Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

An approach to evaluate the energy advantage of two axes solar tracking systems
in Spain
Fernando Cruz-Peragón a, Pedro J. Casanova-Peláez b, Francisco A. Díaz a, Rafael López-García a,
José M. Palomar a,⇑
a
Dep. of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Jaén, University of Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jaén, Spain
b
Dep. of Electronic Engineering and Automatics, Escuela Politécnica Superior de Jaén, University of Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jaén, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present work shows an alterative method for determining the tracking energy advantage, defined as
Received 21 January 2011 the additional electrical energy produced by two axes tracking systems respect to fixed devices, in order
Received in revised form 8 July 2011 to analyze the economical profitability in Spain. For this purpose, 52 main cities of this country have been
Accepted 11 July 2011
analyzed. The proposed methodology starts from irradiation data, combining diffuse models and daily–
Available online 20 August 2011
hourly relations. Different types of losses have been evaluated, and the electrical behavior of the systems
has been incorporated. Final annual energetic results demonstrate that two axes devices show a relevant
Keywords:
energy advantage (higher than 20%) for most of the national territory.
Solar tracking
Photovoltaic solar system
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Profitability
Spain

1. Introduction monthly average daily radiation on horizontal surface HG (kJ/m2).

During the last few years, photovoltaic solar systems have
become one of the most popular renewable energy sources in
Spain. Nevertheless, the high cost of these installations in relation
to the generated electricity constitutes one of the main drawbacks
of this technology. In this sense, one and two axes solar tracking
systems seems to be an attractive alternative compared to those
fixed systems since they make it possible to maximize the capture
of solar energy [1–3], especially in Spain [4,5]. Previous analyses
demonstrate that considerable gain in the generated electricity
can be reached using this technology, in particular for two axes
systems [6–11]. However, it is required to evaluate if additional
economic costs still guarantee the profitability of these systems.
The best way to evaluate solar systems is to use information of
solar irradiance, measured throughout the time. Nevertheless, this
is only possible after a systematic and rigorous instantaneous mea-
surement of the radiation at the location of study. In practice, the
big quantity of data makes its use impracticable, making it neces-
sary to reduce the information volume. For this purpose, pyranom-
eters or satellite images are commonly used to catch the global
irradiance on a horizontal surface (in the same way, it is possible
to measure the direct and diffuse components over horizontal sur-
face in a certain place). Most available information of different
places in earth (for example, main Spanish cities), corresponds to
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 953212368; fax: +34 953212870.
E-mail address: jpalomar@ujaen.es (J.M. Palomar).
This information has been obtained by integrating measurements
of global irradiance distribution over horizontal surface IG (kW/
m2). In this sense, there exists different global irradiation databases
available, such as METEONORM (http://www.meteonorm.com)
[12], European Atlas of solar irradiation [13], PVGIS (http://re.jrc.e-
c.europa.eu/pvgis/) [14], or CENSOLAR [15]. However, some mis-
matches between different sources are observed [16].
On the other hand, one major advantage of flat plate solar sys-
tems (both thermal and photovoltaic) is the use of both compo-
nents of the solar radiation (beam and diffuse). These components
can be estimated from irradiance data and corresponding models
[17].
The purpose of the current work is to quantify the additional
solar gain of tracking system respect to fixed devices to demon-
strate their economical viability in Spain. For this reason different
issues have been considered, such us irradiation data and models
providing instantaneous irradiances over horizontal, tilted and
tracking surfaces, motion limits, shadows influence and efficiency
of the generation system (cells, inverters, etc.). Instantaneous re-
sults have been integrated over the year, obtaining annual results.
Different issues have been evaluated for one location (Jaén) over a
year for instantaneous data, validating the proposed procedure for
this location. In addition, some associated parameters have been
estimated to adopt a simplified methodology in all the territory.
Thus, the analysis has been extended to most of the cities in Spain,
and a practical range of gains along this national territory has been
obtained.

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.018
5132 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142

2. Materials and methods lue constitutes the reference datum to evaluate the tracking
improvements.
2.1. 1- Experimental devices for measuring instantaneous data and On the other hand, the yearly tracking response J (kWh m2
models year1) is analyzed for the tracking device. It is obtained by integrat-
ing instantaneous daily results. The ratio between J and F constitutes
To evaluate the robustness of the proposed method, some tasks the fractional gain in the energy production of a tracking system in
have been carried out at a location corresponding to the city of Jaén relation to an optimum fixed one. In a percentage basis, the tracking
(latitude: 37.5°N; longitude: 3.47°W, altitude: 570 m.). Data of irra- advantage DJ (%) is defined as follows:
 
diance over horizontal surface for this location have been collected JF
and published by the investigation group MatRas (http://www. DJð%Þ ¼ 100  ð1:aÞ
F
ujaen.es/dep/fisica/estacion3.htm) [18]. They employed a Kipp &
Zonen CMP11 pyranometer placed over the roof of a building. Additionally, a maximum tracking advantage DJ0 can be defined in a
Several instantaneous diffuse models have been evaluated (that similar way to Eq. (1.a) if no restrictions in the yearly response of
will be discussed later) in order to predict the irradiances over both the system are considered J0 (kWh/year). It will be discussed next.
 
tilted and tracking surfaces, using instantaneous irradiance mea- J0  F
surements over horizontal surface. DJ0 ð%Þ ¼ 100  ð1:bÞ
F
To valuate the final results and establish the efficiency losses for
the whole generation system, electrical generation data for a little
tracking system has been used. This device incorporates a little 2.3. Tracking analysis
amorphous photovoltaic cell, storing data along a year. The system
takes into consideration the knowledge associated to mechanical, Fig. 2 summarizes de procedure for the daily instantaneous
electrical and control tasks, such as other devices [19,20]. Although evaluation of a tracking system. All the parameters have been dis-
there are experiences to align the device with sensors [21], here tributed into different vectors (with length N). In order to establish
the alignment has been done following the sun polar coordinates data along the day of study, all of them have been related to a time
at each time. vector T corresponding to time steps of 1 min.
Initially, the global irradiance GG0 (kW/m2) and their compo-
2.2. General procedure nents (beam GB0, diffusive GD0 and reflected GR0) over the surface
of a tracking system surface are evaluated considering that the an-
Monthly average daily radiation over horizontal surface HG data gle of incidence h of the beam component is always equal to 0° dur-
[15] have been used as a starting point for this analysis. From these ing the solar time (that is, assuring maximum beam irradiance).
data, global irradiation over tilted surface can be obtained using For this purpose, the hourly–daily relations have been considered
certain diffuse models and associated relations: [34] by determining the hourly irradiation HjG (kJ m2 h1) from dai-
ly solar exposures over horizontal surface HG (kJ m2 day1), for
(a) One of the most widely known and used isotropic model in each hour j, such as Eq. (2) shows:
this work is the Liu and Jordan model [22], which assumes p cos xj  cos xs
an uniform distribution of the diffuse radiation on the celes- HjG ¼ r jG HG ; r jG ¼ ða þ b cos xj Þ
24 sin xs  xs cos xj
tial hemisphere. This model underestimates the value of the ð2Þ
a ¼ 0:409 þ 0:5016 sinðxs  p=3Þ;
diffuse radiation in clear skies, while it works very well for
covered days. In any case, the whole estimated irradiation is b ¼ 0:6609  0:4767 sinðxs  p=3Þ
below the real value within a 3% [23,24]. In this equation, xj corresponds to the sun hour angle and the sun-
(b) On the other hand, anisotropic models consider a bigger dif- set hour angle is denoted by xs. The same expression has also been
fuse component in the circumsolar zone that comes directly used to determine an instantaneous distribution of the global irra-
from the direction of the solar beams. [25–30]. From the diance along the day on a horizontal surface IG (kW/m2). Results in-
analysis of different methodologies, it has been observed ferred by integrating the obtained curve agree with HG.
that the Reindl anisotropic model [26] is quite useful in Subsequently, Erbs et al. correlation [35] makes it possible to
latitudes similar to those into the Spanish territory [24]. find the diffuse component of irradiation ID, using the clearness in-
dex kt at each time. The beam component IB is then obtained from
In any case, the use of both diffuse models makes it possible to the difference between IG and ID:
establish the upper and lower limits in which results can be reli- 8
able. They will define the most favorable scenario (with maximum > 1:0  0:09kt for kt 6 0:22
>
>
annual radiation values) and the most unfavorable one (with min- < 0:9511  0:1604kt þ 4:388k2  16:638k3
t t
ID =IG ¼
imum annual radiation values). > þ12:336k4t for 0:22 < kt 6 0:8
> ð3Þ
>
:
Fig. 1 summarizes the general adopted methodology.
0:165 for kt > 0:8
The first step (see Fig. 1) consists of determining both the max-
imum annual solar exposure FS (kWh m2 year1) and their corre- I G ¼ I D þ IB
sponding surface tilt bop, using both isotropic and anisotropic In addition, the two previous diffuse models (both isotropic and
diffuse models. The long-term established procedure that appears anisotropic ones) have been applied to these instantaneous data.
in the literature for determining the incoming solar energy in a They determine the incoming irradiance on the tracked surface
tilted surface has been carried out [26,31–33]. Different inclina- GG0 (with instantaneous tilt angle b and surface azimuth angle c)
tions have been also considered (with surface azimuth angle cop [20]:
equal to zero, that is, oriented to the south), and the corresponding
annual irradiation have been evaluated. The maximum value GG0 ¼ GB0 þ GD0 þ GR0 ð4Þ
determines the optimum surface slope bop at each place for the in which each component is denoted as follows:
considered diffuse model. Subsequently, an average generation
efficiency for fixed system geF is applied to FS, in order to obtain cos h
GB0 ¼ IB  RB ; with RB ¼ ð5Þ
the energetic response of the system F (kWh m2 year1). This va- sin aS
 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142 5133

LOCATION GEOMETRIC
INITIAL DATA CONSIDERATIONS ANNUAL
AND AND TRACKER LIMITS GENERATION
MODELS

DAILY DATA OVER EXPOSURE AND RESULTS

HORIZONTAL GENERATION (Data integration)
SURFACE
IRRADIATION LONG-TERM OPTIMUM FIXED
HG, HB, HD (kJ/m2) EXPRESSIONS SYSTEM, F

IRRADIANCE INSTANTANEOU TRACKING

IG, IB, ID (kW/m2) S ANALYSIS (Fig. 2) RESPONSES, J

COMPARISON

Fig. 1. General analysis procedure developed for a particular location.

INSTANTANEOUS
ANALYSIS FOR DAY ‘n’

INSTANTANEOUS j=1
SOLAR DAILY DATA
Vectors with length ‘N’:
IB(τ), ID(τ), IG(τ), αS(τ),
γ S(τ), T, TSTOP τ = T (j)

NO MOTION
TSTOP (j) = 0? LIMITS
TSTOP
(j) YES

γ (j) = γ (j-1) ; β (j) = β (j-1)

γ (j) , β (j)
αS(j), γS(j) INCIDENCE ANGLE
DETERMINATION, θ

θ (j)
IB(j), ID(j) , IG(j) GB0(j), GD0(j) , GG0(j)
COMPONENTS ONTO
TILTED SURFACE

PLATES
EFFICIENCY, ELECTRICAL SHADES
AUXILIARIES BEHAVIOUR EVALUATION
GG(j)
W(j)
NO j = j+1
j = N?

YES

DAILY DATA
INTEGRATION

Jday(n)
END

Fig. 2. General procedure of instantaneous evaluation of solar irradiation over a tracking surface.
5134 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142
1  cos b
GR0 ¼ IG  F R ; with F R ¼ r 
2
GD0 ¼ ID  F D ;
1 þ cos b
F D;Isotropic ¼
2
F D;Anisotropic ¼ ðkb  RB þ ð1  kb  F D;isotropic ÞÞ  ð1 þ f  sinð0:5  bÞ3 Þ
sffiffiffiffi
IB IB
with f ¼ ; kb ¼
IG I0
where the location latitude u, the angle of incident radiation h, sur-
face azimuth angle c, declination d and extraterrestrial irradiance I0
(kW/m2) are additional variables to be considered in the analysis.
Their instantaneous values can be easily obtained using expressions
available in the literature [32]:
cos h ¼ sin d sin / cos b  sin d cos / sin b cos c
þ cos d cos / cos b cos x
þ cos d sin / sin b cos c cos x þ cos d sin b sin c sin x
  
 cos hZ sin u  sin d 
c ¼ signðxÞ  cos1  ð9:bÞ
sin hZ cos u
 
284 þ n
d ¼ 23; 45 sin 2p 
365
I0 ¼ ISN  cos h
The solar zenith angle is denoted as hZ. In addition, the reflectance
coefficient r (dimensionless) is required to estimate the reflected
irradiance. It will take a value of 0.2. Finally, the solar constant ISN
can vary during the year, taking values between 1.31 and
1.39 kW/m2 [32].
These data correspond to values with no restrictions associated
to the device. However, several restrictions sources may appear:
2.3.1. Motion limits
The maximum exposure considers that the surface azimuth an-
gle of the system c is always equal to the solar azimuth cS, as well
as the surface slope b (deg) is equal to 90°  aS (deg). Where aS
(deg) is the solar altitude angle at each time. However, the
mechanical configuration of the system does not make it possible
to reach these limits [36]. In this case, according to the maximum
surface azimuth angle |cL| and maximum tilt angle bL of the system,
there exist some tracking positions (near sunset and sunrise) in
which the angle of incidence is different from 0°. It occurs when
|cS(s)| > |cL| and aS(s) < 90°  bL. As an example, Fig. 3 shows a
scheme of a previous designed mechanical system [12].
2.3.2. Time steps motion
An ideal solar tracking process consists on following the solar
motion instantaneously along the time. Nevertheless, mechanical
configurations, control devices and actuators make the system
moving by steps, with no motion time periods. In this case, it is
necessary to determine the energy losses for different time steps
according to the daily sun path. In this sense, a time stop vector
TSTOP has been included into the analysis. It contains only zeros
and ones values. The values j into this vector will be equal to 0
when the system must stay blocked and 1 if it is moving. The dis-
tribution of values equal to 1 into this vector depends on the time
intervals in which the system must be blocked.
ð6Þ
ð7Þ
ð8:aÞ
γ (+)
EAST WEST
ð8:bÞ
NORTH
γS βL
αS
γ
β
EAST WEST
γ L (-) γ L (+)
ð9:aÞ
NORTH
Fig. 3. Two axes tracking system scheme.
2.3.3. Shadow losses
ð9:cÞ
The geometric configuration of the solar field implies that some
plates over one individual tracker receive shadows from others at
ð9:dÞ each moment. Thus, annual integrated global losses between 2%
and 6% appear [37]. Geometric considerations must be considered
in the instantaneous analysis (described in Fig. 3), in order to
establish an initial evaluation of shadow losses [38–40]. The high-
est influence in partial shadowing is always produced by the near-
est 3 sets [37], such as Fig. 4 shows. Distances X, Y and Z, and
surface width L and height H will be the main geometric character-
istics associated to this study. A simplified method to analyze the
shadow problem is to evaluate a typical squared distribution
(X = Y), in horizontal position (Z = 0) and observe what happens
throughout the solar day, modifying separation distances between
trackers, considering unitary height H = 1 [41].
It must be considered that shades only affects the reception of
the beam constituent of radiation in the related surface. Neverthe-
less, the diffuse part is always captured from the sky, although in a
less quantity. In relation to the reflected constituent, this can be
considered as negligible, due to the obstacles surrounding the sys-
tem in study.
2.3.4. Plates efficiency
It is well known that power generation in a photovoltaic panel
drops as the inner temperature increases. Therefore, it is necessary
to consider the losses of the system and compare them with opti-
mized fixed systems (with maximum annual energetic gain). This
analysis starts from a thermal study of the system. It considers heat
transfer parameters [42,43] next to current–voltage correlations of
the photovoltaic panel [44–46]. From the plate model equations,
the plate temperature can be calculated at each moment. Never-
theless, the great quantity of cells typologies, and the panel charac-
teristics and configurations, make it difficult to perform a generic
study. In this case, several aspects must be remarked:
(d.1) Taking as a reference a typical efficiency for 25 °C, every
increased degree implies an efficiency fall between 0.4%
and 0.5% (between 1–2 %, in other cases). [47,48].
 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142
(a)
Azimuth
γs angles
SUN γ
South
East West
L
Projected shadows
(c) 1
0.8
HEIGHT H, (m)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2
Fig. 4. Geometric considerations for shadow losses determination at one point of the tracker path: (a) Ground view; (b) front view; (c) shadow over surface.
(d.2) In a fixed system (south positioned) a high value of the
incident angle (corresponding to a low value in the beam
component), considerably increases the efficiency. Differ-
ences can reach up to 25% during the sunset and the sun-
rise [43]. Nevertheless, these differences disappear
quickly, as the beam component increases.
(d.3) In addition, for an incident angle close to 0°, the cell tem-
perature increases considerably (up to 70° in conven-
tional cells) while the efficiency decreases. Nevertheless,
the relative differences are small (up to 10%) [43].
Thus, the minimum efficiency is reached for high temperatures
and high beam component. It is only 10% lower when considering a
typical conditions scenario. In a fixed system, this condition is
reached around the solar midday, and a similar situation (with
higher incident angle and less beam component of radiation) is re-
peated during most of the solar time. Thus, the difference between
fixed and tracking systems will be always less than 10%. In any
case, the distribution of the efficiency along the day has been ob-
tained from the reviewed literature, following the tendencies that
appear in Fig. 5.
The first source (time step motion of item a) must be incorpo-
rated to the GG0 determination. Thus, the second and third sources,
that is, those indicated in items (b and c), imply that the global
irradiance GG can be achieved and always will be less than GG0.
Subsequently, the effectiveness of the system ge (see item d)
5135
X
(b)
SOLAR
ANGLE, h
Y Projected
shadow
TRACKER
TILT ANGLE, θ
ON STUDY
TRACKER
ON STUDY Z
0.4 0.6 0.8 1
SURFACE WIDTH L, (m)
defines the instantaneous electrical production W. These instanta-
neous data must be integrated, providing a value of the energy re-
sponse from the device Jday(n) (kWh m2 day1) for the day n in
study, as Fig. 2 shows. The addition of all these final daily value
along the 365 days of the year provides the annual energy response
of the tracked surface J (kWh m2 year1).
The method is validated for a particular location in the next sec-
tion. From this analysis it will be possible to obtain several param-
eters that can be used in a simplified methodology that can be
extended for all the cities analyzed in the current work.
3. Detailed local results for one location
The global procedure previously described will be detailed for
one particular location: Jaén. The historical Database CENSOLAR
provides a value of 5.8 GJ/m2 for yearly irradiation, while the inte-
gration of the instantaneous measurements along 2008 of MatRas
group is 5.2 GJ/m2 (difference around 10%). This analysis has been
carried out for instantaneous data along the year.
3.1. Optimum tilt for fixed system
Following the steps described above, the established procedures
have been carried out [32,33] for different tilts in order to deter-
mine the optimum inclination for a fixed system with a maximum
5136 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142

EFECTIVENESS RELATED TO TYPICAL VALUE FOR FIXED SYSTEM

EFECTIVENESS RELATED TO TYPICAL VALUE FOR TRACKED SYSTEM

1.25

(dimensionless)
EFFICIENCY
RATIO
1

0.9

SUNRISE MIDDAY SUNSET

SOLAR TIME (hours)

Fig. 5. Efficiency ratio tendencies for a photovoltaic system along a day.

annual energetic capturing. The maximum value of yearly energy
collection corresponds to 30° tilt. In any case, variations of expo-
sures with tilts between 20° and 40° are below 1% of the maximum
value. There exists a 3° difference between the optimum slope for
annual evaluation considering isotropic model (30°), and the eval-
uation considering anisotropic model (33°).
an anisotropic model provides up to 38%. As plate efficiency is con-
sidered with the same value as for fixed system, the lower and the
upper limits for the maximum tracking advantage DJ0 correspond
to those values.
3.3. Motion restrictions

3.2. Two axis tracking without restrictions
To improve the energetic optimization, the theoretical limit oc-
curs when the incidence angle of the radiation is always zero. Eq.
(2) has been used to determine the irradiance distribution along
the day for horizontal surface.
Fig. 6 shows an example for a particular day of the year. The
measured instantaneous irradiance over a horizontal surface to-
gether with additional predicted values for other conditions has
been presented. At that day, the midday solar angle is around
56°. Thus, the tracker tilt at this time is about 34°, very similar to
30° defined for a fixed system, and consequently they provide very
similar results (in fact, the irradiance on the cells of the tracker is
slightly higher than for the case of a fixed system). It demonstrates
that Eq. (2) can be used to infer the instantaneous irradiances.
Once data along the year (with both clear and cloud sky days),
have been evaluated, the average annual exposure of a tracked sys-
tem regarding to the optimum fixed one without restrictions, is
around 30% higher with an isotropic model. On the other hand,
Geometric and mechanical limitations of the tracking system
could make not possible to reach certain positions, making the an-
gle of incidence to be different from zero in these cases. Therefore,
it is necessary to evaluate how these limits affect to the incoming
solar energy. An analysis of different combinations of cL and bL for
the tracker has been evaluated, resulting in the incoming energetic
losses shown in Fig. 7. For example, for |cL| > 95°, and bL > 60°, an-
nual losses lower than 1% can be assured. This procedure has been
repeated in two additional cities, with maximum and minimum
latitudes into the country: Oviedo (43.22°N, 5.50°W) and Las
Palmas (28.06°N, 15.25°W). Results are very similar, demonstrat-
ing that Jaén represents a typical city to evaluate this kind of losses.
3.4. Tracking strategy
For any control system, it is always required to analyze different
time intervals in which the tracker will remain blocked. It implies
that the angle of incidence of direct radiation differs from zero,
resulting in a lower solar isolation, which decreases as the stop

1000 90
6

900 85
3

800 80
MAXIMUM TILT (degrees)

4
8
Irradiance (W/m2)

700 75
2

600 70
500
65
6

400
60 4
2 1
300
8

Horizontal (measured) 55 2
3
200 2−axes tacking 3
10 6 4
30° tilt 50 4
100 Horizontal (modelled) 8 6
45 6
0 13 10 8 8
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 10
40 10
SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h) 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
MAXIMUM AZIMUTHAL ANGLE (degrees)
Fig. 6. Measured instantaneous irradiance over horizontal surface (from MatRas
group), modelled irradiance form daily irradiation and predicted irradiance for Fig. 7. Energetic irradiation losses (%) derived from angle limitations of both axes in
tilted (30°), tracking surface (anisotropic diffuse model) and (26/03/2009). Jaén for a tracking system.
 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142
intervals increase. The incoming losses depending on each new
strategy must be evaluated. Thus, Fig. 8 shows instantaneous irra-
diances on the tracker surface for different stop times: 1, 5, 10, 15,
20, 30 and 60 min.
As a result of integrating the instantaneous data throughout a
year, the global energetic capture and losses due to this concept
can be obtained giving relative results that are always below 0.5%.
Again, this analysis has been extended to both cities with extreme
latitudes within the country: Oviedo and Las Palmas, observing very
similar results. Thus, several considerations can be remarked:
(i) Losses are almost identical in the three analyzed cities,
which leads to consider the analysis in Jaén as very signifi-
cant. Thus, results can be extrapolated to the rest of the
country.
(ii) Stop interval times below 10 min do not introduce signifi-
cant differences.
(iii) Incoming radiation losses higher than 1% are only possible
with stop intervals of 30 min or more.
(iv) The most useful stop time strategy consists on reducing the
intervals as the solar time reaches the midday.
3.5. Shadow losses
Shadow analyses must reflect what exposure can be obtained
considering different configurations, width–height relations (L–H)
in the tracking systems and their separation. In those cases with
high separation distances, exposures correspond to those results
without restrictions (for example, 38% for anisotropic model in
Jaén). If geometric parameters associated to separation are modi-
fied (X and Y), the gain percentages can be estimated, such as
Fig. 9 shows.
A comparison between both scenarios (isotropic and aniso-
tropic models) shows that reliable distances correspond to those
with 8–10% losses (exposure gains related to optimum fixed sys-
tems of 28–30%). More detailed studies will be the goal for a future
work. In this analysis, an average global gain is needed to estimate
the influence of this kind of losses in the whole final annual result.
3.6. Generation energetic losses
From the tracker installation, some results have been presented
in Figs. 10 and 11. Fig. 10a shows the measured results for one day
obtained using the tracking system (March 25, 2009). In this figure,
0.4108
0.4106
0.4104
Irradiation (kW/m )
2
0.4102
0.41
0.4098
0.4096
0.4094
0.4092
0.409
11.7 11.75 11.8 11.85 11.9
SOLAR TIME (hour)
Fig. 8. Instantaneous incident irradiances over surface for several stop time
intervals of the tracker in Jaén in a particular day in December.
5137
Solar capturing gain over 30° tilted surface (%)
38
36 L=H
L = 1.2 H
34 L = 1.4 H
L = 1.6 H
L = 1.8 H
32
L=2H
Maximum
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
DISTANCE BETWEEN TRACKERS (m)
Fig. 9. Percentage of capture gains (respect to an optimum fixed system) consid-
ering the shadow effect using an anisotropic model for a tracker with unitary height
(H = 1 m) and a squared field distribution.
data have been compared with those measured on horizontal sur-
face and diffuse models for the tracking strategy, considering a
0.14 reference value of effectiveness in the electrical generation
system (ge) for that particular day. This value has been achieved
in order to adjust the generation with the model as much as possi-
ble. Results demonstrate that an anisotropic model is closer to
evaluations than an isotropic model for that particular case. The ra-
tio between the instantaneous efficiency and that referenced value
ge varies as Fig. 10b shows.
On the other hand, Fig. 11a and b shows results in a midday
when the system remained in horizontal position due to wind
(April 25, 2009), with a reference value of effectiveness of 0.12 in
that particular day. In both cases, the integration of curves in Figs.
10b and 11b provides a mean relative efficiency loss of 20%.
After evaluating multiple days with reliable results, these rela-
tive efficiency losses vary from 2% to 7.5%, with a mean value of 5%.
3.7. Global results. Towards a simplified methodology
Table 1 summarizes the prediction of gains and losses due to
the different sources considered for the case of Jaén.
If the analyzed procedure is extended to a number of localities,
it is possible to obtain an idea of the potential of the tracking sys-
tem. In addition, there are some aspects that are not necessary to
be repeated: both stop timing and motion limits can be adopted
in order to assure always losses below 1%, as Table 1 shows. Thus,
their influence can be removed from the analysis. In this way, an
individual analysis can be done considering the long-term evalua-
tion for fixed system (providing a F value), next to the tracking sur-
face behavior without restrictions. For this particular case a vector
containing all those daily gains J 0day and a yearly value J0 without
restrictions can be obtained. It gives a maximum tracking advan-
1 minute
tage DJ0 (%) previously defined (see Eq. (1.b)).
5 minutes
10 minutes However, shades and generation losses can also be assumed as
15 minutes those indicated in Table 1. All these losses can be easily inferred in
20 minutes an easy way and their mean values can be adopted for all the cases
30 minutes
to study. Then, the final tracking advantage DJ can be obtained
from DJ0 considering the percentage losses indicated in Table 1.
It implies that it is necessary to modify the initial procedure de-
11.95
scribed in Figs. 1 and 2 as Fig. 12 shows.
Nevertheless, no instantaneous data are known, and the proce-
dure must start with monthly average daily radiation on horizontal
surface HG (kJ/m2). The hourly/instantaneous solar estimation for
5138 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142

(a) 150 (a) 120 Horizontal and η =0.12

e
Real measurements

Electrical Power Generation (W/m )

2
Electrical Power Generation (W/m2)

100

100
80

60

50 40
Horizontal and ηe=0,14

Tracking and ηe=0,14 20

Real measurements
0 0
−6 −4 −2 0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h) SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h)

(b) (b)
1.1
1.2
Relative Efficiency (dimensionless)

Relative Efficiency (dimensionless)

1.05
1
1

0.95 0.8

0.9 0.6

0.85
0.4

0.8
0.2
0.75
0
−5 0 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h) SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h)
Fig. 10. Generation (a) and efficiency tendencies (b) for a tracking photovoltaic Fig. 11. Generation (a) and efficiency tendencies (b) for a tracking photovoltaic
system along a day (25/03/2009). system along a day (25/04/2009).

the mean day of each month of the year incorporates the mean was 37.97%. It demonstrates that the proposed procedure can be
behavior for all the days for that particular month. Jain et al. [49] efficiently used when employing monthly average daily radiation
obtained horizontal instantaneous irradiance from daily values. values.
They inferred better fitting results than expression in Eq. (2), but
its use cannot be generalized. Thus, expressions in Eq. (2) are quite
affordable [34]. In any case, the values correspond to average irra- 4. Global estimation results along the country
diation, integrated from a large amount of instantaneous measure-
ments along the time (usually during some years). In addition, the Therefore, the indicated procedure has been carried out for all
adopted models consider statistical analyses from all these data the main cities in Spain (52). There are three locations that belong
[17,32]. It means that models account for the weather conditions to island territories, and two national cities into African continent
for both cloudy and clear days. (next to Morocco). The other 47 cities are distributed into the pen-
In this sense, the analysis without restrictions has been re- insular territory. Thus, the geographical locations approach can be
peated for the case of Jaén, starting now from published HG values seen in Fig. 13.
[15]. Although final annual irradiation is slightly different for both Annual results from integration of instantaneous daily data can
cases, the main task to remark is that the difference between the be observed and compared throughout the DJ0 term in Fig. 14.
gain ratios is below 1%. For the case of an anisotropic model, DJ0 There are some conclusions that it is possible to extract from
was obtained from instantaneous data, providing a value of Fig. 14: optimum tilt for fixed systems implies an exposure respect
38.5%, while when using monthly average daily radiation the value to horizontal surface that ranges between 5% and 20%. However, a

Table 1
Summarizing of results in Jaén compared with optimum fixed system.

Diffuse model 2-axes DJ0(%) Motion limits losses (%) Time stops losses (%) Generation losses (%) Shadow losses (%) Annual generation global gain (%)
a a
Isotropic 30 <1 <1 5 4 21
Anisotropic 38 8 25
a
These values are related to the case of a tracking system without restrictions.
 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142 5139

(a) LOCATION
INITIAL DATA GEOMETRIC MEAN η eF
AND CONSIDERATIONS
MODELS

DAILY DATA OVER CAPTURING INTEGRATION

HORIZONTAL RESULTS WITHOUT
SURFACE RESTRICTIONS
IRRADIATION LONG-TERM OPTIMUM FIXED
HG, HB, HD (kJ/m 2) EXPRESSIONS SYSTEM, F

Instantaneous
-daily relations

INSTANTANEOU
IRRADIANCE S ANALYSIS TRACKING
IG, IB, ID (kW/m2) WITHOUT RESPONSES, J0
RESTRICTIONS

MAXIMUM TRACKING ADVANTAGE ΔJ0

MEAN VALUES OF LOSSES

(See Table 1)

TRACKING ADVANTAGE ΔJ

(b) INSTANTANEOUS
INSTANTANEOUS
ANALYSIS DAY ‘n’
SOLAR DAILY DATA
Vectors with length ‘N’:
IB(τ), ID(τ), IG(τ), αS(τ), j=1
γ S(τ), T, TSTOP

α S(j), γ S(j)
INCIDENCE ANGLE
DETERMINATION, θ (j)

θ (j)
IB(j), ID(j) , IG(j)
COMPONENTS ONTO TILTED
SURFACE

GB0(j), GD0(j) , GG0(j)

j = N? j = j+1
NO
YES GG
DATA
INTEGRATION

J’day(n)
END

Fig. 12. Modified evaluation procedure for tracking analysis: (a) global procedure; (b) daily energetic assessment without restrictions.

tracking system implies an exposure that ranges between 27% and pessimist, associated with the isotropic model; optimistic, associ-
40% (anisotropic model), or between 22% and 33% (isotropic mod- ated to the anisotropic model, and in addition, an average or mod-
el). These differences vary between 5% and 8% depending on the erate scenario with intermediate values between the two previous
diffuse model. Therefore, three different scenarios can be deduced: ones.
5140 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142

8º W CANTABRIC SEA
4º W 0º

FRANCE

42º N

MEDITERRANEAN
SEA
40º N

BALEARS
PORTUGAL ISLANDS

38º N

18º W 16º W 14º W

CANARY
ISLANDS

CEUTA 36º N

ATHLANTIC MELILLA 28º N

OCEAN

MOROCCO

Fig. 13. Locations on study have been marked with points.

(a) TRACKING vs. FIXED (ANISOTROPIC)

TRACKING vs. FIXED (ISOTROPIC)
OPTIMUM TILT (degrees)

45
Linear approach to isotropic model response AVERAGED SCENARIO TRACKING-FIXED
Linear approach to anisotropic model response 27
40 TENDENCY OF
MODERATE SCENARIO
25
35
23
30
ΔJ (%)

21
25 19

20 17 ADDITIONAL COSTS
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44
15
LATITUDE (degrees)
13
FIXED vs. HORIZONTAL (ANISOTROPIC) 28 33 38 43
FIXED vs. HORIZONTAL (ISOTROPIC) LATITUDE (degrees)
TRACKING vs. FIXED (ANISOTROPIC)
(b) 50 TRACKING vs. FIXED (ISOTROPIC)
45 AVERAGED SCENARIO TRACKING-FIXED Fig. 15. Final results for tracking advantage.
40
35
ΔJ0 (%)

30 major of the country. In an optimistic scenario (anisotropic model),

25
20
15
10
5
0
28 33
LATITUDE (degrees)
Fig. 14. Annual results without restrictions along the country: (a) Optimum slope
for fixed systems; (b) maximum tracking energy advantage.
In all the cases, tendencies follow exponential laws. These trends
are not related only to the latitude. Cities placed in the coastal top
band of the country next the Cantabric Sea, originate worse results,
not only for its latitude, but for the minor irradiation that takes
place in them, principally diminished by the proximity to the sea
and a major rainfall. It has not been reflected so drastically in the
Pyrenean area (French border) with similar latitudes.
The main conclusion is that for a moderate scenario, two axes
tracking systems assure a 30% of gain over a fixed system in the
it can be assured that this limit would reach a 35% value.
All the losses related to the limitations of the system (motion
limits, control, shadows, etc.) have been incorporated into the pre-
vious results without restrictions, obtaining an estimation of the
electric production. Thus, in Fig. 15 it can be observed all these sit-
38 43 uations throughout DJ, depending on latitude of the cities.
Economical approaches indicate there exist a 15–20% additional
costs in tracking systems compared to fixed ones, due to higher
investments, as well as other costs associated with the operation
and maintenance of the plant (usually related to the electricity pro-
duction). Thus, locations with an energy advantage DJ higher than
20% (see Fig. 15) can experience a better profitability if a tracking
system is considered instead of a fixed one.
It can be observed that two axes tracking systems can be in 37
of the 52 main cities in Spain. Nevertheless, there are seven cities
where these systems are not recommended in any case: A Coruña,
Orense, Oviedo, Santander, Bilbao, Vitoria, San Sebastián. There are
five additional cities, where some uncertainties also appear: Barce-
lona, Gerona, Lugo, Pamplona, Las Palmas and Pontevedra. Ten of
these cities correspond to the North coastal band of the country,
 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142 5141

while two of them belong to the highest latitudes in the Mediter- IG global irradiance over horizontal surface (kW/m2)
ranean zone. Moreover, Las Palmas belongs to the Canary Islands I0 extraterrestrial irradiance (kW/m2)
with low latitude (28.2°). A high humidity and rainfall because of ISN solar constant (kW/m2)
the proximity to the sea, next to the locations latitude could be J annual electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a track-
the main reasons for non-advisable installations in these locations. ing device
Results illustrate that in most of the national territory two axes J0 annual electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a track-
tracking systems seems to be profitable. Obviously, a more detailed ing device without restrictions
analysis in a higher number of locations must be done if gains must Jday daily electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a tracking
be quantified. device
J0day daily electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a tracking
device without restrictions
5. Conclusions
kt instantaneous clearness index (dimensionless)
L surface width (m)
This work demonstrates that two-axes tracking systems can as- N length of vector T (number of components
sure an economic viability respect to fixed ones in most of the r jG ratio of hourly total to daily total radiation
Spanish national territory. There are some areas where high T time vector for daily analyses (from sunrise to sunset)
humidity, rainfall and latitude combine making not recommend- TSTOP time stop vector for daily analyses (from sunrise to sunset).
able these solutions. Indicates when the tracker changes its position along the
In any case, this work is a starting point to define a further de- time
tailed economic analysis. For this purpose, it is necessary to add W electrical production of a tracked system (W/m2)
some technical details to the present model, such as different field aS solar altitude angle (deg)
configurations and systems separation (in order to optimize the b instantaneous tilt for a tracking system (deg)
shadow losses) and detailed instantaneous thermal–electrical bL maximum tilt that a tracking system reaches (deg)
model of the plates. It is also necessary to evaluate the investment bop optimum tilt for a fixed system to assure maximum solar
costs in detail, by evaluating different market solutions, and incor- capturing (deg)
porating the ground field price, in order to reduce the additional c surface azimuth angle (deg)
investment costs band (as Fig. 14 shows). At this point, investment |cL| absolute value of maximum surface azimuth angle that
decision criteria can be adopted, such as the Internal Rate of Return tracking system reaches (deg)
(IIR) of Payback Period (PB), searching the optimum one for a given cS solar azimuth angle (deg)
surface size and separation distances between systems into the ge average electricity generation efficiency for a tracked sys-
trackers field. tem (dimensionless)
geF average electricity generation efficiency for a fixed system
Acknowledgments (dimensionless)
h angle of incidence of radiation (rad)
hZ zenith angle (rad)
The authors thank to the University of Jaén (Project Desarrollo y
x sun hour angle (rad)
optimización mecánica de un sistema de seguimiento solar de dos ejes
xS sunset hour angle (rad)
para el aprovechamiento energético del olivar jiennense, Code RFC/
u latitude angle (deg)
PP2006) for technical help and financial supports provided. It has
d declination (deg)
made it possible to carry out the presented analyses.
r reflectance coefficient (dimensionless)
DJ0 maximum tracking advantage: annual relative gain in elec-
Appendix A. Symbols
trical production of a tracking system without restrictions
respect to a fixed one (%)
a, b coefficients to rjG determination (see Eq. (2)) DJ tracking energy advantage: annual relative gain in electri-
F annual electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for fixed cal production of a tracking system respect to a fixed one
system (%)
FS maximum annual solar irradiation (kWh m2 year1) for a
fixed system
f1 function to approach GB0
f2 function to approach GD0 References
f3 function to approach GR0
[1] Chang TP. The gain of single-axis tracked panel according to extraterrestrial
GB0 vector of beam component of irradiance (W/m2) on a radiation. Appl Energy 2009;86(7–8):1074–9.
tracked system [2] Lubitz WD. Effect of manual tilt adjustments on incident irradiance on fixed
GD0 vector of diffusive component of irradiance (W/m2) on a and tracking solar panels. Appl Energy 2011;88(5):1710–9.
tracked system [3] Ma Yi, Li G, Tang R. Optical performance of vertical axis three azimuth angles
tracked solar panels. Appl Energy 2011;88(5):1784–91.
GG0 global irradiance vector (W/m2) considering only motion [4] Salas P. Incremento de la producción solar. Infopower 2005;78:101–6.
limits restrictions for a tracker system [5] Lorenzo E. Seguidores y huertas solares: retratos de la conexión fotovoltaica a
GG global irradiance vector (W/m2) for a tracker system, con- la red (IV). Era Solar 2004;119:5–23.
sidering motion limits, shadow losses and plates efficiency [6] Abdallah S. The effect of using sun tracking systems on the voltage–current
characteristics and power generation of flan plate photovoltaics. Energy
GR0 vector of reflected component of irradiance (W/m2) on a Convers Manage 2004;45(2004):1671–9.
tracked system [7] Almeida P, Sila P. Practical advantages of the use of tracking systems in power
H surface height (m) applications of photovoltaic solar panels. In: Abstracts of I International
HG monthly average daily radiation on horizontal surface Congress of Energy and Environment Engineering and Management, 18–20
May, 2005, Portalegre, Portugal.
(kJ m2 day1) [8] Abella MA, Chenlo F. Sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a red. Estimación de la
HjG hourly irradiation (time ‘j’) from HG (kJ m2 h1) energía generada (II). Era Solar 2006;132:52–67.
IB beam component of irradiance over horizontal surface [9] Díaz FA, Cruz-Peragón F, Carazo-Álvarez JD, Casanova-Peláez PJ, Palomar JM,
(kW/m2) López-García R. Justificación energética para sistemas solares con seguimiento
en dos ejes. In: Abstracts of II International Congress of Energy and
ID diffusive component of irradiance over horizontal surface Environment Engineering and Management, 6–7 june, Badajoz, Spain, Comité
(kW/m2) Organizador IICIEM, p. 51, @becedario, Badajoz; 2007.
5142 F. Cruz-Peragón et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 5131–5142
[10] Chang TP. Output energy of a photovoltaic module mounted on a single-axis
tracking system. Appl Energy 2009;86(10):2071–8.
[11] Koussa M, Cheknane A, Hadji S, Haddadi M, Noureddine S. Measured and
modelled improvement in solar energy yield from flat plate photovoltaic
systems utilizing different tracking systems and under a range of
environmental conditions. Appl Energy 2011;88(5):1756–71.
[12] Remund J, Kunz S, Lang R. METEONORM: Global meteorological database for
solar energy and applied climatology, Solar engineering Handbook, ver. 5.0,
Bern, Meteotest. http://meteonorm.com.
[13] Scharmer K, Greif J. The European Solar Radiation Atlas, Les Presses de L’Ècole
des Mines, Paris; 2000. http://www.helioclim.net/esra/index.html.
[14] Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS), JRC European
Comission. http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/.
[15] CENSOLAR (1993). Valores medios de irradiación solar sobre superficie
horizontal. Centro de Estudios de la Energía Solar. Sevilla.
[16] Labed S, Lorenzo E. On the impact of solar radiation variability and data
discrepancies in the design of PV systems. Renew Energy 2003;29(7):1007–12.
[17] Myers DR. Solar radiation modelling and measurements for renewable energy
applications: data and model quality. Energy 2005;30:1517–31.
[18] MatRas group site: http://www.ujaen.es/dep/fisica/estacion3.htm.
[19] Palomar JM, Casanova-Peláez P, Díaz FA, Cruz-Peragón F, López-García R.
Nuevo sistema de seguimiento solar de dos ejes basado en el mecanismo biela-
manivela. Dyna 2009;84(8):671–80.
[20] Al-Soud MA, Abdallah E, Akayleh A, Abdallah S, Hrayshat ES. A parabolic solar
cooker with automatic two axes sun tracking system. Appl Energy
2010;87(2):463–70.
[21] Prapas DE, Norton B, Probert SD. Sensor system for aligning a single-axis
tracker with direct solar insolation. Appl Energy 1986;25(1):1–8.
[22] Liu BYH, Jordan RC. The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of
direct, diffuse an total solar radiation. Sol Energy 1960;4:1–19.
[23] Orgill JF, Hollands KGT. Correlation equation for hourly diffuse radiation on a
horizontal surface. Sol Energy 1977;19:357–9.
[24] Kambezidis HD, Psiloglou BE, Gueymard C. Measurements and models for total
irradiance on inclined surface in Athens, Greece. Sol Energy 1994;53(2):177–85.
[25] Klucher TM. Evaluation of models to predict insolation on tilted surfaces. Sol
Energy 1979;23:111–4.
[26] Reindl DT, Beckmann WA, Duffie JA. Evaluation of hourly tilted surface
radiation models. Sol Energy 1990;45:9–17.
[27] Gueymard C. The sun’s total and spectral irradiance for solar energy
applications and solar radiation models. Sol energy 2004;76:423–53.
[28] Hay JE. Calculation of monthly mean solar radiation for horizontal and inclined
surfaces. Sol Energy 1979;23:301–7.
[29] Pérez R, Stweart C, Arbogast C, Seals R, Scott J. An anisotropic hourly diffuse
radiation model for sloping surfaces: description, performance validation, site
dependency evaluation. Sol Energy 1986;36(6):481–97.
[30] Feuermann D, Zemel A. Validation of models for global irradiance on inclined
surfaces. Sol Energy 1992;48(1):59–66.
[31] Liu BYH, Jordan RC. A rational procedure for predicting the long-term average
performance of flat-plate solar-energy collectors. Sol Energy 1963;7(2):53–74.
[32] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 2nd
ed. NewYork (US): Wiley; 2006.
[33] Benghanem M. Optimization of tilt angle for solar panel: case study for
Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Appl Energy 2011;88(4):1427–33.
[34] Collares-Pereira M, Rabl A. The average distribution of solar radiation-
Correlations between diffuse and hemispherical and between daily and
hourly insolation values. Sol Energy 1979;22:155–64.
[35] Erbs DG, Klein SA, Duffie JA. Estimation of the diffuse radiation fraction for
hourly, daily and monthly average global radiation. Sol Energy
1982;28:293–302.
[36] Díaz FA, Casanova-Peláez P, Cruz-Peragón F, Palomar JM, López García R,
Gómez Moreno A. Diseño de Seguidor Solar de dos ejes basado en un
mecanismo biela-manivela. In: Proceedings of XIV Congreso Ibérico y IX
Congreso Iberoamericano de Energía Solar, Vigo (Spain), vol. 2. 17–21 June,
2008. p. 931–6.
[37] Gordon JM, Kreider JF, Reeves P. Tracking and stationary flat plate solar
collectors: yearly collectible energy correlations for photovoltaic applications.
Sol energy 1991;47(4):245–52.
[38] Appelbaum J, Bany J. Shadow effect of adjacent solar collectors in large scale
systems. Sol Energy 1979;23:497–507.
[39] Braun JE, Mitchell JC. Solar geometry for fixed and tracking surfaces. Sol Energy
1983;31(5):439–44.
[40] Saleh A Monem. The shadow template a new method of design of shunshading
devices. Sol Energy 1982;28(3):239–56.
[41] Gómez Moreno A, Casanova-Peláez P, Palomar JM, Díaz FA, López García R,
Cruz-Peragón F. Estimación analítica de pérdidas de captación debido a
sombras en huertos solares con sistemas mecánicos de seguimiento. In:
Proceedings of XIV Congreso Ibérico y IX Congreso Iberoamericano de Energía
Solar, Vigo (Spain), vol. 2. 17–21 June, 2008. p. 907–12.
[42] Jones AD, Underwood CP. A thermal model for photovoltaic systems. Sol
Energy 2001;70(4):349–59.
[43] Krauter S, Hanitsch R. Actual optical and thermal performance of PV-modules.
Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 1996;41(42):557–74.
[44] Barker AS, Power HJ. Photovoltaic solar cell array used for supplemental power
generation. Sol Energy 1979;23:427–34.
[45] Kaushika ND, Gautam NK, Kaushik K. Simulation model for sizing of stand-
alone solar PV system with interconnected array. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2005;85:499–517.
[46] Kawamura H, Naka K, Yonekura N, Yamanaka S, Kawamura H, Ohno H, et al.
Simulation of I–V characteristics of a PV module with shaded PV cells. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2003;75:613–21.
[47] Brinkworth BJ, Cross BM, Marshall RH, Yang H. Thermal regulation of
photovoltaic cladding. Sol Energy 1997;61(3):169–78.
[48] Brinkworth BJ, Marshall RH, Ibarahim Z. A validated model of naturally
ventilated PV cladding. Sol Energy 2000;69(1):67–81.
[49] Jain PC, Jain S, Ratto CF. A new model for obtaining horizontal instantaneous
global and diffuse radiation from the daily values. Sol Energý
1988;41(5):397–404.