Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
Many commercial solar thermal power plants rely on indirect thermal storage systems in order to provide
a stable and reliable power supply, where the working fluid is commonly thermal oil and the storage fluid
is molten salt. The thermal oil - molten salt heat exchanger control strategies, to charge and discharge the
thermal storage system, strongly affect the performance of the whole plant. Shell-and-tube heat exchangers
are the most common type of heat exchangers used in these facilities. With the aim of developing advanced
control strategies accurate and fast dynamic models of shell-and-tube heat exchangers are essential. For this
reason, several shell-and-tube heat exchanger models with different degrees of complexity have been studied,
analyzed and validated against experimental data from the CIEMAT-PSA molten salt test loop for thermal
energy systems facility. Simulation results are compared in steady-state as well as transient predictions in
order to determine the required complexity of the model to yield accurate results.
Keywords: Multi-pass shell-and-tube heat exchanger, dynamic simulation, transient response, thermal
energy storage, molten salt, Modelica.
2
Tube-side Shell-side Vertical segmental
ba es
oil heater, a thermal oil - molten salt heat ex-
outlet nozzle inlet nozzle
Longitudinal changer, thermal oil air cooler, an expansion
ba e
tank and nitrogen bottles to render the molten
salt and thermal oil inert. The purpose of the
oil heater is to provide the same amount of heat
than parabolic-trough collectors. Therefore, the
oil heater can be used to emulate them and repli-
cate transients such as, start-ups, shutdowns and
cloud disturbances.
3
finally leaving the heat exchanger through the outlet
Table 2: Heat exchanger design parameters
Design parameter Value nozzle. Consult table 2 to obtain information about
the main design parameters of the heat exchanger.
Area of heat transfer 83.02 m2
Mean heat transfer coef. 238.5 W/(m2 K) Vertical segmental
Tube-side volume 0.111 m3 ba e
Shell-side volume 0.255 m3 Vertical
Tubes per shell pass 153 ba e cut
Tube outer diameter 12.7 mm
Tube inner diameter 12.5 mm
Tube length per shell pass 3.4 m
Drainage Longitudinal
Shell-side passes per unit 2 channel ba e
Ttube-side passes per unit 2
Baffles per shell pass 39
Baffle spacing 80 cm
Last baffle spacing 90 cm
Baffle cut 17.35 %
Sealing
strip
Tube
units, see figure 2 for a real picture of the system and bundle
figure 3 for a schematic representation. The shell- Figure 4: Heat exchanger unit cross-sectional area [10]
side fluid is molten salt, solar salt in particular (60 %
NaNO3 and 40 % KNO3 ) whereas the tube-side fluid,
due to its high pressure, is the commercial Therminol
VP-1 thermal oil, see table 1 for nominal operating
conditions. e nal
di
al
ba itu
4
3. Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger Models • Dynamic with Thermal Capacitance Model
with Different Degree of Complexity (DYTC model).
Several heat exchanger models have been studied • Dynamic with Thermal Capacitance and Cell
and analyzed. General assumptions considered in all Method Model (DYCM model).
the models are summarized in the following list.
3.1. Quasi-Steady-state Model (QSS model)
• Heat conduction and radiation are negligible in The Quasi-Steady-state (QSS) model is the easi-
the fluids. Axial heat flow is also negligible in est heat exchanger model. It is an algebraic model
both fluids. centered on a specific operating point for general
• Thermal conductivity in the tube walls is infi- counter-flow heat exchangers. It is based on the
nite in normal direction of flow and zero in flow mathematical development presented in [17]. This
direction. model simplifies the heat exchanger considering it as
a concentric tube system where the fluids flow in op-
• The thermal capacitance of the heat exchanger posite directions while transferring sensible heat. It
shell is neglected. is a lumped parameter model which assumes that lo-
cally every state at the heat exchanger is a steady-
• One-dimensional treatment in the direction of state. The main particular assumptions, besides
flow. those stated in section 3, are the following.
The Modelica language [12] has been used for the • Thermal capacitance of the tube bundle metal
modeling of the heat exchanger. Modelica was devel- structure has been neglected.
oped and is maintained by the Modelica Association,
a non-profit and non-governmental international as- • Fluid friction against shell and tube walls is ne-
sociation. This modeling language has been designed glected. There is neither pressure drop at the
to model conveniently complex physical systems be- shell side nor the tube side of the heat exchanger.
cause the language supports the object-oriented and • Fluid incomprehensibility is assumed. Fluid
equation-based paradigms. mass storage at the heat exchanger is neglected,
Any medium model from the Modelica Media li- thus inlet and outlet mass ow rate are equal.
brary [13], or new implemented models which takes
into account this library interface, can be used to • Uniform thermodynamic properties are as-
calculate the fluid thermodynamic properties in the sumed. Specific heat capacities are evaluated at
shell side as well as in the tube side. Both thermody- the mean temperature between inlet and outlet
namic property mediums have been implemented in temperatures.
Modelica because they are not available in the Mod-
elica Media library. Solar salt has been implemented In order to break the algebraic loop between the in-
according to the thermodynamic properties available let and outlet temperatures and to prevent zero mass
in [14, 15] and Therminol VP-1 thermodynamic prop- flow rate, eqs. 1 and 2 are considered.
erties according to [16]. Both fluids depend only on
temperature.
Ttb,out = Ttb,in − ηtb (Ttb,in − Tsh,in ), (1)
The studied models are listed as follows, they are
explained in the following subsections. Nomenclature Tsh,out = Tsh,in + η (T
sh tb,in − Ttb,out ), (2)
is shown in table 3.
where ηtb and ηsh are two dimensionless factors
• Quasi-Steady-state model (QSS model). whose values are non-zero when the mass flow rates
(ṁtb and ṁsh ) have positive values. They are calcu-
• Dynamic model (DY model). lated by eqs. 3 and 4.
5
The dimensionless factor (θhe ) is calculated as fol-
Table 3: Nomenclature
Latin letters lows,
Var Description Units
1 1
A Surface area [m2 ] θhe = αhe Aw − , (5)
ṁtb cp,tb ṁsh cp,sh
C Heat capacity [J/K]
cp Specific heat capacity [J/(kg K)] where the overall heat transfer coefficient (αhe ) can
d Diameter [m] be calculated by eq. 6.
D Characteristic dimension [m]
f Friction factor [-] 1 1 1
= + . (6)
G Mass velocity [kg/(m2 s)] αhe αsh αtb
Ḣ Enthalpy flow rate [W] If the thermal capacitance of the tube walls is
j Colburn j factor [-] high, the model cannot capture the transient behav-
K Thermal conductivity [W/(m K)] ior of the system. Furthermore, this model neglects
l Length [m] the fluids mass storage in the heat exchanger, and
m Mass [kg] therefore their thermal capacitance. Eqs. 1 and 4 do
ṁ Mass flow rate [kg/s] not consider heat losses between the shell-side fluid
n Number [-] and the environment. However, thermal losses can
Nu Nusselt number [-] be included in the model by means of the follow-
p Pressure [Pa] ing mathematical reformulation. Heat losses are as-
Pr Prandtl number [-] sumed as a fictitious mass flow rate (ṁsh,loss ) with
Q̇ Heat flow rate [W] the same thermodynamic properties as the shell-side
Re Reynolds number [-] fluid. This mass flow rate is added to the total mass
T Temperature [K] flow rate to properly calculate the temperature.
t Time [s]
U Internal Energy [J] ṁsh = ṁsh,in + ṁsh,loss . (7)
Greek letters
In order to assure a correct energy balance, this
Var. Description Units
mass flow rate is calculated by eq. 8.
α Heat transfer coefficient [W/(m2 K)]
η Dimensionless factor [-]
θ Dimensionless factor [-]
αloss Aamb Tsh,av − Tamb
Subs. Description Subs. Description ṁsh,loss = , (8)
cp,sh Tsh,out − Tsh,in
amb Ambient av Average
b Baffle he Heat exchanger where heat losses are calculated by Newton’s law
in Inlet loss Thermal losses of cooling between the ambient temperature (Tamb ),
pa Pass out Outlet and the average shell temperature (Tsh,av = (Tsh,in +
sh Shell side tb Tube side Tsh,out )/2). Heat transfer coefficients (αsh , αtb and
w Wall αloss ) are values that need to be calibrated with ex-
perimental data.
6
DY model. This is a dynamic distributed parameter Ttb,out )/2), the tube-side and shell-side heat capac-
model, where each cell or Control Volume (CV) is a ities can be then reformulated according to eqs. 16
small lumped parameter counter-flow heat exchanger and 17.
model. Therefore, eqs. 9 and 10 represent the energy
balance for the tube side and the shell side respec-
1
tively in each cell of the DY model. Ctb = mtb cp,tb + mw cp,w , (16)
2
1
dTtb,out Csh = msh cp,sh + mw cp,w , (17)
Ctb = ṁtb cp,tb (Ttb,in − Ttb,out ) + Q̇tb , (9) 2
dt
dTsh,out where the masses and specific heat capacities are
Csh = ṁsh cp,sh (Tsh,in − Tsh,out ) + Q̇sh , parameters of the model.
dt
(10)
3.4. Dynamic with Thermal Capacitance and Cell
where heat capacities are defined by eqs. 11 and 12. Method Model (DYCM model)
Masses depend on volumes, which as constant values,
The Dynamic with thermal capacitance and cell
and densities which depend on the mean temperature
method (DYCM) model has been developed following
of the CVs. Specific heat capacities also depend on
an object-oriented methodology based on first prin-
the mean temperature of CVs.
ciples. A preliminary version of this model was pre-
sented in [10], some extensions have been introduced
Ctb = mtb cp,tb , (11) with respect to this preliminary version. One of them
is heat losses to the environment and the others are
Csh = msh cp,sh . (12) more detailed shell and tube models considering the
cell method introduced in [18].
Heat flow rates are defined by eqs. 13 and 14,
The Modelica icon of this model is shown in fig-
ure 3, whereas the component diagram can be seen
Q̇tb = αhe Aw (Tsh,out − Ttb,out ), (13) in figure 6. This diagram shows that each component
has been modeled independently (shell, tube bundle,
Q̇sh = αhe Aw (Ttb,out − Tsh,out ) − Q̇loss , (14) tube bundle walls and convection processes). The
model considers the fluids flow in the tube side, as
where the overall heat transfer coefficient (αhe ) can
well as, in the shell side and convective heat trans-
be calculated by eq. 6 and thermal losses by eq. 15.
fer processes between the tube-side fluid, the tube
bundle walls, the shell-side fluid and the ambient.
Q̇loss = αloss Aamb (Tsh,out − Tamb ). (15)
Exchange of information between components is per-
Heat transfer coefficients (αsh , αtb and αloss ) are formed by means of connectors. Round connectors
values that need to be calibrate with experimental exchange information about fluids (mass flow rate,
data. pressure, specific enthalpy and mass fraction, the last
one is optional), whereas square connectors exchange
3.3. Dynamic with Thermal Capacitance Model information about heat (temperature and heat flow
(DYTC model) rate). The main components of the model are de-
The Dynamic with thermal capacitance (DYTC) scribed in the following paragraphs.
model is an extension of the DY model consider-
ing the heat capacity of the tube bundle metallic 3.4.1. Convection model.
parts, therefore assuming that the wall temperature Newton’s law of cooling has been considered to
is the average value between the tube-side and shell- model the convective heat transfer. The heat transfer
side fluid temperatures in each cell (Tw = (Tsh,out + coefficient can be dynamically calculated from any
7
b_tube a_shell
convection_shellSideFluid_shellWalls
Tube-side outlet Shell-side inlet
Ambient
Shell-side inlet
Shell
convection_shellSideFluid_tubeWalls
Heatport
Tube-side outlet
g
3.4.3. Shell model.
Tube-side inlet Shell-side outlet
The shell component in figure 6 belongs to this
a_tube b_shell class. Shell volume and dimensions have been mod-
eled according to manufacturer data (see table 2).
Figure 6: Heat exchanger Modelica component diagram The flow of the shell-side fluid has been discretized
in CVs where the one-dimensional dynamic mass
(eq. 19), dynamic energy (eq. 20) and static mo-
correlation implemented in the model. Convection mentum (eq. 21) balance equations have been con-
model components can be seen in figure 6: heat sidered. These equations apply for each CV in the
transfer from the tube-side fluid to inner tube walls model. Mass and energy balance equations have been
(convection tubeWalls tubeSideFluid component), discretized according to the Finite Volume Method
heat transfer from outer tube walls to the shell-side (FVM) [19], whereas the static momentum balance
fluid (convection shellSideFluid tubeWalls compo- equation is lumped in a global equation for the whole
nent) and heat transfer from shell-side fluid to the shell. Therefore, pressure drop is equally distributed
environment (convection shellSideFluid shellWalls among the CVs in the shell model. Pressure drop is
component). Heat transfer coefficients (αsh , αtb and calculated according to [20, 21], where pressure drop
αloss ) are values that must be calibrated for the at cross-flow and window sections, as well as pressure
particular heat exchanger under consideration. drop at the inlet and outlet nozzles, for shell-and-tube
heat exchangers with segmental baffles, are taken into
3.4.2. Tube bundle wall model. account.
This model is shown in figure 6 as the tube bundle
walls component. It is discretized in CVs, the energy dmsh
balance is modeled in each one of them according to = ṁsh,in − ṁsh,out , (19)
dt
eq. 18. The number of parallel tubes is a parameter
of the model. Density and specific heat capacity val- dUsh
= Ḣsh,in − Ḣsh,out + Q̇sh , (20)
ues can be configured as average constant values or dt
interpolated values as function of wall temperature.
∆psh = psh,in − psh,out . (21)
dTw
mw cp,w = Q̇w . (18) This model has been extended with respect to
dt
8
passes due to the longitudinal baffle (see figure 3).
Additionally, two different kinds of cells with different
flow conditions where defined in that work: window
and cross-flow cells. In window cells, the shell fluid
flows in counter flow with respect to the tube-side
fluid, whereas it flows in cross flow in the other kind
of cells. Figure 9 shows the cell distribution, where
window and cross-flows cells can be seen. Window
cells have a diagonal line pattern background. Note
that this is an upper view of the heat exchanger and
only one shell pass is represented in this figure.
Figure 8: Cell method in the shell side of a E-type shell heat 3.4.4. Tube bundle model.
exchanger (lateral view) The tube bundle component in figure 6 belongs to
this class. The flow of the fluid in a single tube of the
tube bundle has been modeled as in the shell model,
i.e. considering the one-dimensional dynamic mass
(eq. 19), dynamic energy (eq. 20) and static momen-
tum (eq. 21) balance equations. Only one tube is
modeled per CV or cell, and then mass and heat flow
rates are scaled considering the number of parallel
tubes in each particular cell.
Pressure drop in the tube bundle has been mod-
eled considering all the possible cases in the Moody
diagram [22] using a model available in the Modelica
Fluid library [13]. Pressure drop at nozzles has been
Figure 9: Cell method in the shell side of a F-type shell heat
calculated according to [21], whereas pressure drop
exchanger (upper view)
in the U-shaped elbows turned out to be small and
has been neglected.
As in the shell model, the tube bundle model has
the one presented in [10] by considering the cell been extended with respect to the one presented in
method introduced in [18]. Such work focused in heat [10] by considering the cell method. In [18], the cell
exchangers with TEMA E-type shell configurations method was applied to a E-type shell heat exchanger
(one shell pass). Figure 7 shows a lateral view of a (many tube passes). Figure 10 shows a lateral view of
E-type shell heat exchanger with 6 vertical segmental a E-type shell heat exchanger with two tube passes,
baffles and 2 tube passes. The shell is divided in cells where the tube bundle is divided in cells in order to
to account for the different flow patterns by means be linked to shell cells (see figure 8) and to establish
of linking the cells to represent the flow of the shell- heat exchange between them.
side fluid. The number of shell cells is the number In [2], the same method was applied to a F-type
of baffles plus one multiplied by the number of tube shell heat exchanger and this variant was applied in
passes, see figure 8. this model. Figure 11 shows the upper view of a F-
The same idea can be applied to F-type shells, as type shell heat exchanger where only one tube pass is
presented in [2]. Therefore, this approach was consid- represented. Segmental vertical baffles are included
ered in the present model. In [2], the cell method was in Figure 11 although they do not influence the tube-
applied to each shell pass. Note that there are 2 shell side fluid flows. Three different flow cells are defined
9
ports multiple cells can be linked. This is the case
for shell cells 1 and 13 (see figure 9), shell cell 1 is
connected with tube cells A4 and B7, and shell cell
13 is connected with tube cells B1 and C1 (see fig-
ure 11).
For F-type shell heat exchangers, the number of
shell and tube cells are given by eqs. 22 and 23, re-
spectively, where nb is the number of baffles and npa
the number of shell or tube passes which in a F-type
shell are the same.
Figure 10: Cell method in the tube side of a E-type shell heat ntb = npa (2nb + 3). (23)
exchanger (lateral view)
Therefore, in our case that could make 158 shell
CVs and 162 tube CVs, since the studied heat ex-
changer has 39 baffles per unit with two passes per
unit. If we consider the remaining components in fig-
ure 6 (tube bundle walls and convection components)
and their 158 CVs per component, that could make a
total of 952 CVs. In order to reduce the time required
for the simulation, the number of CVs has been re-
duced. Section 4.1 shows an study on the impact of
the reduction in the number of CVs with respect to
the simulation results.
Figure 11: Cell method in the tube side of a F-type shell heat
exchanger (upper view) 4. Simulation, Calibration and Validation
Against Experimental Data
10
Dymola [23] is the tool used for the Modelica ptb,out Tsh,in
p sink_thermal_oil
implementations and simulations. The numerical pOutOil
m T
TInMS
K
as shown in figure 12.
(Ttb,in , Tsh,in ). .
mtb,in
• Tube-side and shell-side outlet pressures (ṗtb,out , mflowInOil
m_flow
p
psh,out
T m pOutMS
ṗsh,out ). TInOil
sink_molten_salts
source_thermal_oil
11
Molten salt outlet temperature ( °C)
380
Table 4: Level of discretization 370
◦ ◦
Temp. ( C) Diff. ( C) Execution 360
CVs
MS Oil MS Oil time (s) 350
340
158 370.20 315.18 - - 40.10 330
Manufacturer
110 370.18 315.19 0.02 0.01 22.12 320 QSS
12
However, simulation results did not agree with ex- was performed using experimental data and the cal-
perimental data. This is because there is a perfor- ibration process is described in [31], as a result the
mance detriment in the heat exchanger [10]. In order tube-side heat transfer coefficient in the QSS, DY and
to identify the origin of the performance detriment DYTC models can be calculated by means of eq. 24
and to develop an accurate heat exchanger model, and eq. 27.
thermal losses as well as heat transfer correlations on
both fluid sides were calibrated against experimental
data. The applied methodology is explained in detail fw
(Retb − 1792)P rtb
" 2/3 #
8 dw
in [31]. N utb = 2/3
1+ .
lw
p
Heat transfer coefficients can be calculated from 1 + 29.93 fw /8(P rtb − 1)
the Nusselts number by means of eq. 24, (27)
jloss = 1.1858Re−0.9545
loss . (26) 4.4.3. Shell-side heat transfer correlation.
Shell-side heat transfer correlation was also cali-
4.4.2. Tube-side heat transfer correlation. brated for the QSS, DY and DYTC models as de-
The QSS, DY and DYTC models do not model the scribed in [31], therefore the shell-side heat transfer
tube-side inlet and outlet channels in each heat ex- coefficient can be calculated by means of eq. 25 and
changer unit, for this reason correlations in the liter- eq. 30.
ature cannot be directly used. For instance, Gnielin-
ski’s correlation [28] (see eq. 28) was derived con- jsh = 3.2470Resh−1.1077
, (30)
sidering fluid flow in straight ducts. Although this
correlation is a good approximation for the tube side Even though the DYCM has a different and more
of heat exchangers, the coefficients appearing on it complex shell-side model structure, the calibrated co-
(1000, 12.7) can be adjusted experimentally, since efficients, eq. 31, are similar to those obtained for the
fluid flow path in heat exchangers is commonly com- other models, eq. 30.
plex. Therefore, those coefficients where calibrated
−1.1074
in eq. 27 obtaining (1792, 29.93). The calibration jsh = 3.2609Resh . (31)
13
Nevertheless, the calibrated shell-side correlations 2.1
340
and inspection in the physical device is necessary to Exp. inlet
Exp. outlet
330
address the performance issue. QSS calibrated
320 DY calibrated
DYTC calibrated
310 DYCM calibrated
4.5. Experimental validation DYCM manufacturer
300 DYCM correlation
In this section data from experimental campaigns 290
is compared against simulation results from the mod- 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00
Local time
els previously introduced in section 3, three experi-
ments are considered. One of them in steady-state Figure 16: Steady-state experiment: molten salt temperatures
conditions and the two remaining considering tran-
sients: replication of cloud disturbances in the solar
field and molten salts, as well as thermal oil, mass
380
flow rate steps. Again, the DYCM model has been
370 Exp. inlet
discretized in 50 CVs, whereas the DY and DYTC
Thermal oil temperature ( °C)
Exp. outlet
360
models consider 160 CVs. QSS calibrated
DY calibrated
350
DYTC calibrated
340 DYCM calibrated
4.5.1. Steady-state experiment. DYCM manufacturer
330 DYCM correlation
A steady-state experiment was performed in the
320
MOSA facility close to nominal operating conditions
310
(see table 1). Figure 15 shows the inlet molten salt
300
and thermal oil mass flow rates in the experiment. 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00
Local time
All the models were simulated considering the cal-
ibrated heat transfer correlations (see section 4.4), Figure 17: Steady-state experiment: thermal oil temperatures
for comparison purposes the DYCM model was sim-
ulated also considering the overall heat transfer coef-
ficient provided by the manufacturer (DYCM manu-
facturer), as well as a shell-side heat transfer correla- figures 16 and 17, respectively. Table 6 shows the
tion available in the literature, Gaddis and Gnielin- maximum difference between experimental and sim-
ski’s correlation [21] (DYCM correlation). ulated thermal oil and molten salt temperatures to-
Experimental inlet and simulated outlet molten gether with the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
salt and thermal oil temperatures can be seen in and the execution time for each model. Simulation re-
14
Table 6: Simulation results in the steady-sate experiment
Molten salt Thermal oil Execution
Model
Maximum difference RMSE Maximum difference RMSE time
QSS calibrated 5.51 ◦C 3.87 ◦C 6.17 ◦C 4.22 ◦C 3.06 s
DY calibrated 3.21 ◦C 1.77 ◦C 7.25 ◦C 2.09 ◦C 12.09 s
DYTC calibrated 3.37 ◦C 1.80 ◦C 7.25 ◦C 2.14 ◦C 11.60 s
DYCM calibrated 1.22 ◦C 0.54 ◦C 3.04 ◦C 1.78 ◦C 54.45 s
DYCM manufacturer 20.82 ◦C 19.56 ◦C 15.75 ◦C 12.81 ◦C 20.03 s
DYCM correlation 22.00 ◦C 20.73 ◦C 17.02 ◦C 13.91 ◦C 59.57 s
sults from calibrated models agree with experimental system, this must be further studied and it might be
data, being the DYCM results the most precise but related to unmodeled dynamics or to issues in the
at expense of a higher computation time since the thermal oil outlet temperature measurement.
DYCM model is more complex than the other mod-
els. It can be seen in figures 16 and 17 that for the 360
Molten salt temperature ( °C)
290
4.5.2. Cloud disturbance experiment. 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00
Local time
Clouds in the solar fields were replicated in an op-
erating mode 3 experiment (see section 2) by reducing Figure 18: Cloud experiment: molten salt temperatures
the oil heater temperature and then setting it back
to its original value, as it can be seen in the ther-
mal oil inlet temperature in figure 19. This figure On the other hand, figure 18 shows the experimen-
also shows the experimental and simulated thermal tal inlet and outlet as well as simulated outlet molten
oil outlet temperatures given by each model. Ther- salt temperatures given by each model. In this case,
mal oil and molten salt mass flow rates were kept all the models provides a good agreement with re-
constant to their nominal values during the whole spect to experimental data. This fact reinforces the
experiment. It can be seen in figure 19 that the sim- idea that the disagreement between the reaction time
ulated thermal oil outlet temperature given by the of the real system and the models with respect to the
models react faster to the disturbance that the real thermal oil outlet temperature should be related to
15
2.8
380
Thermal oil temperature ( °C)
Figure 19: Cloud experiment: thermal oil temperatures Figure 20: Mass flow rate steps experiment: mass flow rates
4.5.3. Mass flow rate experiment. Figure 21: Mass flow rate steps experiment: molten salt tem-
peratures
Some thermal oil and molten salt mass flow rate
steps were applied in this experiment as shown in
figure 20. Same information as for the previous ex-
periment is also shown in this case, where figure 21
shows the experimental inlet and outlet as well as inal conditions. This is depicted in figure 20, at ap-
simulated outlet molten salt temperatures for each proximately 13:15, where the thermal oil mass flow
model, figure 22 shows same variables for thermal oil rate is 2.02 kg/s, being its nominal value 1.57 kg/s
and table 8 shows the maximum difference between (see table 1), and keeping the molten salt mass flow
experimental and simulated thermal oil and molten rate at its nominal value, 2.08 kg/s. Figure 22 shows
salt temperature, the RMSE and execution times. that heat transfer is slightly underpredicted, since the
There is a good agreement between experimental simulated thermal oil outlet temperatures are higher
and simulated outlet thermal oil and outlet molten that the experimental one. In figure 21, this can be
salt temperatures, as shown in table 8, being the also appreciated since simulated molten salt temper-
RMSE lower than 3.50 ◦C for all the evaluated mod- atures are lower that the experimental one. Never-
els. The maximum difference between experimental theless, the discrepancy between experimental and
and simulated temperatures is mainly due to the ini- simulated temperatures is still low in this part of
tialization process, where the DYCM model provides the experiment, the highest one is found in the ther-
the best initialization as also shown in table 8. mal oil temperature, being this lower than 2.90 ◦C for
In this experiment, it was found out that the mod- the DY, DYTC and DYCM models, and lower than
els slightly underpredict heat transfer when the ther- 3.60 ◦C for the QSS model. Again the DYCM model
mal oil mass flow rate is higher than its nominal value provides slightly better results at the expense of a
while keeping the molten salt mass flow rate at nom- much higher computation time (see table 8).
16
Table 8: Simulation results in the mass flow rate steps experiment
Molten salt Thermal oil Execution
Model
Maximum difference RMSE Maximum difference RMSE time
QSS 12.33 ◦C 3.42 ◦C 12.35 ◦C 3.44 ◦C 2.94 s
DY 9.35 ◦C 1.74 ◦C 17.02 ◦C 2.39 ◦C 12.96 s
DYTC 9.35 ◦C 1.72 ◦C 17.02 ◦C 2.36 ◦C 13.22 s
DYCM 3.15 ◦C 1.59 ◦C 7.68 ◦C 2.27 ◦C 72.30 s
340
heat transfer in the shell side, i.e between the shell-
side fluid and the tube bundle, since heat transfer
330
correlations in the literature can be used in the tube-
320
11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 side and simulation results agree with experimental
Local time
data, whereas the shell-side heat transfer correlation
Figure 22: Mass flow rate steps experiment: thermal oil tem-
had to be calibrated.
peratures
According to the results, the QSS is a fast and
simple algebraic model which may be used in ad-
vanced control techniques which require fast and mul-
5. Conclusions and Ongoing Work tiple model evaluations, for instance model predictive
control. The DYCM model provides slightly better
This paper has presented a comparison of differ- results with respect to experimental data, however
ent shell-and-tube heat exchanger models with dif- the computation time to perform the simulations is
ferent degree of complexity. Simulations results have much higher than with the other models; if this sim-
been compared against experimental data in terms of ulation time can be assumed, this is the most pre-
accuracy and simulation time. The following para- cise model for process simulations as well as to test
graphs summarize the main conclusions drawn from control strategies in simulation. The DYTC model
this study. provides better results than the QSS and DY mod-
With respect to the tube-side modeling, it is im- els and results are close to those obtained with the
portant that the heat exchanger model takes into DYCM model but in lower computation times.
account the inlet and outlet channels connected to
the tube bundle in order to obtain accurate results Ongoing work includes inspecting the real system
if heat transfer correlations in the literature for the in order to identify the physical causes for the heat
tube bundle are planning to be used, as it is the case exchanger performance detriment. Additionally, the
for the DYCM model where the Gnielinski’s correla- QSS and DYCM models are being used for the de-
tion was considered. Another option is to use general sign, testing, validation and optimization of control
heat exchanger models in the literature and calibrate strategies in heat exchangers for TES systems in so-
the tube-side heat transfer correlation, this is the case lar thermal power plants [34]. In particular, the QSS
for the QSS, DY and DYTC models considered in this model is being used in a feed-forward model predic-
work, where the tube-side inlet and outlet channels tive control and the DYCM model as the dynamic
are not taken into account. model of the real system.
17
Acknowledgements [6] F. Zaversky, M. M. Rodrı́guez-Garcı́a, J. Garcı́a-
Barberena, M. Sánchez, D. Astrain, Transient
This research has been funded by the EU 7th behavior of an active indirect two-tank thermal
Framework Programme (Theme Energy 2012.2.5.2) energy storage system during changes in oper-
under grant agreement 308912 - HYSOL project - ating mode - An application of an experimen-
Innovative Configuration of a Fully Renewable Hy- tally validated numerical model, Energy Pro-
brid CSP Plant, the Spanish Ministry of Economy cedia 49 (2013) 1078–1087. doi:10.1016/j.
and Competitiveness through ERDF, PLAN E funds egypro.2014.03.117.
(C.N. SolarNOVA ICT-CEPU 2009-02) and the Na- [7] M.-M. Rodrı́guez-Garcı́a, First Experimental
tional R+D+i Plan Project DPI2014-56364-C2-1/2- Results of a PTC Facility Using Gas as the Heat
R (ENERPRO-EFFERDESAL). Transfer Fluid, in: 15th SolarPACES Confer-
ence, Berlin, Germany, 2009.
References [8] M.-M. Rodrı́guez-Garcı́a, E. Zarza, Design and
Construction of an Experimental Molten Salt
[1] T. Skoglund, K. Arzen, P. Dejmek, Dynamic Test Loop, in: 17th SolarPACES Conference,
object-oriented heat exchanger models for sim- Granada, Spain, 2011.
ulation of fluid property transitions, Inter-
[9] M.-M. Rodrı́guez-Garcı́a, M. Herrador-Moreno,
national Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
E. Zarza Moya, Lessons learnt during the de-
49 (13-14) (2006) 2291–2303. doi:10.1016/j.
sign, construction and start-up phase of a molten
ijheatmasstransfer.2005.12.005.
salt testing facility, Applied Thermal Engineer-
ing 62 (2) (2014) 520–528. doi:10.1016/j.
[2] F. Zaversky, M. Sánchez, D. Astrain, Object-
applthermaleng.2013.09.040.
oriented modeling for the transient response sim-
ulation of multi-pass shell-and-tube heat ex- [10] J. Bonilla, M.-M. Rodrı́guez-Garcı́a, L. Roca,
changers as applied in active indirect thermal L. Valenzuela, Object-Oriented Modeling of
energy storage systems for concentrated solar a Multi-Pass Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger
power, Energy 65 (2014) 647–664. doi:10. and its Application to Performance Evaluation,
1016/j.energy.2013.11.070. in: 1st Conference on Modelling, Identification
and Control of Nonlinear Systems (MICNON),
[3] U. Herrmann, D. W. Kearney, Survey of Ther- Saint-Petersburg, Russia, 2015, pp. 107 – 112.
mal Energy Storage for Parabolic Trough Power
Plants, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering [11] U. Herrmann, B. Kelly, H. Price, Two-tank
124 (2) (2002) 145. doi:10.1115/1.1467601. molten salt storage for parabolic trough solar
power plants, Energy 29 (5-6) (2004) 883–893.
[4] S. Relloso, E. Delgado, Experience with molten doi:10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00193-2.
salt thermal storage in a commercial parabolic [12] Modelica Association, Modelica Standard Li-
trough plant. Andasol-1 commissioning and brary 3.2.1 (2013).
operation, in: 15th SolarPACES Conference, URL http://www.modelica.org
Berlin, Germany, 2009.
[13] F. Casella, M. Otter, K. Proelss, C. Richter,
[5] S. Relloso, J. Lata, Molten Salt Thermal Stor- H. Tummescheit, The Modelica Fluid and Media
age: A Proven Solution to increase Plant Dis- library for modeling of incompressible and com-
patchability. Experience in Gemasoalr Tower pressible thermo-fluid pipe networks, in: Proc.
Plant, in: 17th SolarPACES Conference, 5th International Modelica Conference, Vienna,
Granada, Spain, 2011. Austria, 2006, pp. 631–640.
18
[14] A. B. Zavoico, Solar Power Tower - Design Ba- Handbook, Second Edition, Dekker Mechani-
sis Document, Tech. Rep. SAND2001-2100, San- cal Engineering, CRC Press, 2013, pp. 237–336.
dia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, USA doi:doi:10.1201/b14877-6.
(2001).
[26] R. W. Serth, Process Heat Transfer: Principles
[15] R. Ferri, A. Cammi, D. Mazzei, Molten salt mix- and Applications, Elsevier Science, 2007.
ture properties in RELAP5 code for thermody-
namic solar applications, International Journal [27] A. D. Kraus, A. Aziz, J. Welty, Extended Sur-
of Thermal Sciences 47 (12) (2008) 1676–1687. face Heat Transfer, Wiley, 2002.
doi:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2008.01.007. [28] V. Gnielinski, New equations for heat and mass
transfer in turbulent pipe flow and channel
[16] Solutia, Therminol VP-1 heat transfer fluid -
flow, International Chemical Engineering 2 (16)
Vapour and Liquid phases, Technical bulletin
(1976) 359–368.
7239115C (2008).
[29] F. W. Dittus, L. M. K. Boelter, Heat trans-
[17] Z. S. Spakovszky, Unified: Thermodynamics and
fer in automobile radiators of the tubular type,
Propulsion (2008).
University of California Publications in Engi-
URL http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/
neering 2 (1) (1930) 443–461. doi:10.1016/
FALL/thermodynamics/notes/
0735-1933(85)90003-X.
[18] D. J. Correa, J. L. Marchetti, Dynamic Simu-
[30] H. Hausen, Darstellung des Wärmeüberganges
lation of Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchangers, Heat
in Rohren durch verallgemeinerte
Transfer Engineering 8 (1) (1987) 50 – 59. doi:
Potenzbeziehyngen, VDI - Verfahrenstech-
10.1080/01457638708962787.
nik 4 (1943) 91–98.
[19] S. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid [31] J. Bonilla, A. de la Calle, M.-M. Rodrı́guez-
Flow, Hemisphere, Washington D.C, 1980. Garcı́a, L. Roca, L. Valenzuela, Experimental
[20] S. Gaddis, Pressure drop on the shell side of Calibration of Heat Transfer and Thermal Losses
shell-and-tube heat exchangers with segmen- in a Shell-and-Tube Heat Exchanger, in: Proc.
tal baffles 36 (1997) 149–159. doi:10.1016/ 11th International Modelica Conference, Ver-
S0255-2701(96)04194-3. sailles, France, 2015.
[32] G. K. Filonenko, Hydraulic drag in pipes,
[21] VDI, VDI Heat Atlas, 2nd Edition, Springer,
Teploenergetika 1 (4) (1954) 40 – 44.
2010.
[33] R. Mukherjee, Does Your Application Call for an
[22] L. Moody, Friction factors for pipe flow, Trans-
F-Shell Heat Exchanger?, CEP magazine (April)
actions of the ASME 66 (1944) 671–684.
(2004) 40–45.
[23] Dassault Systemes, Dymola 2015 - Multi-
[34] L. Roca, J. Bonilla, M.-M. Rodrı́guez-Garcı́a,
Engineering Modeling and Simulation (2015).
P. Palenzuela, A. De La Calle, L. Valenzuela,
URL http://www.dymola.com
Control strategies in a thermal oil - Molten
[24] L. Petzold, A description of DASSL: a Difer- salt heat exchanger, AIP Conference Proceed-
ential/Algebraic System Solver, Scientific Com- ings 1734 (2016) 130017–1–130017–8. doi:10.
puting (1983) 65–68. 1063/1.4949227.
19