qt8wc852br

UC Merced
UC Merced Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Title
A Novel Zero-Discharge Desalination System with Two state-of-the-art Solar Collectors for
Fresh Water Production and Brine Management Powered by Solar Energy
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8wc852br
Author
Hassanzadeh Naeini, Ali
Publication Date
2020
Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation
eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library

University of California
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, MERCED
A Novel Zero-Discharge Desalination System with Two state-of-the-art

Solar Collectors for Fresh Water Production and Brine Management
Powered by Solar Energy
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy
by
Ali Hassanzadeh Naeini
Committee in charge:
Professor Roland Winston

Professor James Palko
Professor Gerardo Diaz
Professor Marc Beutel, Chair
Spring 2020
Copyright Notice
Portion of Chapter 2 c 2018 Solar Energy Journal.
• Hassanzadeh, A.*, Jiang, L., Winston, R. ”Coupled optical-thermal modeling,

design and experimental testing of a novel medium-temperature solar thermal
collector with pentagon absorber”, Sol. Energy, vol. 173, pp. 1248–1261.
Portion of Chapter 3 c 2018 University of California Advanced Solar Technoloigies
• Hassanzadeh, A., Widyolar, B., Brinkley, J., Kiran, S., Jiang, L., Diaz, G.,
Winston, R. ”Combined Solar Power and Heat for Electricity, Hot Water, and
Space Heating”, UC Solar Symposium, San Francisco, USA. (Audience choice
poster winner)
Portion of Chapter 4 c 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineer
• Hassanzadeh, A., Palko, J., Winston, R. ”Humidification/Dehumidification for

Low Cost, Energy Efficient, Zero Liquid Discharge Desalination Using Solar
Thermal Sources”, Alche conference, , Pittsburgh, USA.
All other Chapters c 2020 Ali Hassanzadeh Naeini

All Rights Reserved.
The Dissertation of Ali Hassanzadeh Naeini is approved, and it is acceptable in
quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically:
Roland Winston
James Palko
Gerardo Diaz
Marc Beutel
University of California, Merced
2020
iii
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my family: my mother, Mahboobeh,

My Father, Kazem, my brothers, Mahdi and Amir and my departed sister, Maryam.
There is no doubt in my mind, I could not be where I am today, without them.
iv
Contents
List of Symbols viii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xii
Acknowledgment xiv
Curriculum Vitae xv
Abstract xvii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Zero Discharge Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Solar Collectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Objective of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 A Non-tracking East-West Medium-temperature Solar Thermal Col-

lector 5
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Analytical Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1 Thermal Efficiency of concentrated all-glass tube collector . . 12
2.2.2 Results of Analytical Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Reflector and Absorber Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Coupled Optical/Thermal Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.1 Physical Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.2 Governing Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.3 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.4 Numerical Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.5 Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.6 Results and Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.5 Design and Prototyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.1 Optical Efficiency Test (Open-loop) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.2 Thermal measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
v
2.6.3 Thermal Efficiency (Closed-loop test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.7 Techno-economics of a proposed collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3 A Non-tracking North-South Concentrated Hybrid Solar Collector 42

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2 Coupled Optical-thermal modeling of PVT collector with minichannel
absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.1 Physical Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.2.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2.3 Boundary Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.4 Model validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.3 Prototyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3.1 Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.4 Primary experimental tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.1 Thermal Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4.2 Electrical Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.4.3 Solar cells performance at difference working temperature of
water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.5 Thermal and Electrical performance of the PVT collector . . . . . . . 69
3.5.1 Hybrid collector with heat pipe absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.5.2 Hybrid collector with minichannel absorber (flow through) . . 73
3.6 Techno-economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.8 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4 A Novel Solar Compatible Zero Discharge Desalination System 82

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.1.1 Zero Discharge Desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.1.2 Humidification Dehumidification Desalination . . . . . . . . . 83
4.1.3 Humidification Dehumidification system for single stage zero
liquid discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.1.4 Advantages and Limitations of Humidification Dehumidification 85
4.2 A Novel Humidification Dehumidification for Zero Discharge Desali-
nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2.1 Single-stage zero liquid discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2.2 ILM-HDH Advantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3 Theoretical modeling of ILM-HDH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.3.1 Energy Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.3.2 Heat and Mass Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.3.3 Numerical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3.4 System sensitivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.4 Experimental Testing of ILM-HDH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
vi
4.4.1 System design and operational baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.4.2 Baseline water-air tests (traditional HDH) . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.4.3 ILM-HDH Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.4.4 Salt discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.4.5 Oil/water emulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.6 Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5 Conclusion 117
Bibliography 119
vii
List of Figures
1.1 Specific energy consumption by RO, brine concentrator, and brine crys-
tallizer. Although RO is energy efficient, its limited salinity range
(typically with an upper concentration of 70000 mg/L) provides op-
portunities for other technologies to be applied in ZLD systems. The
specific energies shown in the figure are in kWhe per cubic meter of
feedwater.(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Thermal resistance network diagram of the collector elements . . . . . 10

2.2 Thermal efficiency respect to T ∗ from Analytical study . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Overall Loss Coefficient (Ul ), Collector Efficiency Factor (F 0) & ab-
sorber Temperature (Tp ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 CPC with tubular absorber with 56mm radius and acceptance angle
of 40 ◦ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Ideal Optical efficiency from Ray tracing of 3 different shapes at +10-
degree half acceptance angle. A. Pentagon absorber B. Square absorber
C. Reversed pentagon absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.6 Pentagon absorber with CPC collector and glass tube . . . . . . . . 19
2.7 Rendered shape of collector with pentagon absorber in COMSOL Mul-
tiphysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.8 A) Ray trajectory from aperture to absorber (number rays deceased
for better visualization) B) Incident angle Modifier (IAM) . . . . . . 24
2.9 Temperature distribution over absorber for HTF Inlet temperature of
a: 30 ◦ C b: 100 ◦ C c: 200 ◦ C d: 350 ◦ C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.10 Simulated thermal efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.11 Design and Prototyping process a: CAD Design b: Evacuated tubes
connection to Manifold c: Evacuated tubes connection to frame d:
Final prototyped collector with manifold box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.12 Optical efficiency test with water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.13 Theoretical and Experimental (circle shows measured points) Incident
Angle Modifier (IAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.14 Optical Efficiency test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.15 Calorimeter with insulation connected to oil loop . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.16 Calorimetry results and heat loss calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.17 3D rendering of calorimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
viii
2.18 Results comparing the measured specific heat of mineral oil under op-
erating conditions to the data provided by a mineral oil supplier . . . 36
2.19 The medium temperature solar thermal collector efficiency test . . . . 37
2.20 Schematic of Medium Temperature test loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.21 Collector thermal performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.22 Thermal Efficiency of proposed collector compared with major com-
mercial collectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1 Caption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2 Schematic shape of PVT collector in 2D cross section . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3 Rendered shape of the solar collector in COMSOL Multiphysics . . . 48
3.4 Heat flux on the absorber (W/m2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.5 Heat flux distribution(left) and Index Angle Modifier right) for three
difference(0 ◦ , 45 ◦ , 90 ◦ ) orientation of absorber with 92% reflectivity 52
3.6 Temperature and Velocity for 6 o’clock configuration with Air (Top)
and Argon(bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.7 Temperature and Velocity for 3 o’clock configuration with Air (Top)
and Argon(bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.8 Numerical Thermal , electrical , combined efficiency of the PVT col-
lector with 3 o’clock orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.9 Sealing end Cap, thread and assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.10 The full assembly of the CHP solar collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.11 soldering the cut solar cells together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.12 Final 13 solar cells attached to the absorber (top side) . . . . . . . . 57
3.13 End cap designed and machined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.14 Electric port for the aluminum cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.15 Alligator contact for positive (left alligator clamp) and negative elec-
trode(right alligator clamp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.16 printed absorber support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.17 Rear-attached reflector on the back of glass tube . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.18 Tube Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.19 Filling glass tube with Argon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.20 Thermocouples location in manifold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.21 heat pipe setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
g
3.22 Experimental Temperature variance with respect to time (10 ) . . . 63
s
3.23 Optical efficiency of heat pipe collector with respect to water mass flow
rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.24 Optical efficiency of minichannel collector with respect to water mass
flow rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.25 test setup for Uncut and 3 cut cell in series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.26 Test setup for 13 cells in series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.27 Solar cell efficiency drop in cutting process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.28 Setup for electrical testing with different absorber temperature . . . . 68
ix
3.29 Power change with different water temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.30 Testing setup for the hybrid collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.31 Cooling mechanism solar cell in heat pipe collector . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.32 Heat extraction from heat pipe for Calorimetry measurement . . . . . 71
3.33 I-V curve for solar cell on heat pipe absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.34 IV curve for ”flow through” absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.35 Efficiency change with respect to water temperature . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.36 Test Setup for ”flow through” collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.37 IV curves for ”flow through” absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.38 Efficiency curve vs fluid temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.39 Numerical and experimental thermal efficiency for flow through absorber 77
3.40 Experimental combined, thermal and electrical efficiency of the flow
through absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.1 Annual increase of desalination based on different feedwater (2) . . . 83

4.2 Rain cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.3 simple HDH process (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.4 ILM-HDH operating principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.5 Comparison of traditional HDH and Immiscible Liquid Mediated HDH 90
4.6 Heat transfer resistances in traditional HDH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.7 Heat transfer resistance in ILM-HDH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.8 Testing setup(left) and Propagation of NaCl down oil impregnated,
polyethylene evaporator sheet (green dye added for contrast) . . . . . 95
4.9 Energy Balance of the Evaporator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.10 Temperature and Relative Humidity change in Dehumidifier . . . . . 100
4.11 Temperature and Relative Humidity Change in Humidifier (H=0.1)) . 101
4.12 Relative humidity change with Variable Channel Height(H)) . . . . . 102
4.13 Variation of fan energy consumption as a function of air mass flowrate 103
4.14 Hydrophilic and oleophilic bilayer for efficient water evaporation . . . 104
4.15 Materials are initially oil saturated and dipped into a water layer (dyed
green for contrast) underneath an oil layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.16 Schematic figure of prototyped humidifier channel(2D) . . . . . . . . 105
4.17 Computer aided design of humidifier setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.18 Boundary condition for numerical modeling in COMSOL Multiphysics 107
4.19 Temperature and humidity distribution along the channel . . . . . . . 108
4.20 Thermocouples and humidity sensor position in the prototyped channel 108
4.21 ILM-Humidifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.22 Experimental results for water-air test(no thermal insulation) . . . . 109
4.23 ILM-HDH humidifier setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.24 energy efficiency respect to oil flowrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
x
4.25 Relative Humidity in inlet and outlet of the channel during testing the
oil flowrate is 5.7 mL/s, water flow rate is 3 ml/min and air flowrate
start at 40 L/min, change to 60 L/min (time =1061) and finally in-
crease to 80 L/min(time =1300). The fan and water stop at the record-
ing time equal to 1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.26 Water evaporation respect to feedwater flowrate the oil flowrate is 5.7
mL/s, water flow rate is 3 ml/min and air flowrate start at 40 L/min,
change to 60 L/min (time =1061) and finally increase to 80 L/min(time
=1300). The fan and water stop at the recording time equal to 1500 . 112
4.27 Water evaporation respect to feedwater flowrate the oil flowrate is 5.7
mL/s and channel height is 0.1 meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.28 Energy consumption respect to the feedwater flowrate the oil flowrate
is 5.7 mL/s and channel height is 0.1 meter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.29 Salt deposition in porous coated channel for simulated seawater at
flowrate 100 micro liter per minute with external heat source . . . . . 115
xi
List of Tables
1.1 Commercial Solar Collector respect to their Operating temperature . 3
2.1 Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH) for Commercial solar thermal collectors 7
2.2 Physical parameters of collector elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 The values of all thermal resistances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 optical efficiency at normal incidence of three simulated geometries . 18
2.5 CPC reflector and pentagon absorber design parameter and dimensions 19
2.6 Geometry and material specification for proposed solar collector . . . 20
2.7 number of elements for domain, boundary and edges of collector . . . 22
2.8 Geometrical Optics parameter in COMSOL Multiphysics . . . . . . . 23
2.9 Maximum temperature difference across absorber . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.10 Characteristics of Prototyped Medium-temperature solar collector . . 30
2.11 Instruments and their measurement error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.12 Summarized cost of a single collector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.13 Levelized cost of heat (LC0H) of proposed collector for 200 ◦ C . . . . 40
3.1 Calculation of Three major indexes for Commercial PVT collector . . 44

3.2 PVT collector technical characterization: type, concentration, aper-
ture area, thermal and electrical efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3 geometry and material specification for absorber, reflector and HTF . 48
3.4 Hybrid collector’s parameters and value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.5 Mesh independency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.6 Heat flux (W/m2 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.7 Experimental test results for resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.8 Equipment error propagation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.9 Electric and thermal performance for PVT Collector with heat pipe
absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.10 Electric and thermal performance for PVT Collector with ”Flow through”
absorber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.11 Component cost of the proposed PVT collector . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.12 Input Parameters for technoeconomic analysis of proposed PVT col-
lector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.13 Output parameters of proposed one square meter of PVT collector
include Levelized Cost of Energy, Simple Payback Period, Amount of
CO2 avoidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
xii
4.1 Thermal performance of major commercial thermal desalination system 85
4.2 Advantages and limitations of state-of-art HDH system . . . . . . . . 87
4.3 The effect of non-condensable gas on condensation heat transfer Coeff 91
4.4 Total thermal resistances for HDH and ILM-HDH . . . . . . . . . . . 94
xiii
Acknowledgment
First, I would like to thank my advisors Professor Roland Winston and Professor
James Palko for their support and guidance through my Ph.D. Journey in University
of California, Merced.
Also, I would like to sincerely thank, my committee members Professor Gerardo
Diaz and Professor Marc Buetel, Head of Environmental System, Professor Martha
Conklin, and the Graduate Dean, Professor Marjorie S. Zatz, who all guided and
supported me to finish my Ph.D.
At then end, I would like to thank my girlfriend Xiumin Shang who always was on
my side through hard days.
xiv
Curriculum Vitae
Education
• University of California, Merced. Merced, CA, USA. (2015 – 2020)

Ph.D. in Environmental Systems.
• Sharif University of Technology. Tehran, Iran. (2013 - 2015)

M.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering.
• Islamic Azad University. Mashhad, Iran. (2008 - 2013)

B.Sc. in Mechanical Engineering.
Ph.D. Publications
* Correspondent Author
13. Bhusal, Y, Hassanzadeh, A.*, Jiang, L., Winston, R. ”Technical and eco-
nomic analysis of a novel low-cost concentrated medium-temperature solar col-
lector”, Renewable Energy , vol. 146, pp. 968-985, July. 2019.
12. Hassanzadeh, A.*, Jiang, L., Winston, R. ”Coupled optical-thermal model-
ing, design and experimental testing of a novel medium-temperature solar ther-
mal collector with pentagon absorber”, Sol. Energy, vol. 173, pp. 1248–1261,
Oct. 2018.
11. Hassanzadeh, A., Widyolar, B., Brinkley, J., Kiran, S., Jiang, L., Diaz, G.,
Winston, R. ”Combined Solar Power and Heat for Electricity, Hot Water, and
Space Heating”, UC Solar Symposium, San Francisco, USA, Oct. 2018. (Audi-
ence choice poster winner)
10. Bhusal, Y., Hassanzadeh, A., Winston, R. ”Optical-thermal modeling and
experimental performance characterization of novel glass encased all glass evac-
uated tube solar collector”, UC Solar Symposium, San Francisco, USA, Oct.
2018. (Audience choice poster winner)
xv
9. Bhusal, Y., Hassanzadeh, A., Winston, R. ”Ray tracing and heat transfer
simulation of novel glass-covered XCPC collector”, SPIE conference, San Diego,
USA, Sep.2018.
8. Hassanzadeh, A., Palko, J., Winston, R. ”Humidification/Dehumidification

for Low Cost, Energy Efficient, Zero Liquid Discharge Desalination Using Solar
Thermal Sources”, Alche conference, , Pittsburgh, USA, Oct.2018.
7. Hassanzadeh, A., Bhusal, Y., Winston, R. ”Coupled Optical and Thermal

Modeling of Novel Solar Thermal Collectors” , COMSOL conference, , Boston
, USA, Oct.2018.
6. Widyolar, B., Jiang, L., Hassanzadeh, A., Winston, R. ”Compound Parabolic

Concentrator for Pentagon Shape Absorber”, ISES Solar World Congress , Abu
Dhabi, UAE, Nov.2017.
5. Hassanzadeh, A., Kiran, S., Jiang, L., Diaz, G., Winston, R. ”Novel Solar
hybrid system for Producing heat and electricity”, UC Solar symposium, San
Francisco, USA, Oct.2017.
4. Hassanzadeh, A., Widyolar, B., Jiang, L, Winston, R. ”The error tolerance

of nonimaging optic systems”, SPIE conference, San Diego, USA, Sep.2017.
3. Brinkley, J. Hassanzadeh, A. ”Adaptive sensor-based ultra-high accuracy so-

lar concentrator tracker”, SPIE conference, San Diego, USA, Sep.2017.
2. Hassanzadeh, A., Winston, R. ”Integrated Non-Tracking Solar Collector(XCPC)

And Humidification Dehumidification(HDH) desalination System For Afford-
able Decentralized Potable Water production”, Davis, USA, Oct.2016.
1. Guo, H*, Muhammad Ali, H,Hassanzadeh, A, Ma, Y. ”Simulation study of

flat-sheet air gap membrane distillation modules coupled with an evaporative
crystallizer for zero liquid discharge water desalination”, Appl. Therm. Eng.,
vol. 108, pp. 486–501, Sep. 2016.
Patent
• Immiscible Liquid Mediated Humidifcation/Dehumdification system and method
Journal Reviewer
• American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME)
xvi
Abstract
A Novel Zero-Discharge Desalination System with Two state-of-the-art
Solar Collectors for Fresh Water Production and Brine Management
Powered by Solar Energy
by
Ali Hassanzadeh
Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Systems
University of California, Merced
Professor Roland Winston

Professor James Palko
Drinking Water plays an important role in human society and its consumption is
increasing significantly due to growth in population and living standards. More than
97% of the water on earth is saline and undrinkable. Desalination is an engineering
solution to produce drinking water from saline water. Although desalination is a prac-
tical solution that could solve the water scarcity challenge around world, there are two
major challenges associated with desalination: energy-intensity and brine disposal.
Desalination is an energy-intensive process that requires large amounts of electricity
and/or heat. Therefore, desalination plants prefer to use cheap energy sources mostly
powered by fossil fuels. However, solving the water scarcity challenge should not ex-
acerbate global warming, which will have catastrophic effects on our planet. Also,
desalination produces a concentrated brine which must be discharged back to the en-
vironment. Brine disposal from inland desalination is very problematic. Brine is also
often discharged to the ocean, which can threaten the health of marine ecosystems.
In this thesis, I present research on two solar collector systems that can be used as
an energy source to drive desalination, and one desalination system that can reduce
brine discharge to the environment. The first system is a novel medium-temperature
solar collector with pentagon absorber called the External Compounds Parabolic
Concentrated (XCPC). The collector, with 6 evacuated tubes, CPC reflector and
manifold, is designed in SolidWorks. Then the collector is simulated using the finite
element method implemented in COMSOL Multiphysics with coupled optical-thermal
multiphysics to predict optical and thermal efficiency of the system. The proposed
medium-temperature collector is tested with a selective-coated pentagon absorber un-
der real-world conditions at the University of California, Merced. The experimental
xvii
and numerical results show close similarity; the optical efficiency of 64% and thermal
efficiency of 50% at working temperature of 200 ◦ C are achieved both numerically
and experimentally. Secondly, a low-cost concentrated hybrid Photovoltaic-Thermal
(PV/T) collector is designed, simulated, and experimentally tested. The proposed
PV/T collector simultaneously generates both electricity and thermal energy for low
temperature application (60-90 ◦ C) such as residential and/or commercial hot wa-
ter and small-scale desalination. The collector itself consists of a glass tube with a
reflective coating applied on the bottom half which directs incoming rays to strings
of solar cells applied over a flat minichannel absorber. Performance is simulated us-
ing COMSOL Multiphysics to guide the collector design. Afterwards, multiple tubes
are manufactured and tested in both direct-flow minichannel and heat pipe absorber
configurations. The assembled PVT collector demonstrated a thermal, electrical and
combined efficiency of 60% and 10-15% , 70-75%. The third system presented uses
a novel zero liquid discharge desalination approach called Immiscible Liquid Medi-
ated Humidification Dehumidification (ILM-HDH). This system introduces a second
liquid, mineral oil, to provide heat for evaporation to separate the salt and contam-
ination from fresh water in a feedwater stream. ILM-HDH reuses the condensation
energy of water which makes it potentially 3-4 times more efficient than state-of-art
evaporators while still achieving maximum water recovery. In addition, ILM-HDH
address the issue of corrosion in thermal desalination systems since it uses mineral
oil instead of saline water as the Heat transfer Fluid(HTF). This feature also makes
ILM-HDH highly compatible with the two solar collectors proposed in this study,
since the HTF can be directly pumped into the solar collectors with no corrosion
issues or need for a heat exchanger.
xviii
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Millennium development goals set by the world organization highlight the critical
need of impoverished and developing regions of the planet to attain self sustainabil-
ity in potable water system. Desalination systems are essential to answering this
problem.[4]. Seawater desalination has a recovery of roughly 50% ,producing nearly
equal flows of brine and product. Recovery varies greatly for the desalination of dif-
ferent feed waters, which makes it hard to estimate the volume of brine discharge
knowing only the treated water production rate. As a conservative estimate, over 50
Mm3 of brine is discharged everyday. This large and growing quantity of brine should
be managed with care in order to avoid harmful environmental effects.[2].
1.1 Zero Discharge Desalination

One method of mitigating the environmental concerns from brine discharge is by
avoiding discharge all together through the usage of zero-discharge desalination (ZDD)
designs, which should be differentiated from zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) because ZDD
does not even discharge salt as waste. Near-ZDD designs have been implemented
commercially for producing salt from seawater [2].Zero-Discharge Desalination sys-
tems broadly use two steps/sub-systems: a brine concentration step that concentrates
the feed stream to near saturation conditions, and a crystallization step where satu-
rated brine is completely crystallized. Several technology options exist for the brine
concentration and crystallization steps. For the brine concentration step, the tech-
nologies that have been deployed industrially include: electrodialysis (ED) [5], me-
chanical vapor compression systems (MVC) [6], solar evaporation ponds, and Reverse
osmosis(RO)[7]. The crystallization step in Zero Discharge Desalination is typically
achieved through multi-effect evaporators or solar evaporation ponds [8]. Figure 1.1
summarizes the specific energy requirements of current Zero-Discharge Desalination
technologies in respect to the salinity range they can operate on. [1]
1
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
Figure 1.1: Specific energy consumption by RO, brine concentrator, and brine
crystallizer. Although RO is energy efficient, its limited salinity range (typically
with an upper concentration of 70000 mg/L) provides opportunities for other
technologies to be applied in ZLD systems. The specific energies shown in the figure
are in kWhe per cubic meter of feedwater.[1]
1.2 Solar Collectors

In the present-day world, there is a large demand for affordable renewable energy
systems in order to meet the growing demands for clean energy generation due to
population growth and harmful impact of fossil fuel [9]. Global energy consumption
consist of three major categories: power(20%), transportation(30%) and heat(50%)
[[10]]. For renewable heat generation, solar thermal technology is the best suited
candidate because solar thermal collectors convert solar irradiance into heat directly
with energy efficiency of 3–4X times higher than those achieved by electric heaters
powered by PV technologies [11]. Also, the storage systems for solar thermal collec-
tors compared to batteries are cheaper and more efficient, which makes them more
favorable in the energy market [12]. Based on the temperature of the heat transfer
fluid (HTF), solar thermal collectors can be categorized into three categories. First,
low temperature solar thermal collectors include flat plate collectors and evacuated
tube collectors (ETC) that involve no light concentration and are efficient for use
at the temperature range of 50-80◦ C for residential water/air heating applications
[13], [14]. The second category is high temperature solar thermal collectors such as
parabolic trough collectors, linear Fresnel collectors, heliostats and solar towers which
are used for the temperature range of 400-1000 ◦ C generally to produce high-grade
steam to utilize in steam generators, which require large capital investment [15]. High
temperature collectors require high concentration of light(10-1000X), highly efficient
reflecting systems, evacuated tubes, accurate tracking and expensive absorbers and
heat transfer fluids to function at high temperature [16]. A major fraction (about
60%) of thermal energy consumed in industrial processes such as food processing[17],
solar cooling[18], thermal desalination[19] is reportedly in the medium temperature
range(80–250 ◦ C). Traditionally, a majority of medium-temperature applications have
been served by high temperature collector at their sub-design temperature. However,
newer technologies such as External Compound Parabolic Concentrated(XCPC)[20]
and Internal Compound Parabolic Concentrator(ICPC)[21] which can track the sun
with their reflector design(optical tracking) have potential to expand their market
share in United States. 1.1 listed Solar Collector respect to their Operating temper-
ature
Table 1.1: Commercial Solar Collector respect to their Operating temperature
Solar collectors Concentration Vacuum Temperature(◦ C) Example

Low-temperature 0.3-1X No 60-90 Flat Plate collector
Medium-temperature 1-8X Yes 100-300 Evacuated tube collector
High-temperature 20-50X Yes 300-1000 Parabolic trough collectors
1.3 Objective of this study

In this dissertation, Two novel solar collectors and a novel Zero-Discharge Desali-
nation system are analytically modeled, numerically simulated and experimentally
prototyped. Although, both solar collectors and the desalination system can be used
separately, they potentially work best when they are coupled. The solar collectors can
generate heat for both industrial/residential uses such as food drying, manufacturing
etc. Also the zero-discharge Desalination system can be used with other sources of
energy such as natural gas, coal or nuclear energy. However, it is designed to easily
couple with renewable energy source such as solar or geothermal.
The main questions asked in this dissertation are:
1- What is the optical, thermal efficiency and heat cost of the medium temperature
collector(XCPC) with pentagon absorber?
2- What is the electrical, thermal, combined efficiency and energy cost of the hybrid
solar collector?
3- What is the effect of channel height and air flow rate on the performance of the
desalination system?
4- What is the water evaporation and energy efficiency of the novel zero-discharge
desalination system ?
These question are addressed through:
• XCPC collector with pentagon absorber is simulated and prototyped to measure

the optical and thermal efficiency of the collector both numerically and experi-
mentally. Also the levelized cost of heat is calculated based on heat generation
and thermal efficiency of the solar collector at 200 ◦ C.
• The novel hybrid solar collector is simulated and prototyped to measure the op-
tical and thermal efficiency of the collector both numerically and experimentally.
Also the levelized cost of energy(LCOE) is calculated based on heat generation
and thermal efficiency of the solar collector at its working temperature.
• A novel Zero-Discharge desalination system called ILM-HDH is introduced.

Then first, using finite difference methods, ILM-HDH is modeled in order to
investigate the effect of channel height and air flowrate on relative humidity
and gain output ratio(which is the indicator of how many times system can
reuse the condensation heat). Afterward, the humidifier is prototyped to mea-
sure the water evaporation rate and the energy efficiency experimentally. At the
end, the advantages of ILM-HDH coupled with XCPC or hybrid solar collector
are explained.
Chapter 2
A Non-tracking East-West
Medium-temperature Solar
Thermal Collector
This chapter is published in Solar Energy journal.[22]
2.1 Introduction
The environmental impact of Climate change and sustainable energy demand high-
lights the urgent transform to renewable energy. Solar thermal collector market is
8 times larger than two decades ago [23] we since solar collector are more efficient
(3-4X) than Photovoltaic system to generate heat. Also, cheaper storage compare
to batteries has been made solar thermal collectors more favorable choice for heat
generation than Photovoltaic. Solar thermal collectors generally divide into three
categories based on heat transfer fluid (HTF) temperature. Low temperature solar
collector(less than 100 ◦ C ) include flat plate and evacuated tube collectors(ETC)
which are able to provide hot water and air for residential purposes [24] [25], high
temperature collector (more than 300 ◦ C) such as linear Fresnel and parabolic trough
collectors are mainly designed in order to provide steam for steam generators[16].
Finally, less-researched category is medium temperature collector(100-300◦ C) with
wide range of application such as desalination [26], mining , steam generation [27].
The major obstacle for medium temperature solar thermal collector to be a worldwide
industrial heat source is the cheap cost of natural gas and fossil fuel around the world.
The Levelized cost of heat (LCOH) is an economical metric for estimating lifetime
cost of a heating system [28]. The general description for LCOH is total lifetime cost
of any source (natural gas, fossil fuel, electric, solar and etc.)divided by total lifetime
thermal generation [29]. Specifically, for solar thermal collector, LCOH is formulated
as Eq 2.2 which FCR is a factor include assumptions regarding financing, tax and in-
flation. Installed cost include collector cost and Heat transfer fluid plus indirect cost
(solar field, shipping and installation). The output power of collector (Qthermal ) is
5
Chapter 2. A Non-tracking East-West Medium-temperature Solar Thermal Collector 6
affected by optical efficiency (reflection, transmittance through glass and absorption

of absorber) and heat transfer loss (conduction, convection and radiation) (Eq 2.1).
Qoutput Qthermal η0 ∗ Qsolar − Qloss Qloss

ηth = = = = η0 − (2.1)
Qinput Qsolar Qsolar Qsolar
The LCOH for major commercial medium-temperature and high- temperature
solar thermal collectors are listed in Table 2.1 (the low temperature collector (flat
plate and Evacuated tube) did not compare as their thermal efficiency are less than
30% when Heat transfer fluid (HTF) temperature is 200 ◦ C). Specifically in Cali-
fornia, cheapest source of heat generation is natural gas which LOCH is about 2.9
cents/kWh [30], therefore current collector cost (Table 1)is not competitive yet. Col-
lector cost and thermal efficiency are two essential factors must be optimized in order
to decrease cost of heat. For instance, low concentration CPC has lower efficiency
compare to high temperature collector such as linear Fresnel [31]however its LCOH is
cheaper as the installed cost of CPC collector is cheaper than Linear Fresnel collectors.
Generally, In the case of high- temperature collector, they suffer from two main weak-
ness for sub-design temperatures application (100–300 ◦ C). First, high-concentration
(Cx ≥ 20) require accurate active-tracking which increase capital and maintenance
cost of the collector [29], Moreover, high-temperature collector only accept the direct
normal irradiance (DNI) from the sun, however low-concentration optical-tracking
collectors (such as CPC) are able to absorber diffuse solar irradiation too as there
reflector can track the sun with nonimaging optics principles (optical-tracking) [32].
This changes also reflected in Table 2.1 that the thermal efficiency at 200 ◦ C for low
concentration collector (Cx ≤ 2) and high concentration collector reported in global
solar irradiance (G = 1000 W/m2 ) and direct normal irradiance (DNI = 850 W/m2 ),
respectively. In the case of current commercial medium temperature collector, low
efficiency (low concentration CPC with metal-glass absorber) and high collector cost
(Evacuated Flat tube and XCPC) are two parameters that make them less competi-
tive choice compare to natural gas.
Ccost ∗ F CR + O&M
LCOH = (2.2)
Qoutput
Levelized Cost of Heat(LCOH) For the commercial collector can reach to 200 ◦ C
include both medium and high temperature solar collectors, are listed in Table 2.1
with the following assumptions:
• Total cost includes collector cost plus fixed $80 indirect cost based on US de-
partment of energy standard for all collectors [29].
• Thermal Efficiency calculated at 200 Celsius for (G (Global irradiation) = 1000

W/m2 , DNI (Direct Normal irradiation) = 850W/m2
• Operation and maintained cost(O&M ) assumed based on US department of

energy cost which is $15 and $5 for moving and stationary solar collector .
• Levelized cost of Heat calculated based Fixed Charge Rate(FCR) is a factor that
includes assumptions regarding financing, tax, and inflation, and it is equal to
0.083 for 25 years period [29] and annual solar irradiation = 1800 kWh/m2/year
(Fresno, CA) [33]
Table 2.1: Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH) for Commercial solar thermal collectors
Collector Concentration and Total Thermal LCOH

Type Tracking type Cost($/m2 ) Efficiency(%) (¢/kWh)
Evacuated Flat Cx = 1
Plate Collector Non Tracking 430[34] 50 [35] 5.9
Cx = 20
Linear Fresnel Active Tracking 260[30] 50[31] 4.4
Cx = 24
Parabolic Trough Active Tracking 290[30] 63[36] 3.4
All-glass Evacuated Cx = 1/π
Tube Collector Non Tracking 247[37] 30[24] 4.7
XCPC with Pentagon Cx = 1.4
Absorber [this study] Optical Tracking 242.5[22] 45[22] 3.1
Natural Gas N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.9 [30]
In 1974, Winston (1974) introduced compound parabolic concentrator (CPC)

based on nonimaging optics and proved that there is always a trade-off between
maximum concentration (Cmax ) and half acceptance angle (θA ) (Eq. (2.3)) and in-
dicates half-acceptance angle has to be optimized based on operating temperature
[32]. Based on nonimaging optics principle, a stationary East-West solar thermal
collector system tested which used evacuated tube and round absorber. It is called
East-West External Compound Parabolic Concentrator (EW-XCPC) [38]. XCPC is
Optical-tracking solar thermal collector with low concentration ((2) Cx . It is consist-
ing of two primary components: A Reflector and an evacuated tube absorber. The
reflector designed based on Compound Parabolic Concentrator (CPC) which its ge-
ometry consists of an involution and a semi-parabola curve. The evacuated tube helps
preventing conductive and convective heat loss from absorber to ambient and radia-
tion heat transfer loss minimized with implementing selective coating material with
low emittance ( ≤ 0.1)) [39]. Also based on CPC principles, integrated compound
parabolic concentrator (ICPC) designed and tested in Sacramento [21] which gener-
ate lower thermal efficiency with lower collector cost. They are multiple successful
project has been done based on CPC such as air conditioning [40] [18], drum drying
[17], solar water heating [41] [27] and Hybrid Photovoltaic/thermal (CPV/CSP) [10].
A stationary XCPC has two orientations: East/West (EW) and North/South (NS).
In the EW orientation the absorber tube is situated horizontally and the optics are
designed to accept the seasonal swing (θA = 23.5) of light from the sun, while NS
collectors accept light from the daily motion of the sun (=15 ◦ /h). NS collectors
require larger acceptance angles (θA = 60) to achieve meaningful operational hours
and thus have relatively lower concentration ratios. The higher concentration in EW
collectors improves their performance at high temperature and reduces the amount
of tube area relative to aperture area (which has economic benefits as the tube is
typically the more expensive component per area)[10]
1
Cx = (2.3)
sin(θ)
In the present paper, a novel medium-temperature solar collector with optical-
tracking and medium concentration (Cx = 1.4) is introduced. In order to bring down
the cost of the collector through ultrasonic welding, closest geometry to circle (pen-
tagon) chose as absorber and its selection justified by ray tracing. 3D optical-thermal
simulation performed using COMSOL Multiphysics to determine the optical and ther-
mal efficiency of the collector. After computer aided design (CAD) of the collector,
the prototype tested under the sun to measure the optical and thermal efficiency. The
experimental results showed good agreement with the simulation. Finally, to evaluate
thermal performance of proposed collector, its efficiency is compared to major com-
mercial collector in all temperature range . Also, for cost comparison to commercial
collector (Table 2.1), Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH) is calculated at 200 Celsius.
2.2 Analytical Study

[This section is researched in collaboration with Yogesh Bhusal and published in
analytical section of paper published in renewable energy journal [42]]
First in order to calculate the thermal efficiency, analytical method was utilized.
Ma et al [43] utilized thermal resistance and heat loss calculation to calculate ther-
mal efficiency of non-concentrated evacuated tube collector. Here we follow the same
process for the concentrated evacuated tube collector while avoiding unnecessary com-
plexity in the original paper. In this paper, the expression for loss coefficients (UL ),
heat transfer coefficients(h) and thermal efficiency (ηth ) is derived and develop the
efficiency curve over the temperature range of the collector while including the con-
centration effect in the equation. Physical parameter used for the analytical study is
listed in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Physical parameters of collector elements
Part Parameter symbol Value Unit

Absorber coating Absorptivity α 0.95
Emissivity 0.05
Out glass tube Outer diameter Dglass 70 mm
Thickness toutg lass 2 mm
Absorber glass tube Outer diameter Dabsorber 58 mm
Thickness tabsglass 1.8 mm
Conductivity Kglass 1.14 W/(m.K)
Aluminum Fin Thickness tf in 0.12 mm
Conductivity KAl 215 W/(m.K)
Air Layer Thickness tair 0.5 mm
Conductivity Kair 0.03 W/(m.K)
Utube Outer diameter d 7 mm
Length Lutube 1800 mm
The one-dimensional analytical investigation of a single unit of the glass evacuated

tube solar collector is carried out in the present study for which several assumptions
have been used to simplify the calculations without losing the accuracy.
1. The outer glass is exposed to the constant ambient temperature and to a uniform
solar radiation.
2. The thermal resistance and energy absorption of the outer glass tube is negligible.
3. The heat transfer coefficient of convection from the outer glass tube to atmosphere
is constant.
4. The heat flux is considered uniform along the circumferential direction of the ab-
sorber.
5. Working fluids are incompressible.
6. Resistance from welds and imperfect connections between pipe and fin are not
considered.
7. The heat transfer process is assumed to be steady state one dimensional and tran-
sient phenomena are not included in the study.
Based on the above made assumptions, thermal resistances network is made to de-
scribe the physical heat transfer mechanism involved in the operation of the collector
Figure 2.1. The temperature symbols are explained under the Figure 2.1.
• Tf = Mean temperature of the working fluid
• Tp = Temperature of the absorber surface

Figure 2.1: Thermal resistance network diagram of the collector elements
• Ta = Ambient temperature
• Tg = Temperature of outer glass tube
• T1 = Temperature of the inner surface of the selective coated glass tube
• T2 = Temperature of the heat transfer element (aluminium fin)
• Tb = Temperature of the heat transfer element (aluminium fin)
• Tb−in = Temperature of the inner surface of U tube at working fluid contact
From the thermal resistance network, the thermal loss QL can be written as Eq. 2.4.
QL = S − QU (2.4)
where S is solar energy absorbed by the selective absorbing coating, and Qu is the net
heat gain absorbed by the heat transfer fluid. The overall loss coefficient (UL ) which
is the measure of extent of heat losses from the collector is given by sum of edge loss
coefficient Ue and collector tube loss coefficient, Ut as in Eq. 2.5.
UL = Ut + Ue (2.5)
Where, Ue is edge loss coefficient of the header tube, which depends on the insulation
conductivity, insulation thickness and the surface areas of the header tube. The edge
loss coefficient based on the area of the absorber tube is then Eq.2.6
U Aedge
Ue = (2.6)
Ac
where Ac is defined as the Area of the cross section Ac = πDL , D is the diameter
of the absorber glass tube and L is the length of the collector tube. (U A)edge is the
edge loss coefficient-Area product. Now, the loss coefficient from the absorber tube
to the ambient can be given by Eq. 2.7 which includes the heat transfer coefficient of
conduction, convection and radiation.
1
Ut = 1 1 (2.7)
+
hg−a hp−g,r + hp−g,c
• hg−a = Convection heat transfer coefficient from the outer glass to ambient.
• hp−g,r = Radiation heat transfer coefficient between the absorber tube and outer
glass tube.
• hp−g,c = Conduction heat transfer coefficient from closeup and bracket of the
collector.
These heat transfer coefficients should be referenced to the absorber glass tube
surface area Aabsorber . The convection heat transfer coefficient and conduction heat
transfer coefficient and the edge loss coefficient cannot be accurately estimated hence
we use the experimental results in our analysis. The convection heat transfer coef-
ficient, hg−a =12.7 W/(m2 .K) and the conduction heat transfer coefficient, hp−g,c =
0.2796 W/(m.K), and the edge loss coefficient is 0.1687 W/(m2 .K) [43]. The radi-
ation heat transfer coefficient being the major heat transfer coefficient contributing
to the heat loss, and which is also dependent on the absorber temperature and the
outer glass tube temperature is expressed as Eq.2.8.
σp (T 2 + Tg2 )(Tp2 + Tg2 )

h(p−gr) = ( ) p (2.8)
p Dglass 1 − p
1+
g Dglassin
Where p is the emmisivity of the selective absorber coating, g is the emissivity of
inner surface of the outer glass tube, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann’s constant, Dglassin is
the inner diameter of the outer glass tube, Dabs is the outer diameter of the absorber
tube. It is found that the heat loss mechanism in the all glass tube collector can be
expressed as Eq.2.9.
Ut (Tp − Ta ) = hp−g,r) (Tp − Tg ) + hp−g,c (Tp − Tg ) (2.9)

Equations 2.7-2.9 can be solved iteratively to calculate the unknown terms from
the known terms. And then, after all the parameters are calculated, overall loss
coefficient (UL ) can be found from equation 2.5. In their study conducted by Ma et
al. [43] the mathematical formulation of the collector efficiency factor F 0 is derived as
Eq. 2.10 and show the plot of F 0 versus the ∆T in their figure (9) [43]. It is vivid that
the change in the collector efficiency factor F 0 over the of 150 ◦ C is very negligible and
stays almost constant. Upon calculating the F 0 and having obtained almost constant
F 0 over the temperature difference which agreed with the results from Ma et.al [43],
we exclude the detailed analysis of F 0 in this work.

1
UL
F0 = (2.10)
UL
1+
Cb 1 1
W( + + )
UL (d + (W − d)F ) CB hf,i πd
Where d is the diameter of the U-tube, W=P/2 is the distance between the U tubes,
P is the perimeter of the aluminum fin, Cb is the synthetic conductance and CB is
the bond conductance.
2.2.1 Thermal Efficiency of concentrated all-glass tube col-

lector
Finally, we derive a general expression for the efficiency of the all glass tube collector
including the concentration effect of the any reflector(CPC, Parabolic trough, Fresnel
lens etc.). Starting from Eq. 2.4, QL is calculated and inserted in Eq.2.11 which S is
calculated from Eq. 2.12.
Qu = S − QL (2.11)
S = αρτ GAapr (2.12)
Where, α is the absorptivity of the absorber, ρ is the reflectivity of the reflecting
surfaces, τ is the transmissivity of the glass tubes, G is the radiation and Aapr is the
area of the collecting aperture. The thermal losses QL is given as Eq. 2.13.
QL = UL Aabs (Tabs − Ta ) (2.13)

From Equations 2.11 - 2.13, the useful energy can be written as Eq. 2.14.
Qu = αρτ GAapr − UL Aabs (Tabs − Ta ) (2.14)

Dividing by the total collector input energy (GAapr )(Eq. 2.15) and using the
expression for optical efficiency (η0 = αρτ ) , the expression for the thermal efficiency
is derived as Eq. 2.16.
Qu αρτ GAa pr UL AAbs
= − (Tabs − Ta ) (2.15)
GAa pr GAa pr GAapr
UL
ηth = η0 − (Tabs − Ta ) (2.16)
GCx
Where Cx is the concentration ratio and Tabs is the absorber temperature.
Table 2.3: The values of all thermal resistances
Thermal Resistance Symbol Value (m.K/W)

Radiation thermal resistance R1 20-50
Conduction thermal resistance R2 96.59
Convection thermal resistance R3 2.12
Conduction thermal resistance. R4 159.84
Conduction thermal resistance of absorber tube R5 0.03
Conduction thermal resistance of air layer R6 0.81
Bond thermal resistance R8 0.05
Convection thermal resistance R9 0.09
2.2.2 Results of Analytical Study

The values of all the thermal resistances are listed in Table 2.3 and have been normal-
ized by the perimeter of absorber tube. The thermal resistance of fin R7 is very small
compared with other thermal resistances which is not included in the mentioned ta-
ble. Vividly, resistances R1 , R2 , R3 and R4 are very large compared with resistances
R5 , R6 R8 and R9 , indicating the heat loss of glass evacuated tube is small, and
heat energy can be easily transferred to the working fluid. For the heat losses to the
atmosphere, the radiation heat loss is dominant compared with conduction heat loss.
The heat energy transferred from absorber tube to working fluid will be subject to
influence of thermal resistances R5 , R6 , R8 and R9 , and conduction thermal resistance
of air layer, R6, must be considered importantly in these thermal resistances. It is
almost ten times larger than convection thermal resistance R9 .
Thermal Efficiency
Based on the analytical model derived, we predicted the thermal performance of the
all glass ETC for both configurations- with CPC and without CPC. In the efficiency
curve, we plot the efficiency of the ETC collector with CPC and the one without the
CPC. The later has higher optical efficiency because it does not have the reflectivity
losses associated with the reflecting CPC surfaces. However, the ETC with CPC
can sustain the efficiency for higher temperature, up to 350 ◦ C but the one without
CPC will reach the stagnation point at 250◦ C. Figure 2.2 shows that the efficiency
decreases with the increase of the inlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid indi-
cating the increasing thermal loss from the collector at higher temperatures. Thus,
the present one-dimensional analysis is reasonable and can be used to analyze the
thermal performance of the glass evacuated solar collector. The efficiency obtained
in analytical study is slightly higher than that of the experimental tests. The reason
is because the synthetical conductance between the heat transfer fluid tube and the
Aluminum fin, Cb considered as 29 W/(m.K) is larger than that in actual application.
On the research conducted by Badran et al. [44], on the synthetic conductance of
the solar collector absorber, the experimental results show that Cb is quite small due
to the air gap (less than 6.3 W/m.K). And the CB between the Aluminum fin and
the U-tube is also very large in our analysis (20 W/(m K)), assuming the U-tube is
welded well with the aluminum fin.
Figure 2.2: Thermal efficiency respect to T ∗ from Analytical study
Overall Loss Coefficient

The overall loss coefficient which is the measure of total heat loss from the system
was calculated and in Figure 2.3 where the overall heat loss coefficient (UL ), collector
efficiency factor (F 0 ) and the temperature of the absorber (Tp ) are plotted respect the
temperature difference between the Heat transfer fluid and the ambient temperature
(Tf − Ta ) . To validate the reliability of the analytical procedure adopted in this
study, the predicted thermal efficiency results and the loss coefficients and validated
by the results obtained by Qi[45].
Figure 2.3: Overall Loss Coefficient (Ul ), Collector Efficiency Factor (F 0) &
absorber Temperature (Tp )
2.3 Reflector and Absorber Selection

According to Table 2.1, there is a need for higher concentration collector which do not
require active tracking in order to decrease LCOH. Ideal CPC with tubular absorber
can generate maximum concentration (Eq.2.3), however for practical prototyping of
CPC, there are two issues must be addressed. First, ideal CPC requires very long
reflector which is not practical in real-world manufacturing. In order to optimize
CPC’s geometry for prototyping, truncation of CPC is introduced by Carvalho [46].
To achieve medium concentration (Cx = 1.4) , collector’s aperture area(Aaperture ) can
be calculated by Eq 2.17. The graphical presentation of the reflector truncation is
represented in Figure 1, where dashed-black line truncated CPC reflector. Truncation
ratio (TR) term is defined (Eq.2.18) to measure ratio of designed concentration (Cx )
over maximum concentration(Cmax ). TR is 90% for pentagon absorber at 40 degree
half-acceptance angle (θA =40 ◦ C) .
Aaperture
Cx = (2.17)
Aabsorber
Cx
TR = = Cx sin(θA ) (2.18)
Cmax
From Table 2.4, the optical efficiency results of pentagon and reversed pentagon
are closer to ideal circle, however, reversed pentagon shape is harder and more ex-
pensive to be formed by ultrasonic welding machine, therefore, pentagon shape is
Figure 2.4: CPC with tubular absorber with 56mm radius and acceptance angle of
40 ◦
selected as the absorber for the proposed solar collector. The picture of pentagon
absorber with CPC reflector and its dimensions are described in Figure 2.6 and Table
2.5, respectively.
Figure 2.5: Ideal Optical efficiency from Ray tracing of 3 different shapes at
+10-degree half acceptance angle.
A. Pentagon absorber B. Square absorber C. Reversed pentagon absorber
Table 2.4: optical efficiency at normal incidence of three simulated geometries
Absorber shape Optical Efficiency at normal transversal incident angle (η0 )

Ideal Circle 100%
Reversed Pentagon 97%
Pentagon 94%
Square 89%
2.4 Coupled Optical/Thermal Simulation

Previously, the optical and thermal modeling of different solar collectors have been
done with different software. Balkoski [47] used LightTools Illumination Design soft-
ware and in-house MATLAB code to model optical and thermal performance of
XCPC, respectively. Steinfeld [48] used VeGas (Very General Monte Carlo Ray-
trace simulation) and Ansys CFX to model optical and thermal performance sepa-
rately. Although these models work well, building complex geometry such as CPC
and pentagon in two different software is relatively time-consuming and might cause
inaccuracies in results. Therefore, COMSOL software is chosen to simulate optical
and thermal process simultaneously.
2.4.1 Physical Problem

The shape of solar thermal collector generated by COMSOL Multiphysics 5.2a is
shown in Figure 2.7 . The optical-thermal simulation in COMSOL includes 5 sections:
material, geometry, geometrical optics, heat transfer and meshing. The materials
input for absorber, reflector and HTF are listed in Table 2.6.
2.4.2 Governing Equation

The geometrical optics (gop) module in COMSOL Multiphysics uses Snell’s law and
Fresnel equation for ray tracing [49]. Six coupled first-order ordinary differential equa-
tions for the components of K(3D ray vector), qray (position vector) and ω(angular
frequency) are solved to compute the ray trajectory as it is shown in Equations 3.5
and 3.6 [50].
dk ∂ω
=− (k = x, y, z) (2.19)
dt ∂qsolar
∂qsolar ∂ω
= − (k = x, y, z) (2.20)
dt ∂k
For heat transfer module, the governing equations used for conduction and con-
vection heat transfer mechanism in solid domain and fluid domain respectively are
Table 2.5: CPC reflector and pentagon absorber design parameter and dimensions
Parameter Value
Aperture width (Laperture ) 406 mm
Absorber length 290 mm
Concentration (Cx ) 1.4X
Half-Acceptance Angle (θA ) 40◦
Truncation Efficiency (TE) 90%
Glass tube inner diameter 55mm
Glass tube outer diameter 58mm
Absorber thickness(W) 0.12mm
L1 54mm
L2 37mm
L3 80mm
h 87mm
H 220mm
Figure 2.6: Pentagon absorber with CPC collector and glass tube
Figure 2.7: Rendered shape of collector with pentagon absorber in COMSOL

Multiphysics
Parameter Value
Total Aperture area 0.7925 m2
Aperture length 0.4 m
Absorber Length 2m
Total Absorber surface Area 1.257 m2
Total Reflector Area 1.395 m2
Pipe cross area 28.13 mm2
Absorber thickness 0.12 mm
Pipe inner diameter 6 mm
Pipe outer diameter 7.5 mm
Absorber material Copper
Reflector material Silica glass
Glass tube Vacuum
Heat Transfer Fluid Water
Table 2.6: Geometry and material specification for proposed solar collector
mentioned in Eq. 20 and Eq. 21 [52]

mentioned in Equations 3.7 and 3.9. [51]
− K.∇T = 0 (2.21)
ρCp u.∆T = ∇.(k) (2.22)

The mass and momentum conservation for the fluid flow are given as follows:
2
∇.(ρu) = 0, ρ(u.∇).u = ∇.[I + µ(∇u + (∇u)T ) − µ(∇.u)I] (2.23)
3
2.4.3 Boundary Conditions

Regarding the boundary conditions for modeling, at inlet, the velocity and temper-
ature are assumed to be uniform and constant, at outlet, constant zero pressure is
specified. Also, the proposed collector is a wide-angle collector (θA =34◦ ), this will
capture all radiation from in the range of +34◦ to -34◦ . The optical properties of
reflector, glass and absorber are taken from Table 2.6. Also, the inlet ray vector is
defined as normal to surface. The solid boundary condition for absorber is applied
(Eq.2.24). Solar ray heat flux (qsolar ) comes from optical simulation.
qsolar = k∇T − qloss (2.24)
In fluid domain, the inlet boundary conditions of fluid velocity and temperature
are expressed by the equations Eq. 2.25 and Eq. 2.26:
Vx = U0 , Vy = Vz = 0 (2.25)
T0 = Tin (2.26)
As the absorber is in vacuum, there is negligible conduction and convection hap-
pening from absorber to the ambient. The radiation heat transfer is modeled using
the Diffuse surface radiation in COMSOL. Eq.2.27.
4 4
qloss = σ(Tabsorber − Tamb ) (2.27)
2.4.4 Numerical Method

In this section, finite element method (FEM) implemented in COMSOL 5.2a is used
to simulate the solar collector. The 3D simulation model is studied at steady-state
and “Bidirectionally Coupled Ray Tracing” module is employed to solve optical and
thermal equations simultaneously. In the current study, the “Geometrical Optics”
module is used as ray tracing solver which absolute tolerance is 0.001 and stop con-
dition is “no active ray remaining”. Also, the “Heat transfer” module is employed in
order to solve the governing equations with boundary conditions mentioned in afore-
mentioned section. To reduce simulation time, the real size solar collector (2 meter
long) is modeled with symmetric about the y-axis.
2.4.5 Model Validation

In this study, free tetrahedral geometry is used for mesh construction. Most elements
are assigned to fluid domain and absorber and the meshes at fins(tubes) to absorber
connection(welding) is specifically refined. Two mesh samples with different element
number are generated, number of elements are listed individually in Table 2.7. To
determine the mesh independency of the system, the simulation is operated with ideal
boundary condition (reflectivity, transmittance and absorptance are 100%) using two
difference mesh element number (Table 6). The amount of heat extraction from
fluid (Qthermal ) has to be equivalent to input energy (Qsolar ) in order to satisfy that
the results are not dependent to number of mesh elements. For the second mesh
sample (in contrast to 1st) sample, the results are followed energy balance (Qthermal =
Qsolar ). Also with adding number of mesh elements, the input and output energy
remains equivalent, however, the mesh increase requires more computation cost(time),
therefore the minimum independent mesh elements (second sample) is selected for
final simulation. Similarly, ray independency is checked for 5000 and 10000 rays.
First, the simulation studied with 5000 rays, the output energy (Qout = 790W ) of
the system is as slightly lower than input energy (Qin = 792.5W ), however for 10000
rays the energy balance is accurately obtained (Qthermal = Qsolar = 792.5W ) .
Table 2.7: number of elements for domain, boundary and edges of collector
Tests Domain (#) Boundary (#) Edge (#) Relative error (%)
First sample 550580 615453 25053 0.31
Second sample 6158456 750249 32550 0
2.4.6 Results and Discussions

Ray tracing
Ray tracing of solar thermal collector is studied with listed properties (Table 2.8).
The ray tracing studied by “Geometrical optic” module in COMSOL. The results for
normal incidence angle is shown in Figure 2.8 A for better visualization the number
Rays are limited to 1000 rays). Figure 2.8 B normalized optical efficiency (η(N,θ) )
respect normal transversal incidence angle (θA ) is plotted. This plot also known as
Incidence Angle Modifier (IAM) which is a good criterion to compare stationary solar
thermal to tracking collector based on incidence angle. As the proposed XCPC is an

East-West collector the incidence angle of the collector changes through the year (not
daily). It is obvious that rays beyond acceptance angle (±40◦ ) are mostly reflected and
does not received by absorber, therefore there is sharp drop in 40 ◦ (it is not vertical
drop since the reflector is truncated). Also, as it is observable in the same figure,
the optical efficiency at 0 to 10 ◦ is lower than 20 ◦ to 30 ◦ as in real-world application
applied to simulation which absorber does not perfectly settle on the reflector (the
absorber is surrounded by glass tube). This effect is also known as gap loss.
Table 2.8: Geometrical Optics parameter in COMSOL Multiphysics
Parameter Value
Number of emitting rays from the source (sun rays) 10000
Total Source Power 792.5 W
Refractive index of exterior domains 1
Gap loss distance (distance between reflector and absorber) 5mm
Reflection coefficient 0.89(Mylar)
Absorption coefficient 0.95(SunSelect)
Glass transmittance 0.92(Borosilicate)
Thermal modeling
To calculate theoretical thermal efficiency of the solar thermal collector, different inlet
temperatures are applied and thermal efficiency (ηthermal ) is calculated based on Eq
2.28.
ṁCp@Tin ∆Tf
ηthermal = (2.28)
Aaperture G
Temperature distribution is 3D plotted for different inlet temperatures (Figure
2.9). It is concluded from the results that maximum temperature difference of ab-
sorber (∆Tmax = Tsmax −Tsmin ) decreases as that as inlet temperature increases (Table
2.9).
Table 2.9: Maximum temperature difference across absorber
Tin (◦ C) ∆Tsmax = Tsmax − Tsmin (◦ C) ηthermal,theoretical (%)

30 45 64
100 35 62
200 25 51
Figure 2.8: A) Ray trajectory from aperture to absorber (number rays deceased for
better visualization) B) Incident angle Modifier (IAM)
Figure 2.9: Temperature distribution over absorber for HTF Inlet temperature of
a: 30 ◦ C b: 100 ◦ C c: 200 ◦ C d: 350 ◦ C
As ambient temperature(Tamb ) and global irradiation (G) are two significant pa-
rameters for thermal efficiency. Thermal efficiency is better be plotted with respect
to normalized temperature (Tf∗ ) . Normalized temperature is defined as Eq. 2.29.
The thermal efficiency simulation is plotted in Figure 2.10 (Tamb = 30◦ C and G=1000
W/m2 ).
Tin − Tamb
Tf∗ = (2.29)
G
Figure 2.10: Simulated thermal efficiency

2.5 Design and Prototyping

After optical-thermal simulation, the prototype designed in 6 tubes with each 3 tubes
are connected in parallel and welded to pentagon absorber with ultrasonic welding
(2.11 a). Half collector chose to be prototyped which the evacuated tube with pen-
tagon absorber is fabricated in china and shipped to US. For assembly, first Evacuated
glass tube are screwed to the frame (2.11 c). Secondly then U-tube connection in-
side the evacuated tube is connected to manifold with flare fitting connection (2.11
b), At last, CPC reflector is added in order to complete prototype assembly. Final
prototyped collector is shown in Figure 2.11 d.
Figure 2.11: Design and Prototyping process a: CAD Design b: Evacuated tubes
connection to Manifold c: Evacuated tubes connection to frame d: Final prototyped
collector with manifold box
2.6 Experiment
After prototyping is finished, the solar thermal collector carried to outdoor solar test-
ing facility for to measure optical and thermal efficiency of the system. All tests
are done in 2-acre solar research center at in Atwater, California which belong to
University of California, Merced. The equipment utilized for both optical and ther-
mal efficiency testing include 20 k-type thermocouples (5 for calorimeter inlet, 5 for
calorimeter outlet, 5 for solar collector inlet, 5 for solar collector outlet), a Coriolis
flow meter to measure flowrate (ṁ), a current clamp meter, a Precision Spectral Pyra-
nometer (PSP) to measure global irradiation(G) plus 1 datalogger (Agilent 34972A)
which is connected to personal computer to scan all instruments data respect to time
( 1 scan per 5 second). The Instruments and their measurement error are listed in
Table 2.11.
2.6.1 Optical Efficiency Test (Open-loop)

To measure Optical efficiency with respect to transversal incidence angle (IAM),
the collector with 3 tubes was mounted on a dual axis tracker. The collector is
categorized in East-West collector [38] which the absorber tube is located horizontally
to capture seasonal inclination of sun((±23.5) [52] . To tracker latitude angle to
sun (seasonal tracking), the transversal incidence angle (latitude angle) has been
changed and optical efficiency measured (Eq 2.30 ). The optical testing is done
using open-loop water (Figure 2.12). There are two reasons open-loop water as HTF
for optical efficiency test. As optical efficiency is maximum practical efficiency of
solar collector, it must be done in a temperature close to ambient temperature in
order to minimize heat loss (in contrast to calorimetry test which increasing inlet
temperature of collector is desired). Also heat capacity(Cp ) of water does not change
in respect to temperature significantly, therefore the optical efficiency calculation is
more accurate. It will be shown in thermal efficiency section that using oil as heat
transfer fluid (HTF), heat capacity (Cp ) varies significantly with temperature, and in
order to measure it accurately, am in-line calorimeter is designed. The solar collector
characteristic for water test in available in Table 2.10.
Also to calculate Experimental optical efficiency, in order to apply in experimental
IAM plot, mass flow rate of water measured with Coriolis flow meter( ±0.1%), Inlet
and outlet temperature of collector(Tout − Tin ), the total aperture(Aaperture ) is shown
in and Total irradiation(G) is 1000W/m2 .
Finally, the optical efficiency (Eq 2.30) is calculated based on different incidence
angle of inlet ray using dual axis tracker. The experimental results (Figure 2.13),
represent a good agreement with simulation results. Also in order to determine reli-
able optical efficiency at normal angle (ηoptical,0 ), the test repeated in multiple sunny
days which all parameter are the same except global irritation(G) which slightly dif-
ferent(less than 1% difference) . The average optical efficiency over tested day is
reported in Figure 2.14.
Figure 2.12: Optical efficiency test with water
ṁwater Cp (Tout − Tin )

ηoptical = (2.30)
Aaperture G
Table 2.10: Characteristics of Prototyped Medium-temperature solar collector
Parameter Value
Emissivity 0.05
Absorber length 2m
Aperture area (Aaperture ) 4.5 m2
Tube per collector 3
Pipe inner diameter 6mm
Pipe outer diameter 7.5mm
Cp (water) 4180 J/kgK
Figure 2.13: Theoretical and Experimental (circle shows measured points) Incident
Angle Modifier (IAM)
Figure 2.14: Optical Efficiency test results

2.6.2 Thermal measurement

Calorimetric Heat Capacity Measurement
To accurately determine the efficiency of a solar thermal collector, the material prop-
erties of the heat transfer fluid need to be known. If the working fluid is water, whose
thermodynamic properties are well established and agreed upon throughout litera-
ture, efficiency calculations are straightforward as it shown in optical efficiency test.
In medium to high temperature solar thermal systems, water becomes a non-ideal
working fluid because of its phase change to steam. For this reason, many solar ther-
mal systems that operate above 100 ◦ C use some sort of mineral oil as the heat transfer
medium. Mineral oil thermodynamic properties can vary from supplier to supplier,
and even over time via oxidation through thermal cycling of the solar collectors. The
supplied data sheet for an oil’s thermodynamic properties, measured under controlled
laboratory conditions, may not be accurate under real world operation. An in-line
calorimeter setup (Figure 2.15) is necessary to accurately measure the specific heat
capacity of the oil respect to inlet temperature of mineral oil as it flows through the
solar thermal collector. This section documents the theory and experimental setup
used to measure specific heat .
Figure 2.15: Calorimeter with insulation connected to oil loop
To calculate the specific heat of the mineral oil heat transfer fluid, a variation of
the first law of thermodynamics is used, assuming constant specific heat Eq. :
q = mCp ∆T (2.31)
Adapting this equation to a flow calorimeter (Eq.21)
oil oil
qincalorimeter = ṁoil Cp (Tout − Tin ) + qlosscalorimeter (2.32)
where q( inc alorimeter) is the heat input to the calorimeter, q( lossc alorimeter).
The heat loss from the calorimeter to the environment [W], ṁ is the mass flow rate of
the oil through the calorimeter [kg/s] The measured quantities for the calorimeter are:
qin , ṁ, Tout , and Tin . This leaves a single equation with two unknowns: qlosscalorimeter
and Cp . To determine both the heat loss from the system and the heat capacity of the
oil, an experimental procedure is developed as follows: The inlet temperature, Tin , to
the calorimeter is held fixed. A known amount of heating power, qin , is supplied to the
calorimeter. The system is allowed to reach steady state. Measurements are taken for
the mass flow rate, ṁ, and outlet temperature, Tout. This procedure is repeated, from
step 2, a total of six time, increasing the heating power each cycle. A plot is produced,
as seen in Figure 2.16 with the heat input to the system on the y-axis, and the mass
flow rate multiplied by the temperature rise of the oil through the calorimeter on the
x-axis. A linear trendline is fit to the data with the slope being equivalent to specific
heat of the oil, Cp , and the y-intercept being the heat loss from the calorimeter, qloss .
Following the experimental procedure above produces the specific heat capacity of the
Figure 2.16: Calorimetry results and heat loss calculation
oil and heat loss from the calorimeter at a single fixed temperature point. Like other
fluid properties such as density and viscosity, the specific heat capacity is also highly
dependent on temperature. Repeating the experiment for six different fixed inlet
temperatures to the calorimeter, a trend for the specific heat capacity as a function
of temperature is developed. The flow calorimeter takes advantage of a counter flow
design using 2kW electrically resisting heating elements to provide the heating power.
Figure 2.17: 3D rendering of calorimeter
The oil flows through an outer annulus at the inlet and passes through an inner tube
where the resisting heating element is located. The two heating elements and the oil
flow path are constructed in parallel as seen in Figure 2.17. To limit heat loss to the
environment, the entire calorimeter is wrapped in an Aerogel insulation. The portions
containing the heating elements are encased in all glass vacuum tubes coated with a
selective coating to limit the environmental heat loss even further.
Two k-type thermocouple clusters containing five thermocouples each are placed
in the flow path of the oil at the inlet and outlet of the calorimeter. The inlet
and outlet temperatures are taken as averages of the five thermocouples in each
cluster. The mass flow rate of the oil is measured by a Coriolis flow meter. Heating
power into the calorimeter is calculated by multiplying the measured DC voltage and
current supplied to the resisting heating elements. The current is measured via a
UNI-T UT210 clamp meter. All measurements, except current, are recorded through
a Keysight 34972A data acquisition unit. error lists the individual instrument and
measurement errors associated with all the data acquired from the calorimeter. The
calorimetry experiment was conducted as outlined in the theory section above for six
different fixed inlet temperatures: 100◦ C, 120◦ C, 140◦ C, 160◦ C, 180◦ C, and 200◦ C.
For each fixed inlet temperature six different heating powers were used, ranging from
0W to 1600W. The measured data for inlet and outlet oil temperature, mass flow rate,
and heating power, were used to produce plots like Figure 2.16 for each fixed inlet
temperature. The error associated with the specific heat measurement was calculated
via standard Gaussian error propagation from the instrument and measurement errors
shown in Table 2.11, is also plotted in Figure 2.18. The result from mentioned graph,
Table 2.11: Instruments and their measurement error
Instrument Make /Specification Instrument Datalogger error

Expansion Tank Steel, 20 L capacity N/A N/A
Pump 3 HP centrifugal pump N/A N/A
Heater Microtherm CMXO (6KW) N/A N/A
Calorimeter Valin Inc. N/A N/A
Tracker DuraTrack dual axis tracker. N/A N/A
Flow meter Micromotion Coriolis 0.1% 0.01%
Datalogger Agilent 34970A N/A N/A
Thermocouple Omega K type 1.1 C or 0.4% 1.0 ◦ C
Pressure Gauge McMaster Carr Model 4089K61 N/A N/A
Current clamp meter UNI-T UT210 2.0% N/A
DC Power Supply SORENSEN , 0-35 Amps N/A 0.0045%
Precision Spectral
Pyranometer (PSP) EPPLEY 2.5% 0.005%
Normal Incidence
Pyrheliometer (NIP) EPPLEY (Model 15) ±2.5% ±0.005%
Working Fluid Duratherm 600 N/A N/A
will be used to calculate thermal efficiency
2.6.3 Thermal Efficiency (Closed-loop test)

After the water test, solar collector is connected to the medium temperature loop
(Figure 2.19) which using Duratherm 600(mineral oil) as HTF . The schematic of
the medium temperature test loop is displayed in Figure 2.20. The test is started
on June 15th and ended on August 20th, 2017. Every test started with by turn-
ing on temperature controller to fix inlet temperature of the calorimeter and solar
collector. Then in clear sunny day by using 20 k-type thermocouples inlet and out-
let temperature of both calorimeter and the collector were measured in order to
determine Heat capacity of oil(Cp,calorimeter ) and Temperature difference along the
collector(Tout,collector − Tin,collector ) respectively .Also oil flowrate (ṁoil ) is measured
by Coriolis flow meter and effective irradiation is captured by Precision Spectral
Pyranometer (PSP) sensor. Two pressure gauges that are installed in inlet and outlet
of collector (Figure 2.20) measured the pressure drop of 100 KPa in the collector.
Figure 2.18: Results comparing the measured specific heat of mineral oil under
operating conditions to the data provided by a mineral oil supplier
Figure 2.19: The medium temperature solar thermal collector efficiency test
Figure 2.20: Schematic of Medium Temperature test loop

Figure 2.21: Collector thermal performance
The thermal efficiency is calculated using Eq. 2.33.
ṁoil Cp,calorimeter (Tout − Tin )

ηthermal,experimental = (2.33)
Aaperture G
Figure 2.21 shows result of the thermal efficiency for medium temperature solar
thermal collector with respect normalized temperature(T ∗ ) . The results indicate
there is good agreement between experimental and numerical results. Also, the col-
lector showed good thermal performance experimentally in which could achieve 50%
efficiency at 200 ◦ .This efficiency makes the proposed collector performance compara-
ble to active tracking solar thermal collector (Table 2.1).Also, In order to compare the
efficiency of proposed collector to other major commercial collector, quadratic fitting
(Eq 2.34) for experimental results has been calculated and results are compared in
Figure 19 (G=1000W/m2 ,DNI =850 W/m2 and Tamb = 30 are considered for all
collectors). The references for commercial collectors plotted in Figure 19 is available
in Table 1 under efficiency column(ηthermal@200◦ c ) except flat plat collector [53] and
Evacuated tube collector [54].
ηthermal = aG(T ∗ )2 + bT ∗ + c (2.34)

Figure 2.22: Thermal Efficiency of proposed collector compared with major

commercial collectors
2.7 Techno-economics of a proposed collector

As it shown in previous section, the pentagon absorber has high efficiency compare to
other medium temperature collector (Evacuated Tube collector, North-south XCPC,
low concentration CPC and Evacuated flat plate), however high temperature collector
(Parabolic trough and Linear Fresnel) still has higher efficiency and stagnation tem-
perature. At the end there is trade-off between efficiency and cost of system, therefore
it must be optimized at specific temperature (in this case is 200 ◦ C). As it discussed in
introduction, the parameter than can compare cost of heat at specific temperature is
called Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH) (Eq 2.2). In order to calculate LCOH, first to-
tal cost of collector has been summarized in Table 2.12 and other parameters such as
Fixed Charge Rate, Operation and maintenance cost and annual thermal generation
(Eq.2.1) 2.13 are listed in Table . Finally, LCOH of XCPC with pentagon absorber is
calculated as 3.1 ¢/kWh which is cheaper than all major medium and high tempera-
ture collector (Table 2.1). LCOH of a proposed solar collector is roughly equivalent to
current cost of natural gas in California[30]. If the proposed collector manufactures
in larger scale (MW), it is feasible to achieve cheaper heat generation than Natural
Part Cost($/m2)
CPC Reflector 35
Pentagon absorber 30
U-tube copper pipe 20
Metal glass seal 10
Glass tube 7.5
Heat transfer receiver (Duratherm 600) 60
Indirect cost (shipping, solar field and installation)[29], 2018) 80
Total installed cost 242.5
Table 2.12: Summarized cost of a single collector
Parameters Amount
Total cost 242.5($/m2)
Fixed charge rate (FCR) 0.083
Operation and Maintenance cost(O&M) 5($/m2)
Annual average efficiency for design temperature (ηthermal@200◦ C ) 45 %
Annual Solar resource (Fresno, California) (NREL, 2018) 1800 kW h/m2
Annual thermal generation (Qoutput ) 810(kW h/yr/m2 )
Levelized cost of Heat (LCOH) 3.1 ¢/kW h
Table 2.13: Levelized cost of heat (LC0H) of proposed collector for 200 ◦ C
gas for medium-temperature application such as steam generation, industrial water

heating and desalination in California.
2.8 Conclusion
In this paper, optical and thermal performance of novel medium-temperature solar
thermal collector is investigated both numerically and experimentally. First, absorber
and reflector are optimized for real-world manufacturing and higher optical concentra-
tion, respectively. Secondly, robust optical-thermal simulation for the proposed solar
thermal collector is proposed and applied in order to evaluate numerical optical and
thermal efficiency. After the proposed collector designed, it is experimentally tested
under sun to measure experimental optical and thermal efficiency. The results show
good agreement between simulation and experiment. It is measured that the proposed
medium-temperature solar collector has outstanding optical and thermal performance
include optical efficiency of 64%, thermal efficiency of 50% at 200 ◦ c, and stagnation
temperature of 378 ◦ C without no mechanical tracking system (stationary optical
tracking). At the end, Levelized cost of Heat for a single collector calculated as 3.1
¢/kWh which is cheaper than commercial thermal collector and also can be a major
competitor to natural gas in California if it manufactures in large-scale.
Chapter 3
A Non-tracking North-South
Concentrated Hybrid Solar
Collector
This chapter’s results were presented in UC Solar symposium in San Francisco and
received the audience award.[55]
3.1 Introduction
Higher life standard is correlated with higher energy demand. Carbon free energy
sources are vital for human survival as latest report of Intergovernmental panel on
climate change(IPCC), stated ”Human activities(CO2 emission) are estimated to have
caused approximately 1.0 ◦ C of global warming compare to pre-industrial level” and
“climate-related risks to health, livelihood, food security, water supply, human secu-
rity and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5 ◦ C
[9]. Renewable energy is widely accepted one of the major source of energy in the
future [56] especially the ones can supply on-site domestic need will be prioritized
[57]. According to International Energy Agency(IEA), the fastest-growing renewable
systems for domestic application operate with solar energy[58]. Traditionally, solar
collectors consist of two major sub-groups: solar thermal collector and Photovoltaic.
The former can provide a thermal energy output for direct water or space heating,
while the latter can provide electrical energy to cover partially a household electric-
ity need. The synthetic combination allows for the electrical and thermal output to
be obtained simultaneously. Also, the nature of photovoltaic system allows only a
portion of the solar spectrum to be converted into electricity which is determined by
Shockley-Quaisser limit [59]. The remaining flux is simply wasted and contributes to
waste heat generation in the module. As a result, a typical PV module will easily heat
up to 60 degree Celsius [60] on a summer day causing the semiconductor material to
operate less efficiently and produce less power. Therefore, cooling a PV cell provides
two energy benefits: (1) increase electricity output as long as the cell is maintained
42
Chapter 3. A Non-tracking North-South Concentrated Hybrid Solar Collector 43
below its typical stagnating temperature, and (2) the additional generation of low
temperature thermal energy [61]. Furthermore, combining PV and thermal technolo-
gies into a single hybrid PV/T device yields more energy per square meter (which is
valuable in space-limited installations) and reduces installation costs compared to a
conventional side-by-side installation [62]. These advantages of hybrid PV makes an
interesting Branch of solar collectors.
Clearly, PVT collector is an ideal choice to provide residential energy need such as
lighting, hot water, space heating, cooking and etc., however, high upfront cost slowed
down its global market growth [63]. In order to improve PVT market, first must eval-
uate current commercial PVT collectors around the world. In terms of economics and
environmental impact, three major indexes are : Levelized cost of Energy(LCOE),
Simple Payback Period and amount of CO2 reduction [64]. LCOE of PVT mod-
ule(without including installation, land etc.) is defined as Eq.3.1 which Cmodule is
total cost of PVT collector(module), PP V T is total annual electrical generation and
QP V T is total annual thermal generation. In this case, escalation rate and interest
rate assumed to be equal and the income from sold power to the grid is neglected.
Cmodule
LCOEmodule = (3.1)
PP V T + QP V T
Simple payback period is defined as Eq 3.2 which SHeat and Spower is saving value($)
for heat and power generation, respectively.
Cmodule
SP Pmodule = (3.2)
Sheat + Spower
Also, Amount of avoided CO2 is calculated as Equations 3.3, 3.4 where emission
factors for electricity and heat are (EFpower =109 (kgCo2 )/M W h) and (EFheat =264
(kgCo2 )/M W h), respectively [64].
CCO2th = QP V T ∗ EFHeat , CCO2Elec = PP V T ∗ EFP ower (3.3)
CCO2P V T = CCO2Elec + CCO2th (3.4)

Applying Equations 3.1 3.2 3.3 to cost, electrical and thermal efficiency of PVT
collector, Simple payback period, Levelized Cost of Energy and CO2 reduction can be
calculated and are listed for current commercial PVT collector in Table 3.1 and Figure
3.3 . As it is shown in the Table , the average levelized cost of PVT collector is around
$28 per MWh which is cheaper than accumulated LCOE of PV ($35/MWh[65]) and
LCOH(Levelized Cost of Heat) for Solar thermal collector($31/MWh[66]). Further
module cost reduction can effect large-scale[67] and residential [68] PVT collector
significantly. In order to achieve that goal, technical improvement such as reduction
in electrical and thermal resistance[69], increase in optical concentration [70] and
smart material selection which balance the trade-off between cost and performance
[71].
Table 3.1: Calculation of Three major indexes for Commercial PVT collector
PVT ηelec @ ηther @ Cost Thermal Electrical Total Payback LCOE CO2 (Kg)
Collectors 60 ◦C 60 ◦C $/m2 (kWh) (kWh) Savings Period(yrs) ($/MWh) Reduction
Millenium 15% 40% $565 855.56 320.84 $73.54 7.6 24.01 177.96
Energies 15% 55% $339 1176.40 320.84 $86.68 3.91 11.32 212.93
Absilicon 10% 40% $678 855.56 213.89 $60.71 11.1 31.693 149.72
PVTwins 13% 60% $848 1283.34 278.06 $85.93 9.8 27.15 213.29
Volther 12% 42% $373 898.34 256.67 $67.59 5.51 16.14 165.68
Grammer 12% 40% $1,130 855.56 256.67 $65.84 17.16 50.79 161.02
Zenith 22% 50% $1,017 1069.45 470.56 $100.2 10.14 33.02 240.80
This study 10% 40% $221 855 214 $60.7 3.6 10.33 150
In 1976, Wolf first analyzed the performance of a hybrid collector with photo-
voltaic cell and flat plate thermal collector for residential application in New Mexico
[72]. After more than 40 years, the largest category is still flat plate PV/T collector
since it has low capital and maintenance cost [73]. Typically, in hybrid PVT col-
lector , a PV module is directly laminated over a thermal absorber for low thermal
resistance. Thermal insulation can be added to the backside of the thermal absorber
to reduce heat losses at high temperatures and these systems can also be covered by
an additional air gap and glass layer (glazed) for additional thermal resistance to the
environment[74]. These systems are used for pool or domestic hot water (DHW) heat-
ing, but alternative designs have also been developed for space heating using air as the
heat transfer fluid [75].The second category is concentrating PVT in which an optical
concentrator is used to increase the solar flux on the absorber. Concentrating sys-
tems utilizing active-tracking parabolic troughs (Absolicon, Cogenra, ANU-CHAPS),
linear Fresnel (Chromasun, Heliodynamics), and stationary compound parabolic con-
centrators (Solarus) have been developed. The thermal and electrical performance
as well as the characteristics of some available collectors are provided in Table 2.
The benefit of concentrating systems is (i) reduction in the required cell area and (ii)
better thermal performance at elevated temperatures. As shown in Table 2, thermal
efficiencies begin around 60% and decrease with increasing T* based on the concen-
tration ratio of each system. Electrical efficiencies are highest for the unglazed flat
panel at 15% but are around 11% for concentrating systems due to reduced available
irradiance (direct beam only) and losses from additional optical interfaces (glass cov-
ers, reflectors). All these systems use mono-crystalline silicon solar cells and as such
the effect of temperature on electrical performance is consistent between technologies.
In this paper we describe the development of a concentrated flat-plate Photovoltaic-
thermal system for electricity, hot water, and space heating. When commercialized,
it will be ideal for reducing natural gas consumption and increasing electricity reli-
Figure 3.1: Caption
Table 3.2: PVT collector technical characterization: type, concentration, aperture

area, thermal and electrical efficiency
Company/ Collector Concentration Cell Aperture ηo,th ηo,ele

Author Model / Name Type* (Cx ) Type Area (m2 ) (%) (%) Ref.
DualSun DualSun Spring FPC 1X mc-Si 1.65 47 15 [76]
Solarus PowerCollector CPC 1.5X mc-Si 2.21 64 11 [77]
Absolicon X10 PVT PTC 17.8X mc-Si 10.37 55 7 [78]
Chromasun Hybrid MCT CLFR 20X mc-Si 3.50 59 8 [79]
J. Coventry CHAPS PTC 37X mc-Si 1.875 64 11 [80]
ability for residential, commercial, institutional and industrial building sectors. The
PV/T collector utilizes a novel optics for solar concentration, aluminum minichannel
for thermal collection, and commercially available SunPower solar cells for electricity
production, all packaged in a glass tube filled with Argon for better performance and
lower cost. The solar cell to minichannel interface allows for the collection of ther-
mal energy while simultaneously cooling the solar cells and enhancing their efficiency.
The collector is first modeled using COMSOL Multiphysics to determine the optical
and thermal efficiency. Individual component testing is performed pre-assembly to
determine the thermal performance for both a (i) minichannel and (ii) heat pipe ab-
sorbers and also electrical efficiency of the solar cells in their full (uncut), cut, and
series-connected forms. The two full prototypes are fabricated and experimentally
characterized on-sun at UC Merced which thermal and combined efficiency of the
PVT collector is obtained. Finally, technoeconomic analysis of the proposed PVT
collector, Levelized cost of Energy, Simple Payback Period and amount of carbon
avoiding is listed and compared with the commercial PVT collectors.
3.2 Coupled Optical-thermal modeling of PVT col-

lector with minichannel absorber
3.2.1 Physical Shape
The hybrid collector majorly consists of glass tube, absorber where solar cell is applied
on both top and bottom side and reflective layer (Silver) coated on the glass tube.
The sun ray enters the collector with different transversal angle (depend on time of
the day), where some rays are absorbed by the solar cell directly (top surface) and
some rays will be reflected and then absorber by solar cells(bottom surface). This
process is based non-imaging optical tracking [81] which the collector does not need
any mechanical or electrical tracking mechanism. The schematic shape and major
optical parameters (Transmittance, Reflection, Absorption) are labeled in Figure 2.
In order to numerically model the collector using finite element method, the actual
geometry of hybrid collector is simulated in COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3a as it is shown
in Figure 3. The optical-thermal simulation[30] in COMSOL Multiphysics includes
5 sections: material, geometry, geometrical optics, heat transfer and meshing. The
geometry specification and materials for absorber, reflector and HTF are listed in
Table 3.
Figure 3.2: Schematic shape of PVT collector in 2D cross section
3.2.2 Governing Equations

The geometrical optics (gop) module in COMSOL Multiphysics uses Snell’s law and
Fresnel equation for ray tracing [49]. Six coupled first-order ordinary differential equa-
tions for the components of K(3D ray vector), qray (position vector) and ω(angular
frequency) are solved to compute the ray trajectory as it is shown in Equations 3.5
and 3.6 [50].
dk ∂ω
=− (k = x, y, z) (3.5)
dt ∂qsolar
∂qsolar ∂ω
= − (k = x, y, z) (3.6)
dt ∂k
mentioned in Eq. 20 and Eq. 21 [52]
mentioned in Equations 3.7 and 3.9. [51]
− K.∇T = 0 (3.7)
ρCp u.∆T = ∇.(k) (3.8)

Figure 3.3: Rendered shape of the solar collector in COMSOL Multiphysics
Parameter Value
Total Aperture area 0.1188 m2
Aperture length 0.066 m
Absorber Length 0.032 m
Total Absorber surface Area 0.126 m2
Total Reflector Area 0.1863 m2
Inlet fluid cross area 60 mm2
Minichannel Vertical thickness 0.5 mm
Minichannel Horizontal thickness 1 mm
Absorber material Aluminum
Reflector material Silver coated
Gas inside glass tube Argon gas
Heat Transfer Fluid Water
Table 3.3: geometry and material specification for absorber, reflector and HTF
The mass and momentum conservation for the fluid flow are given as follows:
2
∇.(ρu) = 0, ρ(u.∇).u = ∇.[I + µ(∇u + (∇u)T ) − µ(∇.u)I] (3.9)
3
3.2.3 Boundary Condition

In fluid domain, the inlet boundary conditions of fluid velocity and temperature are
expressed by the equations Eq 3.10 and Eq 3.11:
Vx = U0 , Vy = Vz = 0 (3.10)
T0 = Tin (3.11)
At inlet, the velocity and temperature are assumed to be uniform and constant,
and also outlet boundary defined as ambient pressure. Also, the proposed collector is
a wide-angle collector and the sun shape angle negligibly affect ray tracing simulation
1◦
since the sun angle (θsun = ) is much smaller compare to the half-acceptance angle
4
of the collector(θA =90◦ ). The solid domain for absorber is applied (Eq.3.12).
qabsorber = qsolar − qloss (3.12)

Solar ray heat flux (qsolar ) calculated from optical simulation. The inlet energy
in aperture area for ray tracing is defined as Eq 3.13 where the inlet ray vector is
defined as normal to surface.
qsolar = G ∗ Aaperture (3.13)

the total heat loss equation is defined in (Eq.3.14) and the radiation heat loss is
defined as Eq. 3.15.
qloss = qradiation + qconvection (3.14)
4 4
qradiation = σ(Tabsorber − Tamb ) (3.15)
The convection loss is calculated using 3.16 where heat transfer coefficient(h) is
determined with internal equation for vertical and horizontal plate in COMSOL.
qconvection = h(T − Tamb ) (3.16)

Finite element method (FEM) implemented in COMSOL 5.3a is used for sim-
ulation. The 3D simulation model is studied at steady-state and “Bidirectionally
Coupled Ray Tracing” study is employed to solve optical and thermal equations si-
multaneously with convergence possibility. In the current study, the “Geometrical
Optics” module is used as ray tracing solver (absolute tolerance is 0.001 and stop
condition is “no active ray remaining”) , the “Heat transfer” module is employed in
order to solve the governing equations with the parameters are listed in Table 3.4 .
Table 3.4: Hybrid collector’s parameters and value
Parameter Value
Source Global Irradiation(G) 1000 W/m2
Reflection coefficient (ρ) 0.92
Absorption coefficient (α) 0.95
Glass transmittance (τ ) 0.92
Water Velocity (U0 ) 0.5 m/s
Water Mass flowrate () 100 g/s
Thermal conductivity of absorber (Aluminum) 205 W/mK
Emissivity of solar cell () 0.8
Heat capacity of water (Cp ) 4180 J/kgK
Ambient temperature 20 ◦ C
3.2.4 Model validation

In this study, free tetrahedral geometry is used for mesh construction. Most elements
are assigned to solid absorber and fluid domain where inlet and outlet is specifically
refined. Two mesh samples with different number of element number are generated .
To determine the mesh independency of the system, the simulation is operated with
ideal boundary condition (reflectivity, transmittance and absorptance equal to 100%)
using two difference mesh element number. The amount of heat extraction from fluid
(Qthermal ) must be equivalent to input energy (Qsolar ) with relative error less than 1%
between the inlet and outlet energy. As it listed in Table 3.5, second mesh sample
could achieve relative error less than 1% with 1919438 elements. Subsequently, ray
independency is verified for 5000 and 10000 rays where total relative error of less than
1% is achieved for 10000 rays.
Table 3.5: Mesh independency
Tests Elements (#) Average mesh quality (%) Relative error (%)
1st sample 752105 35 1.5
2nd sample 1919438 64 0.7
3.2.5 Results
Absorber Hotspots
The current simulation is built as a model in ray tracing study with COMSOL Multi-
physics, representing a 1.8-meter single collector with minichannel absorber. In order
to investigate hot spot on the absorber, the ray angle is 33 degrees ( 10 o’clock )in the
morning for the equinox day is considered and assumed the solar collector is tilted
according to the local latitude. The contour plot is shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: Heat flux on the absorber (W/m2 )
The ray tracing result shows that the effect of any hot spots can be mitigated
since the concentration of the solar radiation is very limited and high concentration
of sunlight only happens during the sunrise and sunset hours for the vertical receiver
configuration(6 o’clock), however horizontal configuration(3 o’clock) of the receiver
does not suffer from the same effect. Therefore, it can be concluded that hot spot
is not a major concern for absorber of solar cells in this collector due to low optical
concentration(Cx =1) as the aperture and absorber area is equal [42].
Index Angle Modifier(IAM)

According to the different positions of the sun(different transversal angle) due to
its daily changes, a parameter sensitivity simulation is performed. The simulation
has been conducted for different transversal angle(-100 ◦ to 100 ◦ ) where the optical
efficiency is zero at 90 ◦ since the acceptance angle of the collector is designed for 90 .
Normalized optical efficiency (ηN ) can be calculated in Eq.18 and results are plotted
in Figure 3.5. The overall efficiency of the different setups according to parameter
sensitivity(Transversal angle) analysis shows that all three simulated sample have
similar optical efficiency, 3 o’clock orientation has slightly better optical efficiency
(area under the curve) compare to others. In order to choose final selection of absorber
orientation, heat transfer results must be included in final evaluation.
ηθ
ηN = (3.17)
η0
Figure 3.5: Heat flux distribution(left) and Index Angle Modifier right) for three
difference(0 ◦ , 45 ◦ , 90 ◦ ) orientation of absorber with 92% reflectivity
Heat Loss
The heat transfer between absorber and surrounding gas causes free convection inside
glass which finally some of the absorber heat will be lost to the surrounding environ-
ment. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is performed to investigate free convection
heat loss using COMSOL. The free convection modelling is based on two different
fluids (Air and Argon), two different absorber orientations (3 o’clock and 6 o’clock)
and wind cooling is applied to the tube outer surface. The fluid mechanic and heat
transfer analysis shows that in 3 o’clock orientation, heat transfer happens in the
right side of the tube which is not symmetric, However in the 6 o’clock orientation
the gas distribution is symmetric which enhance the surface area between hot gas and
surroundings which en increase heat loss. The gas Kinematic and heat transfer are
displayed Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7. The heat loss results is summarized in Table 6
which indicates that 3 o’clock orientation when glass tube filled with Argon has the
least heat loss. Therefore, 3 o’clock configuration and glass tube filled with argon gas
are selected as ideal collector configuration for prototyping.
Figure 3.6: Temperature and Velocity for 6 o’clock configuration with Air (Top) and
Argon(bottom)
Table 3.6: Heat flux (W/m2 )
Absorber orientation Tube filling gas Total Heat loss at Tabs = 55◦ C(W/m2 )
6 o’clock Argon 97.46
Air 157.34
3 o’clock Argon 21.456
Air 93.763
Figure 3.7: Temperature and Velocity for 3 o’clock configuration with Air (Top) and
Argon(bottom)
Electrical and combined efficiency

Also, the solar cell manufacture (SunPower) reported Thermal coefficient of solar cell
(β = 0.004) to calculate electrical efficiency, drop due temperature using equ 3.18.
ηele = ηelec@Tamb (1 − β(Tf − Tamb )) (3.18)
Finally, thermal, electrical and combined efficiency respect to working temperature

is plotted in Figure 3.8 .
Figure 3.8: Numerical Thermal , electrical , combined efficiency of the PVT

collector with 3 o’clock orientation
3.3 Prototyping
[The figures and experimental results in section 4 and 5 are the product of teamwork
done by the author and UC Solar team who are acknowledged at the end of this
chapter]
Multiple collector prototypes were developed over the course of this project, with
thermal absorbers maintained in the horizontal position per the modelling results.
Prototypes were made using both direct-flow minichannel and minichannel heat pipe
absorbers, over which series-connected SunPower solar cell strings were applied. The
prototyping process is detailed as follows.
3.3.1 Assembly
Computer Aided Design
In order to prototype the PVT collector, first the geometry is built in Solidworks. The
full assembly is designed to have the solar cell/heat transfer element subassembly re-
placeable if necessary similar to “mason jar” design (Figure 3.9)which is implemented
to allow the system to be re-sealed. As it is shown in Figure 3.10, the major com-
ponents of one solar CHP tube are: Sealing end cap, borosilicate glass tube with
reflector coating, solar cells, minichannel heat transfer element and the attachment
of the solar cell to the heat transfer element.
Figure 3.9: Sealing end Cap, thread and assembly

Figure 3.10: The full assembly of the CHP solar collector
Solar cell
High quality SunPower cells were characterized in both commercially available (un-
cut), cut, and series connected configurations. After the cutting process, a double
sided electronically isolating yet thermally conductive silicone tape is applied to both
sides of the absorbers (minichannel and heat pipe). The strip assembly of the solar
cells is performed in parallel. Individual cut cells are lined up (+) to (-). A small
amount of low melting point solder is applied to the contact region and a short length
of tabbing wire is laid over the contact region to connect two cells (Figure 3.11). An
additional amount of solder is applied to the top of the tabbing wire to allow good
thermal contact of the soldering iron. The cells are then soldered together to a 13-cell
series strip as shown in Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.11: soldering the cut solar cells together

Figure 3.12: Final 13 solar cells attached to the absorber (top side)
End Cap Design

The end caps are milled from aluminum stock. A circular indentation is made on
the outer edge of the end cap to properly seat the gasket in the prototype tubes.
Additionally, a rectangular port is made for the minichannel and two circular ports
for the electric feed through and argon filling points are made. In the Figure 3.13,
the argon fill points have a copper flare fitting epoxied to them for the filling process.
Afterwards, a yellow wire is epoxied into the electric feed through port as it shown
in Figure 3.14.
Figure 3.13: End cap designed and machined

Figure 3.14: Electric port for the aluminum cap
Electrical Connection
Rather than running a wire along the length of the tube, it was decided to use the
minichannel heat pipe itself as the negatively charged electrode. To do so, a section
of the minichannel heat pipe is filed down to remove the paint coating and expose the
aluminum material. Originally, a copper foil was wrapped around the minichannel
heat pipe and soldered to the negative contacts of both the top and bottom strips
of cells. This produced poor contact, however, as some IV curve traces generated
strange readings at higher voltages. To rectify this, an alligator-clamp connector was
employed which provides much greater mechanical contact as it shown in Figure 3.15.
In current tests, the poor electrical contact is no longer an issue.
Figure 3.15: Alligator contact for positive (left alligator clamp) and negative
electrode(right alligator clamp)
Figure 3.16: printed absorber support
Figure 3.17: Rear-attached reflector on the back of glass tube
Absorber support and reflector

Once strips of cells are applied to both sides of the minichannel heat pipe, 3 absorber
supports are positioned at the beginning, middle, and end of the strip. As it shown in
Figure 3.16, the absorber supports are 3D printed and designed to keep the absorber
from bending / bowing along the length . In the current prototypes, the supports also
serve as the substrate to hold the reflector. The outer bottom half of the absorber
support is taped with the double sided Kapton tape, and a sliver layer is applied by
manufacture to produce the half-circle reflector. Also, in order to minimize chance of
, glass tube is filled with desiccant in the bottom(Figure 3.17).
Tube Assembly
The gaskets are cut from silicone rubber material and seated into the outer indentation
ring. The finished absorbers (minichannel heat pipe with applied cells on both sides)
are then epoxied to the cap, the electrical connections are made, and the entire
assembly is inserted into a glass tube(Figure 3.18).
Figure 3.18: Tube Assembly
A manifold gauge is used in tandem with a vacuum pump and argon tank to first
remove the air from the glass tube, and then fill it with argon (Figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19: Filling glass tube with Argon

3.4 Primary experimental tests

3.4.1 Thermal Performance
During the prototyping stage we had the choice of using either a direct-flow minichan-
nel absorber (in which the HTF flows through each minichannel) or a heat pipe
absorber (which is partially filled with acetone, partially evacuated, and sealed to
provide a heat pipe effect). The following describes the tests used to identify the final
prototype candidate.
Heatpipe
To test the performance of the heat pipes, an aluminum minichannel manifold was
fabricated to “sandwhich” the condensing section of the heat pipe. 5 heat pipes were
painted black using Pyromark paint and inserted into glass tubes with half-reflectors.
The condensing sections of all the tubes were applied with thermal grease and en-
closed by the manifold. Several thermocouples were installed at various locations in
the manifold to monitor performance, as shown in Figure 3.20. 1” thick insulation
was applied around the manifold and the collector was taken outside for on-sun mea-
surements. The manifold was connected to the city water line. In this way, the city
water was used to extract the heat generated by the heat pipes. The temperature
rise of the water was recorded, as was the flow rate using a 1-liter beaker and a stop
watch. The heat pipe setup is shown in Figure 3.21.
Figure 3.20: Thermocouples location in manifold

Figure 3.21: heat pipe setup
Results of the experimental tests are plotted in Figure 3.22 . The temperature
results indicate one heat pipe (Thpr ight2 ), is hotter than others although all the pa-
rameters are equal in 5 tubes at steady state. It can be concluded, non-condensable
gas (air) is present in that specific heat pipe which cause the acetone in gas phase
cannot be condensed therefore heat pipe surface temperature will drop due water
heat extraction (sensible heat loss). In order to avoid the effect of non-condensable
gas at top of the heat pipe, the manifold is placed 2 inch lower than the top of heat
pipe which caused the heat pipe to operate at lower temperature.
The final results for optical efficiency respect to different mass flowrate is plotted
in Figure 3.23 and listed in Table 3.7.
g
Figure 3.22: Experimental Temperature variance with respect to time (10 )
s
Table 3.7: Experimental test results for resistance
ṁwater (g/s) Thp − Twater (◦ C) Qout@5heatpipes (W ) ηth (%) G (W/m2)

10.31 7.8 428 71.4 1008
32.78 6.9 424 70.9 1006
50 4.75 412 77.9 890
52.5 3.9 413 81.7 851
84.5 4.6 390 71.7 916
Average 5.6 413.4 74.7 934
Figure 3.23: Optical efficiency of heat pipe collector with respect to water mass flow
rate
Direct-flow minichannel
In a similar fashion to the previous test, 5 flow-through minichannel absorbers were
painted black and connected in parallel i.e. the inlet of all the minichannels connected
to a common inlet tube and outlet of all the minichannels connected to a common
outlet tube. The open loop testing method is adopted for consistent and steady state
readings. Thermocouples are placed on the minichannel surface near the manifold
to closely monitor the degree of temperature difference between the minichannel and
the bulk fluid temperature. Thermocouples are connected to the Agilent device for
continuous data acquisition. The optical efficiency data is plotted in Figure 3.24.
Overall, the minichannel and heat pipe absorbers are tested with the collector,
and their thermal performance is tested in ambient temperature in order to avoid heat
loss. The 73% and 75% optical efficiency is achieved for minichannel and heat pipe
absorber, respectively, which indicates the both absorbers have good thermal perfor-
mance. Also, the experimental optical efficiency has good agreement with theoretical
efficiency where working temperature is equal to ambient temperature (T ∗ = 0 in
Figure 3.8). In conclusion, for final testing of complete PVT collector with solar cells,
both heat pipe and minichannel collector will be used.
Figure 3.24: Optical efficiency of minichannel collector with respect to water mass
flow rate
Measurement Uncertainty
In order to determine the uncertainty error of the testing, equipment’s errors are listed
in Table 3.8. Also ,thermal efficiency ca be calculated using Eq.20. By Applying
equipment error in thermal efficiency equation, the measurement uncertainty can be
calculated around 8% which is applied in Figure 3.23 and Figure 3.24 as in the form
of error bar.
ṁwater Cpwater ∆T
η= (3.19)
G ∗ Aaperature
Table 3.8: Equipment error propagation
Equipment Error
Average flow meter measurement with 1liter beaker (ṁwater ) 10%
k-type thermocouples (∆T ) 0.2%
Solar cell measurement for solar irradiation(G) 2.5%
3.4.2 Electrical Performance

High quality interdigitated back contact(IBC) SunPower solar cells were selected for
use in the prototypes. Their solar-to-electric efficiency was characterized prior to as-
sembly to establish baseline performance metrics in (1) their initial uncut form, (2)
after they had been cut into strips, and (3) after they had been cut into strips and
soldered into a string. The purpose of the solar cell performance testing was to quan-
tify solar cell performance and uncover any loss mechanisms as we take the cells from
their original form to their final configuration on the collector. Characterization was
performed using a Keithley 2460 Source Meter to generate IV curves for the different
cells in different configurations, after which the maximum power point (MPP) and
MPP solar cell efficiencies were calculated.
Uncut, cut, and series connected

A full (uncut) normal cell was first characterized to establish baseline performance.
A standard SunPower “dogbone” contact was soldered to each contact end of the cell
and the 4-wire measurement probes were attached at the middle of each contact. The
testing setup are shown in Figure 3.25 and Figure 3.26. These measurements indicate
a maximum power point (MPP) efficiency of the uncut cells to be around 20% as it
is shown in Figure 3.27(1st left).
Figure 3.25: test setup for Uncut and 3 cut cell in series
The SunPower solar cells were cut by American Precision Dicing, Inc. Each cell
was cut into 3 strips which were 30 mm wide x 125 mm long with one of the 3
original contacts centered on each end of the cut cell. For this test, 3 cut cells were
each individually tested. The cut solar cell results for on sun testing is summarized
in Figure 3.27(2nd left). The results of the individually cut cells indicated an MPP
efficiency around 18.8%. Next, the three cells were connected in series using standard
solar cell bus wire. Placing the 3 cells in series reduced the maximum power point
efficiency to about 18.1%. The 3 cut solar cell results for on sun testing is summarized
Figure 3.26: Test setup for 13 cells in series
in Figure 3.27(3rd left). Finally, to understand the performance of a strip in an actual

scenario, 13 cut solar cells were soldered in series along a minichannel heat pipe and
tested in a similar fashion. The MPP indicated a similar 18.1% efficiency as the 3
cells in series. The final electrical efficiency of cell used in the collector is shown in
Figure 3.27(right).
High quality SunPower cells were characterized in both commercially available
(uncut), cut, and series connected configurations. As a result of the cutting process
and series connection process, the MPP efficiency of the solar cell is reduced from
20% to 18%. The biggest drop comes from the cutting process, which cuts some of
the back-contact fingers and isolates portions of the cell due to the grid layout on the
backside of the SunPower cell.
3.4.3 Solar cells performance at difference working temper-

ature of water
A single solar cell was applied over a short stretch of minichannel using the silicone
tape. The cell was connected to the IV curve tracer and the reference cell was placed
in the same plane as the solar cell. The minichannel was connected to a water pump
which circulated water through the minichannel from a water bath. The water bath
was programmed to slowly increase the temperature to 75 ◦ C and the IV curves of
the solar cell were measured every 5 degrees Celsius. The results show a consistent
drop in the open circuit voltage as the temperature is increased, and a slight increase
in short circuit current as it is shown in Figure 3.29.
Figure 3.27: Solar cell efficiency drop in cutting process
Figure 3.28: Setup for electrical testing with different absorber temperature
Figure 3.29: Power change with different water temperature
3.5 Thermal and Electrical performance of the PVT

collector
Two PVT collectors were then fully assembled for performance testing. The first
utilized a heat pipe absorber and the second, a direct flow minichannel.
3.5.1 Hybrid collector with heat pipe absorber

Testing of the heat pipe took place over several days at the end of May and begin-
ning of June 2018. During these tests, a section of the condenser was sandwiched
between two actively cooled CPU heat sinks. The cooling water was circulated be-
tween a double-glass walled vacuum thermos and the heat sinks which the details
are shown in Figure 3.30,Figure 3.31,Figure 3.32. Calorimetry was used to determine
the amount of heat energy pulled from the tube and into the water during the test-
ing interval. A cluster of 6 thermocouples measured the temperature of the water
bath inside the thermos at 6 different depths. A mixing bead was used to make sure
the water was well mixed within the thermos and data logging confirmed tempera-
ture differences on the order of 0.1-0.2◦ between these thermocouples which is well
within their error range and indicates the water bath was well mixed. Like before,
a reference cell measured the incoming solar power. Different tests involved both IV
curve tracing the solar cells, and the use of a resistor to provide an active load on
the cells during the test. The resistor was cooled by a separate water-cooling circuit.
Finally, the condenser temperature was also measured just below the heat sinks which
was typically 5◦ warmer than the water in the calorimeter, indicating excellent heat
transfer.
Figure 3.30: Testing setup for the hybrid collector
Figure 3.31: Cooling mechanism solar cell in heat pipe collector
After IV curve testing, the resistor was utilized as an active load and additional
testing was performed. All efficiencies in the table below are calculated as a function
Figure 3.32: Heat extraction from heat pipe for Calorimetry measurement
of aperture area, which is 1.75 m x 0.066 m = 0.1155 m2 per tube.They IV curve is

plotted in Figure 3.33, and Solar irrdiation, thermal generation, thermal efficiency,
electric generation and electric efficiency is listed Table 3.9.
Figure 3.33: I-V curve for solar cell on heat pipe absorber
Test Solar Thermal Thermal Electric Electric

W
(#) radiation ( ) Generation (W) Efficiency (%) Generation(W) Efficiency (%)
m2
1 1013.73 61.13 52.21% 12.04 10.28%
2 1023.31 68.03 57.56% 11.79 9.97%
3 1027.48 71.30 60.08% 11.37 9.58%
4 1028.38 66.47 55.96% 12.14 10.22%
5 1019.71 70.75 60.07% 12.62 10.72%
6 1016.48 80.14 68.26% 11.83 10.08%
Average 1022.35 70.26 59.50% 11.96 10.14%
Table 3.9: Electric and thermal performance for PVT Collector with heat pipe
absorber
3.5.2 Hybrid collector with minichannel absorber (flow through)
Flow-through minichannel prototype performance

The flow through tube was constructed with silicone tape instead of Kapton tape.
The IV curves of each side of the strip (top and bottom) were measured directly on-
sun and the results are shown below in Figure 2.31. Finally, as it is listed in the flow
through tube was tested on-sun with and without an electric load. Results show an
average thermal efficiency of 60%. Electric generation was around 14 watts. This was
controlled using our IV curve tracer (controlled voltage) to generate the MPP electric
efficiency, which was around 12%. Solar irradiation, thermal generation, thermal
efficiency, electric generation and electric efficiency is listed Table 3.10 the electrical
efficiency was calculated using Eq 3.20 .
VI
ηelec = (3.20)
GAaperture
Flow-through minichannel prototype performance respect to working tem-

perature of water
After these tests, the test was set up again this time using a thermal bath to slowly
elevate the temperature of the circulation water up to 80 ◦ C. A test was conducted in
order to see what temperatures the solar cells could withstand with the flow through
assembled receivers. Testing was done on sun, using the new glass tube with silvered
reflection on the outside surface. The test setup is detailed in Figure 3.35.
Two heat sources were used, one being solar and the other being a thermal bath
Figure 3.34: IV curve for ”flow through” absorber
Table 3.10: Electric and thermal performance for PVT Collector with ”Flow
through” absorber
Test Ambient Solar Thermal Thermal Electric Electric

# Temperature (W/m2) Generation Efficiency (%) Generation (W) Efficiency (%)
1 30.17 1035.18 66.58 55.68% N/A N/A
2 28.73 1040.73 72.40 60.23% N/A N/A
3 29.23 1029.92 73.50 61.79% N/A N/A
4 29.53 1028.49 69.19 58.24% N/A N/A
5 31.87 1010.42 77.92 66.77% N/A N/A
6 (load) 31.95 1000.35 70.99 61.45% 14 12.12%
7 (load) 33.79 1053.29 75.81 62.32% 14 11.51%
8 (load) 34.36 1046.95 70.79 58.54% 14 11.58%
Average 31.20 1030.67 72.15 60.63% 14 11.73%
Figure 3.35: Efficiency change with respect to water temperature
(set temperature of 85 ◦ C), which was connected to the inlet and outlet of the flow
through receiver with flex hoses as labeled in Figure . Six thermocouples were placed
inside the water bath. An IV curve was recorded every water temperature increase of
5 ◦ C. The final IV curve (Figure 37) was recorded at 80 ◦ C and the test was concluded.
show that the solar cells were working properly and fully connected to the final mark
of 80 ◦ C.
Electrical efficiency of the solar cell respect to temperature follow constant equa-
tion (equ.3.18). The results with the single cell flow through testing show the tem-
perature coefficient for solar cell is 0.345 from the efficiency-temperature plot(β) in
Figure 3.38.After the test, there was no signs of solar cell damage or disconnections
from series or absorber itself. Results of this test show that all future assemblies of
receivers should have dog bone connectors for solar cell strips, and silicon tape to
keep them fully attached to the flow through absorber.
The results indicate that electrical efficiency is almost equal as it calculated based
on temperature coefficient provided by manufacture. Also, comparison of the exper-
imental and theoretical thermal efficiency indicates that numerical and experimental
results have good agreement in the range of equipment’s uncertainty (Table 3.8) as
specifically plotted in Figure 3.39 . The experimental thermal efficiency, electrical
efficiency and combined efficiency are measured and compared with simulated results
and plotted in Figure 3.40.
Figure 3.36: Test Setup for ”flow through” collector
Figure 3.37: IV curves for ”flow through” absorber

Figure 3.38: Efficiency curve vs fluid temperature
Figure 3.39: Numerical and experimental thermal efficiency for flow through
absorber
Figure 3.40: Experimental combined, thermal and electrical efficiency of the flow
through absorber
3.6 Techno-economic Analysis

The components created the proposed PVT collector and their specific cost are listed
in Table 3.11 where the most expensive component is the solar cells cost. The cost of
tax, profit and transportation etc., are counted under “indirect cost” category which
is about $80/m2 in the current solar collector market[22]. Also, in order to calculate
three major PVT indexes mentioned in the introduction include: Levelized Cost
of Energy(LCOE), Simple Payback Period(SPP) and amount of Carbon reduction
(CCO2P V T ), economic and technical parameter of PVT collector (listed in Table 3.12)
are used as the input.
Finally, based on the input parameters, annual energy generation, annual sav-
ing, Simple Payback Period, Total CO2 reduction and Levelized cost of energy for
proposed collector is calculated and listed in Table 3.13. Comparing the three cal-
culated indexes of the proposed collector to commercial PVT collector(Table 3.1)
indicates that the proposed collector is the most economic PVT collector in terms of
Simple Payback Period(3.6 years) and Levelized cost of energy(10.3 $/M W h) while
avoid acceptable amount of CO2 emission by natural gas or coal company. All in
all, the proposed collector demonstrated the potential for decreasing the cost of PVT
collector for residential application, while increasing the positive environmental im-
pact of renewable systems in USA and all around the world to slow down the rising
Table 3.11: Component cost of the proposed PVT collector
Components Value Unit

Glass Tube cost 1.2 [82] $/tube
Aluminum Heat Pipe 3.00[83] $/tube
Reflector (Silvering) 0.87[84] $/tube
Solar Cells 6.00[85] $/tube
Adhesive 1.00[86] $/tube
Miscellaneous (End Caps, Wire, Solder) 0.50 $/tube
Estimated Assembly cost (Labor for large-scale production) 2.00 $/tube
Collector Cost Per Tube 14.57 $/tube
Aperture area per tube 0.1188 tube/m2
Collector Cost 140.72 $/m2
Indirect cost(Profit, Tax, transportation. . . ) 80[22] $/m2
Total module cost 221 $/m2
Table 3.12: Input Parameters for technoeconomic analysis of proposed PVT

collector
Parameters Value Unit

Emission Factor for Heat 0.109 KgCO2 /kW h
Emission Factor for Electricity 0.264 KgCO2 /kW h
Location Merced
Solar resources 5.68 kWh/m2/day
Annual Solar resources 2138.9 kWh
Natural gas purchase cost 1.2 $/therm
Electricity purchase cost 0.12 $/kWh
◦
Working temperature 50 C
Electrical efficiency @working temperature 10%
Thermal efficiency @working temperature 40%
Total module cost 221 $/m2
temperature of our planet.
Parameters Value Unit

Electrical generation 214 kWh
Thermal generation 855 kWh
Annual Electrical savings 25.6 $/m
Annual thermal savings 35 $
Total annual saving 60.7 $
Electricity-only Simple Payback Period 8.6 Years
Heat-only Simple Payback Period 6.3 Years
PVT Simple Payback Period(SP PP V T ) 3.6 Years
Heat-only CO2 avoidation 93 KgCO2
Electricity-only CO2 avoidation 56.4 KgCO2
Total CO2 avoidation(CCO2 ) 150 KgCO2
Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOEP V T ) 10.3 $/MWh
Table 3.13: Output parameters of proposed one square meter of PVT collector
include Levelized Cost of Energy, Simple Payback Period, Amount of CO2
avoidation
3.7 Conclusion
In this manuscript, we introduced a low-cost concentrated hybrid Photovoltaic-Thermal
(PV/T) collector which provides both electricity and heat for hot water and space
heating with positive environmental impact. The PVT collector consists of a glass
tube, the bottom of which is coated to be a reflective semi-circle, that directs incom-
ing rays to a flat minichannel / heat pipe absorber strip which is coated with solar
cells. The solar cells generate electricity directly and the remaining energy which
is converted to heat is captured in the minichannel / heat pipe absorber. The PVT
collector is designed and modeled using COMSOL Multiphysics to predict optical and
thermal efficiencies. A 3 o’clock orientation of the absorber is selected as best position
for maximizing optical efficiency and minimizing heat loss via internal convection in
the tube. Two complete PVT collectors were assembled and tested on sun at UC
Merced Castle test Facility in Atwater, California. The experimental thermal and
electrical efficiency results are in good agreement with the numerically predicted re-
sults. Both collectors had optical efficiencies of about 60%, but the heat pipe collector
had an electrical efficiency of 10% whereas the direct-flow collector had an electrical
efficiency of 11%. At this stage, we have demonstrated proof of concept performance

of a new hybrid PV/T collector. At the writing of this manuscript, multiple proto-
type tubes are being produced for further module-level (multi-tube) testing. Finally,
the technoeconomic analysis of the proposed PVT collector indicates, it has potential
to be the cheapest PVT collector in terms of Levelized Cost of energy and Simple
Payback Period.
3.8 Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank the UC Solar team(Bennett Widyolar,Yogesh Bhusal,
Jordyn Brinkley, Sai Phani Kiran, Lun Jiang, Roland Winston) who helped for ex-
perimental testing mentioned in section 4 and 5 of this chapter.
Chapter 4
A Novel Solar Compatible Zero

Discharge Desalination System
Results discussed in this chapter were in part presented orally at the American Insti-
tute of Chemical Engineers(AlChE) Annual Meeting 2018 in Pittsburgh. [87]
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Zero Discharge Desalination
Due to increasing global water shortages, desalination is a rising water purification
technique which can treat different source of water such as sea, waste, brackish and
river water (Figure 4.1 [2]). Unfortunately, desalination systems must discharge con-
centrated brine which can cause negative environmental and biological impacts [88].
One method of mitigating the harmful effect of desalination discharge, is to avoid
discharge all together through usage of zero-discharge desalination(ZDD), which elim-
inates the liquid waste stream and makes productive use of the extracted solids. A
ZDD system often consists of two sub-systems: a brine concentrator and a crystal-
lizer. The brine concentrator concentrates the dissolved solids in the feedwater to the
maximum concentration(5%-50%) treatable by the concentrator, and the crystallizer
solidifies the brine. For brine concentration, multiple technologies have improved
through the years, from solar evaporation ponds [89] and mechanical vapor compres-
sion systems(MVC)[6] to reverse osmosis [90] and electrodialysis(ED) [91] [5]. Crys-
tallization is typically achieved through multi-effect evaporation [89] , solar ponds [8]
or atmospheric evaporators [92]. In the recent decade, researchers took advantage
of membrane and thermal desalination technologies together to introduce membrane
distillation(MD) which can handle highly concentrated feed water [93].
82
Chapter 4. A Novel Solar Compatible Zero Discharge Desalination System 83
Figure 4.1: Annual increase of desalination based on different feedwater [2]
4.1.2 Humidification Dehumidification Desalination

Humidification dehumidification(HDH) is a thermal desalination process which can
also operate as both a brine concentrator [94] and potentially a crystallizer [95].
It can clean feedwater with high salinity similar to Membrane distillation(MD). In
terms of water production cost(WPC), HDH and MD average costs of $2.5 [96] and
$15 [97] per ton of fresh water, respectively. Therefore the 6X cost advantage for
HDH makes it an interesting system for water production specifically at small scales
(e.g. less than 100 tons of fresh water per day). Also, HDH is highly compatible with
renewable energy sources, especially solar thermal collectors, and it can handle highly
contaminated water (total dissolved solids (TDS) equal to 300,000ppm(30%)) with no
pretreatment [98]. Fundamentally,the HDH cycle is inspired from nature, specifically
the rain cycle. The sun’s heat evaporates seawater(humidification); hot humid air
rises and forms cloud at high, cold altitudes; eventually the clouds precipitate and
produce fresh water (dehumidification) as shown in Figure 4.2. In the same manner,
the HDH process consists of three sub-systems: (a) a subsystem delivering heat to the
air and/or water, which can be provided by different sources such as solar, geothermal,
natural gas, fossil fuels or a combination of these; (b) the humidifier (evaporator);
(c) the dehumidifier(condenser). A simple form of the HDH process is illustrated in
Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.2: Rain cycle
Figure 4.3: simple HDH process [3]

4.1.3 Humidification Dehumidification system for single stage

zero liquid discharge
In this chapter, a novel humidification dehumidification system is proposed which
combines brine concentration and crystallization in a single stage. It is called “Im-
miscible Liquid mediated Humidification dehumidification” or in short “ILM-HDH”.
In order to introduce the system, the state of the art for HDH systems is explained,
and HDH advantages and limitations are highlighted. Afterwards, the ILM-HDH
system and the heat and mass transfer processes in it are explained, and its nov-
elty is highlighted in three subsections. Preliminary modeling and experiments are
described. In the last section, conclusion regarding the significance of the system
capabilities are presented.
4.1.4 Advantages and Limitations of Humidification Dehu-

midification
HDH has been developed into a robust technology, and commercial, modular, multi-
stage HDH systems with added crystallizers are available allowing treatment of water
containing high TDS (total dissolved solids) with no pretreatment required [99]. Also
HDH is highly compatible with mobile energy sources such as solar collector, which
make it a great candidate for decentralized desalination [4]. However, the energy
efficiency of these systems which is defined by gain output ratio or GOR (Eq. 4.1)
is rather poor with thermal energy input of 1035 MJ per ton of of fresh water (Gain
output ratio(GOR) ∼ 2.4) and electrical consumption of 55 M J/m3 . Some recent
HDH systems employ variable ratios of feedwater to air throughout the system to
match sensible heat capacity of the feed water to specific enthalpy change with tem-
perature for the moist air for improved energy efficiency, but still only achieve GOR
∼ 4 [100]. [101].
ṁf reshwater
GOR = (4.1)
Qin
Table 4.1: Thermal performance of major commercial thermal desalination system
Operating temperature Operation Scale

Method @Pambient m3 /hr/day GOR Ref
Boiling 100 ◦ C Variable ∼1 [102]
Multi-stage Flash 60-90 ◦ C Large-scale(≥ 10, 000) 8-13 [103]
Multi Effect Distillation 60-90 ◦ C Large-scale(≥ 100, 000) 12-16 [104]
Membrane Distillation 45-90 ◦ C Small scale(≤ 100) 1-3 [105]
Humidification Dehumidification 60-90 ◦ C Small-scale(≤ 100) 1.2-4.5 [106]
Despite the substantial advantages offered by HDH there are significant short-
comings impeding its application. Perhaps chief among these is the current thermal
efficiency (GOR ≤ 4). The efficiency of HDH is primarily limited by the exchange
of heat from the condensing vapor to the feedwater in the dehumidification stage.
There is generally a tradeoff between heat exchanger size/complexity/cost and the
heat transfer efficiency. The overall efficiency of HDH is constrained to the current
range for economically viable heat exchanger implementations.
A second primary limitation for HDH is recovery ratio (RR) for a single cycle
(Eq.4.2). Since heat for evaporation is generally provided by sensible heat of the
feedwater itself, the maximum potential freshwater recovery is limited by the ratio of
heat capacity times viable operating temperature difference and heat of vaporization.
For example, for a single HDH cycle operating between 20–90◦ C, the maximum recov-
ery ratio is 14%, with actual values in practice substantially lower. Therefore, HDH
systems must apply multiple stages to achieve high recovery ratios(50%), with atten-
dant increases in system cost and complexity.This concept will be further detailed in
the next section.
mf reshwater
RR = (4.2)
mf eedwater
A third limitation for all thermal and membrane desalination systems including
HDH is corrosion and fouling in piping and pumping [7] as they are exposed to
species that may either attack the system materials (e.g. chloride) or precipitate from
solution (e.g. carbonates).[107] In reverse osmosis systems, operators use different
chemical pre-treatments to avoid corrosion and particularly fouling in pipes, pumps
and membranes [108]. Thermal desalination systems operate at higher temperature
which makes corrosion the primary issue in MED and MSF desalination plants [109].
Though material advances offer potential for battling corrosion [110] and fouling
including for solar thermal desalination [111][112], corrosion and fouling is a major
challenge in desalination system that must be addressed including in HDH.
HDH has unique advantages, however there are shortcomings that required to be
addressed. The advantages and limitations of HDH systems are summarized in Table
4.2.
4.2 A Novel Humidification Dehumidification for

Zero Discharge Desalination
4.2.1 Single-stage zero liquid discharge
In this section, a novel single-stage zero liquid discharge system based on HDH is
introduced. This system functions in a manner similar to traditional HDH but intro-
duces an additional heat transfer liquid separate from the feedwater to supply energy
for evaporation via sensible heat. The heat transfer liquid is chosen to be immiscible
Table 4.2: Advantages and limitations of state-of-art HDH system
Advantages Limitations
Ideal for small-scale Corrosion in pipes, pumps and absorber
and decentralized application absorber of solar thermal collectors
Clean highly contaminated (TDS 250,000ppm) Low energy efficiency (GOR ≤ 4) and
such discharge water from oil mining textiles low condensation heat transfer due to presence
and chemical companies(No pre-treatment required) non-condensable gas (' 500W/m2 K)
Low capital and maintenance cost include High
Compatibility with low-cost solar thermal collector Low water recovery (RRmax < 14%)
with water, for example a low vapor pressure oil. The immiscibility of the oil al-
lows direct contact heat exchange during condensation and evaporation of the water.
This system is called immiscible liquid mediated humidification dehumidification or
ILM-HDH in short.
The basic proposed operation of this system is illustrated in Figure 4.4 where the
oil starts the ILM-HDH cycle by entering the heater(e.g. electrical heater or solar
thermal collector), exiting at the maximum operating temperature, then entering the
humidifier. The oil is distributed to porous sheets (e.g. flash-spun polyethylene or ex-
panded polytetrafluoroethylene). These sheets act as direct contact heat exchangers.
The oil flows downward in the pore spaces under the force of gravity. Feedwater is
also heated (by the exiting fresh water) in a counter flow heat exchanger and supplied
to the humidifier. The feedwater is likewise distributed to the porous sheets, but be-
ing immiscible with the oil, flows along the outer surface. Dry air is introduced into
the bottom of the humidifier and flows upward past the porous sheets thus driving
evaporation of the feed water. Sensible heat, primarily from the oil, provides the
energy for evaporation. The flow rate of oil and feedwater are adjusted to provide
sufficient sensible heat for complete evaporation leaving only salt. The salt crystals
fall from the oil impregnated porous sheets and settle to the bottom of the humidifier
underneath a pool of oil collecting from the flow emanating from the porous sheets.
The salt is insoluble in the oil and is removed from the system by periodic dredging.
The oil, now cooled by the evaporating feedwater, as well as the air, which has been
heated and humidified, both leave the humidifier and travel to the dehumidifier. The
dehumidifier has a similar structure to the humidifier. The cool oil is again distributed
at the top of, and flows down, porous sheets, which now act as heat sinks to drive
condensation from the moist air flowing upward. Fresh water condenses on the outer
surface of the sheets and flows, under gravity, to the bottom of the dehumidifier. The
fresh water is immiscible with the oil and collects as a layer underneath the oil, again
in a pool at the bottom of the dehumidifier (as in many oil/water separators, e.g. in
petroleum production). Fresh water leaves the dehumidifier at a high temperature
(nearly equal that of the hot moist air entering it) then passes through a counterflow
heat exchanger that recovers its sensible heat to the incoming feedwater. The cool
dry air leaves the top of the dehumidifier and is recycled to the humidifier, while the
hot oil is collected from the pool at the base of the dehumidifier and returns to the
solar heater to begin the cycle again. Although Figure 4.3 shows a single segment
each for humidification and dehumidification, these components can be broken into
multiple segments to allow variation of the relative oil and air flowrates to balance
the enthalpy variation associated with the changing humidity of the air and the sen-
sible heat of the oil. This is essential for achieving high efficiency as explained in the
following section.
Figure 4.4: ILM-HDH operating principle
4.2.2 ILM-HDH Advantages

In this section, three main advantages of ILM-HDH over classic HDH for zero liquid
discharge applications are discussed:
• Maximizing water recovery in one stage
• Heat transfer enhancement
• Fouling and corrosion reduction
Maximizing water recovery to discharge solid salt

As mentioned above, one of the main limitations of HDH systems is their low recovery
ratio per stage. Based on an energy balance in an HDH system (Eq.4.3) where
Tmax and Tmin are maximum and minimum temperatures achievable, the maximum
theoretical recovery ratio can be calculated as in Eq.4.4. The equation indicates there
is a thermodynamic limit on water recovery ratio in a traditional HDH stage, where
feedwater carries the thermal energy, due to the fixed ratio of heat capacity and latent
heat of vaporization. In practical HDH systems recovery per stage is generally not
more than 8% [100].
ṁf reshwater hf g = ṁCp (Tmax − Tmin ) (4.3)
ṁf reshwater Cp ∆Tmax 4180J/kg/K ∗ (95 − 10)K

RRmax = = water = = 14.8% (4.4)
ṁf eedwater hf g 2.4e6 J/kg
Eq 4.4 indicates a thermodynamic limit on water recovery in HDH system (14.8%

for an 85 K temperature swing ), which in practical HDH system it is not more than
8% [100].
ILM-HDH introduces a second working fluid for supplying the required heat of
vaporization for the feedwater. This extra working fluid decouples sensible heat ca-
pacity of the working fluid from heat of vaporization to allow higher recovery ratio per
stage. A simplified schematic comparing ILM-HDH and traditional HDH is shown
in Figure 4.5. In traditional HDH, the amount of heat for evaporation is propor-
tional to the mass flowrate of feedwater resulting in a fixed recovery ratio, however in
ILM-HDH the amount of water recovered can be arbitrarily adjusted as the amount
of evaporation depends on the mass flowrate of the second liquid(mineral oil) rather
than the feedwater.
Figure 4.5: Comparison of traditional HDH and Immiscible Liquid Mediated HDH
Heat transfer enhancement in ILM-HDH

Heat transfer performance also poses a significant limit for HDH. The major heat
transfer exergy losses in HDH systems occur in the dehumidifier section(condensation)
which includes three primary resistances:
• Non-condensable gas resistance
• Film-wise condensation resistance
• Coil and feedwater resistance
Non-condensable gas resistance
The major heat transfer resistance in HDH systems is due to presence of non-
condensable gas(air) [113]. Air creates a diffusive resistance layer between water
vapor and the condensation surface. The diffusive layer has significant negative effect
on the heat transfer coefficient. There has been much research on non-condensable gas
effects on heat transfer in different industries since the 1960s and before. Researchers
at the University of California, Berkeley performed early research to model and ex-
perimentally analyze the effect of non-condensable gas [114]. The Kazimi group [115]
at MIT conducted experiments to validate the UCB results under forced convection
conditions. In HDH, there is a large percentage of air (60-95% by mass) present in
the condensation stream[101]. Siddique [116] reported local heat transfer coefficients
between 10 to 2500 W/m2 .◦ C in presence of 99% to 10% air bulk mass fraction,
respectively. Without the existence of non-condensable gas the condensation heat
transfer coefficient can be as high as 100,000W/(m2 .K) [117]. State-of-art experi-
ments on the effect of non-condensable gas on condensation heat transfer coefficient
are listed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: The effect of non-condensable gas on condensation heat transfer Coeff
Heat Non-condensable Working Reynolds Heat Transfer

Author(s) Exchanger Presence Temperature(◦ C) Number Coeff(W/m2 .K)
Zhu et al [118] Tubular Column 34-72% 75-92 200-4500 200-1900
Xu et al[119] Horizontal tube 25-90% N.A. 5000-10000 500-2000
Yi et al[120] Square cavity 5-50% 60-110 N.A. 500-3500
Zhu et al[121] Shell and tube 34-81% 68-92 500-5000 340-3000
Chantana et al[122] Vertical tube 5-12% 130-150 4600 25-80
Che et al[123] Cross Bank 80% ≤ 150-250 3000-6000 100-300
Liang et al[124] Horizontal tube 3.2-12.8% 106-155 5600 40-160
Shi et al[125] Cross Bank 5-15% 40-55 2000-3400 115-160
Film-wise condensation resistance
In traditional HDH systems, water vapor condenses as a film over a cooling coil
causing a conductive resistance layer which decreases heat transfer to the feedwater.
Another form of condensation is dropwise condensation. In dropwise condensation,
liquid collects in the form of droplets of varying diameters on the condensing surface,
instead of forming a continuous film. Ma[126] compared heat transfer coefficients of
film-wise condensation(FWC) and dropwise condensation(DWC) in presence of non-
condensable gas. The experiment shows that over the whole range of non-condensable
gas concentrations, the heat transfer coefficient of dropwise condensation is almost
two time higher than film-wise condensation. Zheng[127] showed that the coalescence
of bubbles is one of the major reasons that dropwise condensation shows better heat
transfer.
Coil and feedwater resistance
In order to separate saline feedwater from purified product water, the majority of
HDH dehumidifiers apply heat exchange via a cooling coil (generally made of cop-
per) to transfer heat from the moist air and drive condensation. Therefore, there is
conductive thermal resistance through the coil and convective resistance within it.
Comparison of heat transfer in HDH and ILM-HDH

As already explained, the major thermal resistances in HDH systems are for conden-
sation in the dehumidifier. In order to compare the thermal resistance of traditional
HDH and ILM-HDH, in the two following subsection the thermal resistance of dehu-
midification in each are quantified.
Total thermal resistance of traditional humidification dehumidification
A schematic picture that explains the thermal resistance for traditional HDH is
given in Figure 4.6 . The total thermal resistance of the system can be calculated as
in Eq 4.5. (Conducive thermal resistance in the coil is neglected.)
RHDH = Rf eed + Rf ilm + RN onCondesableGas (4.5)

The convective thermal resistances for traditional HDH are defined in Eq.4.6.
1 1 1
Rf eed = , Rf ilm = , RN onCond = (4.6)
hf eedwater Aincoil hf ilm Aoutcoil hN CHDH ∗ Af ilm
In order to calculate hf eedwater appropriate formulations were developed by Mori

and Nakayama [128]for the heat transfer coefficient inside curved tubes of round cross-
section in laminar flow . Nusselt number for laminar flow in curved tubes is given by
Eq 4.7, based on the Dean number(K) (Eq 4.8) and thickness parameter Z(Pr > 1)
given by Eq 4.9.
(hf eedwater Din) K 1/2

N uf eedwater = = 0.8636( ) (4.7)
k Z
Din 1/2
K = Re( ) (4.8)
Dturn
s
2 77
Z = (1 + 1 + P r−2 ) (4.9)
11 4
hf ilm , which is the heat transfer coefficient for filmwise condensation, can be cal-
culated from Eq 4.10 [126] where subscript l stand for condensate.
kl3 ρ2l ghf g

hf ilm = 0.834 (4.10)
µl L(Ts − Tw ))
hN GHDH : If we assume fully laminar flow in the channel where entrance aspect ratio
is one (b/a =1), the non-condensable gas condensation heat transfer coefficient can
be calculated as Eq.4.11 [118] where k is the thermal conductivity, m is the enthalpy
of moist air, Cp is the specific heat, and L is the characteristic length(Eq.4.12)
k m
hN onCondensableGas = 0.0342. .Re0.774 (4.11)
L Cp
4A
L= (4.12)
P
Figure 4.6: Heat transfer resistances in traditional HDH
Total Thermal resistance of Immiscible Liquid Mediated Humidifica-

tion Dehumidification
A schematic picture that explains the thermal resistance for ILM-HDH is given in
Figure 4.7. The total thermal resistance of the system can be calculated as Eq. 4.13 .
(Conducive thermal resistance is neglected due to thin thickness of oil and freshwater
layers.)
RILM −HDH = Roil + Rdroplet + RN onCondensableGas (4.13)

The convective thermal resistances for ILM-HDH are defined in Eq 4.14.
1 1 1
Roil = , Rdrop = , RN onCond =
hf eedwater Aincoil hdroplet Adroplet hN CILM ∗ AN onCondensableGas
(4.14)
hoil : if we assumed uniform heat transfer, as the oil’s flow is fully developed and
laminar , the Nusselt number is constant( Eq 4.15) where the width to height ratio
is equal to 3. Therefore heat transfer coefficient can be calculated as Eq 4.16 [129] :
N uoil = 4.79 (4.15)

k
hoil = N uoil (4.16)
L
hdroplet : Due to the complexity of droplet condensation [127], experimental testing
is relied on to measure dropwise condensation heat transfer coefficient, which indicates
that the dropwise heat transfer coefficient is two time bigger than that for filmwise
condensation[126]:
hdroplet = 2hf ilm (4.17)

hN CILM : If we assume fully laminar air flow in the channel where entrance as-
pect ratio is more than 10 (b/a ≥ 10) for ILM-HDH, the condensation heat transfer
coefficient of noncondensable gas can be calculated as Eq.4.11.
Figure 4.7: Heat transfer resistance in ILM-HDH
Applying equation(5-17) to calculate heat transfer coefficient for both HDH and
ILM-HDH the results are listed in 4.4 where surface area is assumed one (1m2 ) in all
cases to simplify the calculation, and the heat transfer coefficient has units W/(m2 .K).
Table 4.4: Total thermal resistances for HDH and ILM-HDH
system hf eedwater oil hf ilm droplet hnoncondensablegas Rtotal (K/W)

HDH 482 15000 120 0.01
ILM-HDH 303 30000 660 0.004
The thermal resistance analysis indicates ILM-HDH can provide 2.5 times lower
resistance compare to a conventional HDH system.
In summary, Condensation heat transfer improved in ILM-HDH by:
• Non-condensable resistance layer has been minimized by reducing spacing be-

tween porous sheets (10 times thinner compared to traditional HDH)
• The porous sheet saturated with second fluid(mineral oil), creates dropwise
condensation instead of filmwise condensation.
Fouling and corrosion reduction
Prevention of mineral fouling, known as scale, is a long-standing problem in a wide

variety of industrial applications such as oil production and water treatment. Liquid
infused porous surfaces provide an appealing strategy for surface modification to
reduce salt deposition[130] . In ILM-HDH, the continuous flow of oil into oleophilic
porous sheet refreshes the antifouling function. Initial testing shows that oil and
porous polymer(flash spun polyethylene sheet) substrate are compatible with highly
saline solution and solid precipitates. Figure 4.8 shows a setup used to investigate the
movement of supersaturated salt water suspensions on oil infused polyethene sheet.
The right panel in Figure 4.8 shows the ability of the oil permeating the porous sheet
to clear NaCl crystals from the sheet preventing scaling.
Figure 4.8: Testing setup(left) and Propagation of NaCl down oil impregnated,
polyethylene evaporator sheet (green dye added for contrast)
4.3 Theoretical modeling of ILM-HDH

In this section, mathematical modeling of ILM-HDH is detailed in order to determine
the temperature and relative humidity in both humidifier and dehumidifier. The
central assumption of this model is that mass transport controls performance and the
temperature of water, oil, and air can be assumed equal at any point in the channel
(though the temperature varies along the channel).
4.3.1 Energy Balance

Mass balance for a three-phase Heat and mass exchanger is shown in 4.9. For the
model, heat loss to the environment is neglected, and heat capacity is assumed con-
stant through the channel.
Energy Conversion is expressed by balance of enthalphy flow into and out of the
system:(”i” indicates inlet, ”o” is for outlet, ”da” for dry air, ”w” for water liquid,”wv”
for water vapor, ”evap” for evaporated water, ”a” for moisture air).
Ėi = ṁoil Cpoil Toili + ṁda Cpda Tdai + ṁwi Cpwv Twi (4.18)
Expanding ṁwi = ṁwo + ṁevap :
Ėinput = ṁoil Cpoil Toili + ṁda Cpda Tdai + ṁwo Cpw Twi + ṁevap Cpwv Twi (4.19)
The outlet enthalpy flow is as follows:
Ėoutput = ṁoil Cpoil Toilo +ṁda Cpda Tao +ṁwo Cpw Two +ṁwevap (Cpwv Tao +hf g@Taout ) (4.20)
Therefore, energy exchanges through the heat and mass exchanger can be calcu-
lated as:
∆Ė = ṁoil Cpoil ∆Toil + ṁda Cpda ∆Ta + ṁwo Cpw ∆Tw + ṁwevap (Cpwv ∆Ta + hf g ) (4.21)
If we assume the evaporation and condensation rate are equal due to no heat/mass
resistance, Gain Output Ratio(GOR) which is the measurement of heat recovery in
the system, can be written as:
ṁcond hf g
GOR = (4.22)
ṁoil Cpoil (∆Toilheater )
Also the water recovery ratio is calculated as: (ωw = water recovery, φair = hu-
midity ratio)
mcond Vair ∗ φair
ωw = = (4.23)
mf eedwater mf eedwater
Figure 4.9: Energy Balance of the Evaporator
4.3.2 Heat and Mass Transport

In order to model the Temperature and humidity along the ILM-HDH channel, rela-
tive humidity(φ) and temperature is defined as φ and T, respectively.
Pv
φ= (4.24)
Psat (T )
Applying Ideal gas equation for absolute humidity(ω):
mv Pv Mv Pv φPsat
ω= = = 0.622 = 0.622 (4.25)
mda Pda Mda Pda Patm − φPsat
Relative humidity and absolute humidity can be related as:
ωPatm
φ= (4.26)
0.622Psat + ωPsat
In order derive the change of relative humidity in respect to absolute humidity:
dφ 0.622Psat Patm
= (4.27)
dω (0.622Psat + ωPsat )2
Mass Transport
The mass flowrate of evaporation depends on evaporation rate(K), concentration
difference water and gas as follows [129]:
Mv Psat
δ ṁevap = wδxMv K(csat − cv ) => δ ṁevap = δxK (1 − φ) (4.28)
RT
The change of absolute humidity can be written as :
δ ṁv δxK Mv Psat
δω = = (1 − φ) (4.29)
ṁda ṁda RT
Combing 4.27 and 4.29:
dφ (0.622Psat Patm ) δxKMv Psat
dφ = δω = (1 − φ) (4.30)
dω (0.622Psat + ωPsat )2 ṁda RT
dφ (0.622Psat Patm ) KMv Psat

= (1 − φ) (4.31)
dx (0.622Psat + ωPsat )2 ṁda RT
Heat Transport
δ ṁevap hf g = ṁoil Cp dT (4.32)
Substituting 4.28 in 4.32:
dT Mv Psat hf g
=K ( )(1 − φ) (4.33)
dx RT ṁoil Cp
Finite Difference Analysis of Mass and Energy transport

The previous equations for mass and energy transport can be discretized in forms
that can be solved with the finite difference method as follows:
(n+1) (n)
φi − φi 0.622KMv Patm Psat@Tin (1 − φni )
= (4.34)
∆x Rṁda (Psat@Tin + ωPsat@Tin )2
Tin+1 − Tin KMv hf g Psat@Tin (1 − φni )

= (4.35)
∆x RCp ṁoil Tin
Calculation of Evaporation Rate

Evaporation rate(K) in the channel can be calculate using Sherwood number.
KLchar
Sh = (4.36)
D12
Air flow regime assumed fully developed laminar flow, therefore Sherwood number
is in channel is equal 2 [131].Also diffusion coefficient at 60 ◦ C is equal to 3e−5 m2 /s
[132]. Also the equation for characteristic length(Lch ) as follows:
4A 4(W ∗ H)
Lchar = = (4.37)
P 2 ∗ (H + W )
If we consider the width of channel to be 1 m, evaporation rate(K) can be calcu-
lated as:
ShD12 6e−5 1m + H
K= = = 3e−5 ( )(1/s) (4.38)
Lchar 2H H
1+H
The above equation shows the evaporation rate is correlates to height of the chan-
nel(H). If H is small compared to the channel width, evaporation rate is roughly
inversely proportional to channel height.
4.3.3 Numerical Results

The heat and mass transport equations mentioned in the last section are solved using
a finite difference analysis in MATLAB, The results are as follows:
Temperature and Relative Humidity in Humidifier and Dehumidifier

Following figures show the temperature and relative humidity change along the chan-
nel in both dehumidifier and humidifier where the channel height is 0.1m, oil flowrate
is 0.024 kg/s, air flowrate is 0.001333 kg/s, input relative humidity is 0.1 and the
input and output temperatures are 40 ◦ C and 80 ◦ C respectively.
Figure 4.10: Temperature and Relative Humidity change in Dehumidifier

Figure 4.11: Temperature and Relative Humidity Change in Humidifier (H=0.1))

4.3.4 System sensitivities

Variation of Relative Humidity Change with Respect to Channel Height(H)
In the introduction section, it is mentioned that channel height has a major impact on
mass transport, therefore here we calculate the output relative humidity for channel
height between 0.01-0.1m while the operational condition is the same as previous
section.
Figure 4.12: Relative humidity change with Variable Channel Height(H))

Variation of Fan Energy Consumption with Respect to Flowrate of Air

In this section, the variation of energy consumption for driving airflow is calculated
at various air flowrates while the operational condition is the same as the previous
section and channel height is 0.1 m.
Figure 4.13: Variation of fan energy consumption as a function of air mass flowrate
4.4 Experimental Testing of ILM-HDH

4.4.1 System design and operational baseline
In order to investigate the performance of ILM-HDH, a large scale humidifier was
built. First, material selection was undertaken to find the best porous materials for
water and oil propagation. The channel was then designed in Solidworks and pro-
totyped from aluminum sheet. Subsequently, the prototyped channel was simulated
in commercial finite element software (COMSOL Multiphysics, 5.3), and finally, the
channel’s humidification performance was tested with heat input from an oil heat
transfer liquid. Additionally, ex-situ experiments were conducted to evaluate the
feasibility of collecting salt precipitate from the channel. The following subsections
provide details of this preliminary work.
Porous design for ILM-HDH humidifier

Porous sheets are used in order to i) maximize area for evaporation and ii) optimize
water/oil heat exchange. They are mated in a bilayer, and this bilayer of hydrophilic
and oleophilic material maintains contact between water and oil for heat exchange
while allowing evaporation as shown in Figure 4.14.
Figure 4.14: Hydrophilic and oleophilic bilayer for efficient water evaporation
To find the best candidates for hydrophilic and oleophilic sheets, different material
was tested. Among them, flash spun polyethylene(Tyvek) showed good performance,
not absorbing any water after hours of testing when it was saturated with oil(Figure
4.15(right)). Subsequently, similar testing was performed with oil saturated cellulose
tissue dipped into oil/water mixtures. As shown in Figure 4.15(left), after 40 second,
the paper is saturated with water and the oil has been expelled.
Humidifier design
In order to test the feasibility of an immiscible liquid mediated humidification de-
humidification system, a large-scale humidifier was constructed. A schematic of the
channel is shown in Figure 4.16. Cold water and hot oil are introduced from upstream
and run, by gravity, in the downstream direction. Cold dry air blows in the opposite
direction evaporating water as it travels. At the downstream (bottom) outlet, cold
Figure 4.15: Materials are initially oil saturated and dipped into a water layer (dyed
green for contrast) underneath an oil layer
oil and any remaining water leave the channel, while humid, hot air exits from the
top. The humidification channel and support was designed in SolidWorks CAD (Fig-
ure 4.17). The setup is designed to allow adjustment of channel tilt angle, and the
channel top is removable so that porous sheets can be applied to the channel easily.
Figure 4.16: Schematic figure of prototyped humidifier channel(2D)

Figure 4.17: Computer aided design of humidifier setup
4.4.2 Baseline water-air tests (traditional HDH)

Initial testing used only water and air to reproduce a traditional HDH humidification
process. In order to aid in interpretation of experimental results for the channel, it is
first modeled numerically. Subsequently, the channel is tested under similar conditions
to compare outlet humidity ratio and temperature of the air between experiment and
model.
Numerical method
The prototyped channel described in the previous section, is modeled using COMSOL
Multiphysics 5.3a. The modules used for the simulation include: Laminar Flow, Heat
transfer in Moist Air, and Moisture Transport in Air.
Governing Equation
The three-dimensional stationary Naiver-stokes equations, in the velocity stream func-
tion formulation, along with continuity, energy, and concentration equations were
solved. The governing, dimensionless equations for the flow domain(air) are given by:
Continuity equation for incompressible flow:
∇.u = 0 (4.39)
Momentum Equation:
− ∇p + ∇.[µ(∇u + (∇u)T ] = 0 (4.40)
Energy Equation:
ρCp u∆T + ∇.q = Qwater (4.41)

Concentration equation(Mv = molar concentration of air , K= evaporation rate,
= relative humidity ):
Mv u + ∇(φcsat ) + ∇.(−Mv K(csat − cv )) = 0 (4.42)
Boundary Conditions
The channel was modeled with dry inlet air(T=20 ◦ C and relative humidity 10%)
and hot water(T=80 ◦ C). The outlet boundary condition for both water and air was
ambient pressure. The boundary conditions are detailed in Figure 4.18. The air inlet
flowrate is 10 m3 /h and water is stagnant (i.e. negligible velocity). For numerical
modeling, the commercial Finite Element Analysis software package COMSOL Mul-
tiphysics is utilized, which can combine fluid mechanics and heat and mass transfer
to calculate outlet humidity ratio and outlet temperature of air and water.
Figure 4.18: Boundary condition for numerical modeling in COMSOL Multiphysics
Results
The temperature and humidity distribution obtained along the channel are presented
in the Figure 4.19. Outlet temperature and humidity ratio of 40 ◦ C and 0.1 kg/m3
are calculated, respectively.
Figure 4.19: Temperature and humidity distribution along the channel
Experimental water/air tests (traditional HDH)

The humidifier channel was also experimentally tested in the traditional HDH mode
with water and air only. Thermocouples and humidity sensors were inserted in the
inlet and outlet air flow. Inlet water temperature was also measured with a thermo-
couple, and thermocouples were positioned on the bottom surface of the channel at
five equally space positions labeled in Figure 4.20. Air speed was measured with an
anemometer attached to the air outlet as shown in Figure 4.21. Results are plotted
in Figure 4.22 for inlet water and air temperature and outlet air temperature. These
show good agreement with numerical simulations.
Figure 4.20: Thermocouples and humidity sensor position in the prototyped channel
Figure 4.21: ILM-Humidifier
Figure 4.22: Experimental results for water-air test(no thermal insulation)

4.4.3 ILM-HDH Experiment

To investigate the action of the immiscible heat transfer liquid, the experimental
channel was equipped with an oil pump to circulate mineral oil from a heated reservoir
to the channel to evaporate saline water as is shown in Figure 4.23 . The system was
completely insulated with variable dry air flowrate introduced via a compressor. In
the following sections, initial experiments on water recovery, energy consumption,
and precipitated salt discharge are detailed and future work is proposed.
Figure 4.23: ILM-HDH humidifier setup

Thermal Insulation
In order to minimize the heat loss to the surroundings, thick insulation was wrapped
around the humidifier as shown in Figure 4.24.
Figure 4.24: energy efficiency respect to oil flowrate
Temperature and Relative Humidity change along the channel

Measurement of relative humidity and temperature are shown in Figure 4.25 and
Figure 4.26 respectively for conditions where the oil flowrate was 5.7 mL/s, water
flow rate was 3 ml/min and air flowrate started at 40 L/min, changed to 60 L/min
(time =1061), and finally increased to 80 L/min(time =1300). The fan and water
stop at recording time equal to 1500 s. The temperatures are recorded with K-type
thermocouples and relative humidity is measured with a HUMIREL(HM1500) sensor.
Also, as the temperature difference of oil is around 5 ◦ C and K-type thermocouples
have (0.5-1 ◦ C) measurement error, resulting in 10-20 % uncertainty in the calculation
of energy consumption. Similar errors in relative humidity are expected.
Figure 4.25: Relative Humidity in inlet and outlet of the channel during testing
the oil flowrate is 5.7 mL/s, water flow rate is 3 ml/min and air flowrate start at 40
L/min, change to 60 L/min (time =1061) and finally increase to 80 L/min(time
=1300). The fan and water stop at the recording time equal to 1500
Figure 4.26: Water evaporation respect to feedwater flowrate

the oil flowrate is 5.7 mL/s, water flow rate is 3 ml/min and air flowrate start at 40
L/min, change to 60 L/min (time =1061) and finally increase to 80 L/min(time
=1300). The fan and water stop at the recording time equal to 1500
Water Evaporation
The water evaporation(ηevap ) simply can be calculated as the ratio of mass flowrate of
evaporated water over the feedwater as it is shown in 4.43. Figure 4.27 shows water
evaporation for various water and air flowrates where the oil flowrate is 5.7 mL/s,
and channel height is 0.1 meter. The experiments indicate that water evaporation up
to 80-90% is achieved at water flowrate of 125 g/hr after considering 20% uncertainty
error. This is an indication that ILM-HDH can achieve zero liquid discharge under
feasible operating conditions.
mevap ∗ 100
ηevap = (4.43)
mf eedwater
Figure 4.27: Water evaporation respect to feedwater flowrate

the oil flowrate is 5.7 mL/s and channel height is 0.1 meter
Energy consumption
The energy efficiency of the humidifier can be calculated as Eq 4.44. The input and
output energy flows of the humidifier were already considered in Eq 4.45 and Eq 4.46,
respectively. Importantly, these neglect loss of heat to the environment. This is likely
to be an important component of the current experimental system. The experimental
energy consumption of the humidifier is plotted in Figure 4.28. In this test, the oil
flowrate is 5.7 mL/s and channel height is 0.1 m. The uncertainty of temperature
difference in this experiment is 20%.
Eoutput ∗ 100
ηenergy = (4.44)
Einput
Einput = ṁoil Cpoil Toili + ṁda Cpda Tdai + ṁwo Cpw Twi + ṁevap Cpwv Twi (4.45)
Eoutput = ṁoil Cpoil Toilo +ṁda Cpda Tao +ṁwo Cpw Two +ṁwevap (Cpwv Tao +hf g@Taout ) (4.46)
Figure 4.28: Energy consumption respect to the feedwater flowrate

the oil flowrate is 5.7 mL/s and channel height is 0.1 meter
4.4.4 Salt discharge

Preliminary small-scale tests indicate that during evaporation, salt may deposit on
top of the oil impregnated porous sheet without penetrating as shown in Figure
4.29, which increases the chance of clearing the precipitate from the porous sheet.
The robustness of system for discharging salt without clogging the channel will be
investigated, and the possibility of washing through increased feedwater and oil flow
will be investigated.
Figure 4.29: Salt deposition in porous coated channel for simulated seawater at
flowrate 100 micro liter per minute with external heat source
4.4.5 Oil/water emulsion

An emulsion is a stable mixture of immiscible fluids such as oil and water, achieved
by finely dividing one phase into very small droplets [133]. Oil and water emulsions
would have a negative effect on water quality produced by ILM-HDH and should be
prevented [134]. In most cases, water and oil emulsions require active mixing in order
to be stable. This active mixing is prevented in the experimental testing, therefore
oil and water could be separated for carefully controlled experimental conditions.
4.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, different types of zero liquid discharge desalination systems including
membrane and thermal techniques were briefly introduced. The selection of a humidi-
fication dehumidification system for decentralized ZDD was justified based on the low
cost, handling of highly contaminated water with no pre-treatment requirement, and
integration capability with solar thermal collectors. A novel single-stage zero liquid
discharge system based on the HDH cycle was proposed. The key improvements to
the baseline HDH technology targeted by the proposed work are:
• Minimal to zero liquid waste production resulting in minimal waste disposal

expense (maximum water recovery in a single stage).
• Minimization of corrosion and fouling of humidifier due to continuously replen-

ished mineral oil in saturated humidifier surfaces
• Highly compatible with solar collector as the heat transfer fluid(mineral oil) is
not corrosive in contrast to state-of-art evaporator/crystallizer which use the
saline water. Therefore, the heat transfer fluid can be directly pumped through
the solar collector with no corrosion or a need for a heat exchanger.
4.6 Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Brandon Yang, Micheal Hall and Christopher Toy, the under-
graduate students in Professor Palko research group, who helped me through proto-
typing and experimental testing.
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Each chapter of this dissertation can be concluded as follows:

In chapter 2, The simulation, prototyping and testing of novel medium-temperature
solar collector is elaborated in this chapter. First, selection of higher concentration
reflector (1.4X) with optimized absorber geometry(pentagon) is justified for medium
temperature application (100-300 ◦ C) . Afterwards,the collector with 6 evacuated
tubes, CPC reflector and manifold is designed and coupled optical-thermal simula-
tion is studied using finite element method implemented in COMSOL Multiphysics
in order to predict optical and thermal efficiency of the system before prototyping.
Finally, the proposed medium-temperature collector is tested with selective-coated
pentagon absorber under real conditions at the University of California, Merced. The
experimental and numerical results underscore a close similarity with optical effi-
ciency of 64% and thermal efficiency of 50% at 200 ◦ C achieved both numerically and
experimentally. At the end, the proposed collector is compared with major commer-
cial collectors both in performance and cost. The levelized cost of heat for a single
collector is calculated as 3.1 ¢/kWh. This price is cheaper than all categories of solar
collector (evacuated flat plat, evacuated tube, fresnel lenses and parabolic trough)
for medium temperature application(200 ◦ C). The low cost of heat with the proposed
collector indicates the potential for solar thermal collector to challenge natural gas as
California’s primary heat source in the near future
In Chapter 3, a low-cost concentrated hybrid photovoltaic-thermal (PV/T) collec-
tor is designed, simulated, and experimentally tested. The proposed PV/T collector
simultaneously generates both electricity and thermal energy for low temperature
application (≤ 95 ◦ C) such as residential and/or commercial hot water. The collec-
tor itself consists of a glass tube with a reflective coating applied on the bottom half
which directs incoming rays to strings of solar cells applied over a flat minichannel ab-
sorber. Performance is simulated using COMSOL Multiphysics to guide the collector
design. Afterwards, multiple prototype tubes are manufactured and tested in both
direct-flow minichannel and heat pipe absorber configurations. The assembled PVT
collector has demonstrated thermal, electrical, and combined efficiencies of 60% and
10-15% , 70-75%, respectively. Also, in order to evaluate the cost and environmental
impact of the proposed collector, it is compared to commercial PV/T collectors in
117
Chapter 5. Conclusion 118
terms of three major indexes: Levelized cost of Energy, Simple Payback Period, and
amount of CO2 reduction. The results indicate the proposed PVT collector is the
cheapest PVT collector in terms of Levelized cost of Energy($10.3/MWh), Simple
Payback Period(3.6 years) while annually avoiding 150kg of CO2 per square meter of
aperture area.
In chapter 4, a novel single-stage zero discharge desalination system based on the
humidification dehumidification (HDH) cycle was proposed. The chapter is organized
as follows: First, HDH in general is introduced and its advantages and limitations are
highlighted. Then, a novel system that can potentially overcome some limitations of
HDH systems for zero liquid discharge is detailed. This new approach is named “im-
miscible liquid mediated humidification dehumidification” or “ILM-HDH” for short.
ILM-HDH involves a second liquid which decouples heat of vaporization and sensible
heat to enable the possibility of high-water recovery. Thermodynamic and kinetic
models of ILM-HDH are discussed, and experimental setups are introduced to test
the possibility of zero liquid discharge, high energy efficiency, and robust salt dis-
charge. The potential for ILM-HDH to improve some additional HDH limitations
such as fouling and poor heat transfer in the dehumidifier are also elaborated.
Finally, this dissertation demonstrated two state-of-the-art solar collectors and a
novel zero-discharge desalination system(ILM-HDH) which have great potential to be
coupled in order to eliminate the need for brine disposal from desalination systems
such as reverse osmosis while using low-cost, non-tracking and highly efficient solar
energy as their primary energy source.
Bibliography
[1] T. Tong and M. Elimelech, “The Global Rise of Zero Liquid Discharge for
Wastewater Management: Drivers, Technologies, and Future Directions,” En-
vironmental Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 13, pp. 6846–6855, 2016.
[2] H. W. Chung, K. G. Nayar, J. Swaminathan, K. M. Chehayeb, and J. H.

Lienhard V, “Thermodynamic analysis of brine management methods: Zero-
discharge desalination and salinity-gradient power production,” Desalination,
vol. 404, pp. 291–303, 2 2017.
[3] A. E. Kabeel, M. H. Hamed, Z. M. Omara, and S. W. Sharshir, “Water Desalina-

tion Using a Humidification-Dehumidification Technique—A Detailed Review,”
Natural Resources, vol. 04, no. 03, pp. 286–305, 2013.
[4] G. P. Narayan, M. H. Sharqawy, E. K. Summers, J. H. Lienhard, S. M. Zubair,

and M. Antar, “The potential of solar-driven humidification–dehumidification
desalination for small-scale decentralized water production,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, pp. 1187–1201, 5 2010.
[5] H. Strathmann, “Electrodialysis, a mature technology with a multitude of new

applications,” Desalination, vol. 264, pp. 268–288, 12 2010.
[6] IDE, “Mechanical Vapor Compression,” IDE technology, no. Mvc.
[7] S. Liyanaarachchi, L. Shu, S. Muthukumaran, V. Jegatheesan, and K. Baskaran,

“Problems in seawater industrial desalination processes and potential sustain-
able solutions: A review,” Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology,
vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 203–214, 2014.
[8] A. Ravizky and N. Nadav, “Salt production by the evaporation of SWRO brine
in Eilat: a success story,” Desalination, vol. 205, pp. 374–379, 2 2007.
[9] Intergovermental Panel on climate change(IPCC), Global Warming of 1.5◦ C.

2018.
[10] B. Widyolar, L. Jiang, J. Ferry, and R. Winston, “Non-tracking East-West

XCPC solar thermal collector for 200 celsius applications,” Applied Energy,
vol. 216, pp. 521–533, 4 2018.
119
Bibliography 120
[11] W. Weiss, I. Bergmann, and G. Faninger, “Solar Heat Worldwide,” Energy,

pp. 0–46, 2006.
[12] P. D. Myers and D. Y. Goswami, “Thermal energy storage using chloride salts
and their eutectics,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 109, pp. 889–900, 10
2016.
[13] N. Suresh and B. S. Rao, “Solar energy for process heating: A case study of
select Indian industries,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 151, pp. 439–451,
5 2017.
[14] J. Wang, Z. Yin, J. Qi, G. Ma, and X. Liu, “Medium-temperature Solar Collec-
tors with All-glass Solar Evacuated Tubes,” Energy Procedia, vol. 70, pp. 126–
129, 5 2015.
[15] B. Widyolar, L. Jiang, and R. Winston, “Spectral beam splitting in hybrid

PV/T parabolic trough systems for power generation,” Applied Energy, vol. 209,
pp. 236–250, 1 2018.
[16] M. Abdelhamid, B. K. Widyolar, L. Jiang, R. Winston, E. Yablonovitch,

G. Scranton, D. Cygan, H. Abbasi, and A. Kozlov, “Novel double-stage high-
concentrated solar hybrid photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) collector with non-
imaging optics and GaAs solar cells reflector,” Applied Energy, 2016.
[17] R. R. Milczarek, J. J. Ferry, F. S. Alleyne, C. W. Olsen, D. A. Olson, and

R. Winston, “Solar thermal drum drying performance of prune and tomato
pomaces,” Food and Bioproducts Processing, vol. 106, pp. 53–64, 11 2017.
[18] R. Winston, L. Jiang, and B. Widyolar, “Performance of a 23KW solar ther-

mal cooling system employing a double effect absorption chiller and thermo-
dynamically efficient non-tracking concentrators,” in Energy Procedia, vol. 48,
pp. 1036–1046, Elsevier, 1 2014.
[19] H. Guo, H. M. Ali, and A. Hassanzadeh, “Simulation study of flat-sheet air gap
membrane distillation modules coupled with an evaporative crystallizer for zero
liquid discharge water desalination,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 108,
pp. 486–501, 9 2016.
[20] B. Widyolar, L. Jiang, A. Hassanzadeh, and R. Winston, “Compound Parabolic

Concentrator for Pentagon Shape Absorber,” no. October, 2017.
[21] W. S. Duff, R. Winston, J. J. O’Gallagher, J. Bergquam, and T. Henkel, “Per-

formance of the Sacramento demonstration ICPC collector and double effect
chiller,” Solar Energy, vol. 76, pp. 175–180, 1 2004.
[22] A. Hassanzadeh, L. Jiang, and R. Winston, “Coupled optical-thermal modeling,

design and experimental testing of a novel medium-temperature solar thermal
Bibliography 121
collector with pentagon absorber,” Solar Energy, vol. 173, pp. 1248–1261, 10
2018.
[23] W. Weiss, M. Spörk-Dür, and F. Mauthner, “Solar Heat Worldwide Global

Market Development and Trends in 2016,” Shc, p. 86, 2017.
[24] N. S. Suresh and B. S. Rao, “Solar energy for process heatingA case study
of select Indian industries,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 151, no. May
2011, pp. 439–451, 2017.
[25] A. Hassanzadeh, “Experimental study on increasing the electrical efficiency of

photovoltaic panel with decreasing rear surface temperature,” no. June 2015,
p. 117, 2015.
[26] H. E. Fath, S. M. Elsherbiny, A. A. Hassan, M. Rommel, M. Wieghaus,

J. Koschikowski, and M. Vatansever, “PV and thermally driven small-scale,
stand-alone solar desalination systems with very low maintenance needs,” De-
salination, vol. 225, pp. 58–69, 5 2008.
[27] R. Shukla, K. Sumathy, P. Erickson, and J. Gong, “Recent advances in the solar
water heating systems: A review,” 3 2013.
[28] R. Gabbrielli, P. Castrataro, F. Del Medico, M. Di Palo, and B. Lenzo, “Lev-

elized Cost of Heat for Linear Fresnel Concentrated Solar Systems,” Energy
Procedia, vol. 49, pp. 1340–1349, 1 2014.
[29] US Department of Energy(DOE), “Solar Desalination Funding Opportunity

Announcement (FOA),” 2018.
[30] P. Kurup and C. Turchi, “Potential for solar industrial process heat in the
United States: A look at California,” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1734,
2016.
[31] T. Sultana, G. L. Morrison, R. Taylor, and G. Rosengarten, “Modeling of a

Linear Fresnel Concentrating Collector for Solar Cooling and Hot Water Ap-
plications,” Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, vol. 137, no. 2, p. 021014,
2015.
[32] R. Winston, J. C. Miñano, P. Benı́tez, N. Shatz, and J. C. Bortz, “5 - Devel-

opments and modifications of the compound parabolic concentrator,” in Non-
imaging Optics, pp. 69–98, Elsevier, 2005.
[33] P. Kurup and C. S. Turchi, “Parabolic Trough Collector Cost Update for the
System Advisor Model (SAM),” Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-65228 Na-
tional Renewable Energy Laboratory, no. November, pp. 1–40, 2015.
Bibliography 122
[34] F. Calise, M. D. d’Accadia, M. Vicidomini, and M. Scarpellino, “Design and

simulation of a prototype of a small-scale solar CHP system based on evacuated
flat-plate solar collectors and Organic Rankine Cycle,” Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 90, pp. 347–363, 1 2015.
[35] A. Buonomano, F. Calise, M. D. d’Accadia, G. Ferruzzi, S. Frascogna,
A. Palombo, R. Russo, and M. Scarpellino, “Experimental analysis and dy-
namic simulation of a novel high-temperature solar cooling system,” Energy
Conversion and Management, vol. 109, pp. 19–39, 2 2016.
[36] K. Yao, T. Li, H. Tao, J. Wei, and K. Feng, “Performance Evaluation of All-
glass Evacuated Tube Solar Water Heater with Twist Tape Inserts Using CFD,”
Energy Procedia, vol. 70, no. May, pp. 332–339, 2015.
[37] Sunchaser, “Sunchaser 20-tube Solar Hot Water Heater/collector Vacuum Tube
: Solar Panels : Garden & Outdoor.”
[38] Y. S. Kim, K. Balkoski, L. Jiang, and R. Winston, “Efficient stationary solar
thermal collector systems operating at a medium-temperature range,” Applied
Energy, 2013.
[39] P. M. Martinez, V. A. Pozdin, A. Papadimitratos, W. Holmes, F. Hassanipour,
and A. A. Zakhidov, “Dual use of carbon nanotube selective coatings in evacu-
ated tube solar collectors,” Carbon, vol. 119, pp. 133–141, 8 2017.
[40] B. Widyolar, R. Winston, L. Jiang, and H. Poiry, “Performance of the Merced
Demonstration XCPC Collector and Double Effect Chiller,” Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering, vol. 136, no. 4, p. 041009, 2014.
[41] K. Devanarayanan and K. Kalidasa Murugavel, “Integrated collector storage
solar water heater with compound parabolic concentrator – development and
progress,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 39, pp. 51–64, 11
2014.
[42] Y. Bhusal, A. Hassanzadeh, and R. Winston, “Ray tracing and heat transfer
simulation of novel glass-covered XCPC collector,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 2–11, 2018.
[43] L. Ma, Z. Lu, J. Zhang, and R. Liang, “Thermal performance analysis of the
glass evacuated tube solar collector with U-tube,” Building and Environment,
vol. 45, pp. 1959–1967, 9 2010.
[44] A. A. Badran, M. F. Mustafa, W. K. Dawood, and Z. K. Ghazzawi, “On the
measurement of bond conductance in solar collector absorber plate,” Energy
Conversion and Management, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 3305–3310, 2008.
[45] T. Qi, “Thermal performance of the U-type evacuated glass tubular solar col-
lector,” 2007.
Bibliography 123
[46] M. Carvalho, M. Collares-Pereira, J. Gordon, and A. Rabl, “Truncation of

CPC solar collectors and its effect on energy collection,” Solar Energy, vol. 35,
pp. 393–399, 1 1985.
[47] K. Balkoski, “Performance analysis of medium temperature non-tracking solar

thermal concentrators,” 2011.
[48] A. Steinfeld, “Es2011-54 Numerical Analysis of Heat Loss From a Parabolic

Trough,” pp. 1–7, 2011.
[49] A. B. Mayuri Kushare, Anshal Jhaveri, “Radiation Heat treansfer Analysis of

Spectrometers’s Dewar Cooling Assembly,” 2017.
[50] M. A. X. Born, “Principles of Optics,” Spectroscopic Ellipsometry, pp. 13–48,

1959.
[51] A. Aboulmagd, A. Padovan, R. D. C. Oliveski, and D. Del Col, “a New Model

for the Analysis of Performance in Evacuated Tube Solar Collectors,” 3rd Inter-
national High Performance Buildings Conference at Purdue, no. August 2018,
pp. 1–10, 2014.
[52] G. M. Masters, Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems. 2004.
[53] SPF, “Viessmann Vitosol 200-F Typ 5DI Model,” pp. 3–4, 2008.
[54] SPF, “Solar Collector Factsheet Haining Yinuo ILHC-5830,” pp. 2–3, 2011.
[55] A. Hassanzadeh, B. Widyolar, J. Brinkley, S. P. Kiran, L. Jiang, and R. Win-

ston, “Combined Solar Power and Heat for Electricity, Hot Water, and Space
Heating,” tech. rep.
[56] R. Corrêa da Silva, I. de Marchi Neto, and S. Silva Seifert, “Electricity supply
security and the future role of renewable energy sources in Brazil,” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 59, pp. 328–341, 6 2016.
[57] N. Panwar, S. Kaushik, and S. Kothari, “Role of renewable energy sources

in environmental protection: A review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 15, pp. 1513–1524, 4 2011.
[58] International Energy Agency(IEA), “Renewables 2018,” 2018.
[59] W. Shockley and H. J. Queisser, “Detailed balance limit of efficiency of p-n

junction solar cells,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 510–519,
1961.
[60] T. J. Silverman, M. G. Deceglie, I. Subedi, N. J. Podraza, I. M. Slauch, V. E.

Ferry, and I. Repins, “Reducing Operating Temperature in Photovoltaic Mod-
ules,” vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–9, 2018.
Bibliography 124
[61] A. H. Jaaz, H. A. Hasan, K. Sopian, M. H. B. Haji Ruslan, and S. H. Zaidi,

“Design and development of compound parabolic concentrating for photovoltaic
solar collector: Review,” 9 2017.
[62] N. Chowdhury, “Design and Experimental Validation of a Photovoltaic-Thermal

(PVT) Hybrid Collector,” International Journal of Renewable Energy Research
(IJRER), vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1446–1453, 2016.
[63] A. Ramos, M. A. Chatzopoulou, I. Guarracino, J. Freeman, and C. N. Markides,

“Hybrid photovoltaic-thermal solar systems for combined heating, cooling and
power provision in the urban environment,” Energy Conversion and Manage-
ment, vol. 150, pp. 838–850, 10 2017.
[64] I. Pakere, D. Lauka, and D. Blumberga, “Solar power and heat production via
photovoltaic thermal panels for district heating and industrial plant,” Energy,
vol. 154, pp. 424–432, 7 2018.
[65] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Levelized Cost and Levelized

Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook
2015,” Independent Statistics & Analysis, no. June, pp. 1–12, 2015.
[66] B. Widyolar, L. Jiang, J. Ferry, and R. Winston, “Non-tracking East-West

XCPC solar thermal collector for 200 celsius applications,” Applied Energy,
vol. 216, pp. 521–533, 4 2018.
[67] A. Vallati, P. Oclon, C. Colucci, L. Mauri, R. de Lieto Vollaro, and J. Taler,

“ENERGY ANALYSIS OF A THERMAL SYSTEM COMPOSED BY A HEAT
PUMP COUPLED WITH A PVT SOLAR COLLECTOR,” Energy, 2 2019.
[68] M. Kamran, “Current status and future success of renewable energy in Pak-
istan,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 82, pp. 609–617, 2 2018.
[69] T. M. Diallo, M. Yu, J. Zhou, X. Zhao, S. Shittu, G. Li, J. Ji, and D. Hardy,
“Energy performance analysis of a novel solar PVT loop heat pipe employing a
microchannel heat pipe evaporator and a PCM triple heat exchanger,” Energy,
vol. 167, pp. 866–888, 1 2019.
[70] B. Widyolar, L. Jiang, M. Abdelhamid, and R. Winston, “Design and modeling

of a spectrum-splitting hybrid CSP-CPV parabolic trough using two-stage high
concentration optics and dual junction InGaP/GaAs solar cells,” Solar Energy,
vol. 165, pp. 75–84, 5 2018.
[71] M. Herrando, A. Ramos, I. Zabalza, and C. N. Markides, “A comprehensive

assessment of alternative absorber-exchanger designs for hybrid PVT-water col-
lectors,” Applied Energy, vol. 235, pp. 1583–1602, 2 2019.
Bibliography 125
[72] M. Wolf, “PERFORMANCE ANALYSES OF COMBINED HEATING AND

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS FOR RESIDENCES,” Energy Conver-
sion, vol. 16, pp. 79–90, 1976.
[73] M. Baneshi and S. A. Bahreini, “Impacts of hot water consumption pattern on

optimum sizing and techno-economic aspects of residential hybrid solar water
heating systems,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, vol. 30,
pp. 139–149, 2018.
[74] R. Moss, P. Henshall, F. Arya, G. Shire, T. Hyde, and P. Eames, “Performance

and operational effectiveness of evacuated flat plate solar collectors compared
with conventional thermal, PVT and PV panels,” Applied Energy, vol. 216,
pp. 588–601, 4 2018.
[75] C. Good, J. Chen, Y. Dai, and A. G. Hestnes, “Hybrid Photovoltaic-thermal

Systems in Buildings – A Review,” Energy Procedia, vol. 70, pp. 683–690, 5
2015.
[76] L. Brottier, S. Naudin, V. Veeser, G. Terrom, and R. Bennacer, “Field Test

Results of an Innovative PV/T Collector for Solar Domestic Hot Water,” Energy
Procedia, vol. 91, pp. 276–283, 6 2016.
[77] J. Moreno Puerto, “Performance Evaluation of the Solarus AB Asymmetric

Concentrating Hybrid PV / T Collector,” p. 126, 2013.
[78] A. Sayigh, “Renewable energy in the serive of mankind,” in Selected Topics

from the World Renewable Energy Congfree, Springer US, 2014.
[79] S. Shanmuga Priya, A. Rao, I. Thirunavukkarasu, and V. Nayak, “Initial field

performance of a hybrid CPV-T microconcentrator system,” International Jour-
nal of ChemTech Research, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 261–270, 2016.
[80] J. S. Coventry, “Performance of a concentrating photovoltaic/thermal solar col-

lector,” Solar Energy, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 211–222, 2005.
[81] W. S. Duff and J. Daosukho, “TWELVE YEAR EVALUATION OF A NOVEL

ICPC SOLAR COLLECTOR INSTALLATION: THE ROLE OF FAILURE
MODES IN CHANGING OPTICAL AND THERMAL PERFORMANCE,”
tech. rep., 2010.
[82] Alibaba, “Cost of evacuated solar collector tube,” 2019.
[83] S. Zhong, “aluminum minichannel heat pipe,” 2018.
[84] Americana Decor, “Silver coating paint,” 2019.
[85] ebay, “Sunpower Solar Cell Flexible Mono Wafer Monocrystalline Dogbone Bus-
bar DIY Panel,” 2019.
Bibliography 126
[86] Amazon.com, “Ceatech 10mm x 25m Thermal Tape Double-sided Adhesive for
Heat Sink,” 2019.
[87] A. Hassanzadeh, R. Winston, and J. Palko, “Novel Humidification / dehumid-

ification for low cost , energy efficient , zero liquid discharge desalination using
solar thermal sources Presenter :,” No. November, (Pittsburgh), AlChe, 2018.
[88] M. Impacts, H. Cooley, N. Ajami, M. Heberger, N. Ross, and P. Luu, Key Issues
in Seawater Desalination in California. 2013.
[89] V. M. Sedivy, “Environmental Balance of Salt Production speaks in favour of

Solar Saltworks,” Global NEST Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 41–48, 2009.
[90] VEOLIA, “HPD supplies brine concentrator for RO drinking water plant,”
Membrane Technology, vol. 2007, p. 6, 8 2007.
[91] Y. Kobuchi, Y. Terada, and Y. Tani, “The First Salt Plant in the Middle East
Using Electrodialysis and Ion Exchange Membranes,” tech. rep., 1983.
[92] Saltworks, “Choosing the Right Zero Liquid Discharge Technology: Evaporators
; Crystallizers.”
[93] J.-H. Tsai, F. Macedonio, E. Drioli, L. Giorno, C.-Y. Chou, F.-C. Hu, C.-L. Li,
C.-J. Chuang, and K.-L. Tung, “Membrane-based zero liquid discharge: Myth
or reality?,” Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, vol. 80,
pp. 192–202, 11 2017.
[94] G. Prakash Narayan, M. G. St. John, S. M. Zubair, and J. H. Lienhard, “Ther-

mal design of the humidification dehumidification desalination system: An ex-
perimental investigation,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
vol. 58, no. 1-2, pp. 740–748, 2013.
[95] J. Minier-Matar, R. Sharma, A. Hussain, A. Janson, and S. Adham, “Field

evaluation of membrane distillation followed by humidification/dehumidifica-
tion crystallizer for inland desalination of saline groundwater,” Desalination,
vol. 398, pp. 12–21, 11 2016.
[96] G. Wu, H.-F. Zheng, F. Wang, and Z.-H. Chang, “Parametric study of a tandem
desalination system based on humidification-dehumidification process with 3-
stage heat recovery,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 112, pp. 190–200, 2
2017.
[97] Z. Triki, M. Bouaziz, and M. Boumaza, “Performance and cost evaluation of an

autonomous solar vacuum membrane distillation desalination plant,” Desalina-
tion and Water Treatment, vol. 73, no. October, pp. 107–120, 2017.
Bibliography 127
[98] A. E. Kabeel, M. H. Hamed, Z. M. Omara, and S. W. Sharshir, “Water Desalina-

tion Using a Humidification-Dehumidification Technique—A Detailed Review,”
Natural Resources, vol. 04, no. 03, pp. 286–305, 2013.
[99] SaltMaker, “SaltMaker,” 2015.
[100] K. M. Chehayeb, G. Prakash Narayan, S. M. Zubair, and J. H. Lienhard, “Use

of multiple extractions and injections to thermodynamically balance the humid-
ification dehumidification desalination system,” International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer, vol. 68, pp. 422–434, 1 2014.
[101] G. P. Narayan, M. H. Sharqawy, S. Lam, S. K. Das, and J. H. Lienhard, “Bubble

columns for condensation at high concentrations of noncondensable gas: Heat
transfer model and experiments,” AIChE Journal, vol. 59, pp. 1780–1790, 5
2013.
[102] Y. Ghalavand, M. S. Hatamipour, and A. Rahimi, “A review on energy con-

sumption of desalination processes,” Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 54,
no. 6, pp. 1526–1541, 2015.
[103] M. T. Ali, H. E. Fath, and P. R. Armstrong, “A comprehensive techno-

economical review of indirect solar desalination,” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 15, pp. 4187–4199, 10 2011.
[104] K. E. Thomas, “Overview of ViIIage ’ ScaIe , Renewable Energy Powered De-

salination,” Renewable Energy, no. April, pp. 440–22083, 1997.
[105] A. Deshmukh, C. Boo, V. Karanikola, S. Lin, A. P. Straub, T. Tong, D. M.

Warsinger, and M. Elimelech, “Membrane distillation at the water-energy
nexus: limits, opportunities, and challenges,” Energy & Environmental Science,
2018.
[106] I. J. Esfahani, J. Rashidi, P. Ifaei, and C. K. Yoo, “Efficient thermal desalination

technologies with renewable energy systems: A state-of-the-art review,” Korean
Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 351–387, 2016.
[107] A. U. Malik, P. C. M. Kutty, I. N. Andijani, and S. A. Al-Fozan, “Materials per-

formance and failure evaluation in SWCC MSF plants,” Desalination, vol. 97,
no. 1-3, pp. 171–187, 1994.
[108] L. Gacrcia-Rodriguez, “Renewable energy applications in desalination: state of

the art,” Solar Energy, vol. 75, pp. 381–393, 11 2003.
[109] B. Van der Bruggen and C. Vandecasteele, “Distillation vs. membrane filtration:
overview of process evolutions in seawater desalination,” Desalination, vol. 143,
pp. 207–218, 6 2002.
Bibliography 128
[110] Q. Wen and Z. Guo, “Highlight Review Recent Advances in the Fabrication of
Superhydrophobic Surfaces,” Chem. Lett, vol. 45, pp. 1134–1149, 2016.
[111] M. Rommel, M. Köhl, W. Graf, C. Wellens, F. Brucker, K. Lustig, and P. Bahr,
“Corrosion-free collectors with selectively coated plastic absorbers,” Desalina-
tion, vol. 109, pp. 149–155, 5 1997.
[112] R. Kuang, Y. Song, Z. Li, and Q. Gu, “The mechanical analysis of an all-glass
solar evacuated tube with spiral inner tube for seawater desalination,” Journal
of Solar Energy Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. 1–5,
2018.
[113] G. P. Narayan, R. H. McGovern, J. H. Lienhard V, and S. M. Zubair, “Helium as
a Carrier Gas in Humidification Dehumidification Desalination Systems,” Vol-
ume 1: Advances in Aerospace Technology; Energy Water Nexus; Globalization
of Engineering; Posters, pp. 437–444, 2011.
[114] Y. Taitel and A. Tamir, “Condensation in the presence of a noncondensable gas
in direct contact,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 12,
pp. 1157–1169, 9 1969.
[115] M. Siddique, The Effect Of Noncondensable Gases on Steam Condensation Un-
der Forced Convection Condition. PhD thesis, MIT, 1992.
[116] M. Siddique, M. W. Golay, and M. S. Kazimi, “Local Heat-Transfer Coeffi-
cients For Forced-Convection Condensation Of Steam In A Vertical Tube In
The Presence Of A Noncondensable Gas,” Nuclear Technology, vol. 102, no. 3,
pp. 386–402, 1993.
[117] Incopera, DeWitt, Bergman, and Lavine, Fundemental of Heat and Mass Trans-
fer. No. 1986, 1993.
[118] A. M. Zhu, S. C. Wang, Z. Wang, and Q. L. Liu, “Local Heat Transfer Coeffi-
cient of Steam Condensation with High Fractional Noncondensable Gas in the
Dewvaporation Desalination Process,” American Chemical Society, 7 2007.
[119] H. Xu, H. Gu, and Z. Sun, “Forced convection condensation of steam in the
presence of multicomponent noncondensable gases inside a horizontal tube,”
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 104, pp. 1110–1119, 1
2017.
[120] Q. Yi, M. Tian, W. Yan, X. Qu, and X. Chen, “Visualization study of the
influence of non-condensable gas on steam condensation heat transfer,” Applied
Thermal Engineering, vol. 106, pp. 13–21, 8 2016.
[121] A. M. Zhu, S. C. Wang, J. X. Sun, L. X. Xie, and Z. Wang, “Effects of high frac-
tional noncondensable gas on condensation in the dewvaporation desalination
process,” Desalination, vol. 214, pp. 128–137, 8 2007.
Bibliography 129
[122] C. Chantana and S. Kumar, “Experimental and theoretical investigation of air-

steam condensation in a vertical tube at low inlet steam fractions,” Applied
Thermal Engineering, vol. 54, pp. 399–412, 5 2013.
[123] D. Che, Y. Da, and Z. Zhuang, “Heat and mass transfer characteristics of
simulated high moisture flue gases,” Heat and Mass Transfer/Waerme- und
Stoffuebertragung, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 250–256, 2005.
[124] Y. Liang, D. Che, and Y. Kang, “Effect of vapor condensation on forced con-
vection heat transfer of moistened gas,” Heat and Mass Transfer/Waerme- und
Stoffuebertragung, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 677–686, 2007.
[125] X. Shi, D. Che, B. Agnew, and J. Gao, “An investigation of the performance
of compact heat exchanger for latent heat recovery from exhaust flue gases,”
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 54, pp. 606–615, 1 2011.
[126] X. H. Ma, X. D. Zhou, Z. Lan, Y. M. LI, and Y. Zhang, “Condensation heat

transfer enhancement in the presence of non-condensable gas using the interfa-
cial effect of dropwise condensation,” International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, vol. 51, no. 7-8, pp. 1728–1737, 2008.
[127] S. Zheng, F. Eimann, C. Philipp, T. Fieback, and U. Gross, “Modeling of heat

and mass transfer for dropwise condensation of moist air and the experimental
validation,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 120, pp. 879–
894, 5 2018.
[128] M. Yasuo and N. Wataru, “Study on forced convective heat transfer in curved
pipes: (1st report, laminar region),” International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, vol. 8, pp. 67–82, 1 1965.
[129] R. B. Bird, W. E. Stewart, and E. N.Lightfoot, “Transport Phenomena,”
[130] T. V. Charpentier, A. Neville, S. Baudin, M. J. Smith, M. Euvrard, A. Bell,

C. Wang, and R. Barker, “Liquid infused porous surfaces for mineral fouling
mitigation,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 444, pp. 81–86, 4
2015.
[131] Zhang, “Heat and Mass Transfer in Liquid-to-Air Parallel-Plate Membrane

Ducts,” Conjugate Heat and Mass Transfer in Heat Mass Exchanger Ducts,
pp. 157–180, 2013.
[132] EngineeringToolbox, “Air - Diffusion Coefficients of Gases in Excess of Air.”
[133] G. Chen and D. Tao, “An experimental study of stability of oil–water emulsion,”
Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 86, pp. 499–508, 2 2005.
Bibliography 130
[134] J. Li, C. Xu, Y. Zhang, R. Wang, F. Zha, and H. She, “Robust superhydropho-
bic attapulgite coated polyurethane sponge for efficient immiscible oil/water
mixture and emulsion separation,” Journal of Materials Chemistry A, vol. 4,
no. 40, pp. 15546–15553, 2016.

qt8wc852br

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

qt8wc852br

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

qt8wc852br

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UC Merced

UC Merced Electronic Theses and Dissertations

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library

A Novel Zero-Discharge Desalination System with Two state-of-the-art

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree

Ali Hassanzadeh Naeini

Professor Roland Winston

Portion of Chapter 2 c 2018 Solar Energy Journal.

• Hassanzadeh, A.*, Jiang, L., Winston, R. ”Coupled optical-thermal modeling,

Portion of Chapter 3 c 2018 University of California Advanced Solar Technoloigies

Portion of Chapter 4 c 2018 American Institute of Chemical Engineer

• Hassanzadeh, A., Palko, J., Winston, R. ”Humidification/Dehumidification for

All other Chapters c 2020 Ali Hassanzadeh Naeini

University of California, Merced

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my family: my mother, Mahboobeh,

List of Symbols viii

List of Figures viii

List of Tables xii

2 A Non-tracking East-West Medium-temperature Solar Thermal Col-

3 A Non-tracking North-South Concentrated Hybrid Solar Collector 42

4 A Novel Solar Compatible Zero Discharge Desalination System 82

2.1 Thermal resistance network diagram of the collector elements . . . . . 10

4.1 Annual increase of desalination based on different feedwater (2) . . . 83

1.1 Commercial Solar Collector respect to their Operating temperature . 3

3.1 Calculation of Three major indexes for Commercial PVT collector . . 44

• University of California, Merced. Merced, CA, USA. (2015 – 2020)

• Sharif University of Technology. Tehran, Iran. (2013 - 2015)

• Islamic Azad University. Mashhad, Iran. (2008 - 2013)

8. Hassanzadeh, A., Palko, J., Winston, R. ”Humidification/Dehumidification

7. Hassanzadeh, A., Bhusal, Y., Winston, R. ”Coupled Optical and Thermal

6. Widyolar, B., Jiang, L., Hassanzadeh, A., Winston, R. ”Compound Parabolic

4. Hassanzadeh, A., Widyolar, B., Jiang, L, Winston, R. ”The error tolerance

3. Brinkley, J. Hassanzadeh, A. ”Adaptive sensor-based ultra-high accuracy so-

2. Hassanzadeh, A., Winston, R. ”Integrated Non-Tracking Solar Collector(XCPC)

1. Guo, H*, Muhammad Ali, H,Hassanzadeh, A, Ma, Y. ”Simulation study of

• Immiscible Liquid Mediated Humidifcation/Dehumdification system and method

• American Society of Mechanical Engineers(ASME)

Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Systems

University of California, Merced

Professor Roland Winston

1.1 Zero Discharge Desalination

1.2 Solar Collectors

Table 1.1: Commercial Solar Collector respect to their Operating temperature

Solar collectors Concentration Vacuum Temperature(◦ C) Example

1.3 Objective of this study

These question are addressed through:

• XCPC collector with pentagon absorber is simulated and prototyped to measure

• A novel Zero-Discharge desalination system called ILM-HDH is introduced.

This chapter is published in Solar Energy journal.[22]

affected by optical efficiency (reflection, transmittance through glass and absorption

Qoutput Qthermal η0 ∗ Qsolar − Qloss Qloss

• Thermal Efficiency calculated at 200 Celsius for (G (Global irradiation) = 1000

• Operation and maintained cost(O&M ) assumed based on US department of

Collector Concentration and Total Thermal LCOH

In 1974, Winston (1974) introduced compound parabolic concentrator (CPC)

2.2 Analytical Study

Table 2.2: Physical parameters of collector elements

Part Parameter symbol Value Unit

The one-dimensional analytical investigation of a single unit of the glass evacuated

• Tp = Temperature of the absorber surface

σp (T 2 + Tg2 )(Tp2 + Tg2 )