Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Secondary concentrator optimization of a linear Fresnel reflector using T

Bezier polynomial parametrization
⁎
Evangelos Bellos , Christos Tzivanidis, Angelos Papadopoulos
Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Linear Fresnel reflector (LFR) consists a promising solar concentrating technology for medium and high tem-
Linear Fresnel reflector peratures (150–400 °C). Usually, these collectors are designed with a secondary reflector in order to maximize
Bezier the exploitation of the incident solar irradiation. The objective of this work is to optimize the secondary reflector
Optical analysis of an LFR using Bezier polynomial parametrization which is something new in this domain. This parametrization
Optimization
is based on the movement of some control points (three in this case) in order to determine the optimum sec-
ondary reflector geometry. According to the final results, the optimum optical efficiency of the LFR is found to be
72.84%, while the optical efficiency in the initial design is 61.01%. Moreover, the optical efficiency is calculated
for different solar angles and it is found that the optimized concentrator has superior performance compared to
the initial design in all the cases. Furthermore, it is found that the optimum design leads to a relatively uniform
heat flux distribution over the absorber periphery compared to the initial design. The last step is the determi-
nation of the thermal efficiency performance curve and it is found 20.50% mean thermal efficiency enhancement
with the optimum design.

1. Introduction shading losses, blocking problems and the existence of a secondary

Solar energy utilization is vital for facing a great number of pro-
blems as the fossil fuel depletion, the global warming, the increasing
energy demand and the high electricity price (Myers and Goswami,
2016; Tiwari and Tiwari, 2016; Moghimi et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2015;
Hirsch et al., 2013). Concentrating solar collectors are able to operate in
medium and high temperatures levels and so they can be coupled with a
great variety of applications as industrial heat, steam production,
electricity production and chemical processes (Prasad et al., 2017; Zhou
et al., 2017; Loni et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017).
The most usual solar concentrating technologies are the linear
configurations which are separated into the parabolic trough collector
(PTC) and in the linear Fresnel reflector (LFR). These solar collectors
present different advantages and disadvantages and they are competing
technologies for medium and high-temperature applications
(150–400 °C) (Cagnoli et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2014). The LFR is a de-
veloping technology and it presents numerous advantages compared to
the PTC. More specifically, the LFR are low-cost technologies, with high
land utilization, reduced operating costs and they do not face great
mechanical difficulties due to the wind loads (Bellos and Tzivanidis,
2018). However, they present lower optical efficiency compared to the
PTC because of many factors as the spaces between the primary mirrors,
reflector. On this direction, a lot of research has been focused on the
optical optimization of the LFR in order to achieve optical performance
close to the respective of the PTC. Different configuration for the pri-
mary reflectors, the secondary reflector and the receiver design have
been applied and optimized. The great variety of the existing designs
indicates that there are not well-established designs which provide the
optimum solutions.
In the literature, there are many different designs which present
small or great differences. First of all, the primary reflectors can be flat
or curved, with the flat reflectors to be a low-cost and easy design but to
present lower concentration. Benyakhlef et al. (2016) studied the im-
pact of the mirror shape and they found that a curvature of 2 mm is able
to lead to a great enhancement in the system optical efficiency with the
receiver to be placed 6 m over the plane of the mirror. Furthermore, the
optimization of the distance between the primary mirrors is another
issue (Abbas and Martínez-Val, 2015; Boito and Grena, 2016) because
higher distances lead to lower shading/blocking effects but simulta-
neously to higher optical losses and greater land requirements. The
receiver design is another important issue which is associated with the
secondary concentrator design (if exists) and the absorber geometry.
Generally, the absorber is tubular, except some studies with flat ab-
sorbers (Bellos et al., 2016a; Mathioulakis et al., 2018), but the number

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bellose@central.ntua.gr (E. Bellos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.07.025
Received 3 April 2018; Received in revised form 9 June 2018; Accepted 8 July 2018
0038-092X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Bellos et al. Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

Nomenclature η efficiency, –
θL solar incident angle in the longitudinal direction, °
Aa collector net area, m2 θT solar incident angle in the transversal direction, °
C concentration ratio, – ρ1 primary concentrator reflectance, –
cp specific heat capacity under constant pressure, J/kg K ρ2 secondary concentrator reflectance, –
D diameter, m σ standard deviation, –
Dw distance between reflectors, m τ cover transmittance, –
F focal length, m ω peripheral absorber angle, °
g weight function of the control point to the curve point, –
Gb solar direct beam irradiation, W/m2 Subscripts and superscripts
i control point counter, –
KL incident angle modifier in the longitudinal direction, – abs absorbed
KT incident angle modifier in the transversal direction, – c cover
L tube length, m ci inner cover
m mass flow rate, kg/s co outer cover
N number of the Bezier curve control points reduced by 1, – in inlet
Nrf number of primary reflectors, – max maximum
P non-uniformity index, – mean mean value
q heat flux in the absorber, W/m2 opt optical
Q heat rate, W out outlet
r position vector of the point, mm r receiver
T temperature, K ri inner receiver
t dimensionless parameter of the Bezier curve, – ro outer receiver
W total width, m s solar
W0 mirror width, m th thermal
Xb coordinate of control point b in X axis, mm u useful
Xc coordinate of control point c in X axis, mm
Ya coordinate of control point a in Y axis, mm Abbreviations
Yb coordinate of control point b in Y axis, mm
CPC compound parabolic concentrator
Greek symbols LCR local concentration ratio
LFR linear Fresnel reflector
aab absorber absorbance, – PTC parabolic trough collector
ε emittance, –

of the tubes is an important issue. Usually, one tube is used in the de-
signs with a compound parabolic secondary reflector (Balaji et al.,
2016; Qiu et al., 2015), while there are more tubes in the cases with a
trapezoidal cavity (Moghimi et al., 2015; Sahoo et al., 2012).
A lot of research has been focused on the optimization of the ab-
sorber design with one tubular receiver because, in this design, the
conventional evacuated tubes can be used. Different shapes for the
secondary reflector exists and many researchers have applied optimi-
zation procedures in order to find the best design. This problem pre-
sents higher interest especially in the cases with a flat primary reflector
or with a small curve because in these cases there are higher optical
losses which have to be eliminated (Benyakhlef et al., 2016). The
maximization of the optical performance of an LFR with flat primary
mirrors and evacuated tube receiver is able to reduce the cost of the LFR
because the flat mirrors are constructed easier than the curved and the
use of a conventional evacuated tube receiver is a mature technological
solution compared to other trapezoidal designs for instance which
present high convective thermal losses.
Qiu et al. (2017) performed a multi-objective optimization proce-
dure in an LFR with trapezoidal and compound parabolic concentrator
(CPC) secondary reflectors. They tried to minimize the optical losses
and to achieve a uniform heat flux distribution over the absorber. They
finally found the maximum optical efficiency to be 65.4% at solar noon
for the case with the CPC secondary reflector and 67% with the tra-
pezoidal cavity. Prasad et al. (2017) optimized the secondary con-
centrator of an LFR and the found the optimum optical efficiency to be
76.4%, while the initial design had 67%. Zhu (2017) applied an
adaptive method in order to optimize the secondary concentrator and
according to the final results, the optimum secondary reflector was able
to redirect the 90% of the solar rays to the receiver. Canavarro et al.
(2014) applied a simultaneous multiple surface method for the optical
optimization of an LFR. They managed to increase the optical perfor-
mance from 66% in the initial design to 70% for the optimum case.
Moreover, Canavarro et al. (2016) examined a compound elliptical
shape concentrator for an LFR and they found the optical performance
to be 70%. The same authors (Canavarro et al., 2017) investigated the
use of a dual CPC concentrator and they also found an optical efficiency
around 70%. Grena and Tarquini (2011) studied an LFR with a sec-
ondary concentrator with a two-wing shape which presents optical ef-
ficiency close to 76%. Hack et al. (2017) conducted a comparative
study among CPC, trapezoidal, butterfly (or two-wing) shape and a new
adaptive design. They found the adaptive design to be the best case
with an optical efficiency close to 72%, while the secondary reflector
effectiveness to be 95%.
The previous literature review indicates there is a great variety of
the applied ideas for the optimization of the secondary reflector of the
LFR. On this direction, the objective of this study is to optimize the
secondary reflector of an LFR with evacuated tube absorber. The in-
novation of this work is that the Bezier polynomials are used for the
parametrization of the secondary reflector geometry. This para-
metrization is based on the movement of some control points and it can
be easily applied to the present problem, while it presents advantages
for a simple optimization procedure. The use of Bezier polynomials in
solar collector design procedures is seldom. In reference (Bellos et al.,
2016b), a stationary compound parabolic collector was optimized with
the Bezier polynomial parametrization, while in reference (Teufel,
2014) a general methodology for the use of Bezier polynomial in optical
optimizations has been given. So, it is obvious that the application of

717
E. Bellos et al. Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

this design method is something not developed on concentrating solar

collector but it presents an interest.
More specifically, this work aims to optimize the secondary reflector
of an LFR which has been presented in our previous studies (Bellos
et al., 2018a, b). The goal is to find a better design in order to achieve
higher optical efficiency. Except for the optical optimization, the final
optimum design is investigated for different incident angles (in the
transferal and in the longitudinal direction) and the results are com-
pared with the respective for the initial design of references (Bellos
et al., 2018a, b). Furthermore, a simple thermal analysis is performed
for different inlet temperatures with thermal oil as working fluid. The
analysis is conducted with SolidWorks Simulation Studio which is able
to perform simultaneous optical and thermal studies.

2. Material and methods

2.1. The examined solar collector

The investigated LFR has been presented also in references (Bellos

et al., 2018a, b) with details. This collector consists of 30 primary flat
mirrors with 150 mm width, while the distance between two con-
secutive mirrors is 200 mm in order to avoid the shading. The collector
length is 6 m, the total width is 6 m and the receiver is 3 m over the
primary reflectors. It is important to state that the center points of the
primary reflectors are located all in the same horizontal line (or plane).
The net aperture is 27 m2 and the concentration ratio is 20.46. The
receiver is an evacuated tube with outer tube diameter 70 mm and
Fig. 1. (a) The examined LFR (b) The examined initial design.
outer cover diameter 115 mm. The initial design of the secondary re-
flector has a simple parabolic shape. Fig. 1 depicts the examined col-
lector and Table 1 includes the main information of this system. It is Table 1
The basic parameters of the examined collector.
essential to state that typical values for the optical characteristics of the
collector have been selected (Bellos and Tzivanidis, 2018) and they are Parameter Symbol Value
also included in Table 1.
Primary reflector field width W 6m
The receiver emittance is calculated as a function of the receiver Primary reflector field length L 6m
temperature, using the following formula (Bellos et al., 2017a, b): Primary parabola focal point F 3m
Mirror width W0 0.15 m
εr = 0.05599 + 1.039·10−4 ·Tr + 2.249·10−7·T2r (1) Distance between reflectors Dw 0.2 m
Number of mirrors Nrf 30
The receiver temperature (Tr) is given in Kelvin units. Net aperture of the collector Aa 27.0 m2
In the thermal analysis, the investigated working fluid is the thermal Concentration ratio C 20.46
oil Syltherm 800 which can operate with a safety up to 400 °C (http:// Absorber inner diameter Dri 0.066 m
www.loikitsdistribution.com/files/syltherm-800-technical-data- Absorber outer diameter Dro 0.070 m
Cover inner diameter Dci 0.109 m
sheet.pdf).
Cover outer diameter Dco 0.115 m
Cover emittance εc 0.88
2.2. The Bezier polynomial parametrization Cover transmittance τ 0.95
Absorber absorbance αab 0.92
Primary reflector reflectance ρ1 0.94
The Bezier polynomial parametrization is based on the use of a di- Secondary reflector reflectance ρ2 0.94
mensionless parameter (t) to parametrize the coordinates (X and Y) of a
curve. This parameter (t) can take values from 0 to 1 and every value of
this parameter corresponds to a unique point in the examined curve.
The Bezier curve is controlled by some control points. More specifically,
the location of the control points determines the examined curve shape.
By moving the control points, the Bezier curve moves and it tries to
“follow” the control points. In this work, the reflector inner surface is
the investigated Bezier curve. Fig. 2 gives clearly this curve (red color1)
and it is important to state that the Bezier curve is applied only to the
half receiver because the examined receiver is asymmetric geometry.
The selection of the Bezier polynomials for the proper design of the
secondary reflector of the LFR is something new in the literature. The
Bezier polynomials have a series of advantages which can make them
an easy to use tool for design and optimization procedures. First of all,
the Bezier polynomials have a very simple mathematical description, as
it is given in this section. Furthermore, the user can manipulate the

1 Fig. 2. The reflector curve parametrization with Bezier polynomials.

For interpretation of color in Figs. 2 and 3, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.

718
E. Bellos et al.
examined curve (the secondary reflector curve) by moving some control
points, something that aids the user to visualize easily the optimization
procedure. In other words, if the designers would like to design a curve
to be closer to the right part of the system, then it can be achieved by
moving one or more control points to this direction. An extra advantage
of the Bezier polynomials is the creation of a continuous line which
leads to easily constructed objects and to smooth geometries, something
very important for the design of the reflectors. The previous advantages
of the Bezier polynomials make them an interesting choice which can
be used in the optimization of solar systems and thus it has been se-
lected in this work.
Fig. 2 shows that there are three control points (a, b, c). The location
of these points determines the Bezier curve shape. The first control
point (a) is the start of the curve and its located in the vertical line of
Fig. 2, while the last control point (c) is the end of the curve and it
belongs in the horizontal line. The other control point (b) can be located
anywhere and it does not belong in the curve, according to the Bezier
polynomial theory. However, the curve tries to go close to this point. In
the present design, there are four freedom degrees or four optimization
parameters: Yα, Χb, Yb and Xc.
Fig. 3 gives a simple example of the way that this method works.
More specifically, the Fig. 3a gives the concentrator geometry when the
control point (b) is in the old position (orange color). The Fig. 3b shows
the new concentrator geometry with the control point (b) to be in a new
position (green color). It is obvious that a small movement of the
control point (b) is able to create a huge difference in the concentrator
geometry.
The last part of Section 2.2 includes the basic mathematical for-
mulation of the Bezier curve. The general position of any curve point r
(t) is given as a function of the control points positions ri.
N
→
r (t ) = ∑ [→
ri ·giN (t )]
i=0 (2)
The parameter g is a weight which is depended on the (t) parameter
value:
N!
giN (t ) = ·t i·(1−t ) N − i
i!·(N −i)! (3)
The control points are numbers from 0 to N, so there are (N + 1)
control points. The parameter (t) takes values from zero to 1 and every
curve point corresponds to a different (t) value. More specifically:
t = 0 means that the examined curve point is the first control point
(i = 0)
0 < t < 1 means that the examined curve point is an intermediate
point
Fig. 3. An example of the reflector change due to the control point movement during the optimization (a) A random old geometry (not the initial) (b) The new
geometry after the movement of the control point (not the optimum geometry).
719
Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727
t = 1 means that the examined curve point is the last control point
(i = N)
According to the reference (Bellos et al., 2016b), the use of three
control points (N = 2) leads to a parabolic or a compound parabolic
shape geometry. Thus, in this work, three control points have been
selected (a, b and c).
The general Eq. (2) can be analyzed into two general equations, one
for the X vector and one for the Y vector:
X (t ) = X0 ·(1−t )2 + X1 ·2·t·(1−t ) + X2 ·t 2 (4)
Y (t ) = Y0·(1−t )2 + Y1·2·t·(1−t ) + Y2·t 2 (5)
For the present case, the symbols a, b and c have to be used instead
of 0, 1 and 2. Moreover, the values of Xα and Yc are selected to be zero
(Xα = 0 and Yc = 0), as the design constraints of the present problem.
So, it can be written:
X (t ) = Xb ·2·t·(1−t ) + Xc ·t 2 (6)
Y (t ) = Ya·(1−t )2 + Yb·2·t·(1−t ) (7)
For the initial design of references (Bellos et al., 2018a, b), the
following set of the curve parameters is valid: Yα = 66 mm,
Xb = 49 mm, Yb = 66 mm and Xc = 98 mm. These values can be used
for taking the initial design and performing a comparison with it. At the
end of this section, it is important to state that the parametrization of a
curve with Bezier polynomials can be performed with the tools of the
SolidWorks.
The initial design has a parabolic shape. This shape has been opti-
mized in reference (Bellos et al., 2018a) using a one parameter opti-
mization procedure. Moreover, this design has been also used in re-
ference (Bellos et al., 2018b). It is essential to state that the initial
design is not an extremely efficient case but it is a “good choice” for
performing comparisons with the optimum case. The selection of this
initial geometry has a physical meaning and it has been created by
performing a simple design procedure. The aperture of 196 mm is the
minimum one in order all the solar rays to be inside the secondary
cavity if the sun shape is not taken into account. This is a simple as-
sumption for the initial design of the secondary reflector aperture
which leads to Xc = 98 mm. The control point b has selected to be the
one in order to achieve parabolic shape geometry. The Xb is the mean
value of Xa and Xc, while the Yb is selected to be equal to Ya. These
values lead always to a parabolic shape geometry, something that can
be easily found by using the Eqs. (6) and (7). The last parameter is the
Ya which has been optimized in the reference (Bellos et al., 2018a). So
the initial design is not an arbitrarily geometry but it has been designed
with a simple technique. The “state of the art” optimization of this
E. Bellos et al. Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

Table 2 2.4.1. Secondary reflector optimization procedure

The optimization parameters and their values. During this analysis, different designs are investigated by combining
Optimization Initial value Examined range Step Design different combinations of the four design parameters, as they have
Parameters (mm) (mm) (mm) cases presented in Section 2.2. The collector is optimized for zero solar angles
and so the maximum optical efficiency is practically optimized. The
Yα 66 60–75 1.0 16
initial design is the one of references (Bellos et al., 2018a, b) which
Χb 49 40–90 2.5 21
Yb 66 40–90 2.5 21
presents an optical efficiency of 61% and the goal of this work is to
Xc 98 96–112 2.0 9 increase this value. The interest of this procedure is based on the flat
geometry of the primary mirrors which makes the design of the sec-
ondary reflector to be a crucial issue for achieving high optical per-
geometry is performed in this work. formance.
Different combinations of the design parameters are tested by
2.3. Mathematical formulation testing all the possible sets of the optimization variables. Table 2 in-
cludes the optimization variables, their ranges and the step of the ex-
The basic mathematical formulation for the optical and thermal amined values. The initial values correspond to the initial design (see
evaluation of the solar collector is given in this section. The present Fig. 1b). The examined ranges are reasonable ranges which include the
equations utilize the program outputs in order the proper performance initial values and they are extended for lower and higher values. The
indexes to be calculated. exact selections of these ranges have been performed by performing
The optical efficiency (ηopt) of the solar collector is calculated as the simple sensitivity analysis studies in order to check the possible geo-
ratio of the absorbed solar irradiation in the absorber (Qabs) to the metrical constraints of the design. It is important to state that the final
available solar direct beam irradiation in the collector surface (Qs): optimum values are intermediate values of the examined ranges. This
Qabs fact indicates that the final design is not constrained by the selected
ηopt = ranges.
Qs (8)
Totally, the evaluated design cases are 63,504 (16 × 21 × 21 × 9)
The optical efficiency is depended on the incident angle in the in order to cover all the possible combinations of the design cases.
longitudinal direction (θL) and the indecent angle in the transversal Moreover, some extra cases have been examined for conducting sensi-
direction (θT). Generally, the following equation can be written as tivity studied and approximately 64 thousand cases have been ex-
(McIntire, 1982; Nadal and Martínez, 2012): amined. The extra studies regard the proper determination of the ex-
ηopt (θL, θ T ) = KL (θL)·KT (θT )·ηopt , max amined ranges of the parameters in Table 2. The use of parametric
(9)
studies in the simulation tool makes this analysis to be performed in an
The maximum optical efficiency is calculated for zero indecent an- automatic way and so this huge number of evaluation cases was per-
gles. The incident angle modifiers (KL and KT) are used for taking into formed with a reasonable computational cost. The final global optimum
consideration the reduction of the optical efficiency due to the solar design case is found to be evaluating all the examined design cases. In
deviation from the zero angle position. More details are given in Section Section 3, some figures about the way that the design parameters in-
2.4.2. fluence on the design and the optical efficiency are given.
The thermal efficiency of the solar collector (ηth) is calculated as the At this point, it is essential to give some evidence about the optical
ratio of the useful heat production (Qu) to the available solar direct simulation tool and the examined model. The simulation tool calculates
beam irradiation (Qs): in every case the absorbed solar energy in the absorber and then this
Qu result is used for the calculation of the optical efficiency according to
ηth = Eq. (8). The solar irradiation was set at 1000 W/m2 and in this opti-
Qs (10)
mization procedure, the incident angles were zero.
The useful heat production can be calculated using the energy The number of the solar rays was selected at 5 million (5 ⋅ 106), after
balance in the working fluid volume: a sensitivity analysis. Fig. 4 shows the sensitivity analysis results for the
Qu = m ·cp·(Tout −Tin ) initial case. It is obvious that after the threshold of one million rays, the
(11)
optical efficiency is approximately constant with the solar rays. The
value of 5 million was selected in order to achieve high accuracy with a
2.4. Followed methodology reasonable computational cost. It is important to state that this proce-
dure has been also applied to other design and similar curve trends have
In this work, an LFR is designed in SolidWorks and it is simulated in
SolidWorks Simulation Studio (SOLIDWORKS, 2015). This program is
able to perform simultaneous thermal and optical studies, while it is
able to perform separately only optical studies. Moreover, this tool
gives the opportunity to examine parametrically different collector
designs (in this case different secondary reflector shapes) by applying
parametric studies. This fact makes possible the quick and accurate
evaluation of many different designs and so the investigated collector
can be optimized.
The objective of the present study is to optimize the secondary re-
flector of an LFR and to investigate the optimum design in different
scenarios. So, this work can be separated into two parts:

(a) Secondary reflector optimization.

(b) Evaluation of the optimum design and comparison with the initial
one for different operating conditions.
Fig. 4. The impact of the number of rays on the optical efficiency (results about
Below, these parts are explained with more details. the initial design).

720
E. Bellos et al.
been found. However, there is no reason for giving more figures for this
issue inside the paper.
The next step in this analysis is the mesh independence procedure.
Fig. 5 depicts the results for the optical efficiency of the initial case for
different numbers of mesh cells. These results er obtained for 5 million
rays. Finally, a mesh of 1,028,164 cells is selected in order to have
mesh-independent results with a reasonable computational cost.
Below, the boundary conditions that are used in the SolidWorks
Flow Simulation are briefly given, as well as other inputs/parameters in
the program.
• The solar direct beam irradiation (G ) is selected at 1000 W/m in
b
all the cases.
• The incident solar angles in the longitudinal (θ ) and in the trans-
L The goal is to achieve a relatively uniform heat flux distributions
versal (θT) direction are inserted by the user. The user gives the
exact sun position in the program through directions. For the opti-
mization procedure, both angles are zero. During the investigation
of the IAM, every time only one angle changes and the other is zero.
• The proper materials have been chosen. The reflector is a mirror
material, the cover is made of glass and the absorber is stainless
steel. The thermal properties of the materials are manually inserted
into the program.
• The solar rays are selected to be (5 ⋅ 106), after a sensitivity analysis.
• The computational mesh has totally 1,028,164 cells. These cells
regard the entire collector (primary reflector, secondary reflector,
cover tube and absorber tube). In the thermal analysis, about 1
million extra cells have been added for the fluid.
It is important to state that the present program takes into account
the sun shape, but the tracking errors and the mirrors surface errors are
not considered.
Lastly, it has to be said that the examined LFR has flat primary
mirrors, a fact that increases the need for a carefully designed sec-
ondary reflector. If the primary reflectors were curved, then the de-
termination of a reliable secondary reflector would be easier because
the curved mirrors are able to concentrate easier the solar irradiation
on the absorber. However, the application of the present model in an
LFR with curved mirrors is something that has to be done in the future.
2.4.2. Evaluation of the optimum design
The second part of this work is devoted to evaluation the optimum
design in different operating conditions. This design is compared to the
initial one in order to check the performance enhancement variation for
different scenarios. The examined scenarios are optical and thermal.
In the thermal scenarios, different sun positions are tested in long-
itudinal and in transversal directions. The incident angle modifiers and
the optical efficiency are calculated in every case and the proper
comparisons are performed. The incident angle modifiers can be cal-
culated by dividing the value of the optical efficiency of the examined
case to the maximum optical efficiency of the same design. In other
words, in the calculation of the incident angle modifier, the reference
optical efficiency is different for the optimum and the initial case. When
the sun moves in the longitudinal direction, the transversal incident
angle is zero, and when the sun moves in the transversal direction the
longitudinal angle is zero. The following equations describe this
methodology.
ηopt (θL , θ T = 0)
KL (θL) =
ηopt (θL = 0, θ T = 0)
ηopt (θL = 0, θ T )
KT (θ T ) =
ηopt (θL = 0, θ T = 0)
It is also essential to state that when the sun is moving in the
transversal direction, the primary mirrors are rotated properly (with a
deviation of their slope equal to θΤ/2, as it is usually known (Facão and
Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727
Oliveira, 2011) in order to focus the solar rays in the absorber. This has
been done by re-designing in every case the collector geometry. The
parametric analysis has been performed with a step of 10° for the
transversal direction and with a step of 5° for the longitudinal direction.
Furthermore, results about the heat flux distribution in the absorber
periphery are presented. These results are expressed using the local
concentration ratio (LCR). The concentration ratio is defined as the
ratio of the heat flux (q) to the direct beam irradiation (Jeter, 1987), as
Eq. (14) shows. The heat flux distribution is obtained from the simu-
lation tool, so the LCR is calculated easily.
q
2 LCR =
Gb (14)
and thus the non-uniformity index (P) is introduced. This parameter is
defined as the ratio of the standard deviation of the LCR to the mean
LCR (Qiu et al., 2017), as Eq. (15) indicates. Lower values of this
parameter mean that the obtained LCR profile is relatively uniform and
the design is the proper one.
σLCR
P=
LCRmean (15)
The last step in this work is the thermal evaluation of the system.
This analysis is performed in order to present a complete study. The
thermal analysis is also performed with SolidWorks Simulation Studio.
More details about the boundary condition, the validation of the
thermal model and other parameters can be found in our previous
studies (Bellos et al., 2018a, b, 2017a, b) and there is no reason for
giving these details again because this study is mainly an optical study.
However, it is important to state that the investigated working fluid
is Syltherm 800 (http://www.loikitsdistribution.com/files/syltherm-
800-technical-data-sheet.pdf). The collector is examined under zero
incident angle in the thermal analysis, while the solar direct beam ir-
radiation was set at 1000 W/m2. The ambient temperature was selected
at 300 K and the inlet temperature was ranged from 300 K up to 650 K
with a step of 50 K. The volumetric flow rate has been selected at 200 L/
min (Bellos et al., 2018a, b). These operating conditions cover a great
range of possible operating temperatures under a reasonable flow rate
according to our previous studies.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Optimization of the secondary concentrator
The first part of this work is the optimization of the secondary re-
flector of the LFR. The geometry of this reflector is parametrized using
the Bezier polynomials and by moving the control points, according to
(12)
(13)
Fig. 5. The impact of the number of mesh cells on the optical efficiency (results
about the initial design).
721
E. Bellos et al. Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

the ranges of Table 2, different secondary reflectors are obtained and designs of Fig. 11 indicate that the optimum case is a CPC geometry
evaluated. In this section, the impact of the different parameters is with relatively smooth geometry.
given before concluding to the optimum geometry. The reason for this At the end of this section, it is important to state that the secondary
sensitivity analysis is to present and to discuss how every design reflector performance for the optimum case is 97.5% which is a high
parameter is able to lead to a different design and in which directing the value compared to other literature studies, as reference (Bellos et al.,
optimization parameters have to be. This procedure is able to give some 2016) with 95% secondary concentrator efficiency. This result proves
guidelines about the way that the secondary reflectors have to be de- that the use of Bezier polynomial parametrization is an effective way for
signed. It is important to state that in the present study, totally about optimization the secondary reflectors.
64,000 cases have been examined and not only the following. However,
the following presentation gives the path for determining the optimum 3.2. Performance in different operating conditions
design from the initial. The calculation of all the possible combinations
makes the method stronger and eliminates the danger of finding a local The next step in this work is the investigation of the optimum and
maximum and not the global one. the initial geometry for different operating conditions. Firstly, the im-
The first investigated parameter is the Yα, which practically de- pact of the incident angle on the optical performance is given. The next
termines the distance of the reflector from the tube center. The other step is the investigation of the local concentration ratio (LCR) in the
dimensions are kept as in the initial design. Fig. 6 depicts the impact of absorber periphery for the two examined geometry. The last step is the
the Yα values of the results. It is obvious that lower values of this comparison of the collector for different inlet temperatures.
parameter lead to higher optical performance and the reflector comes
close to the absorber. The value of 60 mm is the lowest that has been
3.2.1. Incident angle modifiers
examined in order to have 5 mm distance from the cover. The max-
Figs. 12 and 13 show the impact of the longitudinal angle on the
imum optical efficiency is 63.94% while the initial was 61.01%.
incident angle modifier KL and on the optical efficiency respectively.
The next step is the investigation of the position of the control point
The indicant angle modifier seems to be approximately the same be-
(b) by investigating the parameters Xb and Yb. The parameter Yα has
tween the two designs. This is a reasonable result because this para-
the value of 60 mm and the parameter Xc has the initial value of 98 mm.
meter is mainly influenced by the solar elevation angle. So, it is found
Fig. 7 depicts the variation of the optical efficiency for this case. It is
that the geometry of the secondary reflector does not influence the
obvious that there is an area where the optical efficiency is maximized.
incident angle modifier in the longitudinal direction. The optical effi-
This area is found for Xb = 80 mm and Yb = 70 mm. The maximum
ciency (Fig. 13) of the optimum design is found to be always greater
value is 67.16%. This value is higher than the previous one from Fig. 6.
than the performance of the initial design. The optical efficiency en-
At this point, it is essential to show how the values of the parameters
hancement, according to Fig. 13, is found to be 17.65%.
Xb and Yb influence on the secondary reflector geometry. Fig. 8 depicts
Fig. 14 illustrates the incident angle modifier in the transversal di-
different combinations of these two parameters (Xb, Yb) when the other
rection. The curves seem to be similar to the initial design to have a bit
two has their initial values (Yα=66 mm, Xc = 98 mm). Fig. 8 proves
higher performance for the angles between 30° and 60°. However,
that the parameter Yb is the one which is able to convert the design
Fig. 15 clearly proves that the optimum design has a superior perfor-
from parabolic shape to compound parabolic shape. Especially, when
mance for all the examined transversal angles with a mean enhance-
the Yb takes high values, then the shape is like a CPC, while in other
ment of 16.29%. These results prove that the optimum design performs
cases is close to a parabolic shape. On the other hand, the Xb parameter
well in all the cases and not only for zero incident angle which is the
is responsible for the smoothness of the curve, with higher values of Xb
case of the optimization procedure. So, it can be said that an optimi-
to lead to a smoother curve, closer to a circular geometry.
zation for zero incident angle leads to a reliable geometry which pre-
The next step in this analysis is the presentation of the results for the
sents a superior performance for all the incident angles. Lastly, it is
impact of the parameter Xc on the results, Fig. 9 depicts results for
worthy to state that the optical efficiency presents small reduction for
different values of this parameter, when the other parameters have the
transversal angles up to 50°.
following values: Yα = 60 mm, Χb = 80 mm and Yb = 70 mm. This
figure proves that there is an optimum value of the parameter Xc which
is equal to 106 mm. 3.2.2. Heat flux distribution in the absorber periphery
In this case, the optical efficiency is 69.51%. It is obvious that the The next investigated issue is the heat flux distribution in the ab-
optical efficiency increases step by step and more specifically it was sorber periphery. This parameter can be expressed using the local
61.01% for the initial design, 63.94% from the Fig. 6 results, 67.16% concentration ratio (LCR) and the goal is to achieve a relatively uniform
from Fig. 7 results and 69.51% from Fig. 9 results, In every step, the heat flux distribution. This goal is able to eliminate the local super-
optimum values of the investigated parameter are kept so, this pre- heating and so the thermal losses can be reduced. Moreover, a relatively
sentation way tries to approach the global maximum point. The last uniform heat flux leads to lower temperature variation in the absorber
step in this analysis is the investigation of the optimum parameter (Xb
and Yb) again by using the values (Yα = 60 mm and Xc = 106 mm).
Fig. 10 shows that there is a maximum for Xb = 72.5 mm and
Yb = 77.5 mm. This maximum point presents optical efficiency equal to
72.84% which is the global maximum performance. At this point, it is
important to state again that the figures of this section are not the total
optimization method but only a part. These figures are given in order to
present the way that the optimization parameters influences on the
optimization procedures. The path to the global maximum point is se-
lected to be given as the best possible example.
Fig. 11 depicts the initial design and the optimum design in order a
direct comparison to be performed. The initial design (Fig. 10a) has
61.01% optical efficiency and the optimum design (Fig. 10b) presented
optical efficiency 72.84%, which means 19.39% optical efficiency en-
hancement. This is a great enhancement which indicates that the fol- Fig. 6. The impact of the parameter Yα on the optical efficiency (Xb = 49 mm,
lowed methodology managed to create a really optimum design. The Yb = 66 mm, Xc = 98 mm).

722
E. Bellos et al. Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

Fig. 9. The impact of the parameter on the optical efficiency (Yα = 60 mm,
Χb=80 mm and Yb = 70 mm).
Fig. 7. The impact of the parameter Xb and Yb on the optical efficiency
(Yα = 60 mm, Xc = 98 mm).
the initial design and also the optimum case provide a more uniform
heat flux distribution. There is an area, for ω equal to 120° up to 180°,
periphery and so the thermal stresses are reduced. Lower thermal
where both cases have the same LCR. This area is the lower part of the
stresses lead to lower danger for the absorber failure which is an im-
receiver which takes the same solar rays in all the cases. The mean LCR
portant issue in the evacuated tube receivers (Bellos et al., 2017a; Price
for the optimum case is 15.06% and for the initial case is 12.61%. These
et al., 2002).
values are reduced compared to the geometric concentration ratio due
The local concentration ratio for the zero incident angle is depicted
to the optical losses. The non-uniformity index (P) is 3.51% for the
in Fig. 16 for the initial and the optimum geometry. It is obvious that
optimum design and it is 20.17% for the initial design. This number
the optimum geometry presents the higher mean value of the LCR than
indicates that there is important decrease on this parameter, as well as

Fig. 8. The impact of the parameters Xb and Yb on the secondary reflector geometry (Yα = 66 mm and Xc = 98 mm).

723
E. Bellos et al. Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

Fig. 12. The impact of the longitudinal incident angle on the incident angle
Fig. 10. The impact of the parameter Xb and Yb on the optical efficiency modifier KL with zero transversal angle.
(Yα = 60 mm, Xc = 106 mm).

that the final design presents extremely low non-uniformity index. The
different geometry shape of the optimized reflector makes the solar rays
to be distributed in the entire absorber periphery and not only in some
regions. This fact makes the smoother LCR profile with the optimum
geometry. These results clearly prove that the optimization leads to
higher mean LCR and to lower non-uniformity index. So, the final op-
timum concentrator is able to lead to lower thermal losses and to lower
thermal stresses due to the relatively uniform profile of the LCR. More
details about this issue are given in Section 3.2.3.
The next step in this work is to present the LCR distribution for
different solar angles in the transversal direction. The solar deviation in
the transversal direction obligates the primary mirrors to be moved in
order to concentrate properly the incident solar rays in the absorber.
This situation creates different LCR because the solar irradiation is Fig. 13. The impact of the longitudinal incident angle on the optical efficiency
concentrated in different locations in the absorber periphery. with zero transversal angle.
Fig. 17 gives these results for the initial case and Fig. 18 for the
optimum case. It is obvious that the increase of the transversal incident
to shading and blocking effects which are more intense in high solar
angle leads to lower values for the mean LCR for both cases. Moreover,
transversal angles. However, comparing the trends of the curves be-
for the small solar angles, the curves are close to each other but after
tween Figs. 17 and 18, it is obvious that the LCR has similar behavior
the 50–60°, they have a huge decreasing rate in lower values. Generally,
for both designs, something reasonable and acceptable.
up to 70° there is a similar profile for the distribution of the LCR with a
The Figs. 17 and 18 are not able to give a direct comparison be-
small displacement of the maximum point from 180° to higher values.
tween the respective curves, as Fig. 16 is able to do. So, Fig. 19 comes to
After the 70°, the mirrors rotate a lot and so the shading and blocking
give a comparison of the non-uniformity index for all the cases. This
effects are more intense. This is the main reason for the decreased op-
figure clearly shows that the optimum design has low non-uniformity
tical efficiency and the different local concentration ratios. It is also
index values up to 40°, which is an important result because the
important to state, that for great solar angles, the optical efficiency is
transversal solar angle generally takes low values in the effective part of
dramatically decreased and this fact makes the curves of Figs. 17 and 18
the day. This time period can be generally defined as the time period of
(for great angles) to be lower than the other. The different shape of the
some hours before and after the solar noon. Only for the angles over
curves is a result of the difference in the performance of the mirrors due
80°, the non-uniformity index of the optimum design takes higher

Fig. 11. Comparison of the designs (a) Initial geometry (b) Optimum geometry.

724
E. Bellos et al. Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727

Fig. 14. The impact of the transversal incident angle on the incident angle
modifier KT with zero longitudinal angle.

Fig. 17. Local concentration ratio in the absorber periphery for various trans-
versal incident angles and for the initial design.

Fig. 15. The impact of the transversal incident angle on the optical efficiency
with zero longitudinal angle.

Fig. 18. Local concentration ratio in the absorber periphery for various trans-
versal incident angles and for the optimum design.

Fig. 16. Local concentration ratio in the absorber periphery for zero incident
angle.

values than the initial design. But this region is not important because
Fig. 19. Non-uniformity index for various transversal incident angles.
in these cases there is no practical exploitation of the solar irradiation.
Thus, it can be concluded that the use of the optimum design is able to
lead to a more uniform heat flux distribution (or LCR) compared to the promising weapon for designing reflectors with the following ad-
initial design. vantages:
At this point, it is essential to comments about the non-uniformity
index for the zero incident angle. This parameter is extremely low – High optical efficiency.
(3.51%), while in other literature studies (Qiu et al., 2017) it is about – Low values of non-uniformity over the absorber.
30–40%. Moreover, this parameter is about 17% for the optimum de- – Relatively smooth and easy manufactured reflector surfaces.
sign. The previous studies (Prasad et al., 2017; Qiu et al., 2017) regard
LFRs with CPC secondary reflectors, so the comparison is possible. Fi-
3.2.3. Thermal performance
nally, it can be said that the low value of the non-uniformity index
The last step in the present work is a simple thermal analysis of the
makes the optimization method with Bezier polynomials to be a
examined LFR. The thermal performance of the initial design has been

725
E. Bellos et al.
presented also in references (Bellos et al., 2018a, b). Now, the thermal
performance of the optimum design is calculated and it is presented in
Fig. 20. Moreover, the thermal performance of the initial case is given
in this figure in order to make a clear comparison.
The thermal analysis is performed with Syltherm 800 as working
fluids, 200 L/min flow rate, 1000 W/m2 solar irradiation, zero incident
angle and 300 K ambient temperature. More details about the boundary
conditions, the model validation, the mesh independence procedure,
etc. can be found in references (Bellos et al., 2018a, b), as well as in
references (Bellos et al., 2017a, b).
Fig. 20 exhibits the thermal efficiency of the examined cases. It is
clear that the thermal efficiency curves have similar trends with the
optimum design to lead to higher thermal performance. The perfor-
mance enhancement is ranged from 19.47% up to 22.77% with a mean
value of 20.50%. It is worthy to state that the enhancement is greater
for higher inlet temperatures which are more usual in the real appli-
cations with LFRs. This higher enhancement is greater temperature is
explained by the more uniform heat flux distribution of the optimum
design which leads to a more uniform receiver temperature. In high
temperatures, the thermal losses are greater and the more uniform heat
flux leads to higher enhancements. This is an extra advantage of the
suggested optimum design.
In the end, it can be said that there is 20.50% enhancement in the
thermal efficiency with the implementation of the optimum con-
centrator instead of the initial one. This enhancement is similar to the
optical efficiency enhancement which is found to be 19.39%.
3.3. Discussion of the results
This work presents a novel method for designing optimum sec-
ondary reflectors for the linear Fresnel reflectors. This method is based
on the Bezier parametrization of the secondary reflector geometry. The
Bezier curves are based on the movement of some control points and
this technique gives a physical meaning in the different examined cases.
In other words, the user understands the way that the optimization
parameter variation influences on the reflector geometry. The pre-
sented technique is not restricted only for the LFR but it can be applied
in other collector types, as the stationary concentrating collectors, the
asymmetric designs and generally in the innovative concentrating sys-
tems. It is not only an optimization technique but also a design tech-
nique.
It is important to state that the present collector is optimized for
zero incident angle. The optimum design is compared to the initial one
for different solar angles. Moreover, a simple thermal analysis is per-
formed in order to check the new design model in different temperature
levels. The final results show that the exact geometry of the secondary
reflector does not influence on the IAM at the longitudinal direction,
however they influence on the IAM in eth transversal. It is found that
the optimization with Bezier polynomials leads to a reflector with good
behavior in greater transversal incident angles.
Furthermore, the obtained results about the optimum geometry
have to be compared and discussed with other studies in order to find if
this geometry has value. According to the results of this work, the
maximum optical efficiency is 72.84% with the secondary reflector
efficiency to be 97.5%. In another work, Hack et al. (2017) found 72%
optical efficiency with 95% secondary reflector efficiency with an
adaptive secondary reflector geometry. These results are a bit lower
than the results of the present work. Furthermore, Canavarro et al.
(2014, 2016, 2017) found the maximum optical efficiency of various
designs up to 70%. The performance of the secondary reflector of re-
ference (Zhu, 2017) was found to be about 90%. In another work, Bellos
and Tzivanidis (2018) found the optical efficiency of an LFR with a CPC
secondary reflector to be 66%. All the previous results show that the
literature values about the optical efficiency are lower than the ob-
tained in this work. However, Prasad et al. (2017) optimized a sec-
ondary CPC reflector and they managed to have 76.4% optical
726
Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727
efficiency. However, in this case, the primary reflectors were curved, an
important fact for the increase of the optical efficiency.
Moreover, it is found that the deviation of the peripheral receiver
temperature is lower than in the initial case. This fact makes the
thermal efficiency enhancement to be higher in greater temperature
levels because there is more-uniform receiver temperature distribution
and so lower radiation losses. More specifically, the optical enhance-
ment is around 19.4% and the thermal enhancement in low inlet tem-
peratures (300 K) is at the same levels. However, at higher temperature
levels it reaches up to 22.8% because of the more uniform heat flux
distribution over the absorber which makes it have relatively lower
radiation thermal losses. This result shows that the optically optimum
design is also a thermally optimum design.
The last step in the discussion section regards the limitations of this
work. The present methodology has been applied for flat absorber while
it would be also interesting the investigation of the curved mirrors. So,
a future work can be the optimization using Bezier polynomial para-
metrization for an LFR with curved primary mirrors. Another limitation
of this work is the optimization of the system for zero incident angle
and without tracking errors. It would be interesting to optimize using
the Bezier polynomials using the yearly performance of the LFR as the
objective function. The last comment about this method is the relatively
high computational cost, compared to the mathematical models. Thus,
the combination of the suggested method with an evolutionary algo-
rithm, for example, is a choice for reducing the computational cost.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a new design method for optimizing the secondary
concentrator of an LFR is introduced. The use of Bezier polynomials
parametrization is the investigated idea which is applied to an LFR with
flat primary mirrors and an evacuated tube receiver. The first step in
this work is the optical optimization of the secondary concentrator for
zero incident angles and the next step is the evaluation of this design for
different incident angles (both in transversal and longitudinal direc-
tion), as well as the presentation of the thermal efficiency curve of this
design. The most important conclusions of this work are summarized
below:
– It is found that the optimum geometry has an optical efficiency of
72.84% which is 19.39% higher than the optical efficiency of the
initial design (61.01%).
– The mean thermal efficiency enhancement with the optimum geo-
metry was found to be 20.50%, while it can reach up to 22.77% in
high inlet temperatures (up to 650 K).
– The optimum concentrator is found to have high performance for all
the examined transversal solar angles and this result proves that the
Fig. 20. Thermal efficiency of the initial and the optimum design for zero in-
cident angle and various inlet temperatures.
E. Bellos et al.
optimum design is a good choice for all the possible cases. The
performance of the optimum design was approximately the same as
the performance of the initial design for different longitudinal an-
gles.
– The local concentration ratio in the absorber periphery is more
uniform with the optimum design compared to the initial design.
The non-uniformity index was found 3.51% for the optimum design,
while the initial one has 20.17%. The low values of non-uniformity
index are kept up to 40° of the transversal solar angle, while the
optimum design has this index lower than the initial case for angles
up to 80°.
– The greater thermal enhancement in higher temperatures is ex-
plained by the more uniform heat flux distribution in the optimum
design which is an important reason for lower thermal losses in
higher inlet temperatures.
The final conclusion of this work is that the suggested method is
able to create a design with high optical efficiency and an approxi-
mately uniform heat flux distribution over the absorber. Moreover, this
design presents a high performance for different solar angles, as well as
it leads to high thermal efficiency for all the examined inlet tempera-
ture values (from 300 K up to 650 K). Thus, this method can be applied
for the optimization of secondary reflectors, as well as for other col-
lector kinds as the stationary compound parabolic collectors.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Evangelos Bellos would like to thank “Bodossaki Foundation”
for its financial support.
References
Abbas, R., Martínez-Val, J.M., 2015. Analytic optical design of linear Fresnel collectors
with variable widths and shifts of mirrors. Renew. Energy 75, 81–92.
Balaji, S., Reddy, K.S., Sundararajan, T., 2016. Optical modelling and performance ana-
lysis of a solar LFR receiver system with parabolic and involute secondary reflectors.
Appl. Energy 179, 1138–1151.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., Antonopoulos, K.A., 2016. Optical performance and optimiza-
tion of two stationary compound parabolic collectors (CPC). In: Proceedings of the
World Congress on Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer (MHMT’16), Prague, Czech
Republic – April 4–5, 2016, Paper No. ICHTD 101. http://doi.org/10.11159/ichtd16.
101.
Bellos, E., Mathioulakis, E., Tzivanidis, C., Belessiotis, V., Antonopoulos, K.A., 2016a.
Experimental and numerical investigation of a linear Fresnel solar collector with flat
plate receiver. Energy Convers. Manage. 130, 44–59.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., Papadopoulos, A., 2018a. Optical and thermal analysis of a
linear Fresnel reflector operating with thermal oil, molten salt and liquid sodium.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 133, 70–80.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., 2018. Multi-criteria evaluation of a nanofluid-based linear
Fresnel solar collector. Sol. Energy 163, 200–214.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., Tsimpoukis, D., 2017a. Multi-criteria evaluation of parabolic
trough collector with internally finned absorbers. Appl. Energy 205, 540–561.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., Tsimpoukis, D., 2017b. Thermal enhancement of parabolic
trough collector with internally finned absorbers. Sol. Energy 157C, 514–531.
Bellos, E., Tzivanidis, C., Papadopoulos, A., 2018b. Enhancing the performance of a linear
Fresnel reflector using nanofluids and internal finned absorber. J. Therm. Anal.
Calorim. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-018-6989-1.
Benyakhlef, S., Al Mers, A., Merroun, O., Bouatem, A., Boutammachte, N., El Alj, S.,
Ajdad, H., Erregueragui, Z., Zemmouri, E., 2016. Impact of heliostat curvature on
optical performance of linear Fresnel solar concentrators. Renew. Energy 89,
463–474.
Boito, P., Grena, R., 2016. Optimization of the geometry of Fresnel linear collectors. Sol.
Energy 135, 479–486.
727
Solar Energy 171 (2018) 716–727
Cagnoli, M., Mazzei, D., Procopio, M., Russo, V., Savoldi, L., Zanino, R., 2018. Analysis of
the performance of linear Fresnel collectors: encapsulated vs. evacuated tubes. Sol.
Energy 164, 119–138.
Canavarro, D., Chaves, J., Collares-Pereira, M., 2014. Simultaneous multiple surface
method for linear Fresnel concentrators with tubular receiver. Sol. Energy 110,
105–116.
Canavarro, D., Chaves, J., Collares-Pereira, M., 2016. A novel compound elliptical-type
concentrator for parabolic primaries with tubular receiver. Sol. Energy 134, 383–391.
Canavarro, D., Chaves, J., Collares-Pereira, M., 2017. New dual asymmetric CEC linear
Fresnel concentrator for evacuated tubular receivers. AIP Conf. Proc. 1850, 040001.
Facão, J., Oliveira, A.C., 2011. Numerical simulation of a trapezoidal cavity receiver for a
linear Fresnel solar collector concentrator. Renew. Energy 36 (1), 90–96.
Grena, R., Tarquini, P., 2011. Solar linear Fresnel collector using molten nitrates as heat
transfer fluid. Energy 36 (2), 1048–1056.
Hack, M., Zhu, G., Wendelin, T., 2017. Evaluation and comparison of an adaptive method
technique for improved performance of linear Fresnel secondary designs. Appl.
Energy 208, 1441–1451.
Hirsch, T., Feldhoff, J.F., Hennecke, K., Pitz-Paal, R., 2013. Advancements in the field of
direct steam generation in linear solar concentrators—a review. Heat Transfer Eng.
35 (3), 258–271.
http://www.loikitsdistribution.com/files/syltherm-800-technical-data-sheet.pdf.
Jeter, S.M., 1987. Analytical determination of the optical performance of practical
parabolic trough collectors from design data. Sol. Energy 39 (1), 11–21.
Li, L., Sun, J., Li, Y., 2017. Thermal load and bending analysis of heat collection element
of direct-steam-generation parabolic-trough solar power plant. Appl. Therm. Eng.
127, 1530–1542.
Loni, R., Kasaeian, A.B., Askari Asli-Ardeh, E., Ghobadian, B., 2016. Optimizing the ef-
ficiency of a solar receiver with tubular cylindrical cavity for a solar-powered organic
Rankine cycle. Energy 112, 1259–1272.
Mathioulakis, E., Papanicolaou, E., Belessiotis, V., 2018. Optical performance and in-
stantaneous efficiency calculation of linear Fresnel solar collectors. Int. J. Energy Res.
42 (3), 1247–1261.
McIntire, William R., 1982. Factored approximations for biaxial incident angle modifiers.
Sol. Energy 29 (4), 315–322.
Moghimi, M.A., Craig, K.J., Meyer, J.P., 2015. Optimization of a trapezoidal cavity ab-
sorber for the linear Fresnel reflector. Sol. Energy 119, 343–361.
Moghimi, M.A., Craig, K.J., Meyer, J.P., 2017. Simulation-based optimisation of a linear
Fresnel collector mirror field and receiver for optical, thermal and economic per-
formance. Sol. Energy 153, 655–678.
Myers Jr, P.D., Goswami, D.Y., 2016. Thermal energy storage using chloride salts and
their eutectics. Appl. Therm. Eng. 109B, 889–900.
Nadal, R.P., Martínez, V.M., 2012. Optical analysis of the fixed mirror solar concentrator
by forward ray-tracing procedure. ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng. 134 (3) 031009-
031009–14.
Prasad, G.S.C., Reddy, K.S., Sundararajan, T., 2017. Optimization of solar linear Fresnel
reflector system with secondary concentrator for uniform flux distribution over ab-
sorber tube. Sol. Energy 150, 1–12.
Price, H., Lüpfert, E., Kearney, D., Zarza, E., 2002. Advances in parabolic trough solar
power technology. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 124 (2), 109–125.
Qiu, Y., He, Y.-L., Cheng, Z.-D., Wang, K., 2015. Study on optical and thermal perfor-
mance of a linear Fresnel solar reflector using molten salt as HTF with MCRT and
FVM methods. Appl. Energy 146, 162–173.
Qiu, Y., Li, M.-J., Wang, K., Liu, Z.-B., Xue, X.-D., 2017. Aiming strategy optimization for
uniform flux distribution in the receiver of a linear Fresnel solar reflector using a
multi-objective genetic algorithm. Appl. Energy 205, 1394–1407.
Sahoo, S.S., Singh, S., Banerjee, R., 2012. Analysis of heat losses from a trapezoidal cavity
used for linear Fresnel reflector system. Sol. Energy 86 (5), 1313–1322.
SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation 2015 Technical Reference.
Sun, J., Liu, Q., Hong, H., 2015. Numerical study of parabolic-trough direct steam gen-
eration loop in recirculation mode: characteristics, performance and general opera-
tion strategy. Energy Convers. Manage. 96, 287–302.
Teufel, E., 2014. Designing optical devices based on non-uniform rational Béziers splines.
Renew. Energy 63, 69–75.
Tiwari, S., Tiwari, G.N., 2016. Thermal analysis of photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) single
slope roof integrated greenhouse solar dryer. Sol. Energy 138, 128–136.
Zhou, L., Li, X., Zhao, Y., Dai, Y., 2017. Performance assessment of a single/double hybrid
effect absorption cooling system driven by linear Fresnel solar collectors with latent
thermal storage. Sol. Energy 151, 82–94.
Zhu, G., 2017. New adaptive method to optimize the secondary reflector of linear Fresnel
collectors. Sol. Energy 144, 117–126.
Zhu, G., Wendelin, T., Wagner, M.J., Kutscher, C., 2014. History, current state, and future
of linear Fresnel concentrating solar collectors. Sol. Energy 103, 562–639.