- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to “Wind engineering analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors: The effects of varying the trough depth” [2014, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 135, 118–128]
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 148 (2016) 70–71
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “Wind engineering analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors: The effects of varying the trough depth” [2014, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 135, 118–128] J. Paetzold a,n, S. Cochard a, A. Vassallo b, D.F. Fletcher b a b
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
art ic l e i nf o Article history: Received 28 October 2015 Accepted 29 October 2015 Available online 16 November 2015
The authors regret that incorrect results have been published in two figures of this article due to erroneous data of the thermal effects of the wind for the case of the shallow trough at a 01 pitch angle. The average Nusselt number on the receiver surface in Fig. 14 and the velocity field in Fig. 15a and b have been revised and are shown below in the corrected form. Additionally, run times of the simulations
Shallow trough f=D/3 Medium trough f=D/4 Deep trough f=D/5
300
200
Nu
average
250
150 100 −90
−60
−30
0
30
60
90
Pitch angle [°] Fig. 14. The average Nusselt number on the receiver highlights the advantage that an increased curvature of the parabola has on the thermal losses for positive pitch angles up to 60 1.
n
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.10.017 Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.10.013 0167-6105/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Paetzold et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 148 (2016) 70–71
71
Fig. 15. Velocity magnitude at the respective angles of highest heat loss for the three configurations. The case of a pitch angle of 0 1 shows the higher air speed around the receiver in (a) and (b) for the shallow trough compared with (c) and (d) the medium trough at 5 1 pitch, and (e) and (f) the deep trough at 10 1 pitch.
have been extended to give better averaging, which led to minor adjustments of some data points in Fig. 14. With this the anomalous data point for the deep trough at 751 pitch angle was shown to be in line with the overall trend. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to “Wind engineering analysis of parabolic trough solar collectors: The effects of varying the trough depth” [2014, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 135, 118–128] J. Paetzold a,n, S. Cochard a, A. Vassallo b, D.F. Fletcher b a b
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and IT, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
art ic l e i nf o Article history: Received 28 October 2015 Accepted 29 October 2015 Available online 16 November 2015
The authors regret that incorrect results have been published in two figures of this article due to erroneous data of the thermal effects of the wind for the case of the shallow trough at a 01 pitch angle. The average Nusselt number on the receiver surface in Fig. 14 and the velocity field in Fig. 15a and b have been revised and are shown below in the corrected form. Additionally, run times of the simulations
Shallow trough f=D/3 Medium trough f=D/4 Deep trough f=D/5
300
200
Nu
average
250
150 100 −90
−60
−30
0
30
60
90
Pitch angle [°] Fig. 14. The average Nusselt number on the receiver highlights the advantage that an increased curvature of the parabola has on the thermal losses for positive pitch angles up to 60 1.
n
DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.10.017 Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.10.013 0167-6105/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Paetzold et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 148 (2016) 70–71
71
Fig. 15. Velocity magnitude at the respective angles of highest heat loss for the three configurations. The case of a pitch angle of 0 1 shows the higher air speed around the receiver in (a) and (b) for the shallow trough compared with (c) and (d) the medium trough at 5 1 pitch, and (e) and (f) the deep trough at 10 1 pitch.
have been extended to give better averaging, which led to minor adjustments of some data points in Fig. 14. With this the anomalous data point for the deep trough at 751 pitch angle was shown to be in line with the overall trend. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.