DO NOT TYPE IN THIS FOOTER SECTION ON PAGE 1.

TEXT WILL BE INSERTED INTO THIS AREA BY SAE STAFF UPON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL
APPROVED MANUSCRIPT AT SAE INTERNATIONAL.
09WONLY-0010
Airship design method based on available solar energy in low stratosphere
Dumas A., Anzillotti S., Trancossi M.
Universit di Modena e Reggio Emilia
Copyright 2009 SAE International
ABSTRACT
The actual applicative research concerning airships and
their use as HAP (High Altitude Platforms for
telecommunications and military use) define the
possibility of new applications of these systems, also
concerning energetic high altitude production. This paper
presents the energetic balance of a photovoltaic platform
with capability of static hovering at high altitude realized
by electric powered propellers. This is the first step
trough the design of the P.S.I.C.H.E. (Photovoltaic
Stratospheric lsle for Conversion into Hydrogen as
Energy vector) airship concept: a stratospheric airship
which can serve a platform for hydrogen and oxygen
production.
This paper analyses the energetic design process for a
High Altitude Platform based on photovoltaic energy
capture, but the process could be generalized in order to
be applied to any airship project. It is considered an
airship shapes equipped with large PV array that covers
energy request during the day. Surplus photovoltaic
power supplies electrolysis equipments producing
hydrogen and oxygen from water, brought up by an
auxiliary airship. Hydrogen and oxygen are liquefied and
stored in gas cylinders, in order to satisfy supplementary
power requirements by a fuel cell system during night-
time insufficient solar irradiance. The Standard
Atmosphere Model is used to evaluate PV performance
at various operative altitudes.
A propulsion system with electric motors guarantees
airship manoeuvrability and hovering. Energy balance of
PV-hydrogen energy supply system has been analyzed
for three airship shapes with equal volume with concern
of overabundant hydrogen and oxygen production.
Hydrogen annual production for PV square meter has
been evaluated in relation to ground production at the
same latitude.
INTRODUCTION
A new interest of airships has begun about 15 years ago
and it is witnessed by futuristic and fascinating projects.
Nowadays it seems that some projects are going to
become reality, despite the economic crisis. Specialized
aerospace magazines presented the project JHL40
teamed by Boeing with the Canadian company SkyHook.
It is a heavy-lift aircraft that combines helicopter rotor
systems with a neutrally buoyant airship. It is considered
the first heavy transport hybrid which is going to be
operative.
Some high altitude platforms are currently in pre-design
phase for civil purposes, essentially telecommunications
and digital broadcasting, and military systems such as air
defence and surveillance.
Due to their heavy operative tasks both transport airships
and high altitude platforms need large energy supply for
very long enduring mission. A concrete possibility is
constituted by photovoltaic energy production associated
to a fuel cell system for hydrogen and oxygen. It is a
closed mass loop cycle based on renewable solar
energy, except a fractional dissipation of water in the
hydrolytic process, which produces hydrogen and oxygen
dissociation from water by electrolysis, coupled with a
fuel cell system for night-time energy supply fed by O
2
and H
2
tanks.
This paper investigates hydrogen and oxygen production
by stratospheric lighter-than-air platform with large hull
photovoltaic surface, at operative altitudes above 12 km,
which is defined in order to avoid dangerous
meteorological phenomena like summer cumulonimbus
and clouds shadowing in order to maximize solar energy
intercepted in a year.
SHAPE DESIGN
Lighter-Than-Air history presents a large variety of
specialized configurations for different uses. The most
common shape is the conventional streamlined designs
(ellipsoidal), but many projects use unconventional and
innovative shapes [3] even specialized for special tasks.
It is possible to observe different shapes: spherical,
lenticular, toroidal, deltoid, flat-body, multi balloon, etc.,
and to analyse the characteristics of every kind of shape:
- spherical shape:
- provides the optimum lift efficiency
- it is not so efficient in aerodynamics;
- ellipsoidal (conventional) shape approximates a body
of revolution about a longitudinal axis creating a
streamlined body:
- has a good aerodynamic performance;
- presents a low efficiency in terms of lift and a
high sensitivity to crosswinds and it could
present problems at low speeds and during
mooring.
- lenticular shape or flying saucer is an envelope
geometry generated by the revolution of a flat shape
about a vertical axis:
- the aerodynamics of this shape has a reduced
affection by horizontal wind direction and
presents a large upper surface for PV array;
- it could present some problems of stability in the
case of not perfectly horizontal winds.
Table I Configurations of the tested shapes.
Configuration (A) presents a nearly hemispherical shape
with the best surface-volume ratio while configuration (B)
has been constructed starting from a segment of sphere
and has the largest upper surface. Configuration (C)
represents an intermediate surface between (A) and (B).
SHAPE DESIGN PRELIMINAR ANALYSIS
The history of recent large blimp projects has been
started by aerodynamic performances and lift capacity
only. Most projects have got in trouble by the energetic
problem. This kind of problems has become more
severe approaching photovoltaic powered systems.
This paper evaluates the energetic definition of HAP for
energetic production and TLC, but results could be
applied in any case. In order to solve this kind of
problems it has been decided to use an energetic design
approach.
The first objective limit is connected to the volume of the
system. This is a completely defined parameter by
structural weight and service ceiling. In a first pre-design
phase we have defined three different layouts, by
analysing the main weight of structure, photovoltaic and
energy conversion equipments, electrical engines and
related accessories, etc.
By this component analysis and considering a service
ceiling of 20 km, we have determined a total volume of
about 2.2 10
6
m
3
.
Figure 1 Shape configuration (A)
Figure 2 Shape configuration (B)
Figure 3 Shape - configuration (C)
Considering these prescriptions it has been evaluated an
overall system mass about 2*10
5
kg. By this value, it is
possible to evaluate the influence of the shape on energy
system performance and payload capacity in the case of
different shapes with the same volume (table I). The
shapes represented in the figures above (Figure 1, 2, 3)
have been analysed.
AERODYNAMIC CONSIDERATIONS
To realize our research we have obtained and used
meteorological and atmospheric data at the location of
meteorological station of San Pietro Capofiume, located
latitude 44.65, longitude 11.63 and elevation 6 meters.
It has been calculated mean velocity, density, and
temperature profiles in the atmosphere up to 25 km,
based on disposable measures of the last 15 years. All
data have been presented in [1]. Here it is shown, for
brevity, for the only month of January the velocity profile,
its standard deviation and the maximum ( fig. 4), and in
figure 5 is shown the directions of the wind and the its
standard deviation.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
5
10
15
20
25
[m/s]
Q
u
o
t
e
[
K
m
]
Wind Speed (Jan)
Mean
+o
std
-o
std
max
Figure 4 Monthly average velocity, SD and
maximum profiles.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0
5
10
15
20
25
[deg]
Q
u
o
t
e

[
K
m
]
Wind Direction (Jan)
Mean
+o
std
-o
std
Figure 5 Monthly average wind directions and SD.
In Fig. 6 Reynolds number profiles has been calculated
basing on V
1/3
as reference length (Tab. 1).
The platform needs energy and power for hovering,
manoeuvring, and supplying board systems and
equipments. Mean monthly wind speed is the basis for
calculation of total necessary energy on a year, indicated
as mean power. The maximum value and the SD of the
wind have to be utilized for sizing the peak power
required to counteract the action of wind. Another
parameter, here not considered is the maximum shift
allowed to the platform.
The drag force FD and the lift component force FL have
been calculated for the three considered shapes by CFD
simulation realized by the Fluent code, utilizing the
monthly data of the locations of San Pietro Capofiume.
The determination of the overall Drag force FD and the
overall Lift component force FL for each shape consents
to evaluate the Lift and Drag coefficients by their
definitions, respectively given by
p

=

2
2
L
L
F
C
v A
(1)
and
p

=

2
2
D
D
F
C
v A
(2)
Profiles of the annual energy requirements show (Figure
9). a maximum in around 1012 km, due to jet streams.
The characteristic peak correspondent to jet stream
altitude is common to all the quantities related with wind
speed and at higher altitude it reduces considerably. It is
noteworthy that, at every altitude, (B) and (C) shapes
present a less need for energy due to aerodynamic
profile.
Figure 6 Reynolds number profiles at different altitudes
It has been possible obtain the profiles of the two
parameters respect the Reynolds number and the
different shapes, as shown in figures 7 and 8.
Figure 7 Drag coefficient CD vs. Re.
Figure 8 Lift coefficient CL vs. Re.
Figure 9 Required annual energy for hovering
Using the meteorological data of San Pietro Campofiume
(Bologna, Italy) the energetic consumption for hovering
of a platform fixed at the altitude of 15 km is compared
with that one of platform that changes its altitude of
hovering, between 15 km and 17 km, following less
velocity of the wind. In all cases, A, B and C.
It is possible to find a little but not significant reduction in
consumption (figure 10).
Figure 10 Energy required for hovering: fixed
altitude of 15 km and variable altitude 15-17 km
SOLAR IRRADIANCE EVALUATION
Three components of solar radiation, direct, diffuse and
reflected, are taken into account. Also for these
parameters the envelope has been reduced to small
planar surfaces. The calculation, by quarter of hour
steps, has involved direct and reflected irradiance on the
entire shape.
Direct solar radiation
Reduction of atmospheric filtration is computed by usual
optic techniques using the following traditional calculation
schema (Fig. 11), which is used also for ground based
installations. Direct solar radiation increases with altitude;
because of the solar radiation has a shorter way in the
atmosphere. It reaches a value which is similar to the
extra-atmospheric one about an altitude of 30 km.
Different models has been evaluated and compared.
Figure 11 Geometric model for calculations
DRUMMOND AND LAUE MODEL - For calculation
purposes one of the most significant equations is the
equation of solar radiation modified by Drummond, Laue
and others [4, 5, 6,]. This equation expresses solar
irradiation as a function of altitude and could be
expressed as:
( ) ( )
( )

= +
1/sin
, 1
S
c A
n
I A h SF a h e a h SF (3)
with a=0.14.
OKI AND SHIINA MODEL A more recent study by M.
Oki and H. Shiina [7] based on experimental analysis
based on different localities all over the world. They have
obtained the following equation which is function of A
and h, expressed in meters:
( )
t


| | | |
= + +
| |
\ . \ .
5
4
650sin 30 325 8 10 1
180 3
A
I h
(4)
Both the presented models are studied in order to
represent the irradiation conditions in high altitude
localities and loose significance over 6 km altitude. A
comparison of the considered equation results has been
plotted (Fig.12).
Figure 12 Solar irradiance vs. altitudes
(Drummond-Laue Model and Oki Shiina model)
ASHRAE CALCULATON METHOD - An alternative
formulation is that one adopted by ASHRAE [10]. Direct
normal solar radiation assumes the following expression:
( ) ( )
| |
|
|
\ .
=
0
sin
0
, /
B p
A p
d n
I A p p C SF e (5)
C
n
is dimensionless, and it represent the relationship
between normal radiation calculated using the average
value of water vapour in a sunny day and the same
quantity calculated by the tabulated value of the
ASHRAE Handbook [10]. At considered altitudes
(820km), the atmospheric physical properties are
conforming to the Standard Atmosphere model. By this
hypothesis it is possible to assume C
n
=1. The relation
p/p
0
is the correction as function of the altitude. The B
coefficient is the dimensionless coefficient of Threlked e
Jordan, reported in ASHRAE calculation method.
Table II Coefficient B, ASHRAE model
Figure 13 - Solar irradiance vs. the altitude (ASHRAE
Model)
Diffuse solar radiation
W. Knaupp and E. Mundschau [8, 9] have analyzed the
solar irradiance using the MODTRAN code, with a
constant zenith angle. The code uses data of
temperature, pressure and atmosphere composition of
US 1976 Standard Atmosphere Model. They calculate
phenomena of solar radiation absorption and dispersion
of solar spectrum at various level of atmosphere by wave
length and produce spectral and global values at various
altitudes. They assume that diffuse irradiation over 7.5
km results lower than 40 W/m
2
and in this work is,
prudently, considered negligible.
Reflected radiation
More significant is the contribution of the reflected
component, in particular that one due to the presence of
clouds under the station. In these conditions the albedo
coefficient assumes is nearly the maximum (~0.9).
Assuming the hypothesis of an isotropic radiation under
the station, it is possible to obtain
( ) |
p

=
,
1 cos
2
r t h
I I (6)
Total radiation on an inclined surface, neglecting the
diffusive component, is given by:
( ) 0 = + = + cos
t d r n r
I I I I I (7)
The total radiant energy intercepted by the surface can
be calculate using the following expression:
e
e
0
=

=

2
1
s
s
i
month t
n i
Q I d (8)
where e
s
is given by
( ) ( ) e m o =

arccos tan tan
s
(9)
It has been calculated the solar irradiance intercepted by
planar surfaces at different azimuth and inclination
positioned from 10 to 25 km, by quarter of hour steps.
The numerical integration of equation (8) gives the
average monthly values of intercepted energy by a
surface. The sum of those values is the total annual
captured energy.
=
=

12
1
i
month year
i
Q Q
(10)
Intercepted energy depends by the angle of tilt and the
azimuth of the plane. In figure 14 are represented the
results for planar surfaces at constant azimuth. Figure
15 presents the results obtained by planar surfaces
tracking the sun, characterized by constant difference
between azimuth of the plane and that of the sun.
Data presented in figure 14 and 15 can be used to
evaluate the energetic production realized by the surface
of the envelope, reduced in small planar surfaces. In
other papers [1, 2] the comparison among the shapes at
constant azimuth has been evaluated. Here it has been
presented the behaviour of the A, B and C configurations
under the hypothesis of a rotating shape such as a solar
follower which guarantee that every flat surface has a
constant azimuth from the sun. Under these conditions it
has been verified that energy collection by PV panels is
symmetric. The symmetry plane is a vertical plane
passing through sun and the centre of the platform itself.
The two symmetric half-shapes defined by this plane
intercept the same solar flux. This result shows that it is
possible to have a correct and efficient electric
configuration, which guarantees a good behaviour of the
system.
Looking for a criterion of optimization on the PV surface
amount which has to be installed, it has been
investigated the behaviour of two quantities, nominally
PV surface and the mean value of the solar radiation
intercepted yearly by the planar surfaces of the envelope,
against the minimum value prescribed of solar irradiance
(cut-off value). The results are presented respectively in
figure 16 and 17.
It can be easy noticed that the same energetic
production permit an important reduction of PV installed
surface in the tracking configuration if compared with
fixed configuration.
None of two quantities presents a particular behaviour
against the cut-off value. In order to evaluate the validity
of the system two different values of the cut-off may be
considered. They correspond to the solar radiation
intercepted by two different ground based configurations:
- PV fixed plan on a horizontal surface
- PV fixed plan on the best tilt.
The choice between the two configurations depends
strongly by the cost of PV surface and of the land area
occupied.
Figure 14 Annual global irradiance on fixed flat
surfaces at constant azimuth.
Figure 15 Annual global irradiance on flat surfaces
at constant azimuth from the sun
In this paper we have chosen the value of cut off
corresponding to best fix configuration intercepting the
sun. (5400 MJ/m2). By this assumption it is possible to
calculate envelope surface that guarantees better
irradiance value (Figure 18) and, consequently, to cut the
PV panels with less energetic production. (figure 19)
Figure 16 PV surface vs. value Irradiance cut-off
Figure 17 Mean yearly irradiance vs. value of
irradiance with cut-off
PV SYSTEM
PV energy production was carried out under
consideration of operative conditions at high altitude. In
particular PV efficiency is affected by high altitude
atmosphere conditions such as low temperature and
wind speed. Equilibrium temperature of PV cells has
been calculated by the thermal balance equation
suggested by Colozza [11], involving radiant, convective
and conductive heat transfer:
( ) to u = u + u + u + u = ( )
s cond conv rad el cell
f T (10)
The photovoltaic efficiency has been computed from
equilibrium temperature and solar irradiation [12].
Photovoltaic power has been computed all year long by
steps of 15 minutes. Energetic production over a year
has been computed by numerical integration of these
values.
Figure 18 Yearly irradiance distribution configu-
ration (B) tracking at an altitude of 15 km [MJ/m2]
Figure 19 Yearly irradiance distribution with cut-off
value of 5400 MJ m
2
- 15 km, configuration (B)
[MJ/m
2
]
Figure 20 PV power production and mean
necessary propulsive power, 21 June, configuration
(B) - [MW]
Figure 21 PV power and mean necessary power,
21 December configuration (B) - [MW]
Figure 22 Daily maximum PV power production
during the year
Overabundant summer energy supplied by PV array
(Figure 19) allows effective hydrogen and oxygen
production by electrolysis but also during winter solstice
(Figure 20) daily energy production is greater than
energy requirements for hovering.
The maximum daily power delivered by PV system is
valued for the three configurations (Figure 22).
Configuration (B) reaches top production (almost 10
MW) on summer solstice.
ENERGETIC BALANCE
The energetic balance for hovering has been analyzed at
various operative altitudes.
An annual energetic balance has been presented in Fig.
23. This balance produces different series of results for
the three tested designs.
The x axis zero value represents the equilibrium point.
The gray area on the left of the zero vertical line
represents the unacceptable condition in which the
energy supply system is not able to meet energy
requirements for hovering. Different energetic
sustainability has been reached, varying from 11 km for
lenticular configuration (B) to 13 km for a spheroid shape
(A). The configuration (C) is intermediate. All the tested
designs present a maximum value of annual energy
production near the altitude of 18 km and it present
nearly insignificant variation over 16 km, which appears
in the evaluated atmospheric conditions the optimal
working altitude.
Figure 23 Net energy balance over a year [MJ]
The energy exceeding the immediate power absorption
of the propulsive system can supply the electrolysis
system obtaining hydrogen and oxygen from water. A
part of the produced gasses can be stored in gaseous
form to satisfy the power required in order to guarantee
static hovering [1, 2, 14, 15] during the night. The main
part of hydrogen and oxygen can be liquefied and stored
in cylinders tanks waiting to be transported to the ground.
Figure 24 Hydrogen annual net production for square
meter normalized that one at ground level
It has been verified that lenticular configuration (B)
presents the best performance in terms of net hydrogen
production. It can realize a production, mean for square
meter of photovoltaic array in high altitude, more than
double, than the production which could be realized at
ground level by PV fixed surface at best tilt and
orientation (figure 24). In particular, for the configuration
(B) and the sizing used the simulation gives an H
2
output
near 350.000 kg/year, corresponding to 410
6
m
3
of gas
at 101325 Pa and 0C (Table III)
Three items have to been considered regarding the
energetic needs for the liquefaction:
- any system producing hydrogen had to pay an
energetic cost for liquefaction or compression.
- at high altitude the energetic cost of liquefaction, due
to lower temperature, is about sixty percent of the
same process at the ground level [16].
- a part of the liquefaction work can be partially
recovered during the necessary re-gasification
process.
Table III Annual surplus electrical energy or gasses
production (B-shape)
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a case of general energetic design
for airships. The presented method has been developed
in order to design a High Altitude Platform, but it could be
easily applied to any photovoltaic powered airship. In the
considered case it possible to have an annual energetic
production as calculated in Table III. In particular it has
been verified that the considered shape (B), which
presents the best energetic production, could be good for
a large surplus energy production.
By this considerations take origin the project of a high
altitude platform for energetic production, formerly
named PSICHE (Photovoltaic Stratospheric Isle for
Conversion of Hydrogen as Energy vector) [1,2,13,14
15], a large high altitude platform designed in order to
carry out simultaneously more than one task: hydrogen
and oxygen production, telecommunications and digital
broadcasting, air surveillance and control ground
monitoring, and low temperature - low pressure high
technology laboratory.
REFERENCES
1. Anzillotti, S., Una piattaforma stratosferica per la
produzione di idrogeno mediante energia
fotovoltaica. PhD Degree Thesys, Rel. Dumas A.,
Universit di Modena e Reggio Emilia, XVIII ciclo,
2006.
2. Dumas A., and Anzillotti S.: PSICHE: A
Stratospheric Platform Producing Hydrogen and
Oxygen 5th International Conference on
Sustainable Energy Technologies. Vicenza, Italy,
2006
3. Khoury, G.A., and Gillet, J. D. Airship technology
Cambridge University Press, 1999
4. Drummond, A. J., Proc. IES/ASTM Int. Symp. Solar
Radiation Simulation, Los Angeles, Inst.
Environmental Sciences, Mt. Prospect, Ill., 1965.
5. Drummond A. J. , Hickey J. R. , Scholes, W. J. , and
Laue E. G., The Eppley-JPL Solar constant
Measurement program, SOLAR ENERGY," VOL. 12,
pp. 217-232, 1968.
6. Drummond, A. J. , Hickey, J. R. , Scholes, W. J. ,
and Laue, E. G., New Value for the Solar Constant
of Radiation, Nature 218, 259 - 261 (20 April 1968);
doi:10.1038/218259b0.
7. Oki, M. and Shiina H. , Preliminary study for an
estimation method for annual solar irradiance at
various geographical altitudes, Eighth International
IBPSA Conference Eindhoven, Netherlands, August
11-14, 2003
8. Knaupp, W., and Mundschau, E. - Solar electric
energy supply at high altitude. - Aerospace Science
and Tech. 8, 245254, 2004
9. Knaupp, W., and Mundschau, E., Photovoltaic-
hydrogen energy system for stratospheric platforms.
- 3
rd
World Conf. on PV Energy Conv. 2004
10. 2005 ASHRAE Handbook : Fundamentals : Inch-
Pound Edition, USA 2005
11. Colozza, A. Initial Feasibility Assessment of a High
Altitude Long Endurance Airship. NASA/CR 2003-
212724, 2003.
12. Arvesen J. C., Griffin, R. N. Jr., and Pearson, B. D.
Jr., "Determination of Extraterrestrial Solar Spectral
Irradiance from a Research Aircraft," Appl. Opt. 8,
2215-2232, 1969
13. Dumas A., Anzillotti S. and Trancossi M., Available
Solar Energy in Low Stratosphere, II Congresso
Nazionale Associazione Italiana Gestione
dellEnergia, Pisa, 2008
14. Dumas A., Anzillotti S., Zumbo F. and Trancossi M.
Photovoltaic Stratospheric Isle for Conversion in
Hydrogen as Energy vector: Energetic and Economic
feasibility analysis, II Congresso Nazionale
Associazione Italiana Gestione dellEnergia, 2008
15. Dumas A., Anzillotti S., and Trancossi M.,
Photovoltaic Space Isle for Conversion in Hydrogen
as Energy Vector: the Concept of a Stratospheric
Airship for Energy Production, Telecommunications
and Territorial Surveillance, SAE 2008 Wichita Air
Congress and Exhibition, oral presentation, Wichita
(KS), 2008
16. Amoresano A.,Langella G.,Novello C. Analisi
termodinamica ed energetica di un impianto
criogenico per idrogeno liquido alimentato a celle
fotovoltaiche. 53 Congresso ATI, 15-18 settembre
1998 Firenze, 1998 ISBN: 8886281293, ISBN-
13: 9788886281294.
CONTACTS
Antonio Dumas: antonio.dumas@unimore.it;
Stefano Anzillotti: stefano.anzillotti@unimore.it
Michele Trancossi: michele.trancossi@unimore.it
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS
Definitions
A solar altitude( angular coordinate) ;
h altitude of the site (m);
I radiative flux (W / m
2
);
I
t,h
total radiation on the horizontal plain (W/m
2
);
i
1
first day of the month;
i
2
last day of the month;
Nm
3
Cubic meter of gas at 0C and 1,01325 bar
p pressure
P Power (W)
Q
month
Intercepted solar radiation in one month (J/m
2
);
Q
year
Intercepted solar radiation in one year (J/m
2
);
Greek symbols
Thermal Flux [W/m
2
]
p albedo coefficient
e
s
hour angle (coordinate angular)
m azimuth; (coordinate angular)
declination ; (coordinate angular)
to trasmittance-assorbance PV panel coefficient
Pedici
0 at sea level
cell referred to PV panel
cond referred to thermal conduction
conv referred to thermal convection
d direct
el referred to electric current
n normal direction
r reflected
rad referred to thermal radiation
s solar
Acronyms
HAP High Altitude Platform;
PSICHE Photovoltaic Space Isle for Conversion in
Hydrogen as Energy Vector
PV photovoltaic;
TLC Telecommunications