International Journal of Ambient Energy

ISSN: 0143-0750 (Print) 2162-8246 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taen20

Design of tracking system for helical-coiled

receiver tube of parabolic trough collector

G. Mageshwaran, S. Ramachandran, K. Gobinath & R. B. DuraiRaj

To cite this article: G. Mageshwaran, S. Ramachandran, K. Gobinath & R. B. DuraiRaj (2016):

Design of tracking system for helical-coiled receiver tube of parabolic trough collector, International
Journal of Ambient Energy, DOI: 10.1080/01430750.2016.1230782

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2016.1230782

Accepted author version posted online: 30

Aug 2016.
Published online: 14 Sep 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=taen20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 03 May 2017, At: 06:57
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2016.1230782

Design of tracking system for helical-coiled receiver tube of parabolic

trough collector
G. Mageshwaran, S. Ramachandran, K. Gobinath and R. B. DuraiRaj
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sathyabama University, Chennai, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In the present work a suitable tracking system is designed for helical-coiled receiver tube. In our previ- Received 30 July 2016
ous work solar receiver geometry was varied from straight tube to helical tube and it was found that this Accepted 26 August 2016
replacement provided uniform circumferential temperature distribution and hence improved thermal sta- KEYWORDS
bility, whereas the helical geometry decreases the concentration ratio which in turn decreases efficiency. Tracking system; solar
To increase the efficiency solar tracking is provided. The amount of irradiation intercepted is directly pro- collection efficiency;
portional to the tilt factor Rb , which depends on the incident angle. The tilt factor increases with cos θ and helical-coiled receiver tube
reaches the maximum when θ is 0. A two-axis tracking system provides promising results where the inci-
dent angle is always zero but it is costlier. To keep the operation and initial cost economical a single-axis
tracking system with ‘A plane is rotated about north–south axis horizontally with continuous adjustment
to minimise the angle of incidence’ is selected.

Nomenclature optimal tilt angle is provided (Tang and Tong 2004; Gunerhan
CST concentrated solar trough and Hepbasli 2007). Li, Tang, and Zhong (2012) have made a
FMSC fixed mirror solar collector comparative study of single-axis (horizontal) panels, two axes
CPV concentrator photo voltaic and fixed collection and developed a mathematical procedure
ATFMSC azimuth tracking fixed mirror solar collector and also suggested to adopt a horizontal single-axis tracking
Rb tilt factor system for lower latitude geographical condition. Solar heater
Ib beam radiation warm-up period is an important parameter deciding the perfor-
Id diffuse radiation mance of tracking system during morning hours; Migliari and
Qu useful energy Arena (2015) have developed a simulation model to study the
S absorbed solar energy performance in the warm-up period. An experimental study of
Aa aperture area single-axis tracking system with a mechanical drive is done by
FR interception factor Dakkak and Babelli (2012) and found a 30% increase in useful
Ar receiver area energy gain. Koussa et al. (2012) made a comparative study of
UL overall heat transfer coefficient various tracking systems with the fixed surface for photo voltaic
Ta ambient temperature panels and found that the electrical output varies depending on
Ti inlet temperature seasonal variation with respect to the sun tracker mechanism.
The vertical single-axis solar tracking system with changeable
collector slope has been studied by Michaelides et al. (1999) and
Greek abbreviations they found a 6% increase in the solar fraction but the payback
θ angle of incidence period is five years higher compared to the fixed axis tracking
θz azimuth angle system. Fixed mirror solar collector with azimuth tracking shows
η collection efficiency that reduction in heat efficiency with optical error, blocking and
ρ reflectivity shading factor increases first and then starts to decrease with
γ azimuth angle angle of incidence (Li et al. 2015). Performance parameters of
(τ α)b transmittance absorptance product two non-focusing design of trough are studied and suggested to
cr concentration ratio use in localities where the solar tracking could not be employed
avg average (Ratismith, Inthongkhum, and Briggs 2014). A novel study with
three times adjustment in azimuth everyday has been designed
and shown to collect 92% of energy collected by that of the
1. Introduction
two-axis tracking system (Ma, Li, and Tang 2011). The polar axis
In order to increase the collection of energy, the collector is tracking system has been studied by Lv et al. (2016) with the
oriented towards equator, and also based on site latitude the feedback system and they reported that the variation in track-

CONTACT S. Ramachandran aishram2006@gmail.com

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 G. MAGESHWARAN ET AL.

ing angle is limited with ±2° to ±4° for a maximum effective
output of 90%. A comparative study of two-axis system and
flat surface tilted with 32° shows that with the programmable
logical control- controlled tracking system there is a 42% raise
in collected solar energy (Abdallah and Nijmeh 2004; Tsai and
Lin 2012). The structural rigidity of collector and tracking under
wind load are studied by Paetzold et al. (2014) and they reported
that the shallow trough faces comparatively lower load than
the deeper trough. Tang and Tong (2004) studied the perfor-
mance of thermal collector under variable focusing and com-
pared the results with tracking surfaces. The prolonged exposure
to sunlight causes reduction in optical properties, hence track-
ing is required for high-temperature operations (Mageshwaran
et al. 2016).
2. Theoretical analysis of collector efficiency
Collection efficiency:
η = (useful heat gain)/(radiation incident
on the collector),
η = QU /SAa ,
QU = Aa FR [S − (Ar /Aa )UL (Ti − Ta )],
S = [Ib Rb ργ (τ α)b + (Id /cr) (τ α)b ].
Table 1 presents the monthly irradiation data collected from
the National Institute of Wind Energy (NIWE), Chennai. Using
the above data instantaneous efficiency is calculated for both
conventional straight tube and proposed helical-coiled receiver
tube of parabolic trough collector. Almost every month the effi-
ciency of helical tube receiver is lower than that of the straight
tube receiver, and the reduction in efficiency is due to the
increase in concentration ratio of helical-coiled receiver. The
helical-coiled receiver is designed to increase the thermal stabil-
ity of the receiver tube under the asymmetrical heating nature of
solar water heaters. For the same mass flow rate and exit temper-
ature the aperture area of helical-coiled receiver tube is higher
than the straight tube receiver, which leads to the increase in
energy loss, thus reduction in efficiency. Helical-coiled receiver is
a better replacement for straight tube receiver due to its higher
thermal stability over the latter, but its implementation is lim-
ited due to its poor collection efficiency. Hence suitable tracking
needs to be designed. Figure 1 shows the comparison of global,
beam and diffuse radiation values for a year. In both cases, the
efficiency varies from 51% to 42%, as given in Tables 2 and 3. The
helical-coiled receiver tube not only shows lower collection effi-
(1) ciency but also comparatively higher warm-up period. The per-
(2) formance of solar thermal collectors during non-summer days
is critical due to the non-availability of sunshine throughout the
(3) daytime, but the difference in efficiency is much higher during
(4) those days, as presented in Tables 2 and 3, which clearly explains

Table 1. Month-wise average irradiation values from the NIWE.

Month January February March April May June July August September October November December
GHI 5.67 6.76 6.19 7.3 6.81 6.55 6.7 6.84 6.58 6.17 5.26 4.59
DHI 2.84 3.41 3.01 3.16 3.54 3.74 4.82 3.81 3.65 3.16 3.41 2.24
DNI 6.63 8.27 8.19 7.87 6.23 6.92 6.74 7.71 6.03 7.06 5.59 4.56
Notes: GHI, global horizontal irradiation; DHI, direct horizontal irradiation; DNI, direct normal irradiation.

Figure 1. Month-wise average irradiation value comparison.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 3

Table 2. Straight tube efficiency.

Month S (w/m2 ) Useful energy (J) Efficiency (%)
January 794.88 365.64 46
February 872.51 383.9 44.3
March 785.27 361.22 46.1
April 797.92 406.93 51.5
May 739.87 362.53 49.07
June 723.5 347.28 48.3
July 721.2 367.81 51.05
August 777.68 334.4 43.07
September 747.84 314.09 42.83
October 781.2 328.1 42.14
November 715.18 300.37 42.31

Figure 2. Polar tracking.

Table 3. Helical-coiled tube efficiency.
Month S (w/m2 ) Useful energy (J) Efficiency (%) the condition for θ to be the minimum is that the first
January 761.53 342.68 45.07 derivative should be equated to zero and the second deriva-
February 842.27 370.59 44.12 tive should be positive, therefore RHS is differentiated with
March 735.35 338.26 46.03
April 781.16 398.33 51.02 respect to β (variable) and equating to zero, it follows,
May 756.64 370.55 49.10 cos θ = (1 − cos2 δ sin2 ω)1/2 .
June 702.35 337.14 48.30 Mode 3: The third mode has got north–south axis of rotation
July 720.88 367.64 51.04
August 797.56 342.95 43.07
horizontally with continuous adjustment to minimise the
September 780.35 327.77 42.45 angle of incidence similar to mode 2.The surface azimuthal
October 691.77 290.54 42.01 angle is –90° at forenoon and +90° at afternoon
November 554.01 232.68 42.12
cos θ = [(cos cos δ cos ω + sin sin δ)2 + cos2 δsin2 ω]1/2.

the importance of tracking system. In the tracking system design,
the important parameter is angle of incidence, which should be
kept at minimum to get maximum Rb .
3. Design of solar collector tracking
Concentrating solar collectors depends on the principle of
reflecting or refracting the solar radiation from a large aperture
area (Aa ) on to a small receiver area (Ar ) either a circular, linear
or helical form, but it is essential that the reflected radiation is
focused on to the receiver.
The receiver tube is usually fixed and the collector has to be
tracked depending on the sun’s position.
Ideally, if the rays from the sun are normal to the aperture
plane in other words, parallel to the axis of the reflector the
reflected rays will converge at the focal point or line.
We have a choice of five different solar tracking modes:
Mode 4: The plane of rotation is north–south axis which is
parallel to the earth’s axis with continuous adjustment.
The focal axis is north–south and when inclined at an angle
equal to the latitude, the axis is parallel to the earth’s axis
(Figure 2).
This orientation is referred to as polar mount
cos θ = cos δ.
Mode 5: Two-axis tracking surface is continuously oriented
to face the sun at all times
cos θ = 1.
3.1. Sunset hour angle for various modes
Tracking mode 1:

Mode 1: The solar collector is rotated about an east–west axis ω = cos−1 [−tan2 δ],
horizontally with one adjustment daily such that the solar
ω = min{cos−1 (− tan tan δ), ω }.
direct radiation is normal to the collector aperture plane at
solar noon. Tracking mode 2:
In this mode of tracking, the aperture plane is a hypothetical
plane with γ = 0. At solar noon ω = 0 slope can be found ω = min{cos−1 (− tan tan δ), 90◦ }.
by setting θ = 0.
Therefore cos θ = cos2 δ cos ω + sin2 δ. Tracking modes 3–5:
Mode 2: The rotation of plane is about an east–west axis hor-
izontally similar to mode 1 with an exception of continuous ω = cos−1 (− tan tan δ).
adjustment to minimise the angle of incidence.
Aperture plane is facing south 4. Results and discussion
Comparative studies of five different tracking modes are given in
cos θ = cos( − β) cos δ cos ω + sin( − β) sin δ Table 4, which shows the cosine value of incident angle. In order
4 G. MAGESHWARAN ET AL.

Table 4. Cosine value of incident angle for different modes.

Time Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5
8 0.5 0.52 0.98 0.99 1
9 0.69 0.72 0.98 0.99 1
10 0.85 0.87 1 0.99 1
11 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.99 1
12 1 1 0.99 0.99 1
1 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.99 1
2 0.86 0.86 0.99 0.99 1
3 0.71 0.71 0.99 0.99 1
4 0.5 0.5 0.99 0.99 1
5 0.26 0.27 0.99 0.99 1
6 0.01 0.1 0.99 0.99 1

to increase the efficiency the useful energy Qu collection must

be higher, as given by Equation (2). Qu depends on the radiation
incident on the collector S, in turn S depends on the Rb (Equation Figure 4. Comparison of tilt factor.
(3)). The tilt factor Rb should be increased by decreasing the inci-
dent angle θ since the tilt factor is a cosine function of incident Table 5. Comparison of Rb for different tracking modes.
angle. Time Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5
8 1 1.04 1.96 1.98 2
Rb = cos θ/ cos θz . 9 0.9857 1.028 1.4 1.414 1.42
10 0.988 1.0116 1.16 1.151 1.16
Mathematically cosine is a decreasing function of increasing θ 11 1 1.0105 1.021 1.042 1.52
12 1.007 1.01 1 1 1.01
value; hence it is desirable to have lower angle of incidence all 1 1.0073 1.0009 1.0425 1.0425 1.052
the time. Table 4 shows that the cosine value of incident angle 2 1.0059 1 1.1511 1.1511 1.16
of incoming direct radiation is compared for various tracking 3 1.0027 1.018 1.414 1.414 1.428
4 0.995 1 1.98 1.98 2
modes. 5 0.9737 1 3.67 3.67 3.7
Tracking mode 1 has small cosine value, as shown in Figure 3,
compared with all other tracking modes; however, it is very
cheap to construct from the economic point of view. Moreover The comparison of tilt factor for various modes of track-
the cosine value of mode 1 is almost equal to other modes after ing system is shown in Figure 4 and Table 5. Tracking mode 1
10 am till 2 am, thus the collection efficiency does not vary much. shows consistency in the tilt factor irrespective of the hour angle,
Tracking mode 2 has almost the same cosine value as that of whereas modes 3–5 show comparatively higher value of tilt fac-
mode 2, but the warm-up period is slightly lower so gives better tor at the end of the day, which increases the collection efficiency
performance during morning; yet, the cost of tracking is not eco- at the later part of the day. Even though mode 5 shows the
nomically justified and only suitable for collectors with long life maximum tilt factor the difference is small, as shown in Figure 4.
so that the payback period is allowable. Tracing modes 3–5 have
nearly the same value particularly after solar noon, and the per-
5. Conclusion
fect tracking mode is two-axis tracking for which the cosine value
is always 1 but requires additional gear and motor arrangement Solar thermal collector’s life majorly depends on the thermal
for the second axis tracking, which makes it costlier. The simple stability of the material under the asymmetrical heating condi-
and effective mode of tracking is the third mode and which is tion. To enhance the thermal stability, the helical-coiled receiver
suggested to be implemented. tube geometry is proposed. The collection efficiency of helical

Figure 3. Comparison of various tracking modes.


tube is lower compared with that of straight tube as discussed
above. In order to enhance the collection efficiency, it is decided
to design an economical tracking system. Five tracking modes
are selected and their performance is studied; it is found that
tracking mode 1 is economical but during warm-up and sunset
periods the collection efficiency is low. Mode 5 is very effective
with higher collection efficiency but economically not justified
for small and short-life collectors. Modes 3 and 5 almost have
same collection efficiency but the former is superior to mode 5
from the economic point of view. The tilt factor ranges from 1.96
to 3.67 for mode 3 and from 2 to 3.7 for mode 5. Considering
simplicity in construction, economic point of view and apprecia-
ble collection efficiency mode 3 is preferred over the other two
modes (4 and 5).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Abdallah, Salah, and Salem Nijmeh. 2004. “Two Axes Sun Tracking System
with PLC Control.” Energy Conversion and Management 45: 1931–1939.
Dakkak, Mohamed, and Ahmad Babelli. 2012. “Design and Performance
Study of a PV Tracking System (100W-24Vdc/220Vac).” Energy Procedia 19:
91–95.
Gunerhan, H., and A. Hepbasli. 2007. “Determination of the Optimum Tilt
Angles of Solar Collectors for Building Applications.” Building and Environ-
ment 42: 779–783.
Koussa, M., M. Haddadi, D. Saheb, A. Malek, and S. Hadji. 2012. “Sun Track-
ing Mechanism Effects on Flat Plate Photovoltaic System Performances
for Different Step Time and Main Parameters Affecting the Obtained
Gains: Case of North Africa and Mediterranean Site.” Energy Procedia 18:
817–838.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMBIENT ENERGY 5
Li, Longlong, Huairui Li, Qian Xu, and Weidong Huang. 2015. “Performance
Analysis of Azimuth Tracking Fixed Mirror Solar Concentrator.” Renewable
Energy 75: 722–732.
Li, Guihua, Runsheng Tang, and Hao Zhong. 2012. “Optical Performance
of Horizontal Single-axis Tracked Solar Panels.” Energy Procedia 16:
1744–1752.
Lv, Hui, You Zheng, Jinfang Wang, Benyuan Chen, Fei Sheng, Chunfu Cheng,
and Qinghua Lv. 2016. “Tracking Control and Output Power Optimiza-
tion of a Concentrator Photovoltaic System with Polar Axis.” Optik 127:
3840–3843.
Ma, Yi, Guihua Li, and Runsheng Tang. 2011. “Optical Performance of Verti-
cal Axis Three Azimuth Angles Tracked Solar Panels.” Applied Energy 88:
1784–1791.
Mageshwaran, G., S. Ramachandran, G. Iyappan, and R. B. Durairaj. 2016.
“Experimental Investigation on Surface Radiation Properties’ Degradation
of Solar Collector Receiver Tube Material.” International Journal of Ambient
Energy. doi:10.1080/01430750.2016.1202139.
Michaelides, I. M., S. A. Kalogirou, I. Chrysis, G. Roditis, A. Hadjiyianni, H. D.
Kambezidis, M. Petrakis, S. Lykoudis, and A. D. Adamopoulos. 1999. “Com-
parison of Performance and Cost Effectiveness of Solar Water Heaters at
Different Collector Tracking Modes in Cyprus and Greece.” Energy Conver-
sion & Management 40: 1287–1303.
Migliari, Luca, and Simone Arena. 2015. “Thermal Energy Losses During
Night, Warm-up and Full-operation Periods of CSP Solar Field Using Ther-
mal Oil.” Energy Procedia 82: 1002–1008.
Paetzold, J., S. Cochard, A. Vassallo, and D. F. Fletcher. 2014. “Wind Engineer-
ing Analysis of Parabolic Trough Solar Collectors: The Effects of Varying
the Trough Depth.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynam-
ics 135: 118–128.
Ratismith, Wattana, Anusorn Inthongkhum, and John Briggs. 2014. “Two
non-tracking Solar Collectors: Design Criteria and Performance Analysis.”
Applied Energy 131: 201–210.
Tang, Runsheng, and Tong Wu Tong. 2004. “Optimal Tilt-angles for Solar
Collectors Used in China.” Applied Energy 79: 239–248.
Tsai, Chung-Yu, and Psang Dain Lin. 2012. “Optimized Variable-focus-
parabolic-trough Reflector for Solar Thermal Concentrator System.” Solar
Energy 86: 1164–1172.