Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

East-west oriented photovoltaic power systems: model, benefits and

technical evaluation
Tamer Khatib a, *, Reziq Deria b
a
Energy Engineering and Environment, An-Najah National University, 97300 Nablus, Palestine
b
Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-Najah National University, 97300 Nablus, Palestine

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents an evaluation of east–west oriented photovoltaic power system. The evaluation is done based
Photovoltaic on a simplified model for east–west oriented photovoltaic system. This model is developed mathematically then
East–west orientation implemented by using Matlab. The model is also validated by a commercial software and experimental data.
South orientation
After that, a comparison between east–west oriented photovoltaico system and south oriented photovoltaic
Grid connection
system in terms of cost of energy and technical requirement is conducted. In addition to that, the benefits of using
east–west oriented photovoltaic system are discussed in this paper. Results show that the proposed model is
accurate in predicting the output power of east–west oriented photovoltaic system. It is also found that east–west
oriented photovoltaic system requires less land area. Moreover, it is found that east–west oriented photovoltaic
system requires less cost for mounting piles and steel structure, and less costs of the interfacing power substation
especially in case of photovoltaic systems slanted at high tilt angle. However, it is found as well that the south
oriented photovoltaic system produces more energy than east–west oriented photovoltaic system. It is also found
in this research that there is no significant difference between the costs of energy for both systems. Finally it is
concluded that for direct grid interfacing east–west oriented PV system can provide smoother power injection to
the grid with fewer harmonic and less reverse power. On the other hand, south oriented photovoltaic system is
preferred when high power injection is required.

1. Introduction orientation on the performance of a PV-Battery system that is located on

The installation of photovoltaic (PV) system is increasing all over the
world due to its benefits. The orientation and the tilt angle of the PV
panels are very important issues to consider when installing a PV system.
When orienting a PV panel, it is aimed to receive the sun rays in a
perpendicular way so as to achieve the maximum possible solar energy.
This is usually achieved by orienting the PV panels to the north in the
southern hemisphere and to the south in the northern hemisphere. After
that, the azimuth and tilt angles of the PV panel are controlled so as to
assure receiving the sun rays perpendicularly.
However, recently there is a new trend in orienting PV panels to
different directions such as east and west, where it is claimed that such a
practice gives better performance in some cases. Hussein et al. [1], for
example, evaluated the theoretical performance of mono-Si PV modules
at various tilt angles and orientations. The findings were validated under
various meteorological conditions and design parameters based on
Cairo’s meteorological conditions. Furthermore, the impact of panel
a rooftop at a specific location in Germany is investigated in [2,3]. Ac­
cording to [2] the east–west oriented rooftops share the total installed
capacity across the two orientations equally. This allows high self-
consumption of the system. Finally, to increase PV penetration, the
authors of [4] proposed and investigated an alternative strategy for
enhancing local PV power consumption via non-south facing (east–west)
PV systems in building.
In addition to that, Chang T in Chang [5] provided a theoretical
analysis on the performance of a single axis tracking system towards
east–west. He developed mathematical formulas for estimating the angle
at which the tracker should use to follow the Sun. Meanwhile, by using
validated TRNSYS models in Mondol et al. [6], the effect of PV system
orientation and tilt on grid-connected PV system performance in mari­
time climates was examined. The test is done for different surface in­
clinations and orientations. It is reported in Mondol et al. [6] that the
annual PV savings were greater for a system that is oriented towards the
west than the east considering time-dependent tariff rates. Meanwhile

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: t.khatib@najah.edu (T. Khatib), rezeq.direya@stu.najah.edu (R. Deria).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115810
Received 7 April 2022; Received in revised form 12 May 2022; Accepted 22 May 2022
Available online 30 May 2022
0196-8904/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Khatib and R. Deria
Fig. 1. Comparison between east–west oriented PV system and south oriented PV system [17].
the PV savings were the same for east or west orientation as compared to
south oriented PV panels considering constant tariff rates. Moreover, the
performance of an east–west PV system was investigated in order to
maximize grid sellbacks and customer-generator profitability through
net metering in Blumsack et al. [7]. According to [7] significant power
improvements can be generated during the morning and evening de­
mand peaks by dividing the orientation of PV arrays for an east–west
rather than south. However, it is assumed that the customer’s purpose is
to maximize the amount of energy produced for local use.
The authors of [8] assess the trade-off between yearly energy losses
and potential cost savings from power generation by modifying PV
installation angles and orientation. The wholesale market value of PV
system for various tilt angles and orientations in 23 locations of Austria
and Germany is estimated using solar radiation historical data and
hourly tariff rate to analyze the impact of deviations from yearly opti­
mum angles. It is demonstrated that the yearly maximum output energy
of the system is not necessarily the best option from a system perspec­
tive. On the other hand, it is reported in [9] that east or west facing
monofacial modules result high LCOE ranging from 24.1 to 28.4 cents/
kWh. While, bifacial PV modules that are oriented toward east–west
have a grid-comparable cost of 11.8–14.2 cents/kWh. Similarly, the
benefits of bifacial PV modules that are oriented to the east and west
were also supported in Baumann et al. [10]. Bifacial PV panels (east west
oriented) were also favored in [11,12], where it is reported that the
east–west facing module received a maximum of 31% exposure to
irradiance more than the monofacial PV panel.
In Yano et al. [13] the spatial variability of solar energy was inves­
tigated in an east–west oriented single-span greenhouse equipped with a
PV array inside a Gothic-arch type roof. Meanwhile, a 1 kW bifacial grid-
connected PV system is evaluated in Johnson et al. [14]. According to
these researches, when the PV system is installed vertically facing west,
it will be able to generate electricity during the late afternoon hours.
This will supply part of peak load demand. These results were supported
in Litjens et al. [15] where it is claimed that, ideal PV orientation should
be based not just on maximum energy output, but also on projected
demand patterns and market pricing. Moreover, it is claimed in Ram­
anan et al. [16] that the best orientation for installing building inte­
grated PV modules in the façade and walls is east, whereas the best
orientation for a pitched roof is south.
As it can be seen from the conducted literature review, the orienta­
tion of the PV panel should be carefully considered as the east–west
orientation may have some advantages in some cases. However, most to
the previous research focuses on the bifacial PV panels and study the
2
Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810
impact of the orientation experimentally without any empirical analysis.
Moreover, most of these researches discuss the financial benefits of
east–west oriented PV system (EWPV) based on actual performance.
Meanwhile, there are much more technical benefits for such a system
that still need to be studied. Thus, in this research, monofacial orien­
tation of PV panels is studied by proposing the following novel issues
about it,
i. system’s concepts and benefits considering technical issues
regarding the grid, mounting structure, array shading, and sys­
tem’s capital cost
ii. a novel simplified mathematical model that is validated based on
real data.
iii. Performance evaluation of east–west oriented PV system in
Palestine based on experimental data
Considering the literature, it is believed that there is no validated
mathematical model with open source Matlab code for east–west ori­
ented PV system published before. Moreover, none of researcher has
discussed the technical requirement of east–west system and its cost.
Thus, these issues are considered the main contributions of this paper.
2. Benefit of east–west photovoltaic power system
In general there are three main benefits of east–west oriented grid
connected PV system (EWPV) which are related to grid integration,
required area of the project and mounting structure requirements. These
benefits are discussed in detail in the following subsections.
2.1. Smother integration to the electrical power grid
EWPV offers almost the same amount of energy to the electricity grid
at lower amount of the electric power. Assume having a 600 kWp PV
system that is connected to the grid with an average annual yield factor
of 1750 kWh/kWp. In case of north or south oriented PV system, this
system is expected to export about 1 MWh per year via a 400 kVA power
station to the grid. On the other hand, in EWPV system, half of the
system (300 kWp) faces the Sun during the morning time, while the
other half of the system faces the Sun in the afternoon. Meanwhile, part
of each systems is facing the Sun around the Noon. This assures about
85–95% of the amount of energy that is exported to the gird in the case
of the south or north oriented PV system case, is exported to the gird in
EWPV system as well, but at reduced amount of electrical power. This
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Fig. 2. East–west PV array installed without consideration of self-shading [18].

Fig. 3a. Simulation for east–west oriented PV arrays considering PV panels self-shading.

means that incase of high tilt angle (highly slanted) about (60–75)% of
the capacity of the power station is only required (240–300 kVA).
Meanwhile, with EWPV slanted at low tilt angle (almost horizontal),
both sides of the system are exposed to the Sun. This results minor
reduction in the required power station (90%). Anyway, ESPV assures
smoother integration of the electrical power to the grid including fewer
harmonic injection, more stable voltage of the grid and power factor.
Moreover, such a practice reduces the peak of the distributed generation
injected to the grid during the midday. This might be preferred in grids
that have a peak load demand during the afternoon or during the night.
Fig. 1 shows results that are obtained from Sheffield Solar’s Microgen
Database for EWPV system [17]. From the figure, it is clear that the
EWPV system produced energy less than the south oriented PV (SPV)
system by 15%. However, it is also clear that the EWPV system had a
peak power that is less than the peak power of the SPV system. From the
figure, the range of the peak power of the EWPV system from 9:00 to

3
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Fig. 3b. Simulation for south oriented PV array considering PV panels self-shading.

Fig. 4. Required structure and mounting for south oriented PV panels.

15:00 is of (55%− 75%) of the peak power of the SPV system. This
reduction assures smother power injection to the grid.
As for the energy losses shown in the figure, it is assumed in this
research, that it is not significant as the EWPV system saves more land
and requires less mounting structure and capacity of the interfacing
power substation. More details about systems costs is presented in the
results section of this research.
2.2. Shading of east–west oriented PV system
As the objectives (PV panels) are facing the east and west there is no
shading concerns when designing the system. Thus, PV arrays can be
very close to each other as shown in Fig. 2, except some paths for
maintenance and cleaning purposes. This saves about 15–20% of the
area of the required land as compared to south or north oriented PV
systems.
Figs. 3a and 3b show a simulation based comparison of PV modules

4
T. Khatib and R. Deria
Fig. 5. Required structure and mounting for east–west oriented PV panels.
Fig. 6. Flow chart for energy model of west-west PV panels.
rows that are installed at same location considering shading affect. For
the EWPV case, a one meter path is set between each row of PV modules
for maintenance and cleaning purposes. Meanwhile, about 150% of the
array length is taken as a space between each row of the PV array in the
SPV case to avoid self-shading. Thus, it is very clear that the EWPV
system is not affected by self-shading as compared to the SPV system.
Now considering the same area of land for the systems in Figs. 3a and
3b, The size of the system in Fig. 3a is 920 kWp while, the size of the
system in Fig. 3b is 834 kWp. This means that, with EWPV system, more
PV panels can be installed. Moreover, by comparing the two figures, it
can be seen that there is a ring service road for the land in Fig. 3a (as
5
Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810
recommended) while a very short service road could be added in Fig. 3b.
Finally the required cut/fill activities of the land in the first case are
minimum as compared to the system in the second figure. Details on the
cost of both systems are presented in the results section so as to finan­
cially evaluate both systems.
2.3. Mounting structure of east–west PV system
Considering the steel structure as well as the mounting piles re­
quirements, Figs. 4 and 5 shows a comparison between steel structure
and piles requirement for a table that holds three PV panels oriented to
the south at a tilt angle of 17 degrees and a table that holds four PV
panels that are oriented to the east and west.
From the figures it is very clear that in case of east–west oriented PV
panels thinner beams and shorter piles are required. Mounting piles are
shorter in EWPV system by 33%, where, the required pile of ESPV length
is one meter with a diameter of 50 cm. The required reinforcement of
this pile is 4ϕ10. On the other hand, a 1.5 m pile with a diameter of 50
cm and reinforcement of 7ϕ14 is required when for SPV system
mounting piles. As for steel structure of EWPV, beams of 60x30x4 and
columns of 100x50x4 are required. Meanwhile, in SPV, beams of
70x70x4 and columns of 120x60x4 are required.
This is because the load of the PV panels is distributed in a better way
in case of EWPV array and thus less support to the panels is required.
Moreover, the wind lift up power is for sure less in case of EWPV panels
and thus, the weight of the mounting pile is less by 33% as compared to
the south oriented PV panels. Finally the east–west oriented PV panels
have less snow weight due the nature of structure distribution. Detailed
price comparison is presented in the results section with this regards.
3. Energy model for east–west PV system
In general to develop an accurate mathematical model for east west
oriented photovoltaic system, the following flow chart in Fig. 6 should
be followed.
The details of the model illustrated in Fig. 8 are discussed in detail in
the following subsections. The same model presented in [19] for south
oriented PV system is adapted in this section but after customizing this
model to EWPV.
3.1. Required system specifications for modeling
To model east–west oriented PV system some specifications are
required such as PV module specifications including PV module capac­
ity, maximum current, short circuit current, open circuit voltage,
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Earth is furthest from the Sun (152 million kilometers) is called Aphelion
and occurs on July 3 [19].
For an observer standing at specific point on the Earth, the Sun po­
sition can be determined by two main angles namely Altitude Angle (α)
and Azimuth Angle (θs) as seen in Fig. 7.
From the Figure the altitude angle is the angular height of the Sun in
the sky measured from the horizontal. The altitude angle can be given
by,
sinα = sinLsinδ + cosLcosδcosω (1)

Where L is the latitude of the location, δ is the angle of declination and ω

is the hour angle.
The angle of declination is the angle between the Earth–Sun vector
and the equatorial plane and is calculated as follows (results in degree,
arguments to trigonomic functions are expected to be in radiant):
[ ]
2 π (n − 81)
(2)
◦
бS = 23.45 sin
365
The hour angle, ω, is the angular displacement of the Sun from the
local point and it is given by:
ω = 15◦ (AST − 12hour) (3)
Fig. 7. Sun’s altitude and azimuth angles.
where AST is apparent or true solar time and is given by the daily
maximum voltage, temperature coefficient for output current and tem­ apparent motion of the true, or observed Sun. AST is based on the
perature coefficient for output voltage and PV module conversion effi­ apparent solar day, which is the interval between two successive returns
ciency. Moreover, DC-AC inverter efficiency and conversion factor are of the Sun to the local meridian. Apparent solar time is given by,
required. Meanwhile an estimation of DC and AC wiring systems losses
AST = LMT + EoT ± 4/◦ (LSMT − LOD) (4)
are assumed. Finally embedded MPPT tracker is always assumed in any
grid tied inverter [19].
where LMT is the local meridian time, LOD is the longitude, LSMT is
local standard meridian time, and EoT is the equation of time.
3.2. Modeling of sun position The local standard meridian (LSMT) is a reference meridian used for
a particular time zone and is similar to the prime meridian, used for
As a fact, the Earth rotates around the Sun in an elliptical orbit. The Greenwich Mean Time. LSMT is given by:
length of each rotation the Earth makes around the Sun is about 8766 h
which approximately stands for 365.242 days. This orbit has some LMST = 15◦ TGMT (5)
unique points which are the winter solstice occurs on December 21, at The equation of time (EoT) is the difference between apparent and
which the Earth is about 147 million kilometers away from the Sun. On mean solar times, both taken at a given longitude at the same real instant
the other hand, at the summer solstice which occurs on June 21, the of time. EoT is given by:
Earth is about 152 million kilometers from the Sun. However, to provide
more accurate points, the Earth is closest to Sun (147 million kilometers) EoT = 9.87sin(2B) − 7.53cosB − 1.5sinB (6)
on January 2 and this point is called Perihelion. The point where the

Fig. 8. Optimization of EWPV system tilt angle.

6
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Fig. 9. Simulated east–west oriented PV system by using the proposed model.

object can be described as a function of its temperature. The usual

Table 1
practice in to estimate the radiant energy by an object is to compare it to
A comparison of energy production between east–west oriented PV system and
a blackbody. A blackbody is defined as a perfect emitter and absorber. A
south oriented PV system.
perfect absorber can absorb all of the received energy with any re­
East PV West PV South PV
flections while a perfect emitter emits energy more than any other ob­
system system system
ject. Plank’s law describes the wavelengths emitted by a blackbody at a
Total DC energy (kWh) 720,154 805,166 1,555,095 specific temperature as below,
Total AC energy (kWh) 598,448 669,083 1,352,933
Daily Yield factor (kWh/ 3.93 4.34 4.45 3.74x108
kWp) Eλ = [ ] (11)
λ exp 14,400
5
λT
− 1

where Eλ is the total emissive per unit area of blackbody emission rate
where B can be calculated by:
(W/m2.µm), T is the absolute temperature of the blackbody (K) and λ is
2π the wavelength (µm).
B= (N − 81) (7)
365 The interior of the Sun is estimated to have a temperature of around
where N is the day number defined as the number of days elapsed in a 15 million K, while the surface temperature is, relatively speaking, much
given year up to a particular date (e.g., 2nd February corresponds to 33). cooler and lies approximately at 5,778 K (5,505 ◦ C). Thus, the radiation
On the other hand, the azimuth angle as can be seen in Fig. 7 is that is emitted from the Sun’s surface has a spectral distribution
angular displacement of the Sun reference line from the source axis. The matching the prediction by Planck’s law for a 5800 K blackbody. The
azimuth angle can be calculated by, total area under the blackbody curve has been scaled to equal to
(1307–1393) W/m2 which is the solar radiation amount just outside
sinθ =
cosδsinω
(8) Earth’s atmosphere. This amount of radiation is called Solar Constant
cosα (Go), although it is not exactly constant due to the elliptical orbit of
The solar day is defined as the duration from sunrise to sunset. Thus, Earth, Earth’s diameter, and changing conditions in solar activity. A
the altitude and azimuth angles are required to be calculated for each recommended value of solar constant by many researchers is 1367 W/
hour from sunrise to sunset. The sunrise and sunset hour angles can be m2.
considered equal and calculated as, Solar radiation value outside the atmosphere varies as the Earth
orbits the Sun. Therefore, the distance between the Sun and the Earth
ωss,sr = cos− 1 (− tanLtanδ) (9) must be considered in modeling the extraterrestrial solar radiation.
In the meanwhile, the solar time of each hour angle can be calculated Thus, the extraterrestrial radiation (Gex) is given by,
by rewriting equations (3) as below, ( )2
Rav
Gex = Go (12)
ωsr,ss R
± 12hour = ASTsr,ss (10)
15◦
Where Rav is the mean distance between the Sun and the Earth and R is
The sign of equation (3) must be minus if we want to calculate the
the instantaneous distance between the Sun and the Earth. The instan­
sunrise time while it must be plus if we are calculating the sunset time.
taneous distance between the Sun and the Earth depends on the day of
the year or DayNumber. In fact there are different approximations for
3.3. Modeling of extraterrestrial solar radiation the factor (Rav/R) in the literature. A recommended approximation can
be given by,
The first step in modeling the solar source is to estimate the emitted
radiation from the Sun. As a fact, the radiant energy of any emitting

7
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Fig. 10. PVsyst model for east–west oriented PV system – layout and shading analysis.

( ) ( )
Rav 2πN central ray from the Sun.
= 1 + 0.0333cos (13)
R 365 Thus, the extraterrestrial solar radiation on horizontal surface
located in a specific location (GexH) can be calculated by,
By substituting equation (12) in equation (13), the extraterrestrial
solar radiation unit of time falls at a right on square meter of surface can GexH = Gex cosϕ (15)
be given by,
( ( )) Where φ is the solar zenith angle which is measured from directly
Gex = Go 1 + 0.0333cos
2π N
(14) overhead to the geometric center of the Sun’s disc. The solar zenith
365 angle value is equal to the altitude value and thus equation (15) can be
However, an instructional concept, and one often used in solar ra­ rewritten as below,
diation models, is that of the extraterrestrial solar irradiance falling on a ( (
360N
))
horizontal surface. Consider a flat surface just outside the Earth’s at­ GexH = Go 1 + 0.0333cos sinLsinδ + cosLcosδcosω (16)
365
mosphere and parallel to the Earth’s surface below. When this surface
faces the Sun (normal to a central ray), the solar irradiance falling on it Finally, the total extraterrestrial solar energy (Eex), (Wh/m2) is
will be Gex, the maximum possible solar radiation at that distance. If the calculated as below,
surface is not normal to the Sun, the solar radiation falling on it will be
reduced by the cosine of the angle between the surface normal and a

8
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Fig. 11. PVsyst model for south oriented PV system – layout and shading analysis.

∫ TSS atmosphere many components of this beam is absorbed, attenuated and

Eex = GexH dt (17)
TSR
3.4. Modeling of global solar radiation on a horizontal surface
The global solar radiation (terrestrial solar radiation) (GT) is the
available solar radiation at sea level below the Earth’s atmosphere. The
global solar radiation falls on a horizontal surface is consisted of two
components namely direct (beam) and diffuse solar radiation. The direct
solar radiation (GB) is the beam which falls directly from the Sun, while
the diffuse solar radiation (GD) is the radiation which is being scattered
by clouds and other particles in the sky. Based on that the GT can
described as,
GT = GB + GD (18)
As the extraterrestrial solar radiation beam passes through the
scattered by sky gases or air molecules. For a clear sky day, 70% of the
global solar radiation is direct solar radiation. The attenuation of this
beam due to dust, air pollution, water vapor, clouds and turbidity can be
modeled relatively easily. However there are many attempts to model
this attenuation as a function of daynumber. One of these models is the
ASHRAE model or clear sky model, as it is called sometimes. According
to this model, the direct solar radiation reaching the Earth surface (GB,
norm) can be expressed as,
(19)
− k
GB,norm = Aesinα
Where A is an apparent extraterrestrial flux, and K is a dimensionless
factor called optical depth. A and K factors can be expressed as functions
of daynumber as below,

9
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Fig. 12. PVsyst model for east–west oriented PV system – energy production analysis.

Fig. 13. PVsyst model for south oriented PV system –Energy production analysis.

[ ]
360 atmospheric particles and water vapour, and it can be reflected by
A = 1160 + 75sin (N − 275) (20)
365 clouds. Some radiation is reflected from the surface back into the sky and
scattered again back to the ground. The simplest models of diffuse ra­
[ ]
360 diation assume it arrives at a site with equal intensity from all directions;
k = 0.174 + 0.035sin (N − 100) (21)
365 that is, the sky is considered to be isotropic. Obviously, on hazy or
overcast days the sky is considerably brighter in the vicinity of the Sun,
Now the direct solar radiation collected by a horizontal surface GB
and measurements show a similar phenomenon on clear days as well,
can be expressed by,
but these complications are often ignored. Following that, the diffuse
GB = GB,norm sinα (22) solar radiation can be approximated by,
[ ]
On the other hand, the calculation of diffuse radiation falling on a 360
GD = 0.095 + 0.04sin (N − 100) GB,norm (23)
horizontal surface collector is more difficult as compared to the calcu­ 365
lation of direct solar radiation. Incoming radiation can be scattered from

10
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Table 2 From equation (25) it is clear that the key of finding solar energy
Cost comparison of south and east–west oriented PV systems. components on a tilted surface is to estimate the coefficients RB ,
No. Item Total Price RD andRR . The most often used model for calculating RB is the Liu and
(USD) Jordan model which defines RB as.
South oriented system cos(L − β)cosδsinωss + ωss sin(L − β)sinδ
1 Photovoltaic Modules 268,224.00 RB = (26)
2 Inverters and monitoring systems 105,522.00
cosLcosδsinωss +ωss sinLsinδ
4 DC and AC wiring systems 53,947.00 As for surfaces in the southern hemisphere, the slope towards the
5 Mounting system including steel structure 200,654.00
equator, the equation for RB is given as.
6 Power substation 130,225
7 system Installation and Operation and Supervision 42,457.00 cos(L + β)cosδsinωss + ωss sin(L + β)sinδ
Total 801,029.00 RB = (27)
cosLcosδsinωss +ωss sinLsinδ

East-West oriented system In the meanwhile the most recommended equation for RR is given by,
No. Item Total Price
1 Photovoltaic Modules 268,224.00
1 − cosβ
RR = (28)
2 Inverters and monitoring systems 105,522.00 2
4 DC and AC wiring systems 55,435.00
On the other hand, many models for RD have been presented which
3 Mounting system including steel structure 152,561.00
4 Power substation 113,286.00 can be classified into isotropic and anisotropic models.
5 Complete system Installation and Operation and 42,457.00 Isotropic solar models are based on the hypothesis that isotropic
Supervision radiation has the same intensity regardless of the direction of mea­
Total 737,485.00 surement, and an isotropic field exerts the same action regardless of how
the test particle is oriented. It radiates uniformly in all directions from a
point source sometimes called an isotropic radiator. One of the most
Table 3 used isotropic diffuse solar models is the Liu and Jordan model with RD
Feasibility study comparison of east–west oriented PV system and south PV being formulated as below,
oriented system.
1 + cosβ
South oriented PV East-West oriented PV RD = (29)
2
system system

System capacity (kWp) 834.00 834.00

3.6. East-West orientation consideration
Total Energy production for 1,555,095 1,525,320
2021 (kWh) (1354624)
AC-DC Inverter capacity (kW) 828.00 828.00 As mentioned before, when solar radiation falls on a solar collector
Required land area m2 8,071.00 6,517.00 (regardless its orientation), there is an incidence angle (θ) of this beam
Annual land rental (USD) 5,650.00 4,578.00 This incidence angle depends mainly on four angles which are the alti­
Capital cost (USD) 801,029.00 737,485.00
tude angle of the Sun and azimuth angle of the Sun as well as the tilt
Life cycle time (years) 20 20
Annual Replacement cost (USD) 1,141.00 1,141.00 angle which is the angle that the solar collector is slanted at (Σ) and
Annual Running costs (USD) 13,421.00 17,118.00 collector’s azimuth angle (ϕC) (Collector position). Thus, for any falling
Salvage value 20% 20% solar radiation (ICT) on a collector, the effective value is calculated as.
Annual Production degradation 0.3% 0.3%
factor ICT = IB cosθ (30)
Inflation rate 3% 3%
Loans No No Where cosθ can be calculated by the following equation,
Tax deduction No No
PV energy export price (USD) 0.1112 0.1112 cosθ = cosβcos(ϕs − ϕc )sinΣ + sinβcosΣ (31)
Value added Tax (VAT) 16% 16%
Levelized Cost of Energy (USD/ 0.0403 0.0423 As for the collector position, the tilt angle can be determined by the
kWh) operation. Meanwhile, in East-West oriented solar collectors, the East
Payback period time (years) 7.19 7.55
oriented collators have an azimuth angle of 90 degrees, meanwhile, the
west oriented solar collectors have an azimuth of − 90 degrees. Thus, the
incidence angle can be then expressed for east–west orientated solar
3.5. Modeling of global solar radiation on a tilted surface collectors as follows,
{ ◦ }
In the case of the tilted collector the components of solar radiation cosθ = cosβcos(ϕs − 90 )sinΣ + sinβcosΣ, East orinted collector
◦

are more than two. In addition to the direct (GB,β) and diffuse (GD,β) solar cosθ = cosβcos(ϕs + 90 )sinΣ + sinβcosΣ, Westorintedcollector
radiation, a new component called reflected solar radiation (GR) is (32)
added to form the global solar radiation incident on a tilted surface. On the other hand, the sun position can be found by calculating the
These components can be expressed by, sun altitude and azimuth. The altitude angle of the sun can be given by.
GT,β = GB,β + GD,β + GR (24)
3.7. PV output current and voltage
Equation (24) can be rewritten in terms of solar energy components
on a horizontal surface as follows,
In order to calculate the output power of the EWPV at both DC and
GT,β = GB RB + GD RD + GT ρRR (25) AC sides, equations (33–36) are used as below [19],
[( ) ]
ICT (t) ( )
where RB, RD and RR are coefficients and ρ is ground Aledo. RB is the IDC = *NP *Im − αI Tc − TRef *ηWire *ηDC− DC (33)
IRef
ratio between global solar energy on a horizontal surface and global
solar energy on a tilt surface. RD is the ratio between diffuse solar energy
VDC = (NS *Vm ) − αV (Tc − TRef ) (34)
on a horizontal surface and diffuse solar energy on a tilted surface and
RR is the factor of reflected solar energy on a tilted surface.

11
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

Fig. 14. East-west grid connected PV system installed in Palestine.

Fig. 15. Experimental validation of the proposed model for east–west oriented PV system output power.

IDC oriented PV system. The calculation of the optimum tilt angle here can
IAC = (35)
αIDC /IAC be done iteratively by simulating equation (25) to calculate the hourly
collected solar radiation through the year for each hour in the year. Then
VDC the sum of these values represents the annual collected solar energy in
VAC = (36)
αVDC /VAC the year. This process is repeated for a range of tilt angle values from 0 to
90 degrees and based on the maximum annual solar energy amount, the
4. Optimum tilt angle methodology optimum tilt angle is recommended. To illustrate this process, the
following steps should considered when optimally selecting EWPV title
The recommended tilt angle for east–west oriented PV system is for angle,
sure different from the recommended tilt angle for north or south Step 1: obtain solar radiation on horizontal surface, including direct

12
T. Khatib and R. Deria
and diffuse solar radiation as well as system specification and ground
reflection factor. The solar radiation data can be obtained either by
measurement or by the proposed clear sky model in equations ((19)-
(23)).
Step 2: setting a value of tilt angle then by using Lui and Jordan mode
(anisotropic model) Equations ((26)-(29)), the components of solar ra­
diations on this tilted surface is obtained including direct, diffuse and
reflected solar radiation.
Step 3: System output is calculated including instantaneous power an
accumulated energy (kWh per year).
Step 4: this process is repeated for tilt angles from 0 to 90 and then
comparison is conducted to find out the angle that produces the highest
energy yield per year.
5. Results and discussion
In this research, a comparison considering a system that has a ca­
pacity of 834 kWp is conducted considering both orientation; east–west
and south orientations. The system’s input is the same as the layouts
shown in Figs. 3a and 3b. Here the comparison is done by first,
comparing the performance of both systems. Then this comparison is
validated by using PVsyst software. After that the cost of both systems is
analyzed. Finally the proposed model is validated by a real east–west
system installed in Palestine.
5.1. System performance of the proposed model
An east–west PV system that has a capacity of 834 kWp is modeled
and simulated for a year time in this research. Then the performance of
the system is compared to a south oriented PV system. The optimum tilt
angle value is found to be seven degrees. Fig. 8 shows the optimization
process pf the tilt angle for EWPV.
Meanwhile, Fig. 9 shows a three days sample of system performance
for August month. Meanwhile Table 1 shows a comparison between
these systems.
From Table 1, it is very clear that the east–west oriented PV system
generates about 93.6% of the energy generated by the south oriented PV
system. However, the generated energy in the east–west oriented PV
system is produced at the half power of the south oriented PV system.
5.2. PVsyst validation
In order to validate the proposed model, PVsyst software is used to
simulate both systems. Fig. 10 shows the layout of the east–west ori­
ented PV system with shading analysis. On the other hand, Fig. 11 show
the model of the south oriented PV system.
On the other hand, Figs. 12 and 13 shows the production of east–west
PV system and south oriented PV system respectively in terms of energy
and yield factor.
From PVsyst figures, it is clear that both systems have acceptable
shading losses, while the daily yield factor of the east–west oriented PV
system is about 93.3% of the daily yield factor of the south oriented PV
system. These results support the results generated by the proposed
model and shows its accuracy in simulating system’s performance.
5.3. Cost comparison
This subsection shows a comparison considering the capital cost of
both systems by breaking the capital cost into five main elements which
are photovoltaic modules, inverters and monitoring systems, DC and AC
wiring system, mounting system and steel structure, electrical power
substation and system installation and supervision.
In this paper the profitability of both photovoltaic systems is evalu­
ated by using Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) economic model. This model
utilizes a well-known methodology, that includes three indicators which
are Net Present Value (NPV), Payback Period Time (PPT) and Levelized
13
Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810
Cost of Electricity (LCOE).
Table 2 shows price comparison of these systems. From the Table, it
is very clear that the east–west oriented PV system is cheaper than the
south oriented PV system by about 9.1%. This is mainly due to the
savings occurred in the mounting and steel structure as the east–west PV
oriented system requires less number of steel beams as well as smaller
steel beam in some cases. Moreover, there is more saving in the electrical
power station as less capacity is required in the case of using east–west
oriented PV system However, the east west PV oriented system costs
slightly more in the DC and AC installation including the electrical
power station.
Here the comparison is only for the capital costs, but to provide
better comparison, the land area requirement should be also considered.
As a results, when using east–west PV oriented system about 15–20% of
the land area is saved. Moreover, the east–west PV oriented system
causes less harmonics to the power grid. This is to say that in case of
having penalty schemes for harmonics, these penalties should be
considered when comparing both system.
On the hand, as shown in subsections 5.1 and 5.2, the south oriented
PV system produces energy more than the east–west PV oriented PV
system by (7–10)%.
Table 1 Cost comparison of 834 kWp PV system that is oriented to the
south and east–west.
Here, to have an accurate conclusion on the feasibility of using
east–west PV system, a simple feasibility study is conducted in Table 3.
From the table it is very clear that both systems have the same feasibility
and thus, it is much better to compare these systems technically
considering the impact of the system on the electrical grid.
5.4. Proposed model validation
In this research a 112 kWp that is oriented toward east–west system
is used to validate the proposed model and to evaluate the performance
of the system. This system is installed in Birzeit city in Palestine. The
system is connected to the grid via two 53 kW solar inverters. In this
system, the east string (56 kWp) is connected to one of the solar inverters
(53 kWp). Similarly, the west part (56 kWp) is connected to the grid via
the second 53 kWp inverter. Fig. 14 shows a capture of the system.
To validate the proposed model a comparison, the performance of on
the 21st of June 2021 is used. Fig. 15 shows the actual performance
versus the output of the proposed model. According to the results the
mean absolute percentage error is in the range of (1.2–4.5)%.
5.5. EWPV versus SPV
Based on the previous analysis, it is very clear that both systems have
the same profitability, however, there are still some other aspects that
can be considered when deciding to choose an east–west oriented PV
system or south oriented PV system as below.
A. Land use: it is very obvious that when using EWPV, land area is
saved, and here when land value (alternative investment opportunity) is
more important than energy production such as in agriculture zones,
city centers or sites with culture heritage, EWPV are preferred. However,
in case in case of lands with low investment value, SPV are preferred.
B. Financing model: The financing model of the system is very
important also when deciding which system to choose. If it is required to
have the same energy production for both system, the capacity of EWPV
system will be bigger than the SPV system. This means that the initial
investment cost will be higher for EWPV as compared to SPV. In this case
if the financing model of the system is based on loans with interests, the
SPV are preferred the interest value will be higher for EWPV.
C. Need for Power not Energy: In some system such as solar
charging systems (battery) or solar pumping systems, SPV are preferred
as its offers high power that will assure much better performance as
compared to EWPV.
D. Environmental impact: Considering the environmental impact
T. Khatib and R. Deria
of both systems, waste, for example, when having same capacity of both
systems is less for EWPV as compared to SPV as the SPV requires more
steel and concrete. This leads us to less CO2 emission when
manufacturing the excess steel and concrete when using EWPV. More­
over, considering the land use, EWPV offers less harm on flora and
fauna.
E. Co-utilization: EWPV system can better in terms of co-utilization
considering the agro-PV activities as it offers more suitable ambient for
the plants and it also can be installed over greenhouses.
F. Grid integration: As mentioned earlier, EWPV offers less negative
impact on the grid consider harmonics, voltage stability, reverse power.
Moreover, it reduces the impact of system output fluctuation due to the
nature of the solar sourse.
G: Maintenance and Cleaning: SPV offers better condition for
maintenance and cleaning considering the spaces between arrays. Thus,
the cost of maintenance and cleaning in case of large systems is more for
EWPV as compared to SPV.
E: Power substation required: the requirement of power substation
that is integrating EWPV is less than the requirement of power sub­
station of SPV system. However, in case of low tilt angle of EWPV sys­
tem, the system is more horizontal and thus, the difference between
power substations for EWPV and SPV is not that significant.
6. Conclusion
This research proposed a model development of east–west PV system
output power. Moreover, a comparison with south oriented PV system
considering system’s cost and technical requirement is proposed. The
proposed model is validated by commercial software called PVsyst as
well as an experimental data from a 112 PV system in Palestine. As for
the comparison results the following points show the main conclusions
of this research.
• Considering Palestine meteorology and location, the optimum tilt
angle of east–west system is found to be 7 degrees while the optimum
tilt angle of south oriented PV system is found to be 18 degrees.
• East-West oriented photovoltaic system requires less area of land as it
saves 10% of the areas as compared to the land area required for
south oriented photovoltaic system).
• Moreover, it is found that East-West oriented photovoltaic system
requires less cost for mounting piles and steel structure as it saves
24% of the costs required for south oriented photovoltaic system.
Mounting piles are shorter in EWPV system by 33%, where, the
required pile of ESPV length is one meter with a diameter of 50 cm.
The required reinforcement of this pile is 4ϕ10. On the other hand, a
1.5 m pile with a diameter of 50 cm and reinforcement of 7ϕ14 is
required when for SPV system mounting piles. As for steel structure
of EWPV, beams of 60x30x4 and columns of 100x50x4 are required.
Meanwhile, in SPV, beams of 70x70x4 and columns of 120x60x4 are
required
• East-West oriented photovoltaic system requires less capacity of the
interfacing power substation as it saves about 85% of the required
capacity and 21% of the required costs for electrical power substat­
ion as compared to the south oriented photovoltaic system. Here it is
worth to mention that the higher is the tilt angle of the PV system the
lower is the required power capacity of the electrical power sub­
station. This is because when having a EWPV with high tilt angle
(>20) the area of both east and west parts of the PV array that is
exposed to Sun is less
• However, it is also found that the south oriented photovoltaic system
produces more energy (8%) than East-West oriented photovoltaic
system.
• It is also found in this research that there is no significant difference
between the costs of energy for both systems whereas the cost of
energy in both cases is 0.403 and 0.423 USD per kWh for SPV and
EWPV respectively considering a system life time of 20 years.
14
Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810
• As for the payback period of both systems, it is found to be almost the
same considering a kWh export price of 0.1112 USD per kWh
Finally, it is concluded that for direct grid interfacing East-West
oriented PV system can provide smoother power injection to the grid
with fewer harmonic and less risk of having reverse power. On the other
hand, south oriented photovoltaic system is preferred when high power
injection is required.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tamer Khatib: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Reziq
Deria: Validation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – re­
view & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This research is supported by An-Najah National University Research
Grant No. ANNU-2122-Sc003.
Appendix
Matlab line code for the developed model
clc
clear
Ix = readtable(’RAM.xlsx’,’range’,’c6:c8789′ ) % hourly data for
global solar radiaiton
I = Ix.Var1;
% Isotropic diffuse model- example Page 92 -Solar Engineering of
Thermal Processes,Photovoltaics and Wind
lat = deg2rad(32);%latitude
beta = deg2rad(15);%slsope
surf_az = deg2rad(− 9 0);
t1 = datetime(2020,1,1,1,0,0);% Start date
t2 = datetime(2020,12,31,24,0,0);%end date
localTime = [t1:hours(1):t2;]’; % one year vector
n = day(localTime,’dayofyear’);%day of the year
B = deg2rad((n − 1) * (360 / 365));%angle of the day of the year in
radians
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% conver local to solar time
Lng = 35.2034;
lat = deg2rad(32);
Lng_std = round(Lng/15)*15 %local standard meridian
delta_std_meridian = minutes(4*(Lng_std-Lng));%standard meridian
E = minutes(229.2*(0.000075 + 0.001868*cos(B)-0.032077*sin(B)-
0.014615*cos(2*B)-0.04089*sin(2*B)));
t_solar = localTime + delta_std_meridian + E; %solar time
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% conver local to solar time
%%%%dec
%dec = 0.002679 * cos(3 * B) + 0.00148 * sin(3 * B)
*0.006918–0.399912 * cos(B) + 0.070257 * sin(B) − 0.006758 * cos(2 *
B) + 0.000907 * sin(2 * B) − 0.002679 * cos(3 * B) + 0.00148 * sin(3 *
B);
dec = 23.45*sind(360/365*(284 + n));
dec = deg2rad(dec);
%%%%dec
%%%%hour angel
T. Khatib and R. Deria Energy Conversion and Management 266 (2022) 115810

w = (t_solar.Hour + (t_solar.Minute/60)− 12)*15; Id = Id;

w = deg2rad(w); Rb = [Rb;0];
%%%%hour angel Ib = [Ib;0];
%%%%%%% hourly extraterrestrial radiation Id = [Id;0];
for i = 1:(length(n)-1) index = find(localTime=={’01-Jan-2020 10:00:00′ });
Io(i)=(12*3600)/pi*1367*(1 + 0.033*cosd(360/365*n(i)))*(cos fprintf(’20-Feb-2021 10:00:00 test is %4.2f.’)
(lat)*cos(dec(i))*(sin(w(1 + i))-sin(w(i)))+(w(i + 1)-w(i))*sin(lat)*sin disp(’ ’).
(dec(i))); fprintf(’Rb= %4.2f,Ib=%4.4f,Id=%4.4f,IT=%4.3f.’,Rb(index),Ib
%MJ/m2 unit (index),Id(index),IT(index))
end disp(’ ’)
Io(find(Io < 0)) = 0; % export data
Io = Io’; writematrix(IT,’East.csv’)
Io = Io/1000000*277; %%plot day 220%%
%%%%%%% hourly extraterrestrial radiation x = find(n==220);
I(end) = []; plot(I(x))
kT = I./Io; hold on
kT(isnan(kT)) = 0; plot(IT(x))
if kT > 2
kT = 2 References
end
for i = 1:length(kT) [1] Hussein HMS, Ahmad GE, El-Ghetany HH. Performance evaluation of photovoltaic
modules at different tilt angles and orientations. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45
if kT(i)<=0.22 (15):2441–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2003.11.013.
fac(i) = 1–0.09*kT(i); [2] Lahnaoui A, Stenzel P, Linssen J. Tilt angle and orientation impact on the techno-
elseif (0.22 < kT(i))&&(kT(i)<=0.8) economic performance of photovoltaic battery systems. Energy Procedia 2017;105:
4312–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.903.
fac(i) = 0.9511–0.1604*kT(i) + 4.388*kT(i)^2–16.638*kT(i) [3] Lahnaoui A, Stenzel P, Linssen J. Techno-economic analysis of photovoltaic battery
^3 + 12.336*kT(i)^4; system configuration and location☆. Appl Energy 2018;227:497–505. https://doi.
elseif kT(i) > 0.80 org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.09.093.
[4] Velik R. East-south-west orientation of PV systems and neighbourhood energy
fac(i) = 0.165; exchange to maximize local photovoltaics energy consumption. Int J Renew Energy
end Res 2014;4:566–70.
end [5] Chang TP. Performance study on the east–west oriented single-axis tracked panel.
Energy 2009;34(10):1530–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.06.044.
fac = fac’;
[6] Mondol JD, Yohanis YG, Norton B. The impact of array inclination and orientation
for i = 1:1:(length(dec)-1) on the performance of a grid-connected photovoltaic system. Renewable Energy
%%%%theta 2007;32(1):118–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.05.006.
cos_theta(i) = sin(dec(i)).* sin(lat).* cos(beta) - …. [7] Blumsack S, Brownson J, Rayl J. Matching Photovoltaic Orientation to Energy
Loads. In: in 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2010.
sin(dec(i)).* cos(lat).* sin(beta).* cos(surf_az) + …. p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.268.
cos(dec(i)).* cos(lat).* cos(beta).* cos((w(i + 1) + w(i))/2) + …. [8] Hartner M, Ortner A, Hiesl A, Haas R. East to west – The optimal tilt angle and
cos(dec(i)).* sin(lat).* sin(beta).* cos(surf_az).* cos((w(i + 1) + w orientation of photovoltaic panels from an electricity system perspective. Appl
Energy 2015;160:94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.097.
(i))/2) + …. [9] Zimmerman R, Panda A, Bulović V. Techno-economic assessment and deployment
cos(dec(i)).* sin(beta).* sin(surf_az).* sin((w(i + 1) + w(i))/2); strategies for vertically-mounted photovoltaic panels. Appl Energy 2020;276:
%%%%theta 115149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115149.
[10] Baumann T, Nussbaumer H, Klenk M, Dreisiebner A, Carigiet F, Baumgartner F.
%%%%thetazz Photovoltaic systems with vertically mounted bifacial PV modules in combination
cos_theta_z(i) = sin(dec(i)).* sin(lat) + cos(dec(i)).* cos(lat).* with green roofs. Sol Energy 2019;190:139–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cos((w(i + 1) + w(i))/2); solener.2019.08.014.
[11] Hasan A, Dincer I. A new performance assessment methodology of bifacial
%%%%thetazz photovoltaic solar panels for offshore applications. Energy Convers Manage 2020;
end 220:112972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112972.
theta = acos(cos_theta)’; [12] Guo M, et al. Optimal tilt angle and orientation of photovoltaic modules using HS
algorithm in different climates of China. Appl Sci 2017;7(10). https://doi.org/
th_z = acos(cos_theta_z)*180/pi’;
10.3390/app7101028.
bad_values = find(th_z > 87); [13] Yano A, et al. Shading and electrical features of a photovoltaic array mounted
cos_theta_z(bad_values) = 1; inside the roof of an east–west oriented greenhouse. Biosyst Eng 2010;106(4):
cos_theta(cos_theta < 0) = 0; 367–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.04.007.
[14] Johnson J, Yoon D, Baghzouz Y. Modeling and analysis of a bifacial grid-connected
p = 0.6; %albedo photovoltaic system. IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting 2012;2012:
Id = I.*fac; %diffuse radiation 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345266.
Ib = I-Id; %beam radiation [15] Litjens GBMA, Worrell E, van Sark WGJHM. Influence of demand patterns on the
optimal orientation of photovoltaic systems. Sol Energy 2017;155:1002–14.
Rb = [cos_theta./cos_theta_z]’; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.07.006.
%HDKR model [16] Ramanan P, Kalidasa Murugavel K, Karthick A, Sudhakar K. Performance
Ai = Ib./Io; evaluation of building-integrated photovoltaic systems for residential buildings in
southern India. Build Services Eng Res Technol 2019;41(4):492–506. https://doi.
f = sqrt(Ib./I); org/10.1177/0143624419881740.
IT=(Ib + Id.*Ai).*Rb + Id.*(1-Ai).*((1 + cos(beta))/2).* (1 + f. [17] Sheffield Solar’s Microgen Database (http://www.microgen-database.org.uk/)
*sin(beta/2)^3) + I.*p* ((1-cos(beta))/2); Accessed on 28.01.2022.
[18] The solar park Hölzengraben in Kaiserslautern supplies energy for own
IT(isnan(IT)) = 0; consumption (https://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/ibc-solar-east-west-solar-
IT = [IT;0]; park-own-consumption-germany).
IT = IT; [19] Khatib T, Elmenreich W. Modeling of photovoltaic systems using Matlab: simplified
green codes. Wiley; 2016.
Ib = Ib;

15