Seasonal Tracker Design:

To find out the range of the angle β that would be needed to tilt the solar concentrator we used
the following equations:
β =∅−δ
284 + 𝑛
𝛿 = 23.45 ∗ sin⁡{360 ∗ ( )}
360
where β is the angle measured from the horizontal, ∅ is the Latitude of where we will be testing the PV
concentrator and 𝑛 is the day of the year and Φ Latitude 24.946(Karachi) to be put in table

Using these two equations we get the tilt angles listed in Fig zTable x.

Month Angle(β)/deg

January 45.85

February 37.95

March 27.35

April 15.55

May 6.15

June 1.85

July 3.75

August 11.45

September 22.75

October 34.55

November 43.85

December 47.95
Fig z shows the tilt angle for each month
The basic design assembly was made using Creo Parametric 5.0. Fig1 and Fig2 shows the tracker
at its minimum and maximum tilting position. The assembly was designed for 𝛃 = 50°.

Fig1

Fig2
From the available stroke lengths of the linear actuators available. And for the tracker to move
50° from horizontal. The stroke length for the linear actuator was found out to be 𝑠 = 12𝑖𝑛. Commented [MUS1]: Language issue
To carry out structural analysis of the assembly we used BEAM interface in COMSOL
Multiphysics to create a 3D part using line segments. To account for the maximum loads.
Tracker was made at its maximum tilt angle of 𝛃 = 50° since it will result in the maximum
moment arm for the weight of the system.. Fig x shows the geometry. Different cross-sections
were used for the tracker. Table x below shows the cross-sections used.

Fig x

Part Cross section Fig

Base Square hollow 5in zz(a)1 Commented [MUS2]: Thicknesses?

Actuator Circular hollow 0.75in zz(b)2

Shaft Solid circular 1in zz(3c)

Frame 1 Square hollow 2in 4Similar to above

Frame 2 L Solid 1.5in 5

Mirror frame Square hollow 1in 6

Mirror supports Rectangle bar⁡1in⁡x 1⁄4in 7

Table x
1 2 3 Commented [MUS3]: Change to a,b,c

4 5 6

Boundary conditions applied Applied loads included the weight of the mirrors, weight of the PV
panel and Heat Exchanger, weight of the Frame itself and wind load in negative x-axis. We
computed results on different mesh sizes until the results were consistent. The final mesh size
was taken to be 0.025m. Fig a and Fig b shows the structural analysis results.
 Fig a shows the total tensile and compressive stresses

Fig b shows the total deformation

The maximum stress was found out to be 40MPa which is less than the yield stress i.e. 276MPa.
Hence, the design was considered suitable for the application. With a factor of safety being:

𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟⁡𝑜𝑓⁡𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 = 276⁄40 = 6.9

Althought the factor of safety is high, the main concern in the project was to keep the deflection
to a low value to ensure good concentrator performance.

Design Calculations:

Fig shows the free body diagram of the seasonal tracker.

Total weight of the frame was calculated using line integration in COMSOL Multiphysics.
𝑚
𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒 = 53.1𝑘𝑔 ∗ 9.81 = 521𝑁⁡
𝑠2
Average weight of the mirror was calculated from:
(5𝑚𝑚 ∗ 1320𝑚𝑚 ∗ 1422𝑚𝑚 ∗ 2.5) 𝑚
𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ( ) 𝑘𝑔 ∗ 9.81 2 = 230𝑁
1000000 𝑠
https://glassdomain.co.uk/blog/glass-weight-calculator/
Total weight of the PV panel and the heat exchanger filled with water was found to be:
𝑚
𝐹𝑃𝑉,𝐻𝑋 = (14𝑘𝑔 + 22𝑘𝑔) ∗ 9.81 = 353𝑁
𝑠2
For a windy day in Karachi, Average value of wind speed was taken to be:
𝑘𝑔
𝑣𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 = 10𝑚𝑝ℎ = 4.47 𝑚⁄𝑠 , 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 1.229
𝑚2
https://weatherspark.com/y/106467/Average-Weather-in-Karachi-Pakistan-Year-Round
Projected Area:

𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 52 cos 15 ∗ 56 = 2725.5⁡𝑖𝑛2 = 1.758𝑚2

Force due to wind:

𝑘𝑔
𝐹𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 = 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∗ 𝐴𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ∗ 𝑣𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 2 = 1.229 ∗ 1.758𝑚2 ∗ (4.47 𝑚⁄𝑠)2 = 45.6𝑁
𝑚2
Coefficient of friction between Steel and concrete was taken as:
𝜇 = 0.62
https://tinyurl.com/w34xs38
Actuator force required:

∑ 𝐹𝑧 = 0

𝐹𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 + 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 sin(38.5) = 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 45.6 + 0.622𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 − − − −1

∑ 𝐹𝑦 = 0

𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 + 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 cos(38.5) = 𝐹𝑃𝑉,𝐻𝑋 + (𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 ∗ 2) + 𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒

𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 + 0.783𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 353𝑁 + (230 ∗ 2) + 521𝑁𝑁

𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 + 0.783𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 1334𝑁 − − − − − 2

𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝜇 ∗ 𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = 0.62𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 − − − −3

Putting 3 in 1
0.62𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = 45.6 + 0.622𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟
(45.6 + 0.622𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 )
𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = − − − − − −4
0.62
Putting 4 in 2
(45.6 + 0.622𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 )
+ 0.783𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 1334𝑁
0.62
𝑭𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓 = 𝟕𝟎𝟓. 𝟗 ≈ 𝟕𝟎𝟔𝑵 − − − − − 𝟓
Normal Force:
Using equation 4
(45.6 + 0.622𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 ) {45.6 + (0.622 ∗ 706)}
𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = = 𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 = = 782𝑁
0.62 0.62
Tracker Base:

∑ 𝑀𝑜 = 0

(𝐹𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝑥1 ) + (𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 cos(38.5) ∗ 𝑥2 ) = (𝐹𝑃𝑉,𝐻𝑋 ∗ 𝑥3 ) + (𝐹𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒 ∗ 𝑥4 ) +

(𝐹𝑚𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 ∗ 𝑥5 ∗ 2) + (𝐹𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑑 ∗ 𝑥6 ) + (𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 sin(38.5) ∗ 𝑥7 )

(782 ∗ 𝑥1 ) + (448 ∗ 10.68) = (353 ∗ 3.83) + (521 ∗ 16.38) + (230 ∗ 22.7 ∗ 2)

(45.6 ∗ 40.62) + (357 ∗ 28.31)
𝒙𝟏 = 𝟑𝟓. 𝟐𝒊𝒏 ≈ 𝟑𝒇𝒕

Stress at shaft:

Fig shows the free body diagram of the shaft

For a circular shaft of one-inch diameter:
1 4 1
𝐼= 𝜋𝑟 = 𝜋(0.5)4 = 0.049087𝑖𝑛4 = 2.04x10−8 𝑚4
4 4
 𝑐 = 0.5𝑖𝑛 = 0.0127𝑚
Each protruding end of the shaft can be modelled as a cantilever beam. Whereas, Moment at
support A is given as:
𝑀𝐴 = 550𝑁 ∗ 6𝑖𝑛 = 550𝑁 ∗ 0.1524𝑚 = 83.82𝑁. 𝑚
To find the maximum tensile and compressive stresses induced due to the shear load:
𝑴𝒄 𝟖𝟑. 𝟖𝟐𝑵. 𝒎 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟐𝟕𝒎
𝝈= = = 𝟓𝟐. 𝟐𝑴𝑷𝒂
𝑰 𝟐. 𝟎𝟒𝐱𝟏𝟎−𝟖 𝒎𝟒
Maximum tensile and compressive stress is less than the yield stress i.e. 276MPa. Hence, the
diameter of the shaft was considered suitable for the application. With a factor of safety being:

𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟⁡𝑜𝑓⁡𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 = 276⁄52.2 = 5.3