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

net/publication/324299207

Optimum number of internal fins in parabolic trough collectors

Article  in  Applied Thermal Engineering · April 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.037

CITATIONS READS

80 401

3 authors:

Evangelos Bellos Christos Tzivanidis

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
229 PUBLICATIONS   9,399 CITATIONS    206 PUBLICATIONS   7,496 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dimitrios Tsimpoukis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
15 PUBLICATIONS   754 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Sustainable refrigeration systems View project

Special Issue on The challenge-led special issue series: Enhancement of heat transfer processes and energy applications with nanofluids, turbulators, and novel
working fluids View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evangelos Bellos on 09 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Optimum number of internal fins in parabolic trough collectors
2 Evangelos Bellos, Christos Tzivanidis, Dimitrios Tsimpoukis

3 Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical

4 University of Athens, Zografou, Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece.
5
6 Corresponding author: Evangelos Bellos (bellose@central.ntua.gr)

7 Abstract
8 Parabolic trough collectors are among the most mature solar concentrating
9 technologies which are applied in numerous applications. The enhancement of their
10 performance is a crucial issue in order to be established as a feasible technology. The
11 use of internal fins is one of the most interesting techniques for enhancing the heat
12 transfer phenomena in the flow as well as for increasing the collector’s performance.
13 However, their utilization leads to higher pressure losses. The objective of this paper
14 is to investigate the optimum number and location of the internal fins in the absorber
15 of a parabolic trough collector. The examined fins have 10 mm length and 2 mm
16 thickness, while their shape is rectangular. Various numbers of fins are investigated in
17 various locations inside the absorber and in every case, the collector’s performance is
18 investigated by taking into account the increase of the Nusselt number and of the
19 friction factor. According to the final results, the internal fins have to be placed in the
20 lower part of the absorber where the higher amount of the solar heat flux is
21 concentrated. A multi-objective procedure proved that the absorber with three fins in
22 the lower part is the optimum case with 0.51% thermal efficiency enhancement.

23 Keywords
24 Parabolic trough collector, Internal fins, Heat transfer, Thermal enhancement,
25 Optimization

26 1. Introduction
27 Solar energy utilization is one of the most promising renewable energy sources in
28 order to face the existing environmental problems [1]. Parabolic trough collectors
29 (PTCs) are among the most mature solar concentrating technologies and they can be
30 used in many applications as industrial heat, electricity production and in chemical
31 processes [2-3]. The increase of their performance is one of the most challenging
32 issues in order to make them a feasible and vital technology [4-5].

33 Many techniques have been tested for enhancing their thermal efficiency, which are
34 mainly focused on the increase of the heat transfer phenomena inside the flow. The
35 use of nanofluids as working fluids is a recently examined technique which is under
36 development [6-7]. The existing experimental results have not proved a significant
37 increase in the thermal efficiency of the PTC and thus they have not been established
38 yet [8]. On the other hand, the use of flow inserts or internal fins in the absorbers of
39 PTCs is another reliable choice [9-12]. These techniques aim to increase the mixing of
40 the flow and to create more turbulent conditions in the absorber. However, these

1
41 techniques lead to high-pressure losses due to the existence of obstacles in the flow.
42 Thus, the thermal enhancement has to be evaluated in every case with proper criteria.
43 Moreover, it is important to state that the use of thermal enhancement techniques
44 decreases the deformation problems in the absorber and in the glass cover, something
45 very important for the lifetime of the PTCs [5].

46 The literature studies which examine inserts in the flow, usually examine metal foams
47 [13], porous discs [14], twisted-tape inserts [9], wavy-tape inserts [14], helical coils
48 [15] and perforated plate inserts [16]. On the other hand, the use of internally finned
49 absorbers or absorbers with modified internal geometry is another great literature part.
50 Huang et al. [17] examined internally dimpled absorbers and they found the
51 performance evaluation criterion (PEC) to be close to 1.3. This criterion indicates the
52 ratio of the heat transfer enhancement through the Nusselt number to the pressure
53 drop increase through the friction factor. More details about this index are given in
54 subsection 2.2. Moreover, the same research team [18] proved that the optimum
55 dimples have deeper depth and narrower pitch. Moreover, Bellos et al. [19] examined
56 the use of an internally modified absorber with converging-diverging geometry and
57 the found 4.25% mean thermal efficiency enhancement. Wang et al. [20] studied
58 corrugated absorber tube with asymmetric outward convex. They found 27% lower
59 thermal strain and PEC close to 1.5.

60 The next part of the literature studies is focused on the use of internally finned
61 absorbers. The internally finned tubes with helical fins have been examined by Muñoz
62 and Abánades [21]. These researchers found 2% thermal efficiency enhancement in
63 the PTC and they indicated that this enhancement is able to increase the 0.5% of the
64 total power production in a Power plant. The use of longitudinal fins in the internal
65 part of the absorber has been examined by Bellos et al. [22-25]. In Refs [22-23], the
66 authors examined the use of eight internal rectangular fins with different thickness
67 and length for operation with Syltherm 800. They evaluated the PTC under various
68 operating conditions with many criteria. Finally, the optimum fin was found to have
69 10 mm length and 2 mm thickness. Also, the same research team has performed
70 studies for operation with gas working fluids [24-25] and again they have indicated
71 that the optimum fin length is equal to 10 mm. The next literature studies are focused
72 on the use of internal fins in the lower part of the absorber. Reddy and Satyanarayana
73 [26] examined the use of porous trapezoidal and circular fins in the lower part of the
74 tube. Finally, they found the trapezoidal fins with 4 mm thickness to be the most
75 reliable solution. Gong et al. [27] investigated the use of pin fin arrays on the lower
76 part of the absorber and they found enhancement of the Nusselt number close to 10%.
77 Cheng et al. [28] examined unilateral longitudinal vortex generators in the absorber’s
78 lower part and they found a high reduction of the thermal losses. Benabderrahmane et
79 al. [29] carried out a comparative study between rectangular and triangular fins in the
80 lower part of the absorber. They examined two fins in every case and finally, they
81 found the triangular fins to be the best choice.

2
82 The previous literature review indicates that a lot of research has been focused on the
83 evaluation of different modifications in the absorber tubes of PTCs. Different
84 geometries, as well as different locations, of fins have been examined have been
85 studied. However, there is a lack of studies which are focused on the determination of
86 the optimum fin location, as well as of the optimum fin number. Thus, this study
87 comes to cover this scientific gap and to examine various internally finned absorbers
88 with rectangular longitudinal fins. The results of the previous studies [22-23] are
89 utilized in order to select the optimum fin geometry (10 mm length and 2 mm
90 thickness). In this study, various numbers of fins (up to eight) in various locations of
91 the tube periphery are tested and evaluated. The final results of this work can be
92 exploited for the proper design of internally finned PTCs.

93 2. Materials and methods

94 2.1 Simulation of the examined PTC
95 In this study, the module of LS-2 PTC is investigated for different absorbers. The
96 examined module is depicted in figure 1 with its basic geometric dimensions. This
97 figure illustrates a case with the internally finned absorber. In this (random) case,
98 there are two internal rectangular longitudinal fins in the lower part of the absorber.
99 The internal fins lead to higher heat transfer rate in the flow, as well as to high-
100 pressure losses. The examined receiver is an evacuated tube collector in order high
101 thermal efficiency to be achieved. Figure 2 depicts the examined absorber and the
102 eight different examined locations of the internal fins inside the absorber. These
103 locations are symmetrically selected and they have 45o difference angle distance. The
104 angle (β) is the angle between the vertical line and the fin direction, as it is defined in
105 figure 2.

106

107 Figure 1. The examined PTC and an example of internally finned absorber

108 This study is based on the previous studies of Refs [22-23] which have examined
109 exactly the same collector for eight internal fins. In these studies, the optimum fin
110 geometry has been found to be the one with 10 mm length and 2 mm thickness. Thus,
111 this fin type is used in this paper. Moreover, this paper compares the various
112 internally finned absorbers for one representative operating scenario with inlet

3
113 temperature equal to 600 K and volumetric flow rate equal to 150 L/min. This
114 operating condition has been found to be a representative operating scenario in Refs
115 [22-23]. Moreover, it is important to state that the comparison results are not
116 influenced by the variation of the operating conditions in reasonable variation
117 margins, as it has been found in Refs [22-23]. The working fluid is Syltherm 800 [30]
118 which is able to operate up to 673 K with safety. This fluid can be kept in liquid phase
119 with a reasonable pressure close to 15 bar. The constant parameters of this study are
120 summarized in table 1. These parameters are associated with the collector’s geometry,
121 as well as the examined operating conditions.

122

123 Figure 2. The examined locations of the internal fins in the absorbers

124 The analysis is performed with SolidWorks Flow Simulation [31] and the detailed
125 simulation methodology is described in Refs [22-23] and thus there is no reason for
126 giving this identical information again in this work. It is important to state that this
127 simulation tool performs simultaneously thermal, optical and hydraulic analysis of the
128 collector. The validation of the developed model is also given in the previous
129 references in detail. The main steps of the followed methodology are the collector
130 design, the proper boundary conditions determination, the mesh creation, the mesh
131 independence procedure and the solving procedure.

132 This study is based on the evaluation of different internally finned absorbers by
133 changing the number and the location of the internal fins. Firstly, the use of only one
134 fin is examined in a systematic way by testing fins in five different locations for angle
135 (β) equal to 0o, 45o, 90o, 135o and 180o respectively. The other locations are not
136 examined due to the symmetry of the examined problem. The next step in this
137 analysis is the investigation of absorbers with two internal fins with a systematic way.
138 Various combinations are evaluated and the emphasis is given in the use of internal
139 fins in the lower part of the absorber (this location is highlighted as ideal by the
140 results of the parametric study with one fin). The last step in the absorber

4
141 investigation is the analysis of absorbers with more fins (from three to eight). At the
142 last part of this work, all the examined cases are evaluated with a multi-criteria
143 methodology.

144 Table 1. Constant parameters of this study

Parameter Value
Collector width 5.0 m
Collector length 7.8 m
Parabola focal point 1.84 m
Collector aperture 39.0 m2
Fin length 10 mm
Fin thickness 2 mm
Concentration ratio 22.74
Absorber inner diameter 66 mm
Absorber outer diameter 70 mm
Cover inner diameter 109 mm
Cover outer diameter 115 mm
Cover emittance 0.86
Cover transmittance 0.95
Absorber absorbance 0.96
Reflector reflectance 0.83
Maximum optical efficiency 0.755
Solar beam irradiation 1000 W/m2
Incident angle 0o
Ambient temperature 300 K
Sky temperature 287 K
Wind speed 1 m/s
Outlet pressure 15 bar
Inlet temperature 600 K
Volumetric flow rate 150 L/min

145 2.2 Mathematical formulation

146 In this section, basic mathematic equations about the investigation of the examined
147 collector are given. For a more detailed mathematical background, Refs [22-23] can
148 be used. These equations are used for the evaluation of the simulation results. The
149 outputs of the Solidworks Flow Simulation are mainly the fluid outlet temperature
150 (Tout), the mean receiver temperature (Tr) and the pressure drop along the tube (ΔP).

151 The thermal efficiency of the collector (ηth) is defined as the ratio of the useful heat
152 (Qu) and the available solar irradiation (Qs).

Qu
153  th  , (1)
Qs

154 The useful heat (Qu) is calculated using the outlet temperature (Tout) from the
155 simulation tool, as well as the mass flow rate (m), the inlet temperature (T in) and the
156 mean specific heat capacity (cp) for the mean fluid temperature.

5
157 Qu  m  c p  out  in  , (2)

158 The available solar irradiation on the PTC aperture (Qs) is the product of the collector
159 area (Aa) and of the solar beam irradiation (Gb).

160 Qs  Aa  Gb , (3)

161 The heat transfer coefficient between the fluid and the absorber (h) is calculated using
162 the useful heat (Qu), the collector dimensions, as the length (L) and the inner absorber
163 diameter (Dri), the mean receiver temperature (Tr) and the mean fluid temperature
164 (Tfm).

Qu
h
  Dri  L   Tr  T fm 
165 , (4)

166 The mean fluid temperature (Tfm) is calculated as:

in  out
167  fm  , (5)
2

168 The Nusselt number (Nu) is defined as below:

h  Dri
169 Nu  , (6)
k

170 The friction factor (f) is calculated using the obtained pressure drop (ΔP) from the
171 simulation, the fluid density (ρ) in the mean examined temperature, the mean fluid
172 velocity (u), the tube length (L) and the inner diameter of the absorber (D ri).

P D 
173 f    ri  , (7)
1
   u2  L 
2

174 The mean fluid velocity (u) is calculated using the mass flow rate (m), the density (ρ)
175 and the inner diameter of the absorber (Dri).

m
176 u , (8)
   Dri2 
   

 4 

177 The mass flow rate (m) can be calculated using the volumetric flow rate (V) and the
178 density (ρ). Equation 9 includes the proper units of the utilized parameters.

 kg / m 3  V L / min 
mkg / s  
60  s / min   1000  L / m 3 
179 , (9)

6
180 The performance evaluation criterion (PEC) is a usual index for evaluating the system
181 performance, by taking into account the Nusselt number enhancement and the friction
182 factor increase. The definition of this parameter is given in equation 10. The primary
183 definition is the ratio of the heat transfer coefficients between the finned cases (h) and
184 the smooth-reference cases (h0) under the same pumping work [32]. This ratio can be
185 converted to the equivalent ratio of the Nusselt numbers to the ratio of the friction
186 factors to the (1/3) power. Practically, this power is associated with the dependence of
187 the pumping work (Wp) with the third power of the volumetric flow rate (~V 3). For
188 the smooth-reference case, this parameter is equal to 1. For other cases, this index can
189 take values over or under 1. When it has values higher 1, then the examined case is
190 assumed to be beneficial and the thermal enhancement is higher than the penalty in
191 the pressure drop. On the other hand, when the PEC is lower than 1 the examined case
192 is not better than the reference one.

 Nu 
 
 0
h Nu
193 PEC  1, (10)
h0 f  3
 f 
work

 0

194 Moreover, it is essential to give some important equations for the determination of
195 various parameters which have been inserted in the developed model.

196 The emittance of the absorber is a function of the receiver temperature and it is given
197 according to equation 11 [33]. This equation has been inserted in the SolidWorks as a
198 property of the absorber material.

199  r  0.05599  1.039 10 4  Tr  2.249 10 7  Tr 2 , (11)

200 The heat convection coefficient between the outer cover surface and the ambient (hout)
201 is calculated close to 10 W/m2K for wind speed equal to 1 m/s. This value for the heat
202 convection coefficient is calculated using equation 12 [1] and it is inserted as a
203 boundary condition in the program.

204 hout  4  Vwind

0.58
 Dco0.42 , (12)

205 The sky temperature is calculated to be equal to 287 K, according to the following
206 equation [34]. This value is inserted in the developed model.

Tsky  0.0553  Tam ,

1.5
207 (13)

208 3. Results
209 3.1 Results with one internal fin
210 Subsection 3.1 is devoted to presenting results with one internal fin. This is a
211 systematic analysis because the fin location is examined in various locations in the
212 periphery of the absorber. Table 2 gives the examined cases with the needed

7
213 evaluation criteria. More specifically, the thermal efficiency, the PEC, the Nusselt
214 number ratio (Nu/Nu0), the friction number ratio (f/f0), as well as the pressure drop are
215 given in this table.

216 Table 2 proves that when the β angle of the fin is ranged from 0° to 180o, the thermal
217 efficiency and the PEC are getting lower. The pressure drop presents small variation
218 among these locations which is not monotonic. The PEC index, as well as the thermal
219 efficiency, determines the optimum case as the one with the fin in the location β=0o.
220 This location is in the lower part of the absorber. At this region, the maximum
221 temperature of the absorber is observed, something that is well-known according to
222 the previous studies [22-23]. Consequently, the fin has to be located in the place
223 where the higher temperature is observed, in order for the heat to be transferred inside
224 the flow. This result is very important and it indicates that the first fin has to be
225 designed in the lower part of the absorber.

226 Table 2. Results for the cases with one fin

o
β( ) Absorbers ηth ΔP (Pa) Nu/Nu0 f/f0 PEC

- 68.24% 353 1.000 1.000 1.000

0 68.40% 391 1.121 1.107 1.084

45 68.36% 387 1.090 1.094 1.058

90 68.33% 393 1.068 1.112 1.031

135 68.30% 386 1.043 1.092 1.012

180 68.29% 392 1.041 1.108 1.006

227 The next step in this analysis is the further investigation of the obtained results. Figure
228 3 depicts the thermal efficiency for the examined cases. The symmetrical locations are
229 assumed to have the same performance, which is a reasonable assumption. Figure 3

8
230 indicates that the highest thermal efficiency is achieved for β=0o, while the next more
231 efficient case is for β=45o or the symmetrical for β=315o. The less efficient case is for
232 β=180o which is the one with the fin in the upper absorber part. These results indicate
233 that the fins have to be placed in the lower part of the absorber which is warmer and
234 higher amounts of heat flux are concentrated. The maximum thermal efficiency is
235 68.40% while the efficiency for the smooth case is 68.24%. It is important to state that
236 all the results have been obtained for the operating conditions of table 1.

180˚ Thermal efficiency

68,40%
45˚ 68,35% 225˚
68,30%
68,25%
Finned absorber
90˚ 68,20% 270˚
Smooth absorber

135˚ 315˚

0˚
237

238 Figure 3. Thermal efficiency for the examined cases with one fin

239 The pressure drop is given in figure 4. It is obvious that the cases with fins at vertical
240 and horizontal directions lead to higher pressure losses. The smooth case has 353 Pa
241 pressure drop, while the maximum pressure drop is observed for β=90o or 180o and it
242 is 393 Pa.

180˚
393
45˚ 391 225˚
389
387
385
90˚ 383 270˚

135˚ 315˚

0˚
243

244 Figure 4. Pressure drop for the examined cases with one fin

9
245 The performance index criterion evaluates together the thermal efficiency and the
246 pressure drop, using the Nusselt number and the friction factor respectively. This
247 criterion is depicted in figure 5 and it is maximized for β=0o. This result indicates that
248 the fin in the lower part leads both to maximum thermal efficiency and PEC, thus this
249 location (β=0o) is the most appropriate place for the fin design. It is important to state
250 that the PEC in the upper location (β=180ο) is 1.006, a very small value which does
251 not indicate improvement. This result indicates that the upper part is not the proper
252 place for the internal fins

Performance evaluation criterion

180˚
1,10
45˚ 1,08 225˚
1,06
1,04
1,02
90˚ 1,00 270˚

135˚ 315˚

0˚
253

254 Figure 5. Performance evaluation criterion for the examined cases with one fin

255 3.2 Results with many internal fins

256 The next step in this analysis is the investigation of internally finned absorbers with
257 two fins. The previous results of subsection 3.1 have clearly proved the need of using
258 fins in the lower part of the absorber. On this direction, various combinations of fins
259 have been tested and in every case, fins in the lower part of the absorber have been
260 used. All the examined cases are clearly summarized in table 3 and the most
261 important evaluation indexes are also given in this table.

262 The first given case is about the smooth absorber, the next four cases have the one fin
263 in the position β=0o, while the other cases have the one fin in the position β=45o. The
264 highest thermal efficiency is 68.50% for the case with fins in the locations with β=0o
265 and β=45o. This case has also the highest PEC which is 1.141. The pressure drop, in
266 this case, is 427 Pa and it is clearly higher than the pressure drop of the smooth case
267 (353 Pa). The maximum pressure drop is 434 Pa and it is observed for the case of fins
268 at β=0o and β=90ο. This is a reasonable result according to figure 4 because these
269 locations are characterized by high-pressure drops. Generally, the cases with a fin at

10
270 β=45o present lower pressure drop compared to the cases with a fin at β=0o, a
271 reasonable result according to figure 4.

272 As it said before, the most efficient case, according to the thermal efficiency and the
273 PEC, is the one with fins at 0o and 45o. The next one is the case with fins at 45o and
274 315o (the last one of table 3). These cases have fins in locations close to each other at
275 the lower part of the absorber. Therefore, it becomes obvious that all the fins have to
276 be placed in the lower part of the absorber in order to achieve high thermal efficiency
277 and high PEC values.

278 Moreover, the less efficient cases according to both criteria (ηth and PEC) are the
279 (45o-135o) and (45o-180o). These cases have a fin in the upper part of the absorber, a
280 result which indicates the low importance of fins in the upper part of the absorber.
281 Furthermore, it is important to state that the worst case is the (45 o-180o) because it has
282 the minimum PEC with the value 1.066. Generally, all the cases with fins in the upper
283 part of the absorber are less efficient than the others and they have similar behavior, a
284 result which clearly proves the low importance of the fins in the upper part of the
285 absorber.

286 At this point, it is useful to compare the results of table 3 which refer to the two fins
287 cases, with the results of table 2 which refer to the single fin absorbers. Generally, the
288 thermal efficiency is higher for two internal fins cases, a reasonable result as two fins
289 are able to create more turbulent conditions and higher heat transfer rates. However,
290 the use of two fins leads to higher pressure losses. The evaluation of the simultaneous
291 increase of thermal efficiency and of the pressure drop is performed with the PEC.
292 Generally, the use of two fins leads to higher PEC and thus the absorbers with two
293 fins are assumed to be more suitable than the absorbers with one fin. The maximum
294 PEC for one fin is obtained for β=45o and it is 1.084, while the maximum PEC for
295 two fins is obtained for β=0o – β=45ο and it is 1.141. This difference is significant and
296 thus the design with the two fins is better than the one fin.

297 The next step in this study is the investigation of more, fins from three up to eight.
298 The previous results proved that the utilization of fins in the lower part of the absorber
299 is vital in order to achieve both high thermal efficiency and PEC. Table 3 summarizes
300 the extra examined cases and the results for these cases. Practically, all these cases
301 have been designed with fins in the lower part, while some alternative designs have
302 been also examined. Generally, the results of this table prove that higher number of
303 fins leads to higher thermal efficiency and higher pressure losses. Also, the PEC is
304 getting greater for a higher number of fins. For the case with eight fins, the thermal
305 efficiency is maximum and it is 68.80%, while the PEC is 1.317. An interesting result
306 is that the difference between the case with eight and seven fins is extremely low and
307 this fact proves the low impact of the upper fin (β=180o) on the results.

308 Moreover, an interesting comparison is given for the two absorbers with four fins.
309 Clearly, the absorber with fins in the locations (0 o, 45o, 180o and 315o) is better than

11
310 the one with fins in the locations (45o, 135o, 225o and 315o) and the one with (0o, 90o,
311 180o and 270o). This result indicates that more fins at the lower part lead to the higher
312 performance of the collector.

313 Table 3. Results for the cases with two fins

o
β angles ( ) Absorbers ηth (%) ΔP (Pa) Nu/Nu0 f/f0 PEC

- 68.24% 353 1.000 1.000 1.000

0 , 45 68.50% 427 1.215 1.208 1.141

0 , 90 68.48% 434 1.198 1.227 1.119

0 , 135 68.45% 426 1.170 1.206 1.099

0 , 180 68.45% 432 1.165 1.221 1.090

45 , 90 68.43% 426 1.153 1.206 1.083

45 , 135 68.41% 422 1.136 1.193 1.071

45 , 180 68.41% 427 1.135 1.209 1.066

45, 225 68.41% 421 1.137 1.192 1.072

45 , 270 68.45% 428 1.165 1.212 1.093

45 , 315 68.47% 421 1.188 1.193 1.120

12
314 Table 4. Results for the cases with many fins
o
β angles ( ) Absorbers ηth (%) ΔP (Pa) Nu/Nu0 f/f0 PEC

- 68.24% 353 1.000 1.000 1.000

0 , 45 , 315 68.59% 464 1.316 1.312 1.202

0 , 45 , 180 , 315 68.63% 510 1.370 1.442 1.213

0 , 90 , 180 , 270 68.59% 524 1.327 1.483 1.163

45 , 135 , 225 ,
68.56% 499 1.292 1.412 1.152
315

0 , 45 , 90 , 270 ,
68.71% 556 1.480 1.573 1.272
315

0 , 45 , 135 , 225 ,
68.67% 547 1.433 1.547 1.239
315

0 , 45 , 90 , 180 ,
68.74% 608 1.538 1.719 1.284
270 , 315

0 , 45 , 135 , 180 ,
68.71% 597 1.485 1.689 1.247
225, 315

0 , 45 , 90 , 135,
68.78% 648 1.601 1.833 1.308
225 , 270 , 315

0 , 45 , 90 , 135 ,
180 , 225 , 270 , 68.80% 705 1.658 1.994 1.317
315

315

13
316 3.3 Final assessment of the results and discussion
317 The last step in the present analysis is the deeper investigation of the fin number in the
318 absorber tube. The use of a higher number of fins leads to the greater thermal
319 enhancement and to higher pressure losses. These results are based on the Nusselt
320 number increase and on the friction factor increase respectively. The Nusselt number
321 ratio is the ratio of the Nusselt number of a finned absorber case to the respective
322 smooth case. This quantity is depicted in figure 6 for a different number of fins (N).
323 The Nusselt number ratio seems to be a linear function of the fin number and equation
324 14 gives the approximation equation which has R2 equal to 97.12%.

Nu
325  1  0.0853  N , (14)
Nu 0

326 It is important to state that higher Nusselt number leads to higher heat transfer
327 coefficient in the flow and to lower receiver temperature for the useful heat
328 production. This result leads to lower thermal losses and consequently to higher
329 thermal efficiency. So, it is proved that more fins lead to the higher Nusselt number
330 and to higher thermal efficiency, something that is analyzed more in figure 9.

1,8

1,6
Nu/Nu0

1,4

1,2

1,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
331 Number of Fins - N

332 Figure 6. Nusselt number ratio for different fin number

333 The next examined parameter is the friction factor ratio which is depicted in figure 7
334 for different fin numbers. This parameter seems to be a linear function of the fin
335 number, as it is given by equation 15. The R2 of this correlation is 98.79%, a high
336 value which proves the linear character of the phenomenon. The increase of the
337 friction factor with the fin number proves that more fins create higher pressure losses,
338 something negative for the system’s performance.

f
339  1  0.115  N , (15)
f0

14
 2,0

1,8

f/f0 1,6

1,4

1,2

1,0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
340 Number of Fins - N

341 Figure 7. Friction factor ratio for different fin number

342 The simultaneous increase of the Nusselt number and of the friction factor can be
343 evaluated by using the performance evaluation criterion (see equation 10) which takes
344 into account both of these parameters. Higher values of this criterion mean higher
345 total performance of the collector. Figure 8 shows this parameter for different fin
346 numbers. Generally, greater fin number leads to higher PEC. However, after the three
347 to five fins, the approximation line indicates that the PEC does not present significant
348 increase. This result indicates the utilization of three to five fins. It is important to
349 state that higher fin number means higher manufacturing cost and greater failure
350 possibility. Thus, the selection of three to five fins is a reasonable choice.

1,40

1,30
PEC

1,20

1,10

1,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
351 Number of Fins - N

352 Figure 8. Performance evaluation criterion ratio for different fin number

353 Figure 9 gives the thermal efficiency enhancement for all the examined cases
354 compared to the smooth case. The point for zero thermal enhancement depicts the
355 smooth case. Generally, higher fin number leads to higher thermal efficiency

15
356 enhancement, but after a limit, this enhancement is restricted. More specifically,
357 figure 9 shows that after the five fins cases, the thermal efficiency increase is not so
358 high. This result indicates again the designs of three to five fins as optimum.
359 Moreover, the thermal efficiency enhancements are relatively low (up to 0.83%). This
360 result is based on the low thermal losses of the PTC. The use of internal fins is able to
361 reduce the thermal losses which are a small amount compared to the total solar energy
362 that reaches the collector. Thus, the thermal efficiency enhancement is restricted.
363 However, the thermal efficiency enhancement is vital in order to create viable systems
364 which can compete for other technologies.

0,9%
Thermal efficiency enhancement

0,8%
0,7%
0,6%
0,5%
0,4%
0,3%
0,2%
0,1%
0,0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
365 Number of Fins - N

366 Figure 9. Thermal efficiency enhancement ratio for different fin number

367 At the end of this subsection, the optimum fin number is determined using a multi-
368 objective evaluation procedure. The maximization of the thermal efficiency and the
369 minimization of the pressure losses are the two goals of this procedure. Figure 10 is a
370 depiction of the examined cases in a diagram which includes the thermal efficiency
371 and the pressure losses. The optimum design is the one which is characterized by the
372 lowest geometric distance from the ideal point. The minimization of the following
373 objective function (F0) is the mathematical translation of the followed evaluation
374 methodology:

2
    P  Pmin
2
 th 
375 F0   th, max    , (16)
   P  P
 th, max  th, min   max min 

376 The subscripts “min” and “max” corresponds to the minimum and maximum values
377 of the respective parameters among the depicted design points of figure 10. This
378 evaluation strategy has been also followed in Ref. [22]. According to the evaluation
379 results, the case with three fins (β=0ο , β=45o and β=315o) is the best solution. This
380 case has also been found to be an acceptable choice according to the previous analysis
381 about the PEC (figure 8) and the thermal efficiency enhancement (figure 9). Thus, the

16
382 final conclusion of the developed evaluation procedure indicates the absorber with
383 three fins in its lower part as the optimum choice.

384 The use of fins in the lower part of the absorber indicates that the fins have to be
385 located in the area with the higher temperature levels. Moreover, in this area, the solar
386 heat flux is concentrated and the use of fins aids the transfer of the given heat to the
387 working fluid. As a final conclusion, the internal fins have to be located in the areas
388 with high temperature and heat flux levels in order the heat to be easily transferred
389 and the local temperature levels to become more uniform.

Smooth One fin Two fins Three fins Four fins

Five fins Six fins Seven fins Eight fins
0,689
Ideal point
0,688
Thermal efficiency

0,687

0,686

0,685

0,684
Optimum
0,683 point
0,682
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
390 Pressure drop (Pa)

391 Figure 10. Multi-objective evaluation of the internally finned absorbers using the
392 criteria of the thermal efficiency and of the pressure drop

393 4. Conclusions
394 This study investigates the use of internal fins in the absorber of a parabolic trough
395 collector. The objective of this work is to determine the optimum number and location
396 of the internal fins. Exploiting the results of previous studies [22-23], the optimum
397 rectangular fin geometry with 10 mm length and 2 mm thickness is selected. The
398 analysis is conducted with SolidWorks Flow Simulation and the main conclusions are
399 summarized below:

400 - The optimum position for the one fin is at the lower part of the absorber (β=0o) and
401 in this case, the thermal efficiency is 68.40%, while the thermal efficiency for the
402 smooth case is 68.24%.

403 - The optimum combination of two fins is observed at the positions in the lower part
404 (β=0o and β=45ο). In this case, the thermal efficiency is 68.50%, higher than the
405 efficiency of the case with one fin.

17
406 - It is found that higher number of fins leads to higher thermal efficiency and to higher
407 pressure drop. Moreover, the performance evaluation criterion (PEC) is found to get
408 higher with the increase of the fin number.

409 - The final assessment of all the cases proves that the absorber with the three fins in
410 its lower part (β=0o , β=45ο and β=315o) is the optimum one with thermal efficiency
411 equal to 68.59%.

412 - Generally, it can be said that higher number of fins leads to higher performance and
413 the fins have to be located in the lower part of the absorber. The use of fins at the
414 upper part does not offer significant enhancement of the performance.

415 Acknowledgements
416 Dr. Evangelos Bellos would like to thank “Bodossaki Foundation” for its financial
417 support.

418 Nomenclature
419 Aa Collector aperture, m2
420 cp Specific heat capacity under constant pressure, J/kg K

421 D Diameter, m
422 f Friction factor, -
423 F Focal distance, m
424 F0 Objective function, -
425 Gb Solar direct beam irradiation, W/m2
426 h Heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K

427 hout Convection coefficient between cover and ambient, W/m2 K

428 L Tube length, m
429 m Mass flow rate, kg/s
430 N Number of fins, -
431 Nu Nusselt number, -
432 PEC Performance evaluation criterion,-
433 Q Heat flux, W

434 T Temperature, K
435 Tsky Sky temperature, K
436 u Fluid velocity, m/s
437 V Volumetric flow rate, L/min

18
438 Vwind Ambient air velocity, m/s
439 W Width, m
440 Wp Pumping work, W

441 Greek symbols

442 β Peripheral absorber angle of the fins, o
443 ΔP Pressure drop, Pa
444 ε Emittance, -
445 ηth Thermal efficiency, -

446 ρ Density, kg/m3

447 Subscripts and superscripts

448 a aperture
449 am Ambient
450 co Outer cover
451 fm Mean fluid
452 in Inlet
453 max Maximum
454 min Minimum
455 out Outlet

456 r Receiver
457 ri Inner receiver
458 s Solar
459 u Useful
460 0 reference/smooth case

461 Abbreviations
462 PTC Parabolic trough collector

463 References
464 [1] Y. Qiu, M.-J. Li, Y.-L. He, W.-Q. Tao, Thermal performance analysis of a
465 parabolic trough solar collector using supercritical CO2 as heat transfer fluid under
466 non-uniform solar flux, Applied Thermal Engineering 2017;115:1255-1265

467 [2] S.E. Ghasemi, A.A. Ranjbar, Numerical thermal study on effect of porous rings on
468 performance of solar parabolic trough collector, Applied Thermal Engineering
469 2017;118:807-816

19
470 [3] R.V. Padilla, A. Fontalvo, G. Demirkaya, A. Martinez, A.G. Quiroga, Exergy
471 analysis of parabolic trough solar receiver, Applied Thermal Engineering 2014;67(1-
472 2):579-586

473 [4] J. Jin, Y. Ling, Y. Hao, Similarity analysis of parabolic-trough solar collectors,
474 Applied Energy, Available online 26 May 2017
475 (doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.065)

476 [5] W. Fuqiang, C. Ziming, T. Jianyu, Y. Yuan, S. Yong, L. Linhua, Progress in

477 concentrated solar power technology with parabolic trough collector system: A
478 comprehensive review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;79:1314-
479 1328

480 [6] A. Mwesigye, Z. Huan, J.P. Meyer, Thermal performance and entropy generation
481 analysis of a high concentration ratio parabolic trough solar collector with Cu-
482 Therminol®VP-1 nanofluid, Energy Conversion and Management 2016;120:449-465

483 [7] T. Sokhansefat, A.B. Kasaeian, F. Kowsary, Heat transfer enhancement in

484 parabolic trough collector tube using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid, Renewable and
485 Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014;33:636-644

486 [8] G. Coccia, G.Di Nicola, L. Colla, L. Fedele, M. Scattolini, Adoption of nanofluids
487 in low-enthalpy parabolic trough solar collectors: Numerical simulation of the yearly
488 yield, Energy Conversion and Management 2016;118:306-319

489 [9] O.A. Jaramillo, Mónica Borunda, K.M. Velazquez-Lucho, M. Robles, Parabolic
490 trough solar collector for low enthalpy processes: An analysis of the efficiency
491 enhancement by using twisted tape inserts, Renewable Energy, Volume 93, 2016,
492 Pages 125-141

493 [10] Y. Liu, Q. Chen, K. Hu, J.-H. Hao, Flow field optimization for the solar
494 parabolic trough receivers in direct steam generation systems by the variational
495 principle, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2016;102:1073-1081

496 [11] K.S. Reddy, K. Ravi Kumar, C.S. Ajay, Experimental investigation of porous
497 disc enhanced receiver for solar parabolic trough collector, Renewable Energy
498 2015;77:308-319

499 [12] X.W. Zhu, Y.H. Fu, J.Q. Zhao, A novel wavy-tape insert configuration for pipe
500 heat transfer augmentation, Energy Conversion and Management 2016;127:140-148

501 [13] P. Wang, D.Y. Liu, C. Xu, Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement in the
502 receiver tube of direct steam generation with parabolic trough by inserting metal
503 foams, Applied Energy 2013;102:449-460

504 [14] K.R. Kumar, K.S. Reddy, Thermal analysis of solar parabolic trough with porous
505 disc receiver, Applied Energy 2009;86:1804–1812

20
506 [15] X. Song, G. Dong, F. Gao, X. Diao, L. Zheng, F. Zhou, A numerical study of
507 parabolic trough receiver with nonuniform heat flux and helical screw-tape inserts,
508 Energy 2014;77:771-782

509 [16] A. Mwesigye, T. Bello-Ochende, J.P. Meyer, Heat transfer and thermodynamic
510 performance of a parabolic trough receiver with centrally placed perforated plate
511 inserts, Applied Energy 2014;136:989-1003

512 [17] Z. Huang, Z.-Y. Li, G.-L. Yu, W.-Q. Tao, Numerical investigations on fully-
513 developed mixed turbulent convection in dimpled parabolic trough receiver tubes,
514 Applied Thermal Engineering 2017;114:1287-1299

515 [18] Z. Huang, G.L. Yu, Z.Y. Li, W.Q. Tao, Numerical study on heat transfer
516 enhancement in a receiver tube of parabolic trough solar collector with dimples,
517 protrusions and helical fins, Energy Procedia 2015;69:1306 – 1316

518 [19] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, K.A. Antonopoulos, G. Gkinis, Thermal enhancement

519 of solar parabolic trough collectors by using nanofluids and converging-diverging
520 absorber tube, Renewable Energy 2016;94:213-222

521 [20] F. Wang, Z. Tang, X. Gong, J. Tan, H. Han, B. Li, Heat transfer performance
522 enhancement and thermal strain restrain of tube receiver for parabolic trough solar
523 collector by using asymmetric outward convex corrugated tube, Energy
524 2016;114:275-292

525 [21] J. Muñoz, A. Abánades, Analysis of internal helically finned tubes for parabolic
526 trough design by CFD tools, Applied Energy 2011;88:4139-4149

527 [22] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, D. Tsimpoukis, Multi-criteria evaluation of parabolic

528 trough collector with internally finned absorbers, Applied Energy 2017;205:540-561

529 [23] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, D. Tsimpoukis, Thermal enhancement of parabolic

530 trough collector with internally finned absorbers, Solar Energy 2017;157:514-531

531 [24] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, I. Daniil, K.A. Antonopoulos, The impact of internal
532 longitudinal fins in parabolic trough collectors operating with gases, Energy
533 Conversion and Management 2017;135:35-54

534 [25] E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis, I. Daniil, Energetic and exergetic investigation of a

535 parabolic trough collector with internal fins operating with carbon dioxide,
536 International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering 2017;8(2):109-122

537 [26] K.S. Reddy, G.V. Satyanarayana, Numerical Study of Porous Finned Receiver
538 for Solar Parabolic Trough Concentrator, Engineering Applications of Computational
539 Fluid Mechanics 2008;2(2):172-184

21
 540 [27] X. Gong, F. Wang, H. Wang, J. Tan, Q. Lai, H. Han, Heat transfer enhancement
541 analysis of tube receiver for parabolic trough solar collector with pin fin arrays
542 inserting, Solar Energy 2017;144:185-202

543 [28] Z.D. Cheng, Y.L. He, F.Q. Cui, Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement by
544 unilateral longitudinal vortex generators inside parabolic trough solar receivers,
545 International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2012;55:5631-5641

546 [29] A. Benabderrahmane, M. Aminallah, S. Laouedj, A. Benazza, J.P.Solano, Heat

547 Transfer Enhancement in a Parabolic Trough Solar Receiver using Longitudinal Fins
548 and Nanofluids, Journal of Thermal Science 2016;25:410-417

549 [30] http://www.loikitsdistribution.com/files/syltherm-800-technical-data-sheet.pdf

550 [31] SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation 2015 Technical Reference

551 [32] A. Hasanpour, M. Farhadi, K. Sedighi, A review study on twisted tape inserts on
552 turbulent flow heat exchangers: The overall enhancement ratio criteria, International
553 Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 2014;55:53-62

554 [33] O. Behar, A. Khellaf, K. Mohammedi, A novel parabolic trough solar collector
555 model – Validation with experimental data and comparison to Engineering Equation
556 Solver (EES), Energy Conversion and Management 2015;106:268-281

557 [34] W.C. Swinbank, Long-wave radiation from clear skies. QJR Meteorol Soc
558 1963;89:339–40

22

View publication stats