OF
PARABOLIC TROUGH SOLAR
COLLECTORS FOR TECHNICALLY
LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
TECHNICAL REPORT 1
by
Halil M. Gaven
Richard B. Bannerot
Mechanical Engineering Depariment
University o! Houston  University Park
Houston, Texas 77004
June, 1984
Any opinions, findings conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID).
TECHNICAL REPORT 1
Prepared by:
Approved by:
une, 1984
Acknowledgements
Halil M. Guven
Richard B. Bannerot
iii
Executive Summary
iv
energy applications.
The second technical report will emphasize the design
synthesis of PTC's for developing countries. The analytical
vi
Abstract
aperture that
universal random error parameter, a* (= oC), random error parameters, absorber diameter). 3 (= C) and d
) (= (d ry /D, where D is
found to
be sensitive to both random and nonrandom errors.
onedimensional heat
transfer model
for the thermal analysis of the
receiver subsystem is adopted. It is shown that this model
can be
used to calculate a heatloss parameter qL in Watts per m 2 of receiver surface area to characterize the thermal behavior of the receiver. It is shown that the presented thermal analysis can be The method developed can be
ix
TABLE F CONTENTS
O
Page
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Abstract
Table of Contents iii
iv
vii
x
xii
xvi
xxi
1
1.1 Background
5
8
11
Chapter 3
15
15
16
Operation
3.4 Description of Optical Errors 3.5 Analytical Techniques for Modeling Incident
Sunshapes and Effective Sunshapes
17
21
29
Page
3.5.1 Solar Irradiance Profile 
Incident Sunshape 3.5.2 Reflected Beam Profile 
Effective Sunshape 3.5.3 Analysis of Optical Errors Statistical Error Analysis Comprehensive Error Analysis 3.6 Effect of OffAxis Operation 3.7 Summary 29
31
38
39
42
50
52
Chapter 4 Chapter 5
5.1
53
78
78
79
82
98.
104
106
106
107
110
116
118
121
122
124
6.2 Description of the Problem and Assumptions 6.3 OneDimensional HeatLoss Model 6.4 Calculation of HeatLoss Parameter qL 6.5 6.6 Chapter 7 REFERENCES
xi
Annulus Gap Sizing Summary CLOSURE
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Aa
Reflector aperture area attribute rating for the i h alter naAive; a numerical value asso lated with an attribute of a particular alternative
Amax
i n
Amin
Ar C C0 CO <cose> Cp D D gi
D )0
dr
(dr)
rx
(d )y d* d+ i
d r along the optical axis of the reflector Universal nonrandom error parameter due to receiver mislocation (= (d )y/D) Amount by which constraint i has exceeded goal (overachivement)
xii
Amount by which constraints i is short of goal (underachivement) Focal length of the reflector Acceleration due to gravity Heattransfer coefficient due to wind Ratio of diffuse to hemispherical Beam solar irradiation Allday average beam insolation Allday average beam insolation and incidence factor product Thermal conductivity of air Effective conduction coefficient due to conduction and natural convection in an annular space kgas Thermal conductivity of the gas in the annu lar space of the receiver Thermal conductivity of glass Sky clearness index Incidence angle modifier (see Eq. 3.2) Allday average incidence angle modifier irradiation
d.
k air kef
zAnnular L 1n Pi
gap width Absorber tube length Working fluid flow rate Priorities of goals; their subscripts serve to identify priority level for the goals Heat loss per receiver surface area
qL
xiii
qnet
<qnet>
R ij
Ta
Tabs
Tfin
Tfout
Tg,i
Tg,o
UL
Vwind
W
Greek Symbols
a
Absorptance of selective coating
Reflector misalignment and tracking error
angle (see Figure 3.3)
Universal nonrandom error parameter due to
y
to
Intercept factor at normal incidence
Optimum intercept factor
Instantaneous (incidence angle dependent)
intercept factor
5Solar
declination angle
xiv
Eabs
Eg,i
Eg,o
To <rlc> (TC)noon 6
6 61, 6c
enoon
xLatitude
11 p
o
*
(Ta) n
4Trough w
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
ligure 1.1
Page
Solar Technologies................................... 2
Reflectors ........................................ 18
3.2 Idealized Central Ray Optics of Parabolic
Troughs ........................................... 20
Description of Potential Optical Errors in
Parabolic Trough Collectors ........................ 22
Schematic Representation of a Parabolic
Mirror Surface Showing the Difference
Between Slope Errors and Reflector
Profile Errors ......................................24
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
xvi
(Continued)
Title
Page
44
3.9
4.1
55
4.2
56
4.3
57
4.4
59
4.5
60
4.6
61
4.7
63
64
4.9
Intercept Factor as
Function of Concentration
a Ratio and Random Error Parameter ( Zero Non
Random Errors) ......................................
65
Intercept Factor as
Function of the universal
a Random Error Parameter (Zero NonRandom Errors)..
67
4.10
xvii
(Continued)
Title Page
4.11 Intercept Factor as a Function of Concen tration Ratio and Tracking Error for
a* = 0.05 radian and (d ) = 0.0 ............... 4.12 Intercept Factor as a Function of Concen tration Ratio and Tracking) Error ........ = 0.0 . for
* = 0.10 radian and (d )......
68
. ..
69
4.13 Intercept Factor as a Function of Concen tration Ratio and Tracking Error for
a* = 0.20 radian and (d ) = 0.0 ............... ry
4.14 Intercept Factor as a Function of the
Universal NonRandom Error Parameter due
to Angular Errors (8*) and Various Random
Error Levels (Zero Receiver Location Error) ....
70
71
4.15 Intercept Factor as a Function of Concen Ratio and Receiver Mislocation for
tration 72
D = 1.27 cm .......................................
4.16 Intercept Factor as a Function of Concen tration Ratio and Receiver Mislocation for D = 2.54 cm ....................................... 73 4.17 Intercept Factor as a Function of Receiver
Diameter and Receiver Location Error ........... 4.18 Intercept Factor as a Function of the
Universal NonRandom Error Parameter due
to Receiver Mislocation ........................ 5.1 Intercept Factor as a Function of the
Universal Random Error Parameter and rim
angle (Zero NonRandom Errors) .................
74
75
80
5.2
5.3
5.4
84
Xviii
(Continued)
Title Page
85
5.6
86
5.7
87
5.8
88
5.9
89
90
91
92
93
95
96
97
99
101
xix
Page
102
103
108
108
OneDimensional Receiver HeatLoss Model ..... Wind Induced HeatLoss from Receiver ......... HeatLoss Coefficient U as a Function of
Average Absorber Tube Tmperature and
Absorber Tube Diameter .......................... Annulus Gap Sizing for Alternate Gases
using a 2.54 cm Absorber Tube for an
Absorber Temperature of 315'C................. Annulus Gap Sizing for an Absorber Temperature
of 200 0C ......................................
il
115
117
6.6
120
121
6.7
xx
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
3.1 3.2
28
45
6.1
117
xxi
Chapter One
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
The continuing expansion of fossil fuel reserve estimates
development in renewable energy sources resulted in the demonstra tion of the technical tion.c. feasibility of many alternative energy op
are shown in
Central receiver
Point focus (parabolic dish and fresnel lens) 1504F Line focus (parabolic trough and fresnel lens, also
multiple reflictor)
4000 F
20000 F
600OF
3509F
Solar pond
50 I 10
100 I 50
200 I 100
400
800
1000 I 500 I
2000
3000 I 2000
(OF) ('C)
1000
Operating temperature
Note:
Linefocus, evacuated tube, and flatplate collectors are commercially available; central receivers, polntfocus collectors and solar ponds are still being developed.
Figure 1.1
Temperature ranges attainable with different solar technologies (from Reference 2).
3
technology exists, at present, solar energy is costeffective
for only a limited number of applications (e.g., water) system, [2,3]. is domestic hot
The economic value of a solar energy utilization to the incremental cost of the cheapest
equivalent
competing energy source that supplies the energy to accomplish the same task as the solar system. At the present time with
government orchestrated energy p,'icing policies, taxex emtptions, etc., especially favorable to conventional energy,
it is difficult to make a true cost estimate. However, rough
lies in repayment of the initial capital investment for the installed cost of the conversion system that can transform insolation
into a form of energy that can perform useful tasks. as 60 percent of the large initial As much
developing countries are much lower than in industrially devel oped countries, siderably less. the installed cost of a solar system could be con Furthermore, since many developing countries have the price of the cheapest competing
which is usually imported oil, is considerably the U.S. Thus, a solar industry,
4
utilizing local labor and materials as much as possible, may
be costeffective today or in the near future for many appli cations in developing countries.
1.2
trough and flat plate collectors have a moreorless fully devel oped technology, and they are commercially available in the U.S.
Parabolic Trough Collectors (PTC's) are capable of supplying
thermal energy over wide range of temperatures (up to about
a 300*C),and therefore they can be used for a variety of applica tions ranging from electricity for rural applications (agricul
tural pumping) all the way to industrial hot water and steam
production. Consequently, at present, they are the best can
5
Designs suitable for massproduction;
Lowcosts achieved with lowlabor, massproduction
materials and processes.
lowlabor massproduction
emphasized Treadwell
geographic location on the PTC performance, stated: "... a singleaxis tracking parabolic trough
solar collector could have a common optimum design for use in all regions of the U.S. This determination has an impact upon mass production of troughs since different
formed
the basis for all of their subsequent studies and modeling (e.g.,
[13,14]). A fundamental study to develop comprehensive
stated above).
In fact,
in such environments
'information base' at
meters (one random, a*, and two nonrandom, B* and d*) are
introduced to charaterize the various potential errors. The
10
I/
Chapter Two
thermal analysis for the receiver system. decoupled and hence dealt with separately
11
12
wD
W'
f = Focal length = Rim angle W = Aperture width D = Receiver diameter 0l = Acceptance angle = Gap width
Figure 2.1 Common terminology of Parabolic Trough Collectors.
13
With respect to the thermal analysis of cylindrical
receivers (with no insulation) , one can find a rather well
developed literature which includes extensive experimental
data,too. These studies are reviewed and their utilizability
errors, which are more of a rule than exception in low technology environments, were assumed to be nonexistent.
This assumption seems to be a valid one for an industrialized,
hightechnology design environment where a microcomputer
controlled tracker, precise manufacturing techniques and
sophisticated quality control equipment (e.g., trace [17] laser ray
can be used.
When designing PTC's for lowtechnology design environ ments, however, the effect of gross errors in manufacture,
14
assembly and operation should be incorporated into the
collector simulations and accounted for in the design
calculations. Therefore, it was concluded that studies
Chapter Three
METHODS FOR MODELING ERRORS IN
MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLY AND OPERATION
3.1 Introduction
The upper limit to the concentration that a parabolic
trough can achieve is set by the sun's width. In practice,
however, the average concentration ratio of a trough is degra ded to values much below this upper limit due to:
* apparent changes in sun's width and incidence angle
effects;
* physical properties of the materials used in receiver
and reflector construction;
. imperfections (or errors) that may result from poor
manufacture and/or assembly, imperfect tracking of
the sun, and poor operating procedures.
Proper identification ol all the factors that affect
the optical performance and hence precise knowledge of their
effects are vital for the successful design and dimensioning
of the trough.
In this chapter procedures are presented for modeling
the effect of various manufacturing, operational and material
imperfections (errors),and hence methods are developed for
calculating the intercept factor for different trough geomet ries having different error levels.
15
16
3.2 Optical Efficiency
Instantaneous optical performance of a trough can be
measured by the optical efficiency, which is the fraction of
incident radiation absorbed by the absorber tube and is
expressed as: no = P(Ta) ef f Y where P
=
(3.1)
e=
Ye
Instantaneous intercept factor (defined as the fraction of rays incident upon the aperture that reach the receiver for a given incidence angle e).
Tj
,,
incidence between the aperture surface normal and the There are several factors
incoming radiation.
that contribute to the decrease of optical efficiency with increasing incidence angle. These factors include the inci
dent angular dependence of glazing transmittance and absorp tance. Also, the instantaneous intercept factor Ye decreases
First, there is beam spreading due to reflector longi errors. Second, the apparent
path length.
17
by using the socalled incidence angle modifier [18] , The incidence angle
K(e).
e is
defined as [18]:
0(  0)e
[P(ra) effy6](8)
(3.2)
(qo)n
=
[P(Ta)n]
(3.3)
where
(Ta)n = Effective transmittanceabsorptance factor at
normal incidence,
Y = Intercept factor at normal incidence,
This definition of the optical efficiency allows a clear distinction of the factors contributing to it. The first
18
(a)
","
(b)
x"
IY
Figure 3.1
19
optical analysis of the trough is shown. The z axis is placed
along the tracking axis, and y axis along the axis of symmetry or
optical axis, as shown in Fig. 3.1. 0 and ell are the projec
tions of the incidence angle of the sun on the xy plane and
on the yz plane, respectively. With perfect tracking the
In this work, y is defined as a purely geometric quantity with out regard to absorption; absorption losses will be accounted
for later by a multiplicative factor, the reflectance transmittanceabsorptance product tion (3.1).
For simplicity, an "ideal" (but nonexistent) situation
('TC
), as shown in Equa
20
Incident central
Circular absorber
x
rayf
Reflector
21
delta functions, and it would be a simple matter to analyti cally calculate the fluxdensity pattern on the absorber tube
and to determine the intercept factor.
In the real world, however, life is not so simple. The
coming from the center of the solar disc may not reflect in
the ideal manner but deviate from it because of slope errors
on the trough near P or because of suntracking errors. The
3.4
22
\\%
/ "" Material, i Dif fusivity A Parabola Profile Errors y Local slope errors
(surface waviness)
Figure 3.3
23
in parabolic troughs.
errors asso
are considered.
of material, one surface of which is reflective. sheet is attached to its supporting structure distortions occur in the surface.
(ribs), various
a wavy pattern and in general the mean surface obtained by avera ging out the waves also may differ from the ideal (desired)
Finally, the reflecting surface may havre a small
surface.
24
S Central ray
no n
2,L Actual SMean
Ideal
/
Surface
Figure 3.4
25
nI n
SI
S n
P "Imperfect
Perfect
surf ace
N
N
surface
Figure 3.5
26
27
Central
ray
n
~Actual
surface
Ideal surface
28
MATERIALS
. Nonspecularity (diffusivity) of the reflective material
29
3.5 Analytical Techniques for Modeling Incident Sunshapes
and Effective Sunshapes
3.5.1 Solar Irradiance Profile  Incident Sunshape
In the early optical analyses of parabolic troughs (e.g.,
source.
the sun later studies [ 8 , 19] sity solar disc. either. But,
tional distribution is widened by atmospheric scattering es pecially during hazy atmospheric conditions. Light clouds can
[20]. Scat
the direction of the central ray from the sun and is called the
30
Isun(O = 2
7T
exp[sun
2
2 02
(3.5)
sun
31
3.5.2 Reflected Beam Profile. Effective Sunshape
The reflected beam profile can be characterized by using
cone optics [24]. The reflection of radiation from a finite
d2 e. 1
where I
Idw.cose dA
(3.6)
assumed
to be a normally scattered (Gaussian) function (Eq. (3.5)), w.1 = solid angle containing incident radiation (dwi In Eq. (3.5), = sinC d dy).
deviation of the scattered distribution, is usually small and on the order of 0.010 radian; therefore, smallangle approxi mations are valid. The irradiance on the reflecting element is found by
integrating over the complete solar disc, to be:
27T
f f d 2 e.(Cd~dy)cosdA
00 1 0 0
e. = 2 1
= IbcosedA
The total specularly reflected radiation is assigned the symbol e r and is composed of all the energy reflected to a surface At the
reflector, the magnitude of the intensity along an incident ray becomes negligible if the deviation,
,
32
33
large with respect to suffices (e.g.,
2
su n * A small multiple of
sun
.5 osun).
is assigned to be of higher
because the reflected
K.exp(
/2
Mir
) where
(Xx)2
(Yy) 2 .
p(Xx, Yy)
(3.7)
34
Which is in terms of the reflected intensity:
d4e
r
(3.9)
)exp( ( ))dx
dX dY
2Tro
sun
202
sun
202
mir
(3.10)
mir
over the entire
error from the small angle assumptions. The right hand side of
the reflected energy evaluation becomes the product of
two
convolutions, and the resulting expression is easily evaluated
by the method of Fourier transforms as follows:
d 2 er (X,Y)

K.Ib
f exp(
2 2'70y sun
0
x 2
202
)exp((Xx)dx
sun
202'
dX dY
mir
35
(y_ ,
202.
)2 )dy(dAcose)
202
sun
mir
K.I b
2 rC2
0_
sun
2 .Ib
K.Ib
) )
sun
Since the Fourier transform of a convolution is the product
of the transforms of the two functions, the Fourier transform
of the first product is readily expressed as
F(a) = F(a) =
F(f 1
(x) 0 f2 (x))
esunmirexp(
f(2 + su ir2 sun
2.)) mir )
f(X)
f()=
sun Mir
a2
%i
mir
exp(
2(02
x2
_
) )
sun
+02.
+G2. r
sun
Mir
d 2 e
KI (dAcose) n2 sn sun
(as
)(X exp(
2
+ y2)
dXd( ,Y) =
sun mir 2
+o mir )
(3.11)
36
The total reflected energy is then
er
f d2er(X,Y)dX dY = K.Iba ir
er =K. bmir a2
R
K
R.I
*b
P(Xx, YY)
R
0 2
exp(
(Xx) 2
2
Mir
2 0Mir
)exp(
(y_y) 2
/
R
exp(
_2
2 mir
2 mir
202 mir
in
R. I d 2 e (X,Y)
=
27 (G 2
2 (X + y 2 )
b
+G2.
exp(
2(02
sun
+02.
sun
Mir
)(dAcose)(dXdY) )
mir
... (3.12)
ex
exp(
+y2
)
(3.13a)
37
or
R.I ieff(O
)
a2
)
b exp(tot
2
(3.13b)
tot
where
a2
r2 + 0
results which demonstrate that normal scattering is descrip tive of most actual surfaces encountered in solar energy
utilization.
The preceding derivation is based on a twodimensional
sunshape description because solar intensity distribution
data is usually reported as a radial distribution Iradial(0
in W/m 2 sr, disc. being measured from the center of the solar
where
38
Ii Isun,linear(
b ex( ea(2T)
exp(22 b
sun,linear
sun,linear
Since the sunshape has a circular geometry, the one dimensional rms width (asunlinear) is related to asun (radial)
by:
(3.15)
_linear
IbR

) tot (3.16)
Ieffa
S=exp( 2O2C2
7
tot
where
2 2 +C2
tot
sun,linear
mir,linear
3.5.3
and assessing
39
associated with this approach are discussed and a comprehen sive approach for modeling the effect of errors (on the
optical performance of the trough) is presented.
Once again, the independent optical errors are:
" " " " " mirror diffusivity, local slope errors, parabola profile errors, receiver location errors, reflector alignment and tracking errors.
40
Therefore, the effective sunshape is a normal distribution
with an overall scattering parameter, atot' equal to the
square root of the sum of the squares of the individual
scattering parameters. atot as follows:
For example, Bendt [16] presents
0 tot
/0
G2
(2co)2
ac
a 2
sun
mir
slope )a
displacement
(3.17)
41
of various errors into a single parameter (atot)
,
and
thus
the errors differently and have more than one error parameter
to characterize and quantify the geometric effects resulting
from error distributions that do not have zero mean ( This
will also help incorporate the effects of errors).
In a recent study, Treadwell [26] addresses a similar
'gross' optical
42
the effect of the rest of the errors that are lumped into
atot" However, he fails to introduce new 'universal' error
43
44
Sunshape
Normal Intensity
Distribution
,
0
Glazing
Receiver Tube
with0
Stand. Dev. =oMean = 0.0 Actual Ceitral Ray / Incidentay Centl Ry
<
Normal distribution with Stand. Dev. = c'totn _mean = ,R Effective Sunshape (.flatter distribution due to random errors, shift of central ray due to nonrandom errors.) Normal Distribution with Stand. Dev. = totn
*
Mean  0.0
3 =
Concentrator
Figure 3.8
TAEIE 3.2
Typical Focal Lengths and Slope Errors for Model Parabolas of Various Materials and Processes
As Manuractured Types of Structure Materials Fabrication Method Cost Estimates 2 2 Focal Length FINS Slope Error, a
After 13 Months o
Temperature and
Humidity Cycling Focal Length RIS Slope
Error, a
(8/rt )
l.4
(ca)
(=rad)
7.9
(cm)
(mrad)
7.3
Laminates
73.1
80.0
Sandwiches
2.1
77.9
2.5
78.5
2.5
Cin
2.5
77.2
1.8
77.6
4.T
3.0 1.8
76.5 74.0
1.5
2.4
In Testing
In Testing
Molded Structures
76.2
ca._
From Reference
[17].
2 1976 Dollars.
46
a very short period of time) can also be assumed
to have normal distributions.
reflector surface.
47
Ion(b
PI b
exp(
liJ
)2 )
(3.18)
teff(
ot,
tot,n
where,
= Angular aperture (radians),
p = Average specular reflectance of the reflective
surface,
2
Ib
= Beam solar radiation, W/m
atot,n= =/y2
where,
a
sun,n
+ a 2 .
mirror,n
+ 2
4C
slope,n
(3.19)
48
Cslope, n

of these errors will be characterized by a single determi nistic value. The following physical measures will be
are a and dr
49
Ideal focus
Dislocated receiver
..
.. 4
perfect parabola
50
absorber tube.) The nonrandom errors are modeled as geomet
errors (errors which degrade the performance the most). this will allow for a tradeoff study between errors.
51
Nevertheless, the end effects can be minimized by using end
reflectors, long troughs or polar mounts [30]. The end
effects are not taken into account in the present collector design studies. It is assumed that this effect will be
accounted for when the decision on the length of the ATstring is made after the application type and the tracking mode are known. Rabl et.al. [16] have shown that the width of the solar 1/cos;;
.
Therefore,
for offaxis operation, the scattering parameter a sun in Eq.(3.17) will need to be changed to: _ sun , n a cos 11
asun
(3.20)
52
3.7 Summary
In this chapter a thorough study of the optics of the PTC's
was presented. Potential optical errors in manufacture, assembly
Models were developed
It was shown that the
and operation of troughs were identified. for modeling and analysis of the errors.
universal error parameters which combine collector geometry para meters with error parameters is given.
Chapter Four
PRELIMINARY OPTICAL RESULTS AND
DERIVATION OF UNIVERSAL ERROR PARAMETERS
The value of the intercept factor is governed by random
and nonrandom errors as
well as the concentrator geometry
(concentration ratio C and rim angle $).
So, the intercept
factor at normalincidence, y, can
be written as:
y = fn(P, C, D, a = atot,n'
, dr) 6 (4.1)
A modified version
errors as
random assuming normal distributions (with zero mean)
for their occurances.
The code has been modified to handle
random and nonrandom errors. Provisions were built into the
53
54
p, C, a, a and dr.
Results of
and nonrandom error parameters (0, 6, dr) for a fixed col lector geometry (C=20, D=2.54cm and 4=90') is studied. First,
receiver mislocation in the lateral direction produces a non uniform effect when combined with simultaneous tracking errors.
This is expected because tracking errors move the focus of the
the reflector along the lateral axis and the effect of this
shift is either compensated or magnified by the lateral
receiver mislocation : for a positive a, receiver mislocation

.

1.0 0.9
/0.8
* 0.7,,.
o0./
0.5
0.4/
/ I'

I/
0.7
0.6
0.5
D2.54 cm
0.4
0.3
I
0.3
__0.0025 rad]
0.0
I
g
1.2
1.0
a a 0.8
0.6 0.4
a a 0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
, 1I
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0
1.01.2, ,
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2 1.0 0 .9
0.9
. _.........
00.7

0.7

0.5 .0.5
"C
2 0 D2.54 cm
l0
.5
0.4/
r0o.4
0.3
0.3
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.0
1.2
1.0 i
1.0
I ,
0.8
I I
0.6
, I
0.4 0.2
I , I
0.0
I ,,
0.2
, ,
0.4
,
0.6
, ,
0.8
, ,
1.0
, ,
1.2
, 1.0
0.9 0.80
C)~
 0.9  0.8
U~c 0.7
o.0
 
. .
.
0.6
.6 0.5 0
04
Cm 20
0.5 5:.
D 2.54cm
0.4
0.3
a, 0.02 rad 0.0 '
0.3
0.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2.
58
mislocation in +x direction compensates for the tracking error
while mislocation in x direction compounds the effect of the
tracking errors. Next, the simultaneous effect of receiver
mislocation along the optical axis (vertextofocus axis)
and tracking errors are studied for different random error
levels (see Figures 4.4 through 4.6). in As shown in the fig
same effect as the mislocations in y direction, therefore, curves in the figures are symmetric. Again, as expected, for
Obviously,
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
../
0.6 0.4
0.2 ,
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.9 ',
0.9
\. \0.8
/0
o 0.7
>. 0 0.6 0. 0.5 100,
D7.4c C20
0.8
IN0
2)
0.7
0.4
0.32.5
0.4
cm___
_
0.3
//
0.3

Cr  0.0025 rad
Y0.3
0.0
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0.0
Receiver Mislocation,(dr)y, cm
Figure 4.4 Intercept factor as a function of receiver mislocation along the
optical axis and tracking error for o = 0.0025 radian.
1.2 1.0 1
1.0 0.8 I
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 o,
1.2 1.0
0.0.9
o
0.8
L .
Ca
.
0.6
0.
0.5 0.4 
C20 0 "dr
 2.54 cm
0.5
0.4 0.3
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0.3 0.0
0.011r~]
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
Receiver Mislocation,(dr)y, cm
Figure 4.5 Intercept factor as a function of receiver mislocation along the optical axis and tracking error for a = 0.01 radian.
1.012
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.0
3 0.00
0.9
/,/0.750 0.500
0.9
1.000
0.8 0.7
0 .8
...0 . o
s
C20
D 2.54 cm,
0.6
0.5 0.40.3
0.5
+y
. o 0 9 0
dr
0.4
0.3
o
0
0.02 rad ]
y
0.0
1.2
'0.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
.1.2
Receiver Mislocation,(dr)y, cm
Figure 4.6 Intercept factor as a function of receiver mislocation along the
optical axis and tracking error for a = 0.02 radian.
62
combines reflector profile errors with the receiver
mislocation errors along the optical axis (see Figure
3.9), will be larger than lateral component of d
(dr )x
Comparison of Figures 4.14.3 with Figures 4.44.6
shows that, for a given tracking error, the intercept
factor drops more rapidly when the receiver is mislo cated in the ydirection (except when positive tracking
errors, +a, and receiver mislocation in x direction
exist together). Therefore, (dr)y can be taken as
the dominant direction for receiver location errors.
Unsymmetric effects produced by the receiver mislo cation in the lateral axis will introduce undesirable
complications into the generalization of the results.
Next, the effect of positive and negative tracking
errors ( B) for different random error levels is studied
(Figures 4.7 and 4.8). As shown in the figures, when
1.0
1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.0
0
0.4
0.5
OI
0/
0.4
,, cm
(dr)y 0.5
00.50
Il
0.
0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25
/3
,deg
1.0 1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75 1

1.0
1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.80 LL
4wd
02
0.8
0.7 
......
.......
0.7
.
0.6
C02
0
0.6
0.
.05rdD25
m..
L
(r
o.4

C),
1.016i
0.0
0.0
1.25
1.0
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75 .deg
1.0
1.25
Intercept factor as a function of tracking error and random errors 1.016 and 1.424 cm.
1.0
0.9 , o 0
.000"
= 0.00
1.0
5 rd
0.8
0.6
CL U1)
0.5
0.4

0
0"'25n"
0.3
0.2(dr)y = 0.0
0.2
13= 0.0
0.1
0.0
I
0.0
75 100
25
50 Concentration Ratio, C
Figure
66
results are repeated for three different values of absorber
tube diameter and it was found that, for perfect tracking
(U=0)and perfectly aligned receiver (i.e., (dr )y=0), the
intercept factor is not a function of the absorber tube diam eter. As shown in the figure, the intercept factor decreases
This decrease is more
In Figure 4.10,
receiver, i.e.,
in each of the Figures 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 reduce to a single curve
when intercept factor is plotted against
,
a 'universal nonrandom
error parameter',
error and the concentration ratio. Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show plots of intercept factor
1.0
1.0 1
0 o 0.0025 rad 0 0.0075 rad
1.0
0.8S
A
0
0.8
0
C3 L C1.
0.0225 rad
0.6
0.6
o
'
0.4
D = 1.27, 2.54.
0.4
0.2
0.2 5.08
= goo
cm
0.2
(dj)y = 0.o0
0.0/ = 0.00. 1.0 2.0
rad
Figure 4.10
0.0"
1.0
A9.?
0.8
0.7
CU
0.05O
rad' .Jo
0.6 0.4
C.
0

D = 1. 27, 2.54.
5.08 cm I
90,
(dr)yC.O
0.2
0.0 0
1 25
50 Concentration Ratio, C
75
0.0 100
Figure
1.01.
1.0
=o.o01.0
0.8 0.6
0.8
0.6 
o* 0. 10 rad
U.
0.4
~5.08 D  1.27, Cm 2.54,
(drly  0.0 "*
0.4
00
O0
215
50
75
IO
Concentration Ratio, C
1.0
/= 0.8 
0 0.00
1.0
0.8
0.6
o
U.
0.6
0.20 rad
0. 0.
0.4
D  1.27, 2.54,
0.4
5.08 cm go* )
(dr) v x 0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0 0
1 25
50 Concentration Ratio, C
75
0.0 100
Figure 4.13
1.0
L.. C 0
/3=0.00
0.250
1.0
0.8
)k..
0!
0
0.500
0.750
1.000
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
\..
2
CDao
0.6
0'
C 0.2
...............
rad = 0.20
0.2
.
0.0
0.0
0.......................................
0.0
.
1.0
1.0
(dr)y "o.o cm 0.127 cm 0.254 cm 0.3175 cm (dr)y="O.835 cm l 40
=1.0
>
L0
0.8
00.
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.0.
0.4 0
.oo
0.2
0.01 0
0.2
25
I0J.0
50
Concentration Ratio, C
75
100
Figure 4.15
Intercept factor as a function of concentration ratio and receiver
1.0
(dr),i 0.8
L
1.0
0.0 Cm 0.127 cmi.
0.254 cm 0.3175cm 0.635 cm (dir), 1.27 cm
0.8
0
U
o0.6
 0.6
J.
o
O.
0.4
D2.54 cm
0.2
0_90*
o'0.1
(dr) 
2.54 cm
0.2
0.0
0.0
25
50 Concentration Ratio, C
75
100
Figure
4.16
2.54 cm.
1.0
;(dr)y= 0"0
0.8
0
(dr)y 0.635cm
0.8
0
cc00.
0.6
0.6
2 0
C1
.4
C:: (dr )y =3.8 1 cm
0.4254c
0.2
a=0.1 rad
0.2
0.0
1.27 2.54
0.
rad
10.0 5.08
3.81
Receiver Diameter, D, cm
Figure 4.17 Intercept factor as
function of receiver diameter and
a
0.5 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.8
0.8
S
LL
0.60.6
0.
0.4
0.4
0.2
o =0.1 rad
3 = 0.1 rad
p
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
76
errors. It is evident that for fixed values of a and ,
Next, the
with the absorber tube diameter, d =(dr ) y/D, to yield the second universal nonrandom error parameter. As a result of the discussed compater simulations, the number of independent variables in 7q. (4.1) tc four. have been reduced
y = fn(p, a ,
d )
(4.2)
where,
a =
aC
BC
d*=
r D
77
Chapter Five
5.1
Introduction
In the previous chapter, Chapter Four, the preliminary
are compared with those of the previous investigators. Second, the effect of the combined random and nonrandom errors are studied. In particular, the effect of changing
The concept of
designs which have built
in tolerances for potential manufacture, assembly and oper ation errors) is introduced and methods for determination of
error tolerances are given. The errortolerant trough design
78
79
y = fn(p, a )
With this limitation the results can be presented in two dimensional graphs. Figure 5.1 shows a plot of y versus a
shows the cross plot, y
As shown
versus rim angle for different random error levels. in Figure 5.1,
a =0.22).
toabsorber distance oZ the higher rim angle reflector. shown in Figure 5.2
80
0.0 1.00
0.2
0.4
0.6
y:0.95
0.8
0.0
1.0 __1.00
>.
00. 0
0120
0.80
y= 0.75
0.80
0
0
u. 0.609
0.60
II
0.2002
0.00 1 0.0
0.2
, 0.4
0.6
0.8
0.00 1.0
r', rad
Figure 5.1 Intercept factor as a function of the universal random error parameter and rim angle (zero nonrandom errors).
81
1.030
45
60
75
90
105
120
0.80.7
L.
0
0 c0.2 6 L 0.6
C1
0.4 0.3
0.1
1.0
........
nonrandom errors
0.0 30
45
60
75
90
105
120
82
were compared with similar plots found in Ref. [16 and 34],
where a purely analytical technique is used to calculate the
geometric intercept factor (opposed to the numerical ray trace
technique used in the present study); found to be almost identical. the two results are
5.3
intercept factor of 0.95) for rim angles 80' to 1200. wise, Figures 5.9 to 5.13
83
1= 9oi
,,l
/J
=0.15
Al
Figure
84
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 Y(80,
0.5
,* ,.d*)= 0.95
0.4
0.4
0.3d"
a =0.1
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.21
G_9III
0.1
0.2 R3;rad
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.4
Allowable nonrandom error levels for y = 0.95 and 0 = 800 and various random error levels.
85
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
goioi
0.5
0.4
0.4
d@
0.3*=0.3
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.
0.0
=0.0 :
0.0
0
.2,_L_
0.1 0.2 /3*,rad 0.3 0.4
Figure
86
o.,I
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1000.5
Y (10
0
,0
,)
0.95
0.4
0.4
d 0.3
=0.1
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0,
0
0.1
0.2 /Irad
0.3
0.4
87
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
ILII
0.510
y( 1 0 *,d) r 0.95
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3d**
0.3
o.1
0.2
0.1
0.0'
0.1
0,2 $* ,rad
0.3
0.4
88
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
4)100.5
(1200,c,.R*, d*).=0.95
0.4
d1
0.4
0.3
a* =0.1
0.3
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2 "*,rad
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.8
Allowable nonrandom error levels for y = 0.95 and p = 1200 and various random error levels.
89
0.1
0.2
0.3
I
0.4
0.5
y (80,
o'" "0.1 S0.15
.
0
*, d) 0.75
0.5
0.4d0 0.30.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.35
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 0
_ _ 0.1
0.2
'a ,rad
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.9
Allowable nonrandom error levels for y = 0.75 and 4 = 800 and various random error levels.
90
0.1
I
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 Z
y(
90
o
,* *,d*) 0.75
0.5
0.4 00.1
.15
 0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
8d.0 0
o.1
,o*=0.415
0.1
0.0 1 .
0
0.1
0.2
/* ,rad
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.10
91
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
, .5 0
.o, I
O. 4 0.0.150. 2
J 0.25
 0.4
o0.3
0.3d
0.35
0.3
0.2
.4
0.2
0.1
45
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
/3,rad
Figure 5.11 Allowable nonrandom error levels for y = 0.75 and
=
92
0.1
0.2
I
0.3
I
0.4
0.5 10.5
' '
'110o c y'
,/0*,d' )=0.75
o'a=0O. I
0.4
0.20.4
0.3
d*
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.45
0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0
0."1
0.2
0.3
0.4
,G* ,rad
Figure 5.12 Allowable nonrandom error levels for y = 0.75 and
=
93
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Y(120 0 , o"*,3dm
120.5
=0.7
0.5
04
0.
0.1
0.2 0.25 0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2 
040.2
0.1
0.01 0
0.1
0.2 /9,rad
0.3
0.4
Figure 5.13
Allowable nonrandom error levels for y = 0.75 and c = 120' and various random error levels.
94
and horizontal intercepts of the curves represent the
allowable level of one nonrandom error (d the other (6 or d ) is zero. or when
S= 90 ',
d
and y = 0.95:
when a
or for 0
= 0.15, if d
0.1 rad.
Similarly, for
: 0.0  0.52
shown.
of a
(a
not very sensitive to rim angle and the curves almost coincide
95
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1000
.1200
(,
14S ..
0.d*)75
05
0.4
=o.1
0.4
0.3d*
y(,O.1,*,d*) o.95
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
So
100
0.1
1 0.3 0.4
Srad
Figure 5.14
96
0.1
0.2
0.3
I
0.4
9(f
0.5
,,'
100
1100
r ( ,O.2,jG*,d*)
0.75
 0.5
0.4
12 Oe j=0.2
12o00'
0.4
0.3 
0.3
* d"
0.2
/1000
(4,o.2.,G*,d*)=.95
0.2
/80*
0.1 0.01
80
900
0.1
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Is*rad
Figure 5.15 Effect of rim angle on the allowable nonrandom error levels for a* = 0.2 rad.
97
0.1
I
0.2
0.3
I
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 d* 1200
1100
0.3
0.2
1000
900
0.2
0.1
80o
0.1
0.0 1 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
/* ,rad
Figure 5.16 Effect of rim angle on the allowable nonrandom error levels for a= and y = 0.75 0.35 rad
98
(this is particularly true for y = 0.95 curves).
*
With
increasing a
spread out and as a result the error tolerances start to be sensitive to the rim angles. For example, the changes in
allowable nonrandom error levels with repect to changes in rim angle are very evident in Figures 5.15 (y = 0.95,
* ,
0.35).
Therefore, one
can conclude that the range of optimal rim angles (which was found to be between 800 1200 for zero nonrandom errors)
would be different in the presence of both random and non random errors. In the following section, the sensitivity
and
) is
shown for
required) minimum intercept factors (y = 0.95 and y = 0.75). The locus of optimal rim angles for y > 0.75 are in the
range of:
800 
1200 for 950 
1200 for 1050 
1200 for
a a a
0.2 rad.,
0.3 rad.,
0.4 rad.,
99
80
90
100
110 0.
120
=Y 0.75
0.5
0.5
......
locus of optimal rim angles0.
0.3.0.
00.
0.~~
03
0.
.15
0.2
0.2
0.0
80 90
/,
100
80
0.5
90
1I
100
110
I
120
0.75 0.5
40 .0.
0.3.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
80 90 100 110 Rim Angle,0, deg.
Figure 5.18 Allowable nonradom error level d
and Y = 0.75.
J0.0
120
as a
101
80
0.5
90
II
100
Y (p, 0.4,,B
o" = 0. 1 4
110
I
120
=
d)
0.75
0.5
0.4
.........
0.4
0.3
/ =0.0
0.05
"".
'.
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
 0.1
0.0
80 90 100 Rim Angle,
Figure 5.19
,
0.0
110 deg.
as a
=
120
Allowable nonrandom error level d function of rim angle and 8 and y = 0.75 for a
0.4
102
80
90
100
110
120
0.5
20.20
...
0.5
5 0.2
0. 1 0.3.1
0.4
0.40
0.3
0.3
....
0.2
locu...ooptimal
0.45
 0.2
0.1
...... ocus of optimal l rim angles
0.1
0.0 1 80
. 110 120
Figure 5.20
and 0.75.
103
80
0.5 
90
I
100
110
I
120
0.5
0.0
d=
d
0.2
0.0
0.3
y_ ..
o
0.2
15
/ ,,0 .2
"0.7
O01
/0.1
80
90
100
110
120
104

rim angles are in the range of 1000
1200.
5.5 Summary In this chapter the results of the optical analysis obtained
by using the comprehensive optical model and universal error
para meters are presented.
The results of the optical analysis with random errors
alone were presented first. These results were compared with
The optimum
rim angle based on both random and nonrandom errors was found
to be in the range of 105'

120'.
105
optical model developed here will enable a designer to incorpo rate error tolerances into the trough design at
the preliminary
stage of the design process.
(The concept of error tolerances
is particularly useful in design of PTC's in developing countries.)
The use of
the developed optical model will be presented in
the second technical report. The following chapter presents
Chapter Six
THERMAL ANALYSIS OF PARABOLIC rROUGH COLLECTORS
6.1 Introduction
As indicated earlier, the primary function of the
receiver subsystem of the PTC's isto absorb and transfer the
concentrated energy to the fluid flowing through it.
In
the process, however, the absorbing surface of the receiver
will be heated, and its temperature wili become considerably
higher than that of the surroundings. For example, depen
106
fluid is shown.
working fluid will be heated as it travels through the fluid duct. Therefore, the value of the outlet tempera
ture, Tout, will be a function of the inlet temperature (Tfin), flow rate (ri.), working fluid properties, length
of the collector module (L), thickness and conductivity of the absorber tube and the absorber tube temperature, which will be a function of x, i.e., Tabs
=
Tabs (x).
For a known heat flux along the absorber tube axis and for given inlet meters (i.e., and ambient conditions',and collector para
108
Fluid
Glass Jacket
Figure 6.1 Cross section of receiver subsystem.
44444k
X L
4 I
Tf
Turbulence Generator
Figure 6.2
Working Fluid
109
Tfout, Tabs(X) and Tglass (x) by setting up three energy
balance equations [35]. Then the total heat loss from the
q0L
 Ta) dx
(6.1)
110
Absorber Tube
Dg T g,i
Cg,i
Pa , Ta
D g~o
43 =
=
Rate
Figure 6.3
112
follows:
Inner surface:
QI + Q2
Q3 =
(6.2)
Outer surface:
Q3 + Q4 = Q5 + Q6
(6.3)
QLoss = Q5 + Q6
GLoss
(6.4)
QaDo (Tbs 
gi
(6.5)
1 abs
D g,i
1 g,i
Q2 :
Natural convection heatloss in the annular space will be negligible as long as the Rayleigh number [38]. is less than 1000
113
Q2
L
Tr k gas
kgas
DgjD
( (Tabs
Tg)
<
1000
(6.6)
ln(
For Rayleigh number*greater than 1000, the combined ccn duct ive and convective heatloss rate can be evaluated from an effective conduction coefficient [38], kef, which can be obtained from
[39, 40]).
experimental results reported in literature (e.g., The cl:.ssical experimental results of Kraussold
have been correlated and used by many investigators. correlation for kef is given here (see Eq.(6.8)).
This
Q2 L
=
ksef Dg i
(T)T(6.7) a
abs
g,i
D)
where
kef
=o.1585
kgas
Ra
Na> 1000
Ra26 00
(6.8)
68
For partially evacuated annulus, the heatloss rate can be calculated from Eq.(6.7) by using the conductivity of the annular gas at reduced pressure (e.g., see [41]). For
evacuated annulus k e
*
0, therefore, Q 2 = 0.0.
Heat transfer
Dg i
NRa= Rayleigh numberP g
D
p(T gi abs
114
in the annular space will be discussed further in a later
section.
Conductive heatloss rate through glazing, Q3
Q3 L
kglass
(T g'i
T g,o
(6.9)
in Dg' Dg,i
Rate of heat
Q 4
L where
glass
I b
P W
k air
(
0 (6.10)
where
Nuwind.
=
3.15
V Wind
0,
SVWind
(a) CrossFlow
Figure 6.4
(b) ParallelFlow
116
Q 6
g,o 7t Dg o
(T,
Ts4nk)
(6.11)
6.4
and then corrected iteratively to obtain the unknown tempe ratures. Temperaturedependent convective, radiative, and
(6.12)
QLoss
(6.13)
Tabs  T a
[W/mabsoC]
7DL
117
TABLE 6.1 REFERENCE TROUGH RECEIVER DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter
Value
Eg,i
Eg0
0.90
0.95 0.15(100 0 C), 0.25(300 0 C)
at cabs (Blackchrome)
14 
1.91 to 3.18 cm
Receiver
3.18 cm
SEvacuated
_j1.91
1 0 _ _ I I
cm
I I I II
Receiver
50
100
150
118
receiver surface area) can be written as:
qL =
TrD
UL
( TZ
[36]
 T )
(6.14)
coefficient, UL as a function of average absorber tube tempe rature and absorber tube diameter for a "reference" receiver
and an evacuated receiver (Figure 6.5) using such a procedure.
The reference receiver parameters are given in Table 6.1.
In this example, the annular gap is assumed to be sized such
as to keep Rayleigh number in the range 0  1000. A wind
the ones shown in Figure 6.5 can be obtained for other re ceiver design parameters, ambient temperature and wind ve
magnitude as
that due to thermal radiation, and can amount
to approximately 6% of the total rate at
which energy is
Therefore elimination or
119
reduction of conduction and natural convection losses can
They are:
losses).
Ratzel et. al. [43, 44, 45] have investigated these heat
Pa
[35].
2 5IIII
245"
230
II
Absorber Temperature
= 315 0 C
U) 230
Carbon Dioxide
215
0
CU
200
Air
170V 1
Onset of Convection
Argon
155 0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
0.90
1.05
1.20
1.35
121
14 
Absorber Temperature = 200 C Reference Trough Receiver Xenon BackFilled Receiver Receiver
I
00%
Go\
121 108 r 6 
C4JC
_Evacuated D) 2
4 C 0
iI
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5 3.0
6.6
for the thermal analysis of the receiver subsystem was pre sented. It was
shown that this model could be used to calcu
Chapter Seven
CLOSURE
The need for comprehensive models for optical and thermal
ana lysis of PTC's to be used in comprehensive design studies was
established in this report. It was shown that available PTC optical
they had restrictive assumptions
in a comprehensive design method
123
optical model will enable a designer to incorporate error toleran ces into the trough design at preliminary stage of the design
process. The concept of error tolerances is particularly useful
REFERENCES
1.
9.
125
13. Ratzel, A. C., "Receiver Assembly Design Studies for
2m 90* ParabolicCylindrical Solar Collectors," SAND
791026, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., 1979.
14. Treadwell, G. W., Grandjean, N. R. and Biggs, F., "An
Analysis of the Influence of Geography and Weather
on Parabolic Trough Solar Collector Design," SAND 79 2032, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M., 1980.
15. Treadwell, G. W., "Design Considerations for Parabolic
Cylindrical Solar Collectors," SAND 760082, Sandia
Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M, 1976.
16. Bendt, P., Rabl, A., Gaul, H., and Reed, K. A., "Opti cal Analysis and Optimization of Line Focus Solar
Collectors," SERI/TR 34092 Solar Energy Research
Institute, Golden, CO., September 1979.
17. Pettit, R. B., and Butler, B. L., "Laser Ray Trace and
BiDirectional Reflectometry Measurements of Various
Solar Concentrators," Solar Concentrating Collectors,
Georgia Tech, pp. 631 640, 1978.
18. Gaul, H., and Rabl, A., "IncidenceAngle Modifier and
Average Optical Efficiency of Parabolic Trough Collec tors," Transaction of ASME, Journal of Solar Energy
Engineering, Vol. 102, pp 1621, Feb. 1980.
19. Evans, D. L., "On the Performance of Cylindrical Para bolic Solar Concentrators with Flat Absorbers," Solar
Energy, Vol. 19, pp 379385, 1977.
20. Wen, L., Huang, L., Poon, P. and Carley, W., "Compara tive Study of Sclar Optics for Parabolodial Concentra tors, "Transactions of ASME, J. of Solar Energy Engi neering, Vol. 102, pp. 305315, November 1980.
21. Biggs, F. and Vittitoe, C. N., "The Helios Model for
the Optical Behavior of Reflecting Solar Concentra tors," SAND 760347, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque,
N.M., Mar. 1979.
22. Pettit, R.B., Vittitoe, C. N. and Biggs, F., "Simplified
Calculational Procedure for Determining the Amount of
Intercepted Sunlight in an Imaging Solar Concentrator,"
Transactions of ASME, J. of Solar Energy Engineering
Vol. 105, 1983.
23. Grether, D. and Hunt, A.,. "Description of the LBL
Reduced Data Base and Standard Profiles," Lawrance
Berkeley Lab., Aug. 9, 1977, or see [27] PP. 123.
127
36. Gee, R., Gaul, H. W., Kearney, D., Rabl, A., "Long
Term Average Benefits of Parabolic Trough Improvements", SERI/TR632439, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, Co., March 1980.
37. Kreith, F., Kreider, J. F., Principles of Solar Engi neering, New York, McGraw Hill, 1978.
38. Ratzel, A. C., Hickox, C. E., and Gartling, D. K., "Energy Loss by Thermal Conduction and Natural Convection in Annular Solar Receivers", Thermal Conductivity, Edited by Vladimir V. Mirkovich, Plenum Publishing Company, N.Y., 1978. 39. Kraussold, H., "Wbrmeabgabe von zylindrischen FlUssig
keitsschichten bei natirlicher Konvektion", Forsch Hft.
Ver. Dt. Ing., Vol. 5, No. 4, 1934, pp. 186191.
40. Keuhn, T. H., and Goldstein, R. J., "Correlating Equa tions for Natural Convection Heat Transfer Between
Horizontal Circular Cylinders", Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, Vol. 19, 1976, pp. 11271134.
41. Ratzel, A. C., Hickox, C.E., and Gartling, D.K., "Tech niques for Reducing Thermal Conduction and Natural Con vection Heat Losses in Annular Receiver Geometries",
J. of Heat Transfer, vol. 101, 1979, pp.108113.
42. Hilpert, R., "Warmeabgabe von geheizten Drahten und
Rohren im Luftstrom", Forsch. a.d. Geb. d. In genieur wes., vol. 4, 1933, p.215.
43. Ratzel, A. C., "Utilization of Heavy Fill Gases in
Annular Solar Receiver Geometries for Heat Loss Re duction", ASME paper No. 79WA/Sol18, 1980.
44. Ratzel, A. C., Sisson, C. E., "Annular Solar Receiver
Thermal Characteristics", SAND 791010, Sandia Labora tories, Albequerque, N.M., Ocober 1980.
45. Ratzel, A. C., Simpson, C., "Heat Loss Reduction Techni ques for Annular ScAJar Receiver Designs", SAND781769,
Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M, February 1979.