Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
A MCRT and FVM coupled simulation method for energy conversion process
in parabolic trough solar collector
Ya-Ling He*, Jie Xiao, Ze-Dong Cheng, Yu-Bing Tao
State Key Laboratory of Multiphase Flow in Power Engineering, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, PR China
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: A coupled simulation method based on Monte Carlo Ray Trace (MCRT) and Finite Volume Method (FVM)
Received 14 September 2009 is established to solve the complex coupled heat transfer problem of radiation, heat conduction and
Accepted 25 July 2010 convection in parabolic trough solar collector system. A coupled grid checking method is established to
Available online 17 September 2010
guarantee the consistency between the two methods and the validations to the coupled simulation
model were performed. Firstly, the heat flux distribution on the collector tube surface was investigated to
Keywords:
validate the MCRT method. The heat flux distribution curve could be divided into 4 parts: shadow effect
Monte Carlo Ray Trace
area, heat flux increasing area, heat flux reducing area and direct radiation area. The heat flux distri-
Finite Volume Method
Coupling heat transfer
bution on the outer surface of absorber tube was heterogeneous in circle direction but uniform in axial
Parabolic trough collectors direction. Then, the heat transfer and fluid flow performance in the LS-2 Solar Collector tube was
investigated to validate the coupled simulation model. The outlet temperatures of the absorber tube
predicted by the coupled simulation model were compared with the experimental data. The absolute
errors are in the range of 1.5e3.7 C, and the average relative error is less than 2%, which demonstrates
the reliability of the coupled method established in this paper. At last, the concentrating characteristics of
the parabolic trough collectors (PTCs) were analyzed by the coupled method, the effects of different
geometric concentration ratios (GCs) and different rim angles were examined. The results show the two
variables affect the heat flux distribution. With GC increasing, the heat flux distributions become gentler,
the angle span of reducing area become larger and the shadow effect of absorber tube become weaker.
And with the rim angle rising, the maximum value of heat flux become lower, and the curve moves
towards the direction 4 ¼ 90 . But the temperature rising only augments with GC increasing and the
effect of rim angle on heat transfer process could be neglected, when it is larger than 15 . If the rim angle
is small, such as qrim ¼ 15 , lots of rays are reflected by glass cover, and the temperature rising is much
lower.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0960-1481/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.017
Y.-L. He et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 976e985 977
Initialize photon The energy weight, w, is also initialized, which carried by each
distribution photon packet. It is a non-dimensional energy parameter and set
the value as w ¼ 1.
Y
Shadowed by absorber?
Here, each photon packet is initially assigned a weight, w. In this
paper, the weight is set as w ¼ 1.
N
N
2.2.2. Reflection
Reflected by parabola? Two steps are established to complete the reflection process.
Y First, judge whether the photon is reflected. Second, determine the
Reflect new photon trace direction after reflection.
In first step, another random number, x5, is generated; and then
N the random number is compared with the reflectivity of parabolic
Hit glass tube?
collector, Rc. If x5 Rc, the photon is reflected by parabolic trough; if
Y not, the photon will not survive.
N The theory of reflect was shown in Ref. [7]. A specular reflection
Transmit? hypothesis is used in this paper. The directional cosines are speci-
Y fied as follows:
Count hitting position 8 0
on glass tube >
> u ¼ ux " #," !#
> x
>
>
>
> 0 0 y0 y0 2
< uy ¼ uy y sinðqÞsinð4Þ þ cosðqÞ f 1þ 2
Count new moving 2f 4f
direction (5)
>
> " #, !
>
> 0 y0 2
>
> u0 ¼ uz þ 2 y sinðqÞsinð4Þ þ cosðqÞ
N >
: z 1 þ
Hit absorber tube? 2f 4f 2
Y
Then plus the triangle areas of ABP, BCP, CDP and DAP together, and v v mt vk
marked as S0i . Meanwhile, the area of each element could be count ðrui kÞ ¼ mþ þ Gk r3 (8)
vxi vxi sk vxi
out as Si. The value of S0i and Si are compared. If jS0i Si j s, it could
be considered that the photon deposits in this element. s is an
infinitesimal, which has same dimension as Si. In this paper, the
value of s is set as s ¼ 5 107. Then the value of p[ie] is renewed as:
v v mt v3 3
ðrui 3Þ ¼ mþ þ ðc1 Gk c2 r3Þ (9)
vxi vxi s3 vxi k
p½ie )p½ie þ w$aa (6)
The turbulent viscosity mt is specified:
k2
2.2.5. Heat flux distribution mt ¼ Cm r (10)
The photon distribution, p[ie], is dimensionless. It only presents 3
the distribution characteristic of photon, but not the exact value of
heat flux. The heat flux distribution is specified as q[ie]: Gk denotes the production rate of k, which is specified as:
!
qsun $xL yL vu vui vuj
q½ie ¼ p½ie $ (7) Gk ¼ mt i þ (11)
Nr Si vxj vxj vxi
2.3. Coupled method of MCRT and FVM The governing equations for continuity, momentum and energy
can be expressed as follows:
2.3.1. Governing equations for FVM
The fluid flow is turbulent and in steady state at test conditions Continuity equation:
shown in Table 1. The governing equations include the continuity,
momentum, energy equations and the standard ke3 two-equation v
ðrui Þ ¼ 0 (12)
model. vxi
The standard ke3 two-equation turbulence model can be
expressed as follows: Momentum equation:
" ! #
v vp v vui vuj 2 vul
rui uj ¼ þ ð tþ Þ
m m þ ð tþ Þ
m m d
60 vxi vxi vxj vxj vxi 3 vxl ij
Local Concentration Ratio
1 2 3 4
50 þ rgi ð13Þ
Jeter's result
40
This paper
30 Table 2
rim
Typical test data [15].
20
Test conditions qsun (W m2) Qm (kg s1) Tin ( C) Tout ( C)
Table 3
f and Nu for different grid number systems.
Energy equation:
v v m mt vT
ðrui TÞ ¼ þ þ qR (14)
vxi vxi Pr sT vxi
xL p
q / W m-2
Nx Nc
4
3x10
4
Table 4 2x10
Photon packets checking in MCRT.
4
Number of photon packets dq 1x10
1.0 106 0.5134497 0
5.0 106 0.2395571 -90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
1.0 107 0.1627726
o
2.5 107 0.0939214
5.0 107 0.0538396
Fig. 7. Heat flux distribution on circle direction.
Y.-L. He et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 976e985 981
Table 5 been tested in details in Ref. [15], were analyzed by the coupled
Comparison of the outlet temperature between simulation and test result. method, to verify the coupled method is correct.
Tout ( C) 0 ð CÞ
Tout 0
Tout Tout ð CÞ d
Case 1 124.0 126.2 2.2 0.01847 3.1. MCRT code checking
Case 2 316.9 318.4 1.5 0.00499
Case 3 398.0 400.4 2.4 0.00563 In order to confirm the accuracy of our MCRT code, numerical
Case 4 317.2 319.9 2.7 0.00851
results were compared with Jeter’s [5]. In Jeter’s paper, a parameter
Case 5 269.4 272.4 3.0 0.00811
Case 6 173.3 177.0 3.7 0.02135 called Local Concentration Ratio (LCR) was discussed. LCR is
Case 7 219.5 222.8 3.3 0.01503 a relative parameter that is similar to the heat flux distribution in
this paper. The relationship of the two parameters is shown as [5]:
method. A group of heat flux distributions, q[ie], are calculated by q ¼ LCR$qsun (18)
using different numbers of photon packets, then the maximum The geometric shape of PTC and the parameters used here are
photon packets is chosen to be the true value, q½i _ e . The next step is the same as used in Jeter’s paper. The rim angle qrim and the
to analyze the errors of q[ie] in each nodes, marking as dq[ie]. At last, geometric concentration ratios GC are specified as follows:
the average heat flux errors, dq , is calculated. If dq < s2 , the number
of photon packets is considered to be the suitable one. dq[ie] and dq YL
GC ¼ (19)
are specified as follows: 2pra
_ e j
jq½ie q½i
dq ½ie ¼ (16) 1
_ e
q½i qrim ¼ arctan (20)
ð2f =YL Þ ðYL =8f Þ
PNe The result is shown in Fig. 5, and the two curves follow the same
d ½i
ie ¼ 1 q e trend. The maximum and minimum values are also very close,
dq ¼ (17)
Ne which verify that the present code is reliable.
As shown in Fig. 5, the curve could be divided into four parts,
3. Simulation method verification marked by 1, 2, 3 and 4. In part 1, because of the sun’s radiation is
shadowed by the receiver; the heat flux is much lower but increases
In order to verify the accuracy of this coupled simulation rapidly, which is defined as the shadow effect area. In part 2, more
method, the simulation results were compared with references. and more rays are reflected to the receiver, so the heat flux
Firstly, the MCRT code was checked by comparing our results to increases steady, which is defined as the heat flux increasing area.
Jeter’s [5]. And then, the concentrating characteristics and heat In part 3, the heat flux reduces rapidly with the rays reflected
transfer in absorber tube of the LS-2 Solar Collector, which have decrease because of the sun shape qsun, which is defined as the heat
flux reducing area. At last, in part 4, there are few reflected rays In Dudley et al.’s report, many measured efficiency test data
reaching the receiver, the absorber tube only receives the direct were shown for different cases. Seven typical cases were chosen
radiation of sun, the heat flux distribution is in a very low level, here for simulation and validation, which are shown in Table 2.
which is defined as the direct radiation area. Here, a new variable 40
is defined as 40 ¼ qrim 90 , which is in the center of part three. 3.2.2. Grid checking
According to Section 2.4.1, taking Case 1 in Table 2 as example
for grid checking, the minimum grid density for the absorber tube
3.2. Coupled method validation by simulation for LS-2 Solar
was calculated to be: Nc 68 and Nx 320.
Collector
After that, the grid independence test was further made in
FLUENT. Four different grid systems were investigated. They were:
In this section, this coupled simulation method is applied to
68 320, 68 400, 68 480 and 80 320. The average friction
simulate the concentrating characteristics and heat transfer in
coefficient and the average Nusselt number of different grid
absorber tube of the LS-2 Solar Collector, which have been tested in
systems are shown in Table 3. From this table, it could be seen that
Ref. [15].
there are no significant differences between those grid systems. So
the grid system 68(Nc) 320(Nx) could be regarded as grid-
3.2.1. Physical model and parameters
independent.
The LS-2 parabolic trough collector module tested at Sandia
At last, the photon packet checking was made. 1 108 photon
National Lab was chosen for simulation, parameters are shown in
packets were chosen as the true value. And then the photon packets
Table 1 [15]. The computational domain includes the absorber tube
of 1.0 106, 5.0 106, 1.0 107, 2.5 107 and 5.0 107 were
domain (solid), the liquid oil domain (fluid) and the flow restriction
investigated. The average heat flux errors are shown in Table 4, and
device domain (solid). The heat conduction in the tube and the flow
5.0 107 was considered to be the suitable value.
restriction device are taken into account, in which the temperature
distribution will be determined by the full-field solving method.
3.2.3. Heat flux distribution
The material for the solid domain is stainless steel and the thermal
The heat flux distribution on the outer surface of absorber tube
conductivity is fixed at 54 W m1 K1.
is shown in Figs. 6 and 7. The asymmetric distribution of heat flux in
Sylitherm 800 liquid oil was used as the working fluid. And the
circle direction is obviously, but the heat flux distribution in axial
properties of working fluid, such as: isobaric specific heat capacity
direction (x) is uniform, as shown in Fig. 6. Furthermore, the curve
(cp), thermal conductivity (l), density (r) and dynamic viscosity (m)
in Fig. 7 can also divided into four parts as shown in Section 3.1.
should be selected to simulate the heat transfer process in absorber
tube by FLUENT. Those properties are temperature-dependent and
3.2.4. Outlet temperature
derived from the following correlations for temperatures range
Seven cases as shown in Table 1 were simulated using the
from 373.15 to 673.15 K [20].
couple method [15]. The predicted outlet temperatures are shown
in Table 5. Comparing with the results in Dudley et al.’s report, the
cp ¼ 0:001708T þ 1:107798 kJ kg1 K (21) absolute errors are in the range of 1.5e3.7 C, the maximum rela-
tive error is 0.02135, and the average relative error is 0.01325 (less
l ¼ 5:753496 1010 T 2 1:875266 104 T þ 1:900210 than 2%). It is a good agreement of simulation result and test result,
101 W m1 K (22) which proves that the models and methods used in the present
study are feasible and the numerical results are reliable.
0
It also can be seen from Table 5 that the outlet temperature Tout
r ¼ 4:153495 101 T þ 1:105702 103 kg m3 (23) obtained by the numerical simulation is larger than the corre-
sponding test result Tout. The error is mainly due to the assumption
of neglecting the convective heat losses between the outer wall of
m ¼ 6:672 107 T 4 1:566 103 T 3 þ 1:388$T 2 5:541 absorber tube and the inner surface of glass cover tube, and the
102 T þ 8:487 104 ðmPa sÞ ð24Þ assumption of total absorption of the solar energy arrive at the
outer surface of the inner absorber tube in the MCRT code and so
on. On the other hand, there also could be some measurement
errors constitutionally.
5
1.0x10
GC =10
25.5
8.0x10
4
GC =30
GC =50 25.0
4
6.0x10
q / W m-2
24.96K
24.5
24.5K
/K
4
4.0x10
24.0
4
2.0x10
23.5
23.42K
0.0 23.0
-90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 10 30 50
o
Geometric Concentration ratio
Fig. 9. Heat flux distribution under different GCs on circle direction. Fig. 10. The temperature rising under different GCs.
Y.-L. He et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 976e985 983
o =60
ences of GC and rim angle, the total sun radiation is kept constant, 4 =-15 rim
6.0x10 =75
o
which means the aperture yL would not change and set as yL ¼ 5 m. rim
o
For the same reason, the mass flow rate was set to a constant as 4 =90
4.0x10 rim
0.6872 kg s1, which was a test value in Dudley et al.’s report [15]. =0
4
2.0x10
4.1. Influence of different geometric concentration ratios
0.0
For holding the aperture yL constant, according to equation (19), -90 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
the absorber tube radius ra should be changed. For the GCs at 10, 20, o
30, the radiuses of absorber tubes are 0.080 m, 0.027 m, 0.016 m
respectively, with yL ¼ 5 m. Here, the rim angle is chosen as 90 . Fig. 12. Heat flux distribution under different rim angles on circle direction.
984 Y.-L. He et al. / Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 976e985
24.0 To verify the MCRT code, the simulation results were compared
with reference and the two curves matched well. The results show
23.5 23.57K 23.36K 23.35K that the curve of heat flux distribution is divided into 4 parts:
shadow effect area, heat flux increasing area, heat flux reducing
23.44K 23.33K
23.0 area and direct radiation area. The heat flux distribution on the
outer surface of absorber tube was heterogeneous in circle
/K
22.5 direction but uniform in axial direction (x). Then, the coupled
method was used to simulate the LS-2 Solar Collector for method
verification. And the outlet temperatures of four cases were
22.0
counted out and compared with Dudley et al.’s report data. The
comparison results show they are in good agreement, which
21.5
validate the coupled method established in this paper is useful
21.23K
and credible.
21.0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 The concentrating characteristics of PTCs were analyzed using
o the coupled method. The variations of heat flux distributions in
rim
/ different GCs and different rim angles were discussed. With GC
increasing, the heat flux distributions become gentler, the angle
Fig. 13. The temperature rising under different rim angles.
span of reducing area become larger and the shadow effect of
absorber tube become weaker. The temperature rising also
improved with GC increasing. And with the rim angle rising, the
Figs. 8 and 9 show the heat flux distributions on the outer surface of
maximum value of heat flux becomes lower, and the curve moves
the absorber tubes under different GCs. As shown in those figures,
towards the direction 4 ¼ 90 . But there is small effect on heat
with GC rising, the heat flux distributions become gentler, the angle
transfer process. If the rim angle is small, such as qrim ¼ 15 , lots of
span of reducing area become larger and the shadow effect of
rays are reflected by glass cover, and the temperature rising is much
absorber tube become weaker.
lower.
The HTF temperature rising under different GCs is shown in
Fig. 10. Because of the total radiation and mass flow rate both set to
Acknowledgements
constant, the variation of temperature rising is only related to the
different heat flux distributions, which is caused by different GCs. As
The present work is supported by the National Natural Science
shown in Fig. 10, with GC rising, the temperature rising improved.
Foundation of China (Nos. 50736005, 50906070) and National Basic
Gentler heat flux distribution made the heat lost reduced.
Research Program of China (973 Program) (2010CB227100).
ux,uy,uz Directional cosines [2] Evens DL. On the performance of cylindrical parabolic solar concentrators
with flat absorbers. Solar Energy 1977;19:379e85.
w Weight
[3] Harris James A, Duff William S. Focal plane flux distribution produced by solar
x,y,z Cartesian coordinate concentrating reflectors. Solar Energy 1981;27:403e11.
xL Length of parabolic in x direction [4] Jeter MS. Calculation of the concentrated flux density distribution in para-
yL Length of parabolic in y direction bolic trough collectors by a semifinite formulation. Solar Energy 1986;
37:335e45.
[5] Jeter MS. Analytical determination of the optical performance of practical
parabolic trough collectors from design data. Solar Energy 1987;39:11e21.
Greek symbols [6] Modest MF. Radiative heat transfer. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press; 2003.
ai Incidence angle [7] Riveros HG, Olova AI. Graphical analysis of sun concentrating collectors. Solar
at transmission angle Energy 1986;36:313e22.
[8] Shuai Y, Xia XL, Tan HP. Radiation performance of dish solar concentrator/
aa absorptance
cavity receiver systems. Solar Energy 2008;82:13e21.
d error [9] Kraupl S, Steinfeld A. Monte Carlo radiative transfer modeling of a solar
dq[ie] error of heat flux distribution chemical reactor for the co-production of zinc and syngas. Journal of Solar
dq average heat flux error Energy Engineering 2005;127:102e8.
[10] Odeh SD, Morrison GL, Behnia M. Modelling of parabolic trough direct steam
3 turbulent dissipation rate or emissivity generation solar collectors. Solar Energy 1998;62:395e406.
3in inlet turbulent dissipation rate [11] Hou Z, Zheng D, Jin H, Sui J. Performance analysis of non-isothermal solar
3w emissivity of the inner tube wall reactors for methanol decomposition. Solar Energy 2007;81:415e23.
[12] Martinez I, Almanza R. Experimental and theoretical analysis of annular two-
f Azimuthal angle phase flow regimen in direct steam generation for a low-power system. Solar
4 circle angle Energy 2007;81:216e26.
l thermal conductivity (W/m K) [13] Eck M, Steinmann WD, Rheinl J. Maximum temperature difference in hori-
zontal and tilted absorber pipes with direct steam generation. Energy 2004;
m dynamic viscosity (Pa s) 29:665e76.
mt turbulent viscosity (Pa s) [14] Eck M, Steinmann W. Modelling and design of direct solar steam generating
q deflection angle collector fields. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 2005;127:371e80.
[15] Dudley VE, Kolb GJ, Sloan M, Kearney D. Segs Ls2 solar collector-test results.
qsun finite size of the sun USA: SANDIA; 1994.
qrim the rim angle [16] Wang L, Jacques SL, Zheng L. McmleMonte Carlo modeling of light transport
r density (kg/m3) in multi-layered tissues. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
1995;47:131e46.
sT turbulent Prandtl number
[17] Launder BE, Spalding DB. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
sk,s3 turbulent Prandtl numbers for diffusion of k and e Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1974;3:269e89.
x Random number [18] Incropera F, Dewitt D. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 3rd ed. New
York: John Wiley and Sons; 1990.
[19] Forristall R. Heat Transfer Analysis and Modeling of a Parabolic Trough Solar
References Receiver Implemented in Engineering Equation Solver. Report, NREL; 2003.
[20] Delgado-Torres AM, Garc RL. Comparison of solar technologies for driving
[1] Kalogirou SA. Solar thermal collectors and applications. Progress in Energy a desalination system by means of an organic rankine cycle. Desalination
and Combustion Science 2004;30:231e95. 2007;216:276e91.