Mirror Degradation

DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF A DUSTSTORM SIMULATION CHAMBER TO
EVALUATE SOLAR CONCENTRATOR DEGRADATION AS

CHARACTERIZED BY LOSS IN REFLECTIVITY
by
ELWIN GREGG COLLIER, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Approved
December, 1980
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I extend a deep appreciation to Dr. R. M. Bethea, chairman of my

committee, for his advice, direction, and continuous encouragement
during this study. A sincere thanks is expressed to committee members
Dr. John D. Reichert and Dr. R. E. Peterson for their valuable suggest-
ions and criticism. I am grateful to the Crosbyton Solar Power Project
for the financial support which made the study possible.
n
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3
CHAPTER 3 SOLAR COLLECTOR CLEANING METHOD EVALUATION 17
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES 28
System Design 28
Basis for Operating Conditions 34
Preliminary Exposure Tests 36
Basis for Simulation 45
Exposure Tests 46
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS 71
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 72
BIBLIOGRAPHY 74
APPENDIX A 78
APPENDIX B 82
m
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 3.1 Results of Initial Cleaning Methods Using

Common Glass Mirrors 20
Table 3.2 Reflectivity of Severely Degraded
Carolina Mirrors ' 23
Table 3.3 Panel Cleaning Results 25
Table 3.4 Reflectivity of Severely Degraded
Carolina Mirrors 27
Table 4.1 Glass Mirror Reflectivity 42
Table 4.2 Mirror Exposure Data for the Crosbyton
Airport and Sheriff's Tower for the
"Glass" Mirror Samples 43
Table 4.3 Mirror Exposure Data for the Crosbyton Airport
and Sheriff's Tower for the Carolina Glass
Mirror Samples 44
Table 5.1 Mass Weighting Factors and Velocities
by Position 50
Table 5.2 Percent Loss In Reflectivity for Exposure
Test I at 10 Degrees Incidence 51.
Table 5.3 Percent Loss in Reflectivity for Exposure
Test I at 40 Degrees Incidence 52
Test II at 10 Degrees Incidence 53
Table 5.5 Percent Loss In Reflectivity for Exposure
Test II at 40 Degrees Incidence 54
Test III at 10 Degrees Incidence 56
Test III at 40 Degrees Incidence 57
Test IV at 10 Degrees Incidence 58
IV
PAGE
Test IV at 40 Degrees Incidence 59
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 3.1 Schematic of the Reflectometer Used
in this Study 18
Figure 4.1 Schematic of the Duststorm Simulation
Chamber 29
Figure 4.2 Side Cross-Sectional View of the
Exposure and Mixing Chambers 30
Figure 4.3 Cross-Section of the Silica Flour
Auger System 31
Figure 4.4 Effective Particle Size Efficiency
for the Panel Filter Used 35
Figure 4.5 Reflectivity Losses and Velocities for
the First Preliminary Exposure Test
Using Common Glass Mirrors 37
Figure 4.6 Reflectivity Losses and Velocities
for the Second Preliminary Exposure Test
for the Third Preliminary Exposure Test
for the Fourth Preliminary Exposure Test
Using Carolina Glass Mirrors 40
Figure 5.1 Velocity* Profiles With and Without
Silica Flour and the Additional Braces
for Exposure Test III Conditions 61
Figure 5.2 Velocity* Profiles With and Without
Silica Flour and the Additional Braces
for Exposure Test IV Conditions 62
Figure 5.3 Raw Data on v; and a Coordinates 67
Figure 5.4 Raw Data and Equation (5.13) on L
and \l) Coordinates 68
VI
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The growing energy demands of the world and the depletion of petro-
leum reserves have created a serious energy shortage which necessitates
the development of supplemental energy sources. Solar energy is one such
source. Texas Tech University is presently engaged in developing a solar-
to-thermal energy conversion process using a fixed mirror, distributed
focus (FMDF) concept to convert solar to electric energy. The cost and
performance data obtained from this prototype system will provide valuable
information for the design of future solar power electric utilities.
Overall system performance is strongly dependent upon the quality of
the concentrator mirror panels as characterized by reflectivity and dim-
ensional stability. Abrasion resistance is of prime importance in regions
of windblown dust and sand such as the Southwest because of the sandblast-
ing effects on exposed mirror surfaces. This slow abrasion causes a loss
in reflectivity due to an increase in light dispersion.
The purpose of the project was two-fold. Firstly, the development
of a procedure for simulating long-term exposure of mirrors to duststorms
in order to assess the effects on mirror quality as indicated by reflec-
tivity was needed. Secondly, the determination of an economically and
technically practical method to clean the mirror panels in use at the
Crosbyton Solar Power Project (CROSPO) test site was required. Achieve-
ment of the first objective required the simulation of duststorm condi-
tions. This was accomplished by using the kinetic energy of an average
particle found in a worst-case duststorm to fix the velocity of the
1
silica flour particles used in the simulation chamber. The concentration
of the particles was Increased to enhance the rate of collision between
the particles and the mirrors. Using loss In reflectivity as the corre-
lating parameter, the damage occurring from actual duststorm exposure
was compared with that from sample exposure in the simulation chamber.
The result was a predictive equation for the loss in reflectivity with
exposure time.
Test samples of various mirror materials were quantitatively and

qualitatively assessed by reflectivity measurements. The quantitative
assessment was made by determining the loss in reflectivity as a function
of exposure time.
Before degradation testing could be initiated, it was necessary to
determine an acceptable way to clean the mirrors. That procedure was
then used to clean all duststorm simulation test mirrors prior to measur-
ing their reflectivity. The objective of the cleaning tests were to pro-
vide a way safely to remove paint spatters from the CROSPO mirrors and to
find a method to keep the mirror panels as clean as possible thereafter.
Various cleaning techniques were evaluated using a mirror panel selected
at random from the CROSPO site. Based on test results, a specific method
was recommended for cleaning the mirrors.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
It was concluded (Barriger, 1978) that of all the mirror materials

tested for use in the Crosbyton Solar Power Project, Carolina glass was
the best. Outdoor weathering of those materials over an eight month
period caused a permanent loss in reflectivity of from one to five per-
cent (Chin, 1978). This is the only information available about the
survivability of solar collectors on the South Plains of Texas. Yet
there is one test facility (Crosbyton Solar Power Project) in operation
and two other full-size systems in the preliminary design phase (South-
western Public Service; Crosbyton Solar Power Project). The economic
feasibility of such projects is highly dependent on the solar collectors
used. This stems from three factors. Firstly, solar collectors affect
the overall system efficiency. Secondly, the cost and frequency of
cleaning is dependent upon the type of collector. Thirdly, if a solar
panel cannot last for the 20-year projected life of the system, its
replacement cost is significant. Therefore, it is imperative that
further investigation be conducted to determine the relation between loss
in reflectivity and time. This is the reason that simulation of the
effect of duststorms on solar collectors was initiated.
Before the effect of duststorms on mirrors can be simulated certain
background information must be obtained: frequency and severity of dust-
storms in the Crosbyton area, particle size distributions found in dust-
storms, solar collector cleaning methods, and methods of accelerated
weather testing.
The South Plains experiences more hours of blowing dust than any
other area in the United States (Orgill and Sehmel, 1976). During the
1950's, the median suspended particulate concentration during duststorms
3
was 4850 ug/m and the median annual hours with duststorms was 45 in the
Great Plains (Hagen and Woodruff, 1975). For the 23 years prior to 1976,
the Lubbock area experienced an average annual rate of 223 hours with
dust (Orgill and Sehmel, 1976). During 1970 the annual geometric mean
3
dust concentration for Lubbock was 128 yg/m (Cowgill, 1971). Random
single-day samples during each two-week period for several years by the
National Ambient Sampling Network showed that long-term geometric mean
3
concentrations ranged from about 10 to 140 yg/m at various Great Plains
locations (Hagen and Woodruff, 1973). The Lubbock area is thus one of
the dustiest areas in the country. There are three Important reasons
for this. Firstly, the light texture of the topsoil causes it to be
highly susceptible to wind erosion (LaPrade, 1954). Secondly, the Lub-
bock area is an extensive agricultural district. It has been noted that
agricultural activities tend to promote blowing dust especially in the
early spring and late fall (Orgill and Sehmel, 1976; Kessler, et al.,
1978). Thirdly, the major crop in the area, cotton, offers minimal re-
sidue to retard erosion. Some conditions which tend to favor sandstorms
and duststorms are the lack of precipitation in the year preceeding the
duststorm period, the positions of highs and lows and the depth of the
depression (Sidwell, 1938), soil type, and a lack of crop residues (Fry-
rear, 1980). Three of these factors are inter-dependent in that rainfall,
soil type, and agricultural practices effect the amount of crop residue.
Duststorms on the South Plains are of two types and originate as a
result of four typical sets of atmospheric conditions. One type is the
local duststorm which develops because of weather conditions within a
small area. Such "dusters" are associated with afternoon and evening
thunderstorm activity in the immediate vicinity and are usually of slight
intensity and short duration. Thunderstorms over the area may spawn re-
gions of blowing dust as rain-cooled air spreads down and outward.
Locally the winds may reach speeds sufficient to raise dust and sand.
The duration of blowing dust with these "haboobs" at any one location is
usually brief, however yery large densities of dust may occur. The peri-
meter of the cold outflow, where dust is raised, may for a long-lived
storm, extend for many tens of miles.
With strong horizontal winds aloft over the South Plains, dust can
be raised at the surface during the afternoon as convective mixing brings
the higher momentum into the boundary layer. Due to the nature of the
soils, dust raising occurs at lower speeds with southwesterly winds. In
turn, southwesterly winds are favored within the lowest several thousand
feet of the atmosphere in association with lee-side trough formation.
(This Is a downwind response of the atmosphere to forced flow across the
higher terrain of the Rocky Mountains.) Since convection is the crucial
mechanism, blowing dust usually diminishes towards evening. Concentra-
tions of airborne dust are usually slight to moderate.
Blowing dust for up to several hours may accompany the stronger,
gusty winds of a cold frontal passage. Such fronts may approach from
the west through north to northeast. This direction will affect the
sequence of surface wind direction and thus the occurrence of dust. A
front approaching from the west may be preceded by strong south winds,
switching through west to northwest; Intense duststorms may develop. A
front approaching from the north may be preceded by strong west to north-
west winds, switching to northeast; the greatest dust would then occur
before the frontal passage.
The worst duststorms are associated with developing low-pressure

systems (cyclogenesis) in the vicinity. During late winter and early
spring a foremost area for such storm development is over Southeast
Colorado to the Texas Panhandle. Over a period of 24-48 hours, a storm
may move yery slowly eastward across the region as the pressure lowers
and the wind speeds increase. Widespread blowing dust may develop which
can last throughout the diurnal cycle and eventually spreading east as
far as the Atlantic Coast.
Wind can initiate three modes of soil transport: surface creep,
particle saltation, and suspension (Travis, 1974). Surface creep is the
rolling or sliding of relatively large (500 to 1000 ym) particles along
the ground when aerodynamic forces fail to exceed the gravitational force.
Saltation is the jumping and bouncing motion of particles within a few
centimeters of the surface. Particles which saltate vary in size from
100 to 500 ym and are quickly brought back to earth by gravity because
of their size and density. The third type of movement, airborne suspen-
sion, describes the transport of particles less than 100 ym aerodynamic
diameter which are lifted from the ground and are completely borne up by
the wind (Travis, 1974). Since the terminal settling velocity of parti-
cles Increase with size, there is a maximum particle size which can be
suspended by a given turbulent updraft (Gillette, et al., 1974). The
acceleration of a particle is described by
dv(z) - 3 V ( u ( z ) - v(z))^
dt 8r p'
where
C = drag coefficient of the particle

r = aerodynamic radius of the particle
d/dt = first derivative with respect to time
u(z) = velocity of the wind at z
v(z) = velocity of the particle at z
z = height above the ground
p = density of air
p' = density of the particle
(Gillette and Walker, 1977). The above equation simply states that the
acceleration of the particle is proportional to the difference between
the wind speed and the particle speed, squared, and it varies according
to the particle's size and density.
The particles found in duststorms on the South Plains are of two
basic types: clays which range from submicron to 20 ym and quartz (sili-
con dioxide) which ranges from 20 to 200 ym (Gillette and Walker, 1977;
Gillette, et al., 1974). The size distribution of the particles in the
first 1.3 cm above eroding soil for all cases is highly similar to the
size distribution of the loose particles smaller than 400 ym in the parent
soil. The size distribution very close to the ground thus reflects the
availability of particles from the soil (Gillette, 1976). A sample soil
size distribution is: 88% with diameter greater than 50 ym, 3.2% with
8
diameter between 2 and 50 ym, and 8.8% with diameter less than 2 ym
(Gillette, et al., 1974). From this, the proportion of particles smaller
than 20 ym is very small.
The variation in concentration of the heavier quartz particles with

height may be described by
C = C o^z
J ^ )' ^
0
where
C = concentration at height z
Cp = drag coefficient of the particle
C = concentration at height z
K = von Karman's constant
U = mean wind speed
U* = friction velocity = (0^)^^^ U
' = -sed/KU*
^sed ^ sedimentation velocity which is a function of wind
turbulence
(Gillette, et al., 1974; Gillette and Walker, 1977). The concentrations

of particles with diameter greater than 40 ym on slides sampled at 1.5
km above eroding soils were no higher than those on blanks. Thus, if
large particles were present at high altitudes but within the volume of
air in which dust is well-mixed, they exist in concentrations of less
than 0.6 particles per cubic meter (Gillette, 1976).
Rosinski and Langer (1974) showed that soil particles break upon
impact and that the number of secondary particles increases with increas-
ing particle diameter larger than 10 ym. Fine particulates are also
produced by the sandblasting effect of saltation which acts to dislodge
fine particles from the surfaces of larger particles. Small particles
are also produced when large particles "splash" into reservoirs of fine
particles. These actions and the greater settling velocity of large
particles explain why Gillette (1976) observed that at 1 m above eroding
soil the mass proportion of particles greater than 40 ym is reduced so
that the frequency of occurrence of particles smaller than 20 ym is im-
portant. They also help explain why Barriger (1978) observed mass median
diameters between 5 and 11 ym for duststorms at Crosbyton during the
1977 duststorm season.
The reflectors used in solar collectors are of two basic configura-
tions. If the reflective metal is deposited on the back of an imper-
vious, stable material, the collector is considered a second-surface
reflector. First-surface mirrors have the reflective surface located
on the front (exposed) surface of the substrate. The substrate for a
second-surface mirror is usually chosen for its weatherability; that for
a first-surface is chosen more for its structural properties (Jacobi,
1975).
The materials most commonly considered are polished metals, certain
polymers, and glass. Metals have yet to prove themselves in solar focus-
ing applications because of their loss in reflectivity. Tabor (1959)
reported commercial aluminum mirrors showed a 50% decrease in reflecti-
vity after a few months of outdoor exposure. Silver has the highest
solar reflectance. Unfortunately, it tarnishes and loses its high re-
flectivity quite easily (Bradford and Hass, 1965) and it is too expen-
sive for commercial applications. Chrome-plated and nickel-plated brass
10
sheets have been tried but their low reflectivities made them unsuitable
(Munoz and Almanza, 1978). Super-pure electrolytically anodized aluminum
such as Alzak has been shown to be a good collector (Tabor, 1959;
Meinel and Meinel, 1976) due to the protective qualities of its oxide
film which is ultimately about 40 K thick and relatively transparent
(Bradford and Hass, 1965). A severe problem with first-surface metal
collectors is the extreme care which must be taken to avoid or minimize
scratching either due to manufacturing or regular cleaning. Another
problem is some metals tend to be static prone and attract large amounts
of dust (Lamensdorf, 1976).
Of all the polymers, acrylics seem to be the most durable and demon-
strate the highest outdoor weatherability (Hampton and Lind, 1978). They
are transparent, stable against discoloration, lightweight and show good
resistance to weathering, breakage and chemical attack. They do have a
relatively large coefficient of thermal expansion, a softening point at
about 250°F, and become brittle with age or cold weather. Acrylics may
be extremely clear with transmittance values exceeding that of glass.
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the primary cause of degradation. Photo-
degradation of poly methylmethacrylate (PMMA) results in a decrease in
viscosity and in average molecular weight; it also contributes to the
formation of small amounts of volatile products produced by outgassing.
Polycarbonates are receiving much attention in the area of solar
collector development because of their high Impact resistance and high
optical transmission and because they are available in relatively specu-
lar form (less than 2% haze). These materials exhibit poor solvent and
abrasion resistance and show a high degree of yellowing upon outdoor
n
exposure (Hampton and Lind, 1978). A change in appearance and particu-

larly in color is an indication that a polymer is undergoing UV degrada-
tion (Brighton, 1966).
Halocarbon polymers also show some promise for solar energy collec-
tion. Teflon , a fluorinated ethylene-propylene material from this
group, has a solar transmittance comparable to that of glass and exhibits
wery good UV stability. Cross-linking resulting in embrittlement is the
predominant ageing mechanism. It possesses a highly non-wettable sur-
face which tends to attract and hold dust particles making it difficult
to clean (Hampton and Lind, 1978). It is this dust attraction and sub-
D
sequent cleaning difficulty that makes Teflon impractical for use on

the South Plains.
Some silicone compounds have been suggested as solar collectors.
They possess surface properties which allow particles to become embedded
on their surface. This soft surface makes them unacceptable for use in
areas which have frequent duststorms such as the South Plains.
Glass makes an excellent mirror substrate primarily because of its
dimensional stability. The inorganic nature of glass indicates a mini-
mum effect of ageing. The durability of glass to outdoor exposure is
relatively good. Periodic cleaning has been shown to prevent the con-
tinued build-up of weathering products and thus acts to restore losses
in reflectivity (Hampton and Lind, 1978). Although the applications of
glass may be limited because of brittleness, it has been shown to poss-
ess the advantage of Impact resistance if properly supported and protect-
ed from shock (Lamensdorf, 1978). If the iron found in the glass is in
the Fe(III) state, the glass can exhibit near perfect transmittance of
sunlight (Butler and Livingston, 1980).
12
Some materials which have been tested for the reflective coating in
second-surface mirrors are aluminum, copper, gold, platinum, rhodium and
silver. All except aluminum and silver were found unacceptable because
of their low reflectivities, 76 to 87% (Bradford and Hass, 1965). There-
fore, the primary attention in any study of solar reflectors should cen-
ter around the use of aluminum and silver (Jacobi, 1975). These reflec-
tive coatings may be deposited chemically or in a vacuum. In the case
of chemical deposition, silver produces the best possible second-surface
mirror if the silver is properly sealed to protect it from the environ-
ment. One problem which must be avoided is the Infusion of water between
the reflective coating and the substrate which can result in a separation
of the reflective film.
Aluminum and silver can also be deposited on a substrate by vacuum
evaporation or sputtering. Aluminum deposits easily due to its low melt-
ing point and high vapor pressure. Silver tends to agglomerate upon vac-
uum deposition yielding a poorer reflective surface although it does ad-
here to the substrate much more readily than does chemically deposited
silver. Because of better adhesion, water creep is not often a signifi-
cant problem.
Initial properties and the effect of environmental exposure are the

most important criteria in the selection of a solar collector. The ini-
tial properties essentially fix the upper limits of system efficiency
(Gilligan, et al., 1977). The main environmental factors that cause de-
leterious effects are sunlight, temperature, moisture, atmospheric con-
taminants and meteorological events. The effect of sunlight is due main-
ly to its UV component which has already been mentioned. Temperature is
13
important because it affects physical properties and increases rates of

reaction. Moisture is detrimental because of leaching effects on glass
and metals. It is also directly responsible for bonding failure due to
water creep. Meteorological events can have profound effects on collec-
tors. These can range from total failure due to severe hail, high wind,
or possible tornadoes to partial recovery of efficiency because of clean-
ing resulting from rain or snow.
The major problem with all solar collectors in operation today is

the effect of atmospheric contaminants on the collectors. This is a
universal problem for which a readily available solution has not been
found. Contaminants can result in severe reduction of collector effi-
ciency in a relatively brief time. Some examples are: 50% in only 14
days (Garg, 1974), 0.06 reflectance units (6%) in two days (Freese,
1978), and 40% per year (Gaines, et al., 1979).
Dust is the major atmospheric contaminant of concern. Long-term
exposure tests in which the mirrors were never cleaned showed a gradually
decreasing specular reflectance trend (Freese, 1978). The equilibrium
values (dust lost is equal to dust gained) of reflectivity, if they do
exist, are too low to be considered as a means of eliminating all mirror
cleaning (Blackmon, 1978). One of the major factors affecting the choice
of materials is dirt retention. Some materials accumulate negligible
amounts while others collect amounts sufficient to severely reduce trans-
mittance or reflectance (Gilligan, et al., 1976).
Particles are attracted to surfaces by gravitational forces, elec-

trostatic charges or may be carried there by wind or water droplets.
After settling, they are held by a charge double-layer, surface energy
14
effects and capillary effects, in addition to gravity and electrostatic

forces. In dry conditions, the adhesion force increases rapidly in the
first hour under the Influence of capillary condensation at the point of
contact. This water can leach chemicals out of the particles or the mir-
rors and/or absorb some components from the air which will react to form
chemical and physical bonds between the surface and the particle. Thus
adhesion forces can increase to greater than 10,000 times the gravita-
tional force, making dust removal all but impossible without damaging the
surface (Berg, 1978). The optical loss caused by a particle depends on
both its physical size and dielectric properties.
The effect of one duststorm has been noted (Blackmon, 1978). Re-
flectance data was taken on March 2, 1977 and again on March 14, 1977.
The duststorm occurred on March 9, 1977. It was visually observed that
a fine dust was deposited on the surface. The reflectance loss for a
glass heliostat and an acrylic heliostat after the storm was 7.17% and
10.95% respectively. The reflectance of the glass heliostat after cleaning
returned essentially the same pre-storm value (0.5% loss which is within
the standard deviation of + 1% for reflectivity losses). This indicates
that the glass tended to stay cleaner than the acrylic for duststorm con-
ditions, perhaps because dust does not adhere to glass as strongly as to
acrylics.
The objective of outdoor exposure testing is the determination of
the weathering performance of materials for any one or combination of
the following reasons: to provide statistical data regarding the predic-
tion of the Influence of weathering on material properties; as a quality
control technique; or as an end in itself (that is to ascertain the
15
weathering characteristics of materials that are selected for functional

properties other than environmental stability). The essential character-
istics of accurate exposure testing are that the test environment match
as nearly as possible that of the anticipated end use (or that it create
in the material the same effect as does the anticipated end use), and that
the diagnostic tests (for properties such as color, reflectance, tensile
strength, elongation, etc.) be selected to most accurately measure and
assess the degradation effects which most Importantly affect the choice
of material for utilization in a specific environment.
The objective of accelerated testing is the prediction of long-term

behavior in short-term tests. Accelerated weathering has as its specific
goal the prediction of environmental effects in test materials in a time
yery much less than the real-time operational life expectancy for which
the material or product was designed or Intended (Zerlaut, 1975). The
tests are performed by either simulating the weathering stress factor
believed to be most significant for the material being tested or by con-
centrating the natural weathering elements using higher, longer or more
severe exposures (Hampton and Lind, 1978). The essential requirement
is that the response to accelerated testing be independent of the dose
rate (flux) i.e., that it depends only on the total dose. When this
requirement is met, reciprocity is said to hold for the material and
therefore accelerated testing is a valid and accurate technique. The
results of such tests are readily correlated to real-time behavior.
Both quantitative and qualitative relationships are important in

accelerated testing. The qualitative nature of the defect generation,
the relative test periods, and the total exposure doses are required to
16
induce a given level of effect are equally necessary to determine correla-

tion factors. For this reason, whenever the natural ageing period runs
into several years, the different effects of summer and winter conditions
average out. For short-term assessment, it is essential to take account
of seasonal exposure and to make a record of the weather conditions dur-
ing the period of the test (Brighton, 1966).
Obviously, an accelerated weathering method correlates with real-
time exposure testing when specific defects can be generated in a mate-
rial with acceptable precision in a repeatable, shorter time interval.
Thus, the overall validity of the method rests upon the number of defect
parameters that are reproducible within the same approximate time inter-
val (Zerlaut, 1975). In general the best correlation is obtained when
a single stress parameter which is independent of other synergistic ef-
fects can be identified and used. The effect of duststorms on solar col-
lectors is believed to be independent of other synergistic effects.
CHAPTER 3
SOLAR COLLECTOR CLEANING METHOD EVALUATION
Because large reflector areas are required to produce solar energy

concentrations at a commercially usable level, it is necessary that the
reflectors be cleaned with minimal expenditure of time and labor. At the
same time it is essential that the cleaning technique not reduce the re-
flectivity either by surface abrasion or by deposition of a film of soap
or dissolved solids. With these considerations in mind, a series of
tests were conducted to find an acceptable way to clean mirrors. The pri-
mary objectives of these tests were: 1) to develop a method for cleaning
the mirrors that are now being used at the Crosbyton solar power site
and 2) to find an economical, technically practical way to keep the mir-
rors clean after removal of the dust, water spots, etc. accumulated since
installation.
Prior to testing, the reflectometer was set up as shown schematically
in Figure 3.1. The detector was a model 820 Newport Research Corporation
Laser Power detector accurate to +_ 1% of the full scale reading. A
0.794 mm (1/32 in. drill bit) hole through an aluminum slide in a Kodak
p
model 750 Carousel projector was used as a point light source. The cal-
culated divergence of the light beam that was passed through the 7 mm
iris was 2 mrad. A 5.6 mm diameter mask was placed over the active area
of the detector to give a 15 mrad acceptance angle. This limits the de-
tection of random scattering from the reflecting surface. The correspond-
ing output from the detector was recorded by a model EU-20B Heath Servo-
Recorder. The mirrors were adjusted to provide the maximum reading at
17
18
T3

oo
CO
CO
i.
O)
•M
OJ
E
O
u +->
CO
00 o
'o
»+^
•r— .
Q
&- O
o
CO (J
.:>«: c •r—
CO O)
(T3
+->
to ra
E
OJ
CJ
CO
19
each point. The points were selected at random to provide a true measure
of the reflectivity.
Because of a limited supply of the Carolina glass mirrors used at
the Crosbyton solar power site, common glass mirrors were used for initial
evaluation of a number of possible cleaning methods. Testing was started
by dividing 24 12.7 cm by 12.7 cm (5 in. x 5 in.) common glass mirrors
into eight groups of three. The initial reflectivity of each mirror was
determined and the homogeneity of variance of the groups was verified by
an F-test at the 5% significance level. Next, each mirror group was
cleaned in a different way to evaluate the effect of cleaning method on
reflectivity. The cleaning methods used were:
1) tap water rinse (TR)

2) DMDI water rinse (DR)
3) high pressure tap water rinse (HP)
4) high pressure tap water rinse followed by a DMDI water
rinse (HP, DR)

5) high pressure soap wash only (HS)
6) high pressure soap wash followed by a tap water rinse (HS, TR)
7) high pressure soap wash followed by a DMDI water rinse (HS, DR)
8) high pressure soap wash followed by a high pressure tap water
rinse followed by a DMDI water rinse (HS, HP, DR).
2 2
A two-sided case 2 t-test (a^ and o^ are unknown, but assumed equal) at
the 5% significance level was used to compare the reflectivities of each
group before and after treatment. Case 2 t-tests were also used to faci-
litate comparisons between treatments (see Table 3.1 for results).
20
Q
Q- C_3 O
OO C_J
00
00 00
Q
CO CO
o o
OO oo o
o 00
00
CO
CO
CO
«n I— c_> C_) o> +->
C_) C_) • o
C/7
CD oo oo CO
00
c
o to
s_
o o
C\J
oo C_) •
en oo C>0
C_3 co
e oo
•a
CO
e
CO CO
CO +->
o CO CO
OJ O CJ • CJ C_)
-M OO
O) tn oo CyO
03 00
Q
cn S-
o
^-
C_) C_) CJ • CJ CJ
a; oo 00 00 00
CJ CJ CO
00
c_>
CO
+J
n3 CO
OJ O)
cc CJ CJ CJ CJ
Q oo oo oo oo
00 on
s-
o o
^-
CO CJ CJ CJ
co' CO T3
(U
00
3 CO
CO
a;
cu
s_
(U en CD (U
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
CO* oo 00 c:
oo oo 00 oo
00 CO
c
-c o
03
CJ -r-
OJ >
CD OJ
c: CO
•1- o
Q: CJ
Q e
<o
or CD CD
Q; Q.
h- Q H
CO
A
«« #\
oo CO OO OO •*
Q •4-)
CJ
CJ o
oo 2:
21
The average initial reflectivity was 83.9%. TR left the reflectivity

essentially unchanged at 83.6%, while DR resulted in a slight increase in
reflectivity to 85.2% when compared to either the original or the TR re-
flectivity. However, HP Increased the mirror reflectivity to 87.0% which
is higher than all of the above mentioned methods. When HP was compared
to HP, DR (85.3%) no change was observed. From this it was concluded
that energy in the form of high pressure is important for cleaning. When
HS was used, a soap film was left behind which caused a decrease in re-
flectivity to 76.2%. The tap water in HS, TR removed most of the soap
but the resulting reflectivity (83.9%) was the same as the average ini-
tial reflectivity. HS, DR yielded a reflectivity of 87.3% which is equi-
valent to that of HP. The result of combining all three mechanisms (HS,
HP, DR) was a mirror reflectivity of 87.7% which is statistically equiva-
lent to that of either HP or HS, DR. Therefore HP and HS, DR were the
most effective methods tested in term of reflectivities.
To select the better of these methods, some Carolina glass mirrors

that had been severely degraded were tested. The degradation of the mir-
rors was accomplished by forming a 4 mm high bead of silicone bathtub
sealant around the edge, filling the mirrors with about 50 ml of either
a solution of saturated CaCO^ in tap water or a saturated suspension of
caliche (calicum carbonate crust that forms in the soil of arid regions)
in tap water, allowing the liquid to evaporate, and then refilling the
mirrors with the same material. Four mirrors were exposed outdoors during
these degradation studies while two mirrors were kept in the laboratory.
Mirror degradation was Initiated on September 21, 1979, and continued
until December 11, 1979 at which time each mirror had been filled and
22
the water evaporated naturally 21 times. All the mirrors were then
brought inside and stored in a sealed plastic bag until reflectivity
testing. The results of these treatments were exceedingly low reflecti-
vities, about 5% before cleaning. The mirrors were then separated into
2 groups and cleaned either with high pressure tap water alone (HP) or
high pressure soap followed by a DMDI rinse (HS, DR). Although there was
high variability in the reflectance values, t-tests based on reflectivity
measurements at four randomly selected sites on each mirror indicated no
difference in HS, DR vs. HP either before or after cleaning for all treat-
ments. The data also showed that both cleaning techniques Increased the
reflectivity of both groups as shown in Table 3.2.
Cleaning the mirrors at the Crosbyton solar power site is especially

difficult because of a faint film of paint spray on their surfaces. Be-
cause of the paint, it is necessary to use mechanical energy to clean
those mirrors. Therefore several possible cleaning schemes were tested
which were:
p
1) Glass Plus (household window cleaner)
p .
2) ECG (commercial glass cleaner and degreaser) in DMDI water
p
3) Alconox (laboratory glassware detergent) in tap water

4) Finish (household dishwasher detergent) in tap water
5) Bon Ami (non-abrasive household cleanser) in DMDI water
6) Indoor-outdoor carpet and DMDI water
7) Steel wool and DMDI water
8) Scrunge (plastic scouring pad) and DMDI water
9) Dobie (non-abrasive, sponge filled, plastic scouring pad)
and DMDI water.

Materials 1-5 were applied with cotton balls.
23
Table 3.2
Reflectivity of Severely Degraded Carolina Mirrors
Group I Group II Initial Reflectivity

(HS,DR) (HP) Reflectivity After Cleaning
Caliche - Water 35
CaCO^ - Water 5 40
(Lab)
CaCO^ - Water 13 86
Caliche - Water 4 41
CaC03 - Water 1 26
(Lab)
Caliche - Water 77
24
One of the FMDF panels (#321) was selected at random and brought in
from the field to be tested. The reflectivity was measured before and
after initial cleaning. The initial cleaning method was to wash the panel
with high pressure soap (HS) followed by rinsing one half with deionized
(DI) water and the other half with water purified by reverse osmosis (RO).
Next, the panel was divided into 18 10 cm by 30 cm (4 in. by 12 in.)
areas, 9 on the DI side and 9 on the RO side. Each cleaning method was
tested on both sides. The individual treatments lasted for 90 sec during
which the area was rubbed vigorously. After treatment, the area was wiped
with a clean cotton towel and allowed to air dry. Upon completion of all
treatments, the reflectivity of each area was taken in triplicate (see
Table 3.3 for average results). A case 2 t-test found the DI water side
equal to the RO water side at the 5% significance level. Therefore, aver-
age values were used for comparisons.
Glass Plus gave the highest reflectance (87.8%) and has the advan-
p
tages of being premixed and nonstreaking. The reflectivity of ECG was
86.6% but this material must be mixed. It forms if too concentrated.
p p
Alconox and Finish must also be mixed prior to use. Therefore, Glass
R R R R R
Plus is better than ECG , Alconox or Finish . Bon Ami and steel wool
were eliminated from consideration due to scratching. By comparing re-
ft R
flectivity for Glass Plus with those of indoor-outdoor carpet, Scrunge
R R
and Dobie , it is obvious that Glass Plus is superior. Therefore Glass

Plus'^ is the best material of those tested to use for cleaning the FMDF
panels. It removed the dried paint droplets as well as any material
tested.
25
Table 3.3
Panel Cleaning Results

(% reflecti vity)
Cleaning Average
Method DI RO % Reflectance
Initial Reflectance 76.2
HS, Rinse 84.1 80.7 82.4
Glass Plus^ 87.1 88.4 87.8
ECG^ 86.7 86.5 86.2

p
Alconox 87.3 85.2 86.2
Finish^ 84.2 87.4 85.8
Carpet 84.6 86.1 85.4
^Steel Wool 83.8 85.2 84.5
Scrunge 82.8 84.6 83.7
^Bon Ami^ 82.7 82.3 82.5
nnhip^ 83.1 80.6 81.8
'scratching was observed where these products were used.

26
Because the mirror panels are curved, it was necessary to determine

the concentration factor. This was accomplished by dividing the reflec-
tivity of a virgin (unexposed) mirror panel (#659) by the reflectivity of
a flat virgin mirror of the same material. This yielded a concentration
factor of 1.107 for Carolina glass when the detector is 39.6 cm (15.6 in.)
from the mirror. The results in Table 3.3 have been corrected for the
concentration effect due to panel curvature.
Because of the test results, it was decided to clean the severely

p
degraded Carolina glass mirrors with Glass Plus . The result was a slight
improvement (see Table 3.4). The mirrors were then filled with white
vinegar (5% acetic acid), allowed to stand for 20 minutes, drained,
p
rinsed with DMDI water, and washed with Glass Plus . These results are
also shown in Table 3.4. The losses in reflectivity still present were
due to leaching of soluble materials from the glass during the 12-week
accelerated weathering in the fall of 1979.
Based upon these results, it is recommended that the mirrors be
p
cleaned with Glass Plus . The necessary mechanical energy can be sup-
plied by a floor polisher head equipped with a curved pad mounted on an
extensible boom. The curvature of the pad should match that of the dish
p
and the pad should be lined with a sponge to hold the Glass Plus . The
sponge should then be covered with a soft replaceable material such as
cheese cloth which would actually contact the mirror surface. Cleaning
will be necessary on a periodic basis (biweekly, monthly, or bimonthly)
still to be determined as part of the ADVS evaluation. To minimize
necessity for cleaning of this type, it is recommended that the bowl be
rinsed with high pressure DI water eyery morning.
27
CO
oC 3
i- QI
03 CO CD 00
CD CO 00 00
CO 00 00 00 00
CU CO 00
E 03
> CD
CO
s-
O (AOC
irr
CO CO CT> CVJ
03 3 ir> Lf) CO Lf) 00
^ CD QI
CO
CO
03
r—
CD
03
S=
Oil
Q.
CO
^ C\J
s>
03
CJ
XJ
<:^ CU
CO
• -a
on
CU cn
cu r«
uo o CO
CO "Si- CO
J::^ C3 oo
H
03
of Severely
1—
tivity
tial
CJ <5i- LT) CO "!^ <-

•M •^
cu
•r— 1—( r—
> M-
•r" CU
-M Q::
U
CU
r""
M-
CU
OC
cu cu cu
c +J s- s. 4-> s. +J
o E 03 cu (U OJ cu 03
•I— CO 2 4-» 2
+-) -M
-> • Er -
+(T3 1
03
"g
03
2 1 3
03
1
T3 03
03 x: CU 1 r cu 1 CU
i- o -C J= sz
CD cu CJ CO ^—^ CO o CO ^-N (J
CU ^ •r— JO o •r-
O 1 —
o
CJ 03 CJ r—
o
CJ
J2 -1-
03 r—
fO 03 _ l 03 03 03 —I 03
CJ CJ 'C J CJ CJ 'CJ
o
CD
CHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES
System Design
In order to simulate the effects of duststorms on solar concentrator

panels, the simulation chamber shown in Figure 4.1 was designed and con-
structed. The reflectometer shown in Figure 3.1 was used to measure mir-
ror degradation as gauged by loss in reflectivity. The simulation chamber
consisted of four major parts: 1) the air supply system, 2) the silica
flour feed system, 3) the exposure chamber and 4) the dust exhaust control
system. The air was introduced into the simulation chamber by a 34.3 cm
(13.5 in.) diameter, high pressure belt drive Dayton model 4C131 blower
with a beltguard added. The blower was powered by a 3 phase 224 kW (3 hp)
3
3500 rpm Tosheba motor. The rated capacity of the blower was 37 m /min
(1310 dfm) against 19 cm (7.5 in.) of water and 32 m^/min (1120 cfm)
against a static head of 24 cm (10 in.) of water. The blower was con-
nected to a metering system constructed of a 215 cm (7 ft.) section of
10 cm (4 in.) schedule 40 iron pipe coupled with a 7.6 cm (3 in.) orifice
and vena contracta pressure taps. The pressure drop across the orifice
could be regulated by the vent which consisted of 60 cm (2 ft.) of 5 cm
(2 in.) schedule 40 iron pipe with an in line 5 cm (2 in.) gate valve.
After leaving the metering section, the air flowed into the mixing sec-
tion where the silica flour was Introduced.
The silica flour feed system (see Figure 4.2) consisted of a gravity
feed hopper, a silica flour auger system and a 6 rpm, 75 W (1/10 hp) gear
motor. The auger system which is shown in Figure 4.3 was composed of a
28
29
s-
cu
XI
E
03
.c
CJ
4-»
03
3
_E
oo
o
4J
CO
+->
CO
3
Q
CU
-C
4->
«+-
O
CJ
•I—
4->
03
E
CU
CJ
oo
cu
3
CD
30
CO
s-
<u
Si.
E
x:
CJ
re
cu
&-
3
CO
o
QL
X
LU
CU
cu
r
03 f
f
o
CJ
cu
oo
I
CO
CO
o
CJ
cu
f -o
1 •r-
00
C\i
cu
3
CD
II
1— } \ \
\ 1
CIn
31
cu
•M
CO
00
s-
cu
CD
3
<:
3
o
03
OO
CU
4
o
c
o
CJ
cu
C/1
I
CO
CO
o
s_
C_)
CO
cu
3
CD
32
37 cm x 1.9 cm (14 1/2 in. x 3/4 in.) steel shaft, a pillow block, two
flat-back double-sealed bearings, an aluminum cylinder, a steel plug, and
various pulleys. One end of the shaft was machined to have 3.15 left-
handed square threads per cm for 6.3 cm (2.5 in.). The threads were
0.48 cm (3/16 in.) deep. This end of the shaft fit into a 6.4 cm deep x
1.9 cm diameter (2.5 in. x 3/4 in.) longitudinal hole drilled in the
steel plug which was 8.6 cm long x 4.76 cm diameter (3 in. x 1 7/8 in.).
The other end of the shaft was supported by the pillow block. The bear-
ings provided support along the shaft. The steel plug fit securely into
one end of the aluminum cylinder (20 cm long x 10 cm O.D. x 7.76 cm I.D.
(8 in. X 4 in. x 1 7/8 in.)) which also housed the bearings. The pulley
fit on the shaft between the pillow block and the aluminum cylinder. Two
2.5 cm (1 in.) radial holes which extended to the center of the steel plug
were added to the cylinder and the plug. These holes were tapped for a
1.9 cm (3/4 in.) pipe. The first hole; i.e., the entrance port was cen-
tered 5.7 cm (2.25 in.) from the end of the cylinder. The gravity feed
hopper was connected to the entrance port and mounted directly above it.
The second hole (exit port) was centered 2.5 cm (1 in.) from the end and
rotated 180° from the entrance port. A 1.9 cm (3/4 in., sch. 40) pipe
was screwed into the exit port and extended approximately 13 cm (5 in.)
into the mixing chamber. The shaft rpm could be varied by changing
pulleys on the motor and/or on the shaft. A shaft speed of 22 rpms which
resulted in a feed rate of 3 g (j^ 10%) of silica flour per minute was
selected for use in the simulation. This was not critical since the
weathering effect should have been independent of dosage rate as long as
there was no particle-particle interaction.
33
Upon leaving the mixing section of the test chamber, the air and
silica flour were accelerated to the appropriate velocity by a tapered
section of 2 mm thick (14 gauge) sheet metal duct work. The end of this
section was 16.5 cm x 19 cm (6.5 in. x 7.5 in.) and was covered by a 10
mesh (6.3 holes per cm x 0.25 mm diameter wire (16 holes per in. and .01
in. diameter wire)) screen wire supported by a 3.5 mesh (1.57 holes per
cm X 0.64 mm diameter wire (4 holes per in. x 0.025 in. diameter wire))
screen wire. The purpose of the screen wire was to Insure plug flow of
the simulated duststorms as it entered the exposure chamber. The exposure
chamber consisted of a straight run of 30 cm x 30 cm (12 in. x 12 in.)
0.8 thick (22 gauge) sheet metal duct work and a mirror holder which could
contain up to sixteen 3.2 cm x 3.2 cm (1.25 in. x 1.25 in.) mirror speci-
mens. The holder was centered in the oncoming air stream and 25.4 cm
(10 in.) downstream from the screen wire flow diffuser. The mirror samples
were held vertically on the 16.5 cm x 19 cm (6.5 in. x 7.5 in.) holder
and faced into the air stream. The Interior of the exposure chamber could
be viewed through and was accessible by three windows in the sides and in
the top of the duct work around the mirror holder.
After leaving the exposure chamber, the simulated duststorm entered

the dust exhaust control system which was made up of two Involute entry
cyclones and a panel filter in series. The filter was connected to the
exhaust ports of the cyclones by a dual tapered 0.8 mm (22 gauge) sheet
metal section. The cyclones were Wm. W. Meyer models HV-14 and HV-18
3 3
with rated capacities of 11.3 m /min (400 cfm) and 18.4 m /min, (650 cfm),
respectively, with 7 cm (2.5 in.) of water resistance. At these flow
rates the cyclones were rated to have a capture efficiency of over 99 plus
34
percent for particles of 30 ym aerodynamic diameter or larger. The silica

flour recovered by the cyclones was trapped in wooden dust arrestor boxes
tailored to fit each cyclone. The "cleaned" air was then filtered through
p o
a Riga-flow 100 panel filter which had a rated capacity of 42.5 m /min
(1500 cfm) with less than 2.5 cm (1.0 in.) of water resistance. Filter
cleaning was accomplished by using a 0.95 cm (3/8 in., sch. 40) pipe as
a nozzle to blow 414 kPa (60 psi) air backwards through the filter for
cleaning purposes. The filter was rated at 95% removal for 2 ym and
larger particles and 99% removal for 4 ym and larger particles and essen-
tially 100% for particles above 15 ym as shown by the efficiency curve of
Figure 4.4. After filtration, the air was vented to the atmosphere. For
this reason, the simulation was conducted outdoors. Dust masks (Part No.
08710, 3M Company, MSA approval no. TC-21C-132) were worn whenever the
system was worked on or in operation for personal protection against the
respiratory hazard associated with exposure to free crystalline silica.
The silica flour used in the simulation had a mass distribution which
was linear on log-probability paper. This Implied that the size distribu-
tion was log-normal with a mass median diameter of 32 ym and a geometric
standard deviation of 1.86 ym.
Basis for Operating Conditions

In order to assess the damage caused by 20 years of duststorms in a
reasonable time, a worst-case approach was taken. From the literature
(Warn and Cox, 1951), a worst-case duststorm wind speed of 120 km/hr
(75 mph) was selected which was later confirmed as being appropriate
(Peterson, 1980). A mass median particle diameter of 11 ym, the maximum
35
99.99
99.90
99.80
99.70
99
98
cu
CJ
s-
cu
CL.
95
>>
CJ
cu 90
• I —
CJ
•M-
^
^-
LU
80
70
60
50
40
I i ^
30
' ' — \ \ ^ ~
! : ! i I
i ; _ \ i !
20 • I I I I I I
10
5 6 8 10 20 40 80
Particle Size, Microns
Figure 4.4. Effective Particle Size Efficiency for

the Panel Filter Used.
36
mass median particle diameter observed during duststorms at Crosbyton

(Barriger, 1978), was selected for modelling purposes. Since it was
thought that abrasion by particles should be a function of the particle
kinetic energy, the wind speed and mass median diameter were combined to
determine the kinetic energy of a particle for an average worst-case dust-
storm. The air velocity used in the simulation was determined by setting
the kinetic energy of an average silica flour particle equal to that of
an average worst-case dust or sand storm particle. This resulted in a
silica flour particle speed of 24 km/hr (15 mph) for duststorm simulation.
The needed volumetric air flow rate was then calculated by assuming that
the wind speed through the screen was equal to the particle speed. The
correct flow rate was maintained by adjusting the air supply vent valve.
Preliminary Exposure Tests

Before the actual exposure tests were conducted, it was necessary to
check for uniform particle exposure across the front of the mirror holder.
In order to evaluate uniformity of dust abrasion, a set of 16 common glass
mirrors were placed in the holder and 908 g (2 lb.) of silica flour were
metered through the simulation chamber. The reflectivity of each mirror
was then measured. The first test indicated that there was a tendency
for the upper left-hand corner (positions P-1, P-2, P-5, and P-6) to re-
ceive greater abrasion (as measured by loss in reflectivity) than the
lower right-hand corner (positions P-8, P-12, and P-16) as shown in Fig-
ure 4.5. The velocity 2.5 cm (1 in.) in front of each mirror was checked
with an Alnor model 6060P velometer. The results are also presented in
Figure 4.5. The non-uniformity in reflectivity loss was approximately
37
5^ -t-> CU
CTt
CO fO CM
s-
3
O o o o CVJ
•
o O CO
CO
LO
00 00
Lf)
O CM
CO
o CM O
CL
II II Lf)
I II I II II II X
I II I II
Q- Q- Q. O-
cu
S-
CL.
+->
CO
&.
•r"
Li-
eu
+-> sz
•M
Lf) CM Lf) CO 4-
C3^
O
00 CO Lf) s-
O o o • o Lf)
• O o
Cf-
Csj Lf)
CO
II
CD
II 00 o CM o co
I II I II I II I II
II II cu
•r~
CI. cZ Cl. cZ -»-> CO
•r—
CJ
s-
o
O s.
^— s-
CU • r -
=> 2 :
•o «/)
c CO
03 03
1 —
CO CD
CU
•r-
c/) c
E E CO o
&^ 4-
O E
^- +-> _l E
00 CO CO Cf- O
CD o CD CO
• LO O o r>. o >>C-J
4->
O CM o o CM •r— CD
CM CO >
II
00
II •r— " ^
c
1 II I II I II II - M CO
CJ Z D
Q. cc > CL. cZ cu + J
^—
>> M- CO
+J CU
•r—
cu
cx: \—
>
•r"
+J
U Lf)
CU
^—
4-
CU CU
ci: s-
3
c c >1 CD
+-> o •r- +J
+-> •r— • r—
o 4- CO ^- CD 4-> CO CJ
CO Lf) Lf) •r— CO
o o
O
Lf) CO
o CO o o CO
O
o
-J
r—
CU
Lf) CM CL.
II
CM
II
CD
II
>
CO II
I I II II 1 II
_l
CI. Cl. cc II Q. Cl. cc >
38
^5 C+-
cu
CD CT» 3
CT»
o • O
CO CM CM o CO CO
o lO
O
00 CM
00 CL.
II 00 CO
II CO X
I I II
II II I I II
II
O- Cl. O- Q-
cZ
OJ
c:
CU
S-
CL.
-o
cz
o
CJ
cu
C/7
cu
4-
CD CT> CT>
O O
CM 00 CO o LO 1— o o
S-
CO 00 CM 4-
II II CO
I II I II I II I CO
II
CU
Cl. CU CL. Q. •r"
+-> CO
• - - S-
CJ O
o s-
1— i-
cu •>-
> ^
- a CO
C CO
03 ra
r—
CO CD
CU
CO c
CO O
O E
4- —I E
CD CD LO LO
o o
o o O r-* o CM
O >^CJ
CM CO 00 CM CD
+->
• r - O^
00
II II > C
I 1 II I II I It "r— " ^
II
+-> CO
Cl. CL. CC CJ l U
cu
I — 4->
>>
4-) 4 - CO
•r— (U CU
>
•r-
cs: f—
-M
U
CU
.
CO
f"^
4- •
^
> 3
•r— CD
o •M
+-> 4-) 'r—
•^ "t—
4- CO
Lf)
4-
LO
•(->
•r— CO
u LL.
o o
o CM CM
O
CM CO I—
O
CO O
CO
o
_l
r^
CU
CO Lf)
II 00 II
00
as II
CO CL.
II
>•
I II II II I II 1
I II
-J
c£ Cl. CC O-
cc Q- cc ;=»
39
i
cu
S-
LO 3
o o o o CO
CM CM o CM I— CO CM
CO o
00 00
CO LO
II II II CL.
II I II I I 11 X
II LlJ
cc CL. CC Cl. Cl. cc
CU
s-
O-
cu
4-
LO Lf) S-
. o • o o o o
1 — CO CM CO CO CM LO CO 4-
CO
CO CO CO LO
II II II II CO
1 II 1 II II I II CU
-J _J •^ CO
CL. CC > CL. CC > O- +->
• r— s-
o o
r—
o i.
%-
CU • I —
>• 21
-a CO
c CO
03 03
r^
CO CD
cu
CO
CO
e
o
o E
_l E
O
LO r*^ (^ >>CJ
. o • o • o CO
• o
CM •r- CD
^- CO CO CM
CO CO
CO
«*
r— CO
CM 00 CO
It II II
> c
II CO
1 II II 1 II CO
—1 II _J _I
Q- CC > cc >« CL. cc 5» cu
1— 4-)
>, 4- CO
+-> cu cu
•p-
cc y-
>
•^
+J
O
•
CU
r>.
r—
.
4-
^
CU
CC
cu
3
e c
'r—
>>
-t->
CD
o • I—
•p—
U_
•^
•M (A
5« 3«
en •r— CO
o
CO
O CO O
o
r—
O
CM
O
00 CO
o CO CO CO CVJ O _J CU
00 Lf) CTt CO Q.
00 II II
It II
II I I II I II 1 II
I II
CC Q- O- CC CL. Q. CC 5»
40
i E
CU
S« •M
CO
+-> s.
CO
4- CO LO LO 4- 3
CD CD
. O C/)
r^ -!*• o CM I— o • O
CM
O
"sd- CD 00 CM CO r— CL
00 CO X
II II II II
II I I II I II
_l II
O. CC Cl. Cl. O-
cu
s-
o.
JZ
•M
s-
3
O
Li-
E eu
sz
+J
LO Lf) LO CO
00 CO CO i.
o CM
O
CO
• O
CO LO I—
o o
4-
CO CO
CM CO
II CM II II CO
I I II II I CU CO
II
• 1 - S-
Cl.
It
Cl_ Cl. cZ +J O
•1- s-
CJ s-
O -r-
r^ S
CU
> • CO
CO
- a 03
C 1—
03 CD
CO (O

o O •
o o O
>^CJ
00 O r— CM +->
•1- CD
CM CvJ CO 00 CM CO > £=
CD It II CO •r— ' ^
I It I II I II I II II +-> CO
O ZD
O-
cc O- cc" Cl. Cl. CU
r— +J
>^
+J
4 - CO
CU CU
•r~ CC h-
>
•r-
•M .
a 00
cu
1 —
•
4-
^
CU cu
oc 3
c: c
•r-
>^
+J
CD
•r-
o
•1— •r- LL.
LO 4- LO 4- LO LO -M CO CJ
CD CM CO
O O O O
•^- O
r—
• co o
CM CO CO CM O -J CU
CD LO CO CD CM P>^ CO
If II II II >
I II I II I II It I It 1
—i II
oc" CL. Q. Q_
cc :>
41
matched by the point velocity distribution. It was felt that the uneven
air velocities resulted in uneven ageing and were due to the shorter path
length and fewer abrupt changes in the duct work through the HV-14 cyclone.
To correct this pressure drop inequality, four layers of 10 mesh (6.3
holes per cm x 0.25 mm diameter wire) screen wire were added to the top
left-hand quarter. Two layers of this screen wire were added to the
lower left-hand and upper right-hand quarters of the 30 cm x 30 cm (12 in.
X 12 in.) duct work downstream from the mirror holder. The screen wire
that covered the entrance in front of positions P-12, P-15, and P-16 was
also removed. A 2.5 cm (1 in.) extension was added to the top of the
mirror holder. The velocity in front of each mirror position was measured
again. Figure 4.6 shows the results. Based on this data, a second pre-
liminary test using common glass mirrors was conducted. Figure 4.6 also
shows those results. From that test it was obvious that the velocity in-
equality problem had been over-corrected. The 2.5 cm extension was there-
fore reduced to 1.2 cm (0.5 in.) and the gap in the entrance screen wire
over positions P-12, P-15, and P-16 was covered with 6 mesh (3.15 holes
per cm x 0.44 mm diameter wire (8 holes per in. x 0.017 in. diameter wire))
screen wire. After this modification a third preliminary test was con-
ducted. The results are shown in Figure 4.7. After evaluating all of
the available data, a fourth preliminary test using Carolina glass mir-
rors was conducted. The results of that test are shown in Figure 4.8.
Examination of the data by the standard two-way analysis of variance
method indicated that there were no row or column effects at the 90% con-
fidence level. Each mirror position could, therefore, be considered
equivalent to any other position. The simulation chamber was then ready
for the simulated 20-year field exposure tests using Carolina glass mirrors
42
Direction
Northwest
Southwest
Northeast
Southwest
Southeast
Northeast
-M +->
Mirror
CO CO
CU (U
5 2
sz .c
+-3> •M
S-
0 0
00
>^
+j
•r-
> O
•r- 00 CD as
+J 1
CO 0 ^ CD CO CO
•
90.
O CO
88.
89.
CO CO 00
cu CM 00 CO CO
00 00
00 00
4I I-v.
cu
cc
>^
4->
•1- f^
> I^
•r- I O CM 00 CO CM CD
4-> r— . . •
O
CU
r—
I
f— o 00 I— o CD CO
•M CD CD 00 CD CD
<— O CO 00 00
CJ 4- r—
cu CU
CC
4^
CU
•5;t- CC A
(U
s_
o
s-
s.
ro
I— >
I
CO 03 -i-
to C
•I-
4->
O
LO CO CO 00 LO 00 n
03 CD CU O r— CD .— O 1— 00*
CD CD
CD T. 4I 00 CD CD CD CO 00
O CU
CC
o cu
S- E r— CM >— CM
CO CD I I
•r- 3
CJ CJ
s- o •M 4-) 4-> +-> 4-»

O -r- S- S- i.
S- +J i. i.
0 0 0 o o
S-
•I-
03
U
CX Q. Q. cu cu cu CL Cl.
i. s- s_ s-
2: O •1- o o o
^ 03 03
'Glass"
'Glass"
'Glass'
Glass"
Glass"
arolin
arolin
CO
Brand
to
Name
03
CD
~ — - = CJ CJ
43
CD
to i.
CU U
CU
CU
CL LU c (U
.a '^
E LO CO
.03
.13
03
OO
LO
•
CM CM CO
>*
CO,
CO
CO
f*o ;Z CM CO
CD
51.
22.
LO >— CO • •
+-> i_ ' ^ o o C3^ •^
s_ CU C U * ^ - CM CO
O
o C Q_ =
i.
i-
to
to
03
CD
^ CJ
CU E 03 cu
3 CU CO CD CO CO CM r— CO
4-> i_cM CO CO O O o o CO O 1— CO O
CM 1— p— CM LO
cu u
o E S- ^ ^
CO^
>— LO
4- O cu E
^ ^ CD
cu
to
4-
4-
<U ^ ' ^
cnZl u
CU 03 L, cu o LO
CM
LO CO CD CTl r - 00 rv. CD
CM CD LO O o CO CO CO ,— 00
oo •
CO* LO • .
CO 00^ CO* r^ CO CO
•o
CU
X)
03
o
CL
n
cu
&-
o o --^
t/) cu E o CVJ
o CO
CO CO o o co CO CM
CO
CO Q _
03
CJ
^ ^ o o o o CD
CO
LO
o
o : s +-> CD o
s_ CO >
O r- r-
c_>
cu
o
4-
c/)
03 3
-M 4- Q
03 O -^>> CM CO CM ^3- CO 00 O CM LO
Q CD c : CO ^ > — I —
CM CO r>« "53- CO CO 00 CM
CU cu C -r- CD
CO n— CD CO LO CO
CD
S_ CO 'd- •^ LO CO CM
3 CM CM
CO
o
CQ
o
Q.
X
J-
o -M
s_
a >
CO u o 00 CO CD
o CO CO I— O CO â- LO
CO CU'
O r— o o o O o O CO ^ r— r—
• .
CM r—
_J 4 -
cu
cc
44
>^ ,^
to CD
r cu
i-
^ O) ^
a. s= 'O ,^
E LU CU^y' LO 00
03 CM 00
i- = LO CO
C/^ ( J "rf" =
•r- U
i-
LO en
+-* S - " > CO OJ LO
o CU <U'^£-
s- C O. =
s..
•p—
•p-
:i^
CD
— '
^
to
to
03
p ^
CD
03
e *—«.
•r— CJ
r— E 03 cu
o 3 cu CO CO CD CO CM
&. -M i.<N CO CO CM
03
CJ
c <: CJ
cu
E CO
E S-^ft.
CU O cu E
^<=^ en
"*—**
s.
o
4-
s-
cu
2
o OJ > > - -
CD.T_ u LO
CO to 03 ( J CU
CM o CO
1^
o
^ O '^
«^ 4- CU J Z - ^
00* CD 4
4- > cu ^
CU T- •=c^ — CO
r— S-
.Q 
s-
•r-
i~Oi
to CU E CO CO CO
<c to Q_
03
CJ
- ^
1^
c: 5 1 •*-> CD
o co>—
4-> 3
>> CD
X)
to
o
CJ
s-
cu •4->
.CI to
4-> 3
4- Q - — CO CM CM o
s> O
t3>'r—
C «;^ CO CO
o CO CM CD
4- CU c E CD CD co
E---"--^ CM
03 •<- 2 CM
-M f— o
03 ^—
CD CO
CU
S-
3
to >>
4->
o
C3_ •^-
X
LU
c >
• r - -r—
4->^^. CO CD CM CM
s_ cA a &«
o to cu "^— O LO •
t- O r—
S- _ I 4-
•r- cu
S oc
45
Basis for Simulation

In order effectively to evaluate the degradation of Carolina glass
mirrors due to duststorms, a base-line was necessary. This was provided
by the mirrors that had been deployed around the wind sock at the Crosby-
ton Airport (2 m elevation) and on the Crosbyton sheriff's transmitter
tower (approximately 30 m elevation). The reflectivity of each mirror
was measured before it was exposed, again in 1977 after a known exposure
of four to eight months and again in 1980 after nearly 3 years of field
exposure. The results of these measurements are shown in Table 4.1.
It was assumed that atmospheric conditions during duststorms in
Lubbock, Texas (40 miles west of Crosbyton) were sufficiently similar to
those in Crosbyton to allow use of the hourly records of the National
Weather Service (NWS) in Lubbock to estimate exposure to blowing dust.
Since the NWS did not measure the dust concentration during duststorms,
it was necessary to estimate the dust concentration from a visibility -
concentration relation obtained from a least squares fit of data gathered
near the CROSPO site (Barriger, 1978). The equation was
r = ill— (A n
^ V + 0.309 ^ ^
3
where: C = concentration in mg/m and
V = visibility in km.
The hourly records of the NWS provided the visibility along with the wind
speed and direction and the time and date of the reading. From this it
was possible to calculate the data in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. When a dust-
storm was beginning and ending, the last and first non-blowing dust times
were also recorded so that they could be used in approximating the total
46
time of blowing dust. The mass, momentum and kinetic energy of the dust
in Table 4.2 take into account the wind direction. Those values were cal-
culated using the velocity component normal to the mirror surface. The
time of blowing dust listed in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 takes into account all
the time when the wind direction was within 90° of the surface normal of
the mirror. The program by which the data in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 was cal-
culated is presented as Appendix A. The data from the National Weather
Service is Included as Appendix B. From the data in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and
4.3, the mirrors averaged a reflectivity loss of one percent eyery 7200
minutes of blowing dust. Since Lubbock averages 223 blowing dust hours
per year and 78% of that is from the southwest quadrant, a new glass mir-
ror facing in that direction would be expected to lose 1.45% of its orig-
inal reflectivity during its first year in the field.
When 908 g (2 lb.) of silica flour were used in the fourth prelim-
inary simulated exposure tests an average loss in reflectivity of 1.9%
was obtained. Therefore the average yearly duststorm exposure can be
simulated by feeding 692.5 g of silica flour through the simulation cham-
ber.
Exposure Tests
The exposure tests were started by cleaning the filter, emptying the
dust arrestor boxes, placing 16 virgin Carolina glass mirrors in the hold-
er, sealing the windows to the exposure chamber, placing a measured amount
of silica flour in the feed hopper and starting the blower and then the
silica flour feed system in that order. The hopper was refilled as nec-
essary until 3460 g (7 lb., 10 oz.) of silica flour had been used. Then
the silica flour feed system and the blower were turned off, the window
47
was opened and four randomly selected mirrors were removed. The system
was then sealed, the hopper filled and the blower and feeder restarted.
This procedure was repeated until all the mirrors had been removed at the
end of the simulated 20-year exposure. Upon removal, the mirrors were
labelled and set aside for at least 24 hours to allow any mirror-dust
interactions to approach equilibrium. The mirrors were then cleaned with
Glass Plus and the reflectivity of each measured at two different in-
cidence angles (10° and 40°) and with five different masks in front of
the detector. The acceptance angles of the masks were 0.5 mrad, 1.0 mrad,
1.5 mrad, 2.0 mrad and 15 mrad. The reflectivity of each mirror at each
angle-mask combination was measured twice. The second measurement was
made after the mirror had been rotated 90° about its surface normal from n
the first reading. The average of the two measurements was used for comp- J
A
utational purposes.
n
%
1?
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Exposure tests at varying conditions were conducted in order to de-

termine the physical parameter that characterized solar concentrator de-
gradation due to duststorms. Preliminary observations indicated that
changing the average wind speed through the simulation chamber resulted
in shifts in the exposure pattern. Therefore before an exposure test at
a new wind speed could be conducted, it was necessary either to make pre-
liminary exposure tests or to account for those shifts. This was done
by calculating a mass weighting factor for each mirror position at each
average wind speed. The wind speed 2.5 cm (1 in.) in front of each mir-
ror position was measured using a pitot tube and differential manometer
filled with toluene and water. The mass weighting factors were determined
by feeding a pre-weighed amount of silica flour into the simulation cham-
ber while measuring the mass of silica that passed into a 6.35 mm (0.25
in.) O.D. stainless steel pitot tube which had its nozzle centered 2.5
cm (1 in.) in front of each mirror position. This procedure was repeat-
ed twice for each mirror position at each average velocity. The mass of
silica that passed into the pitot tube was measured using a GCA Corpora-
tion model RDM 201 Aerosol Mass Monitor which used 3-ray attenuation to
determine the mass of silica collected. Calibration of the Aerosol Mass
Monitor with a known reference yielded a standard error of 0.0245 mg.
48
49
The mass weighing factor for each position was determined from
Z [mass collected ]
WF.. = :=1 \ mass fed
k=l\ I^^
/ijk (5 ^j
ij 16 2 /mass collected *\
Z Z I mass fed lijlk/16
j=l k=l ^ '
where: i = exposure test number (I, II, III, IV)

j = number of weighing factor measurements made at each
mirror position (1, 2)
WF.. = mass weighing factor for position j of exposure test 1
' «j
The mass weighing factors and the measured velocities for each position
at each set of exposure test conditions are given in Table 5.1.
The results of Exposure Test I are shown in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. To
verify that the test was reproducible. Exposure Test II was conducted
using the same mass intervals (3460 g of silica flour) and the same aver-
age velocity (6.7 m/sec) as Exposure Test I. The results of Exposure
Test II are shown in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. Statistical analysis of the
two exposure tests using case 2 t-tests at the 90% confidence level indi-
cated that the two exposure tests were equivalent. Therefore, the test
results were assumed reproducible at the 10% singificance level.
Four exposure tests were performed in an attempt to determine the

mirror degradation mechanism. Exposure Tests I and II were made at the
wind speed necessary to produce silica particles having the same kinetic
energy as that of dust particles in a worst-case duststorm. The next
two exposure tests were conducted at two different velocities to provide
three average wind speeds for data analysis.
50
U ^ o « ; d ^ l o c o r - r > ^ c o ^ £ )
CU ^ CO r>. CO I— CM LO O
CO . . .
CVJ <!:l- CO O co^ ^' ^* r-' O CM CM o • • • •
1^ CD 00 CD
CU
i_
3 4-)
CO to >
o CU 1—1
CLh-
X
O CO 00 OJ LO CO
O 00 «:!-
CD "sa- CO CM CO CO r»^ o
CO r^ '— CM CO r^ o CD 00 r>«.
O r- O O r- r- P- O r- 1— O I—
to
o
o_
>>
JD
CJ
to CU
CU CO
C ^ L 0 l O 0 C 3 O O L O l - . i n L O l O 0 0 O l - . C 0 L O
CD o <T. CO* d ,-• d r>! CO CD CD CO CO
CU
u s-
o CO to rU
cu o cu ni^
X
LO -a LU
CO O CD CO
e O LO CM 00 CD CO CM CM 00 CO
CO O CO 00 00
CU 03 00 <a- I— 00 CO ro 00 CD CM I— CD)
JD
O r— O r— r—
to O p— r- O O f— I—
S-
o
•»->
CJ
03
CD
-(->
SZ CJ
CD CU
to
CO o• r^. o. C O O r - C O C O L O l ^ ^ L O O O O C M
CU LO 1"^ CO CO
cu H-) L O | ^ t ^ C O L O C O C O C O < ^ L O L O L O
S- I—I
to 3 +->
to to CO "O
03 O CU c
CLh- 03
X
LO LO CM
CM CD
CO •?}• CO LO CO CM o CO CO o 00 00
oa
LO O r- CD CO CM CO r— CO o CD 00 00
O I— r-
-— o o ^ ,- P- ^ _ o
o
S_ - p -
O 4->
S- -r-
S- to -1- CM CO LO CD 00 CD O I— CM CO
•p- o LO CO
2 : D_
51
O
•a O
00
CO
LO ^ o CM CO CO o o CD
CO 03
LO r— LO o CO O CO o o o CO
• i. LO O <T> CO LO CO CM
O E CD LO CD CT> cu
.c
-(->
cu
CU
o •
4 - S_
u
sz cu cu
cu
T3 E 'o
•n-
r— 00 LO LO 1^ CO
U
LO O LO CM LO o CO
LO CO CO CO CO cu . c
O fO CD LO 4->
c CO CO CO CO LO CO
to S-
CM CO LO CO LO CD CD
CM CM >^ o
to
cu to S-
cu
s- cu T -
CD cu
CU o .cr
Q 4J -M
iZ
to •p- 4-
CU —. LO CD 00 o o
.58
LO 1—
CO O LO CO r-
O CO 00 o CD 00 1^ CD •o
4J 3 LO fO CM O 00 o en CO 00 r— CO cu fd
03 +-> . S-
25.
LO 00^ •
00 CO* 3 CO CM CO LO • • 4 - cu
O) —- CM CO CO I—
CL 03 03
CO u
CU •I- (U
to
to
CU 4- -p-
CM
s_ o
LO 3
CO <M
to CM r^ CM CO CO 1 ^ 00 O^ O <^ r— CO to E
O
CL
-a O LO I— CO CO CO CD •^ .— r— LO
CD I—
to CJ
CU 03
X O 03 LO CO r^ LO CM CM 00 CO ^ LO CX> CD
LU E 00
CM r— CM p—
03 S- CM E
(U CO
o +j cu
S-
4- CD cu
sz J C
>^ •^ =
I CM
CL E
4-> I— CM •I- O
CO CO 00 LO <5j- CO
CJ CO O CO CO r«» f—
o CD LO LO CM o CO +J
CU LO 03 • •
CO LO CD» 00 o r— 0 0
I— S_ CO «?}• CD 00 CO •^ ^ C>0 LO
• LO CO • 3 ^
CD E CO
cu E CO
OJ CM o
cc CM
.Q X)
•o -o
cu cu
to c -o
CO •f— " r -
o
E >
"O 03 S_ T -
CU cu CU " O
c: +-> s- CO as CO CM I— 1 LO CO
cu c j c a : CM 'a- LO I— "Si- o 1^ «^
00
CD CO
CM
CD
o 00 CM LO
o cu ^ ^ E • • • « 00 CD 00
S- s- t o o CM r^ LO LO I— CD «^' CM ^ CO CD 00^ LO
to ©a
cu S- t o CO I— p— CO CO CM CM CO 03
O 03 CD CM S LU
CJ 2 :

to o
03 E
cu
c: &-
o •a
to
cu 03
O 4->--> -f->
CM CO LO CO 00 CD O I— CM C>0
u
s- to^ LO CO cu
•r- O o
s-
2: o. o
CJ
52
CO pv. LO CM CO CD pv. CM CD CO po. 00 o o

t^ CO LO CO p— o O CM LO
LO 03 00 CO p^ CD>
• 00
CO LO I— (D 1^ O CO CO
O E CO CO P** <Tt «3- CM cu
•— CM CM I— CM CM r—
 CD» 00 CO CO O LO CO
E 'o
-a •o O CM CM LO 00 CO O CO cu sz
'r—
CO CO CO CO 00 CM CM CDi +J
O fO CO
O • s- CD» O • • to S_
CO LO LO CD P^ LO CM
r— CM CM o CM >^ o
CO to S-
to CU -1-
cu .c E
cu +J
i_ cu
CD o .c
CU
Q
to •I- 4 -
O cu r— CO 1— ,— CO CO "53- r— o CO CM CM CO OJ CO O o
s. -o CO «^ 00 CO O CO 1^ LO O CO CD LO CD O cu re
3 LO 03 CD
+-> r—. S- LO CO O CD O • • • 4 - CU
03 CD LO CO CD CM CM
s- F r— p— CM CO ^ 00 CM I— 03 03
cu CM I— CM
CL CJ
•p- 
CU to
to
4 - -r-
CU
CO i.
o
00 r— ^ O «^ CO E
3 as I— o CO CD 1^ CO CM r— CO to CJ
LO to CD CO I— r— ,— «* CM CD CO CM CM
O 03 CM o CO as as 03
CU
o • i. LO LO CM 00 .— CO LO LO E CO
CL CM E 00 CD I— CO p—
X 1— CM CM r— CO CM 1— CU CO
.a .c
03 + j cu
o s-
4- as cu
•I— S
>>
I CM
Q. E
CO 00 o ^ r— LO O •I- o
CM LO O I— O CO CO 00 OJ +J
•o 00 CO CM 1^ 00 CD CO LO CO CO CO CM O LO r-
CJ LO fO I^ p— LO
cu I — i- CO CD CD CO CO CO CO LO 3 «5f
00 CD CM
CM r— CM CM E CO
cu >^ >^
cc SH JD
CU CU
c: -o
to •p- "p-
to E >
i. -p-
o * CU "O
_t T 3 03
CU CU 4->
+-> S- CU •'I.
+-> CO CD CO CM «— LO 00 CO OJ o CO P*. CM I— LO X3 H-.
c: O «=C <N «!d- LO p— «^ r^ "^ CD CO CD p>. <a- CX3 CD 00 ^ t—I
cu CU - ^
CJ i . to CJ CM P«» LO LO 1— «^ CD <;S- "^ CM ^ CO CD CX) LO r^ to oa
s- S- to r— CO r— r— CO CO CM CM I— •^ •— I— CO CM p— fO I—I
cu O 03 CDl
Cl_ CJ S
)
s- -Q
"^ cu
to >
CO o
g E
E d)
o (U to
S_ -1-
O 4J—. 4 J <T3
2
S_ -r- •.- I— CM CO LO CO CO as a ,— CM CO CJ
LO CO i-
S- C0«-—' cu o
•r- O S-
S CL.
o
CJ
•»c
53
LO p««. LO 00 CM 00 CO LO
•o p*^ 00 CO CO
CO p—
o CM 00 LO
LO 03 as P>«. I— CO
CO CD 00 CO CD
• i. p*.
CO CM CO CM P^ CO pv. <— 00 00 .—
o p— CM CM CM CM I— ,— o
CO* cu
CM
cu
s- •
O i.
4- cu
CU cu -a
CJ JD r—
e o
cu CO LO LO E x:
CO LO CD CO
•a 00 as p^ LO CM CM CM
CO CM LO O P^ cu
O 03 LO O 00 CD» CO LO ••-) s-
o en CO CO CO I • tO O
CO 00* LO o
c: CM CM CM
00 LO O 00 CO >^ s-
CM CO S-
CO
cu
cu ' i
cu JZ
i. 4J cu
cu
sz
O 4->
Q E 4-
CO
•r- O
cu p^ P>» CO O CO CD CO
S- -a CD LO CO O LO CO
00 LO 00 00 CO CM -a rt3
CO CM CO LO CO p>. CM
3 LO (0 CD CO cu cu
+J . as I— v^ 4- S-
03 S- r—
s- O CO CO CD> co^ I— LO CO CO 00 CO 03
E 1— CM CM CM CM r— r- r— 03
cu
Q. CJ cu
•r- JZ
o: I— -M
to CO to
J
CU E
S- CM CO CO LO CO r— OJ to CJ
3 CO 00 CO 00 p>* o CO CD to 4
LO -a o . on• o CD I— o CO CO
to O 03 • o CO
CO CM 03 00
CU o • s_ CD» CO LO CO CM LO • E «^
CL OJ E t—
OJ
CO CO
LO o CM CD LO
CM CM CO
J3 X CM
cu
03 sz cu
I— -M S-
o CU
4- CD.E:
^ E
Q. CJ
r— CO en ,— ,— •r—
-a CD pv. p>.
o CD pv. LO CD CM 1— CD CD +-) CO
O CO 00 O 00 ^ CM CO CM
LO 03 i— «^
CJ r— i_ 00 OJ CO O LO
• 3 CO
CO CO CO I— CO <^ I— CO LO
CU r— CM E
CM CM OJ p—
>.^
cu
ac
2!-2
to TD
to •»«
o •D 03 cu •r"
_j
cu s- CU 4-> t—1
+-> CO CDl CO CM CO CD LO CD CO CO CM o CO
cu
CO
4J cj<: CM
cu ^^
Eu
en LO CO CM <* CO CO LO as CD 5 P^
-a 1—<
CU s_ to «;3- 00 P^ LO O CO as CM 00 , CO CO CD CD LO CO H—1
00 03 Lu
CJ CO CM CM CM «:r •Si- LO CO LO CM
o 03
a •"" •"
 CM u
&. CO ^ '— CO "IT LO CO r^ 00 CD o .— CM CO «;r LO CO cu
•t— O" S- o
Cor
^ a.
54
^1- CO o OJ as
o CO
XJ LO CO o 00 o CM LO
CD CO
CO 00
CD
O
CD LO
CO
CM
LO 03
• as O
• i. CO LO
lO O CD o CD CM
•
as \— 1— c^ CU
O E r— CM CM CM CM CM x:
-M
CU
S- •
O S_
4- CU
cu CU TD
CJ JZi I—
d o
cu O CM 00 E .e
CM
•a
o «a
CD CM O CD o LO
CM
00
O
<—
CM
O
O
I^
O
P>^
CO CO r— CM
CO
cu
00 as CM +J S-
CJ 00* CO^
LO CO O
CO CO
CD
•
CM o CM
CM
CM
OJ
LO CM
CM >> s-
CM CO (O s-
CO
cu cu
cu cu
S-
O 4J
cu
Q C 4-
CO •t- O
o OJ ^-v LO
CD
O
P^
CO
CD
«* CM CO CO CO CO « ^ p - CD 00 CM r— •O 03
S- -o O I— LO CD CD CO
cn CM CM CU CU
4-> 3 LO 03 • o r^ 4- S-
-M . i_ CD LO CO CO I— CD LO o I— I— CO 03
S. r- E f— CM CM CO CM OJ o ^ 03
OJ —- CM O CU
a. •I- x :
r— -M
to •r—
CU
CO CO
4- ""
OCM
LO CU E
CO 00 CO o
LO 3 o CD CM
LO O
CO
1^
CO
00
CM
O
LO
CO
CO
OJ
CO
CO LO to 4
to CO CO P^ CO O 03 CO
CM • •
CU O LO CO CD 00*
CO cn as o ';^ n- ,—
E -»;l-
CL OJ
CM
CM CO co
.a CD CM CM p— CM
X CM cu
03 jd cu
cu
o cn.E:
4-
>> CL U
CO r^ LO CO •r—
o o CO 1^ LO CD p^ CD CM O O 4-> 0 0
CO CM CM p^ CO LO LO CO ^
LO 03 CM CD 00 1— ^ < — -vj-
u r— i. CO LO CO CD 00 .— CO r-
3 CO
cu O CM
E CM CM CO OJ CM I— CM E
4^ >.^
CU
CC J3
T3
"O CU
CU "O
to
to S- T 3
o CU
cu cu
C>0 CD CO
CJ cCi CD I— LO C M O O C D L O C D C O O O C M O r f C O i — ro -a '-'
cu --"v^ « ! j - C O C M * ^ > v l - C O C O L O C D c n « ; ^ C 0 P ^
cu S_ to CJ 00 LO O CO CD CO °^
CM 00 1— CO CO CD CD LO 00
u S_ to CM CM CM p— 'd- LO CO LO CM n '—'
s- O 03 cn
cu CJ s:-
O- C U ^
s- _
• ^ cu
00 >
'Eôw;
to O
o T 3 to
i_ - 1 - CU 03
O -M- +J
S- -p- •— CM CO LO CO CJ
i . CO" CX3 CD O I— CM CO LO CO CU
•r- O o
s_ i -
o
CJ>
55
Exposure Test III was conducted using mass intervals of 1730 g of

silica flour (one half that used in Exposure Tests I and II) and an aver-
age wind speed of 9.5 m/sec. The results of this test are shown in
Tables 5.6 and 5.7. An average velocity of 12.4 m/sec, which was the
maximum velocity possible for the system and approximately double the
wind speed of Exposure Tests I and II, was used for Exposure Test IV.
The mass intervals were the same as used in Exposure Test III. After
starting Exposure Test IV, it was observed that the reflectivity losses
were greater than had been anticipated. Therefore, after twelve mirror
samples had been removed, four additional mirrors were added at random
to the available positions. These additional samples were exposed to
4
approximately 865 g of silica flour. The results for all 20 test samples rt
are given in Tables 5.8 and 5.9. Exposure Test IV results show more /^
scatter between reflectivity measurements made on the same mirror with
different detector apertures and at different angles than had been ob-
served in earlier tests. These differences were due to non-uniform de-
gradation of the mirror surface resulting from fewer but larger surface
blemishes.
Preliminary evaluation of the test data indicated that each sample
in the bottom row (positions 13, 14, 15, and 16) of Exposure Test IV
showed an unaccountably large degradation. Upon examination of the dust-
storm simulation chamber, four possible causes were found. Firstly, the
braces supporting the mirror holder could have acted as spoilers. Second-
ly, there were some entrance effects such as silica flour deposition be-
low the velocity diffusion screens which could not be quantified. Third-
ly, Exposure Test IV was performed at the highest velocity (12.4 m/sec)
56
XJ
o O
LO
p^
o as CM CO •* O 00 CM CM LO CD
CO LO LO CM <xj- P^ LO
LO fC CD o CD CO CO CM
• • •
o E
CO
CM
o cn as CO
•
CM CD r— CD LO CM 00 LO
«
LO CO CU
OJ CM CO LO CO CM
CO p— CM LO CM JZ
4->
CU •
CU
o cu
CJ 4- -O
E CU I—
(U JD O
•a CO CM CD CO CO CD CO
•o o CM 00 co 00 CD CO CO CU i-
LO 00 CM CO
a O 03
CD
o o •
00 CO CO
•
LO -M O
to S.
CO O 00 CO CO I—
CM CM LO 00 >> s-
CO CO LO
CD
o CO I— LO
CO
CM tO -1-
CO
cu
CO E
CU
cu sz cu
CD •M .E
CU O
Q +J 4-
E O
CO
^1- 03
CU *->
LO CO
CO CM
CO
00 LO LO
00
CD CO o 00 O I— CO CO CD -a cu
•4-) s- -o 00^
o o CO
• p^ CO o 00 LO cu s-
(a 3 LO 03 CD^ CM
•M
X-^ E
• S- CM d CO
CM
CO
oo'
LO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
• *
CO
CO
LO
CO as
CM
4 - 03
(U «^^ CO 03 cu
CL o x:
•.- •*->
•I- CO
to to •!—
cu
4-<N
O E
CO cu CJ
LO CO
LO
i-
CO o CD CO O 00 CM CM
CO CD
CO LO CO CD
o CM to 0 0 4
3
to
O 03
• S-
CO o o 00 r-
o CO CM CD CO
• o CD 03 «NJ-
• • r— CO* E CO
CU o
CL
ocj E CM CM ^ o CM r— CO
CD
CM CO
CO
I— r^ CO LO
LO
CO d cu cu
<
03 X
CM 1—
CO CO CM CO sz s- 7
-M O)
x:
o cn s
E
•I—CM
>^ E
>— u
CL
CO as p^ CM CO CO CM CO 00 CO ••- 00
T3 CO CO CO «— o 4-> -^^
r— «^ CO 00 CO CM CM CO CM
CJ
LO 03
CM CD • • • o • >— CD r— cn
CU CM r— CD O
CM 1— CT» cn CO ^ CD CD CO CO CD 3
CO CO CO ^
CM p— LO CM LO CM E >,
JD
CU >^
CC x: -a
cu
•CJ - o
cu •!-
E >
to •r- -r-
to E-O
o •O 03 &.
CU CU
-»-> S_ 00 CO O r— LO CO 00 O O CM CU -r-
U «=C 00 CD 00 ^:J- CT> P*. I— CO O p^ o^ o^ o ^
. E
CU --^^ 00 O LO <;1- 00 ^3- CU H-l
cu S- to o as 00 LO CM CO CM 00 CO CD CO "O 1—1
o S- to LO CO CD
CM OJ 1— CM p— r— l—H
O 03 CD to LL.
cu CJ s : 03 2 :
O- 03 X3
CU
i- -a
03 cu
^v >
to o
CO E
03 cu
E E S-
O "O to
S_ -p- cu (T3
O 4->^^ •^ S
S- -r- .,- p— CM CO LO CO 00 CD O 1— CM CO CJ
i- lO LO CO
•r- O
2 : CL cu o
o
CJ
•K
57
00 LO r— CM O CD p^ O pv.
•o CO CO LO p>. CO LO r^
00 I— 00 00 ^ p- CO CM
LO 03 • cn O <—
• s- 00 CD 1— ,— CO
O E CM r— CO I— CO CO CO
O CO as
CO
CO o cn CM CU
r— CO
CM LO CO
CU •
cu s- s-
o o cu
E 4- -a
CU cu .—
-a J2 O
o x:
o o
CO 00 LO CO CO CO o co 00 O CO E
E
•o CM CM p^ LO LO cn cn 1— CO CM o 00 CU s-
O 03 4J O
cn •sa- •
to
CU CM CM CO 1— d LO
CO
CM
CO
I—
r—
•—
CO
cn
CO CM
cn
LO
CM
CO
to s-
>^ s-
cu to •!—
CD cu
CU cu
Q
O
•si-
CO
 CO LO CM cn cn CO CO cn '^d- I—
OS i- -a CO CO LO 00
00 CO ^ -o cu
3 LO (O «;^ cn CO p— CD LO CM <— 00 cu i.
+J . S_ p^ CO r^ CM 00 CO LO 4 - 03
S- -— E
CM cn r^ CO CD cn • •
CM CM CO CO CO CO ^ I— LO 03 CU
. CO CO <^ LO LO >— 03 «^
CU CL
X O fO O CO CO LO LO CO CO O CD CXD O
E CO n
XI C^ CM CO C^ CO CO CO CM CO
P«- "^ <
03
•^ CO CU cu
OJ E x: s_
o +j cu
4- JZ
cn s
>^ E
4J •I— CM
>» E
I— CJ
Q.
00 O CM CD CO 00 00 CD •r- 00
o LO O CO o co CO
cu
-O
LO 03
CD 1^ LO O CO O LO CO cn CD I— CO +-> ^
'^ CM CM CO CO CM CM CD 00 00 o .—
00 o I—
3
CO
E CO CM CO CO
cu
CO CO CO CO CO "?3- CM CO LO CO E >,
JD
cc >»
J2 -a
cu
•a xj
to cu -r-
E >
to 'p— -^
o
_1
E X3
03 CU -r-
-•-> +->
E
cu cu
4J S - ' — CU 1—4
00 CO o I— LO CO 00 O O CM O P^ CD CD O -^
CU U 03 <N 00 CD 00 ^ "sl- CD P>. 1— P^ CO C3D O LO ^ XJ t-i
CU \
00 ^
o E l-H
s- to CJ cn "â- 00 LO CM CO CM 00 CO CD CO LO CO CD to Ll_
cu
CL
s- to • CM CM p— CM n- I—
03 2
o 03 CD >>
CJ 2 :
03 JO
CU
s- -a
03 cu
^^ >
to o
c/^ E
03 CU
E E i-
O "O to
S- -r- cu 03
O +J^^
S» -r- -1- r— CM CO LO CO CJ
S- tO^-* CXD CD O p— CM CO LO CO cu
•r- O s- o
o
CJ
oc:
^^ f^ «o U)
iO U ) IT) «o CD «r «o 9 ) CD <£
m *o ^ <n ^ in.— o%o o 9t c>j (*) CD m to f—
« « * #
o• su '^
^
^f «o U)
uy CSJf— ?^ •" o <o a» a» «o o
POCSJ
a» cc ^ .— fw ^ CD rw 07
CD CC «o r*. C O - to
0>
•4- 01
u
c
W^ ^^ r— ^ U? IT) «o ^ cvi o «o o> w PO <n ^ oc ^ a> «o
XJ CVJ O^ O 00 CO IX)
00 ' * * ' ' ^ ^ < * O r « . r o , — c v j t o r ^ O O O i -
c o « o i/t c
to LO
v > i — • n \ O 0 0 U > C g < * ^ < M C 0 C 0 « O f ^ 0 D C V J t O » — >> -
01 Of ^
01
• » OJ
O 4J
o
0)
0> S s s a s ;:: § ? j:^- s'fd § s =;' i §£ g si t -

a. u 0>
<:
OJ Vt Vi
O M
00
tn en t o p—
cc r*^ trt J
o o• «( . CO 5a- C3 in .— p^ .—o cc »n co co o cc O .— CNJ — g CD
01
X
to CO as so * # «
CM S oo CM CM r>. 00 ^^ <*i.— m CVJ CO 00 in f^ f**' CD CC •— ^ CO
^ »o CM 01
CO — \C ^ 01
• » J- 0
0)
A
1
>
n
S JT? 5 ^ S O CNJ o to POO* o r * in m <n CVJi n o as !0 4J CD
o i n <o CVJ CM r ^ c o CM CM t n ^ r^ U3 r o cn x rs» f>. S CM t n to C7) p - ^
• ' • * • • . . . • « 3 ro
0> CM
^ «o <n— <n to CD in ro ro CM ^ ^ tn r^ CO CM CO E
0»
- O 01
0) ' O
•»- >
o
OJ
o; 01 •4-* t-
^ ro toco •— CM CM CD —en enr^ as a* OJ
C X M CM a%r-~ to
01 OJ^S
^ tn en f— ro «— •— ^-> coco a* a* to en
0 0 CO to "o >
#
o &. </) o O O ^ CM O* O PO f*te »>. ^ - m CM CO CM to • •
i - t/) ^ ^ •— •— CM .— 00 PO
»— PO PO CM
01
O <0 01
a. OJ
J--0
« OJ
^^ >
Ui Q
tn g
TO trt
OJ «
*— CM PO <»0 t n t o r * * c o c o a > 9 t o . — CMPO tn to OJ &.
•«- o <— J. o
s . &.
o &.
59
00 CO CO LO LO CD CO CO
00 CO CO LO
"s^- LO r— CM LO LO CO cn r^ p>. CD 00
CD CO 00 CM CD CO ^ CD
LO 03 • •
O O CO
CO 00 CO CM CO
•
• s- CO* CD 00^ CO^
LO CM O
• •
• • CM
O E LO CM p — CO O p— CD CD CD CM CU
P^ CO LO CO I— «d- CM LO CD P>.
00 00 LO CM
00 .—
CU
s- .
o s-
4- <U
CU CU - o
O X3 1—
E O
CU CO LO LO LO E x:
CO CO cn O CD O CO
X5 •a LO CO 00 CO CO 00 CM O CD O CO CM cu
•r- CO p— CO o CO I^ ^ CO CO +J s-
O 03
00^ CO
• • • • CD
• • r^ o • • • • •
CM
to o
a LO
•^ r —
CM CM
P^
CO
CO CM CO
^ cn • • 00 cn CD LO O CM
•
>^ s-
E p^ CO LO CM <:a- 00 LO P^ CM
CO CO CO CM P^ CM to S-
'd- CM
CO
cu
cu i
cu +-> cu
i. sz
CD O -M
CU •+->
Q E 4-
CO •r- O
o OJ <—, CM O CO r ^ P^ CO
i- XJ CM CO LO CM o CO
LO CO
«;^ CO
CO o
!—«::*•
CM
O cn
CM CO
CO
00 CD
P- -^
CD P^
O
X3 03
CD CU CU
•M 3 LO 03
+-> • S- CD CD CM LO CO
•
I— CO CD CM
« o CD* • • 4- S-
03 S-— E LO LO CM CM CO P^ LO CO cn CO CO P>. LO r— 03
00 CO CM CO 00 CM 03
CU —• CO 00 CM
CL O CU
•p- x :
r— •(->
to
CU to to
4- *"
cn cu OCM
LO 00 E
3 X3 LO o ^ o 00
CO
1^ 00 cn CD O
CD CO
CO CD CO 00 P^ CO CM
o to u 4
LO to O ro o CM CD CO •
CO CD
• • o
CD CO
o •^r r^ p— to
CU
O
CL
• i-
OJ E
00
•^
I—
CO
• •
CO
CM d CO O LO CD^ 00 CO
•
LO CO o CM
CD 03 00
E -^ <
XI X « * CD
CM .—
00 LO
CO '^ CM 00
CO LO
p^
CO CM p^ o CO
03 CM cu
x : cu
i- cu
o CDx:
4-
E 2
>^
•(->
CL O
> i^ CO CO CD CO r^ O 1— 1— cn LO CO
X3 00 CO 1—00 CM I— 00 CO P^ CO 00
o CO
I—
P^ CO
CO LO
CD
CD o •M 0 0
CJ
LO
p—
03
t. 1^ CD CM 00 P^
• o 00* LO
• — «=^
3 CO
LO I— CO CD CD «^
cu LO CO 1— CO 00 LO CO cn CM
CD* CO o o CO O
00 CM
CO CM E
00 p^ CD
4I CO 00 » ^
cu JD
cc XJ
• O CU
CU X J
E -r-
•r- >
to E •--
to * 5- XJ
0 • 0 03 cu
_J CU CU
•M S-.—^ l^ CO CO 0 0 r— CM CM CO p — CO CO P^ CD CD I— OJ cn I—
cu
•M CJ CCCM «!;P LO CO 1— CO I— I— CO 0 0 LO CO XJ
CD cn CO «:3- CO 00 CO
E CU \ E •
O) S- to u 0 O ^ CM CD O CO co
r—.
LO CM 00 OJ <^ CO CO CM co' CO 03
CJ s- to - ^ CM r— CO p— r— r—
s_ 0 03 CD
cu CJ s : * — '
CL. 03 X i
CU
S- XJ
03 CU
^v. >
to o
to E
OJ cu
E i-
o T3 to
CU 03
S_ -1- -f- >— C M C O C O « ; 3 - L O C O r ^ C O O O C D c n O i — C M C O ^ r ^ U
s- to — LO CO CU
•r- O s> o
^ CL. s-
o
CJ
60
and was in the compressible flow region leading to exit effects which
could have been a major factor. And fourthly, silica flour was not being
fed into the system when the velocity at each position was measured. De-
termination of the entrance and exit effects was beyond the scope of this
work.
The effects of the mirror holder braces were examined by adding two
braces to the top of the mirror holder and then re-measuring the velocity
in front of each mirror position. The effect of the silica was examined
by feeding silica flour into the system while measuring the velocity at
each position. These tests were carried out at average wind speeds of
9.5 m/sec and 12.4 m/sec. The various velocities for both sets of tests
4
are given in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Visual examination of the data indi- I^
cates that the presence of the second set of braces may have caused a ^
shift in the velocity profile. A similar shift was caused by the pre-
sence of the silica flour. Statistical evaluation of the velocities
using standard three-way analysis of variance procedures indicated that
there was no difference between the velocities at the 90% confidence
level.
Further study of all data from Exposure Tests I-IV revealed that
the specimens in positions 13, 14, 15, and 16 always exhibited larger
losses per unit exposure than the other samples in their respective
tests. All the data from those positions was thus discarded.
The reflectivity as a function of the incidence angle and aperture
depends upon the number, size and shape of the mirror's surface blemishes.
It has been shown that those change with length of exposure (Barriger,
1978). The function relating reflectivity to the incidence angle and
61
S - 9.2 S - 10.5 S - 9.5 S - 6.7

B - 9.2 B - 10.4 B - 9.7 B - 5.9
F - 9.2 F - 10.7 F - 9.7 F - 7.1
S - 10.0 S - 11.0 S - 10.5 S - 7.5

B - 9.5 B - 10.9 B - 10.6 B - 7.5
F - 9.8 F - 11.0 F - 10.0 F - 8.1
S - 8.5 S - 9.5 S - 9.5 S - 7.8

B - 8.4 B - 10.6 B - 10.3 B - 7.5
F - 9.3 F - 10.5 F - 10.5 F - 8.1
4
<
S - 6.0 S - 7.7 S - 7.8 S - 6.5

B - 5.9 B - 7.7 B - 7.9 B - 6.8
F - 6.6 F - 9.0 F - 7.9 F - 7.1
B - Braces added only.

F - Silica flour added only.
S - Standard operating conditions.
* - Velocities given are in meters per second
Figure 5.1. Velocity* Profiles With and Without Silica Flour and
the Additional Braces for Exposure Test III Conditions
62
S - 12.6 S - 14.4 S - 13.5 S - 10.3

B - 10.9 B - 14.7 B - 13.4 B - 8.7
F - 12.5 F - 13.5 F - 13.0 F - 9.7
S - 13.1 S - 14.7 S - 14.3 S - 11.6

B - 12.6 B - 14.4 B - 14.7 B - 9.2
F - 12.9 F - 14.4 F - 14.2 F - 11.4
S - 10.4 S - 12.6 S - 12.7 S - 10.3

B - 10.7 B - 14.0 B - 13.4 B - 10.1
F - 10.0 F - 13.5 F - 13.2 F - 11.4
S - 7.1 S - 9.2 S - 8.5 S - 9.0

B - 9.1 B - 10.0 B - 8.9 B - 8.3
F - 8.3 F - 10.1 F - 9.7 F - 9.3
B Braces added only.

F Silica flour added only.
S Standard operating conditions.
• Velocities given are In meters per second
Figure 5.2. Velocity* Profiles With and Without Silica Flour and
the Additional Braces for Exposure Test IV Conditions.
63
the aperture is thus very complicated. In order to reduce the complexity

of the data, it was decided to use only one angle and one aperture. In
this way, the loss in reflectivity was reduced from a function of four
Independent variables to a function of only two Independent variables.
It is hoped that when more data are gathered, the entire function can be
analyzed. For this study, only the effects of mass and velocity were
examined.
The data at the 40° Incidence angle and 15 mrad aperture was con-
sidered to be the most useful data because there were fewer mirror align-
ment problems at 40° than at 10°. The alignment problems at 10° were due
in part to the steeper slope of the mirrors which resulted in less weight
being exerted normal to the mirror mount, causing the mirrors to be more ^
<
susceptible to mis-alignment. The 15 mrad aperture allowed examination J
of a larger portion of the mirror surface than the other apertures. ^
That should make the results more reproducible. I t also r e s t r i c t e d the iS
acceptance of scattered l i g h t by the detector which is important in re- ^

't
flectivity measurements. The data analysis below was made using only W
«
the 40°, 15 mrad data subset.
The purpose of this portion of the research was to relate solar
concentrator degradation to measured loss in reflectivity. To accomplish
this, it was necessary to determine the physical parameter (ij;) that best
represents the damage producing entity and then to relate ^ to the loss
in reflectivity.
The amount of degradation can be represented by
I = Nj^ Ap (5.2)
64
where: Aj^ = average area loss per damage site

L = the area loss per unit area
Ng = number of damage sites per unit area
The reflectivity can thus be expressed as
R = RQ(I-L) (5.3)
where: R = the measured or residual reflectivity
R^ = the i n i t i a l reflectivity
0 "^
Therefore
R^ - R R,
^ =A - =r (5.4)
0 0 i
\
where: R, = loss in reflectivity. .
L is then the normalized loss in reflectivity. A
Since L was the quantity of interest and was directly measurable, jg
no attempt was made to model N^ and A,, separately. ^ can be considered a Z>
function of the number of particles that strike the mirrors, the total [\
mass of the particles and their average speed. The damage mechanisms
are probably related to momentum transport, energy deposition or higher
powers of the particle velocity. Prime candidates for the physical
parameter are thus
^ = J (m V) N dt (5.5)
0 ^
|.T
(m v^) N dt (5.6)
and
65
if = ] (m (v-e) ) N dt (5.7)
0 ^
where: m = mass of the particles
T = time of exposure
a = characteristic constant
3 = minimum velocity necessary f o r degradation to occur
N = number of particles per unit area per unit time
V = velocity of the p a r t i c l e s .
Equation (5.7) represents the most general form of the degradation equa-
tion. The presence of 3 implies a velocity below which there is no de-
tectable degradation. In order to determine the value of 3, low velo-
c i t y experiments over an extended time period (several weeks for each J
test) would be necessary. I t was f e l t that determination of the net "

'i
e f f e c t of duststorms on solar concentrator mirrors was more important i
than determining the minimum degradation velocity so no attempt was made *
to f i n d 3. The data were empirically f i t to the following form p

*r
L = A + B(4;) (5.8) '•
where
m v N d t + C J m u^NdT (5.9)
For the simulation data, m , N and v were constants so
J rT
m vHdt +B m v^Ndt = m^ vNT -t- Bm^y^NT (5.10)
P p p p
and
66
mp NT = a (5.11)
where: a = total mass of dust or silica flour per unit
the resulting equation for L in terms of a and \} was
L = A -^ B a y -H D a u ^ (5.12)
where A, B, C and D are a r b i t r a r y constants. The parameters A, B, and
D were determined by the method of least squares. The resulting equa-
t i o n was
L = 0.097 - 2.44 x 10^ a u -H 4.31 x 10"^ a u^ (5.13)
This equation accounts for approximately 89.4% of the v a r i a b i l i t y in the (
data. Figure 5.3 shows the (a,u) data with Equation (5.13) superimposed J
for various values of L. Figure 5.4 shows the (a,v) data and Equation
(5.13) in terms of the (L,ip) coordinate system. ••j

0
Even though duststorms exhibit neither constant velocity nor con- ^
stant p a r t i c l e f l u x , I can be represented as ij
J '•
I
L = ^^ dt
at (5.14)
Substituting Equation (5.12) into Equation (5.14) and approximating v
and V by t h e i r time-weighted averages. Equation (5.14) becomes
I - B<.> Uat dt . D<u2> 'at"^

f ^ (5.15)
0 0
After reduction of derivatives and changing the integration limits from
a time range to the corresponding mass range, the normalized loss in

67
o
CM
CD
LO
o 00
I
LO
o
CO
O LO
to
cu
03
, CO
XJ
i-
o
CM o
CJ
T3
E
03
. O
u
cu <
CO
CD 03
+J
03
O
CO <
03 1
CC 1
0
cn
LO
CO ?«
(U
i-
3
LO CD
«*
CO
CM
o o o o
LO CO CM
( LUO/6) LU
68
to

03
C3
03
CC :i
•I
LO
cu
3
CD
00 CO CM
o
o o o o o
69
r e f l e c t i v i t y due to abrasion during duststorms can be approximated by
L = B<v> a(T) + D<v^> a(T) (5.16)
or 9
L = B[<v> a(T) + C</> a(T)] (5.17)
The duststorm simulation model does not account for a l l the degrad-
ation mechanisms present in the f i e l d . Some additional types of degrada-
tion are ageing, b l i s t e r i n g , cracking, crazing, peeling, outgassing,
chemical weathering, etc. To account for these e f f e c t s , a new variable
was added to the equation. The resulting equation was
L = k + E[<v> a{J) + C<\j^> o{l) (5.18)

I
\
i
where: k = degradation due to a l l non-duststorm factors. To relate *
1
the modified simulation equation to the real world, the data for the .
Crosbyton glass mirrors (see Tables 4.2 and 4.3) was used to determine 1
'A
the parameters k and B. The assumption was made that C was a function of
?a»
the mirror material. The data f o r the r e f l e c t i v i t y measurements made
by Chin (1978) was not used because there were only four mirrors in the
group that had received any noticeable duststorm degradation. Because
non-duststorm exposure factors are time-dependent, determination of A
and k f o r the Carolina mirrors was made using only the r e f l e c t i v i t i e s
measured a f t e r 720 days for the tower mirrors and 1040 days of exposure
in the f i e l d for the a i r p o r t mirrors. The resulting equation was
L = 1.37 - 0.311[a<v> - G<V^>] (5.19)

70
Approximately 78% of the duststorms approached Lubbock from the

2
southwest-northwest quadrant. The quantities <v> and <v > were deter-
2 2
mined to be 9.77 (m/sec) and 114 (m/sec ) , respectively for those dust-
storms from January 1 , 1973 through December 31, 1978. Using these values
and the average yearly amount of dust from the west (0.617 g/cm ) in
Equation (5.19) allowed estimation of the maximum average yearly normal-
ized loss in reflectivity due to duststorms. The result was

L = 0.0244 (5.20)
I
\
i
I
fit
=
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
A duststorm simulation chamber has been designed and used to prove

that 1) it is possible to simulate the effects of duststorms on solar
concentrator materials in an accelerated fashion and 2) a damage func-
tion has been developed which expresses the degradation in duststorms
in terms of momentum transport to and kinetic energy deposition on the
mirror surface.
1
\
(
•
1
-4
1
71
CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Based on analysis of the problems encountered in this research, the

duststorm simulation chamber should be redesigned. The interface between
the blower and the metering section should be gradually expanded from its
present size, 15 cm by 10 cm (6 in. x 4 in.) to whatever size and shape
is required for future simulations. The exposure section should be length-
ened to at least 6 m (about 20 ft.) to minimize entrance and exit effects.
The present cyclones should either be replaced by a battery of high effi-
ciency vane axial cyclones or remounted so that their entry sections are
at the same level with regard to the test section outlet. If the involute ,
c
cyclones are retained, sliding gate valves should be Installed in the *
exit ducts from each cyclone for flow balancing. The panel filter must A
be retained for protection of the operator and the other workers in the 1
general vicinity from exposure to silica flour. The auger system should
be enlarged. The new shaft should have a 5 cm (2 in.) diameter, be
threaded with 1.57 threads per cm (4 threads per in.). The square left-
handed threads should be 0.476 cm (3/16 in.) wide and from 0.476 to
0.635 cm (3/16 to 1/4 in.) deep. The entrance and exit ports should have
a nominal 3.8 cm (1 1/2 in.) diameter. The outside diameter of the piping
for the entrance and exit ports should be less than or equal to the dia-
meter of the shaft to minimize bridging of the silica flour which was an
occasional operational problem.
The Carolina glass mirrors should be tested at the lower velocities
to verify that there is a minimum velocity necessary for degradation to
72
73
occur. The Carolina glass mirrors should also be tested at velocities

corresponding to the higher end of the degradation scale to better define
the L versus 4; relation for large values of L. Values of L should con-
tinue to be measured using both incidence angles and all five masks so
that the relation between reflectivity, angle of incidence and aperture
can be determined.
Additional information on the degradation of Carolina glass mirrors
at other sites should be sought to determine whether k is time or site
dependent or both. Two possible sources of this information would be I IT
Research Institute (J. E. Gilligan) and the Desert Sunshine Exposure Tests,
Inc. (G. A. Zerlaut).
Testing should be started on other types of glass mirrors having \
physical properties different from those of Carolina glass mirrors. One J
such type would be a low-iron float glass. The purpose of these tests ^
•J
would be to determine whether or not the same momentum and kinetic energy g
model apply to all glass mirrors. The next objective in the accelerated
testing program would then be to test different types of materials such
as polymers (polycarbonates, polymethacrylates, and polyacrylates) and
polished metals (Alzak*^, Kinglux CH/4o'^, etc.).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barriger, M. T.: "Engineering Analysis of Site Dependent Factors Affect-

ing the Crosbyton Solar Power Project," Exoer'imental Data, M.S.
Thesis, Library Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas (1978).
Berg, R. S.: "A Survey of Mirror Dust Interactions," paper presented on

Solar Concentrating Collectors at Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, Georgia (1977).
Berg, R. S.: "Heliostat Dust Buildup and Cleaning Studies," pp. 1-33,
Report N6, SAND 78-0510, Sandia Laboratories, Albuauerque, New
Mexico (1978).
Blackmon, J. B.: "Dust Buildup Tests of Heliostats and Mirror Specimens,"

pp. 1-82, Call No. E 1.28; MDC-6-7543, McDonald Douglas Astronautics
Company-West, Huntington Beach, California (1978).
Bradford, A. P. and Haas, G.: "Solar Reflectance of Unprotected and

Protected Aluminum Front-Surface Mirrors," Solar Eneray 9: 32-38
(1965). " ~
Brighton, C. A.: "Correlation of Accelerated and Natural Weathering t

Tests," Ch. 4 in Weathering and Degradation of Plastics, Pinner, S. *
H. (ed.) Gordon and Breach, New York, New York (1966)
i
Butler, B. and Livingston, R.: "New Glass Promises 96.2% Reflectivity," J
The Solar Thermal Report 1 (1980). J
Chepil, W. S. and Woodruff, N. P.: "Sedimentary Characteristics of Dust *

Storms: II. Visibility and Dust Concentration," American Journal
of Science ^ : 104-114 (1957).
Chin, S.: "Solar Reflectivity and Absorptivity Studies," Experimental

data, M.S. Thesis, Library Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
(1978).
Cowgill, D. M.: "Air Pollution Control, 1970 Annual Report," pp. 1-9,
Lubbock City-County Health Department, Lubbock, Texas (1971).
Crowder, J. R.: "Weathering and Application of Plastics," Chemistry

and Industry (April) Vol. 8: 342-343 (1976).
Duffle, J. A.: "New Materials in Solar Energy Utilization," Solar

Energy i: 114-117 (1962).
Freese, J. M.: "Effects of Outdoor Exposure on the Solar Reflectance

Properties of Silver Glass Mirrors," Call No. E 1.28; SAND-78-1649,
Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico (1979).
74
75
Fryrear, D. W.: "Duststorm in the Great Plains," paper presented at the

1980 Summer Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
San Antonio, Texas (1980).
Gaines, G. B., Thomas, R. E., Noel, G. T., Shilliday, T. S., Wood, V. E.,
and Carmicheal, D. C : "Development of Accelerated Test Design for
Service-Life Prediction of Solar Array at Mead, Nebraska," pp. 1-24,
Call No. E 1.28, DOE/JPL/954328-10, Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
Columbus, Ohio (1979).
Garg, H. P.: "Effect of Dirt on Transparent Covers in Flat Plate Solar

Energy Collectors," Solar Energy 25.: 299-302 (1974).
Gillette, D. A.: "Fine Particulate Emissions Due to Wind Erosion," for

presentation at the 1976 Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Lincoln, Nebraska (1976).
Gillette, D. A., Blifford Jr., I. H. and Fryrear, D. W.: "The Influence

of Wind Velocity on the Size Distribution of Aerosols Generated by
the Wind Erosion of Soils," Journal of Geophysical Research 79:
4068-4075 (1974).
Gillette, D. A. and Walker, T. R.: "Characteristics of Airborne Particles

Produced by Wind Erosion of Sandy Soil, High Plains of West Texas," !
Soil Science 123: 97-110 (1977). 1
Gilligan, J. E. and Brzuskiewicz, J.: "The Weatherability of Solar Energy ^

Utilization Materials, Preliminary Discussions," Sharing the Sun: i
Solar Technology in the Seventies, pp. 289-302, Solar Energy Society '
and Solar Energy Society of Canada joint conference, Winnipeg (1976).
Gilligan, J. E., Brzuskiewicz, J. and Brzuskiewiez, J. E.: "An Extended
Test Program for Solar Collector Optical Materials," Proceedings of
the 1977 Flat-Plate Solar Collector Conf., Orlando, Florida (1977).
Gilligan, J. E., Brzuskiewicz, J. and Gaumer, S. J.: "Weather Testing of

Solar Utilization Materials," Proceedings of the Institute of Envir-
onmental Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1976).
Gilligan, J. E., Brzuskiewicz, J. E., and Madigan, J. M.: "Parameters,

Measurement, and Criteria of Solar Materials Testing," paper pre-
sented at Solar Reflective Materials Technology Workshop, Denver,
Colorado (1978).
Hagen, L. J. and Woodruff, N. P.: "Air Pollution from Duststorms in the

Great Plains," Atmospheric Environment V. 323-332 (1973).
Hagen, L. J. and Woodruff, N. P.: "Particulate Loads Caused by Wind Ero-

sion in the Great Plains," Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 25^: 860-861 (1975).
76
Hampton, H. L. and Lind, M. A.: "Weathering Characteristics of Potential

Solar Reflector Materials: A Survey of the Literature," pp. 1-17,
Call No. E 1.28, PNL-2824, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Battelle
Memorial Institute, Richland,'Washington (1978).
Jacobi, W.: "Use of Flexible Surfaces for Solar Energy Concentration,"
Journal of Vacuum Science Technology ]2^: 169-173 "(1975).
Kessler , E . , Alexander, D. Y. and Rarick, J. F.: "Recent Duststorms from
the U.S. High Plains — Search for Causes and Implications," Proceed-
ings of the Oklahoma Academy of Sciences 58: pp. 116-128 (1978).
Lamensdorf, S. F.: "Glass Mirrors in Solar Energy," paper presented at
the Solar Reflective Materials Technology Workshop, Denver, Colorado
(1978).
LaPrade, K. K.: "Duststorm Sediment of Lubbock Area, Texas," M.S. Thesis,

Library Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas (1954).
Meinel, A. B. and Meinel, M. P.: Applied Solar Energy: An Introduction,
pp. 252-258. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachu-
setts (1976).
Munoz, F. and Almanza, R.: "Solar Reflective Materials at the Solar •
Pump," paper presented at the Solar Reflective Materials Technology •
Workshop, Denver, Colorado (1978). '
i
Orgill, M. M. and Sehmel, G. A.: "Frequency and Diurnal Variation of Dust 1
Storms in the Contiguous U.S.A.," Atmospheric Environment 1_0: 1- '
13 (1976).
Peterson, R. E.: Comments on Duststorms in the High Plains of West Texas, al
Personal Communications to E. G. Collier, Lubbock, Texas (1980). »
.•»i
:i
Rainhart, L. G. and Schimmel, W. P.: "Effect of Outdoor Aging on Acrylic .a
Sheet," Solar Energy V7: 259-264 fl975).
Rausch, R. A. and Gupta, B. P.: "Exposure Test Results for Reflective
Materials," paper presented at Solar Reflective Materials Technology
Workshop, Denver, Colorado (1978).
Rosinski, J. and Langer, G.: "Extraneous Particles Shed from Large Soil
Particles," Aerosol Science 5_: 1-6 (1974).
Sidwell, R.: "Sand and Duststorm in the Vicinity of Lubbock, Texas,"
Economic Geography T4: 98-102 (1938).
Skoda, L. F. and Master, L. W.: Solar Energy Systems - Survey of Materials
Performance, pp. 1-57, Report No. NBSIR 77-1314, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Washington, D.C. (1977).
77
Tabor, H.: "Solar Collector Developments in Israel," Solar Energy 2- 8

(1959).
Travis, J. R.: "A Model for Predicting the Redistribution of Particulate

Contaminants from Soil Surfaces," Atmosphere-Surface Exchange of
Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants, pp. 907-909, Proceedings of
Symposium held at Richland, Washington (1974).
Wade, F. A.: "Martian Environmental Effects on Solar Cells and Solar

Cover Glasses," prepared for Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
California (1971).
Warn, G. F. and Cox, W. H.: "A Sedimentary Study of Dust Storms in the
Vicinity of Lubbock, Texas," American Journal of Science 249:
553-568 (1951).
Williams, F.: Comments on Reflectivity Studies, Personal Communication

with E. Gregg Collier, Lubbock, Texas (1980).
Zerlaut, G. A.: "Accelerated Outdoor Weathering Employing Natural Sun-

shine," pp. 153-159, in Proceedings-Institute of Environmental
Sciences, Desert Sunshine Exposure Test, Inc. (1975).
Zerlaut, G. A., Dokas, W. T., and Heiskell, R. F.: "Stagnation Testing

of Flat-Plate Solar Collectors: Use of the Governing Equation in J
Diagnostics," Proceedings of the 1977 Flat-Plate Solar Collector
Conference, Orlando, Florida (1977). ^
9
a
ni
:»
APPENDIX A
i
1
9
a
01
I
78
79
CJCJCJCJCJCJCJ
« - •«•
* > • • « • _J
•»• »—LU -M- <
* —X •»• >
•«*- { )»-- -K Qc:
» O -{^ a;
•K -JLL •«• h-
•»- UJC * — ^
-* :> * vt- •-
«• UJLU •«• >^ LU
* iscc ^ -^ 2:
* < < • » • -J ^
•J^ ct; •«• LU K
•ir U.'J— -5<- >
•«• <:z * * ^
•»- X X « ^^ u.
•«• I—o •»• v t CD
•«• — 00
•>> CO t—•
^
* >- -x- _ l > 0
< »—o •«• LU — •^ •—

•a > ^ ^ CL h-
•K •—LlJ 00
<(- - - <r
•«• 00 M —>4- !^ _j
•K- _ K -M- v f w -
«b
Z)
-a- uji— •» -oo OL CJ
•H- >2: •k' N f _ J
•—1 _i
-J<---U: 0 <
«- o * _ J > ^ 0
•tt-LUh- *.
IS
1
) > > • z
•«• — ~ — o
* LUX •i<•-~<^ 2: _J a
•M- >»-co •«• - r •»
• b
«J
Ct <:
•» <S LD ^{- •>!•
•M- I 1 *-4-^ X
5- 0
•«• LUOOCL * ~ _ j
• k
.'SI
* 2.UJ 1-
J4.
H - C K • « - 3 > oc
LU
n
•J«-C>0»- >
3:
if- s « Z
• k
LU O Q^ •><• ••—-
•><• * • — ^^ ^
0 • ' '
- » ? - - . ^ >
* <icoci: «•-*•- < >
Q — cc
* _jc>oc^ * ""^r
•«• > } • ' - ' Sim
•»• —C>0 •> • z
0 XlTi 0
•K- -J •»-5:_i
0 0 0 • KUL
•«• o o > • • •0 c\i Z " K
•O-h- < - 4 - v f O O O II CO a — . <
• « • - II II II — cj^ 5 : C^J —)
^ » - " » ^-H
3 > > ci:cL
•iir <:o •»• I12L--<
•R- 0 0 II II i^r b ( i v ' • h ^ 0 * - CJ
•}»• Q< ^
-;; . - « - - 0 : ^ • » . -^ 0 0 1 1 c^jr- -J
-V- C/ÔO 0 0 0 II 0 ••— •• '—' '<.
^ o cr * pr . ^ c : ) o —
- 5 —>-5
— c-
C II II II II ^ II 0 l^\^- CJ o o M 1 1 3 : 2 : 2 : 2 . 1 1 II i ^ i « : : > >
•M- cncj*- . I.—* r—( {Njc^; o i — i: i t ; . >— - ' 5 : -.-
-{}• CL. UJ > C/J II II > - > - f M . - ' O O c c c r : f M . - - < c j , - i
>. 5 ^ 5 " Z ) J L : . U T' l i CL 7^ C ' Q . -'>t a?-
^5- oO<<-^ •K- — — o c . c > 0 ( y : > Z> '~ X X >— »—iC/", C/ < QC >
•—CCUQ <T C O O O >->-•—XCCJC/^C/^'—"-'
•M- .-3 0 *- Q C C C h - 3 t - K 3" 5 : ? ^ ^ : 5 : v ^
•K- >C2C'- LL _J 2:x2-2:^2:2:2:2:2:^^>>
-> X o cr: « • rj
UJ
.f^- h - c--; CJ
•><• .—* 0
c
CO
* •M-
80
a
•—
c
G
U'
N^ •
C: r i C'
2' ••• Q:
— O O >
< X O O • O ^ I
LU 2: • ^CO >J- • —
a: II csj c*so o D _j I
0 \ I rn 03 .-t- c?2 -J '
X Q.^ D + r-- h--^ • — - - ~ •• "
o X ' * 2 C IT, o c • .j-j-j-y: )
< 2:— 113 cr »- o— _i_i_ii<; •
LU-~OvJ C J II CM a —CM •• - • — ' "
— LT. 3C • (JD —--1 ii::^^co
c ^ r g X - 3 r- — CD» ^îC—i
CD rM2: — — trv — r-O w..^~aj *
L_ • I cr c-^ *^ at
UJO O ' O — • C? • 3 3 U h- V
_J c:;C^ CO 10 • —CM I— LCrvj «yOon>+ .||
< .X • —'"^ Ql^ —I 'O »—31—— «|
tl
cc
> Qi"—
fM2: o-*"o • •
m>r I • o•
3cx> >• cs: —
fî2: •». + +— •'
LU X * '•t'-' LULU— >-'-' O < >-— «,-,^ »
H- sro cr o_i«-< <-J-* ^ ci o z: • z z z ^
^ .— . 0 0 • • I LU— ^ O 2: >^ - ^ Q » • •ii^
^ , 0 •—>0 Cd-J O O Q C < h-cn 0 ~ ' . ^ ^:îr: —
CiO O • 3 3 - ' ^^^d-"—H- Q O vf • CU C < : ^^•û~.
LU i^—' C:?—* - . ' — * OLU * I— CJ »— Z • w-^—_j
s: <+ —* • 'O oo'-x >a 02 CJ < ^ 2_5:-jL.M
,— .-.rj CQ• >-l-(-0»— :ô t—<r CD ''M 3DL >
— CM Oi/~ ^ Z r O O C O C c O — CL— a • — '~-* oncy?>|-
.-.^z" •'— < < a » » c r c : ; • • +0 0 • I — <3-/ r^ — vo f^ —^»— -<^-i 11 II II — <^
Q;?. **-^4• * ~ ' - - O C " ' ' a f-HCC3CO •«^' • vO • • •— •-• - —< —i ••
_i I u _ - - •- ^ > j - • i + o o » i c m i r t — " O H- I— • It—' ^ ^ ^ : r ^
,0—< »-• —I'^'-t • -iT,*- i— • • O f v . ^ C O »—LU _J _ifvi i^ II 2:^2: » II
oo OZ'Z'ZrcXa: -h- II r j O O v f c - O I - h - C T Q - 2 * 0 • 0_J • O • O •> Ol_î^_i -••vû.'^
LlJ ;^ •-•.—. —X X r i • _jcnuiLU It u i: _iO—cy i^ II (V •—• *c^' •—'C>J —'C^< ——
' z — c-• :*. j i : i :^ 3 "-i-
X 2 : > :r2.s:co-f- •— • •t-a:cr- • •ii^ci.*—cu ^ C M C .-to: . - i C O ' - • z r o + ^s^^:^-^ ^
^ ^ 1 1 II II II •—I II O C J _ j _ i c - " — • — ' C j O - a II c o X > ^ ^ > 2 2 : > — O c j - J > - ^ > - t A ; —-r^
C M - - ' ' J r - ' > C _ ^ ^ 2 : — — L i . C . 0 3 . 3 » - 2 " II 0 2 " C ' T — C T C CL H - ^ LP _ J - r TT i i — - ^
3 >—II 2: ~ a : o: — 3 n CL n 11 «- — u ::irco'—>--.-< 1 •—rNjh->î'i rt—2r II33I'LJ'^
o L L K - - - — x x L L C c ^ c i i - L L — - • f M L L L u X a . a . u j u ^ 11 c'j_LL 11 oLL. II O L U - II o c c C " ^ ^ i > o > > c : o
^ c r " ^ 2 " ^ — c j n s ^ - i — Q C Q i - i — h - c > o L L : ? 1—2:cT!'-'^2:cDt—xC'—"—2"oc_OCT2!h 3:t—^-ocr
L' ITi O LO O O
(^J CI O "> ^ \SS
<J<
81
c> 00
— 2;
00 .—.
X
<r >
ex: LU I—
LU o CC I—I
LU <r o
3 a •
o QC C/5 O -jcr.
LU CO CO LU"»v
3 >2:
o
32-
— X - t >
X XC)
in
LL II X
.—in LUCO
3CL
a. •."v Li.
O — • LU
UJ CL —r-( 2: —
CJ Cc •• • .— C/"'
<r ^—i<:o I--J
< - •^'^ «—CM LU
- O—U- CO • LU>
— 2: ••oc2:<^ -JO Xl-
2: • <r X I 3 • LL'.-I
^>c X >U_
>i-r-oox
- ^ —o
- a — • <^ » 2:u_
i^2: oo • X 3cc «
— 3 L U - —.— 1 CO<t CO
Xc>0 O 3 •'vJ-cÔ 3 3 Q.
3>- cc CDX " L U —O U-
CC H-m.-Hl— 00 I-I--M-
- * II 3 II CO CO XQco
— — 2 c/7>- e5*CL
-.5:-. X O ••-• -'21 < l - »—COU-
>4-cc — 2 : t—LUCL •••
2:i*i I X • I CJ Q3Li_ — •I
*i«ii^: »- • r^ » LUO + + +2:2:
X_J
1^00— Q: C£.Co<i5: K-LU 2:2^ 2 : _J —
—-l-frh-O >
—JUiOCJiLL c i - - 2:»— _ia -J-J-Jt/0>1-
a > •Lu- cn - 3 - UJ_J ^ — • — ' _ J ••
>t—(Da: - ^ X C / 1 •. >LU OLU 2 : 2 : —ILL. IT
i~ II c r — X <rLr»t~x <r> ^1- 33LL >ro
II — -»- 3 ' ^ • »>_-LP.'—~>^ — X COCO>I— »
--5:0—-H— • .r-H-S..-. • LUC • - 3 1 - II O
2:2- " O ^ o x r ^ - o •"Nôx 2-'— II II II — i n
2: • t n v C ^ r ' - ^ o r - c r : \ ' ^ C i n . .—UJ
--^-•f- " - ^ -(^ a^ - ^ v •• » . — ( — L u o
IC ^ llvO^-vC"—.-HvC—i—tvC"—CM3(^1 ». » •• ,C^J
:^^( ^1 ( h- .w-K- •z:-*
— C;0(_;L^<: L U < » . a < T C J L U < l CJ —
_ j _ j u j H - r " i - 2 x » — 2:—'»- 2 : - < K 3 2:2- _ j _ i C C l .
luL'.'wj.—-a. — c i - . O ' — c Ll-»—cc:LL 2:1— 3 3 U Uit-i_.C^
> > ^ a - O o r . c ; - a . C <^ Q_ O - J " a O CO coco>>OH-^
— I— c r CO UJ
CJ CJ CJ 3 X
LT 00 O 00 COH- o 0 0
in Mj ^- CXJ G' O —I (Mr •
CJC_>LJO
APPENDIX B
•I
82
83
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 2-22-77

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHOWED
TIME WIND WIND VISIBILITY

OF DIRECTION SPEED IN
READING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MILES
1 0 :: 5 2 DUST NOT BLOWING
1 1 ':57 230 19 3.000
1 2 :: 7 230 20 1.500
1 2 ;: 5 6 230 25 1.500
1 3 : i)7 2 30 29 0 . 500
1 4 :: 5 8 2 4-0 27 0.500
1 5 .: 5 2 230 30 0.500
1 6 :: 5 4 2 60 28 0.500
1 7 .: 1 2 300 32 0.125
1 7 ': 2 3 310 29 0.500
1 7 :: 5 8 310 26 0.500
1 8 :: 3 5 3 00 25 0.250
1 8 :: 5 3 2 90 30 0.750
1 9 :: 1 2 2 80 28 1.000
19" : 5 3 290 24 3.000
2 0 :: 1 8 290 25 1.000
2 0 :: 5 8 280 31 0.750
21 :13 2 90 28 1.000
21 :53 290 31 1.000
22 :36 2 90 30 1.500
2 2 :: 5 6 2 80 29 I . 500
2 3 :: 5 6 2 80 30 1.500
Z\
84

TIME WIND WIND VI S I B I L I T Y

0 : 57 280 27 1.500
l : 56 2 30 24 1.500
2 :: 5 7 2 80 26 1.500
3: 32 2 70 24 2.000
3 :: 5 4 2 70 24 2.000
4: 55 2 70 26 2.000
5: 55 2 70 24 2.000
6 :: 4 7 2 70 22 3.000
6 :• 5 4 2 70 23 3,000
7 :: 5 5 2 70 24 2.000
8:: 2 9 3 00 27 1.500
8 :: 5 5 290 28 1.000
9 :10 2 90 27 0.750
9 :: 3 9 2 80 29 0.500
9:: 5 5 3 00 30 0.500
10 : 5 5 3 00 30 0.500
1 1 :: 2 3 00 29 1.500
11 : 1 6 2 90 27 1.000
11 : 5 5 2 90 26 1.000
1 2 :: 5 5 3 00 27 1.000
13 : 3 0 290 19 1.500
1 3 :: 5 5 3 00 24 1.500
14 : 3 4 3 00 25 2.000
14 : 5 5 300 25 2.000
1 5 :: 5 5 290 25 2.000
16 : 5 6 2 80 21 2.000
17 : 5 6 2 80 20 2.000
18.: 2 2 290 22 1.500
18 : 4 1 2 70 21 1.125
18 : 5 4 2 80 19 1.125
19 : 5 4 280 2i 1.125
20 : 4 2 70 20 2.000
2 0 :: 2 3 2 80 20 3.000
20 : 5 5 280 15 3.000
21 : 5 3 2 90 15 4.000
85

TIME WIND WIND VISIBILIT

10:55 OUST NOT BLOWING
11:55 270 24 5.000
12: 4 2 70 24 4.000
12:55 2 70 21 4.000
13:55 2 60 20 3.000
14:55 2 70 19 5.000
15:55 270 15 6.000
17:56 2 40 13 6.000
18:54 2 40 11 6.000
19:54 DUST NOT BLOWING


1 0 -: 3 7 20 17 2.000
1 0 :: 5 5 30 13 2.000
1 1 :: 4 40 11 1.500
1 1 ::55 30 12 1 . 500
1 2 :: 4 6 50 13 2.500
1 2 ':55 60 13 2.500
1 3 :: 3 5 60 16 4.000
1 3 :: 5 5 40 18 5.000
1 4 ': 5 5 40 14 5.000
1 5 :: 5 5 40 15 5.000
1 6 :: 5 4 30 17 6.000
1 7 :: 5 6 30 15 6.000
86
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 3 - 1-77


11:55 170 18 5.000
12:55 160 20 4.000
13: 7 160 20 2.500
13:16 170 20 3.000
13:55 170 20 3.000
14:55 170 20 4.000
15:55 160 21 4.000
16:56 160 20 4.000
17:55 170 18 5.000
13:56 170 20 6.000
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 3 - 2 - 7 7

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHOWED I

READING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MILES II
9 :: 5 5 DUST NOT SLOWING
1 0 :: 5 5 230 26 5.000
•I
11 :55 250 30 2.500
1 2 :: 6 2 30 27 2.500
12 : 1 8 2 40 30 1.500
12 : 4 4 2 50 26 2.500
1 2 :: 5 5 2 50 28 2.500
1 3 ':55 250 30 2.500
1 4 :; 5 5 2 40 25 2.500
1 5 :: 5 5 2 60 29 2.500
1 6 :: 1 2 60 28 3.000
1 6 :: 5 5 2 60 22 4.000
1 7 :: 5 7 2 70 20 6.000
1 3 :: 5 4 2 80 16 6.000
1 9 : 55 DUST NOT BLOWING
87


9 : 53 DUST NOT BLOWING
1 0 : 28 2 30 23 3.000
1 0 : 55 210 22 1.500
1 1 : 12 230 21 1.000
1 1 : 18 220 24 1.000
1 1 : :23 2 30 27 0.750
1 1 : 55 2 30 26 1.000
1 2 :: 5 8 2 40 28 1.000
1 3 : 58 2 40 32 0.750
1 4 :. 2 2 30 31 0.500
1 4 .: 5 6 2 50 32 0.750
1 5 :: 3 2 60 29 1.000
15 : 1 4 2 60 35 0.750
15 : 1 9 2 50 36 0.500
1 5 :: 2 9 2 60 26 0.750
15 : 3 4 2 90 21 1.000
1 5 :: 4 9 2 70 20 1 . 750
15 : 5 6 3 00 21 1.750
16 : 2 3 2 90 19 3.000
16 : 5 5 2 70 18 3.000
17 : 5 4 290 25 2.500
18 : 5 4 3 00 20 2.500
19 : 5 7 290 21 2.500
20 :56 2 90 22 5.000
21 : 5 6 OUST NOT BLOWING
))
II
88
FOR THE DUSTSTORM Q N 3 - 1 1 - 7 7

THE Ni^TIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHOWED

6J 55 DUST NOT BLOWING
7: 5 6 290 28 6.000
8 :: 5 4 ^10 27 4.000
9 :: 5 7 320 28 3.000
1 0 :• 2 3 3 20 30 2.000
1 0 : J51 310 27 2.000
1 1 :: 4 8 3 30 35 1.000
1 2 :: 5 3 330 28 1.000
13 : 2 0 330 33 0.750
1 3 :: 3 3 330 35 0.500
13 : 5 2 3 40 35 0.500
14 : 0 320 34 0.750
1 4 :: 1 0 330 36 0.500
14 : 5 2 330 32 0.500
1 5 .: 5 0 330 36 0.500
1 6 :: 5 6 3 40 35 0.500
17 : 1 4 340 30 0.750
1 7 :: 4 0 3 40 30 0.500 •I
17 : 5 6 3 50 30 0.500
3 40 32 0.750 II
18 : 2 0
1 8 :: 5 6 3 50 25 0.750 :)
3 50 23 1.500 •I
19 : 2 8
1 9 :: 5 4 3 50 25 2.500
2 0": 5 6 3 40 22 3.000
21 :53 DUST NOT BLOWING
89


Or DIRECTION SPEED IN
7:54 2 40 7 5.000
8:55 2 30 14 5.000
9:36 230 16 3.000
9:55 2 60 15 2 . 500
10:55 2 60 14 2.500
11:15 2 90 12 4.000
11:55 2 60 9 4.000
12:55 210 5 6.000
13:53 330 5 6.000


READING (DEGREES) (KNOTSJ MILES
14:53 210 16 6.000
15:51 2 00 16 6.000
16:55 2 00 19 6.000
17:52 220 18 5.000
13:54 2 00 13 3.000
19:53 2 00 12 2.000
NOT BLOWING I)
20:55 DUST II
90

THb NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHOWED

O*" DIRECTION SPEED IN
,^5 = 55 DUST NOT
10:53 270 BLOWING
20 6.000
11:53 230 21
12:52 250 4.000
21 4.000
13:53 240 21 4.000
14:55 250
21 4.00 0
15:52 240
23 4.000
16:57 230
23 4.000
17:55 230 23 4.000
18:57 230 18 4.000
19:13 220 16 3.000
1*5 = 3 ^ OUST NOT BLOWING
>i
91

TIME WIND WIND VISIBILIT

6 :' 5 4 OUST NOT BLOWING
7:: 5 5 190 20 4.000
8 :' 4 6 190 18 6.000
3:: 5 4 210 17 6.000
9: 54 DUST NOT BLOWING
ir : 3 2 2 40 28 3.000
1 1 :•55 2 30 23 3.000
1 2 :: 1 4 230 30 0.750
1 2 ':33 2 40 35 0.750
1 2 ;: 5 5 2 30 34 0.750
1 3 -: 8 230 34 0.500
1 3 :: 1 2 2 40 36 0.500
1 3 :: 3 2 2 60 36 0.250
13 : 5 5 250 38 0.250
14- : 5 6 2 50 33 0.500
15 : 2 4 2 40 26 0.500
15 : 5 3 2 40 29 0.500
1 6 :: 5 7 2 60 27 0.500
17 : 1 3 2 70 24 1.000
1 7 ': 3 8 2 60 40 0.500
1 7 ': 5 5 2 70 34 0.250
18 : 1 2 310 18 1.000
1 3 :: 2 7 310 20 2.500
18 :55 310 24 1.500
1 9 :: 5 3 310 25 1.500
2 0 :: 3 7 3 00 18 2.000
3 00 17 2.000
I
20 :56 »
Zl' : 1 3 310 22 4.000
2 1 ::53 DUST NOT BLOWING :)
9o


9:55 190 19 4.000
10:24 2 00 16 2.000
10:50 2 00 20 1.000
11:54 190 18 1.000
12:52 210 17 1.500
13:34 190 14 3.000
13:58 220 15 4.000
14:55 200 19 4.000
15:54 240 14 6.000
16:58 200 14 6.000


12:56 190 16 6.000
13:56 190 15 6.000
14:56 200 12 6.000
ll
15:56 2 00 14 6.000 I
16:56 180 16 6.000 II
"1


9:53 190 6 3.000
93


9:55 2 80 27 3.000
10:14 2 70 25 2.000
10:55 2 80 25 1.500
11:55 2 80 28 1.500
12:55 2 80 27 1.500
13:55 2 70 29 1.500
14:55 2 80 23 1.500
15:41 2 80 22 4.000
15:55 2 90 21 4.000
16:55 2 80 20 4.000
17:56 2 60 17 6.000


10:53 OUST N3T BLOWING
11:43 220 24 3.000
11:55 220 26 2.000
12: 4 230 30 1.000
12:53 230 26 1.000
13:26 260 28 0.750 I
13:40 2 30 26 1.500 II
13:52 230 30 1.500
13:58 2 30 22 2.000
14:55 2 80 20 2.000
14:59 2 90 20 3.000
15:21 290 20 5.000
15:54 2 80 22 6.000
16:55 2 70 17 6.000
94
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 4 - 1-77

TIME WIND WIND VISIBILI

1 2 : 56 OUST NOT BLOWING
1 3 :: 5 5 2 20 18 3.000
1 4 :: 1 2 30 28 1.000
1 4 :: 3 2 220 18 2.000
1 4 :: 5 5 2 30 24 2.000
1 5 :: 3 5 2 30 28 1.000
1 5 :: 5 5 220 28 1.000
1 6 :: 5 5 2 30 25 2.000
1 7 ;: 4 8 2 60 28 1.000
1 7 ;: 5 5 2 50 31 1.000
1 8 :: 4 7 2 50 28 0.750
1 8 ;: 5 4 2 50 28 0.750
1 9 :: 3 6 2 60 22 1.000
1 9 :: 5 5 2 70 18 1.000
20 : 1 2 70 17 3.000
2 0 ': 1 9 2 80 18 3.000
20 : 5 6 2 80 13 5.000
21 : 5 4 DUST NOT BLOWING


OF DIRECTION SPEED IN I
READING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MILES I
9:: 5 8 DUST NOT BLOWING II
1 0 :: 5 5 2 40 19 6.000 :»
l l : :55 2 30 23 5.000
1 2 ': 5 2 2 40 23 4.000
1 3 :: 5 3 2 50 26 2.000
1 4 :: 1 7 2 50 26 1.500
1 4 :: 5 2 2 50 26 1.500
1 5 :: 5 4 2 40 27 2.000
1 6 :: 5 5 2 40 24 3.000
1 7 :: 2 2 2 40 28 2.500
1 7 :: 3 3 2 50 26 4.000
1 7 :: 5 5 2 60 24 5.000
1 8 :: 5 8 2 80 24 5.000
2 0 :: 3 5 3 50 25 5. 000
2 0 :: 5 6 3 50 22 5.000
21':55 OUST NOT BLOWING
95


20:37 30 19 2.000
20:54 30 20 4.000


15:38 2 20 18 6.000
15:55 2 30 18 5.000
16:46 2 40 18 3.000
16:54 2 30 18 3.000


READING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MILES ft
:i
13:56 170 26 6.000 a
16: 1 190 22 2.500
16:14 160 16 5.0C0
16:57 2 30 23 5.000
17:27 2 50 25 3.000
17:53 240 24 3.000
18:37 2 70 24 2.000
18:56 2 70 22 2.000
19:22 2 70 18 3.000
19:55 270 14 4.000
96


OF . DIRECTION SPEED IN
8:41 60 18 5.000
8:59 80 20 2.000
9: 7 40 12 4.000


17:16 170 20 3.000


22:51 DUST NOT BLOWING I
23:55 40 18 3.000 ft
:»
•I
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 8- 1-77

EAOING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MILES
97


19:21 3 40 20 2.000


12:55 2 30 23 6.000


13:56 170 22 3.000
14:56 170 21 3.000
15:56 170 21 3.000
150 20 6.000 :)
16:55 •I


READING (DEGREES) (KrJOTS) MILES
14:55 3 60 20 3.000
98


18:43 60 22 2.000
18:55 70 31 3.000
19:51 80 20 5.000


17:36 310 18 2.000
17:41 320 29 1.000
17:46 320 26 1.000
17:56 3 20 21 1.000


21:55 3 50 22 5.000


CF DIRECTION SPEED IN
18:55 30 22 3.000
1 9 : 15 30 22 4.000
99

17:53 30 25 4.000

14:43 2 30 17 4.000
14:54 2 40 19 4.000

TIME WIND WIND VISIBILITY II
OF DIRECTION SPEED IN :i
11:58 170 21 5.000
12:53 180 23 3.000
13:55 170 23 5.00 0
100
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 1-20-79 .

12:20 350 29 6.000
12:54 3 40 27 6.000
13:56 3 50 24 6.000
15:20 3 50 22 6.000

14:53 250 18 5.000
15:55 2 50 13 5.000
16:53 220 14 5.000
17:54 2 70 10 6.000
23:23 3 30 20 3.000
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 2- 9-79 »

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHOWED ;i
15:54 2 00 18 6.000
16:53 2 00 19 6.000
101

TIME WI NO WIND VISIBILITY

READING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MIL^S
11:55 2 30 19 6.000
18:59 2 30 10 7.000
19:55 240 7 7.000
20:55 240 11 7.000


13:52 2 70 27 6.000
15:53 DUST NOT BLOWI NG

TIME WIND WIND VISIBILITY I

OF DIRECTION SPEED IN :i
READING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MILES •I
10:53 DUST .NOT BLOWING
11:56 2 30 27 3.000
12:55 2 40 27 4.000
15:39 2 80 26 1.000
15:46 2 70 24 0.500
15:53 2 70 26 2.000
16:14 2 40 21 5.000
16:52 2 80 16 5.000
102


12:55 210 18 5.000
13:57 2 00 19 4.000
14:58 190 19 4.000
15:55 190 12 4.000
16:54 170 18 6.000
17:55 170 17 6.000


13:56 2 70 27 1.500
14: 8 2 60 27 3.000
16:55 2 50 20 4.000
17:57 2 40 19 5.000
18:53 2 40 16 5.000

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHCWED

11:55 3 40 25 6.000
12:52 3 40 25 6.000
13:54 350 22 6.000
14:53 3 50 20 6.COO
103


11:55 2 80 28 5.000
12:53 2 80 29 3.000
13:53 2 80 30 3.000
14:53 2 90 23 5.000
15:54 3 00 25 6.000
15:55 320 22 6.000
17:53 3 30 25 6.000


11:54 2 60 15 6.000
12:54 2 60 15 5.000
13:53 2 60 16 6.000
14:54 2 60 16 6.000


11:53 10 15 6.000
104


8 :: 5 5 DUST NOT BLOWING
9;: 1 2 2 70 24 3.000
9 :: 5 2 2 30 25 4.000
1 0 :: 3 2 60 27 3.000
1 0 ;: 3 0 260 26 3.000
1 0 :: 5 3 2 30 26 3.000
1 1 ::10 240 24 4.000
l l : :55 2 50 28 5.000
1 2 :: 5 4 2 30 25 4.000
1 3 ;: 5 2 2 30 22 5.000
1 4 :: 5 5 2 30 20 5.000
1 5 :: 5 2 220 24 5.000
1 6 :: 5 4 2 60 21 4.000
1 7 :' 5 4 2 60 19 4.000
1 3 :! 5 4 2 50 17 6.000


13:32 210 22 4.000
13:44 210 25 3.000 "I
13:53 210 22 3.000 •J
14:39 2 30 23 2.000
14:57 2 20 21 2.000
15:35 230 22 1.500
15:53 2 20 25 1.500
16:55 240 25 1.500
17:45 2 70 23 2.000
17:54 2 70 25 2.000
18:33 2 60 18 3.000
18:56 2 80 20 3.000
19:30 280 17 4.000
105


7:53 2 30 24 4.000
8:55 240 22 4.000
9:53 240 25 3.000
10:58 2 40 27 3.000
11:56 2 60 30 2.000
12:55 2 50 29 2.000
13:31 260 24 4.000
13:54 2 60 27 5.000
14:54 2 50 22 5.000
15:55 2 60 24 6.000
16:52 2 70 17 6.000
17:55 2 70 20 6.000
18:54 2 60 18 6.000


16:20 310 23 1.000
16:37 310 25 2.500
16:45 310 28 3.000
16:56 3 00 26 4.000


12:48 60 26 1.500
12:54 50 22 1.500
13:11 60 26 3.000
13:19 50 24 5.000
13:53 50 24 6.000
106


15:56 220 19 5.000
16:56 220 20 6.000
17:55 2 30 17 5.000
18:56 220 16 4.000
19:56 220 13 4.000
20:56 190 14 6.000


11:56 210 17 6.000
12:55 220 18 6.000
13:55 2 00 18 6.000
14:54 190 20 4.000
15:56 190 19 5.000
16:54 190 21 6.000
17:53 190 17 6.000


20:57 320 29 2.000
21:18 3 20 22 5.000
21:36 310 16 6.000
107

OF DIRECTION . SPEED IN
18:20 2 20 28 0.500
18:33 2 30 28 1.000
18:55 220 21 2.000
19: 8 220 20 3.000


17:53 270 22 4.000


ill
12:55 2 90 14 6.000
13:54 2 90 20 6.000 111'
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 6 - 2 3 - 7 9


15:38 3 00 16 0.750
15:54 310 15 4.000
108


21:23 3 00 26 2.000
21:32 3 00 17 4.000


19:56 3 00 15 4.000


21:41 310 20 1.500
21:55 3 40 24 4.000 I, p
DUST NOT BLOWING t

22:20
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 1 0 - 1 - 7 9


10:52 10 16 3.000
11:53 30 15 4.000
12:53 40 14 5.000
13:53 10 18 6.000
10?


5:57 3 60 25 2.000
6:15 3 50 22 l.COO
6:51 3 60 23 2.000
7: 9 10 15 4.000
7:53 10 21 4.000


1:48 3 60 18 3.000
1:56 3 60 19 3.000
2:10 10 25 2.000
2:45 ID 24 4.COO
2:55 10 24 4.000
3:56 3 60 18 6.000


OF DIRECT ION SPEED IN
12:55 2 30 23 6.000
13:38 310 22 1.000
13:45 310 23 2.COO
13:52 3 00 24 3.000
16:55 310 22 6.000
17: 7 3 00 23 2.000
no
FOR THE DUSTSTORM ON 1 0 - 2 9 - 7 9


22:53 160 19 7.000
23:53 170 20 7.000




15:55 180 19 6.000
16:54 170 19 6.000


10:13 2 90 20 3.000
10:30 290 20 2.000
10:56 2 90 18 2.000
11:56 2 80 19 2.000
12:25 3 00 20 3.000
12:54 2 90 19 3.000
13:55 320 20 4.000
14:55 OUST NOT 3L0WING
Ill


10:55 190 15 6.000
11:54 190 15 6.000
13:56 2 20 19 6.000
14:55 210 18 6.000
15:55 2 30 18 4.000
16:48 2 30 16 5.00 0


10:26 2 70 17 4.000
10:56 2 90 14 5.000
11:57 310 15 4.000
12: 4 310 19 2.000 I
12:19 3 00 16 3.000 I
12:37 3 20 19 5.000
12:51 3 30 18 5.000
13:51 20 14 5.000
14:54 40 15 6.COO
15:51 30 18 3.000
16:38 30 18 6.000
16:53 30 19 6.000
112


10:54 2 40 23 4.000
11:55 2 50 24 3.000
12:56 2 70 24 3.00 0
13:52 2 80 22 3.000
14:56 2 60 18 3.000
15:51 2 70 18 4.000


13:56 2 40 20 3.000
14:41 2 40 17 2.000
14:56 2 30 19 2.000
15:38 2 40 18 3.000
15:53 2 30 18 4.000
16:53 240 20 4.000
17:54 2 30 19 3.000
18:55 2 30 17 5.000 I
19:54 DUST NOT BLOWING I'


13:52 290 16 6.000
113


14:55 2 70 22 5.000
16:20 2 60 26 1.500
16:54 2 90 20 2.500
17:53 2 80 15 2.500
18:47 260 12 5.000
18:53 2 60 12 5.000


4 : 55 2 80 23 3.000
5: 54 2 80 24 3.000
5: 59 2 80 22 2.000
6 :: 5 3 2 80 23 2.000
7 : 52 2 80 18 2.000
8 :• 1 0 2 80 23 1.500
8 :: 4 0 3 00 15 1.750
8 : 55 3 00 25 1.750
9 :: 5 4 2 90 25 1.750
1 0 :: 4 2 3 00 26 1.250
1 0 :: 5 2 2 90 26 1.250
11 : 5 3 290 23 1.250
1 2 ': 4 0 290 23 2.000
12 : 5 5 3 00 20 2.000
13 : 2 5 300 20 3.000
1 3 ': 5 1 300 20 3.000
14 : 5 5 3 00 14 3.000
15 : 5 1 3 00 16 3.000
16 : 5 6 2 80 14 6.000
114

TIME WIND wno VISIBILITY

10: 28 2 40 25 3.000
1 0 : 40 2 50 26 2.000
1 0 : 53 2 60 26 1.500
1 1 : 51 2 50 28 1.500
12: 7 2 50 25 1.000
1 2 :: 2 0 2 50 29 0.750
12: 39 2 50 31 1.000
1 2 :: 5 3 2 50 29 0.875
IS-:21 2 60 28 1.000
I S :: 5 2 2 50 25 1.000
1 4 ;: 4 3 250 25 1.250
1 4 ;: 5 1 2 50 25 1.250
1 5 :: 5 1 2 60 24 1.250
16 : 1 6 2 40 27 0.750
1 6 :: 4 1 2 60 23 0.750
16 : 5 5 2 60 20 0.750
17 : 2 0 2 50 25 1.000
17 : 4 4 2 50 19 1.000
17 : 5 5 2 60 23 1.000
13 : 5 4 2 70 19 1.000
19 : 4 5 2 80 12 1.500
19 : 5 2 2 80 11 1.500
2 60 11 6.000 I
20 : 6
20 : 5 3 280 11 6.000
21 : 5 3 230 13 6.000
23 : 5 0 2 60 26 4.000
115

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SHCWED

0 : 54 2 60 15 6.000
3 :: 5 3 2 50 22 5.000
4 :: 5 4 2 50 19 5.000
5 :t 5 5 2 60 19 5.000
6 ': 5 7 270 18 3.000
7:: 1 2 2 70 20 1.500
7;: 4 9 270 20 1.500
7 :52 2 90 22 1.500
8:: 3 3 2 70 21 1.500
3 :55 280 21 1.500
9 :55 2 80 27 1.500
1 0 ;: 9 2 90 26 1.000
10 : 5 4 2 90 24 1.000
11':55 3 00 22 1.000
1 2 ;: 5 7 290 22 1.000
13 : 5 5 2 90 22 1.500
14 : 2 0 2 80 18 2.000
14 : 5 9 290 22 2.000
15 : 5 4 2 90 20 2.000
16 : 3 2 2 70 14 3.000
16 : 4 7 2 80 16 4.000 I
1 6 ': 5 5 2 80 17 4.000 I
17 : 5 5 260 15 4.000
18 : 5 2 DUST NOT BLOWING
116


9 :53 DUST NOT BLOWING
10 : 5 5 2 30 21 4.000
1 1 .: 9 2 70 25 2.500
11 : 2 3 2 60 25 2.000
1 1 :: 2 9 2 60 23 1.500
1 1 :: 4 8 2 70 25 1.000
11 : 5 5 2 70 24 1.000
12:: 2 8 2 80 27 0.750
1 2 :: 3 7 2 70 27 0.750
1 2 ': 5 2 2 70 26 0.750
13: 1 7 2 80 24 0.750
1 3 ;: 5 2 2 80 21 0.750
1 4 :: 2 1 2 80 23 0.750
1 4 :: 5 2 2 70 25 0.750
1 5 :: 4 2 2 60 22 1.000
15: 53 280 21 1.000
1 6 : :52 2 70 20 1.500
1 7 : :42 2 80 18 2.000
17: 53 2 80 17 2.000
18: 53 2 80 11 2.500
19: 2 0 2 80 11 5.000
1 9 : 55 2 80 10 5.000


11:52 2 00 17 5.000
12:52 210 14 5.000
117


15:53 2 00 17 6.000
16:55 190 17 6.000

TIME WIND WIND VISIBILI1

9:55 2 70 25 5.000
10:12 2 70 26 3.000
10:21 2 80 28 2.000
10:33 2 80 30 1.000
10:55 2 80 27 0.750
ll:13 2 90 28 1.000
11:56 2 80 24 1.000
12:21 290 23 1.500
12:55 2 90 24 1.500
13:34 2 80 24 2.000
13:57 2 30 25 2.000
14:54 2 90 21 2.000
15:24 290 24 3.000
15:52 2 70 22 3.000
16:54 2 80 23 3.000
18 5.000 I
17:35 2 80
17:54 2 80 19 6.000


11:54 2 30 15 6.000
'2:54 2 30 14 6.000
118


13:56 2 30 19 6.000,
14:56 2 20 20 5.000
15:54 220 25 3.000
16: 1 220 26 1.000
16:20 210 22 4.000
19:57 2 70 23 4.000
20:11 2 80 20 2.000
20:29 2 80 14 5.000


7:: 5 5 OUST NOT BLOWING
3' : 5 3 2 70 18 6.000
9 : a5 2 90 30 2.000
9:: 4 4 2 70 30 1.000
9:: 5 7 2 80 29 1.000
1 0 :: 5 5 2 80 28 1.000
l l : :55 3 00 29 1.000
1 2 :: 2 6 2 80 28 2.000
1 2 :: 5 1 2 90 25 2.000
1 3 :: 5 4 2 80 29 2.000
1 4 :: 5 4 2 70 28 2.000
1 5 ;: 5 2 2 70 28 2.000
1 6 :: 2 0 2 80 28 1.250
1 6 :: 5 4 2 90 27 1.250
1 7 :: 2 0 2 90 32 0.750
1 7 :J 5 5 2 90 28 0.750
1 8 ;: 3 0 2 90 25 1.000
1 3 ;: 5 5 2 90 22 1.000
1 9 :: 3 2 3 00 22 2.000
1 9 ': 5 2 3 00 19 2.000
2 0 :: 1 2 3 00 21 4.000
2 0 :: 5 5 2 90 17 6.000
2 1 :r55 DUST NOT BLOWING
119


15:20 2 30 20 5.000
15:53 220 23 5.000
16:54 2 30 18 2.500
17:18 2 30 20 5.000
17:54 2 60 15 6.000


1 3 :: 5 5 1 80 25 4.000
1 4 :: 5 2 200 22 4.000
1 5 :: 3 4 2 00 25 2.500
1 5 :: 5 1 210 25 2.500
1 6 :: 5 5 220 24 3.000
1 7 :: 1 8 2 30 25 2.000
1 7 :: 3 5 290 26 0.125
1 7 ': 4 3 2 80 26 0.375
1 7 ;: 5 6 2 90 28 0.375
1 8 :: 5 4 3 00 25 0.375
1 9 ': 1 2 90 26 0.625
1 9 :: 2 8 2 90 25 1.000
1 9 ;: 5 3 2 90 27 1.000
20 : 8 2 90 27 3.000
2 0 ;: 5 4 2 80 24 4.000
21':53 DUST mT BLOWING


R EAOING (DEGREES) (KNOTS) MILES
13:56 180 20 6.000
14:57 1 30 17 6.000
120


19:36 3 50 18 5.000
19:55 3 60 23 4.000


7:37 3 50 20 6.000
7:52 3 50 22 4.000
8: 3 3 50 30 2.000
8:58 3 50 26 4.000
9:53 3 60 25 5.000


9:55 2 60 22 4.000
lO: 1 2 70 24 2.000
10:30 2 60 24 4.000
10:53 2 80 22 4.000
11:54 2 60 26 4.000
12:30 2 70 30 1.000
12:55 2 70 30 1.000
13:53 2 90 28 1.500
14: 9 2 90 28 3.000
14:56 2 90 29 3.000
121


9:55 3 00 19 4.000
10:57 2 90 21 6.000
11:55 290 23 5.000
12:54 2 70 20 6.000
13:54 310 16 6.000
14:55 2 80 20 6.000
15:53 2 90 20 6.000


11:53 DUST NOT BLOWI NG
12:53 290 24 5.000
13:52 2 70 20 4.000
14:55 2 80 22 3.000
15: 5 2 80 28 2.000
15:52 2 90 27 2.000
16:56 2 90 25 2.000
17:58 290 26 2.000
18:40 3 50 25 1.000
18:59 3 50 25 2.000
19:32 360 19 4.000
19:53 3 60 20 6.000
122


11:55 230 16 3.000
12: 8 2 30 15 2.500
12:54 2 30 20 2.500
13:53 2 20 20 2.500
14:23 2 20 18 3.000
14:30 220 15 5.000
14:52 2 40 19 6.000


11:55 170 14 6.000
12:55 180 15 5.000
13:54 170 16 5.000
14:53 170 15 5.000
15:53 170 15 5.000


20:29 180 8 1.250
20:42 180 7 3.000
20:54 180 6 4.000
123


17:52 140 17 3.000
18:12 170 23 1.000
18:18 170 20 6.000


7:33 40 18 5.000
7:53 50 17 5.000


1:54 310 24 1.000
2: 9 3 30 27 5.000
2:31 3 40 24 6.000

Mirror Degradation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mirror Degradation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF A DUSTSTORM SIMULATION CHAMBER TO

EVALUATE SOLAR CONCENTRATOR DEGRADATION AS

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

I extend a deep appreciation to Dr. R. M. Bethea, chairman of my

Table 3.1 Results of Initial Cleaning Methods Using

Test samples of various mirror materials were quantitatively and

It was concluded (Barriger, 1978) that of all the mirror materials

The worst duststorms are associated with developing low-pressure

C = drag coefficient of the particle

The variation in concentration of the heavier quartz particles with

(Gillette, et al., 1974; Gillette and Walker, 1977). The concentrations

exposure (Hampton and Lind, 1978). A change in appearance and particu-

sequent cleaning difficulty that makes Teflon impractical for use on

Initial properties and the effect of environmental exposure are the

important because it affects physical properties and increases rates of

The major problem with all solar collectors in operation today is

Particles are attracted to surfaces by gravitational forces, elec-

effects and capillary effects, in addition to gravity and electrostatic

weathering characteristics of materials that are selected for functional

The objective of accelerated testing is the prediction of long-term

Both quantitative and qualitative relationships are important in

induce a given level of effect are equally necessary to determine correla-

SOLAR COLLECTOR CLEANING METHOD EVALUATION

Because large reflector areas are required to produce solar energy

1) tap water rinse (TR)

4) high pressure tap water rinse followed by a DMDI water

rinse (HP, DR)

The average initial reflectivity was 83.9%. TR left the reflectivity

To select the better of these methods, some Carolina glass mirrors

Cleaning the mirrors at the Crosbyton solar power site is especially

3) Alconox (laboratory glassware detergent) in tap water

and DMDI water.

Reflectivity of Severely Degraded Carolina Mirrors

Group I Group II Initial Reflectivity

and Dobie , it is obvious that Glass Plus is superior. Therefore Glass

Panel Cleaning Results

Initial Reflectance 76.2

HS, Rinse 84.1 80.7 82.4

Glass Plus^ 87.1 88.4 87.8

ECG^ 86.7 86.5 86.2

Finish^ 84.2 87.4 85.8

Carpet 84.6 86.1 85.4

^Steel Wool 83.8 85.2 84.5

Scrunge 82.8 84.6 83.7

^Bon Ami^ 82.7 82.3 82.5

nnhip^ 83.1 80.6 81.8

'scratching was observed where these products were used.

Because the mirror panels are curved, it was necessary to determine

Because of the test results, it was decided to clean the severely

CJ <5i- LT) CO "!^ <-

EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

In order to simulate the effects of duststorms on solar concentrator

After leaving the exposure chamber, the simulated duststorm entered

percent for particles of 30 ym aerodynamic diameter or larger. The silica

Basis for Operating Conditions

Particle Size, Microns

Figure 4.4. Effective Particle Size Efficiency for

mass median particle diameter observed during duststorms at Crosbyton

Preliminary Exposure Tests

s- o •M 4-) 4-> +-> 4-»

Basis for Simulation

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Exposure tests at varying conditions were conducted in order to de-