Solar EnergyVol. 46, No. 4, pp.

211-217, 1991

00384)92X/91 $3.00 + .00

Copyright 1991 Pergamon Press plc

Printed in the U.S.A.

CENTRAL-STATION SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS:

FIELD LAYOUT, TRACKER, A N D ARRAY GEOMETRY
SENSITIVITY STUDIES
J. M. GORDON and HOWARDJ. WENGER*
Applied Solar Calculations Unit, Jacob Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of
the Negev, Sede Boqer Campus 84993, Israel and The Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering
Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel
Abstract--The optimal design of central-station photovoltaic (PV) systems depends, among other factors,

on the field layout of PV arrays, PV array geometry, tracking constraints, and intermodule electrical connections. We illustrate the sensitivityof yearly PV system energy delivery losses that stem from inter-array
shading as a function of key field, tracker, and array-related variablesfor flat-plates. The results turn out, to
an excellent approximation, to be independent of site. We quantitatively assess the magnitude of series/
parallel module connections, and bypass diode placement within arrays, on energy losses attributable to
inter-array shading. The sensitivity to key design parameters is also found to be predicted accurately by
calculations of collectible energy only. As such, the calculations are of general value for rapid yet accurate
PV system analysis and optimization.

1. INTRODUCTION
Central-station photovoltaic (PV) systems, with direct
power delivery to the utility grid and no energy storage,
are among the most widespread photovoltaic applications to date[l-5 ]. Their sizes range from several
kilowatts to over 6 megawatts peak. Almost all installations have employed fiat-plate (nonconcentrating)
PV collectors, with stationary deployment or with oneaxis or two-axis tracking. Our analyses below accordingly pertain to flat-plate PV arrays only, for both
tracking and stationary deployment.
Design tools developed to date [ 6-8 ] account for
primary design parameters such as (i) PV module
characteristics (current-voltage curves and their dependence on PV temperature and solar flux); (ii) heat
loss from PV arrays; (iii) average solar flux on the PV
arrays and the statistics of solar flux values; and (iv)
collector deployment, e.g., tracker type and stationary
orientation. The latter is particularly important in assessing the impact of climate and latitude on long-term
(monthly to yearly) system energy delivery.
Secondary design parameters related to the field
layout of PV arrays, tracker rotation, and array geometry can have an equally important impact on energy delivery. The energetic aspect of the problem reduces to evaluation either of inter-array shading losses
or of collectible energy that is sacrificed due to tracking
limitations (described in detail below). The economic
aspect enters because more compact field layouts with
more limited array movement are less expensive in
terms of labor, wiring, land, trackers, wind loading,
and wiring and cabling power losses. Incomplete consideration of their significance has resulted in energy
* Present address: Pacific Gas & Electric Company, PhotovoltaicsGroup, Research & Development, 3400 Crow Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583, U.S.A.

delivery penalties or economic waste in several system

designs.
By secondary design variables, we refer specifically
to the selection of
1. Ground Cover Ratio (GCR), i.e., the ratio of PV
array area to total ground area for the system
2. Field spatial pattern for PV arrays, e.g., the spacing
between rows for stationary arrays and horizontal
one-axis trackers, or the number of nearest-neighbor
arrays for two-axis and polar-axis tracking systems,
as well as the additional freedom of "asymmetric"
layouts in which the north-south and east-west
spacing among arrays is not equal
3. Aspect ratio (width to height ratio) of PV arrays
4. Limited tracking angle
5. Series/parallel connections, and the number and
placement of bypass diodes, among the modules in
an array (since partial shading of an array will result
in different energy losses depending on how the
modules are connected electrically).
The key purpose of this paper is to offer illustrative
examples of the quantitative impact of each of these
factors on yearly energy delivery for central-station PV
systems and their sensitivity to variations from a given
set of baseline design parameters. The key quantitative
conclusions turn out to be site-independent. For example, the relative energy sacrifice associated with
variables such as limited tracking angle, and increased
GCR--as a fraction of yearly energy delivery--is found
to be insensitive to location. The results presented below are therefore of general applicability (at least for
low to mid latitudes).
Our calculations are based on recently developed
hourly computer simulation models [ 9,10 ] for centralstation PV systems (see the Appendix for details), the
accuracy of which has been compared favorably with
experimental data. All shading algorithms are derived

211

J. M. GORDON and H. J. WENGER

212

in detail in [10] and are based on straightforward albeit

tedious principles o f solar geometry.
2. GROUND-COVER RATIO, FIELD GEOMETRY,
AND ARRAY GEOMETRY

Shading losses increase with GCR. However, lower

G C R values correspond to higher system costs, and an
economic compromise is usually involved. We will illustrate only the energetic component of the problem
here.
For sensitivity studies, it is preferable to vary one
design parameter at a time. Accordingly, we define a
base-case scenario, which is listed in Table 1. This involves typical commercially available PV modules deployed as two-axis tracking flat-plate collectors, for a
relatively sunny climate at mid-latitude. The field layout is hexagonal, namely, each PV array has six equidistant nearest neighbors (see Fig. 1). For two-axis
trackers, the PV arrays are assumed to have an aspect
ratio of 1.0.
Field-edge effects are neglected because the field is
assumed to be sufficiently large that, during certain
hours of the day, the net energy contribution from
unshaded PV arrays situated in the outermost rows of
the field is negligible.
We also assume that the power output of an individual PV module vanishes when the module is even
partially shaded. This assumption basically corresponds
to employing a bypass (shunt) diode on every seriesconnected module, and is based on the liberal use of
bypass diodes in the central-station PV systems installed to date. The sensitivity of energy losses that
stem from shading on inter-module electrical connections will be considered explicitly in section 5.
Figure 2 is a plot of yearly shading losses as a fraction
of yearly energy delivery (at G C R = 0) versus GCR.

Table 1. Base-case scenario for a central-station

photovoltaic system
PV module property
40 polycrystalline silicon cells
in series
Open-circuit voltage (V(oc))
Short-circuit current (i(sc))
dV(oc)/dT
di(sc)/dT
Module series resistance
Diode quality factor (n)
per cell
Maximum power
Efficiency (r/)
Area
(optical) = ra
d(ln 0)/dT

Value
(at S.T.C.)

22.0
2.9
0.088
0.0027
0.5
1.054
48.0
0.101
0.474
0.82
0.004

Units

Volts
Amps
Volts/K
Amps/K
Ohms
Watts
Square
meters
At normal
incidence
I/K

S.T.C. = Standard Test Conditions of 25 C PV temperature

(T), one sun solar flux, and air mass 1.5 solar spectrum.
Site: El Paso, TX, U.S.A.; latitude = 31.8N.
SOLMET Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) hourly climatic data.
Ground albedo - 0.25.
Two-axis tracking fiat-plate arrays.
PV array aspect ratio = 1.0.
Field layout: hexagonal (symmetrical with six equidistant
nearest neighbors).
Maximum power point operation.
Inverter efficiency = 0.90 (constant).
Soiling, mismatch and resistive power losses = 0.04 of total
energy delivery.
Yearly A.C. energy delivery per module (at GCR = 0)
= 119 kWH.

(This definition of yearly shading losses applies to all

of the figures unless otherwise specified.) For comparison, Fig. 2 also shows the corresponding result for a

Esst-WestI
Distance
North-South
Distance

Fig. 1. Schematic of part of hexagonal field layout of PV arrays (for two-axis and polar-axis trackers).

Central-station solar photovoltaic systems

0.07
y
tstaa~itlarrlY0spa'and'
cing,
0.06 t is'trackainga,:qsU;-edci
o 0.05
0.04
i hexagOnalf i ~
~5
.....

0.03

!
1

0.07
0.06
..J 0,05

213

two*axistracking,hexagonalequila-yout
distaantrray
spacing,land
field
~'

array aspect ratio

"O

0.03

0.02

t~
>- 0.01
0

~Xsquarefield layout i
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

>, 0,02
~

~_ 0.01
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

aspect ratio = 3.0

0.2

Fig. 2. Yearly shading losses (as a fraction of yearly energy

delivery at GCR = 0) vs. GCR for two-axis tracking arrays
with equidistant array spacing and array aspect ratio of 1.0.
Upper curve - hexagonal field layout. Lower curve = square
field layout.

symmetrical square field layout, that is, four equidistant

nearest neighbors (see Fig. 3). Note that if G C R is
fixed, then the hexagonal and square layouts have a
different inter-array spacing.
It should be noted that the requirement that the
PV arrays never touch each other during their tracking
motion dictates a m a x i m u m G C R value, and that this
m a x i m u m G C R value is also affected by array aspect
ratio. The smaller the array aspect ratio, the larger the
m a x i m u m G C R value is. For example, for the symmetrical hexagonal field layout, the m a x i m u m G C R
values are 0.287 and 0.865 for array aspect ratios of
3.0 and 1.0, respectively. For the symmetrical square
field layout, the m a x i m u m G C R values are 0.333 and
1.0 for array aspect ratios of 3.0 and 1.0, respectively.
The sensitivity of yearly shading losses to array aspect

0.3

Fig. 4. As in Fig. 2, but for hexagonal field layout with array

aspect ratio of 1.0 (upper curve) and 3.0 (lower curve).
ratio is illustrated in Fig. 4 for two-axis tracking arrays
in a symmetrical hexagonal field layout.
It turns out that in all cases considered above, the
annual shading losses, expressed as a fraction of annual
energy delivery, are relatively insensitive to climate.
This observation is based on similar simulation runs
for U.S. SOLMET network climatic stations[l 1],
ranging from high-latitude cloudy sites to low-latitude
sunny locations, for which the numbers in Figs. 2 and
4 vary by approximately I%.
Figure 5 presents the corresponding results for (i)
stationary collectors at tilt = latitude and azimuth = 0;
(ii) north-south horizontal axis tracking; and (iii) polar
axis tracking (one-axis tracking about a north-south
axis inclined at a tilt angle equal to latitude). { Comm o n ranges of G C R values in actual PV installations
are 0.15-0.25 for two-axis trackers, and 0.45-0.60 for
one-axis horizontal trackers and stationary collec-

torsi1,5,10].}

East-West
Distance

North-South

0.25

Ground Cover Ratio

Ground Cover Ratio

Distance

Fig. 3. Schematic of part of square field layout of PV arrays (for two-axis and polar-axis trackers).

214

J. M. GORDONand H. J. WENGER
0.2

~)

1-

'

'

'

'

'

'

0.25

0.16
o
:15
-,
>,

o,

0.12

~
E

0.1

~ R

0.15

two-axis tracking, array aspect ratio = 1.0, and

hexagonal field layout

0.2

0.14

= 0.25

polar-axis tracking

0.08

north-south horizontal
axis tracking
tri:k'~ary

0.06

i
. . . . ys~

0.04
>"

0.18

0.02

fo~.

Ol

o.o5

>-

0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

GcR:020

o,

o
o

azimuth = 0
0

\1\

--

G r o u n d C o v e r Ratio

0.5

o
I
1.5

~ ~4~-'~GCR=
I
I
2

2.5

Ratio of E a s t - W e s t to N o r t h - S o u t h

.15
3

3.5

Array Spacing

Fig. 5. Yearly fractional shading losses(as in Fig. 2 ) vs. GCR.

= stationary arrays at tilt = latitude and azimuth = 0. +
= north-south horizontalaxistracking.[] = polar-axistracking
(array aspect ratio of 1.0).

Fig. 6. Y e a r l y f r a c t i o n a l s h a d i n g losses vs. t h e r a t i o o f e a s t west t o n o r t h - s o u t h a r r a y s p a c i n g f o r t w o - a x i s t r a c k i n g a r r a y s

w i t h a r r a y aspect r a t i o o f 1.0. H e x a g o n a l field l a y o u t . G C R

PV array aspect ratio does not affect the results for

cases (i) and (ii). The base-case array aspect ratio of
unity is taken for the polar axis tracker. GCR is determined solely by the north-south distance between
rows for the stationary arrays, and solely by the eastwest spacing for the one-axis horizontal tracker arrays.
At low GCR values, the stationary collectors are
the least sensitive to GCR. Shading losses in cases (i)
and (ii) become substantial only at GCR above around
0.6, with the one-axis horizontal tracker representing
lower fractional shading losses at very high GCR values.
In Figs. 2, 4, and 5, note that shading losses are
expressed as a fraction of yearly energy delivery without
shading losses, for each individual case. For example,
two-axis tracking yields considerably more yearly energy than the stationary collectors, but, at a given GCR,
the relative shading losses are larger for two-axis tracking. In absolute terms, the two-axis tracker, even with
shading losses, can deliver more energy even though
its relative shading losses are considerably larger. The
absolute yearly energy delivery as a function of tracking
mode has already been quantified in [ 12-14 ].
Two-axis tracking generally maximizes yearly energy delivery, but requires relatively low GCR values
and the higher costs associated with two degrees of
tracking freedom. Polar axis tracking is the energetically
best one-axis tracker, delivering around 97% of the
yearly energy of two-axis tracking [ 12-14 ]. Because
polar axis trackers usually are more limited in maximum tracking angle than two-axis trackers, due to
practical installation considerations, the figure of 97%
can be smaller.
Horizontal north-south one-axis tracking may be
the least costly of the continuous tracking modes, but
delivers only about 90% of the yearly energy of twoaxis trackers (at GCR = 0). It is the most tolerant to
shading losses that stem from higher GCR values. Eastwest one-axis tracking is not considered here since it
yields less yearly energy than north-south horizontal
tracking at the same nominal capital and operating
cost. Stationary collectors at tilt = latitude and azimuth
= 0 are the least expensive deployment option, and
are relatively tolerant to increasing GCR, but typically

achieve only 70%-75% of the yearly energy delivery

of two-axis tracking.
At GCR = 0, the following AC yearly energy delivery estimates, in kWH/module, were calculated for
the base-case parameters of Table 1:

= 0.15 (IE]), 0.20 ( + ) , and 0.25 ( ) .

stationary at tilt = latitude

north-south horizontal one-axis tracking
polar axis tracking
two-axis tracking

87
105
115
119

3. ARRAY SPACING FOR TWO-AXIS

TRACKING SYSTEMS
For two-axis trackers, several design studies and
system installations have used a field layout in which
the north-south and east-west spacing among PV arrays are nearly equal. However, this design is not a
necessary constraint for minimizing shading losses.
Fixed GCR may be required for example by economic
constraints. Assuming fixed GCR values of 0.15, 0.20
and 0.25, and using the base-case scenario of Table 1,
we plot in Figs. 6 and 7 yearly shading losses vs. the
ratio of east-west to north-south spacing among arrays
for the hexagonal and square field layouts, respectively
(north-south array spacing is automatically determined by east-west spacing if GCR is fixed).
The important observation here is the breadth of

0.25

F
I

0.2

~
~
q
r
two-axis tracking, array aspect ratio = 1.0. and
R = 0.25

square field layout

o
0.15

f~
>-

~GCR = 0.25

0.1

/,,,~'~-

0.05

~
i

0.5

Ratio of E a s t - W e s t

~
1.5

~ [~D
i___
2

to N o r t h - S o u t h

= ~'GCR = 0 15
i
I "
2.5

3.5

Array Spacing

Fig. 7. As in Fig. 6, for square field layout.

215

Central-station solar photovoitaic systems

the m i n i m u m , i.e., its relative tolerance to the asymmetry in north-south vs. east-west spacing. For symmetrical field layouts, the ratio of east-west to n o r t h south inter-array spacing is 1.155 for the hexagonal
field and 1.0 for the square field, both of which are
very close to the configurations that minimize shading
losses.
If deviation from the field layout that minimizes
shading losses is imperative, then it is preferable to
deviate in the direction of larger east-west spacing (at
the expense of smaller north-south spacing) at fixed
GCR. We also find that these results are relatively insensitive to climate.

oo

polar-axis

C/)

o.2 ! ~ .

0.1

tracking

GCR=OtS

GC

20

40

60

80

Maximum Rotation Angle (degrees)

Fig. 9. As in Fig. 8, but for polar-axis tracking and GCR

= 0.0 and 0.15.

4. LIMITATIONS ON TRACKING ANGLE

Wind loading can be a substantial expense in tracking systems, hence, the economic incentive to build
PV arrays as close to the ground as possible. However,
when the arrays are installed too close to the ground,
the m a x i m u m rotation angle may be limited in order
to prevent the arrays from touching the ground. In
addition, limiting the m a x i m u m rotation angle of
trackers usually corresponds to reduced tracker costs.
This limitation can be significant for one-axis trackers
and less so for two-axis trackers where the rotation
capability associated with the extra degree of freedom
reduces the problem markedly.
Figures 8 and 9 show the sensitivity of the sacrifice
in yearly energy delivery to the m a x i m u m rotation angle of north-south horizontal axis and of polar axis
trackers. A m a x i m u m rotation angle of 60 means
tracking freedom of +60 . Calculations are presented
for the cases of no shading ( G C R = 0) and shading at
typical GCR's. Yearly energy losses are calculated relative to the case of a 90 m a x i m u m rotation angle for
each G C R value. Figures 8 and 9 show the range of
yearly energy losses solely attributable to tracking angle
limitation.
Although the polar axis tracker can deliver more
energy, due to smaller incidence angles, it is more sensitive to limitations on m a x i m u m tracker rotation an-

0.3

o~
03

uJ

o~
>-

north-south horizontal
axis tracking

GCR = 0.0
0.2

0.1

GCR=0.5

20

40

60

80

Maximum Rotation Angle (degrees)

Fig. 8. Sacrifice in yearly energy delivery (relative to tracker

rotation angle of_+90 ) per PV module vs. maximum tracker
rotation angle (e.g., 60 denoting a tracking freedom of-+60 ).
North-south horizontal axis tracking. Results shown for GCR
= 0.0 and 0 . 5 .

gle. The horizontal axis tracker can accept a limitation

of as great as +45 before noticeable energy sacrifices
occur. The limit of 0 corresponds to a stationary collector, which means tilt = latitude for polar axis tracking and tilt = 0 for horizontal axis tracking.
5. IMPACY O F E L E C T R I C A L C O N N E C T I O N S

Our calculations thus far, denoted as "base case,'"

have assumed that if a PV module is even partially
shaded then its power output vanishes. This is basically
equivalent to assuming the use of negligibly dissipative
bypass (shunt) diodes on every module. However, due
to economic and electrical considerations, PV systems
are designed with (i) varying series/parallel electrical
connections among the modules of an array; and (ii)
varying bypass diode placement within arrays. Therefore the effect of inter-module electrical connections
on power losses that arise from inter-array shading is
not easily generalized.
In order to quantitatively assess the impact of PV
electrical connections within arrays, we generate the
upper and lower bounds on power losses due to shading
as follows. The upper bound is found by assuming that
shading of any part of the array results in zero power
output. The lower bound is calculated by assuming
that power losses are proportional to the shaded beam
radiation, where account is taken of the fact that there
is collectible diffuse and ground-reflected radiation even
when beam shading occurs. The losses in energy delivery due to shading for most PV systems designed to
date are closer to the lower bound as a consequence
of the liberal use of bypass diodes on series PV module
connections.
Figure 10 presents the fractional losses in yearly
energy delivery versus G C R for two-axis tracking flatplate PV arrays for three instances: (i) upper b o u n d
on shading losses; (ii) base case treatment of shading;
and (iii) lower bound on shading losses. At G C R values
of practical interest, the difference between the upper
and lower b o u n d cases is significant. The use and
placement of bypass diodes can therefore hardly be
neglected in optimized system designs.
Figures 11 and 12 illustrate the same point for flatplate PV arrays with (i) north-south horizontal track-

J. M. GORDONand H. J. WENGER

216

Sensitivity to Electrical Connections Among Modules

0.35
~,

Sensitivity to Electrical Connections Among Modules

0.8

two-axis tracking, array aspect ratio = 10. and

hexagonal field layout

0.3

0.7

0.25

stationary arrays, tilt = latitude, azimuth = 0

0.5
upper bound

o.15 !
0.1

i
base case

0.05
>"

I-

0.6

0.2

>,

I
~"

v-

0.05

~
0.1

l o w e r

0.15

0.2

bound

0.25

:,~

0.4

~CO

0.3

0.2

~.

0.1

upper bound

i
base case

0.3

0.2

0.4

Ground Cover Ratio

Fig. 10. Fractional yearly shading losses vs. GCR: sensitivity

to electrical connections among modules. Upper curve = upper bound case. Middle curve = base case. Lower curve
= lower bound case. Two-axis tracking, array aspect ratio of
1.0, and hexagonal field layout assumed.

ing; and (ii) stationary, tilt = latitude deployment, respectively. In terms of fractional shading losses, the
quantitative conclusions are rather similar (these collector deployments usually engendering considerably
larger G C R values than two-axis trackers). For all array
deployment strategies, however, it should be noted that
shading losses remain small, at c o m m o n l y used G C R
values, for the lower b o u n d case and base-case. In addition, all these observations are insensitive to climate
for the stations considered here.
The array aspect ratio can make a non-negligible
difference in shading losses, in particular for the upper
bound case. This is illustrated in Fig. 13 for two-axis
trackers.
6. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Collectible solar radiation is easier and faster to calculate than PV array energy delivery, the former being
a short preliminary step in the calculation of the latter.
Collectible energy is furthermore independent of PV
material and depends on tracking mode and location
only. To what degree are the sensitivity studies for the
relative changes in yearly PV energy delivery predicted
accurately by the corresponding calculations for the

0.60'7 t

...jO

0.5

0.4

"~
r..O

0.3

~
!

:="

0.2

0.1

-r

relative changes in collectible energy? The issue is not

trivial because PV efficiency changes with PV temperature which in turn increases with solar flux.
We find, however, that for all the sensitivity studies
presented above, to within an accuracy of about 1%,
the relative changes in yearly PV energy delivery are
predicted accurately by the corresponding relative
changes in collectible energy. The conclusion is that
for flat plate PV systems, for field layout and array
geometry sensitivity analyses, it is sufficient to perform
calculations for collectible energy only, in order to assess accurately the relative change in yearly energy delivery of a given design option.
A second important finding is that the sensitivity
of yearly PV system energy delivery to basic field,
tracker and array design parameters is site independent
(at least for the range of climates spanned by the U.S.
SOLMET network). Hence, our findings should be of
general design value.
In summary, toward practical central-station PV
system design and optimization, we have analyzed the
quantitative dependence of yearly energy delivery on
the following design variables:

Sensitivity to Electrical Connections Among Modules

0.35

~10

Sensitivity to Electrical Connections Among Modules

~ .... ~

0.8

Fig. 12. As in Fig. 10, but for stationary arrays (tilt = latitude,
zero azimuth ).

l
~
-~
~
two-axis tracking and hexagonal field layout

---I

'

north-south horizontal tracking

0.25

upper bound, aspect ratio = 3.0

0.2

lower bound, aspect ratio = 1.0

~c-

0.15

~ower bound, aspect ratio = 3.0

CO
>,

0.1

>-

Ji

ect
I

0.05
0

upper bound

" - - I

upper bound, aspect ratio I--O , ~

0.3

0,8

0.6

Ground Cover Ratio

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

o.3

Ground Cover Ratio

Fig. 13. As in Fig. 10, but for sensitivity to array aspect ratio.

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Ground Cover Ratio

Fig. 11. As in Fig. 10, but for north-south horizontal tracking.

Upper bound and lower bound cases are plotted for the hexagonal field layout, for array aspect ratios of 1.0 and 3.0: upper
bound, 1.0 aspect ratio (U]); upper bound, 3.0 aspect ratio
(+); lower bound, 1.0 aspect ratio (~); lower bound, 3.0
aspect ratio (A).

Central-station solar photovoltaic systems

1. G C R , via calculation o f shading losses as a function
o f how " c o m p a c t " the P V field is
2. Field layout, b o t h in terms o f the lattice arrangement
or the n u m b e r of nearest-neighbor arrays chosen,
as well as their relative east-west a n d n o r t h - s o u t h
spacing. This includes identification of the array
spacings that minimize shading losses at fixed GCR.
3. Array aspect ratio--its impact on system design a n d
performance
4. Limitations o n m a x i m u m tracker rotation angle
5. Array series/parallel connections a n d the placement
of bypass diodes
6. Estimating these sensitivities based on yearly collectible energy only, rather t h a n the more laborious
a n d rigorous procedure of generating energy delivery figures. We find that accurate predictions of the
d e p e n d e n c e of yearly energy delivery on given
modifications in design parameters can be arrived
at solely via the corresponding calculations for collectible energy.

6.
7.
8.

9.

10.

11.
12.

Acknowledgment--This work was funded by a grant from the

Israel Ministry, of Energy and Infrastructure, Jerusalem, Israel.

13.

REFERENCES
1. G.J. Shushnar, R. F. Reinoehl, and J. C. Arnett, Analysis
of costs for a 5 MW photovoltaic power plant, PVSEC1, 1st International Photovoltaic Science and Engineering
Conf., Kobe, Japan ( November 1984).
2. F. C. Treble, Lessons from the acceptance tests on the
CEC photovoltaic pilot plants, Int. J. Solar Energy 3,
109-122 (1985).
3. G. J. Shushnar and R. Yenamandra, Trends in recent
applications of large photovoltaic systems, Proc. ASME
Solar Energy Conf., Anaheim, CA, April 1986, pp. 184188, ASME, NY (1986).
4. H. M. Healey, M. Girgis, and B. lyer, Cost and performance of intermediate size photovoltaic systems in Florida, Proc. ASME Solar Energy Conf., Anaheim, CA, April
1986, pp. 194-199, ASME, NY (1986).
5. D. Faiman, Solar electric power stations--a review, Proc.

14.

15.
16.
17.

217

1st Sede Boqer Workshop on Solar Electricity Production,

Sede Boqer, Israel, Feb. 1986, pp. E11-E42 (1986).
D. F. Menicucci, Photovoltaic array performance simulation models, Solar Cells 18, 383-392 (1986).
J. M. Gordon and T. A. Reddy, Generalized capacity
factors for grid-intertie solar photovoltaic systems, Solar
Cells 23, 127-137 (1988).
M. D. Siegel, S. A. Klein, and W. A. Beckman, A simplified method for estimating the monthly-average performance ofphotovoltaic systems, Solar Energy 26, 413418 (1981).
J. M. Gordon, J. Freilich, and H. J. Wenger, Analysis
and evaluation of the solar photovoltaic systems at the
Ben-Gurion Sede Boqer test center for solar electricity
generating technologies: Final Report, Contract no. 871-91, Ministry of Energy & Infrastructure, Jerusalem, Israel (February 1989).
H. J. Wenger, PVGRID: A micro-computer based software package for central station photovoltaic system
analysis, M.Sc. Thesis. University of Colorado, Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering, Boulder, CO. (1988).
SOLMET User's Manual TD-9734, Hourly solar radiation-surface meteorological observations, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC ( 1981 ).
W. C. Dickinson, Annual available radiation for fixed
and tracking collectors, Solar Energy 21,249-251 (1978).
A. Goetzberger and W. Stahl, Global estimation of available solar radiation and cost of energy for tracking and
non-tracking PV systems, Proc. 18th IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conf., Las Vegas, NE, Oct. 1985, pp. 258262, IEEE, NY (1985).
P. Reeves, The utilizability approach for stationary and
tracking flat plate collectors, M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Colorado, Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering, Boulder, CO (1988).
and
J. M. Gordon, J. F. Kreider, and P. Reeves, Tracking and
stationary flat plate solar collectors: Yearly collectible energy correlations for photovoltaic applications, Solar Energy (in press).
H. S. Rauschenbach, Solar cell array design handbook,
Ch. 2 and 4, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY (1980).
R. W. Stacey and P. G. McCormick, Effect of concentration on the performance of flat plate photovoltaic
modules, Solar Energy 33, 565-569 (1984).
A. Rabl, Active solar collectors and their applications,
Oxford University Press, NY pp. 300-301 (1985).

APPENDIX: PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM COMPUTER SIMULATION--PVISRAEL

The results presented in this paper were generated with
an hourly computer simulation, PVISRAEL, that was developed specifically for central-station PV systems with stationary
or tracking flat-plate collectors, and can be run on IBM-compatible personal computers [9,10]. This user-friendly software
package, which has been used for the optimal design of centralstation PV systems in Israel, is an extension of[10] and has
been compared favorably with experimental data [ 9 ]. The basic program components not explicitly mentioned in the main
body of this paper are as follows:
1. Modeling of PV module current-voltage curves with the
non-ideal photodiode equation including shifting of these
curves as a function of PV temperature and solar flux [ 15 ]
2. Estimation of PV temperature as described in [ 7,8 ], based
on linearized efficiency equations
3. Linearized heat loss coefficient estimated as in [16]
4. Collector incidence and tilt angles calculated from elementary solar geometry, and diffuse and ground-reflected
radiation approximated as isotropic. It was shown in [14 ]
that for the principal collector deployments considered

here, the difference in yearly energy delivery that results

from using an anisotropic model for diffuse radiation can
be of the order of 10%. However, the sensitivity studies
for the variables considered in this paper, in terms of the
relative differences in yearly energy delivery that result from
altering system design parameters, exhibit a negligible difference when diffuse radiation is modeled as anisotropic
rather than isotropic
5. Incidence angle modifier ( optical losses above and beyond
the cosine of the incidence angle) as in [17]
6. Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) hourly data[ 11]
7. Inverter (D.C. to A.C. power) etficiency constant at 90%
(although the simulation can accept power-dependent inverter efficiency curves)
8. Maximum power point operation inverter assumed (although fixed voltage operation is available as a modeling
option ).
The software package performs a 365-day run in approximately 2 minutes, and hence, permits extensive sensitivity
studies in reasonable time periods.