Setup the Azimuth of PV System to 0° in Near Shading Simulation

[Solaranger]

I'm planning to design a PV system that have an orientation to north (Azimuth 0°) but due too terrain that I used, the overall plane azimuth keep changing up to -20°. The problem with that is,

Firstly i'm not sure is -20° are the optimum azimuth for my system or not

Secondly, my report will be questionable because usually the optimum azimuth in my region (Indonesia) is around )°

Is there any way to set the plane azimuth to 0° even I'm using the un-flat terrain?

[Stéphane]

Your PV fields follow a ground slope. This introduces baseslope angles of each PV fields. That means that the real tilt/azimuth angles are not the same as the nominal ones (the 0° that you have defined). You can use the orientation educational tool to better understand this concept:

 

So it is an expected behaviour that the real tilt/azimuth of the orientation is different from the nominal ones that you have defined.

The nominal azimuth of the individual PV tables is still 0° as seen on your screenshot.

However the azimuth of the orientation used in PVsyst is the real azimuth and not the nominal azimuth, because it is the real azimuth of the orientations that is used for the calculations.

PVsyst displays the real azimuth in the report because it is the one used in the calculation. There is currently no way to change that behavior.

[JNutter]

Hello,

I have a similar question for how PVsyst V8 handles tracking systems on a tilted axis when averaging for topography. The model I am working with has two different averaged orientations (see image below). 

When assigning these orientations to the system, we notice that the report indicates the following under the PV Array Characteristics for the subarrays:

Our question is where is the -90 degree azimuth coming from. Our thought is this could be due to the fact that the orientation is averaging trackers which are tilted to the north and tilted to the south, but we have been unable to confirm this. Is the simulation using a -90 azimuth for the calculations?

Any clarity here would be helpful.

Thanks

Edited November 25 by JNutter