Experimental investigation on the influence

of an air curtain on the convective heat

losses from solar cavity receivers under
windy condition
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2303, 080001 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0028630
Published Online: 11 December 2020

Elham Alipourtarzanagh, Alfonso Chinnici, Graham J. Nathan, and Bassam B. Dally

AIP Conference Proceedings 2303, 080001 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0028630 2303, 080001

© 2020 Author(s).
 Experimental Investigation on the Influence of an Air
Curtain on the Convective Heat Losses from Solar Cavity
Receivers under Windy Condition
Elham AlipourtarzanaghD, Alfonso Chinnici, Graham J. Nathan and Bassam B.
Dally

School of Mechanical Engineering, Centre for Energy Technology, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.
a)
Corresponding author: elham.alipour@adelaide.edu.eu

Abstract. An experimental study is performed to measure the convective heat losses from a heated solar cavity receiver
with an air curtain. The air curtain is a plane jet blowing downward across the aperture to mitigate the convective heat
losses. The cavity is placed in an open section of a wind tunnel to provide a controlled environment for measurement of
the influence of winds speed of 0 m/s, 6 m/s and 9 m/s on the performance of the air curtain. The velocity of the air curtain
was varied from 9 m/s to 18 m/s with two different discharge angles of 0° and 30°. The results show that for a head-on
wind condition, the air curtain with a discharge angle of 30° has a better performance than that with a discharge angle of
0°. The use of curtain was found to reduce the natural and mixed convective heat losses between 40% and 66% relative to
the case without an air curtain. The heat losses distribution on the surface of the cavity was also measured, which revealed
that heat losses are greatest from the lower part of the cavity.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, interest in solar thermal cavity receivers is growing as the cavity receivers achieve temperatures
from 800° C to well over 1000° C. The solar energy absorbed by cavity receivers can be used for different downstream
applications such as electricity generation or thermal storage by use of storage mediums [1]. Convective heat losses
from solar cavity receivers are a significant part of heat losses that affect the thermal efficiency. Many studies have
been conducted to quantify the effect of different parameters on the convective heat losses from cavity receivers. Some
research has been conducted to investigate the effect of operating conditions such as wind speed and direction, the tilt
angle of the cavity and the internal thermal distribution on convective heat losses [2-5]. While others investigated the
effect of geometrical parameters of the cavity such as the design of the cavity [6], aspect ratio [5] and aperture ratio
[7]of the cavity on convective heat losses. In the literature, several solutions are suggested to mitigate the convective
heat losses. For instance, the geometrical parameters are suggested to be chosen as per the findings of the literature
[8]. Moreover, covering the cavity opening with a transparent window, partially covering the aperture [9] and the use
of air curtains or aerowindow across the cavity [10] opening are suggested to increase the efficiency of the solar cavity
receivers. Air curtains have been applied to buildings and industrial processes in the past to suppress convective heat
losses through the main doors or opening [11]. However, there are significant differences between the shape and
orientation of a cavity receiver relative to a building, so that these previous results are not directly applicable. Also,
many possible configurations of air curtain are possible and no direct measurements of the effectiveness of any of
these are available for a solar cavity receiver.
The application of air curtain in solar cavity receivers has also been investigated through numerical and analytical
studies and is found to be economically viable [12, 13]. The aim of employing air curtains to the aperture of the solar
receivers is to inhibit the hot air from leaving the cavity and prevent the cold air entering cavity. Numerical analysis
of applying active airflow in the vicinity of a cavity receiver [14] showed that convective heat losses could be reduced
by 50% in a solar cavity receiver and the importance of applying air curtain with optimum jet speed and direction is

SolarPACES 2019
AIP Conf. Proc. 2303, 080001-1–080001-7; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0028630
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4037-1/$30.00

080001-1
highlighted. However, there is a lack of experimental evidence in the literature to show the effect of variation of the
velocity and inclination angle of air curtain on convective heat losses from solar cavity receivers.
In summary, to the best of our knowledge, no previous experimental data are available investigating the influence
of an aerodynamic curtain on the convective heat losses from a solar cavity receiver. Therefore the aim of the present
investigation is to meet this need.

METHODOLOGY
An experimental campaign is conducted on an electrically heated cavity receiver in an open section of the large
wind tunnel of the University of Adelaide with a cross-section of 2.75 m × 2.19 m. The average wind speeds used in
the experiments are 0 m/s, 3 m/s, 6 m/s and 9 m/s. The cavity has a length of 0.45 m, a diameter of 0.3 m and an
aperture of 0.10 m. The details of the experimental heated cavity used in the current study have been published
previously by Lee et al [3]. Figure 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of the cavity and air curtain (AC) used in the
current study

Compressed air inlet

Side veiw Front view

AC

Wind direction
ĭ
V
AC

FIGURE 1. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.

The tilt (ș) and yaw (Į) angle of the cavity are set to 15° and 0°, respectively for all experimental cases investigated
in the current study. The projected area of the cavity to the open section of the wind tunnel is about 4.1% which is small
enough to avoid blockage effect. The internal walls of the cavity are consist of copper plates which are heated with 16
electric strip heaters. Each heater is maintained at a constant uniform temperature of 300°C by using a feedback controller
system which records the supplied power to each heater. A set of 16 K-type thermocouples are attached to the heaters to
measure the temperature. The temperature of each heater is recorded by Datataker DT85 and is used for the temperature
feedback control system using MATLAB and Simulink. A specially designed air curtain is attached at a position above
the aperture. The air curtain has an outlet gap of 2 mm width and a length of 165 mm. The resulting air flow is reasonably
uniform with the outlet velocity of 20±0.4 m/s. A Kaeser rotary screw compressor SM 9 is used to provide the compressed
air through the air curtain.
The minimum deflection modulus method proposed initially by Hayes and Stoecker [15, 16] and modified by Zhang
et al. [17] is used to define the required minimum velocity of the air curtain to form a stable aerodynamic barrier across
the aperture. It is found that a minimum velocity of 18 m/s at a wind speed of 9 m/s is required to reach a stable virtual
wall. Therefore, the air jet velocities of 9 m/s and 18 m/s are applied for different experimental cases to investigate the
effect of discharge velocity of the air curtain. The volumetric air flow rate is controlled using Alicat Scientific MCR-
1000SLPM to 160 SLPM and 320 SLPM corresponding to the air velocity of 9 m/s and 18 m/s, respectively.
The total heat losses from the cavity are a combination of the conduction, convection and radiation heat losses. By
closing the aperture under the same experimental conditions, conduction heat losses are measured. The radiation heat
losses are calculated as a fourth-order dependence on temperature. The convection heat losses then are determined by
subtraction of conduction and radiation heat losses from total heat losses.
ܳ௖௢௡௩ ൌ ܳ௧௢௧௔௟ െ ሺܳ௖௢௡ௗ ൅ ܳ௥௔ௗ ሻ

080001-2
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Figure 2 presents the measured absolute convective heat losses (W) from a cavity receiver with and without an air
curtain. Two jet discharge angles of a) ĭ = 30° and b) ĭ = 0° and different wind speeds of 0 m/s, 6 m/s and 9 m/s are
tested for the air curtain velocity of 9 m/s and 18 m/s.
It is apparent from the figure that the convective heat losses for a discharge angle of 30° are less than those for a
discharge angle of 0° under all experimental conditions. Moreover, results show that at a discharge angle of 30°, an
increase in the velocity of the air curtain for all wind speeds results in a reduction in the convective heat losses. This
can be justified by the effect of air curtain as an aerodynamic barrier in the vicinity of the aperture which mitigates
the transfer of hot air to the surrounding of the cavity from the upper part of the aperture. It increases the stagnation
zone inside the cavity by trapping the hot air inside and as a result, the convective heat losses reduce. Nevertheless,
for ĭ=0°, increasing the velocity of the air curtain results in a growth in convective heat losses. For example for the
wind speed of 0 m/s, employing an air curtain at Vac = 18 m/s increases the convective heat losses from 262 W for no
air curtain case to 375 W. The reason is that at a discharge angle of 0° and under high velocity as the jet spreads
downstream a great amount of cold air from the air curtain is mixed with the hot air from the interior section of the
cavity and this is followed by a drop in the performance of the air curtain.
1600
V ac=0 m/s
1400 V ac=9 m/s, =0°
Convective heat losses [W]

1200 V ac=18 m/s, =0°

V ac=9 m/s, =30°
1000 V ac=18 m/s, =30°

800

600

400

200

0
0 6 9
Wind speed [m/s]

FIGURE 2. Measured convective heat losses from a cavity with and without air curtain at wind speeds of 0 m/s, 6 m/s and 9 m/s.
at ĭ = 0° and 30°. Test conditions: Į = 0°, T = 300° C, ș = 15°.

To get a better insight of the convective losses from different parts of the cavity, the heaters on the inner side of
the cavity are divided into five different sections including upper rear, upper front, lower rear, lower front and back
plate. Figure 3a presents the relative natural convective heat losses from different sections of the cavity at Vac= 0 m/s
(no air curtain), 9 m/s and 18 m/s to the natural convective heat losses of no air curtain. The total natural convective
heat losses from the cavity are also presented in Figure 3b. As it is mentioned above, the air curtain has a better
performance at a discharge angle of 30°, therefore the results for ĭ= 30° are presented here. Figure 3a shows that as
the velocity of the air curtain increases the convective heat losses from all sections of the cavity except the back plate
decrease constantly. As it is shown in Figure 3b, by employing an air curtain with a velocity of 18 m/s the total
convective heat losses decrease by 157 W. A significant part of this decrease occurs at the lower front section which
is more than 60% of total convection losses reduction. The relative convective heat losses from each section of the
cavity to the total convective heat losses for each experimental case are presented in Table 1. As can be seen from the
table, the lower front part of the cavity contributes the most to the convective heat losses within the cavity for all
experimental cases.

080001-3
 a) b)

FIGURE 3. a) The relative partial and total natural convective heat losses at Vac= 0 m/s, 9 m/s and 18 m/s to those at no air
curtain condition, b) Absolute natural convective heat losses from cavity at different velocity of air curtain of 0 m/s, 9 m/s and 18
m/s at discharge angle of 30°. (UR: Upper Rear, UF: Upper Front, LR: Lower Rear, LF: Lower Front, BP: Back Plate).

TABLE 1. Percentage of natural convective heat losses from each section of the cavity for the different experimental cases
with Vac=0 m/s, 9 m/s and 18 m/s at ĭ=30°.

Upper Upper Lower Lower Back

Vac
Rear Front Rear Front Plate
0 m/s 3 7 22 63 5
9 m/s 1 8 29 60 1
18 m/s 1 8 22 64 4

The variation of the convection losses from different sections of the internal surface of the cavity at Vac= 18 m/s
for both discharge angles of ĭ=0° and 30° are illustrated in Figure 4a. As the figure presents, as the discharge angle
increases from 0° to 30°, the total convective heat losses decrease by 70%. The main reduction occurs at the lower
sections of the cavity which are mainly involved with the turbulence of the flow from the air curtain at a discharge
angle of 0°. This highlights the importance of use an air curtain at a proper discharge angle to mitigate the convective
heat losses.

a) b)

FIGURE 4. The variation of natural convective heat losses from a) different sections of a cavity and b) total cavity
surface at Vac=18 m/s for two different discharge angles of 0° and 30°. (UR: Upper Rear, UF: Upper Front, LR:
Lower Rear, LF: Lower Front, BP: Back Plate).

080001-4
 The measured distribution of relative heat losses from different sections of the cavity to total convective heat losses
with and without an air curtain at a wind speed of 9 m/s where the forced convective heat losses are dominant are
presented in Figure 5a. As the figure illustrates, in general, by applying an air curtain the convective heat losses from
all different sections of the cavity reduce. As the velocity of the air curtain increases the convective heat losses decline
gradually. However, the current study examined a limited increase in the velocity of the air curtain and the effect of a
further increase of the air curtain on convective heat losses needs to be investigated.
Table 2 presents the percentage of the convective heat losses from different sections of the cavity for each
experimental case. As the table depicts, consistent with no wind condition, the maximum convective heat losses are
from the lower front part of the cavity. This highlights the importance of developing a strategy which mitigates the
convective heat losses from the lower part of the cavity. For instance, using an air curtain, blowing from the lower
side of the aperture upward has the potential to reduce the convective heat losses [10] and it can lessen the convective
heat losses from the lower part by preventing the cold air entrainment into the cavity from the lower part.

a) b)

FIGURE 5. a) The relative partial and total convective heat losses at Vac= 0 m/s, 9 m/s and 18 m/s to those at no air
curtain condition, b) Absolute convective heat losses form the cavity at different velocity of air curtain of 0 m/s, 9
m/s and 18 m/s at discharge angle of 30° and wind speed of 9 m/s. (UR: Upper Rear, UF: Upper Front, LR: Lower
Rear, LF: Lower Front, BP: Back Plate)

TABLE 2. Percentage of convective heat losses from each section of the cavity for the experimental cases with Vac=0 m/s, 9
m/s and 18 m/s at ĭ = 30° and wind speed of 9 m/s.

Upper Upper Lower Lower Back

Vac
Rear Front Rear Front Plate
0 m/s 18 16 27 28 13
9 m/s 17 16 25 32 11
18 m/s 18 18 25 28 12

080001-5
 The variation of the convective heat losses from different sections within the cavity by use an air curtain at a
velocity of 18 m/s and two different discharge angles of 0° and 30° is illustrated in Figure 6a. The total convective
heat losses from the cavity corresponding to the cases presented in Figure 6a are presents in Figure 6b. As the figure
presents by varying the discharge angle of the air curtain, the convection losses from all sections of the cavity decrease.
However, the total convective heat losses reduce by 16% which is significantly less than that for no wind condition.
This shows that the improvement in the performance of the air curtain through the variation of the discharge angle at
higher wind speeds decreases.

FIGURE 6. a) Absolut convective heat losses (w) from different sections of a cavity b) Total absolute convective
heat losses (W) at wind speed of 9 m/s for the velocity of air curtain of 18 m/s and two discharge angles of 0° and
30°. (UR: Upper Rear, UF: Upper Front, LR: Lower Rear, LF: Lower Front, BP: Back Plate).

CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the use of an air curtain has found to generate a complex influence on convective heat losses, which
vary with the wind speed, velocity and angle of the air curtain. It is found that using an air curtain with an angle of 30°
outward the aperture yields better performance than one aligned parallel to the face of the receiver. However, for high
external wind speeds the effect of the discharge angle is less than the low wind speed cases. In the best case of the
configuration investigated here, the natural convective heat losses were lowered by 60% and the mixed heat losses were
reduced by 32 %. The distribution of heat losses from different sections of the cavity reveals that the lower front part of
the cavity is the most critical section as it has the highest convective heat losses even after the application of a downward-
blowing an air curtain. It is investigated that the greatest reduction of convective heat losses by use of an air curtain occurs
at the lower section of the cavity.

REFERENCES
1. H. M.-S. FREng and F. Trieb, "Concentrating solar power: A review of the technology," Ingenia Inform QR
Acad Eng, vol. 18, pp. 43-50, 2004.
2. A. M. Clausing, "An analysis of convective losses from cavity solar central receivers," Solar Energy, vol. 27, pp.
295-300, 1981.
3. K. L. Lee, A. Chinnici, M. Jafarian, M. Arjomandi, B. Dally, and G. Nathan, "Experimental investigation of the
effects of wind speed and yaw angle on heat losses from a heated cavity," Solar Energy, vol. 165, pp. 178-188,
2018.
4. K. L. Lee, A. Chinnici, M. Jafarian, M. Arjomandi, B. Dally, and G. Nathan, "The influence of wall temperature
distribution on the mixed convective losses from a heated cavity," Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 155, pp.
157-165, 2019/06/05/ 2019.
5. K. L. Lee, A. Chinnici, M. Jafarian, M. Arjomandi, B. Dally, and G. Nathan, "The influence of wind speed,
aperture ratio and tilt angle on the heat losses from a finely controlled heated cavity for a solar receiver,"
Renewable Energy, vol. 143, pp. 1544-1553, 2019.

080001-6
6. R. D. Jilte, S. B. Kedare, and J. K. Nayak, "Investigation on Convective Heat Losses from Solar Cavities under
Wind Conditions," Energy Procedia, vol. 57, pp. 437-446, 2014.
7. K. L. Lee, M. Jafarian, F. Ghanadi, M. Arjomandi, and G. J. Nathan, "An investigation into the effect of aspect
ratio on the heat loss from a solar cavity receiver," Solar Energy, vol. 149, pp. 20-31, 2017.
8. S.-Y. Wu, L. Xiao, Y. Cao, and Y.-R. Li, "Convection heat loss from cavity receiver in parabolic dish solar
thermal power system: A review," Solar Energy, vol. 84, pp. 1342-1355, 2010.
9. R. Uhlig, R. Flesch, B. Gobereit, S. Giuliano, and P. Liedke, "Strategies Enhancing Efficiency of Cavity
Receivers," Energy Procedia, vol. 49, pp. 538-550, 2014.
10. S. Yang, J. Wang, P. D. Lund, S. Wang, and C. Jiang, "Reducing convective heat losses in solar dish cavity
receivers through a modified air-curtain system," Solar Energy, vol. 166, pp. 50-58, 2018.
11. S. Goubran, D. Qi, W. F. Saleh, L. Wang, and R. Zmeureanu, "Experimental study on the flow characteristics of
air curtains at building entrances," Building and Environment, vol. 105, pp. 225-235, 2016.
12. R. T. Taussig, "Aerowindows for central solar receivers," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Winter
Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, , p. 12, Dec. 9-14, 1984 1984.
13. J. J. Zhang, J. D. Pye, and G. O. Hughes, "Active Air Flow Control to Reduce Cavity Receiver Heat Loss," p.
V001T05A023, 2015.
14. J. P. Graham Hughes, Martin Kaufer, Ehsan Abbasi- Shavazi, Jack Zhang, Adam McIntosh, Tim Lindley,
"Reduction of convective losses in solar cavity receivers," presented at the SolarPACES 2015, Cape Town, South
Africa, 2015.
15. F. C Hayes and W. F. Stoecker, "Heat transfer characteristics of the air curtain," vol. 2120, ed. ASHRAE Trans.,
1969.
16. F. C Hayes and W. F. Stoecker, "Design data for air curtains," vol. 2121, ed: ASHRAE Trans, 1969.
17. L. Zhang, Z.-z. Yan, Z.-h. Li, X.-m. Wang, X.-f. Han, and J.-c. Jiang, "Study on the Effect of the Jet Speed of
Air Curtain on Smoke Control in Tunnel," Procedia Engineering, vol. 211, pp. 1026-1033, 2018.

080001-7