See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333957191

Optical and thermal analysis of different cavity receiver designs for solar dish
concentrators

Article · June 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecmx.2019.100013

CITATIONS READS

0 295

4 authors, including:

Evangelos Bellos Christos Tzivanidis

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
152 PUBLICATIONS   1,739 CITATIONS    161 PUBLICATIONS   1,779 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solar power systems View project

Sustainable refrigeration systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evangelos Bellos on 28 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management: X

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/energy-conversion-and-management-x

Optical and thermal analysis of different cavity receiver designs for solar T
dish concentrators
Evangelos Bellosa, , Erion Bousia, Christos Tzivanidisa, Sasa Pavlovicb
⁎

a
Department of Thermal Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece
b
Department of Energetics and Process Technique, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University in Nis, Serbia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Cavity receivers are the most usual design in solar dish concentrators in order to achieve high thermal perfor-
Solar dish mance. The objective of this work is the investigation of five different cavity receivers under different operating
Cavity receiver temperature levels and the selection of the most appropriate designs. More specifically, the examined cavities
Conical cavity have the following shapes: cylindrical, rectangular, spherical, conical and cylindrical-conical. All the cavities are
Cylindrical cavity
optimized in order to determine the best design which maximizes the thermal efficiency of the solar collector.
Thermal analysis
Optical analysis
The optimization variables are different for every design and they regard the cavity length, the cone angle and
the distance from the concentrator base. According to the results, the best design is the novel one with cy-
lindrical-conical shape, while the conical and the spherical are the next choices. The worst design is rectangular,
while the cylindrical is the fourth design in the performance sequence. For operation at 300 °C, the cylindrical-
conical design is found to have 67.95% thermal efficiency, 35.73% exergy efficiency while the optical efficiency
is 85.42%. The analysis is conducted with a developed model in SolidWorks Flow Simulation which is validated
with literature experimental data.

1. Introduction
1.1. Solar energy and collectors
Solar energy is an important renewable energy source for covering a
part of the human energy needs with a sustainable way [1]. Solar
thermal collectors are the devices which can utilize properly the solar
irradiation for useful thermal production [2]. Concentrating solar sys-
tems are the most promising solar technologies because they can pro-
duce heat at low, medium or high-temperature levels with sufficient
efficiency [3].
The most usual solar concentrating technologies are the parabolic
trough collector (PTC), the linear Fresnel reflector (LFR), the solar
towers and the solar dishes [4]. The PTC and the LFR belong to the
linear concentrating technologies which can operate up to 500 °C with
the conventional designs and they can be applied in a great variety of
applications [5]. Solar towers and solar dishes are point focus tech-
nologies which can operate in extremely high temperatures with gas
working fluids (air or CO2) because of the high concentration ratio [6].
The solar tower is used practically for only power generation applica-
tions, while solar dishes can be used for a great range of high-tem-
perature applications [7]. This fact makes it a promising technology
which presents high interest by the scientific and commercial point of
view.
Solar dishes can be used for power production [8], solar cooling [9],
desalination [10], industrial heat [11] and chemical processes [12].
Wang et al. [13] examined the use of a solar dish concentrator for as-
sisting a gas turbine and practically to reduce fuel consumption. Meas
and Bello-Ochende [14] examined different solar-driven gas turbine
cycles and they found that the intercooling is more effective than re-
heating. Khan et al. [15] studied the use of a nanofluid-based solar dish
collector for feeding a supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle with re-
compression and reheating. They found the maximum system energy
efficiency to be 33.73% with Al2O3/Oil nanofluid as the working fluid
in the solar collector. Barreto and Canhoto [16] investigated the use of
a solar concentrator coupled to a Stirling engine for power production
and they found a global system efficiency 10.4%. On the other hand,
Sandoval et al. [17] found the global efficiency of a similar system to be
19%. Mohammadi and Mehrpooya [18] studied a system with a solar
dish collector coupled to fuel cell for hydrogen and electricity pro-
duction. They found that the use of solar energy reduces fuel con-
sumption by about 74%. Hou and Zhang [19] studied a system with a
solar dish collector which feeds a thermoelectric generator coupled to
an absorption chiller. This system produces cooling and electricity,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bellose@central.ntua.gr (E. Bellos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2019.100013
Received 11 May 2019; Received in revised form 11 June 2019; Accepted 12 June 2019
Available online 22 June 2019
2590-1745/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Nomenclature ΔP pressure drop, Pa

ε emittance, –
Aa aperture area, m2 η efficiency, –
C concentration ratio, - μ dynamic viscosity, Pa s
cp specific heat capacity under constant pressure, J/kg K ρ reflectance, –
drec receiver position, mm Φ cone angle, °
o
D receive diameter, m ω design angle for the cone (Appendix A),
Ds spherical receive diameter, m
E exergy flow, W Subscripts and superscripts
f focal length, m
fr friction factor, - am ambient
Gb solar direct beam irradiation, W/m2 cav1 side cavity
h heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K cav2 back cavity
hout convection coefficient with the ambient, W/m2K coil absorber coil
k thermal conductivity, W/mK cone conical geometry
L cavity length, m ex exergetic
L1 cylindrical part of the cavity length, m fm mean fluid
m mass flow rate, kg/s in inlet
Nu Nusselt number, - iso insulation
p helical coil pitch, mm max maximum
Pr Prandtl, – opt optical
Q heat rate, W out outlet
Re Reynolds number, – rec receiver
T temperature, °C s solar
t thickness, mm sph sphere
u fluid velocity, m/s th thermal
Wp pumping work, W u useful

Greek symbols Abbreviations

α absorber absorbance, – PTC parabolic trough collector

while its maximum efficiency is around 27%. Javidmehr et al. [20]
studied a polygeneration system with gas turbine, organic Rankine
cycle, solar dish and distillation unit for heating, electricity and fresh
water production which presents maximum efficiency at 70%.
The solar dish is a compact design which can produce useful heat in
high temperatures and it is a promising technology. It mainly is man-
ufactured by using a parabolic dish concentrator, a receiver and a
supporting mechanism. The total configuration tracks the sun in two
directions in order to achieve the proper reflection of the sun rays from
the concentrator to the receiver [21]. There are numerous designs of
solar dishes and there is not a well-established design, as in the case of
PTC for example. Different ideas have been tested numerically and
experimentally, as well as there are commercial solutions at this time.
In any case, the field is open and the optimum design from the energetic
and financial point of view is still under investigation.
1.2. Different cavity receivers
The most usual receiver in the solar dish concentrators are the
cavity receivers. These receivers usually have not a cover in the front
side and they try to achieve high optical efficiency by capturing the
incident solar rays inside the cavity. Practically, the cavity receivers
utilize the secondary reflections inside the cavity and so the effective
absorbance of the receiver is increased. However, the lack of cover
increases the thermal losses of the cavities. The insulation layer is used
in the outside area of the cavity, expect the side to the concentrator. In
the literature, there are numerous studies which are associated with the
investigation of different cavities optically and thermally. However,
there is not a well-established design and the comparative studies do
not give always the same candidates as the most appropriate. Below a
brief literature review about the studies of cavity receivers which are
presented in terms of efficiency are given. Table 1 summarizes the
examined studies.
1.2.1. Cylindrical cavity receivers
The cylindrical cavity receiver is the most usual in the literature and
many studies have used this design. Azzouri et al. [22] examined ex-
perimentally a cylindrical cavity receiver with the absorber tubes to be
inside the insulation layer. They found that the maximum thermal ef-
ficiency of their design is 75%. Avargani et al. [23] studied a cylindrical
cavity receiver and they found maximum exergy efficiency at 23% with
a developed numerical model, while the maximum exergetic efficiency
was 10% experimentally. Karimi et al. [24] found that thermal per-
formance of the cylindrical receiver (without the optical losses) can
reach up to 90% for a receiver aperture diameter at 0.2 m while the
concentrator has a diameter of 2.88 m. Mawire and Taole [25] studied
experimentally a homemade parabolic dish concentrator with a cy-
lindrical receiver. They found that the thermal efficiency is up to 40%
and the exergy efficiency by up to 10%. Zou et al. [26] found that the
optimum length of the cavity is 0.39 m with 5 tube loops and in this
case, the thermal efficiency can be 72%. Wang et al. [27] studied a
cylindrical receiver with a modified back surface. Their work is optical
and they found maximum optical efficiency at 72%. This value is 7.67%
higher than the optical efficiency of the conventional cylindrical cavity
receiver with 10% dead space. Loni et al. [28] optimized a cylindrical
receiver for application in an Organic Rankine Cycle. They found that
the optimum depth of the cavity is equal to the cavity diameter. They
stated that the optimum concentration ratio is around 32 and the re-
ceiver efficiency reaches 90%. Soltani et al. [29] performed and opti-
mization work about a cylindrical cavity receiver. They found that the
receiver position has to be at the 90% of the focal distance, while its
length has to be 1.5–2 times greater than the aperture diameter. The
maximum thermal efficiency of the system was about 78%.

2
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Table 1 are reduced with the inclination angle increase of the receiver, while
Summary of the literature studies about the cavity receivers. the radiation losses do not change. Tan et al. [36] also found that the
Cavity/receiver Study Main findings convection losses have a decreasing rate with the inclination angle in-
(maximum values) crease and they suggested correlations for their determination which
are based on experimental data.
Cylindrical Azzouri et al. [22] ηopt = 75%
Avargani et al. [23] ηex = 23%
Karimi et al. [24] ηrec = 90%
1.2.4. Conical cavity receivers
Mawire and Taole [25] ηth = 40% – ηex = 10% The conical design is an alternative choice which has been also
Zou et al. [26] ηth = 72% examined by many researchers. The conventional conical design, as
Wang et al. [27] ηopt = 72% well as a double-conical or hetero-conical design, is found in the lit-
Loni et al. [28] ηrec = 90%
erature. Dunn et al. [37] studied a solar dish system for operation with
Soltani et al. [29] ηth = 78%
ammonia which has a conical receiver. Their experiments proved the
Rectangular Le Roux et al. [30] ηrec = 85%
low performance of about 35%. Giovannelli and Bashir [38] studied the
Loni et al. [31] ηth = 75.4%
use of a receiver with a conical cavity and phase change materials. Yan
Spherical Loni et al. [33] ηth = 60%
et al. [39] studied a system with a conical receiver with an internal
Zhou et al. [34] ηth = 84.4% –
ηopt = 88.9%
reflecting surface and they managed to achieve 90% optical efficiency.
Pavlovic et al. [40] studied a classical cavity receiver with a conical
Conical Dun et al. [37] ηth = 35%
Yan et al. [39] ηopt = 90%
shape which includes tubular absorber tubes. They found that this de-
Pavlovic et al. [40] ηth = 79.4% – sign is better than a flat one with a spiral shape. They found the thermal
ηopt = 85.4% efficiency of up to 79.4% and the optical efficiency of 85.2%. A similar
Turini et al. [41] ηrec = 80% design has been studied experimentally by Turini et al. [41]. In this
Hetero-conical Pye et al. [44] ηrec = 98.7% design, there is only a small parabolic part of the concentrator and the
Thirunavukkarasu and ηth = 40% cavity has tubular conical absorber which presents receiver efficiency of
Cheralathan [45] around 80%. Recently, Khalil et al. [42] suggested a thermal plate
Spiral Pavlovic et al. [46] ηth = 34% conical receiver for a solar dish concentrator.
Pavlovic et al. [47] ηth = 65% In the other part of the literature studies, the hetero-conical exist.
Flat Senthil and Cheralathan [50] ηth = 67.1% This design has been suggested in an old study by Williams [43] in 1980
Volumetric Zhu et al. [52] ηth = 87% – ηopt = 36% for operation up to 750 °C with ammonia. Pye et al. [44] found nu-
Wang et al. [53] ηth = 64% merically the maximum receiver efficiency at 98.7%. Lastly, Thir-
Tapered tube Xu et al. [55] ηth = 80% unavukkarasu and Cheralathan [45] found maximum thermal perfor-
bundle mance up to 40% with experiments with a hetero-conical design.
Three-part receiver Dahler et al. [12] ηopt = 82%
1.2.5. Flat receivers
There are some studies in the literature which investigates flat
1.2.2. Rectangular cavity receivers cavities which have a small depth and practically the receiver close to
The rectangular cavity shape is not so usual to the literature but it the aperture. The most usual design is the spiral one which has been
has studied by some researchers. It includes the cubical design for the examined extensively by Pavlovic et al. [46,47]. In Refs. [46], the
special case with an aspect ratio equal to 1 (cavity length to cavity system was studied experimentally and the maximum experimental
diameter ratio). The reason for the lower interest on this cavity is the efficiency was found at 34%. In another numerical study [47], it is
greater outer surface compared to the cylindrical cavity which can in- found that the efficiency can reach up to 65% by eliminating the optical
crease the thermal losses. Le Roux et al. [30] found the optimum errors. Yang et al. [48] tested a double-stage dish concentrator with a
aperture of a rectangular cavity to be about 0.35% of the reflector flat receiver. They found that the double-stage receiver is beneficial
diameter, while the receiver efficiency can reach up to 85%. Loni et al. compared to the conventional dish design and it presents 19% higher
[31] found that the optimum design regards high cavity height in order peak optical efficiency. In another interesting work, a solar dish cou-
to maximize the optical efficiency. The maximum thermal efficiency is pled to a still is examined by Bahrami et al. [49]. The solar still is placed
75.40% and it found for aspect ratio equal to 1 with the minimum in the focal region of the concentrator and its aperture is a flat area
examined tube diameter (10 mm). which can be assumed to be a flat receiver. Senthil and Cheralathan
[50] studied a flat receiver with straight and curved paths in its back.
They found thermal efficiency 63.3% with the straight paths and 67.1%
1.2.3. Spherical cavity receivers with the curved paths. Furthermore, Toygar et al. [51] studied the
The spherical receiver design is a usual choice for solar dishes and it manufacturing process of a solar dish collector design with a flat re-
also includes the hemispherical designs. The advantage of this design is ceiver.
the minimized external surface which leads to low thermal losses. The
majority of the studies are focused on the convective thermal losses 1.2.6. Other receivers
calculations and no to the performance of the solar system. So, a brief Except for the previous classifications, there are also alternative
summary of the studies is given below. Kumar and Reddy [32] com- designs which have been studied by researchers. The volumetric re-
pared a cavity receiver, a semi-cavity and a modified cavity with ceivers have been examined in Refs. [52] and [53]. Zhu et al. [52]
spherical shapes. They condoled that the higher convection thermal studied a cylindrical shape volumetric receiver with maximum thermal
losses exist in the case of the cavity design, while the modified cavity efficiency 87% and maximum exergy efficiency 36%. Wang et al. [53]
with a decreased aperture in the down part is the best choice. Loni et al. investigated a windowed volumetric solar receiver with a thermal ef-
[33] found that wind speed increases the thermal losses of a receiver in ficiency of around 64%. Yang et al. [54] suggested the use of an air path
a linear way. During their experimental study, they found the thermal inside the volumetric receiver which can reduce the convective thermal
efficiency to be up to 60%. In another work, Zhou et al. [34] studied a losses by about 58%. Xu et al. [55] suggested a tapered tube bundle
spherical cavity receiver with 88.9% optical efficiency. They found that receiver which has a shape similar to spherical and it can achieve up to
the thermal conversion efficiency of this system is varied from 81.9% 80% thermal efficiency. Dahler et al. [12] examined a double stage
up to 84.4%. Reddy and Kumar [35] found that the convection losses receiver which has three different absorbers for fuel production via

3
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

thermochemical redox cycles. This design achieves high concentration

and optical efficiency is about 82%.

1.2.7. Comparative studies about the cavity receivers

In the literature, there are many studies which compare some dif-
ferent designs. However, the comparisons are not always detailed
which means in optical and thermal efficiency terms. Generally, the
conical design has been found to be better than spherical and cylind-
rical by Daabo et al. [56–58]. Moreover, Jilt et al. [59] found the
convective thermal losses of the conical cavity to be lower compared to
other designs. Moreover, Xie et al. [60] found the conical design to be
better than spherical and cylindrical. Seo et al. [61] stated that the
conical design is better than the dome design for operation at 200 °C, Fig. 1. The examined solar dish collector (the case with the cylindrical cavity).
while the dome is better at 100 °C.
The next part of the literature studies highlights the use of spherical
designs to be the optimum. Loni et al. [62] found experimentally the
hemispherical design to have better thermal efficiency than cubical and
cylindrical cavities. Yan et al. [63] found that the spherical design is
better optically compared to conical and cylindrical respectively. In
another work which is based on the heat flux uniformity, Harris and
Lenz [64] performed one of the oldest studies on the field and they
found the spherical design to have the most smoother profile, while the
conical to be the worst case. Similar results have been found by Shuai
et al. [65,66] with the spherical design to be the best case. The conical
design presents a region with high heat flux concentration which cre-
ates temperature peaks (hot spots), something that reduces the thermal
efficiency due to the local high radiation thermal losses.

1.3. The present work

The previous literature review indicates that there is a lot of interest

in the design of different cavity receivers of solar dish concentrators.
The reason for this situation is based on the need for creating highly
efficient designs, especially in medium and high temperatures. In this
direction, this paper comes to examine the most usual cavities which
are the cylindrical, rectangular, spherical and conical, as well as a
promising design with the cylindrical-conical shape. All the designs are
optimized using the thermal efficiency maximization as the objective
function. To our knowledge, there is not any other so detailed com-
parative work which compares and optimizes the cavities optically,
thermally and exergetically under various operating conditions.
Usually, many literature studies optimize the cavity receivers only op-
tically, something that does not lead always to the maximization of the
thermal efficiency and consequently of the useful heat production. The
present analysis is conducted with a developed model in SolidWorks
Flow Simulation [67] and this model is validated with experimental
results from Ref. [22]. The importance of this work is based on a clear
comparison of the most usual designs, as well as the suggestion of a new
one. Moreover, the comparative study is able to make clear the per-
formance deviations between the different designs in optical and
thermal terms. It is important to state that in the present work, the
working fluid is thermal oil which can operate up to 400 °C and thus the
maximum selected inlet temperature is 350 °C.

2. Material and methods

2.1. The examined cavity receivers

In this work, five different cavity receivers are investigated. Every

design is optimized using the thermal efficiency maximization criterion
and then the optimum cases are compared. The examined designs have
the following shapes: cylindrical, rectangular, spherical, conical and
cylinder-conical. All the designs have generally studied by many re- Fig. 2. The examined cavities of the present study.
searchers but the last one has only studied optically in Refs. [27,59].
Moreover, the analysis is optical, thermal and exergetic for various
operating temperatures and so it can be characterized as a detailed one.

4
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Fig. 1 shows the examined solar collector with the concentrator and
the cavity receiver. Fig. 2 illustrates the five examined cavities. The 2.2. Mathematical formulation
dimensions of the concentrator have been taken from the Ref. [22]
which includes experimental results for a cylindrical cavity receiver. In this section, the basic equations about the evaluation of the solar
The optimization of all the examine cavities is conducted firstly with collector are given. The available solar irradiation on the collector
the cavity placed at the focal distance. In this case, the parameter (drec) aperture (Qs) is calculated as the product of the dish aperture (Aa) and
is equal to 526.5 mm. The length of the cavity (L) is the main optimi- the of the direct solar beam irradiation (Gb).
zation parameter for the designs (a) to (d). For the design (e) is the ratio Qs = Aa · Gb (3)
of the cylindrical part to the total part is the optimization parameter.
The cone angle (Φ) is extra optimization parameters for the designs (d) The useful heat production (Qu) of the solar dish collector is cal-
and (e). The next step in the optimization is the investigation of the culated as below:
optimum location of the cavity by investigating the different values of Qu = m · cp·(Tout Tin) (4)
the parameters (drec). The optimized designs for (drec = 526.mm or
drec = f) are the optimum geometries which are studied for different The thermal efficiency of the collector (ηth) is the ratio of the useful
(drec). Finally, the five optimized cases are compared for different op- heat production to the available solar irradiation:
erating temperatures with thermal oil. Therminol VP-1 is the used Qu
thermal oil which can operate up to 400 °C [68]. Table 2 includes the =
th
Qs (5)
main parameters of this work about the designed geometry and the
simulation parameters. The optical efficiency (ηopt) is calculated as the ratio of the absorbed
During the optimization procedure, the length of the cylindrical and solar irradiation from the absorber coils (Qabs) to the incident solar ir-
conical receivers has to be ranged from 0.5∙D up to 2.5∙D, while in the radiation (Qs):
rectangular case it is ranged from 0.5∙a up to 2.5∙a. For the spherical Qabs
=
case, the length changes by using the sphere diameter (Ds) as the opt
Qs (6)
equivalent parameter. More specifically, the parameter (Ds) takes the
values D, 1.1∙D, 1.2∙D and 1.3∙Ds. The equation which correlates the The heat transfer coefficient (h) of the flow can be calculated ac-
length (L) with the parameters (Ds) and (D) is the following: cording to the next formula:
Qu
Ds + Ds 2 D2 h=
Lsph = A coil ·(Trec Tfm ) (7)
2 (1)
The mean fluid temperature (Tfm) is calculated as:
In the case of the cylinder-conical design, the length (L) is selected
to be the same as the aperture diameter (D), while the ratio of the cy- Tfm =
Tin + Tout
lindrical part (L1) to the total (L) is ranged from L1/L = 0.3 up to L1/ 2 (8)
L = 0.7. The cone angle (Φ) for the designs with conical and cylindrical- The Nusselt number (Nu) of the fluid flow is calculated as below:
conical shapes takes values 50%, 75% and 100% of the (Φmax). The
receiver position (drec) is selected to be ranged from 496.5 mm up to h· Dcoil, in
Nu =
556.5 mm, with the initial position is at the focal point k (9)
(drec = 526.5 mm). Practically, the displacements have been examined The theoretical value of the Nusselt, which is used only for valida-
with a step of 10 mm. tion reasons, is estimated using the model of Dittus-Boelter [71]:
It has to be said that the aperture of the cavity is the same in all the
Nu = 0.023·Re 0.8·Pr 0.4 (10)
cases and it is at 121 mm, a value in accordance with the Ref. [22]
about the present concentrator. The length of the cavity is the variable The Reynolds number (Re) for the tubular coil is calculated as:
parameter. The way that the conical shapes are created is given in 4· m
Appendix A, as well as the values of the maximum cone angles are given Re =
·Dcoi, in · µ (11)
in this Appendix. The system is examined for ambient temperature
equal to 21 °C and solar irradiation at 1000 W/m2 which are reasonable
Table 2
choices for the evaluation of the different cases. The main goal of this
Basic data of the present work (geometry and simulation parameters).
work is the investigation of the optimum cavity geometry and so the
emphasis is not given in the different operating condition. Only the Parameter Symbol Value
inlet temperature is ranged from 50 °C to 350 °C, while the flow rate is
Aperture of the collector Aa 1.676 m2
kept at 0.03 kg/s, a value which leads to turbulent flow in order to Concentrator diameter Dcon 1461 mm
achieve high heat transfer rates. More specifically, the Reynolds Focal distance f 526.5 mm
number is greater than 5000 in all the cases, so the flow can be easily Concentrator rim angle Φrim 69.5o
adopted as turbulent. The convection thermal loss coefficient between Concentrator reflectance ρ 0.93
Concentration ratio C 146
the cavity and the ambient air is selected at 10 W/m2K which is a ty-
Receiver diameter D 121 mm
pical value according to the literature for air velocity close to 1 m/s Metallic cavity thickness (side) tcav1 1.5 mm
[69]. This value is not depended on the working fluid kind indie the Metallic cavity thickness (back) tcav2 3 mm
tube and it can be used for simulations with thermal oil, molten salt or Insulation thickness tiso 28 mm
Tube inner diameter Dcoil,in 7 mm
gas working fluid.
Tube outer diameter Dcoil,out 9 mm
The absorber tube is selected to be made of copper, the cavity to be Helical coil pitch p 10 mm
made of steel and the insulation is glasswool with thermal conductivity Receiver absorbance αrec 0.9
of 0.04 W/mK. All the used parameters in the developed model are Insulation absorbance αiso 0.8
summarized in table 2. About the emittance of the receiver for the Insulation emittance εiso 0.8
Ambient temperature Tamb 21 °C
absorber tubes and metallic cavity (εrec), the following formula has
Solar direct beam irradiation Gb 1000 W/m2
been used. The temperature of the receiver (Trec) is in (°C) [70]: Mass flow rate m 0.03 kg/s
Heat transfer coefficient for convection hout 10 W/m2K
rec
2
= 2.249·10 7·Trec + 1.039·10 4 Trec + 5.599·10 2
(2)

5
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

The friction factor of the flow (fr) can be calculated using the sun in two directions.
pressure drop along with the coil (ΔP), as below: – The mass flow rate (m) is selected at 0.03 kg/s.
– The inlet temperature (Tin) is ranged from 50 °C up to 350 °C.
P· Dcoil, in
fr = 1
· – The heat convection coefficient of the cavity (hout) is selected at
· · u2 Lcoil (12)
2 10 W/m2K [69].
– The pressure at the outlet is selected at 15 bar in order to keep the
The theoretical value of the friction factor, which is used only for
fluid at the liquid state in all the cases [68].
validation reasons, is estimated using the formula [72]:
– The concentrator reflectance (ρ) is selected at 93%.
0.27
0.3164 Dcoil, in 0.5
µcoil – The absorbance of the cavity is selected at 90%, while its emittance
fr = + 0.03
Re 0.25 D µ (13) is calculated by Eq. (2).
– The insulation material has absorbance 80%, emittance 80% and
The velocity (u) inside the coil is calculated as: thermal conductivity 0.04 W/mK.
m
u= 2
·Dcoil , in Moreover, the proper materials of the system have been selected as
· 4 (14) below:

The pumping work demand is calculated as:

– The working fluid is thermal oil (Therminol VP-1) [67].
m – The material of the insulation is glasswool.
Wp = · P
(15) – The absorber tubes are made of copper.
The useful exergy production of the solar collector (Eu) is calculated – The absorber cavity is made of steel.
as below [69]: – The reflector is a proper mirror material.

Eu = Qu m · cp·Tam·ln
Tout m ·Tam· P
Tin fm · Tfm
The exergy flow of the solar irradiation (Es) is estimated using the
Petela model [73]:
4 Tam 1 T
4 During the optical analysis, the proper number of solar rays has to
Es = Qs· 1 · + · am
3 Tsun 3 Tsun
The sun temperature is selected at 5770 K, while it has to be said
that the temperature levels in Eqs. (16) and (17) have to be in Kelvin
units. The exergetic efficiency of the solar collector (ηex) is the ratio of
the useful exergy production to the solar exergy input, as below [69]:
Eu
= state that proper treatment for the fluid cells has been done in order to
ex
Es
The exergy efficiency is an index that shows the maximum work
production that can be produced by solar irradiation. This index eval-
uates the useful heat production, the operating temperature, as well as
the pumping work demand through the pressure drop. Therefore, it is
an ideal index for the overall evaluation of solar collector performance.
2.3. The developed model
In this work, the analysis is conducted with SolidWorks Flow
Simulation [67] which is a computational fluid dynamics program. The
advantage of this software is the simultaneous optical, thermal and flow
analysis, as well as the possibility for investigation of different geo-
metric designs. This software has been used for a great number of solar
thermal studies and so it can be assumed as reliable. More specifically,
the present software has been used for the simulation of solar dish
collectors in Refs. [47,74].
All the examined designs have been created in SolidWorks en-
vironment and they automatically imported in the Flow Simulation
studio for further analysis. The proper boundary conditions have been
selected in order to study the problem properly. Below, the boundary
conditions of the present work are presented. For more details, the
previously referenced papers can be used. It is important to state that
the absorbed solar irradiation by the coils is calculated by the program
and it is given as an output of the simulation.
– The ambient temperature is equal to be 21 °C in all the simulations.
– The solar direct beam irradiation (Gb) is equal to 1000 W/m2 in all
the cases.
– The solar incident angle is zero because the solar dish follows the
About the calculation procedure, it has to be said that the
(16) SolidWorks Flow Simulation [67] solves the governing equations for
turbulent flow conditions. The turbulent model in this work is the k-ε
which has been used in many similar studies [75,76]. Lastly, it has to be
said that the fluid is assumed to be fully developed in the coil inlet.
be selected in order to have correct results. Table 3 gives the results of
(17)
this simple sensitivity process for the cylindrical design. According to
the results, the use of 2∙106 solar rays is selected as the minimum value
which leads to converged results.
The last step in the model development is the selection of a proper
mesh. An independence procedure is followed and the results are given
in Table 4. The final mesh has about 2.28 million cells. It is important to
(18)
have denser mesh in the fluid and the partial cells. The use of a local
mesh was the main way of achieving independent results. This proce-
dure is performed for the cylindrical cavity and for inlet temperature
equal to 21 °C.
2.4. Model validation
The developed model is SolidWorks Flow Simulation is validated
using literature experimental results for the cylindrical design. The
experimental results of the Ref. [22] are used and the comparison is
given in Fig. 3. The validation regards the temperature different
(Tout − Tin) and this quantity is used because this was given in Ref.
[22]. It is useful to state that the validation has been performed for
water as the working fluid and for inlet temperature equal to 21 °C.
Practically this temperature difference is equivalent to the thermal ef-
ficiency validation. The mean deviation is found to be 4.7% which is an
acceptable value.
The next part of the validation procedure regards the comparison of
Table 3
Selection of the solar rays for the case with the cylindrical receiver.
Number of solar rays Absorbed energy by the coils (W)
5∙10 3
934.6
5∙104 950.1
5∙105 947.0
106 948.9
2∙106 948.5
3∙106 948.5
4∙106 948.5

6
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Table 4 88.11% but in this case, the thermal efficiency is only 34.44%. The
Mesh independence procedure for cylindrical cavity and Tin = 21 °C. reason for the thermal efficiency reduction with the cavity length in-
Number of 71,746 229,314 543,689 1,050,645 1,802,921 2,281,728 crease is based on the higher outer surface of the cavity. Moreover, it
cells has to be said that higher cavity length increases the absorption of the
incoming solar rays into the cavity and thus the optical efficiency in-
Tout (°C) 27.3 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5
creases with the cavity length increases. Practically, higher cavity
Tcoil (°C) 27.7 26.3 26.1 26.1 26.2 26.3
ηth 50.5% 52.2% 52.2% 52.3% 52.6% 52.5%
length captures more secondary reflections inside the cavity and so it is
fr 0.71 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 beneficial for the cavity by the optical point of view.
Fig. 7 shows the optimization procedure of the cavity location with
L = D. It is obvious that the optimum location is for (drec = 536.5 mm)
and in this case, the thermal efficiency is 60.00% and the optical effi-
ciency 81.34%. Practically, the optimum location is very close to the
focal point position (initial analysis of Fig. 6) and it is about 10 mm
higher than this location. This is a reasonable result because the solar
rays are concentrated close to the focal point region.
The next step in this analysis regards the temperature distribution
and the heat flux distribution over the examined designs at the focal
point which is exhibited in Figs. 8 and 9 respectively. Fig. 8 shows that
the maximum outlet temperature is found for the case L = D and this
fact is in accordance with the thermal efficiency optimization. Higher
cavity lengths reduce the outlet temperature and it is obvious that the
coil turns close to the outlet (upper part) are cooled, something non-
beneficial. Fig. 9 gives an image of the heat flux distribution of the
various designs. It can be said that the optimum case (L = D) has high
heat flux in all the internal surface, while the other designs with greater
Fig. 3. Validation of the developed model for the cylindrical case using ex-
length have not high heat flux at the upper coils. So, the upper coils cool
perimental results of Ref. [22] about the temperature difference of the fluid.
the thermal oils and the performance is reduced. This fact makes the
outlet temperature to be reduced in the cases with lower heat flux in the
the Nusselt number and the friction factor with theoretical values. More upper coils. Lastly, it has to be said that the main reason for the lower
specifically, for the cases of Fig. 3, the Nusselt number is calculated efficiency at L = 0.5D is the reduced optical efficiency of this scenario.
with SolidWorks and it is compared with the results from Eq. (10).
Fig. 4 illustrates the comparison for two different inlet temperatures
(21 °C and 81 °C) and the mean deviation is found close to 7%. Fig. 5 3.1.2. Optimization of the rectangular cavity receiver
shows the comparison of the friction factor of the SolidWorks with the The optimization of the rectangular cavity receiver is depicted in
theoretical results of Eq. (13). The mean deviation of the friction factor Figs. 10 and 11. Fig. 10 illustrates the thermal efficiency and the optical
is found to be 6.4%. These results indicate that the developed model efficiency for different lengths of the rectangular cavity. The optimum
leads to reasonable and acceptable results. So, the thermal analysis has cavity is found for L = a and in this case, the thermal efficiency is
been validated by the results of Fig. 3 and the flow by the results of 53.77%, while the optical is 79.01%. The maximum optical efficiency is
Figs. 4 and 5. found for L = 2.5∙a and it is 88.00% but in this case, the thermal effi-
ciency is only 23.76%. As in the analysis of the cylindrical cavity, the
3. Results and discussion thermal efficiency maximization exists for a length equal to the opening
aperture and for greater lengths the thermal efficiency is reduced while
3.1. Optimization of cavity receivers the optical is enhanced. Fig. 11 indicates that the optimization proce-
dure of the cavity location with L = a leads to an optimum location for
The first part of this work regards the optimization of the five dif- (drec = 536.5 mm). In this case, the thermal efficiency is 54.58% and
ferent cavity receivers. For every receiver, the distance from the con- the optical efficiency of 80.11%. Practically, the optimum location is
centrator (drec) and the cavity length (L) are the optimization para- about 10 mm higher than the focal point.
meters Moreover, for the designs with conical parts, the cone angle (Φ) Figs. 12 and 13 show the fluid temperature distribution and the heat
is an extra optimization parameter. In every case, the optimization is flux distribution for the examined cases. The results are similar to the
conducted by examined different designs and evaluating them ac-
cording to the thermal efficiency for inlet temperature at 300 °C. This is
a high-temperature level which is close to the real applications of solar
dishes and thus it is selected to be used as the reference once for the
optimization of the different scenarios. It has also to be said that firstly
the cavity length and the cone angle are optimized with the cavity lo-
cated at the focal point. The next step is the optimization of the cavity
position. This methodology has been found to lead to the global op-
timum solution, after conducting a more detailed procedure for the
cylindrical cavity, and so it is selected to be followed in this work.

3.1.1. Optimization of the cylindrical cavity receiver

The optimization of the cylindrical cavity receiver is given in Figs. 6
and 7. Fig. 6 shows the thermal efficiency and the optical efficiency for
different lengths of the cavity. The optimum cavity is found for L = D
and in this case, the thermal efficiency is 59.59%, while the optical is
80.67%. The maximum optical efficiency is found for L = 2.5∙D and it is Fig. 4. Nusselt number validation with the theoretical results of Eq. (10).

7
E. Bellos, et al.
Fig. 5. Friction factor validation with the theoretical results of Eq. (13).
previous about the cylindrical cavity. The case with L = a leads to a
heat flux distribution in all the geometry, while the greater lengths
present regions with low heat flux. This fact makes the working fluid in
the high length cases to be cooled in the last coil turns close to the
outlet. In the end, it has to be said that the optimum design is the cu-
bical one because this is the most compact rectangular shape. In other
words, the compact design leads to lower outer area and so the thermal
losses are reduced.
3.1.3. Optimization of the spherical cavity receiver
The optimization of the spherical cavity receiver is displayed in
Figs. 14 and 15. Fig. 14 shows the thermal efficiency and the optical
efficiency for different lengths of the spherical cavity. The optimum
cavity is found for sphere diameter Ds = 1.1∙D which means that the
length is L = 0.729∙D, according to equation (1). In this case, the
thermal efficiency is 62.68%, while the optical is 74.13%. The max-
imum optical efficiency is found for Ds = 1.3∙D and it is 82.75% but in
this case, the thermal efficiency is only 40.49%. As in the previous
subsections (3.1.1 and 3.1.2), the thermal efficiency maximization is
not achieved for the same geometry as the optical efficiency max-
imization. Fig. 15 shows that the optimization procedure of the cavity
location with Ds = 1.1∙D leads to an optimum location for
(drec = 536.5 mm). In this case, the thermal efficiency is 63.98% and
Fig. 6. Thermal and optical efficiency for different cylindrical cavity lengths (cavity at the focal point – drec = 526.5 mm).
8
Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013
Fig. 7. Thermal and optical efficiency for different locations of the cylindrical
cavity (L = 1∙D).
the optical efficiency of 78.78%. Practically, the optimum location is
about 10 mm higher than the focal point.
Fig. 16 shows that the maximum outlet temperature is found for
Ds = 1.1∙D, while only the case Ds = 1.3∙D gives an important decrease
in the outlet temperature. These results indicate that the spherical de-
sign has to be with a reasonable sphere diameter and close to the
hemispherical one (Ds = 1.1∙D). The optimum design has a sphere
diameter 10% greater than the aperture and this rule is a useful one for
the design of spherical cavities. In Fig. 17, it is obvious that for the
design of Ds = 1.1∙D the entire upper region is red, while for the
Ds = 1.3∙D there is a yellow part. This is the reason for the decrease in
the thermal efficiency for Ds over 1.1∙D. Practically, the lower heat flux
in the upper coils leads to reduced outlet temperature due to the local
cooling of the working fluid.
3.1.4. Optimization of the conical cavity receiver
The optimization of the conical cavity receiver is given in
Figs. 18–20. Figs. 18 and 19 show the optical and the thermal efficiency
respectively for the different combinations of the cavity length (L) and
the cone angle (Φ). Fig. 18 indicates that the optical efficiency is higher
for the cavities with greater length and lower cone angle. On the other
hand, Fig. 19 shows that the thermal efficiency is maximized for length
E. Bellos, et al.
Fig. 8. Fluid temperature distribution for the cylindrical cavity cases.
Fig. 9. Heat flux distribution of the cylindrical cavity cases.
(L = D) for all the examined cone angles. Moreover, the cone angle
which gives the maximum thermal efficiency is equal to the 75% of the
maximum possible and more specifically it is 18.53° (see also the Ap-
pendix A for more details about the maximum angle calculation). In the
optimum case (L = D and Φ = 0.75Φmax), the thermal efficiency is
66.56% and the optical efficiency of 80.69%. Fig. 20 shows that the
optimum location of the previous design is at drec = 516.5 mm and in
this case, the thermal efficiency is 66.85% and the optical efficiency
80.96%. More specifically, the optimum location is about 10 mm lower
than the focal point.
Fig. 21 makes clear that the maximum fluid temperature is found for
the case L = D, while Fig. 22 shows that this optimum case has the most
uniform heat flux distribution. These figures depict results for
(Φ = 0.75Φmax) which is the optimal cone angle. Moreover, it has to be
said that for the cases for L > D, the upper coils do not receive so high
9
Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013
Fig. 10. Thermal and optical efficiency for different rectangular cavity lengths
(cavity at the focal point – drec = 526.5 mm).
Fig. 11. Thermal and optical efficiency for different locations of the rectangular
cavity (L = 1∙a).
amounts of solar irradiation and so they cool the working fluid. Prac-
tically, the last coil turns in these cases are useless and thus the case of
L = D is the optimum one. About the case L = 0.5D, the existing coils
are not enough to capture the solar irradiation and this fact leads to a
decreased optical performance.
3.1.5. Optimization of the cylindrical-conical cavity receiver
The optimization of the cylindrical-conical cavity receiver is given
in Figs. 23–25. Figs. 23 and 24 show the optical and the thermal effi-
ciency respectively for the different combinations of the cavity length
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Fig. 12. Fluid temperature distribution for the rectangular cavity cases.

Fig. 14. Thermal and optical efficiency for different sphere diameters (cavity at
the focal point – drec = 526.5 mm and constant opening at 112 mm).

Fig. 13. Heat flux distribution for the rectangular cavity cases.

ratio (L1/L) and the cone angle (Φ). For this cavity, the optimum length
has been selected to be L = D, as in the conical and the cylindrical
design. However, the cylindrical part is the optimization parameter
through the ratio (L1/L). Fig. 23 indicate that the optical efficiency is
maximized for ratio values around 50%-60% and the optical efficiency
is higher for lower cone angles. Fig. 24 proves that the thermal effi-
ciency is maximized for length ratio at 40% (L1/L = 40%) for all the
examined cone angles. Furthermore, the cone angle which gives the
maximum thermal efficiency is equal to the 75% of the maximum
possible and more specifically it is 26.03° (see also the appendix A for
more details about the maximum angle calculation). In the optimum
case (L1/L = 40%) and Φ = 0.75Φmax), the thermal efficiency is
66.96% and the optical efficiency of 84.22%. Fig. 25 shows that the
optimum location of the previous design is at drec = 536.5 mm and in
this case, the thermal efficiency is 67.95% and the optical efficiency
Fig. 15. Thermal and optical efficiency for different locations of the spherical
cavity (Ds = 1.1∙D).
85.42%. More specifically, the optimum location is about 10 mm higher
than the focal point.
Figs. 26 and 27 shows the temperature distribution and the heat flux
distribution for the different length ratios and for (Φ = 0.75Φmax). It
can be said that the found results have not great variations because the
ratio of the cylindrical part does not affect the results in a high way.
Generally, values in the range of 40%–60% give similar results and
close to the optimum design of 40%. So, it can be concluded that the
ratio (L1/L) has a small impact on the results and a soft optimization of

10
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Fig. 16. Fluid temperature distribution for the spherical cavity cases.

Fig. 19. Thermal efficiency for different conical cavity lengths and cone angles
(cavity at the focal point – drec = 526.5 mm).

Fig. 17. Heat flux distribution for the spherical cavity cases.

Fig. 20. Thermal and optical efficiency for different locations of the conical
cavity (L = 1∙D and Φ = 0.75∙Φmax).

Fig. 18. Optical efficiency for different conical cavity lengths and cone angles
(cavity at the focal point – drec = 526.5 mm).

11
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Fig. 21. Fluid temperature distribution for the conical cavity cases.

this parameter is required.

3.2. Comparison of the different designs

Section 2 is devoted to comparing the optimum designs which have

been found in Section 3.1. Table 5 summarizes the optimum geometries
for the five different cavity receivers. The real values of the parameter
and not the relative values are given in this table.
Fig. 28 illustrates the thermal efficiency of the five different col-
lectors for different inlet temperatures from 50 °C up to 350 °C. The
cylindrical-conical design is found to be the most efficient choice for all
the examined temperature levels. Conical and spherical designs follow
with the spherical to be better up to 100 °C and conical to be more
efficient than the spherical for inlet temperature over 100 °C. The fourth Fig. 23. Optical efficiency for different cylinder-conical length ratios and cone
design is the cylindrical one and the less efficient choice is the rec- (cavity at the focal point – drec = 526.5 mm).
tangular one. The rectangular one presents greater outer surface due to
the edges. On the other hand, all the other designs have smoother outer

Fig. 22. Heat flux distribution for the conical cavity cases.

12
E. Bellos, et al.
Fig. 24. Thermal efficiency for different cylinder-conical length ratios and cone
(cavity at the focal point – drec = 526.5 mm).
Fig. 25. Thermal and optical efficiency for different locations of the cylindrical-
conical cavity (L1/L = 40% and Φ = 0.75∙Φmax).
surfaces and they are more efficient. The spherical design is the one
which has the smallest outer surface but it is not suitable for capturing
the solar rays inside it. On the other hand, the conical design is able to
capture properly the solar rays, but the conical design presents a region
with high heat flux which creates hot spots. So, the design with the
cylinder and conical parts has been suggested in order to capture
properly the solar rays and not to have hot spots. In this way, the
maximum thermal efficiency can be achieved, as Fig. 28 proves.
Fig. 29 shows the exergy efficiency of the examined cases. The
performance sequence is the same energetically and exergetically, with
the cylindrical-conical design to have the highest exergetic efficiency. It
is remarkable to state that the exergy efficiency is higher when the inlet
temperature increases and this fact proves that solar dish collectors can
be used in medium and high temperatures. The rectangular design,
which is the less efficient thermally, shows to have the minimum exergy
efficiency and its curve tends towards to horizontal for high inlet
temperatures. The reason for this result is based on the high thermal
Fig. 26. Fluid temperature distribution for the cylinder-conical cavity cases.
13
Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013
losses of this design which does not make suitable the high thermal
efficiency in great temperatures. Also, the exergy efficiency takes into
consideration the pressure drop of every cavity which is depicted in
Fig. 30. The spherical design has the lowest pressure drop, while the
rectangular the highest. Generally, there are not huge differences in the
pressure drop among the examined designs, and also the pressure drop
is similar for all the temperature levels. The pumping work demand,
which is given in Fig. 31, shows that there is no great need for fluid
circulation in the cavities. More specifically, the pumping work demand
is up to 0.6 W which is a very low value, compared to the useful heat
production which is about 1000 W. Also, the high values of the exergy
efficiency (up to 37%) prove that the pumping work demand is not
something which reduces the overall system performance.
The next presented parameter is the heat transfer coefficient inside
the coil absorber. Fig. 32 depicts this parameter and it can be said that
this coefficient takes high values up to 2100 W/m2K. This coefficient is
higher at greater temperature levels because the flow becomes more
turbulent in these cases. More specifically, higher temperature leads to
lower dynamic viscosity and consequently to higher Reynolds number,
the fact that increases the Nusselt number and the heat transfer coef-
ficient. The greater values of the heat transfer coefficient are found for
the conical cavity, while spherical, cylindrical-conical, cylindrical and
rectangular cavities follow respectively. It can be said that the rectan-
gular cavity is the worst design by all the points of view because it has
the lowest thermal efficiency, the greatest pumping work demand and
the lowest heat transfer coefficient.
A summary of all the results is given in Table 6, while Fig. 33 shows
a detailed comparison of the optimum designs. Fig. 33 shows the results
for inlet temperature equal to 300 °C. The thermal, optical and exergy
efficiencies are given in this figure. It is remarkable to state that the
spherical design is the one with the lowest optical efficiency with
78.78%, while it is the third in the thermal efficiency sequence. Prac-
tically the spherical geometry increases the optical losses and reduces
the thermal losses. The highest optical efficiency is found for the cy-
lindrical-conical design with 85.42%, while this design has also the
maximum thermal efficiency which is 67.95%. The conical comes to the
second place according to the thermal efficiency criterion, while in the
third place according to the optical efficiency criterion. The cylindrical
design is the fourth in the thermal efficiency sequence and the third in
the optical efficiency sequence. The less efficient thermally design is
rectangular but it has higher optical efficiency than the spherical one.
Lastly, it has to be said that the exergy efficiency trends follow the
thermal efficiency trends in this work. Finally, it has to be said that the
main reason for the highest thermal efficiency of the cylindrical-conical
design is its higher optical efficiency compared to the other examined
designs. Moreover, it is important to state that this design is the op-
timum in all the examined temperature levels which is an important
result.
3.3. Discussion of the results and future work
The present work compared five different optimized designs in
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Fig. 27. Heat flux distribution for the Cylinder-conical cavity cases.

Table 5
Summary of the optimum designs.
Shape Optimum design Distance from the
parameters concentrator

Cylindrical L = 121 mm drec = 536.5 mm

Rectangular L = 121 mm drec = 536.5 mm
Sphere L = 94.3 mm drec = 536.5 mm
Conical L = 121 mm drec = 516.5 mm
Φ = 18.53o
Cylindrical – Conical L = 121 mm drec = 536.5 mm
L1 = 48.4 mm
Φ = 26.03o

Fig. 29. Exergy efficiency of the examined designs for different inlet tem-
peratures.

relatively novel one with cylindrical-conical geometry.

Fig. 28. Thermal efficiency of the examined designs for different inlet tem-
peratures.
various operating temperature levels with thermal oil. This work is a
detailed comparative study which comes to add something new in the
literature and to give clear results about the optimum design of the
cavity receivers for solar dishes. Practically, all the usual cavities are
examined (cylindrical, rectangular, spherical and conical), as well as a
It is important to state that the present work compares the design
thermally, while an optical comparison is also conducted. However,
many previous comparative literature studies [56–58,63–66] have only
evaluated the cavity designs optically which introduces important
questions about the final results. The thermal comparison is the best
way for the evaluation because it is directly connected with the final
useful output. The thermal efficiency includes both optical and thermal
losses and thus it is the most suitable criterion for the cavity evaluation.
It is important to state that in this work, the optimum length of the
cavity has been found to be the same as the aperture for the cylindrical,
rectangular and conical designs. This result is in accordance with the
existing literature about the cylindrical design [28] and the rectangular
design [31]. Moreover, the Refs. [27] and [29] give similar data about
the aspect ratio of the cylindrical cavity receiver. So, it can be said that
the found results are reasonable in accordance with the existing studies.
Moreover, the present results can be extended and to state that the

14
E. Bellos, et al.
Fig. 30. Pressure drop of the examined designs for different inlet temperatures.
Fig. 31. Pumping work demand of the examined designs for different inlet
temperatures.
Fig. 32. Mean heat transfer coefficient in the flow of the examined designs for
different inlet temperatures.
optimum shape has to be compact in order to have a small external
surface for the minimization of the thermal losses and an adequate
length for achieving high optical efficiency.
Furthermore, it has to be said that the solar dishes can operate in
higher temperature levels that the 350 °C which is approximately the
15
Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013
upper limit of this work. However, the operation in higher temperature
levels has to be conducted with different working fluids. Up to 650 °C,
the use of molten salts is suggested as an alternative and effective
choice. For temperature levels up to 800 °C or 1000 °C, the use of gas
working fluids such as air or supercritical CO2 are recommended.
The next step in this discussion section regards the suggestions for
future studies on the field. Firstly, an experimental comparison of the
different cavities is something useful. At this time, only the Ref. [62]
has results about the comparison of different cavity receivers in low
temperatures levels. In this work, the spherical design has been found
more efficient than the rectangular and the cylindrical designs, a result
which is in accordance with the present work. Except for the experi-
mental works with more cavities, there is a need for both experimental
and numerical studies in higher temperature levels with other working
fluids such as air and supercritical carbon dioxide.
Moreover, the cavity receivers can be optimized and design using
alternative methods such as free-form optimization procedures. An in-
teresting idea about the use of Bezier polynomials for optimization the
secondary reflector of a linear Fresnel reflector [77] can be extended in
the solar dished for the cavity optimization. Lastly, the cavity receivers
can be used instead of the evacuated tubes in the linear parabolic
trough concentrators, something that has highlighted also in the recent
review paper of Ref. [5]. Another important future project regards the
investigation of the dish capacity for different dish and cavity dimen-
sions.
4. Conclusions
The objective of this work is the investigation and the optimization
of five different cavity receivers for the solar dish concentrators. More
specifically, the examined cavity designs are cylindrical, rectangular,
spherical, conical and cylindrical-conical. Every design is optimized in
order to achieve maximum thermal efficiency for operating at 300 °C
with thermal oil. The most important conclusions of this work are
summarized below:
– The best design optically is found to be the cylindrical-conical with
an optical efficiency of 85.42%. The next design is cylindrical with
81.34%, while the conical, rectangular and spherical follow with
80.96%, 80.11% and 78.78% respectively.
– According to the thermal efficiency criterion at 300 °C, the perfor-
mance sequence is the following: cylindrical-conical, conical, sphe-
rical, cylindrical and rectangular with 67.95%, 66.85%, 63.98%,
60.00% and 54.59% respectively.
– According to the exergy efficiency criterion at 300 °C, the perfor-
mance sequence is the following: cylindrical-conical, conical, sphe-
rical, cylindrical and rectangular with 35.73%, 35.14%, 33.61%,
31.49% and 28.62% respectively.
– It is important to state that the thermal efficiency sequence is gen-
erally the same for all the examined temperatures except than the
spherical design which is better than the conical one for tempera-
tures up to 100 °C.
– It is found that the optimum length is equal to the aperture for the
majority of the examined designs and more specifically for the cy-
lindrical, the rectangular and the conical. Furthermore, in the de-
signs with great cavity lengths, it is found that there is not adequate
heat flux in the absorber coils close to the upper part and so the fluid
is cooled when it flows through these coils. This is the fact that
explains the existence of an optimum length for the examined cavity
receivers.
– The highest-pressure drop has been found for the rectangular de-
sign, while the lowest for the spherical design.
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Table 6
Summary of the results about the examined inlet temperatures.
Parameters Shapes Inlet temperature – Tin (°C)

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ηth (%) Cylindrical-Conical 79.77 79.26 76.87 74.11 71.16 67.95 64.45
Conical 77.25 76.85 74.77 72.32 69.68 66.85 63.73
Spherical 78.29 77.20 74.50 71.20 67.70 63.98 60.01
Cylindrical 75.44 74.12 71.04 67.61 63.94 60.00 55.74
Rectangular 73.97 71.67 67.93 63.77 59.34 54.59 49.45

ηex (%) Cylindrical-Conical 10.68 20.21 26.64 31.02 33.95 35.73 36.67
Conical 10.25 19.54 25.88 30.25 33.22 35.14 36.25
Spherical 10.43 19.63 25.78 29.77 32.26 33.61 34.11
Cylindrical 9.95 18.77 24.52 28.23 30.43 31.49 31.66
Rectangular 9.69 18.09 23.39 26.58 28.20 28.62 28.05

h (W/m2K) Cylindrical-Conical 277 731 997 1147 1263 1348 1400

Conical 338 925 1375 1633 1840 1999 2101
Spherical 388 849 1307 1531 1709 1841 1923
Cylindrical 300 721 940 1059 1146 1203 1233
Rectangular 321 703 933 1043 1120 1164 1178

ΔΡ (Pa) Cylindrical-Conical 5706 5982 5717 5641 5687 5823 6043

Conical 5855 5973 5771 5760 5855 6035 6305
Spherical 5376 5064 4756 4684 4716 4822 4998
Cylindrical 7088 7293 6935 6839 6889 7049 7312
Rectangular 10,157 9913 9177 9060 9136 9356 9712

Fig. 33. Final comparison of the optimum cases (Tin = 300 °C).

Declaration of Competing Interest Acknowledgment

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Dr. Evangelos Bellos would like to thank “Bodossaki Foundation”
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- for its financial support.
ence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Design of the conical geometry

In this appendix shows the way that the conical geometry has been created. Fig. A1 shows the design procedure in the SolidWorks.
The angle (ω) can be calculated as below, from the triangle (AOC):

1 Hcoil
= tan Dcone
2 (A1)
where (Hcoil) and (Dcone) are the height and the aperture of the cone respectively. It has to be said that the (Dcone) is smaller than the aperture
diameter (D) due to the tube thickness.
The length (BD) can be calculated as:

16
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

Fig. A1. Design of the conical absorber tube.

Table A1
Values of the (Φmax) for the conical design.
Cases L = 0.5∙D L = 1∙D L = 1.5∙D L = 2∙D L = 2.5∙D

Φmax (°) 43.8 24.5 16.6 12.4 9.9

Table A2
Values of the (Φmax) for the Cylindrical-conical design.
Cases L1 = 0.3∙L L1 = 0.4∙L L1 = 0.5∙L L1 = 0.6∙L L1 = 0.7∙L

Φmax (°) 30.9 34.7 39.5 45.4 52.7

Dcone
(BD) = (AD)
2 (A2)
The length (AD) can be calculated as below, using the triangle (ADE):
Dcoil, in
AD =
2· sin ( ) (A3)
Finally, the maximum angle of the cone (Φmax) can be calculated from the triangle (BDC) as below:

1 (BD )
max = tan
H coil (A4)
So, the values of the angle (Φmax) can be calculated for the different cases of the conical design (Table A1) and of the cylindrical-conical design
(Table A2).

References
[1] Sandoval OR, Caetano BC, Ungaretti Borges M, García JJ, Molina Valle R. Modelling
simulation and thermal analysis of a solar dish/Stirling system: a case study in
Natal, Brazil. Energy Convers Manage 2019;181:189–201.
[2] Widyolar B, Jiang L, Ferry J, Winston R, Kirk A, Osowski M, et al. Theoretical and
experimental performance of a two-stage (50X) hybrid spectrum splitting solar
collector tested to 600 °C. Appl Energy 2019;239:514–25.
[3] Lilliestam J, Labordena M, Patt A, Pfenninger S. Empirically observed learning rates
for concentrating solar power and their responses to regime change. Nat Energy
2017;2:17094.
[4] Wu S-Y, Xiao L, Cao Y, Li Y-R. Convection heat loss from cavity receiver in parabolic
dish solar thermal power system: a review. Sol Energy 2010;84(8):1342–55.
[5] Wang F, Cheng Z, Tan J, Yuan Y, Shuai Y, Liu L. Progress in concentrated solar
power technology with parabolic trough collector system: a comprehensive review.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2017;79:1314–28.
[6] Jafrancesco D, Cardoso JP, Mutuberria A, Leonardi E, Les I, Sansoni P, et al. Optical
simulation of a central receiver system: comparison of different software tools.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2018;94:792–803.
[7] Hafez AZ, Soliman A, El-Metwally KA, Ismail IM. Design analysis factors and spe-
cifications of solar dish technologies for different systems and applications.
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2017;67:1019–36.
[8] Gavagnin G, Sánchez D, Martínez GS, Rodríguez JM, Muñoz A. Cost analysis of solar

17
E. Bellos, et al.
thermal power generators based on parabolic dish and micro gas turbine: manu-
facturing, transportation and installation. Appl Energy 2017;194:108–22.
[9] Moradi M, Mehrpooya M. Optimal design and economic analysis of a hybrid solid
oxide fuel cell and parabolic solar dish collector, combined cooling, heating and
power (CCHP) system used for a large commercial tower. Energy 2017;130:530–43.
[10] Mehrpooya M, Ghorbani B, Hosseini SS. Thermodynamic and economic evaluation
of a novel concentrated solar power system integrated with absorption refrigeration
and desalination cycles. Energy Convers Manage 2018;175:337–56.
[11] Jia T, Huang J, Li R, He P, Dai Y. Status and prospect of solar heat for industrial
processes in China. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2018;90:475–89.
[12] Dähler F, Wild M, Schäppi R, Haueter P, Cooper T, Good P, et al. Optical design and
experimental characterization of a solar concentrating dish system for fuel pro-
duction via thermochemical redox cycles. Sol Energy 2018;170:568–75.
[13] Wang W, Malmquist A, Laumert B. Comparison of potential control strategies for an
impinging receiver based dish-Brayton system when the solar irradiation exceeds its
design value. Energy Convers Manage 2018;169:1–12.
[14] Meas MR, Bello-Ochende T. Thermodynamic design optimisation of an open air
recuperative twin-shaft solar thermal Brayton cycle with combined or exclusive
reheating and intercooling. Energy Convers Manage 2017;148:770–84.
[15] Khan MS, Abid M, Ali HM, Amber KP, Bashir MA, Javed S. Comparative perfor-
mance assessment of solar dish assisted s-CO2 Brayton cycle using nanofluids. Appl
Therm Eng 2019;148:295–306.
[16] Barreto G, Canhoto P. Modelling of a Stirling engine with parabolic dish for thermal
to electric conversion of solar energy. Energy Convers Manage 2017;132:119–35.
[17] Sandoval OR, Caetano BC, Borges MU, García JJ, Valle RM. Modelling, simulation
and thermal analysis of a solar dish/Stirling system: a case study in Natal, Brazil.
Energy Convers Manage 2019;181:189–201.
[18] Mohammadi A, Mehrpooya M. Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production
by solid oxide electrolyzer coupled with dish collector. Energy Convers Manage
2018;173:167–78.
[19] Hou S, Zhang H. A novel solar assisted vacuum thermionic generator-absorption
refrigerator cogeneration system producing electricity and cooling. Energy Convers
Manage 2019;187:83–92.
[20] Javidmehr M, Joda F, Mohammadi A. Thermodynamic and economic analyses and
optimization of a multi-generation system composed by a compressed air storage,
solar dish collector, micro gas turbine, organic Rankine cycle, and desalination
system. Energy Convers Manage 2018;168:467–81.
[21] Coventry J, Andraka C. Dish systems for CSP. Sol Energy 2017;152:140–70.
[22] Azzouzi D, Boumeddane B, Abene A. Experimental and analytical thermal analysis
of cylindrical cavity receiver for solar dish. Renewable Energy 2017;106:111–21.
[23] Avargani VM, Rahimi A, Tavakoli T. Exergetic optimization and optimum operation
of a solar dish collector with a cylindrical receiver. J Energy Eng
2016;142(4):04015049.
[24] Karimi R, Gheinani TT, Avargani VM. A detailed mathematical model for thermal
performance analysis of a cylindrical cavity receiver in a solar parabolic dish col-
lector system. Renewable Energy 2018;125:768–82.
[25] Mawire A, Taole SH. Experimental energy and exergy performance of a solar re-
ceiver for a domestic parabolic dish concentrator for teaching purposes. Energy
Sustainable Dev 2014;19:162–9.
[26] Zou C, Zhang Y, Falcoz Q, Neveu P, Zhang C, Shu W, et al. Design and optimization
of a high-temperature cavity receiver for a solar energy cascade utilization system.
Renewable Energy 2017;103:478–89.
[27] Wang F, Lin R, Liu B, Tan H, Shuai Y. Optical efficiency analysis of cylindrical cavity
receiver with bottom surface convex. Sol Energy 2013;90:195–204.
[28] Loni R, Kasaeian AB, Askari Asli-Ardeh E, Ghobadian B. Optimizing the efficiency of
a solar receiver with tubular cylindrical cavity for a solar-powered organic Rankine
cycle. Energy 2016;112:1259–72.
[29] Soltani S, Bonyadi M, Avargani VM. A novel optical-thermal modeling of a para-
bolic dish collector with a helically baffled cylindrical cavity receiver. Energy
2019;168:88–98.
[30] Le Roux WG, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. The efficiency of an open-cavity tubular
solar receiver for a small-scale solar thermal Brayton cycle. Energy Convers Manage
2014;84:457–70.
[31] Loni R, Kasaeian AB, Askari Asli-Ardeh E, Ghobadian B, Le Roux WG. Performance
study of a solar-assisted organic Rankine cycle using a dish-mounted rectangular-
cavity tubular solar receiver. Appl Therm Eng 2016;108:1298–309.
[32] Kumar NS, Reddy KS. Comparison of receivers for solar dish collector system.
Energy Convers Manage 2008;49(4):812–9.
[33] Loni R, Askari Asli-Ardeh E, Ghobadian B, Kasaeian AB, Gorjian Sh. Numerical and
experimental investigation of wind effect on a hemispherical cavity receiver. Appl
Therm Eng 2017;126:179–93.
[34] Zhou S-Q, Long X-F, Dai L, Mao Q-S. A numerical study on optical and thermo-
dynamic characteristics of a spherical cavity receiver. Appl Therm Eng
2019;149:11–21.
[35] Reddy KS, Kumar NS. Combined laminar natural convection and surface radiation
heat transfer in a modified cavity receiver of solar parabolic dish. Int J Therm Sci
2008;47(2):1647–57.
[36] Tan Y, Zhao L, Bao J, Liu Q. Experimental investigation on heat loss of semi-
spherical cavity receiver. Energy Convers Manage 2014;87:576–83.
[37] Dunn R, Lovegrove K, Burgess G, Pye J. An experimental study of ammonia receiver
geometries for dish concentrators. J Sol Energy Eng 2012;134:041007.
[38] Giovannelli A, Bashir MA. Development of a solar cavity receiver with a short-term
storage system. Energy Procedia 2017;136:258–63.
18
Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013
[39] Yan J, Cheng Z, Peng Y. Effects of geometrical parameters of a dish concentrator on
the optical performance of a cavity receiver in a solar dish-Stirling system. Int J
Energy Res 2018;42(6):2152–68.
[40] Pavlovic S, Loni R, Bellos E, Vasiljević D, Najafi G, Kasaeian A. Comparative study
of spiral and conical cavity receivers for a solar dish collector. Energy Convers
Manage 2018;178:111–22.
[41] Turrini S, Bettonte M, Eccher M, Grigiante M, Miotello A, Brusa RS. An innovative
small-scale prototype plant integrating a solar dish concentrator with a molten salt
storage system. Renewable Energy 2018;123:150–61.
[42] Khalil I, Pratt Q, Spitler C, Codd D. Modeling a thermoplate conical heat exchanger
in a point focus solar thermal collector. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2019;130:1–8.
[43] Williams OM. Design and cost analysis for an ammonia-based solar thermochemical
cavity absorber. Sol Energy 1980;24(3):255–63.
[44] Pye J, Hughes G, Abbasi E, Asselineau C-A, Burgess G, Coventry J, et al.
Development of a higher-efficiency tubular cavity receiver for direct steam gen-
eration on a dish concentrator. AIP Conf Proc 2016;1734:030029.
[45] Thirunavukkarasu V, Cheralathan M. Thermal performance of solar parabolic dish
concentrator with hetero-conical cavity receiver. Appl Mech Mater
2015;787:197–201.
[46] Pavlovic S, Bellos E, Le Roux WG, Stefanovic V, Tzivanidis C. Experimental in-
vestigation and parametric analysis of a solar thermal dish collector with spiral
absorber. Appl Therm Eng 2017;121:126–35.
[47] Pavlovic SR, Bellos E, Stefanović VP, Tzivanidis C, Stamenković ZM. Design, si-
mulation, and optimization of a solar dish collector spiral-coil thermal absorber.
Therm Sci 2016;20(4):1387–97.
[48] Yang S, Wang J, Lund PD, Jiang C, Liu D. Assessing the impact of optical errors in a
novel 2-stage dish concentrator using Monte-Carlo ray-tracing simulation.
Renewable Energy 2018;123:603–15.
[49] Bahrami M, Avargani VM, Bonyadi M. Comprehensive experimental and theoretical
study of a novel still coupled to a solar dish concentrator. Appl Therm Eng
2019;151:77–89.
[50] Senthil R, Cheralathan M. Effect of non-uniform temperature distribution on surface
absorption receiver in parabolic dish concentrator. Therm Sci 2017;21(5):2011–9.
[51] Toygar EM, Bayram T, Das O, Demir A. The design and development of solar flat
mirror (Solarux) system. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2016;54:1278–84.
[52] Zhu J, Wang K, Li G, Wu H, Jiang Z, Lin F, et al. Experimental study of the energy
and exergy performance for a pressurized volumetric solar receiver. Appl Therm
Eng 2016;104:212–21.
[53] Wang P, Li JB, Bai FW, Liu DY, Xu C, Zhao L, et al. Experimental and theoretical
evaluation on the thermal performance of a windowed volumetric solar receiver.
Energy 2017;119:652–61.
[54] Yang S, Wang J, Lund PD, Wang S, Jiang C. Reducing convective heat losses in solar
dish cavity receivers through a modified air-curtain system. Sol Energy
2018;166:50–8.
[55] Xu G, Wang Y, Quan Y, Li H, Li S, Song G, et al. Design and characteristics of a novel
tapered tube bundle receiver for high-temperature solar dish system. Appl Therm
Eng 2015;91:791–9.
[56] Daabo AM, Mahmoud S, Al-Dadah RK. The optical efficiency of three different
geometries of a small scale cavity receiver for concentrated solar applications. Appl
Energy 2016;179:1081–96.
[57] Daabo AM, Mahmoud S, Al-Dadah RK. The effect of receiver geometry on the op-
tical performance of a small-scale solar cavity receiver for parabolic dish applica-
tions. Energy 2016;114:513–25.
[58] Daabo AM, Ahmad A, Mahmoud S, Al-Dadah RK. Parametric analysis of small scale
cavity receiver with optimum shape for solar powered closed Brayton cycle appli-
cations. Appl Therm Eng 2017;122:626–41.
[59] Jilte RD, Kedare SB, Nayak JK. Investigation on convective heat losses from solar
cavities under wind conditions. Energy Procedia 2014;57:437–46.
[60] Xie WT, Dai YJ, Wang RZ. Numerical and experimental analysis of a point focus
solar collector using high concentration imaging PMMA Fresnel lens. Energy
Convers Manage 2011;52(6):2417–26.
[61] Seo T, Ryu S, Kang Y. Heat losses from the receivers of a multifaceted parabolic
solar energy collecting system. KSME Int J 2003;17(8):1185–95.
[62] Loni R, Asli-Ardeh EA, Ghobadian B, Bellos E, Le Roux WG. Numerical comparison
of a solar dish concentrator with different cavity receivers and working fluids. J
Cleaner Prod 2018;198:1013–30.
[63] Yan J, Peng Y-D, Cheng Z-R. Mirror rearrangement optimization for uniform flux
distribution on the cavity receiver of solar parabolic dish concentrator system. Int J
Energy Res 2018;42(1):3588–614.
[64] Harris JA, Lenz TG. Thermal performance of solar concentrator/cavity receiver
systems. Sol Energy 1985;34(2):135–42.
[65] Shuai Y, Xia X, Tan H. Numerical simulation and experiment research of radiation
performance in a dish solar collector system. Front Energy Power Eng China
2010;4(4):488–95.
[66] Shuai Y, Xia X-L, Tan H-P. Radiation performance of dish solar concentrator/cavity
receiver systems. Sol Energy 2008;82(1):13–21.
[67] SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation 2015 Technical Reference.
[68] http://emnmktassets.blob.core.windows.net/therminol/TF09A_Therminol_VP1.
pdf.
[69] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Enhancing the performance of parabolic
trough collectors using nanofluids and turbulators. Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev 2018;91:358–75.
[70] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A novel parabolic trough solar collector model –
E. Bellos, et al. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2 (2019) 100013

validation with experimental data and comparison to Engineering Equation Solver
(EES). Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:268–81.
[71] Leinhard IV J, Leinhard V J. A heat transfer textbook. fourth ed.USA: Philogiston
Press; 2012. p. 354–60.
[72] VDI Heat Atlas-Second Edition. Springer, Dusseldorf 2010.
[73] Petela R. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol Energy 2003;74(6):469–88.
[74] Yuan JK, Ho CK, Christian JM. Numerical simulation of natural convection in solar
cavity receivers. ASME J Solar Energy Eng 2015;137(3). 031004-031004-10.
[75] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat transfer and entropy generation in a
parabolic trough receiver with wall-detached twisted tape inserts. Int J Therm Sci
2016;99:238–57.
[76] Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat transfer and thermodynamic per-
formance of a parabolic trough receiver with centrally placed perforated plate in-
serts. Appl Energy 2014;136:989–1003.
[77] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Papadopoulos A. Secondary concentrator optimization of a
linear Fresnel reflector using Bezier polynomial parametrization. Sol Energy
2018;171:716–27.

19

View publication stats