Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Performance comparison of evacuated U-tube solar collector integrated parabolic reflector with conventional evacuated U-tube solar collector

  • Published:
Sādhanā Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present study, performance of the fabricated evacuated U-tube solar collector integrated parabolic reflector (EUSCIPR) and conventional evacuated U-tube solar collector (CEUSC) are analysed experimentally. With reference to humid climatic conditions, a 3D model is developed for comparing the thermal performance of EUSCIPR with a CEUSC. Developed model is validated with field test data and found in good agreement among them. Heat transfer fluid (HTF) temperature difference, energy intake/heat gain and thermal efficiency of the solar collectors are investigated experimentally at various ambient temperatures and solar intensities. From the experimental investigations, it was observed that, in a sunny day, the energy losses incurred across the solar collectors was high during peak hour (1: 20 PM). From the numerical studies, it is found that within the given operating range, the thermal efficiency of the EUSCIPR is 14.1% higher than CEUSC. Further, for a given inlet condition, the contour plots for variation of HTF temperature along the U-tube of EUSCIPR and CEUSC are predicted numerically, and the obtained results are discussed in detail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A c :

Absorber tube surface area (m2)

c p :

SPECIFIC heat (kJ/kg-K)

D c :

Absorber tube diameter (m)

F12:

View factor from parabolic reflector to evacuated tube surface

g z :

Gravitational pull along the Z-direction (m/s2)

I :

Solar intensity (kW/m2)

k :

Material thermal conductivity (W/m-K)

L c :

Absorber tube length (m)

\({\dot{m}}\) HTF :

HTF flow rate (g/s)

P :

Pressure (Pa)

Q HTF :

HTF heat gain (kW)

T :

Temperature (K)

T w :

Temperature variation for CEUSC (K)

T wp :

Temperature variation for EUSCIPR (K)

V HTF :

HTF velocity (m/s)

α c :

Coating material absorptivity

β :

Thermal expansion coefficient (1/K)

η :

Thermal efficiency (%)

Ωq :

Effective heat absorbed (kW/m2)

μ :

Dynamic viscosity of HTF (Pa-s)

τ g ,i :

Inner glass transmissivity

τ g ,o :

Outer glass transmissivity

ρ r :

Reflectivity of the parabolic reflector (kg/m3

amb :

Ambient air

c :

Conventional

HTF,o :

HTF outlet

HTF,i :

HTF inlet

i :

Inlet

m :

Mean

o :

Exit/outlet

p :

Parabolic

φ :

Reference

CEUSC :

Conventional evacuated U-tube solar collector

EUSCIPR :

Evacuated U-tube solar collector integrated parabolic reflector

HTF :

Heat transfer fluid

NHG :

Normalized heat gain

TF :

Turbine type flow meter

WT :

Water tank

References

  1. Sabhia M A, Saidur R, Mekhilef S and Mahian O 2015 Progress and latest developments of evacuated tube solar collectors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 51: 1038–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vishal D and Avadesh Y 2017 Effect of Pressure Drop and Air Mass Flow Rate on the Performance of Concentric Coaxial Glass Tube Solar Air Collector: A Theoretical Approach. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering. 1–11

  3. Morrison G L, Budihardjo I and Behnia M 2005 Measurement and simulation of flow rate in a water-in-glass evacuated tube solar water heater. Sol. Energy. 78: 257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Laingdong M, Tianyi Z, Zhang J and Zhao D 2016 Numerical study on the heat transfer characteristics of filled-type solar collector with U-tube. Applied Thermal Engineering. 107: 642–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Naik B K, Varshney A, Muthukumar P and Somayaji C 2016 Modelling and performance analysis of U-type evacuated tube solar collector using different working fluids. Energy Procedia. 90: 227–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaya H, Arslan K and Elturgal N 2018 Experimental investigation of thermal performance of an evacuated U-Tube solar collector with ZnO/Etylene glycol-pure water nanofluids. Renewable Energy. 122: 329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gao Y, Fan R, Zhang X Y, An Y J, Wang M X, Gao Y K and Yu Y 2014 Thermal performance and parameter analysis of a U-pipe evacuated solar tube collector. Solar Energy. 107: 714–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Naik B K and Muthukumar P 2019 Performance assessment of evacuated U-tube solar collector: a numerical study. Sādhanā. 44(23): 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  9. Naik B K, Bhowmik M and Muthukumar P 2019 Experimental investigation and numerical modelling on the performance assessments of evacuated U-Tube solar collector systems. Renewable Energy. 134: 1344–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ataee S and Ameri M 2015 Energy and exergy analysis of all-glass evacuated solar collector tubes with coaxial fluid conduit. Solar Energy. 118: 575–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Singh I and Vardhan S 2021 Experimental investigation of an evacuated tube collector solar air heater with helical inserts. Renewable Energy. 163: 1963–1972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yildirim E and Yurddas A 2021 Assessments of thermal performance of hybrid and mono nanofluid U-Tube solar collector system. Renewable Energy. 171: 1079–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dinçer I and Zamfirescu C 2016 Drying Phenomena: Theory and Applications (Appendix–B). 1st edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Valencia J J and Quested P N 2008 Thermophysical Properties. ASM Handbook 15: 468–481

    Google Scholar 

  15. Naik B K, Mahendra C, Patel S and Ramesh P 2021 Performance assessment of waste heat/solar driven membrane-based simultaneous desalination and liquid desiccant regeneration system using a thermal model and KNN machine learning tool. Desalination. 505: 114980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kline S J and Mc-Clintock F C 1953 Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments. J. Mech. Eng. 3–12

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical Engineering Department, IIT Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, 781 039, India

    B KIRAN NAIK & P MUTHUKUMAR

  2. Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam, Tamil Nadu, 638 401, India

    S PREMNATH

  3. Sustainable Thermal Energy Systems Laboratory (STESL), Mechanical Engineering Department, NIT Rourkela, Rourkela, Odisha, 769 008, India

    B KIRAN NAIK

Authors
  1. B KIRAN NAIK
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S PREMNATH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P MUTHUKUMAR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B KIRAN NAIK.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

KIRAN NAIK, B., PREMNATH, S. & MUTHUKUMAR, P. Performance comparison of evacuated U-tube solar collector integrated parabolic reflector with conventional evacuated U-tube solar collector. Sādhanā 46, 137 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-021-01656-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-021-01656-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation