An analytical method for the optical analysis of Linear Fresnel Reflectors with a flat receiver
Introduction
The Linear Fresnel Reflectors (LFR) is a solar concentrator technology used for thermal applications (Collares-Pereira et al., 2017, Zhu et al., 2014). It is composed of a discrete number of mirrors – the primary field, or heliostats –, slightly elevated from the ground, which purpose is to reflect (and concentrate) the incident sunlight on a fixed linear receiver, located above the primaries (Mills, 2012, Rabl, 1985). Each heliostat has a single-axis tracking mechanism to follow the sun’s daily movement, and the receiver has an absorber element to convert the reflected radiation to thermal energy, transferring it to a heat transfer fluid.
One main problem in LFR studies is the optical analysis: the calculation of the absorbed flux at the receiver. Usually, such flux is defined by a relative measure with respect to the incident flux at the concentrator aperture.
Rabl (1985) presents two definitions for the so-called optical efficiency, . Eq. (1) shows the first one: the ratio between absorbed flux (power), , and the incident flux, ,
where A is the concentrator aperture area, in m2; and is the direct normal solar irradiance (DNI), in W/m2. While studying the performance of LFR concentrators one must take care with the definition of the incident flux . Occupied and reflective surfaces are different, and this can lead to misinterpretations. Here, all definitions are taken to the reflective area, unless specified.
The other definition for , shown in Eq. (2), is based on the split of losses due to optical properties and geometrical characteristics (Rabl, 1985): represents the concatenation of surfaces optical properties (reflectivity, transmissivity, and absorptivity), and is the intercept factor, which accounts for losses due to concentrator geometry.
In realistic modeling, optical properties are functions of incidence angles (Howell et al., 2016), and we should write , where and are the transversal and longitudinal incidence angles, respectively, as defined in Section 2.1. The geometric relations that dictate how much radiant flux hits the receiver are also functions of incidence angles, and, thereby, . In conclusion, .
Usually, the specific literature uses the sun at normal incidence ( = = 0) as a standard position, and optical efficiencies from other directions are treated as relative losses. This defines the Incidence Angle Modifier (IAM) (Carvalho et al., 2008, Rabl, 1985) as shown in Eq. (3).
Nevertheless, it is usual to consider optical properties as constants (Bellos et al., 2018a, Bellos et al., 2018b) – hemispherical average values (Howell et al., 2016) –, and . With this simplification, simple relations between and IAM can be derived, as shown in Eq (4).
In this sense, one can correctly write:
which shows that the optical analysis problem is basically the calculation of or .
The most used method for optical analysis is ray tracing numerical simulations – an approach closely related to the definition presented in Eq. (1) since is one of the simulation outputs. This method is based on following the path of light rays throughout the optical system, simulating their interaction with surfaces and materials, calculating the reflected, transmitted, and absorbed fractions of the incident rays (Osório et al., 2016, Wendelin and Dobos, 2013). The number of rays must be large enough to produce accurate results. It has the advantage to deal with any kind of geometry and mapping the flux distribution on the absorber. The computational cost can be high, which makes it difficult to use for optimization studies (Ajdad et al., 2019, Moghimi et al., 2017).
On the other hand, LFR main optical losses are well-known: shading, blocking, cosine effect, heliostats defocusing, finite acceptance (sun shape and optical errors), and end-losses. In this sense, analytical approaches have been used to compute the optical analysis problem. They are usually related to the definition presented in Eq. (2), and have the advantage of being faster than ray tracing simulations, even though are not “general-purpose” and their accuracy depends on the models that are used to describe the optical losses.
To analytically compute the absorbed flux is not a trivial task. On one hand, heliostats and absorber surfaces interact with sunlight just once, and primaries reflectivity and absorber absorptivity (hemispherical averages values) composition in is just a simple product; also from Eq. (5), the term can be interpreted as the effective aperture area used to collect the incident radiation – a purely geometric factor –, and, thus, shading, blocking, and cosine effect losses can be easily considered. On the other hand, defocusing and finite acceptance losses (sun shape and optical errors) are harder to calculate; and when the analyzed LFR includes a glazed receiver with a secondary optic it gets even more complicated: for instance, secondary’s acceptance function, multiples reflections and transmissions, and total internal reflection are effects that must be properly handled to precisely compute the absorbed flux at the receiver.
In this context of analytical methods, the concept of an effective aperture area, , has been used to address the LFR optical analysis problem: Heimsath et al., 2014, Hongn et al., 2015 presented analytical models for end-losses; Sharma et al. (2015) presented equations to model shading, blocking, cosine effect, and end-losses in LFRs; Bellos and Tzivanidis (2018) developed simple equations for both transversal and longitudinal components of the IAM, through shading, cosine effect and end-losses modeling; and Yang et al. (2018) presented a vector analysis to compute end-losses and cosine effect, and also simple equations for shading and blocking.
The analytical methods referred above do not include curved-shape heliostats (parabolic or cylindrical) neither compute losses due to finite acceptance (sun shape and optical errors). Abbas et al. (2012) presented an analytical study about the curved-mirrors influence on the optical performance of LFRs, although no formulation for defocusing losses was presented. Rabl (1985) proposed the idea to compute losses due to finite acceptance by the concepts of acceptance function and effective source (the convolution of a sun shape and optical errors). Finally, Zhu’s vector-based method (Zhu, 2013) includes it all, although for the particular case of a tubular receiver: it considers primary mirrors as a set of discrete points, and uses a reflection plane analysis to account for shading, blocking, and defocusing by conditional equations; then, uses Rabl’s concepts to compute losses due to finite acceptance; cosine effect is accounted by a factorized model, and end-losses are not included.
Recent optimization studies (Ajdad et al., 2019, Moghimi et al., 2017) have faced a problem associated with the high computational cost of using ray tracing tools to compute the optical analysis of LFRs. An analytical approach would solve that, although it is not easy and gets more complicated if the receiver contains a secondary optic. On the other hand, the aperture of a secondary optic (CPCs, trapezoidal, SMS-like) can be modeled as a flat receiver and Zhu’s method presents a good start point on primary mirrors optical losses modeling. This is one of the major reasons why this work is presented as the authors came across such difficulties while developing methodologies for advanced optimization of LFRs systems.
This work develops an analytical method to compute the optical analysis problem of LFRs with a flat receiver. It considers Zhu’s vector-based approach (primaries discretization and conditional equations) and Rabl’s concepts (acceptance and effective source), however, through new shading (including receiver shading), blocking, and cosine effect analyzes. Furthermore, it includes end-losses and definitions about how to quantify each optical loss. In this sense, the present method is not only a review and improvement of the current state of the art. It is also a tool that shall be used in future works involving optimization processes.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the method and the developed equations. Section 3 shows optical analysis results of the proposed method, comparing it against ray tracing simulations. Finally, in Section 4, some conclusions and perspectives for future research activities are presented.
Section snippets
Direction of incident sunlight
Consider the x-y-z coordinate system shown in Fig. 1, attached to the LFR aperture plane. Concentrator symmetry defines two planes z-x – the transversal plane; and (2) y-z – the longitudinal plane.
In Fig. 1, is the vector that represents the incident sunlight direction; and are its projections on both transversal and longitudinal planes, respectively. Transversal and longitudinal incidence angles, and , are defined as the angles that z axis makes with and , respectively.
Results and discussion
A Python code was implemented based on the vector analysis presented before. NumPy (Harris et al., 2020) and SciPy (Virtanen et al., 2020) libraries were used for the vector computing, and the portion library (Decan, 2021) was used to compute intervals arithmetic. The purpose of this Section is to present the validation of the proposed optical analysis method, comparing its results against ray tracing simulations (numerical experiments) performed in SolTrace (Wendelin, 2003). As can be seen
Conclusions
The optical analysis deals with the calculation of the absorbed flux at the receiver and is related to the calculation of optical efficiency and intercept factor. In the context of Linear Fresnel Reflectors (LFR) technology, ray tracing simulations is the most used method. Nevertheless, some analytical formulations were published.
An analytical method was developed in this work for LFRs with a flat receiver. It uses Zhu’s vector-based approach (Zhu, 2013), although through novel shading,
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work performed (author Andre Santos) was supported by a scholarship from the project INIESC – National Research Infrastructure in Solar Energy Concentration (Grant No. 22113 01/SAICT/2016).
References (30)
- et al.
Solar radiation concentration features in Linear Fresnel Reflector arrays
Energy Conversion and Management
(2012) - et al.
Particle swarm optimization algorithm for optical-geometric optimization of linear fresnel solar concentrators
Renewable Energy
(2019) - et al.
Experimental investigation of the daily performance of an integrated linear Fresnel reflector system
Solar Energy
(2018) - et al.
Development of analytical expressions for the incident angle modifiers of a linear Fresnel reflector
Solar Energy
(2018) - et al.
Daily, monthly and yearly performance of a linear Fresnel reflector
Solar Energy
(2018) - et al.
Direct normal irradiance related definitions and applications: The circumsolar issue
Solar Energy
(2014) - et al.
Sunshape distributions for terrestrial solar simulations
Solar Energy
(2003) - et al.
Quantifying Optical Loss Factors of Small Linear Concentrating Collectors for Process Heat Application
Energy Procedia
(2014) - et al.
Estimation of the influence of different incidence angle modifier models on the biaxial factorization approach
Energy Conversion and Management
(2015) - et al.
Least square based method for the estimation of the optical end loss of linear Fresnel concentrators
Solar Energy
(2015)
Optical Characterization Parameters for Line-focusing Solar Concentrators: Measurement Procedures and Extended Simulation Results
Energy Procedia
Factored approximations for biaxial incident angle modifiers
Solar Energy
Linear Fresnel reflector (LFR) technology
Simulation-based optimisation of a linear Fresnel collector mirror field and receiver for optical, thermal and economic performance
Solar Energy
Effects of shading and blocking in linear Fresnel reflector field
Solar Energy
Cited by (7)
Analytic optical evaluation of linear aplanatic solar Fresnel reflectors
2023, Solar EnergyCitation Excerpt :The types of optical losses in LFRs and LAFRs are the same: (1) blocking (of rays reflected by a primary mirror segment by the back of an adjacent segment), (2) ground losses (rays that miss the primary and strike the ground), (3) shading of the primary by the secondary, (4) spillage (rays reflected from the primary that miss the secondary), and (5) ray rejection (rays reflected from the secondary that miss the absorber tube). The exact analytic results derived here for evaluating these losses specifically in the LAFR are equally valid for generalized LFRs (in the spirit of (Santos et al., 2021)) for the first four categories. Ray rejection within the secondary concentrator, however, is specific to its shape, such that the results derived here cannot be generalized to other secondary designs.
Promote optical performance of linear Fresnel micro-concentrator by an offset-axis mirror layout in building-integrated PV/T application
2022, Renewable EnergyCitation Excerpt :To avoid blocking between mirrors, the gaps between mirrors need to be widened, consequently resulting in even more severe sunlight missing. Some studies have been published to investigate the blocking issues in various concentrators [10–13]. Consequently, the challenge of designing LFR devices for building facades lies in the requirement of height restrictions to lower wind load.
Nanofluid performance in a solar LFR system involving turbulator applying numerical simulation
2022, Advanced Powder TechnologyCitation Excerpt :The optical filter was observed that has a mean absorptivity of about 31 percent in the spectrum ranges of 250 nm to 2500 nm. Santos et al. [20] investigated LFR including a flat receiver and proved that deviation of outputs with analytical approximation reaches to 132 percent; however, the errors in the value of yearly attracted energy were great up to just 3 percent. In previous published papers, utilizing complex shape of turbulator through a LFR unit was demonstrated in few articles.
ENERGY OPTIMIZATION APPROACH BASED MACHINE LEARNING ON LINEAR REFLECTOR SYSTEMS
2024, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology