Solar Energy Vol. 62, No. 6, pp.

395–406, 1998
© 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd
PII: S0038-092X(98)00031-0 All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0038-092X/98 $19.00+0.00

MODELLING OF PARABOLIC TROUGH DIRECT STEAM

GENERATION SOLAR COLLECTORS
S. D. ODEH, G. L. MORRISON and M. BEHNIA
Solar Thermal Energy Laboratory, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,
The University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia

Received 11 June 1997; revised version accepted 19 February 1998

Communicated by EORIN VANT-HULL

Abstract—Solar electric generation systems (SEGS ) currently in operation are based on parabolic trough
solar collectors using synthetic oil heat transfer fluid in the collector loop to transfer thermal energy to
a Rankine cycle turbine via a heat exchanger. To improve performance and reduce costs direct steam
generation in the collector has been proposed. In this paper the efficiency of parabolic trough collectors
is determined for operation with synthetic oil (current SEGS plants) and water (future proposal ) as the
working fluids. The thermal performance of a trough collector using Syltherm 800 oil as the working
fluid has been measured at Sandia National Laboratory and is used in this study to develop a model of
the thermal losses from the collector. The model is based on absorber wall temperature rather than fluid
bulk temperature so it can be used to predict the performance of the collector with any working fluid.
The effects of absorber emissivity and internal working fluid convection effects are evaluated. An efficiency
equation for trough collectors is developed and used in a simulation model to evaluate the performance
of direct steam generation collectors for different radiation conditions and different absorber tube sizes.
Phase change in the direct steam generation collector is accounted for by separate analysis of the liquid,
boiling and dry steam zones. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. INTRODUCTION correlation of the test data. An incidence angle

Parabolic trough solar concentrators with
evacuated tubular absorbers is the main technol-
ogy currently used in solar thermal electric
power generation plants. Most of the published
studies of parabolic trough collectors with evac-
uated tubular absorbers are concerned with the
Luz trough collector used in the Solar Thermal
Electric Generation Systems (SEGS) plant at
Kramer Junction, in southern California. The
receiver of the SEGS system consists of a steel
heat absorption pipe coated with a black
chrome selective surface or a low thermal emit-
tance cermet selective coating (Cohen, 1993;
Cohen and Kearney, 1994). The absorber pipe
is surrounded by an evacuated glass tube with
anti-reflective coatings on both surfaces. The
collector heat transfer fluid used in the SEGS
plants is Therminol VP-1. Sandia National
Laboratories performed tests on a typical sector
of a trough collector to determine the thermal
loss and collector efficiency of the LS2 SEGS
trough collector (Dudley et al., 1994). Chrome
black and cermet selective coatings were studied
together with three receiver configurations: glass
envelope with vacuum or air in the receiver
annulus, and a bare receiver tube. Dudley et al.
(1994) derived performance correlations relat-
ing collector efficiency and thermal loss to work-
ing fluid temperature by simple polynomial
395
modifier for the LS2 trough collector was also
developed by Dudley et al. (1994) by measuring
the efficiency of the collector for a range of
incidence angles.
An optical model of a parabolic trough collec-
tor has been developed by Heinzel et al. (1995)
and used with a basic heat loss model to simu-
late the LS2 trough collector using synthetic oil
as the working fluid. The model shows good
agreement with the test results reported by
Dudley et al. (1994).
A direct steam generation collector (DSG)
has been proposed (Cohen and Kearney, 1994)
as a future development of the SEGS trough
collector in order to eliminate the costly syn-
thetic oil, intermediate heat transport piping
loop and oil to stream heat exchanger. Three
concepts for a DSG collector system that have
been proposed (Dagan et al., 1992; Lippke,
1996) are the once-through concept to generate
superheated steam in one pass, the recirculation
process concept to generate wet steam, and the
injected water system to control steam quality
and flow instability along the absorber tube.
Kalogirou et al. (1995, 1997) analysed a low
pressure steam generation system (steam flash
concept) which is based on heating water in a
trough collector and then flashing to steam in
a separate vessel. The flow in the trough collec-
396 S. D. Odeh et al.
tor used in the steam flash concept is maintained
in the liquid phase region and thus is not
considered as a DSG collector.
Preliminary experimental investigations of
flow in a DSG collector have been reported by
Müller (1991) and Dagan et al. (1992), how-
ever, there do not appear to be any published
measurements of the thermal performance of
large direct boiling parabolic trough collectors
for power generation. A thermal model of a
DSG collector was developed by Odeh et al.
(1996) to model heat loss in terms of absorber
wall temperature rather than working fluid tem-
perature so that the model could be used for
any working fluid. When the theoretical model
was compared with the Sandia test data, it was
found to underestimate the measured loss. Most
of the underestimation was attributed to omis-
sion of heat loss from the receiver tube
vacuum bellows.
In this paper a detailed thermal model of
trough collectors is presented and an efficiency
equation is developed in terms of the absorber
wall temperature, rather than the conventional
fluid temperature correlation (Duffie and
Beckman, 1991) by modelling radiation loss,
convection loss from the absorber and conduc-
tion loss through the vacuum tube bellows. The
collector efficiency parameters evaluated from
the thermal loss model are compared with the
Sandia test data for the LS2 collector. The
model is then applied to DSG collector analysis,
accounting for the different fluid phase zones
(water, boiling and dry steam) to evaluate the
overall performance of a large scale DSG collec-
tor. The collector performance is investigated
for different two-phase flow conditions in the
absorber tube and for different absorber tube
diameters. The effect of feed water inlet temper-
ature and pressure on the collector efficiency is
also investigated.
2. TROUGH COLLECTOR THERMAL TESTS
As part of a program to reduce operating
and maintenance costs for SEGS plant, Sandia
National Laboratories and the Kramer Junction
operating company carried out a series of heat
loss tests on the LS2 collector (Dudley et al.,
1994). Tests were conducted on a 7.8-m long
section of the collector using heat collection
elements (HCE ) with cermet and black chrome
absorber coatings. Two types of thermal loss
tests were carried out: in-focus collector tests
and shaded absorber tests. During the in-focus
collector tests the sun was always normal to the
collector aperture and heat was extracted from
the collector. In the shaded absorber test the
collector was aimed away from the sun to
minimise radiation on the absorber. The tests
were carried out with vacuum in the annulus
between the receiver surface and the glass enve-
lope, with air in the annulus, and with the glass
envelope completely removed ( Fig. 1).
These tests were carried out in order to
evaluate the impact of tube failure on the perfor-
mance of the solar field. The tests show the
dependence of heat loss on the working fluid
temperature and the effect of the vacuum space
between the absorber tube and the glass
envelope.
Several conditions specific to the Sandia test
produce performance that differs from normal
SEGS operating conditions. These conditions
were:
(1) The working fluid used in SEGS plant is
Therminol VP-1 while the fluid used in the
Sandia test was Syltherm 800.
(2) The fluid flow rate in the SEGS plant was
ten times the flow rate in the Sandia test.
To achieve a similar Reynolds numbers in
the Sandia test loop a solid plug was centred
in the absorber tube so that an annular
flow passage was created.
(3) The absorber wall-to-fluid temperature
difference in the Sandia test was about five
times the operational temperature differ-
ence in the SEGS plant.
These conditions are accounted for when the
new model predictions are compared with
Sandia test results.
3. THERMAL ANALYSIS OF TROUGH
COLLECTORS
A trough collector absorber element consists
of a steel tube surrounded by an evacuated glass
Fig. 1. Collector thermal loss for a vacuum insulated
absorber, lost vacuum (air) and a bare tube; from shaded
collector tests (Dudley et al., 1994).
 Modelling of parabolic through direct steam generation solar collectors 397

envelope, joined together at each end by metallic

bellows. The fluid used in the existing SEGS
plant is Therminol VP-1 (synthetic heat transfer
oil ). There are many problems associated with
the use of synthetic oils such as flammability,
toxicity, thermal stability and high cost (Guyer,
1989). The most significant problem is thermal
stability of the oil caused by operating the
collector near the maximum working temper-
ature of the oil. Degradation occurs when high Fig. 2. Modes of heat loss from an evacuated tubular
absorber.
temperatures cause molecular bonds in the oil
to break down and produce products that can
create excessive system pressure and pump cavi- tion and conduction as summarised below (see
tation. To overcome this problem the system Fig. 2):
must be vented periodically and the lost oil (1) Thermal loss from the absorber tube outer
replaced. The degradation of oil can cause loss wall to the evacuated glass tube (surround-
of heat transfer efficiency, increase in viscosity ing the absorber) occurs by radiation
and hence pumping costs and equipment and residual gas conduction. Due to the
damage. high vacuum in the absorber element
To overcome these problems direct steam (10−4 mm Hg) convection is normally neg-
generation in the collector has been proposed, ligible, however it can be significant if the
with the collector directly heating the power pressure is allowed to increase.
plant working fluid. To develop an efficiency (2) Heat loss from the absorber tube to the
model for such a collector, the well documented ambient also occurs via the vacuum bellows
thermal test results for an oil-based collector and supports.
with characteristics given in Table 1 have been (3) Heat loss from the glass cover tube occurs
used to construct a general purpose efficiency by radiation to the sky and by convection
model that can be applied to any working fluid to the surrounding air.
and to the separate phase zones of a DSG To establish an expression for the overall heat
collector. loss from the collector a heat balance on the
The variation of emissivity of the cermet absorber tube and the evacuated glass tube
selective coating with wall temperature was must be considered:
measured by Dudley et al. (1994) using field Q =Q +Q (2)
and laboratory tests. The field results were used total (ab–g) b
in this study to simulate real plant operating Q =Q +Q (3)
(ab–g) r,(ab–g) d,(ab–g)
conditions. The absorber emissivity for the and
cermet coating used on the SEGS plant can be
related to the absorber wall temperature T Q=Q +Q (4)
wall total (g–a) b
( K ) over the range 373–900 K as follows: where, Q is heat loss by radiation and
(ab–g)
e =0.00042×T −0.0995 (1) conduction (due to residual gas) between the
ab wall absorber tube and the evacuated glass tube
A model of the thermal loss from the collector (convection loss is negligible if a high vacuum
can be developed using a combination of the is used), Q is the heat loss from the absorber
collector thermal loss from radiation, convec- b
tube to ambient through the metal bellows, and
Q is the heat loss by radiation and convec-
(g–a)
tion from the glass tube outer surface.
Table 1. Typical trough collector segment specifications
The radiation heat transfer between the
Collector area 547 m2 absorber tube and the glass envelope is given
Absorber length 99 m by:
Optical efficiency 73.3%
Absorber tube inner diameter 0.066 m s(T4 −T4 )
Absorber tube outer diameter 0.07 m Q = ab g ·A
Absorber thermal conductivity 54 W m−1 K−1 r,(ab–g) 1 D absorber
Glass tube diameter 0.115 m + ab,o
Glass tube emissivity 0.9 e [D (1/e −1)]
ab g g
Aperture width/tube diameter 71
(5)
398 S. D. Odeh et al.

The heat transfer by conduction in the resid- ent temperature (t ) as follows (Martin and
dp
ual gas in the annulus between the absorber Berdahl, 1984)
tube and glass cover can be calculated as fol-
T =(e )0.25.T (14)
lows: sky sky a
where
Q =h · (T −T ) · A (6)
d,(ab–g) d ab g absorber
e =0.711+0.56(t /100)+0.73(t /100)2
where h is the heat transfer coefficient in the sky dp dp
d
low density residual gas given by Ratzel et al. (15)
(1979) as
The heat loss through the bellows (Q ) is
b
k given by
h = air
d (D /2) ln(D /D )+Bl[(D /D )+1] Q =A h (T −T )g (16)
ab,o g ab,o ab,o g b b c ab a b
(7) where A is the exposed surface area of the
b
where, k is thermal conductivity of air at bellows in the collector and g is the bellows fin
air b
standard atmospheric conditions and efficiency. The bellows consist of seven folds,
inner radius 45 mm and outer radius 60 mm. In

C D
2−C 9c−5 the Luz collector which has two bellows per
B= · (8)
C 2(c+1) 4-m long absorber element the bellows heat
loss Q is affected by the collector operating
C is the accommodation coefficient for the b
conditions and was found to be 12–18% of total
surface–gas interaction; C=1 unless the sur- heat loss. When the bellow’s heat loss term was
faces are extremely clean (Dudley et al., 1994). added to the theoretical model good agreement
The mean free path, l (cm), of low pressure was obtained with the Sandia heat loss
gas in an annulus is given by measurements.
T The total heat loss can be computed from
l=2.331×10−10× m (9) eqns (1)–(16) in terms of T and ambient
Pd2 ab
conditions. The heat loss computed using the
where T and P are the mean temperature ( K ) above model can be correlated using the
m following function
and pressure (mm Hg), respectively. The molec-
ular diameter (d) of air is equal to q =(a+c.V ) · (T −T )+e · b · (T4 −T4 )
2.32×10−8 cm and the specific heat ratio (c) is l ab a ab ab sky
1.4 at 300 K and 1.37 at 600 K. The mean (17)
temperature T is calculated by T is the local absorber temperature at the
m ab
T +T point being considered.
T = ab g (10) The coefficients a, b and c can be evaluated
m 2
by curve fitting eqn (17) with heat loss data
Heat loss from the outer surface of the glass computed using eqns (1)–(16) for different
(Q ) due to convection to the surrounding absorber temperatures, wind speeds and ambi-
(g–a)
air (Q ) and radiation exchange with the ent temperatures. For a collector of the type
c,(g–a)
sky (Q ) is given by tested at Sandia the heat loss parameters are:
r,(g–s)
a=1.9182×10−2 W K−1 m−2, b=2.02×10−9
Q =Q +Q (11)
(g–a) r,(g–s) c,(g–a) W K−4 m−2 and c=6.612×10−3 J K−1 m−3.
where Development of an efficiency equation in
terms of the absorber temperature rather than
Q =h · (T −T ) · A (12)
c,(g–a) c g a glass working fluid temperature is essential to enable
and h is the external convection heat transfer collector performance to be determined for
c
coefficient due to forced convection on the different working fluids and different phase con-
outside of a cylinder. ditions along the absorber.
The radiation heat loss from the glass enve- The deviation between the detailed heat loss
lope to the surroundings is model and the heat loss given by the correlation
function (eqn (17)) is shown in Fig. 3. The
Q =s · e · (T4 −T4 ) · A (13)
r(g–s) g g sky glass deviation is less than 1% for absorber wall
The sky temperature (T ) can be related to temperatures in the range between 300–400°C
sky
dry bulb temperature (T ) and dew point ambi- which is the normal operating temperature
a
 Modelling of parabolic through direct steam generation solar collectors
Fig. 3. Deviation between the detailed heat loss model and
correlation function, eqn (17).
range of the existing SEGS systems and the
proposed direct boiling systems.
To check the validity of the model a compari-
son with the Sandia test results using Syltherm
800 oil as the working fluid is shown in Fig. 4
for shaded receiver tests and Fig. 5 for the
in-focus tests. The low temperature test point
in the Sandia measurements seems to be incon-
sistent with the other test results and is ignored
in the following comparisons.
Fig. 4. Comparison of Sandia test results and the heat
transfer model-shaded receiver.
Fig. 5. Comparison of Sandia test results and the heat
transfer model, in-focus tests: beam
radiation=940 W m−2.
399
In the shaded receiver tests the receiver sur-
face is slightly cooler than the heat transfer oil
inside the receiver tube while for the in-focus
tests the receiver surface is hotter than the oil
inside the receiver. This surface temperature
difference scales with incident radiation and
causes a difference between the in-focus and
shaded absorber heat loss. This is evident in
Fig. 5 where losses are higher than in Fig. 4 for
the same oil temperature. There is considerably
more scatter in the heat loss test results for the
in-focus tests due to the difficulty in determining
the heat loss from the difference between
absorbed energy and delivered output under
operating conditions. The shaded receiver test
was carried out during daytime by aiming the
collector away from the sun thus producing a
lower wall temperature than the in-focus case.
The Sandia heat loss measurements were
correlated by Dudley et al. (1994) in terms of
a polynomial function of working fluid temper-
ature as shown in Fig. 5. The new heat transfer
model shows better agreement with the in-focus
test results than the polynomial curve fit equa-
tion, since the polynomial function does not
correctly represent the form of the heat loss
function. The simple polynomial curve fit equa-
tion only represents the heat loss for the operat-
ing conditions observed during the tests hence,
variations of heat loss with flow rate, ambient
temperature, solar radiation and wind speed
can not be computed using the polynomial
function. The polynomial curve fit equation is
also only applicable to the fluid used in the test.
However, eqn (17) can be used to predict the
collector heat loss for any working fluid if the
fluid properties are known and the wall temper-
ature can be evaluated from an energy balance
for the tube wall. The absorber temperature is
calculated in terms of the fluid temperature and
the internal film coefficient for the appropriate
flow condition as follows:
Q
T =T + fluid (18)
wall bulk 2prLU
where Q is the useful energy gained by the
fluid
working fluid and U is the overall heat transfer
coefficient between the working fluid and the
outer surface of the absorber tube (internal
convection and wall conduction).
The collector efficiency (g) can be expressed
in terms of the thermal loss (eqn (17)) and the
400
collector optical efficiency (g ) as follows:
opt
(T −T )
g=g · K −(a+c.V ) · ab
opt ta wind I tor at a temperature below the saturation tem-
direct
(T4 −T4 )
−e · b · ab sky
ab I
direct
where I is the direct solar radiation and
direct
K is the incident angle modifier.
ta
The essential difference between simple
empirical curve fitting of test data and the
correlation given by eqn (19) is that eqn (19)
has the correct functional form to match the
heat transfer processes and most importantly is
independent of working fluid properties. This
formulation allows the results of the oil-based
collector tests to be converted to other working
fluids or to direct boiling collectors.
The optical efficiency (g ) used in this study
opt
was taken from the LS2 collector tests (73.3%)
given by Dudley et al. (1994). The incidence
angle modifier for the LS2 trough collector was
determined by Dudley in terms of the beam
incidence angle to the collector normal (h) as
follows:
K =cos(h)+0.000994(h)−0.00005369(h)2
ta
(20)
The parameters (a, b and c) in the thermal
loss eqn (17) were evaluated for an absorber
tube of 2-mm wall thickness used in the oil-
based collector. In case of a DSG collector, the
absorber tube wall thickness must be higher to
resists the high working pressure. Standard
tubes for a DSG collector would be D /D ;
i o
38/48, 54/70 or 97/114 mm. For analysis of
DSG operation, in this study the 54/70 mm tube
is used having the thermal equation coefficients:
a=1.91×10−2 W K−1 m−2, b=2.02×10−9
W K−4 m−2 and c=6.608×10−3 J K−1 m−3.
4. TWO-PHASE FLOW IN A DSG
COLLECTOR
In the direct steam generating trough collec-
tor, the absorber tube will be horizontal or at
Fig. 6. Flow patterns in the absorber tube of a DSG collector.
S. D. Odeh et al.
a shallow slope and the incident energy input
can be considered uniform along the length of
a the absorber. If the feed water enters the collec-
perature for the working pressure, the bulk
(19) temperature increases along the absorber up to
the saturation temperature. After this point
nucleate boiling in saturated water starts and
after a small increase in quality the flow pattern
changes to convective boiling or forced convec-
tive vaporisation ( Fig. 6). The heat transfer
from the wall to the water improves with
increasing quality (Collier, 1981; Stephan,
1992). For both nucleate boiling in a saturated
liquid and convective boiling the heat transfer
coefficient is influenced by bubble formation
and convection in the liquid film. The heat
transfer coefficient in the two-phase flow region
increases with quality due to increasing vapour
shear stress (Stephan, 1992). For high energy
input or long collectors dry out occurs and the
low conductivity of dry steam leads to a
decrease of the internal heat transfer coefficient.
The maximum heat transfer coefficient in the
two-phase flow region has been shown to occur
at quality x=0.8 for a wide range of mass flux
conditions (Stephan, 1992).
5. HEAT TRANSFER IN A DSG COLLECTOR
Thermal analysis of a direct boiling collector
must be divided into three regions to follows the
phase changes in the absorber. The heat transfer
coefficient (h ) for fully developed single phase
ph
water and dry steam regions can be calculated
from the Dittus–Boelter correlation:
k
h =0.023(Re)0.8(Pr)0.4 (21)
ph D
ab,i
To evaluate the heat transfer coefficient in
the two-phase zone the flow pattern must be
determined using the Froud number Fr (Gunger
and Winterton, 1986; Stephan, 1992):
G2
Fr= (22)
r2 .g.D
l ab,i
 Modelling of parabolic through direct steam generation solar collectors 401

If Fr<0.04 then stratified flow occurs and (1986) as

the heat transfer coefficient is given by the Shah
S=1/[1+(1.15E−6) (F )2(Re)1.17] (32)
equation (Gunger and Winterton, 1986;
Stephan, 1992) F=1+(2.4E4) (Bo)1.16+1.37(X )−0.86
tt

A B A B
h x 0.64 r 0.4 (33)
2ph =3.9(Fr)0.24 l
h 1−x r where, X is the Martinelli parameter
l g tt

A B A B A B
(23) r 0.5 m 0.1 1−x 0.9
X = g l (34)
where h is the two-phase heat transfer tt r m x
2ph l g
coefficient.
The heat transfer coefficient (h ) for liquid and Re=G(1−x)D /m .
l ab,i l
flow only can be calculated using the The heat transfer coefficient for two-phase
Dittus–Boelter equation assuming the liquid flow depends on the steam quality. Figure 7
fraction fills the tube: shows the variation of heat transfer coefficient
with steam quality in the two-phase section for

A BA B
k G(1−x)D 0.8 a 54-mm diameter DSG absorber tube. The
h =0.023 l ab,i (Pr )0.4
l D m l heat transfer coefficient trend is similar to
ab,i l Chawla’s test for a horizontal tube given by
(24) Stephan (1992). The maximum heat transfer
If Fr>0.04 the absorber tube is completely coefficient depends on the relative contribution
wet due to annular flow and the heat transfer of bubble formation and convection compo-
coefficient can be determined by the Chan corre- nents shown in Fig. 7. The variation of heat
lation (Gunger and Winterton, 1986; Stephan, transfer coefficient in the different regions of a
1992).
In the Chan correlation the two-phase heat
transfer coefficient h has two independent
2ph
components, bubble formation h∞ and convec-
B
tion h∞
l
h =h∞ +h∞ (25)
2ph B l
h∞ =h S (26)
B B
and
h∞ =h F (27)
l l
where h is the heat transfer coefficient in
B
nucleate boiling, h is the heat transfer coefficient
l
for saturated water, and S and F are correction Fig. 7. Heat transfer coefficient in DSG collector two-phase
and enhancement factors. section, (inlet pressure=120 bar, flow rate=0.8 kg s−1,
D =54 mm).
An empirical equation for h for water is ab,i
B
given by Stephan (1992) as

C D
q n
h =3800 Fp (28)
B 20,000
where, q is the heat flux ( W m−2) and
n=0.9−0.3(P )0.15 (29)
n

A B
1
Fp=2.55(P )0.27 9+ P2 (30)
n 1−P2 n
n
P =P/P (31)
n cr
where, P is the working pressure (bar) and P
cr
is critical pressure for water (221 bar).
Fig. 8. Heat transfer coefficients in different phase
The correction and enhancement factors (S regions (inlet pressure=120 bar, flow rate=0.8 kg s−1,
and F ) are given by Gunger and Winterton D =54 mm).
ab,i
402 S. D. Odeh et al.
DSG collector is shown in Fig. 8 as a function
of radiation level. In the two-phase region the
variation of heat transfer coefficient with steam
quality is shown in Fig. 7. In the dry steam
section the heat transfer coefficient decreases
due to the lower thermal conductivity and
higher viscosity of dry steam.
The two-phase flow heat transfer coefficients
shown in Figs 7 and 8 apply for uniform heat
flux conditions which may not occur during the
operating of a DSG collector due to transient
radiation. However the major thermal resistance
between the working fluid and the outside of
the absorber tube is provided by the vacuum
envelope as shown in Table 2. The thermal
resistance between the working fluid and the
inner wall of the absorber tube is negligible
compared to the vacuum envelope thermal resis-
tance. Thus the uncertainty in evaluating the
two-phase flow heat transfer coefficient under
nonuniform heat flux conditions has only a
minor effect on the heat loss evaluated using
this model.
To calculate the efficiency of a DSG collector
the absorber wall temperature must be eval-
uated in each phase region from an energy
balance between the absorbed radiation, heat
loss and useful heat gain. The efficiency of each
section can be evaluated using eqn (19) and the
overall collector efficiency evaluated by deter-
mining the extent of each phase region. Figure 9
shows a flow chart of the calculation procedure
to determine the extent of each phase and the
DSG collector efficiency.
5.1. DSG collector zones
The internal convection heat transfer coeffi-
cients in the water, boiling and dry steam zones
of a DSG collector, evaluated using eqns (21)–
(34), are shown in Fig. 10. The heat transfer
coefficient in the water section increases with
bulk temperature while the steam heat transfer
coefficient decreases with temperature, due to
the different thermal conductivity and viscosity
variation with bulk temperature for water and
Table 2. Thermal resistances in an oil-based absorber tube
(T =365°C, m=0.58 kg s−1 and I=900 W m−2)
bulk
Thermal resistance
Heat loss path ( K m2 W−1)
Fluid to inner wall 0.00121
Absorber wall 0.00011
Vacuum envelope 0.175
Bellows (in parallel with vacuum) 0.065
Glass to ambient and sky 0.02
steam. The vertical line in Fig. 10 represents the
heat transfer coefficient in the boiling section,
which is governed by steam quality as shown
in Fig. 8. The heat transfer coefficient for VP-1
oil as the working fluid is also shown in Fig. 10.
When water is used instead of VP-1 oil in a
trough collector the internal heat transfer
coefficient increases and thus the wall temper-
ature decreases. A decrease in the absorber wall
temperature results in an increase of collector
efficiency.
The heat transfer model was used to compare
the thermal loss of the DSG collector and the
current SEGS collectors using VP-1 oil.
Figure 11 shows that the thermal loss is lower
for water than oil because the thermal conduc-
tivity and hence the heat transfer coefficient of
oil is lower than for water.
The variation of fluid and wall temperatures
along the absorber tube of a DSG collector for
sub-cooled inlet conditions is shown in Fig. 12.
The difference between the bulk fluid temper-
ature and absorber wall temperature is lower in
the boiling zone due to the higher internal heat
transfer coefficient. The dry steam zone has the
highest difference between the bulk fluid temper-
ature and wall temperature due to a lower
internal heat transfer coefficient in the steam
region. For the operating condition shown in
Fig. 12 the two-phase region occupies the long-
est section of the absorber tube (42%).
5.2. Flow control in a DSG collector
The control of the DSG collector fluid circu-
lation may be based on fixed feed water flow
rate (variable output enthalpy) or variable feed
water flow rate (fixed steam output conditions).
The efficiency of the different phase zones of a
fixed feed water flow rate DSG collector is
shown in Fig. 13. At point A in Fig. 13 boiling
commences and the rate of increase of overall
collector efficiency with radiation level reduces.
Although the heat transfer coefficient of the
boiling zone is higher than other zones (Fig. 8),
the efficiency in the boiling zone is lower than
the water zone at low radiation due to the
higher temperature in the boiling zone. As radi-
ation level increases steam quality and boiling
zone extent increases causing an increase in
boiling zone efficiency. The efficiency of the dry
steam zone decreases with radiation due to the
decrease of the heat transfer coefficient of dry
steam with increasing temperature. The overall
collector efficiency increases with radiation up
to point B where the dry steam zone starts to
 Modelling of parabolic through direct steam generation solar collectors 403

Fig. 9. DSG collector heat output analysis procedure. L =absorber tube length, L =segment of water zone,
collector 1segment
L =segment of two-phase zone, L =remaining length of the absorber tube phase and the DSG collector efficiency.
2segment rm

have a significant influence on the overall effi- For a given operating pressure the efficiency
ciency. Beyond point B the efficiency decreases of a DSG collector increases as the inlet temper-
as the extent of the dry steam zone grows. ature is reduced (Fig. 14) due to a combination
404 S. D. Odeh et al.

Fig. 13. Efficiency of different phase sections in a DSG col-

Fig. 10. Internal convection heat transfer coefficient for lector versus radiation level: collector length=600 m,
water and VP-1 oil: inlet pressure for water 120 bar, water D =54 mm, flow rate=0.8 kg s−1, t =190°C, pres-
flow rate 0.8 kg s−1 in D =54 mm, oil flow rate ab,i inlet
ab,i sure=120 bar.
2.4 kg s−1 in D =66 mm.
ab,i

Fig. 11. Thermal loss for trough collector with water and
VP-1 oil working fluids.
Fig. 14. Variation of DSG collector efficiency with radiation
level and inlet temperature: collector length=600 m,
D =54 mm, flow rate=0.8 kg s−1, operating pressure=
ab,i
120 bar.

rest of the cycle may restrict the inlet temper-

ature of a DSG collector to the cycle saturation
temperature.
The effect of water saturation temperature
(or pressure) on the DSG collector efficiency is
shown in Fig. 15. The collector efficiency

Fig. 12. Temperature distribution along a DSG absorber

tube: I=1000 W m−2, collector length=600 m, D =
ab,i
54 mm, operating pressure=120 bar, flow rate=0.8 kg s−1,
t =190°C.
inlet

of lower collector losses and increased extent of

the liquid and two-phase regions. At low radia-
tion levels the variation of overall efficiency
with radiation level is more significant for high
inlet temperature because of higher losses. The
collector efficiency increases when feed water
Fig. 15. Variation of DSG collector efficiency with radiation
heating is performed in the collector, however, level and water saturation temperature: collector length=
limitations imposed by energy recovery in the 600 m, D =54 mm, flow rate=0.8 kg s−1, t =190°C.
ab,i inlet
 Modelling of parabolic through direct steam generation solar collectors
increases when the saturation temperature is
reduced due to the reduction in the absorber
wall temperature and thus thermal loss.
Although the collector efficiency increases for
lower saturation temperature the evaluation of
optimum operating pressure must include the
characteristics of the solar-thermal power plant
as well as the collector. However the relative
low sensitivity of collector efficiency to satura-
tion temperature will lead to the adoption of
the highest possible collector temperature in
order to maximise system efficiency.
The variation of DSG collector efficiency with
radiation, for variable feed water control is
shown in Fig. 16 for dry steam outlet at the
saturation temperature. Efficiency increases
with radiation due to increasing heat transfer
coefficient with flow rate in both the water and
boiling zones. To maintain dry steam delivery
at low radiation levels a very low water flow
rate is required and control under these condi-
tions may be difficult. Hence, it may be neces-
sary to switch to a fixed flow rate operation at
some limiting radiation value. There is less
variation of collector efficiency with radiation
level for variable feed water flow rate control
(Fig. 16), due to the constant exit conditions
for variable feed water control.
Figure 16 shows that as the absorber tube
diameter increases the efficiency decreases due
to the increase of absorber tube surface area
and thus thermal loss. Small diameter absorber
tubes also have higher internal convection
coefficients in the water zone, however, this has
little effect on the overall efficiency. The problem
associated with small absorber tube diameter is
the need for high focusing accuracy. Thus the
collector design specification must consider both
the thermal performance presented in this paper
Fig. 16. Efficiency of DSG collector for dry steam exit at
saturation temperature (variable feed water flow rate).
405
and optical performance as described by Heinzel
et al. (1995).
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this study the thermal performance of a
trough collector in a SEGS plant was analysed
and a thermal model developed for evaluating
the performance of a direct steam generation
(DSG) collector. Thermal losses from the
trough collector are described in terms of
absorber emissivity, wind speed, absorber wall
temperature and radiation level. The thermal
model was validated against Sandia Laboratory
tests of the LS2 collector with oil as the working
fluid. The collector efficiency was expressed in
terms of absorber wall temperature so that it
can be used with any working fluid. The thermal
loss was modelled using a correlation function
rather than the more complete model to provide
flexibility in plant performance design sensitivity
studies when the DSG collector performance
model is linked with a transient simulation
package for balance of plant simulation. The
collector thermal loss when using synthetic oil
as the working fluid was estimated to be higher
than when using water. The feed water inlet
temperature affects the steam exit condition,
with lower inlet temperatures increasing the
collector efficiency and reducing the exit quality.
From the thermal stress point of view an inlet
temperature close to the saturation condition
and the exit condition close to saturated steam
are desirable, thus the constant temperature
two-phase region should cover most of the
absorber tube. This can be achieved by varying
the feed water flow rate with radiation level.
Reducing the absorber tube diameter for a given
collector aperture area increases the collector
efficiency due to reduced heat loss but improved
internal convection heat transfer only has a
secondary influence. The collector efficiency
decreases with increasing feed water saturation
temperature, however, the efficiency is not a
strong function of operating temperature thus
the maximum possible saturation temperature
would be governed by costs of the pressure pipe
network and balance of system cost. The collec-
tor efficiency is not significantly affected by the
mode of collector operation (variable or fixed
feed water flow rate), however, the pumping
power due to pressure drop in the absorber
tube will be different in each arrangement. This
will be investigated in the next stage of this
work.
406 S. D. Odeh et al.

NOMENCLATURE Cohen G. and Kearney D. (1994) Improved parabolic

trough solar electric system based on the SEGS experi-
e emissivity ence. In Proceeding of the ASES Annual Conference,
r density (kg m−3) SOLAR 94, pp. 147–150.
m dynamic viscosity (Pa · s) Collier J. G. (1981) Forced convective boiling. In Two Phase
g efficiency Flow and Heat Transfer in the Power and Process Indu-
s Stefan–Boltzmann constant ( W m−2 K−4) stries. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. New York,
h beam radiation incident angle (°) pp. 226–253.
A area (m2) Dagan E., Muller M. and Lippke F. (1992) Direct steam
D diameter (m) generation in the parabolic trough collector. Report of
g gravitational acceleration (m s−2) Plataform Solar de Almeria, Madrid.
G mass flux (kg m−2 s−1) Dudley V., Kolb G., Sloan M. and Kearney D. (1994)
h heat transfer coefficient ( W m−2 K−1) SEGS LS2 solar collector – test results. Report of Sandia
I radiation intensity ( W m−2) National Laboratories, SANDIA94-1884, U.S.A.
k thermal conductivity ( W m−1 K−1) Duffie J. A. and Beckman W. A. (1991) Solar Engineering
m mass flow rate (kg s−1) of Thermal Process, 2nd edn. Wiley and Sons, New
Nu Nusselt number York, pp. 330–381.
Pr Prandtl number Guyer E. C. (1989) Handbook of Applied Thermal Design.
Q total heat transfer rate ( W ) McGraw–Hill, New York, pp. 543–551.
q heat flux ( W m−2) Gunger K. E. and Winterton R. H. (1989) A general correla-
Q ,Q radiation and convection loss ( W ) tion for flow boiling in tubes and annuli. Int. J. Heat
r c Mass Transfer 29, 351–358.
Q diffuse conduction loss (in residual gas) ( W )
d Heinzel V., Kungle H. and Simon M. (1995) Simulation of
r radius (m)
Re Reynolds number a parabolic trough collector. ISES Solar World Congress,
T absolute temperature ( K ) Harare, Zimbabwe, pp. 1–10.
t temperature (°C ) Kalogirou S., Eleftheriou P., Lloyd S. and Ward J. (1995)
V wind speed (m s−1) Optimisation of the initial response of a solar steam
x steam quality generation plant. In Proceeding of ASME, Solar Engi-
neering, Vol. 1, Hawaii, pp. 513–319.
Subscripts Kalogirou S., Lloyd S. and Ward J. (1997) Modelling,
optimisation and performance evaluation of a parabolic
a ambient solar collector steam generation system. Solar Energy
ab absorber 60, 49–59.
b bellows Lippke F. (1996) Direct steam generation in the parabolic
c collector trough solar power plants – numerical investigation of
dp dew point the transient and the control of a once-through system.
g glass J. of Solar Energy Eng 118, 9–14.
G saturated steam state Martin M. and Berdahl P. (1984) Characteristics of the
i inner infrared sky radiation in the United States. Solar Energy
l saturated water state 33, 321–336.
o outer Müller M. (1991) Test loop for research on direct steam
ph single phase ( liquid or vapour) generation in parabolic trough power plants. Solar
s sky Energy Materials 24, 222–230.
w water Odeh S. D., Morrison G. L. and Behnia M. (1996) Thermal
2ph two-phase flow analysis of parabolic trough solar collector for power
generation. In Proceedings of ANZSES 34th Annual Con-
ference, Darwin, Australia, pp. 460–467.
REFERENCES Ratzel A., Hickox C. and Gartling D. (1979) Technique for
reducing thermal conduction and natural convection
Cohen G. (1993) Operation and efficiency of large-scale heat transfer in annular receiver geometries. ASME, J. of
solar thermal power plants. In Proceeding of Optical Heat Transfer 101, 108–113.
Materials Technology for Energy Efficiency and Solar Stephan K. (1992) Heat Transfer in Condensation and Boil-
Energy Conversion, SPIE, Vol. 2017, pp. 332–337. ing. Springer–Verlag, New York, pp. 174–230.