You are on page 1of 9

Solar Energy, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 115-123, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA.

All rights reserved 0038-092x/95 $9.50 + .lO


PETER D. JONES and LILI WANG Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5341, U.S.A.

Abstract-Concentration distributions on a cylindrical receiver in a paraboloidal dish concentrator are computed for space applications (no atmosphere). A geometric optics method is applied which integrates over the solar disk and the concentrator projected surface, and maps analytically, in implicit closed form, through the concentrator and onto the receiver. Finite sunshape, concentrator surface errors, and pointing system zero-mean and constant offset errors are considered. Results define the section of the receiver surface which receives the majority of the concentrated flux, where the receiver’ aperture might be located. Results s are given in terms of concentrator geometry, concentrator total system error tolerance, receiver geometry, and pointing offset error. In cases with pointing offset error (nonzero mean pointing error), circumferentially varying concentration distributions are shown.

1. INTRODUCXON A commonly considered configuration for space-based solar power systems is a paraboloidal dish concentrator with a cylindrical receiver housing aligned with the axis of the paraboloid (Fig. 1). This configuration leaves the edges of the dish free and allows the concentrator surface to be deployable, such as in the sunflower concept (which was studied by NASA in the 1960s and is receiving renewed attention). This configuration has also been suggested by Overfelt et al. ( 1993) for use in a satellite recrystallization furnace, in which the cylindrical receiver geometry is dictated by a materials processing concept. In either a power system or a materials processing furnace application, the internal design of the receiver is dictated by the distribution of solar concentration over its cylindrical surface. This distribution is governed by: (a) the overall geometry of the paraboloid/cylinder system; (b) zeromean error allowances for the slope and specularity of the concentrator surface, and for the sun-following pointing system; and (c) allowances for nonzero-mean errors (offset) in the pointing system. The goal of this paper is to determine the magnitude and distribution of concentration on a cylindrical receiver on the axis of a paraboloidal dish concentrator subject to these three influences, and to provide design information for selection of the size and location of an active aperture on the receiver. The purpose of this work is to support simulation and design activities for the satellite recrystallization furnace concept referenced above, and also described by Lan et al. ( 1994). This concept involves melting
of amorphous semiconductor material contained within a cylindrical ampoule, and recrystallization with a large crystal size. Processing in space reduces the effect of free convection in the melt, which otherwise limits attainable crystal size. Direct solar concentration provides the rather significant processing power. Crystal

growth simulation studies of the melt inside the cylindrical ampoule (receiver) require detailed heat transfer and fluid flow computations, and a packaged code is chosen for this application. The packaged code is appended with a dedicated solar concentration subprogram for heat input, which is the subject of the present paper. This concentration subprogram must be able to compute instantaneous solar concentrations in order to provide continuous input to the surface of the cylindrical ampoule, in order to simulate the effects of the time-varying attitude of the recrystallization furnace during its orbital flight. Therefore, in order to optimize running time and code interfacing issues, this subprogram is based on an analysis which is dedicated to the geometry at hand, and which carries analysis as far as possible before resorting to discretization for a final numerical solution. A geometric optics formulation is used in the present analysis, with numerical integration over the projected areas ofboth the sun and the concentrator. Bundles of rays of solar heat flux from each solar element, in turn, are made incident with a unique incidence angle on each of the concentrator elements. The reflection from each concentrator element is mapped analytically onto the surface of the cylindrical receiver. Tracing each bundle of rays in this manner allows shadowing and interference effects to be dealt with directly. This technique can be reasonably applied because the simple receiver geometry allows a closed form mapping from the concentrator to the receiver. For general receiver shapes, the analytically more complex technique of mapping the complete solar image through the concentrator might be necessary (Evans, 1977; Romero, 1992). In the following analysis, concentration on the receiver surface is first calculated under the idealized conditions of collimated solar incidence, aligned with the axis of a perfect-surface concentrator. These results for an idealized sun and a perfect concentrator serve

. From this information. The axial location z. The receiver is a cylinder of radius r.(z.2 < z. ar. (Y. Figure 4 shows a discontinuity in C.. 3. 4ar z. the distribution is axisymmetric. a maximum radius D/2. 4) to the focal point: r . 2. It is clear by symmetry that dd.1 Collimated aligned incidence The geometry of a collimated bundle of rays with an incidence angle parallel to the paraboloid/cylinder axis is shown in Fig. 1. This results from the assumption in this section of perfectly aligned collimated incidence on a perfect concentrator surface. . width. This distribution may be summarized by the axial location and width of the concentration band. 2. General appearance of a paraboloidal dish/cylindrical receiver concentrator/receiver arrangement. as is also concluded by Riveros and Oliva ( 1986 ) . these results are asymmetric. Note that the only variable in eqns (3) and (4) is the receiver coordinate z. 2. + l]‘ /*}. is the highest point on the cylinder which can be reached by reflected flux: z.aD-‘ )/2]. and mean strength of the concentration band is shown. and a reflectivity of unity. . and height h . Coordinate system for analysis of a paraboloidal dish/ cylindrical receiver concentrator/receiver system. Figure 4 suggests that a rim angle of 90” gives the highest concentration peak. with its focus on the axis at/= t a. and are shown as functions of the receiver angular coordinate. where a = r/2 + tan-‘ [(aD . D. JONESand L. The incident collimated heat flux which falls on the normal projection of an element of concentrator area is reflected toward a particular element of receiver surface area. (3) where z.‘ ) . = - + arr. = $ (1 + g [(aD)’ . the size and location of the heat-receiving aperture in a cylindrical receiver design may be specified. where the concentrator is a perfect paraboloid of revolution described by z = ar* .r. Gaussian errors in the concentrator surface and pointing system are then included by convolving the solar disk shape (brightness distribution) with the concentrator error distribution to determine an effective sunshape. The general character of the results may be described as low concentration values over most of the receiver. as shown in Fig. The dependence on concentrator/receiver design and operating parameters of the location. . and the mean concentration within that band.116 P. 2. (4) . C. is defined as the ratio between the heat flux incident on the receiver surface and the collimated heat flux incident on the projected concentrator area.(zJ at z.8az. (2) Differentiating eqn (2) and solving eqn ( 1) yields the concentration: cdzC) 1 = (zarc)3 {4az. For nonzero pointing offset. ’ concentrator Fig.1 + [16a*(zz + r. WANG co = - rd4dr r. with a band of high concentration near the level of the parabolic focal point. = d&. zc > z0.) = 0. an assumption which is progressively relaxed in the following sections. the concentration is defined focalpoint Fig. For zero pointing offset. = z. 5 z. as a simple benchmark for analysis of more complex cases. ANALYSIS where C. An arbitrary incidence angle is then used to derive a general mapping of solar rays through the concentrator and onto the receiver surface.I]). which provides results for a more realistic sun and a more realistic concentrator. 2) on a straight line from a concentrator point (r. This mapping is numerically integrated over the concentrator projection and over a finite solar disk aligned with the concentrator/receiver axis to determine results for a more realistic sun and a perfect concentrator. dh dz. Considering the one-to-one relationship of concentrator points to receiver points inherent to the perfectly paraboloidal concentrator under perfectly aligned collimated incidence. Figure 4 shows some results from eqns ( 3) and (4) for different rim angles. that the ray strikes on the cylinder is determined by algebraically finding the intersection with r. Pointing offset (nonzero mean pointing error) effects are then determined by varying the location of this effective sunshape. (see Fig.

Concentration distribution due to collimated. > r 1 4 1 and (h sin -ar2)tanB+r. 4.0 receiver axial location.Concentration distributions incident collimated heat flux 117 of the collector I i focal point I I I I I I element of the receiver corresponding to the element of the collector Fig.. 2.lcosq51 >rlcos~#~I forr>r..r2) (6) The intersection point on the receiver is then defined by z. (7) (4a2r2 . (z.rf)“‘ ]. If r. ._ 5 E $40 8 c 0 (1. &) for this ( r. aligned incidence on a perfect concentrator for a range of rim angle. +)] and will eventually El . 4) using Snell’ laws (Z-i = -Z-i.) This reflected direction may or may not intersect the receiver surface. If the reflected ray does intersect the receiver. then the ray will strike the cylinder directly (in other words.1 )sin e cos do . 3.& r.9 1. + Vrlrfrf + ri(rf rf + ri . and rf + r: + ri = 1. 4. Resolution of the reflected direction of a ray striking the concentrator at a point (r.andti < rr / 2. = ar2 + br. . = reflect out of the concentrator.) for this (r. are dimensionless. there is no possible (z. and r. it does so after travelling a distance b from the reflection point. Concentrator/receiver differential area elements for eqn ( 1). where b=- rr. the reflected ray will not intersect the receiver [or. = cos e + 2ar(r.) yields: r& + r& + r.sin e cos 4) 0”a0 (5) (Note that rr. 2. 4) lies in the shadow ofthe cylinder). r9.4ar cos e 120 4a2r2 + 1 r D/d=1 0 rm = sin e sin 4 r. where 0 is defined to lie in the 4 = 0 plane. If (r+/q) > [rJ(r* .6 0. ii X F s = fi X ./f Fig.2 Collimated misaligned incidence In treating incident rays which are not aligned with the paraboloid/cylinder axis (because they originate from a point displaced from the center of the sun and/or there exists a pointing offset error) the direction of the reflected ray from the concentrator is not known a priori as in the aligned case. Figure 5 shows the geometry for an incident ray misaligned by 8. at Dfd = 10.

and the z. and should yield similar results. The total concentration at a point (z. The concentration at each receiver point for misaligned incidence is defined by the differential areas on the concentrator projection and on the receiver. represents an implicit analytical expression for the concentration distribution on a cylindrical receiver due to collimated incidence from an arbitrary direction on a segment of a paraboloidal C$= 0 reference. q5. Incident solar heat flux from each element in a mesh over the solar disk is considered to be collimated. practically speaking. JONFS and L.# must be defined. and need not be discretized) .8).O)and &(r. The search must also check the nonintersection criteria. q5. 4. Therefore. and the final expressions are listed in the Appendix.. Gaussian surface and pointing errors may be incorporated into the effective sunshape. a the disk. Since the system of the solar disk and the concentrator/receiver is axisymmetric. I$. ~:(r.V. D.!?(/I) and @. (10) C’ &. Equation (9)) with the relations in the text and appendix defining its terms.) on the receiver from incidence misaligned by 19involves a search over r and 4. 2. subject to the condition ~definedin+Oplane ’ r Fig. Results of concentration for misaligned collimated incidence are similar in character to the results of Fig. it is not possible to explicitly invert z.PlsinBdBd~. at an incidence angle defined by the element location (and by the gross solar misalignment .. (11) Note that since the local misalignment angle 0 is defined in the C$= 0 plane. Definition of ray directions for reflections from misaligned incidence.3 Solar incidence Solar incidence (as opposed to collimated incidence) implies a range of incidence angles dictated by the finite size of the sun and a variation in solar intensity over the disk of the sun.. WANG concentrator. is predominantly a function of r. 5. and the $ = 0 reference is in the plane of the 1 ar a+ rcosf3 The partial derivatives in eqn (9) may be derived from eqns (5). 4. the combination of these factors is known as the sunshape. 1987) for a parabolic trough case. is predominantly a function of 4. location of the peak concentration varies significantly with 4.( r. from which a closed form concentration ratio is derived. (i. and due to the form of eqns (5). ~ ak az. This search is aided by noting that z. mapping a concentrator point to a receiver point. . Each point (8. The sunshape is defined by the normalized solar intensity distribution s(p) and the half angle subtended by the solar disk /3. while 4. and 0. The final integration is the only part of the process which. 0). The first loop is over the solar disk.. r 84. as shown in the following sections. and (7). 9. 4. (6). (6). the numerator in eqn ( 8 ) is similar to the “first integral of the flux density” derived by Jeter ( 1986.. centered about the concentrator/receiver axis.) [defined by eqn (7)] for collimated incidence misaligned by 8. in spherical * (9) where (8.) is found by integrating the concentration from each point on the solar disk. the concentration band becomes skewed in zC).e. Equation (7) is the misaligned equivalent of eqn (2). C’ = r cos Bdqbdr rCd&dzC ’ (8) which may be written in terms of functional derivatives by expressing d& and dzC as total derivatives of the orthogonal coordinates d4 and dr: ss Zr 80 0 0 &Y)sin Pdj3d$ = 1. and (7) in a straightforward manner. although the peak concentration varies slightly with &. az. For instance.. calculating the concentration for any point (z.. must be discretized for numerical solution (note that surface curvature effects are included analytically. Final application of this expression requires only integration over a representative sunshape and over the concentrator projected surface. The foregoing method of analysis should be applicable to other regularly defined concentrator/receiver geometries. the auxiliary variables 4’ = C#J ti and c#& & . and is approximated to be axisymmetric. The partial derivatives in eqn (9) are functions of r. with a unique angle of misalignment. The procedure for integrating eqn ( 11) is straightforward and consists of two nested loops. 4.118 P. Equation ( 11) ex= presses the total concentration on a point ( z. #) on the solar disk may be considered to be a source of collimated intensity. eqn ( 11) gives the same result for all 4. 8) = (zc.) from a sunshape defined by . fi) definesan point on on solar concentrator/n3 coordinates from origin the ’a+ ar 1 ceiver. Equation (9) provides the concentration at any point (z.

comparison is made to eqn (3) which is an analytical solution defining the limit of eqn ( 11) as @. as shown by comparison of the collimated and usY= 0 curves in Fig. s distributed according to the convolution of the sunshape and the error probability density function. Concentration results from eqn ( 1 I ) show little sensitivity to which particular normalized solar intensity model is chosen. will also be reflected into a solid cone about the direction defined by Snell’ laws and distributed according to the suns shape [e.5 mrad (Harris and Duff. and the resultant receiver concentration distributions due to each solar element are summed to arrive at the total receiver concentration distribution. and consists of a regular two-dimensional mesh in r and 4. The mesh in z. 19851. the case considered here. Note that in eqn ( 14) all /I < ?r are considered. F(p) = L” c g(w)p(y)sin odwd(. Distribution for collimated incidence is also shown. As the second loop is closed. eqns (12). Treadwell and Grandjean ( 1982) suggest that usybetween 4 and 12 mrad can be achieved. and instead the sharp drop at z. For each concentrator element. B > PO. (12) where &. In order to verify this procedure. the receiver concentration magnitude and location are calculated from eqns (7) and (9)) and this concentration is distributed into the appropriate receiver mesh element.4 Solar incidence with concentrator errors The degree of perfection of the concentrator surface.65 mrad. These may all be regarded as zero-mean errors with Gaussian probability density functions (Romero. 6.. and at a strength defined by the integral of the sunshape over the element. the concentration distributions over the entire receiver due to each concentrator element in turn are summed. Concentration distribution due to solar incidence with zero-mean pointing error for a range of concentrator system error standard deviation. The uniform model generally gives higher concentrations.~ + g& + c&int represents the total system error. the empirical model gives lower values. diss tributed according to eqn ( 15). Collimated intensity from a point source which is incident on a perfect reflector will be reflected into a single direction defined by Snell’ laws. incident on a perfect reflector.. 1986). 1986). closing the first loop.. The general character of concentration results for solar incidence differs from collimated incidence results in that the very sharp concentration peak is smoothed. Another significant error source is the accuracy of the pointing system. and fairly insensitive to the mesh in 4. and the Gaussian model is in between. The procedure is also exercised for variable mesh sizes for fiO# 0 (and for gross solar misalignment as described in the following section). are found necessary for results within 1% of eqn ( 3 ) over the practical range of concentrator and receiver parameters. Collimated ins tensity incident on a reflector with a zero-mean surface error distribution will be reflected into a solid angle cone about the direction defined by Snell’ laws. 200 points in r. an empirical solar disk model (Jefferies. is more gradual. 198 1)) S(P)= &w(T) t (14) vary by only about 3%. s(p) = !$? o [I -0.. + 0. A reasonable value for u. and 4. (16) . 119 m9 = 0. 2. and 4. Distributed source intensity incident on a reflector with zero-mean surface errors. at D/d = i0 and a rim angle df90” . = 4. It is found that the results are most sensitive to the solar mesh size and the regular mesh in r.Concentration distributions for computations in the following section). A solar mesh of 64 elements (evenly distributed to maintain similar elemental aspect ratio). The second loop is over the concentrator’ s projected surface. will be reflected into a cone about the direction defined by Snell’ laws. Giiven and Bannerot. and 10 points in d.342(# @<PO (13) m4 = 0. is expressed by errors in surface slope and specularity. The receiver surface is discretized into a regular mesh in z. 2. and shows that the above finite mesh sizes are sufficient for results within 1% of asymptotic values. where and cf = c$./f Fig. apart from its reflectivity. (13). and a Gaussian model (Harris and Duff. This procedure is completed for each solar mesh element. is 2. SY [ I p(B)=&exp v (15) receiver axial location. with an angular distribution defined by the sunshape. 6. or (14)]. yielding the receiver concentration distribution due to the entire concentrator surface for one solar element. 198 1. 1992): tan’ /3 --F .g. Concentration distribution results for a uniform solar disk (Jeter. is chosen simply to yield smooth results. P > PO. Distributed source intensity.

and the aperture must be located higher with respect to/l Figure 8 shows results for several total system error standard deviations. Therefore.I’ . a Gaussian sunshape is employed in the following analysis. Therefore. As each of these curves shows the same general character. Pointing offset results in a concentration distribution which is asymmetric in 4. so that a concentrator/receiver with a higher error tolerance would have its ap erture at a lower height on the receiver. increasing the system error standard deviation from 4 to 12 mrad results in a 12% increase in aperture size requirement. System error lowers the concentration peak location slightly. 2. There is also some loss in total power received as some of the solar mtensity is reflected out of the concentrator without striking the D/d = 10./i Fig 7. Calculations using effective sunshapes derived from constant. Concentration distribution due to solar incidence with a pointing system offseterror of 4Bo. Concentration distributions for a concentrator with a 90” rim angle..) for a real sun incident on a re. Overall. 6. WANG where cos y = cos /3 cos w + sin /3 sin w cos( $J . Both the peak location and heated band width increase in proportion to the focal length as the rim angle increases. . for collimated incidence. because of the convenience of the convolution.” do’ 0. Sz.5). Equation ( 16 ) gives the same result for all 9. showing variation with circumfer= ence. The face of the receiver which is tilted away from the sun receives a higher concentration than in the zero offset case.. than in the symmetric case. with the parameters cr. where tan*/3 F(B)=& exp 1. the face titled toward the sun also receives a slightly higher concentration.120 P.: cw. 3.. C(z..lo ) . (18) e’ . JONESand L. Usin BdLW.+). substituting F( 8) for s( /3) in eqn ( 11) results in the concentration for any point (z. and it is seen that increased system error increases the required size of the receiver aperture. (19) i2. &. and a. D/d. s.. who noted that a large degradation in receiver flux results from only a very small offset angle ( . so that around the cylinder and to produce asymmetry in the strength of the heated band.. 7. Therefore. An example concentration distribution result is shown in Fig. and the side faces receive lower concentrations.. the maximum concentration point on the face towards the sun is lower. 7). Distributions at both higher and lower rim angles show a more pronounced effect of surface errors. The point of maximum concentration on the receiver face away from the sun is at a higher z. and solar incidence with a range of surface error levels are shown in Fig.2aHm S”l-lI receiver axial location....5 Solar incidence with concentrator errors and pointing offset Solar concentration with pointing offset was investigated by Baz et al. and oaY 8 mrad. (17) and a&. e)dz. For a rim angle of 90”. the effect of misalignment is to skew the heated band so that it is not at a uniform height .. 1987). z=. the results may be summarized in terms of (a) the axial location of the maximum concentration on the receiver. flector with zero-mean surface errors. The convolution of eqn ( 16) is known as the effective sunshape. = al + u& . 8) = 8) =jJ% ctz. expressed as the axial distance between the two points where the concentration is at 2% of its peak value. Equation ( 18) is numerically integrated in the same manner as eqn ( 11). where cos 0’ = cos 8 cos /3 + sin 8 sin B cos( r .WW’[zdr. and the point on the sides is about the same. and 8 (e. and (c) the axial integral of concentration within 62. measured. solar incidence without errors. Figure 8 shows the variation of the peak location and width of the heated band with concentrator rim angle for a concentrator/receiver having no pointing offset and D/d = 10. and Gaussian sunshapes exhibit a concentration difference of only about 3% for small crW.l/. Fig. h.and a smaller difference for larger usY(as also observed by most of the 4l-(r. do’ ). a deep concentrator must have a correspondingly long collection area (aperture) on the receiver. 4. a rim angle of 90”. RESULTS The immediate computation results are generated as curves of C versus z&for a given 4.. ( 1984) and Treadwell and Grandjean ( 1982). 2.g. (b) the width of the heated band.//. C” is found to be only a very weak function of (Y. Concentration effects due to a pointing offset 8 (to the center of the solar disk) are calculated in the present analysis by varying the local misalignment angles. D.. The reflected cone from the effective sunshape incident on a perfect reflector is equivalent to the reflected cone of the normalized solar intensity incident on a reflector with zero-mean surface errors.

for two pointing offset errors and a range of system . and about 60% for 8 = 48. at a rim angle of 90”. these results are not shown. System error is seen to have little effect..Concentration distributions 121 rim angle. The D/d for minimum heated band width increases with increasing system error.. 11. Figure 9 shows peak location and heated band width as functions of Dfd for a rim angle of 90” and no pointing offset. variation is found to increase with D/d. D/d 09M) 0 180 receiver angular location. flux incident on the projected area of the concentrator will ultimately be reflected to some point on the receiver. in pointing offset cases. 10. 8. Imposing a pointing offset on the concentrator/receiver system results in variations in z. Fig. at D/d = 10. for a range of system error standard deviation. Figure 10 shows the variation in C” with Df d. However. the front to back variation in C” is about 20% for 8 = 20. C” is a measure of the total concentrated flux falling on the receiver.) Figure 11 shows that the height of the concentration peak varies by about 3% of/from the front of the receiver (4. and. These are shown in Figs.. concentrator system error does not have an overpowering effect on C”. Systems with. CONCLUSIONS Solar concentrations on a cylindrical receiver in a paraboloidal concentrator are computed by deriving a geometric optics method which integrates over the solar 5 15 20 25 diameter ratio. therefore. and by about 20% for 8 = 4@.. . At Df d = 30. As also illustrated in Fig. ^^^^ error standard deuatlon. varying by about 10% from front to back for 8 = 2&. As might be expected. Peak location moves higher as the concentrator is enlarged in proportion to the receiver. Fig. although the change becomes slight for Dfd > 15.) Fig. D/d Fig. 11 and 12 for pointing offsets of two and four times the subtended half angle of the solar disk as seen from Earth for a rim angle of 90” and D/d = 10. as is seen in Fig. It is also found that these percentage variations are roughly constant with D/d. = 0) around to the back (4. for a range of system error standard deviation. and by about 6% for 8 = 4/3. for a range of system error standard deviation. The effect of concentrator to receiver diameter ratio on concentration peak location and concentration band width. 10. but shows a minimum for D/d . (There is very little change in Gz&vith 4. The C” versus 4.. with zero pointing offset. as opposed to peak concentration at only one point. The effectof concentrator rim angle on concentration peak location and concentration band width. very small and very large receivers tend to have larger receiver aperture requirements.. Larger variations are also found for rim angles # 90”. The effect of concentrator to receiver diameter ratio on concentration (integrated over the concentration band). at D/d = 10 and a nm angle of YO’ . 9. 8.//and C” with &. a(deg. with zero pointing offset. This variation is shown to be roughly constant with usY. Figure 12 shows that the integrated concentration varies significantly with 4. both. with zero pointing offset.. Higher levels of system error result in more widely distributed sunshapes and a greater tendency for rays to make multiple reflections and leave the concentrator without striking the receiver. Circumferential variation in concentration peak location. lower concentrator system error leads to a higher receiver peak concentration point. at a rim angle of 90”. = 180” ) for 8 = 2@. + (deg.) diameter ratio.. smaller receivers realize higher concentrations. 4.12-15. The heated band width is not monotonic with D/d.

Gtiven and R. Solar Energy 36. M. about a receiver-to-sun polar axis REFERENCES A. Jones. David McLeod. R. Overfelt. Solar Enerav 39. A. Q. Mobarak. Morcos. integrated over the width of the concentration band. E. Klett. concentration due to collimated. A. E. for zero-mean concentrator errors through derivation of effective sunshapes. Calculation of the concentrated flux density distribution in parabolic trough collectors by a semifinite formulation. D./ concentrator focal point height. m-’ C concentration due to the whole solar disk for a given pointing offset K. Temperature fields within large-diameter crystals grown on a solar furnace satellite. B. 265-271 (1994). Circumferential variation in concentration (integrated over the concentration band). Solar Energy 37. the concentration peak location varies with the rim angle of the concentrator and the concentrator to receiver diameter ratio. 319385 (1977). 1 l-2 1 ( 1987) X. for two pointing offset errors and a range of system error standard deviation. but is not sensitive to pointing offset. Jeter. but varies circumferentially under conditions of pointing system offset. is significantly affected only by the diameter ratio and the pointing offset. Acknowledgments-This work was supported by the Auburn University Center for the Commercial Development of Soaos. M. 12. Jeffties.// D concentrator diameter. H. A. Solar Energy Engineering 106. and for pointing error offset by varying the location of the effective sun. at D/d = 10 and a rim angle of 90”. disk and the concentrator projected surface. Determination of error tolerances for the optical design of parabolic troughs for developing countries. in Solar Engineering 1994. Optical analysis of cylindrical-parabolic con- .122 P. Jeter. S. L. Khodadadi. the width of the concentration band varies with rim angle. P. D. Focal plane flux distributions produced by solar concentrating reflectors. m receiver radius. and the width on either side of this peak in which concentration has a significant value. Tanaka (eds. m &. m receiver axial coordinate. JONESand L. As a fraction of focal length. 335-345 ( 1986). Hogan.) Fii. $ (deg. J. A. Graphical assistance was provided by Mr. m d receiver diameter. Tony Overfelt. Solar Energy 19. Baz. D. m components of reflection direction vector reflection direction vector normalized solar intensity distribution concentrator axial coordinate.4 16-422 ( 1984). J. 0. D. This variation is mitigated by small D/d and a rim angle of 9o”. Solar Energy 27. & coordinate system unit vectors . and to a lesser extent with the standard deviation of concentrator surface and pointing system errors. The method accounts for solar incidence by considering the size of the solar disk and the intensity distribution across the solar disk. and S. Optical analysis ofparabolic dish concentrators for solar dynamic power systems in space. Duff. m ‘ effective sunshape F h receiver height. m concentrator rim angle polar angle of a point on the solar disk. and T.403-41 I (1981). On the performance of cylindrical parabolic solar concentrators with flat absorbers. from a receiver-to-sun polar axis A subtended half angle of the solar disk (maximum P) 8 overall misalignment angle between the receiver axis and the solar disk center 8 local misalignment angle between the receiver axis and a solar disk point pointing system standard deviation solar intensity standard deviation concentrator slope standard deviation concentrator specularity standard deviation total sun plus system standard deviation concentrator system standard deviation concentrator angular coordinate receiver angular coordinate azimuthal angle of a point on the solar disk. M. Harris and S. K. and features an implicit analytical mapping to the receiver. S. represented by Dr. NASA Technical Memorandum 87080 ( 1985). Analytical determination of the optical oerformance of practical parabolic trough collector from-design data. Pointing offset can lead to a large circumferential variation in concentration. c’ concentration due to a solar disk element for a given misalignment angle C. S. and system error. On the tracking error of a self-contained solar tracking system. Lan. The concentration at a circumferential point. diameter ratio. and R. J. R. L: Wang. Evans. m i concentrator incident direction vector fi concentrator surface normal vector P concentrator surface error probability density function concentrator radial coordinate. M. WANG receiver angular location.). Results show that the distribution of concentration on the receiver surface may be characterized by the location of the concentration peak on the receiver. The concentration peak location is constant around the circumference of the receiver if the concentrator/receiver pointing system maintains a zero-mean pointing error. Sabry. W. aligned incidence C” mean concentration integrated over 62. As a fraction of the focal length. Bannerot. Nicolas. ASME.535-550 ( 1986). NOMENCLATURE a concentrator parabolic coefficient.

. and J.rf)Qrf + r2.4a2rz -’ = sin B sin I$ 1 + 4a2r2 db (A6) db -=% ab .rz 1 (A3) (rz + r:)’ a L = 2ar. J.Concentration distributions centrators: Validity limits for models of solar disk intensity.r. W. d& (A5) 0 + 4ar sin 0 cos $J . Overfelt. _ 4a(4n2r2cos ar m. z= 4ar sin 0 sin I$ 1 + 4a2r2 (A7) z=- (r: + r:)*iFr: + r$rf . H. Spacecraft and Rockets30.cos 0) (I f 4a2r2)2 (AlO) (All) using the subordinate relations: a.r$r*) .2a sin 0 cos &J ar (A9) __=-r.313-322 ( 1986).rir2 r c (r: + r:)* r:r: + r2. 345-348 (1982).rf . A. Graphical analysis of sun concentrating collectors. Solar Energy Engineering 104.$+b$ ar ??&=I+ a& dr -2 = sin 8 cos $I dh (A8) az. CIRCE2/DEKGENZ: A software package for facilitated optical analysis of 3D distributed solar energy 123 concentrators.r:rz dr 1 . Wells. (Al) (~2) ab -=_ ar h r. I. r2r2 + r$ra . and (7)]: -=22artr. Treadwell and N. R.Zrr.& rir2 .r. Presented at the ASME-JSES-KSES International Solar Energy Conference. APPENDIX The partial derivatives in eqn (9) are expressed as follows [see also eqns (5). Riveros and A.cos 6) ( 1 + 4a2r2)* ah ab m _=_-!+!N a4 a)r. J. (6). ( 1992).r:rf + 2rJ2r2 A12) h. Solar En&y 36.r r \Ir:rf + r2. Maui. Blake. Grandjean. G.-_b’ az. 3866-3870 ( 1987).+r-+ ar 2 mr : rrrc xr . Systematic rotation and receiver locations error effects on parabolic trough annual performance.rf . Applied Optics26.r$r* r(r$ . G. V. Oliva. M.r$r* . J.87-91 (1993). a4 ab a4 ar a4 (A4) + 8a*r( 4a2r2cos 0 + 4ar sin 0 cos #I .r&r’ .r3r2 .r&rf . Romero.rt . Hawaii. R.r$r* r: + r$ (rrr + r:rt + r’ .r$r’ A13) . Soar furnace satellite for large diameter c&al growth in space.