RESEARCH ARTICLES

Design and optimization of solar parabolic

trough collector with evacuated absorber by
grey relational analysis
S. Arunkumar* and K. Ramesh
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Technology, Coimbatore 641 013, India

studied earlier using the finite element method (FEM)

Solar energy that contains bright heat and light from
the sun is often controlled using modern technology method1. Montes et al.2 provided the results of designing
such as photovoltaic, solar heating, artificial photo- a PTC and its applications in a solar thermal system for
synthesis, solar architecture and solar thermal elec- heat production. Gao et al.3 designed a novel, selective
tricity. This study concerned with an experimental solar absorber coating of Al2O3 on a stainless steel sub-
analysis of solar parabolic trough collector. The sun- strate3. An experimental analysis was done using the ab-
light is reflected from the parabolic trough surface sorber tube with internal hinged blades for the solar PTC.
and focused on the evacuated absorber tube. The An average efficiency of 69.33% was noted compared to
trough is usually aligned to the N–S axis and can be 60.82% for commercial absorber tubes4. The results of
rotated normally according to the sun position from east collector’s structures mounted and the results were com-
to west. We have studied the potential of a solar ther- pared with with computational and experimental data5.
mal system for hot-water generation. The parabolic
Analysis revealed thermal efficiency up to 60% (ref. 6).
trough concentrator was made of galvanized sheet
metal on which solar reflective films were pasted. The The pertinent applications of solar thermal systems have
heat transfer fluid, viz. water runs through the absor- been reviewed7. A dynamic mathematical model was esta-
ber tube and absorbs concentrated heat energy. It has blished and verified based on the photothermal conversion
been designed with principal focus 0.1 m from the ver- process of the PTC8. Materials, heat transfer characteris-
tex so that the receiver heat loss is minimized. Data tics and manufacturing challenges of the solar thermal
were collected on water inlet temperature, outlet tem- collector were identified9. Javadi et al.10 proposed that
perature of the heat transfer fluid, solar radiation and the low-temperature solar collectors use water as the heat
water flow rate (days) during March to May 2019 at transfer fluid. Solar industrial process heating is consi-
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Also, the processing dered as one of the clean and renewable energy options in
parameters were optimized because they are the key several countries. It was proposed that a significant share
factors affecting the performance of the solar collector.
of final energy consumption is in the industrial sectors11.
Grey relational analysis was used to solve the optimi-
zation. Through confirmatory experiments, the input Concentrating solar power (CSP) technology is grooving
variables such as time, angle of tracking and solar up with exclusive devices because of high thermal per-
radiation, as well as output variables such as inlet formance was proposed12. Reddy and Kumar13 presented
temperature, outlet temperature and efficiency were mathematical techniques and simulation used in the design
obtained, and the optimal conditions were verified. A of parabolic trough solar systems along with a review on
suitable choice of input parameters such as tracking the applications. Kumaresan et al.14, evaluated the per-
angle of 120° provides a high efficiency rate at 2 pm formance parameters of the PTC, such as useful heat
for March, April and May. gain, and thermal efficiency of individual/overall compo-
nents of the system using therminol 55 heat transfer fluid.
Keywords: Evacuated absorber, grey relational analy- The fabrication and assembling method of a solar collec-
sis, parabolic trough collector, performance analysis, solar tor, newly evolved tools were proposed15. Fabrication and
energy. performance of the solar PTC with and without coatings
on the receiver tube have been presented by Sagade et
SOLAR energy is sustainable since it cannot be depleted in al.16. This study attempted to optimize the operational para-
time applicable to the human race. The solar parabolic meters and the optimal parameters of the solar collector17.
trough collector (PTC) or cylindrical parabolic collector The optimum solar parabolic trough parameters of temper-
employs linear imaging concentration. The performance ature, optical efficiency and thermal efficiency were ana-
of a PTC in the utilization of solar energy has been lysed using grey relational analysis17. The result shows
the evacuated absorber is most efficient for the collec-
*For correspondence. (e-mail: arunkumarresearch2018@[Link]) tor’s overall performance18.

410 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022

 RESEARCH ARTICLES

Figure 1. a, 2D geometry of the solar parabolic trough collector (PTC). b, Performance test set-up of the solar PTC. c, Experimental
procedure and measurements.

Table 1. Design specifications of the parabolic trough collector length and rim angle of the PTC can be defined as fol-
Components Dimensions (mm) lows19.
Parabolic concentrator Length – 1800
Aperture – 540 f = Ys2/4h, (1)
Focal length – 100
Evacuate absorber tube Inner diameter – 47 tanϕR = 8( f /Ys)/(16( f/Ys)2 – 1), (2)
Outer diameter – 58
Length – 1800 where f is the focal length of parabolic trough, Ys the half
Support stand Height due south – 1000 length of collector aperture, h the height and ϕ is the rim
Height due north – 600 angle.
Distance between the two stands – 2200

Experimental study

Geometry of parabolic trough solar collector Description of the performance test set-up

Parabolic troughs have a focal line, which consists of the The essential components of the PTC such as concentrator
focal points of the parabolic cross-sections. As shown in and absorber tube were designed and fabricated with
Figure 1 a, radiation that enters in a plane parallel to the the above-mentioned specifications (Table 1). Figure 1 b
optical plane is reflected such that it passes through the shows the complete experimental set-up. The entire test
focal line. The evacuated tube was used as the absorber set-up was positioned on the terrace of the Manufacturing
due to no heat loss in the evacuated tube. Table 1 shows Engineering building, Government College of Technology-
the design specifications of the solar PTC. The focal Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. A mechanical chain-drive

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022 411

RESEARCH ARTICLES
Table 2. Experimental particulars of March 2019
Angle of Inlet temperature Outlet temperature Solar radiation Efficiency
Day Trial no. Time tracking (°) (°C) (°C) (W/m2) (%)
1 1 10.00 am 60 29 43 620 29.95
2 11.00 am 75 29 58 790 48.70
3 12.00 pm 90 29 51 980 29.78
4 01.00 pm 105 30 56 1086 31.76
5 02.00 pm 120 30 68 916 55.03
6 03.00 pm 135 31 54 637 47.90
2 7 10.00 am 60 30 39 580 20.58
8 11.00 am 75 30 50 815 32.55
9 12.00 pm 90 30 58 917 40.51
10 01.00 pm 105 30 60 1001 39.76
11 02.00 pm 120 31 65 904 49.89
12 03.00 pm 135 31 52 640 43.53
3 13 10.00 am 60 29 39 642 20.66
14 11.00 am 75 29 45 860 24.68
15 12.00 pm 90 29 63 979 46.07
16 01.00 pm 105 29 63 1099 41.04
17 02.00 pm 120 30 68 929 54.26
18 03.00 pm 135 30 55 663 50.02
4 19 10.00 am 60 29 41 720 22.11
20 11.00 am 75 29 52 852 35.81
21 12.00 pm 90 29 55 1053 32.75
22 01.00 pm 105 29 62 986 44.40
23 02.00 pm 120 29 70 1008 53.96
24 03.00 pm 135 30 60 886 44.92

system was provided to alter the angle of the PTC. Water temperature of fluid and Tin is the inlet temperature of
was used as the heat transfer fluid and was calculated inside fluid. Ibrb is the incident solar radiation, W the width of the
the evacuated absorber tube at a flow rate of 11 litre/h parabolic trough and L is the length of absorber tube.
using the principle of thermosiphon. Tables 2–4 provide the particulars of input and output
variables of the solar PTC with evacuated absorber tube.
The outlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid was
Experimental procedure
obtained at relevant time intervals on different days of
March, April and May 2019 respectively, and the instan-
Performance analysis of the solar PTC was carried out
taneous efficiency of the collector was predicted based on
during different days of March, April and May at relevant
the readings obtained.
time intervals. Experiments were conducted with three
different input parameters, viz. time, angle of tracking
and solar radiation and two output parameters, viz. inlet Results and discussion
and outlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid. Six trials
were performed per day with different tracking angles for The solar PTC with absorber tube was heated under the
all of three months. Totally 24 trials were performed per solar radiation conditions of Coimbatore. The graphs
month. A digital thermometer was used for measuring inlet (Figures 2–4) are premeditated between time, outlet tem-
and outlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid. Figure perature of fluid, efficiency and solar radiation. Graphs
1 c shows the experimental procedure and measurements. were plotted from experimental readings for 12 days dur-
Efficiency is the most significant feature to quantify ing March to May 2019.
the performance level of the collector. The useful heat The outlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid was
gain and instantaneous efficiency can be determined as increased gradually in the morning and it reached the
follows highest value at 2 pm on all days of March 2019 (Figure
2 a). The highest values of outlet temperature were 68°C
Qu = mCp (Tout – Tin), (3) (day 1), 65°C (day 2), 68°C (day 3) and 70°C (day 4).
The efficiency of the collector increased with a gradual
η = Qu/IbrbWL. (4) increase in solar radiation and it decreased to lower when
the radiation decreased concerning time (Figure 2 b). The
where Qu is the useful heat gain, m the mass flow rate highest values were 55.03%, 49.89%, 54.26% and 53.96%,
of fluid, Cp the specific heat of fluid, Tout the outlet obtained at 2 pm on all days of March 2019. It was found

412 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022

 RESEARCH ARTICLES
Table 3. Experimental particulars of April 2019
Angle of Inlet temperature Outlet temperature Solar radiation
Day Trial no. Time tracking (°) (°C) (°C) (W/m2) Efficiency (%)
1 1 10.00 am 60 29 48 690 36.53
2 11.00 am 75 29 55 875 39.42
3 12.00 pm 90 30 60 966 41.20
4 01.00 pm 105 30 71 1033 52.65
5 02.00 pm 120 30 82 910 75.81
6 03.00 pm 135 30 58 630 58.96
2 7 10.00 am 60 29 36 684 13.57
8 11.00 am 75 29 48 798 31.58
9 12.00 pm 90 29 55 929 37.13
10 01.00 pm 105 30 70 958 55.39
11 02.00 pm 120 30 75 910 65.60
12 03.00 pm 135 30 59 664 57.94
3 13 10.00 am 60 30 36 720 11.05
14 11.00 am 75 30 45 921 21.60
15 12.00 pm 90 30 56 1008 34.22
16 01.00 pm 105 31 60 1073 35.85
17 02.00 pm 120 30 78 933 68.25
18 03.00 pm 135 30 60 762 52.23
4 19 10.00 am 60 30 39 762 15.67
20 11.00 am 75 30 51 897 31.06
21 12.00 pm 90 30 52 1002 29.13
22 01.00 pm 105 30 60 1073 37.09
23 02.00 pm 120 31 70 933 55.45
24 03.00 pm 135 30 48 729 32.75

Table 4. Experimental particulars of May 2019

Angle of Inlet Outlet Solar radiation Efficiency

Day Trial no. Time tracking (°) temperature (°C) temperature (°C) (W/m2) (%)

1 1 10.00 am 60 29 42 769 22.42

2 11.00 am 75 29 48 881 28.61
3 12.00 pm 90 29 56 932 38.43
4 01.00 pm 105 30 62 920 46.14
5 02.00 pm 120 30 74 808 72.24
6 03.00 pm 135 30 60 763 52.16
2 7 10.00 am 60 30 39 762 15.67
8 11.00 am 75 30 48 848 28.16
9 12.00 pm 90 30 54 861 36.98
10 01.00 pm 105 30 53 838 36.41
11 02.00 pm 120 31 62 772 53.27
12 03.00 pm 135 31 54 658 46.37
3 13 10.00 am 60 29 44 701 28.38
14 11.00 am 75 29 47 793 30.11
15 12.00 pm 90 30 51 864 32.24
16 01.00 pm 105 30 53 853 35.77
17 02.00 pm 120 30 63 779 56.20
18 03.00 pm 135 30 57 667 53.70
4 19 10.00 am 60 28 37 734 16.26
20 11.00 am 75 28 49 833 33.44
21 12.00 pm 90 29 53 881 36.14
22 01.00 pm 105 29 57 849 43.75
23 02.00 pm 120 29 51 763 38.25
24 03.00 pm 135 29 47 663 36.02

that the maximum amount of radiation was measured at The outlet temperature of heat transfer fluid was in-
1 pm on all days (1086, 1001, 1099 and 1053 W/m2) creased during the morning and it reached the highest
(Figure 2 c). value at 2 pm on all days of April 2019 (Figure 3 a). The
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022 413
RESEARCH ARTICLES

Figure 2. (a) Outlet temperature of heat transfer fluid (HTF); (b) Efficiency rate of PTC; (c) Measured solar radiation in March 2019.

Figure 3. (a) Outlet temperature of HTF; (b) Efficiency rate of PTC; (c) Measured solar radiation in April 2019.

maximum values of outlet temperature were 82°C, 75°C, made between the months of March, April and May. The
78°C and 70°C. The efficiency of the PTC increased with highest efficiency of the collector was found to be 75.81%
a gradual increase in solar radiation (Figure 3 b). The on 1 April 2019 at 2 pm.
maximum values were 75.81%, 65.60%, 68.25% and
55.45%, which were obtained at 2 pm on all days of April
2019. It was found that the maximum amount of radiation Grey relational analysis
was measured at 1 pm on all days, 1033, 958, 1073 and
1073 W/m2 (Figure 3 c). Grey relational analysis is a technique to evaluate the
The outlet temperature of the fluid was increased dur- relationship grade between factors based on the corres-
ing the morning and it showed highest value at 2 pm on pondence or variation between them. It is characterized
the first three days and 1 pm on the fourth day of May by less data and multifactor analysis, where these two un-
2019 (Figure 4 a). The highest values of outlet tempera- iqueness can conquer the disadvantages of the statistical
ture were 74°C, 62°C, 63°C and 57°C respectively. The regression analysis. Performance and efficiency are im-
maximum values of solar parabolic trough efficiency portant for both consumers and manufacturers. The ob-
were 72.24%, 53.27%, 56.20% and 43.75%, which were jectives of the present study were maximizing the outlet
obtained concerned to outlet temperature (Figure 4 b). It temperature of the heat transfer fluid and the efficiency of
had been found that the maximum amount of radiation the solar collector. The procedure of the grey relational
was measured at 12 noon on all days (932, 861, 864 and analysis is as follows: (i) Experimental data were first
881 W/m2) (Figure 4 c). normalized ranging from 0 to 1. (ii) Grey relational coef-
Figure 5 a shows the overall performance of the solar ficient was estimated based on normalized experimental
PTC with evacuated absorber tube. A comparison was data. (iii) Overall grey relational grade (GRG) was obtained
414 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022
 RESEARCH ARTICLES

Figure 4. (a) Outlet temperature of HTF; (b) Efficiency rate of PTC; (c) Measured solar radiation in May 2019.

Figure 5. a, Overall efficiency. Grey relational grade for (b) March 2019; (c) April 2019; (d) May 2019.

by averaging the grey relational coefficients of each cho- i.e. inlet temperature of heat transfer fluid), the original
sen response. array can be normalized as follows

Step 1: Normalization – In the case of ‘lower the better’ [max( X i (a)) − X i (a)]
Yi (a) = , (5)
(in the result that the smaller the target value, the better [max(X i (a)) − min(X i (a))]

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022 415

RESEARCH ARTICLES
Table 5. Grey relational analysis for March 2019
Normalized data Deviated data Grey relational coefficient
Trial Grey relational
no. Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) grade (GRG) Rank
1 1 0.1290 0.2719 0 0.8709 0.7280 1 0.3147 0.3546 0.5564 11
2 1 0.6129 0.8162 0 0.3870 0.1837 1 0.5081 0.6852 0.7311 3
3 1 0.3870 0.2670 0 0.6129 0.7329 1 0.3949 0.3530 0.5826 10
4 0.5 0.5483 0.3245 0.5 0.4516 0.6754 0.1666 0.4696 0.3719 0.3360 22
5 0.5 0.9354 1 0.5 0.0645 0 0.1666 0.8611 1 0.6759 6
6 0 0.4838 0.7930 1 0.5161 0.2069 0.0909 0.4366 0.6590 0.3955 19
7 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1 0.1666 0.2857 0.2857 0.2460 24
8 0.5 0.3548 0.3474 0.5 0.6451 0.6525 0.1666 0.3827 0.3800 0.3098 23
9 0.5 0.6129 0.5785 0.5 0.3870 0.4214 0.1666 0.5081 0.4869 0.3872 20
10 0.5 0.6774 0.5567 0.5 0.3225 0.4432 0.1666 0.5535 0.4743 0.3981 18
11 0 0.8387 0.8507 1 0.1612 0.1492 0.0909 0.7126 0.7283 0.5106 15
12 0 0.4193 0.6661 1 0.5806 0.3338 0.0909 0.4078 0.5450 0.3479 21
13 1 0 0.0023 0 1 0.9976 1 0.2857 0.2861 0.5239 14
14 1 0.1935 0.1190 0 0.8064 0.8809 1 0.3315 0.3122 0.5479 12
15 1 0.7741 0.7399 0 0.2258 0.2600 1 0.6391 0.6059 0.7483 2
16 1 0.7741 0.5939 0 0.2258 0.4060 1 0.6391 0.4962 0.7117 5
17 0.5 0.9354 0.9776 0.5 0.0645 0.0223 0.1666 0.8611 0.9470 0.6582 7
18 0.5 0.5161 0.8545 0.5 0.4838 0.1454 0.1666 0.4525 0.7333 0.4508 16
19 1 0.0645 0.0444 0 0.9354 0.9555 1 0.2995 0.2950 0.5315 13
20 1 0.4193 0.4420 0 0.5806 0.5579 1 0.4078 0.4175 0.6084 9
21 1 0.5161 0.3532 0 0.4838 0.6467 1 0.4525 0.3821 0.6115 8
22 1 0.7419 0.6914 0 0.2580 0.3085 1 0.6078 0.5645 0.7241 4
23 1 1 0.9689 0 0 0.0310 1 1 0.9279 0.9759 1
24 0.5 0.6774 0.7065 0.5 0.3225 0.2934 0.1666 0.5535 0.5768 0.4323 17

In the case of ‘higher the better’ (in the result that the From the experiment, the input variables such as time,
larger the target value, the better, i.e. outlet temperature angle of tracking and solar radiation, and the output va-
of heat transfer fluid and efficiency), the original array riables such as inlet temperature, outlet temperature and
can be normalized as follows efficiency were obtained. The normalized data, deviated
data, grey relational coefficients, GRG and rank of each
[ X i ( a ) − min( X i ( a ))] experimental trial (March–May) were determined using
Yi ( a ) = , (6)
[max( X i ( a )) – min( X i ( a ))] eqs (5)–(8). Tables 5–7 show the results.
In this analysis, outlet temperature of the heat transfer
where Yi(a) is the sequence after data pre-processing, fluid and efficiency of the PTC were assigned higher
Xi(a) the actual sequence, Xi(a = 1) the first value of the weightage than inlet temperature of the heat transfer fluid.
sequence, max(Xi(a)) the largest value of Xi(a) and The following values of weightage were assigned for dif-
min(Xi(a)) is the smallest value of Xi(a). ferent variables, viz. outlet temperature = 0.4, efficiency =
0.4 and inlet temperature = 0.2.
Step 2: Calculation of Grey relational coefficients – The Table 5 shows that trial number 23 has GRG of 0.9759;
grey relational coefficient (£(a)) can be calculated as follows thus, the parameter setting of trial number 23 is likely to
be optimal. Table 6 shows that trial number 5 has GRG of
[ Dmin + £Dmax ]
£i (a) = , (7) 0.7222; thus, the parameter setting of trial number 5 is
[ Di (a) + £ Dmax ] likely to be optimal. Table 7 shows that trial number 5
has GRG of 0.7101; thus, the parameter setting of trial
where Di(a) is the deviation sequence (i.e. absolute value number 23 is likely to be optimal. Figure 5 b, c and d
of the difference between Xi(a) and Yi(a)), Dmin the smal- shows the relationship between trial number and rank of
lest value of Di(a), Dmax the largest value of Di(a) and £ is performance level for March, April and May respectively.
the distinguishing coefficient. Table 8 shows the results of optimal conditions for input
Step 3: To determine GRG – GRG is the average value and output variables. By the application of grey relational
analysis, the optimal parameters of the solar PTC were
of grey relational coefficients and is defined as follows
predicted rank-wise for all the three months.
n
ψ i = 1/n ∑ w £ (a),
a =1
a i (8) Conclusion
This work focused on the design, experimental study and
where wa is the normalized weightage of factor a. optimization of a solar PTC with evacuated absorber. The
416 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022
 RESEARCH ARTICLES
Table 6. Grey relational analysis for April 2019
Normalized data Deviated data Grey relational coefficient
Trial no. Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) GRG Rank
1 1 0.2608 0.3934 0 0.7391 0.6065 1 0.3511 0.3973 0.58284 5
2 1 0.4130 0.4380 0 0.5869 0.5619 1 0.4052 0.4158 0.60704 2
3 0.5 0.5217 0.4655 0.5 0.4782 0.5344 0.1666 0.4554 0.4280 0.35005 15
4 0.5 0.7608 0.6423 0.5 0.2391 0.3576 0.1666 0.6258 0.5279 0.44016 10
5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0 0 0.1666 1 1 0.72222 1
6 0.5 0.4782 0.7398 0.5 0.5217 0.2601 0.1666 0.4339 0.6058 0.40217 12
7 1 0 0.0389 0 1 0.9610 1 0.2857 0.2938 0.52653 8
8 1 0.2608 0.3170 0 0.7391 0.6829 1 0.3511 0.3693 0.57349 6
9 1 0.4130 0.4027 0 0.5869 0.5972 1 0.4052 0.4010 0.60212 3
10 0.5 0.7391 0.6846 0.5 0.2608 0.3153 0.1666 0.6052 0.5591 0.44370 9
11 0.5 0.8478 0.8423 0.5 0.1521 0.1576 0.1666 0.7244 0.7172 0.53612 7
12 0.5 0.5 0.7240 0.5 0.5 0.2759 0.1666 0.4444 0.5917 0.40095 13
13 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1 0.1666 0.2857 0.2857 0.24603 24
14 0.5 0.1956 0.1629 0.5 0.8043 0.8370 0.1666 0.3321 0.3233 0.27404 22
15 0.5 0.4347 0.3577 0.5 0.5652 0.6422 0.1666 0.4144 0.3837 0.32162 17
16 0 0.5217 0.3829 1 0.4782 0.6170 0.0909 0.4554 0.3932 0.31321 18
17 0.5 0.9130 0.8832 0.5 0.0869 0.1167 0.1666 0.8214 0.7740 0.58739 4
18 0.5 0.5217 0.6358 0.5 0.4782 0.3641 0.1666 0.4554 0.5234 0.38186 14
19 0.5 0.0652 0.0713 0.5 0.9347 0.9286 0.1666 0.2996 0.3010 0.25579 23
20 0.5 0.3260 0.3089 0 0.6739 0.6910 0.1666 0.3724 0.3666 0.30192 19
21 0.5 0.3478 0.2791 0.5 0.6521 0.7208 0.1666 0.3801 0.3568 0.30123 20
22 0.5 0.5217 0.4021 0.5 0.4782 0.5979 0.1666 0.4554 0.4008 0.34098 16
23 0 0.7391 0.6856 1 0.2608 0.3143 0.0909 0.6052 0.5599 0.41869 11
24 0.5 0.2608 0.3350 0.5 0.7391 0.6649 0.1666 0.3511 0.3756 0.29780 21

Table 7. Grey relational analysis for May 2019

Normalized data Deviated data Grey relational coefficient
Trial no. Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) Tin (°C) Tout (°C) η (%) GRG Rank
1 0.66 0.1351 0.1193 0.33 0.8648 0.8806 0.2307 0.3162 0.3123 0.28644 22
2 0.66 0.2972 0.2287 0.33 0.7027 0.7712 0.2307 0.3627 0.3415 0.31167 16
3 0.66 0.5135 0.4023 0.33 0.4864 0.5976 0.2307 0.4512 0.4009 0.36097 10
4 0.33 0.6756 0.5386 0.66 0.3243 0.4613 0.1304 0.5522 0.4643 0.38234 7
5 0.33 1 1 0.66 0 0 0.1304 1 1 0.71014 1
6 0.33 0.6216 0.6450 0.66 0.3783 0.3549 0.1304 0.5138 0.5298 0.39138 6
7 0.33 0.0540 0 0.66 0.9459 1 0.1304 0.2971 0.2857 0.23777 24
8 0.33 0.2972 0.2207 0.66 0.7027 0.7792 0.1304 0.3627 0.3392 0.27746 23
9 0.33 0.4594 0.3767 0.66 0.5405 0.6232 0.1304 0.4252 0.3908 0.31553 15
10 0.33 0.4324 0.3666 0.66 0.5675 0.6333 0.1304 0.4134 0.3870 0.31030 18
11 0 0.6756 0.6646 1 0.3243 0.3353 0.0909 0.5522 0.5439 0.39570 5
12 0 0.4594 0.5426 1 0.5405 0.4573 0.0909 0.4252 0.4665 0.32759 13
13 0.66 0.1891 0.2246 0.33 0.8108 0.7753 0.2307 0.3303 0.3403 0.30048 20
14 0.66 0.2702 0.2552 0.33 0.7297 0.7447 0.2307 0.3540 0.3494 0.31142 17
15 0.33 0.3783 0.2929 0.66 0.6216 0.7070 0.1304 0.3915 0.3613 0.29442 21
16 0.33 0.4324 0.3553 0.66 0.5675 0.6446 0.1304 0.4134 0.3828 0.30891 19
17 0.33 0.7027 0.7164 0.66 0.2972 0.2835 0.1304 0.5736 0.5851 0.42975 4
18 0.33 0.5405 0.6722 0.66 0.4594 0.3277 0.1304 0.4654 0.5496 0.38183 8
19 1 0 0.0104 0 1 0.9895 1 0.2857 0.2878 0.52452 3
20 1 0.3243 0.3141 0 0.6756 0.6858 1 0.3718 0.3683 0.58007 2
21 0.66 0.4324 0.3618 0.33 0.5675 0.6381 0.2307 0.4134 0.3853 0.34316 11
22 0.66 0.5405 0.4963 0.33 0.4594 0.5036 0.2307 0.4654 0.4426 0.37961 9
23 0.66 0.3783 0.3991 0.33 0.6216 0.6008 0.2307 0.3915 0.3996 0.34065 12
24 0.66 0.2702 0.3597 0.33 0.7297 0.6402 0.2307 0.3540 0.3845 0.32311 14

study was done during March–May 2019. The highest analysis was applied with various parameters for predicting
efficiency of 75.81% on 1 April 2019 at 2 pm was the time, angle of tracking and the required radiation. The
obtained for solar radiation of 910 W/m2 and efficiency responses were taken as temperature and thermal efficiency
of 72.24% on 1 May 2019 at 2 pm was obtained for solar in this study. These responses should be maximized. The
radiation of 808 W/m2. For optimization, grey relational weightages used in the grey relational analysis were also

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022 417

RESEARCH ARTICLES
Table 8. Results of grey relational analysis optimal level
March April May
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
Optimal conditions Time (h) 2 pm 12 pm 11 am 2 pm 11 am 12 pm 2 pm 11 am 10 am
Input variables Angle of tracking (°) 120 90 75 120 75 90 120 75 60
Solar radiation (W/m2) 1008 979 790 910 875 929 808 833 734
Output variables Inlet temperature (°C) 29 29 29 30 29 29 30 28 28
Outlet temperature (°C) 70 63 58 82 55 55 74 49 37
Efficiency (%) 53.9 46 48.7 75.8 39.4 37.13 72.2 33.4 16.2

varied. The optimal performance of the solar PTC for 9. Rashidi, S., Esfahani, J. A. and Rashidi, A., A review on the appli-
maximum outlet temperature of 82°C and efficiency of cations of porous materials in solar energy systems. Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev., 2017, 73, 1198–1210.
75.8% was observed at angle of tracking 120° and solar 10. Javadi, F., Saidur, A. R. and Kamalisarvestani, M., Investigating
radiation 910 W/m2 at 2 pm (April 2019). Similarly, outlet performance improvement of solar collectors by using nanofluids.
temperature of 74°C and efficiency of 72.24% were Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2013, 28, 232–245.
obtained at angle of tracking 120° and solar radiation 11. Suman, S., Khan, M. and Pathak, M., Performance enhancement
808 W/m2 at 2 pm (May 2019). Finally, the highest outlet of solar collectors – a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2015,
49, 192–210.
temperature rate of the heat transfer fluid, efficiency rate 12. Ummadisingu, A. and Soni, M. S., Concentrating solar power–
of the solar PTC were found. Similar optimal conditions technology potential and policy in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy
were also predicted and validated by grey relational Rev., 2011, 15, 5169–5175.
analysis. 13. Reddy, K. S. and Kumar, K. R., Energy for sustainable develop-
ment solar collector field design and viability analysis of stand-alone
parabolic trough power plants for Indian conditions. Energy –
1. Wang, Y., Liu, Q., Lei, J. and Jin, H., Performance analysis of a Sustain. Div., 2012, 16, 456–470.
parabolic trough solar collector with non-uniform solar flux condi- 14. Kumaresan, G., Sridhar, R. and Velraj, R., Performance studies of
tions. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 2015, 82, 236–249. a solar parabolic trough collector with a thermal energy storage
2. Montes, I. E. P., Benitez, A. M., Chavez, O. M. and Herrera, A. E. system. Energy, 2012, 47, 395–402.
L., Design and construction of a parabolic trough solar collector 15. Schweitzer, A., Schiel, W., Birkle, M., Nava, P., Riffelmann, K.
for process heat production. Energy Procedia, 2014, 57, 2149– and Wohlfahrt, A., Fabrication, erection and commissioning of the
2158. world’s largest parabolic trough collector. Energy Procedia, 2014,
3. Gao, X.-H., Guo, Z.-M., Geng, Q.-F., Ma, P.-J., Wang, A.-Q. and 49, 1848–1857.
Liu, G., Microstructure, chromaticity and thermal stability of SS/ 16. Sagade, A., Aher, S. and Shinde, N., Performance evaluation of
TiC–WC/Al2O3 spectrally selective solar absorbers. Sol. Energy low-cost FRP parabolic trough reflector with mild steel receiver.
Mater. Sol. Cells, 2017, 164, 63–69. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng., 2013, 4, 5–11.
4. Kalidasan, B., Shankar, R. and Srinivas, T., Absorber tube with 17. Jeffrey Kuo, C.-F., Su, T.-L., Jhang, P.-R., Huang, C.-Y. and
internal hinged blades for solar parabolic trough collector. Energy Chiu, C.-H., Using the Taguchi method and grey relational analy-
Procedia, 2016, 90, 463–469. sis to optimize the flat-plate collector process with multiple quality
5. Tagle, P. D., Agraz, A. and Rivera, C. I., Study of applications of characteristics in solar energy collector manufacturing. Energy,
parabolic trough solar collector technology in Mexican industry. 2011, 36, 3554–3562.
Energy Procedia, 2016, 91, 661–667. 18. Mohana Reddy, P., Venkataramaiah, P. and Sairam, P., Optimiza-
6. Agraz, A., Metodologia para la characterization optimizaction de tion of process parameters of a solar parabolic trough in winter using
un concentrator solar parabolic lineal monterrey. Master’s thesis, grey–Taguchi approach. Int. J. Res. Appl., 2012, 2, 816–821.
Engineering Science School, 2012. 19. Sukhatme, S. P. and Nayak, J. K., Solar Energy, McGraw Hill
7. Jebasingh, V. K. and Joselin Herbert, G. M., A review of solar para- Education, India, 2017, 4th edn.
bolic trough collector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2016, 54, 1085–
1091.
8. Luo, N., Yu, G., Hou, H. J. and Yang, Y. P., Dynamic modelling Received 12 January 2020; revised accepted 27 December 2021
and simulation of parabolic trough solar system. Energy Procedia,
2015, 69, 1344–1348. doi: 10.18520/cs/v122/i4/410-418

418 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 122, NO. 4, 25 FEBRUARY 2022