Why is receiver library different on Physical & Empirical Trough? (SEGS by physical)

Dear SAM users;

I started to work on the physical trough model of the SEGS VI like I had done for the empirical model of the SEGS VI.
I want to work concurrently on the SEGS VI physical trough model and the SEGS VI empirical trough model.

Please find the 1st draft model file of the SEGS VI empirical trough model on "Modeling SEGS by empirical model SAM 2016.3.14" sam.nrel.gov/content/modeling-segs-empirical-model-sam-2016314
Please find the draft model file of the SEGS VI physical trough model on this message (SEGSVI20160825Saracoglu_physical_2016_08_25.sam)

At first look, I realized that the "Receiver Library" of the physical trough model and the empirical trough model was different.
For instance: "Luz Cement"
I could not find and select "Luz Cement" on my SEGS VI physical trough model.
In contrast, I could find and select "Luz Cement" on my SEGS VI empirical trough model.
Therefore, the "Receiver Library" of the physical trough model and the empirical trough model was different.

Why is the "Receiver Library" different on the physical trough model and the empirical trough model?
Is there any specific intention to prepare and present them differently on the SAM?
What is your recommendation for me to make them as exactly same?
What do I have to do to make the "Receivers (HCEs)" exactly the same for my SEGS VI physical trough model and my SEGS VI empirical trough model?
What are the most important modelling success factors on the SAM in this issue?

Your consideration and help will be very much appreciated.
Best Regards

Burak Omer Saracoglu

Dear SAM users;

The SAM 2016.3.14 is crashed during the simulation of this physical trough model.
I already sent the crash report via an e-mail to the NREL.

Best Regards

Burak Omer Saracoglu

Dear Burak,

The reason that case crashes is that on the Thermal Storage input page, under "Dispatch Control," the "Turb. out fraction" is set to zero for all time-of-delivery (TOD) periods.

For your analysis, you should set those values to 1, or perhaps 1.1.

Because you only use Period 1 in the weekday and weekend schedules, you can just change the turbine output fraction for Period 1 to fix the problem.

When the value is zero for a given TOD period, SAM sets the power cycle output to zero. In your case, the power cycle output is zero for all hours, which caused SAM to crash.

Best regards,
Paul.

Dear Paul;

Thank you very much for your help, time and effort.

I exactly did what you had recommended "you should set those values to 1", "you can just change the turbine output fraction for Period 1 to fix the problem."

The SAM did not crash during simulation.

"

---

Simulation report

---

Total time: 141211 ms
SSC time: 141196 ms
SSC version: 159 (Windows 64 bit Visual C++ Jul 9 2016 00:14:59)
Models (1): tcstrough_physical"

I do not have any errors. I have warnings.

Now I can continue working with my model and focus on my model inputs and outcomes.

A new question came to my mind with this case.

Why did my physical trough model crash with the same "Dispatch Control" preferences or inputs of my empirical trough model which the SAM ran with it and had not crashed?

I mean my "Dispatch Control" preferences or inputs were same for my physical trough model and my empirical trough model on the SAM. The SAM was crashed with my physical trough model but it was not crashed with my empirical trough model. Why? What is the cause of this situation?

Is it because of some equations specific for the empirical trough model and separately or differently specific for the physical trough model?

I mean in the way of the crashing problem. Please do not consider the errors and the warnings. I am still working on my draft model so that I will study the turbine output fraction, the errors and the warnings in detail. I will try to understand everything very well on the model.

I try to understand the crashing problem at first (one of them crashed but one of them not).

Best Regards

Burak Omer Saracoglu

Dear Burak,

The physical trough model is newer and more robust than the empirical trough model. The two models also use different algorithms, so will behave differently given the same inputs. For both models, using a turbine output dispatch fraction of zero for all periods results in an unrealistic system. Unfortunately, that causes the empirical trough model to crash. The physical trough model returns negative power generation values indicating that there is a problem with the inputs.

Best regards,
Paul.

Dear Paul;
Thank you very much for your informative reply and explanation.
I will continue working on my SAM models related with the power plants in operation at the first stage of my research.
I shall upload my SAM model files to this support blog for the users' contribution and usage.
Especially, researchers and students (BSc., MSc, PhD.) will be able to use the SAM models that I will present on this blog.
It will be a very long (years) and interesting research study for me.
I will also prepare scientific manuscripts and submit to the conferences and the journals.
The second stage of my research study will be more challenging.
I hope it will be very helpful for our World and the solar industry.
Best Regards
Burak Omer Saracoglu