Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Novel optimization design strategy for solar power tower plants T

a a,⁎ b,⁎
Yan Luo , Tao Lu , Xiaoze Du
a
School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China
b
School of Energy, Power and Mechanical Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A novel strategy using the Sobol’-Simulated Annealing algorithm was proposed to reduce the number of opti-
Solar power tower plants mization steps and guarantee the accuracy of a molten salt solar power tower plant design. The new method
Global sensitivity analysis combined the Sobol’ method and the Simulated Annealing algorithm for global sensitivity analysis and global
Parameter decoupling optimization, respectively. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the high-dimension global optimization problem
Global optimization
was transformed into several low-dimension global optimization problems by parameter decoupling. In order to
Levelized cost of electricity
obtain the global minimum levelized cost of electricity of the solar power tower plant, these low-dimension
models were successively optimized by utilizing the Simulated Annealing algorithm. A reference case study of
the solar power tower plant with 2650 heliostats was conducted. The heliostat field, receiver, thermal storage
system and power block were designed as a function of 12 parameters. It was demonstrated that the parameters
related to the heliostat field and receiver were almost independent. The minimum levelized cost of electricity of
22.22 ȼ/kWhe was obtained. Furthermore, a comparison with the global algorithm and local algorithm showed
that the novel method could reduce the number of optimization steps by approximately 75% compared with that
of the global algorithm. A much more accurate optimal design than that of the local algorithm can be achieved
herewith.

1. Introduction strategy optimization by different algorithms. Besarati and Goswami

Of all concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies available today,
the solar power tower (SPT) is moving to the forefront mainly due to
the expected performance improvements and cost reductions associated
with technology innovations [1]. The SPT plant consists of four main
subsystems, i.e., the heliostat field, receiver, thermal storage system
and power block. Xu et al. [2] found that the maximum exergy loss
occurred in the receiver system and heliostat field system for the SPT
plant with steam Rankine cycle. Benammar et al. [3] reported that the
optimal receiver size and receiver temperature for each steam mass
flow in power cycle of the SPT plant should be concerned. Zare and
Hasanzadeh [4] pointed out that an efficient thermodynamic power
cycle was essential to achieve a high overall SPT plant efficiency and a
competitive levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Collado and Guallar [5]
declared that the tower height, receiver size and heliostat field layout
had effects on the LCOE of the SPT plant. Consequently, to compete
with fossil power plants, it is necessary to optimize the SPT plant
subsystem design and further reduce its LCOE.
Recently, there are numerous investigations regarding the opti-
mized design of the SPT plant subsystem. For the heliostat field, the
literatures mainly focused on the field layout and heliostat aiming
[6] used the genetic algorithm to optimize the spiral pattern field layout
with the goal of maximum yearly insolation efficiency for a given re-
ceiver size and tower height. Atif and Al-Sulaiman [7] applied the
differential evolution algorithm to realize the effective optimization of
the heliostat field layout on annual basis. Wang et al. [8] performed
multi-objective optimization of the SPT plant heliostat aiming strategy
by using the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm based on the
trade-off between uniformity of solar flux distribution and optics loss.
Besarati et al. [9] developed the genetic algorithm to minimize the
standard deviation of the flux density distribution on the receiver sur-
face by changing the aiming points of individual heliostats. With re-
spect to the receiver, the optimized receiver size and fluid flow layout
were explored. Asselineau et al. [10] presented a stochastic optimiza-
tion method to obtain the optimal concentrated solar receiver geome-
trical configuration aiming at maximizing the receiver efficiency.
Steinfeld and Schubnell [11] described a semi-empirical method to
optimize the aperture size and operating temperature of a solar cavity
receiver with maximum energy conversion efficiency. Wei et al. [12]
proposed a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based evolutionary
algorithm to optimize the fluid distribution in a tubular solar receiver
for minimizing the peak temperature of the receiver surface. With

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: lutao@mail.buct.edu.cn (T. Lu), duxz@ncepu.edu.cn (X. Du).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.089
Received 13 July 2018; Received in revised form 27 September 2018; Accepted 29 September 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

Nomenclature row, rad

η efficiency
A surface area of the receiver, m2 λ thermal conductivity of the tube wall, W/m K
D number of independent design variables ρ heliostat reflectivity
d number of design variables σ Boltzmann constant, J/K
E enthalpy of heat transfer fluid, J/kg ϕ tube diameter, m
H equivalent hours of thermal energy storage, h
h heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 K Subscripts
l heliostat diagonal, m
N base sample size att atmospheric attenuation
Q solar energy on the receiver surface, W conv convective heat loss
R radius of the receiver, m cos cosine effect
r radius of the heliostat row, m f heat transfer fluid
S first-order sensitivity index fc forced convection on the receiver surface
ST total sensitivity index helio heliostat field
SM solar multiples in incident
T temperature, K inner inner wall of the tube
THT tower optical height, m int intercept
min minimum
Greek symbols nc natural convection on the receiver surface
outer outer wall of the tube
α tube wall absorptivity rad radiative heat loss
β tube wall emissivity rec receiver
Δr radial spacing between consecutive rows, m ref reflective heat loss
Δγ transition spacing between consecutive zones, m s&b shadowing and blocking
Δε azimuth spacing between adjacent heliostats of the same

regard to the thermal storage system and the power block, the optimal
design of thermal storage capacity, solar multiples and operating
parameters were frequently investigated. Boudaoud et al. [13] analysed
the optimum combination of the solar multiples and the capacity factor
of the plant to get a trade-off between the investment costs of the he-
liostat field and the thermal energy storage. Wang and He [14] obtained
the optimum operating parameters of the power block by using genetic
algorithm in order to maximize the overall exergy efficiency of the
integrated SPT system.
Although the optimization models of SPT plant subsystem have
been relatively mature, the relationship among the subsystems are
seldom considered. Consequently, some researchers focused on the
global optimization strategies of the entire SPT plant design based on
the subsystem models. Spelling et al. [15] conducted multi-objective
optimization of both the SPT plant performance and cost using a po-
pulation-based evolutionary algorithm. Then the optimal value of the
related parameters of the receiver, thermal storage system and power
block were achieved. Soltani et al. [16] utilized a global genetic algo-
rithm to optimize the heliostat field and operating parameters resulting
in a trade-off between exergy efficiency and cost. The global algorithm
always achieved relatively accurate optimization results of the entire
SPT plant design. However, due to the high-dimension of the entire SPT
plant design, the large computation amount of the global algorithm
became a challenging problem.
In order to avoid the above-mentioned problems, other optimization
strategies of the entire SPT plant design were demonstrated. Kistler
[17] applied the enumeration method to optimize the entire SPT plant
system design. Then the minimum LCOE was obtained for the combi-
nation of the heliostat spacings, the tower heights and receiver sizes.
Ramos et al. [18] parameterized the receiver and heliostat field models
as a function of 11 design variables to achieve the minimum LCOE of
the SPT plant. They found that the local Nevada solar plant optimiza-
tion code (NSPOC) algorithm greatly sped up the optimization process
and obtained results similar to those of the global genetic algorithm. To
reduce the number of dimensions of the entire SPT plant design, Car-
rizosa et al. [19] decomposed the optimization process into two in-
dependent sub-problems: receiver optimization and heliostat field
optimization. Then the greedy-based heuristic algorithm alternatively
optimized the receiver and the heliostat field to minimize the LCOE.
Collado and Guallar [5] broke the optimization process down into two
consecutive steps. First, the heliostat layout was optimized using the
Campo (which is the Spanish language for field) code [20] to supply the
maximum annual incident energy, and second, an economic optimiza-
tion was run to obtain the optimal receiver design. Saghafifar and Ga-
dalla [21] also utilized the optimization decomposition strategy for the
hybrid power plant by performing the heliostat field optimization and
the thermo-economic optimization separately. Although a subset of the
above mentioned optimization strategies could reduce the calculation
amount, it did not guarantee an optimal solution of the overall problem
because of the following reasons:
(1) the local algorithm easily fell into the local optimum when im-
proper initial values of the SPT plant design variables were chosen;
(2) the existing optimization decomposition strategies of the SPT plant
lacked reliability due to negligence of the interaction effects of the
sub-processes.
To solve the currently existing problems, a novel strategy called the
Sobol’-Simulated Annealing (S-SA) algorithm is proposed in this study
to reduce the number of optimization steps and guarantee the accuracy
of the optimization results for the entire molten salt SPT plant system
by combining the Sobol’ method and the Simulated Annealing (SA)
algorithm. As a general method of global sensitivity analysis, the Sobol’
method [22] is used to obtain the importance and interaction effects of
the design variables for the SPT plant. Based on the global sensitivity
analysis, the design parameters are classified into independent group
and dependent group. In this way, the high-dimension global optimi-
zation problem is converted into several low-dimension global optimi-
zation problems. Then the SA global optimization algorithm is applied
to solve these low-dimension optimization problems successively and
obtain the minimum LCOE of the SPT plant. As a demonstration with
2650 heliostats, the heliostat field, receiver, thermal storage system and
power block are designed as a function of 12 variables to conduct S-SA
algorithm analysis of the molten salt SPT plant. It is expected that such

683
Y. Luo et al.
a new idea could avoid the drawbacks of the global algorithm and local
algorithm by decreasing the number of optimization steps and im-
proving the accuracy of the SPT plant optimized design.
2. Model description and design variables of the solar power
tower plant
A schematic diagram of the molten salt SPT plant with an external
receiver is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of heliostat field, solar receiver,
thermal storage system and power block. The number of heliostats is
fixed at 2650 for the reference case, which is the typical SPT plant scale
and is the same as that of the Gemasolar plant [5].
2.1. Heliostat field
Following these rules for generating a general field layout, a larger
field of 3710 heliostats is created and the boundary of the field is the
result of applying the condition that only the first 2650 heliostats with
the best annual efficiency are finally selected. The width and height of
the heliostat are respectively 12.84 m and 9.45 m. The heliostat has the
reflectivity of 0.88 and the optical error of 2.9 mrad.
The surrounding radial staggered configuration is chosen as the
heliostat field layout, which is divided into several zones. Each zone has
the same radial spacing and azimuth spacing. As in the Campo code
[20], the optimization searches from the highest density field layout,
with the worst shadowing and blocking factor but with good values for
the other optical factors, and progresses towards gradually expanded
distributions. The radius of the first heliostat row r1 is defined as fol-
lows:
r1 = 0.8· THT (1)
where THT is the tower optical height.
To ensure that mechanical collision does not occur, the minimum
radial spacing between consecutive rows Δrmin and the minimum azi-
muth spacing between adjacent heliostats of the same row Δεmin are
respectively determined by the following:
Δrmin = cos 30∘· l = 0.866· l (2)
Δεmin = 2·asin[l/(2·r1)] ≈ l/ r1 (3)
where l is the heliostat diagonal.
The variables that defines a heliostat field layout, e.g. 3 zones with
2650 heliostats, are described as follows:
Hot
Tank
Receiver
Cold
Tank
Heliostat Field Solar Receiver Thermal Storage System
Fig. 1. Scheme of the molten salt SPT plant.
684
Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692
V01-V03 Δεii: Azimuth spacing between adjacent heliostats of the
same row in the iith zone (rad). (ii = 1, 2, 3)
V04-V06 Δrii: Radial spacing between consecutive rows in the iith
zone (m). (ii = 1, 2, 3)
V07-V08 Δγii: Transition spacing between the last row of the iith
zone and the first row of the (ii + 1)th zone (m). (ii = 1, 2)
The heliostat field efficiency ηhelio is calculated via the convolution
method and is expressed as follows:
ηhelio = ρ ·ηcos ·ηatt ·ηint ·ηs&b (4)
where ρ is the heliostat reflectivity, ηcos is the cosine efficiency calcu-
lated by the dot product of the normal vector and the sunlight vector,
ηatt is the atmospheric attenuation efficiency caused by absorption and
scattering of the reflected sunlight between the heliostat and the re-
ceiver, ηint is the intercept efficiency due to the intersection of the re-
flected sunlight with the receiver plane and ηs&b is the shadowing and
blocking efficiency attributed to the adjacent heliostats [23].
The above optical models are referred in many literatures, and thus
they are not described in detail.
2.2. Receiver
The external cylinder receiver and heat transfer fluid of molten salt
(60 wt% NaNO3, 40 wt% KNO3) chosen in this study are widely used in
the SPT plant. The operating temperature range of the heat transfer
fluid is 290–565 °C. The receiver is characterized by the following
variables:
V09 R: Radius of the receiver (m).
V10 THT: Tower optical height (m).
The incident solar energy loss of the receiver includes three main
parts, i.e., reflective heat loss Qref, radiative heat loss Qrad and con-
vective heat loss Qconv. Therefore, the thermal efficiency of the receive
ηrec can be obtained by the following,
Qref + Qrad + Qconv
ηrec = 1−
Qin (5)
where Qin is the incident solar energy on the receiver surface.
An initial thermal efficiency of the receive ηrec is estimated to cal-
culate the temperature at the outer side of the tube Touter as follows,
Turbine
1 Generator
y 1-y
2 3
Deaerator Condenser
x=0
6 5 4
Power Block
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

Table 1 cycle efficiency can be obtained as follows:

Meteorological data and design conditions for the site of Sevilla.
(E1−E2) + (1−y )·(E2−E3)
Annual DNI (kW h/m2) 1773.0
ηrankine =
E1−E7 (10)
Average ambient temperature (°C) 18.4
Average wind velocity (m/s) 2.68 where E1, E2, E3 and E7 are the respective enthalpies of state 1, state 2,
Design time (–) Noon of the spring equinox day
state 3 and state 7, y is the fraction of regenerative extraction steam.
Design DNI (W/m2) 840.0
Design ambient temperature (°C) 26.0
Design wind velocity (m/s) 3.0 2.4. Annual performance and economic calculation

Estimation of the hourly heliostat field and receiver efficiency is

Qin ϕ ϕ ϕ
Touter = Tinner + ηrec · · ( outer + outer · In outer ) conducted using a polynomial function whose coefficients have been
A ϕinner · h f 2· λ ϕinner (6) determined by data fitting. The heliostat field efficiency is the function
where ϕinner and ϕouter are respectively inner and outer diameters of the of the altitude and azimuth of the sun, and the receiver efficiency is
tube, Tinner is the inner side temperature of the tube, hf is the heat expressed using the direct normal irradiance (DNI), the ambient tem-
transfer coefficient inside the tube and can be obtained by the Dittus- perature and the wind speed. Based on a typical meteorological year
Boelter’s equation [24], λ is the thermal conductivity of the tube wall. A database obtained from the System Advisor Model (SAM) software [28]
is the surface area of the receiver and can be approximately expressed for the site of Sevilla (37.4°N, 5.9°W), Spain, the total yearly energies
as A ≈ 2· π· R· (2· R + 1) [25]. are computed by integrating the hourly power output. Table 1 sum-
If the outer wall temperature of the tube Touter is known, the heat marizes the annual meteorological data and the design conditions.
loss of the receiver can be expressed as follows, Once the annual electricity production is estimated, the LCOE is
determined according to the following equation,
Qref = (1−α )·Qin (7)
Idebt·(1 + Idebt )n
4
( (1 + Idebt )n − 1
+ Iinsurance )·Cinvest + CO&M
Qrad = σ· β · (Touter −T∞4 )· A (8) LCOE =
W (11)
3.2
Qconv = (h nc + h fc3.2)1/3.2 · (Touter−T∞)· A (9) where Idebt is the real debt interest of 8%, Iinsurance is the annual in-
where α and β are respectively absorptivity and emissivity of the tube surance rate of 1%, n is the plant lifespan of 30 years, Cinvest is the total
wall, σ is the Boltzmann constant, T∞ is the ambient temperature. hnc investment cost of the plant, CO&M is the annual operation and main-
and hfc are respectively pure natural and pure forced convective heat tenance cost and W is the annual electricity production [29].
transfer coefficient on the receiver surface and can be obtained by Ref. Cost models used in economic analysis of the molten salt SPT plant
[26]. are shown in Table 2, which have been set according to several refer-
Solving the system of equations (Eqs. (5)–(9)) leads to a new ences.
thermal efficiency of the receiver η′rec, which converges after a few
iteration steps. 3. Global sensitivity analysis of the solar power tower plant

2.3. Thermal storage system and power block Sensitivity analysis methods can be classified into local and global
sensitivity analyses. Local sensitivity analysis studies the effects of small
A two-tank molten salt thermal storage system is applied in the SPT variations of individual factors on the value of the objective function
plant. The energy storage capacity can be expressed in terms of the [31]. However, global sensitivity analysis explores the influences of all
following variable: factors by varying them simultaneously over the entire domain [32].
Therefore, global sensitivity analysis can supply more accurate and
V11 H: Equivalent hours of thermal energy storage (h). comprehensive results.
As a widely used global sensitivity analysis approach, the Sobol’
Therefore, the energy storage capacity is the product of the inlet method was firstly proposed by Sobol’ [22]. After that, Zhan and Zhang
thermal power of the turbine and the equivalent hours of storage. To
avoid an excessive number of starts and stops of the SPT plant, the hot Table 2
molten salt is pumped to the power block only if the thermal energy Cost models used in the economic analysis of the molten salt SPT plant.
stored in the hot tank is sufficient to operate the power block for at least Cost model
2 h.
For a given number of heliostats, the nominal power output of the Investment
Specific investment cost for land 1.25 [5]
SPT plant depends primarily on the following variables:
($/m2)
Specific investment cost for 20 [5]
V12 SM: Solar multiples, namely, the ratio between the thermal improvement ($/m2-mirror)
power produced by the heliostat field at design point and the Specific investment cost for 200 [5]
thermal power required by the power block at nominal condition heliostat field ($/m2)
Investment cost for receiver ($) 83.34 × (
A 0.7
) [5,30]
(–). 1133
Investment cost for tower ($) 0.0018357·THT2 - 0.285868·THT + 30 [5,30]
The thermodynamic system of the power block is shown in Fig. 1. At Specific investment cost for 30 [5]
thermal storage ($/kWhth)
the design condition, the inlet feed water temperature (state 7) is set to
Specific investment cost for power 1000 [5]
215 °C, the outlet parameters of the superheat steam (state 1) are generation unit ($/kWe)
12.5 MPa and 538 °C, and the condensing pressure of exhaust steam Indirect cost for power generation 25 [5]
from turbine (state 3) is 0.008 MPa. The isentropic efficiencies of the unit (%)
turbine and pump machinery are both assumed to be 0.9 at the rated Operation and maintenance
Operation and maintenance cost 1 [27,29]
condition. However, at derated conditions, the changes in turbine ef-
percentage of investment per
ficiency and pump efficiency are both functions of the variations of year (%)
steam mass flow [27]. Due to the heat balance calculation, the Rankine

685
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

[33] analyzed the global sensitivities of a pesticide risk indicator with Vi

Si =
Sobol’ method. Nossent et al. [34] presented a Sobol’ sensitivity ana- V (21)
lysis for river flow simulations by the soil and water assessment tool. Vij
Saltelli [35] dealt with computations of sensitivity indices for a com- Sij =
V (22)
putational model based on the Sobol’ method. Tarantola et al. [36]
applied the Sobol’ sensitivity method to estimate the e-business readi- V1,2, ⋯ , d
S1,2, ⋯ , d =
ness composite indicator. The Sobol’ method calculates the first-order V (23)
sensitivity index or main effect (Si) and the total sensitivity index or where Si is the first-order sensitivity index and represents the main
total effect (STi) on the variance, where Si denotes the effect of a factor effect of xi on the model output. Sij (i ≠ j) is the second-order sensitivity
xi alone, and STi denotes the effects of xi and all its interactions. Thus index and indicates the effect of the interaction between xi and xj on the
|STi - Si | indicates the interaction effects of xi with other factors in the model output, and so on. Moreover, all of the order sensitivity indices
model [33]. The detailed procedure of the Sobol’ method applied to the should be positive numbers because they are defined by variances.
molten salt SPT plant can be explained as follows. Therefore, the relationships among different order of sensitivity
Based on the performance and economic models of the molten salt indices can be expressed as follows:
SPT plant described in the Section 2, the optimization criteria LCOE is
d d
achieved using a function of the 12 variables and can be expressed as
follows:
∑ Si + ∑ Sij+⋯+S1,2, ⋯ , d = 1
i=1 1⩽i<j⩽d (24)
Y = f (x1, x2 , ⋯, x d ) (12)
In addition, the total sensitivity index or total effect (STi) can be
where xi(i = 1, 2, ⋯, d ) are the design variables V01-V12, d is the defined as follows,
number of variables and is equal to 12, and Y is the LCOE. V
After normalization, xi and the expression of Y can be transformed STi = Si + ∑ Sij+⋯+S1,2, ⋯, d=1− V−i
j (25)
into uniformly distributed inputs Xi ( Xi ∈ [0, 1]) and a function
N
Y = f (X1 , X2 , ⋯, Xd ) . In this case, Y can be decomposed into a function 1
where V- i = ∑ f (X((1) (1) (1) (2) 2
−i) k , Xik ) f (X (−i) k , Xik )−f0 . Consequently,
of individual parameters and the interaction between parameters as N
k=1
follows: |STi - Si | is an efficient indicator for further identification of whether xi
d d
has interaction effects with other variables. It should be noted that the
Y = f0 + ∑ fi (Xi ) + ∑ fij (Xi , Xj )+⋯+f1,2, ⋯, d (X1, X2 , ⋯, Xd ) interaction effects could be ignored for |STi - Si |⩽ δ , where δ represents
i=1 i<j (13) numerical error due to the instability of the values of STi and Si.
The Sobol’ quasi-random sequence [37] is used to generate a set of
where f0 is a constant and fi is a function of Xi, fij is a function of Xi and
samples for the Sobol’ method, and (d + 2) * N model runs are required
Xj, etc. The conditions of uniqueness of the decomposition are that
1 to calculate Si and STi. The molten salt SPT plant performance model
∫ f1,2, ⋯ , s (X1, X2, ⋯, Xs ) dXm = 0 (m = 1, 2, ⋯, s; 1⩽ s ⩽ d)and all terms has 12 variables. The base sample size N is set to 2000, resulting in
0 28,000 model runs for the model. To inspect the convergence of the
in the functional decomposition are orthogonal.
estimations, the base sample size gradually increases in 100 uniform
Therefore, all the decomposition terms can be determined by the
steps.
following,

f0 = ∫Ω f (X ) dX (14)
4. Optimization procedure for the solar power tower plant

1 1 Based on global sensitivity analysis of the molten salt SPT plant

fi (Xi ) = ∫0 ⋯ ∫0 f (X ) dX−i −f0 (15) described above, a S-SA approach that combines the Sobol’ method and
1 1 the SA algorithm is proposed for optimization of the molten salt SPT
fij (Xi , Xj ) = ∫0 ⋯ ∫0 f (X ) dX−ij −f0 −fi (Xi )−f j (Xj ) (16) plant.

where X-i represents variables except Xi, and X-ij represents variables
4.1. Simulated Annealing algorithm
except Xi and Xj. The other high-order terms can be calculated in a
similar manner.
The SA algorithm [38] is first introduced as a probabilistic tech-
Using the Monte Carlo integration method, the variance form of Y
nique to approximate the global optimum of a given function. Due to
and Eqs. (13), (15), and (16) can be expressed as follows:
the advantages of high precision, strong robustness and good adapt-
N ability, the SA algorithm is applied for the global optimization of the
1
V =
N
∑ f 2 (Xk )−f02 molten salt SPT plant design. The objective function of the molten salt
k=1 (17)
SPT plant performance and economic models can be built as
d d Y = f (x1, x2 , ⋯, x d ) . The SA algorithm optimizes all of the variables
V = ∑ Vi + ∑ Vij+⋯+V1,2, ⋯ , d simultaneously. The specific optimization steps of the SA algorithm are
i=1 1⩽i<j⩽d (18) described as follows and the corresponding flow chart is shown in
N Fig. 2.
1
Vi =
N
∑ f (X((1) (1) (2) (1) 2
−i) k , Xik ) f (X (−i) k , Xik )−f0
k=1 (19) (1) Initial variables xi and corresponding solution Y are given. The
N maximal iteration number of the optimization process is L, and the
1
Vij =
N
∑ f (X((1) (1) (2) (1) 2
−ij ) k , Xijk ) f (X (−ij ) k , Xijk )−f0 −Vi −Vj
initial iteration number is K = 0.
k=1 (20) (2) A new solution Y′ is generated.
1
N (3) If ΔY = Y ′−Y < 0 , the current solution Y′ is accepted as a new so-
where N is the base sample size, and f0 = N
∑ f (Xk ) . The superscripts lution, namely, Y = Y ′. If not, Y ′ is accepted as the new solution
k=1
of (1) and (2) in the Eqs. (19) and (20) respectively denote the first according to the Metropolis rule [39].
sampling and the second sampling. (4) If the convergence criterion is reached, the iteration is completed,
Consequently, the sensitivity index can be represented as follows, and the current solution is output. Otherwise, let K = K + 1, and go

686
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

Start numerical error) indicates that the variable is independent of other

variables. If not, the variable is dependent on certain other vari-
ables. Thus all variables are divided into group (1)
Set the initial condition: xi, Y, L
( x1(1) , x 2(1) , ⋯, xD(1) ) and group (2) ( xD(2)+ 1, xD(2)+ 2 , ⋯, xd(2) ). The objective
function can be converted into Eq. (26).
K=0 (2) The initial values of all variables except x1(1) are set as the middle
values of the ranges and x1(1) is the unique variable. The objective
function of the molten salt SPT plant performance and economic
A new solution Y' models can be represented as Y = f01 + f1 (x1(1) ) , where f01 is con-
stant, and f1 is a function of x1(1).
Y 0? (3) The SA algorithm is chosen as the global optimization method and
Yes No applied to find the optimal x1(1) that minimizes the value of the
objective function Y.
Accept it Accept it by (4) The initial value of x1(1) is set as the optimal value x1(1)opt , whereas
Y Y' Metropolis rule the other variables except x2(1) are assigned to the middle values of
the ranges. Under this condition, x2(1) is the unique variable, Y is
the function of x2(1) and can be expressed as
Convergence Yes The current solution Y = f02 + f2 (x 2(1) ) (f02 = constant) and f2 is a function of x2(1).
criterion? is output (5) The SA algorithm is applied to find the optimal x2(1) that minimizes
the value of the objective function Y.
No (6) x i (1)opt (i = 1, 2,⋯, D) are obtained by adopting a method similar to
K K 1 End
step 4) to step 5).
(7) The initial values of x i (1) (i = 1, 2,⋯, D) are set as
Yes x i (1)opt (i = 1, 2,⋯,D) . Thus, Y can be expressed as
K L? Y = f0D + 1 + f(D + 1),(D + 2), ⋯ , d (xD(2)+ 1, xD(2)+ 2, ⋯, xd(2) ) , where f0D + 1is con-
No stant and f(D + 1),(D + 2), ⋯ , d is a function of x i(2) (i = D + 1, D + 2, ⋯, d ) .
Decrement of xi (8) The SA algorithm is applied to optimize x i(2) (i = D + 1, D + 2, ⋯, d )
simultaneously. Consequently, the minimum value of Y and the
Fig. 2. Flow chart of the SA algorithm.
optimal values of all variables are obtained.

to the next step.

(5) If K ⩽ L , go to step (2). If not, let K = 0 , and go to step (2) with
decreasing xi.
4.2. Sobol’-Simulated Annealing algorithm
The SA algorithm generally optimizes all of the variables simulta-
neously and leads to a large computation amount. In consideration of
this, the S-SA algorithm, which is a combination of the Sobol’ method
and the SA algorithm, is proposed to reduce the computation amount
and ensure the accuracy of the optimization results for the molten salt
SPT plant.
According to the Sobol’ method, |STi - Si | is used to decouple the
variables and decrease the number of model dimensions by dividing the
12 variables into two groups: (1) no interaction effects exist in the
variables, (2) interaction effects occur among the variables. Therefore,
instead of Eq. (12), the objective function of the molten salt SPT plant
models can be further expressed as follows:
Y = f1 (x1(1) ) + f2 (x 2(1) ) + ⋯+fD (xD(1) ) + f(D + 1),(D + 2), ⋯ , d (xD(2)+ 1, xD(2)+ 2, ⋯, xd(2) )
where D is the number of independent variables, x1(1) ,
independent of each other and represent variables in the former group,
xD(2)+ 1, xD(2)+ 2 , ⋯, xd(2) interact with each other and represent variables in
the latter group, f1, f2 , ⋯, fD are additive and are respectively functions
of x1(1) , x 2(1) , ⋯, xD(1) , and f(D + 1),(D + 2), ⋯ , d is a function of xD(2)+ 1, xD(2)+ 2 , ⋯, xd(2) .
Using the SA algorithm, the optimal solution of the dimension-re-
ducing models is obtained with successive optimization of the variables
in the former group and simultaneous optimization of the variables in
the latter group.
The specific steps of the S-SA algorithm are given as follows, and the
corresponding flow chart is shown in Fig. 3.
(1) |STi - Si | of all variables are obtained by the Sobol’ global sensitivity
analysis method. If |STi - Si |⩽ δ , the small difference (due to
5. Results and discussion
In the following sections, the importance and interaction effects of
the SPT plant design variables were investigated. Based on the global
sensitivity analysis, the S-SA algorithm was conducted to obtain the
minimum LCOE of the SPT plant design.
5.1. Global sensitivity analysis of the solar power plant for the reference
case
For the reference case of 2650 heliostats, Fig. 4(a) and (b) display
the evolution of the Si and STi respectively. The values of Si and STi
approach the equilibrium statuses after approximately 20,000 model
runs. Therefore, convergence of the model was attained and the related
sensitivity analysis results were reliable.
Table 3 and Fig. 5 show the global sensitivity analysis results of the
reference case and indicate that the Si ranks of these variables were
nearly the same as the STi ranks. The STi ranks considered the coupling
effects among variables and showed that H had the most influence on
(26) the LCOE of the molten salt SPT plant, followed by SM, Δr2 and Δε2.
x 2(1) , ⋯, xD(1)
are However, the effects of Δγ1, Δγ2 and THT on the LCOE were nearly
negligible.
The global sensitivity analysis results also supplied the interaction
effects that exist in different variables according to |STi - Si |. The in-
teraction effects could be ignored for |STi - Si |⩽ δ , where the value of δ
was 0.02 by considering the numerical errors of STi and Si for this case.
For example, the STi and Si for Δr2 were respectively 0.253 and 0.246,
and hence the |STi - Si | was 0.007. Therefore, the interaction effect be-
tween Δr2 and other variables was nearly negligible.
In addition, STi was quite similar to Si for the first ten variables,
suggesting that the first ten variables were almost independent.
However, the |STi - Si | for H and SM were quite large, respectively 0.370
and 0.325. The large differences indicated that the coupling effects
between H and SM were rather strong because the thermal energy
storage capacity was generally decided by SM. Consequently, the

687
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

Start
Global sensitivity analysis by Sobol method

Yes No
|STi -Si |
Independent Dependent

x1(1) , x2(1) , ... , xD(1) xD(2)1 , xD(2) 2 , ... , xd(2)

( 2 ) ...
Y =f1 ( x1(1) ) f 2 ( x2(1) )+ ... f D ( xD((1)1) ) f( D 1),( 2 ),..., d
),( D 2), ( xD((2)
2) (2)
1 , xD 2 , , xd(2)
( 2)
)

xi(1) the middle value (i =2,3,..., D) xi(2) the middle value (i =(D 1), ( D 2),..., d )

Y =f 01 +f1 ( x1(1) ) f 01 =constant)

Global optimization by SA Algorithm

x1(1)opt

x1(1) =x1(1)opt xi(1) the middle value (i =3, 4, ... , D) xi(2) the middle value (i =(D 1), ( D 2), ... , d )

Y =f 02 +f 2 ( x2(1) ) f 02 =constant)

xi (1)opt (i 1, 2, ... ,D)

xi(1) =xi (1)opt (i 1, 2, ... ,D))

Y =f 0D 1
f( D 1),( D 2),..., d ( xD( 2)1 , xD( 2)2 , ... , xd(2)
(2
) (f 0D 1 =constant)

Global optimization by SA Algorithm

xD(2)1 , xD(2) 2 , ... , xd(2) , Ymin

m

End
Fig. 3. Flow chart of the S-SA algorithm.

relationship between LCOE (Y) and the 12 variables (xi) could be ap- ranks of different factors were still similar to the STi ranks for both
proximately expressed as follows, cases. The STi ranks for the cases of 2650, 1325 and 662 heliostats
showed that Δr1, Δε1 and R had growing impacts on the LCOE with
Y = f1 (x1(1) ) + f2 (x 2(1) ) + ⋯+f10 (x10
(1) (2)
) + f11,12 (x11 (2)
, x12 ) (27) decreasing fixed heliostat number, whereas the effects of Δr3, Δε3, Δr2
(2)
where x11 (2)
and x12 respectively represent H and SM. and Δε2 on the LCOE decreased. The reason for this result might be that
the percentage of heliostats in the first zone increased with a reduced
5.2. Impacts of fixed heliostat number on the global sensitivity analysis fixed heliostat number, whereas the percentage of heliostats in the
results second and third zone was decreased. Therefore, the heliostat field
layout of the first zone became increasingly important. In addition, the
To investigate the effects of fixed heliostat number on the global smaller the size of the receiver, the more sensitive it was to the thermal
sensitivity analysis results, two other cases with 1325 and 662 helio- loss efficiency of receiver and spillage loss efficiency of the heliostat
stats were selected. The site was also fixed of Sevilla. field, which resulted in an enhanced effect on the LCOE.
As shown in Figs. 6 and 8, both Si and STi obtained equilibrium For the STi ranks of all cases, both H and SM had nearly the greatest
status with fewer than 20,000 model runs to ensure the reliability of influence on the LCOE due to the large interaction effect between H and
results for the cases of 1325 and 662 heliostats. Tables 4 and 5 give the SM on the LCOE. However, Δγ1 and Δγ2 had almost no impact on the
global sensitivity analysis results of these two cases. Figs. 7–9 provide LCOE. This was because the variations of Δγ1 and Δγ2 had little effect on
the sensitivity indices for the design parameter of both cases. The Si the heliostat field efficiency and total investment of the plant.

688
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

1.0 2.0
1.8
0.8
r 1.6 r
0.6 H 1.4 H
1.2
Sensitivity Index

Sensitivity Index
0.4 1.0
0.8
0.2
0.6

0.0 0.4
0.2
-0.2 0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Model Runs Model Runs
(a) First-order sensitivity indices (Si). (b) Total sensitivity indices (STi).
Fig. 4. Evolution of the sensitivity indices for the reference case.

Table 3 effects among parameters were given according to |STi - Si |. On the one
Global sensitivity analysis results for the reference case. hand, for all cases, the coupling effects between H and SM were large,
Range of values Si Rank STi Rank |STi - Si |
while Δε1, Δε2, Δε3, Δr3, Δγ1, Δγ1, R and THT almost had no interaction
effect on the LCOE. On the other hand, the interaction effects of Δr1 and
V01 Δε1 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.010 9 0.016 8 0.006 Δr2 increased with decreasing fixed heliostat number. For example, the
V02 Δε2 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.099 3 0.109 4 0.010 |STi - Si | of Δr2 increased from 0.007 to 0.045 when the fixed heliostat
V03 Δε3 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.021 7 0.016 8 0.005
V04 Δr1 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.016 8 0.034 6 0.018
number was reduced from 2650 to 662. As a result, for the case of
V05 Δr2 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.246 1 0.253 3 0.007 smaller fixed heliostat number, the interaction effects of Δr1 and Δr2
V06 Δr3 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.048 4 0.056 5 0.008 could not be ignored and the LCOE could be approximately represented
V07 Δγ1 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.004 11 0.003 11 0.001 as follows,
V08 Δγ2 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.001 12 0.003 11 0.002
V09 R (3–5) (m) 0.027 6 0.030 7 0.003
Y = f1 (x1(1) ) + f2 (x 2(1) ) + ⋯+f8 (x 8(1) ) + f9,10,11,12 (x 9(2) , x10
(2) (2)
, x11 (2)
, x12 )
V10 THT (120–160) (m) 0.004 10 0.009 10 0.005
V11 H (3–12) (h) 0.154 2 0.524 1 0.370 (28)
V12 SM (1.3–2.7) (–) 0.043 5 0.368 2 0.325
Sum 0.673 1.421 0.760 where x 9(2) , (2)
x10 , (2)
x11 and (2)
x12 respectively represent Δr1, Δr2, H and SM.

0.6 5.3. Sobol’-Simulated Annealing algorithm results of the solar power tower
plant for the reference case
Si
0.5 The reference case of 2650 heliostats, which is the typical solar
STi
power tower plant scale, is discussed in this section.
According to the global sensitivity analysis results of the reference
0.4
Sensitivity Index

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
r r
Fig. 5. Sensitivity indices of the design parameters for the reference case.
Moreover, the influence of THT on the LCOE could almost be negligible.
The reason was that both the heliostat field efficiency and total in-
vestment of the plant had similar tendencies with increasing THT,
which resulted in little change of LCOE with THT.
For the cases of 2650, 1325 and 662 heliostats, the interaction
case, the interaction effects of these 12 variables were obtained and the
objective function of the molten salt SPT plant performance and eco-
nomic models could be approximately expressed as
Y = f1 (x1(1) ) + f2 (x 2(1) ) + ⋯+f10 (x10
(1) (2)
) + f11,12 (x11 (2)
, x12 ), where x i(1)
(i = 1, 2, ⋯, 10) and x i(2) (i = 11, 12) are design parameters and Y is the
LCOE. Therefore, ten parameters were independent of each other, and
two parameters interacted with each other. Then these ten independent
variables were successively optimized by the SA algorithm, whereas the
two dependent variables were simultaneously optimized by the SA al-
gorithm. As a result, the SA algorithm was applied repeatedly for a total
of 11 times.
r R THT H SM Fig. 10 shows the evolution process of the LCOE with the repetition
frequency of the SA algorithm, and Table 6 gives the optimal values of
the 12 variables for the reference case. The initial LCOE was 25.71 ȼ/
kWhe when all variables were assigned the middle values of the ranges.
After a series of SA algorithm optimizations, the optimal values of these
12 variables were obtained in succession and the minimal LCOE was
22.22 ȼ/kWhe. The result also indicated that the LCOE changed notably
little after the optimization processes of certain variables such as Δε3,
Δr3, Δγ1 and Δγ2. The reason for this result is that the deviation of the
optimal value from the middle value was small or that the variable had

689
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

1.0 2.0
1.8
0.8
r2 1.6 r2
H 1.4 H
0.6
1.2

Sensitivity Index
Sensitivity Index

0.4 1.0
0.8
0.2 0.6
0.4
0.0
0.2

-0.2 0.0
-0.2
-0.4 -0.4

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Model Runs Model Runs

(a) First-order sensitivity indices (Si). (b) Total sensitivity indices (STi).
Fig. 6. Evolution of the sensitivity indices for the case of 1325 heliostats.

0.6 compared with the S-SA algorithm and MMFD algorithm. The minimum
LCOE of S-SA algorithm was similar to that of the SA algorithm,
Si whereas the minimum LCOE of MMFD algorithm was 1.00 ȼ/kWhe
0.5
STi higher than that of the SA algorithm. Therefore, the accuracy of the S-
SA algorithm was guaranteed despite the decoupling of the variables.
0.4 However, the MMFD algorithm easily fell into the local optimal solu-
Sensitivity Index

tion, and the corresponding results were inaccurate. In addition, the

optimization steps of different algorithms are given in Table 7. It can be
0.3 observed that the optimization steps of the S-SA algorithm, SA algo-
rithm and MMFD algorithm were respectively 2618, 10,137 and 368.
The results demonstrated that the calculation amount of the MMFD
0.2 algorithm was the least among different algorithms because of the local
optimization method. The number of optimization steps of the MMFD
algorithm was approximately 86% lower than that of the S-SA algo-
0.1
rithm, whereas the number of optimization steps of the SA algorithm
was approximately 3 times higher than that of the S-SA algorithm.
0.0 Consequently, the S-SA algorithm is a good optimization strategy that
r r r R THT H SM can accelerate the optimization process and guarantee the relative ac-
curacy of the optimal molten salt SPT plant design.
Fig. 7. Sensitivity indices of the design parameters for the case of 1325 helio-
stats. 6. Conclusions

little effect on the LCOE. For example, the optimal value of Δr3 was
1.637l m, which was quite close to the middle value of 1.633l m, and
Δγ1 had little influence on the LCOE, as discussed in Section 5.1.
5.4. Comparisons of Sobol’-Simulated Annealing algorithm and other
optimization methods
To verify the accuracy and low computation cost of the S-SA algo-
rithm, the SA global optimization algorithm and the classic gradient-
based local optimization algorithm, namely, the Modified Method of
Feasible Directions (MMFD) were also applied to compare the molten
salt SPT plant optimization results of the reference case. The SA global
optimization algorithm generally obtained relatively accurate optimi-
zation results at the cost of a large calculation amount [38], whereas
the MMFD local optimization algorithm obtained the optimal design
quickly at the expense of accuracy [40].
Table 7 gives the comparison results of different algorithms for the
reference case. The minimum LCOE values of the S-SA algorithm, SA
algorithm and MMFD algorithm were respectively 22.22 ȼ/kWhe,
22.01 ȼ/kWhe and 23.01 ȼ/kWhe. Due to the global optimization
method, the optimal solution of the SA algorithm was the most optimal
A novel method of the S-SA algorithm was proposed to reduce the
number of optimization steps in the optimization design process for a
molten salt SPT plant. The new strategy was a combination of the Sobol’
global sensitivity analysis method and the SA global optimization al-
gorithm, which are respectively used in parameter decoupling and
parameter optimization and offer a rapid approach to obtain the
minimum LCOE of the SPT plant design.
(1) For the reference case of 2650 heliostats, the Sobol’ method showed
that H and SM had the greatest effects on the LCOE of the molten
salt SPT plant, and the influences of Δγ1, Δγ2 and THT were the
least. The interaction effects of all the parameters were nearly
negligible except for H and SM.
(2) With the reduction of the fixed heliostat number from 2650 to 662,
the Δr1, Δε1 and R had growing impacts on the LCOE, whereas the
effects of Δr2, Δε2, Δr3 and Δε3 decreased. The interaction effects of
Δr1 and Δr2 were enhanced with decreasing heliostats number.
(3) Based on the interaction effects among parameters, the S-SA algo-
rithm was used to decouple the variables and optimize the molten
salt SPT plant design of the reference case. The minimum LCOE of
22.22 ȼ/kWhe was obtained.

690
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

1.0 2.0
1.8
0.8
r2 1.6 r2
0.6
H 1.4 H
1.2
Sensitivity Index

Sensitivity Index
0.4 1.0
0.8
0.2
0.6

0.0 0.4
0.2
-0.2 0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.4
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Model Runs Model Runs

(a) First-order sensitivity indices (Si). (b) Total sensitivity indices (STi).
Fig. 8. Evolution of the sensitivity indices for the case of 662 heliostats.

Table 4 0.6
Global sensitivity analysis results for the case of 1325 heliostats.
Si
Range of values Si Rank STi Rank |STi - Si | 0.5
STi
V01 Δε1 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.034 7 0.037 7 0.003
V02 Δε2 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.097 3 0.102 5 0.005
0.4
Sensitivity Index

V03 Δε3 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.002 10 0 11 0.002

V04 Δr1 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.091 4 0.116 4 0.025
V05 Δr2 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.113 2 0.155 3 0.042
V06 Δr3 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.003 9 0 11 0.003 0.3
V07 Δγ1 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.001 11 0.007 8 0.006
V08 Δγ2 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0 12 0.001 9 0.001
V09 R (2–3.5) (m) 0.074 5 0.084 6 0.010 0.2
V10 THT (100–140) (m) 0.011 8 0.001 9 0.010
V11 H (3–12) (h) 0.203 1 0.531 1 0.328
V12 SM (1.3–2.7) (–) 0.038 6 0.371 2 0.333 0.1
Sum 0.667 1.405 0.768

0.0
Table 5 r r r R THT H SM
Global sensitivity analysis results for the case of 662 heliostats.
Fig. 9. Sensitivity indices of the design parameters for the case of 662 helio-
Range of values Si Rank STi Rank |STi - Si |
stats.
V01 Δε1 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.063 4 0.063 5 0
V02 Δε2 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0.028 6 0.038 7 0.010 26
V03 Δε3 (l/r1–2l/r1) (rad) 0 9 0 10 0 Initial value
V04 Δr1 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.266 1 0.308 2 0.042 opt
V05 Δr2 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0.013 7 0.058 6 0.045 1
V06 Δr3 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0 9 0 10 0 25
V07 Δγ1 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0 9 0.009 9 0.009
V08 Δγ2 (0.866l–2.4l) (m) 0 9 0 10 0 opt
3
LCOE (¢/kWhe)

V09 R (1.5–2.5) (m) 0.074 3 0.071 4 0.003 r1opt

V10 THT (80–120) (m) 0.007 8 0.017 8 0.010 24 opt
V11 H (3–12) (h) 0.210 2 0.490 1 0.280 2 r3opt 2
opt

V12 SM (1.3–2.7) (–) 0.034 5 0.294 3 0.260 Ropt THTopt

opt
Sum 0.695 1.348 0.659 r2 1
opt
23

(4) A comparative study of the reference case was conducted based on

the S-SA algorithm, SA global algorithm and MMFD local algorithm. 22 Hopt, SMopt
The novel method reduced the number of optimization steps by
approximately 75% compared with that of the SA algorithm and
achieved a much more accurate optimal design than that of the
21
MMFD algorithm. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Repetition frequency of SA algorithm
Acknowledgments
Fig. 10. Evolution process of the LCOE with repetition frequency of the SA
algorithm for the reference case.
The financial supports for this research project from the National

691
Y. Luo et al. Energy Conversion and Management 177 (2018) 682–692

Table 6 [11] Steinfeld A, Schubnell M. Optimum aperture size and operating temperature of a
Optimal values of the 12 variables for the reference case. solar cavity-receiver. Sol Energy 1993;50:19–25.
[12] Wei M, Fan Y, Luo L, Flamant G. Fluid flow distribution optimization for mini-
Δε1opt (rad) 1.009l/r1 Δγ1opt (m) 1.167l mizing the peak temperature of a tubular solar receiver. Energy 2015;91:663–77.
Δε2opt (rad) 1.007l/r1 Δγ2opt (m) 1.242l [13] Boudaoud S, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K, Behar O. Thermal performance prediction
Δε3opt (rad) 1.551l/r1 Ropt (m) 3.5 and sensitivity analysis for future deployment of molten salt cavity receiver solar
Δr1opt (m) 1.070l THTopt (m) 135 power plants in Algeria. Energ Convers Manage 2015;89:655–64.
Δr2opt (m) 1.162l Hopt (h) 12.0 [14] Wang K, He YL. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization of a molten salt solar
Δr3opt (m) 1.637l SMopt (–) 2.7 power tower integrated with a recompression supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle based
on integrated modeling. Energ Convers Manage 2017;135:336–50.
[15] Spelling J, Favrat D, Martin A, Augsburger G. Thermoeconomic optimization of a
combined-cycle solar tower power plant. Energy 2012;41(1):113–20.
Table 7 [16] Soltani R, Keleshtery PM, Vahdati M, KhoshgoftarManesh MH, Rosen MA,
Comparison results of different algorithms for the reference case. Amidpour M. Multi-objective optimization of a solar-hybrid cogeneration cycle:
application to CGAM problem. Energ Convers Manage 2014;81:60–71.
S-SA SA MMFD [17] Kistler BL. A user’s manual for DELSOL3: a computer code for calculating the op-
tical performance and optimal system design for solar thermal central receiver
Δε1opt (rad) 1.009l/r1 1.000l/r1 1.000l/r1 plants. Albuquerque, USA: Sandia National Laboratories; 1986.
Δε2opt (rad) 1.007l/r1 1.003l/r1 1.017l/r1 [18] Ramos A, Ramos F. Strategies in tower solar power plant optimization. Sol Energy
Δε3opt (rad) 1.551l/r1 1.315l/r1 1.303l/r1 2012;86:2536–48.
[19] Carrizosa E, Domínguez-Bravo C, Fernández-Cara E, Quero M. Optimization of
Δr1opt (m) 1.070l 0.868l 0.866l
multiple receivers solar power tower systems. Energy 2015;90:2085–93.
Δr2opt (m) 1.162l 1.011l 1.015l
[20] Collado FJ, Guallar J. Campo: generation of regular heliostat fields. Renew Energ
Δr3opt (m) 1.637l 1.637l 1.710l
2012;46:49–59.
Δγ1opt (m) 1.167l 0.994l 1.451l [21] Saghafifar M, Gadalla M. Thermo-economic analysis of conventional combined
Δγ2opt (m) 1.242l 1.224l 1.576l cycle hybridization: United Arab Emirates case study. Energ Convers Manage
opt
R (m) 3.5 3.4 3.9 2016;111:358–74.
THTopt (m) 135 133 145 [22] Sobol’ IM. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their
Hopt (h) 12.0 12.0 7.8 Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simulat 2001;55:271–80.
SMopt (–) 2.7 2.7 2.2 [23] Sassi G. Some notes on shadow and blockage effects. Sol Energy 1983;31:331–3.
LCOE (ȼ/kWhe) 22.22 22.01 23.01 [24] Yang SM, Tao WQ. Heat transfer theory. High Education Press; 2006. (in Chinese).
Optimization steps 2618 10,137 368 [25] Ortega JI, Burgaleta JI, Téllez FM. Central receiver system solar power plant using
molten salt as heat transfer fluid. J Energ Eng 2008;130:024501.
[26] Siebers DL, Kraabel JS. Estimating convective energy losses from solar central re-
ceivers. Livermore, USA: Sandia National Laboratories; 1984.
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51806009) and the [27] Montes MJ, Abánades A, Martinez-Val JM, Valdés M. Solar multiple optimization
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. ZY1814) for a solar-only thermal power plant, using oil as heat transfer fluid in the parabolic
trough collectors. Sol Energy 2009;83:2165–76.
are gratefully acknowledged.
[28] Solar Advisor Model (SAM), Version 2015.6.30. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
References [29] Montes MJ, Abánades A, Martínez-Val JM. Performance of a direct steam genera-
tion solar thermal power plant for electricity production as a function of the solar
multiple. Sol Energy 2009;83:679–89.
[1] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A review of studies on central receiver solar [30] Turchi CS, Heath GA. Molten salt power tower cost model for the system advisor
thermal power plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;23:12–39. model (SAM). Golden, USA: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2013.
[2] Xu C, Wang Z, Li X, Sun F. Energy and exergy analysis of solar power tower plants. [31] Hamby DM. A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environ-
Appl Therm Eng 2011;31:3904–13. mental models. Environ Monit Assess 1994;32:135–54.
[3] Benammar S, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. Contribution to the modeling and simula- [32] Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T. Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. John Wiley &
tion of solar power tower plants using energy analysis. Energ Convers Manage Sons; 2008.
2014;78:923–30. [33] Zhan Y, Zhang M. Application of a combined sensitivity analysis approach on a
[4] Zare V, Hasanzadeh M. Energy and exergy analysis of a closed Brayton cycle-based pesticide environmental risk indicator. Environ Modell Softw 2013;49:129–40.
combined cycle for solar power tower plants. Energ Convers Manage [34] Nossent J, Elsen P, Bauwens W. Sobol’ sensitivity analysis of a complex environ-
2016;128:227–37. mental model. Environ Modell Softw 2011;26:1515–25.
[5] Collado FJ, Guallar J. Two-stages optimised design of the collector field of solar [35] Saltelli A. Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices.
power tower plants. Sol Energy 2016;135:884–96. Comput Phys Commun 2002;145:280–97.
[6] Besarati SM, Goswami DY. A computationally efficient method for the design of the [36] Tarantola S, Nardo M, Saisana M, Gatelli D. A new estimator for sensitivity analysis
heliostat field for solar power tower plant. Renew Energ 2014;69:226–32. of model output: an application to the e-business readiness composite indicator.
[7] Atif M, Al-Sulaiman FA. Optimization of heliostat field layout in solar central re- Reliab Eng Syst Safe 2006;91:1135–41.
ceiver systems on annual basis using differential evolution algorithm. Energ Convers [37] Sobol’ IM. Uniformly distributed sequences with an additional uniform property.
Manage 2015;95:1–9. Comp Math Math Phys 1976;16:236–42.
[8] Wang K, He YL, Xue XD, Du BC. Multi-objective optimization of the aiming strategy [38] Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science
for the solar power tower with a cavity receiver by using the non-dominated sorting 1983;220:671–80.
genetic algorithm. Appl Energy 2017;205:399–416. [39] Alcantar V, Aceves SM, Ledesma E, Ledesma S, Aguilera E. Optimization of type 4
[9] Besarati SM, Goswami DY, Stefanakos EK. Optimal heliostat aiming strategy for composite pressure vessels using genetic algorithms and simulated annealing. Int J
uniform distribution of heat flux on the receiver of a solar power tower plant. Energ Hydrogen Energ 2017;42:15770–81.
Convers Manage 2014;84:234–43. [40] Vanderplaats GN, Moses F. Structural optimization by methods of feasible direc-
[10] Asselineau CA, Zapata J, Pye J. Integration of Monte-Carlo ray tracing with a sto- tions. Comput Struct 1973;3:739–55.
chastic optimisation method: application to the design of solar receiver geometry.
Opt Express 2015;23(11):A437–43.

692