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~lable in 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 

161 7 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 

fluid. Receiver temperatures range from 100~~ in low-temperature troughs to 

over 1500~~ in 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 

subsystems research and development and by testing and evaluation. These 

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 (sERI) 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 

~heumdl syspdms Research Branch 

Solar Heat Research Division 
SUMMARY 

The purpose of this study was to develop a more complete understanding of wind 

loading on solar collectors with a major emphasis on investigating methods of 

reducing wind loads on heliostats in typical array fields. The reason for 

decreasing wind loads is to improve the economy of heliostat support structure 

and drive mechanisms, both of which will become more sensitive to wind loads 

as gravity loads decrease through stretched membrane technology. Concepts 

investigated included perimeter fences or berms, fences or other wind-blockage 

elements within the field, field density, and drag-modifying devices attached 

to the heliostat. The primary method of investigation was wind-tunnel tests 

in a boundary-layer wind tunnel designed to model atmospheric surface layer 

winds. 

Wind loads on specific heliostat field geometries had been obtained in earlier 

wind-tunnel studies, for mean (time averaged) loads. Those tests were not 

sufficient to provide designers with methods to optimize heliostat field 

performance and cost by including wind loading as a variable under design 

control. Wind-tunnel tests in this study were performed an isolated and 

within-field heliostats mounted on a six-component force and moment balance. 

The influence of perimeter fences, in-field fences, and field density on 

heliostat wind loads were determined for mean heliostat loads. Some fluctuating load measurements on heliostats were obtained on a balance for the first 

time. Initial indications of peak wind loads on a heliostat were obtained to 

replace gust factor approaches used in the past to determine peak loads from 

mean loads. 

Results of the investigation for reduction of mean heliostat wind loads are 

summarized in Figure S-1. In this figure C, represents wind force, *' 

X Cn represents elevation torque and Cn represents azimuthal torque about 

Y z 

the support post. The ordinates in S-1 are the forces or moments in the field 

divided by the isolated heliostat loads and show the reduction in load as a 

function of upwind blockage which is the abscissa. The generalized blockage 

area is the surface area of upwind obstacles such as heliostats, fences, or 

berms projected onto a plane perpendicular to the wind direction per unit 

ground area. The data collapse quite well onto or below a single curve. This 

finding provides a powerful tool for optimization of field layout by 

designers. 

Fluctuating load measurements were limited in scope and complicated by 

wind-tunnel scaling requirements. The measurements showed that the fluctuating part of the wind load decreases within a field environment in comparison 

to that on an isolated heliostat. The decreased fluctuating load component 

combined with a decreased mean load resulted in a net decrease in peak load. 

Major conclusions from the study are: 

Mean wind loads on heliostats can be reduced to below 30 percent of 

isolated heliostats by appropriate design of the field and external 

fences or berms. 
e A simple design-oriented prediction method for mean heliostat wind 

loads in a field has been developed. 

e Peak dynamic loads are significantly lower within a field than at 

the edge for heliostats in operational positions. 

e 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. 

e 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 

r Development of a design guideline 

e Comparison of wind-tunnel loads with full-scale loads. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Figures .................................................. 

List of Tables ................................................... xii 

Nomenclature ..................................................... xiii 

1.0 Introduction ..................................................... 

1.1 Previous Work .............................................. 1.2 Wind Load Reduction ........................................ 1.3 Modeling of Atmospheric Wind Loads ......................... 

2.0 Experimental Apparatus ........................................... 

2.1 The Wind-Tunnel Facility ................................... 2.2 Model Environment .......................................... 2.2.1 Heliostat Models ................................... 2.2.2 Wind Protective Fences ............................. 

3.0 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition ............................. 

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

4.0 Results and Discussion ........................................... 

4.1 Single Heliostat ........................................... 4.2 Heliostats in Field ........................................ 4.3 Wind Load Reduction Summary ................................ 4.4 Comparison of Model Data with Full Scale ................... 

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................. 

6.0 References ....................................................... 

Appendix A - Validation of Wind-Tunnel Testing in Civil Engineering 

Applications .............................................. 

Appendix B - Wind-Tunnel Data for Isolated Heliostat ................... 

Appendix C - Wind-Tunnel Data for Field Heliostats .................. 
Figure 

1-1 

1-2 

1-3 

1-4 

LIST OF FIGUIXES 

Page 

Velocity Reductions within a Field of Heliostats ............. 2 

Influence of Fence Height on Front Collector Drag Force ...... 3 

Heliostat Field for Tests of Reference [2] ................... 4 

Moment Coefficients for a High Density Heliostat 

Field Array . Zone A ......................................... 5 

Moment Coefficients for a Low Density Heliostat 

Field Array . Zone B ......................................... 5 

Concepts for Interior Field Wind Protection ................-. 7 

Fence Configuration for Lowering Velocities Interior 

to Field ..................................................... 7 

Concepts for Reducing Fluctuating Loads ...................... 8 

Meteorological Wind Tunnel ................................... 11 

Heliostat Field .............................................. 12 

Heliostat Model ............................................. 1.5 

Metric Heliostat Mounted on a Six-Component Balance .......... 16 

Fence Arrangement for Keliostat 1 ............................ 18 

Fence Arrangement for Heliostat 5 ............................ 18 

Arrangement of Field Density around Heliostat 3 .............. 19 

Fence Arrangement for Heliostat 3 with Reduced Field 

Density (original x 1/41 ..................................... 20 

Fence Arrangement for Heliostat 3 with Reduced Field 

Density (original x 1/4) ..................................... 21 

Model Installed in the Wind Tunnel ........................... 22 

Porous Fence Segments Used with the Model .................... 24 

Approach Wind Profiles ....................................... 27 

Turbulence Power Spectrum of Approach Wind ................... 29 

Force and Moment Coordinate System ........................... 30 
Figure 

3-4 

4- 1 

Force Balance Frequency Response ............................. 31 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; EL = 0°, AZ = 270° ................................ 43 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; EL = 45O, AZ = 270' ............................... 43 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; EL = 80°, AZ = 270° ............................... 44 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; EL = 84O, AZ = 270' ............................... 44 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; EL = 87O, AZ = 270' ............................... 45 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; EL = 90°, AZ = 270' ............................... 45 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; WD = 0°, AZ = 270' ................................ 46 

Mean Force and Moment Coefficients for an Isolated 

Heliostat; WD = 45O, AZ = 270' ............................... 46 

Comparison of Measured C to Previous Measurements ......... 47 

F~ 

Maximum, Mean and Minimum Force and Moment Coefficients; 

WD = 0°, AZ = 270° ........................................... 48 

Maximum, Mean and Minimum Force and Moment Coefficients; 

WD = 45O, AZ = 270° .......................................... 49 

Power Spectrum of Force Coefficients; WD = 0°, 

AZ = 270°, EL = 45O .......................................... 50 

Power Spectrum of Force Coefficient for an Isolated 

Heliostat; WD = 45O, AZ = 270°, EL = 45O ..................... 51 

Heliostat 1 - Representative Mean Force and Moment 

Coefficients, Summer AM ...................................... 54 

Heliostat 1 - Representative Mean Force and Moment 

Coefficients, Summer Noon .................................... 55 

Heliostat 5 - Representative Mean Force and Moment 

Coefficients, Summer AM ...................................... 57 

Heliostat 5 - Representative Mean Force and Moment 

Coefficients, Summer Noon .................................... 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 .............................................. 61 

Definition of Generalized Blockage Area ...................... 61 

Effects of Fences and Number of Upstream Rows of Heliostats 

on Mean CFX. Heliostat 3 within Low Density Field ............ 62 

Effects of Fences on Mean CFX. Heliostat 3 within Low 

Density Field with Two Upstream Rows of Heliostats ........... 63 

Effects of Fences on Mean CFX. Heliostat 3 within Low 

Density Field with Two Upstream Rows of Heliostats ........... 63 

Wind Loads on Heliostat 4 for a Summer Noon Case for Wind 

Direction 265 Degrees ........................................ 64 

Mean Load Reduction as a Function of Generalized Blockage .... 66 

Full-scale Wind Data [Ref . 311 ............................... 67 

Model and Full-scale Wind Speed Comparison ................... 69 
Table 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Test Matrix for Single Heliostat ............................. 35 

Test Matrix for In-Field Heliostats .......................... 36 

Description of Fences ........................................ 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 

l7 L 

Force coefficient, XYY ,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 

fL Nondimensional frequency, - U 

Fluctuating part of a time varying signal 

Gust factor for load or velocity, peak 

mean 

A~ Generalized blockage, - 

A~ 

Power spectral density 
Symb o 1 Definition 

g Peak factor for load or wind velocity, peak - mean 

RMS 

Heliostat height = 24.2 ft 

Longitudinal turbulence intensity 

Length scale 

Reference length (chord) 4.26 in. model, 21.3 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, 32.8 ft prototype 

Scale ratio 

Boundary-layer thickness 

Density of air 

Kinematic viscosity of air 
Symbo 1 

Symbol 

Subscript 

rms 

mean 

ref 

Definition 

FMS velocity in x,y,z directions 

Wind angle to the deck 

Damping ratio 

2nf 

Definition 

Root-mean-square 

Directional indicator 

Length 

Time 

Frequency 

Isolated 

Mean value 

Reference 

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-141. 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 [22]. 

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 loads on collectors near the edge of the field can be substantially 

reduced with an appropriately designed perimeter fence of 30 to 50 percent 

porosity, Figure 1-lb. Reduction of wind load on the first collector with 

increasing fence height is shown in Figure 1-2. The effectiveness of the 

fence decreases with decreasing angle between wind vector and fence line and 

with decreasing fence height. In addition, corners in fences, if not properly 

designed with spoilers, can cause increases in wind loads above those with no 

fence [2]. Fence costs may be realistic if heliostat costs can be reduced. 

INFLUENCE OF FENCE HEIGHT ON FRONT COLLECTOR DRAG 

0 FLAT, 3S6 ELEV a FLAT, 39 €LEV 

O PARABOLIC V V HELIOSTAT, 30' ELEV 

- WtND AZIMUTH = 0' 

a 

. 0 

a Q 00 

- HF = FENCE HEIGHT 

h COLLECTOR HEIGHT 

Figure 1-2. Influence of Fence Height on Front Collector Drag Force 

(data from references 1,4,7,10) 

One part of the current study is to evaluate the studies cited above to 

determine possible methods for wind load reduction. Previous tests provided a 

measure of the need for reducing interior loads below those resulting naturally from protection by surrounding heliostats. In reference [Z], mean wind 

loads were measured for several heliostats with varying distance from the edge 

of the field, with-and without protective perimeter fences. Two portions, A 

and B, of a possible field arrangement, Figure 1-3, were studied. Key 

findings of the study are illustrated in Figures 1-4 and 1-5. Both show base 

moment coefficients (nondirnensional base moments) as a function of distance 

into the field for various perimeter fences and no perimeter fence. Several 

conclusions can be drawn from the figures and other data in references [1,2]: 

Edge heliostats have larger mean loads without a perimeter fence than 

do heliostats within the field. 

The addition of a perimeter fence can cause large reductions in edge 

heliostat mean loads. 

Heliostat loads in the interior of the field in the dense portion of 

the field (field A in Figure 4) are substantially smaller, Figure 1-4, 

than those in the interior of the less dense portion of the field 

(area B), Figure 1-5. 


e Interior heliostat loads in field A were comparable to the edge 

heliostat loads after reduction by perimeter fence. 

o Heliostat loads in the interior of field B were lower than unprotected 

edge heliostats but were not affected by the perimeter fence. 

The use of fences to decrease wind loads has been in use for many years. 

Reference [23] provides an early summary of porous fence effects directed at 

agricultural uses, but has more universal application. More recent references 

[23-271 provide data and access to additional literature describing the mean 

wind and turbulence structure downwind of porous fences. While a large number 

of references exist describing flow behind porous fences, there still remains 

a need for additional research for wind not perpendicular to a fence, short 

fence lengths, corners in fences, rows of fences and crossing fences. Use of 

published data on fences has been used in this and previous studies. However, 

this information is of limited use when predicting the load on an in-field 

heliostat whose wind load is determined by upwind heliostats, perimeter fence 

and in-field fences. 

1.2 WIND LOAD REDUCTION 

Based on review of previous work, the potential for mean load reduction on 

heliostats is in the edge units and in the low density field interior units. 

Edge units can be protected by perimeter fences as previously illustrated 

[1,2]. It is evident that mean load reduction within the field depends on 

velocity reduction within the field. This in turn requires additional 

blockage area in the field interior. Several generic concepts are shown in 

Figure 1-6 which could represent solid or porous fences. The fences could 

surround a single, several or no heliostats, could meander through the field 

in a straight or curved line, or could be a series of fence segments. The 

fences could vary with height along their length to prevent shadows on the 

mirrors. One possible scheme is shown in Figure 1-7 in which porous fences 

are included within the field to increase blockage area. These in-field 

fences were designed to provide minimal interference with reflected light. 

Modifications to this concept involve inclusion of fences in only one direction to permit easier access to the field for maintenance. In the horizontal 

stow mode, selected lines of strengthened heliostats could be left upright to 

provide fence action in place of actual fences. 

Dynamic loads result from two phenomena: 1) from buffeting due to turbulence 

in wind approaching the field and from disturbances from upwind heliostats, 

and 2) from 'wake turbulence' generated by separated wind flow as it passes 

over the heliostat under consideration. No previous dynamic load measurements 

are available for this specific geometry. However, based on dynamic loading 

on other shapes, it is expected that reduction of mean loads will have the 

effect of increasing buffeting through increased turbulence in the approach 

wind and decreased wake excitation through decreased mean velocity. It is not 

certain that a decreased mean load will result in a net decrease in dynamic 

load; however, measurements on other geometries indicate this possibility. 

Efforts were made during wind-tunnel testing to measure some fluctuating loads 

so that the total design load, including both mean and dynamic loads, could 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 (>2xlo4) the pressure coefficient at 

any location on the structure will be essentially constant for a large range 

of Reynolds numbers. Typical values encountered are lo5-lo6 for the fullscale and 10~-10~ for the wind-tunnel model. In this range acceptable flow 

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) edge unit exposed to prevailing WNW winds 

2) intermediate density 3 region in the field 

3) high density region C in the field 

4) inner edge of the high density region 

5) lowest density portion A of the field 

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 Protective Fences 

Four types of wind fences \,,ere used iri the test prugranl to reduce ~iir~d lodds 

~ri tile heliostats. They !:ere fences of 40 percent, 50 percent and GO yercerit 

porosity 2nd a solid berm ~ith a side sloping 45 degrees to the frorizontal . fleigliis of the fences used icere 18.2 and 12.1 ft full scale. One berr~~ tieislit 

of 1b.Z ft was used. Holes in the fence forming the porosity were sufficiently small that jets due to wind flow through a single hole in the fence 

could not affect heliostat loads. Some fences b7ere placed as external fences 

outside the field perimeter at a distance of 2 H from the edge heliostat posts 

(H is the heliostat nominal height of 24.2 ft) . Figures 2-5 through 2-9 show 

external fence locations for use lqith heliostats 1, 3 and 5. 

E'erlces liere placed within the heliostat field for soiue data runs. 111 line 

i.\71 ti1 corlcepts discussed in Section 1.0, fences \<ere aligned \$,ith rovs cf 

rleliostats and placed every other row as shor<n in Figures 2-6 through 2-9. 

These figures also sho~ variable densities of field used in the study. These 

(:re dsscussed more fully in Section 4.0. Data obtained during test rulls 

showed that the additional fences perpendicular to those of Figure 2-6 were 

riot: necessary to obtain major load reductions in a field except at low field 

den~ity (see Figure 2-9). The particular fences used for each data run are 

icieiitiiied in Section 4.0, Appendix C, and Tables 3-2 and 3-3 where the run 

matrix and data tabulations are given. 

ntodel irlstalled in the wind tunnel is show11 in Figure 2-10. Porous fences 

user1 \<it I-1 the n~odel are sho\+;.;rl in Figure 2- 1 l . 







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. b, hL and 3 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) -5 is related to the scale 

ratio of frequency, AT = Af . The velocity etween model and prototype 

is then 

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 be the same in model and full scale, 

f =f: 

mP 

Given a scale ratio A=, a testing wind speed was selected which caused 

frequencies of interest in 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 lo4 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 0.001 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 

voltage. The fluctuating velocity in the form U (root-mean-square rms velocity) was obtained from 

u = Erms 

rms B c uC-l 

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

rms 

Velocity and turbulence profiles are shown in Figure 3-1. The boundary-layer 

thickness in the wind tunnel, 6, is shown in Figure 3-1 as 220 ft full scale. 

This depth is not the full-scale boundary-layer height but represents a 

partial-depth modeling of the atmosphere boundary layer. The mean velocity 

profile approaching the modeled area has the form 

where U indicates the local mean velocity and Ur f is the mean wind 

speed at ?!%$ reference height, Zref . The value of veloclfy at Zref = 6.56 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: 

U 

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: XYZ x 

Y z 

force coefficient along the x-axis 

r 

force coefficient along the y-axis 

l7 

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 

'ref = reference mean velocity at 10 m (6.6 in. model) 

P = density of air, 

2 

*ref = reference area 19.6 in.2 model, 489.9 ft full scale 

Lref = reference length 4.26 in.2 model, 21.3 ft full scale 

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

. .. .~ axis direction . . 

+ '. 

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 10 to 30 minutes full scale (32 seconds model scale) 

gust factor - G, peak divided by mean 

(peak - mean) peak factor - g, 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 standard 

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 

the mean. This approach is associated 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 

Prior to the data acquisition phase, a tentative test plan was established 

whose intent was to guide the data acquisition. The test plan revolved about 

the recognized need to measure data cross sections across several variables: 

heliostat setting angles (day of year, time of day) 

position of heliostat in field 

approach wind direction 

presence of external fence 

presence of internal fence along lines of heliostats 

presence of internal fences perpendicular to lines of heliostats 

height of fences 

e porosity of fences (including solid berms) 

density of field (number of heliostats per unit area of ground 

surface) 

Iik order to adequately cover the ranges of variables, it was found necessary 

to change the test plan somewhat during the testing in response to findings 

earlier in the test program. For example, the protection afforded to heliostats in the denser portions of the Barstow field by upwind heliostats was 

sufficiently high that low sensitivity to in-field fences was noted. For this 

reason, additional field density experiments were added to show how in-field 

fences provided protection. The result of the modified test plan was a set of 

curves which effectively collapsed mean load data from most of the variables 

listed above onto very few curves. 

The test plan can be broken into two basic parts--wind loads on isolated 

heliostats and wind loads on heliostats in a field of units. Both mean and 

dynamic loads were measured for the two situations. 

The test matrix for the isolated heliostat is shown in Table 3-1. This data 

was needed to obtain the baseline loads against which the loads in the heliostat field can be measured. Mean, rms and peak loads were measured for each 

case. Spectra were obtained for only a limited set of conditions for the 

purpose of evaluating the dynamic measurements. Data values corresponding to 

the runs listed in Table 3-1 are listed in Appendix B. 

The test matrix for the in-field heliostats is shown in Table 3-2. Because of 

the large number of individual runs, Table 3-2 provides a summary of test 

conditions but omits the details of individual values for heliostat angle 

settings and wind directions. These values are listed in an expanded test 

matrix form for each configuration in Appendix C. Mean, rms and peak loads 

were measured for each case. Spectra were measured for selected cases. 

The interpretation of the data of Appendices B and C is presented in 

Section 4.0. 
Table 3-1. Test Matrix for Single Heliostat 

Note: The numbers in the table indicate the test run number. 

Azimuth angle was set at 270° for all runs--see Figure 3-3. 

Elevation Angle 

0 

15 

30 

45 

60 

75 

80 

84 

87 

90 

Wind Direction 

0 22.5 45 67.5 90 112.5 135 157.5 180 

115 113 111 109 107 105 103 101 99 

246 - 244 - 242 - 240 - 238 

228 - 230 - 232 - 234 - 236 

136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 

226 - 224 - 222 - 220 - 218 

208 - 210 - 212 - 214 - 216 

81 83 85 87 89 9 1 93 95 97 

170 168 166 164 162 160 158 156 154 

172 174 176 178 180 182 184 186 188 

206 204 202 200 198 196 194 192 190 
Table 3-2. Test Matrix for In-Field Heliostats 

j/ of Wind Data 

Heliostat Conf. Case Directions Fence+< Note File Page 

1 1-A Smr AM 7 None See Figure 2-2 HllOO 115 

without fences 

Smr Noon 7 115 

Wntr AM 7 115 

Wntr Noon 7 116 

Wntr PM 7 116 

Ver. Stow 1 116 

Hor. Stow 1 116 

1 1-B Smr AM 7 1 

Smr Noon 7 

See Figure 2-5 

with perimeter 

fence 

Wntr AM 7 12 7 

Wntr Noon 7 128 

Wntr PM 7 128 

Ver. Stow 1 128 

Hor. Stow 1 128 

5 5-A Wntr AM 6 None Simulation of H5000 139 

heliostat field 

Wntr Noon 6 within circle 139 

on Figure 2-2 

Wntr PM 6 without fences 139 

Ver. Stow 1 139 

Hor. Stow 1 139 

"See Table 3-3 
Table 3-2 (continued) 

I# of Wind 

Heliostat Conf. Case Directions Fence$i Note 

Data 

File Page 

5 5-B SmrAM 

Smr Noon 

Wntr AM 

Wnt r Noon 

Wntr PM 

Ver. Stow 

Hor. Stow 

5 5-C Smr AM 

Smr Noon 

Wntr AM 

Wntr Noon 

Wntr PM 

Ver. Stow 

Hor. Stow 

5 5-D SmrAM 

Smr Noon 

Wntr AM 

Wntr Noon 

Wntr PM 

Ver. Stow 

Hor. Stow 

1 Simulation of H5001 145 

heliostat field 

within circle 145 

on Figure 2-2 

with perimeter 145 

fence 

145 

None Simulation to H5100 155 

edge of field 

without fences, 155 

see Figure 2-2 

155 

1 Simulation to H5lUl 165 

edge of field 

with perimeter 165 

fence, see 

Figures 2-2, 2-6 165 

+See Table 3-3 

37 
Table 3-2 (continued) 

j/ of Wind 

Heliostat Conf. Case Directions Fence"; Note 

Data 

File Page 

5 5-E Smr AM 6 2 Simulation to H5102 175 

edge of field 

Smr Noon 6 with perimeter 175 

and internal 

Wntr AM 6 fences, see 175 

Figures 2-2, 2-6 

Wntr Noon 6 175 

Wntr PM 6 176 

Ver. Stow 1 176 

Hor. Stow 1 176 

3 3-A Ver. Stow 1 None See Figures 2-2, H3100 185 

2-7, simulation 

to edge of field, 

no fences 

3 3-B Ver. Stow 1 None Effect of number H3200 187 

of rows upstream, 

see Figure 2-7 

3 3-C Ver. Stow 1 None Effect of field H3300 191 

density, 

see Figure 2-7 

3 3-D Ver. Stow 1 None Effect of number H3400 194 

of rows upstream 

in field of 

reduced density 

(original x 1/4), 

see Figure 2-7 

3 3-E Ver. Stow 1 1 Effect of number H3401 196 

of rows upstream 

in field of 

reduced density 

(original x 1/4), 

see Figure 2-8, 

wlperimeter fence 

+See Table 3-3 
Table 3-2 (continued) 

/# of Wind 

Heliostat Conf. Case Directions Fence* Note 

Data 

File Page 

3 3-F Ver. Stow 1 2 Effect of number H3402 198 

of rows upstream, 

in field of 

reduced density 

(original x 1/4), 

see Figure 2-8 

with perimeter and 

internal fence 

3-G Ver. Stow 1 

, .3 3yH ,Ver. Stow 1 

3-1 Ver. Stow 7 

3-5 Ver. Stow 7 

Effect of number H3405 200 

of rows upstream 

in field of 

reduced density 

(original x 1/4), 

see Figure 2-8, 

same as 3-F with 

50% fence porosity 

Effectof number H3406 202 

of rows upstream 

in field of 

reduced density 

(original x 1/4), 

see Figure 2-8, 

same as 3-F with 

40% fence porosity 

None Effect of reduced H3500 204 

density 

(original x 1/4), 

2 rows upstream, 

see Figure 2-9, 

without fences 

Field of reduced H3501 207 

density 

(original x 1/4), 

2 rows upstream, 

see Figure 2-9, 

with external 

fence 

$;See Table 3-3 
Table 3-2 (continued) 

11 of Wind 

Heliostat Conf. Case Directions Fencegr Note 

- - 

Data 

File Page 

3 3-K Ver. Stow 7 2 

3 3-L Ver. Stow 7 3 

3 3-M Ver. Stow 7 4 

3 3-N Ver. Stow 7 5 

4 4-A Smr AM 1 None 

Smr Noon 1 

Wntr AM 1 

WntrNoon 1 

Wntr PM 1 

Ver. Stow 1 

Hor. Stow 1 

Field of reduced H3502 210 

density 

(original x 1/4), 

2 rows upstream, 

see Figure 2-9, 

with external and 

internal fences 

parallel to rows 

Field of reduced H3503 213 

density 

(original x 1/4), 

2 rows upstream, 

see Figure 2-9, 

with external, 

internal and 

crossing fences 

Field of reduced H3504 216 

density 

(original x 1/4), 

2 rows upstream, 

see Figure 2-9, 

with perimeter 

berm, without 

internal fences 

Field of reduced H3505 219 

density 

(original x 1/4), 

2 rows upstream, 

see Figure 2-9, 

same as 3-K with 

50% fence porosity 

11 rows upstream H4100 222 

were present, 

see Figure 2-2, 

11 rows modeled 

upstream, 

265' wind 

+:See Table 3-3 
Table 3-3. Description of Fences 

Configuration Elements Porosity Height Distance Figures 

1 External Fence 40% 

2 External Fence 40% 

Internal Arc Fence 60% 

External Fence 40% 

Internal Arc Fence 60% 

Internal Cross Fence 60% 

External Solid Berm 0% 

External Fence 40% 

Internal Arc Fence 50% 

6 External Fence 40% 

Internal Arc Fence 40% 

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 = 270'). 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 , the force coefficient in the x direction, is maximum for a vertical 

X 

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 direct ion. CF reaches a maximum at 60' elevation angle, or 30' to the horizontal 

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 4.2 4.0 2.1 1.5 1.6 Operational Position Velocity 

Peak Force or Moment 

Stow Position Velocity 

Operational Position Velocity 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 in this study in comparison to 

X 

C~ 

X 

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 CF if 

it is based on projected area instead of actual surface area. x 

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. 

In Figure 4-10a, the peak CF at an elevation angle of 0' is 2.11 compared 

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 45O. 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 section is presented in roughly the order of 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) 

on 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. 


IIeliostat 5 represents an in-field unit in the least dense area A of the 

Barstow field (see Figure 2-6). Figures 4-16 and 4-17 show the wind loads on 

this heliostat for the summer AM and summer noon configuration for various 

fence arrangements. The highest loads shown in each figure are for an 

isolated heliostat for comparison purposes. The other cases in order of 

decreasing load are heliostat 5 in its field location without any fences in 

place, with external fence only and with both external and internal fence. 

The largest reduction in wind load from the isolated case occurred as a result 

of basic field density. Both the external and internal fence provided additional load reductions. The field density about heliostat 5 is higher than 

the low density portion of the field used in reference [2]. In reference 121, 

load reductions of 20 to 30 percent in the low density field were typical 

without fences. 

In the Barstow low density field, mean load reductions of 50 to 

70 percent were typical with additional decreases due to the 

addition of fences. 

In order to satisfy the desired goal of providing a designer with sound 

guidelines on what upstream blockage is necessary to produce a particular load 

reduction, additional tests were run on a typical heliostat varying the properties of the field about the heliostat. Heliostat 3 was selected for this 

purpose. Figure 4-18 shows the effect of varying the number of upstream rows 

without fences on both mean and dynamic loads on heliostat 3. The mean load 

decreases rapidly with number of upstream rows to a value about 20 to 25 percent of the edge case. The peak load decreases rapidly also to a value of 

about 1/3 of the edge case. The variability in peak load with number of rows 

upwind from 2 to 10 rows is not due to a change in dynamic loading (the rms is 

remarkably constant) but is due to use of a single realization from a probability distribution with a fairly high dispersion. In random vibration peak 

load determination, the peak is often calculated as peak = mean + g * rms 

where g is a peak factor (of magnitude 3-4 for a broad band loading process) 

determined semi-empirically, in order to avoid the random variability in 

single measurement realizations. Because the dynamic loads on interior heliostats are dominated by wake turbulence generated by upstream units, the peak 

loads measured on these units are more likely to be closer to the correct 

value than those on edge units (which are believed too low--see Section 4.1 

above). Thus, load reduction within the field is probably larger than shown 

in Figure 4-18. 

An important point shown by Figure 4-18 is that the peak wind loads 

acting on heliostats within the Barstow field are substantially 

lower than the peak loads acting on heliostats at the edge of the 

field. 

This finding is in contrast to assumptions made about peak loads by field 

personnel (see Section 4.4). 

Specific dynamic load mechanisms which can be treated with spoilers 

on heliostats were not evident. Thus, they were not tried. Additional study in the next year should address this issue with tests. 



Spoilers are not likely to be effective in reducing mean loads 

because of increased collector area and increased turbulence in the 

separated shear layer which can increase loading coefficienLs. 

The influence of field density on heliostat loads is shown in Figure 4-19. 

This figure shows how wind loads transition from isolated to dense field 

loadings. The generalized blockage area shown in the graph is defined in 

Figure 4-20 as 

where AB = solid blockage area of upwind heliostats and fences projected in 

the approach wind direction 

AF = ground area occupied by the upwind blockage elements included in 

calculation of AB 

The original density for heliostat 3 in generalized blockage area is 0.24. 

Wind loads increase steadily as generalized blockage area is decreased with a 

rapid rise below 0.1. 

The effects of fences are more easily resolved for fields with lower density. 

A number of tests were performed with internal fences with various field 

densities and number of upstream rows. Figures 4-21 through 4-23 represent 

results from this series of tests for heliostat 3. The reduced density of the 

field for these results is 1/4 of the original Barstow field density. The 

results show a steady decrease in wind load with upwind blockage area. It 

shows that porosity in the in-field fence is important (i.e., that increase in 

solid area upwind decreases wind loads). 

Heliostat 4 is at the inner edge of the heliostat field where velocity speedup 

might increase wind loads above interior units. This heliostat also is one 

instrumented in the field. Because of the time-consuming task of setting 

upwind heliostats, only one wind direction (azimuth 265 degrees) was 

measured--the direction where full-scale wind loads have been measured. 

Figure 4-24 shows the results of heliostat 4 wind loads for a summer noon 

case. Comparison is made to heliostats 1 and 5. Heliostat 4 shows loads 

significantly lower than the upwind edge heliostat 1 and slightly higher than 

heliostat 5. For a summer AM case (not shown in a figure), heliostat 4 had 

loads nearly the same as heliostat 5. The data for heliostat 4 shows that an 

edge heliostat on the downwind edge of the field may have loads above interior 

units, but well below upwind edge units. 

Development of data during the testing phase indicated that the added data 

obtained on heliostat 3 would be more beneficial than tests on heliostat 2. 

Thus no data were obtained for heliostat 2. 

4.3 WIND LOAD REDUCTION SUMMARY 

The primary purpose of this study was to find ways to reduce mean wind loads 

on heliostats. One alterative is to specify specific fences required to 




achieve specific reductions for a particular field layout. A second and more 

attractive alternative is to describe wind load reduction in terms of the 

characteristics--described in a general but quantifiable way--of the upwind 

devices interfering with the wind. 

During analysis of the data, it was found that a generalized 

quantifiable description of the upwind blockage could be found--the 

generalized blockage shown in Figure 4-20. 

Figure 4-25 shows how data have been collapsed onto or below a single curve of 

load reduction using the generalized blockage area concept. The solid curve 

is an exponential decay with exponent -5.56 G and was fit to the data in the B 

upper curve by regression. Only data for D/h < 5 did not collapse onto the - curves shown and were omitted from the graphs. For D/h < 5, the heliostat 

under consideration is within the first two rows where wind can pass between 

upwind heliostats for some directions without significant decrease. For these 

cases, the perimeter fence is needed to provide adequate protection. 

Figure 4-25 provides a design guide which describes the quantity of upwind 

solid blockage required to achieve any desired level of load reduction. The 

blockage may be assembled from heliostats, fences, berms or other elements 

whose specific shapes and locations can be determined by the economics of the 

installation. The format used for describing load reduction leaves the field 

designer the maximum of latitude in selection of field geometry. 

An obvious conclusion is that an efficient load reduction mechanism 

is high field density (with a perimeter fence) where the upstream 

blockage elements are also energy producing modules. It may be 

desirable to trade shading losses for decreased wind loading. 

4.4 COMPARISON OF MODEL DATA WITH FULL SCALE 

One reason for selecting the BarstowUsite for the wind-tunnel test was that in 

the full scale field wind speed measurements had been made, and three heliostats had been fully instrumented with load cells for force measurements 

(another three had been partially instrumented). It was thus anticipated that 

a comparison between model and full-scale data would be made. To date, no 

iull-scale load data has become available. Some wind speed data (mainly peak 

wind speeds) has been made available from anemometers installed on wind towers 

within the heliostat field [31]; see Figure 2-2 for the locations of the wind 

towers. At each of the wind towers, the anemometers were located at 10 ft, 

20 ft and 32.8 ft above the ground. The anemometer of the west meteorological 

station was at a height of 32.8 ft. Wind speed data obtained on day 329 

(25 Nov) of 1983 were chosen for a model and full-scale comparison of wind 

speeds for the heliostat under an operational mode. 

In the Barstow field, instantaneous wind speeds were measured at three-minute 

intervals for two hours. Figure 4-26 from [31] shows variation of the wind 

speeds recorded at the west meteorological station on day 329 from 11 AM to 

1 PM. The curve in the figure was obtained by a cubic curve fitting to the 

data points. The mean of the wind speeds was 23.5 mph and the wind direction 

was 265 degrees during the period. 


In the wind tunnel, the heliostat field around and upstream of the wind 

towers 1, 2 and 4 were fully simulated, and the wind speeds were measured at 

the corresponding heights of 10 ft, 20 ft and 32.8 ft. Measurements of wind 

speeds for the wind tower 6 were obtained by partially simulating the field 

with 11 upwind rows of heliostats (all that were available). The wind speeds 

were measured by a hot-film anemometer at a rate of 256 samples per second for 

32 seconds for each wind tower and height. The maximum, mean and minimum wind 

speeds were then determined. The measurements were repeated 10 times for each 

configuration to obtain an ensemble average of the maximum (peak) wind speeds. 

Figure 4-27 shows the full-scale peak wind speed and model peak, mean and 

minimum wind speeds at heights of 10 ft, 20 ft and 32.8 ft, respectively. All 

the wind speeds were normalized for comparisons using the mean wind speed at 

the west meteorological station. The full-scale and model peaks are in as 

good agreement as expected since the full-scale data represents a single 

realization of a probability distribution with a significant standard deviation. From the wind speed measurements in the wind tunnel, it is evident 

that the mean wind speeds decreased within the field in comparison to the west 

edge at 10- and 20-ft levels and to a lesser extent for 32.8 ft. At the 

location of the wind tower 6, however, the wind speed increased nearly to the 

level at the wind tower 1. Peak wind speeds within the field did not show a 

tendency to decrease for either model or full scale. The lack of a decrease 

in peak wind speed within the full-scale field might lead incorrectly to the 

assumption that peak wind loads also remained constant across the field. High 

velocities in the field of small spatial extent cannot fully load a heliostat. 

Model data presented in Section 4.3 showed peak and mean loads on heliostats 

decreased. 

0 Thus, it can be concluded that peak and mean loads in the full-scale 

field will decrease from those at the field edge for operational 

positions. In other words, measurement of local wind gust peaks 

within the full-scale field cannot always be used to deduce peak 

wind loads on the heliostats. 

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, thc 

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). 

e 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. 
a 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. Peterka and A. Kareem, "Heliostat Field-Array Wind 

Tunnel Test," Technical Report for McDonnell Douglas Astrorlautics 

Company, Huntington Beach, California, Report No. CER78-79JEC-JAP-AK2, 

July 1978, 55 pages. 

2. Ewald, R. L., J. A. Peterka and J. E. Cermak, "Heliostat-Array Wind 

Tunnel Study," Technical Report for Martin Marietta Aerospace, Report 

No. CER78-79RLE-JAP-JEC31, January 1979. 

3. Peterka, J. A., J. J. Lou and J. E. Cermak, "Wind-Tunnel Test of a 

Photovoltaic Concentrator Array," Technical Report for Martin Marietta, 

Denver, Colorado, Report No. CER78-79JAP-JJL-JEC62, June 1979, 34 pages. 

4. Peterka, J. A., J. M. Sinou and J. E. Cermak, "Mean Wind Forces on 

Parabolic-Trough Solar Collectors," Technical Report for Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Report No. CER79-80JAP-JMS-JEC4, July 

1979, 109 pages. 

5. Franklin, H. A., "Wind Design of Flat-Panel Photovoltaic Array 

Structures - Final Report," Report No. SAND 79-7057, 83 pages. 

6. Miller, R. and D. Zimmerman, "Wind Loads on Flat Plate Photovoltaic Array 

Fields, Phase 11: Final Report," Report No. DOEIJPL 954833-7912, 

September 1979, 111 pages. 

7. Poreh, M., J. A. Peterka and J. E. Cermak, "Wind-Tunnel Study of Wind 

Loads on Photovoltaic Structures," Technical Report for Bechtel National, 

San Francisco, California, Report No. CER79-80MP-JAP-JECll, September 

1979, 83 pages. 

8. Peterka, J. A., J. M. Sinou and J. E. Cermak, "Mean Wind Forces on 

Parabolic-Trough Solar collector^,^' Report No. SAND 80-7023, May 1980, 

109 pages. 

9. Randall, D. E., D. D. McBride and R. E. Tate, "Steady-State Wind Loading 

on Parabolic-Trough Solar Collectors," Report No. SAND 79-2134, August 

1980, 21 pages. 

10. Hosoya, N., J. A. Peterka, M. Poreh and J. E. Cermak, "Wind Pressures and 

Forces on Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Solar Arrays," Technical Report for 

Boeing Eng., Seattle, Washington, Report No. CER80-81NH-JAP-MP-JEC13, 

September 1980, 81 pages. 

11. Hosoya, N., J. A. Peterka, M. Poreh and J. E. Cermak, "Wind Pressures and 

Forces on Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Solar Arrays Data Supplement: Appendix" 

Technical Report for Boeing Eng., Seattle, Washington, Report No. CER80- 

81NH-JAP-MP-JEC13a, September 1980, 182 pages. 
12. Miller, R. D. and D. K. Zimmerman, "Wind Loads on Flat Plate Photovoltaic 

Array Fields, Phase 111, Final Report," Report No. DOE/JPL 954833-81/3, 

April 1981, 250 pages. 

13. Hosoya, N., J. A. Peterka and J. E. Cermak, "Wind Pressures and Forces on 

Flat-Plate Photovoltaic Solar Arrays - Cross-Spectral Analysis," Technical Report for Boeing Eng., Seattle, Washington, Report No. CER80-81NHJAP-JEC57, June 1981, 47 pages. 

14. Miller, R. D. and D. K. Zimmerman, "Wind Loads on Flat Plate Photovoltaic 

Array Fields (Nonsteady Winds)," Report No. DOE/JPL 954833-81/4, August 

1981, 100 pages. 

15. Tieleman, H. W., P. R. Sparks and R. E. Akins, "Wind Loads on Flat Plate 

Solar Collectors," Preprint No. 3632, ASCE Convention and Exposition, 

Atlanta, Georgia, 23-25 October 1979, 21 pages. 

16. Tieleman, H. W., R. E. Akins and P. R. Sparks, "An Investigation of Wind 

Loads on Solar Collectors ," Report No. VPI-E-80-1, January 1980, 155 

pages. 

17. Tieleman, H. W., R. E. Akins and P. R. Sparks, "An Investigation of Wind 

Loads on Solar Collectors, Appendix I - Data Listing for Top and Bottom 

of Collector," Report No. VPI-E-80-1, January 1980, 307 pages. 

18. Tielernan, H. W., R. E. Akins and P. R. Sparks, "An Investigation of Wind 

Loads on Solar Collectors, Appendix I1 - Net Pressure Coefficients," 

Report No. VPI-E-80-1, January 1980, 165 pages. 

19. Mar, J. W. and H. Liebowitz (eds.), Structures Technology for Large Radio 

and Radar Telescope Systems, The MIT Press, 1969. 

20. Cohen, E. (ed.), Large Steerable Radio Antennas - Climatological and 

Aerodynamic Considerations, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 

Vol. 116, October 1, 1964, pp. 1-355. 

21. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, "Wind Loads on Dish Antenna," Technical Report 

CP-6 (unpublished). 

22. Murphy, I,. M., "An Assessment of Existing Studies of Wind Loading on 

Solar Collectors," Report No. SERI/TR-632-812, February 1981, 43 pages. 

23. Eimern, J. V., R. Karshon, L. A. Razamova and G. W. Robertson, 

"Windbreaks and Shelterbelts," World Meteorological Organization, 

T.N. 59, 1964. 

24. Counihan, J., J.C.R. Hunt and P. S. Jackson, "Wakes Behind TwoDimensional Surface Obstacles," J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 64, 1974, pp. 529- 

563. 

25. Raine, J. K. and D. C. Stevenson, "Wind Protection by Model Fences in a 

Simulated Atmospheric Boundary Layer," J. Indust. Aero., Vol. 2, 1977, 

pp. 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 of Fluid - 

Mech Vol. 8, 1976, pp. 75-106. .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 in 

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 ~~~lication~ 

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, ~~xl 

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 Modelis 

Criteria and Techniaues in Civil Engineering A~~lications. 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. 

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

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. 

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 ~erod~namics, 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 V 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. 

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 AZ Run # -- 

0 80 270 8 1 

2 2 . 5 80 270 83 

45 80 270 85 

67.5 80 270 87 

90 80 270 89 

112.5 80 270 9 1 

1 '1.5 80 270 9 3 

357.5 80 270 95 

180 80 270 97 
Table B-1. continued 
Table B-1. continued 
Table B-1. continued 
T11'17'A TOF: FILE: : SIt4GL. 

f: Cl tf f" ; [: 1- y cry tr'T 

i?f'i"rt! ? ,0'7 ,02 r\ -! 

Y r.. .' 
nnTn FOR FILE 3 SINGL 

PAT4 FOR FILE : SIt4GL 

I? 11 kI % I::! X t4It 1: 1" A2 V C 1.. 

'. 1 1 I. 2 . 5 8010 27010 10+0 

CHY 

'01 

Iti?TA FOR FILE t SINGL 

I IJ I 1.1 I! r L A: v C: 1.. 

72 135%.0 S0+0 270,O 40+7 

COMP : 

tiEAN t 

crx CF'Y Cr ,7 c Yi ?! 

.0? -- , 0 2 + 2? ,03 

DATA FOE FILE t SINGL 

COHF' t CFX CFY 

E'I E A P.! ? 010 - ,01 
DATA FOR FILE Z SINGL 

!: L ! Id f !.I D I: L A:: I> L t.. 

9 I~O+Q O,U 270~0 9oco 

QATh FOR FILE t SINGL 

CHY 

,63 
DATA FOR FILE 2 SINGL 

CHY 

r 07 

COMF' ! CFX Cf Y ~t-2 CHX 

MEAN : -.,74 ... , 0 1 . + 02 -02 

MAX : -+ 17 + 04 P 02 + 07 

HIN : -1 116 -*05 .- 007 t. 02 

; .2o , 01, c01 +01 

GFACT t 1c36 4.44 2 + 7.1 2178 

]-'FACT : Jt.62 3 + L* 4 4t.22 3,73 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

RUN # WIPID EL A: '.,J C 1.. 

107 ?0.0 0tO 2?0bO 40r5 

COHF' 1. c I- x C I- Y C.FZ CHX 

HEAN : "05 .. a 05 ,01 ~02 

MA)! : , 5 1 - +01 + 02 ,02 

M1t.I : .. + 36 .-+I1 YO& b 07 

EMS : + 12 +01 '01 ,01 

rlATA F7L7R f ILf : SINGL 

CHY 

< o7 

HhX : 1,5? .- ,o"j e04 ,03 -m MIN : e35 - t .L.i- -+ 1E .. , 0 L. 

AllS t -3 

Y -L 6 03 ,02 +01 

DATA FOR FILE : SIPIGL 

F:UN R: WIbID EL AZ VEL 

1. 1 1 .!5, 0 0,.0 270+0 40.2 

COMF' t CFU CF-Y Cf 2 CHX 

H E 17 ?I ? 1r05 .- , 1 9 .,03 e02 

CHY 

+ Ob 

GF-ACT : 

PFAC'?' 
DATA FOR FILE SINGL 

MA?: i 2t22 -- to: t. 00 6 0.: 

tf I I.,! P + ,5 C' ... , 2 5 - v:LS 6 oq 

p:fjs f ;. 2 .q + 03 t 0: + 0: 

GFACT : 1 e321 1,963 X b I= IJ A+08 "7 C' 

F:~ F A c .r : 4+2z 3,a~ J+ESi? 4 + (tlr 

DATA FOR FILE SINEL 

CFY 

<- 1 I 

CMY 

,Q? 

CHZ 

,OS 

IIATA FOE FILE : SINGL 

CHY CtfZ 

+I4 t 01 

LtATA FUR FILE : SINGL 

CMX 

+ CJ~ 

CHY tHZ 

+I1 + OO 
Dhl'A FOR FILE : SINGL 

liC1P-t % WIND EL AZ V E 1.. 

140 15 +O 45,O 27010 40 '4 

CHY 

* 10 

MAX : 1 YZC 1+10 '12 

MIN : c 32 +35 '01 

RMS : + 1 -9 ,12 + 0:: 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

F::Ut.' B WIND EL A2 !J E L 

142 &7,5 45+0 270t0 40,s 

CHY 

* 05 

MAX : 

HIN t 

F:MS 

GFACT : 2 + 20 2e34 1+75 3.bL7 

FBFACT : 4631 4+23 3+E7 it r ., J -7 7c 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

F: U N $ W I P.1 It EL AX VEL 

1 4.9 03 + 0 15,O 2?0,0 3969 

COMF' : CF-X CFY CF-Z CHY 

HEAN : + 03 - ' 04 -, 01 + QI5 

CHY 

" 02 

MAX t ,'J4 +Ol + 2.5 + 0Z 

HIbI ! - +:?4 .-, 10 - ,22 ,04 

RMZ : + 07 +OI + OJ <, O 2 

GFACT : 12+25 2'&531+30 2,023 

I=' F A C, T z 4 +2~3 4643 J+92 ,+17 7 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

CFX CFY CFZ CHX 7-7 l d &.I - 6 03 + L, '8 t. 07 -. -? .h 

CHY 

so0 

MAX f .- ' 02 ,02 ,-PI1 . *01 

MIN : ... , 7 rj ... , 0 c .- '70 - * 1. 

RM5 t c11 a01 310 "02 
DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

CDPiF' : C. B Y, CFY CFL' CMX CHY 

IfEAN 3 ... , c 9 603, ... * 7 4 ,.o 06 .05 

2+35 

-? m 7 4 (. LZ r.. 

DATA FOR FILE Z SXNGL 

F: u I..! 4: ~15: t~ D E L- nz: VCL 

:Lyjrl) 137,5 45 t0 2'7O*@ 29+? 

cnr CHZ + 94 04 

nax - +27 + o~ - , .!?: ,OF 

HY.N r. .- 1 ,34 -,02 -1 '36 -,I1 

F:MS t L.30 001, + 1 4% C2 

GFACT Z 

F'FkCT r 

X:lhTA FQF: FILE: S SfNGt, 

F:UH # MINI1 E k" AX 1 "7 3 

VEL . 130 39 ,4"J0 2?0,0 39,? 

DI~TR FOR FILE SINGL 

(: C! kt F' 7 c 1- )I cry c k- 2 tux [:: n u 

MEAN t .- + 08 + 00 .., , I f . 01 +oi 

HAX : - ,.02 + 04 +QZ + 03 &I1 HItI : ,, 1 E - ,07, - +55 ... 4. 0 5 .- , C( ? 

i;:P.fS t ,02 to3 * Q7 +Ol b02 
DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

COMF' I 

MEAN t 

CfX C f Y CFZ CHX , QP -+ Ql - + 23 ,02 

MAX : -- c 03 t 05 ... + 0 1 +Oh 

t13N Z 19 - c 05 -, 56 -GO3 

RMS : t 02 no1 +O'? e 02 

GFACT : 

FFACT : 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

C.F- X CFY Ct-Z C ti X , O? - , C13 .. ,21 "01 

CHY 

>Q1 

MAX t -. 100 ,02 ,0J + OL. 

tf I 1.I : - i l& .-. 08 .- 458 . 6 O? 

F:MS t +02 +01 , OC +02 

GFACT : 

F'FACT 

DATti FOR FILE t SINGL 

A U E4 t W I t.1 11 EL AZ VEL 

160 112+5 84.0 270'0 4044 

CHY 

,0Z CFX ... , 0 2 

GFACT : 

PFACT 

DATA FOR FILE t SINGL 

R U E.1 # W I t.! D E t.. AZ VEL 

:1 52 TO, (:I 8400 270+0 ,4015 

CHY 

,01 COMF' 

MEht.! : - 

CF-X CFY Cf 2 CHX 

"00 ... , Q 4 eO.3 ,01 

MAY, : 

MIN : r. L1 CI . 

GFACT : 51G56 2.42 .4+81 5+33 

F'FACT : -1 ..55 4+5f 3 c 32 41 17 
z 

GO 

* 

- 

* 

S 

wo 

0 

i-' 

274 

- 

Lf. 
IIATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

RUN # WIN11 f L rlZ VEL 

1 7 2 060 87t0 270+0 39+9 

COMF' ; CFX CfY CfZ CHY 

MEAN : b08 t 02 '06 + 05 

MAY. : > 13 + 04 + 21 + 03 

MIN t 03 - '01 -*I2 c.02 

I? M S : t 02 +01 + 0.4 + Ci 1 

GFACT : 

FFACT : 

1 +&7 2.23 .9 ,24 lPL7 

3 ,.58 4+3? -? I.-. 3 ,. 32 3, ui.. 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

RUN t MI~III E L. nz VEL 

174 2245 87+0 270t0 40 0 

MAX t + 1.9 k02 I. 215 t 09 

MIN f "00 - * 05 - 6 23 +0Z 

I.;: M s : '02 ,01 + 05 101 

, OC. 

t 0.9 

'02 

GFACT : 

PFACT : 

UATA FOR FILE t SINGL 

COMF' 

MEAN t 

MAX : +11 +01 + 20 ,07 n I F.I t ,OI .-, 07 - + 29 + 02 

RMS : +01 1. 01 c 0L 01 

GFACT t 2*14 2.52 6, SO 2 + 75 

F'FACT t 4,1& 3,51 3,OC 3 , 2 l.. 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

F?UP.! # WIND EL h2 \? E L 

173 47'5 87cO 27010 3PIS 

COHF' 3 C t- ): CfY Cf Z CHX 

HEAN t t 03 - t 03 i 02 to? 

CHY 

'00 

MAX : +07 + 02 + 19 ,Of? 

MIN t - ‘02 ... , 0 6 - t ii 

33 , + 03 

RMS to1 t. 0 1 , Ob + 82 

GFRCT t 2-71 2+?5 12t38 Z+S3 

F'FACT S 3+43 365'B 3+1C -1 +TO 7 
1112TA FOR FILE SINGL 

MAX : 

MIIl : RM$ : 

DATA FOR FILE : SXNGL 

CFX CPY + 02 -,03 

DATA FOR FILE t SINGL 

CHZ 

0 CI~ COHP t CFX CFY CFII: cnx 

HEAP4 .- c O 44 - + 0'3 107 + OO 

I!A'TA FOR FILE t SIb1BL 

COMF' t CF: CFY CFZ CNX 

MERF-! t -- ,o& c 00 - + 0.3 +Cs9 
DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

DATA FOR FILE : SItjGL 

RUN # WIND EL AZ VEL 

1~0~0 P0+0 270+0 404.1 

CHY 

* 07 

CHZ 

,OZ COHF' : 

MEAN Z 

CFX CFY CFZ CMX - e 05 - PO0 +04 i01 

MAX ' 

M1t.I i 

RMS t 

DATA FOR FILE t SIMGL 

RlfN 8: WIt4D EL AT VEL 

192 157,s 70+0 270*0 37,7 

CCIHF' 5 CFX CFY CF2 CHX 

MEAN t - i 05 - +01 02 ,91 

MAX : .- + 00 + 02 E L L' ,. OL .-$7 

tt 1 N t .. +10 - + 05 - ,25 . 0 5 

RMS t i. 02 +01 + OG ,. 0 1 

GFRCT : 

PFACT t 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

COMF' : c 1' :: CTY c F- 2 C.H" 

MERE4 : -. , 0 4 ... , 0 3 '01 *01 

CHY 

+0z 

MAX t +01 +Q2 625 + C17 

tfIt! : - k5C3 .- +0? - + 27 +06 

RMS : '01 '01 , QL +02 
DATA FOR FILE SSMGL 

VEL 

39b? 

COPfF' t C. F X CFY CFZ 

PfEhN : -.yo2 - 6 85 .602 

7 

d + 7-4 -v CI? L.'* 4&/ 

3 b 60 7 

3 too 

X:IA'rA F-CIR FILE :. SItIGL 

VEL 

40+0 

City CHY ., 00 * 0: 

CHZ 

6 03 

DATA FOR FILE t SINGL 

VEL 

9 Q 1. -9 

CFX C F 'f CF? 

to3 - t 0.4 -- ,OS 

UR'tA FOR FILE : SIMGL 

RUN 4: WINIl 

7 0 7' 

EL A2 VEL .. ,. A- J~S 0 90PO 270+0 0 ', Q 

COMP t CFX CFY CFZ CHX 

iiffAf4 : ,Q5 - 1.02 -.. + 0 4 t 01. 

CHY 

,(lri 
DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

(IOHF' t 

MEAN t 

CFX CFY CFZ CHX 6 07 - 1.02 +0I +01 

1 13 +!I1 + 26 ,0Z + 02 - + 05 - ,lG .. ,. 0 A 

,02 101 +o; *01 

GFACT : 1 *E6 2 + .? ?> t. +E35 5,2C 31713 3+45 2 + 38 -I T'FACT t , + 85 

MAX : 

MIt4 

RMC, : 

DATA FOE FILE : SINGL 

ELIN # WIt.ID EL AZ VEL 

206 010 90,O 270+0 40+4 

CHY 

,Ol COHF' 

MEnN : 

CFX CFY CFZ CHY 

"05 - + 0rj - + oz '. 00 

HRX ; 12 + 03 el3 .03 

M I t.1 t +02 -. e02 +21 ... <. 0 .? 

F:HS 3 e 01 '01 t 0.4 ,01 

GFRCT t 2103 Et3E 2f ,GZ 

PFACT t 3+!3? 3e54 ?1+29 4.07 

DATA FOE FILE t SXNGL 

CHY 

I. 1 L. CFX CFY CF2 CHY , 1 -? 101 + .', ;: + 00 

GFACT 

T'FACT z 

DATA FOR FILE t SIMGL 

KUN 8 WIND 7 L? EL Ai! VEL 

210 21 5 ,. 0 ., ,.,I 1. 0 2 7 0 i 0 .$0 ,5 

COHF' 

MEAN t 

CFX CFY CFZ CHX 

+13 - + 05 + 3.1 + 05 

CHY 

+0: 

GFACT t 

F'FAtT : 
I:tt~'fA FOR FILE : Sf NGL 

I-: U b.1 # W 1 N D EL A2 VEL 

212 '?0+0 7560 270+0 40 t 4 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

Y:IA7'A FOR FILE : SZNGL 

CHZ 

bO2 

GF'ACT : 

F''F ACT t 

DATA FOR FILE STNGL 
DATA FOR FILE : SXNGL 

CQMf' CFX CFY CF-2 C. H :: 

ftEfiN : -.,41 -~01 t 65' . t 07 

5) 

nnx : -. I. 12 ,os +2b ,02 

MIN : - ; 80 ... , n 7 ... 1 + 2 5 '15 

RMS t * 10 e02 , 15 0 02 

GFACT ; PFACT ; 

DRTA FOR FILE : SINGL 

Rut4 3t IJXP?D EL AX VfL 3 

. 

'5 

.. - i '3'3 6 0 50+0 27010 40a1 

COHF' C t- :< CFY Cf 2 CHX 

MEAN : .02 - c O.? ,02 + 02 

MAY , lr? ,01 * L> 6 Of -7 

MIN : -. 13 .-, 10 +&.> .05 . '77 

F;: M S ? <. 0 5 +02 P Oi!. , 02 

GFACT : 12987 2+83 11+37 4 +24 

F'FACT : 3 :. 17 F"! 4 , 2 C, 4+20 7 

L, ,. 7 1 

DRTA FOR FILE t SINGL 

!:'OMF' t 

MEAN t 

GFRCT : 

f'FhCT : 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

CfX C f Y C f 2 CHX + 50 ... , 0 2 * 7? *Dl 

CHY 

+ 15 
DATA FOR FILE t SINGL 

t(3IcfF' : CFX CFY C.F2 CH" 

PfEhN : c5'4 .,- + 0 3 ,58 t QS 

GFACT 3 

F'FRCT : 

3*OJ 

7 

r.: 4 Z 0 

ItATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

17 tr 14 I w r rr xt EL AX VEL 

230 43+0 30,O 270tO 40tO 

CHX 

+ 8 1 

CHY 

+/33 

MAX t 1479 - +03 + CY' c 10 

IfIN 'c b13 -+I4 423 +Ol 

F:HS ,. 17 E 02 t. r[)P t 01 

GFACT ', 

F'F- A C- T 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

CYY 

+ 0.9 

GFACT 2 

F'FACT : 

DATA FOR FILE SINGL 

I::OHP : crx CFY C.T z CHX 

HEAN t .- +88 * 01 +&4 + 07 

CHY 

to1 
DATA FOR FILE SINGL 

RUM P WIND EL A2 VEL. 

226 180+0 3010 2T1Q+0 30bl 

COMT' f CfX CPY CFZ CMY 

MEAN : .- . ? 5 103 .. 58 +01 

CHY 

,01 

MAX t 

HIt? t 

RMS : 

GFACT : 

Iz'FACT : 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

COMf f CFX CI-Y CfZ CMY 

MEAN t .. 1 '. 03 100 .- , z3 ,03 

GFACT : 

FFRCT t 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

RUN # WIN11 EL AT I..) [I L. 

2~?0 135'0 15,O 270.0 40 + 0 

COPiF' t 

MEAN : 

C 1- CFY CFZ 

1+0O -.,02 *z4 

MAX : - ,4S +Ol + 14 + OZ 

M1t.l : ... 1 t 3 1 .- + 06 -- , c4O ,O? 

t , 2 1 I. 01 t 0t PO1 

GFACT : 

T'FACT 3 

DATR FOR FILE : SIMGL 

CMY 

6 O? COHF' ! 

??ERN t 

CFX CFY CFZ CHX + 00 ... , 0 .$ '. 0 I. ,@I 

nnx : 

M1t.I t 

RMS t 

GFACT : 211,10 L., 20 ,,LC ,-, 7+C1 '7 

T'FACT 7 3e72 7 d+Ll 7 ,,32 , -25 
CtATA FOR FILE SINGL 

f;:UP-I t WIND EL AZ '-..J C L PI 

i- 4 53, 45tO 15+0 2?OeQ -10 ‘0 

cnx 

t0i 

DATA FOR FILE : SINGL 

!?UP4 # WIblTi EL A'L ?I I: L.. 

2 9 1 OoQ 15+0 270.0 40sl 

CFY 

-- * 00 

GFhCT : 

F'FACT 

CHZ 

t QLt 
APPENDIX C 

WIND-TUNNEL DATA FOR ISOLATED HELIOSTA'I 
Heliostat 1, Configuration 1-A 

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

C c I :; tl Run #/ WD EL AZ Day Time . . - . - -- -- 

Sib~ r AM 348 0 25 350 17 2 8 AII 

349 337.5 25 350 17 2 8 A11 

350 315 25 350 172 8 APl 

35 1 292.5 25 350 172 8 AN 

352 270 25 350 172 8 Mi 

353 265 25 350 17 2 8 A?l 

354 247.5 25 350 17% 8 Afl 
Heliostat 1, Configuration 1-A. continued 

\h.liitr Noon 345 0 20 305 355 

Ver. Stow 346 337.5 0 330 355 

Hor. Stow 347 337.5 9 0 330 355 
r\ / 

. -- 

roo 

. c': 

A :.- I'. 

,. :I. " Cl -= 

-" . ... 

. ZQ r\ r # A,. L.' 

t";r";"II:T Z rn 

,;., ,. s ; 1"; ,GO s. + A2 r' r" fi C T t < T'T 4,05 7 "Yn L.. 0 -' I"' 

! 1.1 ! # kt I EI XS I: t P) .- !e! T I.. A 'f 

7.7- 

. 27010 10+0 TZOeQ 

CFY 

.03 

Ilh7'A FOR FILE : F11i00 

D~ITA FOR FILE : HI100 
[:f?t?F' t CfY Cl-Y C 1'- Z c 1.f ': 

MERH 3 - , 5 -? ,Ol ,I0 + 0 1 

TtFiTA FOR FILE : HI100 

DATA FOR FILE : HI100 
'$ C I... 

42'3 

DATA FOF: FILE til1C)Q 

I ! 4 k Gl I I..! D f 1. hZ t! r. L.. 

',v?l T37.5 20,o 3USaO 42,5 
PATA FOR FILE : HI100 

II;CITI?I FCIF: F1L.E 2 t-11100 

f:: ll l.4 t LS 1 t4rt L1 I.. I-I A. I.,! L1 1.. A "7 

7 777,5 ?O + CI 720-/1) %Zt5 

t? t tF-" [? I- Y C 1- :Z C H ':I 

rtft~f! f , QL .. . 0 .a -+ 10 .01 

,01 1 " H 1% >: : ,I: + $J ,. 0 c 

tf I ?-I : .01 so=: ' ?L ,QS 

17HS : iQ2 i. 0 1 + OG , r;r 2 

GFACT : Z + 12 2'22 -? ,77 ,? *50 

3, "15 :? ,. 3 1 7 1- r- 4 T f 2,70 ..., '. 3. ' 

I?ATh F-UR FILE : 131100 
I:IATI$ FOR FILE t t.11100 

DI~TA FOR FILE t HI100 

1 k!II.l1Ct f I.. AZ 

350 215+0 25.8 350tO 

I1h"l'A FOE FILE Z HI100 

2,Zt? 

'v PI "'I 1.: t. I.' 

PATA FOR FILE Z HI100 

C: C! Pf F-' : r. I- X CFY C. 1- 2 CHX 

85EAE.l t 190s ... , 0 2 t 3 .I t 02 7 -7 
DATA FOE FILE : I41100 

~i' u tj t IJ I t.! D e I... A: v K L. 

352 2&5*Q 35.0 35030 .12+5 

~nns t C. t-. :;; CTY I: I- 2 c n ::: 

fJEAb! : 1.CZ -.. , 0 2 ,3.3 + 0 1 

GFACT I 

6'FACJ' < 

DATA FOR FILE : Hi100 

DATA FOR FILE : Hi100 

I % WItiD EL A2 'J I: 1.. -7 F c ,, ,) J 2q7."j ,1590 205'0 .?Z *s 

!?C?MF' t CPX CFY Cl-2 CHX 

HEAP! f 7 "7 r L' / 9 03 + 31 +02 

,. 5' 1 t I? -7 -, b'I A :: t tJL ,. 0; 

ti I r.1 t ,02 . $03 + 1: 1 .. ,07 (., -" : t. -11 ,02 C L ,..' 

ljTACT : Z,?S 2.51 Z+ll '5+*7 

PI-ACT : .? (. E 3 .$ ,. 0 4 d r 1 Lt C -a ,07 

CHY 

+05 

ItATA FCtF: FILE t ti1100 

I';: U I..! 8 I4 I I.? D E 1. A2 V C 1.. 7rr / 255: 0 .q5,0 frc ..> J J . 0 32,5 .! ..! <> 

T:(JHF" : c I' I;; cry crz C t5 :': 

tIEAt4 t .70 ., 97 ,A1 ,. 0 2 

r 1s n7 M ,$ )( t 1. '. 2 + . .I ,C'r7 

MIN "A ... + 0 2 7- t i .*. v r-li " 1 :. 

FlHE : ,, 1 5 t 03 +ll -02 

1 ,A0 c: .-, -I GF'ACT 1 +77 2318 7 -v ,..I . . d 

r"f'AfT : L, + 4 0 f J .. C, E . ,. 2 1 ,., , ? " 

CHY 

* 15 
DATA 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 1 1 O Q 

CPY 

,. 1) :." 
D 11 I A F:' 0 I" F I I.. E: t 1.1 l i 0 0 
Heliostat 1, Configuration 1-B 

- . . - -- - - - - 

Ca-l se Run j/ WD EL AZ Day Time - -- -- 

Srilr AN 394 0 25 350 172 8 AN 

395 337.5 25 350 172 8 AN 

396 315 25 350 172 8 Ml 

397 292.5 25 350 172 8 MI 

398 270 25 350 172 8 AP1 

399 265 25 350 172 8 AM 

400 247.5 25 350 172 8 At1 

Smr Noun 385 247.5 45 305 172 0 Pkl 

386 265 45 305 172 0 PC1 

387 270 45 305 17 2 0 PM 

388 292.5 45 305 172 0 PM 

389 315 45 305 172 0 Pfl 

390 337.5 45 305 172 0 Pfl 

39 1 0 45 305 172 0 PFI. 
Heliostat 1, Configuration 1-B. contiriued 

Case Run ii WD EL A Z Day 7' I OI(> 

Wntr Noon 37 7 

378 

3 7 9 

38 1 

382 

383 

384 

Ver. Stow 392 

Hor. Stow 393 

4 l'ri 

4 1)PI 

4 fJPl 

4 I'll 

4 ljrl 

4 rrl 

4 PPI 

8 AEI 

8 AEI 

-- -. - 
CHZ 

,o: 

GI-ACT : 

PF'ACT 

DhTA FOR FILE : FIiIOi 

CHX 

,OS 

DJ~TA FUR FILE HI101 

I';: U t? 8 W I tZ 11 E L. A2 VCL 

:755 2'j>2(.5 10,U Z3Q+O *?2+5 

l2r;ncT ; I.'! ACT c 
DATA FOE FILE : HI101 

E'Ut.! 3- W I EL A2 VCL 

366 ~Q,Q 1. 0 0 230 + 0 4 2 %. 3 

DATA FOR FILE S HllO1 

T!ATA FOR FILE : HilOl 

CtfY c t'l ::+ 07 .02 

PfA" : 

tfItI : 

RHS ! 

-?A + G2 ? r.11 c c\ $7 .-, r\i ,..! < *. U I.. > c.. 
"7 i? I. i.. . 221 

1. ('t L. 

T:V~TA FOR FILE : HI101 
UI"ITA FOR FILE f t.11101 

MAY. 7 I., 10 <, 1 .? 

~CIMP t c t- :: CFY crx c ttx 

M[:<l : -12 .. * 01 6 0.4 ,. 02 

f1 A >l : , Cz r 07 el7 +I1 

tfIN : ,I? .-* 10 ,02 .. 0 5 

RHS : ,. i i e 02 + 02 , 02 

I!hTA FOR FILE t 1-11101 
DATA FOR FILE : MI101 

! L ! bJ 1 ?.I I1 EL $3;' 'Y' C L.. "I -tCi ... . . :isto 20bQ 205e0 9zt7 

?.:1,77'h FtlR FILE : tii 101 

WCL 

31 6 S 

I:~i'il'A FOE FILE t till01. 
!:lnTA FOP: FILE : t.11101 

DATA FOR FILE : HllOl 

CH'! ' 0s 

Dh'l'A FOR FILE t t.ll1OX 

CF:: cry cr ;I c. tt '-: CHY c 1.1 ::6 07 ,00 + 137 ,132 "02 * D'2 
IIATA FOR FILE 4 M1iOl 

I 1 - w 3: 1.4 D 12 L IJ r.: L . ,- ... ... 232,5 $s,o 305,o .a: + 7 

"52 150_+2-4 1 ,'?..a 7 

, b 26 

ZV37 , , 2 .,$ 7 , ,77 7 "I- d t L' ,'i 

-7 I I. ,I l.? 

. rrO 

4. 12 :.: 

I . k! : W I: t.! D EL AZ VEL 

7 r? 1 9: 9 35+Q 305+0 42 7 

CHX 

to4 
1:tfi'rk F'EtF: FILE t t41101 

DRTA FOF? FILE : till01 
DkTA FOE FILE $ WllOi 

CHZ 

4 02 

7:117TA FOR FILE t MI101 

MRX : 

r 1: p.1 : 

f;; j.f i:; ; 

Dt7TA FQR FILE : WIiO2 

CHZ 

CQi 

GFRCT t, 2950 $+B1 1 +CZ 7 17 

5_+01 

kFACT : .? ,. 3 2, 3e3C 3 e c1 I 13C :95 
DATA FOR FILE t HllOl 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-A 

- -.- 

Casr Kurl j/ WD EL AZ Day Time - - 

WII~ r Akl 136 0 10 320 355 8 All 

137 337.5 10 320 355 8 AN 

138 315 10 320 355 8 Ml 

139 292.5 10 320 355 8 All 

140 270 10 320 355 8 AM 

141 247.5 10 320 355 8 All 

Writ r Noon 148 0 20 290 355 0 PM 

149 337.5 20 290 355 0 PM 

150 315 20 290 355 0 PPl 

15 1 292.5 20 290 355 0 PM 

152 270 20 290 355 0 PPI 

153 247.5 20 290 355 0 PM 

142 247.5 10 265 355 4 P1\1 

143 270 10 265 355 4 PC1 

144 292.5 10 265 355 4 PPI 

145 315 10 265 355 4 PM 

146 337.5 10 265 355 4 PM 

147 0 10 265 355 4 PPi 

Ver. Stow 154 315 0 320 355 8 AN 

IIor-. Stow 155 315 90 320 355 8 ArYl 

- - 

This set to check the effectiveness of presence of the upstream heliostat. 
D:,TA rnn rrLr : 115ooo 

crv cry crz CHY Am v , . . n7 . n? .07 

l313TA FOR FILE t I45000 

CHY 

, Ot: 

MAY : 1. + 50 0 02 ‘12 . 1 k!. 

H I t.1 2 * 19 ,25 '00 + 0A 

ans : ,. 20 ,oz ,02 ,oz 

GFRCT : 

f'FAC'T t 

DATA FOE FILE : I45000 

c.rx cry crz CH: 

;52 .. o 0: 6 07 .. 02 

CHY 

,12 

HRX t 1 +!31 ‘ OZ 1.11 '12 

HIH ! ,32 ' CLtJ ,00 ,. 1 L, m / 

WHS t '% 4 > '7 to" ' 02 i 0.2 

UfiTA FOR FILE 2 I45000 

F:' U 1.I t W I t.1 D EL A2 V f i.. 13': 232,5 1000 ;:20.0 7n 

d, '4 

CHY 

.05 

, ; : 1 6.01 I. 05 . of: . 1 $ 

HIN : -7 ' id ,,is ,02 * 07 

RHS f z I? <. 0: + 02 +OZ 
I3ATA FOR FILE t H500Q 

DATA FOR Ff LE : H5000 

F: U ),I 35 W 3 t4 It EL A2 VCL 

I 247,s IQgO 220,0 3f+3 

CHY CtfZ 

+Ql *OI 

ItA'TA FOF: FILE : t.15000 

RLJN # WXHD EL A2 VCL 

1.92 2.37,5 10tO 2L5+0 -1060 

Cff Y e 1: 

MAX t 

EfIt4 : 

RHS t 

GFACT t 

PFACf 't 

DATA FOR FILE : I45000 
1:IATA FOR FILE : HS000 

c.onF : 

MEAN 

CFX CFY CF2 CHX 

‘. 10 * 02 * 04 1. 00 

CHY 

, 0.4 

HigX : + 73 +0I: t.10 ,05 

MIN ; c.7 

r JA. - ,02 + 02 + 02 

RHS : +13 b01 ,02 "01 

GFAC'T 

T'FACT t 

DATA FOR FILE : H5000 

RUN # WWIt?XI EL A 2 'JEL 

lot0 2CSI.O n :145 31 5+0 ,..* u ,. u 

COHF' ! 

MEAPI 

CFZ 

,.on 

CHY 

, 1-5 

IIATA FOR f1LE : H5000 

R U t4 # tgJ I N 11 EL AZ VEL 

146 337+5 10+0 205t0 33,C 

COMF' : CFX CFY CF: en': 

M E A t.1 : 4.1 ,. 01 +@A (61 

?, / -1 

r.. C L' .' 

3075 

DATA FOE FILE : H5000 

R LJ N II: W I t.1 11 EL AZ VEL 

1 4 7 01.0 10t0 2d5cO Zf ,2 

CRMF 2 CFX CFY CFZ CH:I 

MEAN : 't ? + Q- - 402 +01 +03 

CHY 

+ 07 

MAX ' .90 ,0Z + 07 ,023 

HIM ! - 6.18 - + 0 A r 07 - ,01;3 

RtIC .14 eO1 rO2 .02 

GFACT t 2+EQ 2 + 99 'ir0,L. rc. 4 i. i. 

- -- 

f FACT : 49 06 2'20 2,72 2" 0.4 
DATA FOR FILE ; Id5000 

CQHF' : CFX CFY C.FZ 

MEAN t 40 .- + 03 + 10 

HA).: : Itlo 

If X t.1 : -402 

RMS t +IS 

I~ATA FOR FILE Z W5000 

VCL 

3?,6 

I::Ot.if' t 

HERN Z 

nnx 

NIN t 

RMS : 

IuYTA FOR FILE : W5000 

RUM* WIND El, AZ 

3.50 315.0 2QYO 270tO 

CHY CtfZ 

*I1 .oi CFX CFY CFZ b. 4 9 .- ,02 bll 

cnx 

e 0s 

MAX t i <. St5 t 07 t 21 

MIN -. t23 .-, 13 t 03 

RMS : + 03 + 03 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5000 

C:.DHF' c I- )'I CFY ct-z cnx CHY 

i'fEAN $ +I& - i.00 b02 * 02 +02 

CHZ 

* 0: 

GFACT t 1668 339t1'3 7+58 3.8% IOo63 

F'F'AC'T t 6t24 4684 L,OO 3elO Jtt 97 
DATA FOR FILE : ti5000 

RUE4 3: W 1 ?(Kt EL AX VEL 

152 27r3,0 20+0 230+0 Z? , 0 

CFX CfY 

e01 ,01 

CFZ CHX 

,02 ,01 

MAX t i 43 +1C ,0S ,O!' 

lfZN t - ,53 -to9 -. 12 , 0& 

RHS : +11 0 02 , 01 to2 

GFACT : 23+?8 13+8? 4.92 14+18 

I-' F A C. T : 4.5'2 7 x. 50 2,fZ c -rr .?+dJ 

DhTA FOR FILE t ti5000 

RUN S WIt.!D EL A2 VCL. 

133 32.471'5 2010 230 + 0 39+3 

COMF' : CPX CFY Ct-2 CH': 

MERN : -. 23 , 03 .*08 . ,0;3 

CHY 

- + 09 

nnx t + 20 .17 ,02 b OA 

MXN Z - 7- 

6 ., & - I. 06 ,20 - ,or 

RMS : * 13 + 03 e0Z .02 

GFACT : 2.67 3+85 L + 45 3+Lf C\ 

f FACT : 3051 3673 3.51 2+51 

DATA FOR FILE t H50QO 

RUN # WItfD EL AZ VEL 

15-1 3151.0 Or0 21210,O 33, .$ 

COHF 2 CFX CFY CFZ CHX 

MEAN : ,30 * 00 + 02 P 02 

HAX : 1 +51 + O? + 05 ,21 

MIN : - +47 -. ,On - +I3 el5 

RMS : ,23 + 02 ,02 .O"J 

DATA FOR F1L.E : I45000 

RUN # WIE.!D EL AZ VEL 

155 31530 0010 320t0 39 ,L 

CHY 

,@J COHF' : CFX Cry CFZ CHX 

MEAN t +OF to1 + 05' to1 

MAX : ,IS + 01 +2i5 + 0IS 

MXEl : + 02 - ,03 - +I,!.$ - ,. 05 

RMS 3 +02 +01 +05 e02 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-B 

- - - - - - - - - - 

(:;r s t3 Run f/ WD EL AZ Day Time - . - - . - - - - - - 

Sin r AM 176 0 25 340 172 8 MI 

178 337.5 25 340 172 8 AM 

179 315 25 340 17 2 8 AM 

180 292.5 25 340 172 8 AM 

181 270 25 340 172 8 AM 

182 247.5 25 340 172 8 AM 

Wntr AM 158 0 10 320 355 8 AM 

159 337.5 10 320 355 8 APf 

160 315 10 320 355 8 AM 

161 292.5 10 320 355 8 AM 

162 270 10 320 355 8 API 

163 247.5 I0 320 355 8 APl 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-B. continued 

--- - 

Case Run ik WD EL AZ Day 'r I III(, 

Wntr PM 164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

Ver. Stow 15 7 

Hor. Stow 15 6 

4 I'PI 

4 l'F1 

4 I'M 

4 ['?I 

4 ['PI 

4 E'M 
UATA FOR FILE : El5003 

DATA FOR FILE : H5001 

f L A': VCL091) z20.0 ZPt3 

MAX I 6 6.3 * OC + 02 + 20 

HIN ... , 2 4 -- t 05 e.12 + 00 

F;:MS t 4. 17 eO2 6 02 t OZ 

CHY 

t Of 

IIATA FOR FILE : ti5001 

CHY 

e 03 

CHZ 

4 02 COHP t C 1- X CPY 

I.tEA1.I : ,So -+03 

MAX t 1 +dC 

ff2:Il : .- ,2'? .. 

RM$j : + 2E! 

.4 -7 "'i + -. h.. 
PATA FOR FILE : H5001 

COMF' OF:' CfY C f Z c II X rf E A t4 : "&.A ?3 .- ,00 ,02 v r, %. ? ... CHY 

,02 

MAX : 1+11 +US + OE , 1 .?. 

HXN T ... , 3 2 -, 07 -, 03 .., 11 

RMS t ,. I& + 02 + 02 + 02 

CFACT : 5.05 17tPO 3.90 6+19 r PfACT t -8 r46 3 + 28 3,3L J,E.? 

DATA FOE FILE : H5001 

RUN 3t. WItJD EL A': VfL 

?.!>I 292+5 lO+O 32010 39+1 

MAX : It38 + 07 c. 07 6 15' 

H I t.! t ... , 29 .- b07 -. +07 +03 

RHS ', + 1T + 02 ,U2 +02 

CFACT t A154 37e89 5.35 5'05 

?FACT f L. ;. 7 3 2 + 5'8 2+65 4 6 '2 1. 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5001 

RUPl # MI tID EL A': VEL 

162 27010 10,0 72010 38.7 

CNY 

9 #& 

MAX : 1 +84 , 1 4 + 12 P -G' i LI 

Pt I t.1 t ... , 3 8 .- . 1 2 - 6 03 .. ;2t 

RHS : +=I ,03 02 + QL 

GFACT : 3+73 9 e44 3+12 7,21 

F'FACT : 4 + 4 1 9 ,. ,$ 3 3 1.5'2 3,65 

DATA FOR FILE : W5001 

CHY 

,02 

MAX : t 93 el0 1 05' 1. 1 i!

HIP4 t - c- 13 - t 08 - 9 03 - 1.13 

RMS : t lC c 02 + 02 6 Q4 

GFACT 2 

FFAC.T t 
DATA FDH FILE H5OOi 

ty.@MF' E CPX CFY C.FZ CHX 

hi E A N : .- ,25 + 03 , 09 + 02 

MAX : qq 

+ALL. ,23 + os ,I& MIP! S -1 + 05 ..- 4 0 4 .+I5 c 02 

RME d <+ 1 L* + 02 t 0.2 +02 

DATA FOR FILE : HSOOI 

COHF t CFX cry ct-z cn:: ~~ntr : + oi 0.4 .oo + 02 

CNY 

eoi 

MAX : + 57 + $0 * 07 + OC 

n r r,~ : .- , .+ 5 ..- + o I +OS ,01 F\'MS t 10 +@I E OI? cOI 

GF'ACT 52,25 2173 20,.48 3 e 61 

F'FACT t St39 4+t7 3 + LZ 5 b 5': 

IIATR FOR FILE t H5OOl 

FEUN# WIND EL A2 V C 1.. 

3.55 2Q2c5 iO+O 265,O 39+7 

CHY 

"06 

MAX Z p 72 +I1 , OE t 04 

H'IN t -3 48 .- *04 -+US a +03 

1.;: f3 t 4. 1 4 i 02 + 02 *OX 

GFACT : 5+0i 3,99 5,18 3t80 

F:'F'AC T 4t.10 945'4 3+L9 3+7f 

DhTh FOR FILE : MSOQ1 

I? C! P.1 @ W I PI D EL AX VCL 

It7 31500 1040 255tO Z9,l 

C:@Mf j CFX Cry CFZ CHX 

HEE,AN z t31 to1 +OS +OI 
DATA FOR FILE : I45001 

CHY 

+ 0-4 

GFACT : .1 +31 3.89 2.61 

C) 

1 +'?5 

&'FACT 5 <. 80 4 t 77 it 5'7' 2 + 72 

DATA FOR FILE Z HSOOl 

COMP : 

MEAN 2 

CHX 

,. c10 

GFACT : 2+10 21.13 2+11 f1e7.9 

&'FACT t 4+42 4 <. 85 , 0 71 3, 5-? C) 

DATA FOR FILE Z H5001 

RUrf P WIfID El A2 VCL. 

170 O+O 2010 290,O 39e7 

CQMF' t 

tfEAN : 

MRX : 1 + t-P u 07 i, 2 1 +15 

HIN : ... , 2 5 .- + 12 - + 02 L. 07 

RMS t $25 t ,. rJ , 0Z ,. 03 0 .? 

GFACT : 3+?3 4'71 2.78 2+72 

PFACT f 5 +O? 3 <. 37 4'13 3.2.9 

DATA FOR FILE : H5QO1 

CQMF' : CF-X CFY Ct-2 CMY 

MEAN t e -93 -, 02 o 0lj t05 

CHZ 

.Cl 

MAX : 11.43 + 07 t 1cS 6 1 4 

MItl : -. i. 1 S -‘I1 + 04 +OA 

RMS ?. cLc\ t. LA ,073 t 02 (. 02 

GFACT : 

PFACT 
DATA FOR FILE t HSQOI 

cnz 

4 01 

CFY el-2 CMX .- +OI , oa '04 

tZC!MF r 

MEAN t 

MAX t 

I.fIt.1 : 

RMS : 

GFACT : 2,YP 

Pf"ACT : 3 70 

4 # WIND EL A2 VCL 

2 292t5 20+0 2?0,0 29*? 

COMF t 

MEAN : 

CHZ 

* 02 

HhX i 1 tZC* t OY * 12 t 12 

MXN : - 6 31 -,07 802 + 07 

F:MS : + 20 t 02 t 02 c 02 

GFACT t 

F'FACI' 

DATA FOR FILE : HSOOI 

: 1 W I N F EL A2 VEL 

17.1 270'0 2OtO 290,O 29t5' 

MAX 

tf I b! 

RMS 

GFACT ', 

Fl'fiCT : 

DATA FOR FILE : HSOQl 

COHF' 

MEAN t .. CFY 

,03 

CHY CHZ 

+I1 t QJ 

MAX : 

HIN t - 

RMS t 

GFACT : 

F'FACT : 
DATA FOE FILE : HSO01 

RUN # WIND EL A2 VEL 

17i5 rJ ,. Q 25*0 24010 40 *0 

COMF' :. C.f X Cf Y C. f ;l CH'I 

IIEAN : +03 .- ,02 + 04 *Dl 

CHY 

*01 

MAX : 1+$3 + 03 r h., + 12 0-7 

tl I N : ... . , 0 ... 6 0 9 " * i3 + 10 

RHS f 1, 21 I. 02 + 05 + 02 

GFACT : 33 + 02 5+27 L+53 17e70 

FFACT : 5,25 4+72 4+&1 3 + 54 

DATA FOR FILE : HSOOl 

RUN t WI~~D EL nz sr E 1. 

178 33705 25 1.0 34'3+0 39.9 

CCIMF' t CFX CFY Ct-2 CHX 

MEAN : +31 ,- ,02 + 1 4 + 03 

CHY 

+ 02 

MAX : 

tiIN ; 

RMP, : 

'ACT : 

'ACT : 

IIATA FOR FILE : 

RUN % 

1 3 

CHY 

*01 

CHZ 

b 0.9 CCIMF' : 

MEAN : 

CFX 

+ 48 

CFY 

-*O2 

MAX t 

MIN : 

F.;HS : 

GFACT : 

F'FACT 

DATA FOE FILE : H5001 

t?LJt.I # WIND EL AZ 'JCL 

130 2?2+"J 2560 24010 3?c? 

COHf : c. I- CFY CFZ CHX 

HEAt4 "45 - e00 +I7 +05 

MAX : 1 b.13 + 05 +41 ti3 

~f~tr : -, 1s -.*oh +01 ,05 

RHS : t 20 b 02 + 05 + 02 

GFACT : 

F'FACT 
UATR FOR FILE H5001 

CHY 

*OI 

+ 37 t 0s "r f MAX 'c 2 +;?I + OL 6 3b * 0:) 401 P IQ r7fi nrrj t , 2 5' -. ,u7 + & *' i. 04 

~{pj~ t e iT + 02 e05 1.02 6 C1C +03. 

GFACT : 

F"F"ACT 

DATA FOR FILE : HSOO1 

4 OE rlt ell An MAX : 1 v'3L t .-I? t 'd .? 

?fIt1 : - 7c> r -' -.t3 -- 4 07 ,os 4 15 6 st!.' 

f?HS ? R '7 + 02 & 0 -2 ,OZ ,I2 

DATA FOE FILE : HSOO1 

MAX t 

H1t.t 3 

RNS 

Ih9TA FOR FILE t ti5001 

CMZ 

401 

GFACT f 22 9 58 5.48 26+5& 1$*5$344:.22 '*,OF ].'-'FACT t 4 1-26 3+42 4, Lt2. t 3 s.2 ,*&I s.) 4 ~a -7 "1 
DOTA FOR FILE : ti5001 

CHY 

+ 0.4 

MAX : ts'1 + 14 + 50 t 12 

HI14 f -. + 32 -+I1 0 00 + 15 

EMS Z ,. 1 0 1.03 , 07 + 0.2 

GFACT : 

f:'F"ACT : 

DATA FOR FILE : H5001 

RUN % WIklD EL AX Vf 1.. 

186 319,O 45eO 29010 .10+'9 

CHY 

t 08 CDMF' 

HEAN : 

Cf X CFY C t- Z GMX 3 45 -to1 + 33 '04 

MAX : le45 4. 13 +LT t 10 

bfIN t -+ 13 -+ 15 t 12 ,18 

RMS : + l? + 04 + 0C ' 0-9 

GFACT : 

!"FACT t 

nATA FOR FILE : ti5001 

CFX C t- Y CF2 CtfX 

* 55 - + 01 ,35 ,02 

CMY 

0,!b 

MAX : 1 r29 t11 EST ,. 1 L 

n~rr ; ... , 0 2 - , 13 + 15 + 07 

F:MS : , 17 ,03 +0L +0;-'. 

GFRCT : m ,+3b 22+65 1+70 "J 02 

F'FACT ? 4t31 4t14 3173 9+2A 

DATA FOR FILE : H5001 

F:CIb.I # WIND EL AX 'J f 1.. 

188 9"O 45+0 230tQ 40 tS 

Cf X CFY Ct-Z C H :: + 42 -+QZ + 23 +07 

CHY 

.05 

rsnx : 1 ,2~ ,. os ,,ST . 9. =: 

HIN : .., 13 ... ;. 1 .4 ,07 ,05 

RMS : " 1C 4 0.9 1. 0': + 0: 

GFRCT 2 

F'FACT ! 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-C 

. - - - -- - - 

(:.I s (I Run ## WD EL AZ Day Time . -- 

S~rir AM 213 0 25 340 172 8 AP1 

210 337.5 25 340 172 8 MI 

209 315 25 340 172 8 AM 

206 292.5 25 340 172 8 AM 

205 270 25 340 172 8 API 

202 247.5 25 340 172 8 AH 

253 0 10 320 355 8 APl 

252 337.5 10 320 355 8 Afl 

249 315 10 320 355 8 AM 

248 292.5 10 320 355 8 AM 

245 270 10 320 355 8 AN 

244 247.5 10 320 355 8 AM 

WII t r Noon 230 0 20 290 355 0 Pfl 

227 337.5 20 290 355 0 PPI 

226 3 15 20 290 355 0 PC1 

222 292.5 20 290 355 0 PM 

22 1 270 20 290 355 0 PM 

218 247.5 20 290 355 0 Pkl 

155 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-C. continued 

-- - 

Case Run I\ WD EL AZ Day '1' ~rnc. - - 

Wntr PM 241 247.5 10 265 355 4 I'! l 

Ver. Stow 2 17 315 0 320 355 8 rlEl 

Hor. Stow 2 15 315 9 0 320 355 8 AY 
CHZ 

"01 

c. f- Y C.I-2 CHX 

* 02 + 2.1 k03 

MAX I 1 t 1.3 t QC t 42 ,I1 

?I f t4 e t 06 . t 12 ,I0 ,02 

AHS t r 15 t 03 + 03 PO: 

DATA FOR FILE : MSiOO 

CHY 

t 0s 

MAX r 

tf 1 1.1 : 

F:MS ? 

DATA FOR FILE t ti5100 

-I wIrrn EL AZ VEL 

15'7 25'2,5 .95*0 290'0 42+? 

CHY 

. 0.9 
DATA FOR FILE : H5100 

COMF' : CFX ct-Y crz CH:: 

MEAN t +OD 401 c0S ,02 

CHY 

.00 

MAX : 

MIN ', AMS ; 

GFACT : 5,3? 3e78 3.51 3.72 

F'FACT :? -03 2,01 3.82 2 ' '7 f: 

DATA FOR FILE : HZ100 

RUN 3: WItlD EL RZ VCL 

201 2-3?.5 15.0 2';'0+0 -92 + J 

COMF : 

MEAN : 

MAX : + 38 ,10 * 05 ,. OC 

MXN : -+SO - e0L '21: '. 03 

RMS : t. 10 ,073 1 01 4. (32 

GFACT t 

F'FACT : 

IIATA FOR FILE t H5100 

CMY 

.00 COMF' : 

MEAN : 

MAX : '17 ,00 + A& t. 0? 00 

MII.4 : - 25 - * 0& + 04 .10 

RMS t ,. 1 A 1 02 r 0-9 e02 

GFACT : 

F'FACT ! 

DATA FOR FILE t ti5100 

RUN # WII..lls EL AZ 'J E 1. 

205 270.0 25.0 3.10.0 42 c 3 

CHZ 

.00 

1 +03 t03 0- MAX r + i~ , Of 

PI I t.1 t - + 13 ... , 0 5 '02 * 05 

RMS : el3 e01 103 +02 

7033 73.52 C GFACT : 1e05 c C( 7 Jt21 

PPACT : Jr JL, ,*+ul 43.31 .? 05 
DATA FOR FILE : WSIOO 

CHY 

+Dl 

DATA FOR FILE Z H51QO 

CHY 

-01 

+ 05 t21 tll -. +oL + 02 + 09 

+01 + 02 ,02 

I:1AaT'A I"0F;I' FILE : HSiOO 

CHY CHZ 

a01 * 02 (30HF' Z 

MEAN Z 

DATA FOR FILE t HS100 

CHY Ctf2 

* 0: + 02 

MAX t 

tt J: !*I 

ITHS : 

GFACT : 

wncr : 
IlAI'A FOR FILE H5100 

Rut4 t WIt.JIt EL AZ 'J f l.. 

214 315"3 30+0 220.0 43 + 0 

GFACT : 

F'f AC.T : 

DATA FOR FILE : H5100 

MAX : 1 * 0;' ,Or + 05 <. i !!, -T v t .CV 

iY I t.1 : .- + 30 - + 05' + 09 *il ,.Zl 

FtMS : el€ + 02 +01 ,. o$ * 0C 

GFRCT : 2+?0 20‘35 8+21 5'20 ?i+i7 

F'FAC'T : 5 3+5A 7 315'5' 4. c '7 I!, ,>+&O ,q + Lb 1 

DATA FOR FILE : H5100 

Cf X CT'Y CFZ Cl t! :< CHY 

"05 402 '01 + 00 + 00 

MAX : 

HIN : 

EMS t 

GFACT : i2+39 -Tr 7+52 ibc5f d~+42 i07+&'7 

F'FACT : 4 +06 3+4'1' 3eE5 3,5$ .4 + 2 [, 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5100 

Rut48 MIND E L A2 V11L 

221 27090 20,0 2'70+0 42.5 

COHF' : 

HEAN : 

CHX CHY + 0 1 .0z 

MAX : 

MIN : 

RHS t 
DATA FOr< FILE : H5100 

VEL 

42 b5 

IthTA FOR FILE t t45100 

F: Ll t.1 t W I 14 D CL AZ VCL .L. *. 315,O 2030 290+0 43 +Z 

COMP t C!-)cl CTY CF2 CHX 

MEAN Z + Z5 - c 02 + iZ + 0.3 

MAX : 1 t3C ,05' 

ti I t.1 ; ... " 2 -1 --+ 12 

RNS : *It? + 04 

GFACT : 

F'f-ACT : 

DATA FOR FILE : #!I5100 

f;'LIN t W I P4XI f l AX VEL .i-a& - I 337+5 20+0 270'0 43t5 

GFACT : 

~q-nc-r : 

COHF' Z CFX CFY Cf-2 

FfEhN t 630 -. b02 411 

CHX 

b02 

lJAX : 

MTN Z 

F<HS 't 

GFACT : 

F'FACT : 
DATA FOR FILE : H5100 

RUE! # w ItfIl EL AZ VCL. 

23 1 0+0 1040 2L5+0 13.4 

CHY 

+ 0:. 

MAX : 1 + 0.3 t 03 +05 + 05 

t5 I N t - e09 .-, 04 , 03 - + 0; 

RMS : + 13 *01 +01 ,01 

GFRCT : 2.70 14.34 3.73 16.17 

F'FACT : C ~+52 4*01 3+2L 3tA7 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5100 

RUE! # bJItlD EL A2 VEL 

234 337.5 10+0 255.0 43,s 

COMF' t 

MEAN t 

CFY 

,00 

CHY 

,05 

GFACT : 3+58 22*79 2.40 5eb3 

f'FACT t 4+?7 3,50 :+LO -v n-r ..% * LL ..I 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5100 

RUN # WIND EL Ri! VEL 

236 315.0 10+0 2,5310 42‘3 

COHF' : CF-X C t- Y Cf 2 CHX 

N E A E.1 t b20 101 +02 + 01 

CHY 

+ 03 

MAX : + SL + 05 + 0L tOt 

MI14 : -. t 35 ... + 0 4 -SO2 + 0A 

EMS Z *1L ,01 +01 to: 

GFACT : 4.79 8.85 2.71 7 

9'98 

F'FAC'T ! 4 1. C4 d+ L5 3.03 L'+-J 

7 .-. 1: 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5100 

RUN # 237 

VEL 

42+3 

C'OHF' : Cry CfY Ct-2 CtfX 

MEAN : "to1 ,02 ... t 0 1 ,00 

CHY 

+ 0.9 

GFACT : 101,79 3.68 11.35 13.42 

F'f-ACT z Ze57 C 7 cc J+L? -1 +2Q ,.r c. I.! J 
UATA FOR FILE t M5100 

CHY Ctf Z 

,Q1 00 

nnx ! 

M 1 r.1 c 

RIfS I 

DATA FOR FILE : H5100 

CHY CHZ b 0.3 * 02 

CFY C. 1' Z CHZC + 03 + 02 + 03 

MAX : 

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

DATA FOR FILE t W53.00 

DATA FOR FILE : W510Q 

CHY Ctf2 

,us + o a 

GFRCT : 

Pf: hC. T : 
PhTA FOR FILE : HS100 

CHY 

,01 

L.. F .Y CFY C.rZ 

'39 '01 + 0.9 

MAX : 1+1a + 12 * OG I. -,-. L L 

MIN : + 13 , ti1 + 00 + 07 

RMS : 617 + 02 +01 + 01 

GFACT 2 2'39 13.91 2t00 1+03 

F'F-ACT 4e95 2t57 3028 4 , ? :? 

DATA FOR FILE : H5100 

COMF' : 

MEAN 

CFY 

... * 0 0 

CHY 

*01 

MAX : 1 <. OL 

HIt4 ... , -9 2 

RMS t 1. It 

GFACT : 

F'FACT ; 

DATA FOR FILE : H5100 

RUN # WIND E 1.. A2 'JCL 

252 737,5 10.0 220t0 42 + 7 

COMF' ct-x ct-Y crz CHX 

MEAN t ,32 - . 01 + 03 .02 

MAX t 1 e21 +07 t 07 ,15 

tfIN : .., + 1 7 -.i 10 ,02 + 02 

RMS : +is . 03 +OI +oa 

GFACT : 3,32 8.53 2t35 .?,=A 

PFACT t 5+$3 31.04 3t3G 3 1.2T 

DATA FOR FILE : I45100 

RUN t WItJD EL A2 VEL 

253 0 + 0 10.0 220'0 42,s 

C@MF t 

MEAN : 

CTY CFX CHX 

,+O2 t 03 101 

CHY 

,01 

MAX t +EL , 0C + OE 6. 1.? 

M1t.I : .-, 20 ... , 1 5 ,01 +1A 

1:: H : 1 4 ,oz +01 . 0 .? 

GFACT : 

F'FACT 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-D 

- - - - - - - - 

CCI bt' Run // WD EL AZ Day Time - - - - - - - - . - - . - -- - A-- -- - 

silt r. A~I 212 0 25 340 172 8 API 

2 11 337.5 25 340 172 8 AN 

208 315 25 340 172 8 AN 

207 292.5 25 340 172 8 AM 

204 270 25 340 172 8 M1 

203 247.5 25 340 172 8 AM 

Writ r Noon 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-D. continued 

- -. - 

Case RII~I $F WD EL AZ Day I IIIC. 

- -- - 

Writ r PPI 242 247.5 10 265 35 5 4 L'!I 

Ver. Stow 216 315 0 320 355 8 /Ib] 

Hor. Stow 215 3 15 9 0 320 355 8 APl 

- - 
llC11'A FOR FILE : !,I5iQl 

URTA FOR FILE : HS101 

CHY 

+ 02 

DATA FOR FILE : H5101 

: L -1 bJ 1 tl It E I- A:: 'SCL 

5 337,s 45,O 2TOiO 43,2 

DhTA FOR FILE : ti5105 

CHZ 

+OI 

MAY, : 

HIN Z 

RHS ; 
DATh FOE FILE : HSlOX 

c f- x CFY 

+07 + 02 

MAX : 

HItI : 

RHS : 

GFrACT : 

F'FACT Z 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5101 

F?U 1.1 i: M I N It f 1. A2 YCL 

:.:oo 2.?7+5 45+0 230t0 43 0': 

DATA FOR FILE t ti5101 

DATA FOR FILE : H5101 

1. ?3 r 02 ~9 ,07 m-7 MAX : 0 LL i ij 

tt I tr : ... -1 *Ad .- ,06 ,903 + 07 + 20 

RMS : + 1 .? +01 + 01 ,02 . OL 

GFACT ? 

F"TACT ; 
DATA FOR FILE t WSl03 

1113TA FOR FILE : 1.35101 

4 8 MIND f L A2 VCL 

29s 315cO 25+0 341)kO 92,s 

MAX : 1 +$; H X t-I 'p .*. * I"' A 

RHE : 4. 1 4 

CttlTA FOR FILE 3 M5101. 

DATA FOR FILE t kt5101 

CtfY CNZ 

b01 +00 

MAX t t LS t 05 e 1 4 + 12 

PI 1 t.1 : ... , 5 3 --, 07 + 10 ,OS 

1.3 f4 .f 0 1 J' E 02 + 0: + 0; 

GP'ACT ; 22.37 f dt72 2.3+2& $c?? 

F'FACT ? 2, { -7 

.I '-, i Je73 3174 h.b t t> u 
DATA FOE FILE : H5101 

(2 (3 t.1 F' : c 17 C.f Y CrZ i= rf >: 

MEAN : + 01 b00 ,02 i. 00 

CHY 

,02 

MAX : 

HIt4 : 

F:MS : 

DATA FOR FILE : H5101 

nnx t , ~4 + 06 ,. 03 '11 

M I t.I 3 ..- , 2 5 -. + 06 .,. ' 0 4 '03 

EMS : 611 * 02 C0.l <. 02 

GFACT t 51&& &7+6!3 $+75 13+12 

1::' F A C. T : 5'12 3 ,. 04 ,., ,4C 3 , "3 

DATA FOE FILE : H5101 

CHZ 

.. 02 

COHF' t CF-x c t- Y c I- :: c n :.r 

MEAN t .-, 05 + 03 - '02 ,02 

CMY 

'02 

MAX t 1. 39 + 1 4 + 07 p1.2 tfIt? : - ,53 .-, 03 . e 17 P CI i J3 

; + 1 4 + 03 + 0 7 ,-I , 0.3 

DATA FOE FILE t H5103 

MAX : 1. 4 9 t 12 t 12 + 05' 

tiIN ! ... 1 3 5 -ell + 03 . 12 

!.:HS +I1 to; c '3: +oz 

GFACT t 19*39 12r13 ll+f7 .-. I r) UtVl 

Pf ACT : J ,. 3 : 2,CO 4+02 %+I0 
DATA FOR FILE H5101 

CFY 

POI 

GF'ACT t 2 17t01 2t39 yr-fic~ r 4 ,PI 3+\11. 4-21 

DATA FOR FILE S H5101 

VEL 

33,4 

MAX : 

H I PI Z 

t?'MS : 

DATA FOR FILE t I45101 

GFACT ; 

PF'ACT ? 

IqA'l'A FOR FILE : t-15101 

4 30 t 20 + 17 77 MAX : 1 c33 e ~.i .r 

HIt4 : ... '7 e3 + A. I..* .-+ 15 +02 + 07 '-3 r A&. 

RHS v IT r 04 t 0.3 t OZ + OL 
I:li'il'A FOR FILE : t353.01 

r;: u pa c. WI t.1 KI E 1.. 1.1 EL. 

232 0 ,. 5 10e0 2L5r0 43 e 4 

GFACT : f"ffiCT : 

DATA FOR FILE : W5101 

Ti: U N I itl l t.I D EL 13 2 V E t.. ' 337 $5 10+0 26LPO 4362 

MAX t 

HIt4 : 

]?HS 7 

GFRCT t 

T'FACT : 

DATA FOR FILE : I-I5101 

I.? 132 -? m; ,..@ t .i.. I..' 

GFACT : 

I-' T h C. T 7 

DATA FOR FILE : H51Q1 

CFY CI-2 + 02 -. t 03 

CHY 

to2 

GFACT : 23s?i 5r:S 3+f1 Lt70 iwm : c ,I i .t 7 4 '.LC 4 t 54 : ,9Cf c 
DkTA FOR FILE 3 !I5101 

PtAX : 

HIN : Ens ; 

DATA FOR FILE : H5101 

CHY 

+ 0.4 

DATA FOR FILE : H5101 

1:;: ~t t4 # W l tl D EL 4-11 VEL 

2q3 237+5 10,O 32ObO 12+2 
UATA FOR FILE : H5101 

MAX : ,?2 *11 1 0L +12 

M I t.1 : ... + 2 4 .- +03 +02 ,.On 

RHS t ,. 1 .a ,03 +01 + oz 

GFACT : 

F"F- l%C T ; 

UhTR FOR FILE : M5101 

MAX : 

H I t.! t 

RHS : 

GFACT : 5.25 7+69 3+51 1S+ZZ 

PI-ACT :. 4, LC - n7 2+75 .T &.+,,..~ 4+In 

DATA FOR FILE Z ti5101 

MAX : 1 +07 + 0C +07 +1C 

M1t.I t -.. i 2 7 .. '03 .. '04 +I0 

RHS : , 1L t 02 + 02 <. 13 $ 

DATA FOR FILE t ti5101 

Rut4 % IJIfID E L AZ V C: L.. :>5 3 0 .:. 0 3.01/3 Z20+0 42.5 

crtr 

,0i 

ft I tI t 

RHS 

GFRCT : n 

, ,12 5.73 2*5: 27'22 

!-'TACT : r -? c-C 2,Ci 7 

,I cC0 L- 1 L' Y' ,+ ?I'. 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-E - -- -- - -- -. - -- - - - -- - & 

 IS(^ Run li WD EL AZ Day T i iile 

- - - -- - -- -- - - -- - -- 

Srll r iZM 279 0 25 340 172 8 AM 

28 1 337.5 25 340 172 8 M1 

282 315 25 340 17 2 8 APl 

283 292.5 25 340 172 8 APl 

284 270 25 340 172 8 AI.1 

285 247.5 25 340 172 8 MI 
Heliostat 5, Configuration 5-E. continued. -. .- . - 

('asp Run ii bQ EL A Z Day 'r' i IIICI 

--a -. - 

Wntr PM 26 1 247.5 10 265 355 4 PM 

Ver. Stow 213 315 0 320 355 H Ah[ 

Hor. Stow 274 315 9 0 320 355 8 ii?l 

-- -- - -. - . 
DA7.A FOR FILE 5 145102 

It13Th FOR FILE : ti3102 

GF'ACT Z 1 lot82 "I 2t45 12cE2 

FF'ACT t 4+4$ b* t 3 4 &.b t L' t..* 4 +55 7 /7 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5102 

1;:ut.l* MIND ?\ c: -'I f L AZ VCL .- .J / Z15tO IOoU Z20,O 42 t 3 

DATA FOR FILE : HS102 

F;:trf! * WIND EL AX 158 332,s V c L .. &, 1090 220+0 41 +A 

CUMP : C t- X CPY CfT CH:! 

tf C: A N : +xi -+01 *oz ,OO 
DATA FOR FILE : ti5102 

(::OMf:' : 

MEAN t 

,I1 , 0A + 1T CIn MAY. : ,5'$ + L L' 

MItI t -, 30 t 10 t 02 +10 + LL. 

e.7 

I7MS : +I7 ,02 +01 +@3 6 0:' 

GFACT t 

i,:' F tj C T 

DATA FOR FILE : H5102 

RUN # WItlKl 

260 247' , '5 

CNZ 

,02 

MAX : 

MIN : 

RME ! 

GFACT t 3603 71tSi5 2.4C 11 7 047 n -1 15+25 

f'FACT .$+ 7C 2'21 &a+ /u ,.,% , ,..* .: 7 n/ 7 .-) 1) dl.., , 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5102 

CUHF' t 

MEAN : 

CFX 

,20 

+10 + 05 +11 CI ,I MAY + 4L e L... 

It t -.. 1 , 2 5 - ,153 -. a 1 4 + 05 + 3s 

RHS f .-i ,-i 

(. L. .<- t 02 <. 02 t 02 . 0;' 

GFACT : 

F'F-ACT ! 

DATA FOR FILE : 145102 

I?IJl.? # IJINft E L. A2 VCL 

262 270,~ 10.0 26590 42 + 3 

CFY 

.01 

CHY 

t 00 

MA): : 

MIN : 

RMS t 

GFACT : 3.3'23 1S.06 7 ,+13 10+'?1 170+7C 

F'I"ACT t -t 7n 7 

.t , 1 :' 7 -/ J,77 4 c52 d + ,.I LL ,Jc-L* 
DATA FQF: FILE : 145102 

F?IJN # WIND EL. 62 

253 272P5 lot0 ZSS+O 

cnz 

to3 

RMS : el5 6 02 t 01 

DRTA FOR FILE : H5102 

CHY 

, ('5 

DATA FOR FILE : W5102 
DATA FOR FILE : HS102 

MAX : 

HIN : 

F:H6 : 

GFACT : 

!-'FACT t 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5102 

COHf' f CFX C I- Y CFZ CHX 

t1EAt.I t 0 1A -.+ 01 ,0Z +Dl 

DATA FOR FILE : HZ102 

T;: u N t ~1 I 11 rt E:: L AX VEL 

2 J15,O 20+0 2'1'0,O 43,2 

COHf' 

MEAN + 

MAX : 7 "1 

, .' .' 

PfIN t -.a 13 

GFACT : L72 101+32 Z,S~ 22+.33 

F'FACT 3 6.. t 1 4 .J r .I 3+LL 7 F7 7 

L.3 '. 2 1 

DhTA FOR FILE t ti3102 

COHT' : r t- x CFY CF-z C: n ;! 

MEAN $ +l J ,01 103 +00 

MAX : 1 +.?I el3 + 1? ,I: 

n1r.r : + 37 -.+11 , 0.0 + 

RMS : + 1 i!, +03 t 02 + 0.: 

CFACT : 3.37 1&+25' 5+4C bZY70 

!-'TACT Zt00 ,-I + 17 I-\ I t -7 L -1 

7 

-6 * ,!b 1 
IIATA FOR F-XLE 2 HS102 

MAX ', 

HItl : 

F:HS t 

DATA FOR FILE t H5102 

DAl'A FOR FILE : It5102 

GF'ACT r sc76 7,oo 

7 5tXS f+3S F:*FncT r 5 ,. z.q dk21 3 + L$, Z + {,.t 

DATA FOR FILE WS102 

MAX t 

I.4 I 1.4 : 

F:HS t 
DATA FOR FILE : W5102 

f? U l.4 5 U I t.1 It EL AX VEL .-\ 7 n .&./ ) 0e0 25p0 2.-10,0 -12 ,': 

GFACT : 

F'f'ACT i 

DRTA FOE FILE : H5102 

CF'X CfY Cf Z CHX 

+ 15 -+01 + 0; t 00 

CHY 

,02 

1'03 '02 mn MA.X t I LC. ,lo 

PfXN j ..- , 3 0 -. + 0': SO1 '10 

1.7 M S : +14 + 01 4 0z ,0: 

GFACT : 

F'FACT : 

DATA FOR FILE : ti5102 

MAX : *71 '02 +I? + 0$ 

HIN ... , 2 5 .-,0J + 03 , 07' 

F:H~ t c 12 *Ol + 02 ,- 02 

DATA FOR FILE 3 ti5102 

'J c 1.. 

42+? 

C H I: CHY C ttT 

* 02 , 0.4 6 00 C. k- >! CFY Ct-2 + l? ,- ,00 * 05 

MAX : +?7 + 0.9 el4 

 MI.^! a -. ,2 5 - , 0.4 e02 

F< P.f S t 6 15 +01 + 02 

GFACT : 5&05 rd+SC 2.75 

F'FRCT t 5,22 ,+SO 4'11 -I 
C H'f 

,OZ 

DATA FOR FILE t MS102 

1:OHF' c 1- " GI' Y Cf-2 CHX 

HEAN Z 27 t 00 t 10 t 02 

MAX t 1 e03 t 05 + A+. ell *-b 7 

tf1:t.r t ... b 3 0 - b Oh + 02 + 0': 

RHS t t17 661. + 02 t 02 

DATA FOR FILE t H5102 

CFY 

to2 

DATA FOR FILE : )I5202 
DATA FOR F1L.E : H3102 

CHY 

,0S 

MAX : , 60 + 10 e 47 +On 

tf I PI : .. * 2 -2 - + 07 .,05 ,10 

I!' H E : ,. 10 ,02 + 0L ,. 02 

GFACT : 

!-'FACT : 

DATA FOR FILE : H5102 

I~CIN t wltart EL A: VCL 

233 315,.O 45.0 270+0 .72 ,? 

C13HT' C1 I- >I CFY C I' 2 C tf '! 

PI E A t.! t * 12 ,O1 * 12 .00 

GFACT : $i39 14+14 3.22 2.1 + A1 C ,A r 0s 7 n .-I r'fmACT .? +sC 4 t OA ,..L , c' i 

DATA FOR FILE : H5102 

R U 1.4 1. \kt I 1.4 It EL AZ 'JEL 

23G 397,5 -15,0 270tO 12e5 

CHY 

605 

MAX : ,. (It A t 0C a 1 1 *I0 

HIN : ..+ 13 ,OC +02 '07 

RMS : + Irf +02 ,05 +02 

DATA FOR FILE : W5102 

t W I1.!1t EL hZ VC L 

231 OY!? .$s60 23060 42 +7 

CfX CFY CF2 CHX 

.I3 - '00 + 1C ,OZ 

MAX ; 4 4:: * OE , 37 + 1. : 

M I E.1 + .. ,I2 ,,. , 1 1 ,02 ,01 3 l.11 c.02 1. 0 7' ,02 

GFACT : 

F'FAC'T 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-A 

Case Run i/ WD EL AZ - - - - - - . - -- - -- - ---- - -- - -A -- --- 

Ver. - Stow 411 265 0 5 - - . - . - 

Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-B 

- 

(Zll LC Run WD EL AZ {/ of Rows 

Ups t real11 -- - . -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - 

Ver. SLUW 41 1 265 0 5 10 
[:: [I 1.Y" : 

t:: 3 

cr: cn:: 

*00 ,00 

DATA F'OF: FILE: t t42200 

ItATA FOF? FILE 3 t.1'3200 
CHZ 

* 02 

DATj? F:'OE FILE : !I3200 

7,.21 15,@5 L, +52 .4b(.,3 .$!)1,7': 

S,Q5 L. 

,..b 4. z 1 0 fir- Il., ;-r'c. *. ,, .I Ll ::cT? 

~IATA FOR FILE ' E.13200 
DATA FOR FILE : I13200 

'f C\ , ..L V 

> i Tin .' 

, Of 

MAX t 

ti I P4 ? 

1:: H ; 

DATA FOR FILE : H3200 

l'i \!f.! t ~1 1 b( D C I. A2 (SCL f ,421 215.C 0+0 J i. 0 32'7 

Ctf ':

.03 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-C 

Run WD EL AZ Field 

Density 

G A 

Vclu-. Stow 41 1 265 0 5 0.238 
UATA FOF: FILE : 1-13300 

CHY 

' 07 

Itfi7'A FOR FILE : 143300 

DA'l'A F'OF: FILE : kt3300 

CHX CESY 

+01 ,05 
L,53 ZP20 7 4- L.' C '7 .-' 2 ,.Z.? 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-D 

Case Run WD EL AZ fl Rows 

Upstream 

Ver. Stow 424 265 0 5 5 
r: t:) 1.7 Y : c I-- cry c I- z en..;, kt r:: FI t.! : , (. fl z .. o 0s +OI +OC) 

1tF1Th FOR FJI-E t t13400 

DATA FOR FILE ti3400 

URTR FOR FILE Z HZ400 

(" @ 1.4 I-' ; Cr-x CTY CI-2 

PI C:' R ).I *71 .- + US +Ol 

CHZ 

+ 0: 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-E 

-- -. 

Case Run WD EL AZ i/ Rows 

Upst x-fxcjnr 

Ver. Stow 427 265 0 5 5 

430 265 0 5 :3 

433 265 0 5 2 

436 265 0 5 1 

.. - ~- 
CHZ 

; '3: 

IIC~TA FOR FILE : H3401 

CHY 

*01 

1:tATA FyOR FILE t tiJ4Ql 

CHZ 

& 02 

DI?TA FOR FILE Z HZ401 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-F 

-- -- - 

Cdse Rurl WD EL AZ Rows 

lips t rc'dlrl 

- -- - - - - 

Ver. Stow 428 265 0 5 r 
F:IJEI # WIND 

2 :: :> 255 P 0 

("1 I? I:" t Cf-51 cry ?tv::;)rl : 4:). ,at 04 

GI-ACT : z1.fT 3t74 

I-' F' A C 'f t 4 t 2 L* 4ciZ 

DATA FOR FILf : H3402 

VCL 

42 *? 

RUM# WIND 

.? 3 j. 

EL 

255 + 0 0,O 

~OP-I~" : Cf- >: CFY 

EfC,nr~ ; P 3? -to3 

MRX : 

1.5 1 1.4 : 

F;;' M C t 

IlhTA f-OF'( FILf : ti3402 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-G 

-- - -- 

Case Run WD EL AZ Rows 

Upst rfb,jnl 

\7er. Stow 49 3 265 0 5 5 
Dh?A FOR FILE : M340S 

DI'+TA FOR FILE : Hz405 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-H 

-- - -- - - -- - - - - 

Case Run WD EL A Z // I<ows 

ups t r-~~<illl 

- - - - - 

Ver. Stow 494 265 0 5 5 
IthTR FQR FILE W390& 

MAX t It30 t OC 

ff :I t1 ; .-. P 24 

-7 

"-007 

tTHS : i a: rmL + 02. 

DATA FOR FILE : HZ905 

~:OHP : C:F x CFY C. F z cnx CHY 

ME: IWN ; + 22 -*QO ,02 ,02 401 

MAX : 

Pf f t.1 t 

REfS : 

MTA FOR FILE : W340b 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-1 

-- 

Case Run WD EL AZ 

Ver. Stow 432 265 0 5 

439 247.5 0 5 

440 2 7 0 0 5 

441 292.5 0 5 

442 315 0 5 

443 337.5 0 5 

444 0 0 5 
I!I?TA FOR Ff L..l: ? t.13500 

cnz 

* OZ 

DATA FOR FILE t HZ500 

cnr 

t US 

DATA FOR FILE : H3500 

AX VEL 

5tO 42.2 

cnx 

t Oi 

MAX : 1 c7f + 07 e 12 t 07 t53 

tf 3 tI : .- t 10 . * 22 t 07 0s * ,!lo 

RHS : + ZO t 0.4 + 02 t 02 t I4 

IlhTA FOR FILE : ti3500 

CFACT t 

F'FACT t 
UhTA FOE FILE : H3500 

AZ I..' C L 

5.0 32 5 

Ct"Z CHX CHY C tZ 2 

* 02 *02 0 00 " 0 9 

DATA FOR FILE : ti3500 

I. bj I tt II EL A2 IltL 

333 337.5 Oe0 5.0 $2,';' 

CQHF* ! Cf-x CfY Cf 2 CH): 

I.1EAt.I : 6 2S , 0 ,!, ,02 , 00 

DATA FUR FILE : ti3500 

RUN # W 1 kITt EL A: VCL 

4 4 4 O+O 0'0 500 92.5) 

MAX : 

PfIN f 

RMS : 

CHY 

,01 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-5 

Case Run WD EL AZ 

Ver. Stow 433 265 0 5 

45 1 247.5 0 5 

450 270 0 5 

449 292.5 0 5 

448 315 0 5 

447 337.5 0 5 

446 0 0 5 
HAX : 

I.11 tl : 

RHS t 

IIATA FOR FILE : ti3501 

I? Uf.l % W I t.ID EL AZ VEL $2~ 0 4. 0 0 , 0 "JIQ -921.5 

CTZ CHX 

+00 ,01 

MAT: t ,LC + 0C + 0C + CIL 

tf1:tI t -1007, 0 12 6 05 +05 

EM!; 6 -7 

tLL) + 02 *Oi ,02 

DQTR FUR FILE : H3S01 

RUN t LJItIIS f L AZ VCL 

5'37 327.5 0*0 5 c 0 42,7 

CHY 

to1 

DATA FOR FILE : H3S01 

CHY 

101 

MAX : l +&I c 07 , 0C + 05 C1 FfIN 3 1. -1 < ..- , 1 7 * 03 , 05 

RHS -r 7 6 *$ L) , 0 .?. +01 ,- 02 

GFACT t 

F'FACY t 
f '7 c rl r7 ..-I : i.' r I.. : " I .- !.'I? 

r; ' , f 

I.', 1;- A) ,-. . . ... 'J' t 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-K 

Case Run WD EL A Z 

Ver. Stow 434 265 0 5 

45 2 247.5 0 5 

45 3 270 0 5 

45 4 292.5 0 5 

455 3 15 0 5 

45 6 337.5 0 5 

45 8 0 0 5 
(7 :3 H 1'' :: ,.; y- ':/ 

: 1 1 : A I *\ r.. 

- 1 ! # W 1 ).! I! £: L- c:,: <\ r> ?> c; _I... A_>... 9 6 1? 

r; F- fA. j., '1 + 

... J... 2 -zr: .q 2 5 1-0 1: !., i:; '7. * A C'-> ... . >,! . '7 A .? I.. I . .... '7 / t.? ,.. i- i..' >..I 
rtfi'r : ? q.2 ,:> . c'tc , p ." 

?.! 'I' >) ., .. . i 2 - > II . .Q'? 1: p! :; : , ." .- /:, ,. '2 '.? .01 L. 0 1 

j:! fi Y )?I F- !:) f;: I:- I L. E : t.1 3 5 0 2 

I, I I- 

, r.. I. c 

a ., n ? 5. 5‘ 

$ 17 

4 .. ..I A.. 

.-I <I,? ?. , t ."\ z-, 1.. 8 t. i.' A. / >.. ... 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-L 

Case Run FJD EL AZ 

Ver. Stow 486 247.5 0 5 

485 265 0 5 

484 270 0 5 

482 292.5 0 5 

48 1 315 0 5 

480 337.5 0 5 

479 0 0 5 
DATA FOR FILE : I43502 

GI-2 CHX 

to1 to1 

CHY 

t 0s 

MAX ; + LS +02 

HIN t -1 >53 '10 

I;:MS ,2@ t 02 

DATA FOR FILE : H3503 

RU1.4 t WIND 

-230 337+5 

CHY 

*02 

MAX i 1 +48 t 05 

4 t -+,.!I -. ,09 

~ns : . 2s + 02 

GFFjCT : 15113 5 + 0.4 

PFACT t 4+90 3e2f 

DATA FOR FILE : H3SO3 

RUN % MI tI11 EL 

,181 315,O 0.0 

CFZ C-HX 

to2 '00 

CHY 

to.!, 

MAX : 1 eLJ *Of 

H1t.I t . , J5 -"+11 

Rns : + 30 + 02 

GFACT : 5111 15t-10 

F'FACT ; 4 +42 f .J+22 

DATA FOR FILE : H3503 

CHY 

to2 

MAX : 1 *21 ,07 

t11N t .- ,24 -+Ob 

RHG : ,20 ,02 

GFACT : 

PFACT : 
1:tATh FOR FILE 2 H3503 

fiUtIt WTHD EL AZ VEL 

,934 270+0 OtO 5 + 0 -42 tS 

ItATA FOR FILE : 143503 

RUM # WXND EL AX VEL 

485 265,O 0 + 0 !5*0 42+? 

MAX f 3. t93 b OE + 02 +05 

Et5N t .- t35' .-. + 0 i5 + 07 .. t 03 

~:ns : + 25 , 02 ,o= +01 

DATA FOR FILE H3S03 

I?CIHF' : CFX CFY CTZ CHX 

HEhN t @ 315 +Ol to1 c OO 

NAY, t X e43 + OC + 05 ,03 

FfIM j -+33 .+OS + 03 + 05 

RMS : t 25 + 02 t 02 PO3 

GFACI : 

F'FACT ; 

CHY 

, 0.3 

CHZ 

'02 

CHZ 

t 00 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-M 

Case Run WD EL AZ 

Ver. Stow 467 247.5 0 5 

469 265 0 5 

470 270 0 5 

47 1 292.5 0 5 

475 3 15 0 5 

47 7 337.5 0 5 

478 0 0 5 
IIATI",DOF: FILE 't E-1350-3 

IIATA FUR FILE : H3504 

CF-Y 

* 02 

MAX t 

bf I f.1 t 

1:: If S t 

GFACT : -3 o 3 5 7t?9 

F'FRCT ? 9+22 ?+Lo 

DATA FOR FILE : I43504 

CHY 

+ 07 

MAX :. 1 +CE @ 3.7 

PfIN : - +71 t 05' 

RMS : + 30 t QZ 

DATA FUR FILE : ti3504 

CHY 

,Ol 

CHZ 

.oz 
DATA FOR FILE : H3504 

RUN # MItlD EL A2 VEL 

475 315t0 0.0 5.0 .42* 3 

COHF' : CF:: CFY CFZ cn:r 

MEAN : +29 - * 02 e00 e 01 

CHY 

.Q7 

GI;-ACT : 10135 7t30 35*3& 12t24 

F'FACT c 3t55 CT dtLL 7 ncl ,..\ , 75 SJ t b.'... 

DATA FOR FILE : ti3504 

A2 VEL 

5*0 -72 t2 

Ct3HP : CFX Cf Y Ct-Z CHX 

HEAN : 1.4 - + 04 *Ol +00 

CHY 

, 02 

CHZ 

,0=: 

MAX : 1 bE0 ,01 ,01 +05 

NIN : -t53 -+li *0& + 0 4 

RMS t 1215 6 OZ t 02 to1 

DATA FOR FILE : H3504 

CHY 

.02 

GFACT : 

F'FACT 
Heliostat 3, Configuration 3-N 

Case Run hQ EL AZ 

Ver. Stow 502 247.5 0 5 
FZ u 1.1 t w I t.1 D EL nz 

-, L re 

VCL 

9 "' ;, J 0 ., , : 0'0 500 32+5 

GFACT ! 

I" F 19 C T : 

DATA FOR FILE : H3505 

DATA FOR FILE : ti3505 

CHY 

+ 02 

MAX t 1 t30 ,0J t.05 ,. 0: 

MIN : ... , 2 3 - ,0& ... , 0 7 t 0A 

RHS ,20 +C)2 e02 *01 

DATA FOR FILE : W3505 

CHY 

,01 

4b517 17123 6 '32 c? If J t u*, r 3t0f 7 t <> A 6 9 .2 J + ,!sf ..s c u LL 
1:lATA FOR FILE t ti3505 

MAX : 

nnr I 

1?HS t 

GFACT t - 'i 

DATA FOR FILE : I43505 

CHZ 

* 02 

MAX z I +oe 

??IN Z .- ,32 .." 

Yil.jt3 2 >% 7 + .i. I-' 

GFRCT : 61 +39 StSP 

F:'FA{?'T' 4 +zT 3e7C 

DATA FOR FILE : H3505 

I-:: ct pa ~t: M I N D EL 

5/37 OCO 0'0 
Heliostat 4, Configuration 4-A 

-- -- - -- - - - 

Case Run WD EL A Z Day 'r 1 ~IIC~ 

- --- - 

Smr AM 465 265 4 0 350 172 8 tlPl 

Sn~r Noon 466 265 60 305 172 0 [)PI 

L'ntr Noon 464 265 40 305 355 0 tJPl 

Hor. Stow 460 265 9 0 330 355 8 AM 
III"I'I'A FOR FILE 3 t14100 

CHY 

* 02 

X3ATA FOR FILE 'o 1.f-1100 

CHY CH2 + 01 6 02 

MAX : 

HIN : . - F:HS t 

1';: tJ f.1 # M X PI D E I,, A: 'JEL 

?k83 2qi.5+~ 25,O 2'70tO 3217 

CFX CFY c]- , 0 4 +Oi * 03 

SELECTED DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Acurex Solar Corporation 

485 Clyde Ave. 

Mt. View, CA 94042 

Mr. Don Duffy 

Advanco Corporation 

40701 Monterey Ave. 

Palm Desert, CA 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, CA 94 1 19 

Mr. Pascal DeLaquil 

Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers 

1500 Meadow Lake Parkway 

Kansas City, MO 64 11 4 

Dr. Charles Grosskreutz 

Brumleve, Mr. Tom 

Consultant 

1512 N. Gate Road 

Walnut Creek, CA 94598 

Dan-Ka Products, Inc. 

3862 South Kalamath 

Englewood, CO 80 1 10 

Mr. Daniel Sailis 

Department of Civil Engineering 

Colorado State University 

Ft. Collins, CO 80523 

Mr. John Peterka, Ph.D. 

Professor, Civil Engineering 

Department of Civil Engineering 

University of Nebraska 

60th & Dodge Street 

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, CO 8040 1 

Mr. Jerry Bellows 

El Paso Electric 

P.O. Box 982 

El Paso, TX 79960 

Mr. James E. Brown 

Electric Power Research Institute 

P.O. Box 10412 

Palo Alto, CA 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. 

Jet 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, CO 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 Otts 

Mr. James Leonard 

Dr. Donald Schuler 

Science Applications, Inc. 

1040 1 Rosselle Street 

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 and 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. Bim Gupta 

Dr. Dave Johnson 

Dr. Larry Shannon 

Mr. A1 Lewandowski 

Dr. Lo Me Murphy 
3 Reclp~ent's Access~on No 

5 Publ~cat~on Date 

May 1986 

7 Author(s) J. A. Peterka, N. Hosoya, B. Bienkiewicz, 

J. E. Cermak 

3 Performlng Organlzat~on Name and Address 

Fluid Mechanics & Wind Eng. Program 

Colorado State University 

Fort Col 1 ins, CO 

Go1 den, Colorado 80401 -3393 I 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Document Control 2. NTlS Access~on No 

Page 

8 Performing Organlzat~on Rept NO 

10 Pro]ect/Task/Work Unlt No 

5111 .31 

11 Contract (C) or Grant (G) NO 

cc) XX-4-04029-1 

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 

Solar Energy Research Institute 

A Division of Midwest Research Institute 

1617 Cole Boulevard 

Technical Monitor: L. M. Murphy 

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) 

This report presents the results of wind-tunnel tests supported through the Solar 

Energy Research Institute (SERI) 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 stretchedmembrane technology, the wind-load contribution of the required drive capacity 

increases in percentage. Reduction of wind loads can provide economy in support 

structure and he1 iostat drive. Wind-tunnel tests have been directed at finding 

methods to reduce wind loads on heliostats. The tests investigated primarily the 

mean forces, 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. 

i Tltie and Subt~tle 

Wind Load Reduction for Heliostats 

1 SERl Report No. 

SERIISTR-253-2859 

13. Type of Report & Perlod Covered 

Technical Report 

14. 

17 Document Analysis 

a Descriptors Dynamic Loads; He1 iostats; Solar Collectors, Stresses ; Wind; 

Wind Loads 

b ldentifiers!Open-Ended Terms 

c. UC Categories 

62a 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 

:8. Avallab~l~ty Statement 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

A1 1 

orm No. GO63 (3-25-82) 

19 No. of Pages 

244