Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Design of a low-profile two-axis solar tracker

Laughlin Barker, Matthew Neber, Hohyun Lee ⇑
Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053, United States

Received 11 January 2013; received in revised form 6 August 2013; accepted 4 September 2013
Available online 3 October 2013

Communicated by: Associate Editor Robert Pitz-Paal

Abstract

This paper proposes a low-profile tracker comprised of two coplanar and perpendicular linear actuators coupled with a single linkage
arm and pivots. Two-axis solar trackers are a necessary component to all types of concentrating solar power systems with the exception
of parabolic trough systems, and have also been incorporated into grid-scale photovoltaic power facilities resulting in 30% energy pro-
duction gains. Use of trackers, however, necessitates additional capital and careful placement to minimize shading by adjacent trackers,
as well as sturdy foundations and heavy capacity hardware when high accuracy is required. The proposed tracker is inherently accurate
and sturdy due to its large base and unique linkage geometry. A prototype was built and tracking capability was demonstrated by mea-
suring the receiver temperature from a concave mirror. The shadow footprint of the tracker is simulated and compared to existing mast-
style trackers. The simulation is run to coincide with the winter solstice, when the sun is lowest in the sky, and shadows are largest.
Although the tracker utilizes translational motion, no significant change in the shadow footprint is observed.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tracker; Concentrated solar power; Photovoltaic; Dish mirror

1. Introduction two-axis trackers in PV arrays can increase annual energy

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and Photovoltaics
(PV) are becoming increasingly viable means of grid-scale
power generation (Randolph and Masters, 2008). Solar
trackers are devices that follow the sun throughout the
day, and are a necessary component of CSP systems. All
types of concentrated solar technologies require the use
of two-axis tracking, with the exception of trough-style sys-
tems, which require only single-axis tracking (Luque et al.,
2006). Central receiving tower systems also require two-
axis trackers, and are growing in popularity as a means
of grid-scale energy production (Mills, 2004). While not a
necessary component, grid-scale PV systems are also mak-
ing use of trackers to maximize energy production (Luque
et al., 2006). Experimental results have shown that utilizing
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (408) 554 5283; fax: +1 (408) 554 5474.
E-mail address: hlee@scu.edu (H. Lee).
production by more than 30% compared to fixed-tilt PV
systems of equal size (Abdallah and Nijmeh, 2004; Lorenzo
et al., 2002; Vorobiev et al., 2004; Eke and Senturk, 2012;
Sungur, 2009).
Unfortunately, two axis trackers are often prohibitively
costly and complex—trackers alone can constitute up to
40% of the capital cost for collectors in CSP systems
(Concentrating Solar Power Research, 2012; Vossier
et al., 2012). Because of the high costs, the US Department
of Energy (DOE) has challenged researchers to reduce the
installed cost of heliostat fields from $200 to $70 per square
meter to reduce total capital costs on utility scale power
tower plants by 25% (Sunshot Initiative, 2012). High fixed
costs exist for conventional heliostats because of the requi-
site steel supports needed for stability (Kolb, 2007). Specif-
ically, the two main cost drivers in large heliostat fields are
the drive motor assemblies and the mirror support/struc-
ture/foundation (Kolb et al., 2011). Mass installation of

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.09.014
570 L. Barker et al. / Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576
Nomenclature
x, y, z global coordinate system
H, / low-profile tracker coordinate system
L1, L2 low-profile tracker geometry specification (m)
a azimuth angle
the heavy hardware has resulted in development of an
automated assembly and deployment system to reduce cap-
ital expenses in the heliostat field of large scale CSP plants
(Flexible Assembly Solar Technology, 2012).
The predominant two-axis tracker design is commonly
termed a mast tracker. Mast trackers require a very stout
pole, or “mast”, to be drilled into the ground to support
normal loading. In all cases, the mast height is at least
one half of the panel height above the ground so that the
tracker can orient toward the sun at low elevation angles.
Since existing two-axis trackers control their load from a
single central point, the drive assemblies must be very
heavy duty and added trusses are often needed to keep
the structure from flexing or sagging at the extremes. The
requisite foundations result in considerable geological con-
cerns when site planning, as well as heavy machinery for
handling the heavy componentry (Anderson and Gay, in
press; Engineering and Design, 1992).
Presented herein is a design for a low-profile two-axis
solar tracker aimed at reducing the total installed cost by
targeting component production, system assembly and
installation. The proposed design is built from components
that are readily available, or commercial off the shelf parts
to promote a low cost solution and fewer specialized parts.
Comprised of two co-planar and perpendicular linear actu-
ators, a new unique triangular geometry exploits a stati-
cally determinate truss structure allowing for lighter duty,
and more economical, components. The result is a robust
frame with less bulk material required for rigidity and high
pointing accuracy. Inherent to the design is a wide base
that distributes the load over the ground and is installed
easily with helical piles instead of concrete foundations.
Moreover, the proposed tracker design is less vulnerable
to wind, which is a major factor in the design of individual
tracking mechanisms, as it affects stability and pointing
accuracy most severely, especially as surface areas become
large (Christo, 2012). Due to friction with the ground, wind
speed gradients result in lower wind speeds closer to the
earth. Thus, trackers built with lower vertical profiles will
incur less severe wind loading (Chen and Lui, 2005). A
key design benefit is the ability to store the tracking array
in a position near, and parallel to, the ground. This is
intended to reduce loading during adverse weather condi-
tions, in turn allowing for less weighty and costly
components.
Several two-axis mast trackers have been designed with
topical ground mounting as a motivating factor. The PVT
c elevation angle
~
n tracker normal vector
xT, yT actuator displacements
tx, ty, tz linear transformation elements
7.2DX, manufactured by PV trackers, utilizes a tripod
structure for support. The system is compatible with helical
piles thereby eliminating the need for concrete foundations
(Engineering, 2012). The Google RE<C initiative designed
a two-axis heliostat also with a triangular base, and ground
securing is accomplished with a single helical pile (RE<C,
2012). Mast-style heliostats utilizing linear drive actuators
have been developed by CSIRO for use at the National
Solar Energy Centre (Australia). CSIRO states that these
heliostats achieve high pointing accuracy while maintaining
cost effectiveness (Sunny Future for Australia’s Solar
Industry, 2010). In all cases above, the load is carried atop
a tall mast and requires heavier materials to achieve the
rigidity necessary to ensure acceptable pointing accuracy.
The patent of Deflandre et al. details a rigid frame tracker
that would be advantageous for large low-volume tracking
surfaces and is similar to a patent held by HelioFocus for
their large scale Fresnel dish system (Deflandre et al.,
1978; Blumenthal and Gadot, 2011). Both of these technol-
ogies make use of numerous structural elements, wheels,
and hydraulic rams, which can be cost effective when actu-
ating large loads, but cost effectiveness may not be main-
tained when scaled for smaller tracking surfaces.
Additionally, the circular nature of both bases limits their
maximum packing density in a field setting, especially in
North–South (non-hexagonal) arrangements.
Qbotix has developed a system which allows an entire
array of PV panels to be adjusted discretely by a single
robot that travels on rail from panel to panel (Brown,
xxxx). While this can effectively cut costs by using a single
actuation unit for multiple panels, the discrete nature can-
not be used for solar thermal applications. The system pre-
sented herein would pair well with the single robot scheme
since the lead screws may be designed to prevent back driv-
ing without the need for clutches or braking.
Partial shading of adjacent mirrors or PV panels is
another challenge that can result in reduced power produc-
tion, or damage, in the case of PV systems, and thus impact
the economic return of a system. In optimization studies,
more tightly packed fields with the proper geometric
arrangement of heliostats are shown to be more efficient
(Pitz-Paal et al., 2011; Wei et al., 2010). Due to the vast size
of heliostat fields, reducing the shadowing effect of adjacent
trackers by a small amount can be a significant improve-
ment. Ground cover ratio, field-layout, cosine losses, atmo-
spheric attenuation, and array aspect ratio are just some of
the variables taken into consideration when designing a
 L. Barker et al. / Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576
field of trackers (Igo and Andraka, 2007; Dı́az-Dorado
et al., 2011; Gordon and Wenger, 1991).
The new tracker geometry is presented along with a
description of the tracking scheme. Since the design is
not globally compatible, finite coverage area of the tracker
is discussed and compared to the sun’s daily path based on
location and time of year. Analysis of the trackers move-
ment and projected shadow are provided, and compared
to that of a mast tracker.
2. Tracker design
Orientation of two-axis trackers can be described using
a spherical coordinate system comprised of azimuth, a,
and elevation, c. Azimuth is referenced from North
(aNORTH = 0°) and is measured in a clockwise direction
(aEAST = 90°), while elevation is the angle measured from
the horizon to the sun. The proposed tracker is comprised
of two coplanar linear actuators in a “T” configuration.
Using a linkage arm and a series of joints, displacements
of actuator shuttles are translated to azimuth and elevation
movement. Fig. 1 shows the basic design of the tracker.
Atop each actuator shuttle is a joint providing two degrees
of freedom. The primary is a rotation about the orthogonal
z-axis, and secondary, a rotation about the axis that is per-
pendicular to the z-axis and normal to the plane formed by
the triangle ABC. Rotation about the z-axis at points A
and B rotates plane ABC about the z-axis controlling azi-
muth. At point C, a joint providing a single degree of free-
dom allows rotation about the axis normal to the plane
formed by the triangle ABC. This constrains the tracking
plane DEFG to a single degree of freedom with respect to
the plane ABC controlling elevation.
A prototype tracker was built as a testbed for an
895 mm diameter parabolic dish concentrator. In the test-
bed tracking apparatus L1 = 1.18 L2 and the dish is tilted
Fig. 1. The tracker is comprised of two coplanar and perpendicular linear
actuators in a “T” configuration with pivots mounted at the slide positions
(A and B) providing two degrees of freedom. The tracking plane (DEFG)
is connected to the actuators at B and by a linkage AC. At point C a single
degree of freedom constrains the tracking plane to a rotation about the
axis normal to the plane formed by triangle ABC. For operation in the
northern hemisphere, the y-axis is pointed south. The angles formed by
ABO and CBA are h and / respectively.
571
to add 10° elevation. This ensures that the tracker can
attain the full range in elevation without running into sin-
gularities approaching the 0° and 90° extrema. Fig. 2 shows
three still images captured from a time-lapse video taken of
the tracker operating on 21 April 2012. The detailed image
of the joint is also presented in Fig 2(a). Experimental posi-
tioning was provided by two pairs of partially shaded pho-
todiodes, which provided a simple control signal calling the
tracker to correct its position (Mousazadeh et al., 2009).
The photodiodes are used only in the control scheme of
the tracker and provide no information regarding the
incoming global or direct solar insolation.
Not having a device to quantitatively characterize point-
ing accuracy, an experiment was conducted with a proto-
type Silicon Carbide CSP receiver (Neber and Lee, 2012).
The receiver was mounted at the focal point of the para-
bolic dish with a thermocouple affixed to the rear of the
cavity. While anecdotal in nature, the plot of temperature
vs. time for one experiment, shown in Fig. 2(d) demon-
strates the tracker’s autonomous operation and subsequent
shutdown over the course of approximately 2 h.
A consideration in minimizing actuator energy con-
sumption is the location of the tracker’s center of gravity
(CG). A balanced mast tracker is capable of rotating at
or near the system’s CG, minimizing the work performed
against gravity during actuation. In contrast, the CG of
the proposed tracker has a non-zero displacement from
the line FG, and thus work is performed in moving the
tracker against gravity. It was calculated that the 11.9 kg
CG of the prototype tracker would move a maximum of
43.8 m against gravity over the course of a full year in
Santa Clara, CA, resulting in a theoretical minimum
energy expenditure of 5110 J, or 1.42 W h.
As constructed, the prototype is not adequately resilient
to wind gusts and resultant forces applied normal to the
plane ABC. Actual geometry and joint construction of
the tracker can be optimized to better withstand wind load-
ing, with some basic improvements being shown in Fig. 3.
We also note the ability for this tracker to support the
extremes of the tracking surface by adding linkages from
Point A to a point on EF and DG (a distance L2 from F
and G respectively). This is a better way of keeping a wide
tracking surface rigid compared with adding truss members
or I-beams. Actuator backlash and resultant positioning
error are an additional factor that must be considered.
While problematic in an open-loop control regime,
positioning errors resulting from actuator backlash can
be corrected for in feedback control systems. This has been
demonstrated with heliostats and solar trackers (Rubio
et al., 2007). The ability to mitigate backlash error through
control strategy facilitates the use of imprecise and thus
more economical actuators. For operation in the northern
hemisphere, the tracker is oriented with its y-axis pointing
south. Shuttle displacement along the y-axis is positive
when the shuttle is south of the tracker origin (denoted
O); likewise, displacement along the x-axis is positive when
the shuttle is west of the origin, and negative when to the
572 L. Barker et al. / Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576

Solar Sensor
Motors & Drives Tracking Surface &
Support Structure

Joint

Slide Track

(a) (b)
Shuttles

Lead Screws

Tracker Shutdown

(c) (d)
Fig. 2. Time-lapse still images of the tracker used as a testbed for an 895 mm parabolic dish concentrator tracking the sun on 21 April 2012. Images are
captured at (a) beginning, (b) middle, and (c) end of the tracking path for the particular test run. (d) Shows results from an experiment with a cavity
receiver where the apparatus was used to autonomously track the sun for 2 h during peak daily insolation so that solar flux should be roughly constant.

Elongated
shuttle

Slide track
intersection

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Isometric view of the cross-sliding actuator system with the elongated shuttle of point B from Fig. 1 in (a) the positive y region and (b) the negative
y region.

east. The angle h is formed by ABO and its sign mimics that
of x. The angle / is formed by CBA and is opposite L1.
With the y-axis of the tracker aligned to the south, the
angles h and / can be defined as h ¼ 180  a and
/ ¼ 90  c respectively. The vector, n, is the unit vector
indicating the tracker’s orientation in x–y–z-space.
Because orientation of the tracker is controlled by the
positions of each actuators’ shuttles, it is necessary to cal-
culate the shuttle displacements as a function of the angles
h and / (which can easily be translated into azimuth and
elevation coordinates as described above). The lengths L1
and L2 are the lengths of the connecting rod (AC), and
BC respectively. Examining the right triangle ABO, the dis-
placement of A and B, are denoted as xT and yT respec-
tively. To solve for xT and yT in terms of h and / the
Law of Cosines is applied to the triangle ABC resulting
in the following expression.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H ¼ L21  ðL2 sinð/ÞÞ þ L2 cosð/Þ
2
ð1Þ
Values of xT and yT are then given by xT = H sin (h) and
yT = H sin (h) respectively.
 L. Barker et al. / Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576
3. Tracker range
One notable limitation of the design is its tracking
range. As depicted in Fig. 1, the theoretical maximum azi-
muth range is 90° < a < 270°. This is problematic as the sun
extends outside of this interval even at high latitudes for
some months out of the year. The available energy at low
tracking elevations is small compared with the greater por-
tion of the solar day and may not even be worth the effort
in many cases. Nonetheless, it is possible to orient the
tracker outside of the 90° < a < 270° window. To accom-
plish this, it is necessary for pivot B to extend into the neg-
ative y region, an overlap which is not feasible with off the
shelf actuators. To overcome this limitation a set of actua-
tors allowing for said overlap has been developed. Using a
simple dovetail schema, the slide track is cut into the inter-
sected actuator perpendicularly at the intersection point.
An elongated shuttle is driven from the near end and
extended across the intersecting track. Fig. 3 is an illustra-
tion of the linear slide and shuttle design.
By allowing the B pivot to extend into the y region,
and optimizing the ratio of L1/L2 for specific geographic
location, the tracker range can be extended to cover all pos-
sible daily and annual solar trajectories. Fig. 4 shows the
trajectory of the sun during the summer and winter sol-
stices in Santa Clara, CA with the range of a T tracker
shaded gray.
Since the tracker coverage range depends on the lengths
of the x- and y-axis, tracking a smaller path may be accom-
plished with abbreviated actuators, lowering costs further
by more precisely tailoring to the application. Many of
the mirrors in a heliostat field target only a small area of
the sky over the course of the year because heliostats follow
a path that bisects the angle between the sun and the cen-
tral receiver throughout the day. By comparison, normal
Fig. 4. The daily trajectories of the sun in Santa Clara, CA during the
summer and winter solstices are shown in solid and dotted lines
respectively. By allowing pivot B to extend into the negative region, and
by optimizing the ratio L1/L2 the tracker can follow the sun outside of the
90° < a < 270° window, and cover all possible solar positions for Santa
Clara, CA.
573
mast style trackers, driven by gears, can point anywhere
in a hemisphere but are constrained to the same design
even when only covering a small portion of a hemisphere.
As an example, we choose a heliostat in the region of a field
in the northern hemisphere with the highest annual energy
yield, which is located to the north of the central receiver
(Pitz-Paal et al., 2011; Wei et al., 2010). The black lines
in Fig. 5 represent the tracking paths at summer and winter
solstices for a heliostat 1200 m due north of the central
receiver, and the shaded area is the tracker coverage for a
pair of actuators without point B moving into the y
region.
In this case, off the shelf actuators are sufficient, and are
shortened significantly compared to the lengths used to
generate Fig. 4. The length of the x-axis of Fig. 5 is 50%
of the length of that of Fig. 4. Similarly, the y-axis is
75% of the length of its counterpart in Fig. 4. The proposed
design exhibits greater functional efficiency over currently
utilized mast trackers and indicates that this tracking solu-
tion is an effective way to cut down on capital costs in large
PV or CSP installations. Taking into account the tracker’s
limited azimuth range however, it is functionality as a
heliostat outside of the northern quadrant in a tower recei-
ver arrangement is highly limited.
4. Shadow modeling
Because this tracker has no fixed rotation point, the sha-
dow footprint (the total area shaded by the tracker over a
given period) is different than that of a mast-style tracker.
Understanding and characterizing this footprint is critical
to preventing shading of adjacent arrays when more than
one tracker is to be used in a field setting. To characterize
the shadow footprint of the low-profile tracker, a simula-
tion is built to compare its shadow footprint to that of a
Fig. 5. Heliostat coverage area for a heliostat due north of the central
receiver at a distance of 1200 m, with target height of 122 m. The path that
the heliostat must follow on the summer and winter solstices (black lines)
is well within the tracker coverage area without the need for point B to
travel into the y region. This allows shorter actuators and an overall less
complex, less expensive setup compared with a mast tracker.
574 L. Barker et al. / Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576

0 0 0
mast-style tracker. Due to its limited utility as a heliostat the functional form x = x + tx, y = y + ty, and z = z + tz
outside of the northern quadrant of a central tower field, which can be expressed as:
the model is built such that the tracker is oriented perfectly 2 03 2 32 3
x 1 0 0 tx x
towards the sun across its daily trajectory. 6 y 0 7 6 0 1 0 t 76 y 7
Solar position information is provided by an implemen- 6 7 6 y 76 7
6 07¼6 76 7 ð2Þ
tation of the algorithm outlined by Reda & Andreas stated 4 z 5 4 0 0 1 t1 54 z 5
as accurate to within ±0.0003° (Reda and Andreas, 2008). 1 0 0 0 1 1
Input parameters include date, time, time zone, latitude,
longitude, and elevation above sea level. Outputs are posi- First, points are rotated by h about a vertical line
tion of the sun in azimuth and elevation. The simulation extending from B and N for the low-profile tracker and
was run for Santa Clara, California (latitude: 37.35°N mast tracker respectively, thus orientating them azimuth-
and longitude: 121.95°W) for the 21st of each month in ally towards the sun. To orient in the elevation angle, they
the year 2012. This included summer and winter solstices are rotated by / about the lines formed by FG and JM
when the sun is highest and lowest in the sky. The model respectively. Eq. (3) shows the azimuth transformation
is then constrained to the when c > 10°, as shadows will matrix for the mast style tracker, which rotates about the
extend infinitely as the sun approaches the horizon. origin.
The simulated tracking surface for both style trackers is 2 03 2 32 3
x cosðhÞ  sinðhÞ 0 0 x
a 4 m  4 m square and can be seen in Fig. 6(a). The point 6 y 0 7 6 sinðhÞ cosðhÞ 0 0 76 y 7
N is the point at which the tracker is mounted atop a sin- 6 7 6 76 7
6 07¼6 76 7 ð3Þ
gular pole. The z-axis extends through this point and is the 4z 5 4 0 0 1 0 54 z 5
axis about which the surface rotates in the azimuth direc- 1 0 0 0 1 1
tion. The length of the mounting pole was selected to be
To simulate the shadow produced by the tracking sur-
2 m (half the height of the surface) as such a length is the
face, each corner of the tracking surfaces is projected onto
theoretical minimum if the tracker is to orient towards
the xy-plane along ~n, creating a simple shadow polygon as
the horizon without hitting the ground.
seen in Fig. 6. The coordinates of the projected points are
The simulated tracking surface atop the mast-style
given by:
tracker is identical to that of the low-profile tracker (sur- 2 03 2 3 2 3
face DEFG) as seen in Fig. 6b. The length of L2 is set to x x nx
be 2 m such that the pivot point C is at the center of the 6 07 6 7 6 7
4 y 5 ¼ 4 y 5 þ b4 n y 5 ð4Þ
surface. Arm length L1 is set to 1.1 L2 or 2.2 m. Length
0 z nz
L1 was chosen to be longer than L2 to ensure the tracker
could successfully orient towards the sun when it is low where b = z/nz. The projected points will form a rectan-
on the horizon. The points A and B have a range of gular polygon in the xy-plane for all 0° < a < 90°.
2L2 < x < 2L2 and L2/4 < y < 2L2 respectively. To create a meaningful comparison, the simulation is
The two trackers’ surfaces are defined by their four evaluated when c P 10° to avoid creating shadows
respective corners, and take an initial position centered approaching infinite length when the sun is near the hori-
about the origin. To orient the simulated surfaces normal zon. The model is then run iteratively in 1 min intervals
to the sun’s incoming radiation, two consecutive linear and resultant shadow polygons are calculated using a freely
transformations are performed. The transformations take available implementation of the General Polygon Clipper

Fig. 6. The simulated shadow projection of (a) the 16 m2 mast tracker, which rotates in azimuth about the z-axis, and rotates in elevation about the line
JM and (b) the low-profile tracker.
 L. Barker et al. / Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576
library (GPC) (GPC, 2011). To create a unified shadow
footprint, the union of the individual polygons is found
and total area computed. Although these calculations were
performed for the 21st of each month, December 21, 2012
is displayed as the sun takes its lowest path through the sky
producing the largest shadows. Fig. 7 shows, the resultant
shadows for the two trackers with the union (“Overlap”)
and differences between the two shadows. The areas of
the shadow footprints are calculated to be 277.2 and
258.7 m2 for the mast and low-profile tracker respectively.
The simulation shows the shadow of the low-profile
tracker fits almost entirely within that of the mast-tracker,
exhibiting no significant disadvantage in shadow footprint.
At the peaks of the shadows, cast as the sun is nearer the
horizon, the low-profile tracker shows a reduction in sha-
dow length of 0.20 m compared to the mast style tracker.
Some works have posited that in PV field settings, N–S
oriented rectangular tracker layouts are optimal for mini-
mizing shading of adjacent trackers for a given packing den-
sity (Igo and Andraka, 2007; Gordon and Wenger, 1991).
Additionally, Gordon and Wenger found that shading losses
are more sensitive to N–S spacing than E–W for said rectan-
gular grids. The slight reduction in shadow footprint com-
pared to the mast-style tracker indicates that N–S spacing
could be further reduced without shading N–S neighbors.
In the case of a heliostat fields were trackers are often
staggered, however, the reduced N–S spacing will not
directly increase packing density. Additional considerations
for field arrangements, such as maneuverability of service
vehicles, should be made for the staggered configuration.
Fig. 7. A visual comparison of the shadow polygons for a mast tracker
compared to the low-profile tracker. The low-profile tracker has a slightly
smaller total shade area for the simulated time interval, along with a
slightly thinner neck. The simulation was run for December 21, 2012 when
c P 10°.
575
5. Conclusions
A low-profile two-axis solar tracker with new actuation
geometry is presented. The design consists of two coplanar
and perpendicular linear actuators coupled with a linkage
arm and pivot points atop actuator shuttles, and is
indented to reduce installation costs of solar trackers by
allowing the system to be secured to the ground using
ground screws. The shadow footprint of the low-profile
tracker is then modeled and compared to that of two-axis
mast-style trackers consisting of a support pole and track-
ing surface. Simulation results indicate the low-profile
tracker has a slightly smaller shadow footprint than
mast-style trackers, and may enhance packing density in
certain configuration, such as rectangular N–S grids Future
investigation will seek to characterize dynamic and wind
induced loading factors of the design, and improving
design for manufacturability.
Acknowledgements
Laughlin Barker and Matthew Neber contributed equally
to this work. The authors wish to thank the Santa Clara Uni-
versity Center for Science, Technology, and Society, School
of Engineering, Office of Undergraduate Research, and EPA
Grant #SU836032 for Financial support. The authors
would also like to acknowledge Darcy Marumoto, Criselle
Olaes, and Joseph Valdez for prototyping. A patent disclo-
sure has been filed under US PTO Docket 61/635239.
References
Abdallah, S., Nijmeh, S., 2004. Two axes sun tracking system with PLC
control. Energy Conversion and Management 45, 1931–1940.
Anderson, J, Gay, C., in press. Solar and photovoltaic systems: a short,
basic course. Applied Materials, 3–7.
Blumenthal, Y., Gadot, O., Solar Concentrator Systems, US2011/0235025
A1; 2011.
Brown, A.S., Robotic Trackin”, Mech Eng, ASME, 134:11, 22–24.
Chen, W.F., Lui, E.M., 2005. Handbook of Structural Engineering,
second ed. CRC Press.
Christo, F.C., 2012. Numerical modeling of wind and dust patterns
around a full-scale paraboloidal solar dish. Renewable Energy 39, 356–
366.
Concentrating Solar Power Research – Collectors, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 2012; <http://www.nrel.gov/csp/collectors.html>.
Deflandre, J., et al., Heliostats, Agence Nationale de Valorisation de la
Reserche (ANVAR); 4129360; 12 Dec. 1978.
Dı́az-Dorado, E. et al., 2011. Optimal distribution for photovoltaic solar
trackers to minimize power losses caused by shadows. Renewable
Energy 36, 1826–1835.
Eke, R., Senturk, A., 2012. Performance comparison of a double-axis sun
tracking versus fixed PV system. Solar Energy 86, 2665–2672.
Engineering and Design, 1992. Bearing Capacity of Soils, CESW-EG, US
Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual No. EM 1110-1-1905.
Engineering, P., 2012. Trac Stat SL1, <http://www.practengineering.com/
storage/SL 1 Datasheet.pdf>.
Flexible Assembly Solar Technology – Brightsource Energy, US Dept.
of Energy: SunShot CSP R&D 2012; Oakland, CA, 2012-2015
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/csp_sunshotrnd_
brightsource.html>.
576 L. Barker et al. / Solar Energy 97 (2013) 569–576
Gordon, J.M., Wenger, H.J., 1991. Central-station solar photovoltaic
systems: field layout, tracker, and array geometry sensitivity studies.
Solar Energy 46, 211–217.
General Polygon Clipper library (GPC), 2011; <http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/
toby/gpc/.
Igo, J., Andraka, C.E., 2007. Solar Dish Field System Model for Spacing
Optimization ES2007-36154. ASME, Energy Sustainability, Long
Beach, CA, June, 27–30.
Kolb, GJ, et al., 2007 Heliostat cost reduction study, Sandia National
Laboratory, SAND2007-3293, Unlimited Release.
Kolb, G.J. et al., 2011. Power tower technology roadmap and cost
reduction plan, Sandia National Laboratories, SAND2011-2419.
Unlimited Release, United States.
Lorenzo, E. et al., 2002. Design of tracking photovoltaic systems with a
single vertical axis. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applica-
tions 10, 533–543.
Luque, A. et al., 2006. Photovoltaic concentration at the onset of its
commercial deployment. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and
Applications 14, 413–428.
Mills, D., 2004. Advances in solar thermal electricity technology. Solar
Energy 76, 19–31.
Mousazadeh, H. et al., 2009. A review of principle and sun-tracking
methods for maximizing solar systems output. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 13, 1800–1818.
Neber, M., Lee, H., 2012. Design of a high temperature cavity receiver for
residential scale concentrated solar power. Energy 47, 481–487.
Pitz-Paal, R. et al., 2011. Heliostat field layout optimization for high-
temperature solar thermochemical processing. Solar Energy 85, 334–
343.
Randolph, J., Masters, G.M., 2008. Energy for Sustainability: Technol-
ogy. Planning, Policy, Island Press, Washington, DC.
RE<C: Heliostat Project Overview, 2012; <http://www.google.org/pdfs/
google_heliostat_project.pdf.
Reda, I., Andreas, A., 2008. Solar Position Algorithm for Solar Radiation
Applications (Revised), National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL/TP-560-34302. Boulder, CO.
Rubio, F.R. et al., 2007. Application of new control strategy for sun
tracking. Energy Conversion and Management 48, 2174–2184.
Sungur, C., 2009. Multi-axes sun-tracking system with PLC control
for photovoltaic panels in Turkey. Renewable Energy 34, 1119–
1125.
Sunny Future for Australia’s Solar Industry, 2010. June 5, 2013 <http://
www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Sunny-future-for-Australias-solar-
industry.aspx.
Sunshot Initiative, US Department of Energy, 2012; 13 Nov., 2012;
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/index.html>.
Vorobiev, P.Y. et al., 2004. Optimization of the solar energy collection in
tracking and non-tracking photovoltaic solar system. First Interna-
tional Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ICEEE).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICEEE.2004.1433900.
Vossier, A. et al., 2012. Very high fluxes for concentrating photovoltaics:
Considerations from simple experiments and modeling. Renewable
Energy 38, 31–40.
Wei, X. et al., 2010. A new code for the design and analysis of the heliostat
field for power tower system. Solar Energy 84, 685–690.