Pergamon

PII:

S0038492X(%)001314

Solar Energy Vol. 60, No. I, pp. 49-59, 1997

0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain

0038-092X/97 $17.00+0.00

MODELLING, OPTIMISATION AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF

A PARABOLIC TROUGH SOLAR COLLECTOR STEAM GENERATION
SYSTEM
SOTERIS

KALOGIROU,*f*

STEPHEN

* Higher

LLOYD

** and JOHN WARD **

Technical Institute, Department

of Mechanical Engineering, P.O. Box 423, Nicosia, Cyprus, and
** University of Glamorgan,
Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Pontypridd,
Mid Glamorgan,
CF37 1DL. UK
(Received

1 April 1996; accepted

(Communicated

for publication
12 October
by Doug Hittle)

1996)

Abstract-A
parabolic trough collector (PTC) system used for steam generation is presented in this paper.
PTCs are the preferred type of collectors used for steam generation due to their ability to work at high
temperatures
with a good efficiency. The modelling program developed called PTCDES is used to predict
the quantity of steam produced by the system. The flash vessel size, capacity and inventory determines
how much energy is used at the beginning of the day for raising the temperature
of the circulating water
to saturation
temperature
before effective steam production
begins. Optimisation
of the flash vessel presented here uses a simplified version of the program PTCDES. System performance
tests indicate that
the modelling program is accurate to within 1.2% which is considered very adequate. Finally, the theoretical system energy analysis is presented in the form of a Sankey diagram. The analysis shows that only
48.9% of the available solar radiation is used for steam generation. The rest is lost either as collector or
thermal losses. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

advantages with respect to other systems due to

the superiority of water as a heat transfer fluid
compared to heat transfer oils used in unfired
boilers, the relatively low capital cost of the
system as no heat exchanger is required, and
the avoidance of any flow stability problems
demonstrated in the in situ systems.
The system presented here consists of a parabolic trough collector, a flash vessel, a highpressure circulating pump, and associated
pumps and pipework (see Fig. 1). The solar
collector system works by drawing water from
the flash vessel, which is circulated through the
receiver of the solar collector at high pressure
to inhibit evaporation into the receiver and
hence prevent flow stability problems. The hightemperature, high-pressure water is flashed into
steam at atmospheric pressure in the flash vessel
which acts as a steam separator. The specifications of the solar collector system are tabulated
in Table 1.
The flash vessel is a vertical vessel (as shown
in Fig. l), with the inlet for the water located
about one-third of the way up its side. The
standard design of flash vessels requires that
the diameter of the vessel is chosen so that the
steam flows towards the top outlet connection
at no more than about 3 m s-l, This should
ensure that any water droplets can fall through
the steam in contra-flow, to the bottom of the
vessel. Adequate height above the inlet is

1. INTRODUCTION

Parabolic trough collectors (PTCs) are frequently employed for solar steam generation
because temperatures of about 300C can be
obtained without any serious degradation in the
collector efficiency. A typical application of this
type of system is the Southern California power
plants known as Solar Electric Generating
Systems (SEGS) which have a total installed
capacity to date of 354 MWe (Kearney and
Price, 1992).
Three methods have been employed to generate steam using parabolic trough collectors
(Murphy and May, 1982):

(1) the steam-flash concept, in which pressurised water is heated in the collector and
then flashed to steam in a separate vessel;
(2) the direct or in situ concept, in which twophase flow is allowed in the collector
receiver so that steam is generated directly;
the
unfired-boiler concept, in which a
(3)
heat-transfer fluid is circulated through the
collector and steam is generated via heat
exchange in an unfired boiler.
The

flash steam

generation

+Author to whom all correspondence

$ISES Member.

concept

should

has

be addressed.

49

50

S. Kalogirou

et al.

Thermocouple
number
STEAM

Temperature

measurement

point

OUTLET
Collector
outlet
Collector
inlet
Flash
vessel
bottom
Flash vessel
top
Ambient

SPRING
FLASH

Fig. 1. The complete

Table 1. PTC system specifications

Item

Value/type

Collector aperture area

Collector aperture
Rim angle
Glass-to-receiver
ratio
Receiver diameter
Concentration
ratio
Tracking mechanism type
Mode of tracking

3.5 mz
1.46 m
90
2.17
22mm
21.2
Electronic
Collector axis: N-S horizontal
E-W tracking
0.012 kg s-r rn-

Mass flow rate

FLASH VESSEL

LOADED
VALVE

necessary to ensure separation and this is also

facilitated by having the inlet projecting downwards into the vessel. The diameter and height
of the flash vessel to ensure separation were
determined as 65 and 600 mm, respectively.
The objective of this paper is to present the
modelling, optimisation and system performance evaluation. The system optimisation
aims to minimise the system start-up energy
requirement.
2. SYSTEM MODELLING
A modelling program called PTCDES is written in BASIC language. The program is used
to determine the quantity of the steam produced
by the steam generation system, i.e., the collector and the flash vessel. The principle of operation of the program is that it employs the values
of the solar beam radiation on a horizontal

steam generation

system.

surface and ambient air temperature from a

reference year for Nicosia, Cyprus, developed
previously ( Kalogirou, 1991). The beam radiation values are corrected hourly for the collector
inclination.
In this analysis a representative day for each
month is taken as shown in Table 2. These are
chosen because the value of extraterrestrial solar
radiation is closest to the months average at
that day (Duffie and Beckman, 1991).
In the program the actual measured collector
performance parameters of test slope and
intercept are required. These were obtained by
testing the collector according to the procedures
specified by ASHRAE Standard 93 (1986). The
program takes into account, in addition to the
sensible heat and the thermal capacity of all the
system components, all the heat losses from

Table 2. Average

day of each month

Month

Day

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

17
16
16
15
15
11
17
16
15
15
14
10

Modelling, optimisation and performance of a PTC steam generation system

the system, i.e., the flash vessel body, pipes and

pump body. After all these losses are estimated,
the flash vessel inlet water temperature is determined. From the difference in enthalpy of this
hot water to the water contained in the flash
vessel, the steam production is calculated.
The program also considers the losses during
the overnight cooling period which were calculated assuming that the temperature of the water
in the vessel at the beginning of this period is
equal to the flash vessel bottom temperature.
Thus, the effect of using the flash vessel for
thermal storage was investigated. After the night
losses were calculated, the initial flash vessel
water temperature for the succeeding day was
determined. The daytime input energy is then
determined by using the collector performance
equation, with the appropriate optical losses
estimated by using the incidence angle modifier,
also determined
according
to ASHRAE
Standard 93 (1986). From the input energy, the
thermal losses are subtracted and the remaining
energy is used either to pre-heat or, once the
pre-heat cycle is complete, to produce steam.
The program can thus be used to model the
behaviour of the system during pre-heat and
predict the daily steam production of the
system. The program PTCDES flow chart is
shown in Fig. 2.
For the heat loss from the cylindrical flash
vessel the following relation was used:

QFS=

START

Es
Rf4D

Di
27ckH

NDDIPY OATA IF RfoulRED

OR

AT THE REoINNINo OF MN
NONTH KsntuTE
NIQNY LOSSES AND INllUL FIASH
VESSEL WATER 1EUPERAlURE

EsllNAlE

(THERNAL)

nNDPRoDwTouANnrf

I
ADD TO PREVIOUSLY

PRDDIJCED PRDDucl

ln(Di+t)
27rkiH

ADD HOURLY PRODUCT TO OlUNfHY

PKODUCEDWPREWDUSNDUR

0.25

I
DClERMHE

NDURLY YM
I
DCKRUINE

(1)
The third term of the denominator of eqn ( 1)
estimates the free convection from the external
flash vessel walls (insulation) to the environment
(Holman, 1989).
The flash vessel outer wall temperature is
determined from:

T,=

T-[

QFsrg

DATA

WPulcouEcTDR&m

Do
-I-

WEAlHER

PARANEIERSDATAPRDNAFILE

l-1,

ln(t + Di)

51

;&)I

(2)

The difference between wall temperature and

ambient temperature is checked against the DT
value. If the difference is more than lC, then

EFFICIENCY

Ou

I
PRINT RESULTS

Fig. 2. Program PTCDES flow chart.

DT is equated to T, - T.. This iteration process

continues until DT - (T, - T,) is less than 1C.
For the heat loss from the pipes, the UA
value approach, followed by many solar energy
simulation programs like TRNSYS (Klein
et al., 1990) and F-Chart (Klein and Beckman,
1983), is used. The heat loss from the pipes is
then

Qpipes= UAV-

Ta)

(3)

52

S. Kalogirou et al.

The pump employed was of cylindrical form

and positioned vertically. Therefore, the heat
loss from the pump body is calculated by the
relations applied to vertical cylinders, i.e. :

Qp_p = 1.42/$,&T-

T,)

(4)

The accuracy of the simulation depends to a

great extent on the validity of the reference
year. This was investigated when modelling the
performance of hot water production from
(PTCs) (Kalogirou et al., 1993). Although the
variation reported was 7%, this cannot be generalised as an expected variation.
The input data to the program PTCDES is
shown in Table 3, whereas a typical output for
the 3.5 m* collector model for the months
July-September is shown in Fig. 3. The monthly
total useful energy and the mean daily steam
production for the whole year are shown in
Table 4.
3.

SYSTEM OPTIMISATION

A system optimisation was undertaken to

determine the capacity (size) and inventory
(content) of the flash vessel. This would affect
the start-up or pre-heat energy requirements of
the system as the greater the water quantity the
bigger the requirement. However, the system
performance will reduce (in terms of steam
production) if the thermal mass of the system
is reduced too much. This is because the addiTable 3. Program PTCDES input data
Parameter
Solar radiation*
Ambient temperature*
Aperture width
Aperture area
Collector optical efficiency
(test intercept)
Slope of collector performance graph
(test slope)
Flash vessel water content
Flash vessel outside diameter
Flash vessel inside diameter
Flash vessel wall thickness
Flash vessel height
UA value of the pipes
Pump body area
Insulation conductivity
Mass flow rate
Mass of circulated water

Value

1.46m
3.5 m2
0.638
0.387 W mm2 K-r
0.7 kg
105 mm
65 mm
2mm
0.6 m
0.93 W K-r
0.12 mz
0.035 W m-r K-r
0.042 kg s-r
4kg

*Values normally taken from reference year. For the simplified version of the program, single constant values are
used as indicated.

tion of make-up water would then dilute the

system temperature and possibly result in the
performance and hence production of steam
becoming unstable.
The system refinement could be readily
achieved by optimising the flash vessel water
capacity and inventory and also by optimising
the flash vessel dimensions and construction in
order to lower the system thermal capacity and
losses. One constraint on the optimisation which
should be noted, however, is that there is a
minimum water mass of circulating water, contained in the pipes, which is fixed and cannot
be changed.
Another possibility which should be considered as a system refinement is the use of the
flash vessel as a storage vessel. This will be done
by oversizing the flash vessel and would have
the advantage of starting the system in the
morning with the water at a higher temperature
but has the disadvantage of a greater water
mass to heat up.
A simplified version of the simulation program PTCDES was used for the system optimisation. In this version of the program, a
constant radiation input and ambient temperature throughout the day is used so that
the system performance can be investigated
theoretically
independently
of the weather
conditions.
The modelled performance of the system, for
constant values of solar radiation and ambient
air temperature equal to 500 W m-* and 30C
respectively, is shown in Fig. 4, where the daily
production of steam is plotted against the flash
vessel capacity and content. The vertical lines
represent the different flash vessels simulated in
this investigation. The table incorporated in
Fig. 4 shows the dimensions of the various flash
vessels considered in this simulation.
As the energy input is the same for all cases,
increased steam production means that less
energy is used in the pre-heat cycle. It can be
seen from Fig. 4 that the highest predicted steam
production is for vessel #l with a water content
of 0.6 1. Although a system with flash vessel #l
provides the maximum steam production, its
operation is not very stable as a possible drop
of its water capacity would lower its performance drastically. A more sensible selection is
flash vessel #2 with 0.7-l capacity. This system
presents only a 0.8% reduction in steam production when compared with vessel #l but is
more stable.
It should be stressed that because of the

Modelling, optimisation and performance of a PTC steam generation system

IuNTil

53

JULY

TIME

COLLECTOR
EFFICIENCY

6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00

0.51
0.54
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.55
0.50
0.17

HOURLY
CUMULATIVR
PRODUCTION' PRODUCTION'
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.36
1.46
1.82
1.88
3.69
2.05
5.75
7.90
2.15
2.20
10.10
2.23
12.32
2.30
14.62
2.17
16.79
1.84
18.64
1.38
20.02
1.07
21.09
0.00
21.09

USEFUL
ENER&
137.21
485.02
1173.76
1282.06
1343.00
1374.49
1392.46
1435.45
1357.79
1150.75
864.08
666.40
0.00

ENERGY
LOSSZ
25.56
108.81
125.87
122.16
118.87
116.16
114.04
113.28
112.70
114.62
116.56
119.48
123.16
108.29

USEFUL
ENERGY=
372.65
721.24
950.49
1066.24
1103.25
1140.50
1159.06
1203.24
1189.18
1156.74
948.31
770.25

ENERGY
LOSS2
68.56
128.00
124.12
120.23
117.34
115.02
114.25
113.68
115.98
118.10
121.21
125.29

USEFUL
ENERGY'
234.14
549.31
736.92
770.77
788.09
819.57
875.48
916.67
968.75
1070.32
1149.06
0.00

ENERGY
LOSS2
42.85
124.64
128.79
125.09
122.38
120.25
119.47
119.28
121.59
124.10
126.42
112.33

910.33

Month average production = 6.024 kg&day

Month Total USEFUL ENERGY 3: 13572.8 Wh

TIME

7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00

COLLECTOR
EFFICIENCY
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.51
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.59
0.58
0.54

CUMULATIVE
HOURLY
PRODUCTION' PRODUCTION'
0.00
0.00
1.13
1.13
1.52
2.65
4.36
1.71
6.12
1.77
1.83
7.95
9.80
1.86
1.93
11.73
1.90
13.63
1.85
15.48
17.00
1.52
1.23
18.23

Month average production = 5.209 kg/m'-day

Month Total USEFUL ENERGY = 11781.1 Wh

nGNTH=s-Ei?

TIME
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00

COLLECTOR
EFFICIENCY
0.54
0.50
0.47
0.44
0.42
0.42
0.44
0.47
0.51
0.55
0.58
0.26

CUMULATIVE
HOURLY
PRODUCTION' PRODUCTION'
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.60
1.78
1.18
3.02
1.23
4.28
1.26
5.59
1.31
1.40
6.99
8.46
1.47
1.55
10.01
1.71
11.72
1.84
13.56
13.56
0.00

Month average production = 3.873 kg/m'-day

Month Total USEFUL ENERGY = 8879.1 Wh

Notes :

1. Steam production in kg
2. Useful energy and energy loss in Wh
Fig. 3. Simulation program FTCDES typical output.

and inter-relationship
of the
complexity
parameters, the analysis undertaken here cannot
be generalised and should be applied to individual cases to determine the optimal design for
a particular collector system.

4. STEAM GENERATION
PERFORMANCE

SYSTEM
EVALUATION

First, the transient system performance is

evaluated to investigate the energy required to
pre-heat the system followed by the model

S.Kalogirou et al.

54

Table 4. Predicted monthly energy collection and steam

production

4.1. Pre-heat energy evaluation

PTCDES results
Useful
energy
(kWh)

Month
January
February
March
April

Mean steam
production
(kg m -day-)

0.759
1.226
4.187
6.270
8.450
12.597
13.573
11.781
8.879
4.532
1.851
0.880
2249.5 kWh

May

June
JOY
August
September
October
November
December
Annual

Daily
clearness
index KT

0.116
0.320
1.640
2.654
3.665
5.572
6.024
5.209
3.873
1.876
0.632
0.175
952.7 kg mm2

0.47
0.51
0.54
0.56

0.56
0.62
0.64
0.62
0.59
0.58
0.51
0.47

validation. The model is validated by comparing

the experimental daily steam production with
predicted results under steady-state conditions.
It is also validated under transient conditions
when the collector is shaded.

For a cold start the amount of energy required

to pre-heat the system depends on the thermal
capacity of the various system components, on
the total water quantity and on the thermal
losses.
The pre-heat energy can be measured by
recording the temperatures at various points in
the system together with the solar radiation
falling on the collector aperture area. For this
purpose a computer data acquisition system
was set up utilising K-type thermocouples for
temperature measurement and an Eppley radiometer for recording the solar radiation. The
measurement position of each thermocouple is
shown in Fig. 1.
The measured temperatures during a cold
start of the system equipped with flash vessel
#2, together with the corresponding solar radiation, are shown in Fig. 5. The system is at the
end of the pre-heat cycle when the temperature
at T4 (flash vessel top) reaches the temperature
T3 (flash vessel bottom). This indicates that
steam is now being produced at a steady rate
and that the flash vessel has approximately

13

12

11

10

vessel
6

#l

vessel
1

0.3

#3

vessel

#2
I

1 0.5 1 0.4
0.6
0.8
I
1.3
1.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.5
2
Flash vessel

water

capacity

vessel

#5

vessel

#4

12.5

(kg)

Fig. 4. Predicted steam production for various size flash vessels.

10

I5

Modelling,

optimisation

Thermocouple
number
Tl
T2
T3
T4
TS

and performance

of a PTC steam generation

system

Tempcraturc
measuremenl poiut
Collector oullci
Collectorinlet
Flash vessel bollom
Flash vessel top
Ambient

Note: Effective

55

10

20
Time

4.2. Validation of the model

This was investigated by performing all day
experiments during which both the steam production and the weather conditions were
recorded. The measured weather data were then
used in the simulation programs PTCDES,
the output of which were compared with the
actual performance data. The experiments were

30

40

(minutes)

Fig. 5. Pre-heat

reached the steady-state temperature. From the

data shown in Fig. 5, this is achieved after
approximately 35 min. During this time period
the insolation was approximately 690 W m-,
which represents the total energy available to
the collector of 4.3 MJ. It can be seen from
Fig. 5 that the temperature at the top of the
flash vessel (T4), slowly increases by conduction
from the bottom of the vessel until the collector
outlet temperature reaches 100C. When this
happens the temperature increases more rapidly
but more energy is still needed (about 0.25 MJ)
to pre-heat this part of the vessel. The steam
produced during this period is condensed on
the relatively cold vessel walls until their temperature reaches the value of T3 at which point
the pre-heat cycle is completed and the system
starts producing useful steam.

aperture area=3 m*

cycle graph.

performed for two days, one sunny summer day

with high ambient temperature (hot) and one
sunny winter day with a low value (cold). For
these experiments a flash vessel #l, of 54 mm
diameter, 600 mm height with a 0.6 1 water
content was used.
The program was modified slightly by deleting the statements converting the horizontal
beam radiation into radiation falling on the
collector surface as the latter was measured
during the experiment directly.
Comparisons between the predicted and
actual performance are shown in Figs 6 and 7
where the cumulative steam production is plotted for both cases. It can be seen from the
figures that the program is accurate for the hot
sunny summer day, whereas the difference is
greater for the cold sunny winter day. The total
system production together with the percentage
differences between the actual and the predicted
system performance are shown in Table 5. The
small percentage difference shown in the last
column of Table 5 clearly indicates that the
model gives good predictions, which are accurate to within 1.2%.
An additional verification of the accuracy of
the modelling was carried out by fitting flash

56

S. Kalogirou

6.00

9.00

10.00

11.00

12.00
limp

Fig. 6. Comparison

between

Actual

predicted

et al.

of

13.00

PTCOES

and actual

14.00

15.00

16.00

(summer

day, hot)

17.00

day
Rdlctlon

system performance

2.0
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Tim
0

Fig. 7. Comparison

between

ActLmt

predicted

of

and actual

vessels #l and #3 (detailed in the table included

in Fig. 4) on the collector and testing the system
with different water capacities. The daily steam
production was compared to the predicted performance. For this purpose, actual hourly values
of solar radiation and ambient air temperature
were used. The results are shown in Table 6

QY

PTCDES

PrOdIction

system performance

(winter day, cold).

from where it can be seen that there is a good

agreement between the actual and predicted
results. The maximum difference (8%) is for
flash vessel #l with a water capacity of 0.3 1.
This can be attributed to the fact that the
make-up water was manually added at different
occasions as needed and not constantly as

Modelling,
Table 5. Cumulative

optimisation

and performance

summary between actual and predicted

system performances
Total system production
(kg)

Item

Actual

Hot sunny day

Cold sunny day

11.72
2.57

PTCDES
prediction

Percentage
difference
with respect
to actual

11.68
2.54

-0.3
-1.2

assumed by the program.

This has a greater
effect on the system with flash vessel #l which
is more sensitive to water capacity.
In addition to the above testing procedure,
the performance
of the system was also examined under
transient
conditions.
This was
achieved by shading the collector whilst keeping
the system pump operating.
The shading was
removed after 1 h. In this way the cooling and
the heating of the system could be investigated.
In Fig. 8 the actual and the predicted collector
inlet and outlet temperatures
are plotted. In this
case the collector inlet temperature is equivalent,
to a good approximation,
to the temperature
73 (flash vessel bottom).
The agreement
between the experimental
and modelled plots is
very good, both with respect to time and temperature
profiles and to the minimum
water
temperature
reached at the end of the l-h
period. It can be seen from Fig. 8 that initially
the collector outlet temperature
is greater than
the inlet. This happens until the energy stored
in the collector
receiver is given up to the
circulating fluid. After 2-3 min, the situation is
Table 6. Comparison

between

Flash
vessel
#1

#3

Table 7. Percentage

actual

Capacity
(1)

4.3. Theoretical

41.5
44.7
46.5
48.1

system energy analysis

for different

Predicted
steam
production
(kg)

8.38
12.46
13.87
12.88
12.58
12.73

Collector
losses (%I,)

57

The results from the model simulation can be

used to produce theoretically the system Sankey
diagram. Such an analysis for a day with constant radiation of 500 W m-, ambient air temperature of 30C and all other parameters
as
shown in Table 3 is presented
in Fig. 9. The
analysis is performed
for the 3.5 m2 aperture
area model with flash vessel #l and 0.6 1 water
capacity.
The analysis
shown graphically
in
Fig. 9, in the form of a Sankey diagram, indicates the magnitude
of the various losses of
the system.
From Fig. 9 it can be seen that only 48.9%
of the solar energy falling on the collector is
utilised for steam generation. A large percentage
of the losses is due to collection losses, 41.5%,
and the rest, 6.9%, is made up of thermal losses.
Energy losses due to raising the water temperature from ambient to 100C is 2.2% and for
the rig is 0.5%.
A better representation
of the thermal losses
is shown in Fig. 10, where it can be seen that

system performance

flash vessels and capacities

Percentage difference
between actual
and predicted
production

7.76
11.87
13.47
12.51
12.34
12.36

system losses and percentage

system

reversed and the collector

inlet temperature
is greater than the outlet temperature.
This is
because the losses from the collector receiver
are responsible
for cooling down the system.
The receiver together with the pump are relatively poorly insulated parts of the system. It
can also be seen from Fig. 8 that only 13 min
( 1.6 MJ) are required for the system to recover
and return to steady-state
condition
after the
shading is removed.

Actual
steam
production
(kg)

0.3
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.5
2.0

Collector operating
temperature
(C)
100
150
175
200

and predicted

of a PTC steam generation

8
5
3
3
2
3

useful energy for higher operating

temperatures

Thermal
losses (%)

Sensible heat and

thermal capacity
losses (%)

Useful
energy (8)

6.9
11.7
14.4
17.1

2.7
5.0
6.0
7.1

48.9
38.6
33.1
27.7

58

S. Kalogirou et al.

99

iaullff

CDLLECIDR

98

SHADED

97
96

95
94

STEADY
STATE
REGION

STEADY
STATE
REGION

93
92
91
90
89

88
87

86

Radiation
690 W/n?

0 W/m

Radialion=

85
84
I

83

30
Time

Cl

Tl (actual)

10

-10

50
(minutes)

T2 (actual)

Tl

(modelled)

T2 (modelled)

Fig. 8. Comparison of actual and predicted transient response.

COLLEXTORLOSSES
23.5 MJ
41.5%

THERMAL LOSSES
3.9 Ma
&
6.9%

SENSIBLE HEAT (1.25 MJ) +

THERMAL CAFACMY (0.28 MI)
e
2.7%

SOLAR
EEY
Z%

yJ

ZGY
INPUT
33.2 MJ
58.S %

USEFUL
ENJZRGY
27.8 MJ
48.9%

Fig. 9. System Sankey diagram.

losses from the pipes amount to 52.6%, losses

from the pump body amount to 37.5% and the
rest (9.9%) is due to flash vessel body losses.
The same analysis can be performed for the
system operating at higher temperatures. This
is shown in Table 7, where the percentage losses
and the percentage useful energy for various
operating temperatures are tabulated. The same
input parameters, as described above, are used
in this analysis for comparison purposes. It can
be seen from Table 7 that the higher operating

temperature affects mainly the thermal losses,

the sensible heat losses and the thermal capacity
losses, whereas the collector losses are not
greatly affected.
5.

CONCLUSIONS

A parabolic trough solar energy collector

system for steam generation is presented in this
paper together with the system modelling and
optimisation. The modelling was used for the

Modelling,

optimisation

and performance

of a PTC steam generation

system

59

SENSIBLE HEAT (23.6%)

LOSSES FROM PIPES

(37.6%)

NP BODY LOSSES (26.9%)

FLASH VESSEL LOSSES (7.
CAPACITANCE

LOSSES (5.2%)

Fig. 10. Theoretical

thermal

prediction
of the daily steam production
and
the system start-up energy requirements.
Energy
invested in the pre-heating
of the flash vessel is
inevitably
lost due to the diurnal cycle. The
losses during
the long overnight
shutdown
return the vessel to near ambient
conditions
each morning.
Therefore,
the optimisation
is
focused on the selection
of the flash vessel
dimensions
and capacity which minimise
the
system start-up
energy requirement
and thus
maximise
system output.
The optimum
flash
vessel diameter
and inventory
obtained
from
this analysis are 65 mm and 0.7 1, respectively.
From the results presented, 4.3 MJ are required
for pre-heating
the system. When shading is
introduced
for 1 h, 1.6 MJ are required for the
system to recover and return to the steady-state
condition.
From the results presented,
which
include testing of the system under both steadystate and transient
conditions,
it can be concluded that the modelling
program developed
is accurate to within 1.2%. From a theoretical
system energy analysis, it was shown that only
about 49% of the incident radiation falling on
the collector is utilised for steam generation.
The rest are thermal
and collection
losses.
Operation of the system at higher temperatures
affects mostly the system thermal losses.
NOMENCLATURE

losses from the system.

temperature
difference (K)
flash vessel height (m)
pump height (m)
flash vessel wall thermal conductivity
-1 K-i
(Wm
)
insulation thermal conductivity
(W m-i
heat loss from flash vessel (W)
heat loss from pipes (W)
heat loss from pump body ( W)
water temperature
(K)
flash vessel wall thickness (m)
ambient temperature
(K)
flash vessel outer wall temperature
(K)

REFERENCES
ASHRAE Standard 93 (1986) Method for Testinn to Determine the Thermal Performance of Solar Collectors.
Duffie J. A. and Beckman W. A. (1991) Solar Enaineerinp
of Thermal Processes, 2nd Edn. John Wiley-& Sons,
New York.
Holman J. P. (1989) Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill,
New
York.
Kalogirou S. (1991) Solar energy utilisation using parabolic
trough collectors in Cyprus. M. Phil. Thesis, The Polytechnic of Wales.
Kalogirou
S., Lloyd S. and Ward J. (1993) Modelling of a
parabolic
trough collector system for hot water production. In Proceedings of ISES World Congress, Budapest, Hungary, Kaboldy E. (Ed.), Vol. 5, pp. 145-150.
Kearney D. W. and Price H. W. (1992) Solar thermal plantsLUZ concept (current status of the SEGS plants). Proceedings of the Second Renewable Energy Congress,
Reading,
UK,
Sayigh
A. A. M. (Ed.),
Vol. 2,
pp. 582-588.
Klein S. A. and Beckman W. A. (1983) F-CHART,
F-Chart
Software, Middleton, WI.
Klein S. A. et al. (1990) TRNSYS, A Transient Simulation
Program, Solar Energv Laboratorv.
Universitv of Wisconsin, Madison, WIT*
Murnhv L. M. and Mav E. K. (1982) Steam Generation in
.&e-Focus Solar Cdrrectors: a Comparatioe Assessment
of Thermal Performance, Operating Stability, and Cost
Issues. SERI/TR- 13 11.
I

A PUP pump body area (m*)

internal flash vessel diameter (m)
Di
external flash vessel diameter including
D0
(m)

insulation

K-l)