Photogrammetry for Concentrating Solar Collector Form Measurement, Validated Using a Coordinate Measuring Machine

King, Peter; Sansom, Christopher L.; Comley, Paul

doi:10.3390/su12010196

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After that, pictures from different positions around the pattern were taken with a Nikon ® D3000 camera equipped with AF-S Nikkor 18-55 mm lens. Afterwards, the images obtained were processed and analyzed by Photomodeler software [24].…”

Section: Evaluation Of the Cpc Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Optical evaluation of 3D printed CPC by coupling photogrammetry and ray tracing analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manufacturing methods of CPC collectors, regardless the application, have not undergone significant modifications in recent years; the main manufacturing methods are hydraulic press stamping and some other machining methods, which generate errors in geometric curvature and damage to the high-reflectivity film coating, reducing the overall optical efficiency of the CPC. In this work, we propose a method for the fabrication of cylindrical CPCs (widely used in water-heating, disinfection, and wastewater treatment applications), which comprises the use of a 3D printed mold complemented with a structural styrofoam molding. The proposed method presents the advantage of improving the quality of the CPC profile with less damage on the surface of the high reflectivity coating and with a reduction in the quantity of deformations because of its machining processes. To evaluate the effectiveness of the presented method, an experimental-simulation test was carried out based on a photogrammetric technique combined with a Ray tracing Monte Carlo method. The test procedure compared the CPC manufactured with the proposed method (called 3DM-CPC) versus one manufactured by a conventional machining technique (referred as CM-CPC). The results obtained show a geometrical mean error value of 1.2 mm for the 3DM-CPC compared to 3.19 mm for the CM-CPC. Optical assessment by ray tracing showed a relative efficiency of 95% for the 3DM-CPC versus 82% of the CM-CPC, both of them compared to the theoretical ideal geometry of a 2D-1 Sun CPC. The benefit could be estimated in a simulation to be 9.4% in the annual performance of a 1000 L CPC thermal energy solar plant.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of the Cpc Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%