# Performance Evaluation of Solar Chimney Power Plants with Bayburt Stone and Basalt on the Ground as Natural Energy Storage Material

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{6}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

^{2}and an outdoor temperature of 300 K. It is seen that the outdoor temperature affects the temperature rise in the plant, which is higher at 290 K.

## 1. Introduction

^{2}solar radiation, the maximum power output is achieved at 400 Pa TPD and is approximately 160 kW. Senbeto [26] evaluates the effect of the energy storage unit on a system in the CFD study that references the MPP. The effect of using soil and gravel as storage material on temperature and velocity distribution in the system is assessed. When the temperature distribution is examined along the ground at a radiation intensity of 800 W/m

^{2}, they emphasize that the temperature of the gravel ground is 20 K higher than the soil ground. It is claimed that with the energy storage unit, a PO of 10–20 kW can be obtained during the hours when there is no sun. Guo et al. [27] use soil in SCPP as a heat storage area and perform a thermodynamic analysis of the system. They evaluate how materials with different thermophysical properties affect the PO of the system for 24 h in their measurement field study at the MPP. In a system with an energy storage area, the PO will be low during the hours when the solar radiation level is high. This is because the energy is transferred to the ground storage area. In the following hours, with the decrease in the radiation intensity, the stored energy is transferred to the system and the PO becomes higher than the system without storage. In addition, the thickness of the storage space also affects system performance. The thick storage area gives lower PO during the daytime and higher PO during the evening hours. Materials with a high specific heat and thermal conductivity can be used for turbine operation and less fluctuation in PO.

## 2. CFD Model and System Details

- The flow regime is constant in all cases, 3D and turbulent throughout the system.
- Environmental conditions are constant during each simulation.
- Air, which is the system fluid, is incompressible.
- Boussinesq approximation is used for density variation.

_{coll}, thermal diffusion coefficient α, and kinematic viscosity $\vartheta $ as follows:

^{9}. For larger values, the flow is taken as turbulent [20]. The flow for the MPP is turbulent [6,8,17,18]. There are different turbulence models used in the application. In this study, the RNG turbulence model was used, which gives good results in swirling flows. The equations of the model are as follows [28]:

_{o}) of the system. In this study, TPD (∆P

_{t}) and volumetric flow (${\dot{Q}}_{v}$) are used. The PO can be calculated by the following equation [17]:

_{t}is turbine-generator efficiency, and 0.8 is taken in the study [17]. CFD results were used to calculate the turbine pressure drop. In the pilot plant, the turbine is located 9 m above the ground [3]. The average pressure difference (P

_{t}) in the system 9 m above the ground was found from the CFD results. The TPD rate (r

_{t}) was taken as 2/3, and the calculation was made with the following equation [17]:

^{−6}for energy and radiation and 10

^{−3}for other options were considered sufficient.

## 3. Results and Discussion

^{2}is given in Figure 3a. Similarly, a comparison with another study in the literature under the same conditions is given in Figure 3b. When the comparative graph is examined, it is seen that the results are compatible with the experimental data and are supported by the examples given from the studies in the literature. The same climatic conditions were observed in the experimental measurements and the comparison with the literature.

^{2}for both materials at an outdoor temperature of 300 K are given in Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively.

^{2}radiation intensity is at the level of 3 K, this value approaches 10.16 K when the radiation intensity reaches 800 W/m

^{2}. This temperature rise is similar for two different materials used on the floor.

^{2}constant solar radiation, is given in Figure 6. Although there is a 10 K increase in outdoor temperature, it is seen that the maximum temperature in the system has increased by about 7 K. The temperature rise in the system was investigated for two different outdoor temperatures. While an increase of 67.58 K is observed at a 290 K outdoor temperature, it is seen that the temperature increase is 64.62 K at a 300 K outdoor temperature. SCPP systems give more PO for the same radiation intensity at low outdoor temperatures [37]. More temperature rise means more kinetic energy increase in the system air. In this case, the system is expected to give more PO at a 290 K outdoor temperature. A similar situation is observed when basalt is used as a storage material on the ground. When basalt is used as the ground material, the temperature distribution in the system for an 800 W/m

^{2}constant solar radiation and 290 and 300 K outdoor temperature is given in Figure 7. It is seen that the temperature distribution does not differ significantly for Bayburt stone and basalt materials.

^{2}. It is seen that the maximum air velocity in the system, which is 8 m/s at 200 W/m

^{2}, exceeds 1.5 times when the solar radiation is 800 W/m

^{2}and reaches 13.519 m/s. Like the airflow rate, the mass flow rate of the system also increases with the increase in solar radiation. It is seen that at a radiation intensity of 800 W/m

^{2}, the mass flow rate increases by 70% compared to 200 W/m

^{2}and becomes 960.68 kg/s.

^{2}radiation densities, it is seen that the POs increase for both materials. In this case, it is clear that the solar radiation level directly increases the performance of the system.

## 4. Conclusions

- DO SRTA and RNGTM give consistent results for SCPP.
- The level of solar radiation has a strong effect on the performance of the system.
- The increase in outdoor temperature negatively affects the temperature rise in the system.
- The use of Bayburt stone and basalt for energy storage on the ground shows a similar effect on the system.
- When the storage material is Bayburt stone, the temperature rise in the system is 67.58 K at an outdoor temperature of 290 K. The temperature rise is 64.62 K when the outdoor temperature is 300 K.
- At solar radiation of 800 W/m
^{2}, the maximum airflow rate in the system is 13.519 m/s when the outdoor temperature is 300 K and Bayburt stone is used. - Solar radiation positively supports the mass flow rate of the system. Compared to 200 W/m
^{2}, at 800 W/m^{2}, the mass flow rate increases by 70% and becomes 960.68 kg/s with Bayburt stone.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## Nomenclature

$Acoll$ | Collector area (m^{2}) |

$Cp$ | The specific heat of system air (J/kg·K) |

$g$ | Gravity constant (m/s^{2}) |

G | Radiation intensity (W/m^{2}) |

P_{o} | PO (W) |

T | Temp. (K) |

P_{t} | Pressure near turbine position (Pa) |

$\dot{Q}$ | Heat transf. rate (W) |

$\dot{Q}v$ | Volume flow rate (m^{3}/s) |

r_{t} | TPD (turbine pressure drop) rate |

SCPPs | Solar chimney power plant system |

MPP | Manzanares power plant |

RNG | RNG turbulence model |

SRTA | Solar ray tracing algorithm |

α | Outdoors |

β | Thermal expansion coefficient (1/K) |

ρ | Density (kg/m^{3}) |

## References

- Young, C.H.; Riffat, S.B.; Cuce, E. High capacity energy efficiency solar glass. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies 2015, Nottingham, UK, 25–27 August 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Arnaoutakis, G.E.; Katsaprakakis, D.A. Concentrating Solar Power Advances in Geometric Optics, Materials and System Integration. Energies
**2021**, 14, 6229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schlaich, J.R.; Bergermann, R.; Schiel, W.; Weinrebe, G. Design of commercial solar updraft tower systems—Utilization of solar induced convective flows for power generation. J. Sol. Energy Eng.
**2005**, 127, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mullett, L.B. The solar chimney—Overall efficiency, design and performance. Int. J. Ambient. Energy
**1987**, 8, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Haaf, W. Solar chimneys: Part ii: Preliminary test results from the Manzanares pilot plant. Int. J. Sustain. Energy
**1984**, 2, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tayebi, T.; Djezzar, M.; Gouidmi, H. 3D numerical study of flow in a solar chimney power plant system. J. Sci. Technol.
**2018**, 3, 55–59. [Google Scholar] - Dhahri, A.; Omri, A.; Orfi, J. Numerical study of a solar chimney power plant. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol.
**2014**, 8, 1953–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cuce, E.; Sen, H.; Cuce, P.M. Numerical performance modelling of solar chimney power plants: Influence of chimney height for a pilot plant in Manzanares, Spain. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
**2020**, 39, 100704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hu, S.; Leung, D.Y.; Chan, J.C. Impact of the geometry of divergent chimneys on the power output of a solar chimney power plant. Energy
**2017**, 120, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M. Performance assessment Energy Research Journal of solar chimneys: Part 2—Impacts of slenderness value and collector slope on power output. Energy Res. J.
**2019**, 10, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sen, H.; Cuce, E. Dynamic pressure distributions in solar chimney power plants: A numerical research for the pilot plant in Manzanares, Spain. WSSET Newsl.
**2020**, 12, 2. [Google Scholar] - Li, J.Y.; Guo, P.H.; Wang, Y. Effects of collector radius and chimney height on power output of a solar chimney power plant with turbines. Renew. Energy
**2012**, 47, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Karimipour Fard, P.; Beheshti, H. Performance enhancement and environmental impact analysis of a solar chimney power plant: Twenty-four-hour simulation in climate condition of isfahan province, Iran. Int. J. Eng.
**2017**, 30, 1260–1269. [Google Scholar] - Rajput, S.R.; Nigam, D.S.R.; Sen, D.M. Integrated solar heat and wind power plant: Design and performance. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Manag.
**2017**, 7, 407–423. [Google Scholar] - Ming, T.; de Richter, R.K.; Meng, F.; Pan, Y.; Liu, W. Chimney shape numerical study for solar chimney power generating systems. Int. J. Energy Res.
**2013**, 37, 310–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Das, P.; Chandramohan, V.P. 3D numerical study on estimating flow and performance parameters of solar updraft tower (SUT) plant: Impact of divergent angle of chimney, ambient temperature, solar flux and turbine efficiency. J. Clean. Prod.
**2020**, 256, 120353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cuce, E.; Saxena, A.; Cuce, P.M.; Sen, H.; Guo, S.; Sudhakar, K. Performance assessment of solar chimney power plants with the impacts of divergent and convergent chimney geometry. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol.
**2021**, 16, 704–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hassan, A.; Ali, M.; Waqas, A. Numerical investigation on performance of solar chimney power plant by varying collector slope and chimney diverging angle. Energy
**2018**, 142, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Weli, R.B.; Atrooshi, S.A.; Schwarze, R. Investigation of the performance parameters of a sloped collector solar chimney model–An adaptation for the North of Iraq. Renew. Energy
**2021**, 176, 504–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M.; Sen, H.; Sudhakar, K.; Berardi, U.; Serencam, U. Impacts of Ground Slope on Main Performance Figures of Solar Chimney Power Plants: A Comprehensive CFD Research with Experimental Validation. Int. J. Photoenergy
**2021**, 2021, 6612222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cuce, P.M.; Cuce, E.; Sen, H. Improving electricity production in solar chimney power plants with sloping ground design: An extensive CFD research. J. Sol. Energy Res. Updates
**2020**, 7, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Attig-Bahar, F.; Sahraoui, M.; Guellouz, M.S.; Kaddeche, S. Effect of the ground heat storage on solar chimney power plant performance in the South of Tunisia: Case of Tozeur. Sol. Energy
**2019**, 193, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sedighi, A.A.; Deldoost, Z.; Karambasti, B.M. Effect of thermal energy storage layer porosity on performance of solar chimney power plant considering turbine pressure drop. Energy
**2020**, 194, 116859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ming, T.; Liu, W.; Pan, Y.; Xu, G. Numerical analysis of flow and heat transfer characteristics in solar chimney power plants with energy storage layer. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2008**, 49, 2872–2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xu, G.; Ming, T.; Pan, Y.; Meng, F.; Zhou, C. Numerical analysis on the performance of solar chimney power plant system. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2011**, 52, 876–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Senbeto, M. Numerical simulations of solar chimney power plant with thermal storage. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. IJERT
**2020**, 9, 103–106. [Google Scholar] - Guo, P.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Y. Thermodynamic analysis of a solar chimney power plant system with soil heat storage. Appl. Therm. Eng.
**2016**, 100, 1076–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide. November 2013. Available online: http://www.pmt.usp.br/academic/martoran/notasmodelosgrad/ANSYS%20Fluent%20Theory%20Guide%2015.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2022).
- Tingzhen, M.; Wei, L.; Guoling, X.; Yanbin, X.; Xuhu, G.; Yuan, P. Numerical simulation of the solar chimney power plant systems coupled with turbine. Renew. Energy
**2008**, 33, 897–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Haaf, W.; Friedrich, K.; Mayr, G.; Schlaich, J. Solar chimneys part I: Principle and construction of the pilot plant in Manzanares. Int. J. Sol. Energy
**1983**, 2, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pandey, M.; Padhi, B.N.; Mishra, I. Performance analysis of a waste heat recovery solar chimney for nocturnal use. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J.
**2021**, 24, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abdelmohimen, M.A.; Algarni, S.A. Numerical investigation of solar chimney power plants performance for Saudi Arabia weather conditions. Sustain. Cities Soc.
**2018**, 38, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cuce, P.M. Box type solar cookers with sensible thermal energy storage medium: A comparative experimental investigation and thermodynamic analysis. Sol. Energy
**2018**, 166, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chen, W. Analysis of heat transfer and flow in the solar chimney with the sieve-plate thermal storage beds packed with phase change capsules. Renew. Energy
**2020**, 157, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Setareh, M. Comprehensive mathematical study on solar chimney powerplant. Renew. Energy
**2021**, 175, 470–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, P.H.; Li, J.Y.; Wang, Y. Numerical simulations of solar chimney power plant with radiation model. Renew. Energy
**2014**, 62, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M.; Carlucci, S.; Sen, H.; Sudhakar, K.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Daneshazarian, R. Solar chimney power plants: A review of the concepts, designs and performances. Sustainability
**2022**, 14, 1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 4.**When Bayburt stone is used as the ground material, the temperature distribution in the collector is 200, 400, 600, and 800 W/m

^{2}(for 300 K outdoor temperature) in numerical order (

**I**–

**IV**).

**Figure 5.**When basalt is used as the ground material, the temperature distribution in the collector is 200, 400, 600, and 800 W/m

^{2}(for 300 K outdoor temperature) in numerical order (

**I**–

**IV**).

**Figure 6.**Temperature distribution in the system at 290 and 300 K for Bayburt stone storage material.

**Figure 8.**Maximum air velocity and mass flow rate when Bayburt stone is used as storage material for outdoor temperature of 300 K.

**Table 1.**Design details of the reference plant in Manzanares [30].

Design Aspect | Value |
---|---|

Coll. height | 1.85 m |

Coll. diameter | 244.0 m |

Chim. diameter | 10.16 m |

Chim. height | 194.6 m |

Ground layer thick | 2 m |

Feature | Glass | Bayburt Stone | Basalt | Chimney |
---|---|---|---|---|

Dens. (kg∙m^{−3}) | 2700 | 2370 | 2695 | 2100 |

Thermal cond. (W∙m^{−1}K^{−1}) | 0.78 | 0.59 | 1.71 | 1.4 |

Specific heat (J∙kg^{−1}K^{−1}) | 840 | 714.4 | 920 | 880 |

Transmissivity | 0.9 | Non-transp. | Non-transp. | Non-transp. |

Absorptivity | 0.04 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 |

Index of refraction | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

Emissivity | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.71 |

Thickness (m) | 0.004 | 2 | 2 | 0.00125 |

Incoming Solar Intensity (W∙m^{−2}) | 600–800 |
---|---|

Outdoor pressure (Pa) | 92,930 |

Outdoor temperature (K) | 300 |

Outdoor air dens. (kg/m^{3}) | 1.0795 |

Gravity const.(m/s^{2}) | 9.81 |

Thermal cond. (W/mK) | 0.0264 |

Gas constant (J/kgK) | 287 |

Kin. viscosity (m/s^{2}) | 1.8 × 10^{−5} |

Heat capacity (J/kgK) | 1006.24 |

TPD ratio | 2/3 |

Stefan Boltzmann const. (W/m^{2}K^{4}) | 0.5667 × 10^{−7} |

Cell No. | Element Size (m) | Max Air Velocity (m/s) | % Difference |
---|---|---|---|

1.08 m | 1 | 13.56 | - |

1.43 m | 0.885 | 13.55 | 0.07 |

1.78 m | 0.8 | 13.546 | 0.03 |

Ground Storage Material | Solar Radiation, G (W/m^{2}) | PO, P_{o} (W) |
---|---|---|

Bayburt stone | 800 | 41,397 |

600 | 30,184 | |

400 | 19,067 | |

200 | 8430 | |

Basalt | 800 | 41,427 |

600 | 30,185 | |

400 | 19,103 | |

200 | 8451 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Cuce, P.M.; Cuce, E.; Alshahrani, S.; Saboor, S.; Sen, H.; Veza, I.; Saleel, C.A.
Performance Evaluation of Solar Chimney Power Plants with Bayburt Stone and Basalt on the Ground as Natural Energy Storage Material. *Sustainability* **2022**, *14*, 10960.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710960

**AMA Style**

Cuce PM, Cuce E, Alshahrani S, Saboor S, Sen H, Veza I, Saleel CA.
Performance Evaluation of Solar Chimney Power Plants with Bayburt Stone and Basalt on the Ground as Natural Energy Storage Material. *Sustainability*. 2022; 14(17):10960.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710960

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Cuce, Pinar Mert, Erdem Cuce, Saad Alshahrani, Shaik Saboor, Harun Sen, Ibham Veza, and C. Ahamed Saleel.
2022. "Performance Evaluation of Solar Chimney Power Plants with Bayburt Stone and Basalt on the Ground as Natural Energy Storage Material" *Sustainability* 14, no. 17: 10960.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710960