Accepted Manuscript

Modeling and performance analysis of a PTC for industrial phosphate flash drying

Touria Moudakkar, Z. ElHallaoui, S. Vaudreuil, T. Bounahmidi

PII: S0360-5442(18)32130-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.134
Reference: EGY 14031

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 18 May 2018

Revised Date: 21 October 2018
Accepted Date: 23 October 2018

Please cite this article as: Moudakkar T, ElHallaoui Z, Vaudreuil S, Bounahmidi T, Modeling and
performance analysis of a PTC for industrial phosphate flash drying, Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2018.10.134.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Modeling and performanceACCEPTED
analysis of aMANUSCRIPT
PTC for industrial phosphate flash drying
Touria Moudakkar a , b * ,Z. ElHallaoui a , b S.Vaudreuil a , T.Bounahmidi a , b

a
Euromed Research Institute, Euro-Mediterranean University of Fes (UEMF), Eco-Campus,
Route Meknes, Morocco
b
Laboratoire d’Analyse et Synthèse des Procédés Industriels (LASPI), Ecole Mohammadia d’Ingénieurs
(EMI), Université Mohamed V de Rabat, Avenue Ibn Sina, BP. 765 Agdal-Rabat, Morocco
Contact e-mail:t.moudakkar@ueuromed.org

PT
RI
ABSTRACT

SC
The use of a parabolic collector trough (PTC) array to supply the heat requirement of a phosphate flash dryer
is investigated. To evaluate the thermal performances of a PTC array operating between 200 and 550 °C, new
heat transfer models were developed. These models, considering either a uniform or a non-uniform

U
distribution of the solar flux, were adapted from basic models by including more accurate correlations while
considering longitudinal variations of the convective term. Simulations of the PTC array were conducted for
AN
various solar loops, using different heat transfer fluids (HTF). Simulated results from both models are in good
agreement with experimental data, with the uniform model predicting HTF outlet temperature at a maximum
uncertainty of 0.3 °C. This value jumps to 1.7 °C when gas is used as HTF or when the solar loop exceeds 700
m in length. From a Fisher test standpoint, these results can be considered as comparable to those obtained
M

from more complicated models. Using these new models, the output of a PTC prototype was estimated and
served as the basis to predict the yield of a coupled bench scale flash dryer unit.
Keywords
D

Parabolic trough collector; thermal solar for an industrial process; Non-uniform model; Uniform model; flash
dryer.
TE

1. Introduction
EP

As the result of a rapidly growing economic development, the world’s energy demand will experience a
significant growth reaching up to 60 % by 2030 [1]. To overcome this growing stress on dwindling non-
renewable resources, a shift of energy consuming industrial processes towards the use of renewable energies is
C

regarded as an environmentally friendly solution [2]. As Morocco imports 85 % of its consumed energy [3],
several programs were initiated to favor the integration of renewable energies, including in the industrial
AC

sector. As drying consumes on average 12 % of the total energy used in the manufacturing process [1], this
energy-intensive process was identified as a possible candidate for the use of renewable solar energy. The
technical feasibility of PTC technology in supplying the heat requirement of a phosphate flash dryer at a
drying temperature range of 200-700 °C needs, however, to be explored.
In a PTC system, a series of parabolic mirrors positioned as a trough will focus direct solar radiation on the
absorber located on the focal line (HCE). This will thus convert incoming solar radiation into useful thermal
energy absorbed by the HTF. The use of a single axis tracking system help to maintain thermal performances
throughout the day. This promising concentrating solar technology has since found uses as the heat source in
electricity production and for supplying heat to different industrial sectors [4]. Sherma et al [4] and Jebasingh
& Herbert [5] summarized the major applications of PTC in industrial processes, such as refrigeration, drying,
desalination and chemical industries.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Nomenclature θ solar incidence angle (°)
Aap aperture area (m2) ν kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
2 ρ density (kg/m3), reflectivity
Abracket cross sectional area of bracket (m )
σ Stefan Boltzmann constant (5.67×10-8 W/
Cf friction factor (-)
m2K4)
Cp specific heat capacity (kJ/kg.°C) ∆ Incremental value
D diameter (m) τenv transmittance of the glass envelope
Dh hydraulic diameter (m) Subscripts
Dp plug tube diameter (m) ai inside surface of the absorber

PT
g gravitational constant (=9.81 m/s2) ao outside surface of the absorber
h enthalpy (kJ/kg) ei inside surface of the glass envelope

RI
eo outside surface of the glass
hao-ei annulus gas convection heat transfer
envelope
coefficient at Tao-eo (W/m2.°C)
f Heat transfer fluid
hf HTF convection heat transfer

SC
coefficient at Tf (W/m2.°C) sa surrounding air
heo-sa air convection heat transfer conv,ai-f absorber-fluid heat transfer by
coefficient at Teo-sa (W/m2.°C) convection

U
Ib solar irradiance (W/ m2) abs-a absorber-absorbed
k thermal conductivity (W/m °C) cond,ao-ai external surface- internal surface of
AN
the absorber, heat transfer by
Kθ incident angle modifier conduction
Lcol length of collector (m) conv,ao-ei absorber-envelope, heat transfer by
convection
M

lf focal length (m)


rad,ao-ei absorber-envelope, heat transfer by
Mass flow rate (kg/s) radiation
D

Nu Nusselt number (-) cond,bracket conduction bracket

P perimeter (m)/ pressure (Pa) cond,ei-eo internal surface-external surface of
TE

Pa Annulus gas pressure (mmHg) the glass envelope, heat transfer by

conduction
Pr Prandtl number (-)
conv,eo-sa envelope-surrounding air, heat
Q rate of heat transfer per unit length transfer by convection
EP

(W/m) rad,eo-s envelope-sky, heat transfer by

Qloss heat losses per unit length (W/m²) radiation
Qsol solar irradiance per receiver length
C

(W/m) Abbreviation
AC

Ra Rayleigh number (-) Al2O3 Aluminum oxide

Re Reynolds number (-) CSP Concentrating solar power
T temperature (°C) CO2 Carbon dioxide
vf HTF velocity (m/s) DNI Direct normal irradiance
V control volume (m3)/ Variance DOF Degree of freedom
EES Engineering equation solver
z axial position (m)
HCE heat collector element
Greek symbols
HTF Heat transfer fluid
αabs absorptance of absorber pipe (-)
SCA Solar collector assembly
αenv absorptance of glass envelope (-)
SCE Solar collector element
εao absorber pipe selective coating
emissivity PTC Parabolic trough collector
2
emissivity of the glass envelope SEGS Solar energy generating systems
εei
SNL Sandia national laboratories
ηopt effective optical efficiency (-)
 ACCEPTED
Pirastech et al [1] presented an overview MANUSCRIPT
of the development of solar drying for industrial and agricultural
applications. In these instances, the working fluids’ temperature varies between 80 to 250 °C. As the
maximum operating temperature of conventional HTFs- Therminol VP1 and Downtherm- is 400 °C, this
implies that PTC is limited to low and medium temperature applications. This constraint incurs limitation of
the integration of PTC into industrial phosphate flash dryer which is exergetically effective only at a higher
temperature above 500 °C [6]. As a consequence, be limited to conventional HTF, PTC would be used only as
a preheater system into the energy unit. So, the best integration option and the main challenge is the use of this
technology at temperature as close as possible to the targeted drying temperature (>500 °C).

Presently, several studies have investigated the use of PTC with improved working fluids such as molten salt,
CO2 and liquid sodium to achieve higher temperatures. Values of up to 560 °C, 600 °C and 800 °C have been

PT
achieved for molten salt, CO2 and liquid sodium respectively [7-8]. These working fluids provide a better
thermal and exergetic efficiency than the usual HTF, achieving a global exergetic efficiency of 47 % when
using liquid sodium at 600 °C. This exceeds the maximum value of 42 % achieved by thermal oil at a

RI
temperature of 336 °C [7]. However, these HTF must be suitable with the available PTC technology and
storage system.

SC
To ensure that these criteria are respected, the characteristics of molten salt, CO2 and liquid sodium are
analyzed as follows:
-Molten salt, especially Solar salt is a very attractive HTF, operating under a temperature range of 260-621 °C

U
and leading to a cost-effective direct storage, due to its large volumetric heat capacity [9]. Actually, two
innovative solar receiver tubes, compatible with molten salt, are available on the market: “SchottPTR70
advance” performed by Schott company [10], and “HCEM-11” developed by Archimede Solar Energy with
AN
the contribution of ENEA (Italian renewable energy agency) [11]. These technologies enable reaching

resistance to the molten salt (< 15 
/ ). The main challenge for using the MS is to maintain it at a
temperature and pressure up to 550 °C and 100 bar respectively, and be advantageous by a good corrosion
M

temperature higher than its melting temperature. This is possible according to Kearney et al.[12]. Indeed, They
proved that the operational complexity and the incurring cost of the freezing protection are significantly
reduced if the storage system exceeds 6 hours.
D

- Supercritical CO2 represents a good HTF due to its thermal properties, especially, the favorable convective
heat transfer coefficient (in the same order of magnitude as the value of Therminol VP1) [7]. Using s-CO2
allows eliminating many limitations as the melting temperature and the upper-temperature limit. Moreover, it
TE

= 100  ) to 10 mm ( = 200  ), against a receiver

is available at a very reasonable cost. However, s-CO2 requires high-pressure levels (> 75 bar), thus imposing
ticker pipes of the receiver: from 6,5 mm (
thickness of 3 mm by using molten salt [8,13]. The optimum operating conditions for this HTF must be
selected based on both energetic and exergetic criteria [8]. Munoz et al. [13] were investigated experimentally
EP

the use of CO2 at temperature up to 525 °C and working pressure of 100 bar, using new Schott technology
adapted for these conditions. The experimental results have shown an exergetic efficiency of 44 %. Currently,
the thermal energy storage through gases as a HTF is possible and economically cost-effective by using
C

concrete blocks, with a storage capacity > 5 hours [14].

- Liquid sodium LS has an excellent heat transfer coefficient (higher ten times than Therminol VP1) and its
AC

liquidus temperature range is from 98 °C to 881 °C [9]. It represents the best HTF at a higher temperature, due
to its higher conductivity and lower viscosity, which are leading to the maximum value of the PTC exergy
efficiency for temperature up to 600 °C [7]. Nevertheless, the use of liquid sodium for PTC is limited by its
hazard properties that lead to an expensive control system. On the other hand, the higher corrosion of LS
requires a Nickel based alloys for the containment materials which is four times more expensive than the
stainless steel. Concerning the high-temperature selective coating, several innovative coatings were developed
recently, like the TiC-Ni/Mo cermet -based coatings [15] which are stable in air at a temperature higher than
600 °C. However, their process manufacturing requires very expensive techniques, as laser cladding. So, all
these technical issues incur a greater material cost presently and then explain the development limitation of a
PTC technology suitable for LS as HTF.
According to this previous analysis, the Therminol VP1 is suitable for a PTC operating at temperature level
less than 400 °C. For a temperature up to 550 °C, CO2 and molten salt are the more appropriate HTF with
PTC.
3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
It should be nevertheless highlighted that using a PTC at a higher temperature and higher pressure leads to a
decrease in its thermal performance and more thermo-mechanical stresses effect. Numerous studies have tried
to overcome this hurdle, reporting various techniques enabling thermal enhancement ranging from 104 % to
330 % [16-22]. Yilmaz and Mwesigye [21] presented a comprehensive review of current and past heat
transfer enhancement devices of parabolic trough solar collectors, and their modeling approaches and potential
improvements. These studies have focused on tube geometry modification and the use of new absorber
coating. An example is the development of a U-tube absorber covered by black finned aluminum. Another
path of improvement is by raising the turbulence inside the tube, something achieved by the surface roughness
techniques: ribbed internal tubes [20] and wire-coils [18], or by inserting twisted-baffles tapes [17,19]. The
majority of recent studies focus on improving the thermal properties of working fluids. One way is by

PT
dispersing nanoparticles in the usual HTF [16,21,23-27]. With HTFs adapted to the higher temperature and
improved thermal fluid heat transfer performances, a PTC system can efficiently meet the energy requirement
of a high temperature industrial processes.

RI
While PTC systems have their own issues to be addressed, the feasibility of coupling a solar system to a flash
dryer unit requires a heat exchanger adapted to the operating conditions. Promising compact heat exchangers

SC
technologies for high temperature applications such as flash drying include Shell and plate HX, hybrid plate
HX, Marbond HX and printed circuit HX [28]. These technologies can achieve temperatures of up to 800 °C
and pressure reaching 200 bars, meaning that a PTC system could supply hot air to a phosphate flash dryer
operating at high temperature.

U
Figure 1: Schematic representation of the PTC array coupled to a phosphate flash dryer unit at bench scale
AN
[6]
As illustrated in Figure 1, a flash dryer consists of a cylindrical tube in which the product is introduced and
transported co-currently by a hot air stream. While fossil fuel is normally used to achieve process temperature,
M

a solar flash dryer would use an integrated PTC solar plant to obtain the required process temperature. In order
to investigate the performance of a PTC array with various HTFs, according to the drying temperature range
targeted, PTC modeling was chosen as the best option, to face the time consuming/cost constraints of the
D

experimental approach. The model can also enable the process optimization of the HTF operating parameters
as a function of the drying temperature range targeted.
TE

Given the importance, many numerical models were developed for PTC to analyze the heat transfer of the
collector receiver and improve its thermal and optical performance by studying the design parameters [29-34].
These models can be either of the 1-D, 2-D or 3-D type. One-dimensional models were developed [29-37] to
EP

estimate thermal performances of various PTC in multiple locations. This can be done by mean of the fluid
temperature or the absorber wall temperature. Neglecting thermal interaction between the neighboring
surfaces leads however to an underestimation of the radiation losses, especially at high absorber temperatures.
Padilla et al. [38] implemented a comprehensive radiation analysis in the heat transfer model, considering the
C

radiation between adjacent nodes for thermal radiation losses. In their model, the collector receiver is divided
into several segments where mass and energy balances are applied. More accurate correlations are also
AC

included. Few researches on coupled heat transfer process in solar collector tube were investigated using a
two-dimensional model [39-40]. This 2-D model includes natural and forced convection in the inner tube,
presenting thus the distributions of the flow field, temperature field, and local Nusselt number along with the
circumferential direction.

Most of the previous models [29-28] assume that the solar energy flux, wall temperature, and thermodynamic
properties are uniform around the circumference of the receiver and neglect the end losses in the PTC. These
assumptions may not always be correct because the bottom part of the receiver is more exposed to solar flux
than the top part, leading to a non-uniform HTF heating inside the tube. This results in a higher
circumferential temperature deviation for the top part of the receiver, creating a high thermal stress and
deformation danger. This explains why many exhaustive analyses have been carried out using three-
dimensional computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models to understand the impact of the non-uniformity on
4
 ACCEPTED
the thermal stress in a PTC, then optimizing MANUSCRIPT
its design parameters [41-50]. Wang et al. [51] presented an
overview of researches on non-uniform heat flux of the PTCs, including the used calculation and optimization
methods.
These complex 3-D numerical methods require, however, expensive tools and critical computational time,
mainly when the intelligent optimization based on genetic algorithm (GA) or particle swarm optimization
(PSO) is used [52]. As a relatively simple approach, 2-D model was used by Lu et al. [53] to study the effect
of the non-uniformity heat flux on PTC, considering the angular solar flux distribution around the HCE
circumference. While still aiming for less complication by considering simultaneously these non-uniform
conditions and end losses, Cheng et al. [54] proposed a 1-D dimensional non-uniform thermal model of a
PTC receiver, dividing the PTC into two halves with inactive ends.

PT
A review of available models revealed that the majority of them have been validated using SNL experimental
data generated using a LS-2 module of 8 meters in length. Thermal oil is the only HTF for these data. Only a
very few models were validated for multiple HTFs. On the other hand, a non-uniform solar energy flux will

RI
be more perceptible with changing operating conditions. Wang et al. [55] showed that this non-uniform solar
flux becomes more significant on PTC performances with the variation of inlet temperature, the velocity of
the HTF and increasing DNI. As these operating conditions may change when the PTC array is coupled to a

SC
flash dryer, these effects will become more pronounced.

This paper thus aims to develop a detailed 1-D thermal model for PTC array that is precise enough regardless

U
of the HTF nature, operating conditions and PTC scale. Two models have been developed, one using a
uniform distribution of the solar flux and the second a non-uniform flux. Both models consist in a basic
energy balance for the PTC that is adapted to each case, then modified to include more accurate correlations
AN
while considering the longitudinal variation of the convective term. For each model, the receiver is divided
into several segments where the set of algebraic-differential equations will be solved using a second-order
predictor-corrector algorithm implemented in EES Software [56]. In order to validate these models and
M

corroborate their improvement, the simulated results will be compared to experimental data for liquid, gas and
nanofluid as working fluids and to other models results.
D

Finally, the developed model will be used to estimate the output of a PTC prototype, being coupled to a bench
scale flash dryer, and then, to predict the flash dryer exit using one-dimensional phosphate flash dryer model
TE

[6].
1. Thermal analysis of PTC

1.1 HCE description

EP

The collector receiver (Figure 2) is constituted of an absorber pipe surrounded by an evacuated glass tube of
borosilicate. The absorber is often a stainless-steel tube coated with a selective surface combining a high
absorptance for solar radiation and a low emittance in the longwave energy spectrum, reducing thereby
C

thermal radiation losses.

The glass cover is an evacuated tube that maintains the material performance of the absorber pipe and reduces
AC

heat losses. An anti-reflective coating layer is added on both inner and outer glass surfaces to improve the
glass transmittance while minimizing reflection losses. Chemical getters are also installed in the annulus to
absorb hydrogen produced from the decomposition of HTF. The bellows are connected at both ends by glass-
to-metal seals. These latter allow the necessary vacuum enclosure while providing thermal expansion between
glass and metal in order to reduce the end’s thermal stress.

Figure 2: schematic of HCE [32]

1.2 Receiver Uniform model

The 1-D uniform model for a PTC consists of an energy balance between the incoming solar radiation, the
heat transfer fluid, the absorber, and its surroundings. The purpose of the present work- is to develop a thermal
model as simple as the Forristal model [32] and as accurate as the Padilla model [38]. This is why the energy

5
balance equations (eq.1-4) are the sameACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
as the Forristal model. However, these equations were rewritten on
each segment of the collector’s length and included more accurate correlations used by the Padilla model, as
well as, considering the variation of the convective term along the absorber length.
Considering the energy conservation at each cross-section of the receiver, the energy balance equations can be

, = ,
presented as follows [32]:
   (1)
   = ,   − " , # − , # − ," $#% (2)
  # + ,## = ,# + " ,# (3)
" , # + , # = ,## (4)

PT
As the energy is transferred in the longitudinal direction only by the HTF [38], therefore:
,-
, =
 ) *ℎ + / (5)

 .

RI
Generally, the kinetic term is neglected for a short receiver. But, this impacts the model performance when the
HTF velocity and pressure drop vary for a longer PTC array (L> 100m).

SC
1.2.1 Heat transfer interaction

This model can be expanded by considering all the heat transfer interactions, including the heat transfer

U
occurring between the HTF and the receiver pipe, interactions between the inside glass cover surface and

In the next section, ,  and ,# are defined according to the same correlations used by Padilla
outside absorber tube surface and from the receiver tube to the surroundings.
AN
model. While, " ,# , , # , ," $#% , ,## , ,   are given using Forristall model

Except for " , # are calculated as Forristal model, but using the effective sky temperature defined by
correlations.
M

Padilla model.
1.2.1.1 Convection heat transfer between HTF and receiver pipe
D

, = 1Nu4 5 (T78 − T4 ) (6)

The convection heat transfer is given by [59]:

TE

The Nusselt number is defined according to the flow type through the absorber pipe. At typical operating
conditions, the Reynolds number is higher than 2300, corresponding to the turbulent and transitional flow. In
these conditions, the most suitable correlation recommended for fully developed turbulent flow in a smooth
EP

concentric annular duct is given by Gnielinski [57] and improved by including a correction factor developed

AB ⁄2D(EF  − 1000)

by Petukhow and Roizen [58]:
?.NN
:; = (1 − 0.14 ∗?.@ )
L M (7)
 
.
1 + 12.7HB ⁄2 I

J
− 1K
C

∗
= O  , are the radius of the inner and outer tubes respectively and B is friction factor
AC

Where  and 

Jones and leung recommend replacing the hydraulic diameter PQ in the friction factor formula by a laminar
[33].

diameter PR for concentric annular ducts [59].

The Nusselt number described above is associated to a long tube. For a short segment case, the average
Nusselt number is estimed by Al Arabi’s correlation recommended for the thermally developing flow [59].
When laminar flow exists in the receiver pipe, the Nusselt number is constant, equal to 4.36 [59].

1.2.1.2 Conduction through the absorber tube

Through a hollow cylinder, the conduction heat transfer is determined by [59]:

6
 P 
, = 21STT# (U − U  ) ⁄VW L M (8)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
  
P 
Where the thermal conductivity STT# depends on the tube material type and temperature [32].
This heat flux is positive under the on-sun condition, because U  is greater than U  but that will be inverted
under off-sun condition.

1.2.1.3 Convection in the annulus space

, = 1P  ℎ # (U  − U# ) (9)

In the annulus, the convection heat transfer is calculated as follow:
#
The effective heat transfer coefficient ℎ # depends on the heat transfer mechanism and the type of annulus

PT
gases. Two heat transfer mechanism types occur in the annulus space according to the annulus pressure: free
molecular at low pressure (<1 torr) and natural convection at high pressure (> 1 torr) [32,33,38]. In addition,

RI
three types of gas molecules may be present in the annulus space: air from collector leakage, hydrogen from
degradation of HTF at high temperature and Argon introduced for safety measures.

SC
1.2.1.4 Radiation heat transfer in the annulus
Because of the temperature difference between the receiver pipe and the cover surfaces in the annulus space,
radiation heat transfer occurs and that can represent up to 99 % of the thermal losses in the free convection

U
case. In the present model, many simplifications were considered to calculate the radiation heat losses, mainly
considering an opaque glass cover to infrared radiation, gray (independent of wavelength) and diffuse
(independent of direction) surfaces and long concentric isothermal cylinders. This results in the following
AN
1 (1 − \# )P 
equation:

" , # = Z1P  AT  [ − T# [ DO*L M + L M/ (10)

\  \# P#
\  is nearly a linear function of T  [32]. where \# = 0.86 [32]
M
D

1.2.1.5 Conduction through the glass envelope

P#
The conduction through the glass cover is defined by Fourier’s law along the isothermal cylinder:

,## = 21S]R (U# − U# ) ⁄VW L M (11)

TE

P#

Where S]R is assumed constant, S]R =1.04 ^
N S N [32].

EP

1.2.1.6 Radiation from the glass envelope to the sky

C

The radiation transfer between the outside cover surface and sky is defined by [60]:

" = Z\# 1P# (U#

[
− U[) (12)
AC

,#
The effective sky temperature is given by [38]:
T_ = 0.0553 ∗ T_7N.` (13)

1.2.1.7 Convection to surrounding air

Depending on the presence of wind, the convection heat transfer can be forced or natural. It is given as:

,# =S " 1:;Fab (U# −U ) (14)

Where S " thermal conductivity of air at (U# − U )/2

7
For air velocity less than 0.1 m/s (noACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
wind), the Nusselt number is calculated using the correlation developed
by Churchill and Chu for horizontal cylinder [59].
For air velocity higher than 0.1 m/s, the convection heat transfer is forced and Zhukauskas’s correlation is
recommended to calculate the Nusselt number [38, 60].

1.2.1.8 Conduction in the support bracket

The support bracket is used to keep the HCE at the focal line of a PTC. It is composed of two parts connected
in series: square tube and connection tab [38]. Treating the bracket as fins, the conduction heat loss is given
by:

:;" $#% S "" " $#% S" $#% d" $#%

," = cI K (U −U ) (15)

PT
P" $#% e.R
$#% #

:;"

RI
$#% based on bracket diameter, is calculated by the same correlation used in the section 1.2.1.7.
S
fghijkal fmi
"" the thermal conductivity of air at .
, d" $#% , P" $#% ), U and U"

SC
The dimension of the bracket ( " $#% # $#% are defined by Forristal model

S"
[32].
$#%
S" = −0.0419U" + 73.2357 (16)
is the thermal conductivity of the bracket material, which depends on the temperature as follow [37]:
$#% $#%

U
AN
1.2.2 Heat balance for the system

The thermal losses and collector efficiency are given by the following equations:
n∑A + + ," $#% DΔqr
M

R = (17)
#,"  #,
d T
 , (Qbtl Quv )
s%Q =
D

wg xiy z{_(|)
(18)
TE

1.2.3 Solar irradiance absorption

The solar energy absorbed by the receiver is estimated in order to determine the heat transfer losses through
EP

the PTC. It is impacted by the defects of the PTC assembly and the optical properties. These optical
imperfections are presented in Forristal and Padilla models but are limited to a one-collector element. Thus,
the present model
C

includes other optical factors, namely the end loss factor and row-shadowing factor, which are more
significant in the case of the SCA.
AC

Optical efficiency
The optical efficiency is the ratio of energy reaching the absorber tube and that received by the collector

sT,?° = ~# €   Q ]# %" R ‚ ‚ (19)

mirror. At zero angle of incidence, it is given by:

Where  Q presents the effect of bellows and supports to reduce the effective length of the receiver pipe; ]#
considers the geometrical errors in the assembly of the PTC elements; %" is the tracking error; R Wƒ ‚ are
the mirror and envelope cleanliness factors respectively and ‚ is a global error. All those effective optical
efficiency factors are defined by Forristal [32].

8
Incident angle modifier ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
To consider the impact of the solar incidence angle, the incident angle modifier is used. It is typically
determined by an empirical fit to experimental data and is a function of the solar incidence angle.

Table 1: Incidence angle modifier for the most important PTCs [61]

End loss and row shadowing

W„ † V ‡Wˆ (W„ † − 1)(V ‡Wˆ − ƒ„ † ) (W„ x − 1)(V ‡Wˆ − ƒ„ x )

The end loss factor represents the dark side of the mirror aperture area. It is given by [62]:

#R = 1 − + + (20)
e„ x e„ x W„ x e„ x

PT
The terms in the right hand side of eq. 20 represent the effect of the solar incidence angle, spacing between

V is the focal length of the PTC, W„ x is the number of SCA per row, W„ † is the number of SCE in a SCA,
SCE in the same SCA, and spacing between SCA in a row respectively.

RI
ƒ„ x is the spacing between SCA per row, and ƒ„ † is the spacing between SCE into a SCA.

ƒ"‰ ŽWˆ)
If the collector is extended by two rows, the row-shadowing factor is defined as follows [63]:

SC
"‰ =
Š ‹0;
W I1; K (21)
Q ‰
^ T BŽˆ
Where ƒ"‰ is the distance between rows, ^ T is the SCA aperture, and ˆ) is the solar zenith angle.

U
Therefore, the solar irradiance absorption in the absorber    and in the glass envelope #  are
AN
calculated by the following equations:

   = I“ (A7• /e) cos(ˆ) S(ˆ)sT,?° #R "‰ Q ‰ (22)

‘ sT,?°
 = I“ (A7• /e) cos(ˆ) S(ˆ) L Mα   (23)
 #
α7“_ # š›œ #R "‰ Q ‰
M

Where, cos(ˆ) is depended on the solar altitude, declination angle and the hour angle [37].
D

The 1-D uniform model presented, in the section above, assumes that the solar radiations reflected by the
TE

parabolic mirror are fairly distributed on the outer surface of the absorber. Thus, the effect of the non-linear
heat flux is not more significant, because it is only associated with the non-linear radiation heat losses.
However, in reality, the heat flux profile is very non-linear and is a function of the absorber angle as shown in
the figure presented below:
EP

Figure 3: heat flux in function of the absorber angle [55]

C

The impact of this simplification can be neglected for a 1-D uniform model because this latter will be used to
AC

quickly predict the global performance of the PTC system. Nevertheless, the non-uniformity of the heat flux is
more perceived when DNI and the HTF inlet temperature exceed 800 W/m² and 400 °C respectively [55]. In
addition, for HTF inlet velocity less than 1 m/s, the temperature profile in the circumferential direction is
substantially non-linear, causing then a maximum value at the bottom part of the receiver and a minimum
value at the top part [55]. In the experimental step, these inlet operating conditions may change or even exceed
these critical values, according to the tested conditions of the flash dryer system. This fact may cause a high
thermal stress and deformation danger, leading to a bellow under non-vacuum. Hence, to analyze the behavior
of the PTC system under these series of non-uniform conditions, a non-uniform model will be required.

9
1.3 Non-uniform model ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 4 : Schematic of the physical non-uniform model [54]

Unlike the previous model, the non-uniform model assumes that the solar energy flux density is distributed
unevenly around the circumference of the receiver. Nevertheless, as illustrated in figure 3, there is a part that
receives a maximum heat flux, situated between 90° and 270° of the absorber angle. While for the remaining
part, it receives the minimum value of the heat flux close to zero. Thus, the nonlinearity of heat flux can be
presented on a simplified basis, by performing an energy balance on two parts of receiver separately, and on
each part, the heat flux is considered uniform. In this sense, the non-uniform physical model developed by

PT
Cheng et al. [54] considers that the receiver is divided into two sides (Figure 4), with a similar thermal
resistance model in each half cross-section to the one used for the uniform model. The difference between the
two regions, however, is the absorbed solar energy. Cheng et al. [54] supposed that the side 1 absorbs directly
the incident solar radiation, while side 2 absorbs the radiation reflected by the parabolic mirror. The energy

RI
  , =   ,
balance equations for both sides can, therefore, be presented as the Cheng Model [54]:
   (24)
ž,   =   ,   −  " , # −  , # −  ," $#%
  
(25)

SC
(1 + Ž)ž,  # +   ,## =   ,# +   " ,# (26)
  " , # +   , # =   ,## + Ž ž,  # (27)

U
Ÿ,-
  , =
 *ℎ + / (28)

 )  .
AN
Ž=F − .¡›(F (29)
Fau N
ab Fau ab ⁄Fau )
Where s is defined by [54]:
M

All interaction heat transfer terms, mentioned in the system of equations, are calculated with the same
expressions defined above (section 1.2.1). It should be noted however, that the heat transfer flux is calculated

ž, and ž,#

for each term, regarding the half cross-section of the receiver.
D

  
 = ¦ P  α7“_ # cos(ˆ) (30)
are given beside each side as follow:

¥ N,  
£ N,  # = ¦ P  αš›œ cos(ˆ) (31)
TE

.,   = ¦ (d T ⁄e − D7{ )cos(ˆ)S(ˆ)sT,?° #R "‰ Q ‰ (32)

¤ s
£ .,  # = I“ (d T ⁄e − D7{ )cos(ˆ)S(ˆ)( T,?° )αš›œ #R "‰ (33)
¢ α7“_ # Q ‰
EP

2. Numerical solution
C

The algebraic-differential equations (Eq.1-5) are written for each segment i along the absorber length
 ¨W©,− =  ¨Wƒ,− (34)
AC

Ž− =  ¨Wƒ,− −  ƒ,− −  ¨W©,− −  ¨Wƒ, ¨5‡ (35)

Ž− +  ¨Wƒ,− =  ¨W©,−Ž + 
  
ƒ,−Ž (36)
 
ƒ,− +  ¨W©,− =  ¨Wƒ,−
 
(37)

Where, the ordinary differential equation (eq.5) is rewritten as:

= ª Aq , U D
u
)
(38)

10
 © ² ¬
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Where, for each segment i=1..,N   = ℎ + 2 (39)

 , ¬
ª  Aq  , U D =
 (40)

ℎ is the enthalpy function implemented in EES and calculated for U = U and = 


= R#% −Δ 

And Δ is the pressure drop estimated using Darcy-Weisbach equation [59]:

Where

q 
 .
 ( )
PQ d ®
Δ 
= ΔP(q  , U ) = 2 ~ (41)

PT
RI
For the Boundary conditions:
 = 0; U? = UR#% ; ©? = ©R#%
For each segment i, the unknown variables U , U   , U  , U# , U#

are calculated by solving the algebraic-

SC
differential equations (Eq.34-38) simultaneously, using a second-order predictor-corrector algorithm
implemented in EES Software.
The flow chart below (figure 5), describes the resolution algorithm.

U
Figure 5: flow chart of the resolution algorithm
AN
3. Model validation
M

In order to validate the current model, simulation results were compared first to experimental results of (LS-2)
solar module installed at the SNL[29], then to other models and experimental results of collector loops under
various operating conditions and for different working fluids.
D

The specifications for SEGS LS-2 parabolic trough solar collector used in the SNL tests and simulations were
taken from Dudley et al. [29].
TE

Considering the influence of PTC length, the present model was simulated for different receiver length and
various operating conditions.
It was first simulated and compared to the test data of the Urssa Trough prototype installed at the PTC test
EP

bench of the Plataforma Solar de Almeria (PSA). The collector is composed of 6 SCA modules of 12 m in
length, where a SCA contains 3 PTR70 receiver units. The aperture area of the mirrors is 409,908 m² [64].
The present model was then simulated for two solar loops: Andasol II loop and KJC loop. The first one
C

consists of 4 SCAs in series forming two rows where a single SCA is composed of 36 units of PTR70 receiver
[62, 65]. The second loop is composed of 16 SCAs in series arranged in two rows, where each SCA consists
of 12 units of Solel UVAC receiver [32, 66]. The mirror aperture area for KJC and Andasol II loops is 3760
AC

m² and 3270 m² respectively.

Furthermore, to investigate the impact of the working fluid used in the model performance, the present model
was also simulated for CO2 and a nanofluid. For this purpose, the use of CO2 as a working fluid was simulated
with the present model and compared to the test measurement of the gas-cooled trough collector installed at
PSA [13,67]. This test loop aims to analyze the performance of a PTC using gas like CO2 or N2 as working
fluid. It includes two 50 m ET_II collectors connected in a serial or parallel mode according to the considering
test [13]. The absorber tubes type shottPTR70 are coated with a special selective coating suitable to make the
test at a temperature and pressure up to 525 °C and 100 bar respectively.
The PTC with nanofluid as a HTF was also simulated and compared to an experimental data. Indeed, Tagle-
Salazar et al [24] performed experimental tests on a PTC (power trough 110) [25] using Al2O3/water
nanofluid as a HTF with a nanoparticle volume fraction of 1 %. The simulation was carried out with the

11
 ACCEPTED
present model, assuming that the nanofluid MANUSCRIPT
is a single-phase working fluid. The thermophysical properties of
the latter are calculated using the properties of water as a base fluid and of the nanoparticles (Al2O3). [26-27]
Finally, the numerical model proposed in this paper was also compared to other solar receiver numerical
models [24, 32, 36, 38, 42].

4. Results and discussion

The results for the collector efficiency and thermal losses are presented in figures 6 and 7. Simulation results
obtained from both uniform and non-uniform models show good agreement with experimental data, where
results fall among the error bars. A lower deviation is seen with increasing temperature, in particular with

PT
black chrome coating. This can be explained by the fact that the model neglects the optical properties which
are influenced by temperature, as well as the radiation heat transfer between neighboring surfaces.
According to the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) criteria in Table 2, the uniform model provides a lower

RI
RMSE for the collector efficiency compared to the non-uniform model, except in the case of black chrome
coating with air in the annulus. For the thermal losses, no difference between both models was revealed.
Nevertheless, the non-uniform model requires a longer computation time reaching 121 s or more for

SC
simulation, against 3 s with the uniform model. Simplicity and quick assessment, thereby, make the uniform
model suitable for the present work. The non-uniform model can potentially be required in future works to
study the receiver’s behavior with a non-uniform heat transfer for different PTC size and physical parameters
as well as operating conditions.

(a)
U (b)
AN
Figure 6 :Collector efficiency derived from the current model and compared to experimental data [29]. (a)
Cermet coating (b) black chrome coating.
M
D

(a) (b)
Figure 7 :Thermal losses calculated from the proposed model and compared to experimental data. (a) cement
TE

coating (b) black chrome coating. Off-sun case

Based on the RMSE calculations (Table 2), the current uniform model is an enhancement to the Forristal and
EP

Padilla models in some cases. It should be emphasized that the Padilla model is more precise because a
detailed radiative heat transfer analysis was performed and more accurate heat transfer correlations were used.

Table 2: Comparison of RMSE between the current model and others models
C
AC

In order to verify the accuracy of the uniform model in predicting the HTF outlet temperature, the obtained
results were compared to other models, for cermet coating and vacuum in the annulus test.

Table 3: Comparison of the Outlet temperature calculated from the proposed model with experimental data
and others models [36,38,42] for cermet coating and vacuum in the annulus test

Table 4: Variance of the different models simulated for Cermet coating and vacuum in the annulus test

12
 ACCEPTED
Table 5: Fisher test from M1-M4 models MANUSCRIPT
(if Vi/Vj is lesser than or equal to F(DOFi;DOFj)=3.787, Mi and Mj
are comparable)

As seen in Table 3, simulation results of the proposed model show good accordance with the trend of the test
values, with a RMSE estimated at 0.342 °C, faced with values of 0.416 °C, 0,21°C and 2.77 °C for Yilmaz
and Soylemez model, Padilla model, and 3-D model respectively.
According to the Fisher test (see Table 5), the current model is comparable to models M2 and M3, even if
these latter include a complete analysis of optical characteristics coupled to a heat transfer model [36], and/or
a detailed radiative heat transfer analysis [38]. This shows that the main objective considered in the
development of this model has been achieved: a simple model in its structure, but as precise as other more

PT
complicated models (models M2 and M3).
It should be mentioned that results from model M2 and M3 agree better with experimental values than the
current model at a higher temperature. Any improvement of PTC model accuracy by considering the radiation
of adjacent nodes or including a complete analysis of optical characteristics will be, however, offset by the use

RI
of a more complicated model.
As shown the comparison between the present model M1 and the 3-D model (M4), both models are not

SC
comparable and the model M1 present the less value of the variance (see table 4). Then, the complexity of 3-D
model does not necessarily imply a better accuracy, as more assumptions are made and can involve significant
errors. However, the CFD studies give important benefits in order to investigate the impact of the non-
uniformity of the heat flux.

U
Table 6: Comparison between simulation results for the current model and experimental data of Plataforma
AN
Solar de Almeria (PSA). [64]

The collector efficiency and outlet temperature, being calculated from the current model and compared to
M

experimental results of Urssa trough prototype, are shown in Table 6. The calculated outlet temperatures tend

(Ÿ. < °± (10,10)), the collector efficiency derived from the current model is comparable to results of the
ŸN
towards experimental data, within the experimental error bars. In addition, according to the Fisher test
D

semi-empirical correlation developed by Valenzuela et al [64]. This correlation is more precise, based on
fitted curves of the heat losses and the incidence angle modifier obtained from experimental data, confirming
TE

accordingly, the accuracy of the model for a long parabolic collector trough line.
Considering the simulation results of Andasol II loop and KJC loop (Table 7), the proposed model is in good
agreement with experimental values. While very satisfactory, it should be highlighted that the deviation of
(Tfout-Tfin) becomes more significant with increasing length: from 0.05 % for 8 m, 0.6 % for 73.08 m, 1.1 % for
EP

584.64 m to finally 1.6 % at 779.5 m. This is mainly due to the number of equations generated by the splitting,
which is limited by the ability of EES to solve simultaneously a number that does not exceed 24000 equations.
However, this error is much lower than the value found for an undivided receiver length for which the
deviation of (Tfout-Tfin) is 1.1 % at 110 m [68], revealing thus, the importance of splitting the length when
C

modeling a PTC.
AC

Table 7: Comparison between simulation results calculated from the model and tests data for Andasol II Solar
loop and KJC Solar loop

In order to validate the current model for all cases, it was simulated for other HTF, among which, nanofluid
and CO2. Table (8) presents four different tests made with CO2 as a HTF at low and high temperatures
conditions. The comparison between measurement data and simulated results show a good agreement with the
maximum uncertainty of 2 °C at higher temperatures.

Table 8: experimental and simulation data comparison for CO2 as a HTF at PSA gas test loop [13,67]

13
 ACCEPTED
Furthermore, the simulation results for MANUSCRIPT
Al2O3-water nanofluid compared to experimental data are presented in
table (9). The small difference between the model results and test data shows that the present model is also
suitable to predict the thermal performance of a PTC using nanofluid as a HTF. This fact is also confirmed by
comparison with Tagle-Salazar et al model (2018) [24]. This model is a modified version of the Forristal
model, where the convective heat transfer coefficient is defined specially for nanofluids. The Fisher test
between this model and the present model shows that, both models are comparable, and that the present work
includes more accurate correlations irrespective of the HTF liquid used.

Table 9: Comparison between simulation results calculated from the models and tests data for Al2O3 nanofluid
with 1 % of the volume fraction [24]

PT
As a conclusion, the obtained results for different simulations proved that the current model is able to predict
the thermal performance and the outlet temperature of a PTC with an uncertainty not exceeding 0.3 °C for a
liquid fluid. However, this value can increase up to 1.7 °C using gas as a HTF or for a long collector.
Nevertheless, these results are still very satisfactory, compared to the literature outcomes.

RI
The ability of the model to predict the performance of a PTC regardless of its working fluid and/or its size is
due to various facts. First, the model has not been limited to incompressible fluids: the enthalpy in the
convection term is a function of temperature and pressure. Second, solving the equations per segment along

SC
the absorber enables to determine the temperature profile and pressure in each point of the absorber, thus
estimating the thermo-physical properties of the HTF with more accuracy, instead of the average values.
Third, the correlation used to calculate the convective coefficient- HTF/ absorber pipe- takes into account the
axial position along the absorber. Finally, the optical analysis includes end losses factor and row-shadowing

U
factor, leading to estimate the solar energy absorbed of a SCA regardless its dimensions.
AN
5. Performance analysis of a PTC loop at Green Energy Park (GEP)

Figure 8 : Test facility loop at Green Energy Park in Benguerir

M

As already mentioned, the present model was used to analyze the thermal and optical performance of a PTC
D

prototype, which is going to be coupled to a bench scale flash dryer.

The PTC test facility is installed at GEP (Fig.8) located at Benguerir (Morocco) (Latitude: 32.029955,
TE

Longitude:-7.88535), used mainly to test different thermal oil under real solar conditions, and for medium
temperature applications. It has a maximum thermal capacity of 29 kWth, enabling to meet the capacity
required for drying of 18.29 kW. The residual energy will be evacuated by a cooler.
The solar loop is oriented north-south and composed of four collectors connected in series. The collector is
EP

supplied from Soltigua company [69], and it is able to operate up to 270 °C.
For this temperature range, three fluids are simulated. At first pressurized water and thermal oil are used as a
HTF, then this latter is used as a base fluid for nanofluids, notably Al2O3 / xceltherm_600 with a nanoparticle
C

volume concentration of 5 %. This value was chosen according to a sensitivity analysis, illustrated below,
evaluating the impact of various volume fractions of the nanoparticle on the thermal enhancement.
AC

5.1. Parametric analysis for the determination of the optimum mass flow rate.

Figure 9 :Collector efficiency curves in function of the mass flow rates i) pressurized water ii) xceltherm-600

Figures (9) illustrates the impact of the mass flow rate on the collector performance. For two HTF, the thermal
efficiency of the collector was examined for various mass flow rate, from 0.2 kg/s to 0.9 kg/s.
It is obvious that the thermal efficiency increases with raising the mass flow rate. However, above 0.8 kg/s the
curves are almost identical. This result proves that there is no reason to operate with a higher mass flow rate
for both fluids, leading to higher pressure losses. Thus, the optimum mass flow selected for both fluids is 0.82
kg/s.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 10 :Convective heat transfer coefficient for different nanoparticles concentration and the variation of
the temperature gradient in the cross section with various inlet temperature

Figure 10 presents the variation of the convective heat transfer coefficient between the absorber tube and the
HTF for different nanoparticles volume fraction. It is clear that the dispersion of Al2O3 nanoparticles in
xceltherm-600 increases the convective heat transfer coefficient up to 5.7 % and 5.3 % at 100 °C and 220 °C
respectively. In addition, this technique enables to decrease the circumferential temperatures gradient as
shown in Figure 10. Therefore, the use of nanofluid as a HTF is often recommended for getting a higher
thermal efficiency and lower thermal stresses.

PT
It is important to state that for the great concentration of Al2O3 after 5 %, the convective heat transfer
coefficient curves are so close. So, on point of view nanoparticle concentration/ thermal enhancement, the 5 %
volume concentration of AL2O3 was selected.

RI
Figure 11 :Thermal efficiency of the collector for the various examined working fluid

SC
The simulation results illustrated in figure 11, confirm the previous literature works [7] stating that the water
is the most efficient working fluid for a temperature range from 300 K to 500 K. However, in the application,
the water operates only in low temperature levels while at higher temperature, the demand of a high pressure

U
is a constraint, making then the use of nanoparticles or turbulators as attractive solutions with the same
targeted performances [16].
AN
5.2. Solar loop’s operating temperature profile
The current model allows predicting the PTC outlet temperature as a function of the meteorological data and
the operating conditions. These latter are determined according to a parametric analysis in the previous
M

section. The simulation is done using a Therminol oil, because it is the HTF used actually at GEP.
The PTC prototype is going to be coupled to a bench scale flash dryer, which requires a continuous supply of
energy at a definite temperature. Then, the hot HTF, produced by the solar loop, will go through a heat
D

exchanger to provide its thermal energy for the drying air.

Figure 13 shows the solar loop’s operating temperature during daylight hours simulated by the present model.
TE

It is divided into two periods: HTF warm-up period and the start-up period. The HTF warm-up starts with
sunrise until the HTF reaches its set point inlet temperature. It can be observed that the outlet temperature
follows the profile of the solar radiation during the day 14/06/2016 (Fig.12), reaching a maximum value at
noon, and decreasing after that for the evening hours.
EP

After calculating the exit temperature of the PTC array, the heat transfer rate of the cold fluid is determined,
by assuming that is equal to the heat transfer rate of the hot stream. Then, the exit air temperature from the
exchanger is found by applying an energy balance on the cold stream. This temperature can be used to predict
C

the product moisture content at the exit of the flash dryer, during the tests, by using the 1-D model of the
phosphate flash dryer as shown in figure 14.
AC

Figure 12 :GHI, DNI and DHI measured at Meteorological station in Benguerir

Figure 13 :HTF Inlet and outlet temperature simulated by the present model during daylight hours for GEP
solar loop
Figure 14 : Variation of the solid moisture content for three inlet air temperature of 150,180 and 220°C,
simulated for the phosphate flash dryer at bench scale

6. Conclusion

15
 ACCEPTED
In this study, the major factors that prove MANUSCRIPT
the feasibility of integrating PTC into an industrial process operating
at high temperature were highlighted first. Using the detailed models developed, an analysis of the PTC
performance for various solar loops and using different heat transfer fluids was conducted. The simulation
results show the following:
- Both the uniform and non-uniform models are in good agreement with experimental data. When
compared to other models, the Fisher test confirms that the uniform model is comparable to more
complex models;
- The uniform model predicts properly the heat transfer behavior of a PTC array, regardless of the
working fluid, operating temperature, and PTC scale;
- The uniform model can estimate the PTC outlet temperature with a maximum uncertainty of 0.3 °C
with a liquid fluid. This value can raise up to 1.7 °C when using a gas as HTF or for a long solar loop

PT
exceeding 700 meters in length;
- The kinetics term, the pressure losses, and splitting of the HCE into several segments along the
receiver must be considered to improve model accuracy, especially for a long receiver.
- The proposed models can estimate the solar loop performance during the testing phase of a bench

RI
scale solar flash dryer. This would enable prediction of the process air temperature used in a flash
dryer.

SC
The proposed models seem to underestimate the heat losses, particularly at a higher temperature. This could
be explained by radiation interactions between neighboring surfaces that are neglected. Final results of the two
models show that they can be used to explore the PTC performances under various operating conditions (HTF

U
type, inlet temperature, HTF inlet velocity). Using a fixed set of parameters, this enables calculation of
generated thermal power that can then be linked to a phosphate drying, and evaluating the impact of the
AN
targeted drying temperature range on the PTC performance.
Future work includes the coupling of the PTC uniform model to a phosphate flash dryer model, and validation
at bench scale before subsequent extrapolation in order to study the process at pilot scale.
M

Funding
This work was supported by research institute for solar energy and new energies -IRESEN.
D

References
[1] Pirastech G, Saidur R, Rahman SMA, Rahim NA. A review on development of solar drying applications.
TE

Renewable and sustainable energy reviews. 2014; 31:133-148.

[2] Task 33: solar heat for industrial processes. IEA solar heating and cooling program. 2003-2007.
[3] Moroccan Agency for Energy Efficiency; https://www.medener.org/en/publications; 2018
EP

[4] Sherma AK, Sherma C, Mullick SC, Kandpal TC. Solar industrial process heating: A review. Renewable
and sustainable energy reviews 2017; 78:124-137
[5] Jebasingh V.K., Herbert G.M J. A review of solar parabolic-trough collector. Renewable and Sustainable
C

Energy Reviews 2016; 54: 1085-1091.

[6] El Hallaoui Z, Vaudreuil S, Moudakkar T, Bounahmidi T. One-dimensional phosphate flash dryer model
AC

for design application. Drying technology 2018;36.

[7] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. A detailed working fluid investigation for solar parabolic
trough collectors. Applied thermal engineering 2017;114 :374-386.
[8] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Parametric investigation of supercritical carbon dioxide utilization in parabolic
trough collectors. Applied thermal engineering 2017; 127:736-747.
[9] Benoit H, Spreafico L, Gauthier D, Flamant G. Review of heat transfer fluids in tube-receivers used in
concentrating solar thermal systems: Properties and heat transfer coefficients. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 2016; 55: 298–315.
[10] Scott PTR70 the 4th generation. https://www.schott.com/d/csp/370a8801-3271-4b2a-a3e6-
c0b5c78b01ae/1.0/schott_ptr70_4th_generation_brocure.pdf; 2018

16
 ACCEPTED
[11] Archimede Solar energy, product MANUSCRIPT
specification. http://www.archimedesolarenergy.it/en_specifiche-
prodotto-hcems-11.htm; 2018
[12] Kearney D, Kelly B, Herrmann U, Cable R, Pacheco J, Mahoney R, Price H, Blake D, Nava P, Potrovitza
N. Engineering aspects of a molten salt heat transfer fluid in a trough solar field. Energy 2004; 29: 861–870
[13] Munoz-anton J, Bienciento M, Zarza E, Diez LE. Theoretical basis an experimental facility for parabolic
trough collectors at high temperature using gas as heat transfer fluid. Applied energy 2014; 135:373-381.
[14] Ait Baha CSP Pilot Plant. http://www.airlightenergy.com/ait-baha-csp-pilot-plant/; 2018
[15] Wei Q, Pang XM, Zhou JX, Chen C. High temperature spectral selective TiC-Ni/Mo cermet-based coatings
for solar thermal systems by laser cladding. Solar Energy 2018; 171: 247–257.
[16] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Enhancing the performance of parabolic trough collectors using

PT
nanofluids and turbulators. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018;91: 358-375

[17] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat transfer and entropy generation in a parabolic trough

RI
receiver with wall-detached twisted tape inserts. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 2016;99: 238-257

[18] Diwan K, Soni MS. Heat transfer enhancement in absorber tube of parabolic trough concentrators using

SC
wire- coils inserts. Universal Journal of Mechanical Engineering 2015; 3:107-112.

[19] Waghole DR, Warkhedkar RM, Kulkarni VS, Shrivastva RK. Experimental investigations on heat
transfer and friction factor of silver nanofluid in Absorber/Receiver of Parabolic Trough Collector with

U
Twisted Tape Insert. Energy Proc 2014; 45:558-567.
AN
[20] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Daniil I, Antonopoulos KA. The impact of internal longitudinal fins in parabolic
trough collectors operating with gases. Energy Conversion and Management 2017; 135: 35–54.
M

[21] Yılmaz IH, Mwesigye A. Modeling, simulation and performance analysis of parabolic trough solar
collectors: A comprehensive review. Applied Energy (2018);225: 135–174.

[22] Andulhamed AJ, Adam N M, Abdin Ab-kadir MZ. Review of solar parabolic trough collector
D

geometrical and thermal analyses performance and applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2018;91:822-831.
TE

[23] Ghasemi SE, Ranjbar A. Effect of nanoparticles in working fluid on thermal performance of solar
parabolic trough collector. Journal of molecular liquids 2016;222.
EP

[24] Tagle-Salazar P.D, Nigam K.D.P, Rivera-Solario CI. Heat transfer model for thermal performance
analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors using nanofluids. Renewable energy 2018;125:334-343.
[25] Inventive power, Power trough 110. http://inventivepower.com.mx/?page_id=6311&lang=en
C

[26] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Thermal, hydraulic and exergetic evaluation of a parabolic trough
collector operating with thermal oil and molten salt based nanofluids. Energy conversion and management
AC

2018; 156:388-402.
[27] Rehan AM, Ali M, Sheikh NA, Shahid Khalil M, Chaudhary GQ, ur Rhashid T, Shehryar M.
Experimental performance analysis of low concentration ratio solar parabolic trough collectors with
nanofluids in winter conditions. Renewable Energy 2017;118: 742-751.
[28] Q Li, G Flamant, X Yuan, P Neveu, L Luo. Compact heat exchangers: A review and future applications
for a new generation of high temperature solar receivers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2011:15; 4855–4875
[29] Dudley VE, Klob Gj, Sloan M,Kearney D.test results: SGES LS-2 solar collector, SAND94-1884,
Albuquerque, NM; 1994.
[30] Stuetzle T. Automatic control of the 30MWe SEGS VI parabolic trough plant. Master thesis. University
of Wisconsin-Madison.: College of engineering; 2002.

17
[31] Odeh SD, Morrison GL, Behnia ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
M. Modelling of parabolic trough direct steam generation solar
collectors. Solar Energy 1998; 62(6):395-406.
[32] Forristal R. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar receiver implemented in
engineering equation solver. National renewable Energy laboratory (NREL); 2003.
[33] Kalogirou SA. A detailed thermal model of a parabolic trough collector receiver. Energy 2012; 48: 298-
306.
[34] Fasquelle T, Falcoz Q, Neveu P, Lecat F, Flamant G. A thermal model to predict the dynamic
performance of parabolic trough lines. Energy 2017; 141:1187-203.
[35] Ouagued M, Khellaf A, Loukarfi L. Estimation of the temperature, heat gain and heat loss by solar
parabolic tough collector under Algerian climate using different thermal oils. Energy Conversion and

PT
Management 2013; 75:191-201.
[36] Yilmaz H L, Soylemez M S. Thermos-mathematical modeling of parabolic trough collector. Energy
Conversion and Management 2014; 88:768-784.

RI
[37] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A novel parabolic trough solar collector model-validation with
experimental data and comparison to Engineering Equation Solver, Energy Conversion and Management
2015; 106: 268-281.

SC
[38] Padilla RV, Demirkaya G, Goswami DY, Stefanakos E, Rahman MM. Heat transfer analysis of parabolic
trough solar receiver. Applied Energy 2011;88: 5097-110.
[39] Tao YB, He YL. Numerical study on coupled fluid flow and heat transfer process in parabolic trough

U
solar collector tube. Solar energy 2010; 84: 1863-72.
[40] Huang W, Xu Q, Hu P. Coupling 2D and 3D optical model for performance prediction of a parabolic
AN
trough solar collector. Solar energy 2016; 139: 365-380.
[41] Cheng ZD, He YL, Xiao J, Tao YB, Xu RJ. Three-dimensional numerical study of heat transfer
characteristics in the receiver tube of parabolic trough solar collector. Int Commun heat mass transfer 2010;
37:782-7.
M

[42] He YL, Xiao J, Cheng ZD, Tao YB. A MCRT and FVM coupled simulation method for energy
conversion process in parabolic trough solar collector. Renew Energy 2011; 36:976-85.
[43] Liu Q, Yang M,Lei J, Jin H, Gao Z, Wang Y. Modeling and optimizing parabolic trough collector
D

systems using the least squares support vector machine method .Sol Energy 2012;86:1973-80.
TE

[44] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Minimum entropy generation due to heat transfer and fluid
friction in a parabolic trough receiver with non-uniform heat flux at different rim angles and concentration
ratios. Energy 2014; 73:606-617
EP

[45] Wang Y, Liu Q, Lei J, et al. Performance analysis of a parabolic trough solar collector with non-uniform
solar flux conditions. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2015; 82:236-249.
[46] Qiu Y, Li MJ, He YL, et al. Thermal performance analysis of a parabolic trough solar collector using
supercritical CO2 as heat transfer fluid under non-uniform solar flux. Applied Thermal Engineering.
C

2017;115:1255-1265.
AC

[47] Wu Z, Li S, Yuan G, et al. Three-dimensional numerical study of heat transfer characteristics of parabolic
trough receiver Applied energy. 2014;113:902-911.
[48] Ghomrassi A, Mhiri H, Bournot P. Numerical study and optimization of parabolic trough solar collector
receiver tube. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 2015;137:051003.

[49] Okafor I F, Dirker J, Meyer J P. Influence of non-uniform heat flux distributions on the secondary flow,
convective heat transfer and friction factors for a parabolic trough solar collector type absorber tube.
Renewable Energy2017;108:287-302.
[50] Wang Y, Liu Q, Lei J, et al. A three-dimensional simulation of a parabolic trough solar collector system
using molten salt as heat transfer fluid. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2014;70:462-476.

[51] Wang Z, Ni J, Zhao L, Deng S, Zhao D. Simulation and optimization of parabolic trough receiver with
non-uniform heat flux distribution: A review. Energy procedia (2017);142 :700-707
18
[52] Cheng ZD, He YL, Du BC,Wang ACCEPTED
K, Liang Q. MANUSCRIPT
Geometric optimization on optical performance of
parabolic trough solar collector systems using particle swarm optimization algorithm. Applied Energy 2015;
148:282-93.

[53] Lu J , Ding J, Yang J, Yang X. Nonuniform heat transfer model and performance of parabolic trough
solar receiver. Energy (2013); 59: 666-675.

[54] Cheng ZD, He YL, Qiu Y. A detailed nonuniform thermal model of a parabolic trough solar receiver with
two halves and two inactive ends. Renewable energy 2015; 74:139-47.
[55] Wang Y, Liu Q, Lei J. Jin H. Performance analysis of a parabolic trough solar collector with non-uniform
solar flux conditions. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2015; 82:236-49

PT
[56] Klein SA. Engineering equation solver for Microsoft windows, professional version. Madison WI: F-
Chart Software; 2002.
[57] Gnielinski V. New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and channel flow. International

RI
chemical engineering 1976; 562(2):359-63.
[58] Petukhow BS, Roizen LI. Generalized relationships for heat transfer in a turbulent flow of gas in tubes of
annular section. High temp 1964;2:65-8.

SC
[59] Rohsenow WM, Hartnett JP, Cho YI. Handbook of heat transfer, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill;1998
[60] Incropera F, DeWitt D,Bergman TL, Lavine AS. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 6th ed. New
York: john Wiley and sons; 2007.

U
[61] Padilla V. Simplified methodology for designing parabolic trough solar power plants [PhD thesis].
University of south Florida; 2011.
AN
[62] Garcia LI, Alvaez L.J, Blanco D. Performance model for parabolic trough solar thermal power plants
with thermal storage: comparison to operating plant data. Solar energy 2011;85:2443-2460.
[63] Alfellag M.A.A .Modeling and Experimental Investigation of Parabolic Trough Solar Collector, thesis.
M

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; 2014.

[64] Valenzuela L, Lopez-Martin R, Zarza E. Optical and thermal performance of large-size parabolic trough
solar collectors from outdoor experiments: a test method and a case study, Energy2014;70:456-46.
D

[65] Al-Maliki W.AK, Alobaid F, Kez, Epple B. Modelling and dynamic simulation of a parabolic trough
power plant. Journal of process Control 2016; 39:123-138.
TE

[66] Kelly B, Kearny D. Parabolic trough solar system Piping model. National renewable Energy laboratory
(NREL); 2004.
[67] Rodriguez-Garcia M-M, Marquez-Payés J-M, Biencinto M, Adler J-P,Diez L-E. First experimental
EP

results of a solar PTC facility using gas as the heat transfer fluid. SolarPACES 2009, 15-18 September, berlin,
Germany;2009.
[68] Liang H ,You S, Zhang H. Comparison of different heat transfer models for parabolic trough solar
collectors; Applied Energy 2015; 148: 105-114
C

[69] Technical features of Soltigua PTCs. http://www.soltigua.com/ptmx-introduction; 2018

AC

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PTC Incidence angle modifier

ଵ
LS-2 ݇ሺߠሻ = ሺcos ߠ + 0.000884ߠ − 0.00005369ߠ ଶ ሻ
ୡ୭ୱ ఏ

LS-3 ݇ሺߠሻ = 1 − 2.2307݁ ିସ ߠ − 1.1݁ ିସ ߠ ଶ + 3.18596݁ ି଺ ߠ ଷ − 4.85509݁ ି଼ ߠ ସ

ଵ
ET ݇ሺߠሻ = ሺcos ߠ − 5.25097݁ ିସ ߠ − 2.859621݁ ିହ ߠ ଶ ሻ
ୡ୭ୱ ఏ
ଵ
IST ݇ሺߠሻ = ሺcos ߠ − 3.1780݁ ିସ ߠ − 3.9850݁ ିହ ߠ ଶ ሻ
ୡ୭ୱ ఏ

PT
Table 1: Incidence angle modifier for the most important PTCs [61]

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RMSE
Cermet coating case η(%) heat losses (W/m2)(off-sun)
Vacuum
Current model Uniform model 1,064 4,04

Non-uniform model 1,390 4,04

Forristal model (2003) 1,382 6,004
Padilla model (2011) 1,012 2,414
Air

PT
Current model Uniform model 1,15 1,84

Non-uniform model 1,38 1,84

RI
Forristal model (2003) 1,562 4,416
Padilla model (2011) 1,225 2,651
RMSE

SC
Black chrome coating case η(%) heat losses (W/m2)
Vacuum
Current model Uniform model 0,86 3

UNon-uniform model 0,89 3

AN
Forristal model (2003) 1,191 7,23
Padilla model (2011) 0,926 1,978
Air
Current model Uniform model 1,16 4,54
M

Non-uniform model 1,14 4,54

D

Forristal model (2003) 0,808 2,667

Padilla model (2011) 0,855 4,714
TE

Table 1: Comparison of RMSE between the current model and others models
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Test Current Yilmaz and Padilla model 3-D model
model Soylemez (2011) [32]
(2014)
Outlet temperature Tf,out (°C) Tf,out (°C) Tf,out (°C) Tf,out (°C)

Case 1 124,00 124,2 124,32 124,2 126,2

case 2 173,30 173,6 173,87 173,5 177
Case 3 219,50 219,8 220,14 219,8 222,8
Case 4 269,40 269,5 269,57 269,4 272,4
Case 5 316,90 317,2 317,21 317,2 318,4

PT
Case 6 317,20 317,1 317,07 317,3 319,9
Case 7 398,00 398,7 398,48 398,2 400,4
RMSE 0,342 0,416 0,21 2,77

RI
Table 3: Comparison of the Outlet temperature calculated from the proposed model with experimental
data and others models [36,38,42] for cermet coating and vacuum in the annulus test

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Models Variance DOF
M1 Current model 0,117 7
M2 Yilmaz and Soylemez model (2014) 0,17 7
M3 Padilla model (2011) 0,074 7
M4 3-D model [32] 7,67 7
Table 4: Variance of the different models simulated for Cermet coating and vacuum in the annulus test

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
M1 : Current model 1
M2 : Yilmaz and Soylemez 1,475 1
model (2014)
M3: Padilla model (2011) 1,577 2,325 1
M4: 3-D model [32] 65,512 44,426 103,308 1
M1 M2 M3 M4
Table 5: Fisher test from M1-M4 models (if Vi/Vj is lesser than or equal to F(DOFi;DOFj)=3.787, Mi
and Mj are comparable)

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Test conditions Current Model Semi-
empirical
correlation
[46]
case DNI Tsa Tf,in(°C)
 Theta(°) Tf,out bar  Tf,out   -
3
(W/m²) (°C) m /h (°C) error (°C) calculated
case 1 894 28,9 250,6 14,74 18,4 292,9 1,3 0,727 292,2 0,723 0,721
case 2 943 34,1 284,9 14,97 16,1 330 0,4 0,727 329,7 0,7261 0,720
case 3 798 25,6 286 14,98 26,9 320 2 0,698 318,8 0,6718 0,688

PT
case 4 927 33,8 316,5 15,01 12 362,5 0,4 0,718 362,9 0,7329 0,72
case 5 911 35,1 316,9 15,03 16,1 360,9 0,5 0,718 360,8 0,7176 0,709
case 6 833 26,4 316,5 15,03 21,3 354,4 0,5 0,696 354,1 0,6925 0,693

RI
case 7 875 27,7 316,7 15,04 16 358,5 0,4 0,709 358,5 0,7167 0,706
case 8 904 24,6 334,8 15,2 30,7 372 0,9 0,679 371,1 0,6622 0,661
case 9 918 25,2 334,8 15,13 19,5 378,1 0,9 0,706 377,1 0,7006 0,693

SC
case10 919 32,9 334,5 15,4 12 379,1 1,4 0,711 380,1 0,7311 0,709
Variance  
.  .  
Table 6: Comparison between simulation results for the current model and experimental data of

U
Plataforma solar de Almeria (PSA). [64] AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Solar Test conditions Simulation results
loop (current model)
day DNI Tsa
 vair Theta HTF Tf,in Tf,ou Tf,out Un- UN-
(W/m² (°C) (⁄) (m/s (°) (°C) t (°C) T
) ) (°C) (°C)
AndasolI 6/26/ 875 10 7.05 3.5 16 Dowtherm 295 393 0.612 394.1 0.608 1.1 0.4
I 2010 A %
KJC 7/18/ 920 35 7.8 2.5 9.5 Therminol 275 387. 0.61 388.8 0.618 1.3 0.8
loop 1991 5 %

PT
VP1
2/01/ 950 10.7 5.28 5 47.5 Therminol 228 332. 0.344 334.1 0.353 1.7 0.9
2001 VP1 4 %

RI
Table 7: Comparison between simulation results calculated from the model and tests data for Andasol
II Solar loop and KJC Solar loop

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Test conditions Simulation results

Day DNI
 Theta Tf,in Tf,out Working Tf,out Un-T

(W/m²) (°) (°C) (°C) pressure (°C) (°C)
(⁄ )
(bar)
26/05/2009 940 1.25 15.3 185 400 65 400.3 0.3
950 1.36 8.5 189 400 65 398.3 1.7
26/10/2010 950 0.91 6 212 500 100 501.3 1.3
960 0.93 0 225 525 50 523 2

PT
Table 8: experimental and simulation data comparison for CO2 as a HTF at PSA gas test loop
[13,67]

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Test conditions Current model Simulation results
from [12]
DNI Tsa (°C) Tf,in (°C) Tf,out(°C) Tf,out,M (°C) UN-T Tf,out,M (°C)
(W/m²) (°C)
Case 1 839,2 43 56,3 57,2 57,16 0,0443 57,13
Case 2 810,3 31,1 54,1 55 54,92 0,08406 54,88
Case 3 818,6 30,7 54,8 55,7 55,62 0,07631 55,59
Case 4 743,1 30,4 56,4 57,2 57,14 0,05569 57,11
Case 5 831,7 31,3 59,1 59,9 59,94 0,03509 59,9
Case 6 841,2 30,5 63 63,8 63,84 0,04153 63,8
Case 7 855,8 39,2 57,6 58,5 58,47 0,0314 58,44

PT
Case 8 905,3 38 39,2 40,3 40,13 0,1728 40,12
Variance 0,006375 0,0094375
Table 9: Comparison between simulation results calculated from the models and tests data for Al2O3

RI
nanofluid with 1 % of the volume fraction [24]

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

The viability of integrating PTC technology into a high temperature process is investigated.

Various PTC models (1-D, 2-D and 3-D) were summarized.

Uniform and non-uniform model show good agreement with experimental data.

The simpler models developed here are comparable to more complex models, based on the
Fisher test results.

PT

Uniform model predicts the thermal performance of a PTC regardless of the HTF nature,
operating temperature and the PTC scale

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC