May 1986

Wind Load Reduction for Heliostats

A Subcontract Report
J. A. Peterka N. Hosoya B. Bienkiewicz J. E. Cermak Colorado State University

Prepared under Subcontract No. XX-4-04029-1

NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus. product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Printed in the United States of America Available from: National Technical lnformation Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Price: Microfiche A01 Printed Copy A1 1 Codes are used for pricing all publicatiocs. The code is determined by the number of pages in the publication. lnformation pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current issue of the following publications. which are generally ava~lablein most libraries: Energy Research Abs:racts, (ERA); Government Reports Announcements and Index (GRA and I); Scientific and Technical Abstract Reports (STAR); and publication, NTIS-PR-360 available from NTlS at the above address.

SERI/STR-253-2859 UC Category: 62a DE86010703

Wind Load Reduction for Helisstats

A Subrzontract Report

J. A. Peterka

N. Hosoya 6. Bienkiewicz J. E. Cerrnak Colorado State University

May 1986

SERl Technical Monitor: L. M. Murphy

Prepared under Subcontract No. XX-4-04029-1

Solar Energy Research Institute

A Division c*f Midwest Research lnstitute

1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy

Contract No. D E-AC02-83CH10093

The research and development described in this document was conducted within the U.S. Department of ~nergy's Solar Thermal Technology Program. The goal of this program is to advance the engineering and scientific understanding of solar thermal technology and to establish the technology base from which private industry can develop solar thermal power production options for introduction into the competitive energy market. Solar thermal technology concentrates the solar flux using tracking mirrors or lenses onto a receiver where the solar energy is absorbed as heat and converted into electricity or incorporated into products as process heat. The two primary solar thermal technologies, central receivers and distributed receivers, employ various point and line-focus optics to concentrate sunlight. Current central receiver systems use fields of heliostats (two-axis tracking mirrors) to focus the sun's radiant energy onto a single, towermounted receiver. Point focus concentrators up to 17 meters in diameter track the sun in two axes and use parabolic dish mirrors or Fresnel lenses to focus radiant energy onto a receiver. Troughs and bowls are line-focus tracking reflectors that concentrate sunlight onto receiver tubes along their focal lines. Concentrating collector modules can be used alone or in a multimodule system. The concentrated radiant energy absorbed by the solar thermal receiver is transported to the conversion process by a circulating working in fluid. Receiver temperatures range from 1 0 0 ~ ~ low-temperature troughs to in over 1 5 0 0 ~ ~ dish and central receiver systems. The Solar Thermal Technology Program is directing efforts to advance and improve each system concept through solar thermal materials, components, and These subsystems research and development and by testing and evaluation. efforts are carried out with the technical direction of DOE and its network of field laboratories that works with private industry. Together they have established a comprehensive, goal-directed program to improve performance and provide technically proven options for eventual incorporation into the ati ion's energy supply.

To successfully contribute to an adequate energy supply at reasonable cost, solar thermal energy must be economically competitive with a variety of other energy sources. The Solar Thermal Program has developed components and system-level performance targets as quantitative program goals. These targets are used in planning research and development activities, measuring progress, assessing alternative technology options, and developing optimal components. These targets will be pursued vigorously to ensure a successful program.
This report presents the results of wind-tunnel tests supported through the Solar Energy Research Institute ( s E R I ) by the Office of Solar Thermal Technology of the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the SERI research effort on innovative concentrators. As gravity loads on drive mechanisms are reduced through stretched-membrane technology, the wind-load contribution of the required drive capacity increases in percentage. Reduction of wind loads can provide economy in support structure and heliostat drive. Wind-tunnel tests have been directed at finding methods to reduce wind loads on heliostats. The tests investigated primarily the mean forces, the moments,

and the possibility of measuring fluctuating forces in anticipation of reducing those forces. A significant increase in ability to predict heliostat wind Loads and their reduction within a heliostat field was achieved. The work reported here was monitored by L. M. Murphy of SERI.

Approved for SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

~ h e u m d l syspdms Research Branch

Solar Heat Research Division

SUMMARY
The p u r p o s e of t h i s s t u d y was t o d e v e l o p a more complete u n d e r s t a n d i n g of wind l o a d i n g on s o l a r c o l l e c t o r s w i t h a major emphasis on i n v e s t i g a t i n g methods o f r e d u c i n g wind l o a d s on h e l i o s t a t s i n t y p i c a l a r r a y f i e l d s . The r e a s o n f o r d e c r e a s i n g wind l o a d s i s t o improve t h e economy of h e l i o s t a t s u p p o r t s t r u c t u r e and d r i v e mechanisms, b o t h o f which w i l l become more s e n s i t i v e t o wind l o a d s a s g r a v i t y l o a d s d e c r e a s e t h r o u g h s t r e t c h e d membrane t e c h n o l o g y . Concepts i n v e s t i g a t e d i n c l u d e d p e r i m e t e r f e n c e s o r berms, f e n c e s o r o t h e r wind-blockage e l e m e n t s w i t h i n t h e f i e l d , f i e l d d e n s i t y , and drag-modifying d e v i c e s a t t a c h e d t o t h e h e l i o s t a t . The p r i m a r y method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n was wind-tunnel t e s t s i n a b o u n d a r y - l a y e r wind t u n n e l d e s i g n e d t o model a t m o s p h e r i c s u r f a c e l a y e r winds. Wind l o a d s on s p e c i f i c h e l i o s t a t f i e l d g e o m e t r i e s had been o b t a i n e d i n e a r l i e r w i n d - t u n n e l s t u d i e s , f o r mean ( t i m e a v e r a g e d ) l o a d s . Those t e s t s were n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o v i d e d e s i g n e r s w i t h methods t o o p t i m i z e h e l i o s t a t f i e l d performance and c o s t by i n c l u d i n g wind l o a d i n g a s a v a r i a b l e under d e s i g n control. Wind-tunnel t e s t s i n t h i s s t u d y were performed a n i s o l a t e d and w i t h i n - f i e l d h e l i o s t a t s mounted on a six-component f o r c e and moment b a l a n c e . The i n f l u e n c e o f p e r i m e t e r f e n c e s , i n - f i e l d f e n c e s , and f i e l d d e n s i t y on h e l i o s t a t wind l o a d s were d e t e r m i n e d f o r mean h e l i o s t a t l o a d s . Some f l u c t u a t i n g l o a d measurements on h e l i o s t a t s were o b t a i n e d on a b a l a n c e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . I n i t i a l i n d i c a t i o n s o f peak wind l o a d s on a h e l i o s t a t were o b t a i n e d t o r e p l a c e g u s t f a c t o r a p p r o a c h e s used i n t h e p a s t t o d e t e r m i n e peak l o a d s from mean l o a d s . R e s u l t s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r r e d u c t i o n of mean h e l i o s t a t wind l o a d s a r e summarized i n F i g u r e S - 1 . In t h i s figure C , r e p r e s e n t s wind f o r c e ,
*'

Cn

represents elevation

t o r q u e and

Cn

represents

azimuthal torque about

Y z t h e s u p p o r t p o s t . The o r d i n a t e s i n S-1 a r e t h e f o r c e s o r moments i n t h e f i e l d d i v i d e d by t h e i s o l a t e d h e l i o s t a t l o a d s and show t h e r e d u c t i o n i n l o a d a s a f u n c t i o n of upwind b l o c k a g e which i s t h e a b s c i s s a . The g e n e r a l i z e d b l o c k a g e a r e a i s t h e s u r f a c e a r e a o f upwind o b s t a c l e s such a s h e l i o s t a t s , f e n c e s , o r berms p r o j e c t e d o n t o a p l a n e p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e wind d i r e c t i o n p e r u n i t ground a r e a . The d a t a c o l l a p s e q u i t e w e l l o n t o o r below a s i n g l e c u r v e . T h i s f i n d i n g p r o v i d e s a p o w e r f u l t o o l f o r o p t i m i z a t i o n of f i e l d l a y o u t by designers.
F l u c t u a t i n g l o a d measurements were l i m i t e d i n scope and c o m p l i c a t e d by wind-tunnel s c a l i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . The measurements showed t h a t t h e f l u c t u a t i n g p a r t of t h e wind l o a d d e c r e a s e s w i t h i n a f i e l d environment i n comparison t o t h a t on a n i s o l a t e d h e l i o s t a t . The d e c r e a s e d f l u c t u a t i n g l o a d component combined w i t h a d e c r e a s e d mean l o a d r e s u l t e d i n a n e t d e c r e a s e i n peak l o a d . Major c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e s t u d y a r e : Mean wind l o a d s on h e l i o s t a t s c a n be reduced t o below 30 p e r c e n t o f i s o l a t e d h e l i o s t a t s by a p p r o p r i a t e d e s i g n of t h e f i e l d and e x t e r n a l f e n c e s o r berms.

A simple design-oriented prediction method for mean heliostat wind loads in a field has been developed. Peak dynamic loads are significantly lower within a field than at the edge for heliostats in operational positions. Limited analysis of dynamic loads has not identified a loading mechanism indicating that on-heliostat spoilers would be beneficial in decreasing mean and dynamic wind loads. The strength of a collector should be based on the peak load rather than a mean load multiplied by an assumed gust factor.

Full-scale wind loads are not available for comparison with windtunnel data. Design forces perpendicular to the mirror plane for an isolated heliostat are controlled by operational winds (50 mph) while design drive moments are controlled by survival winds (90 mph).

Recommendations for future study include further work on fluctuating loads, local and integral loads on typical isolated stretched membrane heliostats, and additional synthesis of wind-load data into a design-oriented methodology for control of wind loads. Specific tasks include
e

Application of the generalized blockage area concept to fluctuating loads Better resolutionof stowpositionloads

Development of a design guideline Comparison of wind-tunnel loads with full-scale loads.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures List of Tables Nomenclature

1.0

..................................................
...................................................
xii xiii

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

Introduction
1.1 1.2 1.3

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

Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wind Load Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modeling of Atmospheric Wind Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.0

Experimental Apparatus
2.1 2.2

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

The Wind-Tunnel Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Model Environment .......................................... 2.2.1 Heliostat Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Wind Protective Fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.0

4.0

............................. 3.1 Selection of Velocity Scale Ratio .......................... 3.2 Velocity Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Force and Moment Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Force Balance ....................................... 3.4 Test Procedure and Test Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instrumentation and Data Acquisition
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Single Heliostat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heliostats in Field ........................................ Wind Load Reduction Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Model Data with Full Scale ...................

5.0

Conclusions and Recommendations References

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

6.0

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

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

Validation of Wind-Tunnel Testing in Civil Engineering Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- Wind-Tunnel Data for Isolated Heliostat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Wind-Tunnel Data for Field Heliostats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGUIXES
Figure
1-1
1-2

Page

Velocity Reductions within a Field of Heliostats

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

2
3

Influence of Fence Height on Front Collector Drag Force Heliostat Field for Tests of Reference [2]

......

1-3
1-4

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

4
5

Moment Coefficients for a High Density Heliostat Field Array .Zone A ......................................... Moment Coefficients for a Low Density Heliostat Field Array . Zone B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concepts for Interior Field Wind Protection

5
7

................-.

Fence Configuration for Lowering Velocities Interior to Field ..................................................... Concepts for Reducing Fluctuating Loads Meteorological Wind Tunnel Heliostat Field Heliostat Model

7
8

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

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

11
12

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

1.5 16

.......... Fence Arrangement for Keliostat 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fence Arrangement for Heliostat 5 ............................ Arrangement of Field Density around Heliostat 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Metric Heliostat Mounted on a Six-Component Balance
Fence Arrangement for Heliostat 3 with Reduced Field Density (original x 1 / 4 1 ..................................... Fence Arrangement for Heliostat 3 with Reduced Field Density (original x 1 / 4 ) ..................................... Model Installed in the Wind Tunnel

18

18
19
20

21

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

22

Porous Fence Segments Used with the Model

Approach Wind Profiles Turbulence Power

24
27

....................................... Spectrum of Approach Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

29
30

Force and Moment Coordinate System

Figure 3-4 Force Balance Frequency Response

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

31 43 43

4-1

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; EL = 0, AZ = 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; EL = 45O, AZ = 270' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; EL = 80, AZ = 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; EL = 84O, AZ = 270' ............................... Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; EL = 87O, AZ = 270' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; EL = 90, AZ = 270' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; WD = 0, AZ = 270' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated Heliostat; WD = 45O, AZ = 270' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Measured
WD = 0, AZ = 270

44

44
45 45

46

46
47

to Previous Measurements

.........

F~
Maximum, Mean and Minimum Force and Moment Coefficients;

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

48
49 50 51 54

Maximum, Mean and Minimum Force and Moment Coefficients; WD = 45O, AZ = 270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power Spectrum of Force Coefficients; WD = 0, AZ = 270, EL = 45O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power Spectrum of Force Coefficient for an Isolated Heliostat; WD = 45O, AZ = 270, EL = 45O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heliostat 1 - Representative Mean Force and Moment Coefficients, Summer AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heliostat 1 - Representative Mean Force and Moment Coefficients, Summer Noon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heliostat 5 - Representative Mean Force and Moment Coefficients, Summer AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heliostat 5 - Representative Mean Force and Moment Coefficients, Summer Noon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55
57 58

Figure

Page

4- 18

Mean. Max and RMS CFX for Heliostat 3.. with Varying of Number of Upstream Rows of Heliostats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

Mean. Max and RMS CFX for Heliostat 3.. with Various Field Densities ..............................................
Definition of Generalized Blockage Area

61 61
62

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

Effects of Fences and Number of Upstream Rows of Heliostats on Mean CFX. Heliostat 3 within Low Density Field . . . . . . . . . . . .
Effects of Fences on Mean CFX. Heliostat 3 within Low Density Field with Two Upstream Rows of Heliostats ........... Effects of Fences on Mean CFX. Heliostat 3 within Low Density Field with Two Upstream Rows of Heliostats ........... Wind Loads on Heliostat 4 for a Summer Noon Case for Wind Direction 265 Degrees ........................................ Mean Load Reduction as a Function of Generalized Blockage Full-scale Wind Data [Ref. 311 Model and Full-scale Wind

63
63

64
66
67

....

............................... Speed Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

LIST OF TABLES Table Test Matrix for Single Heliostat Test Matrix for In-Field Description of Fences

Page

............................. Heliostats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

36

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

41

xii

NOMENCLATURE
Definition Constant Azimuth angle of heliostat, 270' faces south, 180' faces west

Blockage area projected onto a plane perpendicular to approach wind direction Field area containing blocking elements used for
A~

Reference area 19.6 in.2 model, 489.9 ft2 full scale Constant Constant
l 7 L

Force coefficient,

X Y Y, Z

ref

M
Moment coefficient,
X,Y $ 2

Distance from heliostat under consideration to the external fence Hot-wire output voltage Vertical angle of heliostat, zero degree for vertical Measured force along axis, positive force in positive axis direction Frequency, Hz Nondimensional frequency,
-

fL

Fluctuating part of a time varying signal Gust factor for load or velocity, Generalized blockage, A~ Power spectral density
A~

peak mean

Symbo1
g

Definition Peak factor for load or wind velocity, Heliostat height = 24.2 ft Longitudinal turbulence intensity Length scale Reference length (chord) 4.26 in. model, 2 1 . 3 ft full scale Measured moment about axis, sign by right-hand rule Power-law exponent of velocity profile Frequency Frequency Correlation function Time Time scale Velocity in X-direction Velocity in Y-direction Velocity in Z-direction Wind direction Coordinate system (see Figure 3 . 3 ) Coordinate system for data collection Reference height 6.6 in. model, 3 2 . 8 ft prototype Scale ratio Boundary-layer thickness Density of air Kinematic viscosity of air peak

- mean

RMS

Symbo1

Definition
FMS v e l o c i t y i n

x,y,z

directions

Wind angle to the deck

Damping ratio 2nf
Symbol Subscript
rms

Definition Root-mean-square Directional indicator

Length Time
Frequency

Isolated
mean

Mean value
Reference

ref

Velocity
Prototype Model

SECTION INTRODUCTION

The need to understand and quantify wind loading effects on individual and
fields of tracking solar collectors has emerged as an important design and development issue. This understanding is important in the cost effective design of both conventional concentrators and innovative low-cost concepts which can be considerably less robust than their conventional counterparts. Moreover, to aid in the development of that understanding, methods for the adequate modeling and simulation of wind loading on individual concentrators within the actual field environment are needed. The quantification and understanding of wind loading effects are needed in support of the low-cost development effort from two perspectives. First, realistic design requirements must be set to allow efficient, nonconservative, and thereby low-cost, structural designs which still result in good concentrator performance. The structural design must consider the design of the drive (for tracking) support structure, and foundation in addition to the reflector structure. Second, this knowledge base is needed to ultimately allow the design of collector fields which avoid or minimize the effect of wind loading both during solar operation and when the collector field is being protected in survival loading conditions. This study was commissioned mainly to find methods for reducing wind loads within a heliostat field to values well below those acting on an isolated unit. The methods for reduction, based on earlier work discussed below, were anticipated to rely on perimeter wind fences, in-field wind fences, field density, and possibly spoilers attached to the heliostats. Primary efforts were directed to mean wind loads; however, initial efforts were expanded to determine the magnitude of fluctuating loads. The results of this study provide a basis for reduction of mean heliostat wind loads and show that fluctuating loads decrease with distance into a field.

1.1

PREVIOUS WORK

A number of studies have addressed the wind loads on ground-based solar

collectors and means of reduction of those wind loads [ I - 1 4 1 . These studies measured wind loads on heliostats [1,2] photovoltaic collectors [3,5-7,lO-141, and parabolic trough collectors [4,8-91. Other studies have addressed roofbased collectors [15-181, and older studies of dish antennas [19-211. A review of wind load studies is given in reference [ 2 2 ] . Design wind loads for photovoltaic panels and parabolic collectors in large fields have been reduced substantially below those which would be required by typical wind codes by appropriate application of wind engineering analysis. Wind-tunnel tests of array fields modeled at small scale in boundary-layer wind tunnels have revealed that the dense packing of the photovoltaic and parabolic array fields provided a natural reduction in wind load below that of an isolated collector module by blocking wind from penetrating into the

central area of the field at the height of the collectors. Collector units at the edges of the field were not protected by the field but their wind loads could be reduced to levels comparable to those in the field interior by a properly designed porous wind fence around the field periphery. In studies of heliostats [1,2], wind-tunnel tests revealed that some reduction in wind load did occur in the interior of the heliostat field. However, the relatively loose packing of the heliostats in the field, in comparison to the photovoltaic or parabolic collector fields, prevented the large reduction in wind loads that were observed in the denser fields. Wind fences at the edge of the field did provide significant reduction in wind loads for heliostats at the edge of the field, but wind loads on units in the center of the field remained unaffected by the periphery wind fence. The interaction of winds with a heliostat field is shown schematically in Figure 1-1. In Figure 1-la, turbulent boundary layer winds are shown approaching a field on the left and within the field on the right. The presence of heliostats causes a decrease within the field of mean wind speed over the height of the heliostats as a consequence of wind impingement on upwind heliostats. The reduction in mean wind is accompanied by an increase in turbulent kinetic energy (gustiness) of the wind. In comparison to the heliostat at the edge of the field, units interior to the field experience lower mean wind loads and often decreased fluctuations in wind load about the mean. The reduction in mean wind loads within solar collector fields has been measured in wind-tunnel tests cited above; dynamic loads have only been measured in a limited way for photovoltaic collectors (13,141. The mean load reduction within the field depends greatly on field density and heliostat pitch and azimuthal angle. Insufficient data were available to generalize the loads in a predictive formula.

VELOCITY

Figure 1-1. Velocity Reductions within a Field of Heliostats

Mean wind l o a d s on c o l l e c t o r s n e a r t h e edge of t h e f i e l d can be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e l y designed p e r i m e t e r f e n c e of 30 t o 50 p e r c e n t Reduction of wind l o a d on t h e f i r s t c o l l e c t o r w i t h porosity, Figure 1-lb. i n c r e a s i n g f e n c e h e i g h t i s shown i n F i g u r e 1-2. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e fence d e c r e a s e s w i t h d e c r e a s i n g a n g l e between wind v e c t o r and f e n c e l i n e and with decreasing fence height. I n a d d i t i o n , corners i n fences, i f not properly designed w i t h s p o i l e r s , can cause i n c r e a s e s i n wind l o a d s above t h o s e w i t h no f e n c e [ 2 ] . Fence c o s t s may be r e a l i s t i c i f h e l i o s t a t c o s t s can be reduced.
INFLUENCE OF FENCE HEIGHT O N FRONT COLLECTOR

DRAG

a
O
V V

FLAT, 3S6 ELEV FLAT, 3 9 LEV

PARABOLIC HELIOSTAT,

3' 0

ELEV

WtND AZIMUTH

0 '

.
Q 0

0 0

HF -= h

FENCE HEIGHT COLLECTOR HEIGHT

F i g u r e 1-2.

I n f l u e n c e of Fence Height on F r o n t C o l l e c t o r Drag Force ( d a t a from r e f e r e n c e s 1 , 4 , 7 , 1 0 )

One p a r t of t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y i s t o e v a l u a t e t h e s t u d i e s c i t e d above t o determine p o s s i b l e methods f o r wind l o a d r e d u c t i o n . Previous t e s t s provided a measure of t h e need f o r reducing i n t e r i o r l o a d s below t h o s e r e s u l t i n g natur a l l y from p r o t e c t i o n by surrounding h e l i o s t a t s . I n r e f e r e n c e [ Z ] , mean wind l o a d s were measured f o r s e v e r a l h e l i o s t a t s w i t h v a r y i n g d i s t a n c e from t h e edge of t h e f i e l d , w i t h - a n d w i t h o u t p r o t e c t i v e p e r i m e t e r f e n c e s . Two p o r t i o n s , A and B , of a p o s s i b l e f i e l d arrangement, F i g u r e 1-3, were s t u d i e d . Key f i n d i n g s of t h e s t u d y a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e s 1-4 and 1-5. Both show b a s e moment c o e f f i c i e n t s (nondirnensional b a s e moments) a s a f u n c t i o n of d i s t a n c e i n t o t h e f i e l d f o r v a r i o u s p e r i m e t e r f e n c e s and no p e r i m e t e r f e n c e . S e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn from t h e f i g u r e s and o t h e r d a t a i n r e f e r e n c e s [ 1 , 2 ] :

Edge h e l i o s t a t s have l a r g e r mean l o a d s without a p e r i m e t e r f e n c e t h a n do h e l i o s t a t s w i t h i n t h e f i e l d . The a d d i t i o n of a p e r i m e t e r f e n c e can cause l a r g e r e d u c t i o n s i n edge h e l i o s t a t mean l o a d s . H e l i o s t a t l o a d s i n t h e i n t e r i o r of t h e f i e l d i n t h e dense p o r t i o n of t h e f i e l d ( f i e l d A i n F i g u r e 4 ) a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y s m a l l e r , F i g u r e 1-4, t h a n t h o s e i n t h e i n t e r i o r of t h e l e s s dense p o r t i o n of t h e f i e l d ( a r e a B ) , F i g u r e 1-5.

I n t e r i o r h e l i o s t a t l o a d s i n f i e l d A were comparable h e l i o s t a t l o a d s a f t e r r e d u c t i o n by p e r i m e t e r f e n c e .

t o the

edge

H e l i o s t a t l o a d s i n t h e i n t e r i o r o f f i e l d B were lower t h a n u n p r o t e c t e d edge h e l i o s t a t s b u t were n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e p e r i m e t e r f e n c e .

The u s e of f e n c e s t o d e c r e a s e wind l o a d s h a s b e e n i n u s e f o r many y e a r s . R e f e r e n c e [ 2 3 ] p r o v i d e s a n e a r l y summary o f p o r o u s f e n c e e f f e c t s d i r e c t e d a t a g r i c u l t u r a l u s e s , b u t h a s more u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a t i o n . More r e c e n t r e f e r e n c e s [23-271 p r o v i d e d a t a and a c c e s s t o a d d i t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e d e s c r i b i n g t h e mean wind and t u r b u l e n c e s t r u c t u r e downwind o f p o r o u s f e n c e s . While a l a r g e number of r e f e r e n c e s e x i s t d e s c r i b i n g f l o w b e h i n d p o r o u s f e n c e s , t h e r e s t i l l remains a need f o r a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h f o r wind n o t p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o a f e n c e , s h o r t f e n c e l e n g t h s , c o r n e r s i n f e n c e s , rows of f e n c e s and c r o s s i n g f e n c e s . Use of p u b l i s h e d d a t a on f e n c e s h a s b e e n used i n t h i s and p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s . However, t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s o f l i m i t e d u s e when p r e d i c t i n g t h e l o a d on a n i n - f i e l d h e l i o s t a t whose wind l o a d i s d e t e r m i n e d by upwind h e l i o s t a t s , p e r i m e t e r f e n c e and i n - f i e l d f e n c e s . 1.2

WIND LOAD REDUCTION

Based on review of p r e v i o u s work, t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r mean l o a d r e d u c t i o n on h e l i o s t a t s i s i n t h e edge u n i t s and i n t h e low d e n s i t y f i e l d i n t e r i o r u n i t s . Edge u n i t s can be p r o t e c t e d by p e r i m e t e r f e n c e s a s p r e v i o u s l y i l l u s t r a t e d [1,2]. I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t mean l o a d r e d u c t i o n w i t h i n t h e f i e l d depends on velocity reduction within the f i e l d . This i n turn requires additional b l o c k a g e a r e a i n t h e f i e l d i n t e r i o r . S e v e r a l g e n e r i c c o n c e p t s a r e shown i n F i g u r e 1-6 which c o u l d r e p r e s e n t s o l i d o r p o r o u s f e n c e s . The f e n c e s c o u l d s u r r o u n d a s i n g l e , s e v e r a l o r no h e l i o s t a t s , c o u l d meander t h r o u g h t h e f i e l d i n a s t r a i g h t o r curved l i n e , o r c o u l d b e a s e r i e s of f e n c e segments. The f e n c e s c o u l d v a r y w i t h h e i g h t a l o n g t h e i r l e n g t h t o p r e v e n t shadows on t h e mirrors. One p o s s i b l e scheme i s shown i n F i g u r e 1 - 7 i n which p o r o u s f e n c e s a r e included w i t h i n t h e f i e l d t o i n c r e a s e blockage a r e a . These i n - f i e l d f e n c e s were d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e minimal i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h r e f l e c t e d l i g h t . M o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h i s c o n c e p t i n v o l v e i n c l u s i o n of f e n c e s i n o n l y one d i r e c t i o n t o permit e a s i e r a c c e s s t o t h e f i e l d f o r maintenance. I n t h e h o r i z o n t a l stow mode, s e l e c t e d l i n e s o f s t r e n g t h e n e d h e l i o s t a t s c o u l d be l e f t u p r i g h t t o provide fence a c t i o n i n p l a c e of a c t u a l fences. Dynamic l o a d s r e s u l t from two phenomena: 1) from b u f f e t i n g due t o t u r b u l e n c e i n wind a p p r o a c h i n g t h e f i e l d and from d i s t u r b a n c e s from upwind h e l i o s t a t s , and 2 ) from 'wake t u r b u l e n c e ' g e n e r a t e d by s e p a r a t e d wind f l o w a s it p a s s e s o v e r t h e h e l i o s t a t under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . No p r e v i o u s dynamic l o a d measurements a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s s p e c i f i c geometry. However, b a s e d on dynamic l o a d i n g on o t h e r s h a p e s , it i s e x p e c t e d t h a t r e d u c t i o n of mean l o a d s w i l l have t h e e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g b u f f e t i n g t h r o u g h i n c r e a s e d t u r b u l e n c e i n t h e approach wind and d e c r e a s e d wake e x c i t a t i o n t h r o u g h d e c r e a s e d mean v e l o c i t y . I t i s n o t c e r t a i n t h a t a d e c r e a s e d mean l o a d w i l l r e s u l t i n a n e t d e c r e a s e i n dynamic l o a d ; however, measurements on o t h e r g e o m e t r i e s i n d i c a t e t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . E f f o r t s were made d u r i n g w i n d - t u n n e l t e s t i n g t o measure some f l u c t u a t i n g l o a d s s o t h a t t h e t o t a l d e s i g n l o a d , i n c l u d i n g b o t h mean and dynamic l o a d s , c o u l d be determined.

1.3 MODELING OF ATMOSPHERIC WIND LOADS

Measurements of wind loads on ground-based solar collectors outlined previously have all been obtained in wind-tunnel tests. Wind tunnels specifically designed to model atmospheric boundary-layer winds and wind loads on structures in the 1000-2000 ft above the earth's surface have been developed over the past 30 years. Numerous references are available, [28-301 for example, which describe the modeling criteria required for boundary-layer wind tunnels to model atmospheric boundary-layer winds and resulting wind loads. In general, the requirements are that the model and prototype be geometrically similar, that the approach mean velocity at the building site have a vertical profile shape similar to the full-scale flow, that the turbulence characteristics of the flows be similar, and that the Reynolds number for the model and prototype be equal. These criteria are satisfied by constructing a scale model of the structure and its surroundings and performing the wind tests in a wind tunnel specifically designed to model atmospheric boundary-layer flows. Reynolds number similarity requires that the quantity UL/v be similar for model and prototype. Since v , the kinematic viscosity of air, is identical for both, Reynolds numbers cannot be made precisely equal with reasonable wind velocities. To accomplish this the air velocity in the wind tunnel would have to be as large as the model scale factor times the prototype wind velocity, a velocity which would introduce unacceptable compressibility effects. However, for sufficiently high Reynolds numbers ( > 2 x l o 4 ) the pressure coefficient at any location on the structure will be essentially constant for a large range of Reynolds numbers. Typical values encountered are l o 5 - l o 6 for the fullscale and 1 0 ~ - 1 0 ~ the wind-tunnel model. In this range acceptable flow for similarity is achieved without precise Reynolds number equality. The wind tunnel used for this study is described in Section 2.0. Appendix A presents comparisons between model and full-scale studies which illustrate the ability of wind-tunnel models to predict full-scale wind speeds and wind loads. This extensive data showing excellent comparison and the great economy of wind-tunnel tests in comparison with full-scale tests has driven a steadily increasing use of boundary-layer wind-tunnel testing.

SECTION 2.0 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS 2.1 THE WIND-TUNNEL FACILITY

The present study was conducted in the Meteorological Wind Tunnel (MWT) of the Fluid Dynamics and Diffusion Laboratory (FDDL) at Colorado State University. Plan and elevation views of this tunnel are shown in Figure 2-1. The MWT was designed specifically to model atmospheric boundary-layer flow. The tunnel is a closed circuit facility with a 9-to-1 contraction ratio driven by a 250 HP variable-pitch, variable-speed propeller. The test section is 96 ft in length and nominally 6 ft square. The test section walls diverge approximately 1 in./lO ft, and the roof is adjustable to maintain a zero pressure gradient along the test section. The blockage created by the model was less than 2 percent of the tunnel cross section. Hence, it was not necessary to adjust the roof to compensate for the blockage effect. Though the tunnel is capable of simulating thermally stratified planetary boundary layers, all the experiments included in this report were performed with a neutral boundary-layer stratification. The turbulent boundary layer was tripped at the entrance section of the MWT with a 1.5 in. high sawtooth vortex generator and allowed to develop over the long test section with certain roughness (smooth Masonite with 0.25 in. holes and 0.25 in. diameter x 0.5 in. long dowels placed in a 2 in. x 8 in. pattern). In addition, four evenly spaced 6 ft tall spires were installed at the tunnel entrance to create the desired atmospheric boundary layer within the test section. The turbulent boundary layer developed in this way has been shown to model the atmosphere boundary layer for model scales smaller than about 1:100 (28-30). At a 1:60 scale the larger turbulence scales are not completely represented, as discussed below, but should not affect mean wind load measurements. 2.2 MODEL ENVIRONMENT 2.2.1 Heliostat Models As discussed in Section 1.0, a major reason for examining wind loads on heliostats is the emergence of stretched membrane heliostats which have a circular shape. It might logically follow that this study would use circular heliostat models. However, more than 200 rectangular models of glass-mirror heliostats at a 1:60 scale were available from a previous study [2]. In addition, typical heliostat field layouts were available from reference [2] and from the existing Barstow demonstration site and no specific field layouts have been published for the circular shape. For these reasons and because results from one flat-plate shape (for example for rectangular to circular) to the next are expected to be quite similar, the rectangular shape was selected for this study. The Barstow site layout, Figure 2-2a, was selected over that from reference [2] since some data on the reference [2] layout had been obtained, since the Barstow site may be more typical of future field geometries, and since a possibility existed for obtaining some field data for

comparison with wind-tunnel data for specific heliostats which have been instrumented at the Barstow site.

Five heliostats in the Barstow field were selected for modeling in this test program, see Figure 2-2b. These heliostats are representative of five different environments in the field representing three different densities (A, B, C):
1)
2)

edge unit exposed to prevailing WNW winds intermediate density 3 region in the field high density region C in the field inner edge of the high density region lowest density portion A of the field

3) 4)

5)

Three of the five heliostats (1, 3, 4) are ones which have been instrumented in the Barstow field for wind loads. Heliostats 1-4 lie close to a line of anemometer towers in the full-scale field, Figure 2-2a, which have been measuring full-scale wind data. Thus, comparisons between model and fullscale wind measurements are possible.

The circles surrounding each heliostat in Figure 2-2b represent the 6 ft

diameter turntable (and wind-tunnel width) for the model study. For some experiments, only those heliostats on the turntable area were used. For others, heliostats were added upstream of the turntable for specific wind directions to obtain an upwind fetch of heliostats which extended to the edge of the field. Specific field layouts are identified in the section on the test matrix in Section 3.4.
A photo of the 1:60 heliostat models used in the study is shown in Figure 2-3a while drawings of the models are shown in Figure 2-3b. The field layout was placed on a sheet of plywood and holes drilled for each heliostat support post. The field could then be established and changed quickly by inserting heliostats into their respective holes. Heliostats could be set to a specific day and hour by setting azimuthal and elevation angles. Angled blocks were prefabricated for desired angles and quickly set next to heliostats for setting angles. Horizontal and vertical angles were held in place by friction in the bearings.

The heliostat at the center of the turntable (1-5 in Figure 2-2b) was mounted on a six-component strain-gaged force balance, Figure 2 - 4 . The balance was designed and constructed by the Fluid Mechanics and Wind Engineering Program at Colorado State University for general purpose use in measuring mean wind loads. By constructing the instrumented heliostat of balsa wood with a brass post, it was possible to obtain a model/balance natural frequency of 28 Hz. By low-pass filtering the output of the balance, the resonant response of the model heliostat could be virtually eliminated from the output signal permitting the fluctuating loads on the model to be measured up to a frequency of about 18 Hz. Setting wind-tunnel speed to take advantage of velocity scaling laws, see Section 3.1, permitted a reasonable approximation to the true fluctuating forces on the model to be obtained. Additional details of the balance operation are contained in Section 3.1.

2.2.2

\>:ind P r o t e c t i v e F e n c e s

F o u r t y p e s o f w i n d f e n c e s \,,ere u s e d i r i t h e test prugranl t o r e d u c e ~ i i r ~l d d d s o ~ r i tile h e l i o s t a t s . They !:ere f e n c e s o f 40 p e r c e n t , 50 p e r c e n t a n d G O yercerit p o r o s i t y 2 n d a s o l i d berm ~ i t h s i d e s l o p i n g 45 d e g r e e s t o t h e f r o r i z o n t a l . a fleigliis o f the f e n c e s used icere 1 8 . 2 and 1 2 . 1 f t f u l l s c a l e . One b e r r ~tieislit ~ o f 1 b . Z f t was u s e d . H o l e s i n the f e n c e f o r m i n g t h e p o r o s i t y were s u f f i c i e n t l y s m a l l t h a t jets due t o wind f l o w t h r o u g h a s i n g l e h o l e i n t h e f e n c e could not affect h e l i o s t a t loads. Some f e n c e s b7ere p l a c e d a s e x t e r n a l f e n c e s o u t s i d e the f i e l d p e r i m e t e r at a d i s t a n c e of 2 H from t h e edge h e l i o s t a t p o s t s (H i s t h e h e l i o s t a t nominal h e i g h t of 2 4 . 2 f t ) . F i g u r e s 2-5 t h r o u g h 2-9 show external f e n c e l o c a t i o n s f o r u s e l q i t h h e l i o s t a t s 1 , 3 a n d 5 .
E'erlces l i e r e p l a c e d w i t h i n t h e h e l i o s t a t f i e l d f o r soiue d a t a r u n s . 111 l i n e i.\71 1 ti corlcepts d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 1 . 0 , f e n c e s \<ere a l i g n e d \ $ , i t h r o v s c f r l e l i o s t a t s a n d p l a c e d e v e r y o t h e r row a s shor<n i n F i g u r e s 2-6 t h r o u g h 2 - 9 . These f i g u r e s a l s o s h o ~ a r i a b l e d e n s i t i e s o f f i e l d used i n t h e study. These v (:re dsscussed more f u l l y in S e c t i o n 4 . 0 . Data o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t e s t rulls showed t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l f e n c e s p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h o s e o f F i g u r e 2-6 were riot: n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n m a j o r l o a d r e d u c t i o n s i n a f i e l d e x c e p t a t low f i e l d d e n ~ i t y(see Figure 2-9). The p a r t i c u l a r f e n c e s u s e d f o r each d a t a run a r e i c i e i i t i i i e d in S e c t i o n 4 . 0 , A p p e n d i x C , a n d T a b l e s 3 - 2 a n d 3-3 w h e r e t h e run m a t r i x and d a t a t a b u l a t i o n s a r e g i v e n .
ntodel i r l s t a l l e d i n t h e wind t u n n e l i s show11 i n F i g u r e 2-10. user1 \ < i I-1 t h e n ~ o d e la r e sho\+;.;rl n F i g u r e 2- 1l . t i

Porous f e n c e s

SECTION 3.0 INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA ACQUISITION

3.1 SELECTION OF VELOCITY SCALE RATIO
In addition to the boundary-layer simulation, similitude of velocity between the model and prototype is considered in order to interpret the wind-tunnel results. The velocity scale ratio may be obtained from dimensionless analysis

where L, U and T represent length, velocity and time, and subscripts m and p represent the model and prototype parameters. hL and are the scale ratios of velocity, length and time between the model and prototype. h can be obtained from the geometric scale ratio as hl, = 1/60 (the scale of tke heliostat model as not d in Section 2.2) is related to the scale -5 etween model and prototype ratio of frequency, AT = Af . The velocity is then

b,

The frequency ratio between model and prototype is established by considering the nondimensional frequency ? = fLJU. Similarity requirements [28-301 for
wind-tunnel modeling require that f = f : m P
f

be the same in model and full scale,

Given a scale ratio A=, a testing wind speed was selected which caused frequencies of interest i n the prototype, O ( 1 Hz), to fall within the allowable frequency range of the model/balance combination, 0-18 Hz (see Section 3.3). By appropriate selection of wind-tunnel speed, a single measurement of the loading spectrum (frequency decomposition of the time varying loading) permits the spectral loading for a range of full-scale velocities to be determined. Thus for = 1/60, f 2 1 Hz and Um 20 fps, the range of full-scale velocities represented ig a spectrum is 45 mph and up. A larger frequency range in the model would permit lower full-scale velocities to be simulated. Such a capability is now in final stages of completion.

The wind-tunnel Reynolds number is approximately 3-7 x l o 4 at the testing wind

speeds used for this study which are sufficiently large to achieve Reynolds number independence of the aerodynamic coefficient. Hence, the wind load data measured in the wind tunnel are directly applicable to the design of the full-scale heliostat structure.

The largest limitations of the dynamic model tests were the relatively low model/balance natural frequency (18 Hz limit on frequency--a value of 100 Hz or higher would provide a wider range of frequency in the spectral loading)

and a modest mismatch between wind-tunnel boundary-layer turbulence scale and model scale. The latter limitation causes a decrease in low frequency quasi-static gust amplitudes for collectors near the edge of the collector field. Further discussion of these issues and methods for their resolution are contained in Sections 3.2 and 4 . 0 .

3.2 VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS

Piean velocity and turbulence intensity profiles were measured without the presence of the model to determine that an approach boundary-layer flow appropriate to the site had been established. Tests were made at one wind velocity in the tunnel. This velocity was well above that required to produce Reynolds number similarity between the model and the prototype as discussed in Section 1 . 0 . Measurements were made with a single hot-wire anemometer mounted with its axis vertical. The instrumentation used was a Thermo Systems constant temperature anemometer (Model 1050) with a 0 . 0 0 1 in. diameter platinum film sensing element 0.020 in. long. Output was directed to the on-line data acquisition system for analysis. Calibration of the hot-wire anemometer was performed by comparing output with the pitot-static tube in the wind tunnel. The calibration data were fit to a variable exponent King's Law relationship of the form

where E is the hot-wire output voltage, U the velocity and A , B, and c are coefficients selected to fit the data. The above relationship was used to determine the mean velocity at measurement points using the measured mean (root-mean-square voltage. The fluctuating velocity in the form U rms velocity) was obtained from

u rms
where

Erms

B c uC-l

E rms is the root-mean-square voltage output from the anemometer.

The boundary-layer 220 ft full scale. but represents a The mean velocity

Velocity and turbulence profiles are shown in Figure 3-1. thickness in the wind tunnel, 6, is shown in Figure 3-1 as This depth is not the full-scale boundary-layer height partial-depth modeling of the atmosphere boundary layer. profile approaching the modeled area has the form

is the mean wind where U indicates the local mean velocity and Ur f ! $ . speed at ?% reference height, Zref The value of veloclfy at Zref = 6 . 5 6 in.

in the model, which corresponds to 10 m in prototype, was used to calculate the force and moment coefficients. The exponent n for the approach flow established for this study is 1/7 which is representative of an open-field environment. Turbulence intensity in the velocity profile measurement is defined as: rms 1= - U mean [Incertainties in velocity were within 1-3 percent of the maximum within the boundary layer. Longitudinal turbulence spectra were measured at the 10 m height used for reference velocity. Longitudinal refers to velocity fluctuations in the direction of the wind. The turbulence spectrum is compared to the atmospheric turbulence spectrum in Figure 3-2. A discussion of spectra and the presentation format is discussed in Section 4.1. The integral length scale was four times larger than the characteristic length of the heliostat model. The wind-tunnel does not simulate the lower frequency gustiness due to the limitation of the tunnel cross section size for a 1:60 model scale. This can result in underestimation of peak fluctuating wind load on the heliostat from the lack of the low-frequency spectral content. However, inside the heliostat field, the turbulence characteristics are dominated by the small eddies generated by upstream heliostats which are no greater than the size of the heliostat. Thus, while the peak fluctuating loads on edge-field heliostats may be slightly underestimated, loads on in-field heliostats should be well represented. The quantitative evaluation of the effect of the missing low-frequency turbulence can be accounted for with additional research. 3.3 FORCE AND MOMENT MEASUREMENTS

3.3.1 Force Balance The force balance used in this project is shown in Figure 2-4. It is a strain-sensing apparatus consisting of four main parts: a reaction or inertial ring, a steel sprung plate supported by steel cross-beams, two nested portal gages and a stem of aluminum tubing. The reaction ring is bolted to the wind-tunnel turntable below the floor level. The entire balance rotates along with the model on the turntable, and thus defines a body-centered coordinate system. A right-handed coordinate system (Figure 3-3) is oriented with the z-axis coinciding with the model and force balance vertical axis, and the x and y axes in the horizontal plane at the pivot point of the heliostat 13.5 ft above ground level. Moments about the x and y axes were actually sensed about x' and y' axes parallel to the x,y axes but at the height of the reaction ring placed below floor level. Moments were transferred from x' ,y' axes to x,y axes at each data sample point in time by classical methods of statics.
'I'he model was deslgned to be as light as possible to obtain a high natural frequency of the model/balance permitting measurement of dynamic loading without excessive resonant amplification. Figure 3-4 shows the response of the balance to fluctuating load inputs for the six components. The response of all six channels can be represented by two curves: the shape of Figure 3-4a occurs from a flat response attenuated at higher frequencies by an

anti-aliasing roll-off filter; the shape in Figure 3-4b occurs as a combination of a 28 Hz model natural frequency for the four components represented with a roll-off filter. The response of the z force and moment about Z was flat to 18 Hz where a low-pass filter cut the signal. The response for the other four components was not as satisfactory: the 28 Hz natural frequency caused distortion in the response curve, even with the low-pass filter, which would not be acceptable for determining design quality information. However, the approximate magnitudes of dynamic loading and trends of loading with various variables can be determined. The difficulties with the response shown in Figure 3-4b can now be eliminated with the completion of a new balance where response in all six components should be flat to 100 Hz or more. Calibration of the entire force balance system was performed in the wind tunnel using the same electronics and data-acquisition system used during testing. Weights and a fish-line were used to pull on the stem at a certain position and the output was monitored at the same time. The resulting calibration curves were very linear over the measurement range. Interactions between the six channels were always less than 2-3 percent and linear. Interactions were removed using standard balance measurement techniques. Accuracy of measurement was about 5 to 10 percent or better of the maximum value recorded in that channel. Thus the only data subject to concern because of accuracy are the stow position loads. Most of the effort in this measurement program was directed at operational conditions. The forces and moments measured on the heliostat model are expressed, respectively, in terms of the nondimensional coefficients cF , cF 9 cF , cM , CM , CM . They are defined as follows: X Y Z x

z
r

force coefficient along the x-axis

force coefficient along the y-axis

l 7

force coefficient along the z-axis

moment coefficient about the x-axis Mx

9

(Aref) (Lref)

moment coefficient about the y-axis

moment coefficient about the z-axis

where 'e rf

= reference mean velocity at 10 m ( 6 . 6 in. model)

= density of air,

P
*ref Lref
.
. ..
+

= reference area 19.6 in.2 model, 489.9 ft2 full scale

= reference length 4.26 in.2 model, 2 1 . 3 ft full scale
axis direction

Fx,Fy,FZ = measured force along axis, positive force in positive

.~

'

MZ,Mx,My = measured moment about axis, sign by right-hand rule

For each coefficient component, five values were computed:

mean - time average rms

root-mean-square of the fluctuating value about the mean

peaks

the largest and smallest values recorded during a time of roughly 1 to 30 minutes full scale (32 seconds model scale) 0

gust factor - G, peak divided by mean peak factor - g, (peak - mean) rms

The significance of the gust factor is that current wind code formulations use a gust factor approach to obtain peak values from mean coefficients. This approach has significant limitations in that fluctuating loads are not always proportional to the mean load. The peak factor is the number of s t a n d a r d
deviations of the peak from the mean. This calculation approach permits dynamic loads to be analyzed separately from the mean load and then added to t h e mean. This approach is a s s o c i a t e d with random vibration theory, an approach to analyzing dynamic loading which has the greatest promise for systematically defining peak loads.

3.4

TEST PROCEDURE AND TEST MATRIX

P r i o r t o t h e d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n p h a s e , a t e n t a t i v e t e s t p l a n was e s t a b l i s h e d whose i n t e n t was t o g u i d e t h e d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n . The t e s t p l a n r e v o l v e d a b o u t t h e r e c o g n i z e d need t o measure d a t a c r o s s s e c t i o n s a c r o s s s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s : h e l i o s t a t s e t t i n g a n g l e s (day of y e a r , t i m e of d a y ) p o s i t i o n of h e l i o s t a t i n f i e l d a p p r o a c h wind d i r e c t i o n presence o f e x t e r n a l fence p r e s e n c e of i n t e r n a l f e n c e a l o n g l i n e s o f h e l i o s t a t s p r e s e n c e of i n t e r n a l f e n c e s p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o l i n e s o f h e l i o s t a t s h e i g h t of f e n c e s
e

p o r o s i t y of f e n c e s ( i n c l u d i n g s o l i d berms) d e n s i t y of f i e l d (number o f h e l i o s t a t s p e r u n i t a r e a o f ground surface)

Iik o r d e r t o a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r t h e r a n g e s o f v a r i a b l e s , i t was found n e c e s s a r y t o change t h e t e s t p l a n somewhat d u r i n g t h e t e s t i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o f i n d i n g s e a r l i e r i n t h e t e s t program. F o r example, t h e p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d t o h e l i o s t a t s i n t h e d e n s e r p o r t i o n s o f t h e Barstow f i e l d by upwind h e l i o s t a t s was s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h t h a t low s e n s i t i v i t y t o i n - f i e l d f e n c e s was n o t e d . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , a d d i t i o n a l f i e l d d e n s i t y e x p e r i m e n t s were added t o show how i n - f i e l d f e n c e s p r o v i d e d p r o t e c t i o n . The r e s u l t o f t h e m o d i f i e d t e s t p l a n was a s e t of c u r v e s which e f f e c t i v e l y c o l l a p s e d mean l o a d d a t a from most o f t h e v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d above o n t o v e r y few c u r v e s .

The t e s t p l a n can be broken i n t o two b a s i c p a r t s - - w i n d l o a d s on i s o l a t e d h e l i o s t a t s and wind l o a d s on h e l i o s t a t s i n a f i e l d of u n i t s . Both mean and dynamic l o a d s were measured f o r t h e two s i t u a t i o n s . The t e s t m a t r i x f o r t h e i s o l a t e d h e l i o s t a t i s shown i n T a b l e 3-1. T h i s d a t a was needed t o o b t a i n t h e b a s e l i n e l o a d s a g a i n s t which t h e l o a d s i n t h e h e l i o s t a t f i e l d c a n be measured. Mean, rms and peak l o a d s were measured f o r e a c h case. S p e c t r a were o b t a i n e d f o r o n l y a l i m i t e d s e t o f c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e v a l u a t i n g t h e dynamic measurements. Data v a l u e s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e r u n s l i s t e d i n T a b l e 3-1 a r e l i s t e d i n Appendix B. The t e s t m a t r i x f o r t h e i n - f i e l d h e l i o s t a t s i s shown i n T a b l e 3-2. Because of t h e l a r g e number of i n d i v i d u a l r u n s , T a b l e 3-2 p r o v i d e s a summary of t e s t c o n d i t i o n s b u t o m i t s t h e d e t a i l s of i n d i v i d u a l v a l u e s f o r h e l i o s t a t a n g l e s e t t i n g s and wind d i r e c t i o n s . These v a l u e s a r e l i s t e d i n a n expanded t e s t m a t r i x form f o r e a c h c o n f i g u r a t i o n i n Appendix C . Mean, rms and peak l o a d s were measured f o r e a c h c a s e . S p e c t r a were measured f o r s e l e c t e d c a s e s . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Section 4.0. of the data of Appendices

and

is

presented

in

Table 3-1.

Test Matrix f o r S i n g l e Heliostat

Wind D i r e c t i o n

E l e v a t i o n Angle
0

0 115 246 228

22.5 113

45
111

67.5 109

90

112.5 105

135 103 240

234

157.5 101

180

107 242 232 144 222

212

99

15
30 45
60

138

244
230 140 224 210 85 166 176 202

142

238

146

150

236 152 218 216 97 154 188

190

136
226 208 81 170 172
206

148 220 214

93

87 164 178 200

75
80

83 168 174 204

91

95 156 186 192

89
162

84
87

160 182 196

158 184 194

180
198

90

Note:

The numbers in the t a b l e i n d i c a t e t h e test r u n number.

Azimuth a n g l e was s e t a t 270 f o r all runs--see Figure 3-3.

T a b l e 3-2.

T e s t Matrix f o r In-Field H e l i o s t a t s
j/ o f Wind

Heliostat
1

Conf.

Case Smr AM Smr Noon Wntr AM Wntr Noon Wntr P M Ver. Stow Hor. Stow

Directions

Fence+< Note None See F i g u r e 2-2 without fences

Data File
HllOO

Page
115

1-A

7 7 7 7
7
1
1

115 115 116

116

116 116

1-B

Smr AM Smr Noon Wntr AM Wntr Noon Wntr P M Ver. Stow Hor. Stow

7 7

See F i g u r e 2-5 with perimeter fence

127

7
7 7
1
1

128 128
128

128 None Simulation of heliostat field within c i r c l e on F i g u r e 2-2 without fences H5000
139

5-A

Wntr AM Wntr Noon Wntr P M Ver. Stow Hor. Stow

6
6

139 139 139

6
1

139

"See T a b l e 3-3

T a b l e 3-2 ( c o n t i n u e d )

Heliostat

Conf. 5-B

Case SmrAM Smr Noon Wntr AM Wnt r Noon Wntr P M

I# o f Wind Directions

Data

Fence$i Note
1

File
H5001

Page 145 145

Simulation of heliostat field within c i r c l e on F i g u r e 2-2 with p e r i m e t e r fence

145
145

Ver. Stow

Hor. Stow

5-C

Smr AM
Smr Noon
Wntr AM

None

Simulation t o edge o f f i e l d without fences, s e e F i g u r e 2-2

H5100

155 155 155

Wntr Noon

Wntr P M
Ver. Stow Hor. Stow

5-D

SmrAM Smr Noon Wntr AM Wntr Noon

Simulation t o edge of f i e l d with perimeter fence, see F i g u r e s 2-2, 2-6

H5lUl

165 165 165

M Wntr P
Ver. Stow Hor. Stow
+See T a b l e 3-3

37

T a b l e 3-2 ( c o n t i n u e d )
j/ o f Wind

Heliostat 5

Conf. 5-E

Case Smr AM Smr Noon Wntr AM Wntr Noon M Wntr P

Directions 6 6 6 6

Fence"; 2

Note Simulation t o edge of f i e l d with perimeter and i n t e r n a l fences, see F i g u r e s 2-2, 2-6

Data File H5102

Page 175 175 175 175 176 176 176

6
1
1

Ver. Stow Hor. Stow 3 3-A Ver. Stow

None

See F i g u r e s 2-2, 2-7, s i m u l a t i o n t o edge o f f i e l d , no f e n c e s E f f e c t o f number o f rows u p s t r e a m , s e e F i g u r e 2-7 E f f e c t of f i e l d density, s e e F i g u r e 2-7 E f f e c t of number of rows upstream i n f i e l d of reduced d e n s i t y (original x 1/4), s e e F i g u r e 2-7 E f f e c t of number of rows upstream i n f i e l d of reduced d e n s i t y (original x 1/4), s e e F i g u r e 2-8, wlperimeter fence

H3100

185

3-B

Ver. Stow

None

H3200

187

3-C

Ver. Stow

None

H3300

191

3-D

Ver. Stow

None

H3400

194

3-E

Ver. Stow

H3401

196

+See T a b l e 3-3

Table 3-2 ( c o n t i n u e d )

Heliostat

Conf.

Case

/# o f Wind Directions
1

Fence*
2

Note E f f e c t of number of rows upstream, i n f i e l d of reduced d e n s i t y (original x 1 / 4 ) , see F i g u r e 2-8 w i t h perimeter and i n t e r n a l fence E f f e c t of number of rows upstream i n f i e l d of reduced d e n s i t y (original x 1 / 4 ) , s e e F i g u r e 2-8, same a s 3-F w i t h 50% fence p o r o s i t y E f f e c t o f number of rows upstream i n f i e l d of reduced d e n s i t y (original x 1 / 4 ) , s e e F i g u r e 2-8, same a s 3-F w i t h 40% f e n c e p o r o s i t y

Data File

Page

3-F

Ver. Stow

H3402

198

3-G

Ver. Stow

H3405

200

.3

3yH ,Ver. Stow

H3406

202

3-1

Ver. Stow

None

E f f e c t of reduced density (original x 1 / 4 ) , 2 rows upstream, see F i g u r e 2 - 9 , without fences F i e l d of reduced density (original x 1 / 4 ) , 2 rows upstream, see F i g u r e 2-9, with external fence

H3500

204

3-5

Ver. Stow

H3501

207

$;See T a b l e 3-3

T a b l e 3-2 ( c o n t i n u e d )
-

Heliostat 3

Conf. 3-K

Case

11 of Wind Directions
7

Fencegr 2

Note F i e l d o f reduced density (original x 1/4), 2 rows u p s t r e a m , s e e F i g u r e 2-9, w i t h e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l fences p a r a l l e l t o rows F i e l d o f reduced density (original x 1/4), 2 rows u p s t r e a m , s e e F i g u r e 2-9, with external, i n t e r n a l and crossing fences F i e l d of reduced density (original x 1/4), 2 rows u p s t r e a m , s e e F i g u r e 2-9, with perimeter berm, w i t h o u t i n t e r n a l fences F i e l d of reduced density (original x 1/4), 2 rows u p s t r e a m , s e e Figure 2-9, same a s 3-K w i t h 50% f e n c e p o r o s i t y

Data File H3502

Page 210

Ver. Stow

3-L

Ver. Stow

H3503

213

3-M

Ver. Stow

H3504

216

3-N

Ver. Stow

H3505

219

4-A

Smr AM Smr Noon Wntr AM WntrNoon Wntr P M Ver. Stow Hor. Stow

1 1 1

None

11 rows upstream were p r e s e n t , s e e F i g u r e 2-2, 11 rows modeled upstream, 265' wind

H4100

222

1
1 1

+:See T a b l e 3-3

Table 3-3. Configuration

1

D e s c r i p t i o n o f Fences Porosity
40% Height

Elements E x t e r n a l Fence

Distance

Figures

E x t e r n a l Fence I n t e r n a l Arc Fence

40% 60%

E x t e r n a l Fence I n t e r n a l Arc Fence I n t e r n a l Cross Fence

40%
60%

60%

E x t e r n a l S o l i d Berm

0%

E x t e r n a l Fence I n t e r n a l Arc Fence

40%

50%

E x t e r n a l Fence

40% 40%

I n t e r n a l Arc Fence
Note:

H = 24.2 ft

SECTION 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 SINGLE HELIOSTAT

Wind loads in coefficient form for an isolated heliostat are shown graphically in Figures 4-1 through 4-13. The heliostat was always pointing directly south (AZ = 20) 7'. The elevation angle and wind direction were systematically varied. Force and moment coefficients as a function of approach wind direction are shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-6 for elevation angles of 0' (heliostat vertical), 45O, 80, 84O, 87O and 90 (heliostat horizontal). Figures 4-7 and 4-8 show forces and moments as a function of elevation angle for wind directions of O0 and 45O. Wind directions are specified as wind azimuths with the wind approaching from the quoted direction with the angle measured clockwise from true north (see Figure 3-3). CF
X

, the force coefficient in the

direction, is maximum for a vertical

heliostat with wind approaching perpendicular to its broad face and decreases uniformly as heliostat tends to the horizontal or as wind direction approaches tangent to the heliostat surface at 90. CF , the force coefficient in the

Y
y direction, is always small because of a small projected area in that direcreaches a maximum at 6' elevation angle, or 3' to the horizontal 0 0 t ion. CF
Z

in a manner characteristic of an airfoil. Moment coefficients reflect the movement of the center of wind pressure away from the pivot center which is also the center of heliostat area. The movement is due to two primary effects: the higher wind speeds at higher elevations which can increase wind loads near the top of the heliostat and more importantly the aerodynamic lift caused by the flow separation near the upstream edge of the heliostat when placed at an angle to the flow (roughly the same mechanism causing lift on a wing). Conclusions can be obtained from the isolated heliostat data shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-8 about whether stow position loads will drive the design of heliostats. We can calculate the ratio of velocity in stow position to velocity in operational position which, for maximum loading orientation, will cause particular mean or peak forces or moments to reach the design strength. These ratios are somewhat tentative because the stow loads in this study were not far above the resolution level of the balance. These ratios are: Mean Force or Moment Stow Position Velocity Operational Position Velocity Peak Force or Moment Stow Position Velocity Operational Position Velocity 4.2
4.0

2.1

1.5

1.6

4.4

2.1

1.3

1.5

1.5

These data indicate, for example, that the velocity which would cause the design horizontal peak force with the heliostat in horizontal stow position would be 4.4 times the velocity which would cause the design horizontal peak force in the most sensitive heliostat operational position. For a maximum operational wind of 50 mph, the stow wind speed to cause the same horizorltal force would have to be at least 220 mph. Thus for an isolated (or field-edge) heliostat, operational winds tend to control design forces. The opposite is true for moments: moments are controlled by 90 mph stow position loads. Similar comparisons can be made within the heliostat field. However, insufficient data are available in this study to perform this calculation. More detailed dynamic measurements on a larger scale model need to be made in order to determine whether or not the current practice of establishing stow moments by using a wind at 6 degrees to the horizontal is too conservative. Tentative measurements in this study showed a possibility that current practice is conservative. Figure 4-9 shows the value of
CF
X

in

this study in

comparison to

C~

values measured on other isolated ground-based solar collectors in previous studies. The dynamic pressure here is referred to velocity at mid-height of the projected area to be consistent with the other data. The comparison is good. The present data is slightly lower in drag than some other collectors whose surfaces were not as smooth. The data is presented two ways in Figure 4-9: once showing the sinusoidal variation in CF with elevation
X

angle and a second showing the approximately constant upper bound of it is based on projected area instead of actual surface area.

CF

if

Figures 4-10 and 4-11 show mean, peak maximum, and peak minimum wind loads as ' a function of elevation angle for wind directions of 0 and 45O respectively. at an elevation angle of 0 is 2.11 compared ' In Figure 4-10a, the peak CF
X

to a mean of 1.17. This implies a gust factor in wind speed of 1.34. This value is lower than the value one would expect from typical gust factors quoted in the literature and is probably due to incomplete modeling of the larger eddy sizes. Thus, the peak measurement is possibly low for the isolated heliostat. Additional measurements combined with appropriate analysis, anticipated for study during the next year, can determine the magnitude of the underestimate. All data of Figures 4-9 and 4-10 indicate that fluctuating loads are due to wind gusting and do not indicate strong wake-dominated or vortex loading. The power spectrum of a force coefficient represents the frequency decomposition of the fluctuating part of the time varying force coefficient. The power spectrum is defined as:

where

g(t)

= fluctuating time sequence of force coefficient

Figures 4-12 and 4-13 present power spectra of each force coefficient for wind directions O0 and 45" at a constant elevation angle of 4 5 O . The abscissa is reduced frequency--frequency in Hz made nondimensional with characteristic length scales. The ordinate is the spectrum multiplied by frequency in Hz and divided by the square of the root-mean-square of the fluctuating signal (the variance). The ordinate is dimensionless. The spectrum made dimensionless in this way applies to the full-scale heliostat as well as to the model and provides a convenient way to scale dynamic loads from model to full scale. The decrease in spectral amplitude near a reduced frequency of 0.2 is due to the sharp cutoff antialiasing low-pass filter used to delete the model natural frequency and represents the upper limit of useful frequency. The absence of large peaks at specific frequencies indicates a broad-band type of wind loading and the absence of an organized vortex shedding phenomena. This is the type of loading expected. Improvements in the spectra which should be made before full utilization can be made are: an increase in upper frequency limit (higher natural frequency of the model) and decrease in normalized standard error (random variations in ordinate making graph look 'noisy'). The first can be accomplished by testing on a stiffer balance--a device currently in final development stages--and the second by increasing sampling time in the wind tunnel and adjusting segment and frequency averaging parameters in data analysis. Both improvements are planned for the next year testing. Improvements in dynamic load measurement capability will result in definition of peak loads on heliostats. It is the peak loads which provide the largest stresses in the support structure and hence control the design. The strength of a collector should be based on the peak load rather than a mean load multiplied by an assumed gust factor.

4.2

HELIOSTATS IN FIELD

Data in this s e c t i o n is presented in roughly the order o f increasing complexity of upwind blockage. The intent of the various figures is to illustrate the influence of various types of upwind blockage, heliostats, fences, etc., on wind loads. The data in this section is later condensed into two graphs.

Figures 4-14 and 4-15 show the influence of a perimeter fence (see Figure 2-5) o n wind loads on heliostat 1 at the edge of the field for summer AM and summer noon conditions. As found in earlier studies cited in the introduction, perimeter fences do provide significant reductions in wind load.

I I e l i o s t a t 5 r e p r e s e n t s an i n - f i e l d u n i t i n t h e l e a s t d e n s e a r e a A of t h e Barstow f i e l d ( s e e F i g u r e 2 - 6 ) . F i g u r e s 4-16 and 4-17 show t h e wind l o a d s on t h i s h e l i o s t a t f o r t h e summer AM and summer noon c o n f i g u r a t i o n f o r v a r i o u s fence arrangements. The h i g h e s t l o a d s shown i n e a c h f i g u r e a r e f o r an i s o l a t e d h e l i o s t a t f o r comparison p u r p o s e s . The o t h e r c a s e s i n o r d e r of d e c r e a s i n g l o a d a r e h e l i o s t a t 5 i n i t s f i e l d l o c a t i o n w i t h o u t any f e n c e s i n p l a c e , w i t h e x t e r n a l f e n c e o n l y and w i t h b o t h e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l f e n c e . The l a r g e s t r e d u c t i o n i n wind l o a d from t h e i s o l a t e d c a s e o c c u r r e d a s a r e s u l t of b a s i c f i e l d d e n s i t y . Both t h e e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l f e n c e p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l load reductions. The f i e l d d e n s i t y a b o u t h e l i o s t a t 5 i s h i g h e r t h a n t h e low d e n s i t y p o r t i o n of t h e f i e l d used i n r e f e r e n c e [ 2 ] . I n r e f e r e n c e 121, l o a d r e d u c t i o n s of 20 t o 30 p e r c e n t i n t h e low d e n s i t y f i e l d were t y p i c a l without fences. I n t h e Barstow low d e n s i t y f i e l d , mean l o a d r e d u c t i o n s of 50 t o 70 p e r c e n t were t y p i c a l w i t h a d d i t i o n a l d e c r e a s e s due t o t h e a d d i t i o n of fences.

I n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t h e d e s i r e d g o a l o f p r o v i d i n g a d e s i g n e r w i t h sound g u i d e l i n e s on what upstream b l o c k a g e i s n e c e s s a r y t o produce a p a r t i c u l a r l o a d r e d u c t i o n , a d d i t i o n a l t e s t s were r u n on a t y p i c a l h e l i o s t a t v a r y i n g t h e prope r t i e s of t h e f i e l d a b o u t t h e h e l i o s t a t . H e l i o s t a t 3 was s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s p u r p o s e . F i g u r e 4-18 shows t h e e f f e c t o f v a r y i n g t h e number of upstream rows w i t h o u t f e n c e s on b o t h mean and dynamic l o a d s on h e l i o s t a t 3 . The mean l o a d d e c r e a s e s r a p i d l y w i t h number of u p s t r e a m rows t o a v a l u e a b o u t 20 t o 25 p e r c e n t of t h e edge c a s e . The peak l o a d d e c r e a s e s r a p i d l y a l s o t o a v a l u e of a b o u t 1 / 3 o f t h e edge c a s e . The v a r i a b i l i t y i n peak l o a d w i t h number of rows upwind from 2 t o 10 rows i s n o t due t o a change i n dynamic l o a d i n g ( t h e rms i s remarkably c o n s t a n t ) b u t i s due t o u s e of a s i n g l e r e a l i z a t i o n from a proba b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h a f a i r l y h i g h d i s p e r s i o n . I n random v i b r a t i o n peak l o a d d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e peak i s o f t e n c a l c u l a t e d a s peak = mean + g rms w h e r e g i s a peak f a c t o r ( o f magnitude 3-4 f o r a b r o a d band l o a d i n g p r o c e s s ) d e t e r m i n e d s e m i - e m p i r i c a l l y , i n o r d e r t o a v o i d t h e random v a r i a b i l i t y i n s i n g l e measurement r e a l i z a t i o n s . Because t h e dynamic l o a d s on i n t e r i o r h e l i o s t a t s a r e dominated by wake t u r b u l e n c e g e n e r a t e d by upstream u n i t s , t h e peak l o a d s measured on t h e s e u n i t s a r e more l i k e l y t o be c l o s e r t o t h e c o r r e c t v a l u e t h a n t h o s e on edge u n i t s (which a r e b e l i e v e d t o o low--see S e c t i o n 4 . 1 a b o v e ) . Thus, l o a d r e d u c t i o n w i t h i n t h e f i e l d i s p r o b a b l y l a r g e r t h a n shown i n F i g u r e 4-18.

An i m p o r t a n t p o i n t shown by F i g u r e 4-18 i s t h a t t h e peak wind l o a d s a c t i n g on h e l i o s t a t s w i t h i n t h e Barstow f i e l d a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower t h a n t h e peak l o a d s a c t i n g on h e l i o s t a t s a t t h e edge of t h e field. T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n c o n t r a s t t o a s s u m p t i o n s made a b o u t peak l o a d s by f i e l d personnel (see Section 4.4). S p e c i f i c dynamic l o a d mechanisms which c a n be t r e a t e d w i t h s p o i l e r s on h e l i o s t a t s were n o t e v i d e n t . Thus, t h e y were n o t t r i e d . Addit i o n a l study i n t h e next year should address t h i s i s s u e with t e s t s .

S p o i l e r s a r e n o t l i k e l y t o b e e f f e c t i v e i n r e d u c i n g mean l o a d s b e c a u s e of i n c r e a s e d c o l l e c t o r a r e a and i n c r e a s e d t u r b u l e n c e i n t h e s e p a r a t e d s h e a r l a y e r which c a n i n c r e a s e l o a d i n g c o e f f i c i e n L s . The i n f l u e n c e of f i e l d d e n s i t y on h e l i o s t a t l o a d s i s shown i n F i g u r e 4-19. T h i s f i g u r e shows how wind l o a d s t r a n s i t i o n from i s o l a t e d t o d e n s e f i e l d loadings. The g e n e r a l i z e d b l o c k a g e a r e a shown i n t h e g r a p h i s d e f i n e d i n F i g u r e 4-20 a s

where

AB = s o l i d b l o c k a g e a r e a o f upwind h e l i o s t a t s and f e n c e s p r o j e c t e d i n t h e approach wind d i r e c t i o n

AF = ground a r e a o c c u p i e d by t h e upwind b l o c k a g e e l e m e n t s i n c l u d e d i n c a l c u l a t i o n of AB
The o r i g i n a l d e n s i t y f o r h e l i o s t a t 3 i n g e n e r a l i z e d b l o c k a g e a r e a i s 0 . 2 4 . Wind l o a d s i n c r e a s e s t e a d i l y a s g e n e r a l i z e d b l o c k a g e a r e a i s d e c r e a s e d w i t h a r a p i d r i s e below 0 . 1 . The e f f e c t s of f e n c e s a r e more e a s i l y r e s o l v e d f o r f i e l d s w i t h lower d e n s i t y . A number o f t e s t s were performed w i t h i n t e r n a l f e n c e s w i t h v a r i o u s f i e l d d e n s i t i e s and number of u p s t r e a m rows. F i g u r e s 4-21 t h r o u g h 4-23 r e p r e s e n t r e s u l t s from t h i s s e r i e s of t e s t s f o r h e l i o s t a t 3 . The reduced d e n s i t y of t h e f i e l d f o r t h e s e r e s u l t s i s 1 / 4 o f t h e o r i g i n a l Barstow f i e l d d e n s i t y . The r e s u l t s show a s t e a d y d e c r e a s e i n wind l o a d w i t h upwind b l o c k a g e a r e a . It shows t h a t p o r o s i t y i n t h e i n - f i e l d f e n c e i s i m p o r t a n t ( i . e . , t h a t i n c r e a s e i n s o l i d a r e a upwind d e c r e a s e s wind l o a d s ) . H e l i o s t a t 4 i s a t t h e i n n e r edge of t h e h e l i o s t a t f i e l d where v e l o c i t y speedup might i n c r e a s e wind l o a d s above i n t e r i o r u n i t s . T h i s h e l i o s t a t a l s o i s one instrumented i n t h e f i e l d . Because o f t h e time-consuming t a s k of s e t t i n g upwind h e l i o s t a t s , o n l y one wind d i r e c t i o n ( a z i m u t h 265 d e g r e e s ) was measured--the d i r e c t i o n where f u l l - s c a l e wind l o a d s have b e e n measured. F i g u r e 4-24 shows t h e r e s u l t s of h e l i o s t a t 4 wind l o a d s f o r a summer noon case. Comparison i s made t o h e l i o s t a t s 1 and 5 . H e l i o s t a t 4 shows l o a d s s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower t h a n t h e upwind edge h e l i o s t a t 1 and s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n h e l i o s t a t 5 . F o r a summer AM c a s e ( n o t shown i n a f i g u r e ) , h e l i o s t a t 4 had l o a d s n e a r l y t h e same a s h e l i o s t a t 5 . The d a t a f o r h e l i o s t a t 4 shows t h a t a n edge h e l i o s t a t on t h e downwind edge of t h e f i e l d may have l o a d s above i n t e r i o r u n i t s , b u t w e l l below upwind edge u n i t s . Development of d a t a d u r i n g t h e t e s t i n g p h a s e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e added d a t a o b t a i n e d on h e l i o s t a t 3 would b e more b e n e f i c i a l t h a n t e s t s on h e l i o s t a t 2 . Thus no d a t a were o b t a i n e d f o r h e l i o s t a t 2 . 4.3

WIND LOAD REDUCTION SUMMARY

The p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of t h i s s t u d y was t o f i n d ways t o r e d u c e mean wind l o a d s on h e l i o s t a t s . One a l t e r a t i v e i s t o s p e c i f y s p e c i f i c f e n c e s r e q u i r e d t o

a c h i e v e s p e c i f i c r e d u c t i o n s f o r a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d l a y o u t . A second and more a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e i s t o d e s c r i b e wind l o a d r e d u c t i o n i n t e r m s of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - - d e s c r i b e d i n a g e n e r a l b u t q u a n t i f i a b l e way--of t h e upwind d e v i c e s i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e wind. During a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a , i t was found t h a t a g e n e r a l i z e d q u a n t i f i a b l e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e upwind b l o c k a g e c o u l d be found--the g e n e r a l i z e d b l o c k a g e shown i n F i g u r e 4-20. F i g u r e 4-25 shows how d a t a have been c o l l a p s e d o n t o o r below a s i n g l e c u r v e o f l o a d r e d u c t i o n u s i n g t h e g e n e r a l i z e d b l o c k a g e a r e a c o n c e p t . The s o l i d curve i s a n e x p o n e n t i a l decay w i t h exponent -5.56 G and was f i t t o t h e d a t a i n t h e B upper curve by r e g r e s s i o n . Only d a t a f o r D/h - 5 d i d n o t c o l l a p s e o n t o t h e < c u r v e s shown and were o m i t t e d from t h e g r a p h s . F o r D/h < 5 , t h e h e l i o s t a t under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s w i t h i n t h e f i r s t two rows where wind can p a s s between upwind h e l i o s t a t s f o r some d i r e c t i o n s w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t d e c r e a s e . F o r t h e s e c a s e s , t h e p e r i m e t e r f e n c e i s needed t o p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e p r o t e c t i o n . F i g u r e 4-25 p r o v i d e s a d e s i g n g u i d e which d e s c r i b e s t h e q u a n t i t y of upwind s o l i d b l o c k a g e r e q u i r e d t o a c h i e v e any d e s i r e d l e v e l of l o a d r e d u c t i o n . The b l o c k a g e may b e assembled from h e l i o s t a t s , f e n c e s , berms o r o t h e r e l e m e n t s whose s p e c i f i c s h a p e s and l o c a t i o n s c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e economics of t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n . The f o r m a t used f o r d e s c r i b i n g l o a d r e d u c t i o n l e a v e s t h e f i e l d d e s i g n e r t h e maximum of l a t i t u d e i n s e l e c t i o n o f f i e l d geometry. An obvious c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t a n e f f i c i e n t l o a d r e d u c t i o n mechanism i s h i g h f i e l d d e n s i t y ( w i t h a p e r i m e t e r f e n c e ) where t h e upstream b l o c k a g e e l e m e n t s a r e a l s o e n e r g y p r o d u c i n g modules. I t may b e d e s i r a b l e t o t r a d e s h a d i n g l o s s e s f o r d e c r e a s e d wind l o a d i n g .

4.4

COMPARISON OF MODEL DATA WITH FULL SCALE

One r e a s o n f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e B a r s t o w U s i t e f o r t h e wind-tunnel t e s t was t h a t i n t h e f u l l s c a l e f i e l d wind speed measurements had been made, and t h r e e h e l i o s t a t s had been f u l l y i n s t r u m e n t e d w i t h l o a d c e l l s f o r f o r c e measurements ( a n o t h e r t h r e e had b e e n p a r t i a l l y i n s t r u m e n t e d ) . I t was t h u s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t a comparison between model and f u l l - s c a l e d a t a would b e made. To d a t e , no i u l l - s c a l e l o a d d a t a h a s become a v a i l a b l e . Some wind speed d a t a (mainly p e a k wind s p e e d s ) h a s been made a v a i l a b l e from anemometers i n s t a l l e d on wind towers w i t h i n t h e h e l i o s t a t f i e l d [31]; s e e F i g u r e 2-2 f o r t h e l o c a t i o n s of t h e wind t o w e r s . A t e a c h of t h e wind t o w e r s , t h e anemometers were l o c a t e d a t 10 f t , 20 f t and 32.8 f t above t h e ground. The anemometer of t h e west m e t e o r o l o g i c a l Wind speed d a t a o b t a i n e d on day 329 s t a t i o n was a t a h e i g h t o f 32.8 f t . (25 Nov) of 1983 were chosen f o r a model and f u l l - s c a l e comparison of wind s p e e d s f o r t h e h e l i o s t a t under a n o p e r a t i o n a l mode. I n t h e Barstow f i e l d , i n s t a n t a n e o u s wind s p e e d s were measured a t t h r e e - m i n u t e i n t e r v a l s f o r two h o u r s . F i g u r e 4-26 from [ 3 1 ] shows v a r i a t i o n o f t h e wind s p e e d s r e c o r d e d a t t h e west m e t e o r o l o g i c a l s t a t i o n on day 329 from 11 AM t o 1 PM. The c u r v e i n t h e f i g u r e was o b t a i n e d b y a c u b i c c u r v e f i t t i n g t o t h e d a t a p o i n t s . The mean o f t h e wind s p e e d s was 23.5 mph and t h e wind d i r e c t i o n was 265 d e g r e e s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d .

I n t h e wind t u n n e l , t h e h e l i o s t a t f i e l d around and u p s t r e a m of t h e wind t o w e r s 1, 2 and 4 were f u l l y s i m u l a t e d , and t h e wind s p e e d s were measured a t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g h e i g h t s o f 10 f t , 20 f t and 3 2 . 8 f t . Measurements of wind s p e e d s f o r t h e wind t o w e r 6 were o b t a i n e d by p a r t i a l l y s i m u l a t i n g t h e f i e l d w i t h 11 upwind rows of h e l i o s t a t s ( a l l t h a t were a v a i l a b l e ) . The wind s p e e d s were measured by a h o t - f i l m anemometer a t a r a t e of 256 samples p e r second f o r 32 s e c o n d s f o r e a c h wind t o w e r and h e i g h t . The maximum, mean and minimum wind s p e e d s were t h e n d e t e r m i n e d . The measurements were r e p e a t e d 10 t i m e s f o r e a c h c o n f i g u r a t i o n t o o b t a i n an ensemble a v e r a g e o f t h e maximum ( p e a k ) wind s p e e d s . F i g u r e 4-27 shows t h e f u l l - s c a l e p e a k wind s p e e d and model p e a k , mean and minimum wind s p e e d s a t h e i g h t s o f 10 f t , 20 f t and 3 2 . 8 f t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . A l l t h e wind s p e e d s were n o r m a l i z e d f o r comparisons u s i n g t h e mean wind speed a t t h e west meteorological s t a t i o n . The f u l l - s c a l e and model p e a k s a r e i n a s good agreement a s e x p e c t e d s i n c e t h e f u l l - s c a l e d a t a r e p r e s e n t s a s i n g l e r e a l i z a t i o n of a p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n with a s i g n i f i c a n t standard deviation. From t h e wind speed measurements i n t h e wind t u n n e l , i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t t h e mean wind s p e e d s d e c r e a s e d w i t h i n t h e f i e l d i n comparison t o t h e west edge a t 10- and 2 0 - f t l e v e l s and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t f o r 3 2 . 8 f t . A t t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e wind t o w e r 6 , however, t h e wind s p e e d i n c r e a s e d n e a r l y t o t h e l e v e l a t t h e wind t o w e r 1. Peak wind s p e e d s w i t h i n t h e f i e l d d i d n o t show a t e n d e n c y t o d e c r e a s e f o r e i t h e r model o r f u l l s c a l e . The l a c k of a d e c r e a s e i n peak wind s p e e d w i t h i n t h e f u l l - s c a l e f i e l d m i g h t l e a d i n c o r r e c t l y t o t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t peak wind l o a d s a l s o remained c o n s t a n t a c r o s s t h e f i e l d . High v e l o c i t i e s i n t h e f i e l d of s m a l l s p a t i a l e x t e n t c a n n o t f u l l y l o a d a h e l i o s t a t . Model d a t a p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4 . 3 showed peak and mean l o a d s on h e l i o s t a t s decreased.
0

Thus, i t can b e c o n c l u d e d t h a t p e a k and mean l o a d s i n t h e f u l l - s c a l e f i e l d w i l l d e c r e a s e from t h o s e a t t h e f i e l d edge f o r o p e r a t i o n a l positions. I n o t h e r words, measurement o f l o c a l wind g u s t p e a k s w i t h i n t h e f u l l - s c a l e f i e l d c a n n o t always be u s e d t o deduce peak wind l o a d s on t h e h e l i o s t a t s .

SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A 1:60 scale simulation of wind flow over several fields of heliostats including the Barstow site was performed in a boundary-layer wind tunnel designed to model atmospheric winds. Wind loads were measured on heliostats using a six-component strain-gage balance. Wind load reductions below those of an isolated heliostat were measured as a function of heliostat setting (day of year and hour), position within the field, field density, wind-protective fence, and approach wind direction. On the basis of the data presented, t h c following conclusions can be made: Mean wind loads decrease with:

- increased distance into the field, - increased field density,

addition of solid or porous fences upwind.

Mean wind load reduction data for a given load component can be collapsed onto a common curve which describes load reduction as a function of a generalized blockage calculated from upwind blockage elements. Mean wind loads on heliostats within the Barstow fields are substantially lower than those at the edge of the field--in rnany cases less than 30 percent of edge units.
e

Properly designed wind fences and berms surrounding a field of heliostats can reduce edge heliostat loads to 30 percent or less of loads without the fences or berms. Limited investigations of fluctuating wind loads did not reveal dynamic loading mechanisms which would indicate that on-heliostat spoilers would be beneficial for mean or dynamic loads. This conclusion should be considered tentative for dynamic loads pending further testing. Full-scale wind loads are not available for comparison with windtunnel data. Design forces perpendicular to the mirror plane for an isolated heliostat are controlled by operational winds (50 mph) while design drive moments are controlled by survival winds (90 mph).

Fluctuating loads on heliostats can be measured at model scale but additional research needs to be done to decrease certain uncertainties in preliminary measurements. Peak wind loads are substantially lower within the heliostat field than at the edge of the field based on wind-tunnel tests in operational positions, including the Barstow field geometry.

The strength of a collector should be based on the peak load rather than a mean load multiplied by an assumed gust factor.

Additional research needs to be performed to fully exploit the current results :

r

additional development of wind load as a function of generalized blockage area is required to develop the data into a codifiable form suitable for use by a designer not familiar with aerodynamic data. definition of the limits of applicability of the concept of generalized blockage area. complete development of techniques for dynamic force measurements including determination of the influence of model scale. investigate the influence of heliostat-mounted spoilers on dynamic loading. compare wind-tunnel loads with full-scale loads.

SECTION 6 . 0 REFERENCES
1.

Cermak, J . E . , J . A . P e t e r k a and A. Kareem, " H e l i o s t a t F i e l d - A r r a y Wind Tunnel T e s t , " T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t f o r McDonnell Douglas A s t r o r l a u t i c s Company, H u n t i n g t o n Beach, C a l i f o r n i a , R e p o r t No. CER78-79JEC-JAP-AK2, J u l y 1978, 55 p a g e s . Ewald, R . L . , J . A . P e t e r k a and J . E. Cermak, " H e l i o s t a t - A r r a y Wind Tunnel S t u d y , " T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t f o r M a r t i n M a r i e t t a A e r o s p a c e , R e p o r t No. CER78-79RLE-JAP-JEC31, J a n u a r y 1979. P e t e r k a , J . A . , J . J . Lou and J . E. Cermak, "Wind-Tunnel T e s t of a P h o t o v o l t a i c Concentrator Array," Technical Report f o r Martin M a r i e t t a , Denver, C o l o r a d o , R e p o r t No. CER78-79JAP-JJL-JEC62, J u n e 1979, 34 p a g e s . P e t e r k a , J . A . , J . M . S i n o u and J . E. Cermak, "Mean Wind F o r c e s on P a r a b o l i c - T r o u g h S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s , " T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t f o r S a n d i a Laborat o r i e s , Albuquerque, New Mexico, R e p o r t No. CER79-80JAP-JMS-JEC4, J u l y 1979, 109 p a g e s . F r a n k l i n , H. A., "Wind Design of F l a t - P a n e l Photovoltaic S t r u c t u r e s - F i n a l R e p o r t , " R e p o r t No. SAND 79-7057, 8 3 p a g e s . Array

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

M i l l e r , R . and D . Zimmerman, "Wind Loads on F l a t P l a t e P h o t o v o l t a i c Array Fields, Phase 11: F i n a l Report," Report No. DOEIJPL 954833-7912, September 1979, 111 p a g e s . P o r e h , M . , J . A . P e t e r k a and J . E. Cermak, "Wind-Tunnel S t u d y of Wind Loads on P h o t o v o l t a i c S t r u c t u r e s , " T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t f o r B e c h t e l N a t i o n a l , San F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a , R e p o r t No. CER79-80MP-JAP-JECll, September 1979, 83 pages. Peterka, J. A . , Parabolic-Trough 109 p a g e s .

7.

8.

J. M. Solar

S i n o u and J . E.

Cermak,

"Mean Wind F o r c e s on

collector^,^' R e p o r t No. SAND 80-7023, May 1980,

9.

R a n d a l l , D . E . , D . D . McBride and R . E. T a t e , " S t e a d y - S t a t e Wind Loading on P a r a b o l i c - T r o u g h S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s , " R e p o r t No. SAND 79-2134, August 1980, 21 p a g e s . Hosoya, N . , J . A . P e t e r k a , M . Poreh and J . E. Cermak, "Wind P r e s s u r e s and F o r c e s on F l a t - P l a t e P h o t o v o l t a i c S o l a r A r r a y s , " T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t f o r Boeing E n g . , S e a t t l e , Washington, R e p o r t No. CER80-81NH-JAP-MP-JEC13, September 1980, 8 1 p a g e s . Hosoya, N . , J . A . P e t e r k a , M. Poreh and J . E . Cermak, "Wind P r e s s u r e s and F o r c e s on F l a t - P l a t e P h o t o v o l t a i c S o l a r A r r a y s Data Supplement: Appendix" T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t f o r Boeing E n g . , S e a t t l e , Washington, R e p o r t No. CER8081NH-JAP-MP-JEC13a, September 1980, 182 p a g e s .

10.

11.

12.

M i l l e r , R. D. and D. K . Zimmerman, "Wind Loads on F l a t P l a t e P h o t o v o l t a i c Array F i e l d s , Phase 111, F i n a l R e p o r t , " R e p o r t No. DOE/JPL 954833-81/3, A p r i l 1981, 250 p a g e s . Hosoya, N . , J . A . P e t e r k a and J . E . Cermak, "Wind P r e s s u r e s and F o r c e s on F l a t - P l a t e P h o t o v o l t a i c S o l a r Arrays - C r o s s - S p e c t r a l A n a l y s i s , " Techn i c a l R e p o r t f o r Boeing Eng., S e a t t l e , Washington, R e p o r t No. CER80-81NHJAP-JEC57, June 1981, 47 p a g e s . M i l l e r , R . D . and D . K. Zimmerman, "Wind Loads on F l a t P l a t e P h o t o v o l t a i c Array F i e l d s (Nonsteady Winds)," R e p o r t No. DOE/JPL 954833-81/4, August 1981, 100 pages. Tieleman, H. W . , P . R . Sparks and R. E . Akins, "Wind Loads on F l a t P l a t e S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s , " P r e p r i n t No. 3632, ASCE Convention and E x p o s i t i o n , A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a , 23-25 October 1979, 21 pages. Tieleman, H. W . , R . E . Akins and P . R . S p a r k s , "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Wind Loads on S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s ," R e p o r t No. VPI-E-80-1, J a n u a r y 1980, 155 pages. Tieleman, H . W . , R. E . Akins and P . R . S p a r k s , "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Wind Loads on S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s , Appendix I Data L i s t i n g f o r Top and Bottom o f C o l l e c t o r , " R e p o r t No. VPI-E-80-1, J a n u a r y 1980, 307 p a g e s .

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Tielernan, H . W . , R . E . Akins and P. R. S p a r k s , "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Wind Loads on S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s , Appendix I1 Net P r e s s u r e C o e f f i c i e n t s , " R e p o r t No. VPI-E-80-1, J a n u a r y 1980, 165 p a g e s .

19. 20.

Mar, J . W. and H . L i e b o w i t z ( e d s . ) , S t r u c t u r e s Technology f o r Large Radio and Radar T e l e s c o p e Systems, The MIT P r e s s , 1969. Cohen, E . ( e d . ) , Large S t e e r a b l e Radio Antennas - C l i m a t o l o g i c a l and Aerodynamic C o n s i d e r a t i o n s , Annals o f t h e New York Academy of S c i e n c e , Vol. 116, October 1, 1964, pp. 1-355. J e t P r o p u l s i o n L a b o r a t o r y , "Wind Loads on Dish Antenna," T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t CP-6 ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) . Murphy, I,. M . , "An Assessment of E x i s t i n g S t u d i e s o f Wind Loading on S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s , " R e p o r t No. SERI/TR-632-812, F e b r u a r y 1981, 43 p a g e s .

21.
22.

23. Eimern,

J. V . , "Windbreaks and T.N. 5 9 , 1964.

R. Karshon,

L.

Shelterbelts,"

A . Razamova and G . W . R o b e r t s o n , World M e t e o r o l o g i c a l Organization,

24.

Counihan, J . , J . C . R . Hunt and P . S . J a c k s o n , "Wakes Behind TwoDimensional S u r f a c e O b s t a c l e s , " J . F l u i d Mech., V o l . 6 4 , 1974, p p . 529563.

25.

R a i n e , J . K . and D . C . S t e v e n s o n , "Wind P r o t e c t i o n by Model Fences i n a S i m u l a t e d Atmospheric Boundary L a y e r , " J . I n d u s t . A e r o . , Vol. 2 , 1977, p p . 159-180.

26. Perara, M.D.A.E.S., "Shelter Behind Two-Dimensional Solid and Porous Fences," J. Wind Eng. and Indust. Aero., Vol. 8 , 1981, pp. 93-104.
27. Bradley, E. F. and P. J. Mulhearn, "Development of Velocity and Shear Stress Distributions in the Wake of a Porous Shelter Fence," J. Wind Eng. and Indust. Aero., Vol. 15, 1983, pp. 145-156.
28.

Cermak, J. E., "Laboratory Simulation of the Atmospheric Boundary Layer," AIAA J., Vol. 9, 1971.

29. Cermak, J. E., "Applications of Fluid Mechanics to Wind,Engineering," A Freeman Scholar Lecture, ASME J. of Fluids Eng., Vol. 97, No. 1, 1975. 30. Cermak, J. E. "Aerodynamics of Buildings," Annual Review Mech Vol. 8, 1976, pp. 75-106.
of

Fluid -

f .

31. Green, H. J. , letter with data addressed to Clay Mavis, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California, 23 April 1985.

APPENDIX A

VALIDATION OF WIND-TUNNEL TESTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS

VALIDATION OF WIND-TUNNEL TESTING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS Roundary-layer wind tunnels have become an important tool used in physical modeling of various flow phenomena. Over the past 20 years considerable model data has been collected on wind flow over terrain and wind loads on structures. Validity of the wind-tunnel data has been evaluated by comparison with the results of full-scale measurements. Such comparisons have been recently discussed during a workshop on wind-tunnel modeling for wind engineering applications [All and during the Sixth International Conference on Wind Engineering [A2]. The presented data, related to wind loading and to flow characteristics, are summarized below. Dalgliesh [A3-A51 discussed data for a tall building. He compared wind pressure on cladding and overall loading [A3,A4] as well as the building response [A5]. A typical comparison for the pressure data is shown in Figure A-1. It can be seen that the agreement between the model and fullscale data is good both for the windward and leeward locations of a pressure tap. A similar agreement was obtained for overall loading: the base shear and the overturning moment, as is depicted in Figure A-2. The degree of agreement between the model and full-scale building response was different for different response modes. The best agreement, shown in Figure A-3, was obtained for translational modes. The agreement for the other modes was not as good, especially for higher frequencies. Based on the analyzed data, Dalgleish [A31 concluded that prediction of full-scale behavior of a tall building is possible to within 10 to 15 percent. A better agreement should not be expected due to many uncontrolled full-scale variables. Similar conclusions were reached by Lee [A6]. Holmes [A71 discussed model and full-scale tests of Aylesbury House. The full-scale study was conducted in England, while the model studies were undertaken in various wind tunnels located in Australia, Canada, U.S.A., U.K., and France. Holmes [A71 used comparative data presented by Tieleman et al. [A81 to discuss observed trends for pressure measurements. Figure A-4 shows "local" pressure coefficients based on the upwind mean wind speed at the height of the pressure tapping for center wall tapping. The mean pressure coefficients, Figure A-4a, are within a relatively narrow range. The agreement with the full-scale data is encouraging, considering the variations i n model scaling ratio and boundary-layer simulation procedures used. In the case of the rms pressures, Figure A-4b, the agreement between the wind-tunnel results and full-scale data is again quite good for most of the wind directions tested. Comparison of model prediction based on wind-tunnel tests and full-scale response of two long-span suspension bridges was presented by Davenport [A9]. The results for the Golden Gate Bridge and Bronx Whitestone Bridge are shown in Figures A-5 and A-6, respectively. It can be seen that full-scale responses fall within the response boundaries established during wind-tunnel studies of the bridge models. A similar conclusion can be drawn for the data presented by Melbourne [AlO], depicted in Figure A-7. Model/full-scale comparisons for other flow situations and flow-structure interactions were also reported in the literature. They included studies of

behavior in wind of towers and chimneys [All], natural ventilation studies [A12], investigations of flow over various topographies [A13,A14], and others. Interesting flow data was presented by Flay and Teunissen [A13]. The authors compared simulated (in a wind tunnel) and full-scale wind structure over a suburban airport. The agreement between the compared data, as shown in Figures A-8 and A-9 was good. A similar agreement for a flow over an isolated low hill, see Figure A-10, was reported by Teunissen [A14]. As follows from the preceding discussion of a few of the many published comparisons, agreement between the model and full-scale measurements is generally good. Due to uncertainties associated with full-scale conditions and certain wind-tunnel modeling limitations, addressed by Sparks [A15], the agreement cannot be expected to be perfect. Determination of the error margins require knowledge of the full-scale data, which at the present time are available for only a very limited number of cases. More full-scale studies of flow situations and wind effects on various structures (including heliostats and stretched membrane modules) would be valuable to verify improvements in modeling techniques and to provide better documentation on validity of wind-tunnel testing.

REFERENCES Al. Reinhold, T. A. (Editor), "Wind Tunnel Modeling for Civil Engineering Applications," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering ~ ~ ~ l i c a t i o n ~ Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, April 1982. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Gold Coast, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand, 21-25 March and 6-7 April 1983, printed in Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vols. 13, 14, 15, December 1983. Dalgliesh, W., "Comparison of Model and Full-Scale Tests of the Commerce Court Building in Toronto," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, April 1982, pp. 575-589. Dalgleish, W. A., "Comparison of Model/Full-Scale Wind Pressures on a High-Rise Building," Journal of Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 1 , 1975, pp. 55-66. Dalgleish, W. A., K. R. Cooper and J. T. Templon, "Comparison of Model and Full-Scale Accelerations of a High-Rise Building." Proceedings of " -, the Sixth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Gold toast , Australia, and Auckland, New Zealand, 21-25 March and 6-7 April 1983, printed in Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vols. 13, 14, 15, December 1983. Lee, B. E. , "Model and Full-Scale Tests of the Arts Tower at Sheffield University," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Apri.1 1982, pp. 590-604. Holmes, J. D., "Comparison of Model and Full-Scale Tests of the Aylesberry ~ouse,'; progeedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ~ ~ 1982, pp. 605-6181
'

Tieleman, H. W., R. E. Akins and P. R. Sparks, "Model/Model and FullScale/Model Comparison of Wind Pressures on Low-Rise Structures," Proc. Colloque, "Construive avec le Vent," Nantes, 1981, pp. IV-5-1 - IV-5-21. Davenport, A. G., "Comparison of Model and Full-Scale Tests on Bridges," ~roceedings of 'the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel M o d e l i s Criteria and Techniaues in Civil Engineering A ~ ~ l i c a t i o n s .Gaithersburg, Plaryland, USA, cambridge universUity press; ' cambridge, April 1982, pp. 619-636.

A10. Melbourne,

W. H., "Comparison of Model and Full-Scale Tests of a Bridge and a Chimney Stack," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, -Cambridge, April 1982, pp. 637-653.
Behavior in Wind of Towers and Chimneys," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, April 1982, pp. 654-668.

All. Basu, R. I. and B. J. Vickery, "A Comparison of Model and Full-Scale

A12. Chandra, S., A. A. Kerestecioglu, P. W. Fairey, 111 and W. Cromer, "Comparison of Model and Full-Scale Natural Ventilation Studies," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, April 1982, pp. 669-684.
A13. Flay, R . G . J . and H. W. Teunissen, "Comparison of Simulated and Full-Scale Wind Structure over a Small Suburban Airport," Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Wind Engineering, Gold Coast, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand, 21-25 March and 6-7 April 1983, printed in Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial ~ e r o d ~ n a m i c s , Vols. 13, 14, 15, December 1983.

A14. Teunissen, H. W., "Wind-Tunnel and Full-Scale Comparison of Mean Wind Flow over an Isolated Low Hill." Proceedings of the Sixth International
V

Conference on Wind Engineering, Gold Coast, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand, 21-25 March and 6-7 April 1983, printed in Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vols. 13, 14, 15, December 1983. A15. Sparks, P. R., "A Prepared Critique of Papers on the Validation of Wind Tunnel Testing," Proceedings of the International Workshop on Wind Tunnel Modeling Criteria and Techniques in Civil Engineering Applications, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, April 1982, pp. 685-688.

APPENDIX B WIND-TUNNEL DATA FOR ISOLATED HELIOSTAT

Table B-1.
-

Wl)
--

EL
80
80

AZ
270 270
270
270

Run #
81

0
22 . 5

83
85
87 89

45
67.5

80
80

90
112.5

80

270

80 80 80
80

270 270 270

270

91 93 95
97

1 '1.5

357.5
180

Table B-1.

continued

Table B-1.

continued

Table B-1.

continued

T11'17'A TOF: FILE:

: SIt4GL.

Cl tf f" ; i?f'i"rt! ?
f:

[:1- y

,0'7

cry

,02

tr'T
r \ !
r. .

.'

nnTn FOR FILE

SINGL

PAT4 FOR

F I L E : SIt4GL
:1 1" 8010

I? 1 kI % 1 . 1 '

!:I X t4It 1 I. 2 .. 5

A2 27010

V C 1.. 10+0

CHY

'01

Iti?TA F O R

FILE t SINGL
S0+0

72
t

IJ I 1.1 I ! 135%.0

rL

A :

270,O

v C: 1.. 40+7
Cr ,7 + 2?

COMP :
tiEAN

crx
.0?

--

CF'Y , 02

c Yi ?!

,03

D A T A FOE F I L E t S I N G L

COHF' t E'I E A P! ? .

CFX

010

- ,01

CFY

DATA F O R

FILE

SINGL

! :L ! 9

Id f !I D . I ~ O + Q

O,U

I:L

270~0

A::

9oco

I> L

t..

QATh FOR

FILE t SINGL

CHY ,63

DATA

FOR F I L E 2 SINGL

COMF' MEAN MAX HIN GFACT ]-'FACT DATA

: : :
;
t

CFX -.,74
- + 17 - 1116 .2o

...

C fY ,0 1

.+

~t-2 02
P

CHX
+
t.

-02
07 02 +01

CHY r 07

+04 -*05 , 01,

.- 007

02

c01

1c36

Jt.62

4.44 3 + L*4

2 + 7.1

4t.22

2178 3,73

FOR FILE : SINGL EL RUN # WIPID

107 ?0.0 0tO COHF' 1. HEAN :

A : 2?0bO

'.,J C 1.. 40r5

c I-x

"05

C I- Y .. a 0 5

C.FZ
,01
+ 02 YO& '01

CHX ~ 0 2
b

MA)! M1t.I EMS

: : :

,5 1 .. + 3 6
+

.-+I1
+01

+01

12

,02 07 ,01

r l A T A F7L7R f

ILf : SINGL

CHY
<

o7

HhX
AllS

MIN :
t

1,5?
Y - L

e35
-3

.- ,o"j
-m
t .L.i6

e04
- + 1E

03

,02

..

,03 ,0 L. +01

D A T A F O R F I L E : SIPIGL
F:UN R:
1 11 .

WIbID
.!5, 0 1r05

0,.0

EL

AZ 270+0

VEL
40.2 CHX e02 CHY
+

COMF' t H E 17? ? I

CFU

.-

CF-Y ,19

C f2 .,03

Ob

GF-ACT PFAC'?'

DATA FOR

FILE

SINGL

MA?: tf I I.,!

i
P

2t22
+ ; .

p:fjs

,5 C' 2.q

-... ,2 5 to:
+

03

- v:LS 0 :
t
I=

t .

00

6
6

0.: oq
0:

GFACT F : F A c .r ~

: :

1 e321

4+2z

1,963 3 , a ~

X b IJ J+ESi?

"7 C'

A+08
4 + (tlr

DATA FOR

FILE

SINEL

CFY
<-

1I

CMY ,Q?

CHZ ,OS

I I A T A FOE F I L E

: SINGL

CHY

+I4

CtfZ
t

01

L t A T A FUR F I L E

: SINGL
CHY

CMX +C J ~

+I1

tHZ
+ OO

D h l ' A FOR F I L E

SINGL

liC1P-t % 140

WIND 15 + O

45,O

EL

27010

AZ

40 ' 4

V E 1.. CHY * 10

MAX MIN

: : RMS :

1 YZC c 32 + 1 -9

1+10 +35 ,12

'12
'01 + 0::

DATA F O R F I L E

SINGL

F::Ut.' B 142

WIND
&7,5

EL
45+0

A2

270t0

!J E L 40,s

CHY * 05

MAX : HIN t F:MS

GFACT FBFACT

: :

2 + 20 4631

2e34 4+23
SINGL

1+75 3+E7

-7

3 . b 7 7c L
i t

. ,

DATA F O R F I L E

F:U N

14.9

W I P.1 I t 03 + 0

15,O
CF-X
+

EL

2?0,0
CFY

AX

3969
CHY
+ +

VEL

COMF' HEAN

: :

03
07

- ' 04
.-, 10

- ,01

CF-Z
+ +

CHY
"

QI5

02

MAX t HIbI ! RMZ :

GFACT I=' F A C, T

- +:?4
+

,'J4

+Ol

+OI

- ,22
OJ
7

2.5

,04 <, O 2 2,023 ,+17

0Z

: z

12+25 4 +2~3

2'&531+30 4643 J+92

DATA FOR F I L E

SINGL

CFX
l d

7-7
&I .

CFY
6

03

-.

CFZ
-?

+ L, ' 8

.h

CHX t. 07

CHY

so0

MAX f MIN : RM5 t

...

.- ' 02

,7 rj

... ,0 c

,02 a01

.- ' 7 0

,-PI1
310

-. * 0 1 * 1 .
"02

c 1 1

DATA FOR

FILE : SINGL

CDPiF' : IfEAN 3

.. ,c 9

C. Y, B

CFY

603,

... *

CFL'
74

,.o

CMX

06

CHY

.05

2 +m 5 3 -?
4
( .

LZ r..

D A T A FOR FILE Z

SXNGL

F: u I..! 4:
:Lyjrl)

~ 1 5 t~ : D 137,5

E L45 t 0

2'7O*@

nz:

29+?

VCL

cnr
+

94

CHZ
04

nax
HY.N F:MS
r.

- +27
.-

1 ,34 L.30

-,02 001,

o~

- ,?:.! -1 ' 3 6 + 1
4%

,OF -,I1
C2

GFACT

F'FkCT

r
SfNGt, MINI1
3 9

X:lhTA FQF: F I L E : S F:UH # 1"7 3 .

130

E k" ,4"J0

AX 2?0,0

VEL 39,?

D I ~ T RF O R F I L E

SINGL

C!kt F' 7 MEAN t

( :

.- 0 8
+

c 1- )I
,02

cry
+

00

..,

c k- f ,I 2
*

tux 01
4.

[: :

+noui
&I1 ,C( ? b 0 2

HAX HItI i;:P.fS

: : t

- ,.02 ,, 1 E

04 - +,07, to3

- +QZ +55
Q7

+ 03 ... 0 5

.-

+Ol

DATA F O R F I L E

: SINGL

COMF'

MEAN

I
t

CfX

, QP
19 t 02

- +

Cf Y Ql
t

- + 23
... + 0 1

CFZ

CHX ,02 +Oh -GO3 e 02

MAX

t13N Z
RMS

:
:

-- c 03

05 05 no1

- ,56
+O'?

GFACT FFACT

: :

DATA FOR F I L E

: SINGL
CHY

C.FX ,O?
MAX t tf I 1.I : F:MS t
-.

- ,C13
,02 .-.8 0 +01

CFY

.. , 2 1
.-

Ct-Z
458

C ti X

"01
+
6

>Q1

- l&
i

100

,0J

+02

,OC

O?

OL.

+02

GFACT F'FACT

:
t

DATti F O R F I L E
A U E4 t 160 W I t1 11 . 112+5

SINGL
84.0

EL

270'0

AZ

4044
CHY

VEL

... , 0 2

CFX

,0Z

GFACT PFACT

DATA F O R F I L E t S I N G L
R U E.1 # :1 52
W I t.! D T O , (:I

E t.. 8400
CF-X
... ,Q 4

270+0

AZ

,4015

VEL

COMF' MEht.!

: MAY, :
MIN
r.L1 CI

- "00

CFY

Cf2
eO.3

CHX ,01

CHY ,01

: .
: :
51G56 2.42

GFACT F'FACT

.4+81
3 c 32

-1 ..55

4+5f

5+33 41 1 7

GO

wo
S

*0

L f .

24 7

i-'

IIATA F O R F I L E : S I N G L
RUN #
17 2

WIN11
;

060
CFX
>

fL 87t0
b08 03 t 02
13
CfY
t

270+0 02
04

rlZ

39+9
CHY
+ +

VEL

COMF'

MEAN :
MAY.

CfZ

'06

05
03

MIN t I?M S : GFACT : FFACT :

- '01
2.23

+01

+ 21 -*I2 + 0.4

c.02 + Ci 1 l PIL. 7 .-?

3 ,. 3 2

1 +&7

3 ,.58

.9 ,24 4+3?

3,

ui..

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL

RUN t 174

MI~III
2245

87+0

E L.

270t0

nz

40 0

VEL

MAX t MIN f I.;: M s :

1.9 "00 '02

+

- * 05

k02 ,01

I.

23 + 05

215

t 09 +0Z 101

,OC.
t

0.9

'02

GFACT : PFACT : UATA FOR FILE t SINGL

COMF'

MEAN t
MAX n I F.I

: RMS :
t t t

+11 ,OI +01

.-,

+01 07 1 01 .

GFACT F'FACT
DATA

2*14 4,1&

2.52 3,51

+ 20 - + 29 c 0L 6,SO 3,OC

,07
+

02
01

2 + 75 3 ,2 l . .

FOR FILE : SINGL WIND

47'5
3

F?UP.! #

EL
87cO

h2

\? E L

173

27010
CfY
t

3PIS

COHF'

HEAN t
MAX

C t- ): t 03
+07 - 02
to1
2-71 3+43

03
02

CfZ
i

02
i i
,

CHX
to?

CHY

'00

MIN t RMS
F'FACT

... ,06
t.

+ 19 - t 33

01

,Ob

,Of? 03
+ 82

GFRCT t

2+?5

365'B

12t38 3+1C

Z+S3 +TO
7
1

1112TA

FOR FILE

SINGL

MAX

MIIl

: : RM$ :

DATA F O R

FILE : SXNGL

CFX + 02

CPY -,03

DATA F O R F I L E

t SINGL

COHP t HEAP4

.- c O

CFX
4 4

- + 0'3

CFY

CFII:
107

cnx
+

CHZ
0

OO

C I ~

I!A'TA

F O R F I L E t SIb1BL

COMF' t MERF-! t

-- ,o&

C: F

CFY
c

00

- + 0.3

CFZ

CNX
+Cs9

D A T A FOR

FILE : SINGL

DATA F O R

F I L E : SItjGL
WIND
EL
AZ 270+0
CFZ +04

RUN #

1 ~ 0 ~ 0P 0 + 0

404.1
CMX i01

VEL

COHF' : MEAN Z
MAX ' M1t.I RMS t

- e 05

CFX

CFY PO0

CHY * 07

CHZ
,OZ

DATA F O R F I L E

t SIMGL
70+0

R l f N 8: 192 CCIHF' 5 MEAN t

157,s

WIt4D

EL

AT 270*0

37,7
02
.-$7

VEL

- 05
i

CFX

- +01
+ 02 + 05

CFY

CF2
- ,25 + OG
E L

CHX ,91

tt 1 N t RMS t
GFRCT PFACT
t

MAX

: :

.- + 0 0 .. + 1 0 i 02 .

L'

+01

,. O L . 05 ,. 0 1

DATA FOR

FILE : SINGL

COMF' MERE4

: : : :
t

c 1' : :
-.

,0 4

... ,0 3

CTY

c F- 2
'01

C.H"

CHY

*01
+ C7 1 +06 +02

+0z

MAX

tfIt!

RMS

-k5C3

+01 '01

+Q2 .- + 0 ? '01

- + 27 ,QL

625

DATA F O R

FILE

SSMGL
VEL 39b?

PfEhN

COPfF'

C.F X -.yo2

CFY
6

85

.602

CFZ

7-4 3 b 60
+

7 d

-v
L.'*

CI?

7 3

too

4&/

X:IA'rA F-CIR

F I L E .: SItIGL
40+0

VEL

City
.,

00

CHY * 0:

CHZ
6

03

DATA FOR F I L E t S I N G L
9 Q 1. -9

VEL

CFX to3

C F 'f
t

0.4

-- ,OS

CF?

UR'tA FOR FILE

R U N 4: 7, . 0 7' .
A -

: SIMGL
EL
90PO A2

WINIl

J ~0 S
CFX

VEL
CFZ 04

270+0
CFY
-.. +

0 ',Q
CHX t 01.

COMP t iiffAf4 :

,Q5

- 1.02

CHY
,(lri

D A T A FOR F I L E : S I N G L

(IOHF' t MEAN t

CFX
6

07

CFY - 1.02

CFZ

+0I

: : GFACT :
MAX

MIt4 RMC,

13 02

,02

- + 05
101
+

+!I1

+o;

26 ,lG

CHX +01 ,0Z .. ,. 0 A *01

I

T'FACT t

1 *E6 31713

2 .? ?> 3+45

t. +E35 2 + 38

5,2C ,8 5 +

DATA FOE FILE : SINGL EL WIt.ID ELIN #

206 010 90,O

AZ

270+0

VEL 40+4

COHF'
MEnN

:
3

CFX
"05
;

CFY - + 0rj

- + oz
el3 +21 t 0.4 Et3E ?1+29

CFZ

CHY

CHY
,Ol

'. 0 0

HRX M I t.1 t
F:HS

12 +02 01

-. e02
'01

03

... . 0 3 <. 0 .?

,01
2f ,GZ

GFRCT t PFACT t

3+!3?

2103 3e54

4.07

DATA F O E F I L E t SXNGL

CFX , 1 -?

CFY
101

CF2
+

,. ; ' :

CHY
+

CHY
I.

00

1 L.

GFACT T'FACT z DATA FOR F I L E t SIMGL EL Ai! VEL KUN 8 WIND 7L ? .$0, 5 210 2 1 5 ,. 0 ., ,.,I 1. 0 2 70 0 CFX CFY CFZ CHX COHF' +13 - + 05 + 3.1 + 05 MEAN t
i

CHY
+0:

GFACT t F'FAtT :

I:tt~'fAFOR

F I L E : Sf NGL
W 1ND '?0+0

I-: U b.1 # 212

7560

EL

270+0

A2

40 t 4

VEL

DATA F O R

FILE : SINGL

Y:IA7'A F O R

FILE : SZNGL

CHZ bO2

GF'ACT F''F A C T

:
t

DATA FOR

FILE

STNGL

D A T A FOR FILE

: SXNGL
C. H : :
.
t

CQMf'
ftEfiN

: nnx : MIN :
RMS t

-.,41
-.
I. 12 - 80 * 10
;

CFX

-~01
... ,n 7
e02

CFY

CF-2
t

6' 5

07
02

,os

5)

... 1 + 25

+2b ,15

,02 '15
0

GFACT ; PFACT ; DRTA FOR FILE

R u t 4 3t

. .
3 '5

: SINGL
EL 50+0
AX

IJXP?D '3'3 0
6

27010
O.?
C f2 ,02

VfL 40a1
CHX + 02
6

COHF'
MAY

MEAN : MIN : F;: M S ?

GFACT F'FACT

C t- < :
.02
- .

CFY
c

, lr? 13
<.0 5

,01 .-, 10

* L> . + &'77 .>

P

-7

Of
02

.05
,

+02
,

O. i !
L ,

: :

12987
3 :. 1 F 7" !

2+83 4 2 C,

11+37 4+20

4 +24 7

,. 7 1

DRTA FOR F I L E t

SINGL

!:'OMF' t MEAN t

GFRCT f'FhCT

: : : SINGL
CHY
+

DATA FOR FILE

CfX
+

50

Cf Y ... ,02

Cf 2 * 7?

CHX

*Dl

15

DATA

FOR FILE t SINGL

t(3IcfF'

PfEhN

: :

CFX
c5'4

CFY
.,- +

03

C.F2
,58

CH"
t

QS

GFACT

F'FRCT

:
FILE : SINGL w r rr xt EL
43+0

3*OJ 7 r.: 4 Z 0

ItATA F O R
17t 14 I r 230

AX

30,O

270tO

40tO
CHX +81 CHY +/33

VEL

I f I N 'c F:HS
GFACT F'F- A C- T
',

MAX

1479

b13

,. 1 7

- +03 -+I4 02
E

+
4
t .

CY'
2 3

10 01

+Ol
t

r[)P

DATA FOR F I L E

: SINGL

CYY
+

0.9

GFACT 2 F'FACT :

DATA FOR

FILE

SINGL

I::OHP

HEAN t

:
.-

crx

CFY
*

+88

01

C.T z

+&4

CHX + 07

CHY

to1

DATA FOR F I L E
RUM P 226

SINGL EL 3010 A2 2T1Q+0

WIND
180+0
.-

VEL.
30bl

COMT' f MEAN :
MAX t HIt? t RMS :
GFACT

CfX . ?5

CPY 103

CFZ
..

58

CMY +01

CHY

,01

Iz'FACT :

: :
SINGL

DATA FOR F I L E

MEAN t

COMf

.. 1 '.

CFX 03

CI-Y

100

.-

CfZ ,z3

CMY
,03

GFACT FFRCT

:
t

DATA FOR F I L E

SINGL EL 15,O
CFY

RUN #

2~?0

135'0

WIN11
C 11+0O

270.0

AT

I..) [I L. 40 + 0

COPiF' t MEAN :

-.,02
.- + 06
I.

CFZ

*z4
+

M1t.l

MAX

: :
t

- ,4S ... 1 t 3 1

+Ol
01

, 21

+ 14 -- ,c4O t 0t

,O? PO1

OZ

GFACT : T'FACT 3 DATR FOR F I L E

: SIMGL
CMY
6

COHF' ! ??ERN t

CFX + 00

CFY ... ,0 .$

CFZ
'. 0 I.

CHX

,@I

O?

nnx :
M1t.I t RMS t
GFACT T'FACT

211,10 7
,,32

,, 20 3e72
L.,

7+C1 d+Ll

'7

,2 5 -

,,LC

CtATA F O R

FILE

SINGL

f;:UP-I t
PI
i - 53,

WIND
45tO

EL
15+0

AZ

2?OeQ

'.J C L -. -100

cnx
t0i

D A T A FOR

!?UP4 # 2 91

FILE : SINGL WIblTi EL OoQ 15+0

270.0

A'L

?I IL. : 40sl

-- * 00

CFY

CHZ t QLt

GFhCT F'FACT

APPENDIX C WIND-TUNNEL DATA FOR ISOLATED HELIOSTA'I

Heliostat 1 , Configuration 1 - A
. - .-

-.

--

Cc I :tl ;
. .

Run #/
.

W D
0

EL
25

AZ
-

Day
17 2

Time
-

Sib~ AM r

348

350

8 AII
8 A11

349

337.5

25

350

1 72

350
35 1
352

315
292.5

25
25
25

350
350

172
172 172

8 APl

8 AN
8 Mi

270

350

353
354

265
247.5

25 25

350
350

172
17%

8 A?l

8 Afl

Heliostat 1 , Configuration 1-A.

continued

\h.liitr

Noon

345

20

305

355

Ver. Stow

346 347

337.5 337.5

0
90

330
330

355 355

Hor. S t o w

-" . ..
#

. ZQ r
r\
A. ,

.-roo
r\ /

A
I '

L' .

. c':

, .

:I.
C l

"
: . .

-=

t";r";"II:T

r' r" fi C T

Z t

rn
,, . ;

,.
<

T'T

s;

1"; , G O 4,05

7
L..

s. + A2
0

" n Y

-'

I"'

! 1.1 ! # 7.7.

kt I EI XS 27010

It : 10+0

TZOeQ

P).-

A 'f

!e! T I..

CFY
.03

Ilh7'A FOR F I L E

: F11i00

D ~ I T AF O R F I L E

: HI100

[:f?t?F'

MERH

t 3

- , 5-?

CfY

Cl-Y

C 1'- Z

,Ol

,I0

c 1.f
+

01

':

TtFiTA FOR F I L E

: HI100

DATA FOR FILE : HI100

'$ C I.. 42'3

D A T A FOF: F I L E

til1C)Q

I !4

T37 ',v?l. 5

Gl I I..! D

f 1.
20,o

3USaO

hZ

t!r.L.. 42,5

P A T A FOR F I L E

: HI100

II;CITI?I FCIF: F1L.E

f: ll l.4

t-11100

777,5

LS 1 t4rt

?O + CI tF-" ,Q L

L1 I..
[? I.. .

720-/1)
Y
- +

A "7 I-I A.

I.,! L1 1. . %Zt5

t ? t rtft~f! f

0.a
01

H 1% >: :
tf I ?-I

17HS

GFACT 1- r- 4 T

: : :
f

,I:
.01 iQ2

,01
so=:
i .

C 1- :Z 10 1" + ' ?L
$J

C H ':I
.01

,. 0 c

,QS

OG

, r;r 2
,? * 5 0
7

2,70

12

2'22 3 , "15

-? ,77 :? ,. 3 1

..., '.

3. '

I ? A T h F-UR

F I L E : 131100

I:IATI$

F O R F I L E t t.11100

D I ~ T AF O R F I L E
1

HI100
f I.. 25.8

350

215+0

k!II.l1Ct

350tO

AZ

I1h"l'A F O E F I L E

HI100

2,Zt? 'v "'I

1 . :

PI t. I.'

PATA FOR F I L E Z

HI100

C C! Pf F-' : :
85EAE.l t

r.-I X 190s

...

CFY ,0 2

C.7 2 1-7

t 3

. I

CHX t 02

DATA F O E F I L E
~i' tj t u 352
IJ I t.! D 2&5*Q

: I41100
35.0

e I..

35030
I: I- 2 ,3.3

A:

v K L. .12+5
c n:::
+

fJEAb!

~ n n st

C.t-. :; ; 1.CZ

CTY -.. , 02

01

GFACT

6'FACJ'

I
<

DATA FOR F I L E

: Hi100

DATA F O R F I L E I
-7 F ) ,

Hi100
EL ,1590
A2

, ,

c
J

%
t

WItiD 2q7."j
f

205'0
Cl-2 + 31
-7

'J I: 1.. .?Z * s

!?C?MF' HEAP!

CPX 7 "7
r
L / '

CFY 03
9

CHX

CHY

+02

+05

b'I A : t : ti I r.1 t

t.

,02

,. 5' 1
-11
( .

I? . $03 ,02
t

,
L

,07

1 :

,. 0; 1 .. (.,-"
C
L

,..'

ljTACT
PI-ACT

: :

Z,?S .? E 3

2.51
.$

,. 0 4

Z+ll d r 1 Lt
C

'5+*7 -a ,07

ItATA FCtF: F I L E
I';: U I..!
7rr

ti1100
.q5,0

.!..!<>
/

I4 I I.? D 2 5 5 :0

E1 .

A2 f.> rJ c 0 . J

32,5

V C 1..

T:(JHF" : tIEAt4 t

c 'I
i

I; ;

.70
...

cry
. ,

97

crz
+
7 v r-li

C t5 :':

,A1
n7
.I

, 02 .

CHY * 15

M ,$ )(
MIN FlHE GF'ACT r"f'AfT

t t

1 '. 2 . "A .*. ,,1 5

r
+

1s 02 t 03

+ll 1 ,A0 -v L, + 4 0
c:
,. .I

,C'r7 " 1: . -02

f

1 +77 J. CE ,

2318 7

. ,. 2 1

,., , ?

...-,

"

D A T A FOP; FXLE f

HI100

CMZ

+OI

:!:1:",7'1$

FOR FILE:

tJiiOQ

CHZ
,02

7.1 ;+,

'I'

F 0 F: F I 1.. E

t.1 11 O Q

CPY

,. 1) :."

D 11 A F:' 0 I" F I I. E: I

1.1 l i 0 0

H e l i o s t a t 1, C o n f i g u r a t i o n 1 - B
- .

.- --

- --

Ca-l

se
-

Run j/

W D

EL
25
25

AZ

Day
172

Time
-- --

Srilr AN

394
395 396
397 398
399

0
337.5
315

350

8 AN
8 AN

350

172
172

25

350
350
350
350

8 Ml
8 MI

292.5
270
265 247.5

25
25
25

172
172

8 AP1
8 AM

172
172

400

25

350

8 At1

Smr Noun

385
386 387
388

247.5
265 270

45
45

305
305

172
172 17 2

0 Pkl

0 P1 C

45

305

0 PM
0 P M

292.5
315

45
45

305
305

172
172

389
390

0 Pfl
0 Pfl

337.5
0

45
45

305 305

172
172

39 1

0 PFI.

Heliostat 1 , Configuration 1 - B .
Case

contiriued

Run i i 37 7

WD

EL

AZ

Day

7' I O I ( >

Wntr N o o n

378
379

38 1
382

383
384

4 l'ri
4 1)PI 4 fJPl 4 I'll

4 ljrl
4

rrl

4 PPI
Ver. S t o w
Hor. S t o w

392

8 AEI

393

8 AEI
-

- .

CHZ

,o:

GI-ACT PF'ACT

:
FILE : FIiIOi

DhTA F O R

CHX

,OS

DJ~TA UR F
I; U t? 8 ':

:755

2'j>2(.5

FILE W IZ 1 t 1

HI101
10,U

E L.

Z3Q+O

A2

*?2+5

VCL

l2r;ncT

I.'! A C T

;
c

D A T A F O E FILE E'Ut.! 3W
~

: HI101
1. 0 0

I
Q , Q

EL

366

A2 230 + 0

42 3
%.

VCL

DATA

F O R FILE

HllO1

T!ATA

FOR F I L E

: HilOl
CtfY
+

07

c t'l :

.02

tfItI : RHS !

PfA"

- ?c + G2 A ,. < c\ $7 .! *. U

? r\i .-, r.11 c..

I . .>

I.

i..

221
1.

"7 i? .

('t L.

T:V~TA FOR F I L E

: HI101

UI"ITA F O R FILE

t.11101

MAY.

I . ,1 0

<,

1 .?

~ C I M tP
M[:&ltl

: f1 A >l : tfIN : RHS :

c t- : :
,I?
, .

-12

. * .

CFY

01

crx
6

0.4

c ttx

,. 0 2

,C z
ii

r 07 . - * 10

02

,02 + 02

el7

+I1 . 05 ,02

I!hTA

FOR

FILE

1-11101

DATA F O R
!

FILE : M I 1 0 1
bJ 1 ?.I I 1
EL
$'; 3

L!
"-t I

... . C i .

:isto

20bQ

205e0

'Y' C L. 9zt7

?.:1,77'h FtlR

FILE : tii 101

WCL 31 6 S

I:~i'il'A FOE F I L E t till01.

!:lnTA FOP: F I L E : t.11101

DATA FOR

FILE : HllOl

CH'! ' 0s

Dh'l'A

F O R F I L E t t.ll1OX

C: F:
6

07

cry
,00

cr ; I
+

17 3

c.tt '-:
,132

CHY "02

c 1.1:

* D'2

IIATA FOR
I 1 .,- ... ..

232,5

F I L E 4 M1iOl w 3: 1.4 D 12L

$s,o

305,o

.a: + 7

IJ

r.: L

"52

ZV37

150_+2-4
,

,2 .,$

1 ,'?..a ,7 7 ,
7

,2 6
L'

b 7 "Id t , ' i

.rrO :.:
I.
4.

-7 l.? I , , I

1 2

I . k! : 7r? 1

W I: t.!D

EL
35+Q

9 :9

AZ 305+0

42 7
CHX to4

VEL

1:tfi'rk F'EtF:

F I L E t t41101

D R T A FOF?

F I L E : till01

D k T A FOE

FILE

WllOi

CHZ 4 0 2

7:117TA

FOR FILE t MI101

r 1: p.1 :
f;;

MRX
jf .

i; :

Dt7TA

FQR FILE : WIiO2

CHZ
C Q i

kFACT

GFRCT

t,

2950

.? ,. 3 2,

$+B1

3e3C

7 3

1 +CZ
e c1 I
1 7

5_+01
13C

:95

DATA FOR FILE t HllOl

H e l i o s t a t 5 , C o n f i g u r a t i o n 5-A
- .

Casr
-

Kurl j/

WD

EL
10

AZ

Day

Time
8 All

W I I r~ Akl

136 137

0 337.5

320
320
320

355
355

10

8 AN

138

315
292.5 270

10
10

355
355 355

8 Ml 8 All
8 AM
8 All

139
140

320 320
320

10
10

141
Writ r Noon

247.5
0 337.5 315 292.5 270 247.5 247.5 270 292.5
315

355

148 149
150

20 20 20 20 20
20

290 290 290 290 290 290 265 265 265 265 265

355
355
355

0 P M 0 P M 0 PPl 0 P M

15 1
152

355
355

0 PPI

153
142

355
355 355

0 PM

10 10
10

4 P1\1

143

4 PC1
4 PPI
4 PM

144
145

355
355
355

10 10 10 0 90

146
147
Ver. Stow

337.5 0
315

4 P M

265
320

355
355 355

4 PPi
8 AN 8 ArYl

154
155

IIor-. Stow
-

315

320

T h i s s e t t o check the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of p r e s e n c e of t h e u p s t r e a m h e l i o s t a t .

D:,TA

r n n rrLr :

115ooo

crv
A
v

, .m

cry

. n7

crz

.n?

CHY

.07

l313TA F O R F I L E t

I45000

CHY MAY : HI 2 t.1 1 +50 .

*

,Ot:

ans : GFRCT :
f'FAC'T

,. 2 0

19

,25

02

,oz

12 '00 ,02

.0A 1 +
. !k

,oz

D A T A FOE

F I L E : I45000

c.rx
HRX

;52

..

cry
o

0 :

crz
6

07

CH: . 02

CHY

,12

HIH !
WHS

1 +!31
,32 4
>
% '
'

m / C L t J

OZ

'7

to"

1.11 ,00 ' 02

'12
, 1 L, .
i

0.2

U f i T A FOR

F:'U 1.I t 1' 3:

232,5

F I L E 2 I45000 W I t.1D EL
1000

;2. :00

A2

7n
d,

V f i.. '4
CHY

.05

, ; HIN

RHS f

: :

1 6.01 ' -7 i d
z

I.

05

,,is
<.

I?

0:

,02 + 02

. of:

. 1$ * 07

+OZ

I3ATA

F O R F I L E t H500Q

DATA

F U ),I :
I

F O R Ff L E : H5000 35 W3t I 4t EL 247,s IQgO

A2 220,0

VCL 3f+3
CHY

+Ql

CtfZ

*OI

I t A ' T A FOF: F I L E

t.15000

RLJN # 1.92

WXHD 2.37,5

EL
10tO

A2 2L5+0

VCL -1060
Cff Y
e

: 1

MAX t EfIt4 : RHS t

GFACT PFACf

't

DATA FOR

F I L E : I45000

1:IATA F O R FILE

HS000

c.onF :
MEAN HigX

CFX
+
r

. 1 0
73 c.7
J . A

CFY

* 02

CF2

* 04

CHX
1.

CHY

00

,0.4

MIN ;
RHS

: :
t

+13

- ,02
b01

+0I:

t.10 + 02 ,02

,05 + 02 "01

GFAC'T T'FACT

D A T A F O R FILE

: H5000
EL lot0 2CSI.O
CFZ A2

RUN #
:145
COHF' !

WWIt?XI

31 5 + 0

,..*u

'JEL n

,. u

MEAPI

,.on

CHY

, 1-5

IIATA FOR f 1 L E

H5000

R Ut # 4 146
COMF' M E A t.1

tgJ

337+5

I N 11

EL 10+0
4.1
CFY ,. 01

205t0
CF:

AZ

VEL 33,C
+@A

: :

CFX

en':

(61

? ,

/ -1

r.. C L'

.'

3075
D A T A FOE FILE

: H5000
EL 10t0
Q-

R LJ N II:
14 7
CRMF

W I t.111 01.0
2

2d5cO

AZ

VEL Zf , 2
CFZ
+

MEAN :
MAX

CFX 't?
+

CFY

402

+01 07 07 rO2
r

CH:I

+03

CHY + 07

HIM ! R t I C
t

'

- 6.18
.14 2+EQ 49 0 6

.90

,0Z + 0A eO1

GFACT f FACT

2 + 99 2'20

'ir0,L. 2,72

- -rc. 4

,023 ,01;3 .02

. i i .

2 " 0.4

DATA F O R F I L E ; Id5000

CQHF'

MEAN t

CFX 40

.- + 0 3

CFY

C.FZ + 10

HA).: : If X t.1 : RMS t

Itlo
-402

+IS

I ~ A T AF O R

F I L E Z W5000
VCL
3?,6

I::Ot.if'

HERN Z

nnx

NIN t RMS :

IuYTA

F O R F I L E : W5000 RUM* WIND El,

3.50

315.0

2QYO

AZ 270tO

CFX
b .

49

.- ,02

CFY

CFZ
b l l
t

cnx
e

CHY

0s

*I1

CtfZ

.oi

t MIN RMS :
MAX

i <.St5 -. t23

t 07 .-, 13 +03

21 03

03

DATA

F O R F I L E : ti5000

C:.DHF' i'fEAN $

c I- )'I

+I&

- i.00

CFY

ct-z
b02

cnx
*

02

CHY +02

CHZ

*0 :

GFACT t F'F'AC'T t

1668
6t24

339t1'3
4684

7+58
L,OO

3.8%

3 e l O

IOo63 J t t97

DATA F O R

F I L E : ti5000
20+0
CfY

RUE4 3: 152

W 1 ?(Kt 27r3,0
CFX e01

EL

230+0 CFZ ,02

AX

VEL Z? ,0

CHX
,O!'

,01

,01

MAX t lfZN t

RHS :

- ,53
+11

43

+1C -to9 02
0

-.
A2

,0S 12 ,01

, 0&

to2

GFACT : I-' F A C.T :

DhTA FOR

23+?8
4.5'2

13+8? 7 x. 50 ti5000 2010

EL

4.92

2,fZ

1c +-rr 4 18
. ? + d J

FILE
WIt.!D

RUN S

133

32.471'5

230 + 0

39+3
Ct-2

VCL.

COMF' : MERN :
MXN Z RMS :
GFACT f FACT

- . 23
- + 20 ., * 13
6 7 &

CPX

CFY
,03

C' H:
. ,0;3

.*08 ,20 e0Z

C\

- + 09

CHY

nnx

.17 06 + 03
I.

,02

- ,or

OA

.02

: :

2.67 3051

3673

3+85

3.51

45

3+Lf 2+51

DATA F O R

F I L E t H50QO
EL Or0
CFY
* 00
+

RUN #
15-1

WItfD 3151.0
CFX

220O 11,
CFZ
+

AZ

33,

VEL
.$

COHF 2 MEAN :

,30

02 05

CHX P 02 ,21 el5 .O"J

HAX : MIN : RMS :

- +47

1 +51

O? 02

-. ,On
+

,23

- +I3
,02

DATA F O R F1L.E

RUN #
155

31530

WIE.!D

: I45000 EL
0010

AZ
320t0
CFZ
+

39 , L
0' 5

VEL

COHF' : MEAN t

CFX +OF
,IS + 02 +02

Cry
+

to1

CHX
to1

CHY
,@J

MAX : MXEl : RMS 3

- ,03

01

+01

+2i5 +I,!.$ +05

0S I ,. 05 e02

Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-B

-

--

-- -

- -

--

(:;r s t3
- .- - . ---

Run f/
-

WD 0

EL
25
25

AZ

Day
172

Time
8 MI
8 AM 8 AM
8 AM

Sin r AM

176
178

340
340

337.5 315
292.5

172

179
180

25
25
25

340
340

17 2 172
172

181 182

270 247.5

340 340

8 AM 8 A M

25

172

W n t r AM

158

10

320
320
320

355

8 AM 8 APf

159
160 161 162

337.5 315
292.5
270

10
10

355
355

8 AM
8 AM

10
10 I0

320
320
320

355
355

8 API

163

247.5

355

8 APl

Heliostat 5, Case Wntr PM

C o n f i g u r a t i o n 5-B.

continued
---

Run k i
164 165 166

WD

EL

AZ

Day

'r I I I I ( ,
4 I'PI
4 l'F1

4 I'M

167
168 169
Ver. Stow

4 ['?I
4 ['PI

4 E'M

157 156

Hor. Stow

UATA

F O R F I L E : El5003

DATA FOR F I L E

H5001

fL
091)

z20.0

A':

VCLZPt3

MAX

HIN F;:MS t

I 6.3 ... ,2 4 17
6
4.

* OC -- 05 eO2
t

+ 02 e.12 6 02

+ 20 + 00
t

OZ

CHY t O f

IIATA

F O R F I L E : ti5001

COHP t I.tEA1.I :
MAX

C 1- X

,So

CPY -+03
..

CHY
e

CHZ
4

03

02

ff2:Il

RM$j

: :

1 +dC .- ,2'? + 2E!

"'i

.4

-7
h. .

-.

PATA

F O R F I L E : H5001

COMF' rf E A t4 MAX

HXN T
RMS

: :
t

O: F'
"&.A

?3

CfY .- , 0 0

CfZ ,02

c II X
v
% .

r,.? .

CHY ,02

1+11 ... ,3 2

,. I&

- ,07

+US
+ 02

-, 03
3.90 3,3L

+O E + 02

,1 .?. .., 1 1
+

02

CFACT PfACT

:
t

5.05 r -8 r 4 6

17tPO 3 + 28

6+19

J,E.?

D A T A F O E F I L E : H5001
R U N 3t.
?.!>I

292+5

WItJD

EL
lO+O

: ' A
32010

VfL
39+1

MAX : H I t.! t

It38
...

RHS

, 29
+

',

1T

.- b07
+

07
02

c. 07 -. + 0 7 ,U2

15' +03
6

+02

CFACT t
?FACT
f

A154 L. ;. 7 3

37e89

5.35
2+65

5'05
4 6 '2 1 .

2 + 5'8

DATA F O R F I L E : ti5001 RUPl # MI tID EL

162 27010 10,0

A': 72010

38.7

VEL
CNY #&
9

MAX : Pt I t.1 t

RHS :

1+ 8 4 ... ,3 8

+=I
3+73 4 +41

,14 .- . 12 ,03
9 e44 9 ,. ,$ 3

+ 12
6

P -G'L iI

03 02

.. ; 2 t + QL

GFACT :
F'FACT

3+12 3 1.5'2

7,21

3,65

DATA

F O R F I L E : W5001

CHY ,02 MAX

HIP4 t
R S M
GFACT

- c- 13 t lC

93

el0 08 c 02

- 03
9

05'

+ 02

- 1.13 6 Q4

1 .

1i !

2 FFAC.T t

D A T A FDH F I L E

H5OOi

ty.@MF' hi E A N
MAX

MIP! S RME d

: :

.- , 2 5
+ALL.

CPX
qq

CFY
+

03

C.FZ ,09

CHX
+

02
02

-1+ 05
<+

..-

,23 04
+ 02

1 L*

.+I5 t 0 2 .

os

,I&
c

+02

DATA F O R

FILE : HSOOI

~ ~ n :t r MAX :

COHF t

CFX
+

oi

cry
0.4
+
..- +

ct-z

.oo
E

cn::
+

02

CNY
e o i

n r r,~ :
F\'MS

.- , .+ 5 t 10
52,25

57

oI +@I

$0

+OS
OI?

* 07

OC

,01 cOI 3 e 61 5 5 ' :

b

GF'ACT F'FACT t I I A T R FOR

St39

2173

4+t7

20,.48 3+LZ

FEUN#

3.55

2Q2c5

FILE t H 5 O O l WIND EL
iO+O

A2 265,O

V C 1.. 39+7
CHY "06

H'IN t
1.;:

MAX

Z
- 3

f3

4.

72 48 14

+I1 .- * 0 4
i

02

-+US
5,18

,O E

t 04 +03

+ 02

*OX

GFACT F:'F'AC T

5+0i 4t.10

3,99 945'4

3+L9

3t80 3+7f

DhTh F O R F I L E
I? C! P.1 @ It7
C:@Mf

: MSOQ1
EL
1040

W I P ID 31500

255tO
Cry to1

AX

VCL Z9,l
CFZ +OS
CHX

HEE,AN

CFX

t31

+OI

D A T A F O R F I L E : I45001

CHY
+

0-4

GFACT :
&'FACT

.1 +31 5 <.80
Z

3.89 HSOOl

4 t 77

2.61
C)

5'7'

1 +'?5 2+ 72

DATA F O R F I L E

COMP : MEAN 2

CHX
, c10 .

GFACT : &'FACT t

2+10
4+42

21.13 4 <. 85

2+11 , 71
C)

f1e7.9 3 ,5-?

D A T A F O R F I L E Z H5001
RUrf P 170
CQMF' t

WIfID

O+O

El 2010

290,O

A2

VCL. 39e7

tfEAN :

MRX : HIN : RMS t

GFACT : PFACT f

1 + 2-5 t P ... $25

,

.-

07

+
t

12
0 .? ,. rJ

- + 02
2.78
4'13

i,

21

.L

,0Z

+15 07 ,. 03

3+?3

5 +O?

4'71 3 <. 37

2+72
3.2.9

D A T A F O R F I L E : H5QO1

CQMF'

MEAN t

: : :
?.

CF-X e -93

- ,02
+ 07 -I1 ,073

CFY

Ct-2
o
t

0j l

CMY
6

CHZ

t05

.Cl

MAX MItl RMS GFACT PFACT

11.43 -. 1 S cLc\
i .

t. L A

1cS 04 t 0 2

+OA
( .

14

02

DATA FOR

FILE t HSQOI

MEAN t

tZC!MF
MAX

.- + O I

CFY

el-2
,oa

CMX '04

cnz
4

01

I.fIt.1 R S M
GFACT Pf"ACT

: : : :

2,YP 3 70

292t5

WIND

20+0

EL

2?0,0

A2

VCL 29*?

COMF t MEAN :
HhX

CHZ
1 tZC* - 6 31
+

* 02

MXN :
F:MS GFACT

20

OY -,07 02
t
t

* 12 802
t

02

07 c 02

12

F'FACI'
DATA

t
F O R F I L E : HSOOI W IN F EL
270'0

:1

17.1

2OtO

A2 290,O

VEL
29t5'

tf I b!
Fl'fiCT

MAX

RMS
' ,

GFACT

DATA F O R F I L E

HSOQl

COHF' MEAN t
MAX

CFY
,03

CHY

+I1

CHZ
t

QJ

HIN t
GFACT F'FACT

: : :

RMS t

DATA F O E F I L E

RUN #
1i 75
COMF'
IIEAN

WIND rJ , Q .

: HSO01 EL
25*0
.-

24010
C. f ; l
+
r

A2

40 * 0 04
0-7
h.,

VEL

:. : MAX : tl I N :
RHS f

C.f X +03

CfY
+
I.

,02 03
"

CH'I
+
+

*Dl
12 10 + 02

CHY

*01

1+$3 ... ,0

.2 1
1 ,

... 6 09

02

*i3
+

05

GFACT FFACT

: :

33 + 02 5,25

5+27 4+72

L+53 4+&1

17e70 3+ 54

DATA FOR F I L E RUN t

: HSOOl
25 1 0 .
CFY
,-

178

W I ~ ~ D 33705 CFX

EL

34'3+0
Ct-2
+

nz

39.9 14

sr E 1.
CHX + 03 CHY + 02

CCIMF' t MEAN :
MAX

+31

,02

tiIN ; RMP, :
'ACT 'ACT

: : :
CHZ
b

IIATA F O R F I L E

RUN %
1
CCIMF'

MEAN :
MAX MIN
F.;HS

:
: :
t

CFX
+

48

-*O2

CFY

CHY

*01

0.9

GFACT F'FACT

:
: H5001
EL 2560

DATA FOE F I L E t?LJt.I #

130

2?2+"J

WIND

24010
CFY CFZ

AZ

'JCL 3?c? +I7

CHX

COHf

HEAt4

c. I-

"45

- e00
+ 05 -.*oh b 02

+05
ti3

MAX : ~ f ~ t:r RHS : GFACT F'FACT

1 b.13 - ,1s 20
t

+41 +01
+ 05

,05
+

02

UATR F O R

FILE

H5001

CHY

*OI
6

nrrj t ~ { p jt~

MAX

'c

2 +;?I ,2 5 ' e i T

-. ,u7 + 02

+ OL

37

t
P

0s

"r

3 b

4 0 1

e05

1.02

IQ

+
6

r7fi & *'

C1C

0) : 04 +03.
*
i .

GFACT F"F"ACT
DATA

:
F O R F I L E : HSOO1

?fIt1 : f?HS ?

MAX

1 v'3L - 7' c-.t3 > r

R '7

4 OE -- 4 07 + 02

,os
&

rlt
. I ?

e
4

15

0 -2

,OZ

,I2

s!' t.

'd

n
. ?

D A T A FOE

FILE : HSOO1

CMZ
4 0 1

H1t.t 3

MAX

RNS

Ih9TA F O R

F I L E t ti5001

GFACT f ].'-'FACT t

22 58
9

4 1-26

5.48 3+42

26+5& 4 , Lt2.

1$*5$344:.22 t 3 2.s ,*&I

" 1
s.)

'*,OF
4 ~a -7

DOTA

F O R F I L E : ti5001

CHY + 0.4 MAX

HI14 f

:
: :

EMS Z

ts'1 -. 3 2 ,. 10
+

+ 14 -+I1 1.03

+ 50
0

00 ,07

+
+

12 15 0.2

GFACT f:'F"ACT DATA

F O R F I L E : H5001 RUN % WIklD EL

186

319,O

45eO

AX 29010
C t- Z + 33
t

V f 1.. .10+'9

: MAX : bfIN t RMS : GFACT :

!"FACT
t

CDMF' HEAN

CfX
3

45

-to1
4 .

CFY

GMX '04
t 10 ,18 ' 0-9

CHY t 08

le45 - + 13 + l?

- +

13 15 + 04

+LT 12 + 0C

nATA F O R F I L E

ti5001

CFX

* 55

- + 01
- ,13
,03 t11

C t- Y

CF2
,35
+ 15

CtfX ,02

CMY 0,!b

n~rr;
F:MS GFRCT F'FACT ? DATA

MAX

: : :

1r 2 9 ... ,0 2 , 17
m

EST
+0L

,. 1L
+

07 +0;-'.

,+3b 4t31

22+65 4t14

1+70 3173

"J 02 9+2A

F O R F I L E : H5001
WIND
9"O

F:CIb.I # 188

EL 45+0

AX 230tQ Ct-Z
+

'J f 1.. 40 t S
23
CH: : +07 CHY .05

CfX
+

42

-+QZ
... ;. 1.4
4

CFY

rsnx : HIN : RMS :

GFRCT 2 F'FACT !

1, 2 ~ .., 13 " 1C

,. os
0.9

,07 1 0' . :

,,ST

,05 + 0 :

. =:
9.

Heliostat 5 , Configuration 5-C

.

- --

- -

(:.I

s(I
.

Run ##

WD
0 337.5

EL

AZ
340 340

Day
172
172

Time
--

S~rir AM

213 210
209
206 205

25
25
25
25 25 25

8 AP1

8 MI

315
292.5

340
340

172
172

8 AM
8 AM

270
247.5

340 340

172
172

8 API
8 AH

202

253

0 337.5 315

10

320 320 320

320

355
355 355 355

8 APl

252
249

10
10 10
10

8 Afl
8 AM

248
245

292.5
270

8 A M
8 AN

320 320

355
355
355

244
WII t r Noon
230 227
226

247.5

10

8 A M

20
20
20

290

0 Pfl

337.5
3 15

290
290 290 290 290

355
355

0 PPI
0 PC1 0 PM 0 PM
0 Pkl

222 22 1
218

292.5 270
247.5

20
20

355
355 355

20

155

Heliostat 5 , Configuration 5-C. Case Wntr PM

continued
-- -

Run I\
241

WD 247.5

EL
10

AZ

Day
--

'1'~ r n c . 4 I'! l

265

355

Ver. Stow
Hor. Stow

217

315 315

320 320

355 355

8 rlEl
8 AY

2 15

90

CHZ

"01

c.f- Y
MAX ?I f t4 AHS

* 02
t

C.I-2
+
t

2.1

CHX

k03
,I1 ,02
PO:

I
t
e

1 t 1.3 06
t

QC

15

t t

12
03

,I0 + 03

42

DATA FOR F I L E

: MSiOO
CHY
t

0s

MAX tf 1 1.1

F:MS ?

DATA FOR - I 15'7

25'2,5

F I L E t ti5100 wIrrn EL
.95*0

290'0

AZ

42+?
CHY

VEL

0.9

DATA F O R F I L E : H5100

COMF' : MEAN t

CFX +OD

ct-Y
401

crz

CH::
,02

c0S

CHY .00

MAX : MIN ',

AMS

GFACT : F'FACT

5,3? :? - 0 3

3e78 2,01

3.51 3.82

3.72
2 ' '7 f:

D A T A F O R F I L E : HZ100

R U N 3:
201

2-3?.5

WItlD

EL 15.0

RZ 2';'0+0

-92 J +

VCL

COMF : MEAN : MAX : MXN : RMS : GFACT t F'FACT : IIATA F O R F I L E t H5100

+ 38 -+SO 10
t.

- e0L

,10 ,073

* 05 '21: 1 01

'. 03 4. (32

,. O C

COMF' : MEAN : MAX : MII.4 : RMS t GFACT : F'FACT ! DATA F O R F I L E t ti5100

CMY .00

'17 - 25 ,. 1 A

- * 0&
1

,00
02

+ +

00
A&

04 r 0-9

0? .10 e02
t.

RUN #
205

WII..lls 270.0

EL 25.0

AZ 3.10.0

' E1 J . 42 c 3
CHZ

.00

PI I t.1 t

MAX

RMS :

1 +03 - + 13 el3

... ,05

t03 e01

0i~

Of

'02 103 73.52 43.31

C

05

+02

GFACT : PPACT :

1e05
c
C (

7033 7
,*+ul

J r JL,

Jt21 .? 05

DATA

FOR F I L E : W S I O O

CHY

+Dl

DATA

F O R F I L E Z H51QO

CHY
+

-01

-. + o L
+01

05

t21
+

02

t l l 09
,02

+ 02

I:1AaT'A I"0F;I'F I L E

: HSiOO
CHY
a01
CHZ
*

(30HF' Z
MEAN

02

D A T A FOR

FILE t HS100

CHY *0 :
MAX tt J: !*I

Ctf2
+

02

: GFACT : wncr :
ITHS

IlAI'A

FOR F I L E

H5100 30+0
EL

Rut4 t
214

315"3

WIt.JIt

220.0

AZ

'J f l.. 43 + 0

GFACT F'f AC.T

:
: : H5100

DATA FOR F I L E

: : FtMS : GFRCT : F'FAC'T :

MAX iY I t.1

1 * 0' ; .- + 30
e l

,Or - + 0' 5
+ 02

+
+

09 +01

05

<. i ,!! *il

-T

.CV

,. o $

,.Zl * 0C ?i+i7 ,q + L 1 b

2+?0 315'5'

2035
5

4.

7, ' ! I

8+21 3+5A

5'20 7

,>+&O

D A T A FOR F I L E

: H5100
Clt < !:
+

C fX

"05

CT'Y

402

CFZ

'01

CHY
+

00

00

MAX :
HIN : EMS t GFACT F'FACT

: :

i2+39 4 +06

7+52
3+4'1'

ibc5f 3eE5

- r T

d ~ + 4 2 i07+&'7 3,5$ .4 + 2 [,

DATA FOR F I L E

ti5100 20,0
EL

Rut48 221
COHF' HEAN

27090

MIND

2'70+0

A2

42.5

V11L
CHX
+

: : MAX : MIN :
RHS t

01

CHY

.0z

DATA FOr< F I L E

H5100

42 b 5

VEL

IthTA

F: L t.1 l
. . L

F O R F I L E t t45100 t W I 14 D CL
315,O
2030

* .

290+0

AZ

VCL 43 + Z
+

COMP t
MEAN Z

C!-)cl
+

Z5

- c 02
- - + 12 + 04

CTY

CF2

iZ

CHX
+

0.3

MAX : ti I t.1 ;

1 t3C

,5 0'

RNS :

... " 2 -1

*It?

GFACT F'f-ACT

: :
F I L E : #!I5100 W I P4XI fl
20+0

DATA F O R

f;'LIN t
.i-a&

337+5

AX 270'0

VEL 43t5

~q-nc-r: :
GFACT

COHF' Z FfEhN t
lJAX

CFX 630

-. b02

CFY

Cf-2

CHX

411

b02

MTN Z F<HS 't

:
: :

GFACT

F'FACT

D A T A FOR F I L E

H5100
EL 1040 AZ 2L5+0 VCL. 13.4

RUE! # 23 1

wItfIl

0+0

CHY +0 . :
MAX : t5 I t N RMS : GFRCT F'FACT 1+ 0.3 - e09 + 13
t

.-, 04

03

*01

,03

+05 +01

- + 0;
,01

+ 05

: :

2.70 14.34 C ~ + 5 2 4*01

3.73 3+2L

16.17 3tA7

DATA FOR F I L E

ti5100

RUE! #
234

bJItlD 337.5

EL 10+0
CFY ,00

A2 255.0

VEL 43,s CHY ,05

COMF' t MEAN t

GFACT f'FACT

:
t

3+58 4+?7

22*79 3,50 ti5100

EL 10+0

2.40 :+LO

5eb3 -v n-r
%. .

LL ..I

DATA F O R F I L E

RUN # 236
COHF' N E A E.1 MAX

WIND 315.0
t

Ri! 2,5310 C f2 +02

+ 0L -SO2 +01

VEL 423 CHX + 01

+ 0A

CF-X b20
+
-.
t

C t- Y 101
+ 05 ... + 0 4

CHY + 03

MI14 :
EMS Z GFACT F'FAC'T

:
:
!

35 *1L

SL

tOt

,01

to:

4.79
4 1. C 4

8.85 7 d + 5 L ti5100

2.71 3.03

9'98 7 .-.
: 1

L'+-J

DATA FOR F I L E

RUN #
237
C'OHF' MEAN

VEL 42+3

: :

"to1

Cry

CfY ,02

Ct-2 ... t 0 1

CtfX ,00

CHY + 0.9

GFACT F'f-ACT

: z

101,79

J+L?

3.68

Ze57

11.35 C
1

+2Q

13.42 7 cc

,.r c. I.! J

UATA F O R F I L E

M5100

CHY ,Q1
M 1r.1

Ctf Z 00

nnx !
c

RIfS I

DATA F O R

F I L E : H5100

CFY
+

03

C.1' Z + 02

CHZC + 03

CHY
b

CHZ
* 02

0.3

MAX : I.f X t.1 : FM.fI-3 :

D A T A FOR F I L E

W53.00

DATA FOR

F I L E : W510Q

CHY

,us

Ctf2
+

oa

GFRCT Pf: hC.T

: :

PhTA

F O R F I L E : HS100

L.. F .Y
MAX

'39
+

CFY '01
,

C.rZ
+ 00

+ 0.9

CHY ,01
I. L L

MIN

RMS

: : :

1+1a

13

6 1 7

+ 12 ti1 + 02

* OG
+01

-,-.

+ +

07

01

GFACT 2 F'F-ACT

2'39 4e95

13.91

2t57

2t00 3028

4 , ? :?

1+03

DATA FOR FILE

H5100

COMF' MEAN MAX

:
:
1 <. O L
...

... *

CFY 00

CHY *01

HIt4

RMS t

, -9 2
1 .

It

GFACT F'FACT

DATA FOR FILE

H5100

RUN #
252
COMF' MEAN MAX

737,5

WIND

E 1.. 10.0
,32

A2 220t0
ct-Y 01

42 7
+

'JCL

t
t

ct-x
1e 2 1 .., + 17 3,32

tfIN :
RMS

GFACT PFACT DATA

: :
t

+is

-.i

. .

crz
+ 03
t 07 ,02 +OI

CHX
.02

+07 10

,15
+

03

+oa

02

5+$3

8.53 31.04

2t35 3t3G

.?,=A

3 1.2T

F O R F I L E : I45100
WItJD 0+0 EL 10.0
A2 220'0

RUN t 253
C@MF t MEAN :
MAX :1

VEL 42,s
CFX
t

,+O2
.-,

CTY

03

CHX 101

CHY ,01

t M1t.I :

GFACT F'FACT

: :

+EL 20 14

... ,15

,0C

,oz

+O E ,01 +01

1.? +1A . 0 .?
6.

Heliostat 5, Configuration 5 - D
-

- ---

CCI b t '
--

Run
- ----. -

//
-. - --

WD
0

EL
A -

AZ
--

Day
-

Time
8 API

silt A ~ I r.

212
211

25
25

340 340

172

337.5
315
292.5

172

8 AN
8 AN

208
207

25
25

340
340
340

172
172

8 AM

204 203

270
247.5

25
25

172 172

8 M 1
8 A M

340

Writ r Noon

Heliostat 5 , Configuration 5-D.

continued
-.

Case
-

R I I ~ I$F 242

WD
247.5

EL
10

AZ
265

Day
-

I IIIC.

Writ r PPI

35 5

4 L'!I

Ver. Stow

216 215

315 3 15

320 320

355 355
-

8 /Ib]
8 APl

Hor. Stow
-

90

llC11'A F O R F I L E

!,I5iQl

URTA FOR

FILE : HS101

CHY + 02

DATA F O R

: L-1 5

337,s

FILE : H5101 bJ 1 tl I t E I45,O

A:: 2TOiO

'SCL 43,2

D h T A FOR

F I L E : ti5105

CHZ
+OI
MAY,

HIN

RHS ;

DATh F O E F I L E

HSlOX

c f- x
MAX HItI RHS

CFY
+ 02

+07

GFrACT F'FACT Z

: : : :
F I L E : ti5101 M IN I t f1 .
45+0

DATA F O R

F?U 1.1 i :

:.:oo

2.?7+5

A2 230t0

43

YCL
0':

DATA F O R F I L E t

ti5101

DATA F O R F I L E

H5101

MAX tt I tr RMS

: : :

...

1 .

* A d

-1

?3

.-

+ 1 .?

r 02 ,06 +01

~9 0 LL

,903 + 01

,07 07 ,02

m-7
i

.O L
20

GFACT ? F"TACT ;

DATA

F O R F I L E t WSl03

1113TA F O R

29s

315cO

F I L E : 1.35101 MIND fL
25+0

341)kO

A2

VCL 92,s

MAX H X t-I ': p

RHE

1 *+$;A .*. 4. 1 4
I' "

CttlTA F O R

FILE 3

M5101.

D A T A FOR

F I L E t kt5101

CtfY

CNZ
+00

b01
MAX t PI 1 t.1 : 1 f4 .f . 3
GP'ACT ; F'FACT ?
...

,5 3
0

LS 1J'
. I

--, 7 0
f

05

22.37 2, -7 '-, i
{

E 02 dt72

Je73

14 10 + 0: 2.3+2& 3174
e

+ 12 ,OS + 0;

$ c ? ?
h.b

t t> u

D A T A F O E F I L E : H5101

(2 (3 t.1 F'
MAX

MEAN :
HIt4
F:MS

c 17
+

01

C.f Y

b00

CrZ

,02

i= rf >:
i .

CHY

00

,02

: : :

D A T A F O R F I L E : H5101

nnx

t M I t.I 3

EMS :

..-

,~4 ,2 5

611

-. + 06

06
.,.

* 02

' 04

,. 03

C0.l

'03 <. 0 2

'11

GFACT t 1::' F A C. T :

51&& 5'12

&7+6!3 3 ,. 04

$+75
,, , 4 C .

13+12
3 ,3 "

DATA F O E FILE

: H5101
c t- Y
+

COHF'

MEAN t
tfIt?

.-, 05
1.

CF-x
39

03

- '02
+ .e

c I-: :
07 17 + 07
I ,

c n :.r
,02
i

CMY
'02

CHZ

. 02

MAX t

- ,+ 5 3 14

+ 14 .-, 03

p P . CI 1 2

+ 03

, 0.3

J 3

D A T A F O E F I L E t H5103

MAX :
tiIN !
!.:HS
...

1. 1

35 +I1

49

-ell

12

12

t ; o

03 c 3 ':

GFACT t Pf A C T :

19*39 J , 3: . :

12r13 2,CO

ll+f7 4+02

+ .05' 12 +oz .-.

U t V l

I r)

%+I0

DATA

FOR FILE

H5101

CFY

POI

GF'ACT

y r - f i c ~r
DATA F O R

2
4 ,PI

17t01
3+\11.

2t39 4-21

F I L E S H5101
VEL 33,4

H I PI Z
t?'MS

MAX

: :

DATA FOR

FILE

I45101

GFACT PF'ACT
IqA'l'A

;
?

FOR F I L E

t-15101

MAX

HIt4

RHS

: :

1 c33
.. +
v

'7 e3 A I. . .*

I T

.-+
r

30 15
04

t 20 +02

0.3

17 t OZ
+

77

e
r

07

'-3
A&.

~ .r. i

OL

I:li'il'A

F O R F I L E : t353.01

r;: u pa

232

c. WI t.1 KI
0 ,. 5

E 1.. 10e0

2L5r0

1.1 EL.
43 e 4

GFACT :
f"ffiCT

DATA
T i :

F O R F I L E : W5101
itl l t.I D 337 $ 5

UN I '

10+0

EL

13 2 26LPO

4362

V E t..

MAX t HIt4 :
]?HS 7
t

GFRCT T'FACT

DATA F O R F I L E

: I-I5101

GFACT I-' T h C.T

:
7

I .-??132 m ;
,..@ t
. . i .

I . '

D A T A F O R FILE

: H51Q1

CFY
+

02

-.

CI-2 t 03

CHY to2

GFACT :

iwm :

23s?i c .t 7
I ,

5 r : S

4 'L .C

3+f1 c
4 t

54

Lt70

: 9Cf ,

DkTA FOR

F I L E 3 !I5101

HIN :

PtAX

Ens ;

DATA

F O R F I L E : H5101

CHY + 0.4

DATA
1:;:

2q3

FOR FILE : H5101 ~t t # 4 W l tl D EL

237+5

10,O

4-11 32ObO

VEL 12+2

UATA FOR F I L E

H5101

MAX M I t.1

RHS t

: :

,?2 ... 2 4 ,. 1 .a
+

*11 .- + 0 3 ,03

1 0L +02 +01

+12 ,.On
+

oz

F"F- l%CT ;

GFACT

:
F I L E : M5101

UhTR FOR

MAX : H I t! t . RHS :
GFACT

PI-ACT

: .:

5.25 4 , LC
Z

7 +n 7 69
&.+,,..~

3+51 2+75

1 .T + Z Z S
4 + I n

DATA FOR F I L E

ti5101

MAX

M1t.I t
RHS

: :

1 +07 -.. 2 7
i

, 1L

.. ' 0 3
t

0C 02

.. ' 0 4
+

+07 02

+1C +I0
<. 13$

D A T A FOR F I L E

ti5101 3.01/3

Rut4 % :>53

IJIfID
0 .:. 0

EL

AZ Z20+0

V C: L. 42.5

crtr
,0i
ft I tI t

RHS

GFRCT !-'TACT

: :

,1 2 , r
, I

cC0

5.73 -? c-C
L -

L'

Y '

2*5: 2,Ci

27 ' 2 2 7
, +

?I'.

Heliostat 5 , C o n f i g u r a t i o n 5-E
- -- -

-.-

--

--

--

&

IS(^
-- - --

Run li
- ------

WD
0 337.5

EL
25
25

AZ
340 340

Day

T iiile
--

Srll r

iZM

279

172
172 17 2
172

8 AM
8 M 1

28 1

282
283 284

315
292.5 270

25
25

340
340 340

8 APl
8 APl

25
25

172

8 AI.1
8 MI

285

247.5

340

172

H e l i o s t a t 5, C o n f i g u r a t i o n 5-E.
('asp
a

continued.
. . - .
-

Run i i

bQ

EL 10

AZ
265

Day
.

'r' i
-

IIICI

Wntr P M

261

247.5

355

4 PM

Ver. Stow
Hor. Stow

213
274

315 315

0
90

320
320
-

355 355
--. -

H Ah[

8
.

ii?l

DA7.A F O R

F I L E 5 145102

It13Th F O R

F I L E : ti3102

FF'ACT

GF'ACT

1
4+4$

lot82 " I
b *

34

2t45 7 / 7
& . b

t L' t..*

12cE2 4 +55

DATA FOR

1;:ut.l* ?\ c -'I .- J.: /

Z15tO

F I L E : ti5102 MIND fL
IOoU

Z20,O

AZ

VCL 42 t 3

DATA FOR

F;:trf! 158 ..
CUMP tf C: A N

FILE : HS102

&,

332,s

WIND
C t- X

EL
1090

220+0
CPY

AX

VcL 41+A

: :

+xi

CfT

-+01

*oz

C: H! ,OO

DATA F O R F I L E

ti5102

(::OMf:'

MEAN t

:
,5'$ -, 0 3

MAY. : MItI t I7MS : GFACT t i:F tj C T ,'

+I7

,I1 t 10 ,02

,0A
t

02 +01

+10 +@3

+ 1T

+ e L' L . 7
LL. 6

Cn I

0' :

F O R F I L E : H5102 RUN # WItlKl 260 247' ,'5

DATA

CNZ
,02
MAX MIN GFACT f'FACT DATA

RME !
t

:
3603
. $ + 7C

71tSi5 2'21

2.4C / 7 n
& a +

11 047 7 n -1
%, . ,

/ u

,*.,

.:

1 7 +.-)1) 5 25
dl..,

F O R F I L E : ti5102

CUHF' t MEAN :

CFX ,20
4L -.. 1 ,2 5 .i-, i
+
( .

MAY

RHS f

t t

L .

.<-

+10 ,153 t 02

05 -. a 14 <.0 2
+

+11 + 05 t 02

L... 3s
CI , I

0' ;

GFACT : F'F-ACT ! DATA

F O R F I L E : 145102 E. L IJINft I?IJl.? #

262
270,~ 10.0 CFY .01
MA): : MIN : RMS t

A2 26590

VCL 42 + 3

CHY t 00

GFACT F'I"ACT

:
t

3.3'23 J,77

1S.06 4 c52

,+13
-t
d

7n
, . . I

LL

1 0 + ' ? 1 1 77 + 7 C 0 7 , 1: ' ,Jc-L*

- /
t .

D A T A FQF:

F I L E : 145102 WIND
lot0

F?IJN # 253

272P5

EL.

ZSS+O

62

cnz

to3

RMS

e l 5

02

01

DRTA FOR F I L E

: H5102

CHY ,('5

DATA FOR F I L E : W5102

DATA F O R F I L E

: HS102

MAX HIN

F:H6

GFACT !-'FACT t

: : : : : ti5102

DATA F O R F I L E

COHf' f

t1EAt.I t

CFX
0

1A

-.+01

C I- Y

CFZ

CHX

,0Z

+Dl

DATA F O R F I L E
T;:uN t

: HZ102
E:: L 20+0 2'1'0,O
AX

~1 I 1 rt 1 J15,O

VEL 43,2

MEAN +

COHf'
MAX

PfIN t

:
-.a

, .'

7 "1 .'

13

GFACT : F'FACT 3

L72 6.. t 1 4

1 07 + 3 2 1
.J

F7
.I

Z , S ~ 22+.33 3+LL '. 2 1

7
L.3

DhTA F O R F I L E t

ti3102

COHT' : MEAN $
n1r.r
MAX

r t- x
+ lJ
1 +.?I + 37
+

CFY

,01

CF-z
103
+

:C n ; !
,I:
+
+

+00

RMS :

: :

1,!i

el3 -.+11 +03 1&+25' + 17

,-I

,0.0
t

1?

02

0.: 1

CFACT !-'TACT

3.37 Zt00

5+4C
II t - 7 \ L -1

bZY70 7
-6

b! ,

IIATA

F O R F-XLE 2 H S 1 0 2

M A X ', HItl : F:HS t

DATA

F O R F I L E t H5102

DAl'A

F O R F I L E : It5102

GF'ACT

F:*FncT

sc76 5 ,.z.q

7,oo
7

dk21

5 t+X S 3
L$,

f+3S

Z + {,.t

DATA FOR

FILE

WS102

MAX I.4 I 1.4 F:HS

t t

DATA F O R F I L E
f?U7 n 5 l.4
.\ -

: W5102
25p0
EL

.&./

U I t.1I t 0e0

2.-10,0

AX

VEL -12 ,':

GFACT F'f'ACT

:
i

DRTA FOE F I L E

: H5102
CHY ,02

CF'X
+

15

-+01 '02 -. + 0 ' : + 01

CfY

CfZ
+

0 ;

CHX
t

00

MA.X

PfXN j 1 MS : 7 .

1'03 ..- ,3 0 +14

m n
I LC.

,lo
'10
,0:

S O 1
4

0z

GFACT F'FACT

: : : ti5102

DATA F O R F I L E

MAX

HIN

... , 2 5
c

*71
12

F : H ~t

'02 .-,0J *Ol

+03 I?
+

,0 ' 7
,-

0$

02

02

DATA F O R FILE

3 ti5102
'J c 1.. 42+?

C.k- > !
+

l?

CFY
,-

,00

Ct-2 * 05

C HI :
*

02

CHY ,0.4

C ttT 00
6

MAX MI.^! F<P.f S GFACT F'FRCT

: a t :
t

-.

+?7 , 25 6 15

5&05
5,22

+ 0.9 - ,0.4 +01 r-+ S C dI ,+SO

el4 e02 + 02 2.75 4'11

C H'f ,OZ

DATA FOR

F I L E t MS102

1:OHF'

HEAN Z
MAX t tf1:t.r t

c 1b

27

"

G Y I '
t

Cf-2
t

CHX
t

00

10
*-b A+.

02
0': 02

RHS t

1e 0 3 ... 3 0

t17

05 - Oh
t
b

+ 02
+

e l l

+
t

661.

02

DATA

F O R F I L E t H5102

CFY to2

DATA

F O R F I L E : )I5202

DATA FOR F1L.E

H3102

CHY
,0S
MAX tf I PI ! HE I ' GFACT !-'FACT

: : : : :

. * .

,6 0 2 -2 ,. 10

- + 07
,02

10

.,05 + 0L

47

+On

,10

,.0 2

DATA FOR F I L E
I ~ C I Nt

H5102 45.0

233

315,.O
* 12

wltart

EL
CFY ,O1

A : 270+0

.72 ,?

VCL
C tf ' !

C13HT' PI E A t.! t

C1 I- >I

C I' 2

* 12

.00

GFACT r'fmACT

$i39 .? + s C

14+14 4 t OA H5102

3.22 C ,A r 0 s

2.1 + A .-I 1 7 n
L., .

,c'

D A T A FOR F I L E

R U 1.4 1 . 23G

\kt I 1.4 It 397,5

EL
-15,0

AZ 270tO

'JEL 12e5
CHY

605

MAX

HIN :
RMS

: :

. . + 13
+

,.(It A
Irf

t 0C ,OC +02

a 11 +02 ,05

*I0 '07 +02

D A T A FOR F I L E

W5102

t
231

W I1.!1t
OY!?

EL
.$s60
CfX

hZ 23060 CF2 + 1C

VC L 42 + 7

.I3
4 4:: ,I2

- '00
,,.

CFY
*O E

CHX
,OZ
+ 1: . ,01 ,02

MAX M IE.1

;
+

..

l.11

, 11
c.02

,37 ,02 0 7'

1.

GFACT

F'FAC'T

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3-A Case

-

Run i/
. -

W D
- -- -A

EL
0
-

AZ
-- ---

- - - --

--- - - -

Ver. S t o w
- -.- .
-

411

265

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3 - B
-

(Zll L C

Run
-- -. --

WD

EL
0

AZ
-- --

{/ of Rows Ups t real11

- -

-- --

Ver. SLUW

41 1

265

10

[:: [I 1.Y" :
t : :

cr:

*00

cn::

,00

D A T A F'OF:

FILE:

t42200

I t A T A FOF?

FILE

t.1'3200

CHZ * 02

D A T j ? F:'OE F I L E

!I3200

7,.21 Il., ;-r'c.

15,@5 S,Q5

L, + 5 2
L.
b..,

4 .

z1

.4b(.,3 .$!)1,7': 0 fir::cT? * , . , Ll

I .

~ I A T AF O R F I L E ' E.13200

D A T A F O R F I L E : I13200

:1 H :

MAX t t i I P4 ?

> i Tn i .'

L ..

' f

C\
V

, Of

DATA

l'i \!f.!

FOR FILE : H3200 t ~1 1b D ( C I.

215.C

A2
f

,421

0+0

i.

(SCL 32'7
Ctf: '

.03

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3-C

Run

WD

EL

AZ

Field Density
GA

Vclu-. S t o w

41 1

265

0.238

U A T A FOF: F I L E : 1-13300

CHY

' 07

Itfi7'A

F O R F I L E : 143300

DA'l'A F'OF: F I L E : kt3300

CHX
+01

CESY

,05

L,53
7
L . '

ZP20
2 ,.Z.?

4-

' 7 .-'

Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-D Case Run WD

265

EL
0

AZ
5

flRows Upstream
5

Ver. Stow

424

r: t:) 1.7 Y :
kt r: FI t.!

c I-,
(.

fzl

.. o 0s

cry

c I- z

+OI

en..;,

+OC)

1tF1Th

F O R FJI-E

t13400

D A T A FOR FILE

ti3400

URTR

FOR FILE

HZ400

(" @ 1.4 I-'

PI' R ).I : C

Cr-x *71

CTY
.- +

US

CI-2 +Ol

CHZ +0 :

Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-E

--.

Case

Run

WD

EL

AZ

i/ Rows Upst x-fxcjnr

5
:3

Ver. Stow

427 430 433 436

265 265 265 265

0
0 0 0

5
5

2
1
~-

. .

CHZ
;

3 ':

IIC~TA F O R

FILE : H3401

CHY

*01

1:tATA FyOR

FILE t tiJ4Ql

CHZ & 02

DI?TA F O R

FILE

HZ401

Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-F

--- -

Cdse

Rurl

WD

EL

AZ
5

Rows lips t rc'dlrl

- ---

Ver. Stow

428

265

F:IJEI # 2 :>: :
("1 I? I:"

WIND
255 P 0

?tv::;)rl

Cf-51 4:).

cry
,at

04

GI-ACT I-' F' A C 'f

:
t

z1.fT
4 t 2 L*

3t74
4 c i Z

DATA FOR

FILf : H3402
WIND

RUM#
.? 3 j.

EL
0,O

255 + 0
Cf- >:
P

VCL 42*?

~ O P - I ~: " EfC,nr~ ;

3?

CFY -to3

MRX 1.5 1 1.4

F;;'M C t

: :

I l h T A f-OF'(

F I L f : ti3402

Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-G

-

--

Case

Run
49 3

W D

EL
0

AZ

Rows U p s t rfb,jnl

\7er. Stow

265

Dh?A F O R F I L E

M340S

DI'+TA

FOR F I L E : Hz405

Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-H

- - -- --

Case
-

Run

WD

EL
-

AZ
-

// I < o w s
ups t
-

r-~~<illl

Ver. Stow

494

265

IthTR

FQR FILE

W390&

MAX t ff :t1 ; I

It30
.-.
P
i

tTHS

24

t OC "-007

a7 : rmL

+ 02.

DATA FOR

F I L E : HZ905

ME: IWN ;
REfS

~:OHP:
MAX : Pf f t.1 t

C:Fx 22
+

CFY
-*QO

C.F z
,02

cnx

CHY

,02

401

M T A FOR

FILE :

W340b

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3-1

-

Case

Run

WD

EL
0 0 0
0

AZ
5 5 5
5

V e r . Stow

432 439 440 441 442 443 444

265 247.5
2 70

292.5 315 337.5

0

0 0 0

5
5

I!I?TA

FOR F f L..l:

? t.13500

cnz
*

OZ

DATA F O R

F I L E t HZ500

cnr
t

US

D A T A F O R F I L E : H3500
AX 5tO 42.2

VEL

cnx
t

Oi

MAX tf 3 tI RHS

: : :

1c 7 f .- t 10
+ ZO

+ 07 . * 22 t 0.4

e
t

07 + 02

12

07 0s 02

t53
*
t

,!lo

I4

IlhTA FOR

F I L E : ti3500

CFACT t F'FACT t

UhTA

F O E F I L E : H3500
5.0
AZ
'.I C L 32 5

Ct"Z * 02

CHX

*02

CHY
0

00

CZ 2 t " 09

DATA F O R I . 333

F I L E : ti3500
bj I tt I I

337.5

Oe0
Cf-x 6 2 S

EL

A2 5.0
CfY ,0,, !

$2,';'

IltL

CQHF* !

I.1EAt.I

C f2

,02

CH): , 00

CHY

,01

DATA

F U R F I L E : ti3500
W 1 kITt

RUN # 444

O+O

EL 0'0

A: 500

92.5)

VCL

PfIN

: RMS :
MAX
f

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3-5

Case

Run

WD 265

EL
0

AZ

Ver. Stow

433

5
5

45 1
450 449 448
447
446

247.5
270

0
0 0 0
0 0

5
5

292.5

315 337.5
0

5
5 5

I.11tl

HAX

RHS t

: :

IIATA

F O R F I L E : ti3501
W I t.ID
0 0
4.

I? Uf.l % $ 2 ~

0 ,0

EL

"JIQ

AZ

-921.5
CTZ +00

VEL

CHX ,01
+05 ,02
+ CIL

MAT: t tf1:tI t EM!; 6

-1007,
-7 tLL)

,LC

+
0

0C 12
02

+
6

0C 05

*Oi

DQTR FUR F I L E
RUN

: H3S01
fL 0*0

5'37

327.5

LJItIIS

5c 0

AZ

42,7
CHY

VCL

to1

DATA F O R F I L E

: H3S01

CHY

101

MAX :
FI fN 3
RHS

l +&I C 1
1 . -1
* $

-r

<

7
L )

..-, 1 7 ,0 .?.

07

* 03

,0 C

+01

+ 05 ,05
,- 0 2

GFACT t F'FACY t

f '7 ..-I :

c
i ' . I

r7
:

" .- !.'I?

I. .

r;
.

'

I.', 1;.

,
A)

,-.

... 'J'

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3-K Case Ver. Stow Run 434 45 2 45 3 45 4 455 45 6 45 8

WD
265 247.5 270 292.5

EL
0
0
0 0 0 0 0

AZ
5 5 5
5

3 15
337.5
0

5 5

(7 :3H 1''

:
1

, y. ;
: A I

':/

*\
r. .

1!
c:,:

W 1).!I! <\ r > ?> c;

_ I . . .

A_>...

: L9 1?
6

r; F...
1-0 1:

fA.

j, . !, .
J...

'1 i:; '7.

2
A ...

-zr:
.
>,!

C'->

.q 2 5 A .? . ....
'7
I..

'7

,..

/ t.? i- i..' >..I

rtfi'r
? !.

.. 1 : p!

'I' > ). : . ,
i

?
,

: : ;

2 ." /:, .-

q.2

>

> : , II
'2 ?' .

. c'tc
.01

, .

, p ." .Q'? 01
L.

j:! fi Y )?I

F-

!:) f;:

I:- I L. E

t.1 3 5 0 2

. ,

I,I I , r.. I. ? 5 5 .

$
4

.. 1 7

. I .A . .

.I 1 . .

<I,? t. i . '

?.

,t

."\
A.

z-,
/

>.....

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3-L

Case

Run

FJD

EL
0

AZ 5 5

Ver. Stow

486
485

247.5

265
270

0 0
0

484
482

5
5

292.5

48 1
480

315
337.5
0

0
0 0

5
5

479

DATA FOR FILE

I43502

GI-2 to1
MAX I;:MS

CHX to1

CHY t 0s

HIN t

- 1> 5 3 ,2@

+ LS

+02 '10 t 02

D A T A F O R F I L E : H3503 RU1.4 t WIND

-230
337+5

CHY *02
MAX 4

~ n : s
t

t 05 1 +48 -+,.!I ,09 -.

.2s

02

GFFjCT :
PFACT

15113 4+90

5 + 0.4
3e2f

D A T A F O R F I L E : H3SO3 RUN % M I tI11 EL

,181

315,O

0.0

CFZ to2

C-HX '00

CHY
t! o, .

: Rns : GFACT :
MAX

H1t.I t

1e L J . , J5
+

30

*Of -"+11 + 02 15t-10 .J+22

f

F'FACT

5111 4 +42

D A T A F O R F I L E : H3503

CHY to2

: RHG : GFACT : PFACT :

MAX

t11N t

1 *21 .- ,24 ,20

,07 -+Ob ,02

1:tATh FOR
fiUtIt ,934

FILE
WTHD

2 H3503
OtO

270+0

EL

AZ 5+0

VEL -42 tS

ItATA F O R F I L E

143503

RUM # 485

WXND 265,O

EL
0+ 0

AX

!5*0

42+?
CHY ,0.3

VEL

CHZ '02

MAX

Et5N t

3. t 9 3
.-

~ : n s:

t35' + 25

.-. +

0i 5 ,0 2

OE

+
+

,o=

02 07

..

+05
t

03

+01

DATA F O R

FILE

H3S03

I?CIHF' : HEhN t
NAY, t

CFX
@

315
25

CFY +Ol
+ OC .+OS + 02

CTZ
+

to1
+ 05

CHX
c

CHZ
t

OO

00

FI fM

RMS :

X e43 -+33
t

03 t 02

,03 05 PO3

GFACI F'FACT

Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-M

Case

Run
467 469 470 47 1 475 47 7 478

WD
247.5 265 270 292.5 0
0

EL

AZ
5 5
5

Ver. Stow

0 0

5
5 5
5

3 15
337.5 0

0
0
0

IIATI",DOF:

FILE

't E-1350-3

I I A T A FUR

FILE :

H3504

CF-Y MAX t bf I f.1 t :1 IS t : f

* 02

GFACT : F'FRCT ?

-3 o 3 5

7t?9

9+22

?+Lo

DATA FOR

F I L E : I43504

CHY + 07

PfIN

M A X .:

: RMS :

1 +CE - +71
+

t
t

3.7 0' 5

30

QZ

DATA

F U R F I L E : ti3504

CHY

,Ol

CHZ

.oz

DATA F O R

F I L E : H3504
0.0
CF::

RUN #
475
COHF' MEAN

MItlD 315t0

EL

A2 5.0
CFY CFZ

VEL .42* 3

: :

+29

- * 02

e00

cn:r
e

CHY

01

.Q7

GI;-ACT F'FACT DATA

1c135 0 ,7 5
\..,

7t30 3t55

3 CT t L L 5*3& d

17 t24 2 ncl
S J

t b'. ...

F O R F I L E : ti3504
5*0
A2

-72 t 2
CHX CHY

VEL

HEAN

Ct3HP

: : MAX : NIN :
RMS t

CFX

1.4 1 bE0 -t53

- + 04
6

C fY

Ct-Z

*Ol
,01 *0& t 02

+00
+

,0 2

CHZ ,0=:

,01 -+li

1215

OZ

+05 04 to1

DATA

F O R F I L E : H3504

CHY

.02

GFACT F'FACT

Heliostat 3 , Configuration 3 - N
Case

Run

h Q

EL
0

AZ

Ver. Stow

502

247.5

FZ u 1.1 t 9 ., ,"' :

, ;

- w re t.10 ,L I D
J

0'0

EL

500

nz

VCL
32+5

GFACT I" F 19C T DATA

F O R F I L E : H3505

DATA

F O R F I L E : ti3505

CHY
+

02

MAX

MIN

RHS

1 t30 ... ,2 3
,20

,0J - ,0&

...

+C)2

,0 7

t.05 e02

,.0 :
t

0A *01

D A T A FOR F I L E

W3505

CHY

,01

4b517 r
A
6

9. 2

17123

J + ,!sf

6 '32 3t0f

c?
s . .

J t u*,
7
t c u <> LL

I f

1:lATA

F O R F I L E t ti3505

nnr
-

MAX

1?HS
GFACT

I:
t

t 'i

DATA FOR

F I L E : I43505

CHZ
* 02

??IN Z
Yil.jt3

MAX

z
2

I +oe
.-

,32 >% 7
+

.."

.. i I-'

GFRCT : F:'FA{?'T'

61 + 3 9 4 +zT

StSP 3e7C
H3505
EL 0'0

DATA FOR F I L E

I-:: pa ~t: ct 5/37

M IN D
OCO

Heliostat 4, Configuration 4-A

-- -- -- - -

Case
- ---

Run

W D
265 265

EL
40
60

AZ
350 305

Day
-

'r 1 ~ I I C ~
8 tlPl

Smr AM S n ~ rNoon

465

172

466

172

0 [)PI

L ' n t r Noon

464

265

40

305

355

0 tJPl

Hor. Stow

460

265

90

330

355

8 A M

III"I'I'A F O R F I L E 3 t14100

CHY * 02

X3ATA F O R F I L E 'o

1.f-1100

CHY
+

01

CH2 6 0 2

MAX

HIN

F:HS t

: :

1';: t f.1 # J ?k83

M X PD I E I,, 2 q i . 5 + ~ 25,O
CFX ,0 4

2'70tO

A:

'JEL
3217
* 03

CFY

+Oi

c]-

SELECTED DISTRIBUTION LIST

Acurex Solar Corporation 485 Clyde Ave. Mt. View, CA 94042 Mr. Don Duffy Advanco Corporation 40701 Monterey Ave. Palm Desert, C A 92260 Mr. Byron Washom Arizona Public Service Company P.O. Box 21666 Phoenix, AZ 85036 Mr. Eric Weber Batteile Pacific NW Laboratory P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352 Dr. Ben Johnson Mr. Tom A. Williams Bechtel Corporation P O Box 3965 .. San Francisco, C A 94 1 19 Mr. Pascal DeLaquil Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers 1500 Meadow Lake Parkway Kansas City, MO 64 114 Dr. Charles Grosskreutz Brumleve, Mr. Tom Consultant 1512 N. G a t e Road Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dan-Ka Products, Inc. 3862 South Kalamath Englewood, C O 80 1 10 Mr. Daniel Sailis Department of Civil Engineering Colorado S t a t e University Ft. Collins, CO 80523 Mr. John Peterka, Ph.D. Professor, Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska 60th & Dodge S t r e e t Omaha, NE 68 182-0178 Mr. Chris Tuan, Ph.D. Department of EnergylALO P.O. Box 1500 Albuquerque, NM 87 1 15 Mr. Dean Graves Mr. Nyles Lackey Department of EnergylHQ Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 Dr. H. Coleman Mr. S. Gronich Mr. C. Mangold Mr. M. Scheve Mr. Frank Wilkins Department of EnergyJSAN 1333 Broadway Oakland, CA 94536 Mr. Robert Hughey Mr. William Lambert Department of Energy/SAO 16 17 Cole Blvd. Golden, C O 8040 1 Mr. Jerry Bellows El Paso Electric P.O. Box 982 El Paso, TX 79960 Mr. J a m e s E. Brown Electric Power Research Institute P.O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, C A 94303 Mr. Donald Augenstein
Entech, Incorporated P.0. Box 6 12246 DFW Airport, TX 75261 Mr. Walter Hesse

Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332 Mr. Tom Brown, Ph.D. J e t Propulsion Laboratory 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 9 1 109 Mr. William Owen LaJet Energy Company P.O. Box 3599 Abilene, TX 79604 Mr. Monte McGlaum Luz Engineering Corp. 15720 Ventura Blvd. Suite 504 Encino, CA 91436 Dr. David Kearney Martin Marietta P.O. Box 179 Denver, C O 80201 Mr. Tom Tracey McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company 5301 Bolsa Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Mr. Jim Rogan Meridian Corporation 5 1 Y 3 Leesburg Pike Suite 700 Fails Church, VA 2204 1 Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mr. Jim Williamson 3M Corporation 3M Center Building, 207-1 W-08 St. Paul, MN 55101 Mr. David Hill Mr. Burton A. Benson NASA Lewis Research Center 2 1000 Brookpark Road Cleveland, OH 44135 Dr. Dennis Flood

NASA-Johnson Space Center NASA Road One - EPS Houston, TX 77058 Mr. William Simon Pacific Gas and Electric Company 3400 Crow Canyon Rd. San Ramon, CA 94583 Mr. Gerry Braun Rockwell International Energy Systems Group 8900 DeSoto Ave. Canoga Park, CA 91304 Mr. Tom H. Springer Sandia National Laboratories Solar Department 8453 Livermore, CA 94550 Mr. A Skinrood Dr. R. A. Rinne Sandia National Laboratories Solar Energy Department 6220 P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87 185 Mr. John O t t s Mr. James Leonard Dr. Donald Schuler Science Applications, Inc. 1040 1 Rosselle S t r e e t San Diego, CA 92121 Dr. Barry Butler Solar Energy Industries Association 1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW No. 503 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Carlo La Porta Mr. David Goren Mr. Hal Seilstad Solar Kinetics, Inc. P.O. Box 47045 Dallas, TX 75247 Mr. Gus Hutchison

Southern California Edison 2244 Walnut Grove Ave. Rosemead, CA 91770 Mr. Joe Reeves University of Arizona Dept. of Mechanical a n d Aerospace Engineering Tucson, AZ 85721 Dr. Kumar Ramohalli University of Arizona Dept. of Electrical Engineering Tucson, AZ 85721 Dr. Roger Sones Solar Energy Research Institute Mr. Dr. Dr. Mr. Dr. Bim Gupta Dave Johnson Larry Shannon A1 Lewandowski Lo M eMurphy

Document Control Page

i Tltie and Subt~tle

1 SERl Report No.

2. NTlS Access~onNo

3 Reclp~ent's Access~onNo

SERIISTR-253-2859
5 Publ~cat~on Date

Wind Load R e d u c t i o n f o r H e l i o s t a t s

May 1986

Author(s)

J. A. P e t e r k a , N. Hosoya, B. B i e n k i e w i c z , J. E. Cermak

8 Performing Organlzat~onRept

NO

3 Performlng Organlzat~on Name and Address

10 Pro]ect/Task/Work Unlt No

F l u i d Mechanics & Wind Eng. Program Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y F o r t Col 1 i n s , CO

5111 .31
11 Contract ( C ) or Grant (G) cc)
NO

XX-4-04029-1

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

13. Type of Report & Perlod Covered

S o l a r Energy Research I n s t i t u t e A D i v i s i o n o f Midwest Research I n s t i t u t e 1617 Cole B o u l e v a r d Go1 den, Colorado 80401 -3393
15. Supplementary Notes

T e c h n i c a l Report
14.

Technical Monitor:
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

L . M. Murphy

T h i s r e p o r t p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f w i n d - t u n n e l t e s t s s u p p o r t e d t h r o u g h t h e Solar Energy Research I n s t i t u t e (SERI) b y t h e O f f i c e o f S o l a r Thermal Technology o f the U.S. Department o f Energy as p a r t o f t h e S E R I r e s e a r c h e f f o r t on i n n o v a t i v e conc e n t r a t o r s . As g r a v i t y l o a d s on d r i v e mechanisms a r e reduced t h r o u g h s t r e t c h e d membrane t e c h n o l o g y , t h e w i n d - l o a d c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e r e q u i r e d d r i v e c a p a c i t y i n c r e a s e s i n percentage. R e d u c t i o n o f w i n d l o a d s can p r o v i d e economy i n s u p p o r t s t r u c t u r e and he1 i o s t a t d r i v e . Wind-tunnel t e s t s have been d i r e c t e d a t f i n d i n g methods t o reduce w i n d l o a d s on h e l i o s t a t s . The t e s t s i n v e s t i g a t e d p r i m a r i l y the mean f o r c e s , moments, and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f measuring f l u c t u a t i n g f o r c e s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f reducing those f o r c e s . A s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n a b i l i t y t o pred i c t h e l i o s t a t w i n d l o a d s and t h e i r r e d u c t i o n w i t h i n a h e l i o s t a t f i e l d was achieved.

17 Document Analysis

a Descriptors

Dynamic Loads; He1 i o s t a t s ; S o l a r C o l l e c t o r s , S t r e s s e s ; Wind; Wind Loads

b ldentifiers!Open-Ended Terms

c. UC Categories

62a
:8. Avallab~l~ty Statement
19 No. of Pages

National Technical Information Service U . S . Department o f Commerce 5285 P o r t Royal Road S p r i n g f i e l d , V i r g i n i a 22161

244

A 11
orm No. GO63 (3-25-82)