Received: 30 September 2019 Revised: 20 December 2019 Accepted: 11 February 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pip.3259

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Estimating and parameterizing mismatch power loss in bifacial

photovoltaic systems

Chris Deline1 | Silvana Ayala Pelaez1 | Sara MacAlpine2 | Carlos Olalla3

1
National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado Abstract
2
Juwi Solar Americas, 1710 29th St., Boulder, Nonuniform irradiance on the rear side of bifacial photovoltaic (PV) systems can
Colorado
cause additional mismatch loss, which may not be appropriately captured in PV
3
Department of Electrical, Electronic, and
Automatic Control Engineering, Rovira i Virgili energy production estimates and software. We evaluated several scenarios including
University, Tarragona, Spain horizontal single-axis tracking (HSAT) over natural ground-cover and rooftop-
Correspondence mounted systems over high albedo reflective roofs. We found mismatch losses of up
Chris Deline, National Renewable Energy to 1.5% annual loss for very close-mounted (0.15 m) rooftop systems, but losses for
Laboratory, 15013 Denver West Pkwy,
Golden, CO. HSAT systems and high-ground-clearance rooftop systems were lower (<0.5%). A
Email: chris.deline@nrel.gov simplified empirical relationship was found that links the spatial variation of

Funding information irradiance (specifically, the mean absolute difference of irradiance) to the resulting
Solar Energy Technologies Office, Grant/ mismatch loss factor, with an R2 better than .99. This approximate relationship was
Award Numbers: 34910, 30286
experimentally validated on mismatched PV modules, and it provides a basis for
rapidly estimating bifacial mismatch loss factors for use in hourly PV performance
simulations such as PVSyst or SAM. Additional parameters investigated include
(a) climate dependence and module orientation, which were not found to have a
strong impact on bifacial mismatch losses and (b) PV module fill factor and bifaciality
ratio, which did have a strong linear impact on mismatch losses.

KEYWORDS

bifacial photovoltaics, PV systems

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N with monofacial modules,4,5 thereby reducing the levelized cost of

Deployments of bifacial photovoltaic (PV) systems are quickly
proliferating because of their enhanced energy yield made possible by
their ability to capture rear-side incident irradiance. More than 2 GWp
cumulative bifacial PV capacity has been deployed worldwide through
2018,1,2 and bifacial modules and systems are projected to reach 35%
of the global market share by 2027.3 Bifacial PV modules are sensitive
to light incident on both sides, producing additional energy compared
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance) is the manager and operator of the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Employees of Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC,
under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Dept. of Energy, have authored this
work. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for
publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-
up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or
allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.
electricity (LCOE)6,7 and improving the energy generated per unit area
by making better use of the available solar resource.
When deployed in a real PV installation, the irradiance incident
on the rear of the bifacial PV module Grear depends on mounting
conditions such as clearance height (H), row-to-row spacing, tilt, and
the site's albedo.1,8-10 The system energy generation therefore has
similar dependence. Furthermore, the uniformity of Grear throughout
the module plane can be greatly influenced by self-shading of individ-
ual modules and by mutual shading of neighboring modules and
rows,11-13 not to mention rear-racking obstructions.14 The impact of
this nonuniform irradiance is reduction of short-circuit current (Isc) for
individual cells, and consequently, a nonconvex shape to the module
current-voltage (I-V) curve and reduction in the module's maximum
power point (Pmp). An example is provided in Figure 1 for the center

Prog Photovolt Res Appl. 2020;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pip © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 DELINE ET AL.
module in a large bifacial rooftop array, assuming a 1-landscape
configuration of a 1 × 2 m module at 10o tilt angle, 0.15-m clearance
height H, and 0.62 ground albedo. For this example scenario, direct-
beam irradiance reflecting from the high-reflectance rooftop leads to
a brightening at the bottom of the module that is reduced toward the
middle of the module. Irradiance is increased at the top of the module
because of a greater field of view to the surrounding diffuse sky. This
type of nonuniform rear-irradiance profile has been reported multiple
times,8-13 and it helps to motivate the current study because typical
PV energy-yield software (eg, PVSyst15 and SAM16) currently account
for mismatch within the system as a single annual power loss factor,
not a detailed hourly value that depends on irradiance variability
throughout the system.
Previous studies have investigated the uniformity of incident
front-side irradiance and subsequent mismatch loss of conventional
(monofacial) PV systems, which can experience losses because of
direct-beam shading.17-19 In these previous studies of direct-beam
shading, the irradiance differential within the system can be significant
when comparing shaded vs unshaded portions of the system. A large
4× to 10× difference in irradiance within the PV module or system
can lead to bypass-diode turn-on and large nonlinear losses if distrib-
uted power electronics are not employed.20,21 However, the relatively
modest variation in rear irradiance that develops within a bifacial sys-
tem does not rise to the level of bypass diode turn on22; rather, it
more closely resembles the moderate shading losses resulting from
diffuse inter-row front view-factor shading.23,24 Here, we specifically
look at the influence of rear-irradiance distributions, which can be
nonuniform throughout the PV module or system and can therefore
introduce additional mismatch losses for bifacial PV installations. This
submission is an enhanced and expanded version of the conference
20
paper recently presented in Deline et al, introducing improved
ray-tracing simulations, single-axis tracking scenarios and accounting
for additional module parameters.
Our computation of mismatch loss in bifacial systems follows the
approach used previously25-27 for inter-row shading and arbitrary
shading of monofacial PV systems. Namely, a detailed cell-level
performance model is used to identify the actual array output PArray,
which includes mismatch losses. This is compared with the ideal
output ΣPCells, which is the sum of individual cell-level power,
excluding mismatch losses. Mismatch power loss (at a single point in
time) is calculated for the array by
F I G U R E 1 A, Font + rear-
irradiance distribution of a
bifacial module depends on the
mounting and site conditions.
The example shown is for Cairo,
21 June, at 2 PM (10o-tilt rooftop
system, 0.15-m H, 0.62
albedo); B, irradiance
distributions cause additional
module loss relative to uniform
assumption [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]


PArray
Mismatch loss% = M½% = 1− × 100%: ð1Þ
ΣPCells
Here, we establish the convention of reporting values in percentage
rather than fractional terms. This mismatch loss is illustrated in
Figure 1B by comparing two calculated module I-V curves resulting
from the same bifacial optical and electrical simulations. One curve is
calculated by assuming that all cells in the module receive the same
average irradiance over the entire module—effectively summing all
available power from each cell and averaging through the spatial vari-
ation in irradiance. The second curve results from a detailed treatment
of the actual irradiance incident on each cell and resulting current mis-
match. This detailed cell-level calculation of the array power accounts
for mismatch losses, whereas the first curve does not. The difference
between these two peak-power levels defines the electrical mismatch
loss in Equation (1), and it must be calculated for each time point in an
annual energy-yield simulation.
Although cell-level electrical models are accurate at calculating
PArray, the intensive computation time makes them inappropriate for
inclusion in fast (1-3 s) PV performance models such as PVSyst15 or
SAM.16 Furthermore, the rear-irradiance nonuniformity is a compli-
cated function of ground albedo, height, tilt angle, and more. There-
fore, a simplified empirical representation of M based only on
parameters of irradiance, and its spatial distribution would be
extremely valuable. This paper describes a successful reduced-order
fit to a series of hourly mismatch factors, based on detailed
simulations of multiple bifacial system configurations. This extends
previously presented work on bifacial mismatch losses28 by proposing
a universal parameterization of mismatch loss. Relative to prior
publications of a similar fashion in Janssen et al,22 we have improved
the fit, conducted experimental validation, and evaluated different
sensitivities to climate and mounting configuration.
In particular, M was found in all cases to depend on the spatial
distribution of total (front + rear) irradiance for cell i:
Gtotal,i = Gfront,i + ϕBifi Grear,i , ð2Þ
where ϕBifi is the module's bifaciality at standard test conditions
(STC).12 The consideration of front-irradiance variability is still of high
importance for bifacial PV systems because the magnitude of front
irradiance outweighs that of rear irradiance in almost all real-life
DELINE ET AL.
bifacial system configurations. Very small front-side variability can
cause effects equivalent to larger rear-side irradiance variability, and it
should be considered, as well.
Through inspection, two scalar representations of irradiance dis-
tribution were found to have high correlation with M over multiple
system configurations: the standard deviation of Gtotal,i and the mean
29
absolute difference of Gtotal,i. These are represented in relative
 total :
terms by dividing by average total irradiance G
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 
1 Σ Gtotal,i − G  total 2
σ ½% =  x 100%
Gtotal n
and
1 X
n X
n   two additional electrical mismatch models26,36,39 for the rooftop
Δ½% = Gtotal,i −Gtotal,j  x 100%:
 total
n2 G
i=1 j=1
The mean absolute difference Δ in Equation (4) has been shown previ-
ously to accurately represent variability in non-normally distributed
populations,30 which we have also found to be the case here. We also
use the population formulations of each metric above because we are
representing the full population of irradiance inputs to a mismatch
model. It is important to note the distinction between mean absolute
difference and the similar-sounding (but distinct) mean absolute devi-
ation and median absolute difference, which are calculated differently
and do not have as strong a correlation with our measured results.
2 | E L E C T R I C A L A N D OP T I C A L M O D E L
DETAILS
2.1 | Single-cell electrical models
To accurately estimate electrical impacts of nonuniform irradiance,
one must calculate energy at the cell level. In large series-connected
strings of PV cells and modules, current must be continuous through
each electrical element. Therefore, mismatched irradiance prevents
optimum operation of certain cells and modules in the system.31 Solv-
ing for the overall global optimum operating point of a PV system with
irradiance gradients requires numerical simulation and is often done in
two steps.
In the first step, a I-V characteristic is calculated for each
independent PV element being simulated in the network. This can be
based on a lumped-element PV model using constant solar cell param-
eters and variable environmental conditions (irradiance, temperature),
as done in, for example, Bishop,31 Quaschning and Hanitsch,32 Singh
et al,33 and De Soto et al.34 Advanced methods have also been
proposed to explicitly solve the transcendental equations underlying
photovoltaic I-V curves35 or to otherwise reduce computation time.
Another example evaluated here computes a series of photovoltaic
I-V curves at several predetermined temperature and irradiance values
(based on one of the above methods) and stores results in memory for
future use. When simulating the many repeated conditions seen in
hourly simulations for a year, this method speeds up calculation
3
considerably by looking up example curves and by quickly conducting
a bilinear interpolation between stored points, as described in Marion
et al.36 PV curves under specific environmental conditions are then
able to be calculated more rapidly than solving the equations exactly
for each time point.
The second step of the cell-level system analysis is to repre-
sent a network of PV elements under different conditions and to
solve for the system's maximum operating point. This can be done
by several methods including matrix inversion,26 SPICE circuit
models,37,38 or most typically, direct summing of calculated I-V
ð3Þ curves.31,32 This is also the approach taken in the open-source soft-
ware toolkit PVMismatch,39,40 which is the main method considered
in this study. A brief comparison of this model was conducted with
ð4Þ
configuration shown in Table 1. Because computation time was
similar for each model, and annual mismatch results for the three
methods were within M < 0.1%, we will follow the method of
Meyers and Mikofski39 because of its open-source nature and
version control.
2.2 | Bifacial optical simulations
Front and rear-irradiance values for use in the cell-level electrical
model are given by annual hourly simulations using a previously
described bifacial view-factor model “bifacialvf,”41,42 which has been
validated against other rear-irradiance models and field data in Ayala
Pelaez et al.10,14 Single-axis-tracking simulations, particularly those
including complicated geometry such as the presence of
rear-shading obstructions including torque tubes are performed in
RADIANCE43 using the “bifacial_radiance” open-source ray-tracing
software.44 The two-dimensional (2D) bifacialvf approach calculates
Gfront and Grear hourly across the collector width (CW) of the module
assuming a semi-infinite array of n = 6 points for modules in land-
scape and n = 12 for modules in portrait mode, corresponding to
one point per cell along the axis of a 72-cell module. The
bifacial_radiance simulation considers a PV array of seven rows,
20 modules per row, and irradiance calculated in an n = 100-point
scan along the center module in the center row. This array size
represents a large-scale field of modules big enough to reach the
semi-infinite array steady state in rear irradiance because of nearby
rows and modules shadings.14 Bifacial_radiance simulations were
run on National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) high-
performance “Eagle” computer (HPC), which enabled full hourly
simulations for multiple array configurations over a year of climate
conditions. Using 365 cores distributed into 11 nodes, each
TABLE 1 Bifacial optical model configurations
System Height, m Albedo GCR Tilt # modules
Rooftop 0.15-1 0.62 0.67 10o 1-landscape
o
Tracking 1-2.4 0.2 0.33 0 1-portrait
Abbreviation: GCR, ground-coverage ratio.
4 DELINE ET AL.
simulation configuration time was reduced from 4 hours on a regu-
lar desktop computer to 1 minute using the Eagle HPC.
2.3 | System configuration and description of runs
To focus on scenarios that are of practical interest to the
community and to include conditions that may produce large
amounts of mismatch loss, two typical configurations are considered
here: a fixed-tilt rooftop system deployed over a high reflective
white rooftop and a single-axis tracking system over a typical gro-
und surface albedo. Both systems utilize 1 × 2-m modules, with
additional details shown below in Table 1. For the rooftop case, five
ground-clearance values are considered between H = 0.15 and 1 m.
For the single-axis tracking case, H will vary throughout the day as
the tilt angle changes; hence, hub_height or module clearance at 0o
tilt is documented. Tracker rows are oriented north-south and mod-
ules are deployed in 1-up portrait configuration, for a total CW of
2 m. Rear-irradiance nonuniformity from shading obstructions is
considered by modeling each hub height simulation either with or
without a torque tube. Including obstructions can significantly
increase the accuracy between measured and modeled GRear.45 The
torque tube considered was a black (absorbing) round tube of
10-cm diameter, with a torque tube-to-module spacing (zgap) of
5 cm. Figure 2A shows an illustration of the rooftop configuration
with parameters highlighted, and the tracked system is represented
in Figure 2B with the torque tube included.
Values of row spacing are defined by the ground-coverage ratio
(GCR)—the ratio of module CW to inter-row spacing distance
(Table 1). These values are chosen to eliminate front-side inter-row
shading, and in the case of the single-axis-tracking simulations,
back-tracking algorithms are assumed.46 The electrical model uses PV
module source characteristics based on a 350-W, 72-cell n-PERT
module with ϕBifi = 1.0 and fill factor (FF) of 0.79. The impact of mod-
ule bifaciality is investigated later on, so the high ϕBifi value is used to
establish a reference baseline condition. Annual hourly simulations are
conducted for multiple typical-year climate conditions for a typical US
climate (Richmond, VA), a sunny climate (Cairo, Egypt) and cloudy
climate (Shanghai, China).
(A) (B)
3 | S I M U L A T I O N RE S U LT S A N D R E D U C E D -
ORDER MODEL
Initial simulations were conducted for the fixed-tilt rooftop scenarios
and single-axis-tracking scenarios described in Section 2. Cumulative
annual bifacial_radiance results for several scenarios are provided
below, including the annual G  total (excluding rack shading or
mismatch):
 rear  ϕ
G Bifi
BGG ½% =  front x 100% ð5Þ
G
where BGG is the bifacial irradiance gain or rear-irradiance ratio.
Specific findings and conclusions are given for each scenario below.
3.1 | Cumulative annual mismatch loss
For fixed-tilt simulations, BGG ranges from 10.5% to 19% depending
primarily on H but also on climate, as shown in Table 2. The single-
axis-tracking simulations over natural ground albedo (0.2) resulted in
lower values of BGG of 9% to 12% because of the reduced albedo and
improved front-side irradiance capture. Fixed-tilt results match previ-
ously reported values in Ayala Pelaez et al,10 which also showed BGG
of 10% to 18% for similar high-albedo rooftop configurations at dif-
ferent heights.
Investigations into rear-irradiance uniformity indicate that Grear
uniformity—and therefore, M—also changes with H. The total annual
mismatch loss MYear based on Equation (1) totaled over a year is
shown in Figure 3 at different heights. The largest loss MYear on the
order of 1.5% annual mismatch loss occurs at lowest H, because of
increased rear-irradiance nonuniformity at this low height.12 The
values shown here are in the same range as was previously reported
in Bailey and Jaubert28 for similar fixed-tilt conditions. The main take-
away here is that the impact of mismatch loss in bifacial systems is
sensitive to H, with lower bifacial mismatch losses at high clearance H.
But for the more typical case of close-mounted rooftop systems,
mismatch in rear irradiance can have a meaningful effect. For the
lowest-height case considered here of 0.15 m, an initial rear-
F I G U R E 2 System scenarios
considered: (A) fixed-tilt, south-facing
modules in 1-landscape, (B) north-south
horizontal single-axis-tracking (HSAT)
field of 20 × 7 modules in 1-portrait
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
DELINE ET AL. 5

PN
TABLE 2 Simulation annual results, bifacial_radiance optical Grear ðwith tubeÞ
model Grear shading factor = Pn =N0 : ð6Þ
n = 0 Grear ðno tubeÞ

Height, Annual GTotal, BGG [%]

Climate m System kWh/m2 (Equation 5) This separate optical loss factor can be included as a rear-shading loss
Cairo 0.15 Fixed 2229 10.5 term48 (not mismatch loss) in annual simulations such as PVSyst.
Cairo 1 Fixed 2383 18 We have also investigated the climate dependence of mismatch
Richmond 1 Fixed 1795 17.5 loss by conducting the same fixed-tilt and HSAT simulations in three

Shanghai 1 Fixed 1734 19 climate zones: sunny Cairo, cloudy Shanghai, and temperate Rich-
mond. A slight climate dependence is visible for the high-albedo roof-
Cairo 1.5 HSAT 2552 9
top simulations in Figure 3. Here, high direct-normal irradiance (DNI)
Cairo 2 HSAT 2579 10
climates lead to greater ground-reflected irradiance nonuniformity.
Shanghai 2 HSAT 1784 12
MYear is therefore highest in Cairo and lowest in Shanghai. For HSAT
Abbreviation: HSAT, horizontal single-axis tracking. simulations, the effect of climate was similarly modest (not shown in
Figure 3), but the slight climate variability trend is reversed from what
was shown with high-albedo rooftop simulations—for the natural
ground-cover situation, the greatest mismatch power loss was seen
with the Shanghai simulations. This is possibly because of the greater
influence of diffuse irradiance in a low-albedo tracking scenario. The
results given by McIntosh et al47 echo this trend, indicating that mis-
match loss values are higher under more diffuse climate conditions for
HSAT simulations over natural ground cover.

3.2 | Fill factor, bifaciality factor, and albedo

dependence

Several additional parameters were investigated for their effect on

F I G U R E 3 Annual mismatch loss MYear for cloudy and sunny
climates, for different clearance heights H of a low (fixed)-tilt bifacial
rooftop array, albedo = 0.62, and single-axis-tracking system over 0.2
albedo. Simulations use the bifacial_radiance optical model [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
irradiance gain of 11% is reduced by the 1.5% annual mismatch loss
to provide an effective annual bifacial energy gain of 9% (excluding
module bifaciality).
For HSAT simulations, we show two shading cases in Figure 3—
including torque tube rear shading (dash-dot line) and without rear
shading (dashed line). Accounting for torque tube rear-shading
obstructions requires the use of bifacial_radiance optical simulations,
and the simulations shown in Figure 3 were all conducted using the
bifacial_radiance ray-tracing optical model on NREL's Eagle HPC
cluster.
For a given normalized height (H/CW), HSAT mismatch losses are
slightly higher than for fixed-tilt simulations. In the case of no rear-
shading from the torque tube, annual mismatch loss is 0.3% to 0.6%,
matching the results of McIntosh,47 which showed values of 0.3% to
0.4% under similar conditions. With the effect of rear shading from
the torque tube, this value is increased by 0.1%. This is comparable
with previously reported values of M in Bailey and Jaubert,28 where
cell shading from rack obstructions add an additional 0.1% to 0.2% to
M relative to the unshaded case depending on the extent of shadow.
For these cases, Grear is reduced by 8% between the no-shading and
torque-tube-shading simulations:
system mismatch loss in the fixed-tilt rooftop scenario: module fill fac-
tor (FF), bifaciality factor ϕBifi, and ground albedo. As shown in
Figure 4A, modules exhibiting lower FF are susceptible to reduced
mismatch loss. This is expected because of the smaller slope -dP/dI in
low-FF modules. When low-irradiance cells or modules are forced to
pass current greater than their local Imp, the result is power loss. Low-
FF modules have a less steep power vs current slope between Imp and
Isc and, therefore, lose less power for a given amount of current mis-
match. The change in M was found to be directly proportional to the
difference in FF, shown in Equation (7).
FF 1
M½%FF1 = M½%FF0 ð7Þ
FF 0
This linear relationship is illustrated in Figure 4A by scaling the original
FF = 79 curve to match the lower FF = 65 curve. By multiplying M by
the linear ratio of the two FF values, the lower FF curve is recreated.
This suggests that sample mismatch curves calculated for fixed values
of FF can be applied more generally to other module types by using
Equation (7).
Modules with lower ϕBifi and albedo also show a reduced loss fac-
tor M, shown in Figure 4B. This is because modules with lower
ϕBifi and systems with lower albedo experience lower values and dis-
persion of Gtotal. As opposed to fill factor, however, there is no direct
scaling factor for M because these parameters impact GTotal (per Equa-
tion (2)) and M only indirectly.
6 DELINE ET AL.
3.3 | Single-axis-tracking spatial distribution of
irradiance
An additional contribution to rear-side irradiance in real bifacial PV
systems is edge brightening.13,14 For unobscured modules at the end
of a tracker row, fewer surrounding obstructions lead to more
ground-reflected irradiance and increased GRear. This effect is a conse-
quence of the breakdown of typical assumptions for PV system per-
formance modeling that assumes a semi-infinite array extent.
Although this localized irradiance “boost” may theoretically lead to
increased energy capture by the system, some will be lost to electrical
mismatch loss.
Figure 5 shows cumulative annual GTotal for the tracker scenario
given in Section 2.3 with H = 1.5 m including rear torque tube shading.
The enhanced GTotal for the southernmost and northernmost modules
in the system are shown, as is the shading loss because of center tor-
que tube. These cumulative annual results indicate a maximum 5.8%
GTotal brightening on the south edge and a torque tube GRear shading
optical loss14 of 8.3%.
Compared with the results given in Figure 3, where the 1-axis
tracking system plus torque tube does not account for the finite edge
effects of a 20-module tracker row, GTotal is 1.0% higher annually
when the edge brightening is averaged over the entire system. To
calculate the increase of GTotal over the system because of edge
brightening, we sum GTotal for each cell in the system and compare
with a scan over just the center of the 20-module tracker row. Mis-
match losses are also slightly higher, at MYear = 0.6% for the
20-module row instead of MYear = 0.45% for the tracker case in
Figure 3 that excludes edge effects (but accounts for torque tube
shading). The increase of GRear and M from edge effects depends on
tracker row length and the number of interior vs edge modules.
F I G U R E 4 Annual mismatch loss
MYear scaling vs FF, ϕBifi, and albedo for
the 1-up landscape rooftop scenario in
Richmond, VA. Reference scenario (black
line): FF = 79, albedo = 0.62, and
ϕBifi = 1. (A), Lower FF = 65 results (dots)
can be replicated by scaling reference
curve by Equation (7). (B), ϕBifi and albedo
affect GTotal dispersion directly and MYear
indirectly. Thus MYear does not scale
linearly with ϕBifi or albedo changes
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Because commercially relevant array configurations use tracker rows
several times larger than the example here, this 1% power increase
from edge brightening likely represents an upper bound for commer-
cial systems and remains a topic for further investigation.
3.4 | Fixed-tilt reduced-order model development
The annual results of Figure 3 indicate relatively low overall mismatch
loss, particularly for high clearance conditions and single-axis-tracking
simulations. However, individual hourly mismatch loss values can be
much higher—in excess of 10%.
By looking at hourly mismatch loss as a function of irradiance
standard deviation (σ) and mean absolute difference (Δ) from Equa-
tions (3) and (4), we can identify consistent performance trends. The
annual simulation data for each hour of the “rooftop” simulations in
Table 1 are compiled and considered together, using both bifacialvf
and bifacial_radiance optical simulations. Data with low irradiance
(GFront < 100 Wm−2 or GRear < 15 Wm−2) are excluded, leaving
130,300 remaining hourly points.
Initial analysis shown in Figure 6 indicates that mismatch loss
M trends closely with standard deviation of total irradiance σ[%],
Equation (3), with a wider irradiance distribution leading to increased
mismatch, as expected. The majority of data points indicate low power
mismatch loss M < 3% when the sun is in front of the array plane (solar
angle of incidence (AOI) < 90o, light blue points in Figure 6). However,
higher mismatch conditions result when the sun is behind the plane of
the array (black points in Figure 6, solar AOI >90o) and direct shading
can occur on the rear of the module. Conceptually, the highest spread
in rear irradiance occurs when direct irradiance, not just diffuse and
ground-reflected irradiance, is shining on the rear of the array.
F I G U R E 5 Year cumulative Gtotal [Whm−2]
for an interior row of 20 modules × 7 rows HSAT
at 1.5-m hub height, considering torque tube
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
DELINE ET AL.
F I G U R E 6 Hourly simulation showing instantaneous power
mismatch M[%] as a function of Gtotal spatial standard deviation. Log-
log Fit #1 from Equation (8). Comparison fit from Janssen et al22
shown as reference [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Two best-fit curves were found through the fixed-tilt data with
similar goodness of fit: a log-log fit, and a second-order polynomial fit.
The log-log empirical-fit parameters are given in Equation (8), with an
R2 of .977. The curve is shown in Figure 6 in orange.
M½%Fit1 = e1:57*lnðσ½%Þ − 2 ð8Þ
M½%Ref22 = 0:33 σ ½% + 0:0745 σ ½%2 ð9Þ
M½%Fit1b = 0:15 σ ½% + 0:027 σ ½%2 ð10Þ
The second fit is of the same form as was published previously
in Janssen et al,22
although the empirical parameters were found to
be substantially different for our scenario. The previously published
best-fit equation is reproduced here in Equation (9), and the
updated best fit given our data is shown in Equation (10). For the
fixed-tilt data in Figure 6, the curve of Equation (10) is indistinguish-
able from that of Equation (8) with an R2 of .983, and therefore, the
data are not shown. The original published curve of Equation (9) is
shown as a dashed line in Figure 6, indicating a poor fit to our data.
The reasons for the differences between these two studies is not
yet fully understood. By careful inspection, however, it can be seen
that a handful of points from our study do follow the line of
Equation (9). If additional low-irradiance points are included in our
−2
study (Gfront < 100 Wm ), then some of these outlier points also
follow this originally published trend line. Therefore, it is possible
that the best-fit equation of Equation (9) is based on an unfiltered
dataset influenced mainly by low-irradiance, high-mismatch outliers.
Given the low power contribution of these low-irradiance points,
we focus here on lower-mismatch, high-irradiance data instead, as
was done in Equations (8) and (10).
7
3.5 | Fixed-tilt reduced-order model—MAD
Close inspection of Figure 6 indicates that the results are split into
two populations, as described above. This suggests that Equation (3)
may not be the most appropriate way to describe the bifacial
rear-irradiance distributions. Standard deviation σ is typically used to
describe normally distributed populations, but Grear does not neces-
sarily follow a normal distribution across the module. Mean absolute
difference (Δ, Equation (4)) more appropriately represents variance in
non-normal distributions.30 Indeed, Equation (11) is used below in
Figure 7, which has the same form as Equation (10) but substituting
Δ instead of σ to plot the same data of Figure 6. It clearly results in
a tighter single population of data for all incidence angles. These
data are fit to a high degree of accuracy (R2 = .995) with a second-
order fit:
M½%Fit2 = 0:142 Δ½% + 0:032 Δ½%2 : ð11Þ
What remaining variability does exist shows a dependence on
rear-irradiance fraction (Equation (5)). The highest rear-irradiance con-
ditions in red exhibit slightly higher M than the lower rear-irradiance
conditions shown in Figure 7B.
The accuracy of our two reduced-order empirical models in
Equations (8) and (11) are compared against the full cell-level model
(reference case) by summing the total mismatch power lost over each
height and climate scenario. This indicates the degree of increased
error by moving from a detailed model to a simple empirical one.
Although our two optical models (bifacialvf and bifacial_radiance)
provide different values of overall annual mismatch because of differ-
ences in the optical results, the reduced-order models provide a very
good fit to both. The results in Table 3 indicate that both empirical
models provide a very close match, with the Log-log Fit #1 showing
slightly better agreement for low levels of annual mismatch, and the
second-order polynomial fit showing better agreement under high
mismatch conditions. For both empirical fits, either Δ or σ can be
substituted for the other with only a modest increase in average
M error, in all cases <0.1%. Equations (8) and (11) can therefore be
used with either mean absolute difference (MAD) or standard devia-
tion as the independent input parameter with good overall accuracy in
annual mismatch power loss estimation.
An important question related to the configuration of the system
is whether mismatch loss is significantly different when modules are
oriented in portrait vs landscape. Additional fixed-tilt simulations were
conducted where the 1 × 2 m modules are rotated in the portrait
direction, and H and inter-row spacing is doubled to keep geometry
constant relative to the module collector width. The results in
Figure 8 show good agreement between the two orientations,
suggesting that module orientation should not significantly impact
bifacial mismatch loss. This follows logically from the fact that
mismatch here is never so great that bypass diodes are activated.
Therefore, the main difference between landscape and portrait
modules—the bypass-diode configuration—should be expected to
have no impact when shading and mismatch levels are quite modest.
8 DELINE ET AL.

F I G U R E 7 (A), Hourly simulation

showing power mismatch M as a function
of Gtotal mean absolute difference along
with Fit #2 (Equation (11)). (B), Remaining
variability with respect to Grear/Gfront
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 3 Annual mismatch loss simulated by the complete model vs the reduced-order model listed by equation number

bifacialvf bifacial_radiance

Full model, Fit #1 Fit #2 Full model, Fit #1 Fit #2

Height, m % Equation (8), % Equation (11), % Height, m % Equation (8), % Equation (11), %
0.15 2.04 2.04 2.01 0.15 1.57 1.56 1.56
0.25 1.50 1.43 1.48 0.25 1.07 1.04 1.09
0.5 0.44 0.42 0.49 0.5 0.30 0.29 0.36
1 0.05 0.04 0.08 1 0.05 0.06 0.10
Avg M N/A ±0.03 ±0.03 Avg M ERROR N/A ±0.01 ±0.03
ERROR

Note. Three annual climate scenarios at four fixed-tilt heights, two optical models.

not fall directly in line with the curves established for fixed-tilt simula-
tions. Although the form of the curve is similar, the empirical-fit
parameters are different. We use the general form of Fit #2
(Equation (11)) to calculate new best-fit parameters specifically for the
case of the tracking system with no torque tube, shown in
Equation (12).

M½%Fit3 = 0:054 Δ½% + 0:068 Δ½%2 ð12Þ

We should note that although the different scenarios begin to

F I G U R E 8 Portrait and landscape fixed-tilt configurations show
comparable mismatch. Portrait clearance height H and row spacing
are scaled 2× to keep H/CW and GCR constant [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
3.6 | Single-axis-tracking reduced-order model
Hourly mismatch power-loss values are next calculated for the case of
a north-south zero-tilt single-axis-tracking system with several differ-
ent configurations. The system parameters are listed in Section 2.3
and include four hub heights, three climates, and two rear-shading
cases: no rack shading and with a center torque tube included. Plots
of hourly results are given in Figure 9, along with the previously
shown fixed-tilt simulations. For the two tracking scenarios, results do
diverge at very large Δ, agreement is much better at Δ < 4%. This is
relevant because the majority of the data and the bulk of the energy
generation is associated with low Δ. To identify the overall quality of
the empirical fits, we must compare the energy generation and calcu-
lated MYear for all of the scenarios considered in this paper. Although
the plots shown in Figures 7–10 are filtered for clarity with
Gfront > 100 Wm−2, we now consider all unfiltered data for the overall
quality of model fits. Cumulative values of MYear are considered in
Table 4 for five groups of scenarios:
1. Fixed, vf: All fixed-tilt scenarios, calculated using the bifacialvf opti-
cal model and PVMismatch electrical model. This includes three cli-
mate zones (Cairo, Shanghai, and Richmond) and four values of
H for both landscape and portrait module orientation.
Albedo = 0.62.
2. Fixed, RAD: All fixed-tilt landscape scenarios as above, calculated
using the bifacial_radiance optical model and PVMismatch electri-
cal model.
DELINE ET AL.
F I G U R E 9 Hourly simulation for HSAT. Three climate conditions
and two shading conditions—with and without rear torque tube
shading. Power mismatch M as a function of Gtotal mean absolute
difference along with Fit #2 (Equation (11)) and Fit #3 (equation (12))
for tracking [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
3. Tracking, vf: Single-axis-tracking scenarios calculated using the
bifacialvf optical model and PVMismatch electrical model. Three
climates and four values of H are considered, in 2-up landscape ori-
entation, Albedo = 0.2.
4. Tracking, rad: Single-axis-tracking scenarios calculated using the
bifacial_radiance optical model and PVMismatch electrical model.
Three climate zones and four values of H are considered, in 2-up
landscape orientation with no rear-shading structure. Albedo = 0.2.
5. Tracking + TT: Single-axis-tracking scenarios calculated using the
bifacial_radiance optical model and PVMismatch electrical model.
Three climate zones and four values of H are considered, in 2-up
landscape orientation. A 10-cm torque tube with an absorptive
matte black surface (0.01 reflectance) is held 5 cm from the rear of
the modules leading to a Grear shading optical loss factor of 8%.
Albedo = 0.2.
For each group of scenarios, we summarize the MYear value calcu-
lated by the full electrical model and three empirical fits given by
Equations (8), (11), and (12). The average MYear value sums modeled
power across all 295,000 hourly points.
Table 4 shows a clear winner among the various fit equations. Fit
#2 (Equation (11)) was initially modeled from fixed-tilt scenarios only,
but it shows the best overall accuracy. Even for tracking scenarios, Fit
#2 shows good agreement, better in fact than Fit #3, which was
established specifically from the single-axis-tracking data. This sug-
gests that the high Δ data, which influenced the least-squares fit to
the data, may not be providing the best overall annual result. It is the
authors' suggestion that Fit #2, which is based on calculated mean
average difference in Gtotal, be used for all bifacial system scenarios
because it provides the best overall annual match to the full cell-level
simulation.
A final consideration for the use of reduced-order empirical
models is the vastly improved computation time. We can note here
9
F I G U R E 1 0 Photo of experiment, showing the layout of
transmission filters for each string in the bottom module, and top
module connected for four-wire measurement on a Spire 4600 long-
pulse flash I-V curve simulator [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
that the time required to calculate hourly M using Equations (8) or
(11) is a fraction of a second, compared with the ~1 minute required
for the conventional full cell-level simulation. This speed-up of
3 orders of magnitude is compelling, given the accuracy of the
reduced-order model.
4 | EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION
Field validation of Grear inhomogeneity has already been conducted by
several authors8-13 and is not the focus here. Instead, we are con-
cerned with confirming the simplified electrical mismatch model
described in Section 3. Reliance on modeled data is insufficient to give
confidence in our empirical model's ability to describe field conditions.
I-V curve measurements of PV modules were collected under artifi-
cially applied mismatch conditions using an indoor solar simulator to
verify the applicability of these models to more general conditions.
Unlike previously published experiments such as Alonso-Garcia
et al49 or Sinapis et al,29 where a large amount of opaque shading is
applied to cells, the amount of mismatch considered here is quite
modest. Previous experiments have shown the response of PV sys-
tems to partial shading to be significant and nonlinear. However, for
bifacial systems, typically occurring irradiance distributions are not
likely to result in cell reverse bias or bypass diode turn on.22 This is
because regardless of the amount of rear shadowing or inherent gra-
dient on the back of the module, Gfront will be much more uniform and
greater in magnitude than Grear.
4.1 | Experiment configuration
Here, the effect of irradiance spatial variability was investigated
experimentally on PV modules with small amounts of artificial partial
10 DELINE ET AL.

TABLE 4 Annual mismatch loss MYear for all simulation scenarios presented thus far

Simulation case Full model, % Fit #1 Equation (8), % Fit #2 Equation (11), % Fit #3 Equation (12), %
Fixed, vf 0.85 0.80 0.875 1.14
Fixed, rad 0.60 0.60 0.64 0.77
Tracking vf 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.22
Tracking rad 0.37 0.26 0.36 0.39
Tracking + TT 0.48 0.38 0.50 0.55
Avg M ERROR N/A 0.06 0.03 0.15

Note. Full cell-level model is listed along with the reduced-order model listed by equation number.

shading applied. A Spire 4600 long-pulse flash I-V curve simulator was
used, along with two Siemens SM55 36-cell monocrystalline modules
(monofacial, FF = 0.7). Monofacial modules are compatible with
single-sided flash testing, and they can validate our empirical models
here because Gtotal distributions do not depend on whether irradiance
variability is on the front or rear of the module. Each SM55 module
has two junction boxes—one on each end of the module—that house
the module's bypass diodes and interconnect terminals. In addition,
each module has ribbon tabs accessible, allowing each group of
12 cells to be individually contacted. By placing the two SM55 mod-
ules side by side on the flash simulator and connecting the module
terminals in series, we obtain a single 72-cell series connection of
monocrystalline cells—and in which every 12 cells is individually con-
tacted and measured and compared with the entire 72-cell series-
connection measurement (Figure 10).
The class AAA rating of the Spire simulator indicates that irradi-
ance spatial uniformity is within 2% when no artificial shading is
applied. To introduce artificial irradiance distributions, a series of
semitransparent films are used, with spectrally normalized transmis-
sion between %T = 84% (3 M CG3300) and %T = 90% (3 M CG6000).
Transmission was measured by monitoring the reduction in Isc when a
single cell was repeatedly flashed under shaded conditions. After an
initial baseline measurement with no artificial shading applied, five
additional test configurations are applied with increasing levels of
shading. The final two measurement conditions use multiple layers of
semitransparent film to achieve higher amounts of shading loss. The
amount of shading film applied to each module substring is given in
Table 5. To minimize ambiguous results and multiple I-V curve peaks,
the shading is applied uniformly across an entire row of 12 cells.
Mismatch loss M from Equation (1) is calculated by comparing the
module power at its terminals with the sum of each 12-cell substring
power. A four-wire measurement is used to remove interconnection
series losses, which would accumulate over six separate substring
measurement.
The standard deviation σ and MAD Δ for total irradiance is not
calculated directly but inferred from the measured Isc of each of the
six substrings. Some inherent mismatch in the modules is visible from
the no-shading Test 0 case where σ Isc=1.5% even without externally
applied shading. Other measured Isc values for each of the other shad-
ing tests are shown in Figure 11. Calculated σ Isc and ΔIsc have similar
values and range up to 18% for the most extensive shade condition.
Note that Figure 11 orders the substrings from lowest to highest mea-
sured Isc; this does not imply that the first substring of the module
was always the one to receive the heaviest shading.
4.2 | Experiment results
Example module-level I-V curves from Test #3 are shown in Figure 12
under the artificial shading conditions given in Table 5. The multiple
steps of the curve indicate sequential shading of four of the six mod-
ule substrings, leading to a measured variation in Isc of σ Isc = 10.9%
and ΔIsc = 12.1%. Under the combined module-level measurement,
PModule = 81.4 W, whereas the six individual submodule measurements
P
resulted in a totaled PCells = 87.1 W. Applying Equation (1), we
arrive at a mismatch power loss of M = 6.5%. The measured mismatch
curve of Figure 12 allows us to illustrate an important point related to
the operation of bypass diodes. For multiply shaded PV strings and

TABLE 5 Filter transparency %T applied to module substrings for each test condition

Test # M1 str1, % M1 str2, % M1 str3, % M2 str1, % M2 str2, % M2 str3, %

0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 90 N/A 84 N/A N/A N/A
2 90 N/A 84 N/A N/A 90
3 90 7 84 N/A N/A 90
4 90 75 84 70 N/A 90
5 64 75 84 70 N/A 90

Note. N/A, no artificial shading applied.

DELINE ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 1 Measured substring Isc for each of the shading tests,
ordered from lowest to highest Isc. σ Isc and ΔIsc each vary from 1.5% to
18% [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
F I G U R E 1 2 Module-level indoor simulator measurement from
Test #3 showing current and power vs voltage. Isc variation:
σ Isc = 10.9%, ΔIsc = 12.1% [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
modules, opaque shading can lead to high amounts of Isc mismatch,
during which time the system Pmp shifts to a lower operating voltage
through bypass diode turn on. Here, we can see that this is not occur-
ring in our case of modest irradiance nonuniformity.
Overall M values calculated for each of the five shading tests plus
the initial reference measurement are shown in Figure 13, expressed
in terms of both σ Isc and ΔIsc. The empirical shading mismatch models
developed from fixed-tilt simulations in Equations (8) and (11) are also
shown, along with 1% error bars based on simulator uniformity and
measurement repeatability. In Figure 13, the modeled values use
Equation (7) to account for the lower FF of the modules used in this
experiment (0.7 vs 0.79 assumed in simulations). Although the FF cor-
rection is slight, it does lead to slightly better agreement with mea-
sured data than if it were neglected.
Figure 13 indicates a good match between indoor measurements
and empirical fits based on simulated bifacial system production and
our assessment of mismatch loss' evolution with fill factor. Both loga-
rithmic Fit #1 (Equation (8)) and second-order polynomial Fit #2
(Equation (11)) have good agreement even out to very large levels of
Gtotal Δ and M power loss. Although this is satisfying and indicates
appropriate mechanisms of mismatch loss are considered out to very
high levels of mismatch, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 have shown us that typi-
cal annual M values are 2% or less. In fact, inspection of the data
11
F I G U R E 1 3 Measured mismatch loss M for each of the shading
tests vs σ Isc (squares) or ΔIsc (red circles). Empirical models shown for
comparison using the same coefficients given in Equations (8) and (11)
adjusted for FF by Equation (7) [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
underlying Figure 8 indicates that >90% of annual energy is produced
during hours when Gtotal Δ < 4%. It is thefore the goodness of fit to
low Δ conditions that should carry the most weight. Thankfully both
models provide high accuracy for annual simulations (Table 3)
suggesting good agreement at smaller Δ values as well.
5 | A P P L I C A T I O N TO P E R F O R M A N C E
MODE LS O F ENE R GY Y I EL D
A main consideration in developing these mismatch models is the
application to typical PV yield simulation software—for example,
PVSyst and NREL's System Advisor Model (SAM). As of this writing,
mismatch loss for bifacial simulations are considered by single annual
loss factors. However, as we have seen above, mismatch loss can vary
significantly from hour to hour, and it should ideally be applied hourly
based on calculated Gtotal mismatch conditions and assuming spatial
irradiance variability calculated as a part of the yield simulation. In this
case, reduced-order models using Equation (11) and adjusting for PV
module parameters with Equation (7) can quickly calculate hourly loss
parameters arising from rear-irradiance variability.
A separate consideration for PVSyst users is that mismatch loss is
expected to be applied to Grear only, rather than applying to combined
DC power as we have reported above with M. A conversion between
system power losses reported by this paper and rear-irradiance loss
terms required for simulations can be stated below.48 Starting with
Equations (1) and (2), PArray can be recast in terms of array efficiency η
and front and rear-average irradiance values:
 
 front + G
 rear  ϕ
PArray = G Bifi  η  ð100%−MYear ½%Þ: ð13Þ
In this formulation, consistent with reported values above, the
total mismatch factor MYear is applied to both front and rear photo-
generated power. Instead, we wish to develop a form that applies loss
factors only to rear irradiance by introducing a new rear-irradiance
loss factor Lrear:
12
 
 front + ð100%− Lrear ½%ÞG
 rear  ϕ
PArray = G Bifi  η, ð14Þ
where the loss factor Lrear represents the electrical mismatch loss,
 rear . Equations (13) and (14) can be
applied only as a factor reducing G
used to solve for Lrear in terms of the rear-irradiance fraction of the
system (Equation (5)):


100%
Lrear ½% = MYear ½% 1 + : ð15Þ
BGG ½%
As an example to illustrate the use of the above equations, we assume
a bifacial system with a rear-irradiance fraction of 10% and system
mismatch loss of MYear = 1%. Given these factors, we calculate that
when used in software tools such as PVSyst, the appropriate rear-
irradiance mismatch loss would be Lrear = 11%. This is a significant
increase in the mismatch loss factor when stated in these terms, and it
suggests that these factors should not be neglected.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S
Here, we have used NREL's HPC cluster to evaluate several bifacial
system scenarios on an hourly basis to determine electrical mismatch
losses M because of nonuniform front- and rear-side irradiance. Most
system configurations have annual MYear values below 1%, although
mismatch power loss is higher for individual hourly time periods
experiencing high irradiance gradients at low sun angles, or for sys-
tems with high albedo and low clearance height. Although these
values of M are low, system loss values must be converted to a value
~10× greater to be of use in PV energy simulation tools (eg, PVSyst)
because these tools currently expect rear mismatch terms to apply
only to Grear rather than Gtotal.
Single-axis-tracking systems were evaluated with and without
torque-tube rear-shading loss using the ray-tracing software
bifacial_radiance. Although the rear-shading obstructions were found
to only modestly increase the level of mismatch loss, rear optical shad-
ing losses were found to be 8%. Spatial uniformity of irradiance was
also found to be affected by edge effects from our assumed
20-module length row. When placed entirely in series, these edge
modules yielded an additional 1% of irradiance gain in the system,
with only slightly increased M.
Based on detailed cell-level electrical mismatch models, we have
developed an empirical relationship that links the spatial variation of
irradiance (mean absolute difference Δ) to M with an R2 better than
.99. When substituting the empirical fit for the full cell model in our
mismatch studies, annual mismatch loss values could be recovered
within MYear = 0.1%. This is further validated by experiment using an
indoor flash-test simulator and artificially applied shading to portions
of a module. Additional parameters that were established to have a
linear impact on M include fill factor and module bifaciality ratio. We
have therefore developed a basis for fast estimation of bifacial mis-
match loss factors that can be used in hourly PV performance simula-
tion software directly or as a postprocessing tool to identify
appropriate input parameters for such models.
DELINE ET AL.
AC KNOWLEDG EME NT S
This work was authored, in part, by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the
US Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract DE-
AC36-08GO28308. Funding was provided by the US Department of
Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
under Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) Agreement 30286
and 34910. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily
represent the views of the DOE or the US Government. A portion of
the research was performed using computational resources sponsored
by the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy and located at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.
OR CID
Chris Deline https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9867-8930
Silvana Ayala Pelaez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0180-728X
Carlos Olalla https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8333-9840
RE FE RE NCE S
1. Libal J, Kopecek R. Bifacial photovoltaics: technology, applications and
economics. Stevenage: The Institution of Engineering and Technology;
2018 (IET Energy Engineering, Vol. 107).
2. Kopecek R, Libal J. Towards large-scale deployment of bifacial
photovoltaics. Nat Energy. 2018;3(6):443-446.
3. International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic (ITRPV) results
2017 including maturity report 2018, 9th edition, September 2018.
2018.
4. Cuevas A, Luque A, Eguren J, del Alamo J. 50% more output power
from an albedo-collecting flat panel using bifacial solar cells. Sol
Energy. 1982;29(5):419-420.
5. Sun X, Khan MR, Deline C, Alam MA. Optimization and performance
of bifacial solar modules: a global perspective. Appl Energy. 2018;
212(September 2017):1601-1610.
6. Darling SB, You F, Veselka T, Velosa A. Assumptions and the levelized
cost of energy for photovoltaics. Energ Environ Sci. 2011;4(9):3133-
3139.
7. Bazilian M, Onyeji I, Liebreich M, et al. Re-considering the economics
of photovoltaic power. Renew Energy. 2013;53:329-338.
8. Yusufoglu UA, Pletzer TM, Koduvelikulathu LJ, Comparotto C,
Kopecek R, Kurz H. Analysis of the annual performance of bifacial
modules and optimization methods. IEEE J Photovoltaics. 2015;5(1):
320-328.
9. Liang TS, Pravettoni M, Deline C, et al. A review of crystalline silicon
bifacial photovoltaic performance characterization and simulation.
Energ Environ Sci. 2019;12(1):116-148.
10. Ayala Pelaez S, Deline C, Macalpine S, Marion B, Stein JS, Kostuk RK.
Comparison of bifacial solar irradiance model predictions with field
validation. IEEE J Photovoltaics. 2019;9(1):82-88.
11. Kreinin L, Bordin N, Karsenty A, Drori A, Grobgeld D, Eisenberg N.
PV module power gain due to bifacial design. Preliminary
experimental and simulation data. In: 35th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference. 2010. p. 002171–5.
12. Deline C, MacAlpine S, Marion B, Toor F, Asgharzadeh A, Stein JS.
Assessment of bifacial photovoltaic module power rating
methodologies—inside and out. IEEE J Photovoltaics. 2017;7(2):
575-580.
13. Lindsay A, Chiodetti M, Binesti D, et al. Modelling of single-axis track-
ing gain for bifacial PV systems. In: 32nd European Photovoltaic Solar
Energy Conference and Exhibition, Munich, Germany. 2016.
p. 1610–1617.
DELINE ET AL.
14. Ayala Pelaez S, Deline C, Greenberg P, Stein JS, Kostuk RK. Model
and validation of single-axis tracking with bifacial PV. IEEE J
Photovoltaics. 2019;9(3):715-721.
15. Wittmer B, Mermoud A. Yield simulations for horizontal axis trackers
with bifacial PV modules in PVSyst. In: 35th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Brussels, Belgium. 2018.
16. Blair N, Dobos AP, Freeman J, et al. System Advisor Model, SAM
2014.1. 14: General description. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory Golden, CO; 2014.
17. Woyte A, Nijs J, Belmans R. Partial shadowing of photovoltaic arrays
with different system configurations: literature review and field test
results. Sol Energy. 2003;74(3):217-233.
18. Karatepe E, Boztepe M, Colak M. Development of a suitable model
for characterizing photovoltaic arrays with shaded solar cells. Sol
Energy. 2007;81(8):977-992.
19. Appelbaum J, Bany J. Shadow effect of adjacent solar collectors in
large scale systems. Sol Energy. 1979;23(6):497-507.
20. Deline C, Ayala Pelaez S, MacAlpine S, Olalla C. Bifacial PV mismatch
loss estimation and parameterization. In: 36th EU PVSEC, Marseille,
France. 2019. p. 1–5.
21. Femia N, Lisi G, Petrone G, Spagnuolo G, Vitelli M. Distributed
maximum power point tracking of photovoltaic arrays: novel
approach and system analysis. IEEE Trans Ind Electron. 2008;55(7):
2610-2621.
22. Janssen GJM, Gali RSR, de Groot K, Carr AJ, Van Aken BB,
Romijin IG. Impact of inhomogeneous irradiance at the rear of bifacial
panels on modelled energy yield. In: 33rd European PV Solar Energy
Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC), Amsterdam, Netherlands.
2017. p. 1–6.
23. Passias D, Källbäck B. Shading effects in rows of solar cell panels. Sol
Cells. 1984;11(3):281-291.
24. Van Schalkwijk M, Kil AJ, Van Der Weiden TCJ. Dependence of
diffuse light blocking on the ground cover ratio for stationary PV
arrays. Sol Energy. 1997;61(6):381-387.
25. Deline C, Dobos A, Janzou S, Meydbray J, Donovan M. A simplified
model of uniform shading in large photovoltaic arrays. Sol Energy.
2013;96:274-282.
26. Olalla C, Clement D, Maksimovic D, Deline C. A cell-level
photovoltaic model for high-granularity simulations. In: 15th
European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE),
Lille, France. 2013. p. 1–10.
27. MacAlpine S, Deline C, Dobos A. Measured and estimated
performance of a fleet of shaded photovoltaic systems with string
and module-level inverters. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl. 2017;25(8):
714-726.
28. Bailey R, Jaubert J. A simplified method to approximate bifacial
system mismatch losses. In: 5th Bifi PV Workshop, Denver, Colorado.
2018.
29. Sinapis K, Tzikas C, Litjens G, et al. A comprehensive study on partial
shading response of c-Si modules and yield modeling of string
inverter and module level power electronics. Sol Energy. 2016;135:
731-741.
30. Yitzhaki S. Gini's mean difference: a superior measure of variability
for non-normal distributions. Metron. 2003;61(2):285-316.
31. Bishop JW. Computer simulation of the effects of electrical
mismatches in photovoltaic cell interconnection circuits. Sol Cells.
1988;25(1):73-89.
32. Quaschning V, Hanitsch R. Numerical simulation of current-voltage
characteristics of photovoltaic systems with shaded solar cells. Sol
Energy. 1996;56(6):513-520.
13
33. Singh JP, Aberle AG, Walsh TM. Electrical characterization method
for bifacial photovoltaic modules. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells. 2014;
127:136-142.
34. De Soto W, Klein SA, Beckman WA. Improvement and validation of a
model for photovoltaic array performance. Sol Energy. 2006;80(1):
78-88.
35. Petrone G, Spagnuolo G, Vitelli M. Analytical model of mismatched
photovoltaic fields by means of Lambert W-function. Sol Energy Mater
Sol Cells. 2007;91(18):1652-1657.
36. Marion B, Rummel S, Anderberg A. Current-voltage curve translation
by bilinear interpolation. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl. 2004;12(8):
593-607.
37. Zekry A, Al-Mazroo AY. A distributed SPICE-model of a solar cell.
IEEE Trans Electron Devices. 1996;43(5):691-700.
38. Paraskevadaki EV, Papathanassiou SA. Evaluation of MPP voltage
and power of mc-Si PV modules in partial shading conditions. IEEE
Trans Energy Convers. 2011;26(3):923-932.
39. Meyers B, Mikofski M. Accurate modeling of partially shaded PV
arrays. In: 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC),
Washington, DC. 2017. p. 3354–3359.
40. SunPower. PVMismatch [Internet]. Github. [cited 2019 Aug 21].
Available from: https://github.com/SunPower/PVMismatch
41. Marion B, MacAlpine S, Deline C, et al. A practical irradiance model
for bifacial PV modules. In: 44th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference (PVSC), Washington, DC. 2017.
42. NREL. bifacialVF [Internet]. GitHub; 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 21].
Available from: http://github.com/NREL/bifacialvf
43. Ward GJ. The RADIANCE lighting simulation and rendering system.
In: 21st Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive
Techniques. 1994. p. 459–72.
44. NREL. bifacial_radiance [Internet]. GitHub; 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 21].
Available from: http://github.com/NREL/bifacial_radiance
45. Capelle T, Araya F, Haffner F, Sayritupac J, Colin H. A comparison of
bifacial PV system modelling tools. In: 6th BifiPV Workshop,
Amsterdam, NL. 2019. p. 1–21.
46. Holmgren WF, Andrews RW, Lorenzo AT, Stein JS. PVLIB Python
2015. In: 42nd IEEE photovoltaic specialist conference (PVSC), New
Orleans, LA 2015. p. 1–5.
47. McIntosh KR, Abbott MD, Sudbury BA, Meydbray J. Mismatch loss in
bifacial modules due to non-uniform illumination in 1D tracking
systems. In: 46th IEEE PVSC, Chicago. 2019. p. 1–9.
48. Ayala Pelaez S, Deline C, Stein JS, Marion B, Anderson K, Muller M.
Effect of torque-tube parameters on rear-irradiance and rear-shading
loss for bifacial PV performance on single-axis tracking systems. In:
46th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference Proceedings, Chicago
IL. 2019.
49. Alonso-Garcia MC, Ruiz JM, Chenlo F. Experimental study of
mismatch and shading effects in the I-V characteristic of a
photovoltaic module. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells. 2006;90(3):329-340.
How to cite this article: Deline C, Ayala Pelaez S,
MacAlpine S, Olalla C. Estimating and parameterizing
mismatch power loss in bifacial photovoltaic systems. Prog
Photovolt Res Appl. 2020;1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.
3259