See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335859373

How to maximize the kWh/kWp ratio: simulations of single-axis tracking in

bifacial systems

Conference Paper · October 2018

DOI: 10.4229/35thEUPVSEC20182018-6BO.7.5

CITATIONS READS

11 257

9 authors, including:

Gaby Janssen Antonius R. Burgers

None ECN part of TNO
93 PUBLICATIONS   3,053 CITATIONS    95 PUBLICATIONS   2,206 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anna J. Carr Bas B. Van Aken

TNO TNO
37 PUBLICATIONS   709 CITATIONS    116 PUBLICATIONS   2,968 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

BIFOROT bifacial test field View project

PV GREEN ROOF SYSTEMS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gaby Janssen on 09 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 35th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition

HOW TO MAXIMIZE THE KWH/KWP RATIO: SIMULATIONS OF SINGLE-AXIS TRACKING IN

BIFACIAL SYSTEMS

G.J.M. Janssen1 (janssen@ecn.nl), A.R. Burgers1, A. Binani1, A.J. Carr1, B.B. Van Aken1, I.G. Romijn1
M. Klenk2, H. Nussbaumer2, T. Baumann2
1. ECN part of TNO, Solar Energy, Westerduinweg 3, NL-1755 LE Petten, The Netherlands
2. Zurich University of Applied Sciences, SoE, Institute of Energy Systems and Fluid Engineering
Technikumstrasse 9, 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland

ABSTRACT: The energy yield of PV systems with horizontal single-axis tracking and bifacial panels was calculated
using BIGEYE. BIGEYE is a versatile code developed at ECN part of TNO to calculate the yield of bifacial PV.
Comparison to recent measured data with the BIFOROT set-up at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences showed
very good agreement. Our BIGEYE results show that the bifacial energy gain and the tracking gain are mostly
additive, making the combination of bifacial panels and tracking a very attractive option. For two different locations,
Doha and Amsterdam, increases of energy yield in the order of 25% compared to monofacial, fixed tilt systems are
possible at relatively modest ground cover values.
Keywords: Bifacial, Energy performance, Tracking, Simulation.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 BIGEYE SIMULATION CODE

The yield of a PV system can be improved by making
the most of the available sun light. Apart from using cells
and modules with a high conversion efficiency, there are
two other ways to achieve this. The first is not to waste
the light incident on the rear, i.e. use bifacial panels. The
second way is to maximize the direct, or beam
component of the irradiation by tracking the sun. For
large scale applications Horizontal Single Axis Tracking
(HSAT) is a very practical, reliable way (compared to 2-
axis-tracking) but uses more area than fixed tilt (FT)
fields. Monofacial HSAT systems produce in the range of
20% more energy than monofacial FT systems [1].
On the other hand, bifacial PV farms are becoming
more and more common. Bifacial cells and modules are
now available at limited additional cost. Depending on
the location, climate and the albedo values, they can
produce 20% or even more energy than monofacial
systems [2].
Although no significant technological barriers seem
to prevent combining HSAT and bifaciality, there some
concerns whether the advantages of bifaciality are
maintained in a HSAT configuration, since the
maximized beam direct beam will cause a significant
shade of the panels on the ground. Recently, a few
studies have been published that show promising yield
for HSAT with bifacial panels [3-6].
We present a simulation study using BIGEYE, the
bifacial energy yield model for PV systems developed at
ECN part of TNO. Features of this model are explained
in the next section and we present validation of the model
by comparison to measured data of the Bifacial Outdoor
Rotor Tester at ZHAW. After discussing geometrical
parameters that affect the bifacial and HSAT gain, results
are presented for two different locations that will show
that bifacial gain and HSAT gain are to a good
approximation additive. This is especially relevant for
higher latitude (above 50°) where monofacial HSAT
would probably not be cost effective.
BIGEYE calculates the energy yield of bifacial PV
systems at a given location. Minimal inputs are the
module specifications and a set of time-dependent
meteorological data containing at least the Global
Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) and ambient temperature.
Diffuse Horizontal Irradiance (DHI) can be supplied or
calculated. If wind speed data is provided, it can be
included in the thermal model. Parts of this model were
published before [7,8].
The latest version of this model, BIGEYE V3, is very
flexible in the geometry of the PV field. It can treat fixed-
tilt (FT) systems with any surface azimuth angle as well
as HSAT configurations. The PV field can consist of
single or multiple arrays, each having any number of
rows and columns of modules. The model is therefore not
limited to infinitely long arrays or stand-alone modules;
essentially PV fields of all sizes can be modelled. This
means also edge effects, i.e. modules at the edge of an
array receiving different irradiance can be treated.
Moreover, tilt angles and row-to-row distances in the
field can be non-uniform as illustrated by Fig. 1.
The total front and rear irradiance is calculated at
(sub)cell level, where the position of the cell in the
Figure 1: Beam/direct irradiance on module
surfaces illustrating the flexibility in field
geometry BIGEYE can handle. Note the modules
have exaggerated transparency to show shadow on
shadow effects.

1573
 35th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition

system, as well as the length, width, ground clearance

2.0
and pitch of the arrays are determining how much
irradiance is received at specific insolation conditions.
1.5
The ground-reflected (albedo) irradiance is an

Yield [kWh]
essential feature of bifacial yield modelling. In BIGEYE measured
1.0
this ground-reflected irradiance considers the geometry PVSyst
of the system: both the direct and diffuse irradiance BIGEYE V2
0.5
incident on the ground are limited by adjacent arrays BIGEYE V3
(self-shading), as well as the part of the ground that can
0.0
be ”seen” by the surface of the panel (view factor 0 10 15 18 21 25 30 35 40 45 60 90
approach). The self-shading is the main reason why the
Tilt [degree]
irradiance on a bifacial panel is non-uniform. In BIGEYE
V3 all view factors, from panel the ground as well as to
the sky are fully 3D and numerically calculated. Of PVSyst BIGEYE V2 BIGEYE V3
course, direct shading is also accounted for in the model; 8%
but panels can be partly transparent, reducing the direct
shading and self-shading. Angle-of-incidence dependent 4%

Relative Δ [%]
reflectance of the direct component on front and rear is
used; effective angles of incidence are used for diffuse 0%
0 10 15 18 21 25 30 35 40 45 60 90
and ground-reflected irradiance on front and rear.
The electrical output is calculated with a full -4%
electrothermal model based on the single-diode equation
describing the module output, with temperature-corrected -8%
coefficients. The operating temperature of the cells is Tilt [degree]
obtained from a heat balance, considering the appropriate
irradiance absorption coefficient for front and rear Figure 3: The measured output of the BIFOROT
irradiance [9]. The generated current IL in the module is system and simulation results (top). The bottom
calculated according to the equivalent or compensated figure shows the relative deviations of the simulated
current method: from the measured data.

IL ∝ Gfront + φ Grear (1)

with Gfront and Grear the irradiance on front and rear,
respectively, and φ bifaciality factor of the module (the
ratio of the rear-side and front-side efficiency at STC
conditions).
Direct shading on cells by adjacent arrays and objects
leads to a further reduction of power output depending on
the configuration of the diode-protected blocks. This
power reduction is calculated with the Rodrigo model
[10]. For the much smaller mismatch resulting from the
mismatch in current due to non-uniform rear-irradiance a
correction is used based on the relative standard deviation
in the total current [11].
The major part of the BIGEYE code was written in-
house, but use has been made of code available in the
library provide by the PV Performance Modelling
Collaborative [12].
Figure 2: BIFOROT on the roof of ZHAW. The
presented results were measured with 0.75 m height
of the rotation axis above the ground. The pitch of
the rows is 2.86 m and the ground albedo was
measured to be 51%. The measured module is
indicated as M2.
3 VALIDATION WITH BIFOROT EXPERIMENTS
Data from the Bifacial Outdoor Rotor Tester
(BIFOROT) at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences
(ZWAH) were used to validate the BIGEYE approach.
The BIFOROT is an experimental tool to understand and
optimize bifacial PV systems. It consists of three rows of
four modules oriented toward the south and continuously
rotating with 12 steps between 0° and 90° tilt angle in a
one-minute cycle (Fig. 2). In this way the set-up mimics
twelve fixed-tilt configurations at the same conditions.
The output of a bifacial module in the center of the set-up
(M2) is continuously monitored, as well as the local
meteorological data. More details can be found in [13-
14].
Fig. 3 shows the measured accumulated energy
produced during a single sunny day (15 October 2017) at
each angle. We compare this to results from 1)
simulations by BIGEYE V3, 2) the previous BIGEYE
version (V2) and 3) and simulations with a bifacial
version of PVSyst [19]. Also shown are the relative
deviations of the simulations from measured data. All
simulated yields are close to the measured yield and
capture the tilt dependency well, but the BIGEYE V3
data are within 2% accuracy at moderate angles and
within 3% at extreme angles like 0° and 90°. It should be
mentioned that PVSyst states their code is only suited for
tilt angles up to 60°. Further analysis is ongoing, but the
main difference in the two versions of BIGEYE was
found in the model describing the division of diffuse light
into isotropic diffuse and circumsolar irradiation, i.e. the
Perez [15] used in V3 and the Hay-Davies [16] model
used in V2. More results on the BIFOROT validation will
be presented elsewhere.

1574
 35th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition

hub
height

pitch

Figure 6: The rear irradiance on a module as a

Figure 4: Schematic of a HSAT geometry with function of the distance to the edge of the tracker,
definition of the normalized parameters GCR and H. relative to the rear irradiance at the center of the
tracker.

(Fig. 4). By using the normalized parameters, the results

4 HSAT SYSTEM GEOMETRY
In the remainder of this paper we considered trackers
with a North-South oriented axis. To minimize shading
effects backtracking was assumed according to the
algorithm in [17]. A parameter with a strong effect on the
yield is the distance between trackers, expressed by the
Ground Cover Ratio (GCR) which is the collector width
divided by the tracker pitch as illustrated in Fig. 4. In the
case of bifacial PV, the distance of the panel to the
scattering ground is an important parameter [18]. For
HSAT this distance is characterized by the parameter H,
i.e. the height of the axis divided by the collector width
8%
Doha Amsterdam
6%
Δ annual yield
on irradiance are independent of actual configuration, i.e.
whether the panels are in landscape or portrait orientation
and how many panels there are in the direction
perpendicular to the axis. Of course, the actual layout will
influence the electrical system output when the full
electrical string is considered. Also, even though back
tracking avoids shading on the front, the rear irradiance
on the panels will depend on their position on the tracker,
making the tracker length another parameter. Finally, the
total number of trackers in the field determines the total
shading on the ground.
In this study we considered 19 panels with their long
side parallel to the tracker axis with the axis (virtually)
positioned in the center of the panel. Meteorological data
were synthetically generated from monthly average
values in PVGIS [20] using PVSyst with one-hour
resolution [21]. We considered two locations, one with a

high beam component, i.e. Doha at 25° latitude (annual

GHI 2273 kWh/m2, annual DHI 774 kWh/m2,
4% DHI:GHI=0.34) and Amsterdam at 51° latitude, where
the diffuse component is dominant (annual GHI 1067
2% kWh/m2, annual DHI 566 kWh/m2, DHI:GHI=0.53).
Unless stated otherwise, a moderate ground reflection
0% coefficient (albedo) of 0.3 was assumed. The panels had a
0 2 4 6 front-side efficiency of 18 % and a bifaciality factor φ of
Normalized hub height H 0.8. The base case parameters of the simulations
considered the center tracker in a field of seven parallel
0% trackers with GCR=0.35 and H=0.75.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of the normalized axis height
Doha Amsterdam
-2% at both locations. As expected the yield increases with H
Δ annual yield

but the differences between the two locations are rather

-4% small. A more pronounced difference is found by varying
the number of trackers, compared to the annual yield for
-6% an isolated tracker. Next to the reduced view factors to
the sky and to the ground for a none-edge tracker, the
-8% shaded area on the ground is larger at higher latitudes
1 4 7 10 leading to a larger reduction in the electrical output.
# parallel trackers Notice that that with seven trackers the yield of the
Figure 5: The change in annual energy yield of a central tracker seems representative for the yield of a
bifacial HSAT tracker as function of the normalized tracker in a larger field. The above results are in good
hub height (top). Considered is the central tracker in agreement with other, recently published simulation
a field of seven parallel trackers. The bottom figure results [5,6].
shows the change in energy yield of a tracker in a Noteworthy is also that in both locations there is a
field with a given number of trackers compared to large increase of the rear irradiance at the ends of the
an isolated tracker. tracker, especially at the south end (Fig. 6), as also
observed in [6]. Whether this additional irradiance can be
harvested depends on electrical (string) arrangement of
the field. When the whole tracker is in one string the non-

1575
 35th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition

uniform irradiance will lead to mismatch losses, which

could outweigh the irradiance gain. Note that we expect 400

Integrated irradiance [Wh/m2]

HSAT FT
such mismatch losses to be small as the uniform front- 2831 2396
Front
side illumination of the tracked panels is dominating [11]. 300 kWh/m2
The ground cover ratio GCR will have a strong
impact on the output of both monofacial and bifacial 200
configu-rations and this will be discussed in the next
section. 100

0
5 BIFACIAL AND TRACKING GAINS 0 6 12 18 24
Hour
Fig. 7 compares for two locations the calculated gains
with respect to monofacial panels in a fixed-tilt 50

Integrated irradiance [Wh/m2]

HSAT FT
configuration that can be obtained by using, respectively, Rear
289 312
bifacial panels in a FT configuration, HSAT with kWh/m 2
monofacial panels, and HSAT with bifacial panels. For
the FT systems an optimized tilt was used, i.e. tilt angles 25
varied between 12° and 25° at Doha and 10° to 36° at
Amsterdam, depending on the GCR. Note, that by
considering a central row in a seven row FT field or a
central tracker in a seven tracker HSAT field, these 0
results are representative for a large field. The FT bifacial 0 6 12 18 24
gain increases with GCR, reaching values up to 10 % at Hour
both locations at an assumed albedo of 0.3. HSAT gains
are even more strongly dependent on the GCR. For Doha, Figure 8: The total annual irradiance on the front
with a strong direct component in the light, substantial and rear of a panel in a HSAT and a FT
HSAT gains are calculated. At a higher latitude, such as configuration at Doha.
Amsterdam, the HSAT gain is much more modest.
Moreover, Fig. 5 shows that the extra yield that is
Doha: obtained when substituting monofacial panels by bifacial
HSAT - bif HSAT - mono FT - bif panels in a FT system, is also found in the case of HSAT.
This implies that the advantages of bifaciality are not lost
40%
in a HSAT configuration.
albedo 0.2-0.5 In Fig. 8 the annual irradiance distributions on the
Gain wrt FT mono

30%
front and rear of a central panel in a HSAT configuration
are compared to a FT configuration for the Doha
Doha:20% location. As expected, the gain in front side irradiance is
10% HSAT - bif HSAT - mono FT - bif during the morning and afternoon, with some reduction
around noon when the tilt angle is 0°, i.e. lower than
40%
0% optimal. The total irradiance gain on the front is in the
albedo 0.2-0.5 order of 18 %, comparable to the monofacial HSAT gain
30% 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
Gain wrt FT mono

Ground Cover Ratio seen in Fig. 7. At the rear the irradiance is much smaller,
20%
and there is a loss for the HSAT compared to FT in the
morning and afternoon but a gain around noon, leading
Amsterdam: overall to almost equal rear irradiances in both
10%
HSAT - bif HSAT - mono FT - bif configurations. More detailed analyses have shown that
0%
40% at the rear the reflected irradiance is lower for HSAT than
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 for FT, but this is compensated by additional diffuse
albedo 0.2-0.5
Ground Cover Ratio irradiance. For other GCR and the Amsterdam location
Gain wrt FT mono

30%
similar compensating effects were found for the reflected
20% and diffuse irradiance at the rear.
Amsterdam: Considering again Fig. 7 it can be concluded that
10% HSAT - bif HSAT - mono FT - bif depending on the additional cost of trackers, HSAT will
40% be less profitable in Amsterdam than in Doha because of
0% the lower expected relative and absolute gains. Whereas
albedo 0.2-0.5
30% 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 in Doha bifacial panels would add about 50% additional
Gain wrt FT mono

Ground Cover Ratio gain to the HSAT gain, deploying bifacial panels in
20% Amsterdam would about double the HSAT gain, making
Figure 7: Calculated gains with respect to HSAT a viable option in Amsterdam, even at modest
monofacial panels in a fixed-tilt configuration that GCR.
can10%be obtained by using, respectively, bifacial
The yield of a bifacial system increases with the
panels in a FT configuration,(orange) HSAT with albedo, i.e. the ground reflection coefficient. In Fig. 7 it is
0%
monofacial panels (blue dashed lines), and HSAT indicated that with albedo values of 0.5, which are not
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
with bifacial panels (blue solid lines). For the FT unrealistic, the gains can go up by 5% absolute which
Ground Cover Ratio
systems an optimized tilt was used. The assumed
brings bifacial HSAT gains in the order of 30 % within
Figure
albedo x:was 0.3 but the green lines indicate the reach for both locations.
variation in gain for albedo between 0.2 and 0.5.

1576
 35th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition

6 CONCLUSIONS Data Workshop, 59. Ministry of Supply and Services,

Canada.
The new BIGEYE simulation tool to calculate [17] E. Lorenzo, M. Pérez, A. Ezpeleta, and J. Acedo,
bifacial energy yield was validated against BIFOROT Progress in Photovoltaics 10, (2002) 533–543.
data. The total yield of bifacial HSAT PV will depend on [18] U. A. Yusufoglu, T. M. Pletzer, L. J. Koduveli-
geometry parameters such as GCR and hub height. Based kulathu, C. Comparotto, R. Kopecek, and H. Kurz,
on our simulations we think increases of energy yield in IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics 5 (2015) 320.
the order of 25% compared to monofacial, fixed tilt [19] A. Mermoud an B. Wittmer, 4th Bifacial Workshop,
systems are possible at relatively modest ground cover Konstanz, Germany 2017. http://bifipv-
ratio. workshop.com/
The BIGEYE simulations show that bifacial energy [20] PVGIS, 2013,
gain and HSAT gain are mostly additive, making the http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php# .
combination of bifacial panels and HSAT a very [21] PVsyst V6, Photovoltaic System Software, 2013,
attractive option. Especially at latitudes above 50° www.pvsyst.com.
bifacial panels can double the yield gain of a horizontal
single axis tracking system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

BIGEYE was developed in the project BING, Dutch

TKI Solar Energy and in the project BIFACE,
Netherlands Enterprise Agency, solar-era.net.

REFERENCES

[1] T. Huld, M. Šúri, and T. Cebecauer, Photovoltaics

International 6 (2009).
[2] R. Kopecek, Y. Veschetti, E. Gerritsen, A. Schneider,
C. Comparotto, V. D. Mihailetchi, J. Lossen, J. Libal,
Photovoltaics International 26 (2015).
[3] I. Shoukry, J. Libal, R. Kopecek, E. Wefringhaus,
and J. Werner, Energy Procedia 92 (2016) 600.
[4] A. Lindsay , M. Chiodetti, D. Binesti, S. Mousel, E.
Lutun, K. Radouane, and J. Christopherson, 32nd
EUPVSEC, München Germany, Europe (2016).
[5] D.Berrian, J.Libal, M. Klenk, H. Nussbaumer, R.
Kopecek, Proc. 7th WCPEC, Hawaii (2018).
[6] S. Ayala Pelaez, C. Deline, P. Greenberg, J. Stein,
R.K. Kostuk, Proc. 7th WCPEC, Hawaii (2018).
[7] G. J. M. Janssen, B. B. Van Aken, A. J. Carr, and A.
A. Mewe, Energy Procedia 77 (2015) 364.
[8] G.J.M. Janssen, A.J. Carr, B.B. Van Aken, and I.G.
Romijn, 26th Asian PVSEC (2016).
[9] M.W.P.E. Lamers, E. Özkalay, R.S.R. Gali, G.J.M.
Janssen, A.W. Weeber, I.G. Romijn, B.B. Van Aken,
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 185 (2018)
192.
[10] P. Rodrigo, E. F. Fernández, F. Almonacid, and P. J.
Pérez-Higueras, Sol. Energy (2013) 322-333.
[11] G. J. M. Janssen, R. S. R. Gali, K. M. de Groot, A. J.
Carr, B. B. Van Aken, and I. G. Romijn, 33rd
EUPVSEC, Amsterdam (2017).
[12] PV Performance Modelling Collaborative,
https://pvpmc.sandia.gov.
[13] T. Baumann, M. Klenk, H. Nussbaumer, F. Baum-
gartner, N. Keller, 3th Bifacial Workshop Miyazaki,
Japan, 2016. http://bifipv-workshop.com.
[14] T. Baumann, M. Klenk, H. Nussbaumer, F. Baum-
gartner, N. Keller, 4th Bifacial Workshop Konstanz,
Germany, 2017. http://bifipv-workshop.com/
[15] R. Perez, P. Ineichen, R. Seals, J. Michalsky, and R.
Stewart, Solar Energy, 44 (1990) 271.
[16] J.E. Hay, and J.A Davies, 1980. In: J.E. Hay, T.K
Won,. (Eds.), Proc. of First Canadian Solar Radiation

1577
View publication stats