DIRECT STEAM GENERATION (DSG) WITH A HELIOTUBE: FIRST

RESULTS OF A PILOT PLANT

Michael Lauermann
1
, Michael Hartl
1
, Markus Haider
1
and Felix Tiefenbacher
2
1
Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9/302, 1060 Vienna, Austria, +43-1-58801-302333,
michael.lauermann@tuwien.ac.at, http://www.iet.tuwien.ac.at/home/
2
HELIOVIS AG, IZ N-Sd Str. 2d, Obj. M16, 2351 Wiener Neudorf, Austria
Abstract
This paper presents the first test results of a HELIOtube pilot plant with direct steam generation. The plant
layout will be discussed. Moreover one of the advantages of a HELIOtube power plant will be presented.
With an easy roll to roll manufacturing process, it is possible to produce HELIOtubes very quickly and with
low manpower.
The first experimental results proved that all components can handle the temperature and pressure of the
direct steam heat transfer fluid at operation conditions of 108 bar / 316C.
Moreover theoretical considerations and a comparison to parabolic trough collectors will be discussed in this
paper to increase the solar to thermal performance of a HELIOtube from around 15% up to 32%. With
further improvements, such as a secondary concentrator, we found possible thermal efficiencies of around
43%.
Keywords: Solar thermal power plants, Parabolic trough collectors, Membrane, Pneumatic prestressed
collector.
1. Introduction
In [1, 2], numerical investigations have been conducted to describe the mechanical and thermal behavior of a
pneumatic prestressed solar concentrator (PPC), the so called HELIOtube. The next development step is to
demonstrate its performance and durability under direct steam generation (DSG) conditions, the next
technology leap in line focusing concentrated solar power plants. The purpose of these experimental tests is
to investigate the optical efficiency of a HELIOtube and to compare the measured results with existing
parabolic trough concentrators (PTC) [3] and [4]. A pilot plant equipped with a HELIOtube was built to
facilitate these measurements under steady state conditions.
2. DSG pilot plant
The pilot plant was constructed as an assisted circulation steam generator equipped with the necessary
measurement points of mass flow and fluid temperature. Focusing attention on the thermal output of the
HELIOtube, the installation of a steam turbine was not necessary, thus a constant pressure is obtained in the
overall system.
2.1. Layout and control mechanisms
2.1.1. Layout
Fig. 1 shows the plant layout. Due to its better controllability, discussed in [5, 6], the pilot plant operates in
recirculation mode. The maximum operating conditions are p
n
= 11u bai at the corresponding saturation
temperature of t
n
= S18C at different recirculation mass flows up to m
PPC
= u.7
kg
s
or 2Suu
kg
h
.
The cyclone separator as the water reservoir and central element of the pilot plant connects the evaporating
circuit with the condensing circuit. The recirculated boiling water evaporates partially in the HELIOtube
section, where the two-phase mixture is then separated in the cyclone separator.
The electrical flange heater EH compensates fluctuations in the solar irradiation to maintain steady state
conditions. Since the separation ratio of the cyclone separator is not known exactly, the electrical flange
heater EH2 slightly superheats the wet steam rising up from the cyclone. Closing the condensing circuit, the
superheated steam condenses to boiling water in the air condenser. With the measured mass flow and steam
parameters at the air condenser, an accurate energy balance of the system can be conducted.

Fig. 1. Layout and control mechanisms of the DSG pilot plant
2.1.2. Control mechanisms
The feedback control mechanisms F1 and F2 provide steady state conditions at the set pressure p
n
and the set
temperature t
n
, according to Fig. 1. The feedback control mechanism F3 maintains a desired temperature rise
from t
n
to t
s
. The control mechanisms C1 to C3 without feedback give a constant mass flow m
PPC
in the
evaporating circuit with consideration for the referred operating conditions of the circulation pump. The
valve positions are preset from the plant operator. Tab. 1 gives an overview of the above described
mechanisms.
Control
mechanism
Control
variable
Regulating
variable
F1 p
n
, t
n
n
fan
F2 p
n
, t
n
P
EH1
F3 p
n
, t
n
P
EH2
C1 operator on/off
C2 operator valve position
C3 operator valve position
Tab. 1. Control mechanisms
2.1.3. HELIOtube infield assembly
In Fig. 2, the infield assembly of the HELIOtube is depicted with its dimensions stated in Tab. 2. It was
delivered in a rolled up condition and then pulled through the support rings to its required position.
HELIOtube
Active length in m 35
Aperture width in m 1.49
Geometric concentration factor 42.6
Absorber outer diameter in mm 30
Number of support rings 5
Tab. 2. HELIOtube Dimensions
2.2. Test results
Due to the poor weather conditions this year before the deadline of this paper at the location of the
pilot plant, we have to mention that the major part of this paper, namely the test results, is available in
the oral presentation only. We are also pleased to make the data available on request at
michael.lauermann@tuwien.ac.at.
As an outlook for the full documentation we can provide the first results of the dynamic behavior of the pilot
plant heated by our back up system. Moreover a steady state operation at around 108 bar / 316C was
performed. This operation cycle proved the durability of the critical components such as the transparent foil
of the upper chamber and the compensation of the thermal expansion of the absorber support structure.


Fig. 2. Infield assembly of the HELIOtube
a) Rolling up the HELIOtube b) Pulling the HELIOtube through the rings
c) Panoramic view of the assembled HELIOtube

3. Comparision to PTC
3.1. Modelling

To compare a Parabolic Trough Collector to a pneumatic prestressed concentrator the useful energy will be
calculated according to Eq. (1). The collectors will be assumed to be located in Almeria in Spain. DNI is the
direct normal irradiation, p
o
the optical efficiency,
Cos
accounts for the cosine losses,
sup
is the loss factor
due to deflections at the fixed supports of the PPC, IAM is the incident angle modifier,
LL
is the factor
accounting for the end losses and
SL
accounts for the shading losses of multiple rows. A
up
in Eq.(1) is the
aperture area of the collector q
th
are the thermal losses of the collector.

usc
= NI p
o

Cos

sup
IAH
LL

SL _____________
=
gcc
A
up
- q
th
l (1)
The optical efficiency of the PPC is determined by the optical properties of the several components namely
the transparent polymer foil of the upper chamber, the reflection coefficient of the mirror foil, the
transmission coefficient of the glass envelope of the absorber and the absorption coefficient of the absorber
tube. All properties together lead to an optical efficiency of 52% for the PPC. The PTC has an optical
efficiency as high as 75% [3].

Loss coefficient caused by the fixed support structure is specific to the PPC only. According to [7] it can be
calculated with regard to Eq. (2) with the tilting angle of the PPC.

sup
= S.4662 1u
-5
(

, )
2
-2.746S2 1u
-5
(

, ) +u.9626SS (2)
The IAM of a PPC has been simulated in [7] and is given by the following Equation with 0 as the angle of
incidence:
IAH = -2.7964 1u
-6
(
0

, )
3
+1.711 1u
-4
(
0

, )
2
-4.1 1u
-3 0

, +1.uuS97 (3)
The IAM for the PTC was taken from [3] and [4].
The end losses are calculated according to [7] and the shading losses are neglected since the comparison is
only for a single collector row.

The aperture width of the PPC is 1.49m and for the PTC it is 5.77m. To get an equivalent solar input the PTC
was modeled with an optical length of 150m and the PPC with an optical length of 581m. The mean absorber
temperature was modeled with 345.5C. The relevant data is summarized in Tab. 2.


HELIOtube
(PPC)
PTC
Active length in m 581 150
Aperture width in m 1.49 5.77
Mean absorber
temperature in C
345.5 345.5
Tab. 3. Relevant Dimensions

The thermal losses of the PPC were determined by experimental test results from. The installed absorber
from Einsiedler Solartechnik is in the prototype state and thus does not perform as efficient as market
available absorbers. Nevertheless it was applied to the demonstration plant outlined in this paper since there
were no alternatives available in the necessary dimension. Fig. 3 shows the experimental set up to determine
the thermal losses of the Einsiedler Solartechnik absorber.


Fig. 3. Thermal losses of the Einsiedler Solartechnik absorber and the Schott PTR 70 absorber. .Data
for the Einsiedler Solartechnik absorber is taken from own measurements and the data for the Schott
PTR 70 absorber is taken from [8]. One has to be aware of the different dimensions of the two
absorbers when comparing the thermal losses per unit length.


The result is depicted in Figure 3 and compared to a Schott PTR 70 absorber. One has to be aware of the
different dimensions of the Einsiedler Solartechnik absorber and the Schott PTR 70 absorber when
comparing them.
3.2. Results

Fig. 4 shows the useful energy from the PPC and the PTC for the location in Almeria in Spain. The results
clearly shows that the lower optical efficiency and the higher thermal losses of the PPC leads to a conversion
efficiency of an average of 15.7% compared to 54% of a PTC as available on the market.
On the one hand side a PPC has additional optical losses through the transparent foil of the upper chamber,
compared to a PTC in the order of 5%, on the other hand side it is obvious that a reflection coefficient as low
as 70% cannot lead to a very high performance. This issue is one of the key issues to be addressed in further
development steps. Market available reflective polymer films are coated with silver and reach reflection
coefficients in the order of 86%.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 200 400 600
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

l
o
s
s
e
s

(
W
/
m
)
(T
Abs
T
amb
)/(C)
EinsiedlerSolartechnik
Absorber
SchottPTR70

Fig. 4. Useful energy of a PPC and a PTC located in Almeria in Spain based on numerical models.

The second largest difference in the loss mechanisms of a PPC compared to a PTC is caused by the thermal
losses of the absorber. On the one hand side a PPC has larger thermal losses as a PTC since the concentration
factor is slightly lower and thus ending up in larger absorber area. On the other hand side the applied
absorber from Einsiedler Solartechnik is in a prototype state and has much room left for improvements.
Therefore the second major task for further steps should address either the improvement of the applied
absorber or heading towards large scale PPCs with an aperture width adequate to apply market available high
performance absorbers.

The next part of the paper will present the results when changing the reflective foil and the thermal absorber.

4. Improvements and further steps

In Fig. 5 the improved reflective mirror with an assumed reflectivity of 86% was applied to a PPC. This leads
to a mean efficiency of the PPC in the order of 23.8%

By changing the applied absorber from the pilot plant to a market available absorber with higher
performance, such as the Schott PTR 70 absorber, the mean efficiency for the proposed case would be
increased to a value of 32%. This is 22% (percent points) below the efficiency of a market available PTC.
Fig. 6 depicts the results of this case. With further improvements, such as a secondary reflector, we found
theoretical thermal efficiencies up to 43% due to decreased thermal losses.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
5
Month of the year
E
n
e
r
g
y

/

(
k
W
h
)


Q
useful,PPC
Q
useful,PTC
DNI
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

PPC

PTC

Fig. 5. Useful energy and efficiency of a PPC with improved reflective mirror based on numerical
models.

Fig. 6. Useful energy and efficiency of a PPC with improved reflective mirror and market available
Schott PTR 70 absorber based on numerical models.

5. Conclusion
The first experience of the pilot plant shows that all critical components of a HELIOtube can operate at the
proposed pressure and temperature level of around 108 bar and 316C. The direct steam cycle could be
operated in stable and robust conditions and this pressure level. Due to the bad weather conditions at the
location of the pilot plant the data gathered so far are produced with the back-up heating system only.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
5
Month of the year
E
n
e
r
g
y

/

(
k
W
h
)


Q
nut z,PPC
Q
nut z,PTC
DNI
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

PPC

PTC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
5
Month of the year
E
n
e
r
g
y

/

(
k
W
h
)


Q
nutz,PPC
Q
nutz,PTC
DNI
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7

PPC

PTC
Therefore it is not possible to show the actual performance of the HELIOtube and compare the data to the
simulation results.
Although we could not create solar heated performance data yet, we could outline the expected performance
of the HELIOtube in comparison to a parabolic trough collector. The theoretical results also clearly showed
that there are two major aspects that must be addresses in the next steps. On the one hand side the reflectivity
of the mirror foil has to be increased and on the other hand side we suggest utilizing a market available
thermal absorber with higher performance.
Acknowledgements
The financial support by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) within the framework Neue
Energien 2020 of the Klima- und Energiefonds and HELIOVIS AG is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Hartl, M.; Ponweiser, K.; Haider, M. & Hfler, J. Modeling of a pneumatic pre-stressed Solar
Concentrator based on Polymeric Membranes, ASME-ATI-UIT Thermal and Environmental Issues
in Energy Systems, 2010, 721 - 725
[2] Hartl, M.; Haider, M. & Ponweiser, K. Numerical study of the energy balance in a pneumatic pre-
stressed solar concentrator Solar Paces 2010, 2010
[3] Dersch, J.; Morin, G.; Eck, M. & Hberle, A. Comparison of Linear Fresnel and Parabolic Trough
Collector Systems - System analysis to determine break even costs of Linear Fresnel Collectors
SolarPaces 2009 - Electricity, fuels and clean water powered by the sun, 2009
[4] Lpfert, E.; Geyer, M.; Schiel, W.; Esteban, A.; Osuna, R.; Zarza, E. & Nava, P. Eurotrough Design
Issues and Prototype Testing at PSA Proceedings of Solar Forum 2001 - Solar Energy: The Power
to Choose, 2001
[5] Eck, M. & Steinmann, W.-D. Direct Steam Generation in Parabolic Troughs: First Results of the
DISS Project, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 2002, 124, 134-139
[6] Zarza, E.; Valenzuela, L.; Leon, J.; Weyers, H.-D.; Eickhoff, M.; Eck, M. & Hennecke, K.
The DISS Project: Direct Steam Generation in Parabolic Trough Systems. Operation and
Maintenance Experience and Update on Project Status, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 2002,
124, 126-133
[7] Hartl, M. Pneumatic Prestressed Solar Concentrator - Theoretical investigations and practical
experience. Vienna University of Technology, 2010
[8] Burkholder, F. & Kutscher, C.
Heat Loss Testing of Schott's 2008 PTR70 Parabolic Trough Receiver
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 2009