Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

A detailed exergetic analysis of parabolic trough collectors

Evangelos Bellos ⇑, Christos Tzivanidis
Solar Energy Laboratory, Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece

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

Article history: The objective of this study is to present a detailed exergetic analysis of the commercial parabolic trough
Received 6 June 2017 collector LS-2. A complete thermal model is developed in EES (Engineering Equation Solver) and it is val-
Received in revised form 10 July 2017 idated with literature results. The solar collector is examined for operation with Therminol VP1 and air in
Accepted 15 July 2017
order to examine the most representative liquid and gas working fluids. In the exergetic analysis, detailed
Available online 23 July 2017
presentation of the exergetic losses and the exergy destruction is given for various operation cases. More
specifically, different combinations of flow rates and inlet temperature levels are tested for both working
Keywords:
fluids and the results indicate the reasons for the exergetic reduction in every case. According to the final
Exergetic efficiency
Exergy destruction
results, the global maximum exergetic efficiency for operation with air is 25.62% for an inlet temperature
Thermal efficiency of 500 K and flow rate of 10,000 l/min, while for Therminol VP1 is 31.67% for 500 K and 100 l/min.
PTC Moreover, it is proved that the exergy destruction is more intense in the thermal oil case, while the exer-
getic losses are more important in the air case. The final results and conclusions clearly present the exer-
getic analysis of parabolic trough collector for a great range of operating conditions.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Solar energy utilization is one of the most promising ways for
facing global problems as the climate change, the increased CO2
emissions, the fossil fuel depletion and the increasing energy
demand due to the new lifestyle trends [1–3]. In this direction,
solar energy is more and more often used in power plants in order
to supply totally or partially the thermal input [4–5]. The sustain-
ability and the development of these plants are depended on the
suitable design which leads to sizing the plants properly [6].
The best thermodynamic tool for investigating power produc-
tion applications is the exergetic analysis because with this tech-
nique emphasis is given in the evaluation of the system design.
The exergetic analysis in solar collectors is applied the last decades
with an increasing rate. One of the first preliminary studies was
performed by Marschall and Adams [7] in 1978 for the evaluation
of a flat plate collector with thermal and energetic terms. The next
years, more studies for the exergetic evaluation of the systems
have been found in the literature, as Madrifa in 1985 [8] for flat
plate collectors and Altfred et al. [9] in 1988 for air heaters.
Moreover, it is essential to state that a lot of scientific discus-
sions have been made the last decades about the exergetic poten-
tial of the solar energy. Many models have been proposed with the
most widespread to be by Petela [10], Spanner [11], Jeter [12],
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bellose@central.ntua.gr (E. Bellos).
Parrot [13] and Badescu [14]. For the exergy potential of the undi-
luted solar irradiation, the suggested model by Petela [15] is the
one that is used in the majority of the literature studies up today.
In the recent literature, all the kinds of solar collectors have
been examined exergetically with solar air heaters [16–19] and
hybrid PV [20–23] to be the most usually exergetically examined
collectors. Moreover, some recent reviews about the exergetic
analysis of solar collectors are found in the literature [24–27].
According to these studies, the exergetic analysis has to be applied
more in concentrating collectors which are used more often in
solar power plants.
Parabolic trough collector is the most mature technology for
power production [28] and many CSP plants use them as the most
cost-effective and developed solution. However, there are not
many studies which examined and interpret the exergetic perfor-
mance of parabolic trough collectors. Petela [29] performed a
detailed analysis about a parabolic trough solar cooker and finally
proved that the exergetic performance is very low (<1%) due to the
high thermal losses of the examined configuration. Similar results
are taken from the study of Ozturk [30] for parabolic trough solar
cooker. On the other hand, Ozturk et al. [31] examined the exer-
getic efficiency of a parabolic trough collector and he found it close
to 25%; a satisfying value due to the low thermal losses of the
examined collector. Padilla et al. [32] examined a parabolic trough
collector (LS-3) operating with thermal oil for various mass flow
rates and inlet temperatures with a detailed analysis. They found
that higher inlet temperatures lead to higher exergetic efficiency

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.07.035
0196-8904/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
276 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292

Nomenclature

A area, m2 r Stefan–Boltzmann constant [=5.67
108 W/m2 K4]

C concentration ratio, – s transmittance, –
cp specific heat capacity under constant pressure, J/kg K
D diameter, m Subscripts and superscripts
E exergy flow stream, W a aperture
f focal distance, m abs absorbed
fr friction factor, – air ambient air
Gb solar beam radiation, W/m2 am ambient
h heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K c cover
k thermal conductivity, W/mK ci inner cover
K incident angle modifier, - co outer cover
L tube length, m c-a cover-ambient
m mass flow rate, kg/s d destruction
Nu mean Nusselt number, – d, s-r destruction from sun to receiver
Pr Prandtl number, – d, r-f destruction from receiver to fluid
Q heat flux, W ex exergetic
Re Reynolds number, – fluid working fluid
T temperature, K in inlet
u velocity, m/s in, opt inlet optimum
V volumetric flow rate, l/min loss losses
W collector width, m loss, opt exergetic optical losses
loss, th thermal exergetic losses
Greek symbols opt optical
a absorbance, – out outlet
c intercept factor, – r receiver
DP pressure drop, Pa ri inner receiver
e emittance, – ro outer receiver
g efficiency, – s solar
h incident angle, ° sky sky
l dynamic viscosity, Pa s sun sun outer layer
m kinematic viscosity, m2/s th thermal
qfluid density, kg/m3 u useful
q final reflectance, –
q0 reference reflectance, – Abbreviations
q1 shadowing optical losses, – CSP Concentrating Solar Power
q2 twisting tracking error, – EES Engineer Equator Solver
q3 geometric errors, – PTC Parabolic trough collector
q4 mirror clearness, – SNL Sandia National Laboratories
q5 receiver clearness, –
q6 miscellaneous optical losses, –

which is up to 37% for all the examined cases. Moreover, they sta-
ted that the exergy destruction during the heating of the fluid from
the absorber is relatively low and up to 0.5% to the total exergy
input. Bellos et al. [33] examined exergetically two techniques
for improving the performance of the IST-PTC collector; the use
of nanoparticles inside the thermal oil and the use of a
converging-diverging inner absorber surface. Finally, they proved
that there is great enhancement with the utilization of the nano-
fluid compared to the pure thermal oil and the converging-
diverging also increases the exergetic performance of the collector.
Guo et al. [34] performed a parametric analysis of a PTC operating
with Dowtherm A for various receiver diameters, inlet tempera-
tures, ambient temperatures, incident angles and wind velocities.
In every analysis, only one parameter was examined parametri-
cally, while all the others had been kept constant. According to
their results, there is optimum mass flow rate exergetically in
every case and they stated the need of reducing the high optical
losses as a way for improving the PTC exergetically.
The last years, parabolic trough collectors have been also exam-
ined for innovative CSP which operate with gas working fluid in
order to exceed the temperature limitations of the thermal oils
and of the molten salts. For example, PTCs operating with air have
been examined in Brayton cycles by Ferraro et al. [35–36]. More-
over, a lot of research has been focused on the utilization of super-
critical carbon dioxide in solar parabolic trough collectors in order
to feed Brayton or Rankine Power cycles [37].
However, the parabolic trough collectors operating with gases
are seldom examined exergetically in the literature. Hernández-
Román et al. [38] examined experimentally a PTC operating with
air and they evaluated it in energetic and exergetic terms. Accord-
ing to their results, the optimum mass flow rate for air was 0.03 kg/
s for receiver diameter between 10 mm and 30 mm with the total
aperture to be 3 m2. Bellos et al. [39] examined thermally and exer-
getically six different working fluids in the Eurotrough PTC module.
Air, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium argon and neon are examined
and it is proved that the mass flow rate plays a significant role in
the results due to the high-pressure drop in operation with gases.
The same authors examined the use of internal longitudinal fins in
the Eurotrough module for operation with air, carbon dioxide and
helium [40]. According to their results, the intermediate fin length
of 10 mm is the optimum length exergetically because it combines
significant heat transfer enhancement from absorber to fluid and
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 277

not extremely high-pressure losses. Furthermore, in another inter- The calculation of the final reflectance is a complex issue
esting investigation for the working fluids in PTCs [41], the gas because many factors have to be taken into account, except the ref-
working fluids were found to be less efficient (thermally and exer- erence reflectance (q0). Eq. (5) shows that the final reflectance (q)
getically) than liquid working fluids but they are the only possible is a product of many factors with each one to represent a different
solution for extremely high-temperature levels close to 1000 K. optical loss [43]:
As it is obvious from the previous literature review, the exer-
q ¼ q0
q1
q2
q3
q4
q5
q6 ; ð5Þ
getic analysis gains more and more attention the last years and it
is an important tool for the evaluation of PTC for power production, The shadow effect is taken into account with (q1), the twisting
as well as for other applications. In the literature, there are not error with (q2), the geometric errors with (q3), the mirror clearness
detailed studies about the exergetic analysis of PTCs and especially with (q4), the receiver clearness with (q5) and the other possible
for operation with gas working fluids. The utilization of gas in PTC errors with (q6). According to the literature, the receiver clearness
is conjugated with significant pressure losses and thus the exer- can be estimated according to the next equation, using the mirror
getic analysis is the most suitable tool for evaluating their perfor- clearness [43]:
mance because it includes the irreversibilities of the pressure drop.
1 þ q4
The objective of this study is to investigate the exergetic perfor- q5 ¼ ; ð6Þ
2
mance of the parabolic trough collector LS-2 for operation with
Therminol VP1 and air, in various operating conditions. These flu-
ids are selected as the most representative candidates among the 2.1.2. Thermal modeling
liquid and gas working fluids, selecting one for every category. This The useful heat production (Qu) can be calculated by the energy
study is performed with a validated developed model in EES which balance in the working fluid volume, as it is presented below:
also includes analytical exergetic calculations. Various inlet tem- Q u ¼ m
cp
ðT out  T in Þ; ð7Þ
perature levels and flow rates are tested for both the working flu-
ids. Emphasis is given in the exergetic analysis of the exergy The thermal efficiency (gth) of the solar collector is equal to the
destruction in the air case because of the existence of high- ratio of the produced useful heat to the available solar energy (Qs).
pressure losses which influence on the collector performance. Fur- Eq. (8) is the definition of the collector thermal efficiency:
thermore, the two working fluids are compared in order to deter- Qu
mine the variation in the exergetic losses and in the exergy gth ¼ ; ð8Þ
Qs
destruction between them. This analytical exergetic comparison
for liquid and gas working fluids in PTCs is something innovative The useful heat can be also calculated by examining the heat
which is performed for the first time. transfer between the absorber tube and the working fluid temper-
ature. The mechanism of the heat transfer is the convection which
is modeled by using the heat transfer coefficient (hfluid), as Eq. (9)
2. Methods
indicates:
2.1. Mathematical modeling Q u ¼ hfluid
Ari
ðT r  T fluid Þ; ð9Þ
The mean fluid temperature (Tfluid) can be calculated as the
In this section, the basic mathematical equations which have
been used in the developed modeling are described. These equa- mean value of the inlet (Tin) and the outlet (Tout) fluid tempera-
tures [41]. This temperature level is also used for the working fluid
tions are associated with the energy balances on the system and
with the definition of important parameters. More specifically, properties calculation.
the modeling includes optical, thermal and exergetic part. T in þ T out
T fluid ¼ ; ð10Þ
2
2.1.1. Optical modeling
The heat transfer coefficient can be estimated by using the Nus-
The available solar energy on the collector aperture is calculated
selt number which is defined as:
as the product of the collector aperture (Aa) and of the direct beam
solar irradiation (Gb), as it is presented below: hfluid
Dri
Nufluid ¼ ; ð11Þ
kfluid
Q s ¼ Aa
Gb ; ð1Þ
For turbulent flow, as in the present study for all the examined
The tubular absorber absorbs a lower quantity of energy (Qabs)
cases (Re > 2300), the Nusselt number can be calculated by using
due to optical losses, as Eq. (2) shows:
the Dittus-Boelter equation [44]:
Q abs ¼ Q s
gopt ; ð2Þ
Nufluid ¼ 0:023
Re0:8 0:4
fluid
Pr fluid ; ð12Þ
The optical losses are expressed with the optical efficiency
(gopt). More specifically, the concentrator reflectance (q), the inter- The Reynolds number (Re) and the Prandtl number (Pr) are
cept factor (c), the cover transmittance (s), the absorber absor- defined as Eqs. (13) and (14) indicate:
bance (a), as well as the incident angle modifier (K) are used in 4
m
Refluid ¼ ; ð13Þ
the optical efficiency definition: p
Dri
lfluid
gopt ¼ q
c
s
a
KðhÞ; ð3Þ
lfluid
cp;fluid
The incident angle modifier for the examined collectors, LS-2, is Prfluid ¼ ; ð14Þ
kfluid
given according to the following equation, as a function of the inci-
dent angle (h) in degrees [42]: The developed thermal model is based on the energy balance on
the absorber tube. The absorbed solar energy (Qabs) is separated to
KðhÞ ¼ 1  2:2307
104
h  1:1
104
h2 þ 3:18596
106 useful heat (Qu) and to thermal losses (Qloss), as it is shown below:

h3  4:85509
108
h4 ; ð4Þ Q abs ¼ Q u þ Q loss ; ð15Þ
278 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292

The thermal losses of the solar collector can be calculated by 2.1.3. Exergetic modeling
examining the heat transfer mechanism from the absorber to the The exergetic analysis of the solar collector is performed by
cover. Due to vacuum between absorber and cover (pressure level making a detailed analysis which includes the exergy of the solar
of some Pascal), the convection phenomenon is neglected, and only irradiation, the useful exergy production, the exergetic losses and
the radiation thermal losses have to be taken into consideration the exergy destruction.
[41]. Parabolic trough collectors utilize only the beam irradiation
which can be assumed to be undiluted. Thus, the Petela model
Aro
r
ðT4r  T 4c Þ
Q loss ¼
 ; ð16Þ [15] can be used for estimating the exergy flow on the incoming
1ec
1
er þ ec
Aro
A solar irradiation. This model takes into account that the sun is a
ci
radiation reservoir of temperature (Tsun), which is estimated to
The receiver emittance is taken as a function of its temperature be 5770 K in the outer layers. Eq. (28) shows the exergy flow of
level. A literature equation for Cermet coating is given below [45]: the undiluted solar irradiation (Es):
"    4 #
er ¼ 0:05599 þ 1:039
104
T r þ 2:249
107
T 2r ; ð17Þ 4 T am 1 T am
Es ¼ Q s
1 
þ
; ð28Þ
In steady state conditions, as in the examined model, the ther- 3 T sun 3 T sun
mal losses from the absorber to the cover are equal to the thermal
The useful exergy output can be calculated according to the fol-
losses from the cover to the ambient. These thermal losses include
lowing equation [1,39,41]:
radiation and convection losses, as it is given below [36]:
 
T out DP
Q loss ¼ Aco
hair
ðT c  T am Þ þ Aco
r
ec
ðT 4c  T 4sky Þ; ð18Þ Eu ¼ Q u  m
cp
T am
ln  m
T am ; ð29Þ
T in qfluid
T fluid
It is important to state that the sky temperature (Tsky) has been
Eq. (29) can be applied to both liquid and gas working fluids.
used in the radiation losses term and this temperature level can be
Especially for liquids, the last term of the pressure drop (DP) is
estimated by Eq. (19) for clear skies [46]:
usually small and can be neglected. On the other hand, the opera-
T sky ¼ 0:0553
T 1:5
am ; ð19Þ tion with gas working fluids is associated with high-pressure
losses, due to the low density of the gases, and it has to be taken
The heat convection coefficient between the cover and the into account.
ambient air is calculated by using a literature equation for the Nus- The exergetic efficiency of the solar collector (gex) is defined as
selt number [43]. the ratio of the useful production to the exergy input, as the follow-
Nuair ¼ 0:193
Re0:618
Pr 0:33 ing equation indicates [39–41]:
air air ; ð20Þ
Eu
It is important to give the definition of the Nusselt and of the gex ¼ ; ð30Þ
Reynolds number for this case. The outer diameter of the cover Es
tube (Dco) is used as the characteristic length: In order to perform a complete exergetic analysis of the solar
hair
Dco collector, the exergy losses and the exergy destruction have to be
Nuair ¼ ; ð21Þ calculated. The exergy losses (Eloss) are associated with the heat
kair
losses of the examined system which are not further utilized. These
uair
Dco losses regard the optical losses and the thermal losses. The exer-
Reair ¼ ; ð22Þ
v air getic optical losses (Eloss,opt) are calculated as:

Moreover, it is useful to state that the air properties are Eloss;opt ¼ ð1  gopt Þ
Es ; ð31Þ
calculated to the mean temperature between cover and ambient The exergetic thermal losses (Eloss,th) are calculated as:
(Tc-am), as it is given below [43]:  
T am
T c þ T am Eloss;th ¼ Q loss
1  ; ð32Þ
T cam ¼ ; ð23Þ Tr
2
The total exergetic losses are given as:
The pressure losses along the absorber tube (DP) can be calcu-
lated according to the following equation: Eloss ¼ Eloss;opt þ Eloss;th ; ð33Þ
 
L 1 The exergy destruction expresses the irreversibilities which
DP ¼ f r


qfluid
u2fluid ; ð24Þ
Dri 2 exist in the heat transfers. More specifically, this parameter
expresses the possible work that it is lost when thermal energy
The friction factor (fr) is calculated according to Eq. (25), for tur-
is transferred from a warmer to a colder heat reservoir. In the pre-
bulent flow [44]:
sent case of the solar collector, two are the cases of exergy destruc-
1 tion. The first one is between sun and receiver (Ed,s-r) and the
fr ¼ 2
; ð25Þ
½0:79
lnðRefluid Þ  1:64 second between the receiver and working fluid (Ed,r-f). The exergy
destruction during the solar energy absorption in the absorber
The mean working fluid velocity is calculated as: (from the sun to receiver) is calculated as:
m  
ufluid ¼
2 ; ð26Þ T am
Ed;sr ¼ gopt
Es  Q abs
1  ; ð34Þ
qfluid
p D4ri Tr

Moreover, it is useful to give the definition of the volumetric The exergy destruction during the useful heat production (from
flow of the working fluid: receiver to fluid) is calculated as:
!  
D2ri T am
V fluid ½l= min ¼ ð60
10 Þ
ufluid
p
3
; ð27Þ Ed;rf ¼ Q u
1   Eu ; ð35Þ
4 Tr
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 279

The total exergy destruction (Ed) is given as: Table 1

PTC module dimensions [43,45,47].
Ed ¼ Ed;sr þ Ed;rf ; ð36Þ
Model dimensions Values
Finally, it is important to give the total exergy balance of the W 5.0 m
system: L 7.8 m
f 1.71 m
Es ¼ Eu þ Eloss þ Ed ; ð37Þ Aa 39.0 m2
C 22.74
Dri 66
103 m
2.2. The examined PTC Dro 70
103 m
Dci 109
103 m
Dco 115
103 m
The examined parabolic trough collector is the module of the
LS-2 [47]. This PTC is given in Fig. 1 and its dimensions are pre-
sented in Table 1 with details. This PTC consists of a reflector of
Table 2
39 m2 aperture and an evacuated tube with 70 mm outer absorber Optical properties [43,45,47].
diameter. The concentration ratio is 22.74, a usual value for PTCs.
Optical parameters Values
Cermet coating is used in the receiver and its emittance is given
according to Eq. (17). The emittance of the cover is selected to be ec 0.860
0.86 and the maximum optical efficiency is found to be 75.4%. gopt 0.754
s 0.950
The optical properties are summarized with details in Table 2. It a 0.960
is essential to state that the intercept factor (c) is selected to be c 1
close to 1 because all the possible optical losses have been taken q 0.826
into account in the (q) with the extra factors that have been pre- q0 0.935
q1 0.974
sented in Eq. (5). The basic simulation parameters are summarized
q2 0.994
in Table 3. The solar irradiation has selected to be 1000 W/m2 and q3 0.980
the incident angle equal to 0° in order emphasis to be given in the q4 0.980
thermal and exergetic analysis. The ambient temperature is q5 0.990
selected to be 300 K, the fact that leads to sky temperature close q6 0.960

to 287 K, according to the Eq. (19). Moreover, the wind velocity

is selected to be about 1 m/s.
Table 3
Simulation parameters.
2.3. Followed methodology
Simulation parameters Values

In this study, the developed thermal model has been used in
order the collector thermal and exergetic performance to be
defined. Various operating conditions have been examined with
different flow rates and inlet temperature levels. Moreover, two
different working fluids are investigated, Therminol VP1 (liquid
working fluid) and air (gas working fluid). Therminol VP1 is the
most usual thermal oil which is used in many applications. This
working fluid can operate with safety from 285 K up to 673 K
and in this study, this fluid is examined from 300 K to 625 K (inlet
temperature in the collector) in order not to exceed these limits. It
is essential to state that for all the examined cases, the outlet tem-
perature level is under 673 K, the fact that makes the results
accepted. The examined flow rates are ranged from 25 l/min to
200 l/min, an adequate range for investigating the collector perfor-
mance according to the final results.
On the other hand, the air is one of the most representative gas
working fluids and there are not temperature limitations for this
fluid. Thus, it is examined in a greater range from 300 K to 950 K
Gb 1000 W/m2
h 0°
Tsun 5770 K
Tam 300 K
Tsky 287 K
uair 1 m/s
and for flow rates from 5000 l/min to 22,500 l/min. The lower den-
sity of the air makes the flow rate to be greater than the cases of
thermal oil in order to achieve adequate thermal performance. It
is extremely important to state that the pressure losses have to
be taken into account in the exergetic analysis because they
express the pumping work for the air flow. The inlet pressure of
the air was selected to be 100 kPa.
In every case, the exergetic losses and the exergy destruction
have been calculated in order to determine the influence every fac-
tor on the exergetic efficiency. The analysis is performed with EES
(Engineering Equation Solver) [48] and the properties for Thermi-
nol VP1 and air have been taken from its libraries [49–50]. In Sec-
tion 3.1, the results of thermal and exergetic analysis are
presented, while in Section 3.2 the results about the detailed exer-
getic analysis are given. Section 3.3 is devoted to the direct com-
parison of these fluids and in this part, the different exergetic
performance of these fluids is discussed. Moreover, the Grassmann
diagrams of this section depict the exergy flow path from sun to
the useful output.

2.4. Thermal model validation

The developed model is tested with literature results in order its

accuracy to be defined. Different operating conditions are selected
to be used for this test in order the present model to be examined
under various combinations of fluid inlet temperature levels, flow
Fig. 1. The examined PTC module designed in SOLIDWORKS. rates, ambient temperatures and solar intensities. In the validation
280 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292

process, Syltherm 800 is used as working fluid and its properties
are taken from EES libraries [51]. For the validation process, results
from SNL tests [43,45,47] are used and the comparison results are
summarized in Table 4.
As it is obvious from Table 4, the mean deviation of the thermal
efficiency is about 2.12%, a small value which proves the validity of
the developed thermal model. It is also essential to state that the
deviation in the outlet temperature is about 0.187% which means
the extremely low difference between the literature and the pre-
sent model results. Moreover, it is important to state that this ther-
mal model has used in similar studies with some modifications
[39,41]. These studies include validation parts for operation with
gas working fluids.
The objective of the present study is to examine the exergetic
performance of parabolic trough collectors. Thus, it would be use-
ful to present the exergetic performance of the solar collector for
the same eight examined cases. Table 5 includes the exergetic
results for the eight operating cases which are described in Table 4.
It is obvious that the solar collector has greater exergetic efficiency
for higher inlet temperature levels. In these cases, the exergetic
losses are relatively low and this is the main reason for the satisfy-
ing useful exergetic production.
3. Results
3.1. Thermal and exergetic performance for thermal oil and air cases
In this section, the thermal and exergetic results for operation
with Therminol VP1 and air are presented with details. The inlet
temperature and the flow rate are parametrically examined, while
the thermal efficiency, the exergetic efficiency and the exergetic
flows (sun, useful, losses and destruction) are also calculated.
Fig. 2 illustrates the thermal performance of the collector for various
temperature levels and flow rates. It is important to state that the
temperature is expressed with the parameter [(Tin  Tam)/Gb] which
is usually used in the solar collector performance presentation.
Fig. 2a depicts results for the case with thermal oil. The thermal
efficiency is getting lower for higher temperature levels and there
is a great curvature at efficiency curves due to the radiation
thermal losses which are the main thermal loss mechanism in
PTC. It is obvious that higher flow rate leads to higher performance
for all the examined temperature range. For flow rates from
100 l/min and above, the thermal performance presents a very
slight variation, the fact that indicates the utilization of
100 l/min as minimum optimum flow rate. Moreover, the less
examined flow rate of 25 l/h leads to significantly lower thermal
efficiency and it is not recommended. Fig. 2b shows the thermal
efficiency for the air case which is getting lower for higher
temperature levels and it is higher for greater flow rates. There is
a significant difference between the achieved thermal efficiency
among the examined flow rates, while in Fig. 2a for the thermal
oil case, the majority of the efficiency curves tend towards to
one. The examined flow rates for the air case are higher than the
thermal oil cases because of the lower density of the air. More
specifically the examined flow rates are ranged from 5000 l/min
to 22,500 l/min.
Fig. 3 illustrates the exergetic performance of the collector for
the respective cases. Fig. 3a gives results for operation with ther-
mal oil and it is obvious that higher inlet temperature levels make
the collector to perform better exergetically. All the curves are
close to each other, the fact that proves the low dependency of
the exergetic performance with the selected flow rate in the exam-
ined range. Moreover, it is important to state that in low inlet tem-
perature levels, the minimum examined flow rate is optimum
while in higher inlet temperatures, higher flow rates lead to max-
imum exergetic performance. In any case, this figure proves that
there is no great influence on the flow rate on the exergetic perfor-
mance for the liquid working fluid case. The maximum value of the
exergetic efficiency is 37.84% and it is observed for inlet tempera-
ture equal to 625 K and flow rate equal to 200 l/min.
Fig. 3b depicts the exergetic performance of the solar collector
for the examined cases with air. All the presented curves present
maximum point for a different temperature level. The global max-
imum is observed for flow rate equal to 10,000 l/min and 500 K
inlet temperature and it is 25.26%. For lower flow rates, the opti-
mum operating temperature, which maximizes the exergetic per-
formance, is lower and vice versa. The exergetic performance of
the collector is different between the cases with thermal oil and
air as working fluid. The high-pressure losses in the air cases which
directly influences on the exergetic performance, according to Eq.
(29), is the main reason for this different exergetic performance,
as well as the different thermal properties of these fluids [39].
Moreover, it would be important to give the pressure losses for
the air case because they play a significant role in operation with
gas working fluids [39–41]. Fig. 4 shows the pressure losses for
the examined cases with air. Higher flow rates lead to higher pres-
sure drop, as it is obvious from Eq. (24). Moreover, higher flow rate
leads to lower pressure losses due to the variation of the thermal
properties of the air at different temperature levels and mainly
due to the lower density of the fluid. At this point, it is important
to state that higher flow rate leads to higher useful energy produc-
tion and also to higher pressure losses; two factors which contrary
influence on the exergetic efficiency. Thus, the global maximum of
the exergetic efficiency is observed in an intermediate flow rate
which combines high useful thermal output and reasonable pres-
sure losses. Table 6 includes the results for the optimum cases of
Fig. 3b for various flow rates. More specifically, thermal efficiency,
exergetic efficiency, pressure drop, air outlet temperature, receiver
mean temperature and heat transfer coefficient between absorber
and fluid are given in this table. The results of this table show that
there is no reason for examining greater flow rates because in the
highest examined case of 22,500 l/min, the pressure losses are high
and the maximum exergetic output is only 16.41%, lower than all
the other maximum points for the other examined flow rates.

Table 4
Validation results with SNL tests.

Cases Gb uair Tam Tin Vfluid Tout (°C) gth (%)

(W/m2) (m/s) (°C) (°C) (l/min) SNL Model Deviation SNL Model Deviation
1 933.7 2.6 21.2 102.2 47.7 124.0 124.5 0.387% 72.51 73.28 1.06%
2 968.2 3.7 22.4 151.0 47.8 173.3 167.4 0.358% 70.90 72.31 1.99%
3 982.3 2.5 24.3 197.5 49.1 219.5 220.1 0.251% 70.17 71.23 1.51%
4 909.5 3.3 26.3 250.7 54.7 269.4 269.3 0.037% 70.25 69.33 1.31%
5 937.9 1.0 26.2 297.8 55.5 316.4 316.8 0.136% 67.98 67.03 1.40%
6 880.6 2.9 28.8 299.0 55.6 317.2 316.7 0.151% 68.92 66.57 3.41%
7 903.2 4.2 27.5 355.9 56.3 374.0 373.7 0.070% 63.82 62.12 2.66%
8 920.9 2.6 31.1 379.5 56.8 398.0 397.6 0.108% 62.34 60.06 3.66%
Mean – – – – – – – 0.187% – – 2.12%
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 281

Table 5
Detailed exergetic analysis for the examined cases of the validation procedure.

Cases gex Es Eu Eloss Ed Eloss,opt Eloss,th Ed,s-r Ed,r-f

(%) (W) (W) (W) (W) (W) (W) (W) (W)
1 18.74 33,939 6359 8665 18,915 8364 301 14,622 4293
2 24.98 35,183 8788 9161 17,234 8671 490 14,033 3201
3 29.28 35,678 10,445 9538 15,695 8793 745 13,284 2411
4 32.66 33,018 10,783 9199 13,036 8137 1062 11,602 1434
5 34.88 34,049 11,876 10,011 12,162 8392 1619 11,000 1162
6 34.38 31,948 10,982 9458 11,508 7874 1584 10,485 1023
7 35.30 32,779 11,572 10,708 10,499 8078 2630 9729 770
8 34.90 33,391 11,653 11,381 10,357 8229 3152 9637 720

(a) Thermal oil

(b) Air
Fig. 2. Thermal efficiency (a) for thermal oil case (b) for air case.

3.2. Parametric exergetic analysis
3.2.1. Parametric exergetic analysis for thermal oil case
The results for the exergetic flow streams are given in this sec-
tion. Fig. 5 shows the exergetic losses which for the examined
cases. These losses are getting higher with the temperature
increase. The exergetic losses are associated with the optical and
the thermal losses. The optical losses are constant for all the exam-
ined cases because the incident angle and the solar irradiation have
selected to be constant. On the other hand, the thermal exergetic
losses are influenced by the operating temperature, as Fig. 6 shows.
The shapes of the curves of Figs. 5 and 6 are similar because the
total losses are the sum of the constant optical losses and of the
thermal losses. It is essential to state that the high thermal effi-
ciency of the PTC operating with thermal oil makes the thermal
losses and consequently the exergetic thermal losses to be gener-
ally low, especially in temperature levels up to 500 K. The exergetic
losses are higher for lower temperature levels as it is proved by
Figs. 5 and 6. This result is based on the lower thermal efficiency
in lower flow rates which leads to higher thermal losses and con-
sequently to higher exergetic losses.
The next important parameter in the exergetic analysis is the
exergy destruction. Two are the main reasons of exergy destruction
in PTC; the destruction from the sun to the receiver and from
282 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292

(a) Thermal oil

(b) Air
Fig. 3. Exergetic efficiency (a) for thermal oil case (b) for air case.

makes the receiver to be warmer and there is lower exergetic

Fig. 4. Pressure drop for the examined cases with air.
receiver to fluid. The total exergy destruction is getting lower for
higher inlet temperature levels and for lower flow rates, as Fig. 7
shows. Respective results are obtained by Fig. 8 for the exergy
destruction from the sun to the receiver. Higher fluid temperature
destruction while the absorber converts the solar energy into inter-
nal energy with the respective increase in its temperature. More-
over, lower flow rate makes the fluid to have greater mean
temperature and consequently the receiver is warmer, the fact that
reduces the exergy destruction between sun and receiver. Fig. 9
depicts the exergy destruction from the receiver to the fluid which
is associated with the heat transfer from the hot tube to the work-
ing fluid. Again higher temperature leads to lower exergy destruc-
tion because of the increase in the heat transfer coefficient
between fluid and absorber which makes the temperature differ-
ence between fluid and receiver relatively lower. Furthermore,
the greater exergy destruction is observed between sun and recei-
ver because in this case, the temperature difference is greater and
higher amounts of exergy are lost during the solar energy captur-
ing by the receiver.
Fig. 10 shows similar results with the previous figures but in
this case, the flow rate is the main parameter in the horizontal axis,
while four temperature levels are selected to be shown (300 K,
400 K, 500 K and 600 K). With a quick look in this figure, it is
shown that after 100 l/min, the presented parameters seem not
to have significant variation. Moreover, lower temperature levels
(300 K and 400 K) are associated with higher thermal efficiency
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 283

Table 6
Optimum exergetic operation for various flow rates.

Vfluid Tin,opt nth nex DP Tout Tr hfluid

(l/min) (K) (–) (–) (Pa) (K) (K) (W/m2 K)
5000 400 0.5473 0.2359 865 683.5 771.2 72
7500 450 0.5753 0.2508 1485 672.8 749.6 92
10,000 500 0.5738 0.2526 2191 683.9 750.9 109
12,500 550 0.5568 0.2438 2961 705.7 764.3 122
15,000 550 0.5847 0.2313 4007 686.6 741.9 140
17,500 550 0.6051 0.2119 5193 671.5 723.6 158
20,000 600 0.5697 0.1895 6147 708.0 754.4 167
22,500 600 0.5839 0.1641 7518 665.7 742.7 183

Fig. 8. Exergy destruction from the sun to receiver for the examined cases with
Fig. 5. Exergetic losses for the examined cases with thermal oil. thermal oil.

Fig. 9. Exergy destruction from receiver to fluid for the examined cases with
Fig. 6. Exergetic thermal losses for the examined cases with thermal oil. thermal oil.

Fig. 7. Exergy destruction for the examined cases with thermal oil.
(Fig. 10a) but also lower exergetic efficiency (Fig. 10b). It is inter-
esting that the exergetic losses (Fig. 10c) are higher in greater tem-
perature levels, while the exergy destruction is higher at lower
temperatures (Fig. 10d). Thus, the exergy efficiency curves in
Fig. 10b present strange behavior: in lower temperature levels
the greater flow rate reduces the exergetic efficiency while in
higher temperature levels the greater flow rates are beneficial
exergetically. This result is reasonable because in low-
temperature levels lower flow rate makes the mean fluid temper-
ature higher, giving exergetic output possibilities, while in higher
temperature levels higher flow rate is needed for reducing the
increased thermal losses. Fig. 10e and 10f exhibit the exergy
destruction from the sun to receiver and from receiver to the fluid
respectively. As it has been stated below, both these parameters
are greater in lower temperatures. However greater flow rate
increases the exergy destruction between sun and receiver and
reduces the exergy destruction between receiver and fluid.
284 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292

Fig. 10. The impact of the flow rate on the thermal and exergetic performance for various temperature levels with thermal oil (a) Thermal efficiency, (b) Exergetic efficiency,
(c) Exergetic losses, (d) Exergy destruction, (e) Exergy destruction from the sun to receiver and (f) Exergy destruction from receiver to fluid.

3.2.2. Exergetic flow distribution for thermal oil case
In this section, the exergy flows distribution is examined in
details for thermal oil case. Fig. 11 shows the how the exergy from
the sun is separated in other exergetic streams for the case of
100 l/min flow rate which is a representative case, according to
the previous section. More specifically, the exergetic flows are
depicted in this figure for various inlet temperature levels and
the results present the way that the exergy is lost or destructed
in every case. Firstly, it is obvious that the solar exergy flow and
the exergetic optical losses are the same for all the cases. The use-
ful exergetic output is getting greater for higher inlet temperatures
but the increasing rate has a reducing trend. The exergetic losses
(optical and thermal) are lower than the exergy destruction and
this is an important conclusion for operation with thermal oil.
The exergetic losses are mainly created due to the optical losses,
while the exergy destruction is mainly caused by the exergy
destruction between sun and receiver.
More detailed investigation is presented in Fig. 12 where results
for four different flow rates (50 l/min, 100 l/min, 150 l/min and 200
l/min) are given. This figure makes clear that the exergetic destruc-
tion between sun and receiver is the most important reason for the
relatively low useful exergetic output, especially in operation with
low inlet temperatures. This depiction aids to understanding the
results of Fig. 3a, which proved that low flow rates have to be used
in lower temperature levels and vice versa. More specifically, the
green area in the Fig. 12a is smaller than in Fig. 12d in low-
temperature levels. This result proves that the exergetic output is
a bit higher in the case of lower flow rate in low inlet temperatures.
On the other hand, in high-temperature levels, the case with higher
flow rate leads to lower exergetic thermal losses, lower exergetic
destruction from receiver to the fluid and only a bit higher exergy
destruction from the sun to the receiver, and thus totally higher
exergetic output is taken compared to the low flow rate case.
Table 7 includes the results of exergetic flow distribution with
the fractions to the total exergetic input, for four flow rates (50 l/
min, 100 l/min, 150 l/min and 200 l/min). For the flow rate equal
to 50 l/min, the exergetic performance is ranged from 2.67% to
36.55%, while for the other flow rates of 100 l/min, 150 l/min
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 285

Fig. 11. Exergy flows for various values of the parameter [(Tin  Tam)/Gb] with thermal oil flow rate equal to 100 l/min.

Fig. 12. Exergy flow distribution in the solar collector for various values of the parameter [(Tin  Tam)/Gb] and for thermal oil flow rates (a) 50 l/min, (b) 100 l/min, (c) 150 l/
min and (d) 200 l/min.

and 200 l/min the respective ranges are 1.38% to 36.97%, 0.93% to
37.12% and 0.70% to 37.19% respectively.
3.2.3. Parametric exergetic analysis for air case
This section is devoted to presenting the exergetic flow streams
distribution during the solar energy conversion to useful heat.
Fig. 13 exhibits the exergetic losses for all the examined cases with
air. The curves in this figure prove that higher inlet temperature
leads to greater exergetic losses, while higher flow rate leads to
lower exergetic losses. Similar results are obtained for exergetic
thermal losses in Fig. 14 because the exergetic optical losses are
the same for all the examined cases. It is essential to state that
the greater part of the total exergetic losses are consisted of the
thermal losses because of the low thermal efficiency of the solar
286 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292

Table 7
Exergetic analysis for various inlet temperatures and flow rates for thermal oil case.

Vfluid (l/min) Tin (°C) gth gex Eloss/Es Ed/Es

50 300 0.7477 0.0267 0.2480 0.7253
350 0.7452 0.1331 0.2491 0.6178
400 0.7399 0.2125 0.2516 0.5359
450 0.7312 0.2722 0.2562 0.4716
500 0.7179 0.3166 0.2638 0.4196
550 0.6987 0.3475 0.2758 0.3767
600 0.6713 0.3655 0.2938 0.3407
100 300 0.7509 0.0138 0.2469 0.7393
350 0.7484 0.1246 0.2477 0.6277
400 0.7439 0.2069 0.2497 0.5434
450 0.7364 0.2691 0.2534 0.4775
500 0.7249 0.3157 0.2598 0.4245
550 0.7078 0.3490 0.2700 0.3810
600 0.6834 0.3697 0.2857 0.3446
150 300 0.7518 0.0093 0.2467 0.7440
350 0.7494 0.1215 0.2474 0.6311
400 0.7451 0.2049 0.2491 0.5460
450 0.7381 0.2679 0.2526 0.4795
500 0.7272 0.3153 0.2585 0.4262
550 0.7110 0.3494 0.2681 0.3825
600 0.6876 0.3712 0.2830 0.3458
200 300 0.7522 0.0070 0.2466 0.7464
350 0.7499 0.1200 0.2472 0.6328
400 0.7457 0.2039 0.2488 0.5473
450 0.7389 0.2674 0.2521 0.4805
500 0.7283 0.3151 0.2578 0.4271
550 0.7125 0.3497 0.2671 0.3832
600 0.6898 0.3719 0.2815 0.3466

Fig. 15. Exergy destruction for the examined cases with air.
Fig. 13. Exergetic losses for the examined cases with air.

Fig. 14. Exergetic thermal losses for the examined cases with air. Fig. 16. Exergy destruction from the sun to receiver for the examined cases with air.
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 287

Fig. 17. Exergy destruction from the sun to receiver for the examined cases with air.
collector for operation with air. On the other hand, the exergetic
thermal losses are relatively lower for the case of thermal oil, as
it is proved in the previous section, in Figs. 11 and 12.
The exergy destruction is given in Figs. 15–17 for various flow
rates and inlet temperatures. The total exergy destruction is shown
in Fig. 15, while the exergy destructions from the sun to the recei-
ver and from the receiver to the fluid are shown in Figs. 16 and 17
respectively. All these figures prove that higher inlet temperatures
lead to lower exergy destruction because the system operates at
higher temperature levels (receiver and fluid), the fact that reduces
the exergetic destruction. Higher flow rate leads to higher exergy
destruction both from the sun to receiver and from receiver to
fluid, and consequently, the total exergy destruction increases with
higher flow rate. At this point, it is essential to comment the results
of Fig. 17 about the exergy destruction from receiver to the fluid. In
the thermal oil case (Fig. 9), higher flow rate leads to lower exergy
destruction, while for air case (Fig. 17), the result is not the same.
More specifically, for the air case, the pressure losses play a

Fig. 18. The impact of the flow rate on the thermal and exergetic performance for various temperature levels with air (a) Thermal efficiency, (b) Exergetic efficiency, (c)
Exergetic losses, (d) Exergy destruction, (e) Exergy destruction from the sun to receiver and (f) Exergy destruction from receiver to fluid.
288 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292
Fig. 19. Exergy flows for various values of the parameter [(Tin  Tam)/Gb] with air flow rate equal to 10,000 l/min.
Fig. 20. Exergetic analysis of the useful output into the irreversibility terms for
various air flow rate when the inlet temperature is 500 K.
significant role in the exergy destruction between receiver and
fluid, with higher flow rate to lead to high exergy losses and totally
the exergy destruction to be high for great flow rates. This state-
ment is one of the main reasons for the lower exergetic perfor-
mance in the air case compared to the thermal oil case.
Fig. 18 illustrates the respective results with the previous fig-
ures with the flow rate in the horizontal axis. This depiction is
needed in this work in order to interpret the results better. All
the parameters present variable behavior with the different flow
rate, something different than Fig. 10 for operation with thermal
oil. Fig. 18a shows that higher inlet temperature leads to lower
thermal efficiency and the flow rate of 1000 l/min is the minimum
possible for achieving high thermal performance. Fig. 18b exhibits
the exergetic performance and proves that different flow rates
have to be selected at different temperatures. Fig. 18c shows that
after 10,000 l/min, the exergetic losses are approximately constant
with the curves of greater temperature level to lead to higher exer-
getic losses. Fig. 18d, 18e and 18f prove that higher flow rates and
lower inlet temperatures create higher exergy destruction in the
total system, from the sun to the receiver and from receiver to fluid
respectively.
3.2.4. Exergetic flow distribution for air case
This section is devoted to presenting the exergy flow distribu-
tion with various depictions. Fig. 19 shows the exergy separation
into different exergy streams for the optimum case of 10,000 l/
min, as it is proved by Fig. 3b. According to this figure, the useful
exergy output is maximized for inlet temperature equal to 500 K,
while according to Fig. 11 for thermal oil, it has an increasing rate
with the temperature. Moreover, the exergy destructions are lower
for greater inlet temperatures and the exergetic losses (total and
thermal) are higher. Comparing again the results between Figs. 11
and 19, higher exergetic thermal losses are observed in Fig. 19 for
operation with air because of the lower thermal efficiency in this
case.
Fig. 20 explains with details the exergy destruction from recei-
ver to the fluid. This exergy destruction differs between the cases
of thermal oil and air which are given in Figs. 9 and 17 respectively.
Thus Fig. 20 is added in this section for interpreting the results for
air case and to discuss them properly. As it has been stated below,
the significant pressure losses play an important role in the exergy
destruction from receiver to the sun, making these losses to be
greater for higher air flow rates. The optimum temperature level
of 500 K is selected to be examined as the most representative case
for the present solar collector. According to Eq. (29), the useful
exergy (Eu) output is calculated by using the useful thermal output
(Qu) and the irreversibilities, which are expressed with two terms;
one for the temperature increase [m
cp
ln(Tout/Tin)] and one for the
pressure losses [m
cp
Tam
DP/(qfluid
Tfluid)]. Fig. 20 proves that the
useful exergetic output is a small part of the total useful thermal
output, while the highest exergetic destruction is a result of the
temperature increase term. Moreover, the pressure losses term is
an important factor in higher flow rates and this is the reason for
the existence of optimum flow rate for operation with air.
An also interesting depiction is given in Fig. 21 for the flow rates
of 5000 l/min, 10,000 l/min, 15,000 l/min and 20,000 l/min. This
figure proves with a clear way the great importance of the thermal
losses of the receiver which are the main cause for the existence of
the optimum inlet temperature exergetically. Moreover, the exergy
destruction between receiver and fluid is also important, especially
in low-temperature levels and at high flow rates. In these cases, the
pressure losses are higher according to Fig. 4. The useful exergy
output is obviously maximized for higher temperatures levels
when the flow rate increases. Table 8 includes the results of
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 289

Fig. 21. Exergy flow distribution in the solar collector for various values of the parameter [(Tin  Tam)/Gb] and for thermal oil flow rates (a) 5000 l/min, (b) 10,000 l/min, (c)
15,000 l/min and (d) 20,000 l/min.

Table 8
Exergetic analysis for various inlet temperatures and flow rates for air case.

Vfluid (l/min) Tin (°C) gth gex Eloss/Es Ed/Es

5000 300 0.6595 0.1783 0.3017 0.5200
400 0.5473 0.2359 0.3818 0.3823
500 0.4305 0.2232 0.4699 0.3069
600 0.3227 0.1838 0.5536 0.2626
700 0.2262 0.1346 0.6299 0.2355
800 0.1407 0.0829 0.6983 0.2188
900 0.0649 0.0319 0.7595 0.2086
10,000 300 0.7274 0.0797 0.2583 0.6620
400 0.6686 0.2170 0.2956 0.4874
500 0.5738 0.2526 0.3625 0.3849
600 0.4583 0.2306 0.4487 0.3207
700 0.3365 0.1778 0.5429 0.2793
800 0.2166 0.1097 0.6375 0.2528
900 0.1027 0.0350 0.7290 0.2360
15,000 300 0.7407 0.0225 0.2512 0.7713
400 0.7045 0.1536 0.2721 0.5743
500 0.6333 0.2238 0.3199 0.4563
600 0.5290 0.2248 0.3955 0.3798
700 0.4030 0.1802 0.4911 0.3287
800 0.2670 0.1079 0.5975 0.2946
900 0.1294 0.0202 0.7075 0.2723
20,000 300 0.7454 0.1313 0.2490 0.8823
400 0.7192 0.0730 0.2631 0.6639
500 0.6625 0.1683 0.2997 0.5320
600 0.5697 0.1895 0.3654 0.4451
700 0.4462 0.1565 0.4579 0.3856
800 0.3027 0.0858 0.5694 0.3448
900 0.1496 0.0086 0.6913 0.3173
290 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292
Fig. 22. Exergetic efficiency comparison between Therminol VP1 for flow rate 100 l/
min and air for flow rate 1000 l/min.
Fig. 23. Exergetic loss fraction comparison between Therminol VP1 for flow rate
100 l/min and air for flow rate 1000 l/min.
Fig. 24. Exergy destruction fraction comparison between Therminol VP1 for flow
rate 100 l/min and air for flow rate 1000 l/min.
exergetic flow distribution with fractions to the total exergetic
input, for four flow rates.
3.3. Final evaluation of the collector performance and discussion of the
results
This section is devoted to comparing the exergetic performance
between the operation with Therminol VP1 and air. The objective
of this discussing section is not only to determine which fluid leads
to higher performance but also to investigate the reasons for the
different exergetic performance. Figs. 22–24 show the exergetic
performance, the exergetic loss fraction and the exergy destruction
fraction respectively. These results are obtained for the optimum
flow rates of 100 l/min for the thermal oil and for 10,000 l/min
for the air. These flow rates are the best candidates for performing
a suitable comparison, as it has been commented in Sections 3.1
and 3.2.
Fig. 22 shows that Therminol VP1 leads to higher exergetic out-
put for inlet temperatures from 400 K to 625 K, while in the other
cases air is more beneficial. Moreover, it is important to state that
for temperatures greater than 625 K, the thermal oil is not exam-
ined due to limitations. In this region, air leads to relatively low
exergetic output, the fact that makes it a non-strongly recom-
mended choice. It is also important to state for 500 K inlet temper-
ature, which maximizes the air case exergetic performance, the
exergetic efficiency is 31.57% for thermal oil and 25.26% for air; a
significant difference which is based on many factors. Firstly, the
pressure losses make the air case to be less efficient. Pressure
losses practically are associated with the demanded pumping work
in order the air to pass through the solar collector with the suitable
flow rate. Moreover, the existence of pressure losses creates limita-
tions on the maximum possible flow rate and leads to using rela-
tively lower flow rates in the gas working fluid cases. It is useful
to note that higher flow rate, as well as higher specific heat capac-
ity, leads to greater thermal efficiency on solar collector [52]. In the
present analysis for an inlet temperature of 500 K, the mass flow
rates for air and Therminol VP1 are 0.1161 kg/s and 1.1481 kg/s
respectively, while the specific heat capacity 1048 J/kgK and
2126 J/kgK also respectively. The pressure losses for the case of
the Therminol VP1 are not presented because they are extremely
lower than the air case due to the high density of the liquid work-
ing fluid. More specifically, the pressure losses of the thermal oil
for the examined case (500 K and 100 l/min) are 296 Pa, about
ten times lower than 2191 Pa for the air (500 K and 10,000 l/
min). The density of thermal oil and air for these cases is 974 kg/
s and 0.594 kg/s respectively, values which are extremely different.
Fig. 23 illustrates the exergetic loss fraction which is greater for
the air case. Moreover, Fig. 24 shows the exergy destruction frac-
tion which is higher for thermal oil case. However, the difference
in the exergetic loss is higher, from 400 K to 625 K, and the final
result is lower exergetic efficiency for the air in this temperature
region.
Figs. 25 and 26 depict the Grassmann diagrams for the thermal
oil and air cases respectively. The thermal oil is examined for 500 K
and 100 l/min, while the air for 500 K and 1000 l/min. This is a suit-
able comparison because the working fluids are compared at the
same temperature level, which is representative, and for their
respective optimum flow rates. This depiction proves the different
exergetic behavior of the examined working fluids. In the thermal
oil case, the main reason for the exergetic reduction is the exergy
destruction from the sun to receiver, while for the air case all the
exergetic thermal losses are high with respectable exergetic
destruction both from the sun to receiver and from receiver to
fluid. This note proves that in the air case, exergetic losses and
destruction are both important; while in the case of thermal oil
the exergetic losses are more important.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, the exergetic analysis of a solar parabolic collector
is presented with many details. Different combination of flow rates
and inlet temperature levels for the two examined working fluids
(Therminol VP1 and air) are presented. The examined solar para-
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292 291

Fig. 25. Grassmann diagram for operation with thermal oil, with flow rate equal to 100 l/min and inlet temperature equal to 500 °C.

Fig. 26. Grassmann diagram for operation with air, with flow rate equal to 1000 l/min and inlet temperature equal to 500 °C.

bolic trough collector is LS-2 and the analysis is performed with
EES in steady state conditions with a validated thermal model.
The reason for examining a liquid and a gas working fluid is the sig-
nificant high-pressure losses in the gas working fluid case.
According to the final results, the thermal oil was found to have
relatively high thermal and exergetic performance with 72.49% and
31.57% respectively for inlet temperature 500 K and 100 l/min flow
rate. The exergetic losses fraction is found to be 25.98% and the
exergy destruction fraction 42.45%. The exergetic efficiency is
found to be depended on the inlet temperature in a great way,
while the flow rate is not so important with the flow rate of 100
l/min to be adequate. Moreover, it is important to state that the
exergetic destruction from the sun to the receiver is one of the
most important reasons for the exergetic difference between solar
exergy input and exergetic output.
For operation with air, the flow rate is a determining factor for
achieving high exergetic performance. The global maximum of the
exergetic efficiency was found to be 25.62% for 500 K inlet temper-
ature and 10,000 l/min flow rate. In this case, the exergetic loss
fraction is 36.25% while the exergy destruction fraction is 38.49%.
It is essential to state that the exergetic losses are greater in the
air case and especially the exergetic thermal losses part due to
the lower thermal efficiency in operation with air. The pressure
losses are extremely important in the exergy destruction for the
air case and they make the exergetic losses from receiver to the
fluid to be generally high, something not observed in the thermal
oil case.
To conclude, the exergetic analysis is a vital evaluating tool of
the solar collector, especially in the cases of concentrating collec-
tors which are used for power production. The optimization and
the assessment of these technologies have to be performed with
exergetic terms, while the analytical exergetic analysis with exer-
getic losses and exergy destructions is needed in order to find the
reasons for the reduction in the useful exergetic output.
References
[1] Loni R, Kasaeian AB, Mahian O, Sahin AZ. Thermodynamic analysis of an
organic rankine cycle using a tubular solar cavity receiver. Energy Convers
Manage 2016;127:494–503.
[2] Krajačić G, Duić N, Vujanović M, Kılkısß S
ß , Rosen MA, Al-Nimr MA. Sustainable
development of energy, water and environment systems for future energy
technologies and concepts. Energy Convers Manage 2016;125:1–14.
[3] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. Parametric analysis and optimization
of a solar assisted gas turbine. Energy Convers Manage 2017;139:151–65.
292 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis / Energy Conversion and Management 149 (2017) 275–292
[4] Qiu Y, He Y-L, Li P, Du B-C. A comprehensive model for analysis of real-time
optical performance of a solar power tower with a multi-tube cavity receiver.
Appl Energy 2017;185(1):589–603.
[5] Seitz M, Johnson M, Hübner S. Economic impact of latent heat thermal energy
storage systems within direct steam generating solar thermal power plants
with parabolic troughs. Energy Convers Manage 2017;143:286–94.
[6] Mao Q, Zhang L, Wu H, Liu X. Design and calculation of a new storage tank for
concentrating solar power plant. Energy Convers Manage 2015;100:414–8.
[7] Marschall E, Adams G. The efficiency of solar fiat-plate collectors. Sol Energy
1978;20:413–4.
[8] Manfrida G. The choice of an optimal working point for solar collectors. Sol
Energy 1985;34(6):513–5.
[9] Altfeld K, Leiner W, Fiebig M. Second law optimization of flat-plate solar air
heaters Part I: The concept of net exergy flow and the modeling of solar air
heaters. Sol Energy 1988;41(2).
[10] Petela R. Exergy of heat radiation. ASME J Heat Transf 1964;68:187–92.
[11] Spanner DC. Introduction to thermodynamics. London: Academic Press; 1964.
[12] Jeter SM. Maximum conversion efficiency for the utilization of direct solar
radiation. Sol Energy 1981;26:231–6.
[13] Parrott JE. Theoretical upper limit to the conversion efficiency of solar energy.
Sol Energy 1978;21(3):227–9.
[14] Badescu V. Is Carnot efficiency the upper bound for work extraction from
thermal reservoirs. Europhys Lett 2014;106:18006.
[15] Petela R. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol Energy 2003;74
(6):469–88.
[16] Sahu MK, Prasad RK. Exergy based performance evaluation of solar air heater
with arc-shaped wire roughened absorber plate. Renewable Energy 2016;96
(A):233–43.
[17] Hedayatizadeh M, Sarhaddi F, Safavinejad A, Ranjbar F, Chaji H. Exergy loss-
based efficiency optimization of a double-pass/glazed v-corrugated plate solar
air heater. Energy 2016;94:799–810.
[18] Bahrehmand D, Ameri M, Gholampour M. Energy and exergy analysis of
different solar air collector systems with forced convection. Renewable Energy
2015;83:1119–30.
[19] Bahrehmand D, Ameri M. Energy and exergy analysis of different solar air
collector systems with natural convection. Renewable Energy
2016;74:357–68.
[20] Evola G, Marletta L. Exergy and thermoeconomic optimization of a water-
cooled glazed hybrid photovoltaic/thermal (PVT) collector. Sol Energy
2014;107:12–25.
[21] Rajoria CS, Agrawal Sanjay, Tiwari GN, Chaursia GS. Exergetic and
enviroeconomic analysis of semitransparent PVT array based on optimum
air flow configuration and its comparative study. Sol Energy
2015;122:1138–45.
[22] Yazdanpanahi J, Sarhaddi F, Adeli MM. Experimental investigation of exergy
efficiency of a solar photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water collector based on
exergy losses. Sol Energy 2015;118:197–208.
[23] Yazdanifard F, Ebrahimnia-Bajestan E, Ameri M. Investigating the performance
of a water-based photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) collector in laminar and
turbulent flow regime. Renewable Energy 2016;99:295–306.
[24] Kalogirou SA, Karellas S, Braimakis K, Stanciu C, Badescu V. Exergy analysis of
solar thermal collectors and processes. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2016;56:106–37.
[25] Kalogirou SA, Karellas S, Badescu V, Braimakis K. Exergy analysis on solar
thermal systems: a better understanding of their sustainability. Renewable
Energy 2016;85:1328–33.
[26] Gupta MK, Kaushik SC, Ranjan KR, Panwar NL, Siva Reddy V, Tyagi SK.
Thermodynamic performance evaluation of solar and other thermal power
generation systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:567–82.
[27] Saidur R, BoroumandJazi G, Mekhlif S, Jameel M. Exergy analysis of solar
energy applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(1):350–6.
[28] Biencinto M, González L, Zarza E, Díez LE, Muñoz-Antón J. Performance model
and annual yield comparison of parabolic-trough solar thermal power plants
with either nitrogen or synthetic oil as heat transfer fluid. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;87:238–49.
[29] Petela R. Exergy analysis of the solar cylindrical-parabolic cooker. Sol Energy
2005;79:221–33.
[30] Ozturk HH. Experimental determination of energy and exergy efficiency of the
solar parabolic-cooker. Sol Energy 2004;77:67–71.
[31] Ozturk M, Cicek Bezir N, Ozek N. Optical, energetic and exergetic analyses of
parabolic trough collectors. Chin Phys Lett 2007;24(7):1787–90.
[32] Padilla RV, Fontalvo A, Demirkaya G, Martinez A, Quiroga AG. Exergy analysis
of parabolic trough solar receiver. Appl Therm Eng 2014;67(1–2):579–86.
[33] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA, Gkinis G. Thermal enhancement of
solar parabolic trough collectors by using nanofluids and converging-diverging
absorber tube. Renewable Energy 2016;94:213–22.
[34] Guo J, Huai X, Liu Z. Performance investigation of parabolic trough solar
receiver. Appl Therm Eng 2016;95:357–64.
[35] Ferraro V, Marinelli V. An evaluation of thermodynamic solar plants with
cylindrical parabolic collectors and air turbine engines with open Joule-
Brayton cycle. Energy 2012;44(1):862–9.
[36] Ferraro V, Imineo F, Marinelli V. An improved model to evaluate
thermodynamic solar plants with cylindrical parabolic collectors and air
turbine engines in open Joule-Brayton cycle. Energy 2013;53:323–31.
[37] Qiu Y, Li M-J, He Y-L, Tao W-Q. Thermal performance analysis of a parabolic
trough solar collector using supercritical CO2 as heat transfer fluid under non-
uniform solar flux. Appl Therm Eng 2016 (available online 10 September
2016).
[38] Hernández-Román MA, Manzano-Ramírez A, Pineda-Piñón J, Ortega-Moody J.
Exergetic and thermoeconomic analyses of solar air heating processes using a
parabolic trough. Collector 2014;16:4612–24.
[39] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA, Daniil I. The use of gas working fluids
in parabolic trough collectors – an energetic and exergetic analysis. Appl
Therm Eng 2016;109(A):1–14.
[40] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Daniil I, Antonopoulos KA. The impact of internal
longitudinal fins in parabolic trough collectors operating with gases. Energy
Convers Manage 2017;135:35–54.
[41] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. A detailed working fluid investigation
for solar parabolic trough collectors. Appl Therm Eng 2017;114:374–86.
[42] Padilla V. Simplified methodology for designing parabolic trough solar power
plants PhD thesis. University of South Florida; 2011.
[43] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A novel parabolic trough solar collector
model – Validation with experimental data and comparison to Engineering
Equation Solver (EES). Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:268–81.
[44] Leinhard IV J, Leinhard V J. A Heat Tranfer Textbook. fourth
ed. USA: Philogiston Press; 2012. p. 354–60.
[45] Forristall R. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar
receiver implemented in engineering equation solver. Colorado: National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL); 2003.
[46] Swinbank WC. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. QJR Meteorol Soc
1963;89:339–40.
[47] Dudley V, Kolb G, Sloan M, Kearney D. SEGS LS2 solar collector-test results.
Report of Sandia National Laboratories, SAN94-1884; 1994.
[48] F-Chart Software. Engineering Equation Solver (EES); 2015. <http://www.
fchart.com/ees>.
[49] http://www.therminol.com/pages/bulletins/therminol_VP1.pdf.
[50] McBride BJ, Zehe MJ, Gordon S. NASA Glenn Coefficients for Calculating
Thermodynamic Properties of Individual Species, NASA/TP-2002-211556;
Sept. 2002.
[51] http://www.loikitsdistribution.com/files/syltherm-800-technical-data-sheet.
pdf.
[52] Bellos E, Korres D, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. Design, simulation and
optimization of a compound parabolic collector. Sustain Energy Technol
Assess 2016;16:53–63.