Efficient optimized design of solar power

tower plants based on successive response

surface methodology

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

..............................................................................................................................................................

Yan Luo1 , Yue Hu2 and Tao Lu1, *

1
School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical
Technology, 15 Beisanhuan East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China; 2 School
of Science, Hubei University of Technology, 28 Nanli Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan
430068, China
............................................................................................................................................
Abstract
Recently the optimal design of the solar power tower (SPT) plants have attracted increasing attention.
In this paper, an improved algorithm combing the successive response surface methodology (SRSM) and
simulated annealing (SA) global algorithm was proposed to achieve the efficient optimization design of
the molten salt SPT plant with 2650 heliostats in Sevilla, Spain. Based on the traditional response surface
methodology (RSM) and the adaptive domain reduction method, the SRSM was established to surrogate
the complex thermo-economic model of the SPT plant to the updated approximation function, which was
a high-order polynomial form to define the relationship between the objective parameter of the levelized
cost of energy (LCOE) and 12 design variables related to the 4 subsystems of the SPT plant. After that, the
SPT plant optimization design was performed by the SA global algorithm on the basis of SRSM. According
to a comparison between the results obtained by the proposed method and the actual model-based global
algorithm, the high accuracy and low computation time of the proposed strategy was proved.

Keywords: solar power tower plants; levelized cost of electricity; successive response surface methodology;
adaptive domain reduction; global optimization
∗ Corresponding author:
lutao@mail.buct.edu.cn Received 4 March 2019; revised 3 May 2019; accepted 8 May 2019
................................................................................................................................................................................

1 INTRODUCTION
Compared with other concentrating solar power technology
options, solar power tower (SPT) technology is currently a more
cost-effective option because of its high operating temperatures
and large power station scales [1]. SPT technology has been widely
applied in many engineering projects such as PS10, PS20 and
Gemasolar [2]. To become one of the most appropriate substitutes
of coal-fired power plant the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of
the SPT plant should be further decreased [3].
The SPT plant is generally composed of a solar receiver, helio-
stat field, thermal storage system and power block. Based on the
SPT plant subsystem models, the entire SPT plant design is always
globally optimized to obtain the optimal design parameters of
each subsystem. Spelling et al. [4] applied evolutionary optimiza-
tion algorithm to optimize the involved design parameters of the
SPT plant subsystems, which resulted in a compromise between
the minimal capital cost and the minimal LCOE of a combined-
cycle SPT plant. Schimitz et al. [5] presented a genetic algorithm
International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
doi:10.1093/ijlct/ctz031 Advance Access publication 1 August 2019
to obtain the optimal heliostat layout and receiver size with a
minimum LCOE of the central receiver solar plant. Soltani et al.
[6] solved the multi-objective optimization problem of a solar
combined system using the genetic algorithm. Then, the opti-
mal power block operating parameters and heliostat field layout
were achieved. Starke et al. [7] optimized a solar-hybrid system
with an evolutionary optimization algorithm. Although the global
algorithm can obtain accurate SPT plant optimization design,
the enormous computation time of the optimization process is
challenging due to the complex heliostat field model and high-
dimension optimization process.
Consequently, to solve the above problem, some other strate-
gies were proposed to reduce the computation time of the opti-
mal SPT plant design. Kistler [8] simplified the heliostat field
model by dividing the entire heliostat field into 11×11 cells.
Then, the local enumeration algorithm was used to solve the SPT
plant optimization problem aiming at the minimum LCOE [9].
Ramos et al. [10] used the NSPOC local algorithm to obtain the
optimal design of the SPT plant with the objective parameter
475
Y. Lou et al.
LCOE. The results showed that the NSPOC algorithm had similar
optimal solution to that of the genetic global algorithm. Collado
and Guallar [11] decomposed the high-dimension optimization
problem of the SPT plant design into two successive optimization
processes. The first step is to optimize the heliostat field layout by
the Campo code [12] with the maximum annual incident energy
as the objective function. Then, the optimal solar receiver size
and tower height were obtained with minimum LCOE. Similar
optimization decomposition strategies [13, 14] were also used to
conduct the entire SPT plant optimization design. The above opti-
mization strategies can reduce the computation time. However,
these approaches are always at the expense of accuracy because of
the local algorithm and the decomposed models. Moreover, in our
previous work, the SPT plant optimization problem was solved
by decoupling those weakly correlated parameters based on the
global sensitivity analysis [15], but this method may not applicable
when most parameters were strongly correlated.
From these studies, there is a need to develop a strategy with
high accuracy and low computation time for the SPT plant opti-
mization design. As a high-order polynomial function form to
define the relation between the design parameters and the objec-
tive parameter, the response surface methodology (RSM) approx-
imation model [16] is widely used in the optimization design of
various complex systems such as aerospace, chemistry and so on.
Sevant et al. [17] combined the partial different equation method
and the RSM approximation model to a flying wing optimization
design problem. It was found that this approach could accurately
explore the global optimum and drastically reduce the computa-
tion time. Liyana-Pathirana and Shahidi [18] demonstrated that
the number of experiments used to obtain the accurate optimum
conditions for the extraction of phenolic compounds from wheat
could be largely reduced based on the RSM approximation model.
Anyanwu et al. [19] found that it was effective to optimize the
microalgae dewatering efficiency by means of the RSM approxi-
Figure 1. Diagram of the entire molten salt SPT plant system.
476 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486
mation model. Although the RSM approximation model can suc-
cessfully surrogate the numerical problem and greatly reduce the
computation time of the optimization process, it lacks accuracy
for highly nonlinear and multi-variable optimization problems.
To solve this problem, some researchers [20, 21] applied the
successive response surface methodology (SRSM) approximation
model in mechanics field to improve the accuracy of the RSM
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019
model.
From the above, the approximation model is rarely used in the
SPT field, which is beneficial to overcome the existing problems
in the SPT plant optimization design. In this paper, aiming at
the minimum LCOE, the simulated annealing (SA) optimization
approach was performed to solve the molten salt SPT plant opti-
mization problem on the basis of the SRSM approximation model,
which developed form the RSM model. The proposed strategy
is expected to simultaneously guarantee high accuracy and low
computation time of the SPT plant optimization design.
2 CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPT PLANT
OPTIMIZATION MODEL
Figure 1 gives a diagram of the entire molten salt SPT plant system.
It is composed of the heliostat field, solar receiver, thermal storage
system and power block. The number of heliostats in our plant
optimization design is fixed at 2650, which is identical to that of
the Gemasolar plant [11].
2.1 Design variables
2.1.1 Heliostat field variables
Figure 2 shows the typical heliostat field layout with a surrounding
radial stagger configuration. The heliostat field is composed of
several zones with identical azimuth spacing and radial spacing.

Figure 2. Typical heliostat field layout.
The heliostat dimension is 12.84 m by 9.45 m [22]. The optical
error of the heliostat is 2.9 mrad [22].
To define a typical heliostat field layout with three zones, several
design variables should be given as listed below:
V01–V03 Δεjj : Azimuth spacing between adjacent heliostats of
the same row in the jj-th zone (rad). (jj = 1, 2, 3).
V04–V06 rjj : Radial spacing between consecutive rows in the
jj-th zone (m). (jj = 1, 2, 3).
V07–V08 Δγ jj : Transition spacing between the last row of the
jj-th zone and the first row of the (jj + 1)-th zone (m). (jj = 1, 2).
For a better understanding, Figure 2 also shows a larger version
of the first two rows in a heliostat field. The horizontal distance
between the tower and the first heliostat row r1 is described as
r1 = 0.8THT (1)
in which THT is the tower height.
To avoid mechanical collisions among the heliostats, the min-
imum azimuth spacing εmin between adjacent heliostats of the
same row and minimum radial spacing rmin between consecu-
tive rows are determined as follows [23]:
εmin = 2asin [l/ (2r1 )] ≈ l/r1 (2)
rmin = l cos 30◦ = 0.866l, (3)
where l is the diagonal of the heliostat. Consequently, Δεi ranges
from l/r1 to 2l/r1 , Δri ranges from 0.866l to 2.4l and Δγ i ranges
from 0.866l to 2.4l.
2.1.2 Receiver variables
The external receiver is applied to absorb the reflected sunlight
from the heliostat field. The binary nitrate salt is chosen as the
Efficient optimized design of solar power tower plants
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019
heat transfer fluid of the receiver and operates at 290–565◦ C. The
receiver is designed by two parameters as follows:
V09 R: Receiver radius (m);
V10 THT: Tower height (m),
where R is 3–5 m and THT is 125–165 m. The receiver surface
area A can be approximately defined as A ≈ 2π R(2R + 1) [24].
2.1.3 Thermal storage system and power block variables
The thermal storage system is composed of a hot tank and a
cold tank. The thermal storage capacity can be determined by the
variable as below:
V11 H: Equivalent thermal energy supply hours (h),
where H is 3–12 h.
For the rated power output cycle operation, the inlet feed water
temperature is 215◦ C, the parameters of the superheat steam that
enters the turbine are 12.5 MPa and 538◦ C, and the condensing
pressure is 0.008 MPa. In the case of a fixed heliostats number,
the rated generating capacity of the power block is decided by the
parameter as follows:
V12 SM: Solar multiples (−),
where SM is 1.3–2.7.
2.2 Performance and economic models
In the present study, the system advisor model software [25] is
applied to provide the annual weather database of Sevilla (37.4◦ N,
5.9◦ W), Spain. Included in this database are measurements of
direct normal irradiance (DNI), ambient temperature and wind
velocity at hourly intervals for a typical year statistical data. The
typical year developed from a set of data for years 1982–1995, use
data from year 1987 for May, year 1992 for September etc. Con-
sequently, 24∗365 cases were used to obtain the statistic analysis
of annual performance. Then, based on the mature molten salt
International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486 477
Y. Lou et al.

SPT plant subsystem performance models [26–28], the annual 3 OPTIMIZATION STRATEGY BASED ON
electricity production is obtained by summing up the hourly
power output. Li et al. [26] gave the performance model of the
THE RSM MODEL FOR THE SPT PALNT
heliostat field and optimized the heliostat field layout with given
From the above SPT plant optimization model, it could be
parameters related to the receiver, thermal storage system and
observed that the optimization process requires a large amount
power block. Singer et al. [27] provided the calculation model of
of calculation time because of high-dimensional parameters and
the receiver thermal efficiency by means of iterative method. Zhu
complex performance models. Then, to reduce the calculation

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

et al. [28] presented the heat balance calculation method of the
time in the optimization process, the approximation function was
power block.
built to express the relationship between the SPT plant design
Finally, the economic model of the SPT plant is constructed and
variables and the LCOE instead of (5).
the LCOE can be determined as follows [29]:

 
Cinvest Idebt (1+Idebt )n
+ Iinsurance + CO&M
(1+Idebt )n −1
LCOE =
W plant design, a design of experiment (DOE) should be imple-
where I debt and I insurance are the debt and insurance interest,
respectively, n is operation life of the SPT plant and equal to
30 years, W is the yearly power output, Cinvest is the SPT plant
capital cost (which covers direct and indirect investments) [30],
CO&M is the yearly operation and maintenance cost and accounts
for 1% of total investment per year [31].
3.1 Design of experiment
Before the construction of the approximation model for the SPT
, (4)
mented to generate a set of samples in the range of the SPT
plant design variables. In this study, the optimal latin hypercube is
chosen for the DOE because of its low computational cost and uni-
form samples, which result in better approximations [32]. Then,
the numerical analysis is begun to achieve the actual response
LCOE on the basis of the thermo-economic models of the SPT
plant.

2.3 Mathematical optimization model 3.2 Construction of the RSM model

As a result, the objective parameter LCOE is a function of 12
design variables as below:
Y = f (x1 , x2 , . . . , xd ) ,
where Y is the objective parameter LCOE, xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , d) are
the design variables and d is design variables number.
To minimize the objective parameter LCOE, the mathematical
model of the SPT plant optimization problem is developed as
below:
Objective : Minimize Y
After the response results of these sample points are obtained,
the approximation model is used to analyze the results. Among
different approximation models, the RSM is an effective statis-
tical method to achieve the relationship between the response
(5) and design parameters [33]. Therefore, in this study, the RSM
is applied to construct approximation model for the SPT plant
design. The relationship between the 12 design variables and the
response parameter LCOE is fitted with a high-order polynomial
using the RSM. The approximate function constructed by the
RSM can be represented as below:

N

, (6) Ŷ = βii ϕii (x), (7)

Subject to : xiL ≤ xi ≤ xiU ii=1

where xiL and xiU are the lower and upper limits of the entire design
space for the i-th design variable, respectively. Table 1 lists the
entire design space of the SPT plant design variables.
Table 1. Entire design space of the SPT plant design variables.
where Ŷ is the approximate LCOE, x is the vector of the SPT plant
design variables and can be expressed as x = (x1 , x2 , . . . , xd ), βii
is the unknown coefficient, N is the number of terms of ϕii (x),
ϕii (x) is the basis function of x and the form of a fourth-order
basis function is

Lower Upper Lower Upper

bound bound bound bound 
d 
d 
d
Ŷ = β1 + βi+1 xi + βi+d+1 xi2 + βi+2d+1 xi3
ε 1 (rad) l/r1 2l/r1 γ 1 (m) 0.866l 2.4l i=1 i=1 i=1
ε 2 (rad) l/r1 2l/r1 γ 2 (m) 0.866l 2.4l
ε 3 (rad) l/r1 2l/r1 R (m) 3 5 
d 
d 
d
r1 (m) 0.866l 2.4l THT (m) 125 165 + βi+3d+1 xi4 + β −i2 +23i +i’+4d−11 xi xi’ .
2
r2 (m) 0.866l 2.4l H (h) 3 12 i=1 i=1 i’>i
r3 (m) 0.866l 2.4l SM (−) 1.3 2.7
(8)

478 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486

 Efficient optimized design of solar power tower plants

The unknown coefficients vector β = (β1 , β2 , . . . , βN )T can be 4 OPTIMIZATION STRATEGY BASED ON

obtained by the least square method and the detailed steps are as THE SRSM MODEL FOR THE SPT PLANT
follows:
(1) m sample points are generated by the DOE. Generally, the traditional RSM model lacks accuracy for multiple
(2) The sample points x(j) ( j = 1, 2, . . . , m) are used to conduct variable and highly nonlinear system. Developed from the RSM
the numerical analysis to obtain the vector of the actual model, the SRSM model is recently built to obtain a higher preci-
T sion approximation function with reduced design space.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

response values Y = (Y(x(1) ), Y(x(2) ), . . . , Y(x(m) )) .
(3) The sum of the squares of the errors between the actual The basic principle of the SRSM model is the application of a
m subregion of the entire design space to determine an approximate
responses and the approximate responses is E(β) = optimum by the iterative optimization method [35]. For each
j=1
iteration process, an adaptive domain reduction method is used

N
to diminish the design space size and the RSM model is used to
[Y(x(j) ) − βii ϕii (x(j) )]2 . To minimize the value of E(β), β
ii=1 construct a new approximation function.
is obtained by solving the differential equation E’ (β) = 0.
(4) Based on the equation of E’ (β) = 0, vector β of the unknown
−1 4.1 Adaptive domain reduction method
coefficients is finally obtained by β = (X T X) (X T Y), where Considering that an efficient reduction strategy of the design
X is calculated by space is the key to construct the SRSM model, an adaptive domain
⎡ reduction method is proposed to update the subregion of the


⎤
ϕ1 x(1) . . . ϕN x(1) design variables with iterations. The specific methodology is
⎢ ⎥ explained as follows.
X=⎣ ... ... ... ⎦.
(m)
(m)
The subregion of the initial iteration is defined as the entire
ϕ1 x . . . ϕN x
design space of each variable. For the k-th (k = 2, 3, . . . ) iter-
ation, the lower and upper bounds of its subregion for the i-th
L and xU , respectively. Then,
design variable are assumed to be xi,k
To measure the reliability of the approximation model of the i,k
SPT plant design, the coefficient R-square is applied to conduct opt
the k-th subregion is approximated, and the k-th optimum xi,k is
an error analysis and calculated as follows: obtained.
For the (k + 1)-th (k = 2, 3, . . . ) iteration, its subregion size
M 


2 is reduced from the previous subregion. Generally, a smaller dis-
opt
Y x(J) − Ŷ x(J) tance between the k-th optimum xi,k and the (k-1)-th optimum
J=1 opt opt
R2 = 1 − , (9) xi,k−1 indicates that xi,k is closer to the actual optimal point.
M


2
Y x(J) − Y Thus, the size of the (k + 1)-th subregion can be more rapidly
J=1 reduced. Based on the above analysis, a ratio parameter δi,k+1 is
opt opt
proposed to estimate the deviation between xi,k and xi,k−1 and
represented as
where M is the sample size for the error analysis, Y(x( J) ) and
 opt 
Ŷ(x( J) ) are the actual and approximate response value of the  x − xopt 
 i,k i,k−1 
J-th sample point, respectively, for the error analysis and Y is the δi,k+1 =  U , (11)
 xi − xiL 
average value of all actual responses.
Then, the value of R-square is between 0 and 1. As R-square where xiL and xiU are the lower and upper bounds of the initial
gets closer to 1, the approximation model for the SPT plant design subregion for the i-th design variable.
becomes more accurate. To accelerate the domain reduction process, different contrac-
tion approaches are used on the basis of δi,k+1 . Thus, the k-th
subregion is divided into three zones to determine which of these
3.3 Optimization method contraction approaches to be adopted. The expressions of these
Based on the construction of the traditional RSM, the mathemat-
zones are defined as follows:
ical model of the SPT plant optimization problem is described as
below: ⎧
⎪
⎨zone 1 : δi,k+1 < a1
Objective : Minimize Ŷ zone 2 : a1 ≤ δi,k+1 < a2 , (12)
. (10) ⎪
⎩
Subject to : xL ≤ x ≤ xU zone 3 : δi,k+1 ≥ a2

Then, the SPT plant global optimization problem is solved by where a1 and a2 are constants and indicate the deviation between
opt opt
the SA algorithm [34], which has the advantage of high accuracy. xi,k and xi,k−1 .

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486 479

Y. Lou et al.

The possible adaptive domain reduction method for a typical

two-variable SRSM problem is shown in Figure 3, and the corre-
sponding illustration is as follows:
opt
(1) If the k-th optimum xi,k is very close to the (k-1)-th optimum
opt
xi,k−1 and falls into zone 1, the (k + 1)-th subregion is greatly
shrinked to b1 times of the entire design space and centered

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

opt
on the location of xi,k . (Figure 3a).
opt
(2) If the k-th optimum xi,k belongs to zone 2, the (k + 1)-th sub-
region is first reduced to b2 times of the entire design space
opt
with xi,k as the center point, and then further diminished by
intersecting with the k-th subregion (Figure 3b).
opt
(3) If the distance between the k-th optimum xi,k and the
opt opt
(k-1)-th optimum xi,k−1 is very large and the point xi,k falls
into zone 3, both size and center of the (k + 1)-th subregion
remain as the k-th subregion (Figure 3c).
Consequently, the bounds of the (k + 1)-th subregion for the
i-th design variable are expressed as follows:

 L 
opt
L
xi,k+1 = Max xi,k − 12 λi,k+1 xiU − xiL , xi,k

 U  , (13)
opt
L
xi,k+1 = Min xi,k + 12 λi,k+1 xiU − xiL , xi,k

L
where xi,k+1 U
and xi,k+1 are the lower and upper bounds of the
(k + 1)-th subregion for the i-th design variable; λi,k+1 is the
contraction parameter of the (k + 1)-th subregion for the i-th
design variable and can be determined by
⎧
⎨b1; (Case 1)
λi,k+1 = b2; (Case 2) , (14)
⎩
+ ∞; (Case 3)
where the values of b1 and b2 (b1 < b2) are set up for the specific
problem.

4.2 Optimization procedure

Based on the adaptive domain reduction method, the iterative
steps of the SPT plant optimization design are provided, and
Figure 4 shows the corresponding flow chart.
(1) Create the initial approximation function. To reduce the
computation time, the RSM is applied to evaluate the relation
between the objective parameter LCOE and the design
variables. The initial approximation function Ŷ1 (x1 ) is
established with sample points generated by the DOE in the
entire design space. Figure 3. Possible adaptive domain reduction for a typical two-variable SRSM
(2) Solve the optimization problem based on the initial ap- problem.
proximation function. Based on the initial approximation
function Ŷ1 (x1 ), the minimum LCOE and corresponding
opt
optimal variables x1 of the SPT plant design are obtained Generally, there is a relatively large deviation between the
by the SA global algorithm. The mathematical model of the opt opt
approximate result Ŷ1 (x1 ) and the actual value Y1 (x1 )
initial iterative optimization is expressed as follows:
for multiple variable and strongly nonlinear system. There-
Objective : Minimize Ŷ1 (x1 ) fore, the accuracy of the approximation function should be
. (15)
Subject to : xL ≤ x1 ≤ xU improved to obtain the actual optimal solution.

480 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486

 Efficient optimized design of solar power tower plants

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

Figure 4. Flow chart of the SPT plant optimization procedure based on the SRSM.

(3) Update the approximation function and repeat the opti- is used to update the approximation function. For the
mization. The adaptive domain reduction method is applied second iteration, a new approximation function Ŷ2 (x2 ) is
to reduce the design space of variables and the RSM model constructed based on the updated subregion calculated by

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486 481

Y. Lou et al.

(13). Then the optimization is repeated to obtain the new
opt
optimal point x2 . Similarly, the approximation function is
reconstructed and the optimization process is repeated with
gradually reduced domain. The mathematical model of the
k-th iterative optimization is represented as follows:
Objective : Minimize Ŷk (xk )
sample points were generated by the DOE to construct the quartic
RSM model of the SPT plant design. The actual LCOE acquired
by numerical analysis are compared with the approximate values
obtained by RSM as shown in Figure 6. The actual LCOE was
approximately consistent with the approximate LCOE across the
entire design space and R-square of the RSM model was 0.9373.
After the traditional RSM model was constructed, the SA global

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

. (16) algorithm was used to solve the SPT plant optimization prob-
Subject to : xLk ≤ xk ≤ xU
k
lem. Figure 7 shows the convergence curve of the SPT plant
optimization design on the basis of the RSM. The approximate
(4) Obtain the final optimal solution. Conduct step (3) until
the solution is converged. The convergence criterion is the
relative difference of approximate objective values in the last
two iterations and can be expressed as follows:

  opt   
 Ŷ x opt 
 k k − Ŷk−1 xk−1 
    < ξ, (17)
 opt 
 Ŷk−1 xk−1 

where ξ is the convergence control parameter, and its value is

opt opt
considered as 0.01; Ŷk−1 (xk−1 ) and Ŷk (xk ) are the approximate
response values for the optimal points of the (k-1)-th and k-th
iterations, respectively.

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 5. Variation of R-square with the sample size for the RSM model
Evolved from the traditional RSM model, the SRSM model of the
construction of the SPT plant design.
SPT plant system was constructed to optimize the design variables
with the objective function of minimum LCOE.

5.1 Optimization results of the SPT plant design based

on the RSM model
To reduce the computation time in the SPT plant optimization
process, the quartic RSM model was first built to express the rela-
tionship between the SPT plant design variables and the response
LCOE in the entire design space.
The accuracy and computation time of the traditional RSM
model generally vary with the number of sample points generated
for numerical analysis. To select a proper sample size for the RSM
model construction, the coefficient R-square was used to conduct
an error analysis according to (9). The variation of R-square with
the sample size for the RSM model construction of the SPT plant
design is shown in Figure 5. The coefficient R-square approached
the equilibrium status after ∼600 sample points were generated
for numerical analysis to construct the RSM model. When the
sample size increased from 600 to 2400, R-square increased by
only 1.47%, so the improvement in accuracy of the RSM model
was small. Moreover, the computation time was enhanced by
three times because the computation time of the RSM model con- Figure 6. Comparison between the actual LCOE by numerical analysis and the
struction was proportional to the sample size. Consequently, 600 approximate LCOE by RSM.

482 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486

 Efficient optimized design of solar power tower plants

Table 3. Optimization history of the SPT plant design based on the SRSM.
Design variables First Second Third Fourth
iteration iteration iteration iteration

ε 1 (rad) 1.000l/r1 1.000l/r1 1.019l/r1 1.005l/r1

ε 2 (rad) 1.108l/r1 1.000l/r1 1.009l/r1 1.000l/r1
ε 3 (rad) 1.348l/r1 1.356l/r1 1.338l/r1 1.324l/r1
r1 (m) 0.866l 0.888l 0.866l 0.866l

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

r2 (m) 0.914l 0.969l 0.990l 1.007l
r3 (m) 1.636l 1.682l 1.636l 1.633l
γ 1 (m) 1.724l 1.141l 1.214l 1.122l
γ 2 (m) 1.545l 2.306l 1.477l 1.354l
R (m) 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.4
THT (m) 148 138 136 135
H (h) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0
SM (−) 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Approximate LCOE 21.23 21.67 22.06 22.03
(c/kWhe )
Actual LCOE (c/kWhe ) 22.23 22.06 22.05 22.02
R 2 (−) 0.9373 0.9598 0.9862 0.9917
Figure 7. Convergence curve of the SPT plant optimization process based on the
RSM.

Table 2. Optimal solution of the SPT plant design based on the RSM.
new RSM model. Then, the SPT plant optimization design was
Design variables Optimal values Design variables Optimal values performed by the SA algorithm based on the new approximation
ε 1 (rad) 1.000l/r1 γ 1 (m) 1.724l
function.
ε 2 (rad) 1.108l/r1 γ 2 (m) 1.545 Table 3 lists the optimization history of the SPT plant design
ε 3 (rad) 1.348l/r1 R (m) 3.5 on the basis of the SRSM. The optimal solution converged after
r1 (m) 0.866l THT (m) 148 four iterations. Thus, the total number of required sample points
r2 (m) 0.914l H (h) 12.0 was 2400 for numerical analysis to construct the SRSM model.
r3 (m) 1.636l SM (−) 2.7
Approximate LCOE 21.23 Actual LCOE 22.23
In the iterative optimization process, the optimum value of some
(c/kWhe ) (c/kWhe ) design variables varied greatly, while the optimal values of other
design variables almost unchanged. For instance, the optimal
γ 1 varied from 1.724l to 1.122l with iterations, but the opti-
mal H remained unchanged. The reason may be that the vari-
LCOE decreased from 25.73 c/kWhe to 21.23 c/kWhe after 10138 ation of the actual response LCOE was highly nonlinear with
optimization steps. Although the number of optimization steps γ 1 in the entire design space, which resulted in the low accu-
was large, the optimization procedure was completed in a very racy of the RSM model of the initial iteration. Thus, the SRSM
short time because of the application of the RSM model. Table 2 model was applied to decrease the nonlinear effect with reduced
lists the optimization results based on the RSM. The approximate design space.
and actual LCOE at the optimal point were 21.23 c/kWhe and The error analysis results of the approximation function are
22.23 c/kWhe , respectively. Because the potential LCOE reduction also shown in Table 3. With the number of iterations increased,
of the SPT plant was a few cents per kilowatt hour [36], the R-square of the approximation function enhanced from 0.9373
deviation between the approximate and the actual LCOE was to 0.9917 and the deviation between the approximate and actual
large, which indicated that the developed RSM model could not LCOE at the optimal point decreased from 1 c/kWhe to 0.01
be accurately used to calculate the response LCOE. Therefore, c/kWhe . Hence, the accuracy of the approximation function was
despite the low computation time, the constructed RSM model improved during the iterative optimization process. Then, an
should be updated by the SRSM to improve the accuracy of the actual minimum LCOE of 22.02 c/kWhe was obtained based on
approximation function. the SRSM model, which was a more preferable optimal solution
than that based on the traditional RSM model constructed in the
entire design space.
5.2 Optimization results of the SPT plant design based The updating history of the SPT plant design variables subre-
on the SRSM model gion based on the SRSM is shown in Table 4. For this case, the
The SRSM model was constructed by the iterative optimization values of a1 and a2 in (10) were 0.1 and 0.5, respectively, as well
method to further improve the precision of the SPT plant opti- as b1 and b2 in (12) were set to 0.4 and 1, respectively. The history
mization design results. For each iteration, 600 sample points indicated that the subregion of the design variables was gradually
generated from the updated subregion were set to reconstruct a reduced with the iterations. For example, the subregion of ε2

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486 483

Y. Lou et al.

Table 4. Updating history of the SPT plant design variables subregion based on the SRSM.
Design variables First iteration Second iteration Third iteration Fourth iteration

ε 1 (rad) (1–2)l/r1 (1–1.5)l/r1 (1–1.2)l/r1 (1–1.2)l/r1

ε 2 (rad) (1–2)l/r1 (1–1.608)l/r1 (1–1.5)l/r1 (1–1.209)l/r1
ε 3 (rad) (1–2)l/r1 (1–1.848)l/r1 (1.156–1.556)l/r1 (1.156–1.538)l/r1
r1 (m) (0.866–2.4)l (0.866–1.633)l (0.866–1.195)l (0.866–1.173)l
r2 (m) (0.866–2.4)l (0.866–1.681)l (0.866–1.276)l (0.866–1.276)l

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

r3 (m) (0.866–2.4)l (0.869–2.4)l (1.376–1.989)l (1.376–1.943)l
γ 1 (m) (0.866–2.4)l (0.957–2.4)l (0.957–1.908)l (0.957–1.521)l
γ 2 (m) (0.866–2.4)l (0.866–2.312)l (0.866–2.312)l (0.866–2.312)l
R (m) 3–5 3–4.5 3–3.8 3–3.7
THT (m) 125–165 128–165 128–158 128–144
H (h) 3–12 7.5–12 10.2–12 10.2–12
SM (−) 1.3–2.7 2–2.7 2.4–2.7 2.4–2.7

Figure 8. Convergence curves of the SPT plant optimization design based on the SRSM. (a) Iteration 1. (b) Iteration 2. (c) Iteration 3. (d) Iteration 4.

reduced from (1–2)l/r1 to (1–1.209)l/r1 after four iterations. Fig-
ure 8 shows the convergence curves of the SPT plant optimization
design based on the SRSM. Although the number of optimization
steps was ∼10000 for each iteration, the optimization process was
not time-consuming due to the application of the approximation
function.
5.3 Comparisons of the proposed strategy and actual
model-based algorithms
To demonstrate the precision and computation time of the pro-
posed strategy, the SA global algorithm and modified method of
feasible directions (MMFD) local algorithm based on the actual
SPT plant analysis model were also adopted to make comparisons

484 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486

 Efficient optimized design of solar power tower plants

Table 5. Optimal solutions of different strategies for the SPT plant design.
Design variables Present strategy Actual model-based SA algorithm Actual model-based MMFD algorithm

ε 1 (rad) 1.005l/r1 1.000l/r1 1.000l/r1

ε 2 (rad) 1.000l/r1 1.003l/r1 1.017l/r1
ε 3 (rad) 1.324l/r1 1.315l/r1 1.303l/r1
r1 (m) 0.866l 0.868l 0.866l
r2 (m) 1.007l 1.011l 1.015l

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019

r3 (m) 1.633l 1.637l 1.710l
γ 1 (m) 1.122l 0.994l 1.451l
γ 2 (m) 1.354l 1.224l 1.576l
R (m) 3.4 3.4 3.9
THT (m) 135 133 145
H (h) 12.0 12.0 7.8
SM (−) 2.7 2.7 2.2
LCOE (c/kWhe ) 22.02 22.01 23.01
Number of numerical analyses 2400 10137 368

of the SPT plant optimization design results. In general, the SA 6 CONCLUSIONS

algorithm obtains high precision optimization results in spite
of enormous computation time [36]. The MMFD algorithm is
a classic gradient-based local optimization strategy and always
obtains the local optimal solution quickly [37].
Table 5 shows the optimization solutions of different strategies
for the SPT plant design. The minimum LCOE of the proposed
strategy, actual model-based SA algorithm and actual model-
based MMFD algorithm were 22.02 c/kWhe , 22.01 c/kWhe and
23.01 c/kWhe , respectively. The optimal values of some design
variables of the actual model-based MMFD algorithm signifi-
cantly deviated from those of the actual model-based SA algo-
rithm, such as γ 1 and H. As a result, the optimal solution of the
actual model-based MMFD algorithm was worse than that of the
actual model-based SA algorithm because the MMFD algorithm
always obtained a local optimal solution. However, the proposed
strategy had notably similar minimum LCOE and optimum val-
ues of the design variables to the actual model-based SA algo-
rithm, which confirmed the accuracy of the proposed strategy.
The computation time of different strategies for the SPT plant
optimization design was generally proportional to the number of
SPT plant numerical analyses. For the traditional optimization
strategies, such as the actual model-based SA algorithm and the
actual model-based MMFD algorithm, the number of numerical
analyses was equal to the number of optimization steps. For
the proposed strategy, the computation time of the optimization
process could be negligible after the approximation model was
constructed, so the number of numerical analyses was the same as
the number of sample points used to construct the approximation
model. Then, the number of numerical analyses for different
strategies are listed in Table 5. It could be seen that the number
of numerical analyses for the proposed strategy, actual model-
based SA algorithm and actual model-based MMFD algorithm
were 2400, 10137 and 368, respectively. The computation time of
the proposed strategy was about 75% lower than that of the actual
model-based SA algorithm. Therefore, the proposed strategy is
a preferable optimization method with high accuracy and low
computation time.
A novel optimization strategy with high accuracy and low com-
putation time was proposed to acquire the minimum LCOE of the
molten salt SPT plant. This method makes a comprehensive use
of the SRSM model and the SA algorithm, which were applied for
the approximation function construction and design parameters
optimization, respectively.
(1) The approximation model constructed by the traditional
RSM model for the SPT plant design lacked accuracy, which
led to the deviation between the approximate and the actual
LCOE at the optimal point was up to 1 c/kWhe .
(2) Developed from the traditional RSM model, the SRSM
model was constructed with the proposed adaptive domain
reduction method for the SPT plant. By utilizing the
SRSM model, the accuracy of the approximation model
was improved and R-square of the approximation function
increased from 0.9373 to 0.9917.
(3) Based on the SRSM approximation model, the SA global algo-
rithm was used to conduct an iterative optimized design for
the SPT plant. The actual minimum LCOE is 22.02 c/kWhe
after four iterations, which was more favorable than that
based on the traditional RSM model.
(4) Compared with the actual model-based SA global algorithm,
the proposed strategy achieved a notably similar optimal
design and reduced the computation time by ∼75%. But it
should be noted that the computation time may be increased
with increasing number of design parameters to ensure the
accuracy of the optimization results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial supports for this research project from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51806009) and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.
ZY1814) are gratefully acknowledged.

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486 485

Y. Lou et al.
REFERENCES
[1] Boudaoud S, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K, et al. Thermal performance
prediction and sensitivity analysis for future deployment of molten salt
cavity receiver solar power plants in Algeria. Energy Convers Manag
2015;89:655–64.
[2] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A review of studies on central receiver
solar thermal power plants. Renew Sust Energ Rev 2013;23:12–39.
[3] Avila-Marin AL, Fernandez-Reche J, Tellez FM. Evaluation of the potential
of central receiver solar power plants: configuration, optimization and
trends. Appl Energy 2013;112:274–88.
[4] Spelling J, Favrat D, Martin A, et al. Thermoeconomic optimization of a
combined-cycle solar tower power plant. Energy 2012;41:113–20.
[5] Schmitz M, Schwarzbözl P, Buck R, et al. Assessment of the potential
improvement due to multiple apertures in central receiver systems with
secondary concentrators. Sol Energy 2006;80:111–20.
[6] Soltani R, Keleshtery PM, Vahdati M, et al. Multi-objective optimization of
a solar-hybrid cogeneration cycle: application to CGAM problem. Energy
Convers Manag 2014;81:60–71.
[7] Starke AR, Cardemil JM, Escobar R, et al. Multi-objective optimiza-
tion of hybrid CSP+ PV system using genetic algorithm. Energy
2018;147:490–503.
[8] Kistler BL. 1986. A User’s Manual for DELSOL3: A Computer Code for
Calculating the Optical Performance and Optimal System Design for Solar
Thermal Central Receiver Plants. Albuquerque, USA: Sandia National
Laboratories.
[9] Lipps FW, Vant-Hull LL. A cellwise method for the optimization of large
central receiver systems. Sol Energy 1978;20:505–16.
[10] Ramos A, Ramos F. Strategies in tower solar power plant optimization. Sol
Energy 2012;86:2536–48.
[11] Collado FJ, Guallar J. Two-stages optimised design of the collector field of
solar power tower plants. Sol Energy 2016;135:884–96.
[12] Collado FJ, Guallar J. Campo: generation of regular heliostat fields. Renew
Energ 2012;46:49–59.
[13] Carrizosa E, Domínguez-Bravo C, Fernández-Cara E, et al. Optimization
of multiple receivers solar power tower systems. Energy 2015;90:2085–93.
[14] Saghafifar M, Gadalla M. Thermo-economic analysis of conventional
combined cycle hybridization: United Arab Emirates case study. Energy
Convers Manag 2016;111:358–74.
[15] Luo Y, Lu T, Du XZ. Novel optimization design strategy for solar power
tower plants. Energy Convers Manage 2018;177:682–92.
[16] Laurent PJ. 1972. Approximation et Optimization. Paris: Hermann.
[17] Sevant NE, MIG B, Wilson MJ. Aerodynamic design of a flying wing using
response surface methodology. J Aircr 2000;37:562–9.
[18] Liyana-Pathirana C, Shahidi F. Optimization of extraction of phenolic
compounds from wheat using response surface methodology. Food Chem
2005;93:47–56.
[19] Anyanwu R, Rodriguez C, Durrant A, et al. Optimisation of tray drier
microalgae dewatering techniques using response surface methodology.
Energies 2018;11:2327.
486 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 475–486
[20] Kurtaran H, Eskandarian A, Marzougui D, et al. Crashworthiness design
optimization using successive response surface approximations. Comput
Mech 2002;29:409–21.
[21] Pajunen S, Heinonen O. Automatic design of marine structures by
using successive response surface method. Struct Multidiscipl Optim
2014;49:863–71.
[22] Noone CJ, Torrilhon M, Mitsos A. Heliostat field optimization: a
new computationally efficient model and biomimetic layout. Sol Energy
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/4/475/5542446 by Universidade Federal da Bahia user on 17 December 2019
2012;86:792–803.
[23] Collado FJ. Preliminary design of surrounding heliostat fields. Renew
Energ 2009;34:1359–63.
[24] Ortega JI, Burgaleta JI, Téllez FM. Central receiver system solar power
plant using molten salt as heat transfer fluid. J Energ Eng 2008;130:
024501.
[25] Solar Advisor Model (SAM). National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Version 2017.9.5. https://sam.nrel.gov/download/version-2017-9-5.html
[26] Li C, Zhai R, Yang Y. Optimization of a heliostat field layout on annual
basis using a hybrid algorithm combining particle swarm optimization
algorithm and genetic algorithm. Energies 2017;10:1924.
[27] Singer C, Buck R, Pitz-Paal R, et al. Assessment of solar power tower
driven ultrasupercritical steam cycles applying tubular central receivers
with varied heat transfer media. J Sol Energy 2010;132: 041010.
[28] Zhu MS, Liu Y, Lin ZZ, et al. 1994. Engineering Thermodynamics. Beijing:
Tsinghua University Press. In Chinese.
[29] Montes MJ, Abánades A, Martínez-Val JM. Performance of a direct steam
generation solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a func-
tion of the solar multiple. Sol Energy 2009;83:679–89.
[30] Turchi CS, Heath GA. 2013. Molten salt power tower cost model for the
system advisor model (SAM). In National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
USA: Golden.
[31] Montes MJ, Abánades A, Martínez-Val JM, et al. Solar multiple optimiza-
tion for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer fluid in
the parabolic trough collectors. Sol Energy 2009;83:2165–76.
[32] Devanathan S, Koch PN. Comparison of meta-modeling approaches for
optimization. ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition. ASME 2011, pp. 827–35.
[33] Ekren O, Ekren BY. Size optimization of a PV/wind hybrid energy conver-
sion system with battery storage using response surface methodology. Appl
Energy 2008;85:1086–101.
[34] Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated anneal-
ing. Science 1983;220:671–80.
[35] Stander N, Craig KJ. On the robustness of a simple domain reduc-
tion scheme for simulation-based optimization. Eng Computation 2002;
19:431–50.
[36] Kolb GJ, Ho CK, Mancini TR, et al. 2011. Power Tower Technology
Roadmap and Cost Reduction Plan. Albuquerque, USA: Sandia National
Laboratories.
[37] Vanderplaats GN, Moses F. Structural optimization by methods of feasible
directions. Comput Struct 1973;3:739–55.