Calibration corrections of solar tower flux density measurements

The PSA flux density measuring system PROHERMES measures the concentrated solar radiation in the entrance aperture of solar tower receivers with a white rotating bar as target and a CCD-camera taking images. The calibration is done with commercial flux gauges placed in the measurement plane. To im p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Energy (Oxford) 2004-04, Vol.29 (5), p.925-933
Hauptverfasser: Ulmer, Steffen, Lüpfert, Eckhard, Pfänder, Markus, Buck, Reiner
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The PSA flux density measuring system PROHERMES measures the concentrated solar radiation in the entrance aperture of solar tower receivers with a white rotating bar as target and a CCD-camera taking images. The calibration is done with commercial flux gauges placed in the measurement plane. To im prove the calibration of the system and to reveal systematic errors, measurements are performed with two different types of commercial flux gauges (Thermogage sensors with and without quartz window) and a large custom-made calorimeter used as reference. The comparison shows that the sensors without quartz window measure about 5–8% higher and the sensors with quartz window about 100% higher. This error is explained with the differences in the spectral composition of the radiation and different angles of incidence between the manufacturer calibration and the solar measurements and corrections are proposed. Spectral changes of the sunlight during the day and year can affect the measurements by more than 10%. By selecting a correction filter adapted to the camera sensitivity, this influence can be reduced to less than 2.5%. Due to the reflective properties of the target coating, changes in angle of incidence can affect the measurements. In standard solar field conditions, this error is less than 0.5%, but for special conditions a correction of the systematic error of up to 8% is proposed.
ISSN:0360-5442
DOI:10.1016/S0360-5442(03)00197-X