Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Evaluation of CPC-collector designs for stand-alone,

roof- or wall installation
M. Adsten a, A. Helgesson b, B. Karlsson b,*

a
The Ångström Laboratory, Uppsala University, Box 534, S-751 21 Uppsala, Sweden
b
Vattenfall Utveckling AB, 814 26 Älvkarleby, Sweden

Received 25 November 2004; received in revised form 2 December 2004; accepted 26 April 2005
Available online 29 August 2005

Communicated by: Associate Editor Brian Norton

Abstract

An asymmetrically truncated non-tracking compound parabolic concentrator type collector design concept has been
developed. The collector type has a bi-facial absorber and is optimised for northern latitudes. The concept is based on a
general reflector form that is truncated to fit different installation conditions. In this paper collectors for stand-alone,
roof and wall mounting are studied. Prototypes of six different collectors have been built and outdoor tested. The eval-
uation gave high annual energy outputs for a roof mounted collector, 925 MJ/m2, and a stand-alone collector with Tef-
lon, 781 MJ/m2, at an operating temperature of Top = 75 °C. A special design for roofs facing east or west was also
investigated and gave an annual energy output of 349 (east) and 436 (west) MJ/m2 at Top = 75 °C. If a high solar frac-
tion over the year is the objective, a load adapted collector with a high output during spring/fall and a low output dur-
ing summer can be used. Such a collector had an output of 490 MJ/m2 at Top = 75 °C. Finally a concentrating collector
for wall mounting was evaluated with an estimated annual output of 194 MJ/m2 at Top = 75 °C. The concentrator
design concept can also be used for concentrators for PV-modules.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Asymmetric CPC collector; Collector performance/evaluation; Building integration

1. Introduction latter track is followed and an attempt is made to reduce

The benefit/cost ratio of solar energy can be im-
proved in two ways; either by increasing the efficiency
or by decreasing the investment cost. In this work the
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 26 835 29; fax: +46 26 836
70.
E-mail address: bjorn.karlsson@vattenfall.com (B. Karls-
son).
the investment cost of the solar collector without loosing
too much in performance. The application of booster
reflectors between the collector rows in a flat plate col-
lector field has previously been used to reduce the energy
cost and the required ground area for a given load (Per-
ers and Karlsson, 1993). A further development of this
concept has lead to a compound parabolic concentrator
(CPC) collector with an internal reflector where a part of
the relatively expensive absorber area is replaced by
cheap reflector material. A bi-facial absorber in combi-
nation with a lower and/or upper reflector was used to

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2005.04.023
 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647
Nomenclature
Ac aperture area [m2]
b0 incidence angle modifier coefficient
Ci area concentration
cp heat capacity (water) [J/kg K]
Gb beam radiation [W/m2]
Gd diffuse radiation [W/m2]
Kta incidence angle modifier
(mC)e effective collector thermal capacitance [J/
m2 K]
P power [W/m2]
Q energy output during a 10 min interval [MJ]
Rsol solar reflectance
t time [s]
Tsol solar transmittance
minimise the absorber area. At high latitudes the annual
solar radiation is asymmetric over the year, implying
that the collector should be asymmetrically truncated
to maximise the yield. These conclusions have lead to
the development of a design concept with an asymmetri-
cally truncated CPC-collector with a bi-facial absorber
that does not need any tracking. Since the main objec-
tive was to maximise the reflector to absorber area for
a given ground area, this collector is called a Maximum
Reflector Collector, MaReCo. In addition to the aim of
reducing the cost of solar energy the intention is also to
indicate the possibility of special collector designs
adapted to various installation- and load conditions.
Several other studies of asymmetric concentrating
collectors have been reported by, for example, Tripanag-
nostopoulos et al. (1999, 2000), Norton et al. (1991),
Welford and Winston (1989), Mills and Giutronich
(1978) and Rabl (1976). A study of ultra flat concentra-
tors suitable for building integration has been made by
Chaves and Collares-Pereira (2000). A collector type
with similar reflector shape but a different absorber set-
up has been developed by Mills and Morrison (2001).
Three large stand-alone ground mounted MaReCo sys-
tems have been constructed and are described in Karls-
son and Wilson (1999).
In this study prototype MaReCos have been built
and outdoor tested under various conditions: stand-
alone on the ground, wall mounted and finally roof
mounted with different tilt and orientation and also for
load adaption. The prototypes were designed for Stock-
holm climatic conditions and tested at the Vattenfall
Laboratory in Älvkarleby (60.6° N, 17.4° E), Sweden.
The results of these outdoor collector tests are described
in this paper. The collector parameters were determined
with dynamic testing described in Perers (1993, 1995,
1997) and Perers and Walletun (1991). The experimental
parameters from the outdoor testing were then fed into a
639
T temperature [K]
Tamb ambient temperature [T]
Tin temperature at collector inlet [K]
Tout temperature at collector outlet [K]
Top operating temperature, average of Tin and
Tout [K]
U1 first order heat loss coefficient [W/m2 K]
V volume (water) during a 10 min interval [m3]
g0b beam efficiency
g0d diffuse efficiency
q density (water) [kg/m3]
h angle of incidence
ht transversal projected angle of incidence
hc acceptance half angle
simulation program to obtain an annual estimate of the
thermal performance.
2. Measurement system and collector evaluation
method
2.1. Measurement system
The measurement facility at the Älvkarleby Labora-
tory has the capacity to evaluate up to 15 collectors at
the same time. It has two main systems, one in which
the inlet temperature at each collector can be controlled
in order to get a variety of operating conditions and one
system where all collectors are connected in series with a
common flow, facilitating comparison measurements. In
the common flow system, which was used in these mea-
surements, the water is cooled after each collector to get
the same inlet temperature for all collectors. With this
setup, where all collectors have the same water flow,
uncertainties in flow measurements have no affect on
the comparison measurements. The collector inlet and
outlet temperatures were registered together with the
flow of water/glycol. The ambient temperature and solar
radiation (global and diffuse) measured on a horizontal
surface and in the collector plane were recorded. The
radiation was also measured with a sun tracking pyra-
nometer and a tracking pyrheliometer. The diffuse radi-
ation was measured by using a shadow ring. All data
were sampled with a Campbell Scientific data logger
each 10th second and the sampled values were stored
as 10 min mean values.
2.2. Collector evaluation method
The collected data were then analysed with statistics-
and calculation software. In the analysis the incidence
640
angle for beam radiation in the collector plane was cal-
culated together with the monitored energy output from
the prototypes. The collector parameters used to esti-
mate the annually delivered energy were determined
with the dynamical testing model using Multiple Linear
Regression, MLR, on measured data. The method of
dynamical testing is further described in Perers (1993,
1997) and Perers and Walletun (1991). The dynamic test-
ing model has been compared to other test methods and
is considered theoretically complete taking almost all
effects into account (Nayak and Amer, 2000).
Flow, temperatures and irradiation were measured
during a number of days with various combinations of
irradiation and collector temperatures. Sampling of the
studied parameters were made each 10th second. From
these data, the monitored energy output during a
10 min interval, Q, was calculated according to
Q ¼ qVcp ðT out  T in Þ=Ac
The 10 min monitored energy was then converted to an
average collector output power during the 10 min inter-
val. A model according to Eq. (2) was then used to de-
scribe the collector output power, P, with irradiation
and temperature as input, to obtain the collector param-
eters with MLR.
P ¼ g0b K ta Gb þ g0d Gd  U 1 ððT out þ T in Þ=2  T amb Þ
 ðmCÞe dT =dt
where
K ta ¼ 1  b0 ð1= cos h  1Þ
Kta is a factor that takes the incidence angle dependence
into account (Duffie and Beckman, 1991) and b0 is the
incidence angle modifier coefficient. In this work only
the first order heat loss coefficient, U1, was identified.
In order to check the model different diagrams are
drawn. In a modelled/measured diagram shown in
Fig. 1, the modelled output is plotted as a function of
Modelled power (W/m2)
600
500
400
300
200
100
100 200 300 400
Measured power (W/m2)
Fig. 1. Modelled power as a function of measured power in W/
m2 for the roof mounted MaReCo. The solid line indicates a
linear fit of the data.
M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647
the measured output. Ideally the dots should form a
straight line y = x.
In the next step of the evaluation, the expected an-
nual energy output was estimated by using the experi-
mentally derived collector parameters from Eq. (2)
obtained from the dynamic model in the simulation pro-
gram MINSUN (Chant and Håkansson, 1985). In the
MINSUN version used, the collector array model has
been further developed with additional correction terms
and functions using experience from solar collector test-
ing (Perers, 1993). The MINSUN simulation program
was chosen to perform the calculations presented here
because no knowledge about the system outside the col-
lector array is needed. Instead of detailed system infor-
mation, the program uses a fixed average operating
(heat carrier fluid) temperature ([Tin + Tout]/2). The
well-defined operating conditions make a comparison
ð1Þ between different collectors more straightforward, since
no system effects are included. If the operating tempera-
ture is varying within relatively small limits, the system
can be satisfactorily simulated using the average operat-
ing temperature.
Hourly average climate data for Stockholm, a refer-
ence year based on SMHI (Swedish Meteorological
and Hydrological Institute) measurements 1983–1992,
was used in the MINSUN simulations. Participants in
the International Energy Agency, Solar Heating and
ð2Þ Cooling Programme, compiled this reference year. The
year is characterised by annual global and diffuse irradi-
ation in the horizontal plane of 3.32 and 1.70 GJ/m2
ð3Þ (922 and 471 kW h/m2), respectively. Stockholm is situ-
ated at latitude 59° north and longitude 18° east.
3. Collector design concept
To design the solar concentrator, knowledge about
the angular distribution of the annual solar radiation
is required. The solar radiation incident on a surface
can be projected into two components; one that is in a
plane defined by the concentrator axis and the normal
of the cover glass, the longitudinal plane, and one com-
ponent that is orthogonal to this plane, the transversal
plane, created by the orthogonal of the concentrator axis
in the aperture plane and the normal of the aperture
plane (Duffie and Beckman, 1991). The longitudinal
component of the solar radiation is parallel to the receiv-
ing surface and will therefore not contribute to the en-
ergy gain of the collector. The transversal component
of the solar radiation will contribute to the energy gain
if the projected transversal angle of incidence is within
500 600 700
the acceptance interval of the solar concentrator. The
projected angle of incidence is called the transversal pro-
jected angle of incidence, ht. The annual radiation is then
sorted according to projected angle of incidence and an
annual distribution of irradiation as a function of pro-
 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647
jected angle of incidence is obtained. This distribution is
then used to design the acceptance angles of the
concentrator.
At high latitudes a large part of the projected solar
irradiation in the transversal plane is found around a
peak at the summer solstice. At lower latitudes two
peaks are found; one around the summer solstice and
one at the winter solstice as shown by Rönnelid and
Karlsson (1997). The loss of the winter solstice peak at
high latitudes is due to large solar zenith angles for di-
rect radiation during the winter months causing high
absorption of the direct radiation in the atmosphere
(Rönnelid and Karlsson, 1997). This is an advantage
when designing an asymmetric CPC solar thermal col-
lector since it can have a narrow acceptance half angle
covering the summer solstice peak, which leads to a high
concentration factor. Thus a high fraction of the avail-
able radiation is accepted.
The maximum concentration factor of a two dimen-
sional non-truncated ideal CPC with an acceptance half
angle hc is given by (Welford and Winston, 1989):
1 Part C is a parabolic upper reflector between points 2
Ci ¼ ð4Þ
sin hc
This formula is, however, difficult to apply for an aniso-
tropic light source, instead the ratio of reflector area to
aperture area is used. To design the collector the annual
radiation distribution is used together with the bound-
ary conditions: the time period during the year that
the concentrator is to operate and the limited length of
the reflector in the north–south direction. An ideal
CPC concentrator is designed from the first criterion
that gives the required acceptance angle. The concentra-
tion factor is then given by Eq. (4). To accommodate the
second limitation the concentrator is truncated to the
given reflector width. The truncation is made asymmet-
rical to adapt to the asymmetrical annual radiation dis-
tribution. The stand-alone MaReCo is designed in order
to obtain maximum annual output for a given reflector
width.
For some applications the collector depth, the maxi-
mum distance between the plane of the aperture and the
reflector trough, should be minimised to facilitate build-
ing integration. This limitation is found for the roof- and
wall mounted MaReCo. The reflectors are designed with
a circular part behind the absorber that goes over in a
parabola at a point, which is determined by the optical
axis of the reflector. The same design principle can also
be used to create designs for special conditions. In this
paper collectors designed for a south wall and east/west
facing roofs were evaluated since not all existing build-
ings have roofs facing south. A load adapted collector
was also investigated. In this case a high solar fraction
in the heating system over the whole year is the objec-
tive. The geometry of the collector is designed to have
a high efficiency during spring and fall when the heating
641
demand is high and a low efficiency during summer
when the heating demand is low. The latter condition
prevents over-heating in the system during summer. It
is important that collectors for walls, east/west roofs
and with low summer performance are cheap, since the
output per area unit will be low. The MaReCo collectors
fulfill that requirement due to low materials content.
The general form of the MaReCo reflector trough
(Fig. 2) is designed with two parabolas with their optical
axes defining the lower and upper acceptance angles.
The reflector consists of three parts. Part A is a lower
side parabola extended between points 1 and 4 in
Fig. 2. This parabola has its optical axis along the upper
acceptance angle and its focal point on point 5 (the top
of the absorber). Part B is a circular part between points
1 and 2. This circular part transfers the light onto the
rear side of the absorber. It replaces an absorber fin be-
tween focus and point 2 (indicated by a dotted absorber
between points 2 and 5 in Fig. 2) with the rear side of the
absorber between point 1 and 5. The lower tip of the ab-
sorber can be placed anywhere between points 1 and 2.
and 3 in Fig. 2. This parabola has its optical axis along
the lower acceptance angle and its focus at point 5.
The position of the cover glass, the truncation, (i.e.
the position of points 3 and 4 along the extended parab-
olas in Fig. 2) is determined by varying the position of
the reflector sheet along the extended parabolas to find
the position where maximum annual irradiation, given
by the annual radiation distribution, onto the aperture
is obtained. When designing the collector prototypes this
was achieved by sliding a reflector sheet of a certain
width along the parabola/circle form shown in Fig. 2
and measuring the distance between point 3 and 4 in
Fig. 2, i.e. the width of the cover glass and the aperture
tilt defined in Fig. 2. The glass width and the aperture
tilt angle were fed into the MINSUN energy output
Fig. 2. Sketch of the basic MaReCo design. Part A is the lower
parabolic reflector extended from point 1–4, Part B is the
connecting circular reflector extended from point 1–2, Part C is
the upper parabolic reflector extended from point. The cover
glass is found between points 3 and 4. The position of the cover
glass varies along the extended parabola depending on the
truncation. a is the aperture tilt.
642 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647

simulation program together with the collector parame-
ters to calculate the expected annual delivered energy.
The configuration with the highest annual output is
the optimum position of the reflector sheet in the parab-
ola/circle shape. The non-symmetrical form of the an-
nual irradiation on a northern latitude means that the
front reflector will be longer than the rear reflector.
4. Description of solar collectors and presentation of
results
In this work six different MaReCos have been tested.
The first two are designed for stand-alone ground
mounting and have an aperture tilt of 30°, facing south.
The concentrator shape is the same for the two, but one
collector has a Teflon convection suppression film
around the absorber. Three kinds of roof integrated
MaReCos were tested. One standard roof MaReCo de-
sign for roofs facing south with a tilt of 30° was tested.
The second type is for roofs facing east or west. This
type has a tilt of 25°. The last roof model is load adapted
and the active area is reduced to 1/3 during summer. Fi-
nally an integrated vertical MaReCo for south facing
walls was tested. High fin efficiency Sunstrip absorbers
(Wäckelgård and Hultmark, 1998) and anodised alu-
minium reflectors with solar reflectance Rsol = 0.85
(Hellström et al., 2000) were used in all collectors. The
stand-alone collectors were fitted with expanded poly-
styrene, EPS, insulation of varying thickness (5–15 cm)
along the reflector profile. The EPS also supported the
reflector and determined the shape. The roof- and wall
MaReCos had no thermal insulation. Low iron glass
with normal incidence solar transmittance Tsol = 0.90
(Hellström et al., 2000) was used in the cover glasses.
The collector parameters obtained from the evaluation
are found in Table 1 and are further discussed in the fol-
lowing sections. The low concentration and the use of a
bifacial absorber result in relatively low heat-loss factors
even if the collectors are not insulated.
The stand-alone MaReCo has a rather low zero loss
diffuse efficiency, g0d, as seen in Table 1. This is due to
the high concentration factor, Ci = 2.2. The opposite is
found for the roof MaReCo with Ci = 1.5 and a higher
g0d. The diffuse efficiency, g0d, is generally higher than
expected from the concentration factors and assump-
tions of an isotropic sky. This is explained by non-iso-
tropic sky, which is brighter inside the acceptance
interval of the collectors. The incidence angle modifier
coefficient, b0, of the stand-alone MaReCo without Tef-
lon is very high, b0 = 0.51. The angular dependence
model (Eq. (3)) used is not sufficient for taking the biax-
ial angular effects in the MaReCo into account. A more
sophisticated model is required. There is a difference in
zero loss diffuse efficiency between the spring/fall and
the summer case for the load adapted collector. This
could partially be explained by a high circum-solar radi-
ation at high solar heights outside the acceptance inter-
val during the summer period. The error in the model is
described by R2, the coefficient of determination, a value

Table 1
Collector parameters for the evaluated MaReCos and a reference flat plate collector
MaReCo type g0b (–) g0d (–) b0 (–) F 0 U1 mCe R2 (–) Q25°, MJ Q50°, MJ Q75°, MJ
(W/m2 K) (J/m2 K) (kW h/m2) (kW h/m2) (kW h/m2)
Stand-alone 0.59 0.37 0.37 2.4 2980 0.9997 1256 911 670
(349) (253) (186)
Stand-alone 0.64 0.36 0.46 2.2 3380 0.9954 1325 1015 781
Teflon (368) (282) (217)
Roof integr. 0.69 0.56 0.29 2.4 1950 0.9994 1609 1209 925
(447) (336) (257)
East 0.58 0.25 0.13 2.0 6250 0.9996 691 486 349
West 0.60 0.35 0.16 2.0 4890 0.9994 (192) (135) (97)
889 626 436
(247) (174) (121)
Spring/fall 0.56 0.31 0.41 2.6 2230 0.9944 1058 716 490
0.34a 0.23a 0.23a 2.0a 3800a 0.9840a (294) (199) (136)
Wall 0.61 0.27 0.22 2.0 1130 0.9984 781 511 194
(217) (142) (54)
Reference 0.81 0.76 0.15 4.0 6000 – 2228 1156 1012
flat plate (619) (321) (281)
Estimated outputs at 25, 50, and 75 °C average operating temperature calculated with the MINSUN simulation program.
a
Evaluated for summer months.
 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647 643

1.0

0.8
Efficiency

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 Fig. 5. Section of the stand-alone MaReCo for Stockholm
[(Tout+Tin)/2-Tamb]/Itot [°C/(W/m2)] conditions. Aperture tilt 30°. Optical axes 20 and 65° defined
from the horizon.
Fig. 3. Experimental efficiency of a spring/fall roof MaReCo.
A least square linear fit is indicated by a solid line.
stand-alone-MaReCo (one with and one without a Tef-
lon convection suppression film around the absorber)
Roof, standard
were tested.
Stand alone Teflon The parameters from the collector evaluation are pre-
Stand alone sented in Table 1 together with estimated outputs for
0.7 Roof, spring/fall
Roof, west average collector operating temperature, Top = 25, 50
Wall and 75 °C. The stand-alone MaReCo without Teflon
0.6 Roof, spring/fall (summer)
has an annual energy output of 670 MJ/m2 at
0.5 Top = 75 °C. The stand-alone MaReCo equipped with
Teflon convection suppression has significantly lower
heat losses compared to the stand-alone without Teflon.
Efficiency

0.4
At Top = 75 °C the annual delivered energy output is
0.3 781 MJ/m2, 17% higher than for the collector without
Teflon. A previous evaluation of a stand-alone system
0.2 with extremely long collectors equipped with Teflon con-
vection suppression (Karlsson and Wilson, 1999) shows
0.1 a beam efficiency of 0.63 and a U-value of 1.7 W/m2 K.

0 4.2. The roof integrated MaReCo

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
([Tout+Tin]/2-Tamb)/Itot The standard roof integrated MaReCo is shown in
Fig. 6. This collector is designed by letting the cover
Fig. 4. Fitted efficiency for all six investigated MaReCos. glass start where the circular part of the MaReCo ends;
i.e. the glass is between point 2 and 4 in Fig. 2. No upper
between one and zero found in Table 1. For perfect cor- reflector is used and the inverted absorber is placed just
relation between model output and the simulated or underneath the cover. The whole design is then tilted to
measured values the R2-value is equal to one. the roof angle. All radiation up to the cover glass normal
An example of an efficiency diagram with experimen-
tal data is shown in Fig. 3 for the spring/fall roof MaRe-
Co. The least square fitted efficiency of all six evaluated
collectors during the test period is shown in Fig. 4. It
should be pointed out that the efficiency measurements
cannot be done during normal incidence for this collec-
tors, since this occur outside or close to the border of the
acceptance interval.

4.1. The stand-alone MaReCo

The stand-alone MaReCo for Stockholm conditions

is shown in Fig. 5. The upper acceptance angle is 65° Fig. 6. Section of the roof integrated MaReCo design for a roof
and the lower is 20°. Two similar prototypes of the angle of 30°. Optical axis 90° from the cover glass.
644 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647

is accepted. The optical axis should be pointed at an

angle of 60° above the horizon. This means that the
geometry is determined by the roof angle. With a 30°-
roof tilt the area concentration Ci is 1.5. The collector
parameters are displayed in Table 1 together with the
simulated annual output. This MaReCo is characterised
by a rather high beam efficiency of 0.69. The roof
MaReCo shows a rather high annual energy output,
925 MJ/m2 at Top = 75 °C, only slightly lower than a flat
plate collector without Teflon (energy output at Top =
75 °C approximately 1012 MJ/m2 from Table 1). Fig. 8. Section of the east/west roof MaReCo designed for a
The specially designed roof MaReCo for east/west roof facing west. Optical axis 70° from the cover glass.
facing roofs has the concentrator axis placed in the
east/west direction, tilted along the roof as shown in
the photo in Fig. 7. The east/west MaReCo accepts radi-
ation in the interval 20 to 90° from the cover glass nor-
mal as seen in Fig. 8. This means that the collector does
not accept the hours of low irradiance before around
7.00 or after 17.00. The area concentration is 2.0.
The results of the evaluation are shown in Table 1.
The evaluation showed that with Stockholm climate
conditions it was more favourable to mount the collec-
tor facing west than east. The solar radiation is basically
symmetric around noon, but the direct fraction is higher
on the west roof. The ambient temperature is higher
after noon, which leads to lower heat losses. According Fig. 9. Section of the spring/fall MaReCo designed for a roof
to the evaluation the expected annual output is rather tilted 30°. Optical axis at 45° from the horizon.
low 349 (east) 436 (west) MJ/m2 at Top = 75 °C, which
means that the collector preferable should operate at pared to the ordinary roof MaReCo, as seen in Fig. 9.
lower temperatures. The beam efficiency is 0.58 (east) The absorber is placed just underneath the cover glass.
and 0.60 (west). Beam radiation hitting the reflector at an angle smaller
The load adapted roof integrated MaReCo, denoted than 15° from the aperture normal will be reflected out
the spring/fall MaReCo, has the optical axis tilted com- of the collector. The absorber is, however, working for
all angles of incidence, which reduces the concentrator
to a flat plate collector with an area equal to the single
sided absorber area for projected incidence angles smal-
ler than 15° to the aperture normal. An area concentra-
tion of Ci = 1.8 is found for the spring/fall MaReCo.
The results from the evaluation are found in Table 1.
The annual output is compiled from two simulations.
From May to August all radiation that hits the reflector
is reflected out of the collector and the only energy that
is utilised is the radiation that hits the absorber directly.
To obtain the annual energy gain per square meter the
spring/fall parameter values from Table 1 are used for
September to April and the summer output is taken
from a simulation using the parameters evaluated during
May–August from Table 1. As seen in Table 1 the beam
efficiency during summer (0.34) is about 60% of that
during spring and fall (0.56). The estimated annually
delivered energy is low, 490 MJ/m2 at Top = 75 °C.
The concept of a seasonally load adapted collector is
also used by another Swedish research group at the
Solar Energy Research Center, Dalarna University.
Fig. 7. Photo of a MaReCo designed for east/west-facing roofs. They use a similar reflector geometry to fulfill the
The white arrow indicates the south direction. requirements (Nordlander and Rönnelid, 2001).
 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647 645

April 10th May 30th July 19th September 7th ingly low cost. The annual load distribution follows
0.6
the delivered energy output distribution. The concentra-
tion factor is Ci = 2.2. The acceptance angle interval is
0.55 from 25° to 90° from the horizon as seen in Fig. 11.
The absorber is placed just underneath the cover glass.
The results of the evaluation are found in Table 1.
Optical efficiency

0.5
The annual energy output is rather low, only 194 MJ/
m2 at Top = 75 °C, and the beam efficiency is 0.61. A
0.45
vertical flat plate collector facing south with the collector
parameters from Table 1 has an annual energy output of
0.4 464 MJ/m2. This is partly explained by the too high opti-
cal axis at 25°, which means that valuable irradiation
0.35 will be reflected out of the collector. The optical axis
should be lowered to 10° and a corresponding concen-
tration ratio of Ci = 1.2.
0.3
100 150 200 250
Day no.
5. Discussion
Fig. 10. Optical efficiency for the spring/fall MaReCo for a
number of days between April 1st and September 20th.
The materiel cost for a stand-alone MaReCo includ-
ing the stand is summarized to 55 Euro and the invest-
ment cost for the large collector field previously
A long term study of the experimental optical effi- installed was approximately 155 Euro/m2. The goal is
ciency of the spring/fall MaReCo at different time peri- to be able to install the collector for 110 Euro in a large
ods is shown in Fig. 10 where the fitted efficiency is field. If it is assumed that the investment cost for a field
shown. The study shows that the efficiency is high for with large flat plate collectors is 180 Euro/m2 and that
September and April and then drops especially for the annual performance of a MaReCo is 75% of a flat
May–July. plate, then the MaReCo has to be installed for a cost
lower than 135 Euro in order to be competitive.
4.3. The wall MaReCo Efforts are made to further reduce the collector cost,
for example by using reflectors consisting of polymer
The wall MaReCo is an alternative for a vertical film with vacuum evaporated on a sheet steel (Brogren
installation due to is low material content and accord- et al., in press). This reflector has a reflectance of alu-
minium and a mechanical stability of sheet steel. This
means that the reflector construction and the stands
can be simplified.
The MaReCo concept can also be used in PV appli-
cations to reduce the cost of electricity produced with
solar cells. A stand-alone MaReCo-system with solar
cells laminated on the thermal absorber has recently
been installed on a flat roof in Stockholm (Karlsson
et al., 2003).
All tested collectors have low U-values. This is ex-
plained by the small absorber surface compared to the
total glazed area. An attempt was made in the evalua-
tion to find also the second order heat loss coefficients
(Duffie and Beckman, 1991) for the collectors, but the
MLR parameter fits were better if only the first order
loss coefficient, U1, was identified and thus a smaller
number of parameters. The effective thermal capacitance
is low in most cases. This is in part explained by the low
collector weight due to the low material content.
A more sophisticated model for the incidence angle
dependency must be used. In this evaluation only the
Fig. 11. Section of the wall MaReCo designed for a south incidence angle modifier, b0, was identified, which is
facing wall. Optical axis at 25° from the horizon. insufficient for very asymmetric collectors, such as the
646 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647
MaReCo. In this study b0 values of up to 0.51 are found.
This is because the optical efficiency is influenced by the
performance in the transverse direction. An attempt to
solve this problem using a bi-axial incidence angle mod-
ifier for the incidence angle dependency based on out-
door test data is described in Helgesson and Karlsson
(2002).
Because of the concentration the distribution of radi-
ation incident on the absorber is uneven. To get a high
energy yield from the collector an absorber with high
collector efficiency is required. A more detailed study
of the radiation distribution on the absorber for various
angles of incidence and absorber angles is required to
find a geometry with a more even radiation distribution,
making the collector less dependent on the fin efficiency.
The reflector shapes of the collectors studied here
were designed from a diagram showing the energy distri-
bution in various incidence angle intervals on a horizon-
tal surface from Rönnelid and Karlsson (1997). A
further study of the radiation distribution on the actual
surfaces is required to investigate if these acceptance
intervals are optimised. This study could also be ex-
panded to investigate if the same concept can be used
at lower latitudes.
Including a Teflon convection suppression film signif-
icantly reduces the losses, especially at high tempera-
tures as seen in Fig. 4. It is, however, important to
make sure that the Teflon film does not touch the absor-
ber surface.
In this study the standard roof mounted MaReCo
shows a high annual output, 925 MJ/m2 at Top = 75 °C.
The high performance of the roof-MaReCo is explained
by the high optical efficiency (half of the absorber is fac-
ing the sun) and the low concentration factor. The ther-
mal losses are low due to the reduced convection with
the inverted absorber mounting. The same effect is also
found by for example Tripanagnostopoulos et al.
(2000). This particular design can be mounted on roofs
with inclination 30° and lower, which is an advantage
compared to flat plate collectors that have an optimum
tilt of 45° for Swedish conditions. Not many roofs have
a tilt of 45° in Sweden, but rather 30° or lower.
The expected annual output of the east/west facing
MaReCo is rather low. The evaluation showed a large
difference between an east/west MaReCo facing
east and west. The solar radiation is symmetric around
noon, but the losses are in general smaller in the after-
noon since the ambient temperature is higher in the
afternoon.
The spring/fall MaReCo is hard to make cost effec-
tive, since the material in it is the same as in the ordinary
roof integrated MaReCo but the output is significantly
lower than for the ordinary roof integrated version. This
collector can, however, be used if the aim rather is a high
annual solar fraction than a commercial system. The
collector area is large to cover the major part of the en-
ergy demand without problems with overheating during
the summer months. The spring/fall MaReCo is useful
for obtaining high solar fractions on roofs with low tilt
angles.
The low energy output for the wall MaReCo is partly
explained by the unfavourable vertical alignment and
partly because of the relatively high lower acceptance
angle (25° above the horizon). The heat losses of the wall
MaReCo are supposed to increase due to convection
caused by the absorber being positioned in the lowest
part of the collector and hot air transfer of heat from
the absorber to the glazing. The U-value is still surpris-
ingly low for a non-insulated collector.
6. Conclusions
The MaReCo design concept is flexible and can be
adapted to various installation conditions. The aim of
the collector is to provide energy at a low cost, which
is achieved by replacing the expensive absorber, insula-
tion materials and box with cheap reflectors. A large
part of the available solar radiation can be collected
without the need for tracking, which would increase
the investment and maintenance costs. The design con-
cept can be refined through further studies of reflector
geometry, collector materials, incidence angle depen-
dence, and absorber alignment. The use of Teflon is
recommended since the absorber temperature of a
MaReCo will be significantly higher than that of a flat
plate. The standard roof MaReCo and the stand-alone
MaReCo are more cost effective or equally cost effec-
tive compared to the flat plate collector. The wall
MaReCo and the special designs for east/west facing
roofs and load adaption do not meet the requirement
of cost effectiveness but are interesting niche products
and can compete with standard collectors in the same
areas.
Acknowledgments
This work was financed by the Foundation for Stra-
tegic Research (SSF) within the Energy Systems pro-
gram and Vattenfall Utveckling AB in co-operation
with the Swedish National Energy Administration in
the solar heating RD&D program. Gunnar Wilson has
contributed to the development of the collector design.
References
Brogren, M., Helgesson, A., Karlsson, B., Nilsson, J., Roos, A.
Optical properties, durability, and system aspects of a new
aluminium-polymer-laminated steel reflector for solar con-
centrators. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, in press.
 M. Adsten et al. / Solar Energy 79 (2005) 638–647
Chant, V.G., Håkansson, R., 1985. The MINSUN simulation
and optimisation program. Application and Users Guide.
IEA SH&C Task VII, Ottawa.
Chaves, J., Collares-Pereira, M., 2000. Ultra flat ideal concen-
trators of high concentration. J. Sol. Energy 69, 269–281.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1991. Solar Engineering of
Thermal Processes, second ed. Wiley Interscience, New
York.
Helgesson, A., Karlsson, B., 2002. Incidence angle dependence
of an asymmetric collector. Presented at EuroSun in
Bologna.
Hellström, B., Adsten, M., Nostell, P., Wäckelgård, E.,
Karlsson, B., 2000. The impact of optical and thermal
properties on the performance of flat plate solar collectors.
In: Proceedings of Eurosun 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Karlsson, B., Wilson, G., 1999. MaReCo—a large asymmetric
CPC for high latitudes. Presented at ISES World Solar
Congress 1999 Israel.
Karlsson, B., Helgesson, A., Svensson, L., 2003. Development
of a MaReCo-hybrid. Contribution to ISES in Gothenburg.
Mills, D.R., Giutronich, J.E., 1978. Asymmetrical non-imaging
cylindrical solar concentrators. J. Sol. Energy 20, 45–55.
Mills, D.R., Morrison, G.L., 2001. Optimisation of minimum
backup solar water heating system. In: Proceedings of ISES
2001 Solar World Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
Nayak, J.K., Amer, E.H., 2000. Experimental and theoretical
evaluation of dynamic test procedures for solar flat-plate
collectors. J. Sol. Energy 69 (5), 377–401.
Nordlander, S., Rönnelid, M., 2001. Load adapted collectors
for high solar fractions. In: Proceedings of North Sun
Conference 6–8 May, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Norton, B., Eames, P.C., Yadav, Y.P., 1991. Symmetric and
asymmetric linear compound parabolic concentrators: the
state-of-the-art in optical and thermophysical analysis. Int.
J. Ambient Energy 12, 171–190.
647
Perers, B., 1993. Dynamic method for solar collector array
testing and evaluation with standard database and simula-
tion programs. J. Sol. Energy 50 (6), 517–526.
Perers, B., 1995. Optical modelling of solar collectors and
booster reflectors under nonstationary conditions. Thesis
Uppsala University 1995.
Perers, B., 1997. An improved dynamic solar collector test
method for determination of non-linear optical and thermal
characteristics with multiple regression. J. Sol. Energy 59
(4–6), 163–178.
Perers, B., Karlsson, B., 1993. External reflectors for large solar
collector arrays, simulation model and experimental results.
J. Sol. Energy 51 (5), 327–337.
Perers, B., Walletun, H., 1991. Dynamic collector models for
1 h time step derived from measured outdoor data. In:
Arlen, M.E., Burley, M., Coleman, S.M.A. (Eds.), Proceed-
ings ISES Solar World Congress, 19–23 August, Denver,
USA, vol. 2. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 1221–1226.
Rabl, A., 1976. Comparison of solar collectors. J. Sol. Energy
18, 93–111.
Rönnelid, M., Karlsson, B., 1997. Irradiation distribution
diagrams and their use for estimating collectable energy.
J. Sol. Energy 61, 191–201.
Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., Yianoulis, P., Papaefthimiou, S.,
Souliotis, M., Nousia, Th., 1999. Cost effective asymmetric
CPC solar collectors. J. Renewable Energy 16, 628–631.
Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., Yianoulis, P., Papaefthimiou, S.,
Zafeiratos, S., 2000. CPC solar collectors with flat bifacial
absorbers. J. Sol. Energy 69, 191–203.
Wäckelgård, E., Hultmark, G., 1998. Industrially sputtered
solar absorber surface. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 54,
165–170.
Welford, W.T., Winston, R., 1989. High Collection Non-
imaging Optics. Academic Press, San Diego, ISBN 0-12-
742885-2.