Song, Y., Wang, J., Dai, Y., Zhou, E., 2012. Thermodynamic analysis of a transcritical
CO2 power cycle driven by solar energy with liquified natural gas as its heat sink.
Appl. Energy 92, 194–203.
Sonntag, R.E., Borgnakke, C., 2013. Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, 8th ed. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Utamura, M., 2007. Thermal-hydraulic characteristics of microchannel heat exchanger
and its application to solar gas turbines, 287-294.
Vilim, R.B., Wright, S.A., Vernon, M., Radel, R., Pickard, P., 2008. Dynamic system
analysis of a supercritical CO 2 compression loop.
Wang, J., Huang, X., Gong, G., Hao, M., Yin, F., 2011. A systematic study of the residual
gas effect on vacuum solar receiver. Energy Convers. Manage. 52, 2367–2372.
Wang, K., Xu, X., Wu, Y., Liu, C., Dang, C., 2015. Numerical investigation on heat transfer
of supercritical CO2 in heated helically coiled tubes. The Journal of Supercritical
Fluids 99, 112–120.
S. Gharehdaghi et al.
Wang, P., Liu, D.Y., Xu, C., 2013. Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement in the
receiver tube of direct steam generation with parabolic trough by inserting metal
foams. Appl. Energy 102, 449–460.
Wang, P., Liu, D.Y., Xu, C., Zhou, L., Xia, L., 2016. Conjugate heat transfer modeling and
asymmetric characteristic analysis of the heat collecting element for a parabolic
trough collector. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 101, 68–84.
Ward, P.A., Corgnale, C., Teprovich, J.A., Motyka, T., Hardy, B., Peters, B., Zidan, R.,
2015. High performance metal hydride based thermal energy storage systems for
concentrating solar power applications. J. Alloy. Compd. 645, S374–S378.
Was, G.S., Ampornrat, P., Gupta, G., Teysseyre, S., West, E.A., Allen, T.R., Sridharan, K.,
Tan, L., Chen, Y., Ren, X., Pister, C., 2007. Corrosion and stress corrosion cracking in
supercritical water. J. Nucl. Mater. 371, 176–201.
Wright, S.A., Radel, R.F., Vernon, M.E., Rochau, G.E., Pickard, P.S., 2010. Operation and
analysis of a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle. Sandia Report, No.SAND2010-0171.
Wright, S.A., Parma, E.J., Suo - Anttila, Ahti Jorma, Al Rashdan, A., Tsvetkov, P.V.,
Vernon, M.E., Fleming, D.D., Rochau, G.E., 2011. Supercritical CO2 direct cycle Gas
Fast Reactor (SC-GFR) concept.
Write, S.A., Radel, R.F., Vernon, M.E., Rochau, G.E., Pickard, P.S., 2010. Operation and
Analysis of a Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle. SAND2010-0171.
787
Solar Energy 220 (2021) 766–787
Wu, C., Yan, X., Wang, S., Bai, K., Di, J., Cheng, S., Li, J., 2016. System optimization and
performance analysis of CO2 transcritical power cycle for waste heat recovery.
Energy 100, 391–400.
Xiao-Dong, N., Hiroshi, Y., Xin-Rong, Z., Yushiro, I., Naoki, H., 2011. Experimental Study
of Heat Transfer Characteristics of Supercritical CO2 fluid in Collectors of Solar
Rankine Cycle System. Appl. Therm. Eng. 31, 1279–1285.
Yamagata, K., Nishikawa, K., Hasegawa, S., Fujii, T., Yoshida, S., 1972. Forced
convective heat transfer to supercritical water flowing in tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 15, 2575–2593.
Yamaguchi, H., Zhang, X.R., Fujima, K., Enomoto, M., Sawada, N., 2006. Solar energy
powered Rankine cycle using supercritical CO2. Appl. Therm. Eng. 26, 2345–2354.
Zemler, M.K., Bohl, G., Rios, O., Boetcher, S.K.S., 2013. Numerical study of wind forces
on parabolic solar collectors. Renewable Energy 60, 498–505.
Zhang, X.R., Yamaguchi, H., 2008. An experimental study on evacuated tube solar
collector using supercritical CO2. Appl. Therm. Eng. 28, 1225–1233.
Zhang, X.R., Yamaguchi, H., Fujima, K., Enomoto, M., Sawada, N., 2007. Theoretical
analysis of a thermodynamic cycle for power and heat production using supercritical
carbon dioxide. Energy 32, 591–599.
Zhou, J., Cheng, K., Zhang, H., Liu, B., Huai, X., Guo, J., Zhang, H., Cui, X., 2020. Test
platform and experimental test on 100 kW class Printed Circuit Heat Exchanger for
Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 148, 118540.