Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10183/222236 |
Resumo: | Software for simulation of photovoltaic (PV) systems is widely used for dimensioning and forecasting electrical production. A factor of losses in PV installations is the partial shading caused by surrounding elements, and these software allow the user to estimate this effect. However, the accuracy of these simulated results for shaded PV systems is not widely studied. The purpose of this article is to investigate the accuracy and quantify the differences between simulated and measured data of partially shaded PV systems, obtained with the widely used tools SAM and PVSyst. Measured data from a PV installation were compared to results from simulations performed using the different shading calculation options available in both tools. The simulated outputs were both underestimated and overestimated in the shading situations. This variation was related to the use of an hourly fraction of shading and, in the case of SAM, due to the limitations of the 3D tools available for representation. Another source of differences between simulated and measured values was the use of uniform shading factors for diffuse and albedo. In addition, the simplification of the 3D model had a significant impact on the predicted energy, mainly on cloudy days. Both software overestimated the electricity production for the entire measurement period, reaching differences between the predicted and the measured energy varying from 9% to 24%. Shaded PV systems must be carefully analyzed, and the simulated results may differ from the measured values, which may even influence the decision on the feasibility of an installation. |
id |
UFRGS-2_fb7b9a7d3ed4b343685e005108099e1f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/222236 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-2 |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Chepp, Ellen DavidGasparin, Fabiano PerinKrenzinger, Arno2021-06-16T04:36:23Z20210038-092Xhttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/222236001126647Software for simulation of photovoltaic (PV) systems is widely used for dimensioning and forecasting electrical production. A factor of losses in PV installations is the partial shading caused by surrounding elements, and these software allow the user to estimate this effect. However, the accuracy of these simulated results for shaded PV systems is not widely studied. The purpose of this article is to investigate the accuracy and quantify the differences between simulated and measured data of partially shaded PV systems, obtained with the widely used tools SAM and PVSyst. Measured data from a PV installation were compared to results from simulations performed using the different shading calculation options available in both tools. The simulated outputs were both underestimated and overestimated in the shading situations. This variation was related to the use of an hourly fraction of shading and, in the case of SAM, due to the limitations of the 3D tools available for representation. Another source of differences between simulated and measured values was the use of uniform shading factors for diffuse and albedo. In addition, the simplification of the 3D model had a significant impact on the predicted energy, mainly on cloudy days. Both software overestimated the electricity production for the entire measurement period, reaching differences between the predicted and the measured energy varying from 9% to 24%. Shaded PV systems must be carefully analyzed, and the simulated results may differ from the measured values, which may even influence the decision on the feasibility of an installation.application/pdfengSolar energy :international journal for scientists, engineers and technologists in solar energy and its application. New York, N. Y. Vol. 223 (July 2021), p. 182-192Sistemas fotovoltaicosEnergia solar fotovoltaicaSimulação computacionalPhotovoltaicShadingSimulationAccuracyAccuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systemsEstrangeiroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSTEXT001126647.pdf.txt001126647.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain51148http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/222236/2/001126647.pdf.txtcc5d7153f6e10f1ab29ee5577138d379MD52ORIGINAL001126647.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf9525426http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/222236/1/001126647.pdf80745bdcac80f8cfa55556b97f49f4ffMD5110183/2222362021-06-26 04:40:24.55192oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/222236Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2021-06-26T07:40:24Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems |
title |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems |
spellingShingle |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems Chepp, Ellen David Sistemas fotovoltaicos Energia solar fotovoltaica Simulação computacional Photovoltaic Shading Simulation Accuracy |
title_short |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems |
title_full |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems |
title_fullStr |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems |
title_full_unstemmed |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems |
title_sort |
Accuracy investigation in the modeling of partially shaded photovoltaic systems |
author |
Chepp, Ellen David |
author_facet |
Chepp, Ellen David Gasparin, Fabiano Perin Krenzinger, Arno |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Gasparin, Fabiano Perin Krenzinger, Arno |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Chepp, Ellen David Gasparin, Fabiano Perin Krenzinger, Arno |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Sistemas fotovoltaicos Energia solar fotovoltaica Simulação computacional |
topic |
Sistemas fotovoltaicos Energia solar fotovoltaica Simulação computacional Photovoltaic Shading Simulation Accuracy |
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
Photovoltaic Shading Simulation Accuracy |
description |
Software for simulation of photovoltaic (PV) systems is widely used for dimensioning and forecasting electrical production. A factor of losses in PV installations is the partial shading caused by surrounding elements, and these software allow the user to estimate this effect. However, the accuracy of these simulated results for shaded PV systems is not widely studied. The purpose of this article is to investigate the accuracy and quantify the differences between simulated and measured data of partially shaded PV systems, obtained with the widely used tools SAM and PVSyst. Measured data from a PV installation were compared to results from simulations performed using the different shading calculation options available in both tools. The simulated outputs were both underestimated and overestimated in the shading situations. This variation was related to the use of an hourly fraction of shading and, in the case of SAM, due to the limitations of the 3D tools available for representation. Another source of differences between simulated and measured values was the use of uniform shading factors for diffuse and albedo. In addition, the simplification of the 3D model had a significant impact on the predicted energy, mainly on cloudy days. Both software overestimated the electricity production for the entire measurement period, reaching differences between the predicted and the measured energy varying from 9% to 24%. Shaded PV systems must be carefully analyzed, and the simulated results may differ from the measured values, which may even influence the decision on the feasibility of an installation. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2021-06-16T04:36:23Z |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2021 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
Estrangeiro info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/222236 |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
0038-092X |
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
001126647 |
identifier_str_mv |
0038-092X 001126647 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/222236 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Solar energy :international journal for scientists, engineers and technologists in solar energy and its application. New York, N. Y. Vol. 223 (July 2021), p. 182-192 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/222236/2/001126647.pdf.txt http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/222236/1/001126647.pdf |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
cc5d7153f6e10f1ab29ee5577138d379 80745bdcac80f8cfa55556b97f49f4ff |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1815447745885896704 |