4.6 Article

A comparison of three test methods for determining the thermal performance of parabolic trough solar collectors

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY
Volume 99, Issue -, Pages 11-27

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2013.10.009

Keywords

Parabolic trough solar collector; ASHRAE 93; EN 12975-2; Dynamic test

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51106150, 51106148, 51006096]
  2. National Key Technologies R&D Program of China [2012BAA05B06]
  3. National High-tech R&D Program (863 Program) of China [2012AA05 0603]
  4. Beijing Science and Technology Program [D121100001012001]
  5. International S&T Cooperation Program of China [2011DFA61920]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on the theoretical background and experimental results, a study on the extensive comparison of three outdoor test methods for determining the thermal performance of parabolic trough solar collectors is presented. These test methods are the steady-state method in the ASHRAE 93 standard, the quasi-dynamic method in the EN 12975-2 standard and a new dynamic method developed by Xu et al. They are discussed in detail and are explained in view of the on-site parabolic trough solar collectors in the real service. In addition, the experimental data acquired from four typical test cases at the transient working conditions is applied to obtain the parameters of three mathematical models in the test methods and predict the collector outlet temperature, and collector output power. Furthermore, the comparative analysis on the projections of the essential thermal performance indicators shows the advantages and disadvantages of these three test models according to both the practical operation and weather conditions, which proves that the dynamic model may be the potential core of a quick, reliable on-site thermal performance test method at some future time. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available