Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Thermal performance analysis of flat surface solar receiver with square

tubular fins for a parabolic dish collector
Elumalai Vengadesan a, *, Pathinettampadian Gurusamy a, Ramalingam Senthil b
a
Centre for Additive Manufacturing, Chennai Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chennai, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A parabolic dish collector (PDC) with a flat surface solar receiver performs poorly due to more heat loss, although
Flat surface receiver reaching higher temperatures. Hence, the current study introduces a novel flat surface receiver finned with
Multifunctional fins staggered square cross-sectioned tubular fins made of cost-effective materials that improve the effective heat
Heat loss reduction
transfer area and water flow structure. A real-time investigation is carried out at different water flow rates
Thermal efficiency
Low-cost energy
(0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s). Maximum temperature difference of 33 ◦ C, 28 ◦ C, and 23 ◦ C were
measured when water flows at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, respectively. Water boiling began earlier
at lower mass flow rates and was delayed as the flow rate increased. The average heat transfer coefficient and
receiver power are 242 W/m2.K and 2.7 kW, respectively, at 0.042 kg/s. Peak thermal and exergy efficiencies of
71% and 8.11%, respectively, are obtained, which is higher than the efficiency of existing flat surface receivers.
Furthermore, the cost per kWh of useful energy is 46.2% less than the cost of electricity produced by the coal
power plant. Therefore, the current flat surface receiver might enhance the PDC’s thermal performance more
effectively than previous receivers with minimum energy cost.

Most researchers prefer cavity-type receivers due to their superior

1. Introduction
Concentrating solar thermal collectors are favored for higher thermal
energy output and maximum heat transfer fluid (HTF) outlet tempera­
ture. Because of the greater temperature requirement, concentrated-
type solar cookers are gaining popularity in large-scale solar cooking
[1]. Among the various concentrating collectors, the parabolic dish
collector (PDC) is the best option because of its higher HTF outlet
temperature, higher heat production, reduced maintenance re­
quirements, and simplicity of operation. The primary disadvantage of
the PDC is heat loss due to atmospheric ventilation. The contribution of
various modes of heat loss is listed in the following order: convective
heat loss, radiative, and conductive heat loss [2]. Geometrical parame­
ters such as shape, the diameter of the solar receiver, cavity depth in the
cavity receivers, and receiver orientation all substantially impact the
overall heat loss of the system [3]. The hot water/steam produced from
the PDCs has been used for hydrogen production [4], cooking [5], solar
desalination [6,7], water heating [8], and thermal power generation
[9]. The receiver’s performance is an essential factor that decides the
useful power output from the system. Hence, improving their thermal
output power is needed to improve the thermal performance of PDCs.
thermal performance in reducing heat loss in the system. The conical
cavity receiver has better optical and thermal efficiency than other
cavity receivers, according to Kasaeian et al. [10] and Hassan et al. [11].
Furthermore, it was determined that heat loss caused by different modes
significantly affected the thermal performance of the PDC. According to
Reddy and Sendhil Kumar [12], the lower the area ratio, the greater the
heat loss due to convection, as the stagnant air in the cavity is lesser.
Arjun Singh and Sendhil Kumar [13] investigated the thermal perfor­
mance of various modified cavity receivers. The receiver’s orientation
was discovered to be a major parameter in controlling heat loss. Pawar
et al. [14] noted the significant performance enhancement when the
conical receiver is used with the helical coil. Bellos et al. [15] found the
cylindrical-shaped cavity receiver to be the best than the conventional
cavity receiver. Though they generate more thermal energy, they are
larger, more expensive, and have production and installation challenges.
External receivers, on the other hand, are smaller, less expensive,
and simpler to install than cavity receivers. Though the eternal receiver
has slightly higher heat loss and lower performance than the cavity
receiver, they are simple in design, easy to install and operate, and low
in cost. A few external receivers, such as flat surface and spiral receivers,
were developed and tested by researchers to avoid heat loss to the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: venkatesane@citchennai.net (E. Vengadesan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119048
Received 14 April 2023; Received in revised form 19 June 2023; Accepted 15 July 2023
Available online 15 July 2023
0960-1481/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

Nomenclature AMC Annual Maintenance cost

ASV Annual Salvage value
Ac Area of the reflector (m2) CFR Capital recovery factor
Afr Area of solar receiver surface (m2) F Fixed cost
CP Specific heat of water (kJ/kg. K) FAC Fixed annual cost
Ib Beam radiation (W/m2) HTF Heat transfer fluid
Exu Useful receiver exergy (W) PDC Parabolic Dish collector
Exs Sun exergy (W) PBT Payback time
ExD Dish exergy (W) SFF Sinking fund factor
h Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) TAC Total Annual cost
k Thermal conductivity of water (W/mK)
ṁ Mass flow rate of water (kg/s) Greek symbols
Nu Nusselt number ηth Thermal efficiency (%)
QD Dish power (W) ηE x Exergy efficiency (%)
Qu Useful receiver power (W) ηopt Optical efficiency (%)
QL Overall heat loss (W) Subscripts
Qs Input solar energy (W) a ambient
Ta Atmospheric temperature (K) D Dish
Tfm Mean water temperature (K) th Thermal
Ti Inlet water temperature (K) Ex Exergy
To Outlet water temperature (K) i Inlet
Tr Receiver surface temperature (K) L Loss
Ts Sun black body temperature (K) o Outlet
UL Overall heat loss coefficient (W/m2K) opt Optical
Abbreviations s Solar
AE Annual useful energy r Receiver
AEC Annual energy cost

ambient air. The observed results inspired the researcher and continued
improving the external receivers’ performance by enhancing their
configuration. Senthil and Cheralathan [16] created the HTF path and
stored the heat storage elements in a flat surface solar receiver with
circular fins. They discovered maximal energy and exergy efficiency of
66.7% and 13.8%, respectively. The receiver with circular fins and
multiple-phase change materials outperformed the receiver with a
single-phase change material. They also compared the thermal effec­
tiveness of the flat surface receiver with straight vertical and circular fins
[17]. The circular fins improved the flow time and heat transfer area,
increasing the thermal efficiency of the device, and observed a 20%
reduction in heating time.
Vishnu and Senthil [18] experimentally tested the performance of a
flat surface receiver with a spiral flow path guide and fins. Due to the
current design, the water flow is made to flow in a spiral path and is
further delayed by using fins in the spiral flow path. Hence, added fins
improved the heat transfer by improving the heat transfer area and flow
path behavior. They have obtained the peak energy and exergy effi­
ciency of 65.6% and 6.6% when the water flow is 0.12 kg/s. Vishnu and
Senthil [19] also analyzed the performance of a flat surface receiver with
a PCM-filled spiral coiled fin that developed the spiral flow through the
additional flow path guide and increased the water residence time inside
the receiver. A peak receiver temperature of 300 ◦ C was measured when
the available solar radiation was peak. The energy and exergy efficiency
of 75.1% and 8.11% were obtained when the water flow rate was 0.138
kg/s. Bopche et al. [2] added conical-shaped copper fins to the cavity
surface, expanding the effective radiative heat transfer area. The greater
the thermal mass of the receiver, the greater the conductive resistance
and the lower the heat transmission rate to the HTF. When more conical
elements were introduced, a higher radiative surface resulted in higher
radiative and convective heat loss. When fins were added to the receiver,
Nayak et al. [20] discovered a 20% and 5% decrease in convective and
radiation heat loss, respectively, with a 2% increase in overall system
efficiency. Gong et al. [21] used a short thick fin and a long thin fin to
improve the performance of the semi-circular receiver for the parabolic
concentrating collector. A higher thermal efficiency of 76.9% and 77.3%
was measured for the short and long thin, respectively.
Senthil et al. [22] used contoured cavities on the receiver surface to
evaluate the performance of the modified receiver. The modified
receiver had a greater stagnation temperature of 8.6% higher than the
plain receiver. The receiver’s improved heat transfer surface achieved
maximum useful heat gain and minimum heat loss. The modified
receiver achieved optimum energy and exergy efficiency of 67.65% and
6.98%, respectively. They were 64.84% and 5.7% for the basic receiver,
respectively. Dhiman and Sachdeva [23] developed the parabolic dish
cooker using a flat pot at the reflector’s focal point. The maximum
temperature of HTF was 175 ◦ C, and it took 21 min to cook rice and 98
min for the black grams with a daily thermal efficiency of 13.11%.
Kumar and Yadav [24] discovered that increasing receiver size
decreased receiver outlet temperature reach. The receiver radius was
increased from 0.15 m to 0.304 m. A maximum temperature of 309 ◦ C
was recorded with a radius of 0.15 m. Bharath Subramaniam and Senthil
[25] created a receiver of vertical cylinders filled with heat-storing
materials. The heat storage containers improved the receiver’s heat
transfer efficiency by acting as fins and having more surface contact with
HTF. The modified receiver achieved energy and exergy efficiency of
67.88% and 6.96%. Munir et al. [26] developed PDC with a heat storage
system for agriculture applications. An enhancement of 67.9% was ob­
tained in the receiver efficiency using PCM as a heat storage material.
Thirunavukkarasu and Cheralathan [27] tested the spiral tube
external-type receiver in no-load and load situations. During the stag­
nation test, the maximum temperature attained was 366 ◦ C, with an
overall heat loss coefficient of 182 W/m2.K. PDC had an average heat
efficiency of 56.21% and an exergy efficiency of 5.45%. Malviya et al.
[28] conducted a numerical study to verify the thermal performance of
spiral-type solar receivers. The highest absorber and HTF temperatures
were 296 ◦ C and 294.2 ◦ C, respectively, with maximum and mean
thermal efficiency of 75.98% and 65.72%, respectively. Kumar [29]

2
E. Vengadesan et al.
examined a mild steel spiral receiver at various beam radiations and
mass flow rates. The system’s exergy factors rose by 36.18% due to
improved useful exergy recovery. Pavlovic et al. [30] investigated the
spiral-type external solar receivers using an equation solver and verified
with theoretical results. Water was used as the HTF, which is ideal for
low-temperature uses. Pavlovic et al. [31] compared the flat and
conical-shaped spiral tube receivers and discovered that the
conical-shaped spiral tube receiver was more efficient, with a 1.38%
increase in optical efficiency. At 200 ◦ C, the conical-shaped spiral
receiver increased thermal and exergy effectiveness by 40.45% and
42.06%, respectively.
Rodrguez-Sánchez et al. [32] improved heat efficiency over the cir­
cular tube receiver by using oval-shaped cross-sectioned receiver tubes.
The semi-circle cross-sectioned receiver tubes improved efficiency while
costing 3.5 times more than the current circular receiver. The finned
heat pipe, which works on vapor generation and condensation as a
liquid at the condenser section, obtained an excellent heat transfer
performance as the solar receiver [33]. Du et al. [34] investigated
composite solar absorber tubes, finding that greater thermal efficiency
was achieved through improved thermal conductivity and coating
emissivity. Reddy et al. [35] found an increase in the system’s thermal
efficiency when the mass flow rate is increased. The thermal efficiency
and HTF outlet temperature were enhanced if the geometrical concen­
tration ratio was greater than the radiation concentration ratio [36]. The
system’s thermal efficiency was poor because less useful heat was
absorbed due to increased inlet temperature, even though the water
temperature increased. A higher HTF intake temperature also caused a
greater receiver heat loss [37,38]. Although the thermal performance of
solar thermal systems is improved when using nanofluid, it is more
expensive, limiting its commercialization in domestic and industrial
uses [39]. As a result, effective design improvements of presently
available geometry receivers are required to meet the higher energy
output [10].
Based on the reviewed literature, the primary disadvantage of the
PDC is its heat loss and the cost of solar receivers. A significant amount
of heat is lost from the receiver surface through convective heat loss to
the ambient air [2]. Lee et al. [40] found that raising the wind velocity
by 1–3 m/s increases heat loss from the receiver to the environment by
22–140%. The effect of geometrical factors such as receiver form, size,
and orientation on the system’s heat loss is also significant [3,13]. The
heat loss from the receiver is greater at higher receiver temperatures due
to inadequate heat transfer between the hot receiver and the HTF.
Because of poor receiver design, the HTF does not absorb as much heat,
allowing it to pass through more quickly despite the higher receiver
temperature. Indirectly, it affects the efficiency of the thermal system.
An important factor affecting the amount of heat carried by HTF is its
effective heat transfer area and flow rate. In addition, uniform flow near
the hot receiver wall experiences a higher thermal resistance, resulting
in a lower local heat transfer. Consequently, an efficient receiver design
that enhances the effective heat transfer area and HTF flow behavior is
required to optimize heat transfer to the HTF and improve PDC per­
formance [13].
Various cavity receivers were used in more studies because of their
higher thermal performance and low heat loss due to the cavity space.
However, the higher weight and expense of cavity receivers and
manufacturing and installation challenges remain barriers to their
commercialization in domestic and industrial process heating uses.
Owing to their complex construction, cavity receivers’ design modifi­
cations are limited. They require specialized manufacturing machinery
to provide extended surface and heat storage materials, leading to
higher investment. Hence, the external flat surface receivers will be a
better alternative due to their simple construction, lighter weight, lower
cost, and potential for a short-time heat storage addition. The heat
required for various industrial and commercial applications can be
produced by external-type receivers, according to the results described
in the literature. However, only a few studies evaluated the performance
3
Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048
of an external-type receiver in a PDC, and different exterior-type flat
surface receiver configurations are not studied.
A flat-surface solar receiver has a flat surface to receive the
concentrated solar radiation and transfer it to the HTF flowing through
the receiver volume. Hence, they have more contact with atmospheric
airflow through the thermal insulation provided for the receiver’s
circumference and rear surface. The concentrated solar energy reflected
onto a flat surface receiver is quickly lost to the air wind due to their
lower heat transfer to the HTF. Even if the system’s thermal performance
and lower cost are notable, heat leakage from the receiver is still a
problem due to its flat front surface. Heat loss occurs due to higher
temperature differences between ambient air and receiver. It directly
affects the performance of the system. Lowering the temperature dif­
ference between the receiver and ambient air by increasing the useful
heat absorption could limit heat loss. Hence, further investigations are
required to improve PDC’s thermal performance enhancement and
reduce heat loss and entropy production using external flat-surface solar
receivers [41].
The heat transmission rate to the HTF can be increased if the HTF
comes into closer physical contact with the hot receiver. It is practical
only by including an additional heat transfer surface in the absorber.
Additional heat transfer area enhances the receiver’s thermal mass and
physical contact with HTF. The additional heat transfer area should be
positioned so that it disturbs the regular HTF flow and extends the HTF
flow to improve the heat absorption of HTF [42–44]. As per the litera­
ture review, most of the studies discussed the performance of cavity
receivers and not the flat surface receivers, even though they have
considerable performance. Few studies examined the flat surface
receiver and the effect of adding fins and heat storage. No studies are
available on the PDC’s performance improvement using various shaped
fins. Further, the multi-functional effect caused by the right position of
various-shaped fins is not discussed. Therefore, more investigation is
required to determine the impact of various additional heat transfer
surfaces and their structure to enhance the thermal performance of the
available receiver.
The primary consideration for commercializing solar thermal energy
systems for different heating applications is their economic feasibility.
As a result, the current research seeks to improve the thermal perfor­
mance of the PDC by employing simple techniques and low-cost mate­
rials. Based on the few studies on flat surface receivers, this study aims to
improve the thermal performance of an external flat surface type solar
receiver while using a less expensive additional heat transfer area in a
staggered structure. Adding more heat transfer areas in various struc­
tures will improve HTF surface contact with the absorber, the nature of
HTF flow, and residence. This study investigates the impact of these
multi-functional fins on the thermal performance of the PDC. In this
work, a flat surface receiver with a minimum height has square cross-
sectioned tubes as an extra heat transfer area welded to the inner sur­
face of its front plate. They were arranged in a staggered pattern, with
each tube placed between two tubes from the preceding row. As a result,
HTF can pass through the receiver’s front plate and flow through the
square tube alternatively in each row. This increases the HTF’s surface
contact with the receiver and allows the HTF to remain in the receiver
for longer, which aids in heat transfer. No studies discussed the per­
formance improvement of a flat surface receiver using simple tubular
fins in a staggered position. Hence, this is a novel study that examines
the effect of square tubular fins and their structure on the thermal per­
formance improvement of PDC. Based on the referred literature, three
different water flow rates are considered for the current study, and
performance is compared with existing studies on flat and cavity
receivers.
The proposed flat surface receiver used tubular fins to improve the
useful energy output of the PDCs. Though the other receivers give
slightly higher output, they need higher pump power due to higher
pressure drop caused by their complicated structure. But the current
design will have a lower pressure drop due to their shape and structure.
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

Instead of making a costlier and more complicated structure of solar the required energy for water heating, cooking, solar desalination, and
receivers, the proposed solar receiver can be preferred to give the thermal power generation.
required energy with simple modifications and minimum investment.
The minimum investment and higher useful power will result in a lower 2. Experimental work
return period of the investment made on the system. Hence, the current
study’s findings will help the solar research community improve PDC 2.1. Parabolic dish collector
performance using lower-cost materials and methods. Using cost-
effective flat-surface solar receivers, the current receiver can produce The experimental setup includes a 16 m2 Scheffler parabolic dish

Fig. 1. Experimental setup of a PDC, (a) Photographic view, (b) Schematic layout.

4
E. Vengadesan et al.
reflector with a flat surface receiver at its focal point. It has a two-axis
tracking device that is manually controlled via a chain-linked mecha­
nism, with a center lever for seasonal tracking. The PLC controller is
used for the daily tracking of the dish collector with a tracking accuracy
of 0.2–1◦ . The parabolic dish reflector’s aperture gets incoming direct
radiation and concentrates it on the receiver at its focal point. Steel solar
receiver absorbs heat from reflected radiation flux and transfers it to the
HTF. At this stage, the solar energy obtained is converted to thermal
energy in the form of hot fluid, which can then be exchanged for use. By
forced circulation, the HTF enters the bottom of the receiver volume and
returns to the storage tank. Instead of a connection from the reflector,
the receiver is supported by a separate structure.
Furthermore, there is no irregularity between the reflector’s and
receiver’s axes. To make the receiver normal to the axis of the parabolic
dish reflector, the receiver is tilted at 13◦ , nearly equivalent to the lo­
cation’s latitude. The receiver’s focal distance and aperture diameter are
2.7 m and 0.4 m, respectively. Fig. 1 depicts the current study’s exper­
imental setting. Additional details about the mirror are provided in
Table 1.
2.2. Solar receiver
The thermal performance of a flat surface solar receiver is greater
when the inlet tube is at the bottom, and the outlet is at the top [1].
Therefore, the current receiver is a flat surface type, constructed of 5 mm
thick mild steel, with a 400 mm diameter and a 50 mm height. Hence,
the current receiver is a cylindrical shape with lesser height and painted
with two layers of a commercially available black mate coating with an
absorptivity of 0.85 to improve heat absorption [25]. The HTF absorbs
heat from the receiver and rises to the top of the receiver because of the
density difference, which can also promote the HTF’s natural move­
ment. As a result, the inlet tube is at the bottom of the circumference,
and the outer tube is directly opposite the inlet tube. On the interior
surface of the front plate are 23 square tubes with lengths and sides of
60 mm and 25 mm. They are arranged in a staggered structure, with
each square tube positioned between two tubes from the preceding row,
as shown in Fig. 2. Figs. 3 and 4 depict the receiver’s three-dimensional
picture.
Insulating the circumference and rear area reduces heat loss due to
conductive and convective heat loss due to greater thermal resistance.
As a result, glass wool (Thermal conductivity of 0.04 W/m.K) is provided
as the insulation on the circumference, the rear surface of the receiver,
and the pipe connection to minimize heat loss. The thickness of the glass
wool around the receiver and pipes is 50 mm and 25 mm, respectively.
Heat loss through the circumference and rear surface of the receiver is
neglected due to the insulation provided in the thermal performance
analysis. Table 2 describes the dimensional details of the receiver.
2.3. Experimental procedure
The manufactured receiver is painted with two layers of a
Table 1
Details of the reflector used for the test.
Parameters Value
Elliptical frame 5.3 m × 3.8 m
Reflector surface area 16 m2 (ISO 9488:1999)
Reflective mirrors 900 Nos (180 × 100 mm)
Mirror Make & Model Saint Gobain, Metalia 031
Mirror reflectivity 0.92 (Wavelength: 0.3–3 μm)
Seasonal tracking Telescopic clamp mechanism
Daily tracking Gear (15◦ /h)
Total weight 650 kg
Shadow-free ground area 35 m2 per collector
Seasonal tracking frequency 3–4 days
Allowable wind speed 150 km/h
Maximum thermal output 5.5 kWth
5
Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048
commercially available black mate coating with an absorptivity of 0.85
to improve heat absorption [25]. It is positioned on the reflector’s focal
point and normal to its plane. Due to the higher intensity of concen­
trating solar radiation, a periodic black coating is needed to maintain the
absorptivity of a black coating. A K-type thermocouple is placed at the
inlet and outlet tubes to detect the temperature differential. Because of
the wider temperature range, the front surface temperature is recorded
with a non-contact infrared thermometer. The experimental test is
freshly started for each flow rate on different days. Water is emptied
after the test and filled before the experiment starts to follow a similar
initial water temperature. Normal tape water at around 30 ◦ C is used as
HTF in a closed loop and circulated by a hot water pump. As a result, the
tank and inlet temperatures are nearly identical and taken as similar
values. The water flow meter is used to measure the water flow rate with
a control valve to regulate the flow rate. The solar radiation intensity,
atmospheric temperature, and wind velocity are recorded every minute
using a solar weather station with a data logger (AT Delta-T Make,
WS-GP2 Model) to account for the impact of fluctuations in the available
solar radiation intensity. They are averaged every 30 min and used for
analyzing thermal efficiency. The experimental evaluation follows the
conditions suggested by ASHRAE 93-86 (2010) [45] test standards.
Table 3 shows the operating range and uncertainty of measuring
instruments.
The experimental test started around 08:30, and 30 min was used to
reach the steady state of thermocouple measurements. The measuring
instrument’s steady state is assumed to be achieved in this time interval.
The observation is made from 09:00 and stopped when the steam gen­
eration is started. But it can continue for a whole day until the required
steam is generated. During the stagnation test of the current receiver,
average solar radiation, ambient temperature, and wind velocity values
were 631 W/m2K, 35.7 ◦ C, and 1.9 m/s. Three different water flow rates,
such as 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, were used on various
test days, and a repeated test was conducted at each flow rate to check
the repeatability of the observation. The experimental test is conducted
at a range of average solar radiation, ambient temperature, and wind
velocity of 611–620 W/m2, 35–36 ◦ C, and 0.1–2 m/s when different
water flow rates were used. The fluid inlet temperature varied from 31 to
82 ◦ C, 31–86 ◦ C, and 30–89 ◦ C when the water was sent at 0.025 kg/s,
0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, respectively, on the continued circulation of
water till the steam generation exists. The thermal performance calcu­
lation considers the nearly identical measurement of two days.
3. Thermal performance calculation
The following assumptions are considered for the current thermal
analysis.
➢ The steady state of measuring instruments is achieved during the pre-
data phase.
➢ The inlet and tank temperatures are the same.
➢ Heat loss through the circumferential and rear surfaces is not
considered.
➢ Heat loss through the piping is not considered.
3.1. Energy analysis
The useful heat absorption, also called receiver power, is the heat
carried out by HTF when passing through the receiver.
Qu = ṁCp (To − Ti ) (1)
ṁ-Flow rate of water (kg/s); Cp- Specific heat of water (KJ/kgK); Ti-
Inlet temperature (K); To-outlet temperature (K).
The properties water (Cp and k) are considered at the mean
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

Fig. 2. Two-dimensional view with dimensions of the solar receiver.

Ac- Area of the dish collector (m2); Ib- Direct beam radiation (W/m2);

The optical efficiency is calculated from the reflector’s reflectance

and the solar receiver’s absorptance.
Based on its optical efficiency, the system’s thermal loss can be
determined from the useable energy and received solar radiation by the
reflector. The overall heat loss (QL) of the system is calculated using Eq.
(4), which is founded on the energy conservation principle [35].
QL = QD − Qu (4)
The receiver power in terms of the overall heat loss coefficient (UL) is
Fig. 3. Three-dimensional model of the solar receiver. given by Eq. (5).
Qu = ηopt Ib Ac − UL Ar (Tr − Ta ) (5)
temperature of water.
The dish power (QD) of the PDC is found from the multiplication of its
optical efficiency (ηopt) and solar energy (QS) received by the collector. Ar - Aperture area of the receiver (m2)
Tr-Receiver temperature (K)
QD = ηopt Qs (2) Ta-Ambient temperature (K)

Q S = I b Ac (3) The overall heat loss coefficient (UL) of the receiver:

Fig. 4. Solar receiver with square tube fins, (a) Internal view, (b) External view.

6
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

Table 2 [ ( )4 ]
Dimensional details of the receiver. 1 Ta 4Ta
Exs = Qs 1 + − (12)
Parameter Details
3 Ts 3Ts

Diameter of the receiver 400 mm

Height of the receiver 50 mm
Here the reference temperature is considered as ambient temperature,
Thickness of sheets 5 mm and the sun temperature (TS) is taken as 5770 K [48].
Size of the square tube fins 25 mm*25 mm The dish exergy is calculated based on the optical efficiency of the
Length of the square tube fins 60 mm Scheffler dish reflector.
The thickness of the square tube 2 mm
[ ( )4 ]
Number of quate tube fins 23
1 Ta 4Ta
The focal distance of the receiver 2700 mm ExD = ηopt Qs 1 + − (13)
Receiver material Mild steel 3 Ts 3Ts
Square tube material Mild steel
Insulation material Glass wool (50 mm thick)
Receiver tilt 13◦ 4. Results and discussion

Higher heat loss of the flat surface receiver is a major drawback of

the system due to its flat surface being exposed to ambient air. Due to the
Table 3
Operating range and uncertainty of measuring instruments. poor design of the receiver, lower heat absorption of HTF leads to higher
temperature differences between the receiver surface and atmosphere.
Measuring Instrument Operating range Uncertainty
Hence, the current study aimed to improve flat surface receivers’ per­
2
Pyranometer 0–4000 W/m ±20 W/m2 formance by increasing HTF’s useful heat absorption by modifying heat
Anemometer 0–25 m/s ±0.01 m/s
transfer surface and water flow behavior. The present research looks at
K-type thermocouple − 200-1260 ◦ C ±0.5 ◦ C
Flow meter 0–0.0555 kg/s ±0.0011 kg/s the thermal performance of flat receiver receivers with square tubes
acting as fins in a staggered construction. Weather variables such as
available solar irradiance, ambient temperature, and breeze velocity are
QD − Qu recorded during each experimental day. The experiment employs three
UL = (6)
Ar (Tr − Ta ) varying flow rates of water to investigate the differences in the perfor­
mance of the current solar receiver. Repeated tests were performed for
Convective heat transfer is responsible for the HTF’s effective heat
each water flow rate due to fluctuations in available solar irradiance.
absorption. As a result, the heat transmission coefficient is calculated as
The temperature of inlet water, outlet water, tank, and receiver front
follows.
( ) surface is recorded every 10 min from 09:00 until steam emerges from
Qu = hAr Tr − Tfm (7) the receiver. An average of three values are used to calculate the results
with an interval of 30 min to consider the effect of solar radiation
fluctuations. Based on the three distinct mass flow rates, steam is
h- Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.K)
generated between 12:00 and 13:30. After 14:00, the tank and outlet
Tfm- Mean temperature (K)
temperatures are nearly equal due to continued heating and decreased
available solar irradiance. As a result, once the steam is produced, the
The Nusselt number:
experiments are stopped. Performance computations for all mass flow
hDh rates are performed using experiment observation from 09:00 to 13:30.
Nu = (8)
k When the average available irradiance is insufficient, the thermal per­
formance is poor. It suggests that the thermal performance of solar
heating systems is essentially dependent on the available solar irradi­
Dh -Hydraulic diameter (m)
ance. As a result, the current study investigates the impact of additional
k - Thermal conductivity of water (W/m.K)
square tube fins in three different mass flow rates under comparable
weather conditions.
The thermal efficiency of PDC is determined by dividing the receiver
power by the dish power.
Qu 4.1. Stagnation test (No-load test)
ηth = (9)
QD
The receiver front surface temperature is recorded during the stag­
3.2. Exergy efficiency nation test, performed without HTF. It is carried out to determine the
maximum temperature that the current receiver configuration can
The ratio of useful exergy measured by exergy generation to the reach. During the test, the average solar radiation, ambient temperature,
input solar exergy. and wind velocity are 631 W/m2, 35.7 ◦ C, and 1.9 m/s, respectively,
with the highest values of 737 W/m2, 37.5 ◦ C, and 2.1 m/s. The optical
Eu
ηEx = (10) efficiency of the parabolic dish reflector is used to determine the dish
ED
power. When the average receiver temperature is 389.6 ◦ C, the average
Useful exergy generation of the receiver [46]. dish power is 5.2 kW. The maximum dish power and receiver temper­
[ ] ature are 6096 kW and 480 ◦ C, respectively. This occurs due to the
To
Eu = Qu − mcp Ta ln (11) heating time in the beginning. The overall heat loss coefficient is 460 W/
m2K at the experiment’s start and reduced to 107 W/m2K. When radi­
Ti
ρfm is the density of HTF at the mean temperature (kg/m3) Tfm. The ation begins to decline during the afternoon hours, it rises to 143 W/m2K
mean temperature is calculated from the average inlet and outlet tem­ once more. This research demonstrates that the current receiver can
perature [47]. achieve the required temperature for different commercial and resi­
dential heating applications. Fig. 5 depicts the observed solar radiation
and temperature during the current receiver’s stagnation test without
any HTF.

7
E. Vengadesan et al.
Fig. 5. Stagnation test observations using the current solar receiver.
4.2. Water heating test-Load test
4.2.1. Water temperature
The stagnation test revealed that the current solar receiver could
produce the necessary water temperature level for various heating ap­
plications in both domestic and commercial settings. Hence, the water
can flow through the solar receiver using a hot water pump in a closed-
cycle operation. The inlet water is supplied from the storage tank which
is closer to the inlet tube of the receiver. Hence, the tank water and inlet
water temperature are considered to be equal because of their insig­
nificant variations. The current research employs three different mass
flow rates to assess the thermal performance variation of the current
receiver design. During the experimental test, the solar radiation,
ambient temperature, and wind velocity were 430–715 W/m2, 421–710
W/m2, and 405–725 W/m2, respectively, at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and
0.042 kg/s. The observed ambient temperature ranges from 32 ◦ C to
8 ◦ C, and the measured wind velocity ranges from 1 to 3.6 m/s.
The receiver receives inlet water from the storage tank via the
circulating hot water pump and is allowed for 30 min to achieve steady
temperature measurements. The inlet water temperature is found to be
around 55 ◦ C and begins to rise with solar radiation. The temperature of
the water is gradually increased until it reaches its boiling point and
begins to produce steam. Water boiling begins sooner when the lower
mass of water flows through the receiver. The steam generation began at
12:00 at a flow rate of 0.025 kg/s, 30 min earlier than the other flow
rates. Steam production began between 12:30 and 13:00 for other flow
rates of 0.033 kg/s and 0.042 kg/s. It demonstrates that the mass flow
rate substantially impacts getting steam earlier.
From 12:30 to 13:00, maximum water temperatures of 104 ◦ C, 98 ◦ C,
and 100 ◦ C are recorded at the flow rate of 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and
0.042 kg/s. Higher mass flow rate delayed water temperature reaching
since a larger mass of water can absorb more useable heat. Because the
present design of the solar receiver has square cross-sectioned tubular
fins on the inner surface of the front plate, the water can absorb more
heat due to the increased heat transfer area. Square tubular fins enable
water to flow through them and efficiently transfer heat from the
receiver surface, receiving concentrated radiation from the dish
reflector. Furthermore, the staggered fin arrangement alternately directs
water movement through square tubes and on the receiver surface. This
causes heat transfer from the fins to the absorber area. The outlet tem­
perature is slightly higher when a lower mass flow rate is favored due to
the more flow duration and heat transfer area.
The lesser flow rate of water has a greater outlet temperature, but
because it absorbs less useful heat, the increase in tank temperature is
slower. As the larger mass of water absorbs more useful heat, a greater
mass flow rate raises the tank temperature faster. After 13:30, the water
8
Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048
temperature at the tank and outlet are similar due to the ongoing heating
of the water in the storage tank due to closed cycle operation and
reduced solar radiation. As a result, no temperature difference was
detected at this time.
4.2.2. Receiver surface temperature
The receiver’s temperature is measured from its centre to its diam­
eter in both vertical and horizontal orientations. The temperature at the
centre is the highest due to higher heat flux. It decreases as it moves from
its centre to its circumference due to a reduced heat flux on the receiver
aperture. To account for the impact of varying temperatures, the
receiver temperature is the average of three temperatures measured
from the centre to its diameter. When comparing temperature at three
points, the current flat surface receiver with square tube fins gets better
temperature distribution. This is because an extra heat transfer surface
improves the heat transfer of water. During the water heating test, peak
receiver temperatures of 210 ◦ C, 190 ◦ C, and 182 ◦ C were recorded, with
an average temperature of 158 ◦ C, 146 ◦ C, and 139 ◦ C at 0.025 kg/s,
0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, respectively. It implies that the flow rate of
water influences the receiver surface temperature. A higher flow rate
causes a lower absorber temperature due to higher heat absorption by
the water. The temperature of the receiver is vital in regulating heat loss.
Keeping the receiver temperature as low as possible lowers the tem­
perature difference between the atmospheric and receiver surfaces,
resulting in less convective heat loss. Fig. 6 depicts the temperature
measurement of water and receiver with their respective weather con­
dition at different flow rates.
4.2.3. Receiver power
The aperture area and optical efficiency of the parabolic dish
reflector determine the quantity of solar radiation reflected. It is
mirrored on the receiver aperture, which allows water to enter and exit
by absorbing heat. Due to comparable weather conditions, the dish
power received from available solar radiation is nearly identical. At
0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, the average dish power pro­
duced during the experimental test is 5.1 kW, 5.08 kW, and 5.06 kW,
respectively. The useable heat absorbed by the water as it passes through
the receiver is also referred to as receiver power. The useful heat ab­
sorption is determined by its aperture diameter, which determines the
system’s concentration ratio. The average amount of useful heat
absorbed by water, or receiver power, is calculated to be 2.3 kW, 2.6 kW,
and 2.7 kW at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, respectively.
When the water flow rate rises, so does the amount of heat the receiver
absorbs. This is because of the increased water movement through the
receiver space.
4.2.4. Receiver power
The aperture area and optical efficiency of the parabolic dish
reflector determine the quantity of solar radiation reflected. It is
mirrored on the receiver aperture, which allows water to enter and exit
by absorbing heat. Due to comparable weather conditions, the dish
power received from available solar radiation is nearly identical. At
0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, the average dish power pro­
duced during the experimental test is 5.1 kW, 5.08 kW, and 5.06 kW,
respectively. The useable heat absorbed by the water as it passes through
the receiver is also referred to as receiver power. The useful heat ab­
sorption is determined by its aperture diameter, which determines the
system’s concentration ratio. The average amount of useful heat
absorbed by water, or receiver power, is calculated to be 2.3 kW, 2.6 kW,
and 2.7 kW at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, respectively.
When the water flow rate rises, so does the amount of heat the receiver
absorbs. This is because of the increased water movement through the
receiver space.
Furthermore, square tube fins attached to the receiver surface in­
crease the quantity of heat exchange to the water. The surface contact of
water with the receiver is an important prerequisite for efficient heat
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

exchange achieved with the current fin configuration. Water can alter­
nately flow over the current system’s receiver and fins, providing better
temperature distribution. At the corresponding flow rates, the current
configuration’s peak value of receiver power is 3.4 kW, 3.9 kW, and 4.1
kW. Because of this, receiving more heat from the sun’s radiation de­
pends significantly on the flow rate of water. Among the flow rates
considered in this research, the flow rate of 0.042 kg/s provides the
highest useful receiver power. However, regardless of the flow rate, both
dish power and receiver power drop when available solar radiation is
low. As a result, solar radiation has the greatest effect on system per­
formance, and the mass flow rate regulates the amount of heat absorbed
by the water flowing through the receiver. Fig. 7 depicts the relationship
between dish power and receiver power over time.
Assuming that all heat absorption is caused by convective heat
transfer, the useful energy absorbed by water is used to calculate the
convective heat transfer coefficient. Because of increased useful heat
absorption, a greater mass flow rate reduced the receiver surface tem­
perature. Similarly, the heat transfer coefficient rises as the flow rate
does. The average heat transfer coefficient is 182 W/m2K, 213 W/m2K,
and 242 W/m2K, respectively, at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, or 0.042 kg/s.
The corresponding Nusselt number value is also computed, and it is 6.1,
7.1, and 8.2. This shows how increasing the flow rate affects heat
transfer. Fig. 8 depicts the h and Nu’s observed values and trends.

4.2.5. Heat loss

Fig. 6. Temperature measurement of water and receiver (a) ṁ = 0.025 kg/s,
(b) ṁ = 0.033 kg/s, (c) ṁ = 0.042 kg/s.
The overall heat loss is calculated from the difference between
available dish power and useable receiver power. Wind movement,
radiative energy loss, and conductive heat transmission through its
circumference and back surface to the insulating material contributed to
this. Convection heat loss has a significant advantage over other forms of
heat loss. This is because the front receiver surface temperature is
higher, resulting in greater temperature disparities with the ambient
temperature. The overall heat loss is determined by subtracting the
useful receiver power from the available dish power. It is found to be
greater at the start of the experiment due to the receiver’s heating time
and diminishes after some time. Peak radiation causes it to rise once
more at all mass flow rates. When the difference between the receiver
and the atmosphere increases, the system’s heat loss. The receiver has a
greater surface temperature during peak radiation, resulting in more
heat loss from the system.
The present system has an average overall heat loss of 2.9 kW, 2.7
kW, and 2.5 kW at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, respectively.
The highest heat loss value during the morning hour is approximately
2.6 kW–3 kW due to receiver heating and decreases until 12:00 due to
continuous heat absorption. It began to rise again as the continued heat
uptake raised the inlet temperature of the water. As a result of the higher
inlet temperature, the temperature difference began to diminish,
increasing the total heat loss of the system. The system’s overall heat loss
was 3.7 kW, 3.5 kW, and 3.4 kW at the end of the experiment when the
flow rate was raised from 0.025 kg/s to 0.042 kg/s. This clearly shows
that the overall heat loss is lower when the water flow rate is greater.
Fig. 7 depicts the increasing and decreasing pattern of measured dish
power, useful receiver power, and overall heat loss of the system at
various water flow rates.
The measured overall heat loss determines the respective overall
heat loss coefficient. Because of the greater solar heat available during
all experimental days, the morning hours have the highest heat loss
coefficient. The average heat loss coefficients at the corresponding mass
flow rates are 227 W/m2K, 211 W/m2K, and 205 W/m2K. Lower
receiver temperature was achieved by increasing useable heat absorp­
tion at a higher mass flow rate. As a result, the total heat loss of the
system has decreased, as has the overall heat loss coefficient. Fig. 8
depicts the time variation of the overall heat transfer coefficient at three
distinct mass flow rates.

9
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

Fig. 7. Variation in dish power, receiver power, and overall heat loss, (a) ṁ = Fig. 8. Convective heat transfer and overall heat loss coefficient, (a) ṁ = 0.025
0.025 kg/s, (b) ṁ = 0.033 kg/s, (c) ṁ = 0.042 kg/s. kg/s, (b) ṁ = 0.033 kg/s, (c) ṁ = 0.042 kg/s.

10
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

4.2.6. Thermal and exergy efficiency

Based on the PDC’s optical efficiency, the current system’s thermal
efficiency is calculated as the ratio of useable receiver power to input
dish power supplied to the receiver. When the mass flow rates are 0.025
kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, the present system’s peak thermal
efficiency is 59.8%, 67.9%, and 71%, respectively. It begins to rise when
solar radiation rises and falls after the zenith of solar radiation. The
thermal efficiency rises as the useful heat absorption by water grows
with higher flow rates. Because of a rise in inlet temperature, the
decreasing trend is observed after its peak value. It shows that increasing
the inlet temperature reduces the system’s thermal efficiency. At the
corresponding mass flow rates, the average thermal efficiency is 42%,
44.4%, and 47.7%. Fig. 9 depicts the system’s thermal efficiency with
the present receiver setup.
The system’s exergy efficiency is calculated by dividing the useful
exergy of the receiver by the input exergy supplied to the receiver. The
input sun exergy is calculated using the Petala exergy model, with the
sun temperature considered to be 5800 K. Peak exergy efficiency for the
present receiver design is 8.11%, 7.9%, and 7.6%, with daily average Fig. 10. Thermal efficiency at different mass flow rates.
exergy efficiency of 4.9%, 4.5%, and 4.2% at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and
0.042 kg/s, respectively. It is also discovered that the lower exergy ef­
ficiency is achieved due to a large amount of available sun exergy and
the greater temperature differential between the receiver inlet and
outlet. The exergy loss from sun exergy is greater, resulting in lower
efficiency. This can be reduced by maintaining a greater receiver tem­
perature and minimizing the receiver’s outlet and inlet temperature
ratio. Increasing the inlet temperature can achieve a higher absorber
temperature with a minimum temperature ratio [17]. The current sys­
tem’s measured exergy efficiency is shown in Fig. 10, and the average
efficiencies at various mass flow rates are compared in Fig. 11.
The results indicate that increasing the surface area of the flat surface
solar receiver with a current modification improved heat transfer to the
water. The better temperature distribution was noticed due to the
increased surface area, which controls the heat loss of the receiver.
Furthermore, the thermal and exergy efficiencies obtained in this
research are compared to other external and cavity-type receiver
studies, as shown in Table 4. Senthil et al. [49] used vertical fins along
the HTF flow direction to achieve 61.2% and 4.47% thermal and exergy
efficiencies at a flow velocity of 0.025 kg/s. Subramaniam and Senthil
[25] used cylindrical fins packed with heat storage material as fins at
0.022 kg/s. They achieved heat and exergy efficiencies of 64.9% and Fig. 11. Average efficiency comparison at three different mass flow rate.
6.46%, respectively.
Ghazouani et al. [50] achieved around 70% thermal efficiency when efficiency of 13.8% and thermal efficiency of 66.7%. Although there are
evaluating the modified spiral absorber. Senthil and Cheralathan [16] few studies on external flat surface receivers, the current receiver
used circular fins and heat storage material to achieve the highest exergy configuration has not been attempted. The current study’s findings
demonstrate that it has superior thermal performance compared to the
available results from other studies. By comparing with the thermal
performance of the cavity receiver, the current study’s thermal perfor­
mance improves even further. The current study’s thermal and exergy
efficiency outperforms the efficiencies of cavity receivers evaluated
previously [51,52]. From the comparison made with external receivers,
the thermal and exergy efficiency of the current system is higher than
available studies [25,49,50]. But the current system has lower exergy
efficiency than a flat surface receiver with circular fins tested by Senthil
and Cheralathan [16]. However, the current system has higher thermal
efficiency than the circular finned receiver.
Further, a more complicated structure inside the receiver could in­
crease the pressure drop of the flow, increasing the pump power in case
oil is used as HTF. But the current improvement could improve the
performance of the PDC without much pressure drop of the flow. The
tubular fins could improve the receiver’s thermal mass and allow the
water to flow completely through the fins. More surface contact of water
with the receiver and additional heat transfer surface could improve the
effective heat transfer, resulting in higher system efficiency. Further­
more, it has been demonstrated that the current receiver configuration
Fig. 9. Thermal efficiency at different mass flow rates.

11
E. Vengadesan et al. Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048

Table 4 Table 5
Comparison of current results with available studies. Uncertainty of measured results.
Reference Description Flow Energy Exergy Parameters Uncertainty Value Uncertainty percentage(%)
rate efficiency efficiency
Receiver power ±0.09 kW ±3.4
(kg/s) (%) (%)
Dish power ±0.23 kW ±4.5
Senthil et al. [39] Flat surface solar 0.02 56.6 5.7 Heat transfer coefficient ±9.7 W/m2. K ±4.0
receiver with 0.025 61.2 4.47 Nusselt number ±0.37 ±4.5
vertical fins Thermal efficiency ±2.7% ±5.7
(Ib:725 W/m2, Ta - Exergy efficiency ±0.24% ±4.9
33–37 ◦ C)
Subramaniamand A flat surface 0.022 64.96 6.46
Senthil [15] receiver using
cylindrical fins Δm
= 0.033 = ±3.3%
(Ib:710 W/m2, Ta - m
30–37 ◦ C)
Ghazouani et al. Study on modified 0.017 60–70% - The uncertainty of useful heat absorption:
[40] spherical receivers [ ]
(Ib:600 W/m2, Ta - ΔQu (Δm)2 (ΔT )2 0.5
29 ◦ C)
= + (15)
Qu m T
Senthil and Flat surface solar 0.022 66.7 13.8
Cheralathan [10] receiver with
circular fins and ΔQu
= 0.034 = ±3.4%
heat storage Qu
materials (Ib:780
W/m2, Ta - The uncertainty of convective heat transfer coefficient:
32–34 ◦ C) [( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ]0.5
Hassan et al. [41] Conical cavity tube 0.014 62 11 Δhconv ΔQu ΔAp ΔTf
receiver (Ib:700 = + + (16)
hconv Qu Ap Tf
W/m2, Ta - 35 ◦ C)
Hassan et al. [41] Cylindrical tube 0.014 59 10
receiver (Ib:710 Δhconv
W/m2, Ta -
= 0.039 = ±3.9%
hconv
30–37 ◦ C)
Thirunavukkarasu Conical cavity 0.014 57 5.9 The uncertainty of Nusselt number:
et al. [42] receiver (Ib:600 [(
W/m2, Ta -
)2 ( )2 ]0.5
ΔNu Δhconv ΔDh
31–37 ◦ C) = + (17)
Nu hconv Dh
Present study A flat surface 0.042 71 7.6
receiver using
square tube fins ΔNu
(Ib:725 W/m2, Ta - = 0.040 = ±4%
Nu
32–38 ◦ C)
The uncertainty of input solar energy:
[( ) ( )2 ]0.5
can generate domestic and commercial heating heat. Consequently, the ΔQD ΔI
2
ΔAp
= + (18)
present study’s findings and results will be used to improve the thermal QD I Ap
performance of the parabolic dish solar heating system using cost-
effective materials and methods. Hence, this study will stimulate the ΔQD
solar research community to continue the further analysis using various QD
= 0.0452 = ±4.52%
multi-functional additional heat transfer surfaces to improve the per­
formance of the concentrating solar thermal systems. The uncertainty of energy efficiency:
[( )2 ( )2 ]0.5
Δɳen ΔQu ΔQs
4.2.7. Uncertainty analysis = + (19)
ɳen Qu Qs
The uncertainty of secondary parameters is calculated by consid­
ering instruments’ bias or fixed error, random errors caused during
repeated measurements, and error propagation caused by various in­ Δɳen
= 0.0566 = ±5.7%
dependent variables using the following square root sum method [53]. ɳen
[( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ]0.5 [( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ]0.5
∂φ ∂φ ∂φ ΔɳEx ΔQu ΔQs ΔTi ΔTo ΔTa
Rφ = W1 + W2 + … + Wn (14) = + + + + (20)
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xn ɳEx Qu Qs Ti To Ta

ΔɳEx
φ -dependant variable. = 0.049 = ±4.9%
ɳEx
x1, x2, …, xn - independent variables
W1, W2 ….Wn - uncertainties of the independent variables.
4.2.8. Cost analysis of the current system
Commercializing solar heating systems requires significant invest­
The uncertainty of the dependent variable (Rφ) is determined from
ment despite being a free energy source. Before the system’s lifetime, the
the mean root square of the sum of the square of the multiplication of the
investment in renewable energy should be recovered. It is pointless to
partial differential of R with respect to x and the uncertainty of x. Un­
employ such systems if they are not recovered within their useful life­
certainty of obtained results from the current study is calculated using
time. The cost analysis will therefore determine the economic viability
Eq. (15)- (20) and given in Table 5.
of the current system. A parabolic dish reflector, tracking mechanism,
The uncertainty of mass flow rate:
and solar receiver are key components of the current system, a typical

12
E. Vengadesan et al.
experimental configuration. The current system’s cost is taken by
considering the cost of all components present in the system. Table 6
shows the cost of individual systems. The cost per kWh of energy pro­
duced by the present receiver design and the investment’s payback
period using the current system are calculated in this cost analysis. The
comparison has been made between the cost per kWh of electricity in
Tamil Nadu, India, and the cost per kWh of useful energy produced from
the current system. Based on the local climate, the current system can
generate useful energy for 6.5 h per day for 280 sunny days. Therefore,
based on this finding, the annual useable energy is determined.
The current system’s capital recovery factor (CRF) is determined
using a lifetime assumption of 15 years and an investment interest rate
of 12% [54].
i(1 + i)n
CRF =
(1 + i)n − 1
The receiver’s fixed cost (F), which considers transportation and
other unexplained costs, is calculated to be 5509 $. The fixed annual cost
(FAC) is calculated by multiplying the CRF by the receiver’s cost [54].
FAC = F(CRF)
The maintenance of the receiver includes the periodic black coating
of the receiver surface, repair, and periodic service. The cost for the
annual maintenance is taken as 10% of its FAC [43].
AMC = 0.1(FAC)
The salvage value (20% of its fixed cost) and sinking fund factor
(SFF) are multiplied to determine the annual salvage value (ASV) [54].
ASV = S(SFF)
The sinking fund factor (SFF):
1
SFF =
(1 + i)n − 1
The system’s total annual cost (TAC) is calculated by subtracting the
ASV from the total of the FAC and AMC.
TAC=FAC + AMC-ASV
The current receiver’s FAC and AMC are 809 $ and 81 $, respec­
tively. The SFF of 0.475 and the salvage value of 1102 $ for the current
receiver setup are used to calculate the annual salvage value of 523 $.
The TAC is calculated using the data obtained and is 367 $.
The energy cost produced by the current receiver can be calculated
by dividing the TAC by the yearly useful energy (AE) produced by the
receiver [54].
C/kWh =
TAC
AE
Payback time (PBT) determines the minimal time frame for returning
the investment to the current receiver. It is calculated using the ratio
between annual energy costs (AEC) and TAC [54].
TAC
PBT =
AEC
The annual energy cost produced with the current receiver
Table 6
Cost details of components present in the current system.
Components of the system Price ($)
Scheffler-type parabolic dish reflector with a tracking mechanism 4897
Water storage tank and circulation pump 245
Piping, flow control, and insulation systems 122
Solar receiver 184
Contingencies 61
The total cost of the system 5509
Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048
configuration is calculated by calculating the price per kWh of electricity
generated by the coal power plant in Tamil Nadu, India. When the water
flow rate is 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s, the daily average
useable energy is computed as 2.25 kW, 2.52 kW, and 2.7 kW, respec­
tively. According to the measured values, the annual useable energy
generated at three distinct mass flow rates is 4095 kWh, 4586 kWh, and
4932 kWh. The cost of electricity per kWh is 0.13 $ when the electricity
consumption of more than 1000 kWh for the domestic electric power
tariff in Tamil Nadu, India [55]. Based on this price per kWh of elec­
tricity, the yearly useful energy cost of the current system is calculated
as 532 $, 596 $, and 641 $ at the appropriate water flow rates. The
energy costs per kWh using the current system are 0.09 $, 0.08 $, and
0.07 $ when the water flow rate is 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042
kg/s, respectively. The comparison between the cost per kWh of energy
(21) usage shows that the current system has a lower cost per kWh of useful
energy. Further, the annual useful energy cost is greater, and the cost per
kWh is lower at larger mass flow rates than at lower mass flow rates.
When the water flow rate is 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s,
respectively, the PBT of the investment is obtained as 0.7 years, 0.6
years, and 0.57 years.
(22)
The findings of the cost analysis show that the amount of useful
energy determines both the cost of energy and the investment’s PBT. The
cost of energy obtained from the current system has been compared with
the cost of electricity in the testing location. The current system is
estimated to produce energy at a lower cost per kWh than the coal power
(23)
plant, a lower cost per kWh by 30.8%, 38.5%, and 46.2%, respectively.
The reduction of energy costs is achieved by simple modifications to the
solar receiver made from cost-effective materials. Further, the current
energy is derived from the solar energy source, which is free of charge
(24) through a solar thermal energy conversion system. Energy generated by
such systems can satisfy the energy needs of many commercial and in­
dustrial heating applications. The fossil fuel usage and the cost of
(25) heating in many heating applications can be reduced using the current
solar energy system.
As a result, the current system might avoid using fossil fuels while
providing heat at a reduced cost and PBT with cost-effective methods
and materials. The cost and PBT are further lowered if the greater flow
(26) rate is chosen due to higher useful heat absorption. As a result, the
current system’s annual useful energy cost is higher at larger mass flow
rates. Accordingly, choosing a water flow rate of 0.042 kg/s will result in
a minimum PBT and a lower cost per kWh. Table 7 presents the cost
analysis results of the current system with different mass flow rates.
5. Conclusions
The effect of increasing heat transfer area on the flat surface receiver
(27) at three different mass flow rates is addressed in the current study. Cost-
effective square tubes are added as additional heat transfer surfaces,
increasing the water’s surface contact with the receiver to enhance the
amount of heat transfer to the water. The present design of the flat
surface receiver with enhanced heat transfer surface area is evaluated at
three different water flow rates under different weather conditions.
According to the findings of the current investigation, the current
(28)
receiver configuration resulted in higher thermal and exergy efficiency
than other external-flat surface receivers. Based on the collected data,
Table 7
The results of the cost analysis.
Parameters Values
Mass flow rate, kg/s 0.025 kg/s 0.033 kg/s 0.042 kg/s
Annual useful energy, kWh 4095 4586 4932
Annual useful energy cost (AEC), $ 532 596 641
Cost per kWh, $ 0.09 0.08 0.07
Cost per kWh of electricity, $ 0.13
Payback period (PBP), years 0.7 0.6 0.57
13
E. Vengadesan et al.
the following conclusions are offered.
➢ During the stagnation test of the current receiver configuration, the
maximum receiver temperature and total heat loss coefficient are
480 ◦ C and 144 W/m2K, respectively.
➢ The steam generation is started sooner when the water flow rate is
0.025 kg/s. It is delayed by 30 min when the water flow rate in­
creases to 0.033 kg/s and 0.042 kg/s.
➢ The temperature difference decreases when a higher flow rate is
preferred. Maximum temperature differences of 33 ◦ C, 28 ◦ C, and
23 ◦ C were recorded at 0.025 kg/s, 0.033 kg/s, and 0.042 kg/s,
respectively
➢ The average receiver power of 2.7 kW is obtained at 0.042 kg/s.
When the mass flow rate increases from 0.025 kg/s to 0.042 kg/s, the
receiver power rises by 20.4%.
➢ The average heat transfer coefficient and Nusselt number value are
242 W/m2K and 8.2, respectively, at a higher flow rate.
➢ The total heat loss and heat loss coefficient decreased when the flow
rate increased due to higher receiver power. The heat loss and overall
heat loss coefficient dropped by 12.2% and 9.7% when mass flow
rates increased from 0.025 kg/s to 0.042 kg/s.
➢ The peak and average thermal efficiencies are 71% and 47.7%,
respectively, at 0.042 kg/s. But the maximum exergy efficiency of
8.1% is achieved at a mass flow rate of 0.025 kg/s, and it decreases to
7.6% when the mass flow rate is increased to 0.042 kg/s.
➢ The cost per kWh of the useful (0.07$) energy obtained from the
current system is 42.6% less than the cost per kWh of electricity (0.13
$) in Tamil Nadu as per the comparison. In addition, a lower PBT of
0.54 years is obtained due to the higher useful energy cost of the
current system.
The current study results show that the current modified flat-surface
solar receiver could improve the performance of the PDC using simple
modifications and low-cost materials. The energy and exergy efficiencies
of PDC using the current receiver are higher than those using other flat
and cavity receivers. Though the cavity receiver is better than the flat
surface receiver, the current receiver attained higher energy efficiency
than the cavity receiver due to the effective heat transfer to the water.
Further, it could produce the required energy at a cost lower than the
electricity produced by the coal-power plant. Hence, the current
receiver modification could encourage the development of flat-surface
solar receivers using cost-effective methods and materials to improve
the performance of PDCs.
Future scope
Even though the current study’s findings are better than previous
studies, further studies on various shapes and sizes of the additional area
can improve the performance of the PDCs further. Adding a heat transfer
area that will increase the thermal mass of the receiver and turbulence of
the flow inside the receiver can be preferred to improve the heat ex­
change between the hot receiver wall and HTF. Forming different cavity
shapes on the flat surface receiver can increase the intensity of solar
radiation at its surface by an internal reflection. Combining a flat surface
with surface cavities improves the receiver and fluid temperature with
reduced heat loss. Because the current system is heavy and expensive,
computational tools should be chosen to minimize the investment in
optimizing the system.
Data availability
All the data are discussed in the article.
Fund information
This research work received no specific grant from any funding
14
Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048
agency.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Elumalai Vengadesan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Meth­
odology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data
curation. Pathinettampadian Gurusamy: Formal analysis, Methodol­
ogy, Data curation. Ramalingam Senthil: Methodology, Validation,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the Chennai Institute of Technology, Chennai, for
supplying the required research infrastructure.
References
[1] A. Gorjian, E. Rahmati, S. Gorjian, A. Anand, L.D. Jathar, A comprehensive study of
research and development in concentrating solar cookers (CSCs): design
considerations, recent advancements, and economics, Sol. Energy 245 (2022)
80–107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.08.066.
[2] S. Bopche, K. Rana, V. Kumar, Performance improvement of a modified cavity
receiver for parabolic dish concentrator at medium and high heat concentration,
Sol. Energy 209 (2020) 57–78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.08.089.
[3] K.H. Kumar, A.M. Daabo, M.K. Karmakar, H. Hirani, Solar parabolic dish collector
for concentrated solar thermal systems: a review and recommendations, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (2022) 32335–32367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-
18586-4.
[4] M. Amin, M. Mehdi, Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production by solid
oxide electrolyzer coupled with dish collector, Energy Convers. Manag. 173 (2018)
167–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.07.073.
[5] A.O. Onokwai, U.C. Okonkwo, C.O. Osueke, C.E. Okafor, T.M.A. Olayanju, S.
O. Dahunsi, Design, modelling, energy and exergy analysis of a parabolic cooker,
Renew. Energy 142 (2019) 497–510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.04.028.
[6] F. Jabari, M. Nazari-heris, B. Mohammadi-ivatloo, S. Asadi, M. Abapour, A solar
dish Stirling engine combined humidification-dehumidification desalination cycle
for cleaner production of cool, pure water, and power in hot and humid regions,
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 37 (2020), 100642, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2020.100642.
[7] A. Rafiei, A.S. Alsagri, S. Mahadzir, R. Loni, G. Najafi, A. Kasaeian, Thermal
analysis of a hybrid solar desalination system using various shapes of cavity
receiver: cubical, cylindrical, and hemispherical, Energy Convers. Manag. 198
(2019), 111861, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111861.
[8] H. Agrawal, A. Yadav, A Scheffler solar concentrator heat transfer model used in
forced-circulation ice melting system at high altitude regions, Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 23 (2021) 1623–1645, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00642-z.
[9] L. Aichmayer, J. Spelling, B. Laumert, Thermoeconomic analysis of a solar dish
micro gas-turbine combined-cycle power plant, Energy Proc. 69 (2015)
1089–1099, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.03.217.
[10] A. Kasaeian, A. Kouravand, M.A. Vaziri Rad, S. Maniee, F. Pourfayaz, Cavity
receivers in solar dish collectors: a geometric overview, Renew. Energy 169 (2021)
53–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.106.
[11] A. Hassan, C. Quanfang, S. Abbas, W. Lu, L. Youming, An experimental
investigation on thermal and optical analysis of cylindrical and conical cavity
copper tube receivers design for solar dish concentrator, Renew. Energy 179
(2021) 1849–1864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.145.
[12] K.S. Reddy, N. Sendhil Kumar, An improved model for natural convection heat loss
from modified cavity receiver of solar dish concentrator, Sol. Energy 83 (10)
(2009) 1884–1892, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2009.07.001.
[13] A.S. Kopalakrishnaswami, S.K. Natarajan, Comparative study of modified conical
cavity receiver with other receivers for solar paraboloidal dish collector system,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (2022) 7548–7558, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
021-16127-z.
[14] J.B. Pawar, V.B. Tungikar, An experimental examination of a helically coiled
conical cavity receiver with Scheffler dish concentrator in terms of energy and
exergy performance, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 52 (Part-C) (2022),
102221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102221.
[15] E. Bellos, E. Bousi, C. Tzivanidis, S. Pavlovic, Optical and thermal analysis of
different cavity receiver designs for solar dish concentrators, Energy Convers.
Manag. X 2 (2019), 100013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2019.100013.
E. Vengadesan et al.
[16] R. Senthil, M. Cheralathan, Enhancement of the thermal energy storage capacity of
a parabolic dish concentrated solar receiver using phase change materials,
J. Energy Storage 25 (2019), 100841, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.100841.
[17] R. Senthil, M. Cheralathan, Effect of non-uniform temperature distribution on
surface absorption receiver in parabolic dish solar concentrator, Therm. Sci. 21 (5)
(2017) 2011–2019, https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI150609169S.
[18] S.K. Vishnu, R. Senthil, Experimental performance evaluation of a solar parabolic
dish collector using spiral flow path receiver, Appl. Therm. Eng. 231 (2023),
120979, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2023.120979.
[19] S.K. Vishnu, R. Senthil, Experimental study of the thermal performance of heat
storage–integrated solar receiver for parabolic dish collectors, Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. (2023), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27608-8.
[20] J. Nayak, M. Agrawal, S. Mishra, S.S. Sahoo, R.K. Swain, A. Mishra A, Combined
heat loss analysis of trapezoidal shaped solar cooker cavity using computational
approach, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 12 (2018) 94–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
csite.2018.03.009.
[21] J. Gong, J. Wang, P.D. Lund, D. Zhao, J. Xu, Y. Jin, Comparative study of heat
transfer enhancement using different fins in semi-circular absorber tube for large-
aperture trough solar concentrator, Renew. Energy 169 (2021) 1229–1241,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.054.
[22] R. Senthil, A. Chezian, Z.H.A. Arsath, Heat transfer augmentation of concentrated
solar absorber using modified surface contour, Int. J. Eng. Technol. Innov. 11
(2021) 24–33, https://doi.org/10.46604/ijeti.2021.5676.
[23] A. Dhiman, G. Sachdeva, Experimental investigation of an indirect-type solar
cooker for indoor cooking based on parabolic dish collector, Heat Transfer 52
(2023) 378–394, https://doi.org/10.1002/htj.22699.
[24] V. Kumar, A. Yadav, Experimental investigation of parabolic dish concentrator
with various sizes of receiver, Mater. Today: Proc. 44 (Part-6) (2021) 4966–4971,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.883.
[25] S. Bharath Subramaniam, R. Senthil, Heat transfer enhancement of concentrated
solar absorber using hollow cylindrical fins filled with phase change material, Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 46 (43) (2021) 22344–22355, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2021.04.061.
[26] Z. Munir, F. Roman, B.M.K. Niazi, N. Mahmood, A. Munir, O. Hensel, Thermal
analysis of a solar latent heat storage system using Scheffler concentrator for
agricultural applications, Appl. Therm. Eng. 218 (2023), 119230, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.119230.
[27] V. Thirunavukkarasu, M. Cheralathan, An experimental study on energy and
exergy performance of a spiral tube receiver for solar parabolic dish concentrator,
Energy 192 (2020), 116635, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116635.
[28] R. Malviya, P.V. Baredar, A. Kumar, Thermal performance improvement of solar
parabolic dish system using modified spiral coil tubular receiver, 4517923, Int. J.
Photoenergy 2021 (2021) 18, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4517923, 2021.
[29] A. Kumar, Exergy recovery from water heating by a Scheffler collector for more
exergetic factor, Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 40 (2021), e13473, https://doi.
org/10.1002/ep.13473.
[30] S. Pavlovic, E. Bellos, W.G. Le Roux, V. Stefanovic, C. Tzivanidis, Experimental
investigation and parametric analysis of a solar thermal dish collector with spiral
absorber, Appl. Therm. Eng. 121 (2017) 126–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2017.04.068.
[31] S. Pavlovic, R. Loni, E. Bellos, D. Vasiljević, G. Najafi, A. Kasaeian, Comparative
study of spiral and conical cavity receivers for a solar dish collector, Energy
Convers. Manag. 178 (2018) 111–122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.10.030.
[32] M.R. Rodríguez-Sánchez, M. Laporte-Azcué, A. Montoya, F. Hernández-Jiménez,
Non-conventional tube shapes for lifetime extend of solar external receivers,
Renew. Energy 186 (2022) 535–546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2022.01.015.
[33] Y. Ji, D. Yuan, Y. Hao, Z. Tian, J. Lou, Y. Wu, Experimental study on heat transfer
performance of high temperature heat pipe with large length-diameter ratio for
heat utilization of concentrated solar energy, Appl. Therm. Eng. 215 (2022)
1359–4311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118918, 118918.
[34] S. Du, Z. Wang, S. Shen, Thermal and structural evaluation of composite solar
receiver tubes for Gen3 concentrated solar power systems, Renew. Energy 189
(2022) 117–128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.02.118.
15
Renewable Energy 216 (2023) 119048
[35] K.S. Reddy, S.K. Natarajan, G. Veershetty, Experimental performance investigation
of modified cavity receiver with fuzzy focal solar dish concentrator, Renew. Energy
74 (2015) 148–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.07.058.
[36] R. Karimi, T.T. Gheinani, V.M. Avargani, A detailed mathematical model for
thermal performance analysis of a cylindrical cavity receiver in a solar parabolic
dish collector system, Renew. Energy 125 (2018) 768–782, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.015.
[37] S. Soltani, M. Bonyadi, V.M. Avargani, A novel optical-thermal modeling of a
parabolic dish collector with a helically baffled cylindrical cavity receiver, Energy
168 (2018) 88–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.097.
[38] S. Soltani, M. Bonyadi, V.M. Avargani, A novel optical-thermal modeling of a
parabolic dish collector with a helically baffled cylindrical cavity receiver, Energy
168 (2019) 88–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.11.097.
[39] A.K. Hamzat, M.I. Omisanya, A.Z. Sahin, O.R. Oyetunji, N.A. Olaitan, Application
of nanofluid in solar energy harvesting devices: a comprehensive review, Energy
Convers. Manag. 266 (2022), 115790, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2022.115790.
[40] K.L. Lee, M. Jafarian, F. Ghanadi, M. Arjomandi, G.J. Nathan, An investigation into
the effect of aspect ratio on the heat loss from a solar cavity receiver, Sol. Energy
149 (2017) 20–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.03.089.
[41] D.J. Reynolds, M.J. Jance, M. Behnia, G.L. Morrison, An experimental and
computational study of the heat loss characteristics of a trapezoidal cavity
absorber, Sol. Energy 76 (1–3) (2004) 229–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2003.01.001.
[42] E. Vengadesan, D. Bharathwaj, B.S. Kumar, R. Senthil, Experimental study on heat
storage integrated flat plate solar collector for combined water and air heating in
buildings, Appl. Therm. Eng. 216 (2022), 119105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2022.119105.
[43] E. Vengadesan, R. Senthil, Experimental thermal performance and enviroeconomic
analysis of serpentine flow channeled flat plate solar water collector, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Res. 29 (2022) 17241–17259, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16985-
7.
[44] E. Vengadesan, R. Senthil, Experimental study on the thermal performance of a flat
plate solar water collector with a bifunctional flow insert, Sustain. Energy Technol.
Assessments 50 (2022), 101829, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101829.
[45] ASHRAE 93-86 (2010), Methods of testing to determine the thermal performance
of solar collectors, ASHRAE (2010).
[46] D. MacPhee, I. Dincer, Thermal modeling of a packed bed thermal energy storage
system during charging, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 695–705.
[47] R. Petela, Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation, Sol. Energy 74 (2003) 469–488.
[48] F. Kreith, J. Kreider, Principles of Solar Engineering, Hemisphere-McGraw Hill,
New York, 1978.
[49] R. Senthil, M. Cheralathan, Effect of the phase change material in a solar receiver
on thermal performance of parabolic dish collector, Therm. Sci. 21 (6) (2017)
2803–2812, https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI150730007S. Part-B.
[50] K. Ghazouani, S. Skouri, S. Bouadila, A.A. Guizani, Thermal optimization of solar
dish collector for indirect vapor generation, Int. J. Energy Res. (2019) 1–14,
https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4748.
[51] A. Hassan, C. Quanfang, S. Abbas, W. Lu, L. Youming, An experimental
investigation on thermal and optical analysis of cylindrical and conical cavity
copper tube receivers design for solar dish concentrator, Renew. Energy 179
(2021) 1849–1864, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.07.145.
[52] V. Thirunavukkarasu, M. Cheralathan, Effect of aspect ratio on thermal
performance of cavity receiver for solar parabolic dish concentrator: an
experimental study, Renew. Energy 139 (2021) 573–581, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.102.
[53] R.J. Moffat RJ, Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 1 (1988) 3–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/0894-1777(88)90043-x.
[54] M.E.H. Attia, A.E. Kabeel, M. Abdelgaied, F.A. Essa, Z.M. Omara, Enhancement of
hemispherical solar still productivity using iron, zinc and copper trays, Sol. Energy
216 (2021) 295–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.01.038.
[55] https://www.tnebnet.org.