A Maintenance Policy for Central Tower Receiver Subjected to Creep-Fatigue Damage

Huy Truong-Ba; Giovanni Picotti; Michael E. Cholette; Giancarlo Gentile; Giampaolo Manzolini

doi:10.52825/solarpaces.v2i.810

Authors

Huy Truong-Ba Queensland University of Technology
Giovanni Picotti Queensland University of Technology
Michael E. Cholette Queensland University of Technology
Giancarlo Gentile Politecnico di Milano https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1504-4298
Giampaolo Manzolini Politecnico di Milano https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6271-6942

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52825/solarpaces.v2i.810

Keywords:

Receiver Damage, Receiver Maintenance, Central Tower Receiver, Operation & Maintenance for CSP Plants, Predictions Uncertainty

Abstract

This study focuses on the central receiver of solar tower plants, which is subjected to extreme heat fluxes, high temperatures, and thermal gradients leading to degradation mechanisms such as creep, fatigue, and corrosion. Although studies in literature have developed thermal models for receiver tubes to understand the damage process and estimate their lifetime, they have not addressed the uncertainty associated with receiver damage, which arises from random operating conditions and errors in creep damage predictive models. Considering the random and varying nature of damage, this paper suggests effective maintenance strategies that optimize the receiver's lifetime and minimize maintenance costs. The strategies utilize a simulation-optimization approach and incorporate uncertain operating conditions and creep-fatigue models. The illustration case study shows that the proposed maintenance strategy can reduce the maintenance cost up to 37% versus the interval replacement of all panels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] G. Picotti et al., “Object-oriented modelling of an external receiver for solar tower application: Dynamic simulation and impact of soiling,” in AIP Conference Proceedings, AIP Publishing LLC, 2020, p. 160003.

[2] W. R. Logie, J. D. Pye, and J. Coventry, “Thermoelastic stress in concentrating solar receiver tubes: A retrospect on stress analysis methodology, and comparison of salt and sodium,” Solar Energy, vol. 160, pp. 368–379, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.12.003.

[3] G. Gentile, G. Picotti, M. Binotti, M. E. Cholette, and G. Manzolini, “Dynamic thermal analysis and creep-fatigue lifetime assessment of solar tower external receivers,” Solar Energy, vol. 247, pp. 408–431, Nov. 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2022.10.010.

[4] F. R. Larson and J. Miller, “A Time-Temperature Relationship for Rupture and Creep Stresses,” Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 765–771, Jul. 1952, doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4015909.

[5] B. Wilshire and A. J. Battenbough, “Creep and creep fracture of polycrystalline copper,” Materials Science and Engineering: A, vol. 443, no. 1, pp. 156–166, Jan. 2007, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2006.08.094.

[6] V. Gray, H. Truong-Ba, G. Picotti, and M. E. Cholette, “Using statistical analysis to understand creep modelling error and the ramifications for Solar Tower receivers,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, vol. 257, p. 112408, Aug. 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2023.112408.

[7] B. Wilshire and P. J. Scharning, “A new methodology for analysis of creep and creep fracture data for 9–12% chromium steels,” International Materials Reviews, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 91–104, Mar. 2008, doi: https://doi.org/10.1179/174328008X254349.

[8] M. Whittaker, W. Harrison, C. Deen, C. Rae, and S. Williams, “Creep Deformation by Dislocation Movement in Waspaloy,” Materials, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 61, Jan. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10010061.

[9] P. Gilman, N. Blair, M. Mehos, C. Christensen, S. Janzou, and C. Cameron, “Solar Advisor Model: User Guide for Version 2.0,” no. August, p. 133, 2008.