ENHANCING BIFACIAL PV
MODELLING WITH RAY-TRACING
Amy Lindsay, Matthieu Chiodetti, Didier Binesti, Sophie Mousel,
Eric Lutun, Khalid Radouane, Sébastien Bermes, Régis Lecussan
6th PV PMC Workshop
25th of October 2016
| 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
1. INTRODUCTION TO BIFACIAL PV
2. HOW TO MODEL REAR SIDE IRRADIANCES
3. ADVANTAGES OF RAY-TRACING
4. EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS
| 3
INTRODUCTION
 The ground-reflected irradiance is of prime
importance for the rear irradiance of bifacial PV
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
29.8% 17.7% 12.6%
68.1%
81.0%
86.5%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
albedo = 0.2 albedo = 0.4 albedo = 0.6
Yearlyirrradiation(kWh/m²)
Beam irradiation Diffuse irradiation Ground-reflected
Relative contribution of the different components of light to the
rear side irradiance (Illustrative case: large-scale bifacial
plant, Mediterranean climate)
 Need for precise modelling of
ground-reflected irradiance
| 4
INTRODUCTION
 Challenges of bifacial PV modelling:
 The standard sky and ground view factors are no longer valid
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
1 − cos(𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑡)
2
1 + cos(𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑡)
2X
Comparison level Module* String* Plant*
Gain compared to monofacial
equivalent (kWh/kWp)
25% 18.5% 9%
* Measured, on clear concrete ground
 The shadow cast on the ground is highly impacting
| 5
HOW TO MODEL REAR SIDE IRRADIANCES
 1st approach : the view factor methodology
 View factors quantify the proportion of radiation which leaves surface m and strikes
surface S
 Requires a meshing of the ground, the shadow, the PV installation…
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Pros:
- Easy to implement for simple geometries
Cons:
- Accuracy depends on the meshing
- Calculation time explodes with the size of the system
- Difficult to take into account irregular geometries
- Difficult to take into account structures
| 6
REAR IRRADIANCE MODEL
 Calculates the rear irradiances
based upon:
 (1): the position of the module within
the stand
 (2): the shadow cast on the ground
 (3): the ground albedo
 (4): the stand behind
𝐼𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑−𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝛼 ∗ 𝐺𝐻𝐼 ∗ 𝑉𝐹 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒→𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑
+𝛼 ∗ 𝐷𝐻𝐼 ∗ 𝑉𝐹 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒→𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑
𝐼 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒 = 𝐷𝐻𝐼 ∗ 𝑉𝐹 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒→𝑠𝑘𝑦
𝐼 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 = max(𝐵𝑁𝐼 ∗ cos 𝑖 , 0)
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
α: ground albedo
VF: view factor
GHI, DHI, BNI: Global Horizontal, Diffuse Horizontal
and Beam Normal Irradiances
i: incidence angle of beam
| 7
HOW TO MODEL REAR SIDE IRRADIANCES
 2nd approach : ray tracing
 Tracing back the path of light:
from the PV cell to the light source (= sun and diffuse) by
taking into account its encounters with obstacles
 Rays of light = straight lines
 Diffuse and/or specular reflection
 Example : eye = one PV cell 1 million of rays are sent by
Monte Carlo, equiprobably distributed on the hemisphere 
by successive reflections, they reach the light sources : sun
and diffuse from the sky
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
| 8
 Ray tracing platform developed in partnership with EnerBIM
RAY TRACING PLATFORM
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Pros:
- Gives irradiance inhomogeneity
- Shading
- Impact of structures
- Flexible (different configurations…)
- User friendly
Cons:
- Relatively hard to implement
| 9
COMPARISON OF THE TWO METHODS
 Case 1 : array of 60 frameless bifacial modules, 1.3m above the ground, no
structures, albedo 30%
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
FRONT SIDE
1206.0 1206.2 1204.3 1203.6 1203.0 1202.5 1202.0 1201.7 1201.5 1201.4 1201.4 1201.6 1201.8 1202.1 1202.5 1203.0 1203.7 1204.4 1205.2 1206.1
1207.0 1206.2 1205.5 1204.8 1204.3 1203.9 1203.5 1203.2 1203.1 1203.0 1203.0 1203.1 1203.3 1203.5 1203.9 1204.4 1204.9 1205.6 1206.3 1207.1
1208.1 1207.4 1206.8 1206.3 1205.8 1205.4 1205.1 1204.9 1204.8 1204.7 1204.7 1204.8 1204.9 1205.2 1205.5 1205.9 1206.3 1206.9 1207.5 1208.2
kWh/m²/year
kWh/m²/yearAverage: 1204 kWh/m²/y
Average: 1198 kWh/m²/y
| 10
COMPARISON OF THE TWO METHODS
 Case 1 : array of 60 frameless bifacial modules, 1.3m above the ground, no
structures
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
REAR SIDE
kWh/m²/year
kWh/m²/year
313.1 250.9 251.8 241.5 236.5 234.1 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 234.0 236.4 241.4 251.7 273.2 313.1
288.6 250.9 231.7 222.8 218.6 216.6 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 216.6 218.5 222.7 231.7 251.3 288.6
280.4 249.5 234.5 227.7 224.6 223.2 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 223.2 224.7 227.9 234.7 250.1 280.4
Min: 215.8 kWh/m²/y
Average: 236.5 kWh/m²/y
Min: 216.3 kWh/m²/y
Average: 233.3kWh/m²/y
| 11
COMPARISON OF THE TWO METHODS
 Good agreement of the two methodologies for a simple case
 Ray tracing platform allows to go quite easily to the cell-level
 Reduced computation time with ray tracing
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
| 12
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
 Case 2: an isolated bifacial module, with and without a frame, without structure,
albedo 30%
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Frameless bifacial module Framed bifacial module
(difficult to model with view factor method)
| 13
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Frameless bifacial module Framed bifacial module
FRONT SIDE
kWh/m²/year
No impact on the front side but…
| 14
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Frameless bifacial module Framed bifacial module
REAR SIDE
Min = 141.3 kWh/m²/y
Average = 197.2 kWh/m²/y
Min = 121.9 kWh/m²/y
Average = 179.3 kWh/m²/y
 -13% on the least illuminated cell
 -9% on the total irradiance
kWh/m²/year
| 15
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
 The frame can have a strong impact on the irradiance received on the
rear side
 Currently, the frame, or the junction boxes are not optimized for bifacial
PV
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
| 16
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
 Case 3: one 60 bifacial module array, with frames, with/without structures, albedo
30%
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Bifacial array without structure Bifacial array with structure
(difficult to model with view factor method)
| 17
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Bifacial array without structure Bifacial array with structure
FRONT SIDE
kWh/m²/year
No impact on the front side but…
| 18
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Bifacial array without structure Bifacial array with structure
REAR SIDE
kWh/m²/year
Min = 60.8 kWh/m²/y
Average = 161.6 kWh/m²/y
Min = 147.1 kWh/m²/y
Average = 208.6 kWh/m²/y
 -58% on the least illuminated cell
 -22% on the total irradiance
| 19
RAY TRACING ENHANCEMENTS
 Structures have an impact on the rear side irradiance
 Ray tracing allows to quantify the losses associated to complex
shading
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
| 20
EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS
 15 kWp bifacial array near Paris
 Plant configuration for the rear side (GCR = 50%)
 Albedo 30%
 6 pyranometers on the rear side to validate the irradiances
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
60 bifacial modules at EDF R&D 6 pyranometers on the rear side
| 21
RAY TRACING MODEL VALIDATION
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
 3D model of the test zone
| 22
RAY TRACING MODEL VALIDATION
 Rear irradiances
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pyranometers in the ray tracing platform
(2 on the Eastern edge, 4 in the center)
Ray tracing simulation of the
irradiances over a sunny day
Experimental measurements of the
irradiances over a sunny day
 Pyranometers in the center (5 and 6) are the most
impacted by the shadow and the structures
| 23
RAY TRACING MODEL VALIDATION
 Rear irradiances
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
1
2
3
4
5
6
Example of hourly correlation of the
simulated and measured rear side
irradiances of pyranometer n°1 over 3
months
 Over 3 months of data, on all
pyranometers :
 RMSE: 15.7 W/m²
 Close to the pyranometers’ uncertainties
 Good agreement measures / simulation
 Mean Bias Error: + 10 W/m²
 Slight overestimation of the rear irradiances
 Under investigation
| 24Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
RAY TRACING MODEL VALIDATION
 Overview of the irradiance inhomogeneity over 3 months
kWh/m²kWh/m²
| 25
 Irradiances considered at a bypass diode level
ELECTRIC MODEL
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
 Bifaciality factor depending on the irradiance
| 26
ELECTRIC MODEL
 I-V curve simulation taking into account irradiance inhomogeneity
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
1000 W/m2
300 W/m2
Developed under a Dymola/Modelica environment
| 27
ELECTRIC MODEL VALIDATION
 DC voltage
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
 DC current
Example of voltage measurements and
simulation over 3 days
Example of current measurements and
simulation over 3 days
 MBE = +1.4%  MBE = -2.5%
Over 3 months of data:
| 28
ELECTRIC MODEL VALIDATION
 DC power and yield
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Example of power measurements and
simulation over 3 days
Hourly correlation of simulated and
measured yield over 3 months
 MBE = -0.9%
 RMSE = 4.1%
Over 3 months of data:
| 29
SUMMARY
 Ray tracing is a powerful tool for modelling bifacial PV:
 Quantifies the losses due to rear side shading (frames, structures, junction boxes,…),
which can be significant
 Quantifies the impact of casted shadow on the ground and on the other rows
 Modelling of large scale bifacial PV installations is feasible:
 Ray tracing + Dymola model shows a good accuracy
 Error on the yield < 1%
 Model validation to be pursued:
 On a longer period
 On different locations
Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
Thank you for your attention!

Enhanging bifacial PV modeling with ray-tracing

  • 1.
    ENHANCING BIFACIAL PV MODELLINGWITH RAY-TRACING Amy Lindsay, Matthieu Chiodetti, Didier Binesti, Sophie Mousel, Eric Lutun, Khalid Radouane, Sébastien Bermes, Régis Lecussan 6th PV PMC Workshop 25th of October 2016
  • 2.
    | 2 TABLE OFCONTENTS Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 1. INTRODUCTION TO BIFACIAL PV 2. HOW TO MODEL REAR SIDE IRRADIANCES 3. ADVANTAGES OF RAY-TRACING 4. EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS
  • 3.
    | 3 INTRODUCTION  Theground-reflected irradiance is of prime importance for the rear irradiance of bifacial PV Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 29.8% 17.7% 12.6% 68.1% 81.0% 86.5% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 albedo = 0.2 albedo = 0.4 albedo = 0.6 Yearlyirrradiation(kWh/m²) Beam irradiation Diffuse irradiation Ground-reflected Relative contribution of the different components of light to the rear side irradiance (Illustrative case: large-scale bifacial plant, Mediterranean climate)  Need for precise modelling of ground-reflected irradiance
  • 4.
    | 4 INTRODUCTION  Challengesof bifacial PV modelling:  The standard sky and ground view factors are no longer valid Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 1 − cos(𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑡) 2 1 + cos(𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑡) 2X Comparison level Module* String* Plant* Gain compared to monofacial equivalent (kWh/kWp) 25% 18.5% 9% * Measured, on clear concrete ground  The shadow cast on the ground is highly impacting
  • 5.
    | 5 HOW TOMODEL REAR SIDE IRRADIANCES  1st approach : the view factor methodology  View factors quantify the proportion of radiation which leaves surface m and strikes surface S  Requires a meshing of the ground, the shadow, the PV installation… Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Pros: - Easy to implement for simple geometries Cons: - Accuracy depends on the meshing - Calculation time explodes with the size of the system - Difficult to take into account irregular geometries - Difficult to take into account structures
  • 6.
    | 6 REAR IRRADIANCEMODEL  Calculates the rear irradiances based upon:  (1): the position of the module within the stand  (2): the shadow cast on the ground  (3): the ground albedo  (4): the stand behind 𝐼𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑−𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 = 𝛼 ∗ 𝐺𝐻𝐼 ∗ 𝑉𝐹 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒→𝑛𝑜𝑛−𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 +𝛼 ∗ 𝐷𝐻𝐼 ∗ 𝑉𝐹 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒→𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝐼 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒 = 𝐷𝐻𝐼 ∗ 𝑉𝐹 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑙𝑒→𝑠𝑘𝑦 𝐼 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 = max(𝐵𝑁𝐼 ∗ cos 𝑖 , 0) Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 α: ground albedo VF: view factor GHI, DHI, BNI: Global Horizontal, Diffuse Horizontal and Beam Normal Irradiances i: incidence angle of beam
  • 7.
    | 7 HOW TOMODEL REAR SIDE IRRADIANCES  2nd approach : ray tracing  Tracing back the path of light: from the PV cell to the light source (= sun and diffuse) by taking into account its encounters with obstacles  Rays of light = straight lines  Diffuse and/or specular reflection  Example : eye = one PV cell 1 million of rays are sent by Monte Carlo, equiprobably distributed on the hemisphere  by successive reflections, they reach the light sources : sun and diffuse from the sky Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
  • 8.
    | 8  Raytracing platform developed in partnership with EnerBIM RAY TRACING PLATFORM Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Pros: - Gives irradiance inhomogeneity - Shading - Impact of structures - Flexible (different configurations…) - User friendly Cons: - Relatively hard to implement
  • 9.
    | 9 COMPARISON OFTHE TWO METHODS  Case 1 : array of 60 frameless bifacial modules, 1.3m above the ground, no structures, albedo 30% Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 FRONT SIDE 1206.0 1206.2 1204.3 1203.6 1203.0 1202.5 1202.0 1201.7 1201.5 1201.4 1201.4 1201.6 1201.8 1202.1 1202.5 1203.0 1203.7 1204.4 1205.2 1206.1 1207.0 1206.2 1205.5 1204.8 1204.3 1203.9 1203.5 1203.2 1203.1 1203.0 1203.0 1203.1 1203.3 1203.5 1203.9 1204.4 1204.9 1205.6 1206.3 1207.1 1208.1 1207.4 1206.8 1206.3 1205.8 1205.4 1205.1 1204.9 1204.8 1204.7 1204.7 1204.8 1204.9 1205.2 1205.5 1205.9 1206.3 1206.9 1207.5 1208.2 kWh/m²/year kWh/m²/yearAverage: 1204 kWh/m²/y Average: 1198 kWh/m²/y
  • 10.
    | 10 COMPARISON OFTHE TWO METHODS  Case 1 : array of 60 frameless bifacial modules, 1.3m above the ground, no structures Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 REAR SIDE kWh/m²/year kWh/m²/year 313.1 250.9 251.8 241.5 236.5 234.1 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 233.0 234.0 236.4 241.4 251.7 273.2 313.1 288.6 250.9 231.7 222.8 218.6 216.6 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 215.8 216.6 218.5 222.7 231.7 251.3 288.6 280.4 249.5 234.5 227.7 224.6 223.2 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 222.6 223.2 224.7 227.9 234.7 250.1 280.4 Min: 215.8 kWh/m²/y Average: 236.5 kWh/m²/y Min: 216.3 kWh/m²/y Average: 233.3kWh/m²/y
  • 11.
    | 11 COMPARISON OFTHE TWO METHODS  Good agreement of the two methodologies for a simple case  Ray tracing platform allows to go quite easily to the cell-level  Reduced computation time with ray tracing Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
  • 12.
    | 12 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS  Case 2: an isolated bifacial module, with and without a frame, without structure, albedo 30% Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Frameless bifacial module Framed bifacial module (difficult to model with view factor method)
  • 13.
    | 13 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Frameless bifacial module Framed bifacial module FRONT SIDE kWh/m²/year No impact on the front side but…
  • 14.
    | 14 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Frameless bifacial module Framed bifacial module REAR SIDE Min = 141.3 kWh/m²/y Average = 197.2 kWh/m²/y Min = 121.9 kWh/m²/y Average = 179.3 kWh/m²/y  -13% on the least illuminated cell  -9% on the total irradiance kWh/m²/year
  • 15.
    | 15 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS  The frame can have a strong impact on the irradiance received on the rear side  Currently, the frame, or the junction boxes are not optimized for bifacial PV Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
  • 16.
    | 16 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS  Case 3: one 60 bifacial module array, with frames, with/without structures, albedo 30% Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Bifacial array without structure Bifacial array with structure (difficult to model with view factor method)
  • 17.
    | 17 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Bifacial array without structure Bifacial array with structure FRONT SIDE kWh/m²/year No impact on the front side but…
  • 18.
    | 18 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Bifacial array without structure Bifacial array with structure REAR SIDE kWh/m²/year Min = 60.8 kWh/m²/y Average = 161.6 kWh/m²/y Min = 147.1 kWh/m²/y Average = 208.6 kWh/m²/y  -58% on the least illuminated cell  -22% on the total irradiance
  • 19.
    | 19 RAY TRACINGENHANCEMENTS  Structures have an impact on the rear side irradiance  Ray tracing allows to quantify the losses associated to complex shading Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
  • 20.
    | 20 EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENTS 15 kWp bifacial array near Paris  Plant configuration for the rear side (GCR = 50%)  Albedo 30%  6 pyranometers on the rear side to validate the irradiances Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 60 bifacial modules at EDF R&D 6 pyranometers on the rear side
  • 21.
    | 21 RAY TRACINGMODEL VALIDATION Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016  3D model of the test zone
  • 22.
    | 22 RAY TRACINGMODEL VALIDATION  Rear irradiances Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pyranometers in the ray tracing platform (2 on the Eastern edge, 4 in the center) Ray tracing simulation of the irradiances over a sunny day Experimental measurements of the irradiances over a sunny day  Pyranometers in the center (5 and 6) are the most impacted by the shadow and the structures
  • 23.
    | 23 RAY TRACINGMODEL VALIDATION  Rear irradiances Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 1 2 3 4 5 6 Example of hourly correlation of the simulated and measured rear side irradiances of pyranometer n°1 over 3 months  Over 3 months of data, on all pyranometers :  RMSE: 15.7 W/m²  Close to the pyranometers’ uncertainties  Good agreement measures / simulation  Mean Bias Error: + 10 W/m²  Slight overestimation of the rear irradiances  Under investigation
  • 24.
    | 24Enhancing bifacialPV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 RAY TRACING MODEL VALIDATION  Overview of the irradiance inhomogeneity over 3 months kWh/m²kWh/m²
  • 25.
    | 25  Irradiancesconsidered at a bypass diode level ELECTRIC MODEL Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016  Bifaciality factor depending on the irradiance
  • 26.
    | 26 ELECTRIC MODEL I-V curve simulation taking into account irradiance inhomogeneity Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 1000 W/m2 300 W/m2 Developed under a Dymola/Modelica environment
  • 27.
    | 27 ELECTRIC MODELVALIDATION  DC voltage Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016  DC current Example of voltage measurements and simulation over 3 days Example of current measurements and simulation over 3 days  MBE = +1.4%  MBE = -2.5% Over 3 months of data:
  • 28.
    | 28 ELECTRIC MODELVALIDATION  DC power and yield Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016 Example of power measurements and simulation over 3 days Hourly correlation of simulated and measured yield over 3 months  MBE = -0.9%  RMSE = 4.1% Over 3 months of data:
  • 29.
    | 29 SUMMARY  Raytracing is a powerful tool for modelling bifacial PV:  Quantifies the losses due to rear side shading (frames, structures, junction boxes,…), which can be significant  Quantifies the impact of casted shadow on the ground and on the other rows  Modelling of large scale bifacial PV installations is feasible:  Ray tracing + Dymola model shows a good accuracy  Error on the yield < 1%  Model validation to be pursued:  On a longer period  On different locations Enhancing bifacial PV modelling with ray-tracing | 10/2016
  • 30.
    Thank you foryour attention!