energies

Article
Design and Optical Performance of Compound
Parabolic Solar Concentrators with Evacuated Tube
as Receivers
Qiang Wang, Jinfu Wang and Runsheng Tang *
Education Ministry Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology and Preparation for Renewable Energy Materials,
Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650500, China; tynyjs@163.com (Q.W.); jinfuwang2008@163.com (J.W.)
* Correspondences: kingtang01@126.com; Tel.: +86-871-6590-2553

Academic Editors: Tea Zakula, V. Ponnusami and Grigoras Gheorghe

Received: 21 July 2016; Accepted: 5 September 2016; Published: 6 October 2016

Abstract: In the present article, six symmetric compound parabolic solar concentrators (CPCs) with
all-glass evacuated solar tubes (EST) as the receiver are designed, and a comparative study on their
optical performance is performed based on theoretical analysis and ray-tracing simulations. In terms
of optical loss through gaps of CPCs and optical efficiency averaged for radiation over the acceptance
angle, CPC-6, designed based on a fictitious “hat”-shaped absorber with a “V” groove at the bottom,
is the optimal design, and CPC-1, designed based on the cover tube, is the worst solution, whereas
from the point of view of the annual collectible radiation on the EST, it is found that CPC-4, designed
based on a fictitious “ice-cream” absorber, is the optimal design and CPC-1 is the worst solution.
CPC-6, commonly regarded as the best design in the past, is not an optimal design in terms of annual
collectible radiation after truncation. Results also indicate that, for high temperature applications,
CPC-6 and CPC-4 are advisable due to the high solar flux on the EST resulting from the high optical
efficiency for radiation within the acceptance angle.

Keywords: all-glass evacuated solar tube (EST); compound parabolic solar concentrator (CPC);
optical efficiency; annual collectible radiation; optimal design

1. Introduction
In recent years, applications of solar energy-based technologies have become very popular all
around the world due to environmental issues, rapidly rising fossil fuel prices and increased energy
consumption. In the past two decades, solar thermal systems were widely used in a variety of fields
in China [1–3]. Solar collectors are mainly classified into three categories: flat plate, evacuated tube
and concentrating collectors. Both flat-plate and evacuated tube collectors are generally designed to
provide low temperature thermal energy, and concentrating collectors are usually designed for high
temperature solar thermal applications. Today, the heat requirement with the temperature in the range
of 100–400 ◦ C is very high and takes about 30% of total heat requirement in industrial process over the
world, but solar collectors operating at 100–400 ◦ C are rarely found in practical applications.
Compound parabolic concentrator (CPC), an ideal solar concentrator designed based on principles
of edge-ray and identical optical length, shares the advantages of being simple in structure and no need
for a continuous sun-tracking system. In recent years, CPC-based solar collectors are commonly regarded
to be the collectors with the most potential to provide heat with temperatures up to 200–250 ◦ C, and
their performance analysis and designs have been widely studied [4–6]. Rabl and Winston [5] first
experimentally investigated non-evacuated CPC collectors in 1974, and observed that the heat loss was
considerably high due to the high heat loss through reflectors as a result of the fact that reflectors of CPC
are in contact with the tube absorber and thus function as the fins of a tube absorber [4,7]. To reduce

Energies 2016, 9, 795; doi:10.3390/en9100795 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2016, 9, 795 2 of 16

Energies 2016, 9, 795  2 of 16 
the heat loss from the solar receiver to the ambient air, CPC collectors with all-glass evacuated solar
tubes (EST, the one sealed at one end and open in another end) as the solar receiver were tested [8–10].
collectors with all‐glass evacuated solar tubes (EST, the one sealed at one end and open in another 
Oommen and Jayaraman [11,12] developed and tested two CPC solar collectors with reduced solar
end) as the solar receiver were tested [8–10]. Oommen and Jayaraman [11,12] developed and tested two 
ray losses through the gaps of CPCs to generate steam. However, a theoretical or experimental
CPC solar collectors with reduced solar ray losses through the gaps of CPCs to generate steam. However, 
performance comparison of both CPC designs was not performed.
a theoretical or experimental performance comparison of both CPC designs was not performed. 
EST shares advantages of easy production and convenient transportation and installation, thus it
EST shares advantages of easy production and convenient transportation and installation, thus 
is widely used for water heating in China and EST-based solar water heaters account for more than
it is widely used for water heating in China and EST‐based solar water heaters account for more than 
90% share of the market [13]. EST with stainless steel-aluminum nitride ceramic coating, thermally
90% share of the market [13]. EST with stainless steel‐aluminum nitride ceramic coating, thermally 
stable at 330–400 ◦ C, is the most common product [14], and such EST as the receiver of CPCs might be
stable at 330–400 °C, is the most common product [14], and such EST as the receiver of CPCs might 
technically a better solution to provide heat for applications where the temperature is above 100 ◦ C.
be technically a better solution to provide heat for applications where the temperature is above 100 °C. 
The reflector profile of CPCs is uniquely determined by the profile of the absorber, and for such
The reflector profile of CPCs is uniquely determined by the profile of the absorber, and for such 
aa concentrator, all radiation within its acceptance angle will arrive on the absorber and the reflectors 
concentrator, all radiation within its acceptance angle will arrive on the absorber and the reflectors
always extend all the way to the absorber as shown in Figure 1 [7]. But for CPCs with EST as the
always extend all the way to the absorber as shown in Figure 1 [7]. But for CPCs with EST as the 
receiver, the inner tube as solar absorber is enclosed within the cover tube, therefore, a gap must
receiver, the inner tube as solar absorber is enclosed within the cover tube, therefore, a gap must be 
be designed between reflectors and inner tube to allow for evacuated space. This means that any
designed between reflectors and inner tube to allow for evacuated space. This means that any CPC 
CPC with EST as the solar absorber is not an ideal solar concentrator due to the optical loss through
with EST as the solar absorber is not an ideal solar concentrator due to the optical loss through gaps, 
gaps, anddesign 
and  the  the design optimization
optimization  of such
of  such  CPC  CPC collectors
collectors  for for maximizing
maximizing  their
their  optical
optical  performance
performance  is 
is actually to optimize gap design. Rabl et al. [15,16] first investigated the effect
actually to optimize gap design. Rabl et al. [15,16] first investigated the effect of various CPC gap  of various CPC gap
designs
designs withwith aa tubular
tubular absorber
absorber on on their
their optical
optical performances,
performances, and and concluded
concluded  thatthat the
the CPC
CPC with
with 
oversized reflectors and the one with reduced reflectors were optimal designs in terms of gap loss.
oversized reflectors and the one with reduced reflectors were optimal designs in terms of gap loss. 
However, the optical loss due to imperfect reflections of solar rays on reflectors was not considered in
However, the optical loss due to imperfect reflections of solar rays on reflectors was not considered 
these studies, and the results obtained were reasonable only for full CPCs with perfect reflectors but
in these studies, and the results obtained were reasonable only for full CPCs with perfect reflectors 
not
but for those
not  for  with
those imperfect reflectors.
with  imperfect  Xu et al. [17]
reflectors.  Xu  recently investigated
et  al.  [17]  theoretically six
recently  investigated  asymmetrical
theoretically  six 
CPCs (ACPCs) for concentrating radiation on EST where the acceptance angles of both (right/left)
asymmetrical CPCs (ACPCs) for concentrating radiation on EST where the acceptance angles of both 
reflectors
(right/left)  ofreflectors 
ACPCs were determined
of  ACPCs  were indetermined 
such way that they makes
in  such  the they 
way  that  Sun within
makes thethe acceptance
Sun  within angle
the 
for at least six hours during all days of a year, and found that the one designed
acceptance angle for at least six hours during all days of a year, and found that the one designed  based on the cover
tube
based  ofon 
EST collects
the  cover the most
tube  radiation
of  EST  annually.
collects  the  most  ACPC collectors
radiation  are usually
annually.  ACPC horizontally
collectors  are  installed
usually 
thus limited to
horizontally  use in sites
installed  thus with lowerto site
limited  use latitude.
in  sites CPCs
with used
lower insite 
a solar collector
latitude.  are used 
CPCs  usuallyin used to
a  solar 
increase the solar flux on the absorber and thus increase the temperature of the output heat, therefore,
collector are usually used to increase the solar flux on the absorber and thus increase the temperature 
given
of  the the acceptance
output  angle andgiven 
heat,  therefore,  geometric concentration,
the  acceptance  angle the design
and  optimization
geometric  of CPCthe 
concentration,  collectors
design 
should be done to maximize the optical efficiency for radiation over its acceptance angle so as to
optimization of CPC collectors should be done to maximize the optical efficiency for radiation over 
maximize the solar flux on the inner tube of the EST. In this work, a trial was made to theoretically
its acceptance angle so as to maximize the solar flux on the inner tube of the EST. In this work, a trial 
compare the optical performance of six symmetric CPCs for concentrating solar radiation on the EST
was made to theoretically compare the optical performance of six symmetric CPCs for concentrating 
in terms
solar  of optical
radiation  on loss
the  through gaps, of 
EST  in  terms  optical efficiency
optical  averaged
loss  through  foroptical 
gaps,  radiation over theaveraged 
efficiency  acceptancefor 
angle and annual collectible radiation on the EST.
radiation over the acceptance angle and annual collectible radiation on the EST. 

 
Figure 1. Geometry of a tubular absorber ideal solar concentrator (not to scale). 
Figure 1. Geometry of a tubular absorber ideal solar concentrator (not to scale).

 
Energies 2016, 9, 795 3 of 16

2. Design of Compound Parabolic Solar Concentrators with All-Glass Evacuated Solar Tube
as Receiver

2.1. Geometry of Compound Parabolic Solar Concentrator with a Tubular Absorber

As shown in Figure 1, any point M on the reflector of CPC can be described in two parameters:
ϕ (formed by lines from the origin O to K and N) and ρ = MN (the line tangent to the absorber tube
at N). Thus, in the suggested coordinate system as shown in Figure 1, the (right) reflector of CPC
constructed based on a tubular absorber is expressed by:
(
x = r sin ϕ − ρ cos ϕ
(1)
y = −r cos ϕ − ρ sin ϕ

The reflector of such CPC includes involute (0 ≤ ϕ ≤ 0.5π + θa ) and upper reflector (0.5π + θa < ϕ
≤ 1.5π – θa ), and one can derive the expression of ρ from the string method as follows:

 ϕ 0 ≤ ϕ ≤ 0.5π + θa
ρ/r = 0.5π+θa +ϕ−cos(ϕ−θa ) (2)

1+sin(ϕ−θa )
0.5π + θa < ϕ ≤ 1.5π − θa

The r in above expressions is the radius of the tubular absorber. The geometrical concentration of
an ideal CPC, the ratio of aperture width (Aap ) to the perimeter (Pabs,d ) of absorber based on which
the reflectors of CPC are constructed, is uniquely determined by its acceptance half-angle (θa ) and is
given by:
Cideal = A ap /Pabs,d = 1/sin θa (3)

and:
Aap = Cideal ·Pabs,d (4)

In practical application, the upper part of reflectors is usually truncated to save reflector materials
and reduce the depth of CPC due to the lesser contribution of upper reflectors to the solar radiation
concentration, and the geometrical concentration in this case can be found by substituting ϕ = 1.5π – θt
into Equations (1) and (2) as follows:

2xt cos θt sin θt 2π + θa − θt + sin(θa + θt )

Ct = =− + [ ] (5)
2πr π π 1 − cos(θa + θt )

and the depth of the truncated CPC is given by:

H = πrCt c tan θt + r/sin θt + 0.5πr (6)

where θt is the edge-ray angle of CPCs after truncation (Figure 1), and θt = θa for full CPCs. The last
term “0.5πr” in Equation (6) is the vertical depth of lowest point (ϕ = 0.5π, a point on the involutes
corresponding to dy/dx = 0) of reflectors relative to the x-axis. In turn, given Ct and θa , the edge-ray
angle (θt ) can be obtained from Equation (5) by iterative calculations.
It must be noted that all CPCs with EST as the receiver are not ideal solar concentrators as
mentioned above, and the geometrical concentration factor is the ratio of aperture width (Aap ) to the
perimeter of the actual solar absorber (i.e., the inner tube of EST, Pabs,a = 2πr) which might differ from
Pabs,d as seen in the next section.

2.2. Design of Compound Parabolic Solar Concentrator with All-Glass Evacuated Tube as the Receiver
The EST measuring 47/58 mm in diameter of inner tube/cover tube, the one of the most common
solar products in the market, is considered in this work. Based on the string method of reflector
Energies 2016, 9, 795 4 of 16

construction of CPCs [18] and geometric characteristics of EST [17], there are six symmetric CPCs most
suitable for concentrating radiation on the EST as follows:
CPC-1: designed based on the cover tube (Figure 2). The geometrical concentration of full
Energies 2016, 9, 795  CPC-1
4 of 16 
is given by:
Energies 2016, 9, 795  4 of 16 
CPC‐1: designed based on the cover tube (Figure 2). The geometrical concentration of full CPC‐1 
Cg,1 = A ap /2πr = Pabs,d Cideal /2πr = RCideal /r (7)
is given by: 
CPC‐1: designed based on the cover tube (Figure 2). The geometrical concentration of full CPC‐1 
where Pabs,d is the perimeter of cover tube (2πR) instead of 2πr because CPC-1 is designed based on the
is given by:  Cg,1 = Aap/2 π r =  P ,dCideal / 2πr   =  RCideal / r   (7) 
cover tube of EST. In this case, the r in Equationabs(1) is set to be R, and ρ in this case is given by:
 Cg,1 = Aap/2 π r =  Pabs ,dCideal / 2πr   =  RCideal / r  
where Pabs,d is the perimeter of cover tube (2πR) instead of 2πr because CPC‐1 is designed based on  (7) 
the cover tube of EST. In this case, the r in Equation (1) is set to be R, and 
 ϕ 0 ≤ ϕ ≤ 0.5π + θa ρ   in this case is given by: 
where Pabs,d is the perimeter of cover tube (2πR) instead of 2πr because CPC‐1 is designed based on 
ρ/R = 0.5π+θa +ϕ−cos(ϕ−θa ) (8)
 1+sin(ϕ−θ ) 0.5π +0θa < ϕ 0.5≤
the cover tube of EST. In this case, the r in Equation (1) is set to be R, and 
  1.5π
ρa  in this case is given by: 
− θa
 a
 / R =  0.5  a    cos(  a ) (8) 
  0.50a 
 0.5
 1.5
 a  a

Given θt and θa , the depth of CPC-1  sin(   ) by:
is1 calculated
 / R =  0.5  a    cos(a   a ) (8) 
 0.5  a    1.5  a
 1  sin(  a )
Given θt and θa, the depth of CPC‐1 is calculated by: 
H = πrCt c tan θt + R/sin θt + 0.5πR (9)
H  πrCt c tan θt  R / sin θt  0.5πR
Given θt and θa, the depth of CPC‐1 is calculated by:  (9) 

H  πrCt c tan θt  R / sin θt  0.5πR (9) 

 
Figure 2. CPC‐1, designed based on the cover tube of evacuated solar tube (EST). 
 
Figure 2. CPC-1, designed based on the cover tube of evacuated solar tube (EST).
Figure 2. CPC‐1, designed based on the cover tube of evacuated solar tube (EST). 
CPC‐2:  designed  based  on  the  inner  tube  of  EST,  but  the  EST  is  purposefully  moved  up  R‐r 
CPC-2: designed based on the inner tube of EST, but
(Figure 3). The geometry concentration of full CPC‐2 is C the EST
g,2 = 1/sinθ is purposefully
a due to P moved up R-r
abs,d = Pabs,a = 2πr, and the 
CPC‐2:  designed  based  on  the  inner  tube  of  EST,  but  the  EST  is  purposefully  moved  up  R‐r 
ρ  in Equation (1) is given by Equation (2). 
(Figure 3). The geometry concentration of full CPC-2 is Cg,2 = 1/sinθa due to Pabs,d = Pabs,a = 2πr, and
(Figure 3). The geometry concentration of full CPC‐2 is Cg,2 = 1/sinθa due to Pabs,d = Pabs,a = 2πr, and the 
the ρ ρin Equation (1) is given by Equation (2).
  in Equation (1) is given by Equation (2). 

 
Figure 3. CPC‐2, designed based on inner tube with the EST purposely being moved up R‐r. 
 
Figure 3. CPC‐2, designed based on inner tube with the EST purposely being moved up R‐r. 
CPC‐3: designed based on inner tube of EST with reflectors (involutes) near the inner tube being 
Figure 3. CPC-2, designed based on inner tube with the EST purposely being moved up R-r.
truncated (Figure 4). In this case, Cg,3 = 1/sinθa, but the construction of involutes starts at point B of 
CPC‐3: designed based on inner tube of EST with reflectors (involutes) near the inner tube being 
the cover tube (Figure 4 ) with φ = ϕ, thus the  ρ  in Equation (1) is given by: 
CPC-3: designed based on inner g,3
truncated (Figure 4). In this case, C tube of EST
 = 1/sinθ with reflectors (involutes) near the inner tube being
a, but the construction of involutes starts at point B of 

truncated (Figure 4). In this case,  Cg,3 = 1/sinθ

the cover tube (Figure 4 ) with φ = ϕ, thus the   ρ,  but     0.5 ofainvolutes starts at point B of
a in Equation (1) is given by: 
the construction

 
the cover tube (Figure 4 ) with ϕr = = φ, thus
 0.5 a  the
 cos(
ρ inEquation
a ) (1) is given by: (10) 
  0.5 a 
 0.5
 1.5
 a  a
 1  sin(    )
  r =  0.5  a    cos(a   a )
  ϕsin(   ) φ ≤ϕ
0.5 a ≤ 0.5π
 1.5+ θa a
(10) 
ρ/r = 0.5π 1 
 +θ +ϕ−cos(ϕcos (11)  (10)
−θaϕ)   = r/R 
a
a

1+sin(ϕ−θa )
0.5π + θa < ϕ ≤ 1.5π − θa
and the depth of CPC‐3 is calculated from Equation (6). 
cosϕ  = r/R  (11) 

and the depth of CPC‐3 is calculated from Equation (6). 
Energies 2016, 9, 795 5 of 16

cosφ = r/R (11)

and the Energies 2016, 9, 795 

depth of CPC-3 is calculated from Equation (6). 5 of 16 

Energies 2016, 9, 795  5 of 16 

 
Figure 4. CPC‐3, designed based on inner tube of EST with the involutes near the inner tube being truncated. 
Figure 4. CPC-3, designed based on inner tube of EST with the involutes near the inner tube
being truncated.
CPC‐4: designed based on “ice‐cream” virtual receiver. As shown in Figure 5, lines AB and AC 
are tangent to the inner tube of the EST, and the distance from the lowest point (A) of the “ice‐cream” 
to the center (O) of inner tube is just equal to R in order to accommodate the vacuum space of the 
CPC-4: designed based on “ice-cream” virtual receiver. As shown in Figure 5, lines AB and AC
EST. The geometrical concentration of full CPC‐4 is as follows: 
are tangent to the inner tube of the EST, and the distance from the  lowest point (A) of the “ice-cream”
to the center (O) of inner tube is just equal toCg,4  Pice
R in Cideal / to
order 2πraccommodate
 
the vacuum space(12)  of the EST.
Figure 4. CPC‐3, designed based on inner tube of EST with the involutes near the inner tube being truncated. 
The geometrical concentration of full CPC-4 is as follows:
where Pice = (2π – 2ϕ)r + 2AB is the circumference of “ice‐cream” shaped receiver, cos ϕ = r/R (due to 
CPC‐4: designed based on “ice‐cream” virtual receiver. As shown in Figure 5, lines AB and AC 
OA = R), and AB =  √ .  The construction of involutes in this case starts at the lowest point (A) 
are tangent to the inner tube of the EST, and the distance from the lowest point (A) of the “ice‐cream” 
with φ = ϕ, and the  ρ  in Equation (1) for φ = ϕ is AB which is obviously larger than r∙ϕ. Let AB = r(ϕ 
Cg,4 = Pice Cideal /2πr (12)
to the center (O) of inner tube is just equal to R in order to accommodate the vacuum space of the 
+ γ), thus one has: 
where PEST. The geometrical concentration of full CPC‐4 is as follows: 
ice = (2π – 2φ)r + 2AB √ is the circumference of “ice-cream” shaped receiver, cos φ = r/R
γ  R2  r2 / r     (13) 
2 2
(due to OA = R), and AB = R − r . The construction C g,4  P ice ideal / 2π
C r   involutes in this case starts at(12) 
of the lowest
And 
point (A) withρ  in Equation (1) in this case can be derived as:
ϕ = φ, and the ρ in Equation (1) for ϕ = φ is AB which is obviously larger than r·φ.
where Pice = (2π – 2ϕ)r + 2AB is the circumference of “ice‐cream” shaped receiver, cos ϕ = r/R (due to 
Let AB =OA = R), and AB = 
r(φ + γ), thus one √ has: .  The construction of involutes in this case starts at the lowest point (A) 
p      0.5  a
 R2 −
r =  0.5   a γ =2   cos(  r2/r
with φ = ϕ, and the  ρ in Equation (1) for φ = ϕ is AB which is obviously larger than r∙ϕ. Let AB = r(ϕ 
) − φ   (14)  (13)

a
0.5  a    1.5   a
+ γ), thus one has:  1  sin( 
 can be deriveda as:   )
And ρ in Equation (1) in this case
γ  R2  r2 / r    
Given θt and θa, the depth of CPC‐4 is calculated by:  (13) 

And  ρ  in Equation (1) in this case can be derived as:

Hϕ φ ≤ϕγ)r≤ 0.5π + θa
 π+rCγt c tan θt  r / sin θt  (0.5π (15) 
ρ/r = +θa +ϕ+2γ−cos(ϕ−θa ) (14)
 0.5π
  0.5π + θ
 a < ϕ ≤ 1.5π − θa
 0.5
1+sin(ϕ−θa ) a

  r =  0.5   a    2   cos(  a )   (14) 
0.5  a    1.5   a
Given θt and θa , the depth of CPC-4 1  sin(  a )
is calculated by:

Given θt and θa, the depth of CPC‐4 is calculated by: 
H = πrC c tan θ + r/sin θ + (0.5π + γ)r (15)
t t t
H  πrCt c tan θt  r / sin θt  (0.5π  γ) r (15) 

 
Figure 5. CPC‐4, designed based on an “ice‐cream” absorber. 

CPC‐5:  designed  based  on  a  fictitious  “hat”  absorber.  As  shown  in  Figure  6,  the  “hat”  is 
constructed in such way that lines BC and AD are tangent to the inner tube of EST, the line linking A 
and B is also just tangent to the inner tube at the lowest point of inner tube to ensure that BC and AD 

 
Figure 5. CPC‐4, designed based on an “ice‐cream” absorber. 
Figure 5. CPC-4, designed based on an “ice-cream” absorber.
CPC‐5:  designed  based  on  a  fictitious  “hat”  absorber.  As  shown  in  Figure  6,  the  “hat”  is 
constructed in such way that lines BC and AD are tangent to the inner tube of EST, the line linking A 
and B is also just tangent to the inner tube at the lowest point of inner tube to ensure that BC and AD 
Energies 2016, 9, 795 6 of 16

CPC-5: designed based on a fictitious “hat” absorber. As shown in Figure 6, the “hat” is
constructed in such way that lines BC and AD are tangent to the inner tube of EST, the line linking
Energies 2016, 9, 795  6 of 16 
A and B is also just tangent to the inner tube at the lowest point of inner tube to ensure that BC and
AD can’t be seen each other, and distance from A and B to the center of inner tube is just R in order to
can’t be seen each other, and distance from A and B to the center of inner tube is just R in order to 
accommodate EST. The geometrical concentration of full CPC-5 is determined by:
accommodate EST. The geometrical concentration of full CPC‐5 is determined by: 
Cg,5=PPhat
Cg,5 ideal //2πr
hat Cideal 2πr   (16)
(16) 

where P
where hat = (2π – 4ϕ)r + 2BC is the circumference of “hat” shaped absorber, and cosϕ = r/R. As seen 
Phat = (2π – 4φ)r + 2BC is the circumference of “hat” shaped absorber, and cosφ = r/R. As seen
from Figure 6, the involute starts at the lowest point (A) of the “hat” with φ = 2ϕ, and the ρ in Equation 
from Figure 6, the involute starts at√the lowest point (A) of the “hat” with ϕ = 2φ, and the ρ in
Equation (1) for ϕ = 2φ is√BC (BC =
(1) for φ = 2ϕ is BC (BC =  ) which is obviously less than 2rϕ. Let BC = r(2ϕ– ξ), thus one has: 
R2 − r2 ) which is obviously less than 2rφ. Let BC = r(2φ– ξ),
thus one has:
ξ  2  pR 2  r 2 / r (17) 
ξ = 2φ − R2 − r2 /r (17)
The ρρin
The   in Equation (1) is expressed by: 
Equation (1) is expressed by:
  2    0.5  a
 ϕ − ξ 2φ ≤ ϕ ≤ 0.5π + θa
    a    2  cos(  a )

ρ/r =  0.5
r =
0.5π + θ + ϕ − 2ξ − cos ( ϕ − θ ) 0.5   a ϕ
 1.5π
1.5− θ
a
  (18) 
(18)
 a
 sin(
1 sin (ϕ−θa) a )
a
0.5π + θ a < ≤ a


1+

H = πrCt c tan θt + r/sin θt + (0.5π − ξ)r (19)

H  πrCt c tan θt  r / sin θt  (0.5π  ξ) r   (19) 

 
Figure 6. CPC‐5, designed based on “hat” absorber. 
Figure 6. CPC-5, designed based on “hat” absorber.

CPC‐6: the same as CPC‐5 but with a “V” groove at the bottom (Figure 7). To avoid gap losses, 
CPC-6: the same as CPC-5 but with a “V” groove at the bottom (Figure 7). To avoid gap losses,
the geometry of “V” groove should meet following conditions [15]: 
the geometry of “V” groove should meet following conditions [15]:
π  2α  2ψ  0.5π  α (20) 
π − 2α ≤ 2ψ ≤ 0.5π + α (20)
h  rc tan 2 ψ  g (c tan 2 ψ  1) / 2 (21) 
h ≤ rctan2 ψ + g(c tan2 ψ − 1)/2 (21)
where  ψ  is the half opening‐angle of “V” groove, h the depth of “V” groove, g the vertical height of 
where ψ is the half opening-angle of “V” groove, h the depth of “V” groove, g the vertical height of
the lowest point of inner tube relative to the aperture of “V” groove and α the angle formed by line 
the lowest point of inner tube relative to the aperture of “V” groove and α the angle formed by line
AC and the line linking A and the tube’s center. Given the size of EST, the aperture width of the “V” 
AC and the line linking A and the tube’s center. Given the size
groove (g = 0 in the case of a single “V” groove) is equal to 2 √ of EST,
√ the aperture width of the “V”
, thus, the depth (h) is an unique 
groove (g = 0 in the case of a single “V” groove) is equal to 2 R 2 − r2 , thus, the depth (h) is an unique
parameter to determine the geometry of “V” groove, therefore one has 12.29 mm ≤ h ≤ 14.52 mm for 
parameter
the  EST  of to47/58 
determine the geometry
in  diameter  of  inner oftube/cover 
“V” groove, therefore
tube.  one has
The  depth  12.29 mm
of  CPC‐6  ≤ h ≤ 14.52
(measuring  from mm
the 
for the EST of 47/58 in diameter of inner tube/cover tube. The depth of CPC-6 (measuring from the
bottom of “V” groove to aperture of CPC) is given by: 
bottom of “V” groove to aperture of CPC) is given by:
H =πrC c tan θ  r / sin θ  r  h
t t t
(22) 
H = πrCt c tan θt + r/sin θt + r + h (22)
Energies 2016, 9, 795 7 of 16
Energies 2016, 9, 795  7 of 16 

 
Figure 7. CPC‐6, the same as CPC‐5 but with a “V” groove at the bottom. 
Figure 7. CPC-6, the same as CPC-5 but with a “V” groove at the bottom.
Analysis in the above shows that, given the acceptance half‐angle θa, the geometric concentration 
Analysis ing) and depth (H) of full CPCs differ for different CPC designs (Tables 1 and 3). In turn, given 
factor (C the above shows that, given the acceptance half-angle θa , the geometric concentration
θa and Ct, the edge‐ray angle (θt) of a truncated CPC differs for different CPC designs as shown in 
factor (Cg ) and depth (H) of full CPCs differ for different CPC designs (Tables 1 and 3). In turn, given
Table 2. Table 3 shows that the depth of full CPCs is very large and greatly reduced after truncation. 
θa and Ct , the edge-ray angle (θt ) of a truncated CPC differs for different CPC designs as shown in
Table 2. Table 3 shows that the depth of full CPCs is very large and greatly reduced after truncation.
Table 1. Geometric concentration factors of full compound parabolic solar concentrators. 

θa  CPC‐1  CPC‐2 CPC‐3 CPC‐4 CPC‐5  CPC‐6 

Table 1. Geometric
20°  concentration
3.608  factors
2.924  of full2.924 
compound parabolic
3.014  solar concentrators.
2.431  2.431 
26°  2.815  2.281  2.281  2.351  1.897  1.897 
θa CPC-1 CPC-2 CPC-3 CPC-4 CPC-5 CPC-6
20◦ Table 2. Edge‐ray angle of truncated CPCs with θ
3.608 2.924 2.924 3.014 a = 20°. 
2.431 2.431
26 ◦ 2.815 2.281 2.281 2.351 1.897 1.897
Ct  CPC‐1  CPC‐2 CPC‐3 CPC‐4 CPC‐5 CPC‐6 
Ct = 2.0  79.3°  61.4°  61.4°  64.1°  44.8°  44.8° 
Ct = 2.4  Table
63.8° 
2. Edge-ray angle of truncated CPCs with θ24.7° 
45.3°  45.3°  48.1°  ◦ 24.7° 
a = 20 .

Table 3. Depth of CPCs with θa = 20°. 
Ct CPC-1 CPC-2 CPC-3 CPC-4 CPC-5 CPC-6
Size of CPC 
Ct = 2.0 79.3CPC‐1 
◦ 61.4CPC‐2
◦ CPC‐3
61.4 ◦ CPC‐4
64.1 ◦ CPC‐5
44.8 ◦ CPC‐6 
44.8◦
CtC=t = 2.0 
2.4 63.8◦103.1  45.3◦144.2  45.3144.2 
◦ 48.1137.0 
◦ 206.7 
24.7 ◦ 218.0 * 
24.7◦
Ct = 2.4  165.1  245.4  245.4  229.7  466.3  477.6 * 
Full CPCs  862.2  698.7  698.7  701.0  686.3  697.6 * 
Table 3. Depth of CPCs with θa = 20 . ◦
Note: * h is set to be 12.29 mm in these calculations. 

3. Gap Losses of Compound Parabolic Solar Concentrators 
Size of CPC CPC-1 CPC-2 CPC-3 CPC-4 CPC-5 CPC-6
Ct = 2.0 103.1 144.2 144.2 137.0 206.7 218.0 *
Strictly speaking, the optical loss through gaps of CPCs, defined as the ratio of radiation lost 
Ct = 2.4 165.1 245.4 245.4 229.7 466.3 477.6 *
through  gaps  to  the  total  radiation  incident  on  the  receiver,  depend  on  solar  incident  angle  (θ,  a 
Full CPCs 862.2 698.7 698.7 701.0 686.3 697.6 *
projection incident angle of solar rays on the cross‐section of CPC‐troughs), geometric concentration 
Note: * h is set to be 12.29 mm in these calculations.
factor (Ct) and reflectivity of reflectors, therefore the optical loss through gaps of CPCs for radiation 
incident at any angle is hard to calculate analytically. In this exercise, the incident radiation is simply 
3. Gapregarded as uniformly distributed over the CPCʹs acceptance angle. Realize, therefore, that the results 
Losses of Compound Parabolic Solar Concentrators
for gap losses here do not pertain to a particular angle (θ), but rather are averaged over all incidence 
Strictly speaking, the optical loss through gaps of CPCs, defined as the ratio of radiation
angles within the view field of full CPCs with perfect reflection on reflectors [16]. 
lost throughCPC‐1: When isotropic radiation falls on the aperture of the CPC, the cover tube based on which 
gaps to the total radiation incident on the receiver, depend on solar incident angle
(θ, a projection
reflectors  of incident angle
CPC‐1  are  of solar
constructed  would rays on the cross-section
be  uniformly  of CPC-troughs),
irradiated  [16],  but  geometric
only  a  fraction  of  the 
concentration factor (Ct ) and reflectivity of reflectors, therefore the optical loss through gaps of CPCs for
radiation received by the cover tube will arrive on the inner tube, thus, optical losses through gaps 
formed by inner tube and cover tube can be simply calculated by: 
radiation incident at any angle is hard to calculate analytically. In this exercise, the incident radiation
is simply regarded as uniformly distributed L1 over
1  Fcthe
-in  1  r / R
CPC's acceptance angle. Realize, therefore,
(23)  that
the results for gap losses here do not pertain to a particular angle (θ), but rather are averaged over all
where Fc‐in = r/R is the radiation transfer shape factor from cover tube to inner tube of EST. 
incidence angles within the view field of full CPCs with perfect reflection on reflectors [16].
CPC-1: When isotropic radiation falls on the aperture of the CPC, the cover tube based on which
reflectors of CPC-1 are constructed would be uniformly irradiated [16], but only a fraction of the
radiation received by the cover tube will arrive on the inner tube, thus, optical losses through gaps
formed by inner tube and cover tube can be simply calculated by:

L1 = 1 − Fc−in = 1 − r/R (23)

Energies 2016, 9, 795 8 of 16

where Fc-in = r/R is the radiation transfer shape factor from cover tube to inner tube of EST.
CPC-2: When isotropic radiation over the acceptance angle falls on the aperture of CPC-2, the
tubular absorber located at position A would be uniformly irradiated, however, only a fraction of
the radiation falling on the “fictitious tube” located at A would arrive on the actual tubular absorber
located at C by radiation transfer, thus, gap loss in this case is as follows:

2 R−r
L2 = 1 − FA−C = 1 − arccos( ) (24)
π 2r
where FA–C is the radiation transfer shape factor from tubular absorber at A to the one at C.
CPC-3: According to the string method of construction of CPC reflectors [18], it is known that
the CPC reflectors remained after the involutes near the inner tube are truncated is an ideal solar
concentrator for the fictitious absorber “DCMAB” (2πr in perimeter, Figure 4). Thus, when the incident
radiation is uniformly distributed over the CPC’s acceptance angle, the fictitious absorber “DCMAB”
would be uniformly irradiated (the total radiation on the absorber is 2πri), however, a fraction of the
radiation incident on DC and AB will be lost, therefore, the gap loss in this case is given by:

2AB (1 − FAB−abs ) i tan φ − φ

L3 = = (25)
2πri π
where i is the radiation on unit area of the absorber based on which reflectors of CPCs are constructed,
FAB-abs = φ/tan φ is the radiative shape factor from AB to the tubular absorber (inner tube of EST).
CPC-4: When incident radiation is uniformly distributed over the CPC’s acceptance angle, the
“ice-cream” shaped absorber “ACMBA” would be uniformly irradiated because reflectors of CPC-4 are
constructed based on the “ice-cream” shaped absorber, however, a fraction of the radiation incident on
AC and AB will be lost, therefore, the gap loss in this case is given by:

2AB (1 − FAB− abs ) i tan φ − φ

L4 = = (26)
Pice i tan φ + π − φ

CPC-5: Similarly, the gap loss of CPC-5 is given by:

2AD (1 − FAD−abs ) i tan φ − φ

L5 = = (27)
Phat i tan φ + π − 2φ

In Equations (25)–(27), cosφ = r/R.

CPC-6: the gap loss in this case is zero due to the use of the “V” groove at the bottom of the
CPC reflectors.
Analysis of the above indicates that gap losses of full CPCs averaged for all incidence angles
within the acceptance angle are independent of the acceptance half-angle but dependent on the gap
design of CPCs. For EST measuring 47/58 in diameter of inner tube/cover tube, the gap losses of
CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3, CPC-4, CPC-5 and CPC-6 are L1 = 0.1897, L2 = 0.0747, L3 = 0.031, L4 = 0.03,
L5 = 0.0371 and L6 = 0, respectively. Obviously, from the point of view of optical loss through gaps,
CPC-6 is the optimal design, followed by CPC-4 and CPC-3, and CPC-1 is the worst design.

4. Optical Efficiency of Compound Parabolic Solar Concentrators (CPCs)

The optical efficiency of a CPC (η), termed as the ratio of radiation received by the inner tube of
EST to that incident on the aperture of CPCs, is dependent on the projection incidence angle (θ) of solar
rays on the cross-section of CPC-troughs. For the CPC solar collectors investigated here, optical losses
include losses through gaps and those due to imperfect reflection on reflectors. Thus, losses through
gaps don’t fully represent the real optical performance of such CPC. When solar rays are incident
on the aperture of CPCs at any angle (θ), a part of the radiation would undergo multiple reflections
before arriving on the inner tube of the EST [19]. However, for CPCs with tubular absorbers, it is
Energies 2016, 9, 795 9 of 16

very difficult to theoretically calculate the fractions of radiation that arrive on the absorber after any
number of reflections. Therefore, theoretical calculations of optical efficiency are very difficult because
the pathway of the solar rays to the inner tube of the EST is considerably complex. In this exercise, the
Energies 2016, 9, 795  9 of 16 
ray-tracing technique was employed to analyze the optical efficiency of CPCs for radiation incident
at any angle, then the radiation on the inner tube of EST of CPC collectors at any moment
complex. In this exercise, the ray‐tracing technique was employed to analyze the optical efficiency of 
Energies 2016, 9, 795  of a day
9 of 16 
CPCs for radiation incident at any angle, then the radiation on the inner tube of EST of CPC collectors 
was calculated based on η(θ) obtained from the ray-tracing analysis and θ obtained based on the solar
complex. In this exercise, the ray‐tracing technique was employed to analyze the optical efficiency of 
at any moment of a day was calculated based on η(θ) obtained from the ray‐tracing analysis and θ 
geometry. In the subsequent theoretical analysis, the reflectivity of CPC reflectors (ρ) was taken to be
CPCs for radiation incident at any angle, then the radiation on the inner tube of EST of CPC collectors 
obtained based on the solar geometry. In the subsequent theoretical analysis, the reflectivity of CPC 
0.92 except with a specific indication, and the solar transmittance of the cover tube is set to be 1.
ρ) was taken to be 0.92 except with a specific indication, and the solar transmittance of the 
at any moment of a day was calculated based on η(θ) obtained from the ray‐tracing analysis and θ 
reflectors (
Figure 8 presents angular variations of η for full CPCs with θa = 20◦ . It is shown that, except for
obtained based on the solar geometry. In the subsequent theoretical analysis, the reflectivity of CPC 
cover tube is set to be 1. 
CPC-1 and CPC-2,
reflectors ( η as a function of θ increases with the increase of incidence angle as θ < 17◦ , then
ρ) was taken to be 0.92 except with a specific indication, and the solar transmittance of the 
Figure 8 presents angular variations of η for full CPCs with θ a = 20°. It is shown that, except for 

cover tube is set to be 1. 
sharply CPC‐1 and CPC‐2, η as a function of θ increases with the increase of incidence angle as θ < 17°, then 
decreases. This is because a considerable fraction of the incident radiation undergoes multiple
reflections Figure 8 presents angular variations of η for full CPCs with θ
sharply 
before decreases. 
arrivingThis  is  because 
on the absorbera  considerable  fraction  of 
when the incidence anglea = 20°. It is shown that, except for 
the  incident  radiation 
(θ) is small, undergoes 
and the radiation lost
CPC‐1 and CPC‐2, η as a function of θ increases with the increase of incidence angle as θ < 17°, then 
multiple reflections before arriving on the absorber when the incidence angle (θ) is small, and the 
through gaps is high in the case of θ close to the acceptance angle. Whereas for CPC-1 and CPC-2,
sharply  decreases.  This  is  because  a  considerable  fraction  of  the  incident  radiation  undergoes 
radiation lost through gaps is high in the case of θ close to the acceptance angle. Whereas for CPC‐1 
the situation is reversed, the gap losses are high when θ is small and low when θ is large, especially
multiple reflections before arriving on the absorber when the incidence angle (θ) is small, and the 
and CPC‐2, the situation is reversed, the gap losses are high when θ is small and low when θ is large, 
for CPC-2.
radiation lost through gaps is high in the case of θ close to the acceptance angle. Whereas for CPC‐1 
especially for CPC‐2. 
and CPC‐2, the situation is reversed, the gap losses are high when θ is small and low when θ is large, 
especially for CPC‐2. 

 
Figure 8. Angular variations of optical efficiency of full CPCs with θa = 20°. 
Figure 8. Angular variations of optical efficiency of full CPCs with  θa = 20◦ .
Angular variations of optical efficiency of truncated CPCs are presented in Figure 9. It is shown 
Figure 8. Angular variations of optical efficiency of full CPCs with θa = 20°. 
that, for radiation within the acceptance angle (θ < θ
Angular variations of optical efficiency of truncated a), the optical efficiency of CPC‐6 is the highest 
CPCs are presented in Figure 9. It is shown
Angular variations of optical efficiency of truncated CPCs are presented in Figure 9. It is shown 
and that of CPC‐1 is the lowest (Figures 8 and 9), and those of CPC‐4 and CPC‐5 are almost identical. 
that, for radiation within the acceptance angle (θ < θa ), the optical efficiency of CPC-6 is the highest
that, for radiation within the acceptance angle (θ < θa), the optical efficiency of CPC‐6 is the highest 
and thatand that of CPC‐1 is the lowest (Figures 8 and 9), and those of CPC‐4 and CPC‐5 are almost identical. 
of CPC-1 is the lowest 1.0 (Figures 8 and 9), and those CPC-1of CPC-4 and CPC-5 are almost identical.
0.9 CPC-2
1.0 CPC-3
CPC-1
0.8
CPC-4
CPC-2
0.9
0.7 CPC-5
CPC-3
0.8 CPC-6
0.6 CPC-4
0.7
0.5
CPC-5
o
()

a=20 ; Ct=2
0.6 CPC-6
0.4
0.5 o
()

0.3 a=20 ; Ct=2

0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

  
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Figure 9. As in Figure 8 but for truncated CPCs with θa = 20° and Ct = 2. 
  
However, for the case of θ > θ a, the optical efficiency of CPC‐5 and CPC‐6 is lower than that of 
Figure 9. As in Figure 8 but for truncated CPCs with θa = 20° and Ct = 2. 
Figure 9. As in Figure 8 but for truncated CPCs with θa = 20◦ and Ct = 2.
others due to the small edge‐ray angles (Table 2). This means that, given θ a and Ct, CPC‐5 and CPC‐

However, for the case of θ > θa, the optical efficiency of CPC‐5 and CPC‐6 is lower than that of 
6 are highly efficient to concentrate radiation on EST in the case of θ < θ a but less efficient as θ > θa. 

others due to the small edge‐ray angles (Table 2). This means that, given θ
However, for the case of θ > θa , the optical efficiency of CPC-5 anda and C CPC-6 t, CPC‐5 and CPC‐
is lower than that of
6 are highly efficient to concentrate radiation on EST in the case of θ < θ a but less efficient as θ > θa. 
others due to the small edge-ray angles (Table 2). This means that, given θ and C , CPC-5 and CPC-6 a t
are highly efficient to concentrate radiation on EST in the case of θ < θa but less efficient as θ > θa .
Energies 2016, 9, 795 10 of 16

To evaluate the optical performance of six CPC designs for incident radiation over its acceptance
angle, the average optical efficiency (η), a ratio of the radiation received by the inner tube of EST for
radiation from all directions over the acceptance angle to that incident on the aperture, is introduced.
Therefore, η depends on the angular distribution of solar rays over the acceptance angle, and for
isotropic radiation it is expressed by:
R θa
−θa idθ cos θη(θ)
η= R θa (28)
−θa idθ cos θ

where i is the directional intensity of radiation. Based on the angular variation of η obtained by
ray-tracing analysis, the η can be numerically estimated by Equation (28).
As seen in Table 4 (in these numerical calculations, the angle step to find η is taken to be 1◦ ), η of
CPC-6 is the highest regardless whether they are truncated, followed by CPC-4 for truncated CPCs
and CPC-3 for full CPCs, and η of CPC-1 is the lowest. This implies that, in the terms of η, CPC-6 is
the optimal design, followed by CPC-4 for truncated CPCs and CPC-3 for full CPCs, and CPC-1 is
the worst solution. Table 4 also indicates that, with the decrease of geometric concentration (Ct ), η
of CPCs increases, a result of the fact that radiation incident on the upper portion of CPC reflectors
would undergoes multiple reflections before arriving on the absorber [19], and the average reflection
number of solar rays within the CPC cavity decreases with the decrease of Ct . It must be noted that, for
truncated CPCs, the η merely represents the performance of CPCs for radiation over the acceptance
angle (θa ) rather than the performance for radiation within θt . In the case of radiation beyond its
acceptance angle, the radiation on the absorber will be so low that the desired high temperature is not
achievable. Therefore to provide high temperature heat, the sun must be kept within the acceptance
angle of CPCs during the operation. As seen from Table 4, given θa and Ct , η of CPC-6 is the highest,
followed by CPC-4, thus, for high temperature applications, CPC-6 and CPC-4 are advisable due to
high solar flux on the EST resulting from high η for radiation within the acceptance angle.

Table 4. Average optical efficiency η of CPCs with θa = 20o .

Size of CPCs CPC-1 CPC-2 CPC-3 CPC-4 CPC-5 CPC-6

Ct = 2.0 0.74326 0.86212 0.87657 0.87967 0.86477 0.89542
Ct = 2.1 0.74180 0.85869 0.87307 0.87592 0.86146 0.89326
Ct = 2.2 0.74005 0.85574 0.86892 0.87173 0.85883 0.89061
Ct = 2.3 0.73940 0.85288 0.86444 0.86657 0.85660 0.88750
Ct = 2.4 0.73841 0.84933 0.86125 0.86179 0.85263 0.88292
Full CPC 0.71110 0.83424 0.84379 0.83205 0.84675 0.87611

5. Annual Collectible Radiation on All-Glass Evacuated Solar Tube of CPC Collectors

Assuming that EST in CPC collectors is oriented in the east-west direction and the aperture of
CPCs is tilted at β relative to the horizon, side effects of CPCs’ reflectors and radiation reflected from
the ground are not considered. Thus, radiation received by unit length of EST at any moment is
given by:

I = A ap Ib η(θ) g(θin )cosθin + Iabs,d (29)

where Ib is the instantaneous intensity of beam radiation; θin is the real incident angle of solar rays
on CPC collectors; g(θin ) is a control function, being 1 for cos θin ≥ 0, otherwise zero; Iabs,d is the sky
diffuse radiation received by EST of CPCs and estimated by:
Z θt
Iabs,d = A ap iη(θ)cosθdθ (30)
−θ x
Energies 2016, 9, 795 11 of 16

where θx = Min(0.5π – β, θt ); i is the directional intensity of sky diffuse radiation on the cross-section
of EST, and i = 0.5Id for isotropic sky diffuse radiation [19,20]; Id is the sky diffuse radiation on the
horizon. Thus, Equation (30) is rewritten as:
Z θt Z θx
Iabs,d = 0.5Id A ap [ η(θ)cosθdθ + η(θ)cosθdθ] = 0.5Id A ap (Cd1 + Cd2 ) (31)
0 0
Z θt
and Cd1 = η(θ)cosθdθ (32)
0
Z θx
Cd2 = η(θ)cosθdθ (33)
0
Given θa and Ct , θt of CPCs can be obtained based on the equation of CPC reflectors, then Cd1
and Cd2 can be obtained based the method aforementioned. At any moment of a day, θin and θ in
Equation (29) can be calculated from solar geometry [15]. Knowing the time variation of Ib in a day,
the daily radiation on EST is obtained by integrating Equation (29) over the daytime [17,19]:

Zt0
Hday = A ap η(θ) g(θin ) Ib cosθin dt + 0.5Hd A ap (Cd1 + Cd2 ) (34)
− t0

and the annual radiation on EST (Sa ) is estimated by summing Hday in all days of a year. Given the
monthly radiation on the horizon, the monthly average daily sky diffuse radiation, Hd , time variation
of Ib in a day can be found [21].
In the following analysis, the angle step to find η(θ) is taken to be 1◦ , the time step for calculating
Hday is set to be 1 min, the η(θ) of CPCs at any moment is estimated based on θ at the moment and
a linear extrapolation technique. The monthly horizontal radiation used in this work was taken from
the book edited by Chen [22].
To compare the performance of six CPCs in terms of Sa , two cases with β being yearly fixed
(1T-CPC) and yearly adjusted four times at three tilts (3T-CPC), are considered. For 1T-CPCs, β = λ,
θa = 26◦ [23], whereas for 3T-CPCs, β = λ during periods of 23 days around both equinoxes, and
adjusted to λ + 23 and λ – 23 in winters and summers, respectively [19,20]. Five sites with typical
climatic conditions (Beijing: dry land with abundant solar resources; Shanghai, a site climatically
characterized by rainy winters and sunny summers; Lhasa: a highland with extremely abundant solar
resources; Chongqing: a site with poor solar resources; Kunming, a site climatically characterized by
sunny winters and rainy summers) are selected as the representatives for the analysis.

5.1. Annual Collectible Radiation on All-Glass Evacuated Solar Tube of 1T-CPCs

Table 5 presents the annual radiation on EST of 1T-CPCs. It is seen that, regardless of whether full
CPCs or truncated CPCs are used, the annual radiation collected by CPC-4 is always highest. For full
CPCs with identical θa , the annual radiation collected by CPC-5 is the lowest; whereas for truncated
CPCs with identical θa and Ct , the annual radiation by the CPC-1 is the lowest (Figures 10 and 11).

Table 5. Annual radiation on EST of 1T-CPCs with θa = 26◦ and ρ = 0.92 (MJ/m).

Full 1T-CPCs Truncated 1T-CPCs (Ct = 1.8)

Site
CPC-1 CPC-2 CPC-3 CPC-4 CPC-5 CPC-6 CPC-1 CPC-2 CPC-3 CPC-4 CPC-5 CPC-6
Beijing 1322 1252 1289 1327 1075 1106 1013 1161 1151 1166 1069 1101
Shanghai 1004 949 977 1007 816 838 800 899 888 902 813 836
Lhasa 2051 1943 1999 2060 1669 1715 1558 1789 1773 1797 1656 1704
Chongqing 728 683 705 726 589 606 597 659 649 659 588 605
Kunming 1293 1219 1256 1294 1048 1078 1017 1143 1130 1145 1042 1073
Energies 2016, 9, 795 12 of 16
Energies 2016, 9, 795 
Energies 2016, 9, 795  12 of 16 
12 of 16 

CPC-1
CPC-1
1300
1300
CPC-2
CPC-2
1250
1250 CPC-3
CPC-3
1200
1200 CPC-4
CPC-4
1150
1150 CPC-5
CPC-5
1100
1100 CPC-6
CPC-6

Sa(MJ/m)
Sa(MJ/m)
1050
1050
1000
1000
950
950
900
900
850 Full 1T-CPCs,  =26 o; Beijing
o
850 Full 1T-CPCs, aa=26 ; Beijing
800
800
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
  
  
Figure 10. Effects of reflectivity on the annual collectible radiation on EST of full 1T‐CPCs. 
Figure 10. Effects of reflectivity on the annual collectible radiation on EST of full 1T-CPCs.
Figure 10. Effects of reflectivity on the annual collectible radiation on EST of full 1T‐CPCs. 
CPC-1
1200 CPC-1
CPC-2
1200
1150
CPC-3
CPC-2
CPC-4
CPC-3
1150
1100
CPC-5
CPC-4
1100
1050 CPC-6
CPC-5
CPC-6
Sa (MJ/m)

1050
1000
Sa (MJ/m)

1000950

950900

900850

850800 o
Truncated 1T-CPCs,a=26 , Ct=1.8, Biejing
750
800 o
0.65 0.70Truncated
0.75 0.80  =26 0.85
1T-CPCs, , Ct=1.8, Biejing
0.90 0.95
a
750   
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95


Figure 11. As in Figure 10 but for truncated 1T‐CPCs.   
Figure 11. As in Figure 10 but for truncated 1T‐CPCs. 
5.2. Annual Collectible Radiation on All‐Glass Evacuated Solar Tube of 3T‐CPCs 
Figure 11. As in Figure 10 but for truncated 1T-CPCs.

5.2. Annual Collectible Radiation on All‐Glass Evacuated Solar Tube of 3T‐CPCs 
Table 6 lists the annual collectible radiation on EST of 3T‐CPCs. It is seen that, for full CPCs with 
5.2. Annual Collectible Radiation on All-Glass Evacuated Solar Tube of 3T-CPCs
identical θa, the CPC‐1 yearly concentrates the most solar radiation, followed by CPC‐4 and CPC‐3, 
Table 6 lists the annual collectible radiation on EST of 3T‐CPCs. It is seen that, for full CPCs with 
and the CPC‐5 concentrates the least radiation. The effect of the reflector’s reflectivity on the S
Table 6 lists the annual collectible radiation on EST of 3T-CPCs. It is seen that, for full aCPCs  of full with
identical θ a, the CPC‐1 yearly concentrates the most solar radiation, followed by CPC‐4 and CPC‐3, 
CPCs is presented in Figure 12 and the same situation as seen in Table 5 was found. This is because, 
identical θa , the CPC-1 yearly concentrates the most solar radiation, followed by CPC-4 and CPC-3,
and the CPC‐5 concentrates the least radiation. The effect of the reflector’s reflectivity on the S
given θ a, the geometric concentration factor of full CPC‐1 is the largest and that of full CPC‐5/6 is the  a of full 
and the CPC-5 concentrates the least radiation. The effect of the reflector’s reflectivity on the Sa of full
CPCs is presented in Figure 12 and the same situation as seen in Table 5 was found. This is because, 
smallest (Table 1). It is also seen that, for truncated CPCs with identical θa and Ct, the annual radiation 
CPCs is presented in Figure 12 and the same situation as seen in Table 5 was found. This is because,
given θ a, the geometric concentration factor of full CPC‐1 is the largest and that of full CPC‐5/6 is the 
collected  by  CPC‐4  is  the  highest,  followed  by  CPC‐3,  and  the  CPC‐1  annually  collected  least 
given θa , the geometric concentration factor of full CPC-1 is the largest and that of full CPC-5/6 is the
radiation for the case of  ρ  > 0.85 otherwise CPC‐5 annually collects the least radiation (Figure 13). 
smallest (Table 1). It is also seen that, for truncated CPCs with identical θ a and Ct, the annual radiation 
smallest (Table 1). It is also seen that, for truncated
Effect of geometric concentration factor on S
CPCs with identical θa and Ct , the annual radiation
collected  by  CPC‐4  is  the  highest,  followed a of truncated 3T‐CPCs is shown in Figure 14, and it is 
by  CPC‐3,  and  the  CPC‐1  annually  collected  least 
collected
seen by CPC-4
that  the  Sis
radiation for the case of  the highest, followed
ρ  increases 
a  linearly  with  by
the CPC-3, and
increase  the
of  C CPC-1 annually collected least radiation
t,  the  CPC‐4  annually  concentrates  most 
> 0.85 otherwise CPC‐5 annually collects the least radiation (Figure 13). 
forEffect of geometric concentration factor on S
the case of ρ > 0.85 otherwise CPC-5 annually
radiation and CPC‐1 annually collects the least radiation.  collects the least radiation (Figure 13). Effect of
a of truncated 3T‐CPCs is shown in Figure 14, and it is 
geometric concentration
seen  that  factor
the  Sa  linearly  on Sawith 
increases  of truncated 3T-CPCs
the  increase  of  Ct, is shown
the  CPC‐4  inannually 
Figure 14, and it is seen
concentrates  that
most 
Table 6. Annual radiation on EST of 3T‐CPCs with θ
Sa linearly increases with the increase of Ct , the CPC-4 annually
theradiation and CPC‐1 annually collects the least radiation.  a = 20° and  ρ  = 0.92 (MJ/m).
concentrates   radiation and
most
CPC-1 annually collects the least radiation.
Full 3T‐CPCs  Truncated 3T‐CPCs (Ct = 2) 
Site 
Table 6. Annual radiation on EST of 3T‐CPCs with θa = 20° and CPC‐3 
CPC‐1  CPC‐2  CPC‐3  CPC‐4  CPC‐5  CPC‐6  CPC‐1  CPC‐2  ρ  = 0.92 (MJ/m).
CPC‐4  CPC‐5 
  CPC‐6 
Beijing  1981  1726  1818  1871 
Table 6. Annual radiation on EST1519  1597 
of 3T-CPCs 1328 
with θa = 1384 
20 ◦ and 1426 
ρ = 0.921442  1341 
(MJ/m). 1398 
Shanghai  1446  1265  Full 3T‐CPCs 
1331  1369  1112  1167  1008  Truncated 3T‐CPCs (C
1046  1071  1085  t = 2) 
994  1036 
Site 
Lhasa  CPC‐1 
3158  CPC‐2 
2743  CPC‐3 
2894  CPC‐4 
2979  CPC‐5 
2417  CPC‐6 
2544  2076 
CPC‐1  2168 
CPC‐2  2243 
CPC‐3  2266 
CPC‐4  2123 
CPC‐5  2214 
CPC‐6 
Chongqing  1981 
Beijing  996  1726  Full
920 3T-CPCs
875  1818  946 
1871  768 
1519  805 
1597  723 
1328  Truncated
746 
1384  1426 3T-CPCs
759  1442 (Ct696 
770  =1341 
2) 724 
1398 
Site
Kunming  1446 
Shanghai  1891  1265 
CPC-1 1650  1331 
CPC-2 1739  CPC-4
CPC-3 1789  CPC-5
1369  1452  CPC-6
1112  1526 
1167  1295 
1008 
CPC-1 1345  1383 
1046  CPC-3
CPC-2 1399 
1071  CPC-4 1291 
1085  CPC-5 994  1346 
1036 
CPC-6
Lhasa  3158  2743  2894  2979  2417  2544  2076  2168  2243  2266  2123  2214 
Beijing 1981 1726 1818 1871 1519 1597 1328 1384 1426 1442 1341 1398
Chongqing  996  875  920  946  768  805  723  746  759  770  696  724 
Shanghai 1446 1265 1331 1369 1112 1167 1008 1046 1071 1085 994 1036
Kunming  1891  1650  1739  1789  1452  1526  1295  1345  1383  1399  1291  1346 
Lhasa 3158 2743 2894 2979 2417 2544 2076 2168 2243 2266 2123 2214
Chongqing 996 875 920 946 768 805 723 746 759 770 696 724
Kunming 1891 1650 1739 1789 1452 1526 1295 1345 1383 1399 1291 1346
Energies 2016, 9, 795 13 of 16
Energies 2016, 9, 795  13 of 16 
Energies 2016, 9, 795  13 of 16 
Energies 2016, 9, 795  13 of 16 
In practical applications, CPCs are usually truncated due to the lesser contribution of the upper 
In practical applications, CPCs are usually truncated due to the lesser contribution of the upper
In practical applications, CPCs are usually truncated due to the lesser contribution of the upper 
In practical applications, CPCs are usually truncated due to the lesser contribution of the upper 
portion of reflectors to radiation collection [24], therefore, among the six CPCs investigated in this 
portion of reflectors to radiation collection [24], therefore, among the six CPCs investigated in this
portion of reflectors to radiation collection [24], therefore, among the six CPCs investigated in this 
portion of reflectors to radiation collection [24], therefore, among the six CPCs investigated in this 
work, CPC‐4 is the optimal design for concentrating solar radiation on the EST and CPC‐1 is the most 
work, CPC-4 is the optimal design for concentrating solar radiation on the EST and CPC-1 is the most
work, CPC‐4 is the optimal design for concentrating solar radiation on the EST and CPC‐1 is the most 
work, CPC‐4 is the optimal design for concentrating solar radiation on the EST and CPC‐1 is the most 
inferior solution in terms of annual collectible radiation. 
inferior solution in terms of annual collectible radiation.
inferior solution in terms of annual collectible radiation. 
inferior solution in terms of annual collectible radiation. 
CPC-1
CPC-1
CPC-2
1900 CPC-1
1900 CPC-2
CPC-3
1900 CPC-2
1800 CPC-3
1800 CPC-4
CPC-3
1800 CPC-4
CPC-5
1700 CPC-4
1700 CPC-5
CPC-6
1700
1600
CPC-5
CPC-6
(MJ/m)

1600 CPC-6
(MJ/m)

1600
(MJ/m)

1500
1500
1500
a

1400
a aS

1400
SS

1400
1300
1300
1300
1200 o
Full 3T-CPCs,a=20 o,Beijing
1200
1200 Full 3T-CPCs, =20o ,Beijing
1100 Full 3T-CPCs,aa=20 ,Beijing
1100 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92
1100
0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92
0.74 0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.92

 
Figure 12. As in Figure 10 but for full 3T‐CPCs. 
   
Figure 12. As in Figure 10 but for full 3T-CPCs.
Figure 12. As in Figure 10 but for full 3T‐CPCs. 
Figure 12. As in Figure 10 but for full 3T‐CPCs. 
CPC-1
1450 CPC-1
CPC-2
CPC-1
1450 CPC-2
1450
1400 CPC-3
CPC-2
1400 CPC-3
CPC-4
1400
1350 CPC-3
1350 CPC-4
CPC-5
1350
1300 CPC-4
CPC-5
CPC-6
1300
1300
CPC-5
1250 CPC-6
(MJ/m)

1250 CPC-6
(MJ/m)

1250
1200
(MJ/m)

1200
1200
1150
a aSa

1150
SS

1150
1100
1100
1100
1050
1050 o
Truncated 3T-CPC;a=20 o;Ct=2;Beijing
1050
1000
1000 Truncated 3T-CPC; =20o ;Ct=2;Beijing
1000
950
Truncated 3T-CPC;aa=20 ;Ct=2;Beijing
950 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
950
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
  

Figure 13. As in Figure 10 but for truncated 3T‐CPCs.    
Figure 13. As in Figure 10 but for truncated 3T‐CPCs. 
Figure 13. As in Figure 10 but for truncated 3T-CPCs.
Figure 13. As in Figure 10 but for truncated 3T‐CPCs. 
CPC-1
CPC-1
CPC-2
1640 CPC-1
1620
1640 CPC-2
CPC-3
1640 CPC-2
1600
1620 CPC-3
CPC-4
1620
1580
1600 CPC-3
1600 CPC-4
CPC-5
1560
1580
1580
CPC-4
1540
1560 CPC-5
CPC-6
1560
1520
1540
CPC-5
1540 CPC-6
1500
1520 CPC-6
Sa(MJ/m)

1520
1480
1500
a a(MJ/m)

1500
(MJ/m)

1460
1480
1480
1440
1460
1460
1420
1440
SS

1440
1400
1420
1420
1380
1400
1400
1360
1380
1380
1340
1360 o
1360 Truncated 3T-CPCs,a=20 ,=0.92,Beijing
1320
1340 o
1340 Truncated 3T-CPCs, =20o ,=0.92,Beijing
1320 Truncated 3T-CPCs,aa=20 ,=0.92,Beijing
1320 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
2.0 2.1 Ct
2.2 2.3 2.4
  C
 
  C tt
Figure 14. Effects of geometric concentration on Sa of truncated 3T‐CPCs. 
Figure 14. Effects of geometric concentration on Saa of truncated 3T‐CPCs. 
Figure 14. Effects of geometric concentration on S  of truncated 3T‐CPCs. 
Figure 14. Effects of geometric concentration on Sa of truncated 3T-CPCs.
 
  
Energies 2016, 9, 795 14 of 16

6. Conclusions
CPC reflectors always extend their pathways to the absorber based on which the CPC is designed,
but for all-glass EST, the tubular absorber is enclosed within the cover tube, thus, gaps between
reflectors and inner tube are required for allowing vacuum space. According to the design principle of
ideal solar concentrators and the geometric characteristics of the EST, there are six CPCs most suitable
to concentrate solar radiation on an EST.
From the point of view of the optical loss through gaps of CPCs, CPC-6, designed based on a fictitious
“hat” shaped absorber with a “V” groove at the bottom, is the optimal design due to the absence of gap
loss, followed by CPC-4, designed based on a fictitious “ice-cream” shaped receiver, and CPC-1, designed
based on the cover tube, has the maximum gap loss and thus is the most inferior design.
From the point of view of optical efficiency averaged for radiation over the acceptance angle,
CPC-6 is the optimal design regardless whether CPCs are truncated or not, followed by CPC-4 for
truncated CPCs and CPC-3 for full CPCs, and CPC-1 is the most inferior solution. It is also found that,
for truncated CPCs, CPC-6 is the most efficient for the radiation within the acceptance angle (θ < θa )
but the least efficient when θ > θa as compared to other designs. This means that, for high temperature
applications, CPC-6 and CPC-4 are advisable due to the high solar flux on the EST resulting from the
high optical efficiency for radiation within the acceptance angle.
From the point of view of annual collectible radiation on EST of CPCs, in the case where the
tilt-angle of CPCs’ aperture is yearly fixed, CPC-4, regardless whether it is truncated, annually collects
the most radiation and thus is an optimal solution; for full CPCs, CPC-5 is the worst solution, and for
truncated CPCs, CPC-1 is the worst design. In the case of tilt-angle of CPCs’ aperture being yearly
adjusted four times at three tilts, for full CPCs with given θa , CPC-1 concentrates the most radiation
due to its largest geometric concentration, and CPC-5 collects the least radiation; whereas for truncated
CPCs with identical θa and Ct , CPC-4 is the best solution, and CPC-1 is the inferior solution. In practical
applications, CPCs are usually truncated to save reflector materials and reduce the depth of CPCs due to
the lesser contribution of upper reflectors to radiation concentration, therefore, it is concluded that CPC-4
is the optimal design, and CPC-1 is the worst solution in terms of annual collectible radiation on the EST.

Acknowledgments: This work is partial fulfillment of the funded research program No.51466016, financially
supported by Natural Science Foundation of China.
Author Contributions: Runsheng Tang is sponsor of the work; Qiang Wang is responsible for theoretical analysis
of optical loss through gases of CPCs and theoretical calculation of annual solar collectible radiation; Jinfu Wang,
a student for Master program, is responsible for the ray-tracing analysis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclatures

Aap area of CPCs’ aperture, m2

Cg geometric concentration of full CPCs, dimensionless
Cideal geometric concentration of ideal CPCs (1/sin θa ), dimensionless
Ct geometric concentration of truncated CPCs, dimensionless
Fa-b radiative shape factor from surface a to surface b, dimensionless
H depth of CPC, mm
Hday daily radiation on unit length of solar tubes, MJ/m
Hd daily sky diffuse radiation on the horizon, J/m2
h depth of V-groove, mm
I instantaneous radiation intensity, W/m2
i directional intensity of sky diffuse radiation, W/m2 ·rad
Pabs,d perimeter of absorber based on which CPC is designed, mm
Pabs,d perimeter of actual absorber of CPC with EST (2πr), mm
Energies 2016, 9, 795 15 of 16

R radius of the cover tube, mm

r radius of the inner tube, mm
Sa annual collectible radiation on solar tubes, MJ/m
t solar time, s

Greek Letters

β tilt-angle of the aperture of CPCs from the horizon, degree

λ site latitude, degree
φ angle given by cosφ = Rr , radian
ϕ the angle used to describe the coordinate of any point on reflectors of CPCs, radian
η (θ) optical efficiency factor, dimensionless
θ projection incident angle of solar rays on the cross-section of CPC-trough, radian
θa acceptance half-angle of CPCs, degree
θin real incidence angle of solar rays on the aperture of CPCs, radian
θt edge-ray angle of truncated CPCs, degree
ρ reflectivity of reflectors, dimensionless; a parameter to describe coordinates of points
on reflectors
ψ Opening angle of “V” groove, radian

Subscripts

abs absorber
ap aperture of CPCs
b beam radiation
d sky diffuse radiation
day daily solar gain

References
1. Xiao, C.; Luo, H.; Tang, R.; Zhong, H. Solar thermal utilization in China. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 1549–1556.
[CrossRef]
2. Li, Z.; Zhong, H.; Tang, R.; Liu, T.; Gao, W.; Zhang, Y. Experimental investigation on solar drying of
salted greengages. Renew. Energy 2006, 31, 837–847. [CrossRef]
3. Tang, R.; Yang, Y.; Gao, W. Comparative studies on thermal performance of water-in-glass evacuated tube
solar heaters with different collector tilt-angles. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 1381–1387. [CrossRef]
4. Rabl, A. Optical and thermal properties of compound parabolic concentrators. Sol. Energy 1976, 18, 497–510.
[CrossRef]
5. Rabl, A.; Ogallagher, J.; Winston, R. Design and test of non-evacuated solar collectors with compound
parabolic concentrators. Sol. Energy 1980, 25, 335–351. [CrossRef]
6. Grass, C.; Schoelkopf, M.; Staudacher, L.; Hacker, Z. Comparison of the optics of non-tracking and novel
types of tracking solar thermal collectors for process heat applications up to 300 ◦ C. Sol. Energy 2004, 76,
207–215. [CrossRef]
7. Baum, H.P.; Gordon, J.M. Geometric characteristics of ideal non-imaging (CPC) solar collectors with
cylindrical absorber. Sol. Energy 1984, 33, 455–458. [CrossRef]
8. Mill, D.R.; Bassett, I.M.; Derrick, G.H. Relative cost-effectiveness of CPC reflector designs suitable for
evacuated absorber tube solar collectors. Sol. Energy 1986, 36, 199–206. [CrossRef]
9. Mill, D.R.; Monger, A.; Morrison, G.L. Comparison of fixed asymmetrical and symmetrical reflectors for
evacuated tube solar receivers. Sol. Energy 1994, 53, 91–104. [CrossRef]
10. Buttinger, F.; Beikircher, T.; Proll, M.; Scholkopf, M. Development of a new flat stationary evacuated
CPC-collector for process heat applications. Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 1166–1174. [CrossRef]
Energies 2016, 9, 795 16 of 16

11. Oommen, R.; Jayaraman, S. Development and performance analysis of compound parabolic solar
concentrators with reduced gap losses—Oversized reflectors. Energy Convers. Manag. 2001, 42, 1379–1399.
[CrossRef]
12. Oommen, R.; Jayaraman, S. Development and performance analysis of compound parabolic solar
concentrators with reduced gap losses—“V” groove reflector. Renew. Energy 2002, 27, 259–275. [CrossRef]
13. Tang, R.; Yang, Y. Nocturnal reverse flow in water-in-glass evacuated tube solar water heaters. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2014, 80, 173–177. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, Q.Z.; Zhao, K.; Zhang, B.C.; Wang, L.F.; Shen, Z.L.; Zhou, Z.J.; Lu, D.Q.; Xie, D.L.; Li, B.F. New cermet
solar coatings for solar thermal electricity applications. Sol. Energy 1998, 64, 109–114. [CrossRef]
15. Rabl, A. Active Solar Collectors and Their Applications; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1985.
16. Rabl, A.; Goodman, N.B.; Winston, R. Practical design considerations for CPC solar collectors. Sol. Energy
1979, 22, 373–381. [CrossRef]
17. Xu, R.; Zhang, Q.; Tang, R. Optical performance comparison of six ACPCs for concentrating radiation on
all-glass evacuated solar tubes. Adv. Mater. Res. 2015, 1092–1093, 52–58. [CrossRef]
18. Gordon, J.M. Simple string construction method for tailored edge-ray concentrators in maximum-flux solar
energy collectors. Sol. Energy 1996, 56, 279–284. [CrossRef]
19. Tang, R.; Wang, J. A note on multiple reflections of radiation within CPCs and its effect on calculations of
energy collection. Renew. Energy 2013, 57, 490–496. [CrossRef]
20. Tang, R.; Liu, X. Optical performance and design optimization of V-trough concentrators for photovoltaic
applications. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 2154–2166. [CrossRef]
21. Collares-Pereira, M.; Rabl, A. The average distribution of solar radiation: correlation between diffuse and
hemispherical and between hourly and daily insolation values. Sol. Energy 1979, 22, 155–164. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, Z.Y. The Climatic Summarization of Yunnan; Weather Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2001.
23. Tang, R.; Wu, M.; Yu, Y.; Li, M. Optical performance of fixed east-west aligned CPCs used in China.
Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 1837–1841. [CrossRef]
24. Carvalho, M.J.; Collares-Pereira, M.; Gordon, J.M.; Ranl, A. Truncation of CPC solar collectors and its effect
on energy collection. Sol. Energy 1985, 35, 393–399. [CrossRef]

© 2016 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).