Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

A review of steady-state thermal and mechanical modelling on tubular

solar receivers
Tim Conroy *, Maurice N. Collins, Ronan Grimes
Stokes Laboratories, Bernal Institute, School of Engineering, University of Limerick, Ireland

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

Keywords: Tower systems are forecast to become the dominant CSP technology in the future due to the potential to achieve
Concentrated solar power high working fluid temperatures, thereby enhancing thermodynamic efficiency in the power block and facili­
Liquid tubular receiver tating dispatchable electricity through thermal energy storage. The receiver links the solar collector field and
Modelling
power conversion cycle in a tower plant, and is therefore a critical component that requires careful consideration.
Thermal
Mechanical
Tubular receivers represent the most prominent in commercial scale applications, with many research efforts
devoted to the characterisation and modelling of such concepts. This article compiles literature engaged in
steady-state thermal and mechanical modelling of tubular solar receivers. The discussion outlines contrasting
approaches adopted by various authors, while also detailing some important findings from their investigations.
Recent studies concerned with evaluating receiver thermal performance indicates a trend towards semi-empirical
techniques, offering greater flexibility and accuracy than simplified analytical methods, without imposing a
considerable computational expense that is inherent with more detailed numerical models. Such advantages
allow for the screening of a large number of geometries, configurations, heat transfer media, tube materials, and
operational scenarios at the receiver design stage. Mechanical reliability investigations generally consider
thermal and pressure induced stresses, estimating potential damage of the component across its desired lifetime
using design code guidelines or tube material data. The selection of thermal stress theory and damage evaluation
method is critical to the overall mechanical life prediction, with different approaches presented.

1. Introduction
Concentrated solar power (CSP) is fast emerging as a feasible tech­
nology that can alleviate fossil fuel dependence in regions with a good
solar resource (e2000 kWh=m2 =year [1]), and is forecast to contribute
approximately 11–12% to global electricity production by 2050 [2,3].
Today there is 5:8 GWe of installed CSP capacity worldwide, and a
further 4 GWe either in construction or under development (as of late
2019) [4]. There are four main CSP systems; parabolic trough, linear
Fresnel, parabolic dish, and tower, illustrated in Fig. 1. The focus of this
work is on tower systems (Fig. 1c), which are expected to become the
dominant CSP technology in the future.
In a tower system, a large array of automated mirrors, known as
heliostats, track and reflect the suns energy onto a target receiver
located atop the tower, where a large solar concentration (� 103 suns)
raises the temperature of a heat transfer medium. The receiver working
fluid is then directly or indirectly used in the power cycle, typically of
the steam Rankine type, although high-temperature Brayton cycles are
being explored [5]. The point-focus nature of tower systems presents the
opportunity to generate very high working fluid temperatures in the
receiver, allowing for an increase in thermodynamic efficiency as the
fluid feeds into the power cycle, and excellent thermal storage potential
using certain media in order to mitigate intermittency concerns. These
benefits mean that tower technology is expected to play a major role in
the future of CSP, despite the fact that the vast majority of CSP plants
built to date have utilised trough technology [6]. Of the 5:8 GWe of
installed CSP capacity worldwide, over 1:1 MWe employs tower tech­
nology. The benefits of tower systems are now being realised with an
increasing number of commercial plants coming on-line in recent years,
and of the 5 GWe of plants either under construction or announced as of
2017, nearly 3 GWe are based on this technology [7]. The important role
tower systems are expected to play in the future of renewable energy
serves as a motivation for the present work.
Receiver concepts are typically categorised by the phase of state of
the heat transfer medium employed; solid, liquid, or gas [8]. This paper
is concerned specifically with liquid tubular based designs, however for

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: timothy.conroy@ul.ie (T. Conroy).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109591
Received 30 November 2018; Received in revised form 7 October 2019; Accepted 12 November 2019
1364-0321/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Tim Conroy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109591
T. Conroy et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of CSP technologies: (a) Parabolic trough, (b) Linear Fresnel,
(c) tower, (d) Parabolic dish © [2].
a more detailed discussion on a range of receiver designs and concepts,
the authors direct the reader to comprehensive review articles by Tan &
Chen [9], Avila-Marín
� [10], Behar et al. [11], Ho & Iverson [8], Ho [12],
and Ho [7]. Liquid tubular concepts represent the most popular design in
the realm of solar receivers for CSP tower systems, and form the main
focus of this paper. There has been considerable research interest in
liquid tubular receivers since the 1970’s, with some of the earliest
demonstration and commercial CSP systems utilising this technology
[13]. At present, they are the only receiver design that has reached
commercial deployment in CSP tower plants, with large scale projects all
using some form of liquid tubular receiver (Section 2). The similarities in
design and operation that these concepts share with conventional
tubular heat exchanger/boilers has aided in the progress of the tech­
nology [14]. Significant testing and research work has been completed
on receiver concepts over the past four decades, with early experimental
and design endeavours completed at Sandia National Laboratories
(SNL), THEMIS, and Plataforma Solar de Almeria (PSA) [8]. The rapid
development and prominence of the technology has encouraged
numerous authors to devise mathematical models that simulate the
thermal and mechanical response of tubular receivers under a variety of
operational scenarios and boundary conditions, thus aiding in the design
and optimisation of components and systems. Varying approaches and
methodologies are adopted, resulting in differing degrees of complexity,
resolution, and accuracy. The motivation for this review article stems
from the large number of thermal and mechanical modelling efforts
found in literature, with an opportunity to develop a comprehensive
review detailing the methodologies adopted and results gleaned there­
fore presented.
This paper is concerned with steady-state heat transfer models that
model receiver thermal response using techniques that can be described
as semi-empirical and analytical, whilst the mechanical modelling sec­
tion reviews analytical tube stress and reliability models. Although
briefly mentioned, a review of numerical techniques (FEA, CFD, etc.) is
beyond the scope of the present article. In order to gauge the state-of-
the-art, both in terms of receiver design and modelling approach,
there is a need to contextualise the various investigations, framing the
discussion around model formulation, and key results uncovered from
the accompanying analysis. This review article informs the reader on
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
various approaches taken in modelling the thermal and mechanical
response of tubular solar receivers under differing design and operating
conditions, as well as offering a discussion on investigations in which
these tools are applied. Brief descriptions of the various models are
provided throughout the text, however it is advised that references are
consulted for greater detail on individual models and investigations. The
first section provides information on a number of past and present CSP
tower projects (test/demonstration/pilot and commercial scale), high­
lighting the important role tubular receivers have played in the progress
of the technology. The second section describes thermal modelling ac­
tivities for tubular solar receivers, focussing on model structure, key
boundary conditions, and outcomes of the various studies in which the
developed models are applied. The third section briefly outlines features
of various heliostat aiming strategy models, as these are closely linked to
the thermal model with regards to the incident heat flux boundary
condition. Finally, modelling techniques used to investigate receiver
mechanical limitations are then discussed, such as the selection of
thermal stress theory and means of establishing component reliability,
along with some interesting results of the various investigations.
2. CSP tower projects
The knowledge and experience gained from the operation of a CSP
tower plant is key to the development and refinement of the technology.
There have been a number of small-scale projects built and operated
since the surge of interest in CSP in the early 1980’s which have paved
the way for valuable data collection from plant operation, and for the
optimisation of receiver design and operational strategies. Some of these
projects include the National Solar Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF) at
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in New Mexico, Plataforma Solar de
Almeria (PSA) in Spain, and the pioneering 10 MWe Solar One plant in
California (succeeded by Solar Two). A summary of the key details of
small-scale tower projects (< 10 MWe test/demonstration/pilot) is
provided in Table 1.
Numerous commercial-scale parabolic trough plants have been in
development since the 1980’s, however it wasn’t until 2007 that the first
commercial tower plant commenced operation; the 11 MWe Planta Solar
10 (PS10) operated by Abengoa Solar, near Seville, Spain (Fig. 2b) [3]. A
second generation 20 MWe plant known as PS20 commenced operation
in 2009 [3,32]. The 19:9 MWe Gemasolar Thermosolar plant developed
by Torresol Energy outside Seville, Spain, was the first commercial CSP
tower plant to employ molten salt (Fig. 2c), permitting 15 hr of thermal
storage capacity [33,34]. The 377 MWe Ivanpah Solar Electric Gener­
ating System (SEGS) in California, USA, is currently the largest CSP plant
in the world of any type (Fig. 2d), employing direct steam receivers [3].
At 110 MWe , the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy plant in Nevada, USA
operated by SolarReserve was one of the first large-scale tower plants to
employ molten salt receiver technology (Fig. 2e), providing 10 hr of
thermal energy storage [7,35]. The 50 MWe Khi Solar One plant devel­
oped by Abengoa Solar opened in the Northern Cape, South Africa in
2016 [7] (Fig. 2f), and uses direct steam receivers [36]. In Morocco, the
150 MWe Noor Ouarzazate III (NOOR III) tower plant commenced
operation in early 2019, complementing the NOOR I and NOOR II
parabolic trough units in situ [37]. The central tower supports a cylin­
drical molten salt receiver design, and is equipped with a two-tank direct
molten salt storage system with 7.5 hr capacity. In April 2019, the
121 MWe Ashalim (Plot B) from Megalim Solar Power Ltd. commenced
operation in Israel’s Negev desert [6] (Fig. 2i). The 240 m tower is the
tallest of any CSP project, and houses a water/steam cylindrical tubular
receiver that acts as the boiler and superheater for the turbine. The
tower unit does not operate with any storage capacity, however off-peak
generation is facilitated by molten salt storage from a parabolic trough
system.
 T. Conroy et al.
Table 1
Details of selected test, demonstration, and pilot tower plants.
Project Sponsor/developer Country Facility MWe Years Receiver Working fluid Storage Notes, references
active

NSTFF US DOE, SNL USA Test – 1978 - see Notes see Notes None Used to test a variety of receiver concepts and subsystem
components [7],
EURELIOS European Commission, Italy Demonstration 1 1981–1986 2:8 MWth cavity Water/steam 0:5 hr buffer, water Poor performance attributed to low insolation and
industrial consortium and molten salt component design issues [15,16],
IEA-SSPS at IEA member states Spain Demonstration, test 0.5 1981–1986 2:8 MWth cavity & Sodium 2 hr, two-tank direct Early demonstration of sodium potential, large sodium
PSA 2:5 MWth billboard spray fire hindered progress [16–18],
CESA-1 at CENSOLAR, SNL Spain Demonstration, test 1.2 1983- 8 MWth cavity Water/steam 3:5 hr indirect molten Early demonstration of molten salt potential, now a test
PSA salt facility for subsystem components, no longer producing
electricity [16,19],
THEMIS AFME, EDF (France) France Demonstration, test 2 1983–1986 8:9 MWth cavity Molten salt 5 hr, two-tank direct Field and tower now an experimental facility for the
European Next-CSP project [16,20],
Solar One US DOE, SNL USA Pilot 10 1982–1988 43:4 MWth cavity Water/steam 4 hr, oil/rock Demonstration of a reliable CSP commercial-scale tower
thermocline plant, inefficient storage [16,21,22],
Solar Two US DOE, SNL USA Pilot 10 1996–1999 43 MWth external Molten salt 3 hr, two-tank direct Successful demonstration of commercial-scale
cylinder dispatchable electricity from CSP [21,23]
SEDC BrightSource Israel Demonstration 1 2008- 6 MWth external Water/steam None Used to test equipment, materials and procedures,
billboard construction and operating methods [24]
3

Jülich DLR Germany Demonstration, test 1.5 2008- 10 MWth volumetric Air 1:5 hr, ceramic bed Used for testing of higher-temperature receiver concepts
[10,25]
Sierra eSolar USA Small-scale 5 2009–2013 Cavity and external Water/steam None Poor performance and lack of storage preceded closure
SunTower commercial [13]
Solar Field CSIRO Australia Demonstration, test – 2010- Tubular Water/steam, None Two fields, used to test supercritical and Brayton receiver
(1 þ 2) gaseous cycles
ACME ACME Group, eSolar India Small-scale 2.5 2011- Cavity Water/steam None First CSP tower plant in India [26]
commercial
Lake Graphite Energy Australia Demonstration 3 2011–2016 5 MWth solid-based Water/steam 4 hr, indirect molten Modular layout, novel graphite receiver and storage
Cargelligo salt concept [3,7]
Coalingha Chevron, BrightSource USA Process steam – 2011–2014 29 MWth billboard Water/steam None Process steam generated by CSP for oil recovery, 13 MWe

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

electrical equivalent [27]
DAHAN Chinese Academy of China Demonstration, test 1 2012- Cavity concepts Water/steam, 1 hr, saturated steam/ First CSP tower plant in China, used to test different
Sciences molten salt oil, two-tank direct receiver concepts [28,29]
Greenway Greenway CSP Turkey Demonstration 1 2013- 5 MWth billboard Water/steam 4 hr, indirect molten First CSP tower plant in Turkey [3]
CSP salt
Sundrop CSP Sundrop Farms, Aalborg Australia Electricity, 1.5 2016- 36:6 MWth billboard Water/steam None Multi-purpose plant for electricity generation (1:5 MWe )
CSP desalination, heating and horticultural applications [30]
Jemalong Vast Solar Australia Pilot 1.1 2017- 5 � 1:2 MWth Sodium 3 hr, two-tank direct Development underway to scale to 30 MWe , modular field
CSP billboard and receiver layout [31]
T. Conroy et al.
Fig. 2. Commercial scale CSP tower plants and receivers: (a) Solar Two [23], (b) PS10 and PS20 [40], (c) Gemasolar Thermosolar [34], (d) Ivanpah SEGS [41], (e)
Crescent Dunes [35], (f) Khi Solar One [42], (g) SUPCON Solar Phase II [43], (h) Shouhang Dunhuang Phase II [44], and (i) Ashalim Plot B [45].
China is becoming an increasingly important market for commercial
CSP ventures, with a national commitment to develop a number of
projects1 by 2020 that will help the country meet climate goals and drive
a self-sufficient domestic CSP industry [38]. As of late 2019, the total
installed capacity of commercial scale CSP in China stands at more than
300 MWe , with over 250 MWe facilitated by tower technology, and
many more projects under construction and in development (see
Table 3). In August 2016, the 10 MWe SUPCON Solar Project (Phase I) in
the Qinghai province became the first molten salt tower project in China,
with 6 hr of direct storage charged by a cylindrical receiver design. In
late 2018, a larger 50 MWe installation (SUPCON Solar Phase II)
commenced production at the same site, with 7 hr storage [6] (Fig. 2g).
In late 2016, the Shouhang Dunhuang 10 MWe Phase I plant commenced
operation in the Gansu province. The plant also uses a cylindrical molten
salt receiver design to charge a two-tank direct thermal storage unit,
with 15 hr capacity [6]. The Shouhang Dunhuang 100 MW Phase II
began production in December 2018 at the same site, also employing
molten salt receiver and storage technology (Fig. 2h). In September
2019, the 50 MWe Luneng Haixi and 50 MWe Qinghai Gonghe were
connected to the national grid, both using molten salt receiver tech­
nology, with 6 and 12 hr of direct storage capacity respectively [38,39].
Table 2 summarises some key details of commercial CSP tower plants
currently operational (as of late 2019), with Fig. 3 providing a graphical
representation.
The ability to store thermal energy for the generation of dispatchable
electricity is a key motivator for future tower projects. There are a
number of tower plants that have been announced, are in development,
or under construction, with many employing molten salt receiver tech­
nology. Key details of these future projects are summarised in Table 3.
3. Liquid tubular receivers
Liquid tubular receivers are generally classified as being internal
(cavity) or external in configuration, with these designs illustrated in
Fig. 4. Both internal and external configurations shuttle a working fluid
1
50 100 MWe scale.
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
through irradiated tubes via inlet and outlet headers, with the final fluid
temperature a function of irradiance, mass flow rate, tube geometry,
thermal losses, and heat transfer fluid. External designs utilise an array
of tubes aligned to form a quasi-billboard shape for equator facing fields,
known as the billboard receiver (Fig. 4a). A number of tube panels may
be interlinked to approximate a cylinder for surrounding heliostat fields,
with the fluid flowing through a series of panels in a serpentine path,
known as a cylindrical receiver (Fig. 4b). The Ivanpah SEGS receiver
arranges tube panels in a cardinal-like manner on a central tower,
resembling a cube structure rather than a cylinder. External configura­
tions with exposed tube panels are most popular in CSP tower projects
(see Tables 1 and 2). In an internal receiver (Fig. 4c), concentrated solar
radiation from the heliostat field is focussed through an aperture into a
box-like cavity structure which houses the tubes, known as a cavity
receiver [16]. In terms of commercial deployment, cavity receiver de­
signs are currently in use at the PS10 and PS20, with the Khi Solar One
tower housing three cavity receivers facing different cardinal points of
the heliostat field [6]. The primary difference between external and
internal designs in terms of performance is reflected by the modes of
heat loss, with cavity designs yielding slightly higher thermal effi­
ciencies [8]. In a cavity receiver, low ambient view factors reduce
radiative and reflective losses to the environment when compared to an
external design, however limiting the view between the active heat
transfer surfaces and heliostat field poses a greater risk to spillage losses,
and restrictions placed on heliostat aiming results in greater heat flux
non-uniformity. To cope with restricted view to the field, cavity designs
will generally have a larger heat transfer area and must be placed on a
taller tower structure than an equivalent external cylindrical design,
leading to greater expense [16]. The selection of receiver configuration
will depend on the heliostat field layout, working fluid, and cost con­
siderations. The most common fluids used in these designs are water/­
steam and molten salt, however liquid metals have also been proposed,
with sodium currently being trialled at the Vast Solar facility in NSW,
Australia, in a modular plant layout that employs a number of low-cost
billboard receiver designs.
The selection of heat transfer fluid is critical to the performance of
the CSP system, dictating plant configuration, thermohydraulic and
mechanical performance, thermal storage characteristics, and costs.
T. Conroy et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Details of operational commercial-scale CSP tower plants as of late 2019.
Project Developer Country Start MWe GWh=yr Field (m2 ) Receiver Working fluid Storage

PS10 Abengoa Solar Spain 2007 11 23.4 75,000 Cavity Water/steam < 1 hr, steam accumulation
PS20 Abengoa Solar Spain 2009 20 48 150,000 Cavity Water/steam < 1 hr, steam accumulation
Gemasolar Torresol Energy Spain 2011 19.9 80 305,000 External Molten salt 15 hr, two-tank direct
Ivanpah SEGS BrightSource USA 2014 377 1079 2,600,000 External Water/steam None
Crescent Dunes SolarReserve USA 2015 110 500 1,200,000 External Molten salt 10 hr, two-tank direct
Khi Solar One Abengoa Solar S. Africa 2016 50 180 576,800 Cavity Water/steam 2 hr, steam accumulation
SUPCON Phase I SUPCON Solar China 2016 10 – – External Molten salt 6 hr, two-tank direct
Dunhuang Phase I Beijing Shouhang IHW China 2016 10 – 175,375 External Molten salt 15 hr, two-tank direct
SUPCON Phase II SUPCON Solar China 2018 50 146 542,700 External Molten salt 7 hr, two-tank direct
Dunhuang Phase II Beijing Shouhang IHW China 2018 100 390 1,380,000 External Molten salt 11 hr, two-tank direct
NOOR III ACWA Morocco 2019 150 500 1,320,900 External Molten salt 7:5 hr, two-tank direct
Ashalim Plot B Megalim Solar Israel 2019 121 320 1,052,480 External Water/steam None from the tower system
Luneng Haixi Luneng Group China 2019 50 160 607,200 External Molten salt 12 hr, two-tank direct
Qinghai Gonghe SUPCON Solar China 2019 50 150 515,900 External Molten salt 6 hr, two-tank direct

Table 3
Details of future CSP tower projects as of late 2019 (in development/planning, under construction).
Project Status Developer Country Online MWe Working fluid Storage Reference

Jemalong CSP Planning/development Vast Solar Australia > 2020 30 Sodium 10 hr, indirect molten salt [46]
Cerro Dominador Under construction Abengoa, Acciona Chile > 2020 110 Molten salt 17:5 hr, direct [47]
Copiap�
o Planning/development SolarReserve Chile > 2021 260 Molten salt 14 hr, direct [48]
Likana Planning/development SolarReserve Chile > 2021 390 Molten salt 13 hr, direct [49]
Tamarugal Planning/development SolarReserve Chile > 2021 450 Molten salt 13 hr, direct [50]
Golden Tower Planning/development SunCan China > 2021 100 Molten salt 8 hr, direct [51]
Golmud Under construction Qinghai CSP China > 2020 200 Molten salt 15 hr, direct [51]
Hami Under construction CPECC China > 2019 50 Molten salt 12 hr, direct [52]
Qinghai Delingha Under construction BrightSource China > 2021 135 Water/steam 4 hr, indirect [51]
Shangyi Under construction Chinese Academy of Sciences China > 2020 50 Water/steam 4 hr, indirect [51]
Yumen 50 MW Under construction Parasol Energy, Xinchen CSP China > 2019 50 Molten salt 6 hr, direct [51]
Yumen 100 MW Planning/development SunCan China > 2021 100 Molten salt 10 hr, direct [51]
MINOS Planning/development NUR Energie Greece > 2021 52 Water/steam 5 hr, indirect [53]
Redstone Planning/development ACWA, SolarReserve South Africa > 2021 100 Molten salt 12 hr, direct [54]
DEWA Tower Under construction ACWA Power UAE > 2021 100 Molten salt 15 hr, direct [55]

� Water/steam - The implementation of water/steam receiver systems

Fig. 3. Commercial scale CSP tower plants by rating (MWe ), working fluid,
storage capacity, and start year.
Very high receiver temperatures may be facilitated through gaseous
media such as air, supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2), or helium (He),
however these concepts have yet to reach commercial maturity and are
limited to small-scale test units, or modelling efforts [7]. A brief sum­
mary of more common liquid-based working media is presented here.
in solar thermal plants dates back to the 1980’s [59]. In these de­
signs, feed water is pumped from the power block to the receiver,
where it is then evaporated and superheated to produce steam that
feeds the turbine. Direct steam generation (DSG) is employed in a
number of commercial CSP tower projects; PS10, PS20, Ivanpah
SEGS, Khi Solar One, and Ashalim Plot B (see Section 2), and also
several parabolic trough plants. The advantage of this technology
largely lies in its ability to dispense with costly intermediate heat
exchange equipment by using the receiver as the boiler, thus
simplifying the system and reducing the potential for inefficiencies.
The capacity factor of water/steam systems is quite low, with
extensive thermal energy storage of high temperature steam proving
complicated, despite having practically no supply cost. The PS10,
PS20, and Khi Solar One plants utilise short term thermal energy
storage (< 2 hours), while Ivanpah SEGS and Ashalim Plot B (tower
unit only) possesses no storage at all [6]. This diminishes the
competitive advantage CSP has over many other renewable energy
technologies, which is the ability to generate dispatchable electricity
by coupling large-scale thermal storage with a synchronous power
unit. The thermal conductivity of water/steam is orders of magni­
tude lower than that of molten salts and liquid metals, resulting in
relatively low tubular heat transfer coefficients. This, combined with
a necessity for thick tube walls to withstand high pressures, means
receiver tubes carrying water/steam are susceptible to large thermal

5
T. Conroy et al.
Fig. 4. Tubular receivers, (a) schematic of a billboard design [56], (b) cylindrical configuration [57], and (c) cavity receiver concept [58].
and pressure induced stresses, resulting in relatively low allowable
heat fluxes of � 0:5 MW=m2 [60]. Corrosion and compatibility issues
with high temperature steam and tube alloys poses further concerns
[59].
� Molten salts - Molten salt working fluids have been pursued since
the early days of CSP, both as a receiver heat transfer fluid and
sensible storage media. In a molten salt receiver, the temperature of
the fluid is raised by concentrated sunlight, it is then stored and
released through a steam generator to feed the turbine when
required. The pioneering Solar One tower project identified the ne­
cessity for a high temperature receiver working fluid that could
provide dispatchable energy for the grid, leading to the development
of the first large scale molten salt tower system with the the Solar
Two project in the 1990’s [21]. Molten salts have a high volumetric
heat capacity, allowing for large quantities of sensible heat storage
(� 0:75 kWh=m3 K) at temperatures up to � 600∘ C [61]. Commercial
scale molten salt plants such as Gemasolar and Crescent Dunes have
built upon the experience gained from Solar Two, utilising 15 and
10 hr of sensible storage respectively, while more recently the
Shouhang Dunhuang, SUPCON Solar, Luneng Haixi, and Qinghai
Gonghe plants in China, and NOOR III in Morocco, have also incor­
porated molten salt working fluids. The majority of large-scale CSP
tower projects under construction and/or development will incor­
porate molten salt as a receiver working fluid and storage medium
(see Section 2). A mixture of sodium and potassium nitrates known as
Solar Salt is the most common molten salt composition, which is
stable between temperatures of � 200 600∘ C, and has a cost of
0:5 $=kg [62]. HITEC and HITEC XL offer lower melting points and
higher heat capacities than Solar Salt, however these suffer from a
lower thermal stability limit � 500∘ C. Other molten salt composi­
tions have been developed for higher temperature applications, such
as Li–Na–K carbonates and fluorides, Halotechnics, and Na–K–Zn
chlorides. For a comprehensive discussion on molten salt mixtures
and other liquid heat transfer media, the reader is directed to the
paper from Vignarooban et al. [59]. High thermal conductivities of
molten salts (� 10 1 100 W=mK) enable large tubular heat trans­
fer coefficients (in comparison to water/steam), thus enabling inci­
dent heat fluxes of � 1 MW=m2 . As heat transfer to molten salts in the
turbulent regime is dominated by eddy conductivity, these fluids are
receptive to heat transfer enhancement devices, as demonstrated
experimentally by Yang et al. [63]. Despite the low-cost, high
availability, and excellent sensible storage potential, concerns arise
in the form of containment material compatibility. There is consid­
erable interest in characterising the effects of molten salt induced
corrosion on metallic alloys, with Vignarooban et al. [59] offering a
discussion on research efforts conducted on a number of different
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
mixtures. Current commercial molten salt mixtures have a relatively
narrow operational temperature range, therefore one of the DOE
SunShot initiatives concerning molten salt receivers is to generate
fluid outlet temperatures of > 720∘ C with thermal efficiencies >
90% [64], thus facilitating greater power cycle efficiency and ther­
mal storage potential. Halide (fluorides and chlorides) and carbonate
salts currently under development can yield higher fluid outlet
temperatures than traditional solar salt (> 600∘ C), however practical
concerns with extreme corrosion on containment metals and alloys
have been raised [7].
� Liquid metals - Liquid metals have long been identified as poten­
tially excellent receiver working fluids. This is largely due to high
operating temperature ranges in the liquid phase and efficient heat
transfer performance in tubes, enabling the removal of large quan­
tities of heat from limited exchanger surfaces. Receiver concepts
employing a liquid metal working fluid operate on much the same
principal as molten salt based designs, with the heated working fluid
used to generate steam for the turbine indirectly. Liquid metals such
as sodium (Na) and lead-bismuth eutectic (Pb Bi) have been pro­
posed as candidate fluids that could deliver higher fluid outlet tem­
peratures than molten salts (> 600∘ C), also allowing for more
compact receiver designs that alleviates cost and enhances thermal
efficiency due to excellent heat flux capabilities ð> 2:5 MW =m2 Þ
[61]. Liquid metals are impaired by relatively low specific heat ca­
pacities however, affecting their ability to operate as cost-effective
thermal storage media, with both sodium and lead-bismuth pos­
sessing approximately half the volumetric heat capacity of molten
salt ðkWh =m3 KÞ, and a per-unit cost of 2 $=kg and 13 $=kg; respec­
tively [62]. Corrosion with containment materials is an area of
considerable concern with heavy liquid metals such as lead-bismuth,
however sodium exhibits greater compatibility with stainless steels
and other metallic alloys [59]. Currently there are no commercial
CSP plants that operate with liquid metals, however the nuclear in­
dustry has found application for these fluids as early as the 1940’s as
coolants in LMFBR cores, and the solar industry stands to benefit
from this experience. A number of sodium solar receiver tests were
conducted in the 1980’s from a joint effort by Rockwell International
and the US DOE [65], and also at the IEA-SSPS program at PSA in
Spain [17,18], however the only recent activity in terms of plant
operation has been that undertaken by Vast Solar. Research groups
such as the Solar Thermal Group at the Australian National Univer­
sity (ANU) in ACT, Australia, the Institute for Solar Research at DLR
in Stuttgart, Germany, and the Institute for Nuclear and Energy
Technologies at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), are
currently engaged in liquid metals research for solar thermal
applications.
T. Conroy et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

4. Thermal modelling

Attempts have been made by several authors to model the thermal

performance of liquid tubular receivers, dating back to the early stages
of CSP development in the 1980’s. Heat transfer models are generally
classified as analytical or numerical in nature, and are used to model
receiver performance under steady-state and/or transient conditions.
Numerical models generally rely on commercial CFD codes that require
several thousand iterations to solve conditions over the internal flow
field and tube surface, offering solutions of a high accuracy and reso­
lution. However, coupling heat transfer and fluid motion inside a tube
with material conduction effects and environmental thermal energy
losses renders a significant computational requirement with numerical
methods, meaning that resolving the full thermal profile across every
tube on a liquid tubular concept is often impractical, particularly at the
R & D and preliminary design stage where multiple receiver configu­
rations, heat transfer fluids, tube materials, and operational conditions
are to be probed. Purely analytical models are much more straightfor­
ward, offering an almost immediate estimate of maximum tube tem­
peratures, which may then be used to infer mechanical damage and heat
flux limits (described further in Section 6). Despite their simplicity and
usefulness in mechanical reliability studies, analytical models are un­
able to provide an accurate thermal profile over the full heat transfer
surface, required in order to estimate receiver performance. Semi-
empirical models have found favour in recent literature, and may be Fig. 5. Schematic of receiver tube discretisation into axial and circumferential
elements (zel ; θel ) for heat transfer modelling, detailing inside and outside
viewed as a bridge between highly-accurate but computationally
temperatures (Tsi; zel ; θel , Tso; zel ; θel ) [61].
expensive numerical models, and simple but low resolution analytical
models. Semi-empirical methods typically employ a finite number of
discrete nodal elements over the receiver surface, from which tube Fig. 5 [61]), with a full three-dimensional model defined as one which
temperatures and heat losses may be calculated through heat and mass can calculate thermal conditions along the tube axis, around the
balances, with the accuracy dependent on the adopted resolution and circumference, and through the wall thickness. Models adopting a lower
modelling approach. The semi-empirical method is similar in ways to resolution approach may elect to model the average temperatures on a
numerical models in that the heat transfer surface is discretised into a tube, or at a single axial location (two-dimensional over the tube
mesh of localised elements, and generally also require a number of it­ cross-section) for use in mechanical reliability studies for example.
erations to solve. However, this method differs from numerical ap­ Models that give consideration to temperature and heat flux varia­
proaches by employing empirical correlations and analytical theory to tion around the circumference and along the axis of the exposed tube
resolve thermal conditions over the receiver surface, rather than solving surface represent some of the most detailed found in literature, key to­
governing equations for mass, momentum, and energy over a large so­ wards providing an accurate description of thermal and mechanical
lution domain. Fewer computational nodes and iterations-to- response. It is common in literature for the incident heat flux to be
convergence (� 101 vs � 103 ) are required by semi-empirical models assumed as parallel to the receiver surface normal (collimated), with the
when compared to numerical codes, and as a result, can generate suf­ variation in heat flux due to tube curvature then calculated using a
ficiently accurate results for receiver design and analysis purposes cosine/sinusoidal approximation of the angular position away from the
without suffering a large computational expense. Utilising these more crown. Fig. 6a illustrates the circumferentially non-uniform heat flux
simplified thermal models allows for a relatively fast calculation of profile generated using a cosine approximation [66]. Jianfeng et al. [67]
receiver temperatures and efficiency, thus proving a very useful tool at presents a mathematical model used to investigate the thermal perfor­
the design stage for the receiver component in a CSP plant. This review mance of an isolated solar receiver tube carrying HITEC molten salt,
article is largely concerned with thermal models that can be considered subjected to an axially uniform incident heat flux, variable over one-half
as semi-empirical in design. the tube circumference. The authors consider local tube temperatures
and efficiency over the exposed tube surface, however pipe wall resis­
tance is omitted from the model. Boerema et al. [56] has developed heat
4.1. Modelling approach and boundary conditions
transfer models to compare the performance of a number of liquid so­
dium receiver designs. Each receiver tube is discretised into elements in
The discussion of literature in this section is framed around the
the axial direction, thus allowing the thermal model to solve flow rates
different approaches taken to model heat transfer and temperatures at a
and tube surface temperatures based on desired outlet temperature,
localised tube level (Section 4.1.1), the treatment of incident heat flux at
fluid properties, ambient conditions, and receiver geometry. Local sur­
a receiver level (Section 4.1.2), the calculation of environmental heat
face temperatures are calculated using internal heat transfer coefficients
losses (Section 4.1.3), and the means in which the thermal profile is
in conjunction with the bulk fluid temperature and circumferentially
resolved (Section 4.1.4). A summary of heliostat aiming strategy designs
varying heat flux. Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [68] describes an important
is provided in Section 5, as these tools are used to model the heat flux
heat transfer model developed for cylindrical molten salt receivers,
distribution on the receiver, thus forming an important boundary con­
representing thermal conditions on the component by simulating a
dition for thermal modelling.
single tube on each panel, accounting for local temperatures and losses
by discretising the tube into finite elements in the axial and circumfer­
4.1.1. Thermal modelling at the localised tube level
ential directions. Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [69] adopts this model for
In many of the modelling studies discussed in this section, thermal
investigations into novel ‘bayonet’ receiver concepts, described in
conditions on a receiver tube are resolved by performing local calcula­
greater detail below. Two similar models presented in Higher-detail
tions of temperature development and heat losses. Localised modelling
models (HTM and HHFM, described in Section 4.2.3) from
often involves discretising tubes into a number of finite elements (see

7
T. Conroy et al.
Fig. 6. (a) Description of circumferentially non-uniform heat flux profile over a
tube cross-section [66], and (b) Illustration of a discrete tube axial element
incorporating an assumption of uniform circumferential heat flux [84].
Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [57] discretise the tube into axial and
circumferential elements for local wall temperature calculations.
S�anchez-Gonz� alez et al. [70] employs the thermal model described by
Ref. [68] to calculate allowable heat flux limits on a molten salt cylin­
drical receiver for use in an aiming strategy model. The analysis by
Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [71,72] models the heat transfer characteris­
tics of molten salt cylindrical receiver tubes subjected to a non-uniform
heat flux distribution, again employing the model from Ref. [68]. Con­
roy et al. [61,66,73] discretises receiver tubes into elements in the axial
and circumferential direction, establishing inner and outer surface
temperatures for a variety of heat flux boundary conditions, fluids, and
design configurations; recent modelling studies by Conroy et al. [74,75]
also employs this model. Kim et al. [76] considers the axial and
circumferential heat flux and temperature variation in an investigation
into a variety of working fluids. A similar approach to tube discretisation
can be applied to numerical models, such as in Refs. [77,78]; the present
discussion is limited to semi-empirical and analytical models.
For simplicity, certain models ignore the effects of circumferential
temperature variation, instead providing general assessment of heat
transfer conditions over the receiver surface. Singer et al. [79] employs
this simplification in order to investigate a large number of receiver
designs and heat transfer fluids, as does Li et al. [58] in a design opti­
misation study of a molten salt cavity receiver concept. Wagner et al.
[80] presents a semi-empirical model for the Solar Two molten salt
receiver that assumes a homogeneous flux over the tube circumference.
Yu et al. [81] investigates the performance of a water/steam cavity
receiver using a heat transfer model that approximates the thermal
conditions of each panel by simulating a single tube, implementing a
uniform circumferential heat flux. Boerema et al. [14] also assumes a
constant heat flux over the circumference, however the fluid and wall
temperature development along the tube axis is accounted for in the
analysis which compares liquid sodium and molten salt receiver designs
by discretising the tube into a number of axial elements. Chang et al.
[82] conducted a parametric design analysis on a molten salt cavity
receiver configuration using a numerical heat transfer model coupled
with a Monte Carlo ray tracing (MCRT) technique. The cavity receiver
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
tubes are discretised into axial elements, with temperatures assumed
constant across the wall and around the circumference for each node.
Pye et al. [83] investigates the energetic and exergetic performance of a
number of different heat transfer fluids in a cylindrical receiver model
by calculating the temperature development using discrete axial ele­
ments. A simplified model presented in Rodríguez-S� anchez et al. [57]
involves calculating molten salt temperature development along the axis
for a cylindrical receiver design, while ignoring circumferential varia­
tions (standard model, SM). The ASTRID code (Advanced Solar Tubular
Receiver Design) developed by DLR is described by Frantz et al. [78]. A
low detail modelling stage investigates a large receiver design space
(variable heat flux levels, tube diameter, heat transfer area, number of
tubes etc.) using a modelling procedure that discretises the tubes into a
small number of axial elements. The low detail stage evaluates thermal,
hydraulic, and economic performance based on desired temperature,
pressure drop, and power targets in order to quickly identify and reject
poorly performing designs for a high detail study, which involves more
localised modelling of tube temperatures and heat flux distribution
using an FEM model. Flesch et al. [84] incorporates a simplified thermal
model into a heliostat aiming strategy procedure in order to provide a
fast calculation of thermal performance, discretising tubes into elements
in the axial direction only, assuming a constant circumferential heat flux
on the front side of the receiver tubes. Fig. 6b illustrates the tube dis­
cretisation process from Flesch et al. [84], which assumes a constant
heat flux on the front side. Such a simplification results in a convenient
and relatively fast models that may provide general estimates of receiver
thermal efficiency, however Ref. [57] shows that such models are un­
suited for the design optimisation and mechanical reliability studies as
they do not consider the circumferential temperature gradient.
There are examples in literature of receiver thermal models that
effectively assume a mean fluid temperature along the length of the
tube. This approach greatly simplifies modelling complexity, thus
allowing for an efficient means of screening receiver designs, however it
offers a poor representation of local wall temperatures. In the investi­
gation by Singer et al. [79], tube temperatures are modelled for a single
tube on each panel of a cylindrical receiver design, with convection,
radiation, and reflection losses considered. The panel model uses the
average of the fluid inlet and outlet temperatures to calculate wall
temperatures using internal heat transfer coefficients and
one-dimensional wall conduction. Li et al. [58] adopts a similar
low-resolution approach to that of Ref. [79], where the average
inlet-outlet temperature is used to calculate wall surface temperatures
from mean internal heat transfer coefficients and one-dimensional
cross-wall conduction. Xu et al. [85] describes a similar model to that
of Ref. [58], with application to a first and second law analysis of a
molten salt cavity receiver.
Thermal models presented by Kistler [86], Grossman et al. [87],
Pacheco et al. [88], Kolb [88], Liao et al. [89], and Luo et al. [90] are
used to investigate temperatures over a cross-section (two-dimensional,
radial and circumferential profiles only) of an non-axisymmetrically
heated tube for a specified fluid temperature, flow rate/convection co­
efficient, and incident heat flux. The estimated temperatures act as an
input for mechanical investigations; this is described in greater detail in
Section 6. The models employed in these studies may be considered as
simplified analytical, as they require no energy/mass balancing pro­
cedures and only a few closed-form analytical expressions to solve.
One-dimensional radial conduction is assumed across the wall, with heat
flux variable around the circumference in all cases (cosine), although
only inner and outer surface temperatures are extracted for mechanical
modelling. Interesting results are presented in using these models with
regards to mechanical reliability and allowable heat flux limits, however
they are of no use for calculation of temperatures across the heat transfer
surface, thus unable to provide an estimate of receiver thermal efficiency
and power output. The models by Logie et al. [91,92] similarly calcu­
lates tube temperatures over a cross-section for specified boundary
conditions, however environmental heat losses are considered, and the
T. Conroy et al.
temperature profile over the full circumference is input into a detailed
thermal stress model in Ref. [92]. It is worth noting that the model
described by Ref. [88] is one of few receiver thermal models in literature
that makes reference to the local Nusselt number method presented by
Ga€rtner et al. [93], along with Refs. [66,73-75], which account for a
circumferential heat flux variation. The majority of authors tend to
employ uniformly heated tube Nusselt number correlations, despite the
presence of highly non-uniform thermal boundary conditions. The
application of the local Nusselt number method as opposed to employing
a uniformly heated tube Nusselt number can significantly affect the wall
temperature profile, which largely underpins the mechanical integrity of
the tube. However, this is considered more critical for liquid metals
(Pr≪1) as opposed to more conventional fluids like water or molten salts
(Pr � 101 ), where turbulent eddy transport plays a larger role in the heat
transfer mechanism, and the local Nusselt number approaches the
asymptotic value [93].
Receiver heat transfer models typically rely on an assumption of
radial-dominant conduction across the tube wall (one-dimensional) thus
dispensing with computationally expensive models that account for
circumferential and axial wall conduction. An important investigation
conducted by Marug� an-Cruz et al. [94] highlights the role that the
relationship between tube material conductivity and internal heat
transfer coefficients plays in this assumption. A conjugate heat transfer
model is used to investigate heat conduction through a circumferentially
non-uniformly heated tube, and internal forced convection to a heat
transfer fluid. The investigation is concerned with evaluating the rela­
tive magnitudes of heat conduction in the circumferential and radial
directions based on internal convection conditions and wall thermal
conductivity, characterised by the Biot number ðBi ¼ hx =kÞ. The
objective of the analysis from a thermal modelling standpoint is to
identify a Bi threshold that indicates where conduction dominates in the
radial direction over the circumferential coordinate. Bi > 0:3 implies
radial-dominant conduction due to relatively large internal heat transfer
coefficients, thus allowing for wall heat conduction modelling to be
completed in the radial direction only (one-dimensional). For Bi < 0:3,
the heat transfer fluid fails to remove heat sufficiently from the wall in
comparison to heat travel over the tube material, meaning
multi-dimensional wall conduction modelling must be completed if an
accurate solution is to be obtained (> 5% error between analytical and
numerical model from Ref. [94]), greatly increasing modelling
complexity and computational expense for semi-empirical approaches.
For turbulent molten salt and liquid metal flows encountered in receiver
models presented in literature, Bi > 0:3 is generally encountered due to
large heat transfer coefficients.
4.1.2. Thermal modelling at the receiver level
Few thermal modelling analyses exist in literature where tubes on
the receiver are modelled using a realistic incident heat flux profile over
the full heat transfer surface, accounting for tube-to-tube variation.
Models concerned with simulating a single receiver tube, such as those
from Refs. [14,58,61,66,67,76,79,83] simply assume an average heat
flux over the tube length. For cylindrical receiver designs in particular, it
is common practice to simulate a single receiver tube on each panel
using an averaged heat flux, with the calculated thermal profile assumed
similar for all tubes on the panel. This simplified approach is adopted by
Refs. [57,68–70] for cylindrical receivers, with the influence of reflec­
tion and re-radiation between adjacent tubes considered. Wagner et al.
[80] assumes all tubes on a cylindrical receiver panel share the same
energy balance due to the resolution of the available flux map, with a
single tube modelled using the temperature and heat flux variations over
discrete elements along the tube axis. Yu et al. [81] and Yu et al. [95]
model a single tube on panels of a cavity receiver.
Of those models that do consider a non-uniform heat flux profile, the
computational expense is increased as each tube on the receiver is
modelled. Boerema et al. [56] uses a Gaussian-like distribution to
9
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
simulate the heat flux profile from a heliostat field over a number of
novel billboard receiver concepts. A Gaussian heat flux profile is also
implemented by Chang et al. [82], for a cavity receiver design. Both low
and high detail models presented by Frantz et al. [78] account for a
realistic heat flux distribution over all receiver tubes on a cylindrical
design, relying on a ray-tracing developed profile. The model from
Flesch et al. [84] is used to calculate tube temperatures on cylindrical
receiver panels using the incident heat flux profile generated by a he­
liostat aiming strategy. Conroy et al. [73] demonstrates sodium receiver
performance when subjected to non-uniform incident heat flux profiles
generated by various aiming strategy configurations. The model in­
terpolates the heat flux map formed by the cumulative distribution of
heliostat images distributed over the target in order to deliver tube
temperatures for thermal and mechanical assessment. Conroy et al. [74]
employs a similar aiming strategy as that from Ref. [73]. The analysis
simulates receiver thermal response under cumulative heat flux profiles
generated from different spillage settings assigned to the aiming strategy
model, with the performance of sodium receiver designs and operating
temperatures then compared based on input power from the field
(spillage reciprocal), and allowable flux density on the receiver. Simi­
larly, Conroy et al. [75] utilises this aiming strategy for diurnal simu­
lations of sodium receiver and heliostat field interaction.
Rodríguez-S� anchez et al. [71] considers two different modelling ap­
proaches: the coarse grid model (CGM), and fine grid model (FGM). The
CGM has been utilised in studies by Refs. [57,68–70] whereby a single
tube is modelled using the average heat flux on the panel (variable in the
axial direction), and the calculated thermal profile assumed represen­
tative of all tubes on the panel. The FGM considers the incident heat flux
on every tube on the receiver panel (using the aiming strategy described
by S�anchez-Gonz� alez & Santana [96]), and can therefore offer a solution
of significantly higher detail, but is three orders of magnitude more
computationally expensive. The CGM proves a useful tool in estimating
receiver performance, providing thermal efficiency predictions within
2:5% of the more detailed FGM. The authors do however acknowledge
that the CGM is not appropriate for the investigation of receiver limi­
tations and design optimisation, as it fails to capture higher temperature
excursions experienced by tubes exposed to higher-than-average heat
fluxes on the panel, thus under-predicting thermal stresses required for
mechanical reliability estimates and over-predicting the allowable heat
flux. Variations in heat flux and surface temperature resolution using the
CGM and FGM models is illustrated in Fig. 7. A brief review of aiming
strategies is provided in Section 4, as these models can be used to
generate the instantaneous heat flux profile on the receiver surface.
4.1.3. Calculation of heat losses
Models that assume an absorbed heat flux do not require a calcula­
tion of thermal energy losses, however consideration of different loss
modes plays a vital role in the calculation procedure of more detailed
investigations. Heat losses considered by various authors include con­
vection, radiation, reflection, and conduction to a lesser extent. Con­
duction heat losses occur when thermal energy is conducted from high
temperature receiver surfaces to lower temperature locations, particu­
larly through insulation material and support structures. Conduction
typically accounts for a very small fraction of the total heat losses from a
receiver [97], as the contact area between support structures and high
temperature components is small and modern thermal insulation pos­
sesses very low conductivity values. It is therefore common for heat
transfer models in literature to treat conduction losses as negligible with
an adiabatic surface assumed at the back of the tube. Nevertheless,
certain studies do incorporate this loss mode for completeness. The
models presented by Refs. [58,82,85] all adopt a similar methodology,
where the temperature of the insulation surface opposite the rear tube
wall is first calculated, with a convective heat transfer coefficient then
used to estimate heat losses to the environment.
Radiative heat losses are generally a function of the assumed emis­
sivity of the tube coating, view factor, and surface temperature. The
T. Conroy et al.
Fig. 7. (a) Heat flux map and (b) corresponding tube surface temperatures over a cylindrical receiver design for CGM (one tube per-panel simulated) and FGM (all
tubes per-panel simulated) [71].
reflective loss is influenced by the solar absorptivity of the tube surface
and view factor, is independent of temperature, and often represents the
largest heat loss mode on a receiver (� 5 10% efficiency reduction)
[58]. Pyromark high temperature black paint is a selective solar
absorber, used to coat receiver tubes in order to maximise absorptivity
and minimise emissivity in the solar spectrum [98]. The coating is used
on many conventional tubular designs, including the pioneering Solar
One and Solar Two receivers in the 1980’s and 1990’s [23]. Several
authors have elected to model receiver performance assuming the
properties of this paint. Ho et al. [98] and Coventry & Burge [99] pro­
vide correlations and data for absorptivity and emissivity for variations
in incidence angle, temperature, substrate, wavelength (specular and
solar-weighted), and coating thickness of Pyromark 2500, however
constant values are often assumed. View factor between receiver sur­
faces and environment also has a significant influence on the thermal
profile calculation, however many authors simply assume full reflection
and emission to the environment (Fview ¼ 1). Ignoring tube curvature
effects and considering receiver surfaces as a whole, the
receiver-environment view factor is effectively unity for flat billboard
and convex cylindrical receiver designs, however with cavity receivers
the concave box-like structure is designed to ‘trap’ incident sunlight by
minimising the view factor between the heat transfer surface and envi­
ronment. Li et al. [58] and Xu et al. [85] use the ratio of aperture
opening to heat transfer surface to estimate the receiver-environment
view factor, while Refs. [81,95] also include the view angle between
concave panels. The billboard receiver model by Boerema et al. [14]
assumes an averaged value over the half tube circumference exposed to
sunlight, Boerema et al. [56] uses a cosine function to vary the view
factor with circumference, while Conroy et al. [61,66] applies a
two-dimensional crossed-strings method. Chang et al. [82] describes in
detail the view factor interaction between heat transfer surface ele­
ments, and environmental radiative and reflective heat losses using the
Monte Carlo method. Refs. [57,68–72] use the two-dimensional cross­
ed-strings method to determine local view factors between tube sur­
faces, refractory backing, and environment for cylindrical designs, with
tube-to-tube interaction incorporated in the model. The
two-dimensional method establishes the view factor between circum­
ferential elements at complementary axial locations on neighbouring
tubes, with Ref. [71] stating an almost negligible error committed by
neglecting axial variations (three-dimensional view factor). Conroy
et al. [73] describes a detailed three-dimensional view factor calculation
for a model that considers non-uniform heat fluxes over the surface, used
to compute reflection and re-radiation between discrete tube elements.
For many thermal models that consider view factor, calculations of
tube-to-tube reflection and re-radiation is simplified by calculating
thermal losses to the environment directly using the view factor, rather
than explicitly calculating the radiative and reflective energy exchange
between tubular surfaces. This approach is valid for receiver models that
10
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
assume the same temperature and heat flux profile for all tubes on a
surface, however such an assumption does not account for variations in
local temperatures of neighbouring tubes due to light trapping effects.
More detailed models may consider tube temperature variation due to
view factor using a radiation balance between discrete elements on
neighbouring tubes, such as in Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [71] and Conroy
et al. [73]. It is expected that net radiation exchanges between neigh­
bouring tubes will be negligible due to near identical thermal loading
conditions, thus qualifying the use of a simplified view factor model in
the energy balance [80].
Convection generally contends with radiation as the dominant heat
loss mode after reflection [8]. Cavity receivers are expected to experi­
ence higher convection losses than radiation due to a larger heat transfer
surface requirement, while the opposite is true for billboard and cylin­
drical designs [16]. Convective heat losses are a function of receiver
temperatures and the convective heat transfer coefficient between the
heated surface and environment. Nusselt number correlations control
the heat transfer coefficient, and it may be forced, free, or mixed in
nature, and has a dependency on ambient conditions and component
geometry. Receiver thermal models assume either a fixed heat transfer
coefficient for the calculation of convection losses, or use empirical
models that vary the convective heat transfer coefficient based on
ambient conditions (wind, film temperature), and geometry. Fixed heat
transfer coefficients, typically in the range of 10 30 W=m2 K (free,
mixed, forced), are assumed in models by Refs. [14,56,67,83,91,92]. In
other studies, Nusselt number correlations based on environmental
conditions and receiver geometry are used. Correlations developed
through experimental and analytical work by Siebers et al. [100] and
Siebers & Kraabel [101] are used by many receiver thermal models in
literature. Experiments by Ref. [100] for horizontal flow over vertical
flat plates allow for the development and identification of useful cor­
relations for billboard receiver panels (and by extension cavity designs),
while Ref. [101] provides a theoretical framework specific to cylindrical
and cavity configurations, with convective heat loss measurements
taken by Stoddard [97] on the Solar One receiver in good agreement
with theory developed for cylindrical designs. Theoretical models pre­
sented in Refs. [78,84] use average and local heat transfer coefficients
devised from a recent CFD study by Uhlig et al. [102] for cylindrical
designs. Refs. [81,95] use models developed by Clausing [103,104] for
averaged convective heat transfer coefficients from cavity receivers.
Potter et al. [105] passes surface temperature calculations from a
receiver heat transfer model to a CFD solver to return accurate con­
vection coefficients for a cavity geometry.
4.1.4. Solution structure
For a receiver subjected to an incident heat flux, thermal models can
be set to iterate around the absorbed heat using an energy balancing
procedure in conjunction with environmental heat losses. A
T. Conroy et al.
convergence criterion used to define the point where an energy balance
is reached; this is may be a very small value of the incident heat [66].
Internal flow conditions affect tube wall temperatures, which in turn
influence heat losses, and finally calculations of receiver thermal power
output. Therefore, an iterative energy balancing procedure allows the
model to solve for receiver thermal performance based on a prescribed
set of boundary conditions, such as receiver geometry, heat transfer
fluid, inlet-outlet temperatures, and environmental conditions. Mass
balancing techniques also play a key role in formulating a solution if the
mass flow rate is not fixed, with receiver/tube flow rate iterated until the
desired outlet temperature is obtained based on the absorbed power
identified through the energy balance. Various energy balancing ap­
proaches are described for models developed by Jianfeng et al. [67], Li
et al. [58], Wagner et al. [80], Xu et al. [85], Boerema et al. [14,56],
Chang et al. [82], Rodríguez-S� anchez et al. [68] (and related models),
Kim et al. [76] and Conroy et al. [66] (and related models). Closed-form
analytical models are primarily concerned with establishing maximum
tube temperatures for mechanical investigations (such as those from
Refs. [60,86–90]), these therefore do not rely on energy or mass bal­
ances, rather operate on assumptions of absorbed heat flux and internal
flow rate.
4.2. Thermal modelling studies
This section describes the nature of investigations undertaken by
various authors using thermal models described in Section 4.1, detailing
interesting results and findings. Receiver thermal models presented in
literature have found application in simulation of a broad range of liquid
tubular receiver designs and concepts; these are mostly conventional
molten salt, however some analyses have investigated more novel and
inventive configurations. Models that simulate a single tube are largely
independent of boundary conditions specific to the receiver design as a
whole, providing a more general assessment of thermal performance for
a prescribed set of operating conditions.
4.2.1. Cylindrical receiver designs
Conventional cylindrical receiver designs are investigated by Refs.
[78,79,83] for a variety of heat transfer fluids, while Refs. [57,68,70,71,
84] consider molten salt working fluids. The designs considered in these
studies are quite large, as cylindrical receivers must be sized appropri­
ately for surrounding heliostat fields, and molten salt heat flux limits
must be respected. For example, the analysis by Rodríguez-S� anchez et al.
[68] identified an optimum molten salt receiver design with 576 tubes,
10:5 m in length, and 0:0422 m in diameter, based on satisfaction of
thermohydraulic and mechanical performance criteria. Such large heat
transfer surfaces require a significant computational effort if thermal
modelling is to be completed using a non-uniform heat flux in the axial
and circumferential directions, as is the case for the majority of models
described above. For this reason, studies by Refs. [57,68,70,79] have
elected to model a single tube on each panel and assume the results for
all tubes on the panel, however Rodríguez-Sa �nchez [71] highlights
limitations with this low-resolution approach. Singer et al. [79] in­
vestigates the potential of a number of candidate working fluids in a
cylindrical receiver for a 50 MWe power plant operating on the
ultra-supercritical steam cycle, using LCOE as the objective function. A
significant LCOE reduction (� 15%) can be obtained using liquid metals
at high temperature as the receiver HTF when compared to molten salts.
A recommendation for delivering dispatchable electricity from the high
temperature ultra-supercritical steam cycle is to use a liquid metal as the
receiver working fluid in conjunction with a separate thermal storage
media. Variations in tube diameter, number of tubes per panel, and
number of panels on a 360∘ cylindrical receiver design are explored by
Rodríguez-S� anchez et al. [68]. Similar to other design optimisation
studies, the authors recommend the use of small diameter tubes to
maximise thermal and mechanical performance, however the resultant
pressure drop penalty must also be considered. An important
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
observation was that calculated receiver thermal efficiencies were
considerably smaller (< 78%) than those reported previously for molten
salt designs (80 90%); this is attributed to the inclusion of circum­
ferential temperature variation in the model. The STRAL thermal model
described by Flesch et al. [84] is integrated into the aiming strategy
procedure, with the calculated thermal power output used to modify the
aiming point distribution while respecting pre-determined heat flux
limits. Sa�nchez-Gonza�lez et al. [70] incorporates the model from
Ref. [68] into an aiming strategy procedure, using the approximate
thermal power output as a cost function. The model is also used to define
allowable heat flux limits for tubes on a cylindrical molten salt receiver,
based on corrosion and thermal stress limits at different fluid tempera­
tures for Alloy 800H tubes. The investigations conducted by Refs. [57,
71] are concerned with model resolution rather than uncovering
receiver performance characteristics.
4.2.2. Novel receiver concepts
A number of novel receiver concepts have been proposed in recent
literature, with thermal models used to gauge the relative performance
of the novel design against more conventional counterparts. Boerema
et al. [56] compares a number of liquid sodium billboard receiver de­
signs to a conventional single pass (Fig. 4a). The concepts include a
multi-pass configuration based on the billboard design investigated in
the IEA/SSPS project [18], a configuration that employs tubes with
variable diameters, and a concept using non-uniform mass flow rates in
the tubes (shown in Fig. 8a–c). These novel designs have been devised in
order to handle non-uniform heat flux distributions over the heat
transfer surface more effectively, delivering more homogeneous outlet
temperatures from parallel tubes. The new concepts outperform the
conventional single diameter design in terms of maximising efficiency
and lowering surface temperatures. The multi-pass configuration is the
most promising as it minimises the surface area under high temperatures
and augments tube velocity, with careful control of the flux distribution
deemed a concern for operation of the variable diameter receiver, and
the practicality of implementing a non-uniform mass flow rate into the
standard billboard design requiring further investigation. For a given
heat transfer area, the multi-pass design increases the flow path for the
fluid, resulting in an increased tube flow rate/velocity relative to the
single pass design, augmenting efficiency. Conroy et al. [74] compares
the performance of a number of multi-pass geometries using sodium. A
1-pass, 3-pass, and 5-pass design are compared, with designs also
varying in terms of tube diameter and material. Increasing the panel
number and reducing the tube diameter raises thermal efficiency and
allowable flux density, which facilitates a greater power output, how­
ever pressure drop also increases. The direction of flow through the
panels also influences the temperature profile and power output. A
similar mechanism of flow path increase for a given receiver area can
also be achieved by increasing the geometrical aspect ratio, as demon­
strated by Conroy et al. [61].
A new concept is presented by Rodríguez-S� anchez et al. [69], with
concentric tubes used to heat molten salt in a cylindrical external
configuration. In the scheme of the ‘bayonet’ system, cold fluid enters
the inner tube and then returns through the outer annulus, while the
external tube wall is irradiated. The bayonet design exhibits promising
results when compared to conventional molten salt receiver tubes [68],
with thermal efficiency improvements of 2% and maximum wall tem­
perature reductions of > 100∘ C reported. A variable velocity (VVR)
molten salt cylindrical receiver concept is proposed by Rodríguez-Sa �n­
chez et al. [72], with the thermal model presented by Ref. [68] used to
investigate thermohydraulic performance. In a conventional cylindrical
receiver, tubes on a panel are connected to a single inlet and outlet
header, with the panels then connected in series to form a serpentine
flow path. A high number of panels allows for a reduction in surface
temperatures due to an increased flow velocity, resulting in better
thermal and mechanical performance, but a large pressure drop due to
an increased flow path - while the opposite is true for a low number of
T. Conroy et al.
Fig. 8. Novel billboard receiver concepts; (a) non-uniform mass flow rate, (b) variable diameter, (c) multi-pass, from Ref. [56].
panels [68]. The VVR concept aims to emulate the thermal and hy­
draulic advantages of high and low panel numbers respectively, by
accelerating localised flow velocity in high heat flux regions to reduce
wall temperatures, and extending operating hours by maintaining tur­
bulent flow under low incident power levels. This is achieved using a
complex system of valves and split headers that facilitate better localised
flow velocity control in order to match variable incident heat flux dis­
tributions more appropriately and maintain temperatures within the
safe operating envelope, without suffering a large pumping parasitic
(see Fig. 9). Conroy et al. [61] investigates the heat transfer performance
of a molten salt receiver with heat transfer enhancement techniques
using empirical Nusselt number and friction factor correlations. Surface
roughness mechanisms (ribbed surface, wire coil) are more effective at
enhancing heat transfer in the turbulent regime than twisted tape
structures, enhancing the net power output (absorbed heat minus
pumping power) over a smooth tube design.
The performance benefits of liquid metals over more conventional
fluids in solar receivers are highlighted by numerous authors [59,62,
106,107]. However few works cited thus far have investigated the per­
formance of liquid metals in solar receivers using thermal models, and as
there has been very little activity in this field since the 1980’s, in­
vestigations of this type are considered relatively novel. Nevertheless,
the small number of studies that do exist do offer some useful insights.
Fig. 9. Molten salt flow path for (d) a conventional cylindrical receiver, and (e) the variable velocity configuration Ref. [72].
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
The analysis by Singer et al. [79] demonstrates some of the critical ad­
vantages of liquid metals over molten salts in terms of thermal efficiency
and cost reduction, namely large heat transfer coefficients which lower
surface temperatures, and high temperature capabilities that can supply
advanced power cycles. Boerema et al. [14] compared the performance
of sodium and HITEC molten salt in their receiver model. Based on a
fixed 1 MWth input and maximum pressure drop allowance of 0:5 bar,
the optimum receiver size required to deliver a fixed outlet temperature
is adjusted in an iterative procedure. The investigation found that a
sodium design could be sized � 57% smaller than a molten salt unit for
an equivalent thermal rating, due to significantly larger heat flux
allowance. Pye et al. [83] demonstrates the superior performance of
liquid sodium over more conventional fluids in a cylindrical receiver
concept, both in terms of heat transfer performance and high tempera­
ture capabilities. The authors recommend its use as an effective receiver
heat transfer fluid provided practical limitations can be overcome. The
analysis conducted by Boerema et al. [56] studied the performance of
liquid sodium in a number of novel receiver concepts. Logie et al. [91]
compares the performance of liquid sodium to molten salt in a single
tube. The large conductivity of sodium means that it is much less sen­
sitive to changes in flow rate, diameter, and wall thickness than molten
salt in terms of efficiency (consistently > 90%). Kim et al. [76] in­
vestigates the optimum heat flux conditions over receiver designs
T. Conroy et al.
carrying different working fluids. Allowable heat fluxes ranging from
1:1 0:4 MW=m2 are identified for a large sodium inlet-outlet temper­
ature of 550 750∘ C. Potter et al. [105] integrates optical and thermal
models to simultaneously optimise the geometry of a small 1 MWth so­
dium cavity receiver operating from 500 700∘ C and an equator-facing
heliostat field layout, objectively maximising thermal power output. The
authors report a design point thermal efficiency of 91:6%, with a peak
heat flux of 1:1 MW=m2 .
Conroy et al. [66] investigates the influence of heat transfer area,
tube diameter, and tube material, on the performance of sodium bill­
board receiver designs. The thermal, hydraulic, and mechanical per­
formance is investigated in the analysis, however some desirable
characteristics are potentially conflicting. Thermal performance is
enhanced considerably with a decrease in diameter (thermal efficiency
> 90%, see Fig. 10), resulting in lower heat losses and encouraging
larger incident heat fluxes (� 2 MW=m2 ), however this comes at the
penalty of an increased pressure drop. Reducing the heat transfer area
(increasing the solar concentration) minimises convective and radiative
losses, however this increases temperatures and susceptibility to me­
chanical damage. LCOE valuation is used as the decision making tool in
the multi-objective problem for the identification of optimum designs.
Conroy et al. [61] compares the thermohydraulic performance of so­
dium, lead-bismuth, and molten salt in a billboard receiver concept.
Both liquid metals permit considerably larger heat fluxes than molten
salt (> 2 MW=m2 vs 1 MW=m2 ), sodium in particular, however the
analysis also demonstrates potential performance gains through the
application of heat transfer enhancement techniques to the molten salt
fluid. An LCOE study demonstrates the excellent potential of sodium as a
working fluid and storage medium for short term capacities (< 3 hour),
with lead-bismuth, somewhat predictably, performing very poorly as a
cost-effective thermal storage medium. Conroy et al. [73] models the
performance of a sodium-cooled billboard receiver under heat flux
profiles generated by an aiming strategy, highlighting the significance of
optimising heliostat targeting to affect receiver efficiencies beyond >
90%. Logie et al. [92] demonstrates the superior performance of liquid
sodium in comparison to molten salt with regards to lowering peak
thermal stresses, referencing fluid conductivity as key to lowering tube
temperature gradients. Conroy et al. [74] simulates the elevated tem­
perature performance of sodium-cooled receiver concepts when inte­
grated with next-generation power cycles (550 750∘ C - gaseous
Brayton, SC/USC/A-USC steam Rankine). An
optical-thermal-mechanical model compares receiver geometry, flow
configuration, tube diameter, material, and outlet temperature. Based
on solar-to-electric efficiency, receiver designs constructed of Ni-based
superalloys and operating to 650 700∘ C yield a 4% power output
improvement over the 550∘ C baseline case (conventional power block
temperatures).
Fig. 10. Demonstration of tube diameter and heat transfer area influence on
thermal efficiency [66].
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
Water/steam and molten salts have been studied extensively, as
these fluids are representative of those employed in almost all com­
mercial and test/demonstration facility.
4.2.3. Thermal model validation
Numerous authors have sought to qualify the integrity of receiver
thermal models through validation against experimental data or
benchmarked models when possible. In many instances however, unique
receiver designs/concepts are investigated using developed mathemat­
ical models, meaning pertinent experimental data is often unavailable
for validation purposes.
Pacheco et al. [23] has published experimental data from the pio­
neering Solar Two project, which has been intercepted by a number of
authors for validation of molten salt receiver models. Jianfeng et al. [67]
simulates the thermal efficiency of the Solar Two receiver at design point
conditions using their model, reporting good agreement with measured
values (� 85 89%). Liao et al. [60] computes the allowable heat flux
for the Solar Two design. The calculated limit of 0:88 MW=m2 is higher
than the reported design value of 0:8 MW=m2 , with the authors citing
possible conservatism employed by designers as reasoning for the
discrepancy. Frantz et al. [78] simulates the geometry and operational
parameters of the Solar Two molten salt receiver using their ASTRID
model, with calculations comparing well to reported efficiency values
given in Ref. [23]. The thermal model from Rodríguez-S�anchez et al.
[68], or variations thereof, has appeared in a number of significant
publications that investigate the performance of molten salt cylindrical
designs ([57,69–72]). When compared to published thermal efficiency
values from the Solar Two project [23], the consideration of localised
wall temperature variation in the model from Rodríguez-S� anchez et al.
[68] results in a greater estimate of radiative losses, resulting in a
considerably lower thermal efficiency calculation. Comparable thermal
efficiency values are identified when the [68] model is simplified to
effectively neglect the circumferential temperature variation however,
resulting in an averaged wall temperature condition that affects lower
radiative losses according to T 4 . Rodríguez-Sa
�nchez et al. [108] subse­
quently revisited the means of thermal efficiency calculation for the
Solar Two receiver described by Pacheco et al. [23] (Power-On Method).
The authors highlight a key limitation with this method, which is the
removal of the incident power from the calculation of thermal energy
losses, with an assumption that receiver tube temperatures are equal to
the arithmetic mean of the inlet and outlet temperature. Also, thermal
resistance in the tube wall is diminished with respect to internal con­
vection, resulting in under-predicted circumferential temperature vari­
ations. A revised Power-On Method calculation from Ref. [108] yields
thermal efficiency estimates that agree more favourably with the model
from Ref. [68], showing that previously reported results from Pacheco
et al. [23] are a reasonable first approximation (as acknowledged by
Ref. [23]), but not wholly accurate as tube temperature and thermal loss
estimates invoke the interpretation of incident power localised heat flux
conditions.
Li et al. [58] use their cavity receiver tube model to simulate the
efficiency of a 5 MWth molten salt design from the SNL molten salt
electric experiment (MSEE) [109], and compare to experimental results.
The simulated values are close to reported thermal efficiencies of
� 87:5%. Xu et al. [85] also compares a receiver model to experimental
results of the MSEE [109], with predicted values close to the measure­
ments and results from Li et al. [58]. Yu et al. [81] cites a lack of
experimental data from the DAHAN receiver at the time of writing, with
model simulation results for steam parameters instead compared to
design values. The simulation results compare well to the design point,
however the authors cite the need for experimental data for a more
robust validation. Boerema et al. [56] compares their sodium receiver
model to the HOTREC model from Schiel & Geyer [18], which compares
well to experimental data from the IEA/SSPS high flux sodium receiver
tests. Simulations from the Ref. [56] model compares well to the
T. Conroy et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

HOTREC code in terms of sodium and tube temperatures, and thermal
efficiency. Sodium receiver models developed by Conroy et al. [61,66,
73-75] are validated using experimental measurements from the
IEA/SSPS high flux sodium receiver tests [17,18], and also temperature
profiles from HOTREC model [110]. As well as comparison to Solar Two
data, Frantz et al. [78] also compare their model to measured data from
the SOLUGAS gas receiver, with tube temperatures in good agreement.
Flesch et al. [83] compares calculations from the STRAL thermal model,
which is used for aiming strategy optimisation, to both Solar Two
thermal efficiency data and simulations from the more detailed ASTRID
model [78], with a deviation of less than 1%.
Few models described in literature are compared to more detailed
numerical solutions, however such comparisons can provide useful
insight into the merits of semi-empirical techniques where computa­
tional expense is traded against accuracy. An analysis by Rodríguez-
S�anchez et al. [57] compares three simplified heat transfer models of a
molten salt cylindrical receiver to more detailed, but computationally
expensive, CFD simulations in ANSYS Fluent. The most straightforward
model (standard model, SM) assumes an axial temperature variation
only, with uniform circumferential temperatures. The remaining models
offer a more detailed calculation of circumferentially varying wall
temperature (described in Ref. [68]); one assumes a homogeneous
temperature boundary condition (HTM), while the other assumes a
homogeneous heat flux boundary condition (HHFM). Both HTM and
HHFM rely on the same solution structure and tube discretisation pro­
cess, however their differences lie in the initial assumption of wall
surface condition. The analysis compares the simplified models to CFD
simulations for a single tube on a cylindrical receiver panel, investi­
gating variations in mass flow rate and environmental conditions for
sensitivity purposes. The three simplified models compare well in terms
of molten salt temperature evolution, however SM fails to capture the
circumferential temperature variation which is necessary for
mechanical design. The HTM and HHFM models offer practically iden­
tical results across all cases considered, and are quite accurate when
compared to the CFD simulation. The primary advantage of the
simplified semi-empirical models is a reduced computational expendi­
ture than CFD; the simplified models utilise � 1000� less calculation
elements, and takes 15 s to solve compared to 3 � 104 s. Such perfor­
mance benefits means a full receiver may be simulated in a relatively
quick manner, thus allowing for greater flexibility when it comes to
receiver design and optimisation studies.
5. Heliostat aiming strategies
The interaction between the receiver component and heliostat field is
critical for efficient and safe plant operation, as reflecting heliostats
control the incident heat flux boundary condition. The cumulative effect
of focussing heliostats on the receiver surface is an inhomogeneous heat
flux profile that could lead to inefficient performance and significant
thermal stresses at the location of peak heat fluxes and tube tempera­
tures. It has therefore been the pursuit of numerous authors to devise
heliostat aiming strategies that will homogenise the heat flux over the
receiver surface in order to maximise thermal performance and mitigate
mechanical reliability issues. Almost every aiming strategy design in
literature follows a procedure of focussing each heliostat in the field to a
discrete number of aiming points on the surface in order to flatten the
profile and lower peak heat fluxes. The means in which this is achieved
varies between strategies, with a brief description of these works pro­
vided in Table 4. An aiming strategy is referred to as ’closed-loop’ if the
model explicitly relies on the instantaneous receiver thermal and/or
mechanical response for regulation (via measurement or thermo­
mechanical simulations). Some authors do not reference the use of such
tools in their aiming strategy models, however it is important to note
that these may be configured to acknowledge such limits (such as

Table 4
Key details of various heliostat aiming strategies.
Reference Field design Receiver Optical model Optimisation approach Notes

García-Martín et al. CESA-1, equator- CESA-1 volumetric HELIOS Dynamic control Closed-loop, heliostat positions adjusted based on a
[114] facing air, flat feedback of receiver temperature measurements and pre-
defined limits
Salom�e et al. [115] THEMIS, equator- Flat HFLCAL TABU metaheuristic Minimises deviation between maximum and minimum heat
facing flux while respecting spillage limits
Belhomme et al. Equator-facing Flat, CPV receiver STRAL ray- Ant colony optimisation Closed-loop simulation, simplified CPV thermal model used
[116] tracer metaheuristic to modulate aiming strategy
Besarati et al. [117] Equator-facing Flat HFLCAL Genetic algorithm Can successfully minimise peak heat flux, spillage limited
metaheuristic by centralising peak flux in self-modifying algorithm
Yu et al. [118] DAHAN, equator- DAHAN, cavity Novel MCRT TABU metaheuristic Heliostats are grouped in order to minimise computational
facing method expense, employs a fixed spillage limit
Wang et al. [119] DAHAN, equator- DAHAN, cavity Novel MCRT Non-dominated sorting Multi-objective optimistation tools used to homogenise flux
facing method [120] genetic algorithm while minimising spillage
S�
anchez-Gonz�alez Surround Cylindrical Novel analytical Aiming factor Novel heat flux model presented, aiming factor method
and Santana [96]. model distributes images over the receiver based on an assumed
beam radius fraction [121]
Astolfi et al. [122] Gemasolar, Gemasolar, Gaussian curve Multiple optimisation tools Grouping heliostats according to field position and
surround cylindrical fit to DELSOL breaking into sub problems decreases computational
expense
S�
anchez-Gonz� alez Gemasolar, Cylindrical Model from Aiming factor Closed-loop simulation, allowable flux density data and
et al. [70] surround Ref. [96] thermal model used in optimisation procedure
Flesch et al. [84] Redstone, Cylindrical STRAL ray- Ant colony optimisation Closed-loop simulation, allowable flux density data and
surround tracer metaheuristic, Ref. [115] thermal model used in optimisation procedure
Conroy et al. [73] Vast Solar, Vast Solar, HFLCAL Simulated annealing Thermal and mechanical model used to model receiver
equator-facing billboard (flat) metaheuristic response under yielded heat flux profiles
Gallego et al. [123] CESA-1, equator- Flat HFLCAL, Multiple optimisation tools Computational expense is minimised by grouping heliostats
facing UNIZAR and solving multiple smaller problems
S�
anchez-Gonz� alez Shouhang Shouhang Model from Aiming factor Heliostat images alligned with receiver edge using assumed
et al. [124] Dunhuang, Dunhuang, Ref. [96] beam radius according to aiming factor
surround cylindrical
Collado and Guallar NOOR III (like), Cylindrical HFLCAL Model from Ref. [96] Heliostat images aligned with receiver edge using assumed
[125] surround beam radius according to aiming factor
Collado and Guallar NOOR III (like), Cylindrical HFLCAL Aiming factor, two New parameter increases homogeneity relative to method
[126] surround parameter from Refs. [96,121,126]

14
T. Conroy et al.
allowable flux density). A number of different optical modelling tech­
niques are employed in order to approximate radiative flux distributions
from heliostats for use in aiming strategies. Further detail on these op­
tical models (numerical ray tracing, analytical etc.) and theory can be
found in review articles by Garcia et al. [111], Bode & Gauch� e [112],
and Li et al. [113].
6. Mechanical modelling
Securing structural integrity across the desired life of the plant is a
major concern with solar receiver design. Solar receivers are designed
with an objective of maximising thermal power output, however an
additional thermal resistance between the concentrated sunlight and
heat transfer fluid, in the form of a tube wall, limits possible design
options and operational capabilities. Mechanical models are used to
investigate the durability of receiver designs through a period of service,
or to check whether stress/strain or heat flux limits are satisfied.
Receiver mechanical models typically rely on a thermal model to
calculate temperatures and wall heat flux conditions; there is therefore
some crossover between literature described in the present section and
in Section 4. Mechanical modelling literature is framed in this discussion
by approaches adopted (Section 6.1), and also key findings uncovered
by the various studies (Section 6.2).
6.1. Modelling approach and boundary conditions
The discussion of literature in this section is framed around the
different models used to calculate thermal and pressure induced stresses
on individual tubes (Section 6.1.1), and the methods in which me­
chanical reliability of the receiver through a period of service is un­
derstood (Section 6.1.2).
6.1.1. Thermal and pressure induced stress calculation
Due to the non-uniform thermal conditions persistent on solar
receiver tubes, it is common across mechanical investigations in litera­
ture to consider thermal stresses, while some analyses also include
components of pressure induced stress over a tube cross-section. At a
particular axial location, internal fluid pressures exert an equal hydro­
static force in all directions, meaning that pressure induced stresses vary
in the radial direction in order to satisfy the laws of equilibrium for
internal and external forces and moments. Theory for pressure induced
stresses over a tube wall is generally well agreed upon in literature with
regards to receiver mechanical modelling. The same level of agreement
is not apparent for thermal stress theory however, largely due to
differing assumptions of tube boundary conditions. Fig. 11 details the
normal stress components (σr ; σθ ; σ z ) acting on a receiver tube wall in
the presence of temperature ( Tsi ; Tso ) and pressure gradients (Pi ; Po )
over the inner and outer diameters (Di ; Do ).
When non-uniform heating conditions persist, the presence of a
temperature differential will result in differing thermal expansion con­
ditions that cannot be freely accommodated on a continuous body,
inducing thermal stresses. This is therefore a critical consideration in
receiver design as a non-uniform temperature profile prevails in the
axial, radial and circumferential directions due to the unique heat
transfer process across the tubes. Consideration of the temperature
gradient in the radial direction is the most critical, with the analysis by
Irfan & Chapman [127] demonstrating significantly larger stresses for a
radial temperature drop than for an equivalent temperature change over
the tube circumference. It is commonplace in recent literature to
represent the thermal stress state on irradiated tubes using analytical
thermoelastic stress equations presented by Timoshenko & Goodier
[128], Faupel & Fisher [129], and Young & Budynas [130] for example,
which only require the radial temperature gradient to compute stresses
at a particular wall location (σ ∝TðrÞ). These equations are referenced in
studies by Alzaharnah et al. [131], Yapici & Albayrak [132], Wang et al.
[133], Fork et al. [134], Wang et al. [135], Neises et al. [136], Flores
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 11. Schematic of a tube cross-section detailing pressure and temperature
components influencing mechanical stresses.
et al. [137], Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [68], Potter et al. [105], Nithya­
nandam & Pitchumani [138], Kim et al. [76], Sa �nchez-Gonza �lez et al.
[70], and Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [72]. Application of these theoretical
models is deemed suitable if the magnitude of the radial temperature
gradient (temperature difference across a heated wall) is significantly
larger than that of the circumferential profile [68].
However, for instances where receiver tubes are subjected to large
circumferentially inhomogeneous sunward-side heat fluxes, this may
not be the case as the rear of the tube is at a much lower temperature
than the crown, and more suitable theory need sought. Babcock &
Wilcox [139] develops simplified one-dimensional thermal stress theory
that assumes a cosine flux distribution over the front half of the tube,
reliant on the maximum temperature difference across the tube thick­
ness and depth. Similar theory is attributed to Young & Budynas [130],
and is applied in the thermomechanical investigations of Kistler [86],
Grossman et al. [87], Kolb [89], Liao et al. [60], and Luo et al. [90]. In
these studies, simplified thermal models (described in Section 4) are
used to establish inner and outer surface temperatures at the tube crown
from an assumed bulk fluid temperature, from which thermomechanical
stress and strain components may be established over the tube
cross-section and used to check for failure. A similar method of calcu­
lating thermal stresses for non-uniform circumferential temperatures is
presented in Faupel & Fisher [129], however it is limited for the
particular case of a thin-walled tube with a cosinusoidally varying
temperature around the wall circumference. Kim et al. [76] employs
equations from Hetnarski & Eslami [140] for a nonaxisymmetric tem­
perature distribution, accounting for the radial and circumferential
thermal profile (Tðr;θÞ). The case of thermal stresses on a tube subjected
to a combination of radial and circumferential temperature gradients is
presented by Goodier [141], and is applied in the analysis by Conroy
et al. [66]. The analysis requires the circumferential temperature vari­
ation to be represented by the average temperature and the first har­
monic of a Fourier series expression. The theoretical equations provided
are used to calculate thermal stresses caused by the radial temperature
difference across the tube thickness, and temperature profile around the
circumference separately, with results superimposed to solve for the full
thermal stress state over the wall cross-section (σ∝Tðr; θÞ).
Although not explicitly concerned with establishing the mechanical
reliability of receiver components, some important studies in literature
have investigated the relative merits of different thermal stress models.
Irfan & Chapman [127] compares analytical thermal stress equations
from Timoshenko & Goodier [128], Goodier [141], and Young &
Budynas [130], to finite element models for radiantly heated tubes
T. Conroy et al.
under differing boundary conditions, some comparable to those on
receiver tubes. The analytical models compare well to numerical simu­
lations for their respective boundary conditions. From a solar receiver
viewpoint, the analysis shows that thermal stresses are negligible for a
non-uniform axial temperature distribution, and both radial and
circumferential thermal gradients should be studied, as the combination
could potentially be a significant source of stress. Marug�an-Cruz et al.
[94] studies thermal stresses through a circumferentially non-uniformly
heated thin-walled tube, using a conjugate convection-conduction heat
transfer model that establishes tube temperatures under different Biot
number conditions. Thermal stress equations from Faupel & Fisher
[129] for a radial-only temperature drop (σ ∝TðrÞ) are compared to so­
lutions from Gatewood [142], which accounts for combined radial and
circumferential temperature gradients (σ ∝Tðr;θÞ). Results of the analysis
indicates that the equations from Faupel & Fisher [129] are insufficient
when a non-uniform circumferential temperature profile persists, and
that thermoelastic stress equations involving multi-dimensional thermal
gradients should be employed if Bi < 10. More recently, Logie et al. [92]
conducted a comparative analysis between simplified one-dimensional
thermal stress calculations of Babcock & Wilcox [139] to a synthesised
method compiling theory from different authors for thermal stresses
where the temperature varies around the wall and through the thick­
ness, subsequently employed by Conroy et al. [73,74]. Contributions
from Refs. [128,141,143,144]) [140] are unified in the development
new analytical thermoelastic stress equations specific to the thermal
boundary conditions encountered on receiver tubes, with thermal stress
components at a particular wall position a function of the radial and
circumferential temperature profile (σ∝Tðr; θÞ). The simplified
one-dimensional method was deemed unsatisfactory when compared to
the more detailed synthesised approach, largely due to the omission of
the axial stress component. The authors place particular emphasis on
tube axial stress, a component which is often ignored in similar thermal
stress investigations.
6.1.2. Mechanical reliability estimation
As well as the thermal stress theory employed, literature concerned
with thermomechanical modelling of solar receiver tubes also varies in
terms of the approach used to evaluate receiver damage. Models pre­
sented by Pacheco et al. [88] and Flores et al. [137] investigate thermal
stress/strain under specified operational conditions, rather than explore
damage. Pacheco et al. [88] manipulates thermoelastic strain equations
to demonstrate the influence of heat flux, fluid temperature, and heat
transfer coefficient on strain at the crown. A simplified approach
adopted by Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [68], Sa�nchez-Gonza �lez et al. [70],
and Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [72] relates the effective thermal stress to
material ultimate tensile strength in order to determine resistance
against fatigue. A more detailed analysis of receiver reliability involves
the use of the linear damage rule found in the ASME Boiler & Pressure
Vessel Code: Section III - Subsection NH, earlier known as Code Case
N-47 [145], which accounts for the accumulative nature of fatigue cy­
cles and creep loads over the operational lifetime of the receiver. The
nature of CSP plant operation means that the receiver is exposed to large
fluctuations in tube temperature due to cloud passages and diurnal cy­
cles; the cumulative effect of such cyclic thermal events has the potential
to induce significant fatigue damage. Continuous operation of the
receiver over a plant lifetime means that tubes experience a prolonged
exposure to material stresses at high temperature, potentially facili­
tating mechanisms of creep deformation. A schematic of the variable
DNI resource is shown in Fig. 12..
Due to the erratic nature of thermal cycling and stress loads on high
temperature components, in particular solar receivers due to the vari­
ability in resource, the linear damage rule conveniently defines incon­
sistent fatigue cycles and creep loading conditions using more discrete
bands. A band for fatigue damage is described as a fatigue cycle type,
typically defined as a range of equivalent strain over a particular tem­
perature cycle, while a band for creep damage is described as a creep
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 12. Sample of DNI data, exhibiting the intermittent nature of the solar
resource [146].
loading condition, which incorporates a stress range at a certain tem­
perature. For each fatigue cycle type, the number of actual cycles the
component will experience is assigned, and the number of allowable
cycles is ascertained based on the equivalent strain magnitude, tem­
perature, and material; creep follows a similar structure. The fractional
damage for each band is then calculated for each fatigue cycle type and
creep loading condition by dividing the actual cycles/loads by the
allowable, with the linear damage rule then summing together the
contributions of all bands to arrive at a damage estimate [145]. Nar­
ayanan et al. [147] recommends using an interim solar receiver design
code from Berman et al. [148] to calculate creep-fatigue of a molten salt
receiver design, which is effectively a modified version of ASME B&PV
Code Case N-47. The interim standard from Ref. [148] aims reduce the
level of conservatism of Code Case N-47, which is ordinarily used to
design nuclear components to a large factor of safety [136]. Kistler [86]
and Grossman et al. [87] use rules of Code Case N-47 to investigate
mechanical damage on receiver tubes. In both of these studies, discrete
fatigue cycle types are used to represent the erratic thermal cycling
conditions experienced by the component over time, however the effects
of creep are ignored. Kistler [86] attributes this assumption to small
structural and pressure loads, while Grossman et al. [87] highlights the
short time periods spent at elevated temperature as reasoning to neglect
a creep damage evaluation. It is worth noting that the mechanical
models of Refs. [60,68,70,89,90] do not state the inclusion creep;
however in some instances allowable stresses are[89 based on material
limits corrected for long-term operation. An assumption of negligible
may be justified for low internal fluid pressures of molten salt receivers
(100 MPa), and also moderate fluid outlet temperatures (< 600∘ C)
coupled with low allowable heat fluxes (< 1 MW=m2 ) that curtail ma­
terial temperatures and stresses. Direct water/steam receivers operates
at considerably higher pressures (101 MPa), with larger wall thicknesses
required [89]; creep may therefore be worthy of investigation in such
cases.
More recent analyses by Fork et al. [134], Neises et al. [136],
Nithyanandam & Pitchumani [138], and Kim et al. [76] consider the
mechanical reliability of next-generation receivers using high temper­
ature and pressure working fluids, such as air or sCO2 , which are pro­
posed to deliver higher outlet temperatures for Brayton power cycles
(> 650∘ C), often operating at very large internal pressures (� 25 MPa).
The consideration of creep damage as well as fatigue is therefore
considered necessary due to excursions to very high temperatures and
pressures. A slight modification to the rules of ASME B&PV Code: Sec­
tion III - Subsection NH are applied in the investigation by Fork et al.
[134], with the code also employed by Conroy et al. [66,73]. The US
T. Conroy et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

DOE SunShot initiative sets a safety requirement of 10; 000 design point
fatigue cycles, and 100; 000 hours for operation under design point
creep loads for next-generation receivers [138,149], with a number of
recent works following these criteria. Nithyanandam & Pitchumani
[138] evaluates damage based on measured creep-fatigue data for
design point creep loads and fatigue cycle equivalent strains. Neises
et al. [136] references the use of the method devised by Berman et al.
[148], again evaluating damage based on design point creep loads and
fatigue cycle strains. Conroy et al. [74,75] employs 10,000 design point
fatigue cycles and 100,000 creep hours as limiting criteria in the
development of an allowable flux density model for high temperature
sodium receivers.
The selection of thermal stress theory and approach adopted for
damage evaluation are crucial factors in estimating the structural
integrity of a tubular solar receiver design. The maximum thermal
stresses on receiver tubes are typically of the order 101 102 MPa, with
values varying according to the thermal loading conditions, operating
temperature, tube geometry and material, chosen stress model, bound­
ary conditions, and heat transfer fluid. With regards to thermal stresses,
models from Babcock & Wilcox [139] and Young & Budynas [130] are
one-dimensional in nature and do not consider the large axial stress
component, shown to be inaccurate by Logie et al. [92]. Deployment of
models from Timoshenko & Goodier [128] and Faupel & Fisher [129]
that account for radial-only temperature gradients are most likely

Table 5
Details of various receiver mechanical investigations.
Reference Receiver Material Thermal stress Analysis type Notes
model

Narayanen et al. Cavity, molten salt 304 SS, 316 SS, Multi-dimensional, Creep-fatigue Modified version of ASME B&PV Code Case N47 employed,
[147] Alloy 800H σ∝Tðr; θÞ, Ref. [151] damage estimate all materials satisfy creep and fatigue limits for specified
operational conditions
Kistler [86] Cylindrical, sodium 316 SS One-dimensional, Fatigue damage Negligible creep assumed, employs ASME B&PV Code Case
Refs. [139,151] estimate N47, failure resisted across a full service life, 2� design
point cycles recommended
Grossman et al. [87] Cavity, molten salt Alloy 800H One-dimensional, Fatigue damage Negligible creep assumed, employs ASME B&PV Code Case
σ∝TðrÞ, Ref. [139] estimate N47, relatively large damage reported for short term
operation
Pacheco et al. [88] Solar Two, molten 316SS One-dimensional, Tube strain Model presented for tube strain calculation at the crown
salt Ref. [130] calculation
Irfan & Chapman Radiantly heated – see Notes Thermal stress Analysis demonstrates the influence of the temperature
[127] tube investigation gradient components on thermal stresses on radiantly
heated tubes
Kolb [89] Solar Two, molten Alloy 800H, Inconel One-dimensional, Allowable flux Employs a similar method as Ref. [86] to establish material
salt alloy 625, Haynes Ref. [130] density and material flux and strain limits, Haynes 230 most suitable for higher
230 strain temperature excursions
Fork et al. [134] Air, high Inconel alloy 617 Multi-dimensional, Creep-fatigue Damage investigated using ASME B&PV Section III:
temperature σ∝TðrÞ, Ref. [129] damage estimate Subsection NH and measured creep-fatigue data, creep
more critical than fatigue
Flores et al. [137] Molten salt tube 316L Multi-dimensional, Thermal stress Temperature and thermal stress of different receiver tube
σ∝TðrÞ, Ref. [129] investigation configurations are investigated
Liao et al. [60] Solar Two, multiple Multiple material One-dimensional, Allowable flux Model presented for allowable flux density calculation,
fluids considered Ref. [130] density molten salt permits a considerably greater heat flux than
water/steam, Alloy 800H highest performing material
Neises et al. [136] sCO2 , high Haynes 230 Multi-dimensional, Creep-fatigue SunShot goals for creep and fatigue employed, interim
temperature and σ∝TðrÞ, Ref. [128] damage estimate code from Ref. [148], negligible fatigue damage,
pressure considerable creep contribution
Rodríguez-S� anchez Cylindrical, molten Alloy 800H Multi-dimensional, Fatigue damage Fatigue failure is confirmed if the effective stress as a
et al. [68] salt σ∝TðrÞ, Ref. [127] estimate fraction of the material ultimate tensile strength exceeds
50%
Luo et al. [90] Direct steam 304H, Alloy 800H One-dimensional, Allowable flux Follows on from the work from Refs. [60,89], allowable
receiver tubes Ref. [130] density flux based on fatigue, creep assumed negligible
Potter et al. [105] Cavity, sodium Haynes 230 Multi-dimensional Design optimisation Receiver and field geometry iterated, ASME material
σ∝TðrÞ[128], stresses used as the mechanical constraint
Marug�
an-Cruz et al. Radiantly heated – Multi-dimensional, Thermal stress Thermal stress theory from Ref. [129] (σ∝TðrÞ) deemed
[94] tube, various Pr Refs. [129,142] investigation appropriate for high Bi numbers only, distribution over full
fluids cross-section otherwise recommended (σ∝Tðr; θÞ)
Nithyanandam & sCO2 , high Haynes 230 Multi-dimensional, Creep-fatigue SunShot goals for creep and fatigue employed, interim
Pitchumani [138] temperature and σ∝TðrÞ, Ref. [128] damage estimate code from Ref. [148], parametric analysis optimises
pressure thermal and mechanical performance
Kim et al. [76] Molten salt, Haynes 230 Multi-dimensional, Design optimisation Receiver geometry iterated in order to satisfy thermal and
sodium, sCO2 tubes σ∝Tðr; θÞ Refs. [140] mechanical constraints
Conroy et al. [66] Billboard, sodium 304 SS, 316 SS, Multi-dimensional, Creep-fatigue Rules of ASME B&PV Section III: Subsection NH employed,
Alloy 800H σ∝Tðr; θÞ, Ref. [141] damage estimate parametric study optimises receiver design to achieve
lifelong mechanical reliability
Conroy et al. [73] Vast Solar, sodium 304 SS Multi-dimensional, Creep-fatigue Rules of ASME B&PV Section III: Subsection NH employed,
billboard σ∝Tðr; θÞ, Ref. [92] damage estimate mechanical investigation demonstrates importance of
aiming strategy in affecting mechanical durability
Logie et al. [92] Molten salt, sodium 316 SS Multi-dimensional, Thermal stress Investigates various thermal stress models in literature,
σ∝Tðr; θÞ, see Notes investigation composes a synthesised approach that considers the axial
component, lower thermal stresses with sodium tubes than
molten salt
Conroy et al. [74] Billboard, sodium 304 SS, 316 SS, Multi-dimensional, Allowable flux Allowable flux density model used to regulate incident
Alloy 800H, Inconel σ∝Tðr; θÞ, Ref. [92] density power on a variety of receiver designs, Ni-based
617, Haynes 230 superalloys necessary for high temperature excursions

17
T. Conroy et al.
unsuitable for highly non-uniform circumferential temperature profiles
encountered by receiver tubes subjected to large heat fluxes [94].
Studies by Irfan & Chapman [127], Marug� an-Cruz et al. [94] and Logie
et al. [92] provide some much needed clarification on thermal stress
models specific to solar receiver tube boundary conditions going for­
ward, and should be consulted in the development of a mechanical
analysis. There appears to be no agreed standard or method for evalu­
ating reliability upon investigation of the different mechanical models
found in literature, which can largely be attributed to the relative nov­
elty of the technology. Methodologies used to estimate damage vary in
conservatism depending on the design code applied, with some analyses
neglecting creep altogether, while more simplified models use a pass/­
fail criterion based on material stress/strain limits. Recent literature
indicates a trend towards use of the ASME B&PV Code [145] (or a
modified version thereof, according to Ref. [148]) in order to provide a
comprehensive mechanical reliability prediction for high temperature
designs. Perhaps given the lack of agreement on the most appropriate
method to evaluate the mechanical reliability of a solar receiver, sub­
sequent analyses should involve thermal stress theory best suited to the
boundary conditions of a solar receiver tube [92]. Also, guidelines of a
well established industry standard such as the ASME B&PV Code should
be followed when possible (material qualified etc.), albeit considered
somewhat conservative for solar applications. Key details of various
mechanical modelling studies are summarised in Table 5.
6.2. Mechanical modelling studies
The following section details some important results and findings of
the mechanical models introduced in Section 6.1. The differing ap­
proaches adopted by the various authors means that the method by
which mechanical performance results are represented also differ, with
authors electing to demonstrate mechanical performance in a manner
using allowable stress, strain, or heat flux limits, or through a pass/fail
criterion determined using creep-fatigue damage.
6.2.1. Allowable stress/heat flux limits
Explorations of maximum allowable heat fluxes and stress/strain
limits on receiver tube materials are relatively common in literature,
with violation of these limits deemed unacceptable for safe operation of
the component across the desired plant lifetime. Kolb [89] applied the
cumulative fatigue damage rule [145] to investigate the allowable strain
range for Alloy 800H, Inconel 625, and Haynes 230 materials at high
temperatures, using material data from different sources. The allowable
strain range is defined as the maximum tolerated by the material in
order to resist failure for a combination of cycles, with strain magnitudes
and frequency devised by Kistler [86] used in the investigation. The
maximum allowable heat flux for a molten salt receiver design is then
derived based on calculated tube strains and the allowable strain range
for each material. The model relies on heat flux and fluid temperature
inputs, from which maximum wall temperatures and strain may be
calculated using simplified thermoelastic strain equations from
Ref. [130]. The model is also used to evaluate appropriate tube di­
ameters and wall thickness based on fluid pressures and salt induced
corrosion. Inconel 625 exhibits the lowest material strains of the three
candidates, however is only permitted for operation by the design code
to 565∘ C [145]. Haynes 230 has an acceptable strain range and is
capable of operation to 650∘ C. Alloy 800H has the lowest allowable
strain range of the candidates, marginally delivering on a 30 year
desired life for a maximum temperature of 600∘ C due to a larger wall
thickness required to cope with internal pressures and corrosion. Vari­
ations in tube diameter and panel number were explored for a cylin­
drical molten salt receiver design by Rodríguez-Sa �nchez et al. [68].
Alloy 800H is chosen for construction of the receiver tubes, as it has a
higher film temperature limit with molten salt than other candidate
alloys (650∘ C) [150]. Receiver fatigue failure is confirmed if the
maximum effective thermal stress value exceeds 40% of the material
18
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
ultimate tensile strength, however none of the designs investigated
violate this limit when using thermal stress theory from Young &
Budynas [130]. S� anchez-Gonz� alez et al. [70] again uses thermal stress
theory from Ref. [130] to investigate the allowable flux limits of Alloy
800H receiver tubes at different temperatures. The allowable flux limit
from a thermal stress standpoint is based on the ultimate tensile strength
of the material and temperature, with mechanical results combined with
those of a molten salt corrosion study to generate a database for
consultation of an aiming strategy. Maximum allowable heat fluxes
remain relatively stable between 0:8 1:0 MW=m2 across the receivers
operational temperature range of 290 565∘ C for thermal stresses,
however a strong dependence on corrosion with temperature and mass
flow rate significantly lowers the heat flux limit to 0:3 0:4 MW=m2
with salt temperature evolution. Liao et al. [60] evaluates the perfor­
mance differences between molten salt and water/steam working fluids
for a number of tube materials in terms of allowable heat flux density at
design point conditions (290 565∘ C). The method in determining the
maximum allowable heat flux is similar to that of Kolb [89], relating
calculated strain at the crown to material fatigue data. The results of the
analysis compared well with peak heat flux data for Solar Two, with a
316 Stainless Steel tube carrying molten salt allowing 0:88 MW=m2 ,
Alloy 800H permits 1:0 MW=m2 , while the allowable heat flux for
water/steam working fluids are less than 0:4 MW=m2 regardless of
material. Small diameter, thin walled tubes of a high strength material
are recommended for receiver construction to maximise the allowable
heat flux. Luo et al. [90] employs a similar model to that of [60] to
investigate the allowable flux density of direct steam receiver con­
structed of 304 Stainless Steel (superheater) and Alloy 800H (boiler),
demonstrating the role of steam pressure, velocity, and tube diameter.
Potter et al. [105] employs allowable stress limits for Haynes 230 from
ASME B&PV Code: Section II, Part D, in a study that optimises the ge­
ometry of a sodium cavity receiver and heliostat field. Kim et al. [76]
employs allowable stress limits for Haynes 230 from ASME B&PV Code:
Section II, Part D in a mechanical model that considers heat flux con­
ditions over tubular receivers carrying molten salt, liquid sodium, and
sC02 . The analysis demonstrates the variation in allowable heat flux
with bulk temperature development in the receiver, with different
inlet-outlet temperature combinations considered. Conroy et al. [74,75]
integrates the allowable flux density tool with an aiming strategy model
to regulate incident heat flux and power levels on a variety of sodium
receiver designs. Ni-based superalloys Inconel 617 and Haynes 230
demonstrate far greater allowable heat fluxes across the temperature
range of interest (inlet-outlet) than more conventional alloys, namely;
304 Stainless Steel, 316 Stainless Steel, and Alloy 800H. The Ni-based
superalloys therefore facilitate much higher incident heat fluxes and
power levels when operating at high temperatures, allowing for superior
power output.
6.2.2. Creep-fatigue damage
Different investigations uncover the mechanical reliability of solar
receivers using design codes, such as ASME B&PV Code Section III:
Subsection NH [145], modifications to Code Case N-47, and the interim
design code from Berman et al. [148]. Narayanan et al. [147] in­
vestigates the creep-fatigue resistance of molten salt cavity receiver
tubes, constructed of 304 and 316 Stainless Steels, and Alloy 800H
materials on different panels. The analysis assumes 11; 000 diurnal and
19; 000 cloud cycles of the same severity over a 30 year plant lifetime,
and 100; 000 hours total operational time at design point. The analysis
predicts that all panels on the receiver will survive a lifetime of service,
however the linear damage rule indicates that the 304 Stainless Steel
panels are the most susceptible to damage, followed by 316 Stainless
Steel, while Alloy 800H has the greatest resistance to creep-fatigue.
Kistler [86] reduces real weather data into thermal cycle definitions in
order to assess the fatigue life of a cylindrical liquid sodium receiver
undergoing cloud and diurnal events, using rules of Code Case N-47
T. Conroy et al.
(minus creep), and theory from Ref. [139] (inlelastic strain calculated
relating analytical model to Ref. [151]). Results show that only 1= 3rd of
the allowable fatigue damage is used up through the life of the receiver,
when using a 316 Stainless Steel construction and maximum tempera­
tures of 590∘ C. Based on these findings, the authors recommend
designing the receiver component by multiplying the maximum number
of design point fatigue cycles by two. A similar methodology is
employed by Grossman et al. [87] to investigate damage of a
scaled-down molten salt receiver constructed of Alloy 800H tubes,
operated over 264 hr at SNL to maximum temperatures of 566∘ C. The
authors describe the use of the rain-flow counting algorithm used to
reduce solar insolation data into thermal cycle definitions for use in the
mechanical damage estimation, applying rules of Code Case N-47, again
ignoring the effects of creep. Using the linear damage rule, a cumulative
fatigue damage fraction that amounts to 37:5% of the allowable thermal
fatigue cycles (of all types) before failure was estimated. This level of
damage is significant given the relatively short operational time of the
component, and is largely attributed to poor heat flux homogeneity on
the receiver.
The creep-fatigue life of a pressurised-air solar receiver with Alloy
617 tubes is modelled by Fork et al. [134] through two methods: (1)
through rules of the ASME B&PV Code Section III: Subsection NH [145],
and (2) using measured creep and fatigue data. The authors model the
mechanical response of a receiver tube under conditions described as
steady, which is similar to fossil fuel powered operation, sunny, which
accounts for diurnal events only, and cloudy, which models both diurnal
and cloud cycles. Fatigue damage is not a significant factor for steady
operation, which was found to be less damaging than all sunny and
cloudy simulations. In almost all sunny and cloudy cases simulated,
fatigue damage was also found negligible in comparison to creep. A
significant finding from the analysis is that large variations exist be­
tween both prediction methods, particularly for creep damage evalua­
tion, with the ASME B&PV method deemed more conservative. An
investigation into the creep-fatigue damage of high pressure ð25 MPaÞ,
high temperature sCO2 receiver constructed of Haynes 230 alloy is
completed by Neises et al. [136]. Tube temperatures are established
using a commercial thermodynamic solver, operating to maximum fluid
temperatures of 650∘ C. The mechanical analysis is conducted using
simplified design rules of Code Case N-47 from Ref. [148], with 10; 000
design point fatigue cycles, and 100; 000 design point creep hours
considered. Thermal stresses are calculated using theory for a radial
gradient only from Ref. [128]; this is deemed appropriate given the
analysis assumes a uniform circumferential heat flux. The thermo­
mechanical model is also used to identify the maximum allowable heat
flux along the tube axis based on fluid temperature, wall thickness, and
internal pressure, with heat fluxes of � 0:6 MW=m2 permitted for lower
fluid temperatures of 470∘ C, decreasing to � 0:1 MW=m2 for 650∘ C.
Results show that the high temperatures and pressures drive significant
creep damage, but negligible fatigue, for the failure criteria considered.
The authors acknowledge that the assumption of uniform circumferen­
tial wall temperatures could lead to an under-estimation of damage.
A creep-fatigue analysis of asC02 receiver tube constructed of Haynes
230 is conducted by Nithyanandam & Pitchumani [138] for high pres­
sure ð� 25 MPaÞ and high temperature ð> 650∘ CÞ operation. A numer­
ical model is used to establish the coupled flow-thermal conditions
inside the tube, with the established temperature profile and internal
fluid pressure used in the mechanical investigation. Creep and fatigue
damage is established using empirical material data, with 10; 000 design
point fatigue cycles, and 100; 000 operational hours at design point
temperatures for creep set as a criteria for mechanical reliability. A
parametric analysis is conducted by varying tube diameter, wall thick­
ness, mass flow rate, and irradiance, revealing optimised design and
operational conditions that will maximise thermal efficiency, while
retaining mechanical integrity. In an investigation into creep-fatigue
damage on sodium-cooled receiver designs, Conroy et al. [66] reduces
19
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
real weather data into cloud/diurnal cycle types and frequency, and also
time periods spent at a particular DNI level using the rain-flow counting
technique. Alloy 800H exhibits greater resistance to creep-fatigue
damage than both 304 and 316 Stainless Steel grades, with the anal­
ysis demonstrating a strong dependency on tube diameter selection and
heat flux concentration on reliability. The large CAPEX of Alloy 800H is
detrimental to its economic competitiveness when compared to the
more conventional stainless steels, with both 304 and 316 grades per­
forming reasonably well given their moderate cost. Similar to the in­
vestigations above, creep is found to be more critical than fatigue due to
the large temperatures and heat fluxes (driving stress) encountered on
receiver cooled by liquid metals. Conroy et al. [73] adopts a similar
approach, investigating the creep-fatigue reliability of a single billboard
receiver design constructed of 304 Stainless Steel when subjected to a
variety of non-uniform heat flux distributions from an aiming strategy.
The analysis demonstrates the significance of parameters such as
spillage constraint and aiming point distribution in ensuring life-long
durability.
7. Conclusions
The prominence of liquid tubular receiver designs in CSP tower
systems is clear, despite the emergence of more novel gaseous and
particle based concepts in recent years. This is evidenced by their
overwhelming deployment in small and commercial-scale tower pro­
jects, and the significant number of modelling efforts devoted to
uncovering the thermal performance and mechanical durability of these
systems. Thermal and mechanical models have proven to be useful tools
at the design stage of the receiver, where multiple designs, working
media, materials, and operational scenarios are considered. This review
article offers a discussion on semi-empirical and analytical techniques
used for thermal and mechanical modelling of tubular solar receivers.
Numerical methods are largely beyond the scope of the present work,
however a comprehensive review of these techniques would also be of
benefit to the CSP community.
7.1. Thermal modelling
Simplified two-dimensional heat transfer models are suitable for
obtaining a thermal profile of the tube cross-section given specified
operational conditions. Such analytical models can be useful for general
mechanical reliability studies, however these are of little use in estab­
lishing an accurate thermal profile for the receiver component, with
three-dimensional semi-empirical models (radial, circumferential, axial)
instead required to solve energy and mass balances based on the incident
heat flux profile. These models can resolve temperatures and heat losses
across the full component in conjunction with a realistic heat flux map,
thus accounting for complex interactions between the receiver and he­
liostat field, and providing more accurate flow rate and thermal effi­
ciency calculations. The semi-empirical model can be simplified by
modelling heat transfer on a single tube using an idealised heat flux
profile, significantly diminishing the computational requirement at the
expense of full component accuracy. The flexibility and relatively
inexpensive computational requirements facilitated through the semi-
empirical method has elevated these models to the methods-of-choice
in recent literature, with an increasing number of authors offering
different approaches and investigations. It is expected that these
methods will continue to grow in popularity in line with the increasing
deployment of tubular concepts, and will play an important role in the
design and analysis of future designs.
7.2. Mechanical modelling
Mechanical reliability studies usually incorporate analytical theory
for thermal and pressure induced stresses, in conjunction with a design
standard or material data. Literature suggests that the selection of
T. Conroy et al.
thermal stress theory is somewhat contentious, with model preference
dependent on assumptions related to the tube thermal profile. Thermal
stress models presented for solar receiver tubes often account for stresses
due to temperature drops across the wall only (radial gradient), with
others also including the contribution of the non-uniform circumferen­
tial profile. Studies explicitly concerned with the selection of thermal
stress theory have signalled limitations with various approaches, and
should be consulted in the development of future mechanical models.
There are also numerous means of establishing component reliability,
such as investigating creep-fatigue through anticipated periods of ser­
vice, or by identifying maximum allowable heat flux and stress/strain
limits. Recently, investigations into creep-fatigue damage indicate a
significant contribution from creep, in particular for tubes subjected to
large temperatures and pressures, however authors concerned with
more conventional receiver designs and working fluids generally elect to
model fatigue damage alone. Large levels of conservatism associated
with design codes warrants the development of a code more specific to
solar receiver boundary conditions in order to avoid overly-safe designs.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
[1] IRENA. Renewable energy cost analysis: concentrated solar power. IRENA; 2012.
[2] OECD/IEA. Technology roadmap: solar thermal electricity. IEA Publishing; 2014.
Licence: https://www.iea.org/t_c/.
[3] ESTELA, International G, SolarPACES. Solar thermal electricity: global outlook
2016. Jointly prepared by European solar thermal electricity association
(ESTELA). Greenpeace International and SolarPACES; 2016.
[4] SolarPACES CSP. Projects around the world. 2019. https://www.solarpaces.or
g/csp-technologies/csp-projects-around-the-world/. [Accessed 23 September
2019].
[5] Turchi CS, Ma Z, Neises TW, Wagner MJ. Thermodynamic study of advanced
supercritical carbon dioxide power cycles for concentrating solar power systems.
J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135(4):041007.
[6] NREL. Concentrating solar power projects. 2019. https://www.nrel.gov/csp/sol
arpaces/index.cfm. [Accessed 1 August 2019].
[7] Ho CK. Advances in central receivers for concentrating solar applications. Sol
Energy 2017;152:38–56.
[8] Ho CK, Iverson BD. Review of high-temperature central receiver designs for
concentrating solar power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:835–46.
[9] Tan T, Chen Y. Review of study on solid particle solar receivers. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2010;14(1):265–76.
[10] Avila-Marin AL. Volumetric receivers in solar thermal power plants with central
receiver system technology: a review. Sol Energy 2011;85(5):891–910.
[11] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A review of studies on central receiver solar
thermal power plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:12–39.
[12] Ho CK. A review of high-temperature particle receivers for concentrating solar
power. Appl Therm Eng 2016;109:958–69.
[13] Lovegrove K, Stein W. Concentrating solar power technology: principles,
developments and applications. Elsevier; 2012.
[14] Boerema N, Morrison G, Taylor R, Rosengarten G. Liquid sodium versus Hitec as a
heat transfer fluid in solar thermal central receiver systems. Sol Energy 2012;86
(9):2293–305.
[15] Gretz J. Concept and operating experiences with Eurelios 1 MW helioelectric
power plant of the European Communities. IEE Proc A (Phys Sci Meas Inst
Manage Edu Rev) 1987;134(5):399–406.
[16] Falcone PK. A handbook for solar central receiver design. Report No. SAND-86-
8009. Sandia National Laboratories; 1986.
[17] Kesselring P, Selvage CSE. The IEA, SSPS solar thermal power plants central
receiver system, vol. 1. Berlin.: Springer; 1986.
[18] Schiel WJ, Geyer MA. Testing an external sodium receiver up to heat fluxes of 2.5
MW/m2: results and conclusions from the IEA-SSPS high flux experiment
conducted at the central receiver system of the Plataforma Solar de Almeria
(Spain). Sol Energy 1988;41(3):255–65.
[19] Castro M, Peire J, Martinez P. Five-year CESA-I simulation program review. Sol
Energy 1987;38(6):415–24.
[20] B€
oer KW. Advances in solar energy: an annual review of research and
development, vol. 6. Springer Science & Business Media; 1990.
[21] Tyner CE, Sutherland JP, Gould WR, et al. Solar two: a molten salt power tower
demonstration. Department of Energy; 1995.
[22] Radosevich L. Final report on the power production phase of the 10 MWe solar
thermal central receiver pilot plant. Sandia national Laboratories. Report No.
SAND87-8022. 1988.
20
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
[23] Pacheco JE, Bradshaw R, Dawson D, De la Rosa W, Gilbert R, Goods S, et al. Final
test and evaluation results from the Solar Two project. Report No. SAND2002-
0120. Sandia National Laboratories; 2002.
[24] BrightSource. SEDC. 2015. http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/sedc. [Accessed
26 July 2018].
[25] Koll G. The solar tower Julich-a research and demonstration plant for central
receiver systems. In: 15th bienial SolarPACES symposium; 2009. Berlin, Germany,
2009.
[26] NREL. Concentrating solar power projects - ACME solar tower. 2014. https://
www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID¼262. [Accessed 26
July 2018].
[27] BrightSource. Coalinga - chevron/BrightSource solar-to-steam demonstration
facility. 2015. http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/coalinga. [Accessed 26 July
2018].
[28] Yu Q, Wang Z, Xu E, Zhang H, Lu Z, Wei X. Modeling and simulation of 1 MWe
solar tower plant’s solar flux distribution on the central cavity receiver. Simul
Model Pract Theory 2012;29:123–36.
[29] Li Z, Li X, Zhang Q, Wang Z, Liao Z, Chang C. Badaling 1MWt molten salt tower
power plant. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol. 1850. AIP Publishing; 2017.
p. 030033.
[30] Aalborg CSP. 36.6MWth integrated energy system based on CSP. 2015. Australia,
https://www.aalborgcsp.com/projects/366mwth-integrated-energy-system-base
d-on-csp-australia/. [Accessed 20 January 2018].
[31] Vast solar. Projects. 2018. http://www.vastsolar.com/projects/. [Accessed 20
May 2018].
[32] Pavlovi�c TM, Radonji�c IS, Milosavljevi�c DD, Panti�c LS. A review of concentrating
solar power plants in the world and their potential use in Serbia. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2012;16(6):3891–902.
[33] Burgaleta JI, Arias S, Ramirez D. Gemasolar, the first tower thermosolar
commercial plant with molten salt storage. Granada, Spain: SolarPACES; 2011.
p. 20–3.
[34] Torresol Energy. Gemasolar. 2017. http://torresolenergy.com/en/gemasolar/.
[Accessed 1 August 2018].
[35] SolarReserve. Crescent Dunes. 2018. http://www.solarreserve.com/en/globa
l-projects/csp/crescent-dunes. [Accessed 26 July 2018].
[36] Abengoa solar. Solar plants - South Africa. 2014. http://www.abengoasolar.com/
web/en/plantas_solares/plantas_propias/sudafrica/seccion_2. [Accessed 17
January 2018].
[37] SolarPACES Morocco’s. Noor III solar tower CSP to deliver power by october.
2018. http://www.solarpaces.org/moroccos-noor-iii-solar-tower-csp-deliver-pow
er-october/. [Accessed 20 August 2018].
[38] SolarPACES. China. Connects Luneng, its 5th CSP project in climate push. 2019.
https://www.solarpaces.org/china-connects-its-5th-csp-project-in-climate-push/.
[Accessed 23 September 2019].
[39] Helio CSP. Power China Gonghe 50 MW molten salt tower concentrated solar
power project successfully connected to the grid. 2019. http://helioscsp.com/po
wer-china-gonghe-50-mw-molten-salt-tower-concentrated-solar-power-project-s
uccessfully-connected-to-the-grid/. [Accessed 23 September 2019].
[40] Wikipedia. PS20 solar power plant. 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS20_so
lar_power_plant. [Accessed 28 July 2018].
[41] SolarPACES USA. CSP project development. 2017. http://www.solarpaces.
org/csp-technologies/csp-potential-solar-thermal-energy-by-member-nation/usa
/. [Accessed 8 January 2018].
[42] Wikipedia Khi. Solar one. 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khi_Solar_One.
[Accessed 8 January 2018].
[43] SolarPACES Power. China awards EPC bid to SUPCON for 50 MW tower CSP.
2017. http://www.solarpaces.org/power-china-awards-epc-bid-supcon-50-mw-t
ower-csp/. [Accessed 20 June 2018].
[44] CSP Focus. Site visit to China Shouhang Dunhuang 10þ100MW CSP tower
project. 2017. http://www.solarpaces.org/power-china-awards-epc-bid-supc
on-50-mw-tower-csp/. [Accessed 20 June 2018].
[45] Wikipedia. Ashalim Plot B; 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashalim_Powe
r_Station [accessed: 29 July 2019]..
[46] Vast solar. Projects. 2019. http://www.vastsolar.com/projects/. [Accessed 20
April 2019].
[47] Cerro Dominador. Cerro dominador project. 2019. https://cerrodominador.co
m/?lang¼en. [Accessed 11 August 2019].
[48] Solar reserve. Copiap� o. 2018. https://www.solarreserve.com/en/global-projects
/csp/copiapo. [Accessed 20 August 2018].
[49] Solar reserve. Likana. 2018. https://www.solarreserve.com/en/global-projects/c
sp/likana. [Accessed 20 August 2018].
[50] Solar reserve. Tamarugal; 2018. https://www.solarreserve.com/en/global-pro
jects/csp/tamarugal. [Accessed 20 August 2018].
[51] NREL. Concentrating solar power projects in China. 2019. https://solarpaces.nre
l.gov/by-country/CN. [Accessed 11 August 2019].
[52] CSP Focus. Hami 50 MW CSP project. 2019. http://www.cspfocus.cn/en/study/
detail_66.htm. [Accessed 24 September 2019].
[53] NREL. Concentrating solar power projects - MINOS. 2017. https://www.nrel.gov/
csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID¼8315. [Accessed 28 July 2018].
[54] Solar reserve. Redstone. 2018. https://www.solarreserve.com/en/global-proje
cts/csp/redstone. [Accessed 20 August 2018].
[55] NREL. Concentrating solar power projects - DEWA CSP tower project. 2019.
https://solarpaces.nrel.gov/dewa-csp-tower-project. [Accessed 10 August 2019].
[56] Boerema N, Morrison G, Taylor R, Rosengarten G. High temperature solar thermal
central-receiver billboard design. Sol Energy 2013;97:356–68.
T. Conroy et al.
[57] Rodríguez-S� anchez MR, Marugan-Cruz C, Acosta-Iborra A, Santana D.
Comparison of simplified heat transfer models and CFD simulations for molten
salt external receiver. Appl Therm Eng 2014;73(1):993–1005.
[58] Li X, Kong W, Wang Z, Chang C, Bai F. Thermal model and thermodynamic
performance of molten salt cavity receiver. Renew Energy 2010;35(5):981–8.
[59] Vignarooban K, Xu X, Arvay A, Hsu K, Kannan A. Heat transfer fluids for
concentrating solar power systems–a review. Appl Energy 2015;146:383–96.
[60] Liao Z, Li X, Xu C, Chang C, Wang Z. Allowable flux density on a solar central
receiver. Renew Energy 2014;62:747–53.
[61] Conroy T, Collins MN, Fisher J, Grimes R. Thermohydraulic analysis of single
phase heat transfer fluids in CSP solar receivers. Renew Energy 2018;129:150–67.
[62] Pacio J, Wetzel T. Assessment of liquid metal technology status and research
paths for their use as efficient heat transfer fluids in solar central receiver systems.
Sol Energy 2013;93:11–22.
[63] Yang M, Yang X, Yang X, Ding J. Heat transfer enhancement and performance of
the molten salt receiver of a solar power tower. Appl Energy 2010;87(9):
2808–11.
[64] Mehos M, Turchi C, Vidal J, Wagner M, Ma Z, Ho C, et al. Concentrating solar
power Gen3 demonstration roadmap. Golden, CO (United States): National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2017.
[65] Rockwell International. Sodium solar receiver experiment – final report. Report
No. SAND82-8192. Sandia National Laboratories; 1983.
[66] Conroy T, Collins MN, Fisher J, Grimes R. Levelized cost of electricity evaluation
of liquid sodium receiver designs through a thermal performance, mechanical
reliability, and pressure drop analysis. Sol Energy 2018;166:472–85.
[67] Jianfeng L, Jing D, Jianping Y. Heat transfer performance of an external receiver
pipe under unilateral concentrated solar radiation. Sol Energy 2010;84(11):
1879–87.
[68] Rodríguez-S� anchez MR, Soria-Verdugo A, Almendros-Ib� an~ ez JA, Acosta-Iborra A,
Santana D. Thermal design guidelines of solar power towers. Appl Therm Eng
2014;63(1):428–38.
[69] Rodríguez-S� anchez M, S� anchez-Gonz� alez A, Marug� an-Cruz C, Santana D. New
designs of molten-salt tubular-receiver for solar power tower. Energy Procedia
2014;49:504–13.
[70] S�
anchez-Gonz� alez A, Rodríguez-S� anchez MR, Santana D. Aiming strategy model
based on allowable flux densities for molten salt central receivers. Sol Energy
2017;157:1130–44.
[71] Rodríguez-S� anchez M, Marug� an-Cruz C, Acosta-Iborra A, Santana D. Thermo-
mechanical modelling of solar central receivers: effect of incident solar flux
resolution. Sol Energy 2018;165:43–54.
[72] Rodríguez-S� anchez M, S� anchez-Gonz� alez A, Santana D. Feasibility study of a new
concept of solar external receiver: variable velocity receiver. Appl Therm Eng
2018;128:335–44.
[73] Conroy T, Collins MN, Fisher J, Grimes R. Thermal and mechanical analysis of a
sodium-cooled solar receiver operating under a novel heliostat aiming point
strategy. Appl Energy 2018;230:590–614.
[74] Conroy T, Collins MN, Grimes R. Sodium receiver designs for integration with
high temperature power cycles. Energy 2019;187:115994.
[75] Conroy T, Collins MN, Grimes R. Integrated optical-thermal-mechanical model for
investigations into high temperature sodium receiver operation. Solar Energy
2019;194:765–851.
[76] Kim JS, Potter D, Gardner W, Too YCS, Padilla RV. Ideal heat transfer conditions
for tubular solar receivers with different design constraints. In: AIP conference
proceedings, vol. 1850. AIP Publishing; 2017, 030030.
[77] Fritsch A, Uhlig R, Marocco L, Frantz C, Flesch R, Hoffschmidt B. A comparison
between transient CFD and FEM simulations of solar central receiver tubes using
molten salt and liquid metals. Sol Energy 2017;155:259–66.
[78] Frantz C, Fritsch A, Uhlig R. ASTRID©–Advanced Solar Tubular ReceIver Design:
a powerful tool for receiver design and optimization. In: AIP conference
proceedings. AIP Publishing; 2017.
[79] Singer C, Buck R, Pitz-Paal R, Müller-Steinhagen H. Assessment of solar power
tower driven ultrasupercritical steam cycles applying tubular central receivers
with varied heat transfer media. J Sol Energy Eng 2010;132(4):041010.
[80] Wagner MJ, Klein SA, Reindl DT. Simulation of utility-scale central receiver
system power plants. In: ASME 2009 3rd international conference on energy
sustainability collocated with the heat transfer and InterPACK09 conferences.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection; 2010. p. 605–14.
[81] Yu Q, Wang Z, Xu E. Simulation and analysis of the central cavity receiver’s
performance of solar thermal power tower plant. Sol Energy 2011;86(1):164–74.
[82] Chang Z, Li X, Xu C, Chang C, Wang Z. Numerical simulation on the thermal
performance of a solar molten salt cavity receiver. Renew Energy 2014;69:
324–35.
[83] Pye J, Zheng M, Asselineau C, Coventry J. An exergy analysis of tubular solar-
thermal receivers with different working fluids. In: International conference on
concentrating solar power and chemical energy systems. Beijing: SolarPACES
2014); Sept; 2014. p. 16–9.
[84] Flesch R, Frantz C, Quinto DM, Schwarzb€ ozl P. Towards an optimal aiming for
molten salt power towers. Sol Energy 2017;155:1273–81.
[85] Xu C, Wang Z, Li X, Sun F. Energy and exergy analysis of solar power tower
plants. Appl Therm Eng 2011;31(17–18):3904–13.
[86] Kistler B. Fatigue analysis of a central receiver design using measured weather
data. Report No. SAND86-8017. Sandia National Laboratories; 1987.
[87] Grossman JW, Jones WB, Veers PS. Evaluation of thermal cycling creep-fatigue
damage for a molten salt receiver. Sandia National Laboratories; 1990.
[88] Pacheco JE, Ralph ME, Chavez JM, Dunkin SR, Rush EE, Ghanbari CM, et al.
Results of molten salt panel and component experiments for solar central
21
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
receivers: cold fill, freeze/thaw, thermal cycling and shock, and instrumentation
tests. Report No. SAND94-2525. Sandia National Laboratories; 1995.
[89] Kolb GJ. An evaluation of possible next-generation high-temperature molten-salt
power towers. Report No. SAND2011-9320. Sandia National Laboratories; 2011.
[90] Luo Y, Du X, Yang L, Xu C, Yang Y. Study on the allowable flux density for a solar
central dual-receiver. Energy Procedia 2015;69:138–47.
[91] Logie W, Asselineau CA, Pye J, Coventry J. Temperature and heat flux
distributions in sodium receiver tubes. In: Proceedings of the 2015 asia-pacific
solar research conference; 2015.
[92] Logie WR, Pye JD, Coventry J. Thermoelastic stress in concentrating solar
receiver tubes: a retrospect on stress analysis methodology, and comparison of
salt and sodium. Sol Energy 2018;160:368–79.
[93] G€artner D, Johannsen K, Ramm H. Turbulent heat transfer in a circular tube with
circumferentially varying thermal boundary conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf
1974;17(9):1003–18.
[94] Marug� an-Cruz C, Flores O, Santana D, García-Villalba M. Heat transfer and
thermal stresses in a circular tube with a non-uniform heat flux. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2016;96:256–66.
[95] Yu Q, Wang Z, Xu E, Li X, Guo M. Modeling and dynamic simulation of the
collector and receiver system of 1 MWe DAHAN solar thermal power tower plant.
Renew Energy 2011;43:18–29.
[96] S�anchez-Gonz� alez A, Santana D. Solar flux distribution on central receivers: a
projection method from analytic function. Renew Energy 2015;74:576–87.
[97] Stoddard M. Convective loss measurements at the 10 MWe solar thermal central
receiver pilot plant. Sandia national Laboratories. Report No. SAND85-8250.
1986.
[98] Ho CK, Mahoney AR, Ambrosini A, Bencomo M, Hall A, Lambert TN.
Characterization of Pyromark 2500 paint for high-temperature solar receivers.
J Sol Energy Eng 2014;136(1):014502.
[99] Coventry J, Burge P. Optical properties of Pyromark 2500 coatings of variable
thicknesses on a range of materials for concentrating solar thermal applications.
In: AIP conference proceedings, vol. 1850. AIP Publishing; 2017, 030012.
[100] Siebers DL. Experimental mixed convection heat transfer from a large, vertical
surface in a horizontal flow. CA (USA): Stanford University; 1983.
[101] Siebers D, Kraabel J. Estimating convective energy losses from solar central
receivers. Report No. SAND84-8717,. Sandia National Laboratories; 1984.
[102] Uhlig R, Frantz C, Fritsch A. Effects of vertically ribbed surface roughness on the
forced convective heat losses in central receiver systems. In: AIP conference
proceedings, vol. 1734. AIP Publishing; 2016, 030036.
[103] Clausing A. An analysis of convective losses from cavity solar central receivers.
Sol Energy 1981;27(4):295–300.
[104] Clausing A. Natural convection correlations for vertical surfaces including
influences of variable properties. J Heat Transf 1983;105(1):138–43.
[105] Potter D, Burton A, Kim JS. Optimised design of a 1 MWt liquid sodium central
receiver system. In: Proceedings of the 2015 asia-pacific solar research
conference; 2015.
[106] Pacio J, Singer C, Wetzel T, Uhlig R. Thermodynamic evaluation of liquid metals
as heat transfer fluids in concentrated solar power plants. Appl Therm Eng 2013;
60(1):295–302.
[107] Coventry J, Andraka C, Pye J, Blanco M, Fisher J. A review of sodium receiver
technologies for central receiver solar power plants. Sol Energy 2015;122:
749–62.
[108] Rodriguez-Sanchez M, Sanchez-Gonzalez A, Santana D. Revised receiver
efficiency of molten-salt power towers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:
1331–9.
[109] Bergan N. External molten salt solar central receiver test. Sol Eng 1987;1:474–8.
[110] Schiel W, Geyer M, Contreras R. The IEA/SSPS high flux experiment. 1987.
[111] Garcia P, Ferriere A, Bezian JJ. Codes for solar flux calculation dedicated to
central receiver system applications: a comparative review. Sol Energy 2008;82
(3):189–97.
[112] Bode SJ, Gauch� e P. Review of optical software for use in concentrating solar
power systems. In: Proceedings of South African solar energy conference; 2012.
[113] Li L, Coventry J, Bader R, Pye J, Lipi�nski W. Optics of solar central receiver
systems: a review. Opt Express 2016;24(14):A985–1007.
[114] García-Martín F, Berenguel M, Valverde A, Camacho E. Heuristic knowledge-
based heliostat field control for the optimization of the temperature distribution
in a volumetric receiver. Sol Energy 1999;66(5):355–69.
[115] Salom� e A, Chhel F, Flamant G, Ferriere A, Thiery F. Control of the flux
distribution on a solar tower receiver using an optimized aiming point strategy:
application to THEMIS solar tower. Sol Energy 2013;94:352–66.
[116] Belhomme B, Pitz-Paal R, Schwarzb€ ozl P. Optimization of heliostat aim point
selection for central receiver systems based on the ant colony optimization
metaheuristic. J Sol Energy Eng 2014;136(1):011005.
[117] Besarati SM, Goswami DY, Stefanakos EK. Optimal heliostat aiming strategy for
uniform distribution of heat flux on the receiver of a solar power tower plant.
Energy Convers Manag 2014;84:234–43.
[118] Yu Q, Wang Z, Xu E. Analysis and improvement of solar flux distribution inside a
cavity receiver based on multi-focal points of heliostat field. Appl Energy 2014;
136:417–30.
[119] Wang K, He YL, Xue XD, Du BC. Multi-objective optimization of the aiming
strategy for the solar power tower with a cavity receiver by using the non-
dominated sorting genetic algorithm. Appl Energy 2017;205:399–416.
[120] Wang K, He YL, Qiu Y, Zhang Y. A novel integrated simulation approach couples
MCRT and Gebhart methods to simulate solar radiation transfer in a solar power
tower system with a cavity receiver. Renew Energy 2016;89:93–107.
T. Conroy et al.
[121] Vant-Hull LL. The role of ”Allowable flux density” in the design and operation of
molten-salt solar central receivers. J Sol Energy Eng 2002;124(2):165–9.
[122] Astolfi M, Binotti M, Mazzola S, Zanellato L, Manzolini G. Heliostat aiming point
optimization for external tower receiver. Sol Energy 2017;157:1114–29.
[123] Gallego A, Camacho E. On the optimization of flux distribution with flat receivers:
a distributed approach. Sol Energy 2018;160:117–29.
[124] S�anchez-Gonz� alez A, Rodríguez-S� anchez MR, Santana D. Aiming factor to flatten
the flux distribution on cylindrical receivers. Energy 2018;153:113–25.
[125] Collado FJ, Guallar J. Fast and reliable flux map on cylindrical receivers. Solar
Energy 2018;169:556–64.
[126] Collado FJ, Guallar J. A two-parameter aiming strategy to reduce and flatten the
flux map in solar power tower plants. Sol Energy 2019;188:185–9.
[127] Irfan MA, Chapman W. Thermal stresses in radiant tubes due to axial,
circumferential and radial temperature distributions. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29
(10):1913–20.
[128] Timoshenko S, Goodier J. Theory of elasticity. McGraw-Hill book Company;
1951.
[129] Faupel JH, Fisher FE. Engineering design: a synthesis of stress analysis and
materials engineering. Wiley; 1981.
[130] Young WC, Budynas RG. Roark’s formulas for stress and strain, vol. 7. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 2002.
[131] Alzaharnah I, Hashmi M, Yilbas B. Thermal stresses in thick-walled pipes
subjected to fully developed laminar flow. J Mater Process Technol 2001;118(1):
50–7.
[132] Yapici H, Albayrak B. Numerical solutions of conjugate heat transfer and thermal
stresses in a circular pipe externally heated with non-uniform heat flux. Energy
Convers Manag 2004;45(6):927–37.
[133] Wang F, Shuai Y, Yuan Y, Yang G, Tan H. Thermal stress analysis of eccentric tube
receiver using concentrated solar radiation. Sol Energy 2010;84(10):1809–15.
[134] Fork DK, Fitch J, Ziaei S, Jetter RI. Life estimation of pressurized-air solar-thermal
receiver tubes. J Sol Energy Eng 2012;134(4):041016.
[135] Wang F, Shuai Y, Yuan Y, Liu B. Effects of material selection on the thermal
stresses of tube receiver under concentrated solar irradiation. Mater Des 2012;33:
284–91.
[136] Neises TW, Wagner MJ, Gray AK. Structural design considerations for tubular
power tower receivers operating at 650∘ C. In: ASME 2014 8th international
22
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
conference on energy sustainability collocated with the ASME 2014 12th
international conference on fuel cell science, engineering and technology.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2014. V001T02A045–V001T02A045.
[137] Flores O, Marug� an-Cruz C, Santana D, García-Villalba M. Thermal stresses
analysis of a circular tube in a central receiver. Energy Procedia 2014;49:354–62.
[138] Nithyanandam K, Pitchumani R. Thermal and structural investigation of tubular
supercritical carbon dioxide power tower receivers. Sol Energy 2016;135:374–85.
[139] Babcock & Wilcox Company. Molten salt receiver subsystem research experiment,
phase I - final report. Sandia National Laboratories, Report No. SAND82-8178.
1984.
[140] Hetnarski RB, Eslami MR, Gladwell G. Thermal stresses: advanced theory and
applications, vol. 41. Springer; 2009.
[141] Goodier J. Thermal stress and deformation. J Appl Mech 1957;24(3):467–71.
[142] Gatewood BE. XXIII. Thermal stresses in long cylindrical bodies. London,
Edinburgh Dublin Philos Mag J Sci 1941;32(213):282–301.
[143] Boley BA, Weiner JH. Theory of thermal stresses. New York: Wiley; 1960.
[144] Bijlaard PP, Dohrmann R, Duke J. Thermal stress analysis of nonuniformly heated
cylindrical shell and its application to a steam generator membrane wall. J Eng
Power 1968;90(1):73–81.
[145] ASME. ASME boiler & pressure Vessel code: section III - subsection NH, class 1
components in elevated temperature service. Fairfield, NJ: The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers; 2007.
[146] Bureau of Meteorology. One minute solar data. 2015. http://www.bom.gov.au/
climate/data/oneminsolar/about-IDCJAC0022.shtml. [Accessed 16 June 2015].
[147] Narayanan T, Carli G, Rao M. Structural design and life assessment of a molten
salt solar receiver. Am Soc Mech Eng 1984;84. CONF-840647-.
[148] Berman I, Gangadharan A, Gupta G, Narayanan T. An interim structural design
standard for solar energy applications. Report No. SAND79-8183. Sandia National
Laboratories; 1979.
[149] SunShot. Energy efficiency and renewable energy. SunShot vision study. February
2012. NREL Report No. BK5200-47927; DOE/GO-102012-3037. U.S. Department
of Energy; 2012.
[150] Bradshaw R, Goods S. Corrosion of alloys and metals by molten nitrates. Report
No. SAND2000-8727. Sandia National Laboratories; 2001.
[151] Rao M, Narayanan T, Gupta G. Inelastic analysis of nonaxisymmetrically heated
thick cylindrical shells. J Press Vessel Technol 1979;101(3):235–41.