International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327–333

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

Constructal solar chimney configuration

A. Koonsrisuk a, S. Lorente b, A. Bejan c,*
a
Suranaree University of Technology, School of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
b
Université de Toulouse, UPS, INSA, LMDC (Laboratoire Materiaux et Durabilite des Constructions), 135, avenue de Rangueil, F-31 077 Toulouse Cedex 04, France
c
Duke University, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Durham, NC 27708-0300, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, we describe the constructal-theory search for the geometry of a solar chimney. The objec-
Received 15 June 2009 tive is to increase the power production over the area occupied by the plant. The ratio height/radius, max-
Received in revised form 13 August 2009 imum mass flow rate and maximum power under the constraints of a fixed area and volume are
Accepted 13 August 2009
determined. We find that the power generated per unit of land area is proportional to the length scale
Available online 12 October 2009
of the power plant. The analysis is validated by a detailed mathematical model. Pressure losses are
reported in terms of the dimensionless length scale of the system, and are illustrated graphically. They
Keywords:
indicate that the pressure drop at the collector inlet and at the transition section between the collector
Constructal
Solar chimney
and chimney are negligible, and the friction loss in the collector can be neglected when the svelteness
Solar tower (Sv) of the entire flow architecture is greater than approximately 6.
Morphing Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Design-evolution
Svelteness
Design

1. Introduction optimal plant configurations may be established for individual

The solar chimney is a power plant that uses (1) solar radiation
to raise the temperature of the air and (2) the buoyancy of warm
air to accelerate the air stream flowing through the system. The
main features of the solar chimney are sketched in Fig. 1. Air is
heated as a result of the greenhouse effect under a transparent roof
(the collector). Because the roof is open around its periphery, the
buoyancy of the heated air draws a continuous flow from the roof
perimeter into the chimney. A turbine is set in the path of the air
current to convert the kinetic energy of the flowing air into
electricity.
In 1981 a solar chimney prototype of 50 kW and chimney
height nominally at 200 m was built in Manzanares, Spain. The
plant operated from 1982 to 1989, and was connected to the local
power network between 1986 and 1989 [1]. This project demon-
strated the viability and reliability of the solar chimney concept.
Since then, numerous investigations have been conducted to pre-
dict the flow in solar chimneys. Generally, it was found that the
electricity yielded by a solar chimney is in proportion with the
intensity of global solar radiation, collector area and chimney
height. Based on a mathematical model, Schlaich [1] reported that
optimal dimensions for a solar chimney do not exist. However, if
construction costs are taken into account, thermoeconomically
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 660 5309; fax: +1 919 660 8963.
E-mail address: abejan@duke.edu (A. Bejan).
sites. Pretorius and Kröger [2] showed numerically that the power
generation is a function of the collector roof shape and inlet height.
Maia et al. [3] carried out a simulation study and found that the
height and diameter of the chimney are the most important
geometric dimensions for solar chimney design. Zhou et al. [4]
reported the maximum chimney height in order to avoid negative
buoyancy, and the optimal chimney height for maximum power
output. They found that the maximum height and the optimal
height increase with collector radius.
A common feature in these findings is that the plant efficiency is
very low, and that it increases with the plant size. Consequently
only large-scale plants, in which the chimney heights are 1000 m
or more, were proposed in the literature. In the 1990s, a project
in which a solar chimney power plant with the capacity of
100 MW was proposed for construction in Rajasthan, India, but
was not built. Its collector had a radius of 1800 m and a chimney
height and diameter of 950 m and 115 m, respectively [5]. The Aus-
tralian government planned to build a 200 MW commercial plant
with a 1000-m high concrete chimney. Recently, the plant was
downsized to 50 MW and a 480-m high chimney [6], because the
construction and safety of such a massive structure poses signifi-
cant engineering challenges.
The work described in this paper was stimulated by the quest
for fundamental principles for improved designs, and focuses on
the generation of shape and structure in the pursuit of global per-
formance of the flow system. It is based on constructal theory [7].

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.09.026
328 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327–333

Nomenclature

A horizontal area, m2 DP pressure drop, Pa

Ac cross-sectional area, m2 DPacc acceleration pressure drop, Pa
Ar roof area, m2 DPinlet collector inlet pressure drop, Pa
C1,2,3,4 constants DPjunction pressure drop at the collector-to-chimney transition
cp specific heat at constant pressure, J kg1 K1 section, Pa
D tower diameter, m, Fig. 1 DT temperature difference in roof portion, K
f friction factor ejunction loss coefficient at the collector-to-chimney transition
g gravitational acceleration, m s2 section
H tower height, m, Fig. 1 U auxiliary function, Eq. (18)
h roof height, m, Fig. 1 k Lagrange multiplier
Kinlet collector inlet loss coefficient q density, kg/m3
M Mach number q air density at T0, kg/m3
P0
m_ mass flow rate, kg s1 quantity proportional to the total power generation rate
q00 solar heat flux, W/m2 s fluid shear stress
R ideal gas constant, J kg1 K1 W auxiliary function, Eq. (23)
R roof radius, m, Fig. 1
Sv svelteness number, Eq. (40) Subscripts
T0 atmospheric temperature, K max maximum
U velocity, m s1 w wall
V volume, m3 x horizontal passage
W _ flow power, W y vertical passage
z Cartesian coordinate in vertical direction 1 roof inlet
2 roof outlet
Greek symbols 3 chimney inlet
b volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion, 1/K 4 chimney outlet

In this paper, we show that the configuration of the solar chimney
can be determined along with the scaling rules for being able to
scale-up and scale-down the design.
2. Geometry
The analysis is based on a simple model in order to demonstrate
analytically the opportunity for searching for a constructal config-
uration if the system architecture is free to morph. Physical details
that are neglected are discussed in the concluding paragraphs. The
simplified analysis is validated by a more realistic numerical model
in Sections 7 and 8.
The system geometry is simplified to a horizontal disc above
the ground and a vertical cylinder in the center of the disc. The
solar chimney configuration has the four dimensions shown in
Fig. 1: D, H, R and h. We assume that the flow is fully developed
and turbulent in all the flow passages, and that the friction factors
in the vertical tube (fy) and the horizontal channel (fx) are approx-
imately constant. The air flow rate (m) _ enters at atmospheric
temperature (T0) and is heated with uniform heat flux (q00 ) as it
flows to the base of the chimney, where its temperature reaches
T0 + DT. It is assumed that the solar radiation absorbed by the
chimney is negligible with respect to the solar heat absorbed by
the collector.

3. Pumping effect

The air stream is driven by the buoyancy effect due to the ver-
tical column of hot air (height H, temperature T0 + DT), which com-
municates with the ambient air of the same height and lower
temperature (T0). The net pressure difference that drives the air
stream in the tower is [8]
DP ¼ qT 0 gH  qT 0 þDT gH ¼ qbgHDT ð1Þ

where q is the average air density and b is the coefficient of volu-

metric thermal expansion.
The pumping effect DP is opposed by friction in the vertical
tube (DPy) and in the horizontal channel (DPx) and the acceleration
due to flow area reduction (DPacc). For the vertical tube, the longi-
tudinal force balance is

DPy pD2 =4 ¼ sw pDH ð2Þ

where sw is the wall shear stress. The wall shear stress is defined in
Fig. 1. The main features of a solar chimney. terms of friction factor as [9]
 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327–333 329

1 q2 bgq00 p3
sw ¼ f qU 2 ð3Þ C1 ¼ ð13Þ
2 8cp
Combining Eqs. (2) and (3), we obtain C 2 ¼ 4f y ð14Þ

4H 1 fx
DPy ¼ fy qU 2y ð4Þ C3 ¼ ð15Þ
D 2 64
The corresponding excess temperature at the base of the tower
_ qpD2 =4Þ. The pressure loss along the horizontal
where U y ¼ m=ð is
channel (under the roof) is determined from the force balance on
the flow control volume under the roof, pq00 R2
DT ¼ ð16Þ
mc
_ p
DPx 2pRh ¼ sw 2pR2 ð5Þ

where 2pR2 represents the total contact area (roof and ground sur- 4. More air flow rate
face) in the horizontal channel. Consequently, the pressure loss in
the horizontal passage is To see how the geometry influences the air mass flow rate, as-
sume that the smaller dimensions (D, h) are fixed. In this case, m _
R1
DPx ¼ fx qU 2x ð6Þ increases monotonically with the tower height (H) when the roof
h2
radius (R) is fixed. On the other hand, if H is fixed, m _ increases
where Ux is the average air velocity at the entrance, monotonically with R. The large dimensions (H, R) cannot increase
_ q2pRhÞ. The horizontal flow experiences acceleration and
U x ¼ m=ð independently and indefinitely because the global size of the
heating in a channel with variable cross-sectional area Ac [10] installation is constrained. There are many size constraints that
are in play (cf. Section 8). One is overall size of the whole installa-
qU 2 dAc q00 dAr
 
tion, which is roughly proportional to the surface area of the chim-
dP ¼  ð7Þ
ð1  M 2 Þ Ac mc
_ pT ney and the roof,

Next we assume that in the horizontal flow q00 , cp, q and T are A ¼ pDH þ pR2 ð17Þ
approximately constant. The Mach number, M, is negligible, and
To maximize the m _ function (12) with respect to H and R subject
Eq. (7) reduces to
to constraint (17) is equivalent to seeking the extremum of the
! aggregate function formed by combining the right sides of Eqs.
m_2 1 1 _ 00
mq R
DPacc ¼   ln ð8Þ (12) and (17),
2q0 A22 A21 2
2ph q0 cp T 0 D=2
C 1 R2 H
U ¼ C2 H þ kðDH þ R2 Þ ð18Þ
where 1 and 2 denote the channel entrance and channel exit, 5
C3
þ Rh 1
3 þ 4
D D
respectively. This equation shows that the pressure increases due
to heat addition (the second term), and it decreases due to flow area where k is a Lagrange multiplier. Because H and R are of the same
reduction toward the roof center (the first term). An order of mag- order, and both H and R are much greater than D and h, the terms
nitude analysis reveals that the first term is much greater than the C2H/D5 and 1/D4 dominate C3/Rh3 in the denominator of the first
second term. In addition, because A21 >> A22 , Eq. (8) becomes term on the right side of Eq. (18). Solving oU/oH = 0 and oU/
oR = 0, and eliminating k, we obtain
_2
m
DPacc ffi ð9Þ  1=2
q0 p2 D4 =8 R ¼ C 2 H2 þ DH ð19Þ

The pressure losses are matched by the driving pressure differ- and the maximized air flow rate
ence, DP = DPy + DPx + DPacc, or !1=3
C 1 C 2 H3 þ C 1 DH2
!2 2 m
_ max ¼ ð20Þ
2H m_ R m
_
 C2 H
qbDTgH ¼ fy q þ fx q D5
þ D14
D qpD2 =4 2h q2pRh
!2 Note that in writing Eq. (20) we have neglected h, because of
2m
_ order of magnitude reasoning. As a result, Eq. (20) shows only
þ 2q ð10Þ the effect of D, which until now was treated as a known
qpD2
parameter.
Eq. (10) relates the flow rate (m)_ to the excess temperature
reached at the base of the cylinder (DT). The second equation 5. More power
needed for determining m _ and DT is the first law of thermodynam-
ics written for the horizontal channel as a control volume: The generation of power calls for designs that maximize m _ and
DP as a product, i.e. not m
_ alone. The thermodynamic limit of the
q00 pR2 ¼ mc
_ p DT ð11Þ power produced by a turbine inserted in a duct with the air stream
We assume that D is considerably smaller than R (i.e., >> A22 ), A21 _ driven by the pressure difference DP is
m
2
so that the area serving as solar collector is roughly pR , instead of _ DP=q  C 4 HR2
_ m
W ð21Þ
p[R2  (D/2)2]. By eliminating DT between Eqs. (10) and (11), we
obtain where
bgq00 p
C 1 R2 H C4 ¼ ð22Þ
_3¼C
m ð12Þ cp
2H C3 1
D 5 þ Rh 3 þ 4
D
To determine the optimal H and R for which W _ is maximal, we
where C1,2,3 are three constants, construct the linear combination of Eqs. (21) and (17),
330 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327–333

W ¼ C 4 HR2 þ kðDH þ R2 Þ
 2 
ð23Þ 1 m_ 1 1

P3 ¼ P4 þ ðq3 þ q4 ÞgH þ  ð31Þ
2 Ac q4 q3
and seek the extremum of W. After eliminating k we obtain H = R2/
D, or where 3 and 4 denote the chimney entrance and exit, respectively.
1=2 Hydrostatic equilibrium requires that
H ðA=2pÞ
¼ ð24Þ
R D dP
¼ qg ð32Þ
The power level that corresponds to the optimal configu- dz
ration is According to Calvert [11], when a parcel of atmospheric air ex-
2 pands slowly to a lower atmospheric pressure without exchange
_ max ¼ C 4 A
W ð25Þ of heat, the temperature change with altitude is written as
4p2 D
g
This result shows that the maximal power level increases rap- T ¼ T1  z ð33Þ
idly as the available size increases. If A1/2 represents the length cp
scale of the entire flow system, then it is reasonable to expect that Because air behaves as an ideal gas, Eqs. (32) and (33) yield
D will vary more or less in proportion with A1/2. This leads to the cp =R
_ max varies as A3/2. g

conclusion that W
P4 ¼ P1 1  H ð34Þ
In addition, because R2 scales with A [cf. Eq. (17)], it follows that cp T 1
the maximum power generated per unit of land area ðW _ max =pR2 Þ
varies in proportion with the length scale of the installation, A1/2. and, in accordance with Eq. (33),
The important conclusion is that the maximum use of land surface
requires the use of larger solar chimney power plants (see also Sec- g
T4 ¼ T3  H ð35Þ
tion 9). cp

and
6. Volume constraint
P2 P3 P4
q2 ¼ ; q3 ¼ ; q4 ¼ ð36Þ
RT 2 RT 3 RT 4
An alternative to the size constraint (16) is the total flow vol-
ume constraint, The turbine is not modeled in this analysis: the flow properties
at point 2 are the same as those at point 3. The pressure potential
p
V¼ D2 H þ pR2 h ð26Þ is the available pressure difference between the tower base and
4 the surroundings, therefore the available turbine power is esti-
_ of Eq. (21) subject to the volume
The results of maximizing W mated as
constraint are
_ ¼m
W
_
ðP1  P2 Þ ð37Þ
H 4h q2
2
¼ 2
ð27Þ
R D
V The computations were made with a fluid dynamics code
R2 ¼ ð28Þ [12] used extensively and validated in Koonsrisuk and Chitsom-
2ph
2 boon [13]. To validate the present model, we first compared
_ max ¼ C 4 V
W ð29Þ its results with those of CFD simulations. Fig. 2 shows that
p hD2
2
the results of the model agree very well with those of CFD
Once again, the power output increases with the total size computations.
squared. If h and D scale with the linear scale of the entire instal- We based the calculations on the Manzanares prototype. The
lation, V 1=3 , then W
_ max scales with V. In this case the power pro- collector had a diameter of 244 m and a height of 1.85 m, and it
duced per unit of land area ðW _ max =pR2 Þ increases with V/V2/3 = V1/3, had a 194.6-m high chimney with a diameter of 10.16 m. Koonsri-
which represents the length scale of the power plant. This scaling suk and Chitsomboon [14] tested several published mathematical
is the same as the one found at the end of the preceding section. models and found that changing h does not affect noticeably the
In conclusion, the economies-of-scale trend is the same as at the power or efficiency of the system. Here we investigated two sce-
end of the preceding section. On this trend, we comment further narios: when H and R varied while D and h were kept constant,
in Section 9. and when H and D varied while R and h were kept constant.
The constraints were fixed area or fixed volume, Eqs. (17) and
(26).
7. Model validation Fig. 3 shows that when we vary H and R the theoretical maximal
power is in agreement with the prediction of Eqs. (25) and (29) for
The results developed in Sections 5 and 6 were based on a sim- both cases of fixed surface and fixed volume. Because H/R2 = 1/D
ple model and scale analysis. In order to validate its conclusions when the surface is fixed [cf. Eq. (24)], and H/R2 = 4h/D2 when
[Eqs. (25) and (29)] and we developed a detailed mathematical the volume is fixed [cf. Eq. (27)], we find that the optimal H of
model for the flow in a solar chimney. The pressure change due the fixed surface case is higher than the H for fixed volume (R, h
to acceleration in the collector is computed using Eq. (8). The tem- and D are the same), resulting in more power when the surface
perature is estimated from the energy equation for the roof portion is fixed.
q00 Ar Note from Fig. 3 that the case with fixed R and fixed volume of-
T2 ¼ T1 þ ð30Þ fers the highest maximal power. However, we cannot use Eq. (21)
mc
_ p
to determine the optimal chimney geometry. The highest maximal
The pressure change along the chimney is calculated from the power occurs somewhere between the predictions made with Eqs.
momentum equation for flow through a vertical tube with uniform (25) and (29). In conclusion, we can use Eq. (25) to determine the
cross-section, optimal H/R2.
 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327–333 331

Fig. 2. Comparison between theoretical model and numerical model.

Fig. 3. The power predictions from theoretical model.

8. Additional losses DPinlet ¼ K inlet q1 V 21 =2 þ q1 V 21 =2 ð38Þ

In the analysis of Section 3, only the pressure losses due to fric-
tion in the collector and chimney and due to acceleration in the
collector were taken into consideration. In a real plant there are
other losses, such as the collector inlet pressure drop (DPinlet),
the local loss at the transition section between the collector outlet
and the chimney inlet (DPjunction) and the pressure drop due to
obstructions such as supports or internal braces inside the collec-
tor and chimney. To justify the validity of the analysis of Section
3, we evaluated and compared the magnitude of these additional
losses.
The effect of obstructions is not considered in the present
study because we considered the system with the simplest
geometry, i.e. a collector and a chimney without obstructions.
Therefore we include DPinlet, DPacc [cf. Eq. (8)], DPx [cf. Eq. (6)],
DPjunction and DPy [cf. Eq. (4)] into the model presented in Sec-
tion 7. In Kröger and Buys [15], the collector inlet pressure drop
is defined as
where Kinlet is the collector inlet loss coefficient and according to
Hedderwick [16], Kinlet = 1. The pressure drop at the collector-to-
chimney transition section is
DPjunction ¼ ejunction q2 V 22 =2 ð39Þ
where ejunction is the loss coefficient at the junction. This coefficient
depends on the inlet guide vane (IGV) stagger angle and the ratio
h/D. Kirstein and von Backström [17] developed a semi-empirical
formula to predict this coefficient. If the IGV stagger angle and
h/D are 22.5° and 0.356, respectively, the loss coefficient is 0.056.
To evaluate the wall friction loss coefficient, we adopted from
Von Backström et al. [18] the chimney wall friction loss coefficient
fy = 0.0085. In addition, according to the numerical simulations the
Reynolds number based on collector diameter is of order 106,
therefore we used the relation fx = 0.046Re1/5 [9] for collector wall
friction.
332 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327–333
Fig. 4. Pressure losses scaled by the pressure acceleration in a collector as a function of svelteness.
To investigate the effect of power plant geometry on the signif-
icance of junction and other local losses, we used the concept of
svelteness Sv, which is the global geometric property defined as
[19]
RþH
Sv ¼
ðpR h þ pD2 H=4Þ1=3
2
The svelteness is the ratio between the external length scale
and the internal length scale of the system. The external length
scale is the flow distance from the roof entrance to the chimney
top. The internal length scale is V1/3, where V is the internal flow
space of the entire system.
The numerical part of the analysis was conducted for the Man-
zanares plant with varying H and R. From the results plotted in
Fig. 4 we see that DPinlet and DPjunction are negligible when com-
pared with DPacc. This means that the neglect of local losses in Sec-
tion 3 is justified.
Furthermore, DPx can be neglected when R is fixed and H is var-
ied. On the other hand, when R is varied and H is fixed, DPx/DPacc
increases sharply when Sv approaches approximately 6. It is evi-
dent from Eq. (40) that Sv decreases as R increases. Therefore,
when Sv > 6 the losses due to DPinlet, DPjunction and DPx can be ne-
glected, and the analysis is much simpler. The threshold Sv > 6 is in
good agreement with the order of magnitude threshold Sv > 10 de-
rived in Ref. [7] for the design domain where local pressure losses
are negligible.
9. Conclusions
In this paper, we outlined based on constructal theory the
search for the configuration of the solar chimney power plant.
The maximum mass flow rate and maximum flow power were
determined based on a simple model. We found that the maximum
flow power is a function of the length scale of the plant. Larger
plants produce more power per unit of territory.
Comparisons between the simple model and predictions based
on a detailed model were also presented. The inclusion of local
pressure losses into the analysis and numerical simulations of
the flow field validated the assumption that the collector inlet
pressure drop and the pressure drop over the junction between
the collector and chimney are negligible. We also found that when
the svelteness is greater than 6 the friction loss in the collector can
be neglected as well.
_ max =pR2 is proportional to the energy conversion
The ratio W
efficiency of the power plant, because the collector area (pR2) is
proportional to the solar heat input. The conclusion that the effi-
ciency increases in proportion with the length scale of the power
plant is valid as long as the simple model used here is valid. It
does not mean that the efficiency can increase indefinitely with
the size, all the way to exceeding even the Carnot efficiency.
The reason is that when the size of the chimney and the roof in-
ð40Þ
creases there are other losses that come into play and terminate
the scenario described with the simple model. Examples are the
convective heat losses through the walls of the vertical cylinder
and the horizontal disc, which increase with size.
Size limitations are also posed by the weight of the tower and
the lateral force due to wind drag, which may lead to tower col-
lapse. If the speed of catastrophic winds in the region is known,
then the expected horizontal load on the tower is proportional to
the projected area (HD). The bending moment in the bottom
cross-section of the tower scales as H2D. Assuming that the cylin-
der wall thickness is proportional to D, then the allowable bending
stress is proportional to the slenderness ratio squared (H/D)2. In
conclusion, the strength of the construction material dictates the
slenderness of the tower.
Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by the Royal Golden Jubilee (RGJ)
Ph.D. Program of the Thailand Research Fund (TRF), and was con-
ducted while Atit Koonsrisuk was a Visiting Research Scholar in
the Constructal Design Group at Duke University. The work of
Profs. Adrian Bejan and Sylvie Lorente was supported by a grant
from the National Science Foundation. We thank Dr. Tawit Chit-
somboon for his many constructive comments on the manuscript.
References
[1] J. Schlaich, The Solar Chimney, Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart, Germany, 1995.
[2] J.P. Pretorius, D.G. Kröger, Solar chimney power plant performance, J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 128 (2006) 302–311.
[3] C.B. Maia, A.G. Ferreira, R.M. Valle, M.F.B. Cortez, Theoretical evaluation of the
influence of geometric parameters and materials on the behavior of the
airflow in a solar chimney, Comput. Fluids, doi: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2008.
06.005.
[4] X. Zhou, J. Yang, B. Xiao, G. Hou, F. Xing, Analysis of chimney height for solar
chimney power plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 178–185.
[5] M. Rohmann, Solar Chimney Power Plant, Bochum University of Applied
Sciences, 2000.
[6] EnviroMission’s Solar Tower of Power, 2006. Available from: <http://www.
seekingalpha.com/article/14935-enviromission-s-solar-tower-of-power>.
[7] A. Bejan, S. Lorente, Design with Constructal Theory, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
[8] A. Bejan, Convection Heat Transfer, third ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004.
[9] A. Bejan, Heat Transfer, Wiley, New York, 1993.
 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327–333
[10] T. Chitsomboon, A validated analytical model for flow in solar chimney, Int. J.
Renew. Energy Eng. 3 (2001) 339–346.
[11] J.G. Calvert, Glossary of atmospheric chemistry terms (recommendations
1990), Pure Appl. Chem. 62 (11) (1990) 2167–2219.
[12] ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS CFX, Release 10.0: Reference Guide, ANSYS, 2005.
[13] A. Koonsrisuk, T. Chitsomboon, Dynamic similarity in solar chimney modeling,
Sol. Energy 81 (2007) 1439–1446.
[14] A. Koonsrisuk, T. Chitsomboon, Accuracy of theoretical models in the
prediction of solar chimney power plant performance, Sol. Energy, in press,
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2009.05.012.
333
[15] D.G. Kröger, J.D. Buys, Performance evaluation of a solar chimney power plant,
in: ISES 2001 Solar World Congress, Adelaide, Australia, 2001.
[16] R.A. Hedderwick, Performance evaluation of a solar chimney power plant,
M.Sc. Eng.-Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2001.
[17] C.F. Kirstein, T.W. Von Backström, Flow through a solar chimney power plant
collector-to-chimney transition section, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 128 (2006) 312–317.
[18] T.W. Von Backström, A. Bernhardt, A.J. Gannon, Pressure drop in solar power
plant chimneys, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 125 (2003) 165–169.
[19] S. Lorente, A. Bejan, Svelteness, freedom to morph, and constructal multi-scale
flow structures, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 44 (2005) 1123–1130.