Research on layout optimization of heliostat based on the Fresnel equation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focuses on optimizing the layout of a tower heliostat field for solar thermal power generation. It explores key parameters related to heliostat positioning, installation height, size, and absorption tower positioning. Through comprehensive modeling and analysis, the optimal layout parameters are determined under various conditions. The study developed separate optical models for shadow occlusion efficiency, cosine efficiency, and collector stage efficiency, based on the Fresnel equation and relevant functions, using MATLAB. The findings reveal that the optimal absorption tower position is (0, 0) with a size of 6m * 6m, resulting in an annual average thermal power output of 77.0717 MW and an annual average thermal power output per unit mirror area of 1.2269 kW/m². Further optimization using a genetic algorithm with 500 iterations led to an absorber position of (0, 0), with a size of 7m * 7m and 1,052 facets, resulting in an annual thermal power output of 61.1795 MW and an annual thermal power per unit mirror area of 1.0722 kW/m². The study also assessed the model's robustness and sensitivity, demonstrating its reliability in complex real-world scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".