Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

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

Performance analysis of a solar chimney power plant design aided with T

reflectors
⁎
Faisal M. Hussaina,b, Fahad A. Al-Sulaimana,b,
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Saudi Arabia
b
Center of Research Excellence in Renewable Energy (CoRERE), King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A new design of a solar chimney power plant (SCPP) with enhanced incident solar radiation, realised using
Solar chimney power plant (SCPP) reflectors, was developed and validated. A detailed thermodynamic analysis was performed to access the per-
Reflectors formance of the new SCPP design, and its performance was compared with a conventional SCPP. All the for-
Energy mulated energy and exergy balance equations were solved simultaneously using engineering equation solver
Efficiency
software. Study reveals that the increase in incident solar radiation using reflectors enhances the efficiency and
power output by 22.61% and 133%, respectively. The improvement in power output is due to the higher mass
flow rate. Furthermore, a laboratory scale working model of an SCPP aided with reflectors was built to determine
how well the empirical results agree with the results obtained using the analytical model developed in the
present study. The model developed predicts the empirical values of temperature with an accuracy of 5%. The
proposed model was evaluated in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia to be used as an illustrative example. For solar irra-
diation data of 2017, the average energetic efficiency and the power output for the SCPP design aided with
reflectors are 0.641% and 230 kW, respectively. Moreover, the power output, energy efficiency, variation of the
temperature of the floor and air, variation of the mass flow rate and inlet velocity of the turbine, and the density
variation of air in the collector for each month of the year are reported. Also, the results of the comparative study
with a conventional SCPP are presented.

1. Introduction
The operation of a solar chimney power plant (SCPP) is based on
one of the solar thermal technologies and it is one of the less efficient
among them. However, considering that it is a cheap source of elec-
tricity, the technology is economically feasible. In an SCPP the natural
draft is guided through a chimney, utilizing the solar radiant energy to
impart an ascending thrust on air to run a turbine. An SCPP is con-
structed by the combination of three devices traditionally used for en-
ergy conversion; namely a greenhouse, a lengthened chimney at the
centre of the greenhouse, and a wind turbine placed inside the chimney.
Such a setup allows the transformation of radiant energy from the sun
into electrical energy in two steps. In the first step, the collector
transforms radiant energy into thermal energy by the greenhouse effect,
and the design of the collector allows the heated air to flow radially
towards the chimney at its centre. In the next step, the chimney
transforms the thermal potential into kinetic energy, and the wind
turbine converts the kinetic energy into electricity using a generator. A
simple model of an SCPP consists of a film of glass or plastic drawn
evenly above an area of the ground. Consequently, when the radiation
is incident on the floor, the temperature of the air between the ground
and the cover above it rises. The height of the cover of the collector
above the ground gradually increases towards the centre of the SCPP.
This design allows the continuous smooth passage of heated air, which
flows through the long tubular chimney without turbulence, thereby
diminishing the eddy losses. A collector with these characteristics can
transform a considerable fraction of the radiant energy into thermal
energy.
Many detailed research articles have been published on the opera-
tion of an SCPP based on analytical, numerical, and experimental
analysis since the inception of the concept of an SCPP in Manzanares,
Spain [1]. However, only a very few published attempts of enhancing
the performance of the system are available. One of the attempts was to
extend the operation of an SCPP to periods without solar radiation by
introducing water-filled tubes for thermal energy storage as reported by
Kreetz [2]. The water-filled tubes were placed on the ground so that the
incident solar radiation will heat the water when solar radiation is
available. During night time when the temperature of the air in the

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM), Saudi Arabia.
E-mail address: fahadas@kfupm.edu.sa (F.A. Al-Sulaiman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.043
Received 16 April 2018; Received in revised form 11 September 2018; Accepted 14 September 2018
Available online 22 September 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman
Nomenclature
A area
CP specific heat at constant pressure
D diameter (m)
d height of the mirror from ground
E energy rate
H height (m)
h convective heat transfer coefficient
I solar irradiation
L length of the reflector
m distance of reflector from center of SCPP
ṁ mass flow rate
Nu Nusselt number
P pressure
R gas constant
R1 reflector
S solar insolation
T turbine
Tx temperature of the component ‘x’
w velocity
X exergy rate
ΔX exergy destruction rate
Subscripts representation
x-y from component x to y
Mn mode of energy content (enthalpy, kinetic or potential) at
state points (0,1,2,3) E.g., a1 (enthalpy at location 1)
collector drops, thermal energy stored in water inside the tubes during
daytime is released. However in a thorough study, Bernardes [3] found
that the power produced during the peak hours of sunshine is decreased
as part of the heat is absorbed by the water-filled tubes. Nevertheless, a
uniform power output is produced throughout day and night by an
SCPP with water-filled tubes. The power output is approximately 40%
of the peak power of a conventional SCPP, depending on the depth of
water stored.
Pasumarthi and sherif [4] proposed a mathematical model to esti-
mate the air temperature and power output of an SCPP. They examined
the effects of the ambient conditions and the geometry on the overall
power output. They also performed an experimental analysis of an SCPP
and proposed the following designs to enhance the power output; (i) A
design with a collector of greater slope, and (ii) A design with an ab-
sorber plate introduced between the ground and the glass cover. Both
designs enhanced the power output by 10–15% compared to a con-
ventional SCPP. Bilgen and Rheault [5] designed a sloped SCPP for hills
at high latitudes and evaluated its performance. As natural hills are
used as the collector field, the chimney height is reduced by 90%,
thereby reducing the construction and maintenance costs. However, the
cost of construction of a sloped collector is higher as it involves extra
civil work. The authors claim an efficiency of 0.48%, which is slightly
better than that of a conventional SCPP.
Balijepalli et al. [6] investigated a prototype of solar chimney power
plant and determined the performance of the prototype by evaluating
the pressure drop in the chimney and power output of the turbine. They
also performed the detailed study on selection of appropriate materials
for solar collectors, chimney, turbine and heat storage materials.
Koonsrisuk and Chitsomboon [7] performed the dynamic similarity of
solar chimney power plant and proposed the guide for experimental
study of flow in the prototype of solar chimney power plant. Moreover,
they performed the CFD analyses for three geometrically similar cases
and obtained similarity by using their proposed dimensionless variables
for plants of various sizes. Further the authors in their article [8]
31
Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42
Subscripts
a air
a enthalpy
amb ambient
ch chimney
d deck
E effective
e inlet
f floor
gr ground
m mirror or reflector
p potential energy
power power produced by a turbine
sky sky
s sun
w kinetic energy
0, 1, 2, 3 state points
Greek symbols
α angle of reflector
ε emissivity
η efficiency
κ thermal conductivity
ρ reflectivity or density
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant
τ transmissivity
φ shape factor
proposed the single dimensionless variable to establish a dynamic si-
milarity between a prototype and its scaled models and found that, if
the proposed dimensionless number is equal to one then the tempera-
ture distribution of the prototype to the real models is similar.
Asayesh et al. [9] optimized the solar chimney for desalination and
power generation by developing a one dimensional code for simulation.
Owing to very low efficiency of solar chimney power plant, solar de-
salination pond has been added under the collector of a solar chimney
power plant. By optimising they found that the desalination system may
only be installed in some regions of the collector instead of completely
covering the ground. Habibollahzade et al. [10] proposed an integrated
renewable system by performing the numerical study, for enhanced
power generation by integrating waste-to-energy (WTE) and solar
chimney power plant. The combination is performed by exploiting the
warm air of the condensers outlet of WTE plant in to the SCPP. By
combining these systems it was found that power output of SCPP was
increased by 7%.
Papageorgiou [11] proposed a new design for the chimney, which is
the component of an SCPP with the highest construction cost. He in-
itiated the use of the cost-effective idea of floating solar chimneys
(FSCs). An FSC is made up of successive balloon tubes filled with gases
lighter than air, which allows the chimney to float in the air. Due to
construction difficulties and the cost, the height of a conventional SCPP
chimney has to be limited. For a similar power output of a conventional
SCPP, the height of an FSC can be reduced by three times, making the
power produced 5 to 6 times cheaper. He also stated that constructing
SCPPs using 5% of the existing desert land in all the continents can
cater up to 50% of the global electricity demand.
Zhou et al. [12] proposed a novel concept for producing power by
integrating a solar collector with a man-made cavern in a mountain. A
mountain cavern, formed by an excavation in a mountain at a high
elevation, eliminates the necessity of constructing concrete chimneys,
which reduces the usage of material and the construction cost. Alrobaei
[13] has proposed a hybrid geothermal/SCPP/PV system in the
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman
southern region of Libya to enhance the production of a power house by
combining geothermal technology with the SCPP/PV unit to produce
power during the night. Hot water obtained from a geothermal source is
circulated over the floor of the SCPP to generate the flow of air and run
the SCPP. Hu et al. [14] assessed the performance of diffuser type solar
chimneys for power generation by evaluating the 2D numerical model.
Power generation capability for various designs of chimney viz., cy-
lindrical chimney with divergent outlet, cylindrical chimney with di-
vergent inlet and the fully divergent chimney were examined. Of all the
three designs, fully divergent chimneys were found to perform better in
comparison to conventional SCPP. Furthermore, a controlling approach
was proposed with the variable diffuser outlet. This accommodated to
change in area of the chimney top for compensating the fluctuation in
solar insolation and ultimately stabilising the power output. Ming et al.
[15] proposed a novel method of desalination by utilizing SCPP. As the
temperature of air along the SCPP increases, density and relative hu-
midity of air decreases. In this study, water is sprayed against the flow
of hot air to humidify the air and along the chimney over a certain
height as the temperature of air drops condensed water droplets are
collected.
Pretorius [16] further improved the second design proposed by
Pasumarthi and Sherif [17], by introducing a regulating mechanism to
control the air mass flow rate between the absorbing plate and floor.
The regulating mechanism was introduced to regulate the release of the
energy stored in the ground, depending on the demand for power from
the plant. Zuo et al. [18,19] integrated an SCPP with seawater desali-
nation and performed analytical and numerical analyses. The authors
proposed a design similar to that based on water-filled tubes proposed
by Kreetz [2]. In this design a water still is placed on the ground of an
SCPP and seawater is vaporized and the water vapour is cooled in the
still to obtain freshwater. Even though the combined solar energy
conversion is not high, the authors claim that the method is economical.
Islamuddin et al. [20,21] proposed the novel concept of introducing
an external heat source to an SCPP. They placed hollow rectangular
channels beneath the collector cover and passed exhaust gases (flue
gases) through them. The authors also developed a mathematical model
and performed numerical simulations, and validated their results using
the analytical model developed by Petela [22]. The overall efficiency of
the system, however, increased by only 1.14%. A major disadvantage of
this hybrid technique is that the required flue gas has to be transported
to the location of the SCPP or a thermal power plant should be in the
vicinity of the SCPP. Nizetic and co-workers [23] proposed the gen-
eration of convective gravitational vortices inside an SCPP. They de-
veloped a mathematical model, performed numerical simulations, and
conducted a cost analysis for the Mediterranean region. The method is
Fig. 1. A Schematic diagram of an SCPP aided with reflectors.
32
Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42
based on the concept of the tornado funnel. They placed the short
diffuser at the bottom of the chimney, i.e., below the turbine, to gen-
erate a vortex in the air. The presence of a vortex in the input of a
turbine is desirable as it would increase the efficiency by increasing the
pressure difference across the turbine.
The enhancement methods described above increases the output
power at most by 15% and most of the methods involve hybrid systems.
In the present study, the authors developed a mathematical model for a
new method of enhancement with the aim of obtaining a high power
output. In this model, reflectors are used to increase the radiation in-
cident on the floor of an SCPP. All the reflectors are arranged in a
pattern similar to that of a heliostat used with a solar tower, reflecting
radiation towards the deck. The study undertaken by Petela [22] is the
basis for the analysis of the SCPP aided with reflectors. The analysis for
the reflectors is elucidated in the study described below.
Therefore, the main objective of the present study is to streamline
the interpretative mathematical model of an SCPP aided with reflectors
and to conduct a comparative study with a conventional SCPP. A la-
boratory-scale working model of an SCPP aided with reflectors is also
built to determine the extent of agreement between the empirical re-
sults and the results obtained using the analytical model developed in
the present study. The results of this study will be a valuable reference
for researchers conducting studies on the optimization of a reflector
field for an enhanced SCPP aided with reflectors.
2. Geometric modeling
Fig. 1 depicts a schematic diagram of an SCPP aided with reflectors.
The geometric parameters of an SCPP without reflectors are described
in the previous study conducted by Petela [22]. All the mirrors are
placed around the deck, in a circular pattern such that it resembles the
field of heliostats uniformly reflecting radiation towards the deck. They
are placed in such a manner that all the radiation falling on a mirror is
reflected to the deck. The deck receives direct radiation due to reflec-
tion from a mirror, while the diffused radiation from a mirror is lost to
the sky and ground. A small amount of energy is lost from a mirror by
convective heat transfer to the atmosphere, i.e., due to absorption of
radiation by the mirror.
In Fig. 1, m is the distance of mirror from the centre of the SCPP, d is
the height of the lower edge of a mirror from the ground, L is the length
of a mirror placed at an angle α. As the mirrors are placed around the
deck in a concentric pattern, in the analysis conducted in this study the
location of a mirror is considered to be along the mean position of the
mirror field.
The ratio of the reflection of a mirror on to the deck to each mirror
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42

area is assumed to be one, which implies that the total area of mirrors Ea2 + Ew2 + Ep2 + Ed − ch = Ea3 + Ew3 + Ep3 + Ech − amb + Ech − sky + Ech − gr
required is equal to the area of the deck.
+ Ech − m (6)
Total area of deck
Number of mirrors = The energy balance for the air flowing in the chimney is depicted in
Area of each mirror (1)
Fig. 2f and described by Eq. (7), where Ea-ch is the convection heat
The geometry of SCPP under consideration is same as that of the transfer between the inner surface of the chimney and the air flowing
very first operational pilot plant constructed at Manzanares, Spain, in across locations 2 and 3.
1982 [1,24]. The dimensions of the SCPP and the positioning of a Ea2 + Ew2 + Ep2 =Ea − ch + Ea3 +Ew3 + Ep3 (7)
mirror with respect to the SCPP evaluated in this study are provided in
Table 1. The energy balance across the mirror surface is depicted in Fig. 2g
and described by Eq. (8), where Es-m is the radiant energy incident on
3. Energy modeling the mirror, Em-sky is the radiation exchange between the mirror and the
sky, Em-gr is the radiation heat transfer from the mirror to the ground,
The energy conservation principle was applied to each part of the and, Em-amb is the gain in energy by air surrounding the mirror by
SCPP, including the mirrors. All energy components are represented by convection heat transfer.
E. Seven energy balance equations based on the control volume ap- Es − m + Ed − m + Ech − m = Em − f + Em − amb + Em − sky + Em − gr (8)
proach for the surface of the floor, air in the collector, air in the
chimney, collector, turbine, chimney, and mirrors are used. They are All the terms in Eqs. (2)–(7), have been explained by Petela [22]
described in detail in the following sections (see Table 2). except the mirror modeling, which is described below.
The energy exchange processes at the floor are depicted in Fig. 2a The solar energy received by the mirror, Es-m is defined by Eq. (9).
and described by Eq. (2), where Es-f represents the solar radiation en- Es − m = IAm (9)
ergy absorbed by the floor, Em-f represents the solar radiation reflected
by the mirror on to floor, Ef-a represents the convection heat transfer where, I is the incident solar radiation on the earth surface, and Am is
between the floor and air, and Ef-d represents the radiation energy ex- the area of the mirror.
change between the floor and the deck. Solar energy reflected from mirror to the floor, Em-f is defined by Eq.
(10).
ES − f + Em − f = Ef − a + Ef − d (2)
Em − f = ρm τd εf IAm (10)
The energy components received by the air between the floor and
the deck are depicted in Fig. 2b and the energy balance is described by where, ρm is the reflectivity of the mirror, τd is the transmissivity of the
Eq. (3), where Ed-a and Ef-a are energies absorbed by air due to con- deck, and εf is the emissivity of the collector floor.
vective heat transfer from the deck and the floor, respectively. Ea1, Ew1, Energy radiated from the deck to the mirror, Ed-m is given by Eq.
and Ep1 are respectively the gain in the enthalpy of the air and the (11).
kinetic energy and potential energy at location 1 when compared to the 4
Ed − m = εd ϕd − m Ad σ (TdE −Tm4 ) (11)
atmospheric conditions, i.e., location 0. Ea0, Ew0, and Ep0 are respec-
tively the enthalpy, kinetic and potential energy of air at location 0. where, εd is the emissivity of the deck, φd-m is the fraction of energy
Ef − a + Ed − a + Ea0 + Ew0 + Ep0 = Ea1 + Ew1 + Ep1 (3) radiated from the deck to the mirror, Ad is the area of the deck, σ is the
Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and TdE and Tm are the effective tempera-
The energy balance for the collector (floor, deck, and air combined) ture of the deck and the mirror surface, respectively.
is depicted in Fig. 2c and described by Eq. (4), where Ed-sky is the ex- Energy radiated from the chimney to the mirror, Ech-m is given by
change of radiation energy between the deck and the sky, Ed-amb is the Eq. (12).
loss of energy from the deck to the atmosphere by convection heat 4
transfer, Ed-ch is the loss of energy from the deck due to radiation ex- Ech − m = εch ϕch − m Ach σ (Tch −Tm4 ) (12)
change between the deck and the outer chimney surface, and Ed-m is the
where, εch is the emissivity of the chimney, φch-m is the fraction of the
exchange of radiation energy between the deck and the mirror.
energy radiated from the chimney to the mirror, Ach is the area of the
Es − f + Em − f + Ea0 + Ew 0 + Ep0 = Ea1 + Ew1 + Ep1 + Ed − sky + Ed − amb outer chimney surface, and, Tch is the effective temperature of the
chimney surface.
+ Ed − ch + Ed − m (4) Energy radiated from the mirror to the sky, Em-sky is given by Eq.
The energy balance across the turbine is depicted in Fig. 2d and (13).
described by Eq. (5), where Epower is the power generated by the tur-
Table 1
bine, and Ea2, Ew2, and Ep2 are respectively the gain or loss in enthalpy
The dimensions of the SCPP aided with reflectors eval-
of air and the kinetic and potential energy at location 2, i.e., at the exit
uated in this study.
of the turbine.
Geometric parameter Value
Ea1 + Ew1 + Ep1 = Ea2 + Ew2 + Ep2 + EPower (5)
Df 240 m
The energy exchange at the chimney surface is depicted in Fig. 2e D1 16.97 m
and described by Eq. (6), where Ea3, Ew3, and Ep3 are respectively the D2 17.86 m
H1 4.243 m
gain or loss in enthalpy of air and the kinetic and potential energy at
He 0.3 m
location 3, i.e., at the exit of the chimney, Ech-sky is the radiation ex- H3 195 m
change between the chimney and the sky, Ech-gr is the radiation heat Area of each mirror 4 m2
transfer from the chimney to the ground, Ech-amb is the gain in energy by Number of mirrors 11,260
air surrounding the chimney by convection heat transfer, and Ech-m is m 150 m
L 2m
the radiation exchange between the mirror and the chimney surface.
d 10 m
Heat gained through solar radiation incident on the chimney surface is α 70°
negligible owing to the chimney being vertical and cylindrical in shape.

33
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42

Table 2
Line representation for the various modes of energy transfer.
Line representation Mode of energy

Radiation
Convection
Enthalpy, kinetic, and potential energy

Fig. 2d. Energy exchange at the turbine. (Energy balance for all parts of an
SCPP).

and, Tsky is the effective temperature of the sky.

Energy radiated from the mirror to the ground, Em-gr is given by Eq.
(14)
Fig. 2a. Energy exchange at the floor. (Energy balance for all parts of an SCPP).
Em − gr = εm ϕm − gr A σ (Tm4 −Tgr4 ) (14)
m

where, φm-gr is the fraction of the energy radiated from the mirror to the
ground, and, Tgr is the effective temperature of the ground.
Energy transfer from the mirror to the environment by convection is
given by Eq. (15).
Em − amb = Am hm − amb (Tm−Tamb) (15)
where, Tamb is the ambient temperature, and, hm-amb is the convective
heat transfer coefficient between the mirror and the atmosphere.
Convective heat transfer coefficient between the mirror and the
atmosphere is described by Eq. (16) according to McAdams [25] and
Fig. 2b. The energy components of the air flowing between the floor and the Duffie and Beckman [26].
deck. (Energy balance for all parts of an SCPP). W
hm − amb = 5
m2K (16)
The formula suggested by Swinbank [27] described by Eq. (17) is
used to determine the temperature of the sky.
Tsky = 0.0552∗T01.5 (17)
The formulae suggested by Petela [22] described by Eqs. (18)–(20)
are used to determine the mass flow rate, turbine inlet velocity and heat
transfer coefficient between floor and air.
π
ṁ = ∗D12 ∗w1 ∗ρa1
4 (18)

P0−P1 = ρa1 ∗w12 (19)

Nu∗κ
hf − a =
DE (20)
The shape factor relationships by summation are described by Eqs.
(21)–(23).
ϕd − m + ϕd − ch + ϕd − sky = 1 (21)

ϕch − m + ϕch − d + ϕch − gr + ϕch − sky = 1 (22)

Fig. 2c. Energy exchange at the collector. (Energy balance for all parts of an
SCPP).
ϕm − d + ϕm − ch + ϕm − gr + ϕm − sky = 1 (23)

Em − sky = εm ϕm − sky Am σ (Tm4 −Tsky

4
) The shape factors φd-m, φm-ch, φm-d, and, φch-m are determined by the
(13)
crossed-strings method described by Hottel [28]. The determination of
where, εm is the emissivity of the mirror, φm-sky is the fraction of the the shape factors φch-d and φd-ch is explained in Petela [22].
energy radiated from the mirror to the sky, Am is the area of the mirror, The energetic efficiency of an SCPP aided with reflectors is

34
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman
Fig. 2e. Energy exchange along the chimney surface. (Energy balance for all parts of an SCPP).
Fig. 2f. Energy distribution for the air flowing in the chimney. (Energy balance
for all parts of an SCPP).
described by Eq. (24).
Epower
ηenergy = ∗100
Esf + Emf (24)
4. Exergy modeling
Data from energy analysis can be used to interpret the results of
exergy analysis performed using exergy balance equations. Exergy is
represented by X and an exergy Eq. each was formulated for the floor,
air within the collector, collector, turbine, chimney, and the mirror. The
exergy balance equations are similar to energy balance equations but
differ by an additional term of irreversibility or available work de-
stroyed, which is represented by ΔX.
Exergy exchange at the floor is analogous to the energy exchange as
represented in Fig. 2a and is described by Eq. (25), where Xm-f re-
presents the exergy associated with the reflected solar radiation ab-
sorbed by the floor, Xs-f represents the exergy associated with the in-
cident solar radiation absorbed by the floor, Xf-a represents the exergy
associated with the convection heat exchange between the floor and the
35
Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42
air, Xf-d represents the exergy associated with the radiation exchange
between the floor and the deck, and ΔXf is the exergy destruction as-
sociated with the floor.
Xs − f + Xm − f = Xf − a + Xf − d + ΔXf (25)
The exergy exchange of air between the floor and the deck is ana-
logous to the energy exchange as represented in Fig. 2b and is described
by Eq. (26), where Xd-a and Xf-a are the exergies associated with air due
to convective heat exchange with the deck and the floor, respectively.
Xa1, Xw1, and Xp1 are respectively the exergies associated with the en-
thalpy of air and the kinetic and potential exergy at location 1 when
compared to atmospheric conditions, i.e., those at location 0. Xa0, Xw0,
and Xp0 are respectively the exergies associated with the enthalpy of air
and the kinetic and potential exergy at location 0, and ΔXa is the exergy
destruction associated with the air between the floor and the deck.
Xf − a + Xd − a + Xa0 + Xw0 + Xp0 = Xa1 + Xw1 + Xp1 + ΔXa (26)
The exergy exchange at the deck is analogous to the energy ex-
change for the collector as represented in Fig. 2c and is described by Eq.
(27), where Xd-sky is the exchange of radiation exergy between the deck
and the sky, Xd-amb is the loss of exergy from the deck to the atmosphere
by convection heat transfer, Xd-ch is the loss of exergy from the deck due
to the radiation exchange between the deck and outer surface of the
chimney, Xd-m is the loss of exergy from the deck due to the radiation
exchange between the deck and the mirror, and ΔXd is the exergy de-
struction associated with the collector.
Xs − f + Xm − f + Xa0 + Xw 0 + Xp0 = Xa1 + Xw1 + Xp1 + Xd − sky + Xd − amb
+ Xd − ch + Xd − m + ΔXd (27)
The exergy balance across the turbine is analogous to the energy
balance as represented in Fig. 2d and is described by Eq. (28), where
Xpower is the exergy associated with the work done or power generated
by the turbine, Xa2, Xw2, and Xp2 are respectively the exergies associated
with the gain or loss in the enthalpy of air and the kinetic and potential
exergy at location 2, i.e., at the exit of the turbine, and ΔXT is the exergy
destruction associated with the turbine.
Xa1 + Xw1 + Xp1 = Xa2 + Xw2 + Xp2 + XPower + ΔXT (28)
The exergy exchange across the chimney is analogous to the energy
exchange across the chimney as represented in Fig. 2e and is described
by Eq. (29), where Xa3, Xw3, and Xp3 are respectively the exergies as-
sociated with the gain or loss in the enthalpy of air and the kinetic and
potential exergy at location 3, i.e., at the exit of the chimney, Xch-sky is
the exergy associated with the radiation exchange between the chimney
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42

Fig. 2g. Energy exchange over the mirror surface. (Energy balance for all parts of an SCPP).

and the sky, Xch-gr is the exergy associated with the radiation heat σ
Xx − y = φx − y Ax εx − y [3(Tx4−T y4 )−4T0 (Tx3−Ty3)]
transfer from the chimney to the ground, Xch-amb is the gain in exergy by 3 (34)
the air surrounding the chimney by convection heat transfer, Xch-m is where, εx-y is the effective emissivity, which depends on the emissivities
the exergy associated with the radiation heat transfer from the chimney εx and εy of the respective surfaces and is formulated similar to the
to the mirror, and ΔXch is the exergy destruction associated with the equations of radiation exergy exchange. The effective emissivity re-
chimney. duces to εx-y = 1, when the emissivities εx = εy = 1. Eq. (34) is used to
Xa2 + Xw2 + Xp2 + Xd − ch = Xa3 + Xw3 + Xp3 + Xch − amb + Xch − sky calculate the radiation exergies Xd-m, Xch-m, Xm-sky, and Xm-gr.
Exergy associated with the radiation energy exchange between the
+ Xch − gr + Xch − m + ΔXch (29) deck and the mirror is given by Eq. (35).
The exergy exchange along a mirror is analogous to the energy σ 4
Xd − m = φd − m Ad εd − m [3(TdE −Tm4 )−4T0 (TdE
3
−Tm3 )]
exchange along a mirror as represented in Fig. 2g and is described by 3 (35)
Eq. (30), where Xm-sky is the exergy associated with the radiation ex-
Exergy associated with the radiation energy exchange between the
change between the mirror and the sky, Xm-gr is the exergy associated
chimney and the mirror is given by Eq. (36).
with the radiation heat transfer from the mirror to the ground, Xm-amb is
the gain in exergy by the air surrounding the chimney by convection σ 4
Xch − m = φch − m Ach εch − m [3(Tch −Tm4 )−4T0 (Tch
3
−Tm3 )]
heat transfer, and ΔXm is the exergy destruction associated with the 3 (36)
chimney.
Exergy associated with the radiation energy exchange between the
Xs − m + Xd − m + Xch − m = Xm − f + Xm − amb + Xm − sky + Xm − gr + ΔXm mirror and the sky is given by Eq. (37).
(30) σ
Xm − sky = φm − sky Am εm − sky [3(Tm4 −Tsky
4
)−4T0 (Tm3 −Tsky
3
)]
All the terms in the Eqs. (25)–(29) are explained by Petela [22] 3 (37)
except the mirror modeling which is described as below. Exergy associated with the radiation energy exchange between the
Exergy of solar radiation, Xs-m as described by Petela [29] is 90% of mirror and the ground is given by Eq. (38).
the radiation energy.
σ
Xs − m = 0.9 × Es − m (31) Xm − gr = φm − gr Am εm − gr [3(Tm4 −Tgr4 )−4T0 (Tm3 −Tgr
3
)]
3 (38)
Similarly, exergy associated with the reflection of incident radiation Exergy associated with the convective heat transfer between the
from the mirror to the floor can be determined from the Eq. (32). chimney and the atmosphere is given by Eq. (39).
Xm − f = 0.9 × Em − f (32)
T0 ⎞
Xm − amb = Em − amb ⎛1− ⎜ ⎟

The radiation exergy X of a surface with a surface area of A, emis- ⎝ Tm − amb ⎠ (39)
sivity of ε, and a temperature T is expressed by Eq. (33) according to
Petela [29–31] and Szargut et al. [32]. Tch-amb is the mean effective temperature of the chimney and the
atmosphere.
σ
X = φAε (3T 4 + T04−4T0 T 3) Tamb + Tm
3 (33)
Tm − amb =
2 (40)
where, φ is the shape factor which depends on the geometry of the
surface under study and with respect to the black surface where the The exergetic efficiency of an SCPP is given by Eq. (41).
considered radiation would arrive at. Radiation exergy swapped be-
Xpower
tween any two surfaces at different temperatures Tx and Ty can be de- ηexergy = ∗100
Xs − f + Xm − f (41)
termined using Eq. (33) for both surfaces, which leads to Eq. (34).

36
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42

5. Experimental setup and procedure

A laboratory scale working model of an SCPP shown in Figs. 3 and 4

was designed and built to investigate the performance of the proposed
modified design of a solar chimney power plant aided with reflectors.
Fig. 3 depicts a schematic illustration of the solar chimney power plant
aided with reflectors and Fig. 4 shows a photograph of the actual ex-
perimental setup. A 10 mm thick cardboard base was placed below the
SCPP system as shown in Fig. 4. An aluminum absorber plate with a
diameter of 1.6 m and a thickness of 3 mm was fixed on to the card-
board base. The wooden arms to place the collector cover and keep the
chimney erect were drilled and bolted to the base of absorber plate.
Neatly cut clear glass (Greenhouse glass) with a transmissivity of 0.85
suggested by Ballijepalli et al. [6] was used as the collector cover,
which is fixed to the wooden arms placed on the absorber plate. The
chimney with a diameter of 0.15 m and a height of 2 m was erected
with the help of steel bars fixed on the wooden frame using a bolt as-
sembly. A 140 mm fan of a personal computer was used as the turbine
Fig. 4. A photograph of the working model.
of the working model. The brushless magnet DC motor of the fan was
converted to a generator by welding two wires at the winding to gen-
erate power. The starting torque was provided using a battery con- Table 3
nected to the power input of the motor. Geometrical specifications of the working model.
Geometric parameter Dimensions (m)

5.1. Experimental procedure Diameter of absorber plate (Df) 1.6

Inner diameter of chimney(D1) 0.15

• All the mirrors were placed around the deck, in a circular pattern
Height of collector inlet (He) 0.003
Height of collector outlet (H1) 0.048
resembling a field of heliostats uniformly directing radiation to- Height of chimney (H3) 2
wards the deck. They are placed in such a manner that all the ra-
diation falling on the mirrors is reflected on to the deck. The deck
receives the direct radiation from the mirrors by reflection, diffuse Table 4
radiation from the mirrors is lost to the sky and the ground. A small Material specifications of the working model.
amount of the radiant heat is lost from the mirrors through con- Part Material
vective heat transfer to the atmosphere, i.e., due to absorption by
the mirrors. Absorber plate Aluminum plate painted black (3 mm thick)

• The air enters the collector at point 0 with a gap of He. The floor of
the collector under the transparent cover has a diameter of Df, and
the deck is at an inclination to ensure smooth flow. Radiation on the
floor heats the air from state 0 to state 1.
• Heated air expands in the turbine reaching state 2. The inlet and
outlet diameters of the turbine are D1 and D2, respectively. Heated
air leaves the SCPP from location 3 after reaching atmospheric
pressure at height H3 to avoid negative draft.
• All the geometric specifications and material specifications are
provided in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
K-type thermocouples were used to measure the temperature of the
floor, glass, and air, as well as ambient temperature. Thermocouple
Chimney
Collector
CPVC pipe Schedule-40 8 in.
Plexiglas (3 mm thick)
Insulation Cardboard
Reflectors Mirrors 4 nos. (0.45 m × 0.75 m)
probes were calibrated before installing them in the working model.
Four thermocouple input modules were installed in an OMEGA HH1384
data logger to acquire data. The thermocouple measurements were
displayed and stored by the data logger. Real-time processed thermo-
couple readings were measured every 60 s and the temperature was
averaged for every 5 min and recorded. Solar radiation data were re-
trieved from KFUPM-RI services for selected days.
The uncertainty in the measured value was calculated as the root

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the experi-

mental setup with mirrors (i) 0, Collector
Inlet, (ii) 1, Collector Outlet and Turbine
Inlet, (iii) 2, Turbine Outlet, (iv) 3, Chimney
Outlet, (v) , Thermocouples and (vi) R1
Reflector.

37
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman
sum square of the fixed error of the instrumentation and the random
error observed during different measurements [33]. The temperature of
the air, glass, and floor was measured using K-type thermocouples that
have a range of −267 to 316 °C with an accuracy of ± 0.1 °C. The es-
timated uncertainty of the thermocouples along with the data acquisi-
tion system is ± 0.25 °C.
5.2. Experimental validation
The geometry of the experimental setup is satisfying the geometrical
condition from analytical model of Petela [22]. From the study of
Koonsrisuk and Chitsomboon [8], it is found that, for the geometrical
similar cases and same working fluid, the temperature distribution
across various parts of SCPP is same. Hence, the temperature mea-
surements of the experimental setup are considered to be in line with
the large scale models.
The working model was tested on January 25, 2017 at 5-minute
intervals between 11:00 and 12:00 h, when the solar irradiation is at a
maximum for the day ranging between 450–490 W/m2. The parameters
and deliverables that were measured and validated with the analytical
model developed in the present study are temperature of the floor and
the temperature of the air. The solar radiation data and the ambient
temperature measured experimentally were used as the inputs for the
analytical model.
Fig. 5 depicts the variation in the temperature of the floor and air in
the collector during the testing period and its variance with the ana-
lytical model developed in this study. The variation of the ambient
temperature of air at the site of the working model during the testing
period is also presented. The average ambient temperature during the
testing period was 18.78 0C. The analytical model predicts the experi-
mental values of the floor temperature with a variance of 7.41% and the
temperature of the air in the collector with a variance of 8.34%.
The results presented in Fig. 5, indicate that there is fair agreement
between the results of the working model and the analytical model
developed in the present study for an SCPP aided with reflectors. Thus
the proposed analytical model, which predicts the real values of tem-
perature with a variance of 8%, can be adopted for the analytical study
of the modified version of an SCPP aided with reflectors.
6. Results and discussion
All the above formulated energy and exergy balance equations were
simultaneously solved using engineering Eq. solver (EES) software,
taking all losses into account. The equations were used to determine the
theoretical final power output, and hence the theoretical efficiency. In
the presentation of the results below, the results of this study of an SCPP
aided with reflectors are compared with those of an SCPP without re-
flectors for the solar irradiation data of 2017.
Fig. 6 depicts the solar radiation incident on the floor of an SCPP for
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia for a given year. Peak summer is experienced
during the months of June to August corresponding to average solar
insolation of 600 W/m2 and extreme winter is experienced during the
months of December to February, during which the solar insolation is
the lowest at 300 W/m2. But the solar radiation incident on the floor of
SCPP is 5% less than the solar insolation, due to the transmissivity of
the deck being 95%. With the aid of reflectors an increase in 90% of
solar radiation incident on the floor of SCPP is observed and 10% of it is
lost due to absorption and the transmission losses of the reflectors and
deck. The average solar radiation incident on the floor with and without
reflectors is 821 W/m2 and 432 W/m2, respectively. The radiation data
is monthly average data collected from Renewable Resource Atlas of
Saudi Arabia [34].
Fig. 7 depicts the variation of the mass flow rates over the year for
an SCPP with and without reflectors. The mass flow rate is determined
by using Eq. (18).The increase in the incident radiation on the floor by
90% with the aid of reflectors, corresponds to an increase of the mass
38
Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42
flow rate by over 134%. The average mass flow rates with and without
reflectors is 298 kg/s and 127 kg/s, respectively.
Fig. 8 depicts the yearly variation of the velocity of air at location 1.
The inlet velocity of air is determined from momentum balance using
Eq. (19). As the mass flow rate is directly proportional to the velocity,
the pattern of velocity variation is the same as that of the mass flow rate
variation, evident from the results depicted in Fig. 7. With the aid of
reflectors, velocity is increased by 135%. The average inlet velocity
with and without reflectors is 1.25 m/s and 0.53 m/s, respectively.
Fig. 9 depicts the yearly variation of the heat transfer coefficient
between the floor and the air in the collector, for an SCPP with and
without reflectors. The heat transfer coefficient between the floor and
the air is determined by using Eq. (20). With the reflectors increasing
the incident radiation on the floor, the temperature of the floor in-
creases (Fig. 10), thereby increasing the heat transfer rate. The heat
transfer coefficient is a function of the Nusselt Number, which in turn is
dependent on the Grashoff’s Number. The Grashoff’s Number is directly
proportional to the temperature difference between the fluid and the
surface. Hence, the heat transfer coefficient increases by 13.59% with
the aid of reflectors. The average heat transfer coefficient, with and
without reflectors is 2.48 W/m2 K and 2.19 W/m2 K, respectively.
Fig. 10 depicts the yearly variation of temperature of the floor of an
SCPP with and without the reflectors. Temperatures for all the com-
ponents of SCPP are obtained by solving the Eqs. (2)–(8) simulta-
neously. With the reflectors increasing the incident radiation on the
floor, the temperature of the floor is increased by 9.89%. The average
temperature of the floor with and without reflectors is 393.71 K and
358.19 K, respectively.
Fig. 11 depicts the yearly variation of the temperature of the air in
the collector of an SCPP with and without reflectors. Even with the
reflectors increasing the incident radiation on the floor, the tempera-
ture of the air in the collector increases only by 0.29%. This small in-
crease in temperature of the air is due to the increase of the heat
transfer coefficient (Fig. 9), corresponding to the increase in the tem-
perature of the floor (Fig. 10). However, the temperature of the floor
increases by 9.89%, whereas the temperature of the air increases only
by 0.29%. This is due to the fact that the increased rate of heat transfer
from the floor and the deck to the air due to the increase in temperature
of the floor and the deck dominating the change in velocity (Fig. 8)
rather than the heat absorption by air owing to the low heat capacity of
air. Hence the increase in the temperature of the air is small. Moreover,
the increase in velocity of air is attributed to amount of heat transfer
from the floor to air. The average temperature of the air in the collector
with and without reflectors is 317.89 K and 316.12 K, respectively. This
increase in temperature will decrease the density of air in the collector
(Fig. 12).
Fig. 12 depicts the yearly density variation of the air in the collector
of an SCPP. With the reflectors increasing the incident radiation on the
floor, the density of the air in the collector decreases by 0.54%. The
Fig. 5. Validation of the predicted temperatures.
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42

Fig. 6. Yearly variation of solar radiation incident on the floor of an SCPP for
Fig. 9. Yearly variation of the heat transfer coefficient between the floor and
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
air.

Fig. 7. Yearly variation of the mass flow rate.

Fig. 10. Yearly variation of the temperature of the floor.

Fig. 8. Yearly variation of the turbine inlet velocity of air.

Fig. 11. Yearly variation of the temperature of the air in the collector.

average density of the air, with and without reflectors is 1.052 kg/m3
the other components as described in the analysis above. As the turbine
and 1.058 kg/m3, respectively. Increase in the temperature of the floor
is the only mechanical conversion device, its exergy destruction is a
corresponds to only a very small increase in the temperature of the air,
minimum. The isentropic efficiency of the turbine was assumed to be
which makes the decrease of the density of the air also small. This small
0.7 for our analysis, which leads to a lower entropy generation yielding
variation in the density and higher rate of heat transfer from floor to air
a lower exergy destruction. However, for a constant volume process, the
corresponds to a larger increase in the velocity (Fig. 8).
exergy associated with the work produced by the turbine is equal to the
Fig. 13 depicts the exergy destruction or irreversibility for all the
same work output of the turbine. Due to the heat absorption by the
components of an SCPP aided with reflectors, and the exergy destroyed
components of the SCPP system, 4% of unaccounted losses occur.
is the highest for the floor. Although the floor is at a higher tempera-
Table 5 presents the exergy destruction associated with each com-
ture, the air cannot absorb all the available energy due to the low heat
ponent of an SCPP with and without the reflectors. The data presented
capacity of air. Hence, energy is lost in the form of radiation and heat to
in Fig. 14 indicate that the average exergetic efficiency of an SCPP with

39
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42

Table 5
Exergy destruction associated with the components of an SCPP.
Exergy destruction Conventional SCPP SCPP aided with reflectors

Floor 87.34% 80.57%

Deck 8.58% 11.40%
Air 0.55% 1.72%
Turbine 0.29% 0.36%
Chimney 1.45% 1.44%
Unaccounted losses 1.21% 3.798%

Fig. 12. Yearly variation of the density of air in the collector.

and without reflectors is, 0.712% and 0.581%, respectively. The un-
accounted losses of 3.798% and 1.21% for an SCPP with and without
reflectors are due to the absorption of heat by the components of an
SCPP, which was not considered in the analysis. Results obtained for an
SCPP aided with reflectors show higher unaccounted losses when
compared with a conventional SCPP. This is due to the high incident
energy increasing the temperature of components as shown in Fig. 10,
leading to a higher absorption of heat energy by the components of an
SCPP.
As the floor is the only component upon which the solar energy is Fig. 14. Yearly variation of the energetic and exergetic efficiency.
incident and it gets most of the radiant energy, the maximum amount of
exergy destruction is associated with the floor. As air is perfectly
transparent to radiation, air does not gain any energy from radiation.
The only process of energy transfer to air is by convective heat transfer
from the floor. Air has a low heat absorbing capacity, and hence, air
cannot absorb all the heat from the floor. Thus, the exergy destruction
associated with the floor is a maximum. Exergy destruction associated
with the floor of an SCPP aided with reflectors is lower due to the high
mass flow rate as indicated by the results depicted in Fig. 7.
Exergy destruction for the deck and air, is higher for an SCPP aided
with reflectors. The increase in the radiant energy by the use of re-
flectors increases the mean temperature of the deck. However, as air
has a low heat absorbing capacity it cannot absorb the heat from the
deck leading to a loss of available work. The increase in exergy de-
struction of the air flowing through the collector of an SCPP aided with
reflectors is due to the lower gain in temperature of air (Fig. 12). Fig. 15. Yearly variation of the power output.
The turbine is the only mechanical conversion device in the system

Fig. 13. Distribution of the exergy destruction across the floor, deck, air, turbine, and chimney.

40
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman
and its isentropic efficiency is equal to 0.7 in our analysis, yielding a
lower entropy. Furthermore, the conversion of kinetic energy to rota-
tional energy takes place along a constant volume process. In such a
constant volume process, the exergy associated with work produced by
the turbine is equal to the same work output of the turbine. Hence
among all the components of an SCPP, the turbine has the lowest exergy
destruction. Any losses in the turbine are due to frictional and thermal
losses.
Fig. 14 depicts the yearly variation of the energetic and exergetic
efficiency of an SCPP with and without reflectors. A direct relationship
between energetic efficiency and exergetic efficiency is established
from Eq. (24). Thus, the exergetic efficiency follows the same trend as
the energetic efficiency. The use of reflectors increases the energetic
and exergetic efficiency of an SCPP by 22.6%. The yearly average ex-
ergetic efficiency of an SCPP with and without reflectors is 0.712% and
0.581%, respectively. The yearly average energetic efficiency of an
SCPP with and without reflectors is 0.641% and 0.523%, respectively.
A direct relationship between the power output and the efficiency could
not be established as they are dependent on many inter-dependent
parameters, such as the solar insolation, air velocity, and atmospheric
temperature. However, the efficiency follows the same trend as the
density variation (Fig. 12).
Fig. 15 depicts the yearly variation of the power output of an SCPP
with and without reflectors. Power output is determined from the term
Epower by solving Eqs. (2)–(8) simultaneously. The power output pattern
is similar to that of the mass flow rate and the turbine inlet velocity
which is evident from the results depicted in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.
The power output is almost directly proportional to the mass flow rate,
which in turn is dependent on the geometry of the plant, air velocity,
and the density of air in the collector. With the aid of reflectors, power
output is increased by 133%. The yearly average power output with and
without reflectors is 230 kW and 99 kW, respectively.
The proposed SCPP model aided with reflectors can produce, on the
average, around 230 kW during the daytime and has, on average, an air
mass flow rate of around 298 kg/s. The average energetic and exergetic
efficiencies are 0.641% and 0.712%, respectively.
7. Conclusions
A detailed thermodynamic analysis has been conducted to access
the performance of the proposed SCPP model aided with reflectors. The
objective of the present study was to streamline the interpretative
mathematical model of an SCPP aided with reflectors and to present a
comparative study with a conventional SCPP. The results were eval-
uated for the rise in temperatures, turbine inlet velocities, produced
mass flow rates, net power outputs and thermal efficiencies. Moreover,
a laboratory scale working model of an SCPP aided with reflectors was
built to determine the variance between the empirical results and those
obtained by an analytical model developed in the present study. The
following can be concluded from this study:
• A fair agreement exists between the empirical results obtained using
the working model and those obtained using the analytical model of
an SCPP aided with reflectors developed in the present study. The
analytical model predicts the real values of the temperatures with a
variance of 8%. Thus, the proposed model can be adopted for the
analytical study of the proposed novel enhancing method of an SCPP
aided with reflectors.
•
The findings demonstrate that the proposed SCPP model aided with
reflectors can produce, on the average, around 230 kW and has, on
average, an air mass flow rate of around 298 kg/s. The average
energetic and exergetic efficiencies are 0.641% and 0.712%, re-
spectively.
• For the assumed SCPP model aided with reflectors, the gain in
temperature of the floor and the mass flow rate is increased by
9.89% and 134%, respectively, when compared with the a
41
Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42
conventional SCPP without reflectors.
• An SCPP aided with reflectors enhances the efficiency and power
output by 22.61% and 133%, respectively, when compared with an
SCPP without reflectors.
• Among all the components of the SCPP, the maximum exergy de-
struction rate is observed for the floor. Thus, the floor has the
highest exergy improvement potential.
However, the present work provides the detail analytical model for
the fixed reflector field, it needs further efforts to optimize the reflector
field in real time.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Research,
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals for the financial support
of this work under the project number IN141031. Also, the authors
acknowledge the undergraduate students Ali Al-Blushi and Abdullah Al-
Mutlaq for their help in manufacturing and assembling of the experi-
mental setup. We would also like to thank K.A.CARE Renewable
Resource Atlas for providing the solar data.
References
[1] Jorg Schlaich. The solar chimney. Axel Menge. Stuttgart-Germany: Axel Menges;
1995.
[2] Kreetz H. Theoretische Untersuchungen und Auslegung eines tempora ¨ren
Wasserspeichers fu¨r das Aufwindkraftwerk, Diploma Thesis. Germany: Technical
University Berlin; 1997.
[3] Bernardes MA. Technical, economical and ecological analysis of solar chimney
power plants Diss Ph. D. Thesis Germany: Stuttgart University; 2004.
[4] Pasumarthi N, Sherif SA. Experimental and theoretical performance of a demon-
stration solar chimney model – part I: mathematical model development. Int J
Energy Res 1998;22:277–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6701(98)80415-3.
[5] Bilgen E, Rheault J. Solar chimney power plants for high latitudes. Sol Energy
2005;79:449–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.01.003.
[6] Balijepalli R, Chandramohan VP, Kirankumar K. Performance parameter evaluation,
materials selection, solar radiation with energy losses, energy storage and turbine
design procedure for a pilot scale solar updraft tower. Energy Convers Manage
2017;150:451–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.043.
[7] Koonsrisuk A, Chitsomboon T. Dynamic similarity in solar chimney modeling. Sol
Energy 2007;81:1439–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.03.003.
[8] Koonsrisuk A, Chitsomboon T. A single dimensionless variable for solar chimney
power plant modeling. Sol Energy 2009;83:2136–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2009.07.015.
[9] Asayesh M, Kasaeian A, Ataei A. Optimization of a combined solar chimney for
desalination and power generation. Energy Convers Manage 2017;150:72–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.006.
[10] Habibollahzade A, Houshfar E, Ashjaee M, Behzadi A, Gholamian E, Mehdizadeh H.
Enhanced power generation through integrated renewable energy plants: solar
chimney and waste-to-energy. Energy Convers Manage 2018;166:48–63. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.04.010.
[11] Papageorgiou CD. Floating solar chimney versus concrete solar chimney power
plants. In: Int Conf Clean Electr Power, ICCEP ’07; 2007. p. 760–765. http://doi.
org/10.1109/ICCEP.2007.384299.
[12] Zhou X, Yang J, Wang J, Xiao B. Novel concept for producing energy integrating a
solar collector with a man made mountain hollow. Energy Convers Manage
2009;50:847–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2008.09.006.
[13] Alrobaei H. Hybrid geothermal/solar energy technology for power generation.
Engineering 2007. http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachArticle.aspx?
cid=24847&codi =14612&lr=1&word=hybrid+geothermal [accessed October
31, 2017].
[14] Hu S, Leung DYC, Chan JCY. Numerical modelling and comparison of the perfor-
mance of diffuser-type solar chimneys for power generation. Appl Energy
2017;204:948–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.040.
[15] Ming T, Gong T, de Richter RK, Cai C, Sherif SA. Numerical analysis of seawater
desalination based on a solar chimney power plant. Appl Energy
2017;208:1258–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.028.
[16] Pretorius JP. Optimization and control of a large-scale solar chimney power plant
PhD Thesis South Africa: University of Stellenbosch; 2007.
[17] Pasumarthi N, Sherif SA. Experimental and theoretical performance of a demon-
stration solar chimney model – Part II: experimental and theoretical results. Int J
Energy Res 1998;22:443–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-114X(199804)
22:5<443::AID-ER381>3.3.CO;2-M.
[18] Zuo L, Zheng Y, Li Z, Sha Y. Solar chimneys integrated with sea water desalination.
Desalination 2011;276:207–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.03.052.
[19] Zuo L, Yuan Y, Li Z, Zheng Y. Experimental research on solar chimneys integrated
with seawater desalination under practical weather condition. Desalination
F.M. Hussain, F.A. Al-Sulaiman
2012;298:22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.05.001.
[20] Islamuddin A, Al-Kayiem HH, Gilani SI. Simulation of solar chimney power plant
with an external heat source. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2013;16:1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/16/1/012080.
[21] Islamuddin A, Al-Kayiem HH, Gilani SI. Simulation of a collector using waste heat
energy in a solar chimney power plant system. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.
2013;179:933–44. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC130792.
[22] Petela R. Thermodynamic study of a simplified model of the solar chimney power
plant. Sol Energy 2009;83:94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.07.001.
[23] Nižetic S, Penga, Arici M. Contribution to the research of an alternative energy
concept for carbon free electricity production: concept of solar power plant with
short diffuser. Energy Convers Manage 2017;148:533–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2017.05.062.
[24] Haaf W, Friedrich K, Mayr G, Schlaich J. Solar chimneys part I: principle and
construction of the pilot plant in Manzanares. Int J Sol Energy 1983;2:3–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425918308909911.
[25] Mc Adams W. Heat transmission. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1954.
[26] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 4th ed. New York:
42
Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 30–42
Wiley; 2013. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118671603.
[27] swinbank WC. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. J R Meteorol Soc
1963;89:339–48.
[28] Hottel HC. Radiant-heat transmission. In: McAdams WH, editor. Heat Transm. 3rd
ed.New York: McGraw-Hill; 1954. p. 532.
[29] Petela R. Exergy of heat radiation. J Heat Transfer 1964;86:187–92. https://doi.
org/10.1115/1.3687092.
[30] Petela R. An approach to the exergy analysis of photosynthesis. Sol Energy
2008;82:311–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.09.002.
[31] Petela R. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol Energy 2003;74:469–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(03)00226-3.
[32] Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR. Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical, and me-
tallurgical processes. New York: Hemisphere Publishing; 1988.
[33] Barford N, Richards JW. Experimental measurements: precision, error and truth and
interpretation of technical data. Phys Today 2009;22:109–11.
[34] K.A.CARE. Home|Renewable Resource Atlas 2016. https://rratlas.kacare.gov.sa/
RRMMPublicPortal/?q=en/Home [accessed September 3, 2018].