Jump to content

dm2014

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by dm2014

  1. I/we fully support this topic/request for an update. Many other tools on the market now support 1/5/15/30 min data which is incredibly important for capturing variable irradiance.

    For example, running a test/evaluation in alignment with IEC 61724-3 will not be very accurate without subhourly considerations, particularly at higher dc/ac ratios.

    Thanks,

    Dan

  2. Partitions were defined as 3 string trackers.

    I was able to partially solve this issue by taking the following steps.

    1. Change hidden parameters > Sites and Meteo > "Threshold Shd factor from Table for modules activation", "Threshold Shd factor from Calc. for modules activation", and Simulation : Beam threshold for electrical losses" all to zero (0).

    2. Run the same shading scene with "Fast (table) calculation" activated. This results in significant electrical shadings loss shown in both the loss tree and 8760 hourly output. These losses are in line with the shading table calculated from the shading scene.

    HOWEVER, running the same simulation with "Slow (simul) calculation" activated results in zero (0) electrical shadings loss in both the loss tree and 8760 hourly output.

    Why is it that the slow/simul/non interpolated calculation method neglects electrical shading losses? Are there more hidden parameters which should be adjusted to allow the Slow (simul) calculation to capture electrical shadings from objects on a backtracking tracker?

    54833749_LossDiagramFastTableCalc.png.6238544c74aa0003d2b8367aa440f78c.png

    Fast (table) calculation now shows electrical loss.

    1115162231_Hiddenparameters.png.1e3d0497016fe4f252fc1bb0ab752635.png

    Hidden parameters for electrical shadings

  3. Trying several versions of PVsyst, I have a shade scene with tall pole structures as shading objects. Simulating as "According to Module Strings: 100%" does not produce a noticeable difference from "linear shadings" even though the shading diagram in the report shows a noticeable change. Is there a reason why thin pole shading structures are not leading to noticeable loss in the "Electrical Shadings" loss category?

    1658085390_ShadingDiagram.png.bf40c7aaf50521b85941f7e77222d808.png

    Iso-shading diagram with electrical effect shown

    1295919611_LossDiagramnoelectricalshading.png.accf2b620b574f872a7be5bd55e4ba33.png

    Loss diagram with no electrical effect shown

    255165010_ElecEffectofShadings100Percent.png.6dfa024dc8a42aa866117c3d93e8c935.png

    Electrical effect of shadings at 100 %

×
×
  • Create New...