Constructal solar chimney conguration

A. Koonsrisuk
a
, S. Lorente
b
, A. Bejan
c,
*
a
Suranaree University of Technology, School of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Engineering, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
b
Universit de Toulouse, UPS, INSA, LMDC (Laboratoire Materiaux et Durabilite des Constructions), 135, avenue de Rangueil, F-31 077 Toulouse Cedex 04, France
c
Duke University, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Durham, NC 27708-0300, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 15 June 2009
Received in revised form 13 August 2009
Accepted 13 August 2009
Available online 12 October 2009
Keywords:
Constructal
Solar chimney
Solar tower
Morphing
Design-evolution
Svelteness
Design
a b s t r a c t
In this study, we describe the constructal-theory search for the geometry of a solar chimney. The objec-
tive is to increase the power production over the area occupied by the plant. The ratio height/radius, max-
imum mass ow rate and maximum power under the constraints of a xed area and volume are
determined. We nd that the power generated per unit of land area is proportional to the length scale
of the power plant. The analysis is validated by a detailed mathematical model. Pressure losses are
reported in terms of the dimensionless length scale of the system, and are illustrated graphically. They
indicate that the pressure drop at the collector inlet and at the transition section between the collector
and chimney are negligible, and the friction loss in the collector can be neglected when the svelteness
(Sv) of the entire ow architecture is greater than approximately 6.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The solar chimney is a power plant that uses (1) solar radiation
to raise the temperature of the air and (2) the buoyancy of warm
air to accelerate the air stream owing through the system. The
main features of the solar chimney are sketched in Fig. 1. Air is
heated as a result of the greenhouse effect under a transparent roof
(the collector). Because the roof is open around its periphery, the
buoyancy of the heated air draws a continuous ow from the roof
perimeter into the chimney. A turbine is set in the path of the air
current to convert the kinetic energy of the owing air into
electricity.
In 1981 a solar chimney prototype of 50 kW and chimney
height nominally at 200 m was built in Manzanares, Spain. The
plant operated from 1982 to 1989, and was connected to the local
power network between 1986 and 1989 [1]. This project demon-
strated the viability and reliability of the solar chimney concept.
Since then, numerous investigations have been conducted to pre-
dict the ow in solar chimneys. Generally, it was found that the
electricity yielded by a solar chimney is in proportion with the
intensity of global solar radiation, collector area and chimney
height. Based on a mathematical model, Schlaich [1] reported that
optimal dimensions for a solar chimney do not exist. However, if
construction costs are taken into account, thermoeconomically
optimal plant congurations may be established for individual
sites. Pretorius and Krger [2] showed numerically that the power
generation is a function of the collector roof shape and inlet height.
Maia et al. [3] carried out a simulation study and found that the
height and diameter of the chimney are the most important
geometric dimensions for solar chimney design. Zhou et al. [4]
reported the maximum chimney height in order to avoid negative
buoyancy, and the optimal chimney height for maximum power
output. They found that the maximum height and the optimal
height increase with collector radius.
A common feature in these ndings is that the plant efciency is
very low, and that it increases with the plant size. Consequently
only large-scale plants, in which the chimney heights are 1000 m
or more, were proposed in the literature. In the 1990s, a project
in which a solar chimney power plant with the capacity of
100 MW was proposed for construction in Rajasthan, India, but
was not built. Its collector had a radius of 1800 m and a chimney
height and diameter of 950 m and 115 m, respectively [5]. The Aus-
tralian government planned to build a 200 MW commercial plant
with a 1000-m high concrete chimney. Recently, the plant was
downsized to 50 MW and a 480-m high chimney [6], because the
construction and safety of such a massive structure poses signi-
cant engineering challenges.
The work described in this paper was stimulated by the quest
for fundamental principles for improved designs, and focuses on
the generation of shape and structure in the pursuit of global per-
formance of the ow system. It is based on constructal theory [7].
0017-9310/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2009.09.026
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 660 5309; fax: +1 919 660 8963.
E-mail address: abejan@duke.edu (A. Bejan).
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327333
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ i j hmt
In this paper, we show that the conguration of the solar chimney
can be determined along with the scaling rules for being able to
scale-up and scale-down the design.
2. Geometry
The analysis is based on a simple model in order to demonstrate
analytically the opportunity for searching for a constructal cong-
uration if the system architecture is free to morph. Physical details
that are neglected are discussed in the concluding paragraphs. The
simplied analysis is validated by a more realistic numerical model
in Sections 7 and 8.
The system geometry is simplied to a horizontal disc above
the ground and a vertical cylinder in the center of the disc. The
solar chimney conguration has the four dimensions shown in
Fig. 1: D, H, R and h. We assume that the ow is fully developed
and turbulent in all the ow passages, and that the friction factors
in the vertical tube (f
y
) and the horizontal channel (f
x
) are approx-
imately constant. The air ow rate ( _ m) enters at atmospheric
temperature (T
0
) and is heated with uniform heat ux (q
00
) as it
ows to the base of the chimney, where its temperature reaches
T
0
+ DT. It is assumed that the solar radiation absorbed by the
chimney is negligible with respect to the solar heat absorbed by
the collector.
3. Pumping effect
The air stream is driven by the buoyancy effect due to the ver-
tical column of hot air (height H, temperature T
0
+ DT), which com-
municates with the ambient air of the same height and lower
temperature (T
0
). The net pressure difference that drives the air
stream in the tower is [8]
DP q
T
0
gH q
T
0
DT
gH qbgHDT 1
where q is the average air density and b is the coefcient of volu-
metric thermal expansion.
The pumping effect DP is opposed by friction in the vertical
tube (DP
y
) and in the horizontal channel (DP
x
) and the acceleration
due to ow area reduction (DP
acc
). For the vertical tube, the longi-
tudinal force balance is
DP
y
pD
2
=4 s
w
pDH 2
where s
w
is the wall shear stress. The wall shear stress is dened in
terms of friction factor as [9] Fig. 1. The main features of a solar chimney.
Nomenclature
A horizontal area, m
2
A
c
cross-sectional area, m
2
A
r
roof area, m
2
C
1,2,3,4
constants
c
p
specic heat at constant pressure, J kg
1
K
1
D tower diameter, m, Fig. 1
f friction factor
g gravitational acceleration, m s
2
H tower height, m, Fig. 1
h roof height, m, Fig. 1
K
inlet
collector inlet loss coefcient
M Mach number
_ m mass ow rate, kg s
1
q
00
solar heat ux, W/m
2
R ideal gas constant, J kg
1
K
1
R roof radius, m, Fig. 1
Sv svelteness number, Eq. (40)
T
0
atmospheric temperature, K
U velocity, m s
1
V volume, m
3
_
W ow power, W
z Cartesian coordinate in vertical direction
Greek symbols
b volumetric coefcient of thermal expansion, 1/K
DP pressure drop, Pa
DP
acc
acceleration pressure drop, Pa
DP
inlet
collector inlet pressure drop, Pa
DP
junction
pressure drop at the collector-to-chimney transition
section, Pa
DT temperature difference in roof portion, K
e
junction
loss coefcient at the collector-to-chimney transition
section
U auxiliary function, Eq. (18)
k Lagrange multiplier
q density, kg/m
3
q
0
air density at T
0
, kg/m
3
P
quantity proportional to the total power generation rate
s uid shear stress
W auxiliary function, Eq. (23)
Subscripts
max maximum
w wall
x horizontal passage
y vertical passage
1 roof inlet
2 roof outlet
3 chimney inlet
4 chimney outlet
328 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327333
s
w
f
1
2
qU
2
3
Combining Eqs. (2) and (3), we obtain
DP
y
f
y
4H
D
1
2
qU
2
y
4
where U
y
_ m=qpD
2
=4. The pressure loss along the horizontal
channel (under the roof) is determined from the force balance on
the ow control volume under the roof,
DP
x
2pRh s
w
2pR
2
5
where 2pR
2
represents the total contact area (roof and ground sur-
face) in the horizontal channel. Consequently, the pressure loss in
the horizontal passage is
DP
x
f
x
R
h
1
2
qU
2
x
6
where U
x
is the average air velocity at the entrance,
U
x
_ m=q2pRh. The horizontal ow experiences acceleration and
heating in a channel with variable cross-sectional area A
c
[10]
dP
qU
2
1 M
2

dA
c
A
c

q
00
dA
r
_ mc
p
T

7
Next we assume that in the horizontal ow q
00
, c
p
, q and T are
approximately constant. The Mach number, M, is negligible, and
Eq. (7) reduces to
DP
acc

_ m
2
2q
0
1
A
2
2

1
A
2
1
!

_ mq
00
2ph
2
q
0
c
p
T
0
ln
R
D=2
8
where 1 and 2 denote the channel entrance and channel exit,
respectively. This equation shows that the pressure increases due
to heat addition (the second term), and it decreases due to ow area
reduction toward the roof center (the rst term). An order of mag-
nitude analysis reveals that the rst term is much greater than the
second term. In addition, because A
2
1
>> A
2
2
, Eq. (8) becomes
DP
acc

_ m
2
q
0
p
2
D
4
=8
9
The pressure losses are matched by the driving pressure differ-
ence, DP = DP
y
+ DP
x
+ DP
acc
, or
qbDTgH f
y
2H
D
q
_ m
qpD
2
=4
!
2
f
x
R
2h
q
_ m
q2pRh

2
2q
2 _ m
qpD
2
!
2
10
Eq. (10) relates the ow rate ( _ m) to the excess temperature
reached at the base of the cylinder (DT). The second equation
needed for determining _ m and DT is the rst law of thermodynam-
ics written for the horizontal channel as a control volume:
q
00
pR
2
_ mc
p
DT 11
We assume that D is considerably smaller than R (i.e., A
2
1
>> A
2
2
),
so that the area serving as solar collector is roughly pR
2
, instead of
p[R
2
(D/2)
2
]. By eliminating DT between Eqs. (10) and (11), we
obtain
_ m
3

C
1
R
2
H
C
2
H
D
5

C
3
Rh
3

1
D
4
12
where C
1,2,3
are three constants,
C
1

q
2
bgq
00
p
3
8c
p
13
C
2
4f
y
14
C
3

f
x
64
15
The corresponding excess temperature at the base of the tower
is
DT
pq
00
R
2
_ mc
p
16
4. More air ow rate
To see how the geometry inuences the air mass ow rate, as-
sume that the smaller dimensions (D, h) are xed. In this case, _ m
increases monotonically with the tower height (H) when the roof
radius (R) is xed. On the other hand, if H is xed, _ m increases
monotonically with R. The large dimensions (H, R) cannot increase
independently and indenitely because the global size of the
installation is constrained. There are many size constraints that
are in play (cf. Section 8). One is overall size of the whole installa-
tion, which is roughly proportional to the surface area of the chim-
ney and the roof,
A pDH pR
2
17
To maximize the _ mfunction (12) with respect to H and R subject
to constraint (17) is equivalent to seeking the extremum of the
aggregate function formed by combining the right sides of Eqs.
(12) and (17),
U
C
1
R
2
H
C
2
H
D
5

C
3
Rh
3

1
D
4
kDH R
2
18
where k is a Lagrange multiplier. Because H and R are of the same
order, and both H and R are much greater than D and h, the terms
C
2
H/D
5
and 1/D
4
dominate C
3
/Rh
3
in the denominator of the rst
term on the right side of Eq. (18). Solving oU/oH = 0 and oU/
oR = 0, and eliminating k, we obtain
R C
2
H
2
DH

1=2
19
and the maximized air ow rate
_ m
max

C
1
C
2
H
3
C
1
DH
2
C
2
H
D
5

1
D
4
!
1=3
20
Note that in writing Eq. (20) we have neglected h, because of
order of magnitude reasoning. As a result, Eq. (20) shows only
the effect of D, which until now was treated as a known
parameter.
5. More power
The generation of power calls for designs that maximize _ m and
DP as a product, i.e. not _ m alone. The thermodynamic limit of the
power produced by a turbine inserted in a duct with the air stream
_ m driven by the pressure difference DP is
_
W _ mDP=q C
4
HR
2
21
where
C
4

bgq
00
p
c
p
22
To determine the optimal H and R for which
_
W is maximal, we
construct the linear combination of Eqs. (21) and (17),
A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327333 329
W C
4
HR
2
kDH R
2
23
and seek the extremum of W. After eliminating k we obtain H = R
2
/
D, or
H
R

A=2p
1=2
D
24
The power level that corresponds to the optimal congu-
ration is
_
W
max
C
4
A
2
4p
2
D
25
This result shows that the maximal power level increases rap-
idly as the available size increases. If A
1/2
represents the length
scale of the entire ow system, then it is reasonable to expect that
D will vary more or less in proportion with A
1/2
. This leads to the
conclusion that
_
W
max
varies as A
3/2
.
In addition, because R
2
scales with A [cf. Eq. (17)], it follows that
the maximum power generated per unit of land area
_
W
max
=pR
2

varies in proportion with the length scale of the installation, A

1/2
.
The important conclusion is that the maximum use of land surface
requires the use of larger solar chimney power plants (see also Sec-
tion 9).
6. Volume constraint
An alternative to the size constraint (16) is the total ow vol-
ume constraint,
V
p
4
D
2
H pR
2
h 26
The results of maximizing
_
W of Eq. (21) subject to the volume
constraint are
H
R
2

4h
D
2
27
R
2

V
2ph
28
_
W
max

C
4
V
2
p
2
hD
2
29
Once again, the power output increases with the total size
squared. If h and D scale with the linear scale of the entire instal-
lation, V
1=3
, then
_
W
max
scales with V. In this case the power pro-
duced per unit of land area
_
W
max
=pR
2
increases with V/V
2/3
= V
1/3
,
which represents the length scale of the power plant. This scaling
is the same as the one found at the end of the preceding section.
In conclusion, the economies-of-scale trend is the same as at the
end of the preceding section. On this trend, we comment further
in Section 9.
7. Model validation
The results developed in Sections 5 and 6 were based on a sim-
ple model and scale analysis. In order to validate its conclusions
[Eqs. (25) and (29)] and we developed a detailed mathematical
model for the ow in a solar chimney. The pressure change due
to acceleration in the collector is computed using Eq. (8). The tem-
perature is estimated from the energy equation for the roof portion
T
2
T
1

q
00
A
r
_ mc
p
30
The pressure change along the chimney is calculated from the
momentum equation for ow through a vertical tube with uniform
cross-section,
P
3
P
4

1
2
q
3
q
4
gH
_ m
A
c

2
1
q
4

1
q
3

31
where 3 and 4 denote the chimney entrance and exit, respectively.
Hydrostatic equilibrium requires that
dP
dz
qg 32
According to Calvert [11], when a parcel of atmospheric air ex-
pands slowly to a lower atmospheric pressure without exchange
of heat, the temperature change with altitude is written as
T T
1

g
c
p
z 33
Because air behaves as an ideal gas, Eqs. (32) and (33) yield
P
4
P
1
1
g
c
p
T
1
H

cp=R
34
and, in accordance with Eq. (33),
T
4
T
3

g
c
p
H 35
and
q
2

P
2
RT
2
; q
3

P
3
RT
3
; q
4

P
4
RT
4
36
The turbine is not modeled in this analysis: the ow properties
at point 2 are the same as those at point 3. The pressure potential
is the available pressure difference between the tower base and
the surroundings, therefore the available turbine power is esti-
mated as
_
W
_ m
q
2
P
1
P
2
37
The computations were made with a uid dynamics code
[12] used extensively and validated in Koonsrisuk and Chitsom-
boon [13]. To validate the present model, we rst compared
its results with those of CFD simulations. Fig. 2 shows that
the results of the model agree very well with those of CFD
computations.
We based the calculations on the Manzanares prototype. The
collector had a diameter of 244 m and a height of 1.85 m, and it
had a 194.6-m high chimney with a diameter of 10.16 m. Koonsri-
suk and Chitsomboon [14] tested several published mathematical
models and found that changing h does not affect noticeably the
power or efciency of the system. Here we investigated two sce-
narios: when H and R varied while D and h were kept constant,
and when H and D varied while R and h were kept constant.
The constraints were xed area or xed volume, Eqs. (17) and
(26).
Fig. 3 shows that when we vary H and R the theoretical maximal
power is in agreement with the prediction of Eqs. (25) and (29) for
both cases of xed surface and xed volume. Because H/R
2
= 1/D
when the surface is xed [cf. Eq. (24)], and H/R
2
= 4h/D
2
when
the volume is xed [cf. Eq. (27)], we nd that the optimal H of
the xed surface case is higher than the H for xed volume (R, h
and D are the same), resulting in more power when the surface
is xed.
Note from Fig. 3 that the case with xed R and xed volume of-
fers the highest maximal power. However, we cannot use Eq. (21)
to determine the optimal chimney geometry. The highest maximal
power occurs somewhere between the predictions made with Eqs.
(25) and (29). In conclusion, we can use Eq. (25) to determine the
optimal H/R
2
.
330 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327333
8. Additional losses
In the analysis of Section 3, only the pressure losses due to fric-
tion in the collector and chimney and due to acceleration in the
collector were taken into consideration. In a real plant there are
other losses, such as the collector inlet pressure drop (DP
inlet
),
the local loss at the transition section between the collector outlet
and the chimney inlet (DP
junction
) and the pressure drop due to
obstructions such as supports or internal braces inside the collec-
tor and chimney. To justify the validity of the analysis of Section
3, we evaluated and compared the magnitude of these additional
losses.
The effect of obstructions is not considered in the present
study because we considered the system with the simplest
geometry, i.e. a collector and a chimney without obstructions.
Therefore we include DP
inlet
, DP
acc
[cf. Eq. (8)], DP
x
[cf. Eq. (6)],
DP
junction
and DP
y
[cf. Eq. (4)] into the model presented in Sec-
tion 7. In Krger and Buys [15], the collector inlet pressure drop
is dened as
DP
inlet
K
inlet
q
1
V
2
1
=2 q
1
V
2
1
=2 38
where K
inlet
is the collector inlet loss coefcient and according to
Hedderwick [16], K
inlet
= 1. The pressure drop at the collector-to-
chimney transition section is
DP
junction
e
junction
q
2
V
2
2
=2 39
where e
junction
is the loss coefcient at the junction. This coefcient
depends on the inlet guide vane (IGV) stagger angle and the ratio
h/D. Kirstein and von Backstrm [17] developed a semi-empirical
formula to predict this coefcient. If the IGV stagger angle and
h/D are 22.5 and 0.356, respectively, the loss coefcient is 0.056.
To evaluate the wall friction loss coefcient, we adopted from
Von Backstrm et al. [18] the chimney wall friction loss coefcient
f
y
= 0.0085. In addition, according to the numerical simulations the
Reynolds number based on collector diameter is of order 10
6
,
therefore we used the relation f
x
= 0.046Re
1/5
[9] for collector wall
friction.
Fig. 2. Comparison between theoretical model and numerical model.
Fig. 3. The power predictions from theoretical model.
A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327333 331
To investigate the effect of power plant geometry on the signif-
icance of junction and other local losses, we used the concept of
svelteness Sv, which is the global geometric property dened as
[19]
Sv
R H
pR
2
h pD
2
H=4
1=3
40
The svelteness is the ratio between the external length scale
and the internal length scale of the system. The external length
scale is the ow distance from the roof entrance to the chimney
top. The internal length scale is V
1/3
, where V is the internal ow
space of the entire system.
The numerical part of the analysis was conducted for the Man-
zanares plant with varying H and R. From the results plotted in
Fig. 4 we see that DP
inlet
and DP
junction
are negligible when com-
pared with DP
acc
. This means that the neglect of local losses in Sec-
tion 3 is justied.
Furthermore, DP
x
can be neglected when R is xed and H is var-
ied. On the other hand, when R is varied and H is xed, DP
x
/DP
acc
increases sharply when Sv approaches approximately 6. It is evi-
dent from Eq. (40) that Sv decreases as R increases. Therefore,
when Sv > 6 the losses due to DP
inlet
, DP
junction
and DP
x
can be ne-
glected, and the analysis is much simpler. The threshold Sv > 6 is in
good agreement with the order of magnitude threshold Sv > 10 de-
rived in Ref. [7] for the design domain where local pressure losses
are negligible.
9. Conclusions
In this paper, we outlined based on constructal theory the
search for the conguration of the solar chimney power plant.
The maximum mass ow rate and maximum ow power were
determined based on a simple model. We found that the maximum
ow power is a function of the length scale of the plant. Larger
plants produce more power per unit of territory.
Comparisons between the simple model and predictions based
on a detailed model were also presented. The inclusion of local
pressure losses into the analysis and numerical simulations of
the ow eld validated the assumption that the collector inlet
pressure drop and the pressure drop over the junction between
the collector and chimney are negligible. We also found that when
the svelteness is greater than 6 the friction loss in the collector can
be neglected as well.
The ratio
_
W
max
=pR
2
is proportional to the energy conversion
efciency of the power plant, because the collector area (pR
2
) is
proportional to the solar heat input. The conclusion that the ef-
ciency increases in proportion with the length scale of the power
plant is valid as long as the simple model used here is valid. It
does not mean that the efciency can increase indenitely with
the size, all the way to exceeding even the Carnot efciency.
The reason is that when the size of the chimney and the roof in-
creases there are other losses that come into play and terminate
the scenario described with the simple model. Examples are the
convective heat losses through the walls of the vertical cylinder
and the horizontal disc, which increase with size.
Size limitations are also posed by the weight of the tower and
the lateral force due to wind drag, which may lead to tower col-
lapse. If the speed of catastrophic winds in the region is known,
then the expected horizontal load on the tower is proportional to
the projected area (HD). The bending moment in the bottom
cross-section of the tower scales as H
2
D. Assuming that the cylin-
der wall thickness is proportional to D, then the allowable bending
stress is proportional to the slenderness ratio squared (H/D)
2
. In
conclusion, the strength of the construction material dictates the
slenderness of the tower.
Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by the Royal Golden Jubilee (RGJ)
Ph.D. Program of the Thailand Research Fund (TRF), and was con-
ducted while Atit Koonsrisuk was a Visiting Research Scholar in
the Constructal Design Group at Duke University. The work of
Profs. Adrian Bejan and Sylvie Lorente was supported by a grant
from the National Science Foundation. We thank Dr. Tawit Chit-
somboon for his many constructive comments on the manuscript.
References
[1] J. Schlaich, The Solar Chimney, Edition Axel Menges, Stuttgart, Germany, 1995.
[2] J.P. Pretorius, D.G. Krger, Solar chimney power plant performance, J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 128 (2006) 302311.
[3] C.B. Maia, A.G. Ferreira, R.M. Valle, M.F.B. Cortez, Theoretical evaluation of the
inuence of geometric parameters and materials on the behavior of the
airow in a solar chimney, Comput. Fluids, doi: 10.1016/j.compuid.2008.
06.005.
[4] X. Zhou, J. Yang, B. Xiao, G. Hou, F. Xing, Analysis of chimney height for solar
chimney power plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 178185.
[5] M. Rohmann, Solar Chimney Power Plant, Bochum University of Applied
Sciences, 2000.
[6] EnviroMissions Solar Tower of Power, 2006. Available from: <http://www.
seekingalpha.com/article/14935-enviromission-s-solar-tower-of-power>.
[7] A. Bejan, S. Lorente, Design with Constructal Theory, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
[8] A. Bejan, Convection Heat Transfer, third ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2004.
[9] A. Bejan, Heat Transfer, Wiley, New York, 1993.
Fig. 4. Pressure losses scaled by the pressure acceleration in a collector as a function of svelteness.
332 A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327333
[10] T. Chitsomboon, A validated analytical model for ow in solar chimney, Int. J.
Renew. Energy Eng. 3 (2001) 339346.
[11] J.G. Calvert, Glossary of atmospheric chemistry terms (recommendations
1990), Pure Appl. Chem. 62 (11) (1990) 21672219.
[12] ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS CFX, Release 10.0: Reference Guide, ANSYS, 2005.
[13] A. Koonsrisuk, T. Chitsomboon, Dynamic similarity in solar chimney modeling,
Sol. Energy 81 (2007) 14391446.
[14] A. Koonsrisuk, T. Chitsomboon, Accuracy of theoretical models in the
prediction of solar chimney power plant performance, Sol. Energy, in press,
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2009.05.012.
[15] D.G. Krger, J.D. Buys, Performance evaluation of a solar chimney power plant,
in: ISES 2001 Solar World Congress, Adelaide, Australia, 2001.
[16] R.A. Hedderwick, Performance evaluation of a solar chimney power plant,
M.Sc. Eng.-Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2001.
[17] C.F. Kirstein, T.W. Von Backstrm, Flow through a solar chimney power plant
collector-to-chimney transition section, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 128 (2006) 312317.
[18] T.W. Von Backstrm, A. Bernhardt, A.J. Gannon, Pressure drop in solar power
plant chimneys, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 125 (2003) 165169.
[19] S. Lorente, A. Bejan, Svelteness, freedom to morph, and constructal multi-scale
ow structures, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 44 (2005) 11231130.
A. Koonsrisuk et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 327333 333